Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.

But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect.

This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening. Zentropa is the most original movie I've seen in years. If you like unique thrillers that are influenced by film noir, then this is just the right cure for all of those Hollywood summer blockbusters clogging the theaters these days. Von Trier's follow-ups like Breaking the Waves have gotten more acclaim, but this is really his best work. It is flashy without being distracting and offers the perfect combination of suspense and dark humor. It's too bad he decided handheld cameras were the wave of the future. It's hard to say who talked him away from the style he exhibits here, but it's everyone's loss that he went into his heavily theoretical dogma direction instead. Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.

He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.

His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.

The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.

At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.

It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.

Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist. *Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*

I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.

One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.

The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, "Werewolf." I have never seen anything like that in a film.

The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.

The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.

The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do! That was the first thing that sprang to mind as I watched the closing credits to Europa make there was across the screen, never in my entire life have I seen a film of such technical genius, the visuals of Europa are so impressive that any film I watch in it's wake will only pale in comparison, forget your Michael Bay, Ridley Scott slick Hollywood cinematography, Europa has more ethereal beauty than anything those two could conjure up in a million years. Now I'd be the first to hail Lars von Trier a genius just off the back of his films Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, but this is stupid, the fact that Europa has gone un-noticed by film experts for so long is a crime against cinema, whilst overrated rubbish like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life is Beautiful clean up at the academy awards (but what do the know) Europa has been hidden away, absent form video stores and (until recently) any British TV channels.

The visuals in Europa are not MTV gloss; it's not a case of style over substance, its more a case of substance dictating style. Much like his first film The Element of Crime, von Trier uses the perspective of the main character to draw us into his world, and much like Element, the film begins with the main character (or in the case of Europa, we the audience) being hypnotized. As we move down the tracks, the voice of the Narrator (Max von Sydow) counts us down into a deep sleep, until we awake in Europa. This allows von Trier and his three cinematographers to pay with the conventions of time and imagery, there are many scenes in Europa when a character in the background, who is in black and white, will interact with a person in the foreground who will be colour, von Trier is trying to show us how much precedence the coloured item or person has over the plot, for instance, it's no surprise that the first shot of Leopold Kessler (Jean-marc Barr) is in colour, since he is the only character who's actions have superiority over the film.

The performances are good, they may not be on par with performances in later von Trier films, but that's just because the images are sometimes so distracting that you don't really pick up on them the first time round. But I would like to point out the fantastic performance of Jean-Marc Barr in the lead role, whose blind idealism is slowly warn down by the two opposing sides, until he erupts in the films final act. Again, muck like The Element of Crime, the film ends with our hero unable to wake up from his nightmare state, left in this terrible place, with only the continuing narration of von Sydow to seal his fate. Europa is a tremendous film, and I cant help thinking what a shame that von Trier has abandoned this way of filming, since he was clearly one of the most talented visual directors working at that time, Europa, much like the rest of his cinematic cannon is filled with a wealth of iconic scenes. His dedication to composition and mise-en-scene is unrivalled, not to mention his use of sound and production design. But since his no-frills melodramas turned out to be Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark then who can argue, but it does seems like a waste of an imaginative talent. 10/10 I had started to lose my faith in films of recent being inundated with the typical Genre Hollywood film. Story lines fail, and camera work is merely copied from the last film of similiar taste. But, then I saw Zentropa (Europa) and my faith was renewed. Not only is the metaphorical storyline enthralling but the use of color and black and white is visually stimulating. The narrator (Max Von Sydow) takes you through a spellbounding journey every step of the way and engrosses you into Europa 1945. We have all seen death put on screen in a hundred thousand ways but the beauty of this film is how it takes you through every slow-moving moment that leads you to death. Unlike many films it doesn't cut after one second of showing (for example) a knife but forces you to watch the devastating yet sensuous beauty of a man's final moments. I think we can all take something different away from what this movie is trying to say but it is definitely worth taking the time to find out what it all really means. I would love to talk more in depth about the film for any one who wishes to send me an email. Enjoy it! Critics need to review what they class as a quality movie. I think the critics have seen too many actions films and have succumbed to the Matrix style of films. Europa is a breath of fresh air, a film with so many layers that one viewing is not enough to understand or appreciate this outstanding film. Lars von Trier shows that old styles of filming can produce marvellous cinema and build drama and tension. The back projection effect he uses during the film arouses and enhances the characters, and the focus of the conversation they are having. Other effects he uses such as the colour and black and white in one scene much like Hitchcock and the girl with the red coat grabs attention and enhances the drama and meaning of the scene. The commentary is superb and has a hypnotic effect, again maintaining the focus on the central characters in the scene and there actions.

I could talk about the effects more but I think you all would agree they push this film into a category of its own, and really heighten the drama of the film. A film to buy if you don't own already and one to see if you have not.

10/10 Don't miss this artistic noir film from one of the great film directors. It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. The best way for me to describe Europa, which is high on the list of my favourite films, is the exclamation that came from a companion after the film ended: "I didn't know films could be made like that". Entirely original in it's visual style, it is one of the best examples of what cinema can be. It's as far away from the "master and coverage" style of shooting as one can get; perfectly integrating many layers of image, sound, effects, props, dialogue, voice over, performance, editing, lighting, etc... all equal, none predominant. Despite Hollywood's "dialogue" myopia, cinema is not about dialogue, nor is it about beautiful lighting, action or music. It works best when all the elements are on an equal footing, where ONLY the BLENDING of those elements, in the order or combination in which they are presented, will communicate the idea. Reduce or eliminate the contribution of one element, and the film has no meaning. "Europa" is what cinema should strive to be. Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint. Lars von Trier's Europa is a worthy echo of The Third Man, about an American coming to post-World War II Europe and finds himself entangled in a dangerous mystery.

Jean-Marc Barr plays Leopold Kessler, a German-American who refused to join the US Army during the war, arrives in Frankfurt as soon as the war is over to work with his uncle as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa Railway. What he doesn't know is the war is still secretly going on with an underground terrorist group called the Werewolves who target American allies. Leopold is strongly against taking any sides, but is drawn in and seduced by Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the femme fatale daughter of the owner of the railway company. Her father was a Nazi sympathizer, but is pardoned by the American Colonel Harris (Eddie Considine) because he can help get the German transportation system up and running again. The colonel soon enlists, or forces, Leopold to be a spy (without giving him a choice or chance to think about it) to see if the Werewolves might carry out attacks on the trains.

Soon, Leopold is stuck in an adventure by being involved with both sides of the conflict in a mysterious and film noir-ish way, where everyone and everything is not what it seems. Its amazing to watch the naive Leopold deal with everything (his lover, the terrorists, the colonel, annoying passengers, his disgruntled uncle, even the railway company's officials who come to examine his work ethic) before he finally boils over and humorously and violently takes control. The film is endlessly unpredictable.

The film stylishly shot, it always takes place at night during the winter with lots of falling snow. Its shot in black and white with shots of color randomly appearing throughout. Also, background screens displaying images that counter act with the images up front. Add Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration, and Europa becomes a dreamlike place that's out of this world.

This is now a personal favorite film of mine. Man oh man... I've been foolishly procrastinating (not the right term, there's a long list!) to watch this film and finally had the chance to do so. And "news" are: Marvellous labyrinthine spectacle!

For any Von Trier's "follower": both Rigets, Element of Crime, Dogville, Dancer in The Dark, The Five Obstructions, etc... Europa is probably the differential for its greatness in visual terms. Everything is beautifully somber and claustrophobic! You really get the feeling of being inside this "imaginary" nightmarish time warp. Taking from the masters of surreal cinema like Bunuel, Bergman, till noir films of the 40's with acidic drops of avant-guard Von Trier leads the art-film scene as the "well intended totalitarian" movie maker of nowadays. His authoritarian way of dealing with very intricate issues, without being irrational, hits the nerve of the viewer with the intent to cure some of the deepest wounds we feed in our hypocritical world.

As Utopian as it seems, I do believe people like Von Trier could help society in many ways in a broader aspect. The day films and filmmakers that carry this sort of power are no longer necessary, as a tool for reflection, perhaps it could be the start of a new era: "The age of emotional control over our fears". This is what he offers to us constantly through his work over and over.

Bravo! Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality. As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me. I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me.

When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days. EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.

A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating). Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect. This is the definite Lars von Trier Movie, my favorite, I rank it higher than "Breaking the waves" or the latest "Dancer in the Dark"... I simply love the beauty of the picture...the framing is so original; acting is wonderful, A MUST SEE. This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful. `Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself. Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever. The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!! Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more. This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future. when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well... IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known. Scott Bartlett's 'OffOn' is nine minutes of pure craziness. It is a full-frontal assault of psychedelic, pulsating, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights and colours, and the first true merging of film and video in avante-garde cinema. There's no story to speak of, but Bartlett uses images of nature – particularly the human face and form – to provoke a sequence of emotional reactions, integrating these biological phenomena into the highly-industrial form of modern technology. In a sense, the film represents the merging of humanity into his tools, his machinery, his technology. This theme connects loosely with the subplot of HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),' and, indeed, Bartlett's opening sequence of images – flashing colours before a close-up human eye – recalls Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. The visuals are richly-coloured, a confronting blend of sharp, vivid photography and increasingly-grainy video, as though we're sitting too close to a television screen {as a matter of fact, the end product was recorded from a TV monitor}.

There appears to be some confusion about the film's release date. IMDb lists the film as a 1972 release, but both the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Foundation give 1968 as the correct year. Perhaps this disparity reflects the time between the film's completion and its first public screening. Either way, the visuals are distinctly ahead of their time, occasionally reminiscent of a 1980s music video, and some brisk techno music wouldn't have gone amiss, either! 'OffOn' captures grainy, fragmented images, presenting life from the warped perspective of a computer processing too much information. I had a thought – and please don't laugh at this free-thinking interpretation – that an extraterrestrial civilisation capturing Earth's television signals might very well receive such a disjointed, alien documentation of human life, a bizarre montage of only vaguely-familiar imagery that couldn't possibly make any coherent sense. Perhaps this is where Mankind, with all his technology, is eventually heading, towards an irreversible merging of film and video, of purity and artificiality. A Christmas Together actually came before my time, but I've been raised on John Denver and the songs from this special were always my family's Christmas music. For years we had a crackling cassette made from a record that meant it was Christmas. A few years ago, I was finally able to track down a video of it on Ebay, so after listening to all the music for some 21 years, I got to see John and the Muppets in action for myself. If you ever get the chance, it's a lot of fun--great music, heart-warming and cheesy. It's also interesting to see the 70's versions of the Muppets and compare them to their newer versions today. I believe Denver actually took some heat for doing a show like this--I guess normally performers don't compromise their images by doing sing-a-longs with the Muppets, but I'm glad he did. Even if you can't track down the video, the soundtrack is worth it too. It has some Muppified traditional favorites, but also some original Denver tunes as well. For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.

It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages. this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.

I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).

Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!! I was reviewing some old VHS tapes I have and came across The TV show John Denver & The Muppets A Christmas Together.This made me go to my computer and look it up to see if I could find a DVD version of this show to buy. I was disappointed not to be able to find it yet on DVD. The show aired in 1979 and was a delightful show. I have the record and the CD but I would love to buy a DVD version of this show. The tape is old and picture quality is pretty good but fading, the sound is not as good as the CD. There is also a few other songs not put on the CD. As a Fan of John Denver and of the Muppets, a DVD of this show would really be a good seller. If you don't have the CD it is a wonderful Chritmas collection of songs taken from that show. The album is also good if you can find it and still have a record player to play it on. yes i have a copy of it on VHS uncut in great condition that i transfered to DVD and if anyone one wants to bring back the memories of a Christmas classic please emil me at dmd2222@verizon.net.i searched everywhere and i found nothing on this and i thought that i cant be the only one on this planet that has this classic on tape there has to be other people and if they do i fit in with them being that very very few that has this classic so i consider myself lucky and i have all of the muppets Christmas except one that john denver did with the muppets again i thinks its called a smokey mountain holiday im not to sure but its close. I am a huge John Denver fan. I have a large collection of his music on vinyl. I saw this Christmas special when it was originally on TV and loved it. I have the original vinyl album and CD. I have the original CD and later release. The later release is missing several songs though. I see that it has been released this year with all original songs. To my surprise I found the original CD for sale at $75.00. WOW - to think that a Christmas Cd would be worth that much. To me no amount is worth selling this treasure. It is my favorite Christmas CD. I have never been able to find it on VHS or DVD. I would love to have either version. If anyone has one available please let me know. Thanks My first child was born the year this program came out, and I played the record album for the boys every Christmas thereafter. When the CD came out, I bought about ten copies and still give them to friends and relatives as they start families...it invariably becomes their favorite Christmas album. I recently found several DVD's (made on DVD-R from video tapes, probably) for sale on eBay. The one I bought was an excellent copy, and it was so great to see the show again after more than 25 years. There are some songs on the show that were not on the album, and some of the songs on the album were studio versions of the same songs on the show. But both the CD and DVD will stay in our library as the best Christmas entertainment ever. This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment.

Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.

So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)

The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains. Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it. Yeah, the poster is quite a horrible piece of work.

I thought the movie was OK...nothing really outstanding...I just was hoping that he would be a hardcore druggie and totally trash his life.

Ahh, but that can't happen to rich kids now can it? Not to the son of a wealthy businessman who holds big ballroom parties and has a nice manicured lawn on the front of the mini mansion.

No...the kid is too good to have his life totally trashed. After all, who will drive the brand new SUV and who will go to law school?

Ah, the poor little rich kids...in their quaint pretty house, with their ivy league schools, ultra clean homes and socialite parties...what will the world do without them?

I hope they all get addicted to drugs, pass-away their life and end up in jail...so maybe we can see movies that don't all revolve around the poor little rich boys and girls of the surreal world. To be honest, I had no idea what this movie was about when I started it. That's how I watch movies whenever possible. No preconception. I thought this was going to be a movie about stoners in the woods or something. I was wrong, kinda.

Loaded was kind of boring at first but once it started to get going it really hooked me. I know the feeling of being sucked into something dangerous where you feel helpless but to do things that you do not want to do.

Another user commented on how this movie was silly and implausible but I beg to differ. These kinds of things DO happen. I'm sorry but not everyone lives in a dream world where nothing bad can happen and crazy situations are "implausible". Really sorry but the reality of the WORLD is that they DO happen. The creator of this movie as well as the actors did a great job of portraying how things can just go bad and how people can make really bad choices. Sometimes things turn out good, sometimes they turn out bad and such is life.

I highly recommend this movie. This was one of the best movies I have seen. The movie relates to real life and how drugs CAN play a major part. Although this movie appears to be produced from a low budget, I found it to be exhilarating to watch.

Some may not like the story and say the script is lacking direction. However, when a person gets as deep into drugs as these characters, there is no direction is life. I feel this movie is an accurate representation of what might happen to a person if they are faced with extreme temptations.

Most of the cast are newcomers to the industry. However, they all pulled it off very well. Everyone seemed to do their job well and get into character appropriately.

I think this movie might be a good tool to use when dealing with a person or loved one that is involved in drugs and appears to be spiraling out of control. This movie might just scare them enough to change their ways. This Academy Award winning short film can rank among the greatest of the genre. Told completely without dialogue, it is a visual treat about a young boy who buys a gold fish, lovingly places him in a bowl then goes off to school, leaving the gold fish unprotected and a window carelessly open. After a while, a neighboring orange tabby comes poking around, comes in through the window and heads slowly for the bowl. The fish apparently knows something is going on and becomes very excited. As the cat comes very near to the bowl, the fish jumps out. The cat catches the fish, drops him back in the bowl and exits through the window he came in just as the boy, not knowing what has happened, gets back. This was amazingly filmed with real animals; how Cousteau got these animals to behave in this manner is remarkable. I only wish this film were available now for people to see; I only saw it once, in 1959 when it was originally released, but it has remained unforgettable. I remember seeing this in a the Salem movie theater (where I used to attend "Kiddie Matinée"s almost every Saturday) in Dayton, Ohio when I was a young boy and have never forgotten it. It simply amazed me and my friends. I do wish there were some way I could see it again! I have tried to find some compilation of shorts or something like that to no avail. I only recently discovered that it was a Cousteau film and that blew my mind even more. How the heck he accomplished this is beyond my understanding. The fish is ACTUALLY IN THE CAT'S MOUTH at one point, if I remember correctly! If anyone could help me find a way to see it again I would be extremely grateful! I saW this film while at Birmingham Southern College in 1975, when it was shown in combination with the Red Balloon. Both films are similar in their dream-like quality. The bulk of the film entails a fish swimming happily in his bowl while his new owner, a little boy, is away at school. A cat enters the room where the fish and his bowl are, and begins to warily stalk his "prey." The boy begins his walk home from school, and the viewer wonders whether he will arrive in time to save his fish friend. The fish becomes agitated by the cat's presence, and finally jumps out of the bowl! The cat quickly walks over to the fish, gently picks him up with his paws, and returns him to his bowl. The boy returns happily to his fish, none the wiser.

The ending is amazing in both its irony and its technical complexity. It is hard to imagine how the director could've pulled the technical feat back in 1959 -- it seems more a trick for 2003.

If you can find it, watch it -- you won't be disappointed! And if you *do* find it, let me know so I can get a copy, too! I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class. A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on "The Real McCoys" TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.

I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.

The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a "widow" in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called "Broadside", about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.

Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, "The Real McCoys" entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it. Fortunately for us Real McCoy fans (most likely all Baby Boomers who grew-up in the late 50's and 60's), three of the adult actors/actress appeared when they did for the reunion show, in 2000. Tony Martinez and Richard Crenna both died shortly thereafter. As enjoyable as it was to see Luke, Sugar-Babe, and Pepino together again, it was equally mysterious about the complete absence of any mention of Lydia Reed and Michael Winkleman? It is my understanding that Little Luke had passed away in 1999, but I'm not sure how. There is no information about Hassie on the internet, that I can find. Very curious why they were not even mentioned? It was so conspicuous, their absence from the Reunion show, that I suspect that the family of Michael and Lydia herself (if still alive) either, 1) requested to be left out of the discussion and therefore their desire was granted, or 2) TNN could not find any trace of either Michael or Lydia (like the rest of us), they seemed to have vanished. Therefore, it would be the safest policy to leave them out of the conversation all together.

Otherwise, the retrospect on Walter Brennen was wonderfully done. They made no bones about it ... it was Grandpa who made the show such a success. I remember, as a child, mimicking Grandpa's gimp walk and my parents laughing (as I'm sure a million other children did back then). One annoyance that did bother me a bit, was the tendency for Richard Crenna to dominate the discussion ... at times interrupting Tony and Kathleen to make a point. In fact, although Tony Martinez seemed completely capable to contribute to the conversation, he was not allowed to speak-out and say too much during the Reunion show. Unfortunate, since I wanted to hear from all three, equally. All in all, the Reunion Show was a real treat for me. I've watched it on DVD several times and have enjoyed it each time.

Dodgerdude I watched the McCoys reunion and was glad to see Richard Crenna and Kathleen Nolan and Tony Martinez!!!To see them now was wonderful, because I always watched the show growing up so when the TV said that there was going to be a reunion I was so excited !!!! The only thing I could not figure out is why Lydia Reed (Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman(little Luke) was not on there.I know that Walter Brennan had died. So I got on my computer and tried to find out about them and found this site so if there is anyone out there that can tell me what ever happened to Lydia Reed( Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman (little Luke I would be thankful!!! I have searched everywere and no luck .The only thing I could find out about Michael Winkelman is he was supposed to be born in 1946. This show had value and morals each show gave a lesson to be learned.The shows today dont have that.The whole cast was incredable the only thing better than finding out obout them would be to meet them So since that is impossible if there is anyone that can help please do!!! Thank You Glenda I really enjoyed the reunion a lot! I would have rated it a 10 if they had had "Hassie" and "Little Luke". There wasn't even a mention of where they are today or why they didn't participate in the reunion. They were very popular characters and I think it was a mistake not to give an explanation about their lack of appearance.

Anyway, I was glad that TNN ran the series again! I had been looking for episodes for years and what a joy to be able to tape the whole series (I may have missed a few episodes). Jenny Hanahan I loved The Real Mc Coys (1957-1963) It is too bad that Lydia Reed has decided to be forgotten and not appear. She was excellent in the show. Of course Walter Brennan was great as well as Tony Martínez. I loved it when he called Amos Señor Grampa.I have purchased Season I on DVD and I cannot wait to buy Seasons 2-6.If only there would be more shows on television like this one, everything would be better. This show appeared briefly in the summer of 1999 but then disappeared. God bless all the departed members of the cast and please,Llydia Reed, make yourself known again to the public. You are loved and respected. The Real Mc Coys will live forever. Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing. The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).

The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.

Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.

My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films. Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter – albeit resourceful – showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence – since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingénue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend – curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)…though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun – particularly at a compact 73 minutes. The great Vincent Price has done many fantastic Horror films, some of which range among the greatest genre gems of all-time. Price's greatest achievements were doubtlessly his films in the 60s, with films such as Roger Corman's brilliant Poe-cycle (still the greatest Horror cycle of all-time), Michael Reeves' "Witchfinder General" (1968) or Ubaldo Ragona's "The Last Man on Earth" (1964) marking the ultimate highlights of this brilliant man's career. The films that made the man famous and thereby made him the immortal Horror icon he is, however date back to the 50s, with "House of Wax" (1953) marking his rise to stardom. "The Mad Magician" of 1954 follows a plot that is very similar to that of its successful predecessor. This is not to say, however, that this film isn't an original, delightfully macabre and absolutely wonderful gem itself. As the lines above may suggest, Vincent Price is my favorite actor, and, while I personally would not allow myself to miss anything the man has been in, none of my fellow fans of the man may miss this little gem.

Price stars as Don Galico (aka. Galico the Great), an underrated master magician and inventor of magic devices, whose boss, a sleazy businessman, stole his wife (Eva Gabor) from him. When the boss takes away one of Galico's ingenious inventions and gives it to his rival, The Great Rinaldi (John Emery), Galico snaps, and a murderous spree of revenge begins...

Don't we love Vincent Price when he's out for revenge? Some of his most famous and greatest films such as "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" (1971) or "Theater of Blood" (1973) were about absurd and delightfully macabre revenge murders, and this earlier film in his Horror career is another proof that no one takes revenge as Vincent Price does. This film provides a wonderfully eccentric leading role for Price, who, as always, delivers a brilliant performance, and guarantees 70 minutes of outrageously entertaining and macabre fun for every Horror fan. Another must-see for my fellow Price fans. Basically the exact same movie as "House of Wax" - Vincent Price's first genuine horror hit released the previous year - but seriously who cares, because "The Mad Magician" offers just as many sheer thrills, delightful period set-pieces, joyous 3-D effects, sublime acting performances and macabre horror gimmicks as its predecessor! "Never change a winning team" is exactly what writer Crane Wilbur must have thought when he penned down Price's character Don Gallico, another tormented soul besieged by fate and out for vengeance against those who wronged him. Don Gallico is about to perform his very first own illusionist show as Gallico the Great and plans to exhibit the greatest magic trick in history; entitled "The Girl and the Buzz Saw". Gallico's promising solo career is abruptly ruined before it even begins when his previous employer Ross Ormond appears on stage and shoves a contract under his nose, stating that all of Gallico's inventions are the rightful property of the company. The sleazy and relentless Ormond, who by the way also ransacked Gallico's once beloved wife, takes off with the buzz saw trick and programs it in the show of Gallico's rival The Great Rinaldi. Inevitably Gallico snaps and sadistically butchers Ormond, but – also being a master of creating disguises – recreates his victim's image and even starts leading a double life. "The Mad Magician" is an amusing and thoroughly unpretentious 50's horror movie in Grand Guignol style, with a whole lot of improbably plot twists (the landlady turns out a brilliant crime novelist?) and a handful of fantastically grotesque gross-out moments (although they obviously remain suggestive for most part). The 3-D delights near the beginning of the film, like a yo-yo player and a goofy trick with water fountains, merely just serve as time-filler and contemporary 50's hype, but it's still fun to watch even now and without the means to properly behold them. "The Mad Magician" is also interesting from a periodical setting point of view, as the events take place around the time fingerprints were starting to get used as evidence material and the character of Alice Prentiss is an obvious reference towards famous crime authors of that era. Needless to state that Vincent Price remains the absolute most essential element of triumph in this film, as well as from nearly every other horror movie this legendary man ever starred in. Like no other actor could ever accomplish, Price depicts the tormented protagonist who gradually descends further and further into mental madness in such an indescribably mesmerizing way. You pity Don Gallico, yet at the same time you fear him enormously. You support his vile acts of retaliation and yet simultaneously you realize his murderous rampage must end in death. Vincent Price simply was a genius actor and, in my humble opinion, the embodiment of the horror genre. This is essentially a variation on House Of Wax ,in both the plot and the type of role played by the star of both movies ,Vincent Price.In both pictures he plays a talented artist who is sent toppling over the edge into insanity when his creations are usurped by other,less talented and less scrupulous people .In this movie he plays a designer of illusions for stage magicians who aspires to set out on a performing career himself only to be frustrated when another illusionist ,the Great Rinaldo (John Emery)insists that he honour his contract and give him first choice of any illusions he designs.Price is already ill disposed towards Rinaldi as his former wife is now a paramour of Rinaldi. He deploys his talents as an illusionist and as a brilliant mimic to avenge himself upon Rinaldi and others who thwart his plans for recognition as a performer and a designer.

Price is pretty much the whole show here and gives a well judged star turn as a wronged man whose predicament earns audience sympathy.The rest of the cast are competent if colourless and the weight of the whole venture falls on Price who carries the burden with ease .

Good solid B Movie melodrama , this is a crime movie rather than a horror picture and is enjoyable providing you don't expect a masterpiece .Shot in black and white it is low on gore and is best seen as melodrama and enjoyed for the presence of its star giving an idiosyncratic performance I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.

Although this movie doesn't have the "horror" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, "House of Wax") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest.

This is a must for Vincent Price fans. I couldn't believe the comments made about the movie.

As I read the awful opinions about the movie I actually wondered if you had actually viewed the same movie that I did.

What I viewed was incredible! I think the actresses and director did a fantastic job in the movie.

I hadn't had the pleasure to see either actress previously and I couldn't have been more set back by the incredible job that they did I'd have to say its the most believable movie that I've seen in a long time.

What I don't see is why everyone has such a problem with Deanna's choice of drug in the attempt of suicide scene, from the comments made you sound like it was the actresses choice and her stupid choice. That I don't understand, its a movie written by someone else and directed by someone else so how it can be the actresses error I fail to see. I think it was a real believable movie that I would see again and recommend. Opinions are what the are and its too bad that so many are so close minded. I hope to see any of the actors soon I think that all played great roles.

Busy Philipps will be the highest paid actress someday and I hope she can laugh in the face of everyone that criticized her! You Go Girl! What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie! I was up late flipping cable channels one night and ran into this movie from about 10 minutes into the start - every time I even thought going to bed, something kept on telling me to keep on watching it even though it was way way way past my bedtime.

This movie could have been another easy slam dunk anti-gun film, but instead they chose to examine the aftereffects of the shootings. And even better, the movie kept on with the real life - just when you think they are going to take the easy and obviously contrived way out, a twist comes along and changes the whole outlook of the movie. This film not only doesn't follow the formula, it shows how other events often lead up to and/or affect what happens afterwards.

I only wish the filmmakers had explored the issues around anti-depressant drugs more - the kids from Columnbine who did the shootings were on them for years and it was frightening to watch the way Deanna popped them every time the nightmares started. Up until recently they were dispensing the stuff like candy and only now do they even begin to understand what long term effects the drugs have. It was very refreshing to see that the mental illness aspect of the story was given quite a bit of film, having a relative who suffers from a mental illness, I can say that the movie was dead nuts on in every aspect of mental illnesses. Bravo to the director and writer who obviously did their homework on those issues. And for those who think certain things couldn't happen in a hospital (I don't want to tell any particulars), you're dead wrong on that too - I've been there. The script was so real it was amazing.

Go BUY this film and show it to your teenage kids before it's too late. Someday they'll thank you for it. Why a stupid, boring, crappy overrated film series like "Star Wars" gets all the hype, and a truly amazing film like this one goes completely un-noticed.. is beyond me... This movie will really open your eyes to the dark, disturbing, sad, and scary world we live in...

Unlike the boring "Elephant", this movie isn't one of those "just a typical day until someome pulls the trigger" movies.. this movie focuses more on what happens AFTER the event...

Deana, played by the very hot and very talented Erika Christensen, is a happy and healthy straight-A student with great friends and a great life... until... she is injured on the day of the shooting, by being shot in the head.. Luckily she is not killed, but is severely injured and has to be in the hospital for a while, causing her to be in a lot of emotional pain, in addition to the physical...

Meanwhile, Alicia, played by the also very gorgeous and talented Busy Phillips, is a nasty, cold-hearted, rebellious, anti-social goth girl who doesn't have a single positive trait on her... and she is unharmed when the shooting happens.. because it turns out, she was FRIENDS with the shooter and knew he was going to do what he did... which causes her to be brought into the police station and be asked some questions.. When she refuses to tell the cops if she knew the shooting was going to happen, they constantly come by her house to try to convince her to say something... and she still doesn't, so the principal of the school makes her attend a funeral of one of the dead students, and after she walks out on that... the principal decides enough is enough, and forces her to go visit Deana in the hospital.. Of course she refuses this too, but the principal says that if Alicia doesn't do this, the cops are going to continue to try to get her to say something.. and so she actually goes to see her...

The lonely, traumatized, and both physically and emotionally wounded Deana is more than happy to have someone visit her, but of course, Alicia is anything BUT happy to be seeing her.. Deana attempts to give her a friendly welcome, but of course, Alicia responds with nothing but harsh and hurtful comments and a harsh statement on how she is only here because she is being forced, and has no intention of being friendly with her at all. But sooner or later, that intention will change... (and that's all I'll say :) This is truly one of the most moving movies ever, as well as one of the most dark and disturbing.. Actually, I think I would tie this with "American History X" as equally disturbing and moving at the same time...

WARNING: Watch this movie at your own risk!! It contains VERY graphic scenes and images! EXCELLENT and criminally under-appreciated movie! I feel so ashamed that I'm pretty much the only one that knows about it! The industry dropped the ball on this. The trailer does not do the movie justice and when this opened it was on a hand full of screens. Had people had an opportunity to see this, work of mouth would have made it very successful. The 2 lead actresses each give great emotional performances that really draw you in to the story and especially the characters. I checked this out based on the rave recommendation Richard Roeper or (Ebert and Roeper) in his book. An example of a great film that never got fully released except on a few screens. Which gave it no chance to be seen. Some movies go to video quickly because they aren't that good. This is Oscar worthy and it's a tragedy on many levels that most will never even hear of it. Maybe via word of mouth it will gain a following on DVD or cable. If you haven't see this movie you should. Great performances of the 2 lead actresses make this movie. It could have just been another formulaic teen movie after school special but instead it stands up well to other note worthy films. Girl Interrupted comes to mind. If you like that you will like this.

Both girls are in one amazing emotional scene after another without coming off as melodramatic. Even though Alicia is angry and Deanna is crying through most of the movie it is done is such a real way that they do not come off as stereotypical characters or as melodramatic. The movie will move you in many scenes and if you are an aspiring actor use these real performances as your school. Erica is even better in this than in Traffic. I hope both of these actors get more roles that utilize their talents as well and let them shine. See this movie and if you like, recommend to friends so it doesn't get lost among all the blockbuster crap that comes out every year. This movie was buried while Spiderman 2 tops records. What kind of word are we living in? AGHhh. So to make the world right again see this and recommend it. "Home Room" came as a total surprise. Not having a clue as to what it was all about, it paid off big time because it doesn't hold any punches and what we see is how lives are changed by the act of a disgruntled young man who decided to victimize his class mates, who are the innocent victims of his rash actions.

Paul Ryan, the director, who is working and editing his own material, is a talented man who is rewarded by some amazing acting all around by his cast.

Alicia Browning is an older girl who is trying to graduate high school. She has been away a couple of years and doesn't seem to be in the same wave length of the other students. For one, she is a rebel with a punk look, lots of makeup and a mouth that will cut anyone who dares to come near her orbit. Alicia was among the students in the home room where nine students have died, supposedly killed by her boyfriend. Alicia, we realize, is a wounded girl who has gone through a terrible ordeal in her life, but we are not given any clues to that effect.

What follows is the aftermath of the tragedy, as it concentrates on a young woman who has survived it. Deanna Cartwright is a wealthy teen ager who shouldn't have been at the school, at all. When a ricochet bullet hit her, she is hospitalized with more than a wound. She is trying to get over this dark period in her mind but the nightmares don't let her forget.

Alicia is made to go to the hospital by the school principal. Since she doesn't cooperate with the police, the head of the school wants her to see Deanna in her terrible state and perhaps she will soften up and will tell the authorities what she knows. Alicia dislikes Deanna, but in a matter of days, both girls will make peace. We don't realize until the last sequence what really happened that horrible day in school.

Busy Phillips makes an excellent Alicia and Erika Christiansen is equally good as Deanna. Victor Garber, James Pinkins, Taylor Holland, and the rest of the cast play as an ensemble.

The film has an intensity because it's not explicit in showing how the shootings occurred, which helps the tone that Mr. Ryan wanted to give this movie. This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again This is Paul F. Ryan's first and only full-length feature. He hasn't done anything since. However, he managed to get an amazing ensemble cast to portray the characters of his story. I don't know when or why the idea emerged in his head, but Ryan wrote a screenplay which later became his own directed movie, "Home room".

Busy Philipps carries the movie on her shoulders as Alicia, a troubled girl; the ones we always see in television series. With dark hair and black clothes; a package of cigarettes in the pocket, weird look and disturbing eyes (with makeup, of course). An event has occurred at her school; a shooting. Some students have died, and she saw everything. Now Detective Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is investigating the case, and, as expected, Alicia is a suspect. But the shooting is just the genesis; the movie is not about the shooting.

Lying in bed in a hospital room is Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen). She is one of the survivors of the hospital. The script establishes a bond between them, by the school Principal (James Pickens Jr). He is helping all the students to recover from the event, but Alicia doesn't seem to care. She's isolated. So the Principal punishes her; she needs to visit Deanna every day until five o' clock. Then the movie starts.

I can't even describe how wonderfully written I think the movie is. I can identify with the characters and the situations they live; I like reality. These things could happen to anyone. And the things they say are totally understandable. They're growing up and trying to deal with things they haven't experienced; they're doing their best. Without knowing it, Alicia (when she visits Deanna for the first time) and Deanna (when she sees Alicia standing in front of her) are commencing a journey of that will define their personalities and ideas for the next step in life; after high school.

The director leads Christensen and Philipps through their roles very well. Look the contrast between them. Deanna seems naive and with plain thoughts; no complexity inside of her mind. When Alicia enters her room and sees tons of flowers she asks: "Who has brought them?". "Many people", Deanna answers; although some days later we learn they're from her parents, who come every week. The parental figures are all well represented, but are not as important as their sons' characters. Deanna is lonely. Alicia seems mature and violent; smoking cigarettes and talking roughly. But after two days of visiting, she finds herself coming back to the hospital every day; even sleeping in Deanna's room all night. When they both have a fight afterwards, I believe Deanna says: "Why do you keep coming back?". Alicia is lonely too.

The ending of the movie, without ruining it, comes a bit disappointing; it's something I wasn't waiting for. It eliminates some of the strength the movie has. The revelation comes totally unnecessary; ruining the logical climax the movie could have had. It was an excellent script anyway; and an excellent direction. A damn fine movie.

When it comes to Erika Christensen, this was the role she needed to fly higher. Her role in "Traffic" was impressing, but this was the big step; the main role. Maybe not many had the chance to see her in this film, and that's a pity. She hasn't made one false move since then. She has even come out with good performances in awful movies. On the other hand, Busy Philipps, who proved to be very promising in this movie (what a transformation), hasn't got many opportunities for other roles.

The same I say about Paul F. Ryan (in directing, of curse), and I expect he is sitting now in his computer finishing his new script; I'm waiting for his next movie. I'm hoping the best for all of them. This movie is so misunderstood it is not even funny. If you think of seeing this one for the shootings.. stay clear. This one deals with the effects and trauma that the survivors must endure. Even the detectives are seeking the answer we all do...WHY? Fantastic acting from the two leading ladies as we see how those we ignore are affected by the very same things we are affected with. Yes the language is harsh at times, but it suits the characters well. There are some loose ends left or unanswered, but all movies have these. The major issues are dealt with and this movie makes a major statement about how all of us adults feel after such major incidents. Highly recommended for teens and adults. I absolutely loved this movie. I bought it as soon as I could find a copy of it. This movie had so much emotion, and felt so real, I could really sympathize with the characters. Every time I watch it, the ending makes me cry. I can really identify with Busy Phillip's character, and how I would feel if the same thing had happened to me.

I think that all high schools should show this movie, maybe it will keep people from wanting to do the same thing. I recommend this movie to everybody and anybody. Especially those who have been affected by any school shooting.

It truly is one of the greatest movies of all time. Alright, this film is the representation of several things. For starters, this film is about a disgruntled student who brings a gun to school and shoots roughly 9 students. One student survives and is in the hospital with extensive head injuries. The lead character is what several people who consider a 'loner/goth', despite the movie's stating of her not being so. She seems quite mysterious, but was also the only unharmed student in the victimized classroom. She's questioned, due to having a history of knowing the shooter and having a record of being on the phone with him the night before. Anyhow, she's a very brief and distant person who seems to despise society. Yet, due to some, at first unexplained events, she spent roughly a year out of school, failing the grade. She has the desire to graduate, and the principle practically cons her into the only possible way she can pass is to spend time with the survivor, the girl in the hospital.

These two leads are nearly entirely opposite, and they are quite that on a social level. While Alisha is a quiet, inwardly disturbed, anti-social 'goth' girl who spends her time entirely alone (even though she seems to read quite often, somewhat of a closet/out of the closet bookworm), the other girl is a rich, popular 'bubbly' girl who seems always incredibly optimistic and trapped in her own fantasy world, ignoring the outside world and its realism to survive. I feel both of these roles to a marvelous job of representing MOST 'cliques' in the modern highschool, but more importantly shows how two entirely opposite girls who know nothing of each other eventually open to each other. While the injured girl learns a deep, meaningful truth on her once sheltered life and the outside world, Alisha learns that complete abandonment of society and locking everything inside is not always the best thing.

Many people will look to the connection between these two girls and see one of two things. Either, a snobby, hateful girl who wants he rest of the world to suffer as she does, taking it out on an innocent girl, OR the story of a seemingly trapped, fantasized girl who meets an outcast to society and learns not only not to judge, but that she is actually, perhaps, one of the most intelligent people she's known. In other words, people may see this film as a focus on Alisha teaching the other girl a lesson about life, but it isn't about that.

This film is about SEVERAL things. While it is about all I have stated, it is also representative of how people deal from a large, life-changing catastrophe. Truly, this movie is not very symbolic, but instead incredibly straight forward with its message, as long as you aren't afraid to open your mind, and your heart, to some emotions you may not be familiar with being portrayed so miraculously.

Overall, this film is one of the best I've ever seen. The acting is brilliant, the storyline and representation is deep and meaningful, and the emotion flowing through-out this film will have anyone not only relating, but possibly crying. This film is by far heart-wrenching, and very impactful, and if I ever believed any film could alter a person's life... this would be the first that could have changed mine.

I adored this movie, if you ever want a movie that's moving and impactful, while incredibly entertaining and REAL, watch this. "Home Room" like "Zero Day" and "Elephant", was inspired by the recent wave of school shootings. But unlike the other two films, "Home Room" focuses on two survivors (not the shooters or those killed) in the aftermath of a shooting. Making it less exploitive and more useful because little effort is wasted in asking questions for which there are no answers.

Don't give up on this little film during the first 20 minutes, it is supposed to set up the real story but plays like a rejected "Hill Street Blues" episode. It is lame but bear with it, at least it pads the running length enough to get the film classified as a feature. I recommend skipping this entirely and just jumping ahead to the hospital scenes-there is nothing here that you can't pick up from the remainder of the film.

Like a lot of good little films this was creatively a one-man show as Paul F. Ryan was both the writer and the director. While this arrangement does not guarantee a good film, it is usually a good sign because it will mean a certain unity of construction and execution that is often lacking in big budget dramatic features. Because the script of "Home Room" is its real strength it is fortunate that the writer also executed the production and insured that his vision made it onto the screen.

Ryan takes a huge chance with the ending which tests the limits of the average viewer's sentimentality tolerance. He runs it right up to the edge but against all logic leaves you crying instead of cringing. Why the ending works is some combination of the audience need for a reward at the end of this kind of journey, the song (Sarah McLaughlin's "Sweet Surrender") he goes out on, and the amazing editing of the final minute.

The other strength of the film is the casting of Busy Phillips (Alicia) and Erika Christensen (Deanna) as the main protagonists. Although Phillips plays her standard alienated surly teen and Christensen her intelligent daughter of a good family, they both bring more intensity to their roles than ever before. The family life of both girls is more than satisfactory and of little interest to Ryan. What is happening here is all about the two of them despite a lame side story about a police detective wondering around town trying to tie Alicia to the lone shooter. If they ever re-cut and trim the film this side story should be condensed.

A story about two extremely disparate girls bonding and helping each other is hardly a novel idea and Ryan could have easily steered this film into cliché and predictability. But instead his script has them engaging in a fascinating and convincing sparring match, slowly chipping away at each other and sharing moments of vulnerability, only to retreat back inside themselves. Deanna's "I'm dying inside" line just tears you apart-I can't think of a moment in any other film that I felt as intensely as that one. She desperately needs a connection that Alicia just as desperately resists. Deanna only makes progress when she retreats. The viewer keeps expecting the group hug that never seems to happen.

Ultimately this not only generates a lot of suspense but leaves you admiring both characters and the two actresses who brought them to life.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.

The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.

I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie. Caught the tail end of this movie channel surfing through the cable movie channels, and was so intrigued I sought out the next showing.

I really didn't know what to expect after reading the program summary, but I came away from this movie feeling quite disturbed and distressed. It also gave me as adult who attended high school in the 80's, a little better insight into what our kids have to contend with these days.

The fact that you don't see the shooting only adds to the chillness of the plot. To see both child and adult alike struggle to comprehend and come to terms with the senseless shootings was at times overwhelming. And will admit that I shed quite a few tears throughout.

On the whole, not a movie that I would seek out to what, however I am sure glad I did see it. I have to say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I was bored and looked through the t.v. and found "Home Room" and it was already in about 5 min., but I got hooked. It was so interesting and moving. It shows what can happen in anyone's life. I give it a 10, more if possible. The director/ writer and actors did an amazing job. I think teens should watch this movie and will learn from it. It was great, drama, mystery, and more. I cried for hours! I think that the director/ writer should write more movies like this one. I loved it! I didn't even know about this movie, which is sad because it was so good. I wish it could go in the movies for more people to see. This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen.

If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.

Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.

I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is "Swim Fan" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.

This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.

Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it... At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.

Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.

I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles. Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.

*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.

The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.

Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.

It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.

Ten out of Ten Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. This movie is incredible. If you have the chance, watch it. Although, a warning, you'll cry your eyes out. I do, every time I see it, and I own it and have watched it many times. The performances are outstanding. It deals with darkness and pain and loss, but there is hope. This movie made me look at the world differently: vicarious experience, according to my English teacher. Also, if you've seen it, note the interesting use of shadows and light. Home room is a phenomenal movie, and I rate it 10/10 - for real - because of the excellent acting, amazing plot, and heart-wrenching dialogue. Very tense, very moving. Doesn't give all the answers, but makes many good points about humankind Busy is so amazing! I just loved every word she has ever done- freaks and geeks, Dawson's creek, white chicks, the smokers. after the first time i saw home room i went and got it the next day. i am a big fan of her and she has a lot of fans here in Israel. if someone hasn't saw is excellent movie than don't waist more time and go see it now. i recommend to all of you to see all of her movies. i saw busy in the late night show with Conan and she was so beautiful and cute i just love her! everybody who saw the movie- in home room she looks very scary but in real life she is so beautiful! you have to see all her half nude pictures for stuff magazine (maxim) she looks so good there! ~DANIELLE~ My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker. If you "get it", it's magnificent.

If you don't, it's decent.

Please understand that "getting it" does not necessarily mean you've gone through a school shooting. There is so much more to this movie that, at times, the school shooting becomes insignificant.

Above all, it's a movie about acceptance, both superficially--of a traumatic event, but also of people who are different for whatever reason.

It's also a movie about unendurable pain, and how different people endure it. In this case, the contrast between Alicia's rage and Deanna's obsession creates an atmosphere of such palpable anxiety that halfway through the movie we wonder how the director could possibly pull a happy ending out of his hat. Thankfully, the audience is given credit for being human beings; our intelligence is not insulted by a sappy, implausibly moralistic ending.

Above and beyond that, I try to keep a clear head about movies being fiction and all that. Yet I must admit, I cried like a lost little baby during this movie. There were certain things about it that hit *very* close to home and opened up some old wounds that never quite healed. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...

This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.

I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-)

Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....? It breaks my heart that this movie is not appreciated as it should be. its very underrated. people forgot what movies are really about, nowadays they only think about bum bum movies, which can be quite fun watching with popcorn and friends, like transformers, movies which are oriented, with hyper mega high budget like 300mln or even higher, on special effects only and which are dumb movies without storyline. Its the kind of a movie what i despite most. Of course it is fun watching greatly made CGIs, but we do not gain anything essential from that kind of movies.

I honestly think that performance was excellent. Especially Busy Philipps, alongside with Erika Christensen and Victor Garber(whom i respect) made this movie an Oscar worth. Emotional performance by Busy Philipps was astonishing, its such a shame we wont see Oscar in her hands, which she deserves. Just finished watching this movie for maybe the 7th or 8th time, picked it up one night previously viewed at Blockbuster and absolutely loved it, I've shown it to 4 people so far and they have enjoyed it as well. Avoid of all the Hollywood glamour, special effects and stress on the "shock factor", this independent film by Paul F. Ryan hits the nail on the head in dealing with the after affects of traumatic situations. Taking place after a high school shooting, two characters Alicia (Busy Philipps) and Deanna (Erika Christensen) form an unlikely bond. Alicia, the girl with the stone heart, the Goth who has a pessimistic attitude to life assists Deanna to overcome the issues of life and death and living in the aftermath. Meanwhile Deanna attempts to help Alicia to see some of the softness and light in the world again. Not stressing on the shocking event of the shooting, but on the interpersonal relationships amongst those who survived it sets this movie apart. Despite its low-budget and short filming time, this movie is far from cheesy. Ryan pays respect to a situation he has never endured and attempts to delve into the human psyche. With an amazing up and coming actress, Philipps, adds the necessary dramatics to the dialogue and overall feel for the film and Christensen helps to balance out the "doom and gloom" feeling this movie may have. Overall, I recommend this movie and if you enjoy the topic of school aggression and violence and learning more about it, I also suggest the documentary "It's a Girls World" put out by CBC in 2004, which deals with the topic of social bullying, comparing and contrasting two groups of girls one in Montreal, Quebec and the other in Victoria, British Columbia, the group of friends and acquaintances of Dawn Marie Wellesley a 14 year old girl who killed herself after being brutally bullied. Home Room was a great movie if you've ever had drama in your life. It keeps you wanting to see more. Wondering what the secret Alicia is hiding. I think I watched that movie 6 times in a row and never lost interest. Plus I usually don't cry over movies but this one made me cry each time. I wish I could find more movies like that one. All in All I thought it was a great movie. The more you watch of it the more you become part of it. The very end is the part that really got me when she cried when getting her diploma, because it had her daughter's name on it. My heart felt as if it had shattered just then. And how her new friend came to comfort her when she hadn't gotten hers yet. I loved it so much. When i was told of this movie i thought it would be another chick flick. I was wrong. This movie sends a powerful message about judging others. I was deeply moved. Everyone i have encountered, I have recommended this movie to. No one has come back saying it was bad. Busy, also did a great job with her role in this film. I don't know much about her acting career but wow, they way she pulled off the end of this fill was great.

At the beginning it was a little slow. But after she went to the hospital....wow, the movie picks up again. i have no idea why this movie hasn't been spoken of in the movie world. My wish would be for this movie to be released again and advertised more...because it sends a powerful message in a mere hour and a half. I liked this movie a lot. It really intrigued me how Deanna and Alicia became friends over such a tragedy. Alicia was just a troubled soul and Deanna was so happy just to see someone after being shot. My only complaint was that in the beginning it was kind of slow and it took awhile to get to the basis of things. Other than that it was great. Busy Phillips put in one hell of a performance, both comedic and dramatic. Erika Christensen was good but Busy stole the show. It was a nice touch after The Smokers, a movie starring Busy, which wasnt all that great. If Busy doesnt get a nomination of any kind for this film it would be a disaster. Forget Mona Lisa Smile, see Home Room. "Who Done It?" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as "Pardon My Terror.") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.

Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice?

Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.

Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! "Who Done It?" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10. An ultra-nervous old man, "Mr. Goodrich," terrorized by the news that a gang is stalking the city and prominent citizens are disappearing, really panics when someone throws a rock through his window with a message tied to it, saying "You will be next!"

He calls the detective agency wondering where are the guys he asked for earlier. Of course, it's the Stooges, who couldn't respond because had come into the office, robbed them and tied them up. Some detectives! The moment poor Mr. Goodrich hangs up the phone and says, "I feel safer already," a monster-type goon named "Nico" appears out of a secret panel in the room and chokes him unconscious. We next find out that his trusted employees are anything but that. Now these crooks have to deal with the "detectives" that are coming by the house for Mr. Goodrich.

Some of the gags, like Moe and Larry's wrinkles, are getting a bit old, but some of them will provoke laughs if I see them 100 times. I always laugh at Shemp trying to be a flirt, as he does here with Mr. Goodrich's niece, in a classic routine with a long, accordion-like camera lens. The act he puts on when he's poisoned is always funny, too. Shemp was so good that I didn't mind he was taking the great Curly's place.

Larry, Moe, Curly/Shemp were always great in the chase scenes, in which monsters or crooks or both are chasing them around a house. That's the last six minutes in here. At times, such as this film, This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, "Oh...highly polished mahogany!"

Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are "regular" people in other shorts.

For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint. One of the very best Three Stooges shorts ever. A spooky house full of evil guys and "The Goon" challenge the Alert Detective Agency's best men. Shemp is in top form in the famous in-the-dark scene. Emil Sitka provides excellent support in his Mr. Goodrich role, as the target of a murder plot. Before it's over, Shemp's "trusty little shovel" is employed to great effect. This 16 minute gem moves about as fast as any Stooge's short and packs twice the wallop. Highly recommended. Of the elements that make this the best at this point, I have to say #1 is Christine McIntire. Shemp's scene when poisoned and her reaction are truly magnificent. I imagine that, as one poster suggested, Christine was trying to hold back laughter during that scene, but it actually made her seem even more deliciously evil, to be smiling at Shemp's possibly dying.

Another character who helps this stand out is the Goon. His look was a great cross between horrific and comedic goof-ball. Hardly a character I would choose to meet in a dark alley or, for that matter anywhere. I would have preferred a bit of true whodunit mystery in this, but hey, when a short is this good, who's going to complain. Not I. Another good Stooge short!Christine McIntyre is so lovely and evil and the same time in this one!She is such a great actress!The Stooges are very good and especially Shemp and Larry!This to is a good one to watch around Autumn time! When I saw the elaborate DVD box for this and the dreadful Red Queen figurine, I felt certain I was in for a big disappointment, but surprise, surprise, I loved it. Convoluted nonsense of course and unforgivable that such a complicated denouement should be rushed to the point of barely being able to read the subtitles, let alone take in the ridiculous explanation. These quibbles apart, however, the film is a dream. Fabulous ladies in fabulous outfits in wonderful settings and the whole thing constantly on the move and accompanied by a wonderful Bruno Nicolai score. He may not be Morricone but in these lighter pieces he might as well be so. Really enjoyable with lots of colour, plenty of sexiness, some gory kills and minimal police interference. Super. What a fun movie! If you're a Giallo fan, Red Queen Kills 7 Times is a real winner. To begin with, it's hard to go wrong with Barbara Bouchet and Marina Malfatti in the same Giallo. Both are wonderful - especially the wide-eyed innocent Bouchet as the guilt ridden woman fearing for her life. The kill scenes in Red Queen Kills 7 Times are especially nice and feature enough blood to make most fans happy. One of the first murders comes rather unexpectedly and really gets the movie off to a good start. The killer, The Red Queen, is one of the most over-the-top and interesting looking murderers I've seen in an Italian movie. The 70s sets and fashions are wonderful. In fact, all the visuals are interesting with the laughing Red Queen running across the bridge at night being one of my favorite moments in the film. The convoluted plot held my interest throughout. Finally, Bruno Nicolai's score may be the best I've heard from the composer. The main theme is so memorable I haven't been able to get it out of my head for two days.

The only two issues I have with Red Queen Kills 7 Times come in the film's finale. First, the person responsible for the murders is far too easy to spot. If you've seen more than a couple Gialli, you won't have any problem determining who is behind the killings. Second, the ending feels a little too rushed and, as a result, is a bit confusing. I'm definitely not one who needs every plot point spelled out to me, but I'll admit to being at a loss to explain it all. A second viewing might just clear this up. This interesting Giallo boosts a typical but still thrilling plot and a really sadistic killer that obviously likes to hunt his victims down before murdering them in gory ways.

Directed by Emilio P. Miraglia who, one year earlier, also made the very interesting "La Notte che Evelyn Usci della Tomba" (see also my comment on that one), the film starts off a little slow, but all in all, no time is wasted with unnecessary sub plots or sequences.

This film is a German-Italian coproduction, but it was released in Germany on video only in a version trimmed by 15 minutes of plot under the stupid title "Horror House". At least the murder scenes, which will satisfy every gorehound, are fully intact, and the viewer still gets the killer's motive at the end. But the Italian version containing all the footage is still the one to look for, of course.

A convincing Giallo with obligatory twists and red herrings, "La Dama Rossa Uccide Sette Volte" is highly recommended to Giallo fans and slightly superior to Miraglia's above mentioned other thriller. Emilio Miraglia's first Giallo feature, The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave, was a great combination of Giallo and Gothic horror - and this second film is even better! We've got more of the Giallo side of the equation this time around, although Miraglia doesn't lose the Gothic horror stylings that made the earlier film such a delight. Miraglia puts more emphasis on the finer details of the plot this time around, and as a result it's the typical Giallo labyrinth, with characters all over the place and red herrings being thrown in every few minutes. This is a definite bonus for the film, however, as while it can get a little too confusing at times; there's always enough to hold the audience's interest and Miraglia's storytelling has improved since his earlier movie. The plot opens with a scene that sees two young girls fighting, before their grandfather explains to them the legend behind a rather lurid painting in their castle. The legend revolves around a woman called 'The Red Queen' who, legend has it, returns from the grave every hundred years and kills seven people. A few years later, murders begin to occur...

Even though he only made two Giallo's, Miraglia does have his own set of tributes. It's obvious that the colour red is important to him, as it features heavily in both films; and he appears to have something against women called 'Evelyn'. He likes castles, Gothic atmospheres and stylish murders too - which is fine by me! Miraglia may be no Argento when it comes to spilling blood, but he certainly knows how to drop an over the top murder into his film; and here we have delights involving a Volkswagen Beetle, and a death on an iron fence that is one of my all time favourite Giallo death scenes. The female side of the cast is excellent with the stunning Barbara Bouchet and Marina Malfatti heading up an eye-pleasing cast of ladies that aren't afraid to take their clothes off! The score courtesy of Bruno Nicolai is catchy, and even though it doesn't feature much of the psychedelic rock heard in The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave; it fits the film well. The ending is something of a turn-off, as although Miraglia revs up the Gothic atmosphere, it comes across as being more than a little bit rushed and the identity of the murderer is too obvious. But even so, this is a delightfully entertaining Giallo and one that I highly recommend to fans of the genre! Once upon a time in a castle...... Two little girls are playing in the garden's castle. They are sisters. A blonde little girl (Kitty) and a brunette one (Evelyn). Evelyn steals Kitty's doll. Kitty pursues Evelyn. Running through long corridors, they reach the room where their grandfather, sitting on an armchair, reads the newspaper. Kitty complains about Evelyn, while Evelyn is looking interestedly at a picture hanging on the wall. Evelyn begins to say repeatedly: "I am the red lady and Kitty is the black lady". Suddenly Evelyn grabs a dagger lying nearby and stabs Kitty's doll and then cuts her (the doll's) head. A fight ensues. And Evelyn almost uses the dagger against Kitty. The grandfather intervenes and the worst is avoided.

Later on, their grandfather tells them the legend related to the picture hanging on the wall in front of them, in which a lady dressed in black is stabbing a lady dressed in red:

"A long time ago, a red lady and a black lady lived in the same castle. They were sisters and hated each other. One night, for jealousy reasons, the black lady entered the red lady's room and stabbed her seven times. One year later, the red lady left her grave. She killed six innocent people, and her seventh victim was the black lady. Once every hundred years, the events repeat themselves in this castle and a red lady kills six innocent victims before killing the black lady herself."

The grandfather ends his tale by saying that according to the legend, sixteen years from now, the red queen should come again and kill seven times. But he assures them that this is just an old legend.

Sixteen years pass.....

This is the very beginning of the film. There are many twists and surprises in the film. It's better for you to forget about logic (if you really analyse it, the story doesn't make sense) and just follow the film with its wonderful colors, the gorgeous women, the clothes, the tasteful decor, the lighting effects and the beautiful soundtrack.

Enjoy Barbara Bouchet, Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti, Pia Giancaro, among other goddesses. There's a nude by Sybil Danning lying on a sofa that's something to dream about. And don't forget: The lady in red kills seven times!

If you've liked "La Dama Rossa..." check out also "La Notte che Evelyn uscì dalla Tomba". An old family story told to two young girls by their grandfather is brought to life 16 years later as he foretold.

People are getting murdered and blood is being spilled and rats are scampering all over and naked bodies are being enjoyed.

Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) is the suspect, but we know she is not the killer. Is it Franziska (Marina Malfatti)? Is it Evelyn back from death for revenge? Is it a plot to steal an inheritance? The color is superb in this thriller from Emilio Miraglia, who only did one other Giallo, as far as I know.

The only thing that spoiled the film was the appearance that several frames were cut out. Someone calls the police, and suddenly they are there trying to save Kitty. There are some films that every Horror fan owes himself (or herself) to see, and Emilio Miraglia's "La Dama Rossa Uccide Sette Volte" aka. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" (1972) is definitely one of them. With Gialli and Gothic Tales being my two favorite sub-genres in Horror, I was looking forward to seeing this film for quite a while, and even though my expectations were high, this masterpiece surpassed my greatest hopes. Miraglia's earlier Giallo, "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" (1971) was already a creepy and highly atmospheric film which successfully mixed Giallo with Gothic Horror, but it couldn't possibly compare to this instant personal favorite. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is, hands down, one of the most unique and overwhelming Italian Horror films ever made, and no lover of the genre could possibly consider missing it. An incredibly mesmerizing Giallo with strong Gothic elements, "The Red Queen" delivers everything one could hope for in either sub-genre: An inventive and incredibly compelling plot, spine-chilling suspense, a sublimely uncanny setting and a genuinely creepy atmosphere, eerily lush colors, stylish murders, a brilliant score, and, not least, a ravishing female cast lead by the stunningly beautiful Barbara Bouchet - this film simply is one of the most outstanding combinations of elegant beauty and pure terror.

The film starts out incredibly in a beautiful Gothic castle in Germany. As little girls, Kitty Wildenbrück and her sister Evelyn have been fighting when their grandfather tells them the story behind an incredibly uncanny painting: Legend has it that a fiendish Red Lady is to return to the castle every hundred years and kill seven people. Fourteen years later, Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) has become a successful fashion photographer. Suddenly, people begin to get murdered... Director Miraglia had already proved his incredible talent for style, atmosphere and colorful creepiness with "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" and he makes use of these elements even far more effectively in this gem. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is a feast for the eyes indeed, and one of the most overwhelming Italian Horror films both visually and plot-wise. The haunting painting in the Grandfather's castle alone is capable of giving the viewer the goosebumps. The Red Lady (or Red Queen, as she is called in the English title) is arguably the most fiendish figure ever in a Giallo, the spine-chilling laughter that the murders are accompanied by would even be frightening on its own.

A sexy female cast is always appreciated, especially in a Giallo, and this one is a prime example for that. The ravishing Barbara Bouchet (one of my favorite actresses) must be one of the most stunningly beautiful ladies ever to appear on screen, and she is a great actress too. Bouchet's presence has graded up many Italian flicks, among other appearances she starred in three of the greatest Cult-masterpieces of Italian 70s cinema within one year (1972): Fernando Di Leo's "Milano Calibro 9", Lucio Fulci's Giallo-highlight "Don't Torture a Duckling" and this unforgettable gem. Apart from the wonderful Miss Bouchet, the film's gorgeous female cast includes sexy young Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti ("The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave"), and other beauties who are not afraid to bare it for the camera.

As the whole film, the murders are stylish and extremely elegant, yet frightening and macabre, and some of them are quite gory. Bruno Nicolai's mesmerizing score is as memorable as it gets, and makes the film's intensely eerie atmosphere even more haunting. The plot is ingeniously convoluted and full of red herrings, the tension-level increses with each passing minute. "The Red Queen..." begins creepy and it stays stunning to the last second. Overall, this is one of the films that I cannot find enough words of praise for. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is an absolute masterpiece that easily ranks among the finest Gialli ever made, and a top-priority for every fan of Horror and/or Italian cinema to see. 10/10 And here's yet another piece of evidence to claim that we should all worship the Italian giallo and acknowledge it to be the absolute most unique sub genre in horror. Emilio Miraglia's "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is a totally mesmerizing wholesome of original plotting, stylish production values, enchanting music, great acting talents and inventively gory murder sequences. It's a fabulous giallo (released in the golden year 1972) that belongs in the top-five of every fan of Italian cinema. The storyline doesn't just introduce your average black-gloved & sexually frustrated killer, but blends good old-fashioned revenge motives with the macabre myth of the murderous "Red Queen". At young age, their grandfather tells the constantly fighting siblings Kitty and Evelyn about an uncanny lady who, once every 100 years on April 6th, kills seven people of which her sister is the inevitable last victim. Fourteen years later, Kitty has become the successful choreographer of a prominent modeling agency (even sharing her bed with the general manager) when suddenly the killing spree begins. Sister Evelyn would be the obvious culprit, but she moved to the States recently... Or has she? Complex yet compelling and involving red herrings are thrown at you every couple of minutes and the Red Queen character is definitely the most fascinating killer in giallo-history. Her face can never be seen, but she wears a blood red cloak and produces the most ghastly laugh whenever she made a new victim. She's not exactly gentle either, as her victims are barbarically stabbed with a dagger, dragged behind cars and even impaled on fences! That latter one is truly one of the greatest (= most gruesome) acts of violence I've ever seen! What more could you possibly request? Some classy and tasteful nudity, perhaps? The gorgeous female actresses got this more than covered, among them Barbara Bouchet and a young Sybil Danning. Emilio Miraglia isn't the most famous giallo-director, as he only made this one and the equally recommended "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave", but his influence and importance should NOT be forgotten. Emilio Miraglio's "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" (1972) is just about the most perfect example of a giallo that I have ever seen, mixing all the requisite elements into one sinister stew indeed. First of all, and of paramount importance for me, it has a complex, twisty plot that ultimately makes perfect sense, and the killer here does not come completely out of left field at the end. The story, concerning a series of gruesome murders (you already know how many from the film's title, right?) that takes place in seeming fulfillment of an ancient prophecy concerning two sisters, is an involving one, and the murderer, a red-cloaked figure with the insane laugh of a madwoman, is both frightening and memorable. Every great giallo requires some lovely lead actresses, and here we have quite an assortment, headed by the ridiculously beautiful Barbara Bouchet as one of the two sisters and, in one of her earlier roles, Sybil Danning, as a lustful tramp at Barbara's fashion house. Another necessary ingredient of a superior giallo is a catchy, hummable score, and Bruno Nicolai provides one for this film that should stay with you for days. Gorgeous scenery? Check again. Filmed largely in Wurzburg, Germany, the picture is a treat for the eye indeed. OK, OK, but what about those murders? After all, isn't that what gialli are all about? Well, I'm pleased to report that most viewers should be well satisfied with the various knifings, shootings, impalements and other carnage that this film tastefully dishes out...not to mention the crypts, freaky dream sequence, rats and bats (and LOTS of 'em, too!), the drug references, a rape scene, the obligatory red herrings and, in the person of Ugo Pagliai, a hunky leading man for the female viewers. As I said, a perfect giallo. And even better, this DVD is from the fine folks at No Shame, and you know what that means: a gorgeous print and loads of extras, to boot! Thanks, guys! When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the "Happy Cat" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's "all the rage abroad"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall. I never saw this when I was a kid, so this was seen with fresh eyes. I had never heard of it and rented it for my 5 year old daughter. Plus, the idea of Christopher Walken singing and dancing made me curious. The special fx are cheesy and the singing and dancing is mediocre. But the story is great. My daughter was entranced. I loved watching Walken in this role thinking about what the future held for him. Very amusing to see him dance! And if the songs weren't great, at least they weren't Disney over-produced saccharine sweetness. The ogre scene in the beginning was a little scary for her, and she was a little nervous when we saw him again at the end, but it was mostly benign. Interestingly, we had recently read "Puss in Boots", and I had wondered about the implausibility of the story. But while staying true to almost every aspect, Walken's acting made it believable. Great fun. I'd watch it again with my daughter. Although this was obviously a low-budget production, the performances and the songs in this movie are worth seeing. One of Walken's few musical roles to date. (he is a marvelous dancer and singer and he demonstrates his acrobatic skills as well - watch for the cartwheel!) Also starring Jason Connery. A great children's story and very likable characters. OK, so the musical pieces were poorly written and generally poorly sung (though Walken and Marner, particularly Walken, sounded pretty good). And so they shattered the fourth wall at the end by having the king and his nobles sing about the "battle" with the ogre, and praise the efforts of Puss in Boots when they by rights shouldn't have even known about it.

Who cares? It's Christopher Freakin' Walken, doing a movie based on a fairy tale, and he sings and dances. His acting style fits the role very well as the devious, mischievous Puss who seems to get his master into deeper and deeper trouble but in fact has a plan he's thought about seven or eight moves in advance. And if you've ever seen Walken in any of his villainous roles, you *know* the ogre bit the dust HARD at the end when Walken got him into his trap.

A fun film, and a must-see for anyone who enjoys the unique style of Christopher Walken. If you fast forward through the horrible singing, you will find a classic fairy tale underneath. Christopher Walken is very humorous and surprisingly good in the role. His trademark style of acting works well for the sly Puss in Boots. The other actors are well for their parts. I did not find any of the acting terribly fake or awkward. The king in particular appears a real dunce though, and I wonder if he is supposed to be. I can not remember the original tale. The special effects are typical of the eighties, but at least they are not overly fake like some of the computer generated fare that we see today. Overall, I recommend this movie for children and adults who are a child at heart. This may not be a memorable classic, but it is a touching romance with an important theme that stresses the importance of literacy in modern society and the devastating career and life consequences for any unfortunate individual lacking this vital skill.

The story revolves around Iris, a widow who becomes acquainted with a fellow employee at her factory job, an illiterate cafeteria worker named Stanley. Iris discovers that Stanley is unable to read, and after he loses his job, she gives him reading lessons at home in her kitchen. Of course, as you might predict, the two, although initially wary of involvement, develop feelings for each other...

Jane Fonda competently plays Iris, a woman with problems of her own, coping with a job lacking prospects, two teenage children (one pregnant), an unemployed sister and her abusive husband. However, Robert DeNiro is of course brilliant in his endearing portrayal of the intelligent and resourceful, but illiterate, Stanley, bringing a dignity to the role that commands respect. They aren't your typical charming young yuppie couple, as generally depicted in on screen romances, but an ordinary working class, middle aged pair with pretty down to earth struggles.

I won't give the ending away, but it's a lovely, heartwarming romance and a personal look into the troubling issue of adult illiteracy, albeit from the perspective of a fictional character. 'Stanley and Iris' show the triumph of the human spirit. For Stanley, it's the struggle to become literate and realize his potential. For Iris, it's to find the courage to love again after becoming a widow. The beauty of the movie is the dance that Robert DeNiro and Jane Fonda do together, starting and stopping, before each has the skills and courage to completely trust each other and move on. In that sense it very nicely gives us a good view of how life often is, thus being credible. Unlike some other reviewers I found the characters each rendered to be consistent for the whole picture. The supporting cast is also carefully chosen and they add a depth of character that the main characters get added meaning from the supporting performances. All in all an excellent movie. The best thing I take from it is Hope. I just read the comments of TomReynolds2004 and feel I have to jump in here. I understand he doesn't like the film, but his reasons are not evident. My feeling regarding this film is that it is not afraid to travel the darker roads of loneliness, failure, disappointment and sorrow. Each of these two people, as portrayed, have plenty of reasons to be bitter and angry, yet find tenderness and comfort in each the other. Only great acting could make this work without becoming an emotional quagmire, sentimental and sappy. I really became interested in these people because of their overwhelming humanity given to them by such strong performances. I have every reason to dislike Jane Fonda for her Vietnam era actions, but personal feelings apart, she is fabulous in this role. Robert DeNiro is superb as a man whose intelligence and goodness begins to fail him in a world indifferent to his abilities. This is the first I have seen DeNiro using tenderness rather than toughness to sell a character and I really like it. This film was a big surprise when I first viewed it and I look forward to seeing it again. `Stanley and Iris' is a heart warming film about two people who find each other and help one another overcome their problems in life. Stanley's life is difficult, because he never learned to read or write. Iris is a widower with two teenage children working in a bakery where she meets Stanley. She decides to teach Stanley how to read at her home in her spare time. Over time they become romantically involved. After Stanley learns to read, he goes off to a good job in Chicago, only to return to Iris and ask her to marry him.

It's a really good film without nudity, violence, or profanity, that which is rare in today's films. A good film all round.

This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake.

This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.

Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.

Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).

After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.

Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.

Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period.

Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10. I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered "normal" behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise.

The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.

It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend. I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good movie—just imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had! This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation.

Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience. The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.

I'll give it an "A" for effort. Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie. Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and porno sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie. I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner. Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from **** Very good drama although it appeared to have a few blank areas leaving the viewers to fill in the action for themselves. I can imagine life being this way for someone who can neither read nor write. This film simply smacked of the real world: the wife who is suddenly the sole supporter, the live-in relatives and their quarrels, the troubled child who gets knocked up and then, typically, drops out of school, a jackass husband who takes the nest egg and buys beer with it. 2 thumbs up. Although I didn't like Stanley & Iris tremendously as a film, I did admire the acting. Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro are great in this movie. I haven't always been a fan of Fonda's work but here she is delicate and strong at the same time. De Niro has the ability to make every role he portrays into acting gold. He gives a great performance in this film and there is a great scene where he has to take his father to a home for elderly people because he can't care for him anymore that will break your heart. I wouldn't really recommend this film as a great cinematic entertainment, but I will say you won't see much bette acting anywhere. Fair drama/love story movie that focuses on the lives of blue collar people finding new life thru new love.The acting here is good but the film fails in cinematography,screenplay,directing and editing.The story/script is only average at best.This film will be enjoyed by Fonda and De Niro fans and by people who love middle age love stories where in the coartship is on a more wiser and cautious level.It would also be interesting for people who are interested on the subject matter regarding illiteracy....... I came in in the middle of this film so I had no idea about any credits or even its title till I looked it up here, where I see that it has received a mixed reception by your commentators. I'm on the positive side regarding this film but one thing really caught my attention as I watched: the beautiful and sensitive score written in a Coplandesque Americana style. My surprise was great when I discovered the score to have been written by none other than John Williams himself. True he has written sensitive and poignant scores such as Schindler's List but one usually associates his name with such bombasticities as Star Wars. But in my opinion what Williams has written for this movie surpasses anything I've ever heard of his for tenderness, sensitivity and beauty, fully in keeping with the tender and lovely plot of the movie. And another recent score of his, for Catch Me if You Can, shows still more wit and sophistication. As to Stanley and Iris, I like education movies like How Green was my Valley and Konrack, that one with John Voigt and his young African American charges in South Carolina, and Danny deVito's Renaissance Man, etc. They tell a necessary story of intellectual and spiritual awakening, a story which can't be told often enough. This one is an excellent addition to that genre. FUTZ is the only show preserved from the experimental theatre movement in New York in the 1960s (the origins of Off Off Broadway). Though it's not for everyone, it is a genuinely brilliant, darkly funny, even more often deeply disturbing tale about love, sex, personal liberty, and revenge, a serious morality tale even more relevant now in a time when Congress wants to outlaw gay marriage by trashing our Constitution. The story is not about being gay, though -- it's about love and sex that don't conform to social norms and therefore must be removed through violence and hate. On the surface, it tells the story of a man who falls in love with a pig, but like any great fable, it's not really about animals, it's about something bigger -- stifling conformity in America.

The stage version won international acclaim in its original production, it toured the U.S. and Europe, and with others of its kind, influenced almost all theatre that came after it. Luckily, we have preserved here the show pretty much as it was originally conceived, with the original cast and original director, Tom O'Horgan (who also directed HAIR and Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway).

This is not a mainstream, easy-to-take, studio film -- this is an aggressive, unsettling, glorious, deeply emotional, wildly imaginative piece of storytelling that you'll never forget. And it just might change the way you see the world... "All the world's a stage and its people actors in it"--or something like that. Who the hell said that theatre stopped at the orchestra pit--or even at the theatre door? Why is not the audience participants in the theatrical experience, including the story itself?

This film was a grand experiment that said: "Hey! the story is you and it needs more than your attention, it needs your active participation". "Sometimes we bring the story to you, sometimes you have to go to the story."

Alas no one listened, but that does not mean it should not have been said. Bromwell High is nothing short of brilliant. Expertly scripted and perfectly delivered, this searing parody of a students and teachers at a South London Public School leaves you literally rolling with laughter. It's vulgar, provocative, witty and sharp. The characters are a superbly caricatured cross section of British society (or to be more accurate, of any society). Following the escapades of Keisha, Latrina and Natella, our three "protagonists" for want of a better term, the show doesn't shy away from parodying every imaginable subject. Political correctness flies out the window in every episode. If you enjoy shows that aren't afraid to poke fun of every taboo subject imaginable, then Bromwell High will not disappoint! If you like adult comedy cartoons, like South Park, then this is nearly a similar format about the small adventures of three teenage girls at Bromwell High. Keisha, Natella and Latrina have given exploding sweets and behaved like bitches, I think Keisha is a good leader. There are also small stories going on with the teachers of the school. There's the idiotic principal, Mr. Bip, the nervous Maths teacher and many others. The cast is also fantastic, Lenny Henry's Gina Yashere, EastEnders Chrissie Watts, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Smack The Pony's Doon Mackichan, Dead Ringers' Mark Perry and Blunder's Nina Conti. I didn't know this came from Canada, but it is very good. Very good! Bromwell High is a cartoon comedy. It ran at the same time as some other programs about school life, such as "Teachers". My 35 years in the teaching profession lead me to believe that Bromwell High's satire is much closer to reality than is "Teachers". The scramble to survive financially, the insightful students who can see right through their pathetic teachers' pomp, the pettiness of the whole situation, all remind me of the schools I knew and their students. When I saw the episode in which a student repeatedly tried to burn down the school, I immediately recalled ......... at .......... High. A classic line: INSPECTOR: I'm here to sack one of your teachers. STUDENT: Welcome to Bromwell High. I expect that many adults of my age think that Bromwell High is far fetched. What a pity that it isn't! There are few films that leave me with the feeling that Gregor Jordan's 'Ned Kelly' film did. Initially I had heard only half hearted recommendations, and decided to see it for myself. Since then, I have acquired both the video and soundtrack, and have to say that after several viewings, I am still very impressed with the underlying character of this film. It is also wonderful to see something Australian! I appreciate its down to earth quality, that if you ask me is a rarity, as well as the absence of tackiness that takes away from so many films. This film proves that you don't necessarily require fancy costumes and a glamorous set that absorbs how many millions of dollars to make a point. The cast was a bonus, including a variety of well known, and might I add, good looking people who did well to slip into the role of such unique characters. It is interesting to note, that much of the criticism regarding this film has been about who played what, and how they only said so many lines. However, if any criticism is due, it should constructively focus on the fact that a number of basic elements of the original events were excluded. In reality, these functioned to made it the hallmark that it is in Australian history. For example, on a closer examination it can be discovered that there was much, much more to the relationship between Joe Byrne and Aaron Sheritt, and that this was in fact responsible for many more of the final outcomes for the gang than were explored in the film. Also overlooked was the fact that it was not only Aaron Sheritt's efforts alone, that provided the Victorian police with their insights into the unfolding mystery. Yes, this is their interpretation of the story, and it is understandable that true stories require sensationalism and at times the modification of the original plot to grab the viewers attention. I feel that in this case, this is the only limitation. However, I can accept that perhaps historical accuracy is only of significance to those who have a particular interest in the realistic events behind a situation. It certainly inspired me to look more closely. So, watch it and decide for yourself. You might not like it at all, thats your opinion, and thats fine. Maybe it is a film that appeals largely to an Australian audience? For me, I'd call it a breath of fresh air! I'm sure that not many people outside of Australia have ever heard of the legend of Ned Kelly. I once saw a documentary about the man, but that's the only time I once saw or heard anything about him. And I guess that this might be the biggest problem this movie will have to face. No-one knows anything about it and probably not many people will care about the subject.

The movie tells the story of Ned Kelly's life. The Irish immigrant has lived in north-west Victoria all his life, but has never been very welcome by the authorities. The police always accuses him of everything they can think of and they keep harassing his family. When Kelly is fed up with the way everything goes, he forms a gang with his brother and two other men. They start robbing banks and even hijack an entire town for 3 days. All this violence leads to a man hunt organized by the police and when they kill three policemen, they are outlawed. Finally they take over a pub in Glenrowan, where they have a party with all the visitors, waiting for a train full of police to derail at a part of the track that they tore up. But the train is able to stop in time because someone warns them and what will follow is a battle on life and death between the police and the four gunmen...

It's very hard to tell whether all of what is shown in the movie is true or false. I guess nobody really knows, because there will always be two camps who will each tell their own truth: one camp says he was a hero, some kind of Robin Hood, the others will say he was an ordinary criminal, a murderer and a thief. I really couldn't tell you which of them is right, perhaps both are, but what I can tell you is that the facts in the movie as well as is the documentary were about the same.

This movie was a nice addition to the documentary I once saw and I really enjoyed the performances of all the actors. Heath Ledger, Orlando Bloom, Naomi Watts, Geoffrey Rush are all actors who are pretty well known, but even the lesser known actors show in this production that they all know what good acting should look like. I really enjoyed this movie and I give it a 7.5/10 The story of Ned Kelly has been enshrouded in myth and exaggeration for time out of hand, and this film is no exception. What ensures Ned Kelly has a permanent place in history is the effort he went to in order to even the odds against the policemen hunting him. During several battles, he marched out wearing plates of beaten iron, off which the bullets available to police at the time would harmlessly bounce. Indeed, it is only because there were a few bright sparks among the Victorian police who noticed he hadn't plated up his legs that he was captured and hanged. The story has been told in schools and histories of Australia for so long that some permutations of the story have, ironically, become boring. The more the stories try to portray Kelly as some inhuman or superhuman monster, the less people pay attention.

Which is where this adaptation of Our Sunshine, a novel about the Kelly legend, excels. Rather than attempting to portray a Ned Kelly who is as unfeeling as the armour he wore, the film quickly establishes him as a human being. Indeed, the reversal of the popular legend, showing the corruption of the Victorian police and the untenable situation of the colonists, goes a long way to make this film stand out from the crowd. Here, Ned Kelly is simply a human being living in a time and place where in order to be convicted of murder, one simply had to be the nearest person to the corpse when a policeman found it. No, I am not making that up. About the only area where the film errs is by exaggerating the Irish versus English mentality of the battles. While the Kelly gang were distinctly Irish, Australia has long been a place where peoples of wildly varied ethnicities have mixed together almost seamlessly (a scene with some Chinese migrants highlights this).

Heath Ledger does an amazing job of impersonating Australia's most notorious outlaw. It is only because of the fame he has found in other films that the audience is aware they are watching Ledger and not Kelly himself. Orlando Bloom has finally found a role in which he doesn't look completely lost without his bow, and Geoffrey Rush's appearance as the leader of the police contingent at Glenrowan goes to show why he is one of the most revered actors in that desolate little island state. But it is Naomi Watts, appearing as Julia Cook, who gets a bit of a bum deal in this film. Although the film basically implies that Cook was essentially the woman in Ned Kelly's life, but you would not know that from the minimal screen time that she gets here. Indeed, a lot of the film's hundred and ten minutes feels more freeze-dried than explorative. Once the element of police corruption is established, in fact, the film rockets along so fast at times that it almost feels rushed.

Unfortunately, most of the film's strengths are not capitalised upon. Rush barely gets more screen time than his name does in the opening and closing credits. Ditto for Watts, and the rest of the cast come off a little like mannequins. I can only conclude that another fifteen, or even thirty, minutes of footage might have fixed this. But that leads to the other problem, in that the lack of any depth or background to characters other than the titular hero leaves the events of the story with zero impact. One scene manages to do the speech-making thing well, but unfortunately, it all becomes a collage of moments with no linking after a while. If one were to believe the impression that this film creates, a matter of weeks, even days, passes between the time that Ned Kelly becomes a wanted man on the say-so of one corrupt policeman, and the infamous shootout at Glenrowan. Annoyingly, the trial and execution of Ned Kelly is not even depicted here, simply referred to in subtitles before the credits roll.

That said, aside from some shaky camera-work at times, Ned Kelly manages to depict some exciting shootouts, and it has a good beginning. For that reason, I rated it a seven out of ten. Other critics have not been so kind, so if you're not impressed by shootouts with unusual elements (and what could more more unusual than full body armour in a colonial shootout?), then you might be better off looking elsewhere. Especially if you want a more factual account of Ned Kelly's life. The performances were superb, the costumes delivered a unique feeling for the period and being a Victorian Living Historian, I was impressed with the accuracy of weaponry and attention to detail.

I wouldn't say you need any knowledge of the Kelly saga to stay with the flow of this movie but to comprehend the happenings and attitudes of the time you will require a bit of basic historical knowledge. Do not expect, as some rather silly people do, any of the characters to have the Auzzie accent as we know it, it was, at that time, a country during infancy.

OK, the story had some elements of fiction but these are required for a wider following of the film. Gregor Jordan said in the extra feature on the DVD that he wanted his movie to 'inspire an interest', and that is exactly what happened with me so this movie gets the thumbs up here.

See it and you WILL NOT be sorry 'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.

In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.

Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.

Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.

The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for. Those who know who know the Kelly "legend" & are hoping that this film would be an accurate depiction of his life may be disappointed with the creative license taken with this film (eg. Naomi Watt's character never existed in reality), but if you look at it purely as a piece of entertainment, it holds up pretty well. Ledgers performance in the title role is quite solid, taking the mantle of cinema's best Ned (not hard considering the previous Ned's include Yahoo Serious, Mick Jagger & former Carlton champion (Australian Rules Football) Bob Chitty, a great footballer but a poor actor. Some location shooting film in the area I live, Bacchus Marsh outside Melbourne as well as Clunes & Ballarat. I have seen the trailer for this movie several times over, and I have to say that Ned Kelly looks like it is going to be a wonderful film. When I saw the trailer for the first time, I could not take my eyes away from it (it got my attention for sure). Heath Ledger sticks to what he knows and what works for him, period pieces. Not to mention Orlando Bloom ,who is seen for a split second looks fantastic. I think that this movie will be a hit, and will be seen over and over again my many people. 'Ned Kelly' is a wonderfully made Australian film honouring a true Australian hero. We are taken into the world of Ned, his best friend, Joe Byrne, and the other members of the Kelly Gang, as the film explains and perhaps justifies Ned's actions.

There is an exceptional cast present, who all give stellar performances, which brings the film to life. (Great job, Heath!) Orlando Bloom was fantastic as Joe, playing the role of quiet, loyal ladiesman very well. I was swept up in the moment. For a moment I almost believed the Gang would win the battle at Glenrowan, alas, it was not to be.

Some aspects of the film are fictional, and as an avid Ned Kelly fan (and supporter), was slightly disappointed by this. Perhaps also the film could've gone longer, to cover more of the Kelly Gang's/Ned's life - I felt not enough was covered.

Regardless of a few flaws, this is a moving film, which stirs all sorts of emotions. (And hey, I'd assume this film would be better to watch rather than Mick Jagger trying to portray Ned...) I loves this movie,because it showed that they were not killing for fun but to save the ones they loved! Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom did a great job portraying Ned and Joe. It has a few quick inappropriate scenes but is all right other than that. The language is very mild and sometimes don't even know it is there. This movie shows that just because they are outlaws does not mean that they are vicious killers! I hope that people will watch this movie and learn about important times in history like this one. There is one thing that fascinates me about this movie is that they got their inspiration for their armor from a book Ned looked at! Also that that is how people remember them,from their armor. I hope that people will watch this movie and get interested as I have. How could I possibly pass up the chance to see Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger together? Well, I couldn't and so, I rented this mess of a movie.

I had never heard of Ned Kelly and was surprised by what I found out about this young man's legend. I was also surprised at how mediocre this movie was. Perhaps the fact that it was very, very late and at the end of a 4 hour movie marathon or maybe it was because it really is a little slow, I found this story difficult to follow. Not because the story is complicated, but because it is slow. Even with a slow story, Ledger and Bloom managed to create interesting, dimensional characters.

Though I flounder to recommend this as a must see, it is a great story of Australian history (considering how young the country is, this is very rare and should be appreciated) and the film does have some good actions sequences.

6/10 see it for historical value....(yeah right...and that's the only reason to see it... ;) ) The only reason I wanted to see this was because of Orlando Bloom. Simply put, the movie was spectacularly average. It's not bad, but it's really not very good. The editing is good; the film is well-paced. The direction is competent and assured. The story is plodding. The film is averagely acted by Ledger, Bloom, and the normally great Watts and Rush. The accents are impenetrable if you're from the US so just sit back and enjoy the scenery (or as I like to call it, Orlando Bloom). By the end of the film, I was neither bored nor moved. Some people have asked what happened to Ned Kelly at the end of the movie. I have to say, I so did not care by that point.

Really, the only reason I can recommend this is that Orlando Bloom kind of, sort of shows some hints of range (although the oft-present "I'm pretty and confused" look is prominent), so fangirls may find it worth the matinee price. Other than that, just don't see it. It's neither good enough nor bad enough to be entertaining. I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie! Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.

Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on point

The film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.

An excellent film all round. I thought that this film was very well made, Heath Leger was very convincing and his Irish accent was flawless. Orlando Bloom and Naomi Watts were also really good and believable. How true it is to what really happened I have no idea, but it did portray why people sometimes become what they do. Maybe those in authority have always been corrupt and I did find it interesting that over 30,000 signed a petition for Ned Kelly NOT to be hanged, so maybe there was more truth in this film than at first thought? In many ways it reminded me of Cold Mountain which was another good historical film. All in all I would highly recommend this film and I am somewhat baffled why it didn't do better in the cinemas. I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time. Fantastic movie. One to excite all 5 senses. Is not a true historical report and not all information is to be taken as factual information. True Hollywood conventions used, like playing A list and VERY attractive actors as the 'heroes', such as Naomi Watts (Julia Cook - Ned Kelly's lover), Heath Ledger (Ned) and Orlando Bloom (Joe Byrne - Ned's right hand man), and unattractive (sorry Geoffrey Rush) actors play the drunken and corrupt Victorian Police Force. This also instills a very unreliable love story into the mix between Ned (Ledger) and Julia Cook (Watts) to entice all the romantics, females being especially susceptible. Even from the first scene, when Ned saves the fat youth from drowning and his dad calls him "sunshine" and had a "glint in his eye as he looked down at me, his hand on me shoulder," it is very romanticized and persuades viewers to side with Ned Kelly, the underdog. Besides, don't all Aussies love an underdog? I watched this on the movies with my girlfriend at the time and I can say that I didn't have the best time mainly because I didn't know about Ned Kelly or his story.

But since this is a biopic, it's important to at least know what to expect from the character.

I don't know if the manner the events are told are true, or if it everything is fictional. But the way Ned Kelly is portrayed as a hero and a fighter for justice really makes me want to believe everything is true. I don't think he's portrayed as a redneck criminal or thief, but that's just my opinion.

This is a solid Western-type movie for everybody's tastes. Heath Ledger is great as always and the sexy Naomi Watts charms the screen.

Give this movie a chance if it airs on cable. Otherwise, I don't think I could recommend it. Can Scarcely Imagine a Better Movie Than This

Hey, before you all go "Chick Flick" on me. I am a very Large Strong & Masculine, Macho Man, who happens to think this was one of the better movies of the last 20 years.

The acting was Superb and the Story was Marvelous. This is wonderful medicine for the heart and soul. The Acting could not have been better nor the movie better cast.

I have known for a Good while that Mercedes Ruehl, along with Holly Hunter, Joan Plowright, Dame Edith Evans, Sissy Spacek, Judi Dench is among the greatest actresses ever to appear on film. And of course Cloris Leachman (also in this film) in my view may in fact exceed them all in the shear magnum of her talent and varied roles she has appeared in over the years.. At any rate this was an Amazing cast. This film was like a book that you cannot lay down, and when you have reached the last page wish for more...still more. I cannot for the life of me understand why this film here on the IMDb only rates a 3.9

That rating here is utterly Amazing to me. Or perhaps not. Perhaps in fact I do understand it ever so well and that is what makes me really sad. It makes me ever so sad that films like "American Beauty" "Leaving Las Vegas" "Sexy Beast" and "Fight Club" ratings skyrocket off the charts in popularity when they in fact at least in this viewers opinion should have received an "R" rating...R that is for "Rubbish". Hey o.k., I realize there are a lot of different stories in this world for a lot of different audiences, but it is a sad commentary when this lovely, powerful...extraordinarily, Directed, Acted, and written film seems to be over looked.

It obviously was at the Academy Awards as well....How Sad. And How predictable. My summation is that if you want to see a powerful, Happy, Sad, beautiful story? watch ......preferably own this film... Growing up in a multi racial neighborhood back in the 20's and 30's, I grew up very close to most of the Italian families living there. This move brought back so many pleasant memories. this is a movie most people would like who enjoy seeing more true to life movies. It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. "The Amati Girls" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.

The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since "For Roseanna".

With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in "The Amati Girls". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.

The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.

It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'. A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it. I've always knew Anne DeSalvo was a great character actor, now I know she is a great writer/director also. I have been a fan since I first saw her in the movies "Perfect", "My Favorite Year", "DC Cab" and "Stardust Memories".

It's so rare to see Lee Grant these days in anything. She has been missing from the screen for far too long. It's also wonderful to see Cloris Leachman in something other than a sit-com. This is her best work since "the Last Picture Show". If you grew up in an Italian American family you will love this movie. I wasn't expecting a lot when I started watching this movie, so I was pleasantly surprised when I fell in love with this movie. If you get the chance, watch it. I actually found this movie 'interesting'; finally one worth my time to watch and rent. It is true... some scenes were over the top on emotionalism, shouting, etc., but what movie doesn't stress its agenda, genre or 'ax to grind'? Almost None! What surprised me is that I read a review elsewhere done by a S.Fran reviewer on another review site, but found his negative review instead a more accurate description of his "own" review of the movie; not of the movie at all. Anyone that watches this movie will realize that it is great to recommend to family and friends; no car chases, Yea!! Being "in" an Italian family myself, I can fully relate to the environment portrayed on the screen. The movie has its tear jerking parts as well. It is what real life can be in such an environment. Nice movie. What a delightful movie. The characters were not only lively but alive, mirroring real every day life and strife within a family. Each character brought a unique personality to the story that the audience could easily associate with someone they know within their own family or circle of close friends.

The story has a true-to-life flow that the viewer can assimilate into and be part of the drama, the laughter and tears as the plot of the movie develops. The script does a good job of capturing the common emotions, actions and reactions of the characters to conflict, opinion, and resolve.

Not an epic, but it is a very nice movie to watch with loved ones. Plenty of knowing head nods and 'ahhh' moments to share and enjoy. This is a very enjoyable film with excellent actors and actresses evoking a range of emotions. It contains some really excellent humour which the whole family can enjoy. You get to know the characters quickly and experience their ups and downs. And, it ends very upbeat When I first saw this film on cable, it instantly became one of my favorite movies. I'm a big fan of James Earl Jones and Robert Duvall. The movie paints an accurate picture of the South and the racist attitudes. Most of the attitudes came from Soll, an old plantation owner who uses convicts for labor. Soll is what makes the move, his funny ramblings give us insights in to the way The South was back then. I suppose that if Soll lived today he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. None the less his attitudes towards a little boy who comes to work for him and the convicts is complex. While he has racist views, he's grown to trust some of the convicts who are all black. The two convicts he trusts most are Jackson(Mel Winkler) and Ben(James Earl Jones). The conversations between Ben and Soll are the best in the movie, they have real chemistry. James Earl Jones and Mel Winkler both but in great performances as well as Hass.

This movie should have gotten more notoriety. However it's on DVD and worth the money.

Rayvyn In today's world of digital fabrication, there is no computer than can replace the actor and writer. Alas, this type of "character driven" film is far too rare these days. Duvall's performance as well as James Earl Jones are faithful to their audience's high expectations. I wonder if this movie was made for TV? It has a "close-up" personal quality to the narrative. It is an understatement to say that the performances are all Outstanding. The only thing that keeps it from being a cinema Masterpiece is the lack of a great Cinematographer, but pretty pictures are not everything. How can talent the likes of Jones and Duvall continue to produce such fine work in an age where actors pose for the digitizing? "Convicts" is very much a third act sort of film. All the dialogue and character interaction that occurs within it comes out of the long wind-down of a late southern day. And, by extension, the life of its main character, Soll (Robert Duvall).

This is the first collaboration of director Peter Masterson and writer Horton Foote. Six years earlier, the worked together on "The Trip to Bountiful", a film that seems almost action-packed in comparison to this one. Masterson is not necessarily a good director. In fact, he's just barely this side of adequate. The slow pace leaves a lot of room for cinematographer Toyomichi Kurita, who infuses the film with just the right sense of fragile light & warmth.

Because this is essentially a filmed play, with little in the way of editing or directing prowess, it all comes to the acting. As far as I'm concerned there's no flaws here. Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones, two of the best American actors (both born in January 1931), create characters that are wholly real, uninterested in anything besides living. Lukas Haas, a young actor who I was familiar with from "Testament" and "Witness", plays a character very much like his other early roles. He is quiet, withdrawn, slightly scared and sad, somehow. These are qualities that seem natural from him.

Perhaps a title like "Convicts" is a disservice to this film. That title, along with the opening scene, seem to create an image of a far more high-strung western type picture. If slow-paced stage productions don't interest you terribly, you'll want to pass on this one as well. Otherwise, this might be exactly the film you wish they made more often.

Enjoy. Robert Duvall is a direct descendent of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, according the IMDb.com movie database. After seeing this film, you may think Duvall's appearance is reincarnation at it's best. One of my most favorite films. I wish the composer, Peter Rodgers Melnick had a CD or there was a soundtrack available. Wonderful scenery and music and "all too-true-to-life," especially for those of us that live in, or have moved to, the South. This is a "real moment in time." Life moves on, slowly, but "strangers we do not remain."

One of the best films I've ever seen. Robert Duvall's performance was excellent and outstanding. He did a wonderful job of making a character really come to life. His character was so convincing, it made me almost think I were in the theater watching it live, I give it 5 stars. This film reminds me of 42nd Street starring Bebe Daniels and Ruby Keeler. When I watch this film a lot of it reminded me of 42nd Street, especially the character Eloise who's a temperamental star and she ends up falling and breaks her ankle, like Bebe Daniels did in 42nd Street and another performer gets the part and become a star. This film, like most race films, keeps people watching because of the great entertainment. Race films always showed Black Entertainment as it truly was that was popular in that time era. The Dancing Styles, The Music, Dressing Styles, You'll Love It. This movie could of been big if it was made in Hollywood, it would of had better scenery, better filming, and more money which would make any movie better. But its worth watching because it is good and Micheaux does good with the little he has. I have to say out of all Micheaux's films, Swing is the best! The movie features singers, dancers, actresses, and actors who were popular but forgotten today. Doli Armena, a awesome female trumpet player who can blow the horn so good that you think Gabriel is blowing a horn in the sky. The sexy, hot female dancer Consuela Harris would put Ann Miller and Gyspy Rose Lee to shame.

Adding further info... Popular blues singer of the 20's and 30's Cora Green is the focus of the film, she's Mandy, a good, hard working woman with a no good man who takes her money and spend it on other women. A nosy neighbor played by Amanda Randolph tells Mandy what she seen and heard and Mandy goes down to the club and catches her man with an attractive, curvy woman by the name of Eloise (played Hazel Diaz, a Hot-Cha entertainer in the 30's) and a fight breaks out. Then Mandy goes to Harlem where she reunites with a somewhat guardian angel Lena played by one of the most beautiful women in movies Dorothy Van Engle. Lena provides Mandy with a home, a job, and helps her become a star when temperamental Cora Smith (played by Hazel, I guess she's playing two parts or maybe she changed her stage name) tries to ruin the show with her bad behavior. When Cora gets drunk and breaks her leg, Lena convinces everyone that Mandy is right for the job and Lena is right and a star is born in Mandy. Tall, long, lanky, but handsome Carman Newsome is the cool aspiring producer who Lena looks out for as well. Pretty boy Larry Seymour plays the no good man but after Lena threatens him, he might shape up. There are a few highlights but the one that sticks out to me is the part where Cora Smith (Hazel Diaz) struts in late for rehearsal and goes off on everyone and then her man comes in and punches her in the jaw but that's not enough, she almost gets into a fight with Mandy again. In between there's great entertainment by chorus girls, tap dancers, shake dancers, swing music, and blues singing. There's even white people watching the entertainment, I wonder where Micheaux found them, there's even a scene where there's blacks and whites sitting together at the club, Micheaux frequently integrated blacks and whites in his films, he should be commended for such a bold move.

This movie was the first race film I really enjoyed and it helped introduced me to Oscar Micheaux. This movie is one of the best of the race film genre, its a behind the scenes story about the ups and downs of show business.

No these early race films may not be the best, can't be compared with Hallelujah, Green Pastures, Stormy Weather, Cabin In The Sky, Carmen Jones, or any other Hollywood films but their great to watch because their early signs of black film-making and plus these films provide a glimpse into black life and black entertainment through a black person's eyes. These films gave blacks a chance to play people from all walks of life, be beautiful, classy, and elegant, and not just be stereotypes or how whites felt blacks should be portrayed like in Hollywood. Most of the actors and actresses of these race films weren't the best, but they were the only ones that could be afforded at the time, Micheaux and Spencer Williams couldn't afford Nina Mae McKinney, Josephine Baker, Ethel Waters, Fredi Washington, Paul Robeson, Rex Ingram, and more of the bigger stars, so Micheaux and other black and white race film-makers would use nightclub performers in their movies, some were good, some weren't great actors and actresses, but I think Micheaux and others knew most weren't good actors and actresses but they were used more as apart of an experiment than for true talent, they just wanted their stories told, and in return many black performers got to perform their true talents in the films. For some true actors/actresses race films were the only type of films they could get work, especially if they didn't want to play Hollywood stereotypes, so I think you'll be able to spot the true actors/actresses from the nightclub performers. These race films are very historic, they could have been lost forever, many are lost, maybe race films aren't the greatest example of cinema but even Hollywood films didn't start out great in the beginning. I think if the race film genre continued, it would have better. If your looking for great acting, most race films aren't the ones, but if your looking for a real example of black entertainment and how blacks should have been portrayed in films, than watch race films. There are some entertaining race films with a good acting cast, Moon Over Harlem, Body and Soul, Paradise In Harlem, Keep Punching, Sunday Sinners, Dark Manhattan, Broken Strings, Boy! What A Girl, Mystery In Swing, Miracle In Harlem, and Sepia Cinderella, that not only has good entertainment but good acting. The Sunshine Boys is one of my favorite feel good movies. I first saw it when it as the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out and loved it ever since. I ended up seeing it 6 times in the theaters, and if it was playing today I'd go out to see it again.

Now a lot of the reviews here mentioned the wonderful performances of the leads. Matthau was brilliant, but had the misfortune of being nominated against Jack Nicholson's Oscar winning performance of Randall P. MacMurphy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Burns did win, though Richard Benjiman deserved at least to be nominated as well. Even the smallest roles were played to perfection, like Fritz Feld auditioning for the potato chips commercial.

Which brings me to my reason for reviewing this film, the direction of the greatly underrated Herbert Ross. Ross who previously brought a two person play, "The Owl And The Pussycat" to the screen and made a full movie out of it, does it again. He opens the plays out without making them look like a photographic stage play. He fleashens out the story and the characters.

Here we're 20 minutes into the film before we get to the scene that opens the play, where Ben Clark comes to see his uncle and tell him about the comedy special. Though there are dialogue from the play during the first twenty minutes, the sequence itself is totally new. A few years ago I did see at the broadway revival of the play with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, which was wonderful. But I think that Ross and screenwriter, playwright Simon improved on it. It's just a wonderful film. in one of Neil Simon's best plays. Creaky, cranky ex-Vaudeville stars played by Walter Matthau and George Burns are teaming up for a TV comedy special. The problem is they haven't even SEEN each other in over a decade. Full of zippy one liners and inside showbiz jokes, this story flies along with a steady stream of humor. Good work also by Richard Benjamin as the harried nephew, Rosetta LeNoire as the nurse, and Howard Hesseman as the TV commercial director. Steve Allen and Phyllis Diller appear as themselves. Trivia note: The opening montage contains footage from Hollywood Revue of 1929 and shows Marie Dressler, Bessie Love, Polly Moran, Cliff Edwards, Charles King, Gus Edwards, and the singing Brox Sisters. A hilarious Neil Simon comedy that evokes laughs from beginning to end. The late Walter Matthau is the grouchy ex-comedian who is persuaded to join together with his ex-partner (the late Oscar-winner George Burns) for a final reunion show on stage.

Benjamin Martin is Matthau's agent and nephew, and the two have just as much chemistry as Matthau and Burns. I love Matthau's grumpy character--he's just the same as he always is, and yet also very different.

Burns, as the absent-minded old man, is just as funny as Matthau.

Matthau: Want some crackers? I've got coconut, pineapple and graham.

Burns: How about a plain cracker?

Matthau: I don't got plain. I got coconut, pineapple and graham.

Burns: Okay

Matthau: They're in the cupboard in the kitchen.

Burns: Maybe later.

Or how about this:

Matthau: When I did black, the whites knew what I was saying!

You've got to see it in the movie to understand it!

All in all, a refreshingly hilarious, sweet, heartfelt, warm, belivable character comedy with a heart and some of the most memorable quotes of all time.

They just don't make them like this anymore! In a time when all the newest comedies are crude, juvenile and stupid, this leans back towards the tender core of what comedy really is--funny characters, smart and funny dialogue, and grand entertainment.

One of the best buddy comedies of all time, right up there with "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Lethal Weapon," and "The Hard Way."

You may have a hard time finding this for rent or on TV, but trust me, it will be worth your time!

4.5/5 stars.

- John Ulmer I remember originally seeing this film at Radio City Music Hall when it came out. I didn't really understand the humor back then, but this movie can make me laugh out loud.

With all due respect to George Burns (RIP), Walter Matthau really deserved the Oscar for this film. His performance is amazing--given the fact that he was 20 years younger than his character, Willie Clark. His mannerisms are first-rate. ("You know what kind of songs he wrote? Sh*t!" and when speaking to the Spanish-speaking guy at the front desk: "No! No! No enchilada!!") Absolutely hilarious!

Kudos to Richard Benjamin, who played straight man to Matthau.

I just wish this was on DVD, because my VHS recording is getting a bit old.

I had no interest in seeing the remake with Woody Allen, because in no way can it match the original. Neil Simon's THE ODD COUPLE set up a model for many of his later plays. Felix Unger and Oscar Madison were the unsuitably paired roommates in the original, the former being picky and neat, the latter being slovenly and loose. Simon would rewrite (less successfully) the play in the 1990s as THE NEW ODD COUPLE, with female roommates. He made it a mixed couple (a woman with her daughter, and a man) in THE GOODBYE GIRLS. He also gave it an additional twist in 1973 with THE SUNSHINE BOYS, a Broadway hit starring Jack Alberson and Sam Levine as Al Lewis and Willie Clark, the aged, semi-retired Vaudevillians. Here the "apartment" problem is reduced to a teaming of two men who can't stand each other. The 1976 film starred Walter Matthau as Willie, and George Burns as Al.

In actuality, Al probably does not think totally badly of Willie - Willie is pathological on the subject of Al. First Al had little habits, such as accidentally spitting slightly when pronouncing words beginning with the letter "t", and slightly jabbing Willie with his index finger, on stage. Secondly, Al retired when his wife died. Willie was not ready to retire (and has been forcing his nephew and agent, Ben (Richard Benjamin) to try to get him jobs in commercials. But Willie can't remember lines unless they are funny, and keeps flubbing them. So he rarely is able to stay to the end of a rehearsal for a commercial.

Ben is asked to get the two back together for a live scene of their most famous sketch on a television show about American Comedy. He does bring Al to see Willie, and the sparks begin flying, as neither can figure out what the other is doing (and this is just in rehearsal. On top of that, Willie is insisting on changes (minor ones, but they throw off Al) such as saying "ENTER!!!" when Al knocks on the door. The initial rehearsal is a failure, but Ben manages to get them to the taping of the show. The question is if they will complete the scene in the finished program or will Willie wring Al's neck?

The three leads, Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin, do very well with the one-liners, frequently reminiscent of vaudeville patter (example: "Chest pains...I'm getting chest pains Uncle Willie. Every Thursday I come here and get chest pains!" "So, come on Fridays!"). Benjamin strives to prove his deep affection for his uncle, although Matthau's rough outer shell makes it difficult (he only smooths down when he discusses the glory days of vaudeville). Matthau has a little better grasp on reality (at first) than Burns, who seems senile by his repeating himself - but in actuality Matthau's sense of rejection by the world that once applauded him make him less willing to behave properly. Burns is not senile - he takes things slowly. But he seems far happier in accepting his retirement.

I call this a final "Voyage of Discovery" for our modern Lewis and Clark. Al and Willie transcend their old skits, as they gradually end up realizing that they have more in common in their old age than they thought. Even the irascible Willie admits that Al may be (to him) a pain in the ass, but he was a funny man.

Burns was not the original choice for the part of "Al Lewis" (supposedly Dale of the team Smith and Dale). Jack Benny was. Benny probably would have done a good job, but ill-health forced him out (he died in 1975). Burns (whose last involvement in any film was in THE SOLID GOLD CADILLAC in 1956 as the narrator) turned in such a fine performance that he got the "Oscar" for best supporting actor, and was to have a career in movies in the next decade in such films as OH GOD!; OH GOD, YOU DEVIL; and GOING IN STYLE. He died in 1996 age 100, having proved that he was more than just a brilliant straight man for his wife Gracie Allan. Simon's carefully written dialogues are truly electrified by Matthau and Burns. You can literally hear the script crackle. There are few movies out there that can develop such a relationship between the actors and the script. For example, the famed reunion scene could have been a lot duller with less-quality actors involved. Matthau seems to had been born to play Willie Clark (of course, Oscar moreso in the Odd Couple), and with all of the little idiosyncracies and mannerisms that Matthau crams into the character (the line where he is arguing that he is with it since he lives in the city whereas Lewis lives in the country that Lewis is "out of touch" is the quintessential example of this) make this one of the best performances I've ever seen of any actor in any role, be it comedic or drama or whatever else. Period. Matthau and Burns work excellently together; the contrast they portray accentuates Simon's superb knack at creating comedic conflict. This movie is simply one of the ultimate "must-sees" and does demand a rightful prestigious place in the pages of film history. Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.

Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him.

What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.

Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.

The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.

Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.

The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.

And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys. THE SUNSHINE BOYS was the hilarious 1975 screen adaptation of Neil Simon's play about a retired vaudevillian team, played by Walter Matthau and George Burns, who had a very bitter breakup and have been asked to reunite one more time for a television special or something like that. The problem is that the two still hate each other and want nothing to do with each other. Richard Benjamin appears as Matthau's nephew, a theatrical agent who has been given the monumental responsibility of making this reunion a reality. This warm and winning comedy is a lovely valentine to a forgotten form of entertainment...vaudeville and it works mainly thanks to one of Neil Simon's better screenplays and outstanding work by Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin. Burns won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this, but I think Matthau walks away with this film with his flawlessly hilarious performance as Willy Clark. Matthau was nominated for Best Actor but didn't stand a chance against Nicholson for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; however, in another year, this was an Oscar-worthy performance. Matthau commands the screen and there is not a false note in this beautifully timed performance. The scene where he is auditioning for a potato chip commercial and can't get the name of the product right is a classic. THE SUNSHINE BOYS is a warm and winning Neil Simon comedy which shines thanks to unbeatable chemistry between Matthau and Burns. question: how do you steal a scene from the expert of expert scene stealers Walther Mathau in full, furious and brilliant Grumpy Old Man mode? answer: quietly, deadpan, and with perfect timing as George Burns does here.

I know nothing of Vaudeville but this remains a favourite film, the two leads are hilarious, the script funny, the direction and pacing very fine. Richard Benjamin is very funny as straight man - trying to get at Burns through the window etc. Even the small parts are great.

There are so many funny scenes, Mathau messing up the commercial, Burns repeating his answers as if senile...

A delight.

Enterrrrrr! The word 'classic' is thrown around too loosely nowadays, but this movie well deserves the appelation. The combination of Neil Simon, Walter Matthau (possibly the world's best living comic actor), and the late lamented George Burns make for a comic masterpiece. It is interesting to contemplate what the movie would have been like had not death prevented Jack Benny from playing George Burns' part, as had been planned. As it is, the reunion scene in Matthau's apartment is not likely to be surpassed as a sidesplitter. Definitely one of my desert island films.

"Enter!!!!!!!!!" An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.

A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with "Oh God". So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7. Walter Matthau and George Burns were a famous vaudeville comedy act, Lewis and Clark, who haven't spoken in over 10 years. Burns retired and Matthau took it personally and has held a grudge ever since. Such is the premise of this hilarious Neil Simon play made into a movie. Of course, what makes it so good is Matthau and Burns in their prime, and the material is funnier than anything you can find today. Richard Benjamin shines as Matthau's nephew and agent. There's even old clips of actual stars of the golden era to get you into the groove of the film, and character actor Fritz Feld starts it all off with a "pop." Rosetta LaNoire, who started out in the 30s in theater with Orson Welles and later was Grandma on "Family Matters," is great in a small role.

The only problem I had with it (and maybe I'm being too picky and/or serious) is the way Matthau treats Burns when they first meet. Granted, he's had a lot of resentment festering in all these years, but some of the things he does would be considered rude or just plain bad manners taken out of context. Also, I'm used to seeing Matthau act that way in other movies, but not to George Burns. And, Matthau's bellowing tends to get a little old.

All in all, if you need a consistently funny film to help and forget your troubles, put in "The Sunshine Boys." They'll lift your spirits and make you think of a simpler time and way of life.

Benjamin: "You have to slide it."

Matthau: "Wait, wait. I think you have to slide it." Much like the comedy duo of its title, "The Sunshine Boys" has become a forgotten classic 30-odd years later. It's hardly mentioned alongside other great film comedies of the 1970s. This makes no sense given the singular specialness of this film, perhaps the best Neil Simon ever wrote.

Walter Matthau plays Willy Clark, once half of a legendary vaudeville comedy known as Lewis and Clark, now a bitter 73-year-old solo act who can't get a job in a potato chip commercial. His nephew and agent Ben (Richard Benjamin) is sure he can get work if Willy will only agree to reunite with his estranged partner Al Lewis (George Burns) for an ABC-TV celebration of show business nostalgia.

Nostalgia is what "Sunshine Boys" has going for it in spades, right from the start when a series of 1920s film clips showcasing various entertainers from long ago flickers before us to the accompaniment of Cole Porter's "Be A Clown". Then there's the film's present-day setting in Manhattan, where flared trousers and wide polyester ties abound. The periods collide in Willy's glorious mess of a Manhattan apartment, where framed photos and cartoons of long-dead celebrities stare out from the walls at lurid tabloid headlines and empty Zabar grocery bags. If you were alive in the 1970s like me, you might even feel like you were in that apartment.

Willy clearly has been living there too long. He's sleeping in front of the television when the kettle in the other room boils. Willy wakes up and picks up the phone.

"Hello, who is this?" A pause. "Never mind, it's the tea."

Old men living alone can be sad material in almost anyone else's hands, but Simon's deft wit and unerring feeling for character turns this adaptation of his 1972 stage hit into comedy gold. The amazing thing about "The Sunshine Boys" is how much it rubs your noses in Willy's almost existential condition without turning you off at all. "89 years old and just like that, he dies of nothing'" Willy says of one old songwriting friend, before deciding the man probably died from writing a song that rhymed "lady" with "baby".

Burns won an Oscar for his understated performance as the gentle but steely Lewis, but it's Matthau who brings this one home, his make-up and proud but ragged bearing really selling you on the idea he was already 73 when he made this. Willy is obnoxious in the extreme, fully deserving Ben's description "crazy freakin' old man", but you root for him throughout, enjoying his small victories even when they come at the cost of others' patience. His lines kill you, too, especially when he's trying to kill Lewis, for whom the TV reunion turns out to be a bad idea.

"You're out of touch!" Willy tells Lewis at one point. "I'm still in demand. I'm still hot!"

"If this room was on fire you wouldn't be hot," Lewis replies.

Director Herbert Ross shoots everything in a very casual and understated way, with low lighting and mid-range shots even in emotional moments so as to leave room for the comedy and the film's overall zen message of grace through quiet acceptance. You never get the feeling you are watching a movie, one of "The Sunshine Boys" many charms, and Ross's direction, like the acting of the three principals, goes a long way toward achieving that end.

Comedy is hard, especially when the subjects are people watching life pass them by, but "The Sunshine Boys" makes it all seem a pleasure, because, for us watching, it is. As a study of the frailties of human nature in the context of old age, this film is without parallel. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Full marks to everyone - from the scriptwriter to all involved in the finished product. You can only marvel at the perceptions inherent in the characterisation of the two ageing performers. Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.

Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.

This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.

It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the "knock, knock, knock / ENTER!" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.

In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie.

Ten stars. Put a little "Sunshine" in your life. Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless. The Sunshine Boys is a terrific comedy about two ex-vaudevillians who reluctantly reunite for a TV special despite the fact that they despise each other.

The comic genius of two masters at work, George Burns and Walter Matthau are stellar! Some of the best scenes are when the duo is fighting over the silliest little trivial things! The material is fast-paced and witty, appealing to all ages.

MILD SPOILER ALERT: There are some mildly sad moments toward the end of the movie that deal indirectly with the affects of aging that gives the film a soft, sincere, tenderness that shows to this reviewer that what the pair really need the most for success, are each other.

If anyone loves The Odd Couple, you'll adore this movie. An excellent film! At first this looked like a boring comedy like The Odd Couple, but when I got into it it turned out to be a really funny film. Basically forgetful ex-comedians Willy Clark (Golden Globe winner, and Oscar and BAFTA nominated Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (Oscar winning, and Golden Glove nominated George Burns) were a great comedy duo, and a brought back together to revive their hospital sketch for a TV show. Willy's nephew, Ben Clark (Golden Globe winning Richard Benjamin) is confident they can get together again with no hard feelings for each other, how wrong he is. They cannot get on all the time, they are both forgetful, especially during conversation, but they do it eventually. Also starring Lee Meredith as Nurse in Sketch (Miss McIntosh), Carol DeLuise as Mrs. Doris Green, Al's Daughter, Rosetta LeNoire as Odessa, Willy's nurse and Muppets from Space's F. Murray Abraham as Mechanic. I think the best line of the film is Burns mentioning that Matthau called him "a son of a bitch bastard". It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Screenplay, and it won the Golden Globe Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Screenplay. Very good! I'm 14, so you probably would think I have never heard of George Burns or Walter Matthau or anyone like that. Boy are you wrong. I had heard that George Burns was in this movie and that he won an Academy Award for it. I have been a fan of George Burns since I was ten. I saw the movie Oh, God recently and loved it. This one was also very awesome. George Burns did a great job. So did Walter Matthau(this is the first time I've ever seen him perform). And even though they had really small roles, Phyllis Diller and Steve Allen did a good job. That special they were filming would have been awesome if it was really done. Let me say this, if you are a fan of George Burns or Walter Matthau, you should see this movie right away! First, an explanation: Despite my headline, I'm giving this film only 8 stars because overall this is NOT one of the best films ever made. All the criticisms registered here have valid points. Also, be warned that to enjoy the script you really need to appreciate Neil Simon's brilliance with finding the wit within real human banter. He does have a distinctively New York ear for dialogue -- especially dry, Jewish, love-suffused sarcasm -- and if you have trouble accepting sarcasm as an expression of love, then you might have trouble accepting the optimism at the heart of this movie.

So much for warnings. Here's my main point: Walter Matthau is flat-out perfect, even beyond perfect, in this movie. I have never seen him funnier, or more touching for that matter -- because at the same time that he shows us the hilariousness of this character who refuses to give up his Big Star self-image or insufferable attitudes even as his coherence is in decline, he also shows us the more vulnerable, maybe even heartbreakingly scared person inside the grouch. And he only barely shows us that sad part -- it's just enough to really get to you if you happen to be coping with your own father's or husband's mental decline right now (I mention this as a warning), but artistically, it's just enough pathos to give this character the most authentically deep roots I'm seen in possibly any film performance. This is beyond Method acting -- Matthau's performance is exquisite as character work and a pure delight as comic delivery. This is a masterpiece of comic acting.

About Richard Benjamin: I personally find his acting annoying in general, and his work in this movie is no exception -- although he has some fine moments here. ("Chicken is funny...." is one of them.) So if you like him, you should like him here, and if you don't this movie won't change your mind.

About the 1976 Oscars...I agree that Matthau was unfortunate to be up against Nicholson in "Cuckoo's Nest" that year. It was a killer year for leading-actor competition; if only there were separate Oscars for comedy and drama, then I think the Best Actor Oscars would have gone to Al Pacino for "Dog Day Afternoon" and to Walter Matthau for "The Sunshine Boys" -- not to dis Jack's fine work as McMurphy, but I think that Pacino and Matthau were each CLEARLY more masterful and astoundingly effective and downright legendary in their performances than Nicholson was that year. Also, I believe that Burns got the Supporting Actor Oscar more for sentimental reasons than for the quality of his performance -- I mean, he was good in this movie, but not THAT good. (Burns's fine-as-ever but unexceptional-in-itself return to show biz beat Brad Dourif's truly brilliant debut in "Cuckoo's Nest," not to mention Chris Sarandon's stunning debut in "Dog Day Afternoon" -- which I think proves my theory.)

Oscar theories aside, here's my bottom line review: If you like Matthau's comic acting, then see this movie and savor his powerhouse tirades and wonderful grandmother-inspired gestures, fleeting facial expressions and seemingly unscripted asides. (But if you're currently dealing with the pain of watching an old person lose his grip, then be warned that this movie might either be the comic relief you need or a dose of reality too painful to watch right now.) First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers?

Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.

Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).

Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers. The Neil Simon's Sunshine Boys starring Walter Matthau and George Burns is a funny comedy on the strange bond to the life and its shortness, but the laughter always bitter taste. Seeing Willy Clark(Matthau) and Al Lewis(Burns) two big theatrical comedy actors now reduced on the imbecility from the hard and unceasing old age you can feel only anger and blue. Willy not ever surrender and continue to look work, while Al is tired for players and he is retired to the country in the house to his daughter. The couple in his old time was truly funny and harmony, but out the scene was a continue squabble and to quarrel, and for eleven years after their broken they not talk between. Now if they would work, they must return together another time for do one of his best old sketch for a comedy story TV show. The meets is explosive and liberating for the old questions…. The Neil Simon's screenplay give a certain corrosive spirit to the story and the melancholy and blue overwhelming the many gags and laughter succeeded to generate a good mix also thanks to a great couple Walter Matthu(Nomination Academy Award as Best Actor) and George Burns(Won the Academy Award as Best Support Actor). The two actors are very believable and real and the their harmony seems almost as they real work together for all that time and that realty they not bear between them. The movie is very touching also for its all consuming reality as the story is narrate and how the report Love-Heat that bind the two actors is totally real part to the strange but at the same time ordinarily comprehensible things to the life. My rate is 7. A Give this Movie a 10/10 because it deserves a 10/10. Two of the best actors of their time-Walter Matthau & George Burns collaborate with Neil Simon and all of the other actors that are in this film + director Herbert Ross, and all of that makes this stage adaption come true. The Sunshine Boys is one of the best films of the 70's. I love the type of humor in this film, it just makes me laugh so hard.

I got this movie on VHS 3 days ago (yes, VHS because it was cheaper-only $3). I watched it as soon as I got home, but I had to watch it again because I kept missing a few parts the first time. The second time I watched it, it felt a lot better, and I laughed a lot harder. I'm definitely going to re-get this on DVD because I HAVE to see the special features.

It's very funny how that happens. Two people work together as entertainers/actors/performers. They get along well on stage, but really argue off stage, they can't survive another minute with each other, then some 15 years later, you want to reunite them for a TV special. You can find that in this film. Matthau & Burns were terrific in this film. It's a damn shame they died. George Burns deserved that Oscar. He gave a strong comic performance. He was also 78 when this movie was filmed. So far, he's the oldest actor to receive an academy award at an old age. Jessica Tandy breaks the record as the oldest actress. Richard Benjamin was also fantastic in this. He won a Golden Globe for best supporting actor. He deserved that Golden Globe. Although many people might disagree with what I am about to say, everybody in this film gave a strong performance. This Comedy is an instant classic. I highly recommend it. One more thing: Whoever hates this film is a "Putz" The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Updated from a previous comment. The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her comedic stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines, a bit player in crude comedies. They appear together in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star.

A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretensions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team, and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glyn, Norma Talmadge, Mae Murray, Rod LaRocque, Leatrice Joy, Dorothy Sebastian, Estelle Taylor, Louella Parsons, Renee Adoree, Aileen Pringle, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Dell Henderson plays the father. Polly Moran is a maid. Paul Ralli is the slimy leading man.

SHOW PEOPLE was said to have used the career of Gloria Swanson as its model (I think Mae Murray is closer). Davies and Swanson were friends. But this film's story does parallel the rise of Swanson from one-reel Mack Sennett comedies with Charlie Chaplin to STAR in Cecil B. DeMille films of the late teens and early 20s.

Davies and Haines were huge MGM stars and friends. Odd that MGM never teamed them up in a talkie. They're great together! A sweet romance and delightful spoof of early Hollywood. Greta Garbo and Bebe Daniels are mentioned but do not appear. I've seen hundreds of silent movies. Some will always be classics (such as Nosferatu, Metropolis, The General and Wings) but among them, my favorite is this film (it may not be the best--but a favorite, yes). In fact, when I looked it up on IMDb, I noticed I immediately laughed to myself because the movie was so gosh-darn cute and well-made. Marion Davies proved with this movie she really had great talent and was not JUST William Randolph Hearst's mistress.

The story involves a hick from Georgia coming to Hollywood with every expectation that she would be an instant star! Her experiences and the interesting cameos of stars of the era make this a real treat for movie buffs and a must-see! Oh it's so cool to watch a Silent Classic once in while! Director Vidor is simply delightful and even makes a lengthy (at least for 1928) cameo as himself. The story is about having success in life and the way it changes you. Marion Davies plays a girl that leaves its friends in a little comedy studio to be part of a larger "drama" studio. She becomes a big star and the consequences are she really alienates from the real world. For a moment she even denies her (poor) past! The cameos are simply hilarious, certainly the scene where the main character (Marion Davies) sees...Marion Davies in the studios and concludes she doesn't seem that special... It's got to be one of the first movie-in-the-movies here and for real freaks it's awesome to see the cameras and material from way back then. A must-see if you ask me!! "Wisecracker," the biography of actor William Haines, offers a gratifying anecdote about the former star when he was past 70 and long retired from making movies. The old gent was not sentimental and rarely watched his own films, but in 1972 he was persuaded to attend a Los Angeles museum screening of SHOW PEOPLE, the late silent feature in which he co-starred with Marion Davies. Beforehand, Haines was worried that this comedy would provoke the wrong kind of laughter, but he was pleasantly surprised (and no doubt relieved) at how well it held up and how much the young audience enjoyed it. Watch the film today and you can see why: SHOW PEOPLE is a delightful Hollywood satire that retains its charm because it lampoons its targets with wit and flair, yet without malice. It's still funny and its satirical points still resonate. Needless to say, the technology of movie-making has changed vastly since the silent days, but the pretensions and follies of the filmmakers themselves haven't changed all that much.

SHOW PEOPLE also stands as the best surviving work of Marion Davies, a first-rate comic performer who deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of great comediennes. Where her career was concerned Davies was both blessed and cursed by the patronage of her paramour, the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. It's well known that Hearst exerted enormous influence over Davies' choice of roles, and well known too that, despite her gift for comedy, he preferred to see her play dignified heroines in period costume dramas. By the late '20s, for whatever reason, Marion was permitted to strut her stuff in several exuberant light comedies (including THE RED MILL and THE PATSY), but SHOW PEOPLE, directed by the great King Vidor, stands as her most enjoyable showcase. William Haines gives an engaging, likable performance as her boyfriend and co-star Billy Boone, but this is the leading lady's show all the way.

Marion plays Southern belle Peggy Pepper, an aspiring actress who storms Hollywood accompanied by her father, determined to become a movie star. (Her dad Colonel Pepper is played by actor/director Dell Henderson, a veteran of Griffith's Biograph dramas who—coincidentally?—resembled Hearst!) One of Marion's funniest bits, often excerpted elsewhere, is her audition at the Comet Studio casting office. While Dad helpfully suggests emotions to portray ("Sorrow! . . . Joy!") and drops a handkerchief across her face, Peggy assumes the appropriate expression and posture. She's hired, only to discover that Comet makes low-brow comedies, the kind of comedies where people squirt each other with seltzer and inept cops tumble over each other racing to the rescue. Of course, Comet is intended as a take-off of Mack Sennett's Keystone, but the true nature of the satire becomes clear as the story unfolds. As Peggy Pepper rises in the movie star hierarchy she leaves Comet for the more prestigious High Art Studio, assuming the name "Patricia Peppoire" as more befitting her new station in life as a serious actress. At some point it may occur to us (as it surely did to viewers in 1928) that Davies' rival Gloria Swanson started out in Keystone comedies before rising to prominence in serious dramas for Cecil B. DeMille. And as Miss Peppoire takes herself more and more seriously, giving the high-hat treatment to former colleagues such as lowly comic Billy Boone, Davies' performance takes on an element of wicked parody seemingly aimed squarely at Swanson herself. This is especially notable during an interview sequence, when Miss Peppoire's spokesman spouts pretentious nonsense while the star delivers a spot-on impersonation of Swanson. I suppose this was intended as a friendly spoof, but I have to wonder how friendly relations were between Gloria and Marion after this movie was released.

In any event, SHOW PEOPLE is a delicious treat for buffs, who will relish the parade of star cameos throughout. Charlie Chaplin contributes a nice bit, sans makeup and looking quite distinguished, eagerly seeking Patricia Peppoire's autograph! (And in a show of good sportsmanship Marion Davies herself puts in a self-mocking cameo appearance, evening the score for poking fun at Swanson by poking fun at herself.) This is a silent film that viewers not especially attuned to silents might appreciate, at least those viewers with a taste for movies about the movie business. SHOW PEOPLE surely belongs in the company of such classics as SUNSET BOULEVARD and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, among Hollywood's most expertly produced, enjoyable exercises in amused self-examination. This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed "zany beauty".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude.

"Show People" is an absolutely delightful silent directed by King Vidor and starring Marion Davies and Billy Haines. What gems both of them are in this charming comedy about a young girl, Peggy Pepper, whose acting is the talk of Savannah trying to make it on the big screen. Though she's a success in comedy, what she wants to do is make "art" so she moves up to High Arts Studio. Soon she becomes Patricia Pepoire and is too good for the likes of her friend Billy.

Many stars of the silent era have cameos in "Show People," including Davies herself without the curly hair and makeup. I'm sure when people saw the film in 1928, they recognized everyone who appeared in the elaborate lunch scene; sadly, nowadays, it's not the case, even for film buffs. In one part of the film, however, she does meet Charlie Chaplin; in another, author Elinor Glyn is pointed out to her, and Vidor himself has a cameo at the end of the film. Other stars who pop up in "Show People" are John Gilbert, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Leatrice Joy, Bess Flowers, Renee Adoree, Rod LaRoque, Aileen Pringle, and many others.

Davies was adorable and a lively comedienne. It's a shame William Haines quit the movies - he was cute and energetic, deservedly an enormous star back in the day.

"Show People" is a simple story told in a witty way. It's also a look back at an exciting era in Hollywood's history and contains performances by two wonderful stars. Perhaps the funniest 'backstage at Hollywood' movie ever, especially for a look at comedy short factories like Keystone.

Marion Davies should get a medal for bravery for taking a part where acting poorly in front of a camera is part of the role. Plenty of cameos for film buffs. Sunday July 16, 8:00pm The Castro, San Francisco

"As a Southern colonel your make-up is very Indiana"

The yammering gossips of Hollywood have managed to sling more than a little mud in Marion Davies direction over the years. That she had fame handed to her and was undeserving, is often speculated. Considering the mawkish dramas she was so often pushed into, this criticism would seem to have some validity. As a comedienne however, her star shone very brightly. Left to pursue a career in light comedy and slapstick she might have rivaled Mabel Normand. One of her better outings was King Vidor's Show People (1928), which survives and is so well known largely because MGM filled it with star cameos. This happy coincidence inadvertently saved what is surely among the best work of its two stars, Davies and that notorious Joe College wise-cracker, William Haines. Rumor has it Show People was loosely based on the life of Gloria Swanson, who began in Sennett comedies and rose to grand drama (And don't think she didn't spend the rest of her life reminding everyone!) with von Stroheim, Walsh and DeMille. Coincidentally, the comedy studios used in this film are the original digs Keystone had abandoned the year before (Think of who worked there!).

Colonel Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper (Dell Henderson) drives his daughter Peggy (Davies) from Georgia to Hollywood to star in the movies. These two country hicks are unsuspecting fodder for incorrigible Billy Boone (Haines), " – a custard pie artist …" who descends on their cafeteria table in an outrageously funny entrance (watch for the bit with the noodle), and then helps Peggy land a part in his next picture. What she thinks is high drama turns out to be screwball, but a job is a job and Billy convinces her " . . all the stars have to take it on the chin – ". At the preview, Billy and Peggy bump into ….. Charlie Chaplin, who asks for her autograph! She pushes the little fellow aside and a horrified Billy grabs the book and makes her sign. Chaplin climbs in his car and Billy tells Peggy who shes just snubbed, so naturally, she faints. It's so very funny, considering Davies character isn't supposed to recognize this guy! Peggy soon moves on to work at the High Art Studios, changes her name to 'Patricia Pepoire' and leaves poor Billy behind. Davies does a wonderful send-up of a serious actress, with all the prerequisite fluttering eyelashes and quivering lips. Vidor throws in a parade of stars eating lunch in a long tracking shot (and they're all sitting shoulder to shoulder, facing the camera!) that includes Polly Moran (Who's also sensationally funny playing Davies' maid), Louella Parsons (one of the friendly vampires), Estelle Taylor, Claire Windsor Aileen Pringle, the comedy duo of Karl Dane (with his arm in a sling) and George K. Arthur (pretending he's stealing the silverware), Leatrice Joy (amused by Arthur's antics), Renee Adoree, Rod (eating and smoking) La Rocque, Mae Murray, John (in a robe) Gilbert (who also appears driving through the MGM gates early in the picture), Norma (eeeww!) Talmadge (looking bitchy and aloof as usual) and Patricia dressed like Marie Antoinette, sandwiched between Douglas Fairbanks (as he does an amusing trick) and William S. Hart (protecting her from Doug). Billy runs into the High Art crew on location when the comedy troupe disrupts their filming, with predictably nutty results. Vidor even works himself into the final scene as the director of Peggy's current production. Also worth noting are Harry Gribbon as the comedy director doing a great caricature of Eddie Sedgwick, Sidney Bracy as the dramatic director who can't get Peggy to cry for her screen test and then can't stop her once she does, and Paul Ralli as Andre, her dramatic love interest and a hilarious phony. When her character tries to 'act' its as though Davies is poking fun at all the awful dramas she'd been forced into and she's brilliant doing it.

While it's true Show People is a hokey satire of the 'good ole days' ten years hence, it remains a highly entertaining example of quality work from MGM, Irving Thalberg, and their tremendous wealth of assembled talent. What a shame so much has been lost. There are also far too many examples of great films like The Patsy (1928), Vidor and Davies' hugely successful comedy from earlier that same year, languishing in vaults when they could be seen and enjoyed. Prior to seeing Show People, my impression of silent comedy was essentially slapstick, and slapstick only. I could not imagine how screen comedy could be possible without relying heavily on spoken word or numerous pratfalls. But this masterful film proved me wrong. Davies, in my view, was probably the greatest comedic actress to come along prior to Lucille Ball. I mention Lucy primarily because Davies' mannerisms and facial expressions reminded me of her to the point that I wonder if Davies wasn't one of Ball's primary influences. This is coming from a 21 year old who had never before seen silent comedy, and I must say that no matter how much of the period-specific references you actually get (I didn't, apparently), you will not be bored by this movie. You will probably even laugh more than you would at most talkie comedies. This is not only my favorite silent comedy, but easily among my ten favorite comedies of all time. Back in the day if Marion Davies had had her druthers and didn't just listen to William Randolph Hearst, she'd have done more films like Show People and been a lot happier. In fact when you see her get her first big break in two reel comedy, she'd have loved to have done that in her career instead of such epics like When Knighthood Was In Flower and Janice Meredith.

What you're seeing by all accounts in Show People is the real Davies, a gifted comedienne, a superb mimic and a generous good hearted person. She could really identify with the character of Peggy Pepper aka Patricia Prepoire, she put up with her share of pretense in her Hollywood stardom.

If the plot of Show People was set in the legitimate stage you would call it a backstage story. I guess it being one of the first movies about the movies you could call it a behind the camera story. Marion is eager young hopeful who arrives in Hollywood like so many others, looking for that big break. She wants to drama, but her introduction to the movies is as the foil for the burlesque comics. She gets her share of pie and seltzer in the face, but learns her trade. And also wins the heart of young comic actor William Haines.

She does get her first big break, but it doesn't come for Haines as well and Marion does get to do legitimate drama with actor Paul Ralli, playing Andre Telfair, a pretend no account Count of Avignon. Somebody here was taking a shot at actor Lou Tellegen, lover and husband of Sarah Bernhardt and Geraldine Farrar and others and to hear tell of it, one of the most despised people in cinema.

Show People was one of the first films to have the unbilled cameo appearances of stars as themselves. You will get to see folks like Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Mae Murray, John Gilbert, Eleanor Boardman etc., just being themselves in and around the film colony. That in itself makes Show People a film worth saving.

Show People also made good use of standard Tin Pan Alley songs like, Ain't We Got Fun, I'm Sitting On Top Of The World, You'd Be Surprised, California, Here I Come. As the film came out on the cusp of sound being introduced, a song called Crossroads was introduced in it. It's not a bad number, but no credit is given to the boy and girl singing it in the soundtrack. I guess since they're not seen, it was felt no billing was necessary. Still I'd like to know and I'm sure you would to if you are fortunate enough to see Show People.

It's easy to see why Marion Davies liked this film so much and considered it a personal favorite. She looks so at home in this film and her real life lack of pretense shines through in her performance which makes it a real treat for the audience. I had seen Marion Davies in a couple of movies and really couldn't understand her appeal. She couldn't dance for peanuts, she didn't attempt to sing and as for her acting - she seemed in a trance. But I hadn't seen her silent comedies and this film is wonderful. Rather than kidding her own image, as has been suggested here, to me it seems a satire on Gloria Swanson, who did start off in slapstick comedies, went on to highly emotional women's pictures and did end up marrying a Count. Marion, a top mimic, also did a funny rabbit imitation whenever she wanted to be seen as grand, that was Gloria Swanson spot on!!!

Colonel Pepper (Dell Henderson) has motored all the way from Georgia to Hollywood, determined to prove that his daughter, Peggy, (Marion Davies) will be the greatest star ever. Their hope dwindles and they are down to their last 40 cents when they meet Billy Boone (William Haines) who works at the slapstick studios and promises to get Peggy a job. Peggy thinks she is going to be a great dramatic actress but the studio think she is a fantastic comic. They convince her to make the film and at the preview she is a great success. Charlie Chaplin asks for her autograph but she doesn't recognise him and treats him pretty rudely. "Who was that short little guy" - when she finds out she faints!!! Peggy and Billy get a call from High Art Studio but only Peggy is wanted and suddenly she is on her way. There is a funny scene where she sees a star she doesn't think much of - it's Marion Davies!!!

She finally gets a chance of being a dramatic actress - but she can't cry!!! It is a hilarious scene as the director tries everything to get her to cry and when he succeeds, she can't stop!!! Her new leading man, Andre (Paul Ralli) convinces her to forget her comedy past and become elite and sophisticated - she even adopts a new name - Patricia Pepoire!!! She also seems to have forgotten Billy and her dad - she has developed a "STAR" personality!!! When the slapstick studio picks the same location as "Patricia's" movie, Billy is thrilled to see her but quite unprepared for her snobby attitude. When she calls him a cheap clown he realises that she is not the girl he once knew.

After a studio luncheon ( a magnificent panning shot of some of the greatest stars of the day) "Patricia" gets a call from the Boss. It seems her films are a flop and no theatres want to book them - the public are tired of her mannerisms and want the old Peggy back. She and Andre decide to get married, she dreams of being a Countess (even though Billy says that Andre used to serve him spaghetti in a little cafe downtown and is no more a Count than he is). On her wedding day, Billy visits and after a hilarious custard pie fight she realises that Billy is the one for her.

It was amazing to see all the guest stars - John Gilbert is seen going through the MGM gates, Lew Cody is talking to Elinor Glynn, who not only wrote "It" but several racy romances that were made into MGM movies. William Haines, another actor whose movies I had always wanted to see, was great - especially in the cafeteria scene , he had wonderful comic timing. Harry Gribbon was hilarious as the comedy director - there were so many hilarious scenes in this film and Marion was at the top of them all - I'm giving this film 10 out of 10.

Highly, Highly Recommended. 1928 is in many ways a "lost year" in motion pictures. Just as some of the finest films of the silent era were being made in every genre, sound was coming in and - while reaping great profits at the box office - was setting the art of film-making back about five years as the film industry struggled with the new technology.

"Show People" is one of the great silent era comedies. The film shows that William Haines had comic skills beyond his usual formula of the obnoxious overconfident guy who turns everyone against him, learns his lesson, and then redeems himself by winning the football game, the polo game, etc. This movie is also exhibit A for illustrating that Marion Davies was no Susan Alexander Kane. She had excellent comic instincts and timing. This film starts out as the Beverly Hillbillies-like adventure of Peggy Pepper (Marion Davies) and her father, General Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper, fresh from the old South. General Pepper has decided that he will let some lucky movie studio executive hire his daughter as an actress. While at the studio commissary, the Peppers run into Billy Boone (William Haines), a slapstick comedian. He gets Peggy an acting job. She's unhappy when she finds out it is slapstick, but she perseveres. Eventually she is discovered by a large studio and she and Billy part ways as she begins to take on dramatic roles. Soon the new-found fame goes to her head, and she is about to lose her public and gain a royal title when she decides to marry her new leading man, whom she doesn't really love, unless fate somehow intervenes.

One of the things MGM frequently does in its late silent-era films and in its early sound-era films is feature shots of how film-making was done at MGM circa 1930. This film is one of those, as we get Charlie Chaplin trying to get Peggy's autograph, an abundance of cameos of MGM players during that era including director King Vidor himself, and even a cameo of Marion Davies as Peggy seeing Marion Davies as Marion Davies arriving at work on the lot. Peggy grimaces and mentions that she doesn't care for her. Truly a delight from start to finish, this is a silent that is definitely worth your while. This is one of the films that I also recommend you use to introduce people to the art of silent cinema as it is very accessible. I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.

Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.

Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.

Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs. Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film. There are some wonderful things about this movie. Marion Davies could act, given the right property; she is wonderful in comedic roles. William Haines could act, and you can see why he was one of the screen's most popular leading men. (Until a potential scandal forced him from the business).

The story is a bit trite, but handled so beautifully that you don't notice. King Vidor's direction is one of the principle reasons for this. The producer? The boy genius, Irving Thalberg.

It's about movie making, and you get to see the process as it was done in 1928, the cameras, sets, directors directing and actors emoting. You get to see (briefly) some of the major stars of the day; even Charlie Chaplin does a turn as himself, seeking an autograph. You also catch glimpses of Eleanor Boardman, Elinor Glyn, Claire Windsor, King Vidor, and many others who are otherwise just names and old photographs.

Please, even if you're not a fan of the silents, take the time to catch this film when you can. It's really a terrific trip back in time. I finally purchased and added to my collection a copy of "Show People". I cannot comment any more than what previous viewers have stated and to the characters, plot and overall quality of this film without repeating their own words. Seeing the cameo, out-of-character appearances of so many M-G-M silent stars is worth the viewing in and of itself. I really like the scene where Marion Davies plays herself and is encountered by herself playing the main character of the movie, Patricia Pepoire. Make sure you read her lips as there is no title card indicating what she is saying when she sees Marion Davies but it is something to the effect of "I don't think I like her!" Pop the corn, pop in the tape and get ready to go back more than three quarters of a century in movie making history. Enjoy! There are no people like "Show People" Marion Davies (as Peggy Pepper) and William Haines (as Billy Boone). My introduction to Ms. Davies was a "clip" from this film; the delightfully spoofy one in which she lowers a scarf to reveal different emotions. My introduction to Mr. Haines was in viewing this film, presently; though, it's possible I've seen him in a less memorable role. Haines makes an incredible impression, when he joins Davies for a commissary meal - tossing his hat into the ring with some wonderful bits at the dining table. Indeed, Haines and Davies deliver great comic performances.

The story starts off with Dell Henderson (Colonel Pepper) driving daughter Davies into Hollywood, certain she will become Tinseltown's newest sensation. Indeed, Davies and the already arrived Haines become comedy stars. But, Davies yearns to become a true drama queen. Davies leaves Haines, and partners up with the dashingly dramatic Paul Ralli. But, audiences prefer Davies in more comic roles; perhaps director King Vidor is offering up a case for art imitating life?

Full of great Hollywood location footage, both on the set, and off. Full of great "cameos"; at a studio lunch, at the stars' table, Davies sits between Douglas Fairbanks and William S. Hart. The best "bit" player, however, is Charlie Chaplin, who has enough nerve to ask Davies for her autograph! While the cameos are fun, they, and the episodic sequences, do help "Show People" become less of an important film, and more of an important historical document.

******** Show People (11/11/28) King Vidor ~ Marion Davies, William Haines, Dell Henderson Exquisite comedy starring Marian Davies (with the affable William Haines). Young Peggy arrives in Hollywood seeking stardom. Cameo performances showcase "all the stars in MGM's heaven" in the famous commissary scene, plus lots of vintage film making detail for the scholar. Pic also captures for posterity Davies' famous, wickedly sarcastic impersonations of the top stars of the day (her Swanson is a beaut!).

"Peggy," even catches herself as she encounters the famous star Marian Davies at tennis, turns up her nose and comments, "Ohh, I don't like her!"

My print was perfect. Story, direction, acting an authentic charm and a must for all silent afficinados. If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the "good" and "bad" guys is decidedly less than distinct.

Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an "enemy" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.

I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment. UC 0079, the One Year War is almost at an end. A neutral colony of Side 6 has been targeted by Cyclops, a Zeon task force. Their target, a new Gundam being built exclusively for Newtypes (supposedly built for Amuro Ray from the original Gundam saga) inside. When little boy Al Izuruha, a fan of Zeon MS, encounters a Zaku after battle breaks out in the colony, he befriends newbie MS pilot Benard "Bernie" Wiseman. The two become good friends, Al is treated as an honorary member of the Cyclops team. Through the show, Bernie acts as a father figure to Al (whose real father is always working) and seems to be taken with Federation pilot Christina McKenzie, but eventually they must meet....in battle. Al soon learns that war is not child's play and Bernie must choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to complete his mission.

For only 6 episodes, Gundam 0080 is a well done show. The mobile suits are extremely well designed, and the animation may look dated but really shows emotion in the characters. If you liked 0083 then check this one out, or if you are new to the Gundam world, this is a good show to start with. If you look to a show for drama and character development, this is the one for you, it focuses more on that then mobile suit battle. I would rate it more of a drama than action.

Mobile Suit Gundam 0080, War in the Pocket.

Sometimes you have to lose to win. When Gundam0079 became the movie trilogy most of us are familiar with, a lot of it was sheer action and less of anything else. This OVA is kinda the opposite. Though there're only half a dozen episodes, it isn't filled with action, but emotional things. The two main action sequences in this, I believe, are enough to satisfy me. After seeing so many gundam series, movies, and OVAs, I was completely ready for a civilian-esquire movie. This movie did a fantastic job of that. What makes this movie stand out is that shows both sides of the war have good and bad people. It made the Zeons seem more human rather than the original movies where they're depicted as the second rise of evil Nazis. Most people that don't like anime that I've forced to watch this movie (lol), liked it. So, I'd recommend it to a lot of people just for the anti-war story. If you're a Gundam fan, and haven't seen this, you shouldn't be reading this; you should already be watching it right now. The first "side-story" in the universal century Gundam universe presents a refreshing new look at the war between earth and the space colonies. The focus is no longer on a small group of individuals who would go on to play pivotal roles in the conflict, but on the everyday civilian population and how the war is seen through their eyes.

The story does contain some Gundam staples, its premise being the attempts by a ZEON squad to capture an experimental Gundam, but it the execution of the plot that made this show so interesting to watch. This series focuses on the experiences of a young boy named Alfred and the relationship between his neighbor, Christina Mckenzie who is secretly a Federation pilot and a newbie Zeon pilot named Bernie Wiseman. Alfred develops a sort of "brotherly love" for Bernie while our young Zeon pilot also falls for Christina.

"War in the Pocket" proves that you do not need a sweeping epic tale about special individuals to make for a good war story. There are no uber ace pilots or large scale fleet battles to be seen here. This short 6 episode OVA focuses a lot more on character emotional drama over other themes like politics or philosophy and i love how realistically portrayed the characters are. Alfred is your typical everyday kid who plays violent computer games and thinks the armed forces is cool. He is then given a crash course in the horrible realities of war. The unlikely friendship and bonding between Bernie and Christina, each not knowing the fact that they are soldiers on different sides of the war, is played very real without going overboard with the romance drama stuff. Same goes for the endearing relationship between Alfred and Bernie. That being said, i would not want to spoil much of the story here, but it makes it a whole lot more heart wrenching to watch the tragedies that unfold as the show moves along all the way to its emotionally devastating twist ending.

Despite its lack of action, this show never falls into the category of "boring". The characters are just that engaging enough to carry the whole show. Not to worry as there are a number of mobile suit action scenes scattered here and there. Each are beautifully animated on a level that surpasses that of an OVA and are sure to satisfy the craving for some "mandatory" mobile suit battles in a Gundam series.

Normally watching anime in Japanese or English, i would leave up to personal preference. But in this case, i strongly recommend the English voice track over the Japanese one. Not only do the characters, whom all except Alfred are caucasian, sound more believable in English but the performances of the English voice cast are on par and even surpass the Japanese one, instilling each character with such realistic emotions and intonations that they sound just the acting in some live action TV dramas.

In short, this show does not try to impress the audience. What it does is conveys numerous heartwarming themes that hit closest to home especially the death of innocence on the battlefield and the horrors of war through the eyes of a child. A truly moving little story that deserves more credit than it is being given. "Protocol" is a hit-and-miss picture starring Goldie Hawn as a bubbly cocktail waitress who one night saves the life of a visiting Arab from an assassination attempt. The woman immediately becomes a celebrity, and gets a new job working for the U.S. Government. Will the corridors of power in our nation's capital ever be the same? Hawn is excellent as usual even though "Protocol" isn't as funny as her best film "Private Benjamin". But it's still a good movie, and I did laugh alot.

*** (out of four) This is a feel-good movie and nothing more. And for that, it is great fun to watch. Sure it skims over political issues. But so what? I am sure she wasn't trying to make 'Good Night and Good Luck' here. Let's not try to make it anything else but what it is...light fare.

And very enjoyable at that!

Do we remember what 1984 was like? We've become very sophisticated according to the media as far as what we watch or not. I tend to differ on this point. Goldie knew this was fun-fluff and she went ahead and did it.

Like her lightest fare: Protocol, Overboard, Housesitter, Wildcats, Private Benjamin, Seems Like Old Times, Foul Play, Death Becomes Her, First Wives Club and the remake of Out-of-Towners, GOLDIE knows what she is doing...she plays every role for the camp that you can get out of it! Goldie just knows herself really well, and she knows what she can do really well.

She has always made me laugh cheerfully and innocently. I loved her in Laugh-In and every thing she's ever been in. She has never tried to be anything else but who she is...and that's that bubbling, giggly, girl next door who happens to be very pretty and has a smile and a laugh that will always endear me and remind me that life is pretty short and you've just got to lighten up because before you know it...you are old, wrinkled and suffering from one of life's inevitable ailments. If it even comes that late.

I appreciate Goldie for what she is: a lovable, comic actress. BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.

Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.

A pretty average movie but a brave one from Ms Hawn to promote this vehicle as Exec Producer & as a starring vehicle. Although she ends up vindicated, she is willing to portray herself as the dizzy bimbo. How many other A listed actresses have subjected themselves to butt injury pratfalls since this movie? Not many. Does this mean the female butt cannot be funny? Goldie surpasses other actresses as she has maintained a screen persona & ventures in projects other won't. Sandra Bullock occasionally goes there,for example, Miss Congeniality but Nicole Kidman would never cop the pratfall. A wonderful performer. Great to see some of my favorite actors, Chris Sarandon & Cliff DeYoung notably. Sunny, a cocktail waitress in the D.C. area, is a bit dim, to put in mildly. She drives an old clunker and rents a tiny room from a gay male couple. However, she saves the life of a prominent Arab, by taking a bullet in the behind that was meant for the official. She charms the national press with her zany remarks and her sweet looks. Sniffing an opportunity, Presidential aides get her installed in the protocol department for the U.S. government. Even then, she messes things up at times, but she tries hard and learns a lot. She even grabs the romantic attention of a State department official. But, is there another sinister plot in the making, involving an Arab man who wishes to take another wife? A blonde one? LOL, LOL, LOL. This movie features Goldie as pretty as a picture and as dumb "as a fox", as they say. Sunny learns her way around the jungle of the U.S. government very, very well. She even has important things to say about honesty and the lack of it in her protocol surroundings. Perhaps, the Arab community would be less than thrilled with this work, but for those who like to laugh, rent this today. Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life. I saw this movie on Comedy Central a few times. This movie was pretty good. It's an interesting adventure with the life of Sunny Davis, who is arranged to marry the king of Ohtar, so that the U.S. can get an army base there to balance power in the Middle East. Some good jokes, including "Sunnygate." I also just loved the ending theme. It gave me great political spirit. Ten out of ten was my rating for this movie. I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.

In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.

With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.

But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.

Score: EIGHT out of TEN Don't listen to fuddy-duddy critics on this one, this is a gem! Young rich Joan and her brother find themselves penniless after their father dies - and now they have to work for a living! She, naturally, becomes a reporter, and he, just as naturally, a driver for the mob! By wild co-incidences their careers meet head on, thanks to gangster Clark Gable. In the meantime there is the chance for a moonlight underwear swim for a bunch of pretty young things and for Joan to do a couple of risque dance numbers (with all the grace of a steam-shovel).

But none of this is supposed to be taken seriously - it's all good fun from those wonderful pre-code days, when Hollywood was really naughty. Joan looks great, and displays much of the emotional range that would give her career such longevity (thank God she stopped the dancing!). Gable is remarkable as a slimy gangster - he wasn't a star yet and so didn't have to be the hero. Great to see him playing something different. And William Bakewell is excellent as the poor confused brother. And there are some great montages and tracking shots courtesy of director Harry Beaumont, who moves the piece on with a cracking pace - and an occasional wink to the audience! Great fun! Joan Crawford had just begun her "working girl makes good" phase with the dynamic "Paid" (1930). She had never attempted a role like that before and critics were impressed. So while other actresses were wondering why their careers were foundering (because they were clinging to characters that had been the "in" thing a few years before but were now becoming passe) Joan was listening to the public and securing her longevity as an actress. The depression was here and jazz age babies who survived on an endless round of parties were frowned upon. Of course, if you became rich through immoral means but suffered for it - that was alright.

This film starts out with a spectacular house boat party. Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) is the most popular girl there - especially when she suggests that everyone go swimming in their underwear!!! However, when Bonnie's father has a heart attack, because of loses on the stock market, both Bonnie and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) realise who their real friends are. After Bob Townsend (Lester Vail - a poor man's Johnny Mack Brown) offers to do the "right thing" and marry her - they had just spent a night together when Bonnie declared (with abandon) that she wants love on approval - she starts to show some character by deciding to get a job.

She finds a job at a newspaper and quickly impresses by her will to do well. Her working buddy is Bert Scranton (Cliff Edwards) and together they are given an assignment to write about the inside activities of the mob. Rodney also surprises her with the news that he also has a job. She is thrilled for him but soon realises it is bootlegging and he is mixed up with cold blooded killer, Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Rodney witnesses a mass shooting and goes to pieces, "spilling the beans" to the first person he sees drinking at the bar - which happens to be Bert. He is then forced to kill Bert and after- wards he goes into hiding. The paper pulls out all stops in an effort to find Bert's killer and sends Bonnie undercover as a dancer in one of Jake's clubs. (Joan does a very lively dance to "Accordian Joe" - much to Sylvie's disgust). The film ends with a gun battle and as Rodney lies dying, Bonnie tearfully phones in her story.

This is a super film with Crawford and Gable giving it their all. Natalie Moorehead, who as Sylvie shared a famous "cigarette scene" with Gable early in the film, was a stylish "other woman" who had her vogue in the early thirties. William Bakewell had a huge career (he had started as a teenager in a Douglas Fairbanks film in the mid 20s). A lot of his roles though were weak, spineless characters. In this film he played the weak brother and was completely over-shadowed by Joan Crawford and the dynamic newcomer Clark Gable - maybe that was why he never became a star.

Highly Recommended. This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.

The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity.

Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.

If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.

"Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.

Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.

It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception. This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best. One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931! Don't say I didn't warn you, but your gonna laugh. Probably enough to hurt your stomach. Sure it's got some blood splattering, all in good fun though. So, it's got no budget, who needs a budget when you got a script like this.

Take the time and check this out. Well worth a two hour viewing. If everyone could laugh as much as I did during this movie the world would be a much happier place to live.

First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. For a "no budget" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.

The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!

I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors. This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential. A funny comedy from beginning to end! There are several hilarious scenes but it's also loaded with many subtle comedic moments which is what made the movie for me. Creative story line with a very talented cast. I thoroughly enjoyed it! This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike "Yes", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.

Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.

But the film's title is "Ghosts", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them… Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Françoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Françoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.

Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.

And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. "Marie is dead," concludes Françoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a "niña", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain. I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.

It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations.

Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all. "Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.

Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.

The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.

Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind. "Gespenster" Question of to be cool in the German cinema

There are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film "Gespenster" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.

In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...

Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time! EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.

A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.

We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.

The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.

Grady Harp "El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.

We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.

When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.

Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.

"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer. This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.

This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience. I saw "El Mar" yesterday and thought it to be a great movie. It starts with a childhood episode in the life of the 3 main characters: Ramallo, Manuel Tur, and Francisca. After that we jump about 10 years to an hospital where the 3 friends meet again.

Religion, sickness, love, violence and sexuality rage throughout the movie creating and intense and tension-filled movie.

I see people complaining about the film being too gory and i think they missed the point of the story. It's a violent, intense and sad story. People are expected to suffer. To cry. To get hurt. To bleed. And i think that what the film shows, isn't done for pure shock-value or presented in a distasteful way. I know that some people like their films "clean", even those with violence in it. But sometimes, a movie needs to make you feel unconfortable to work. This is one of those movies. And a great movie it is.

The only fault i found was that there were 3 or 4 moments were some plot details weren't 100% clear, and only after thinking about them at the end of the movie, it all made sense. But it wasn't anything of much importance to the overall story, so i still give this movie a 9. Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography. The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing. If you want to learn something about the Spanish Civil War and about all the political details and intrigues, let me tell you, you've chosen the wrong film.

This is a vision of the war as it happened in Majorca, a small island off the coast of Spain. When a war like this happens in a small island that takes position for the traitor almost at once, there is no war in the open. The soldiers are sent to the front to fight, in the mainland, while another kind of war happens at home, on the small island. There, neighbours tell on other neighbours, sometimes because their political views are contrary to the new regime, but many people are told on because of old family fights, or maybe the silent introvert who has no friends is told on by someone who wants to "earn some points". And these things don't happen in the open. There were some trials, true, but many other times people would just be woken up in the middle of the night, taken out of their homes to the closest cemetery where they would be killed. And the next morning the bodies would be found, and people would have an idea of what had happened, but nobody would dare to speak or to do anything. We're not talking about soldiers killing someone they had never seen in their life. We're talking about people killing their neighbours, and probably saying hello to their widow the next day, and even attending the funeral for the guy they had killed. We're talking about villages with one or two thousand inhabitants, where everybody knew everybody.

I am from that small island and I've heard the stories my grandparents told me, and I must say that this film upset me, oh yes, it did; but I also found it remarkably beautiful and moving. The initial violence is not something the director or the writer made up, that's how things happened during that war. A kid knowing that his mate's dad is in the fascist squad that killed his dad? Completely possible. All that happened later on? Possible too. TB was real too. At that time my island was not the holiday resort it has become. People were poor, illiterate, and worked in small farms. After the war there were times of hardship.

So, you won't find a war story in this film, or at least not the kind of war story you expect. There are no battlefields, no soldiers, no political intrigues. This is the meanest kind of war, which happens when the space is limited (just check the size of the island), when neighbours fight with their neighbours, when members of the same family fight each other, and they live in a place where everybody knows everybody. You'll find a story about the damage that this particular kind of war can cause to people and the story of how they survive that damage, or maybe they don't.

I must mention the excellent work done by the writers who adapted the novel and by all the actors, who managed to sound really Majorcan. That was remarkable. Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb! The stories in this video are very entertaining, and it definately is worth a look! The first one concerns a young couple harrassed in the woods by two rednecks, with a great, but unexplained twist at the end.

The seond is the best of the lot, and it alone, makes this worth watching - A man is attacked by a dog, which he fears to be rabid - He finds shelter in what appears to be a hospital, but he finds out the employees there are not exactly what they appear to be...... Great twist at the end, and this episode alone scores 10/10! If the others were up to par with this one, this would get 10/10!

The third is the weakest of the bunch - A girl meets with some guys and has wild sex! There appears to be no point to the story until the end, with a good little twist, but it is spoiled by the awful first part!

Never the less, this is a great movie that will not do you wrong at all! Well worth a rental! I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends! Sequel to "The Kingdom" is bloodier and even more twisted. I only saw half (I was exhausted and couldn't sit through all 5 1/2 hours) but I loved what I saw. Ghosts, blood, murder, poisoning, mutated babies, voodoo...this has it all! If you have a strong stomach and like weird movies this is for you.

Also, you don't have to see Part 1 to understand this...you'll figure it out!

Does anyone know if Kingdom 1 and 2 are available on DVD? Sitting through these marathon movies in a theatre is tiring.

Sadly, there probably won't be a "Kingdom 3"--Ernst-Hugo Jaregard (Sig) died a year after this was filmed. But you never know! Wow... 5 more hours of Riget. Lars continues the great combination of occult, dark horror and soap-opera drama. Picking up exactly where the last episode of the previous series left off(complete with the same high intensity and suspense, though that doesn't last; for better or worse), this installation in the franchise seems somewhat more bent on haste... in the last series, there seemed to pass a day or a week between each episode, whereas in this, it clearly is one long stretch... where one episode ends, the next begins. A lot can be said about Lars von Trier... but he is very diverse and pretty eccentric. Both qualities show in this. The plot continues its excellence, now giving a few regular characters that were minor players in the previous four episodes more attention. Basically every character from the first returns, at least as far as the main roles go. The pacing isn't as sharp as in the first part, and I found myself less gripped by this one. That is not in any kind of way to say that this didn't involve me, though... I still found myself constantly watching, and at several points reacting strongly, often out loud, to what was going on(extremely unusual behavior for me, as I am an incredibly silent person), as I also was during the first. Like the first, this also brings up some loaded ethical questions. Building on the foundation from the first, this brings the story further... and being a sequel, the scope is also bigger. Grander. More spirits, more bizarre occurrences, more subplots. The strong graphic material of the first also returns, and it's been kicked up a notch. The characters are developed further. The acting is amazing, as that of the first. Udo Kier solidifies his immense talent, to anyone who doubted it. Playing a very difficult character(anyone who has seen the first series can most likely figure out what I mean) *and* acting in a language he didn't speak(he was later dubbed)... and still handing in such a strong performance. The cinematography remains great, and is still very hand-held, with rapid zooms and the occasional long take. The editing is sharp, with a few direct cuts in sound(though these were more prominent in the first). Now, with all that said, I would really like to be able to rate this a perfect 10... or at least just under, like the first four episodes. I truly enjoyed watching, and I don't regret it in the least. But this does have shortcomings... the ones the first part had and more. As the first, the humor just takes up too much space... and this time around, it's even worse. There are several new regular characters that are there for no other reason than to provide comic relief... three of them, no less. Scenes are set up and executed for no other reason than to make the audience laugh. Fine for a comedy, but what is it doing in such a dark and unpleasant, yes, nothing short of sadistic at times, horror piece? Helmer's solitary secret hiding place of solitude is changed from the hospital roof... from which he could see his beloved Sweden... to a bathroom. With an angle from inside the bowl. No, you read that right. In general, the humor seems more low-brow... more sex and bodily function jokes, which, again, begs the question "Why?". Whilst most of the writing is excellent, some of it is downright dire. Several scenes are basically copied from the first mini-series(one would guess due to their popularity when it aired). At times, the drama seems a bit more bombastic than that of the first, and it jumps too much at times. Fortunately seldom, but still noticeably, plot points and items are explained away too easily(a certain character living in Denmark for no apparent reason, for example... anyone who's seen it knows who I'm speaking of). The two dishwashers, while still mysterious and insightful, become too much of a gimmick... too overexposed, in the end, I guess. Most of the scenes with them are still enjoyable, though. In addition to that, I want to reassure any reader of this that in spite of all the negative things I have just written that this is still mostly good... definitely enjoyable, compelling, powerful... and in my humble opinion, it should definitely be seen by anyone who liked the first(though if belong in that group; do not expect to feel that the story is finished after watching this any more than you did after the first). I recommend this to any fan of Lars von Trier and anyone who enjoyed the first Riget and wants more where that came from. I urge anyone who's even considering watching this to make sure you've seen all of the first before you do... I bought this before I bought the first, but I held out on watching until I had bought the first and watched that, and I can't tell you how glad I am that I did. Though this features a brief summary of the events in the first, there are an immense amount of details and aspects that you would miss out on if you didn't see it before watching this. Slightly lesser sequel, but definitely still one to watch if you liked the first. 8/10 Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.

We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.

This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.

The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.

Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.

Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.

The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.

All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss. Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. *** More eeriness and dark secrets released in the final parts of Lars Von Trier's fantastic horror satire The Kingdom... Much more is revealed and the ending just leaves you begging for more. Plus a great performance from Udo Kier in a more substantial role... Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.

These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.

The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital. First of all, Riget is wonderful. Good comedy and mystery thriller at the same time. Nice combination of strange 'dogma' style of telling the story together with good music and great actors. But unfortunately there's no 'the end'. As for me it's unacceptable. I was thinking... how it will be possible to continue the story without Helmer and Drusse? ...and I have some idea. I think Lars should make RIGET III a little bit different. I'm sure that 3rd part without Helmer wouldn't be the same. So here's my suggestion. Mayble little bit stupid, maybe not. I know that Lars likes to experiment. So why not to make small experiment with Riget3? I think the only solution here is to create puppet-driven animation (like for example "team America" by Trey Parker) or even computer 3d animation. I know it's not the same as real actors, but in principle I believe it could work... only this way it's possible to make actors alive again. For Riget fans this shouldn't be so big difference - if the animation will be done in good way average 'watcher' will consider it normal just after first few shots of the movie. The most important thing now is the story. It's completely understandable that it's not possible to create Riget 3 with the actors nowadays. So why not to play with animation? And... look for the possibilities that it gives to you! Even marketing one! Great director finishes his trilogy after 10 years using puppet animation. Just dreams?

I hope to see Riget 3 someday... or even to see just the script. I'm curious how the story ends... and as I expect- everybody here do.

greets, slaj

ps: I'm not talking about the "kingdom hospital" by Stephen King ;-) I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.

The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.

The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.

A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting. After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable. This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say "This is THE final movie in the series..." It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit. Someone release this movie on DVD so it can take its hallowed place as on of the greatest films of all time in ten to twenty years when critics and film historians look back on the so-called films of the 1990's and see how vapid they were for the most part, and how Lars Von Trier tried to revolutionize and revitalize the international film world with this masterpiece. As it stands, "Zentropa" (or "Europa" as it is referred to outside the US) is one of the most fascinating and artistic views of the bleakness and almost psychotic uncertainty that oozed out of post WWII Europe, namely the decimated German landscape, whose physical horrors were matched only by the damage to the psyche of its people. Von Trier brilliantly paints his vision on screen. You will feel like you are watching some lost espionage noir classic from the late 1940's with the perfectly lighted black and white scenes, while at the same time feel you are on the brink of something beyond the cutting edge, especially in scenes like the assassination aboard the train. Literally, when you see this movie, you are witnessing the evolution of an art form.

For some reason, Von Trier got caught up in his own Dogma movement shortly after this. And while his "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark" are classics in their own right, it is with "Zentropa" that he truly lifted the art of film making to new and exciting heights. 10/10, ages like a fine wine, and begs for a DVD release. A few years ago, a friend got from one of his other friends a video with the Michael Mann film 'Heat' on it. After we finished that movie, and were about to stand up, we saw that there is another film just after, tough on the cassette's envelope the owner didn't write it up. Yet we were all glued back to our seats by its distinct opening, which lacked credits.

Some two hours later, I just sat there wondering: how could I not have heard of this masterpiece before?...

This film was Europa. Lars von Trier woke film noir from the dead, deconstructed reality with intentionally obvious sets, yet often there was haunting similarity with post-war German photographs I saw. And then the tricky cuts!

The story itself is a hard-to-take moral odyssey that has no happy end. A young American pacifist of German descent comes to post-war Germany, intent on doing some good to pay for the bombs his countrymen dropped. But he mostly meets distrust and self-destructive defiance. He hires with Zentropa, a dining-and-sleeping-car company (modeled on Mitropa), whose owner is one of the Nazi collaborators the Occupiers whitewash. Our hero falls in love with his daughter - who later turns out to be a member of the Werewolf, Nazi post-war terrorists. When he doesn't understand the world (or just Europeans) anymore, in his rage he blows up a railroad bridge under a train which he just saved.

As a final note, for historical correctness: in the real world, the Werewolf were nowhere as important as the film implies, they were mostly a final Nazi propaganda coup. After an SS unit assassinated the major of Allied-occupied Aachen, two months before the capitulation, the Nazis announced the creation of whole legions of saboteurs and terrorists who will be ready to fight behind the lines, the Werewolf. But only a few hundred of mostly Hitler Youth received some training, and while two or three times some were deployed to murder suspected communists or forced-labourer foreigners in Bavarian villages to imprint lasting fear on inhabitants, with Hitler's death and the war's end it all fell apart.

However, the Werewolf propaganda had a profound effect on the occupiers. They feared the Werewolf everywhere, suspected it behind any serious accident - but without exception another cause was found later (ignored by some recent pseudo-historians). For example, when a gas main exploded in the police HQ of bombed-out Bremen, or when the Soviet military commander died in a motorbike accident in Berlin. The effect was strongest on the Soviets, who arrested tens of thousands (in large part children!) 'preemptively' on suspicion of being Werewolf, and closed them off in prison camps where a lot of them died. Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.

Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.

EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.

EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.

All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.

EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10 This is the fifth von Trier film I have seen. I believe that he is the only director to whom I have given such a high score on all his movies. Four of them, The Element of Crime, Europa, Breaking the Waves, and Dancer in the Dark, I have given a 10, and one, The Idiots, I have given a 9 (and I have been reconsidering whether to give it a 10 since I first saw it, although I'd like to see it once more before I do). He has been chided for calling himself one of the best working directors. I tend to agree with him. I cannot blame him for being arrogant when he has made such great films. In 50 years, when von Trier retires, he will be looked upon as the pre-eminent film artist from Europe (perhaps from the planet), and there will be classes taught in his name. He simply is the Bergman or Fellini of our time. It is too bad the critics are too intrigued with themselves to notice this.

About Europa itself, I'll admit that it was confusing and that its narrative did not seem strong. I think that's the point. This film was obviously meant to represent a nightmare, or the subconscious at some level. This is absolutely clear from the framing of the film: Max von Sydow's narration. We are hypnotized, or von Trier is hypnotized, and this is our/his subconscious mind. I'm inclined to lean more towards his mind, since the degradation of Europe concerns me, an American, very little. This framing is also clear if you have seen The Element of Crime, an even more brilliant film than this (although I am disputing that in my mind; what Europa needs more than anything is a proper release on DVD, hopefully Criterion again, with theatrical aspect ratio and remastered sound and picture; then, I am fairly sure, this film would seem as great as any of von Trier's other films). In The Element of Crime, the film begins with a hypnotist, whom we actually see on screen this time, is hypnotizing Fisher, a European detective who wants to get to the root of his mental anguish. The first words of that film are "Fantasy is okay, but my job is to keep you on track." And whenever Fisher, the narrator, gets off track, the hypnotist does chastize him and tells him to get back on with the story. He even laughs when a character is given a really silly and trite line. Something along the lines of, "Do you understand the difference between good and evil?" The hypnotist laughs and says, "Now, Fisher, she didn't really say that, did she?"

So the key to interpreting Europa, almost a sequel of sorts to The Element of Crime, is that we are deep in our/von Trier's subconscious, and the symbols there are to be interpreted within ourselves and will likely be different for everyone. What does the train itself symbolize? Consider it internally, and only then discuss it externally. Europa is a great film, a masterpiece. I was never bored by it, even though I watched it at 3 am. The perfect time to watch, actually, since it works in dream logic. On October of 1945, the American German descendant Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) arrives in a post-war Frankfurt and his bitter Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) gets a job for him in the Zentropa train line as a sleeping car conductor. While traveling in the train learning his profession, he sees the destructed occupied Germany and meets Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the daughter of the former powerful entrepreneur of transport business and owner of Zentropa, Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold stays neutral between the allied forces and the Germans, and becomes aware that there is a terrorist group called "Werewolves" killing the sympathizers of the allied and conducting subversive actions against the allied forces. He falls in love for Katharina, and sooner she discloses that she was a "Werewolf". When Max commits suicide, Leopold is also pressed by the "Werewolves" and need to take a position and a decision.

"Europa" is an impressive and anguishing Kafkanian story of the great Danish director Lars von Trier. Using an expressionist style that recalls Fritz Lang and alternating a magnificent black & white cinematography with some colored details, this movie discloses a difficult period of Germany and some of the problems this great nation had to face after being defeated in the war. Very impressive the action of the occupation forces destroying resources that could permit a faster reconstruction of a destroyed country, and the corruption with the Jew that should identify Max. Jean-Marc Barr has an stunning performance in the role of man that wants to stay neutral but is manipulated everywhere by everybody. The hypnotic narration of Max Von Sydow is another touch of class in this awarded film. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Europa" With stunning cinematography and a thread of Kafkaesque absurdity, this movie had me from the simple yet fascinating opening scene. The movie plays much like a dream, and I think that may be why people either hate it or love it. Characters are drawn superficially and the story itself is slight and perhaps a little pointless. But these are failings of the movie but conscious choices. The film works isn't trying to work as history, but rather is a deconstruction of 1940s war movies.

I would have trouble arguing that there was much real substance to the movie, but the movie is such a cinematic wonder that I was completely swept away. This is one of the most beautifully filmed movies ever, and there is a wild imagination in its style. I can completely understand why people would hate it, but I give it 9/10. Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a "true" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).

The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.

As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available). This film captured my heart from the very beginning, when hearing Quincy Jones' first notes or seeing the wonderful color of purple of the flowers in the meadows. This is truly a film to cry and die for...! The whole cast gives the best performance in a film I've seen in years and Spielberg has really outdone himself! Whoppi Goldberg, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey(oh lord!), Danny Glover, and the others, all give us their best and you can feel it - almost touch it! Goldberg IS Celie, she gives her that insecurity and feeling of inferiority that is needed for the character, and we grow with her, we grow strong together with her, throughout the movie, and we triumph with her. Margaret Avery is wonderful as Shug Avery, even when she's at her most arrogant, and shows us that "sinners", indeed, "have souls too". The always sympathetic, charming Danny Glover makes a marvellous job at making people hate him and the magnificent music of(I'd say sir)Quincy Jones adds even more beauty to this splendid film! The photography, the music, the director and the music makes this beautiful, soulful movie into an experience of life. You don't want to miss it! "Sista'...remember my name..." One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with "The Long Walk Home" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about "Homer and Eddie" or "Hollywood Squares," think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!) I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.

It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.

Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.

Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy. Taking a break from his escapist run in the early '80s, Steven Spielberg directed Whoopi Goldberg in an adaptation of Alice Walker's "The Color Purple", about about the desperate existence of an African-American woman in the 1930s. Watching Goldberg play Celie, it's incredible that this is the same woman who starred in movies like "Sister Act". This is the sort of movie that could easily be - no, make that SHOULD BE - part of the curriculum in Black Studies and Women's Studies. There's one scene that may be the most magnificent editing job that's ever been on screen (you'll know it when you see it). I can't believe that this didn't win a single Oscar; it may be Spielberg's second best movie behind "Schindler's List" (maybe even tied with it). Also starring Danny Glover, Adolph Caesar, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey, Willard E. Pugh, Akosua Busia, and Laurence Fishburne. 1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.

11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).

Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.

Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.

The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew? These days Spielberg's "The Color Purple" is mostly remembered for being nominated for eleven Oscars and winning zilch. What's even more alarming is that Spielberg himself wasn't even nominated for Best Director. Needless to say, the film-makers deserved more acclaim than they were accorded.

The story concerns the trials and tribulations of Celie Johnson (Whoopi Goldberg), an African-American woman dominated at first by her incestuous father and then by her abusive husband. The film spans several years and focuses mainly on Celie's relationships with the women around her. It's told from a decidedly female perspective but you needn't fear that it's a saccharine 'chick flick'.

The story is an interesting one, livened with humour at times although the central character's struggles are paramount. Some may not appreciate the change in tone towards the film's end but I didn't mind even though similar content in a lesser film would likely have me rolling my eyes.

The film received three Oscar nominations for acting: Whoopi Goldberg (Best Actress), Oprah Winfrey (Best Supporting Actress) and Margaret Avery (Best Supporting Actress). I think that Goldberg and Winfrey were certainly deserving and Danny Glover was unaccountably stiffed.

As already mentioned, Spielberg didn't receive a Best Director nomination for his efforts. Such an omission beggars belief, since Spielberg's direction here is top-notch. I'm not especially crazy about Quincy Jones's score but it's not below average by any means.

In the end, the story is a satisfying one, well-told by a master film-maker working from Pulitzer Prize-winning material. Give it a try and you'll probably be as baffled as I am about how it could be so poorly treated on Oscar night. Genteel, softly spoken drama from Steven Spielberg was his first real venture into this genre. A departure from his normal adventure/fantasy fare, it paved the way for his 1993 success, "Schindler's List".

Based upon Alice Walder's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, the story concerns a young girl's arranged marriage of hardship to a brutal, angry farmer and her painful separation from her beloved younger sister Nettie. While the plot - about compassion, abuse and the power of love to heal all wounds - is often powerful and moving, it loses its way through the fault of continuity and Menno Meyjes' scrambling screenplay. "The Color Purple" is at times hard to follow and on one or more occasions tends to be a little erratic in regard to time frame. This lapse in scripting has cost the viewer the depth and detail obviously present in Miss Walker's novel. A real shame that maestro Spielberg was unable to pick out and rectify these problems, as most of the show is a wonderful example of his prowess as a director.

Performances are strong throughout, with Whoopi Goldberg making a debut - which she's never matched since with regard to acting accomplishment - as the heart broken Celie who just yearns to be loved. Danny Glover lends solid support, though his "Moses" was a superior turn for him in "Places in the Heart". The standout showing comes from the unheralded Oprah Winfrey as Miss Sophia, the single minded, fighting black woman whose spirit is crushed by a terrible incident involving a patronising, upper class white woman. Good support also from Margaret Avery, Adolph Caesar and Rae Dawn Chong.

Quincy Jones ( co-producer with Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall ) has penned a beautifully melodic score and also provided some original blues for the occasion. Editing from Michael Kahn is sound as always, while director of photography Allen Daviau shows consummate skill in capturing some glorious Southern scenery.

This true affair of the heart will surely bring a tear to your eye, it is just unfortunate we are left with so many unanswered questions.

Wednesday, January 15, 1997 - Video Spielberg's first dramatic film is no let-down. It's a beautifully made film without any flaws about the life of an African-American woman. It also proves that not all movies that have the African-American ethnicity as the center of the story have to be helmed by an African-American director.

What I love about this movie is Spielberg's ability to make it very realistic despite the fact that it was based on a book. Furthermore, Danny Glover was excellent as Mr. And usually, he's just himself throughout most of his movies. But in this, he completely branches out and is someone else for once. But, the performance de resistance of the whole film comes from Whoopi Goldberg. She is excellent as Celie. You will never forget these characters once you've seen this movie.

Now, I heard that the musical version of it is going to be a film as well, and all I can say is: I hope it's about as good as this one is, because this one is a film that shouldn't be missed. this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama. Rating "10/10" Master piece

Some years ago, i heard Spielberg comment that he would redo the movie here and there if he had a chance. Well, Mr Spielberg, i guess nothing is perfect, but this movie - together with schindler's List - is your best. Even Oprah acts well in this one !

What got me most is the realism of the story and drama. Stuff like this happened and is still happening in the world. this movie is such a moving, amazing piece of work. i saw it at the theater when it came out, but i was only 13 & didn't really quite "get it"... i saw it again when i was 20 (on video of course & i now own it) & was just blown away. Steven Spielberg created a wonderful movie that keeps you wrapped up in it from beginning to end. i have read the book as well, but there is just something about the movie that really brings it to life. the casting, acting, music, costuming, scenery, everything, it just wonderful. you laugh, you cry, you cheer... it brings out every emotion imaginable. it is one of his finest pieces of work & should not be missed! Steven Spielberg wanted to win an Oscar so bad that he figured that he wouldn't win by directing special effects epics (he was nominated for three of them: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial". So he decided to get very serious by directing "The Color Purple", a period film with no special effects. Spielberg's first serious drama is a remarkable movie. But the Academy voters who voted back in 1985 still didn't give Spielberg any respect. "The Color Purple" received 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but Spielberg was unfairly snubbed when he wasn't nominated for Best Director. It got worse on Oscar night when this film didn't win a single Oscar. It got completely shut out. That wasn't right. "The Color Purple" should have won a couple of Oscars including one for Whoopi Goldberg's spectacular film debut as Celie, a woman who suffers at the hands of an abusive husband (frightfully placed by Danny Glover), then gets stronger throughout the film thanks to some special friends. Oprah Winfrey also made her film debut here and gives a great performance as Sofia, one of those friends' of Celie. Since I'm from Chicago, I had already known Winfrey from her talk show (which at the time of this films' release hadn't gone nationwide). Like Goldberg, what a film debut! Margaret Avery is terrific as Shug Avery, another friend who also happens to be the mistress of Celie's rotten husband. All three actresses received well-deserved Oscar nominations for their work here (Goldberg for Best Actress; Winfrey and Avery for Best Supporting Actress). Set in the south during the first half of the 20th Century, "The Color Purple" is a film so strong that it made me cry at the end. It also made me laugh at times too. Why Academy voters were so hard on not nominating Spielberg for Best Director is a mystery that still puzzles me today. But Spielberg would eventully go on to win two Oscars years later for "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", making him one of the best movie directors of all-time. But he should have gotten nominated for this movie. The job that he did going from special effects blockbusters like "E.T." to a serious drama like "The Color Purple" was remarkable.

**** (out of four) I remember when this film was up for the Academy Awards and did not win in any category. For the life of me, I cannot remember what it was up against, but one thing I can say: It was one of the best movies I have ever seen. And the fact that Steven Spielberg directed the film did not persuade me one bit.

Essentially, it is about a black woman's trials and tribulations as she is growing up from a girl to a woman. There are a lot of insinuations that are disturbing and horrifying, but all of them are needed to see how much this woman has put up with. Along the way, we see other women who have had to put up with their hardships and walk with them to redemption. Whoopi Goldberg gives her best performance ever in this movie. Danny Glover should have also gotten at least nominated for his role in this film.

And the best part of this movie is that it treats its subjects humanely, not like some sideshow freak shows like the more recent "Beloved" did. I encourage anyone of any race to see this film. 9/10 I've seen this movie at least fifty times and after watching it last week for the first time in a long time I still FELT it.

The story itself was incredible but came alive by Spielberg's expertise and the fabulous cast including Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Margaret Avery. Akosua Busia deserved an Oscar nomination for her short but powerful portrayal of Nettie.

You'll experience every human emotion while watching this film. I laughed, cried, and got angry. Like most great movies it was looked over by the Academy with a host of nominations but no wins. But this movie, without a doubt, is definitely one of the best films of all time. Absolutely one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it at least a hundred times and I can't go through it without crying. I defy anyone to watch the reunion of Celie and Nettie, or Shug and father and not feel your eyes getting misty. Whoopie Goldberg should have one an award for amazing portrayal. And for the person who said you can't love the movie if you loved the book, wrong! Im a testament to that. The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time! "The Color Purple", is truly amazing. There is none like it, and I don't think there ever will be. It's a roller coster of emotion and pain that the viewer takes on. The actors are flawless and the directing is superb. I absolutely loved it. A movie has never made me so happy. It is beautiful, that's the best way to explain it. This movie is so wonderful, it's hard to find words to describe it. This is the only time I can't decide which was better, the book or the movie.

Whoopi Goldberg is awesome, and Oprah Winfrey, such a good actress, she could be funny, happy and miserable all at the same time. All together the movie was well directed by Steven Speilberg, and should not be passed up. 9/10 This is an excellent film, with an extraordinary cast and acting. I was very disappointed with the Academy Awards when this didn't get the Oscar for best film and for best actress (Woopi Goldberg)... it certainly deserved it. In any case, take a look at it. i am sure you will enjoy it very much. Steven Speilberg's adaptation of Alice Walkers popular novel is not without its share of controversy. When first released members of the black community criticised its treatment of black men, while others questioned why a white man was directing this film about black women.

This is the story of a young black woman named Celie, growing up in rural America after the turn of the century. She has two children by her abusive father which are snatched from her arms at birth. Her only solace in her miserable life comes from her sister.

Celie (played in later years by newcomer Whoopie Goldberg) is married off to an abusive husband (Danny Glover). The husband is humiliated by the sister and so she is quickly removed from Celie's life.

The story is often heartbreaking as Celie keeps up hope that she may one day be reunited with her sister and with her children. Throughout her life she meets an assortment of characters, including Sophia, a tough as nails wife to her step son, and Shug, a loud and luscious saloon singer, who teaches her a thing or two about love.

Speilberg's direction is all over this picture, which offers brilliant cinematography and some stellar performances. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved! The film The Color Purple manages to capture the essence of what is a complicated story. While it tends to minimise the lesbian aspects as well as the African story, both of which were so vivid in the book, the movie remains true to its themes, allowing the voice of Alice Walker to shine through.

I couldn't begin to respond to the controversy that surrounded this film. Suffice it to say, however, this is one of the few films that I can watch again and again, and which has left an indelible mark on me.

This movie is about development. People growing and people fading, people surprising and people disappointing. It has it all and more. There is hope, frustration, injustice, justice, love and hate. It is truly a classic drama that has fantastic performances from the whole cast but especially Whoopi Goldberg in her debut role.

This movie made me feel very human and proud of it, and I suggest that this movie should be mandatory each Saturday in all prisons in the world - it touches your compassion. Rating: 10 of 10.

PS: I admit it: I shed a tear of joy during the final scene. In the year 1985 (my birth year) Steven Spielberg directed an emotionally strong and unforgettable story of a young African-American girl Celie (Debut role for Whoopi Goldberg) whose life is followed through rough times. The story begins from the year 1909 when Celie is only 14 years old. She has given birth two children for her father. Celie has a younger sister Nettie with whom she is inseparable. A widower lays his eyes on Nettie but their father gives Celie to him. It is the beginning of an era of horrible abuse and constant controlling. Women are inferior of men and especially being an African-American woman their rights are less than a zero. Celie's story is a true survival story.

"The Color Purple" is a master-piece and underestimated film of Spielberg. He should make more drama which "The Color Purple" and "Schindler's List" are good notion.

The cast is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg is known better as a ravingly funny comedienne but the introducing role as Celie is a remarkable word that she really can pull of heavy drama. Danny Glover was surprisingly nasty "Mister". I have never seen him in a such an evil role. The talk-show icon Oprah Winfrey is brilliant as a strong-willed Sofia.

Warning! Prepare to have a number of tissues with you when watching this film. You can really connect to the story of the strong sisterhood. Especially if you have as close relationship with your siblings like I have with my sister.

Big applauds to Mr. Spielberg! Like I said at the top, four stars just aren't enough. It's one of the best films I've ever seen in my almost 17 years of life. For the people that don't really like it or understand it, you must not have a real appreciation for art or you might have a short attention span.

Even if I haven't seen all his films yet, I'd have to say that this is Spielberg at his peak. It's pretty sad to see that movies as great as "The Color Purple" don't come along too often 'cause I think all of us are in desperate need of first-class motion picture entertainment in these hard times.

Movies like this are more than just movies; they're pieces of art that need to be appreciated more.

The idea that it was nominated for 11 Oscars (even Best Picture of the Year) and didn't get one trophy is a sign of how blind and stupid Hollywood can be sometimes. Spielberg wasn't even nominated for Best Director! It should have swept the Oscars that year.

The film clearly shows you how unfair life is for some people.

If only movies were still this good.... 11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges....

Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out.

The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......

But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!

I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation. I can't believe I am just now seeing this film -- I think perhaps I thought it was another movie about slaves being mistreated, and I avoided Roots for the same reason -- just as I have yet to see Schindler's List -- I don't want to be "entertained" by other peoples' pain, not matter how authentic or informative it is supposed to be.

So I guess the main thing I noticed about The Color Purple was that it was not about black people being mistreated by whites. The black people were perfectly capable of raping their own daughters -- or giving them away to be treated as slaves by their "husbands". It was painful to watch, but everyone redeemed himself in the end, and the acting was phenomenal! I couldn't believe the character Oprah played at the age of 35! And I adore Whoopi to start with - she was amazing. I'm so glad I was feeling lousy yesterday afternoon and Showtime was running The Color Purple. The Color Purple is about the struggles of life and the love that helps those people strongly affected by the struggles of life. Every character had an element of the color purple in them. The movie touches on love, lost, hope, hate, and triumph. whether it be Celie having lived through hell and losing her sister, and Shug coming into her life to show her love again, Albert not being man righting his wrong toward Celie, Shug shunned by her father and confesses to him in the end, Sofia and her stubborness good and bad, and even Nettie, they had their emptiness and hardship through the film but was overcome in the end and that's the sign of a good movie. Good Job to all the cast and crew. The film is hugely enjoyable with a great cast, and excellent direction by James Eves. The movie is entertaining with a very charismatic performance from Stephanie Beecham and everyone is perfectly cast. James Eves has a good eye for casting and directs like a conductor knowing exactly when to crank up the action, fall and then rise to a climax. He does this with an element of humour, Plenty of twists, thrills and blood. This is a return of the old vampire movie, with loads of gore, blood and screams. The movie works at a great speed and the characters take you on a terrific adventure,but what makes it work is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with plenty of tongue in cheek action.Great ! Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic. I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.

You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.

With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.

Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.

A must for old school horror fans. A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them?

My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".

It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.

Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".

Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.

Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.

While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more. I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best.

As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: "Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted." Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved.

The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.

The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie. I just saw "Valentine" and I have to say that it was the best slasher movie that I've seen in years. Unlike the recent trend of 90's horror flicks, this movie is more concerned with being eerie than it is with being self-mocking. For those out there that hated "Scream," there is not one reference to "the horror rules" in this movie (even though the old slasher movie rules do apply here).

This is the perfect blend of 80's and 90's horror. You get the style, cinematography, and good acting of 90's films and the stalking-slasher madness of an 80's flick. I guess the year 2001 is going to finally give horror fans the kind of movies they were longing for. This is definitely a move in the right direction.

Denise Richards stands out here as a fun character. You can tell she liked her role, and that makes her stand out. I loved her in this movie. It's a colorful slasher movie. That's about it.

It has the mystery element that SCREAM made so popular in slasher movies, but I never care for such things. Figuring out who's the bad guy is not that interesting considering the clues are all misleading anyway.

The death scenes were inventive and gorey, bringing back memories of 80's horror movies like Friday the 13th.

Another nice thing about this movie is that it's hard to pinpoint the surviving girl, unlike in SCREAM and IKWYDLS where it was obvious.

People who don't like slasher movies won't like this movie. As simple as that. I truly enjoyed it and I plan to watch it again while waiting for more of the same.

--MB I wanted to see Valentine ever since I saw that Denise Richards and Marley Shelton were in it because they had played in some of my favorite movies ever. When I watched Valentine, I was amazed at how great the story line actually was. It kills me to see that it has a low rating because it was not horrible at all. The actors and actresses played the parts wonderfully and the way it ended was so brilliant and cunning. Some scenes were a little unbelievable and or poor, and I admit at a few minor parts it got just a small bit boring, but overall it was non-stop entertaining and suspenseful. It had a mind-twisting story line which made you guess the whole way through and it doesn't deserve all the crap it gets. I recommend this movie to watch anytime, but especially on Valentine's Day because it's sure to give you a ton of chills. Oh, and don't even pay attention to the trailer OR rating, please, DON'T... Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.

I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!

PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon... These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.

The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.

The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!

The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!

The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(

Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking".

Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!

Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!! Valentine is now one of my favorite slasher films. The death scenes are elaborate and the most of the acting is good. Marley Shelton did great as the female lead (much better than Jennifer Love Hewitt in the "I Know..." films). David Boreanaz, whom is the main reason I saw this movie, had a pretty small role, but he played it well. The exception to the list of good actors is Denise Richards. She was horrible in this. The only scene I was glad to see her in was *SPOILER* her death scene. All in all, it's a good movie to watch. You should definitely watch this before you watch "Scream" or "I Know..." again. What an awesome movie! It was very scary, great acting, well-written, nice plot twists, interesting characters, very good direction, and a surprise ending that will leave you with a smile on your face. This is one popcorn horror flick that may not be appealing to non-horror fans, but is still (nonetheless) one of the best thrillers out there today! I highly recommend it to ONLY fans of:

1) The horror genre

OR

2) An actor or actress featured in it.

*** out of **** stars!

PS- I am sick and tired of people comparing this, and other modern horror movies, with SCREAM. Ya know what, they didn't WANT to be like SCREAM. Everyone's like "Oh, they copied SCREAM!". Well, if I am not mistaking, SCREAM also copied other movies too! In fact, just about EVERY horror movie copied an earlier one. SCREAM, however, was a good film. But, still... stop comparing and enjoy it for what it is!

GO AND RENT THIS ONE!

The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore. Another entry in the "holiday horror" category that fills the shelves of your local video store. The *spoiler* "wronged nerdy teen taking revenge on the 'cool' kids who wronged him" plot will of course be familiar to those who've watched it before. And those who've seen it before will probably watch it again; those who are expecting Ingmar Bergman and will subsequently become indignant about their wasted time should just skip it. Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack and David Boreanaz, Denise Richards and Katherine Heigl as eye candy--go with the flow and enjoy it. Oh, and I loved the creepy mask. Katherine Heigl, Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz. Even before I knew what this film was about, these names were enough to draw me in. Gorgeous, talented and popular, these are performers to look out for.

Ok, where do I start. We already know what the film is about. Five beautiful girls being targeted by a 'romantic' serial slasher, a guy they all turned down at the school dance 13 years ago. His trademarks include subtle deaththreats disguised as valentine cards, maggot-infested chocolates and a bleeding nose. His weapon of choice: well, take a pick - axe, knife, electric powerdrill, bow and arrow, hot iron, etc. Ok, so basically it's a horror movie with a nice twisted sense of sexuality.

Horror movies aren't supposed to be Shakespeare, but I'm not gonna go there. I love horror movies, but not all of them. This one, I adore. It's up there with some of my other favorites. It's funny, sexy and scary. The killer's mask is childishly creepy, and seeing cupid firing a bow and arrow at a victim is really freaky. The acting is topnotch: Denise Richards, Marley Shelton and David Boreanaz are a lot of fun. I really did wish to see much, much more of Katherine Heigl. I am one of her biggest fans and would love to see her doing some leading work soon. Jessica Capshaw is a very capable actress, and Jessica Cauffiel gets to do the ditzy blonde role she perfected in Urban Legend 2. The smaller parts were also good; Hedy Buress was a hoot ('bleedmedry.com') and that younger version of Denise Richards looked frightfully like her.

Highlights: Every death scene had a particular distinction to it. The creepiest being the opening scene in the morgue. The hottub scene, while ludicrous, was well done. And the audiovisual maze was sinister. The soundtrack is great, with creepy music and some fine alternative tunes.

Lowpoint: I felt as though the killer wasn't featured enough, we barely saw the mask, and it wasn't featured at all during the climax. I also thought the climax was really unfocused, but fun nonetheless.

The twist at the end wasn't that big of a surprise, but I'm really glad that the filmmakers decided to spare us that whole 'explaining killer' routine.

I don't like to tell people which movies they should see, but if someone asked me to pick a horror movie that I thought was really worth seeing, then Valentine would be it.

My rating: 10/10 (Bullseye!) I gave it an 8 only because it had received such low votes... this is definitely really about a 5.5..... Ummm.. it was kind of bloody, had likeable, shallow characters, and it had some really hot babes in it. I like the eclectic killer, because he didn't kill people the same way everytime... that sometimes gets old. I really enjoyed this thriller! I wanted to see it again as soon as it was over. The cast was excellent, the plot was suspenseful and entertaining, and it was just an overall enjoyable movie! I would rate this as one of the best thrillers I've ever seen! The girls in it were really cute also, especially Denise Richards. She was very ornery throughout the movie and gave her character some OOMPH! I loved This Movie. When I saw it on Febuary 3rd I knew I had to buy It!!! It comes out to buy on July 24th!!! It has cool deaths scenes, Hot girls, great cast, good story , good acting. Great Slasher Film. the Movies is about some serial killer killing off four girls. SEE this movies I read Schneebaum's book (same title as this film) when it was first published and was deeply moved by his ability to see through the many ways of "otherness" (his own and the people of the Amazon with whom he lived and loved) to a way of living a decent life. His subsequent books were not as powerful, but showed his continuing quest. His description of his sexual relations with the men of the tribe was way ahead of its time in the early 60's, but his honesty and openness about it were welcome. This movie beautifully conveys both the quirkiness and generosity of the man, but also provides a glimpse into the inevitable destruction of innocence (which is not a morally positive term, in this case) that occurs when "civilized" men intrude on traditional societies. Even so, Schneebaum himself has moved into a kind of higher innocence that suggests the possibility of saving humanity from its own destructiveness. I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian. Documenting a documenter. That's one way to describe Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. This film follows anthropologist Tobias Schneebaum, who in his late 70s went on a journey back to the places he spent time as a participant field researcher over 40 years ago, first to West Papua and then Peru. Tobias is a full-bodied character: a gay Jewish artist anthropologist who eeks out a living on a cruise ship teaching gawking tourists about the cultures he has come to have a deep respect and understanding for. Author of several books documenting his time with both the Asmat people of West Papua and the cannibalistic Amazonians in Peru, Tobias has been haunted by what happened in his time in these places and how intimate his connection and relationships had become. Yet Tobias' constant wonder and appreciation for the places he got to know is admirable and a real pleasure to watch. One can only hope to ever achieve and retain such humility themselves.

Tobias makes a compelling subject for study as the experiences he faced in immersing himself in these two tribal societies has left him fundamentally changed. This film challenges the notions of morality and "naturalness"- e.g. nudity, homosexuality, cannibalism. (Watch for the graphic circumcision scene). When questioned as to why he engaged in some of the local practices that others would morally denounce, his non-judgmental nature asks: "Why Not?" Who is to say the way of other cultures is right or wrong? This little sleeper is a must watch for not only National Geographic types, but also those interested in the art of documentary making. This film shows what can be done shot on video. The editing provides a quiet revelation of Tobias' life that leaves you watching in fascination. At times, he despairs at being pushed by the film crew to make the emotional journey back, especially considering his age and physical frailty. We can be but grateful that Tobias allowed the tables to be turned on himself, perhaps sympathising with the desire to understand humanity and one's place in the world. The filmmakers provide some moments of critical balance, presenting for example one anthropologist who believes that Tobias predetermined his findings (of homosexuality in this case) based on his personal interests. That said, you can't decide when to stop being shocked and when to take this man home for a cuddle. Move over River Queen, this is the best river ride I've taken in a while. As it was already put, the best version ever of Homer's epic. Entirely shot in natural locations in the Mediterranean. The sea and the sky are strikingly blue, the islands green and untouched. The clothing is linen, wool and fur, the settings stony and bare, everything is somewhat rugged and primitive, a bit what you would find in Cacoyannis or Pasolini movies, and it makes it all the more authentic. Although the story is based on myths and widely goes into supernatural, it gives us a good idea of what life in the 10th century BC might have been like.

The rhythm is somewhat slow and austere, but the whole is so beautiful that you quickly get into it. Actually, it is amazingly close to the original plot by Homer, if not to the text itself. Ulysses doesn't appear until the first hour, the start being centered on his son looking after him. Then he suddenly appears lost in a storm, lands on the island of the Pheacians where the royal family takes good care of him. His adventures are told in flashback as a narration to his hosts : the terrifying Cyclop, the magic world of Circe, the Underworld, the Sirens etc. He finally comes back to his homeland Ithaca after 20 years, and it all ends dramatically with the killing of the pretenders of his faithful spouse Penelope.

As a story, the Odyssey is an unparalleled metaphor of the struggles of a man's life. The cast is brilliant and international here. Irene Papas gives us a typical Greek tragedy style performance as Penelope, but most amazing is the Albanian actor Bekim Fehmiu as Ulysses. Really good looking and totally convincing, it seems the role was really made for him. Strange that he was never offered roles of this dimension afterwards. Also playing Nausicaa is Barbara Bach (as Barbara Gregorini) later famous as the James Bond girl in "The Spy Who Loved Me", and playing Athena is Michele Breton, who was otherwise noted in the strange movie called "Performance" with Mick Jagger.

As it was done 35 years ago, the series was actually quite an innovation for its time, as the first big European co-production for TV (Italy, France, Germany and Yugoslavia). I have seen this mini-series in 8 parts on French television as far back as 1974. I was a kid back then, and although it was all in black and white, it left a very vivid impression. All my life long I wondered if I would ever get a chance to see it again, as it was never shown on French TV later on.

I recently found a copy on DVD (all in wonderful color) through Internet. It is unfortunately only in Italian with no subtitles, although French and German versions existed back then. I never heard there was any English version of this film as it is widely unknown in the Anglo Saxon world, and it's quite a shame. If you ever get a chance to watch this, you are not going to forget it ever.

There were not many versions of the Odyssey before or after that. The one by Camerini in 1955 starring Kirk Douglas is a classic sword-and-sandal like "the 10 Commandments", but not as impressive and very short for such a complex story. The one in 1997 by Konchalovsky is a meretricious Hollywood movie, based on special effects, sometimes quite gory, very poorly acted and grossly afar from Homer's story and atmosphere. I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again! It's very simple to qualify that movie: "A PURE MASTERPIECE". This opinion is formulated for the following reasons: the performance of the actors, they seem to be citizens of that epoch, 1100 B.C. They personalize perfectly the characters. A second reason is that the poetry expressed by Homere in his poem is well given by the production. Among others the narrations made by the chorus give a particular atmosphere that makes us party of the artistic rendition. Third reason: the reconstitution of the decor is absolutely perfect, in Mediterranean regions, where the action of the poem occurred. And most of all, the emotion is on the rendezvous. I repeat my appreciation: "A PURE MASTERPIECE". In all honesty, this series is as much a classic (as television goes) as the original poem is to the world's literature. Far from being crassly exploitative, it is a beautiful and respectful rendering of one of the western culture's defining texts.

I was moved by the plight of Odysseus and his followers; touched by the drama of the fall of Troy (which was felt but not seen); intrigued by the way the gods played with the fate of mortals. (It should be mentioned that the gods appearing here are not ridiculous CGI creatures flitting around on their ankle wings, or poorly-cast fashion models in bikinis. As in Homer's work, they act through mortal agents or, rarely, are represented by classical statuary).

It's a pity it's not available in DVD, especially given the vastly inferior and cheesy adaptations of the Odyssey that one can find in video stores. Although I have not seen this mini-series in over twenty years I can still remember how the balance between character,plot and tale of marvelous adventures succeeded. The use of special effects was restrained making a more poetic rather than literal telling of the story. The two versions I've seen were dubbed (English and French)but the actors appear to speak their own language not just Italian so there is a synchronization problem. It does not spoil the story telling. Among the cast Irene Pappas as Penelope is the most recognizable to North Americans. Recommended to all followers of Odysseus' ever returning. This movie of 370 minutes was aired by the Italian public television during the early seventies. It tells you the myth attributed to Homer of the Journey home of Odysseus after the Troy war. It is an epic story about the ancient Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, told at list 500 years after those events toke place, around 1100 BC.

This is a 1969 movie, so if you buy the DVD version you would find that the sound is just mono and there is no other language than Italian, even the close caption is in Italian. Pity. Many people would enjoy this masterpiece if it had at list the English subtitles. But if this is not a problem for you, than I would strongly recommend to watch this movie. I'm Italian and when I've recently looked again this film I astonished for its beauty: the first time I was 10 years old and I liked it, but today I can appreciate it with adult mind and feelings. Now I can understand it was a masterpiece of a special season of the Italian cinema (Pasolini etc.), by that time gone.

The Hollywood epic films are good...for fun. Perhaps this 'Odyssey' had no English version because is not enough funny... not suitable for pop-corn and coke audience. However suitable for Homer pathos and existentialist reflections.

In Italy was recently released a very good DVD version: INTEGRAL, with excellent colors. You can find it in some file sharing, but it's Italian only, and without subtitles. Too bad: also the dialogs and the voices of this film are remarkable. Of all the versions of the Odyssey (or of any Greek mythological story for that matter), this in my opinion is the best of them all. Almost true to the original storyline - with some minor deviations and omissions, e.g. the absence of Scylla & Charybdis and the fact that Eumaeus the swineherd recognizes Odysseus in disguise in his hut - realistic acting and authentic scenery and costumes all contribute to make this a truly memorable masterpiece,not some Hollywoodish sword-and-sandal B-flick. Notwithstanding the fact that the dialogue and subtitles are completely in Italian, if one is familiar with the storyline, he can still make heads and tails of what is going on and what the actors are saying (provided you have a good handy text of the Odyssey at hand). At least I did, and so much so that it has inspired me to study the Italian language to better appreciate the movie even more. Fascinating I approached I Am Curious (Yellow) and it's companion piece with great trepidation. I'd read numerous reports on its widely touted controversy and explicit sex. What I got wasn't this, but a thoroughly thought provoking and engaging cinema experience unlike any other. I sincerely believe that the majority of the commenter who felt the film was `lame' or `boring' approached the film as if it were pornography. Perhaps this is pornography, assuming pornography is something intended to titillate the senses, but it is intentionally un-erotic. Lena, the protagonist, throws her all into her performance giving it a realistic and humanity that is simply convincing and enduring. Her breasts may be saggy, her nipples unusually large, her thighs fat, and her face, chubby. But by the end of the film, the audience comes to identify with her, and accept her faults as human. This touch gives her even more believability out necessity. Had the director cast a Briget Bardot bombshell the effect would have been nullified. I cannot more highly recommend this thought provoking piece. Be prepared to invest much thought in this deliberately paced film. The patient and unassuming viewer will be thoroughly rewarded in ways most other films could dream. I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a waste

of time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bit

too much.

I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.

These films--although hardly great--have at least become of

historical interest as to the so-called "radical student

political-social movement"of the late '60s.

I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, I

was expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontal

nudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automatic

NC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the films

in-your-face democratic socialist message.

Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally made

its points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loud

and the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty of

parody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sex

scenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple is

clumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.

The second--which caused the most complaints--has faked

cunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,

that is believable.

The extras include an informative introduction to the film, an

interview with the original American distributor and his attorney,

excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentary

by the director on some scenes.

This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to the

pivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standard

that, thankfully, still stands.

Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a must

see. "Jag är nyfiken – Yellow" is a lot of fun. Like at least one other reviewer, I was, on numerous occasions, laughing out loud. Yellow is energetic, playful, self-aware, explorative. Don't expect Bergman here. This movie is about a youth in the early- to mid-60s in Sweden and about the issues, read *contradictions*, that the nation and the world were facing. At times Yellow appears to be an earnest social-political documentary, with Lena, the main character, and others interviewing both common people and politicians (e.g. Olaf Palme at home). At other times, Yellow seems to parody this kind of documentary. All the while, Yellow acts as a personal documentary exploring Lena's life - her home life, her loves, her political views, her view of herself. She is a complete person – complex, flawed, contradictory, happy, sad, curious. And placed over all of this is the wonderful additional dimension of the director, Sjöman, and his crew documenting themselves documenting Lena. It is this that, for me, really gives Yellow wings. Not only do they suddenly appear at some very funny times and in some funny ways, reminding the viewer that this is fiction and artifice, but their presence is itself another layer of the film; they are filming themselves filming themselves. I am reminded of a Bjork music video with this same quality – a music video about the making of a music video, ad infinitum, with each iteration getting weirder and more cartoonish. I think Sjöman may have had something similar in mind. While "Jag är nyfiken – Yellow" may not be everyone's cup of tea, it is certainly intelligent, witty, refreshing, ebullient, and authentic. This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time. I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.

It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.

I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try. This is truly an excellent film with a revolutionary message (both in form and content) that should not be missed by any fan of French New Wave or Underground film. There are barely opening or closing credits--we are just dropped into the world of consumerist art, revolution, and youth. This film has little to do with documentary and is more interesting in playing with our ideas of advertising and its relationship to reality. Lines of real and not real are crossed in ways familiar with films discussing documentary, but this time we do it for the sake of consuming and marketing, not for describing the real. this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.

now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.

i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all? I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.

The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.

This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.

******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******

The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.

The film is like many films in one:

1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.

2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.

3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.

The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.

Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.

Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.

Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.

Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.

It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"

I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.

thanks for your time. I am Curious (Yellow) (a film, in near Seussical rhyme, is said right at the start to be available in two versions, Yellow and Blue) was one of those big art-house hits that first was a major sensation in Sweden then a big scandal/cause-celebre in the United States when the one print was held by customs and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. What's potent in the picture today is not so much what might offend by way of what's revealed in the sex or nudity- the director/"actor" Vilgot Sjoman films the various scenes in such a way that there is an abundance of flesh and genitalia and the occasional graphic bit but it's always more-so an intellectual expression than very lust-like- but the daring of the attempt at a pure 'metafilm' while at the same time making a true statement on the state of affairs in Sweden. Who knew such things in a generally peaceful country (i.e. usually neutral in foreign affairs and wars) could be so heated-up politically? At least, that's part of Sjoman's aim here.

Like a filmmaker such as Dusan Makavajev with some of his works like W.R. (if not as surreal and deranged) or to a slightly lesser extent Bertolucci, Sjoman is out to mix politics and sex (mostly politics and social strata) around in the midst of also making it a comment on embodying a character in a film. The two characters, Lena and Borje, have a hot-cold relationship in the story of the film, where Lena is a "curious" socialist-wannabe who demonstrates in the street for nonviolence and 'trains' sort of in a cabin in the woods to become a fully functioning one, while at the same time maybe too curious about her car salesman boyfriend. And as this is going on, which is by itself enough for one movie, Sjoman inserts himself and his crew from time to time as they are making this story on film (there's even a great bit midway through where, as if at a rock concert, title cards fill in during a break in shooting who the crew are, negating having to use end credits!) Then with this there's a whole other dynamic as Sjoman gives an actual performance, not just a "hey, I'm the director playing the director" bit.

At first, one might not get this structure and that I am Curious (Yellow) is just a film where Lena is a documentary interviewer asking subjects about their thoughts on class, socialism, Spain and Franco, and once in a while we see Lena's father or Bjore. But Sjoman does something interesting: the structure is so slippery as the viewer one has to stay on toes; it's impressive that so many years on a picture can surprise with not being afraid to mix dramatic narrative, documentary, film-within-a-film, and even a serious interview with Martin Luther King, who also acts as a quasi-guru for Lena. It might not always be completely coherent analysis politically, but it doesn't feel cheating or even with much of a satirical agenda like in a Godard picture; the satire Sjoman is after is akin to a Godard but on a whole other wavelength. His anarchy is playful but not completely loaded with semantics or tricks that could put off the less initiated viewer.

If I Am Curious (Yellow) stands up as an intellectual enterprise and a full-blown trip into exploring sex in a manner that was and is captivating for how much is shown and how comfortable it all seems to be for the actors, it isn't entirely successful, I think, as an emotional experience. Where Bergman had it down to a T with making a purely emotional film with deconstruction tendencies, Sjoman is more apt at connecting with specific ideas while not actually directing always very well when it comes time to do big or subtle scenes with the actors. Occasionally it works if only for the actors, Lena Nyman (mostly spectacular here in a performance that asks of her to make an ambitious but confused kid into someone sympathetic and vulnerable even) and Borje Ahlstedt (a great realistic counterpoint to the volatile Lena), but some 40 years later its hard to completely connect with everything that happens in the inner-film of Lena and Borje since (perhaps intentionally) Sjoman fills it up with clichés (Borje has a girlfriend and kid, will he leave her, how will Lena reconcile her father) and a heavy-handed narration from his starlet of sorts.

And yet, for whatever faults Sjoman may have, ironically considering he means it to be a comment on itself, I Am Curious (Yellow) holds up beautifully as an artistic experiment in testing the waters of what could be done in Swedish cinema, or testing what couldn't be and bending it for provocative and comedic usage. I'd even go as far as to say it's influential, and has probably been copied or imitated in more ways than one due to it being such a cult phenomenon at its time (a specific technique used, with the film rewinding towards the end, is echoed in poorer usage in Funny Games), and should be seen by anyone looking into getting into avant-garde or meta-film-making. If it's not quite as outstanding an artistic leap as W.R. or Last Tango, it's close behind. Wonderful film that mixes documentary and fiction in a way that makes the spectator question: what is the extent of truth in documentary films or is there such a thing as an objective documentary. This is without a doubt the greatest film ever made. It is nearly incomprehensible even with many repeated viewings in an attempt to figure out what exactly's going on. The film was almost entirely improvised and includes random musical numbers, commercials, contests one enters by mail, and a host of other innovations. Besides, what other movies have cameos by Martin Luther King, Jr? To decipher the film, hunt down the director's book entitled I Was Curious. It'll all become clear. It's a grand and bold experiment in improvised recursive filmmaking. A triumph. Now if only someone would put out a version with the subtitles in a color *other* than white...the white subtitles tend to wash out and become invisible. Telemundo should definitely consider making a DVD collection of the novela Xica! I know tons of people including myself who would like to be able to purchase the novela Xica! It is a very entertaining novela which is set in Brazil. The costumes worn by the actors are beautiful and the town in which the novela takes place is beautiful. Xica contains a lot of history of that time period. I wish Telemundo would televise it again even if it was a 2 in the morning. I would highly recommend watching Xica if it is ever shown again on Telemundo. I've e-mailed Telemundo a million times already to show the novela again but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The only cautionary statement about Xica is that it occasionally contains some harsh scenes therefore I would recommend that children under 14 do not watch Xica. Overall Xica merits a 10 out of 10! xica da Silva is one of the best Brazilians opera soap ever! the a black slave's story that becomes queen of a small villa when conquering the most powerful man's of the area love, in the colonial period of the brazil dominated by Portugal, that explored its diamonds. The largest xica enemy, violante, bride that it was changed by xica, is a woman of big it influences the Portugal king close to and does to take revenge of the slave of everything. Very religious person, she is a picture of the hypocritical society and religious of the time, she dedicates its life the morality of the villa that was committed by xica, that is a woman full of lusts that it faces the society of the time to preach and it helps the slaves of the area. The story also bill with forbidden loves, sorceries and vampires and religious fervor. Xica da Silva does with that you don't want to lose a I only surrender, from beginning to end! I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well. This show is a great history story. It's has everything from slavery,the way they were treated, religion, the ways Jews were sent into hiding,the inquisition, the belief in the Orisha the African gods, the way women were treated,including the daughters. Even down to homosexuality. The way the characters are intertwined and that Violante, that character saddens me. She is so desperate to be loved that she destroys everyone around her.I am so glad they decided to re-release it to t.v. again. Although I would love to see the unedited version. Xica has become my Heroine. I look up to the way she uses her power to help all who seek it. I love all the characters and have found that they can relate to many people now in this century. I look forward to my Xica every night. It would be great to dub it in English so the Americans can love her too. I am Black American and I loved this soap opera. I watched it dubbed in Spanish on Telemundo, almost 5-7 years ago. The story was a TRUE story about a black slave who's love affair with a white commander led to her leadership and candid, whimsical way of living.

A lot of us could learn a lot from XICA. She took what she had, nothing, and saw her possibilities. Many would argue that she sold herself out - but she was trying to secure her future and that of her future children.

It was such an excellent soap opera, that I thought it would be released on DVD, but it's not being released. This soap opera was the best soap opera EVER. We need for it to be released on DVD or broadcast on TV again. It's playing on Azteca America right now, which is only available in Mexico or in the US by paid cable. We need it released again to Telemundo. Based on a true story, this series is a gem within its kind. The slave that becomes queen by capturing the heart of the most powerful man in the village.

In the diamond mining town of Tijuco in Brazil, the diamond commender--appointed by the king of Portugal--is the ultimate authority. Having grown up in the relative security of his house, the young and beautiful Xica da Silva finds her world threatened when he decides to sell her to a whorehouse in town, refusing to recognize that a black slave girl could be his daughter. In a desperate bid to save herself, Xica steals the diamonds collected by the diamond commender for the king, intending to use them to escape. The king's army arrives to collect the diamonds the very next day, however, and when the loot turns up missing, the diamond commender is led away in chains, his family dispossessed and thrown out in the street with only the clothes on their backs. Martin, the diamond commender's son, swears vengeance. Xica and the other slaves, however, are sold at auction, and Xica ends up in the home of the Sergeant Major, an old man who bought her solely to slake his lust. To the town of Tijuco, however, comes the new diamond commender, the elegant and ruthless Joao Fernandes. Immediately struck by Xica's beauty, he manipulates the Sergeant Major into selling her to him. And thus begins a love story, filled with danger, intrigue and passion, between a willful nobleman and a crafty slave girl who rises to one day become queen.

The series is filled with rich details of the era's beliefs, superstitions, politics, fashion, etc. etc. And it really manages to captivate your attention for every minute. At times funny with a sarcastic and dark humor, full of suspense and unexpected twists. "Xica da Silva" is definitely a must. I wish I could buy the whole series on DVD. I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy. Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.

The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.

As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.

Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.

Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.

Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured.

There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.

The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively. Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it. First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B "They All Laughed" is one of those little movies I am always recommending to friends seeking something out of the ordinary. It is firmly rooted in the screwball romance traditions of the past, but seems more contemporary. Even the decidedly early 80s atmosphere doesn't date it too much. Bogdanovich wisely keeps the whole enterprise so light on its feet, that reality never brings it crashing down to earth. But, that said, this sort of sweet little movie absolutely relies on the actors to keep it going, and "TAL" is blessed with a dream cast who understand the requirements of this sort of tale. It is a movie that wouldn't linger so long in the memory if it weren't for the little moments provided by the excellent cast: Colleen Camp's simultaneously shouting orders at John Ritter and her dog; Blaine Novak unleashing all that hair from under his hat; and especially the moment Dorothy Stratten falls for John Ritter and says, "How...weird." It's such a piece of fluff one doesn't want to lay too much on it for fear of crushing it, but it is certainly does leave one with a light heart and a smile on one's face. Well, I had seen "They all laughed" when it came out in

Europe around 1982 and had kept a vague but dear souvenir of it. I 've just seen it again on tape, almost twenty years after... Bogdanovich has a true heartfelt tenderness over his characters and a kind sympathy which is difficult not to feel also. Excellent comedians and actors, good lines all over and for everyone and pretty good editing, too. I laughed and smiled all the time. Just as we all do, at times. Go get it. Screwball comedy about romantic mismatches in New York City. Peter Bogdanovich is obviously in love with all the women in his picture--he reveres them--yet Audrey Hepburn is (naturally) put a notch above the others because, after all, she's the princess Bogdanovich probably fell in love with at the movies 30 years prior. He shoots her in loving close-ups, gets right in the sheets between her and a wonderfully hard-boiled/soft-boiled Ben Gazzara, and allows her room to sparkle throughout. The love-connections made in the course of the film are fast and amusing, though I did tire of John Ritter's TV-styled klutziness. Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten, and the grounded, earthy-sensual Patti Hansen are all exciting to watch. But it's really Hepburn's valentine and she absolutely glows. *** from **** I watched it some years ago. I remembered it as very mysterious situations, and a mixture of melancholic things, like the fate of Dorothy and the personal future of Bogdanovich.

I turn to watch on my VHS copy and then I was reviewing it more and more. Nowadays I am waiting for the DVD version, at any price, please!

The country and easy listening music is very well chosen from the very first second, a bit of blueish, but also happy.

All the characters are great to me, with funny situations, great acting and a lot of dialogs that have turn this as a cult movie to me and a lot of people I met on the Internet or cinema clubs. This may not be casualty.

I think that the title is a hope about life! You have to be happy and laugh as much as possible

I know that this may be a particular comment for the movie, but the fact is that I like it very much, I think that movie marked me and I will never forget it. Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.

The last credit in this film explains its appeal - "Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed." A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love. This movie is perfect for all the romantics in the world. John Ritter has never been better and has the best line in the movie! "Sam" hits close to home, is lovely to look at and so much fun to play along with. Ben Gazzara was an excellent cast and easy to fall in love with. I'm sure I've met Arthur in my travels somewhere. All around, an excellent choice to pick up any evening.!:-) 'They All Laughed' is a superb Peter Bogdanovich that is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and why? their are many reasons the fact that it's set in new york which truly sets the tone, the fantastic soundtrack, the appealing star turns from Ben Gazzara, and the late John Ritter who is superb. and of course no classic is complete without Audrey Hepburn. the film is a light and breezy romantic comedy that is very much in the vein of screwball comedy from the thirties, film is essentially about the Odyssey detective agency which is run by Gazzara who with his fellow detectives pot smoking and roller skating eccentric Blaine Novak(the films co-producer) and John Ritter, basically the Gazzara falls for a rich tycoon magnate's wife(Hepburn) and Ritter falls for beautiful Dorothy Stratten who sadly murdered infamously after production, 'They All Laughed is essential viewing for Bogdanovich fans. With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew "They all laughed" is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug "in - joke" self gratification you will be pleased to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails well clear of that particular hazard and delivers a sweet and rather innocent "I love N.Y." paean that is also an altar at which we can worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of minimal importance,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie. Mr Bogdanovich's triumph is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from "Targets" onwards.There is a glow about every one of his films that only special artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular benefits from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally "Who the hell's in it?", recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to "They all laughed" varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as eclectic as the city it portrays. Mr B,s "Golden Boy" image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,but it is equally sure one day to be restored,and when that day comes "They all laughed" will be recognised for the fine work that it is. Peter Bogdonavich has made a handful of truly great films, and THEY ALL LAUGHED is one of his best. The cast couldn't be better equipped to play this light but slightly bittersweet screwball comedy. Interestingly enough, the witty, light touch Bogdonavich so effortlessly employs gives the film a rather disarming emotional core. Fresh and immediate, the film starts with absolutely no explanation. There's no soundtrack music to cue us. We meet the characters in action, and as Bogdonavich glides down the streets of New York, the film unfolds effortlessly. Robby Muller's camera captures it all with an understated simplicity that seems accidental, but surely isn't. The cast is terrific. In every way, a classic. New York has never looked so good! And neither has anyone in this movie. While the script is a bit lightweight you can't help but like this movie or any of the characters in it. You almost wish people like this really existed. The appeal of the actors are what really put it over(John Ritter, Colleen Camp and the late Dorothy Stratten are particularly good.) Go ahead and rent or buy this movie you'll be glad you did. I am glad other people enjoyed this movie, cause I know it doesn't have the greatest reputation and it made no money at the box office. I thought it was terrific and there are several reasons why - Bogdanovich directs with the lightest of touches, the cast (especially Coleen Camp) is perfect and the Big Bad Apple never looked better on film. You've seen worse movies! Sublimity is the way we have to reach for The Beauty. And sublimity is the stuff this film is made of. If not his best, it's my most loved of all Bogdanovich movies.

This unique masterpiece remind us, as most of the other films from the director, what life is (or should be) about: love, lost (or failure) and hope and faith and charity. As the song from whom the films takes its title (Gershwin's well known composition) the film makes the impossible true, and tries to make us aware that no-one is able to judge anybody; all this with the lightness of a comedy and the timing of a masterful direction (the first ten minutes, with the detectives following the ladies, almost without a line of dialogue, constructed upon the looks and views of the characters --with that "Bogdanovich touch" based on the point-of-view-- is a class on Cinema Language, something that P.B. learned well from his admired directors from the Golden Age of the Movies). With a superb cast and a glorious soundtrack (including the best of Sinatra's "Trilogy"), this movie, full of self-consciousness and compassion, and far away from self-indulgence and emptiness (as some critics wrote), deserves a better place on the History of American Cinema than where it have been placed. It's not "long on style, short on substance": it is complex in its simplicity, and beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and "true" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- "success" career, when his best work was truly done ("saint jack", "at long last...", "noises off". A critical and financial flop when first release, the critics have turned around and stated that this film ison of the Director's best. A La Ronde like feel to the film quickly develops as the guys from a detective agency (Ben Gazzara, John Ritter and Blaine Novak) persue, fall in and out of love with some of the most quirky and beautiful women seen on film (Audrey Hepburn, Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten and Patti Hansen). Much of the script was ad-libbed or re-written on the day of shooting which gives the film a breezy feel. Ben Gazzara is excellent as the head detective persuing Audrey Hepburn after dropping singer Colleen Camp and seeing cab-driver Patti Hansen on the side. John Ritter ineptly follows Dorothy Stratten and immediately falls in love with her. Blaine Novak has a few girls he is chasing (including Joyce Hyser and Elizabeth Pena). This film has some great performances by a supurb cast. Standouts are Audrey Hepburn (she doesn't have a line in the first half of the film). Ben Gazzara has never been better (and an inspiring choice for a romantic lead) and Colleen Camp has one of her best roles as the manic country singer Christy Miller. She is a delight to watch as she fires off her lines in a rat-a-tat-tat delivery. Highly Recommended! ********* stars! What could be more schlocky than the idea of private detectives getting involved with the women they're supposed to be spying on? And most of the dialogue as written is perfectly banal.

But the actors turn the dialog into something that makes sense. You can see real people behind the unreal lines. And the directing is wonderful. Each scene does just what it has to and ends without dragging on too long.

I showed this to several friends in the mid-80s because I was perplexed at how such bad material could be made into such a good movie. The friends enjoyed it too. Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.

THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap. Zombie Chronicles isn't something to shout about, it's obvious not a award winning movie but it is a entertaining B-movie directed by Brad Sykes who directed Camp Blood which was another entertaining low budget flick. The acting is bad like most cheaply made movies but that's what makes it more entertaining, the zombie make-up is cool and effective especially with the budget, the gore is also great and gross, the film is sort of like a zombie version of Tales from the Crypt since we get two tales about zombie encounters in the woods, the stories are fun and do leave you guessing especially the first tale. Zombie Chronicles is a lot better than some low budget zombie movies out there, if you love low budget B-movies or cheaply made zombie flicks then check out Zombie Chronicles. Edmund Burke said that "all evil needs is for good me to do nothing." Hollywood often gives us trash because not enough families go to see quality films. This movie was uplifting story of the loss and restoration of faith. It had no violence, no lewdness, and did not deserve a PG rating. The western scenery was filmed well, and some of the vistas were simply breathtaking. Actors were a bit young for their parts, but otherwise believable and talented. Music score was too loud, and in some places drowned out the dialog completely. I'm seldom surprised by movie endings any more, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Sometimes the good guys do win, and they win by honest efforts. We liked the movie and the message, and would recommend it for the entire family. I love all of the movies by Michael Landon Jr. And Michael Landon Jr's casting of Dale Midkiff as "Clark Davis"could not of been any better. Dale Midkiff has the ways to pull off this character.

This movie kept me spellbound from start to finish.

The death of Missie & Willies baby girl with the timing of Clarks visit was only Gods timing. How they dealt with the death and how Clark helped them do so was that of a fathers love.

Although there are 3 movies before this one [ Love Comes Softly , Loves Enduring Promise & Loves Long Journey], I feel you can see this movie and understand it easily. Yet leave and want to see the previous 3 movies due to the history all the characters have behind them.

Michael Landon Jr. is an excellent director

I look forward to many more movies from him in the future. This movie was so great! I am a teenager, and I and my friends all love the series, so it just goes to show that these movies draw attention to all age crowds. I recommend it to everyone. My favorite line in this movie is when Logan Bartholomew says: "rosy cheeks", when he is talking about his baby daughter. He is such a great actor, as well as Erin Cottrell. They pair up so well, and have such a great chemistry! I really hope that they can work again together. They are such attractive people, and are very good actors. I have finally found movies that are good to watch. Lately it has been hard for me to find movies that are good, and show good morals, and Christian values. But at the same time, these movies aren't cheesy. We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words.

I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did "please don't be over". We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.

My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving I read many commits when it was in the theaters and they were all bad....I think you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy these movies. If you are not a person that enjoyed the Waltons or Little House...U will not understand nor enjoy these movies...

Now about Loves Abiding Joy...I knew HE was bad news from the start of the movie....I wish it would have shown more of the end instead of letting you just think it. This movie has a lot to do with Jeff....it is 6 years later so you know he will be interested in Girls.

I want to say that I have enjoyed all 4 movies so far....Was not crazy about the books...Cant wait until the next movie. The way Clark talks will get you every time. I would love to see January Jones do an appearance...Maybe a family reunion or something. I would just like to say, that no matter how low budget the film is, it needs to be shown throughout this world the point to these movies. We don't read that much anymore, instead people want to see movies. Having this series out on DVD, has made me want to read the whole series, and want more. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. Please don't change any of the characters either, it ruins the effect. Because I have grown to love the actors who have played the characters. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. I want to see the message, and watch the message that these books and now movies are here to portray. We don't get that enough anymore. AWESOME JOB!!! the one and only season has just aired here in Australia and i thought it was absolutely brilliant! i love it! all the story lines are so good! and its a much more realistic view on teen and family life today. yet it still kept strong family values of sticking together and being there for each other. their problems were real, and it really drew you into the show. the show is basically about this family called 'the Days' and their lives. the family consisted of Abby Day (mum), Jack Day (dad), Natalie Day (sporty daughter), Cooper Day (outsider son), and Nathan Day (boy genius son). each episodes a day of their life, with coopers perspective on things throughout it. i loved cooper his insight through out the show was just great. he was by far my favorite character. it ended with so many things it could've continued with, I'm really sad another season wasn't made. it was a great show I'm gonna miss it. "The Days" is a typical family drama with a little catch - you must relate to the character's emotions in every way possible in order for you to truly appreciate the show.

[Possible Spoilers For Those Who Are Unfamiliar With the Show]

The story, obviously, for all the people who has watched the show, is the world of Cooper Day, the middle child of the family. He records his days with his family and hopes to become a rich and famous writer one day because of his observations. His family includes a mother, a father, a perfect sister, and a genius-little-brother. The first episode, which is going to sound a bit stupid since John Scott Shepard has created this situation - both the sister and mother gets pregnant. That's the first situation the writer hits. Then the father quits his job at the law firm. The youngest son gets a panic attack. The middle child gets in a fight with the sister's boyfriend. This is all in a day's work.

[/Spoilers]

I admire this show. I don't know. It's a bit crappy but I like it. First I thought the camera-work was a ripoff but then I got used it and started to like it. I liked the quiet conversations under a dark light. I liked the intimate feeling of the show. I liked the low-budget style. I liked the acting. I admire the story. Then I find myself wanting a second season of The Days. I slowly became a fan of it as the 6-episode airing on ABC came to an end. It's a really good show and it's nothing like The OC. The two have nothing in common. So I hope fans will stop comparing them.

And if you can relate to either Abby, Jack, Natalie, Cooper or even Nate, you'll like this show. A lot. This is undeniably the scariest game I've ever played. It's not the average shoot-everything-that-moves kind of fps (which I usually don't care much for), but the acceptable gfx, interesting weapons and magic, great surround soundeffects ("Scryeeee, scryeeee..") and above all incredible atmosphere. I love the Scrye, which enables you, at certain places in the games, to see or hear events that happened there in the past. The only game I've had to take regular breaks after a few minutes of playing just because of the intensity of the atmosphere. I'm a great horror fan, escpecially of Clive Barker's stories and movies, and participating in a horror story like this makes me yearn for more games that emphasizes atmosphere and a more involving story. 9/10 (-1 because I'm no fps fan, and perhaps the game was a bit short?) This game was really great and quite a challenge. It has a great, spooky story line and the graphics are also very good. I would recommend this game to all Horror fans and is very gripping from start to finish. The only problem with this game is that i would have liked more weapons but thats just me.

A truly great game for RPG and Shoot'em'up fans.

> Undying is a very good game which brings some new elements on the tired genre of first person shoot em ups. It tells the story of Patrick Galloway an expert of the occult and a formidable fighter who is summoned by a friend to his estate in Ireland to investigate some weird phainomena. The game is set in Ireland after World War one so don't expect to find weapons like chainguns or rocket launchers.All the weapons in the game can be considered antiques but the real fun in the game are its spells and the system they operate on.Our hero is ambidexterous so he can use both his hands at the same time: he casts spells with his right arm and uses his guns with the left.So you can shoot and cast spells at the same time which as you understand very fun and also unique to this game! The graphics are great and they can run very well on a medium power P.C..Level design is also cool and atmospheric. Mostly the game revolves around the Covenant estate and the mansion but there are many other locations waiting to be discovered as you progress. Thanks to the talent of Clyve Barker the game has an excelent storyline and plot (something very rare for a First person shooter) and i said before a great and very spooky atmosphere the voice acting is also good but not excellent. But the game has two main flaws. First of all it is quite linear so when your mission says for example go to that room all the doors in the house will be locked apart from those that lead to the room of your mission this may save time but it restricts your liberty of exploration.Secondly the fact all the weapons are antiques may not appeal to most fps players who are used to high tech weaponry. As far as difficulty is concerned the game is very well balanced. Most of it is of medium difficulty but sometimes it gets more difficult but not frustratingly difficult. Overall undying is a great game. Definitely one of the best fps out there. I love the way that this game can make you literally jump out of your seat while you are playing it. The way that the screen jumps and flashes when you get hit, its very realistic while at the same time you have to remember that its just a game and your not really there. The sound effects and audio are amazing. There are a lot of weapons and different spells to cast and you can even choose which spells to make stronger or not. You get this stone that can knock back enemies while you recover mana to blast your foes with even more magic. The best part is that the whole time you are playing it you are really jumpy and afraid of what might lurk around the next corner or what might jump out behind you. If you want to get the full experience, try playing it with head phones on. I gotta say, Clive Barker's Undying is by far the best horror game to have ever been made. I've played Resident Evil, Silent Hill and the Evil Dead and Castlevania games but none of them have captured the pure glee with which this game tackles its horrific elements. Barker is good at what he does, which is attach the horror to our world, and it shows as his hand is clearly everywhere in this game. Heck, even his voice is in the game as one of the main characters. Full of lush visuals and enough atmosphere to shake a stick at, Undying is the game to beat in my books as the best horror title. I just wish that this had made it to a console system but alas poor PC sales nipped that one in the bud. Not being a fan of first person shooters I was very hesitant to play this game. After having played the demo however I was sold. "Undying" really manages to pull you in the game and be part of the universe that your character is in. You have this green amulet,called the "Gel'ziabar Stone" that has special powers and warns you of particular events or things to look at. With a special spell "the scrye" you can see certain things that otherwise would be invisible to you. Walking in a hallway you suddenly hear the magical stone whisper:" Look",with the stone glowing at for example a painting. And then using the scrye spell you can see some weird and creepy stuff on the painting. Let me tell you to witness something like that is scary as hell. People who expect to finish this game in a few hours can forget about that even with the use of cheats. This game relies on the character using wits and walking carefully around. Because like in any horror movie your surroundings are usually pretty dark. And ghosts and monster appear at random when you don't expect them and can kill you very quickly. There is this one scene where you want to enter a room where you are pushed back with such great force that it takes moments for you to realize what happened. This was a scene that could have come straight out of the horror classic "Evil Dead"! To experience something like this is a real accomplishment. There are a lot of elements that take "Undying" to the level of the best classic horror movies ever produced. But sadly I have to report that there are some flaws. For one thing the universe you are playing in is huge. You start out in a big mansion with all sorts of hidden,secret rooms and even a hidden hell dimension called "Oneiros". That is all fine in the beginning. But with all the loading times and some difficult enemies in between that can become frustrating. And there is no map. The game demands you memorize your surroundings. So patience is required. Also there are some jumping puzzles that you have to do otherwise you can't progress. I don't mind jumping on platforms in third person adventures. But in first person mode that can be an annoying task. Luckily you can save at anytime and anyplace. And trust me you will need it. Overall "Undying" is an extraordinary first person shooter that deserves to be played by any horror or game fan. When you actually find a video game to be scary or disturbing, you know that the developers have done some very serious and hard work to make the whole thing work. Undying used the Unreal engine but had very little resemblance to that game when it came to actual gameplay. Speaking of gameplay, the pace is slowed down and the sheer difficulty in progressing through the very hard to kill enemies makes for a very unqiue gameplay experience. The production values are so high that you may even forget that it is a video game. The game itself is also packed with loads of secrets that you have to uncover using special vision. The level design in fantastic and the weapons as well as the enemies will really shock you. This film starts out with a family who were all going in different directions and their teenage daughter Martha MacIssac (Olivia Dunne) was very much in love with Joe MacLeod,(Zack). The mother is played by Mitzi Kapture,(Jill Dunne) who suddenly walks in on her daughter and Zack making out and then all kinds of problems seem to surface. Jill Dunne has a husband who is always traveling or staying away from the home quite often. There are also big problems that occur when the family decides to go on a camping trip which their daughter Olivia dislikes and just cannot adapt to sleeping outdoors and requires a tent to be kept out all the bugs. In many ways, Olivia does an outstanding performance as the teenage and Nick Mancuso,(Richard Grant) gives a great supporting role as a hotel owner. This film will keep you guessing how it will end and you will enjoy a film filled with plenty of horror and terror. Enjoy I watch most movies that Nick Mancuso is in because, frankly, I love the guy, even though as he ages he is typically cast as the baddie (long-time fans should note that he is for some reason blond in this flick). It's a fairly familiar movie in terms of plot (but then most movies these days aren't exactly original), but Rick Roberts is appealing as the imperfect husband, Martha MacIsaac is equally appealing as the daughter, and Mitzi Kapture does a good job, if that was her goal, of being angry and sometimes pretty hard to like. Nick has still got it in terms of being able to demonstrate both charm and psychosis. However, too much of the plot takes place off-screen -- like motivation, prior behaviors, good times and bad times -- and things that seem apparent to the characters never quite make it to the audience (i.e., me). The final scene leaves everything to be desired in the "but what about..." category, and overall, I can't say that I cared much about any of the characters. That being said, it was what it was -- a reasonably entertaining way to spend the afternoon -- and I still like Nick. It's hard for me to criticize anything that Mitzi Kapture does. She just radiates beauty and grace on the screen and is a phenomenal actress. That notwithstanding, yes, the plot was predictable. I think perhaps if Jill HAD slept with Richard then it may have made him a little crazier than he already was, which would have added more to the suspense. It would have also been nice to see Jill and her husband find out about Richard's little problem with his ex-wife, maybe a bit more back story. I was a little disappointed with the ending of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more closure with Zack's death and possibly closure with her husband. I do have to say though, I will never be able to look at a flare gun and not picture her standing there. It was a very fitting end for Richard. Of course, Mitzi ROCKED! I am so looking forward to her future projects. Loved it but still have nightmares over the hotel manager.The movie, was presented well, with the choice of actors carrying their roles to reality of the writing. Many scenes gripped the imagination and created a nail biter. The progression of situations were cleverly written,making me believe the story was headed one way only to find a new twist on what I thought might be the obvious. Too bad there have to be commercials.I have told many friends to watch for further showings and I of course will view again.I enjoyed the scenery of the film and felt this added to the plots and intrigue. Husband and wife heated discussions(or should I say fights?) were very realistic.The initial situation is a common one but the escalation into the story presented fortunately is not.I want to thank all who were involved in this great entertainment film. Thank you! Looking forward to the next films---when? Whidbey It's all about Mitzi. I loved her in this. And didn't she look fantastic?! I love these Lifetime Sunday afternoon popcorn movies. This is like one of those nailbiters where they always go to commercial at the most annoying times. The Richard character was completely creepy. I've dated guys like that. Well, not totally like that lol. I wish Zack hadn't have gotten killed. He was a cutie and very easy on the eyes. I LOVE these stalker type stories. It always makes me get up and make sure my doors are locked. My husband doesn't usually like these types of movies but actually sat through the entire thing with me and actually enjoyed it. I can't wait to see what Mitzi does next! I have to say, Seventeen & Missing is much better than I expected. The perception I took from the previews was that it would be just humdrum but I was pleasantly surprised with this impressive mystery.

Dedee Pfeiffer is Emilie, a mom who insists her daughter, Lori (Tegan Moss), not attend a so-called graduation party one weeknight, but Lori ignores her mother's wishes and takes off for the party anyway. When Lori does not come home, Emilie knows something is wrong and she begins to have visions of her daughter and the events that led to her disappearance.

Seventeen & Missing is better than so many other TV movies of this type, as it is not so predictable. Pfeiffer is the reason to see this movie, and most of it comes off as believable. This LMN Original Movie premiered last night. 10/10 I'm a fan of TV movies in general and this was one of the good ones. The cast performances throughout were pretty solid and there were twists I didn't see coming before each commercial. To me it was kind of like Medium meets CSI.

Did anyone else think that in certain lights, the daughter looked like a young Nicole Kidman? Are they related in any way? I'd definitely watch it agin or rent it if it ever comes to video.

Dedee was great. Haven't seen in her in a lot of things and she did her job very convincingly.

If you're into to TV mystery movies, check this one out if you have a chance. I loved Dedee Pfeiffer (is that spelled right?) in Cybil. Haven't seen her for awhile and forgot how much I missed her. I thought she did a great job in this. The supporting cast was pretty good too. In some angles, the daughter even looked like a young Nicole Kidman. The abductor was pretty creepy and the story generally had some good twists. The young boyfriend was a hottie. I thought the husband definitely had something to do with it for sure.

Just got the Lifetime Movie Network for Christmas and am loving these movies. Kept my interest and I'll watch it again when they rerun it. Can anyone else recommend any similar movies to this? You can post on the board or send me a private email if you want. Thanks in advance. Aboutagirly. It all begins with a series of thefts of seemingly unrelated objects in a hostel for students on Hickory Road, London. Concerned for her sister, who is the housekeeper there, Miss Lemon asks Hercule Poirot to look into the matter. He agrees, but soon the stakes get higher when a girl, who had admitted that she was responsible for most (not all) of the thefts, is found murdered.

"Hickory Dickory Dock" is a solid brain exercise, without being as mind-numbingly complicated as "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe". Murder, theft and diamond smuggling are the crimes involved, and the final twist that ties everything together is revealed only in the last 2 minutes! The characters are interesting, particularly the psychology student Colin McNabb and the mysterious American girl Sally Finch, Inspector Japp has his funny moments (in perhaps the closest this series has come to "toilet humor"), and Miss Lemon gets a more integral part to the story than usual. (***) This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.

Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best. A series of random, seemingly insignificant thefts at her sister's boarding house has Miss Lemon quite agitated. A ring, light bulbs, a rucksack, a lighter, a stethoscope, a shoe – there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it. Miss Lemon asks her employer, the great Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, to look into the matter. But what Poirot sees is something far more sinister than Miss Lemon could have imagined. And Poirot's fears are confirmed when one of the students living in the boarding house if found murdered. It's up to Poirot to bring a killer to justice.

Hickory Dickory Dock is a solid, but not spectacular, entry in the long running Poirot series. I appreciate how faithful the script is to Agatha Christie's original story. I realize that certain liberties had to be taken, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. The major points of the mystery are all there – the petty thefts, the boarding house, the students, the ripped rucksack, and, of course, Poirot's ability to see something sinister going on before it actually happens. With a few exceptions, the cast of students is almost as I pictured them. Damian Lewis and Jessica Lloyd standout among the group. As mush as I always enjoy David Suchet's Poirot, I get a real kick out of the episodes with Phillip Jackson's Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon. This episode is a real treat as Miss Lemon gets more screen time than usual. Finally, I enjoyed the use of the ever present mouse as an observer of the activities in the hostel. It's a fun little play on the Hickory Dickory Dock title.

I realized while re-watching Hickory Dickory Dock just what a tremendous influence Agatha Christie's work was on the highly stylized Italian mystery films, or Gialli, of the 60s and 70s. Take the murder of Mrs. Nicoletis as an example. If you were to bump up the graphic nature of the scene, you would have something straight out of an early 70s Giallo. In fact, the entire plot of Hickory Dickory Dock could have been used in a Giallo. It's just convoluted and interesting enough to have worked. Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox This was a strong Poirot/Suchet, television mystery selection. The characters were vivid and well-acted. The plot and the main setting--a student hostel-- were excellent. Japp was nothing special but for me did not distract from story. One significant point, many Poirot watchers don't recognize good acting or good characterization. I also think they are rather harsh in their judgments of some of the Poirot mysteries. Finally, I have read few Christie novels--none in recent years-- and find it annoying that so many viewers are upset about changes from the novel. Please, viewers, consider what is presented to you on film, not what you think should be there. That said, the Poirot mysteries vary in quality, but not as much as reviewers and raters would have you believe. With the singular exception of The Five Little Pigs which was fabulous in plot, character and theme, the longer Poirot films are neither that good or that bad. For the record, I have seen all the longer Poirot/Suchet films. Finally, films without Lemon, Hastings, and/or Japp are neither good nor bad because of their absence. There presence, however, is either obtrusive (almost always with Japp) or irrelevant with Hastings. Lemon is in the middle. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

This movie, "The Divers", is really interesting. All I roughly knew about it was that it would involve nazi history, underwater scenes and everybody would be speaking Danish. But I decided to check it out for one reason, the fact that the story evolves around a sunken WWII German submarine. I've got a fetish for German subs, especially wrecks that can be dived upon. So I was a bit sceptical about the Danish part, but reasoned that the sub could weigh up that part. Knowing that Nordic films aren't always that good and not sure of the budget size I was, to say the least, very sceptical.

Upon viewing I was ... surprised.

I had some thoughts on the actors being inadequate, seeing how some are very young, the two main actors in particular. This was not an issue, they both perform very well. As do the other actors, who mostly consist of people in their 50's and beyond. This makes for some interesting interaction between young and old, not often seen on the screen. Not unique in anyway, but somewhat rare. And it's all good.

As for the Danish language, it is nearly impossible to understand. But this was no problem, it had subtitles.

Another issue was the submarine itself, I suspected there would be interior shots as well as underwater exterior shots of the submarine. Having decided their budget was slim, I thought this could turn out adequate at the best and down right awful at it's worst. Again I was surprised, the exterior scenes of the wreck are beautiful and the interior scenes are very realistic. Having a fetish for German subs, I knew what the sub should look like, especially inside, and was not let down. The team has done some serious research. It's all good.

I suspect more people than myself will watch this movie just to see some sub wreck scenes so I feel I must issue a "warning". The submarine in the movie is not an actual model that existed during the war. It's a special purpose sub. But to give you a hint of what to expect, it's a crossing between a Type VII, Type IX and a Japanese transport sub similar to I-52. It's god a good design and makes a nice wreck.

The setting is on a Danish island or peninsula, I can't remember. It's summertime and two brothers travel to their grandfather to celebrate the coming of summer as they do every year. Their grandfather is a mariner of sorts. The cinematography is quite nice, a lot of pretty summer scenes at the island docks, some newfound teenage love, nice diving weather and a general feeling of "perfect". Once again, it's all good.

Plot-wise the island gets some visitors of the suspect kind, a gathering of men hire one of the boats, an old minesweeper and it's crew. One of the visitors, a man in his 50's, has the german eagle and swastika tattooed on his back. The island's senior citizens all remember when a german u-boat was sunk towards the end of world war II and ever since then there have been rumors of nazi gold in the depths. The grandfather was one of the young men who searched for the sunken u-boat shortly after german bodies started floating ashore back in 1945. No submarine was ever found.

WHAT TO EXPECT

Key elements are nazi experiments, nazi history, treasure hunting, secrecy, competition, teen love, conspiracy, and ...a surprise.

*** WARNING - SPOILER ***

I had not expected some elements of the supernatural to appear in this movie and it caught me off guard. Not being a big fan of supernatural events, it nevertheless fitted well into the story and poses no problem. It's not like "From dusk til dawn" where everybody turns into vampires towards the end. This is a bit more subtle.

OVERALL : Really good movie, I gave it an 8. Some due to the fact that it isn't a Hollywood movie with unlimited resources. I later learned that it had a fair budget and that some of the actors were seasoned Danish veterans. But even if this had been a Hollywood production, I would give it a 7 or 8. Definately worth your while. Yes, a child's story in a way, but then again a mature tale. It has a lot of suspense and a grand aura of adventure, which I found very appealing. And, again, the cinematography is really nice.

/Medusa 2001

I went to see this movie expecting a nice relaxing time in the theater with my younger sister. Instead, I had to really control myself in order to convince her that I was not scared. In many ways still a children´s story, but with a screenplay that has a lot of potential. Could have been one of the scariest movies if planned for another audience. Wow! A Danish movie with this kind of content? I mean, the actors, the story, the pictures, the efx - everything was where it should be.

And a Danish EFX house producing those VFX - Wow! This is like the 2nd or 3rd time a Danish FX has produces visual effects in that quality.

*SPOILER AHEAD* The twist with the ghostly children in the submarine was quite good, but generally I did not feel the big chill which I would expect from a ghost-movie. *END OF SPOILER*

But anyway, this is a Danish movie which I as a Dane can be proud of.

The only "bad" about this, is that it wasn't a Danish director, but a Swedish... For a danish movie, I have to say, that this is very good movie.

It's in a class of its own, yet it has an international potential.

The movie has a big budget, and is starring famous danish actors, and a few newcomers, who play very well. It can be watched by anyone who like adventures, and a little bit of 'ghost' movie.

Don't be afraid, be thrilled! Sandwiched in between San Francisco and Captains Courageous two of Spencer Tracy's greatest parts is this very curious film about war and the effects it has on some people. They Gave Him A Gun stars Spencer Tracy and Franchot Tone in the only film they ever made together and Gladys George as the woman who loves them both.

Tracy and Tone are a couple of World War I draftees, Tone is a weak character who almost goes over the hill in boot camp, but Tracy stops him. Tracy is still playing the lovable blowhard, younger Wallace Beery type that MGM envisioned for him when they signed him away from Fox.

Over at the front Tone gets an opportunity and takes it when during a fight he manages to get to a church tower that peers down on a German machine gun nest. He's learned to shoot by now and he does a Sergeant York. But Alvin C. York was never changed by the war the way Tone has.

Wounded in the fight Tone convalesces at a hospital with Gladys George looking out for him. Tracy goes AWOL himself to visit his pal and he and George get something going. Later on when Tracy is reported missing in action, Tone and George marry. Tracy's brokenhearted when he comes back and learns of the marriage, but takes sit in stride.

The rest of the film is dealing with Tone applying the the wartime skills he's learned to the gangster trade. He's a hit-man now and George doesn't really know what he does for a living. I think you can figure the rest out.

The part of the film that gave me some trouble is that I can't believe Gladys George couldn't figure it out. She's a street smart girl, her part is very much like the one she played in The Roaring Twenties opposite James Cagney.

Speaking of The Roaring Twenties, Humphrey Bogart's character development there is similar to Tone's although he was not the central character of the movie. In fact there are elements of They Gave Him A Gun that are to be found in Taxi Driver and in Clint Eastwood's classic, The Unforgiven.

The World War I battle sequences are very well staged by director Woody Van Dyke. For some reason Leonard Maltin panned this film, I think it's a lot better than he gave it credit. ***SPOILERS*** All too, in real life as well as in the movies, familiar story that happens to many young men who are put in a war zone with a gun, or rifle, in their hands. The case of young and innocent, in never handling or firing a gun, Jimmy Davis, Franchot Tone, has been repeated thousands of times over the centuries when men, like Jimmy Davis, are forced to take up arms for their country.

Jimmy who at first wanted to be kicked out of the US Army but was encouraged to stay, by being belted in the mouth, by his good friend Fred P. Willis, Spencer Tracy, ended up on the front lines in France. With Jimmy's unit pinned down by a German machine gun nest he single handedly put it out of commission picking off some half dozen German soldiers from the safety of a nearby church steeple. It was when Jimmy gunned down the last surviving German, who raised his arms in surrender, that an artillery shell hit the steeple seriously wounding him.

Recovering from his wounds at an Army hospital Jimmy fell in love with US Army volunteer nurse Rose Duffy, Gladys George. Rose was really in love with Jimmy's good friend the happy go lucky Fred despite his obnoxious antics towards her. It's when Fred was lost during the fighting on the Western Front that Rose, thinking that he was killed, fell in love and later married Jimmy. When Fred unexpectedly showed up in the French town where Jimmy, now fully recovered from his wounds, was stationed at things got very sticky for both him and Rose who had already accepted Jimmy's proposal of marriage to her!

With WWI over and Jimmy marrying Rose left Fred, who's still in love with her, a bitter and resentful young man. It was almost by accident that Fred ran into Jimmy on the streets of New York City and discovered to his shock and surprise that he completely changed from the meek and non-violent person that he knew before he was sent to war on the European Western Front. Smug and sure of himself, and his ability to shoot a gun, Jimmy had become a top mobster in New York City's underworld! Not only that but as Fred later found out his wife Rose had no idea what Jimmy was really involved in with Jimmy telling her that he works as a law abiding and inoffensive insurance adjuster.

Jimmy's life of crime came full circle when Rose, after she found out about his secret life, ratted him out to the police to prevent him from executing a "Valentine Day" like massacre, with his gang members dressed as cops, of his rival mobsters. While on trial Jimmy came to his senses and admitted his guilt willing to face the music and then, after his three year sentence is up, get his life back together.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Hearing rumors from fellow convicts that Rose and his best friend Fred were having an affair behind his back Jimmy broke out of prison ending up a fugitive from the law. It's at Fred's circus, where he works as both manger and barker, that Jimmy in seeing that Rose as well as Fred were true to him that he, like at his trial, had a sudden change of heart. But the thought of going back to prison, with at least another ten years added on to his sentence, was just too much for Jimmy! It was then that Jimmy decided to end it all by letting the police who by then tracked him down do the job, that he himself didn't have the heart to do, for him! Due to reading bad reviews and being told by friends that they couldn't believe how bad it was, I didn't go and see this film at the cinema. After watching it on DVD, I have to say I regret that now. I'm not saying it is brilliant, but I would venture to say that it is a good movie. I enjoyed it.

People have skulls thicker than Ned's helmet if they go to see a movie like this and expect it to be a documentary. If you read up the actual history behind most movies based on historical figures, there is usually a huge difference between the fact and the fictional portrayal. I don't think Ganghis Kahn has ever once been portrayed even remotely close to historical fact. What kind of man Ned Kelly actually was is a matter of debate, and quite passionate it seems. In spite of the efforts of governments and some historians, Ned Kelly has become a legend. Legends are stories, and stories say as much about those who tell and listen to them as they do about the actual figure himself. Ned Kelly has become such a popular identity because he does represent that aspect of Australian culture that doesn't trust or accept authority. A society in which there is no dissent or challenge to authority is crazier and more dangerous than any bushranger.

So not expecting this to be an accurate recreation of the historical Kelly gang, I actually found it a surprisingly unencumbered and refreshing movie. It was sentimental and romantic, but thankfully not anywhere as cheesy as it could have been; for my fellow Australians, watch 'The Lighthorseman' and you will see what I mean (it is a pity the way that story was treated so poorly). Perhaps the love affair business could have been forsaken for a bit more detail in other areas, such as the shooting of the troopers. Ironically, I actually enjoyed the movie because of that, because it would be those details that most of the focus on Ned's story would dwell. And they are the details of the story that are best discovered by reading the different viewpoints given by the various historians.

This movie was always going to have a hard time, having make a compromise of appealing to a global movie market (to pay the pills) and the legend as it means to Australians; perhaps a little of Ned's spirit is in this movie, because I think it rebelled against people's expectations, and unfortunately missed both targets. Fortunately it made for an enjoyable quirk of a film. For me it was an unexpected kind of movie about Ned, and that is why I liked it. Orlando Bloom's performance did a lot for the movie too - he really added something. I think he would have enjoyed being the monster instead of the pretty elf, for a change.

When you consider some other movies that are far worse than this one, your opinion of this movie should be reconsidered. Send me this on DVD for christmas rather than Croc Dundee or The Man From Snowy River anytime. I first see this film almost 21 years ago when it was an ITV (before the days of cable and satellite) Matinée. i was off School with the Mumps and i was totally wrapped in the film. i have had it on bought video for about 10 years and i want to obtain a DVD copy of it. David Niven is my all time favourite actor and i think it is a travesty that he was over looked so many times when the Oscars came around. i also think that the queen should have knighted him as he easily did as much for the movie industry if not more than Sean Connery or Anthony Hopkins. the way the film switches from black and white to colour and back again is well done and the film has such stellar actors as Roger Livesy, Marius Goring and an early appearance from Richard Attenborough. I just watched this for the first time in a long time - I had forgotten both how imaginative the images were, and how witty the movie is. I had not forgotten however the opening scenes which are (with the scene at the Candlelight Club in Waterloo Bridge) among the most romantic ever filmed.

Anyone interested in politics or history will love the movie's offhand references - anyone interested in romance will be moved by Hunter-Niven, and anyone who loves visual imagery will enjoy the depiction of the afterworld.

My favorite movie remains "Odd Man Out" made near the same time - but this one is superb.

"Broken Bow" takes us back to where it all began. Set 150 years in our future and 100 years before Kirk, Spock and McCoy. This installment of the "Star Trek" franchise, is in my opinion the first series since "TOS" to recapture the feelings of wonder, danger and excitement of "Going Where No Man Has Gone Before". Scott Bakula is perfectly cast as Jonathan Archer, the first Captain of the first "Star Ship Enterprise". He and the entire cast truly show a true reverence for the Star Trek legacy. John Billingsley is Brilliant as the alien Dr. Phlox, and Jolene Blalock is totally luscious as the tempting but logical Vulcan science officer T'Pol. Broken Bow is in my opinion the best premier episode of any of the Treks, and I believe Gene Roddenberry would surely be proud. In 2151, in Broken Bow, Oklahoma, a farmer shoots the Klingon Klaang with his plasma rifle after the explosion of a methane store in his farm and the Klingon is sent to the Starfleet Hospital. The Vulcan ambassador Soval proposes to unplug the life support system and bring the corpse of Klaang to his warrior empire in planet Kronos with honor. However, Captain Jonathan Archer proposes to go with the Enterprise in her first voyage and bring back Klaang alive to his home planet. Jonathan invites Ensign Hoshi Sato and Dr. Phlox, who is treating Klaang, to complete his crew, and the Vulcan Sub-Commander T'Pol is assigned to participate in the dangerous first mission of Enterprise. When the equipment of the starship is shut-down, Klaang is kidnapped by Sulibans after a shooting in the hospital. After the autopsy of the Suliban killed in the shooting, Captain Archer is informed by Dr. Phlox that the alien was actually a mutant, altered in a sophisticated genetic engineering process. T'Pol modifies the sensors of the Enterprise to track the Suliban spacecraft until she reaches planet Riger X. They investigate and disclose that Klaang was a courier, bringing an important message about the Temporal Cold War from the Suliban Sarin to the leaders of the Klingons in Kronos.

In spite of being a huge fan of Star Trek, I have not followed the episodes of "Enterprise" on cable television. I have decided to buy the DVD box of the First Season and this first episode surprised me. The adventure of the first Enterprise, Captain Jonathan Archer, the gorgeous T'Pol, Reed, Mayweather, Dr. Phlox, Hoshi and Trip is excellent, at least in this pilot. I have noted in IMDb that this episode is actually divides in two parts, but on DVD they are just one, therefore my review is valid for both. I did not like the music score theme, which I found very annoying, but this was an exception in this great show. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Broken Bow" Enterprise, the latest high budget spin-off to the most successful franchise in film and or television history opens to the tune of a 90-minute episode called 'Broken Bow'. First we are swept into a massive action sequence with a Klingon being chased by some Suliban (who are the main enemy in the first season of the show). From there the televised movie takes us on a journey that seldom gets as good as it is, with some of the best character development, story and action/visual effects ever seen in such a short amount of time.

The opening-credits is a debatable subject among the minority of Enterprise fans, whom some believe that the song is out of place. What they fail to realise is the lyrics themselves. If one listens to the actual song, instead of the theme, then they will begin to piece the parts of the puzzle together. And eventually as the series progresses further and further, and we learn more about our valiant captain and his crew, will the song actually become meaningful. Overall Diane Warren's theme is beautifully orchestrated and is sung just as well by opera singer Russell Watson.

What makes any television show watchable and worth watching time and time again is its characters and the way they become structured and layered. Enterprise is (in my opinion) one of the most well cast shows since The Next Generation. Choosing Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer was the best decision since Gene himself cast Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. As the captain always leads the show, Bakula adds a subtlety to his role and brings a huge smile to the faces of anyone with blood pumping in their veins. He simply is (both actor wise and character wise) a superb human being and his charm, wit, and compassion are overwhelming to watch. As for the other cast members, a favourite of mine is John Billingsley who plays Dr. Phlox. It's also nice to see a non-human playing a role, and the decision to give the captain a dog, named 'Porthos' was a well-received idea. Throughout the show character development was brilliant, it was fast, well timed and almost perfect. I say almost because sadly Travis Mayweather's character played by the Briton Anthony Montgomery is a little weak at the end of the first season. He does have some things to say here and there, but remains in the hands of the producers to make him more important. Jolene Blalock is wonderful as the sometimes harsh but equally loveable Subcommander T'Pol. Dominic Keating as Lieutenant Malcolm Reed plays a strong role and is convincing as the armoury officer. Connor Trinneer plays Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker who always adds charm and comedic style to his character and finally Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato, who often plays a weaker character but thankfully quickly becomes interesting. All of these characters make up Enterprise, and all bring a quality that Star Trek hasn't seen in a long time. Each person makes this show worth watching. Smiles and feel-good senses are guaranteed right from the first time we see them all together on the bridge of the starship Enterprise NX-01.

The ship itself, the NX-01 is somewhat questionable in design. The series is set 150 years from now and 100 years before Captain Kirk. So why then does the ship appear to be similar in design to mid 24th century ships, namely the Akira class starship? Continuity has been an issue in Enterprise, but thankfully Rick [Berman] and Brannon [Braga] offer suitable explanations for each and everyone of them. Continuity is only a problem if you are forever scrutinising shows and are obsessed with the tiniest of details. If you see the show with and open mind, then you'll have no problems, but there is an urge to know 'why' all the time. So what did Berman and Braga offer to the Star Trek fan-base with the issue of the deign of the ship itself? According to them the NX-01 is how it is because of the incident in First Contact. When Zefram Cochrane saw the Enterprise-E through his telescope and from speaking with the away team lead by Commander Riker, it changed the ideas in his head. That's a good enough explanation for me.lets move on. Of course its not as easy for some fans to accept that sort of answer, some go as far as to refuse to see the show until they get a reasonable answer. Come on guys grow up.When George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars saga with the launch of his profit making new trilogy, fans couldn't do anything, only watch and sap it all up anyway. And then they learned that, well maybe its not that bad after all. If you can't accept a quality show for what it is, not what it should be in your mind, then go elsewhere. Or try becoming a producer on the show and then see what you can do.

The sets on Enterprise remind me very much of the Defiant from Deep Space Nine. They often appear cold and have an eerie look of modern structure to them and they cry out that they belong to the military. Perhaps that why the crew of the USS Enterprise (aka flagship of the American fleet) like it so much. They are striking sets, and represent the show perfectly.

Rick Berman 'the overlord of the empire' as John Logan so accurately put it and his counterpart Brannon Braga has hit the nail on the head exactly where they should have, and in all the right places. Whether that be technicalities, visuals, sound, editing or score. Enterprise is a fine demonstration to just how good televised science fiction can ultimately be, when in the hands of geniuses. The late Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this series and as a Star Trek fan, so should you. A strong pilot, this two-hour episode does an excellent job of setting up the characters and background for "Enterprise," the "prequel" to the original "Star Trek" series. It stumbles a few times into "Trek" convention and cliché--candy-colored space strippers never seem to go out of style, and I can already foresee snickering references to T'pol as "Seven of Vulcan"--but the ensemble looks strong, the characters are well-drawn, and one can already see hints that this particular crew will have to be more resourceful, in different ways, than those of earlier (later?) series. Scott Bakula hits the right note as a captain with Kirk's brashness and daring but without his smugness and swagger, and I look forward to the ways in which the series will feature the engineer, weapons master and communications officer (not just a glorified phone operator anymore!) as supporting players. The writers seem to have picked up on the one big mistake made in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Deep Space 9" and "Voyager": Instead of starting with a big ensemble cast and giving characters short shrift, it's starting with a smaller core of characters to which a little more variety can be added later--which I hope happens, because after about a half-dozen episodes, more variety will be needed. A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up. Okay, the recent history of Star Trek has not been good. The Next Generation faded in its last few seasons, DS9 boldly stayed where no one had stayed before, and Voyager started very bad and never really lived up to its promise. So, when they announced a new Star Trek series, I did not have high expectations. And, the first episode, Broken Bow, did have some problems. But, overall it was solid Trek material and a good romp.

I'll get the nits out of the way first. The opening theme is dull and I don't look forward to sitting through it regularly, but that's what remotes are for. What was really bad was the completely gratuitous lotion rubbing scene that just about drove my wife out of the room. They need to cut that nonsense out.

But, the plot was strong and moved along well. The characters, though still new, seem to be well rounded and not always what you would expect. The Vulcans are clearly being presented very differently than before, with a slightly ominous theme. I particularly liked the linguist, who is the first Star Trek character to not be able to stand proud in the face of death, but rather has to deal with her phobias and fears. They seemed to stay true to Trek lore, something that has been a significant problem in past series, though they have plenty of time to bring us things like shooting through shields, the instant invention of technology that can fix anything, and the inevitable plethora of time-travel stories. Anyone want to start a pool on how long before the Borg show up?

All in all, the series has enormous potential. They are seeing the universe with fresh eyes. We have the chance to learn how things got the way they were in the later series. How did the Klingons go from just insulting to war? How did we meet the Romulans? How did the Federation form and just who put Earth in charge. Why is the prime directive so important? If they address these things rather than spitting out time travel episodes, this will be an interesting series.

My favorite line: Zephram Cochran saying "where no man has gone before" (not "no one") After 7 years of watching that dreadful nonsense called Star Trek Voyager I was feeling pretty numb. Next Gen and DS9 were bloody good stuff and Voyager ruined TV Trek. This opened with probably the best pilot to a Trek show. The crew were really good as were the choice of actors for the parts. Scott Bakula played a typical first time captain in deep space and his unpolished way of doing things was a refreshing change to the already know everything captains from before. The rest of the crew were really likable in their roles and I think they got off to a good first season. When the show was prematurely canceled I was really disappointed. In A Mirror Darkly showed us what the cast were capable of. Pity a film or TV movie was never considered. So much back story and founding of the federation left to tell, including the onset of hostilities with the Klingons.......... Ok, so, this is coming a few weeks late, but it is here. Mostly, this is because of statements of various negative natures. Starting with the technology. When Star Trek: TOS ran, special effect technology was extreamely low tec, and more than that, the crew had little money to do any kind of proper mock ups. In the 35 years seince TOS premiered, the crew of Star Trek have become experts at economy.

Ultimately, they have decided, quite rightly in my mind, to abandon the look of TOS and reverse engineered TNG et all. So what if they decided not to make the transporter out of gold glitter or made the phase pistols look closer to the ones from Star Trek II? As for the nits being picked about first contact with the Klingon Empire, it was presumed based upon comments made by Kirk and Riker that Earth only met the Klingon's in 2200. Nothing was firmly established.

Enterprise gives us the most promising venue of exploration that we've seen in a while. This is what Voyager COULD have been. No series can evolve without a few inconsistancies, but be thankful that Star Trek has so few. So, quit gripping and enjoy. I think this has the potential of being the best Star Trek series yet, I say POTENTIAL.. we all know there is a chance they will drop the ball and run out of ideas... BUT I HOPE NOT! For those that have not seen it..SEE IT! Without that annoying "PRIME DIRECTIVE" floating over their heads every time they encounter races it could be cool.. and Scott Bakula was without a doubt a GREAT CHOICE for Captain, and the Vulcan Babe is hot too, (Check out the decontamination scene)I gave this a FULL 10... it blows away ALL the other series openers.. I hope this goes longer than 7 years... I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of "Star Trek Voyager", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of "Deep Space Nine" in 1999. prayers, answered. "Enterprise" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. "Star Trek" is back - "Voyager," nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!

> The pilot of Enterprise has one thing that has been lacking since the original Star Trek: A dose of realistic, flawed personalities. The Utopian characters of the Next Generation got tiring, they were so noble as to be unbelievable. I also like the sub-plot that humans are bitter toward the Vulcans. Its funny seeing them as pretentious snobs. It makes me look forward to seeing when the humans become the dominant race between the two, though I don't think it would work in the time frame of the show. The only negatives that jumped out at me were the "quick cut off the ending at 2 hours" feel of the end, which is common among many of the Trek shows. The second was the shameless dig for ratings by a couple of senselessly sexy scenes. It was out of place, a good science fiction show should be able to stand on its own without trying to pad the pre-teen audience with some skin. But its not my job to make the show profitable, so oh well.

Lets see how the next episode does. This is what I was expecting when star trek DS9 premiered. Not to slight DS9. That was a wonderful show in it's own right, however it never really gave the fans more of what they wanted. Enterprise is that show. While having a similarity to the original trek it differs enough to be original in it's own ways. It makes the ideas of exploration exciting to us again. And that was one of the primary ingredients that made the original so loved. Another ingredient to success was the relationships that evolved between the crew members. Viewers really cared deeply for the crew. Enterprise has much promise in this area as well. The chemistry between Bakula and Blalock seems very promising. While sexual tension in a show can often become a crutch, I feel the tensions on enterprise can lead to much more and say alot more than is typical. I think when we deal with such grand scale characters of different races or species even, we get some very interesting ideas and television. Also, we should note the performances, Blalock is very convincing as Vulcan T'pol and Bacula really has a whimsy and strength of character that delivers a great performance. The rest of the cast delivered good performances also. My only gripes are as follows. The theme. It's good it's different, but a little to light hearted for my liking. We need something a little more grand. Doesn't have to be orchestral. Maybe something with a little more electronic sound would suffice. And my one other complaint. They sell too many adds. They could fix this by selling less ads, or making all shows two parters. Otherwise we'll end up seeing the shows final act getting wrapped up way too quickly as was one of my complaints of Voyager. Call me adolescent but I really do think that this is a great series. If you haven't had a chance to experience a few episodes of the latest Star Trek series, you should definitely watch this one. Perhaps more compelling than that of Voyager's Caretaker, which launched the series with Cpt. Janeway, Archer's adventures are completely different, yet strangely familiar...The music is catchy too. No true Sci-fi fan can go without seeing at least one Star Trek episode--and these installments make the wait worthwhile. Enterprise is the entertainment, but it is also the forefront of Science Fiction and a positive outlook for tomorrow. With gratitude and respect Mr. Berman and Mr. Braga. I wish you well, thank you both for your service to Trek.

Enterprise is what Trek is about...

There is STAR TREK canon -- lots of it. From canon we know the history of the future. Advances in technology, events, places, first contacts with new beings, names, dates, etc.

ENTERPRISE pretty much disregards much of ST canon. An unfortunate fact for long time serious fans. As one, I assumed that the producers would at least take a look at the first few episodes of TOS and retro back from there -- but no.

The phase pistols, like much of the technology, look much more modern than found in TOS. An old style Starfleet laser gun, a slow gold speckle transporter effect -- that's what I expected to see. Also, I did not expect to hear pure beep-based sound effects similar to TNG but far apart from TOS sound effects.

In the earliest view of TOS (the original pilot: THE CAGE), we see a Starfleet with a more formal military aspect -- a bit of old earth Navy. With ENTERPRISE, we see a shocking disregard for rank. There is more military code in the cartoon STAR BLAZERS than in ENTERPRISE.

It is fine that Captain Archer is unsure about the needs of the Universe (quite unlike Kirk who never lacked confidence in his application of human justice), but inside ENTERPRISE everyone seems like an equal. Unprofessional, unsure, more distant from the feel of formal military service than found in any ST series -- and that says a lot!

The casual country music opening theme song heralds the journeys of a family rather than the adventures of an important large military vessel.

ENTERPRISE looks to show us a mostly fun, warm-fuzzy exploration of human relationships rather than take us on a historic, bold, gritty, high-rick exploration of space.

I would have selected Adrian Paul to play the Captain and an older human to be the doctor. Still, I liked the actors for the most part. Linda Park, an outstanding ballroom dancer from Boston College, is sure to develop nicely. The characters making up the crew seem to be thoughtfully created.

ENTERPRISE begins its run stronger than did the past three STAR TREK series. Let's hope for a good future! This is the start of a new and interesting Star Trek series. It has a "down to earth"-kind of feel with darker and less "plaggy" scenography.

The characters need some more time to develop but they have potential. One thing that is fairly disappointing (with all Star Trek series really) is that they portray such a gloomy picture of the equality between men and women in the future when they paint a very positive picture about everything else. (Earth has stopped war, famine etc)

The female characters here are two, subcommander T'Pol who is vulcan and communications officer Hoshi who is human. Hoshi is quite wimpy and T'Pol is made to be a "vulcan babe".

Some of the crew attitudes feel a bit too American (as opposed to the more international feel of the TNG-crew) but creates interesting dynamics.

A very good pilot though for a very good series. I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember. When they announced the planning and premiere of the fifth series I was very excited.

The premiere of Enterprise was well worth the wait. It was well done with the perfect setting and a great acting job done by all the characters. The NX-01, Enterprise is the perfect vessel to show the beginnings of what many people have come to love.

Scott Bakula was just superior as Captain Jonathan Archer. Jolene Blalock gave a commanding performance as Subcommander T'Pol. That it just two people of this wonderful new crew that is boldly going to take us into the great history of Starfleet.

Enterprise looks like it's going to be a good series well worth watching, and I recommend that. Watch it. Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy. Obsession comes in many flavors, and exists for a variety of reasons; for some it may be nothing more than a compulsive disorder, but for others it may be an avenue of survival. Lack of nurturing, combined with an inability to negotiate even the simplest necessities of daily life or the basic social requirements, may compel even a genius to enthusiastically embrace that which provides a personal comfort zone. And in extreme cases, the object of that satisfaction may become a manifested obsession, driving that individual on until what began as a means of survival becomes the very impetus of his undoing, and as we discover in `The Luzhin Defence,' directed by Marleen Gorris, a high level of intelligence will not insure a satisfactory resolution to the problem, and in fact, may actually exacerbate the situation. Obsession, it seems, has no prejudice or preference; moreover, it gives no quarter.

At an Italian resort in the 1920's, Alexander Luzhin (John Turturro) is one of many who have gathered there for a chess tournament, the winner of which will be the World Champion. Luzhin is a Master of the game, but he is vulnerable in that chess has long since ceased to be a game to him; rather, it is his obsession, that one thing discovered in childhood that saw him though his total ineptness in seemingly all areas of life, and enabled him to cope with the subtle disenfranchisements of his immediate family. So Luzhin is a genius with an Achilles heel, a flaw which perhaps only one other person knows about and understands, and furthermore realizes can be exploited for his own personal gain at this very tournament. That man is Valentinov (Stuart Wilson), Luzhin's former mentor, who after an absence of some years has suddenly reappeared and made himself known to Luzhin.

Valentinov is an unwelcomed, disconcerting presence to Luzhin, and once again life threatens to overwhelm him. Not only is he about to face a formidable opponent in the tournament, Turati (Fabio Sartor), against whom in a previous match he emerged with a draw after fourteen hours, but he is also attempting to resolve a new element in his life-- his feelings for a young woman he's just met at the resort, Natalia (Emily Watson). And, genius though he may be, dark clouds are gathering above him that just may push Luzhin even deeper into the obsession that has been the saving grace, as well the curse, of his entire life.

To tell Luzhin's story, Gorris effectively uses flashbacks to gradually reveal the elements of his childhood that very quickly led to his obsession with chess. And as his background is established, it affords the insights that allow the audience to more fully understand who Luzhin is and how he got to this point in his life. For the scenes of his childhood, Gorris textures them with an appropriately dark atmosphere and a subtle sense of foreboding that carries on into, and underlies, the present, more pastoral setting of the resort. The transitions through which she weaves the past together with the present are nicely handled, and with the pace Gorris sets it makes for a riveting, yet unrushed presentation that works extremely well. She also underplays the menace produced by the presence of Valentinov, concentrating on the drama rather than the suspense, which ultimately serves to heighten the overall impact of the film, making Luzhin's tragedy all the more believable and unsettling.

The single element that makes this film so memorable, however, is the affecting performance of John Turturro. For this film to work, Luzhin must be absolutely believable; one false or feigned moment would be disastrous, as it would take the viewer out of the story immediately. It doesn't happen, however, and the film does work, because the Luzhin Turturro creates is impeccably honest and true-to-life. He captures Luzhin's genius, as well as his inadequacies, and presents his character in terms that are exceptionally telling and very real. It's a performance equal to, if not surpassing, Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of David Helfgott in `Shine.' And when you compare his work here with other characters he's created, from Sid Lidz in `Unstrung Heroes' to Pete in `O Brother Where Art Thou?' to Al Fountain in `Box of Moonlight,' you realize what an incredible range Turturro has as an actor, and what a remarkable artist he truly is.

As Natalia, Emily Watson is excellent, as well, turning in a fairly reserved performance through which she develops and presents her character quite nicely. Though she has to be somewhat outgoing to relate to Luzhin, Watson manages to do it in an introspective way that is entirely effective. Most importantly, because of the detail she brings to her performance, it makes her accelerated relationship with Luzhin believable and lends total credibility to the story. You have but to look into Watson's eyes to know that the feelings she's conveying are real. It's a terrific bit of work from a talented and gifted actor.

The supporting cast includes Geraldine James (Vera), Christopher Thompson (Stassard), Peter Blythe (Ilya), Orla Brady (Anna), Mark Tandy (Luzhin's Father), Kelly Hunter (Luzhin's Mother), Alexander Hunting (Young Luzhin) and Luigi Petrucci (Santucci). Well crafted and delivered, `The Luzhin Defence' is an emotionally involving film, presented with a restrained compassion that evokes a sense of sorrow and perhaps a reflection upon man's inhumanity to man. We don't need a movie, of course, to tell us that there is cruelty in the world; but we are well served by the medium of the cinema when it reminds us of something we should never forget, inasmuch as we all have the ability to effect positive change, and to make a difference in the lives of those around us. I rate this one 9/10.





Walking home after the film, I was humming the familiar waltz music that Natalia and Alexandre were dancing to. I've heard that before - where? Ah, from Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" (track 2), 'got it just as I arrived at the door. It's "Waltz No. 2 from Jazz Suite No. 2" composed by Dimitri Shostakovich, performed here by The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Yes, I went and picked up the soundtrack from Tower's. What a treat! The film score by Alexandre Desplat was fulfilling - there are fifteen tracks besides two tracks of the delightful waltz. It's not often these days we get a soundtrack entirely dedicated to a comprehensive film score. Reminds me of favorite scores by Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone (beginning notes of track 6 have traces of "Nuovo cinema Paradiso"), Georges Delerue, and John Barry. There are subtle nuances of strains and notes from the strings, celeste, piano, and harp.

Emily Watson and John Turturro delivered a credibly consuming paired performance. The love story, their intimate connection, is very much between Alexandre and Natalia - his childlike yet tormenting inner world, and her generous and bold understanding of him - a relationship alone to them both. Director Marleen Gorris of "Antonia's Line" (1996 Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film from the Netherlands) gave us a quietly sensitive film - not without its unsettling human conflicts, intrigues, obsessions, family strives, lovingness and respect. The front-end subject is the mind-game and mathematical logic of chess. Beneath it can be a mild tearjerker of a drama set in the late 1920's. Cinematography captures the serene beauty of Lake Como in northern Italy near the Swiss border.

I highly recommend the soundtrack if you don't feel like going to the movies. Alexandre Desplat's lyrical film score of "The Luzhin Defence" is complete. Part of the enjoyment that I took from this film stemmed from the fact that I knew nothing more about it than that it starred John Turturro and Emily Watson (2 reasons enough to watch), was a period piece and involved chess. Everything that evolved before me was completely unexpected. I shan't, therefore, give away much more. Suffice to say that Turturro is magnificent as an eccentric, obsessive and deeply vulnerable chess genius and Em matches him step for step as the strong-minded woman who is drawn to him. It's about love and obsession, rather than the venerated board game and after drawing me in gradually over the first half hour, became totally compelling. And I defy anyone to second-guess the ending. A movie of outstanding brilliance and a poignant and unusual love story, the Luzhin Defence charts the intense attraction between an eccentric genius and a woman of beauty, depth and character.

It gives John Turturro what is probably his finest role to date (thank goodness they didn't give it to Ralph Fiennes, who would have murdered it.) Similarly, Emily Watson shows the wealth of her experience (from her outstanding background on the stage). To reach the tortured chess master (Turturro) her character has to display intelligence as well as a woman's love. Watson does not portray beauty-pageant sexuality, but she brings to her parts a self-awareness that is alluring.

In a chance meeting between Natalia (Watson) and Luzhin, she casually stops him from losing a chess piece that has fallen through a hole in his clothing - a specially crafted piece that, we realize later in the film, has come to symbolize his hopes and aspirations. Later, as their love affair develops, she subtly likens dancing to chess (Luzhin has learnt to dance but never with a partner); she encourages him to lead her with "bold, brilliant moves" and in doing so enables him to relax sufficiently to later play at his best (and also realize himself as her lover).

This is a story of a woman who inspires a man to his greatest achievement and, in so doing finds her own deepest fulfillment, emotionally and intellectually (Or so we are led to believe - certainly, within the time frame, Natalia is something of a liberated woman rather than someone who grooms herself to be a stereotypical wife and mother).

The Italian sets are stunning. The complexity of the characters and the skill with which the dialogue unfolds them is a delight to the intelligent movie-goer, yet the film is accessible enough to make it a popular mainstream hit, and most deservedly so. Chess is merely the photogenic backdrop for developing an emotional and emotive movie, although the game is treated with enough respect to almost convince a chess-player that the characters existed. Although a tragedy of remarkable heights by a classic author, the final denouement is nevertheless surprisingly uplifting. 'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories. 'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.

Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one. Alexandr "Sascha" Luzhin (John Turturro) is a former leading chess player attempting a comeback at an Italy-hosted tournament. His brilliance is unquestioned but his obsession with chess has stunted his growth in all other aspects of his life. Natalia (Emily Watson) is a beautiful heiress who has come to the same resort with her mother, Vera (Geraldine James) to scope out possible marriage partners. Vera leans toward a handsome count but, astonishingly, Natalia is more fascinated by Sascha, whom she met on a walk. Sascha, too, is taken with Natalia and proposes marriage at their second meeting. But, with the concentration that Sascha must give to the chess matches and, with other happenings in his past still causing problems, will he win the heart of Natalia? Oh, and can he become the chess champion, also? This is a lovely film, based on a novel by Nabokov. The acting is amazing, with Watson very fine as the beautiful little rich girl and Turturro utter perfection as the shy, awkward chess enthusiast. James gives quite a nice turn as the overbearing mother and the other cast members are wonderful as well. As for the look of the film, it could not be better. The scenery is of the put-your-eye-out variety, the vintage costumes are gorgeous and the cinematography is deserving of much applause. Yes, the story is unusual and told with the use of flashbacks, at times, making it a film not everyone will appreciate. Then, too, the ending is bittersweet. However, if you love romance, period pieces, great acting, knockout scenery, or the fine art of motion picture creation, don't miss this one. You will be defenseless in resisting its multitude of charms. very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel. This is a poem on film, wonderfully presented and photographed with sensitive artistry. It captures the atmosphere of the time and place perfectly. (Italy's lake district in the twenties.) It's a love story with a twist. The characters are unique and believable. The settings are deliciously exotic. Some of the scenes --- the funeral boat in the fog --- the high long shot of the chess table in the centre of an intricately patterned tile floor --- are beautiful images. And rather than the mandatory happy ending, this story has a bitter sweet one. If film is an art, this is close to a masterpiece.

This is one of the unusual cases in which a movie and the novel on which it is based are both great. Maybe this is because Gorris' takes Nabokov's initial ideas and gives them a different interpretation. The final consequence is a point of view over Luzhin which dignifies him more than the Nabokov's one.

The only thing in the movie which I don't like is the influence of Valentinov's on Luzhin's destiny. I can't imagine Nabokov creating a person like Valentinov and giving him so great influence on novel's argument. The primary aspect of this film which most people miss is that Luhzin lives his life as a chess game. So many people have seen this film and just don't get it, and I don't understand why. While watching this film I was taken on a private journey which floored me. I will try to explain this without any spoilers, but be forewarned, I do talk about things that happen in the movie.

**** Possible Spoilers **** Be Forewarned!****

His is a life of "large moves" versus "small moves". He chooses Natalia to be his Queen, and he and she behave as his Aunt first described the King and Queen and their moves when she introduced him to chess as a boy. Listen closely to that description.

When someone asks him a question, he flashbacks to the past as if reviewing past moves. (The flashbacks are beautifully lit, by the way.) The flashbacks are quite interesting as well, for they give not only his point of view as a child, but the point of view of the other character as well. It's stunning.

Various characters become either his helpers or his enemies, pawns, bishops and knights, their actions enlightening you as to who's side they are on. Even their placement in a scene is pivotal to understanding what is going on. Beautifully done.

I will not comment more on what happens to the character of Luhzin, but I hope that this will illuminate what is actually happening at the end.

This film is constantly working on many levels, which is why I endorse it. It was a treat and a joy to watch.

If you like this film I would recommend a film called Fresh. The only way that these films are similar is the use of chess and the characters being treated as pieces.

Emily Watson's Natalia is absolutely the most loving and romantic lead character I have ever seen on a screen. She is the queen of this film beyond all doubt. Or, is she transmuted to the king? The internecine weaving of the chess games and the families' struggles for control, power, and victory is stunning. Just as the chess masters in the film do, the director is playing many simultaneous games with our mind at once, but all weave into either major or minor patterns. The period, the costumes, and imagery of early 20th century Italy's lake district is captured magnificently. Not a single square of space is wasted.

So many brilliant scenes abound, I cannot recount them all. I recommend budgeting enough time to watch this movie twice, possibly a week apart, because you can't possibly capture all the poetry within a 64-square yet multi-dimensional framework in one setting.

I did not read Nabakov's book, but to try an analogy of my own, what I am reading reminds of me of another romantically triumphant poetry-as-game movie, Barry Levinson's The Natural. It totally jettisoned the downbeat ending of Bernard Malamud's fatalistic book in favor of a romantic impressionism that was uniquely American. Well, the director did that one better by seamlessly meshing Russian and Italian morals and mores as a backdrop to enlightenment. The true story here is that games are zero-sum; there is a winner and a loser, unless both contestants draw. But, in life, and especially in the context of our immortal souls, we are only limited by those constraints and life's conventions to the extent we let others break our spirit.

Pure love, as personified by Emily Watson's Natalia, can transcend and allow all of us to be enhanced by its gifts simultaneously. Only the barriers erected by our fears can cut us off from it.

This is a magnificent movie (10/10). I'm rather surprised that no reviewer so far has commented on the rather elementary chess blunder in Luzhin's game as white against an unnamed opponent immediately before the final. Despite the use of Jonathan Speelman as consultant chess expert, Luzhin is shown winning the game with an illegal move. In between the rapid cuts away and back to the board it is not hard to spot that after Luzhin's combination culminating in a queen sacrifice, his rook on d1 is still pinned by black's rook at c1 against his king in the corner at h1. Thus he is unable to play the purported mating move Rd1-d8 which would be illegal - but he's shown doing so to rapturous applause from the audience. Hi all I am a chess enthusiast since the age of about 6. I supposed I am quite obsessed by chess, but hopefully not as much as the central character in this film.

In this film, the central character reflects a real chess player called Curt von Bardeleben who committed suicide in 1924. He is famous for a game he played against Steinitz, where a beautiful combination was played by Steinitz. Instead of resigning, he simply walked out of the tournament hall, never to return.

The social ineptness of the central character is unfortunately a treat of some of the more serious Grandmasters you sometimes get in chess tournaments. Chess I suppose is a very big sacrifice, and you can sometimes end up imbalanced in other areas of life. A major example of this is the chess legend Bobby Fischer. Although a genius, he was also very disturbed in many ways.

In the film, a World championship match is depicted, as between an Italian Grandmaster and Luzhin. The format is a knockout, which actually the world Governing body of Fide has sometimes employed as a format itself - going from 128 players to just 2 in the final. But this was a group knockout - which also depicts a realistic format, where the winners of each group play against each other.

The position before adjournment makes for a fascinating chess puzzle in itself. In fact, I have done a youtube video about it, for you to explore the winning combination in detail - enjoy! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPtdtPhwdM Best wishes Tryfon A brilliant chess player attends a tournament and falls in love with a woman he meets there. On itself this would be a pretty bad angle on a story. So, there is more. There is the fact that the chess player is also completely alienated from the world because of his brilliance at the game and the fact there is some history haunting the player.

This film steps back and forth from romantic frivolity to tournament tension to historic events that shaped the chess player and works quite nicely. It's easy to grow attached to the two main characters and easy to believe they might hit it off together like the way they do in this film. The added effect of the tournament is very good too and creates a nice tension setting.

I have no idea of the strength of the chess players as I don't play the game myself but it looks nice and believable. All in all, most of the film goes down very easily. It is also forgotten again very easily though. So it's nice to watch but nothing more than that.

7 out of 10 chess players caught between a rook and a hard place Once again proving his amazing versatility, John Turturro plays the introspective Russian chess genius preparing for a comeback tournament, and forging an unlikely relationship with a gadabout fellow resident (Emily Watson) at a 1920's Italian hotel. They fall in love,to the horror of her social-mountaineering mother (Geraldine James).A wonderful love story, whose gloss of chess might make it appear cerebral.But in spite of its origins in a Nabakov story, it certainly is not .The romantic elements and the sense of time and place beat the psychological analysis hands down.John Turturro, having appeared in "Barton Fink" ,"O Brother,Where Art thou?" "The Big Lebowski" proves that he is not dependant on Coen Bros films to assert his stature. Not having read Nabokov, and knowing nothing about chess, I could only view "The Luzhin Defence" as a movie.

It works really well as one of my favorite genres "sports romances." The chess comes alive as a tough competition much more than in, say "Searching for Bobby Fischer," in showing just how much hard mental work the game can be, requiring thought, preparation, stamina and planning. I particularly liked the special effects on the chess board as alternative plays are anticipated.

Through the feminist director Maureen Gorris (of "Antonia"), Emily Watson with her big blue eyes gradually strengthens via her transformative relationship with John Turturro's fairly one-note absent-minded intense chess genius.

The settings in Italy and Hungary are beautiful.

(originally written 5/27/2001) Don't know how this missed award nominations. Great film. Certainly of the calibre of "Beautiful Mind" Great acting, photography, script and drama. I can't imagine anyone not being entranced by this film. This movie was well done in all respects. The acting is superb along with the fine audio soundtrack which I purchased because it was so moving. It is my all time favorite movie ahead of eastwoods "white hunter,black heart". This movie is simply the best.

cheers Zuf This movie stars Emily Watson, of Breaking the Waves fame. This movie about one man's obsession takes place at a resort where a chess tournament is being held. A chess master arrives and shortly after falls madly in love (at first sight) with a woman, played by Emily Watson. She falls for this oddball of a man, who is obsessed with chess. This is all at the dismay of her mother, who is far more interested in seeing her with another young gentleman; a proper gentleman. Her mother feels that this is just a passing fancy for the young woman, as she has a tendency to take in odd animals and such. What ensues is mostly a journey through the man's psyche. It tells the story of how his past is closely tied with his present. Emily Watson is amazing in this, as well as the actor who plays the main character. It is definitely slow, but is well worth the watching. The ending was even satisfying. :) As a psychiatrist specialized in trauma, I find this film a beautiful shown example of a severe psychic trauma, even a trauma. It not only explains the enormous difficulties those people have to cope wither, but that even love is sometimes not enough. But she tries! The story-line was rather interesting, but the characters were rather flat and at times too extreme in their thoughts/behavior. More extreme than necessary. Also, I think something went wrong in the casting. John Turtorro doesn't really satisfy me playing a semi-autistic chess player, not to speak of the Italian player. Motives weren't very much outlined either.

The literary genius of Vladimir Navokov is brought to the screen again and many in the cultured world will take notice. The director puts us in check mate with the story of Alexander, an absentminded chaplinesque study of chess addiction. Nastasya is vacationing in a marble columned resort where a chess championship is being hosted. She meets Alexander by picking up a queen piece he drops thru his coat pocket. A magnetic attraction evolves whereby he proposes the next day, the mother alarmed telegrams the husband. He arrives and questioning Alexander we get these fades to the past, ala' Godfather II, where we see young Alexander, a child prodigy. He is taken under a school teachers wing and exploits his genius for 10 yrs making vast sums. Thinking Alexander reached his peak, abandons him but becomes legend. The old teacher returns causing harm, trying to give victory to an old rival of Alexander. In a serious chess game where World Chess Champion victory is one way to immortality, the chess clock ticks, match time ends to conclude the next day. That day is Nastasya's wedding, the old teacher interferes and Alexander is sent on a nervous breakdown. Nastasya, holding her stomach and looking thru her love's coat finds his strategy for the match and follows the moves. Though the film unfortunately sways from its Russian roots, its low back cut dresses are lovely, Alexander plays his role sublimely.The director underestimated her audience, we hardly ever get to play and the only hint of The Luzhin Defense is after trading queens, isolate the opponents King with your 3 paws & King, sacrificing the castle for mate. Nastasya is a great match, but feel its conclusion deserved more intensity, but maybe the emotions were right on check for chess meant more to him than her. The Luzhin Defense elegantly gives Navokov honor, the complexity of his work in images is a world event not to be missed. This film is one of the few quality films of 2000 and definitely one of my best. The scenario is based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov and the transfer to the big screen is absolutely brilliant.

The photography of the film is excellent as is the acting of both Turturro and Watson. Turturro definitely gives his best performance to date proving he's worth much more than what we thought. Watson also performs brilliantly.

The story is about a phenomenal chess player (Turturro) which is also extremely eccentric in his everyday life. The film is presented in a non linear time, with multiple flashbacks of Luzhin's childhood. Through those, the complex character of Luzhin is described.

I have nothing more to say, but to suggest this film to anyone. This was an exteremely good historical drama. John Turturro is excellent as the tortured genius Luzhin and brilliantly portrays the character's manic affectations such as his strange dancing. Emily Watson is fine in her support role as the sensitive lover Natalia.

The relatonship between chess and near madness is well explored by Gorris and familiar Nabokov preoccupations such as 'eternal innocence' (i.e. 'Lolita') are evident in this film. I think I will now go on to read the novel. It was a touching and tragic ending and it was hard to keep a dry eye. Brilliant movie! Marlene Gorris has established herself as one of the world's great directors. This sensitive, visually beautiful film is based on a story by Vladimir Nabokov and captures well that writer's dark irony. John Turturro gives what I consider to be his finest performance (I am usually not a fan of his); and Emily Watson is brilliant as well. Well worth seeing. I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.

Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded. Of course the plot, script, and, especially casting are strong in the film. So many fine things to see. One aspect I liked especially is the idea of the antagonist--Luzhini's (Turturro's)--ex-mentor working his evil on the sidelines. His chess opponent--an Italian dandy in three piece and cane--turns out to be a real gent, and a truly fine chess player. To his credit the "opponent" nobly goes along with the plan at the end to complete the final game for the championship posthumously (Luzhin has taken a flyer out a window--sad, but so releasing to him)by way of the unstable genius' widow (Emily Watson.) In death, then, because of the gallantry of an honorable chess master, Luzhin's defence (which he worked out in a late moment of lucidity) is allowed to be played. The Italian gent commends the play and calls it brilliant. Talk about a dramatic "end game!" "The Luzhin Defence" is, in the foreground, a story of an idiosyncratic chess savant (Turturro) who becomes consumed by the game and, in the background via flashbacks, his boyhood life and the forces which created the man he has become. Factor in good and evil in the forms of his his love interest (Watson) and former "mentor" (Wilson) respectively and you have a plaintive drama laced with poignant and delicately humorous moments mingled with the rich scenic beauty of Italy's Lake Como and the intensity of high chess play. An excellent film for those into period dramas, the auteur's euphemistic chess play metaphor for orgasmic delight is an indication of the subtle wit behind the film. Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.

It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.

To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb. This is a wonderful new crime series, bringing together three old stalwarts of British television (Denis Waterman, James Bolam and Alun Armstrong) as retired detectives brought back to help clear up old cases, under the leadership of younger, career-focused Amanda Redman. The three quirky, irritable old cops make a brilliant team, applying twenty-year old detection methods in a police force which has moved a long way on since then - sometimes with effect, at other times to the horror of their senior officers. The three are portrayed sympathetically, warts and all. There are splendid comic scenes, and some very moving ones as each of the three has to come to terms with growing old and the legacy of their pasts.

At the end of the first six-part series (we are promised a further series next year) each of the characters had developed. Widower James Bolam cannot come to terms with his wife's untimely death. Lothario Denis Waterman is learning to accept his role as grandfather. And even obsessive Alun Armstrong is helped by his new friends to fight the demons of his past - and keep taking the medication! While Amanda Redman has to face the all-too-familiar conflict between having a life and a career. The story lines have been interesting, if rather heavily dependent on the wonders of DNA-testing. But it is the interplay of four of Britain's finest actors which has made the series unmissable. This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.

I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one.

The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!). My wife, Kate and I absolutely loved the series and can't wait for the next one (hopefully there is a sequel!). I would love to know what the catchy song is called and who wrote it, maybe because I am "old and grey" and still interested in life:-). If anyone has the full lyrics please send them.

Of course one big reason why my wife and I liked this series so much was that we are 75 years old and retired but still very active intellectually. It's great to see a show that highlights the contribution to society that can still be made by older people with special skills and experience. The human interest aspect showing the interactions of the characters and the younger people around them is an important part of the show.

This series is highly entertaining and very sophisticated, on a par with some of our other favourites, "Spooks" and "Hustle". This program is a lot of fun and the title song is so catchy I can't get it out of my head. I find as I get older I am drawn to the wrinklies who get things done, and these four are excellent in their endeavors. Some of what they do is outrageous but brilliant considering that now days with our PC world we'd never be able to do it in real life. I always learn something from the shows. But if you like mystery, drama, comedy, and a little forensic work you'll love this show. It reminds me of Quincy, ME in one way and Barney Miller in another the way they work and inter-react with each other. They screw up a lot but they get the job done, and that's what counts. This is a lovely, spirit-restoring movie. From the use of the actual villa that inspired Elizabeth Arngrim to write the novel in the 1920s to the inspired casting, every choice was perfectly right! The quiet joy of this film doesn't stale after repeated viewings. Josie Lawrence, Miranda Richardson, Polly Walker and Joan Plowright seem to have been born to play these parts! I would dearly love to see Enchanted April released on DVD in a widescreen format. "Magic" isn't too strong a word for the spell this film weaves. You find yourself relaxing, and seeing others in a more benevolent light... Any movie that has that civilizing an effect on viewers deserves serious attention. Seldom are we soaked in beauty like this. As if that weren't enough, it's funny. Performances are, without exception, extraordinary, but special mention must be made of the miraculous Miranda Richardson, and the superb Josie Walker - both open like roses.

Why ISN'T this film on DVD? It deserves to live forever. Had a bad day? Dog bit the mailman? Car wouldn't start? People got on your nerves? Then refresh yourself with a delightful experience.

Two women decide to pool their resources in answer to an ad for a month's rental of a villa in Italy. Due to financial circumstances, two other women join them. Two have humdrum marital lives; one is an elderly woman who prefers to live in the past; the fourth is a wealthy and beautiful woman wholly jaded by life.

As the spell of the villa permeates their spirits, each grows in her own way and is uplifted in her outlook. This also changes the people in their lives who have visited them. As they leave you know the magic of the villa will remain with them...and you will find your outlook altered, for the better. A delightfully uplifting movie! I always tell people that "Enchanted April" is an adult movie with no cussing, no sex, and no violence. One might think of it as "the ultimate chick flick", but I bet there are one or two enlightened men out there who love it too. Don't invite the kids, though. This movie is very low-key.

Seeing "Enchanted April" is a very healing experience. The sound track and gorgeous scenery, along with the ladies' gentle manners, bring to mind the peace and beauty of a pre-Raphaelite painting.

Lest anyone think yours truly only watches one kind of movie, I will paraphrase a line I heard once on "Saturday Night Live" and say that my two favorite movies are "The Deer Hunter" and "Enchanted April". "My child, my sister, dream

How sweet all things would seem

Were we in that kind land to live together,

And there love slow and long,

There love and die among

Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather."

Charles Baudelaire

Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, "Enachanted April" can be described in one sentence – it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that "Enchanted April" - an ultimate "feel good" movie is perfection of its genre. Lovely and sunny, tender and peaceful, kind and magical, it is like a ray of sun on your face during springtime when you want to close your eyes and smile and stop this moment of serene happiness and cherish it forever. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It helped me to regain my optimism and hope that anything could be changed and anything is possible. I had promised to myself then that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I did and I was not alone.

Charming, enchanting, and heartwarming, "Enchanted April" is one of the best movies ever made and my eternal love. This little film is a diamond of highest quality. If anyone is wondering why no one makes movies like they used to, with conversation, character and a simple theme of friendship struggling to evolve into something new, better and different, those folks need to take in this film and see top notch writing, directing, and acting that melds into a wonderful evening of observation on how things used to be in Italy and England. Other days, other times funneled into a terrific comedy of entertainment, made in 1992 with Alfred Molina, Joan Plowright, Polly Walker, Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, and Michael Kitchens in the major roles. Under the brush stroke direction of Mike Newell, these actors accomplish vividly memorable performances that are photographed with a sublimely subtle painter's eye. Reminiscent of the theatrical bedroom farce of the turn of the century, this film might be called a friendship farce that becomes a worthwhile experience in the growth of the romantic nature within each character, and the viewer, too. An artistic telegram on the importance of caring about those around us. I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. "It's a tub of love," says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.

All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me. For anyone who's judged others at first meeting, here is the perfect tutorial on depth of character. The grumpy old lady has a soft, thoughtful heart - and needs new friends. The flighty, unsure, 'ditsy' dame who makes inappropriate, uncomfortable comments - sees deep into your soul and has pure love for all. The cold, prim, proper, neglected wife has passion simmering that could boil over at any minute - given the right setting. The perfect beauty - rich, sweet, partying, pursued by throngs - wants peace, quiet, and love without possessiveness.

By taking the time to look beyond the surface, you will find treasures in everyday life, from the least expected sources. All it takes is patience and a touch of enchantment. I think this movie is absolutely beautiful. And I'm not referring only to the breathtaking scenery. It's about two unhappy English housewives who decide to rent an Italian castle to take a break from their not so happy home lives. In the end four women total rent the place together, all with different personalities and different reasons for being there. In this magically beautiful place they all find the peace they're longing for and interestingly that peace comes from inward reflections and resolutions, more so than without. I also find it wonderful because of the relationships that are developed out kindness and understanding. The acting is a joy to watch in itself. I especially love the characters of Lottie (Josie Lawrence) and Lady Caroline (Polly Walker). This is one of the best movies. It is one of my favorites. A movie with good acting. The story is very sensitive and touching. Good camera work also.

The names of the actresses and actors are not at the top of the American Star list. However, they give equal or better performances than the top of the list.

It is such a pleasure to see a movie about true love, romance, friendship without having to endure watching someone having to kick-box their way to save the world.

If you don't like this movie then you have no heart or feelings. Then go watch a sports movie. There is no killing or horror here. See the movie. It is a must. TH One of my all time favourite films, ever. Just beautiful, full of human emotion, wit, humour, intelligence. The story grows, as does the lesson of life, just a wonderful film in so many ways.

The cast are also fantasic..... a great selection of the finest British talent around. I loved them all for every diverse element brought into the film.

Italy has to be one of the most romantic places to form a story such as this, - everything about this film works.

I love it :) I first saw Enchanted April about five years ago. I loved it so much that my husband surprised me with a copy the following Christmas. It's about two women who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, leaving their humdrum lives behind them. They are very sad women at the outset of the film, and you can't help but root them on as they plan this get-away with two other women they invite along to share the expenses. This is perhaps the most feel good movie I have ever seen. It' pure and simple, with no car chases, no animosities and no deaths. It was made with care and in very good taste. You cannot help but smile all through it -- except when you're crying happy tears! This is the kind of movie England can do in its sleep, and that's meaning it as a compliment. Because of the success of very British comedies of manners situated at the end or beginning of the Twentieth Century, most notably adaptations of E. M. Forster novels, this very Merchant-Ivory like production was received in the light it brought when it was released in 1992. It was an exceptional year for actress Miranda Richardson, having appeared as the wife of Jeremy Irons who discovers her husband has been having an affair in the worst possible way in DAMAGE, and as the IRA terrorist who eventually dons a wig and gets a nasty comeuppance in THE CRYING GAME. Here, she plays a quiet, serene type of woman in Rose Arbuthnot, one who with Josie Lawrence who plays Lottie Wilkins, embarks on a trip that is filled with self-discovery. They are joined by an unlikely pair of ladies: one Caroline Dester, played by the enigmatic Polly Walker who resembles a very vamp Louise Brooks (and not just in the style of hair she wears), and Mrs. Fisher (Joan Plowright). This foursome will eventually merge together into becoming deep friends only because the story is so filled with spring and an overwhelming, dreamy sweetness it almost preordains it, but this is fine; it's the movie it wants to be. Alfred Molina and Jim Broadbent (then relatively new to American audiences) fill out the cast as the husbands of the two main characters, and all in all, Mike Newell makes with his movie a living thing of near-magical elements, full of quiet moments and wonder. I first saw this movie back in the early '90's when it was first released. Room With a View was also newly out. Enchanted April had so much more to offer! I found it much more real and earthy, the characters more believable for being 'normal'. By the end of the film I felt the same as I did when I first saw the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, I was yearning for the characters to find what they were looking for whether it was isolation, peace, liberty or love. You get a sense throughout that Italy is so far removed from everything they have ever known, that they are so decadent for taking a risk and leaving behind all that is humdrum and constricting. But in the heat of the spring in April, everyone's lives loosen and unravel (in line with the Victorian corsets) and are slowly rebuilt to everyone's satisfaction. What a little gem of a film! How come it isn't more well known? This is what I call a growth movie. Every character is different and better at the end- and it's all because one woman knows that the place they have chosen is a "tub of love". Josie Lawrence, who is best known as a comedienne, really shines as the woman who brings about all these changes. Even the men in this film go from being self-centered to better men. The book stayed very true to the novel, which is a plus in my book, since I am a librarian. The scenery breath-taking and the message of love genuine. This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.

The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you. My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel. The true measure of any fictional piece of work is whether or not the characters grow from their experiences and emerge from the experience altered in some significant way (note that this change need not be positive or beneficial) at the end.

By that measure, Enchanted April is a resounding success. As a film in general, it succeeds quite well-excellent ensemble cast, well-developed characters you come to care about, wonderful script and beautiful sets and locations. In short the film is, well, enchanting. Although all the performances are first-rate, three must be mentioned-Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent and Joan Plowright. It says something when Miranda Richardson does her usual fine work and yet is overshadowed by so many others in the cast. Most highly recommended, particularly if you are a romantic at heart. Further Deponent Saith Not. From rainy, dreary late winter England of early 1920s...

---where there is still sadness and many young widows and disabled vets from the great slaughter of men and killer of their womens' dreams--- known now as World War I...

Four women share this lovely small sunny Italian castle on a hill; one a young widow who is drowning her sorrow in frantic partying, two women who will rediscover their own husbands, and a fourth woman who is tired of her famous dead friends...

...These four women will come together with two husbands and a former soldier - almost blind - to get a spiritual "makeover" for one great April vacation in early 1920's Italy.

NOTE to would-be filmmakers. Study this film for how mood and beauty can tell a story. (Probably not a film to please many men...)

NOTE: Stock up on coffee & hot chocolate and invite the girls over on some dreary late winter day...Spring is coming...Enchanted April promises you! Enchanted April is a tone poem, an impressionist painting, a masterpiece of conveying a message with few words. It has been one of my 10 favorite films since it came out. I continue to wait, albeit less patiently, for the film to come out in DVD format. Apparently, I am not alone.

If parent company Amazon's listings are correct, there are many people who want this title in DVD format. Many people want to go to Italy with this cast and this script. Many people want to keep a permanent copy of this film in their libraries. The cast is spectacular, the cinematography and direction impeccable. The film is a definite keeper. Many have already asked. Please add our names to the list. I absolutely loved this movie. I am not even sure what particularly about it but I think it was wonderful and should be available for DVD. The women were strangers and yet got along well enough to spend the time they did in the Villa in Italy. The actors, in my opinion, did an excellent job. The characters were all so different and yet clever story that made it work. There is humor, drama and relationship issues all in good time. This requires 10 lines but I just can't think of any more to say so I will just rattle on until I get 10 lines. So sorry about this. What else can I possibly say it has been a long time since I last saw it. I am looking forward to view again but it isn't available. Two thirds of nearly 2,000 IMDb users who have voted on this film have rated it at 8, 9 or 10 and one user reports wearing out six videotapes (Was this a record, or merely a faulty VCR?). Although the film is primarily intended as a period piece it clearly has a quite unusual fascination. But for some reason I imagined it as largely whimsy and until recently never felt the urge to watch it. My mind was changed by Elizbeth Von Arnim's original book. My wife loves reading but her sight no longer allows her to read much so she borrowed it in talking book form. Such books are usually irritating to a companion who is busy with other things, but I gradually came to appreciate that this one was seductively soothing, although in no way syrupy, and was also very well written. I realised my wife would enjoy watching the film, and so decided to buy her the videotape. I am now very glad that I did, and would certainly recommend its purchase to anyone else who appreciates a quiet reflective work with no fireworks but with well constructed character development and a very successful pre-Mussolini Italian atmosphere. The story is set in the immediate post WW1 period and starts with two married London ladies who decide to pool their savings and enjoy a holiday together, away from their families, in a rented villa in Italy. Force of circumstances lead to this couple being joined by two others with very different characters and backgrounds. Its theme is essentially no more than the interactions that take place as their holiday progresses, not only between these four very disparate mature ladies, but also with the occasional male visitor. If you want action, thrills, dramatic sex scenes, natural or man-made disasters, or Harlequin style romances this would not be the film for you. But IMDb users have collectively and very emphatically demonstrated that none of these are necessary for a film to prove highly rewarding to watch, and if you care to give it a try you may, as I did, come to rank it among your much loved films.

It is fairly rare for me to watch a film of a book with which I am already familiar. In many cases I find this takes some of the pleasure away from watching the film, but here there is such a strong visual appeal in the setting that I actually found my pleasure augmented by the anticipation of seeing the next segment of the book, effectively unrolled before my eyes. (Perhaps Italy itself has some part in this, the last time I had this experience was when I was watching tales from Boccaccio's Decameron on TV.) Generally films of books tend to increase the dramatic level of the original work to ensure that the filmed version has an even wider appeal, but here if anything it is reduced in order to keep the viewers attention on the gradual character development rather than on any background events. This works very well, although changes from the book are few and basically the film remains true to the original story. Great credit is due to the Director, Mike Newell, and all members of the cast, particularly those well known British Actresses who play the four principal ladies. Nice character development in a pretty cool milieu. Being a male, I'm probably not qualified to totally understand it, but they do a nice job of establishing the restrictive Victorian environment from the start. It isn't as bleak as it really was and the treatment of women was probably even harsher. What makes this go is a wonderful chemistry among the principal characters. Each has their own "thing" that they contend with. Once they come out of the rain and break out of the spider webs, they begin to interact and slowly lose their sense of suspicion. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it didn't go for cheap comedy when it could have. It didn't try to pound a lesson into us. The people who seem utterly without merit are really nicely developed human beings who get to see the light. I did have a little trouble with the Alfred Molina character having such an epiphany so quickly, but, within this world, it needed to happen. Good acting all around with something positive taking place in the lives of some pretty good people. This is one of those rare movies, it's lovely and compelling, dignified and quirky, a true gift. I consider it a prerequisite for any trip to Italy, or any vacation at all, because it reminds you to open yourself up to a broader experience (yup, find the magic). I especially loved Josie Lawrence, as Lottie Wilkins, but every lead and supporting actor is flawless in this film. Further the costumes, if you're drawn to fashion and costumes, are extraordinarily well done. I just wish they'd release it on DVD because I'm wearing my tape version out!

Absolutely well worth your time, just make sure to settle in to watch it, without any interruptions. I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew

from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational

comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and

romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are

all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.! It starts slowly, showing the dreary lives of the two housewives who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, but don't give up on it. Nothing much happens, but the time passes exquisitely, and there are numerous sly jokes (my favorite is the carriage ride in the storm, which I find hilarious). The movie is wonderfully romantic in many senses of the word, the scenery is beautiful (as is Polly Walker), and the resolutions in the movie are very satisfying.

The movie takes a couple of liberties with the book, the biggest being with the Arbuthnot/Briggs/Dester business, but I actually preferred the movie's version of this (it may be more sentimental, but I felt that it was more consistent with the tone of the story, and anyway I like sentiment when it's well done).

An excellent movie, especially as a date movie during lousy weather. This was a very good film. I didn't go into it with very high expectations and was pleasantly surprised by the acting, the script, and the scenery. Miranda Richardson was fantastic and so was Joan Plowright. They stole the show. But the other actors played their parts wonderfully also. Very enjoyable film. It has been about 50 years since a movie has been made about romance and mysticism. The only two movies I can think of is "Enchanted April" (1992) and "The Enchanted Cottage" (1945). Both movies used wonderful actors not stars. In both movies, all the actors gave their best romantic performances.

"Enchanted April" is about four English women after WWI who are unhappy with their lives and find happiness in Italy while on vacation. It is amazing "Enchanted April" was made in 1992. It stands out as an enjoyable classic. Two women, sick of their controlling husbands, taking a vacation in Italy for a month with two other very different women.They come back refreshed and energized in this wonderful little film by Merchant - Ivory.

Great scenery and the location isn't bad either. Seriously, a very good period piece 7 of 10 one of the best ensemble acted films I've ever seen. There isn't much to the plot, but the acting- incredible. You see the characters change ever so subtly, undr the influence of the rented villa in Italy, and love. And happiness. The film casts a mesmerizing spell on you, much as the villa does on all the women. Truly "enchanted". Having ran across this film on the Fox movie channel on a lazy Friday afternoon, I can think of no better way to spend a lazy Friday evening then putting in my two cents worth. Especially when you consider the lack of user comments on it. Doesn't every movie, good or bad deserve more than four comments? And this movie isn't bad at all.

The first thing to keep in mind when watching a film like April Love is to remember the era from which it came, in this case the late fifties. Films were pretty much a happy medium back then. The cinemas were devoid of tragedy while the screens were filled with wide screen Technicolor films in order to pry people away from the gray glare of the evil medium in a box called television. I don't know how many people were pried away from the boob tube to see this one, but it managed to capture my attention for 97 minutes.

Teen Idol Pat Boone plays Nick Conover, a young teen sent to live with his Aunt Henrietta (Jeanette Nolan) and Uncle Jed (Arthur O'Connell) out in the country after being put on probation for stealing a car. It seems that his Aunt and Uncle have lost their own son (Jed Jr.)so Uncle Jed seems has lost his zest for living. Aunt Henrietta is hoping that Nick being on the farm will somehow bring Jed out of his doldrums. Story lines like this being what they are, Jed and Nick don't really care for each other too much of course. Jed then proceeds to meet up with the neighbors, Fran (Dolores Michaels)and Liz (Shirley Jones)Templeton. Immediately Jed develops a crush on Fran, and of course I don't have to tell you that Liz develops a crush on Jed. Then there's the matter of Uncle Jed's horse, a trotter who has turned wild and won't let anyone handle him since the death of Jed Jr. You could probably fill in everything that happens from that point on your own, seeing as how there are no real surprises. Doesn't matter though, you'll enjoy yourself anyway.

Once you get over the image of squeaky clean Pat Boone, as a supposedly bad boy, you'll have no trouble with the rest of the film. Considering that, Boone does turn in a surprisingly good performance as Nick. Certainly the role doesn't require much depth, but still it's a nicely done job when you would least expect it. As Jed, Arthur O'Connell is the perfect choice for the role. In the early going, he is unreachable and cold, but as he slowly warms up to Nick, we see that he's really a pretty good guy. Jeannette Nolan is a lot of fun as Henrietta, who is constantly playing the part of mediator between Jed and Nick. Shirley Jones takes a break from Rodgers And Hammerstein and gets a few opportunities to grace us with her singing talents. As Liz, she's gorgeous to look at, great to listen to, and quite funny at times. Dolores Michaels as Fran, who is a bit more on the wild side, is equally entertaining.

The best thing about April Love, is that there is not a true mean conniving character of any sort on the screen. Not one true villain in the whole thing. Everybody is so darn likable you can't help but enjoy the film. I truthfully find it quite refreshing, sort of like putting your troubles behind you and enjoying a summer picnic with friends. Think of it as the old Andy Griffith show with musical numbers, a little more plot, and wide screen Technicolor. The songs are a mixed bag, with the title song April Love being the best of them. Another thing I really liked is that they didn't fall back on using blue screen backdrops during the horse racing sequences, and they quite a bit more entertaining and exciting because of it. As a matter of fact, you'll find the whole film beautifully photographed and it was nice to see they didn't skimp in that department. The chemistry between Jones and Boone is good. Best of all is how the dislike between Nick and Jed is portrayed as each try in some way to gain the others respect.

This movie will never be confused with great cinema. Yet, sometimes instead of going to Disneyland, one just needs a nice outing in the park, and that's what April Love is.

My Grade: B+

I would like to comment on the movie April Love. It's one of my all time favorites because my father, Nelson Malone plays the horse trainer. I remember distinctly when Hollywood came to Lexington, KY, where we were living at the time to make April Love. My Dad had been in numerous plays and was a talented man. I talked him into going to try out for one of the bit parts offered, and lo and behold he came home w/the script. How exciting is that! Also, a number of my classmates were in the crowd scenes -- especially the ones shown at the amusement park. It's very nostalgic every April when I see the movie being shown once again, and the song April Love by Pat Boone is still played on the radio. Timeless and reminiscent of a time long gone when you see the movies they make today w/all the sex, foul language and violence. It would be refreshing to see more movies like April Love come back into focus... I love this movie because I grew up around harness racing. Pat Boone behind the sulky reminds me of my father who was drawn to the trotters because, unlike thoroughbred jockeys, men of normal height and weight can be drivers.

Yes, the 1944 Home in Indiana is a better movie, but it's also a very different movie. April Love is light and easy to watch, a feel good movie. (Disappointing though that Pat Boone's religious/moral views prohibited him from ever kissing the girl! Quite a change from today's standard fare.) Home in Indiana with Walter Brennan (filmed in black and white with no hint that anyone will ever burst into song) captures the stress and struggle better thereby making the ultimate accomplishment more satisfying but it requires a bigger emotional investment. I just read the plot summary and it is the worst one I have ever read. It does not do justice to this incredible movie. For an example of a good summary, read the listing at "Turner Classic Movies". Anyway, this was one of my favorite movies as a young child. My sister and I couldn't wait until every April when we could see it on T.V. It is one of the best horse movies of it's time. It is one of those great classics that the whole family can watch. The romance is clean and endearing. The story line is interesting and the songs are great. They don't make movies like this anymore. Good acting and not over the top. Pat Boone and Shirley Jones are at their best, along with many other great character actors. "The Plainsman" represents the directorial prowess of Cecil B. DeMille at its most inaccurate and un-factual. It sets up parallel plots for no less stellar an entourage than Wild Bill Hickok (Gary Cooper), Buffalo Bill Cody (James Ellison), Calamity Jane (Jean Arthur), George Armstrong Custer and Abraham Lincoln to interact, even though in reality Lincoln was already dead at the time the story takes place. Every once in a while DeMille floats dangerously close toward the truth, but just as easily veers away from it into unabashed spectacle and showmanship. The film is an attempt to buttress Custer's last stand with a heap of fiction that is only loosely based on the lives of people, who were already the product of manufactured stuffs and legends. Truly, this is the world according to DeMille - a zeitgeist in the annals of entertainment, but a pretty campy relic by today's standards.

TRANSFER: Considering the vintage of the film, this is a moderately appealing transfer, with often clean whites and extremely solid blacks. There's a considerable amount of film grain in some scenes and an absence of it at other moments. All in all, the image quality is therefore somewhat inconsistent, but it is never all bad or all good – just a bit better than middle of the road. Age related artifacts are kept to a minimum and digital anomalies do not distract. The audio is mono but nicely balanced.

EXTRAS: Forget it. It's Universal! BOTTOM LINE: As pseudo-history painted on celluloid, this western is compelling and fun. Just take its characters and story with a grain of salt – in some cases – a whole box seems more appropriate! After the failure of "The Crusades" at the box office, Cecil B. DeMille stopped doing films about non-American history. His films for the next thirteen years were about our history from Jean Lafitte to World War II (Dr. Wassell). The first in order of production was this film, starring Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok, with Jean Arthur as Calamity Jane. James Ellison was Buffalo Bill, John Miljan (not a villain as usual) was General George A. Custer, and Anthony Quinn was one of the Indians who fought at Little Big Horn. The villains were led by Charles Bickford (selling arms to the Indians) and Porter Hall as Jack McCall (who killed Wild Bill Hickok).

Basically the film takes up the history of the U.S. after the Civil War. Lincoln is shown at the start talking about what is the next step now that Lee has surrendered. Lincoln talks about the need to secure the west (more about this point later). Then he announces he has to go to the theater. That April 14th must have been very busy for Abe - in "Virginia City" he grants a pardon to Errol Flynn at the request of Miriam Hopkins on the same date.

Actually, while Lincoln was concerned about the West, his immediate thoughts on the last day of his Presidency were about reunifying the former Confederate states and it's citizens into the Union as soon as possible. It was Reconstruction that occupied his attention, not the west (except for the problems of Maximillian and his French controlled forces in Mexico against Juarez). But he had been involved in actual problems with the West. In 1862 he sent disgraced General John Pope, the loser at Second Manassas, to Minnesota to put down a serious Indian war by the Sioux (the subject of McKinley Kantor's novel, "Sprit Lake". Pope, incompetent against Lee and Jackson, turned out to be quite effective here, and the revolt was smashed.

However, with all Lincoln's actual attention to western problems, it is doubtful that he says (as Cooper repeats at least once), "The frontier should be secure." There is nothing to say he could not have said it, but it is hardly a profound pronouncement by a leading statesman. Like saying, Teddy Roosevelt said, "Eat a good breakfast every morning for your health." It is not a profound statement of policy. It is, at best, a statement of recognizable fact. Cooper turning it into a minor mantra, like Lincoln's version of the Monroe Doctrine, is ridiculous...typical of the way DeMille's scripts have really bad errors of common sense in them.

However, this is not a ruinous mistake. "The Plainsman" is an adventure film, and as such it has the full benefit of DeMille the film creator of spectacle. As such it is well worth watching. But not as a textbook on Lincoln's political ideas or his quotable legacy. This film provides the saga of a legendary Wild Bill Hickock. He, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Calamity Jane, are the central characters.

As the Civil War closes, Lincoln mentions his concern that the country's dynamism would be enhanced if people would follow the advice, "Go West, young man," which, mercifully, the film didn't erroneously attribute to Horace Greeley, as a number of others did. But then, he gets assassinated, and some financiers speculate that they can get rich selling weapons to the American Indians.

In the meantime, we see Wild Bill Hickock, who interacts with a small boy, while a steamboat is loading at a dock along the Mississippi. Wild Bill uses a Bowie knife, which he eventually gives to the boy, calling it an "Arkansas Toothpick," which in reality was a different type of knife, though both were used throughout the frontier.

Hickock eventually meets Buffalo Bill Cody, who looks close to the photographs and paintings of the actual man. Cody has just gotten married, and is bringing his bride to the Old West to settle down.

When they arrive at their destination, they run into Calamity Jane, who has a crush on Hickock. She looks at Cody's wife, and asks Buffalo Bill, "Is this your mopsy?" The line was one that caused the Hayes Board some problem, since one definition of "mopsy" was prostitute. Demille wanted the line in, and one of his aides pointed out that in Beatrix Potter's books about Peter Rabbit, three of the rabbits were Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. He pointed this out and asked the censors to identify "the rabbit of ill virtue." It worked; the line stayed in.

The Indians were getting restless, in part because of the superior weaponry they got from the agent of the Eastern financiers. Cody and Hickock were asked to help scout the area, so that troops could get safely through to a beleaguered area. Cody led the troops; Hickock went to check out the activities of an Indian chief, who was an old acquaintance, and who was leading some of the hostile Indians.

Calamity Jane gets captured, and Hickock gets captured trying to save her. They are brought to the chief, and although neither would talk, torture applied to Hickock breaks Calamity Jane's willpower, and she tells the route Cody is using.

The two are released, and Hickock joins up with Cody and his forces, in part to alert them they're walking into a trap. With Hickok's help, they hold off the Indian attack.

Hickock decides to go after the gun runners, and finally takes them prisoner. As they're waiting for authorities, Hickock is gunned down by being shot in the back while playing cards.

There are numerous historic anomalies in the film, but it retains the flavor of legend. Pretty good for the 1930s. This Cecil B. DeMille epic of the old West contains what may be Jean Arthur's finest performance, as a hysterical, eccentric, incurably amoral, but devotedly doting Calamity Jane. She really pulled it off! Gary Cooper is at his most taciturn, but manages some occasional pithy sayings: 'The plains are big, but trails cross ... sometimes.' The story is a pastiche to end all pastiches. All the cowboy heroes of Western lore seem to be in there somehow except for Jesse James. Even Abraham Lincoln opens the story in person (or at least, DeMille would have us believe so). There is no room for anything so evanescent as subtlety, this is a 'stomp 'em in the face' tale for the masses. A remarkable thing about this film however is that it is a very early full frontal attack on what Eisenhower was eventually to name 'the military industrial complex'. It isn't just a story about gun-runners, but about arming anyone for money, and doing so from the heart of Washington. But let's not get into politics, let's leave that to DeMille, who can be guaranteed to be superficial. The chief interest of this film all these years later is that it uses the first film score composed by George Antheil, who has a lot to say about the job in his autobiography, 'Bad Boy of Music'. Antheil seems to have originated 'the big sound' adopted by all subsequent Westerns, whereby the plains sing out with the voices and sounds of countless cowboys in the sky, celebrating the open spaces and interweaving common melodies. That is why it does not sound at all unusual, because we have heard it a thousand times. But he seems to have been the first to summon up the combined rustlings of all the sage brush into this symphony of the open skies which has entered into American mythic lore, and given it a soundtrack which has never varied since then, corny as it may be, but doubtless appropriate. It is amusing to see Anthony Quinn in an early appearance as a Cheyenne Indian. Gabby Hayes is in there somewhere, but you miss him in the crowd. Gary Cooper overtops them all, looming large, - but when did he ever loom small? This a rip roaring western and i have watched it many times and it entertains on every level.However if your after the true facts about such legends as Hickcock,Cody and Calamity Jane then look elsewhere, as John Ford suggested this is the west when the truth becomes legend print the legend.The story moves with a cracking pace, and there is some great dialogue between Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur two very watchable stars who help to make this movie.The sharp eyed amongst you might just spot Gabby Hayes as an Indian scout, also there is a very young Anthony Quinn making his debut as Cayenne warrior, he actually married one of Demilles daughters in real life.Indeed its Quinns character who informs Cooper of the massacre of Custer told in flash back, the finale is well done and when the credits roll it fuses the American west with American history.So please take time out to watch this classic western. This movie has Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill and General Custer all together. Gary Cooper plays Wild Bill and Jean Arthur plays Calamity Jane and Charles Bickford plays the bad guy who sells weapons to the Indians and you can hardly recognize him. This was the first time Cecil B. DeMille and Gary Cooper worked together and the next movie the made was basically the same but set in a different time. This movie starts out with Lincoln's assassination and it also deals with an Indian war. Calamity Jane is in love with Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill has gotten married and now wants to stay home. This movie also deals with Custer's last stand and is far from accurate. Gary Cooper is good as usual and i usually don't like Jean Arthur but i liked her here. The Plainsman is an entertaining western, no doubt a classic, which is actual even today. Gary Cooper is Wild Bill Hickok, ideal for the role, together with John Wayne and James Stewart, they were the best actors that played western heroes in their generation. Jean Arthur is great as Calamity Jane, nobody that I know played it better than her. Even if might not be historically accurate, the film manages to capture the most important about Hickok and about the time it takes place. Sometimes you have to sacrifice History to make your point and that is what DeMille does here. The friendship of Hickok with Buffalo Bill, the selling of rifles to the Indians by a great manufacturer to compensate for the losses he would have because of the end of the civil war, Custer and Little Big Horn, the uneasy relationship between Buffalo Bill's wife, a religious woman, with Hickok a man who had killed plenty, also the unusual love affair between Hickok and Calamity all this makes 'The Plainsman' a non conventional and interesting film. Anthony Quinn has a very short appearance, that already shows what a great actor he was going to become. A lot of care was taken to show the original guns of that time. The master of movie spectacle Cecil B. De Mille goes West. Using three legends of the old west as its protagonists (they probably never met),Gary Cooper is portraying Wild Bill Hickock,James Ellison as Buffalo Bill and Jean Arthur does make a nice Calamity Jane. The story serves only for De Mille to hang some marvelous action sequences on, like the big Indian attack.Scenes like that are extremely well done.If you don't mind the somewhat over-the-top performances of the cast this is an very entertaining western.Look out for a very young Anthony Quinn essaying the role of an Indian brave who participated at the battle of Little Big Horn.This part got him at least noticed in Hollywood. Cecil B. deMille really knew how to create a classic, and after 7 decades his western comes across as the Real McCoy, engrossing, entertaining, spectacular; in no way outdated.

As a real fan of TV's DEADWOOD, I'll tell you the performances of Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickock and Jean Arthor as Calamity Jane are far more on-target.

We don't have any giants in Hollywood anymore. PLAINSMAN is just one of dozens of classics from the 1936-1945 decade that have seen enduring commercial life decade after decade: released, re-issued, re-issued all over again. Filmmakers like today's Spielberg, Jackson, Bruckheimer are like kids playing in a sandbox. None of today's movies will be sought out in 7 months let alone 70 years. Sure this movie is not historically accurate but it is great entertainment. Most DeMille pictures especially the later epics are slow and plodding but the action here moves at a clip. The story is basically a series of peaks with very little quiet moments. The action takes us from an Indian raid on a cabin; one of the best parts of the movie with Jean Arthur excellent while attempting to appease the war-painted natives. This is followed by her and Cooper being taken to the war camp and being tortured. Later comes a protracted battle with the Cheyenne. The whole thing is ridiculous but great fun and entertaining from start to finish. Jean Arthur is one of the best actresses of this era and she shines here. I liked this movie because it told a very interesting story about living in a totally different world at the south pole. Susan Sarandon is such a good actor, that she made an interesting, strong character out of mediocre writing. The true story displays a devastating situation for her character to overcome. This movie is well done on so many levels that I am in awe that the score is as low as it is (5.9/10(576 votes) as of this writing). This movie has incredible special effects, a true epic storyline, complex great character interaction, and mind-blowing battles - they have to be seen to be believed! The only complaint I have is the subtitles on the HK DVD version I got (some lines were not translated - ???).

I just don't understand when I read & hear from various sources: "it has a confusing plot....", "I couldn't follow the story...." or "Characters came from nowhere...". From the very 1st time I watched this movie, I understood it, followed it, knew why characters were there, and I absolutely loved it! I've watched it about 8 times already and each time it is pure enjoyment. Oh, and this is not just my opinion, because I've shown this movie to many fellow Americans (people who have never seen an HK film before) who feel the same way. Not one of them failed to follow the storyline and each person declared their love for this movie. Oh man, why can't we have stuff like this coming out of Hollywood? At least Lord of the Rings had a nice marriage of special effects, character development, and storyline.

This is not coming from a Asian film lover newbie either. I own an extensive library of Asian films and I must say that this movie is one of my greatest DVDs. When you watch it you will be blown away by the amazing special effects and epic feel of this movie. You will be drawn into this fantasy world and you won't want to leave! I've seen both the 1983 version and the 2001 (both done by Tsui Hark), and the 2001 is far better in comparison IMO.

Besides the subtitles, I have one additional complaint about this movie: I didn't want it to end.... I'm begging you Mr. Hark - can we please have a sequel? I rented this film in DVD form without knowing anything at all about it, part of a winter marathon of watching a film every night. After several awful American action adventure films (Ballistic, Daredevil, Cradle of Life) Zhu Warriors struck me as brilliantly original filmmaking. The story is complete nonsense, but I found the film's sincerity, good- heartedness and complete lack of irony refreshing, and the film looks spectacular. Sure, the special effects are not technically as flawless as those produced by Hollywood, but the filmmakers wisely are more interested in color, composition and movement than realism and so many of the shots are breathtaking. In one shot, two of the superhuman characters stand on craggy spires of rock, a huge moon rising before them, the image perfectly balanced by the three elements. In another, a princess-warrior spires through the heavens behind her glowing sword like a heat-seeking missile. And the colors explode from shot to shot, used to express emotion rather than to represent reality.

The characters have the same simplicity and directness of comic book characters, offering no great depth in themselves but referring to archtypes that resonate more deeply. Physically, several of the actors are astonishingly beautiful. They play their roles straight up, without irony or guile, and so are believable.

Most strange of all, despite the clumsiness of plot and thin characterizations, I found myself very near tears at the end, moved by the beautiful simplicity of the actors and the wildly original, good-hearted vision of the director.

Legend of Zu is possibly the most exciting movie ive seen in recent years. It transcends all expectations and is truly a work of art. With unmatched visual sceneries and story of divine proportions, Legend of Zu proceeds to blow over its viewers with its majesty. This movie is wonderously crafted through the use of high tech cgi which allows fans of the fantasy genre to see their visions come to life. The acting is perfect for this type of movie; if you were an immortal with supernatural powers I would think you'd keep more to yourself.

Unlike the comments of many, the plot is actually quite EASY to follow while maintaining a quick pace that adds a sense of urgency. Anyone that cannot keep track of the different characters simply must not be paying attention since or are used to such levels of sophistication as the titanic. The plot is engaging and layered with themes so epic that they will leave you gasping for air. Legend of Zu is on a level of greatness so high that perhaps many people are put off by its grandeur. Allow yourself to be completely engulfed within its fantastical vision and you will grow to love this movie. I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-) O my gosh... Just give me a minute to breath. This movie takes you on an awesome ride and doesn't let you go until the very last blow in your face ending. This is the the movie for fans of Stormriders and such. Legend of Zu was beautifully created, although I didn't like a few things, they used alot of stand ins. I wanted to see the real person fight but, oh well... a few small let downs,and I didn't really like it a lot until I watched it again, when you understand it more it totally kicks A**! I encourage anyone who ever wanted to see a true Asian movie, to see this movie. I give this movie one of my highest ratings.Go and see it when it comes out in America!!! this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!! I've been a fan of Xu Ke (Hark Tsui) for many year since school. This film is the best fantasy movie in years. I dont think "action" is the right genre, though there're lot of action and KongFu scenese. Wait, did I mentioned this is an ORIENTAL fantasy moive? please, keep in mind that DO NOT use hollywood formula to rate this film. And for the guy who "poo" around, I don't blame you, 'cause you still young and need to know more about "culture". This is like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in a more surreal, fantasy setting with incredible special effects and computer generated imagery that would put Industrial Light and Magic to shame. The plot may be hard to follow, but that is the nature of translating Chinese folklore to the screen; certainly the overall story would probably be more familiar to its native audience. However, an intelligent person should be able to keep up; moreover, the martial arts scenes potency are amplified by eye popping CGI. I remember that the trailer for Legend of Zu was quite impressive and being a fan of A Man Called Hero (my all time favourite), Storm Riders I decided that I must watch this one too. I know that there is way to much critcism on Ekin Cheng's acting ability everywhere but he is my favourite Hong Kong moviestar so far (way better than Nicolas Tse nevertheless)and he is one of the factors that I enjoyed this movie. Without a doubt this film is a work of art from the beginning to the end. I even thought that only the actors were real and everything else was computer generated by the end of this film. They must have put a lot of work into this one and they deserve good credit for that. The storyline of the movie was a fairytale between good and evil with a love story thrown in (I guess Ekin Cheng pulls the girls easily).The story is not very intellectual and deep but that is not what you expect when watcing an action movie. I wished there were more martial arts action with fists and fist instead of battles with magical abilities, but well that's life and it never goes the way you want it to. And why did they sound like supersonic planes in the battle through the sky in the end ? That's way too funny. Legend of Zu cannot be A Man Called Hero in my eyes but it flows like a videogame and that is not a bad thing at all. If a company decides to publish games on this movie I will not get suprised as it carries all the videogames elements. Good work. Please make more fantasy movies like this I have previously seen Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain. In that film, the setting takes place in China's mountains, the Legend of Zu looks like another dimension!! Thank that to Tsui Hark's extensive use of CGI effects. He's able to portray his vision of mountains floating above the clouds, a land where beings fly freely, and powers ranging from razor sharp wing blades, split swords, and the ultra cool Moon Orb.

While there are many characters in this one, the focus is mainly on King Sky and Enigma. The romance aspect is there, although the movie seems much darker than its predecessor. Cecilia Cheung is beautiful and her presence on screen makes this movie worth watching. In the beginning, I like how she resembles the Countess (from Zu Warriors) and she does well playing Enigma as she deals with facing her past life. Oh, by the way, did I mention that Cecilia's very appealing to the eye??

In truth, Zu Warriors had more comedy elements and its special effects were limited due to its time in 1983. Tsui Hark takes it to a whole new level and sets a new standard in cinema. I just came back from Hong Kong on my summer vacation and saw the Legend of ZU. I thought it kicked a*s! It was so creative and unique. It's the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon with a lot less drama. Even if some thought there was too much special FX(yeah right!), you can't complain about the cast. Zhang Ziyi and Cecilia Cheung are so fine!!! The Legend of ZU.....kicks a*s!!!!!!!! When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but like at "2001 A Space Odyssey" you also don't have to, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is.

When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is. 10000000000000/10000000000000 This movie is very cool. If you're a fan of Tsui Hark and Chinese fantasy films, you should love this. This film is the Asian Lord of the rings: A high fantasy story, based in actual Chinese mythology. (I realize many critics have called this film plot-less, I think they probably have zero knowledge of Chinese mythology.) If you liked Stormriders or Warriors of Heaven & Earth, this one should be right up your alley. This film is still very difficult to find in the U.S., even though it was purchased for U.S. distribution along with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Iron Monkey. Well worth the search!!! This DVD is also worthy of owning. I'm stunt, I must admit I never saw a movie with such good story and none stop high special effect martial art fighting scene. If you like the fantastic genre, like me, you will certainly be more than satisfied! All character have very cool power and the special effect are near perfection, in one word, flawless! I will listen to this movie a lot in the next years. I have to admit that Tsui Hark is one of a kind, you can't top a person with a strong style of movie presence. A Chinese fantasy picture may not be easy to present to an audience, the director attempted to bring back the classic fantasy tales of Zu Mountain and this is what he displayed.

The new Legend of Zu has truly improved from the one in 1983. From this new millenium update, we could see Tsui Hark's vision of the Zu mountains. Spectacular visual designs, amazing action-fantasy epic made beautifully well. Kept me glued through the entire picture. Great cast with just fine acting. It's truly a fun movie to watch, but is it too weird?

Now the down side is people will definitely get confused with it's broad story line shortened down into a 95 minute movie. Plot may not have much relation among characters, but by rewatching the movie, you'll have a better sense of understanding the characters itself. Some can complain there isn't too much physical combat, besides with characters that have supernatural powers to defeat foes, spirits fighting by hand-to-hand wouldn't really make sense at all.

I appreciated this nice stylish picture. It may have a thin story, but hey look at Tsui Hark's "Time & Tide," we got confused by the plot as well, but it was truly something stylish and awesome. Tsui Hark always attracts something different into H.K. Cinema. American audiences, may have some difficulty to understand while watching this movie, cause this ain't no Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, this is a whole new genre. Although it may not be a masterpiece, but it's special effects is truly better than Storm Riders. This is really worth checking out. Legend of Zu

I remember well Tsui Hark's original Zu Warriors made 18 years earlier. Over one Christmas, on a rare week when Channel 4 in the UK showed a week of Hong Kong movies, Zu Warriors was so gripping for a very young viewer and his brother and so memorable, that it's been etched into the memory of the now grown up sprog...

In fact, I think the original Zu Warriors is one of the earliest films I saw as a kid that I can clearly recall the story line and action scenes from. And the memories of seeing Yuen Biao, Sammo Hung and others in their classic prime.

So when I saw this remake of Zu Warriors, there was a feeling of apprehension. Could it beat the dreamy childhood memories I had of the original, or will it follow the road of other remakes and die a death more horrible than the baddies and their broken necks you find in those kung fu movies?

Well the answer is I can't say. But that was because this isn't really a remake. The stories (and styles) are almost completely different.

The Legend of Zu tells of the story of King Sky, a lone warrior, whose master, Dawn, declares her love for him but her life is taken from her by a monster called Insomnia. Two hundred years later, Insomnia returns, Dawn is reincarnated as Enigma, and Insomnia has returned to destroy Zu. Meanwhile White Eyebrows and Red try, with the help of King Sky, to stop Insomnia.

The plot isn't one full of twists and turns, but had enough detail in it to keep me interested. But I can see this film as one you either love or you hate. The film is very much about the special effects, with the majority of it involving several computer generated environments, much like The Storm Riders and A Man Called Hero. But unlike the other two, this film was one which didn't overdo the graphics and the whole thing was tasteful. Nothing appears rushed - unlike Hero. The backgrounds were complementary to the acting and not at all overpowering the scenes.

The story also involves plenty of characters and the intermingling of so many individuals does make the film intriguing. It was possibly on the verge of 'too many cooks', but generally each character had its part in the story. But some of the roles appear to be 'extended cameos' in my opinion, and I somehow am left to slightly question the necessity of this.

Ekin Cheng and Louis Koo play very central roles in the film, but I couldn't say this film showed their best performances. Cecilia Cheung appears to at least have matured in her acting, but it is still quite raw. Kelly Lin was the new revelation for me. Despite her very short role, I have apologise and admit to ogling!

Overall, I have to say, did enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the 'original'. Given that both movies are made by the legendary Tsui Hark, the two films together are part of a chronicle showing how film making in Hong Kong has changed over two decades. And one beauty of that is the fact that you can't really compare the two films at all, as much as apples are apples and pears are pears.

Ultimately, both are thoroughly enjoyable films in their own right. And I'm going back to reminisce by watching the original again.

Two to watch, but not compare. Visually stunning and full of Eastern Philosophy, this amazing martial arts fantasy is brought to you by master director Tsui Hark, the man behind some of the best films Hong Kong cinema has produced. The special effects are beautiful and imaginative. The plot is a bit on the cerebral side, but is a refreshing change from films that treat their audience as if they were morons. If thinking is not your forte, however, this may not be your movie. Maybe you should go see the latest from the Hollywood studio's no brain club, but if you are looking for something more, he's where you will find it. This is an incredible comeback from movie director mastermind, Tsui Hark. It is one of a few movies that deserves to come a face to face match to Steven Chow's Shaolin Soccer. From the moment the movie started,there was astronishing backdrops at every edge which were

deplicted with superb style. If you are a science fiction or chinese martial arts "geek", you'll love the excessive amounts of many 3D effects and realistic computer generated weapons. There, comes a fine performance(as always) from Ekin Cheung who plays "Sky King". He teams up with Louis Koo(Red) who i was very impressed by his flexible "wing" which deflected incoming attacks. The fighting movements of these actors were proficient in every way. Not only is the action superb but the has a somewhat complex storyline. Many Criticisers of this movie complain of the lack of story/theme or just "shoved in random bits of debrise" and even describe as "The Legend of Poo". However, the viewer cannot rely on watching Dragon Ballz and other similar Manga Cartoons to understand this movie. Others who are famarialy with "Wu Xia" movies will have a better appoach. In due respect. there can be one weakness that could be foreseen. The blow that was deliveried to the enemy at the very last fight scene could of been more substantially and devastiingly made.In spite of all this, its a must see. for those of you who love lord of the rings and love special effects, watch this movie! this will be sure to keep you glued to the screen. you will probably even like it if you like watching people fight with magical stuff. The Legend of Zu, as I saw it, was a very interesting story. I think many of the people who didn't like it were not seeing the underlying mythology behind the film. They were expecting something akin to Star Wars, and it was not that. Joseph Campbell, I believe, would have liked this film. There were a number of metaphors and hidden meanings that an average viewer might have overlooked. We all have a mountain of swords within us. We all have to go into our own cave of blood sometime in our lives. We all have to face our own insomnia someday. Granted some of the narration was a bit confusing, and some of the action got a little hokey at times, but I think other points of the film easily made up for it. I'd watch it again.

I don't know if there's a difference between The Legend of Zu (which I saw in Mandarin with English subtitles) and Zu Warriors (The dubbed USA version.) It might have been dumbed down for American audiences, which really would have detracted from this film. "Zu:The warriors from magic mountain" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. "Legend of Zu" is connected to "Zu"warriors from magic mountain"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like "Superman Returns" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. "Legend of Zu" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic! The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word "film". it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me "The legend of Zu" is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly. yeah right. Sammo Hung already acted in the main role in 1983's "Zu Warrios from the Magic Mountain". Now, 2001, he does it again with "Zu Warriors". But this time, he finally does it right. You seldom see him in wuxia, more often in classic eastern or crime slapstick. But this role simply does fit him! The ancient Chinese legend about zu mountain is not often represented in movies (as far as I know about movies translated for the west). Although, the legend contains a vast of interesting stories and possibilities. Straight said: you haven't seen a story alike yet in a modern movie! And that makes it so great! And wow: all the colors plus the enormously deep, right-into-the-heart going story makes you fall for this movie in an instant. The first time I watched it, I had to watch it again instantly, and I did. OK true, I didn't understand all of it the first time. But that makes it only better! You know, you didn't understand all of it, because there is so much spice in it! Therefor it is a pleasure for one self to watch it over and over again. And yeah, it grows deeper in your heart, the more often you watch it.

Summary: A story to love, characters you cry with, and truly: a movie you never forget! -- Editors note: well, I think I must watch it right now again :D ...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.

One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.

One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.

Just fantastic. This movie is good. It's not the best of the great CG kung fu flicks but its pretty good. First thing first, the story is actually good. The whole idea of gods vs fallen gods type deal with super powers is pretty cool. My problem is theres too many characters! It got very confusing when they switched scenes! The special effects were INCREDIBLE! The fighting scenes were very fast paced and complex. This movie practically all computer generated. The acting is superb, as always expected from such high profile players. Ekin Cheng makes an excellent protagonist, loner character. Zhang Ziyi did nothing for me in this movie. I thought she would have a bigger part but she did one fight scene and a whole lot of yapping. The bad guy, the whole skull army and the whole blood cloud thing is very frightening. The music is also excellent. To me this story deserve at least a mini-series and not just ONE movie. Theres too much story to cram in 2 hours. Maybe if there was a book or something, I would be able to keep up with all the characters and the details. This movie sacrifices story integrity for action. I reccomend Storm Riders over this any day. Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.

This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.

But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the "hot" popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.

I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang... A film that can make you shed tears of sadness and tears of joy would be considered quite a step in the career of a common filmmaker. The fact is, Steven Spielberg, probably our greatest story-teller, has been doing this in various movie formats for years. THE COLOR PURPLE, at the time, was considered risky, especially after action classics like JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. In hindsight, this film should have come as no surprise, for Spielberg had made us cry tears of joy and sadness in E.T. Critics called COLOR PURPLE his entrance into intellectual fare. It is quite an entrance. No special effects, no swashbuckling, just brilliant story-telling based on a literary classic by Alice Walker. One surprise is how Spielberg could present such a moving film about African-Americans in the deep south. Slavery is gone, but in the south depicted here, it seems as though blacks are using other blacks as slaves.

Spielberg is always put down for sentimentalizing his pictures or adding an element of childishness to please the audience. This is really the first of overlooked films from his career that you cannot make these observations. It is the first in a line of films people either didn't see or wouldn't see because there are no aliens. EMPIRE OF THE SUN, ALWAYS, SCHINDLER'S LIST, etc.. His awesome talent is obvious with this specific picture because A) he uses mostly untrained, first-time actors, B) he tackles a subject most felt was unadaptable to the screen, and C) it is pure drama with no strings pulled where characters grow and change over the passage of roughly 30 years. It is almost epic-like in look and scope and the fact that it did not garner a single Academy Award from 11 nominations is a travesty and an insult.

Whoopi Goldberg is fabulous as the tortured Celie, an unattractive woman given away by her incestuous father to an abusive Danny Glover, who she only knows as "Mister". The film follows a path of occasional beatings and mental torture she goes through while with "Mister". The PG-13 rated film is pretty open to the sexual issues raised by the Walker novel. This is not "The Burning Bed" in Georgia by any means. There is no blatant revenge taken as might be expected. It happens gracefully. Goldberg perfectly plays a human being, someone in need of love and someone who deserves it. The films' most poignant and heartbreaking moment comes when Goldberg and her sister, Nettie (played by Akosua Busia) are separated, maybe forever. (Possibly foreshadowing Holocaust separation of child and parent?) You may have to check for a pulse if you are not moved by this sequence.

The color purple stands for the beauty of the fields and flowers surrounding these poor people. There really is something to live for, but love triumphs over all. Spielberg bashers take note: the guy can make an unforgettable classic without any cute aliens.

RATING: 10 of 10 The film version of Alice Walker's hugely emotive and influential 1983 novel (written largely as letters from the central character Celie to God) was a massive Oscar success, and rightly so.

In the role of the abused and awakened Celie, Whoopi Goldberg gave her best screen performance by miles. Not far behind her was Oprah Winfrey as Sofia, the fiery woman tamed by fate. Others in the cast fleshed out the characters Walker had introduced so clearly on the page - Danny Glover as Albert, Celie's abusive husband; Margaret Avery as Shug, a force of change for the good; Willard Pugh and Rae Dawn Chong as Harpo and Squeak; Susan Beaubian as Corrine, the preacher's wife; and the much-missed Carl Anderson (otherwise best known as Judas in the 1973 film of Jesus Christ Superstar) as preacher Samuel.

Beautifully paced and sensitively written, 'The Color Purple' does justice to its source while opening out the story to involve viewers of a feature-length drama. This is a good family show with a great cast of actors. It's a nice break from the reality show blitz of late. There is nothing else quite like it on television right now either, unless you count Joan of Arcadia as being similar because it has a teen lead character too. Anyway, Clubhouse is worth a look because Jeremy Sumpter gives the main character (Pete Young) a kind of likability and naiveté that is appealing without being overly sweet and cuddly. Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham and Kirsten Storms round out the rest of the main cast members, and each is terrific in their role. I really like Kirsten Storms as Pete's sister Betsy; she is quite a pill, but she still cares about her mom and brother, even though she hates to show it. It may take a few episodes to really find it's legs, but Clubhouse is easily one of the best shows to come along in a good long while, so check it out people--you'll be glad you did! To anyone who might think this show isn't for them, please give it a try. Network television has degenerated into shows that are clones of clones or are reality based shows featuring some often unreal people. This show is a return to family oriented TV where the emphasis is on learning some life lessons, learning what real friends and family are about, and maybe even learning a little bit about our national pastime. Jeremy Sumpter is one of the most appealing young actors in show business today, and he is perfectly cast as the young, slightly naive new batboy for the fictional New York Empires (great name!). Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham, and Kirsten Storms round out the main cast, and they are all exceptional. This show deserves a chance to catch on and be seen. Hopefully it will stick around for a few seasons and we can watch Pete Young (Sumpter's character) learn and grow. Okay, this show is nothing but AWESOME! It has a great story line and plot and great actors and actresses. Jeremy Sumpter is so hott and he is perfect for the role! He is gunna be big in Hollywood. He has a bright future ahead! This show better last a long time because I really love this show, and I hope that it has a lot of success! It is so interesting. I have been waiting for it to come out for about 6 or 7 months and it's finally here, and it's great! I tape it, too. I can watch it whenever I want now! Too bad its only on once a week though. I wish it was on at least twice a week because now I wish that it was Tuesday every day! Hope you all like this show!

~Ashley~ Why are the previews so blah for a movie that is so awesome!! Everyone should know what an excellent movie this is. It is engaging and funny from moment one, original, and well-acted. I wish the movie was doing itself as good press as it deserves!

For anyone that loved The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, and other truly funny and original fantasy adventure, this is one of the great ones. Robert DeNiro is hysterical. Relative newcomer Charlie Cox is an incredible leading man. Claire Danes is fantastic as always. Michelle Pfiefer is making quite a splash with her recent returns to the screen. There are also a lot of wonderful moments from minor characters...even down to facial expressions. I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.

The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.

My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why. I was one of about 200 people that was lucky enough to see an early sneak of this film.

Stardust follows Tristan a young man on a quest to find a fallen star and bring it back to the woman he loves in order to prove his love for her. The only catch is that the star has fallen on the other side of the wall, a doorway between England and a magical kingdom known as Stormhold.

This film was just a joy to watch, it has something in it for everyone, all of the action scenes are played out beautifully and the comedy is spread out through the film making it funny without being corny. If I had to compare the likes to another film it would probably have to be The Princess Bride, a classic.

All the performances are outstanding, the beautiful Claire Danes makes you love her in her portrayal of Yvaine the trusting naive star and under rated Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a stellar over the top performance as Larnia...but the performance to talk about is Robert De Niro...In every scene that he is in hands down he steals the show...

If you are in the mood for a funny fantasy love story this is the film. Guys don't get turned off by the description there is enough action comedy and not to mention lots of eye candy with Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer to keep you entertained throughout. The cinematography is dead on and keeps with the feel of the film...nothing about the film seems forced. Stardust Another Guarded Review (originally written June 15, 2007)

The marketing machine has only just begun for this one (no site yet? wth?), so I doubt most of you have heard about it. In truth, I hadn't either (sort of). When I got the posting, I thought it was another code name and was actually worried it was Transformers, one of the movies I want to see when not working so I an enjoy it 100% as a mere mortal movie-goer. Turns out, it wasn't Transformers and I had been aware of it way back when as 'that Neil Gaiman movie'. What is it about? Well, in short, it's a Gaiman fairy tale about a boy and a fallen star. Any more than that and I'd be giving away plot info which is (a) a breach of contract, and (b) spoiling your fun. If you really want to know what it's about, go buy the book. Rumour has it, Gaiman might be something of a writer.

Not knowing what to expect in a movie can be so pleasant if the surprise is worthwhile. And for this one, it certainly was. This screening was 'special' in that it included not just film critics, but also exhibitors (they rarely have a mixed screening) and local sci-fi/fantasy folks. So, you know the expected audience, right? I mean, with this crowd and the title of Stardust, I knew what to expect.

Oh how sweetly wrong I was.

Yes, it is a fairy tale written by an author famed in comic bookdom. But it was not Lord of Rings. It was not even another Lord of the Rings wannabe (ahem, Eragon). It was much more intimate than all that.

But, like Lord of the Rings, it was the, well, humanism of the film which sells the fantastical qualities. It's surely a romantic tale, but with generous splashes of humour. And that humour is of the sort which is not slapstick Shrekism. It's more along the lines of dramedy than comedy. Before I go on, let's do this movie review thing.

Acting is, in the very least, good. It's always hard to say more than that for fantasy films but I do believe there were significant superbly acted roles. Michelle Pfieffer is not, sadly, one of those. She plays a villain, and she does the job. Nothing special. Rupert Everett, though, he was a real jerk. That is, a great villain. Peter O'Toole is, well, Peter frickin' O'Toole -- which is marvelous. Ricky Gervais is perfectly cast and shows why. Robert De Niro seemed to be having too much fun for the most part. When he wanted to deliver the goods, though, he did. And Charlie Cox (who?) as the lead character was fine surprise from a guy I ain't never heard of.

Claire Danes. Claire Danes. Claire Danes. I've always been of mixed opinion with her. She can be great, and then she can seem to miss the mark. In this, she's the former. And she is, quite literally, the star of this film. Sure, her accent stumbles here and there. And, yes, she's not as good as she can be when Cox isn't in the scene. However ... well, see for yourself.

Special effects are muted yet accomplished, and only significant where they should be. Best flying ship yet -- sorry Potter. Direction is light-hearted and flows nicely. Cinematography could have been better but not everyone films in New Zealand. All else is top bracket.

And now that that's done...

...the writing. Oh, the writing! Neil, you devil. It's hard in today's climate to do anything original and, at first, you begin to wonder. A kingdom, a dying King, a boy out to prove his own worth, witches, ghosts, a quest (or three) -- what's new? But Gaiman's story draws you in with its surface familiarity only to subvert it all into a sweetly original tale of a boy and his heart. And, though you suspect how it's all going to turn out, you begin to wonder in the third act and -- if you're me -- find yourself pulled into the rousing climactic confrontation and hoping for the best. In the end, you'll find this story, this movie, is what all fairy tales should be but all too often are not. Fantastical and real.

(I wish I could talk about Septimus vs Tristan but I won't ruin it for you. For those who read the book, rest assured, it's done properly.)

Those I spoke to afterward had the same impression I did. A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new {WITHHELD} for this generation. The blank gets filled-in only after the movie is in wide release because, well, you might be expecting it. You'll know when you walk out, anyway. I sincerely hope Stardust doesn't get lost among the tentpoles. Even if it does, it'll be my pleasure to push into the hands of everyone I know.

---

Forgot to add the {WITHHELD} reveal. I'm a few years late, but ... "A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new THE PRINCESS BRIDE for this generation."

Perhaps a bit lofty an assessment but I'm still confident that years form now, there will be the same "Oh, I love that movie," response to this as there is now for The Princess Bride. OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.

Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.

Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.

Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.

FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.

Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.

Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.

Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun… even the mush had good dialogue.

Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.

Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.

Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds! This movie has everything a fantasy movie should have, romance, clever witticisms, great acting and a fair dose of magic.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and was drawn to its original plot (based on the Neil Gaiman novel which I am now looking to read) and colorful characters.

One of the most striking things to me actually was how self contained the story is. Unlike so many sci-fi fantasy movies out there right now which leave open-endings and such this was a pure fairy-tale, satisfying in and of itself with no need for a sequel.

Original. Fun. Feel-good Fantasy. I was not expecting much from this movie. I was given a ticket for an advanced screening. I had just gotten off of work. It was hot and I was tired. I had to wait in the movie line for 40 minutes and there seemed not to be any cool air flowing through the hallways of the theater complex.

Once seated in the theater, tired and frustrated, the movie started, I did not recognize any of the actors in the beginning, but the flow of the movie was perfect. Right from the beginning I became consumed with the movie, getting more and more excited with each minute passing. I think this movie is destined to be a fantasy/fairytale classic. The actors were fabulous, the pace was perfect, and the ending was magical. The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre. This movie is a lot of fun. The actors really make the movie go the distance though. Without giving away the plot, I would describe it as a new Princess Bride cult favorite that should stand the test of time. You get to see a whole different side to Robert DeNiro in this movie! (Worth the price of admission just for that!) All the elements are there from adventure to romance, and well placed comedy.

People of all ages will enjoy it. (My parents even did!) Good special effects, may be scary for the little ones. Good date movie. Great for some escapism.

Deserves an A. (Hope it does well at the box office) Except for an awkward scene, this refreshing fairy tale fantasy has a fun and delightful undercurrent of adult cynical wit that charms its way into the audience as well as a soundtrack that powerfully moves this fairy epic along. Except for one of the Robert DeNiro scenes that doesn't come across smooth and appears out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie, this luscious romantic fairy tail has a great storytelling feel and the strong magic and the fine balance between serious adventure scenes and the lighter spiritual humor is well done. In the updated tradition of THE PRINCESS BRIDE this contemporary presentation of magic and love is captivating. Eight out of Ten Stars. The power to dream is a wonderful thing. There's a saying, "Not all dreamers achieve, but all achievers dream." By exploring our imagination we shape our own futures. Or build empires. Perhaps overcome our fears, limitations and obstacles. Gain wisdom and benefit mankind. Or (put simply) just find our way to true love and happiness. Freud might express such things in symbols. The language of fantasy.

Tristan ventures out of a rather twee English village called Wall. He goes through a break in the wall. A portal. In search of something that will prove his love to Victoria (Sienna Miller). Victoria doesn't take him very seriously. So he pledges to bring back a falling star.

Stormhold is the world outside the wall. He discovers the fallen star has taken the form of a beautiful girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes). To complicate matters, three evil witches want to get hold of Yvaine. If they can eat her heart, it will replenish their youth. (One of the witches is played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who does fabulous young-old transformations of looks and manner.) The 'good guy' they meet on their way is Captain Shakespeare (Robert de Niro). He has a fierce, swashbuckling pirate exterior but is a sweetie closet queen underneath. Heirs of Stormhold meanwhile are engaged in a pitched battle over inheriting the Kingdom. Ricky Gervais is an added extras. A buffoon trader throwing in standard Gervais-type gags well. Tristan's purity of spirit arouses the love of Yvaine, so there is a nice little triangle going. Till he achieves the maturity to discern pedestal divas from real women.

Stardust is a full-on, large scale fantasy that does credit to its myriad stars. Wholly positive, and written with a clarity that makes it more worthy of psychoanalysis that a coven full of Harry Potter romps. Production values rival Hollywood, and the storyline is free of the racial stereotyping, misogyny, religious or class agendas than shape and pervert so many large scale fantasies.

That is not to say that Stardust is without its faults. Plot and dialogue have many predictable elements, and the fairytale quality may be too saccharine for some audiences. But if you want an excuse to let your heart fly, this film may well provide it.

As a boy, I remember listening in wonder to albums by the Moody Blues (who practiced in a house not far from where I lived). They made records with names like "In Search of the Lost Chord," and wrote lyrics like, "Thinking is the best way to travel." I would fill my head with books on magic and mystery, from Timothy Leary to Aleister Crowley. Shaping dreams. Learning to make them real. Nowadays people might talk of NLP or positive thinking. Adults that remember how to dream with the force of youth but with the vision and application of maturity. Do you still enjoy that feeling?

You are advised not to wait for Stardust on DVD. See it on the biggest cinema screen you can find. And Dolby Digital Surround Sound if you can get it. The actors look like they had a ball. Maybe you will too. This afternoon we took the kids to the movies and saw Neil Gaimans Stardust and all I can say is Wow.

It is rare that I am completely taken aback by anything but this is quite possibly the greatest fantasy movie I have ever seen, maybe even the best movie of any kind and it is all Neil Gaiman's fault.

Sure, I could have been sucked in by the wonderful dialog which was smart, flowed smoothly,and made the characters completely believable.

I could go on for days about the spectacular acting, Charlie Cox is perfect as Tristan, Claire Daines is Brilliant as Yvaine, and Robert Di Nero almost steals the movie as the Deeply in the Closet Pirate Captian Shakespeare.

The pure joy brought about by the humor which managed to be Laugh our Loud funny, Intelligent enough to make the first Shrek look like an 80's Sitcom, and blend in perfectly with the rest of the movie alone would have made this a great movie.

Special Effects were near perfect, true this was no LOTR or Star Wars SF Extravaganza but where they were use they were exactly what was called for, not too much to distract you from the movie itself and blended into the story perfectly.

Then there is the story? What can I say. How often do you come across a story containing all of the classic fairytale formula components that doesn't just come off as another cheap Princess Bride knockoff. It manages to be Familiar and comfortable and yet completely new and refreshing at the same time.

Any one of those things would have made this a good movie, all of them combined make it a great movie but they pale in comparison to the rich enchanting world that those elements combine to bring to life well. Once again Neil Gaiman has done it, he has driven another dagger into my heart by creating a world of fantasy that is so beautiful and enchanting that I would do almost anything to live in it and only given me a short glimpse into it. I didn't want it to end, I wanted to be sucked through a vortex to the land of Stormhold and get to meet Tristan and Yvaine in person, to travel it's fields and valleys, Stroll through it's marketplaces and meet it's residents both dangerous and friendly and stay there forever. It is a feeling that I have noticed whenever I have read anything by Gaiman, The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline all left me with a deep sense of sadness when I finished reading them because it was over, I could not see anything more into the worlds he had created which seemed to be so much more vibrant and alive than the one I am forced to live in and watching Stardust was no different.

In the end I'm sure that Neil's writing and this movie won't have the same effect on everyone but trust me when I say you will not regret the time or money spent watching this movie, it is easily one of the top 5 movies I have ever seen and I can guarantee that anyone at all with a soul will at least like it. The summer has been so full of Blockbusters and comebacks of films, and not to mention some of the disappointments of those comebacks, that I was woe to find a film I could just sit down and enjoy.

In case you don't want to read further down the page (there aren't any spoilers), I'll sum it up here: It's more mature than Ella Enchanted (there are some questionably violent parts, plenty of death, and a handful of scenes with a little blood, not for small children), but doesn't try to be overly corny or overstep its bounds. Think of it as a bit more serious, bit more magical Princess Bride, and you'll be close.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I am, perhaps, not as prodigious a movie goer as others... Maybe once or twice a month, if I feel active. I'm also a huge Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. I get bored of remade repetitive story lines and films with more flash than filling faster than you can count to 10, and this film is the diamond in the rough.

By the end here (August), I was tired enough of fractured expectations from the big hits that I averted seeing Bourne Ultimatum in favor of Stardust. Having had my hopes thoroughly muddied by Transformers for my Fiction addiction, the previews of Stardust seemed appealing, but I was certainly wary.

As many others here, I was utterly surprised. I had gone in thinking to see another generic fantasy movie clichéd from here to breakfast. Don't be fooled, it is most definitely a fairy-tale, and it does indeed have witches, magic, and utterly requires suspension of disbelief... But the most refreshing thing I found, is that it's NOT based on anything I've seen or read in the past 15 years, and it's actually a really good movie.

((Unlike 90% of the other movies which seem to persistently re-appear like thorns in a side, perhaps a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas? I could read a book this year, and in two years the movie would be out as another "Epic fantasy tale, the likes of LotR and the rest" so says the NYT and such and such no doubt.))

Stardust didn't have me bolted to my seat because of jam-packed action at every turn, nor was I sweating bullets because of plot-hook after plot-hook threatening to tear the dramatic tension apart and echo throughout the theater in a loud boom. It didn't even use enormous blasts of sound to grab my attention to what's happening on screen (Transformers, I'm looking at you). It's not trying to show off the latest CGI techniques, nor did it offend my intelligence with dimwitted dialogs and story lines that are simple enough I could've figured them out in 3rd grade (boy I hate those).

I just... watched. Watched, and enjoyed a refreshingly CREATIVE storyline unfold before my eyes. Sure, I may have known what was going to happen throughout most of the film, but it makes you forget that. It even made my heart twinge at some parts, but the most important aspect I noticed is that I left the theater feeling better than when I'd gone in.

It truly is a gem. After so much slush this summer with so many remakes and films that fell short of my expectations, this was like a cold sweet cup of tea to cap off all the hard work I'd done sitting through the others trying to come out of them with my money's worth.

It's probably not for everyone, but do yourself a favor; If you enjoy fantasy films that stand the test of time alone (Princess Bride, Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, etc.) then you should really see this movie. This little diamond is finding its way into my DVD collection the moment it hits stores, you can trust me on this.

Simply wonderful. There are not many movies around that have given me a feeling like Stardust did all throughout the course of the film. As magically fairy-tale-like as The Princess Bride, Stardust is most definitely the most wonderful fantasy spectacle of the 2000's as well as the 1990's. Exciting, hilarious and equipped with wonderful imagery as well as unforgettable characters, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro's especially, I challenge anyone to watch this movie without a smile. From the first ten minutes of the film you know perfectly well how it will end, but it is the journey and not the destination that enthralls the viewer from start to finish.

Ten stars, and not a decimal less. While I don't consider myself a big fan of fairy tale movies, Stardust intrigued me based on seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the trailers as a villain (especially since I was about to see her as the bossy Velma Von Tussle in Hairspray). Boy, is she so convincingly evil here as a witch, especially with her age-ugly makeup in the beginning and end! Robert De Niro is also great as the pirate captain who's forced to hide "in the closet" to protect his "reputation"! Just about all the actors like Claire Danes, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and many others do fine work here. While Danes and Pfeiffer are classic beauties, there's also stunning faces of Sienna Miller, Olivia Grant (as Girl Bernard), and Kate Magowan especially when we first meet her. Newcomer Charlie Cox is fine as the lead Tristan and he looked so much like his father Dunstan as a young man that I thought that was him in early scenes with Magowan (actually Ben Barnes). Many comments have compared this to The Princess Bride and while I can see some resemblances, the main difference was that with PB, you always knew it was just an imaginary tale as told by an old man to his grandson. Stardust makes you believe, for the most part, that what you're seeing and hearing could have actually happened even with all the hilarity that happens throughout. So on that note, I highly recommended Stardust. As a massive fan of fantasy in general, and of the works of Neil Gaiman *in particular*, I've been looking forward to this film so avidly, so hungrily and with such a bittersweet mixture of anticipation and fear of disappointment that I can scarcely believe it's finally here. And you know what? I needn't have feared, the film version is bl**dy awesome. Different from the book, but in a good way - less whimsical, more comical, still deeply sweet and enchanting.

The special effects are absolutely spot-on, and make magic feel a natural and proper part of the world of Wall without being overtly spectacular and intrusive.

Proper attention has been paid to storytelling and pacing, and the casting in the main is a triumph, with the ghostly Princes (whose roll-call read almost as a "Who's Who" of currently cool British comedy - Rupert Everett, David Walliams of Little Britain fame, two of the blokes from Green Wing etc) stealing most of the best lines and pretty much all of the films' funniest moments, which exist in abundance.

In fact, the one minor criticism I have at all of the film is that sometimes the comedy elements become a little OTT, subtlety goes out of the window to the detraction of the main story.... Ricky Gervais' cameo, for example, was far too much just "Ricky Gervais doing his usual David Brent from the Office comedy persona" for my liking, and in my opinion, created an unwelcome and jolting break from the magical spell of the progressing story (though in fairness, from memory I believe the Ferdy character in the original book WAS pretty "Ricky Gervais"-esquire when I think back on it)....

But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise immaculately cast and scripted fairytale with a good mixture of action and romance. Charlie Cox, as the protagonist Tristan, captures the correct mixture of naivety, subtle comedy and self-realisation required for a story like this where a "humble young boy embarks on life-changing quest"; Claire Danes as Yvaine is beautiful, feisty and just ever so slightly alien or ethereal, a perfect interpretation of her stellar role; Robert De Niro, in the cameo every reviewer is talking about, is indeed deserving of praise, rollicking good fun (looks like he's having a ball, too)... and Michelle Pfeiffer is triumphantly cool and nasty as wicked witch Lamia, my favourite performance of the film overall. If you enjoyed her deliciously b!tchy performance in the recent "Hairspray" then you will thoroughly enjoy her in this, too.

So to round off this review: you will laugh, for sure, you will smile, and you may even cry - Stardust is a beautiful, heart-warming fairytale for all the family, with a heart of gold and more sass 'n smarts than is immediately apparent. One of my all-time favourite films is the absolutely fantastic Princess Bride, and Stardust is being readily likened to this with good reason as it is a very similar type of film exploring similar themes and territory.... and just as The Princess Bride remains fresh, smart and funny twenty years after its initial release, I believe that the delicious tongue-in-cheek sweetness of Stardust will be showing up as a family favourite on our televisions (or equivalent future device!) for many years to come. The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.

The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.

It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. I anticipated this movie to be decent and possibly cliché, but I was completely wrong! Charlie Cox (I had never heard of him until now) played an incredibly good leading man; he was so earnest and romantic, me and my friend that saw the movie with me totally fell in love with him.

Claire Danes, who I did like before (LOVED her in Romeo and Juliet), made me enjoy her even more. Her acting was fantastic, I couldn't even tell that she was American. The chemistry between her and Charlie Cox was extremely good, the casting was quite perfect.

Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer were equally well-casted; DeNiro as that gay pirate...priceless, priceless. I laughed so hard at that one scene where Septimus comes on the ship...oh my god, wow. Pfeiffer played a decent villain, I liked her as the snippy mother in Hairspray. But she had the right amount of melodrama and snide comments throughout the movie.

Overall, it was funny (but not slap-stick at all!), romantic, the special effects weren't totally frequent but when they were, they were great; the cameos from Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole were also well-placed.

I totally recommend this movie to anyone who likes fantasy movies like the Princess Bride or even Lord of the Rings. It kept my interest the entire time and I will be buying the DVD when it comes out! This movie is wonderful.

I was 'enchanted', i should say, and surprised because of how uniquely it was done. The cast, the sequencing, the effects...everything! Magnificent! I mean, it was a love story, yes, but what made it outstanding from the rest was that it was told in an entertaining, wholesome manner.

For me, it is the representation of modern fairy tale. It's like the modern peter pan...simply amazing

i surely would buy a copy of this the moment it hit the market.

This movie is really a double MUST SEE one...!!!! 10 stars for that! Greetings again from the darkness. This one will be compared to "The Princess Bride" and although it doesn't measure up to that classic, it is extremely entertaining and well made in its own right. The story line is a bit odd and the whole wall thing is never really explained, but the execution is fine, even building up strong suspense.

Charlie Cox plays Tristan, who falls for the wrong girl (Sienna Miller), and agrees to fetch her a fallen star ... who happens to be played by the stunning Claire Danes. Not much suspense on what happens with these two, but the suspenseful part comes in with the wicked witch played by Michelle Pfeiffer and the prince son of King Peter O'Toole looking to reclaim the ruby necklace our "star" is wearing. Lots of bad chasing the good.

Along the way, an encounter with the strangest pirate you will see (including any from the Carribbean). Robert Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare - tough on the inside, and shall we say in touch with his feminine side. Another encounter involves the brilliant Ricky Gervais as a fast talking trader and that is good for a couple of laughs.

Not your typical chase, coming of age, or fantasy film, but director Matthew Vaughn's ("Layer Cake") effort deserves an audience. Sadly the poor marketing campaign will probably prevent it from making any money. My guess it will find big success on video. If any style of film could be called my "guilty pleasure", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. "Stardust" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.

The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.

From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.

Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.

--PolarisDiB This is the epitome of fairytale! The villains are completely wicked and the heroes are refreshingly pure. Danes, Deniro,and Pfieffer are wonderful as well as the new actor who plays the role of Tristan. Outstanding performances, delightful magic, funny and dramatic, and a perfect fairytale ending make this film absolutely fabulous! I'm not so sure all content is appropriate for younger children but for an older audience, there are plenty of hilarious subtleties! The previews do not do this movie justice! My fiancé and I were quite skeptical but were so thrilled we had taken a chance on this movie that I can only hope to assure anyone on the fence about this movie to give it a try! What a wonderful, fanciful movie "Stardust" is.

I could easily end it with that one statement and suffice to say, one could take it as a very strong recommendation to go see it.

At a time when Hollywood seems bent on forcing remakes and sequels down our throats, "Stardust" makes us remember why we go to the movies in the first place - to escape reality for a couple of hours and explore other lives, other times, or other planets. Ironically, "Stardust" takes us to all three places effortlessly and with a childlike glee we all long for.

"Stardust" is full of all the characters we remember as children: princes, witches, pirates, ghosts and scoundrels. It has the damsel in distress, the hero, the rogues, the obstacles, spells, antidotes, charms, and even a touch of light-speed to make it quasi modern.

"Stardust" is about a man from the town of Wall, which is conveniently situated next to a wall that separates their town from a magical kingdom. The only way past the wall is through a breech that is diligently guarded by a scruffy old codger (played wonderfully by David Kelly). One day a young man from Wall named Ben Barnes out maneuvers the old guard and escapes through the breech. He happens upon an enchanted kingdom called Stormhold where he meets a chained (and very sexy) young lady named Una. She is held captive by a witch and leashed by an unbreakable chain. While the witch is away, Una seduces Ben and sends him on his way. Ben returns to Wall without incident and continues his life. But nine months later he is summoned to the wall breech where the old guard hands him what you might expect - a baby boy.

The boy, named Tristan grows up to be a rather hapless young man (Charlie Cox) who is smitten with a girl way out of his league and also betrothed to another. Nevertheless, the young lady (named Victoria and played Sienna Miller) goes out once with Tristain and he confesses his love to her. After they espy a falling star, she tells him he can have her if he retrieves the star and brings it back to her. He agrees and sets out on his quest, which will take him to the other side of the wall.

Meanwhile in the kingdom of Stormhold, the old king (perfectly played by Peter O'Toole) is dying. He calls his remaining living sons to tell them who shall succeed him to the throne. His sons' names are Primus, Secondus, Sextmus, and Septimus. The other sons where killed by the other brothers in a humorous competition to see who lives to get the throne.

Anyway, he tosses his ruby charm to the sky and Voila, that what brings the star to earth.

The star crashes in the form of a beautiful woman named Yvaine (Clare Danes) and she, of course, is wearing the charm. But little does she know she is now being persuaded by Tristain, the Princes, and also an aging witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the stars heart to regain her own youth.

Complicated? Yes. But it all comes together as the adventure unfolds.

Tristain is the first to find Yvaine but is so blinded by his devotion to Victoria he doesn't recognize the growing bond between he and Yvaine. His initial interest lie only in returning Yvaine to Victoria as proof of his love. But he must get past the princes and Lamia first. The princes aren't that big an issue as they are constantly trying to kill each other - and just as in "Pirates of the Caribbean" - never has death been so funny.

But Tristain also encounters the witch who enslaved his mother (though he doesn't know it's his mother) and a band of flying pirates led by Robert DeNiro.

His is the most important character in the movie and DeNiro plays it to a tee. He steals the movie with his toughness and soon we learn an undercover secret that will leave audiences on the floor with laughter. Though his role is small in length, DeNiro is extraordinary!

Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Lamia - a sexy evil witch. Claire Danes is most appropriate as the confused and distressed Yvaine. She makes a perfect damsel. Jason Flemyng, Adam Buston, Rupert Everett, and Mark Strong add the perfect dose of levity as the fighting princes whom, as they die return as ghosts ala "Blithe Spirit" and "High Spirits".

Moreover director Matthew Vaughn, whose only other directing experience was "Layer Cake", weaves an enchanting tale that everyone will enjoy.

"Stardust" may be too complex for young children, but anyone over the age of 13 will want to see this movie multiple times. It's that good. "Stardust" is what movies are supposed to be. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, perfectly directed, and perfectly acted. In other words...perfect. please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!

never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.

the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.

I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettable

For me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it

11/10 - Outstanding

peace and love This remarkable film can be summed up very easily. First of all, while the comparisons to "Princess Bride" are inevitable, it's almost futile to do so. While both films combine adult wit and humor with a fairy tale backdrop, "Stardust" is so much different than any other fantasy/sci-fi film I've ever seen. It's such a hybrid of those genres, but its plot and script are so unique that--along with the performances, special effects, cinematography, and score--the finished product is simply not all that comparable to anything that has ever appeared on the silver screen. Secondly, the score is very effective at simultaneously pulling us into the story and the fantasy world in which it takes place and pushing the story along, while creating just the right amount of awe and excitement necessary to make the magic believable within the realm where the characters exist. Thirdly, I did not find the film to be even remotely difficult to follow or confusing in any way. In fact, the interesting interplay between the three main subplots actually made it even that much more compelling to watch. Wonderfully casted, and superbly acted across the board. This fantasy adventure (with sci-fi elements) was the best one I've seen since "Return of the King" (not that I am comparing the two at all). OK, so its not that easy to sum up, but don't let any crude and/or heartless and cynical review nor the film's pathetic PR prevent you from partaking in the best time you could have at the movies this summer (or even possibly in a long time)! I contend that whoever is ultimately responsible for creating/approving the trailer for this movie has completely blundered. NO ONE I know wanted to see this movie based on the previews, and EVERYONE who actually saw it (that I know) absolutely loved it... The advertising campaign is disgrace/disaster/blunder.

Opened at #4 behind...

#1-Rush Hour, which I have not seen, average IMDb score of 7.4.

#2-The Bourn Ultimatum, which I have seen, awesome movie but 3rd week out, average IMDb score of 8.7 (deserving I would say).

#3-The Simpsons Movie, which I have seen, okay movie but 4th week out, average IMDb score of 8.1 (a bit high in my opinion).

#4-Stardust, average IMDb score of 8.4 (lower then Bourn, but that's been our for 3 weeks).

Whether it was poor scheduling or poor advertising I think that the powers that be behind this movie screwed up big time! This should have been advertised as an amazing movie that happens to be a fantasy/fairytale and not advertised as just another fairytale… Too bad :( Anyway- Now that I have very pointlessly ranted on-and-on... Awesome movie, go see it! Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right.

Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative.

I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie

Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this. Highly enjoyable, very imaginative, and filmic fairytale all rolled into one, Stardust tells the story of a young man living outside a fantasy world going inside it to retrieve a bit of a fallen star only to find the star is alive, young, and beautiful. A kingdom whose king is about to die has said king unleash a competition on his several sons to see who can retrieve a ruby first to be king whilst a trio of witches want the star to carve up and use to keep them young. These three plot threads weave intricately together throughout the entire picture blended with good acting, dazzling special effects, and some solid sentiment and humour as well. Stardust is a fun film and has some fun performances from the likes of Claire Danes as the star(I could gaze at her for quite some time) to Michelle Pfeiffer(I could gaze at her at full magical powers even longer) playing the horrible witch to Robert Deniro playing a nancy-boy air pirate to perfection. Charlie Cox as the lead Tristan is affable and credible and we get some very good work from a group of guys playing the sons out to be king who are constantly and consistently trying to kill off each other. Mark Strong, Jason Flemyng, and Ruppert Everett plays their roles well in both life and death(loved this whole thread as well). Peter O'Toole plays the dying killer daddy and watch for funny man Ricky Gervais who made me laugh more than anything in the entire film in his brief five minutes(nice feet). But the real power in the film is the novel by Neil Gaiman and the script made from his creative and fertile mind. Stardust creates its own mythology and its own world and it works. Going into seeing this movie I was a bit skeptical because fantasy movies are not always my cup of tea. Especially a romantic fantasy.

Little did I know that I was in for a ride through cinematic magic. Everything in the movie from plot to dialogue to effects was very near perfection.

Claire Danes shines like the star she is in this movie. From beginning to end you fall more and more in love with this character.

Michelle Pfeiffer is menacing as an evil witch bent on capturing the star for eternal youth and beauty.

Robert De Niro is a lovable character who gives the audience the greatest bit of comic relief as the movie is gaining momentum towards the climax.

Overall this was a movie that surprised and delighted me as a movie fan. If you are looking for a fun and enjoyable movie that will be fun for the kids and adults alike, Stardust is the way to go. Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.

It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.

I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again. I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art. If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.

Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his "Iberia" suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His "Iberia" suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted.

Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the "story" and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.

Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience. Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The Neptune

Monday June 5, 4:30pm The Neptune

Few celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors. The music of Albeniz pervades this film. Once and a while it is played with original instrumentation (e.g. piano, but never full orchestra), but often it is re-worked with various contemporary ensembles (e.g.guitar) and treatments (e.g. jazz piano). Only occasionally is the music the sole focus of the film: the vast majority of the time the music is set to various dances, often flamenco, but not always. I would guess that there are 12–14 scenes, which are not united by a plot. Not all scenes will reach the heights for an individual viewer. In my case about half reached the pinnacle, though all the rest were in their own way very fine. Those that worked for me moved me to goose-flesh aesthetic delight; indeed, the final scene left me weepy with joy. And in some very magical way it brings you deep into Spanish culture. If you don't like subtitles, don't worry. The film is virtually wordless, though each scene carries a title of an Albeniz piece. Seeing this very beautiful film sharpens my complaint that virtually none of the films of Saura are available on DVD in the USA. I am thinking here particularly of his flamenco version of "Carmen," a spectacular work of art that is available in Europe but not here (European DVD's won't play on American DVD players). This is a scandal. I have never danced flamenco before, but somehow I feel like this movie was perfect. The colors, how blatant the dances were, the gypsies, and the rivals all put together made a movie that seemed to have ended too soon. I have seen other Carlos Saura movies and I agree that this film may be his best production. I feel that the best characteristics of his past films were put together and aligned to make Iberia. I appreciate the use of mirrors in revealing the activity going on behind the cameras. While watching this movie I felt like I was sitting in a small restaurant in Madrid, comfortably watching the dancers bang on a wooden plank over a delicious fruit cocktail. For me, this movie fit like a glove. I don't know how I will be able to get a copy of this film in the US in the next few years. I recommend this movie to anyone who is attracted to the livelihood of other cultures. It is safe to say that this movie is certainly on my favorites list. I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed. Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie because there was a genuine sincerity in the acting. The writing was top-notch. James Arness is a great actor and he showed it here. Brian Keith was too old to be Davy Crockett, and can anyone really play Davy but Fess Parker?

Another great actor in this move was Raul Julia, who gave depth to Santa Anna, a vain and complex person who led Mexico through turbulent times.

While some may think the movie was slow-paced, it captured the battle as it unfolded, lots of tedium followed by a couple hours of horrific terror.

What impressed me most about this movie is that it made you think about a cause and how some people are willing to die for what they believe in. In this day and age when nobody stands for anything, I found it refreshing to think that there was a time when people died for freedom, no matter how you may feel about the politics of the time. heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years. The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.

I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston.

But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.

Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.

Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".

Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.

Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement!

Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did! This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.

The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.

Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.

Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.

The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions.

The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo". When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.

But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.

It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.

Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.

But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.

However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.

This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.

For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly. 13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.

Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.

Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron. This game show lasted just one season, but was intriguing to audiences because it required visual aptitude and a steady hand. One false move would disqualify the contestant from winning the prize, even though it was clear the contestant knew the correct answer. It was always exciting as the contestant began drawing, wondering if they would complete the drawing or be buzzed out; allowing the other contestant to easily win the contest. It was a light-hearted show, but it was clear that the contestants were often times embarrassed from a silly mistake made unintentionally. Rarely seen, the game show did not survive past one single season. Only a seasoned game show addict will remember this show, as it proved to be quite unpopular, even though game shows were making a big return to the TV screen after the scandals of the 1950's game shows. But it was a unique concept for a game show, and one that has as yet never been seen again. In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!

I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.

Really good memories are connected with Camouflage. A stunning realization occurs when some sort of phenomenon takes place!! Be it, firecrackers going off, witnessing a robbery, a hurricane nonchalantly devastating everything in it's path, or, for that matter, any other spectacular occurrence !! In the case of the Maclean Family, however, reveille was something which was no more complex than their day to day lives..Montana in the early twentieth century was an environment which was rough and tumble...The Maclean family was comprised of four people, the father, a minister, who was ideologically driven to raise his family properly. His wife was God fearing, and dutiful. The two boys were, well...BOYS!!.. What else can you say?...Brad Pitt starred in this film before he was really THE!! Brad Pitt, and his acting performance in this film was, to say the least, remarkable!!!.. His brother, Norman, was the cerebral type, he was touched by emotions that were genuine, and motivated by a set of values that Missoula, Montana concurred with!! Paul (Brad Pitt) was a misfit from the offset, and lived on the edge...You would think that Montana in the 1920's had no such thing, yet somehow, gambling, drinking, and violent confrontations, were as much a part of Paul, as was his fly fishing rod!! Fly fishing!! Did I say that? Parenthetically, this was the core of this movie's theme!! The recreation of fly fishing served as the cohesive bond which homogenized the kindred spirits of the Maclean brothers, and to a lesser degree, the father!! I would describe the acting in this film as incredibly believable, and the cinematography went beyond sensational.. Put it this way, anyone who sees this film will want to live in Montana.. Breathtaking filmography of bluer than blue mountains and streams captured the youth and effervescence that the Maclean brothers had for life...Seldom in a film do you witness whereby feelings immediately invoke a dogged tenacity to accomplish whatever it may be that someone wishes to accomplish..The Maclean brothers lived life to the fullest, and for better or worse, the father knew that this was going to be the only way the two of them could become men!!...Robert Redford directs this film, and tells the story of the Maclean's through the perspective of the older brother, Norman...Norman gets offered a position at the University of Chicago at age 26, and marries the woman he will always be in love with...What this film also points out, is that the younger brother, Paul, has attained an accomplishment of his own by being the epitome of a remarkable fly fisherman!! The seedier side of life prevails in the younger brother's existence, and exerts an insidious form of consternation for the Maclean family!! As most human shortcomings go, the Maclean family made light of turbulent waters, (literally) and thus, established unity as a family, by putting necessary blinders on!!!

The end of the movie "River Runs Through It" presents an epigram of life through the eyes of the older brother.. For Norman Maclean, stoicism is a prerequisite to perseverance in his emeritus years!! Such a fate is largely due to the fact that reflecting on his life is tantamount to yearning for people who have passed away! The fond memories of his brother, his wife, his mother, and his father, must now be viewed philosophically!! For Norman, his life has been relegated to stubborn facts that have determined his dubious outlook, and precarious resolve! Something as simple as the statement "This was your life, and that is how you lived it" is a somber recollection of the joy, the sorrow, the regrets, and the love, he gave, as well as was the recipient of!! Best put in the last sermon he heard his father give, his father said "We can completely love someone without completely understanding them".. Whether you agree with what has happened in your life or not, it happened nonetheless! Norman Maclean must come to grips with the fact that his life has been fragmented by misunderstandings! Norman Maclean has become a decrepit octogenarian who is polarized by virtual conclusions to his life!! The murky waters of Montana's picturesque rivers serve as a vicious and desultory finalization to his years on earth!! Without question, the very prolific statement of "what seems complicated is really very simple" purveys a very acrimonious message in this movie...More simply put...The people and places which were important in Norman's life, are now only a bittersweet memory....merely a painfully intellectual rumination of events which are aggravated by the haunted waters of Montana's beautiful streams and rivers...To which, for the entire Maclean family, "all things merge into one and a river runs through it" I have read the short story by Norman Maclean, and the movie did justice to Norman Maclean's writing. My husband tends to reread it occasionally, and I myself have read it over and scenes of the movie keeps coming to mind. We have videos of many of Redford ‘s movies and we have watched "A River runs through it" many times. Redford is part of the "famdamily" as he is always around. We never get tired of Redford's perception of Norman Maclean writings, and the beauty of Montana. The script reminds me very much of my own upbringing as my father had the same calling as Mr. Maclean's father. According to "A River Runs Through It," "Methodists are Baptists who can read," a line which by the way is not in the short story, but I think that is a funny line! My husband and I are well-read Baptists!

I have heard a movie critic state that the pace of this movie is too slow. I disagree. As one search for inner peace, this is the type of movie that will make you contemplate the beauty of nature in three/four rhythm of the metronome. The photography is outstanding! The acting is great. I love the scene where Norman and Paul as boys talked and wondered whether one could be a fly fisher or a boxer! Then as adult Paul played by Brad Pitt (Se7ven) is the "perfect guy" who needs help with his alcoholism but will not accept it. The same applies to Neal Burns, who uses worms as bait, he also needed help but would not accept the fact that he needed help. The scene where Paul refuses to eat oatmeal and the entire family has to wait an eternity to say grace! Finally after hours, they all kneel around the table to say: "Grace!" and they all leave. But the oatmeal stayed on the plate! That scene where the two love birds and their tattoos on their posteriors! That is funny! The sunburn! The drive back home where Jessie Burns (Emily Lloyd) decides to go via the train line! Beautiful dialogue when Norman proposes to Jessie because he wants her to come to Chicago with him!

Redford himself does a superb job as a narrator. I could not stop myself from comparing Brad to the young Redford (Barefoot in the Park). The nominated Director, Producer, Actor, is a visionary who deserves to be praised for his advancement not only in the cinema in the US but around the world. I am glad to live in nineteen hundred because I have seen the beginning of the black and white television, the movies and all the technology and special effects, to be able to watch videos at home and to live in the same century as Redford because I have had the chance to see his works. Redford needs no special effects to show us the beauty of Montana in this masterpiece. The river to me means that line that separates life from death, memories and realities. Redford shows the hands of the Creator so magnificently and a river runs through it. Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown. I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and appreciated his love of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the lyric romanticism and visual splendor of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film makes love to the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and stunning camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).

Redford's cast is perfect. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that grounds A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is missing in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.

What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, beautiful to hear and unforgettable when coupled with the stunning Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that rises to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is worth revisiting again and again. One of the things about the film that warmed my heart strings was that dry fly fishing was a major part of the scene. I have occasionally carried out my times of dry fly fishing, having tied my own flies, and being accompanied by my brother and my father we spend a day on one river or another seeking to tempt the ever elusive Brown Trout to rise and take the fly that has been offered to them.

When we had occasions like this any differences between us disappeared and any of the pressures of the world melted away to be replaced by the glory of being absorbed in the activity and the surroundings of the place we were in.

This was one of the amazing things that was portrayed to me in the film as the minister and his two sons, Norman and Pauly carried out the ritual. For there is something ritualistic about fly fishing as there is something ritualistic about so many pastimes. You can't just start casting your fishing line and hope for the best. You have to attune yourself to the place you are in, you have to scan the surface of the water considering how it is flowing and where the best point might be to place your fly and, depending on your skill level, you might even get your fly to land there long enough for a fish to take note of it and strike. The 'Art of Fly-fishing' was directed and represented so well that they themselves can be classified as artists.

The title for the film could not be more aptly chosen, for the river did in fact run through the life of father and two sons. This film however spreads itself broader than the family and community in Montana, by the the Blackfoot river, where the film is played out. It has the capacity to draw you in, to enthrall you, to capture you, as the history of the family, community and period is unfolded. The Story told is not just a family history, but a history of Life. What may be classified as a 'River of Life' The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: "You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe..." I hadn't seen "A river runs through it" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.

Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.

The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.

You must see this movie!

Excellent film dealing with the life of an old man as he looks back over the years. Starting around 1910, he reminisces about his boy and young adulthood; his family, friends, romances, etc. Very nostalgic piece with a bittersweet finale...."all things in life come together as one, and a river runs through it. And that river haunts me." Worth seeing. In a little town in Montana two brothers grow up. One of them is Norman (Craig Sheffer), the other is Paul (Brad Pitt). Their father is Reverend Maclean and they grow up with his lessons that has to do with religion, and the lessons of fly-fishing. In this movie fly-fishing represents life, a little.

The story is good and keeps your attention although there are some moments you need a little action. Probably the movie has this moments because it is not really about the events that happen, but about the message. Some things do happen though. Norman goes to Dartmouth to study. After six years he returns and gets involved with a nice girl named Jessie (Emily Lloyd) and he is invited to teach in Chicago. Paul has become a reporter and is known as the "fishing reporter". He is famous and it seems he has a nice life, but he drinks a little too much and gambles too much.

The movie is very well directed, it has a nice score and all of the actors are good. The most beautiful thing in this movie is the cinematography. The mountains, the woods and the river all look very beautiful. If the movie was only made for these things it was good enough to watch. Fortunately there is more. as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.

however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.

i'd like to disagree.

as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes — the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.

for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all. A River Runs Through It is one of those movies that deserves to be seen in the theater so that the majesty of its cinematography can be truly appreciated. The acting is wonderful and understated, with every gesture and smile and nod carrying meaning. Brad Pitt gives a radiant performance and Tom Skerrit is powerful as the preacher father. The movie moves like a river, you have to be willing to follow it through ebbs and flows, but it is well worth it in the end. When I first saw this movie I was with my dad. He encouraged me to watch this movie because it was one of his favorites. After watching the movie it instantly became one of my favorites.

A River Runs Through It is about two brothers who each take a different path in life. Norman Maclean (Craig Sheffer) is the older of the two brothers and he is set on the path of education. Paul Maclean (Brad Pitt) is the rebellious younger brother who travels on a path full of obstacles. The movie follows these characters as the each follow their own path.

There is no downside to this movie. You will be entertained the whole way through. The acting, directing, and script is all perfect. The two things that are exceptional are the cinematography and the score. Both of which entrap you in the world Robert Redford creates for you.

This is an all around great movie that is destined to be a classic. It sure is in my book. If you haven't seen this movie definitely watch it as soon as you can because it will stay with you forever. In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, "But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful! There is not much more I can say about this movie than all of the commentaries on page one, except - as Jesse says - "it's the berries". All of page one's commentators wrote eloquently - as almost so as the dialog is in this movie. This just may be one of those illusive things we hear so much about, but usually are made so by the actors who deliver the lines: a beautiful script. Maybe Robert Redford did hold strict sway onto the actors/actresses during the filming of this movie, so that the beauty of the story would not get lost.

I, too, attended church when I was very young and into my late teens. The church's pastor spoke very eloquently and quietly as the Rev. Maclean did in his church. That, in itself, is a totally different picture that is portrayed of Southern Baptist churches - no holy-rollering in my church. It was a big church, with many different programs to keep its congregation busy - the most inspiring perhaps was the music-department with its huge choir and almost classical anthems. Too, the Sunday evening-congregation was almost entirely younger people. Are you even aware it was once safe to go to church on Sunday night? How I wish it still was ! Watching "A River Runs through It" is very much like going to hear a beautiful sermon in a church whose members are fully involved in life. As has already been so beautifully written, the sermon for this movie is the open-space beauties of Montana - yet, aren't there also missile-silos there, too? Fly-fishing or any other activity which draws family-members closer together for a happy life - and deep understanding of one another - becomes a blessing. Although you see some of the shadier aspects of life then, too, the simplicity of the story paints a lasting impression on your heart, if you let it. Speakeasies and prostitutes are counter-balanced by the simple gatherings of old-fashioned, community picnics as this movie contains - in heavy contrasts to modern families taking their kids to Disney Land for screeching joyrides and calling it "a day together". There is noting wrong with that, but as "River" demonstrates, some of its taciturn beauty could do nothing but make life richer. This is the third film I've seen in which Tom Skeritt (?) plays a father, all different styles and brilliantly acted.

Brad Pitt, mostly an undiscovered talent except for "Thelma and Louise" and "Meet Joe Black", and all of the cast-members deserved many awards. Little stories superbly told will get 10-of-10 from me over any movie with violence, foul language, ugliness and "action". I am thinking particularly of "Crash" and most of "Arnold's" movies. What a savior for peace this movie is. This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The Footage is extraordinary, mesmerizing at times. It also received an Oscar for best photography, and deservedly so. I have many movies in my film collection and several more I've seen besides them, and not many of them are more beautifully or even equally as beautifully shot as this one.

It's unique and an overall great movie. The cast is terrific and do a great job in portraying their characters. We follow their destinies with devotion, and get very emotionally attached to them. Along the way, we also learn things about ourselves and our lives. I think much of this film for what it represent, and how it present it. I warmly recommend it this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all. Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........ Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.

Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.

Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).

While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.

Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.

The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993. I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.

Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.

8.6 out of 10 In answer to the person who made the comment about how the film drags on and who believed there was no purpose to the role of Jess's brother here is my response:

The role of Jess's brother is to provide a form of dramatic irony in the story. Craig Sheffer/Norman could have foreseen the troubles associated with living life to the full by looking at how Jess's brother turned out. There are various instances where Brad Pitt and his lives run in parallel, for example, when Jess's brother takes Craig Sheffer to a disjointed bar and subsequently he finds Brad Pitt there a few days later. The dramatic irony was there so Craig Sheffer's character would have a bigger emotional turmoil at his brothers death, knowing he could have done more to prevent it and subsequently creates a more compelling mood in the film. In watching how the two brothers interact and feed off of each other through the whole movie makes me personally happy to live in the rural area much like they did in the movie. I have watched this movie countless times and have the book right beside my Bible. After watching the movie I agree that this is one of the few movies that does a book justice. I strongly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to Montana to fish or be outdoors to do so. It is amazing. I can not think of anyone else that could play the role better than Brad Pitt. Do yourself justice and watch one of the better movies in the modern movie era. STRONGLY Recommend And as a guide for fishing trips in both Montana and Wyoming, do not try to learn how to fly fish from the scenes of the movie because although it looks great on the film you have no idea how much practice and skill fishing like that actually takes. Thank you for listening Watch this movie please if you would like a long sad movie. Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie. A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.

Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.

The closing lines sum up the "point" of the movie: "Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." Stewart is a Wyoming cattleman who dreams to make enough money to buy a small ranch in Utah ranch… His only real companion is his sidekick Ben Tatum, the great Walter Brennan… To accomplish that, they drive the cattle clear to Alaska and on to Dawson, in Canadian territory, where they sell them...

Along the way they meet the man who runs the gold-crazy town behind a dishonest lawman John McIntire... He attempts to steal them the herd... Later, in Dawson, McIntire and his gang reappear, this time interfering with Stewart's gold claim...

Captured by Mann's camera in the wonderful scenery of the Canadian Rockies, Stewart is a thoughtful loner forced into violence by his need to get rid of the treacherous actions of a corrupt entrepreneur robbing local miners of their claims…

In this entertaining, beautiful Western, Stewart has two leading ladies to struggle with: Ruth Roman, a bit too valuable to describe as a sexy woman resisting the worst vicissitudes of the territory and the more docile, the French Canadian girl Corinne Calvet who does create a nice portrait of a likable girl with the ability to form a judgment... In spontaneous manner, Stewart is lost between the ostentatious saloon owner and the wife-candidate... Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.

The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.

In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.

Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.

John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain.

One of the best westerns ever. Cunningly interesting Western from a director who had few peers in the genre. Much like other Anthony Mann pictures, The Far Country blends a potent pot boiling story with an adroit knowing of impacting scenery. Both of which play out amongst some of Mann's peccadilloes like honour, integrity, betrayal and of course, death! The story sees fortune hunting partners Jeff Webster {James Stewart} and Ben Tatum {Walter Brennan} travel to Oregon Territory with a herd of cattle. Aware of the blossoming gold-boom, they plan to make a tidy profit selling the cattle in a Klondike town. Arriving in Skagway they find self-appointed judge Mr. Gannon {John McIntire} ready to meet out justice to Webster on account of Webster having fractured the law, all be it with honest cause, along the way. In punishment Gannon takes the partners herd from them, but they steal them back and head across the Canadian border to Dawson-with Gannon and his men in hot pursuit. Here beautiful women and a meek and lawless town will fill out the destinies of all involved.

Interesting from start to finish, The Far Country benefits greatly from James Stewart's bubbling {anti} hero in waiting portrayal and Mann's slick direction of the tight Borden Chase script. The cinematography from William H. Daniels is superlative, tho not done any favours by current DVD prints, and the film has a few surprises and a "will he wont he?" core reeling the viewers in. Paying dividends on re-watches for hardened genre fans, it still remains something of an essential viewing for first timers venturing into the wonderful, yet dark, Western world of Anthony Mann and James Stewart. 8/10 This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. "The Far Country" is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his "deputies" will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright. Colorful western.

Wyoming cowboy James Stewart moseys on up to the Yukon Territory to dig for gold, sell his steers, and try to get a date with pretty saloon-owner Ruth Roman if he can shake the tail of crooked sheriff John McIntire who wants Stewart's cattle. Beautiful cinematography in a collaborative effort by William Fritzsche and Bill Daniels. Good Technicolor adventure from Universal-International, directed by Anthony Mann.

Also starring Corinne Calvet, Connie Gilchrist, and Walter Brennan as Stewart's sidekick. The penultimate collaboration between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart (excluding the few days Mann worked on Night Passage before parting company with the star under less than amicable circumstances), The Far Country belies its mainstream look to offer another portrait of an embittered man dragged unwillingly to his own redemption, fighting it every step of the way. This time he's a cattle driver whose response to labour problems - challenging troublesome cowhands to a gunfight at the end of the trail - results in his cattle being confiscated by John McIntire's larcenous judge of the Roy Bean school of law and order. Stealing them back and taking them across the Canadian border, he soon finds himself unwillingly drawn into the growing conflict between prospectors and the judge as he cheats or kills them out of their claims...

While it's no great surprise which way Stewart turns at the end, he's a surprisingly callous critter along the way, even using his desire to just be left alone to excuse not warning a group of prospectors of an impending avalanche when he has the chance because it's not his problem. For most of the film there's really only a hair's breadth between him and McIntire, something the judge recognises immediately, revelling in the company of a kindred spirit even as he's genially planning to lynch him. In many ways the townspeople who put their faith in him probably recognise it too - despite their appeals to his dead-and-buried better nature, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that the only person who can stand up to the judge is someone almost as bad as he is.

As usual with Mann there's an exceptional use of high country locations, though for once the final showdown takes place on level ground, and the film is almost perfectly cast with strong support from Walter Brennan, Harry Morgan and Ruth Roman (though Corinne Calvert's young romantic interest veers to the irritating). Sadly the great cinematography of the Canadian Rockies is done few favours by a distinctly average DVD transfer, with only the theatrical trailer as an extra. This is mostly a story about the growing relationship between Jeff Webster(Jimmy Stewart) and Ronda Castle(Ruth Roman). She takes an instant liking to Jeff in a brief encounter on the deck of the steamer to Skagway, and a longer look when he hides in her cabin while authorities seek him on a charge of murder. They find out they have some things in common besides an animal attraction. Neither trusts a member of the opposite sex, apparently because both have been married to spouses who cheated on them. Gradually, they learn to trust each other, as they journey from Skagway to Dawson. But Ronda clearly has close dealings with corrupt sheriff Gannon and engages in some shady practices in her Castle saloon in Skagway. She eventually has to decide between Gannon and Jeff. Meanwhile, Rene, a young naive French woman also takes an immediate liking to Jeff, but only gets insulting brush offs in return. Yet, she sticks with him in his travels from Skagway to Dawson and his activities around Dawson. Along with Ronda, she nurses him back to health after Jeff is left for dead by Gannon's gunslingers at his gold claim. Walter Brennan, as Ben, serves as Jeff's long time sidekick. He doesn't have a meaty role, but serves to soften Jeff's hard edges. His demise symbolically opens the door for a woman companion replacement for Jeff.

John McIntire(as Sheriff Gannon) makes probably the most charismatic evil town boss you will ever see on film, oozing charm and humor to go along with his bullying. Evidently, he sees something of himself in Jeff, repeatedly declaring that he's going to like him. He makes a believable incarnation of the infamous Soapy Smith, who spent his last years in Skagway, as one of the premier con men of his times.

Jeff is the quintessential antihero, a loner(except for companion Ben), who doesn't want to stick his neck out for others, even when he knows he is the one right man for the job. In this respect, he closely resemble's Burt Lancaster's character in "Vera Cruz", for example. Thus, Jeff not only turns down the job of marshall of Dawson, he is convinced to leave Dawson after Gannon's gang move in with clear intentions of taking over everyone's insufficiently legal gold claims, while disposing of some miners and suggesting that the rest make a hurried exit from Dawson. Even Ronda suggests that she and Jeff make a hurried exit from Dawson while they are still alive. Then, Jeff has a sudden change of heart, apparently still nursing desire for revenge for the shooting of Ben and himself. He changes from anti-hero to hero in leading the expulsion of Gannon's gang from Dawson. In this respect, he differs from Lancaster's character, who never reforms(But is Jeff truly changed, or just handing out revenge for wrongs committed against his own interests?)

The main problem I see with the plot is the 2 principle women. Clearly, Ronda is groomed as the right woman to tame Jeff. Although she is clearly characterized as a "bad" girl, Jeff has a checkered recent past himself, having shot at least 5 men in the US or Yukon, and having stolen his cattle back from Gannon. Ironically, soon after Jeff changes from anti-hero to hero, Rhonda makes a similar change in running into the street to warn Jeff of Gannon's impending ambush. She dies as a result and Jeff asks her why she didn't just look out for herself(his supposedly just abandoned creed!).

It's clear that Corine Calvert, as Renee, just doesn't make a credible substitute for the dead Ronda, in Jeff's mind. Yet, the apparent implication of the parting scene is that they get together, even though Jeff never visibly gives her a kiss or hug. Her image as a good, if naive, young woman is somewhat compromised by her job in Rhonda's saloon of bumping miners weighting their gold dust, pushing the spilled dust on the floor and recovering it later. I'm also very unclear about her relationship with Rube Morris, a middle aged miner who followers her around and works a claim with her.(He's not her father).

Another problem is the amateurish handling of the gun fight between Jeff and Gannon's gang. If Gannon had any skill at all with a pistol, he should have killed or seriously wounded Jeff under that boardwalk, before Jeff did the same to him. And how did Jeff's badly shot up right hand suddenly become well enough to shoot a pistol with apparent ease? I also wonder what Jeff and friends did to help save the avalanche victims. They were much too far away to pull them out alive from under the snow. And why weren't most of Ronda's pack horses and mules also buried by the avalanche?

You will see a host of probably nameless but familiar faces among the miners and Gannon's gang. The sequences shot in the Canadian Rockies provide a breathtaking backdrop to the action. All-in-all, a very entertaining western, with most of the major flaws concentrated at the end. No doubt, this film takes some great liberties with history and geography, especially, the part taking place in the Canadian Yukon, which was in fact much tamer than the US Skagway. Anthony Mann's westerns with Jimmy Stewart are slowly gaining for that director a position with John Ford and Howard Hawks as the best film director in that genre. He certainly knows how to give dimension to nice guy Stewart - in Mann's films there is an edge to Jimmy that is slowly demonstrated to the audience. In WINCHESTER '73 it was the relationship of Stewart to his brother and how it twists him into a figure of vengeance. Here it is a "I trust only myself" attitude, which leads to one complication after another. Even before the film properly begins he (as Jeff Webster) kills two of his hired cowboys who were helping on a cattle drive to Seattle because of some dispute (we never are clear about it - either they wanted to leave the cattle drive, or they tried to steal the cattle).

He meets his match in Skagway, the port he has to get to in order to take his herd to Dawson. Skagway's boss is a so-called law man named Gannon (John McIntyre) who reminds one of the real boss of Skagway in the "Gold Rush" Jefferson "Soapy" Smith and Judge Roy Bean. The problem is that neither Smith nor Bean would have gotten quite as sleazy as Gannon in turning every opportunity into a chance to make some money. Stewart's herd interrupted a public hanging - so (as a penalty fine) the herd is confiscated (to be sold later for Gannon's profit).

Stewart is partner with Ben (Walter Brennan - who oddly enough won his last Oscar playing Judge Roy Bean). They are also joined by Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) and also meet two women, the sophisticated Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) and the friendly and helpful Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvert). Rhonda works closely with Gannon, but had helped Jeff earlier in fleeing the authorities in Seattle. However, she has a similar "I only trust myself" attitude to Jeff. She does offer him employment to get supplies for herself to Dawson. He, Ben, and Rube go but at night (while the others are asleep) they go back and steal back their cattle. Renee follows and warns them that Gannon and his associates are following. Jeff holds off Gannon long enough for the cattle herd to be brought over the Canadian border, although Gannon points out that since Jeff has to return by way of Skagway Gannon can wait until he does to hang him.

The reunited party of Rhonda and Jeff split over the trail to take to Dawson, Jeff opting for a longer and safer route. After he is proved right, they go by his route and reach Dawson only to find there is a lawless element threatening the community due to the gold fields. The herd is sold to Rhonda, and Jeff, Ben, Rube, and Renee start prospecting. There is soon two groups in the town of Dawson. One led by Connie Gilchrist and Chubby Johnson want to build a decent town. But the Mounties won't be setting up a station in Dawson for months. The other, centering around the "dancehall" run by Rhonda, are in cahoots with Gannon who has a vast claim jumping scheme using his gang of gunslingers (Robert J. Wilke - really scary in one sequence with Chubby Johnson and Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, and Harry Morgan). Jeff wishes to steer clear of both, and head with his new wealth and Ben for a ranch they want in Utah. But will they get there? And will Jeff remain neutral?

The performances are dandy here, including Stewart as a man who is willing to face all comers, but would otherwise be peaceful enough. Brennan is playing one of his patented old codgers, whose love of good coffee has unexpectedly bad results. Flippen is a drunk at first, but tragedy and responsibility shake him into a better frame of mind - and one who has a chance to verbally stab Stewart in the heart using Stewart's own words against him. McIntyre would achieve stardom on television in WAGON TRAIN replacing Ward Bond, but his work in Mann's films show his abilities as a villain (such as his trade post opportunist who outsmarts himself in WINCHESTER '73). He is, as is said elsewhere on this thread, really sleazy - but he has a sense of humor. Roman is an interesting blend of opportunist and human being, whose fate is determined by her better feelings. And Calvert is both a voice of conscience and a frontier "Gigi" aware that she is more than a young girl but a budding woman.

Best of all is the Canadian Rockies background - as wonderful in its way as the use of Monument Valley by John Ford. Mann certainly did a first rate job directing this film, and the viewer will appreciate the results. Another very good Mann flick thanks to the father/son combination of Walter Brennan and Jimmy Stewart. Brennan (Ben Tatum) is often the comedic conscience of either Stewart or Wayne (Red River/ Rio Bravo). He's there to see that the younger man takes the ride fork or bend. "You're wrong Mr. Dunston". Jeff Webster(Stewart) gives off the impression he cares only for himself but it is clear he cannot desert Brennan. John McIntire is excellent as the law of Skagway with due respect for the trappings of justice over the reality of it. Another key theme is helping people and in turn being helped by people. The loner can do neither and suffers for it.

The caption above plays on Tatum's assertion that he can't live without his coffee. This nicotine addiction proves fatal. Probably the first and last time on the screen.

I recommend this film and now own the DVD. A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama. Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many "lawmen" during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy....... As I drove from Skagway, Alaska to Dawson City,Yukon a couple of years ago and was impressed with the scenery, I cannot help but wish that this film even though it has beautiful color and scenic views would have been shot in the actual location. Jasper in the Canadian Rockies is a magnificent place, but still not the real place where the film takes place. When the story moves to Dawson, that is when I feel Anthony Mann, who used the outdoor locations so well, could have made the most if he filmed in the actual place. James Stewart here is again a man fighting within himself, one side of him does not want to get involved and help people who stand in the way of him making money, and the other side just is not able to look away from people being murdered. Ruth Roman is the ambitious woman who does not care on whom she steps, Corinne Calvet is the nice girl. Mann is excellent directing the shootouts, but the high point of the film is how well he does in the outdoor scenes. He uses the outdoors as much as he can and he is helped by the winter scenery, the predominating white, like it was with the greens in "The Naked Spur" and the browns in "The Man From Laramie". Like all of the Mann-Stewarts, this is a traditional western, with a difference in the elaboration of Stewart's character which is more complex. Cowboys James Stewart and Walter Brennan take their herd from Seattle to Alaska and on into Canada to stake a claim. Once there, they have to contend with seductive, shifty businesswoman Ruth Roman and ice-cold, happy-go-lucky villain James McIntire.

John Wayne may get talked about more, but his good pal Stewart made some excellent, hard-edged westerns too, some with the great director Anthony Mann. Frankly, I'd take this, with it's sturdy action sequences and fine melodrama, over North To Alaska any day!

The Far Country features some breathtaking scenery and cinematography that should definitely have been shot in widescreen.

Also, there's some strong support by the always reliable Brennan, Roman (who's great), the incredibly cute Corrine Calvet, and James McIntire, who plays one of my favorite types of bad guy, the kind that doesn't take himself too seriously.

This would make a great double-bill with another highly recommended Mann/Stewart northwest-set western, Bend Of The River. My comment would have been added to the RELEASE DATE section, but I couldn't find a place for it. I was really surprised to see that this movie was released in the U.S. in Feb., 1955. I saw it in a "first run" theater in Washington, D.C. in March, 1958. Wonder if it was re-released, or some problem? In my opinion, this movie is very light entertainment, but has some classic characters. John McIntyre does a bang-up job as a corrupt judge/entrepreneur/thief. Walter Brennan does basically the same role he did in Red River years earlier. And, in my opinion, James Stewart gives as fine a performance as he ever did. I have seen this movie a half dozen times or more, and never tire of seeing parts of it again. The photography and scenery are splendid, and it offers a remarkable amount of entertainment in one hour and thirty-six minutes. (contains slight spoilers)

It's interesting how Anthony Mann uses James Stewart here. Stewart is, of course, remembered by many as George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", so it's easy to find parallels between the two films. In "It's a Wonderful Life", Bailey gets to see the world as it would have been if he had never been born. In "The Far Country", Stewart's Jeff Webster, by not getting involved to help anyone else (except himself), gets to see essentially the same thing: A world in which he (for all practical matters) doesn't exist.

By not getting involved (and by attempting not to care about anyone), Webster is forced to see those for whom he can't help but care get hurt, pushed around, and even killed while he stands by and does nothing. This reminds the viewer of George Bailey watching a world that has turned upside-down because he has also decided not to get involved by not ever having been born.

Both movies end with the same image - a close-up of a ringing bell. Stewart, by turning around his philosophy of non-involvement, has, it would seem, earned his "wings". After losing his cattle herd to a dishonest lawman, a trail boss winds up in the Yukon gold fields with a bad reputation and small chances of being able to return to the states. While there his fortunes take a turn for the best until a bad luck specter from the past comes calling. Good western with many favorite old faces in the lineup. Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either "shoot up the Injuns," "the big gunfight," or "Hey, let's form a posse!" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called "greats", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)

But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject "society," at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.

Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliché character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his "Gosh" or "Oh golly gee" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best "bad guy" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.

I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: "talky"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the "man's man" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his "everyman" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" - an altogether different type of "western").

I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is. The fourth of five westerns Anthony Mann did with James Stewart, this one involves a hard bitten cattleman named Jeff Webster who takes a cattle drive from Wyoming to Alaska, via Seattle. He hooks up in Seattle with his partners Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan) and Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) that he has sent ahead of time in order to make preparations for the boat trip, north.

But first, he has to put up with insubordinate trail hands, cheating riverboat captains and the charms of coy, manipulative Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) who believes Jeff could be a valuable ally in the future. That's why she hides him out on the boat while the captain's looking for him for the earlier (and justifiable) killing of a trail hand.

Jeff also has the misfortune of running into sleazy Judge Gannon (John McIntire) who runs the town of Skagway, Alaska. Gannon locks Jeff up for disrupting his public hanging by running his cattle through town. He fines Jeff the ownership of his cattle and Jeff just has to eat crow for the time being.

In the meantime, Jeff agrees to ride point for Ronda up to Dawson in order to deliver supplies. But this is just a ruse so Jeff, Ben and Rube can slip back into Skagway and steal his cattle back. Of course Judge Gannon finds out about this and is right behind but is delayed by Jeff with a rifle while Ben races the cattle over the Canadian border out of Gannon's reach.

After avoiding an avalanche and another shootout with some other Skagway men, they finally reach Dawson where Jeff sells his cattle to the highest bidder, which just happens to be Ronda who then promptly sets up a new gambling house in Dawson. Jeff then takes his money and buys himself a claim and starts panning for gold.

But then Judge Gannon comes up to Dawson to get in on the gold action up there, and tells Jeff that he was getting a little bored with Skagway and wants to try his luck up in the Klondike, himself. That involves bring some hired gunman with him and forcibly stealing some of the other miner's claims. Jeff and Ben now feel it's time to clear out while the goings are good, leaving Rube to fend for himself as a most ineffective sheriff against Gannon and his gang.

They look for a back way out only to find themselves ambushed by Gannon's men because Ben made the mistake of opening his big mouth. Ben is killed and Jeff is severely wounded but that doesn't save Judge Gannon from his just due. The ending shootout at night on the muddy Dawson street pretty much takes care of that. First Jeff kills two of Gannon's best gunman (Jack Elam and Robert Wilkie). Then as Ronda comes out to warn Jeff that Gannon is trying to slip around behind him, Gannon shoots her in the back and she dies right there in Jeff's arms. Then Jeff kills Gannon as he's hiding under a wooden sidewalk. Revenge has spoken.

This is another rip-roaring western that's right up there with THE NAKED SPUR and THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Why the Universal DVD uses a pan-and-scan print instead of the widescreen print TCM uses, is beyond me. You'll wind up missing half the glorious Alberta cinematography by William Daniels. So if you like well-written 50s westerns, then this one's an A-list keeper.

8 out of 10 This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10. The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable. This movie was just as good as some of the other westerns made by Anthony Mann and James Stewart like Winchester '73 and The Naked Spur, and much better than Thunder Bay and Bend Of The River. This film starts out like a run of the mill western but gets more complex as it goes along. It starts out with Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan arriving in Seattle and Stewart is charged with murder. He is found innocent but is cattle is stolen by a corrupt judge. Stewart then agrees to lead something but i forget what it is but Stewart only cares about getting his cattle back. As the movie goes along it's like Stewart only cares about himself just like his character in the Naked Spur. It gets much better at the halfway point after they arrive in Alaska. This is one of Stewart's better westerns. I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :) I thought it was one of the best sequels I have seen in a while. Sometimes I felt as though I would just want someone to die, Stanley's killing off of the annoying characters was brilliant. It was such a well done movie that you were happy when so and so died. My only problem was in some scenes it looked like someone with a home camera was filming it and it was weird. Judd Nelson is cute, at least in my opinion and he was excellent in the role as Stanley Caldwell. Brilliant movie. Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it.

Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.

I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. I loved this movie. It was almost the same as the first (cabin by the lake), only instead of just killing women, he kills men also. And the scenes are much more interesting, 2 of my favorite scenes are firstly, when Stanley and Allison are in the dance club and he is describing Kimberly's last moments before she is thrown to the water, And secondly, When Stanley is visiting Allison in his basement, right before they head down to the set, when she kisses him. Those scenes, for me, were very intense and riveting. I gave the movie a rating of 8/10, not because the movie was bad, but because the filming was bad, I mean, there were times when you'd notice nothing was wrong, like its being shot the way a film is usually shot, you wouldn't see the "live" camera shooting, but then, very little, you would notice the filming mistakes. what went wrong?? This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe. When I first found out that Brian Krause was going to be in this movie, I wanted to watch. It took me weeks to realize that I've seen the original of this and loved it. So I had even more reason to watch. Well, I watched. It was actually better than most sequels for TV movies. I hate what happens to Brian's character (you can find out for yourself) and I didn't like most of the characters, Brian's one included. But the movie needed the cheesy and annoying and jerk-like characters to make Stanley Caldwell (Judd Nelson) shine once more. At the end, I was cheering for Stanley and his own happy ending. If you liked the original Cabin by the Lake or if you like horror movies without the blood, I'd suggest you watch this. as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10* actually... that "video camera" effect, is just that, it's an effect, a rather good one.. (u don't know much about directing a film do you?) this film is in fact BETTER than the original, it's great fun to watch, made for TV, doesn't need to follow any rules. I find it hard to watch number 1 because of how he kills the first girl, its disturbing. and all the time we are routing for Judd Nelson to get away with it, we as the viewers are on his side. i hope one day we will see a 3rd cabin by the lake but i doubt it. Watching this film you can understand how real movies are made, as this is sort of like a film within a film. Judd is one of the scariest villains ever, and he's more realistic, he doesn't just mindlessly chop people up like in other horrors. The first was good and original. I was a not bad horror/comedy movie. So I heard a second one was made and I had to watch it.

What really makes this movie work is Judd Nelson's character and the sometimes clever script. A pretty good script for a person who wrote the Final Destination films and the direction was okay. Sometimes there's scenes where it looks like it was filmed using a home video camera with a grainy-look.

Great made-for-TV movie. It was worth the rental and probably worth buying just to get that nice eerie feeling and watch Judd Nelson's Stanley doing what he does best.

I suggest newcomers to watch the first one before watching the sequel, just so you'll have an idea what Stanley is like and get a little history background. Return to Cabin by the Lake is Perhaps one of The Few Sequels that Can Live up to The Original. It Had Black Humor, Good Suspense, Nice Looking Girls, and Of Course, a Psycho Killer. What are We Missing? I Think Nothing. Except we Are Left with a Small Amount of Gore and Nudity because It Was Made for Television. Besides Being one Of The Best Sequels, it is one of The Best Thrillers to Watch as a Family. Recommended for Everyone. To me A Matter of Life and Death is just that- simply the best film ever made.

From beginning to end it oozes class. It is stimulating, thought provoking, a mirror to the post war world and the relations between peoples.

The cinematography is simply stunning and the effect of mixing monochrome and Technicolour to accent the different worlds works seamlessly. The characters and plot development are near perfect and the attention to detail promotes a thoroughly believable fantasy.

No matter how many times I watch the film - and I have watched it a lot - it never fails to touch me. It makes me smile, it makes me laugh, it makes me think, it makes me cry. It is as fresh today as it was in 1946.

If I were allowed just one film to keep and watch again A Matter of Life and Death would be that film. Few movies can be viewed almost 60 years later, yet remain as engrossing as this one. Technological advances have not dated this classic love story. Special effects used are remarkable for a 1946 movie. The acting is superb. David Niven, Kim Hunter and especially Roger Livesey do an outstanding job. The use of Black and White / Color adds to the creative nature of the movie. It hasn't been seen on television for 20 years so few people are even aware of its existence. It is my favorite movie of all time. Waiting and hoping for the DVD release of this movie for so many years is, in itself, "A Matter of Life and Death". A Matter of Life and Death, what can you really say that would properly do justice to the genius and beauty of this film. Powell and Pressburger's visual imagination knows no bounds, every frame is filled with fantastically bold compositions. The switches between the bold colours of "the real world" to the stark black and white of heaven is ingenious, showing us visually just how much more vibrant life is. The final court scene is also fantastic, as the judge and jury descend the stairway to heaven to hold court over Peter (David Niven)'s operation.

All of the performances are spot on (Roger Livesey being a standout), and the romantic energy of the film is beautiful, never has there been a more romantic film than this (if there has I haven't seen it). A Matter of Life and Death is all about the power of love and just how important life is. And Jack Cardiff's cinematography is reason enough to watch the film alone, the way he lights Kim Hunter's face makes her all the more beautiful, what a genius, he can make a simple things such as a game of table tennis look exciting. And the sound design is also impeccable; the way the sound mutes at vital points was a decision way ahead of its time

This is a true classic that can restore anyone's faith in cinema, under appreciated on its initial release and by today's audiences, but one of my all time favourites, which is why I give this film a 10/10, in a word - Beautiful. The opening flourishes left me purring with delight at their inventiveness - the altered version of the Archers' logo, the introductory disclaimer, the way the camera pans over the cosmos. It's strange to think that `It's a Wonderful Life' came out in the same year. No great coincidence: the 1940s was awash with heaven-and-earth films; but the glowing cotton wool nebulas and cutesy angels of the competition look tattered, something best passed over in silence, when placed next to Alfred Junge's vision.

It continues to look great all the way through, as more and more striking ideas are sprung upon us. I'm not a great fan of mixing colour with black and white in general. One of the two visual schemes almost always looks ugly when placed next to the other. Not so here. Powell dissolves colour into monochrome and monochrome into colour as if it's the most natural thing in the world, a mere change of palettes. Both the colour photography and the black and white could stand on their own.

As for the story ... this may be Pressburger's best script, or at least it would have been had the conclusion been a more logical outcome of preceding events. Other than that it's tight, yet with more going on than I can possibly allude to here. Was the heavenly stuff real or imaginary? (Or both? Perhaps Carter dreamt up a fantasy that was, as it so happened, true.) Everyone says we're meant to neither ask nor answer this question, but I don't see why. I'm sure we ARE meant to ask the question. The film even gives us clues as to what the answer is - indeed, the problem is that there are too many clues and they seem at first to be pointing in different directions. The fact that other things ought to occupy our attention as well doesn't mean that this shouldn't occupy us as well. There is, as I've said before, a lot going on.

Consider the scene in which Abraham Farlan (Heaven's prosecuting lawyer) plays a radio broadcast of a cricket match, and contemptuously says, `The voice of England, 1945.' Dr. Reeves (the defence) acknowledges the exhibit with a great deal of embarrassment, and then produces one of his own: a blues song from America, which Farlan listens to as though he's got a lemon in his mouth. Reeves looks smug.

Snobbery? Well, I don't see why it's snobbish to condemn blues music - and that's not what Powell and Pressburger are doing, anyway. As the song is being played, we get a shot of the American soldiers listening to it: several of them nod their heads to the rhythm, perfectly at home. THEY don't find it incomprehensible. There's something valuable about the song and neither Reeves nor Farlan knows what it is. Reeves probably realises as much. All English audiences (and all Australian, Indian, etc. audiences as well) know without being told that there is something of value in the cricket broadcast, too; and that while Reeves understands THAT, he is unable to explain it to Farlan - hence the blues broadcast, which shows that people can understand each other without sharing an understanding of everything else. It's a clever scene.

One last thing. I found David Niven a bit cold, without the charisma he would acquire later in his career; but even so, I don't think a film has grabbed my heart quite so quickly after the action began, as this one did. I LOVE this movie. Director Michael Powell once stated that this was his favorite movie, and it is mine as well. Powell and Pressburger created a seemingly simple, superbly crafted story - the power of love against "the powers that be". However, its deception lies in the complexity of its "is it real or is it imaginary" premise. Basically, one could argue that it is simply a depiction of the effects of war on a young, poetically inclined airman during WWII. Or is it? The question is never answered one way or the other. Actually, it is never even asked. This continuous understatement is part of the film's appeal.

The innovative photography and cinematography even includes some nice touches portraying the interests of the filmmakers. For instance, Pressburger always wanted to do a cinematic version of Richard Strauss' opera, Der Rosenkavalier, about a young 18th century Viennese aristocrat. This is evident in the brief interlude in which Conductor 71, dressed in all his finery, holds the rose (which appears silver in heaven). The music even has a dreamy quality.

All of the acting is first rate - David Niven is at his most charming, and he has excellent support from veteran Roger Livesey and relative newcomer Kim Hunter. But, in my opinion, the film's charm comes from Marius Goring as Conductor 71. He by far has the most interesting role, filling each of his scenes with his innocent lightheartedness, brightening the film. It's a pity that some of Conductor 71's scenes were left on the cutting room floor. It is also a pity that Goring's comedic talents are rarely seen again on film, except in the wonderful videos of The Scarlet Pimpernel television series from the 1950s. This is by far and away the most memorable role of his film career. He is a perfect foil for relaxed style of Niven, and his virtual overstatement contrasts so nicely with the seriousness of the rest of the characters. Ironically, also in the mid -1940s, Niven also starred against another heavenly "messenger", played by Cary Grant, in The Bishop's Wife. Their acting styles were so similar that I found the result boring, unenergetic, and disappointing. As a note, according to Powell, Goring desperately wanted the role of Peter Carter, initially refusing Conductor 71. It's a good thing he gave in and gave us such a delightful portrayal.

The movie, "commissioned" to smooth over the strained relations between Britain and the U.S., overdrives its point towards the end. But it is disarming in its gentle reminders of the horrors of war - the numerous casualties, both military and civilian, the need to "go on" when faced with death. There is a conspicuous lack of WWII "enemies" in heaven, but the civilians shown are of indeterminate origin. Powell and Pressburger could have been more explicit in their depiction but it wasn't necessary. The movie may not have served its diplomatic purpose as was hoped for, but its originality continues to inspire moviemakers and viewers alike on both sides of the Atlantic. Enchanting, romantic, innovative, and funny. The vision of this extraordinary film is almost unparalleled, exceeding better known "death romances" such as Ghost. While we know intuitively that Peter and June will find ultimate happiness at the end of that long-long stairway, the joy is in the journey. The moral of the tale, of course, is timeless: love conquers all. But the struggle to achieve that victory is played in a celestial arena of sweeping vision and gripping grandeur. With more than 500 suitably clad extras portraying various ages and cultures, the directors' vision of heaven remains memorable six decades later, far into the CGI era.

Yet for all the cosmic scale, Powell and Pressburger knew an essential truth: the best story is told at the smallest level. The wonderfully, determinedly romantic aspect of "Stairway" is captured with ultimate simplicity: June's teardrop, preserved on a rose petal.

This film, like the story and the set itself, is one for the ages. This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:

Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage (…)

Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.

I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes… do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.

Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.

I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever. The great talents of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger are noticeable in their wonderful "A Matter of Life and Death". It was part of the recent tribute to Mr. Powell that played at the Walter Reade in New York. This film, in particular, shows us one of the best British films from that, or any other era.

"A Matter of Life and Death" has a brilliant cinematography by Jack Cardiff, a man who knew how to work wonders with a camera. Particularly impressive is the contrast from the monochromatic tones given to the scenes played in heaven, and the colored ones when the action comes back to earth. This was quite a coup, and well ahead of its times. The black and white sequence that involves the long staircase where Peter and the Conductor are chatting has to be one of the most amazing things on any film.

Much has been said in this forum about the film, so our comment will be about the great acting Powell and Pressberger got out of the large, distinguished cast, who responded magnificently to the directors' guidance.

David Niven, is Peter, whose aircraft is hit and his best friend dies as a result of it. This film marked one of the highlights in Mr. Niven's career. He was an excellent film actor as he shows us in this movie. Kim Hunter is surprisingly good as June, the woman who talked to Peter as his plane was falling from the skies. As fate would have it, Peter and June fall in love at first sight.

Some of the best British film actors grace this film with their presence. Robert Coote, is Bob, the man who is admitted to heaven, but he is surprised his friend Peter never made the trip with him. An excellent star turn by Marius Goring, who as the Conductor 71 steals the film. Mr. Goring, who had worked with the directors, is one of the best things in the movie. Also, Roger Livesey, as Dr. Frank Reeves, does one of the best appearances of his career, as well as Raymond Massey, who is seen as Abraham Farlan.

"A Matter of Life and Death" is a timeless film that will always be seen with gratitude toward its creators. This is one of the most overlooked gems Hollywood has ever produced. -- A young WWII British fighter ace whose plane is about to crash, has radio contact with a young American woman who comforts the brave pilot, knowing that within minutes he will be dead. For some reason the man who should certainly be dead walks away from the wreckage and eventually learns that he was meant to report to heaven. When a messanger is sent to ask the pilot to accompany him to heaven, the man refuses and demands to have his "day in court" to argue his case. The man argues that his situation had changed during the final moments of his earthly life, that he had fallen in love and therefor had become a different person, one who deserved a chance to live on.

The "heavenly court" is a cinematic delight! The "announcement of the jury of peers" is a definite highlight. The story, as fantastic as it seems, is an engaging one and will keep you spellbound for the nearly 2 hours play time. The final scene is simply beautiful and will require a "Kleenex treatment" for most viewers. This film is in my personal all-time favorite top 10, it has my highest recommendation! If you want to be cynical and pedantic you could point out that the opening where a RAF Lancaster bomber is mortally wounded on the 2nd of May 1945 is somewhat unlikely since German air defences were as lively as Adolph Hitler on that day but this isn't a movie that should be viewed by a cynical audience and I guess a character being killed in literally the last hours of the war adds to the poignancy . In fact you'd have to have survived the second world war to fully appreciate the intellect , beauty and soul of Powell and Pressburger's masterpiece . The scenes of heaven are painfully twee when viewed today ? Again you have to view the movie of the context when it was made . RAF bomber command lost 58,000 men during the war , the same number that America lost in 'Nam but during a shorter period and a far , far smaller pool of active combatants , there's no atheists in a fox hole and I doubt if you'd lost a relative during the conflict you'd view material atheism as being a sensible thing . When Richar Attenborough's young pilot looks down in awe at the sight below him many war heroes must have openly wept at this scene as they remembered much missed comrades who didn't survive the war . Also bare in mind that despite losing several million people from 1939-45 there seems to be very few people from Germany passing through the pearly gates . it's obvious Nazis don't go to heaven

The plot itself where dashing young pilot Peter Carter arguing for his life in front of a celestial court wouldn't have had much appeal to me if it wasn't for the subtext , you see A MATTER OR LIFE AND DEATH is a highly political and visionary film that laments the end of the British empire as it's replaced by American ambitions . There's little things that show up the film as being made by people aware of American history and culture . One is the ethnic mix of America , even today many Britons think that the USA is overwhelmingly composed of White Anglo Saxon Protestants when in fact only 51% of Americans are " White European " . The film rightly contains a scene where a multitude of different races confess " I am an American " as Peter is judged by Abraham Farlan , an Anglophobe who was the first revolutionary killed by British forces in The American War Of Independence . As for the " special relationship " between Britain and America - What special relationship ? Powell and Pressburger know their history when it comes to Britain and America . They obviously know their future too

So remember to watch this movie with some of your mind in the past and some of your mind in the present . It's strange , beautiful , poignant and clever but most of all it's a film that would never ever work if it were made in the last 40 years . Can you imagine if the story was set in 2003 and revolved around a British soldier killed in Iraq ? It is no surprise that writer/director Michael Powell considered "A Matter of Life and Death," his and Emeric Pressburger's spellbinding fantasy from 1946 to be his favourite of their films together. Released during the aftermath of World War 2, this colourful romantic adventure would have provided just the tonic for a traumatised, recovering nation in need of a good uplift.

Following a string of other patriotic war films, 'The Archers' made this one their quirkiest, skittish and most patriotic of the lot. Quintessentially British for upholding British heritage (Shakespeare, beer, fair play, good manners), it is also visibly Americanised in its baroque compositions, technical inventiveness and a fine multi-ethnic cast.

Oddly echoing another 1946 classic, "It's a Wonderful Life," AMOLAD opens on a grand firmament, with one of those jolly voice-overs preaching about the earth and the heavens, and what a big, wonderful world we live in.

It then cuts to the inside of a British cockpit, badly hit, up in flames and with the co-pilot already dead. It sounds misconceived, but the connection is soon made lucid with the events that follow.

Clocking in at nearly 5 minutes, the rapid-fire exchange between British pilot Peter (David Niven) and American radio contact June (Kim Hunter) is breathtaking in its intimacy. Resigned to dying, Peter nevertheless exhausts plenty of vigour, charm and outpouring confessions, and his warm affiliation with June closes with a mutual exchange of 'I love you.'

Keeping with the magic of the moment, Peter, by oversight of his Conductor 71 whose job it was to transport him to the 'Other World,' escapes death and finds himself stranded on a beach. He later encounters June riding a bicycle, and instantly matches the body with the voice.

But realising their error, the high court want Peter sent back, and order the French Conductor (Maurice Goring) down to earth to retrieve him. But Peter is adamant to live because of June and the Conductor's mistake, and wilfully guards his corner.

Peter's fate ultimately lies with the heavenly court and American prosecutor (Raymond Massey), whose jury consists of several deceased war heroes and posh British delegates. The surreal trial, which dissolves from b/w back into rich Technicolor, once the verdict is announced, may well be a dream, but the final shot in the hospital validates the predictable outcome.

The abstract, frame filling "stairway to heaven" (the American title of the film) is used twice: the first time in b/w, when it elevates Peter and his enigmatic French guardian upwards, crossing giant statues of Peter's potential attorneys for the trial, including Abraham Lincoln and Plato. The second time, the softly lit colour stairway provides the setting for what is an iconic image in cinema - Peter and June frozen side-by-side, their marvelled eyes fixed forward in the frame, their fate sealed.

The unlikely affection shared between Peter and June never turns mushy or verbose; it's treated with nobility and the perception that the couple are already suitable enough to be married and simply need to convince people of their love, so it can keep them together.

The French Conductor, who can freeze time and people's bodies, obtrudes many of their key moments together, lecturing Peter about history and among his mischievous tricks, pinching Peter's 'Top 100 Game Tricks' book and his coffee cup.

As visually inspired as other Powell/Pressburger collaborations, this was the first time they combined colour with b/w – the latter having a cheerful quality when used for the heaven scenes, and both are equally captivating.

The outstanding script more than matches the imaginative set design, with dialogue that sounds so immediate that is doesn't feel like it was written or performed for the screen. Amusing and witty, Powell/Pressburger's writing deserves equal acclamation with their forte for colour and composition.

Made in 1946, "A Matter of Life and Death" is one of those films that defies it age, looking fresh and inventive, even in this age where CGI would vamp up its artificial effects, probably stripping them of their emotional wonder.

Other jarring changes would include the need for reduced average seconds for cutting and the inevitable plea to shorten dialogue so it can preserve the low attention spans of most audiences. Powell weaves a spell that subconsciously absorbs the viewer from the first frame, giving him freedom to experiment with images without betraying the logical development of Peter's predicament. If ever anyone queries whether cinema is an art form, you can do worse than pointing them at this movie.

Quite simply it is the perfect combination of story, script, actors and cinematography ever committed to celluloid.

The story of a doomed bomber pilot who is missed by his heavenly conductor in the English fog during the second world war, and his subsequent brushes with the celestial authorities (or is it in his head) is played with panache by David Niven and Kim Hunter and is incredibly touching - especially in the opening scenes when the doomed pilot (Niven) describes his plight to the ground radio operator (Hunter).

The sense of otherworldliness is heightened by Jack Cardiff's photography and the incredible production designs.

The supreme touches extend to the heaven shots appearing in black and white and earthbound scenes presented in Technicolour - this is even mentioned by the celestial conductor (a fantastic Marius Goring).

Not only a highpoint in British cinema, but a highpoint in cinema, period. Just after the end of WWII Powell & Pressburger were asked to come up with something to try to heal the rift developing between the UK & the USA. At the time there was a lot of "Overpaid, over sexed and over here" type of comments. Somehow they came up with this masterpiece.

My favourite movie of ALL time. It's got everything. Romance, poetry, emotion, religion, drama and very quirky.

I can never explain exactly why, but it hits all the right buttons and although I've seen it hundreds of times (yes, really) I'm still guaranteed to be in tears at many points throughout.

Was it the magnificent acting, the wonderful sets, the inspired script ? Who knows. But *DO* watch it and you'll see what I mean. I saw this movie years ago on late night television. Back then it went by the title of "Stairway to Heaven". Even as a young boy, I remember being deeply moved by the story and astounded by the visual effects of the court trial (those who have seen it know what I'm talking about). Such imagination! A perfect blend of romance, drama, humour and fantasy, this movie is right up there with the greatest classics ever made: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind. This movie is rated extremely high by IMDB voters and rightly so - over 51% voters rated it 10 out of 10; over 84% rated it 8 or higher out of 10. I was surprised it was not listed in the top 250 films until I realized so few have seen/rated this movie, compared to those on the list. What a pity. I hope this movie gets released on DVD for Region 1 (North America), so that 1), I can purchase it, and 2), others discover this hidden treasure. Why is this movie not in the 250 best? This movie looks still astoundingly fresh 56 years after its production but it could only have been made at the aftermath of W.W.II because of the perception of the nearness of death. People were more aware that life could be stopped at one unexpected moment. And what after life? I liked the scene at the end with the judgment and all people of all nations gathered. The phlegmatic judge (Abraham Sofaer-a typical British judge-), Doctor Reeves (Roger Livesey) defending Peter Carter (David Niven) and also June (Kim Hunter) against the American prosecutor Abraham Farlan (Raymond Massey I -there is a reason why it is an American-). It is all so imaginative! Michael Powell wrote, directed and produced this astonishing movie which is a real "tour-de-force". The message of the movie is clear: in the universe the law is the most important but on earth nothing goes beyond the love between humans. The way in which this beautiful story is told is far more interesting than any Hollywood-movie could ever make. A wonderful film by Powell and Pressburger, whose work I now want to explore more. The film is about what we perceive as real and what is real, and how the two can be so difficult to distinguish from one another. Beautifully shot and acted, although David Niven doesn't seem to be 27 years old, as his character claims to be. Fun to see a very young Richard Attenborough. This film made me think, while I was watching it, and afterwards. This is probably one of the most original love stories I have seen for ages, especially for a war based (briefly) film. Basically it is a story based in two worlds, one obviously real, the other fictitious but the filmmakers say at the beginning that it is only coincidence if it is a real place. Anyway, Peter Carter (the great David Niven) was going to crash in a plane, he talked to June (Planet of the Apes' Kim Hunter) before he bailed out and said he loved her. He was meant to die from jumping without a parachute, but somehow he survived, and now he is seeing and loving June in the flesh. This other place, like a heaven, is unhappy because he survived and was meant to come to their world, so they send French Conductor 71 (Marius Goring) to persuade him to go, but he is obviously in love. Peter suggests to him that he should appeal to keep his life to the other world's court, he is granted this. Obviously love prevails when the two lovers announce that they would die for each other, June even offers to take his place! Also starring Robert Coote as Bob Trubshawe, Kathleen Byron as An Angel, a brief (then unknown) Lord Sir Richard Attenborough as An English Pilot and Abraham Sofaer as The Judge/The Surgeon. David Niven was number 36 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, the film was number 86 on The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers for the happy ending, it was number 47 on The 100 Greatest War Films, it was number 46 on The 50 Greatest British Films, and it was number 59 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding! My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.

David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.

Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.

The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. I first saw this movie about 20 years ago and have never forgotten it. It's beautifully filmed and the story keeps one riveted for the entire time. It's difficult to believe this was made in 1946, as the tale is still fresh today, and really makes one think. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding film technique however the special effects in this film are terrific considering when this was made. In addition, the acting is superb, and the use of English and American actors quite astounding. I recently purchased the DVD so now I'm able to watch whenever I wish. I highly recommend anyone interested in post-war British films to watch this. Also known as "Stairway to Heaven" in the US. During WWII British Peter Carter's (David Niven) plane is shot down in combat but he survives. He meets and falls in love with lovely June (Kim Hunter). But it seems a mistake was made in Heaven--he should have died! A French spirit comes to get him but he refuses. He is soon to plead his case in front of a Heavenly Tribunal that he should be allowed to live.

Sounds ridiculous but this is actually an incredible film. The script is good with the actors playing the roles completely straight-faced and it's beautifully directed--the scenes on Earth are in breath-taking Technicolor (I've never seen such beautiful blue skies) and the scenes in Heaven are in black and white! Niven is a little stiff at times but Hunter is just great (and very beautiful) and Roger Livesey is superb as a doctor trying to help Niven. The imagery throughout is amazing (especially the staircase and during the final trial sequence) and the special effects are truly great (considering the age of the film). There's also a very strange sequence when Niven runs into a totally nude young boy herding sheep! This is an absolutely beautiful, thought provoking film--highly recommended. This remains unknown in the US which is a shame. Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy. One of the few best films of all time. The change from Black and white to colour for the Heaven and Earth Sequences was Directorial excellence.

The Plot is extremely clever, the complete film leaves you overwhelmed by all of the human emotions, and although a war film it doesn't discriminate. I must have seen this film more times than any other, and I never tire of it. It is a film that makes you question your own mortality and beliefs on what happens after our demise. I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their "Top 100 of all time" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed! Surely one of the best British films ever made, if not one of the best films ever made anywhere. Script, cinematography, direction and acting in a class on their own. This film works on so many levels. So why is it completely unavailable on tape, DVD. Never shown on TV? Why is it hidden away when it is regularly shown at the National Film Theatre in London to packed houses?

Filmed just after the war, this story was made in order to highlight Anglo-American relations after the war. It ended up receiving the honour of being the first Royal Premiere after WWII.

Remarkably the film tangles together the Royal Air Force, Sigmund Freud Psychology, the Founding fathers of America and various others up the long stairs (special effects in its infancy) and beyond the heavenly gates without losing any of its integrity.

Although sounding absurd, this clever script leads and dances the viewer between heaven and earth with the skill of a mountain goat and a presents a charming ease rarely matched in cinema since.

Be prepared to have your heart warmed by this sweet, innocent and charming love story. Roger Livesey acts like a man possessed to steal the show!!!!

British Cinema should cry when it remembers how good it used to be in those early post war years.

"Stairway to Heaven" is a outstanding invention of movie making, probably never duplicated. I rank it with "The Wizard of Oz" and "African Queen," although it is a totally different type of movie than "African Queen." "Stairway to Heaven" is a psycho-drama that uses performance concepts and technical effects that, to my knowledge, are totally unique.

For example, there is the combination of B&W and color footage - as in "Oz," but the significance of the contrast goes way beyond the simple - but beautiful - effect achieved in "Oz." In "Stairway" the purpose and effect of the contrast can only be described as powerful.

Another brilliant aspect of "Stairway" is the concept of "time" and how it is used here. How could anybody have conceived of a better way to make time stand still – literally? And then there is the Stairway itself!

If you have any imagination at all, you will agree with me. "Stairway to Heaven" is a true gem. Being that I am a true product of the hip-hop and electronic dance music generation, this is without a doubt one of my favorite movies of all time. Beat Street, although not as "authentic" in some respects as Wild Style, is a film that is guaranteed to tug the heart strings of anyone who takes pride in the culture of urban sample/DJ-based music and electro-club culture.

Although I will admit that at times the dialogue is somewhat cheesy, you can't help but feel for the characters, and ultimately "wish you were there" for the beginnings of hip-hop culture in New York City in the early eighties. The b-boy battle scene at the Roxy nightclub (a real-life, real-time competition between the legendary Rock Steady Crew and the NYC Breakers) is just as essential to a hip-hop fan's archives as any classic album. Watch some of the breakers' moves in slow-motion if possible to truly appreciate the athletic and stylistic expertise of a seasoned B-boy/B-girl. All praises due to the Zulu Nation!!! This started out to be a movie about the street culture of the Bronx in New York. What it accomplished was to give birth to a new culture and way of life, for American youth. What other movie has done this except Rebel Without A Cause? One of the most important movies of all time. The elements are simple yet fascinating. The story is timeless, young people try to succeed against all odds. Yet the story is always believable and never depressing. The characters are so realistic, a city dweller, would recognize them as neighbors. The story is entertaining, and comes to a satisfying ending. Buy this one for your permanent collection. It is a piece of American history. I guess when "Beat Street" made a national appearance, "Flashdance" came at the same time. The problem with "Flashdance" is that there was only one break dancing scene and the rest was jazz dance and ballet. That was one of the reasons why "Beat Street" was better. The only movie that could rival "Beat Street" seems to be "Footloose", because both movies focused on how dance had been used by people to express their utmost feelings.

The break-dance scenes in "Beat Street" come just before the middle and at the end of the flick. And I loved all of them. Almost all of the break tricks were featured in the break jam scenes: the jackhammer, the flares, the head spins, the suicide sit, the crazy legs, the mortal, the forward flip, the figure four---almost everything.

Like "The Warriors", "Beat Street" does have violence related to the gang life in the hip hop world...but in a much less violent way than the former. The only major fight scene in "Beat Street" was when graffiti artist Ramon (which in the movie was abbreviated as "Ramo") is chased by a rival gang member on the New York City subway tracks.....fighting each other on the third rail and both dying by electrocution on that rail. Well, although that chase scene ended tragically, it was better that they died that way than having blood exploding from a gang gunshot.

Most of the gang stuff in the flick was graffiti related to the hip-hop culture, and rap music. A lot of rap music appeared in the flick, because hip-hop members used rap music as a diversion to the negative aspects of gang life. Even the theme song of the movie, which closed the curtain to the flick, was not just an homage to hip-hop culture--it also was an homage to the death of Ramon.

By the way, during the dance scene called 'Tango, Tango', I guess the female drummer in the pit orchestra conducted by actress Rae Dawn Chong was Sheila E. making a cameo appearance. Without doubt Beat Street is the best film about the breakin scene. Everything about it is spot on,the clothes (puma),the music and most importantly the dancing! The storyline is basic,but hey whats there to tell a story about? The whole point of the film is to show what kids of that moment in time were doing,what mattered to them. It shows that teenagers in general are good,all that mattered to these everyday kids was music,dancing and friendship. Having watched the DVD recently i was plesantly surprised how well it had stood the test of time! The clothes didn't look dated (possibly because Puma is now having a massive comeback),the music still sounds fresh,and the dancing is still captivating to watch. A film anyone 10-25 years of age should see as part of their youth culture. This movie changed it all for me...I heard of breakdancing and hiphop, but had never seen it professionally done (hey I was an 11-year old kid from Holland!) When I saw this movie, this all changed. I got actively involved in the hiphop-movement in our city, started breakdancing and writing lyrics.

To this day, I still consider this movie to be a personal favorite. Sure, the filming and "cinematographic" importance might not be that significant. But who cares if the wide-shot was filmed badly or if you could see a mic hanging above somebody? It's what it does to you personally that counts... I enjoy watching people doing breakdance, especially if they do it as well as in the best scenes of this movie which takes you to a disco club called "Roxy". Especially at Christmas time, because there also appears a "MC Santa Claus".

Even if this is an old film, and even if I have videotaped it from TV, when the State Movie Archive of Finland showed this in the summer of 2004 on their own big screen, I went there to check it out. It's much more enjoyable on big screen than on TV.

Even if many people here think that watching this on big screen is a waste of money for the ticket cost, I disagree with this and I think that when I paid my ticket, I got the money's worth by seeing this, as it is on big screen, especially seated on front row of the cinema, an unforgettable experience, and much better than just on video. I just wanna say that amongst all the so-called classic hiphop films Ive seen like Wild Style, KrushGroove, Breakin', Style Wars etc... IMO BEAT STREET is the best amongst the others. Whenever I ask other people about which is their fave, then it seems that BEAT STREET pops out the most. But still, its the lowest ranked of all. 4.3 is just a punch "under the belt" (If say, 5 points is the belt). I love the music performances, the breakdancing makes me wanna spin, RAMO makes me wanna throw a piece...c'mon, its a classic!!! I had not seen this movie since the late '80s and decided to pick up the VHS version of it. The plot is very slow, and the actors almost seem robotic in this breakdance flick. The music, hip hop/freestyle artists and the breakdancing scenes are what make this movie special. The breakdancing is actually better in this movie than in "Breakin'", but I have to say that "Breakin' 1&2" carry the energy & excitement to the screen a lot better. It's a movie I will keep in my library, but it's not a movie that I can watch over & over again, just once in a blue moon. To many people, Beat Street has inspired their lifestyle to something creative concerning the hip hop culture.

The young Lee is living in NY in the 80's when hip hop was at its beginning. His a crew member of "Beat Street" -a b-boy crew. The movie follows Lee in his average day, dancing, graffitiing, etc.

The director has succeeded in making a movie with a plot and at the same time presenting hip hop to the rest of the world. The movie has old school features such as

Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, Grandmaster Melle Mel & the Furious Five, the Rock Steady Crew, the New York City Breakers, and many more....

Neither the movie Beat Street nor the Beat Street spirit will ever die. I knew about this as a similar programme as Jackass, and I saw one or two episodes on Freeview, and it is the same, only more extreme. Basically three Welsh guys, and one mad British bloke were brought together by love of skateboarding, and a complete disregard/masochistic pleasure to harm themselves and their health and safety. They have had puking, eating pubes-covered pizza, jumping in stinging nettles, naked paint balling, jokes on the smaller guy while heavily sleeping/snoring, stunts in a work place, e.g. army, cowboys, and many more insane stunts that cause bruises, bumps, blood and vomit, maybe not just for themselves. Starring Matthew Pritchard who does pretty much anything, Lee Dainton also up for just about anything, Dan Joyce (the British one) who hardly does much physical stuff and has a OTT laugh, and Pancho (Mike Locke) who does a lot, but is more popular for being short, fat and lazy. It was number something on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good! I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.

Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.

I enjoy all three kinds of humor that "Dirty Sànchez" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. "Jackass" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.

This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.

Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character. I have to say although I despise these kind of shows, shock horror, I'm a girl, I feel I have to express my opinion. I had seen Dirty Sanchez before I saw Jackass and think it way surpasses Jackass in terms of programme making. Story lines and interviews are inter weaved to create a more interesting show. I saw a few minutes of Jackass movie the other night and couldn't believe how poorly put together it was, everything just put in a line joke after joke with no relation between anything. It must have been the quickest easiest show to edit ever, shockingly amateur. While drinking puke isn't really my thing, as far as a substantial entertainment show goes, Dirty Sanchez is way out of Jackass's league. Dirty Sanchez is the more extreme, British version of Jackass in which the four boys (Pritchard, Dainton, Joycey and Pancho) go to great lengths to hurt and humiliate each other. The reason this show is better than Jackass is because most of the stunts are not planned which makes the reaction much more funny. There are 3 series of the show, the first follows them around and takes a long look at their lives eg. there's an episode on their love lives,jobs etc. The second series sends the boys to try out different occupations. The third follows their European tour. It seems that the boys get more and more daring as the show progresses through the series. In my opinion the third series is the best, but trust me when i say, if you have a week stomach DO NOT WATCH, as you are lightly to see a fair amount of blood and puke in every episode. If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our "known" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.

And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.

If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the "mother figure", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...

This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity. Story about four teenage girls growing up in California. Jeanie (Jodie Foster) is the most level-headed of the bunch--but wants to move out of her house where she lives with her divorced mother (Sally Kellerman). Annie (Cherie Currie) is addicted to drugs, alcohol and bad boys and is beaten up by her father. Madge (Marilyn Kagan) has overprotective parents. Deirde (Kandice Stroh) thinks she's more mature than the rest of them.

This is nothing new from what we've seen plenty of times before--but this one has one big difference--it's accurate. I graduated from high school in 1980 (when I first saw the film) and I was surprised at how realistic it was. They got the dialogue, clothes and attitudes down completely right. Even the main song of the movie ("On the Radio" by Donna Summer) was a big hit before this came out. This film hit me harder than any other teen film of the time because I could understand and relate to the characters. I knew girls in high school who were just like this! The film is (of course) dated but it captures a time we will never see again.

The acting is good on all counts with Foster giving the best performance. The relationship between her and Kellerman (who was excellent) was realistic and well-done. Even Scott Baio (who has a small role as a friend of the girls) more or less realistically played a teen boy.

A very good movie--essential viewing if you came of age in 1980. The film has a deserved R rating (plenty of drug use and swearing) but should be seen by all teens. I give it a 8. Four teenage girls in a suburb of Los Angeles get into all kinds of trouble: parties, drugs, cops, mixed-up parents, older boyfriends. Jodie Foster, sort of the mother hen of the pack, tries keeping everyone together like "a family" (like the family unit she's never had), and the heartbreaking thing about the movie is that she can't. Slowly, everyone grows up and goes away. THAT precise plot point, though underscored throughout, is unfortunately tampered with. Did we really need a long sequence with Scott Baio outracing a car full of thugs on his skateboard? Or an even longer sequence--also with Baio--where Foster has a strange soliloquy about the "pain of illusion". Some of the dialogue in fact is downright loopy, and I didn't much care for an edit late in the film that segues clumsily from a death to a wedding. But these are nitpicks in what is basically a very sensitive story about the loss of a tight bond. And Jodie's face at the ending speaks volumes. If viewers do get choked up at the end, the movie has earned this. It doesn't pander for tears or ask for sympathy. It shows us an example of friendship and hopes we understand. *** from **** This is one of the best Jodie Foster movies out there and largely ignored due to the general public's misconception of it as a teen flick. It has wonderful performances, particularly a fight scene between Jodie and her mother, played by a convincing Sally Kellerman. The three girls that play Jodie's friends are somewhat amateurish but I do think it is worth seeing. Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie (the former lead singer of the seminal all-girl rock group the Runaways in her remarkably able acting debut), Marilyn Kagan, and Kandice Stroh are uniformly believable, splendid and touching as the titular quartet, who are a tight-knit clique of troubled, fiercely loyal adolescent girls with negligent, uncaring, self-absorbed parents who do their best to grow up and fend for themselves in the affluent San Fernando Valley, California suburbs. The girls are forced to make serious decisions about sex, drugs, alcohol, commitment, and so on at a tender young age when they're not fully prepared to completely own up to the potentially harmful consequences of said decisions. Foster, giving one of her most perceptive, affecting and underrated performances to date, is basically the group's den mother who presides over the well-being of both herself and the others; she's especially concerned about the good-hearted, but reckless and self-destructive Currie, whose carelessly hedonistic lifestyle makes her likely to meet an untimely end.

This picture offers a poignant, insightful, often devastatingly credible and thoroughly absorbing examination of broken, dysfunctional families which exist directly underneath suburbia's neatly manicured surface and the tragic net result of such families: tough, resilient, but unhappy and vulnerable kids who have to confront the trials and tribulations of growing up on their own because their parents are either too inconsiderate or even nonexistent. Adrian ("Fatal Attraction," "Jacob's Ladder") Lyne's direction is both sturdy and observant while Gerald Ayres' script is somewhat messy and rambling, but overall still accurate in its frank, gritty, unsentimental depiction of your average latchkey kid's nerve-wrackingly chaotic, capricious and unpredictable everyday life. Leon Bijou's soft, dewy, almost pastoral cinematography properly suggests a delicate and easily breakable sense of tranquility and innocence. Giorgio Moroder arranged the excellent score, which makes particularly effective use of Donna Summer's elegiac "On the Radio." The top-notch cast includes Sally Kellerman as Foster's neurotic, insecure, peevish mother, Scott Baio as a sweet skateboarder dude, Randy Quaid as Kagan's rich older boyfriend, British 60's pop singer Adam Faith as Foster's feckless, absentee rock promoter father, and Lois Smith as Kagan's smothering, overprotective mother. Appearing in brief bits are Robert Romanus (Mike Damone "Fast Times at Richmont High") as one of Foster's morose ex-boyfriends and a gawky, braces-wearing Laura Dern as an obnoxious party crasher. Achingly authentic, engrossing and deeply moving (Currie's grim ultimate fate is very heart-breaking), "Foxes" is quite simply one of the most unsung and under-appreciated teen movies made about early 80's adolescence. This is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time in my opinion, its thought provoking, funny and sad with amazing performances all around!. All the characters are wonderful, and the story is just brilliant!, plus Jodie Foster and Cherie Currie are simply amazing in this!. The Ending is very powerful, however I won't spoil it for you, and I thought the character development was top notch!, plus you can really relate to all of the characters, especially Jeanie and Annie, as you will be rooting for them!, plus I loved how it moved slowly, and giving you a chance to get to know all the characters and what there about. I can't believe this only has a 5.9 rating on here as it should be much higher in my opinion, and it was funny seeing Randy Quaid in this type of role, plus this is extremely well written and made as well!. One scene that really got to me was when Madge(Marilyn Kagan), is totally embarrassed by her mother for having the party, and the film has many surprising moments as well!, plus the dialog is especially excellent. This is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time (In my opinion), its thought provoking, funny and sad with amazing performances all around, and i say Go see it immediately!, your bound to love it!. The Direction is fantastic!. Adrian Lyne does a fantastic job here, with awesome camera work, and keeping the film at an extremely engrossing pace!. The Acting is amazing!. Jodie Foster is really cute, and is amazing as always!, she was extremely likable, caring, had a lovable character, was intense in some scenes, was focused, and she and Cherie Currie were the heart of the film as Jeanie and Annie!(Foster Rules!!!!!!!). Cherie Currie is way hot, and is amazing here, i really felt sorry for her character, as she had a very likable character that just needed help, she gives a powerful performance, and created a very memorable character she was amazing!. Scott Baio is great as Brad he was really likable, and did his job well i liked him. Randy Quaid is great in his serious role surprisingly i liked him. Sally Kellerman is great as the mother i liked her a lot. Marilyn Kagan and Kandice Stroh are both very good as Madge and Deirdre, and did what they had to do well as the other two friends. Laura Dern has a very early role here, as it was cool to see her, not much of a part though. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall go see it immediately, it's an underrated masterpiece!. ***** out of 5 This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.

Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.

Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.

Don't miss this one. Although I was born in the year that this movie came out and had never heard of it until my junior year of high school (1996) when I saw it I became totally engrossed laughing and crying and feeling along with the characters because me and my friends were them.

Their hair, clothes and speech were outdated but the emotions and the desperation of each situation were so familiar! I remember thinking how real it was and how I wished that they would make movies like that still.

In fact I saw this movie the night after I had been at a crazy party (not so unlike the one in Jay's house) which had been crashed by what we considered the loser derelicts who hung out on the fringes of our crowd. A world class BS'er and "responsible" mother figure type I identified immediately with Jeanie (I was also the one with a car) although I had a little bit of Madge's insecurities floating around in there too. My best friend was a Deidre and her good friend from childhood was our Annie.

Watching the scene when Jeanie is in school or the one where her and her boyfriend break up and then she is telling Madge how much she loved him felt like conversations and situations I had personally had.

Now at the age of 27 I recently saw the movie again and felt a surge of emotions because it was like watching back a piece of my own youth (though none of my friends died). I think this is a must see for all girls 13 and up. As I reach the "backside" of 35 I find myself shaking my head more and more at the sex crazed, drug influenced teens of today. It was great to be reminded that it was just as crazy for me back in my day as it is for teens today. This film drives that point home to the core. If you are a late 70's fan you'll love the film. From KISS-posters to an Angel concert this movie rocks !

Watch for a young Laura Dern. Why they didn't have more songs from the Runaways I'll never know ?

I did have a problem with Randy Quaid's character deflowering a 16 year old girl. While he was away she and her friends have a party that destroys dude's house. The cops come and everything but no mention of all the underage drinking and how these kids got their hands on this stuff.

Foxes belongs right there with Over the Edge, Fast Times, Dazed & Confused, and Kids as one of the all time teen angst flicks.

I say buy it and watch it with your kids and talk about it all. "Foxes" is a great film. The four young actresses Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie, Marilyn Kagan and Kandice Stroh are wonderful. The song "On the radio" by Donna Summer is lovely. A great film. ***** "Foxes" is one movie I remember for it's portrayal of teenagers in the late 1970's. As I am exactly Jodie Foster's age, I related to this movie. It deals with the frustrations, temptations, relationships & rebellion of youth. The soundtrack is great with inspiring rock eg. "More Than a Feeling" by Boston and sad numbers like "On the Radio" by Donna Summer. The music of my late teens. Yep, I'll always remember this one, even if it wasn't huge. This work is striking in its accurate depiction of teenage life at the time of its execution. Though this is a broad generalization, parents of that time were too self-absorbed to be real parents, and those who were home tended to be far too distracted from the real issues, where their children were concerned.

This film teaches us how to let go, even when it is painful, and does so with a sweet, melancholy, but informed style whereby Foster talks philosophically about feeling the pain of life. I loved that scene. It was my favorite scene in the movie, actually.

The transition from funeral to wedding was meant to show that life does go on, and so must we. Baio's skateboarding through a pack of goons and outrunning them was meant to show us that the troubled times will pass, and we are meant to get through them, to better times.

The whole metaphor of "moving on," and the procession of life, is present throughout the film, and serves to give us hope, in the end.

I like this movie, though I do not watch it often, as it tends to make me melancholy.

It shouldn't be viewed by young children, and probably only those raised in the 1970's-80's would want to.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :. Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, "Foxes" really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did "Taxi Driver" four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on "Happy Days". He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars! I was just a bit young for this one, but I had to see it. There's some excellent music, which many folks have mentioned, but no one seems to notice a very rare appearance by "Angel", a now mostly ignored but once quite popular musical outfit. Wearing their trademark white outfits, they grind through "20th Century Foxes", and apparently all try to cram into the camera's field of vision. Keyboardist Gregg Giuffria remains the bands highlight, and has apparently never gotten much of a haircut, ever! Cherie Currie (ex-Runaways singer) begins a brief, but notable, acting career here, and is quite memorable alongside Jodie Foster, and the rest. (Her topless 3-D scenes in "Parasite", and her UFO sighting, in "Wavelength" kept us all watching her for a time).

It's not a masterpiece, but it preserves a chunk of its period, for all to gaze upon, and wonder. "Foxes" is a serious look at the consequences of growing up too fast in the 1980s. And unlike the teen sex comedies that overshadowed it (Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgement High), the movie holds up well against time.

Its theme of teen angst is as relevant today as it was 25 years ago and Jodie Foster and sk8er boi Scott Baio (remember him?) lead a fine young cast that's well worth watching.

The film follows four Southern California girls as they move through a rootless existence of sex and drugs and devoid of parents. The teens spend their days in and out of school and their nights at parties, concerts, or out on the street. Seldom are they home because instant gratification is a pill, party, or boy away.

But rather than condemning them, the film is sympathetic, blaming absent, uncaring adults for forcing the teens to grow up alone. And the charismatic cast is impossible to dislike.

The film's opening – a long and loving pan - sets the tone for what follows. We see the girls asleep at daybreak amid the objects that define teen girlhood, from Twinkies to a picture of a young John Travola, while Donna Summer's "On the Radio" is scored beneath.

From there the movie picks up speed as the girls head off to school and to life. Annie (Runaway rocker Cherie Currie) is the wild child who lives for the next party or pill. Deirdre (Kandice Stroh) is the boy crazy drama queen. Madge (Marlilyn Stroh) is the shy girl in over her head. And Foster is the one with the plan. It's her job to keep this crew together long enough to finish high school while also holding her divorced and desperate man hunting mother in line (Sally Kellerman).

It's an almost impossible job and one that Foster ultimately fails at.

Despite its age, "Foxes" remains a pleasure to watch. Dated hair, clothes, and references to Olympic skater Dorothy Hamill haven't hurt the movie.

The cinematography is simply stunning, with breathtaking filtered shots of the L.A. basin at dawn, dusk and at night. Giorgio Moroder adds a 80s soundtrack featuring the likes of Donna Summer and Janis Ian.

Perhaps the movie's biggest disappointment is that the young stars around Foster never broke out like the casts of "St. Elmo's Fire" (1985) or "Empire Records" (1995). "Foxes" shows why they should have. But perhaps like Bowling for Soup's song "1985," they just hit a wall. I have been a Jodie Foster fan ever since we were both kids, from her Disney years. I loved her tomboy antics in films like Candleshoe.

"Foxes" was such a huge departure from all of that.

Where other young female actors of that era turned to sexual puerility disguised as comedy ("Little Darlings", anyone?), Jodie went for a depressing and tragic tale of teens dragged to their demise by the powerful allure of temptation and addiction.

This was not Disney. This was not Porky's. This was not "Halloweed". This was a dark & powerful story of the destruction of young lives. Sadly it's a tale that still plays out on a daily basis all over the country, this film could be replayed (with a current soundtrack) and still be wholly relevant.

It's not the best film ever made, it is tired at some parts, not all the performances are particularly outstanding. But Jodie Foster continued to show her chops as a real adult actor (a trend started when she was very young in Taxi Driver).

7 out of 10 Barky And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, "The Real" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since "Bucket of Blood"), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage. It's amazing that actress P.J. Soles didn't become a big star after playing Riff Randall, #1 fan of the punk rock group the Ramones, in "Rock 'n' Roll High School". Soles is so exuberant, you don't mind she's obviously too old to still be in high school (that fact is leveled out by having all the kids look 24). The movie is a fast-paced frolic that doesn't cop-out; everything gets blown to smithereens at the end, and that's just as it should be. Mary Woronov, an innately kinky and funny presence as the Nazi-like principal, gets a great, one-of-a-kind bit at the beginning where Frisbees fly dangerously close to her head (how many takes did they use on that, or was it a fluke?) and Dey Young is very appealing as Soles' best, Kate Rambeau. The weakest link, ironically enough, in this "High School" chain-gang is the Ramones. They can't act, they're not funny, and their concert segment goes on too long. One Ramones song, "I Want You Around", is treated as a fantasy and is well captured; other incidental songs are good, particularly a rare Paul McCartney ballad heard near the beginning ("Did We Meet Somewhere Before?"). Great fun! *** from **** A must for any punk rocker, this is the movie that made The Ramones a household name back in the early 1980's (when it first appeared on premium cable stations). This was one of the first and best of the American Punk Rock movies, with a cult classic status up there with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Originally the producers wanted Cheap Trick as the stars, but the release of the "Live At Budakon" album had just made them superstars and too hot an item to be in a low budget movie. Very good luck for the Ramones who were looking to break out of the underground punk rock world and into the mainstream market (which sadly never happened until after the bands demise). The band, Dee Dee especially, always disliked the movie through the 80's but the fans always loved and could recite most of the movie while waiting to get into Ramones shows. This movie, like most classics, is stupid fun with some classic Ramones footage in their heyday. Don't expect more, you won't find it. It's great fun, so enjoy it. Another Allan Arkush classic movie in a similar vein is Get Crazy, featuring Lee Ving from the legendary hardcore punk band Fear. Marvelous cult film from 1979 in which the students of Vince Lombardi High School are confronted with a new, dictatorial principal named Miss Togar (Mary Woronov). Togar is a music hater and blames the musical tastes of the students for their transgressions. Leading the charge against her is fun-loving Riff Randell (P.J. Soles), the #1 Ramones fan who, more than anything, wants the rock group to record her songs.

Now *this* is an impossible movie to resist. First and foremost, the soundtrack is incredible, with songs by such artists as Alice Cooper and the Velvet Underground in addition to the infectious non-stop assortment of Ramones songs. "Teenage Lobotomy", "Sheena is a Punk Rocker", and "Blitzkrieg Bop" are just a few of them. Next, the cast truly gives it their all, with Soles an ideal choice for the role of Riff; she is a true delight. Vincent Van Patten and Dey Young are earnest as Tom and Kate, Woronov is well cast against type as the snooty and disdainful Togar, Clint Howard has one of his best ever parts as washroom-occupying entrepreneur Eaglebauer, and New World regulars such as Dick Miller, Paul Bartel (particularly fun as music teacher Mr. McGree) and The Real Don Steele are fun as always. And, of course, it's a treat to see The Ramones playing themselves.

The movie has true spirit. The energy level is high, with co-story author and director Allan Arkush bringing a great deal of flair to the proceedings. There's also a great sense of humor. The paper airplane gag is a superb example of this. This extends right to the "wipe" style of scene transitions. There are even hilarious giant mice created by future makeup effects notable Rob Bottin, in one of his earliest gigs.

About as good as an authority-defying, defend-one's-right-to-party film can get. "Rock 'n' Roll High School" is, quite simply, a wonderful cult film.

8/10 This film is a jolt of punk rock fun, from start to finish. The Ramones, reigning princes of late-70s Punk rock, appear as themselves. PJ Soles stars as Riff Randle, the rebellious high school girl who lives and breathes rock 'n roll. Riff is obsessed with writing songs for the Ramones, her favorite rock band. She keeps the school rockin', and encourages her fellow-students to join her in her jubilant antics.

Meanwhile the school that Riff attends, has just hired a brand-new Principal, named Ms. Togar. She's a tall, intimidating Amazon of a woman. And she vows to make the students 'toe-the-line'. She even has a couple of the students act as monitors, who report back to her with dirt on their classmates. Ms. Togar is especially determined to nab Riff, and put a stop to Riff's anarchic shenanigans. But Riff has clever ways to foil Togar, at every turn.

Kudos to the superb performance of Mary Woronov, in her role as Principal Togar. Mary is a legendary B movie actress. And in this film, she plays the fascist Ms. Togar, with sneering relish. PJ Soles as Riff, turns in an electrifying performance. Clint Howard as the duplicitous Eaglebauer, has lots of fun with his role.

The Ramones perform many of their hit songs in this film. And so the viewer sees why the Ramones were so influential, in the 70s Punk rock scene. Certainly, this is a good film for Ramones fans. But even if you're not into the Ramones, or Punk rock, this movie is a terrific blast (literally) of energetic fun. How can you go wrong with the amazing Ramones? What a crime that two of them are already dead. It reminds me of the Dennis Leary joke about great musicians dying in kitchen fires while useless ones live forever. I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.

ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL tells the story of a group of disenfranchised kids fighting against their oppressive high school's administration. It's extremely silly stuff, but there's an optimism about it that's refreshing (even if they do resort to blowing up the building). Who knew that this would actually become a concern for students around the world? ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL is a time capsule of an era when people still believed that music mattered and that it could make a difference to the larger society. It's full of kids who know authority doesn't have the correct answers. Rather, rock and roll is the only thing they can trust.

But most important, this is pure exploitation.

Take none of it seriously. Just go in and have a good time. If this wasn't what high school life was like in the seventies, then it should have been. Well, I have finally caught up with "Rock 'N' Roll High School," almost 30 years after it first became a midnight movie sensation in 1979. (Latecomer that I am, I will probably first see this summer's new documentary "Patti Smith: Dream of Life" sometime around 2040!) And no, the film doesn't feel dated one bit, and yes, it was worth the wait. This is a very high-energy comedy that features loads of great music and some surprising moments. It tells the story of Riff Randell, adorably played by P.J. Soles, and the battle that she and her fellow students at Vince Lombardi High wage against their new repressive principal, Miss Togar. (Danny Peary, in his book "Cult Movies," quite accurately describes Mary Woronov's performance as an "evil Eve Arden.") A typical teens vs. Establishment story line is beefed up here with some absurdist humor (those exploding mice, that giant mouse, the Hansel and Gretel hall monitors) and some truly rousing tunes. Riff is, of course, the #1 fan of that original punk band The Ramones, and that band dishes out a baker's dozen of its greatest songs during the course of the film, including five at a concert that is a total blast. Indeed, the sight of Riff furiously dancing to "Teenage Lobotomy" at this blowout may be the picture's funniest moment. And the initial appearance of Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Marky in their Ramonesmobile, and later slinking down a street singing "I Just Wanna Have Something To Do," is quite exhilarating. The film ends with an explosive confrontation that is, I would imagine, every high school kid's wet dream. Fun stuff indeed. On a side note, The Ramones were one of the loudest bands that I have ever seen in concert, so I was very amused to note that the DVD for this film comes with optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. How many aging punks out there found these subtitles necessary, I wonder.... This movie is SOOOO funny!!! The acting is WONDERFUL, the Ramones are sexy, the jokes are subtle, and the plot is just what every high schooler dreams of doing to his/her school. I absolutely loved the soundtrack as well as the carefully placed cynicism. If you like monty python, You will love this film. This movie is a tad bit "grease"esk (without all the annoying songs). The songs that are sung are likable; you might even find yourself singing these songs once the movie is through. This musical ranks number two in musicals to me (second next to the blues brothers). But please, do not think of it as a musical per say; seeing as how the songs are so likable, it is hard to tell a carefully choreographed scene is taking place. I think of this movie as more of a comedy with undertones of romance. You will be reminded of what it was like to be a rebellious teenager; needless to say, you will be reminiscing of your old high school days after seeing this film. Highly recommended for both the family (since it is a very youthful but also for adults since there are many jokes that are funnier with age and experience. I liked this movie I remember there was one very well done scene in this movie where Riff Randell (played by P.J. Soles) is lying in her bed smoking pot and then she begins to visualize that the Ramones are in the room with her sing the song "I Want You Around" ...very very cool stuff.

It was fun, energetic, quirky and cool. Yes I'll admit that the ending is way-way over the top and far fetched ...but it doesn't matter because it is fun this is a very fun movie. It's Sex, Pot and Rock n Rocll forever

I read that Cheap Trick was the band who was originally to star in this ..But I do not know if this is true or not I seriously love this film so much, I never get sick of watching it. The only line I really can't stomach in this is when Riff calls herself a teenage lobotomy but other than that, everything else is perfect. I've never been a fan of PJ Soles and it didn't help to hear that she didn't even know who the Ramones were until she filmed this movie, but I can ignore her snarly little face for the most part. Most people who watch this over and over are fans of the Ramones and really.. that's the only reason I love it so much. I never get tired of seeing DeeDee mess up his Pizza lines or Joey mess up the name of the teacher over and over, haha. One of the best parts of the film is seeing them sing do you want to dance , down the halls of the high school.. I love it. The special edition DVD has a good retrospective, surprisingly PJ Soles isn't on it. Maybe she was working on another project *laugh* Anyway, great film, even better if you're a Ramones fan. The Ramones, whom I consider the founders of modern punk rock, lend their then-unique sounds to a terrifically twisted movie about a rowdy rock fan (P.J. Soles) who faces off against a merciless, joyless principal (Mary Woronov) for the right to rock.

Featuring a soundtrack brimming with incredible music, RRHS is fascinating in concept and execution. It's chock full of riotous sight gags (like the mouse experiment), teenage spirit (probably my all-time favorite film opening), and bizarre, off-the-wall moments (the straitjacket scenes). If you're looking for a movie that seems to be made of pure fun on a molecular level, look no further. But if you're looking for a nice, dignified, dramatic epic, maybe you should look a wee bit further.

"Hi everybody, I'm Riff Randell, and this is Rock & Roll High School!" One of the best if not the best rock'n'roll movies ever. And it's not just mindless fun. There really were a lot of clever jokes in it. Of course I love the Ramones. But with all the "anarchy" and the "I hate high school" themes, the film doesn't at all take itself too seriously,which is what's great about it.

I first saw the movie in the Spring of 1980, and I saw it again recently. Since I went to high school in the late 1970's, it made me kind of nostalgic.

Like I said, this film doesn't take itself that seriously and isn't pretentious like so much other teen fare of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. And to speak of, it's not really dirty or disgusting either. Only PG rated. That's rare for a movie in this category. A great cult classic and a truly incredible time capsule. Vince Lombardi High School has a new principal--the evil Ms. Togar (Mary Woronov). She intends to ban rock and roll music all together. She butts head with Riff Randall (P.J. Soles) who LOVES the Ramones. Also the head of the school football team (Vincent Van Patten) can't seem to connect with any girl--not realizing cute Kate Rambeau (Dey Young) is in love with him.

An instant midnight movie. This was put in general release and almost immediately bombed--but as a midnight movie it was a huge hit and kept playing all through the 1980s. I remember attending more than a few of those when I was in college--it was like a party! People were singing along with the songs, laughing uproariously at every joke and generally just having fun.

Seeing it now as an adult I can't imagine why I loved this so much. The script is juvenile and full of groaners that I couldn't believe I was hearing. Characters change at random and the movie goes jumping all over the place. What saves this are some truly funny lines and wonderful performances by Soles and Woronov (who is REALLY enjoying herself). Also everyone is full of energy and playing their roles WAY over the top (as they should). As for the Ramones...I was never a fan. I DO like the title tune but the rest of the songs never really caught me. If you're a Ramones fan you might give this a higher rating.

SPOILER WARNING!!!! This is mostly for kids (it has a PG rating) who will probably find it silly but fun. I especially think they'll like the end when the high school is blown up! SPOILER END!!!!

So, if you're in the mood for a silly midnight movie from the 1980s you might like this. Otherwise stay away. I give it a 7. Fascist principal Miss Togar(Mary Woronov, who is lensed by expert photographer Dean Cundy as if she were ten feet tall)has a plan to turn her high completely square. Complications ensue which challenge that goal in delightful rock'n'roller Riff Randell(PJ Soles who lights up the screen--she's got a hot bod, too)who is an obsessive fan of the punk band THE RAMONES. Pal Kate Rambeau(Dey Young, whose big rimmed glasses and nerdy role can not hide her stunning beauty)joins forces with Riff to put an end to the supposed crisis of killing rock'n'roll for good which is Togar's desired mission.

Vincent Van Patten has a hilarious role as Tom Roberts, a success at everything, but getting laid. Kate is crazy about Tom..if only he could pull his head out of the sand and see it. Clint Howard steals the film almost(honestly, who can steal this film away from Soles?)as Eaglebauer, "the supplier" who can get everyone almost anything. His office is located in the boy's restroom! Paul Bartel is also hilarious as a music teacher who becomes an ally of Riff's when he enjoys a concert of THE RAMONES.

A raucous high school romp that defies all rules of normalcy..and I loved it. It's like someone just says, "Let's make life fun for 1½ hours." The film really is anarchy..a plot-less chaos lovingly adoring THE RAMONES with all it's heart(even if they are horrible actors, they have an opportunity to gain new audiences with this film).

The ending pretty much sums up the film as a whole..Riff and her classmates take over the high school and one massive party begins. To be honest, I didn't want the party to end! Not conventional in any way whatsoever, this film just let's loose a frenzy. Accompanied by a great rock soundtrack featuring some of THE RAMONES best songs, this film allows a viewer to accept a time in life when war didn't dominate headlines and people just had a good time. Those, I guess were the days. The movie is just plain fun....maybe more fun for those of us who were young and fans of "The Ramones" around the time the film was made. I've watched the film over and over, by myself and with friends, and it is still fresh and funny. At the risk of being too serious, the concept of being a big fan of a certain band is timeless, and high school students boredom with drudgery of some classes is just as timeless.

And, the film has some gem lines/scenes.....references to how our "permanent record" in high school will follow us through life. (Let me assure you I've been out of high school for, uhhh, some years and it's not following me).....the famous "static" line ("I'm getting some static"....."Not as much as you're going to get", as Principal Togar approaches).....the school board member who is so decrepit he's attended by nurses....the Nazi Hall Monitors love for a "body search" ......Principal Togar announcing, "I give you the final solution", and burning the Ramones records (note: records were what came before CD's) ....and of course Joey Ramone noting, "Things sure have changed since we got kicked out of high school", followed by Togar asking "Do your parents know you're Ramones?"

Just one piece of advice.....don't look up where the stars are now.....Joey Ramone sadly died young. Dey Young, who was a major hottie in the film, today reminds us we all age....PJ Soles career never advanced as we might have expected......... Marla Rosenfield, as one the other students, apparently appeared only in this film (one of my male friends dies over her every time we watch the film), though I submit her performance was more than adequate and should have brought her more teen film roles. And, does anyone know what happened to DJ Don Steele?

So, watch and enjoy.....don't think....just have FUN! Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.

Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus… a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory!

This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones… well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.

What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.

There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time! One of b- and c-movie producer Roger Corman's greatest cult classics was the Ramones vehicle (originally designated for Cheap Trick), Rock N' Roll High School. It's just a simple, technically dated story (but would serve up extra doses of nostalgia humor considering these were the kind of things that made Napoleon Dynamite characters funny--see Eaglebauer's van) about teenagers who love rock n' roll.

Students at Vince Lombardi High School are met with resistance by the evil principal, Miss Evelyn Togar (played by cult classic favorite, Mary Woronov) who fears that Rock N' Roll turns kids into uncontrollable, amoral deviants and vows to make a Rock N' Roll-free zone. Actually, she intends to wipe out Rock N' Roll for all students, regardless of whether its at school, and she has the cooperation of most of the adults who might make the plan successful.

But not if Riff Randell (PJ Soles) can help it. A Ramones fanatic, she has written some songs (including Rock N' Roll High School) that she wants to give to the Ramones, and in trying to do so, is rebuffed by Miss Togar who does all she can to keep her from going to see the Ramones play in town. It culminates into an ultimate revolt between the obsolete fun-hating adults and the teenagers (in an ending that is reminiscent of Over the Edge, somewhat). After the years of punk, when the fame of garage rockers, The Ramones (and others) would mark another shift in music evolution, it was great to see a movie that celebrated the fun of it all and in such a humorous, exaggerated way.

It is mostly mild comedy, but a great feel-good comedy nonetheless when you're in the mood for something more laid back to entertain you. With Jerry Zucker (of Airplane fame) and Joe Dante (of Gremlins fame) both taking part in some of the directing, you can get the idea for what kind of humor you're in for (and not to mention, expect to see Dick Miller even if only for a few minutes in the film's finale). The story must've later inspired (and was consequently updated) by the mid-90s comedy, Detroit Rock City, which some minor character changes in the vehicle for aged glam rockers, Kizz.

I would recommend passing on the Corey Feldman vehicle, Rock N' Roll High School Forever, released nearly a decade later. The original is still the best. ROCK N ROLL HIGH SCHOOL holds a special place in my heart because it introduced me to the Ramones. I was too young during the band's mid-70s heyday to be very aware of them, although I had an older cousin who was a big fan at the time. I finally saw RNRHS on television one afternoon in the mid-80s when I was about fifteen years old, and laughed all the way through it. (Isn't it every high school kid's dream to trash his school and blow it up, all set to a rockin' soundtrack?) I recorded a subsequent airing of the film a year or two later and kept watching the Ramones concert sequences over and over again, thinking "Man, these guys kick ass! I have to check out some of their albums!" The rest is history. Twenty years, umpteen Ramones LPs/cassettes/CDs, and three Ramones shows later, they're still one of my all time favorite bands and RNRHS still cracks me up every time I watch it. Now that Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny have left us (R.I.P. all)at least we have this movie and tons of great music to remember them by. Just imagine what school would have been like in a world like this: the kids are one big gang who have really good taste in music and unite against bad headmasters and teachers. "Rock 'N' Roll High School" is taking place in that world. It's like a Ramones record coming to life. The characters are all as silly, innocent and charming as the Ramones' songs, and the music itself is, of course, fantastic. High school comedies have really changed over the years, if you compare a movie like "American Pie" with this late 70's classic, where no tasteless sex jokes are made at all. Since a remake is apparently in the works, it can probably be expected that the charm of the original will get lost along the way and will get replaced by vulgar, half-funny dick jokes, as Bill Hicks used to call them. However, the main problem will be that the Ramones CANNOT be replaced. They were the perfect band for this movie and no one else could even come close to taking their place. So, the best thing to do would be to leave the original alone, as quirky and charming as it is. Gabba-gabba hey! Though this movie is cheesiness at its best, it is pulled off perfectly. This movie, without a doubt, has to be considered a modern classic. There are basically two kinds of movies I like - movies with depth (chick flicks, if you must - I blame my wife for this) and mindless comedies where I can sit back and relax. This movie is a perfect example of the latter.

A friend of mine turned me on to this movie shortly after its release. Considering me to somewhat shallow, he said to me, "You've got to see this movie. It's just your type of movie." Foregoing the insult, I started watching. I know they mentioned The Ramones a million times, but when you actually see them, I said, "Hey, it is The Ramones." My friend replied, "I don't know they were a real band." I had my moment of glory.

This movie, though now somewhat dated, is a must see for Ramones fans - or anyone else for that matter. Rock 'n' Roll High School was one of the best movies ever made! I think the only reason it was so awesome was because of The Ramones! You couldn't have made the same movie and put something like the Sex Pistols, or The Clash in place of The Ramones, it just wouldn't have been the same. dey young, clint howard, Vincent Van Patten, Mary Woronov, Paul Bartel, and the hall monters, just added to the movie. The whole entire movie is about The Ramones...especially Joey! So everybody showed see Rock 'n' Roll High School if your a huge fan of real PUNK. Not the sissy new crap...but the loud, and fast kind. The kind only The Ramones could do. R.I.P (Rest In Peace) Joey Ramone 1951-2001. Dee Dee Ramone 1952-2002! huge Ramones fan. i do like the ramones, and i suppose if you hate them, then, besides being a avid Bush supporter, you might not like this classic.

it's immensely better than the sappy john hughes teen films and the like that littered the 80's. infinitely better than the American Pie's that plague us now.

There are some other great high school films: Switchblade Sisters, Fast Times..., Class of '84, Three O'Clock High, and the cheesy yet gripping(doesn't seem possible) River's Edge. But RnRHS will always be my favorite because it's the funniest and most fun, plus you can get up and dance with it.

I love you, Riff Randell.

10/10 Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME! All the folks who sit here and say that this movie's weak link is the Ramones would probably say that Amadeus was ok if not for that irritating harpsichordist. Rock and Roll High School was centered around the Ramones. How anyone can watch this and not get a kick out of Joey Ramone eating bean sprouts backstage in an attempt to keep him in performing condition is obviously a wet blanket square daddy-o. Ms Trogar, exploding white mice, the hall patrols...instant classics. Nevermind the Riff Randell character.

If you don't like the Ramones then you don't know rock and roll and you don't deserve to watch a movie called ROCK AND ROLL High School. Even if you're not a big Ramones fan, Rock 'N' Roll High School is *still* the greatest rock 'n' roll movie ever made. Why? Because under all the campiness, it treats with respect the contempt and loathing teens often feel (and justifiably so) for the boring, stupid, fascist, establishment world of adults. That final scene is one of the most glorious and uplifting final scenes to a movie I have ever seen. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the..." Rock 'n' roll!

this movie is awesome. sort of. it dosent really say much, or do much, but it is an awesome movie to watch because of how stupid it is. the high school is taken over by evil ms.togar that hates the one thing that all the students love, rock& roll. riff randle get everyone tickets for the ramones show, and this movie peaks with a take over of the school led my riff randle & the ramones. this movie has everything, a bad script, questionable directing, bad actors(ie clint howard & p.j. soles), an awesome soundtrack,extreme campyness, these elements & much more come together to make this what it is,a classic.

note - during the live ramones set, notice that darby crash of the germs is in the front of the crowd. neat-o. I simply love this movie. I also love the Ramones, so I am sorta biased to begin with in the first place. There isn't a lot of critical praise to give this film, either you like it or you don't. I think it's a great cult movie. "Rock 'n' Roll High School" will probably have to go down in history as the ultimate rebellious party flick. Portraying a bunch of high school students using the Ramones' music as inspiration to rise up against their despotic principal (Mary Woronov, of "Eating Raoul" fame), the whole movie is a mile a minute. It's basically a big excuse to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. Bullied freshmen? Check. A dorky music teacher (Paul Bartel, also from "Eating Raoul"*)? Check. Exploding mice? Checkmate.

Anyway, this is the sort of stuff that makes life worth living. Even for someone like me who doesn't know the Ramones' music, it's pure pleasure. With Roger Corman executive producing and Joe Dante co-directing, how could we expect anything less? Too bad that director Allan Arkush later degenerated into fare such as "Caddyshack II".

Also starring P.J. Soles, Vincent Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Dick Miller (who has appeared in every one of Joe Dante's movies, and many of Roger Corman's), Don Steele, and of course the Ramones. A real treat.

*It seems like Bartel and Woronov always co-starred. They also co-starred in Joe Dante's "Hollywood Boulevard" and the slasher flick "Chopping Mall" (also starring Dick Miller)...in which they reprised their roles from "Eating Raoul". While I don't agree with Bob's and Tammy's decision to give up baby Jesse, and it's something I'd never do, they were trying to do what was best for the baby. The way this movie is written, you see yourself becoming wrapped up in the story and asking yourself what you really believe, from all different aspects. Patty Duke? Antagonist? Almost unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. But during the movie, she really convinces you that she's psychotic, or at least, that there's something seriously wrong with her. Her character is the meaning of "emotionally disturbed." The movie seems to end quickly, leaving things somewhat unresolved. But other than that, this movie is really great. It really makes you think. It's not a movie to watch when you just want to kick back and relax and watch something cute that'll make you laugh. But it is a good movie to see when you want to challenge your own beliefs, see things from others' perspectives, and discover a little something about yourself. Caution: you may even grow while watching this movie! And it's all worth it, in the end. Hello everyone, This is my first time posting and I just love the movie No child of mine and I could watch it over and over!! well I taped it a long time ago like a few years ago and I dropped it and broke it and I haven't seen it in a few years!! could any one please tell me when it will come on again!! I would really appreciate it alot!!You can email me if you want to cause that is my favorite movie of all including Empty Cradle to and if anyone knows when that comes on to PLEASE let me know,I would really appreciate it ALOT!!!

An ok movie about downs syndrome. A mother has twins one is very sick the other is good but he has downs. The mother does not think she can raise him so she gives him to some people who have 15 kids 11 have downs! the mom does not like this & she thinks he should be with his family ( I agree too ) so they take it to court & the family gets broken up & the grandparents lose, it never really says if the mom & daughter makeup? I think this movie's good but the plot is familiar, it's still good & has a few unintentional laughs! Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director). I must say that I had wanted to see this film for a long time, and I was not disappointed. The acting of Dominic Monaghan is simply fantastic. As a part insomniac myself, I can relate with how the story develops. I have never experienced anything of the sort but some awake moments overlap the sleeping and it can be scary. It was a great film, worth every penny. I hope that one day I can work with Tess myself, it would be an honor and beyond. I can recommend it for everybody. Maybe not small children as they may get scared. But if you are an insomniac like me, you'll understand the world, the mysteries and the fear. You'll love it.

F. I came across An Insomniac's Nightmare while looking for offbeat independent films, and glad to say it did NOT disappoint. This crazy half hour ride had me wondering all the way through, and the ending was excellent - one of those NOOOOO moments that really stays with you. I've shown it to a number of people and everyone seems to agree hands down. The little ghostie girl was very talented and I think her performance stole the show. She creeped the heck out of me, I can say that much. Nanavati did a great job putting this short together. All the pieces just fell into place and you can tell that she's a great writer from what she did with this script. SO well written. It's undoubtedly the strongest part of the film. The directing was great and the acting was enjoyable, but the most important factor here is the strength of the screenplay. Good job to this girl, I can't wait to see more! This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.

All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there. I rated this a ten just because I find it so impressive what a single eighteen year old can do with a video camera. It's no epic but it's plenty engaging and I was never bored. If tens of millions of dollars can go into the countless bad films that are poured out en masse, then give this director the same amount of money and see what happens. I know I'll be lining up at the local cinema for her first major release. Damn good job, and well worth the money. What a script! It might be low budget but it beats the hell out of half the major pictures I've seen lately. Nanavati knows how to tell a story, both in writing and on screen. Serious kudos to her, can't wait to see more. This film is one of the best shorts I've ever seen - and as I make it a point to be at all the major film festivals, I've seen a lot, especially of what the industry considers "the best." I'm not a fan of Monaghan. His acting generally tends to be overdone and uninteresting to me, his only decent performance being in Lost, so I generally try to avoid his films. I did, however, happen to see this at a film festival a few years back and was completely awed. This director really knows what she's doing. Of course, you are going to get the trolls (or just ignorant people) who don't understand what constitutes a good film and rip on low budget work because they have no idea what went into it. But luckily, from what I've seen, they are in the minority when it comes to this gem.

Let's not deny that the film was working on no budget, and that a couple of the supporting actors could still use work, because that's certainly true. The production value is very low, but what can you expect for a first real film from someone still in high school? Pretend for a moment that the budget doesn't matter. If you take away a bit of the acting, the sound quality (which actually wasn't the fault of the filmmaker; I saw this at a festival and the sound was fine...I guarantee whoever made the DVD itself screwed up), and the fact it was shot on mini-DV, then what are you left with? The story, the visual composition and the soul of the film, which are indisputably flawless.

Nanavati can tell a story. That much is clear. She can write substance-heavy, engaging scripts better than most people in Hollywood, create a shot list that perfectly compliments that story, and bring it to life in a fascinating, creative way that, were this higher budget, might have won awards. Give it more experienced actors, better sound post-production, and 35mm instead of mini-DV and even the trolls couldn't complain. This girl is incredible, and keeping in mind that Insomniac was made a good few years ago, she's done some amazing work since. The trailer for Dreams of an Angel shows that, and I can't wait to see the higher budget stuff she's done. 9/10 stars, this is one hell of a movie from one hell of a filmmaker. I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven. An Insomniac's Nightmare was an incredibly interesting, well-made film. I loved the way it just throws you into the main character's subconscious without coddling the viewer...the acting was top notch - honestly, I would watch Dominic Monaghan read the phone book! - but everyone else, especially the young girl, was great as well. I was very impressed by the look of the film, too. Usually, "independent films" have a grainy, I-shot-this-on-my-camcorder look to them, but this director knows what she's doing. The lighting, the cinematography...quality work. I'm looking forward to a feature-length work from Tess Nanavati! I saw Insomniac's Nightmare not to long ago for the first time and I have to say, I really found it to be quite good. If you are a fan of Dominic Monaghan you will love it. The hole movie takes place inside his mind -or does it? The acting from everyone else is a little rushed and shaky and some of the scenes could be cut down but it works out in the end. The extras on the DVD are just as great as the film, if not greater for those Dom fans. It has tons of candid moments from the set, outtakes and a great interview with the director. Anyone who has gone through making an independent film will love to watch Tess (the director), Dom and everyone else on the very small close personal set try to bang out this little trippy creepy film. It was pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to have it in my collection. I have seen this movie a while back, after ordering it for my friend, who is a big Dominic Monaghan fan. The movie itself was very interesting, though it had its positive points, which for me was the Donnie Darko kind of "wtf?" factor after the movie had ended.

Of course, with positive also come negative points. To me, the young girl in the film was incredibly good, and Dominic Monaghan did a good job as well. Unfortunately I don't have this opinion about Daniel Burke, who played Lonnie. This might just be me, and I'm not claiming to be a serious critic, in the way that I don't find myself skilled enough, but he just didn't seem convincing as an actor. But perhaps it's even more striking then, for although I am not a critic, this does get my attention.

To conclude, over all I think it's definitely a film worth watching. It's interesting, confusing, and you just should have seen it. This is one of the first independent movies I've ever seen. For such a very low budget, it was done well; as an insomniac myself, I can sympathize with the main character, although my sleeping problems have never been as intense or as disturbing.

Well directed, well acted, of a subject that I haven't seen much in theaters, lighting and set both perfect for the movie setting. There are few noticeable goofs, but they may be intended; you'll see after you watch the movie. The movie is very personal, and worth watching twice. No movie is flawless, but a Hollywood version couldn't do the story better. all in all, 8/10. Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.

Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.

With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended. This movie draws you in and gets you hooked on keeping your eyes on the screen. The writer/director is brilliant with the narrative parts and the use of creative and interesting camera angles and perspectives which all add to the gripping hold it will have on you. Insomniac's Nightmare is original and refreshingly different from any other movie you have seen. Is it a dream or reality? This indie will have you discussing the twists and turns it takes through the conscious and subconscious. It has an eery feel with it's dark interpretations of illusions. Dominic Monaghan really became the insomniac. He is a great actor who is not hard on the eyes either! He really poured his whole being into this role. From the storyline to the way it is shot makes this indie one of my favorites. I recommend it highly and eagerly await to see more from this innovative, creative writer/director/cinematographer!!! An Insomniac's Nightmare is the story of a man's plunge into insanity. Having chronic Insomnia, Jack is plagued by hallucinations; causing him to try and determine what is real and what isn't.

We find out interesting things about Jack near the end, and think that by the time the movie is over we will have a "happily ever after" Hollywood ending. Wrong. This is New York City, the place where nobody sleeps.

Tess Nanavati (Writer and Director) has herself a good film in 'An Insomniac's Nightmare'. A talented filmmaker and writer (she made this film right after her High School Graduation), she has real potential and will be one to watch in the upcoming future.

As I watched this short film I was constantly uncomfortable; between the music, bleak scenery, and realistic portrayal of an insomniac by Dominic Monaghan (as Jack), I desperately wanted to turn this off at times just to escape from it. This is an almost action-less film following Jack, an insomniac, as he goes through hallucinations, is visited by dead friends, throws himself off a building, and, for a lot of the time, can't tell reality from hallucination.

Dominic Monaghan, as Jack, is truly believable. Confused, and scared but lethargic and, at times blankly accepting of what he sees, we follow him trying to sort out what he's seeing and find a way to sleep.

Introduce a talking dog (another hallucination) and children that suddenly appear in Jack's bathroom and bedroom without any explanation as to how they got there (more hallucination) and you have an interesting, mind boggling, 43 minutes And the shower scene is enough to get any Dom fan coming back for more. I first saw this movie at a festival. There were many good movies, but few kept me thinking about it long after, and An Insomniac's Nightmare was definitely one of them. Tess is definitely a gifted filmmaker. The shots were great. Casting was perfect. Dominic shined in his role that she perfectly crafted. There wasn't a lot to know about his character, but she wrote the story in such a way that we cared about him. And Ellen-- I can't wait to see where she ends up! She's showing a lot of talent and I hope she does a few more films. With all the million dollar budgets trying to get a cheap thrill, Tess shows that it's all not needing as long as there is a good story and actors. Kudos to everyone involved with this film. And thanks to Tess and co. for distributing it on DVD! I'll come clean. The only reason I even found out about this DVD was because Dominic Monaghan is a favorite actor of mine. When I heard the title of the film, I thought it was going to be...different, perhaps in not such a good way.

But I was wrong. After reading what few reviews were out there about this short, I was actually excited about seeing it. I sent off for my copy as soon as able and received it a few weeks later. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.

The film follows Jack, a insomniac who is often plagued by conditions which causes him to doubt what is reality, and what is all in his head. I won't give away what happens, but I will tell you that the film can sometimes be frightening in it's realism.

The directing is fantastic, focusing on what is essential to the story without allowing it to lose any entertainment or thought-provoking moments.

All in all, I give this great film 9 out of 10, for going far beyond what I thought any short could achieve. I had no idea what this film was about or even knew that it existed until about 1 month ago when I stumbled upon when I was searching for other films that stared Dominic Monaghan. I thought this film was a strange insight into the mind of a none sleeper and what his/her mind may be going through in the hours that they spend awake when the rest of the world around them is asleep,it was an interesting film and a good part was played by Dom.......I believe that even though this film you cannot buy anywhere (well I've never seen it anywhere) you must see it if you ever get the chance because it will really make you think about those people around us that cannot sleep and have to suffer night after night of not been able to sleep or only get about 1 hour of sleep every night so overall it was an interesting film of good substance. maybe i identify with this film cause i live in nyc and suffer from bad insomnia but whatever it is, i must praise the filmmaker on a most amazing job. to do what she did with no budget...wow, thats all i can say. really, really good. like no money was spent on this film and it still blew me away. i definitley suggest checking it out if you can. great directing, fantastic score and of course a script that will knock you on your arse. see it. I had the pleasure of seeing this film at the Rhode Island International Film Festival and was very impressed. Tess Nanavati is clearly a great screenwriter and I would love to see more of her films. If she could do what she did with the budget of this film, I'm very anxious to see what she can do with a major picture. Kudos to the cast for their terrific performances (that little girl was gold), and to whoever composed the music. The warped "Row Your Boat" blew me away. Very creative film all around....I really hope to see it come out on video or DVD because I'd buy it in a second. If you get the chance, you should definitely see this film. This is a very entertaining flick, considering the budget and its length. The storyline is hardly ever touched on in the movie world so it also brought a sense of novelty. The acting was great (P'z to Dom) and the cinematography was also very well done. I recommend this movie for anyone who's into thrillers, it will not disappoint you! Ghost Story (the TV Movie--1972) was the pilot for the NBC series. The movie was well-written and well-acted and, I thought, when the 1972-73 tv season started, if the tv series is half as good as the movie, then NBC has a winner. (I wish this film was available on video!!) The series was a colossal disappointment--even with William Castle as exec. producer. If, however,you have a chance to see the original TV movie, Ghost Story, check it out. You won't be disappointed. Ghost Story,(The New House) is a terrific horror story. This is from the Circle Of Fear and the Ghost Story series of the early seventies.The beginning and ending of each story is narrated by Sebastian Cabot. Remember him from the early family series, Family Affair in the 1960s? This particular story has Barbara Parkins and David Birney as the lead actors, and as the main characters in the story.I saw this recently,and I was so scared!If you are alone,I would not recommend that you watch this.This story is terrific,no gore or curse words, but very scary. Barbara Parkins played the young bride. David Birney played her husband.Both actors were very good in their parts.If you like scary, fun,terrifying ghost stories, then you will like this little gem. I gave this a high rating.I highly recommend this story. I grew up watching this series. I was about seven/eight years old when it was on. I still remember the 1st episode which was called "The New House." It scared the h*ll out of me! I can almost still hear that statue, laughing madly. And the ending, oh my God! The hooror spirit comes in the room for the child: Yikes! This was classic TV and it was a one of a kind series. I have found a DVD collection for sale on the internet: 2 actually. My question to any readers: Has anyone purchased this set? Its a bootleg. Both sellers claim to have very good copy. I have a sketchy and poor DVD of "The New House" episode, and a couple of other episodes that are a bit better,however, if anyone knows if these are much clearer it would be worth it to me to buy and share with my kids. A great series, clever, scary and daringly supernatural. Thanks in advance to any fans who have the low down on any of this- In fact, I'd love to discuss it. Chris Walker I like Ghost stories. Good ghost stories of bumps in the night, voices that cannot be explained. Now I've see many of them. As special efx have a ever more grip on todays films, some times to find a real gem , you gotta turn the clock back to the time when the writers and directors really had to use their heads to create really good ghost stories. Now this one, very rare , pilot episode for the TV series Ghost Story called " The New House " was one of the most scariest films I ever saw. It was on once in 1972,...I was only 9,..but nothing since then even compared to it. With all the remake going on in Hollywood, some one should do this one " as is " with no more special efx than the original. This episode was down right creepy as hell. I'm lucky to find it finally on DVD today and very rare and hard to find. The only other 2 Ghost Stories to even come close was the ORIGINAL " The Haunting " and George C. Scott in " The Changling " . Wish someone would do more ghost stories like these. This is one of my all-time favorite films, and while it may move too slowly for some, it's well worth seeing. A corporate lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) is dragged into a case involving "city" Aborigines, and this is no ordinary case. OK, a man has died but it wasn't exactly a normal killing. There has also been a greater than average amount of rain lately, and the atmosphere of most of the film is somewhat claustrophobic & oppressive. The Aborigines are harboring a secret and refuse to spill the beans. This has a lot to do with white men making assumptions about "City" vs. "Tribal" Aborigines, and of course no Abo in the big city would practice tribal ways. Uh huh. Chamberlain is having strange dreams and he is somehow the key to what's happening, although no matter how many times I've seen this I can't quite grasp the exact connection. This is a very eerie and creepy film, and is a fine example of Peter Weir's ability to create tension out of nothing. The ending is a little ambiguous but I take it literally, it's the easiest way out and the scariest. 10 out of 10 and highly recommended. Richard Chamberlain is David Burton, a tax lawyer living in Sydney, Australia who is drawn into a murder trial defending five Aboriginal men accused of murdering a fellow native in Peter Weir's apocalyptic 1977 thriller The Last Wave. Taking up where Picnic at Hanging Rock left off, the film goes deeper into exploring the unknown and, in the process, shows the gulf between two cultures who live side by side but lack understanding of each others culture and traditions. Weir shows how white society considers the native beliefs to be primitive superstitions and believes that since they are living in the cities and have been "domesticated", their tribal laws and culture no longer apply.

From the start, Burton is drawn deeper and deeper into a strange web of visions and symbols where the line between real time and "dream time" evaporates. Water plays an important symbolic role in the film from the opening sequence in which a sudden thunder and hailstorm interrupts a peaceful school recess to Burton's discovery that his bathtub is overflowing and water is pouring down his steps. As violent and unusual weather continue with episodes of black rain and mud falling from the sky, the contrast between the facile scientific explanations of the phenomenon and the intuitive understanding of the natives is made clear. Burton and his wife Annie (Olivia Hamnet) study books about the Aborigines and learn about the role of dreams in the tribal traditions. When he invites one of his clients Chris Lee (David Gulpilil) to his home for dinner, he is disturbed to find that he is the subject of an inquiry by Chris and his friend Charlie (Nadjiwarra Amagula), an enigmatic Aborigine sorcerer involved with the defendants. As Burton's investigation continues, his clients make his work difficult by refusing to disclose the true events surrounding the murder.

After Chris starts to appear in his dreams, Burton is convinced that the Aborigine was killed in a tribal ritual because "he saw too much", though Chris refuses to acknowledge this in court. Burton, becoming more and more troubled by a mystery he cannot unravel, says to his stepfather priest, "Why didn't you tell me there were mysteries?" This is a legitimate question but, according to the reverend, the Church answers all mysteries. Burton knows now that he must discover the truth for himself and enters the tribal underground caves. Though we do not know for certain what is real and what is a dream, he comes face to face with his deepest fears in a haunting climax that will leave you pondering its meaning into the wee hours of the morning.

In this period of history in which native Hopi and Mayan prophecies predict the "end of history" and the purification of man leading to the Fifth World, The Last Wave, though 25 years old, is still timely. The Aborigines are portrayed as a vibrant culture, not one completely subjugated by the white man, yet I am troubled by the gnawing feeling that we are looking in but not quite seeing. Weir has opened our eyes to the mystery that lies beyond our consensual view of reality, but he perpetuates the doom-orientation that sees possibility only in terms of fear, showing nature as a dark and uncontrollable power without a hint of the spiritual beauty that lives on both sides of time. "The Last Wave" is one of those movies that relies heavily on the mind. The title refers to the Aboriginal doomsday theory: there will be one last wave that wipes out everything.

David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) is a Sydney lawyer hired to defend some Aborigines accused of murder. Around this time, there has been unusually heavy rainfall in Australia. While defending the Aborigines, David learns the last wave theory, and begins to wonder whether it's just mythology.

The movie's last sequence is a metaphor for descending into the depths of one's mind. Peter Weir created a perplexing, but thought-provoking, movie. Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil (whom you may have seen in "Walkabout", "Crocodile Dundee" and "Rabbit-Proof Fence") provides an interesting supporting role as one of the defendants.

If you get a chance, watch the "making of" feature on the DVD. Peter Weir explains some of the film's undertones, some of which relate to Richard Chamberlain's background. This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.

The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas. Peter Weir's first international success, THE LAST WAVE is a mainly effective chiller with a fascinating back story based on Aboriginal myth. Richard Chamberlain gives a good performance as a defense lawyer whose life becomes increasingly unmoored from reality as he delves deeper into a murder case involving Aboriginal tribal rivalries. David Gulpilil plays one of the suspects, who does his best to guide Chamberlin thru the realm of 'Dreamtime', an alternate reality/timeline central to native Australian history and tribal custom. Heavy on atmosphere, deliberately ambiguous in plotting, the film builds to an unsettling finale which is somewhat diminished by poor effects, probably due to budgetary limitations. Nevertheless an intriguing film whose overall impression of mystery and dread lurking just below the surface of what we perceive as 'reality' will stay with you. ****SPOILER ALERT**** All throughout Australia the summer turned into a deluge of rain and hail stones the size of baseballs that was causing havoc in coastal cities like Sydney. It's under these hectic conditions that tax lawyer David Burton, Richard Chamberlain,got involved in a case, as a defense attorney, involving the death of a local aborigine who was found dead outside a Sydney bar.

Having five fellow aborigines arrested for Billy Cormans,Athol Compton, death it's determined by the police coroner that Billy died of drowning not by violence even though he had bruises on his neck and shoulders. Yet the court decided to prosecute the five for his death charging them with manslaughter instead of murder.

David defending the five gets no help from them in their defense with the accused assailants opting to remain quite and keep what happened to Billy to themselves and take what's coming to them from the court. One of the defendants Chris, David Gulpili, begin to somehow invades David's dreams as if he want's to tell him what was really behind Billy's death.

David at first not taking his dreams of Chris seriously begins to sense that their real when he meet him at the courthouse. Chris confirms David's dreams by showing him a strange looking black rock that David saw Chris have in his dreams. Later meeting Chris and, what turns out to be an aborigine shaman, Charlie (Nandjiwarna Amagula) who came to his house that evening David is told that he, like Charlie, has spiritual powers that he inherited from his mother's grandfather. Those powers will reveal to him the future that has to do with the strange weather conditions that are flooding the Australian continent. The earth,Chris tells David, is going through a gigantic cleansing cycle with the old world about to be washed away and the new world ready to take it's place.

David is confused about what both Chris and Charlie are telling him but as the rains continue to increase and the ocean waves start to rise he feels that something terrible is going to happen. David want's to know if it's all aborigine folklore or there's some scientific facts, or logic, behind their end of world-like revelations.

By now it's obvious that both Chris and Charlie are members of an aborigine tribe right in the heart of modern Sydney. That alone can get Chris off, as well as his four friends, for the murder of Billy. Since the Australian government will not prosecute tribal aborigines, leaving any justice to be done by the tribes themselves. Still Chris refuses to admit he's a member of a native tribe and he and his four friends are convicted of manslaughter in Billy's death with the sentences to be handed down by the judge within days.

David now determined to find out what was the reason for Chris' silence, and why Billy had to die, is taken by Chris to the scene of the crime. It's there that David finds out that Billy betrayed Chris' tribe members by going there with Billy not being a member of Chris's aborigine tribe. It's also revealed to David that he himself has some kind of spiritual connection with the Austrailan aborigines as both Charlie and his step-father Rev. Burton,David Parslow, told him.

The stage is now set for the great and final cleansing cycle that David's been seeing in both his night-time dreams and day-time visions. It comes in the form of a massive tidal wave rolling out of the Pacific Ocean into the Australian coast city of Sydney and then submerges the entire continent. 'The Last Wave' is far more than the sum of its parts. It's not merely a disaster film, not simply an exploration into Australian Aboriginal spirituality, and certainly more than a simple court drama. Writer/Director Peter Weir manages to take these elements to the next level to produce a truly effective and thought-provoking film with the same eerie atmosphere he gave to 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' two years earlier, that you will continue to remember years later.

When lawyer David Burton (Chamberlain) is called to defend Chris Lee (Gulpilil) over the death of an Aboriginal for which he may or may not be directly responsible, he finds himself not merely struggling to get the truth from Lee, but making sense of what he hears when it does come. As with the Aboriginal belief that there are two worlds - the everyday and the Dreamtime, the truth exists on two completely different levels, with ramifications more disastrous than Burton could ever have imagined.

No doubt the reason why 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' is better remembered is because of its enduring mystery. We are led along the same path but forced to find answers for ourselves. In 'The Last Wave', we can piece everything together by the end of the film. However, even with all the information, we have to choose how much of it we want to believe, because the film takes us beyond the borders of our normal realities.

On the production side, Weir uses his budget to great effect, progressively building a sense of doom in everything from soft lighting, to heavy rain, to good use of sound. The incidental music is unobtrusive, never trying to be grandiose. Richard Chamberlain manages to convey the bafflement the audience would doubtless feel as he tries to unravel the mystery. David Gulpilil excellently portrays a man trapped between two worlds, wanting to do the right thing, but afraid because he already knows the ending.

Put all these things together, and you have a perfect example of why David Weir is a familiar name in cinema thirty years on. Strongly recommended. David Burton(Richard Chamberlain, quite good)is a lawyer, more adept at handling corporate taxation(..and suffers from unusual dreams which bother him seeing this aboriginal man shrouded in darkness), who is called on to take a case concerning a group of aboriginals charged with the murder of one of their own named Billy..we see that he tries to steal stones with ritual painting on them and is killed when a leader of an aboriginal tribe named Charlie(Nandjiwarra Amagula)uses a "death bone" to stop his heart. Meanwhile, revolving around David, bizarre weather patterns effect Sydney such as rain beating down polluted dirt and rock-sized hail during bright blue skies(with no sights of clouds, such as the one that hits a school in central Australia), not to mention, a "deformed" rainbow which is split(!)into groups. As David pursues the case he finds that he is far closer to the weird events taking place than he could ever realize. One aboriginal named Chris(David Gulpilil)appears to him in a dream holding a stone with blood and he finds that this man is one of those he is to represent at trial! He finds that it's quite possible, after some strange meetings with Charlie and conversations with Chris, that he very well might be linked to a spirit named Mulkurul and that his dreams are actual premonitions of possible horrors yet to come.

Absorbing apocalyptic drama builds it's story methodically and is completely original and unpredictable. With Peter Weir in charge, the film is visually arresting as we see these very overwhelming images of possible doom towards civilization, but the film's most compelling angle is certainly David's journey to find that monumental truth that plagues him as he questions Charlie and Chris countlessly, at first to help his men get off from a crime they didn't commit, and ultimately to find out what he has to do with anything catastrophic that is occurring or might occur later. While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.

From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example "Witchboard", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf "Warlock"). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.

I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.

The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.

Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.

For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.

And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point. Across the great divide which we call understanding, there is still much we do not know about that which was explained by the early tribal Elders. In every instance, there is much concerning the dangers of knowing too much. Conversely, there are those who warn us of not preparing for what they warn is the 'End Time.' In this movie called " The Last Wave " an aboriginal native is murdered for no apparent reason. When those responsible are arrested, they remain silent less they disturb the order of things. David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) plays the Defense Attorney assigned to defend the accused. Although haunted by prophetic images from his own childhood and warned by modern signs given to him by an sympathetic Aboriginal named Chris Lee (David Gulpilil), Burton proceeds to defend the infraction as Tribal Law and therefore not subject to standard justice. The movie is fraught with puzzling, dark foreboding images of apocalyptic end world disasters and warns of a future island tsunami and doom. Black drama and deep rituals are what gives this film it's frightening allure and therefore is not for the faint-hearted, in fact the simplest haunting apparitions can last for years in the nightmares of innocent movie goers. Good silent drama. **** This motion picture has a steady, haunting pace backed up with great acting (one of Chamberlain's best performances) and a story that is revealed to us over time.

Beyond that, the music fully establishes the mood and assists in maintaining an uneasy, cautious and somber tone.

Weir's story is enhanced by using aboriginals, their stories and their tensions with the dominant white population to deliver a fantasy tale that is ominous.

Although they are unrelated in story as well as genre, this maintained the same feeling within me as Ursula Le Guin's "Lathe of Heaven" (1980).

"The Last Wave" is a dramatic thriller with some shocking moments. Remember, "hacking and slicing" doesn't make a film a horror movie, it's the psychological element of fear and trepidation that rests within us all. I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.

Chamberlain: "You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?" And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, "Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?" It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.

The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.

I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.

If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments," but they're brothers under the skin.

But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like "Mad Max," and some subtle and dramatic, like "Lantana." I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try "Picnic at Hanging Rock" for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood. THE LAST WAVE is never going to win over the mainstream audience. It is a slow-moving but fascinating film for those who are willing to go along with it. An Australian properties lawyer is asked to take on the case of five aborigines accused in the murder of one of their own. All sorts of portents and omens soon pop up, as the man's death involves a tribal issue that was not meant for white man's court, and pretty soon the lawyer is having trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. It looks like the end of the world may be at hand, and he and the aborigines may know this but no one else does. Richard Chamberlain as the lawyer is at his peak here. David Guptil, a familiar face from several other Australian flicks and a decent actor, is one of the five aborigines on trial. THE LAST WAVE is simply not for everyone, anymore than is MAGNOLIA (both happen to have strange things falling from the sky). Check it out on a slow Saturday night. You know the people in the movie are in for it when king-sized hailstones fall from a clear blue sky. In fact, the weather stays pretty bad throughout this atmospheric thriller, and only lawyer Chamberlain has the answer. But he's too much the European rationalist, I gather, to get in touch with that inner being that only reveals itself through dreams.

Darkly original mystery heavy on the metaphysics from director-writer Peter Weir. Already he had proved his skill at flirting with other dimensions in Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975). Here it's the arcane world of the Australian Aborigines that confronts that the tightly ordered world of the predominant whites. Something strange is going on inside the Aborigine community when they kill one of their number for no apparent reason. Yuppie lawyer Chamberlain is supposed to defend them in a white man's court. But the more he looks into things, the more mysterious things get, and the more interested a strange old Aboriginal man gets in him. And then there're those scary dreams that come and go at odd times.

Well structured screenplay deepens interest throughout. One reason the movie works is the background normalcy of Chamberlain's wife and little daughters. Audiences can readily identify with them. And when their little world runs into forces beyond the usual framework, the normalcy begins to buckle, and we get the feeling of worlds beginning to collide. Chamberlain underplays throughout, especially during the underground discovery tour where I think he should have shown more growing awareness than he does. After all, it's the picking up of the mask that holds the key (I believe) to the riddle, yet his reaction doesn't really register the revelation.

Of course, the notion of nature striking back has a certain resonance now, thirty years later. In the film, the notion is wrapped in a lot of entertaining hocus-pocus, but the subject itself remains a telling one. One way of bringing out a central irony in the movie is the symbolism of the opening scene. A big white SUV barrels past an aboriginal family, leaving them in the historical dust. The terrain looks like an interior tribal reservation of no particular importance to the coastal fleshpots where industry dwells. Yet, it's also a region most likely to survive anything like a destructive last wave. Perhaps there's something about past and future to think about here.

Anyway, this is a really good movie that will probably stay with you. I just watched "The Last Wave" in my school's fine arts library. It's intriguing, like all Peter Weir's stuff, but it's not always as attention-holding as I would have liked. I found myself fascinated by the ideas being thrown at me (because they are very well handled by the film's director Weir)but at the same time I was not stimulated enough by them. AKA I got a little bored in spots.

The plot surrounds an Aussie lawyer who becomes obsessed with certain dreams he has which link him to an Aborigone group he is defending.

It starts out with an intense weather sequence and has some very awesome mood effects throughout (most notably the bizarre, "belching" sound design)and strong direction; but it just didn't entertain me like Weir's later films do. I might just need to watch it again though.

Good film about obsession and mystery. Because, in the end, the mystery that exists between the whites and the Aboriginies offers some very severe consequences.

God bless Peter Weir, though. For him alone this film is worth watching ... very organic director. Like an Aussie response Malick! I'd give it a 7 because it's got enough great ideas to overcome its boring moments. Although I've long been a fan of Peter Weir, I hadn't watched any of his Australian movies until I watched The Last Wave. And it was a pleasant, unpredictable surprise.

Richard Chamberlain plays David, a lawyer invited to defend five aborigines charged with murdering another Aborigine. For David's peers it's a clear case of drunken disorder and they think they should plead guilty and serve a quick sentence. But David believes there's a mystery underneath the murder, linked to tribal rituals. As his investigation proceeds he learns not only things about his clients but about himself too.

To reveal more would be to spoil one of the strangest movies I've ever seen. I can only say that this movie goes in directions that no one will be expecting.

There are many elements that make this a fascinating movie: Chamberlain's acting, for instance; but also the performances by David Gulpilil, who plays a young aborigine who introduces David into tribal mysteries; and Nandjiwarra Amagula, who plays an old aborigine who's a spiritual guide. The relationships between these three characters make the heart of the movie.

But there's also the way Weir suggests the supernatural in the movie. David has dreams that warn him of the future. Australia is undergoing awful weather, with storms, hail falling and even a mysterious black rain that may be nothing more than pollution. But it's also related to the case David is defending. How it's related is one of the great revelations of the movie. Out of little events Weir manages to create an atmosphere of dread and oppression, suggesting future horrors without really showing anything.

Charles Wain's score is fantastic, especially the use of the didgeridoo. The photography is also quite good. Russell Boyd, Weir's longtime DP who won an Oscar in 2004 for Master and Commander, depicts a dark, creepy world full of mystery.

I also find it remarkable that for a movie centered on aborigines, it doesn't turn into an indictment against white culture or into a sappy celebration of the their traditions, like Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai. This movie is too clever to be that simplistic.

Sometimes it can be frustrating, and it may upset viewers who expect to finish a movie with everything making sense; but for those who don't mind some strangeness or ambiguity, The Last Wave is a great movie to watch. Episode two of season one is a delightful holiday tale of love, betrayal,...and a homicidal, escaped lunatic dressed as Father Christmas.

A woman (Mary Ellen-Trainor)has just murdered her hubby on Christmas Eve for his life insurance. What begins as a perfect crime begins a struggle to survive as a deranged, Santa Clause suit wearing psychopath (Larry Drake, perfectly over the top) threatens her life...as well as her precious young daughters.

This episode is warmly remembered by even those casually acquainted with the program. By the way,this particular reviewer watches it every Christmas on routine. Most notable for it's escalating suspense and narrative twists, And All Through The Houst is among Tales From The Crypt's best. "And All Through the House" is a special crypt episode not only because it's from the first season, but this episode was the first one I saw! I remember as a young man being on vacation with my parents that summer in 1989 in our hotel room in South Carolina on HBO I saw this episode and I was buried to the Crypt right then and forever! I had always been a fan of horror-suspense series and liked monster movies, and with this series started by HBO I again had fearful pleasure. This episode being the first one I saw is memorable for me and one of my favorites, it's just so enjoyable with a nice twist. "And All Through the House" has a nice cozy setting on a snowy Christmas Eve, which is a perfect way to get you relaxed for holiday chopping! Well anyway you have Mary Ellen Trainor(who by the way plays in several warner brothers works, usually small parts) as a greedy philandering wife who takes care of her hubby while waiting on some money and a new romance. Only like most horror series things take a turn for the worst and bad people get what they deserve. The odds are greatly stacked when a maniac dressed as Santa escapes from a local nut house, making for a late holiday chopping on Christmas Eve! As from the old E.C. comic lessons, you learn bad people get what they axe for! Well this tale ends with a perfect holiday scream! Also this tale was in the 1972 movie and featured Joan Collins, this is without a doubt one of my favorites and probably one of the classic crypt episodes of all-time! Tales from the Crypt: And All Through the House starts on Christmas Eve as Elizabeth (Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband Joseph (Marshall Bell), she drags his body outside ready to throw it down a well but while doing so misses an important news bulletin on the radio that says a homicidal maniac (Larry Drake) dressed as Santa Clause has escaped from a local mental asylum & has already killed several women with Elizabeth next on his list but she has other ideas & tries to turn the seemingly dangerous situation to her advantage...

This Tales from the Crypt story was episode 2 from season 1, directed by the one of the show's regular executive producers Robert Zemeckis And All Through the House is a decent enough watch. The script by Fred Dekker was actually based on a story appearing in the comic 'The Vault of Horror' & was originally adapted to film as one episode from the Britsih horror anthology film Tales from the Crypt (1972) which starred Joan Collins as the murderous wife character here played by Ellen Trainor. This particular version is good enough but doesn't do anything different or special & is a bit too linear & predictable to be considered a classic. At only 25 minutes in length it certainly moves along at a good pace, the story is just about macabre enough & it generally provides decent entertainment & I quite liked the downbeat ending. This time there are Christmas themed opening & closing Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) segments complete with the usual puns.

Director Zemeckis does a good job & there's a nice winterly atmosphere with a hint of Christmas influence as well. There's not much gore here, someone has a poker stuck in their head, someone's face is cut with an icicle, someone's arm is cut with an axe & there's some blood splatter but generally speaking it's not that graphic. The acting by a small cast is pretty good.

And All Through the House isn't the best tale from the crypt but it's a decent one all the same, worth a watch but after the comic book story & original 1972 film version did we really need or even want this? I have watched this episode more often than any other TFTC episode, it is that enjoyable. And it is quite scary, but all in good, ghoulish fun. A woman kills her 2nd husband but runs into a problem when an escaped maniac in a ragged Santa Claus outfit decides to pay her and her little girl a visit at that very moment. Mary Traynor, who I seem to remember from SNL or some other TV comedy skit show, is the evil wife, and Larry Drake plays the lunatic in the dingy Santa outfit. I had forgotten Santa was played by Drake over the years. His Santa is an unstoppable force and quite frightening at times. You can probably guess how Santa finally gets into the house. The episode is played for laughs, but it also can be pretty intense at times. An axellent second installment that manages to be just as good as the first.

Once again, the casting is just wonderful. I like how the first and second episode have nothing in common except for the wit and cleverness.

The second episode is just very funny, very silly and very enjoyable. It is the very first Christmas episode, about a woman who is tormented by a serial killer dressed as Santa after having killed her own husband. Just like the first episode; karma.

The most humorous scene is a tie between the murder of her husband and her phone call, first faking her fear until it becomes real. Ho, ho, homicidal maniac! This spirited tour-de-force adaptation of a great EC Comics horror tale is undoubtedly one of the best episodes of the cable TV series ever made. Director Robert ("Back to the Future") Zemeckis makes the most out of a witty script by Fred ("Night of the Creeps," "The Monster Squad") Dekker which centers on a ruthless two-timing housewife (well played by Mary Ellen Trainor, who was married to Zemeckis when she starred in this episode) who kills her jilted jerk of a husband (a nice cameo by Marshall Bell) on Christmas Eve by whacking him upside the head with a fire-poker. Complications ensue when a deranged murderous madman dressed up as jolly Kris Kringle escapes from a nearby asylum and decides to pay Trainor a decidedly unfriendly visit. Alan Silvestri's spooky, stirring score and Dean Cundey's typically polished cinematography further enhance the macabre fun. And Larry Drake (the sweet gentle giant Benny on "L.A. Law"!), with his creepy hiccuping guffaw, a demented twinkle in his bright green eyes, and a leering, truly wicked grin, makes for a sensational sanguinary Saint Nick. 9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.

The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.

Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry "Dr. Giggles" Drake) comes her way.

If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. One of the last classics of the French New Wave. For direction, cineaste Jean Eustache drew from the simplicity of early-century cinema; for story, Eustache drew on the torments of his own complicated love life. So many things can be said of this film - observationally brilliant; self indulgently overlong; occasionally hilarious; emotionally draining...etc. etc. In my mind, whatever complaints that can be leveled against this film are easily overshadowed by its numerous strengths. Every film student, writer, or simply anyone willing to handle a 3 hour film with no abrupt cuts, no music video overstyling, no soap opera-like plot twists, and no banal dialogue should make it a point to see this movie. Everything is to be admired: the writing (concise, clever, surprisingly funny), acting (everyone, quite simply, is perfect in their respective roles), and, simple direction (the viewer feels like a casual observer within the film) make this film unforgettable. This is undoubtedly a film that stays with you. It is not an easy film to watch - it is over three and a half hours long and it is composed entirely of conversations. Yet it is so incredibly compelling and ruthlessly observational of the human character, that it is, in my humble opinion, one of the very greatest films of all time.

The film is depressing, cynical and cruel. (If you want something uplifting, see Jacques Rivette's fantastic Céline and Julie Go Boating, which was made around the same time). It shows the idealism of the late 1960s to be nothing different from the society that it was trying to change.

It involves a supposedly liberated ménage-à-trois between Alexandre (played by Jean-Pierre Leaud), Marie (Bernadette Lafont) and Veronika (Francoise Lebrun). Yet Alexandre is shown to be as chauvinistic and jealous as any other man. The women are exposed as being willingly subservient and defining their femininity through the male gaze.

The film is an extremely icy end to the highly revolutionary French New Wave. This movement was one of the most significant movements in film history and had a profound effect on cinema as we know it. Jean-Pierre Leaud was one of the key actors of the New Wave, having starred (among other films) in the influential Les Quatres Cent Coups (1959) by Francois Truffaut as a rebellious teenager. Director Jean Eustache is not as well known as other directors from the New Wave, but he should be.

There is no improvisation (unlike in John Cassavetes's similar films made in the US) and the dialogue comes from real-life conversations. The film is resonant with Eustache's personal experiences. For example, Francoise Lebrun was a former lover of Eustache. Eustache himself committed suicide in 1981 and the real-life person that the character Marie was based on, did too. The anger and bitterness all culminate in a harrowing monologue by Veronika delivered directly to the audience, breaking down the coldly objective nature of the rest of the film. This mesmerising, personal, and honest filmic statement remains one of the most revealing films of human nature around. La Maman et la Putain has to be watched as a movie that is both related to the time it was released (post-68) and eternal in many respects. True, the actors don't "act" ... True, they talk a lot... But what they talk about is just what makes life worth living... or dying. The very long monologue spoken by Françoise Lebrun is perhaps the most accurate and moving text that was ever written about womanhood, manhood and love. Not easy to translate accurately, though. This movie is a statement about the difficulty of being a man and a woman (or two women in this case). And IMHO, Jean Pierre Léaud is one of the greatest French actors. Of all the reviews I've read, most people have been exceedingly hard on Alexandre. Neither Marie or Veronika ever seemed that they would particularly desperate to keep Alexandre, he being only slightly intelligent though not at all intellectual, as most of us are, however hard it may be for anyone to admit. Alexandre is getting away with life perfectly, being totally taken care of, getting and giving what he wants. the girls are allowing this, veronika loves sex, marie is his patron. is there anything wrong with any of this? is anyone in love? really? i don't think so. Though French New Wave cinema is prone to pretension and so on, it is marvelous simply because of its lack of a need for a plot in order to create emotion. Ease is perfectly lovely and all anyone in Alexandre's position, in an urban area can ask for. I'm looking for a patron, anyone interested? Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.

Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early "Nouvelle Vague" of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's "Satiricon", which work has actually great resemblance with "The Mother and the Whore".

Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café "Aux Deux Magots", where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.

It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time. In what could have been seen as a coup towards the sexual "revolution" (purposefully I use quotations for that word), Jean Eustache wrote and directed The Mother and the Whore as a poetic, damning critique of those who can't seem to get enough love. If there is a message to this film- and I'd hope that the message would come only after the fact of what else this Ben-Hur length feature has to offer- it's that in order to love, honestly, there has to be some level of happiness, of real truth. Is it possible to have two lovers? Some can try, but what is the outcome if no one can really have what they really want, or feel they can even express to say what they want?

What is the truth in the relationships that Alexandre (Jean-Pierre Leaud) has with the women around him? He's a twenty-something pseudo-intellectual, not with any seeming job and he lives off of a woman, Marie (Bernadette Lafont) slightly older than him and is usually, if not always, his lover, his last possible love-of-his-life left him, and then right away he picks up a woman he sees on the street, Veronika (Françoise Lebrun), who perhaps reminds him of her. Soon what unfolds is the most subtly torrid love triangle ever put on film, where the psychological strings are pulled with the cruelest words and the slightest of gestures. At first we think it might be all about what will happen to Alexandre, but we're mistaken. The women are so essential to this question of love and sex that they have to be around, talking on and on, for something to sink in.

We're told that part of the sexual revolution, in theory if not entirely in practice (perhaps it was, I can't say having not been alive in the period to see it first-hand), was that freedom led to a lack of inhibitions. But Eustache's point, if not entirely message, is that it's practically impossible to have it both ways: you can't have people love you and expect to get the satisfaction of ultimate companionship that arrives with "f***ing", as the characters refer over and over again.

The Mother and the Whore's strengths as far as having the theme is expressing this dread beneath the promiscuity, the lack of monogamy, while also stimulating the intellect in the talkiest talk you've ever seen in a movie. At the same time we see a character like Alexandre, who probably loves to hear himself talk whether it's about some movie he saw or something bad from his past, Eustache makes it so that the film itself isn't pretentious- though it could appear to be- but that it's about pretentiousness, what lies beneath those who are covering up for their internal flaws, what they need to use when they're ultimately alone in the morning.

If you thought films like Before Sunrise/Sunset were talky relationship flicks, you haven't met this. But as Eustache revels in the dialogs these characters have, sometimes trivial, or 'deep', or sexual, or frank, or occasionally extremely (or in a subdued manner) emotional, it's never, ever uninteresting or boring. On the contrary, for those who can't get enough of a *good* talky film, it's exceptional. While his style doesn't call out to the audaciousness that came with his forerunners in the nouvelle vague a dozen years beforehand, Eustache's new-wave touch is with the characters, and then reverberating on them.

This is realism with a spike of attitude, with things at time scathing and sarcastic, crude and without shame in expression. All three of the actors are so glued to their characters that we can't ever perceive them as 'faking' an emotion or going at all into melodrama. It's almost TOO good in naturalistic/realism terms, but for Eustache's material there is no other way around it. Luckily Leaud delivers the crowning chip of his career of the period, and both ladies, particularly Labrun as the "whore" Veronika (a claim she staggeringly refutes in the film's climax of sorts in one unbroken shot). And, as another touch, every so often, the director will dip into a quiet moment of thought, of a character sitting by themselves, listening to a record, and in contemplation or quiet agony. This is probably the biggest influence on Jim Jarmusch, who dedicated his film Broken Flowers to Eustache and has one scene in particular that is lifted completely (and lovingly) in approach from the late Parisian.

Sad to say, before I saw Broken Flowers, I never heard of Eustache or this film, and procuring it has become quite a challenge (not available on US DVD, and on VHS so rare it took many months of tracking at various libraries). Not a minute of that time was wasted; the Mother and the Whore is truly beautiful work, one of the best of French relationship dramas, maybe even just one of the most staggeringly lucid I've seen from the country in general. It's complex, it's sweet, it's cold, it's absorbing, and it's very long, perhaps too long. It's also satisfying on the kind of level that I'd compare to Scenes from a Marriage; true revelations about the human condition continue to arise 35 years after each film's release. "La Maman et la putain" is the beautifulest film of all time. And what's most moving about it may be the relation between reality and art the movie deals with, which is directly inspired by Proust's "A la Recherche du temps perdu".

Indeed, "La Maman et la putain" and "In search of lost time" apparently tell the same story : the one of the failure of love, which repeats itself endlessly. The first woman's name is always Gilberte, and the second woman appears like a twisted and deformed double of Gilberte : Veronika is like a "whore Gilberte", beautiful like the night, whereas Gilberte was pure, and "beautiful like the day". After the failure of the first love, a second love begins, but this one is like already doomed by the first one. Veronika takes the place of Gilberte, in Alexandre's life and in the movie. She progressively eclipses her, first by time to time, Gilberte's still coming when Alexandre waits for Veronika,then totally. That shows it's the same sad story repeating itself, the same "unfaithful woman", like Alexandre says, who appears endlessly - and unfaithful is for Proust the higher point in love, which makes it exist, but which also underlines its illusions.

Art is what causes the passage between what's outside - the illusion of love - to what's inside, which is the truth, and is a learning of this truth. For instance, when Veronika notices the strange way Alexandre makes is bed, he answers that he saw it in a movie, and then, that a movie, "it's made for that, to learn how to live, how to make a bed". Alexander wants to live like he was in a film, he wants his life to be art.

This conception of art comes from Proust, with whom Eustache shares the same rejection of "political art" and realism in art. "La Maman et la putain" fights against a conception of art "principaly political" - see for example the ironical review of a political movie by Alexandre. Like Proust says : "Art doesn't care for all this proclamations, and only exists in silence." First of all, art is introspection. And that also why realism or naturalism is rejected : art needs to transform reality to exist. Proust writes : "I discover the illusion of realism, which is a lie". That's why "La Maman et la putain" doesn't hide its artificiality, underlines by the way the actors "say" their text : "the more you seem artificial, the higher you go", said Eustache.

Eustache and Proust both share this idea that the artist is a "translater" of a inner truth. But, Alexandre failed where Eustache succeed. "La Maman et la putain" tells us the failure of a character to be what he truly is. You can sens the tragedy arise when you go further in the movie, which becomes saddest. You can see it in the face of Alexandre, who looks more and more like a living-dead. You can see it by the fact that the scenes become longer, and that after a while, nothing happens outside. At the end of the movie, when you see Alexandre writing, and Veronika asking if he's writing his life,you can guess that he's not, that even literature failed. The end of the movie shows the symbolic death of Alexander, who is smashes by the heaviness of reality. And in this tiny nurse's room, Alexandre looks more like Albertine than Marcel.

To explain this failure, we can say that Alexandre is a Balzac's reader. In "Forme et signification", Jean Rousset explains that, in Proust's, the readers of Balzac, who are Swann and Charlus, are unable of any artistic creation, because they're stuck in reality, which they mistake with art. They see reality in art and "are not aware of the transformations that necessarily exist between the life of an artist and his work, between reality and art". And that's exactly Alexandre. He claims for instance that he "loves a woman for parallel reasons, because she played in a Bresson's for example". He's like Swann, who falls in love with Odette because she looks like a Botticelli's woman.

"Life is perhaps not my vocation". This thought is indeed by Eustache, who committed suicide, even if it's said by Alexandre. Nevertheless, there is a difference between Alexandre and Eustache : if Eustache is absolutely Alexandre, Alexandre is like a double without art, a horrible vision of the artist, which crystallizes his fears.

By fallowing Veronika at the end of the movie, Alexandre is condemned to illusions. It's death that remind me the last frames of the movie, in the face of Jean-Pierre Léaud as well as in the endless pucking of Veronika. Or maybe it is already hell that describes the end, like in Sarte's "Huit-Clot", and absolutely not like in the final liberation of "Le Temps retrouvé". If Eustache had read Proust, Alexandre could never have finish the book , always perturbed by life and Veronika when he tries to read it at his apartment or in the cafés. "La Maman et la Putain" is like a inverse double of "In search of lost times", which tells how Alexander doesn't become an artist, whereas "A la Recherche du temps perdu" tells how Marcel becomes a writer (Genette).

If, like Baudelaire says, an artiste tells "reality at the light of his dream", it is his nightmare that Eustache tells us in "La Maman et la putain". this movie is so complex that it can be given any description and still roll with it. you have a insecure, troubled and fascinating main character (played by Jean-Pierre Léaud) who is trapped between two (no, three) women. we listen to his social, philosophical and moral idiosyncrasies in interminable monologues, we see him working his magic around the three women that he loves. this could be the premise for a fowl movie, full of rigid, cold, uninteresting commentaries. yet director Jean Eustache manages to keep it fresh, ironic and witty. being such a long movie, one cannot but burst into laughing when, after 2 hours of speaking politely, Jean-Pierre Léaud all of a sudden screams on the phone while he remembers a cheesy line from a movie. this kind of situations are purely cinematographic and cannot be fully restored in a commentary. nor can someone restore the tragic and painfully beautiful monologue of Françoise Lebrun towards the end of the movie. 3 and 1/2 hours and worthing every minute. ** possible spoilers **

I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.

I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.

But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.

I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy. A great movie, rather challenging than really entertaining. Sadly, no memorable quotes here, but this one's my favorite: Alexandre: If you're leaving someone that you have loved, you have to say what I'm telling you now: "Farewell, I'm going." But to disappear, to hide like a criminal, is ignoble. (didn't watch it with English subtitles)

In my opinion, this expresses it all. There is so much tactics involved in the relationships between Alexandre and the others, and yet everyone longs for a little bit more truth. However, knowing the truth can hurt even more, as Alexandre experiences. Common interpretation is that the movie criticises the mere possibility of "liberated love" by depicting the unwanted implications on the people involved. It does, indeed, show this in a convincing manner, but I would appreciate it if the reasons had been treated a bit more in depth: it's not that liberated love is in itself doomed to failure, but people (especially men, I think) should work on themselves and try to overcome the ruling morals before and not through practicing liberated love.

That said, the movie's realistic though and really worthwhile watching. We don't have to lose this movie, this is one of the greatest I have ever seen. Jean Pierre Leaud is amazing (more than usual) and the movie is one of the most unforgettable of the nouvelle vogue. Jean Eustache is no more on this earth, we just have this black and white images to remember one of the greatest and most subvalued french directors. You just have to love this masterpiece. I'll never forget it.

P.S.: sorry for the english... I decided to watch this because of the recommendations from this site. I would have to say it was worth the effort. However, you should take heed that this film will go on for 210 minutes. If you don't have the staying power, get it on tape and watch it over a couple of nights.

Now to the film, what I say will contain "spoilers" and if you don't mind, here goes:

Alexandre is a promiscuous bum, a womanizer and a gigolo. He lives with an older woman called Marie. Marie owns a retail shop and she provides for Alex. Alex spends his days at cafés and restaurants. The story reveals that Alex had previously impregnated Gilberte whom he used to live with. Gilberte dumped him for a less attractive man that she did not love because Alex had abused and battered her. At this point, Alex was willing to get a job and and help raise their child before he found out Gilberte had aborted it and planned to marry someone else.

By chance, Alexandre meets a nurse nymph called Veronika and they striked up a relationship. Veronika fell in love with Alex for the first time after all the sordid sex she had with men in the past. Marie and Veronika struggles for Alex's affection and had a ménage à trois to boot. Finally at the end, it's revealed Veronika is pregnant with Alex's child and Alex asked her to marry him. We assume (as aforesaid with Gilberte's situation) Alexandre will even get a job and be the provider for his new found love and family. There is hope!

With the title of "La Maman et la putain", I deduce Jean Eustache was relating to Françoise Lebrun's character of Veronika. She was a whore and then she became the mother. Hence, the mother and whore is the same person? Anyway, what do I know! French films are mostly (not all) very chatty, aimlessly political, preaching, theatrical, insipid, lamenting and full of quotes. Lebrun and Léaud played their obdurate characters well and held the film together as some part of the script became a little lost and disjointed.

Not a bad effort. 7/10. Well, of course not, women are overly sensitive and needy on average, which is interestingly portrayed from mother to whore, though not pseudo-artistically, extravagantly, or blatantly dwelt on. Unlike many of you I have only seen La Maman et La Putain twice. As many good films, I noticed my opinion of it improved after a second viewing. All that I know is what I have seen and have yet to delve into further exploits until I myself have acquired the dvd. I have yet to figure out precisely why I enjoy this movie so much, but really, what do I care why? Though I'm sure I could and will form some wonderful explanation. All right, so you may disagree, perhaps it is a bit boring at times, I'm not an expert. The blonde reminds me of a lovely Grushenka. A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.

The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.

It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears. I hate over-long over-talky French movies, but my favorite movie of all time is the longest and talkiest French movie of them all. I saw it twice in the mid-70's, and then it disappeared. But I finally got to see it again in 1999, and fell in love all over again. What is most remarkable is that it feels every bit as fresh today as it did 25 years ago. If you haven't seen it, don't miss your chance! A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.

The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.

It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears. Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.

A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. I was dragged to this movie about four years ago by a French actress friend of mine.

For the first half hour I was sitting in my uncomfortable seat at the New Beverly theater in Hollywood, hating this film, hating myself and even hating the French actress. And then...

I don't know what happened but I was pulled into the film in a way that I hadn't been in years. And this was despite the fact that one of the projectors broke and they had to do each changeover by hand. I was in the theater for close to four hours, but it was worth it.

I believe that great movies pull you inside a world, make you a part of it and then drop you off to talk about with your friends over coffee or a drink. This film did that. It was one of the best filmgoing experiences I have ever had.



This show has a few clichés and a few over the top, Dawson's Creek-like moments (a 16-year-old talking about way back when life made sense?), but overall it seems like a decent show. Most of the characters seem very real, and the story seemed to move along well in the pilot - ending with a good lesson in the end. I just hope every episode doesn't turn out to be life-altering like the first, that would just be too much drama for this vehicle. Jeremy Sumpter does an excellent job as a teenager with a passion for baseball, I believe a lot of us could relate to his awe and sometimes tunnel vision for the team that he always wanted to a part of. me and my sister saw the premiere last night... it was so good we were glued for the whole thing.. hahaha..i think I'm hooked for the season!!.... they have some really good actors in this thing.. the head coach guy and the player that likes pete were very good and the plot has already got me but i don't really understand how they'll keep it stretched for a whole season.. there will probably be some big twist tho..i cant wait till Tuesday.. finally Jeremy sumpter who is he? i can tell hes going to be big!! he was soo good we fell in love with his character right away.. cant wait for the next episode.. GO Jeremy!

'Aimee I have seen this movie. This movie is the best according today's need. Dowry in marriages is the major problem nowadays. In stating this problem this movie is the best. In this movie, the Indian values are stated very well. Today's youth must understand this problem. There is less population of girls. And due to this problem of dowry , the girls committed suicide. If this problem continues, then the day when there is no girl child, is not far away.So, keep in mind this statement ,today's youth must understand that we can not take dowry in marriages.We have to learn from this movie that the dowry should not be taken.And if we understand this problem then we can see the new trend in the society. This is the major change in the society. This, "Prodigal Son" and "Eastern Condors" are my favourite Sammo Hung films. The Fat Dragon is fatter in this outing than he was in "Condors", but he's no less sure-footed as director or actor. He is, in fact, at the top of his form and delivers a devastating, brutal actioner that boasts half a dozen amazing sequences and manages to tell a compassionate, sweet love story also. Love and romance are not the director's priorities here, but they serve as curious adjuncts to the action, and insure that viewers don't hit the fast-forward button between the physical clashes.

The opening scene, which features a funny light sabre duel, sets a solid but deceptive tone. A sequence in which Sammo's pedicab is chased by a car is beautifully staged and sweetened with a sharp, comic tone. The fast and furious stick fight between Sammo and Lau Kar Leung is a model of dazzling choreography and sharp, superb direction, and easily one of the best ever of its type. The film's violence escalates slowly until, finally, when the climactic showdown comes, we are subjected to some of the most brutal altercations ever seen in a Sammo production. The director/actor's assault on Billy Chow and a house filled with angry, menacing opponents is a bone-cracking, physically punishing delight.

Terrific on every level and one of the best martial arts movies ever made.

Great score, too. Sammo Hung's 1989 film Pedicab Driver is considered by many to be his masterpiece. I have to agree to some extent as the film in its greatest parts really gets as incredible and fantastic as any Hong Kong film ever has. It is a combination of pretty good and well written drama, interesting and sympathetic (and also non-sympathetic) characters, some genuinely funny humor and truly over-the-top hyper kung fu that is guaranteed to make many jaws drop when someone not familiar with Hong Kong cinema watches the film as well as it does to the experienced enthusiasts of the unique industry.

Sammo and Max Mok Siu Chung play two pedicab drivers who live in Hong Kong in the middle part of the last century, I think. They drive their cabs and are also desperate for love. Sammo is interested in local baker girl Ping (Nina Li Chi) while Max one day meets a mysterious and beautiful Fennie Yuen Kit-Ying he falls madly in love with. Many other characters get introduced, too, and they remain pretty clear all the time if the viewer really concentrates on the film and its plot so I cannot say the film is confusing as it could be much worse especially in Hong Kong! Soon we get to know, for instance, that a ruthless gangster family is terrorizing the neighborhood and of course their violent acts affect our protagonists, too, and so the premise for some of the most incredibly choreographed kung fu fight sequences has been created. As well as some nice drama.

The film has a great cast. The leads are all very good and restrained (not as painfully awful over-acting and "humor" as in Sammo's otherwise great Eastern Condors (1987), for example) and they are also, thanks to the carefully written screenplay, pretty likable and easy to identify with. The cast includes many familiar HK cinema faces and directors in small roles like Corey Yuen Kwai (the legendary action director and director of films like Saviour of the Soul 1 and 2, Ninja in the Dragon's Den and Fong Sai Yuk 1 and 2), the masterful composer Lowell Lo Koon-Ting (John Woo's The Killer and Ringo Lam's School on Fire and Prison on Fire among many others, Pedicab Driver included!), the Shaw veteran Liu Chia Liang (whom with Sammo has a furious fight with sticks), Alfred Cheung Kin-Ting (the director of dark HK noir classic On the Run from 1988), the late great Lam Ching Ying (best known for his friendly face in various HK vampire horror/kung fu/comedies) to name just a few. In fact, the cast in Pedicab Driver is one of the most interesting I've seen in any other HK production.

The film has some interesting peaceful moments most notably about the love affair between Max Mok and Fennie Yuen and one crisis they confront thanks to Lowell Lo's character. They really could have done this a completely serious piece if they had wanted as the discussions about human values and meaning of love, no matter what's your past or what you've done for living, get so serious and genuinely effective at the middle part that the film immediately gets much more noteworthy than our average kung fu spectacle actioner. Also the other characters' efforts to cure things is very touching and tells delightfully much about right human relations and friendship, and of course love. Still I think what Fennie says to Max (about the future "bad cooking") is very unnecessary and tones the potential of the whole segment and its themes down pretty effectively, unfortunately.

But then we get to the thing the film makers were interested the most in. Which is the action, the outrageous and over-the-top action. The fight scenes include traditional kung fu, some sticks, meat cleavers and the like and they're used here as hysterically as in the most mind blowing kung fu scene I've seen in any film ever, Jackie Chan's Drunken Master II (1994), they really are that great! There are wires and they're used very cleverly and people literally fly to the opposite corner of the room when they get kicked or punched. Simply amazing and again something ONLY Hong Kong cinema can deliver. Also the dangerous stunts make the viewer hold his/her breath as the film has one fast car vs. pedicab chase sequence and various dangerous looking jumps and twisting bodies flying through the air and crushing with force to the hard destination. Still the film makers seem not to "accept" the violence of the film as Sammo is, like the late Bruce Lee, willing to give himself up after the final murderous mayhem at the gangster villa, and I think this kind of morale, no matter how obvious or shallow it may be, is a good thing even in a harmless film like this, as cinema is meant to be much more than just brainless entertainment.

The film has also some very witty bits of humor that I'm not sure everyone in Hollywood or America (for example) would understand or like at all. The hilarious Star Wars gag at the beginning is definitely among these and it literally forced me to laugh when I realized what I was seeing. Also some funny scenes are created out of Sammo's passion for Ping. Still, the greatest amazement-filled laugh came during the scenes depicted in the former pharagraph as the imagery of big and tall men flying with great force over the screen to the walls or furniture is simply INSANE and so breathtaking I just cannot hide my feelings and thoughts about these Eastern film makers when I witness something like this, and this is nothing but positive and appreciating reaction, of course.

Pedicab Driver is among the most incredible Hong Kong action films that I have ever seen and easily among Sammo's greatest achievements. If the few minor flaws were not there, this could rate even brighter and higher. 8/10 sammo has to have a 10 out of 10 for this movie as it has everything. great story, great fights, great characters and great cameos.

this film sees dick wei take on billy chow and chong fat. sammo takes on lau kar leung in a casino, sammo loses the fight but what a fight it is full of high tempo action and elements of comedy thrown in.

some great and touching moments in the film, lam ching ying pops up in a cameo and gets killed off - gutted.

the end sequence will have you reaching for the rewind button, as its one of the best end fights I've seen. sammo takes on loads of guys and ends up squaring up to billy chow. What can I add that the previous comments haven't already said. This is a great film and the Light Sabre duel Star Wars tribute has to be seen to be believed!! There are moments of genius throughout this movie, if you can, SEE IT NOW! Thanks again to Rick Baker who gave me this movie many years ago! This is one excellent Sammo Hung movie. Actually, this is a great piece of Hong Kong action cinema. The story tells the story of pedicab drivers in Macao looking for love and getting mixed up w/ a vicious pimp. The performances are excellent and the characters are all likable and well-defined. The story is involving and has enough romance, drama, comedy, and suspense to keep one watching between fight scenes. Sammo Hung proves here that he's probably the best fight choreographer in the business. The action is simply amazing, esp. the fight w/ Lau Kar Leung and the finale. Billy Chow and Sammo Hung are amazing. A must see for any fan of action. This is one of the best Hong Kong (action) films around and it has a tense and exciting storyline as well as great fight scenes. This Sammo film has it all, Romance, Drama, Excitement and a great hero as well. It is the only martial arts film that got me interested in the plot rather than just waiting for the fights. Sammo fans- This is a must see (See also Eastern Condors, Shanghai Express (Yuen Biao is Ace!), Dragons Forever and Enter the Fat Dragon. One of the better kung fu movies, but not quite as flawless as I had hoped given the glowing reviews. The movie starts out well enough, with the jokes being visual enough that they translate the language barrier (which is rarer than you'd think for this era) and make the non-fight dialogue sequences passable (for a kung fu movie, this is a great compliment). Unlike other Chinese action movies, which were always period pieces or (in the wake of Jackie Chan's Police Story I) cop dramas, Pedicab Driver gives us a look at contemporary rural China. Unfortunately, in the latter 1/3 of the movie it takes a nosedive into dark melodrama tragedy which I thought was unnecessary.

The action is overall good, featuring a duel between Sammo and 1/2 of the Shaw Brothers' only 2 stars, Kar-Leung Lau and then a fight at the end with that taller guy who always plays Jet Li's bad guy. There's only 20 minutes of combat here, which is standard, but what annoys me is the obvious speeding up of the camera frames. I get that they have to film half speed to avoid hurting each other, but there are smooth edits and then there's this. It really takes away from the fights when it's this obvious the footage was messed with.

That said, if you like kung fu movies, my opinion here won't dissuade you, and if you don't, you just wasted 2 minutes of your life reading this. French film directors continue to amaze with their extraordinary ability to simulate the sights and sounds of ordinary, everyday suburban life. This was readily apparent with the release early in 2002 of L'Emploi du temps ( Time Out ) , a brilliant character study of of a white collar worker's descent into melancholy after having been fired from his job. As is the penchant of French filmmakers , many scenes were shot on real streets and in public places, giving a cinema verite feel to the story , yet L'Emploi du temps also possessed an elegant look thanks to excellent camera work and some stunning location footage ( most notably a Swiss mountain retreat ). Running fairly on the heels of that masterful movie comes another impressive French production, Jacques Audiard's gritty crime caper, Sur mes levres ( Read My Lips ). Actually, to tag this film a crime caper does it a disservice because it is so much more than that. As with the earlier French release, it is an incisive character study of marginal people using their wits to get ahead in a society that has turned its back on them. In a Paris construction firm Carla, a shy, diminutive young woman sits at her desk, sequestered to an area of the office that is a major pathway to the xerox machines and restrooms.

Obnoxious coworkers use the front of Carla's desk to chat and drop off their half-finished Styrofoam cups of coffee. Partially deaf, Carla turns her hearing aids on and off at will if noise becomes bothersome, be it the drone of the paper copiers or the shrill crying of a friend's baby. When her boss calls her into the office to suggest that she hire a secretarial assistant to help her with the work load, Carla fears she may lose her job. At the employment office Carla lists the specifications she wants for her assistant (preferably male) as if she were at a Personals Agency. He should be 25 years old and clean -cut , with extensive computer and filing skills. When the agency sends over an unkempt , menacing looking young man, Carla is both shocked and intrigued. They leave the office and have lunch at a local eatery, where Carla interviews her prospective assistant. When she finds out that he has just gotten out of prison , Carla initially wants nothing to do with Paul, but has a change of heart and hires him on. Although she is basically kind toward her helper, Carla now finds herself in a position of authority and possessing a newfound sense of power. Paul learns quickly and becomes an able worker. Carla helps Paul find a temporary place to live and even covers for him when his parole officer shows up one day at the office wondering why Paul missed his appointment. During one of their lunch breaks Carla informs Paul of her hearing deficiency and reveals her ability to read lips. Later, when an avaricious coworker blatantly takes over a project Carla has been working on, a furious Carla asks Paul's help in seeking revenge on the man. From here on in Sur mes levres becomes an increasingly intense crime drama escalating into some of the most violently graphic scenes that have been shown on the screen in recent years. The screenplay borrows elements from Hitchcock, most notably REAR WINDOW, where Carla's lip-reading talent comes into full play using a pair of binoculars. There is a teasing, on-again, off-again sexual attraction between the two protagonists that culminates in a rather strange homage to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it works because of the considerable sexual heat that builds slowly between the two stars. That being said, what one carries away from this movie isn't so much the similarities to classic Hitchcock thrillers, although those elements are definitely there, but the pervasive view a of a modern day city (in this case Paris) where life runs the gamut from mundane workdays to a boozy, garish nightlife where sex, drugs and laundered money infiltrate the lives of several characters. Unlike Hollywood productions, this is a psychological suspense yarn where the people look like the everyday man and woman on the street, where a punch in the face or groin sounds like a sickening thud and where the office is a place to be feared. It's Hitchcock with the gloves off. This was one of the DVD's I recently bought in a set of six called "Frenchfilm" to brush up our French before our planned holiday in beautiful Provence this year. So far, as well as improving our French we have considerably enhanced our appreciation of French cinema.

What a breath of fresh air to the stale, predictable, unimaginative, crash bang wallop drivel being churned out by Hollywood. What a good example for screenplay writers, actors, directors and cinematographers to follow. It was so stimulating also to see two identifiable characters in the lead roles without them having to be glossy magazine cover figures.

The other thing I liked about this film was the slow character and plot build up which kept you guessing as to how it was all going to end. Is there any real good in this selfish thug who continually treats his seemingly naïve benefactor with the type of contempt that an ex-con would display? Will our sexually frustrated poor little half deaf heroine prove herself to the answer to her dreams and the situation that fate has bestowed upon her? The viewer is intrigued by these questions and the actors unravel the answers slowly and convincingly as they face events that challenge and shape their feeling towards each other.

Once you have seen this film, like me you may want to see it again. I still have to work out the director's psychological motive for the sub plot in the role of the parole officer and some of the subtle nuances of camera work are worth a second look. The plot does ask for a little imagination when our hero is given a chance to assist our misused and overworked heroine in the office. You must also be broad minded to believe in her brilliant lip reading and how some of the action falls into place. But if you go along for the thrilling ride with this example of French cinema at its best you will come out more than satisfied. Four stars out of five for me. I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.

"Sur mes lèvres" or "Read my Lips" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...

Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).

Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.

All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try. If you're a fan of film noir and think they don't make 'em like they used to, here is your answer -they just don't make 'em in Hollywood anymore. We must turn to the French to remember how satisfying, subtle and terrific a well-made film from that genre can be. Read My Lips is a wonderfully nasty little gift to the faithful from director Jacques Audiard, featuring sharp storytelling and fine performances from Emmanuelle Devos and Vincent Cassel.

The basic plot could have been written in the 40's: dumb but appealing ex-con and a smart but dowdy femme fatale (who turns out to be ruthlessly ambitious) discover each other while living lives of bleak desperation and longing, manipulate each other to meet their own ends, develop complex love/hate relationship, cook up criminal scheme involving heist, double crosses, close calls and lots of money. All action takes place in depressing, seedy and/or poorly lit locations.

Audiard has fashioned some modern twists, of course. The femme fatale is an underappreciated office worker who happens to be nearly deaf and uses her lip reading ability to take revenge on those who marginalize her. And where you might expect steamy love scenes you discover that both characters are sexually awkward and immature. Add in a bit of modern technology and music and it seems like a contemporary film, but make no mistake - this is old school film noir. It's as good as any film from the genre and easily one of the best films I've seen all year. I settled back to watch "Read My Lips," a plate of Freedom Fries before me. The food was quickly forgotten as I became engrossed by director and co-writer Jacques Audiard's original and superb thriller.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a secretary at a firm that develops major building projects. She actually has some significant responsibilities that don't often fall to secretaries and she's capable and ambitious. And thwarted by a male hierarchy that will exploit but not reward her.

Work piling up faster than she can handle it, Carla is told to hire a secretary. Enter ex-con and general layabout Paul (Vincent Cassel). He lies about his skills and in fact has none that any legitimate enterprise might require. After an initial serious misunderstanding by Paul as to Carla's interest in him, the two become allies. A quirky friendship starts. In a stunt that would have made a real Carla a major contender on "The Apprentice," she trumps her egotistic male adversary at work with Paul's connivance. Exit the rival.

Carla is virtually deaf without her hearing aid. With it she hears almost normally. She turns the hearing aid off to isolate herself from unpleasant sounds and annoying people. She's also very lonely. A heroic makeup effort was made to have her appear plain but she's truly beautiful. She hasn't a boyfriend. She babysits so a friend can have a liaison (it IS a French movie) Worse and humiliatingly, she accedes to a girlfriend's plea that she hang out somewhere while that married friend has it off with her paramour in Carla's bed. Not nice.

As Carla and Paul get to know each other better, the barely repressed larcenous side of the not so former felon emerges. There's a side story, by the way, of Paul's relationship with his parole officer which neatly complements the main plot and has its own big surprise ending.

"Read My Lips?" Ingenious Paul recognizes that Carla's ability to read lips, even from a considerable distance, is more than the amusing parlor trick it first seems to be.

From there a caper develops. Enough said.

Paul and Carla are a true criminal oddball couple. She wants love but will also accept money. He wants her, sort of, but business must come before possible erotic satiation. Together Cassel and Devos are strong actors carrying an unusual crime tale to its end very convincingly.

Rent it or buy it but if you enjoy a good crime story you'll go for "Read My Lips." And you may well want to watch it several times: I do.

9/10 I picked this one up on a whim from the library, and was very pleasantly surprised. Lots of tight, expressionistic camera work, an equally tight script, and two superb actors all meld together to make one very fine piece of film. Not for the reptilian multiplex brain, but rather the true aficionado of cinema. If Hollywood ever does get its grimy hands on it, I'm sure it will ruin it. A choice treat all the way around. Other posters here have more than amply sung its praises, so I needn't bother duplicating their paeans; just take their advice, and mine, and don't miss this gem. Call it what you like; I call it two hours of entertainment well-spent. Read my lips: don't miss it. "Read My Lips" tells of a strange symbiosis which develops between a plain, socially maladroit female office worker (Devos) and her workplace trainee, a crude excon (Casel). As the film fleshes out this unlikely duo down to their ids they become embroiled in a chilling merging of the minds, each using the other for their own selfish reasons with an extraordinary outcome. Good stuff for anyone into character-driven films with strong psychodramatic undercurrents. In French with easy to read subtitles and good translation. (B+) Probably the best film of the year for me. This small French film centers on put upon office secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) who spends her days doing other men's jobs, uncredited, and being the source of their scorn and lunchtime conversation which is all too clear to her as, being partially deaf, she reads lips. A change is set in motion when she hires newly paroled con Paul (Vincent Cassel) as her assistant. The relationship which develops between them is the centre of the film. Mutual dependency, for vastly different reasons, bonds them. Carla becomes attracted to Paul and to the fact that he makes her feel attractive for,what seems like,the first time. Paul does nothing to dispel her feelings because he needs her help. He owes money to a local gangster and forms a plan to steal from him which will involve Carlas' skill of reading lips. I think the main thing that pushes the film way above an average suspense/drama is the amazing chemistry between the two stars. Throughout the whole film, no matter what other characters are on screen, you can feel this amazing bond between Carla and Paul. I cannot remember when I have witnessed such sexual chemistry between two actors. Emmanuell Devos gives a brilliant performance (she won the French Cesar for best actress). You never feel like you are watching a piece of acting, this really is Carla. The chameleon like Vincent Cassel is also wonderful. He makes a somewhat unappealing character both appealing and attractive. I loved this film because of these two people, and both times when I had finished watching it I wanted to go back into the cinema and become involved with them all over again. After erasing my thoughts nearly twenty-seven times, there is a feeling that I can now conquer this review for the complex French drama, "Read My Lips". Having written over five hundred reviews, I have never found myself at such a loss of words as I did with director Jacques Audiard's subtle, yet inspirational love story. Thought was poured over what was loved and hated about this film, and while the "loves" overpowered, it was the elements that were hated that sparked further debate within my mind. "Read My Lips" is a drama. To be more precise, is a character driven drama which fuses social uncertainty with crime lords with the doldrums of everyday office work. Here is where this review begins to crumble, it is all of these items – but it is more…much, much more. As a viewer, you are pulled in instantly by Emmanuelle Devos' portrayal of this fragile woman named Carla, whose strength is lost to the males in her office as well as her hearing difficulty. Audiard introduces us harshly to her world by removing sound from the screen whenever she is not wearing her aid, causing an immediate unrest, not only from the characters within the film, but to those watching. Without sound, the world is left open to any possibility, and that is frightening.

As we watch this difficult and unsettling woman setting into her life, we are then uprooted and given the opportunity to meet Paul (played exquisitely by Vincent Cassel), a slicked-back hair, mustache-wearing lanky man who was just released from prison, homeless, jobless, and forced by his parole officer to get a job. This is how Carla and Paul meet. There is that moment of instant, unsettling attraction. The one where we think she loves him, but he is dark (and here is where it gets even more fun) – and where we think he loves her, but she is dark. The constant role reversal creates the tone of the unknown. Who, as viewers, are we to feel the most sympathy for? Paul sleeps in the office, Carla helps him; Carla looses a contract to a rival co-worker, Paul helps her; Carla's ability to read people's lips comes in handy for a make-shift idea for Paul. The continual jumps back and forth keep you on your chair, waiting for the possibility of some light to shine through this dark cave. It never does. Audiard cannot just allow this story to take place, he continually introduces us to more characters; one just as seedy as the next. Even our rock, our solid foundation with the parole officer is in question when his wife goes missing – a subplot to this film that at first angered me, but upon further debate was a staple finale for this film. Yet none of this could have happened if it weren't for our characters. Devos' solemn and homely look is breathtaking, as she changes her image for Paul; the truth of her beauty is discovered. Paul, the wildcard in the film, continues to seemingly use and abuse the friendship for his final endgame. Then, just as we assume one, Carla takes on one last shape.

Audiard knows he has amazing actors capturing his characters. Cassel and Devos could just play cards the entire time and I would still be sitting at the end of my chair. The story, probably the weakest part of this film, is at first random. The interwoven stories seem unconnected at first, but Audiard lets them connect bit by bit. Again, the entire parole officer segment was tangent, but that final scene just solidified the ends to the means. Not attempting to sound vague, but this complex (yet utterly simple) story is difficult to explain. There is plenty happening, but it is up to you to connect the pieces. A favorite scene is when Carla is attempting to discover where some money is being held. That use of sound and scene was brilliant. It was tense, it was dramatic, and it was like watching a who-dun-it mystery unfold before your eyes.

Overall, I initially though this was a mediocre French film that I could easily forget about when it was over – I was proved wrong. "Read My Lips" opens the floor for discussion, not just with the characters, but the situations. One will find themselves rooting for Carla in one scene, and Paul in the next. When a discovery is made in Paul's apartment by Carla, I found myself deeply angry. Audiard brought true emotion to the screen with his characters and development, and what he was lacking in plot – the actors were able to carry. I can easily suggest this film to anyone, but be prepared; this isn't a one time viewing film. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Grade: **** out of ***** Interesting characters, lots of tension. As close to black and white without being black and white. I was turned off by how casually the supposedly sympathetic mainstream character, a quiet, near deaf secretary, was able to turn to crime to ruin colleagues, rough up people in her way and finally participate in a heist, and set up someone to be bumped off as a decoy to her own get-away. I'm a little put off by the trend for otherwise quality movies to portray criminals in a sympathetic way without addressing the injury they've done to others other than to portray their immediate opponents as jerks. In this film we never know who's money it really is they abscond with, or what happens to the innocent wife who the sympathetic deaf-secretary uses to set up the of the sleazy bar owner to take the fall for the missing loot. Too bad, the film could have been great. Jean-Jacques' career began with his essay answer to a prize question: civilization makes us evil. This intelligent and exciting movie supports that argument. In that sense it repeats a theme common to French films: society is real, identity is a construction, freedom is criminal. Here the idea is treated literally. Both main characters find themselves, and each other, only when breaking rules. This discovery may well hold true in France; at any rate, it's quite romantic. A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.

This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.

In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10 Well, what can I say having just watched this fantastic film, when my nerves are still jangling! Jacques Audiard the director must be making quite a name for himself in France, and rightly so. Vince Cassel is no Tom Cruise and Emmanuelle Devos is no Penelope Cruz either, but these two are fantastic actors, and this is a taut and compelling thriller which starts off slowly with some clever character building and then starts to put tension on tension to a wonderful climax. Others have written about the plot, so I will not say more than everyone in this film plays their role to perfection, the director, the actors, right down to the cameraman, and everything seems so real, no stupid gun play, the fighting when it happens is so credible, the expressions, the emotions, it is almost as you are there as a spectator. Do yourself a favour, get the DVD, a bottle of wine, turn the lights low, take the phone off the hook and immerse yourself in this Hitchcockian thriller :) This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making. I watched this film not expecting much and not knowing anything much about it. I loved it. A very good, tight plot, an intriguing hook in the form of the ugly, fat, deaf girl and the ex-con, and a pace that kept things flowing without being hurried.

A much, much better film than the same director's De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, which was boring and unbelievable.

The only thing that didn't quite work was that the supposedly ugly, fat girl was neither ugly nor fat: solid, certainly, and far from conventionally beautiful, but with so much character in her face that she took over the screen whenever she was on it. Superb. I wish she was in more films, and better ones than she generally is. I've seen a bit of Gilles' Wife and a bit of The Moustache, and they both looked like rubbish, and I've seen all of De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, and that certainly is rubbish. She seems to have a few coming up, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.

Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.

An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price.

Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.

The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.

Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.

It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it. Sur mes lèvres or READ MY LIPS is fine little thriller that also examines the lives of 'outsiders', people who live in the periphery of our vision who struggle with the need to 'fit in'. Director Jacques Audiard with and co-writer Tonino Benacquista have created a tense, tight, completely entertaining little thriller that makes some significant statements about out of the norm individuals and their plights.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a plain Jane, mostly deaf, thirty something unnoticed secretary for a company whose life is one of social and sexual isolation and whose view of the future is rather bleak. Enter Paul (Vincent Cassel) a recent released ex-con parolee who responds to an ad to be Carla's assistant. There is a mutual physical repulsion at first meeting: Carla had hoped for a well-groomed, genteel man who might fulfill her fantasies and Paul is a coarse, unkempt sleazy guy who is not impressed with being a clerk. Their concepts change rather quickly when Paul salvages Carla's job by filling her request to steal a letter that would cost her her job and Paul discovers Carla's lip reading ability which he sees as a way to spy on the criminals from his past who threaten his life for money owed. So this odd couple of a team join forces and together enter a dangerous suspense filled ploy to gain Paul's safety and freedom. The relationship is full of twists and edge of the seat suspense with each of these unlikely characters fulfilling roles in their lives that fill the chinks in their walls of isolation in surprising ways.

Devos and Cassel deliver bravura performances and the remainder of the cast is uniformly strong. Once again Alexandre Desplat has produced a musical score that enhances the tension and cinematographer Mathieu Vadepied finds all the right lighting and angles to suggest the worlds of isolation of the characters as well as the Hitchcockian sense of suspense. Director Audiard wisely manipulates a factor that is at once sensitive and transformative for the story: he shows us the difference between 'hearing' the world with and without hearing aids and in doing so makes some powerful social comments. This is a fine film that remains in the ranks of the best of the French film noir genre. Recommended. Grady Harp "Read My Lips (Sur mes lèvres)" (which probably has different idiomatic resonance in its French title) is a nifty, twisty contemporary tale of office politics that unexpectedly becomes a crime caper as the unusually matched characters slide up and down an ethical and sensual slippery slope.

The two leads are magnetic, Emmanuelle Devos (who I've never seen before despite her lengthy resume in French movies) and an even more disheveled than usual Vincent Cassel (who has brought a sexy and/or threatening look and voice to some US movies).

The first half of the movie is on her turf in a competitive real estate office and he's the neophyte. The second half is on his turf as an ex-con and her wrenching adaptation to that milieu.

Writer/director Jacques Audiard very cleverly uses the woman's isolating hearing disability as an entrée for us into her perceptions, turning the sound up and down for us to hear as she does (so it's even more annoying than usual when audience members talk), using visuals as sensory reactors as well.

None of the characters act as anticipated (she is not like that pliable victim from "In the Company of Men," not in individual interactions, not in scenes, and not in the overall arc of the unpredictable story line (well, until the last shot, but heck the audience was waiting for that fulfillment) as we move from a hectic modern office, to a hectic disco to romantic and criminal stake-outs.

There is a side story that's thematically redundant and unnecessary, but that just gives us a few minutes to catch our breaths.

This is one of my favorites of the year!

(originally written 7/28/2002) Deaf secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is bullied by her mean spirited male colleagues.

When they suggest she needs an assistant it seems like the final insult, but, when the first applicant is ex-con Paul (Vincent Cassel) she seizes the chance to change her life.

Carla covers his mistakes and he, anxious to go straight, reluctantly helps her to take revenge on her colleagues.

When Paul asks Carla to return the favor, she finds herself drawn into the criminal underworld, ruled by ruthless lone shark Marchand (Olivier Gourmet).

Recognizing her ability to lip-read as a weapon no one will have bargained for, the two set out to see justice done.

French filmmaker Jacques Audiard's third feature "Read My Lips" is a genre-defying piece, switching from dark social comedy to visceral full-throttle thriller. What is very French about this film is the time taken to establish the two leading characters. This might require a bit of patience, especially since neither is "attractive" in the typical Hollywood definition of such. However, once the "heist" kicks in, the film rushes forward quickly, perhaps at times too quickly. But it is a real rollercoaster ride and if you don't look too closely it is all quite believable. The kind of film that you know Hollywood would have botched up. As in Amelie, recent French films seem to be taking a stereotypical male-female relationship slant, centered on a female finding her one true love. In this case, desperation leads to a convict, which leads to her evolution into a mob prototype. Clever and surprising story in many ways, except that the female is there to support the male.

For those of us that don't speak French, the subtitles are a little quick, but not unreasonable.

The soundtrack, as seems to be increasingly the case with European films, is great and in perfect sync with the film's variations. Nothing seems forced. Visually, it reminds me of various urban horror movies. There's a Wes Craven in Chicago feel to it. Put yourself into Carla's shoes. She is an overworked, unappreciated administrative drudge who is invisible. You know her: she's trained three of her last three bosses, knows where all of the bodies are buried and might even look back at you in the mirror when you brush your teeth. Always having time for another thankless task and does it better than most despite a serious disability, she has the desk on the way to the restroom that becomes the repository of half-finished cups of coffee begging to be spilled. What? You don't want to hear it? Well, she can't and neither can you until your hearing aid is in place. Prepare to experience life from the perspective of the hearing impaired.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) needs a change in her life. Work is leading nowhere; friends are relying on her to meet their domestic needs and the only way out starts with a collapse that goes virtually unnoticed. She won't take a vacation - a contract is going critical - so the only alternative is to hire an assistant. Carla submits requirements that convey her real needs: a 'well-groomed' man. This brings an applicant for approval that reminds us that we should be careful with our wishes.

Paul (Vincent Cassell) does everything wrong from the start of his job interview and his getting hired clearly demonstrates Carla's interest in his non-job-related qualities. She sees potential in this former thief and as the story unfolds, their relationship grows in a very unusual pattern of co-dependence.

Paul has a difficult transition returning to the world outside of prison walls and finds himself in another sort of prison: one of the office variety and another of indentured servitude to pay off an old debt. His skills as a thief help Carla win a political battle in the office. But Paul sees a grander opportunity with Carla's skill in lip reading and draws her even further into a world of intrigue.

This is a brutal film noir unrated and probably suitable for older teens. Carla grows more powerful, professionally as well as personally, as the story progresses and her disability gives her clear advantages over the rest of us. She grows as a woman discovering her sensual side while she uses her resources to overcome the obstacles of competing in a man's world.

The two main characters are meant for each other, in a strange way. Without Paul, Carla will remain in her role of a doormat. She has our sympathy, hopes and best wishes even if she doesn't make the best decisions along the way.

You will hear the world through Carla's ears, from awkward adjustments of your hearing aid, muffled sounds, all but inaudible without it to relatively distinct voices when you can see who's talking. With one major sense disabled, we see Carla's heightened intuitive power to compensate. And we can all use that sense to hear not only what people say, but also what they really mean. Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is ‘quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in ‘very deaf‘ when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.

What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters – not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.

The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.

Finally, it is a film full of great ‘moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it – but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort. Surely one the French films of the decade so far, a taut, atmospheric thriller making full use of the lead characters hearing impediment to use sound in a way rarely explored in cinema. Emannuelle Devos gives a truly stunning , multi-faceted performance, at times devious and manipulative, at other times open and vulnerable. Another reason why those who appreciate quality cinema should keep their eyes open for offerings from France. I was totally engrossed in this film from the first to last minute. It is brilliantly shot, with lots of interesting and original camera angles and techniques employed. The plot surrounds a deaf woman who is picked on by friends and colleagues alike. She hires an assistant at work, with her true intention being to find love. He's an ex-con and she takes advantage of him to wreak revenge on those who have hurt her. In return she must help him with a heist that requires her lip reading skills to pull it off. The film transcends into a dark film noir, with a couple of truly excellent scenes, and an even better finale. The real beauty in this film comes from the way the director takes advantage of the leading character's disability. The use of sound keeps the tension consistent, and the dramatic shifts from silence to noise keeps the blood pumping, that's for sure. Throw in a little black comedy and undertones of erotic sexual repression you've got the makings of a great film. It's the sort of film Hollywood really wants to make, but just can't. Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.

The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of "point of hear" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.

The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002. What can you say when you see a good French movie which tries to draw a suspenseful story in line with the social background of the characters? The major point is we believe in those characters and once they've met each other we want them to stay together. It's simple and really efficient. The background story is less important. Why does the screenplay go on the side of a half-developed thriller? It helps not to get stuck in those social demonstrations most French film-jerkers like to make. Not too much ambition, right: Sur mes lèvres is only an entertaining French film with good characterization.

For all the clever noir points in the screenplay the end is by far too easy. It goes quite as easy as in Rear Window (an obvious reference and definitely not a noir film) but with a less compelling context. Where I am amazed it's to see that the character of the probation officer has not been erased. He brings very little to the story; when he appears alone we wonder if we've not missed a part before. Jacques Audiard is not a new-comer yet. Strange and weird. Audiard made here a very interesting movie. It begins with the description of an almost-deaf young woman, in its working universe as a secretary; she is ignored, frustrated, rejected... Hiring an intern as an assistant appears to be a way for her to find someone in her life : but the guy is just coming out from jail. Their both being rejected by the society reunites them progressively. Characters'description is profund, goes into details...both start to help each other; for she can read on lips, which reveals itself to be very useful for him...She will progressively evolve, far from what she was at first.

It's beautifully filmed; the whole is very convincing, even if it turns into a film noir at the end. Gesture is in particular beautifully observed in Audiard's filming. Emmanuelle Devos should be nominated at the Best Actess Cesar Awards for her magistral play. Action towards the end of the film prevents it from being a simple "etude de moeurs". It's actually surprisingly entertaining : 8/10. It's so rare to find a film that provides a plot that can't be figured out at every turn. Surprises throughout delighting throughout.

A couple of things I could not quite understand though is that here you have the lead female character who plays "the good girl, hard worker" and yet in the end she ends up being an anti-social risk taker. That was not enough to make me not like it though but it did give me pause.

The other thing I could not get was the old man who was being hauled away by the police at the very end of the film. I never did get who he was or what his issues were. If anyone has any ideas, I'd like to hear what they might be.

The film was exciting and fun throughout and always left me guessing. Very much worth seeing. This film has a rotting core of flexible morality, and yet a quirky sense of justice. So many of the regular Joes among us would love to "stick it to the MAN". The "MAN" in this case is represented by several different characters. Mr. Keller, who Carla reports to at her office. Later, Paul owes 70 large to Mr. Marchand the club owner. And then there is Paul's Parole Officer. There seems to be so much question about this last character's side story. Reviewers point it out as a weakness in an otherwise well crafted subterranean game of ping-pong between our two protagonists, escalating tit-for-tat until their lives change dramatically. They are beholden to each agent of the "MAN". One or both could be fired, killed, or imprisoned if they don't do as they are told.

The film has a sense of relief at the end. Carla finally gets laid. Her boss is forced out for being a jerk. Mr. Club Owner is a pulpy mess in his own bathroom. They get the $money$. And... they need not worry about reporting in to the Parole Officer, because HIS moral weakness leads him to stash his wandering wife in the basement (or whatever the police found to arrest him). It is a critical subconscious trigger to the lock tumbler that wound us up so tight. Never mind that someone else may get Paul's file later to supervise his release; for the moment they are free! They might even get away with it!

Woohoo...

They STUCK IT TO THE MAN! Greetings again from the darkness. Much anticipated, twisted comedy from writer/director Richard Shepard is a coming out party for Pierce Brosnan the actor. That Bond guy is gone. This new guy is something else entirely!! Have read that Shepard thought Brosnan was too much the pretty boy for this plum role, but Brosnan proves to be the perfect Julian Noble, "Facilitator" ... and is anything but pretty! Do not underestimate how twisted the humor is in this one. If you go, expect punch lines and sight gags regarding all types of sex, killing, religion, sports, business and anything else you might deem politically incorrect. Brosnan takes an excellent script to another level with his marvelous facial gestures and physical movements. Even sitting on a hotel bed (with or without a sombrero) is a joy to behold.

Greg Kinnear is the straight guy to Brosnan's comic and has plenty of depth and comic timing to make this partnership click. Hope Davis has a small, but subtly effective supporting role as Kinnear's wife (what's with her name "Bean"?) who happens to get a little excited when she has a facilitator in her living room.

The visuals and settings are perfect - including a bullfight, racetrack and Denver suburb. And how often do we get The Killers and Xavier Cugat on the same soundtrack? This one is definitely not for everyone, but if your sense of humor is a bit off center and you enjoy risky film-making, it could be for you. The delivery of some very humorous rude lines by Pierce Brosnan is alone worth the price of admission. He plays a kind of "James Bond's psycho twin brother", separated at birth, no doubt. As an intense hit-man, his character is very sexual but even better, very funny. Add the kind-hearted, uber-likable American "guy next door', Greg Kinnear, to set up contrast. The myriad locations, vivid colors, and quick-witted humor provide great entertainment. Hope Davis is well cast as the "gem of a wife". But the focus of the film is on the two fellows, a new "Odd Couple", and that's the part that works very well. Have a great (probably R-rated) laugh, and look for the places where the story goes a little deeper. This film is fantastic. Finally well-written characters you can love for all their good and bad. Pierce Brosnan is flat-out hysterical in this self-effacing role. I think its the best thing he's ever done. He's done other roles that exhibited shades of being capable of this kind of fully-fledged work, but this role finally gave him the room to run with it. I almost died when he walked across the hotel lobby in his underwear and boots. And Greg Kinnear and Hope Davis are a couple to aspire too, as well as actors to aspire too. Kinnear is so goofy likable that his turn in the end is truly gratifying. You give good actors good work to play with and they give us something more back. "Margaritas and Cock..."

This tremendously entertaining film grabs you from the opening scene and never stops delivering laughs, surprises and unexpectedly touching moments. I had more fun watching "The Matador" than almost any other film from 2005. It is a wacky film with an unforgettable character, played to perfection by Pierce Brosnan.

Julian Noble (Brosnan) is a facilitator (hit-man) who specializes in high-end corporate gigs (assassinating rich dudes). He is also experiencing something akin to a mid-life crisis. After coming to realization that he has no real friends, no permanent home and no planned future, he stumbles into a Mexican hotel bar one night and runs into Danny Wright (Kinnear).

Danny is a down-on-his-luck family man who is on the verge of losing the big business deal that just might turn things around for him. He loves his wife dearly, especially so since they lost their young son a few years earlier.

The two men are chalk and cheese, hardly any common ground other than that they are in the same desolate bar one night. And somehow a conversation is struck that sets in to motion a chain of events that will change their lives forever.

The friendship they form reminded me a lot of Laurel and Hardy. One is the straight man and the other is the persistent fool who gets them into trouble. The interplay is superbly timed and finely tuned, due in no small part to the wonderful performances from Brosnan and Kinnear.

But make no mistake... This is Brosnan's film. He imprints one of the most memorable and despicably likable characters of the decade. He could shoot your mother and apologize immediately thereafter and you'd probably forgive him. Brosnan may be cinema's ultimate charmer, but this is his most endearing and complete performance to date. I wouldn't be averse to seeing an Oscar nod for this role.

Consider one scene where he overtly ogles a high-school girl with the impurest of thoughts and utters the line, "All blushy blushy... No sucky fucky". He does it with the familiar Bond smirk and manages to get away with it. He manages to tell a young boy, "Tell your mother to lose 30lbs and 20 years. Then get back to me" without coming across as unlikable. In fact, it makes us like him even more.

And yet the film manages to surprise us with some truly touching scenes, most of which come toward the end when the film takes some unpredictable turns. However, when Julian thumbs through his little black book to find someone to call on his birthday, or when Danny and his wife (Davis) console each other in their bedroom one night, the film reaches an unexpected depth of emotion.

"The Matador" is stylish and energetic. It is constantly entertaining. And it contains a career-defining role for Brosnan as the lonely hit-man looking for normalcy, friendship and a means to do at least one good thing in his life. This is an overlooked gem in 2005 and you should make an effort to see this film as soon as possible.

TC Candler of IndependentCritics.com "The Matador" stars Pierce Brosnan as a burned out assassin. He's James Bond gone to seed, in too-tight, garish clothes, gold chains, and an ugly haircut. Our struggling assassin, Julian Noble, is in Mexico, trying to regain his nerve. Staying at the same hotel is a likable, down-on-his luck businessman Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear), also trying to regain his equilibrium. Danny is desperate to close a deal and return to his wife in Denver (Hope Davis) with good news.

Noble and Wright unexpectedly become friends. Wright convinces Noble to reveal certain techniques, which he demonstrates at a bullfight. Noble is eventually targeted by his employers and shows up in Denver.

Writer and director Richard Shepard did the Q&A after this delightful movie at the Austin Film Festival. Shepard was also down on his luck. After suffering the loss of his agent and rejection of recent scripts, he decided to write a story no one would buy and create a character no one would want to play. Then Pierce Brosnan called. Brosnan regains his equilibrium in this movie. (There is life after Bond!) He has a wonderful flair for self-deprecating comedy. Don't miss it.

Stay for the closing credits to read what the filmmakers say about bullfighting. I look forward to more of Richard Shepard's projects. THE MATADOR is hit-man movie lite....if you can say that about a hit-man movie. The violence is never really shown but often introduced. At first I was scared I was in for another retread of mid-90s gangster-hit-man-hipster-dark comedy BUT was happily surprised when I realized this is just a sweet and humorous story about friendship. Nothing terribly exciting happens in this film but every bit of it is kept me grinning. The three leads have the best chemistry the big screen has offered in recent years and it looks like they had a great time making this film together. The writing is sharp though at times it felt as if the script had been adapted from a stage play because of the one set dialog scenes. This is a good film that I probably won't remember for too long but at the time it was a complete joy. Good film. Pierce Brosnan has sipped his last Martini and returns, in an outrageous self-parody, as the aging foul-mouthed boozy assassin Julian Noble, who has a particular fondness for teenage girls, bullfights and tacky clothes. During a job in Mexico City he meets Danny (Greg Kinnear), a straight-faced Denver suburban business-man, who's in town to make his deal of-a-life-time, in a hotel bar. Despite their completely different personalities and Julian's crude and insensible remarks, they become friends.

Largely carried by the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, director Richard Shepard revealed that he didn't write the film with Pierce Brosnan in mind , but I can hardly imagine this without him. He proves to have a real talent for comedy and can be more than just James Bond or cold-war spies. The scene in which the two meet at a glossy hotel bar (stunning sets and beautifully photographed) really is a bravura piece of acting skills. The scene lasts almost fifteen minutes, and although it was probably carefully scripted, the two actors are largely improvising, but they succeed wonderfully! It almost feels like a new standard in screen acting. Think of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in MEAN STEETS improvising and add one of the most subtle underpinnings of many genre clichés and the actors' own typecasting (Brosnan's James Bond in particular), and you got one of the most delightful pairings in recent Hollywood.

Sadly, the story wears thin after a while. After an hour, the film just runs out of steam. Nevertheless, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, I did enjoy this very much. It just feels very fresh and original, with some imaginative use of sets and lighting, and some hints to Seijun Suzuki and Jean-Pierre Melville. The other characters aren't given much to do, but this film does offer something new, in that respect it almost effortlessly succeeds in blending all conventional genres into quite an entertaining spoof. Very amusing.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10 THE MATADOR (2005) *** _ Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Philip Baker Hall, Dylan Baker. Brosnan gives one of his best non-Bondian roles as a middle-aged assassin facing a mid-life crisis while on assignment in Mexico where he befriends a square yet likable American businessman (Kinnear at his most affable) and discovers there is more to life than death. Newbie filmmaker Richard Shepard makes a solid big screen debut with a pointedly wicked black comedy with a sharp eye for visual detail and nuanced dialogue and character development that makes him a talent to watch in this breath-of-fresh-air into the 'buddy comedy' formula skewering what is anticipated of his leads and allowing Brosnan to get his ya-yas out with devilish glee. A sleeper gem indie hit. The Matador is a strange film. Its main character Julian, played with an unusual mix of charm and unbalance by Brosnan, is not your typical hero. Julian is a hit man who is experiencing a late mid-life crises. Having spent 22 years in the profession of cold blooded murder he now finds himself stressed out and desperately lonely. And so, after a chance meeting at a bar with Danny (Greg Kinnear), he latches on and begins a halting, awkward friendship. Danny, the quintessential nice guy, is dealing with some stuff in his own life and, truth be told, could use a friend as well. The two make an unexpected connection, and Danny sticks around to hear Julian's story, even after learning the "unsavory" truth about Julian's work.

Matador approaches a subject not completely unheard of in cinema, the anti-hero assassin (films like 'Assassins' and 'Grosse Pointe Blank' come to mind). But Matador differs in several key ways. First of all, the killing and gore is implied but never really shown in any detail, meaning that if you are an action movie buff looking for an adrenaline rush this movie will probably disappoint you. And second, unlike most anti-hero films, Matador makes no attempt to show remorse and redemption from its main character. Julian's job is simply presented as an 'it is what it is' kind of thing. This is unusual, given that 99.99% of us would consider killing for money horrific. And yet this unorthodox approach is perhaps what makes the film feel authentic. Although we don't like to admit it, almost anything could become mundane after we did it long enough, maybe even murder. Did Julian's victims deserve to die? Who is paying to have people killed? Who knows. The movie never deals with these questions. The focus is on Julian and his stumbling shuffle into a genuine friendship. If you read about someone like Julian in the paper you would have a passing thought that people like him should be ripped out of society like a cancer, but forced to watch his life you are drawn in by his intense humanity. Sympathy for the devil, I guess.

Brosnan's take on Julian is well done and deeply unsettling. He doesn't completely divorce himself from his James Bond good looks and smooth charm, but rather just adds disturbing quirks into the mix. Weird or crude remarks in the middle polite conversations and sudden shifts from suave charm to childish tantrums and sad desperate pleas for acceptance. It keeps you guessing about his grasp on his sanity and how it will affect those around him. It's a bit like listening to a piano player that occasionally and unexpectedly hits a wrong note while he plays, but it works. The films only other major role, that of Danny, is not nearly as meaty. Kinnear turns in a solid if unspectacular performance as a regular Joe with a regular Joe life and problems.

The film doesn't really have any huge shocks or M Night Shyamalan twists, but I wasn't able to guess the ending and it felt satisfying. It doesn't have any deep philosophical or spiritual insights and yet it felt very human. And it didn't have any heart pounding car chases or gun battles and yet I thought the pacing was well done and I was never bored. Maybe the only real message here is about the human need to reach out and make connections with one another, and how those needs have no moral prerequisites. Even a murderer needs friends, and even good people can be friends with bad people. It's a comment on the strange, random world we live in. A good film; worth seeing. The turning point in "The Matador" comes about half through the movie when Danny, an unsophisticated man from Denver, is sitting in the balcony of his Mexico City hotel, enjoying a quiet moment. Someone knocks on his door, and knowing it's Julian, the paid assassin, he refuses to answer. But did he really?

Richard Shephard, the director of "The Matador", presents us with a character, Julian Noble, who shows no redeemable qualities. In fact, we have already seen him in action, doing what he does best. When Julian meets Danny at the bar of the Camino Real in Mexico City, he spills the beans and tells his new acquaintance what he really does for a living.

Danny, who has come to sell his program to a Mexican company, but it seems he is competing against a local outfit that appears to be in the front for getting the contract. Danny is a naive person who falls prey of the charisma and charm doled out by the smarter Julian. It's not until some time later, on a cold winter night that the killer appears at Danny's door asking his friend to repay a favor and accompany him on a trip to Tucson. It's at this point that the secret that binds them together is revealed in an unexpected way.

Pierce Brosnan, acting against type, makes a great contribution with his irreverent Julian Noble. Just to watch him walking through the hotel lobby in his Speedo and boots gives the right impression about his character. Greg Kinnear, on the other hand, plays the straight part of this odd couple. Hope Davis appears only in a couple of scenes leaving us to lament why didn't she stay longer. Philip Baker Hall puts an appearance as the liaison between Julian and his assignments.

Richard Shephard directs with style working with his own material. The musical score is by Rolfe Kent and the crisp cinematography of David Tattersall enhances everything. Julian Noble (Pierce Brosnan) is a hit-man. Or a "facilitator of fatalities", as he prefers to be called. He is also a drunk, a womaniser, and in the middle of a mid-life crisis. On a job in Mexico City, he bumps into Danny White (Greg Kinnear), an unconfident businessman who thinks he's just nailed a recent pitch, but is unsure. They meet in the hotel bar late one night, after they've both had a few too many margaritas.

Sounds like the set-up for a by-the-numbers comedy thriller, doesn't it? But it isn't. Instead, The Matador is a funny and sometimes touching character study. It avoids every twist that the above summary would suggest, sometimes even setting them up just to gleefully tear them down. It is a film that respects it characters enough to just let them get on with it, without feeling the need to shove them into needless plot contrivances.

Brosnan's hit-man will inevitably be compared to his Bond, but this is unfair to both performances. Bond is a half-formed idea, a product of all that has gone before; while Julian is a fully-formed character with his own motivations and flaws. He has existed in his own shadowy, seedy world for so long that he has forgotten how to talk to another human being.

When he meets Danny in the hotel bar, he sees his opposite: a normal guy with a normal job and normal problems. He envies Danny; the hit-man has become fed up with his life, sees himself edging ever closer to his inevitable "burn out", as he puts it. But when Danny opens up about the death of his only son, Julian tries to change the subject with a dirty joke. He is a man who has, in his own words, been "running from any emotion." Kinnear holds his own opposite Brosnan's performance, and injects Danny White with his effortless everyman charm. He is the perfect foil to Julian; while the latter is drunken bravado and hedonism, Danny is down to earth, with just a hint of eccentricity. But he too goes deeper than his established persona, showing us how far the everyman will go when faced with financial and familial ruin.

There is real chemistry between Brosnan and Kinnear. It is most visible in the film's three key scenes: the hotel bar; a bullfight, during which Julian tells Danny what he does for a living, and takes him through a dress rehearsal of an assassination; and a scene in which Julian turns up at Danny's house six months later. This scene also introduces us properly to Danny's wife, Bean (yes, Bean). In another example of how much The Matador respects its characters, Bean (Hope Davis), instead of panicking at the presence of a hired killer in her house, merely asks with forced calm, "Did you bring your gun?" The script isn't quite as good as could have been after maybe another rewrite. One or two lines seem a little forced, and a couple of the jokes need a little more work. But in the scenes where Julian and Danny (and later Bean) just talk, the writing is superb. The film feels no need to put the characters in any outlandish situations (other than meeting a hit-man, and said hit-man turning up on your doorstep). It just lets them talk, gently nudging them toward necessary plot points.

There is action, but only when it reflects on the characters. One notable instance is when Julian botches a job in Budapest because he keeps seeing himself through his rifles scope. The rest of the film is about the characters, how they interact, how they each affect one another. And, ultimately, it is about friendship, even in the most unlikely of places. At one point Julian tells Danny that he is his only friend. And he really means it. Two years ago I watched "The Matador" in cinema and I loved everything about this movie. Obviously, I was totally under impression of Pierce Brosan's magnificent role. Yesterday, I caught this movie again on TV so I looked at it a bit deeper. Now, I can say with certain that this movie isn't that special but you just gotta' love it because of one man.

Brosnan lifts its grade up in my opinion with amazing performance of Julian Noble, tired hit-man who has no friends. Soon Julian meets Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico City, man who's got bad luck: his son died in accident, his job isn't going that well and he's not sure that he can keep his wife Bean (Hope Davis).

I always liked movies like this; crime movie with big touch of humor. Mostly that humor comes from Brosnan as he tells jokes about dwarfs with big d.... or one of my favorite lines in this movie: "I look like a Bangkok hooker on a Sunday morning, after the navy's left town." Brosnan says it with his charm while he's drinking his margarita as usually. I also like Greg 'typical American face' Kinnear in the role of loser that is very lively made because there are plenty of people like Danny Wright.

So I recommend you to watch quite possibly the best role of Brosnan ever. He'll make you smile and admire him at the same time. Great Brosnan in not equally great movie. The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.

I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.

The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep. A chance encounter between a salesman and a hit-man changes both their lives. This is an odd film that works, an impressive effort for writer-director Shepard. In a daringly unglamorous role that is a far cry from James Bond, Brosnan is surprisingly effective as the lonely hit-man who starts to buckle under the stress of his job, but is unable to connect emotionally with anyone to help him cope. Kinnear is equally good as the salesman, a decent fellow with a void in his life. Davis is fine as Kinnear's flirtatious wife. Mainly a character study, the film is rewarding because it feels fresh and unpredictable, an extremely dark comedy. Not to mention easily Pierce Brosnon's best performance. Of course Greg Kinnear is always great. Really, when has he really been bad? I think this film is incredibly underrated! The use of colors in this movie is something very different in today's film world where every other movie has the Payback blue filter. I also love the way they used the song by Asia. Proving that even what was once thought of as kinda cheesy can be really cool placed correctly.

I was making my first feature when this came out. Being that my film was a hit-man movie, I had to check out anything in the genre that was released. After seeing it, I'm sure it had some effect on me through the process. It was pretty cool when my film got on the IMDb that it would recommend this film if you liked mine. How any of the others relate I have no idea, making an even more interesting coincidence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337580/ The Matador is a witty, dark humored and suspenseful melodrama that rises way above mediocrity thanks to two very engaging and earnest performances from Pierce Brosnan, who has never ever been better than here, and the always reliable Greg Kinnear who has his best role here since playing Jack Nicholson's gay neighbor in As Good As It Gets. A big plus goes to the writing as well. Clever and occasionally very nasty dialog is delivered with gusto by Brosnan and the slow building friendship between these two different individuals is completely convincing all the way. The story takes a few unexpected turns and keeps the viewer constantly guessing where it's gonna go next.

Nice artistic touches from the director such as good use of music, clever editing and somewhat unorthodox cinematography at times set a nice tone for the film and for a long period of time you don't quite know how to label the film. But that's also thanks to a very well written script which keeps the viewer (me anyway) on the edge of his seat. I found this to be a profoundly amusing dark comedy. Brosnan is genius; as anyone will now testify, he is not to be pigeonholed in the bond role. Kinnear was as charismatic and as funny as anyone could have been in the role. I don't know if I've laughed as hard during any movie! What an unexpected pleasure! My favourite line would be 'I feel like a bangkok hooker on a Sunday after the navy left town'. Brosnan delivered this very un-bond line with such unexpected comedic finesse. I was also very impressed with Hope Davis's performance. It seems like everyone in this movie branched out from their previous work to such a degree that it actually improved the comedy. If you liked the dark and hilarious 'The Weather Man', you will definitely like this.

I voted 10. Wasn't sure what to expect from this film. I love watching Brosnan in any movie, he's always good, but this was totally different. He's a mess, and plays being a mess very well. In fact he reminded me of myself a few times back in uni :) So yes, there's not a lot of violence, there's not a lot of action, but the dialogue is cracking, the acting is superb and very refreshing, and it's pretty funny too :) I don't think you'll come out of the cinema going "Wow! I was blown away", but you'll come out smiling having enjoyed a good film. Can't ask for more than that.

Oh, and if you're lucky, some moron will put the adverts reel in wrong and you'll get inverted, upside down, reversed (with reversed audio) adverts!! Brilliant. Nothing like watching a Jack Daniels ad where the drink goes back into the bottle from the glass with a gruff American "Twin Peaks" commentary :) Think Pierce Brosnan and you think suave, dapper, intelligent James Bond. In this movie, Brosnan plays against type - and has lots of fun doing so (as does the audience). This is a film about a hired assassin who befriends a harried businessman... and it works!

This is a fun movie, with very good scenes (a riveting, on-the-edge Brosnan and a good, compliant "off"-the-edge Kinnear have some good lines). My only cavil is that Hope Davis, playing the oh-so-tolerant wife ("Can I see your gun?") doesn't appear more often: she could have been a marvellous foil to these men.

This movie is like a matador: it plays with the audience, while "going for a kill". The ending is awesome because a storyline (with a positive moral!) emerges: this is a frenetic, frantic and fun movie, which does deserve a wide audience. ***1/2 Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Adam Scott, Philip Baker Hall. Directed by Richard Shepard.

A well formulated story and film all together, Brosnan has never been better in a film role outside of his "Bond" movies. After 2004's "After the sunset" his newest role brings in the laughs and a great time. Professional hit-man, so to speak, Julian Noble on a job in Mexico City winds up meeting the exact opposite of himself a high strung business man Danny Wright (Kinnear, possibly one of his best roles) also on business there. The two on-screen duo produce a comically charged, laugh riot and fail to not deliver the laughs. Davis in one of her best roles since "American Splendor" gives another charming and witty performance. One of the years most enjoyable and best films. My final rating 9/10 "The Matador" is a dark comedy starring Pierce Brosnan as an aging hit man who befriends a straight-arrow, happily-married American businessman (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico. Although the sardonic Julian (ironically surnamed "Noble") appears to be a "tough guy" on the surface, underneath he is really just a mass of neuroses and insecurities, a man who realizes that his chosen profession has left him virtually alone in the world and friendless. Thus on his birthday, he reaches out to Danny, a man who has lived his life playing by the rules and who becomes strangely intrigued by Julian's "unconventional" lifestyle. In fact, both men find in each other the person they could never be but wish they could become in their quieter, franker moments of self-evaluation.

Although the film is a bit too reminiscent of "Analyze This" and "Midnight Run" to feel entirely fresh and original, "The Matador," nevertheless, earns points for the complexity of its characters and the quality of its acting. Brosnan, looking aged and almost used up, sinks his teeth into the role of Julian in a way he never has before. Playing a man who seems constitutionally unable to make a serious connection with another human being, Brosnan is flip and cavalier one moment, then genuine and sympathetic the next. He always keeps us off balance so that the humor never becomes crass or stale. Kinnear is also excellent as the Regular Joe businessman who finds himself pulled ever more to the Dark Side as his relationship with Julian deepens. Hope Davis does a fine job as "Bean," Danny's loyal and loving wife who, like her husband, finds herself intrigued by this mysterious and "dangerous" figure from a world far different from the one she knows.

At times, we find ourselves feeling that "The Matador" is holding something back from us, not quite plumbing the depths of its situation and premise. At the end it feels a little too light, a little too insubstantial to register the impact it should. This could be because this is the feature film debut for writer/director Richard Shephard, and he hasn't quite gotten his movie pacing down yet. Still, one appreciates the fact that he doesn't always go for the obvious and that he keeps tightly focused on the two main figures in the piece, rarely settling for the trite setup or the easy laugh.

'The Matador" is a flawed but generally entertaining little comedy that will, hopefully, signal a new phase in Brosnan's acting career. This will not likely be voted best comedy of the year, a few too many coincidences and plot holes. However we are talking about a movie where a hit-man and a white bread salesman become buddies so a few vagaries shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Brosnan is excellent in this role, gone is the wooden James Bond (a role he was wasted in). If he can maintain this kind of quality I hope he continues to make comedies. Greg Kinnear is also excellent as Brosnan's straight man. I've read a few negative comments in here about Hope Davis but I thought she was quite good as a mousy housewife with a dark side buried deep within. There are lots of good chuckles as Brosnan sleazes his way through and a few scenes where I nearly died laughing. My father (a consultant) nearly lost it when Julian describes himself as a "facilitator". Much like "Grosse Pointe Blank", another hit-man comedy, the humour can be very dark. If you are in to that be prepared to enjoy yourself. Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see. Dark comedy? Gallows humor? How does one make a comedy out of murder? It can be risky business as the viewer is required to let go of their moral values and laugh at the antics of a man who kills people. So, the story has be rock solid with a good dash of suspended reality in order to make it work. So, Pierce Brosnan, the Irishman's answer to 007 is now cast as a chain-smoking, sex-addicted alcoholic who kills people for a living and is having a life crisis. He meets a struggling businessman, Greg Kinnear, and after a rocky beginning, he learns that he needs a friend. But, Greg's happily married to Hope Davis and Brosnan sees in him the basic things he doesn't have, love, home and a life. Add character actor, Philip Baker Hall as the hit-man's manager and we're off to the races. Brosnan is wonderfully crass and crude as the anti-hero and Kinnear delightful as his counterpart, the very human businessman. Hope Davis adds a sparkle as Kinnear's very conventional wife who is fascinated with this derelict who drifts into their lives. The ending is delightful and with some surprise to it. You should leave the theater feeling, at least, partly good-- if you're able to suspend being aghast at killing people. First let me say the director has some wonderful use of titles in his establishing shots. I really enjoyed them. I really enjoyed this movie but I got to say next to Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinear is pretty lackluster. Brosnan melts into this character so well, that it is really hard to remember that this is the same guy that played bond. It also shows his range and depth as an actor. It is kinda of an indie flick and was really nice to see especially with all of the mainstream movies that flood the movies at this time of the year. I found the characters to be well crafted. The twist in the middle I felt was especially good. I also liked how the characters come off realistically. So many times we have in film these caricatures of people that are not really characters but walking-stereotypes... I like the different approaches this movie takes. I think of sideways when I think of this movie but I think this is more watchable and a better movie overall... Interesting how much more realistic Brosnan's performance is to that of the original James Bond novels when compared to the bond films. He's neurotic, paranoid, an alcoholic and a womanizer to boot. This is perfect break for him, even so much as to make fun of the bond icon. "I'm a mess, a parody of myself" he says. It doesn't get any better than that. I just finished reading Dr.No and this is very much how Ian Fleming had portrayed James Bond. Personally I never liked Brosnan as Bond because he fit the icon too closely. There was nothing for him to personalize the character with, as compared to Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Its great to see Brosnan play a character both grounded in reality and flamboyantly off the wall. A shallow character trying to come to an understanding on deeper emotional and psychological issues to which he has no background dealing with. It's an impressive portrayal, and having Greg Kinear to ground him, is just poetic. This movie reminds me a little bit of dynamics established between the main characters in "My Blue Heaven", but more genuine in their coping mechanisms. I saw this movie while it was under limited release, mainly for the novelty of seeing Pierce Brosnan with a moustache, but it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I have seen all year. It starts out almost as a thriller, but steadily progresses into a hilarious piece of work full of one-liners and great comedic energy between Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear. Also, while I say this movie is a comedy, it doesn't forget it has a heart at times and can be very touching when it needs to be. When I went into the theater I didn't know what to expect much more than a moustache, but what I got was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Leaving the theater I felt very fulfilled from the film and plan to see it again in wide release. I recommend it to anyone who appreciates a good comedy with a well-written script and a big moustache. I didn't have many expectation going into the film, but I thought it was fantastic. Pierce Brosnan is outstanding in a very different role. He has dumped the slick armani suits for a ridiculous look and pays off showing that he is an excellent actor. Pierce and Greg Kinnear play off each other great, and make for one of the better buddy pairings in a long time. The humor is dark, the performances by Brosnan, Kinnear, and Hope Davis are great, mix that with a touching element to the story about friendship, and you have a great film. This is probably one of the better buddy comedies in a long time. This is a film that definitely shows that we can expect great things in the post-Bond era of Brosnan's career. I will admit, I thought this movie wasn't going to be any good but I soon changed my mind. The movie was keep you guessing as which direction it's going. Pierce Broson is amazing in his role as a hit man, who suddenly becomes burned out & asks a man he met at a Mexican bar for help. Greg Kinnear is an awesome straight man, as his role as a mild mannered man from Denver, who starts a innocent conversation with Pierce at a Mexican bar. The movie will have you laughing as Pierce delivers hilarious one liners (mostly about sex).

The imaginary in this movie is very well done, especially at the bullfight scene & when Pierce sees himself when trying to finish his last jobs. I noticed that A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are in the TOP 10, but that this one isn't even in the TOP 100.

This movie has a bad reputation because of Ewoks, but there are so many reasons to love this movie:

-The Rescue of Han Solo from Jabba: This official wraps up the Han Solo in debt sub-plot that was established when we first met the character in A NEW HOPE.

-The Emperor was Finally Revealled: Well alright this might not work as well now that the prequels are out but this was the first time we saw The Emperor as kids.

-The Speeder Bike Chase: Alright, so this was a special effects moment. But it was definitely one of the most memorable and exciting moments in all the films!

-The 3 Part Climax: 1) The Battle of Endor (Led by Han and Leia) 2) Luke Confronts his Father & The Fall of the Emperor 3) The Destruction of the Second Death Star (Lando's Moment)

-The Final Celebration with Our Heroes: Like I said, this movie gets a lot of crap because of the Ewoks but I think it's kind of cool that while the entire galaxy celebrates the FALL OF THE EMPIRE, our heroes are having their own private party in the woods with each other.

All in all this was a great final chapter for our heroes and a fitting end to the STAR WARS story. Perspective is a good thing. Since the release of "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace", claims and counter-claims of just how Episode's II and III will eventuate has taken the spotlight off the 'original' Star Wars films, making them part of a cohesive whole, rather than segregating the older and new films into separate trilogies. What the new films have done is allow fresh perspectives to be placed on the older films. This new outlook allows us to greater appreciate what has often been viewed as the weakest of the original trilogy: "Return of the Jedi". Often derided for its overly 'cute' factor, ROTJ is in a sense as strong as the original and only slightly less impressive than the nearly perfect "The Empire Strikes Back". Indeed the 'cute' element of ROTJ, namely the Ewoks, remains a weak link in the entire series. Did George Lucas place the furry midgets in the film purely for the merchandising possibilities? Only he can answer that question.

This cute factor aside, the film is a brilliant full circle AND evolution of the saga. Following on from the conclusion of "The Empire Strikes Back", Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) follows his Rebel Alliance friends to Tatooine, his home planet, to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the space pirate turned Rebel hero who was captured by Jabba the Hutt for overdue debts.

Skywalker is a changed man since leaving Tatooine with Ben 'Obi Wan' Kenobi (Alec Guiness) to fight the evil Empire. Now swathed all in black, Luke's discovery of his origins have left him confused and torn. His psychological make up is not as strong as his outward appearance would suggest. While he might aim to always assist his Rebel friends, he yearns for another chance to confront the evil Darth Vader again, despite his unassuredness as to whether he will destroy him or eventually turn to the Dark Side and join Vader at the Emperor's side.

Early scenes in Tatooine are impressive, from Jabba's lair, to his floating palace and the 'almighty Sarlac' - an intenstine that lives in the sand. Lucas' CGI enhancements to the film in 1997 actually worsened the overall effect of the Sarlac, making it look fake and overdone.

The battle scene on Tatooine is outstanding, and is one of the more memorable of the saga. Luke almost singlehandedly anihiliates Jabba and his cronies, proving his prowess as a Jedi is now almost complete.

When Luke returns to the Degobah system to visit the ailing Yoda one more time, the viewer is let down by Yoda's distinct lack of screentime. Undoubtably the star of "The Empire Strikes Back", Yoda is all but erased from the story as the progression of Luke's destiny is played out on screen.

ROTJ really is Luke's film, perhaps even more so than the original. His journey carries the movie as he moves closer to his confrontation with Darth Vader and his fate. The other Rebel characters certainly work in his shadow. The romance between Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Solo is all but non-existant, unlike in "Empire". In fact only Leia's character is developed in ROTJ, Solo's character seems to fade as the facets of his personality have become too familiar in the first two films.

Their roles are consigned to working alongside the Rebels to destroy an all new Death Star that nears completion. This time the Emperor himself is overseeing the final stages of construction. The Empire intends to crush the Rebellion once and for all, while the Emperor himself schemes to bring the now powerful Skywalker to his side to work alongside (or is that replace?) Darth Vader. The Emperor is a different kind of evil for this film, less cunning than Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing) from "Star Wars", more deeply psychologically dark than anything else. Played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, the Emperor is just one of those characters you love to hate.

All the other actors are well entrenched in their roles. Hamill surprises as the more wisened Luke, making his character's progression from whiny teenager, impatient student to enlightened warrior one of the few real character developments of the series. Ford's role is waring thin, as all his charm and charisma was spent in the first two films -- he was the REAL star of the first film after all. Fisher's Leia is more of a prop, at least unti the end of the film where she learns things about herself that she was never sure about... Add in favourites like Alec Guiness as Kenobi, Yoda and the loveable Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2D2 and the series resembles a family more than a cast.

Despite the film's corny forest battle involving the Ewoks and the Empire, it ends well and includes a three way battle sequence: on Endor, in space and on the Death Star, each with very impressive special effects. The music, as always, is brilliant and captures the mood perfectly in every instance. Just as the 'Blue Danube' worked perfectly for "2001: A Space Odyssey", John Williams' score is as much a part of "Star Wars" folklore as light sabers and the Force.

Lucas left the ending open to interpretation, meaning there could have been more episodes made. Indeed sci-fi fans have created their own versions of Episodes VII, VIII and IX in their heads over and over again. ROTJ works when given a chance, and furry cute animals aside is a good finish to the series.

When all six episodes get to be viewed together, this saga could well be the best ever made. Is it already? The addition of Episode I changed the landscape of the series. This is why "Return of the Jedi" can now be viewed in a different light and be given a whole new appreciation nearly 20 years after its release. I'm sick of people whining about Ewoks! True, they're not the best thing that ever happened to Star Wars, but they DID happen, so deal with it! Besides, they ARE cute, and I don't care if they're marketable. Yubb Nubb!

This movie always leaves me in tears. It's perfect. The end could not be better. I'm excited for The Phantom Menace because it will suddenly throw the focus of the whole story from Luke to Anakin. I love how he is revealed at the end - it would be too unresolved any other way. So those of you who are complaining that Vader's helmet was removed, take a moment to think about it. It's very effective. Vader, the man who hid behind a mask for 20 years, is finally revealed as a sick-looking man. He is not entirely machine - he's vulnerable.

I don't know how the casting director happened to pick such good actors in A New Hope. They all do so well. They are believable characters. Hamill does an excellent job with his dramatic character development. Fisher does a fine job being a female role model (I mean, come on! She killed Jabba even when so many others had failed!). Harrison Ford - need I say more?

The music is once again brilliant. It's so very touching and significant when you can pick out character themes at different parts of the movie. The best climax is when Luke shouts "NOOO!" and jumps out to fight his father in the Final Battle. John Williams is nothing short of a genius! What an amazing man!

Already, the movie has so much more meaning for me because of Episode I. I can't wait to finally see it in the theatres (CAN I WAIT???) and then watch the original trilogy yet again.

Bravo! A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....There was a boy who was only two years old when the original "Star Wars" film was released. He doesn't remember first seeing the movie, but he also doesn't remember life before it. He does remember the first "Star Wars" themed gift he got...a shoebox full of action figures from the original set. He was too young to fully appreciate how special that gift would be. But years later, he would get what to this day goes down as one of the best gifts he's ever received: another box full of action figures, ten of the final twelve he needed to complete his collection. It's now legendary in this boy's family how the last action figure he needed, Anakin Skywalker, stopped being produced and carried in stores, and how this boy went for about ten years (until he got into college) trying to track one down and finally bought it from someone on his dorm floor for a bag of beer nuggets (don't ask...it's a Northern Illinois University thing).

I can't review "Star Wars" as a movie. It represents absolutely everything good, fun and magical about my childhood. There's no separating it in my mind from Christmases, birthdays, summers and winters growing up. In the winter, my friends and I would build snow forts and pretend we were on Hoth (I was always Han Solo). My friends' dad built them a kick-ass tree house, and that served as the Ewok village. They also had a huge pine tree whose bottom branches were high enough to create a sort of cave underneath it, and this made a great spot to pretend we were in Yoda's home. I am unabashedly dorky when it comes to "Star Wars" and I think people either just understand that or they don't. I don't get the appeal of "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Trek" but I understand the rabid flocks of fans that follow them because I am a rabid fan of George Lucas's films.

I feel no need to defend my opinion of these movies as some of the greatest of all time. Every time I put them in the DVD player, I feel like I'm eight years old again, when life was simple and the biggest problem I had was figuring out how I was going to track down a figure of Anakin Skywalker.

Grade (for the entire trilogy): A+ When it comes to creating a universe George Lucas is the undisputed master and his final Star Wars film is very, very good (and more appropriately rated in comparison to the two previous films in the original saga). Having recently seen Revenge of the Sith really puts this movie in perspective. The final battle seems even more climactic knowing what Anakin Skywalker went through at the manipulative hands of the Emperor. It also makes the final battle between Luke and Vader more bitter considering the love he felt for Padmé and the love she felt for her children. Actually while the new films (especially Episode II) are inferior to the original films they are good for one reason only. They make the old films seem even better.

Mark Hamill does an exceptional job in this movie. He really brings the changes Luke has gone through seem real. In all fairness I believe that he should have become a big actor based on these films because he really does a great job. Harrison Ford is still good. However, you can feel that he has done Raiders and Blade Runner in between the two final chapters of Star Wars because he seems to have grown quite a bit. He adds more comedy (obviously inspired from Raiders) to the character which works brilliantly. In short Han Solo is better than ever. Carrie Fisher was never really a good actress but she does a decent job and is certainly passable. Ian McDiarmid appears in this film and having seen Episode III I can safely say that he is one of the most accomplished villains ever. James Earl Jones still provides the voice for Vader and he is still very, very good.

In terms of how the movie looks its pretty safe to say that the Star Wars universe looks better than in either of the previous (two) movies but this was always Lucas' forté so that is really to be expected. The final battle over Endor is very well made both in terms of the general effects and tension wise. It was also a nice touch that Lucas decided to have three battles take place at the same time as it added to the overall tension of the climax.

The only thing I feel is dragging the movie down from an otherwise deserved 9 are the Ewoks. These little creatures are so annoying they almost ruin every scene they are in. Besides I find it to be a little to kiddy when a group of teddy bears with bows and arrows can defeat a squadron of Storm Troopers with laser guns and mighty machinery.

All in all Return of the Jedi is a very good movie but the fact that Richard Marquand is a less accomplished director than Irvin Kershner does that the overall feel of the movie is less than brilliant. Also George Lucas' stupid decision to add the Ewoks to the universe does that the film falls short of brilliance.

8/10 Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.

None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.

In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else. The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style. After "Star Wars: A New Hope" redefined science fiction, and "The Empire Strikes Back" redefined "Star Wars", it's hard to believe that the third and final film of this trilogy can manage to be as good as the other two, but this one really does a nice job. The first part of the film resolves the cliffhanger left by the previous one, with an elaborate escape plan that is in keeping with the incredible suspense and action of the first two films. Then the film moves back to the rebel alliance and what's going on in the war. There is a lot of action in the scenes building up to the rebellion's final confrontation with the Emperor. When the battle begins, the audience is already on the edge of their seats from everything leading up to it, and this final battle is even more intense than those from the other films. This climax is definitely more dense with action than any other part of the trilogy, with the most at stake for the rebellion. This is continually changing between a ground battle between the rebel strike crew on land (including Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Leia), the battle raging on in space (including Lando), and a confrontation between Luke and the Emperor on the new Death Star, which leads up to another duel with Darth Vader. It is really intense since the rebels constantly seem to be losing the battle that will determine the outcome of the war, and there seems to be no escape. Although I think the idea of Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers is a bit far-fetched, it didn't seem very unrealistic since they were more of a distraction that the rebels could use, rather than an actual threat to the stormtroopers, although they did have some luck fighting them. There is also a twist or two at the end that nobody saw coming, which may not be quite as stunning as that of "The Empire Strikes Back", but still complete a very spectacular trilogy very well. With the light tone of "A New Hope" and the more sinnister tone of "The Empire Strikes Back", this film really completes them by combining the two in this grand finale. The Special Edition for "Return of the Jedi" concentrated on what would have been nice to change, since not much of the original really needed it. Fifteen years of technology advancements didn't seem to make up for fifteen years of deterioration as far as the rancor scene is concerned, and there still is the occasional disappearing TIE fighter, but other than that it was good. The gaping non-threatening Sarlaac's mouth was given moving tentacles and a huge fly-trap looking head that emerged, which definitely added to the suspense. Also, the disco was taken out of Jabba's palace, and the lame ending of the original was replaced by a huge victory celebration spanning the entire galaxy, instead of just a small Ewok village, which was the case of the original and that didn't really end a story this big the way it deserved. It's hard to say which of the three films was the best, but since it's all part of the same story, the over-all trilogy is like one big, outstanding film. A THIRD must-see for film fans. This final entry in George Lucas's STAR WARS movies is often regarded as the weakest of the lot. However, this is not to say that it is a totally worthless entry in the series. On the contrary. Sure, it's not as groundbreaking as its predecessors and a bit more slow-going at times, but RETURN OF THE JEDI still offers a lot to warrant the price of admission.

The first third of the movie, where Luke and his friends rescue Han from the palace of Jabba the Hutt, is a classic. Jabba, a truly disgusting blob of bloated flesh who speaks in his own language, not only makes a great villain, but a memorable one, too. It must have been a nightmare to construct this giant puppet, much less give it the spark and life that we see on the finished product. Actually, what also makes this sequence fun is the clever use of puppets for the various members of Jabba's court, including the intimidating, slavering Rancor and scary Sarlaac pit monster. It builds masterfully to its climax and pulls punches all the while.

Things get a little bit slower around the second act, where Luke discovers that he and Leia are related by blood and when we travel to the forest planet of Endor, home of the cuddlesome yet stalwart Ewoks. Most of the complaints about RETURN OF THE JEDI that I've read seem to be centered on these furry creatures, in that they somehow disrupt the tone of the saga. I don't totally agree with that, although this moment is probably played out a bit longer than it should. However, their leader, Wicket (played by Warrick Davis) is a delightfully memorable creation, and watching how they handle the Imperial Troops' technology with their simple, natural weapons provides a nice contrast.

By the time we get to the third act, though, the pace picks up again, as we intercut between the Ewoks battle against the troops, Lando and the Rebel Forces launching an attack against the Empire's all-new half-completed Death Star, and Luke's final showdown with Darth Vader and the Emperor. The latter ties with the Jabba Palace sequence as the highlight of the movie. Mark Hamill flexes his acting chops once again as Luke Skywalker in these scenes, and watching him as a fully matured Jedi Knight makes for an unforgettable performance. Also, as iconic as James Earl Jones' voice as Darth Vader is, he is rivaled only by the shriveled, crone-like Emperor, played with deliciously raspy, frightening evil by Ian McDiarmid. The tension between this trio heightens the excitement of this climactic moment, which is appropriately darkly lit and menacingly underscored.

The STAR WARS movies have always set standards for special effects, and the technical work in RETURN OF THE JEDI can easily hold a candle to its predecessors. The space battle fights are as exhilarating as always, and the speeder bike chase through the forest is a knockout. Of course, given that this movie was made after A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, it probably shouldn't be so surprising that the special effects have reached an even greater level of excellence. The acting is classic STAR WARS fare; Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher all mature and deepen into their roles, and Anthony Daniels provides more hilarious moments as C-3PO. Frank Oz's Yoda only appears in two scenes, but he makes the most of it. And yes, there's also John Williams' music.

All told, while RETURN OF THE JEDI falters a little bit in the middle, the first and third acts deliver in style, making this a rather satisfactory finale to one of the greatest sagas ever.

In 1997, George Lucas re-released the classic STAR WARS in digitally restored (and revamped) "Special Editions", which featured added-in effects and/or shots as well as some enhancements. Of the three, RETURN OF THE JEDI appears to have caused the most commotion with STAR WARS fans. Perhaps it can be due to the jarringly out-of-place (albeit funny if you're not so easily offended) "Jedi Rocks" musical number in Jabba's Palace, which, although technically amazing, does disrupt the flow of the film. However, I DID like the ending montage scenes where we see victory celebrations occurring on the various planets of the galaxy. This DVD version features yet more tweaking--we get to see more montage finale scenes (notably on Naboo, where we hear what sounds like Jar Jar Binks screaming, "Wesa free!"), and, in what is probably the most controversial change, Hayden Christensen as the specter of Anakin Skywalker in the closing scenes. Probably due to the intense (and unfair) disdain fans have for his somewhat shaky work in EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES it seems inevitable that fans would put this edition down for that alone. However, if you're watching the STAR WARS saga chronologically (and contemplating about it), chances are you may react a little differently. Nonetheless, it is an issue that fans have raised, so it's probably best to be warned beforehand.

As nice as it would be to have Lucas release the original versions of these three classic films, he nonetheless stands by what he said about these revamps being the "definitive" editions of his classic trilogy, and, when viewing the STAR WARS movies altogether as one complete saga (as Lucas intended), it actually makes sense to keep them technically and aurally consistent. The original films will always be engraved in our memories, but these new incarnations are just as much fun, if one can give them a chance. Despite the feelings of most "Star Wars" fans, in my opinion "Return Of The Jedi" is the greatest cinematic film ever created. Ever since the first time I saw it, it's depth, intensity, special effects, and moving story have overwhelmed me. The film was so well put together that it has been able to stand the test of time over the last 20 years. Filled with powerful action, as the climax of the original trilogy, George Lucas gives us a rousing finish of the "Star Wars" saga in "Jedi".

Film Summary (Contains Spoilers For Those Who Have Not Seen It)

After "The Empire Strikes Back" left us hanging for 3 long years we finally find the end of the story in "Return Of The Jedi". Darth Vader, in emotional turmoil makes a surprise visit to a new uncompleted Death Star to oversee it's construction. The Emperor is first seen in this film as he has the ultimate plan to destroy the Rebel Alliance and bring young Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side. Luke, Lando, Leia, Chewie, and the droids all travel to Tatooine to rescue the frozen Han Solo from the crime Lord; Jabba The Hutt. After Han has been rescued, and Jabba defeated, Luke returns to Dagobah to find a dying Yoda where he learns the awful truth; Darth Vader is in fact his father. The rebel heroes regroup with the Rebel Fleet. Now joined by other species and races including the Mon Calamari the Rebels must make a all-or-nothing plan of attack to destroy the Death Star before it is completed. While Lando heads the space attack in the Millennium Falcon, the Rebel heroes must disable the Death Star's shield generator on the Forest Moon Of Endor. It is here that the Rebels happen upon the furry, but mighty Ewoks. During the the two part intense battle, a third battle must take place as Luke willingly delivers himself to Vader in an attempt to convince him to leave the Dark Side. In emotionally charged sequences Luke must face his father as the Emperor lures out his dark emotions. As young Skywalker is about to face his death at the hands of Palpatine, Vader turns on his wicked master to save his son's life.

Filled with a deep timeless story of good vs. evil, "Return Of The Jedi" is a spectacular, emotionally charged film that redeems the good in all of us. Return of the Jedi is certainly the most action packed of the series, and is a fine conclusion to the Star Wars Saga. With Han Solo imprisoned by Jabba the Hut and the Empire building a new Death Star, the rebel alliance is facing an uphill struggle against the dark side, and only our favourite heroes can pull it off.

The Opening sequence, set on Tatooine, we see Jabba's palace, a pit of slavery and scum, and new home to Han Solo, as Luke and the gang prepare for his rescue, and with Luke's Jedi powers, they have the edge.

We also witness a tremendous triple battle at the end. Han, Leia and Chewy battle it out on Endor, desperate to deactivate the shields protecting the Death Star. The Rebel Fleet led by Lando, battle with the Imperial Fleet while they wait for the shields to go down, and Luke has a final showdown with Darth Vader. An Epic end to a Classic Saga, and it's only just of the pace of the first two.

10/10 I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.

It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealed

I would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.

The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?

On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that "Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see." That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.

I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.

Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!

Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as "just another sequel") to trash the movie such as "This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!" then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.

first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.

How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope. This film is to my mind the weakest film in the original Star Wars trilogy, for a variety of reasons. However it emerges at the end of the day a winner, despite all its flaws. It's still a very good film, even if a lot of its quality depends on the characters that have been built up in the superior 2 installments.

One problem here is the look of the film, which isn't very consistent with the other 2 films. I put a lot of that down to the departure of producer Gary Kurtz. The first 2 films have that dirty, lived-in look with all the technology and so forth. In "Jedi" on the other hand even the rebels look like they just stepped out of a shower and had their uniforms dry cleaned. This makes for a much less textured film. Also the creatures were excessively muppet-like and cutesy. At this point it seems like the film-makers were more concerned with creating the templates for future action figures than with the quality of the film itself.

Another aspect is its lack of originality. Where "Star Wars" created a whole new experience in cinema and "Empire" brought us to alien worlds of swamps, ice, and clouds, "Jedi" lamely re-cycled the locations of the first film. First we are back on the desert planet Tatooine, and then we are watching them face ANOTHER death star (maybe the emperor couldn't think of anything new... but you'd think Lucas or Kasdan could). Also we have these ewoks, who really are just detestable made-for-mattel teddy bears, in a recycled version of what was supposed to be the big wookie-fight at the end of "Star Wars" if they hadn't run out of cash. It just feels like lazy construction.

The most unfortunate aspect of "Jedi" for me is the weak handling of the Han Solo character. Whereas he is central to the plot of the first 2 films here he is struggling for screen time, trading one liners with the droids. Instead of a real drama we're stuck with the lame pretense that Han is still convinced Leia loves Luke -- as if the conclusion of "Empire" where she confessed her love of him had never happened. The whole thing is very contrived and barely conceals the fact that the Solo character was not part of this film's central story after his rescue. Ford, for his part, looks bored and lacks the style that distinguished his earlier performances. This is more like a 1990s Ford performance, bored and looking "above" the film itself. Fisher for her part is visibly high in some scenes. Lando, an interesting character introduced in "Empire", here is stuck as the ostensible person we care about in the giant space battle. Only Hamill, given an interesting development in the Luke character, is really able to do anything new or interesting with his character. Probably he was the only major actor in the film who still cared about his work. And to be fair the script gives him a lot more to do than the other characters. Really it is his story and the other characters are only there as part of the package. Ian McDiarmid does excellent work as well as the Emperor. The film would sink if he had been too far over the top (as he was at times in the new films).

Visually and in terms of effects work, other than the "clean" look of everything it's hard to find fault. Jabba is a very effective animatronic character, one of the most elaborate ever constructed. The space battles towards the end are very impressive.

Ultimately this film coasts to success based on the accomplishments of its forebears. But on its own, it is a satisfying piece of entertainment and IMHO far superior to any of Lucas' later productions. Thanks to Kevin Smith, a bunch of geeks are running around saying that Return of the Jedi isn't any good because it's actually fun to watch. And oh no! Muppets are involved! That makes it bad! Everyone liked Return of the Jedi until someone in a Kevin Smith movie made a negative comment about it. Now all of a sudden people people look at you like you have some kind of disease if you mention how much you like it. This movie is so much better than anything Kevin Smith ever even considered creating that it boggles my mind that the man would even think of denouncing it. This movie is good fun! It's just as awesome as I remember it being when I was six! Enjoy this movie for what it is and stop stealing Kevin Smith's opinions! His aren't correct!

And that Ewok song at the end ruled! I bet you people don't even enjoy "Ewoks: Battle for Endor"!!!! I'm going to set you all on fire! After ''Empire strikes back'' ''Return of the Jedi'' is my second favorite movie from the Star Wars series.

Luke went to Tattoine to save Han Solo from Jabba. At the same time, the Galactic Empire is doing in secret, the construction of a new space station like the previous Death Star. If this station stays totally constructed, it will be the end of the Rebel Alliance. Both Vader and the Emperor are impatient because of the delay of the new Death Star,and they need to kill many of their commanders to have the project made in schedule.

R2 and C3po are inside Jabba's palace to send a message from Luke to Jabba,where Lukes pretends to negotiate Han's life. He gives R2 and C3po as a gift to Jabba as part of his plan. Jabba does not accept the negotiation,since he is using Han Solo as a piece of his palace's decoration.(Han still is frozen in carbonite) Lando is hidden as Jabba's guard and Chewbacca is also gave to Jabba by a reward hunter. When the same Hunter tries to save Han solo and makes him stay in human form again, we see that is actually princess Leia in a disguise. The problem is that Jabba discovers Leia's plan and takes her as his slave,while Han is thrown away in Chewbacca's cell.

Luke comes as a Jedi knight to rescue his friends. At his first try to kill Jabba,he falls into Jabba's monster cell (Bantha),but easily kills it. Jabba stays angry and decides to thrown Han,Chewbacca and Luke to Sarlacc, a big creature from the desert who stays 1.000 years digesting it's 'food'. Luke,Han and Chewie has success in scape again, and even Boba Fett dies when Han accidentally throws him in to Sarlacc's mouth. Leia kills Jabba and goes after Han,Luke and Chewie as well c3po and R2.

Everybody's safe again,Luke decides to go to Dagoba to complete his training as a Jedi,as well his promise to Yoda. The problem is that Yoda is too old and sick, since he already has 900 years old, and before he dies, Yoda says to Luke that he does not need more training,but to really be a Jedi, he must fight with Vader again. He confirms to Luke that Vader is Luke's dad, and that there is another Skywalker besides Luke. In his last moments, Yoda asks to Luke to remember his advices about the temptation of the dark side, and to Luke transmit his Jedi knowledge to other people. When Yoda dies,Obi wan's spirit shows up to Luke and tells him that Luke's father killed his good side Anakin to become Darth Vader, and also that he is more machine than a man since he became a sith. Luke stays worried about killing his own dad, and says that he feels that his father still has kindness. Obi Wan tells Luke that his twin sister is Leia, and says the reasons why Luke and Leia were separated since babies. He gives his last advice to Luke saying that if he refuses to kill Vader, the emperor will win the war.

At the same time, the Emperor says to Vader that he must give Luke to him when he shows up, since Luke is stronger than before, and they both needs to combine their efforts to bring Luke to the dark side.

Now we are going to have one of the best battles from the star war series,when the Rebel Alliance plans to attack the new space station, the '' Death Star 2'', Luke will confront Vader and the Emperor, and Leia, Han and chewie needs to turn off the 'Death star 2' power field, with the help of the EWOKS. (little creatures who looks little bears)

This is for sure one of the most exciting star wars of all! I was but a babe in arms when George Lucas was wowing the world with his out of this world Saga chronicling the adventures of young Luke Skywalker and the notorious Darth Vadar but even today 20 years on I can appreciate the genius that is Lucas and the incredible imagination he's been blessed with. In A New Hope Lucas showed a new way to tell stories as he introduced us to such memorable characters as the plucky Princess Leia, the Rougish Han Solo and the spirited Luke Skywalker as well as that best loved of villains, the sinister Darth Vadar. In The Empire Strikes Back he went all out to show us Special Effects can add to a tale and managed to something no-one thought you could do on screen. He made a film with no specific end or beginning and it went down a treat. Return of the Jedi is a fitting end to a Saga that will stand the test of time.

When The Empire Srtikes Back ended with encasing of the lovable Rouge Han Solo in Carbonite to be delivered to Jabba the Hut and young Luke reeling from the discovery of a terrible truth about his Father we were left with the feeling that things were going from bad to worse. Vadar it seemed had won the day. How we asked could the rebels ever recover from this blow? In Lucas stunning and captivating final chapter we are kept on the edges of our seats from Han's daring rescue from Jabba's palace to the the final climactic battle on the Death Star between Luke and Vadar as Luke struggles between fulfilling his duties as a Jedi and rebel fighter and attempting to reawaken the good he believes is still in his Father's soul.

Old friends like the smooth talking Lando Calrissian and the ever lovable Chewbacca reunite for one final battle to end all battles as a new darker more dangerous enemy emerges in the form of the Emperor himself ( played by the brilliant Ian McDiarmiud.How he missed out on an Oscar is a mystery.) desperate to turn Luke to the Dark Side even if it means betraying his apprentice Darth Vadar.All in black with his red eyes,ghostly white disfigured face and sinister laugh he truly is a terrifying addition to the story and is the undisputed Master of the events that unfold. His new and improved Death Star spells disaster for the rebels but the brave group launch one last desperate attack to end the Empire's reign for good.

Lucas managed to incorporate three different stories at once and keep the action going so that the audience is riveted. We watch in excitement as Han and Leia attempt to bring down the shield around the Death Star from the forest Moon of Endor with the help of some adorable Ewoks ( who I really do not believe take from the movie at all. In fact I feel they provide a sort reprieve from the tension of the battles at and in the Death Star) and hindered by legions of Stormtroopers and Imperial Officers. We cheer on Lando and the other pilots as they take on the mighty Imperial Fleet and risk life and limb to fly into the Deatn Star to destroy it once and for all. And we watch with bated breath as Vadar and the Emperor attempt to turn Luke to the Dark Side while he in turn tries to turn his Father back.

But for me the most difficult and yet compelling battles is that going on inside Darth Vadar. For ROTJ is a battle of emotions and feelings. Vadar is caught between his loyalty to the Emporer and the Empire and his Fatherly inclinations to Luke. Never did I think that a mask could show emotion but some-how one can't but see the confusion and pain on Vadar's face during the final scenes as the Emporer turns on Luke. There is more depth and emotion to Vadar than I believed a villain, especially one more machine then man could have and that I think is what makes him so accessible. He is conflicted. The Apprentice as much as the Master. The Victim as much as the Villain. Without ruining the end too much Vadar's final scene is the most poignant and wonderful in the trilogy.

So in conclusion what can I say. George Lucas is the master of the Saga. Star Wars is the most compelling and engaging Sagas I've seen in a long time and I have yet to see another Saga rival it. Return of the Jedi has all the ingredients necessary to provide the ending Lucas masterpiece deserves. It's action, suspense, romance, tragedy, redemption, joy all rolled into one and it's memorable characters, wonderful special effects and catchy music make both a great movie in its own right and an ending that Lucas can be proud of. When I think of Return of the Jedi I think epic. Yeah Ewoks were in there so what? They're an interesting add to the movie (not to mention they are similar to the Vietcong who were also able to take down a technologically advanced army with primitive acts). Jedi is definitely more darker then the rest of the movies. Emperor Palpatine (portrayed by the amazing theater actor Ian McDiarmid) was one the best parts of the movie. Palpatine is so evil and vicious, Vader looks like Mr. Rogers compared to him . Speaking of Darth Vader, what an amazing end to such an iconic character. Vader is truly a modern day Greek tragedy and I think people can now especially understand and appreciate this after Revenge of the Sith came out. His redemption at the end was moving and really brings a happy yet bittersweet feeling to you. The best part was of course the special effects. It's amazing how a film from the early eighties can still stand the test of time with it's graphics. The scenes at Jabba's palace (Leia looks amazing in that metal bikini) and of course the epic three way battle at the end are still stunning to look at. In all Jedi's deep plot and emotional moments (primarily between Luke Vader and Palpatine and when Luke reveals the truth to Leia) and incredible special effects is a fitting end to one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. This is probably the best of all of the Star Wars movies.

The starting point of the movie was almost like Episode IV--spacey cabaret music and thoughts of a cabaret place, where the seriousness of mobster Jabba the Hutt was getting even more serious. He ordered Luke to die in a basement pit by the bone-crushing teeth of Bantha, who looked almost like a cross between a bear and a shark. Luke's Jedi powers eventually finish the monster off. Adding to the sneaky rescue of Han Solo, who was frozen alive at the end of Episode V, Jabba was very angry about this that Luke was sentenced to die at the Sarlacc pit outside.

But all of the Star Wars "good guys", especially R2-D2, had other ideas...and those other ideas fended off Luke's execution; in the end, most of Jabba's soldiers died and Princess Leia was able to use the force to fatally choke Jabba to death.

Like in Episode IV, the Death Star in Episode VI makes its appearance. As I analyzed the rebel fleet attacking the Imperial fighters around the Death Star, the Star Destroyer personnel, I guessed, sped up the arming of the main laser, using the Imperial fighters as a diversion. The 20-25 Star Destroyers that lined up were ready to attack but was called off and instead the laser weapon on the Death Star was fired in surprise. Once it fired, the rebel fleet's only hope was that the Death Star's deflector shield was going to be knocked out, and this affected Lando so much because he wanted to destroy the Death Star but he couldn't until the shield was taken out. And it was taken out with Lando's increasing impatience.

Like in Episode V, the Imperial Walkers make their menacing appearance with their twin cannons, killing at least one of the Ewoks...but the Ewoks found ancient yet unusual way to deal with them. For instance, Chewbacca, as well as another Ewok, was able to commandeer one of the walkers (and actually used that to destroy from behind one of the walkers), and the other Ewoks used logs to knock out two other walkers.

It is amazing what Luke could do with his Jedi powers on his Light Sabre, like, for instance, the scene on Endor where Luke deflects incoming laser shots from a Storm Trooper speeder bike, and using the Sabre to knock out part of the bike. Or, in a climax, using the Sabre to break off his own father's arm during the final Sabre fight with Sith Vader.

You probably know the Ewoks celebration after the Death Star was blown, complete with a short display of fireworks, drumming on the spoils of victory (e.g., Storm Trooper Masks), and Luke finally meeting up with Leia after Luke's own nemesis---Darth Vader, now dead, is burned on a pyre. The celebration include Ewoks singing but I think Lucas did not buy that--even with the strong respect of film composer John Williams.

On the home movie version, I think Lucas himself wanted a different ending. In addition to the celebration on Endor, he wanted shots of celebratory scenes on the several surviving rebel planets, including a celebratory laser shot that destroys the statue of the Sith. The Ewoks song was replaced by an alternative instrumental piece. He probably wanted the extra stuff to prove that with the Death Star's destruction, balance had been restored to the rebel galaxies. A very good movie. A classic sci-fi film with humor, action and everything. This movie offers a greater number of aliens. We see the Rebel Alliance leaders and much of the Imperial forces. The Emperor is somewhat an original character. I liked the Ewoks representing somehow the indigenous savages and the Vietnamese. (Excellent references) I loved the duel between Vader and Luke which is the best of the saga. In Return of the Jedi the epilogue of the first trilogy is over and the Empire finally falls. I also appreciated the victory celebration where it fulfills Vader's redemption and returns hi into Anakin Skywalker spirit along with Yoda and Obi-Wan. It gives a sadness and a tear. The greatest scenes in Star Wars are among this movie: When Vader turns on the Emperor. Luke watches and finds comfort in seeing Obi-Wan, Yoda and...his father (1997 version not Hayden Christenssen). The next best scene is when Luke rushes to strike back Darth Vader to protect Leia. There is a deep dark side of this film despite there is a good ending. I felt there was much more than meets the eye. And as always the John William's music will bring the classicism into Star Wars universe. I only wish that Return of the Jedi, have been directed by somebody else, I mean, there is far too much ewoks scenes, completely unnecessary. Besides this time our heroes look like different people: Princess Leia no longer fights with Solo, Luke looks boring, Darth Vader is not as evil as before, and Yoda just dies.

But there are many extraordinary things going on this episode that i just can't hate it.

SOME SPOILERS 1- Jabba the hut 2- The Sail Barge attack sequence. 3-The emperor (now that's evil) 4- The Speeders chase at the endor forest. 5-The Last Battle. 6-The Dark side seduction scene. 7-The return of Anakin to the good side of the force. 8- And the last celebration.

Some of those are so good that they can bring tears to your eyes. If some scenes would have been cut, and another director was hired, this would have been as perfect as episode 4 and 5, but still is extraordinary. 9 out of 10. Dear Readers,

The final battle between the Rebellion and Empire. The Second Death Star is nearing completion and when it is completed it will spell doom for the Rebel Alliance. Luke Skywalker, now a Jedi knight, returns from Tatooine with Han Solo and Princess Leia, now revealed as Luke's twin sister! They agree to lead the attack on the Shield generator on the Forest moon of Endor while Lando Calrissian leads the attack on the Death Star. Little do they know that a most ingenious trap has been laid for them and the Emperor Palpatine himself is personally overseeing the construction of the Second Death Star.

Return of the Jedi is my favorite of the Original Trilogy. It's got action, drama, romance, great battles, fantastic Acting, amazing fight scenes, and awesome music by John Williams. Mark Hamill is fully matured now into a Jedi Knight, gone is the naive farm-boy and in his place is a calm, relaxed Jedi determined to save the galaxy. Leia is still cool in this film as well as Han and Lando. 3P0, R2, and Chewie do their roles to a T while James Earl Jones still is cinema's greatest villain: Darth Vader. Ian McDiarmid is also an excellent villain as the twisted and brutally ruthless Emperor Palpatine. The Action sequences of this movie are breathtakingly amazing and the sword fights are serious and gritty. John Williams's score is still cool and enhances the film by several levels.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector Star Wars: Episode 4 .

the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.

thanks Lucas "Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.

Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.

Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.

Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic! No, there is another !

Because every Star Wars fan had to have an opinion about I, II & III and because that opinion was biased since we missed so much the atmosphere and the characters of the original trilogy, I will state the good points of "The Return of the Jedi" and a few corresponding bad points of the prequel. Of course, I loved the music, the special effects, the two droids, but this has been overly debated elsewhere.

What we get in the original trilogy and in this particular movie : - A strong ecological concern - Anti-militarist positions - Fascinating insights about the Jedi Order and the Force - Cute creatures - Harrison Ford's smile - A killer scene : Near the ending, when Vader looks alternatively at his son and at the Emperor. The lightning of the lethal bolts reflected on his Black helmet. And when he grabs and betrays his Master to save Luke, thereby risking his own life ! Oh, boy !

What is wrong in the prequel INMHO : - the whole "human factor" element that the original cast was able to push forward is somehow missing - The Force seems to be more about superpowers and somersaults, than about wisdom - Too many Jedis at once and too many Light Sabers on the screen - The lack of experience of a few actors too often threatens the coherence of the plot

By the way, if you enjoy the theory of the Force as explained by Obi Web (Obi Wen, I mean) and Yoda, then you should read a few books about Buddhism and the forms it took in Ancient Japan.

The magic of Star Wars, IMHO lies mainly in the continuing spiritual heritage from a master to his apprentice, from a father to his son, albeit the difficulties. "De mon âme à ton âme", (from my soul to yours), as would write Bejard to the late Zen master T. Deshimaru. As Most Off You Might off Seen Star Wars: Return Off The Jedi You May Knows Its A Good Movie But As You Might Have Seen On Video They M|might have a party At The end And They Just Probably End The Movie with the party with no a spirits or anything But on the original one (Live TV) When they are Partying But before i say more when Ben obi-wan dies in the Imperial Ship Or Death Star They Saw him Disappear And Yoda Dies From Either Old Age Or Internal Illness But because Luke killed Darth Vader (Real Name: Anakin Skywalker) When They All Are Partying At The end when Luke Or Someone Stops the Spirits Off Ben And Yoda Stands Starring At Him And Smiling While Another Spirit Appears Is its Darth Vader but not as A Sith As The Old Usual Selve off Him And Started Smiling with Ben And Yoda I reckon That made the movie ending a little bit interesting But the Producers or anyone should off made a spirit off Padme And Mace Windu And Other Jedis that got killed with Younglings Under There Arms in the back ground I know I know it was a good ending but sincerely it was awesome. I love when a movie ends on a terrific dark nature but this time I was impressed with Darth Vader turning against the Emperor I really stayed astonished. The anguishing sequence in that film was when Luke is tortured and defeated by the Emperor/Darth Sidious. He is about to be destroyed when Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, eliminates his dark master. A nice sacrifice. The cinematography of this film is impressive. I was surprised with all the vessels of the Rebel Battle ships and all Imperial War Ships and Super Star Destroyers. I loved the new race they brought on screen the Mon Calomari, the ewoks, the sullesteian (Lando's co pilot) and many more... Most of my favorite scenes are in that film:1-When Vader destroys the Emperor and is fatally wounded. 2- When Luke sees the spirits of Obi-Wan and Yoda and then it shows up Anakin Skywalker (Sebastian Shaw)(the greatest scene in Star Wars) 3- When LEia slays Jabba strangling the Hutt crime lord.

I personally like the script and the battle of Endor presenting a ground and space combat as well the best duel of Star Wars between Darth Vader V.s Luke Skywalker on the Death Star. Post-script: The scenes with Leia in the slave bikini are memorable. 9/10. I suppose JEDI is now chronologically to be considered the very "last" entry in the popular saga, and it's a very good one, as were several of these. I liked how directly this sequel took off after THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and I appreciated the maturity of Luke Skywalker as a character(and also Mark Hamill, as an actor). After hearing so many negative things about the Ewoks, they weren't so bad. I enjoyed the thrilling chase within the woods, and I felt there was a lot of well-realized emotion with this chapter. The ending (with some new additions, I presume?) successfully weaves all 6 chapters into a wonderful tale of fantasy. I know many true Star Wars fans hated George Lucas for changes he made to the original films, but being a relative novice to these movies rather late in life and not missing what I didn't already know, I think he made these 6 movies work perfectly as a whole entity. Oh, and, err -- Carrie Fisher looked quite delicious in her skimpy outfit. I couldn't have been more thrilled; Just eight years old back in 1983, I was going to see a Star Wars movie at the theater! The best day of my life was about to happen. To that time, my only Star Wars experience had been a few HBO showings of Star Wars. I hadn't even seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.

And boy, did that day deliver for my less critical eyes. Jabba. Big Rebel spaceships. The Emporer. A green-bladed lightsaber!! Wow! Since that magical day, I must have watched this movie hundreds of times. I can't even form an accurate estimate at this point. With those multiple viewings, I have of course observed that this movie - the REAL Episode III - does have its flaws.

Of course in the context of a Star Wars movie, those "flaws" are more like "quirks".

Millions had had their magical day in 1977 and 1980. In May of 1983, I had mine. And this was my Star Wars movie. he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.

Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.

The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.

There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10. This excellent drama had me in suspense the whole time. I could not take my eyes off the screen for one second because every word kept connecting the pieces to this puzzling murder. This movie really touched me because it showed how sad and hard life can be. I really did cry in the end (which I don't want to give away!) It also let me realize how cruel and sickening people can be when it comes to murder.

The cast was also very good. The only bad cast member was the actress who played Anne Marie. The actress did a great job, but the director didn't. I say this because he found someone who didn't look a single bit like Anne Marie Fahey herself. To those who have not followed the Anne Marie Fahey Murder case. You are missing out one of the saddest yet complicated murder of all. The murderer is popular Delaware attorney, Tom Capano and the victim is the Delaware Governor's Scheduling Secretary, Anne Marie Fahey. Their relationship was a well-kept secret until her disappearance and murder. She wanted to leave him but he just wouldn't let her go so easily. On the other hand, he had a mistress and a wife and four daughters. Where did he find the time to have two mistresses and a domestic family life? Besides, the case is extremely complicated and fascinating for a four hour mini series. While the actress who plays Ms. Fahey does a fine job, she does not have her dark long hair. His other mistress is definitely more attractive than the actual woman. Mark Harmon is better looking and does an Emmy award winning performance as Tom Capano. It would be better with actual Delaware and Philadelphia locations. With Ann Rule's executive producing, she adds accuracy to Anne Marie's characteristic of organization and her personal battle with an eating disorder. These bits of information might be overlooked by any other executive producer or director. If you have not read the book, it is well worth it. Ann Rule is a fascinating storyteller of true crime. It is ironic that Mark Harmon plays Tom Capano. He also played Ann Rule's former friend and subject, Ted Bundy in an another book adaptation many years ago. He was brilliant then and now. He does an above average job with an amazing story. Even President CLinton offered his assistance in the Anne Marie Fahey case. And now, the former Governor Tom Carper is now the United States Senator for Delaware who defeated longtime, popular incumbent Senator Richard Roth in the November 2000 election. IF you don't think the movie is interesting, then the read Rule's book. Thomas Capano was not Anne Marie's boss Tom Carper, the Governor was. That is the reason the Feds became involved, he called Clinton and asked him to get the Feds involved in the case. I lived outside of Philadelphia at the time so the case was front page news every day. I also read Ann Rule's book and saw the "City Confidential" segment on A&E. Tom Capano was a megalomanic(sp.), an uber-controller and a monster. He claimed to love Ann Marie but all he wanted was someone that he could control. When she wouldn't let him do that anymore he killed her, the ultimate form of control. I think it's a waste of money that he is still alive. Too bad a couple of comments before me don't know the facts of this case. It is based on actual events, a highly publicized disappearance and murder case taking place in the Wilmington, DE/Philadelphia PA region from '96 through 2000. I have to admit I was highly skeptical of how Hollywood would dramatize the actual history and events and was actually quite impressed on how close they stayed to what was constantly reported on local newscasts and Philadelphia Inquirer news stories throughout the time period. Of course I immediately pointed out that the actress (who I really like in Cold Case) who played Fahey looked nothing like her (Anne Marie was actually prettier). I have to admit though that Mark Harmon really nailed the type of personality that was revealed as Capano's and the behavior that Capano exhibited throughout this period. Details of the case were right on...no deviations of dramatic effect...even down to the carpet, gun, furniture, and cooler. In conclusion, I also wanted to add that I have met Tom Carper many times at various functions (a good man, despite being a politician) and I am so glad that he pulled the strings in the Federal realm necessary to solve this heinous crime. Guys like Capano are real and it was great to see him finally put behind bars. I was very surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I thought it was funny, sexy, painful, and warm. Andie MacDowell's performance was nuanced and vulnerable. For once, the director of a MacDowell film did not make her beauty another character in the film. The romance between Kate and her young man is lovely to watch and it plays out very well. Her relationship with her friends is both a thorn and a balm in her life. Imelda Stalinson, who has been a MVP in so many British films, does a great job in this. There is some tragedy in this but I think the film is saved in the end by the brilliant acting, clean direction, and witty writing.The film quality is excellent and the music is good, too, though unavailable on sound track. I really truly enjoyed this movie. (Which is why it surprised me that it got such a low rating from so many users at this site!) I am not saying that it is a cinematic masterpiece but it was a great way to spend a cold, snowy Saturday night. It is funny, poignant, and a great tales of the ups and downs of female friendships lasting through difficult times and the bad things that female friends tend to do to each others! (fess up ladies, we have ALL BEEN THERE!) Bill Paterson shines as the Reverand Gerald Marsden and Andie McDowell proves that she can be a fine actress when the role is right and she puts her mind to it. (And truly, there is the best "wedding escape" that I have ever seen or dreamed up in this film ... more guts than anyone I have ever known!) You will laugh and you will cry --- ignore any marketing campaigns and how this film is being marketing .... it is a hidden gem that should have done TONNES of box office. (now I have to look around to purchase a copy!) This is a refreshing, enjoyable movie. If you enjoyed, "Four Weddings and A Funeral", "Peter's Friends", etc., you will see a number of familiar and talented actors. Made me laugh, made me sad. I view movies for entertainment, and English-set movies generally fit that bill for me. Enjoy! Having no knowledge of this film prior to seeing it on Rialto Channel I found it to be a pleasant, poignant and enriching film.

The casting was excellent. I loved all the characters, they were a little exaggerated in places, (but this IS a film). The way it looked and the enjoyably giddy ride the main character took until it turned badly, as real life can and does. Yes, I thought Andy MacDowell was great. I was particularly interested to watch this film once it began because people so often joke about her acting abilities (I find this quite wierd because she's always a solid actress in my opinion).

I loved the bit at the end where Andy's character said "sometimes I feel he was never here" etc., it was so completely how it really is in a situation like that (which I can personally identify with), then there was that gorgeous classical piece "Nocturne" I think by Chopin, which was a beautiful way to end (bar the light comedy at the end, which was probably unnecessary).

I say "well done" to the film makers - I have seen 1,000s of worse films! Kenny Doughty as Jed Willis is sexier in this role than any male porn star, even though he keeps his pants on.

The movie tore at my heart reminding me of the intensity of the big explosive love of my life. I don't think I can think of another movie, except perhaps Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet that captures that giddy joy that well.

The other draw of the movie is the very English eccentric characters enjoying the scandal vicariously. In that sense it is much the same appeal as Midsomer Murder or a Miss Marple mystery, without the mayhem.

This is a great antidote to the mock horror currently popular in the USA an any relationships between people of different ages. Crush provides a combination of drama, humor and such irony that I find the English establish very well when it concerns matters of the heart. Mostly known for directing John McKay wrote this wonderful screenplay about three forty-something friends in a small town in England. All three professional women down-out of luck with men formed a ritual ladies night gathering with gin, fags and sweets intake included with endless chatter of their dates erroneous behavior or the needs of their libidos. Andie MacDowell once again thrown by the surrounds of the British (which is where I find she exudes the most) is absolutely charming as the head mistress of a prestigious school who becomes involved with a younger man. Small town gossip and the disapproving jealous friends (great supporting cast) conflicts with her relationship. Unfolding a series of brutal unfortunate events and showing us the many difficulties when one is in pursuit of true happiness. Keep in mind the main premise of this film is friendships and the ending shows us exactly that. This is the type of film you either love or hate, which is why I believe a lot of mix reviews and not that greatest success resulted when this film was released. As I'm sure most are just unearthing the film now. I very much enjoyed this film and highly recommend for those in the likes of such films as "Love Actually", and "Three Weddings and a funeral". Not to mention the soundtrack is extraordinary perfectly capturing those crucial moments. Ok - I admit. I think Kenny Doughty looks amazing in this movie - but beyond his good looks, the movie is carried by a sometimes predictable, but reasonable plot.

Starting out, we're introduced to the three lead females of the movie. One a headmistress - very concerned about her image and never married. A police officer - with child and a bad ex to go on about. The third - a power & status hungry doctor with a desire for recognition and three ex's.

They are almost the "First Wives Club", and indeed there is much verbal bashing of ex's involved as well as some "he left the credit card" behaviour. Characters set - the movie continues.

McDowell's character, the headmistress, arrives late at a funeral - where a young organist, filling in for the regular player (Doughty) catches her eye. What will her two friends say about the ensuing mischief? Will they live happily ever after?

A tissue or two recommended if you're the teary type - the end uplifting, but maybe not what you'd expect. All in all a great movie which stands out amongst the current choices of action, special effects and schlock horror. I thought this was one of those really great films to see with a bunch of close friends. I laughed and cried and laughed and cried at the same time. It was just really touching. Although not a new concept this was a very well made film. Andie MacDowell's facial expressions are great again in this movie. When you enter 40 and have been single for a while (or all your life) you may feel you are wasting away. The movie is a sweet reminder that love can be found just anywhere if your antennae is acutely active. I liked the quick sexual encounter, which must be out of character for a normally reserved school teacher (MacDowell). Her ex-student is cute enough, still carrying a crush on his teacher for so long.

There are some parts that I thought rather unrealistic or unpractical, though. For example, at a scene where the other women's jealousy override and a scene was set up to make Andie MacDowell dump the young man, would a mature police officer (the other friend of MacDowell) allow her friend to do such a sinister act? Is it so easy for anyone to not stop in front of a car? Of course accidents happen all the time, but I hoped to see the heroine get happily married with the first man she got involved with (that was the hardest part to believe!! For such a beautiful woman to stay single for so long??)...

Maybe the movie producers are aware of the fact that many romance between an older woman and a younger man do not last for long. Beside they know that a happy ending would not appeal to the public, especially to jealousy women over 40, who are waiting some miracles to happen. The sad ending with a glimpse of hope for the sad woman who lost her true love is sweet, but if the man continued to live, would that last? For how long? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, it's a movie to make you want to watch it again sometime later.... a year later maybe. Me being of Irish origins, loved this movie, Not only was the guy hot and funny he was also sincere and honest. I loved the girl who he fell in love with too, she was pretty. They were such a cute couple. The ending was so sad. Love this movie! Although it is a little dirty, it reminds of a British or Irish version of Prime. If you liked this movie you should watch prime. Same story line young guy falls for older women, older women falls for young guy to. A lot of paths cross, in the end, the best decision is made or task is completed. Don't have anything else to say, without ruining the whole movie, all though I thought the french guy was ugly, less appealing to me. Umm...if you like Irish movies, I would recommend "Circle of Friends" ,that movie is so good. Quick quote, you might not get unless you watch it" well, thats my dinner ruined." LOL Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was funny and sad and yes, the guy Andie MacDowell shagged was hot. Interesting, realistic characters and plots as well as beautiful scenery. I think my Mum would like it. I still think they should have been allowed to call it the Sad F**kers Club though... The first word which comes into my mind after watching this movie is "beauty". Beauty is all around, in actors' play (Andie is superb as always), in well designed shots, and in authors' red line idea - the Love.

I think the Kenny's character is the only white spot in these three womens' otherwise boring and predictable life. His interaction makes Andie's character living as entertaining as it could possibly be. When he's gone, it became obvious that we cannot really appreciate and hold to our inner believes and sacred desires.

The fact that Andie successfully recovers from this loss is nothing bad, instead it shows that life prevails in any forms, even in this small British village, which is shown perfectly.

Another reason I love this movie is that it is so British in all ways - all that houses and "fags" and accents :))). And Andie again is doing superb job! It is a shame that this movie got such low marks. 10 out of ten! This is a very moving picture about 3 forty-something best friends in a small england town. One finds a passionate loves and a new beginning with a younger piano instructor, When tragedy strikes and hearts are changed forever. Definitely a film to have a box of tissues with you! A powerful piece of work. This is definitely one of my favorite films of all time.

*SPOILER!!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!!*

The main character is taken by her young, handsome piano instructor and a passionate romance blossoms. Her two jealous "friends" play an immature prank which quickly leads to tragedy. She loses her love and her friends in one foul swoop. In the end a unexpected surprise pulls them back together.(in my opinion her forgiveness is not warranted) "Crush" examines female friendship, for the most part avoiding the saccharine quality which spoils so many films with the same theme (e. g., "Steel Magnolias"). At the same time, it reveals the power of a sudden passion to overwhelm and surprise. The events depicted were highly improbable, but the underlying emotional truth seemed very genuine to me. Not a film for the speeding-vehicle-and-explosion crowd, but grown-up women are certain to respond with both laughter and tears. I think the weighted average for this film is too low. I give it a 7. Very entertaining, although over the top in a few places. My wife says it passes the Danielle Steele test. Superb performances throughout, particularly by Andie MacDowell. In Northeastern of Brazil, the father of the twelve years old illiterate Maria (Fernanda Carvalho) sells his daughter to the middle man of a prostitution organization, Tadeu (Chico Dias), to be employed as a housemaid and have a better life. However, the girl is resold to the farmer Lourenço (Otávio Augusto) that deflowers her, and he gives the abused girl to his teenager son to have his first sexual experience. Then she is sent to a brothel in a gold field in Amazonas and explored his owner, the despicable Saraiva (Antonio Calloni). When Maria escapes to Rio de Janeiro expecting a better life, she is explored by the cáften Vera (Darlene Glória).

"Anjos do Sol" exposes the sad and shameful reality of child prostitution in Brazil through the fate of the girl Maria. Last year I saw "Lilja 4-ever" that tells an identical story in the former Soviet Union; therefore this problem does exist in Third World countries. Director and writer Rudi Lagemann presents a great movie exposing the reality but never showing nudity or explicit sexual scenes. It is the debut of the promising Fernanda Carvalho, who has an excellent performance in the role of a scared child fighting for survival. Most of the prostitutes are amateurs, and it is impossible to recognize the famous Darlene Glória so different she is after many plastic surgeries. The bitter and hopeless end of the story is also very realistic. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Anjos do Sol" ("Angels of the Sun") I'm not much of an expert on acting or other movie details, but this movie just hit me deep. I don't think I'll ever forget it. One scene especially (I think that anybody who has seen the film will know of which one I am speaking) is imprinted on my brain.

I also watched the similar movie Lilja 4-ever (as referred to by a previous commentator). It was also very moving, but not quite as straight to the point and brutal. If you are sensitive at all, either will bring tears to your eyes, but Anjos Do Sol (Angels of the Sun) may stay with you forever.

This is very depressing subject matter, but I think, no, I HOPE that the film succeeds in bringing more attention to it.

More people need to see this film!!!!!! I saw this film at the Chicago Reeling film festival. To pick up on the previous reviewer's remarks, the claustrophobic feel and off colors of the film is I sense quite intentional and conveys the sense of limited space, drab architecture, overall drabness that constitutes the urban environment of most people in Eastern and Central Europe. A bit shabby housing project style is how I'd describe it, and this is how many people live on the outskirts of larger cities. I can't say that I'm familiar with Bucharest, Romania where the action unfolded, but I have visited and lived in Eastern Europe for six months.

When I visited Russia as a student for a semester, my entire group had to drag their luggage seven stories up the staircase of a shabby student dorm building, just as the heroine does when moving in with a woman, because the elevators weren't working. But, I do concur with the reviewer, that the claustrophobia and muted colors, it's overdone, for there are, to be sure, beautiful historic buildings, parks, squares you can find in Bucharest or in any historic city center of Eastern Europe, and Bucharest's didn't get much of any footage in this film. For me watching this film conveys well the claustrophobia that I would feel during my half-year stay there, feeling trapped and limited. (It makes you see why someone would want to immigrate and find a better life, just as people if hope to escape from a United States urban ghetto.)

Also, given the climate of homophobia, say, circa, US in the 1980s, the two young women who fall in love with one another are forced to keep their love a very private matter; hence, the focus on their interaction in the apartment.

It's remarkable and commendable in my view that this queer themed film was even made in Romania, and I find the complaint of the previous reviewer about the poor film quality quite uninformed and patronizing. It's unlikely that the director and producer drummed up much government support and funding for their film, and they did the best they could with their likely limited resources. The actors were fairly good and believable; the dialog was overall well done, and I could identity with these women.

The film offers an added twist to that of forbidden love between two young women, Kiki, an energetic, fun-loving free spirit with a dark, troubling secret (her admiration and love for an abusive, incestuous brother, Sandu) falls in love with Alexandra, a bright, bookish, idealistic young woman who moves to Bucharest to begin her college studies. Opposites attract, and their personalities seem to complement one another, though there is some tension between the ambitious, studious, intellectual Alexandra and Kiki, who seems to be attending college to please her parents. Keeping their love hidden from their parents seems manageable, though we don't get any sense of the tension it requires, nor do we ever see or meet any other students--hard to believe--and the tension keeping their love secret would have entailed. The chief threat to their love is Kiki's brother and her difficulty in trying to severe her relation to him. But Kiki's love for Alexandra seems to give her the strength she needs to finally severe this bond, or does it? That's what the suspense of the film focuses on as the narrative develops, and I won't say how it concludes.

Ironically, Kiki's love "sickness" isn't love for another woman, but her illicit, incestuous love for her brother. Thus, loving a woman offers the potential cure to the sickness of loving a sibling.

Though this feel of this film is stifling and claustrophobic, overly confined to interactions between Kiki and Alexandra, it was still engaging and moving to watch, so I'll give it a 7. I think that the idea of the plot is perfect for exploring first of all the emotional experiences of the people involved and second, as someone else wrote in a comment, the implications of this kind of relationships (incest and lesbianism) in the romanian society.

so... to begin with the second aspect... to make it short, it wasn't visible at all...

as for the first.. as i said, it had much more potential... i think that those kind of relationships carry much more tension... much more tension... and the potential tension didn't get through...

i think the soundtrack could've been more than those few songs on the background and the theme (wich was nice but not enough and not always in the right moments)... yeah... i could feel the absence of a better soundtrack..

the actors... i think that they were somewhere from 7 to 8/10... not enough sensuality in the key moments...

a total of 7/10.... mostly for the story It's a strange, yet somehow impressive story, about love. Personnaly, I never run over such a twist-off story in real life. But, I can image there is.

It's a story that promises to be "sick" from the title. But, after I watch it, I didn't get this feeling of "sickness" which I would surely have regarding society rules. It's something beautiful in this movie... something impressive...which I cannot contradict using any moral or society rules.

The movie focuses mostly on relation between Kiki and Alex. You can see how this relation starts, evolves and finally ends. You feel the moment when this love blossoms, the first whispers, touchings. You feel the connection. And no moment I though this is immoral. You even hope it will not break in the end....it cannot break...it's not right. You feel the pain of being hart broken in the end...

But,I need also to add a negative spin to this comment...I don't know if the story is not somehow *showed* to give the feeling that these relations are sick only in form, but not in content. You don't have the total story, but only fragments. When movie has started, the relation between Kiki and Sandu was already in place. So, no clue about the nature of the relation. You feel only a tension between them...a fight between the need for love and desire to break this relation. I think this line of Kiki to Sandu says all: "I want to stop...and if you love me, you will do as I ask you".

This movie will probably stir some questions about what is love and what is to be moral...and where's the limit between them. I don't know if the idea of this movie is "love conquers all...even social and moral standards" or "love is beautiful...no matter how or where". But in my opinion, this movie is already a success for the simple reason that it makes you think... i think it is a nice movie; i think it is a very romanian movie through scenery and atmoshpere; i think it was not intended to be sensual (sensuality is a result, not a purpose); i think it is very natural; i think it is humane; i think it was interesting; i think the actors never made me think... waw lame acting (they are not Sean Connory & co) neither is the film a block buster, they are like the movie... normal ppl that can act...; i think the movie reached its intention; i think it made me feel things (or feel them again :) ); i think i'm not objective;

i really enjoyed it... that i know. i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed Love is overwhelming... In all it's manifestations... Gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous... Tudor Chirila, Maria Popistasu and Ioana Barbu, one truly dramatic story about love in all it's shapes, a story about the undecipherable ways of young hearts, about life and lost innocence all directed by the skillful eye of Tudor Giurgiu. With a magnificent soundtrack featuring Faultline & Chris Martin and Vama Veche it surprises in every way leaving behind the sour taste of misunderstanding love... Truly remarkable... Is it me or is Romanian cinematography slowly but surely advancing and gaining respect? This is a brilliant film... Two thumbs up to everybody involved. I viewed the movie together with a homophobic friend, my wife and her female friend. So I had views from all kinds of directions. Mainly, the film made me laugh, the sexual tension was not really there and the only noticeable actors were Tudor Chirila and Maria Popistasu. Yes, I do think she played her role well, even if the script was not appropriate. There were good Romanian actors around, they just didn't have complex roles. I applaud Puya's entering the movie business. I don't know why, but I think he's a good guy, I just hope he'll be a good actor.

The wife loved the movie, though, and I think there might have been chords being played and to which I had no ear for. If the film tried to present uncommon sexual behaviors and their consequences in todays Romania, then it failed miserably. There were no consequences. Just imagine that the girls are actually a boy and a girl, and the same story becomes just a boring, uninteresting plot.

I have no idea why it got all those BAFTA awards. In my book, it should have gotten the "Better luck next time" award. (bafta=good luck in Romanian). I love Tudor Chirila and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much. Two days before the movie premiere I went to see his concert. I saw the trailer and the video "zmeu" before the movie and I thought I had it all figured.. i was wrong: instead of a good movie i assisted a great one! i FELT the movie. it was sad.. it was funny.. but most of all it pictured LOVE.. I can't even begin to describe the soundtrack.. so i won't :) I'm not a movie critic.. I can't describe it in more words.. My kinda vague description is all because the play left me speechless.. thank god for the keyboard :) Thank you Tudor Giurgiu, thank you Maria Popistasu, thank you Ioana Barbu and THANK YOU TUDOR CHIRILA. Encore! :) Of all the breakdancing / hip-hop films released between 1983 and 1986, the 1984 film Beat Street is unquestionably the best one. The story follows a DJ, his younger breakdancing brother, a graffiti artist and a wanna-be showbiz promoter through one winter in which they try to break out of the ghetto using their "street" talent. The acting isn't always up to par and the characters aren't fully drawn out, but they are more than compensated for by down-to-earth dialogue, a plausible story, fantastic dancing sequences and a timeless hip-hop sound track. It should be noted this film was shot in the birthplace of breakdancing ("This ain't New York, this is the Bronx!"), and features appearances by the fathers of breakdancing, dance troupe Rock Steady Crew and rapper Afrika Bambaata. Rock Steady Crew provide the best scene in the film when they dominate a dance battle at the premiere breakdancing club of the early 80's, the Roxy. A must see for hip-hop lovers. Cinematically, this film stinks. So does a lot of the acting. But I

don't care. If there is a strong representation of what the 80's were

like(For a lot of us in the innercity anyways) and what hip-hop, Zulu

nation, and break dancing were really like.Great music, great

dancing! It almost seems like a documentary of a time now past

when hip-hop was a way of life. It's also interesting to see New

York looking like ground zero from a nuclear attack. Some viewers

may be too young to remember that It was a poor, run down city

during the 70's and 80's. This is the best of all the hip-hop/break

dancing movies that came out around that period. Of course the

80's are considered a joke now with all the bad tv shows and

movies, but those of us who lived through it will always remember

it fondly for a time when music, dancing, and graffiti were fresh, yo! This show has been my escape from reality for the past ten years. I will sadly miss it. Although Atlantis has filled the hole a small bit.

The last ever episode of SG1(on television anyway)was beautifully done. Robert wrote something that felt close to reality. As though he was trying to explain what it was like on the set of the show. (Everyone working closely together for such a long time there are bound to up's and downs. But over the years they've turned into a family). I thought this was a wonderful way to end despite anyone else's criticisms.

SG1 was something special and time and time again it took me across thresholds of disbelief and amazement. The wonderful characters, stories, directors, writers. From episode one I was hooked. The blend of action, science, drama and especially comedy worked so well that made me keep wanting more.

There are no real words in which to completely express what this show meant to me. I can only thank those who kept the show so fresh and entertaining for so many years. It has inspired me to do many things that I thought was impossible.

I look forward to the movies next year and I really hope there will be a number of them. I never want the show to die.

Stargate SG1 - 1997 - 2007? Stargate is the best show ever. All the actors are absolutely perfect for there roles. I love the connection between the characters. If you have not seen this show I very highly recommend it. Although this program is compared to Star trek a lot of the time it actually can't be because it is completely different. I am a star trek fan but i would definitely rate this show well above any of the star treks. Unfortunately I live in New Zealand and we do not get Stargate on our TV so if i want to see it I have to buy the DVDs and season 10 is not out here yet so i can not see it for quite some time (which is highly depressing). However this program is very very good and is a must see, but be warned it is highly addictive. So in summery I Love Stargate (and Amanda Tapping). The first and second seasons started off shakily, with good episodes sandwiched in between average ones, and at times resorting to clichéd stories. But once it started to set up the universe in which it exists and started to develop it's characters more, it became a lot more fun and entertaining.

The main reason this show succeeds it because of four men: Richard Dean Anderson, Peter Deluise, Joseph Malozzie and Paul Mullie. Richard's dry sense of humour makes to show so much better, Peter's directing is excellent and makes any episode so much more entertaining, and Joe & Paul never fail to make a funny, interesting episode together.

Once you understand what the show is about and get to know the characters, I doubt you won't like the show. For those getting into the show I suggest the episodes 'The Other Side', a good serious episode, and 'Window of Opportunity', a classic comic relief episode. "Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.

Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.

This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show.

"Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show:

- The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat.

- From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts

- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments.

- The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.

Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.

Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.

In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1. On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.

As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.

The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.

In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.

"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.

In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come. The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs. I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.

But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.

Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.

And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good. I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool. It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall. Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients. Stargate SG-1 is a spin off of sorts from the 1994 movie "Stargate." I am so glad that they decided to expand on the subject. The show gets it rolling from the very first episode, a retired Jack O'Neill has to go through the gate once more to meet with his old companion, Dr. Daniel Jackson. Through the first two episodes, we meet Samantha Carter, a very intelligent individual who lets no one walk over her, and there is Teal'c, a quiet, compassionate warrior who defies his false god and joins the team.

The main bad guys are called the Gouald, they are parasites who can get inserted into one's brain, thus controlling them and doing evil deeds. Any Gouald who has a massive amount of power is often deemed as a "System Lord." The warriors behind the Gouald are called Jaffa, who house the parasitic Gouald in their bodies until the Gouald can get inserted in a person's brain.

Through the episodes, we mostly get to see SG-1, the exploratory team comprised of Jack/Daniel/Teal'c/and Sam, go through the wormhole that instantly transports them to other planets (this device is called the Stargate) and they encounter new cultures or bad guys. Some episodes are on-world, meaning that they do not go through the Stargate once in the episode and rather deal with pressing issues on Earth.

Through the years, you start to see a decline in the SG-1 team as close knit, and more character-building story lines. This, in turn means even more on-world episodes, which is perfectly understandable.

My rating: 8.75/10----While most of this show is good, there are some instances of story lines not always getting wrapped up and less of an emphasis on gate travel these last few years. But still, top notch science fiction! I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or "Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love this show!

Every time i watch an episode i repeat that line and remind myself how good of a show this is. I am a huge sci-fi fan and this show has grounds to be the most important science (fiction?) show in the history of film/TV. There are so many theories in this show about the universe i could start a religion. Its amazing, season after season the show gets better and better.

I've been a fan of MacGyver since i was 5 (19 now) and i find it so ironic that my 2 favorite TV shows of all time star Richard Dean Anderson. Its also interesting how each character is practically the opposite of the other.

Back when i first saw Stargate the movie, i instantly liked it and considered it one of my favorite sci-fi flicks, then hearing a TV show would spin from it i got really excited, but didn't get showtime till the fifth season was almost over.

Though, I'm disappointed to hear that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wanted to do a trilogy of movies but the studio optioned the series instead.

Id say though that it turned out just fine. Maybe even better.

This show is amazing, and i hope it never dies. Atlantis here we come! Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.

But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.

In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.

And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.

I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.

So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about. I got in to this excellent program in about season 4 and since then i have seen all the episodes got all the episodes on DVD and keeps getting better and better with the seasons of 9 and 10. It now may not have Richard Dean Anderson now but the addition of Ben Browder and Claudie Black it has still given the show more strength and original still even after 10 seasons. Sadly now the sci-fi channel got rid of this amazing show with no hope relay for a 11 season there are making two direct to DVD movie and hopefully more. Atlantis is still going strong on its 4th seasons. And there is a third spin off in the works the stargate franchise is nowhere near dead. This TV show is a must see for all sci-fi fans and people of genres because this has such a wide range of things to appeal to all ages and all types of people Watch IT !!!!! 10/10 OK, let's get this clear. I'm really not into sci-fi, but for some reason I love Stargate SG-1.

Jack O'Neil takes his team SG-1 through a Stargate. A round device that creates a wormhole. It gives you the ability to travel to distant worlds. It might sound like your usual sci-fi-series, but it's not! The plot is set today not in some distant millennium like many other sci-fi-series. I find that great. It gives you things, happenings and such you can relate to, and you can jump into the series at any time without having to learn many new terms and names of all the gadgets. They have some of course but thanks to O'Neil who likes to keep a simple terminology, there's not many.

The series has a nice blending of action, humor and drama. If you enjoy loads of special effects you're not going to find it here. They don't use many bad ones but a limited amount of well made special effects. Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the most faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.

The most obvious plus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. While events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is present. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far superior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The big payoff of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.

Overall, I enjoyed this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty well with this. If you can find this series, give it a look. Verhoeven's movie was utter and complete garbage. He's a disgusting hack of a director and should be ashamed. By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch.

Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It basically steals the name, mocks politics of the book (which is a good portion of it), and throws in some T&A so the average idiot American moviegoer doesn't get bored.

This anime isn't perfect, but it's at least mostly accurate, as best I can tell. After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.

13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat clichéd story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.

The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening "thriller scene" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy "fix it in the mix" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong "made for television" feel, and a low budget one at that.

After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.

For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.

Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.

The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with "normal" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.

Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free. Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10 Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.

True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.

Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks! Somewhat funny and well-paced action thriller that has Jamie Foxx as a hapless, fast-talking hoodlum who is chosen by an overly demanding U.S. Treasury Agent (David Morse) to be released on the streets of New York to find a picky computer thief/hacker (Doug Hutchinson), who stole forty-two million dollars from the treasury and left two guards shot dead.

"Bait" marks the sophomore feature for Antoine Fuqua ("The Replacement Killers") and he handles the task fairly well even though it doesn't top his first movie. What the two films have in common is the action sequences, which are flat-out excellent.

Foxx is pretty good here although his character is annoying in the beginning, but throughout the film, I began to catch on. Hutchinson is marvelous as the mastermind who can be ruthless as John Malkovich and patient as the late Laurence Olivier was in "Marathon Man". Morse is okay as the agent who comes up with the ingenious plan to get whoever did it at all cost. I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.

Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10. I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...

Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.

Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.

The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.

All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.

PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo. This is a really interesting movie. It is an action movie with comedy mixed in. Foxx teams up with comedian Epps in this movie to give it a comedic spin. It will keep you wondering whats going to happen to Foxx next. It was a well shot movie, the director used the right colors in this movie(dark blue colors) to give it the right kind of feel. Kimberly Elise also starred in this movie and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. She plays her role well. Even Jamie Kennedy is in this movie. It's worth seeing it you haven't seen it. It's definitely worth having if you are a Jamie Foxx fan. It deserves more credit than it is actually given. I have to agree with most of the other posts. Was it a comedy? a drama? to me it leaned a little to much towards the comedy side. I could have been a great movie without the comedy and it was horribly contrived. Jamie keeps running into the Julio and whats his name. In New York, how many times do you run into someone you know in downtown Cleveland.And just how could Robert Pastorelli dig up Yankee Stadium to hide the gold. Again, a comedy or drama? But it was still entertaining especially for a Sunday morning. I enjoyed Kimberly Elise's performance, she certainly a beautiful actress and seems to take her craft seriously. She is a younger actress that is going to be viable. This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value. This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value. I watched this movie once and might watch it again, but although Jamie Foxx is good in the movie, I feel they could have used a 'less funny' character as Alvin Sanders. Foxx's scenes for instance in the jail when he is confronted by Edgar Clenteen (David Morse) are too funny. David Morse again is a wonderful portrayer of a cop. His tough yet mostly quiet features are perfect for his role. Once again Morse meets Doug Hutchinson (Bristol) in the theater. Morse ends up coming down hard on Hutchinson. They are both perfect for this scenario in each film. I personally love that quality in a film, where actors end up in the same situation as a previous film, as these two did in The Green Mile. Overall it was a pretty good movie. Actually this movie was not so bad. It contains action, comedy and excitement. There are good actors in this film, for instance Doug Hutchison (Percy from "The Green Mile"), who plays Bristol. Another well known actor is Jamie Kennedy, from "Scream" and "Three Kings". The main characters are played by Jamie Foxx as Alvin, who was pretty good and also funny, but the one who most surprised me, was David Morse as Edgar Clenteen. He plays a different character than he usually does, because in other films like "The Green Mile", "Indian Runner", "The Negotiator" or "The Langoliers" he plays a very sympathetic person, and in "Bait" the plays almost the opposite, a man without any emotions, which was nice to see. The only really negative thing about this film, are the several pictures of the World Trade Center, which makes this film perhaps look a little dated. Overall I thought this was a pretty good little film! I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised. I really am shocked to see the number of reviews that lambaste this movie. This movie was not intended to be a "deep thought" movie, which is what the vast majority of the reviewers seem to think it should be. In fact, it would appear that if ANY movie doesn't produce a life altering insight, and a deep, twisted, mind boggling plot, they would rate it a 1 or 2. Don't trash a movie because you don't like the genre, people.

This movie was an Action/Comedy flick, and that's all it was intended to be. And for an Action/Comedy, it was very well done. I was actually rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did, having never really been a Jamie Foxx fan, and having the over-used plot that it has.

The plot was nothing spectacular, using the typical criminal gets out of prison, and is thrown into bad-guy plot while trying to clean up his act (See Blue Streak, Hudson Hawk, 48 Hours, etc. etc. etc.) but it was warmed over with a bit of a technological twist. Now the "bad guys" are actually the "good guys" and the REAL "bad guy" is an uber-geek.

Jamie Foxx actually plays a convincingly humorous, while at the same time rather intelligent and serious main character, and didn't try to overdo the humor side of the film.

If you're looking for a deep underlying plot such as in "The Matrix" or a drama such as "Of Mice and Men" then this movie isn't for you. But if you enjoy the raw action, excellent fast-paced filming, and an occasional twist of humor tossed in, this movie won't disappoint you. I would normally have rated it about an 8 (on the same level as the Die Hard Trilogy), but instead gave it a 10 to try and bring the score up to what it SHOULD be.

I really liked this movie. Of course the idea is pretty much out there...the federal government arranging to have a tracking device implanted into the jaw of an small-time thief to lure a more dangerous thief/computer hacker out of hiding. But Alvin Sanders, the man who the feds have "volunteered" to be implanted with the device, is a very likable person and it turns out to be a lot of fun getting in his head with him for a little while. Alvin even eventually proves himself to be much more than a good-humored but passive or one-dimensional character when he shows that he is not nearly as easily manipulated as he may seem. Definetly worth a watch. Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time. I liked this movie. When the guy who was in on a bank heist of $40 million in gold dies, his cell mate is used as "Bait" to lead them to the high-tech crazy killer partner (by having a monitoring device implanted in his jaw without his knowledge). It's an action, spy type film with enough comical scenes to keep it light. It reminded me of Enemy Of The State. Well acted and good enough plot. The movie is great and I like the story. I prefer this movie than other movie such The cell ( sick movie ) and Highlander ( silly movie ). I just tell the truth, I like a reality hehe and also a true story :)

If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will love his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is lots of laughs, drama, cold blood killings and excellent film locations and plenty of expensive cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were outstanding actors in this film and it was great entertainment through out the entire picture. This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10 I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance.

"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film.

Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.

The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.

I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx. I think this film has much to recommend it, particularly an especially sinister performance by David Morse and a more than passable performance by the always worth watching Mr. Foxx. Although there are a lot of holes in the plot and the motivation is very, very hard to follow in some cases, all in all, it makes for a nice time in front of the tube. This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more.

It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western. Sterling and younger brother try to survive on land, being squeezed by big cattlemen. When 'rogue' brother Preston arrives, a moral dilemma ensues. John 'Drew' Barrymore steals the show as the younger, impressionable brother-Barrymore shows signs here that he could have been an acting powerhouse. Moves at a nice pace to an exciting climax. The summary line above, spoken by James Cloud (Robert Preston) to his brother Tom (Robert Sterling) just about says it all. Jim, AKA Kid Wichita, has a way of making things happen, only trouble is, he usually leaves dead bodies where he's been. Not the sort of mentoring Tom envisions for younger brother Jeff, who likes what he sees in Jim, especially when defending their ranch against local Texas cattlemen.

The opening credits state 'Introducing John Barrymore Jr. as the Younger Brother', in this his very first screen appearance. That seemed rather odd to me, particularly since he was addressed as Jeff almost immediately into the story. Approximately eighteen at the time of this movie, he bears a passing resemblance to Sean Penn. No stranger to personal and legal problems throughout his career as well as estrangement from his family, I was left wondering if his daughter Drew Barrymore might have ever seen this picture. I'm inclined to think not.

On the subject of resemblances, I was also struck by the thought that the young Robert Sterling looked a bit like Roy Rogers early in his career. Knowing Sterling previously only from his role as George Kerby in the early 1950's TV series 'Topper', I thought he looked out of place in a Western, but that might just be me. His character becomes emboldened by his brother's resourcefulness at creating trouble, and provides some of the edginess to this not so typical story. Minor subplots abound, including the relationship rancher John Gall (John Litel) has with his son the Sheriff (who Kid Wichita kills), and the troubled marriage between Kathleen Boyce (Cathy Downs) and her husband Earl (who Kid Wichita kills). Chill Wills rounds out the main cast as one of Tom Cloud's hired hands, and figures in the somewhat predictable finale.

What's not quite predictable is how things eventually wind up there, and for that reason, this Western earns points for following a less traveled, hence not quite as formulaic a plot as a lot of good brother/bad brother Westerns do. Combined with the eclectic casting of the principals, it's one I'd recommend, even if you have to endure some of the jump cuts and sloppy editing that I experienced with my copy. Peaceful rancher Robert Sterling is on the losing side of a range war with his ruthless neighbors, that is until notorious outlaw Robert Preston shows up out of the blue to level the playing field. Soon he begins to go too far, feeding a growing sense of unease in Sterling, especially when his son begins to idolize the wily criminal.

The Sundowners is a tightly-paced, gritty, and surprisingly tough little picture with a great performance by Preston. Here, he comes across as an evil version of Shane, that is until the real nature of the rancher and the outlaw's relationship is revealed. Most movie guides and video boxes spoil the surprise!

Rounding out the cast is Chill Wills, Jack Elam, and the debut of John Drew Barrymore, who became more famous for his offspring than his acting. Billed as Takashi Miike's "first family film" - by people who haven't seen Zebraman, presumably. YOKAI DAISENSO takes things even further in the direction of family-friendliness, diluting the darkness and cynicism to create a grand fantasy fairy tale. A young boy is chosen by fate to save the world from monsters and horrors of which they remain largely unaware. The film is evidently bigger budget than anything else Miike has done, with lots of CGI to create fantasy world populated by odd creatures (the YOKAI). Perhaps the lack of extreme content is a consequence of more nervous investors, but I think it's probably just that he wanted to do something different. He's really never been a one-trick pony, but often gets accused of it - perhaps YOKAI is designed to silence those critics. Regardless, it's a great project for Miike to channel his boundless imagination and invention into.

There's a very cartoonish feel to the production, evoking thoughts of Miyazaki in places. The Yokai are based on an old series of comics that were in turned based on Japanese folk tales, which certainly influenced Miyazaki as well (particularly SPIRITED AWAY). It must remembered that Miike has nothing like the budget of a Harry Potter film to work with, so the special effects aren't going to be seamless Hollywood style work - some blue-screening is especially obvious. Some of the special effects are great though, with some very well animated creatures (a mix of CG, stop-motion and puppetry). I think the little sock-puppet that follows the hero around for much of the film was *meant* to look really cheap, and is all the cuter for it :) The young lad who plays the hero of the film does a really good job - it's so hard to find a pre-teen who actually understands the concept of acting, but 9 year old Ryunosuke Kamiki is a genuine talent (I see he did voices in the last 2 Miyazaki films!). Chiaki Kuriyama is delicious as the villainess of the piece, though Mai Takahashi made an even greater impression as the pixie-eared River Princess - yum yum! Those looking for another violent, perverted gangster film aren't going to find what they're looking for in YOKAI, but if you're a fan of Miike because of his imagination and wit, there's plenty to satisfy here. And it has the added bonus that you can happily put it on whatever company you've got :) Where was this film when I was a kid? After his parents split up Tadashi moves with his mom to live his his grandfather. Tadashi's sister stays with their dad and they talk frequently on the phone. Grandfather is only "here" every third day. Moms never really home. The kids always are picking on the poor kid. During a village festival Tadashi is chosen the "kirin rider" or spiritual champion of the peace and justice. Little does he suspect that soon he will have to actually step into role of hero as the forces of darkness join up with the rage of things discarded in a plot to destroy mankind and the spiritual world.

Okay that was the easy part. Now comes the hard part, trying to explain the film.

This is a great kids film. No this is a great film,flawed, (very flawed?) but a great film none the less. It unfolds like all of those great books you loved as a kid and is just as dense at times as Tadashi struggles to find the strength to become a hero. Watching it I felt I was reading a great book, and thought how huge this would have been if it was a book. I loved that the film does not follow a normal path. Things often happen out of happenstance or through miscommunication, one character gets sucked into events simply because his foot falls asleep. There are twists and turns and moments that seem like non sequiters and are all the more charming for it (which is typical Miike) Certainly its a Takashi Miike film. That Japanese master of film is clearly in charge of a film that often touching, scary and funny all at the same time. No one except Miike seems to understand that you can have many emotions at the same time, or that you can suddenly have twists as things get dark one second and then funny the next. I admire the fact that Miike has made a film that is bleak and hopeful, that doesn't shy away from being scary, I mean really scary, especially for kids. This is the same dark territory that should be in the Harry Potter movies but rarely is. This a dark Grimms tale with humor. My first reaction upon seeing the opening image was that I couldn't believe anyone would begin a kids film with a picture of the end of the world, then I realized who was making the movie. Hats off to Miike for making a movie that knows kids can handle the frightening images.

Its also operating on more than one level. The mechanical monsters that the bad guys make are forged from mankind's discarded junk. Its the rage of being thrown away that fuels the monsters.One of the Yokai (spirits) talks about the rage sneakers thrown away because they are dirty or too small feels when they are tossed. You also have one of the good guys refusing to join the bad guys because that would be the human thing to do. Its a wild concept, but like other things floating around its what lifts this movie to another level. (there are a good many riffs and references to other movies,TV shows and novels that make me wonder who this film is for since kids may not understand them, though many parents will) And of course there are the monsters. They run the gamut from cheesy to spectacular with stops everywhere in between. Frankly you have to forgive the unevenness of their creation simply because they are has to be hundreds if not thousands of monsters on screen. Its way cool and it works. One of the main characters is a Yokai which I think is best described as a hamster in a tunic and is often played by a stuffed animal, it looks dumb and yet you will be cheering the little bugger and loving every moment he rides on Tadashi's head. (Acceptance is also easier if you've ever seen the old woodcuts of the weird Japanese monsters) I mentioned flaws, and there are a few. The effects are uneven, some of the sudden turns are a bit odd (even if understandable) and a few other minor things which are fading now some two hours after watching the film.. None of them truly hurt the film over all, however most kind of keep you from being completely happy with the movie.

I really loved this movie. I'm pretty sure that if I saw this as a kid it would have been my favorite film of all time. (where's the English dub?).See this movie. Its a great trip. (Besides its a good introduction to the films of Miike minus the blood and graphic sex) Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended. Also known as the Big Spook War. The Great Yokai War is Miike's attempt at a family film and damn fine job he does as well. The problem is that I can't imagine many parents wanting to subject their children to this movie. The best kids movies are the ones that are scary or have mildly disturbing imagery, Neverending Story and Return to Oz spring to mind, but in the case of the Great Yokai War Miike probably takes things a little too far. In fact at the screening I was at the person introducing the movie reiterated to the two families there that it was probably not very suitable.

The film kicks off with the young hero of the piece introducing himself and explaining about his current family problems. This brief moment of mundanity is sharply broken as a cow gives birth to a calf with the face of a human whom screams that something horrendous is coming before falling dead like the abomination it is (it is quite possible that the sheer hideousness of the creature is some bizarre Quato homage).

Following an incredible introduction for main baddie Kato, and his henchwoman Agi (a surprisingly attractive Chiaki Kuriyami), by way of an apocalyptic army raising. The story reverts to normal for a while, but it doesn't take long before any and all logic goes down the drain and the young boy teams up with a group of Miyazaki rejects to take out the evil sorcerer.

The plot of the movie is fairly basic and surprisingly hackneyed at times, the entire chosen one just seems completely out of place in a movie which so regularly breaks clichés, but is aided by a simple awe inspiring vision of a magical world. This really is a Miyazaki movie made into a live action movie, albeit a much seedier and more vicious than usual Miyazaki movie.

The film is simply a joy to look at the designs of the Yokai is colourful, and largely practical, while the evil robotic monstrosities while not displaying the best CGI in the world have a practicality and menace to them which gives them far more of a palpable threat than you would imagine.

The cast is uniformly excellent, they just make their characters seem perfectly natural which is commendable when you consider that most of them are in full body makeup or latex suits. Even Agi lumbered with a ridiculous beehive comes across as sultry and deadly thanks to surprisingly excellent acting from Kuriyami.

While the film does have many elements which put it firmly into family movie territory; cute creatures, junior heroes, a thoroughly evil villain, a sense of mischief and adventure, and a telling lack of violence. There are elements which make you question whether Miike should have directed such a movie.

The robot army is a genuinely terrifying menace everyday items warped into monstrous beasts that look like T-101 sans skin and with added chainsaws. These beasts rip characters to pieces; suck creatures into their blood stained mouths, and abduct children from their homes by swiping them right from under their parent's nose before indulging in a little patricide.

The creation of the creature is equally arduous for young minds. The Yokai, essentially the heroes, are feed into a giant furnace full of a liquidised form of hate which corrodes the Yokai's flesh and forces their angry souls to possess lumps of metal. If kids thought smouldering Anakin was bad wait til they see a man sized hedgehog burning to death in a vat of molten hatred for a minute before being turned into an abomination of a motorcycle. There is also limb severing, in one case a severed hand twitches in front of the camera dripping with blood, a fair amount of sexual energy (Agi wears one dress designed specifically for fan service and seems to only have sleeping with Kato as motivation, while the Princess of the Rivers wears next to nothing and gets her thighs groped by the young hero in several scenes), and general humour which will go right over the heads of those that this technicolour wonder was seemingly designed for.

Spoilers An Example of this being that the Yokai only become interested in the final battle when they think it is a big party. The subsequent battle more of a festival than anything, complete with beer, crowd surfing and moshing. Also a scene where Agi beats the tar out of a cute furry creature seems designed to appeal to the masses jaded by pokemon overkill.

End Spoilers At the end of the day The Great Yokai War is easily on of Miike's stronger recent films. While it lacks some of the perverse charm of say Gozu or Ichi it is just continually pushing the audience down a road of general insanity. In fact this is easily Miike's most deranged movie in that he embraces the sheer magic of the subject so wholeheartedly.

Well worth a watch just for the occasional flash of Gogo arse. One of director Miike Takashi's very best. It's so good it's difficult to put into words. At nearly fifteen years older than the target audience it thrilled me from beginning to end.

It recalls similar children's films from the 1980s in the sense that (unlike today) those films weren't afraid to scare - there's a lot of nasty detail here that I initially found jarring but soon realised it's nothing different to what I grew up on. The film is a compilation of '80s kid's films conventions. You name it, it's there: a young boy hero thrust from his own unhappy/dysfunctional world into another, inhabited by mythical and mystical goblins; a quest to save both worlds from an evil force; a beautiful heroine he has a crush on; a sadistic henchwoman (Go-Go Yubari from Kill Bill Vol. 1); a lead villain who draws his evil power from something everyone in the world can relate to. But all these genre conventions are given a fresh spin and added depth.

One of the IMDb reviews begins "Where was this film when I was a kid?" and it's a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. Even while watching it I lamented the fact that I hadn't grown up on it; that it wasn't a part of my childhood like Labyrinth, Masters Of The Universe and, to a much lesser extent, The Neverending Story. Those films, and others like The Goonies are recalled but never copied - Miike relentlessly offering us a new take on things.

Poor CGI is a staple of many of his films, sometimes due to budgetary limitations but just as frequently an artistic choice - a desire to present things in an outlandish way. Here the CGI is mostly average, solely due to budgetary limitations, but nevertheless he does a fantastic job of putting on a spectacle. The CG effects combine with traditional puppets, animatronics and truly extraordinary make-up to create a world filled with rich characters (and characterisation) that frequently borders on the visionary.

This ranks as one of the greatest children's films ever made. Not for younger or more sensitive kids though.

Just jaw-droppingly wonderful. See it for yourselves and if you think your kids can handle/appreciate it then show it to them. Let them grow up on The Great Yokai War as some small compensation for the fact you couldn't. Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best! Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best! This film is a bit reminiscent of the German film, THE NEVERENDING STORY because a child is magically transported to a strange land in order to be a hero. However, due to far superior modern technology, puppets and CGI are used to make an amazingly realistic looking world--one that will blow your socks off due to its realism and scope.

I enjoyed this film, but boy was it a chore at first! Unfortunately, for most Westerners, this film is one you might give up on very quickly or dismiss it since everything in the film seems so odd. However, give it a chance. Don't think or try to understand everything you see--just allow the story to unfold and you will most likely enjoy the film.

In many ways, this is exactly the sort of advice I'd give to adults who watch Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY because it is very similar and features tons of Yokai (Japanese mythical spirits). The big differences between the two is that THE GREAT YOKAI WAR is live-action and SPIRITED AWAY is much more child-friendly. While I do think THE GREAT YOKAI WAR was intended mostly as a kids' movie, in the USA, most parents would not want to show this to younger kids because it's so violent, scary and features some adult behaviors. So who is the audience in the West? Well, older kids and adults who appreciate foreign films with non-Western themes and composition. This is a rather narrow audience, indeed!

While you are watching, look for all the strange little touches. In fact, you could watch the film dozens of times and notice different tiny things each time. A few of the funny references I liked were the comment about Gamera, the scene that came with the comment "KIDS: Don't Try This At Home" as well as the use of Kirin beer to allow a person to actually see the Yokai (hmm,...perhaps that scene should have also contained this warning)!

By the way, director Takashi Miike is a hard one to pin down stylistically, other than to say that none of his stories I've seen have seemed "normal". Some of his films are rather disgusting and disturbing and I hated them (especially AUDITION and ICHI THE KILLER)whereas some of them are magical and among the best films I've ever seen (THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS). One thing for sure, it's hard to watch one of his films and not have a strong reaction one way or the other. Now, I have seen a lot of movies in my day, but out of every single one there have been a very select few that have been really good to me. And I'm a 19 year old man which is impressed by this movie directed towards a younger audience. This is a very underrated gem for those who watch foreign movies. Almost all the acting is believable, the graphics are decent (for which you won't even be caring about as you watch the movie. Trust me, bitching about the graphics would be a stupid thing to do), the story is well written and it's a movie that everyone can enjoy not just the kids.

Here's basically what this movie made me to. It one, made me laugh...a lot, two, made me feel for the characters like you're suppose to, and three, it's a very uplifting story. By the end of this movie you will feel good. Sure, what anime out there hasn't featured some young kid turning into a great warrior and whatever to defeat some great evil. It's a formula that is used a lot. But, in this case it is forgivable because even though they use puppets for some characters and some average graphics you'd see 5 years ago, the appearance of it is not to be judged. It's very touching, the ending is original, and it keeps you into the movie like it is suppose to. If you however try comparing this to other movies like "The Never-ending Story" or whatever it will diverse your opinion. Watch it as it is and you will enjoy it.

It has been a good long while since I've been impressed like this. The only other movie where I have gotten this feeling is when I saw TMNT way back when it came out. There is something about this movie I felt about TMNT that really made me love it. So don't over-analyze or take this movie too seriously, just enjoy it. Miike makes a children's adventure film, not unlike The Neverending Story. It's actually one of my least favorite of the director's films. Even the worst Miike is better than a good many films, though, and The Great Yokai War has a lot in it that's worth recommending. It's at least as loud and obnoxious as most American kiddie flicks. I might think kids themselves would find a lot to like in it (the DVD includes an English dub), but, like all of Miike's films, it can tend to move very slowly. That means you've got kind of a weird unevenness, where sometimes there's a loud action sequence and the next scene will drag on forever as characters converse. The story itself isn't very good, either, and Miike's perpetual flaw of incoherency rears its ugly head. Most of what I liked came from the technical side of things. This has to be Miike's most expensive movie, and it looks fantastic. "Yokai" are Japanese spirits, and they come in all different, fantastical forms, and the costume designers, special effects crew, and everyone else involved in the designs just did an outstanding job. I've seen the 1968 film this one is supposedly based on (Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare), and the cheesy rubber-suit monsters you can find there have been transformed into more believable entities using state-of-the-art makeup and special effects. I especially liked the look of one of the bad guys (or girls, in this case), Agi, who sports dark eye shadow, a tight, white outfit, a white beehive hairdo and a whip. She's played, incidentally, by Chiaki Kuriyama, whom you might remember as Lucy Liu's teenage henchgirl in Kill Bill: Vol. 1. The hero of the film is played by Ryunosuke Kamiki, who provided voices for Miyazaki's Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. A lot people get hung up on this films tag as a "children's film", and that it certainly is, though it is one made for adults. Takashi Miike uses the fantasy genre, particularly, the children's fantasy genre, as a springboard into the wild territory that is the Great Yokai War.

The setup is simple a boy is selected to play the "hero" in this years annual festival, only to discover his role is much more real than he could have imagined. What follows is a hallucinatory, grotesque, whimsical, and often funny journey through the world of Japanese folklore, but wait there's also an evil Villain on the lose who wants to destroy the world. However, the villain here, is not a mere demon, it is the demon-spirit of the accumulated resentment of those things which humans "use" and "discard". Usuing a chamber made out of pure liquid hate/resentment, the villain transforms the vibrant colorful Yokai spirits into soulless ten foot tall makeshift robots which chainsaw for arms and eyes like burning coals(those whove played the video game, Sonic The Hedghog, might remember a certain Dr. Robotnik performing similar procedures to the cute and cuddly's who Sonic had to then "liberate").

The hero in this film is actually the least interesting character, essentially playing the straight man, in a world gone suddenly mad. Though he does go through the typical heroes trials he more often than not cowers, as do many of the Yokia themselves, who seem truly defenseless against the murderous robots, some spirits being umbrellas with eyes, talking walls, or creatures whose soul purpose in life is to count beans...of course in this magical world of Miike's Yokai war even beans take a magical power when one believes in them.

In several ways this film subverts the normal conventions of children's fantasy, as few, if any, of the characters are heroic, their victory being a combination of happenstance, almost arbitrary faith, and a desire to party. The Yokai spirits, only rally together and lay siege the villains hideout, after they mistake the end of the world invasion of Earth for a great Yokai festival, and even then only to dance and party. Also the film ends not with the usual celebratory all's well that ends well fantasy ending, but with a final scene, showing our hero years older, with an adult job, now unable to see the Yokai spirits of his youth, who then despondently turn to the villain, who being a spirit can never really die. This ending, with it's Yokai spirit who is the spitting image of Pokemon's Pikachu, warns us not just of leaving behind our childhood selves, but of the horrors of over-consumption. The villain is resentment caused when humans no longer have reverence for the world and the objects around them(in Japanese folklore nearly every object has some kind of spirit), and so when they are used and discarded as we in consumer societies do without reverence, they become soulless vengeful machines, not unlike those seen in modern video games, suggesting that though our imaginations and myths do not ever really die, but can become deformed.

This is one of the first scripts Miike has contributed to, and I believe it shows, as there's a tightness conceptually that sometimes gets swept under the rug by his exuberance for visual playfulness. Though I've focused mostly on the story (since lots of users here seem to write it off), I do want to say that visually it's a kaleidescope of CGI, stop animation, costume, and live puppetry, that works remarkably well. There's a dreamlike quality to a lot of the film, and the Miyazaki comparisons are warranted, as are the NeverEnding Story and Labrynth comparisons, though this film is sharper and more adult than either. The Yokai are beaten, brutalized, and turned into machines of living hate, who I believe even kill a few humans, a deformed aborted calf with a mans face is born and dies in the films grotesque opening, while a sexual undercurrent, the women with the long neck licking the face of our boy hero, or another characters persistent memory of touching the thigh of a young scantily clad water spirit as a boy, seem to linger a bit too long for most western tastes, especially when considering this is a "children's film". However these are slight enough to catch adult attentions while minor enough, not to traumatize any children to bad. Grims fairy tales, before revisions, did much worse, far more often.

All and all this is one of Miikes most accessible and engaging ventures yet, with enough visual drama and great performances(the Yokai spirits have a humanism and an absurd humor to them, thats laugh out loud funny at times) to appeal to audiences of all ages, and a steady conceptual undercurrent strong enough to draw in an adult audience who have presumably brought their children or else come out of a sense of nostalgia for the long lost fantasy films of their youth. The latter group the film seems to address the most fervently asking that they not just continue passive consumption of the world around them, but show reverence to those spirits within them which seemed so much closer to reality in childhood. Another beautiful, funny, and truly original film from a thrilling director who hasn't come close to his apex. Instant classic. What a strangely wonderful, if sometimes slight and bulky, big-budget fantasy this is. Takashi Miike had already proved, by the time he got to The Great Yokhai War, that he could dip into other films aside from his supposed niche of the crime/yakuza genre (Visitor Q and Andromedia showed this, the former great the latter lesser). But here Miike, in his first and only co-screen writing credit no less, proves that he can deliver the goods on a post-modern soup of mythical fantasy conventions, and with it boatload of CGI, creature-effects and make-up, and an epic battle that is more like a "festival" than something out of Lord of the Rings. The comparisons can be made far and wide, to be sure, and the most obvious to jump on would be Miyazaki, for the seemingly unique mixture of kids-as-big-heroes, power-hungry sorcerers looking for the energy of the earth as the main source, machinery as the greatest evil, and many bizarrely defined, flamboyantly designed creatures (or Yokai of the title). But there can also be comparisons made to Star Wars, especially to the Gungan battle in TPM, and to the whole power-play between good and evil with similar forces. Or to anime like Samurai 7. Or, of course, to Henson's films. And through all of these comparisons, and even through the flaws or over-reaching moments, it's Miike all the way with the sensibilities of effects and characters.

Here, Ryunosuke Kamiki plays Tadashi, the prototypical kid who starts out sort of gullible and sensitive to things in the world, but will become the hero in a world going into darkness. The darkness is from an evil sorcerer, who gets his energy from all of the rage and wretched vibes in the human world, and who is also starting to put to death the spirits and other creatures, the Yokhai, into a fire that sends them into gigantic robots that have only one mission- to destroy and kill anything in their paths. Tadashi gets as pumped up to fight Sato the sorcerer as the Yokai once Sato's main minion and cohort, Agi (Kill Bill's Chiaki Kuriyama, another great villainies) steals Tadashi's little furry companion, a Sunekosuri. Soon, things come to a head, in a climax that brings to mind many other fantasy films and stories, but can only be contained, up to a point, by Miike and his crew. I would probably recommend The Great Yokai War for kids, but in the forward note that it's not some watered down fantasy in American circles. This has creatures galore, including a one-eyed umbrella stand, and a walking, talking wall, not to mention a turtle, a fire serpent, and a woman who became cursed by Sato. So the variety is on high on that end, and one might almost feel like the creatures and effects- which grows to unfathomable heights when the "festival" hits with the Yokai reaching hundreds of miles in scope. But there's also a sense of fantasy being strong in both the light and the dark, and Sunekosuri becomes perhaps the greatest emotional tool at Miike's disposal (and not just because it's cuteness squared); where else to get an audience riled up than over a little furry ball of fury, who ends up in a tragic battle with Tadashi in robot form?

Yet through all of this, the sense of anarchy that can be found in the brightest spots of Miike's career is here as well, which distinguishes it from its animated, Muppet and sci-fi counterparts. There's the bizarre humor as usual, including a song dedicated to Akuzi beans at a crucial moment in the climax, and more than a few flights of fancy with the creatures and fight scenes (I loved, for example, the guy with the big blue head who has to make it smaller, or the anxious turtle-Yokai). The biggest danger with Miike's access to bigger special effects and computer wizardry, which he flirts with, is overkill on this end. He's got everything down, I'm sure, with storyboards, and he creates some memorable impressions with some compositions (one of them is when all is said and done, and Tadashi and the 'other' human character are in the middle of the Tokyo rubble in an overhead shot), but the CGI is sometimes a little unconvincing with the robots, and the interplay skirts on being TOO flamboyant, and some visuals, like the overlay of the Yokai spreading the word about the big festival on the map, just seem weak and pat. I almost wondered if Miike might dip into (bad) Spy Kids territory, quite frankly.

But this liability aside, The Great Yokai War provides more than a share of excitement, goofy thrills, and innocent melodrama that came with many of the best childhood fantasies. It owes a lot to cinema, as well as traditional Japanese folklore, but the screws are always turning even in its most ludicrous and veeringly confusing beats. It's not the filmmaker at his very best, but working in experimentation in a commercial medium ends up working to his advantage. It's got a neat little message, and lots of cool adventure. 7.5/10 2005 Toronto Film Festival Report It is official; "Takashi Miike" is whacked.

The annual midnight screening of the new "Takashi Miike" film, "The Big Spook War" or "The Great Yokai War" or "Yôkai daisensô". Call it what you will this is a fanatical ride.

Colin Geddes, the fearless programmer stated this film was originally geared towards children in Japan. Think of "Lord of the Rings" or "Neverending Story" for Japan. After the screening I can understand where they were going with that, but damn this is "Takashi Miike" after all. He directed the '01 film "Ichi the Killer", when it screening at the festival barf bags were handed out at the screening. And no, that wasn't just a marketing ploy.

Plot Summary: A young boy with a troubled home life becomes "chosen," and he stumbles into the middle of a Great Spirit war, where he meets a group of friendly spirits who become his companions through his journey.

This is not really for kids, well not 'too' young. Certainly see them getting scared shitless with some of these spirits (even the friendly ones) on display. This is unlike anything I've seen in the movie theater before. A fantasy naturally, some very funny (but dark) material. You will not be bored can guarantee that. Will this ever hit North America? Doubtful.

My rating = B Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare (Yokai daisenso, 2005) a movie about "yokai" or traditional Japanese "monsters" of folklore. It is alternatively known as Big Monster War or as Ghosts on Parade.

The yokai of the first installment include the teapot freak, kappa water imp, a living 'brella, a woman whose sheeks can grow extremely gigantic, a woman with a second face on the back of her head, a dwarf priest with an enormous gourd-like wrist, & so on.

These sorts of whimsical monsters derive not only from fairy lore, but from a type of summer entertainment of the Tokugawa Era, comparable to today's Halloween haunted houses, or the "freak shows" of yesteryear but with exclusively phony freaks. Ghosts & goldfish monsters & dancing one-headed umbrellas were trumped up to create "chills" during the hot summers. The fatcheek woman & such were recreated by tricks or illusions, based on monsters depicted in medieval scrolls; & if their design for the movie is a bit simple & hoky, this makes them all the more representative of what historically was recreated for summer chills.

These rather endearing monsters have to face off & destroy an ancient Babylonian vampire demon who has come to Japan & disguised himself as a samurai lord. Despite that some of the Japanese apparitions are a bit goofy, & too many of the costumes scarsely more than masks without even moving lips as they speak, it is all played very poker-faced & is very charming. It has some beautiful cinematography, much as would be provided in a CGI film of the same decade. Viewed in the right mood or with the right friends, it is exciting, moving & touching.

Yoshiyuki Kuroda also directed the famed Lone Wolf & Cub: White Heaven & Hell (1974) &and was the special FX director for the excellent Daimajin trilogy. The Yokai Monsters series is not the equal of Majin at its best, but the Yokai are nevertheless great fun. The first miike movie which is the most child-oriented of his family films, with the GOZU & IZOO consecutively more serious though none too severe for young viewers. "Yokai Daisenso" is a children's film by Takashi Miike, but as you might expect, it's probably a bit too dark & scary for younger ones. However, older children may well eat this up, that is, if you play it dubbed in English.

The story is that of a young boy, who has moved with his mother to the country, to live with his grandfather, after a divorce. During a village festival the boy is chosen as a "Kirin rider", a great honor, but with that honor comes much danger and adventure, of course.

Meanwhile, evil doings are at hand as a woman in a white mini skirt, go-go boots & a beehive hair-do, teams up with an evil Yokai to turn people's resentments and discarded items against them. And this evil has manifested itself as a flying city in the form of a monster that heads for the City of Rage itself, Tokyo. One quite funny scene has two derelicts watching the monster fly over the city...says one, "Oh, it's only Gamera".

The young boy has befriended Yokai, which are monsters of a kind, mostly benign, that have isolated themselves away from humans, and all the Yokai in Japan band together to fight the evil.

In many ways Miike & crew have taken the late 60's/early 70's Yokai films and turned them into a modern action adventure film for (older) kids that also combines some strange mechanical monsters that made me think of "Transformers". The look and feel of the film is great, the effects are entertaining, and some of the humor will just sail right over kid's heads, but still, older ones might enjoy it. As for adults, there's not much here not to like, if you're a fan of Japanese monster movies you'll enjoy the heck out of this.

Cool & fun stuff, kind of dark at times but perhaps that's just Miike..and what a wild ride. 8 out of 10. Takashi Miike is one of my favorite directors and I was worried about him doing a kids film, because I would hate to see him depart from his films I came to love: Visitor Q, Gozu, Izo, Ichi the killer and Black Socioty Trilogy. Lately he seems to be exploring new territory and I think he's succeeding. Still this was the first of his films I'd seen him take that direction, so I was nervous. Of coarse I bought it without seeing it and was glad I did.

Great Yokai War is a perfect kids film and adults should like it too. The whole film reminded me so much of the movies I loved as a child: Neverending story, Labyrinth, Return to Oz, etc. I enjoyed those films because they didn't treat kids like they're stupid and this one doesn't either. The dark underlying morals are there, but, it's also as silly as any kids film should be. I personally wasn't bothered by the CGI and prosthetics. I feel like they fit well and don't think kids will notice.

If you are a die hard Takashi Miike fan, you may not like this one. But, I suggest giving it a shot. It proves that Miike is as diverse and talented as I suspected he is. He also continues to make his signature Miike films outside of these ones, which is very reassuring.

To those people that are new to Takashi Miike and want something light hearted or dramatic like this one, I suggest these other Miike films: 'Zebraman' 'The Happiness of the Katakuris' 'Sabu' and 'The Bird People in China.'

Good job Takashi Miike! 8/10 stars. I just finished watching this movie and I must say that I was so impressed.Everything about it was superb. The acting the characters, the story. A believable child who grew into brave, always willing to help others. His mum must be proud. I could not take my eyes off this film for fear of missing something. It is the prefect fable/tale with morals, cute and scary sprites and 'monsters' but nevertheless heartwarming folk. A child poked and bullied at school who becomes a hero. Picked to be a rider at the local village festival and a journey to the Goblin Mountain where he discovers the Yokai, who are amazing creations that Brian Froud would be proud of. And the evil Kato and his off sider who definitely needed a hug. These evil people capture the Yokai and throw them into a red pit along with unwanted objects, like motorbikes and other mechanical things and these meld into one horribly violent robotic monsters whose only job is to kill. Takashi a young boy is the one to become their saviour, alongside a red man/dragon a turtle man and a River Princess as well as a cute little creature that, if it had been America they could have turned it into a cuddly toy and sold it at all good toy stores. The lines are good especially the Don't try this at home kids and other gems that bring a smile to your lips. Suspend belief and watch this with a child or on your own and enjoy! Though I must admit that the end was a wee bit sad. And not necessarily so. Cheers Furdion The only reason I'm giving this a 9 is that the other kid actors who played Tadashi's tormentors were not up to the job. I presume they were just kids who happened to be the right age and handy, but they were not well coached, and their scenes were a minor annoyance.

I say not to judge this by U.S. standards because it's full of ambiguities and the kinds of equivocations that Japanese culture readily embraces, and is not beholden to the black-hat/ white-hat moral constraints U.S. kids' films are routinely subjected to. For example, there is a preciously funny moment when Tadashi's small band of yokai companions finds themselves let down and abandoned by the other yokai, and Shojo--the avuncular Kirin herald--does what many a stressed-out Japanese adult would do. Hint: this would not happen in a Disney film. This picture also has the best product placement for beer you will ever see in a kids' movie.

Early on, there's a moment where a school teacher smacks a couple of bullies on the head with her attendance book. There was a TV commercial in Japan a couple years before this movie came out. It was a stop-motion clay animation about a kid who's depressed and playing guitar and singing the blues in his room. His mother yells at him from downstairs to shut up. Then, someone gives him a candy bar and he cheers up and sings a happy tune, but his mother comes in and tells him to shut up again and gives him a dope slap that leaves a dent in his forehead. I mention this commercial, because it was considered funny, and I didn't hear any objections to it while I was there. There is a lot more bloodshed and physical cruelty on screen in "The Great Yokai War" than one would find in a Disney movie. As a parent, if this were a U.S. film, I would be up in arms about such things, although not necessarily the moral lessons drawn at the end of the picture, which, of course, are also not black and white. Since it's a Japanese movie, I accept that those cultural norms allow for imagery that would not get past the standards and practices cops in a U.S. production. However, I'd probably be a little uneasy taking young kids to see it without giving them some sort of pre-show briefing and/or post-show debriefing about the violence and other off- color stuff, or I'd wait till they're older to show it to them. This is a movie that has a lot of things that only Japanese people can understand. Even well translated, there are some things that are obviously private jokes or regional symbolism. My guess is that it tried to send a message of some sort, but that just got wasted on me.

What I felt that is basically this is a mediocre movie with nice special effects. Some kid becomes "The one" and in the end has almost no relevance to a yokai war that makes no sense whatsoever anyway. It would have been nice to understand what the hell they were talking about, but between the Azumi bean washing yokai and the one that looks like a big tongued umbrella (Rihanna eat your heart out!) I couldn't really discern the plot.

Bottom line: nice visuals, the kid screams a lot, the river princess is terrible cute and the rest is crap. There are many police dramas doing the rounds. I am not sure why. It's probably to do with the old basic theme of good versus evil.

This film has a documentary style as we follow the difficult initiation of Anne, a raw recruit, into a police squad stationed in the Baltic area. No attempt is made to glamorise the police. They are truly down to earth, harsh at times and unforgiving, Anne on the other hand has a soft heart perhaps a little more understanding of the human condition. Against all rules she sometimes holds back incriminating information found on her strip searches and other investigations.

This is not a pleasant film. Not one to relax you. There is not much feeling of optimism in it. The police seem to be involved in a losing battle. Tomorrow there will be more bashings, more murders, more family break-ups, and more distressed children. Let's face it. This is the world we live in.

As days go by Anne becomes more intimately involved with the police and with the families they are investigating. The only real warmth in the film is that provided by the character Benny, a 12 year old from a broken family. Anne has her own way of patching things up. She turns a blind eye to Benny's shoplifting and tries to help him as best she can. I was surprised though that she went so far as to seduce Benny's father. It set me wondering if it was in consideration of the father or her own needs. After all, the film makes it clear that she was desperately in need of a partner and loving children.

Well cast but not my idea of an evening's entertainment, Wow! I have seen so many bad low budget films lately, but this one is great. The very realistic portrayal of police life in a city on the East German coast is a strong contrast to other crime movies or series. I loved the main actress and the absolute rejection of any prevalent cliché about the police. This film is realistic like a documentation and entertaining like a drama at the same time. A perfect tradeoff! i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different. The simple hand camera both gives some almost documentary feeling to this film, and also relates to the dogma films.

Did you ever get bored of those hollywood-style cop flicks with brawny guys who get assignments james bond would be envious of? Fed up with the married-living-single cop, the divorced-but-family-man, the personified doughnut and the tough hunter? Ever wondered how the real police work is like?

Well, for germany, this film shows you. Set in the north between west germany and east germany, former DDR, an laid off post office clerk starts her job, fresh from policeschool. She quickly finds her way around the usual customers, and becomes accustomed to life as a policewoman... but this is not much fun.

Other german crime films like Derrick, Der Alte et cetera have dignified officers talking calmly with suspects. These cops here have to deal with the lowest on the social ladder. Good dialogue and realism makes this an interesting view, even more if you know that part of germany a bit. This movie is a very realistic view of a police squad in a small german town as seen through the eyes of a woman recruit. She brings her way of dealing with the law, which means more than simple convictions. The strong performance of the main character, supported by good dialogues makes this flick very enjoyable. This 1984 version of the Dickens' classic `A Christmas Carol,' directed by Clive Donner, stars George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. By this time around, the challenge for the filmmaker was to take such familiar material and make it seem fresh and new again; and, happily to say, with this film Donner not only met the challenge but surpassed any expectations anyone might have had for it. He tells the story with precision and an eye to detail, and extracts performances from his actors that are nothing less than superlative, especially Scott. One could argue that the definitive portrayal of Scrooge-- one of the best known characters in literary fiction, ever-- was created by Alastair Sim in the 1951 film; but I think with his performance here, Scott has now achieved that distinction. There is such a purity and honesty in his Scrooge that it becomes difficult to even consider anyone else in the role once you've seen Scott do it; simply put, he IS Scrooge. And what a tribute it is to such a gifted actor; to be able to take such a well known figure and make it so uniquely his own is quite miraculous. It is truly a joy to see an actor ply his trade so well, to be able to make a character so real, from every word he utters down to the finest expression of his face, and to make it all ring so true. It's a study in perfection.

The other members of the cast are splendid as well, but then again they have to be in order to maintain the integrity of Scott's performance; and they do. Frank Finlay is the Ghost of Jacob Marley; a notable turn, though not as memorable, perhaps, as the one by Alec Guinness (as Marley) in the film, `Scrooge.' Angela Pleasence is a welcome visage as the Spirit of Christmas Past; Edward Woodward, grand and boisterous, and altogether convincing as the Spirit of Christmas Present; and Michael Carter, grim and menacing as the Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come.

David Warner hits just the right mark with his Bob Cratchit, bringing a sincerity to the role that measures up well to the standard of quality set by Scott's Scrooge, and Susannah York fares just as well as Mrs. Cratchit. The real gem to be found here, though, is the performance of young Anthony Walters as Tiny Tim; it's heartfelt without ever becoming maudlin, and simply one of the best interpretations-- and the most real-- ever presented on film.

The excellent supporting cast includes Roger Rees (Fred Holywell, and also the narrator of the film), Caroline Langrishe (Janet Holywell), Lucy Gutteridge (Belle), Michael Gough (Mr. Poole) and Joanne Whalley (Fan). A flawless presentation, this version of `A Christmas Carol' sets the standard against which all others must be gauged; no matter how many versions you may have seen, watching this one is like seeing it for the first time ever. And forever after, whenever you think of Scrooge, the image your mind will conjure up will be that of George C. Scott. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying experience, this film demands a place in the annual schedule of the holiday festivities of every home. I rate this one 10/10. Far richer in texture and character than even the classics from the 30's and 50's. George C. Scott was born to be Scrooge, just as he was born to be Patton. Mr. Scott will be known as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. The character of Scrooge as played by Mr. Scott seemed to jump off the screen. Scott as Scrooge brought an richer, more robust, yet a more deeply moving Scrooge to the screen than any of his predecessors in the role of the meanest man in 18th century London. Mr. Scott seemed to bring Scrooge to a more personal, understandable yet highly conflicted level; his role was acted with the great authority Scott always bring to the screen: yet his usual bellicose voice would sometimes be brought to a whisper, almost as a soliloquy, as he would berate the Christmas holiday in one breath, yet reveal his own human frailty in his next line. He could portray the sour and crusty Scrooge, and a misunderstood, sympathetic Scrooge all in the same scene.

Truly a remarkable performance by a giant of his generation. So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.

George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.

The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.

You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.

10 of 10 stars.

The Hound. I know many people have a special fondness for the Alistair Sim version of Dickens' story, but for me, this 1984 version is the one to beat. My wife and I own a copy of this film on VHS, and we watch it together every Christmas Eve. I often remark that we could watch it on Halloween too, because it's a very creepy ghost story.

Scott--typecast as Scrooge--is shudderingly mean and nasty, making his transformation all the more miraculous and moving. I think it's up there with his performance in Patton. The spirits are all effective, each one creepier than the last. Watching the dark, floating, skeletal form of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come sends shivers down my spine every year. And what a supporting cast! David Warner, in particular, is in top form as Bob Cratchit, as is Susannah York as his wife.

I seem to recall that this version sticks closer to the original story than most others--but I may be mistaken, as it's been several years since I read it. Regardless, this is a terrific Christmas classic. The setting and actors make this television movie for me the best rendition of Dickens' classic tale. George C. Scott is very believable as is the rest of the cast. His Scrooge oozes with nastiness until the very end of the movie. Then his character changes to one who is truly repentant. The 19th Century English town chosen for the setting creates an ambiance that is fitting to Dickens and adds to the plausibility of this film. It is a movie I watch every Christmas along with the real Grinch and It's A Wonderful Life. "Telefilms" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.

George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone. This is simply one of the finest renditions of Dicken's classic tale. The script very accurately follows the story originally penned by Dickens, and captures a perfect balance between a film atmosphere and a play atmosphere. Viewers fond of either format will find enough of the story rooted in their presentation style of choice.

George C. Scott brings a delightfully realistic approach to the character of Scrooge, and is very convincing in the character development instigated by the visits of the ghosts. I found that he was able to win me over to the point where I sympathized with the old miser, something rarely done in other versions. The superb job done by the supporting actors add greatly to this production, which is simply the most enjoyable of all the Christmas Carol versions I have seen. and possibly closest to the Dickens story line. Although I find the young Ebenezer hard to watch (who's idea was that period hair, surely they could have done better than that!), Scott does an incredible job as Scrooge. His delivery of some of the lines from Dickens finally brought it to life for me. Edward Woodward is everything we expect and more of the Ghost of Christmas present. I find G.C. Scott's Scrooge much more of a believable miser than the more current version done by Patrick Stewart. The scene Christmas Morning when Scrooge realizes he hasn't 'missed it', is enough to convince one that Scott knows how to act versus overact. He's phenomenal here. Nearly the entire cast is incredible. The Tiny Tim in this version of The Christmas Carol is a little tough to look at, almost too sweet. Still the music and the scenery make this a must watch every holiday. Enjoy! As the celebration of Christmas has evolved through the years, whether one concentrates on the religious or the secular traditions, it is a time when people are supposed to behave a little better to each other. That has somehow slipped past one Ebenezer Scrooge, merchant and money lender in 19th century London.

As his nephew points out to his uncle, he doesn't keep Christmas in any way because Scrooge feels the whole thing is humbug. The humanity in Scrooge was driven out long ago, he's a hard case, a whole lot like his 20th Century counterpart, Mr. Potter of Bedford Falls, New York.

But as Charles Dickens told this tale, redemption is not too late for any of us and a lonely ghost and three spirits visit Scrooge and show him how.

A Christmas Carol is such a timeless holiday classic that we sometimes forget that it is as much a social commentary of 19th century Great Britain as Oliver Twist was. The characters in this film are middle and lower class. The Cratchits are a couple of rungs above the street people in Oliver Twist, but they are having to struggle to stay up there. Still love and happiness radiate their home, no thanks to the guy Bob Cratchit works for.

Like George Bailey who did a whole lot of good in his life and just had to be reminded how much, Ebenezer Scrooge needed a wake up call as to the potentiality he still had for doing some good in this old world.

Patrick Stewart in his live performances and filmed play has pretty much taken over the part of Scrooge. But George C. Scott captures the old miser pretty well in this film. The meanness of him, but with a trace of sadness that makes us root for him to change. Scott joins a fine tradition of people like Reginald Owen and Alastair Sim who've both done great interpretations of Scrooge.

Among the supporting roles I particularly enjoyed David Warner as Bob Cratchit and Edward Woodward as a hearty and stern spirit of Christmas present.

According to IMDb this is one of 32 versions of A Christmas Carol made that they have archived and it is one of the best. This story is told and retold and continues to be retold in every possibly way imagine. The immortal Charles Dicken's story has been recreated in every possible way imagine. I admit I have not seen the classic Alistair Sim version and I'm sure someday I will but I would be blown away if it touched even close to this amazing eighties version. I believe that if Dickens himself had created his story for film this would be it.

The story is well known, I won't go into much detail because everyone has seen it in one form or another. A rich, stingy, mean, old man is visited by the Ghost of his former partner and warned about his mean ways. In order to straighten him out he is visited by three spirits, each which show him a different perspective of his life and the people he is involved with, past, present and future. Finally in seeing all this before him he realizes the error of his ways in a big way and attempts retribution for all the wrong he has done.

George C. Scott is absolutely, undeniably perfect for this role. He takes hold of the Ebeneezer Scrooge role and makes it his own and creates an incredible character. He is not just a mean old man, but someone who has been effected by certain situations in his life that has made him bitter and angry at the world. There is compassion within him but he holds it below everything else and is very self involved. Scott delivers the role of perfection when it comes to Scrooge.

Not only does the leading role make this film but everything else fits into place. This is a grand epic of Victorian England, Dickens England is recreated before our very eyes, the sights and the sounds and you can almost feel the breeze in your face and the smells of the market. Director Clive Donner brilliantly recreates this scene and leaves nothing to the imagination. I could watch this film on mute and be dazzled by the scenery. It's not spectacular scenery per se but it's real. The film takes us from the high class traders market to the very dismal pits of poverty and everything in between.

The rest of the cast fits into their roles and brings their literary counterparts to life. Bob Cratchitt, played by David Warner and his entire family including and especially the young Tiny Tim played by Anthony Walters were wonderful. The Ghosts each had their own distinct personality and added to the dark mood of this story. A Christmas Carol is not a light story. Dickens wrote this story for a dark period in England's life and it's one of the few Christmas tales that is really dark, almost scary, and it has to be scary in order to scare a man who has been a miser for so many years into turning around. The dark feel to the story is captured in this film and is downright frightening and yet the end lifts your spirits and captures Christmas miracles. The score to this film is also something to be mentioned as it is epic and grand and beautiful to listen to whether it's the actual score or the Christmas music, everything fits together. Apparently Christmas movies are my favorite because I insist everyone see this Christmas Carol above all others. 10/10 You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.

What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.

George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.

Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, "I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?", we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.

Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.

And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, "it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child" he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.

Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears. I saw a lot films about Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. But this one is the best of all! There is an atmosphere which is exactly the same as in the book. The actors (George C. Scott and others) are great! Unfortunately, you can't often watch the film in Germany and Switzerland. This is the best film version of Dicken's classic tale. I've seen it over and over on VHS, and recently acquired the DVD version, which is formatted for TV (not wide-screen). What I find interesting about this teleplay is the cast of English actors who are now recognizable since many have appeared in other films/shows in North America since 1984. My biggest surprise is Edward Woodward, "the Equalizer", as the Ghost of Christmas Present. I first saw this version of "A Christmas Carol" when it first appeared on television. I actually anticipated seeing the film when it was advertised and it more than lived up to my expectations. I have now purchased the DVD and plan to watch it every year. With the exception of "It's A Wonderful Life" I consider this version of "A Christmas Carol" one of the best Christmas movies ever made. George C. Scott is excellent and a superb cast led by Roger Rees surrounds him! Scott proves once again that he is one of finest actors of our time. Scott has the artistic talent and acting ability to play any role and keep the character unique to himself. How can someone be remembered as both Patton and Scrooge? Scott does so easily. The direction is marvelous with the fine sets, costumes and music that give the movie a special feeling of the time, place and era depicted. You will simply love this movie and will place it among your favorites to watch during the holiday season. OK. I'm biased. I live near Shrewsbury in England, where this wonderful movie was filmed. It still looks the same now. I remember them filming here quite vividly, and the fake snow on the streets for days on end. Often, when I'm walking through Shrewsbury I see a street or a house and it will remind me of this film.

George C. Scott's Scrooge is a more realistic character than many of the other screen versions. His physical appearance isn't the typical miser. Scott's is big and imposing. A man who finds those smaller than himself to be inferior.

We all know the story and the quotes. The book is one of the most cherished works in the English language. And I don't believe there are many cynics who would say that people aren't capable of change and redemption. This film version portrays all of that quite beautifully. George C. Scott may be American but he plays the part of the English miser with wonderful skill.

I love this movie. If you haven't seen this version I would strongly urge that you do. It's usually available for a very small amount of money... or are you too mean? Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?

I will try anyway.

The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified.

The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth.

During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life "with a grin on my face." Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.

And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, "God forgive me for the time I've wasted."

Bravi tutti! Although George C. Scott is the only actor in this version of ACC without a British accent, he more than makes up for it with his over-the-top and larger-than-life interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Particularly effective is when he confronts Bob Cratchit in his office at the movie's end. As Scott stands before a large window, sunlight casts a glowing mantle over him; all you can see is his silhouette. Augmented by Scott's voice, a ponderous growl, the effect is galvanizing...much like Marlon Brando's first scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. "The Horror," indeed!

However, as they say, the very thing that works for you can also work against you. Because Scott displays such gleeful ferocity throughout the movie, it proves infectious. To put it another way, the "before" Scrooge is almost as charismatic as the "after," even though he really shouldn't be. It's what you might call the "Doctor Smith" effect, since Jonathan Harris used a very similar approach when playing that role and numerous other heavies (stage and screen alike).

Actually, I myself don't consider Scott's glib rage a liability. But other "Christmas Carol" purists might. See the film and judge for yourselves. When this initially aired in 1984, my wife and I taped it on our very first VHS recorder. I still have that aging tape, which I try to watch annually. It was the year my first child was born, and seeing A Christmas Carol in this incarnation brings back fond memories of happy times -- many hours of which were spent with this film playing in the background. I finally broke down this year and ordered a DVD, which prompted me to take a moment to write this brief reaction to the movie. Charles Dickens' story is captured in outstanding fashion here. George C. Scott is absolutely amazing and totally believable as Scrooge. The supporting cast is equally spectacular. This is, to my mind, a flawless production. Little details add much to the enjoyment. The game "similes" Scrooge's nephew and wife play with their party guests is a neat item. (I've since re-created it with my high school English students as a brief respite from class work!) Honestly, I can think of few ways to entertain myself over the holidays I enjoy more than indulging in this CBS production, which was originally sponsored by IBM. (Incidentally, it's fun to watch the old tape with the original IBM commercials ... which show just how much computers have evolved in 21 years. Amazing how things have changed!) Bottom line: A Christmas Carol is a timeless story, and this rendition is a timeless classic. Enjoy ... and God Bless Us, Every One! Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories – a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.

To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.

Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).

Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.

But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy – and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need. This version of the Charles Dickens novel features George C Scott as the Scrooge. Fine casting, especially the choice of Scott, who plays the role to the hilt..a fine cast supports him in the very good adaption. A Modern day holiday classic on a scale of one to ten..9 In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)

First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!

This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper!

Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.

The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!

This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season. I saw this movie in sixth grade around Christmas Time, and I was really excited about seeing it, and when I heard that George C. Scott was in it, I was really excited, because I really love George C. Scott! When me and my class were watching this movie, I was really into it, and when it was over, I was really impressed, I thought that it was totally fabulous! This is the best version of Charles Dickens' classic novel that I have seen so far! George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge is something else, I thought that he was the perfect choice, he was Scrooge, he is the definitive Scrooge! I've seen two different versions of A Christmas Carol, the other is the one with Patrick Stewart, but this is the better one!

What it really great about this is the acting, I thought that the actors were fabulous, everyone was, the spirits, Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit, everyone, they could not have found anyone better than the ones they had doing the parts! But the best part of the movie was George C. Scott! When I saw him, I thought that he was the absolute best! He is the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge, I do not think that they could have found someone better! I don't think that they could have found anyone better to replace anyone in the movie!

This movie is probably the definitive movie adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, and I really think that you will agree, you will think that this movie is fabulous! I am probably going to have to buy this movie on DVD, because I thought that it was totally fabulous! I totally recommend that you see this masterpiece! This is the best version of A Christmas Carol, period.

10/10 *********Ten out of Ten Stars*********

It's hard to believe this was a made for television movie. Just the phrase, "made of TV", makes me shudder. The production values for made for TV movies are almost always remarkably lower than production values for professional movie studios. That being said, this version of the "Christmas Carol" should have been released in theaters, because it IS that good. It's my personal favorite of all the "Christmas Carol" movies because every aspect of this production are of the highest quality. Yes, there are some minor on screen glitches with two of the ghosts that visit Scrooge, but there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have at least a couple of mistakes.

Scott turns in a stellar performance as Scrooge, he's a pleasure to watch. In fact, I can't think of one performance in this film that shouldn't be applauded. The costuming, location shooting, and winter backdrop are mesmerizing. The musical score is endearing and heart warming. Add to that, solid directing, flawless cinematography, and faithful scripting; we have here what will one day be considered a holiday classic. It really hasn't been around long enough to be a classic, but mark my words, one day soon it will be. This film has turned into a yearly Christmas tradition in my home because it embodies the true meaning behind Christmas: Love, selflessness, and giving. In as selfish, greedy world, my family and I can lose ourselves in "The Christmas Carol", starring George C. Scott. I enjoy all the versions of this story but this one is my all time favorite. George C.Scott gives a depth to the Scrooge character that the others do not give. The movie shows more about why he becomes so bitter. The changes in Scrooge appear gradually as he encounters the different ghosts and the incidents that they show him.

This movie has the best Tiny Tim by far. He is the right age rather than being played by someone who is almost a teenager as in the other films. Anthony Walters still has all or most of his baby teeth.

David Warner is wonderful as Bob Cratchit. He is such a versatile actor. He portrays a man who clearly loves his family. He plays the role with dignity neither as a wimpy man cowering under Scrooges'thumb but as a man who gracefully puts up with it because he has a family to provide for. Susannah York and the other actors do a fine job of bringing the characters to life. Edward Woodward is the best Ghost of Christmas Present I've ever seen. Most often he is played as a jolly Santa type character. In this he shows anger at Scrooges attitudes and really makes Scrooge reconsider.

The costumes and the sets really bring the London of Dickens time to life. A wonderful movie. I'm sure that most people already know the story-the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge gets a visit from three spirits (the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come) who highlight parts of his life in the hopes of saving his soul and changing his ways. Dickens' classic story in one form or another has stood the test of time to become a beloved holiday favorite.

While I grew up watching the 1951 version starring Alastair Sims, and I believe that he is the definitive Scrooge, I have been impressed with this version, which was released when I was in high school. George C. Scott plays a convincing and mean Ebenezer Scrooge, and the actors playing the ghosts are rather frightening and menacing. David Warner is a good Bob Cratchit as well.

This version is beautifully filmed, and uses more modern filming styles (for the 1980's) which make it more palatable for my children than the 1951 black and white version.

This is a worthy adaptation of the story and is one that I watch almost every year at some point in the Christmas season. Father of the Pride was the best new show to hit television since Family Guy. It was yet another masterpiece from the talented people at Dreamworks Animation. Like The Simpsons, the show centers around a nuclear family (of white lions, in this case). It also contains many memorable supporting characters including Roger the surly orangutan, Vincent the Italian-American flamingo, the eccentric white tigers Blake and Victoria, the faux patriotic Snout Brothers and Chutney the elephant. The other stars of the show are the Sigfreid and Roy. They are incredibly eccentric and do everything in a grandiose manner, making the most mundane activities entertaining. The combination of cute animal characters with very adult dialog and controversial issues (drugs, prejudice, etc) is the source of the program's brilliance.

The blame for this show's failure lies with NBC. They opted to broadcast the episodes in no particular order (perhaps being influenced by which guest stars they could promote) rather than the more logical production order. Several times, the show was preempted for an extra half-hour of such dreck as The Biggest Loser (as if 60 minutes of that was not enough)! It is indeed an ill omen for the future of television as art if an original and daring show like this fails while Fear Factor and American Idol dominate.

Luckily, the complete series was released on DVD and the show now has an opportunity to gain a larger following. 10/10 I had watched as much of the series as I could manage to watch on television, but unfortunately, started a job that got me working evenings. I managed to catch some recordings of it, at least... and, of course, purchased the recently released DVD of the complete series. Watching the DVD, you can see that the animation was a bit more crude at first, but they ironed out a fair number of the flaws after the pilot was done. The voices are well suited to the characters, and the writing is excellent. It's rather refreshing to see animation getting back to it's roots by reintroducing adult themes. Thing is, with the way society has come in the last century, you need to be a bit more blatant about it by today's standards in order to be recognised as an adult-oriented show. The characters have very realistic personalities and are placed in situations that parallel what we often face in real life. It's your typical sitcom in that regard, but the humor is more like what you'd expect from late night television like a talk show skit or Saturday Night Live... back when SNL was actually funny. Good job, Dreamworks. Perhaps you need to work with one of the more liberal networks to keep this series going... and also improve the marketing of merchandise for the series to help defray it's high costs. It's a challenge to do this for a cartoon of a mature nature though. Hmm... "Father of the Pride " was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in "The Simple life ") I admit that are many similarities with this show and "The Simpsons" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .

Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like "Mission Hill " a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame . I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.

It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...

The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.

This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.

rating: 8/10 One word: suPURRRRb! I don't think I have see anything like this in a long time on network or cable television. Watching this show was like taking a breath of fresh air amid TV schedule filled with reality shows and boring re-runs.

I have to say I had my reservations. After all, critics were almost unanimous in crying foul and downgrading the show. But when half an hour was over (by the way, thank you, NBC, for running a commercial-free show), I was left with the feeling of instant love, love at first glance, the true love that one feels in his guts. Everything about this show screamed EXCELLENCE.

Graphics in this show were at least as good as Finding Nemo and Shrek. No small feat considering those movies took years to be developed.

Cast was marvelous. I am partial to John Goodman's voice, but the rest of the team certainly were on par with John. Special mention: Lisa Kudrow's guest appearance. She was on top of the game creating neurotic, pudgy, and lovable panda with a Jewish streak in her. (Panda from Brooklyn? Only in this show.)

Script was funny, with a lot of inside and adult jokes which were sharp, yet not tacky. A note for all parents: this is NOT for children. This show was never advertised as such, and there's a reason why it's set for 9PM, not 8PM. So if you'd like to complain about "objectionable context", save your breath. Adults deserve a comedy made just for them, and Father of the Pride is it.

Not everything was perfect. I was a bit puzzled by Siegfried and Roy's characters. Do I sense "stereotype" when it comes to them? Yes, they are gay. Yes, they are flamboyant. Yes, they speak with German accents. But that's yesterday's news. Give us something new, something fresh, something funny. Putting the old jokes in a new show is definitely the wrong approach. I understand that the creators of this show wanted to use the "star power" that these guys have. That's fine by me. But please don't dwell on something everybody already knows by heart. Hopefully, the rest of the show is not going to play the same old record over and over.

In general, the show is definitely a Must-See-TV. Funny, witty, with a few unexpected twists here and there -- there haven't been a comedy this good since Seinfeld. I am certainly looking forward to the next episode. Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order! I never saw it on TV but rented the DVD through Netflix as soon as I found that it was available. I had high expectations, and was not disappointed. It's funny, and the animation is excellent. That level of quality I would only have expected from feature films, so I'm surprised at some of the bad comments on it. Maybe the DVD release had improved animation? One bonus to the DVD is that it was fun to see both versions of the pilot. I'm an adult, and I really appreciate that it is for adults. It isn't only kids who like cute animated characters. It is nowhere near "raunchy" as some have claimed, but I can see where some parents wouldn't want their young children to see it. I'm very disappointed that it was cancelled. I wish they would produce more episodes. Or perhaps a movie. At least for a half hour a week. I haven't been interested in anything on the big 3 networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) in years. All of the lions are interesting, although Larry can get annoying at times. I really like the Middle earth action figures they bring in with Hunter. Most of the other characters are interesting as well. The sideshow of Siegfried and Roy is entertaining at times, too. The animation is top notch, and definitely the best CG that has been done on a weekly TV show. Usually when they hire big names to star in a show, they're trying to hide a poor script or characters. Not entirely true in this show though, There's a couple characters that were weak and improved by the voice acting, but overall the characters stand on their own.

This is definitely for 16 and up. There's nothing here that most kids haven't already heard before though, and most of the jokes would probably just fly right over their heads. It's definitely not as crude and edgy as South Park, but does bring some of the same "Bash everyone" feel to it. One example is that it makes fun of both Dick Cheney and Barbara Streisand at the same time in one episode.

Father of the Pride and other Dreamworks productions like Shrek also feel like the spiritual successors of Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid. It's the same type of humor grown up. It may not be as witty as Spielberg's classic TV series, but it's still good.

I hope that it finishes this season off well, and is renewed for future seasons. Otherwise I may never find a reason to watch the big 3 again. PERHAPS in an attempt to find another "Hot Property" for adaptation, the Brothers Fleischer thought back to their highly successful foray into the world of the Newspaper Comic Strip with their production of 1933's POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer Studios/Paramount). Although it was a part of the BETTY BOOP Series, Miss B. only made a brief appearance in the short; leaving the rest as a pilot episode for the possible emergence of a full blown series.

AS is now common knowledge, the gruff, squinty eyed, brawlin' seaman became perhaps the most successful cartoon series ever; outlasting and literally outliving the Fleischers and their Studio, lasting to this day.

RETURNING to King Features for another try at luck was no doubt the reason for trying out the very popular HENRY Comic Strip character in a BETTY BOOP outing; objective being the seeking of another series. The reasoning then surely seemed sound. HENRY was a most popular feature in the Hearst Papers' line-up; appearing as both a Daily and on Sunday's Color Comics Supplement, PUCK, THE COMICS WEEKLY. You know, "What Fools These Mortals Be!" Remember that one, Schultz? IN viewing the chubby, little, bald boy Comic Strip 'Hero' and his on screen antics, both solo and in tandem with Miss Betty; we were pleasantly surprised in seeing just how well the character was handled. The story and Director Dave Fleischer both afforded a plethora of comic strip-like situations and sight gags that seemed most appropriate for the character of little Henry. These mostly silent vignettes were very important to the animated film in remaining faithful to the printed page; as the HENRY Feature was mostly done in a sort of 4 color 'mime'.

IN the cartoon, titled BETTY BOOP WITH HENRY: THE FUNNIEST LIVING American (Fleischer Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1935), we see what is; basically being a one situational exercise; being punctuated with the usual array of Dave Fleischer's rapid fire, machine gun-like gags. In short, Henry spots a puppy in the window of Betty Boop's Pet Shop. It is a sort of love at first sight as Henry attempts to purchase the little pup dog with the only money he had, to coins in his pocket. He is in formed by Miss Boop that it would be $2.00 in depression era money to make the purchase. Tears appear as the little guy leaves dejectedly.

BUT a reprieve is soon on the horizon as Betty asks the boy to mind the store, while she leaves on urgent business. In return for his services, Miss Betty promises him the little dog in return. Of course, they have a deal and Betty leaves.

GETTING to the work of cleaning cages and feeding the livestock affords the opportunity for the Fleischer Crew to fire up a whole new string of gags; this time featuring bird seed, Henry's bald pate and push brooms. (But not all at once of course, Schultz!) Henry's enthusiasm for mass feeding of the store's avian population by first literally seeding his head soon leads to a mass defection of the birds; out of the store to the open street in a mass jail break.

BETTY returns to this sight and expresses her disappointment and anger with Henry's temporary custodial care. All bets were off, no doggie for Henry. He begins to leave; dejectedly; but soon convinces the proprietress to give him another shot at fixing things up. His head covered with bird seed, he manages to corral all of the little feathered creatures; returning them to their pet store coop. Happily, the little fella leaves; but this time he has his own affectionate, little, face licking puppy.

UNDOUBETLY this was a winning combination. We have the carefree, energy filled, free wheeling of the boy, the kindness of Betty and the emotions of the situation and doubtful outcome of the 'boy and his dog' situation. Max and Dave Fleischer had given us a sort of almost minor mini-masterpiece of a surreal comedy short.

WE were quite surprised that no HENRY Series followed. Judging by the fairly faithful treatment of the character, it certainly could have been sustained for some time. At any rate, this teaming was in many ways the best of the Betty Boop try out pictures. Although the first, POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer/Paramount, 1933), was the most successful (and barely had any Betty Boop in it, save for a cameo as a carnival hula dancer); the HENRY Short was much better than the two following King Features "tryouts", BETTY BOOP AND THE LITTLE KING and BETTY BOOP AND LITTLE JIMMY, both 1936.

POODLE SCHNITZ!! This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.

Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.

Well here he does speak!

He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.

Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end. Having been a fan of 'Columbo', I was sorely disappointed in 'Corky Romano'. While certainly a funny movie, Falk's mob boss character was a far cry from the lovable lieutenant he's played for so many years, especially with the offensive language he used. After 'Corky Romano', I was honestly both surprised by and soured on Mr. Peter Falk. HOWEVER, having just seen 'Finding John Christmas' and its predecessor, 'A Town Without Christmas', for the first time within a week of each other, I have to say that 'Max', Peter's Falk's delightful character in both movies, is surely as memorable and lovable as 'Columbo'. While parts of the movie are quite predictable, such scenes in no way take away from the enjoyment of seeing the story played out. I too wish I had recorded both of these heartwarming Christmas movies, and I highly recommend them whether you're a Falk fan, a Christmas nut, or simply someone who enjoys the occasional feel-good movie of the week. This movie may end up lost among the throngs of made-for-TV holiday flicks, so be sure to find 'Finding John Christmas' before it's too late. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS DESCRIPTION: First telecast by CBS on November 30, 2003, the made-for-TV Finding John Christmas is a sequel to the previous year's A Town Without Christmas, with Peter Falk reprising his role as versatile guardian angel Max. Valerie Bertinelli plays Kathleen McAllister, a divorced small-town nurse whose depression... over the fact that the hospital ER she maintains may be forced to shut down because of a $100,000 debt is briefly lifted when she spots a newspaper picture taken by photojournalist Noah Greeley (David Cubitt). The picture shows an act of bravery performed by Noah's firefighter brother Hank (William Russ), who mysteriously left town 25 years ago and hasn't been seen since. Hank would like to quietly slip back into town without explanation or fanfare, but this proves impossible when Noah's newspaper posts a $50,000 reward to identify Hank, known only to the public as "John Christmas." And there's something, very, very curious about that photo: It also shows a Santa Claus suit seemingly floating in midair without an occupant. That elusive "Santa" is of course the angelic Max, who pops up now and again throughout the story in a variety of guises to solve problems, dispense advice, tie up loose plot strands--and even share a musical duet with Kathleen's talented daughter Socorro (Jennifer Pisana).

INTERESTED IN HAVING A COPY: WRITE TO ME HERE: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM I watched this in July and even with the Christmas theme, found it touching and sensitive. It is not for someone with a reality-mind as it is full of fantasy and lovely moments that sometimes don't make sense. William Russ did a grand job as Hank. I have only seen him in the remake of The Long, Hot Summer where he played a weak character. But in this one, the expression in his eyes throughout, as Hank considered the things that were happening to him, was wonderful and tender. Valerie Bertinelli was excellent and lovely as usual and very believable in this role. And Peter Falk as Max was splendid and always brought a smile when he appeared in a number of important scenes. There were many special scenes, including the one where Hank realizes who Max really was in his life. It's not for everyone.....especially those who aren't into 'feel-good' movies and this is definitely one! If you like everything to be perfect and make sense, avoid this one. But I think it is well-worth re-watching, which is why I taped it. (Yes, some of us still have VCRs. :) My Comments for VIVAH :- Its a charming, idealistic love story starring Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao. The film takes us back to small pleasures like the bride and bridegroom's families sleeping on the floor, playing games together, their friendly banter and mutual respect. Vivah is about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of commitment between two individuals. Yes, the central romance is naively visualized. But the sneaked-in romantic moments between the to-be-married couple and their stubborn resistance to modern courtship games makes you crave for the idealism. The film predictably concludes with the marriage and the groom, on the wedding night, tells his new bride who suffers from burn injuries: "Come let me do your dressing"

V I V A H - showcases a lot of good things - beauty of arranged marriage, beauty of Indian culture, beauty of Indian woman, last but not least a nice IDEALISM of the about-to-be-couple waiting to get married .... playing by the rules ! Simple yet Beautiful; Such a Simple story .... no plot ... no villain - as is the case with most of Sooraj Barjatya films. Sooraj sir is back to what he does BEST. He has made the movie with FULL CONVICTION. Its a very sweet film - which teaches the current generation a lot of good things bout Arranged Marriage & the Union of 2 Families. I think AMRITA RAO - looks very good & she has acted very well. She has most of the good scenes - although i thought the last half hour was completely to Shahid Kapur - who for a change gives an awesomely restrained performance. I also liked the acting of all others for ex. the Choti i.e. Amrita Prakash, Alok Nath, Anupam Kher, Shahid's bro & sis-in-law. It almost seemed as real and recognizable as it could. Sooraj sir has got another nice family film to his credit after Maine Pyar Kiya, HAHK & Hum Saath Saath Hain. The chemistry between Shahid & Amrita is AWESOME.

Stuff like Sanctity in a Marriage/Relationship, Avoiding Courtship, Mutual Respect, Care & Space, Waiting for getting Married "officially", Praying/Sacrficing for Ur Beloved - all these and more get SHOWCASED in Vivah. There's still some good audience who r going & enjoying this film. Some of the folks/audience are already excited after seeing, that they r thinking bout Arranged-Marriage :) Thats Success if you ask me. it seems AMRITA RAO - our actress-from-Vivah {Result for a nice performance} has been bestowed the prestigious DADSAHEB PHALKE award for 2006 !! Hats off to her for this achievement Chalo, even though Vivah , Shahid or Amrita didn't get any of the film-fare & other awards; @ least this is news to CHEER about !! Congrats to AMRITA RAO- for showing us a visual of Indian Bride-to-be in the purest form and Of Course to Sooraj Barjatya for portraying her the best way :) Shudn't forget Shahid Kapur and all others who make VIVAH as sweet and legendary as it is today !! Imagine, to share the same pedestal as the legendary Dilip Kumar .......... Its no mean achievement !! Congrats to Amrita Rao - for taking her Career to another level with this award .... I personally feel - she should keep doing movies only with Shahid Kapur !! They make a cute couple and their on-screen chemistry reminds me of {SRK-Kajol} or {Aamir Khan & Juhi Chawla} .................

Some points that I observed,few of the elements :- #1 If u notice carefully, Amrita Rao looks so good because shes always wearing traditional dresses. She gives every bit of the Indian Woman essence - in this film !! Perfect Fit #2 Shahid Kapur is like most of us - not exactly ready for marriage or early-marriage .... but PREM listens carefully to the step-wise talk given by his DAD - having full faith in Anupam Kher. Eventually "Honesty" & "Trust" are the keywords that he reflects in his first talk with Amrita. Most people would think such a first meeting with a total stranger plus for a limited time is never enough to judge a person. But according to what I saw in this film, I have a feeling - that Two people who are made for each other can connect within a 1st meet also, Its possible !!! #3 In the entire movie - there are basically 4 or 5 sequences where Shahid & Amrita are together - or shown to be together. Its unlike most other romantic/wedding-based movies where Hero & Heroine are always singing/dancing or nowadays - doing cheap stuff. But the beauty of each of these 5 sequences :- Characterized by restraint, innocence & respect for the other ! #4 I really liked the relationship shown between Chacha ALOK NATH & Amrita Rao. These kinda movies should highlight the indifference shown to daughters/girl-kids in some parts of India. #5 Romantic scenes between lead couple are shot very nicely - no cheap scenes,songs are beautifully pictured !! Words like "Jal","praarthana" e.t.c. are going to be buzzwords for all girls who liked this film :) Personally, I really am fond of many dialogs in this film. #6 Last but not the least - The entire Hospital Scene where Shahid puts "sindhoor" to Amrita when shes struggling for Life - is terrific. Those dialogs between the couple are so touching and U feel the LOVE/I-cant-do-without-U ; Its a Hats-Off feeling !!!

*** In many ways, VIVAH reminded me of Maine Pyar Kiya, DDLJ, Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam - for the freshness/on-screen-chemistry of the LEAD pair :) :) *** IF U ASK ME :- Along with films like Rang De Basanti, Lage Raho Munnabhai, DOR, CORPORATE and Kabul Express, V I V A H ranks among the best films made in 2006. IN FACT - i think Vivah does deserve better viewing/business than Dhoom2 or Fanaa or Golmaal or all those time-pass/fuzzy/style/crap movies !! All the talent Mr. Sooraj Barjatya showed in his first 3 movies, I thought were all an accident because his 4th one Main prem ki diwani hoon was so bad. But I have to say it wasn't an accident. This guy is talented and the way he has done Vivah is just brilliant. Right from the first scene it affects you. the sequences between shahid and amrita are awesome. The chemistry between these two actors gives glimpses of that between srk and kajol. As usual Alok Nath as the good and loving father is fantastic, so is Anupam Kher. But its a Shahid-Amrita film.Amrita looks good in most scenes though shahid does look a little young to get married but he does a good job of a shy but yet morally strong groom. this movie will especially be liked by those who has gone through such beautiful moments in their life. All in all a brilliant film. hats off to Mr. Sooraj Barjatya... Vivah is by no means a classic. However in the days of hardcore action, path-breaking special effects & complex plots (none of which Bollywood has mastered yet), its quite refreshing to see a simple film like Vivah. The story as we all know is a journey from a couple's first meeting to their eventual wedding after some coy moments and testing times. Nothing more, nothing less. The music isn't quite in the same league as MPK or HAHK but doesn't jar your senses either. Two songs stood out for me - Mujhe Haq Hai & Do Anjaane. While Milan abhi aadha & Hamaari shaadi were hummable. Shahid performs sincerely & shows a lot of potential. Its good to see him play something else but the "cool dude" he normally does. Amrita is very sweet and plays the role of a docile small-town girl to perfection. Alok Nath, Anupam Kher & Seema Biswas are terrific supports and the rest of the cast does a reasonable job. Suraj's direction is simple but effective. The movie's prime flaw is the slow pace which might test the patience of a lot of young viewers. But all in all a good, clean, decent family movie. This is one of the best movies to come from Bollywood in years. Certainly the best this year until now. Indian to the core, the panoramic visuals, the heart-pleasing dialogs and the melodious and soft music make the movie an exceptional one. The apt depiction of Indianvalues and culture makes the viewer search for his/her roots in them and invigorates the mind and spirit with a sense of pride and a new lease on life.

This movie is for viewers who enjoy a call to their imagination and philosophical senses. If you like watching movies to get all your nerves excited through on-screen action, sex or terror, then this movie is not for you, because you will find that the movie is not full of 90 degrees twists in it. It is as simple a story for a movie as it can get. But that's exactly where the art of the movie lies. One gets a real life experience, and the best thing is, this experience is one full of values and hope. It is about the positive side of life, about the sweet things that God has showered on humans, as against the regressive movies that insist on showing dons, terrorists and underworlds. This is not about things and people that have gone bad. It is about the goodness that still persists, and that keeps the world running. Of course, every genre of movies is respectable but it takes a lot of courage and talent to come up with a movie that swims against the current and tries to open the eyes of the public to the hidden realities and truths.

Having said that, here's more...

The movie is the journey of a couple from their engagement to their arranged marriage - yes, that's right, it is an arranged marriage and the couple come to know each other only through their parents, and learn to love each other. The 6 month gap between engagement and marriage is a long time, not full of "enticing" happenings, but one that nurtures the growing love and devotion of the couple to each other. They learn together the importance of their relationship and of this invaluable period of their lives, and work to strengthen the bonds of marriage. But have these been strengthened enough? Their relationship will face the test of not only time but also fortune. Will they pass this test? That is what "Vivah" is about. This movie brings back many memories of the classic cinema of old, where actors didn't have to take their clothes off to make viewers watch their film.

Firstly I think the main plus point of this movie is the amazing chemistry between Shahid and Amrita, it is definitely the making of the film.

I have seen lots of comments regarding the film being sickly sweet and overly slushy. In response to this, I think to a certain degree this is a correct analysis, however considering this is a Barjatya film I think that compared to MPK, HAHK, HSSH and MPKDH, it has been toned down significantly. HSSH was almost unbearable to watch in some places.

In this film however, when the sentimental moments come along, you find yourself smiling, wishing the budding couple all the best and hoping that nothing bad happens to them.

Another major plus point is the performances of Shahid and Amrita. Both have acted very well, especially Shahid who looks great in the film. Amrita looks simply stunning and should be taken seriously as a future major star.

Although I really enjoyed the film as a whole, I do feel that it was too long. Some of the middle could have been trimmed off and it would maybe made even more of an impact. I also think the music, although it fits into the film when you see the situations is slightly old fashioned and the movie could have benefited if a more up-to-date soundtrack had been available. Although the picturisation of the songs Mujhe Haq Hain and Hamari Shaadi Mein are wonderful.

All in all, I definitely recommend this film, its romantic, looks stunning and has a dramatic climax (I won't go into details, just in case you haven't seen it.

PS. If you're prone to crying-take a tissue! (I needed several) VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as "old wine in a new bottle" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.

VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.

Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately:

* When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.

* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.

* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.

Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.

Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).

On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see! It is nice to see Suraj Barjatya back at what he is best at.A story woven around a marriage.It feels nice to have a movie in which there is no single scene which you would avoid watching with your family. Though the story is simple and does not contain any new elements,you still like the movie,because of the presentation, performances,and actually the over all treatment. Hats Off to Suraj.. The movie is about the fact that engagement leads to love. The depiction of the changes in the way of thinking,behaving once you get engaged is excellent. Director has definitely given it much thought and actors have done it to perfection.Though the movie is slow,you don't mind it,because you kind of get so much involved with the story that you just wanna continue watching the joy of this newly engaged couple. As a typical RajShree stuff it has many sentimental scenes which are highly likely to make viewer burst into tears(specially ladies). But when you come out of the cinema hall you are very much satisfied and feel that the ticket was worth :-). I liked this movies. Its a another Yash raj film which you know will look good on screen, all character are always nice or very nice with one exception who you know will eventually covert to being nice... Another rule of Yash raj's film is that either hero or heroine;s have only one or none parent. Think back to all of those films.. MPK Suman didn't have mom, HMAPK Salman didn't have parents, AND FINAL rule is that you are 90% likely to see Alock Nath crying...

The film is good too. Its a bit slow at first but keeps you entertained. There is almost no comedy but it does make you smile often enough. The little kid (hero's nephew) is well placed and deliver very good one liners. The actress is very pretty but shy you wouldn't get that in real life. this film doesn't have massively big happy families living in BIG house which I thou was a good Idea and allowed the film to be differentiated from other films. There will be lots of women crying at the end of the film. There isn't a strong message from this film but its a good watch. If you are married (arranged marriage)the film will remind you of what you went through. And if you are not it will inform and may be scare you ...

Overall a very good looking film. No big plots or twists but a very gentle film, very much like Bollywood classic. I can't believe currently this movie is rated a 6.9. Anyway this movie was probably one of the most touching real Indian movies I have ever seen. It was really refreshing to see a movie that showed traditional family cinema. As for the story I thought it was great it was about shahid kapur being set up on an arranged marriage with amrita rao. He is kind of a happy go lucky kind of guy, while Amrita Rao is a traditional Indian girl who is very helpful to her uncle but the only problem is her cousin doesn't seem to get as much attention as she does so her Aunt dislikes Amrita with a passion. This upsets Amrita because she just wants her aunt to love her. It was also very touching to see that although Amrita's family wasn't that rich maybe just middle class to lower class, while Shahids family was quite upper class, they still treated their family with respect and didn't even ask put them down which really struck a nerve with me. This is because i've actually seen people being very rude to people who are not as well of thinking their below their standards which i feel is very shallow. This movie showed that shahids family was willing to look at the great values that Amrita had been brought up with and turned a blind eye to the fact she wasn't a rich business tycoons daughter or anything. All in all this movie deserved an 8/10 I wish more and more of these kind of movies were made. This movie is a great attempt towards the revival of traditional Indian values which are being replaced by western ones.Its a joint family story showing all the ethics every person should follow while communicating with every single relative around.Shahid Kapoor gives a gr88 performance as a desi about to tie knot with Amrita Rao who is also very Desi and she also acts pretty well...The genre of the movie is the same as HAHK and such movies deserve to be made in India for the revival of old traditional values...The movies doesn't get 10 as it isn't very good at music which counts a lot in every movie,besides this it is flawless.... VIVAH is in my book THE BEST MOVIE OF 2006 ! PERIOD !!. In my book it is one of the best 100 movies EVER MADE IN Bollywood. Its sad that this movie doesn't have that many reviews and isn't having that much popularity.

VIVAH is once again a true achievement from a director who DOES it again. After HAHK and Maine Pyar Kiya Sooraj has once again pulled off a brilliant one VIVAH.

This is the most simple and cute movies that I've seen this year. After seeing Don 2 which was CRAP and later Dhoom 2 which even beat Don in that matter, I finally see a movie which is so close to my heart and my culture.

I don't know why Bollywood is moving away from the beautiful culture which we have and are making Hollywood remake style crap movies like Dhoom 2 and don.

The story is beautiful and relates much to the Indian system of Arranged marriage which I too would like to be a part of. Our system which teaches us to obey elders, follow them and of course obey their thoughts is so brilliantly shown in this movie!. Of course there isn't any force in choosing your life partner and it should be a brief meeting between the couple and its up to them to decide as it is brilliantly shown in this movie.

Coming back to the movie.....VIVAH is a story of Journey between the beautiful period of Engagement and marriage. The phase where the guy meets the girl !....Both understand each other ..Both try to assess if they could love each other for Seven generations (as our system says) and the various which occur during marriages.

Amrita Rao is brilliant in the movie.......Shahid is OK.....and Alok Nath and Anupam Kher are awesome !! The songs are BRILLIANT. ! I especially like the HAMARI SHAADI MAIN HAFTE REH GYE CHAAR and Do Anjaane Ajnabi ......

Overall A MUST SEE for anyone who still believes in the Indian culture and tradition and I certainly do !.

Go see this movie......I just have to say one word.......

BLISS !. I had lost faith in Sooraj R. Barjatya after the movie Main Prem Ki Deewani hoon, then a year back now I saw promos for Vivah which looked good. But I didn't want to waste my hard earned money watching it in cinema. When the film first came out on DVD I rented it and watched and I loved the movie and took back my words for Sooraj. I just finished watching it yesterday again and this time I thought I have to review this movie. Sooraj R. BarjatyaGot it right this time, okay I was not a huge fan of Hum App Ke Hai Kaun. But I have always loved Manie Pyar kiya, after Manie Pyar kiya to me I think Vivah is Barjatyas best work. I hardly ever cry in a movie but this movie made me feel like crying. If you have ever been in love before then there will be many moments that will touch you in this movie, the movie is just too sweet and will have you falling in love with it, my view a much underrated movie.

The story of this movie you might call desi and very old times, but to me it seemed modern because the two couples which are getting an arrange marriage are aware it's an old tradition. It's done in present times, lots of people don't believe in this arrange marriage, but I do. The journey between the engagement and wedding which will always be special and this movie shows it clearly. When Prem meets Poonam for the first time, they show it how it is and that's reality and my parents where saying that's how they got married and it showed it in a way which is so real yes people the way Prem and Poonam meet in this movie is how most marriages happen. It was a very sweet, you feel nervous yet excited, the song "Do Ajnabe" shows that very well. Getting back to the story yes it's a journey which you soon get glued to between Prem and Poonam (Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao) and there families. A twist occurs in this movie which is really good, the last 30mins you all will be reaching for the tissue box.

What makes this film so amazing is the chemistry between Prem and Poonam, how they fall for each other is too sweet. Simple boy and Simple Girl, when they first meet during and after the song "Do Anjane Ajnabe" It's very sweet to watch, She hardly says anything and Prem does all the talking being honest with her about his past and the girl he liked and him smoking. Then it leads on to them all having a family trip and then that's when they really do fall for each other. It makes you just want to watch the couple and watch all the sweet moments they have. Another factor is that Poonam chichi is really mean to her and you feel sorry for Poonam because she has been treated bad and makes you want to see her happy and when she finally finds happiness, you too start feeling happy with her the movie basically makes you fall in love with Poonam more then just Prem. When she finds happiness through Prem you want her to stay happy and also hope nothing goes wrong because the character is shown as a sweet simple girl. Which brings me to performances and Amrita Roa as Poonam is amazing in the movie, her best work till date you will fall in love with this innocent character and root her on to find happiness. Shahid Kapoor as Prem is amazing too, he is Poonam support in the film, he is her happiness the movie, together they share an amazing chemistry and I have never seen a cuter couple since SRK and Kajol. If Ishq Vishk didn't touch you to telling you how cute they are together this surely will. "Mujhe Haq hai" the song and before that is amazing chemistry they show. Scenes which touched me was when Prem takes Poonam to his room and shows her that's where they will be staying and he opens her up and they have a moment between them which is too sweet. Again if you have ever been in love with someone that much these scenes you can defiantly connect to. The film is just the sweetest thing you will see ever.

The direction is spot on, to me a good movie is basically something that can pull me in and stop me believe for this hours what is being seen here is fake and there is a camera filing them. To me this film pulled me in and for those three hours I felt really connected to the movie. The songs you will only truly like when you have seen the movie as they are songs placed in the situation after I saw the movie I been playing the songs non stop! The music is amazing, the story is simply amazing too what more can I ask for?

What I can finally say it, rarely do we get a movie that makes us feel good, this movie after you have seen it will make you feel really good and make you want to be a better person. Its basically the sweetest journey ever, its basically showing you they journey between engagement and marriage and many people say it's the bestest part of your life…Well this movie actually shows you way do people actually say that? Why do people actually say that the journey is just that amazing! Watch this movie and you will find out why the journey is amazing! Suraj Barjatya is best in movies on marriage. And here he is; back to his basics on Vivaah. As the story goes this is a story from engagement to marriage. A movie you can watch with your entire family around you. A movie you will hate watching alone. The story is simple, but the music is good, cinematography is excellent, direction is best, everything about the movie has a class of its own. There are a lot of scenes which will make you cry and am sure if you are watching the movie with your sweetheart, you both are definitely going to hold each others hand till the end of the movie.

Shahid & Amrita jodi has given us hit movies earlier like Ishq Vishq, & Shikhar. Though Shikhar was a good movie it wasn't accepted well by the public.A truly Shahid & Amrita film. I can honestly say I never expected this movie to be good. I do not like family films. I am far from a fan of Shahid Kapoor. The director's last movie (MPKDH was complete stupidity. And the music was very boring and bland. But there was Amrita Rao, who has become my favorite after Main Hoon Na. There was also Seema Biswas, Alok Nath, and Anupam Kher who are very talented. So a few plus points.

I finally saw the movie and I was very impressed. He brings us the young lovers of MPK with a pinch of the HAHK wedding, and we have a winner. The story outline is similar to HAHK, light hearted in the beginning to serious mode at the end. The director also made character that you could relate to. The thing I did not like about HAHK was that the characters were too eccentric. The casting adds to its perfection. Shahid Kapoor surprised me with a good performance. This is a major improvement, and most importantly he suits the role. The best is easily Amrita Rao. In fact, this is her best performance. Her screen presence is so electrifying, you are bound to love her performance. Sameer Soni, Amrutha Prakash, Anupam Kher, Alok Nath and Seema Biswas are terrifically cast. Not one actor feels out of place.

The songs were quite disappointing but they will sound better after watching them. Mujhe Haq Hai and Do Anjaane Ajnabi are nice ballads. Milan Abhi Aada Adhura Hai is also nice in watching. The songs aren't colorful and dancey, and they are more like ballads. The exception is Hamari Shaadi Mein which is bound to remind you of HSSH and HAHK. So what was the flaw in the movie? The movie gets quite slow, and the ending is quite stretched. But the movie is still goes at a good pace, making it a perfect family film. i thought this movie was really really great because, in India cinemas nowadays, all you see is skin, music, and bad acting...in this movie, you can see some tradition, ethnicity, and at least some decency...although some parts were a little dramatic, guess what? that is what Indian cinema is all about! after watching this movie, at least you don't get a headache from all the loud overrated music, or any violence, its just the truth, it teaches about love, and of course caring for the person you love throughout life...i think it was an amazing movie...Kids can watch it without a doubt, and adults will enjoy the simplicity that used to be India's sure profoundness...until all these rap hits, miniskirts, and skin showing became a part of it. Well... Vivah is quite a good, but typical Sooraj Barjatya's movie. It shows different aspects of Indian families, wedding ceremonies, etc. The movie is more than good, but not extremely good.

The big plus point of the movie is direction, music and Shahid and Amrita's acting (especially the last scene). The movie starts with a common factor of Indian movie--- A girl being disliked by her step-mother. Story is the movie is a bit common, but it is good, good enough to make the movie a blockbuster.

Minus point is common story of Bollywood movie. Overall I would say it is two times must watch movie, if you want to see typical Indian family values and of-course love! This is one of the best Bollywood movies i have seen up until now. Family and friends feel the same way about it. This movie is really romantic and dramatic at the same time. In my opinion we need more films or movies like this to keep the south Asian culture alive. Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao acted extremely well in this, also their couple attracts a lot of people to the movies. This is a must see movie, it's a family and romantic movie. This movie is also from the makers of Hum Saath Saath Hain and Hum Apke Hain Kon. This movie is their best right now... the setting of the movie was beautiful which also is a huge attraction. This movie is must see... recommended to everyone!! I watched this movie alongwith my complete family of Nine. Since my younger brother has recently got married, we could connect with the goings-on. The movie stands out for the classical touch given to the romance of the engaged couple. Thankfully this time all Indian locales like Ranikhet Almora etc have been used, which have been already visited by most of the urbanites, hence adding to the connection with movie. The dialogues are much better than those in the "Umrao Jaan Ada" - a supposedly dialogue based movie. The background music is augmenting the "soft focus" of the movie. It somehow remind me of VV Chopra's "Kareeb", in which neha and to some extent Bobby did full justice to the character. Same here, in that the lead pair does not disappoint in any department-looks or acting. The Supporting cast are too good. I rate the actress playing the role of Bhabhi in the front league. The situations of family interactions portrayed are real and you smile when you find yourself in place of one of the characters. Songs were too suiting the scenes and going along well with the movie. However, though I respect Ravindra Jain for his body of work from movies to Ramayana, I missed Ram Laxman badly.

It had no double entendres(Sivan category), no bikinis, no intrigue, and no nonsense. You would comfortably watch the movie with your parents except if you're already or going to be soon engaged. I want to express on candid thing here that though Suraj proposes that the marriages is between families and not only individuals, his approach is totally individualistic. The movie is only about Prem & Poonam, rest of the characters are incidental. Art immitating life? The "peripheral characters" are consigned to the background and the only protagonists are the lead pair.

Coming back, Everything was almost great. Except, for the drama part. The situation of tragedy was artificially created. The outcome, the sacrifice and the ensuing heart change are not compelling at all. That is why it lacks the emotional punch-the very purpose of this turn of events. But, a twist in the tale was necessary to transcend the movie from a beautiful pre-marital video to a 'feature film'. But I kept waiting for the punch and it never came. The preaching by Mohnish Bahal and later by Alok Nath on dowry was out of place and it made things too overboard. May be this will help the movie a tax-free status. But the plot could have been made more interesting and non-linear than what it was.

There were too question in my mind when the movie ended: 1 Has the movie really ended? 2 Has the movie ended? One would have to be very jaded indeed not to be swept up into this gem of a film (and I've seen hundreds of Hindi and Bollywood movies, too). The actors, the beautiful settings, locations, and surroundings, the deep emotions portrayed, the sweet songs (especially the singing voice of Udit Narayan, my favorite) -- everything was just lovely. The human (imperfect) element was also woven in, to create some drama and drive the plot, as well as allowing a heartfelt resolution. Alok Nath is such a terrific actor, so open with the emotions of the characters he portrays, he almost steals the show from the young stars. I highly recommend this film to anyone who loves true romances -- ones that go beyond superficial beauty to real love -- as one of the best films out there, Hindi or otherwise! What can i say, i have grown up watching Hum Saath Saath Hain, Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Maine Pyar Kiya. Soraj have always been different. Movies are part of our lives in evolutionary times Soraj creates something thats hard to find. Love and joint family that loving and great. Vivah is journey for a couple that are getting arrange marriage that turns on arrange and love marriage. Shahid has done fine work. Anupamji as always brilliant. Amrita Rao quit different even though I felt that someway the other to me she doesn't suit in that role. We've seen her in Ishk Vishk and Ab ke baras, and Main ho on Na. So quit different role that she isn't in to. She is been excellent in Main ho on Na and ishk vishk but may be she could've put little more in the role. Anyways great going work by Barjatya. This movie rejuvenates the values that we forgot. Sweet film of the year. Great music and lyrics. I am not sure if its a remake but anyways brilliant story that is original. Soraj's movies have been brilliant all the way so we always expect something different from him. Great work by all the cast the crew and everybody. Lovely family film to enjoy with your parents, siblings, friends and love ones. I give it 10 out of 10. Once in a while, you come upon a movie that defines your values and shows you the true depth of human emotions leaving you drained. Vivah is just that – maybe more. After watching DDLJ, Saajan, and Lamhey, I really thought that Bollywood has reached its pinnacle and will never come up with anything like that - EVER. Boy was I wrong! I went to the store to buy some groceries and decided to pick this movie up along with the new "DON" (just so I can compare The Great AB with ShahRukh – although the decision is already made in my mind). After debating whether I should waste almost 3 hours on a meaningless movie I decided to watch it realizing I had nothing else to do. When I saw the rating of U instead of an A, I was happy that at least it is something where I don't have to watch scantily clad women with bad acting skills doing nothing but dancing on every opportunity they get and making out with every guy to show that they have more skills in bed than a Hollywood B actress. For the first 5 minutes or so I thought I would again be subjected to meaningless story with bad acting. After all everyone who has seen Shahid Kapor know that he as never gained his fame as an accomplished actor. Boy – was I wrong about this movie. This movie grabbed my interest after the first 5 minutes and would never let it go. It was a great movie with a good storyline about the vanishing traditions of our society. I liked not only that the director was brave enough to make a movie where younger generation might not relate to the concept (of arranged marriage), but also that he did it with a conviction (that it is the right thing to do). I have no idea why some people think that the acting was not good. I felt that the acting was great and even though the music score might not be considered the best ever, it was still very very good. The good thing is this music will grow on people with time like it did with me after the I watched that movie a second time. The other good thing is that thee songs are not pushed into the script as we have all seen in so many movies. These songs actually tell a big part of the story and are certainly a welcome addition. Just like Ajay Devgan went from being a joke to a great actor (after Company), and Salman found his groove after "Hum Aapkey Hain Kaun"; this movie will help Shahid Kappor jump to being of the better actors and entertainers in Bollywood. This is the first movie of his in which I like him and his role. He acted well and adjusted to being the nice good looking young rich kid. Yes you will not find him playing basketball and scoring every point on a dunk like you saw ShahRukh in DDLJ (even though he is shown to be an Indian in England – both countries not big on Basketball by the way), he does come across as very believable as a person who holds true to his values. Amrita Rao, for the first time came across as someone to be remembered. In all her other movies she was competing with big faces which was actually hindering her. No one knew how good of an actress she really is until they watch this movie. Some of the scenes in which she has to cry especially towards the end really shows her knowledge and depth of acting. Although she has been in another movies she is most memorable in this one. I think this movie will and should do wonders for her. Move over Rani – there is finally another girl who if given a decent chance to work with good directors can grab the torch from you. She is beautiful with a great voice and has a face that exudes complete innocence. Oh having almost 0% body fat does not hurt either (yes people I will challenge you find even 0.1% fat on her and unlike so many others like Sonali she can actually act too). I thought I will never be enamored by anyone's beauty after Madhuri and early Kajol, but she completely changed that. Shahid and Amrita worked very well together and their relationship fitted their characters and they both did an excellent job (although I was waiting for Shahid to turn into a girl like Salman did every time he uttered "Hum aapkey Hain Kaun"). When I finished watching this movie, it left me so emotionally drained that I decided to watch this movie again (right away). Yes right away. I have never ever done that. Not even with DDLJ, but this movie just had something that had to be understood again and again. I will probably watch this movie a third time over the weekend just so I can watch and relive the traditions we all grew up with. I miss those times where families sat down and had fun. When parents had time for their kids and where kids respected what their parents believed in. I know a lot of people think that movie does not portray real life but deep down don't we all want it to happen. The families, thee tradition, the love and respect. This is what this movie will remind all of us of. I can assure you it is an extremely well made movie which you will enjoy. I am sure some young people will not like this movie but if you are over 28 I doubt that you will be one of them. 'Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.

The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like "Gloria F*CKING Swanson!"). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.

In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.

'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes. WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (but not really - keep reading). Ahhh, there are so many reasons to become utterly addicted to this spoof gem that I won't have room to list them all. The opening credits set the playful scene with kitsch late 1950s cartoon stills; an enchanting Peres 'Prez' Prado mambo theme which appears to be curiously uncredited (but his grunts are unmistakable, and no-one else did them); and with familiar cast names, including Kathy Najimi a full year before she hit with Sister Acts 1 & 2 plus Teri Hatcher from TV's Superman.

Every scene is imbued with shallow injustices flung at various actors, actresses and producers in daytime TV. Peeking behind the careers of these people is all just an excuse for an old-fashioned, delicious farce. Robert Harling penned this riotous spoof that plays like an issue of MAD Magazine, but feels like a gift to us in the audience. Some of the cliched characters are a bit dim, but everyone is drizzling with high jealousy, especially against Celeste Talbert (Sally Field) who is the show's perennial award-winning lead, nicknamed "America's Sweetheart". The daytime Emmies-like awards opening does introduce us to Celeste's show, The Sun Also Sets. Against all vain fears to the contrary, Celeste wins again. She is overjoyed, because it's always "such a genuine thrill": "Adam, did you watch? I won! Well, nguh..." The reason for Adam's absence soon becomes the justification for the entire plot, and we're instantly off on a trip with Celeste's neuroses. She cries, screeches, and wrings her hands though the rest of the movie while her dresser Tawnee (Kathy Najimi, constantly waddling after Celeste, unseen through Celeste's fog of paranoia) indulges a taste for Tammy Faye Baker, for which Tawnee had been in fact specifically hired.

Rosie Schwartz (Whoopi Goldberg) has seen it all before. She is the head writer of the show, and she and Celeste have been excellent support networks to each other for 15 years. So when Celeste freaks, Rosie offers to write her off the show for six months: "We'll just say that Maggie went to visit with the Dalai Lama." But Celeste has doubts: "I thought that the Dalai Lama moved to LA." "-Well, then, some other lama, Fernando Lamas, come on!". Such a skewering line must be rather affronting to still living beefcake actor Lorenzo Lamas, son of aforementioned Fernando Lamas (d. 1982).

Those who can remember the economics teacher (Ben Stein) in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) as he deadeningly calls the roll ("Bueller. Bueller. Bueller"), will take secret pleasure from seeing him again as a nitwit writer. Other well hidden member of the cast include Garry Marshall (in real life Mr Happy Days and brother of Penny), who "gets paid $1.2 million to make the command decisions" on The Sun Also Sets - he says he definitely likes "peppy and cheap"; and Carrie Fisher as Betsy Faye Sharon, who's "a bitch".

Geoffrey Anderson (Kevin Kline) is the "yummy-with-a-spoon" (and he is, by the way) dinner theater actor now rescued from his Hell by David Seaton Barnes (Robert Downey Jr), and brought back to the same show he was canned from 20 years earlier. Of course this presents some logical challenges for the current scriptwriters because his character, Rod Randall, was supposed to have been decapitated all those years ago. Somehow they work out the logical difficulties, and Geoffrey Anderson steps off the choo-choo.

Celeste can now only get worse, and her trick of going across the Washington bridge no longer helps. First, her hands shake as she tries to put on mascara, but she soon degenerates into a stalker. Unfortunately, she cannot get rid of Geoffrey Anderson so easily. Geoffrey's been promised development of his one-man play about Hamlet, and he means to hold the producer to that promise. "I'm not going back to Florida no-how!", argues Geoffrey. "You try playing Willie Loman in front of a bunch of old farts eating meatloaf !" And indeed, seeing Geoffrey's dinner theater lifestyle amongst all the hocking and accidents is hilarious. Back in Florida in his Willie Loman fat suit in his room, Geoffrey Anderson used to chafe at being called to stage as "Mr Loman". He was forced to splat whatever cockroaches crawled across his TV with a shoe, and to use pliers instead of the broken analog channel changer. Now he find himself as the yummy surgeon dating Laurie Craven, the show's new ingenue; so he's not leaving.

Beautiful Elizabeth Shue (as Laurie) rounds out the amazing ensemble cast who all do the fantastic job of those who know the stereotypes all too well. But, of course, the course to true love never did run smoothly. Montana Moorehead (Cathy Moriarty) is getting impatient waiting for her star to rise, and is getting desperate for some publicity.

Will her plots finally succeed? Will Celeste settle her nerves, or will she kill Tawnee first? Will the producer get Mr Fuzzy? -You'll just have to watch * the second half * of this utterly lovable, farcically malicious riot.

And you'll really have to see to believe how the short-sighted Geoffrey reads his lines without glasses live off the TelePrompter. If you are not in stitches with stomach-heaving laughter and tears pouring down your face, feel free to demand your money back for the video rental. Soapdish (1991) is an unmissable gem that you will need to see again and again, because it's not often that a movie can deliver so amply with so many hilarious lines. This is very well-crafted humor, almost all of it in the writing. A draw with Blazing Saddles (1974) for uproarious apoplexy value, although otherwise dissimilar. Watch it and weep. A happy source for anyone's video addiction. 10 out of 10. Fast paced and funny satire about that original "reality TV", the soap opera. The script by playwright Robert Harling is packed with one liners and ridiculous situations. The best of them is the climax, a live broadcast that quickly deteriorates into bad improv and a brain transplant. Keven Kline's murdering of his lines, due to not wearing his glasses, is hilarious. "Her brain will laterally explore within the next few houses." The brilliant cast is on the same page as Kline. Sally Field, Elizabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, Garry Marshall, and Kathy Najimy are all perfect. It is a treat to see a cast click like it does in this movie. This is a classic that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

P.S. The score by Alan Silvestri is an added bonus. It fits the soap opera with it's flamboyant and melodramatic air. This is one of those movies - like Dave, American Dreamer and Local Hero - that holds a viewer's interest time and again. Lightweight movies seldom win Oscars, but whoever did the casting for Soapdish deserves one. Even after one has seen the movie and knows what is coming, it's still enjoyable to watch how the various plot facets develop. True, all the drama is melodrama; but that's entirely fitting for a movie with a soap opera background. My favorite line comes from Whoopi Goldberg: "Now why can't I write sh*t like that?" I think it's unfortunate that the TV and website censors insist on all this unnecessary sanitation. Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.

A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.

Do not pass this movie by! This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!! This is a romantic comedy with the emphasis on comedy for a change. As usual the lovers--Sally Field as almost-over-the-hill soap opera queen, Celeste Talbert; and Kevin Kline as marginally employed and marginally talented actor, Jeffrey Anderson--are working at cross purposes, seemingly unaware that they are madly in love, etc. Owing a little to Bette Davis's Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950) and a whole lot to the slapstick theatrical tradition, Sally Field goes over the top towards hilarity as she malaprops her way to love and happiness. Kevin Kline, one of the more underrated leading men of recent years, is also very good and very winning as he manages to be handsome, vulnerable, egotistical and lovable all at the same time.

The misadventures center around Celeste's fear of losing her audience as she has entered her forties, and reach the crisis point with the arrival of her niece, aspiring actress Cori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) who turns out NOT to be her niece, with ensuing plot complications. Cori manages to get a small part in the soap opera as a homeless deaf mute before discovering her true relationship to Celeste (and to Jeffrey Anderson as well)--but never mind.

As a romantic counterpoint or foil to the leads are Robert Downey Jr. (soap opera director, David Barnes) and Cathy Moriarty (Montana and Nurse Nan). David Barnes is oh so hot for her, but she cares only about one thing: getting rid of Celeste so that she might shine more brightly on the set. To this end she gets Barnes to do all sorts of things to wreck Celeste's career, but through happenstance and/or a perverse logic, all his attempts go awry, much to the delight of the viewer.

Whoopie Goldberg plays Rose Schwartz, the show's chief writer and Celeste's alter-ego and confidant while Carrie Fisher has a modest part as the hard-as-nails producer of the show.

I thought this was funnier than the only other spoof of the soap opera world that I have seen (Young Doctors in Love 1982 which burlesqued TV's General Hospital and was pretty good). Soapdish is funnier with a daffy script and plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners and terrific performances by Field, Kline and Downy, Jr. But see this for Sally Field who is outstanding. Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors – Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty – quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course – but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face... I don't watch soaps. My grandmother still watches that one with the hour glass. I made fun of them it when I was ten (it was so easy).

But this movie takes parody and spells it a new way. I found the story pretty damn funny. The fashions of the 80's - shoulder pads, sequins, and polyester - just top it off. The huge hair, the high heels, and the histrionics - what a combination.

And all the actors just go to town, chewing up their parts and spitting them out in a big well scripted pile. Sally, Kevin, Elisabeth - wonderful! Whoopi - great! Robert Downey - refreshing to see him back when he had such potential, before the tabloids. And Garry: why did we have to wait so long to see him on film? Leesa Gibbons - hadn't been missing her, but nice to include her as a real life entertainment reporter (and where do you apply for THAT job, anyway?).

Admittedly, I could have done without Sally climbing the drainpipe. Lucy Ricardo did it, how many times?, as has every comedienne from Carol Burnett to I don't know who and I'm so done with it now, I could spit peanuts if I had them. Apparently it's what you do when you're being funny in a tall building in New York. I'm just thankful they didn't pull out the flagpole bit.

But it was cute, it was funny, it had plot twists, it had an after credits ending before that was common, it had clothes worthy of a second glance, it had a great cast and it's got personal memories for me. Really, what more do you need? till HBO began rerunning it this month. I remember laughing out loud in the theater back in 1991, and now again in my living room. If I see that it's on, I have to watch it. There's just no question. This is so much more entertaining to me than other, more popular spoofs like Airplane! (which I really like, BTW). Cathy Moriarty steals the show in my opinion. Quotes like "Sudden speech! The last symptoms of brain fever! She could blow at any moment!" put me over the edge. And Whoopie Goldberg hasn't been this funny since 'Jumpin' Jack Flash'. Kevin Klein, Sally Field, Robert Downey Jr. all turn in superb performances as expected. I started out giving this 9 out of 10 stars, but then I realized that for the type of film it's supposed to be, there isn't one thing I'd change or improve upon. So 10 it is. I have to get this on DVD, that's just all there is to it. Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.

The cast of "Soapdish" is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.

This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out. I have been a fan of this movie for years and years. Because of Teri Hatchers move into the forefront, I had to take the movie off the shelf and watch it. Why people back in 1991 did not see how wonderful this movie was in beyond me? Sally Field and Kevin Kline are beyond fabulous. Although I never have watching daytime soap operas, this movie kills me every time I watch it. The acting is second to none for a comedy and the writing is so smart. I highly recommend that you watch this if you haven't already. You will get to see Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, and Carrie Fisher...to name a few...all give splendid performances. There are few comedies like this, where almost every line and every character come close to flawless. This is soooo funny!! And it has quite a bit of satire there to. Sally Field is heading the field of truly outstanding actors and does a good, if not perfect, job with her daytime tv-diva. Sometimes her acting is just a little to broad and over the top, but 90 % of the time she is a riot! In the same league is Kevin Kline, Robert Downey Jr and Whoopy Goldberg (who unfortunately has too little to do here). Downey jr may not convince entirely as a comedian and has not the timing right all the time, but he struggles with his part which is, to be honest, the most ungrateful one. But the shining star here is Cathy Moriarty as Celeste, a true bitch if there ever was one with more than one nasty secret (you will see in the absolutely stunning finale!). Sadly Elisabeth Shue never seems to be quite comfortable in her part. I normally like Ms Shue, but here she acts as a fish out of water and sometimes seems to be in a different movie. But it is not something damaging and for the most part she is at least adequate. Otherwise, brimming with memorable lines and situations, this is a comedy to watch whenever it is on TV or wherever. When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them.

It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).

This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades. It's very very funny. You know, just like a comedy is supposed to be. It also looks very very good, like a Hollywood Spectacular should. So, what more do you want? Howz about a very VERY good Sally Fields. She is so much better here than in anything else I've ever seen her in, and she looks so damn good. This movie is all you need to understand why she's a Star. Those eyes! Like a silent movie star, but better. In fact, everyone's eyes are so good. I used to pretend to be a bad TV soap actor with my girlfriend. We'd do that thing where you look real fast from one eye to the other of your partner. They don't do that at all in Soap Dish. Great. The Eyes Have It! (sorry)

There's so many terrific performances, its fun just waiting for each of them to reappear. There's a whole workshop going on with Kevin Kline on how to Overact very very subtly. Got that? Yeah, he's damn good. So is Robert Downey, Jr. who has since made sumthin of a career of playing the Slick, Slimy Executive. Cathy Moriarity, while not the most gifted actress, is so charismatic and riveting, especially when she's angry. And even Whoopi Goldberg is decent, her natural timing giving here somewhat flat delivery a little Zing. OK, no Whoopi Bashing, I hear ya.

And then, there's the Hair. Soap Dish was made at the end of the BIG Hair Eighties, so the ridiculous doos are like a great character in themselves. They get bigger and sillier, just like your's did. Yeah, we got pictures.

Soap Dish is better than I thought it'd be, better that I wanted it to be. I'm sick of Movies that tell me I'm supposed to care about shallow, self centered, semi-talented egomaniacs, ie. TV Soap Actors. Soap Dish seems happy just to have me laugh at 'em. Thank You. I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.

I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.

Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well. I first saw this in the movie theater when it came out, and the crowd was really into the movie which made the experience all the more fun. This is a great cast of characters, many big names in it, a few of which were not as recognized then as they are now. I think it's a great idea if you follow any of these actors, or have loved them in other movies, to add it to your watched list. Some of the scenes actually remind me of the type of well-done comedy as in The Birdcage or even The Clue, kind of odd spontaneous-appearing comedy, with some really professional delivery from these beloved actors. The movie did a great job at giving you some insight, perhaps even very realistic, into the culture of a daytime soap. The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.

It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.

It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.

You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.

If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places. This is a delightful movie that is so over-the-top that my wife, daughter, and I found it irresistible. The plot is just crazy but "rings true" to the world of soap operas in all its outrageous improbabilities and impossibilities.

I particularly enjoyed Kevin Kline's and Sally Field's performances. I don't anyone better than Kline at playing THICKheaded. Field's character's truly desperate need for attention and affirmation -- and her almost bipolar swings in mood -- played nicely against the background of Field's famous (infamous?) "You like me!" Oscar exclamation. People who can take themselves with such a large grain of salt are all too rare in this world.

I think this is the only movie where I didn't find myself impatient with Whoopi Goldberg characterization; I thought she was "spot on" in every note she struck. Robert Downey Jr., Teri Hatcher, Cathy Moriarty, and Elizabeth Shue were also first-rate as well. Just a great movie if you're in the mood to go along for the ride and LAUGH! Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!! This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh. 'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.

P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!! With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.

The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.

No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.

Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.

The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.

The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.

This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.

The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.

Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.

Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film. Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.

JLH I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.

One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.

The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.

Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.

The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.

What direction! What camera! What storytelling! My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos. Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema. I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art? I really enjoyed this one, and although the ending made me angry, I still give it 10 out of 10.

Four college girls (Baltron, Kelly, Stahl and Cadby) are driving down to Florida, on their way they meet 2 guys (Turner, Davis), they really add nothing to the plot, but are at least somewhat likable. The girls agree to meet the guys in Florida for some fun, but they have car problems and never make it. One of the girls decides to go to a nearby gas station for help, the other three stay by the car.

Soon one of the girls has to use the bathroom, being in the middle of nowhere she has no choice but to go in the bushes. Soon she witnesses as a man (March) strangles a woman, in terror the girl flees the area, she doesn't get very far, but manages to get lost.

Her friends by the car go looking for her, they too go into the woods and run into the same man, one of them sees the dead woman, the man responds by shooting the girls head off, the other girl runs away, manages to make it back to the car where she is also killed.

Eventually the two remaining girls find each other and because they break into the gas station get arrested. This is when I started getting mad, these poor girls are afraid for their lives and the redneck cops don't believe them.

They are treated badly and one of them is left alone for the madman to kill her in the cell, the remaining friend manages to escape, but not without getting in dangerous situations.

This movie has nudity, good actresses, a shower scene imitating Psycho, graphic violence towards women and solid story. Some women will probably find it offensive and sensitive individuals will NOT like the ending, but over all, this is a great little unknown movie. Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10. Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over. Not to be confused with the British black comedy of the same name that came out in 1994. But this Shallow Grave is a worthy addition to the 80's backwoods slasher.

The plot goes = 4 sorority girls from a convent are planning the spring break of a lifetime in Florida, but they're plans are put on hold when one of them witness a man murdering a local woman, and when he realizes that he was seen, well let's just say it becomes a deadly game of cat and mouse and things get even worse when he turns out to be the local sheriff.

Shallow Grave in my opinion is one of the more enjoyable slashers that came out in the 80's, especially the late 80's which was when the slashers kinda went downhill, this was one of the few that didn't and this movie should be more well known, it's a pity it isn't. this is one film that actually confounds stereotypes (just try guessing who the final girl is going to be - I got it totally wrong). The principle cast are all likable and it's one of those movies that you kinda hope they all get away, which of course they don't. This, coupled with the fluffiness of the film's first half-an-hour jars (in a good way) with some flashes of real nastiness (the second murder provides a real jolt) and some unexpected sleaziness (even though this isn't a high budget thriller I didn't expect the topless scene where a woman is strangled with her own bra (accompanied by a hysterical religious radio broadcast), in a film from this late in the 80's).

There are one or two bad things about this movie, well not bad just minor, like the sub plot with the two teenage boys which doesn't go anywhere and the ending which was stupid and plus the Deputy inability to follow logic. There aren't any sharp implements in SHALLOW GRAVE but, to my mind at least, it's a slasher flick through and through. The scenes where the girls are hunted through the woods by the malevolent Sheriff are tense and exciting.

All in all a very enjoyable and worthwhile slasher, with great performances from all four of the main girls and that psycho sheriff. Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else. Well, this might be one of the funniest movies of all time, and Sandy gives a tour-de-force performance! Alas, her career never quite took off, but - at last - she will always be remembered for her three first-rate pictures: "The King Of Comedy", "Dallas Doll", and "Without You I'm Nothing". She dons into different personas from New York socialite to Diana Ross to create a biting and hilarious critique of popular culture in America. Sexy and fierce, tender and sensual, philosophical and melancholic, she convinces the audience in every scene, and she actually IS "really pretty". Watch this one (if you're not from Iowa), you'll certainly enjoy it!! If you ever have the chance to see Sandra Bernhard live in person, you better move on it sweetie. I saw her last year in Los Angeles at the opening of her Everything Bad and Beautiful tour and i still can't believe that i was in the first row, and lucky enough to experience such a phenomenal show. She is now in New York with the show and it coincides with the release of her groundbreaking stunner, "Without You I'm Nothing". We have lost Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Nina Simone, but Sandra is still with us. Patti Smith is missing in action, but not Sandra. Barbara Streisand continues to peep her head out once in awhile but Sandra more than makes up for where Babs leaves off. Okay, i want it known, Ms. Bernhard is a little of these influential entertainers and more. I really wanted to push this film because of its truth, honesty, humor, eclectic songs (ranging from Laura Nyro, Sylvester, Nina Simone, Prince), and a script that defines the decadence, joy, sadness, ups and downs of the 70's and 80's. It is my opinion that many (and i mean, MANY) comics have lifted, okay outright stolen, so much from this show if not from Sandra herself. I won't name names but come on, people, you and i know who they are. See, the thing is, Bernhard plays by her own rules. This movie shows, as does her live performances, that she is a performer who has stayed true to the old school of show business, as well as pushing forward. Her performances are reminiscent of smoky jazz clubs (during the time of Miles Davis,Coltrane,Monk), 70's TV shows, intimate cabaret acts and concerts that are reminiscent of everyone from Judy Garland to Joan Jett. Most comedians couldn't even touch where Sandra is coming from or going to. So, here i was, a year ago, watching Sandra at the Silent Movie Theater, in total awe and joy. I wanted to meet her after the show, give her something that meant something to me, that, hopefully would mean something to her. But i listen to my copy of Giving Til it Hurts, and just thank her in a prayer, of sorts for making me laugh, making me think, making me FEEL. You can't deny this lady's presence and you certainly cannot deny the talent that just rushes from the stage. She's still here, damn it, even after the release of Without You I'm Nothing, some 15 years ago. And she looks great, by the way. I know this firsthand, walking from the theater one audience member said to another, "She is SO FUNNY..and she still looks incredible!!! If you can't experience her live yet, please see this movie. As for me, I do hope that Sandra will see this. You've meant a heck of a lot to me, gotten me through some tough crazy times. If you can send me an email, please do. If not, knowing that you are still kicking it out and will continue to do so, is enough for me. Come on, people, give it up for the Lady!!!! Did Sandra (yes, she must have) know we would still be here for her some nine years later?

See it if you haven't, again if you have; see her live while you can. This is one of those unfortunate films that suffered an even more sad, unfortunate death at the box office. I saw this film at a local art cinema,in revival form,shortly after it tanked in mainstream cinemas. It certainly deserves to be approached a second time (or even a third). Sandra B. takes it to the limit by doing spoken word & taking on some well known songs in this piece (her version of Hank William's 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' could easily move you to tears). Maybe someday, audiences will be ready to take this film a bit more seriously (but not without some well placed laughs,too). The film moves at a brisk pace (thanks to some nice editing),so that some viewers will not find it stale & boring. Perhaps a revival is just down the pipeline. At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things.

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!)

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way. Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, "The King of Comedy". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as "Dallas Doll" (1994) or "Dinner Rush" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

"Without You I'm Nothing" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", for instance, would look a lot different if "Without You I'm Nothing" didn't exist. This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.

As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.

Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as "Michael J Fox" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.

What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.

The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same. This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now. I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie. Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making "boring." You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

"HealtH" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it. Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable. In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best. If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while! Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.

Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.

Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.

The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.

The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies. The film opens with Bill Coles (Melvyn Douglas) telling a story about how his best friend--make that client--Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) and his family are tightly packed into a small New York apartment, with not enough closet space and way too few bathrooms. When Jim's wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy), wants to renovate the apartment, advertising exec Jim falls in love with (or falls for!) an ad for a house. Once he's purchased the house, bills and frustration pile up incessantly as everything that can go wrong with the building of Jim's 'dream house' goes wrong.

One of three collaborations between Grant and Loy, this is a charming little comedy--not very taxing, with no real great message, but a great way to spend an hour or two. The laughs are there right from the start, when the alarm clock goes off and Jim tries to shut it off, only to be thwarted at every turn by Muriel. The timing and delivery of the comedic lines and situations can only be given by a couple of seasoned pros, and that's just what Grant and Loy give us: polished performances, simple chemistry, and a lot of fun. Myrna Loy is in a pretty thankless role (it's evident that Grant's character Jim gets the lion share of the lines and the acting, and Grant, as always, pulls both off with remarkable aplomb), but she gives Muriel a colour, life and bite that only Myrna Loy can give a character. Melvyn Douglas plays wry amusement to perfection as well, never hitting a single wrong note.

One of my favourite scenes has definitely got to be when Bill gets himself locked in the 'store room', and Jim goes to 'save' him... only to get everyone trapped inside! Every little problem that pops up for the Blandings renovation project--including petty jealousy and an ad campaign for 'Wham'--seems to bring together everything that *could* go wrong with building a new house but makes it believable and an enjoyable watch. 8/10 This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong?

Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art. In Manhattan, the American middle class Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) lives with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and two teenage daughters in a four bedroom and one bathroom only leased apartment. Jim works in an advertising agency raising US$ 15,000.00 a year and feels uncomfortable in his apartment due to the lack of space. When he sees an advertisement of a huge house for sale in the country of Connecticut for an affordable price, he drives with his wife and the real estate agent and decides to buy the old house without any technical advice. His best friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) sends an acquaintance engineer to inspect the house, and the man tells that he should put down the house and build another one. Jim checks the information with other engineers and all of them condemn the place and sooner he finds that he bought a "money pit" instead of a dream house.

"Mr. Blandings Builds his Own House" is an extremely funny comedy, with witty lines and top-notch screenplay. Cary Grant is hilarious in the role of a man moved by the impulse of accomplishing with the American Dream of owning a huge house that finds that made bad choice, while losing his touch in his work and feeling jealous of his friend. In 1986, Tom Hanks worked in a very funny movie visibly inspired in this delightful classic, "The Money Pit". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Lar, Meu Tormento" ("Home, My Torment") While the prices have gone up a lot, and some of the details have become dated, any homeowner who's struggled with problems of homeownership should get a lot of chuckles out of this movie. I know I did.

Mr. Blandings, a New York ad executive, decides to move his family to the Connecticut suburbs and build himself a nice house there. He gets into one hilarious jam after another, from mortgages to lawsuits to construction difficulties, as the costs and schedule of the construction keep escalating out of control. I thought that the funniest scenes were where Blandings hires a contractor to dig a well for water. They dig down hundreds of feet, but never find water. Yet only a short distance away, a few days later, the basement of his house-to-be floods!

Cary Grant and Myrna Loy give believable performances as the harried Blandings couple overwhelmed by problems they never imagined, and Melvyn Douglas is even better as Blanding's lawyer and family friend.

The only caveat is that social attitudes have changed a lot since 1948. Mrs. Blandings is portrayed as a bit of a naive dimbulb who has no idea how much additional trouble she's causing, and there's a black maid (horrors!). So don't watch this movie through the social lens of 2003, and you'll enjoy it all the more.

- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house?

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented. Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.

Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.

And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for.

The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):

"This little piggy went to market,

He was pink and as pretty as ham.

He smiled in his tracks,

As they gave him the ax -

He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"

His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!

Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.

The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.

A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew. Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly. I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr. I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.

Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.

My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".

Love it. Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt. This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.

The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.

If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone! I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white" By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.

Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?

This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.

Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city. I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family. One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.

What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.

I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.

Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.

Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years. This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it "builds" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic. Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.

There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious! There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem. This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family. This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10. Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr..

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure. Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, "The Money Pit".

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see. Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit. One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.

Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.

A great look at life in the late 40's.

Movie "comedies" nowadays are generally 100 minutes of toilet humor, foul language, and groin-kicking. Modern comedies appeal to the lowest common denominator, the undemanding and slow of brain. Sure, an occasional good comedy will come along, but they're becoming rarer all the time.

"Mr. Blandings Buildings his Dream House" shows what 1940s Hollywood was capable of, and it's just screamingly funny. Jim and Muriel Blandings (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) decide to build a house in the Connecticut suburbs. The film follows their story, beginning with house hunting trips, the house's riotous construction, all the way to the finished home--with its "zuzz-zuzz water softener".

Grant and Loy are perfect for their roles, of course (Grant is particularly funny as he watches the house's costs zoom out of control). However, the film is stolen by the Blandings' wise attorney, played to perfection by Melvyn Douglas. Managing to steal every scene he's in, Douglas is understatedly hilarious while he watches the Blandings lurch from crisis to crisis. Reginald Denny as the Blandings' harried architect and Harry Shannon as the crusty old water well driller are also wonderful.

I've watched this movie numerous times and it always makes me laugh. I think it's a good film to watch when you need a lift, whether you're building a house or not. Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since.

Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.

The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.

A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.

Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn. Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ("White Christmas"), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs – Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas – head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's "The Money Pit", and again last year with Ice Cube's "Are We Done Yet?". One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.

The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.

With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ("Cole…Bill Cole"), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, "The House of Tomorrow", is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras. This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it. Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around. I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!! dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me! It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear. i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge. definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well. Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory. I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good. I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season! Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned. This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to... Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series. i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow! This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous. I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching. all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again. I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether. this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today. I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories. How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree? all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen. If you want mindless action, hot chicks and a post-apocalyptic view of Seattle, then this is the show for you!

The concept of Dark Angel isn't anything new (in fact, there's controversy over whether James Cameron stole the idea from a book), but I spend the entire hour watching it every Tuesday from start to finish.

Jessica Alba is smoking and Max' friends (original Cindy, Kendra) are just as hot.

The fight scenes are getting better, but the dialogues between Original Cindy and Max need to be a little bit better (the slang sounds forced and it sounds like someone living in the suburbs wrote it).

In my opinion, Dark Angel is a great guilty pleasure filled with everything an action fan could ask for, but if you're looking for hard hitting, award-winning drama, go watch "The West Wing" or something. Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl! A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10 This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience. This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better. Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie. For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine. It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10 Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie. Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where. Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.

To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact.

The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.

Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films. Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended. Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.

The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.

Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.

Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.

Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.

The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background.

His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.

Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.

Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.

Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca.

Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely. Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe. I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so. Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.

I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.

I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.

I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job. "A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march. Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis. This movie was nominated for best picture but lost out to Casablanca but Paul Lukas beat out Humphrey Bogart for best actor. I don't see why Lucile Watson was nominated for best supporting actor, i just don't think she did a very good job. Bette Davis and Paul Lukas and their three kids are leaving Mexico and coming into the United States in the first scene of the movie. They are going by train to Davis's relatives house. Davis and Lukas were in the underground to stop the Nazis so they are very tired and need rest. But when they arrive home, their is a Nazi living there and their's not much either can do about it. It turns out the Nazi only cares about money and is willing to make a deal with Lukas. Their is more to the plot but you can find that out for yourself. I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all. Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.

Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there?

The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen.

It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1.

That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.

The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team.

Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it! I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.

And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.

To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you. I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10!

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief!

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series. I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.

though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing! I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...

I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.

The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.

The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.

After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.

EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss. I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.

The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.

RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.

There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.

'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.

The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.

The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.

There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.

I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'. My rating refers to the first 4 Seasons of Stargate SG-1 which are wonderfully fresh, creative and addicting. When the cast stepped through the gate, you never knew what lay on the other side! Starting around Season 5, the show took a different focus - still good, but different.

The series follows the adventures of a team of humans (and one alien) who regularly venture into a planetary transport device called the "Stargate". The backstory of the series is based on the characters and events of the movie "Stargate" in which the device is discovered during an archaeological dig in Egypt.

The episodes are light (innocent and easy to watch) and very creative. Many of the inventive stories could easily have been made into great sci-fi movies of their own. What happens next was always unpredictable.

The characters on which the show rests are also well-defined and brilliantly performed. Their tone is serious, but the dialog is flowered with incredible wit and humor. They are simply fun to watch.

Starting somewhere around Season 5, the series started to evolve into a continuing storyline based on fighting a single foe (the Goa'uld, then the Ori). The plots become more complex (a lot more political/strategic oriented) and interdependent. The characters were still as great as ever but the show was different in nature.

One thing that must be mentioned is to watch the episodes that commemorated the 100th and 200th episodes. They are simply can't-miss shows. They exhibit the creative and wildly humorous genius that carried the series through 10 seasons.

If you are a sci-fi fan, watch a few episodes of the first 4 Seasons and you'll likely be hooked. If you like evolving story lines between two opposing sides, you have 10 seasons of shows to look forward to. I haven't always been a fan, but the show grew on me. It wasn't until after season 5 that I started to see the richness of the show. They finally brought Daniel Jackson's search for his wife to an end and finally most of the Go,ould System Lords were killed by rival Lords, SG-1 or others.

Towards Season 5, Stargate SG-1, was beginning to become stale. With the new writers and the close attention by Produer Peter Deleuise, the show became more and more solid.

The characters had become stale as well. Colonel Jack O'Neill was the stereotypical hero with emotional baggage. After his son Charlie was killed in a shooting accident with O'Neill's weapon, he had decided to end his own life by going to Abydos in order to face off with the Go'ould RA. The character offers little growth for any actor and actor Richard Dean Anderson chose to play him straight raising emotional barriers to protect himself. only allowing his close friends in.

Amanda Tapping joined the cast as Captain Samantha Carter. She was a feminist on the edge, ready to battle any man who would doubt her ability to do her job. Though this character had little area to grow, Tapping has done a great job of concentrating on Carter's strengths. She has taken the time to get a basic understanding of some of the things Carter talks about in order that she can present the character intelligently.

Christopher Judge joined the cast playing the alien Teal'c. Teal'c was an alien called the Jaffa. Infant Go'ould, (snake like creatures) would embed themselves into the Jaffa until they had grown to the point when it would be inserted into another life form. The Jaffa would die. Teal'c was the First Prime of Apophis' army. Knowing that Apophis was not a god like Go'ould pretend, he realized the genocide that their armies had wreaked on the galaxy. Finally, having had enough, he and Jack O'Neill freed their team along with quite a few innocent people. After arriving on Earth, he realized that Earth was the planet he was looking for, who would help him fight the Go'ould. Christopher Judge has done quite a bit with a limited character. Teal'c is a wise warrior, much of which he learned was from his teacher Master Bra'tac. The show would not be complete without Master Bra'tac played by Tony Amandola. He is also a rock. In the end, he became adviser to most of SG-1, especially Daniel Jackson.

Don S. Davil was there from the beginning playing Major General George Hammand. Davis has done an incredible job with Hammond making him sympathetic and normal. He does his job, has a wife, sons and daughters and grandchildren. You can really say, he is the anchor of the base. Simply, I would die for that man. If not allowed by his superiors to provide troops to support teams off world. He will go himself. He doesn't leave anyone behind.

I saved Dr. Daniel Jackson for last, because this character, I believe has grown the most in the ten or eleven years it has been on. In choosing Shanks I don't think the producer realized how strong Shanks would be and now when people talk about Jackson, they don't talk about Spader, they talk about Shanks. In the early years, the Jackson character came off as a whiner. That's why I probably wasn't a fan. As the seasons pasted, the character became stronger. This gave him confidence. In the end, as of season 10, the Jackson character has matured to the point that he has become a self sacrificing hero. He still monitors the groups ethics. He still is lead at providing information that can move any mission forward. Acheaology, History, Culture and Exploration are part of his very being. He is determined. Though a man of peace, he has matured to the point that using his weapons may be the only way to solve a disagreement.

Other characters include, most recently: Vala Mal Doran(Claudia Black) and Colonel Cameron Mitchell(Ben Browder), new lead of SG-1. Both actors come from a series called Farscape and why they were put together is any bodies guess. I see little difference between Mitchell and Crichton (Farscape character). Black's character is simply off the wall. Definitely different from her soldier like character Arin Soon. This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's. "The Last Big Thing" is a wonderful satirical film that sardonically whips pop culture to the point of humorous self-desctruction. The characters are so interesting and fun to laugh at/sympathize with. Which brings me to an introduction to the characters I liked best...

Simon Geist is a man in his late 30s/early 40s who creates a pop-culture driven editorial magazine called "The Next Big Thing". Thing is, this magazine doesnt really exist, and it is only an excuse for Simon to get close to actors by interviewing them, only to bitch-slap them silly, insulting their way of buying into pop culture. His live-in female friend, Darla, is also writing a magazine (which is real), which mainly has to do with her and Simon, as well as her and her father. Darla is a genuinely loveable (or loathable) character, depending on how you view her muted neurotic behavior. Magda is a prostitute, the character i liked the best. Brent is a flat character with not much to him, as is Tedra, the music-video queen for a bunch of B-rated rock bands. Still, these characters weave a very interesting web together. And this movie questions all the motivations that people have for what they do and why they do it. Its a wonderful film and I suggest you see it if you're in the indie/art house crowd. Mark my words!

I consider this film to be the best one about Mike Hammer, with Biff Elliott's performance the definitive Mike Hammer. Harry Essex's script is excellent and contains many improvements on Mickey Spillane's novel. His direction is strong and imaginative, and he makes fine use of light and shadow. The camera work by John Alton is top-notch, as is the score by Franz Waxman. The cast includes many veteran players, as well as Peggie Castle in her memorable performance as Charlotte Manning. All in all, this is one of the finest private eye films ever made. Biff Elliott and Haary Essex should have received more opportunities. I have always treasured this film. I love this film. The noir imagery combined with Spillane's no nonsense character Mike Hammer works marvellously to create a mood and feel seldom found in low budget detective films of the early fifties. It may not be 'The Maltese Falcon' but this film makes it's own solid contribution to the genre. Spillane is often criticised for alleged misogyny etc, but his 'dames' are way above their male counterparts in terms of cunning and intelligence. Poor old Mike Hammer, as effectively played by Biff Elliott, is blinded by the beauty of the mysterious psychiatrist whom he meets when investigating the death of an army buddy. When the penny finally drops his face is a picture. Good to see that 50s censorship did not force the film makers to omit the famous last line. A bona fide low budget classic. I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for "a Husband". Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better "relationship" stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't "get it" but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in "Somewhere in Time" you'll like him in this one also. Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.

I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.

This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.

Lastly, the musical score is excellent. A simple movie in the beginning, a simple movie in the end. It does have that un-ending and pretending cliche, but, most tv movies have that any ways.

Christopher Reeve does a good job as being an ex-con/drifter. The marriage between her and the woman he works for, I feel is a bit queer, but, I believe for the time period it is set in, that it is believable none-the-less.

Now, I saw the edited 'tv' version, even tho the movie was made and showed on 'tv', I find that a bit queer as well. But, I feel if I saw the entirety of the piece, I would give it more-in-likely the same rating.

J.T. Walsh does a nice job, not his best role, but, still....a nice job.

7/10 Enjoyable movie although I think it had the potential to be even better if it had more depth to it. It is a mystery halfway through the film as to knowing why Elly is such a recluse. Then, when we are finally given an explanation going back to her childhood there still isn't much detail. Perhaps had they shown flashbacks or something.

Anyway, it is still a good movie that I'd watch again. 7/10

Never having seen this movie, based on the entertaining novel by Nicholas Katzenbach, and taking into consideration the first rate cast assembled for the production, we decided to take a look. "Just Cause", while not a horrible film, takes too many liberties with the original material that Jeb Stuart didn't quite succeed in his treatment. Arne Glimcher directed.

The first thing we think when a young black man is hauled to the local precinct for interrogation is police brutality. After all, sheriff Tanny Brown, and police officer Wilcox, show no mercy in beating Bobby Earl, who is accused of killing a young white girl. We feel horrified by what the officers do to the prisoner.

Then, the scene changes. Evangeline, Bobby Earl's grandmother is sent north to ask a distinguished Harvard professor, a retired lawyer, the young man wants Paul Armstrong to defend him. She old woman is convincing enough for Armstrong to take a look at the case. He is also convinced of the young man's innocence.

Things are not exactly what we thought they were. When Blair Sullivan, a man who is serving time in the same facility as Bobby Earl, comes forward to tell about how he is connected to the young girl's murder, and changes the dynamics of the case. The way it plays in the movie, it serves to confuse the viewer and distract Armstrong from arriving at the truth.

This thriller is made enjoyable by Sean Connery, who plays Armstrong. Laurence Fishburne, an intense actor, makes a fine impression as the Sheriff who, as far as we can see, is guilty of abusing his prisoner. Ed Harris has a wonderful opportunity to show why he is one of our best actors. Blair Underwood, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee and the young Scarlett Johansson are seen in supporting roles.

The film, even with its faults, will not disappoint. This movie really is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the story and concept of the movie are really good, tense and have some nice plot twists in it. But than again on the other hand, it all is told very slow, without style and uninvolved. Still I regard "Just Cause" as an above average thriller simply because of the fine cast.

Maybe Sean Connery was miscast in his role. I mean, he isn't really that believable as a the main 'hero' and father of a young daughter (played by a still very young Scarlett Johansson by the way) and husband of Kate Capshaw. I feel that he simply was too old for the role to be really credible in it. However Sean Connerey is of course a great actor and that is the only reason why he is still able to carry the movie as good as he does. But he of course is helped by a very solid supporting cast that consists out of actors like Laurence Fishburne, Blair Underwood, Ned Beatty, Hope Lange, Lynne Thigpen and Ed Harris. All actors are really good but some of them are highly underused at the same time, which is a real shame, as well as a missed opportunity. Especially Ed Harris is just totally great in his role as a psychopathic serial killer. He's truly chilling and acting superbly. Normally he doesn't play this ruthless, chilling sort of roles in movies, so he really surprises with his role in this one. His performance alone is already more than enough reason to watch this movie. However due to the fact that the story is told without much style and too formulaic, none of the characters in the movie really work out well because it feels all too distant.

It really is the way of storytelling that kills all the movie its fine potential. Arne Glimcher directs the movie with little style and keeps the pace too low at times. Because of this, we as viewers, never really get involved with the story or any of it's characters.

It really is too bad, for "Just Cause" had more than enough potential. A fine cast and a slick story with some unexpected twists and turns in it in which nothing is what it seems. The cast and story are the only reason why this movie is still an above average thriller, that will probably still please the fan of the genre. It however is an eternal shame that the movie is lacking in its story telling and style, or else this movie could had been a real classic in its genre.

7/10 A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.

Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.

When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil.

Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.

To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.

Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.

Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it. JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night. I read some previous comments stating that this movie loses steam towards the end of the movie and also that it has a similar ending to Cape Fear. I completely disagree. I'm going to give a simple review for the normal moviegoers out there. I thought the casting was perfect. I thought this was one of Ed Harris's best performances. What an evil psychopath!!! I have a lot of respect for his acting after viewing his performance in this movie. I was riveted throughout this movie. If you like mystery thrillers then this definitely a movie you want to see. I also noticed a young Scarlett Johannson in this movie. This movie is filled with top stars and I highly recommend it! hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie.. To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID I enjoyed this movie, granted it is mainly because I enjoy seeing Sean Connery act and this one has the added bonus of having Ed Harris and Lawrence Fishburne in it too. The story has a grandma seeking out Connery's assistance because her grandson is in prison and she says he was wrongly convicted. At first it seems there may have been some racist aspects of the case, however it later turns out the main officer on the case was black himself and it seems he did some rather bad things to coerce a confession out of the boy. Well the boy tries to point to another killer locked up in the same prison, one who is about to be put to death. He is a particularly nasty person too, as he takes a lot of joy in what he did, writing the relatives of his victims and trying to get people to mail them. A lot of twists and turns in this one with some of it being somewhat unexpected. Me I just enjoyed Sean Connery's character trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. The movie also made me mad in areas, especially when you find out what ultimately happened. You get very good interplay between Connery and Harris and Connery and Fishburne as they all shine rather well in this one. In the end this one makes for a rather good suspense/thriller. A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the "happy go lucky" attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller. I really liked this film. All three stars(Connery,Fishburne and Underwood) give credible performances;and Harris is enjoyably over the top. The lighting and shot angles in some of Harris' scenes make his face look truly diabolical. The surprising turn of plot at the end makes it interesting. Not a great movie, but an enjoyable one. I gave it 7 of 10. The movie was a suspenseful, and somewhat dark, look at the severe results of a genuinely human mistake. Connery and Fishburne work very well together in this thriller about murder and redemption. Keep your boots on for the strange turnaround at the end of the movie...you'd never expect it! I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend. As usual, Sean Connery does a great job. Lawrence Fishburn is good, but I have a hard time not seeing him as Ike Turner. I've read a number of reviews on this film and I have to say "What is wrong with you people?!?!" This was an excellent film! I thought this film was superb from start to finish and the story was extremely well told. I'm convinced that the people that didn't like this film weren't paying very good attention to the film. There are a number of very important scenes that if you aren't paying attention you will be confused and the following scenes may not make sense. I urge anyone who didn't like this film to watch it again and watch it alone so that you can truly pay attention. The story made perfect sense to me and as I said, was very well told. Every scene in the film has a point and everything fits together at the end of the film.

All the actors did a fantastic job! Sean Connery was very good in his role as always. Laurence Fishburne was superb as Tanny Brown, playing a very interesting character. Kate Capshaw was a nice touch as well, and looks fantastic. Blair Underwood was a pleasant surprise, I didn't really expect anything great from him, but he pulled off a great performance. Ed Harris was the real gem in the film. He plays a truly sick individual and really makes you see how disturbed his character is. Watch his eyes in his scenes, just superb!!! Also, there is a very young Scarlett Johansson (as Kate) in one of her first roles...not a bad place to start. Excellent cast in this film!

I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that likes any of the cast members or just likes thrillers. This is a great film and should be seen. Don't listen all these other people's opinions, go see the movie and come to your own conclusions. I hope that you will see the film, and I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss "TRUE CRIMES" or "THE HURRICANE". My wife and me gave 8/10. This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. …making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie. Ed Harris's work in this film is up to his usual standard of excellence, that is, he steals the screen away from anyone with whom he shares it, and that includes the formidable Sean Connery. The movie, which is more than a bit sanctimonious, comes alive only in the scenes when Harris is interrogated by the attorney for another convict. It is breathtaking, a master class in artistic control.

The other cast members are all adept and Connery is reliable, as is Fishbourne, but the story itself packs no wallop. The plot depends largely on the premise that a black prisoner always will be mistreated and coerced by white law enforcement officers. This is the engine which drives the story, right or wrong, and makes one feel a tad cheated at the end.

Still, worth watching to see Harris in action. This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.

Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime. The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause. This documentary explores a story covered in Pilger's latest book "Freedom Next Time", which was published in 2006. It reveals the shocking expulsion of the natives of Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.

The islanders are technically British citizens, as Diego Garcia is a British colony, much like Mauritius, the nearby island to where the natives were exiled, used to be. But the British government has ignored their pleas to return to their homeland, as the island is now a military base for the United States army, who have used it as a basis for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As usual, Pilger's coverage is shocking, especially as he documents the treatment and the current impoverished living conditions of the surviving islanders. His interviews all round are excellent, and his cornering of a Parliament representative where he uses the Government's own information to pin him down, ranks as one of his best.

Pilger also uses dramatic reconstruction to dissect a series of recently released documents that fully illuminate the British conspiracy to evict the natives. The weaving of this footage with the interviews, and the islanders music, really heightens the film's impact.

It is not easy viewing, but "Stealing a Nation" is John Pilger at his best. Recommended. This might contain a spoiler, so beware.

If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men. I thought this was a splendid showcase for Mandy's bodacious bod. If you don't expect anything else, such as clever plot twists and believable character development, you won't be disappointed. Consider this a Sports Illustrated shoot whose character goes around killing people, especially those who threaten to come between her and her 'Mommy' (Suzanna Arquette, who obviously doesn't want to play the sex kitten - she leaves that up to her daughter).

Mandy's face is a little too perfect, but her body is a complete 5-alarm fire, up there in the ranks of Sophia Loren when it comes to natural bustiness, a perfect 7-to-10 ratio of waist to hips, and splendidly configured legs, right down to her feet. (There has to be some ideal configuration of thighs to knees to calves to ankles that is altogether pleasing to the eye; Mandy certainly is the model for this idealized ratio).

And no flat butt to boot, which seems to be the undoing of many a busty babe with curves everywhere except in the 'nether hemispheres'. Mandy might have used a body double in the rear shot of her losing her towel as she descended into the candle-lit hot tub with her blindfolded German-Guy Victim No. 2, but from all I could see from her bikini shots, she had the butt for it and didn't need a double to prove it.

Mandy's acting abilities had little to do with her impression of a psychotic 'Mommy's Girl', with the obvious erotic lesbian overtones. Her bisexual nature (allowing herself to be boinked in the hot tub after a long flirtation with German Guy No. 2, who also happened to be her mother's lover) added an additional dimension to an otherwise one-dimensional caricature of adolescent female horniness conflicted with pathological murderous impulses (always by water with the men - the ultimate fate of the Latina housekeeper was edited out in the televised version for some obscure reason).

Mandy's Uber-Nordic facial features coupled with her Uber-Voluptuous body could either be a blessing or a curse. If Mandy really wants to further her career as an actress, I'd advise her to immerse herself fully in the Romance Languages, especially Italian and Spanish - and maybe French, although I don't know if they would go for her type. But this would enable her to reconcile her Bo Derek face with her Vida Guerra body - but maybe her face is just a little too Nordic, and she has shown off too much of her extraordinary body in a cheesy movie to enable her to advance to any more fame that was enjoyed by Michelle Johnson of the 1980's whose early fame in Blame it on Rio was followed by a series of skin flicks that failed to make it off the ground.

Vambo Drule. "The Golden Child" was Eddie Murphy's first film since his megahit "Beverly Hills Cop". And even though it's not as good as "Cop", it's a fun comic adventure. Murphy stars as a finder of lost children who's assigned a most unusual case. His assignment: to find the title character, a child with mystical powers. This movie could have been titled "Beverly Hills Cop and the Temple of Doom" since parts of this movie plays like a Spielbergian adventure, kinda like an Indiana Jones comedy. It's got comedy with laughs, and adventure with special effects. Lots of fun.

*** (out of four) I loved this movie. I totally disagree with some (negative) critiques that I've read over the years. This was a great vehicle for Eddie Murphy! He appeared to have a great time with his part as Chandler Jarrell and he should never care about what the critics say, if he had fun doing it – and most of his audience enjoyed it! And, it WAS fun to watch as it combined some great fantasy tension with Mr. Murphy's great comedic style. You have to keep in mind that 'Golden Child' is a 'fantasy' film – just an imaginative work of magic and wonder amidst the 'real' world. During the time this film was released, I was working in a video rental store. This was one of the most popular with all our customers. Every single time, we put this one up on our monitor, ALL the copies we had went out fast with wait-list requests that kept it on the queue for months! Everyone who rented it loved it! I was the resident film critic and all my regular customers would ask my opinion before they rented – this was one of my favorites and I knew the taste of my customers so I highly recommended this one to most of them. I really feel that this film is a Sleeper – it may not have done too well at the box office – due to very poor marketing – but it hit a high in the video rental and purchase market later! (YES, I did buy this film for my own video library!). I adored the little boy who played the 'Golden Child' – J. L. Reate - but after looking at his profile in IMDb, I noticed that he never did any more films. That is sad, because he definitely had an on-screen aura and could have continued with a film career. I also adored Victor Wong, who played the Old Man (I LOVED him in his part as 'Egg Shen' in 'Big Trouble in Little China' - 1986). At any rate, this was a great film. The only drawbacks that didn't seem to fit with the theme were some of the parts that got a bit more 'adult' in nature – such as 'Chandler's rather sexual remarks about the serpent lady that was presented to him as a silhouette. It was funny, but it still was out of sync. OK, so there were a few suggestive gratuitous scenes – those were put in for the mind-set of the day perhaps. This was still an adventurous and escapist type of film which we do need today to get away from all the hard core reality and depressing fluff that we are hit with from Hollywood. Now that's Entertainment! The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look. Whenever I see most reviews it's called 'a misfire for Eddie Murphy'. These critics want to take a look at some of the stuff he's doing these days, and maybe soften their stance in retrospect... "The Golden Child" is not highbrow entertainment, but thanks to some of the cast it breaths new life into old clichés, and gives Murphy one of his best roles. I don't understand the pervading lack of 'love' for its efforts, at all. Perhaps it was released at a time when the establishment had grown weary of knockabout, thrill-a-minute adventures? Steven Spielberg started it with Indiana Jones; it's unfair to make this one a scapegoat when what is possibly its biggest sin is also utterly harmless. There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to capitalise on trends.

Yes it's silly, but even an occasional observer should be able to understand that 'ridiculous' is where Hollywood's idea of mysticism begins and ends. What's more important than believability with a story like this is that the audience have entertaining tour guides on hand to show them the mysterious sights. Michael Ritchie and Eddie Murphy fit the bill for this capacity just fine. My advice to you is to buy the ticket and take the ride. I first saw this movie on television some years ago and frankly loved it. Charles Dance makes one of the most terrifying villains anyone can imagine. His sophistication is such a perfect contrast to the crudely good hero. I have never been much of an Eddie Murphy fan but find his irritating portrayal here a winner: a bit of "Axel Foley Through the Looking Glass". Charlotte Lewis is, to utilize a hackneyed phrase but the only one applicable, luminously gorgeous. Some scenes are wonderfully created: the dream sequence, the bird, the silly fight scenes, and the climactic confrontation. Through it all Murphy is the modern man suddenly dropped into an oriental myth, a stunned and quieter version of Kurt Russell in his oriental fantasy romp. Like that movie we have James Hong, the incomparable actor whose scenes, however short, raise the quality even of Derek. Since 1955 Hong has defined the fine supporting actor, the "class act" of his profession. "The Golden Child" is silly; it is not perfect; but it has so many redeeming features that it is an enjoyable and amusing fantasy, well worth watching. After four years I have seen "The Golden Child" again; I enjoyed it even more! It truly is great fun. Every once in a while, Eddie Murphy will surprise you.

In a movie like "the Golden Child", especially. This is a movie you'd figure would star maybe Harrison Ford or Kurt Russell or someone. But Eddie really does work; he's smart, he's funny, he's brave, kind, courteous, thrifty, clean and everything else a hero should be.

Having been chosen to secure a mystic child who holds the key to protecting the world from complete evil (embodied perfectly by Dance), Eddie goes from California, to Nepal and back, all while the beautiful Kee Nang (Lewis) wonders if he's all he says he is and a crazy old holy man (Wong, perfect as always) knows that he is.

It's exciting, breathtaking in spots, shocking and, of course, funny. Eddie is the only action hero I know who could begin a movie by making rude remarks behind some guy reading a porno magazine and end it with smart-aleck remarks about Ed McMahon.

No problem with this "Child": it's a "Golden" find.

Nine stars. Viva Nepal! I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.

The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.

I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film. This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.

As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was "chosen" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.

Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.

This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.

This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor. Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.

Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his wisecracking, quipping and charming best!, seriously!.

Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was reinvigorated and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child hits all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, wonderful colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film only asks you to get involved in the fun, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10 I think the movie was pretty good, will add it to my "clasic collection" after all this time. I believe I saw other posters who reminded some of the pickier people that it is still just a movie. Maybe some of the more esoteric points defy "logic", but a great many religious matters accepted "on faith" fail to pass the smell test. If you're going to accept whatever faith you subscribe to you can certainly accept a movie. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the Aja-Yee Dagger is the same possessed knife Lamonte Cranston had so much trouble gaining control of in "The Shadow". No mention of it in the trivia section for either movie here (IMDB), but I would bet a dollar to a donut it's the same prop. While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.

Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.

This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment. Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.

Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.

The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.

7/10 Great for all generations. This movie was good for it's time. If you like Eddie Murpy this is a must have to add to your collection. Eddie was young and funny with his 80's haircut. Charlotte Lewis, Eddie's costar is hot. This was one of her first movies and she was not bad. The graphics were good for the 80's. A lot of the actors went on to do other good movies you should check them out through IMDb. Other must have from Eddie is "Coming to America" and "48 hours". Another actor "Victor Wong" has a small part in this movie. Check out some of his older movies like "Big trouble in little china". If you liked the action movies from the 80's this is your movie. I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it! A strange role for Eddie Murphy to take at the height of his career. While there is a lot of the "Eddie Murphy character," he plays a truly decent person. The rest of the cast is good, particularly the lovely Charlotte Lewis. Her character's beauty and serenity held the tone of the film from getting to be too much Murphy. Very funny film. Classic film funny Eddie Murphy of the 80s. I saw when I was a child and I have a good memory. The classic irony of Murphy does not fail, the film is funny, well done. Murphy in the'80s made many films of action that represented for him a way to joke about everything that is dangerous. The result can only be appreciated by some but ii film from 1986 up to now have changed. The atmosphere for a movie of that time is good and the special effects are good for a film of the period. A nice movie to see and enjoy appreciating the taste of ironic Murphy, an actor who has recently disappeared. The final part is anthologies, the likable actor who plays the part of the Tibetan Monk. That's it. I like the good and evil battle. I liked Eddie in this movie better than any movie he has ever done. He wasn't The smart, cocky, know it all he usually plays. He shows heart and a more humble humor. The fact that it shows there are stranger things in Heaven and on earth than we can think of gives me hope. after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.

the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.

this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100 I waited ages before seeing this as all the reviews I read of this said it was horrible! i rented it expecting the worst, and while it is hardly the best sandler film out there, there are much worse! Sandler frequently talks to the camera and the film does not take itself seriously, but that is all part of the fun! A great way to waste an afternoon, and you might even find yourself laughing once a twice! A good film, well worth renting! This 1991 NBC-TV movie aired six months before John Goodman's big-screen version of the life of Babe Ruth came out. For my money, there is no comparison between the two. The TV production isn't perfect but it presents the Babe's story with more depth and complexity than Goodman's one-dimensional telling. I especially enjoyed the film's depiction of the complex love-hate relationship Ruth had with Yankee manager Miller Huggins, who always understood his star player's brilliance and also kept trying to point out why Ruth's own character flaws would never let him become a manager or leader of players. The TV-movie rightly notes how Ruth never fulfilled his dream of managing the Yankees because of his flaws, while the horrible Goodman version tries to push the falsehood that Ruth was denied what should have been his for the taking.

This film makes a great companion piece to "Eight Men Out" since the story starts with Ruth's arrival in New York in 1920, one year after the Black Sox Scandal and when his home run exploits literally saved baseball from ruin. Indeed, the continuity between the two films is even accentuated with John Anderson reprising his "Eight Men Out" role as Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis. I caught this movie on my local movie channel, and i rather enjoyed watching the film. It has all the elements of a good teen film, and more - this film, aside from dealing with boys-girls relationships and sex and the like, also deals with the issue of steroid use by young people.

The film has that real-life feel to it - no loud music, no special effects and no outrageous scenes - which, for this movie, was right. That feel makes it easy to relate to the characters in the film - some of which we probably know from where we live.

Overall, a good movie, fun to watch.

8/10 They filmed this movie out on long Island, where I grew up. My brother and his girlfriend were extras in this movie. Apparently there is some party scene where they are all drinking beer, (which they told me was colored water, tasted disgusting, and was very hard to keep swallowing over and over again, especially in the funnel scenes). Yet none of us ever heard of the movie being released anywhere in any form. It never came out in the theaters (obviously) and it, as far as I knew, was never released on video, and I'm sure wasn't released on DVD. Yet it looks like it was seen by some people, albeit it probably very few. So there must be something. I would absolutely love to purchase this for my brother, yet there is no way I can find it anywhere. Does anybody know anything about when/where/how this movie could be purchased? And which format that would be? DOes anyone know where or how i can get a copy of this film?!! I've been searching for way too long, someone help! Back in 1997 my girlfriends and i were extras on this Long Island based film, and we actually never got to see it. :(

i was hoping i could find a copy somehow so i can finally check it out, and share it with the girls! Is there anyone out there who knows where to get a copy of this, so i can stop driving myself crazy? (also, it doesn't matter if its in in VHS format, i'm still in the ice age myself.) If you, or anyone you know, has a copy of this film please help, i would be willing to pay for a good copy of it! This Schiffer guy is a real genius! The movie is of excellent quality and both entertaining and educating.

I didn't know what a weather girl was before I learned it here. about a year and a half ago my dad told me about The French Doors. i thought it sounded interesting enough but i didn't try to find it anywhere. Then about a year ago i remembered that film and thought "hey why not" and tried finding it on the internet. eventually after about a week of looking i found it on atom films. i called my dad over to the computer and said to him" hey dad I've found that creepy film you told me about ages ago!" He smiled at me, turned round turned off the lights so it was pitch black apart from the computer screen and told me to watch it. I started off fine...Then when he started getting worried about whatever was there i found it very unnerving. at the end i pushed back my chair and stood up...it made me jump!:P if you haven't seen this film i highly recommend you do because it is well worth it. even after the fourth or fifth time its still unsettling.

GREAT FILM! I spied this short on a DVD of best new Zealand shorts, all great but The french Doors was amazing. It starts off slow and you wonder if there is anything going to happen. Just as you relax into the hum drum of home renovation, the most spookiest thing happens.

EEEEkkk, I wanted to stop watching, but I was glued.

The films dips into the primal fear of the dark and with little, if not any, special effects. It chills you right to the bone. A simple yet brilliant concept opened up all those memories of when I was young and dream't up the most improbably but spooky situations.

The film makers visual style are bang on and the lead character takes you convincingly through the story. It is a quality short that I haven't seen in quite some time.

The French Doors has all the hallmarks of a great feature, alas it finishes after ten minutes or so. Never the less a great ending that begs you to want to know more.

Loved it and well done and thanks for the ride. These New Zealanders are really turning out the talent.

A new fan. For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.

Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!

On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare "Santa Clause vs. Satan" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes.

Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!

Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself. Origins of the Care Bears & their Cousins. If you saw the original film you'll notice a discrepancy. The Cousins are raised with the Care Bears, rather than meeting them later. However I have no problems with that, preferring to treat the films as separate interpretations. The babies are adorable and it's fun watching them play and grow. My favourite is Swift Heart Rabbit. The villain is a delightfully menacing shapeshifter. I could empathise with the three children since I was never good at sports either. Cree Summer is excellent as Christy. The songs are sweet and memorable. If you have an open heart, love the toys or enjoyed the original, this is not to be missed. 9/10 The second Care Bears movie is immensely better than its predecessor. It has a deeper plot, better character development, and the tunes (especially the closing song) are both catchy and warm-hearted. Sure the movie tends to over stress caring but come on, it IS a Care Bears movie. This movie is a great picture to show to kids because it emphasizes friendship, love, and again, caring. Not to mention the Care Bears are just too adorable! This cartoon was strange, but the story actually had a little more depth and emotion to it than other cartoon movies. We have a girl at a camp with low self esteem and hardly any other friends, except a brother and sister who are just a miserable as she is. She reaches the ultimate low point and when the opportunity arises she literally makes a pact with a devil-like demon. I found this film to be very true to life and just when things couldn't be worse, the girl sees what she's done, she feels remorse and then changes and then she helps this dark, mystical creature learn the human quality of love. The twins improve too, by helping the little bears and then they get a sense of self worth too. A very positive message for children, though some elements of the film was strange, it was and still is a rather enjoyable film. The music from Stephen Bishop (Tootsie songs) made the film even better I was worried that my daughter might get the wrong idea. I think the "Dark-Heart" character is a little on the rough side and I don't like the way he shape-shifts into a "mean" frog, fox, boy… I was wrong, This movie was made for my kid, not for me. She "gets it" when it went over (under?) my head. Of course I don't "get it". This isn't one of the NEW kids movies that adults will ALSO enjoy. This is straight for the young ones, and the crew knew what they were doing. There isn't any political junk ether. There's no magic key that will save the world from ourselves, nobody has the right to access excess, and everyone isn't happy all the time. And as a side benefit, nobody DIES! –russwill. As a child I preferred the first Care Bear movie since this one seemed so dark. I always sat down and watched the first one. As I got older I learned to prefer this one. What I do think is that this film is too dark for infants, but as you get older you learn to treasure it since you understand it more, it doesn't seem as dark as it was back when you were a child.

This movie, in my opinion, is better than the first one, everything is so much deeper. It may contradict the first movie but you must ignore the first movie to watch this one. The cubs are just too adorable, I rewind that 'Flying My Colors' scene. I tend to annoy everyone by singing it.

The sound track is great! A big hand to Carol and Dean Parks. I love every song in this movie, I have downloaded them all and is all I am listening to, I'm listening to 'Our beginning' also known as 'Recalling' at the moment. I have always preferred this sound track to the first one, although I just totally love Carol Kings song in the first movie 'Care-A-Lot'.

I think the animation is great, the animation in both movies are fantastic. I was surprised when I sat down and watched it about 10 years later and saw that the animation for the time was excellent. It was really surprising.

There is not a lot of back up from other people to say that this movie is great, but it is. I do not think it is weird/strange. I think it is a wonderful movie.

Basically, this movie is about how the Care Bears came about and to defeat the Demon, Dark Heart. The end is surprising and again, beats any 'Pokemon Movie' with the Care Bears Moral issues. It leaves an effect on you. Again this movie can teach everyone at all ages about morality. This is my favorite of the three care bears movies. Once again I liked all the songs. The big problem however as most people have pointed out was that this story contradicts the original. For those that saw the first movie recall the bears met their "cousins" who they apparently never knew about. It wasn't of course until the end that the cousins received their tummy symbols after proving how much they cared. In this story however the cousins grow up with the care bears and have tummy symbols all along. That being said this isn't a bad movie as long you keep it separate from the first. I thought the Darkheart character much more evil then the Nicholas of the first. But at the same time I felt it added a sort of balance to the sweetness of the care bears. I also liked the we care part at the end, although I know other people had mixed feelings about that scene. And of course I LOVED the songs. My favorites being Growing Up and Forever Young. The care bears movies have always had such good songs. Ten stars for a very good movie. It all started with True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse get the club to safety. Noble Heart Horse meet Dawn & John & took them to see True Heart Bear. Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club. After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp. Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart. At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil. Than they work to together to save the Care Bears. Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone. The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart. True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic. Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy. The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy. Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy. Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.

This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.

I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see "Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)".

Who like this movie? This movie does contradict the first one as far as the origins of the Care Bears and the Care Bear Cousins goes. I won't deny that. However, if you look at "Part II" as a separate film, then it's a very good movie. I remember watching this in the early 80's (and fitting into its targeted demographic audience then), and absolutely loving it much more than the first movie (not that I didn't enjoy that one too, it's just that this one seemed to have a little something extra to it). Sure it's darker than the first one too, but perhaps maybe that's why it's so good. And it's dark in deeper kind of subtle way too (that kids may not fully understand, but could still be a bit scared of because of the atmosphere it gives off, and adults watching will surely get quicker as I have now watching this film again now in my mid-twenties) where you basically have a young girl making a deal with an evil spirit/demon in exchange for something else. Get the picture? But simply watching that as a child, sure as I said it may have been a little scary, but nothing traumatizing. In fact if anything it gave me another fantasy game I could play when I was that age. I can't tell you the number of times I used to pretend Dark Heart wanted to imprison me, have me help him capture the Care Bears, tried to make me turn over to his dark side, and other things like that etc. So this movie was also good for my imagination. And it's also got great emotional depth to it too. I used to watch it at least once a week.

Also Hadley Kay was the perfect choice for the voice of Dark Heart (I always thought so and I always will).

Now it's just too bad that they never made a soundtrack available. Sometimes I just want to hear Growing Up without watching the movie, as good as it is.

"What good is love and caring if it can't save her?" Care Bears Movie 2: A New Generation isn't at all a bad movie. In fact, I like it very much. Yes I admit the dialogue is corny and the story is a bit poorly told at times. But Darkheart, while very very dark is a convincing enough shape shifting villain, and Hadley Kay did a superb job voicing him. Speaking of the voice acting, it was great, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The animation is colourful, and some of the visuals particularly at the beginning were breathtaking. The songs and score are lovely, especially Growing Up and Forever Young, the latter has always been my personal favourite of the two. The care bears, who I do like, are adorable, and the human children are well done too. And the ending is a real tearjerker. All in all, harmless kiddie fun. 8/10 Bethany Cox I grew up on this movie and I can remember when my brother and I used to play in the backyard and pretend we were in Care-a-lot. Now, after so many years have passed, I get to watch the movie with my daughter and watch her enjoy it. If you are parent and you have not watched this movie with your children, then you should, just so you hold them in your arms and watch them get thrilled over the care bears and care-a-lot! The songs, especially "Forever Young" are very sweet and memorable. Parents, I highly recommend this movie for all kids so they can learn how enjoyable caring for others can be! When it comes down to all the trash that is on TV, you can raise your children to have the right frame of mind about life with movies like these. And my children love it now! Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite. Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.

Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years. I would definitely suggest this one for younger children. In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.

This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.

This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.

Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me.

I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.

I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.

You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.

Still love it 17 or so years after the first time I saw it, in fact I discovered that I had lost my copy of this and was very upset. Despite it's non-association with the original (which as a kid I never noticed and as an adult I don't care about), this is what cartoons *should* be like. Just dark enough to be interesting and light enough to be enjoyed by everyone. I'm more than glad that my parents raised me on this kind of thing rather than the cartoons we see today that teach our kids nothing. The music is great, and gets stuck in your head forever...I have downloaded the entire soundtrack at one point or another. This movie is great, the music "with the exception of the very first song in the movie" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick! This film is exactly what its title describes--an attempt to get you to buy into what the writers have to offer.

First, it's kinda fun to see the 1996-style Toronto I remember with all its silly haircuts, sunglasses, clothes, and attitude. It really hasn't changed any; just a nice, safe, cheap, provincial little urban backwater that makes a great meeting place for international film types! It's also amusing to see Kenny and Spenny head to L.A. and find out that it's Toronto all over again, only with a strange assortment of beach bums, musicians, fortune tellers, and yet more uppity film types.

I don't see Pitch as a film to be enjoyed; it's not entertainment unless the viewer enjoys watching someone's aspirations being trampled. I take Pitch as a warning that power and money is really held by studio execs and production houses. Would-be (and "successful") writers, musicians, and actors are still mere transients even when they reach the Big Time.

So, Kenny and Spenny are trying to sell you a warning. Buy it or don't, but the message is still there. Credited by Variety to be one of the greatest documentaries to ever come out of Canada. Al Pacino, Roger Ebert, Neil Simon, Matt Dillon as well as a constant slew of celebs make this film a Canadian classic. The film is really best described as "Roger & Me" meets "The Player". Watch as Kenny Hotz and Spenny PITCH their script to the big boys of Hollywood. Called the only American film to ever come out of Canada, This film opened the Toronto Film Festival in 1997, Winner of the 'Best Indie Film Award Toronto'. Europe premier was at the prestigious HOF film fest in Germany. U.S.A. premier U.S. Comedy Festival Aspen 1999. More information available at www.kennyhotz.com An hilariously accurate caricature of trying to sell a script. Documentary hits all the beats, plot points, character arcs, seductions, moments of elation and disappointments and the allure but insane prospect of selling a script or getting an agent in Hollywood;and all the fleeting, fantasy-realizing but ultimately empty rites of passage attendant to being socialized into "the system." Hotz and Rice capture the moment of thinking you're finally a player, only to find that what goes up comes down fast and in a blind-siding fashion;that for inexplicable reasons, Hollywood has moved on and left you checking your heart, your dreams, and your pockets. Pitch is a must-see for students in film school to taste the mind and ego-bashing gantlet that is, for most, the road that must be traveled to sell oneself and one's projects in Hollywood. If your teacher or guru has never been there, they can't tell you what you need to prepare for this gantlet. To enter the"biz," talent is necessary but far from sufficient I really enjoyed this documentary about Kenny and Spencer's attempt to pitch "The Dawn". Was a great look at how outsiders try to get to the inside to make it big.

The story was put together well and organized in an interesting manner that made the film flow well. Certainly worth a watch. My only complaint is that their appeared to be no closure. Perhaps that is part of the point. We expect it but in reality that is not what happened (or usually happens).

The film is also a great way to see the personality of Kenny and Spencer outside of their Canadian television show. You can see a bit of what is yet to come.

I look forward to a chance to see The Papal Chase. The arrival of vast waves of white settlers in the 1800s and their conflict with the Native American residents of the prairies spelled the end for the buffalo...

The commercial killers, however, weren't the only ones shooting bison... Train companies offered tourist the chance to shoot buffalo from the windows of their coaches... There were even buffalo killing contests... "Buffalo" Bill Cody killed thousands of buffalo... Some U. S. government officers even promoted the destruction of the bison herds... The buffalo nation was destroyed by greed and uncontrolled hunting... Few visionaries are working today to rebuild the once-great bison herds...

"The Last Hunt" holds one of Robert Taylor's most interesting and complex performances and for once succeeded in disregarding the theory that no audience would accept Taylor as a heavy guy...

His characterization of a sadistic buffalo hunter, who kills only for pleasure, had its potential: The will to do harm to another...

When he is joined by his fellow buffalo stalker (Stewart Granger) it is evident that these two contrasted characters, with opposite ideas, will clash violently very soon...

Taylor's shooting spree was not limited to wild beasts... He also enjoy killing Indians who steal his horses... He even tries to romance a beautiful squaw (Debra Paget) who shows less than generous to his needs and comfort...

Among others buffalo hunters are Lloyd Nolan, outstanding as a drunken buffalo skinner; Russ Tamblyn as a half-breed; and Constance Ford as the dance-hall girl... But Taylor steals the show... Richard Brooks captures (in CinemaScope and Technicolor) distant view of Buffalos grazing upon the prairie as the slaughter of these noble animals...

The film is a terse, brutish outdoor Western with something to say about old Western myths and a famous climax in which the bad guy freezes to death while waiting all night to gun down the hero... Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture. This is the most compelling and excellent performance that Robert Taylor ever gave. It even surpasses his wonderful performance as "Johnny Eager" coming a full 14 years after that film. His looks are still a wonder to see, but he has a maturity now that gives him the edge in this gritty, violent role. Charlie Gilson (Taylor) is the last of his breed, a buffalo hunter who kills not for the money but for the pleasure. His wild eyed killing of not only buffalo but human beings, is stunning to watch. He is basically a lonely man, needing the people around him, but they dislike him because of his sociopath behavior. His partner is Sandy McKenzie (Stewart Granger) who is sick of the hunt, and only goes along, because he is a failure at anything else. Along the way Charlie kills a family of Indians and captures the beautiful Debra Pagent. Charlie tries to seduce her to no avail, but sees that Sandy is interested in her also. Granger is kind of sad to watch, so fed up with the hunt, longing to go away with the girl and her baby. Lloyd Nolan as the drunken skinner is wonderful with his wise cracks and accordian playing. Russ Tamblyn plays the half breed trying to fit in a white world. The group is an odd mix of good and evil, young and old. In the end Taylor gets spooked by the buffalo, as many hunters before him had, and runs off leaving Sandy with the girl. Upon his return, that night Sandy leaves with the woman, setting Charlie off on a rampage of killing in a quest to get Sandy and have the girl for himself. The final confrontation comes in a snow storm and the last scene is so shocking that you will never forget it. It is Taylor's film all the way and he was truly a much underrated actor of the era. Like most other reviewers I have first seen this movie (on TV, never on the big screen), when I was a teenager. My Dad has always regarded this film highly and recommended it to me then, and I must say he was not only right, but this movie has stayed with me forever in the more than 2 decades since I saw it first time. I have seen it two or three more times since then (just a few days ago I gave it another watch) and it has not lost anything of its impact with time. It still a great and well worth to be seen movie! Manr regard Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY as one of the first and best later western, which had a realistic look at life in the old west, but the hardly known LAST HUNT is definitely the better movie and was even half a dozen years earlier. Actually it was probably 3 decades ahead of its time, or maybe it still is ...

Although thinking hard and having certainly seen 100s of western (I like this genre) I can not remember any western as bleak and depressive as this one. Two men bound together, partly by hate, partly by not seeming to have other choices, surrounded by beautiful Ms. Padget, a crippled old man and a young Inian, leading the life of buffalo-killers until fate reaches out for one of them.

Nobody who has ever seen this movie will be able to forget its ending and the last frames of this gem. When the camera moves on and away from Mr. Taylor a white buffalo skin comes into sight (on a tree)and echos from the past, when all the hatred began, are present again. Mr. Taylor has got his buffalo, but in the end the buffalo got him.

Aside from the top performances of everybody involved, the intelligent script and the great dialogue, it should also be mentioned, that THE LAST HUNT is superbly photograped, I have seldomely seen a western that well shot (aside from the ones directed by Anthony Mann, which are also all superbly photographed), that all the locations are cleverly chosen and that even the soundtrack fits the picture very well.

And director BROOKS is really a superb storyteller. Master craftsmanship!He has made quite a couple of really great movies and was successful in nearly every imaginable genre, but even in an as prolific career as this one, THE LAST HUNT still shines as one of his best, if not his best.

Definitely would deserve a higher rating, compared to the 7-something RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY enjoys. I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot. I had watched several days film shooting of this movie that summer,the end result was just two scenes in the movie. The location was Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. Bring the wagon,stop the wagon etc . So this Dakota youth looked forward to seeing the movie and was not disappointed. The local buffalo herd was being culled so the shooting scenes were for real. (yes Doris, animals were hurt during filming) I think the ending was copied by Jack Nicholson in the Shining? A great western/social comment from the 50's. This should be in the same class as High Noon for real western drama or used as a social statement like Blackboard Jungle or Rebel Without A Cause was for 50's youth. I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look. The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard. The memory of the "The Last Hunt" has stuck with me since I saw it in 1956 when I was 13. It is a movie that was far ahead of others at the time in that it addressed the treatment of the natives, the environment, and the ever present contrast between the short and long term effects of greed. It is as relevant today as in 1956, a cinemagraphic discussion of utmost depth and relevance. To top it off the setting is beautiful and the cinematography excellent. The memory of this movie will be with me to the end of my days. Richard Brooks' The Last Hunt was a film star Stewart Granger couldn't even stand to hear mentioned – he even tore up a vintage poster for the film when presented it for signing in his later years – but then the director did run off with his wife, so it's understandable. For anyone else this is one of the best of the adult Westerns of the 50s, and years ahead of its time in its attitude to the environment.

In many ways it plays almost like a sequel to one of Anthony Mann's Westerns that see their heroes dragged to their redemption kicking and screaming against it every step in the way. Here Granger's legendary buffalo hunter has already seen the light but, after a buffalo stampede costs him his herd of cattle in a fit of poetic justice, he's dragged back into the darkness by Robert Taylor's callous and proudly racist gunslinger, justifying it on the grounds that "I've already got the guilty conscience. I might as well have the money as well." Raised by Indians, he's fully aware of the damage he's doing as the disappearing buffalo heads for extinction, and he gradually becomes almost as consumed with self-loathing as Taylor is with hate. When the two men fall out over Debra Paget's squaw – the sole survivor of a band of Indians Taylor kills – and a white buffalo hide that's priceless to the hunters and the Indians for very different reasons, a showdown becomes inevitable, though the outcome certainly isn't.

Taylor's is certainly ironic casting – it was Granger turning down many of the epic roles MGM developed for him in films like Quo Vadis and Ivanhoe that gave Taylor his 50s comeback after years of steady decline. His hair color may not convince but his performance does, a shallow and violent man so consumed with hate that he doesn't wear a gun, the gun wears him. Granger's accent isn't always convincing, but he makes a good quiet hero in the Jimmy Stewart mold, trying to keep hold of his newfound decency and reconcile his actions with his beliefs before finally getting a chance to make amends. Russ Tamblyn's halfbreed skinner and Lloyd Nolan's one-legged old-timer also give as good as they get, but the real star is the script: tightly plotted with an excellent eye and ear for character – not to mention an ending Stanley Kubrick borrowed for The Shining – it balances historical revisionism with entertaining drama without ever selling either short. The new French DVD is extras-free but does boast a 2.35:1 transfer with an English soundtrack. Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable. For some reason, this film has never turned up in its original language in my neck of the woods (despite owning the TCM UK Cable channel, which broadcasts scores of MGM titles week in week out). More disappointingly, it's still M.I.A. on DVD – even from Warners' recently-announced "Western Classics Collection" Box Set (which does include 3 other Robert Taylor genre efforts); maybe, they're saving it for an eventual "Signature Collection" devoted to this stalwart of MGM, which may be coming next year in time for the 40th anniversary of his passing…

I say this because the film allows him a rare villainous role as a selfish Westerner with a fanatical hatred of Indians and who opts to exploit his expert marksmanship by making some easy money hunting buffaloes; an opening statement offers the alarming statistic that the population of this species was reduced from 60,000,000 to 3,000 in the space of just 30 years! As an associate, Taylor picks on former professional of the trade Stewart Granger – who rallies alcoholic, peg-legged Lloyd Nolan (who continually taunts the irascible and vindictive Taylor) and teenage half-breed Russ Tamblyn to this end. As expected, the company's relationship is a shaky one – reminiscent of that at the centre of Anthony Mann's THE NAKED SPUR (1953), another bleak open-air MGM Western. The film, in fact, ably approximates the flavor and toughness of Mann's work in this field (despite being writer/director Brooks' first of just a handful of such outings but which, cumulatively, exhibited a remarkable diversity); here, too, the narrative throws in a female presence (Debra Paget, also a half-breed) to be contended between the two rugged leads – and Granger, like the James Stewart of THE NAKED SPUR, returns to his job only grudgingly (his remorse at having to kill buffaloes for mere sport and profit is effectively realized).

The latter also suffers in seeing Taylor take Paget for himself – she bravely but coldly endures his approaches, while secretly craving for Granger – and lets out his frustration on the locals at a bar while drunk! Taylor, himself, doesn't come out unscathed from the deal: like the protagonist of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948), he becomes diffident and jealous of his associates, especially with respect to a rare – and, therefore, precious – hide of a white buffalo they've caught; he even goes buffalo-crazy at one point (as Nolan had predicted), becoming deluded into taking the rumble of thunder for the hooves of an approaching mass of the species! The hunting scenes themselves are impressive – buffaloes stampeding, tumbling to the ground when hit, the endless line-up of the day's catch, and the carcasses which subsequently infest the meadows. The film's atypical but memorable denouement, then, is justly famous: with Winter in full swing, a now-paranoid Taylor out for Granger's blood lies in wait outside a cave (in which the latter and Paget have taken refuge) to shoot him; when Granger emerges the next morning, he discovers Taylor in a hunched position – frozen to death!

Incidentally, my father owns a copy of the hefty source novel of this (by Milton Lott) from the time of the film's original release: actually, he has collected a vast number of such editions – it is, after all, a practice still in vogue – where a book is re-issued to promote its cinematic adaptation. Likewise for the record, Taylor and Granger – who work very well off each other here – had already been teamed (as sibling whale hunters!) in the seafaring adventure ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALIANT (1953)…which, curiously enough, is just as difficult to see (in fact, even more so, considering that it's not even been shown on Italian TV for what seems like ages)!! The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.

Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.

The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.

No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.

However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast.

For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt. I was initially dubious about this movie (merely because of the subject), but the richly drawn characters, the fabulous scenes of the buffalo hunt, and the dramatic conclusion make it well-worth watching. I initially had trouble distinguishing between the two buffalo hunters but as the movie progressed they increasingly distinguished themselves. I am still haunted by the final scene. The Last Hunt is the forgotten Hollywood classic western. The theme of genocide via buffalo slaughter is present in other films but never so savagely. Robert Taylor's against-type role as the possessed buffalo and Indian killer is his finest performance.

In the 1950s, your mom dropped you and your friends off at the Saterday matinée, usually featuring a western or comedy. But it was wrong then and now to let a youngster watch psycho-dramas like The Searchers and The Last Hunt. Let the kids wait a few years before exposing them to films with repressed sexual sadism and intense racial hatred.

Why did Mom fail to censor these films? Because they featured "safe" Hollywood stars like Taylor and John Wayne. But the climatic scene in The Last Hunt is as horrifying as Vincent Price's mutation in The Fly.

The mythology of the white buffalo, part of the texture of this movie, was later ripped-off by other movies including The White Buffalo, starring Charles Bronson as Wild Bill Hickock. The laugh here is that Bronson used to play Indians.

Today a large remnant bison herd resides in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. In the winter, hunger forces surplus animals out of the park into Montana, where they are sometimes harvested by Idaho's Nez Perce Indians under a US treaty right that pre-dates the Lincoln Presidency. Linclon signed the Congressional act which authorized the continental railroad and started the buffalo slaughter. A lot of talk has been made about "psychological Westerns", but this is one of the very few that is truly in that genre. It has big name stars who perform very well, but it is the director who makes this such a good movie. Stewart Granger loses his British safari hunter stereotype to play a haggard retired buffalo hunter who is revered in the West as one of the best. Robert Taylor plays the upstart (in contrast to the usual young upstart, Taylor's character is middle aged, too), who wants to slaughter buffalo, and lures Granger into business with him. They hire two other big name actors, Lloyd Nolan and Russ Tamblyn, into being their skinners. Granger is haunted by the buffalo he has killed, knowing that he may be to blame if they become extinct, knowing if they become extinct, the Native American way of life will greatly suffer. Taylor soon reveals a sadistic side, but it is a realistic saidism, unlike the one dimensional sadists of modern film, created by nerds and dorks. He is insecure, and needs human companionship. Still, he won't stop at murder. The end pits the two against each other, with a startling conclusion. The psychological effects of what they're doing are well depicted. Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger switch the goodie-baddie roles they held in "All the brothers were valiant". Taylor seems a bit uncomfortable in his bad-guy role but Granger plays his part perfectly. However the real hero in the story are the bison and the northwest. The film is perfectly made, with the atmosphere of the times wonderfully given. The direction is taut and although the film is no light-hearted entertainment it is, to my way of thinking a major film, unjustly ignored by the cognoscenti. Some time in the late 19th century, somewhere in the American West, several cowboys in need of money go on a buffalo hunt. The group's leader believes that buffaloes are too numerous for the hunting to have any impact, but the more experienced hunter has seen how quickly the population can collapse, and he isn't so sure. Featuring buffalo herds living in South Dakota and showing film of actual hunting (the movie's introduction explains it as necessary thinning of the herd), the movie does an excellent job of presenting us with the plight of the buffalo and its effect on Native Americans without ever getting preachy about it.

The real story, however, is about the dysfunctional family which is created by the small group formed to do the hunting. The father figure is Charlie, a violent man with a short fuse. Sandy, his "brother", is the experienced hunter who is tired of killing but needs the job after losing his cattle. A half-Indian boy, who hates the fact that he looks entirely Caucasian, takes the role of adopted son. The grandfather (and moral compass) is an alcoholic buffalo skinner; Charlie's "wife" is an Indian woman whose companions he killed after they stole his horses.

Charlie is clearly the most interesting figure. He is mean and insulting towards everyone around him, yet at the same time he knows that they are the only family and friends that he has. He expects the abducted Indian women to hate him, then accept him, but he doesn't know how to react when she refuses to do either. He's the one who put the family together in the first place, but he's also the one who is fated to ultimately destroy it.

This is all very similar to the classic "Red River", which also features a family of sorts being torn apart by the increasingly violent and alienated father figure. As one might expect, this movie suffers by comparison. The plot is not as focused on developing the characters and family dynamics, and the direction fails to keep all of the scenes working towards this common goal. Charlie is so thoroughly unlikable from the very beginning that we never have any reason to care about what happens to him or his family. On the positive side, however, the message surrounding the buffalo slaughter adds an extra dimension to the film and its conclusion is far superior to the Hollywood ending which was tacked on to the end of "Red River". As a result, "The Last Hunt" is an interesting and entertaining film, very well made, but falling short of what would be needed to consider it a classic. A man readjusts to life alone after 45 years of marriage. He also has to solve the problem of the family milch cow, Tulip, which refuses to allow itself to be milked. Until, that is, he visualizes his wife who was the one who used to milk Tulip.

Tulip is based on a real story told in Griffith's family, of her grandparents' generation. The film is a nostalgic look back at a disappearing way of life, one where people still felt some sense of responsibility for each other, set in the lush green Victorian (the Australian state, not the era) countryside.

Writer and director Griffiths evidently has further ambitions in both areas, and this multiple award-winning 15-minute short is a fine beginning to her reel. I hope she can keep acting and directing. She's surely up to the task and could easily develop that visionary streak into a long career of unconventional and rare works of art. Her work has a rare kind of generosity and her timing is spot-on! Oy I'm kvell Rachel Griffiths writes and directs this award winning short film. A heartwarming story about coping with grief and cherishing the memory of those we've loved and lost. Although, only 15 minutes long, Griffiths manages to capture so much emotion and truth onto film in the short space of time. Bud Tingwell gives a touching performance as Will, a widower struggling to cope with his wife's death. Will is confronted by the harsh reality of loneliness and helplessness as he proceeds to take care of Ruth's pet cow, Tulip. The film displays the grief and responsibility one feels for those they have loved and lost. Good cinematography, great direction, and superbly acted. It will bring tears to all those who have lost a loved one, and survived. "Tulip" is on the "Australian All Shorts" video from "Tribe First Rites" showcasing the talents of first time directors.

I wish more scripts had such excellent dialogue.

I hope Rachel Griffiths has more stories to tell, she does it so well. Many people know how it feels when a loved one is lost. The feelings of pain, grief and sorrow can be unbearable. However, sometimes it is the memories they leave behind that trigger the saddest emotions. This theme is superbly portrayed in the short film 'Tulip', directed by the award winning Australian actress, Rachel Griffths. Described as a movie 'as much about memories as it is about love', a string of sensitivity and sentimentality is expertly threaded into this triumphant 15 minute film.

'Tulip' is a beautifully wrought, touching and heart-warming story of a man's journey in coming to terms with the loss of his wife through the relationship he shares with a very special animal, 'Tulip'. The film opens with a rising dawn, the chirping of birds and a vast landscape, introducing the sense of rustic harmony present throughout the film. A soft music plays, marking the entrance of Ruth (Jean Bain). She wears a flowered dress and apron with a sun hat on her head. She gently pets Tulip, caressing her ears and patting her back. The furnishing of the house is impressive and the attention to detail is creditable (a vase of tulips can be seen on the bench), reflecting the peaceful rural community. Will (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) greets Ruth as she is spooning the milk from the bucket. They pour the milk and coffee together, a sign of companionship and teamwork. Not a word is said but it is obvious that their relationship is close and affectionate; they paint a perfect picture of happiness.

Sadly, happiness doesn't last forever. The tragic passing of Ruth affects Will deeply. An effective scene of fading cars highlights Will's isolation and vulnerability at the end of the day of the funeral. Soon he sinks into depression and becomes oblivious to his surroundings when everything seems hopeless and lost. At Will's moment of despair, Tulip becomes the symbol of Ruth, the genuine connection Will has with his late wife. It was through Tulip that Will learns to cope with the absence of Ruth and overcome the heartrending feelings of loneliness.

Each of the characters is realistically and solidly portrayed, especially the part of Will. Charles 'Bud' Tingwell brings the character to life through personal investment. The recent loss of his own wife (Audrey Tingwell) is effectively reflected in his acting. Every sag of his shoulder and every frown on his brow make the viewer empathize strongly with the character. The character of Ruth is wonderfully carried out by Jean Bain. Although Ruth does not say a single word throughout the movie, her sweet personality and loving relationship with Will are obvious. Lois Ramsey and Kati Edwards give delightful performances in supporting roles as the friendly Margaret and Mary. They also add a subtle humor to the bittersweet story.

An anecdote from Griffths' childhood, the story of loss and discovery is remarkably captured in 'Tulip'. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, this film will surely make you misty eyed, triumphant or feel like drinking a cup of milk. This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10 I have seen a lot of PPV's in the past but this is the most entertaining, intense PPV and the most complete DVD i have ever seen. The DVD extras are worth it because they it gives a different view of how the wrestlers act after the show (such as the chris benoit interview/edge interview), some glimpse into the Monday Night Wars era,the first match of Hogan winning tag title gold and some promotional talk. Additionally there is a good music video.

1. Tag Team Table match: Bubby Ray and Spike Dudley vs. Eddie Guerro and Chris benoit 7/10 This was a pretty good intense match to start off the show. Not too many holds and just pure raw physicallity. Spike can hold his own in tables matches and Guerro and Benoit gave good pure wrestling skills on the mat.

2. WWE Crusierweight championship: Jamie Noble w/ Nidia v. Billy Kidman 3/10 The crowd really didn't care about either wrestler and didn't get interested until Kidman did a shooting star press. Usually people expect a lot of high flying in a cruiser weight championship, but this had very little. In fact it was so bad that when Noble hit his finisher, no one even cared or knew (you can tell by the lack of camera's flashing). The ending was quick though.

3. WWE European Championship: Jeff hardy v. William Regal 5/10 I've never really liked regal as a wrestler, he lacks intensity and style. Hardy was impressive but really didn't get a chance to show off his high flying act, although he still performed some good counters and added that needed fast pace to the match. It ended off quickly which was perfect for this match.

4. John Cena v. Chris Jericho 6/10 It's funny looking back at Cena's very first PPV, how he used to act, how he used to dress, and how he used to look (watch his interview, it's pretty funny). This was a good intense match with Cena showing a nice variety of holds, suplexes, counters and some aerial. Jericho was sub-par but definitely helped Cena launch his career. Cena Wins.

5. WWE Intercontenital championship: RVD v. Brock Lesnar 8/10 This was a very intense and good match. Both wrestlers styles really matched up well on the screen, with Brocks pure power and raw energy vs. RVDs skill full moves and quickness. RVD looked great in this match (better than his later matches with edge and cena)and the entire match was fast pace. The ending worked perfectly because it still preserved Brock's undefeated streak while giving RVD his just desserts in his home state.

6. No disqualification match: Booker T v. Big Show 7/10 Another solid match that lacked a certain intensity as the RVD match but still a good follow up. Although it started off kinda slow (which it always is with big show) Booker T was impressive and did a sick move on the announcers table. The finisher was awesome, the ending was a great upset and big move up for Booker T.

7. WWE Tag Team Championship: Hogan and Edge v. Christian and Lance storm 5/10 This was a mediocre match. Hogan comes out like usual to a huge pop but his variety of moves lacks that intensity and energy. Then again Christian doesn't exactly have the greatest athletic abilities himself. This ended up being a mediocre match at best but was still OK for PPV.

8. Triple Threat Match for the Undisputed Championship: 10/10. Rock v. Undertaker v. Kurt Angle.

Easily the match of the year. This is by far the best triple threat match i have ever seen. It had close falls, plenty of finishers, stolen finishers, raw energy, intensity and fast pace. No one could predict who would come out of this one. If your going to buy this DVD i would buy it strictly for this match. (ending? watch for yourself!)

Overall this was a solid PPV with plenty of extra goodies to keep you watching again and again. Although this is hard to find (i had to pay a little more than usual for this DVD) it is definitely worth your money. Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion. Match 1: Tag Team Table Match Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley vs Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley started things off with a Tag Team Table Match against Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. According to the rules of the match, both opponents have to go through tables in order to get the win. Benoit and Guerrero heated up early on by taking turns hammering first Spike and then Bubba Ray. A German suplex by Benoit to Bubba took the wind out of the Dudley brother. Spike tried to help his brother, but the referee restrained him while Benoit and Guerrero ganged up on him in the corner. With Benoit stomping away on Bubba, Guerrero set up a table outside. Spike dashed into the ring and somersaulted over the top rope onto Guerrero on the outside! After recovering and taking care of Spike, Guerrero slipped a table into the ring and helped the Wolverine set it up. The tandem then set up for a double superplex from the middle rope which would have put Bubba through the table, but Spike knocked the table over right before his brother came crashing down! Guerrero and Benoit propped another table in the corner and tried to Irish Whip Spike through it, but Bubba dashed in and blocked his brother. Bubba caught fire and lifted both opponents into back body drops! Bubba slammed Guerrero and Spike stomped on the Wolverine from off the top rope. Bubba held Benoit at bay for Spike to soar into the Wassup! headbutt! Shortly after, Benoit latched Spike in the Crossface, but the match continued even after Spike tapped out. Bubba came to his brother's rescue and managed to sprawl Benoit on a table. Bubba leapt from the middle rope, but Benoit moved and sent Bubba crashing through the wood! But because his opponents didn't force him through the table, Bubba was allowed to stay in the match. The first man was eliminated shortly after, though, as Spike put Eddie through a table with a Dudley Dawg from the ring apron to the outside! Benoit put Spike through a table moments later to even the score. Within seconds, Bubba nailed a Bubba Bomb that put Benoit through a table and gave the Dudleys the win! Winner: Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley

Match 2: Cruiserweight Championship Jamie Noble vs Billy Kidman Billy Kidman challenged Jamie Noble, who brought Nidia with him to the ring, for the Cruiserweight Championship. Noble and Kidman locked up and tumbled over the ring, but raced back inside and grappled some more. When Kidman thwarted all Noble's moves, Noble fled outside the ring where Nidia gave him some encouragement. The fight spread outside the ring and Noble threw his girlfriend into the challenger. Kidman tossed Nidia aside but was taken down with a modified arm bar. Noble continued to attack Kidman's injured arm back in the ring. Kidman's injured harm hampered his offense, but he continued to battle hard. Noble tried to put Kidman away with a powerbomb but the challenger countered into a facebuster. Kidman went to finish things with a Shooting Star Press, but Noble broke up the attempt. Kidman went for the Shooting Star Press again, but this time Noble just rolled out of harm's way. Noble flipped Kidman into a power bomb soon after and got the pin to retain his WWE Cruiserweight Championship! Winner: Jamie Noble

Match 3: European Championship William Regal vs Jeff Hardy William Regal took on Jeff Hardy next in an attempt to win back the European Championship. Jeff catapulted Regal over the top rope then took him down with a hurracanrana off the ring apron. Back in the ring, Jeff hit the Whisper in the wind to knock Regal for a loop. Jeff went for the Swanton Bomb, but Regal got his knees up to hit Jeff with a devastating shot. Jeff managed to surprise Regal with a quick rollup though and got the pin to keep the European Championship! Regal started bawling at seeing Hardy celebrate on his way back up the ramp. Winner: Jeff Hardy

Match 4: Chris Jericho vs John Cena Chris Jericho had promised to end John Cena's career in their match at Vengeance, which came up next. Jericho tried to teach Cena a lesson as their match began by suplexing him to the mat. Jericho continued to knock Cena around the ring until his cockiness got the better of him. While on the top rope, Jericho began to showboat and allowed Cena to grab him for a superplex! Cena followed with a tilt-a-whirl slam but was taken down with a nasty dropkick to the gut. The rookie recovered and hit a belly to belly suplex but couldn't put Y2J away. Jericho launched into the Lionsault but Cena dodged the move. Jericho nailed a bulldog and then connected on the Lionsault, but did not go for the cover. He goaded Cena to his feet so he could put on the Walls of Jericho. Cena had other ideas, reversing the move into a pin attempt and getting the 1-2-3! Jericho went berserk after the match. Winner: John Cena

Match 5: Intercontinental Championship RVD vs Brock Lesnar via disqualification The Next Big Thing and Mr. Pay-Per-View tangled with the Intercontinental Championship on the line. Brock grabbed the title from the ref and draped it over his shoulder momentarily while glaring at RVD. Van Dam 's quickness gave Brock fits early on. The big man rolled out of the ring and kicked the steel steps out of frustration. Brock pulled himself together and began to take charge. With Paul Heyman beaming at ringside, Brock slammed RVD to the hard floor outside the ring. From there, Brock began to overpower RVD, throwing him with ease over the top rope. RVD landed painfully on his back, then had to suffer from having his spine cracked against the steel ring steps. The fight returned to the ring with Brock squeezing RVD around the ribs. RVD broke away and soon after leveled Brock with a kick to the temple. RVD followed with the Rolling Thunder but Brock managed to kick out after a two-count. The fight looked like it might be over soon as RVD went for a Five-Star Frog Splash. Brock, though, hoisted Van Dam onto his shoulder and went for the F-5, but RVD whirled Brock into a DDT and followed with the Frog Splash! He went for the pin, but Heyman pulled the ref from the ring! The ref immediately called for a disqualification and soon traded blows with Heyman! After, RVD leapt onto Brock from the top rope and then threatened to hit the Van Terminator! Heyman grabbed RVD's leg and Brock picked up the champ and this time connected with the F-5 onto a steel chair! Winner: RVD

Match 6: Booker T vs the Big Show Booker T faced the Big Show one-on-one next. Show withstood Booker T's kicks and punches and slapped Booker into the corner. After being thrown from the ring, Booker picked up a chair at ringside, but Big Show punched it back into Booker's face. Booker tried to get back into the game by choking Show with a camera cable at ringside. Booker smashed a TV monitor from the Spanish announcers' position into Show's skull, then delivered a scissors kick that put both men through the table! Booker crawled back into the ring and Big Show staggered in moments later. Show grabbed Booker's throat but was met by a low blow and a kick to the face. Booker climbed the top rope and nailed a somersaulting leg drop to get the pin! Winner: Booker T

Announcement: Triple H entered the ring to a thunderous ovation as fans hoped to learn where The Game would end up competing. Before he could speak, Eric Bishoff stopped The Game to apologize for getting involved in his personal business. If Triple H signed with RAW, Bischoff promised his personal life would never come into play again. Bischoff said he's spent the past two years networking in Hollywood. He said everyone was looking for the next breakout WWE Superstar, and they were all talking about Triple H. Bischoff guaranteed that if Triple H signed with RAW, he'd be getting top opportunities coming his way. Stephanie McMahon stepped out to issue her own pitch. She said that because of her personal history with Triple H, the two of them know each other very well. She said the two of them were once unstoppable and they can be again. Bischoff cut her off and begged her to stop. Stephanie cited that Triple H once told her how Bischoff said Triple H had no talent and no charisma. Bischoff said he was young at the time and didn't know what he had, but he still has a lot more experience that Stephanie. The two continued to bicker back and forth, until Triple H stepped up with his microphone. The Game said it would be easy to say "screw you" to either one of them. Triple H went to shake Bischoff's hand, but pulled it away. He said he would rather go with the devil he knows, rather than the one he doesn't know. Before he could go any further, though, Shawn Michaels came out to shake things up. HBK said the last thing he wanted to do was cause any trouble. He didn't want to get involved, but he remembered pledging to bring Triple H to the nWo. HBK said there's nobody in the world that Triple H is better friends with. HBK told his friend to imagine the two back together again, making Bischoff's life a living hell. Triple H said that was a tempting offer. He then turned and hugged HBK, making official his switch to RAW! Triple H and HBK left, and Bischoff gloated over his victory. Bischoff said the difference between the two of them is that he's got testicles and she doesn't. Stephanie whacked Bischoff on the side of the head and left!

Match 7: Tag Team Championship Match Christian and Lance Storm vs Hollywood Hogan and Edge The match started with loud "USA" chants and with Hogan shoving Christian through the ropes and out of the ring. The Canadians took over from there. But Edge scored a kick to Christian's head and planted a facebuster on Storm to get the tag to Hogan. Hogan began to Hulk up and soon caught Christian with a big boot and a leg drop! Storm broke up the count and Christian tossed Hogan from the ring where Storm superkicked the icon. Edge tagged in soon after and dropped both opponents. He speared both of them into the corner turnbuckles, but missed a spear on Strom and hit the ref hard instead. Edge nailed a DDT, but the ref was down and could not count. Test raced down and took down Hogan then leveled Edge with a boot. Storm tried to get the pin, but Edge kicked out after two. Riksihi sprinted in to fend off Test, allowing Edge to recover and spear Storm. Christian distracted the ref, though, and Y2J dashed in and clocked Edge with the Tag Team Championship! Storm rolled over and got the pinfall to win the title! Winners and New Tag Team Champions: Christian and Lance Storm

Match 8: WWE Undisputed Championship Triple Threat Match. The Rock vs Kurt Angle and the Undertaker Three of WWE's most successful superstars lined up against each other in a Triple Threat Match with the Undisputed Championship hanging in the balance. Taker and The Rock got face to face with Kurt Angle begging for some attention off to the side. He got attention in the form of a beat down form the two other men. Soon after, Taker spilled out of the ring and The Rock brawled with Angle. Angle gave a series of suplexes that took down Rock, but the Great One countered with a DDT that managed a two-count. The fight continued outside the ring with Taker coming to life and clotheslining Angle and repeatedly smacking The Rock. Taker and Rock got into it back into the ring, and Taker dropped The Rock with a sidewalk slam to get a two-count. Rock rebounded, grabbed Taker by the throat and chokeslammed him! Angle broke up the pin attempt that likely would have given The Rock the title. The Rock retaliated by latching on the ankle lock to Kurt Angle. Angle reversed the move and Rock Bottomed the People's Champion. Soon after, The Rock disposed of Angle and hit the People's Elbow on the Undertaker. Angle tried to take advantage by disabling the Great One outside the ring and covering Taker, who kicked out after a two count. Outside the ring, Rock took a big swig from a nearby water bottle and spewed the liquid into Taker's face to blind the champion. Taker didn't stay disabled for long, and managed to overpower Rock and turn his attention to Angle. Taker landed a guillotine leg drop onto Angle, laying on the ring apron. The Rock picked himself up just in time to break up a pin attempt on Kurt Angle. Taker nailed Rock with a DDT and set him up for a chokeslam. ANgle tried sneaking up with a steel chair, but Taker caught on to that tomfoolery and smacked it out of his hands. The referee got caught in the ensuing fire and didn't see Angle knock Taker silly with a steel chair. Angle went to cover Taker as The Rock lay prone, but the Dead Man somehow got his shoulder up. Angle tried to pin Rock, but he too kicked out. The Rock got up and landed Angle in the sharpshooter! Angle looked like he was about to tap, but Taker kicked The Rock out of the submission hold. Taker picked Rock up and crashed him with the Last Ride. While the Dead Man covered him for the win, Angle raced in and picked Taker up in the ankle lock! Taker went delirious with pain, but managed to counter. He picked Angle up for the last ride, but Angle put on a triangle choke! It looked like Taker was about to pass out, but The Rock broke Angle's hold only to find himself caught in the ankle lock. Rock got out of the hold and watched Taker chokeslam Angle. Rocky hit the Rock Bottom, but Taker refused to go down and kicked out. Angle whirled Taker up into the Angle Slam but was Rock Bottomed by the Great One and pinned! Winner and New WWE Champion: The Rock

~Finally there is a decent PPV! Lately the PPV weren't very good, but this one was a winner. I give this PPV a A-

Some people have stated that as of the 11th season, South Park has started a trend of leaving behind their politically biting satire for shallow spoofs; but this could not be further from the truth.

While this episode does spoof the Living Dead series, there is more. It is a satire of how people treat the homeless. Characters say things like "They're pretending to be just like us" or "They want to be human." This episode attacks a culture of people who ignore the lower class who are often just down on their luck.

So yes, it is still a satire, and also a wonderful spoof. What more could you want? "Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.

Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.

The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.

In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.

The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10 And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.

Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.

Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.

Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.

The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.

Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.

Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form. I found this episode to be one of funniest I've seen in a long time. The south park creators have done the best spoof of a Romero film I have ever seen.They have truly touched on Romero's underlying social commentary that he has made with each one of his films. I would love to know what George Romero's opinion was on this episode I'm sure it was purely positive! Keeping his true vision for his zombie epics fully intact! Most spoofs deal with the pure gore without making the viewer think as Romero tries to do with his films. I think that if a zombie outbreak did happen we may actually worry about our property values before our lives as shown in this episode! Night Of The Living Homeless is a funny spoof of the 1978 film(and the 2004 remake) of "Dawn Of The Dead".Only this time...with the homeless.The episode has homeless people all coming to South Park and the people cannot figure out why.They treat the homeless like zombies who want change and a few of the parents end up on the roof of a supermarket like in the movie.So now it's up to the boys to find out where they came from and how to get rid of them.This is a fairly funny episode with some good moments like the boys singing their own version of the 2pac/Dr.Dre song "California Love".Overall a good episode.

8/10 Stylish, moody, innovative revenge-driven bloodbath. Also cheesy, of course, and sporadically very cheesy. It reminded me a lot of The Big Heat because it has the revenge plot set off by the exact same event, and the girl comes around to the good guy's side because of the same bad behavior by the bad guy. It's sad there's no Gloria Grahame but so fantastic that it's Alain Delon and not Glenn Ford. Could there be anyone as beautiful as Alain going around in a cashmere sweater and trenchcoat? Yet he's totally tough and icy cool. No one nowadays can touch him--though someone like Jude Law could try I guess. Hard for any girl to look good with him. The music was funky and perfect and there were several excellent car chases (and those aren't generally my cup of tea)--especially one willy nilly one in the woods. People also met their dooms in creative and bloody fashion, for instance in a junkyard cruncher. But beyond the cheese, the overall atmosphere was affecting and expertly pulled off. More creativity, excitement and freshness in that "forgotten" movie than most of what I've seen lately. Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is fun—it is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. "Arzenta" is an unpretentious ,yet very likable film—much better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth.

I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.

The score is very fine, with a good introductory song—making felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.

In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).

"Arzenta" is interestingly filmed—an ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc.. Alain Delon visits swift, sure vengeance on the ruthless crime family that employed him as a hit-man in the Duccio Tessari thriller "Big Guns" after they accidentally murder his wife and child. Tessari and scenarists Roberto Gandus, Ugo Liberatore of "A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die," and Franco Verucci of "Ring of Death" take this actioneer about a career gunman for the mob right down to the wire. Indeed, "Big Guns" is rather predictable, but it still qualifies as solid entertainment with lots of savage and often sudden killings. Alain Delon of "The Godson" is appropriately laconic as he methodically deals out death to the heads of the mob families who refused to let him retire so that he could enjoy life with his young son and daughter. Richard Conte of "The Godfather" plays a Sicilian crime boss who wants to bury the hatchet with the Delon character, but the rest of his hard-nosed associates want the hit-man dead. Like most crime thrillers in the 1960s and 1970s, "Big Guns" subscribes to the cinematic morality that crime does not pay. Interestingly, the one man who has nothing to do with the murder of the wife and son of the hero survives while another betrays the hero with extreme prejudice. Tessari does not waste a second in this 90-minute shoot'em up. Apart from the mother and son dying in a car bomb meant for the father, the worst thing that takes place occurs in an automobile salvage yard when an associate of the hero is crushed in a junked car. Ostensibly, "Big Guns" is a rather bloodless outing, but it does have a high body count for a 1973 mobster melodrama. Only at the last minute does our protagonist let his guard down and so the contrived morality of an eye for an eye remains intact. Tessari stages a couple of decent car chases and the death of a don in a train traveling through a train tunnel is as bloody as this violent yarn gets. The photography and the compositions are excellent. Icy and lethal ace hit-man Tony Arzenta (a divinely smooth and commanding performance by Alain Delon) wants to quit the assassination business, but the dangerous mobsters he works for won't let him. After his wife and child are killed, Arzenta declares open season on everyone responsible for their deaths. Director Duccio Tessari relates the absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, maintains a properly serious and no-nonsense tone throughout, stages the stirring shoot-outs and exciting car chases with considerable rip-snorting brio, and punctuates the narrative with jolting outbursts of explosive bloody violence. Delon's suave and charismatic presence adds extra class to the already engrossing proceedings. This film further benefits from sterling acting by a bang-up cast, with praiseworthy contributions by Richard Conte as wise Mafia kingpin Nick Gusto, Carla Gravini as Arzenta's supportive lady friend Sandra, Marc Porel as Arzenta's loyal pal Domenico Maggio, Anton Diffring as ruthless, calculating capo Grunwald, and Lino Troisi as the venomous gangster Rocco Cutitta. Silvano Ippoliti's glossy cinematography boasts several graceful pans. Gianni Ferrio's funky score hits the get-down groovy spot. Erika Blanc and Rosalba Neri pop up briefly in nifty bit parts. Better still, there's no filler to speak of and we even get a decent dab of tasty gratuitous female nudity. The startling conclusion packs a mean and lingering wallop right to the gut. A solid and satisfying winner. As one other IMDB reviewer has remarked, this movie starts a bit slow, but gets considerably better as it goes along. Yes, it is released by Roger Corman, and yes, it goes over some of the same thematic ground as much higher budget predecessors such as FATAL ATTRACTION and POISON IVY. However, the juxtapositioning of the wife's career as a rising blues singer against the husband's gathering loneliness and his almost Freudian need for filling the emotional and physical "void" or "hole" while she's away along with the clever use of minimal effects and settings is nicely done. Utilizing a very small number of locations and characters, and also using water in almost every scene both as a cleansing and drowning metaphorical symbol throughout, this movie, though clearly suffering from a minuscule budget, reminds me in many ways of the more fully realized and more recent scenario, namely the French film "SWIMMING POOL" which it seems to me at least may have borrowed liberally some useful ideas from "UP AGAINST AMANDA." With a smaller tool set, UP AGAINST AMANDA maintains its suspense with a rudimentary, fatalistic view of surrendering to ones occasional lustful temptations, but accomplishes this as well or better as other films in this genre. The twist of the stepfather abuse of Amanda in the past (again, very Freudian) is also very unique in this genre and interesting. I agree with other viewers about the unexpected and sympathetic reaction for Amanda's plight this aspect of the story elicits. The cast is excellent I think.

I saw this movie when it first came out. It was an official selection for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and I voted for it for best picture.

Justine Priestley is hot as the psychotic, but complex Amanda. This is not your ordinary psycho movie. Lots of interesting and original slants on the genre. Sort of a "Fatal Attraction" for the younger set with some great blues music mixed in as the object of Amanda's affection is married to an up and coming blues singer who has less time for her husband as her career takes off.

This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.

Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical "obsessed killer" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.

AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.

Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget. Like most people, I've seen Jason Priestley on TV and I think he's great. But I didn't know he had a sister! Justine Priestley is simply "mah"velous as the scorned other woman. Good music, intrigue, and a death scene involving Amanda's revenge on an abusive Dr. that will stay with you for weeks. I'll leave it at that. Kudos. It was extremely low budget(it some scenes it looks like they recorded with a home video recorder). However it does have a good plot line, and its easy to follow. 8 years after shooting her sexually abusive step father Amanda is released from the psychiatric ward, with the help of her doctor who she is secretly having an affair with. The doctor ends up renting her a house and buying her a car. But within the first 20 minutes of the movie Amanda kills him and buries him in her backyard. Then she see's her neighbor Richard sets eyes on him and stops at nothing until she has him. She acts innocent but after another neighbor Buzz finds out that Amanda killed that doctor and attempted to kill Richards wife Laurie (this is after Amanda and him get it on in the hot tub). Then she stops acting so Innocent and kills Buzz and later on attempts to kill Richard whom she supposedly loves and cares for. And you'll have to rent the movie to find out if Amanda dies or not. Overall good movie, reminds me a lot of my life you know the whole falling for the neighbor and stopping at nothing until you have him part. It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line "God, you are so disGUSting" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!

The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.

Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun. It really is a shame that films like this never snag Best Picture nominations, because this one is simply a winner. This is by far the most consistently hilarious comedy I have ever seen. Its screenplay and design are impeccable, not to mention the incredible cast. I can quote this movie for hours on end. Watch it. A riotous farce set in the world of glamorous daytime soap operas! This film is hilarious! Admittedly, you have to have a taste for films with screaming, hysterical dialogue, over-the-top acting, and melodramatic plot twists. But if you do, you're in for one hell of a treat.

Sally Field plays Celeste Talbert, daytime TV's "Queen of Misery." Celeste's cushy life is thrown into upheaval with the unexpected arrival of Lori Craven (Elisabeth Shue), her long-lost niece, and, simultaneously, Jeffrey Anderson (Kevin Kline - splendid as always), Celeste's long-ago lover. But Celeste has been hiding a deep, dark secret, and the arrival of Lori and Jeffrey might just bring it to the surface. Add in the diabolical Montana Moorehead (a wonderful Cathy Moriarty, in full "gorgeous woman with testosterone to spare mode"), who is trying mighty hard to destroy Celeste's career; David (Robert Downey, Jr.), the weenie-boy producer of the soap who's secretly plotting with Montana to ruin Celeste; and, Rose Schwarz (Whoopi Goldberg), scriptwriter and Celeste's one true confidant, and you are in for a heaping helping of subplots and general chaos.

Chaotic comedies like this are tricky to execute (does anyone remember 'Mixed Nuts'?), but when done well, can be pretty damn funny! A major ingredient that is necessary to any good comedy is the casting of seasoned pros who know that lots of times the funniest things are not said but seen in an expression or a look. Field, Kline, Goldberg, and the rest all work together so well and are clearly having a great time that it is hard not to become drawn in by their energy and enthusiasm. Shue is clearly the weakest link here, but she only draws attention to herself because she is surrounded by Field, Kline, et al. Moriarty is a stand-out in the showy villainess role, making you think of the hottest damn dominatrix you ever did see!! There are also lots of familiar faces that you'll recognize in small (but, nevertheless, all very funny) roles, including Carrie Fisher, Garry Marshall, Kathy Najimy, and Teri Hatcher. Director Michael Hoffman keeps the pace swift and the histrionic plot moving toward the big finish. Mention must also be made of Robert Harling's screenplay, carefully constructed to stage a soap opera within a soap opera. The dialogue is boiling over with great lines, delivered brilliantly by the actors (I'd be willing to bet that a lot of this stuff was improvised).

Look, if you want to see a bunch of pros doing what they do best and having a great time doing it, get your hands on this one. If not for anything else, it will put you in a good mood and make you laugh! This is one of the best comedy ever ! The writing of this parody of soap is brilliant and the cast, well just look at the names of the cast and you'll understand why it is so great. If you're a Kevin Kline fan, he does (as always) an fantastic performance, and Robert Downey Jr is perfect. If you don't laugh while seen this movie, you don't have any sense of humor. Years ago I did follow a soap on TV. So I was curious about this movie, and I was so rewarded for finding it. It's a marvelous spoof of soaps, with jealousies, the usual actors' insecurities, and all sorts of lovely excesses. But more than anything - an amazing cast and an incredible script. How did someone get all those top-notch actors to play in such a silly sort of movie? And how did this little movie get writers to write the perfect lines? I never hear anyone talk about this movie or even admit hearing of it, but it's marvelous and I highly recommend seeing it. Sometimes I'll throw it on while doing housecleaning, and end up sitting on the couch, watching, laughing and thoroughly enjoying the whole wonderful thing. Many congrats to all who made it. It's very funny. It has a great cast who each give great performances. Especially Sally Field and Kevin Kline. It's a well written screenplay by Andrew Bergman (Honeymoon In Vegas). I don't like soap operas, even though I never watch them. But I do love this film because it's so crazy and off the wall, that it beats the hell out of any stupid soap that they have on daytime television. In my opinion, it's the best film of 1991. I think that this is possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen. Robert Harling's script is near perfect, just check out the "quotes" section; on second thought, just rent the DVD, since it's the delivery that really makes the lines sing.

Sally Field gives a comic, over-the-top performance like you've never seen from her anywhere else, and Kevin Kline is effortlessly hilarious. Robert Downey, Jr. is typically brilliant, and in a very small role, Kathy Najimy is a riot as the beleaguered costumer. I was never much of a fan of Elisabeth Shue, but she's great here as the one *real* person surrounded by a bevy of cartoon characters on the set of "The Sun Also Sets" -- that rumbling you feel beneath you is Hemingway rolling over in his grave. Either that, or he's laughing really hard.

Five stars. Funny, funny, funny. This has to be, hands down, hats off, one of the most uproarious comedies ever made. Starting with the animated blowing, popping bubbles, the entrance to the Daytime Awards, the usual phony drivel spewed by the stars on the red carpet, the rehearsed and badly acted acceptance speech, the venomous comments uttered by the actor's jealous co-stars and producer, under phony smiles. Now THAT is only in the first few minutes. Then, all hell breaks loose from there and it only gets more frantic and ridiculous. Ridiculous in a good way, no, make that a great way. This was the first time I'd seen the always charming Teri Hatcher. While I may not be a follower of Desperate Housewives, she herself is always watchable - same goes for Lois & Clark. Not a huge follower, but if I run across an episode I'd watch it. Robert Downey, jr., does a great turn as slimy, smarmy, snaky, sycophantic David Seaton Barnes, the producer who'd give his right eye to see Sally Field's Celeste Talbert leave the show, if only to finally get to get it on with Cathy Moriarty's Montana Moorehead.

Moriarty absolutely shines in this movie, just as she had everywhere else she's appeared. Here, all she has to do is scream "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU CREEP!" or give one of her anti-Celeste-co-conspirators an evil grin, and she has me rolling in the aisles. Yes, Cathy Moriarty is a very gifted actress, and one hell of a comedienne. Sally Field gratefully departs from the usual 70-MM-sized Lifetime Tragedy of the Week movies, and we're all reminded why she is who she is today, having started off in comedy afraid of nothing. Her ensuing years of drama had hidden her sense of humor, but like a caterpillar in a cocoon, the brilliant comedienne she is had blossomed and it was joyous to see her as hilarious as she was. The thing with dramatic actors and actresses is that you see in such heavy, serious roles, that you associate them with their character and you can't believe it when you see them finally having some fun on screen.

How lucky were the producers to land Carrie Fisher, if only for a glorified cameo. She doesn't realize what a presence she bears on screen. She takes a role which, in the hands of a lesser actress, could easily have been forgotten, but she owns the character and it seems as if she wrote it herself.

How lucky was Elisabeth Shue to get thrown in the middle of all this! At the time, she wasn't really known for much. Adventures in Babysitting was kind of cute (yes, I was dragged to an evening show for which I had to pay full price), but she didn't hold my attention - - much. But here, she makes the most of her character - star's niece who falls in love with the star's ex-co-star-and-lover who, of course, turns out to be the niece's father, and the star turns out to be the poor girl's mother.

I'll stop there - I feel I practically wrote a book about this brilliant screwball comedy, or at least a novela. If you've seen it, then reminisce. If you haven't, you've missed a real classic, but not really. The DVD's are made of a material that'll last for at least 25 years, and this movie is timeless, so what the hell. The scene where Sally Field and Whoopi Goldberg go to the mall to revive Sally's flagging spirits is enough reason alone to enjoy this movie, but wait! There's more! This is a crackling good sendup of daytime TV, movie stars on the way down, (and up) and the horrors of love. Robert Downey Jr shows the lighter side of his genius, and Cathy Moriarty is splendid. The dialogue is witty, and the physical humor done with consummate skill. This is a movie that will appeal to those who really enjoy the arts of acting, directing, and writing. Hollow Man starts as brilliant but flawed scientist Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) finally works out how to make things visible again after having been turned invisible by his own serum. They test the serum on an already invisible Gorilla & it works perfectly, Caine & his team of assistant's celebrate but while he should report the breakthrough to his military backers Caine wants to be the first invisible human. He manages to persuade his team to help him & the procedure works well & Caine becomes invisible, however when they try to bring him back the serum fails & he remain invisible. The team desperately search for an antidote but nothing works, Caine slowly starts to lose his grip on reality as he realises what power he has but is unable to use it being trapped in a laboratory. But then again he's invisible right, he can do anything he wants...

Directed by Paul Verhoeven I rather liked Hollow Man. You know it's just after Christmas, I saw this a few hours ago on late night/early morning cable TV & worst of all I feel sick, not because of the film but because of the chocolates & fizzy pop I've had over the past week so I'll keep this one brief. The script by Andrew W. Marlowe has a decent pace about but it does drag a little during the middle & has a good central premise, it takes he basic idea that being invisible will make you insane just like in the original The Invisible Man (1933) film which Hollow Man obviously owes a fair bit. It manages to have a petty successful blend of horror, sci-fi & action & provide good entertainment value for 110 odd minutes. I thought the character's were OK, I thought some of the ideas in the film were good although I think it's generally known that Verhoeven doesn't deal in subtlety, the first thing he has the invisible Caine do is sexually molest one of his team & then when he gets into the outside world he has Caine rape a woman with the justification 'who's going to know' that Caine says to himself. Then of course there's the gore, he shows a rat being torn apart & that's just the opening scene after the credits, to be fair to him the violence is a bit more sparse this time around but still has a quite nasty & sadistic tone about it. Having said that I love horror/gore/exploitation films so Hollow Man delivers for me, it's just that it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Director Verhoeven does a great job, or should that be the special effects boys make him look good. The special effects in Hollow Man really are spectacular & more-or-less flawless, their brilliant & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There's some good horror & action set-pieces here as well even if the climatic fight is a little over-the-top. I love the effect where Kevin Bacon disappears one layer at a time complete with veins, organs & bones on full show or when the reverse happens with the Gorilla. There's a few gory moments including a rat being eaten, someone is impaled on a spike & someone has their head busted open with blood splattering results.

With a staggering budget of about $95,000,000 Hollow Man is technically faultless, I can imagine the interviews on the DVD where some special effects boffin says they mapped Bacon's entire body out right down to he last vein which they actually did because you know everyone watching would notice if one of his veins were missing or in the wrong position wouldn't they? The acting was OK, Bacon made for a good mad scientist anti-hero type guy.

Hollow Man is one of hose big budget Hollwood extravaganzas where the effects & action take center stage over any sort of meaningful story or character's but to be brutally honest sometimes we all like that in a film, well I know I do. Good solid big budget entertainment with a slightly nastier & darker streak than the usual Hollywood product, definitely worth a watch. Remember H.G. Wells' "The Invisible Man"? Well here's another movie like it, only more extreme. "Hollow Man" is like no one story about invisibility as a weapon of choice. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientific genius who goes out into the world of invisibility and making it useful for military purposes. At first making the serum was the easy part, making the person come back was not. Most of the first tries ended up unstable. Until one night, when he perfected the formula. And who else, but Caine would be the lab rat. The gorilla was the first and almost died, so when he came to, it was a close one. So when the did Caine, he decided to use it for fun. Then when he got tired of being not seen, the team tried their best to bring him back to the world of the flesh. However, the visibility formula happens to not work the way it should, and Caine would delve into madness. So he ends up being one mad invisible killer. It would be best to just get out of town instead of taking the lives of people that are close to you. I would care less about the ones who did you wrong. Great movie, plenty of fun. 3 out of 5 stars! this movie scared me so bad, i am easily scared though so its no big thing but this movie was scary and whoever wasnt scared by this movie, im surprised because everyone i know said it was scary, i hope everyone sees it, but dont see it with the lights off like i did.... HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.

Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job.

---SPOILERS---

Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*

The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5. Paul Verhoeven (genius and master film maker) strikes back with the less than perfect, yet still fun in a "dirty old man type of way," Hollow Man. The first two acts are so good that the slasher final act disappoints. Yet I am giving a recommendation to this film for it's MIND BLOWING special effects (perhaps the best so far around) and two dandy performances by the leads. Verhoeven's moral questions are of course thought provoking, and although the film turned off many, this movie is pretty soft-core for old Verhoeven.

Two major flaws: Josh Brolin (aka walking ape-man) and the whole deal with the elevator. If there was an access ladder, why were they trapped down in the lab?

A fun horror film for a Saturday night. Contains spoilers

"Hollow Man" is probably the weakest movie that Paul Verhoeven, director of great movies like "Total Recall", "Starship Troopers" and "Robocop" has ever made.

That's probably not his fault. For some reason, Verhoeven got stuck with an utterly mediocre script, and he made the best of it.

The first part of this movie is rather good, with lots of cynical jokes, great special effects and even Skunk Anansie on the soundtrack. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat in the second part, were it degenerates into a standard slasher movie or maybe a very bad "Alien" clone. The ending is especially ridiculous , as Kevin Bacon keeps coming back to life after a number of incidents that should (in the logical sense of the word) have killed him. . And the entire thing is quite shallow, indeed: the subject of becoming invisible is never fully investigated.

But all in all, Verhoeven manages to stay well above average with this movie.

**1/2 out of **** stars Okay, we've got extreme Verhoeven violence (Although not as extreme as other Verhoeven flicks), we've got plenty of sex and nudity, but something is missing...Oh, yes, it's missing the intelligence that Paul Verhoeven is known for in his sci-fi movies. I admire the way Verhoeven introduces the characters and how they have a sense of humor, but unlike most Verhoeven films, the movie itself doesn't have enough humor for it to fall into the comedy genre. The acting overall was above average compared to most slasher films.

What makes Hollow Man a good movie is not the story, not the cast or characters, but the amazing special effects work that would otherwise make a film like this impossible. The crew has truly made an invisible man, without the use of things like a floating hat suspended on piano wires and other practical effects (effects done on set). The most stunning effects scenes are not seen while Kevin Bacon is invisible, they are when Kevin Bacon is becoming invisible and visible.

The problem is that this invisible man story deserves to be more imaginitive. Here, it takes place at a lab for the most part. I would have enjoyed seeing the invisible Kevin Bacon robbing a bank and getting away with it, or let's say steal something from people's purses, or something like that. But what is shown is decent enough to make Hollow Man an entertaining movie. Grade: B Bogmeister and others have pretty much nailed this. Shore Leave is really TOS' first attempt at lightweight sci-fi (which they would later perfect with the classic Trouble with Tribbles). It gave both the crew of the Enterprise and its TV viewers a needed respite from the universe threatening consequences of, for example, The Corbomite Manouever.

Looking for a place to chill out for a while, the Enterprise happens across a seemingly idyllic M Class planet, and sends an exploratory team down to take a closer look. Soon enough all kinds of absurdities begin to take place - some seemingly perilous - but it all seems a morass of human emotional extremities played out in a weird blend of fantastic mystery (McCoy has gone through the looking glass), psychological thriller (Kirk is stalked by an indefatigable bully from his past), and romantic comedy (no comment).

TOS was the least serialized of all of the series in the Trek franchise, so it is easy to forget how many episodes in the first season focused on heavy-handed, potentially calamitous drama. Unlike later series franchise writers, TOS' production team was not afraid to literally go where no TV series had gone before. And Shore Leave, despite its occasional problems, is an example. My only criticism of this episode is that the cast (particularly Shatner - ironic given his legendary sense of humor) didn't seem to know how to handle this new wrinkle on ST's themes. The last scene is possibly one of the worst scenes I can remember from the entire TOS run - both compositionally and in terms of acting.

'nuff said. My recommendation - see it while watching the entire first season as it was meant to be seen - it order. This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff. Another episode from childhood that, as an adult, I look back on with a different perspective. This was one of my favorite childhood episodes, one that really cemented my adoration of this show. However, on viewing this episode after 20 years, I'd say it is definitely one of the lighter ones, played for laughs and amusement, instead of the dramatic and well-constructed story lines in previous episodes in this, their first and best season. Perhaps this episode was written for a little fan R&R too! As Mr. Spock would say, the story just isn't logical but there are some amusing lines like, of course, Mr. Spock's final one at the end--when he asks the Captain, McCoy et al whether they enjoyed their R&R and they answer in the affirmative, he raises an eyebrow and says "Fascinating..." in only the way Mr. Spock could do that. An interesting story line, of course, the idea of an amusement park being actually amusing (instead of the fake and often annoying "amusement" of Disneyland, for example), being able to have one's wishes actually come true. Really, a great idea but not that well executed. And coming from Theodore Sturgeon, another of the great SF short story writers they used in the first season, one wonders how much tinkering was done to the script that Sturgeon turned in.

Now, here is a little trivia I learned on this very site: In 1987, James Gunn established the Theodore Sturgeon Award for best short science fiction story. And I'll quote the rest from this site: In 1968 he {Sturgeon} wrote "The Joy Machine", a third script for the Star Trek TV series {Amok Time the other}, that was never shot. The main reason that it wasn't used in the series is that it contained expensive special effects sequences that would be too much for their budget. However, the script was adapted into a book by Sci-Fi writer James Gunn (Star Trek #80, The Original Series) and published by Pocket Books in 1996.

I'd sum this up to say this episode is still very enjoyable, especially if one doesn't think too much about it. Just laugh and enjoy it and next episode we can get back to the serious stuff of protecting the universe. "Shore Leave" is mostly an average Star Trek adventure. Nothing wrong with the episode, though. I simply think that this is not the best representation of what the show had to offer to fans. It is lightweight entertaining, nothing more. However, I'm glad to see that a TV show of this type had enough good sense to take a break from serious intergalactic conflicts. In this episode, Kirk decides to grant his crew some time off, and a landing party is beamed down to a planet that looks like the perfect place for a vacation. As usual, the planet is not as peaceful as it appears to be. There are some action and tense moments, but most of the story is played for laughs. Good, but unexceptional. Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.

Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.

The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.

7,5/10 This one's a romp; many Trek fans don't rate this as high as the well-known all-time classic episodes because it lacks the deep meaning or undertone of those really great ones, but this one is so well executed for what it is, so successful as pure entertainment, it always makes my personal list of the top half dozen episodes, no matter what mood I'm in. Several well known future movies ("Westworld") and TV shows (the more bland "Fantasy Island") took their cue from the premise of this episode (then, of course, the TNG show revamped the concept with the holodeck technology). Beautifully filmed (especially evident in the restored version and on DVD) and directed, it takes place in the nice park-like setting of a planet which the Enterprise has just arrived to. It's odd that no animal life, even insects, seems to exist here (how are flowers pollinated, for example), but things turn really odd when members of the landing party start seeing people from their past (Kirk has a people-heavy past, it turns out), as well as figures from other well-known fantasy stories. Sulu even finds an old-style police revolver (adding to his collection of swords, no doubt).

By this point in the Trek series (halfway thru the first season), the main characters had pretty much solidified into the old friends we'd come to know over the many proceeding years. Here, we get to really see them relax, converse and work together to figure out this episode's puzzle: the strong narrative is a mystery again, of sorts, and the audience is along for the ride as Kirk & friends seek to unravel a very bizarre series of events which have a decidedly amusing flavor to them. It's almost whimsical, following up on the carefree style established up on the starship as Kirk was finally maneuvered into beaming down after showing definite signs of stress and fatigue (the Enterprise had, it's suggested, just completed a harrowing mission). Then Dr. McCoy is killed by a knight on horseback; yes, this is Dr. McCoy's final episode...just kidding. But, it's no joke to the rest of the landing party at this point in the story. McCoy really is dead for all intents and purposes and, like the best Trek episodes, the 2nd half of this adventure escalates to a more frantic, more desperate tempo of action and suspense. This is all signaled by Kirk's resolute response to Sulu, who voices his lack of understanding about any of these events just after McCoy's death - Kirk will get to the bottom of all this, come what may.

But, it doesn't get much easier for Kirk: what follows is probably the longest staged mano-a-mano fight for the series as Kirk tussles with his nemesis from his academy days, a struggle that seems to take place over half the planet. Yet, this is counterbalanced by scenes of extraordinary tenderness, with another of Kirk's past acquaintances. This episode runs the gamut of all human experience, rather fitting in light of what we learn about the actual purpose of this weird planet. It's gratifying that the script really does explain all of what's happened, as opposed to some nonsensical approach which permeates many other fantasy & sci-fi series with similar plot lines (unexplained appearances by persons who could not possibly be there). And there actually is a subtext to the story - that we humans need to 'work' off our tensions and fatigue in a particular fashion, or we just don't function in a 'normal' natural way. Also, note the appearance of the very cute Yeoman Barrows and the sudden absence of Yeoman Rand, who did not return until the first Trek movie in '79. I believe that after this episode, even more Trek fans couldn't wait for the next appearance of all their favorite characters. But I leave this episode with a final, perhaps tantalizing thought: if McCoy was killed (verified by Spock), how do we know it was our real McCoy who beamed back up to the ship? Perhaps this explains why this McCoy was still inspecting starships about a century later and getting along very well with Data. I watched SHORE LEAVE the other day. I've seen it so many times, and I never get tired of it. Strangely enough, every time I watch it lately, it takes me right back to the very first time I saw it. Including this time. Must be that sense of mystery and "What IS going on here?" about it.

Oddly enough, the one part of the story that ALWAYS felt awkward and uncomfortable for me, this time, actually had a HUGE effect on me-- Ruth. I think a lot of it was Gerald Fried's score. A real masterpiece, that! The romantic section was reused-- much more extensively-- in THIS SIDE OF PARADISE. But of course, it debuted here. I get the impression that, out of all the girls Kirk knew over the years, she may have been the "sweetest". When she said, "Do you have to go?", combined with the music, I could really feel the pain she must have felt at not being able to have him stay with her.

Someone commented online that Ruth looked older than he was, yet she wasn't supposed to have aged at all in 15 years. Which makes me think... MAYBE she was one of the teachers at the academy. Kirk had an affair with an older woman! (Perhaps he thought back to this in "MIRI" when he told Janice, "I never get involved with older women." Maybe he meant, "...anymore."

Reading ST reviews the other day, I see where someone compared WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF? with I, MUDD. But it seems SHORE LEAVE oughta be in there, too. What are all those "people" if not androids? And could "The Caretaker" be related to "The Old Ones" from the earlier episode? Whoever he is, he seems to be one of the RARE cases in ST where you have a race that is actually "superior" as opposed to merely thinking they are.

Yeoman Barrows seems to be filling in for Yeoman Rand. Considering how much attention Dr. McCoy showered on her, it's just one more frustrating example of a potentially good character who appears once and then never shows up again! Sheesh.

One thing missing from the last several I've watched that snuck back in here was, Spock smiling. He was! I saw him. I really prefer knowing there's 2 sides to him going on inside all the time, rather than this "submerged" business. When he said, "Enjoy yourself, sir." near the beginning, you could see it wasn't just his addressing his superior officer, but talking to his friend. And at the end, when he needlessly says, "Totally illogical!", I can't help but think he does it purely to provoke a reaction. He may not be smiling or laughing, but I think he likes seeing his fellow crew members around him happy. Probably the most whimsical installment of the first season, 'Shore Leave' has its ups and downs; some parts drag on too long and others are unambitiously cut short, but one can't deny they threw in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink to make this an entertaining episode. Kirk and crew seem to have found the perfect planet for shore leave after an extended tour of duty has left everyone on board in need of rest, relaxation and so on. It appears for all intents and purposes to be an uninhabited Earth, with beautiful scenery and an ideal climate. The first indication that things might go just a little awry is when McCoy, leading an advance team, spots Alice (from Wonderland) following a large white rabbit wearing a vest. Kirk beams down and finds the others reporting similarly bizarre happenings and encounters. The one thing they all have in common is that each crew member was thinking about the person/place/thing they discovered right before they discovered it. This doesn't immediately sink in with Kirk or anyone else. More strangeness ensues, including sightings of Don Juan, a Siberian tiger, a WW2 fighter plane, etc; Kirk meets up with Ruth, a gorgeous old girlfriend (of course) and a bully from his Academy days, Finnegan. The chase/fight scene with Finnegan goes on too long but at the same time, McCoy is run through with a lance by a knight on horseback and apparently killed. Finally, an elderly man appears and explains what has been happening. The planet is a futuristic 'amusement park' where visitors have only to imagine something to have it appear. Nothing is permanent; McCoy isn't really dead. Once this is explained, Kirk decides to order shore leave for everyone after all. Despite the 'it was all a dream' sort of ending, 'Shore Leave' holds up as another first-rate episode of Star Trek's first season. Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.

This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.

Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.

I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.

7/10 Considering it was made on a low budget, THE DAY TIME ENDED manages to make the most of its budget with some surprisingly good special effects work.

The story involves a family who are about to move into their solar-powered home in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in southwestern California, only to find it trashed--by motorcycle vandals, they think. But their youngest daughter (Natasha Ryan) has begun to see mysterious things--a green pyramid, strange humanoid figures, etc. And only recently, the light from a trinary star explosion has caused extremely unusual auroras to show up in the desert skies. Thus the family, led by Jim Davis and Dorothy Malone, finds themselves face-to-face with strange alien forces who have put them in a time-and-space warp.

Mixing in elements of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, THE DAY TIME ENDED, despite its obvious flaws and uneven acting, remains interesting due to the superb special effects work of David Allen. The desert setting is very appropriate for this film's close encounters; and while the movie cannot really be compared with either Kubrick's or Spielberg's films, THE DAY TIME ENDED is much better than many other 2001/CLOSE ENCOUNTERS knock-offs. I give credit to director John 'Bud' Cardos, whose 1977 thriller KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS made for an interesting precursor to ARACHNOPHOBIA, for at least trying--and on that basis, I give THE DAY TIME ENDED a 7 out of 10. If you love cult 70's Sci-fi the way I do, or if you like movies such as "Repo Man" or "Buckaroo Bonzai" than you're going to love this one. It's a stream of consciousness 70's Sci-fi spectacular, including a 22nd century junkyard and the Earth a million years from now. This movie is pure 70's. Put on Steve Miller's "Fly Like An Eagle" or Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" and you're ready to go! The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick. "the day time ended" is an incredible picture. in some ways, it's better than "close encounters of the third kind." (i prefer cheesy independent flicks to big budget spectaculars.) the special effects ARE cheesy, but that's a big part of the fun. jim davis gives an excellent performance in this film. it's probably one of the best roles he ever had in a feature. the musical score is very good. the story DOESN'T make sense. BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT ALL THE MORE INTRIGUING. like many of the best works of art, "the day time ended" isn't afraid to be subtle and ambiguous. "the day time ended" may be a low budget indie film, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it with the "existential" European films of the fifties and sixties. (many of which were low budget independent productions themselves.) A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities. Three teenage girls in an incomplete triangular relation. The base of the triangle is barely there. At the apex is Marie, a serious, short and lean tomboy with a Belmondo-like facial structure. Her best friend is the physical and psychological opposite: coquette, chubby -- I dare say fat -- and desirous for her first kiss with a boy but not quite ready for her first sexual encounter. Because of her chubbiness, boys don't seem interested and it pains her.

The other leg of the apex is a beautiful "fille fatale" blonde vamp. She is deeply involved in the sport of synchronized swimming performing at competitive level. Marie sees her during a competition at the local public swimming pool. Marie insinuates herself into the life of the vamp using the desire to become a synchronized swimmer as an argument. The vamp has a reputation of being a whore, making out with any young male that orbits around her. Marie is not phased out by that reputation. Put a stress on reputation.

The first half is set up. We get to see a lot of synchronized swimming as we become familiar with the three girls. Eventually the narrative leaves synchronized swimming behind and concentrates on the topsy-turvy relations among the three. That's when unexpected things start to happen.

It is a trademark of French films to drop nuggets of wisdom on the viewer. This one is no exception. Here it is about ceilings and the dying. See the film to learn more.

The director says that the use of synchronized swimming is purposeful. That women-only sport is a metaphor for a girl's life: pretty and feminine on the surface while hard working and competitive underneath. A number of scenes drive this point: elegant moves and smiles for the public, legs kicking ungainly underwater. The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously. I saw it at Cinema MK2 Hautefeuille just one night after its first public projection in Paris. A very pretty film about three 15 years old teenagers, all of them just at about the same psychologically stages. Many of the scenes let us to come back to our adolescence age & our first feelings about sexual relations. it is possible to imagine that the director would like to reduce the first strong sensual feelings of the girls to lesbianism, but even in that case she doesn't corrupt the likelihood of the story. You can sometimes find the film a little slow but it is what creates this intimate atmosphere. I fund the young actresses of talent, special mention with Floriane and Marie, very convincing. There are many small details but this film also enabled me to discover what synchronized swimming is: impressing! Also known as "Water Lilies" this film tells the story of two girls as they struggle their way into the world of love and sex. This story is told at a slow pace and that works very well. It gives plenty of time and space to get to know the different characters and to grow somewhat attached to them.

Using a small cast puts some extra pressure on the people playing as they all have some more screen time than normal but the people playing in this film handle that well. Everyone is completely believable. Visual setting is great, especially the underwater shots in the swimming pool add a nice effect.

Many films have been made about the same subject though and this one does not really stand out above any of them. It pulls some "standard" pressure methods out of the high hat and works on them. It isn't bad, not at all, but it surely isn't great either and I do feel it could have done better if it had taken some what less explored angles.

7 out of 10 synchronous swimmers The original title means "The Birth of the Octopuses". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is "Water Lilies". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: "The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously." Thanks for your explanation.

The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.

Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of "water lilies".

Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that.

I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. – There is a parallel scene in another movie, "Kazetachi no gogo" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest.

Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this.

But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene.

Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of – I would like to quote Baudelaire, "Les amours enfantines".

Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in "The Little Devils" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) – a very underrated movie. Not everything is said in this excellent first feature from Céline Sciamma. The friendship, the "wanting to fit in", the first sexual feelings... All this and much more is sublimated through the underwater synchro swimming scenes.

All three girls in the movie try to find and express their personality in a very different way. It is a much less violent approach to the understanding of the teenage years compared to, say, "Thirteen", but a very worthwhile trip nonetheless.

A must see, and please leave all American cinematographic preconceptions at he door. The soundtrack is A+ by the way.

Bon cinéma ! The significance of French title of this film, "La Naissance des Pieuvres" which literally means "The Birth of the Octopuses", is rather obscure, so it is perhaps not surprising that it has been marketed in English-speaking countries as "Water Lilies". The "lilies" of the English title are three teenage girls, Marie, Anne and Floriane, who are members of a synchronised swimming team based in the Paris suburbs, and the film is a "coming-of-age" drama about the development of their first sexual feelings.

One feature of the film, perhaps unusual for a film of this type, is that it concentrates exclusively on relationships between the young people themselves. We see nothing of their parents or their teachers, and very little of the adult world at all. The three girls are very different in appearance, and are portrayed as being very different in character. The shy, retiring Marie is slim and petite and appears to be the youngest of the three. Anne is something of a plain Jane, Floriane a glamorous blonde who is very popular with the boys. The three, together with a handsome male swimmer named Francois, are involved in what might be described as a love-quadrilateral.

Anne has fallen in love with Francois, but he is smitten with Floriane, who seems to return his affections, although he is by no means her only male admirer. Indeed, not all of Floriane's admirers are male, because Marie has a crush on her attractive friend. The film charts the way in which their friendship develops; at first it seems that Floriane is simply using Marie as a convenient excuse when she is in fact going out to meet boys; her parents presumably object to her dating boys, but have no objection to her going out with female friends. Later, however, we realise that, despite Floriane's image as the sexy, popular girl who is always the centre of male attention, she actually reciprocates Marie's feelings. The film reverses some conventional stereotypes about sexuality. Anne, with her short hair and rather chunky figure, looks typically "butch", yet she is the only one of the three main characters who is unambiguously heterosexual, whereas the more conventionally feminine Marie and the glamorous Floriane are lesbian, or at least bisexual.

Coming-of-age films are common enough, although most of them tend to avoid the controversial topic of teenage lesbianism. "Water Lilies", however, deals with its subject-matter in a sensitive way, with three very good performances from its three leading actresses, Pauline Acquart, Adele Haenel and Louise Blachere. The relationships between the characters, especially that between Marie and Floriane, are complex, and capable of a number of interpretations. (Is Floriane, for example, simply using Marie for sex, or does she genuinely have romantic feelings for her? Could Floriane's sluttish behaviour with Francois and the other boys be just a device to hide her lesbian feelings from the outside world? Or even to hide them from herself?) This was the first film made by its young director Celine Sciamma (only 27 at the time); on this basis she must be regarded as a highly promising newcomer. 7/10 These type of movies about young teenagers struggling with their own sexuality were something unique and daring and daring a couple of years ago but more and more movies like this got made over the past few years, making it hard for the movies to still stand out really.

Also this movie received little publicity, aside from the usual little film festivals that featured this little French movie, as well as the big festivals that are always fond of these type of little movies about everyday subjects that aren't being handled too often in movies. The film premiered at Cannes in 2007 and actually won some awards there as well.

The movie doesn't really stand out from others, since it actually features little new once you've already seen some similar movies such as this one but this however really doesn't mean that "Naissance des pieuvres" is a bad one to watch. The movie is certainly a good watch, that handles its subject well and tells its story steadily and therefore also effectively, in a typical somewhat slow French cinematic pace.

It's a coming of age movie, that focus on the life of mainly 3 totally different mid-teenagers. Sexuality is a big theme within the movie, which gets handled delicately and subtle. It makes the movie and its story overall a pretty realistic one, though perhaps a bit predictable, since the movie doesn't quite offer anything original enough within its genre.

This type of French movie will probably scare off a lot of people because of the reason that they probably expect it to be very arty, with deep layers and meanings to it. "Naissance des pieuvres" however is a very accessible movie for everyone and you really don't have to be into Euro-teen movies to appreciate this movie. It's a sweet and somewhat sensual kind of movie, due to its subject and visual approach.

The movie is also being made realistic by its actors, who don't had and have a lot of experience within the movie business but are authentic looking and feeling within their roles. The strong individual characters provide the movie with some nice themes and good moments.

A good movie on its subject.

7/10 Water Lilies is a well-made first film from France about young female sexuality and friendship. Sciamma works with specialized, slightly sanitized material that is as off-putting to some as it is alluring to others. The film focuses exclusively on three middle-class teenage girls in a tidy new Paris suburb. Their lives revolve around a big indoor swimming pool where two of the three are part of a synchronized water ballet team.

Such distractions as parents, siblings, work and school have been neatly excised from the equation. The central sensibility belongs to the attractively sullen but skinny Marie (Pauline Acquart), who is not on the team, but thinks she would like to be. Marie worships Floriane (Adèle Haenel), an alluring blonde and team standout whom the boys are after. This takes Marie away from her former best friend, also a member of the water ballet team, the somewhat plump Anne (Louise Blachère). Being less special Anne is more truly accessible to the boys. Floriane, like this film, promises a bit more then she truly offers. Marie has the more essential quality for a teenage girl: she suffers inwardly. Flroiane doesn't so much suffer as jump into situations and then bolt.

Marie is dazzled by the glamor of the water ballet as well as Floriane. Floriane takes advantage of this to make Marie first her slave and a cover for her assignations, then, lacking any other friends, her confidante. All the other girls think Floriane a slut, an illusion she encourages in the men and boys she teases, because it leads them on. She suffers the pretty girl's fate of being not a person but an object, and she can't resist the validation the boys give her by wanting to kiss her and bed her, but she doesn't really care about any of them and knows her involvements with them are a trap. Enlisting Marie to act as her pal so her (unseen) mother won't know she's going out to meet boys, she also gets Marie to rescue her from the boys later. It looked the opposite at first, but Floriane needs Marie as much as Marie thinks she needs her. Anne is left with her discomfort with her body and a desire to get laid that's earthier and more real than the other girls'.

Keeping all external context at bay, Sciamma can highlight subtle shifts in the delicate equation of the three girls' goals and interactions. On the other hand the film's water madness, which includes lots of showering and spitting as well as underwater swimming shots, makes it feel completely airless at times and some of its 95 minutes do not pass so quickly. Luckily the film has a sense of humor and lets the trio sometimes forget their ever-present goals and avoidances and just do silly, pointless girl things. It's the offbeat moments that give the film life; too bad in a way that there aren't more of them. But Sciamma has the courage of her obsessions and what remains as one walks out of the theater is the personalities and their dynamics. Along the way of course it is pleasant to watch the swimming and to gaze at the girls, who understandably love to gaze at themselves.

There's no great revelation or drama on the way, but things get a bit more interesting when it emerges that Marie doesn't just admire but truly desires Floriane and is jealous of her boyfriends--whom Floriane always stops before they go all the way. In a typical irony of this kind of plot, Floriane actually decides she wants to have her first real sex with Marie--but Marie is the one who holds off, because she knows it won't have the significance to Floriane that it will have to her. When it happens, it's a timid, mechanical affair. Meanwhile Anne has a huge crush on Francois (Warren Jacquin), a male swimmer, but of course he is after Floriane. Boys are not an element that's been subtracted and there always seem to be several dozen ready at poolside or on the dance floor, but they are just bodies and faces, available studs. I saw this little Belgian gem two days after seeing 'American Teen'. Make no mistake about it, adolescence is a roller coaster ride, be it American or European. 'Naissance des Pieuvres' (or as it is being called in the U.S. 'Water Lillies')is a tale of a young 15 year old girl (played by Pauline Acquart,who at times resembles a young Scarlett Johansson)acts the cool, withdrawn girl who wants to be on the school swim team, just to be close to another attractive girl (Adele Haenel). It's more than obvious that Marie is more than attracted to Floriane. Figuring among all of this is Marie's rather plump, unattractive friend, Anne, who just wants a boyfriend like any other girl her age. Along the way,we are shown the usual array of teen pastimes (broken hearts,shop lifting,alcohol and/or drug use,casual sex,etc.). This is a quiet little film that takes time to work it's way into your system (Michael Bay fans,take note:the pacing here is s-l-o-w,so steer clear),but if you have no problem with this, Water Lillies is a charmer. No rating here,but would pull down a hard "R", due to language,nudity,adult situations. In the areas where they overlap this fine movie is light years ahead of 2004s Innocence, which gave the impression of a rheumy eye and heavy breathing ogling young girls. Here the effect is much more realistic and really gets inside the heads of the three protagonists as they fumble their way through an adolescence riddled with pitfalls. The three principals, all unknown to me give very sure-footed performances, the kind, in fact, that may be so natural that it will be difficult for them to replicate this quality of acting in other films so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are not heard from again. It would be nice if this could get away from the Art Houses and into the Multiplexes where there's just an outside chance it might 'speak' to the bubblegum crowd it isn't aimed at. It sounds as if it should be a biography of Claude Monet but it's actually a highly focused story of relationships between three adolescent girls on a French synchronized swimming team. There are no parents or teachers to speak of, no school, and boys are represented by one peripheral figure, the hunky Francois who enters the story determined from time to time and always leaves confused.

Pauline Aquart is the youngest of the three, only aspiring to join the team she so much admires. She's kind of odd looking. She's not yet out of her adolescent growth spurt and has long, bony limbs, big feet, and no derriere to speak of. She's prognathous and sports these plump pursed lips. After a while her appearance grows on you and from certain angles she can come to appear enthralling.

Adele Haenel is older -- more, well, more developed physically. What a glamorous figure she cuts in her swim suit, sauntering around, teasing the boys, swishing her long blond hair. But she's not what she seems. Or is she? I couldn't quite figure it out. The French are long on paradoxes and short on consistency. No wonder Francois is always sniffing after her.

There's not so much ambiguity in Louse Blachere's character. She's on the team too but she's dumpy and plain, and sensitive about it, and has an intense crush on Francois. Blachere is a good actress and adds to the ungainliness of the character through her performance.

The movie deals with the relationships between these three, meaning intrigues, deceptions, hidden feelings, and all the rest of what we associate with young girls who spend much time with one another. This is of course a tricky topic. It becomes trickier during the gradual development of a homoerotic relationship between Pauline and Adele. Not that you should expect this to be a soft porn movie. The only nudity we see is considerably less than a turn on, and what little sex there is under the covers, sometimes literally.

I don't think I want to get into the plot or into its analysis too much, partly because it's suggestive rather than expressed through action, partly because it's complex, and partly because I'm not sure I got it all.

Let me give an example. Okay. Adele is the girl the others envy. She's also quite distant and self satisfied. On top of that she is apparently schtupping every boy and man in sight if they can be of any use to her at all, from the handsome but dumb Francois to the bus driver she wants a favor from. She brags unashamedly about her expertise in fellatio. When Pauline approaches her about joining the swim team, Adele uses her as a lookout during assignations with the guys. A superior and self-indulgent narcissist, you know? But then the soi-disant slut takes the skinny Pauline under her wing and reveals to Pauline that she's still a virgin. Really? Yes, really. Pauline begins to draw closer to Adele and Adele finally confesses that she'd like to rid herself of her hymen and she would like Pauline to do it for her. Pauline, now drawn sexually to Adele, performs the task with subdued relish. NOW Adele would REALLY like to get it on with a man, preferably older and experienced. So she takes Pauline to a boite where she dances seductively with some guy until she follows Pauline to the powder room. The two girls stand there staring at one another, neither having overtly expressed a sexually tinged interest in the other. But Adele stands so close that Pauline slowly loosens her own reins, reaches up, and kisses Adele on the lips. Adele steps back, smiling, and says, "There now, that wasn't so bad, was it?", and then walks back into the club.

That's a pretty close description of whatever is going on between Pauline and Adele -- but what the hell IS going on? Initially, Adele treats Pauline like an irrelevant child, later like a close friend, finally like a potential lover -- and the minute Pauline responds, Adele walks off satisfied. Is she USING Pauline the way she seems to be using men? Does it satisfy Adele to know that she now has another person in involuntary servitude? I don't know.

I've slighted Louise Blachere as the third member of the trio, the plain and overripe wallflower whose expression always suggests dumbfoundedness but who at least is thoroughly heterosexual and the first of the three to rid herself of that noisome virginity, but I've only skipped her for considerations of space.

Should you see it? By all means. (Just compare it to the typical American movie about high school kids.) For men, some of whom have never penetrated the female mystique, this may give you some idea of what it looks like in medium shot. In this swimming pool, this pond, there are water lilies and there are frogs. Frogs sit on water lilies. The frog and water lily have a parasitic relationship. Marie(Pauline Acquart) is a water lily, a synchronized swimming groupie with a crush on Floraine(Adele Haenel), a frog, the captain of her team. Floraine's teammates shun their leader because the preternaturally curvy and well-proportioned blonde conveys a loose persona that betrays the syncrhronized swimmer's mindset of conformity and discipline. But Floraine has a secret; the bombshell has a bombshell, which "Naissance des pieuvres" reveals to the audience, visually, before she confides in Marie.

Floraine has never gone, as they say, all the way, with a boy.

At a party, we see a double-image of the burgeoning sex bomb checking her make-up in a bathroom mirror. "Lolita" is a fata morgana. Marie gets to know Floraine's double while her imitation breaks the water lily's heart. While the frog goes through the motions of catching flies for appearance's sake, she gets chummy with the water lily when no one's looking. In the film's most startling scene, the water lily agrees to give the frog a hand in losing her virginity through the mechanical act of oral stimulation. Floraine wants boys to like her, but she doesn't like boys, seemingly, but it's more important to the frog that she's popular. When the water lily finally kisses the frog, the frog remains a frog. The frog can't transform into a water lily, or a princess, because the water lily lost the frog's respect. After their lips unlock, Floraine tells Marie, "See, it's easy," which is the frog's way of equating their kiss with the orgasm that her friend gave her as nothing more than a rite-of-passage without any strings attached. Floraine's beauty is a burden. She carries the weight of meeting boy's expectations. Florence uses Marie to have one final fling before her fata morgana subjugates its imitation into the closet.

The other water lily, the other frog, Marie's best friend Anne(Louise Blachere) and Floraine's frustrated boy-toy Francois(Warren Jacobs), just like any water lily and frog, have a parasitic relationship, too. While Floraine uses Marie for love, Francois uses Anne for sex. But that's life; that's the treachery of growing up, in which even a friend will turn on a good friend if the opportunity to move up the food chain presents itself. At a McDonalds, the water lily chastises the other water lily after bathing extensively in the frog's afterglow. Physical beauty is a currency. Marie gets to call the shots because Anne, although far from being ugly, is overweight and has an unflattering hairdo. Anne tries to fight back by using her breasts as ample retaliation(the magnifying glass from her Happy Meal incidentally comments on Marie's flat chest), but the tadpole(Marie thinks she's better than Anne, better than a water lily) points out that her breasts are a byproduct of fat.

Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other.

Later, in the final shot, "Naissance des pieuvres" suggests that Marie has a double, too, and this symbiosis among water lilies has the potential to turn parasitic in the near-future, if it not already has. Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other in a way that no boy could match. A French film Ester Williams would love. But the synchronized swimming was only a hook for the story of three girls in a Paris exurbia finding themselves. No question where Sciamma's sympathies lie as all the boys are depicted as "animaux" but actually only the 3 girls are in focus, and for the entire time, with the few adults and the other adolescents being mostly in the background. Marie is a stick of a girl, unattractive, but determined. She wants to be a swimmer and forces herself on Floriane ( a Renascence quality beauty per one reviewer) and she is also a friend of convenience to Anna: not unattractive, but for her, the time of her body's perfection was short, and now she is an adolescent in a women's body. What ensues is a journey to self-realization without a road map but there is a glumness about the three that is un-natural: where is the gaiety and mindless chatter of youth? While the dénouement was breath taking, with Floriane's self-absorption beautifully portrayed, as well as the equally beautiful union of Marie and Anne, it all seemed abstract, Sciamma's puppets. This movie should be required viewing for all librarians or would-be librarians. All of the best lines are directly related to librarianship. The public library vs. academic library argument is a classic argument waged among librarians and library school students. It also breaks many librarian stereotypes. Librarians might even be capable of having fun -- even if they don't *usually* have sex in the romance languages section! (The best movie about librarians? Desk Set, with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, of course.) "Party Girl" capitalizes on the tremendous charm of Parker Posey. In fact, at times, the movie seems to be a vehicle in which Ms. Posey is allow to play herself, as she normally is in real life.

The film, directed by Daisy Von Scherler Mayer, is a treat for Ms. Posey's fans. Ms. Von Scherler Mayer takes us on a wild trip into lower Manhattan to show us this aimless soul whose life is dedicated to have fun in the different clubs she constantly frequents. This is an era that still was more naive than what that area and the adjacent Meat Market districts became. At least, there are no pretensions in the films and we see down to earth people going about their lives in a normal way, if we can call it that way.

Parker Posey makes an amazing Mary. It's because of Parker Posey we enjoy the movie more than if another actress would have played Mary. She is the whole picture. The rest of the cast is good. This film is a delightful, light hearted look at both sides of where the "club kid" rave scene blends with the New York art, music and performance art worlds (with a cameo by the omnipresent Miss Bunny). This is "Torch Song Trilogy" for the perky-post-teen girls. "That Girl" for our disaffected, affected millennium times.

The dialogue is fast and funny, and Parker Posey's costumer deserves - if not an academy award, at least - a stadium "wave" of kudos.

Of course, this film rests on the very stylish platform heels of Miss Posey, and she is perfectly cast. Like a lot of her acting work, it may not be very deep, it is often self-referential and, well, posey... but it all WORKS. She is a talented comedienne, an incredible entertainer, and this film entertains, she carries it on her shoulders like a faux leopard wrap, and never lets it drop to the floor.

Mary is a superficial party fashionista who isn't above stealing designer clothing from a friend's closet or making out with someone else's boyfriend. On a deeper level, this is a story of a girl and her friends who are care-less in every sense of the word, including about other people; and the process of learning that caring is necessary to life.

The script is beautifully crafted, witty, and the only performance that disappoints is the Aunt, in a role that was much too one-dimensional and heavy handed; a more nuanced performance from her, would have deepened the relationship between the two... but... hey... this is comedy. A surprisingly deep role, that gives this film some substance and world vision, is the fallafel selling boyfriend. We should all be so lucky... is he the one for Mary? or the one that gets away?

I rate this as a 8 because it isn't a great moment of film history, it is not a classic, and it is not great art (all of which get deeper and richer on re-viewing). Like "Desperately Seeking Susan" it represents something very true about it's time period, but may become irrelevant with time. Still, it has everything an entertaining film needs, and is worth viewing several times for the clothes alone! I remember seeing this years ago when it first came out and I was floored by Parker Posey's performance. And the movie was pretty good also. For anyone who's spent a little too much time in the nightclub/after-hours scene, this movie will have a special charm for you. Not too serious, mostly funny, and Parker Posey definitely blazes her talented way through this indie gem.

I especially liked the Diaz character (reminded me of every single struggling DJ I've ever known). And many other movies could take a cue from this movie on how to preach the virtue of responsibility without being boring and bland about it.

Babaganoosh! I loved this movie, and I am one of the older people who is not supposed to enjoy it, or so it seems. No, this movie is not deep -- who cares? These kinds of movies never are. But strangely, there is a message in it. It's that we each have the potential to be whatever we want to be.

Parker Posey is great in this movie. I've always thought that she bears some resemblance facially to Katharine Hepburn. So, it's great to see that both Hepburn and Posey made movies about librarians (Hepburn's is The Desk Set). All librarians, especially those with a sense of humor, should see Party Girl.

I gave this movie an 8. It is not by any means a great film by cinematic standards, although there are some nice shots in it. But it is incredibly charming and entertaining. Okay. This has been a favourite since I was 14. Granted, I don't watch it multiple times a year anymore, but... This is not a movie for an older generation who want a deeper meaning or some brilliant message. This movie is FUN. It's pretty dated, almost passe, but Parker Posey is so brilliant that it's unbelievable. If you want to be charmed by a 90's Breakfast at Tiffany's, attended 90's raves, or love Parker, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother. This movie was such a blast! It has that feel-good, yet totally in your face attitude that draws me to a movie. It has a good message (party girl decides she needs a real job) yet she doesn't completely lose all sense of fun. I recommend this movie for anyone who needs some humor, but is also a thinker! :) am i the only one who saw the connection between the discussion of camus 'the myth of sisyphus' and mary's life? in camus version a man is condemned to spend his eternity with a giant boulder that he must roll up a hill. unfortunately every time he reaches the top the boulder slips and ends up back at the bottom for him to start. there may have been a buzzard pecking at his eyes, i'm not sure right now. in the movie mary spends her life struggling to get her life together, unfortunately every time she gains any footing she falls and loses everything. case in point would be the party she throws where she gets intoxicated, offends her falafel lover, and is practically attacked by liev schrieber. in case you question this theory, note how this scene ends with her attempting to climb a flight of stars while books fall from nowhere impeding her progress until ultimately she passes out. the next morning when she awakens she is still on the stairs, never having reached the top. He-he-hello!! This is a really fun movie. Basically, in Party Girl, you have your fun-lovin', independent, early 90's New Yorker chick. Along with her party friends, she meets a mature Turkish Vendor. It is a comming of age story for those new adults who are searching for what they want to do. It is comforting to see a female slacker develop into a mature woman. Hope is given to all of us slackers who might feel like their only skills are being able to maintain while hammered and a nack for throwing good parties.

On a side note, Parker Posey makes this movie great. I have never been a great fan of her, but this movie makes me just want to watch all of her movies. There are subtle manerisms that perfected her character. If you want good laughs and a fun time, make sure to watch this movie. Repeated viewings are a must. I remember Parker Posey on "As The World Turns" before she became the Queen of the Independent movies. In this film, Posey shows her potential as a top fledged actress. In this film with supporting cast that includes Omar Townsend as Moustafa, a Lebanese immigrant who works as a falafel salesman on the street, who aspires to become a teacher. The supporting cast features a wonderful actress who plays her godmother and only family relative as Judy, the librarian who is old fashioned, dedicated and menopausal. Posey as Mary learns that she has to grow up and mature. Losing her librarian clerk position makes her realize how much she misses it as a place in her life. Mary's life is surrounded by friends in the Lower East Side Village of New York City before it became gentrified with yuppies. This film is quite good for an independent and I have come to enjoy Parker Posey as Mary as well as other characters in other films. A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie "Clockwatchers" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy! Myself and my groovadelic 20-something pals just can't get enough of this awesome Parker Posey CLASSIC! I tried renting this on DVD, but can't seem to find it - too bad, as I'm sure the features would be "extra special" !! :) We all highly recommend this uber-cool comedy flickerino for a date, or even just a cozy night home alone! This would also be the purr-fect type of movie to watch with your cat, or even throw a party based on, like a "Party Girl" party, just like the one in the movie that the lovable, huggable, squeezable Parker Posey goes to at the end. Oh, and be on the lookout for a gripping and HILARIOUS surprise ending... move aside, The Sixth Sense, you've just been outdone by a way radder movie! Sorry, no offense, just calling it like it is! Take it from an old flick lover, comedy just doesn't get better than "Party Girl" with Parker P! Feel it! Yours, Ronald Marie MacDougall (aka DJ Cyber-Rap) This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see! This is one of may all-time favourite films. Parker Posey's character is over-the-top entertaining, and the librarian motif won't be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the books and stacks world.

If you're a library student, RENT THIS. Then buy the poster and hang it on your wall. The soundtrack is highly recommendable too. I've shown this film to more library friends than any other -- they all fall in love with it. I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better. Season after season, the players or characters in this show appear to be people who you'd absolutely love to hate. Is this show rigged to be that or were they chosen for the same? Each episode vilifies one single person specifically and he ends up getting killed off. You enjoy seeing them get screwed although its totally wrong and sick. You enjoy seeing them screwing others, getting screwed themselves, playing dirty, getting it back, escaping and finally getting kicked out by Trump. The amount of tears also seems to be increasing by the season.

The rewards which attempt to compensate for past humiliation and suffering are also heavily reduced. In the newer seasons, its like "You get to meet xyx who'll lecture you about uvw"..like who freaking cares? The characters are so hateable, collectively and individually, that you wonder if they're paid actors? The only sane one gets to win.

Watch with caution and maintain a conscience. Those are your fellow human beings in the firing line. Wow what an episode! After last week seeing Mellisa constantly making cameos about the friendship of Annie and Brandi I almost puked. But that was nothing until seeing Mellisa's tirade after being fired. Seeing her hobble around on her cast spewing out obscenities and screaming for someone to get her purse was absolutely the most hilarious thing ever on reality TV. She continued to scream at people off set to get her clothes "all of them" like someone else would wear one of her hideous outfits. Mellisa you are like 40 years old and you still throw temper tantrums? Then Joan starts calling Annie and Brandie every name in the book, and gets up and quits the show! Both Rivers are spoiled brats who were only left on the show this long to keep ratings up. Mellisa crying and refusing to do an exit interview, just proves to America what everyone thought, you are a spoiled baby. WAH WAH I can't get my way! I love how Annie told the cameras she could manipulate Mellisa to think her way, and then did exactly that. Mellisa is by far the smartest contestant and clearly deserves to win the whole game. I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.

The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.

In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST. The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.

Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.

The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.

The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.

The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.

The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team.

My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?

The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence. For people interested in business and the corporate world, this show is simply the best of the best. As one of the former contestants of the show wrote in his blog about this innovative show: People in business finally had an audience. The whole idea is perfect; having a group of businesspeople competing against each other in business-related tasks, set in the best place in the world, New York City. Donald Trump is perfect as the boss, even though his ego is bigger than the whole universe times infinity. He also makes a lot of questionable decisions about whom to fire, which is one of the negatives about the show.

Season 1: Great season overall, the best season of the "normal" ones. This season was the one that was most about actual business skills. Later on the series almost drowned in marketing related tasks with way too many product placements. Great and interesting contestants overall, with the most likable character ever in this series: Troy. I know I'm not the only person who suspect that the Trump World Tower-episode where he got fired was rigged to have Amy and Nick win this particular task.

Season 2: Also a great season. The tasks were still pretty much OK, and it had many interesting contestants. Jen M was terrible and should never had made it to the final, IMO. Also, this season had the worst firing ever (Pamela).

Season 3: Terrible. Actually, I liked the concept of book smarts vs. street smarts, but the cast was so utterly terrible (it turned out that Trump hated the cast as well) that the whole season was a total disaster. Best moments was the second episode (motel renovation), with PM Brian fired, a guy who added nothing but huge amounts of comedy value.

Season 4: An excellent season, much because of the interesting and entertaining contestants this season (especially Randall, Alla, Marcus and the total disaster whose name was Toral). The "Take me out to the Boardroom" episode is one of the absolute classics of this show, ending with the well-remembered quadruple firing. Sadly, I think we got robbed for the Randall vs. Alla final. I think Trump was afraid that she could have won, and prevented that from happening.

Season 5: A boring season with really no special things to it. Brent was just an embarrassment and obviously only there to create drama. The tasks were terrible overall (how has creating a jingle anything to do with business at all?). I guess the best man won, but personally I couldn't care less.

Season 6: I can see why they wanted to try out L.A. as a new location for the show, but looking back it was a mistake. New York will always be the place for this. This season added so many new things, most of them terrible (like losing team having to sleep outside in tents, winning PM continues to be PM ,for example). The tasks were terrible and Trump also chose the wrong winner. James deserved it, no doubt.

Season 7: Celebrity edition. Best season ever. Totally different rules (like the use of rolodexes), but all fun and entertainment. The biggest problem was that many of the contestants were not real celebrities at all, especially the women where everyone were unknown to me except for Omarosa, who is a total disgrace to everything she takes part in. This looked to be Gene Simmon's season, but after he made a complete fool of himself during the Kodak task , another man emerged from the shadows: Piers Morgan. Never has anyone dominated a season like he did. He crushed his opponents and also came across as a guy with a great sense of humor (although some uptight Americans (not all Americans, of course, don't take me wrong) sadly didn't have the social skills to understand it). WAY TO GO PIERS!!

For fans of this i highly recommend the UK version starring Sir Alan Sugar as the boss. In fact, the British version is way better, and that says something since the American (and original) truly is a great show. One thing about the UK version is that the contestants normally tend to behave like decent human beings in the boardroom, unlike the constant yelling and rude behavior that takes place in the US version. The cast is different and now they took a different approach we have the street smart team "Networth" vs . the supposed professional team "Magna" but boy if you think the street smart team would have trouble you'd be right. While the Magna team has struggled at times, the street team has simply disintegrated week after week.

First some things to reiterate as far as the "Apprentice 3" first of it continues the same absurd mentality (from Trump) and the game in this series: if your a good project manager, but you lose, the team will turn on you and you will be fired, despite the fact that your backstabbing teammates are often the ones who do half ass jobs. Simply absurd, that a game show that claims to hire the best candidate actually "weeds" out the best while the dysfunctional candidates stab each other until one is left and that person is the best . lol

Anyone this season, weve seen a total of cursing, backstabbing and even gay offensive stereotypes carried out as teams try to do campaigns.

The list of victims so far Cast Tara Dowdell , Audrey Evans , Danny Kastner those three are the only that I feel were unfairly fired by Trump, the rest really had it coming as they only incited conflict, anger and suffering. It's just amazing as one candidate Audrey Evans said as how she who did a good job was fired and how some of her worthless teammates are still in the game.

Yes its the game, it's "The Apprentice" where manipulation, backstabbing, and always popular "everyone gang up on the project manager" mentality rules.

It has been an entertaining ride, though, the candidates are given a wide array of assignments from photo shoots to the construction of mini golf courses, to building of new apartments.

Still though it's still the "Apprentice" though so all you can do basically is laugh the whole time as the insanity and chaos insues until lucky person is the winner. Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,"Murder My Sweet",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films. Vivacious & irrepressible, ANNE OF GREEN GABLES brings unlooked-for happiness into the lives of a lonely old sister & brother on Prince Edward Island.

Lucy Maud Montgomery's well-loved novel comes to life in this wonderful little movie. Excellent production values, a literate script and first class performances gives the story exactly the touch of quality it deserves.

Taking her professional name from the character she portrayed, actress Anne Shirley is a joy as the red-headed fourteen-year-old orphan who completely alters the lives of her new guardians. Completely assured in her starring role, Miss Shirley is a delight, entertaining the viewer with Anne's boundless imagination, quick temper and not-so-secret sorrows.

Playing the stern spinster who gives the girl a home, Helen Westley also completely commands her role; the viewer will enjoy seeing this sharp-tongued woman slowly unbend to Anne's affection and child-like innocence. Australian character actor O. P. Heggie gives one of his finest performances as Westley's shy, gentle brother who welcomes Anne into his heart from the moment he arrives to fetch her from the railroad station.

Tom Brown most agreeably plays the schoolboy who quickly grabs Anne's attention. Sara Haden is appropriately prickly as a nosy neighbor. Charley Grapewin makes the most of his few moments as Avonlea's doctor. In "Anne of Green Gables" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of "Alice" shorts who later would adopt her character's name).

Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.

In fact Anne is the original "Teenage Drama Queen" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists.

Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: "If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard.

Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.

Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in "Three on a Match" (1932) and a "flower girl" in both "This Side of Heaven" and "The Key" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the "stolen" brooch, the "red hair" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry. Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.

This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it. Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.

As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor. When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.

Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors – actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.

Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere – such as that of Stanley Kubrick.

Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.

A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his "Iconoclasts" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.

One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers. Prolific and highly influential filmmaker Martin Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to three different types of directors: the director as an illusionist: D.W. Griffith or F. W. Murnau, who created new editing techniques among other changes that made the appearance of sound and color later step forward; the director as a smuggler: filmmakers such as Douglas Sirk, Samuel Fuller, and mostly Vincente Minnelli, directors who used to disguise rebellious messages in their films; and the director as iconoclast: those filmmakers attacking civil observations and social hang-ups like Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, Charles Chaplin, Nicholas Ray, Stanley Kubrick, and Arthur Penn.

He shows us how the old studio system in Hollywood was, though oppressive, the way in which film directors found themselves progressing the medium because of how they were bound by political and financial limitations. During his clips from the movies he shows us, we not only discover films we've never seen before that pique our interest but we also are made to see what he sees. He evaluate his stylistic sensibilities along with the directors of the sequences themselves.

The idea of a film canon has been reputed as snobbish, hence some movie fans and critics favor to just make "lists." However, canon merely denotes "the best" and supporters of film canon argue that it is a valuable activity to identify and experience a select compilation of the "best" films, a lot like a greatest hits tape, if just as a beginning direction for film students. All in all, one's experience has shown that all writing about film, including reviews, function to construct a film canon. Some film canons can definitely be elitist, but others can be "populist." As an example, the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 Movies list includes many films included on several "elitist" film canons but also features recent Hollywood blockbusters at which many film "elitists" scoff, like The Dark Knight, which presently mingles in the top ten amidst the first two Godfather films, Schindler's List and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the fluctuation of similar productions further down such as Iron Man, Sin City, Die Hard, The Terminator and Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Writer Scorsese's Taxi Driver Paul Schrader has straightforwardly referred to his canon as "elitist" and contends that this is positive.

Scorsese is never particularly vocal at all about his social and political ideologies, but when we see this intense and admittedly obsessive history lesson on the birth and growth of American cinema in both ideological realms, we see that there is really no particular virtue in either elitism or populism. Elitism concentrates all attention, recognition and thus power on those deemed outstanding. That discrimination could easily lead to self-indulgence much in the vein of the condescending work of Jean-Luc Godard or the overrationalization of the production practices of a filmmaker like Michael Haneke. Yet populism invokes a belief of representative freedom as being only the assertion of the people's will. As has been previously asserted about the all-encompassing misconceptions the people have about cinema, populism could be the end of the potential power and impact of cinema. One can only continue seeing films, because it is a vital social and metaphysical practice. And that's what Martin Scorsese spends nearly four hours here trying to tell us, something which can't be told without being seen first-hand. Thre isn't a single Scorsese movie I'd place on a list of my favorite movies. But this is the best thing I've run through my DVD player in about five years. Scorsese's patient elucidation of favorite film moments, and how Hollywood works is incredibly gracious, calm and intelligent.

It's 3 DVD-sides worth of material. It would have to be a British production, since everything about American corporate culture would have trampled the quiet, methodical, no frills, put-the-focus-on-the-content approach that is taken here. And an American production would have demanded he say he liked only movies that were popular favorites. I wish everyone took a page from his love of movies. You should love the movies you do for personal, idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Not just more "Me-too" votes for The Godfather, etc.. People have no clue what ideas are being explored in their favorite movies. If they did, movies would be more interesting than they are. Scorsese DOES know what ideas are being explored, and that makes him a compelling, involved speaker on the topic. I really appreciate his articulate, generous interviews over the last decade.

On a negative note, Scorsese is best when he's excited to show you some obscure movie, rather than when he's didactically teaching you something well-established about film history. And I do wish he pluck those three hairs out of the bridge of his nose. It's very distracting. An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work. I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie. This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars.

It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out.

The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.

The songs of the film are great. My favourites are "Chori Chori Chupke Chupke", Dekhne Walon Ne", "Deewana Hai Yeh Mann" and "Mehndi". The song "Mehndi" is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10! The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer! ......... and you get Chori Chori Chupke Chupke. Don't get me wrong, this movie is much less explicit (or not even) than Pretty Woman, but it (was) a new topic for Bollywood. The topic was accepted but it is far from Jism, Murder, and Julie. To tell you the truth, the topic is presented in a very clean manner. But the plot has it's number of clichés. The beginning of the movie is presented in a very "filmi" way. There are some very little plot holes. The movie picks up once Rani has her miscarriage where you feel that you are watching something other than a typical movie. Otherwise the whole family sequence felt overdone in the beginning. The acting couldn't have been any better. Salman Khan sometimes impresses, and sometimes lets you down. Over here he gave one of the best performances. On top of that his role is written so well, that you applaud every time he solves a problem. Rani Mukherjee was adequate. Throughout the movie, you feel for her character the most, but she is overshadowed by Preity Zinta. Preity Zinta is picture perfect. Out of the three, she gives everyone a run for their money. Its surprising how she can be just as convincing when she is innocent. And trust me, Madhubala is far from your girl next door. This role is one of the reasons why I rate her high. The supporting cast are like the family you see in HAHK, where they have no significance to the plot yet I found them tolerable here. The songs are pretty nice. The title song is my favorite of them all along with Dil Tera Mera Dil (Hearts). Mehndi Mehndi (Henna) and Dekhne Walon Ne (Look at the World's Sight) are two song that fit the film perfectly. Preity's cabaret number, Diwani Diwani (Crazy), could've been shortened while No. 1 Punjabi came across boring though it had good dancing. Otherwise the movie is definitely worth a watch. This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?

The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.

Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.

The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.

The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.

7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity! After a love triangle story in Har Dil Jo Pyaar Karega these 3 stars were again chosen in this controversial flick. The film would have been considered as hit if there was not a controversy with the production values from Bharat Shah. Here director duo Abbas-Mustan did a very different and unique job as compared with their previous and after directorial ventures. They are considered as thriller makers of Bollywood. But in this CCCC they proved that they can equally handle to make a romantic family drama. Hardly there is a single action scene when Preity was being raped by Salman's colleague in her apartment, Salman slapped him.

The movie has almost all the standards and ingredients like song, story, casting, performances etc. which are required to make a movie hit. But of course for Salman's fan this was something a surprise gift from him. Why? Because for so long he has been doing roles where he has a scene to show his open body and dance la-la-la all around. His role as a rich young businessman who has no-nonsense nature and of normal attitude is really impressive. After all Madhubala, a prostitute role performed by Preity is amazing. Later when she too turns out thoughtful about her life she deserve proper attention. Her facial expressions and body language become more attractive, and focus mainly goes to her. Her previous role as a pregnant woman in Kya Kehna was not that heart-touching as it is here. Of course, this can be termed as improvement. Then Priya, a very innocent and helpless wife of Raj who only depends on him for a better result. She has nothing powerful influence in the story as the main ingredients are in the hands of Preity.

Finally, the main point of the story which is something rare and unique in itself. In real world of this age it is not totally impossible to happen such step of searching for a surrogate mother. Perhaps, many are happening in this large world where these are kept secret. And in this way the scriptwriter of CCCC has uncovered a hidden truth which is taking place in others daily lives. But still then it is a doubt. This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10 I love this movie very much i watched it over and over. I don't see why anyone would think this movie wasn't good. Maybe you have seen better or whatever it is i personally love it. It is one of my favorite movies and I am not Hindi at all but i do love it. It might be a little like "Pretty Woman" but i haven't seen that and I don't think it's any better than this. I don't know why you are all trashing about it but maybe you have a good reason but I think i have said it enough but i absolutely love this movie, and to those who say it's not good at all well then I wonder why you watched it and what movies you consider good. As for everyone else that i watched it with they enjoyed it too so it surprises me that this many people don't like it. As for Rani Mukherjee ( i think thats how you spell her last name) she is very beautiful and my favorite actress ever! In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduíno Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambás, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhães). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him.

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nélson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhães is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Zé Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasília (Festival de Brazília do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Régis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of São Paulo (Associação Paulista dos Críticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhães) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman") I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.

A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.

I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries. How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for. I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.

This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.

One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.

What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.

The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans? Without "mental anachronism", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the "disenchantment of the world". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of "primitive thought". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance. How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for. I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.

The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.

Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)

I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.

The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.

Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.

The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.

The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.

This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.

Go see it, if you get the chance. You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.

One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.

What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.

For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.

Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.

Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).

And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant. A best-selling book about honour killings in Jordan is withdrawn by its publishers after allegations surface that the story has been fabricated; associated with other allegations of its author's past as a con-woman. A few years later, she resurfaces, conceding that she took a certain amount of dramatic licence but willing to cooperate with a film-maker to prove the substance of her allegations. What follows is a fascinating insight into a pathological personality, someone who's behaviour on one had makes no sense unless what she is saying is true, yet who is seemingly incapable of saying anything that is not astonishingly dramatic but unproven at best and most often, verifiably false. It's almost impossible to imagine what Ms. Khouri hoped to gain by appearing in this film: vindication? celebrity? - all she does achieve is to project a certain image of herself as a deeply damaged individual, and even that cannot be taken at face value. Director Anna Broinowski appears increasingly on camera as her film progresses, and increasingly exasperated to boot; but she is finally rewarded with a remarkable, although scary and disturbing, tale to tell - and one of those films that reminds us what a thoroughly weird world it is we live in. What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.

The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.

But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing. Beat a path to this important documentary that looks like an attractive feature. Forbidden Lie$(2007) is simply a better (cinematic) version of Norma Khouri's book Forbidden Love, and THAT was a best-seller. An onion-peeling of literary fraud and of a pretty woman, Lie$ is the very best in editorialised reality TV.

Cleverly edited and colourful, Broinowski's storytelling is chaptered by moving silhouettes of Norma Khouri meaningfully blowing smoke. I disagree (with Variety) that it's overlong; instead my one slight problem was with the episodic nature of its key players commenting on others' just-recorded testimonials. On a single watching your sense of narrative becomes mired.....so I watched it twice.

This Oscar-worthy effort is at once genuinely funny, upsetting, and totally engrossing as it documents one lie after another. The apparent con unfolded in the Australian State of Queensland via very personal swindles of Khouri's friends and fans(!). Clearly these friends are now "turned", the funniest on-camera line belonging to Khouri's QLD neighbour Rachel Richardson who speaks her disillusionment in flat, no-nonsense colloquialisms: "I think it's a load of sh!t. Personally".

We need to learn from their experience, hence my belief in spoilers. Any perennial lie-spinner caught out in a lie will just say anything to buy time to tell another lie.

There's some breathtaking footage of Khouri cackling derisively at duping this very documentarian, who instead presses her (con)"Artist" repeatedly for corroboration.

Since being busted by Sydney Morning Herald journalists Caroline Overington and David Knox a year after publication, Khouri has been on the run, but was tempted back to the director to supposedly clear her name. She absconded supposedly because a) she's either terrified of her sly, more-Italian-sounding-than-Greek husband, or b) because she needed her passport/visas to clear her name.

Unlikely.

A more plausible reason was that the FBI regained her trail in Queensland before she again skipped overseas (one guess: No, not Jordan). According to a closing card, Khouri is "still under investigation by the FBI" in 2007.

I guessed audiences might just give Khouri the benefit of the doubt once she invoked the need for utmost secrecy and subterfuge. Instead, the audiences I sat with slowly became just as disillusioned as the duped people on the screen. Once they caught on, there was plenty counter-derision and catcalls; earlier, stressed sighs had emanated from audiencemembers who just didn't know how to take Khouri's evolving contradictions.

The filmmaker gets props for so beautifully spanning this convoluted tale from beginning to end, not leaving anything out--not even her own self-sacrifice.

Anna opens her film with a sympathetic book narration by Khouri herself. The putated reason for authoring it is retold very believably at first--key to how a lifelong liar operates: in half-truths. Khouri is nevertheless a very pretty and smart 35yr-old with rather disarming charm, and surprisingly, worked-out biceps.

Gradually we're introduced to less-and-less-adulating Aussie journos, publishers and fans who at first bought the extent of Khouri's honour-killing accusations hook, line and sinker. Later we see their more rueful reactions, quite self-controlled and matter-of-fact, if some perhaps a little bitter.

It was Jordanian (anti-)honour-killing activists who took deepest umbrage at Khouri's fallacies because its pot-stirring forced them to reduce the pace of change. Honour-killings do happen in Jordan; it's just their prevalence that's at odds with Khouri's book--plus 72 other "facts". In 2003 these activists faxed (Australian) Random House with 73 painstakingly-checked objections.

The publishing houses across 4 continents who'd jumped at the chance to publish first-time author Khouri never tried to check any facts. Leaving any corroborration to a disclaimer in their author contract, they too were fair game. So a massive hot-topic fraud was as easy to perpetrate upon the world as typing it up in Internet cafes.

Later still we're shocked to discover that the "factual errors" extend to Khouri's bio as well. For one thing, she's not only not a 35yr-old virgin (her defence is that she merely didn't disabuse people of their assumptions), but she has a slickster husband and 2 teenagers! Sometimes she's just too fast-talking in her American accent. She also seems too-comfortable with cellphone technology and Western clothes. I realise observations like these might sound prejudicial to the very Jordanian women who don't need any Western paternalism from me, but when even cultural cues don't jibe in addition to Khouri's "facts", you've got to start questioning your source.

At some point the filmmaker came to the same conclusion. She makes an admirable effort to hold Khouri to account, in person, in Jordan. The last third is consumed with a fact-finding trip back to Amman, where one "fact" after another falls. Eventually Broinowski forces her (con)"Artist" to admit the decade-discrepancy in her story, and it's after this that Khouri records her derisive secret confession into her own digital camera. Secret, because in it Khouri's "American security guard" Jeremy is heard to have an Australian accent: he's an actor! (We never find out how Anna uncovered it.)

So this becomes the filmmaker's triumph, as she never flags in her tone or commitment. Her on-camera revelations lead her audience to learn from the mistakes of others given such a litany of reasonable doubt, FBI documents--and Khouri's most shocking initial crime.

Anna Broinowski (watch-list her now) is even clever enough to use the one artistic device (key players cross-commenting on footage) to kill two birds--making her audiences want to drink from the same well again.

In fact, despite her deceptively demure approach, she made me re-confirm that Overington and Knox really DID win their 2004 Walkleys in Investigate Journalism for their "Norma Khouri Investigation".

Broinowski MADE ME LOOK.(10/10) In the early to mid 1970's, Clifford Irving proposed to write the ultimate biography of Howard Hughes,claiming to have spent months preparing for the book,engaged in interviews with the reclusive millionaire. When all of this turned out to be false,Irving was accused of perjury & spent several years behind bars (although always admitting his findings were accurate). Flash forward to 20001,several months prior to September 11th, a book,entitled 'Forbidden Love' (published in the U.S. as 'Honor Lost:Love And Death In Modern Day Jordan') by a previously unknown author by the name of Norma Khouri,a woman from Jordan,who reported on the death by mercy killing of her best friend Dalia,due to the fact that Dalia,being from a devout Muslim background,was dating a Christian man. It,like Irving's biography on Hughes was revealed as a potential hoax. Australian film maker,Anna Broinowski attempts to delve into the quagmire that was Khouri's attempts to clear herself of the lie(s). Over the time frame of 104 minutes,the film attempts to reveal is Norma Khouri telling the truth,or is she just a compulsive liar,with an agenda/vendetta of her own?. Interview footage with those who know/knew her (including an ex husband,her publisher,and others) tell their side of the story. This is a toothsome,well produced documentary that manages to point many fingers at just as many potential guilty parties. Not rated,but contains pervasive bad language & a re-enactment of the grisly murder scene,played over a few times (but nothing nearly as graphic & disturbing as what one would see in the latest torture porn epic,such as Saw:Part 84). Not a good choice for the little ones. This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie!

I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.

The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.

I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.

This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.

The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.

JUST WATCH THIS FILM! I felt compelled to write a review for Space Cobra as it has received a good score of 7.3 stars but only a few of the reviews at the time of me writing this were particularly positive. A strange situation and hopefully my positive review will point people towards this old and mostly forgotten Anime movie. Space cobra is the funky tale of a smuggler and rogue who becomes involved with the three sisters of an ancient and dead planet and an evil force who wants to harness the planets powers. This is an old movie and the animation shows, but what it lacks in modern sophistication it makes up with an abundance of charm. Space Cobra is very much geared to a western audience and very easy to watch. There are few if any references to specific Japanese culture and great for Anime novices to watch and enjoy. Space Cobra himself is witty and likable. I cannot say how much of this is due to the English dub or the intentions of the maker, but this is one of the few Japanese comedy characters that I find truly funny. The style is very sixties Barbarellish with a fantastic soundtrack by Yello. The style is colourful and imaginative and there is constant action to move the story along. The strangest aspect of this movie is how it begins as a comedy and ends on a very downbeat dramatic note. I cannot think of another Anime or general movie that has been able to do this so seamlessly and convincingly. You barely realise that it is happening, but it is done so subtly and seems perfectly natural. You also really feel the characters went on a journey and they're lives were changed by the whole experience. Check out if you can. This anime was underrated and still is. Hardly the dorky kids movie as noted, i still come back to this 10 years after i first saw it. One of the better movies released.

The animation while not perfect is good, camera tricks give it a 3D feel and the story is still as good today even after i grew up and saw ground-breakers like Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. It has nowhere near the depth obviously but try to see it from a lighthearted view. It's a story to entertain, not to question.

Still one of my favourites I come back too when i feel like a giggle on over more lighthearted animes. Not to say its a childish movies, there are surprisingly sad moments in this and you need a sense of humour to see it all. I just finished viewing this finely conceived, and beautifully acted/directed movie. It was nip and tuck as to whether I was going to waste my time viewing a movie on the Lifetime Movie Network because of the horribly distracting commercials. Reading the earlier comments persuaded me to give it a shot. After all the worst that could happen would be that I might fall asleep during one of the boring yet lengthy bug spray ads. So why did I watch it? mainly because when IMDB gives a movie a "WEIGHTED AVERAGE" OF 5.8 WHO'S STATISTICAL AVERAGE was 7.3 It must be a sure hit.

I was totally delighted to have taken the time to view this movie, commercial pox and all. Helen Hunt continues to amaze me with her ability to take on tough roles adapting her core persona to fit each role.

The portrait she painted in this film of the tough yet perceptively human police officer was beautifully executed. When the scene calls for quick witted, timely delivered verbal intercourse, she can stand toe to toe with any actor. Yet she is adept at the delivery of volumes of emotional response without uttering a word relying only on facial expression and body language. Without the commercials, which by design kill the continuity of any good film, This would have been a real edge-of-the-seat nail-biter. I gave it a 9.0 I have seen this movie more than several times, on TV. I ALWAYS watch it again...NEVER turning the channel. This movie is full of chilling surprises, and absolutely edge-of-your-seat suspenseful, without being overbearing or stupid. Helen Hunt's talent is magnificently shown in this movie! I recommend this movie to anyone!!! When a small town is threatened by a child killer, a lady police officer goes after him by pretending to be his friend. As she becomes more and more emotionally involved with the murderer her psyche begins to take a beating causing her to lose focus on the job of catching the criminal. Not a film of high voltage excitement, but solid police work and a good depiction of the faulty mind of a psychotic loser. More TV movies ought to be made like this one. I saw it way back in '93 when it was first on TV. Helen Hunt and Steven Weber were both terrific, giving very gritty and realistic performances. Weber was especially good, turning in an exceptionally creepy and understated performance as the child molester/killer. This film really increased my respect for Hunt as an actress. The director also directed "Hoosiers," which was somehow both formulaic and exciting. But the direction in both of these works has the same stark, simple realism that is so appealing. If you like TV movies that aren't predictable and filled with overacting, see it if you can. The side story about Hunt and Fahey's affair is also appealing without detracting from the main story. Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.

Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer.

Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.

Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom "Wings", did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.

The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little. This is one of the best movies out there and that's saying a lot being that it was for television. I really wish it was on d.v.d.

Helen Hunt gave such a raw performance. She played a rookie cop thrown into serial killer case perfectly. When she falls apart because he kills another kid it was amazing. She is so alone, so he gets to her. When she talks about her mother! WOW!

Steven Weber as the serial killer was so shocking! He really brought her into his dark world. It was Oscar-worthy. When he talks about killing the kids, scary! When he realizes who she really is! What a scene!!

They really don't make them like that anymore. It was a real thriller without being gory. **SPOILERS** Highly charge police drama about a serial killer loose in and around the small town of Riverside Wisconsin. Who's being tracked down by the local police using policewoman Gina Pulasky, Helen Hunt,as an undercover decoy to catch him.

Nothing new in this made for TV movie that you haven't seen before but the depth of the acting and screenplay is unusually good and brings out a lot about not only the killer but the policewoman's, as well as her fellow policeman lover, state of mind.

Having been put under psychiatric care after shooting an armed and unstable assailant, who attacked her partner with a rifle. Officer Palusky is given the task to go undercover to get close to murder suspect Kayle Timler, Steven Webber. After he was positively identified by the little girl Sahsa, Kim Kluznick,who saw him not far from where little Timmy Curtis was found stabbed, 18 times, to death the next day.

Getting a job at the Mr. "C" Diner where Tim works Gina gets to become very friendly with him and later tells him, in order to get Tim to open up, about him possibly being the serial murderer that she once killed in a hit-and-run accident a 79 year old woman.

Tim who is said to have a genius IQ doesn't seem to pick up on Gina's attempt to trap him even when he later sees her at a bowling alley with her fellow cops spending a night out. Playing some weird cat and mouse game with her Tim at one point get's Gina, at knife point, to admit that she's wired. But Gina tells him that she was forced to do it by the police to get a break and an early release from prison. Besides Tim's instability and criminal actions we find out that Gina isn't all there as well.She seems to be suffering from her being rejected by her father who left her, with a drunk and abusing mother, as a young girl that's effecting her work as an undercover policewoman.

There's also the fact that Gina's lover policeman Will McCaid (Jeff Fahey), who's estranged from his wife and two kids, who's also on the serial murder case is too overprotective of her. That causes Gina to almost blow her cover and that has her later being taken off her assignment.

Put back on undercover duty by her boss Capt. Cheney (Dan Conway), over the objections of Officer McCaid, after another young boy, 12 year-old Davy Marish,was found murdered Gina finally get's herself together and gets Tim to admit that he's the person who's responsible for the string of murders in the area. Gina does it by having a hidden tape recorder that she replaced the one that she gave to him to show how honest she is, hidden on her.

The movie "In the Company of Darkness" wasn't really that exceptional but the acting by Helen Hunt Jeff Fahey and especially Steven Webber was. It was these high caliber performances that lifted the film well above the average made for TV movie were used to seeing. I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!! I must say that I really had no idea that I was going to sit down and watch this movie. I guess it was the fact that I had nothing better to do between class. But, for once a TV movie caught my interest. More importantly Helen Hunt caught my eye. I really wasn't a big fan of hers prior to this film. Sure I liked Twister and As Good As It Gets. But, something about this movie really did it for me. I would now see myself as a huge fan. This movie comes with high marks from...me. Give it a chance, it won't let you down. I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!! An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!) This film caught me off guard when it started out in a Cafe located in Arizona and a Richard Grieco,(Rex),"Dead Easy",'04, decides to have something to eat and gets all hot and bothered over a very hot, sexy waitress. While Rex steps out of the Cafe, he sees a State Trooper and asks him,"ARE YOU FAST?" and then all hell breaks loose in more ways than one. Nancy Allen (Maggie Hewitt),"Dressed to Kill,",'80, is a TV reporter and is always looking for a news scoop to broadcast. Maggie winds up in a hot tub and Rex comes a calling on her to tell her he wants a show down, Western style, with the local top cop in town. This is a different film, however, Nancy Allen and Richard Grieco are the only two actors who help this picture TOGETHER! Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast." Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker re-unite to play all their songs from 35 years ago when they formed a trio called "Cream." Those were the psychedelic days of England and America and these guys looked it: all skinny, very long hair, wild clothes and loud music. They played a combination of rock and blues and it was, for the most part, good stuff.

Well, these guys are now 60-something years old and they can still sing and play at a high level as this wonderful DVD concert disc shows us. I was always extremely familiar with Clapton, of course, who has never been out of the limelight, but I didn't know what to expect from Bruce and Baker, neither of whom I hadn't seen in decades. They surprised me. When he was young, Baker was so gaunt he looked like a speed freak near death. Now he looks healthy, in shape and his drum playing was solid. Bruce looked a bit haggard but his voice is great, as good as ever and a pleasure to hear on these old songs. This is just excellent material and performing from guys who know what they're doing.

Some people criticized this show for being low-key. I don't agree with that. I have no complaints. The concert sounded very good. The second song, "Spoonful," was outstanding, the highlight of the concert for me.

Highly recommended. So often a band will get together for a re-union concert only to find that they just can't get it together. Not so here. This concert is just shear brilliance from start to finish. These three musicians obviously got together beforehand and plotted and planned what was needed to ensure this was not just a nostalgic bash to satisfy someone's ego. This is obvious from the start, before they even step on stage. Many faces in the crowd weren't even born when these guys first performed. From the first song they capture that old magic that was Cream, 3 men, 3 instruments, no fuss. Clapton, by his own admission, said he had to stretch himself for this concert because there were no keyboards, synthesizers etc so we get to see him at his best. Ginger Baker demonstrates why so many drummers today, speak of him as some sort of drumming guru. Jack Bruce just great. They really managed to put together a piece of magic that will stand the test of time for many years to come. This one's a 10 for me. I've loved all of Cream's work, even as there is such a small and precious catalog of work to take hold. Even when they go for as long as twenty minutes with some of their songs (Spoonful and Toad off of Wheels of Fire are prime examples) still rock the socks off of more than half of any given rock act working today. This power to gel on stage is given one of the most anticipate rock band reunions ever with their Royal Albert Hall shows last year. They may have gotten older, as have their fans, but the energy is still there, with the great arrangements of classic blues songs as well as their own. The renditions of White Room, Badge, Politician, Spoonful, Sunshine of Your Love, not one seems to miss a beat. Clapton's solos have a formation that he sometimes doesn't have when on stage with his solo band. Ginger Baker, enough said. Jack Bruce is sturdy enough with his vocals still with a kind of power that Clapton could never get on his own. Bottom line, if you want to see what were the best shows you wish you had seen last year (well, some may have seen them), it's all on this DVD, with cool special features. I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do. I caught a bit of this concert on public television and knew I had to have it. The boys give everyone at the Royal Albert an excellent, often thrilling performance complete in every way. Pure, too - no synth, no smoke-shrouded lasers and strobes, no grandiose entrance (and an unstoned, serious, and appreciative audience, all of whom left their bottle rockets at home).

If you're a Cream fan (or if you've only heard of them); if you're a blues fan; if you're a rock 'n' roll fan; you will not be disappointed when you view and listen to this DVD. You also will never lose this DVD because you'll never lend it to anyone. (This DVD justifies selfishness! Tell them to get their own!) It's too good and too replayable; you'll want to keep it within easy reach. A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's "le feu follet" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.

The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as "our hero",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.

This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps. Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film. It is an extremely difficult film to watch, particularly as it targets the innermost core of all of our lives. But ultimately it is a very beautiful and deeply moving film. Any person who finds it cynical I have to say that they must have greatly missed the point of the film's entire message. For those who actually watch the film, they will see that the way the issues are dealt with is absolutely necessary, and the outcome is ultimately uplifting. Sure, it's very hard to watch, a difficult subject matter and even brutal. Yet it's extremely relevant to society and everybody. It shows the peak of what world cinema is doing at the moment (I will not restrict that term to just France) and everyone should try to see it. I will say that it is best to go in with a clear head without being swayed by conflicting views, and just let the film work for you. The book on which this movie is based was excellent; it took a while to come to grips with Houellebecq's unconventional style but once I understood the mood behind the writing I was completely drawn into the author's world of sadness. In fact, no other book has affected me so much. This is not necessarily a good thing - it elucidated my own personal struggle and has made the futility of my own struggle harder to accept. Houellebecq's insights are masterfully captured by Harel and the hero's apathy and indifference to a world which has rejected him is perfectly portrayed. This is a movie which reveals today's society for the lowly male in all its horror. Hopefully, things will change in the future but for the present we have to accept the rat-race as shown in this movie. It's probably best that Harel or Houellebecq do not create a work of genius like this again. One is enough for any man. Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it. This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!

He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).

Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.

Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.

Worth watching. Preston Waters, a 11 years old boy,has problems with his parents and brothers specially because of money issues. He is crazy to have his own house and his own rules,since his brothers always stole his saved money and his parents neglect his wishes. One awful day, Preston was riding his bicycle; It was the same day that the villain of the story,Quigley, was trying to scape from the Police and accidentally ran the car over Preston's bike. Needing to be far away from the police, Quigley gives in a hurry, a check to cover the damages of Preston's bike. The problem was: It was a blank check! Preston is a clever boy and decides to have a high price on that check: 1 million dollars! All that money gives Preston things that he always wished for, like a mansion with pool,lots of toys, and even a limousine! The problems start to begin when the FBI and Quigley wants to know where the money is, making Preston in a hard situation and facing many problems.

This movie was one of my favorites during my childhood. :) This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives. Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway. First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time. Preston Waters is off to a bad summer. Besides his birthday coming up, nothing else looks promising.

First he has to share his own room with his brothers who are going to run a business. They can't do it in their rooms because they don't have enough space. Off to a birthday party he only gets $6 tokens while others get $32, $35, and even $50. When one of his birthday cards comes early, he only gets a check made out for $11.

Going to the bank he learns he needs $200 at least to start an account. Leaving the bank, a bully steals the check. Pursuing after the kid nearly gets him run over (definately his bike gets ruined) by a criminal named Quigley (played by Miguel Ferrer). Quigley's just come from the bank too from giving the owner $1,000,000 to give to this guy tomorrow. Quigley starts to write a check for the damage, but only succeeds in writing his name before a police car circles the area. Afraid, he gives Preston the check, informs him to give it to his dad to finish out.

That evening though, Preston tells his dad that he doesn't want a new bike, he wants his own room back, better yet his own house. His father confines him to his room for the rest of the evening. Moping in his room Preston figures things can't get any worse he realizes that he forgot about the check as it's still in his shirt pocket. It's blank.

Using the computer and after careful consideration, he makes it out for $1,000,000. The next day, while trying to cash it at the bank he's taken to the owner who thinks he's the person he's supposed to give the $1,000,000 and does. He's not though as the real person named Juice comes in a moment later.

Now the three have to track Preston down.

Meanwhile, Preston has fun buying all sorts of stuff including his own house and even going on dates with a disguised bank lady who's really and FBI agent (who's trying to track the 3 bad guys down). He makes this person up named Mr. Macintosh who he works for and even plans a party for him on his birthday.

But eventually things catch up (the money runs out, the bad guys get him).

Overall, a pretty funny flick. Miguel Ferrer plays his role very good. If you enjoyed him in Another Stakeout, you'll love him here. He does all sorts of wicked crazy things.

Rick Ducommun (the stressed out boss from Ghost in the Machine) plays a wonderful friendly chauffeur in this movie. "Let's Bowl" started out on local television in the Twin Cities. It came on late at night, something you'd stumble across while channel surfing after your 7th bottle of Hamm's.

Even the ads were locally produced, featuring Wally outside Grumpy's Bar, holding a microphone and stammering nervously -- "Ahh...over to you, Steve Sedahl." Not sure why, but that one always made me laugh.

There was a bowling contest featured under the guise of settling a dispute between two bowlers, but the game was secondary to the commentary and clips. Sedahl played it straight, counter-balanced by Rich Kronfeld's bizarre and hilarious "Wally Hotvedt." Highlights included segments like "How to Properly Dispose of an Old Bowling Ball" (chuck them into a lake) and "Tips on Dating," where the duo "date" a couple of hookers and Wally ends with the bitter complaint, "I could have done that myself!"

Another segment -- what the duo did on their days off -- featured Steve in beer can strewn hovel, pigging out from the fridge while Wally struggled to climb the cliffs at Taylor's Falls, dressed in his tight pale blue blazer and over-sized headphones. Hilarious!

Wally's awestruck comments about "league bowlers," and his struggle to apply the correct euphemism to various splits were also highlights.

"Let's Bowl" was picked up by Comedy Central and had some good moments, but the network never really knew what to do with it, running it during prime time and emphasizing the bowling "competition," which was never the point of the show. The constant commercials interrupted the flow and the side characters (Ernie, the Pig, Butch, etc.) were more distractions than anything else. The whole thing seemed rushed and kind of forced. Even Jon Stewart dissed Let's Bowl on the Daily Show -- (not enough lame, snide jokes?) -- an ignominious treatment for a show that deserved far better.

How often does a "Let's Bowl" come along in the world of modern television, a locally flavored mix of comedic genius and total crap? The networks have the "total crap" part down cold, but it's a sad thing to watch them kill such a dark, strange, funny little gem like "Let's Bowl."

Here's hoping they'll put it out on DVD. This familiar story of an older man/younger woman is surprisingly hard-edged. Bikers, hippies, free love and jail bait mix surprisingly well in this forgotten black-and-white indie effort. Lead actress Patricia Wymer, as the titular "Candy," gives the finest performance of her career (spanning all of 3 drive-in epics). Wymer was precocious and fetching in THE YOUNG GRADUATES (1971), but gives a more serious performance in THE BABYSITTER. The occasional violence and periodic nudity are somewhat surprising, but well-handled by the director. Leads Wymer and George E. Carey sell the May/December romance believably. There are enough similarities between THE BABYSITTER and THE YOUNG GRADUATES to make one wonder if the same director helmed the latter film as well. Patricia Wymer, where are you?

Hailing from Seattle, WA, Miss Wymer had appeared as a dancer on the TV rock and roll show MALIBU U, before gracing the cover (as well as appearing in an eight-page spread) of the August, 1968 issue of "Best For Men," a tasteful adults-only magazine. She also appeared as a coven witch in the popular 1969 cult drive-in shocker THE WITCHMAKER.

THE BABYSITTER has finally made its home video debut, as part of the eight-film BCI box set DRIVE-IN CULT CLASSICS vol. 3, which is available from Amazon.com and some retail stores such as Best Buy. Frustrated middle-aged Deputy District Attorney George Maxwell (a fine performance by George E. Carey, who also produced this picture) can't stand his naggy, frigid wife Edith (a perfectly bitchy Anne Bellamy) anymore. Worse yet, poor George is further saddled with a newborn baby sun and a lascivious lesbian teenage daughter (dishy brunette Sheri Jackson). George has an adulterous fling with lovely, enticing and free-spirited swinging hippie babysitter Candy Wilson (delightfully played with sexy aplomb by yummy blonde knockout Patricia Wymer). Complications ensue when George finds himself being blackmailed by the bitter Julia Freeman (a nicely venomous turn by Kathy Williams), who wants George to spring her psychotic biker boyfriend Laurence Mackey (a frightening Robert Tessier, who sports a head full of hair here) from jail. Director Tom Laughlin (yep, the same dude who portrayed Billy Jack!) and screenwriter James McLarty cram the splendidly seamy story with a winning and highly entertaining surplus of delicious female nudity, sizzling soft-core sex, and raw violence. Moreover, they accurately peg the whole wild'n'easy uninhibited sensibility of the 60's youth culture and relate the plot in a tight 75 minute running time, thus ensuring that this movie doesn't overstay its welcome. One definite highlight occurs when Candy invites her groovy friends over the Maxwells house for an impromptu basement bash complete with pot smoking, wailing rock music, and, of course, hot naked dancing chicks. Robert O. Ragland's funky score hits the gnarly spot. Stanton Fox's stark black and white cinematography adds an extra gritty edge to the deliriously sleazy goings-on. Best of all, this flick rates as a marvelous showcase for the utterly charming and fresh-faced pixie Patricia Wymer, who positively lights up the screen with her sweet, bubbly personality and captivating beauty. A total trashy treat. I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.

This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot!

The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.

However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.

The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of "The Food," I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...

In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in "Weekend with the Babysitter." The film revolves around a man who believes that all forms of media are obsolete. The idea behind his art project is to unmask the ridiculous culture that we are bathed in. Naturally, the film takes place in Los Angeles/Orange County. He attacks stand up comics (caw, caw, caw), rock bands, models, blockbuster Hollywood films, and touches on many other mediums. Eventually, he finds himself in the sights of the weapon he has set into motion. The film is five years old and rings more true every day. It's the best description of post-punk anger I've ever seen. It's also one of my top 10 favorite films. Saw this a couple times on the Sundance Channel several years ago and received a nice cinematic jolt to the system. A semi-surreal yet hard edged take on modern media culture (or the lack of it), focusing on some seriously wacked, way-beyond-the-Hollywood-fringe dwellers. It had an amusing early performance from Mark Ruffalo, and some memorable cinematography from the DP who did the Polish Brothers movies. There was a savage umcompromising humor and a weirdly original feel to it that definitely set it apart. This film had cult classic written all over it, and I'm surprised it's not yet out on DVD.

Hopefully soon. This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo! I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog. Thankfully as a student I have been able to watch "Diagnosis Murder" for a number of years now. It is basically about a doctor who solves murders with the help of his LAPD son, a young doctor and a pathologist. DM provided 8 seasons of exceptional entertainment. What made it different from the many other cop shows and worth watching many times over was its cast and quality of writing. The main cast gave good performances and Dick Van Dyke's entertainer roots shone through with the use of magic, dance and humor. The best aspects of DM was the fast pace, witty scripts and of course the toe tapping score. Sadly it has been unfairly compared to "Murder, She Wrote". DM is far superior boasting more difficult mysteries to solve and more variety. Now it is gone TV is a worse place. Gone are the days of feelgood, family friendly cop shows. Now there is just depressing 'gritty' ones. I love this show as it action packed with adventure, love and intrigue. Well some times love! It's so good see a show where all the characters work well together and they treat each other with respect. It's also very good to se Dick Van Dyke in a television role as I have only seen him in Mary Poppins. the mixture of the main characters, Mark, Amanda, Jesse and Steve is very capturing to the audience. This is a show you have to watch! What network was , Diagnosis Murder on? I thought it was CBS. Am I right or?? Also, Back in those days, the actual production H.Q. was near about the Van Nuys Airport. I surely remember, because I practically made nearly two episodes in those daze. More. I remember the early days. I had found an article in Reader's Digest giving this actor/writer a clue to a terrific episode. So just for suggesting it I was awarded. Awarded or not, I sadly didn't develop it, and was cut out of it all due to poor publicity of mine. So as a justification I learned as I always have, the hard way... Roll the dice..Craps!!! Just a side bar on Mr. Van Dyke. He had a house in the Brentwood area on Chalon Road and it was an incredible party house. Dick had a terrific sense of modernism when he built that house. This, like Murder She Wrote, is one of those shows, that after a stressful day at school, I sit down in front of the TV, and watch. Why? Because I genuinely enjoy it, and it's a shame it's not on the air anymore. Dick Van Dyke is amazing as Dr Mark Sloan, a doctor-turned-detective, who with his son, solves murders. He is joined by a largely unknown but very competent supporting cast, namely his real-life son, Barry Van Dyke. Victoria Rowell is also good, but I noticed that every series her hairstyle changes. i also liked Scott Baio and Charlie Schlatter, but I particularly loved Michael Tucci as Norman, and was puzzled how he suddenly disappeared. This show is so entertaining,with great guest stars, it's a bit obvious at times, like Colombo, but in every episode, there is always something to chuckle about. In conclusion, a great series, with two thumbs up and a 10/10. Bethany Cox Diagnosis Murder has been shown on most Weekday afternoons on BBC1 since I used to watch it while ill from School a good 10 years ago - I know I shouldn't really enjoy it, in the same way I shouldn't enjoy 'Murder she Wrote' but I'm totally addicted to both and even have the DVD box-sets....OK I know that's sad!

Dick Van Dyke carries the show as he stars as Dr.Mark Sloan a Doctor at Community General Hospital in L.A who is also a Police consultant for the L.A.P.D. - his son Steve (Barry van Dyke - Dick's real life son) is a Police Officer, who needs his father's help on very many Suspicious deaths.

Along for the ride is Dr.Amanda Bentley (Victoria Bentley) the resident Pathologist at Community General and for the first couple of seasons you had Scott Baio playing Dr.Jack Stewart, who upped and left the series in 1995 hoping to go on to bigger and better things...he should have stayed where he was, he hasn't done anything of note since....and his only theatrical appearance for many years was in Baby Geniuses 2:Superbabies....Oh Dear!!!

anyhow Dr.Jack Stewart was replaced by the younger Dr.Jesse Travis played by Charlie Schlatter who stepped into Baio's shoes pretty comfortably.

The series is highly implausible but what Whodunit series isn't? (Murder she wrote - everywhere Jessica goes, someone ends up dead, or The underrated Father Dowling Mysteries about a Murder solving Priest with nun sidekick)

The series was much lighter up until 1997 this is because it had a supporting cast that included the bumbling Hospital Manager Norman Briggs played by Michael Tucci along with Nurse & Mark's secretary Dolores played by Delores Hall, After 1997 both these characters were no longer included and the series became a grittier affair with a bigger looking budget, some episodes included far more action, one episode the entire Hospital is blown up.

This was a family show For the Van Dyke's because as well as Dick's Son Barry, you also had Dick's Daughter And all his Grandchildren making an appearance in various episodes.

As the series went on it got a bit silly, one episode I remember Dick van Dike plays his entire family, which was a bit out of the ordinary, but on the Whole 'Diagnosis Murder' was a really good TV show which had numerous good Guest Stars.

Since this show finished in 2001, Dick & Barry have appeared together again in the 'MURDER 101' series of TV Movies made by The Hallmark Channel, pretty much following the same path, and still enjoyable. Dick who's now in his mid 80's doesn't seem to change a great deal, and looks as if he'll be working till the bitter end.

TV SHOW **** OUT OF ***** Old People Show???? I'm 15 and have been watching the show since I was 12, recoding it onto my Sky+ box everyday from Hallmark and BBC 1. I really wish they hadn't cancelled it, they didn't even get a proper farewell. But what an adventure, all those episodes, I think I've seen them all, and not one comes to mind that I didn't like and enjoy.

Its a shame the BBC keep swapping between Diagnoses Murder and 'Murder She Wrote'- Never watched it and don't intend to. Anyways, he characters in Diagnoses Murder are so in-depth, and the chemistry between the actors is amazing. It really was a sad day when they cancelled this show........ Diagnosis Murder is one of the only programs i watch regularly on TV now. The way all of the main characters have something to do in each of the episodes makes it so unlike today's shows where they concentrate on 1 or 2 people per episode and everyone else is shoved to the side. The way mark's brain works is also so obscure that you never really know what he is thinking, and if you think you do, you are wrong.

Diagnosis Murder has tackled a diverse range of topics, not just in the cases but in each of the characters personal lives. Everything from racism and adoption, to terrorists and technology.

As for it being for old people? I am 24!! I don't think i can be classed as old yet.

I just want to know when they will be releasing all 8 seasons on DVD (not NTSC) so that i can watch them all in order. They seem to be doing it with lots of other programs from the same era so can they hurry it up a bit! I'm a writer working at home and Diagnosis Murder is my lunchtime break companion - good, clean fun, good humour and nostalgia for the days of the Dick van Dyke show. How innocent we all were (and how innocent is Diagnosis Murder). I particularly enjoyed the episodes with other nostalgia figures like Joe Mannix. The bad guys always get caught, the good guys carry on. The stars clearly enjoy themselves and are having a ball without taking themselves too seriously.

One beef: why were so many of the villains women or at least bitches? Amanda was too dizzy. Its hard to imagine her really carrying out anything as gruesome as an autopsy.

I hope we haven't seen the last of Dick Van Dyke and family on our screens, esp. at lunchtimes!! Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance. Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.

As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.

And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.

Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.

It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films. Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that "Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was."

Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.

John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.

The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.

And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!

If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'. This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10. GBS wrote his own screen adaptation of this Nobel Prize winning play but didn't live to see it produced (he had won an Oscar in 1938 for his brilliant adaptation of his 1914 play PYGMALION). When Otto Preminger mounted (produced and directed) this production in 1957, seven years after Shaw's death, he had noted British author Graham Greene do the adaptation and it was a solid choice.

Taking a cue from Shaw's own screenplay, Greene uses material from the stage Epilogue to create a framing device to meld the two acts of the play (one early and one late in Joan's story) into a unified and most satisfying whole. Where on stage the shift in tone is buffered with an intermission, here it works just as well with a return to KING Charles Balois's bedchamber (where the man Joan put on the throne is dreaming of the events which led to his current situation), and more material from Shaw's Epilogue - the introduction of the shade of John Gielgud's Warwick (the English "king maker").

The majority of the language is solid GBS, and the performances from stalwart Shauvians (like Felix Aymler's Inquisitor or Harry Andrews' de Stogumber) to relative newcomers (the film established Jean Seberg's career) are first rate. It may jar some, only familiar with Richard Widmark's many movie villains, to see him playing a frail and somewhat silly Dauphin, but the performance - oddly top billed - is professional, even if arguably miscast.

The symbolism of the opening credits and the director's choice to use the visual vocabulary of black and white filming all serve Shaw and the story well. Go in expecting quality entertainment and you won't be disappointed. Horror omnibus films were popular in the seventies. I'm not very fond of them myself, but this one is an undeniably excellent slice of British horror cinema. The House That Dripped Blood is a horror omnibus, featuring four stories that surround a creepy old house in the country and are being told to a Scotland Yard officer by an estate agent.

This film is headlined by three well known stars of horror cinema; Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt, whom horror fans will recognise as one of Lee's co-stars in the greatest British horror film of all time; The Wicker Man.

The first segment of the film, titled "Method For Murder" tells the story of a horror storywriter, whose creation; a strangler named "Dominic" is brought to life by his own imagination. This story builds suspense very well; through his girlfriend, he, and the audience is lead to believe that what he is seeing is a figment of his imagination. This story certainly isn't very original, but it makes up for its lack of originality through the atmosphere it creates and it's final twist; which works incredibly well and came as a genuine surprise.

The second story, titled "Waxworks", stars Peter Cushing and is my least favourite of the four. This tale follows the story of Phillip Grayson (Cushing), a man that discovers a wax museum and decides to venture in. Inside, he discovers a woman that is familiar to him and who we later find out is a murderess. Quite what the woman's relationship with Phillip entailed is never really explained, but the tale relies more on the mystery to build the suspense rather than plot details. Cushing is later joined by his friend, Neville Rogers (played by Joss Ackland) and that's when the tale really starts to pick up. The setting of a waxwork museum full of murderers for a horror film isn't a new idea; the same setting was used to great effect in the excellent 1966 horror film, "Chamber of Horrors". Although the one here isn't as grand as the one in the aforementioned film, the power of the setting is used to no lesser a horrifying effect, much of which is achieved by a feeling of claustrophobia, brought about by the limited area of the museum. Peter Cushing is always interesting to watch, and seeing him avoid an axe-wielding madman is a treat for the horror fan. Despite being my least favourite, this story is still entertaining and interesting enough to not let this anthology down.

The film continues with "Sweets for the Sweet", which is without doubt the best of the omnibus. This story stars the legendary Christopher Lee as a seemingly overprotective father. The beauty of this story comes from the way it is played out. It leaves the audience guessing; we know that there is something wrong with either the father or the daughter, but we don't know who, or what, it is. Christopher Lee, as usual, portrays his character with a great degree of sinisterness; the audience is left to simmer over his actions regarding giving his daughter a doll, and the fact that she isn't allowed to go to school or have any toys. The card of exactly why is held close to the chest until right near the end, epitomised by the truly chilling line in which Lee tells his babysitter that he is, in fact, afraid of his daughter. The ending to this section is superbly played out, in my opinion it's one of the finest endings to any horror story ever told, and will stay with you long after the end credits roll.

The omnibus finishes with "The Cloak", which is definitely the most comedic of the four. This tale is about a hammy horror film star that, unimpressed by his latest film's technical side, goes out and buys himself a cloak. Naturally, this cloak turns out to be a real vampire cloak. Unlike the other three tales, this one seems to be played out mostly for laughs. That is no bad thing however as the majority of the humour is funny and it serves as a nice contrast to the rest of the film. The ending to this tale coincides nicely with the ending to the wraparound story of the film, which is a very sinister yet humorous ending to a very good film. Also, look out for the little jibe regarding Christopher Lee in Dracula. A nice touch, I think.

Overall, if you want a horror omnibus, you really cant go wrong with The House that Dripped Blood. The third tale alone makes the film worthy of your time and this is a very solid horror film indeed. Four tales of terror regarding the events at a creepy old mansion are recounted to sceptical Scotland Yard investigator Holloway (John Bennett) as he investigates the whereabouts of the latest occupant of the house that dripped blood.

One can only struggle to find the words to describe the true brilliance that is ‘The House That Dripped Blood'. This Seventies horror anthology is quite remarkable in the way that such a visually innocent movie is capable of inducing horror in even the most discerning of viewers. Incredibly, the number of depictions of violence on-screen can be counted on one hand but the film is still able to portray brutality and succeeds in conjuring up the most horrific images in the viewers own imagination, all the while refraining from taking the obvious route of graphic violence. In a rare feature of early Seventies horror the technicalities of the movie are virtually flawless, from the faultless performances of the star-studded cast (featuring the legendary Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt) all the way to the superb direction and story telling courtesy of Peter Duffell and master of the macabre writer Robert Bloch (the author of the novel ‘Psycho'). The only real complaints that one may have with ‘The House That Dripped Blood' are the somewhat asinine plot-twists at the end of the first two segments and the predictable ending of the picture, but even these minor details fail to detract from the overall viewing enjoyment.

The first segment, entitled ‘Method for Murder', tells the story of Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott), a horror author who rents the creepy house while he works on his latest novel. While working on the novel, Hillyer continues to start seeing the murderous character from his story in and around the house and soon begins to question the difference between fiction and reality. Elliott's performance in this piece is truly exceptional and his character is given a surprising air of believability. The key to this segment, as with the others, is the mystery surrounding the events that take place. The viewer is made to question whether the sight of the murderous character of Dominic is merely a hallucination, a schizophrenic disorder or whether the character is actually there. Duffell's direction succeeds in creating an unsettling atmosphere coupled with a slow, methodical approach to engendering the tension and suspense required to make the segment greatly enthralling.

The following segment features Peter Cushing as the new occupant of the sinister house. During a trip into town he comes across a wax museum of horrors and decides to venture in. While there, he discovers a wax model of a beautiful woman that seems all too familiar to him. Cushing's character (Philip) is then joined by his friend Neville (Joss Ackland) who also wishes to visit the museum, much to the dismay of Philip. In this segment the viewer is given no more than very subtle clues as to the mystery of the wax woman but in general the viewer is left in the dark. There is far less tension to this particular story yet the segment still succeeds in maintaining its air of mystery through a particularly harrowing dream sequence and the general ambiguity of the story. Duffell's direction is once again exceptional and while this is quite possibly the weakest of the four stories, there is no denying that through some creative direction and credible acting ‘Waxworks' is still a delightful entry into the film.

‘Waxworks' is followed by what is, in my opinion, the greatest of the four segments – ‘Sweets to the Sweet'. Christopher Lee stars as John Reid, the father to a young girl who to begin with has an inexplicable fear of fire which is soon remedied by caring nanny Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter). However, John appears to be harbouring a dark secret about the family. ‘Sweets to the Sweet' is easily the most sober and intricate of the four stories and that is why the segment is undeniably compelling to the viewer. Throughout the segment small and subtle clues are released about the truth behind the family, but it is not until the immensely horrific final scene that everything slots neatly into place. This is the best example of how Duffell used dramatic tension and suspense to create the foreboding atmosphere that made the entire film great. Accompanied by a wonderfully arranged soundtrack, ‘Sweets to the Sweet' is an exercise in sustained fear that grabs the viewer by the throat and refuses to let go until the agonising screams that end this piece finally cease. Personally, I believe that this short segment would have made an entertaining and haunting feature length movie and I would give this segment a rare 10/10.

The film is ended with the story surrounding the missing performer that the investigator was originally interested in. Jon Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt star as two performers who are currently working on a horror movie. Pertwee's character is disgusted with the amateurish production and props of the film and so he purchases his own vampire cloak from a strange shop of mysteries. However, strange things begin to happen when he wears the cloak and soon he begins to fear the worst. This segment, which places the inspector amongst the events, is a nice way to wrap up a wonderful anthology. Although there is an irrefutable air of camp to the segment this is, in a way, what makes the story so enjoyable. Unfortunately, there is little in this segment that could be classed as frightening in any sense and the predictable ending could have been executed better but nonetheless the segment has its redeeming features. Horror buffs should definitely look out for Pertwee's brief comment on Bela Lugosi's and Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula. This slightly comical and light-hearted approach to the final segment is in essence an adequate and almost natural way of ending the picture even if it lets down the film when compared to the earlier examples of suspense-driven horror.

To sum up, ‘The House That Dripped Blood' is one of the greatest horror anthologies that features an incredible cast, great stories and above par direction. There are certainly worse ways to spend one hundred minutes of your life and while blood and guts fans will be highly disappointed, fans of more tense horror efforts should enjoy this film immensely. My rating for ‘The House That Dripped Blood' – 8/10. Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.

This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound. Given how corny these movies are, you gotta figure that they must have had fun making them. The movie focuses on a house that strangely accommodates whomever lives there. The inhabitants were: author Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott (with hair!)), who gets haunted by one of his own creations; Philip Grayson (Peter Cushing), who gets a little too close to a wax statue; John Reid (Christopher Lee), whose daughter's cuteness is apparently a facade; and actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee), on the verge of getting a little too much into character.

"The House That Dripped Blood" is actually worth seeing (well duh; it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Aside from just being neat, there might be some undertones: it might be calling into question the issue of real horror vs. assumed horror. Like in "The Shining", we might ask whether the house/hotel itself holds some memory of past events. And if absolutely nothing else, Ingrid Pitt (as Paul's co-star) is HOT HOT HOT! Around the time that this came out, she also starred in "Countess Dracula" and "The Vampire Lovers" (also with Peter Cushing). Maybe she - like Barbara Steele - will remain known only as a scream queen, but mark my words: SHE IS A HOT SCREAM QUEEN! I'd like to see Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele co-star in something.

I guess that the only weird scene (so to speak) is where Denholm Elliott is wearing a pink shirt and fluffy jacket. You read that right. What kind of a name is "Denholm" anyway? Oh well. A very cool movie. THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.

I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.

I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.

The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.

The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.

The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.

The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.

The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.

The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.

The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.

I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.

Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it! From the mind of Robert Bloch, of "Psycho" fame, come four tales of twisty terror in this Amicus anthology film, which, while not quite as much fun, or scary, as I would have liked, still provides for some decent genre entertainment.

It's linked by the wrap-around story of a highly skeptical Scotland Yard detective (John Bennett) who is investigating the disappearance of a prominent actor; he's advised that this case is linked to a few others by the house in which they all took place, and our film is off and running.

"Method for Murder" has author Charles Hillyer (always delightful Denholm Elliott) haunted by his latest fictional creation, who has seemingly come to life. This sequence has some good surreal and fairly suspenseful moments, and is capped by a reasonably amusing revelation and denouement.

"Waxworks" stars horror icon Peter Cushing as retired stockbroker Philip Grayson, who, along with old friend Neville Rogers (Joss Ackland) becomes obsessed with the image of a beautiful woman found in a macabre wax museum. Most effective in this episode is the dream sequence, although it's great as always to watch Cushing. The final images presented to us in this story are pretty shocking.

"Sweets to the Sweet" features another well-loved horror star, Christopher Lee, as John Reid, who doesn't treat adorable moppet child Jane (Chloe Franks) with too much kindness, and it's up to new companion / tutor Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter) to find out why. The mystery of this particular episode is handled excellently; the film-makers wisely don't tip their hand so it comes as more of a genuine shock as we get the full truth of this unhappy family. The "dying" moments are particularly horrific.

"The Cloak" has the most outright comedy of the four; Jon Pertwee, one of many actors to have played the role of Dr. Who over the years, is a lot of fun as a vain, temperamental horror movie star (in fact, he's the highlight of this story) who, infuriated with the lack of quality in his latest low-budget film, goes out and buys his own cloak. Said cloak has strange powers, which I dare not reveal here. Sexy Ingrid Pitt is a welcome presence as Pertwees' companion; one wonderful example of the humor here is a knowing jab taken at none other than Christopher Lee!

The wrap-up story then concludes in a predictable but still effective way as Detective Inspector Holloway learns that he should have taken all of the warnings given him more seriously.

Underscored by Michael Dress's unusual, striking, and eerie score, "The House That Dripped Blood" is an entertaining mix of stories; while I don't enjoy it quite as much as, say, "Tales from the Crypt", it's still good fun. Capably directed by Peter Duffell, it moves slowly but surely towards each of its chilling conclusions, and is certainly a good film of its type.

7/10 Linking story: another first-time viewing for me and, again, this is one of the most popular of the Amicus anthologies - and it's easy to see why, though I realize how the film's rather meaningless title could be misleading for some; I certainly fancied director Peter Duffell's choice - DEATH AND THE MAIDEN (which, incidentally, is a classical piece by Schubert that is heard in the film during the Peter Cushing episode) - a great deal more. Though the linking device itself is not all that great, the episodes are all equally compelling and enjoyable. Production values come off as very respectable indeed for the budget Duffell had to work with. The latter infuses the film with a great deal of style which is not so common with this type of film and, frankly, it makes one regret the fact that he wished to distance himself from the genre (though more so as not to be typecast rather than because he felt it was beneath him).

Now to the individual stories themselves:

"Method For Murder": the opening segment does not offer any real surprises but, to make up for this, it's quietly suspenseful and appropriately creepy at times (Tom Adams' 'fictitious' villain looking like the long-lost brother of Boris Karloff from THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932]); also, it ends with a satisfactory DIABOLIQUE-type twist, and features a fairly intense role for Denholm Elliott in the lead. That's all we need out of it, really.

"Waxworks": for the second story we are introduced to a curiously romantic mood which is quite unusual for this type of film; Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland are both excellent (as well as impeccably dressed) in their roles of two jilted lovers of a woman who continues to obsess them even after such a long time, and whose friendly rivalry can only lead them blindly and inexorably to a fate that is literally worse than death; an ominous hallucination scene with Peter Cushing is quite well done in view of the limited resources at hand, and Ackland's inexplicable inability - or unwillingness - to leave town somewhat recalls the house-trapped aristocrats of Bunuel's THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962).

"Sweets To The Sweet": this is perhaps the finest episode of all - with his ambiguous role here, Christopher Lee continues to demonstrate his versatility and he is matched by an understanding Nyree Dawn Porter and the deceptive innocence of Chloe Franks (who appears as Lee's daughter). The film's treatment of the occult here is both subtle and mature, culminating in a powerful and extremely chilling 'curtain'. Trivia Note: Chloe Franks appears as a grown-up in the featurette included on the disc, and when I saw her I felt an immediate familiarity with her face but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Later, on reading her filmography, it was revealed to me that she had played one of the leads in the long-running stage adaptation of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" in London's West End, which my brother and I were fortunate enough to catch while we there on holiday in the Summer of 2002! Needless to say, we had no idea then that she had once created such a delicate - and delicious - portrayal in sheer evil, mainly by virtue of her peculiar look and a devilish smile!!

"The Cloak": a wacky but oddly reverent vampire tale (that still manages to debunk many of the myths attached to the subgenre, while inventing some new ones!) which takes in some wonderful digs at exploitation cinema and, at one point, Christopher Lee himself!; Jon Pertwee is marvelous as the campy horror star who gets more than he bargained for when he attempts to bring a measure of authenticity to his work; Ingrid Pitt sends up her image nicely though her role is somewhat subsidiary to the proceedings; Geoffrey Bayldon (made up to look like Ernest Thesiger) also has a memorably quirky bit; the 'silent-cinema' style of the ending was a pretty audacious one to pull on an audience, I suppose - and, while some of the humor comes off as heavy-handed a' la THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967) or THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973), it's also rather infectious and certainly ends the film on a high (and highly unusual) note!

Video and audio quality are relatively satisfactory, considering I had no other version to compare it with; the main culprit is some noticeable print damage but this is never so nasty as to affect one's enjoyment of the film. As for the extras, beginning with the Audio Commentary: frankly, this is one of the finest chats about a genre film that I can remember listening to; Jonathan Rigby gets to butt in with his opinion more than is usual for a moderator but his effort certainly allows director Peter Duffell to touch on every aspect of the production (whereas with some other films, you're left rather expecting there to be more!) and, as such, it's an extremely pleasant track that complements the main feature very nicely indeed. The featurette "A-Rated Horror Film" is a worthwhile effort with Peter Duffell again at center-stage but this time backed up with valid, if all-too-brief, contributions from producer Max J. Rosenberg and stars Chloe Franks, Ingrid Pitt and Geoffrey Bayldon. We also get film notes, reviews, bios and a poster/stills gallery which, again, are wonderfully assembled (with the contemporary reviews being something of a novelty - and a welcome one at that). Amicus made close to a good half dozen of these horror anthologies in the 70's, and this, from leading horror scribe Robert Bloch, is one of their best efforts. There are four stories, all worthwhile, but two -- "Sweets For The Sweet" and "Method For Murder" -- distinguish themselves as highly effective journeys into fear.

In "Sweets", Christopher Lee plays an impatient widower whose lovely daughter (Chloe Franks) becomes resentful of his neglect and brutish intolerance, so she sculpts a voodoo doll with which she expresses her distaste for his methods. Franks is a beautiful figure of mischievous evil and delivers one of the greatest child performances in a horror film since Martin Stephens in "The Innocents". This installment is directed with great subtlety and the final outrage, occurring off-screen, is a moment of purest horror.

"Method of Murder" is about a horror novelist (Denholm Elliott) who is menaced by one of his own creations, the creepy Dominic. This episode is striking for its simplicity and stark terror. Dominic may or may not be real, so director Peter Duffell has a great time playing with our expectations. The brief shots of Dominic reflected in a pond or seen as a fleeting phantasm in a meadow are truly haunting.

The original poster art, featuring a skeletal figure clasping a tray holding Peter Cushing's severed head, was a rich enticement for punters fixed on fear. Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.

Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.

The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.

Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.

The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.

Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended. This movie is another horror anthology. It is rather good, but it could have used a bit more. I compare it to "Doctor Terror's House of Horrors", though in this one the title fits. It has four stories all somewhat connected by a house. The first tale is about a writer and his wife moving in. He creates a killer for his latest novel and then he starts seeing the killer roaming around in his house. This one is sort of predictable, but it does throw a few twists in the end. The next story is a bit more unpredictable, and you really do not know where the heck it is going. This one features Peter Cushing and was probably my favorite of the bunch. This guy buys the house, but it is not the house that takes center stage, but a rather strange wax museum. The third story starts out rather good and features Christopher Lee. This one has him as a rather bizarre dad who seems awfully protective of his daughter. The problem is that once you know what is going on the story does not end soon enough. It drags a bit leading to a very predictable conclusion. Then the final tale concerns an actor buying a cloak from an odd little shop. The actor really gets what he paid for. Then there is a small story about an officer who is seen throughout trying to find out what happened to this actor and then an explanation of why these things happened. Though I was not very satisfied with the explanation as I don't think it really explained Cushing's story much at all. I think they needed a bit more back story for that one. All in all though it was an interesting set of stories. I'll admit to being biased when I reviewed this since it was my introduction to the series. I saw this film for the first time in ~2005 on the late night "Fear Friday" on AMC, which often pulls obscure gems like this out of cold storage for new generations. I made it a point to watch the entire Amicus anthology series before reviewing any of them here to make sure I had perspective. Looking back, I still rate The House That Dripped Blood as my favorite, followed closely by Tales From The Crypt and then Asylum.

I think all of the elements that make this series charming---the vintage '60s/'70s style cinematography, creepy to kooky, far-fetched tales and the utter Britishness of it all right down the backing music----came together better here than any of the others overall. The movie centers around a very old English country house and the misfortune that befalls all that dwell within.

The first story involves a horror writer and his wife, who moved into this secluded place to get a break from the city so he could concentrate on his passion. He creates a murderous character called Dominic and soon starts experiencing great difficulty telling reality from fiction. There is a subtle physchedelia here via his torment that I found amusing yet creepy. Oh and those horrible prop teeth (then again these are British actors, maybe those were REAL!!!)

The second story is the tale of a lonely old man (Peter Cushing) that has moved here to escape his loneliness, yet it only worsens as he is haunted by lost love. He seems to have found possible salvation at a local (very creepy) wax museum, but it turns out he would have been much better off alone.......

The third story includes the great Christopher Lee (my fav British horror actor) as a single father with a rather disturbed and thoroughly creepy young daughter. He is constantly wary of her getting into things she shouldn't---like witchcraft! She has a natural talent for it, with good reason. Lee is superb here as the ice cold disciplinarian, that man has a true talent for playing characters that are absolutely devoid of warmth!! But despite his best efforts, the little troublemaker does in fact learn forbidden knowledge and bad things follow......

This final story is the tale of a cynical old veteran actor that feels the young director he's working with isn't qualified to capture a proper vampire film, right down to the quality of the costumes and his cloak in particular. So he goes to a old curiosity store in the middle of a foggy night to get something more "authentic". Little does he know that he picked up a truly authentic vampire's cloak! Putting it on at the stroke of midnight has rather noticeable effects. By the time I had gotten to this fourth and final story, it was after 3 am and I couldn't quite stay awake on the first try (not from boredom). But I did experience something that I have hundreds of times, a curious bonding experience I have with films or music when I drift in and out of sleep and the film/music becomes part of my dream!! Great fun!! This bizarre story was perfect for that and seemed much scarier the first time than it actually was because I woke up right when he was levitated by the cloak's power and couldn't quite comprehend was what happening at first. Not long after, the lovely Ingrid Pitt, a costar on his movie set, came to visit and he warned her not to put on the cloak at midnight---but he needn't have bothered, for she was a real vampire herself. The chintzy keyboard jingle that followed as she flew toward him on the staircase was simply hysterical!! And again in my half-asleep state, seemed rather confusing! Side Note: Make sure to catch Lee and Pitt along with the stunning Amicus star Britt Ekland in the all time classic film The Wicker Man (1973).

The weakest link here was the interlacing commentary between stories, but based on the stories themselves, this is a classic! Objectively, I would say the third story is best, but I like the 4th most because it makes me smile so much.Very highly recommended for horror fans and if you're a British horror fan, it's mandatory! I'd say it's worthwhile to view the series in chronological order if you can. The last film of this series, Monster Club (1980) is certainly the weakest. I think the first 3-4 films except for the at times mediocre Torture Garden (1967) are the best, but if you like any of them, you should watch them all at least once. You'll probably be back many more times to watch your favorites. No-nonsense Inspector Hollaway (a solid turn by John Bennett) investigates the disappearance of a famous thespian and uncovers the wicked past history of a creepy old house. First and most mundane tale, "Method for Murder" - Successful author Charles Hillyer (nicely played by Denholm Elliott) is haunted by images of the murderous fiend he's writing about in his latest book. Although this particular outing is too obvious and predictable to be anything special, it does nonetheless build to a real dilly of a genuine surprise ending. Second and most poignant anecdote, "Waxworks" - Lonely Philip Grayson (the always outstanding Peter Cushing) and his equally lonesome friend Neville Rogers (the splendid Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with the beguiling wax statue of a beautiful, but lethal murderess. Third and most chilling vignette, "Sweets to the Sweet" - Quiet, reserved and secretive widower John Reid (a typically terrific Christopher Lee in a rare semi-sympathetic role) hires nanny Ann Norton (the fine Nyree Dawn Porter) to take care of his seemingly cute and harmless daughter Jane (a remarkably spooky and unnerving performance by the adorable Chloe Franks). This stand-out scary episode is given a substantial disturbing boost by the exceptional acting from gifted child actress Franks, who projects a truly unsettling sense of serene evil lurking just underneath a deceptively sweet and innocent angelic veneer. Fourth and most amusing yarn, "The Cloak" - Pompous horror movie star Paul Henderson (delightfully essayed to the haughty hilt by Jon Pertwee) purchases a mysterious cloak that causes him to transform into a vampire whenever he wears it. This item makes for good silly fun and further benefits from the awesomely pulchritudinous presence of the luscious Ingrid Pitt as enticing vampiress Carla. Director Peter Duffell, working from a deliciously macabre and witty script by noted horror scribe Robert Bloch, maintains a snappy pace throughout and does an ace job of creating a suitably eerie atmosphere. Kudos are also in order for Ray Parslow's crisp cinematography and the shuddery score by Michael Dress. Highly recommended to fans of omnibus fright fare. Yes, this IS a horror anthology film and it was a lot of fun! That's because although the film clearly was horror, some of the stories had a light spirit--and there were even occasionally a few laughs. This isn't at all a bad thing as sometimes horror films are a bit stuffy and overly serious. Because of this and because all four of the stories were pretty good, it's one of the better movies of this style I have seen.

The unifying theme that connects each story is the house itself. Four different stories involve people who either rent the home or investigate what happened to the tenants.

The first segment starred Denholm Elliott as a horror writer who has writer's block. So, for a change of scenery, they rent this house. Almost immediately Elliott's block vanishes and he works steadily on a tale about a serial killer. Amazingly, soon after his block vanishes he begins to actually see his fictional character! Again and again, the psychotic killer appears and then disappears--making it seem as if he is losing his mind. This might just be the best of the stories, as the nice twist ending makes the story come alive.

The second, while not bad at all, is probably the weakest. Peter Cushing plays a bachelor who is pining for a girl friend who died some time ago (though the picture of her looked amazingly contemporary). When he enters a chamber of horrors wax museum in town, he sees a wax figure that reminds him of his lost lady and he is both fascinated and scared by this. Later, a friend (Joss Ackland) visits and he, too, sees the figure and is entranced by it. This all leads to an ending that, frankly, was a bit of a letdown.

Christopher Lee then stars as an incredibly harsh and stern father to a pathetic little girl. During most of this segment, Lee seemed like an idiot, but in the end you can understand his demeanor. Though slow, this one ended very well.

The fourth segment was the silliest and was meant to parody the genre. Jon Pertwee (the third "Doctor" from the DR. WHO television series) is a very temperamental actor known for his portrayals of Dracula. However, nothing is right about the film according to him and in a fit of pique, he stomps off the set to find better props for this vampire film. It's actually pretty interesting that he played this role, as it seemed like a natural for Christopher Lee who played Dracula or other vampires a bazillion times (give or take a few). I enjoyed Pertwee's line when he basically said that Lee's and other recent incarnations of Dracula were all crap compared to Bela Lugosi's! Perhaps this is why Lee didn't take this part! Despite some very silly moments, it was very entertaining and fun--possibly as good or better than the first segment.

Considering that the film started and ended so well, had excellent acting and writing, it's hard not to like this film. The British horror film was in terminal decline by the start of the Seventies, but out of the blackness came three films that were among the best our island produced. The Wickerman, Blood on Satan's Claw and The House That Dripped Blood made the future seem rosy, even though a lot of people knew by this point there wasn't going to be one. THTDB has the sort of cast that could easily form a wishlist, if it hadn't actually been assembled, in the bleak hinterland of 2008 you may well find yourself expecting to wake up. Waxworks is the most overlooked of the four stories and is, naturally, my favourite, Cushing's life and art are interlinked so firmly that you can't tell where performance ends and pain begins. One can only guess how this role affected such a gentle, sensitive man. Death and the maiden. RIP Peter. This movie is good for what it is, and unpretentious; I wouldn't watch it twice, however: I am a Peter Cushing completist and that's why I watched it. The best asset of this movie is: BREVITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Compared to other similar movies, it does NOT drag its feet forever as each of the four (plus one) segments lasts under 30 minutes, with the last under 10. Good uncanny vibes. In the first segment, horror writer suffering from 'writer's block' relocates to secluded old house seeking inspiration. He finds even too much of it when he starts to visualize one of his fictional madmen. Plot contrivance similar to PREMATURE BURIAL. Good use of the point-of-view twist: is the writer getting mentally ill...or (as the ending shows) his trophy wife wants her lover to play along with the husband's phobias to drive him mad & secure his estates...yet will the scheming bimbo survive to enjoy the fruit of her ingenious plan?

In the second segment two long time lost friends get together in the same secluded old house but cannot seem to help visiting a bizarre horror museum featuring the wax statue of the long lost love of their youth, which had once separated them. From the Gothic museum keeper they learn the woman portrayed is a deceased ax wielding murderer...or was she?

The third segment was the less interesting to me.

The fourth shows a horror movies actor -who thinks he's the best of all- sunken to the depths of low budget C movies. Seeking a costume to lend more credibility to his fictional vampire, he gets the real deal. This segment also lacks the solidity of the first two.

Acting is fair, with the 2 initial segments contributing the bulk of it. Good movie, taken with a grain of salt. Not the best Cushing, nor Lee...but worth watching. The British production company Amicus is generally known as the specialist for horror anthologies, and this great omnibus called "The House That Dripped Blood" is doubtlessly the finest Amicus production I've seen so far (admittedly, there are quite a few that I have yet to see, though). "The House That Dripped Blood" consists of four delightfully macabre tales, all set in the same eerie mansion. These four stories are brought to you in a wonderfully Gothic atmosphere, and with one of the finest ensemble casts imaginable. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee (Cushing and Lee are two of my favorite actors ever), as well as Denholm Elliott and the ravishing Ingrid Pitt star in this film - so which true Horror fan could possibly afford to miss it? No one, of course, and the film has much more to offer than just a great cast. "The House That Dripped Blood" revolves around an eerie rural mansion, in which strange things are happening. In four parts, the film tells the tales of four different heirs.

The first tale, "Method For Murder", tells the story of Horror novelist Charles Hyller (Denholm Elliott), who moves into the House with his wife. After moving in, the writer suddenly feels haunted by a maniac of his own creation... The first segment is a great kickoff to the film. The story is creepy and macabre throughout and the performances are entirelly very good.

In the second story, "Waxworks", retired businessman Phillip Grayson (Peter Cushing) moves into the house, and suddenly feels drawn to a mysterious Wax Museum in the nearby town... The great Peter Cushing once again delivers a sublime performance in this, and the rest of the performances are also very good. The tale is delightfully weird, and the second-best of the film, after the third.

The third tale, "Sweets To The Sweet" is by far the creepiest and most brilliant of the four. John Reed (Christopher Lee) moves in with his little daughter. The private teacher and nanny Mrs. Norton, whom Mr. Reed has employed to instruct his daughter, is appalled about her employer's strictness towards his daughter, and is eager to find out what reason the overprotective father's views on upbringing may have... This best segment maintains a very creepy atmosphere and a genuinely scary plot. Christopher Lee is, as always, superb in his role. Nyree Dawn Porter is also very good as the nanny, and my special praise goes to then 11-year-old Chloe Franks. This ingenious segment alone makes the film a must-see for every true Horror-fan.

In the fourth segment, Horror-actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) moves into the house with his sexy mistress/co-star Carla (Ingrid Pitt). This fourth story is satire, more than it is actually Horror. It is a highly amusing satire, however, and there are many allusions to other Horror films. At one point Henderson indirectly refers to Christopher Lee, who stars in the previous, third segment...

All four segments have a delightfully macabre sense of humor and a great atmosphere. As stated above, the third segment is by far the creepiest and greatest, but the other three are also atmospheric and often macabrely humorous Horror tales that every Horror lover should appreciate. An igenious atmosphere, a macabre sense of humor, genuine eerieness and a brilliant cast make this one a must-see. In Short: "The House That Dripped Blood" is an excellent Horror-omnibus that no lover of British Horror could possibly afford to miss. Highly Recommended! Before films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.

Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.

Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Clichés galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.

Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.

My rating: 3.5/5 "The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the better anthology films of the time period.

**SPOILERS**

Tracking down a missing film star, Inspector Holloway, (John Bennett) finds that the last reported sighting was in a large mansion in the countryside. During the course of looking through the house, he is told four different stories about past residents of the house.

The Good Story(s): Method for Murder-Moving into the mysterious manor to get some peace and quiet while Charles pens his latest masterwork, Horror novelist Charles Hillyer, (Denholm Elliott) and his wife Alice, (Joanna Dunham) are thrilled with the story, which centers around a serial strangler named Dominic. After a series of strange accidents and experiences in the house, Charles begins to believe that the creation my have come to life and is haunting him and his wife. Probably one of the better entries in the film, it's easily the creepiest. The atmosphere here is what sets it apart. The scenes with the fictional character are genuinely creepy, the mystery surrounding him is really effective and there's always a classic creep-out moment. The classic moment is the kill in the psychiatrist's office, which is an all-time high for creepiness. The build-up to it, with the creaking sounds, quick flashes of a mysterious being, and the thunder and lightning in the back ground work well for this one's favor.

Sweets for the Sweet-Moving into a new house, widower John Reid, (Christopher Lee) hires former school teacher Ann Norton, (Nyree Dawn Porter) for his young daughter Jane, (Chloe Franks) while he's away on business. Ann gradually begins to unravel a dark secret from Jane's past, which John vehemently denies. When she learns the true nature of what has happened, it's far more shocking that what she could've thought possible. With the creepiest outright plot and the biggest twist of the stories, this is a quite pleasant entry. The mystery of the family is wonderfully played out, with small amounts of clues piled up here and there, and the final revelation is downright nerve-wracking. That part alone is the main reason why this one works, and Lee doesn't harm it either.

The Bad Story(s): Waxwork-Tortured by memories of his lost love, Phillip Grayson, (Peter Cushing) and his friend Neville Rogers, (Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with a statue of a woman in a Wax Museum, as the statue takes over their lives, they discover a shocking secret about the museum that haunts the both of them. There's a clever premise here, and it does provide an excuse to spend time in a wax museum, which are always creepy. This is no exception, and it looks eerie, which is helped by the florescent lighting on display on the sculptures. A dream sequence provides a great moment of suspense, but what ultimately kills this one is the slow pace. It takes a long time for events to unfold out, and most of the time is spent on exposition. It also builds up to a shock ending that can be seen coming from a mile away. Those really lower this one a bit. Had the twist been changed, it would've scored higher, the rest is acceptable.

The Cloak-Veteran horror film actor Paul Henderson, (Jon Pertwee) upset at the lack of realism on the set of his new film, goes off and buys a new vampire cloak from a specialty store. The cloak soon turns him into a vampire, going crazy on the set with co-star Carla, (Ingrid Pitt) and other vampiric acts at home. Unconvinced the cloak is the cause, he does everything he can to prove it's just in his imagination. This has a pretty decent premise, and there is plenty of opportunity for some decent scares, but what sinks it is several factors. First, it's just too goofy for it's own good. The plot twist at the end is a perfect example, which is so overdone that it's not really a shock at all, and just comes across as just plain silly. There's so few scenes of scares or attempted scares that it's just a bore to sit through. It's the weakest one in the film.

The Final Verdict: A quite decent omnibus film, there's a few small problems scattered through each of the stories that renders this a less than perfect but still highly watchable film. Highly recommended for those into the similar films at the time or who enjoy British horror films.

Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema. (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus…an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales…Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'… We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director.

The four stories – chapters if you will – in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original…but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and – even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new – this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film…her cleavage in particular.

No doubt about it…The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not…repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. The late, great Robert Bloch (author of PSYCHO, for those of you who weren't paying attention) scripted this tale of terror and it was absolutely one of the scariest movies I ever saw as a kid. (I had to walk MILES just to see a movie, and it was usually dark when I emerged from the theater; seeing a horror movie was always unnerving, but particularly so when it was as well-executed as this one.) When I had the opportunity to see this one several years ago on videotape (which should always be a last resort), I was surprised at how well it held up. Take the terror test: watch it at night, alone, and THEN tell me it's not scary... An excellent movie and great example of how scary a movie can be without really showing the viewer anything. It's a set of four stories all revolving around the tenants of a charmingly old-fashioned house and their various gruesome and horrific fates, all tied together by a wrap-around story about a Scotland Yard inspector searching for a missing horror film star. It starts out with a story about a mystery writer whose main character becomes a little too realistic, followed by a story about two old romantic rivals who become obsessed over a wax figure in a museum, then a story about a sweetly angelic little child who is anything but, and closing with the story of what happened to the missing film star…and what he does to the inspector. It's a gorgeous print that lets you really appreciate the work of director Duffell and what he was able to accomplish with a very small budget. Add to that the acting talents of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Joss Ackland, Ingrid Pitt and Jon Pertwee and you've got a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. Just don't answer the phone if anyone from Stoker Real Estate calls to offer you a bargain on a beautiful house in the English countryside… Now days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy.

Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas.

Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house.

I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again! For fans of 1970s Hammer type horror films, this movie should be a treat. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that Peter Cushing was wasted on the worst episode. In general, however, this is a solid, spooky little movie. If this is not Amicus' best film, it's certainly one of them. The best episode, rightfully saved for last, is the one featuring Jon Pertwee as a horror film actor--it is really excellent. As good as Pertwee was in this role, it's hard to believe he didn't do more of these types of movies. All in all, this is an entertaining movie, which scared the heck out of me as a child, and which still gives me the creeps to this day. This is a very amusing and sometimes quite creepy anthology, that if a bit short in the screenwriting department, more than makes up for the shortcoming in the acting, location work and overall exuberance. The best episodes of this are the first with Denholm Elliot playing a horror writer stalked by a character from his novel in the works ( a perfect example of the acting pulling this out of the merely pedestrian); the third, with Christopher Lee as a man terrified of his own daughter and the final episode with the late great Jon Pertwee as a pompous horror film star who gets more than just a new role on his latest project. The dialogue between Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt is sparkling and inspired, both obviously relishing the opportunity to really ham it up! Cushing is typically good in the weakest segment, which certainly isn't helped by the fact that the wax figure of the woman he's obsessed with down at the local wax museum, is anything but "beautiful" as we are told to believe she is! Someone of shocking beauty was needed and instead we're given a woman with a jaw of a turtle. Minor quibbles aside this movie and it's wonderful country house setting is one to catch when you can. This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star! Enjoyed catching this film on very late late late TV and it kept my interest through out the entire picture. This wonderful creepy, yet mysterious looking English home, with evil looking decorations and weired furniture and rooms that make you wonder just why anyone would want to rent this home or even own it. There are four(4)Tales concerning this house, and each resident of the home meets with all kinds of problems. You will notice the beautiful lake and pond around the home and also the sweet singing of birds, but don't let that fool you, there is horror all over the place. Peter Cushing,"Black Jack",'80 gives a great performance as one of the person's living in the home and even Christopher Lee,"Curse of the Crimson Altar",68 and his little daughter, Chloe Franks,(Jane Reid) make a wonderful exciting story together, his daughter for some reason loves to read WITCHCRAFT BOOKS! If you love creepy, horrible and mysterious films, with lots of surprises, this is the FILM FOR YOU!!!! This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances!, only the last story disappoints. All the characters are awesome, and the film is quite chilling and suspenseful, plus Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are simply amazing in this!. It's very underrated and my favorite story has to be the 3rd one "Sweets To The Sweet", plus all the characters are very likable. Some of it's predictable, and the last story was incredibly disappointing and rather bland!, however the ending was really cool!. This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances, only the last story disappoints!, i say it's must see!.

1st Story ("Method for Murder"). This is an awesome story, with plenty of suspense, and the killer Dominic is really creepy, and it's very well acted as well!. This was the perfect way to start off with a story, and for the most part it's unpredictable, plus the double twist ending is shocking, and quite creepy!. Grade A

2nd Story. ("Waxworks"). This is a solid story all around, with wonderful performances, however the ending is quite predictable, but it's still creepy, and has quite a bit of suspense, Peter Cushing did an amazing job, and i couldn't believe how young Joss Ackland was, i really enjoyed this story!. Grade B

3rd Story ("Sweets to the Sweet"). This is the Best story here, as it's extremely creepy, and unpredictable throughout, it also has a nice twist as well!. Christopher Lee did an amazing job, and Chloe Franks did a wonderful job as the young daughter, plus the ending is quite shocking!. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's one of the best horror stories i have seen!. Grade A+

4th Story ("The Cloak"). This is a terrible story that's really weak and unfunny Jon Pertwee annoyed me, however the ending surprised me a little bit, and Ingrid Pitt was great as always, however it's just dull, and has been done before many times, plus where was the creativity??. Grade D

The Direction is great!. Peter Duffell does a great job here, with awesome camera work, great angles, adding some creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!.

The Acting is awesome!. John Bryans is great here, as the narrator, he had some great lines, i just wished he had more screen time. John Bennett is very good as the Det., and was quite intense, he was especially good at the end!, i liked him lots. Denholm Elliott is excellent as Charles, he was vulnerable, showed fear, was very likable, and i loved his facial expressions, he rocked!. Joanna Dunham is stunningly gorgeous!, and did great with what she had to do as the wife, she also had great chemistry with Denholm Elliott !. Tom Adams is incredibly creepy as Dominic, he was creepy looking, and got the job done extremely well!. Peter Cushing is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is likable, focused, charming, and as always, had a ton of class! (Cushing Rules!!). Joss Ackland is fantastic as always, and looked so young here, i barely recognized him, his accent wasn't so thick, and played a different role i loved it! (Ackland rules). Wolfe Morris is creepy here, and did what he had to do well.Christopher Lee is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is incredibly intense, very focused, and as always had that great intense look on his face, he was especially amazing at the end! (Lee Rules!!). Chloe Franks is adorable as the daughter, she is somewhat creepy, and gave one of the best child performances i have ever seen!, i loved her.Nyree Dawn Porter is beautiful and was excellent as the babysitter, i liked her lots!. Jon Pertwee annoyed me here, and was quite bland, and completely unfunny, he also had no chemistry with Ingrid Pitt!. Ingrid Pitt is beautiful , and does her usual Vampire thing and does it well!.

Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out of 5 A classy offering from Amicus, producer Milton Subotsky and director Peter Duffell ('The Far Pavillions' etc) turn in a classy, intelligent 'four-hander' with a strong cast (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, Ingrid Pitt etc) all giving stylish performances, despite a low budget which results in a few 'un-special effects'. The most outstanding contribution, however, is that of the 7-year-old Chloe Franks who turns in chillingly effective account of her part which makes one's blood run cold. Only spoilt by the lurid title wished on the film by its distributors, this underrated release, a cut above the run-of-the-mill 'blood 'n' guts' shocker movie, is for those who appreciate a little thought with their horror. I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).

I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future.

And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).

It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out.

All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it.

It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha. Mukhsin is a beautiful movie about a first love story. Everyone probably has one, and this is writer-director Yasmin Ahmad's story of hers, with a boy called Mukhsin. We know that her movies have been semi-autobiographical of sorts, having scenes drawn upon her personal experiences, and it is indeed this sharing and translating of these emotions to the big screen, that has her films always exude a warm sincerity and honesty. Mukhsin is no different, and probably the most polished ad confident work to date (though I must add, as a personal bias, that Sepet still has a special place in my heart).

Our favourite family is back - Pak Atan, Mak Inom, Orked and Kak Yam, though this time, we go back to when Orked is age 10. The characters are all younger from the movies we've journeyed with them, from Rabun to Gubra, and here, Sharifah Amani's sisters Sharifah Aryana and Sharifah Aleya take on the roles of Orked and Mak Inom respectively, which perhaps accounted for their excellent chemistry together on screen, nevermind that their not playing sibling roles. The only constant it seems is Kak Yam, played by Adibah Noor, and even Pak Atan has hair on his head! Through Mukshin the movie, we come full circle with the characters, and the world that Yasmin has introduced us to. We come to learn of and understand the family a little bit more, set in the days when they're still living in their kampung (revisited back in Rabun), where Orked attends a Chinese school, and packs some serious combination of punches (and you wonder about that burst of energy in Gubra, well, she had it in her since young!). The perennial tomboy and doted child of the family, she prefers playing with the boys in games, rather than mindless "masak-masak" with the girls, and favourite outings include going with the family to football matches.

The arrival of a boy called Mukhsin (Mohd Syafie Naswip) to the village provides a cool peer for Orked to hang out and do stuff with - cycling through the villages, climbing trees, flying kites. And as what is desired to be explored, the crossing of that line between friendship and romance, both beautiful emotions.

Mukhsin does have its cheeky moments which liven up the story, and bring about laughter, because some of the incidents, we would have experienced it ourselves, and sometimes serve as a throwback to our own recollection of childhood. In short, those scenes screamed "fun"! We observe the life in a typical kampung, where some neighbours are very nice, while others, the nosy parkers and rumour mongers, spreading ill gossip stemming from envy. There are 2 additional family dynamics seen, one from an immediate neighbour, and the other from Mukhsin's own, both of which serve as adequate subplots, and contrast to Orked's own.

As always, Yasmin's movies are filled with excellent music, and for Mukhsin, it has something special, the song "Hujan" as penned by her father, as well as "Ne Me Quitte Pas", aptly used in the movie Given that the Yasmin's movies to date have been centred around the same characters, the beauty of it is that you can watch them as stand alone, or when watched and pieced together, makes a compelling family drama dealing with separate themes and universal issues like interracial romance, love, and forgiveness. Fans will definitely see the many links in Mukhsin back to the earlier movies, while new audiences will surely be curious to find out certain whys and significance of recurring characters or events, like that pudgy boy who steals glances at Orked.

And speaking of whys, parts of Mukhsin too is curiously open, which probably is distinctive of Yasmin's style, or deliberately left as such. I thought that as a story about childhood, recollected from memory, then there are details which will be left out for sure. And subtly, I felt that Mukhsin exhibited this perfectly, with not so detailed details, and the focus on what can be remembered in significant episodes between the two.

Another highly recommended movie, and a rare one that I feel is suitable for all ages - bring along your kid brother or sister! The movie starts off in a classroom setting where not surprisingly, our main actress, Orked was seen in a Chinese Language class. Later in the film, she was asked on why (by Mukhsin) that she was sent to learn Mandarin. Her answer was simple for a child she is; coz she's already known the Malay Language well.

It's a bit of a romance one may thought of it, but once you've stopped yourself from reading too much critics and go for it, you'll notice the typical elements of Malaysia. The movie basically focuses on 10 year old Orked who met 12 year old Mukhsin in a game of which many would think of it as a boy's game. Running out of players, Mukhsin (who was new in that village) was forced to allow Orked into the game, in which she eagerly showed the male side of her. Orked is no such ordinary girl as she depicts more of the male behavior as you will see in the movie, defending Mukhsin from much violent encounter with her school-bullies, throwing one of the bully's bag out from the school bus window, throwing punches and kicks on Mukhsin's brother where after he teased Mukhsin and so on and so forth. Both were awesome buddies, and stick closer than that, but with a slightest of misunderstanding in which most of us would all respond to in the same way, parted the both of them until the day when Mukhsin left town.

Now the movie depicts the first love between Orked and Mukhsin, they started out as friends, but slowly evolving into somewhat more of a closer relationship and then towards BGR. You would notice, the changes Yasmin made in the movies for each of the main actor and the actress when they go through love. The different character was portrayed with eagerness and mild humor. The scenes were all in random but it depicted so much reality in it that you'd be stuck on the screen for a long time. You will love the movie for what it is, and not because that you want to be patriotic to the local scenes, coz it means much more.

As the movie envelopes around the two love birds, it also manages to find its lens towards Orked's parents, her mother who was educated in England, speaks very good English and in which, her husband and the caretaker in the house with very much attempt tries to speak back their own kind of English, which was humor all the way indeed. Let me just explain to you why humor can be such a prominent thing in this movie. And that explanation or description that you may portray can be given in only one word and that is RANDOMNESS. Often more than not, we don't learn to laugh at ourselves, and when we do, we do it at the expense of others. It is just like what the movie Just Follow Law by Jack Neo would have mentioned - Often when we are ourselves, we don't see the person in us we are, but when only when we are in another person's body, then only would we learn to see who we really are. And that is how humor applies as well, more so than just dignity.

The movie was filled with such randomness that the typical facts of our routine lives as we carried it out could be all the way filled with laughter if we want it to be.

The other focus of this movie was on how Orked's neighbor, a couple in which the husband is no longer loving to his wife, and wanted to find another. Pak Koboi as what he's nicked after was seen polishing his motorbike daily and would take it out for a ride with his newly found girlfriend. The producer did not fail to show you perhaps why the husband wanted to find another wife. The wife was a real hurler or KPC as we Chinese would call it, having interrupting on other people's business and sending her own daughter to tease Orked in words only adults would use. After all, what goes around, comes around, and that's probably why bad things kinda want to happen to her. In every time, being nice to people around you won't hurt at all, unless you have an ego to protect, but then again, what's it worth? The movie also centers around Mukhsin's brother, Hussein who would go out to town everyday until very late at night, smoking, drinking, and also finding 'girls'. He's the total opposite of Mukhsin, but that's all perhaps because of family problems. Both the brothers were staying with their aunt and the parents were far away from them. I will not reveal more of the story line as it would spoil much of the interest in wanting to find it out for yourself, but the slightest of all elements in which the producer wanted to send a message across to the viewers is the life of us all. She wanted us, me at least to view life from our own perspective when we are not ourselves. Movies in a way, take us out from our own body, places us in the character's position, and use our empty mind then to view on the happenings of it. Depending on the type and genre of the movie, you will be mesmerized by how a good movie such as this would portray and imply a significant impact on you. Everyone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.

Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at "deeper" analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her "British" upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?

Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several "smaller" films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema. Overall the film is OK. I think it's better than Sepet and much better than Gubra in term of its story, its sentimental value.

There are a few scenes that makes me touched. Yes I agree that the boy (Mukhsin) did his acting very good. Brilliant. I can say that his acting is almost natural.

However, the song 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' by Nina Simone really "'menaikkan' my 'bulu' 'roma' ".

I love the song. Both the song. "Ne Me Quitte Pas" and "Hujan". I just downloaded the song. Beautiful.

And salute to Yasmin. The movie's ending credit makes me touched again. We can see how Yasmin really appreciated her parents in an unique way.

I think the movie deserves that Grand Prix Of International Jury at Berlin Film Festival.

I give 8.5 out of 1o stars. This is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.

The so called "culture of death" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.

A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.

Congratulations on the cast and director.

Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from me! "Casomai" is a masterful tale depicting the story of a young couple who wade through the murky waters of marriage. The story is very believable in telling the strange see-saw between oblivion and continuous interference by others, which is fairly typical in Italy (one may wonder whether such happenings are different elsewhere, though). Pavignano and D'Alatri were very good at writing, and that is one of the strong points of the movie. Acting by Stefania Rocca and Fabio Volo is sober and gripping. And the figure of the sympathetic priest is funny and well-rounded. All in all, a truly deserving movie, probably one of the best Italian movies of the year. I was very pleased to go and see a "Milanese" film shot in Milan. Alessandro Alatri is a Roman director who has understood properly and fortunately printed in a film the Milanese philosophy.

Film tells the story of a standard -in career- Milanese couple, starting from "the birth" to the death. The birth-wedding is so typical out of any scheme that becomes original and involves all the wedding guests in a flash back story of how the couple came to each other and felt in love. Life is hard in the "urbe" of Milan and after the sweeties old days became tougher and tougher, then finally the product: a child, who instead of strengthen further the couple relationship it weaken because "the selfish effect" typical of a nowadays "metropolis" personality. The advertising environment with all the "creative" under stress atmosphere helps to get well involved in the plot. We are losing the life values and this is well and deeply reflected in this nice and sharp movie from the Senza Pelle's director.

The actors are well chosen, Stefania Rocca nice and well characterised, and a positive surprise, an unexpected good Fabio Volo, well known by the "trash" TV serie: Le Iene.

Rating: 7/10 This movie contains personalities that so deliciously are playing their parts, I love the final, when nobody knows what are they gonna do about their life, but it's completely great when you see and realize that the priest is right, is jut for two, so what are the other persons doing there? The movie embrace you to a new life, to experiences, to be able of dream with the other person and reach those dreams. Also shows you the life itself, hard like it is. But gives you the option to choose what you want and what you really need. Hope this comment works for you. The movie it did worked well for me. I bought the movie by the way ;) Take care. "CASOMAI" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year.

It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.

Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like "Don Camillo" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)

To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the "I do!" day :-)

Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal A sophisticated contemporary fable about the stresses that work to loosen and ultimately unbind the vows of marriage. The main thrust of the narrative arises from a 'homily' spoken by a country priest following the wedding vows of a young cosmopolitan couple from Milan. In it, the future course of the marriage is spelled out, which bit by bit frays from the stresses of modern life. The 'moral' of this story within a story is that in order for a marriage to work out, both now, and in the past, it has been necessary for that relationship to be abutted by family and friends. This film was a relative blockbuster by domestic Italian standards. It's a terrible shame that this film is not available in either DVD or VHS. The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.

Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history… if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name –Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.

Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb. I now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes. I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end! Her Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.

Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this "Lifetime" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. "Her Deadly Rival" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit "Fatal Attraction". In "Rival", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is "her deadly rival" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the "domestic thriller" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash. I liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.

I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the "real" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.

Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.

Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.

You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what? I was watching this movie on Friday,Apr 7th. I didn't see the last scene ( cos I was talking with my bro n Mom in law at the same time ). Anyone can tell me what happened to her?I watched slightly that her husband was hearing someone was talking to his wife in the bedroom and then he opened the door,she's dead already.

What happened to her? Did she kill herself? How could she arrange everything like the phone calls,meanwhile she's at home when her husband was talking to this strange admirer?Anyone can explain to me,please. I am so so curious!! ( in the end,I read that she suffered from Multiply Disorder Personality ).

Thnks before. Always enjoy the great acting talents of Harry Hamlin,(Jim Lansford),"Strange Hearts",'01, who plays a straight as an arrow husband, who seems to get all kinds of attention from very charming young women, namely, Lisa Zane,(Lynne),"Monkeybone",'01, who is a co-worker with Jim Lansford and you wonder why he doesn't try to hit on her for some fun. Annie Potts,(Kris Lansford),"Breaking the Rules",'92,is a very warm and sweet loving wife to Jim and has complete trust in her husband. Kris wants to always keep her husband happy and even buys him a home with out him even seeing it for himself. This film will keep you guessing right to the very END! He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we – the film viewers – perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well…? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.

Slavoj Žižek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by Žižek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting Žižek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide… is Žižek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, Žižek's views or Žižek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (Žižek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide… is dominated by his voice – delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.

What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being – think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.

Most notable are Žižek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of Žižek's lecture memorable and – unlike others – difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).

The question isn't whether Žižek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are Žižek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) Žižek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing…? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes…? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to Žižek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when Žižek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. Žižek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of Žižek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films – but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.

The ultimate question is: did Žižek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach Žižek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer. I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).

I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.

My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.

Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish. Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.

For those of us in the minority like myself, I found "The Perverts Guide To Cinmea"....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.

A little like Scott Mclouds' "Understanding Comics", director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from "The Birds"(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).

Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.

Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.

Why is "The Sound Of Music" kinda fascistic, why is "Short Cuts" about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in "The Birds", what is there to learn about the mind from "Alien Resurrection", what does the planet of "Solaris" want, what does "Psycho" and "The Marx Brothers" have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.

The role of the voice in both "The Excorcist" and "Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith", is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).

Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.

And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than "Reality Of The Virtual", and more direct than "Zizek!", two other pseudo-docs, about "the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism", as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world.

"The Perverts Guide To Cinema" is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches "how to desire, and not what to desire", and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most "stimulating" movie watching experiences I've ever had. Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.

Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost.

And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola)

There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end.

But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring. "Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire."

So begins "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema," in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at "Persona," "The Conversation," "Three Colors: Blue," "Dogville," "Fight Club," and "The Exorcist." Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the "coordinates of desire," and from Gnosticism to "partial objects."

"The Pervert's Guide" will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of "The Birds." And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs? There's the danger with the critic/philosopher Slavoj Zizek with his film, directed by Sophie Fiennes, which takes together a wonderful amalgam of silent, horror, sci-fi, surreal and other contemporary thrillers together to make his points ofr Freudian comparisons to overload. But in the Pervert's Guide to Cinema he also makes even the more far-reaching points a point of departure from any other analysis I've seen on a collective section of films. While it doesn't cover the expansive territory Scorsese's movie documentaries cover, the same attachments are there, and Zizek has a definite love for all of these "perverse" examples and films, primarily the work of Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin and Tarkovsky. Yet one shouldn't go into seeing this- if you can find it that is, I got to see it almost by luck- thinking Zizek will just try and dissect all of the psycho-sexual parts or parts referring it in an obtuse, deranged manner. If anything he opens up one to points that might never be considered otherwise- would one think of three of the Marx brothers as representations of the Id, Super-Ego and Ego (Harpo's example is most dead-on for me).

He's not just one to take on the classics though, he also considers the food for thought in The Matrix and Fight Club- in representations of the split between fantasy and reality and if the matrix needs the energy as much as the energy needs the matrix for the former, and in the attachment of violence in dealing with one's own self as well as ones double in the latter. He even throws in a piece from the pivotal moment in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin becomes Darth Vader, and the implications of shunning away fatherhood under that back mask at the very moment his children's births happens elsewhere. The ideals of fatherhood, male sexuality, the male point of view in turning fantasy into reality (at which point Zizek rightfully points to as the moment of a nightmare's creation), and female subjectivity, are explored perhaps most dead-on with Vertigo. This too goes for a scene that Zizek deconstructs as if it's the Zapruder film, where he dissects the three colliding points of psycho-sexual stance in the 'don't you look at me' scene in Blue Velvet.

Now it would be one thing if Zizek himself went about making these sincere, excited, and somehow plausible points just face on to the camera or mostly in voice-over as Scorsese does. But he goes a step further to accentuate his points of fantasy and reality, and how they overlap, intersect, become one and the same, or spread off more crucially into some netherworld or primordial feeling for some characters (i.e. Lost Highway) by putting himself IN the locations the films take place in. Funniest is first seeing him in the boat "heading" towards the same dock Tippi Hedren's boat heads to at the beginning of the Birds; equally funny is as he waters the Blue Velvet lawn he goes on to explain the multi-faceted points of Frank Booth; only one, when he's in Solaris-like territory, does it seem a little cheesy. But Zizek seems to be having a lot of fun with this set-up, and after a while one bypasses the potential crux of this gimmick and Zizek's words come through.

There were some films I of course would've expected, chiefly from Hitchcock and Lynch, but a treat for movie buffs come from seeing two things- the movies that one would never think of seeing in a film about films titled the Pervert's Guide of Cinema (top two for me would be the Disney Pluto cartoon and the exposition on Chaplin's films, albeit with a great note about the power and distinction of 'voice'), and the ones that one hasn't seen yet (i.e. the ventriloquist horror film, Dr. Mabuse, Stalker, among a few others) that inspire immediate feelings of 'wow, I have to see that immediately, no questions asked.' Zizek is a powerful writer with his work, and puts it forward with a clarity that reminds one why we watch movies in the first place, to be entertained, sure, but also to have that actual experience of sitting down and having something up there, as he put it, looking into a toilet. It's probably one of the greatest films about cinema, and in such a splendidly narrow analysis of how Freud works its way into films regarding desire, the Id/Super-Ego/Ego, and of the supernatural in fantasy, that you may never see...unless distribution finally kicks in, if only on the smallest levels. I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.

The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.

Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.

Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.

I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood. The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.

Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.

That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them. Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant. THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.

In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.

Although I had no idea who Zizek was – he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese – with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.

Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.

There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes – even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault – then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it. His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself. More like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them!

Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.

Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)! Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen. In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels. The film exposes the blatant exploitation of the Chinese worker - generally female - garnering footage from the Chinese business owner who shares his unashamed and delusional viewpoint, his American counterpart also as unashamed and delusional, the oppressed workers who are given a voice and, of course, the drunken Americans who wear the beaded necklaces mindlessly celebrating in New Orleans.

The glimmer of hope comes when some Americans are actually outraged that people making their beaded necklaces were getting paid like $0.10 per hour to do so. You also have a feeling that the workers may have a chance to escape working in the bead factory, but will probably do so when they get fed up with the punishment treatment popular with the factory owner and/or they just get too exhausted to work up to 20 hours a day of hard labor.

I have wondered where those necklaces came from, not realizing how completely grueling and arduous it would be to make them. I just truly appreciated this film as it beautifully portrays the impact American indulgence has over something we consider relatively innocuous in our society on peoples on the other side of the world. Honorable mention goes to Wal-Mart. It is simply amazing. And clearly, just the tip of the iceberg! Excellent film that reveals how people are connected to the taken for granted, ordinary beads exchanged during Mardi Gras. The film is much more than a commentary on globalization. In fact, it humanizes the workers in China, the owner of the factory, the bead distributor in New Orleans, and even the revelers in New Orleans. What stands out the most is the director's ability to tell a tricky story with complicated details in such a simple and seductive way. His amazing access to the factory is another aspect that's intriguing and I only wish I knew how he got inside. It's a beautiful story without sentimentality or guilt associated with it, and the conclusion provides hope without leaving people feeling alienated. Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he "punishes" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization. Sharp, well-made documentary focusing on Mardi Gras beads. I have always liked this approach to film-making - communicate ideas about a larger, more complex, and often inscrutable phenomenon by breaking the issue down into something familiar and close to home.

I am sure most people have heard stories about sweatshops and understand the basic motives behind profit and capitalism, and globalism's effect on poorer nations (however people feel about it). Rather than expound on these subjects and get up on a soapbox (not that there's anything wrong with that, other than such documentaries typically preach to the converted), this documentary simply shows Mardi Gras beads, how they are manufactured, by what people, and under what conditions, and then how they are utilized by consumers at the end of the process. It openly and starkly investigates the motivations of everyone involved in the process, including workers, factory management, American importers, and finally, the consumer at the end of the chain.

I felt a little sickened by this; equally by the Mardi Gras revelers, but also by the way the workers in China have accepted their situation as normal and par for the course (even if they have some objections to the details of how they are managed). The footage of the street sweepers cleaning up the beads off the streets at the end, made a particular impression. But that was just my reaction; I can see how someone else might read this documentary a little differently.

Unlike other documentaries on this subject, I don't think you have to have any specific political opinion to be affected by this. This is ultimately a story about human beings and our relation to the goods we produce and consume. If you have ever bought a product made in the Far East, this should give you something to think about.

Outstanding and highly recommended. Need to see more documentaries like this. Kudos to all of those involved in the making of this film. I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).

The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought??

Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.

I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much.

I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.

A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.

I wish everyone could see it. Documentaries of this kind are often very opinionated. This film seems to take all opinions out and let the viewer decide what to do with the information provided. It is sad the conditions these poor people have to work in, this film does a great job of showing the ugly side of sweat shops. The film Mardi Gras: Made in China was a good way of showing the world how something as petty as beads for a celebration can effect the lives of so many people in another country.

I had to watch this film for an English class where we spent our time talking about sweat shops and how some people are trying to eliminate them and this film helped get the topic rolling. It was a great, very informative movie and I'd recommend anyone see it, it kinda opens your eyes. Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.

M. Pitts I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.

Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no. Well, there is a plenty of ways how to spoil a political thriller. Usually they are derivative or too ambitious, often they feature a conspiracy that is totally paranoic and unbelievable. But City Hall does not do neither of the above mentioned. The plot is cleverly crafted, story is believable. As far as characters go I would say this movie is a solid average. No character seems out of place and Al Pacino is brilliant as always. His portrayal of a charismatic NYC mayor is superb and proves again that Al Pacino belongs to the absolute top of American actors nowadays. Being a transplanted New Yorker, I might be more critical than most in watching City Hall. But I have to say that before even getting to the story itself I was captivated by the location shooting and the political atmosphere of New York City that Director Harold Becker created.

For example there's a reference to Woerner's Restaurant in Brooklyn where political boss Frank Anselmo likes to eat. There is or was a Woerner's Restaurant on Remsen Street in downtown Brooklyn when I lived in New York back in 1996. It was in fact particularly favored by political people in the Borough though they did have a couple of other hangouts.

No surprise because the script was co-authored by Nicholas Pileggi who still writes both political and organized crime stories. He knows the atmosphere quite well and he sure knows how those two worlds cross as they do in this film.

A detective played by Nestor Serrano goes for an unofficial meeting with a relative of mob boss Anthony Franciosa and things erupt and three people wind up dead, including an innocent 6 year old boy whose father was walking him to school. The story mushrooms and at the end it's reached inside City Hall itself.

Al Pacino plays Mayor John Pappas and John Cusack is his Deputy Mayor a transplanted Louisianan, a state which has a tradition of genteel corruption itself. He's the outsider here and in trying to do damage control, Cusack finds more than he bargained for,

Danny Aiello plays Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo and for those of you not from New York, his character is based on the late Borough President of Queens Donald Manes who was also brought down by scandal. He's very much the kind of Brooklyn politician I knew back in the day whose friendship with organized crime and favors done for them, do Aiello in.

City Hall was the farewell performance on film for Anthony Franciosa, one of the most underrated and under-appreciated talents ever on the screen. No one watches anyone else whenever he's on.

Al Pacino's best moment is when at the funeral of the young child killed, he takes over the proceedings and turns it into a political triumph for himself. His is a complex part, he's a decent enough man, but one caught up in the corruption it takes to rise in a place like New York.

For those who want to know about political life in the Big Apple, City Hall is highly recommended. I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal.

Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.

The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know

All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating. Excellent political thriller, played much quieter and slower than other, higher ranking films in this genre. When people talk about Pacino and Cusack how do they manage to skip over these amazing career topping performances? A story of friendships, father-son relationships, corruption and deceit. The two actors gel amazingly well together, and the supports from Aiello and Fonda are equally as impressive, although Aiello is brilliant, especially when the papers run to press. Instead of focussing on an over complex corruption scandal, it creates wonderful characters who show the human side of failure an political bribery, The final scenes with each of the main characters are wonderfully written and acted. This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.

So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie! Across the country and especially in the political landscape, people with any kind of political ambition, should take time out to see this film. The movie is called " City Hall " and with little imagination, its synopsis can take place anywhere in America. It just so happens to open in New York. Here we have the story of a popular politician named Mayor John Pappas (Al Pacino) with enough savvy to run a major metropolitan city with very little effort. His right-hand man is none other than Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun (John Cusack) an equally bright individual who's ambitions are tied to his mentor and both seemed destined for higher office. Everything points in that direction, until a police shooting ignites an investigation spearheaded by Marybeth Cogan (Bridget Fonda) who believes the guilt points towards city hall and the mayor. A six year old boy and a police officer's death are blamed on a career criminal who's questionable freedom leads to an apparent cover-up by political pay-offs and city corruption involving union leaders like Danny Aiello played by Frank Anselmo, corrupt judicial officials like Judge Walter Stern. (Martin Landau) and mafia bosses like Paul Zapatti (Anthony Franciosa) who are deeply involved. Also implicated, are party officials like Larry Schwartz (Richard Schiff) who works for the probation office of New York. But it is the bond between the mayor and his deputy which is taken to task by the accidental shooting. A great vehicle for Cusack and a sure bet nominee to become a classic. **** I read the negative comments before viewing this film and undeterred, went ahead and started watching. I admit that I had to rewind quite a few times as the film is incredibly complex, involved and full of detail. That is a good thing but also, quite unexpected in this culture of car chases, explosions, gratuitous sex and general violence that substitute for plot and character development. In fact, what a welcome departure, however, I am so used to not paying a lot of attention to what I watch.

This film is chock full of character development and plot line; the kind that we used to analyze when I was in high school. It requires actual mental participation on the part of the viewer. What a nice change. I would compare it to 'All The President's Men' in terms of generic subject matter. That is, it is a mystery about intense misconduct on the part of elected officials and those with enough influence upon officials to essentially 'own' them.

Unlike 'All The President's Men', this film makes an effort to give a couple of the characters actual personality. In this sense the movie is a character study like 'The Negotiatior' with Samuel Jackson and Kevin Spacey. In that movie, their characters are both city employees and the plot is extremely intense. Yet, the plot is dependent on the ability of their characters to cooperate with each other, trust each, and ultimately unite together against the corrupt Police Department. There is more gun fire in this film and the specific plot is different but generically, there are many similarities.

I WILL say that City Hall requires a whole lot more concentration. In fact, I was struck how parallel it was to past and present political scandals I've seen in my life going back to Watergate. The thing is, the public knows that something is wrong, for sure! but following the details is hard to do. This movie is not even close to being as complex as real life but it actually is realistic to life in its complexity. I think that is one of the reasons that previous posters have criticized the film: unrealistic expectations.

If one watches this knowing what they are about to see and are up to the experience, it really is excellent! I watched it 3 times in a row! The acting is superb and the directing is flawless. The weakest link is John Cusak's accent. Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it! Working from a script written in part by Nicholas Pileggi, best known for writing the book Wiseguy, which he adapted into the movie Goodfellas, and for writing the book and screenplay Casino, director Harold Becker shows how connected circles scratch each other's backs, even in the command of a comparatively honorable mayor like Pappas, who is regarded as a presidential prospect. As Cusack follows the paper trail of the dead mobster's probation report, his skepticism is agitated. How did this violent young man get probation rather than a jail sentence? We meet the other players in the plot, not the least of which is Danny Aiello, the political boss of Brooklyn, and Tony Franciosa, the Mafia boss whose nephew was shot dead. How and why these people are affiliated I leave to the movie to divulge, though there are never any misgivings that they are.

The narrative is told generally through the eyes of the Cusack character, a visionary from Louisiana who admires his boss and hopes to learn from him. Much is made by everyone of bureaucratic knowledge passed down through the generations. Some of the dialogue is ungracefully erudite, but considering I just described the building blocks of the story as bureaucratic knowledge, one can't say it doesn't work. The shooting case builds against the seasoning of two other issues on the mayor's desk: a charge by Aiello for a subway stop and an off-ramp in Brooklyn to aid a new banking center, and the city's bid for the next Democratic convention. Individual idiosyncrasies are also explored, including Aiello's emotional bond with the music of Rogers and Hammerstein.

Much also is made of menschkeit, a Yiddish expression, which, Pappas explains to his deputy, is about the bond of honor between two men, about what happens between the two hands in a handshake. This connection doesn't mean much to Bridget Fonda, the lawyer for the policeman's association who defends the dead cop's honor and fights for his widow's pension even as incriminating evidence appears. Little by little, the deputy mayor comes to grasp that menschkeit is such an influential notion that it outclasses he law.

There are various scenes of hard impact, including one where the Brooklyn boss comes home for lunch in the middle of the day, his wife asserts her interest through the medium of the dish she has cooked, and then the Mafia boss drops in by surprise. There is also a compelling, and markedly conjectural, late scene between the mayor and his deputy.

One scene handled with delicacy is comprised of the mayor's decision to speak at the funeral of the slain child, in a Harlem church. His advisers tell him he won't be wanted there. But he goes anyway, and cranks himself up for a spiel of unabashed hyperbole, Pacino and his character both.

It gets an impressive reaction from the congregation, but the mayor knows, and his deputy knows, that it was artificial, and the way they scrupulously evade discussing it, in the limousine taking them away, is a subtle employment of composure and innuendo. This is a script that knows it has to supply Pacino with the reason why most of his fans go to see him, and immediately follows its quota with the reality that silence has much more inherent meaning than speech.

Pacino and Cusack are convincing together throughout the movie, the older man unbreakable and aware, the younger one anxious to learn, but with ideals that don't sway. Pacino is innate with his down-to-earth capacity to marry common sense and inventive imagination, inspired flair and matter-of-fact realism. Cusack moves very freely in spite of his dark defensiveness.

The Bridget Fonda subplot development is unnecessary, but it is a result of veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader's otherwise shrewdly perceptive belief in the worth of every character, and each is fleshed into earnest embodiments. Aiello, for instance, is a highlight because he evokes his character's joie de vivre and sensitivity to his environment. ***SPOILERS*** When undercover Brooklyn North Det. Eddie Santos, Nestor Serrano,was to meet his drug supplier Tito Zapatti, Larry Romano, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn in a buy and bust operation, with Tito being the one who gets busted, that things went haywire with both Det. Santos and Tito ending up getting shot and killed by each other. During the deadly shootout an innocent bystander six year-old James Bone Jr.,Jaliyl Lynn,was also killed in the cross-fire.

With New York City slated to host the 1996 Democratic Presidential Convention that summer that last thing that the city's flamboyant Mayor Pappas, Al Pacino, wanted was a possible riot over young James Bones tragic death by a possible, in was later determined that it was a bullet from Tito's gun that killed young James, member of the New York City Police Department.

What was far more shocking then even Bone's death is that his killer Tito Zapatti was given probation by the well respected NY State Judge Walter Stern, Martin Landau. When he should have been put behind bars for 10 to 20 years by being arrested with a kilo of cocaine in the backseat of his car! It soon became evident that the person who got Judge Stern his job, for a $50,000.00 payoff, was non other the Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo, Danny Aiello. It's Anselmo who's involved with Mayor Pappas in a land deal, involving the New York Subway System, that would bring him and his real estate friends tens of millions of dollars over the next two years! It would also indirectly connect Mayor Pappas in the Bone killing by connecting him to Judge Stern, who made it possible for Tito be be free, who's a mutual friend of both him and his Gomba, or Landsman, Frank Anselmo!

To keep all this from blowing up the late Det. Santons is framed, by working undercover without the authority from his superiors, in the Bone shooting. In fact those framing Santos go as far and hiding some $40,000.00 in cash in his upstate summer home making it look like he was being paid off by Tito's uncle Mafia boss Paul Zapatti, Anthony Francoisa, for letting his nephew deal drugs with him getting a piece of the action. Which may well explain him, as well as Tito, getting shot by Tito welshing on his paying Santos off!

As things turn out it's Mayor Pappas' deputy in City Hall Kevin Calhoun, John Cusack, who ends up messing everything up for his boss by being too honest in finding who was responsible in covering up Tito's criminal record that allowed him to be out on the streets. The facts that Kevin uncovered lead straight to Frank Anselmo, a major political supporter of Mayor Pappas, who as it turned out was connected by the hip to Tito's Mafia chieftain Uncle Paul!

A bit over-plotted "City Hall" does show how big city corruption can filter up, as well as down, to everyone in city government without them, like Mayor Pappas, even knowing about it. Mayor Pappas biggest sin was that he was friends with Brooklyn Boss Anselmo who was putting people into jobs, like Judge Stern, who were subjected to being blackmailed from Anselmo's real boss Mafioso Paul Zapatti.

***SPOILERS*** It only took a deadly shootout in Williamsburg to set everything into motion not by only Tito, besides Det. Santos and James Bone, being killed but why he was allowed to be out on the street in order to bring the very popular New York City Mayor down. Mayor Pappas was looking forward to much bigger things, like Governor or even President, in his future political pursuits. As it turned out his top deputy Kevin Calhoun in not looking the other way was responsible for his demise. As well as that of the Mayor's good friend Frank Anselmo and the person whom he helped put on the bench, as a state judge, Judge Stern. Who's decision in letting Tito Zapatti off made this whole disaster, which resulted in at least a half dozen murders and one suicide, possible! The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.

I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.

The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10 In a performance both volatile and graceful, Al Pacino re-teams with Sea of Love director, Harold Becker.

As New York Mayor John Pappas in City Hall.

A savvy thriller thats the first film ever shot inside the lower Manhattan structure that's ground zero for the City's government.

That the other NYC locations provide the vivid settings as an idealistic mayoral aide (John Cusack) follows a trail of subversion and cover-up that may loop back to the man he serves and reveres.

Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Martin Landau, Tony Franciosa and David Paymer add more starry brilliance to this gripping tale of power.

And the power behind power. I liked the quiet noir of the first part, the acting of Pacino and Cusak, especially their scenes together. The moodiness of the setting and the juxtaposition of the old pol and the idealistic youth was effecting. I wish Bridget Fonda had more scenes in the movie; she was an earnest and appealing character. The film went off the rails for me when the assistant mayor starting snooping around the mafioso to get to the bottom of something his boss clearly didn't want him meddling in. Nobody in their right mind would meet a mafioso on an abandoned dock in a junkyard. Here the story became implausible. Something that I don't understand: why did the cop and Vito have a shootout if the latter was delivering info that could bring down the corrupt judge? CITY HALL is a somewhat mixed bag. Part vignettes of NYC political life, and part moralizing tale. Al Pacino, a Dukakis-esque Boss with Presidential dreams, gives an oft times sullen or subdued performance. There's a couple times when he chews the scenery, and in the case of CITY HALL, this is where he shines. John Cusack gives a subdued and generally flawless performance, without going into caricature of a New Orleans dialect, or sliding into melodrama during the films climax. Danny Aiello as a burrough political chief, is also very good. I love showtunes, too.

The major problem with CITY HALL, and it is a good movie in many ways, is the general feeling of a lack of momentum. It comes off more like a documentary, than a motion picture. We see the action or follow the story from a detached perspective, and naturally, the viewer doesn't become involved. When the viewer doesn't get involved to a certain degree, they become apathetic towards the characters, and eventually, the plot.

This tends to alienate, and what should have been a riveting, detail divulging finale, came off as a "Hmmm...uh...okay." They say you "Can't fight city hall," as the tread worn cliche goes. Yet, it still can't stop you from thinking what might have been, if they had just tightened up the screenplay and pacing of this movie. Full marks for Pacino's rendering of the speech over the dead kid's coffin; Shakespeare's Mark Antony would be put to shame!!

Was it Paul Schrader or was it Ken Lipper who should be complimented on the remarkable dialogues? They are rich and intelligent and well worth your time if you like movies with good scripts. I found the story narrative developing quite well right up to the voice-over postscript.

There is little else to talk about in this film; even John Cusack has done better roles than this one. Interestingly, the film is very male oriented--the women are mere appendages. We often see movies about undesirable things going on in politics, but I still recommend "City Hall". In a role he was born to play, Al Pacino stars as New York's mayor who has to deal with the shooting of a boy. But it turns out that nothing that he does will really have any effect. In this movie, the characters are as gritty as we would expect of anyone involved in a political scandal. No matter how much you trust any given politician, you may have your doubts after watching this movie.

I understand that I can't name any specific example of something similar to what this movie portrays, but that's not the point. If we had idealistic impressions of those at the top, this movie tears such ideas down. Certainly one that I encourage you to see. Also starring John Cusack, Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Anthony Franciosa and David Paymer. Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC! I appreciate movies like this: smart and well-crafted, entertaining, absorbing, well-acted and nicely directed. Nobody -- even Pacino -- is chewing the scenery*, trying to stand out; one of the film's most effective moments (Aielo pulling over at his beloved off ramp) is chilling precisely because of its restraint.

Not as good as, say, QUIZ SHOW, CITY HALL is of a similar cloth: engaging the mind as well as eye, ear, and heart. Why such well-hewn entertainment flops at the box office is anybody's guess.

*You know, Pacino does chew it up in one particular scene, but precisely because it's required. Great scene, too. Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy. Brilliant execution in displaying once and for all, this time in the venue of politics, of how "good intentions do actually pave the road to hell". Excellent! I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too. This is simply the most astonishing movie you will ever see. I thought it was just another documentary, but it really is something else. It doesn't try to teach you anything, it shows you how life works in nature.

I won't talk about the quality of the pictures, because you obviously know from other comments it is unmatched.

Earth is funny, tense and sad. It can make you laugh, it can make you cry. Sometimes both at the same time. This is the first movie that made me cry, not because you feel sorry for the animals, but because you come to realise how fragile our planet is and what treasure we were blessed with, yet we don't appreciate it one bit.

This movie should be shown obligatory in schools. It is the most wonderful film you will ever see, so go and see it. Who knows, maybe it is the last time we might see our planet like this...

10/10, but I would easily rate it more if it were possible. This was playing at our theater in Amsterdam and the film we wanted to see was sold-out so we went to this, not knowing anything about it other than it was a documentary about the planet. We were very happy at our misfortune as this was a very powerful film about life and the delicate balance we all share with the rest of the inhabitants of Earth. This film has some of the most breathtaking photography I have ever seen in a film and took me places from deserts to oceans to rain forests and displayed things I have never seen in a film, TV or book! "Earth" is a film that every student should see before they become jaded. I will encourage my niece to see this film since she will be inheriting the planet we leave her. This is also a film to see on a theater screen or a very big television since the photography is so powerful and exotic. I loved the way EARTH is made. Its photography is unbelievable, editing it must have been an interesting challenge and Patrick Stewart's voice over is PERFECT. In addition its music and sound editing make watching EARTH a profound experience you don't want to miss. You really are on a journey to where you would probably never-ever end up by yourself.

And although, at first, I was quite surprised by the laughter of the audience as we see animals in their daily fight for survival, I could not help laughing myself sometimes. Nature simply seems too impressive to comprehend.

But, rather than the need to laugh, I left the cinema with a profound question:"Howcome 200 years of industrial revolution can destroy natural systems that have been here for thousands and thousands of years?"

With this question in mind, you'll understand how I felt somewhat bitter and powerless after seeing EARTH. I felt the immediate need to change the world, to help all these animals in their struggle, to undo the changes we have gone through the last centuries and to stop the global heating at once (all that not being a NGO activist at all!)...

So I immediately visited the website mentioned at the end of the film to see what I could do to save our -still- fantastic planet (and the polar bear) from its depressing fate... (www.loveearth.com)

I was a little disappointed to find no direct answers to my questions there. Yet it was very interesting to find out more about the film and the struggle its crew went through.

I hope that cutting on my energy-use will do. I don't know how else to shorten the distance polar bears have to swim to reach land before they drown or attack animals they cannot beat in their exhausted state...

An inspiring film it is, but I didn't leave the cinema feeling very happy. There is some spectacular, heart stoppingly beautiful photography here of a range of scenery and animals, from arctic to tropical and everything in between. The camera techniques are varied and spot on from close ups to aerial work. Editing is tremendous and the commentary is spot on too, with just the right tone and some dramatic and telling facts about our world. Where the film falls down a bit is in trying to cover and integrate four themes - seasonal patterns, climate change, individual animal stories and hunter/ hunted interactions across multiple environments. Eventually it all gets a bit bitty and disjointed. Overall, well worth seeing especially given the issues covered but don't expect Oscar material. I've heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, "Planet Earth," narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)' – a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage – on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.

Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the "human side" of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.

'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.

Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale – tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year – the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for "Planet Earth." Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007. I have to say that sometimes "looks" are all that matters, just like Jeremy Clarkson from BBC has pointed out (not about our earth though, but he is right anyway).

And when it comes to looks, this movie is such an unbelievably stunning beauty you will absolutely love what your eyes are about to see.

And then there's the personality of the movie as well, interesting, with a captivating narrator voice and narrator stories that will touch your soul as you watch those superbly filmed images.

The movie probably won't affect your lifestyle, ruining these beauties, but it will certainly remember you how precious our earth we live on truly is.

This movie deserves it's 10 stars as it is one of the few stylistic earth documentaries i truly enjoyed. Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.

This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.

In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful! Rather annoying that reviewers keep comparing this to Planet Earth... Of *course* Planet Earth is better - it has much much more of the same. Earth is like an extended trailer for the Planet Earth series, and as such, is inevitably inferior and simplified. But that is not comparing like with like.

As a feature-length documentary (or actually as a feature-length anything), it surpasses pretty much anything you will see in your entire life (unless you choose to traverse the Earth in helicopters with long-range cameras for years on end, and wait for months in the most extreme environments to catch a glimpse of the most extraordinary beings on earth, which - lets face it - is unlikely).

On the narration: yes everyone in the UK - very much including me - adores David Attenborough, and there's little excuse for him not to be narrating here, but that hardly deserves knocking down a star or three. He wasn't a presenter on Planet Earth, just a narrator, and I'm sure he's modest and gracious enough to realise that anything that gets more viewers in is a Good Thing.

Anyone who sees this will be overwhelmed by its awe, majesty and glory. All reviewers agree on that. Those who love it (ie. everyone) will/should go on to see an buy Planet Earth. So three cheers for its cinematic release, and a big boooo for anyone cheap enough to buy this on DVD rather than the Planet Earth box-set. But as works of art they're not in competition here people.

The Earth is big enough for both. You have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really great, it is a 10 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so poor, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are an excellent way to wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth" mainly made of long monologues, painfully and with "truths" not always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already.

The best thing you can do on earth is not miss Earth. The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film. This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH". In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film "Earth". Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.

The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.

Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.

The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.

One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show "Kung Fu" during the early Seventies.

An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!

Three stars. This is a run-of-the-mill nature porn movie. By porn, I don't mean sex. I mean gratuitous images of (for example) thousands of birds together, or hundreds of walruses, or a giant waterfall or iceberg. Several of the shots in the film seem to exist solely to make their way into the trailer, to get people into theatres to see it for all of ten seconds before it disappears never to be seen again for the rest of the film.

There is almost no plot in this film. Told to expect a story of three animal families, "better than March of the Penguins", the movie simply doesn't deliver. The blame rests in three key areas: (1) the writers who gave James Earl Jones some of the worst lines to narrate in nature film history, (2) the music team who over-dramatized everything to tell you what you should be feeling, even when the film fails to motivate, and lastly but most importantly (3) the editors who had the story jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason, no continuity, no flow, sucking the life out of the entire film -- a film about life. When we got to the whales halfway through the film, I sunk back in my seat with dread, hoping against hope that the film was more than halfway through, and that I'd be able to survive the long endurance test along with the animals on screen.

There was also almost no science in the film at all. They attributed hot and cold (all of it, not just the seasons) solely to the Earth's tilt, ignoring the fact that we'd have even greater extremes from location to location if there was no tilt because the poles would never warm. And it would be worst if we had no rotation (relative to revolution) like Mercury, because half the planet would bake and the other half would freeze. Then near the end they used the phrase "humans and animals", as if humans are not animals, somehow exempt from the laws of nature. So much for science.

I must credit the camera work, however, and again that is why I call this nature porn. Everything from super-slow-motion to what appears to be a finely-tuned mechanically-controlled time-lapse photography, was put to use to provide some (and I caution, only "some") stunning moments that do raise the bar compared to other nature films. That said, I am not convinced that it was all nature on the screen. Some of the shots showing the great watering hole in Africa, as it changed from season to season seemed like CGI to me. A director might have expected such suspicion and built in other shots to demonstrate that it's all natural, but they didn't do that.

For a film about Earth, I had expected a lot more of Earth to be shown. What we saw was pristine. We had to take the narrator's word for it that some species are at risk due to climate changes. They didn't show us evidence of it. They didn't show us Alberta's poisonous tailing ponds visible from space. They didn't show us the great Pacific trash whorl. They didn't show us a nighttime picture of human light pollution around the planet. These are as much Earth as anything else. Why cover it up for a feel-good whitewash?

My last criticism of the content is of predation. Any time a predator was shown on the screen actually hunting prey, the music turned almost into that Mt Doom scene from Lord of the Rings, with the predator portrayed as some kind of Sauron ultimate-evil character. But predators aren't evil. They perform a necessary service, ensuring that the best members of the prey species survive. We are predators ourselves. Any time the predator caught the prey, we immediately cut away to something else, to sort of pretend that death and eating don't really happen. The final insult was the "dad" polar bear being left to die after he dared to try to eat. "Bad bear! Bad!", you can almost hear them say.

On to the presentation itself. My theatre may be in part to blame for this, but maybe not. I had expected to see something with greater clarity than I could see on my own HDTV LCD at home. But the picture was blurry, and was presented in the same 16:9 ratio I could get at home, instead of the wider ratio many films come in these days. And during one action-packed scene near the end, the film (I can't imagine this happening digitally, from how it looked) was damaged, and we lost several of the colors, eventually blacking out completely. That repeated about three times.

If they actually do plant a tree on my behalf, it will have been worth it. But how will I know? i almost did not go see this movie because i remember march of the penguin was not that much exciting. I went mainly because Disney promised to plant a tree if i go see it on the opening weekend, but after i did go see it, it was simply amazing; the fact that the photographers can capture impossible images are simply worth your money. You also get to see different habitats, different vegetation, animals, and natural phenomenons that will not only shock you - simply because you would never expect nature to be so magical and dynamic - but also touch your souls and raise the question of humanity versus the world, of how our lives have deviated from nature to such a degree that we take for granted of the natural beauty and miracles that are quintessential to our biosphere. You don't have to be an earth lover or a tree-hugging environmentalist to appreciate the mere awesomeness of this documentary. You simply have to be a curious soul who questions the value and miracle of living. Enjoy! I saw this movie with my family and it was great! This film is more than just a documentary (that offers not more than cold facts) with long mono/-duologue's and lots of charts...The complete "power" of this movie comes from the impressive pictures being filmed under water, in the air or the Arctic.With watching this movie you can learn more about our planet than with just reading a book, it shows that WE are embedded in the circular flow of life. This movie is not only for "environmental fanatics" although people that want to look a good movie with a message should watch it. This movie taught me that we are not only living on the earth...we live with and through the earth and all plants and animals grow and die with us. EARTH is a must see for children and adults. My son had great fun watching all these funny birds and ice bears. We can learn a lot from this movie and we should be proud on our great treasure on earth. There are some animals in danger to disappear. Exactly that problem should prevent all the authorities of our planet.

This documentary offers many exceptional pictures that I have never seen before. Then it is well accompanied by a heavenly music. The director did a great job here that gets high respect. Nothing can stop me and my family to give EARTH the highest rate. I hope so much that the stuff will create a sequel. I saw the German version of the movie in German television and I was really amazed. I generally like to see documentaries, but I can't remember to have seen one that is better than 'Earth'. I knew some of the scenes from Youtube videos that I found by random browsing. I also remember to have seen parts of the film on multimedia stores, running on the displayed high definition TVs. After seeing the movie it's obvious to me why the footage is so popular among Youtube users and multimedia retail managers: It's just so awesome and spectacular that you can't help but stare on the screen, no matter if you're generally interested in nature documentaries or not.

Without hesitating a 10 out of 10. For sure, there are more thrilling movies, but in regard of documentaries, 'Earth' is definitely one of the best of it's genre. First of all, the release date is 2009, not 2007 for this feature length nature documentary film. It should be more properly referred to as: "Earth, 2009". Secondly, allow me to address the complaints of some reviewers who have seen the "Planet Earth" TV series of 2006.

I have not seen this TV series, but learned here, that this film is the full length version of this 2006 TV series. I judge any film, on it's own merits, not by it's source. I judge the results, on their own, and the results of "Earth, 2009" are indeed excellent. I dismiss this trivial complaint of some reviewers: that it's simply an expanded version of the 2006 TV series "Planet Earth". So what? It doesn't really matter.

As a film buff and one who has viewed dozens of nature documentaries in my lifetime, I was astonished and highly impressed by "Earth, 2009". This is the debut film from the new "DisneyNature" division of Disney and follows in the footsteps of Walt Disney's pioneering and Academy Award winning nature documentary films of the 1950's and 1960's.

Cinematography, film editing, music score, sound and narration are all excellent. There have been a few other nature documentaries that also excelled in these categories. What really sets "Earth, 2009" apart is its' scope. It literally covers the entire planet, covering all seven continents.

After my first viewing, it was obvious this documentary film required a massive effort and amount of time and talent to create.

Three production companies were required to make this amazing documentary film.

"Earth, 2009" convincingly tells the stories of four species on their great migrations as it spans one year through the seasons beginning in January and ending in December, from the North Pole to the South Pole.

Two special new high-tech cameras were used for this film: one camera has a 360 degree computer controlled motorized rotating lens and the other is a HD camera set to an amazing 1,000 frames per second. This filming technique really added drama and beauty to some of the scenes of "Earth, 2009" especially the cheetah chase and great white sharks leaping out of the water to catch sea lions and an aerial view going over the edge of the world's highest waterfall. There are many stunningly beautiful shots in this documentary.

Via cinematography, music score and narration, there is drama, sadness, humor and great beauty in this documentary. With a great music score performed by the world renowned Berliner Philharmoniker, excellent creative and technical cinematography and James Earl Jones narration, I consider "Earth, 2009" as the greatest nature feature length documentary film ever made.

Five years of hard work, patience, talent and dedication really paid off very well here. This film should be required viewing in all schools throughout the world. I predict an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, among other awards. Truly, an amazing, astonishing, exhilarating and magnificent documentary film.

Very Highly Recommended In 2006, the AMPAS awarded one of the most innovative documentaries depicting wildlife in the coldest place on Earth, that film was March of the Penguins narrated by Academy Award Winning Actor Morgan Freeman.

Walt Disney Studios has had a monopoly on the animated circuit for decades now. They've taken their stabs at live action film making and it's been hit and miss all across the board. Disney then created a sub-division called Disneynature and release its first feature film titled Earth. This is absolutely one of the most touching and informative documentaries I've seen in quite sometime.

Narrated by the great James Earl Jones, Earth doesn't offer anything new to anyone who has watched the Discovery Channel in the past five years or follows the Global Warming crisis very closely. Earth touches very deeply on the issue and takes a very liberal approach on the subject matter.

It enables an emotional connection to nature that I haven't experienced before. It also shows not only the beauty and mystifying parts of our gorgeous planet, but the grunt and disturbing aspects that it often entails. It's one thing to watch "Mufasa" fall from a cliff in to a stampede or Bambi's mother be shot by a hunter in the middle of the woods. It's all good because at the end of the film we know it is, just that, a film. This shows penguins, polar bears, elephants, all types of families, from all walks of life, living and dying in their natural habitats. These real things make a real movie experience.

Though a bit heavy-weight on the graphic nature of the film (which many people will disagree), Earth is a touching experience. There is stunning cinematography work here by a great camera team and an amazing score by George Fenton. In comparison to March of the Penguins or Grizzly Man, it doesn't really hold any measure but it stands great on its own. At the end of the day, you grow an appreciation of our planet and a bit of sadness as many of us will probably never get to visit these places we'll witness in the film. We live here yet it's like we never get to explore the planet for one reason or another. Earth is beautiful.

***/**** Why on earth should you explore the mesmerizing nature documentary "Earth"? How much time do you have on earth so I can explain this to you? OK, I will not elongate my review exploration on "Earth" to infinity, but I must stand my ground on why this is a "must see". The documentary takes a nature round trip on the migration paths on three animal families: a female polar bear and her cubs with the real life subplot of the father bear daring it out to hunt for food in his isolated path, a mama of a whale with her baby whale taking a whale of a migration tour for prey, and an elephant mama with her small (maybe not so small, they are elephants) offspring migrating in Africa. Directors Alastair Forthegill & Mark Linfield did an "out of this earth" job in also capturing the survival skills of many other animal species besides the magnetic shots of our three animal family protagonists. The cinematographically skilled team of Richard Brooks Burton, Mike Holding, Adam Ravetch, and Andrew Shillabeer were animales in camera shooting the wondrous nature sites and animal instinctive behaviors; not to mention, the slo-mo animal prey shots were u n b e l i e a v a b l e. "Earth" is also a lesson learner on the global warming effect on the animals; the papa polar bear in the doc is the poster animal boy on that consequence. So fellow earthlings, it is time to take the documentary voyage to visit "Earth" today! **** Good Greetings again from the darkness. Stunning photography highlights this Disney documentary and provides a glimpse into some of the harshness of animals that live in the wilderness. For anyone over 40, Disney and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom provided much of our insight into wild animals since our childhood ... back when there was no channel dedicated to National Geographic or Nature or Animal Planet.

What always fascinates is just how difficult the circumstances are for many of these majestic creatures. Watching the elephants trudge for days, nearly delirious from lack of water, is oh so painful. But their nighttime battle against the lions is thrilling.

Some of the underwater shots are breathless. The mama and baby humpbacks are beautiful and watching the great white shark attack its prey is every bit as chilling as "Jaws". The most amazing scenery for me was the breathtaking views of the Himalayas. I had never seen such detail of the vastness of the range.

Don't think most young kids today will be too excited by this one, but it surely is one of the most beautifully photographed documentaries I have ever seen. EARTH (2009) ***1/2 Big screen adaptation of the BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" offers quite a majestic sampling of nature in all its beauty with some truly jaw-dropping moments of "how the hell did they get this footage?!" while taking in the awesome scenics of animals in their natural habitats and environmental message of the circle of life can be cruel (witness a Great White Shark gulping down a walrus seal as a quick meal!) and adorable (the various babies and their 'rents). The basso profundo tones of narrator James Earl Jones solidifies its 'God's eye views' and profundity. Culled from literally hundreds of hours of footage, the only gripe comes from the fact this should have been in the IMAX format and could've even gone longer! Oh, well, there's always the next time (since Disney Studios has produced this count on a series of more to come). Dirs: Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield. It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*! A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.

This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie. I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist. The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license.

Which might one aver?

In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.

In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.

How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?

The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.

That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.

So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.

In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.

For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.

Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.

David Broadhurst (spoilers?)

while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time.

I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.

8/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10 I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in "The portrait of a lady" as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10 A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films. If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called "justice" is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. "Ladrones y Mentirosos" is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the "Copper Wing Award" for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival. And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid. "Thieves and Liars" presents us with a very naturalistic depiction of the levels of corruption that affect many Puerto Ricans and force them to make difficult if not impossible choices about their and their loved ones' lives. The cast is excellent, considering that some are non-professional actors; an excellent choice that augments the level of reality in the film. The photography propels the story without intrusion, as it should be in this type of film. The script captures the idiosyncrasies and attitudes of the "Boricuas" in a very deep way. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a documentary! Watching this film you feel as if you've secretly entered the real Puerto Rican society and stand invisibly watching it implode. I loved it! Mendez and Marichal have provided us with a serious, cogent and painful analysis of the social, spiritual, economic and political crisis that 108 years of colonialism have spawned in Puerto Rico. A beautiful island with the most hospitable people I have met and yet because our nation refuses to faces its imperial responsibilities, Puerto Ricans are allowed to wither and die.

The spiritual crisis that the colonial situation of Puerto Rico has created, if undermining families, and the basic institutions that sustain any society. Corruption is rampant to the extent that people are not paying taxes (which has led a fiscal crisis for this nation) and a sense of cynicism and distrust permeate the island's culture.

Fortunately, a grant allowed this painful yet powerful film to be produced.

A must see . . . Soap Opera about a small town married woman (Kay Francis) who works at the local newsstand, performs as leading lady in her local playhouse, but dreams of becoming a star on Broadway. When a famous actor who is a ham, a windbag, and a womanizer to boot, arrives in town she visits him in his room with dreams of him giving her tips to stardom - he pretends his valet is his "manager" tricking her into believing she has all it takes but "experience" to become a big star. Her husband finds out and punches the guy resulting in the actor's unexpected death - which leads to a murder trial and even more unexpected: a life prison sentence for hubby. Next thing you know she's joined a traveling Burlesque show in hopes of one day making it to Broadway and making enough money to get her man's freedom - all the while her baby is sleeping in a trunk!

This film has a pretty interesting plot, well, a bit far-fetched perhaps, but very melodramatic (with tons of melodramatic music to make sure you get it) - all *greatly* enhanced by the strong, emotional performance given by Kay Francis - she just makes this film. Also helping here is the well-done acting by Minna Gombell in her role as a "getting close to forty" older lady who works the burlesque and befriends Kay. Worth seeing, especially for Kay Francis fans. I agree with everyone who says that this series was the best of the 'spy' genre. My husband and I were captivated by it when it first aired in the US and watched every episode. I tried at that time to purchase the series (I did tape all of it) but was told by WGBH that it was not available. I even considered writing to Ian Holm to see if he might have a copy! Like others, I purchased and read the Deighton series (in part to understand the complicated plot.) If the original version ever comes available on DVD, I'll be among the first in line to snap up a copy. Ian Holm's portrayal of the vulnerable but courageous Bernard Samson was amazing. (He is always amazing.) This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence. I watched the presentation of this on PBS in the U.S. when it originally aired in 1988 (?). Assuming the miniseries was available on DVD I purchased first editions of all three books last year. Since then I have been searching for the series on internet movie sites. Today I found this web site. I will give up the search.

I too would like to buy this complete - 26 episodes - miniseries. After buying the DVDs I would read each book, then watch the episodes for that book. That is what I did with John LeCarre's Karla trilogy and Larry McMurty's Texas ranger trilogy.

Does anyone have any suggestions for great books or book series that became very good TV miniseries - or movie series - that are now available on DVD? An excellent series, masterfully acted and directed, but unloved (I am told) by Mr Deighton and withdrawn by him after a single presentation. It is now only viewable in private collections, and via the British Film Institute at special request. Very unfortunate, as Ian Holm's nuanced portrayal of the weary-but-determined Bernard Samson is superb; one of his very best performances. The supporting cast, including the young Amanda Donohoe and Hugh Fraser, are superb. With Mel Martin playing the conflicted and traitorous wife, and Michael Degen as the mercurial Werner, the story positively simmers with the tragic and fateful personal consequences of the great game. I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of "indie" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.

Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a "small" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.

The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. "I can't talk to the man," Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. "You'd better learn before winter," replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).

Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.

We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.

This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten. This is one of the best films ever made. It is a realistic depiction of rural ranching life which was a big part of American History. The setting is 1906 Wyoming where life had not changed much since the previous century. The film keeps your interest without the added Hollywood myths. The whole family can see this movie and be intrigued about how life was like in America when it was mostly a rural nation. With this film, you will escape the present and witness the daily life of 100 years ago. In a beautiful, scenic environment you will see the hard physical work that was required to survive, as well as the constant worries and concerns of the elements and the market pressures that will make a difference between success or failure. See this movie and experience life as it was for most of our nation's history. This film is worth your time to see. My only question is - why aren't there more films like this one? Excellent. Gritty and true portrayal of pioneer ranch life on the Western plains with an emphasis on the woman's role and place. A moving film, lovingly made, and based on real people and their actual experiences. Low budget, independent film; never made any money. Definitely not the romanticized, unrealistic Hollywood version of pioneer life. Portrays the day to day stark reality of survival on a ranch in the old west. Outstanding acting by both principal actors. This doesn't even feel like a movie...you feel like you're there. Animal activists should beware...many scenes are obviously not just realistic...they are real. This western is done in a different manner than most others. Realism is the key here. Conchata Farrell comes to Wyoming to work for Rip Torn on his ranch. How this is presented makes for a most interesting slice of Americana. I would have preferred to see this on the big screen rather than on tape, but it's worth a look to see just how life was back in the real west. Cinematography is excellent. Solid 9. Torn & Farrell excel in this movie. I saw the latter half of this movie about a year ago and was very happy to finally find it available on DVD. Recently, I watched several of the reality series on PBS about ranching, etc. None of them came as close to telling the story as this movie does. Based on REAL reality, pulling no punches, bleak, happy, tragic and enlightening, this is a movie that should be shown to students or to anyone interested in early frontier life. Fine acting on the part of both Rip Torn and Conchata Ferrell add to an well done script. The opening credit states that it was done though funds supplied through the National Endowment for the Humanities. If this is the kind of product taxes could go to I would be happy to see more. I highly recommend it and would encourage people to tell a friend if you have seen it and enjoyed the film. This is a movie that should be seen by everyone if you want to see great acting. Mr. Torn and Ms Farrel do an outstanding job. I think they should have it on TV again so a new audience can enjoy it. Wonderful performances.

It gives you a real feel of what the pioneers had to go through both physically and emotionally. Great unheard of movie.

It was done when Ms. Farrel was very young. I had always thought of her as a comedian, but this certainly is not a comedy and she is just wonderful. There is very little dialogs, but that just make it seem more real. Mr. Torn as always is a great presence and just his breathing has great feeling. I must see movie. Haven't seen the film since first released, but it was memorable. Performances by Rip Torn and Conchata Farrell were superb, photography excellent, moving story line and everything else about it was of the highest standard. Yet it seems to have been pretty much forgotten

Maybe because UK is an odd market for it but I haven't seen the film on TV or video, which is sad. Has it had more success in US where it might rightly be seen as a quite accurate historical drama?

Always reckon that 50% of a good film is the music and though I'm not certain I think the title theme was a simple but moving clarinet solo of "What a friend we have in Jesus". The film then went on to disprove that! Am I right or wrong? I saw this 25 years ago on PBS. It was very difficult to watch. So real. To watch this small family struggle in the winter was heart rending. No time for courting: fate has thrown us together and we put our shoulders to the grindstone and make it work. This was based on the woman's actual diary, which I read many years later. She said in her diary that her parents died when she was little and all their bothers and sisters had to work the farm to feed themselves. She learned to mow, which was not lady-like. She was afraid that no prince charming would want a woman with sun-browned, calloused hands, but this husband was so happy that his new wife knew how to mow, and she was happy to do it. Both were widowed and together they worked to build a new home. It was so, so sad when the baby died. Of course, if they had it today, I am sure it would have been fine. That only makes the tragedy extra sad. I was crying so hard. But then they went out and successfully pulled out a new calf. Spring is on its way, and life goes on. In her diary, she did have two more boys and they lived. "Heartland" is a wonderful depiction of what it was really like to live on the frontier. The hard work and individual strength that were needed to survive the hardships of the climate and the lack of medical care are blended with the camaraderie and the interdependence of the settlers. The drama was especially meaningful because the story is based on the diaries of real people whose descendants still live there. It was also nice to see the west inhabited by real people. No one was glamorous or looked as if they had just spent a session with the makeup or costume department. Conchatta Ferrell is just wonderful. She is an example of the strong, persevering people who came to Wyoming in the early 20th century and let no hardship stand in their way of a new life in a new land. Fabulous actors, beautiful scenery, stark reality. I won't elaborate on all of the other reviewers' comments because you get the picture! However, the movie isn't for the squeamish. Reality is slaughtering pigs and other livestock in order to survive. I also have Elinore Randall Stewart's homestead book. I read it several years ago, I have to reread it, since I just watched the newly-released, remastered DVD of the movie.

I tried to buy the video for several years, finally bought it used from a video store that went out of business. But Yippee! The DVD is now for sale, I purchased it on amazon.com. Not cheap, but well worth it to me. This is a movie I will be watching until the end of my days! Heartland was in production about the same time as Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate - Heartland cost a fraction to make but is 10 times the piece of film.

Heaven's Gate was "the biggest and most expensive ($40 mil in 1980!) Hollywood flops of all time, its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM" -imdb entry

Heartland cost a few hundred thousand dollars and benefits from great writing, direction, photography and acting. It easily draws you into the beauty, joys, hardships and sorrow of pioneer life.

It's sad that Hollywood sometimes would pour millions into turkeys (based on a director's single big hit) and neglect such a wonderful story. I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here. This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!! back in my high school days in Salina Kansas, they filmed something called "The Brave Young Men Of Weinberg" locally, and the film crews were rather prominent for weeks. eventually, we learned that the film was "Up The Academy", and was a bit ummm, "lower brow" than we had been led to believe.

I had to see it, since I was there, and the local audiences seemed less than pleased at the showing. I was 17, and thought it was a rather artless attempt at a post "Animal house" type of comedy, right down to the fart jokes.

Watched it many times since, and my opinion has mellowed a bit. it's dumb, but at times it catches a bit of the "mad" magazine humor, at least as well as most "Mad TV". Ron Liebman might hate it, but he is nearly perfect, and unforgettable. For me, my favorite moment would have been a brief scene on Santa Fe avenue, where I had parked my car, while I was buying some guitar strings. Too bad my Pinto's brief appearance, usually seems to get cut for TV. haven't seen the new DVD, but if my old pinto is visible, they've got a sale. I first caught the movie on its first run on HBO in (probably) 1981 and being 15 years old I thought the movie was hilarious. I remember NOT seeing the Alfred E. Neuman depictions shown in the theatrical trailers. When MAD Magazine satired the movie and abruptly halted half way through with apologies from the "usual gang" for lowering themselves to satire such a piece of crap, I just assumed they were poking fun at themselves, which I'm sure they were, but to seriously find them ( and Ron Liebman ) so embarrassed to remove their names from any credits, I was quite surprised. Surely there are many worse movies to be associated with. Watching the movie on video now (at age 32) with the MAD references restored, I still get a kick out of it. And being a Ron Liebman fan (Hot Rock, Where's Poppa?) I think it's his crown jewel of performances (SAY IT AGAAAAIN) I LOVED this flick when it came out in the 80's and still do! I still quote classic lines like "say it again" and "you said you'd rip my balls off sir". Ron Leibman was hot and very funny! Although it was underrated and disowned by MAD, I have to say that this little gem will always be a treasure of mine and a movie that I would take with me if sent to a deserted island! I only wish that someone would release the DVD because my VHS tape is about worn out! If you like cheesed out comedy, this is definitely for you and should be considered a cult classic! It is military humor at it's best and worse! Rent it if you can't own it! Misfits at a military school? Hmmmm, sounds funny, maybe offensive to some. You have the characters there, the Arab thief, the sex crazy teen, the smart mouth, the pot smoker, and not to forget, the guy who burns things. Throw in a strict no nonsense Sergent, a homosexual Sergent and one sexy ammunition teacher and it makes one crazy film adventure.

I have seen this film and it is funny, because the comedy is revolved around the fact that if you try to work together, things get done.

These band of misfit students at Weinberg Military school have been placed in here because, as Sgt Liceman quotes "because you are outcasts, embarrassments to your families and communities, disgraces." One of Ralph Macchio's earlier performances before the Karate Kid and My Cousin Vinny, with appearances from Barbara Bach as well, this film appeals to teens and young adults.

Great soundtrack keeps the film moving. This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it! I may very well be one of the few who really stuck to this film. I also saw this movie when it came out, and I agree with the last post that Up The Acedemy was way ahead of its' time. The humor in the film itself is pure MAD magazine. I don't see why MAD stand behind this feature. It was also one of the few films of the early 80's to have a killer accompanying soundtrack with the punk and new wave bands that were emerging from L.A. at the time. I own the soundtrack and I play it constantly to this day. What can I say? There are definitely worst movies out there. I don't consider Porky's to be as funny as Up The Academy, there are some really good laughs throughout the film, and the jokes fall on either stereotypes or getting laid. Hey, nobody said this was going to be The Maltese Falcon. This movie is so cheap, it's endearing!!! With Ron Liebmann (Major Vaughn) providing the most entertaining on-screen diatribes in film history. I own 2 copies of this movie on video...on one, Ralph Macchio is caught actually cracking up in the background at Major Vaugn while he is ranting at "Hash". Obviously they forgot to edit this mistake out of the film, but it goes to show just how funny the movie is, when the actors themselves can't keep a straight face!!! This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.

It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. ***** Blonde and Blonder has Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards in almost every scene and if you want more from a movie you're being utterly unreasonable. It feels like a late era Carry On, when the series was no longer blazing trails, but was still more funny than not, think Behind or England and you won't be too far off the mark. Pamela and Denise are bubbly, charming and clearly aware this isn't a masterpiece they're making, although you can give me it over lots of things I'm told to like. The supporting cast are energetic, even if some of them aren't particularly good; I can't see a couple of duff turns in a movie that's already practically forgotten making much difference to anything, so just smile. I really do think Blonde and Blonder is ace and I hope you hate me for it. This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will. A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it!

The plot just barely dodges being called "corny". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.

So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy. The Old Mill Pond is more of a tribute to the African-American entertainers of the '30s than any denigration of the entire race (Stepin Fetchit caricature notwithstanding). Besides who I just mentioned, there's also frog or fish versions of Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, Joesphine Baker, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, and Louis Armstrong. This Happy Harmonies cartoon from Hugh Harmon and Rudolf Ising is very entertaining musically with perfect characterizations all around. They all sound so much like the real thing that half of me thinks they could possibly be. If not, they're certainly very flattering impersonations. Even the lazy, shiftless Fetchit characterization gets an exciting workout here when he gets chased by a tiger as "Hold That Tiger" plays on the score. Highly recommended for fans of '30s animation and jazz music. This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH* I just saw this cartoon for the first time and recognized the caricatures of famous black entertainers... Cab Calloway, Bessie Smith, (not Josephine Baker or Sophie Tucker, who was white), Thomas "Fats" Waller, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Stepin Fetchit (notwithstanding) Louis Armstrong and the chorus girls are out of the famed "Cotton Club" in Harlem. True... stereotypes are there, but this was the way it was... and these cartoons were meant as adult entertainment at your local cinema before the main feature.

Harmann & Ising cartoons tended to be more "cutesy" and more upscale, (after all... we are talking about M-G-M) than the standard animated short done over at Warners, Paramount, Universal, Fox, RKO or lowly Columbia. Even Disney's very early Mickey Mouse had loads of barnyard humor before Uncle Walt cleaned him up just before he went "Technicolor".

Disney had some cartoons with caricatures of black entertainers as well... for example, 1937's Silly Symphony "Woodland Cafe". But we have to remember that these films are part of a certain time and place. 50 years from now... clips of the Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park will be also scrutinized, analyzed... and even vilified by future viewers. Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past. So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass. Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.

The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).

MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time. This movie is brilliant in every way. It touches on the complexities of loving relationships in a meaningful way, but never lectures. The script never condescends toward any character, not even the hapless Johnny. It also and benefits from spot-on direction, production design, casting, and performances. The fact that Cher is so perfect in the film and is more unlike "Cher" than she has ever been is a wonder to me. I watch Moonstruck at least once a year and I just viewed it again this Christmas eve with my 16 year old twin daughters and they loved it as well. It has something for everyone with a heart and leaves you filled with joy in the end. 'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.

How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable. Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from **** Wonderful romance comedy drama about an Italian widow (Cher) who's planning to marry a man she's comfortable with (Danny Aiello) until she falls for his headstrong, angry brother (Nicholas Cage). The script is sharp with plenty of great lines, the acting is wonderful, the accents (I've been told) are letter perfect and the cinematography is beautiful. New York has never looked so good on the screen. A must-see primarily for Cher and Olympia Dukakis--they're both fantastic and richly deserved the Oscars they got. A beautiful, funny film. A must see! There is nothing not to like about Moonstruck. I'm from a New York Italian family and I actually get a little homesick when I watch it. The actors & actresses, the plot, the subplots, the humor.. they were all fantastic. It starts a little slow, but a lot happens in that two days! I fell in love with LaBoheme because of this movie. On my list of favorite movies, Moonstruck is number 3. It's a "feel good" movie where you leave the theatre humming "that's amore" or repeating some of your favorite lines: "old man, if you give those dogs another piece of my food, I'll kick you till you're dead"; "Chrissy, bring me the big knife", "who's dead", "do you love him Loretta....., good because when you do, they drive you crazy because they know they can". I always put Moonstruck on when there's nothing good to watch because it makes me happy. This movie is still an all time favorite. Only a pretentious, humorless moron would not enjoy this wonderful film. This movie feels like a slice of warm apple pie topped with french vanilla ice cream! I think this is Cher's best work ever and her most believable performance. Cher has always been blessed with charisma, good looks, and an enviably thin figure. Whether you like her singing or not - who else sounds like Cher? Cher has definitely made her mark in the entertainment industry and will be remembered long after others have come and gone. She is one of the most unique artists out there. It's funny, because who would have thought of Cher as such a naturally gifted actress? She is heads above the so-called movie "stars" of today. Cher is a real actor on the same level as Debra Winger, Alfre Woodard, Holly Hunter, Angela Bassett and a few others, in that she never seems to be "acting," she really becomes the character convincingly. She has more than earned the respect of her peers and of the movie-going public.

Everything about Moonstruck is wonderful - the characters, the scenery, the dialog, the food. I never get tired of watching this movie.

Every time single time I watch the scene where they are all sitting around the dinner table at Rose's house, I pause the remote to see exactly what delicious food Rose is serving. I saw the spaghetti, mushrooms (I think), but I can't make out whether they are eating ravioli, ziti? What is that main course? It looks wonderful and its driving me nuts!

Everybody in that family was a hardworking individual and they respected and cared about one another. The grandfather wasn't pushed aside and tolerated, he was a vital part of the family and he was listened to and respected for his age and wisdom. He seemed to be a pretty healthy, independent old codger too.

Loretta's mom wasn't "just a housewife," she was the glue that held the family together and was a model example of what a wife, mother, and home manager should aspire to be. She was proud of the lifestyle she had chosen but she didn't let it define who she was. High powered businessmen aren't as comfortable in their skin as Rose Casterini was. Notice the saucy way she said "I didn't have kids until after I was 37. It ain't over 'til its over." You got the sense that she had been the type of young woman who did exactly as she pleased and got her way without the other person realizing what had happened. She was charming, quick witted, and very smart. What a great mom!

I didn't actually like Loretta right away because she seemed like a bit of a know--it-all who wasn't really as adventurous and as in control of herself as she wanted others to think. She could tell others about themselves and where they had gone wrong, but she really didn't apply common sense to her own life. She was going to marry a middle-aged mama's boy simply because she wanted a husband and a sense of identity and purpose to her life. She was more conventional than her own mom. She dressed and wore her hair like a matron at a house of detention and seemed humorless and bored, but underneath you sensed that she was vulnerable and lonely and had a lot of love to give the right man. She would probably end up making an awesome mom too.

I could see in the future, a house full of Loretta and Ronnie's loud, screaming happy kids and Rose and Cosmo enjoying every minute of it. This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!

Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.

I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background!

There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.

None quite equals Moonstruck! The bittersweet twist to this movie contains a wonderful element of romanticism that evokes an impetuous passion! These characteristics of idealistic imagery which "Moonstruck" possesses, spur on an end result of a resounding thumbs up verdict by virtually every prominent critic in Hollywood. Let me describe the circumstances to this film, simply put, they are "yesteryear". "Moonstruck" is a cohesive film which sparks the naivety of an old Italian neighborhood in New York City. New York City has always been one big melting pot that is galvanized by many bicker-some mannerisms which are indicative of typical New Yorkers, this includes a lot of Italian Americans living in New York as well! The mid and late eighties brought on an abrupt conclusion to many strong associations with various cultural stereotypes. Ethnicity polarization was a firmly embedded scourge in American history that was far more prevalent several generations before this movie was made. These generalizing proclivities still exist today, however, they are more mollified and less identifiable! For this Italian family of a bygone era, confusion, indecisiveness, agitation, and yes, of course, love, all have the comical camaraderie of an utterly human understanding to them! The kindred spirits with everyone in "Moonstruck" seems to be that of comprehending individual frailties. One might wonder about Cher playing the lead role, as she is more known as an entertainer than a big box office first billing star in a movie. In "Moonstruck", however, I think she was incredibly well suited to her role, and came off as thoroughly believable in a relatively unbelievable situation. All of the characters in "Moonstruck" are very rough around the edges, really tough, and not afraid to have a formidable duel with adversity. The most hilarious aspect to their lives is imperfection, and they are thoroughly aware of the fact that weathering the storm definitely serves a constructive purpose! I thought the acting in this movie was sensational. All relationships in this movie garner an auspicious potential to vividly illuminate because everybody knows how everybody else's basic nature is really like!! For this family, nothing is glamorous, nothing is pretentiously romantic, and nothing is overly emotional (just moderately so). The fact is, this entire family is plainly and perpetually afflicted and overcome by an extremely zealous and candid cupid in all of their lives. Taking moon beams literally can indeed have a pleasantly enervating impact on one's resolve, masqueraded mystique, and resistance to the proverbial am ore'. Thus signifying everything!! The homey and mercurial tenet in this film is basically one of ; Be honest, get angry; Be honest, get confrontational; Be honest, get distorted and emphatic; Most importantly; Be honest, and fall in love!! This is Cher's best performance ever as an actress!! Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello, and Olympia Dukakis, were wonderfully flawed in "Moonstruck" Such performances by these three were perfectly appropriate for the kinetic energy of the characters in this movie! Director, Norman Jewison (Famous for "Cincinnati Kid", "Thomas Crowne Affair", and most famous for "In The Heat Of The Night" which won the academy award for best picture in 1967) depicts many keen and humanistic instincts in the process of purveying the deliberate incongruity to this film! I am Italian American in descent, (Partially anyways) Cher is not Italian, and, for that matter, neither is the writer nor the director! I guess since non-Italians like eating our food, they may as well use our culture to make a fabulous film too! It is refreshing to know that a film can be marvelous and have an incredibly happy ending!! For those of you who didn't like this movie, I just have one thing to say "Snap Out Of It!!" This movie "Moonstruck" is totally happy go lucky!! Totally eighties!! and Totally five stars!! See it!! I don't think that many films (especially comedies) have added memorable, quotable dialog like MOONSTRUCK. I won't illustrate it - you can see a remarkably long list of quotes on this thread - but any film that can make subjects like the defense of using expensive copper piping rather than brass for plumbing purposes into memorable dialog is amazing to me. It is not the only line that pops up and makes an imprint on our memory. How about a restaurant waiter who regrets a planned marriage proposal because it will mean the loss of an old bachelor client? Or a nice, elderly dog fancier encouraging his pack to howl at he moon? Or Perry (John Mahoney's) description of a female student's youthful promise as "moonlight in a martini" (my favorite line).

MOONSTRUCK is a wonderful example of brilliant script, first rate direction, and a good ensemble cast that fits perfectly. There are other examples (the drama THE OX-BOW INCIDENT is another example, but a grimmer one). Cher, Olympia Dukakis, Vincent Gardenia, Nicholas Cage, John Mahoney, and Danny Aiello are all involved in plots and cross purposes that examine the nature of love, and how to handle it. Is it a good thing to be totally in love? Cher and Cage, at the end, seem to think so, but Dukakis knows that real love drives the individual crazy (and Cage gets a glimmer of realization of this too, when he and Cher argue outside his home after they return from the opera La Boheme). Is infidelity by men a way of avoiding thoughts of death. Dukakis believes so, and (oddly enough - although he is not totally convinced) Aiello. Chance reveals infidelity - Dukakis realizes early that Gardenia's odd behavior is tied to unfaithfulness, and Cher literally stumbles onto Gardenia and his girlfriend at the opera (but Gardenia also stumbles onto Cher's similar unfaithfulness to Aiello). But chance also causes misunderstandings: Fyodor Chaliapin stumbles on Dukakis walking with John Mahoney and thinks that she is having an affair.

There are lovely little moments in the film too. Cher's observation about flowers leading to receiving one. Her hearing the argument in the liquor shop and it's resolution. But best is the sequence of Louis Guss and Julie Bovasso as Cher's uncle and aunt Raymond and Rita Cappomaggi and Rita's charming and kind comment to Raymond about the effect of the moonlight on him. It is the sweetest moment of the entire film.

It is close to a flawless film. After seeing it over a dozen times in as many years I can only find two points that do not seem as smooth as they should be. When Cher is at Cage's bakery, his assistant Chrissy (Nada Despotovich) mentions how she is secretly in love with Cage, but has been afraid to tell him. Earlier she was slightly snippy towards Cher, who put her in her place quickly. Yet nothing seems done with this potential rivalry. At the same time, the fact that Cher forgets to deposit her uncle and aunt's daily business profits is brought in momentarily in the concluding seven minutes of the film - but just as quickly dropped. Was there supposed to be some plot lines that were dropped, besides one about Cher and Vincent Gardenia working at a homeless man's shelter as penance? It is a small annoyance, but I think it is just based on a desire to see more of this film because it is so very good. "Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.

The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.

The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up. Seeing "Moonstruck" after so many years is a reminder of how sweet and sensationally funny this film was when it first appeared. Who knew that Cher could act? Who had ever heard of Olympia Dukakis? Nicholas Cage was the beginning of his career, and Vincent Gardenia and Danny Aiello were not known for their comedic talents, nor was Norman Jewison the director.

The only really flat note in this splendid work is "When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like a Big Pizza Pie, That's Amore," a song that is sung too many times in the movie (once is already too many) and that went on to have a long afterlife in popular music.

Cher is -- forgive me -- sensational as Loretta Castorini, a widow who wants to be married and does not have to be in love with the groom. Aielo (Johny Cammareri) obliges by proposing, offering her his pinkie ring as a substitute for an engagement ring, then rushes off to Sicily to be with his dying mother. He charges Loretta with seeing to that his estranged brother, Ronny, attends the wedding. Loretta confronts Ronny and quickly falls in love with him. Meanwhile, her father (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her mother (Olympia Dukakis), which Loretta accidentally discovers when Ronny invites her to the Metropolitan Opera.

Everything works out in the end, as it inevitably does in films of this genre. In the meantime, all the actors acquit themselves admirably and the audience enjoys itself. In its way, "Moonstruck" is how Hollywood used to be at its best: rollicking entertainment with no social significance whatsoever. If they'd only lost "That's Amore" along the way, it would have been perfect. As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?

Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low... The "movie aimed at adults" is a rare thing these days, but Moonstruck does it well, and is still a better than average movie, which is aging very well. Although it's comic moments aim lower than the rest of it, the movie has a wonderful specificity (Italians in Brooklyn) that isn't used to shortchange the characters or the viewers. (i.e. Mobsters never appear in acomplication. It never becomes grotesque like My Big Fat Greek Wedding) The secondary story lines are economically told with short scenes that allow a break from the major thread. These are the scenes that are now missing in contemporary movies where their immediate value cannot be impressed upon producers and bigwigs. I miss these scenes. It also beautifully involves older characters. The movie takes it's own slight, quiet path to a conclusion. There isn't a poorly written scene included anywhere to make some executives sphincter relax. Cage and Cher do very nice work.

Moonstruck invokes old-school, ethnic, workaday New York much like 'Marty' except Moonstruck is way less sanctimonious. "Moonstruck" is one of the best films ever. I own that film on DVD! The movie deals with a New York widow (Cher) who falls in love with her boyfriend's (Danny Aiello) angry brother (Nicholas Cage) who works at a bakery. I'm glad Cher won an Oscar for that movie. Nicholas Cage and Danny Aiello are great, too. The direction from Norman Jewison (who directed "Fiddler On The Roof") is fantastic. "Moonstruck" is an excellent movie for everyone to see and laugh. A must-see!

10/10 stars! I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of ***** I'm really suprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of ***** I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those "Cosmo's moon" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a "Cosmo's moon" is? It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes ("Snap out of it!"), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! This is not a bad film. It is not wildly funny, but it is interesting and

entertaining. It has a few funny moments. Cher gives a good

performance in a role that is very opposite her real-life self. Her

performance alone is worth the watch. If this movie had come out

today it would not have been nominated, but by '80s standards it

was excellent. "Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.

One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.

Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.

7.4 out of 10 Either or, I love the suspension of any formulaic plot in this movie. I have re-visited it many times and it always holds up. A little too stylized for some but I fancy that any opera lover will love it. Norman Jewison, a fellow Canadian, takes enormous chances with his movies and his casting and it nearly always pays off in movies that are off centre and somehow delicious, as this one is. I have often wondered at the paucity of Cher's acting roles, whether she has chosen to minimize this part of her life or she does not get enough good roles to chew on. I have found her to be a superb actress who can retreat into a role, as in this particular one or be loud and daring and fierce as in "Mask". I found the comedic strokes broad at times ( a hair salon called "Cinderella")but this was the whole intent of both the writer and director. Nicolas Page plays the angst ridden tenor of opera, all extravagant gestures, at one point demanding a knife so as to slit his own throat. The Brooklyn scenes are magical, this is a Brooklyn under moonlight, romanticized and dramatic, just like opera. All in all a very satisfying film not to everyone's taste by a long shot, I loved the ending, everyone brought together like a Greek Chorus, every part subtly nuanced and blending with the others, the camera pulling away down the hall, leaving the players talking. 8 out of 10. This is the kind of film for a snowy Sunday afternoon when the rest of the world can go ahead with its own business as you descend into a big arm-chair and mellow for a couple of hours. Wonderful performances from Cher and Nicolas Cage (as always) gently row the plot along. There are no rapids to cross, no dangerous waters, just a warm and witty paddle through New York life at its best. A family film in every sense and one that deserves the praise it received. Though Cher and Cage are the focal points of this story, Gardenia and Dukakis are good counterparts for them- this is where Loretta and Ronny will be in 50 years- still in love. The whole cast does a nice job from Aiello to John Mahoney- it shows a real slice of life. Though I saw this long ago- I am glad it finally catapulted Cage to the place where he was recognized in Hollywood for his talent. From the music to the scenes at the opera to the kitchen table arguments- this is a very entertaining movie. While I would say I enjoy the show, I expected something completely different from when I first saw 'What I like about you' I expected to find something along the lines of 'All That' (I am not sure if it is going on anymore) but I have to say I do like the show and while i don't classify it as a breakthrough show, it is very charming and I do like the chemistry between the characters as well (including the supporting cast)

I would definitely say that it is great to see Wesley Jonathan back on the screen because I really loved him in City Guy. I had also seen the woman who plays Valerie's friend in Popular and while I think that was an okay show, I do not really like her character in this show because she's just not my cup of tea but she rounds it out pretty well What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.

see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back... The show is about two sisters living together. Holly being the younger one has some teenage problems on the other hand her sister Val has job,boy friend,fiancé problems like most of the women on the planet. They try to support each other they make mistakes sometimes but they don't give up and continue. And the show is also about friendship. The priorities in life. I loved this show so much. It is funny and the actors are so good. I am really sad that the show is over. I still watch the reruns time to time:) Amanda Bynes is very talented. Jenny Garth may be new to comedy but she plays really well. She is one of the actresses i like watching. I like Vince and Holly's relationship they are very natural. Gary is a natural talent and makes you laugh each time he shows up. With Tina Holly found a real friend and i really like them hanging out. Lauren character is so funny and she is a natural talent. I would like to see her more. This show really takes you in and makes you laugh. I wish the show hasn't been over. 'What I Like About You' is definitely a show that I couldn't wait to see each day. Amanda Bynes is such an excellent actress and I grew up watching her show: 'The Amanda Show.' She's a very funny person and seems to be down to earth. "Holly" is such a like-able person and has an "out-there" personality. I enjoyed how she always seemed to turn things around and upside down, so she messed herself up at times. But that's what made the show so great.

I especially loved the show when the character 'Vince' came along. Nick Zano is very HOT and funny, as well as 'Gary', Wesley Jonathan. The whole cast was great, each character had their own personality and charm. Jennie Garth, Allison Munn, and Leslie Grossman were all very interesting. I especially loved 'Lauren'; she's the best! She helped make the show extra funny and you never know what she's gonna do or say next! Overall the show is really nice but the reason I didn't give it a 10 was because there's no more new episodes and because the episodes could've been longer and more deep. My mom and I have just recently become addicted to this show, laughing our butts off! I've only seen about 10 episodes, and I am disappointed that I didn't pay attention to this hilarious series before they were canceled! The story line is very funny, the characters really have great personalities (or, not so great, but they're still funny!). I TiVO every episode of What I Like About You. Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth, as well as all of the cast, never leave me bored while watching! There is some unsuitable language for children and some sexual content, but with a parental guide near, you shouldn't have too much problems. There is some sort of 'Friends' type of relationship that attracts me to this show. I really enjoy it. I have just started watching the TV series "What I like About You" and I must say that is a joy to watch. I always like to see new shows do well considering a lot of shows go off before you really get a feel for them. I have watched Amanda Bynes since "All That" she is truly a funny girl, what is the best about her comedy is that its so natural and what i mean about that is, its something that a person could here there best friend saying, its not rehearsed.

I just recently started watching the show and have fell in love. I am just watching re-runs as of now but am looking forward to the next season. All the characters in the show give something to the whole story line. Its nice to see some old face from other shows I enjoyed watching in the past such as, Jennie Garth from "90210", Leslie Grossman from "Popular", and Wesley Jonathan from "City Guys." The New Character are very talented as well, Nick Zano has that charm the makes you love him even when he is doing something wrong to holly (Bynes).

Overall this show has the right ingredients to be successful, I look forward to watching it grow. I love this show. I watch all the reruns every day even though I have seen all of them like 6 time s each.

It's about two sisters, Holly (Amanda Bynes) and Val (Jennie Garth), who live in New York. Holly goes to live with Val when their dad is transferred to Japan. Val has the perfect life, she has a boyfriend and a perfect apartment of the Upper East Side.

The show basically shows all the problems Vall and Holly go through. the main problem is guys but also is about being responsible and other life choices.

Holly is 16 and is a total free spirit while Val is the complete opposite. She is the organized has to have a plan to do anything kind of person.

The other characters are Henry, Vince, Gary, Lauren, and Tina. *What I Like About SPOILERS* Teenager Holly Tyler (Amanda Bynes) goes to live with older sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) to avoid moving to Japan with her father; but she doesn't know the half of the wacky things that will happen to her from now on, and not only to her, but to her sister, her friends Gary (Wesley Jonathan) and Tina (Alison Munn), boyfriend Henry (Michael McMillian), crush Vince (Nick Zano), Valerie's boyfriend Jeff (Simon Rex), first boss (then firefighter then husband) Vic (Dan Cortese), annoying colleague Lauren (Leslie Grossman) and second boss Peter (?) If you don't have a funny bone in your body, please skip this; if you like only veeeery sophisticated comedy this isn't for you; if you like a funny, sometimes touching show with two hot chicks who can act in the lead (and none other than the fabulous 'Mary Cherry' from Popular - Leslie Grossman - in the main cast), then what the hell are you waiting for? You're welcome to Casa De Tyler! What I Like About You (2002-2006): 8. Does anyone know, where I can see or download the "What I like about you" season 4 episodes in the internet? Because I would die to see them and here in Germany there won't be shown on TV. Please help me. I wanna see the season 4 episodes badly. I already have seen episode 4 and episode 18 on YouTube. But I couldn't find more episodes of season 4. Is there maybe a website where I can see the episodes? Because I've read some comments in forums from Germany and there were people which had already seen the season 4 episodes even though they haven't been shown at TV in Germany. I am happy about every information I can get. Thanks Kate Rosenstrasse is more an intimate film than one of epic proportions, which could have kept away many film goers looking for a Pianist similar plot. Fortunately, Von Trotta, a good screenwriter, opts for a feminist peep to an era too much illustrated on its colorful exterior, but too little analyzed in terms of intimacy and from the point of view of ordinary Aryan German rather from a Jewish standpoint. Rosentrasse finds its strength in these unsung burdens of people trapped within historical circumstances of which they emerge as victims. The pace of the film is introspective, poignantly slow, meditative. Besides, the characters are so vivid while transitions between generations and the passing of time has been deftly crafted. Rosenstrasse is not a masterpiece, and some narrative flaws are well discerned. Another fault lies on a trivial cinematography unable to capture the intensity of the internal drama lived by the characters. Nevertheless, this film is worth seeing. Finally, Rosenstrasse is part of the last trend in German films dealing with the ghosts of a nightmarish past,trend that includes such excellent films as Nowhere in Africa, and recently, the controversial Downfall. I would recommend this film to those who know how to read beyond the images. Berlin-born in 1942 Margarethe von Trotta was an actress and now she is a very important director and writer. She has been described, perhaps even unfairly caricatured, as a director whose commitment to bringing a woman's sensibility to the screen outweighs her artistic strengths. "Rosenstrasse," which has garnered mixed and even strange reviews (the New York Times article was one of the most negatively aggressive reviews I've ever read in that paper) is not a perfect film. It is a fine movie and a testament to a rare coalescing of successful opposition to the genocidal Nazi regime by, of all peoples, generically powerless Germans demonstrating in a Berlin street.

Co-writer von Trotta uses the actual Rosenstrasse incident in the context of a young woman's search for information about her mother's never disclosed life as a child in the German capital during World War II.

The husband of Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) has died and in a surprising reversion to an orthodox Jewish lifestyle apparently hitherto in long abeyance, Ruth not only "sits shivah" (the Jews' week-long mourning ritual) but she insists on following the strict proscriptions of her faith. Her apartment in New York City reflects the affluence secured by her deceased spouse's labors. Her American-born daughter, Hannah (Maria Schrader) and her brother are a bit put-off by mom's assumption of restrictive orthodox Jewish practices but they pitch in. The mother coldly rejects the presence of Hannah's fiance, a non-Jew named Luis (Fedja van Huet). A domestic crisis might well erupt as Ruth warns that she'll disown Hannah if she doesn't give up doting, handsome Luis. Stay tuned.

A cousin arrives to pay her respects and also drops clues to an interested Hannah about a wartime mystery about mom's childhood in Berlin. Hannah is intrigued - she queries her mom who resolutely refuses to discuss that part of her life. This is very, very realistic. I grew up with parents who fled Nazi Germany just in time and I knew many children whose families, in whole but usually in part, escaped the Holocaust. Those days were simply not discussed.

So Hannah, having learned that a German gentile woman saved Ruth's life, traipses off to Berlin hoping to find the savior still breathing. Were she not, this would have been a very short film. But Ruth, pretending to be a historian, locates 90 year-old Lena Fischer (Doris Schade), now a widow. As the happy-to-be-interviewed but shaken up by repressed memories Lena tells her story, the scenes shift fairly seamlessly between present day Berlin and the war-time capital.

The young Lena of 1943 (Katja Riemann) was a fine pianist married to a Jewish violinist, Fabian Fischer (Martin Feifel). With the advent of the Nazi regime he was required to use "Israel" as a middle name just as Jewish women had to add "Sarah" to their names(incidentally I wish IMDb had not given Fabian's name on its characters list with the false "Israel" included-it simply perpetuates a name applied by Nazis as a mark of classification and degradation).

While Germany deported most of its Jewish population to concentration camps, those married to "Aryans" were exempted. For a time. Until 1943 when the regime decided to take them too (most were men; a minority were Jewish women married to non-Jews). The roundup is shown here in all its frightening intensity.

The young Lena tries to locate her husband. All she and many other women know is that they're confined in a building on Rosenstrasse. The crowd of anxious women builds up, some piteously seeking help from German officers who predictably refuse aid and also verbally abuse them ("Jew-loving whore" being one appellation). As a subplot Lena more or less adopts eight-year-old Ruth who hid when her mother was seized (remember, Ruth is now sitting shiva in Manhattan). The child Ruth is fetchingly portrayed by Svea Lohde.

Through increasingly angry protestations the women finally prevail. The men, and a handful of women, are released. As in the real story the Nazis gave in, one of the rare, almost unprecedented times when the madmen acknowledged defeat in their homicidal agenda (another was the termination of the euthanasia campaign to rid the Reich of mental defectives and chronic invalids but that's another story).

Von Trotta builds up the tension and each woman's story is both personal and universal. Hannah continues to prod the aging Lena who slowly, one gathers, begins to suspect she's not dealing with an ordinary historian but rather someone with a need to learn about the girl she rescued, the child whose mother was murdered.

The contrasts between Rosenstrasse of 1943, a set, and the street today in a bustling, rebuilt, unified Berlin provide a recurring thematic element. Today's Berlin bears the heritage but not the scars of a monstrous past. Von Trotta makes that point very well.

The main actors are uniformly impressive. Lena's husband while strong is also shown as totally helpless in the snare of confinement with a likely outlook of deportation (which is shown to have been clearly understood by all characters - including the local police and military - as a one-way trip to oblivion). The older Ruth is catalytically forced to confront demons long suppressed in her happy New York life. Hannah is very believable as a young woman whose father's death triggers a need to discover her family's past. These things happen (although the Times's critic appears not to know that).

Von Trotta's hand is sure but not perfect. A scene with Goebbels at a soiree enjoying Lena's violin playing is unnecessary and distractive. The suggestion that she may have gone to bed with the propaganda minister, the most fanatical top-level Hitler worshiper, to save her husband detracts from the wondrous accomplishment of the demonstrating spouses and relatives. Most of the German officers come from central casting and are molded by the Erich von Stroheim "copy and paste" school of Teutonic nastiness. But that's understandable.

The Rosenstrasse story has been the subject of books and articles and some claim it's a paradigm case for arguing that many more Jews could have been saved had more Germans protested. Unfortunately that argument is nonsense. The German women who occupied Rosenstrasse were deeply and understandably self-interested. Most Germans were located on a line somewhere between passive and virulent anti-Semitism. THAT'S why the Rosenstrasse protest was virtually singular. Whether one buys or rejects the Goldenhagen thesis that most Germans were willing accomplices of the actual murderers it just can not be denied that pre-Nazi endemic anti-Semitism erupted into a virulent strain from 1933 on.

The elderly Lena remarks that what was accomplished by the women was "a ray of light" in an evil time. Most of the men and women sprung from a near death trip survived the war. So "a ray of light" it was and von Trotta's movie is a beacon of illumination showing that some were saved by the courage of largely ordinary women and for every life saved an occasion for celebration exists. And always will.

9/10 In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.

Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.

Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.

Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting "Give us back our husbands". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, "I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.

The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, "there was nothing we could do". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on. I'm always surprised about how many times you'll see something about World War 2 on the German national television. You would think they don't like to open old wounds, but there isn't a week that goes by without a documentary or a movie about the horror and atrocities of this war. Perhaps it's a way of dealing with their past, I don't know, but you sure can't blame them of ignoring what happened. And it has to be said: most of those documentaries are really worth a watch because they never try to gloss over the truth and the same can be said about their movies (think for instance about "Der Untergang" or "The Downfall" as you might now it) which are also very realistic.

One of those movies is "Rosenstrasse". It tells a true story and deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the war, even though the movie starts with a family in the USA, at the present day. After Hannah's father died, her mother all a sudden turned into an orthodox Jew even though she hasn't been very religious before. She doesn't know where the strange behavior of her mother comes from, but as she starts digging in her mother's troubled childhood, Hannah understands how little she has ever known about her mother's past.

The fact that this movie deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the Nazi regime is already quite surprising. For as far as I know, there hasn't been another movie that deals with this subject. (For those who didn't know this yet: Being married to a so-called pure Aryian man or woman meant for many Jews that they weren't immediately sent to one of the concentration camps, but that they had to work in a factory). But it does not only tell something about the problems of the mixed marriages, it also gives a good idea of how these people were often seen by their own parents and relatives. How difficult it sometimes was for them during the Nazi regime and how these people, most of the time women, did everything within their power to free their men, once they were captured and locked away in for instance the Rosenstrasse...

The acting is really good and the story is very well written, although the way it was presented in the beginning didn't really do it for me (and that's exactly the only part that you'll get to see in the trailer). Perhaps it's just me, but I would have left out a big part of what happens in the present day. At least of the part that is situated in the USA, because the part where Hannah goes to Berlin and talks to someone who knows more about her mother's past, definitely works.

If you are interested in everything that has something to do with the Second World War, and if you aren't necessarily looking for a lot of action shots, than this is definitely a movie you should see. This isn't a movie in which you'll see any battles or gunfights, but it certainly is an interesting movie, because it gives you an idea about an aspect of the war only little is known of. I give it an 8/10. Another small piece of the vast picture puzzle of the Holocaust is turned face up in this docudrama about the Rosenstrasse Protest in Berlin, an event I had not known of, that began in late February, 1943. The details are given in an addendum that follows this review.

The film narrative sets the story of this protest within another, contemporary story that begins in New York City, in the present. Here a well off, non-observant Jewish woman, whose husband has just died, shocks her children and others by insisting on an extremely orthodox mourning ritual. She goes even further, demanding that her daughter's non-Jewish fiancé leave the house.

The distressed daughter, Hannah (Maria Schrader) then learns for the first time from an older cousin that during WWII, in Berlin, her mother, then 8 years old, had been taken in and protected by an Aryan woman. Hannah drops everything, goes to Berlin, and finds this woman, Lena Fischer, now 90. Hannah easily persuades the woman to tell her story. It all seems rather too pat.

The film thereafter improves, focusing through long flashbacks primarily on the events of 1943 that surrounded the protest, in which the fictitious central character is the same Mrs. Fischer at 33 (played magnificently by Katja Riemann), a Baroness and accomplished pianist who is married to Fabian (Martin Feifel), a Jewish concert violinist, one of the men detained at the Rosenstrasse site.

The narrative does briefly weave back to the present from time to time and also ends in New York City once again. While scenes in the present are color saturated, the 1943 scenes are washed out, strong on blue-gray tones.

The quality of acting is generally quite good, what we might expect given the deep reservoir of talent in Germany and the direction of Margarethe von Trotta, New German Cinema's most prominent female filmmaker, herself a former actress.

The story of the protest is told simply. Only one feature is lacking that would have helped: still-text notes at the end indicating the eventual outcome for those people taken into custody at Rosenstrasse, an outcome that was, as the addendum below makes clear, incredibly positive.

"Rosenstrasse" has not fared well in the opinions of most film critics. Overly long, needlessly layered, purveyor of gender stereotypes, manipulative with music: so go the usual raps. It is too long. But I found in this film an austere, powerful, spontaneous and entirely convincing voice of protest from the women who kept the vigil outside the place on Rosenstrasse where their Jewish relatives and others were detained. I found nothing flashy, contemporary or manipulative in this depiction.

The very absence of extreme violence (no one is shot or otherwise physically brutalized) intensified my tension, which increased incrementally as the film progressed. You keep waiting for some vicious attack to begin any minute. The somberness of the film stayed with me afterward. I awoke often later in the night I saw the film, my mind filled with bleak, melancholic, chaotic images and feelings conjured by the film. For me, that happens rarely. (In German and English). My rating: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 05/31/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

Add: The Rosenstrasse Protest: Swept up from their forced labor jobs in what was meant to be the Final Roundup in the national capital, 1700 to 2000 Jews, mostly men married to non-Jewish women, were herded into Rosenstrasse 2-4, a welfare office for the Jewish community in central Berlin.

Because these Jews had German relatives, many of them highly connected, Adolf Eichmann hoped that segregating them from other prisoners would convince family members that their loved ones were being sent to labor camps rather than to more ominous destinations in occupied Poland.

Normally, those arrested remained in custody for only two days before being loaded onto trains bound for the East. But before deportation of prisoners could occur in this case, wives and other relatives got wind of what was happening and appeared at the Rosenstrasse address, first in ones and twos, and then in ever-growing numbers.

Perhaps as many as six thousand participated in the protest, although not all at the same time. Women demanded back their husbands, day after day, for a week. Unarmed, unorganized, and leaderless, they faced down the most brutal forces at the disposal of the Third Reich.

Joseph Goebbels, the Gauleiter (governor or district leader) of Berlin, anxious to have that city racially cleansed, was also in charge of the nation's public morale. On both counts he was worried about the possible repercussions of the women's actions. Rather than inviting more open dissent by shooting the women down in the streets and fearful of jeopardizing the secrecy of the "Final Solution," Goebbels with Hitler's concurrence released the Rosenstrasse prisoners and even ordered the return of twenty-five of them who already had been sent to Auschwitz!

To both Hitler and Goebbels, the decision was a mere postponement of the inevitable. But they were mistaken. Almost all of those released from Rosenstrasse survived the war. The women won an astonishing victory over the forces of destruction. (Adapted from an article posted at the University of South Florida website, "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust.") Goebbels motivation in backing down was not explored. In the aftermath of Stalingrad the Reich had decided to go for 'total war'. This is referred to in the film. Part of this was to use women in the war effort, which Germany had not previously done to any great extent. An SS massacre of women would have faced Goebbels with a public relations disaster of massive proportion. His preference was to make the problem go away as quietly as possible, on the basis that the Jewish men could always be rounded up later. I understand the majority survived the war.

His other problem was that the 'Red' Berlin had never been very enthusiastically behind the Nazi cause and had to be handled cautiously. Again a massacre of women could have cost the Nazis what mediocre level of support they had in their capital city.

It was interesting that the majority of SS uniforms showed patches which indicated that the men wearing them were not of German nationality, but were from German origins in other countries such as Lithuania or Latvia This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.

This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story. I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in "Anne Frank" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did! Rosenstrasse is a touching story of courage in adversity. Reichdeutch women find that their Jewish Husbands have been locked up pending deportation. One an aristocrat disowned by her family, Lena Fischer, finds herself among the mob as does General Gudarian's sister. But rank and privilege merit no special consideration.

Nor does service to the Reich as a female detainee whose husband is on the Ostfront will learn. In one of the most horrifying scenes of the movie, the guards take the wedding band given by her soldier husband.

Lest you think this is typical German brutishness we in America today have Lady Bush imperiously ordering the arrest of Gold Star Mothers (mothers of US service-members killed in action) because their very presence is offencive. Little, regrettably, has changed in the 60 years from Der Fuher to Der Fumbler.

Fortunately the eight year old daughter Ruth escapes capture.

Waiting in the cold on Rosenstrasse Lena Fischer is at first reluctant to take in Ruth responding in a way that we take as typically German. Even Lena Fisher's brother Colonel Arthur von Eschenbach who is aware of and opposed to the Holocost cautions Lena against it. but Lena chooses to embrace the idea with an American rebelliousness even renaming Ruth, the more aryan sounding name Helga Lehmann.

The siege ends favourably on Rosenstrasse but Lena mourns: What happened to Ruth after the war? Years later Ruth's daughter Hannah sets out in search of her mother's past and meets 90 year old Lena under the guise of writing a personal history of the war.

I did deem it interesting that Hannah wanted so much to look up the family but never checked on the fate of her grandfather last known to have served on the Ostfront. SPOILERS WITHIN.

It appears that von Trotta was a lot more at ease with what the balance of personal story versus history of the events than she was in her earlier film Versprechen, Das (1995).

The direction seemed carefully controlled, and visually I felt it was highly appealing - especially where the visual narrative was concerned (the title-sequence blend and the lighting of a new candle in modern times commemorating the deaths of various characters in the past).

To clarify two points that many people have been confused by:

Firstly, Lena did not sleep with Goebbels. Although this may have seemed implied, it was not the intent. Von Trotta told me so herself! (And she is a very nice lady, by the way!)

Secondly, the time-frame of events was in fact historically accurate (the actual dates are shown on the close-up of the memorial) and the prisoners were released as suddenly as in the film. There is evidence showing that Goebbels was annoyed about having done this, and had planned to eventually recapture those he had set free.

Overall, what most impressed me most was that it was an original story from a much 'over-movied' era. It seems a shame that it has taken such a long time (for various reasons) for this film to hit our screens.

More of the same please, Margarethe! This was a wonderful film. How these women tried to save their husbands. I thought that the performances of the actors were great. I had to think about the film for a very long time. I think that every student should see this film so that they can think about war, relationships, friendship and love. I liked the film because it told and showed me how strong love can be. I wish I could be so strong as a woman. I really liked it because it told me something about relationships and that is what I like to see in a movie. I think you can compare the film with Der Untergang, The pianist. If you put these three films together, you have a great sight of what happened during the war. We should remember something like the war forever. The van trotta movie rosenstrasse is the best movie i have seen in years. i am actually not really interested in films with historical background but with this she won my interest for that time!!

the only annoying thing about the movie have been the scenes in new york, and the impression i had of "trying to be as American as possible" ... which i think has absolutely failed.

the scenes in the back really got to my heart. the German actress katja riemann completely deserved her award. she is one of the most impressing actress i have ever seen. in future i will watch more of her movies. great luck for me that i am a native German speaking =) and only for a year in the us, so as soon as i am back i'll buy some riemann dvds.

so to all out there who have not seen this movie yet: WATCH IT!!! i think it would be too long to describe what it is all about yet, especially all the flash backs and switches of times are hard to explain, but simply watcxh it, you will be zesty!!!!!!! Although the beginning of the movie in New York takes too long, the movie is a must see for people who like this genre. When Hannah goes to Berlin to visit the older woman who helped her mother during the war, the movie gets much much better.The movie is a bit like The Pianist, can not really be compared. Here is the explanation screenwriter Pamela Katz gave me for why MvT introduced JG as a specific character in the film:

"...the historical record is very clear: Joseph Goebbels was directly responsible for the release of the Rosenstrasse prisoners, so we needed a way to get Goebbels himself into our film... For a woman like Lena, a woman from an aristocratic family with connections, it wasn't unthinkable that she would make an attempt to go to the top. The idea of getting to Goebbels wasn't impossible for her, so that became our hook."

Those of you who insist on seeing an actual sex act here can read my new thread below & then fire away.

Jan Lisa Huttner FILMS FOR TWO When reading a review from another user, saying that it's a terrible game, I could not stand idle and do nothing!

Well, this game is great, from the news clips (with two real persons, full of humour sense and credibility!), to the story, I find it very good! I only complain about the enemies start blinking when they die, until they disappear; and some frustrating situations on the LEILA VR missions, when riding the bike, here and there...

Except that, it's a great game, with a great story, good graphics, excellent characters, great soundtrack... I recommend it! Surely! It can be a bit old, but still enjoyable! At least, on the Dreamcast... but the PS2 version shall be the same. Not since Spongebob Squarepants have i seen a greater cartoon on TV. The colors are great, the voices could't be better, the characters are so original, great great cartoon. Hope Nickolodean continues to develop this cartoon. Hope the Season DVD comes out soon!!! I love cartoons like this and I hope more people tune in to se this great cartoon. It is very hard to find the Season DVD, so if somebody finds a store that is selling it please let me Know. The only Catscratch merchandise available on Nick Shop is a great lookin shirt, but very very very expensive!!! If you love Spongebob; and who doesn''t?; you'll love Catscratch too! OK, here is my personal list of top Nicktoons shows as in today:

1. All Grown Up/SpongeBob SquarePants

2. My Life as a Teenage Robot

3. Invader Zim

4. CATSCRATCH/Rugrats

Notice a word with only capital letters? That means this is the Nick show I'm going to talk about.

"Catscratch" is basically a simple but great animated comedy about three wealthy cats - Mr. Blik, Gordon, and Waffles - who get into weird and REALLY surreal situations, from attempting to join Human Kimberely's slumber party for root beer to saving a planet of slugs from the evil spaceship. This is one Nick show that you will simply have your funny bone tickled sooner or later! The theme song is catchy and memorable. Voice actors - including Wayne Knight from the "Seinfield" franchise - brings the characters to fresh life with very quirky personalities. The stories are enjoyable (fans' episodes would be "King of All Root Beer" and "Gordon's Lucky Claw"). And the humor is all done in some style of Earthworm Jim.

So in conclusion, "Catscratch" is one of the Nicktoons series, like "Invader Zim" and "MLAATR", which becomes very, very popular all over the world in just 3 seasons or less. I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD?? Catscratch is the best thing to come out of Nickeloden, including Wayne Knight. This show doesn't just appeal to Maoris and PI's. some people love it, and they're all aussies. At first glimpse I admit it seems a little crude, but it grows enormously on you. Also, to correct something that one of the other critics has said In_Correct (Tv.com) doesn't say "Does that mean you're homo now?" he says "Does that mean you're homo, owww?" This is his phrase in the show. Mr. Blik is, i think,the funniest of all like Peww-Weww's Playhouse

Firstly, I'll admit that the early episode were a bit good. But after a while the episodes became great! And just when the series had found it's surreal, whacky ...Nickelodeon cancels it!

I know Nick is meant for kids, but every once in a while a brilliant show appears that can be enjoyed by teenagers and adults. These shows include Mr. Bean the Animated Series, Charlie Brown, Pelswick, Rocko's Modern Life (at times), and Invader Zim. All of these must have been considered too good, with the exception of CatDog, 'cause Nick felt the need to cancel them.

What I like the famous final episode, where Gordon fight a duck.

I'd also like to see a DVD, with plenty of audio-commentaries and behind-the-scenes docos, and including the final episode.

But of course, what I'd definitely like to see is the show come back on the air. Wake up NICK!

I wish there was a list somewhere on the internet with all the gag closing-credits. That would be great. It's not too bad a b movie, with Sanders, Barrie, Hale, Cowen, Hamilton, Gargan, Fitzgerald and even Willie Best we could be either with Charlie Chan, Moto, the Falcon, Blackie, Holmes or the Saint etc. In other words you get the chance to spend another hour in the company of some old friends, from plain to urbane, murdering and being murdered - always a pleasure in my book.

Barrie's a hard-boiled dame out to avenge and clear her framed and dead father, a police detective by planning and carrying out with her coterie a string of underworld assassinations. Which would surely have had the opposite effect! Sanders joins in the fun simply by dancing in the right club in the right place in the right city at the right time with the right lighting falling on both him and the first killer (at the right time!) and killing him.

The story and acting's OK, the only gripe I've got is near the end with the hurried and almost laughable discovery of who the evil genius (Waldeman) was - did they almost forget about his relevance in the plot? That said, a solid entry in the series. Leslie Charteris' series of novels of the adventures of the slightly shady Simon Templar ("The Saint") was brought to the screen in the late 1930s with the up and coming George Sanders as Templar. It was a careful choice - Sanders usually would play villains with occasional "nice roles" (ffoliott in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE, the title hero in THE STRANGE CASE OF UNCLE HARRY, the framed "best friend" of Robert Montgomery in RAGE IN HEAVEN). Here his willingness to bend the rules and break a law briefly fit his "heavy persona", while his good looks and suave behavior made Templar a fit shady hero like Chester Morris' "Boston Blackie", and (to an extent) Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto".

The films are not the best series of movie mystery serials - but they are serviceable. Like Rathbone's Holmes series or Oland's Chan's series the show frequently had actors repeating roles or playing new ones (the anti-heroine in the film here was played by Wendy Barrie, who would show up in a second film in the series). This, and slightly familiar movie sets make the series a comfortable experience for the viewers, who hear the buzz of the dialog (always showing Sanders' braininess in keeping one step ahead of the bad guys), without noting the obvious defects of the plot. All these mysteries have defects due to the fact that even the best writers of the genre can't avoid repeating old ideas again and again and again.

Here the moment when that happened was when one of the cast admitted his affection for Barrie, which she was long aware of. Shortly after he tries to protect her from the police. But as the film dealt with the identity of a criminal mastermind, it became obvious that this person was made so slightly noble as to merit being the mysterious mastermind (i.e., the script disguised him as the least likely suspect).

Barrie is after the proof that her father (who died in prison) was framed by the real criminals in a robbery gang. She has several people assisting her - mugs like William Gargan - and she gets advice from the mastermind on planning embarrassing burglaries that can't be pinned on her. The D.A. who got her father convicted (Jerome Cowan) is determined to get Barrie and her gang. The only detective who seems to have a chance to solve the case is Jonathan Hale, who is shadowing Sanders but reluctantly working with him.

The cast has some nice moments in the script - Hale (currently on a special diet) is tempted to eat a rich lobster dinner made for Sanders by Willie Best. He gets a serious upset stomach as a result, enabling Sanders and Barrie to flee Sanders' apartment. Best has to remind him (when he feels better) to head for a location that Sanders told him to go to at a certain time.

There is also an interesting role for Gilbert Emery. Usually playing decent people (like the brow-beaten husband in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) he plays a socially prominent weakling here - whose demise is reminiscent of that of a character in a Bogart movie.

On the whole a well made film for the second half of a movie house billing in 1939. It will entertain you even if it does not remain in your memory. I've just seen The Saint Strikes Back for the first time and found it quite good. This was George Sanders's first appearance as the Saint, where he replaces Louis Hayward.

In this one, the Saint is sent to San Francisco to investigate a shooting at a night club. With the help of his acquaintance Inspector Fernack who has come down from New York, they help a daughter of a crime boss.

Joining Sanders in the cast are Wendy Barrie and Jonathan Hale.

Not a bad Saint movie. Worth seeing.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. Chloe is mysteriously saved from Dr. Caselli, the corrupt doctor responsible for transferring patients with abilities from Belle Reve to Project 33.1, and a fraction of second later Clark arrives. He finds that Bart Allan has returned to Smallville and they meet each other in Kent Farm. When Bart is captured by Lex during a break-in in a LuthorCorp's facility, Clark discovers that the Green Arrow had also hired Bart (a.k.a. Impulse), Arthur Curry (Aquaman) and Victor Stone (Cyborg) to investigate the Project 33.1. Clark accepts to join the trio to save Bart and invites Chloe to participate of their mission.

"Justice" is the best episode so far of this 6th Season. In this episode, the Justice League begins its saga with the association of five heroes: Clark, Green Arrow, The Flash ("Impulse"), Aquaman and Cyborg. The participation of Chloe is spectacular, completing the necessary organization to the teamwork. In the end, Oliver breaks up with Lois based on the importance of fighting against criminals and Lex's secret laboratories around the world. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Justiça" ("Justice") I loved this episode. It is so great that all 5 of them team up and stop LutherCorp and save the world. I also love this episode because Kyle Gallner (Bart Allen/Impulse) and Justin Hartley (Oliver Queen/Green Arrow) are guest starring in it!!! I just hope that Clark will join the Justice League and we'll get to follow this group of heroes across the globe!! =)It was really exciting and keeps viewers interested because of what will happen next. I think Chloe should also join the team as Watchtower, that would be such a coool thing for her to do besides the Daily Planet because she doesn't have super powers. Also, I want to find out what types of subjects Lex is going to use for 33.1, I wonder what other types of powers other people in the world have!!! Show favorites Green Arrow (introduced this season), Aquaman (introduced in Season 5), "Impulse" (Season 4), and Cyborg (Season 5) all come together, along with Clark, to stop one of Lex's evil plans in this thrilling mid-season episode.

Through his sophisticated technology, Green Arrow learns that Lex Luthor is constructing laboratories across the world that hold people induced by the meteor substance kryptonite and people with abilities to run tests on. Green Arrow over the past months has allied Arthur Curry (Aqua), Bart Allen (Impulse) and Victor Stone (Cyborg) to stop Lex and destroy these facilities. After recruiting Clark to help, the team puts on quite a show in interrogating and destroying a local laboratory.

This episode is incredible. Full of action, humor, and fabulous dialog, it feels more like a movie. It is full of entertainment and provides as a springboard for the most interesting storyline of the sixth season. I really enjoyed this episode. Seeing The Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Aquaman (even though all he did was swim) made my eyes widen. To see most of the founders of the Justice League trying to bring down Lex Luthor is what i've been waiting for. This sounds a bit off topic, but making a live action Justice League show would definitely make me have a reason to shove everything that i usually do during the week down the drain just to watch one episode. This is the thrill i got from watching this episode. I wish they had made this episode a little longer, like a two hour special, because i felt that one hour of the Justice League wasn't enough. Now before i bore you (unless i already have with my rambling) i just want to say, Smallville is cool again. It sort of lost its touch when the show started focusing on Lana. But i'm sure the writers will just fall back into that loop hole. :( So enjoy this episode. Who knows when another good one's going to come out. Catch it again this Thursday, Feb. 22, if you missed the first airing. This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any "rewind" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.

In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit. This particular episode of Smallville is probably the best episode to air since reunion. This is for many reasons. For example, it takes the series back to some of it's roots. It welcomes back Lionel from a supposedly long absence, with the Luthorcorp plaza office in Metropolis. This room hasn't been in smallville for a very long time, and seeing it again brings back many memories from the smallville's past. Not to mention, Lionels conversations with Lex are always admirable.

Another pleasant return is, well uv guessed it, is Bart Allen(aka Impulse), AC(aka Aquaman) and Victor Stone(aka Cyborg). Not only does Steven Deknight reunite the former justice leaguers, he blends them in with the Smallville formula in such a unique way, that it almost feels like it is a feature length movie.

From there you get the basic story, Green Arrow forms the league, attempts to blow up 33.1, Bart gets captured, Clark saves him, and the facility is blown to kingdom com. All is good and graceful, with a good mix of stealth, action, pace and suspense. Oh, and Cyborg has some cool new upgrades true to the justice league character :).

The music is probably what makes this episode work so well. If you remember correctly, the first episode Steven Deknight directed was Agless from Season 4. This was a mediocre episode, but something felt out of place. maybe it was the music, or the acting, or the fact clark sais at the end "we didn't find you, you found us", kind of made people lose faith in the formula. But thankfully Steve Deknight redeemed himself in this Justice episode.

I had a few quivvles about Justice that made it fall short of the full 10. First of all, the far too cheesy exit of the justice league from the Ridge facility expolsion. I mean it would have been soo much cooler if say Green Arrow and Cyborg took off on Oliver's bike (rememeber from the arrow episode). Clark and Impulse should have obviously ran, and aquaman should have swam via another route. But that was soo incredibly cheesy, it nocked off 2 points from the full 10.

Secondly, another cheesy moment, not as bad as the first, but when Green Arrow sais "let's go save the world". That made me cringe. All in all, judging by the acting performances, music, direction and production values, the pros do outweigh the cons, and this is still one of the best episodes in smallville history, and maybe the 2nd best episode in season 6.

7 Out of 10... Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.

To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre"). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.

I only wish I had taped the film. After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity. I saw this at the theater in the early 1970's. The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time. The Germans and their horses are covered from head to toe (or hoof) with eerie protective suits. The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers. The gas clouds move ever closer, finally enveloping the British defenders. The Germans move forward slowly menacingly in their scary looking garb. Suddenly a scream from the defenders... This gas is like no other that they have experienced before....

Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too! I havent seen that movie in 20 or more years but I remember the attack scene with the horses wearing gas-masks vividly, this scene ranks way up there with the best of them including the beach scene on Saving private Ryan, I recommend it strongly. I saw this film by chance on the small box. It has a fantastic and chilling scene about poisonous gas. A lot about fanatical patriotism. A bit of eroticism. I can't believe it's still waiting for 5 votes!! It seems more than passing strange that such utter dreck as "Dukes of Hazzard" and "The Hills Have Eyes" (the new version) can find DVD distributors while older - and far superior works such as this film - are nowhere to be found. With all the on-going debate about the morality (or lack thereof) of warfare, and interest in espionage (consider the multiple Jack Ryan, Bourne, XXX, and "Mission: Impossible" productions, this would seem to be an obvious choice for release on DVD. True, it LOOKS like a 1968 motion picture because it IS a 1968 motion picture. But style consideration aside, this is still a production that actually has something valuable to say, and has plenty of plots twists to keep an audience entertained. If nothing else, will SOMEBODY please consider getting the soundtrack onto some kind of CD, whether it be a compilation with other Morricone music or as a stand-alone. I don't know if industry people bother to read what we fans have to say about their products, but if you are reading this and other comments, please take us seriously. We are paying for your lavish homes with our hard-earned dollars spent on tickets, DVDs and CDs - give us what we want! All that said, if you are reading this and have not seen this film, lobby for it's release so you may see what those of us who have seen it are talking about. You will not be disappointed. Fräulein Doktor is as good a demonstration as any of how the once great film industry in Western Europe has declined in the past 40 years. Then, in the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy,France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline. There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime)and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan. And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor. With its big budget for the time, and the world talent involved, Fräulein Doktor was good enough that viewers still remember the movie decades later.

Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, has a line in Fräulein Doktor where he tells a caught spy to either talk or he will play the Wall Game. The wall being opposite a firing squad, with little chance of the spy winning the game. That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders, in the Vietnam War era of 1969.

The steamy scenes between Suzy Kendall and Capucine probably did not damage these performers' chances at getting parts in Hollywood movies, Hollywood studios were in the process of shedding their overseas distribution and production businesses. Fox would no longer co-produce films like The Sicilian Clan, Columbia wouldn't distribute films like Belmondo's The Night Caller. MGM went even further, cutting almost all film production, selling its chain of theaters in India for the value of the land underneath and unloading its Borehamwood studio facilty as Kerkorian looted the studio to raise money for building his casino in Las Vegas (where a Bally casino gift shop sold MGM memorabilia at giveaway prices, stuff left over from the auction of MGM's prop warehouses).

Paramount distributed Fräulein Doktor, but Gulf and Western's Charles Bludhorn, who had taken over the company and canned the studio's aged Board of Directors, unloaded the studio's film library to Universal (as I recall) and really became interested in movies after production chief Robert Evans started turning out one hit after another. But that was in the 70s. Fräulein Doktor with its lesbian scene was buried, with cut versions of the movie showing up on local stations through the 80s.

Kenneth More was usually typecast as a bumbling guy when he was older, especially in the BBC detective series Father Brown. When he was younger, as in the British movie Titanic, he played his standard reserved British officer. In Fräulein Doktor, he had a chance to be a lot tougher than usual, as I recall. It would be nice to see if my memory of this movie is accurate, about his role and, of course, those cavalry horses wearing gas masks and protective covers riding into battle. That was some scene, and Alberto Lattuada showed he was some director, helming this World War I espionage movie, where the money spent on production values really shows up on the screen. There are movies, and there are films. Movies are more often than not merely cinematic "candy," whereas films are true works of art. Fraulein Doktor is certainly well-placed in the latter. As most viewers, I was highly impressed with the battle scenes, but the poignancy of the portrayal of the central character is what I consider to be the most sterling quality of the film. Having done everything possible to serve her country as a true daughter of Deutschland, all the while in the throes of morphine addiction, die Fraulein is treated very shabbily by the German high command despite all of her efforts. The scene in which the Doktor is being conveyed in the rear seat of a Mercedes Benz command auto, alone, desolate, and sobbing is perhaps one of the saddest yet truest depictions of a "spy's" lot in life. Only the emotional pain presented by Richard Burton in the Spy Who Came in from the Cold comes close. Fraulein Doktor is a far deeper film than one may realize upon a singular viewing. I only wish that its producers would see fit to release it on DVD so that those who have never experienced it can, and those who have seen it can again (perhaps again and again)enjoy this exceptional motion picture. Luckily, not knowing anything about this movie I was curious enough to tape it from TV. And then the tape ran out just five minutes before the ending!

But I'm glad I managed to get most of it because this is a really great spy movie. There are the usual toy submarines and a bit foggy plots, but also very chilling and even daring moments. Considering the production year 1969, the certain slight lesbian overtones must have raised a few eyebrows. Of course now it doesn't surprise anyone and those scenes in fact seem pretty beautifully done. And it's not just because of the two George's actresses.

The gas attack seems to hit every viewer very strongly, no wonder, And it certainly did hit me. Very effective. Also the viewpoints from the both sides of the opponents gives the whole story more deepness along the usual suspense and action. This is not just a heroic war tale of one victorious side, but shows what lies behind the victory in good and bad. Well, being a case of war, mostly bad.

For the fans of composer Ennio Morricone this is also a must. His work is always excellent, touching but never over the top. And I think I have to try to catch more movies with Suzy Kendall. Talk about Fräulein! Let's hope they get this on DVD soon, so I can have the entire movie in my collection and more people will become familiar with this very little known gem. Like almost everyone else who has commented on this movie, I can only wonder why this has never appeared on video.

I recall seeing it at about age 12 on the "The Late Show," circa 1972. I too recall the poison gas attack and the weirdly garbed horses. (I don't recall the more horrific bits I've seen described here; they were likely cut out for the TV audience.) But the scenes I REALLY liked were the ones involving the death of Lord Kitchener aboard the HMS Hampshire, almost exactly 90 years ago. The scenes of the doomed cruiser approaching the minefield in the storm were really chilling, as I recall.

Don't recall the musical score, but the comments of the others now have me curious. Get this one out on video! I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest. Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape. This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style. From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed. It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield. Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue. I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS. I still have the tape and enjoy watching it again from time to time. I remember seeing this film years ago on, I think, BBC2. I would very much like to view it again - does anyone know how I can obtain a copy? As I remember, it was an especially powerful movie, in particular the scene that stands out is of the horses wearing gas masks. Apart from that I really can't recall too much about the story - which is why I want to view it again! I have trawled the web but am unable to find a copy, which is unusual in my experience - perhaps there is no DVD or VHS of this film on the market. Would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Thanks very much in advance for your assistance. Best regards, Albany234@googlemail.com well done giving the perspective of the other side fraulein doktor captures both the cost and the futility of war. excellent acting especially when german high command refuses in the name of chivalry to present medal kaiser ordered struck. the scenes of carnage are probably too intense for effete US minds who'd probably prefer some silly speeches and senseless abstractions like 14 points or the league of nations. real americans might appreciate the story line and the action. for all the action and intrigue, fraulein doktor compares favo(u)rably to Jacob's Ladder. Just saw this movie today at the Seattle International Film Festival, and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Great writing and direction, excellent and believable interaction among the cast, and great comic timing as well.

This movie touches on themes that are universal-family and separation. As a result, I can see European, Asian, and American audiences all finding points of similarity between this film and their own lives.

If all that wasn't enough, this has the potential to be the best underground date movie of the year...somebody distribute this in the USA, please!

Finally: thank you Maria Flom! It really is a great film. This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.

Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.

One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.

The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.

Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through. I saw this at the Mill Valley Film Festival. Hard to believe this is Ms. Blom's directorial debut, it is beautifully paced and performed. Large cast of characters could be out of an Anne Tyler novel, i.e. they are layered with back story and potential futures, there are no false notes, surprising bursts of humor amidst self-inflicted anxiety and very real if not earth-shattering dilemmas. If you saw "The Best of Youth," you will recognize how well drawn the characters are through small moments, even as the story moves briskly along. I really hope this gets distribution in the USA. I live in a fairly sophisticated film market, yet we rarely get Swedish films of any kind. This is the best movie I've ever seen!

Maybe it's because I live just a few miles from the village were the story take place, and I know how things work out in this area in Sweden. The movie tells the truth, believe me! It both criticizes and honors the lifestyle of Dalarna, and the producer wants people who watch the movie to be more opened minded and care more for your closest friends and relatives.

But if you live in another small village anywhere in Sweden (or another country) you will probably also recognize much from this movie.

Thank you Maria Blom! The movie takes place in a little Swedish town where everybody knows each other. Here Mia visits her parent for the birthday of her father, a which occasionally always have some kind of tragedy, the question is just what will it be this year, and you will be surprised... It is an extremely well composed movie, with a story which has a perfect balance of humor and seriousness, which is rarely seen. You get happy, you get hurt, and basically everything in between. Finally you can't help falling in love with Mia(if you are a boy I guess(the main actress)) She is an extremely well chosen actress, as a lot of the other actors/actresses.

Enjoy The tighter the drama, the better the film of sister rivalry! This little gem was mainly promoted as a comedy upon its release in Sweden, so I'm glad to find that wasn't the whole case. Funny bits on small-town bickering are there to enjoy, surely, but the drama takes center stage, as the story progresses. And not just family drama, it also raises poignant questions on respecting differences of peoples' lifestyle choices.

Great character ensemble with many superb and moving dramatic scenes that score credibility points; and they're not just scattershot, but hold everything in place. It just makes me assume that if Ingmar Bergman had made this (the drama would suit him!), the international attention probably would have been immediate.

7 out of 10 from Ozjeppe. This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl

Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic.

This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"! I love this film and it is such a wonderful example of a family jeopardy, a romantic love story, and a very sad story plot. Everything was just so perfect and excellent about this film. It was such a great mixture of actors and actresses and with some laughs and a lot of cries this film deserves to get plenty of awards. With the mention of beautiful scenario, and although I would relate this film to The Notebook and The Family Stone, it was sort of much more cunning, sad, and brilliant than those films. The Evening tells of a love story between an old woman dreaming back to her younger years, and her two daughters stay by her side while she is not well. The story dating back is so strongly told and wonderful I was sitting on the edge of my seat. You really get to know all the characters and by the end, I was wanting to watch it all over again. This is a amazingly sad and vividly acted and plotted movie that is really one of a kind and should be seen by all for how wonderful it really is. All the performances are astonishing and the film captures your attention from the very beginning and never lets go. I loved it, and am so glad that I watched it for it was truly an astonishing film... While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.

"Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide") After seeing the trailer for Evening, you will probably first think about how great the cast is involved, (I mean they even got Rocky Horror's own Brad, Barry Bostwick, to show the world he is still acting), and the next second about how they just showed us the entire movie. While not entirely true, the film is pretty much summarized nicely in the trailer, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is a story about a dying woman who is remembering a time very long ago when she met the love of her life—the one that got away. Her daughters hear her reminiscing about people they have never heard of and the story of what happened when she and Harris killed Buddy soon plays out. No matter what happens, though, the film is not about these people and what they do, good or bad. It is a vehicle to show that there are no mistakes in life. What may be regret could in fact be the one instance in your life that needed to occur in order for the good times that follow to ever happen.

The story itself is nicely told and very obviously adapted from literature. Our filmmakers here decide to tell the story by intercutting between the present (Ann on her deathbed), dreamstate (Ann hallucinating by combining the present with the past in her mind), and the past (Ann meeting Harris at her best friend's wedding). There are a few times where the cuts are a tad abrupt, and the progression of the past is so good that you may find the present stuff a bit longwinded and boring, but overall it is handled better than at first thought. It's not as though Ann's life now is uninteresting, it just has less to do with the plot then it does with the morals being learned. While I grant that the parallels to the past help alleviate the problems for Ann's children currently, I was still a bit too enraptured in the wedding to care as much as I maybe should have. There are some nice moments, though, for instance, the crash that awakens Ann from slumber being mirrored later on, and the cryptic dreams which bridge both worlds together.

It is the acting that makes the flashbacks so enthralling and fluid. These performances are completely riveting to the point where you get a bit angry when our time period has changed and we must wait to find out what happens next. No matter how annoying I find Claire Danes' angry/sad/crying face that exists in every role she plays, the girl is good at what she does. I find myself warming to her talents more and more lately and this one just furthers that thawing. Patrick Wilson is always great in whatever I've seen him in. You must give him credit for picking some really fantastic roles and never doing much more than one film a year. From Angels in America to last year's Little Children, the guy will soon blow up, but hopefully he will stay true to the craft and not cash-in. Heck even Mamie Gummer is good as the younger version of her real life mother Meryl Streep, (who surprisingly is in the film very little). She is still rough around the edges, but she was wonderful at expressing the emotional turmoil her character goes through on her wedding day. The real revelation, though, is Hugh Dancy. I feel I've seen him in many things, but in fact it seems only in King Arthur. Dancy literally steals every scene he is in and the way in which his role of Buddy is devastated by love/alcohol/life is etched in his facial expressions throughout. Without his performance, the flashback sequences could have fallen into the somewhat forgettable category as the rest of the film and made the experience as a whole much worse.

While not wholly original in the ways of what the writers are after, Evening does bring intelligence and craft to the table. You may be able to fault the length and amount of cut scenes to tie everything together, but you can't argue that the acting isn't worth sticking around for. Maybe a film version of the wedding alone could have been something to see, however, when it is all put together, there may also be something coming out of it that couldn't have been achieved without all the other story threads. Either way, the payoff is worth the ride for the most part and each plane of reality finishes with its own subtle beauty and lives up to what had come before it. The Danes character finally let's Buddy have the awful truth. ""Leave me alone, kiss men if you want to," she screams self-righteously in front of everyone, thus destroying the man who has been in love with her for so long. Nice girl. This might be the place to reconsider all of the giggly charm that Danes pours into this character. Great reason to feel sympathy for her lying in bed and dying, but hey, remember, there are no mistakes, except, maybe, seeing this film.

Wait a minute. This irony is intended! This is actually a masterpiece of ironic wit, yes! But somehow I doubt that's what the creators of this film had in mind, sadly. Maybe there are a few mistakes, after all. So many wonderful actresses in one film serve as a practical invitation to the local movie house so I duly responded. Here are some remarks..

Vanessa Redgrave is great even while lying in bed. She also looks very old and I don't think this is achieved with much make-up which is a good thing for the film but a sad thing for us cinema-goers. I think her aging got a bit harsh in recent years. Claire Danes continues her welcome return to the movies and exudes a definite warmth. Mamie Gummer's resemblance to her mother Merly Streep both in terms of physical appearance and acting style is so striking that I lost my concentration to the film for a couple of minutes after her entrance. She is surprisingly good; however such a resemblance has the danger of working against her favor. I agree with a previous comment: Natasha Richardson definitely had some plastic job done to her face. She certainly does not look like how I remember her from previous films ("Nell" for example.) Both she and Toni Collette sadly do not make much impression partly because they do not look convincing as sisters. Their interplay is weak. Toni Collette additionally is way too old for her character. Glenn Close and Meryl Streep had to have more screen time. Streep's performance actually is little more than a cameo. Her scenes on the other hand have bigger emotional resonance than the rest of the film. Eileen Atkins provides some welcome dry wit, especially in her second role as an imaginary nighttime companion to Redgrave's character. As for the men; Hugh Dancy enlivenes the film considerably even though he gives a broader performance than needed. As a matter of fact as soon as he exits the story it starts to drag. It is also to his credit that he manages to create the exact necessary sense of boyish charm in the viewer. Patrick Wilson on the other hand is a complete void at the center of the film. He also has the misfortune that the script is insufficient in explaining why three people (one of them a man) are so much smitten by this man. The backstory to this should have been developed more.

The cinematography is excellent as expected. However the main summer house set failed to convince me. It does not look natural on the top of that rocky hill, particularly with its grass patch in the front. A bit too cardboard like.

Overall, the film is a classy production, but a seen-it-all-before, cried-at-it-all-before feeling took over me during most of its duration and consequently it failed to make the kind of impact on me that I expected from a tearjerker. However, it still managed to make me thoughtful about the passing of time, about one's expectations from life and the extent to which these are fulfilled or not. Worth trying at least on DVD if not at the movies... If you cannot enjoy a chick flick, stop right now. If, however, you enjoy films that illustrate complex characters and provide extraordinary acting, read on.

Ann Grant Lord is dying. Her two daughters arrive to be at her bedside. Ann begins talking about people from her past of whom the daughters are unaware, and they question as to whether these lost acquaintances are real or imagined. They come to realize that these people from their mother's past are, indeed, real.

The story shifts, basically, between 1953 and circa 2000 with a few glimpses at Ann's life between those years. It was in 1953 that Ann met the love of her life and experienced her life's greatest tragedy.

One of Ann's two best friends from college, Lila, is being married. Ann's other best friend is Lila's brother, Buddy. Lila and Buddy are the children of a rich Newport family, whereas Ann is a cabaret singer living in Greenwich Village who wants to be a free spirit but is still bound by many of those 1950's conventions.

Soon after Ann arrives to be maid of honor at Lila's wedding, she meets the person who will become the pivotal character in the lives of the three - Harris. He is the adult son of a former servant of the family who grew up with Lila and Buddy and has gone on to become a physician in a small New England town. Ann immediately becomes enamored of Harris which adds a complication to the fact that Lila has always been in love with Harris and continues to be. Buddy, also, is in love with Harris, but being 1953, he has redirected that homosexual desire for Harris to his good friend, Ann for he cannot admit to himself that he has a sexual craving for another man. Buddy exhibits his inner frustration outwardly by being the alcoholic, wise-cracking bad boy of the family - much to the chagrin of his very proper and uptight parents.

Needless to say, all of these expressed and repressed emotions lead to tragedy - after all this is a chick flick.

In the present time, Ann's daughters have become distant from their mother and are suffering their own life realizations and doubts. Constance is working to emotional exhaustion trying to keep up her roll as perfect mother and wife. Nina, having always felt inferior, cannot maintain a relationship.

Stir all of these relationships into a span of fifty years, and you get an intriguing look at society, its values, and its effects upon the personalities and actions of the complex people involved.

All of the acting in Evening is excellent, but there are some extraordinary performances and scenes - along with two unique family relationships - that make this film so very, very special.

Claire Danes plays the 1950's Ann, and she does it in a style that clearly shows an intelligent woman of those times who is conflicted by what she is supposed to do as opposed to what she wants to do. Her performance is not easily forgettable.

Vanessa Redgrave plays the dying Ann whose mind shifts from the present, to the past, to flights of fantasy, and of course, Redgrave pulls it all off with sterling style.

Natasha Richardson - Redgrave's real daughter - plays Ann's daughter, Constance, in the film. The scenes between this real life mother and daughter playing fictional mother and daughter are an insightful treat to watch.

Toni Collette plays Ann's other daughter, Nina. Nina spends a good deal of her time being depressed and feeling sorry for herself while shutting out a good man who loves her as well as her mother and sister. Collette is perfect for a part such as this, but I have never seen her give a bad or unbelievable performance no matter what part she plays.

Mamie Gummer plays 1950's Lila and shows us a woman even more conflicted of her expected role in life than her good friend, Ann. She is very good.

Meryl Streep - Gummer's mother - plays present day Lila. What is there to say about Meryl Streep other than she always gives an insightful and rewarding performance.

Director Lajos Koltai states in the DVD extras that he sought out Glenn Close to play the relatively small part of Lila's mother because he felt she was the only actress he could think of to play one scene in the film. He certainly was right, and Close's performance in that one scene etches it in your mind. All the other scenes in which Close is Lila's very proper mother, and you get another performance to treasure.

There are three other scenes in the film, combined with the one featuring Close described above, that make the whole movie worth watching. On Lila's wedding day, Ann comes into her room and crawls into to bed with her friend to discuss Lila's misforgivings about her upcoming wedding to a man she clearly does not love. This scene is repeated fifty years later when Lila comes and crawls into bed with her dying friend Ann to talk about the lives they have lived. In this latter scene, Streep and Redgrave are enthralling.

The other memorable scene - at least to me - is when Buddy declares his love for Ann. Hugh Dancy as Buddy gives us a heartbreaking performance of a young man torn apart by his conflicting sexual feelings. His performance is superior.

Chick flick? Yes. A very special film with unbelievable acting, directing, and scenery? Definitely. I cannot recommend Evening too much. Evening is an entertaining movie with quite some depth. All the actors and actresses turn in spectacular performances. With the tremendous cast, though, one expects stellar acting, but in this movie the expectations are exceeded. One can relate to personalities and situations in ones own family. As one watches the interaction of the family members one's own family memories are immediately brought to mind. This is one of the few movies that inspires one to read the book. Usually it is the other way around; one reads the book and then wants to see the movie. I will definitely obtain a copy of the Susan Minot book and read it. The Rhode Island scenery is spectacular as is the soundtrack. Any car buff will enjoy the apparently expertly restored period automobiles. Needless to say now, but I recommend Evening highly. See it you will enjoy it. Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.

Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai ("Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp I have watched this movie three times. The last time, I kept skipping around confusing scenes to find resolution for the plot. Perhaps the plot is not intended to hang together logically. Or perhaps these rough spots are in the plot because Ann's recall of distant events is rather faulty.

Take the young Ann Grant (Claire Danes). Here is a young woman who has attended an unnamed college with the scions of a rich family. She must have had help to afford this very expensive education, but never seems to have any family ties at all. She never seems to have any relatives she can turn to when the consequences of one of her disastrous decisions take effect.

Ann shares an evening of passion with her great love Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson). Then, when Harris comforts Lila after the tragic death of her brother Buddy, Ann suddenly finds him repulsive and is disgusted with her own behavior. I must have missed something significant here. Ann's behavior seems totally inexplicable. Ann abandons her relationship with Harris and eventually marries one of the groomsmen at Lila's wedding. Despite Ann's rejection of Harris, she continues to hold deep feelings for him on her deathbed.

It was obvious from his behavior that Harris was deeply smitten with Ann and would have gladly married her. A scene showing their chance meeting years after Lila's wedding showed that Harris still had deep feelings for Ann.

The film showed a pattern for Ann's romantic relationships. She always had a falling out with her men and she rejected them. This pattern held with Harris and two husbands. In contrast, Lila married a man she did not love and she remained with her husband until he died. Perhaps Lila was able to build a relationship because she refused to let her marriage fail.

Then came the too convenient reappearance of Lila Ross at Ann's bedside. Apparently Ann's nurse was able to extract enough information from Ann's last few lucid moments to identify and contact Lila. None of this communication appeared on the film.

I kept wondering about the house Ann was living in during her final days. How did she afford to buy such a house on the meager earnings of her singing career? Ann always seemed one step ahead of financial disaster while raising her two daughters.

On another level, I enjoyed the film's setting and music immensely. The seaside mansion was just so heartbreakingly beautiful. Claire Danes was luminous as the young Ann Grant. She is really quite a talented singer. I much prefer her natural brunette to the bottle blonde look she had in the film extras. If only those pesky CGI fireflies would go away, I could raise the movie a whole point in my vote! ...here comes the Romeo Division to change the paradigm.

Let me just say that I was BLOWN AWAY by this short film. I saw it, randomly, when I was in Boston at a film festival and I have thanked god for it every day since. I really, truly believe I was part of a happening, like reading a Tarantino script before any else did or seeing the first screening of Mean Streets.

I am not sure what festival the short is headed to next or what the creative team has on tap for future products, but I so hope I can be there for it.

Again, a truly incredible piece of film making. My mother and I were on our way home from a trip up to the North East (mainly Massachusetts) when we decided to take a little detour a attend a film festival in Boston. Now, I don't know much about film so I thought this might be a bit educational. The first movie we saw was this one, THE ROMEO DIVISION. Now, I don't know about you but I thought this was great! I'm from Texas and where I come from we don't see too many motion pictures so this was a pleasant surprise. My mother insisted that it was too violent, but said that I didn't know much about what she was saying but this was a great picture. I was shocked by the fight sequences they were great. Also, I am a big fan when the good guys win so I was thrilled when Romeo ladies killed all of the bad guys. This was true brilliance. I'm not sure when it's getting released on video but if you get the chance you should check it out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A word to the wise though, it is rather violent and there many cuss words so you may not want to let your children watch. It's more for adults. I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!! I just want to say that I am so glad somebody finally spilled the beans on this movie. Bravo "The Spaz", Bravo! This movie is a ridiculous farce of film-making. Especially for a student film! I just want to give credit to the Spazz for taking the absurd amount of time a care to find such a rare picture, and then TO COMMENT ON IT! Most people I know don't have that kind of time, especially so few will end of reading it. Kudos to you sir! Anyway, the movie follows a thin storyline that is at the least unbelievable and just plain silly. I understand the idea behind creating a satire of Charlie's Angels but why hire such atrocious actresses! Also, what kind of director has himself act, write, produce and also edit the picture! Choose one job and put all your love into it man! It's such a shame because I hear he made a good movie about a killer toothbrush. Again, thanks to the Spazz for pulling back the curtain on this film, people like you are a rare find. When I first saw the Romeo Division last spring my first reaction was BRILLIANT! However, on future viewings I was provided with much more than masterful film-making. This picture has a singular voice that will echo throughout the annuls of film history.

The opening montage provides a splendid palette which helmer JP Sarro uses to establish his art on this canvas of entertainment.

Sarro truly uses the camera as his paintbrush while he brings us along on a ride that envelops the audience in a tremendous action movie that goes beyond the traditional format we have become accustomed to and dives deeply into dark themes of betrayal, revenge and the importance of companionship. This movie is any director's dream at its very core.

However, Sarro was not alone in this epic undertaking. The writing, provided by scribe Tim Sheridan, was just as breathtaking.

The dialogue was so precise and direct that it gave the actors such presence and charisma on the screen. Specifically speaking, the final scene (WARNING: SPOILERS!!! SPOILERS!!!) where Vanessa reveals herself to be one of the coalition and a villain all the time, is written in such a dark tone that it is one of the most chilling endings I have ever seen. Sheridan is the next Robert Towne.

In a final note it is obvious that this production was no small feat.

Therefore much praise must be given to producer Scott Shipley who seems to have the creativity and genius to walk next to Jerry Bruckheimer. Never before have I witnessed a production so grand with so much attention directed at every little detail. A producers job is one of the hardest in any movie and Shipley makes it look easy.

All in all this film combines creative writing, stunning production and masterful direction. This is the art of film at its best. When the ending of the film arrives the only thing that is desired is more.

The Romeo Division is groundbreaking, a masterpiece and, most importantly, The Romeo Division is indeed art. I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )!

Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat! I often wonder why this series was slammed so much. I thought it was brilliant and also very cleverly written and performed. I think in time to come it will be seen in the light it deserves, that is if they ever issue it. Many up and coming young comedy actors appeared in this and all went on to greater things. Maybe this fact will make people aware of its value and it will have to be issued. Sally Phillips, Simon Pegg, Peter Serafinowicz and not least Julian Rhind-Tutt of the hugely successful Green Wing. The writers Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews are two of the finest comedy writers of the modern age. Anyone that can produce comedy like Father Ted couldn't be capable of writing something not worthy of publication. If it is ever issued I will certainly buy it. Having set the sitcom world alight with 'Father Ted' Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan's next creation was a forgotten gem for the BBC called 'Hippies' Although created by the pair- the six scripts were written by Arthur Matthews alone.

Set in London in 1969- Ray Purbs, a hippy, is the editor of an anarchist magazine. His friends are his flat-mate, the very laid back and cannabis smoking Alex, his 'girlfriend' is feminist Jill and the none too bright Hugo.

Simon Pegg was superb as Ray, but he is superb in everything he is in. This sitcom had a feel of 'Citizen Smith' about it. Ray was very much like Wolfie Smith, trying to beat society, but failing miserably. At last this sitcom is going to be released on DVD in March, I can't wait to buy it. As it was on in 1999 and has yet been repeated on terrestrial television- my memories aren't too good of the sitcom, yet I remember two episodes really clearly, the first being the opener 'Protesting Hippies' which I thought was a great start- where Ray goes on a protest against sandpaper and the other episode was 'Hippy Dippy Hippies' which I think was episode 4, again quite a clear memory about the Police. Sadly, the sitcom got a negative reaction from viewers (I can't think why). The BBC commissioned another series, but Arthur Matthews decided against it because of the negative reaction. Oh well, I can't wait for the DVD.

Best Episode: Hippy Dippy Hippies- Series 1 episode 4. Barriers seems to be one of those series that have been lost in the mists of time. After it's transmission in the early 80s and one repeat, it's since sunk without trace. This is a crying shame.

I originally watched this when it was transmitted in the Southern TV region on Sunday afternoons and was classic tea-time viewing. Although I don't remember a great deal about the program, a few things stuck in my mind. Most notable were the unforgettable titles. The mournful flute music accompanying the attempted escape across an East European border and the subsequent car crash (and that scene has left me with an abiding love of 'fintail' Mercedes models as they used a Merc 200). Although it wasn't obvious at the start, the solution to the series' mystery was in these titles.

The plot about a young music student trying to unravel what really happened when he discovers he was adopted had lots of twists and turns but Barriers was a surprisingly 'adult' children's drama. Benedict Taylor was excellent as Billy and it was a shame he didn't do a lot more.

This was a quality drama, well overdue for a DVD release and I hope I'll get the chance to re-acquaint myself with it in the future.

A fond memory from my childhood what a relief to find out I am not imagining this programme! the summary from taxman is great. I too remember finding it haunting and not particularly family viewing, I must have been 10/11 at the time I watched it. I think for a girl that age part of attraction was lead's very blond hair, and his permanently sad state. The theme was played on a flute I recall - although I cannot remember how it went. I think the intro showed him playing it - or maybe he played a flute in the programme and especially when he was sad? Maybe I am destined never to know how it ended or to see clip or hear the tune, but at least I now know it is not just me. A classic series that should be at least repeated or released on DVD.Billy Toth,after realising he is adopted after the death of his parents,embarks on a journey to find his real parents.After various rites of passage,his search culminates in the discovery that his fathers identity was stolen and used by a human trafficker in Europe!If i remember correctly,the series ends on the Austrian(?] ski slopes and a cliff top chase resulting in the death of Billys fathers betrayer. This series was all filmed on location in various destinations round Europe and appeared polished and incredibly well made with some episodes crossing into the realms of film noir and crime thriller.The main arc was often eclipsed by the slices of life that Billy went through during his years of toiling to find his mother and fathers secrets.A class act but underrated and forgotten. In the previews, "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" boasts the image of another immature sex romp about a 40-ish Lonely Guy who suddenly feels the urge to do the deed simply because he hasn't. Too many past bad experiences have dampened his enthusiasm to the point that he avoids women completely. And then the unexpected happens: he falls in love. What's more, there's a movie out about it, and it's called "The 40 Year-old Virgin."

The virgin of the title is Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell), who is indeed 40, works as an employee at an electronics store and collects vintage action figures, which are displayed all throughout his nice bachelor pad for all to see. He has a lovely home theater system and watches "Survivor" with his two kind elderly neighbors. He's a pretty picturesque definition of the Lonely Guy who needs to go out more and talk to more women.

Now here's the real novelty with this picture: it does the impossible task of actually dealing with its subject matter in a cute, mature fashion. This is a movie that could very easily have turned out a lot differently in the hands of a more transparent team of filmmakers. It could have descended into endless sex gags and jokes but thankfully this picture never stoops that low. Sure there are sex jokes here and there and even a few prods are aimed at the gay community (which are, in no way, meant to be taken as gay-bashing), as two of the characters exchange insults towards each other while playing a video game ("Mortal Kombat: Deception," no less - the ultimate testosterone-driven fightfest for guys).

As someone who is rapidly approaching 20, collects McFarlane Toys action figures AND has himself never done the deed, I found this film amusing and touching in a way that a similar-themed movie could never have been. I was able to relate to the character of Andy Stitzer more than anyone in the theater because I was the only teenager present at this showing; everyone else looked like they were all past 40. A bit arrogant, I know, but would you ("you" is italicized) still be able to relate if you were the only teen present at an afternoon screening of "The 40 Year-Old Virgin"?

Of course Andy has never had sex and wakes up everyday with "morning rise" (don't ask), and he's pressured by his buddies to try outlandish methods of gaining the attention of the opposite sex. When it's first discovered Andy is a virgin, at 40, his three buddies and fellow electronics store coworkers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco) and Cal (Seth Rogen) all at first assume he's gay because he's never been with a woman, which couldn't be any further from the truth. The truth is, Andy loves women, but past traumatic experiences (revealed hilariously one after the other in a flashback sequence) have put him on the sidelines for good.

David, Jay, and Cal each embark on a mission to get Andy laid, so help them all. But you know that such escapades will only end in disaster, as proved by one date with Nicky (Leslie Mann), who puts Andy through the worst drunk-driving experience I think anyone would not want to go through and he has a rather creepy encounter with Beth (Elizabeth Banks), the pretty girl who works in the bookstore and is eventually revealed to be a total sex fiend.

Things brighten up for Andy when he meets Trish (Catherine Keener), the friendly woman who works at a store across the street that sells stuff on eBay for people. Hmmm. And with that nice-looking collection of action figures, you can go figure that in the end a large financial payoff awaits him, that is if he can ever "do the deed."

At last, this is the sex romp we've been waiting for. It deals with a very real issue a lot of Lonely Guys probably go through, not that anything is wrong with being a virgin but let's look at the big picture: How many of us "Lonely Guys" want to be a lonely guy forever? The important thing we're taught in this picture is that Lonely Guy must be himself. I don't think he needs to go through body waxing like Andy does (which is side-splitting to be honest, and according to this website and various other news articles, was in fact real, and so was the blood on Carell's shirt afterward).

"The 40 Year-Old Virgin" was directed by Judd Apatow and co-written by himself and Carell, which originated as a skit that starred Carell. Carell is sweet and human, as his character is not some layabout who approaches this thing with his eyes shut. This is probably one of the most intelligent romps I've ever seen and is not offensive (a whole lot) because its characters are treated with dignity and respect. Even Carell's buddies, who pass off bad advice to cover up their own relationship insecurities, can be related to on a fundamental level.

The way "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" plays out is indeed funny in the end, but I'll leave that up to you, the viewer, to observe. Surely, if anyone can go through the things Andy does and still have the strength to attract a woman as sexy as Catherine Keener, then it's true: It is never too late!

10/10 Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments. I haven't laughed this hard at a movie in a long time. I got to go to an advance screening, and was thrilled because I had been dying to see it. I had tears in my eyes from laughter throughout a lot of the movie. The audience all shared my laughter, and was clapping and yelling throughout most of the movie.

Kudos to Steve Carrell(who I had already been a fan of). He proves in this movie his tremendous talent for comedy. He has a style that I haven't seen before. And Catherine Keener is excellent as always. Thank God there wasn't a cameo from Will Ferrell(love him, but saw him too much this summer).

There were parts of comedic genius in this movie. Partly thanks to Carrell, and partly thanks to the writing(also Carrell). The waxing scene and the speed dater with the "obvious problem" were absolutely hysterical.

I will definitely go see '40 Year Old Virgin' when it's released. My advice: go to see it for huge laughs and an incredibly enjoyable movie on top of it. Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend. I got a free pass to a preview of this movie last night and didn't know what to expect. The premise seemed silly and I assumed it would be a lot of shallow make-fun-of-the-virgin humor. What a great surprise. I laughed so hard I cried at some of the jokes. This film is a must see for anyone with an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor. OK.....this is not a movie to go to with your grandmother (Jack Palance?) or small children. The language is filthy, the jokes are (very) crude, and the sex talk is about as graphic as you'll find anywhere. What's amazing, however, is that the movie is still a sweet love story. My girlfriend and I both loved it. Steve Carell is terrific, but (like The Office) the supporting cast really makes the film work. All of the characters have their flaws, but they also have depth and likability. Everyone pulls their weight and the chemistry is perfect. I can't wait to get the DVD. I'm sure it will be up there with Office Space for replays and quotable lines. Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.

The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).

So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of "how is he going to tell her such and such" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.

The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year. Steve Carell comes into his own in his first starring role in the 40 Year Old Virgin, having only had supporting roles in such films as Bewitched, Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, and his work on the Daily Show, we had only gotten a small taste of the comedy that Carell truly makes his own. You can tell that Will Ferrell influenced his "comedic air" but Carell takes it to another level, everything he does is innocent, lovable, and hilarious. I would not hesitate to say that Steve Carell is one of the next great comedians of our time.

The 40 Year Old Virgin is two hours of non-stop laughs (or 4 hours if you see it twice like I did), a perfect supporting cast and great leads charm the audience through the entire movie. The script was perfect with so many great lines that you will want to see the movie again just to try to remember them all. The music fit the tone of the movie great, and you can tell the director knew what he was doing.

Filled with sex jokes, some nudity, and a lot of language, this movie isn't for everyone but if you liked the Wedding Crashers, Anchorman, or any movie along those lines, you will absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin. this is one of the funnier films i've seen. it had it's crude moments, but they were full of charm. it's Altmanesque screenplay, brilliant physical humour, and relaxed friendships were a pleasure to watch, and a slice of life most of us can relate to. and i can say with a measure of honesty that i was afraid for Steve Carell's nipple..i truly was. surprisingly, this is a good-natured, unabashed comedy that is essentially about love, and the many relationships we may find ourselves in along the way. Catherine Keener was terrific as Trish, and all of Steve Carell's friends were flawed but amiable, and so much fun. the idea that they suspected that Carell was a serial killer is a hilarious metaphor for a forty-year old virgin. but the simple truth was that he wanted to be in love first. original, charming, and very funny. highly recommended. All right, here's the deal: if you're easily offended then you might want to stay far, far away from this one. There are some painfully funny moments in the movie, but I probably blushed about as much as I laughed. Actually, I probably blushed MORE than I laughed. And if I wasn't literally blushing on the outside, then I was blushing on the inside. If there is absolutely nothing in this movie that embarrasses you then you simply have no shame. Whether that's a badge of honor or not is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

I will not deny that I laughed quite a bit, but this is a movie that I simply cannot give a blanket recommendation due to its subject matter. If I were to say, "This movie is hilarious, go check it out!" and some sweet, little old church-going lady heads to the theater and has a heart-attack during one of the graphically explicit sex situations, well, that's just something I don't need on my conscience.

So how raunchy is it? Hmm, try about 100 times worse than The Wedding Crashers. Honestly. My mom would've walked out during the first scene. I feel it's my duty to at least warn you of what to expect.

There is some cleverly intelligent comedy here, but that's what I come to expect from the man (Judd Apatow) who had a hand in both Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. I'm all for making fun of Michael McDonald; the only man whose hair and beard are white enough to give Kenny Rogers a run for his money. Paul Rudd proclaiming, "If I hear Ya Mo Be There one more time I'll Ya Mo burn this place down," is hilarious, but it's one of those things that the majority of the audience won't appreciate.

And when we see a quick 3-second flashback of Steve Carrell singing along to Cameo's Word Up, I laughed for a good two minutes after the joke was over, whereas most everybody chuckled and then forgot about it.

Strangely enough, despite the raunch, there's an admirable moral to the story. The movie doesn't portray Carrell as some freaky loser just because he's a virgin. He's really portrayed as a likable, admirable character. Sure, he's a little weird. After all, he has a framed Asia poster, "more videogames than an Asian kid," and a toy collection that features the Million Dollar Man's BOSS, but we're never led to believe that there's actually anything wrong with the fact that he's a virgin. As odd as it may seem, there's a bit of an "it's OK to wait" message.

But man, oh man, please be warned that this pushes its R rating about as far as it can go. That was certainly Apatow's intention. According to him, he just let some of the guys (particularly Rogen and Malco) improv and talk the way they normally talk, all in an effort to find lots of new ways to be dirty. If you can handle that or talk that way yourself, then you'll love the movie.

I'm not a big fan of excessive profanity and sex jokes. I find that subtle, clever humor is much more entertaining than about 200 uses of the f-word or fratboy sex discussions. But that's me. Like I said, there are some absolutely hysterical moments here, but you have to ask yourself if they're worth sitting through one of the most vulgar movies you're likely to ever see at the theater. I just don't know how interested most women will be in what's discussed by men while playing poker. Honestly ladies, you might not want to know. If you've ever been curious why some girls think guys are gross, well, this gives you a good idea.

There you go - my humble, honest take on what to expect. Be that your guide. It definitely should not be seen with your Sunday School class, mama, grandmama, any family members of the opposite sex, children of any age, or anybody who is easily offended by excessive profanity or explicit sex discussion. If you'd see it with any of the above then you apparently do not have any concept of what it means to be uncomfortable. Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.

The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.

The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.

Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.

Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in!

Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.

It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.

My Rating: 9/10

Objectively – 9/10

Subjectively – 10/10

Eliason A. THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN (2005) **** Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Gerry Bednob, Shelley Malil, Kat Dennings. Hysterically funny high-concept comedy about the titular Andy Stitzer (wonderfully played by perennial second banana Carell in a truly extraordinarily comic breakthrough performance sure to stratosphere him to the A-list), a tech services rep for an electronics store in Southern California who is found out about his secretive identity by a trio of well-meaning yet entirely clueless womanizing co-worker buddies (Rudd, Malco & Rogen, each one degree funnier than the next) determined to get their friend deflowered no matter the cost. What follows is an unlikely yet very warm-hearted romance with a vivacious mother (the marvelous Keener having lots of fun here) leading to add more fuel to the fires within Andy. A surprisingly good-spirited and unapologetically raunchy romantic comedy; the funniest since "There's Something About Mary" with a shrewdly observant script by director Judd Apatow and Carell that features some astoundingly gut-busting sequences including a scathingly accurate David Caruso joke, homophobic debunking ribbing, send-ups of 'date-a-paloozas' and demystifying the war of the sexes with cheeky aplomb. A true winner and an instant classic; the funniest film of the year. I'm not quite sure if the term "serious comedy" applies to this movie, Im not even sure if this can be applied. On the last few years movie theaters have become filled with comedy movies which are way too stupid to even make us grin. Therefore, I considered the movies which do not fill these requirements as "serious comedies".

Does The 40 Year Old Virgin fit into this guild? That is finally up to you, but in my opinion, this is a very funny movie. You get to laugh a lot, plus it delivers a social commentary through some really great characters and situations.

I'm pretty there is more than one 40 year old virgin out there, and even the people whom do not exactly fit this specifications, may feel identified by one of the characters in the movie, especially men.

The story, as the title says it, is about Andy, a shy, silent guy, whom collects action figures, watches Survivor with his octogenarian neighbors and whose favorite band is Asia.

Kal is Andy's co-worker at SmartTech. He believes Andy to be a psychopath until Andy's secret is revealed. Kal is clearly a sexual pervert but yet he seems to get what he wants with the opposite genre.

David is the passionate guy who is still in love with his ex-girlfriend, whom ran away with another guy. And Jay, a man in a relationship which seems to be affected by his continuous cheating and getting caught acts.

I'm pretty sure most youngsters from 13 to 21 have already watched this film, but it really does not have an age limit to be able to enjoy it. So in case you haven't seen it and will enjoy a little laugh, with social commentary, than go to your video store and rest from those deep and depressing independent films.

It also includes DVD bonuses which you'll really see from top to bottom. I was really surprised with this movie. Going in to the sneak preview, knowing nothing about the movie except for the one trailer I'd seen, I thought it was going to be a Dude Where's My Car kind of crap fest. I was expecting bad sex jokes and farting and a pathetic lead character who will get laid in the end because that's just how movies work. Instead I got a smart, surprisingly original movie about a decent, average guy who just never had sex.

Yes, the film is chock full o' sex jokes and vulgarity and the occasional hey-look-a-nipple!, but it's done much in the spirit of Bad Santa rather than Sorority Boys. All the characters are people you probably know in real life, redeemable friends who are just trying to hook a brother up and live their lives.

I went in thinking this movie was going to be total crap, and I was very surprised. Yea, it's pretty over the top (c'mon, it's a movie about a 40 year old virgin!), but it's very smartly done.

In the end, you're really pulling for this guy to get laid, which says a lot about the movie because honestly, did you really care if Ashton Kutcher found his car or not? The key to The 40-Year-Old Virgin is not merely that Andy Stitzer is a 40-year-old virgin, but rather the manner in which Steve Carell presents him as one. In a genre of crass "comedy" that has become typified by its lack of humor and engaging characters, The 40-Year-Old Virgin offers a colorful cast and an intelligent, heartfelt script that doesn't use its protagonist as the butt-end of cruel jokes. That Andy is still a virgin at forty years old is not as much a joke, in fact, as it is a curiosity.

Carell, a veteran of Team Ferrell in Anchorman and an ex-Daily Show castmember, uses the concept of the film to expand his character – we get to understand why Andy is the way he is. It's the little things that make this film work. When Andy's co-worker at an electronics store asks him what he did for the weekend, Andy describes his failed efforts at cooking. When Andy rides his bike to work, he signals his turns. He doesn't just adorn his home with action figures – he paints them, and talks to them, and reveals that some of the really old ones have belonged to him since childhood. A lesser comedy wouldn't even begin to focus on all of these things.

The plot is fairly simplistic – Andy's co-worker pals find out he's never had sex and they make it a personal quest of theirs to get him in bed with a woman. It's a childish idea and the film makes no attempt to conceal its juvenility.

Andy's friends are a complement to his neurotic nature: David (Paul Rudd) has broken up with his girlfriend over two years ago but is still obsessed with her, Jay (Romany Malco) is a womanizing ladies' man and Cal (Seth Rogen) is a tattooed sexaholic. Their attempts at getting Andy in the sack backfire numerous times, and each time leaves Andy feeling less and less optimistic.

Finally Andy meets single mom Trish (played by Catherine Keener) and, much to the chagrin of his worrying buddies who claim mothers aren't worth it, he falls in love with her. They begin a relationship and agree to put off having sex for twenty days – Trish being unaware that Andy is still a virgin.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin was directed by Judd Apatow, the man who produced Anchorman and The Cable Guy, and began the short-lived cult TV show Freaks and Geeks. Apatow is renowned for his unique sense of humor, and the script – co-written by Carell – offers plenty.

However, in the end the most interesting and (indeed surprising) aspect of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is its maturity. By now you are probably well aware that the film received glowing reviews from the critics, and even I was surprised by its warm reception. But after seeing the film, it's easy to understand why. We like Andy. We care about him. He's not just some cardboard cutout sex-comedy cliché – he's a real, living, breathing person. His neurotic traits combine the best of Woody Allen with childish naivety. His friends are not unlikable jerks and his romance is tumultuous and bittersweet. It strikes a chord with the audience.

Although this is far from being a perfect movie and definitely contains some rather crude innuendo and sexual humor, it doesn't offend to the extent that other genre entries might have because we have affection for the people on-screen. The best sex comedies work this way – from Risky Business to American Pie – and that is the major difference between something like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and 40 Days and 40 Nights. ''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.

Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at. This movie is a riot. I cannot remember the last time I had such a great time at the movies. I've seen a few good comedies in my time and usually they are pretty funny. But this one is wall to wall great lines. I think Best in Show is the last movie that I laughed so hard and so much in. The movie was non-stop until the end when they did the 5 minutes of sentimental plot clean up. Other than that it's a constant barrage of one liners and goofy situations. I'd like to see it again before it leaves the theater because this is like the Zucker movies where you don't get all the jokes the first time around. You have to see it two or three times to get it all in.

As far as the actual film goes, it could have used a better edit, it's choppy at times but we have to be forgiving for that. All the characters are great. It's not like an Adam Sandler movie where he tries to be funny and everyone else suffers around him and is the butt of the joke. I think I will remember all the main characters for years to come because they are all so likable. No victims in this movie. Also, thank God they got a 45 year old actress to play his girlfriend. Catherine Keener plays her and she is a sweetheart in this film. You just wish that women like her really existed. She's not a "10" like some of the other leading ladies but somehow her smile is warmer than Julia Roberts overdone overbite.

If you see the trailer for this film you may not think too highly of it. I assure you, the trailer does not do it justice. They do not give away all the good jokes. Just some of the mediocre ones.

Oh and one more thing. I hope critics put this on their top ten list. Many of them complain that comedies don't get the recognition they deserve and then at the end of the year they don't put it on their list. This means you Ebert!!! This movie starts out hilarious from about the 15 second mark, and continues it throughout the movie. I cannot recall a scene where i didn't turn to look at people laughing with me. he is the perfect actor for this roll because of the way he looks and the way he dressed.

The comedic parts were great to see from actors not very big or popular. As you can see people do like this movie it is currently rated 7.9 on IMDb. i think it should be in 250. Lets put it this way i haven't seen this funny of a movie since American pie or the original vacation. see it if you want a laugh. I give this movie 2 of the highest thumbs up i have ever given since i found out about IMDb, great movie site. As we all know the sub-genre of sex comedies is pretty crowded. Simply being excessively raunchy isn't enough anymore. I've seen and heard so many disgusting jokes and actions that a sex comedy really needs to have other positive points to appeal to me these days.

Coming into the 40 Year Old Virgin I knew basically what to expect; I did see the commercials after all; "is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?" What I didn't expect to find is a heart and honest attempts at character development. There's still the weird "off-the-wall" characters that we see so much in Adam Sandler movies and there's still enough inappropriate language to sink Noah's Ark but somehow the movie has a worthwhile love story and yes even a message.

The main character Andy is (unfortunately for me) a person I can relate to. In the first shot I see that he even shares my love for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (he has a poster for the movie on his wall) and throughout the movie we get to see his really neat collection of antiquities. Andy also has plenty of video games and a working knowledge of films and technology. Andy doesn't want to buy a car because he prefers his bike. Most importantly of all; Andy is a nice person, he doesn't swear and he respect women so much that he stays away from them. Combine all these factors and everybody begins to think he's a serial murderer. It's like my life story.

The other characters each have funny little stories to go along with their slightly exaggerated personalities and they all work on a certain level but not the way Andy does. I felt that it was sort of distracting in a way since Andy and his girlfriend Trish are really the only truly human characters in the entire movie.

I suppose since I mentioned one flaw I might as well bring the other noticeable one to light. The story is clever but too predictable and as far as romances go; it's quite simple. It deals with Andy's relationship with Trish for a long time and we all know what's going to happen in the end. Sure its final detour is a bit different than we may expect but you know what's going to happen in the end, and I assure you it does. These are definitely small stains on the movie but there's so much good here that I can easily ignore it's few faults.

When I say "good" I mean "bad" of course. This is a sex comedy and it wants to be bad. For the most part I think it succeeded. There are so many hilarious scenes such as Andy trying to get rid of an erection after refusing to have sex with Trish. Or the scene where Andy goes with his Trish's daughter to a sexual education class where he ends up asking more questions than anybody else. Ah and we must not forget the soon to be classic chest waxing sequence "Ooh! Como se llama!" An interesting little note about that scene; the actor Steve Carell actually did wax his belly and the pain shown is real. Of course they only did one take but it was still a very brave thing to do on his part.

Actually since we're talking about Steve Carell, I'd like to say that he has now risen on my list of respected comedians which is sort of odd since I didn't even know who he was prior to seeing this film. I was just so impressed by his writing, acting and timing that I now really want to keep an eye out for his future roles. This man has talent it The 40 Year Old Virgin proves that.

To be honest I had doubts about this film but early word was positive and I knew it was something I was eventually going to see. I'm glad that I did too since it's probably one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time and it doubles as something you feel is worth watching. It's not simply a series of sex gags lumped together rather it's a series of sex gags entwined with a very worthwhile character and a truly touching romance. Now excuse me while I go puke my guts out; I can't believe I just wrote that...

My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=virgin SPOILERS Sex huh? It's one of the most basic parts of human life. Yet, do we ever take it too seriously? People always want more, even those who get it on a daily basis, and if you are unlucky, there are potential life changing (creating) consequences. Ironically people claim we are all starting to have sex at a younger and younger age (despite Victorians getting married and having children in their early teens), so it must be increasingly difficult for those who get to a point as virgins. In Steve Carell's first big screen lead, he plays a man who has gotten to 40 without managing it. Treating us to countless lude and extreme sex related incidents, not to mention more profanity than an episode of "Eurotrash", the general plot of the film and it's principle doesn't sound funny. It's a pleasant surprise therefore that for all the inappropriate, failed jokes, there are an incredibly large number of ones which hit the mark and leave the audience in hysterics.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a nice guy with a good job and a pleasant temperament. At the same time though, he blatantly takes life too seriously and after being invited to a poker game as a necessary fifth member, Andy's friends discover his secret. At the age of 40, Andy is still a virgin. Now, for multiple reasons, but mostly pity, the three men (Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Romany Malco) all offer Andy advice with one goal in mind. To put him out of his misery and get him laid.

One of the few good things about "Anchorman", it was only going to be a matter of time before Steve Carell got himself a lead of his own. Impressively, in "The 40 Year Old Virgin" he doesn't disappoint. Showing the hopeless, shy virgin to perfection, Carell is a revelation as he gradually grows increasingly confident as the advice begins to help.

Carell is not alone however in his performance. Rudd, Rogen, Malco and Catherine Keener as the love interest are all superb. Rudd is a personal favourite as the love sick David who falls apart at multiple times and shares the finest scene with Rogen as the two argue over homosexuality.

The biggest surprise about this film is not the way that so many of the jokes hit the mark, but actually the clever way that it flips the message on it's head. Obviously designed for conservative America, the film's entire tone evolves from a simple story of sexual conquest into one of safe sex and abstinence. The virgin doesn't need sex to make his life complete, he just needs confidence and true love. A worthy message to preach, and a considerable improvement on the one you expect to see at the beginning of the film.

It's weird to see a crude comedy which is consistently funny and well acted, but low and behold, "40 Year Old Virgin" is just that. Throw in a well meaning message too and you're well on the way to a top class comedy. A surprising joy. The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year. Well let me just say something about these actors, they really were a good decision, and from experience, having actors really brings the dialogue to life. If you walk into this even fifteen minutes late, you'll be in for a shock, the movie will have already began. You don't want to miss the first few jokes, assuming you came to not miss any jokes.

Wow! I have never seen a movie that ended with such a final ending. Not to be harsh, I mean I loved it, but it just surprised me that it really kept going until it stopped! But i'm getting ahead of myself, lets start with the very start of it, when it began. The plot outline goes like this, there is this man, and not to give away any spoilers, (*Spoiler Alert!!*) (he hasn't had any sex ever(!) they use this plot device to set the story moving, and there are (intentionally or not, it could go either way) some funny situations had by the main characters, some containing irony, and jokes, and awkward situations, you know.

The director uses the advancements in technology by combining the film shot on the set and scripted dialog, some music, and jokes to make a funny movie, designed as a comedy, where he takes us on a journey from the opening credits to the end with an entirely full movie in between. I went into this movie expecting to see a funny comedy because of what I already knew about it, and left feeling as though i had just left a theater that just played a funny comedy. TEN STARS!!! Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.

Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.

Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!

I Give this one a perfect 10! From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.

Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.

One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words "chest waxing" and "condoms" are mentioned in conversation.

Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.

I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.

I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't "gay jokes," they're just jokes. And they're funny. This movie was one of the best movies that I have seen this year. I didn't see any cameos in the movie, but it is still pretty good. It is similar to Anchorman in the humor department, but I think this is a better put together movie. It actually has a point. If you are going to see a whole bunch of T&A you will be disappointed. Just a well put together movie!!!! If you have nothing to do for the day or you need a lot of humor, you will find this to be a really good movie. I definitely think that Ebert and Roeper's review of this movie is right on. I mean, I don't really like Ebert on most movies, but this is the movie that I will agree about. The movie contains a good enough story that it is actually believable that these type of people are out there. There is definitely something to be said about how they treat virginity in this movie. Yea, sure, you get laughed at when it is found out about, but it still suggests that you wait. Steve did a wonderful job of portraying the person that he did in this movie and yet, it is still funny. Bela Lugosi gets to play one of his rare good guy roles in a serial based upon the long running radio hit (which was also the source of a feature film where Lugosi played the villain.) Lugosi cuts a fine dashing figure and its sad that he didn't get more roles where he could be the guy in command in a good way. Here Chandu returns from the East in order to help the Princess Nadji who is being hunted by the leaders of the cult of Ubasti who need her to bring back from the dead the high priestess of their cult. This is a good looking globe trotting serial that is a great deal of fun. To be certain the pacing is a bit slack, more akin to one of Principals (the producing studios) features then a rip roaring adventure, but it's still enjoyable. This plays better than the two feature films that were cut from it because it allows for things to happen at their own pace instead of feeling rushed or having a sense that "hey I missed something". One of the trilogy of three good serials Lugosi made, the others being SOS Coast Guard and Phantom Creeps How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a long—lost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.

Without giving away too much—Chandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.

Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.

As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnapped—in a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imagery—and are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals.

Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?

Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosi—yet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.

This serial is unjustly bashed. Years ago many big studios promoted serial films that were shown in movie theaters's in between the actual features along with a Newsreel of current events, plus cartoons, especially on a Saturday afternoon. (The parents loved it mostly) "The Return of Chandu" was a 12 episode serial where Chandu,(Bela Lugosi),"The Mysterious Mr. Wong",'34 is a magician with super natural powers and travels to the island of Lemuria to rescue the kidnapped princess of Egypt,(Nadji)Maria Alba,"Dr. Terror's House of Horrors",'43. Princess Nadji is held captive by the black magic cult of Ubasti, who believe that she is a reincarnation of their long-dead goddess Ossana. These 12-episode serials take you way back in time and are very well produced, considering we are talking about 1934 ! After having seen a lot of Greek movies I feel very suspicious against most of them. But after watching this I felt astonished. The movies is great without a big try. You cannot claim that the screenplay is so great or the photography is perfect or something technical. It's a real story and it is happening in Greek rural areas in places forgotten from God. The movie is like a punch in the stomach and I would really wish that things are not like this. It obviously talks about the xenophobia of the Greek people (the ignorance)to anything different. The problem of this guy is not that he is an ex-convicted. The problem is that he is not one of these people. He is different and they do not want them (that's why all the good things he is doing turn boomerang to him). And also speaks about the apathy of the people, because there are some people who are against the hunting of the King, but they do not dare to say their opinion. In the end you can clearly see the hypocrisy of the society being religious and trying to act like God says, but at the same time acting so unfairly to the King. This shows how easily people rationalize their feelings or their beliefs according to the established system. In the end you can have a positive lesson from this very bad story, meaning that you can understand and be part of this society only if you want to become one of them. If you want to remain different and even alone, you are lost (and it is not far from reality) I think it is tragic that the story is real and this should be a bell for everybody. No comment for the main actor because he is already given an award and I believe that his play was great. Small comment for Hatzisavvas (plays the policeman), he is like a dinosaur, he has played a lot of roles and I'm sure that this role for him was very easy but he plays it so great that you cannot deny him a big bravo. I definitely recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good Greek movie. Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina.. This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.

If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..

Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression! from the view of a NASCAR Maniac like I am, the movie is interesting. You can see many race cars from 1983. Even tough, the racing scenes are not that much realistic. But I have to admit, that I haven't seen any race before 1995, because before that time, they didn't show any NASCAR races in Germany)

from the view of a Burt Reynolds fan like I am, the movie basically is what we are used to see from Reynolds in the 80's: Burt behind the wheel of a fast car, like in his Bandit Movies.

If you love NASCAR and Burt Reynolds, this movie is a must-see. If you only love one of this 2 things, I also recommend to watch it. If you like neither NASCAR nor Burt Reynolds, you still should give it a chance, but remember, this movie was far away from winning an Oscar Academy Award.

It is the typical humor of the 80's. If you like movies like the Cannonball Movies, and Police Academy, you will also like that one. This is a hilarious film. Burt Reynolds is a NASCAR star who signs a sponsorship contract with Ned Beatty's Chicken Pit restaurants. The contract has all sorts of humiliating clauses in it, such as forcing Burt to wear a chicken suit during the race! Jim Nabors is his (not quite convincing) chief mechanic. Loni Anderson (oh, yeah!) is assigned by Beatty to keep Reynolds honest and strictly adhering to the contract. This is a funny film in which Burt proves that he ain't too proud. I like it! I love old Burt Reynolds movies. They're funnier and better than every other movie combined. They might as well have stopped making movies after "Cannonball Run 2", but I guess how could they have known that there weren't going to be any more good ones? Man this movie's good. Burt Reynolds has to dress up like a chicken and drive around in a racecar a lot, and the luxuriant Loni Anderson is on hand, looking extremely hot in an eightiesly way. Burt and Loni, those were the days! I used to have this magazine that had Loni Anderson in it advertising for a vaccuum cleaner. I sure loved that advertisement! Plus there's this one part in the movie where the audience at the racetrack is upset at something Stroker Ace (Burty R.) is doing, and it shows one guy in the audience bending over and sticking his finger up his butt to display his disappointment! I laughed so hard I almost passed away into the night! If you can find this movie, rent it! And then never watch another movie again, because I tell you right now: there's no point. Look, this is quite possibly one of the best movies America has to offer the rest of the world. To hate this movie is to hate freedom itself. I remember that the early 80's were a time of uncertainty. The economy was weak, communism threatened us all, and nuclear destruction was almost a certainty. Out of that confusion came a hero, Stroker Ace. Ned Beatty's performance in this movie showed he was never again to be type cast as a one dimensional victim in the wilderness. His triumph is an inspiration to all. The on-screen chemistry between Burt and Loni draws obvious comparisons to Brad and Jennifer. Jim Nabors is a poet. Go see this movie tonight! Miss DeCarlo's starring debut has everything the writers could come up with -- from the Franco-Prussian War to the US Civil War, the great American West, San Francisco in its heyday, ballet, opera, vaudeville, stage coach bandits, and a Chinese junk. Just when you thought the plot couldn't get any screwier, it does. It's magnificent, taken tongue in cheek. DeCarlo's character (here called Anna Marie -- NOT Salome, that's the role she dances) is loosely based on the career of the notorious Lola Montez, who was the mistress of the King of Prussia and caused a revolution when he gave her the crown jewels. She did escape to the American west. There is a town in Arizona called "Salome, Where She Danced," based on the historical fact that Lola Montez did dance the role of Salome there. StageCoach Cleve and the Russian nobleman who fall under her charms are not historically accurate, nor I assume is the Chinese wise man with the Scottish accent -- but it is one of my favorite all time camp classics and DeCarlo is breathtakingly beautiful throughout. I just saw this movie for the first time ever and I liked it. Her dancing was very entertaining. I read somewhere that she got the part in this movie because she knew how to dance. The scenery was great too. Yvonne is such a talented woman and beautiful. WE laughed at the silly kissing scenes, but that is what is great about old movies! I grew up with her on The Munsters and I am enjoying watching her in her earlier movies. They may not all be the best out there but still worth watching to see her act and sing. I am slowly purchasing all her movies and watching them as I receive them. I have a large collection of her memorabilia. Much underrated camp movie on the level of Cobra Woman, etc. Photographic stills resemble Rembrandt prints. Sometimes subtle dialog and hidden literate touches found throughout. "Sandra, the Making of a Woman" is a standout among exploitation films, and is so for two reasons: (1) an excellent, yet effortless, performance by Monica Gayle, and (2) the fact that Gary Graver was at the helm of the project. These two talents, both of whom are quite underrated, make "Sandra" a film that should be seen.

Another key element of the film's success is its realism -- there is nothing fake or "Hollywood" about this set-in-California film. It is truly a slice of life. The modest house in which Sandra lives at the beginning of the film, the simple dresses worn by the character, the scene where Sandra wakes up in the morning to find Uschi Digart bouncing at her front door, and Sandra sits on the couch without make-up, while Digart tries to sell her some cosmetics, looking truly as if she just woke up (but nevertheless beautiful), the harmless weirdo Sandra picks up who likes to make love with her while he wears a bra, the one-room apartment into which Sandra moves --all of these elements of the film seem totally real, and as such, the viewer is drawn into Sandra's little world from the beginning and immediately becomes interested in her and wants her to succeed. Sandra also makes her case for free love with eloquence and dignity and she comes off with a lot of class.

This film could have easily failed in less competent hands, and could have gone off in any of the usual sexploitation directions, but the Garver/Gale team see to it that "Sandra" is not only the making of a woman but the making of an excellent film. The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.

Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button. This unsung quiet gem tells the true story of a POW escape during WW II. The performances are incredible, especially Anthony Steele. The movie works on many different levels: cerebral, emotional, visual, and literal. The dialogue is ingenious and rings very true. In fact, an unusual all-around authenticity puts this one head-and-shoulders above most war epics. In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).

The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.

Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.

This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end. The Wooden Horse was one of the first "great" escape stories from World War II, telling the true story of Eric Williams and others in their escape from Stalag-Lufft III in October of 1943. I really like this film, but had to by it on VHS from Amazon in England and get it transferred from PAL format in the U.S. I read the book when I was in hight school, after having seen a portion of the film in the early 60's on T.V. The taunt drama of Peter and John trying to escape from Germany during the war is more realistic than the treck of the escapes portrayed in the Great Escape. This film is a lost treasure, that should be made more available to American audiences. The Wooden Horse is a very clever movie about a very clever and successful escape plan worked out by British POW's during World War II. It is superbly acted with a wry sense of humor, especially the lines expressed by the acid-tongues Leo Genn. Anthony Steele and David Tomlinson (later George Banks in Mary Poppins) are marvelous as the two heroes. The direction is taut and fast-moving throughout. Highly Recommended. While thinking of "The Great Escape" I allowed my mind to wander back to this little gem of a movie from my childhood. I had read and re-read the autobiographical novel from 1949 which inspired it, and when it came to the only cinema (we never used that word then , actually) in town that showed "foreign" films, I was first in line to buy my ticket.

As someone brought up on wartime newsreels and propaganda films during WWII, I had an avid interest in exploring the realities of that conflict as reflected in the memoirs and stories of men who were there in person. That extended later to a keen willingness over the years to buy any book on the subject, and eventually to read the equally compelling novels of Hans Helmut Kirst and Erich Maria Remarque, which provided an even deeper sensibility. The movie versions, however, were unlike this one in that they rarely delivered the goods.

The medium of black-and-white film has never been served so well as it was in those years. I have never seen any technicolor version of war that seems as authentic as do the deep chiaroscuros of films like "The Wooden Horse." If it is true that we are destined always to be captive to the images of our childhood, then I confess it freely.

And there will never be another the likes of Leo Genn as the emblematic British war hero on film. Not even Sir Alec. Playing out as a sort of pre runner to The Great Escape some 13 years later, this smashing little British film plays it straight with no thrills and dare do well overkill. First part of the movie is the set up and subsequent escape of our protagonists, whilst the second part concentrates on their survival whilst on the run as they try to reach Sweden. The film relies on pure characters with simple, effective, and yes, believable dialogue to carry it thru, and it achieves its aims handsomely. No little amount of suspense keeps the film ticking along, and as an adventure story it works perfectly for the time frame it adheres to, so a big thumbs to the film that may well be the first of its type ?.

7/10 This is the true story of how three British soldiers escaped from the German Prisoner Of War (POW) camp, Stalag Luft III, during the Second World War. This is the same POW camp that was the scene for the Great Escape which resulted in the murder of 50 re-captured officers by the Gestapo (and later was made into a very successful movie of the same name).

While the other POWs in Stalag Luft III are busy working on their three massive tunnels (known as Tom, Dick & Harry), two enterprising British prisoners came up with the idea to build a wooden vaulting horse which could be placed near the compound wire fence, shortening the distance they would have to tunnel from this starting point to freedom. The idea to build their version of the Trojan Horse came to them while they were discussing 'classic' attempts for escape and observing some POWs playing leap-frog in the compound.

Initially containing one, and later with two POWs hidden inside, the wooden horse could be carried out into the compound and placed in almost the same position, near the fence, on a daily basis. While volunteer POWS vaulted over the horse, the escapees were busy inside the horse digging a tunnel from under the vaulting horse while positioned near the wire, under the wire, and into the woods.

The story also details the dangers that two of the three escaping POWs faced while traveling through Germany and occupied Europe after they emerged from the tunnel. All three POWs who tried to escape actually hit home runs (escaped successfully to their home base.). The Wooden Horse gives a very accurate and true feeling of the tension and events of a POW breakout. The movie was shot on the actual locations along the route the two POWs traveled in their escape. Made with far less a budget than The Great Escape, The Wooden Horse is more realistic if not more exciting than The Great Escape and never fails to keep you from the edge of your seat rooting for the POWs to make good their escape.

The story line is crisp and the acting rings true and is taut enough to keep the tension up all the way through the movie. The Wooden Horse is based on the book of the same name by one of the escapees, Eric Williams, and is, by far, the best POW escape story ever made into a movie. Some of the actual POWs were used in the movie to reprise their existence as prisoners in Stalag Luft III. I give this movie a well deserved ten. Excellent P.O.W. adventure, adapted by Eric Williams from his own book (a paperback copy of which forms part of my father's library) that was inspired by true events; it may well be the first film of its kind and, therefore, has a lot to answer for – not just similarly stiff-upper-lipped examples such as ALBERT, R.N. (1953; which I'll be watching presently), THE COLDITZ STORY (1955) and DANGER WITHIN (1959) but higher-profile releases from the other side of the Atlantic, namely STALAG 17 (1953) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). This, then, sets the basis pretty solidly: British soldiers interned in a German camp devise an ingenious plan of escape, borrowing a page from Greek legend – burrowing from under a vaulting horse used during physical exercise and in full view of their captors! Actually, the film is neatly split into two halves: the first deals with the slow process of digging the tunnel, culminating in the escape itself, while the latter stages depict their fortunes outside the camp as they try to make it to neutral Sweden. Typically of these British films, the cast showcases several established (Leo Genn), current (Anthony Steel) and up-and-coming (Peter Finch, David Tomlinson and Bill Travers) stars, to say nothing of innumerable reliable character actors (Anthony Dawson, Bryan Forbes, Michael Goodliffe and Walter Gotell). The three leads/escapees are Genn, Steel and Tomlinson: while the first two stick together, the latter goes his own way – only to run into the others on reaching safety. As can be expected, the narrative involves plenty of suspense and excitement; as with most male-centered P.O.W. sagas, too, female interest is kept to the barest minimum. Director Lee didn't have a lengthy career – with this and the somewhat similar (albeit with a change of both setting and viewpoint) A TOWN LIKE ALICE (1956) his most noteworthy achievements – but he certainly milked every gripping situation in this case (even if, reportedly, delays in filming saw Lee quitting his post prematurely…leaving producer Ian Dalrymple with the task of tying up loose ends!). Anyway, worth special mention is the exquisite lighting (particularly during night-time sequences) throughout. After not having much luck at selling his screenplays to the new movie industry during the first decade of the 20th Century, in 1908 playwright D.W. Griffith got the job that would make him a legend: he was hired by the Biograph Company as a director of movies. It wasn't really what Griffith had expected when he decided to enter the movie business, but he accepted the job, and in less than a year he became Biograph's most successful director thanks to his original approach to film-making and the wild inventive of his narrative. Many years later, he would direct "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915, the movie that would revolutionize film-making and make him one of cinema's first recognized authors; however, a lot of what would make him a great filmmaker can be found in the many short films he made for Biograph Company in the early years of his career. 1909's "The Sealed Room" is one of those, and also one of the few horror movies of that very first decade of the 20th Century.

"The Sealed Room" is a story set in the 16th Century in which a Count (Arhtur V. Johnson) has built a windowless room in his castle. It is a small yet nice and very cozy room, as it is meant to be used to enjoy the love and company of his wife, the Countess (Marion Leonard) in a more private way. However, the Count doesn't know that his wife is not exactly faithful, as she is infatuated with the Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall) at Court, with whom she is having an affair. As soon as the Count gets busy with his own business, the Countess calls the Minstrel and both lovers go to enjoy the Count's new room. When the Count returns, he discovers she is missing and begins to suspect, finally discovering the two lovers in his room; but instead of making a scene, he prefers to remain hidden as he decides that there is a better punishment for his unfaithful wife: to seal the windowless room with the couple inside.

Written by Griffiths' regular collaborator Frank E. Woods, "The Sealed Room" takes elements from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" and mainly Honoré De Balzac's "La Grande Breteche" to create a haunting Gothic melodrama based on the themes of treachery and sadism. Despite having a runtime of 11 minutes, Woods' screenplay develops the story in a very good way, and plays remarkably well with the horror elements of the story. While a melodrama at heart, Woods focus on the character of the Count and his sadism creates one of the best horror characters of these early era. "The Sealed Room" is definitely a very simple and basic story, but Woods handling of the dark and morbid thematic of its plot makes the story a very entertaining film that was very different than most Griffith's melodramas.

In "The Sealed Room", Griffith uses his talents to experiment with tension and suspense in a different way than his usual. While he often played with editing to create thrillers that excited his audience, in this movie his focus was to create desperation and horror, playing with the inherent feeling of claustrophobia that the source stories had. It is interesting how the story starts as another of his melodramas and slowly the pacing becomes faster as the horror themes begin to dominate the plot, culminating in his great use of editing for the final scenes. Not being a movie where camera tricks are essential, what shines the most in "The Sealed Room" is Griffith's talent to direct his actors, as the legendary filmmaker manages to bring the best out of his cast with his usual natural style far removed from the staginess that was the norm in his day.

As usual, the cast was comprised of usual collaborators of Griffith, starting with Arthur V. Johnson as the Count. Johnson gives a great performance and truly conveys the character's transition from loving husband to sadistic monster. His performance is not without a touch of overacting, but actually that adds realism to the character's exaggerated personality. As the Countess, Marion Leonard looks very good and is also very effective in her acting, conveying a natural charm that makes hard not to sympathize with her in her treachery. Finally, the legendary Henry B. Walthall appears as the handsome Minstrel, and while far from being one of his best performances, he manages to give a proficient acting that also adds a nice touch of comedy to the film. While not of real importance to the plot, it's nice to see other members of Griffith's stock company in the background, like his wife Linda Arvidson and a young Mary Pickford as nobles at Court.

While not exactly a masterpiece, "The Sealed Room" is a notable exercise of editing to create suspense and tension like Griffith used to do in those days. The movie has very good set design and while of a very low budget, Griffith's care for details makes it look very convincing and works perfectly along with his directing style. The change of focus to horror makes it to stand out among other of his films from that era, and Johnson's performance as the sadistic Count makes it worth a watch. While Griffith will always be remembered for his highly influential (and controversial) "The Birth of a Nation", the early short films he made before it really give a good idea of the development of the techniques and the style that would make him a legend. Simple yet elegant, "The Sealed Room" is a fun movie to watch and one of the few horrors of the first decade of the 20th Century. 7/10 Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.

This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!! This early Biograph short was so much fun to watch. The second on disc one of D.W. Griffith's "Years of Discovery" DVD set (highly recommended) it features three excellent performances by the main leads, and interesting to see Henry B. Walthall (The Little Colonel, Birth of a Nation) as a campy musician giving a Countess the eye (and other things).

The Countess' husband goes berserk at his wife's betrayal and has her walled into a little room with her paramour. It's kind of incredible that they wouldn't hear the wall going up, but hey, maybe the wine had something to do with it. Here Mr. Johnson (father of silent player Raymond Hackett) gesticulates wildly and this adds to the melodrama, but in an unexpectedly comical way. The best moment comes at the end. As the lady passes out from shock and fear, once she realizes she's doomed, Henry picks up his instrument and "fans" it over her. The way he did it was so unexpected and in a strange way kind of sexy, and I just lost it, and laughed my head off. The expression on his face! From that moment I was charmed by Henry B. Walthall. By 1909, D.W. Griffith had been directing films for the Biograph Company for about a year, and – working at a rate of two or three per week – was rapidly beginning to develop his skills as a filmmaker. 'The Sealed Room' is a very interesting 11 minute short, a fascinating piece of Gothic melodrama that even drifts slightly into the realm of early horror. The simple narrative was probably inspired by Edgar Allen Poe's 1846 short story, "The Cask of Amontillado," and concerns a powerful king who conceives a deliciously sadistic form of revenge to punish his wife's infidelity.

Set in medieval times, 'The Sealed Room' begins with the king (Arthur V. Johnson) overseeing the construction of a windowless room from a sequestered dove-cote, the idea being that he and his wife (Marion Leonard) will have a completely private place to enjoy each other's company. He is obviously very much in love with her, always showing his affection, this latest act the crowning achievement of his endearment. However, unbeknownst to the king, his wife has fallen in love with the royal minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). During one romantic liaison inside the specially-built room, the wife and the minstrel are discovered, and the heartbroken king conceives a means of getting his retribution on the ignorant couple. Silently, he orders his workmen to seal off the only doorway with stone and mortar, slowly descending into cackling insanity as each new stone is placed down.

D.W. Griffith always had an eye for acute detail, and 'The Sealed Room' is an excellent early example of this. The lavish medieval century costumes lend the film a sense of reality, and the castle interior looks authentic enough to be believable. At the time, the director was also pioneering methods of creating suspense, and I must admit that, as the film progressed, I became fixated on finding out what would happen to the hapless young lovers. In the early minutes, Griffith restricts his shots to lengthy long-takes from a stationary camera (as was usual at the time), but soon – parallel to the progressively darker subject matter – he alters his editing tactics in a fascinating way. Though he may not have invented the technique, Griffith was crucial in popularising the use of "cross-cutting" – that is, alternating between different events occurring at the same time. Not only does this create a sense of continuity, but it also maximises the level of suspense, since we, as the audience, are well aware, not only of the king's ghastly actions, but also that the wife and the minstrel are oblivious to it all.

Despite these innovations, 'The Sealed Room' suffers from many of the shortcomings typical of the era. The entire film takes place in just two rooms, with footage captured from a total of just three positions, and so it is prone to become dull and monotonous at times. The acting performances are greatly exaggerated for extra effect, however, at least in the case of Arthur V. Johnson, his overplaying actually contributed to recognising the escalating madness of the betrayed king. A moment that I thought particularly effective was when the two lovers attempted to exit the room, only to find their only doorway replaced with a wall of solid stone. Their panicked reactions, accompanied by the silent maniacal cackling of the king, serve very well to create an impending sense of claustrophobia. I did think, however, that their supply of oxygen was exhausted surprisingly quickly. This period melodrama is one of Griffith's earliest claustrophobic films. Characters trapped within a room are prevalent throughout his work and, as time went by, he would become increasingly adept at portraying their helplessness and involving the audience in their terror. In the bluntly titled Sealed Room there is one major difference to the normal plot line, in that there truly is no escape.

Griffith achieves the claustrophobic effect here in two ways. First is his use of space. While the typical Biograph short might utilise a dozen or more sets, The Sealed Room features only two adjoining rooms – the king's court and the dove cote that becomes the eponymous tomb. The set design in these shorts is rarely referenced, but here it is crucial. The court is a large interior, with a backdrop hinting at greater depth and showing us a window and a staircase. Actors enter and leave from various directions, suggesting the room is not only spacious but also free and open. By contrast the dove cote's back wall is very close to the camera, and the angles in it suggesting a hexagonal or octagonal shape make it seem even more confined.

The second technique on display here is the cross-cutting. Anyone with an interest in Griffith's work will probably know about his heavy use and development of cross-cutting to build excitement or tension. Many will also know that strictly speaking it wasn't his invention. However what makes Griffith's cross-cuts so effective is the way he paces the opposing images so they complement each other. The Sealed Room contains a good example of what I mean. The shots of the masons shifting the heavy bricks have a slow, step-by-step pace to them, with tension building as the wall gets higher. This movement is matched by the shots of the blissfully unaware lovers, in which Marion Leonard tears off flower petals one-by-one. As the couple realise their predicament, their rising panic is complemented by the opposing shot of the king madly thrashing his sword against the wall.

At this point, Griffith was yet to realise that the action could be heightened further by introducing a third strand to the cross-cut. The dramatic "ride-to-the-rescue", here absent, was later to become a standard climax to Griffith's pictures. The story is about Ankush (Abhay Deol) - who is professional marriage witness, in short he acts as a witness for couples in marriage registration office - and Megha (Soha Ali Khan) who ran away from her home at Nainital to get married to her love interest Dhiraj (Shayan Munshi). The story starts with Megha waiting at the marriage registration office for Dhiraj to show up but for some reason he does not show up. So Ankush comes in the picture here, who had approached Megha with the intention of earning Rs. 200 for his Witness job and he ends up helping her by providing shelter to her. Ankush grows on his side by working in a bank as an Agent… Ankush falls in love with Megha and she too falls in love with him (or kind of love), both agree for the marriage and Dhiraj comes back in the picture. Unexpected circumstances happen, actually I should say, expected circumstances with unexpected reactions and then….

Actually the movie story is bit different than the movies we see and I do not think so it will be accepted by the masses but if you are a movie freak like me and love to watch something different, then you will definitely like the movie. The movie is just an innocent love story drafted very well by the characters of Abhay Deol and Soha Ali Khan. The characters are so natural that you feel as if things are happening to the guy next door. The background music of the film also plays a very good role, it is just too good. The way Delhi is shown is very good and gives a fresh feeling.

so let's cut it out and sum it up.

Story: A very common story carried very well and transformed to a wonderful experience.

Music: Well, as it was Himesh Reshammiya creation, so I did not expect much but still I liked couple of songs of the movie including the Qawwali.

Acting: Abhay Deol was the most impressive, very natural and innocent acting but he should stay away from singing in the songs. Soha Ali Khan, she is a doll, a very cute doll I must say. Again very innocent and natural acting and these both actors perfectly fit into their characters. Apart from these two, Shayan Munshi needs some acting lessons and may be few layers of fat to cover the bones. Other actors did their job well.

Stars: I would also give it 3.5 stars out of 5. You will enjoy the movie if watched in the theatre, I would recommend watching it in theatre if you are a movie freak and accept uncommon stories. Otherwise wait for the DVD to arrive. The movie will definitely won't be liked by the masses and the business it can do is from word of mouth publicity. Abhay Deol meets the attractive Soha Ali Khan and greets her "Hello Sister"!!!. This sets the tone for a remarkable debut film by Shivam Nair. Soha, a middle class girl has run away from her home in Nainital and come to Delhi to marry her lover, Shayan Munshi. But Shyan doesn't turn up leaving Soha heartbroken & alone in the big bad world. . Abhay, the lower class next door guy turns protective towards the vulnerable Soha and helps her get a job & shelter in an old age home. Slowly romance blooms and Soha agrees to marry Abhay. Then Shyan re-enters into Soha's life.

A sensitively made film with a very unusual story, lovingly shot in Delhi, revolves around the delicate Soha. This well crafted film has moments which will forever remain etched in one's memory – the awkward first kiss & Abhay's swift apology; Abhay describing Soha as "class wali ladki" & hastily adding "that he doesn't love her"; his gifting a churidar to Soha & asking her out for a date.

The music is good & the background music excellent. In a scene where Soha rushes & embraces Abhay the sound track disappears. The stillness conveys both the awkwardness & tenderness of the relationship.

The poignant ending makes for a bitter sweet film, the memories of which will linger for a long long time.

A must see I will rate it 8.5/10 Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.

Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.

Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance. Watching film i was in very light mood and also this film is light but the end of the film is just unexpected which leaves a long lasting memories in one's mind.

movie starts with Abhay and his profession of being witness during registrar marriage. Soha comes for marriage and his boyfriend doesn't, leaving Soha alone on to the street she cant go back home and she don't have any thing to live on here in this situation Abahy turns out to be a helper for her, this is the base of story.

The rest is just watchable and the end of the story is bitter sweet that Abhay has to face which keeps you at the edge of the seat.

Dialogues and music are good songs are OK direction is good and so as the screenplay you do feel that movie is slow but looking to the demand of story it is all right.

A truly watchable especially with light mood i enjoyed this at home with coke and peanuts. my rating for this is 8/10 This is a kind of movie that will stay with you for a long time. Soha Ali and Abhay Deol both look very beautiful. Soha reminds you so much of her mother Sharmila Tagore. Abhay is a born actor and will rise a lot in the coming future.

The ending of the movie is very different from most movies. In a way you are left unsatisfied but if you really think about it in real terms, you realize that the only sensible ending was the ending shown in the movie. Otherwise, it would have been gross injustice to everyone.

The movie is about a professional witness who comes across a girl waiting to get married in court. Her boyfriend does not show up and she ends up being helped by the witness. Slowly slowly, over the time, he falls in love for her. It is not clear if she has similar feelings for him or not. Watch the movie for complete details.

The movie really belongs to Abhay. I look forward to seeing more movies from him. Soha is pretty but did not speak much in the movie. Her eyes, her innocence did most of the talking. This movie was disaster at Box Office, and the reason behind that is innocence of the movie, sweetness of the story. Music was good, story is very simple and old, but presentation of such story is very good, Director tried his best. Abhay is excellent and impressive and he shines once again in his role, he did his best in comedy or in emotional scene. Soha looks so sweet in the movie. Rest star cast was simply okay. Music and all songs are good, Himesh is impressive as an Singer here. Don't miss this movie, its a wonderful movie and a feel good one for us. Abhay best work till date. I will give 9/10 to Ahista Ahista. Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.

The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour!

The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating. This movie is an exact copy of a TV series on Indian television channel doordarshan Which was aired at least 15 years ago. The series was known as "gubbarre" meaning balloons. Each episode was a new short story. The story is excellent and the original is much sweeter and "convincing" Abhay Doel does a good job but he doesn't fit the role of a "normal" and "third class" guys(as he calls himself in the movie). In fact Shayan Munshi with his hair cut short and without the designer clothes would have fitted the Abhays role but Shayan just doesn't have the talent to pull it off.

I would suggest watching the series if it is available. It is the same story except for the running around with the friends mother and the initial introduction. The acting of the TV actors was much better than these "stars".

The only reason this movies is a flop is because the director tried to stretch half an hour(or 45 minutes) story to 2+ hours. So it has to get draggy. Even the nasal singing sensations songs could not make up.

This movies is good for a lazy Sunday afternoon and is really refreshing if you haven't watched the original TV serial. The script and the ending of the serial was much better

#####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### THe ending of the original serial was much stronger as the hero himself dumps the girl even thought she is willing to marry him. HE is aware and tell her that he doesn't want to be "repayed" and never helped with that intention. The director or the script writes somehow could not capture the original ending in this film. The original ending would have bought tears to the girls eyes and would have had the guys nodding in agreement. The deliver just wasn't right.

But personally I feel this is a pathetic copy. No credit should be given to the director/scriptwriter. The story is amazing and is by one of the famous novel writers int he class of PRemchand munshi. I am not sure if this is premchand munshi's story but many of the other short stories int he series feature a few of premchand munshi's and other great Hindi writers stories. After mistaking a Halloween re-broadcast of Orson Welles' classic radio adaptation of WAR OF THE WORLDS for a real Martian invasion, a group of moronic Martians shows up on Earth looking to conquer only their plans go awry as they find themselves truly out of their element and in reality all alone.

This really is often quite good and funny, with some decent lines (just check the memorable quotes) to boot. It will most likely appeal to Sci-Fi fans. This has passed the test of time for me as seeing it again recently it proved much better than I expected it to be. Despite a cast made up of no-name stars, this may just be the funniest Martian invasion ever put to film. Interestingly enough, the Martians themselves seem to represent almost every classic Action Hero/Sci-Fi Hero stereotype there is (cool 50s teen, fighter pilot, fearless astronaut, brave soldier and kooky scientist). Fun for the whole family.

"Prepare to DIE! Earth Scum!" Looking at some of the negative posts, you really have to wonder what some people do for fun....

I was lucky enough to see the film during its all-too-brief theatrical run. The audience laughed its heads off. I'm watching a tape of it as I type and it's still dang funny!

It's also got a sweet side, with unexpected turns of genuine pathos. The late, great Royal Dano is especially effective as the lonely, down-on-his-luck farmer Wrenchmuller. Ariana Richards and J.J. Anderson are great as the lead kids. And the actors in the Martian suits, although limited to mime, do a great job

Another thing to look for is the background details. The film is full of homages, pastiches, and references to other SF and fantasy films. Take a look at the Martian costumes next time. One of them is wearing a Marty McFly costume, another is a Ghostbuster, a third is in a House Atreides uniform, and a fourth is wearing a Last Starfighter flightsuit. This movie is not for everyone. You're either bright enough to get "it" or you're not. Fans of sci-fi films who don't take themselves too seriously definitely will enjoy this movie. I recommend this movie for those who can appreciate spoofs and parodies. Everyone I've recommended this film to has enjoyed it. If you enjoy Monty Python or Mel Brooks films, you'll probably enjoy this one. The voice characterizations are done in a tongue-in-cheek manner and the one-liners fly fast and furious. I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once. "Spaced Invaders" is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, "SI" has really the potential of a comedy like "Monsters Inc." or "Spaceballs". Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum! "I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!" The small town sheriff laments.

"This happens a lot in Chicago?" His deputy asks.

Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of "Big Bean, IL". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.

The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie. Being from a small town in Illinois myself, I can instantly relate to this movie. Considering the era it was made in, the townsfolk look uncomfortably like a lot of people I grew up with. Yes the plot is so-so. And yes, the Acting is not going to get nominated for an Oscar anytime soon. But that isn't the point. The point is to suspend reality and just have FUN. And this movie has Fun aplenty. From the greedy,uncaring banker to the well meaning,but dimwitted deputy, this movie was made to poke fun at the SciFi genre and small town living at it's best. Who can't smile at the sight of the Enforcer Drone or the Vern Droid? and I LOVED the FarmZoid. Wish I had one when I was growing up. Overall, considering the technology they had available at the time, this is a pleasant romp into one's childhood, when you could sit back on a Saturday afternoon, Popcorn in hand, and laugh at the foibles of small town living. This is a movie I would watch again and again, if for no other reason than to poke fun at myself and my small town ways. If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,

just people with a sense of humor.

For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it. This is a thinking man's silly movie. If you don't expect Star Wars and enjoy British humor this might just turn into a cult classic for you as it has for my wife and I - from casting the "voice" of Cary Grant and Jack Nicholson as martians to the overly simplistic populace of Big bean this is a movie that you can either sleep through or watch carefully and enjoy either way.

It's not for everyone, but if you enjoy relaxing easy humor that takes a quick mind to see the joke as it slips by you will enjoy this movie. i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's "Home on the Range" rendition is awesome.

very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10. This is a gem of a movie not just for people who like fun and quirky premises, but who love the history and traditions of Sci-Fi and Classic Hollywood movies. Each alien of the Martian crew is the embodiment of a classic Sci-Fi character or member of Hollywood royalty and it's pure pleasure watching them bounce of each other and the residents of Big Bean. Laughs, adventure, a good time, a killer soundtrack, oscar-worthy acting, and special effects/ animitronics like none other, what else could you want in a movie? If you see this will be on the telly, WATCH IT, otherwise, run out now to RENT IT!!! Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !! This is cult stuff. My friends and I get together once a year to enjoy this movie. Its very funny and very dry . I've seen this move dozens of times and have yet not to enjoy it.The actors are funny and it gets better with every viewing! If you enjoyed "Morons from out of Space" you will love this. A great play on War of the Worlds. I love the Red-Neck rampage to get the aliens, the bug on the hood, the DOD, the Heat Seeking Populous Annihilator, the Mine Field, the Red Camo, breaking the speed limit by 1800Mph! "I'll get the bucket!" Very Funny. I would love for this to come out on DVD! Forget the negative reviews see it for yourself! Normally the best way to annoy me in a film is to include some reference to Orson Welles. But here is a sci-fi comedy quoting the War of the Worlds broadcast.... and it is gold! The very concept of a small bunch of diminutive,aggressive and stupid aliens being mistaken as kids in Halloween dress is magnificent. Don't be fooled by the notion that because it seems like a kids' movie it is unsophisticated - it isn't, there's a lot of hidden treasure... A gem! If the creators of this film had made any attempt at introducing reality to the plot, it would have been just one more waste of time, money, and creative effort. Fortunately, by throwing all pretense of reality to the winds, they have created a comedic marvel. Who could pass up a film in which an alien pilot spends the entire film acting like Jack Nicholson, complete with the Lakers T-shirt. Do not dismiss this film as trash. Anyone who does not find this movie funny, does not understand simple comedy. This movie is not a complex comedy, it is full of one liners, and sight gags, and will make anyone who wants to laugh, laugh... The alien who is doing a Nicholson impression will crack you up! Like the great classic Bugs Bunny cartoons, this movie has humor at different levels. I just introduced this to my 10 year old daughter and 11 year old son. Both enjoyed the movie - busting out laughing quite a few times... and my daughter is not much of a sci-fi fan. The movie kept me laughing despite having seen a few times... the adult-level humor (that is, humor that adults will get simply because of greater life experiences, no baudy or R-rated stuff to be found here) keeps the movie equally enjoyable for adults. For example of the adult level humor, the Martian voices are based on characters of different movies/actors. The Martian pilot, Blaznee, has the voice and mannerisms of Jack Nicholson; the scientist, that of Peter Seller's Dr. Strangelove. The special effects are surprisingly good for this film. The lack of top 10 actors actually works in the movie's favor, and the actors/actresses play their part well - in fact I would say the producers picked out actors and their skills for the roles' needs over box-office draw power (an excellent example is Wayne Alexander's "Vern" character). I had to write this review... the kids are playing this for the 3rd time in 4 days over dinner right now. Good for a rainy day or a late night weekend there's-nothing-on-and-I'm-bored movie. This movie is funny and suitable for any age. It is definitely family-type entertainment. The cast does a fine job playing folks in the mid-western town of Big Bean, Illinois. Where we must assume nothing ever happens since the excitement (pre-invasion) of the decade is the new (and only) exit ramp from the Interstate. The location appeals as suitably boring and totally unlikely for the invasion of earth by Martians. But these Martians are totally inept, despite being well-equipped with an arsenal of suitably ghastly and deadly weapons... including one set on eradicating the Martians, too! The Martians dead-pan their lines and throw in just the right accents to make us the viewers and the locals wish to help them... leave earth. J. J. Anderson playing the very young Halloween carnivorous duck has just great lines. Watch this movie for laugher and entertainment; thought-provoking it isn't. But subtle and enjoyable it is. I found the memorable quotes searching for video clips; they forgot one of my favorites...

Old Person 1: You know, I remember the first time they played that thing.

Old Person 2: You remember pterodactyls.

Old Person 1: And I can remember you fell for that, hook line and sinker.

Old Person 2: Oh, I did not.

Old Lady: You did so. You put a big bucket on your head and took off with them army boys to fight Martians.

Old Person 2: Ain't you dead yet? This movie is to Halloween what the hilarious "Christmas Story" is to Christmas: both are relatively low-budget, no-big-name-stars type films...and both are two of the absolute greatest and funniest movies available, both seasonal CLASSICS!!! "Spaced Invaders" comes galloping out right from the start with warmth and humor and a superb cast of characters...all five goofy Martians, Klembecker the Realtor, Russell the deputy, Vern at the "fuel dispensing depot" and so many more! You just have to see this movie to believe it, and, like "Christmas Story", it just keeps getting better and better with each viewing, and you pick up on fun little things each time!! MOST DEFINITELY A TEN!!! This movie is just plain silly. Almost every scene has some bit of humor: running gags, slapstick, and great jokes. The acting isn't that great, and the plot is cliche, but the jokes more than make up for that. If you have a chance to see this movie, I recommend that you do. There are few really hilarious films about science fiction but this one will knock your sox off. The lead Martian's Jack Nicholson take-off is side-splitting. The plot has a very clever twist that has be seen to be enjoyed. This is a movie with heart and excellent acting by all. Make some popcorn and have a great evening. After a long hard week behind the desk making all those dam serious decisions this movie is a great way to relax. Like Wells and the original radio broadcast this movie will take you away to a land of alien humor and sci-fi paraday. 'Captain Zippo died in the great charge of the Buick. He was a brave man.' The Jack Nicholson impressions shine right through that alien face with the dark sun glasses and leather jacket. And always remember to beware of the 'doughnut of death!' Keep in mind the number one rule of this movie - suspension of disbelief - sit back and relax - and 'Prepare to die Earth Scum!' You just have to see it for yourself. First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat ("I'm going home in a bag!"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning.

If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!

Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).

-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....

-Ramsay "RC" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer Say what you want about Andy Milligan - but if his family was even 10% as deranged as the one in this film, well then I guess he could have turned out worse. Unfortunately, the video print of this film contains sex scene inserts originally shot by the distributor to boost the picture's box office appeal. Several times during the film Milligan's ugly camerawork and silent film music abruptly ends, and suddenly good-looking stand-ins for Milligan's homely actors take over and start doing it to psychedelic 60's guitar rock. It's pretty easy to fast-forward through if you're trying to pay attention to Milligan's original film, which, unfortunately, is missing quite a bit of action that was cut to make room for the added sex scenes. What remains, however, is still compelling stuff. I don't think I've ever seen a more hateful mother in any film before. I saw this film as it was the second feature on a disc containing the previously banned Video Nasty 'Blood Rites'. As Blood Rites was entirely awful, I really wasn't expecting much from this film; but actually, it would seem that trash director Andy Milligan has outdone himself this time as Seeds of Sin tops Blood Rites in style and stands tall as a more than adequate slice of sick sixties sexploitation. The plot is actually quite similar to Blood Rites, as we focus on a dysfunctional family unit, and of course; there is an inheritance at stake. The film is shot in black and white, and the look and feel of it reminded me a lot of the trash classic 'The Curious Dr Humpp'. There's barely any gore on display, and the director seems keener to focus on sex, with themes of incest and hatred seeping through. The acting is typically trashy, but most of the women get to appear nude at some point and despite a poor reputation, director Andy Milligan actually seems to have an eye for this sort of thing, as many of the sequences in this film are actually quite beautiful. The plot is paper thin, and most of the film is filler; but the music is catchy, and the director also does a surprisingly good job with the sex scenes themselves, as most are somewhat erotic. Overall, this is not a great film; but it's likely to appeal to the cult fan, and gets a much higher recommendation than the better known and lower quality 'Blood Rites'. After dipping his toes in the giallo pool with the masterful film "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" (1971), director Sergio Martino followed up that same year with what turns out to be another twisty suspense thriller, "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail." Like his earlier effort, this one stars handsome macho dude George Hilton, who would go on to star in Martino's Satanic/giallo hybrid "All the Colors of the Dark" the following year. "Scorpion's Tail" also features the actors Luigi Pistilli and Anita Strindberg, who would go on to portray an unhappy couple (to put it mildly!) in Martino's "Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key" (1972). (I just love that title!) I suppose Edwige Fenech was busy the month they shot this! Anyway, this film boasts the stylish direction that Martino fans would expect, as well as a twisty plot, some finely done murder set pieces, and beautiful Athenian location shooting. The story this time concerns an insurance investigator (Hilton) and a journalist (Strindberg, here looking like Farrah Fawcett's prettier, smarter sister) who become embroiled in a series of grisly murders following a plane crash and the inheritance of $1 million by a beautiful widow. I really thought I had this picture figured out halfway through, but I was dead wrong. Although the plot does make perfect sense in this giallo, I may have to watch the film again to fully appreciate all its subtleties. Highlights of the picture, for me, were Anita's cat-and-mouse struggle with the killer at the end, a particularly suspenseful house break-in, and a nifty fight atop a tiled roof; lots of good action bursts in this movie! The fine folks at No Shame are to be thanked for still another great-looking DVD, with nice subtitling and interesting extras. Whotta great outfit it's turned out to be, in its ongoing quest to bring these lost Italian gems back from oblivion. "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" has all the elements that are necessary in order to make an effective giallo movie. The story is standard giallo. When a man dies in a plane crash his wife (Ida Galli) collects a $1 million life insurance policy. The widow heads to Greece for the payout but a series of gruesome murders follow her. There are plenty of suspects, including a tenacious investigator (George Hilton) from the insurance agency and the widow's lover. Director Martino keeps the story moving at a fast pace while the viewer tries to guess the identity of the killer. Anita Strindberg (also memorable in "Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key" and "Who Saw Her Die?") is a stunning-looking heroine. It's one of Martino's best films. Well made and stylish while still ultimately making sense this thriller would work better for non giallo fans to get interested in the genre than the later Argento entries which go overboard in all directions.

For fans of these crazed Italian thrillers, they will appreciate George Hilton and the turns his character takes and what he's put through. The camera-work is fresh with dashes of graphic violence and odd, but appropriate choices and a good not overblown music score as well. The less you know about the story the better to make it work.

The only thing lacking in keeping this from being a great Sergio Martino directed giallo is that the story doesn't have that extra sexual or psychological, or both element to put it over the top. It's more a routine mystery, the characters are well defined but live or die according to the plot not according to their own virtues and flaws.

The recent DVD (2005) release is beautiful looking and definitely the way to see the film, unless these ever get art house screenings which seems unlikely. I'm really tempted to reward "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" with a solid 10 out of 10 rating, but that would largely be because I think Italian horror cinema of the 1970's is SO much better than the cheesy crap I usually watch. But even without an extra point for nostalgia, this is STILL a genuine masterwork and earning a high rating for its excellently convoluted story, uncanny atmosphere, blood-soaked killing sequences and superb casting choices. In my humble opinion this is actually Sergio Martino's finest giallo, and that has got to mean something, as "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh", "All the Colors of the Dark", "Torso" and "Your Vice is a Locked Room and only I have the Key" are all top-notch genre achievements as well. But this film is just a tad bit superior with its ultra-compelling plot revolving on an insurance fraud gone madly out of control. Following her husband's peculiar death in a plane explosion (!), Lisa Baumer promptly becomes the suspicious owner of one million dollars and she's eager to leave the country as soon as possible. Due to the bizarre circumstances, the insurance company puts their best investigator Peter Lynch on the case and he follows her to Greece. There, Lisa becomes the target of many assaults and the case's mysteriousness increases when it turns out several people are hunting for the money. I'm always overly anxious when briefly summarizing gialli because I don't want to risk giving away essential plot elements. In "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail", the events take an abrupt and totally unexpected turn before the story is even halfway, and I certainly don't want to ruin this for you. Many red herrings follow after that, but Sergio Martino always succeeds to stay one step ahead of you and, even though not a 100% satisfying, the denouement is at least surprising. It's also a very stylish film, with imaginative camera-work and excellent music by Bruno Nicolai. Everyone' s favorite giallo muse Edwige Fenech oddly didn't make it to this cast (she stars in no less than 3 other supreme Martino gialli), but Anita Strindberg ("Lizard in a Woman's Skin", "Who Saw Her Die?") is a more than worthy replacement for her. The charismatic and hunky George Hilton is reliable as always in his role of insurance investigator and – duh – ladies' man deluxe. If you're a fan of giallo, don't wait as long as I did to WATCH THIS FILM!!!! Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. "La Coda Dello Scorpione" aka. "The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant "Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key" of 1972, followed by "Torso" (1973) and "The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.

The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...

"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards! La Coda Dello Scorpione (a.k.a. Case of the Scorpion's Tail) was director Sergio Martino's follow-up to the wonderful giallo Strano vizio della Signora Wardh. This is the quintessential giallo, featuring all the aspects fans of the genre have come to know and love. Twisty plot, beautiful girls, black gloves, sharp blades, and a bit of gore all come together to make one heck of a piece of Italian exploitation.

A group of gialli favorites, both in front of and behind the camera, work to make this one of the best non-Argento gialli around. There's the aforementioned Martino adding his touches as director, giallo great Ernesto Gastaldi as the writer, Bruno Nicolai creating the music, and a host of giallo stars and starlets, such as George Hilton, character actor Luigi Pistilli, and the fetching Anita Strindberg.

With all this talent behind it, does Scorpione deliver? You bet. The film works on many different levels. It's a thrilling murder mystery, a tense and violent horror film, and a suspenseful thriller. All in all one of the best gialli around.

Martino definitely knows what fans want when it comes to gialli. At some points in the film, he almost seems to be channeling Argento in his approach. For example, there is a direct rip-off of the scene in Bird With the Crystal Plumage where the killer tries to break through the door, that actually outdoes Argento's flick.

Are there any problems with the flick? Hmmm... only minor ones. First, any scenes that aren't following the murders or the budding romance between the two leads begin to bore. But just before you fall asleep, the killer will pop out of nowhere and you'll be right back in the swing of things.

Also, towards the end, the twists get a little too bizarre. I mean, what purpose did the scorpion pins really serve? If you don't play close attention to the dialogue, you could easily become lost with the twisting, weaving storyline.

But these minor quibbles aside, La Coda Dello Scorpione is a tense, suspenseful, classy and all around entertaining film for giallo fans. Seek it out! Sergio Martino's The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a scenic giallo from the early 70's heyday of the genre. An explosion on an aeroplane results in one million dollars in insurance money for a bereaved but unfaithful wife. The money is subsequently snatched by a black-clad assassin and a series of brutal murders follow.

Scorpion's Tail plays the mystery element, written by giallo specialist Ernesto Gastaldi, fairly straight. But, being a giallo, the murders themselves are memorable and well-staged. In fact, the violence in this movie is very strong in places - a scene with a broken bottle being particularly graphic. The emphasis on the violence no doubt influencing the giallo genre to move into more and more extreme territory. But like the best films in the genre the brutality is offset by a good score and attractive photography. The music by Bruno Nicolai is at times reminiscent of Ennio Morricone's avant-garde work in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage but is also strong in its own right. The photography is helped by the nice use of foreign locales - in this case London and Athens - where Martino manages to get in, respectively, the Houses of Parliament and the Acropolis! There is also some inventive camera-work too, the most effective being the use of slow motion in a sequence where a woman runs towards the door where the maniac is prowling outside. In this particular scene Martino has the killer hack through the door with a knife in a manner influenced by Dario Argento's Crystal Plumage, however, it also has the killer attempt to flick the latch open with the blade of a knife which is something repeated later by Argento in Suspiria. So Martino's film is influential in its own right.

This is a good solid giallo that both genre and non-genre fans can appreciate. The performances are good and the production values are fine (although the plane explosion is, shall we say, somewhat low-budget!). The DVD release by NoShame is nice. It has both the English and Italian language options which is a real bonus. However, it is worth pointing out that at times you need to be a fast reader to fully appreciate the English subtitle option. This applies to both the movie and the documentary in the extras. This is a minor point though, the DVD release is a worthy addition to any giallo collection. Sergio Martino has impressed me recently with his Giallo classics 'The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh' and the unforgettably titled, 'Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key' - but even so, I wasn't expecting too much from this film. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail doesn't get mentioned as much as the aforementioned titles when it comes to classic Giallo discussion - but I don't know why, because this is at least as good as those two! Dario Argento may be the 'king' of Giallo, but with the five films that he made - Sergio Martino surely isn't too far behind. In some ways, he even surpasses the master. All of Martino's films were released prior to the jewel in Argento's crown, the magnificent Profondo Rosso, so back in the early seventies - Martino was the king! The plot here follows the idea of murder for profit, and follows the insurance payout of a wealthy man. His wife inherits $1 million, and it isn't long before there's people out for her blood! When she turns up dead shortly thereafter, an insurance investigator and a plucky, attractive young journalist follow up the case.

The Case of the Scorpion's Tail may not benefit from the beautiful Edwige Fenech, but it does have two of Martino's collaborators on board. Most famous is George Hilton, who worked with Marino on The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and All the Colors of the Dark, along with a number of other Giallos. Hilton has a great screen presence, and every time I see him in an Italian thriller; it becomes obvious why he is repeatedly cast. The beautiful Anita Strindberg, who will be remembered from Your Vice is a Locked Room, stars alongside Hilton and excellently provides the classic Giallo female lead. Sergio Martino does a good job in the director's chair once again, with several beautiful scenes - the best of which taking place in a room bathed with green lighting! The score by Bruno Nicolai (Wardh) excellently sets the mood, but it is the script that, once again, is the driving force behind Martino's success. Ernesto Gastaldi, the writer for Martino's other four Giallo, has put together a script that is thrilling while staying away from the common Giallo pitfall of not making sense; thus liberating this film from the rest of the illogical genre. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a quality Giallo film, and yet another success for the great Sergio Martino. If you like Giallo, you'll love this! Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip….initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo. A fine Martino outing, this is a spirited and enjoyable giallo with fine performances from good looking cast and principally the two leads, George Hilton and Anita Strindberg.

For me the jig-saw puzzle of a plot is so convoluted and confusing you just sit back and enjoy rather than try to anticipate. Just when all seems resolved we are again taken on a further series of twists, enjoyable twists, it has to be said.

Sexy with plenty of gory kills this a well paced movie with London, Athens and Greek coastal locations. A super finale set upon Aegean rocks wraps things up and much fun was had by all. The case of the Scorpion's tail is a highly stylish giallo directed by Sergio Martino, who appears to be a giallo master second only to Dario Argento.

Ernesto Gastaldi wrote this fabulous who-dunnit, quite complex but ultimately very satisfying and entertaining murder mystery. It also makes sense in the end, a big plus, 'cause that's not always the case for these giallo's, as they tend to stretch credibility with their endless red-herrings and ultimate solutions. Here, the less you know about the plot, the better.

Pure giallo trademarks present here are the beautiful cinematography, the catchy music score, the gorgeous females (Anita Strindberg is a goddess), brutal murders, black gloved murderers and explicit sex scenes to name a few.

In most parts it's decently acted, Goerge Hilton his usually suave self and others do fairly well. Martino directs with a sure hand, keeps things tight and atmospheric with some terrific set pieces.

If you're a giallo fan, this is a must see. If you like well written and suspenseful thrillers in general, this comes highly recommended. Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.

This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery. Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good! Artemisia Gentileschi, the daughter of Orazio Gentileschi, showed an early promise as a painter. Taught by her father, Artemisia was born in an era that denied talented women the right to have their work seen side by side art created by men. Her tragic life is chronicled in this biographic film directed and co-written by Agnes Merlik.

Having read the novel "The Passion of Artemisia" by Susan Vreeland, made us investigate more into the life of this woman, her work, and her legacy. We also read Mary Garrard's "Artemisia Gentileschi", which should be a must read book by all art lovers.

"Artemisia" presents the fictionalized facts we have read about showing the early life of the young woman as she starts to paint. She was clearly influenced by the work of her father, by Caravaggio, Agostino Tassi, and other Florentine painters of that period. Her relationship and love affair with Tassi is the basis of the film. Artemisia, unfortunately couldn't go as far as she could have because of the prejudice against women in the arts. It didn't help either she caused a scandal where she is accused of being raped by Tassi. She had to go to Rome in order to distance herself from that unhappy time of her life.

Valentina Cervi makes a beautiful Artemisia. She is a gorgeous creature who awakened passion in men. Michel Serrault plays Orazio, her father. Miki Maojlovic is seen as Tassi, the man who wanted Artemisia, but ended up in jail. Emmanuelle Devos appears for a moment.

The film has a glossy finish that the camera work of Benoit Delhomme captures in all its splendor. The scenic locales of the film offer an idea of what inspired that school of painting to show in their canvases. The music by Krishna Levy serves well what we see. Agnes Merlik directed with sure hand showing a visual style of her own. Artimisia was on late last night. At first I didn't think I would like it, but seeing I didn't feel like sleeping yet and nothing else being on, I continued watching and felt myself intrigued by the young Artimisia, a virgin, pure and passionate. Her romance with the older Tassi envoked recognisable feelings. Even though the film is based on a very romantisised level and not reality, I loved it a lot more than the usual biographys or costume drama's. Great play, great camerashots, great music and texts. I loved it and I want more of it! :-) I'm normally a sucker for romantic films which are well-filmed and well-acted out. This is a romantic (period) film set in 17th-century Italy, but filmed in French with English subtitles. The fact that it is a period film means it will inevitably be slower-paced than films set in the modern day era, so it Will bore some. If you can overlook that fact, it is actually a really good film. The scenery, the costumes, and the cinematography are beautiful, and the main actors and actress are very compelling in their portrayals, projecting the intensity of the emotions that are running through the plot. The story is like a sad love story with an unhappy ending. Its easy to believe that this is an accurate portrayal of the real-life characters. In spite of the fact that I was really moved by the main characters and the storyline, I decided to check out the validity of the story and found out that the main theme of the movie's story - that of an sad unfinished love story - was completely fabricated.

In real life, Artemisia was raped by Tassi initially, rather than submitting to his advances willingly and passionately as the movie had portrayed. She continued to have sexual relations with him only because he had repeatedly promised to marry her. When they were in court, he had *not* admitted guilt of rape out of pity for Artemisia's torture (unlike what the movie portrays). In reality, he had tried to portray Artemisia as a loose, promiscuous woman with insatiable sexual urges. In the movie, his sister testified in court that Tassi had a wife and had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, and Tassi's character was all the while made to appear as if his sister had been slandering him regarding his alleged affair with his sister-in-law (although he admits to having had a wife back in Florence). Needless to say, in reality it wasn't really like that at all. In fact, far from it. Tassi was really responsible in the planned murder of his wife, whom he had begotten from rape. And to add to that, Tassi really had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, impregnating her in the process, but all this wasn't really mutual as well - again, he had raped his sister-in-law before.

So now we have a clear picture of the real Tassi as a multiple sex offender, what do we make of the film Artemisia's portrayal of him as a lover? We take it as an attempt to make this movie into a romantic film... that this film was never made to be historically accurate... Apart from these points just mentioned, there were other historical inaccuracies like in its interpretation of Artemisia's art (in real-life, she was never really influenced by Tassi's painting style, and she was actually considered a much better painter than Tassi ever was.) One thing remains true and its the fact that Artemisia Gentileschi has been credited as the first woman painter in history, and although her mastery of the art rivalled many of her male peers, she had always experienced difficulty in getting enough credit for her work because of her gender as a woman, in 17th century Italy.

Enjoy this film for its own sake, for it is a pretty good romantic drama, but take its historical references with a grain of salt. This is a film about 17th Century Italian artists and one artist in particular, a woman Artemisia, an unheard of profession for females at that time, and she dared to paint the male nude detailing his unique musculature.

The camera work is principally indoors for that is where the artists mainly worked. There are some great shots. Close-ups by candle light suggest the beautiful work of the classical painters and it is fascinating to watch the painters and their students supported by elaborate scaffolding brushing in details of religious frescoes. It is not surprising that the artistic elements of the film (costumes,faces, make-up) are quite superbly authentic because the Italian churches have preserved all these details in their frescoes for centuries. The beautiful Artemisia is urged by her father to study under the great Florentine artist, Tassi, who has become expert in the art of perspective and landscape painting (something very new) but the unsuspecting Artemisia is introduced to more than new techniques in painting. After posing for her, Tassi violently rapes her. Her father is outraged. Court proceedings follow.

This romantic drama has a fairly simple story with an unsatisfactory ending. The outstanding feature of the film is its artistic presentation and attention to detail. Scenes such as women running across a field with the wind billowing their voluminous clothing add wonderful effects.

Artemisia says she paints to please herself; her father paints to please others. As for this film, it will please most, I think. The movie looked like a walk-through for "Immoral Study". Most likely I never got much involved with the burning need of the female artist to immortalize male nudes and thus all that fuss about "Now, who drew this penis?!" sounded a bit gratuitous. Dialogues in this movie are rather dreadful, albeit visually this movie got its moments. I almost dig it when Tassi got into painting a mental picture but then movie weered back onto penises. Highly recommended to those who has not seen one in a while. I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).

Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.

Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.

Overall i thought this film was fantastic. I have not read the book that this was based upon/inspired by. This being some of(the others are film roles) the last work of John Ritter(RIP), one hopes that it is hilarious. And it is. Almost every time he's present in this, as a matter of fact. Most of the cast, supporting as well as regular, play off each other well, and the material tends to be great. He plays Paul Hennessy, the father of three teenagers: Rory, the typical guy of that age, Kerry, the depressive middle-child who fights for causes and awareness, and Bridget, the fashion-loving, popular ditz. Sagal makes a return to being the female lead in a sit-com, and her character is far removed from Peggy Bundy. The show changed somewhat after Mr. Three's Company passed on, and for a while, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they wanted to go for getting laughs, or being poignant and making sure to be respectful. One can wonder how or why it lasted for so long after that: It could still be quite good, some of the additions were fortunate(if you like David Spade, most of his part consists of him doing his schtick) and had stuff to say. My personal favorite episode is in the last season. The humor is a nice mix of "dumb person" jokes(mainly related to the high-schoolers), silliness, dark comedy and crude material. This dealt with sex and other adult topics, but never in a graphic manner. The language is mild, and, on occasion, moderately strong. I recommend this to any fan of those who made it. 8/10 I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away. This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.

Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.

I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.

*** out of **** "8 SIMPLE RULES... FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER," is my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that James Garner and David Spade were good, I liked the show more when John Ritter was the leading man. If you ask me, his sudden passing was very tragic. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope some network brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see. This show is awesome. I thought that the two episodes where Paul died were so sad; I actually cried. But the other shows were awesome; Kerry was my favorite character, because she was in "the dark side." I also thought that Bridget was funny because she was all perky. I also thought that guy who played Kyle was really, really cute. I loved it when Kerry made sarcastic remarks about everything. The guy who played Rory was cute, and Paul, played by John Ritter, was really funny. This whole entire TV show is funny, and I wish they still showed it on TV. when they did show it on TV, though, I watched it every single time it was on. The next time it shows, I will watch it over and over again. Eight Simple rules started as a very entertaining series. I love John Ritter and his character Paul Hennessey and the relationship he had with his children was the best part of the show.

I have always preferred Kerry to Bridget, Bridget has been done before, Kerry is quite unique and i can relate to her in many ways, although i'm not sure i like the direction her character went in later series.

Early episodes were fun, good simple teenage plots about Paul and Cate disciplining the kids, however i think the show lost it's sparkle when John Ritter died. I admired the cast and crew for wishing to continue the series but when he died, i felt the programme did to. To me the whole point of the show was based around the guide of the '8 simple rules of dating my teenage daughter' it was written by a real man with teenage daughters and the relevance and the angle of the show had changed without the Hennessey dad.

Bridget seemed to get more annoying, Rory stayed the same and Cate was always giving her offspring life's lessons which before seemed funnier when it was all left to Paul. I think the Granddad is funny (Especially when he's watching Great escape) but feel C.J is unnecessary to the show. He is funny in parts but I felt the story lines at the time of his arrival were very similar to other American comedy series. Over all the newer ones aren't bad just missing excitement and does anyone else find it irritating that Cate works at the school and C.J and Granddad's always there too? I would always recommend this show to friends as it was very strong at the beginning and well worth watching for Paul and Kerry, but later ones were about average at best. I can't believe John died! While filming an episode he collapsed on set! read this, (out of his biography online):John Ritter was Born In Burbank , Calafornia , On September 17th 1948.

He landed his last television role in "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" (2002), based on the popular book. On this sitcom, he played Paul Hennessey, a loving, yet rational dad, who laid down the ground rules for his three children. The show was a ratings winner in its first season and won a Peoples Choice Award for Best New Comedy and also won for Favorite Comedy Series by the Family Awards! While working "8 Simple Rules", he also starred in his second-to-last film, Manhood (2003)

That Same Year , While John Was Rehearsing for The 4th (3rd series) Episode of 8 Simple Rules (Now Shortened), he fell ill. Henry Winkler described it as "John Looked Like He Had Food Poisoning".Then He collapsed on the Set, he was quickly rushed to a Nearby Hospital, The Same Burbank Hospital Where He Was Born ,he was diagnosed with an aorta dissection, an Unrecognized Heart Flaw, he Underwent Surgery but did not make it. John Ritter Died At Age 54 , just 1 Week Away from His 55th Birthday , leaving His Wife Amy Yasbeck and 4 Children. I'll keep it short and brief, the people who wrote the story lines for this show are genius, the actors are just perfect for the roles they play (CJ's character is legendary) and they have so much chemistry on screen which makes it what it is, a very successful comedy.

When i saw first saw the new episodes which is probably going back just over 6/7 months, i wondered what had happened to Paul. I was gutted to find out that he had died when i browsed Google. He was so funny and played his character to perfection, an over-protective dad, who likes to keep his daughters out of the limelight and away from boys.

The comedy, i think, has gone from strength to strength, even without Paul in it.

Plus, i think most people would enjoy this watching it. I love the newer episodes with CJ and Grandad - I also liked the storyline with Kate falling for the principal. I want to find out what happens to Rory and Kerry and Bridget and the family next. I think CJ is very funny and I love his scenes with Grandad. I have always loved James Garner in everything he does, and it is a credit to his acting that I never think of him as James Garner or Rockford in this series and totally believe in him as Kate's Dad. This family is so real and funny. It was terribly sad when John Ritter / Paul Hennessey died, but as in real life these things happen and the way it was written into the series and dealt with was both funny and sad and always extremely sensitively and lovingly dealt with. But generally a very funny show with lots of laughs and fun. Ya. That is what I think. Sure it was still a great show with John in it but I personally think that it is way better without.

I love having C.J. and Grandpa living at the house because they are so funny together.

When John was still around I really didn't laugh as much as I do now.

It is too bad that no more are being made. ( I don't think...) because I would love to see some new material.

My favorite character must be Rory. poor Rory is almost always left out. It is always about Bridget or Carrie. WHAT ABOUT RORY!!!??? Honestly this is a great show and to any one who has never watched it you must go and watch it. I almost guarantee you will laugh. well even chuckle. I originally watched 8 simple rules on the Disney channel UK for the first series and got completely hooked. When they didn't show it any more \ was annoyed, but then abc 1 satred showing the 2nd series. i didn't think another series would start after I read John ritter had died, however the 2nd series wasn't amazing the latest series is back to it's old excellent standard. i hope they go on to produce more shows soon even though i could watch each show a thousand times. Kaley couco is my favourite character as airhead Bridget and also performs amazing in Charmed. Rory is also good, he shares my name and Grampa as well.I'll keep on watching it until it ends until then I hope it carries on as funny as ever This show is beautifully done. When it first came out I though it nothing more than a light-hearted family comedy with quite a few good one-liners. It seemed to express many families really well too, with different concepts of both parent and child, however, like I said, I never thought any more of it then a good watch on an evening. However, my view was shot out the other window when the tragic death of the fantastically funny John Ritter accrued. The programme stood it's ground and really commended the characters life in a very sensitive way that also touched the hearts of all the admire res of John Ritter, a fantastic actor with the talent to do anything. When the show aired after Ritters passing, I really wanted to just give my dad a hug and let him know how much he meant to me. I thought this shone threw the acting talents of the three children, particularly that of Bridget's character, who was worried of the last words she said to him. It reminded me that no matter what horrible things I say to my dad, I don't mean them and it's very important that he knows this. Great Show 8 Simple Rules is a funny show but it also has some life lessons especially one mature lesson about moving on after a lose which was the episode where Paul died which was the first episode I have ever watched of the show that comes on ABC. The Hennessy clan -- mother Cate (Katey Sagal), daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco) and Kerry (Amy Davidson), and son Rory (Martin Spanjers) -- look to one another for guidance and support after the death of Paul (John Ritter), the family patriarch. Cate's parents (James Garner and Suzanne Pleshette) lend a hand. I am glad later in the 2nd season of this show they decided to put David Spade in this show since he was done with the NBC series, Just Shoot Me! But all and all this show is pretty good. This show reminds me a lot of the classic family sitcoms from the 80's and 90's that used to be on ABC. Sadly, 8 Simple Rules, for dating my teenage daughter, was the last sitcom that John Ritter got to work on after his tragic death in 2003. He was one of my all time favourite actors. He had it all, comedy (who can forget him in Three's Company) but he was also an excellent dramatic actor (Unforgivable – worth watching TV movie) As much I loved all the other cast members of the show (Katey, Amy, Kaley and Martin) John was THE star, he was much of the reason I was drawn to the show in the first place, and it was his perfect comedic delivery that was able to crack me up each and every time.

I loved how the show wasn't all sugary sweet (as much as I loved The Cosby Show, come on, they were too nice to each other lol) they portrayed the typical family dynamics brilliantly. It was realistic enough what with all the sibling rivalry and the squabbles between parents, but they still kept it funny. A lot of American sitcoms try and fill the shows entirely with morals and what not, and this show didn't do that. Yes, there were some, like tackling important issues, such as drugs and bullying, but they didn't try and be anything other than a fun family comedy.

The way they wrote John's death in to the show was brilliantly done, I still sob like a baby each time I see it. You could feel how raw the emotions were during those incredibly hard episodes.

I'm sad the show was cancelled, I still enjoy watching the reruns, and I never get tired of it.

John Ritter, you'll always be remembered for you hilarious depiction of this over protective father, who would rather lock his daughters up in their room than have them date a boy =) You rock Ritter!!! Quite simply the funniest and shiniest film-comedy of all time... it's certainly on my personal top-ten list. This one also gets a solid ten on the voting scale. Millionaire heir, Arthur Bach (Moore), is a middle-aged 'child' who refuses to take the mature path in life and avoids all requisite responsibilities. He also refuses to leave the bottle. One day he and his personal butler, Hobson (Gielgud), go shopping at Bergdorf Goodman's and run into petty larcenist, Linda (Minnelli). Arthur and Linda's chemistry adds electricity to the rest of the film. There are hilarious set pieces aplenty. In one such scene, Arthur (drunk throughout most of the story) knocks on the wrong apartment door and receives ear shattering threats from a human 'siren' ("My husband has a gun!!!!). Performances by everyone involved should be duly noted: Geraldine Fitzgerald plays Arthur's loving-yet-ruthless grandmother, Sir John Gielgud almost steals the entire show with his acidic droll-isms (He took home the Oscar for this one), and Christopher Cross provides the Main Theme song (Oscar winner "Best That You Can Do"). It's a shame the late Dudley Moore passed away last month (March 2002). This 1981 comedy still sparkles thanks to the combined efforts of writer/director Steve Gordon and stars Dudley Moore and John Gielgud. Sadly, Gordon, only in his early forties, died soon after completing this, his only feature film. It's an especially unfortunate loss since he shows a truly deft hand at character-driven farce that makes the whole film irresistible. It plays almost like a 1930's-style screwball comedy revamped for contemporary tastes. The plot centers on Arthur Bach, a drunken, diminutive millionaire playboy who is at risk of losing his $750 million inheritance if he doesn't marry the dowdy and boring Susan Johnson, an heiress handpicked by his old-money father and dotty grandmother. Of course, he doesn't love her and by chance, runs into Linda Marolla, a working-class waitress (and of course, aspiring actress) after she pilfers a Bergdorf Goodman tie for her father.

The standard complications ensue but in a most endearing way with loads of alcohol-fueled slapstick executed with classic élan by Moore. That he makes such a spoiled character likable is a credit not only to his comic talents but to Gielgud's feisty, acidic turn as Hobson, Arthur's devoted but reality-grounded valet. It's the type of role he could play in his sleep, but Gielgud makes Hobson such a truly memorable character that his fate in the film brings a welcome injection of poignancy in the proceedings. In probably her most likable film role, Liza Minnelli hands the picture to her male co-stars by toning down her usual razzle-dazzle personality and making Linda quite genuine in motivation.

A pre-"LA Law" Jill Eikenberry plays Susan just at the right passive-aggressive note, while Barney Martin (Jerry's dad on "Seinfeld") steals all his scenes as Linda's slovenly father Ralph. The one fly in the ointment is veteran actress Geraldine Fitzgerald, who overdoes the eccentricities of the grandmother. And I have to admit that I still can't stand the very dated, overplayed Christopher Cross song that inevitably won the Oscar for that year's best song. Unfortunately, the 1997 DVD, certainly in need of remastering, has no extras worth noting except some photos and production notes. Ok, even if you can't stand Liza- this movie is truly hilarious! The scenes with John Gielgud make up for Liza. One of the true romantic comedy classics from the 20th century. Dudley Moore makes being drunk and irresponsible look cute and amusing and it is damn fun to watch! The one-liners are the best. Let's begin with that theme song sung by Christopher Cross. The song is "If you get caught between the moon and New York City." It's a great theme and song even after all these years, it never gets tiring. It really is a great song about New York City as well. Anyway, the great Dudley Moore CBE stars as a spoiled drunken millionaire who is engaged to Jill Eikenberry's character in the film. Jill would later star on LA Law. Anyway, he is served by his wonderful British butler, Sir John Gielgud OM who won an Academy Award for his performance in the film as Best Supporting Actor. Arthur falls in love with Liza Minnelli's character who is perfect in this film besides her performance in her Oscar winning role in Cabaret. No, Liza doesn't get to sing. She plays a diner waitress. Anyway I love Geraldine Fitzgerald as the Bach matriarch of the family who decides the family's fortune. Anyway, she is fabulous and should have gotten an academy award nomination herself for Best Supporting Actress. Barney Martin best known as Jerry's dad on Seinfeld plays Liza's dad. He's great too. The movie was well-written, acted, and delivered to the audience who wanted more of it. It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.

It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.

It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit. The late Dudley Moore had the most famous role of his too-short career in 1981's ARTHUR, a raucously funny and alternately touching tale that generates warm smiles, big belly-laughs, and an occasional tear if you're in the right mood. Moore received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance as Arthur Bach, a drunken playboy who "races cars, plays tennis, fondles women, but he has weekends off and he's his own boss." Arthur is destined to inherit 750 million dollars when he marries a snooty society girl named Susan Johnston (Jill Eikenberry)who is the spoiled daughter of an undercover gangster. Things get sticky when Arthur meets Linda Morolla (Liza Minnelli) a waitress/struggling actress from Queens who steals neckties for her father's birthday. Moore lights up the screen in one of the single funniest performances of the last 50 years. The late Sir John Gielgud won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his flawless turn as Arthur's acid-tongued butler and best friend, Hobson, whose outward disdain for Arthur's behavior covers more paternal feelings. There are other funny contributions by Barney Martin as Linda's father. Stephen Elliott as Susan's father, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as Arthur's demented grandmother. The film was directed with a keen eye for comedy by a first time director named Steve Gordon, who, sadly, died the following the year. There was also a forgettable sequel several years later, but this instant classic is not to be missed. Arthur Bach needs to grow up, but that is unfortunately not the only thing he needs to do. According to his extremely rich father, Arthur has to marry a certain wealthy Susan Johnson or he's cut off from the family money ($750 million dollars worth). The problem is, Arthur doesn't love Susan (though I hear she makes some good chicken) and has just fallen head-over-heels for the waitress and part-time shop-lifter Linda Marolla. Arthur is an interesting fellow. He's really just a big kid, born into riches with at least one person looking after him every second of every day. Working just rubs Arthur the wrong way - he likes to have fun, womanize, and of course, drink. Drinking gives Arthur a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde complex; and while that gets him into all sorts of trouble, it's absolutely hilarious to watch on screen.

Dudley Moore is great here in this film as Arthur, earning an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for his performance. Moore is fantastic with the comedic aspects of the film, turning the already funny lines into unforgettable comedic gold, but he is also great in bringing Arthur down to a relatable level and making the character likable. Moore has some help in the co-star department - Liza Minnelli is great as Lina, the spirited nobody who Arthur can't get enough of, and John Gielgud is terrific as Arthur's butler Hobson. Gielgud won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance in this film, and there's no doubting why. Hobson has a stone-solid dry wit and stuck up attitude, but he's always looking out for Arthur - and Gielgud is perfect in the role. Steve Gordon's 1981 film Arthur is short and simple, but delivers laughs a-plenty. The father of the Who's alcoholic drummer, Keith Moon, was named Arthur. I found so many similarities between Dudley Moore and Keith Moon in this movie. Liza Minelli, who usually OVERACTS, did quite a good job in this one, and was able to turn cheek on Dudley Moore in every turn. Yes, I agree, Sir John stole absolutely every scene. It was a very "different" movie, enabling the viewer to have a glimpse into another life. We often try to catch a rerun of this movie on satellite. God rest Dudley Moore; this was such an enjoyable movie. Much satire and thumbs down to the rich and snobby/affluent. The close friendship between Moore and Sir John is rather endearing. Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner. Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.

Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does.

The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.

And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.

Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.

John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.

So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review. I watched this over the Christmas period, I don't know why but it reminds me of Christmas so I watched it, so there we are.

Arthur is a film I watch all the way through with a big dumb smile on my face and its a mixture of special performances, great jolly music and a script crackling with wit and charm that causes it.

Dudley Moore makes a character that could well be hated very easily (spoiled, rich, lazy drunk who feels sorry for himself) but turns him into someone you love. Liza Minelli is great as Linda Morolla a queens waitress who manages to pull off the tough/soft on the inside lady Arthur nearly gives up his world for. John Gielgud gets all the juicy lines and polishes them off with relish.

I can watch Arthur again and again and it always makes me feel good, check it out if you need a lift its a lovely film. I remember trying a few minutes of this film, I'm very surprised I didn't watch all of it, from director Steve Gordon, his only film directed before dying of heart failure. Basically Arthur Bach (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Dudley Moore) is the happy drunk millionaire with everything he could want, a mansion, a butler Hobson (Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Sir John Gielgud), and plenty of booze. He is to inherit $750,000,000 if he marries the daughter of fellow millionaire Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott), they woman he and the family have chosen, Susan (Jill Eikenberry). But instead, Arthur finds himself falling for Queens waitress Linda Marolla (Golden Globe nominated Liza Minnelli), which of course is threatening the inheritance, and 3/4 of his family's fortune from father Stanford (Thomas Barbour) and Aunt Martha (Geraldine Fitzgerald). After the death of Hobson, Arthur, on the day of the wedding, disobeys the family's wishes, but Aunt Martha still gives Arthur the inheritance to live happily ever after with true love Linda. Also starring Ted Ross as Bitterman, Barney Martin as Ralph Marolla, Anne De Salvo as Gloria - Hooker, Maurice Copeland as Uncle Peter Bach, Justine Johnston as Aunt Pearl Bach, Florence Tarlow as Mrs. Nesbitt, Marcella Lowery as Harriet - Martha's Maid, John Bentley as Perry and Peter Evans as Preston Langley - Party Guest. Moore is wonderfully funny and a little cringing as the almost always drunk millionaire, Minnelli is likable as the woman he loves, and Gielgud of course makes a great Oscar winning impression as Moore's humorous humble sarcastic servant, a terrific screwball comedy. It won the Oscar for Best Song for "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" (it also won the Golden Globe) (it was number 79 on 100 Years, 100 Songs), and it was nominated Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, it was nominated the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Burt Bacharach, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Sir John Gielgud was number 35 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and the film was number 53 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune "Arthur's Theme", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with "Arthur." After seeing Arthur on TV numerous times I laughed so hard Dudley Moore's role as Arthur a happy go luck drunken millionaire was hysterical but John Gielgud as his servant/ father figure Hobson was equally charming. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and watched it, despite the passage of nearly 27 years it's still as enjoyable as it ever was Liza Minnelli's role as the love interest was fascinating the chemistry between the two was magic.

Arthur Bach, (Moore) is a spoiled drunken millionaire who has a bar bill that reads like the national debt he has no desire to grow up and enjoys acting like a child. His activities are supervised by his dry English butler Hobson (Gielgud) it appears that nobody really cares about Arthur except for him, Arthur's father (Barbour) offers an ultimatum if he doesn't marry the dreadful blonde socialite Susan Johnson (Eikenberry) in four weeks he'll cut off his son's inheritance of 750 million dollars.

However Arthur meets and falls in love with Linda Marolla (Minnelli)a young working class waitress and tie thief,now he faces a difficult decision marry for love or money. When Hobson dies Arthur finally grows up and breaks it off with Susan before the wedding, leaving him to keep both the money and his true love.

Arthur is a truly enchanting romantic comedy for for everyone When you see this movie you begin to realise what a drastically under-utilised asset the late Dudley Moore was. There should be a dozen movies like this in our archive.

He was already top-notch talent before he went to Hollywood, both as a comedian and a musician. But mostly he is remembered for his pairing with Peter Cook, on television and in one or two indifferent British movies. Perhaps the best of these was 'Bedazzled'.

He always tended to be eclipsed by Cook, who's jealousy and meanness rifted their partnership and enabled Moore to realise his true potential in America. 'Arthur' is the result.

This is a truly splendid movie. Moore's clownish comedy as a drunkard is undeniable. The script is perfectly suited to his manner with lot's of hilarious, almost surreal conversational digressions. There is something so British about him that I'm actually surprised he found such an appeal to American tastes. Tommy Cooper, an anarchic comedian after the same fashion tended to draw a blank. It is Moore's almost childish vulnerability that is so endearing.

Liza Minelli and John Guilgud tend to play straight roles against him, but still have some excellent one-liners. John Guilgud in particular delivers his with a sarcastic and acerbic authority that is a treasure to watch. He invariably steals any scene in which he features and thoroughly deserved his Oscar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has never played any other comic role.

There is a follow-up movie called 'Arthur 2 - On The Rocks'. It never attains the same sublime levels of fun that this one reaches, but it is still rather good even so. Guilgud only gets a cameo appearance at the beginning and as a ghost. It is darker. And there is some interesting soul-searching. It will disappoint if you watch 'Arthur' first.

Hollywood seemed to loose interest in cuddly Dudley after these two outings. He eventually returned to Britain, dejected and apparently dying.

But 'Arthur' is a sample of what might have been. We can only imagine the other great movies he should have made.

Your're sadly missed, Dudley. This is one of those movies that I've seen so many times that I can quote most of it. Some of the lines in this movie are just unbeatable. I particularly enjoy watching him stumble and fall while drunk, go out to the fancy restaurant drunk and the part with the moose.

I don't know how many times I have seen this sequence but it's funny every time. From the moment Arthur gets to Susan's Dad's place to the bit with the moose, you pretty much laugh the whole time. I remember watching the out-takes regarding the bit with the moose. It went down just like I'd imagined it'd be like. They were all laughing so hard it was difficult for them to film it.

The late Sir John Gielgud was a wonderful addition to this. His demeanor, his one-liners and the way he handled Arthur were all equally hilarious. It's always a funny moment when he whacks him over the head with his hat or tells him he's a spoiled little ____. I laugh every time I listen to the "I'm going to have a bath" and the lines that follow. My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"! "If I wanted to dribble, I'd call a nurse."

"Haven't you had enough?" ..."More than enough."

"You got me a choo-choo."

"If I begin to die, please remove (the cowboy hat) from my head. That is not the way I wish to be remembered."

Some of the wonderfully humorous, and often insightful, quotations from this charming and often insightful film. Dudley Moore is charming, lovable and rich. Sir John Gielgud is aristocratic, charming and loving...and poor. The two have a non-father/father and son relationship which defines the man whom Arthur is to become. Will he follow his heart and soul, or just his wealth? Over twenty-five years, I've returned to this movie, with glee and amusement and joy. It is a movie to return to, time and time again, and remember what is important in life, as short as it is.

Judge Miller Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).

This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel. I have loved this movie ever since it's debut in 1981! I have lost track of how many times I have seen it! It never fails to make me laugh or cheer me up if i am feeling down. The three leads are fantastic and the script is priceless, plus how do you not get nostalgic hearing the theme song? I think I quote this movie without realizing it. I basically know the entire script, so when someone is watching it for the first time I have to hold back saying something about how funny the next line it. I can't even narrow it down, although, Sir John's character probably gets the most memorable ones. The famous "I'll alert the media" when Arthur announces his intention to take a bath is still priceless, but the list is truly endless. The scene's at Arthur's soon to be fiancé's father's house are a scream, particularly his interactions with the moose. Do yourself a favour and see this movie! This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.

I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.

Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").

Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.

Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.

The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.

This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books. This is one of my favorite comedies ever. Not wanting to condone the uninspiring lifestyle of its hero, but taken for what it's worth and not as trivializing alcoholism, the movie is simply a lot of fun. It tells the unlikely tale of a perpetually drunk, irresponsible 40 something bachelor named Arthur who is set to inherit a vast fortune, but only if he marries Susan, chosen because the family thinks she might make something of him. Arthur proposes, but then unwisely falls for Linda, a waitress and petty thief.

Dudley Moore is perfect as Arthur, the world's most endearing drunk, whose antics are a laugh a minute. Admittedly, Moore IS Arthur and I agree with those who can imagine no other actor in the role. The ladies of the piece are also well portrayed. Liza Minnelli sparkles as Linda, and her on screen chemistry with Moore is great. Jill Clayburgh plays Susan, the wealthy and more appropriate woman chosen for Arthur.

However, this film is literally made by Sir John Gielgud, who portrays Arthur's sarcastic but moral butler, Hobson. It's obvious these two have had a great mutual affection during Hobson's longtime employment. Hobson is Arthur's best friend and purveyor of unsolicited commentary and advice. The most interesting relationship in this film is not Arthur's romance at all, but his unusual rapport with this witty and of course perpetually disapproving servant. It's the butler you'll remember best long after the closing credits roll. Excellent comedy starred by Dudley Moore supported by Liza Minnelli and good-speaking John Gielgud. Moore is Arthur, a man belonging to a multimillionaire family, who was near to get 750 million dollars provided that he marries to a lady (Susan) from another multimillionaire family. In principle, Arthur accepted the conditions, but he finally refused when he met nice and poor Linda Marolla (Liza Minneli). Arthur was just a parasite because he did not work, he only enjoyed himself drinking hard and having fun with prostitutes. After several serious thoughts in his life and for the first time, Arthur decided not to marry Susan only few minutes before their wedding. The end was happy for Linda and Arthur although the latter knew that his life will change in the coming future. This comedy is a good lesson for life for anyone. Rich people are not usually happy with their ways of life.

What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant "Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets." The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a "take the money and run role",He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso.

The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned. As drunken millionaire playboy Arthur Bach, Dudley Moore is perfect as a grown man trapped in childhood. As it turned out, the role fit Moore so perfectly, it trapped him as an actor as well. Many disappointments soon followed (including this film's pale sequel), yet that doesn't diminish the charm or appeal of this picture, which is cleverly written and directed. Some of Moore's drunk scenes are forced, parts of the film are wobbly, but the cast performs with so much relish it's a difficult movie to resist. It has a very big heart and gives Oscar-winner John Gielgud a sly, dryly amusing role as Arthur's valet, Hobson; his relationship with Arthur is delicious and they have a miraculous rapport. Liza Minnelli (as a blue-collar love-interest) is sassy in a low-key and Moore is brash, but deft and lively; he never shook off the shadow of Arthur, but at least we have this document of a career high-point to cherish. *** from **** Dudley Moore is fantastic in this largley unknown classic. This film is very witty film that relies hugely on the actors talent. Without Dudley Moore, John Gielgud, Liza Minnelli, and a few others, this film could have been a disaster. It is not always well shot and at times has some very corny music that tries to force a mood (the "psycho"-like music at the wedding fight), but the acting overcomes it. The character Arthur is hilarious, with his drunken comments. But he develops well into a more mature, well rounded character as he learns to live by his own free will. The end is fairly corny, though. I wont give it away, but it could be improved. Worth seeing many times. I was too young to remmeber when I first saw this movie. But I saw it for like the second time about 7 years ago. My sister told me I had to see it. Now my whole family has it memorized. We quote it at least once a day. I absolutly love this movie.I still laugh after all this time. Sure, it's about a really, really drunk millionare that is irresponsible. The whole point is that he still has the humanity lost in the others that we see in the movie. And that he is willing to give it all up for love. I highly recomend this movie to anyone who wants a laugh. A lot of laughs. Its hallarious, sweet, and if your a movie buff, it will truely change your idea of "Funny". Watch it with a group of your friends or your family and I promise, you will never have nothing to talk about ever again with some Authur lines in your head. It will make you laugh for years to come.

It is really hard, in my family, to find a movie that everyone likes. But this movie, I feel, made us closer. And I know it will do the same for you!! Written and directed by Steve Gordon. Running time: 97 minutes. Classified PG.

It was the quintessential comedy of the decade. It won Sir John Gielgud the Academy Award. It was even featured in VH1's "I Love the 80's." And it looks just as good today as it did upon it's initial release. Arthur is the acclaimed comedy classic about a drunken millionaire (played with enthusiasm and wit by Dudley Moore in an Oscar-nominated performance) who must choose between the woman he loves and the life he's grown accustomed to. While the basic plot is one big cliche, there's nothing trite about this congenial combination of clever dialogue and hilarious farce. Arthur Bach is essentially nothing more than a pretentious jerk, but you can't help but like him. Especially when he delivers lines such as, "Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!" He's also a delineation from the archetypical movie hero: unlike most wealthy characters we see on the silver screen, he's not ashamed of being filthy rich. In one scene, a man asks him, "What does it feel like to have all that money?," to which he responds, "It feels great." Moore lends such charisma and charm to a character that would otherwise be loathed by his audience. And Gielgud is simply perfect as the arrogant servant, addressing his master with extreme condescension in spite of the fact that his salary depends on him. Arthur is one of those movies that doesn't try to be brilliant or particularly exceptional: it just comes naturally. The screenplay -- which also earned a nod from the Academy -- is saturated with authentic laugh-out-loud dialogue. This is the kind of movie that, when together with a bunch of poker buddies, you quote endlessly to one another. It also looks at its characters with sincere empathy. There have been a number of comedies that attempt to dip into drama by including the death or illness of a principal star (including both Grumpy Old Men's), but few can carry it off because we just don't care. When this movie makes the dubious decision to knock off the butler, it actually works, because we genuinely like these people. Why should you see Arthur? The answer is simple: because it's an all-around, non-guilty pleasure. At a period in which films are becoming more and more serious, Arthur reminds us what it feels like to go to the movies and just have a good time.

**** - Classic Arthur Bach is decidedly unhappy in his life as a multi-millionaire and is attracted to people 'below him' in social standing - he pays for a hooker in the opening scenes and then is enormously attracted to a shoplifter.

He drinks quite a lot too, and sometimes he is driving while drinking, too, which of course is not funny, ever.

The movie is great but behind the comedy is some reality, too. John Gielgud wipes the floor with everyone else on screen and created a character for the ages. Talk about deserving an Oscar. Moore and Minnelli have their moments, but its Gielgud as "Hobson" you'll remember the most. An adaption of the book 'Finding Fish'. This story is about a troubled young sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) who tells the painful story of his past to a psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). A brilliant debut performance by Derek Luke and an always stunning performance by Denzel Washington.

This movie was incredible on so many levels and I was disappointed that it didn't win an Oscar, I think it was because it was released at a bad time that's why it was overlooked. I strongly recommend this film to everyone, you'll be touched by his story and it really does make the audience become empathetic with this young man that is Antwone Fisher.

If you like inspirational true stories, then watch Antwone Fisher.

Thank you A stunning film of high quality.

Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.

An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.

Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.

In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.

Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.

One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.

The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.

And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10. Every one should see this movie because each one of us is broken in some way and it may help us realize 1) My life isn't as bad as I thought it was and 2) How important it is to adopt a child in need. There are so many out there. To think that the movie was actually based on a real person made us think deep about life and how the world has and always will be. Corrupt, but that corruption doesn't have to reach your home. We all have a choice! Definitely recommend this one... and while you're at it, I'd like to throw in "The Color Purple" and "Woman, Thou Art Loosed" by T.D. Jakes.

These are all movies that are based on life and give us a glimpse of life. The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live') Not having seen the film in the original theater release, I was happily surprised when the DVD arrived, since this film did not have the wide distribution it merited.

Denzel Washington directorial debut and the finished product have nothing to envy other films about the same theme by more accomplished directors. The film has a very professional look. It shows that Mr. Washington has learned a lot being on the other side of the camera. He brings a different angle to this film.

One of the best things the film has is, without a doubt, the fine performance by Derek Luke. He is an actor who, with the right guidance, will go far, no doubt. His take on the troubled young man, at this point of his life, in turmoil and suffering for a bad hand life, up to now, has dealt him, is very true. His Antwone is a fine portrait of a man in pain who is basically very good and has so much to give, but no one seems to see that side of his character.

At the worst time of his despair, Antwone is sent to Dr. Davenport, played by Mr. Washington, in a very sober, if somehow subdued manner. Because of the angst within Antwone, he misses the opportunity of opening himself to this man, who wants to help, but because of the constrains placed on his office, just have three sessions and then has to dismiss his patient.

Things work out, as Antwone is able to convince the doctor to keep on working with him. Antwone's past is revealed in detail. The abuse he suffers at the hands of Mrs. Tate, his foster mother, is brutal, to say the least. The attempt at the hand of an older woman in the Tate's household of a sexual molestation, gives Antwone a bitter taste that stays with him throughout his adult life, as he has been scarred by the shame he carries with him.

Antwone finds love at last with Cheryl, who is patient enough to make him see a different world by the love she and support she gives him.

The lead performances are very good indeed. Denzel Washington's Dr. Davenport has his own problems too. He is not a happy camper either. He can help Antwone, but he cannot help himself, or his relationship with an adoring wife.

The talent in the film is incredible. Joy Bryant makes a fine Cheryl. Novella Nelson, who is a fine actress is superb as Mrs. Tate, the abusing foster mother.

The reunion of Antwone with his unknown family is a bit too sugary and sentimental, but of course, if one is to believe that Fisher finds happiness at last, one has to accept that part of the film as well. I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a "missing piece" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.

I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people "yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!"

It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was "lost" AND then the "Miranda & Ashley" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and "only occasionally" used heroin!

There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a "Best Picture" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society. This movie is Great! It touched my stone cold heart. I couldn't relate about the racial discrimination that Antwone has experienced because I'm living in my own country. I guess it is really hard to be discriminated.

We watched this film in our sociology class in New Era University,and I didn't knew that It was a true story, I thought it was just created by an intellectual who want to bring a fresh air in the industry. It is very good.

The part that shocked me was when Nadine abused Antwone (who was just six) sexually. If I were on his shoes, I could have jumped a ten-story high building. I salute him for he being so strong!

The scene that touched me here is when Antwone finally saw his mother Eva face to face. He did not bitched her or whatever,instead he told her about the achievements that he got within the long years that they have been separated. (I think I'll do that when I get the chance of tracing my roots.) Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with "church going" abusers who use the "n-word" not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.

The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.

If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.

One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's "file" once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those "bright lights" in the darkness of the system.

The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.

As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem. This movie describes the life of somebody who grew up in the worst of circumstances but unlike many people he actually grew up to be a respectable person. Whats more is that this is a true story.

Antwone Fisher is so innocent and yet he was abused such just because he was not white. Antwone Fisher has been married to the same women for ten years and he never fooled around with women, coke, cigars, weed, alcohol, or any of those things that are very popular in the places he was growing up.

There is not much more to say about this movie it is excellent. The only rating I can give it is a 10/10. this is a film about life, the triumph over adversity and the wonders of the human spirit. I defy anyone not to shed a tear by the end of the movie. This is more than just a tear-jerker, its an engaging, thought-provoking drama with excellent performances from all the cast but especially derek Luke and denzel washington. 7 years on, I'm amazed that Luke is still a virtual unknown and washington only directed one other film. Nevertheless, apart from a slow build-up, the story of this foster child's trials and tribulations and how it still affects him in adulthood is the sort of movie that stays with you long after you have seen it. Like many fox searchlight pictures, this was more of a sleeper hit and didn't get the mass critical acclaim it deserves. The scene where Antwone finally meets his mother summed up the movie for me, there were so many ways that could have been done and it could have been all schmaltzy or it could have been unrealistic but Washington struck exactly the right tone, his mother never said a word and could only shed a tear, while antowne asked simply why. Her overwhelming guilt prevented her from saying anything, what could she say to defend herself? One of the most moving cinematic scenes I have seen. A great story, based on a true story about a young black man and all the difficulties along the road. Being that this is Denzel Washington's first ever movie that he himself was gonna direct, i have to admit i was a tad sceptical, but who wouldn't be..? But then again, he's a great actor with plently of years of experience, and the end result turned out great. The story is told in a great way, making you that has had difficulties during your childhood, and young adulthood, see yourself in those situations. So, it hits you hard, letting you know your not the only one going through hell. In all, a touching story about a young man trying to make it in this f***ed up world. (The story is based on the life of Antwone Fisher, born 3. August 1959, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, whom was also the writer of this movie) Strongly recommended. 8/10 "And the time came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom" - Anais Nin Marcel Proust says, "The real voyage of discovery lies in not seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes." Author and screenwriter Antwone Fisher joined the U.S. Navy to see new landscapes but the demons of his past prevented him from seeing the world through new eyes. Based on his autobiography "Finding Fish" written many years after the events, his story is dramatized in the film Antwone Fisher, Denzel Washington's first directorial effort. It is a heartfelt if somewhat formulaic look at the painful process of moving from being consumed by one's past to being able to live life in present time.

Required to attend therapy sessions after several outbursts of anger at the base, the painful aspects of his childhood are shown in flashback as the grown up Antwone (Derek Luke) recounts his life in sessions with Navy Psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). He is at first unwilling to talk, but when he begins, the floodgates are opened. After his father was shot to death by a girlfriend and Antwone was abandoned by his mother after being released from prison, he was placed in a foster home where he lived for fourteen years, suffering humiliation and sexual abuse. According to Antwone, the treatment by his foster mother Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson) who referred to him only as "nigga" and by his cousin Nadine (Yolonda Ross) was in fact much worse than shown on the screen.

The only friend he has is a local by named Jesse (Jascha Washington) who, later in the film, only adds to his feelings of abandonment. It is difficult to build a film around psychiatric sessions but it was done successfully in Ordinary People and Good Will Hunting with a great deal more dramatic interest but it succeeds here because of the dominant performances of Washington and Luke, though the film's attempt to compress eleven years into a few months seems a bit too facile. Davenport's humanity and warmth, however, allows Fisher to feel safe enough to discuss his difficult past and Cheryl (Joy Bryant), his new girlfriend who is also in the Navy, supports him in his struggle to achieve a breakthrough.

With Cheryl's help and Dr. Davenport's counseling, Antwone develops enough self-esteem to return to Cleveland and begin the journey to try and find his mother in order to complete the past. What comes through in Derek Luke's incredible performance is Antwone's longing for acceptance, dramatized in a heartbreaking dream shown at the beginning of the film in which he is the guest of honor at a banquet filled with people who love him. Comedian Mort Sahl once said that "people just have to remember what we're all here for: to find our way home..." Antwone Fisher touches not only on the longing of one young person to find his way home but reaches all those who have cried themselves to sleep, not knowing the joy of being loved. I just watched Antwone Fisher on BRAVO. What an awesome movie and incredible young man. This movie is a must see for anyone who is dealing with how to overcome childhood abuse and abandonment as an adult. Denzel Washington puts in an outstanding performance as well as the young man who plays Antwone Fisher. Kleenex alert--Feel good and tearful. The most heartrending moment is when he finally meets his mother, who he was taken away from at 2 months of age. And one of the most courageous was when he stood up to his abusive foster mother and sister. I saw this movie on Bravo in 2008 and only wish I had known about it years ago. Definitely a movie to add to my DVD collection. ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing.

Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.

Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy – check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together.

Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him.

My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.

All the actors represented their parts well.

In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.

Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.

Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.

Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.

Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.

Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER. This film, which is based on a true story, comes from first time director and long time actor, Denzel Washington. Denzel Washington has given us some of the best performances of the last decade, as a black soldier in the Civil War in Glory, and a lawyer in the acclaimed Philadelphia. And of course, he made special notoriety last year when he won the Academy Award for Best Actor in Training Day, in which Denzel Washington became the first African American to receive the award for Best Actor. I guess Denzel wanted a change of pace, so he chose to direct Antwone Fisher, in which he also stars. Fisher is played by Derek Luke, who is new to the silver screen, but has made some guest appearances on such television shows as King of Queens, and he will be appearing in the upcoming film release of Biker Boyz.

This is a truly well done film from Denzel Washington, considering it was his first time directing. Undoubtedly, Denzel felt some kind of commitment and believed in the real life story of Antwone Fisher. Antwone Fisher is about a young African American man in the Navy who constantly gets into fights, and after one particular brawl he is sent to see a Navy psychiatrist named Jerome Davenport, played by Denzel Washington. Davenport helps Antwone to deal with his troubled past and learn to move on with his life, by finding his birth mother who had to give him up at birth because she was in prison. What makes this film good is the fact that it's not overly melodramatic. I was expecting something a little more like Good Will Hunting, with a lot of swearing, fighting and vulgarity. Not that I didn't like Good Will Hunting, or the swearing, fighting and vulgarity of the film were out of place. Quite the contrary! However, Antwone Fisher is a true story, and I don't think that Washington wanted to sensationalize the story for dramatic affect in the film. Don't get me wrong, there are moments when we see Antwone fighting, carrying on and having moments when it seems like the world is closing in on him. After all, in his first session with his psychiatrist, the character played by Washington, Devenport asks Fisher where he was born, and Fisher's response is, `from under a rock,' an obvious jab at the pressures waning on Antwone Fisher's soul. But I had to appreciate the fact that this film wasn't sensationalized for dramatic affect. I think it shows real character on the part of Denzel Washington to deliver a more realistic story and to avoid the typical clichés that are common in Hollywood films, even those based on true stories. One other point that I would like to bring up about Antwone Fisher is the acting. Over all, performances were good in the film, but not great. At times, I think it was a bit obvious that the main characters were actors, but overall, to complain about performances in this film would be ludicrous. One actress that I would like to point out in this film is Viola Davis. She plays Antwone's mother, but she says barely two sentences in the movie at all, but not so much because she appears at the end of the film, but more because she in shock that her long lost son, Antwone has found her. What I would like to point out about her as an actress in the lack of use of her. She in basically a character actress, and I haven't seen her play any really elaborate roles. She made appearances in Traffic, Out Of Sight, Kate & Leopold, and two recent films: Far From Heaven and Solaris. In Steven Soderberg's remake of Solaris, she played a scientist on a doomed space craft orbiting a planet. In that film, she is confronted by George Clooney's character and she drawn to tears by what Clooney tells her in a particular scene. When I first saw Solaris, I remember seeing her tear up in the scene and thinking, wow, this woman can act. It was as if you could feel the character's grief. In that brief shot of her face, she gave so much expression and I honestly felt very sorry for her character's sadness and trouble in the film. I think she has definite potential as an actress and should be used more often perhaps in leading roles, rather than just as a character driven actress. Nonetheless, Antwone Fisher is a very good movie. Denzel Washington, as always, pulls off a great performance and he gives us a great directorial debut. Also, Derek Luke is a very talented actor. I think that Antwone Fisher will bring his immense critical fame for his portrayal of the troubled man, but I think that his public popularity will increase with the release of Biker Boyz, which also stars Lawrence Fishburn. Antwone Fisher is based on the book `Finding Fish: A Memoir,' by Antwone Quenton Fisher. *** ...intimate and specific. Yes, a bit of a cinderella story, but only after many convoluted turns, earning it's way deeper and deeper into Antwone's psyche. Only superficial viewing can condemn this film as superficial. This is the stuff that heals nations, this is one of our great national stories. Antwone's path to emotional health encompasses a whole breadth of family history, the history of slavery and its aftermath. In his first directorial effort, first of many I hope, Denzel Washington confirms once again, that he has a truly beautiful mind and soul. I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one. In his directorial debut, Denzel Washington takes a true story that also happens to be a very difficult story and brings it to the screen with an honesty that we have come to expect from Washington's acting efforts, but now we see this touch as a director.

Recently we have seen some of the disastrous results of kids who have fallen through the cracks of public protection. This story tells of a nightmare existence that leaves terrible scars but suggests the triumph of the human spirit in the end.

We can nit pick on some first effort problems with too many close ups and not the best of editing these scenes but the simplicity of other scenes that project such power cannot be understated.

If the academy overlooks this film it will be travesty. This film pulls no punches and goes to the cold hard facts of the story with a purity that usually doesn't transcend from a novel to the screen. This , of course , is a tribute to the Director.

This is a dandy so go see it and tell your friends to go see it too! Unlike other commenters who have commented on this movie's ability to transcend race, contrarily, I think that this powerful film provides a complex and deep story that addresses institutional racism and the effects thereof. Washington directs Fisher's story with a careful hand and critical eye, relinquishing this cinematic endeavor neither to dismemberment of women's bodies, perpetuating unthoughtful stereotypes, nor satisfying the expectation of the white gaze. I think this film might be a bit too happy in the end; however, it is deeply entrenched in Afro-American culture and discourse to the point that some white spectators may get the feeling of looking into the life of this Afro-American--Antwone Fisher. I have problems with the Naval aspect of the film, but when we look at America, there are not many choices or opportunities for black men who are/were in Fisher's situation or similar situations. Viewers may go to this movie expecting a "Black Movie: what is a "Black Movie?"

Do stereotypes of pimps, whores, drug dealers, single parent homes, and so forth constitute a "Black Movie?" I think Washington as director recognized that Afro-Americans and other people of color deal with human problems like abuse and displaced aggression to name a few. These problems have--historically and presently--only been given light and validity via "Good Will Hunting" and other white movies; it's high time they were given the same recognition and validity as their white counterparts in and out of the media.

Sad to say though, in this racist country, Denzel Washington and Derek Luke will probably have to wait another ten years before they receive an Oscar or anything else. They both will have to wait until they direct or star in a movie that perpetuates the usual racist and sexist stereotypes to get an Oscar. That is to say, Denzel deserved awards for "Malcolm X," "Hurricane" and others before that jive "Training Day" Oscar. That is not to negate or push aside other great actresses and actors of color who are denied their due praise for ingenious work. Yet Hollywood would rather send the message that racism and sexism and heterosexism are acceptable by perpetuating and even rewarding those stereotypes as they appear in countless films such as "American Beauty," "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," "American Pie," and even "Gone with the Wind."

Derek Luke is a helluva actor and I wish him best. All of the other actresses and actors gave superb performances hands down, although I do take issue with Denzel's selection of yet another straight-haired, light-skinned sistuh. That said, everyone should watch this film. However, it may not be for everyone. Much Luv. 10/10 This movie was incredible. I would recommend it to anyone, much better than what I had already anticipated. It was definitely a heart-wrenching spectacular movie. It is an amazing story, with amazing actors and creators. Definitely another great movie with Denzel Washington. (shouldn't surprise anyone) Derek Luke did a wonderful job as well. He glorified himself as a great supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was no `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he showed his brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he pulled a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled no punches and rocked us like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us effective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he could also direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most moving film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Unlike that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional joyous conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the best admirable acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw some of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting as I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was masterful. But what can you expect from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay was of `fisher king' material. I hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Excellent Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year.

Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with "race relations", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.

Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story.

At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself.

Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won. Well, it's yet again a film that plays with your sentiments and you come out all soft as opposed to a rocky film. But I'm a sucker for those so I gave it a good score... the acting was very good and there were a lot of feeling. The violence is kept to a minimal which makes a change. I'd have given it a 9 if it were not for the salute at the end! All in all a good movie with very good actors.

Knowing what to expect (on the whole) from a Denzel Washington performance - quality, integrity, gravitas, wry humour - will prepare you for what to expect from his directorial debut. Much like Robert De Niro's A Bronx Tale, Antwone Fisher delivers the moving drama of the life of a young man and the effects of key figures in his life. Much as in A Bronx Tale De Niro played one of these key figures to the lead character (himself a character was born to play but was too old too) Washington takes a similar role in this as the fatherly councellor to the titular character - a character that seems like he should be played by a Washington from 20 years ago. Be thankful Washington is too old to play Antwone because if he had we would firstly be deprived of the wonderfully measured and intelligently nuanced performance he gives as the Navy councellor. However more importantly we wouldn't get to see the superb, we can only hope star making, turn from Derek Luke in the title role. Inevitably the character comes across as moulded in Washington's shape, however you get the impression this is not just because Washington directed it, not that Luke was trying to copy him, but that Luke is as genuinely powerful and thought provoking an actor as Washington. It took far too long for Washington to receive the Academy award he deserved for Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress and The Hurricane, let us hope that Luke does not have to wait so long. Also a great piece of casting was Joy Bryant as Fisher's girlfriend, Cheryl. While the part could have been a forgettable support or a standard 'girlfriend' role Bryant imbues it with life. Tender and intelligent the role transcends stereotyping with Bryant inhabiting it, and she makes the part significant and interesting. It doesn't hurt either that Bryant is possibly the most attractive woman you'll see on celluloid this year - the smile alone could thaw the coldest heart. Acting ability and looks - why isn't this woman in everything being made right now. Providing good support in a small role in Salli Richardson as Washington's wife Berta. Saying more with a silence or look than many Hollywood actresses can manage in an entire film she informs the audience of the entire storylines long before any exposition occurs. As for Washington's directing, as I said, it is the directing equivalent of his acting. Taking the story of a man few viewers will have heard of and making it genuinely interesting is a difficult feat which Washington achieves with aplomb. The film is neither rushed nor showy, but it never feels slow or dull. It is measured and nuanced, balancing the humour and drama perfectly. Antwone Fisher may not blow you away if you like big, explosive, plotless Hollywood films but for those who appreciate a finely crafted character piece, with excellent performances and steady well handled direction, this is for you. Saw this film in August at the 27th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention in Milwaukee, WI, it's first public screening. THE FILM IS GREAT!!! Derek Luke is wonderful as Antwone Fisher. This young actor has a very bright future. The real Antwone Fisher did a great job writing the film and Denzel's direction is right on the money. See it opening weekend. You won't be disappointed. This is my favorite movie EVER. I have watched it at least 10 times and I cry every time. My family begs me not to watch it so I wont have a crying fit. I think I love that it is a true story written by Antwone himself just as much as I love the movie. The acting is top notch, and the actors were perfect for their role. Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors. But this is my favorite movie he has done so far. I took care of a little boy who was also born in jail. He was the most precious little boy I had ever met. He has now been adopted by a wonderful family who fought for him for almost two years. I saw this movie while the fight was still going on and his future was unsure and I am so happy he is safe and loved. And I am so happy Antwone's happy and found his family.

I would love to know more about him and how it has been since meeting his family. I just cant say enough good things about it!! "Antwone Fisher" tells of a young black U.S. Navy enlisted man and product of childhood abuse and neglect (Luke) whose hostility toward others gets him a stint with the base shrink (Washington) leading to introspection, self appraisal, and a return to his roots. Pat, sanitized, and sentimental, "Antwone Fisher" is a solid feel-good flick about the reconciliation of past regrets and closure. Good old Hollywood style entertainment family values entertainment with just a hint of corn. (B) Several years ago the Navy kept a studied distance away from the making of "Men of Honor," a film based on the experiences of the service's first black master chief diver's struggle to overcome virulent racism. Ever eager to support films showing our Navy's best side the U.S.S. Nimitz and two helicopter assault carriers, with supporting shore installations, were provided to complement this engrossing tale of a young sailor's battle with uncontrollable rage. Some of the movie was shot aboard the U.S.S. Belleau Wood.

Antwone Fisher wrote the script for Denzel Washington's director's debut in which he stars as a Navy psychiatrist treating Fisher, played effectively and deeply by Derek Luke.

Fisher is an obviously bright enlisted man assigned to the U.S.S. Belleau Wood (LHA-3), a front line helicopter assault platform. Fisher can't seem to avoid launching his own assaults at minimal provocation from his fellow enlisted men. Sent to the M.D. as part of a possible pre-separation proceeding, Fisher slowly opens up to the black psychiatrist, revealing an awful childhood of great neglect and shuddering brutality.

The story develops as Fisher cautiously but increasingly trusts his doctor and gets the courage to pursue a love interest, an enlisted sailor named Cheryl, played by a stunningly beautiful Joy Bryant.

Fisher reluctantly engages with the doctor by asking long simmering questions but soon realizes he must seek the answers, however painful, in order to grow and move away from conflict-seeking destructive behavior.

While all the main characters are black, this story transcends race while unflinchingly showing the evil of exuberant religiosity and concomitant hypocrisy in foster family settings. Viola Davis, a versatile actress seen in a number of recent films, is a picture of sullen immorality but is nothing compared to foster mom, Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson), who in short but searing scenes would earn - if it existed - the Oscar for gut-churning brutality.

Films about patient-therapist interaction follow a certain predictability (all that transference and counter-transference stuff) but the earnestness of Fisher and his doctor/mentor is realistically gripping. It's a good story, well told. Period.

While set in the Navy, "Antwone Fisher" is not in any real sense a service story as was "Men of Honor," an excellent movie that dealt with crushing racism directed against a real person. Nor is it truly a film about blacks. It's about surviving terrible childhood experiences and, as Fisher says, being able to proclaim in adulthood that the victim is still "standing tall." The persecutors shrink in size and significance as a brave and strong young man claims his right to a decent life with the aid of a caring doctor.

My only quibble is that Washington is a lieutenant commander but is addressed as commander. With all the Navy support people listed in the end credits, someone should have told Director Washington that his character, like all naval officers below the rank of commander, is addressed as "Mister." Not a big criticism, is it? :)

I don't know why this film is playing in so few theaters. It deserves wide distribution. Derek Luke may well get an Oscar nomination.

8/10.

Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living "under a rock" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life ! When I first read the plot of this drama i assumed it was going to be like Sex and the City, however this drama is nothing like it. The stories the characters seem more real and you empathise with the situations more. The concept of the drama is similar, four 30 something women guide us through there friendships and relationships with problems and strife along the way. Katie the GP is a dark and brooding character who you find difficult to relate too and is best friends with Trudi a widow. Trudi's character is heart warming as you can relate to difficulties she is having along with the fact she is the only mother of the four. Jessica is the party girl very single minded and knows what she wants and how to get it. She is a likable character and is closest to Siobhan the newly wed who whilst loving her husband completely can't help her eyes wandering to her work colleague. Over all the drama is surprisingly addictive and if the BBC continue to produce the series it could do well. It is unlike other female cast dramas such as Sex and the city, or Desperate Housewives. This if played right could be the next Cold feet. Plus the male cast are not bad on the eyes too. Why this is called "Mistresses" is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses… Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries "Bouquet of Barbed Wire", where every character and their dads wielded the machete.

Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends "I have to tell my husband". No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!

Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.

Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame "You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!", which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.

Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said "That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty". More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does "sexy" from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.

So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.

Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7. I wasn't quite sure if this was just going to be another one of those idiotic nighttime soap operas that seem to clutter prime time but, as it turns out, this is a pretty good show (no small thanks to talented casting). Four female friends with diverse backgrounds get together and share the weekly goings-on of their love-lives. The hour long program follows each of them separately through their often screwed up quests to find love and it does it without being boring or trite. Sharon Small's "Trudi" is the homemaker one (allegedly widowed after September 11th) who gets a little preachy and annoying with her friends (who tend to be a little looser and more creative in their endeavors). It's great to see Small back on t.v., as she was great in the "Inspector Lynley Mysteries". The chick can act. Orla Brady's character (Siobhan, a lawyer) is perhaps the most damaged but still very sympathetic of the women, as she wrestles with her kind but self-absorbed husband Hari (Jaffrey, formerly of "Spooks") in his driven desire to have a child with her, regardless of her needs. The final two members of the cast are the effervescent Jess (Shellie Conn), an events planner who's a wild child who sleeps with anyone and everyone, gender not specific, and Katie, (Sarah Parrish) a somber doctor who's affair with a patient AND his son have sent her career and love life spiraling out of control. That being said, I'm hooked now and hope that the BBC continues cranking this series out because it's good, it's different and it's got a great cast. This drama is unlike Sex and the City, where the women have a few drinks and share their sexual encounters with each other. Its much more personal and people can relate to it. Its much more engaging and emotional on a new level than other dramas focusing on women and their lives like "Sex and the City, Lipstick Jungle...."

Dr. Katie Roden, is a psychologist with a dark secret, she seems much more depressed and guilt ridden than the rest of her 3 friends. She is dealing with the death of her former lover who was her patient while tackling his son's advances on her. Her sombre clothes and empty and cold house convey her inside emotions very well.

Trudi Malloy, a widow is battling issues with "letting go" of her dead husband from 9/11. And when a handsome stranger, Richard shows an interest in her she is suddenly forced to do a reality check by her friends who suggest that she gets back into dating business. The ridiculous and embarrassing courting scenes between Richard and Trudi are totally funny! It is interesting to note that Richard asks her out the day she gets a millions from the 9/11 board for her husband's death..lets see what his intentions are

Siobhan Dillon, a lawyer is fed up of her husband's love making tactics which only involve "baby making" (as they are having trouble conceiving) and she quickly falls for her colleague who offer his "services" a little too willingly to her and she does not hesitate for long!It will interesting to see whether she will continue her affair or patch up with her husband (played by Raza Jeffrey) Jessica, a real estate business woman is single and is straight, until she organizes a lesbian wedding and has an affair with one of them. Her character is shown as a bold and provocative woman who before her lesbian encounter is having sex with a "married man", her colleague. Lets see where her character venture to....

The beauty of this drama is that we are shown 4 totally different women with different scenarios, whose ambitions and inhibitions are shown. Its also a good thing that the drama reveals the fact that sometimes friends lie to each other to be "safe"! Series 2 has got off to a great start! I don't think you need to have watched series 1 to get a grasp of whats happening but like any series its nice to feel some sense of the characters and to care about what happens to them. And this show makes you think like that! These 4 30-something women seem to lead glamorous and exciting lives yet the premise is believable and realistic. So the twists and turns that arrive thanks to their love and sex lives are exciting to watch but you also know that these are problems that happen to real women too. Its about the decisions we make as women and how sometimes we are led down certain paths in our lives rather than consciously making those choices! Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: "la Menace" (1977) and "Série Noire" (1979) among others. "Police Python 357" is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.

The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Léopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (François Périer). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...

One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Ménard (Mathieu Carrière) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.

The backdrop of this thriller, Orléans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm. Great screenplay and some of the best actors the world has ever produced. Montand gives the concept of the 'lone wolf' police detective a whole new dimension of intensity and, most importantly, credibility.

When a typical Hollywood cop-heroe loses family, friends and pets to murder he is usually given his minute of grief. But when the sixty seconds are over, he pulls himself together, packs his gun and goes gleefully shooting up his enemies one by one.

Montand's Marc Ferrot, however, is really devastated - by his girlfriends murder, of course, but also by finding out that she had another lover.In his confusion and wrath he does not seek revenge but needs to keep going to find the real perpetrator of a crime where his fingerprints are all over the scene. Thus all his actions become unescapably logical. This is the main reason why this movie glues us to our seats but definetely not the only one. An excellent movie about two cops loving the same woman. One of the cop (Périer) killed her, but all the evidences seems to incriminate the other (Montand). The unlucky Montand doesnt know who is the other lover that could have killed her, and Périer doesnt know either that Montand had an affair with the girl. Montand must absolutely find the killer...and what a great ending! Highly recommended. WAQT is a perfect example of a chicken soup not exactly for your soul. The broth unfortunately has lost its actual taste thanks to all the excess dilution and garnishing that went into its making.

What's surprising and disappointing about WAQT is that it comes from a director who stayed away from the usual clichés of Hindi cinema in his first venture but who in his second outing gives in for all the stereotype film formulas. While Vipul Shah had the conviction to show something as implausible as blind men robbing a bank in AANKHEN, he just fails to induce life in the entire packaging of WAQT that is based on something as conceivable as a father-son relationship. Adopted from a Gujarati play Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu, WAQT does have a sensible storyline with a social message to back up. A mature look on the father-son relationship, a father's unconditional love towards his son and a son's responsibility towards his family. Ishwar Chand Sharawat (Amitabh Bachchan) who has established his entire empire on his own from the scratch leads an affluent life with his wife Sumitra (Shefali Shah). Their only son Aditya (Akshay Kumar) never had the need to strive for anything since he got everything tailor-made and spoon-fed in life. Ishwar's pampering has only spoil him all the more.

Aditya dreams to turning into a superstar but does nothing to make his dreams come true. In the meanwhile he marries his ladylove Mitali (Priyanka Chopra). Ishwar hopes that marriage will make Aditya a more responsible man but he is disappointed. Aditya is still at his blithe best leading a carefree life.

The endurance limit finally collapses when Ishwar expels Aditya from his house. The sudden change in the attitude of his affectionate father towards him and his now expecting wife baffles Aditya. He has no option left but to strive for the livelihood of his wife and his unborn kid. He starts turning into an independent man but the rift in the relationship between him and his father grows.

The story is simplistic while the uncomplicated screenplay has a very elementary approach. One can easily identify and relate with the credible characters of both the father and the son. If you are not one of the two, you at least might have come across individuals like them somewhere in real life.

Add to it director Vipul Shah's easy handling of the screenplay. With a family affair like this, any other director in his place would have added in tons of melodrama in the proceedings as per the cinematic laws of Bollywood family dramas, turning the film into a compulsive tearjerker. However Shah excels in the effortless handling of emotions for most part of the film.

Clear-cut example of his unpretentious direction is palpable in the pre-interval scene where the father expels the son from his house in a rather frivolous manner. The purpose of the scene is achieved without blotting a brunt on the audiences' brains. Ditto for the scene in the second half wherein the now separated father son have a flippant conversation. That's what differentiates WAQT from a KABHI KUSHI GHUM or an EK RISHTAA and in fact places it one level high in terms of treatment.

But after gaining all the distinction points, one may wonder where does WAQT still fail in? The problem lies in the fact that while WAQT distinguishes itself from the others in it's league in terms of treatment, it gives in to the glitches in the terms of packaging. What with the director forcing in song-n-dance every now and then in the first half. There's a Johar kinda shaadi song, a Chopra kinda Holi song, a father son disco dandia song, a dream song and a dream come true song inducing sufficient yawns in the viewer. Picture this... the father has just ousted the son from his house and the son is dreaming of a song in Moroccan mountains with his wife. Out of place! Out of reason! and the audience Out of seat.

The film just drags in the first half and the actual story starts only in the second half. The director has wasted too much WAQT on unnecessary elements. The much talked about dog chase sequence isn't bad but is not redeeming either. However Akshay Kumar's taandav dance is simply ridiculous. Imagine he qualifies for the star hunt in the movie with this (unintentionally) hilarious histrionic. Add to it the climax set at the finals of the star-hunt where the son bursts out with emotions. That's so archetypal! Also the editing pattern could have been reversed to conceal the father's reason for the change in attitude towards his son.

Anu Malik's music is fine though unnecessary in the proceedings. Santosh Thundiiayil's camera-work is competent enough though not much demanding. Aatish Kapadia has come up with some good dialogs for dramatic moments.

Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav make up or the light moments in the film very efficiently. While Rajpal Yadav has been going overboard with his comic histrionics in many films off lately, this time he underplays his character and is completely restrained. His deadpan expressions are perfectly complimented with Boman's over-the-top histrionics.

Shefali Shah is convincing in the mother's role. Not to be taken as a censure but she is flawless in both playing and 'looking' her character. Priyanka is gorgeous and performs her part well.

Of course the major applause deserves are Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. Akshay is especially expressive in the scene where his doting father intentionally berates him to make him aware of his responsibilities. Though Bachchan goes a bit dramatic in a couple of scenes, his brilliance strikes throughout the film.

To sum up, WAQT is like a soup whose ingredients are both tasty and nutritional but the final recipe somehow isn't as much appetizing. Simply great movie no doubt about it. Great story and superb performances, be it Amitabh, Akshay, Shefali, Priyanka, Boman or Rajpal. Hindi film industry is going shameless with Mallika and Co, this movie is totally vulgarity free and therefore bound to fail in vulgarity addicted our Indian society. But the message and concept this movie carries are absolutely superb. Anu Malik(boring copy-cat) could have been avoided and Ismail Darbar or Himmesh Reshmmiya could have been used as musician. I think Vipul Shah should have given little bit Gujarati touch particularly in music also. Anu Malik is worst musician around and he thinks himself popstar but this is not the movie where is presence was required-He looks only good with Govinda style songs. I felt some nice serious music with couple of good Ghazals or sad songs could have made this movie more memorable. Time For A Hit!

Waqt Dir- Vipul Amrutlal Shah Cast- Amitabh Bachchan, Akshay Kumar, Priyanka Chopra, Shefali Shah, Rajpal Yadav and Boman Irani. Written by- Aatish Kapadia Rating- ***

Eureka! We've got it! Yes, ladies and gentlemen…in Vipul Shah's 'Waqt', we have probably found this year's first bona fide hit. Replete with all the necessary ingredients of a commercial Bollywood fare, 'Waqt' has all that it takes for a movie to click with the Indian audiences. It's the kinda film that makes a distributor feel happy and contemplate his next phoren visit! In this 'saga of Indian emotions' then, we have a happy family(isn't it always?) of three. Ishwar(Amitabh Bachchan), the postman-turned-millionaire(don't ask how!...there's something about selling toys while delivering letters and all that…seriously- who gives a damn!), married to Sumi(Shefali Shah) is a doting father to Aditya(Akshay Kumar). Ishwar has to make a serious decision about his son's careless attitude towards the responsibilities of life. His love for Aditya though, results in his procrastination of the grave issue. However, when faced with a situation that will test his race against time, Ishwar has no alternative but to throw Aditya out of the house- hoping that the new predicament might make him more conscientious of his own life. But this presumed solution becomes a problem in itself, as the rift between the loving father-son increases and the fences continue to grow.

You don't have to be a rocket-scientist to realize that such a story provides ample opportunities to infuse comedy and drama alike. So, pre-interval you have the initially funny, later annoying comedy track of Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav; and post-interval there are the go for your kerchief moments between Aby and Akki! Writer Aatish Kapadia(he also penned the original Gujarati play 'Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu' on which the film is based) does a good job of keeping the narrative fluid. The dialogues tend to get inconsistent at times. It doesn't help that songs appear like acne on a teenage face and mar the proceedings. Clearly, a couple of numbers could've been done away with. On the directing front, Vipul shows that he possesses a natural flair for story-telling. 'Waqt', as well as his earlier debut effort 'Aankhen', manage to keep you interested till the last reel. On a personal note- the seesaw of emotions was a tad jerky for me. But gauging from the audience reactions, it was working to the hilt.

Finally, 'Waqt' is all about its performances which amount to one whole point in the overall rating! Amitabh Bachchan is dependable as always. His energy is visible and so is his age! Shefali pitches in a finely nuanced performance and matches the superstar at every step. Boman and Rajpal bring the house down with their histrionics. Priyanka has little to do than fulfill the perfunctory role of a heroine. When it all boils down though, 'Waqt' is Akshay's vehicle. I have always maintained that Akki is as good as the role suits him. Put him in a 'Mujhse Shaadi Karogi' and he's fantastic, but in a 'Bewafaa' he is woefully bad. Here, Akki is probably at his best. Whether it is his comic timing or his emotional renderings, he is near-perfect. There's also an action scene for his fans! Ironically, his previous best endeavour was in 'Aankhen'- with the same director and Big B at his side!

'Waqt' is by no means a memorable movie. It's not one that will feature in the better films of our industry. But it is one for the masses. And at a time when the industry is waiting desperately for a universal hit, 'Waqt' might just do the trick!

- Abhishek Bandekar

Trivia- This is Akshay Kumar's second consecutive film after 'Bewafaa', in which he performs on stage during the climax!

Rating- ***

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

22nd April, 2005 What a outstanding movie is this i have not words to describe. i don't know how come the rating of the movie is 7.3 it should be 9.3 but anyways no one else can make this movie and the acting by Akshay is just outstanding the second half of the movie makes u cry and the movie has a really good unexpected ending which makes the movie perfect. you should watch this movie once, i think twice well it's up to u. Anyways i love this movie and it's not just sad and funny but it also gives u a really good meanings and what u should be doing so i think this is one of the best movie in the bollywood history. but i know the people has deferent chooses so ya. the only thing i don't like about this movie is the music well the background music is good but the songs are not good enough i think the music would be better if A R Rahman would be the music director but anyways we can't do anything about that so ya. This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good. The basic storyline here is, Aditiya (Kumar) is the spoilt son of a millionaire, Ishwar (Bachan) who owns a toy industry, in Ishwar's eyes his son Aditya can do nothing wrong, Aditya's mother Sumitra (Shefali Shah) warns Ishwar to bring his son to the responsible path before it is too late, for Ishwar is a patient of lung cancer and has only 9 months to live, when his son elopes and marries Mitali (Chopra), Ishwar readily forgives Aditya, but when the happy couple Aditya and Mitali come back from a honeymoon, Mitali is pregnant, and this forces Ishwar to kick Aditya out of the house to make him more responsible, Aditya doesn't know his father is suffering from lung cancer, and he also doesn't know that his father has kicked him out of the hose to make him more responsible, Ishwar cannot bring himself to tall Aditya that he is about to die, with a hungry and pregnant wife. it is a race against time so Aditya does all he can to prove himself to his father, and the climax comes when Aditya gets his big break in the movie industry and his father tells him that he is about to die.

This movie is absolutely brilliant, this is the breakthrough in Indian cinema that was needed for the Bollywood industry, Shah's directing is almost flawless, but which movie doesn't have flaws? The best part if this movie is the father son relationship which is a tearjerker. the song interludes is just placed at the right time, the scenery is good, the only part where this movie fails is where the jokes between Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav the jokes are too long and after a bit they are annoying, but overall this is a brilliant movie, i advise anybody Reading this review to go and watch it regardless of other reviews. 9/10 I saw two movies over the weekend, One was "kaal" and the other "Waqt". Both movies are made in "Bollywood" but they are worlds apart. The fundamental difference is the Story and the Director. Vipul Shaw made his indelible mark with "Ankhen", one of the best Comedy Hindi movies. His Casting of the Charecteres is perfect. The story apparently taken from a Gujerati Play is awesome,the treatment is superb with some exceptions. In Bollywood when a movie is put together the first thing a Bollywood Director is prone to do is sign up a music director and this guy (mediocre Malik in this instance)is obligated to drum up six songs to fulfill his contract. So even a good Director like Vipul Shah has to use them to appease the Finacier and the Grandma's who just cant get enough of these numbers. No Music director can churn out good songs relentlessly as clearly evident in this movie. None of the songs have any melody and they are clearly intrusive to the narration of the story except the background music and the westernized version of the Bharat-Natyam. The duelling and role playing the Father and Son is good acting by Bachachan and Akshay Kumar. His stunt scenes are clearly outstanding. A good director surrounds himself with good actors and he is willing to wait till a good story comes along as in this super movie. Then we have a cheap classless tasteless Producer like Sharukh Khan who will stoop low as to shamelessly plug and promote a trash like "Kaal" to enrich himself at the cost of the betterment of Art, and they surround themselves with borderline talent, and they recoup the investment before the word gets around. These are the Bollywood locusts who prey on the unsuspected audience to garner "Film Farce" awards given by Bollywood Chamcha's and most of them are in the Media. this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play "Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit First of all, 'St. Ives' the film is only fairly loosely based on the Robert Louis Stevenson story of the same name, but for once, this is not a criticism. The original novel was a work-in-progress, unfinished at the author's death, and in freely adapting it and giving it an ending, the film-makers have brought to life some endearing characters who, although different from Stevenson's originals, would, I am sure, have charmed and amused him.

It is 1813: Capitaine Jacques de Kéroual de Saint-Yves is a Breton aristocrat, orphaned by the Revolution's guillotine, now serving as a hussar in Napoleon's army. We meet him going out for the evening, claiming that since a hussar who is not dead by 30 is "a blackguard", he, at 34, is now "on borrowed time"! Certainly, as he faces a string of challenges to duels, our dashing hero seems in danger, but a surreal prank on his Colonel provides him a way out of the duels and into the bed of a beautiful courtesan/singer. Unfortunately, it also results in losing his commission... Further misadventures result in him being taken prisoner by the British, and sent to a POW camp in a Scottish castle.

While carving toys and boxes, Jacques catches the attention of Flora, the young niece of Miss Susan Gilchrist, a well-travelled woman of the world who lives at Swanston Cottage. They fall in love, and most of the story concerns Flora helping Jacques to escape and to find his emigré grandfather, the old Comte. Of course, there is a problem. Jacques' older brother, Alain, a dissolute alcoholic, is - perhaps understandably - far from pleased when Grandfather disinherits him in front of the whole household, the very instant that Jacques has appeared... Cue treachery! There is also an entertaining subplot of the romance between the awkward, naïf but good-hearted Major Farquhar Chevening and Aunt Susan, who has travelled through most of the Ottoman Empire and been a prisoner of the Turks.

Even allowing for a natural prejudice in favour of any film in which the heroines share my surname, 'St. Ives' is magic! It combines splendidly swashbuckling swordfights, a balloon-flight, comedy and romantic adventure. I would recommend it to anyone who loves 'the kind of film they don't make anymore' - Fairbanks, Colman, Flynn, & co. The acting is splendid. Anna Friel makes Flora a spirited and appealing heroine, and Jean-Marc Barr is delightful as Jacques, a genuinely lovable hero. Miranda Richardson and Richard E. Grant are already great favourites of mine, and have great fun as Susan and Farquhar, whose relationship runs as a comic counterpoint to that of the leads. As the rakish, scheming, but ultimately tragic Alain, Jason Isaacs shows, as he did more recently in 'The Patriot', that he has the classic swashbuckling style, besides the dashing good looks! Please, please will someone cast him as a *hero* in the genre?!!!

My main quibbles with the film concern settings and costumes. In the book, the castle in which Jacques is a prisoner is clearly Edinburgh, but the film, shot in Ireland, Germany and France has 'Highlandised' the setting, making the retention of place names such as Swanston, Inveresk and Queensferry decidedly incongruous. The costumes too are a real hotch-potch, from 1780s through to the period in which it is set. While this would not be implausible with more down-market characters "making do", it seems odd for well-to-do ladies such as the heroines to be wearing 1780s gowns in 1813. Clearly, the costuming decision was æsthetic: these earlier styles are visually far more appealing and elegant than Regency fashions, and they work in the idealised world of the film. As a whole, 'St. Ives' is 90 minutes of pure delight. What a fun movie St. Ives is. It reminds me of the type of film made during the 40's. Classic story, rounded off by characters and a plot that is neither over dramatic nor overtly complicated. In fact it isn't over anything. Robert Lewis Stevenson's story - here adapted for the screen - reads like Jane Austen for men. We do get a tale that has a romance at its heart, but there is plenty of fun too: battle scenes (sort of), prison escapes, mistaken identities, swordplay, and the funniest line I've heard in years: "Only in Scotland would guests be announced by name at a masked ball." There is much hilarity, hardship, and not a little heartbreak as St. Ives tries to fight and find his way back to a family and life he barely knew.

The cast is absolutely stellar with the too infrequently seen Jean Marc Barr absolutely perfect in the title role. Anna Friel is a refreshing delight as the resourceful Flora and Miranda Richardson nearly walks away with the movie as her wise and worldly, been there and seen-it-all Aunt Susan. Richard Grant provides comic relief of the highest order.

This is not going to be the greatest movie anyone has ever seen, but its charms are undeniable and the entire film fairly bristles with an energy that bursts with life. Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering. All dogs go to Heaven is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I first saw it when I was like 3. Now I'm 12 and I rented it, it makes me think of things and it brings back so many memories, those were "the days". I love the music, I love when Charlie is arriving in Heaven, I love the song "Let me be surprised". I love how Charlie looks and his voice, Bert Reynolds could only play Charlie's voice this great. I love this movie, the 1st one is the best one because it's so original and great. It really does bring back memories that no one can describe, not even me. If only I could go back to those days. I love the characters. If this is the way the memories come back when I'm 12 imagine how I'll feel when I'm like 19, I hope I'll be able to watch this when I'm older. When I first seen this I never knew that I would really look back on it and feel this way , I hope it will be available to watch. I'm so happy that this movie was made and the amazing idea came to mind and heart. On a scale from 1-10 I'd give it a perfect 10. It's an amazing movie. It's so hard to explain the feeling, when I get older and if I have kids, I hope they can experience this feeling. I loved this film when I was little. Today at 17 it is one of my all time favorite animated films. Beautiful animation and appealing characters are just two of the things to like about this film. Although many people might not enjoy some of the songs, most of them are well-done and go along with the story. It focuses on Charlie, a roguish handsome German Shepard who may seem unlikable to some at first... but eventually will win you over.

Not a kiddie film by any means. Often very dark and frightening at times. A treat for Don Bluth fans and animation buffs. But do keep a tissue in handy. ADGTH never fails to make me cry and will do the same for those who are movie sensitive. Arguably one of the greatest non-Disney animated films of all time. Along with Watership Down and My Neighbor Totoro.

BOTTOM LINE: A heavenly masterpiece. I've seen this movie when I was young, and I remembered it as one of the first films I have truly liked that was not an action movie or a comedy. So, in my later years I decided to watch it again and see if it was just nostalgia or was there really something in that movie. To my surprise, the movie held to my every expectations. It's a great movie. Emotional in the right amount, some jokes, nice songs (not great though, and that actually explains why I did not remember it was a musical) and all in all a great use to my time. I was surprised because the last movies from my childhood that I have revisited did not even pass my minimal demands of a decent movie and yet this movie, which I first saw in the second grade, made me cry today just like it made me cry then. Maybe that's because my dog died recently and maybe not, but the important thing is that it made me feel, and that's why filmmakers make films (that and the money, of course). Yes, there are continuity glitches. Yes, the script has holes, but it doesn't matter. The movie itself is fun and smart. So don't be fooled by cynical people who always look for the bad things in life, because nothing is perfect, and this movie gets a 10 not because it is perfect. It gets 10 simply because it made me feel. All Dogs Go To Heaven is a movie that I have always liked. When I was a kid, I used to watch this every other day. It is underrated if you look at its IMDb rating and the comments of many people in general. This isn't a bad movie like many say, it is a very good movie. This is good and your kids will probably like it. Even though it's rated G, some parents may find this to be a bit violent. It is actually a pretty dark story, where the dogs are similar to mobsters who are involved in gambling, extortion, and even cold blooded murder. The movie follows a dog named Charlie who had escaped from the pound, is killed by his old friend, goes to heaven, but ends up coming back to earth. Many younger kids watching this movie may feel as though they are watching a big kids movie.

There are some scenes that may scare little kids, but I'm sure they'll do fine. Every time I watch this movie, it reminds me of when I was a little kid. I'm sure everyone has a movie that reminds them of when they were younger, this is the movie that makes me feel that way. The performances from Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise are great, and this is the last movie that a little girl named Judith Barsi was in. Unfortunately, she was killed at a young age, which is a shame because she had so much potential and didn't deserve what happened. Now that I know her story, I can't watch this movie the same way anymore because her voice sounds so sad.

The animation in this movie is great, the voice work is great, and the story is good, but a little bit different from many other kids movies. This was popular at the time of its release, but was over shadowed by Disney's mega popular The Little Mermaid. This is a movie that isn't conceived as well by adults, but if you're a kid, or if you grew up with this movie as a kid, then I'm sure you will enjoy watching it. I remember watching this movie with my friends when we were 4 years old, but the weird thing is that I never watched it after that. The other day I was babysitting and my cousin never saw All Dogs Go To Heaven so we rented both movies and watched them together today and he really loved these movies. So many memories came back watching this movie once again and I have to admit I even cried a little. I'm 22 years old and the ending still gets to me. All Dogs Go To Heaven is one of the most touching animated films and I'm shocked honestly by this rating of 5.8, I thought this movie would bring back good memories for others as well. I admit the animation was a bit typical but the story is just so charming and fun.

Charlie is a gambling dog who gets killed by another gambling dog, Carface. But when Charlie wants revenge he comes back to Earth with a watch that can't stop ticking or that's the end of his life again. When he and his best friend, Itchy, look for Carface and spy on him they find out how Carface gets all his money, he has a little orphan girl who talks to animals and finds out who is going to win the races. Charlie takes the girl, Ann-Marie, and makes fake promises in order to get the money. But he ends up learning that maybe he should put Ann-Marie first before himself when Carface goes back to him with a vengeance.

All Dogs Go To Heaven is the perfect family film, it's not Disney, but this is an excellent family film to watch. Not to mention that it's just so cute and touching. I know it's ridicules and some people call me crazy, but this movie for me when I was a kid made me believe that dogs have souls. How could they not? They're just so loving, and I think I'm going to cry again. But anyways, I would just recommend this movie for anyone, it's a fun movie to watch.

7/10 An unforgettable masterpiece from the creator of The Secret of Nimh and The Land Before Time, this was a very touching bittersweet cartoon. I remember this very well from my childhood, it was funny and sad and very beautiful. Well it starts out a bit dark, a dog who escaped the pound, and gets killed by an old friend, ends up in Heaven, and comes back. But it becomes sweet when he befriends an orphaned girl who can talk to animals. Some scenes were a bit scary contrary to other cartoons, like the dream sequence of Charlie, but everything else was okay,and the songs were fair. A memorable role of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, I just love that guy, ahehehe. And Judith Barsi of Jaws The Revenge, may God rest her soul, poor girl, she didn't deserve to die, but she is in Heaven now, all good people go to Heaven. Overall this is a very good animated movie, a Don Bluth classic enough to put anime and Disney to shame. Recommended for the whole family. And know this, if you have the original video of this, you'll find after the movie, Dom DeLuise has a very important and special message, gotta love that guy, ahehehe. When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch. I can remember this movie from when i was a small child, i loved it then and I still do now. I managed to get it on DVD for my 18th Birthday and was over joyed because I had found it so difficult to find it previously and it had only be rented when i was younger. My favourite character is Charlie because he learns to be a good dog. The movie is filled with fun songs and music. The animation is brilliant and the character voices are perfect. This movie has always been a tearjerker for me but i think that if i hadn't seen the movie when i was small then i would not find it as brilliant and fascinating as I do although I still believe that I would still like it because I am Really into animated movies. When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()

The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.

The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with "I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill"...

So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :() I saw this movie when I was about 8-years-old and I liked it but it wasn't until I watched it again at the age of 13 that I really understood it for what it is; a cartoon about a criminal dog with a real heart of gold "adopts" a little girl in order to exploit her for her talents to talk to animals. The dog star,Charlie B. Barkin, is murdered by his formal business partner, Carface, (who is absolutely diabolical by the way). His soul then goes to where else but Heaven only to find a golden watch that is really his life's time, which Charlie, being the sneaky but lovable cad that he is steals and rewinds, sending him back to Earth. Once back on Earth, Charlie goes about seeking revenge on the evil Carface. This is how he comes upon young Anne-Marie, the lonely little orphan that can talk to animals whom Charlie plans to scam for her talents in order to get back at his enemy Carface. But scoundrel Charlie actually comes to care for young Anne-Marie and his plans unfoil as he must make up his mind to do what is right after Anne-Marie discovers what her "best friend" Charlie has really been using her to make money for a new and better dog casino. Now he must rescue her from the dreaded Carface. I still love this movie even at the age of 22. The idea and plot really are quite different and original from that of many other animated films. I especially like the idea that a dog plays the role of the villain for once. Carface was even better than he was in the All Dogs go to Heaven sequel. In that picture he appeared quite dubious to his role of villain. All Dogs Go to Heaven plays on the canine criminal underworld. The film is a delight for children with a comical and dark-but-satisfying and happy-ending storyline with plenty of song and dance. It features outcast Charlie, a fellow canine criminal who is murdered but returns from the dead. He meets a homeless human girl who looks up to him, and through this relationship, he realizes the meaning of life and self-sacrifice. This is a cute animation loved very much through my eyes as a child. I would highly recommend this film to children. I'm unsure about how adults would react to it. (I tried to watch it a few years ago on VHS, but those recordings don't last long, do they?) Lots of reviews on this page mention that this movie is a little dark for kids. That depends on the kid. This isn't a movie for a 2-6 year old; it's more geared toward the 8 years and older crowd. I saw this movie when I was 10, I absolutely loved it. At the time most animated movies were a little too childish for my tastes. This movie deals with more serious issues, and therefore has a little more emotional impact. In this movie characters can DIE, and be sent to HELL! This gives a little more emotional weight to the scenes where characters are risking their lives. The good guys aren't always perfectly sweet and nice (like other cartoons). They have "real" motivations, like revenge, and greed, but also compassion and friendship; shows that things aren't always black and white.

Excellent Movie "May Contain Spoilers*

"All Dogs Go to Heaven" is a great movie. I saw it in 1989 when I was two years old. I didn't understand it that well but as I saw it more and more times I started to love it. I love the songs in this movie. My favorite songs are "Let Me Be Surprised" and "Soon You'll Come Home". Those are beautiful songs. The only thing that bothers me about the movie is Charlie dieing. When I was little my sister couldn't even watch that part. Other than that this movie is wonderful.

My favorite part of the movie is when Annabelle and Charlie are flying around heaven. Heaven is beautiful in the movie and the "clocks" are very clever. I also love Itchy, in fact I have 3 dachshunds of my own. They are so cute.

Overall I love this movie and suggest everyone should see it. I give this movie 10/10 stars. All Dogs Go to Heaven is, in my opinion, the best animated film ever made. I'm not really a big fan of animated films, but there's something about this one that makes it better than any other animated film I've seen. The music is wonderful as is the performances of Burt Reynolds, Dom Deluise, and especially Ken Page as the King Gator. "Let's Make Music Together" is perhaps one of my favorite songs from any movie musical I've seen. This is definitely a must see for people of all ages. In my case I liked this movie because when I saw it I found more than I expected. I mean, this is one of the few animated movies that made me think about its themes even long after I finished. It talks about death, vengeance and hell in such a way that it gets to you like a punch in your face, even reaching to suffer with the dream sequence in the mid-point of the film. That's what makes this movie so good: the ability, unique in Don Bluth (director), to play with the people's feelings and make them love or hate a character in no time. That, and the fact that it has so many good characters like Charlie and Ann-Marie, that in the sad but happy ending you have to say "I have something in my eye" to hide the others that you cried. All I've said are just only some of the good points of this movie. As for the rest, you have to see them for yourself in a film extremely honest. Don Bluth, thank you. This is one of the greatest movies ever maybe even the greatest movie ever. I had forgotten about the movie for about 12 years. Until I saw an add on TV for ADGTH and it brought back fond memories of me watching it when I was a little kid. And when I watched it a few nights ago I became addicted to the movie. Usually I don't like animated family movies but this one is special it is the perfect family movie.

The ending of the movie always touches my heart and saddens me very much but that is what makes this movie amazing better than all of the garbage that is coming out for kid movies today. I mean the movie is G rated and it is about 2 dogs who are involved with gambling, there is a lot of smoking, drinking, murder, death and hell depicted in the movie. Which I Believe makes the movie from good to great. I mean movies today don't bring reality to kids and in this movie they did.

RIP Judith Barsi & Dom DeLuise I love All Dogs Go to Heaven even though I'm a guy. This and The Land Before Time are the best animated films that Don Bluth has made! In the movie Gharlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is helped by his friend Itchy (Dom DeLuise) freedom out of the pound in New Orleans 1939. Charlie who's in casino business wants to share equal with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). Carface who is unwilling to share the equal with Charlie pushes a car on a bridge onto Charlie killing him! Charlie enters heaven and meets Annabelle (Melba Moore) who shows Charlie that his time is up by showing him a watch that has stopped and she explains that All Dogs Go to Heaven because all dogs are naturally good! Charlie hides the stop watch behind his back and switches it back and he returns to Earth alive with Annabelle screaming You can never come back! Charlie reunites with Itchy and they go and explore soon to find out that Carface has not only attempted to murder Charlie he has also kidnapped a little orphan Girl named Ann Marie (Judith Barsi). When Carface leaves Charlie and Itchy help Ann Marie escape. The next day Charlie Itchy and Ann Marie go to look for money! Ann Marie sees a couple who she thinks would make great parents for her! While Ann Marie talks to the couple Charlie sneaks up behind the man and steals his wallet! Charlie Ann Marie and Itchy then go to a horse race where they bet the man's money that a horse will win the race! The horse they said would win winds up winning and Charlie, Itchy, and Ann Marie are payed $1,000 for the bet! Charlie promises Ann Marie he'll use the money to give to the poor but winds up buying a new casino and gambling and buys pizza for his friend Flo (Loni Anderson) and her puppies. Soon Ann Marie has found out that Charlie had stolen the wallet from the man and used his money on the horse race and everything! Charlie sad about this has a dream about going to Hell and the Devil! Soon Charlie awakens and finds out that Ann Marie is gone! She has left to give the wallet back to the couple who forgive her about the wallet and invite her to breakfast! Charlie asks Ann Marie to leave with him and she does pretending to be sick but are captured by mice who try to feed them to King Gator but they manage to escape! Soon Carface shows up and captures Ann Marie. He plans to drown her but Charlie comes to the rescue and calls on King Gator who eats Carface. Charlie's time is up and he must die again. Itchy with the help of the other dogs finds the couple who took Ann Marie in and get them to come with them to where Ann Marie is. They are there in time to save Ann Marie but are too late to save Charlie who's time has ended! Charlie who is awarded for his heroic effort for saving Ann Marie is welcomed back to Heaven but before he enters he says good-bye to Ann Marie who has been adopted by the couple and asks her to take care of Itchy for him. She says yes and tells Charlie she loves him and good-bye! Charlie enters Heaven again as it's said All Dogs Go to Heaven! Filled with wonderful animation, characters, and story Don Bluth has proved to us again that he is a good animator! It's too bad this movie was release the same year Little Mermaid which is my favorite Disney movie! They both came out in 1989 which was the year before I was born! I guess I'll have to call them both the Best Animated Features of 1989! 10 out of 10! I can understand why some people like this movie, and why some people don't. For me, though, I really like it, even if I noticed some good bits, and not so impressive bits. The animation was actually excellent, like Charlie's dream. The characters were a mixed bag, the best being Anne-Marie, voiced by the late Judith Barsi.(I was physically ill when I read what happened to her) Also, Carface is a very convincing villain,especially voiced by the wonderful Vic Tayback(I particularly loved "Morons I'm surrounded by Morons") and along with Rasputin and Warren T.Rat is probably the most memorable of all the Don Bluth villains. Charlie and Itchy only just lacked the same sparkle, but I loved King Gator and his song. Some of the film is very haunting, like Annabelle's "You can never come come back", which kind of scares me still. Unfortunately, there were some bits I didn't like so much. The story had a tendency to become clumsy and unfocused, but Disney's Black Cauldron suffered from the same problem. Also there were some dark scenes, that young children would find upsetting, but the ending is very poignant. However the biggest flaw was the rather bland songs and the way they were sung. None of them in particular stick out, with exception of "Let's Make Music Together" and "Love Survives", and Burt Reynolds can't sing and Dom DeLuise has done much better singing. All in all, a watchable movie, that could have been more, but is definitely memorable, and I would definitely watch it again. 7/10. Bethany Cox All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Most Cutest Animated Film To Have Dogs In 1989. The Previous Don Bluth Film The Land Before Time(1988) Became A Success. Dogs Are So Cute As Little Mice. Aw, I Just Want To Hug Them When They're Cute. Where Was I? Oh, Yes. Its Animation Is Beautiful, The Characters Are Great When They're Perfectly Voiced And The Songs Are Cute And Touching. It Opened In November 17 1989 The Same Date As The Little Mermaid Produced By Walt Disney Feature Animation.

The Part Where Charlie Got Killed By Carface Was So Unforgivable. Carface Is So Mean Because He Wanted To Kill Charlie. Shame On Him! The Love Survive Song Performed By Irene Cara And Freddie Jackson Was So Beautiful. All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Best Animated Movie Ever. All Dog's Go to Heaven is an animated kid's movie like no other. Gambling, drinking, death, guns and Hell are all prominent in the plot, and though kids will get very little of it, adults will be scratching their heads as to why this movie was made to feel like some sort of gangster movie. The actual movie isn't explicit in any way, it's just an odd combination to make a kid's movie on.

Charlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is a player dog, who owns half a casino with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). After getting drunk (A dog....getting drunk...in a kid's movie. It just sounds weird.), Charlie is tricked and murdered by Carfax. When in heaven, he finds a way to come back to Earth, but he will no longer be allowed in Heaven. He still goes back to Earth and meets up with his old friend Itchy (Dom Deluise), and plans payback on Carfax. Meanwhile, Carfax has a little orphan girl Anne Marie held captive because of her amazing ability to talk to all species of animals, which helps predict races. Charlie and Itchy free her, and try to help her find a family, while learning a lot about themselves.

This movie is one of the few non-Disney that will appeal to both kids and adults. Kids will enjoy the funny characters and lively animation, while adults will enjoy the nice, sweet plot, and the more than normal developed characters. One thing that keeps this down, is that it's a musical. Normally, that's a good thing, but the music here is honestly terrible. They tend to jump around, almost sounding ad libbed, with next to no instrumental backing. In fact, these are probably the worst songs I've ever heard in an animated movie, but luckily, the rest of the film is strong enough to not fall apart because of some bad notes.

The ending of this movie works, but I honestly hate it. It's sad, but happy, but more sad than happy, and makes the movie feel like it needs a sequel. Considering how bad the sequel made to this was, I wish the ending wouldn't have warranted a sequel and it would've wrapped up into a nice, super happy ending. This is one of the few movies I feel this way about, but I do.

Overall, this is a nice family film, with odd themes thrown in, but nonetheless, good entertainment.

My rating: *** out of ****. 85 mins. G. This is one of the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.

All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go I wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest "kids'" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala "Jurassic Bark", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.

Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me. i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD

but, i love this film, its a true classic.

xx Maverick xx 10/10 First things first, I was never once scared of this underrated gem as a kid ("Little Mermaid" on the other hand...). As my title says this was one of my fav childhood movies that I still love as a teenager. It's a beautiful, bittersweet movie about a misfit German Shepherd called Charlie (fantasticaly voiced by Burt Reynolds) who is killed by his boss/partner in crime (is name ha,ha is Carface). Charlie is sent straight to heaven by default because "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind". Chalie gets sent back to Earth 'cause he winded up his life clock where he gets into even more mischief with his best friend, Itchy and a little orphan girl, Anne-Marie. I used to watch this all the time as a kid and I still sometimes watch it. Anyways, it's a beautiful bittersweet film as I said before that might just leave a tear in your eye... My dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.

(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.

In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.

Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.

Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other "poor." The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.

Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.

The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you. Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.

WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, "no surprises whatsoever", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as "... you can't keep a good dog down", "... let's make music forever", and "... welcome to being dead" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!

WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.

OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)

Happy Viewing! I saw this film when it was originally released in 1989. I enjoyed it then, and I still do now. But what I realize now is that this is quite "adult" for a film with a G rating, especially the notion of dying and going to Heaven. Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise work wonderfully together, and Reynolds' singing voice is appropriate for a junkyard dog. There are some good songs ranging from upbeat ("Let's Make Music Together") to downright emotional ("Home to My Heart"). I found the plot good, although it does go off on a tangent once or twice. The final scene of the film with Charlie and Anne-Marie is one of the saddest I've ever seen in animation. A film worth experiencing. All Dogs Go To Heaven is on a par with Watership Down for scary kiddies films. Both were dark and pretty sinister, but at the same time the most mesmerising experience a child can have. This was one of my favourite films as a kid. I was in love with Charlie and at the tender age of about five or six, I'll admit... I had a crush on a cartoon dog. All Dogs tells the dark story of lovable cad Charlie and his partner in crime Itchy. The story starts with Charlie escaping from death row and swaggering off to the nearest club to do some gambling. Of course, as a child, I didn't understand the concept of this film. I loved the songs and the animation but as I've got older I do begin to wonder why I wasn't disturbed by this film as a youngster. It deals with pretty adult themes --- gambling, murder, hell and prison but in a world of goody-goody Disney films, it's something every child should watch once.

Yes, there's some sort of crazy transvestite crocodile scene and the hell scenes scare me more now that when I was little, but it delivers such a poignant message that should not be ignored by parents! I'm 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are "You can't keep a good dog down" and that song about sharing, I think it's called "What's mine is yours". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 7/10. Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles. Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.

I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.

It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.

I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.

Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are. I caught Evening in the cinema with a lady friend. Evening is a chick flick with no apologies for being such, but I can say with some relief that it's not so infused with estrogen that it's painful for a red-blooded male to watch. Except for a single instance at the very end of the movie, I watched with interest and did not have to turn away or roll my eyes at any self-indulgent melodrama. Ladies, for their part, will absolutely love this movie.

Ann Lord is elderly, bed-ridden and spending her last few days on Earth as comfortably as possible in her own home with her two grown daughters at her side. Discomfited by the memories of her past, Ann suddenly calls out a man's name her daughters have never heard before: Harris. While both of her daughters silently contemplate the significance of their mother's strong urge to recall and redress her ill-fated affair with this mysterious man at this of all times, Ann lapses back in her head to the fateful day she met Harris - and in doing so, lost the youthful optimism for the future that we all inevitably part ways with.

Both Ann and her two daughters - one married with children, one a serial "commitophobe" - struggle with the central question of whether true love really exists, and perhaps more importantly, if true love can endure the test of time. Are we all one day fated to realize that love never lasts forever? Will we all realize that settling for the imperfect is the only realistic outcome? The subtle fact that the aged Ann is still wrestling with an answer to these questions on her deathbed is not lost on her two daughters.

The cinematography for Evening is interesting - most of the film is spent in Ann's mind as she recalls the past, and for that reason I think the film was shot as if it was all deliberately overexposed, to give everyone an ethereal glow (and thus make it very obvious that all of this is not real, but occurred in the past). Claire Danes is beautiful (appearing to be really, really tall, though just 5' 5" in reality), and is absolutely captivating in one climactic scene where her singing talents are finally put to the test.

You can't really talk trash about the cast, which leads off with Claire Danes and doesn't let up from there: Vanessa Redgrave, Patrick Wilson, Meryl Streep and Glenn Close fill out the other major and minor roles in the film.

I can't really say anything negative about this film at all, though Hugh Dancy's struggle to have his character emerge from utter one-dimensionality is in the end a total loss. Playing the spoiled, lovable drunk offspring of the obscenely rich who puts up a front of great bravado but is secretly scared stiff of never amounting to anything probably doesn't offer much in the way of character exploration - he had his orders and stuck to them.

In the end, gentlemen, your lady friend will most certainly weep, and while you'll likely not feel nearly as affected, the evening will definitely not be a waste for the time spent watching Evening. Catch it in theatres or grab it as a rental to trade off for points for when you want to be accompanied to a viewing of Die Hard 4 or the upcoming Rambo flick. It'll be your little secret that this viewing didn't really cost you much at all. Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening. Halfway through Lajos Koltai's "Evening," a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: "Can you tell me where my life went?" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.

Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's "Away from Her." Hollywood might have turned "Evening" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.

Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of "Mephisto," and director of "Fateless" - created a subtle ensemble work with a "Continental feel," the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.

Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise "Evening" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.

Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.

And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of "Evening" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.

As with "Away from Her," "Evening" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn. I saw this movie Sunday afternoon. I absolutely loved this movie. I loved everything about it, from the sappy moments of mothers and daughters to the scenes where Mamie Gummer (Lila) is crying because of her poor decision in marrying a man for her parents and not because she is truly in love. I loved these moments because they were just so real. At first I was seriously scared because I was hoping that it would not end up like Bobby, which was a great cast but a poorly written movie with no real meat to it. But during the middle of the movie i felt completely different. You will laugh and you will cry but in the end you will want to see Evening one more time. Trust me when i say GO SEE IT! I had the pleasure of viewing this beautiful film last night, with the wonderful addition of a question and answer session with the director following the viewing. I suspect that the first commenter has never lost a parent or someone very close to them in death. I have had many such losses, and this movie spoke to me. One of the major themes is how we don't deal with questions/issues/stories with our loved ones until it's too late--they're too incapacitated or dead before that happens. Talk to your loved ones, listen to and record their stories, tell people you love them, resolve differences. I loved the message that there are no mistakes. I love the director's portrayal of the relationship of the two daughters--as one of six siblings, it's clear to me he understood how complex those relationships are. His history as a cinematographer also comes through loud and clear--what a beautiful movie! The casting is outstanding--a film not to be missed! This movie struck home for me. Being 29, I remember the '80's and my father working in a factory. I figured, if I worked hard too, if I had pride and never gave up I too could have the American Dream, the house, a few kids, a car all to call my own. I've noted however, without a degree in something (unlike my father that quit at ninth grade) and a keen sense of greed and laziness, you can't get anywhere.

I would like to know if anyone has this movie on DVD or VHS. it's made for TV, and I just saw it an hour ago. Ic an't find it anywhere! I'd love to show this to my friends, my pseudo friends, family and other relatives, see what they think and remind them that once upon a time, Americans WOULD work for the sake of feeling honor and that we had pride in what we accomplished!! I think the feeling is still there, but in a heavy downward spiral with so many things being made overseas... While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.

Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.

John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.

Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.

There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.

Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10. Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down "depth charges" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment.

Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks "What did I do wrong?" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible.

Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: "Can you do this every day?" Emory is forced to nod "No" and the manager asks: "Then what were you trying to prove?" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day "We just spit in your eye." Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it.

This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. This is good little shocker; not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but tight, competent and disturbing. An excellent example of a simple idea developed into a compelling 90 minute script.

The set up requires no bells and whistles, no lengthy exposition or wordy back story; Kate (Franka Pontente), a young German business woman living in London, drifts off whilst waiting for the last tube train. She awakens to find the place deserted, but quickly comes to realise that she is far from alone. Someone, or something, is down there with her and it's intentions are wholly malicious.

In fact she encounters several other characters in her quest to survive, including a lecherous work colleague, a homeless couple and a caged sewage worker, all of whom add pace and substance to the plot. There is a slightly awkward gear change somewhere in the middle of the film when tension thriller mutates into gore fest, but nothing so clumsy as to slow the hectic pace. For those of you with weak dispositions this is likely to be a harrowing ride; for those of you who relish a bit of well executed carnal mayhem this should press all the right buttons.

The climax of the film is perhaps less successful than the main body of the film, but it is punctuated with a nice moment of unexpected social commentary which provides a satisfying conclusion.

Some may find themselves feeling somewhat cheated of a clear explanation as to the exact nature and history of the threat encountered by Kate and her confederates, however, for me this was not the case. A horror film writer should not need feel compelled to dot every i and cross every t, in the same way a writer of political thrillers might be expected to. There are enough clues here to give you a very pretty clear idea of what brought this evil into existence, making a detailed and conclusive solution superfluous. The retention of a certain sense of mystery is to be welcomed and reminds us that in this film the ride was always going to be more important than the exact destination.

My understanding is that the budget for this film was, to say the least, minimal, in which case our applause for this British horror should be all the louder, for at no point does one have the impression of corners being cut or effects failing to deliver.

If this sounds like your kind of film then it probably is. Buy a ticket and climb aboard. I just saw this film last night at Toronto Film Festival where it was playing under the Midnight Madness section. To tell you the truth, the only reason why I went for this movie was because it shared its name with the Radiohead song, and also because my friend had bought the tickets so I really didn't have a choice :-D I went in expecting it to be something like The Silence of the Lambs, but it turned out to be semi-gore flick. Somebody has already mentioned that none of the characters are likable, and that is absolutely correct. I really couldn't care less if Potente's character got her entrails ripped out by the Creep. I was rooting for the homeless to make it out alive with Potente's character getting her just desserts. Christopher Smith has certainly done a great job with the visual aspect of the film. However, the story is rather weak, but then again the whole point of the movie was to scare the crap out of you and it did that quite effectively. The score by a Bristol band called The Insects was top notch. That, more than anything else, really scared the crap out of me.

The director was a really decent chap and was quite entertaining during the Q&A session. I really do hope he gets to make better films in the future.

This one is strictly for genre fans, but I'd recommend non-fans to give this a try anyway. It was a fun ride. STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

Stuck-up career bitch Kate (Franka Potente) heads to the London underground to catch a train to take her to meet George Clooney. However, after a hectic working day, she dozes off and awakens to find herself alone in a deserted platform. As she races off on a situation taking her from one daunting encounter to the next, however, she learns of something far more malign and evil waiting for her out there.

In a lot of ways, the British Film Industry is really becoming one on it's own, especially in the horror thriller department, with films such as Creep and the successful 28 Days Later (which this has strong echoes of in parts.) In terms of succeeding in what it set out to do, Creep does cleverly create (especially at the beginning) a scary sense of isolation and tense fear. At it's clever running time, it also (though inadvertently, I suspect) manages to pay homage to some of those pioneer high-concept horror films from the 70s that rely on shocks and fear through-out without really focusing too much on character development and such.

Of it's weaknesses, some scenes are a little predictable, but these don't really succeed in making it less scary or effective in any way. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to make it come off as some sort of morality play and it's not exactly perfect, but it's certainly very effective and serves it's basic function very well. *** "Creep" is a new horror film that, without a doubt, will please many genre fans simply because it's so down to the point and unscrupulous! It has many genuine shock-moments, a whole lot of repulsive gore-sequences and a rare claustrophobic tension. What it hasn't got is logic and a solid plot but, to tell you the truth, that didn't bother me for one second. When the end-credits start to roll, there are still many unanswered questions to ponder on but director/writer Christopher Smith (in his debut) seemly preferred to fully focus on tension and adrenalin-rushing action instead of long, soporific speeches and theories that could explain the existence of the "creep" in the London subway. The story revolves on the young and haughty Kate, who leaves her own party in order to go and meet the famous actor George Clooney who's in town to present his new film. She falls asleep in the subway, misses the last train and she finds herself trapped in the underground subway network. Things really get terrifying when she encounters a mad-raving lunatic who lives in the old tunnels and kills/kidnaps people to experiment upon. Even experienced homeless people, security guards or sewer-workers can't rescue her from this ravenous monster! I really dug the creep-character! He's nauseating, hideous and primitive but in a strange way fascinating. Christopher Smith only leaves us clues and hints, and it's merely up to the viewer to guess this vile creature's origin and background. I reckon this isn't very original, and I'm sure many people won't appreciate the lack of content, but I forgive Smith and I think it's better this way than going over the top completely, "Jeepers Creepers"-style (that particular film started out great as well, but as soon as the Creeper's identity was clear it turned into a very mediocre horror effort). The obvious aspect-to-love is the outrageous gore! There's some severe butchering going on in this film and the make-up, as well as the sound effects, are very convincing. The ominous setting of the abandoned London subway during night is effectively used. There also is some acting-talent present in this film, with Franka Potenta (Run Lola Run) returning to graphic horror nearly five years after the cool German film "Anatomie". Creep is terrific entertainment when you're in an undemanding mood and Christopher Smith definitely is a director I'll keep an eye on. Make sure you don't have to take the subway right after watching this film... CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine. Firstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.

Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing.

There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?

A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.

Look forward to more of these fantastic films!! This film exceeded my expectations. I thought and have heard that it was going to be rubbish, so i wasn't expecting much. However, i was pleasantly surprised. At first i didn't take well to the lead girl and didn't really care if she lived or died. After a while she definitely grew on me and became a likable character. It's not just some slasher film where people die for no reason. There is a background story that only takes a few seconds of the film, but explains a lot. I would recommend this film to everyone. If you're not sure just watch it anyway, it's only an hour and a half of your life. You're going to live for 80 years anyway. Christopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares. - SMALL SPOILER HEREIN! -

When I looked at the votes for "Creep" today, I was surprised about so many IMDb-users rating this movie "1". I am wondering: what do people expect of such kind of movie? Are there so many people watching a movie without knowing anything about it?

"Creep" is a HORROR movie and it is a pretty good one! This automatically means: it has a absurd story full of holes, outrageous hazards and simple one-side-characters. So why complain about it? Just take some popcorn and coke, make yourself comfortable in your seat and then... ...enjoy to be scared to death! The first 60 minutes when there is almost nothing else than Kate and a lonely subway station are incredibly scaring. There is suspense and fear in every corner of the screen and you will give some jerks just because of a sudden sound of a blinking neon lamp in the back of you. (In my opinion the sound editor did the best job in this movie.)

When Kate meet her pursuer the quality of the movie drops but it still doesn't become a bad movie. The second part of the movie is not scary at all, but the gore effects are well done and the story is quite well developed. (...as long as you keep in mind that it is a horror movie you are watching and not the Discovery Channel!) So, if you want to make yourself a very, very scaring hour. Just watch the first hour of "Creep" and then leave the cinema or turn of your TV. You know the rest of the story anyway, don't you? The bad guy will die and Kate will be the only survivor. But even if you watch this movie up to its end, you will not be disappointed.

...and if you want to push anxiety to the next level, do what I did after watching this movie: leave the cinema by dark night, go to the next subway station and take the last train home... Well i am going to go against the grain on this film so it seems. Being a self confessed horror fan I sat down to this not quite knowing what to expect. After 2 or 3 mins i actually found myself scared (quite rare). The film obviously has a small budget and is set around charing cross station but the films lack of money does not distract from the story. Yes the story is a bit far fetched and doesn't explain itself very well but THE CREEP is a class act and proceeds to slash and dismember anything that comes its way. MESSAGE FOR LADIES !!! THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE FILM YOU SHOULD CLOSE YOUR EYES AT OR AT LEAST CROSS YOUR LEGS !! you will understand when you see it.

All in all a good film and it makes a change to see a good slasher movie that actually scares I've never been huge on IMAX films. They're cool, but once you get over that initial rush of "Whoa, it feels like flying!" the movies themselves are usually pretty corny and ordinary.

The exceptions have been the powerful "Everest", the exhilarating "Wild California" and now the BBC's "The Human Body", a super-sized look at the insides of our bodies.

Our bodies are machines of a complexity that is simply inconceivable. This 50 minute film could be 10 hours long, and still wouldn't get to all of the systems working in tandem just as I type this review and listen to my radio, and most of us take it all for granted.

Here you can see the inside of a pumping heart (looks like an alien spaceship), the inside of your lungs, the tiny hairs in your eardrum that process sound, the development of a baby inside a mother's womb, and surprisingly, a few of the...um, less attractive functions that I thought it would shy away from (pimples, the churning of acids in the stomach...)

This film also has a rather funky style to it, which sets it apart from other IMAX documentaries. For instance, we've all seen sperm finding its way to the egg, but have you ever seen it set to the tune of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"? It's creative moments like that that make "The Human Body" not just a health lesson, but fun as well. Actually, the answer only occupies a tiny portion of this excellent Imax movie that educates us on our delicate selves. C.G. and special cameras--assisted by Imax--incredibly display the inner (and outer) workings of an average human, be it adult men and women, boys and girls, or babies. Nearly every human body part aspect is specifically detailed: digestion, reproduction (featuring a Marvin Gaye hit), the heart, etc. Some especially revealing moments include how an infant can be immersed underwater and also how the brain's impulses look. It is amazing how we function.

The subject matter skips around an awful lot. But at all times we still learn a hell of a lot about our bodies that we should be *required* to know.

Human Body --- WoW.

There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....

Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....

Our days are limited...

Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...

Thanks and Regards.

Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.

The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again. The Man from Snowy River II doesn't reinvent the wheel but is a crowd-pleasing beautiful film that hits some great notes.

For those fans wanting the elements that made the original Man From Snowy River film a hit, (breathtaking scenery, sweeping score, sweet romanticism and cracking action) this film really delivers. This story picks up a few years from the end of the first, Jim (Tom Burlinson) has been away gathering his fortune in a brood of stock horses. He returns to pick up where he left off with his pluckish well-bred sweetheart Jessica (played by Aussie divine lady Sigrid Thornton) who is still attempting to break out of her corseted upbringing on her feather's cattle station (Harrison is now played by American Brian Dennehy). The foil to Jim and character that shakes the plot is the well-to-do upper class snob Alistair Patton (Nicholas Eadie) who has his sights on Jessica. Add to the mix some social tension surrounding landholdings and the stallion with a bad attitude from the first film and that's the plot.

The best thing about this film is the acting. Tom Burlinson fits snugly into Jim's wide brim hat and laconic humour. Sigrid Thornton is a lovely heroine and the two manage some real chemistry on screen. Filling the solid shoes of Kirk Douglas was never going to be easy and Brian Dennehy stomps and shouts but never feels very authentic in this part.

The music is sweeping and lush and the cinematography could be a roll from a Victoria tourism reel. There are moment however that feel very self-indulgent, like the director wants just one more helicopter shot of the riders to show how gorgeous the landscape is without some personal human drama. A little more grit would have sufficed here, we are Aussie's, we can take it!! There are some very JAWSish moments with the stallion that defy belief. However the funny thing about this film is that in amongst some glaring clichés, there are some really inventive and touching scenes. Jim putting the saddle on the stallion (VERY Horse Whisperish before its time) Jim and Jessica setting up home, the fabulous scene where Jim shows up Alistair's riding with his trusty whip. I can see why this character is such an icon.

Altogether a very pleasing sequel. Here's hoping everyone involved wants to make another. the Man From Snowy River III: The CRAIGS. I'm sure we'd all love to see how Jim and Jessica are doing on their farm.

The Aussie DVD has a couple of extra scenes in it. Worthwhile if you are already a fan. As a horse lover one can only appreciate this movie. There are few movies that show horsemanship as this one does. I would love to know if Brian does his own riding in the film. Would also like to know if he enjoys horses. Brian has been in a lot of movies where he has ridden. Where did he learn to ride? The only part that is hard for me to take is that the riding scenes are always full tilt, like a horse can run forever at full steam. The camera-work is first rate and captures the horses in a way that shows how dangerous things can be on top of a horse. It would be very interesting to know how they went about casting this movie to find all of the very good horseback riders. Burlinson and Thornton give an outstanding performance in this movie, along with Dennehy. Although it is at first thought to be only about love, it really goes down deeper than that. The beauty of nature captures this movie, placing among one of the best I have ever seen. The horse scenes are absolutely fantastic!! Any horse-lovers out there will love this movie!

What can be said of the compelling performance of Tara Fitzgerald? She is utterly believable as the injured Mrs Graham, hardened by experience, sharp and strong-willed, yet not immune to the passionate attentions of Mr Markham. Through every mischievous glance and every flare of temper, every flicker of discernment in his eyes and telling facial expression, Toby Stephens is a master of his character. He is the force of passion and hope that will restore Helen's injured spirit. Graves' Huntingdon is a perfect performance of the unreformable rogue. Yet despite all he has done, there is an undeniable human dignity in his refusal to play the hypocrite at the end; he is at least aware of his own failings and how they have brought his ruin. Helen's attempt to save his soul-- after leaving him and taking their child at a time when this was unheard of--is a triumph of hope, hope and faith in the worth of every human life and soul, however misguided, however sinful that person may be. Markham's constancy may then be seen as her reward for her faith and unyielding moral character. Though the opinionated ideas of morality so strongly presented in Tenant seem outdated by today's standards, the story is imbued with integrity, passion, and conviction which still make an impact. Tenant is far more believable than Wuthering Heights or even Jane Eyre; here is an adaptation that does the novel justice. I highly recommend viewing it! I first saw this mini-series a number of years ago on British television and was immediately captivated by the story. This rather surprised me as I am not a great fan of either 'Jane Eyre' or 'Wuthering Heights'; I consider the heroine of the former to be a self-righteous bore, and the latter piece of work as overblown claptrap.

'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', like the aforementioned works, is also somewhat depressing in parts. However, the darker parts of the film were offset by the excitement of Helen's escape, the breathtakingly wild and beautiful landscape of Yorkshire, and the sexual magnetism of Toby Stephens.

This film successfully portrays the frustratingly restrictive lifestyle of all women of the time. At best they suffered from a form of minor domestic tyranny as portrayed by the treatment of the womenfolk in the Markham household. At the other end of the scale, there is the unfortunate Helen who is married to a wealthy man of high estate, but is exposed to brutality and humiliation alternating with long periods of neglect. She runs away and experiences a brief moment of freedom but, as a women of mystery living alone in a rural community, she inevitably becomes the subject of spiteful gossip and speculation.

Tara Fitzgerald is excellent as the long-suffering Helen Markham. Not only incredibly beautiful (in spite of that terribly unflattering hairstyle) with the most amazing cheekbones, she is also more than capable of playing the central role in the film. Tara is dignified and aloof while, at the same time, allowing us to see that Helen is still dangerously vulnerable. Rupert Graves IS the depraved, yet curiously attractive Arthur Huntingdon - after seeing him, I could never imagine another actor playing that part. Pam Ferris deserves special mention for her role as Gilbert's indulgent mother, as does the actress who played his sister Rose, and Simon Carter who is the uncharitable vicar with a taste for the Good Things in Life. Finally, I could watch this film for Toby Stephens alone; he is so good-looking,rugged, sexy, sensitive (but not in a nauseatingly sentimental way). I am not even sure if he is a good actor as my hormones prevent me from judging him objectively!

If there is a fault with the film it is the use of flashbacks which I felt both interfered with the flow of the story and made it slightly confusing. Other people, who have watched this film with me, also had problems with this, and I found I had to explain to them that certain scenes were in fact retrospective.

I am extremely grateful for the people responsible for making this film. Not only did I puchase the video (a rare occurrence), but it led me to buy Anne Bronte's superb novel. Naturally, this was better than the film, but only by a narrow margin. I recommend that anyone interested should watch the film and then read the book in that order.

Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the "real" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.

Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.

Excellent acting and great locations. I loved this mini series. Tara Fitzgerald did an incredible job portraying Helen Graham, a beautiful young woman hiding, along with her young son, from a mysterious past. As an anglophile who loves romances... this movie was just my cup of tea and I would recommend it to anyone looking to escape for a few hours into the England of the 1800's. I also must mention that Toby Stephens who portrays the very magnetic Gilbert Markham is reason enough to watch this wonderful production. Spoilers.....

I saw the original on TV sometime ago and remembered this production as less gripping than most Beeb costume drama. I rewatched on DVD this week and still have the same impression of it. It's a good story at first, but weakens when the heroine becomes oh so terribly brave and noble and returns to her utterly vile husband when he's ill and I got so totally irritated with her saintliness. I suppose this was the "right thing to do" when the story was written as well as contributing plenty of angst, and it was difficult for a woman to be independent of her husband as marriage made her no more than his possession, let alone to carry on scandalously with a lover as I expect a lot of the modern audience would have liked to see. But it's hard to take the santimoniousness nowadays and especially when this heroine had a strong, brave admirer ready to defend her against anyone and everyone. So re the story as in the film I'm equivocal. It's well done as per the novel, but somewhat irritating as per today's kind of life.

Steadfast hero Gilbert was certainly a saint to put up with his ladylove's variable and often cryptic behaviour and persistent self-denial and to be so consistently supportive. So I felt it a great shame that when Helen was at long last free to be with him, the script didn't allow him a bit more than about one minute to fall on each other for a quick hug before the titles came up. This was completely ridiculous when we'd been waiting all this time through all that dripping sentiment over the undeserving husband for a decent bit of dialogue and a good embrace between hero and heroine. Instead, the ending was as though the film makers had run out of time or finance or just couldn't be bothered. "Here you are - one minute, do what you can in that, then cut as the director wants to go home now....." I was left feeling totally dissasatisfied.

However, very high commendations to the acting of Toby Stephens a perfect and very handsome hero, and Rupert Graves a superbly nasty and self-pitying villain. Tara Fitzgerald was satisfactory within the confines of the script that forced her to be a depressing and rather sanctimonious victim so much of the time.

That said, I love these classic dramas and virtually all of them are a sight better than much of the "modern" drama on TV these days. So 7 stars because in spite of the irritations it's still a good watch. The only complaint I have about this adaptation is that it is sexed-up. Things that were only hinted at in the novel are shown on-screen for some weird reason. Did they think the audience would be too stupid to understand if they were not shown everything out-right? Other than that, this is very good-quality. All the actors do marvelous jobs bringing their characters to life. For the shallow women out there, it's worth watching at least because Toby Stephens as Gilbert is the sexiest thing ever. If I were Helen I would have conveniently forgotten I was still married the minute I laid eyes on him...

Sort of a spoiler- The ending scene is a funny reversal of what happened in the book. I imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.

It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets – bodily, mental, societal – her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.

The actors are superb – the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised. CONTAINS SPOILERS!

I saw an advert for this on a video.Then my sister discovered that we had the book so I read it.I rented the video on the same day I finished the book.I thought it was very memorable as was the book. The cast was brilliant.Tara Fitzgerald was excellent as Helen and Rupert Graves was hateful as Arthur.The costumes,music and settings are stunningly beautiful.

WARNING!DON`T READ ANY MORE IF YOU HAVEN`T WATCHED THIS

On the downside there are some sex scenes that have been added in and some violence.This is why the video is rated 15. There are some other things that have been thrown in.After the first part,I felt that the accuracy went downhill. While the book is better than this,I am glad I have seen it and would reccomend it to people who have read the book,are fans of Bronte or like costume dramas(I am all 3!)as long as you fastforward through the sex scenes. The book is rather underated.Anne Brontes books don`t seem to be that widely read or well known as Jane Erye or Wuthering Heights which have made it into television and film several times. Another thing.When I read the book ,I was surprised at how much religion ther was in it,but here they had axed that all out!

7\10 The way the story is developed, keeps the audience wondering what is the tenant's dark past. We get some clues during the series, but enough to keep us interested in the mini-series. The characters are all believable and I personally felt immersed and surrounded by the story. I loved it so much that I bought the DVD and the novel at the same time. The chemistry between the actors (including little Arthur) is amazing and thrilling.

It could have used a bit more screen time for the yummy Frederick Lawrence (played by James Purefoy). And Gilbert Markham was amazingly "on it" from the very start of the movie.

The one who most thrilled me via surprising shock and awe and wonder was Rupert Graves as Arthur Huntingdon. I adore him in Forsyte Saga, and all else I've seen him in. But he outdoes himself here as Arthur. In my wildest dreams I could not have pictured him playing a demented psycho such as Arthur Huntingdon. But he does. And I love it. And I love him. After reading only two of the comments herein, as a lifelong Bronte fan, beginning with Olivier's Heathcliff and enduring with the many versions of Charlotte's "Rochester," it is more than eye-opening to see that it is the UNsung Bronte sister who gave the lie to the male-chauvinist period the trio inhabited. Of course, the "miracle" in all three versions of 19th-Century British domesticity is that the "girls" were all "spinsters" and their only realistic brushes with "men" were their vicar father and their wastrel? brother. That said, finally, it is ANNE Bronte who has, in her single assay?, proved the "feminist" point, way way ahead of contemporary types, and including the "voting franchise" ranks. However, history evinces more than a few who preceded, including the Greek heterai and Sappho and the likes of an ancient emperor's Yang Kuei-fei. And how about "Eve" and her apple? Higher and Higher was one of Rodgers&Hart's lesser Broadway musicals it only had a run of 84 performances on Broadway in 1940. Yet it yielded one of their bigger hits It Never Entered My Mind.

Nevertheless except for one minor song, So Disgustingly Rich, the entire Broadway score was scrapped when RKO bought the film rights. Instead a whole new score by Jimmy McHugh and Harold Adamson was written, mostly to accommodate one Francis Albert Sinatra who was making his feature film debut.

Sinatra who had done some vocal cameos in previous films, takes a leaf from the page of his singing rival Bing Crosby. When Bing did his feature film debut in The Big Broadcast, he played Bing Crosby. Frank Sinatra took on the role of Frank Sinatra and I can't think of anyone who could have done a better job.

The Chairman of the Board is billed third here behind stars Jack Haley and Michele Morgan. He's the butler and she's the scullery maid to Leon Errol. In fact Errol is a millionaire who hasn't paid his help for seven months. Mainly because he's about to go belly up into chapter 11 or so he informs the staff.

Errol's a delightful old soul to work for and none of the staff want to lose a good thing. They pool their resources and get Michele Morgan to impersonate Errol's daughter who's over in Switzerland with her mother. The idea being to snag a rich bankroll in the hopes rescuing the family fortune. Only Michele starts looking at another.

It's a slight plot and certainly no worse than a whole lot of musicals, but RKO invested this film with a good cast of players. Barbara Hale and Elizabeth Risdon play another débutante and her mother who suspect something's not right, Victor Borge is a fortune seeking no account, Dooley Wilson, Paul Hartman, Grace Hartman, Marcy McGuire, Mel Torme and Mary Wickes, play others of the Errol household staff. Not a bad bunch at all.

Sinatra sang three good ballads all of them had some kind of commercial success, The Music Stopped, A Lovely Way to Spend an Evening, and I Couldn't Sleep a Wink Last Night. The last one was nominated for an Oscar for Best Song, but lost to Alice Faye's You'll Never Know.

1943 was the year of the Musician's Union Strike against the recording industry. To get their material out, Frank Sinatra recorded the songs from Higher and Higher with an acapella chorus for Columbia. Bing Crosby recorded songs from his film Dixie in the same manner for Decca. Both of them were denounced by the president of the union, James C. Petrillo as strikebreakers and both did not cross the picket line again. The strike wasn't settle completely until 1944 although Decca broke ranks earlier from the other record companies and settled earlier than Columbia, RCA Victor and the others.

The strike provided some anxious moments for Sinatra. He had just left the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra when the strike was called. It closed off a needed venue for his artistry when he wasn't sure whether leaving Dorsey would prove to be a right career move.

Fortunately Higher and Higher was received well a legend was launched. This may not be one of the best movies ever made but overall it's a very enjoyable, light-hearted piece of froth in which everyone involved seems to be having a good time. Highly recommended for it's feel-good factor alone. OK, so Frank Sinatra's "acting" leaves a lot to be desired but his singing is a great redeeming feature and the songs fit in perfectly with the romantic atmosphere of the film. Sinatra went on to make many more films where his undoubted acting ability shone through but in this, his first venture into Hollywood, his voice, not his acting, is his main contribution to this movie. I've just watched it again on TV and it still lifts my mood as much as it did the first time I saw it many many years ago. Mel Torme and Victor Borge, in their younger years, serve to make this film interesting - and especially viewing a young Sinatra, on the sunny side of 30, and definitely conveying that this was his "yes, I'm a popular singer, but hardly an actor yet" stage. Michele Morgan is an annoying, inane presence, and Jack Haley is an actor whose appeal has always been totally lost on me. Leon Erroll is silly, as always, but overall pretty funny. 7 stars of a potential 10 is about the right "grade," because with the combination of its positive aspects, along with the lack of much of a story, and a silly one at that, and the fore-mentioned annoyances - it is overall average at best. Most of the fascination is from the viewing of the three entertainment icons in their early years. In Frank Sinatra's first three films, he was purely a speciality act: ostensibly playing himself, he merely shows up to croon a song during a nightclub sequence in somebody else's movie. In his fourth film, the very enjoyable 'Higher and Higher', Young Blue Eyes transitions into an acting career by playing an actual role ... a task made easier because he's playing himself in a fictional story that gives him a chance to croon a few numbers.

Sinatra's entrance is quite funny. Michele Morgan hears a knock at the door, and asks who's there. From outside, a Hoboken-toned voice answers 'Frank Sinatra'. Sure enough...

The opening credits of 'Higher and Higher' may confuse some viewers, as the names of songwriters Rodgers and Hart are prominently displayed. In fact, they only contributed one song to this musical: 'Disgustingly Rich', which this cast manage to toss off as a sort of intro to an entirely different song, 'I'm a Debutante'. Interestingly, that Rodgers & Hart song -- one of their weakest -- is perhaps the least enjoyable song in this movie's score; several others are lively up-tempo numbers, notably 'It's a Most Important Affair', 'When It Comes to Love, You're On Your Own' and 'I Saw You First'.

Sinatra's good in this movie, but he would do better work (and sing better material) elsewhere. The real merits of 'Higher and Higher' are the delightful turns by some performers who rarely made films. Paul and Grace Hartman were an extremely popular husband-wife dance team who starred in several Broadway revues: genuinely graceful ballroom dancers, they put plenty of physical comedy into their dance material. (Here, Grace does a high kick that knocks a shoe out of Paul's hands.) Grace Hartman, who died of cancer at age 48, did almost no film work, so it's a real pleasure that this film gives us a rare chance to see her close-up, to hear her beautiful singing voice and to notice how sexy she looks in her maid's uniform. After Grace Hartman's death, her husband had a long career as a character actor, just occasionally dancing solo. (Or alongside Ken Berry in one memorable episode of 'Mayberry RFD'.)

Also quite attractive in a maid's uniform here in 'Higher and Higher' is the vivacious teenage singer Marcy McGuire. Why didn't this talented girl make more movies? Perhaps she was just a bit too similar in personality to Betty Hutton. I enjoy Hutton's performances but I like Marcy McGuire even better. Near the end of 'Higher and Higher' there's an amusing bit of physical business featuring McGuire and Mary Wickes as waitresses, taking it in turns to move from table to table in a nightclub. The alternating strides of short McGuire and tall gawky Wickes are hilarious! Regrettably, although Leon Errol plays a large role in 'Higher and Higher', he is given almost no comedy business: not once does he do his famous rubber-legged dance. Jack Haley, despite his prominent billing, is also wasted.

Very well-represented here is Dooley Wilson, inevitably remembered as Sam from 'Casablanca'. In that film, Wilson did his own singing but faked his keyboard performance of 'As Time Goes By'. (In real life, Wilson couldn't play piano.) Here in 'Higher and Higher', he sings pleasingly and gives some amusing reactions to the other players. Less enjoyable is Mel Odious, I mean Mel Torme. Victor Borge gives a rare film performance here, handling his dialogue deftly but never doing any of the keyboard comedy which he later did successfully in his stage shows.

The plot? Forget it. 'Higher and Higher' is nobody's idea of a 'great' musical, but it's an enjoyable delight, and I'll rate it 8 out of 10. Director Tim Whelan, who worked in Britain as well as in Hollywood, deserves to be much better known. This is one of my all-time favorites. Great music and some funny bits. I laugh every time at Millie, the maid pretending to be a débutante, holding her dainty hankie while chatting, and mindlessly polishing furniture with it as she chats. I just never can get past her French accent never being a problem as they try to pass her off as the boss's daughter.

Seeing a teenage Mel Torme and the very young Frank Sinatra singing is such a treat. My mom saw Frank Sinatra at a theater about the same time this movie came out. She said they couldn't clear the "bobby-soxers" out between movies (in those days you didn't have to leave between showings). This movie shows you how attractive and appealing the young Frank was and allows you to appreciate his early talent as well. And Victor Borge gets in a bit of his routine in, which is a bonus.

This is a fun movie with a sweet, simple storyline. Very enjoyable. If you have never viewed this film and like old time veteran actors, this is the film for you. Seeing Frank Sinatra when he was very young and extremely thin with sunken in cheeks and a wonderful voice which sang some great old songs. Michele Morgan, (Millie Pico) gave an outstanding performance with plenty of dance and musical numbers. Leon Errol, (Cyrus Drake) gave a great supporting role along with Victor Borge, (Sir Victor Fitzroy Victor) who performed classical piano and no slap stick comedy like he did in his career. This is not a great musical, but Frank Sinatra was a great joy to see at the beginning of his career in the 1940's. I thought this movie was pretty good. Some parts were corny but that's understandable since it was made more than 55 years ago. I thought the best performance in the movie was given by Michele Morgan who played Millie convincingly. Jack Haley is also really good as Mike O'Brien. Even though I'm not a big Frank Sinatra fan, I think he was very good in this movie. If your have a craving for a silly, over the top musical comedy, Higher and Higher is the movie for you.

Paul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one. The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!

All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.

I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. My personal opinion is that this movie had no real story line to the first john carpenter's vampires but i don't care I LOVED IT. Jon Bon Jovi (Derek) was great in this movie. He really mad me believe that he was the person you would never think he was a famous ROCKSTAR. There were some bad things about this movie. Like the story line,there should have been more to the movie.there should have been a sequel to the movie that followed the movies story line and they should have kept the same main characters in all three vampires movies. i really liked the clothes that the people wore and the setting they pick in Mexico. i liked how it was old Mexico and not new Mexico. with the clay houses and the old fashion churches. i was a little confused with the vampires and how they were able to walk in churches but it was cool how they didn't follow Dracula vampire rules. At this point it seems almost unnecessary to state that Jon Bon Jovi delivers a firm, strong, seamless performance as Derek Bliss. His capability as an actor has been previously established by his critical acclaim garnered in other films (The Leading Man, No Looking Back). But, in case anyone is still wondering, yes, Jon Bon Jovi can act. He can act well and that's come to be expected of him. It's easy to separate Derek from the guy who belts out hits on VH-1.

I generally would not watch a horror movie. I've come to expect them to focus on sensationalistic gore rather than dialogue and plot. What pleased me most about this film was that there really was a viable plot being moved along. The gore is not so much as to become the focus of the film and does not have a disturbingly realistic quality of films with higher technical effects budgets. So, gore fans might be disappointed, but story fans will not.

Unlike an action film like U-571 where the dialogue takes a back seat to the bombast, we get a chance to know "the good guys" and actually care what happens to them. A few scenes are left unexplained (like Derek's hallucinations) but you get the feeling certain aspects were as they were to lay the foundation for a sequel. Unfortunately, with the lack of interest shown by Hollywood in this film, that sequel will never happen. These few instances are forgiveable knowing that Vampires could have been a continuing series.

Is this the best film I've ever seen in my life? No. Is it a good way to spend about two hours being entertained? Yes. It won't leave the person who fears horror movies with insomnia and it won't leave the horror movie lover completely disappointed either. If you're somewhere in between the horror genre loather and the horror genre lover, this film is for you. It reaches a happy medium with the effects and story balancing each other.

Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10) I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.

Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.

The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.

If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else. The main problem of the first "Vampires" movie is that none of the characters were sympathetic. Carpenter learned from his mistake and this time used a likable vampire hunter and a charismatic vampire. The female vampire Una certainly is the coolest vampire since Blade's Deacon Frost. Unfortunately while there are some good concepts like a cool slow motion restaurant scene (why didn't Carpenter use more of this??) this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been. I expected to see strong vampires in action and at least one longer lasting nicely choreographed fight sequence (for example inside a city) and was left somewhat disappointed. While "Los Muertos" proceeds at a faster pace than its predecessor, it still drags a little in some parts (though nowhere near as bad as "Vampires" did). Much like "Vampires" however this movie's climax near the end is not very intense.

Most of the above may sound like "Los Muertos" is a bad movie but it definitely isn't. It is generally enjoyable and ranks among the better entries to the genre. It is neither an unoriginal Dracula remake (like almost every other vampire movie out there) nor is it an unintelligent action spectacle like Blade II. It simply could have used a bit more excitement.

I'd really like to see a third installment made by Carpenter but it's probably not going to happen.

SPOILER WARNING The ending was way too predictable. Una should have gotten away- that would have made the movie quite unusual. To a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month. I was lucky to see "Oliver!" in 1968 on a big cinema screen in Boston when I was a young teenager. Later, during the summer of 1969, I was pleased to see this film was still playing at a prominent cinema in Leicester Square, London, after it had won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the previous year.

Th success of "Oliver!" on both the stage and screen reminded me that not all talent begins on Broadway and ends in Hollywood. This legendary story by Charles Dickens, which is part of the literary heritage of all English-speaking people, was admirably brought to the London stage by Lionel Bart of Great Britain. His charming musical then became a hit in New York and throughout the world. The film adaptation was made in England during the summer of 1967 and then released in 1968. The sets and musical numbers are mind boggling. The song "Who Will Buy?" required hundreds of actors and the British film director truly deserved his Oscar for putting it all together in a seamless manner. Some Canadian and American talent is also part of this wonderful production, but mostly it is a tribute to the fine craftsmanship of the British film studios, such as Shepperton. Good show! Other film studios at Elstree, Boreham Wood, Bray, Denham, and Ealing have also given the world many films to treasure over the years. I took part in a little mini production of this when I was a bout 8 at school and my mum bought the video for me. I've loved it ever since!! When I was younger, it was the songs and spectacular dance sequences that I enjoyed but since I've watched it when I got older, I appreciate more the fantastic acting and character portrayal. Oliver Reed and Ron Moody were brilliant. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bill Sykes or Fagin. Shani Wallis' Nancy if the best character for me. She put up with so much for those boys, I think she's such a strong character and her final scene when... Well, you know... Always makes me cry! Best musical in my opinion of all time. It's lasted all this time, it will live on for many more years to come! 11/10!! Oliver! the musical is a favorite of mine. The music, the characters, the story. It all just seems perfect. In this rendition of the timeless classic novel turned stage musical, director Carol Reed brings the Broadway hit to life on the movie screen.

The transition from musical to movie musical is not an easy one. You have to have the right voices, the right set, the right script, and the right play. All signs point to yes for this play. It almost appears that it was written for the screen!

Our story takes place in jolly old England where a boy named Oliver manages to work his way out of the orphanage. He winds his way through the country to London where he meets up with a group of juvenile delinquents, headed by Dodger, the smart talking, quick handed pick-pocket. The leader of this gang is named Fagin, an older fellow who sells all the stolen goods.

But all is not well in London town when Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed and his loving girlfriend Nancy get tangled up with Oliver, Fagin and his young troops, and the law. What ensues is a marvelous tale of love, affection, and great musical numbers.

Whether or not you like musicals or not, one listen to these tunes and you will be humming them all day long. Oliver! is a triumph on and off the stage and is a timeless work of art. In Cinema Retro magazine #2,it is revealed that Mark Lester's voice was actually dubbed by a 20 year old female, Kathe Green. Although Leste was considered perfect for the title role, director Carol Reed was not at all pleased with his singing abilities. The secret was revealed by on a 2004 UK documentary titled "Oliver! After They Were Famous". Greene was paid 400 pounds for her work and she had to agree to keep her participation secret, as did Mark Lester. They kept their word and only revealed this fact as part of the TV show decades after release of the film. For the record, Mark Lester retired from acting and is a practicing osteopath in England. As a lifelong fan of Dickens, I have invariably been disappointed by adaptations of his novels.

Although his works presented an extremely accurate re-telling of human life at every level in Victorian Britain, throughout them all was a pervasive thread of humour that could be both playful or sarcastic as the narrative dictated. In a way, he was a literary caricaturist and cartoonist. He could be serious and hilarious in the same sentence. He pricked pride, lampooned arrogance, celebrated modesty, and empathised with loneliness and poverty. It may be a cliché, but he was a people's writer.

And it is the comedy that is so often missing from his interpretations. At the time of writing, Oliver Twist is being dramatised in serial form on BBC television. All of the misery and cruelty is their, but non of the humour, irony, and savage lampoonery. The result is just a dark, dismal experience: the story penned by a journalist rather than a novelist. It's not really Dickens at all.

'Oliver!', on the other hand, is much closer to the mark. The mockery of officialdom is perfectly interpreted, from the blustering beadle to the drunken magistrate. The classic stand-off between the beadle and Mr Brownlow, in which the law is described as 'a ass, a idiot' couldn't have been better done. Harry Secombe is an ideal choice.

But the blinding cruelty is also there, the callous indifference of the state, the cold, hunger, poverty and loneliness are all presented just as surely as The Master would have wished.

And then there is crime. Ron Moody is a treasure as the sleazy Jewish fence, whilst Oliver Reid has Bill Sykes to perfection.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Lionel Bart - himself a Jew from London's east-end - takes a liberty with Fagin by re-interpreting him as a much more benign fellow than was Dicken's original. In the novel, he was utterly ruthless, sending some of his own boys to the gallows in order to protect himself (though he was also caught and hanged). Whereas in the movie, he is presented as something of a wayward father-figure, a sort of charitable thief rather than a corrupter of children, the latter being a long-standing anti-semitic sentiment. Otherwise, very few liberties are taken with Dickens's original. All of the most memorable elements are included. Just enough menace and violence is retained to ensure narrative fidelity whilst at the same time allowing for children' sensibilities. Nancy is still beaten to death, Bullseye narrowly escapes drowning, and Bill Sykes gets a faithfully graphic come-uppance.

Every song is excellent, though they do incline towards schmaltz. Mark Lester mimes his wonderfully. Both his and my favourite scene is the one in which the world comes alive to 'who will buy'. It's schmaltzy, but it's Dickens through and through.

I could go on. I could commend the wonderful set-pieces, the contrast of the rich and poor. There is top-quality acting from more British regulars than you could shake a stick at.

I ought to give it 10 points, but I'm feeling more like Scrooge today. Soak it up with your Christmas dinner. No original has been better realised. Simply put, Oliver! is one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is filled with memorable songs - "Food Glorious Food", "Oliver!", "Consider Yourself" and "Oom-Pah-Pah" to name just a few - and equally memorable characters.

The film is a musical adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel and much like the story of Oliver Twist itself, it is a perfect family film. There are some frightening moments - the villain Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed is scary enough on his own - but overall, the film will appeal to children of all ages as well as adults.

The story - which almost everyone is surely familiar with by now - revolves around a little orphan boy named Oliver and his life growing up in London. At first he lives in the workhouse with the rest of his fellow orphans but after daring to question Mr. Bumble, the overseer, he is sold to a family as a servant.

After a series of mishaps and close shaves, he meets the Artful Dodger - superbly played by a young Jack Wild, who gives his all in the role - and through him, the greedy Fagin (Ron Moody), who trains young boys to pick pocket treasures which he keeps for himself.

The film was shot solely in studios and on soundstages at Shepperton Film Studios but this does not translate at all to film. The sets perfectly replicate Victorian London, as do the costumes worn by the characters. A multi-Oscar winner and a massive success on its release, Oliver! is a worthy contender for the best musical all of time and will delight anyone who loves film. I just saw this recently, after an interval of nearly forty years. It holds up well, especially Lionel Bart's outstanding songs. ("Who Will Buy" with it's magical counterpoint, just one of many standouts.)

I disagree with the other post that decried its G rating. The ratings system, brand new at the time, never intended the G (General) rating to mean "completely devoid of conflict".

Characterizing it as unsuitable for kids reminds me of the description I once saw of The Wizard of Oz: A girl arrives in a strange land and kills the first person she encounters. She then goes on a road trip with three male companions and kills again. OLIVER TWIST was to have controversy as well as success following it after Dickens published it in 1837. His picture of life in the urban ghettos was something shocking and new, and his making the central figures of the novel include criminals was another innovation.

One day he was walking in London and passed a young woman he had been friendly with. He said hello, but she was rather stiff with him. He could not understand this. A few days later they met again, and he asked what he had done to upset her. "Well, if you must know, I did not like your last novel.", she said. "Really, everyone else thinks highly of it." He was puzzled: "What's wrong with it?" "Oh, Charles," she said, "I'm Jewish. How could you make up such a character like Fagin?!" He had not expected this: "Well...you know that trial last year of Ikey Solomon, the thief trainer. He's a model for Fagin and he was Jewish."

Dickens found that did not settle things. "Yes," she replied, "He got what he deserved. But Charles, they did not call him "Solomon the Jew" like you call Fagin "the Jew"! Moreover, Solomon did not plan a murder. Fagin does." Dickens had to admit that he might have gotten carried away. He left thinking about what she said.

Oliver Twist was published in several editions. Dickens tried to improve on Fagin a bit. Then he got an idea. He reworked the chapter called "Fagin's Last Night Alive", showing the fears in the man as he faced hanging. He also added some additional details.

He let his female friend know about his resolve to change Fagin. A day or so later he met her at a friend's house. She looked at him as though he was crazy. "Didn't you like the changes?", he asked. "Charles, what changes - he's still a vile villain called "the Jew"!", she replied. "Yes, I did keep those in, but didn't you see how frightened he was in the death cell in prison." The young woman had noticed this, but felt that he was so vile he deserved to be suffering such fears. "Ah...then I was right about that...and did you see the little details I added?", he asked. "What details?", she replied. "When you first see Fagin now he is cooking himself dinner...you read that?", Dickens looked at her expecting a sign of recognition. Instead the lady looked confused. "I read he was at the fireplace, but I must have skimmed the passage." Dickens smiled as though he was brilliant, "He is cooking a pork sausage for his dinner." "A what!"she exclaimed. "He's eating pork, my dear...see - he's not a good Jew!" His friend looked at him, shook her head, and to his dismay left their friend's house. She didn't speak to him for years.

Dickens never totally shook off his own bigotries, but the situation did lead to a partial attempt at amends in his last completed novel. In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND (1865) he has a minor character, Mr. Riah, who is used by an unscrupulous landlord to collect high rents from poor tenants. The landlord figures that Mr. Riah will be blamed because he is Jewish.

But Mr. Riah is a good man. He is a very good man. He is a very, very, very, very good man - so good as to be unbelievable. If Fagin saw Mr. Riah in action he'd probably chase him away with a stick.

The anti-Semitic image of Fagin lingers to this day. It is a measure of Dickens' genius as a writer that the novel overcomes it. However, in presenting the story on film it still causes problems for screenplay writers and directors: how, after the Holocaust, can one do a film treatment of a worthy novel without inflaming bigotry? David Lean showed how by having Alec Guiness appear in one or two scenes showing a human side and in confronting a mob at the end with true dignity. Sir Carol Reed, in his musical version of the novel did it better yet, due to a rewrite in the original musical's script.

OLIVER had been made into a West End musical hit in the middle 1960s, and then taken to Broadway where it was again a hit. With a wonderful score by Lionel Bart, including "Food Glorious Food", "I Am Reviewing the Situation", "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale", "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", it deserved it's success. Reed did well in his casting the roles, including his nephew Oliver Reed as Sykes, Ron Moody as Fagin, Mark Lester as Oliver, Jack Wild as the Dodger, Shani Wallis as Nancy, and Harry Secombe as Mr. Bumble. There had been no big musical successes in Hollywood for a decade - the last musical to win the Best Picture Oscar had been GIGI in 1958. OLIVER won it in 1968.

And Fagin - how to handle the eternal problem of the caricature? Well in the musical Fagin is not captured, tried and executed for the murder that is committed. After all, even Lean showed Fagin tried to control his confederate in his actions. But here Fagin realizes that he is getting too old to depend on this kind of chancy life. Although he loses his treasures (those stolen items he kept because he knew their value, and admired their beauty), he decides he can reform. He is allowed to do so, accompanied by his faithful acolyte, the Artful Dodger. I don't think Dickens would have appreciated the change (his female friend might have), but a modern audience certainly accepts it as fitting. This is a musical adaptation of Dicken's "Oliver Twist". For the most part, the original story has been maintained, though for the flow of the film certain subplots (such as the summer he spent recuperating and the half-brother) are omitted. The biggest difference in the film and the story is that by the end of the book, Fagin is hanged--an ending very different from this musical film.

This is a one of a kind musical--one whose style and scope really hasn't been matched before or since. Not only are the songs often quite singable and memorable, but the choreography of the film is a sight to behold. Whereas in most musicals a few people or perhaps even a small group are choreographed dancing, here the numbers often run into the hundreds or perhaps more. It's truly a sight to see and I was fortunate enough to have seen it in the theater when it debuted and is one of my earliest childhood memories. Having just seen it again a few moments ago, I would have to say that the film only got better over time. Great sets, wonderful acting and singing--this is a special treat that is hard not to love.

By the way, when I saw the film again tonight, I was surprised by just how high and feminine Mark Lester's singing was for the film. Well, according to IMDb, his singing was dubbed by a girl and this would definitely account for his voice. i'm really getting old,,am in the midst of watching this 40 year old flick,and wonder what my grandchildren will be watching 40 years from now,,its an old saying,,but they don't make em like that anymore..it's not only the story,its the music,the acting both by young and old..the cast ,it would seem,were born to play their roles,,young oliver,,old Fagin..too many to mention them all,the role played by the judge oliver stands before,i've seen in other roles over the years..the artful dodger,,Ron moody as Fagin,,Mr and Mrs bumble,,the movie not only won 5 Oscars,,but took a few golden globe awards too..if you decide to see this film..do yourself a favor,,take a few if not all the children,to see this masterpiece Yes, as unbelievable as it may be, in 1968 a musical won the Academy Award for best picture - and it was the third musical to win that award in a five-year period, the first being My Fair Lady in 1964 and then The Sound of Music in 1965. The difference between My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver! however is that Oliver! is immeasurably better! No comparison. The first two movies are insipid wet noodles compared to the remarkably robust Oliver!. The acting is great; the songs are great; the story is great and the dancing is great. This movie is dynamic, topical, relevant to the human experience and unlike the overblown Gangs of New York, Oliver! offers a portrayal of poverty in 19th century London, England that evokes sympathy without being condescending. Oliver Reed was a great actor and he proves it in Oliver! The other actors and actresses, especially Ron Moody and Shani Wallis, are equally wonderful and offer powerful portrayals of characters who evoke sympathy and warmth without being caricatures. The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.

Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.

“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy! I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.

The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.

Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.

This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation. First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever. That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know. A tour deforce! OK the kid that plays Oliver is a bit toooooo sweet! Starting with the great cinematography, color, costumes and most impressive performances this is a must see movie. I have seen several adaptations of this great novel, but this one stands above them all and its a musical to boot! It is a masterful Fagan, never leaving his character to do a song. You never really know if you like him or not, the same feeling I got in the book. In other versions you hate him from start to finish. Bill Sykes.... when you read the book hes a mean one, and so he is in this movie. Oliver Reed was masterful. His wife directed this masterpiece. I went and saw his last movie, Gladiator based on his many fine performances, not to see the headliners. The music fits the times and the mood. Who will buy this beautiful movie? You Should! Im not usually a lover of musicals,but if i had to choose what would be my favourite it would definitely be Oliver.This film is so well made,the characters are well depicted,the costumes are spot on the acting is good and the songs are great,my favourite being 'Reviewing The Situation'sung by Ron Moody who gives a brilliant portrayal of Fagin.I wasn't old enough to see Oliver when it was released in the late 60s but my sisters were,so for weeks on end i had to put up with them singing the bloody songs,usually it was 'Who will buy my wonderful roses'so i already knew all of the songs before i saw the film.Its a timeless musical you definitely couldn't remake it,it stands on its own.Its not accurate to the book and i don't think it would have worked so well if it had been.I don't think Charles Dickens would be disappointed,as he wrote Oliver to depict the poverty in London,the orphanages,the work houses and about what the poor had to resort to in order to survive,and the film portrays this very well.Also another great reason to watch this film is Bullseye the Old type English Bull terrier,notice his long thin legs,this was bred out of the breed many years ago,they must have hunted high and low to find a specimen like him,and he is exactly how an English Bull Terrier would have looked in Victorian times.Notice he has scars {which is probably makeup}on his face,Bill Sykes had probably used him for dog fighting or for the rat pit.A Victorian Bull Terrier had a record amount of kills in a rat pit.His a beautiful dog any way,and notice he disobeys Bill Sykes after he has killed Nancy,he obviously has his standards his not the chunk head Bill Sykes thought he was.This is a great musical to watch if you like musicals,and if you don't like musicals give it a try any way,there's something for everyone in this film. One of the finest musicals made, one that is timeless and is worth seeing time and again. Delicious! The acting, especially by Ron Moody as Fagin, is superb. Costumes are exquisite....even the shabby ones.

The two young lads who play Oliver and The Artful Dodger are wonderfully talented. Oliver Reed does a great job portraying Bill Sykes to where you can't help but hope he comes to a terrible end....which he does.

The dancing is cleverly choreographed and is mesmerizing. Oliver can hold its own with the likes of My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, etc. A film for the entire family. I saw this recently on a cable channel. The movie is great; it's one of the few musicals I have seen that doesn't shy away from the light and dark. It portrays some of the splendour of the age along with a lot of the squalor. Some of the set piece dance sequences so much is going on, I didn't know where to look next. One day I shall go and see this on the big screen, just so that I see what's happening. But what really lifts this to another level is Oliver Reed's performance as Bill Sykes. Not only is a thoroughly mean and menacing man but there is something else, some inner demons. He gave me the impression that if you pushed him into a corner, he was capable of anything. It was almost as if the Sykes character was on the edge of madness, just awaiting the trigger. I have seen the Robert Newton's Bill Sykes from the 1948 movie, and I thought he was 'just' a bad egg, but Oliver Reed's performance intimidated me in my own living room. This was my favourite film as a child, and I have been in the stage production a few times so it will always remain my favourite muscical and I doubt anybody could ever re-make the story of Oliver Twist on screen, any better than this one did.

My all-time favourite ''bad guy'' has to be Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Not only did he scare the life out of my when I watched it as a 6 year old, but now as a woman I can empathize more with Nancys character, the bar maid/prostitute who helps Oliver get the life he deserves.

Jack Wilde as the artful dodger, was fantastic, and I don't think anybody could ever out-do him, as the street-pocket picker, and best friend of Fagin. The music is fantastic, especially Fagin's numbers, I'm also quite thankful they didn't give Bill Sikes a musical number, it wouldn't of worked with him being such a sinister character.

I think Carol Reed did an excellent job of Nancy's sticky ending, keeping it a G rated movie by disguising her beating, but giving enough away to show the violence of Bill towards her.

This movie is both charming, and charismatic as a musical sing-along, as well as being a moving drama that follows a young boy as he tries to find where he belongs in life. As a child I always hated being forced to sit through musicals. I never understood why people would break out into song like that, and I was far too young to appreciate the artistry (choreography, set design, costumes, pacing) behind it all. Carol Reed's "Oliver!" was the one musical I remember oddly enjoying as a child, probably because it is one of the darker ones and is appropriately drenched in the spirit of Dickensian squalor. This is a musical about ghetto life in Victorian London, and while the scenery and set designs are stark, dark, and true to that way of life, it is flat out bizarre for people to be breaking out into such ridiculous songs amidst their misery. Upon a recent viewing, my first since childhood, I have some new thoughts and insights into why this musical "works" in that bizarre breaking out into song kind of way, and why most just don't do it for me.

When musicals work or really say something, it is because they realize their own inherent strangeness. Lars von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" as tragic and operatic and over reaching as it was, worked as a musical because the musical numbers were the products of the imagination of the protagonist, an immigrant obsessed with Hollywood musicals. Likewise, the very cynical and enjoyable "Chicago" worked on a similar level because the musical numbers were the products of a homicidal ingenue singer/dancer. Musicals don't work when they take their own musical-nature too seriously (like in "Moulin Rouge") or are simply too much fluff about nothing (i.e. something pointless like "Mary Poppins"). Upon viewing "Oliver!" for the first time as an adult, I saw it in a new light. Told mostly from the point of view young Oliver, I saw the musical numbers as the products of his childhood imagination and his way of coping with the horrors of ghetto life around him. The best musical number was probably when Nancy got everyone in the tavern signing and dancing about the joys of getting drunk (as a cover to help poor Oliver escape the clutches of the evil Bill Sykes). It was undeniably catchy and sounded like a real pub tune that drunks might start singing around a piano. There are other great and classic tunes to be heard here, and the direction and acting from the leads to the dancing extras are all top notch.

Still, for all its bleakness (although it does have a happy ending for Oliver at least, though certainly things didn't end happily for Nancy, and unless you think a life on the streets being a pick-pocket is fun, it wasn't a necessarily a good ending for Fagin or the Dodger, despite their peppy closing tune) I wouldn't really classify this as a family film, though I don't think showing it to kids over the age of seven or eight will do any harm. This is a harsh tale about an unfortunate orphan trying to survive on the streets and find some happiness. I think it would be very interesting to see a modern update on this some how, perhaps a revisionist take on it, where people on the streets of Compton break into happy songs about their horrible lives. I'd like to see a hard-edged hip-hop version of "Oliver!". I always thought Dickens would translate well in those regards. As it stands, "Oliver!" was probably the last of the great film musicals and maybe the strangest G-rated film I've ever seen. One of the last great musicals of the 60s. I was 7 years old the first time I saw this movie, and it's always been a favorite since then. The musical numbers are all memorable. In the 60s the people who were cast in musicals actually had musical talent (unlike a CERTAIN Academy Award nominated current musical based in a large midwestern city). All of the main roles were beautifully cast...Ron Moody shines as Fagin, as does Shani Wallis as Nancy. Oliver Reed was a menacing Bill Sikes (who thankfully has no musical numbers, lol), and Mark Lester as Oliver and Jack Wild as the Dodger were great too. Mark Lester comes across as an innocent waif, which was what Dickens intended when he wrote the book! Then, of course there are the dozens of dancers who perform in "consider yourself," "I'd Do Anything" "Who Will Buy" and "be Back Soon," many who were children! This is a great show for the whole family. Me and my girlfriend, Annette, watched this together and we'll both comment.

Both of us really enjoyed watching this even though it took some liberties with Dicken's work. A lot of Dicken's works are somewhat dark and dreary (including Oliver Twist), but this movie changed all that. It was fun, colourful (both visually and musically), and the characters were more lighthearted.

TRAVIS: Normally, I don't care a lot for musical and dance movies, but the tunes in this production were catchy and lively, and the choreography was awesome.

ANNETTE: That's really saying a lot coming from Travis. I can't emphasise enough how really good the dance numbers were. You can tell, for example, that those boys really worked hard getting the routines down to perfection.

TRAVIS: Three actors really stood out IMO; Nancy (Shani W.), Bill Sykes (Oliver Reed), and Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). Man, that Oliver Reed can really do a good villain. That one scene where you see his eyes thru the mail slot gave me chills down the back...AWESOME. And that kid Jack Wild was a perfect Artful Dodger. And Nancy was fantastic (man, I felt bad when she got killed). She can sing too! Kudos to the casting department on their choices there. I hated the Oliver Twist kid tho. He was just too whiny and wimpy for my taste. (I kept wishing Bill Sikes would drop him off into the mud during the chase scene.) And they shouldn't have had him sing either.

ANNETTE: Acting was truly superb. In addition to the three stars Travis mentioned, I felt Ron Moody (Fagin) did a tremendous job. He was so funny, and at the same time lightly sinister too. The supporting actors were great too. Harry Secombe carried his Mr. Bumble role extremely well. And he has a wonderful singing voice. I saw Mr. Secombe perform in another movie entitled "Davy" where he played an opera singer with pleasing results. The talented Harry Secombe should have been in a lot more movies.

TRAVIS: As I mentioned earlier the story isn't quite true to the book, but IMO it was more robust. This movie was not boring either, as some musicals seem to be. And the continuity kept you moving right along with the characters. The tunes did not detract from the plot or put you to sleep by being too long.

ANNETTE: Any musical movie which Travis watches completely has to be a rare find. And this one is indeed a rare find. It is a very easy-to-watch production which carries the viewer smoothly and enjoyably through to the end. In a day when movies all seem to be effects combined with pretty faces, this was a refreshing interlude.

Our combined rating for this was 8.5 of 10. (We'll round up to 9 in this case.).

TRAVIS: I rated this a 7 mainly because the Oliver Twist kid (Mark L.) irritated me, and his songs were torture to my overly sensitive ears. Otherwise, it was an outstanding movie.

ANNETTE: My rating is a 10. Movies don't get much better than this. And you can tell everyone involved in this production really worked hard to make it what it was...a masterpiece.

Please don't miss this one...even if you normally don't like musicals. It really is a rare treat. This production of Oliver is masterful in showing layers of evil in the human soul. What makes the story remarkable is a brilliantly bright Unseen Character, who pierces this darkness as he leads an innocent boy through the gravest dangers safely into the hands of his own relative. Yea, though Oliver walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he fears no evil. A rod and staff are there to comfort him. In the end, he is saved from the dregs of humanity. At the bottom is Fagin, the most wicked of the lot. Fagin contemplates repenting of his ways not once, but twice, yet declines because he is unwilling to pay the price. Fagin is worse than Bill Sikes, because he raises little pickpockets who become murderers. In the middle is Oliver. His innocence is unsullied, but untried as well. The best is Nancy. Lacking in judgment, she ignores Bill Sikes' violent nature out of her deep need for love. Yet unlike Fagin, at the probable cost of her own life, she does repent of her sins by saving Oliver from Bill. Things are not as they seem. In my opinion, this quality is what makes art worthwhile - unpredictability. I would give this film a "10," but its '70's made-for-TV soundtrack and ambiance were distracting. Overall, a fine parable and a thoroughly appropriate story for all audiences. I really love this movie. I remember one time when I was in 2nd >grade, my teacher showed it to us on a 16mm film reel. This movie, however, can be a little frightening for 2nd graders such as the scene where Bill murders Nancy and seeing Fagin's face for the first time on the screen. One of my relatives is sick of seeing this movie because she studied over it in music class. If I were a teacher and could grade the people who produced this wonderful film, I would give them an A+. The man who directed 'The Third Man' also directed the 'Who Will Buy' sequence in "Oliver!" Now that is talent.

I raise my hat to Carol Reed.

I know there are 'second units' involved, but still ...

And he had to deal with Orson Welles and Oliver Reed ...

I suppose quality will out.

(It does show in the final scene with Nancy [ avoiding spoiler - everyone has to see Oliver! for the first time sometime ].) How many lines do I need to type.

Encouraging people to type too much is not to be encouraged.

I hope this counts as the "10th line". It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators. I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.

The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.

Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.

There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit? I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending! I don't understand your objections to this movie. It is a taut, thrilling extension of the character created in "Basic Instinct". The only part of the story that is the least bit unrealistic, is the fact that Sharon Stone's character is still alive and not in jail at this late date.

SPOILER ALERT: As the movie progresses, we are presented with three theories of what is going on: 1) Sharon Stone's character is killing all these people because she's crazy (Risk Addicted); 2) David Thewlis' crooked cop is killing these people in order to frame Sharon Stone's character; 3) David Morrissey's analyst is killing these people for revenge. What upsets most people about the movie seems to be that none of these theories are ever explicated as the "real" story. (Although the analyst is in a psychiatric care facility for killing the cop; the only killing that occurs on screen.)

I think this is a brilliant plot device in the spirit of "2001, A Space Odyssey." WHO CARES what is real? The blonde really is crazy, the cop really is crooked and the analyst really wants revenge. What's important is the interactions between these and other characters in the story. Like real life, everyone is more complicated than anyone thinks and reality is more complicated than a movie. Get over it! I have no idea what people are complaining about. I saw this movie yesterday and I really liked it. Stone once again delivered a great character. She was just as good as she was in the first Basic Instinct. She still has those smart but tricky answers. Although Sharon may be 48 years old... she looks amazing! I don't care if she's as fake as a Barbie. She looks good and that's that. Basic Instinct 2 gives you everything you want from the first. Sex, violence, and a great ending that will leave you thinking and talking about it for hours! Half the people commenting on this movie haven't even saw it. So don't listen to them. Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of "Basic Instinct", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, "Basic Instinct" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...

When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and "Basic Instinct 2" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.

The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!

This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does. Frankly I don't understand why this movie has been such a big "flop" in publicity. Sharon Stone certainly has not lost any of her charisma and "touch" since "Basic instinct". I voted this film 10 and I tell you why: Game opens in London this time. London is the city where Catherine Tramell has moved since the events in BI1. Again she proves to be a mastermind manipulator of her own class -unchallenged. She is "screwing your brain" as Catherine with such a skill that in the end you don't be quite sure who is the real villain.

As for the technical part of the film: Only real setback is the B-rate crew of actors. Sharon Stone is the only really big name in the cast compared to her and Michael Douglas etc in the first part. I also think BI2 would have been better had Sharon Stone been a bit younger but she is still quite stunning in her looks and has only improved concerning her charisma. Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.

I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot. I think this is a far better thriller than many of the run-off-the-mill crap Hollywood so readily distributes these days. The plot is great, it's easy to see technically, you don't snore in the half way through the film and most important -the heath is on. So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try! I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did! I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading. I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it... I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.

It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective. We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, ("Derailed"), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the "basic instincts." Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen. Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it! This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.

This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.

This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.

So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made. Let me be up-front, I like pulp. However it is like one of these "easier dives" that you see at the Olympics. It has to be marked down a little because it is easier to give a cheap thrill than drag you inside the world of, say, a late medieval painter.

This is only a two hour ghost train ride and while often (or more accurately, most of the time!) ludicrous and unlikely it always goes forward and it always entertains. If not always in the right way. Check out the memorable quotes section for a chuckle.

(However quite why it has been given a "Worst Film" Razzie is baffling - I bet there was a thousand worse films made in 2006, but this film got the treatment because it was viewed as a fashionable victim.)

Head case and popular novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now over in London writing a novel, but death and destruction follow her around like flies follow a horse during a spot of hot weather. God heavens, she can't even visit the toilet without tripping over at least two corpses and I am sure if she opened the closet in her vast penthouse flat one would come tumbling out in grand Hollywood style.

Yes, clearly a very dangerous lady to be circling around (if you like your pulse to be above zero), but is she personally responsible? I mean why would anyone put two-and-two together and start thinking she might be a murderer? Equally her reaction to such accusations seems very casual. However is this just a personality disorder (some form of b/s risk addiction) or further evidence of her guilt?

For reasons I cannot fully understand or explain Stone is assigned to psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) for evaluation rather than taken down the cells following another "lover found dead in mysterious circumstances". Thankfully (for Stone) he is far crazier than any of his patients and has a troubled home/working life of his own. In the blink of an eye the relationship changes from doctor to patient and then it is hard to tell because it all becomes something of a revolving blur.

In to this heady mix comes Roy Washburn (a strange Welsh sounding David Thewlis) who tells the love struck doctor - in his capacity of policeman of many years standing - that the lady in question may be dangerous. I mean, hold the front page. However Glass is now too glassy-eyed to realise or care. Like a dizzy boxer in front of a prime-time Mike Tyson he ripe for the big take-down, however not before finding that Washburn might have a secret or two himself.

Now comes Millena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) a fellow psychiatrist and a rare example (in this film) of someone who isn't barking mad or else a murder suspect. Presuming that she has actually watched the finished film she must look back with nostalgia when her underwear came off with the ease of Stone's - thankfully (for us at least) those days are long gone. Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.

After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time. I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close.

EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS).

The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.

THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew.

That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY.

On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics.

BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.

In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art

that deserve protection under our Constitution. Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.

Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.

The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)

Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.

Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis. Really, I think this movie is more an example of an easy target than a truly bad film. In fact, the movie is done very well in many respects and is very entertaining.

Yes, the script is a little convoluted, but that's the genre. The film has a noirish atmosphere centered around a femme fatale. Just like all the old noir classics, this, too, has a screenplay that twists you around so that you don't always know how to make sense of it at first, and it can be a stretch if you think too deeply and try to put all of the pieces together. That's the genre. In general, the script has enough surprises and turns to keep the viewer guessing and, in turn, surprised, without abandoning the viewer.

Sharon Stone is also an easy target. The truth is she looks great and she speaks her double-entendre laden dialog in such a way as to zhuzh it up into something mysterious, sexy and fun.

The direction is more than passable, because let's face it--you have to keep an audience interested in the "did she or didn't she?" question for two hours. In addition to a twisty script and a fun performance by Stone, this is done effectively through the direction by the creation of a noirish atmosphere that is both dark and very stark and modern at the same time, with straight industrial lines to go along with Stone's sexy curves. The frame is always beautiful--press pause anywhere and there is something interesting to the eye.

The film also effectively builds on things that were gimmicks in the first film and turns them into something a little more real, particularly the sex. "Katherine Tramell is bisexual...how shocking!" becomes treated more matter-of-factly here, and typically, the sexuality of the film is used to better effect. It is still titillating, but not done so readily for shock value and buzz as done in the first. I won't say that it isn't still somewhat of a gimmick because, let's face it, this film is supposed to be fun.

And a fun film it is. It may be an easy target, but if you watch it for what it is: a noirish, femme-fatale driven, twisty, sexy, did-she-or-didn't-she who-dunnit, you're bound to enjoy it (no pun intended). Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan. I thought this movie did a down right good job. It wasn't as creative or original as the first, but who was expecting it to be. It was a whole lotta fun. the more i think about it the more i like it, and when it comes out on DVD I'm going to pay the money for it very proudly, every last cent. Sharon Stone is great, she always is, even if her movie is horrible(Catwoman), but this movie isn't, this is one of those movies that will be underrated for its lifetime, and it will probably become a classic in like 20 yrs. Don't wait for it to be a classic, watch it now and enjoy it. Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.

All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it. I tip my hat to this movie

8/10 Since this movie was based on a true story of a woman who had two children and was not very well-off, it was just scary as to how real it really was! The acting is what gave the movie that push to greatness.

Diane Keaton portrayed the main character, Patsy McCartle who had two sons whom she adored. Her performance is what made the real life story come to life on a television screen. It was very hard to watch some of the scenes since they were so real as to what happens when one becomes addicted to drugs.

Just watching this very loving mother go from sweet to not caring at all was hard, but so true. I have known people who have gone through withdrawl and it was very much like what happened in this movie, from what I remember.

I also thought that it was very risky for the director to want to make a movie out of what happened to this woman. Yet it was done so well. I applaud the director for making this movie.

I highly recommend this to anyone who has known someone who has ever been addicted to drugs or to just learn what can happen to you if you do become addicted to them. I got to see the movie " On Thin Ice" on the television in India.. I must say the movie was really well done, and really sent a chill down my spine.. the basic story makes me ponder what makes certain addicts decide to move on where as others still remain addicted...

however, I felt that Diane Keaton was at her best... the scene where she has cravings, and begins rummaging her home for cocaine... was the best... the two boys are good, and Lynda Boyd also showed what a good actress she is....The script is well done as is the cinematography and direction.. and casting

A must must watch movie..... for everyone A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for?

Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.

A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton! Diane Keaton has played a few "heavy" parts in her many years on the big screen but she's mostly known for the "light and fluffy" stuff with Woody Allen, such as Annie Hall. She deserves an Oscar for best actress in a drama for this effort and it doesn't really matter what the competition was the year it was first shown. Try and find a scene in which she doesn't appear. And it was all heavy drama, exhausting in its pace and retakes, action, all at full speed. The make-up made her as young as possible and she fit the 30s age category even in close-ups, but she was playing half her age and at a very fast pace. The movie, overall was fairly well done, staged and shot well with a strong supporting cast but Keaton carried the load. The past few months I have collected Voyager seasons 4 to 7 on DVD (I only had 1 to 3 on video before that, because Kes is my favourite character) and have just reached the end. I saw them when they were originally shown on TV here in the UK but had forgotten most of it. Am I satisfied with the ending? I think I am. Naturally as I fan I would have liked to have seen more about what happened to the characters when they got home but that's left to our imagination. In many ways "Endgame" is similar to Next Gen's "All Good Things…" The involvement of the crew in the future, but mainly the captain. A new romance starting in the finale (Troi and Worf in Next Gen and Seven of Nine and Chakotay here), which results in death in the future. I truly loved "Endgame," fair to all characters, Neelix appears although he left the ship two episodes earlier. B'elanna gives birth to her daughter with loving husband Tom. Tuvok is ill but returning home means he can be cured. Harry has always been the most anxious and determined but admits the journey is important. The Doctor, in the future, is well respected by all and finally chooses the name Joe! But of course the Captain has the largest role, meeting her future self who wants to get the crew home earlier to prevent casualties. The Borg are involved, as they have played a massive part in this period of Voyager. Alice Krige plays the Borg Queen again fantastically, just her voice and acting method are magnificent. I feel sorry for Susanna Thompson though, the TV Borg queen replaced by the movie Borg queen. Maybe she wasn't available though. The special effects are fantastic, the Borg sub space hub and the Borg queen falling apart! It's very tense. Especially when they come out of the Borg subspace corridor and say their location is right where they thought they'd be after they'd said they'd have to go in a corridor that leads back to the delta quadrant. And what a wonderful idea to get inside a Borg sphere for protection, on the DVD special features they say it was like the Trojan horse. Voyager could have continued. If it was more popular they would have stuck with their original idea of the crew realising the ship is their home, like in Harry's speech and what Tom said because his wife and child are there. And then they could have got home in a film!

Overall, Voyager was a bit hit and miss. The sixth season seemed to be one good one followed by one less than good one. The two episodes set in the Holographic Irish village are horrible! My perception of Seven of Nine was that she took over, it all revolved around her, which wasn't true. When she first appeared, season 4 was focused on her for too many of the episodes but it evened out after that. And her character is ingenious at times, 20 years as a Borg drone gradually rediscovering her humanity. I like her, especially in "Someone to Watch Over Me," "Imperfection," and "Human Error." When Naomi Wildman was scared of her initially but then became her friend often by her side, that was lovely. Chakotay became my least favourite character. Gone was the chemistry with Janeway (will they/won't they?) and you'd never think he was first officer, he's completely pushed aside most of the time. I loved seeing Tom and B'elanna's relationship blossom against the odds. I always liked Neelix a lot. Tuvok was good at times, especially when he lost his logic, gained emotion and was friends with Neelix. Harry was annoying at times but a okay character at other times. The Doctor is probably my favourite, seeing how far he comes and comedy situations he creates ("Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy" is fantastic!). Janeway is my favourite Captain of any series and you can tell Kate Mulgrew is really enjoying it.

I wish there was more, I love Voyager! This is a great ending to the show. The fact that Adm. Janeway was able to do a double switch on the Borg was great. The fact that she allowed herself to be infected, thus infecting the Queen with a "poison" that in, essence, ended the Borg was great. The way they ended it also left some, not a lot, for a reunion movie. However, they did bring them "home" and the way they did it was fantastic!! It was sad to say good bye to a part of my family. Ending it with Tom and B'Lanna having their baby just as they enter the Alpha quad. was a great way to show a new beginning. It would be nice to have a reunion movie of some type - just to see where their characters would be today. SPOILERS. Like other posters, I felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. I would have liked to have seen the crew adjusting to life back on earth after their return. I suppose the writers anticipated this problem by "front loading" some Voyager on earth sequences at the beginning of the episode. (Of course, that time line has been eradicated, so it's all moot.) I did like how Admiral Janeway died for the Voyager crew. As fans, we get to have our cake and eat it to, by having Janeway both make the ultimate sacrifice and live on. I admit that the scenes of Janeway and her older self having conversations was bizarre and so easily could have crossed the line into camp. Fortunately, Mulgrew(s) pulled it off. I was not really a big fan of Star Trek until past 2-3 years. Thanks to the advent of Netflix and post 2000 video technology distribution, I am able to embark into the past of all the great Star Trek episodes. For those that don't really watch every single episode and know them by heart, through TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc., general popular consensus will say -- "I like The Next Generation" the best. That's because Captain Picard and his crew were fresh when they first appeared after decades of Star Trek starvation. But to be quiet honest, I appreciate the creativity of Voyager's episodes more than TNG. Voyager's episodes also progresses through time unlike TNG. Granted Data from TNG is great but it eventually gets old but Voyager's doctor -- now that's creativity! Instead of making artificial intelligence awkward and jerky, give him the freedom to express beyond anything you imagined. Not only is Picardo such a great actor but the premise setting for his expansive, self growth, as a doctor, self realization now that is science fiction at its best! Endgame portray him as a husband married to an "organic", inventing neuro-implant transceiver for human-machine interface, and even -- in the episode before Endgame, to disobey Captain's order and make "human" mistakes. Unlike DS9 which are blessed with 2 beautiful women right from 1st episode, Voyager has to survive 3 seasons without Jeri Ryan and I believe it is Picardo that carried them with his personality. Of course the rest of the Voyager's cast chemistry just flows effortless, Harry Kim and Tom Paris -- very natural. I love Tuvoc occasional humor, despite being a Vulcan. Finally, I'm so glad they got rid of that original female captain -- oh, if you get to watch the rare footage -- thank God for Kate! She has developed through the 7 years into an extremely confident, believable, and respectable female captain. What a GREAT job! Thank you Star Trek for making Voyager, I enjoy every episode, the creative exploration of possibilities, of morals, and of our Cosmic expanse. This final Voyager episode begins 23 years in the future. Voyager has made it back home. In the many years it took to return tho, the Vulcan Tuvoks' mind has been destroyed. He carried a disease they were too late getting home to cure.

Captain Janeway comes across aliens who have time travel technology. She realizes, there's a Warp Conduit in the Delta Quadrant that could bring Voyager home immediately - if she could go back in time and notify Voyager. There's one problem. The Conduit is deep inside Borg Space.

Janeway visits Tuvok. He's like a child. He scribbles tho, obsessed, working on math problems or movie reviews or something, he's convinced are important somehow. In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to please, please come back to him.

Janeway decides to commandeer a federation shuttle and equip it with weapons technology 20 years ahead of the Borg, in the hopes of going back in time and using this new technology to guide Voyager to the Warp Conduit.

When she goes back in time and links up with Voyager, Janeway meets her younger self. The two captains disagree, arguing about the plan. The real-captain visits Tuvok asking him if it's true he has a brain disorder. Tuvok admits it's true, but it can't be cured by the facilities on the ship so he's kept it to himself.

The young Captain agrees to the older Captains' plan. To increase their chances of success the older Janeway plans to distract the Borg with her shuttle craft. The Borg actually capture Janeway and her shuttle. The Borg Queen personally assimilates Captain Janeway. But Janeway's expected this! the Borg Queen has assimilated a virus into herself that kills her. With the Borg Queen dead Voyager makes it thru the Warp Conduit back to federation space. This is an excellent film about the characters in a adult swimming class, their problems, relationships and interactions with each other. It should have managed a wider distribution as it's much better than similar films from major studios out at the same time.

The swimming instructor is an almost-Olympian, reduced to teaching adults basic lessons, and often the target of horndogging from his female students. He attempts, more or less, to fend them off, with varying results.

The students characters are mainstream U.S.A; teachers, policemen, college students and retired people, all of whom haven't learned to swim for some reason. The movie covers their relationships, including friends, relatives and romantic conquests as they go through the class. Several subplots provide amusing fodder, including a teacher going through a divorce, some high school students making a documentary, and a girl who is only in the class to meet guys.

This is a good date movie, or just one to watch when you're in the mood for a romantic drama with overtones of reality. I had the opportunity to see this film twice at the 2006 Moving Picture Festival In Birmingham, Alabama. I enjoyed it so much that I watched it a second time when they had an encore screening.

When I think of the films that are shown at festivals, I usually expect them to be edgy and offbeat, often with the feel of an elaborate student project. There's nothing wrong with these types of projects of course, and I enjoy the unique styles of independent films, but sometimes I want to see a more mainstream approach to independent film-making. By "mainstream," I mean more like a film produced for national release - In other words, a movie that you would see in a regular movie theater.

The writing, directing, cinematography, casting and acting in this movie are all totally pro. There is nothing typically independent about this film. As an aspiring director, I am always looking for movies that will motivate me to stop procrastinating and push harder to get my career going. This is one of those films. As I watched The Big Bad Swim, my motivation level was incredible. I felt like my adrenaline had kicked in. The reason I felt this way was because I was so impressed with every aspect of this production. I left the theater excited and ready to start writing that long put-off project. When a movie makes me feel like that, I know it's really good. This is the first feature-length project from Ishai Setton and I found myself wishing that It had been my project. For me, that's really rare.

See this film. It's beautifully shot and directed, and the casting is excellent. Paget Brewster delivers a very believable and likable performance. She has a quality about her, a charisma, that really draws you in and keeps you focused on her any time she is on screen. She makes you feel like you know her personally as a friend. That's a gift. I think the industry is really missing out by not utilizing her acting abilities more often. Jeff Branson and Jess Weixler also did top-notch jobs. I can not say enough nice things about The Big Bad Swim. I look forward to future projects from all of those involved in its production. I consider myself a huge movie buff. I was sick on the couch and popped in this film. Right from the opening to the end I watched in awe at these great actors, i'd never seen, say great word. The filming was beautiful. It was just what I needed. I hope that this message is heard over any bad comments written by others. The Director has a heart and it beats with his actors throughout. Thanku for making a film like this one. Just wonderfully awkward, beautiful kind characters who are flawed and graceful all at once. Just great. I can't submit this without 10 lines in total so I will simply go on to say that I wish for more from this director, more from all the actors in this film and more from the writer. I didn't want it to end. The end i actually thought this is a comedy and sat watching it expecting to laugh my ass off. pretty soon in became clear this is no comedy, or at least not a 'Jim Carrey type' one. what kept we watching was the characters - the movie starts with some pretty grim, troubled people, gathered together to try and fight one of their basic fears - fear of water, fear of swimming. we start to get bit by bit into their lives, witness their troubles, guess of their thoughts.

actually i made it look much darker than it actually is, and besides the chain of events soon brings some light and hope to their lives.

i probably wouldn't have watched the movie had i known its not a comedy but rather a drama, but i had good time, enjoyed the story and don't mind i spent about 90 minutes with it.

many films treat the alienation between people in the western world, this movie shows how people can get together and help each other

"and if in the light of dying day you meet her, don't let her pass you by and leave, don't loose her, she is your gift from the sun..."

9/10

peace and love I was really impressed with this film. The writing was fantastic, and the characters were all rich, and simple. It's very easy to get emotionally attached to all of them. The creators of this movie really hit the nail right on the head when it comes to creating real life characters, and getting the viewer sucked right into their world. Further, the music is terrific. They employed some independents to do the score, and some of the soundtrack, and they do a fantastic job adding to the movie. If you have a chance to catch this movie in a small theater or at a film festival (like I did), I highly recommend that you go see it. Also, on a personal note, Paget Brewster is beautiful in this movie. That's reason enough to go check it out. I don't know why I picked this movie to watch, it has a strange title and from the description it just looked like something different. Every once in a while its good to try a film that's slightly different from the mainstream Hollywood hero/thriller flick and this film certainly was different. Right from the beginning this film had me intrigued but I couldn't figure out why until the end if the film when I realized that the movie was great because the characters were so real. I thought the acting was superb and the character development really makes you care about them and hope things turn out well for them in the end. I think that everyone who watches the film could in some way relate to one of the characters and this makes for great viewing and some good laughs at the sheer ordinariness of the actors.

At the culmination of the movie you definitely get a sense of well being, and are left with the 'things are going to be OK' type of a feeling. I'm sure this will have wide appeal and should be given a chance. The big bad swim has a low budget, indie feel about it. So many times I start to watch independent films that have had really good reviews only to find out they are pretentious crud, voted for by people who are so blinded by the idea of the film and its potential to be provocative that they forget that film is a form of entertainment first and foremost.

I do not know if The big bad swim has any message or higher meaning or metaphor, if it does then I missed it.

From the get go BBS felt right, it was easy and warm and human, there were no major dramas or meaningful insights, I just connected with the characters straight off. And when, as with all good films the end came around I felt sadness at the loss of that connection.

If you are looking for something big, or fast or insightful look elsewhere, look for a film trying to deliver more than it can. BBS delivers a solid, enjoyable, real experience and I felt rewarded and satiated having watched it. I had the pleasure of screening "The Big Bad Swim" at the 2006 New London Film Festival last week. The festival highlights some of the best independent and non-mainstream films from the past year. It was my assumption that "The Big Bad Swim" was chosen for screening at this festival for the simple reason that it was shot locally in and around Eastern Connecticut. However, as the credits began to roll I could only think about how well "The Big Bad Swim" compared to the others featured during the festival. By far it topped my list, followed by "The Puffy Chair", "Who Killed The Electric Car" and "Transamerica".

The "The Big Bad Swim" is an engaging, truthful and often-humorous look at several adult education swim class pupils and their likable yet troubled instructor that has a depth that I've not seen on screen in quite a while. The interweaving character development and plot lines derived from something as absurd as adult-swimming lessons works in subtle and endearing ways which I found refreshing. The plot doesn't beat you over the head with a direction; rather it builds and grows organically with a pace that was spot on. I was never bored. I never cringed. I never stepped out of the story on the screen.

The humor of the film is something like "Napoleon Dynamite" meets "Old School". The acting from a group of relatively unknown actors was credible and their dialog never seemed awkward or contrived. Obviously not being a multi-million production the camera shot weren't all awe-inspiring and clear, but adequate and well done for the budget. The lighting and filming technique for scenes filmed in the strip club setting were particularly eye catching because of a more realistic approach than a similar themed scene found in "Closer". I also found shots filmed underwater of the class from the waist down seemed to be just as much a portrait of character as a shot from the shoulders up could be.

I sure it's said over and over from many in the independent film industry, but I have to say it: If "The Big Bad Swim" isn't picked up for some kind of distribution I would extremely disappointed. "The Big Bad Swim" needs to be seen. If you have the chance to see this film, SEE IT! Disappointment is impossible! this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. Writing something genuine and true is challenging. Knowing how to shoot it and putting it together without making it trivial is even better. Ishai Setton's movie is one of those where you can recognize Life in all its simplicity and beauty. I have been touched by "The big bad Swim" and from now on, I will promote it as far as I can. It is just a shame that I can't have something to show to my friends (you know, such as a DVD???), because talking is good...but giving something to see is better. Everyone can't go to festivals to discover pearls like that and this movie's really worth to be put out there! A big THANK YOU to the staff of this master piece, and I am waiting for it to be distributed. I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was drawn into it.

The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A humorous idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for greater changes in the students' lives.

What surprised me about the film was how real it felt. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so well. I enjoyed the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was very poignant. Nothing seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find fast friends, form strong bonds, and make discoveries about yourself, yet have to depart all too soon.

My only complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...

Aside from this, I found the film very well-rounded and quite enjoyable. See it if you get the opportunity. This indie film looks at the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class in Connecticut. The plot is fairly thin. What drives the film is the characters, excellently played by mostly unknown actors. Standouts in the cast are Brewster as a high school teacher experiencing marital problems and Weixler as a casino dealer who moonlights as a stripper. The two actresses give natural performances and work well together. This is an impressive feature film debut for writer Schechter and director Setton. The latter keeps the narrative moving at a fast clip. The film title and poster suggest something raunchy, but this is a marvelous little comedy-drama. I think I usually approach film festival comedies with the low expectation that they will invariably be "quirky," and that any intended humor will be derived solely at the expense of the characters' simplicity in the face of a complicated context. What was exceptional about Big Bad Swim was that the director was able to maintain the integrity and development of his characters in his film while still finding laugh-out-loud humor in scene after scene. There was a sophistication, maybe due also in part to the sharp work of the DP, I've rarely seen in an indie film, and even more rarely in a comedy. Of special note here: Paget Brewster's turn as Amy the math teacher. After seeing this performance I cannot understand why Brewster hasn't been "discovered" by a larger audience. She brings the necessary mix of anger and likability to the role that really helps this picture reach its potential. This is a terrific work deserving of a larger audience. I look forward to more from the director and this cast! A community pool in Connecticut is the setting for this "under the radar" film which is charming, funny, entertaining, and appealing. Although it won prizes in major film festivals, "The Big Bad Swim" was not released to hordes of theaters across America, but was distributed in DVD form, and shown in theaters selectively.

It is unfortunate that "The Big Bad Swim" never had the marketing hype of a Hollywood release, considering how many sinkers Hollywood HAS released this year, such as "I Know Who Killed Me." "The Big Bad Swim," a genuinely good independent film, has had to swim upstream on its own.

Nevertheless, in "The Big Bad Swim," actress Paget Brewster is endearing and believable as Amy, the wired-to-breaking point math teacher who not only is being dumped by her husband but also is about to lose her job, and ends up taking a gamble on a new life. TV soap actor Jeff Branson-- who is HOT-- plays Noah, the earnest, vulnerable swim teacher who goes the extra pool length to help his students overcome their fears, and discovers he can learn from his students. Pretty, sexy Jess Weixler (did I just see her in a bank commercial?) deftly plays Jordan, the swimmer-to-be who works two jobs, one as a pole dancer, the other as a blackjack dealer. Her character provides the catalyst for change amongst the ensemble, but is the least understandable of the characters, because of a lack of a "back story" or motivation as to why she does what she does. Jordan is young enough to still live at home with a ubiquitous, video-camera-toting younger brother who spies on her. However, her parents are not shown to be involved with her life in any way, which seems odd. There's no drunken mother or abusive father here to explain why a normal, attractive girl from a Connecticut suburb would choose to be a self-medicating pole dancer who debases herself for loutish bachelor parties.

Despite this quibble, "The Big Bad Swim" succeeds, in large part, because it is a happy, feel good film.

As one might expect, learning to swim is the metaphor for life. Ultimately it's better to jump in with both feet, and get in the swim, rather than sit on the deck, because life happens to you anyway.

The Big Bad Swim is a great date movie, a great dorm movie, a great "what haven't I seen" movie, and men like it as well as women. This film is hilarious, original, & beautifully directed. I have become a BIG BAD SWIM groupie, tracking it to film festivals whenever & wherever I can. I've seen it about half a dozen times now, & each time, enthusiastic audience response has confirmed my feeling that this is one of the best films to come out in years. At nearly every festival it has screened, it has either sold out, or won the Audience Favorite award. It's clear that people love this film, & even clearer why they do. The cinematography is superb, the characterization & acting brilliant, the ending fantastic, & the direction filled with compassion, wisdom & the art of perfect timing. It's hard to believe this is Ishai Setton's first film. I hope it will be released soon so everyone can see it. I recently had the pleasure of seeing The Big Bad Swim at the Ft. Lauderdale Film Festival and I must say it is the best film I have seen all year and the only film I have ever felt inspired to write a comment/review on. This film was beautifully directed and combined a script with realistic dialogs, excellent acting, and an inspiring message. Ordinary lives come together in an adult swim class and become extraordinary in a celebration of the diversity of life. This is poignantly illustrated by the imagery in the first minute of this captivating film where we see only the legs and torso of individuals in various shapes and sizes enter into a pool of water. This film is brilliantly directed as the actors are placed and positioned in captivating scenes, which hold your attention and imagination. Or released on DVD or screened on a cable channel like Amer. Life TV network. I have been watching another favorite, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", as well as "Lost in Space" and Land of Giants". They've been showing them forever but aren't receptive to suggestions for other shows. My father and I were big fans as I was already a big science/electronics nut, (still am) and my father was an old school chum of Nader. They both attended Oxy together. I still have memories of several of the episodes even though I was only 9. More so than any show that old. I think it was televised on Sat. after "Bonanza". Some of the episodes I recall are the one where he takes the experimental drug that slows down action. Or the one where he body surfs the big ones, (I did that too!) Or the one where there was a mine cave in and he conveys how to use mind control to have the trapped people slow their breathing by entering a trance-like state. That is the one show that I wish I could see again. I got my wish with the original "Outer Limits" and "Sci-Fi Theater...John With the death of GEORGE NADER, on 4 February 2002, I thought of this most interesting program, which even though it had only a short run, was a tremendous idea with good story lines throughout. Generally unseen for over 40+ years it would be worth viewing again. The opening credits showed many differing images, one of which was a snippit of COLONEL JOHN PAUL STAPP, riding his famed rocket sled, at the point where he was often referred to as "The Fastest Man Alive". In 1967 I visited the Lake Elsinore glider-port and flew a yellow Pratt Read sailplane. Returning to Germany the above serious ran on TV and one segment was about the high altitude sailplane flights in California in the early 50ies. (The real life pilot was Bill Ivans, I don't know who played him in the series) It turned out that the sailplane in the film was the same (same N-number) as the one I had flown at Lake Elsinore. Ever since I saw that segment I have been searching for it and have been wondering if it is somewhere available. (other segments in that serious were about the Baker Ejection Seat; an instrument to find avalanche victims etc. This has to be one of the best comedies on the television at the moment. It takes the sugary-sweet idea of a show revolving around a close family and turns it into a quite realistic yet funny depiction of a typical family complete with sibling and parent spats, brat brothers, over-protective fathers and bimbo sisters. I'm almost surprised it's Disney!

To its credit, '8 Simple Rules' knows it's a comedy and doesn't try to be more. Too many shows (eg, 'Sister, Sister' and 'Lizzie McGuire') think just because its lead characters are now teenagers then they should tackle social issues and end up losing their humour by being too hard-hitting. This is a trap '8 Simple Rules' has avoided; it does tackle some issues (such as being the school outcast) but it has fun while doing so. In fact the only time it has really been serious was understandably when it sensitively handled the tragic death of John Ritter and his character.

And I think, although John Ritter will be sadly missed since he was the reason the show made its mark, '8 Simple Rules' can still do well if it remembers its humour and doesn't make Cate's father a second version of Paul Hennessy. This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.

The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.

I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.

Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.

I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.

it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday. 8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter had an auspicious start. The supremely-talented Tom Shadyac was involved in the project. This meant that the comedy would be nothing less of spectacular, and that's exactly what happened: the show remains one of the freshest, funniest, wittiest shows made in a very long time. Every line, facial expression, casting choice, scene, all wreaked of perfection. There was not one episode after which I thought, "Man that wasn't as good as the rest". Each one was a standout. Again, this is the kind of perfectionism that we've come to expect from Tom. For those who don't know, Tom Shadyac is the director of Ace Ventura (first movie), The Nutty Professor (first one) and Liar Liar. Quite a résumé. He's a producer here not a director, but his magic touch is felt in every episode.The family consists of:

The Father: Paul Hennessy (John Ritter): nice, slightly neurotic, can be a pushover from time to time, works as a sports writer. John unfortunately passed away in 2003 leaving a fond memory and near-sure cancellation contemplations by the suits.

The Mother: Cate (Katey Sagal): come on, who didn't fall in love with Katey when she played Peg on Married With Children? Al Bundy was our hero. We viewers gave him the respect and love he never had. But without Peg's nonchalant, parasitic, lazy lifestyle, Al would've probably been just another Chicago dad instead of the mess that Peg (life, actually) caused him to be. Katey was a MILF back then and still is: a brune now (instead of a redhead) and just as buxom as ever. Cate is the conservative mom and loving wife. I know it sounds boring, but comedically, she fits perfectly.

The Ditzy Blonde Daughter: Bridget (played to perfection by Kaley Cuoco): almost never has an idiot been played so well. Aside of Gob on Arrested Development, Bridget may well be a shoe-in for any awards given to this archetype. Bridget is shallow, self-centered, not very bright and a tad slutty in his look. She plays the dumb blonde role better than absolutely anyone IMO. Perfection. One of the high-points of the show.

The Overlooked Geeky Daughter: Kerry (Amy Davidson): a brune and a geek, she gets no love from life or circumstances. Feels overlooked, under-appreciated and neglected most of the time. She's Bridget's younger sister (in reality she's older than her) and the two's extremely opposite personalities and brains cause endless clashes, to much of our amusement.

The Son: Rory (Martin Spanjers): was the second funniest character IMO before the passing of Ritter, then John passes, new characters come and Rory is not the wise-cracking verbal-trouble-maker that he used to: that went mostly to David Spade's character.

Those characters were the main ones at the time of John Ritter. Unfortunately enough, the insanely hilarious Larry Miller (one of my favorites) did not get lots of screen time. He played Paul's co-worker/competitor. After an aortic dissection cost Ritter his life in 2003 (September 11th), the show was on hiatus for a while. No one thought it could come back, but it did later on, with a couple of new additions. This began the second phase of the show, and the new characters were:

The strict, confident school principal: Ed (Adam Arkin): I saw Adam here and there on talk shows. This was the first time that I saw him do anything. Impressed, is the word I use. His performance was very impressive. Sad he wasn't brought in earlier. He also plays Cate's potential love interest after Paul passes. The gradual progress towards this point (which would've sounded crazy at the beginning) earns the creators lots of praise. It was done slowly, carefully and excellently, with constant respect paid to the Paul (Ritter).

The Attitude Grandpa: Jim Egan (James Garner): a surprisingly welcome addition to the series, he was cannon fodder for endless 'old' jokes, mainly by...

The 35-year-old unemployed wise-cracking half-brother of the mom: CJ (played to insanely funny heights by David Spade): I knew Spade was funny, I just didn't know he was THIS funny. Somehow, Spade's very familiar presence is sensed inside his character (as opposed to a separable character), which is understandable, since he's a comic and he's on a comedy show. This eerie feeling is kinda like seeing someone borrow lots of material from David Spade's appearances in movies, talk shows and functions (award shows, etc.) and delivering a superb impersonation of Spade's voice and comedy style, except, that it IS Spade. By that I mean you realize he's not trying to play someone else, or a whole new character: he's being the goofy, funny Spade we've come to know, and he takes this pleasantly humorous formula to the absolute top. Every line he uttered, every sarcasm he begot, all classics, literally. Spade was CRAZY-funny; so, SO funny.

The show's humor and drama were both upped after the show was back, but audiences thought, "John passed, it ain't gonna be the same anymore". This is understandable, considering we are talking about a group of people (American viewers) who gave 'Yes Dear' a free ride but caused Andy Richter Controls the Universe to be cancelled in no time. As the show's quality increased, its ratings declined. Soon it was no more, sadly.

And I saved the best for last: fans of Married With Children are in for a treat. And boy, what a treat it was. I still shiver just remembering it. It's a surprise so good that it would be crazy for me to spoil it, even if I legitimately do it under the "spoiler..." pretext. Suffice it to say that it's something you'll NEVER forget. I know I won't :-) Let me say first that this show was top tier when John Ritter was there. Upon his death, the show did drop off a bit, but the producers didn't give up on the show, adding James Garner and David Spade to the regular cast from 2003 to 2005.

The show centers around the Hennessy family, Paul (John Ritter, may he rest in peace), his wife Cate (Katey Sagal), their daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco), Kerry (Amy Davidson), and their son, Rory (Martin Spanjers). When Ritter was on the show, I would shriek in laughter (and proud to admit it, I am), but now that he's gone, I'll only laugh a little with the occasional hearty laugh. I'm very glad that I fell for this show's trance after Ritter's untimely death, because it made the eps with Ritter so much better.

Ritter's character is just so well acted and well rounded, that you can't help but love him. He is always bossing the girls around about dating, but he really wants them to be happy. It's the ultimate daddy hates boyfriend entertainment.

Katey Sagal is great as well, and she too is a likable character. After Ritter's death, her character provides such good influence and strength for not only her kids, but I believe Sagal has shaped the lives of Cuoco, Davidson, and Spanjers, because she and Ritter had been friends for a long time.

The funniest person on the show would have to be Bridget Hennessy, played by Kaley Cuoco. She is the ultimate blonde: gorgeous, slow, dim-witted, yet she is a smart person. She is off the wall hilarious with her innocent 'blonde' humor and how conceited she is.

Amy Davidson can get a tad annoying as Kerry, but that's the purpose of her character. The only fault of the show is that the show never really gives Kerry anything to be happy about. She's always after Bridget, and her character feels like it's just thrown in there.

Martin Spanjers as the lone Hennessy son is hysterical, and when Ritter is on the show, he's mostly comic material. Upon the death of Ritter, the show does provide some story lines for Rory.

David Spade and James Garner are all nothing but laughs, with the occasional side story for C.J., Spade's character. Garner plays Cate's father, as a bit of background information.

All in all, I give this show a great review because it is a great show that had a tragic event happen that crippled it. You'll enjoy it.

9/10 --spy ABC has done more for this show by allowing television veterans James Garner and David Spade to join the cast of this show. At first, the show was watchable and even predictable with John Ritter and Katey Sagal. John's loss shocked the world. Katey and the three kids are really a solid professional cast. The hour lesson after John's death in real-life struck home to me. I lost my father at 17 years old and could sympathize and understand their pain and agony. ABC should be proud to maintain this show and even preserve this as John's final wish. This show has matured and developed because of such impossible circumstances. They should be rewarded with Emmys. Paul Hennessy and his wife, Cate must deal with their two teenage daughters and weird son...But after the untimely passing of John Ritter, the show became more about coping with the loss of a loved one...

I found this show, passing through the channels one afternoon and I have to say I was laughing myself till my ribs ached, simply at the range of characters; the witty lines and the situation Paul would find himself dealing mostly with his daughters...From then on, I caught the rest of the show when I was free and I have to say the writing was very good..But then I read about John Ritter's death...Shortly afterwards I watched 'Goodbye' part 2 and I have to say I was nearly in tears, watching the emotions of the characters, losing a loved one...How Rory punches a wall in anger and frustration...How Cate deals with having to sleep in her bed all alone....Briget and Kerry talking about what they should have done.

But the show does move on, bringing with it Jim Egan and CJ Barnes who provide great laughs, as Cate's father tries to protect his family and give 'man issue talks' to Rory...But the true gem is CJ...who is absolutely hilarious as the wild cousin.

It will always be John Ritter's masterpiece. This is full of major spoilers, so beware.

"Prix de Beaute" always suffers in comparison to the two films Louise Brooks made with G. W. Pabst, "Pandora's Box" and "Diary of a Lost Girl," but in some ways, "Prix" is the quintessential Brooks film. Here she has a chance to be charming without the dark side of her Pabst collaboration. What "Prix" has that the Pabst films don't is music. In this early French film, the whole Louise Brooks mystique is fleshed out powerfully with a conjunction of image, song and music. The Charleston is what seems most associated with Brooks (she was the first to dance it in Europe), but the essence of the actress comes across more strongly in the tango. The tango also plays a plot point in "Prix," being the music she danced with on her short rise to stardom after becoming Miss Europe. Later, when she has forsaken her fame in favor of a mundane existence as the wife of jealous husband Andre, the longing for her forsaken fame becomes apparent when the same tango record is seen on her apartment record player. So appropriate is the tango to Brooks it is used to accompany the documentary about her life, "Looking for Lulu," a film narrated by Shirley Maclaine. The brazen and forceful quality of the tango epitomizes Louise Brooks' strong-headed but elegant and erotic individuality.

The song, "Je n'ai qu'un amour, c'est toi," adds an immense amount of pathos to what is not a great film (but a very good one). By the way, Brooks' voice was not dubbed for the film by Edith Piaf as some have claimed. Piaf was born in 1915, and wasn't discovered until 1935. The song, however, is what Brooks' character, Lucienne, sings to Andre at the beginning of the film to cheer him up and express her deep affection for him. And at the climax it is the song she sings for her screen test, which she views with the producers and managers who intend to shape her career. It continues on screen after husband Andre, who has followed her to the screening room, shoots and kills her. In a single shot, with Lucinenne's dead body in repose at the bottom of the screen while her screen test continues above with the song she once sang to Andre, the essence of what movies do that other art forms do not is perfectly characterized. As Andre watches his now dead wife sing to him on screen, the murder weapon still smoking, he subtly smiles. She is now his forever, and by association, ours.

Coincidentally, Louise Brooks real life career crashed and burned after "Prix de Beaute," so it was also the death of her final starring roll as well. This film really seals the Brooks mystique more so than the Pabst films (which are superior films, no doubt). It also points out what it is about the movies that create the whole idea of the "cult" of the movies - where people like Brooks, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe live on more intensely after their death than when they were alive. I think I truly love this film . "Prix de Beaute" was originally a silent film but later dubbed into French in 1930. Despite having someone else's voice dubbed over hers, this remains a stunning tour de force for Louis Brooks. The fact that her singing voice is dubbed by the legendary Edith Piaf helps to mollify us purists about the dubbing deception.

This is the story of Lulu and we first see her at a resort with her macho boyfriend, Andre (Georges Charlia) and their friend Antonin (Augusto Bandini). Lulu enters the frame as a pair of legs: we see her inside the car changing into her bathing costume. Lulu is very free with showing off her body and this does not sit well with the irksome Andre. When Lulu considers applying for the title of 'Miss Europe' we know that a happy ending is not going to be sitting at the end of Easy Street.

The film seems to focus a lot on men ogling beautiful women. We see plenty of bathing beauties and the reactions of the men staring at them. But at the center of it all is the magnificent Louise Brooks.

If you don't mind watching films from the bygone eras, then consider checking out this one. Louise Brooks is not a name that most average movie buffs may readily know but as soon as you see her you will be mesmerised and you'll want to know more. Also check her out in 'Pandora's Box' if you can find it.

Be wary of the US Kino DVD release. I don't know if their projection speed is correct. A lot of the scenes appear to be shown at too fast a speed. This may have been the way they were shot. I don't know. But since it's the only way to see this film, it's worth swallowing that one minor bitter pill. It is often only after years pass that we can look back and see those stars who are truly stars. As that French film critic, whose name escapes me, said: "There is no Garbo. There is no Dietrich. There is only Louise Brooks"; and there is, thank heavens! Louise Brooks! This is the third of her European masterpieces. But it is also an exceptional film for being one, if not the, first French talkie, for following a script written by famed René Clair, for reportedly being finished (the direction, that is) by Georg Pabst, and for incorporating the voice of Edith Piaf before she was well known! So much talent working on and in a film, how couldn't it turn out to be a masterpiece?! And that's what this film is. It's a shame Louise Brooks was blackballed by Hollywood when she came back to the States--so much talent cast so arrogantly by the wayside! In the film, in addition to getting to watch Louise Brooks in action, it's great to see pictures of Paris ca. 1930 and to hear Piaf's young voice. I never get tired of this film! `Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.

I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary – and inferior – but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. – knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....

It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.

A real classic, ten out of ten! Every actor is perfect, the screenplay is a haunting succession of suspenseful scenes. Scenes in car and scenes in the mountains are breathtaking. Wonder if this film is already out in DVD, because it must be seen in Widescreen version. Saw this film in the late fifties, maybe three or four times, and never since then forgot it.I remember it was one of the first Warner like cinemas cope features, process called Warnerscope which gave a very neat cinematography. Shelley Winters and Jack Palance deserved an Oscar for their performances.The only thing I could criticize is not having been directed by someone like, say Nicholas Ray, to increase its rhythm and tension. I think that that creator(s) of this film's concept deserves a lot more accolades than they probably ever received. It isn't an Oscar caliber film of course, but, at least for me, this film has left a lasting impression since I first saw it back in 1984 (in the theatre).

I don't think this is (and hope it isn't) a spoiler, but: imagine acting on your impulses. Doing the first thought that pops into your head, saying the first words on your lips... No restraint, no conscious, nothing holding you back from saying or doing the things that, as intelligent adults, we know we shouldn't actually say or do. If anything, this film only scratches the surface - It doesn't go as far as it could go.

In a time when Hollywood seems obsessed with remaking older "classics" to try and cash in on today, wouldn't it be nice to see them remake an older film of modest success, for the sake of taking it to the next level? A bit further, or even to explore what the original crew didn't, wouldn't or couldn't deal with 20 years ago?

That's just my opinion anyway. :o) OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.

I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10. I saw this movie on TV late one night years ago, but it was a disturbing experience that has stayed with me to this day.

The premise may seem a bit unoriginal - due to an earthquake, a hidden underground store of a toxic nerve agent in the hills above a small town is breached, and a microscopic amount of the substance finds its way into their food supply. The inhabitants of the town begin to lose their ability to exercise restraint over every whim and base desire that floats through all of our minds from time to time, and that normally we know we simply must not act upon.

The pace of the movie is slow, but for me that only added to the creeping unease as the townspeople's behaviour slowly starts to unravel. There are several surreal and very unsettling scenes that have remained etched in my memory all this time.

It raises interesting questions about what we could all be capable of if we gave in to our most feral instincts. Did I enjoy it? I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the right word. Did it make me think? Definitely. I'm still thinking about it. Scary stuff. I saw this movie back in 1984, we first started watching "This Is Spinal Tap" and after 5 minutes we were ready to fall asleep. So we went instead to see this movie. If you have any conspiracy theory's going around in your head, you will want to watch this one.

The question you have to ask yourself when watching this movie are: Do you think the government would be capable of doing this? (In my opinion there is no doubt that they could)

But I don't want to give out too much information as that would be a spoiler and I think that you should view the movie for yourself.

But, just to let you know, we still talk about this movie 20 years later and trying to explain it to people is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Im not a big Tim Matheson fan but i have to admit i liked this film.It was dark and a small bit disturbing with some scenes a bit edgy,i don't know were to classify this film its a bit SF and a bit horror slash thriller.I saw this at about 2.00am or so on my local channel there was nothing else on so i decided to watch it.If you have not seen this film id recommend it its not really that bad,the characters are interesting enough but not really explored to their full potential which could have made this film even more better.I don,t know if this film went to the cinema but it felt like it was made for TV or went straight to video,i for one would buy this if it,s on DVD it fits well with my type of film and has a small bit of the X-FILES story attached to it.Government undertakings or shifty corporations involved in dodgy shadowy dealings.Overall a good film. Viewing "Impulse" is a very satisfying experience. Unpredictable films are such a rarity, when one comes along like "Impulse", it is something to embrace. The script is logical, and extremely creative. Meg Tilly, Tim Matheson, Hume Cronyn, and Bill Paxton, give believable performances. This could have played out like a zombie movie, but "Impulse" is far superior to any boring "zombiefest", and originality shines through in almost every scene. You get the feeling that something like this could have actually happened, even though the script is pure fiction. From the "grabber" opening till the credits roll, you will be fascinated. Very entertaining and definitely recommended. - MERK Watched this last night and was bowled over by the heartfelt story line, the excellent character development, and the good karmic vibe emanating from the acting and movie as a whole.

Without giving away too much of the plot, it begins with an ordinary joe who commutes to his office job every day who becomes inspired to take dance lessons. Along the way the protagonist and the assorted characters he meets in his quest to be smooth on the dance floor learn lessons about others and about themselves.

The story has a prologue about what dancing in Japan symbolizes sociologically, so it isn't exactly as simple to learn to dance in Japan as it is here in the U.S.

The film is lighthearted; you'll laugh out loud at some of the sight gags. Yet it is also dignified in a way hard to describe. All of the film's characters are taken seriously, as they are, and none are diminished because of their "imperfections."

I've been thinking about taking social dance classes with some friends. It just so happened a friend lent me the video on learning to dance. Is this synchronous or what? I think so because now I'm really geeked to give it a try.

Watch this wonderful family film (small children might not get it, but teens certainly would) and smile at the genuine caring you see shown in it time and again.

Why they would make a remake of Shall We Dance is a mystery, as it is perfect as-is. I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.

One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.

Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.

Yes, I know the "original" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.

Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.

Well, just a quick list anyway :-) I was so surprised when I saw this film so much underrated... I understand why some of you dislike this movie. Its pace is slow, a characteristic of Japanese films. Nevertheless, if you are absorbed in the film like me, you will find this not a problem at all.

I must say this is the best comedy I have ever seen. "Shall We Dansu?" is often considered a masterpiece of Japanese comedies. It is very different from Hollywood ones, e.g. Austin Powers or Scary Movies, in which a gag is guaranteed in every couple of minutes. Rather, it is light-hearted, a movie that makes you feel good.

I love the movie because it makes me feel "real". The plot is straightforward yet pleasing. I was so delighted seeing that Sugiyama (the main role) has found the meaning of life in dancing. Before I watched the film I was slightly depressed due to heavy schoolwork. I felt lost. However, this film made me think of the bright side of life. I believed I was in the same boat of Sugiyama; if he could find himself in his hobby, why couldn't I? It reminded me of "exploring my own future" and discovering the happiness in my daily life.

It is important to note that the actors are not professional dancers. While some of you may find the dancing scenes not as perfect as you expect, I kinda like it as it makes me feel that the characters are really "alive", learning to dance as the film goes on.

Over all, this film is encouraging and heart-warming. As a comedy, it does its job perfectly. It definitely deserves 10 stars.

And yes Aoki is funny :-D How many of us wish that we could throw away social and cultural obligations and be free? Most of us, I suspect. Shall we dance? is not a movie about dancing. It is about learning about ourselves, recognising what we are looking for in life and having the courage to go in search of it. Mr Sugiyama is a middle-aged member of a Japanese society where ballroom dancing is viewed as unsuitable behaviour.

One day Mr Sugiyama sees a beautiful girl leaning out of the window of a dancing acadamy. he is fascinated by her and eventually signs up for dancing lessons. He is ashamed of his dancing and afraid of ridicule. He hides the fact that he is attending dancing classes from his colleagues and family.

There is a hilarious scene in the mensroom at the office when Sugiyama and Watanabe, a workmate who also dances, are interrupted practising some dance steps. There are many other funny and warm-hearted scenes.

The ending is not a fairytale, but it leaves the viewer feeling good.

This movie helped me to understand the Japanese people a little better. It is a warm and very worthwhile film to see. This film is about a man who has been too caught up with the accepted convention of success, trying to be ever upwardly mobile, working hard so that he could be proud of owning his own home. He assumes this is all there is to life until he accidentally takes up dancing, all because he wanted to get a closer look of a beautiful girl that he sees by the dance studio everyday while riding the subway on his way home.

His was infatuated with her at first, going to the dance class just to idolize her, but he eventually lets himself go and gets himself into the dancing. It eventually becomes apparent to him that there is more to life than working yourself to death. There is a set of oddball characters also learning in the studio, giving the film a lot of laughs and some sense of bonding between the dejected.

There is also revelations of various characters, including the girl he initially admired, giving some depth to them by showing their blemished past and their struggle to overcome it.

The dancing was also engaging, with the big competition at the end, but it is not the usual story where our underdog come out at the top by winning it. Instead, there are downfalls, revelations and redemption.

All these makes it a moving and fun film to watch. First, there is NO way the remake can be as good, because Japanese society is quite different from ours and plays such a major part in this film, as explained in the opening narration. It adds to the humor as well as warmth of this movie. There is slew of different supporting characters/personalities. Each does there part in making this movie wonderful. This movie is full of comedy that isn't vulgar in anyway like most of today's "gross-out comedies." Yet it can still have you laughing out loud. The reality is, in real life, you don't have a choice of who you work with or go to school with...etc. This movie truly emphasizes that and shows that the natural good in people can overcome petty differences. Not to mention, it makes for a great sub-plot and much of the humor. This is a story about dance that actually has a story, and a good one at that. There are a few back stories that are not out of place, but actually support the main storyline. Truly a well written film. The dancing is great, too. I happen to be a fan of any movie with dancing of any sort, for that aspect. However, this movie goes beyond any other with dance, in the fact that, it is a story First and just happens to be written about dancing in Japanse society. Highly recommended.

10 out of 10. I don't like "grade inflation" but I just had to give this a 10. I can't think of anything I didn't like about it. I saw it last night and woke up today thinking about it. I'm sure that the Hollywood remake that someone told me about, with J Lo and Richard Gear, will be excellent, but this original Japanese version from 1996 was so emotional and thought-provoking for me that I am hard-pressed to think of any way that it could be improved, or its setting changed to a different culture.

A story I found worth watching, and with o fist-fight scenes or guns going off or anything of the sort! Imagine that!

All the characters seemed well-developed, ... even non-primary characters had good character-development and enjoyable acting, and the casting seemed very appropriate.

It's always hard to find a good movie-musical in our day and age, and perhaps this doesn't quite qualify (there is plenty of learning how to dance, but no singing) but I really think that Gene Kelly and others who championed a place for dance in our lives would have thought so very highly of this film and the role of dance in helping to tell a story about a middle aged man, successful with a family in Japan, looking for something... he knows not precisely what.

To the team of people in Japan who contributed to this film, thank you for creating and doing it. Okay. As you can see this is one of my favorite if not favorite films. This is a character drama which is absolutely hilarious. The main character is a business man who is stuck in a "same thing, different day" mentality. He sees a woman looking melancholy out a window of a dance studio from his train everyday and wonders about her and decides to find out more about her. He decides to join the dance class only to find out she is not the instructor. From there he bonds with four other dancers and learns to enjoy dancing as well as finding out about the mysterious woman.

There is no gratuitous (or any) sex involved, just how a small group of people learn how friendships are formed and developed.

This film was remade with Richard Gere and Jennifer Lopez and the new one while appealing is nowhere as enjoyable as the original. The movie never made it big in America because it was not eligible for the Oscars since it was broadcast on television in Japan (movies cannot be released on TV or they are disqualified for Oscar nominations). It did win numerous awards in Japan for best film, cast, director etc for their "Oscar" awards. This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson.

In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share?

Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be. The accountant Shohei Sugiyama (Kôji Yakusho) is feeling bored with his routine life, limited to hard work and stay at home with his wife Masako Sugiyama (Hideko Hara) and his teenager's daughter. One night, while traveling home by train, he sees the beautiful face of Mai Kishikawa (Tamiyo Kusakari) in the balcony of a dance school, and a couple of days later, he decides to visit the school and secretly take ballroom dance lessons every Wednesdays night. However, he becomes ashamed to tell his family his secret. Meanwhile, Masako feels the changes in the behavior of her happier husband, and hires a private eye to investigate whether Shohei is having an affair.

I have just finished watching "Shall We Dansu?" and I really loved it. What a lovely and delightful movie! The story is amazingly good, with drama, comedy and romance. The cast is excellent, and I was particularly impressed with the cold beauty and graciousness of the wife of the director Masayuki Suo and professional ballet dancer Tamiyo Kusakari. On last September 06th, I saw the American remake of "Shall We Dansu?" for the first time, and I found it a delightful entertainment. But now I can say that it is another unnecessary remake, and I recommend this original film instead. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Dança Comigo?" ("Dance With Me?") I have seen this movie many many times and I will never get tired of it. It is a classic in every sense of the word. The movie is hysterically funny and yet quite touching all at the same time. For those of you who are not a fan of "subtitles" or of foreign film in general, open your mind. This is a great movie for "the beginner" because the story is so entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it is 100% Japanese (and that is what makes it work), but everyone will get something out of it (even if it is just a great laugh at one of the main characters called Mr. Aoki - one of the funniest characters I have ever seen!)

I can't even think of this movie without smiling!! I love it ... and I think most people will too. This movie was charming. An accountant wants more from life than the approved conventional success. What makes it work so well, and makes it so different from the standard dance movie is that it really isn't about becoming "Great" it is simply about finding a way to express one's self. The big triumph at the end is not the winning of a contest, not the discovery of a whole new life style, but the simple joy of doing what you want to fulfill the other parts of your life. No one is discovering their passion, they are finding their quiet soul.

The Japanese background makes the subtle oppression and "secret life" of ballroom dancing both understandable and personal. We can all see ourselves in the everyman. There were some great moments of reality in there depicting modern day life (not only in Japan, but everywhere). It shows how stifling ones culture can be, and wanting to break out of the mold its created for you.

The dancing was just a vehicle for saying "do what you love even if its against the norm". Rather Billy Elliot like I would say. I enjoyed that film as well.

The humour was well timed, and the touching moments felt so real, you could feel the awkwardness between Sugiyama and his wife, the tantrums in the dance hall. I loved Aoki - him and that wig and his excessiveness on the dance floor made me simply howl!

The actors all did a wonderful job, the story was well written. I watched it a second time and caught some little nuances that I missed on the first viewing. Good entertainment! Funny. Sad. Charming. These are all words that floated through my head while I was watching this beautiful, simple film.

It is rare that a movie truly moves me, but "Shall We Dance?" accomplished that with grace to spare. Gentle humor mixed in with occasional subtle agony made this easily one of the best experiences of my movie-viewing history. It left me with a quiet sense of exultation, but with a small touch of sadness mixed in.

And the dancing, oh yes, the dancing. Even if you are not a lover of the art, or can't put one foot in front of another, the steps displayed here will take your breath away, and make you want to sign up for classes as fast as you can. It was absolutely enchanting, even the parts that show Sugiyama's (touchingly portrayed by Koji Yakusho) stilted steps when he was first learning to dance were lovely in a humorous, child-like way. And yet, this film was not entirely about dancing, but more about the subtleties of human behavior and feelings. We witness a shy man learning to express his repressed feelings through dance, a beautiful dance instructor rediscovering her love for the art, and the personal growth of every member of the wonderful supporting cast.

Beauty. Pain. Emotion. All the love and little agonies of life are here, expressed with the delicate feeling of a fine Japanese watercolor painting combined with the emotional strength and grace of the culture.

If you are tired of films trying too hard to be fairy tales (the "Pretty Woman" variety love story), here is a beautiful film in which a Japanese businessman is pulled free from his robotic, dispassionate life when he falls in love...with dancing. Wonderfully drawn characters bring to life a story that is at once deeply funny and poignantly moving. Everyone in the cast, from Sugiyama to Aoki and Toyoko is someone we know in everyday life. They were so natural, and Sugiyama's transformation is incredibly believable. The score is so moving, it brought me to tears. The choreography was beautiful without seeming athletic. Mai's graceful dancing and charm gave me goosebumps. Tamako is such a wonderfully delightful character. You can almost see the charmed schoolgirl in her face as she reminisces about seeing "The King and I". Aoki's character is both hilarious and pitiful. Masako is so overwhelmingly natural as the bewildered wife, you almost want to hug her to reassure her that everything will be all right.

This film is truly a keeper. I always look forward to this movie when its on TV. Have to get the DVD I guess. The range of different types of people is great. It says to me that anyone can be a dancer if they try hard enough. My favorite character must be Mr.Aoki. He is so quirky but so full of emotions. It is a perfect movie with wonderful dancing. Unfortunately we never get the chance to see them go to Blackpool. Would make for the perfect sequel if they had. But I guess it leaves it to your imagination to what could of happened.

A very simple and innocent story. He stays loyal to his wife and daughter.

I haven't seen the Hollywood remake. Not sure if I want to. I don't really enjoy Jennifer Lopez. I think Richard Gere more matches the original than Lopez. I have a feeling that the remake is not as simple and innocent. I lived in Tokyo for 7 months. Knowing the reality of long train commutes, bike rides from the train station, soup stands, and other typical scenes depicted so well, certainly added to my own appreciation for this film which I really, really liked. There are aspects of Japanese life in this film painted with vivid colors but you don't have to speak Japanese to enjoy this movie. Director Suo's tricks were subtle for the most part; I found his highlighting the character called Tamako Tamura with a soft filter, making her sublime, a tiny bit contrived but most of the directors tricks were so gentle that I was fully pulled in and just danced with his characters. Or cried. Or laughed aloud. Wonderful. A+. I just saw this delightful Japanese feature film at the 5th Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival in the historic Virginia Theatre in Champaign, Illinois.

Although this film, subtitled in English, has ballroom dancing as its heart, the film actually shows the world outside of Japan how the rigid structures of family, employment (salaryman), and recreation still exist in Modern day Japan.

Writer/director Suo Masauki [I follow Japanese custom of presenting the family name (last name) first and the given name (last)] uses the not so very popular theme of ballroom dancing to show the societal structure of Japan.

[Also, I shall not use the movie character names when world readers may not be familiar with Japanese formal names which may confuse. I will refer to the

actors by their professional acting name as listed in the Internet Data Movie Base.]

He enlists the aid of his real-life wife, professional ballet dancer Kusakari Tamiyo in her first and, so far, only motion picture. She is a dance teacher at her father's dance studio. Yet, her real ambition is to compete once more in an International Dance Competition which she was disqualified from in the past. No, I won't say "why." See the movie.

Salaryman Yakusyo Koji is the main star of the film. A veteran of about 25 films since 1979, he gives a sterling performance of a 40's something companyman

who has a lovely wife, teenage daughter, and just purchased the house of his

longing.

And, yet, something is missing from his own inner happiness. See this film to learn how he becomes "involved" with ballroom dancing and secretly goes to

lessons. Most of the dancing characters are liberated from the traditional

Japanese hierarchy of social structure. They are friendly and warm and inviting. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to how Japanese society is structured with it's "place for everyone and everyone in its place" philosophy.

The movie has so many funny moments. The almost 1,500 theater goers broke

into spontaneous laughter during many of the comedic moments. This proves

that comedy has no foreign language.

Veteran actor Takenaka Naoto is funny and brilliant as well as Watanabe Eriko. They are two funny character actors.

One could purchase and read a college text book regarding the structure of life in Japan, or, you could watch this fine film and begin to understand how the

people of Japan grow up in a fairly rigid societal structure. Watching the movie "Shall we Dansu?" is a quick immersion into further study and viewing other

Japanese films.

I recommend this film to all. It's funny, it's charming, it will make you cry a little, and it will warm your heart.

"Shall We Dance?", a light-hearted flick from Japan, tells of an overworked accountant and family man who is attracted to a dance studio by a beautiful woman he see's from the train during his daily commute. What he finds in the studio are lessons in dancing and, most of all, himself. Funny, poignant, and utterly charming, "SWD" is an award winning film well worth a look by more mature viewers. (B) A sweet and totally charming film, Shall We Dansu? made me laugh and cry. At first appearance, Sugiyama-san was not terribly appealing--an uptight salaryman, seemingly devoted to his family, but all too easily captivated by a face in a window. The object of his obsession is distant and cold. But by the end of the movie, I was in love with him, her, his wife and daughter, all the dance instructors and dance students. This uncomplicated story of transformation and renewal is a little jewel that I would enjoy seeing again. It is not the same as the other films about dancing. A few normal people found themselves from dancing. Unlike the dancing films in Hollywood, the characters in this film are not handsome or hot young people. They are someone that you may see everyday in your offices. They are some depressed about their lives and finally find themselves and their dreams from dancing. This touches me very deeply. This is a very real and funny movie about a Japanese man having a mid-life crisis. In Japan, ballroom dancing is not approved of. But when Shohei Sugiyama becomes obsessed with meeting the beautiful young girl he sees in the window of a dance studio, he suddenly finds himself enrolled in dance classes. No one is more surprised when he begins to like it than he. But he must keep his secret pleasure from his coworkers and family. When the truth comes out it is quite funny. Masayuki Suo, who directed this fine film, is on a role. After the decent "Fancy Dance" and the classic (in Japan, anyway) college-sumo comedy "Shiko Funjatta", Suo has followed his own huge footsteps with a smashing success.

The story is engaging. We both laugh often (Naoto Takenaka is hilarious, as he is in Suo's two previous films) and really root for the characters. But to me the big bonus is the look this movie gives the viewer into Japanese society - real life in Japan. Suo has a knack for showing real-life activities with entertaining flair. The result is a movie that will pull you in, make you laugh, make you think, and both entertain you and give you insight into today's Japan.

Also look for the the main 8 actors from Shiko Funjatta, as they all appear again in various roles, from supporting characters (Takenaka) to short cameos (many). Absolutely stunning, warmth for the head and the heart. The kind of movie western movie makers are too rushed, too frenetic to even attempt. My kids watched it, and they loved it too. What real people--goes to show you how cultural differences (the Japanese setting) is less important than the human similarities. Go see it, whether you like dancing or not. I approached this film with low expectations but was very pleasantly surprised. It is very well done and it beats hands down the ballroom dancing movies of recent years, especially "Strictly Ballroom". While the music is nice and the dancing colourful, for me the movie is not about dancing. It is about the very Japanese institution that gives male office workers long commutes to work and free time after work for entertainment that does not involve their families. Here we have the man with the complete family and the large mortgage and a flagging zest for life. He is drawn to the attractive image of a young woman in a dance studio he passes during his commute and this leads him to try ballroom dancing. Also Japanese is the fact that the lecherous motives that initiated his new passion are made plain but somehow accepted, at least eventually, by family and audience. Attitudes to ballroom dancing, as conveyed in the film, are definitely non-Western, though the discipline and the music are clearly cultural imports to Japan. The cultural contrasts are thus intriguing. Even without the cultural insights, the colour, the dance and the enthusiasm of the players all make this a fun film to watch. This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too. This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.

This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are "heavy" and inaccessible.

I thought this film was just about perfect. The descriptions/summaries you'll read about this movie don't do it justice. The plot just does not sound very interesting, BUT IT IS. Just rent it and you will not be sorry!! Shall We Dance is an excellent film because it shows how something, like dancing, can rejuvenate the life flow in the human spirit.

Dance is seen as the expression of existence, and the birth of individuality. The is certainly the case with Aoki. At work he is a humble office denizen, but place him on the dance floor and all his bottled up intensity is released. Surprisingly, this release is frowned upon in Japan, due to the rigid culture of conformity. At the start of the film, all the characters are ashamed or frightened of their desire to dance. They will be scorned, or deemed perverted, for expressing their passion through dance.

This film is well worth watching to witness the rebirth of human emotions and passions. It will leave a smile on your face for days. Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with "The Shop Around the Corner". This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.

Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.

The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.

That is why these films will live forever! I have lost count of just how many times I have seen this movie - I probably know the entire dialog backwards - yet I am drawn to it time and again.

Set in Hungary, a young Jimmy Stewart plays the eligible bachelor "Kralik" who becomes the secret admirer of Margaret Sullavan's innocent "Klara". Kralik secretly becomes Klara's pen-friend, and at work together Klara confides in Kralik about the content of his (Kralik's) letters. Clearly Kralik is besotted with Klara - but is unable to make his feelings known whilst he is in competition with the "pen-friend". Confused? Well you wont be - this story has a sweet, almost sugary ending - but we all know it is the ending we all want.

Other characters worth mentioning are Frank Morgan playing his usual role, this time as the shop's owner "Hugo Matuschek", Felix Bressart as "Pirovitch", Kralik's confidant. Joseph Schildkraut as the womanising arrogant "Vadas" - so well played that you cannot help but hate him right from the beginning.

Finally William Tracy who manages to endear himself to us all with his over-confident upstart of a shop junior "Pepi Katona".

Recently re-made as "You've Got Mail" starring Tom Hanks & Meg Ryan for me is not as good as the original - although I suspect younger audiences would disagree.

If this film is on in your area over Christmas, I suggest you pour yourself a nice glass of wine, put a log on the fire and have a box of Kleenex handy. The cast really helps make this a pleasant surprise and a cut above the normal man-vs.-woman-argue-all-the-time-but-wind up-in love-type of Hollywood screwball romance/comedy.

I usually don't go for those type of films and that tiresome storyline but this one was refreshing, fun to watch, and oozes with charm.

Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other well and make a very handsome couple. The supporting cast is outstanding - from the always-likable Felix Bressart to the villain Joseph Schildkraut.

Frank Morgan also plays one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen him do in his career. He takes the film and turns it around into a whole different mood for awhile when something dramatic happens to him. That "twist" is another reason this film rises above others of its kind.

Once again, when a film has a good mix of categories, it usually succeeds. This is a great example of that. In this movie, it's romance, comedy and drama and it's well done. I'll take this over the re-make "You've Got Mail," any day. No comparison. This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.

The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.

This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart. A wonderful film, filled with great understated performance and sharp, intelligent dialogue. What really distinguishes the film, however, is that undercurrent of sadness throughout. The story is underscored by affairs, loneliness, suicide, disappointment, the fear of losing ones job in a world where that had disastrous consequences. Most of all it was set in a world that no longer existed, having been ripped apart by the beginning of World War II. In fact, the film is barely a comedy at all if you compare the percentage of serious scenes to the comic scenes. Yet funny it is--listen to Margaret Sullivan's harsh dismissal of Jimmy Stewart and watch his pained expression as he replies that her comments were a remarkable blend "of poetry and meanness". It's funny, pointed, and sad all at once. A remarkable achievement and one of the ten greatest screen comedies ever made. Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it! I just watched this on Turner Classic Movies Last night, for the first time ever seeing it, and I loved it. I like lots of the older films, especially because of the absence of all the filthy language, and excessive violence, nudity and sex in most of today's films. I also think they were made much better in many (but not all) cases. Jimmy Stewart is a special favorite of mine. I just thought this movie was a lot of fun to watch, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. If you feel the same way about the older films I don't think you can go wrong with this one. I believe "You've Got Mail" is a remake(even though slightly different and also a very enjoyable film.) of this film. For a relaxing evening with a movie you don't have to be ashamed of if your kids or anyone walks in on your viewing, get this,or catch it on one of the classic movie channels. Calling this a romantic comedy is accurate but nowadays misleading. The genre has sadly deteriorated into cliches, too focused on making the main couple get together and with very little room for ambience and other stories, making it formulaic and overly predictable.

The Shop Around the Corner does not suffer from these illnesses: it manages to create a recognisably middle/eastern-European atmosphere and has a strong cast besides the (also strong) nominal leads; I avoid using the words 'supporting cast' as for example Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan) has a central role to the film and his story is equally if not more important than the romance.

The 1998 film You've Got Mail borrowed the 'anonymous pen-pal' idea from this film and has therefore been billed as a remake. This is not correct and in fact unfair to the new movie - it shares the genre and borrows a plot element, but that is all. Much about love & life can be learned from watching the folks at THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER.

Ernst Lubitsch had another quiet triumph added to his credit with this lovely film. With sparkling dialogue (courtesy of his longtime collaborator Samson Raphaelson) and wonderful performances from a cast of abundantly talented performers, he created a truly memorable movie. Always believing in playing up to the intelligence of his viewers, and favoring sophistication over slapstick, the director concocted a scintillating cinematic repast seasoned with that elusive, enigmatic quality known as the ‘Lubitsch touch.'

Although the story is set in Budapest (and there is a jumble of accents among the players) this is of no consequence. The beautiful simplicity of the plot is that any great American city or small town could easily be the locus for the action.

Jimmy Stewart & Margaret Sullavan are wonderful as the clerks in love with romance and then with each other - without knowing it. Their dialogue - so adeptly handled as to seem utterly natural - perfectly conveys their confusion & quiet desperation as they seek for soul mates. Theirs is one of the classic love stories of the cinema.

Cherubic Frank Morgan has a more serious role than usual, that of a man whose transient importance in his little world is shattered when he finds himself to be a cuckold. An accomplished scene stealer, he allows no emotion to escape unvented. Additionally, Morgan provides the film with its most joyous few moments - near the end - when he determines that his store's newest employee, an impoverished youth, enjoys a memorable Christmas Eve.

Joseph Schildkraut adds another vivid depiction to his roster of screen portrayals, this time that of a toadying, sycophantic Lothario who thoroughly deserves the punishment eventually meted out to him. Gentle Felix Bressart has his finest film role as a family man who really can not afford to become involved in shop intrigues, yet remains a steadfast friend to Stewart.

Sara Haden graces the small role of a sales clerk. William Tracy is hilarious as the ambitious errand boy who takes advantage of unforeseen developments to leverage himself onto the sales force.

In tiny roles, Charles Halton plays a no-nonsense detective and Edwin Maxwell appears as a pompous doctor. Movie mavens will recognize Mary Carr & Mabel Colcord - both uncredited - in their single scene as Miss Sullavan's grandmother & aunt. This, despite not being the original - it began life as a play in Central Europe - has weathered the several incarnations that followed (MGM's own remake with period songs In The Good Old Summertime, the Broadway show She Loves Me, even the excellent theatre revival in Paris a couple of years ago) and remains the definitive version and the one they all have to beat. Several previous commenters have identified the contributing factors that make it so successful and memorable not least being the prevailing fashion in 30s and 40s Hollywood for lavishing attention and detail on ensemble playing rather than just two leads as so often happens today - try, for example, removing Ugarte, Ferrari, Renault etc from Casablanca and yes you'd still have Rick and Ilsa and Viktor Lazslo but they'd just be frosting without the rich cake mixture below. Jimmy Stewart and Maggie Sullavan WERE both ideal and irreplaceable leads but how much brighter they shine when their performances are reflected in those of Frank Morgan, Felix Bressart, Joseph Schildkraut and Andy Hardy's Sara Haden and this is BEFORE we factor in that Lubitsch 'touch'. Okay, maybe they WERE a tad more naive, innocent even, in that Jurassic Age but how many genuine film lovers, sated with scatology, screwing and in-your-face sex, turn back to those days of Stories, Style, Slickness and Skill and wallow in great movies like this one. By far the best thing about this technological age is not CSI but DVD that can at one and the same time make these classics available to nostalgics and show the Matrix freaks how the big boys used to do it. This is a truly classic movie in its story, acting, and film presentation. Wonderful actors are replete throughout the whole movie, Miss Sullivan, and Jimmy Stewart being the foremost characters. In real life she greatly admired, and liked Jimmy, and indeed gave him his basically first acting roles, and helped him be more calm with his appearance on the set. The "chemistry" between the two was always apparent, and so warm and enjoyable to behold. She was such a beautiful, young woman, and so sweet in her personality portrayals. The story of these two young people, and how they eventually come together in the end is charming to watch, and pure magical entertainment. Heart warming presentations are also given by the other supporting actors in this marvelous story/movie. I whole heartily give Miss Sullivan a perfect 10 in this Golden Age Cinema Classic, that has a special appeal for all generations. A must see for all! Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one. Back in the day of the big studio system, the darndest casting decisions were made. Good old all American James Stewart appearing as a Hungarian in The Shop Around the Corner. Had I been casting the film, the part of Kralik would have been perfect for Charles Boyer. His accent mixed in with all the other European accents would have been nothing. Stewart had some of the same problem in the Mortal Storm also with Margaret Sullavan.

Margaret Sullavan was his most frequent leading lady on the screen, he did four films with her. But is only this one where neither of them dies. Sullavan and her husband Leland Heyward knew Stewart back in the day when he was a struggling player in New York. In fact Sullavan's husband was Stewart's good friend Henry Fonda back then.

I think only Clark Gable was able to carry off being an American in a cast of non-Americans in Mutiny on the Bounty. Stewart in The Mortal Storm was German, but all the other players were American as well so nothing stood out.

But if you can accept Stewart, than you'll be seeing a fine film from Ernest Lubitsch. The plot is pretty simple, a man and woman working in a department store in Budapest don't get along in person. But it seems that they are carrying on a correspondence with some anonymous admirers which turn out to be each other. Also employer Frank Morgan suspects Stewart wrongly of kanoodling with his wife.

Though the leads are fine and Frank Morgan departs from his usual befuddled self, the two players who come off best are Felix Bressart and Joseph Schildkraut. Bressart has my favorite moments in the film when he takes off after Morgan starts asking people for opinions. He makes himself very scarce.

And Joseph Schildkraut, who is always good, is just great as the officious little worm who is constantly kissing up to Frank Morgan. You really hate people like that, I've known too many like Schildkraut in real life who are at office politics 24 hours a day. Sad that it pays off a good deal of the time. This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances. James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.

A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.

This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem. "The Shop Around the Corner" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of "You've Got Mail" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find "The Shop Around the Corner" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy! THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is one of the sweetest and most feel-good romantic comedies ever made. There's just no getting around that, and it's hard to actually put one's feeling for this film into words. It's not one of those films that tries too hard, nor does it come up with the oddest possible scenarios to get the two protagonists together in the end. In fact, all its charm is innate, contained within the characters and the setting and the plot... which is highly believable to boot. It's easy to think that such a love story, as beautiful as any other ever told, *could* happen to you... a feeling you don't often get from other romantic comedies, however sweet and heart-warming they may be.

Alfred Kralik (James Stewart) and Clara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) don't have the most auspicious of first meetings when she arrives in the shop (Matuschek & Co.) he's been working in for the past nine years, asking for a job. They clash from the very beginning, mostly over a cigarette box that plays music when it's opened--he thinks it's a ludicrous idea; she makes one big sell of it and gets hired. Their bickering takes them through the next six months, even as they both (unconsciously, of course!) fall in love with each other when they share their souls and minds in letters passed through PO Box 237. This would be a pretty thin plotline to base an entire film on, except that THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is expertly fleshed-out with a brilliant supporting cast made up of entirely engaging characters, from the fatherly but lonely Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) himself, who learns that his shop really is his home; Pirovitch (Felix Bressart), Kralik's sidekick and friend who always skitters out of the room when faced with the possibility of being asked for his honest opinion; smarmy pimp-du-jour Vadas (Joseph Schildkraut) who ultimately gets his comeuppance from a gloriously righteous Kralik; and ambitious errand boy Pepi Katona (William Tracy) who wants nothing more than to be promoted to the position of clerk for Matuschek & Co. The unpretentious love story between 'Dear Friends' is played out in this little shop in Budapest, Hungary, in which Kralik's unceremonious dismissal and subsequent promotion to shop manager help the two lovebirds-to-be along. It's nice that everyone gets a story in this film; the supporting characters are well-developed, and Matuschek's own journey in life is almost as touching as the one Alfred and Clara share. His invitation to new errand boy Rudy (Charles Smith) for Christmas Eve dinner, made in the whirling, beautiful snow of a Hungarian winter, makes the audience glad that he is not alone; we come to care even for the characters whose love story it isn't this film's business to tell.

Aside from the love story, I must say that James Stewart is truly one of the best things about this film. He doesn't play the full-fledged Jimmy Stewart persona in this film (c/f 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington' for that); in fact Alfred Kralik is prickly and abrupt and not particularly kind. He's rather a brusque man, in fact, with little hint (until, perhaps, the very end) of the aw-shucks down-home boyish charm Stewart would soon come to patent. When he finds out before Clara that they have been corresponding in secret, in fact, Kralik doesn't 'fess up--he waits it out to see how far he can take the charade, especially since he quickly realises (given his stormy relationship with Clara as boss and underling) that loving the person he knows through the exchanged letters might not equate with loving the person herself. His description to Clara of the fictional Matthias Popkin (what a name!) who was to become her fiance is hilarious in the extreme, but also his way of proving that the letters don't reveal all there is to a man, just as her letters don't reveal all there is to her. Stewart plays this role perfectly--he keeps his face perfectly controlled whenever Clara insults Mr. Kralik, as she is often wont to do, even (and especially) to his face. And yet one believes, underneath the brusqueness and professionalism, that he *could* reveal his identity with as much earnestness and sincerity and sheer *hope* as he eventually does.

Special mention must be given to the other members of the cast as well. Margaret Sullavan fares rather less well in the first half of the film, but she really comes into her own in the closing-shop scene on Christmas Eve, when she almost gets her heart broken again by Alfred's most vivid description of her mailbox sweetheart. Frank Morgan turns in a great performance as the jealous Hugo Matuschek driven to nervous breakdown, the man who has to rediscover his meaning in life when he realises that his wife of 22 years does not want to 'grow old with him'. And Felix Bressart plays the role of the meek but loyal Pirovitch wonderfully (a Lubitsch regular, since he appears as a hilarious Russian ambassador in NINOTCHKA)--of particular note is the scene in which he helps his good friend Alfred get the Christmas present the latter *really* wants... a wallet instead of that ludicrous cigarette box Clara is so hung up on.

Ernst Lubitsch really does himself proud with this film--for example, the famously lavish and meticulous care given to detail in the creation of the Matuschek shop is well worth the effort, right down to the Hungarian names on the door, the wares and the cash register and so on. But even though Lubitsch chose to have the story set in Hungary, the setting is actually universal: it could happen anywhere; it could happen to you. Therein lies the charm of this simple story, these believable characters who really *are* people. The snow on Christmas Eve is real as well, or at least as real as Lubitsch could make it (he had snow machines brought in at great expense). It is this desire to make everything appear as real as possible that helps make the story even more believable, that gives this entire film a dreamy realism that cannot be replicated. (No, not even in a remake like YOU'VE GOT MAIL.)

*This* is really the Jimmy Stewart Christmas film that people are missing out on when they talk about IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Not to detract from the merits of that other film, but there'd be no harm, and in fact a lot of good, done in watching THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER this Christmas instead. It's sweet, funny, charming, and Stewart is impeccable in his role. We should all be so lucky as to have the romance depicted in this film; the best thing about this film is that we come away from it feeling that we very possibly could. Every time I watch this movie I am more impressed by the whole production. I have come to the conclusion that it is the best romantic comedy ever made. Everyone involved is perfect; script, acting, direction, sets and editing. Whilst James Stewart can always be relied upon for a good performance, and the supporting cast are magnificent, it is Margaret Sullavan who reveals what an underrated actress she was. Her tragic personal life give poignancy to her qualities as a performer where comedy acting skills are not easy to achieve. Lubitsch managed to get the best and he obviously gave his best. Watch for the number of scenes which were done on one take - breathtaking. Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the "romance" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including "You've Got Mail", the recent update of "Shop") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of **** After seeing You've Got Mail and feeling disappointed, I decided to see the original movie which inspired this one, The Shop Around the Corner. I was amazed at this movie. It's a true gem and from this moment one of my favorite movies of all times. The acting is so perfect, the story is so beautiful, that if you haven't seen it, I wish to urge you to see it today. I'm not against re-makes and sometimes I like the new version more than the original one, but this time have to admit that You've Got Mail is a poor adaption of this classic. Don't miss it, go to your video store and rent The Shop Around the Corner today! Two warring shop workers in a leather-goods store turn out to be secret sweethearts as they correspond under box-number aliases. Within this simple idea and an everyday setting, Lubitsch produces a rich tapestry of wit, drama, poignancy and irony that never lets up. Stewart and Sullavan are perfect as the average couple with real emotions and tensions, and the rest of the well-developed characters have their own sub-plots and in-jokes. Although wrongly eclipsed by Stewart's big films of 39/40 (Destry, Philadelphia Story, Mr Smith) this is easily on a par and we enjoy a whole range of acting subtlties unseen in the other films. The location of the shop around the corner is precisely stated at the start of the film, Balta Street in Budapest but it could really be in any place. The small number of sets reflect a middle European design but it could be a shop around any corner. The film is not about Budapest or the retail leather goods business but about the ups and downs of love, reflected in most of the main characters.

Alfred Kralik and Klara Novak are sparring partners at work but their anonymous letters to each other are full of hope and aspiration and romance, and the story unwinds to bring these two aspects together beautifully. Hugo Matuschek, the owner of the shop, is having trouble with his wife, she only a voice at the end of the phone. Ferencz Vadas has a secret affair. Ilona Novodny has a gentleman friend who buys her fur garments. Mr Pirovitch's life is centred around his wife and children. Pepi Katona 'plays Santa Claus' to a girl at Christmas. You even sense that quiet Flora Katchuck, while staying at home with her mother dreams of someone.

The script is a masterpiece of comedy and drama. It moves effortlessly from scene to scene. It is one of those quiet films that repays looking at again and again, simple yet profound. The dialogue reflects the character speaking which is not common these days.

All the acting is magnificent. Even the minor characters like the waiter in the cafe and the policeman in the street are perfect. James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other perfectly. He was really getting into his stride as an actor then and gives a sweet and sharp performance. Margaret Sullavan was a terrific actor and under appreciated these days. Some of her other films are worth catching. As Mr Matuschek, Frank Morgan is amazing. His moment of truth is very moving. Gold stars all round to the performers.

It is a well worn phrase that they don't make them like they used to (The vague re-make 'You've Got Mail' was dire) but in this case it is true. The director Lubitsch is not in farce mode thankfully but delivered a classic film of spirit, charm and warm humanity. In Budapest, Margaret Sullavan (as Klara Novak) gets a job as clerk in a gift shop; there, she bickers with co-worker James Stewart (as Alfred Kralik). The two don't get along on the job because each has fallen in love with a unseen pen pal. Watching Ernst Lubitsch direct these stars through the inevitable is predictably satisfying.

Even better is a sub-plot involving shop owner Frank Morgan (as Hugo Matuschek), who suspects his wife is having an affair. Hiring a private detective, Mr. Morgan confirms his wife of 22 years is having sex with one of his younger employees. Morgan, painfully realizing, "She just didn't want to grow old with me," and the supporting characters are what keeps this film from getting old.

********* The Shop Around the Corner (1/12/40) Ernst Lubitsch ~ James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Frank Morgan, Joseph Schildkraut 'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'

At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States – perhaps in the blustery streets of New York – but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film – in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.

Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best. So much has been written about the film's plot, the wonderful acting performance, the script, the melancholy, bittersweet atmosphere, the superb direction - what can I add? Just watch for one of the most heart warming, beautifully acted, poignant scenes ever filmed. It is Christmas eve and Frank Morgan's character (the owner of the shop - Mr. Matuschek)is recovering from his broken marriage and a suicide attempt. As each of his employees leave he invites them to a Christmas dinner. Each and everyone of them politely turn him down. They all have plans for their own Christmas eve. At this stage there is a deep sadness to this moving scene. Frank Morgan gives the performance of his career and this scene easily brings me to tears. Thankfully we have a happy denouement to this very special scene. The new employee, the errand boy, is the last to exit the shop into a beautiful snowy street scene. Desperately Mr. Matuschek approaches this boy and asks him how he would love to spend the evening with him, he will treat him to all the wonderful Christmas food that this errand boy has probably never seen!The chap is overwhelmed, he too is obviously as lonely as Mr. Matuschek and together they can have a wonderful Christmas meal. Every time I see this scene it moves me. If you manage to get the delightful DVD look at the great trailer with Frank Morgan introducing himself as Mr. Matuschek and an appearance by the director of the film- the talented Ernst Lubitsch. This film is a joy from beginning to end. I have passed several times on watching this since I figured it was some dumb, sappy, dated romantic comedy. Well, it is a romantic comedy, and maybe a little dated. However, it is not overly sentimental, touching as it does on themes of office politics, adultery, and loneliness. You think you know exactly where things are headed, but there is an element of unpredictability that keeps your interest, and not everything turns out quite as you had expected. But, there is enough wit and charm to touch the most inveterate cynic. If you meet someone who doesn't like this movie, seriously consider how well you want to know them. A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.

There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.

Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.

This is a wonderful, unsung romance.

Grade: A+ I recently bought this movie with a bunch of other LaserDiscs from eBay. Usually, I am into war and action movies but occasionally I enjoy romantic comedies.

If you are bored by today's special FX films and high gloss romantic comedies you should check out Shop Around the Corner on a quiet evening. What I like about the movie is that the characters have a lot of decency. There is nothing fake or pretentious about them. Take Mr. Matuschek for example: When he finds out that his wife is cheating on him with one of his own employees he tries to shot himself. Not just because of the humiliation but because he has been unjust to the character of Stewart. (OK, weired example.)

Yes, the focus of the movie is narrow and the plot is predictable. Yet still, I liked it a lot. If you likes Notting Hill then you will like Shop around the corner. in fact, Hugh Grant reminds me a lot of Jimmy Stewart. Would that more romantic comedies were as deftly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me catching my breath with excitement. Margaret Sullavan makes a marvellous saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the best in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most winning performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me giddy with joy. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, but this one he must surely consider a triumph. With some of the wittiest dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer. Set in World Depression Era Prague, this is the story of an ambitious store clerk who is falling in love with a mystery woman with whom he has exchanged romantic letters, only to discover that the mystery woman is none other than the sales girl from his shop, who seems to be constantly bickering with the colleague. Add a little twist (the owner is convinced that his favorite employee -Stewart- is having an affair with the owner's wife), leaving Stewart briefly 'fired', along with an admission that the sales girl 'liked' Stewart all along, the happy ending is inevitable.

Although VERY dated (references to poverty and -I have a wife and two kids to consider- are over-used, along with the indication that many small objects of pleasure, like a musical cigar box, are out-of-reach for common people's enjoyment), this film is much more effective (and more credible) than the 1990s re-make "You've Got Mail". In the re-make starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the actual odds of the chain-of-events are so unbelievable that the viewer's intelligence is grossly offended.

"Shop Around The Corner" is an innocent stroll down memory lane into a less complicated, less hectic, and more romantic time and place known as a novelist's Utopia. Lovers of Classic Romantic Comedies will enjoy this picture! Who doesn't know Largo Winch in the France-Belgium-Luxemburg trio (the three countries where the French "BD" or "Bandes Dessinées" are massively published) ? 18 years after the publication of the first comic book, which is itself an adaptation of a series of novels, it HAD to be adapted on screens. After a first - and failed- attempt with a TV show, the real thing begins.

First of all, and that's what most of the fans didn't get, the goal of this movie is not strictly to adapt the comic book series. Some essential parts, characters and actions of the original are missing. The movie itself offers an alternative and more modern version of the series. As a 1st class-fan of the comic book, I must confess I was nicely surprised. The actors are good, so is the scenario, though it might seem too fast. I thus recommend this movie to all those interested by financial/political thrillers, but it is clearly not an alternative to James Bond or Jason Bourne series as I could read over the internet. I'm not aware of "Largo Winch" as a comic book (or is it graphic novel? I actually don't know), but I have to admit, hearing about an agent/hero movie, I did expect quite something different, than what I actually got.

While it was startling to watch this at first, it was nice watching this move along. You could never really tell where it would go (some twists are foreseeable, but in general, you can never really say, were it will end up going). A more than stellar performance from the lead actor and a really good support cast, make this an enjoyable watch. Not as action packed as some might hope or expect for a movie like that, but a really good mixture. When I sat down to watch 'Largo Winch' I expected nothing more than action scenes and fascinating cars. When I stood up, I've seen both of these; and more.

Karl Roden was finally not the antagonist in a movie, to start with. Kristin Scott Thomas played her role well, but the real two stars in my opinion were Tomer Sisley and Miki Manojlovic, both acting superbly. In Radivoje Bukvic portrayed Goran well.

The mixed linguistics brought a nice color to the movie, but I understand why people would get bored with it.

The scenery of Hong Kong and especially the stunning Croatian seaside both amazed me, and I hardly wanted to take my eyes off the screen when Largo entered the unbelievably beautiful island.

Rolls Royce Phantom; Mercedes S500, and BMW 7; if anyone loves expensive limousine - type cars; this is their movie. It is also a movie for people who love action sequences, good acting, landscapes of extremal beauty, and above all, a fast - paced, well written action movie, with dazzling combat and a thoroughly twined inner drama.

My vote, as it has enlightened a gloomy day is: 10/10 Forget Neo and Bourne and all those half-baked made up modern heroes. They only look 12 year-oldish to please the wide audience of geeks that want to be their heroes. Since they cannot be Rambo or McClane or even Indiana Jones, Hollywood allowed a bunch of fakes that have no beard and yet fulfill teenagers wishes to see something that looks very much like an action flick.

However, their " action set-pieces " are just painful to watch and any girl may challenge their masculinity without question. This explains the recrudescence of oldies on our silver screens over the past few years. For better ( Rocky, Rambo ) or worse ( Die Hard 4 - where John McClane, brace yourselves.... had no beard !! )

I say it is high-time a new hero walked up and put their reign to an end. This " Largo Winch " movie is far from perfect, and perhaps too predictable at times, but at least Tomer Sisley delivered a very promising performance as an action-hero. And the only one time where he was weakened is when Mélanie Thierry shaved his beard ! I rest my case.

I didn't know it when I entered the theater room, but this might be the movie I've been waiting for a decade. For the first time in France since Belmondo, can a movie be both well- crafted and rooted in B-genre without blushing over its performance. In the meantime all we had to chew on was either a gigantic pile of dung or something too restricted to reach a wider audience... In other words it was " Le Pacte des Loups " or " Dobermann " ( I like Dobermann, mind you )... I believe " Largo Winch " has what it takes to be both popular and quality film-making.

I exited the theater room very pleased, and hungry for more. Before she went into politics or public service, Glenda Jackson was one of Britain's finest film actresses. This film displays her talent despite having a supporting role in a stellar cast that includes Julie Christie as Kitty, the wife of a British Royal Captain who has lost his memory of the last 20 years, and Jenny played by American Ann-Margret in an almost unrecognizable role as the doting sister. Alan Bates plays the captain who suffers from memory loss triggered by the shell shock during World War I. Sir Ian Holm has a smaller role as the doctor treating him. You see familiar faces like Sheila Keith, Patsy Byrne, and Frank Finlay. You can't help but watch Glenda play a dowdy housewife and the first true love of the Captain but they came from different classes. It's not the greatest movie but it's good to see Glenda's amazing talent. She is still a fantastic actress, comedy or drama. She makes Margaret Grey into a likable character and you see why a regal captain fell in love with her. This is superb - the acting wonderful, sets, clothes, music - but most of all the story itself.

I am amazed there aren't more reviews of this movie - certainly one of the best of the 1980s.

It's also a wonderful movie to see in tandem with the great "Random Harvest" which has much the same opening crisis

-- a middle aged, unknown English W.W.I officer is in a hospital toward the close of the war, suffering from shell shock and complete amnesia without any idea of his name, origin, or anywhere he belongs - he proves to be a very wealthy established man - when he "recovers", he will not remember the years before the war --

But there the movies' resemblances end.

My warmest thanks to all who participated in the movie - particularly the actors Ian Holm, Alan Bates, Ann Margret (what a great and surprising casting choice), Glenda Jackson, Julie Christie.

This one stays with you forever. just saw this exquisite 1982 movie Return of the Soldier, based on Rebecca West's novel. Its about a shell-shocked fortyish Captain who doesn't even tell his wife he has returned to British soil, but remains in a hospital in London. He's lost his memory and is a boy again, with a lingering yen for the lower class sweetheart he pursued 25 years earlier. Its a delicate story. He is lingering in his boyhood, while the reader discovers his wife is an unbearable, aspiring socialite who wants him to resume his place in society. Living with them is his cousin Jenny, who loved Chris Baldry the soldier, when they were growing up as playmates, but has settled into spinsterhood. The lower class woman, played by Glenda Jackson, is Margaret Gray. It is SHE who is notified that Chris is back in England. Chris' wife Kitty is shocked when Mrs. Gray comes to tell her that Chris is in a hospital in London. Kitty (Julie Christie) is vacuous and snobbish. Why, she asks herself, was this other woman sent a telegraph about Chris rather than her? Chris has forgotten totally about Kitty. He wants to renew his relationship with Margaret. The now married Margaret is reluctant to meet him, but then does and continues to meet with him. There is a psychiatrist (Ian Holm) who warns Kitty and Jenny that Chris' temporary happiness with Margaret will disappear if he 'cures' him. Jenny realizes how empty Kitty is for Chris and forms a secret loving alliance through Margaret. They both are in love with him. Jenny wants to help. Late in the film Kitty reveals that Chris and she had a boy who died five years ago. Telling Chris this, weighs the Shrink, will certainly restore him to 'normal.' But is this a good idea? Chris, barely aware that he and Kitty were ever married, is unaware of his child and the child's death. The psychiatrist, just learning of the child, believes such knowledge will restore Chris. Jenny and Margaret have Chris all to themselves because Kitty believes he is faking and refuses to accept Chris's illness in reverting to his youth in his forties. The film leaves her mostly out of consideration concerning whats to be done with Chris.

But Jenny and Margaret, in the child's perfectly maintained bedroom- with Kitty too in the novel, but not in the screenplay- discuss what they believe should be done about Chris from their separate perspectives. Margaret is the critical one here, because, though married, she has half fallen in love with Chris again. Jenny's social stature, Jenny believes, will be threatened if Chris does not right himself. She does not reveal this to Margaret, however. Margaret decides, looking ahead, that Chris cannot maintain his fantasy over time, but must return to something like a real life. While Kitty and Jenny look on from the window of the house, Margaret approaches Chris outside and tells him of his lost son. The buoyant war victim's head sinks, his shoulders slump, he looks away. He walks dejectedly toward the house. Fin

I read some criticism of this first novel of Rebecca West. The novel was written something after the first war. The movie is never quite clear who Jenny is, his cousin or his sister. It would be more rousing if she were his sister, of course. The criticism doesn't make it clear either. I'm sure West in her novel, makes sure Jenny is her cousin, not her sister. West is no Henry Miller nor an Anais Nin, whose book Incest (about her relationship with her father as an adult to get even with him for molesting her as a child) I considered reading, but then decided against. Rebecca the author has a need to restore Chris too. She too has outposts in her head for the Society her novel excoriates first but finally embraces once more. This movie has been poorly received and badly reviewed. The book by Rebecca West was written in 1918, soon after WWI, when shell shock and trauma-induced amnesia were not clichés, as the reviewers call it many books and movies later. It is difficult to go back in time and live, as the characters lived, the realities of the time: the war and the horror of the experience of the first war to use lethal gas, the British class system the wife thought all-important, the hopeless spinster, and the lover from the past still seen with the eyes of love being as young and as beautiful as she was 20 years ago.

Alan Bates as the amnesiac soldier who "will die" if he isn't allowed to see Margaret, the girl of his youthful dreams, builds on the devotion his character showed in "Far From the Madding Crowd". Having seen that performance, it is possible to sense his strong romantic attachment to the girl who didn't live up to the family's and society's expectations. Margaret says, "We quarreled, and as you rowed away, you turned your face away from me." So we know that the breakup was something that he instigated, that it brought him shame, but that he forgot the shame in his memory of his time with Margaret. I haven't seen all his films, but in the ones I've seen, he imparts a strong masculinity, which shines through even in this role as the disabled soldier.

I didn't even recognize Ann-Margaret at first and feel that her performance has been underrated. Not having read the book, I wondered whether the child who died was the result of acting on a borderline incestuous feeling between Jenny and Chris, though Jenny does state that she "is a cousin". The way Kitty keeps Jenny in the nursery in the hair-drying scene, the fact that Kitty says she always dries her hair in that room seems more a way for Kitty to keep the coals of anger hot than the orientation of the room to the sun, or sentiment about a lost child, and the statement she made that she wished Chris hadn't felt it necessary to preserve the room exactly as it was when the child was alive made her seem uncaring toward the memory of the child. Also, Jenny is shown as living in the house in a subservient role, as high society would have done to a fallen member at the time.

Having recently been the recipient of the intense fantasy of a lover (non-sexualin keeping with the mores of the time) from 50 years ago, I couldrelate to Margaret's and her husband's dilemma. I, too, was cast aside because I wasn't good enough for his family, and upon his rediscovery of me via the internet, I was burdened with helping him deal with his still very horrifying Vietnam experiences and a marriage to a woman above his class whom he didn't believe he loved. My husband, like Margaret's was very understanding, but the strain was very real. The lover was finally able to reconcile his real-life situation with his fantasy of loving only me.

I thought that it was a good decision to show very little of the reliving of the war experience that was happening in Chris's mind. I thought of "Mrs. Dalloway" with the WWI soldier who acts out very violent memories and commits suicide versus Chris's joy in his fantasy of Margaret. In contrast, the actiona of the soldier in "Mrs. Dalloway" seems overwrought.

Showing that the psychiatrist understood very little of what was happening to Chris underlines what a major problem the whole group faced. Everyone seems to get their life back, but was it the right choice? With the advent of the IMDb, this overlooked movie can now find an interested audience. Why? Because users here who do a search on two-time Academy Award winner Glenda Jackson can find 'The Return of The Soldier' among her credits. So can those checking out Oscar winner Julie Christie. Fans of Ann-Margret can give the title a click, as will those looking into the career of the great Alan Bates. Not to mention the added bonus of a movie with supporting heavyweights Ian Holm and Frank Finlay. Any movie with so many notables in it is rewarded by the IMDb, given all the cross-referencing that goes on here. So, why isn't this movie out on DVD? Don't the Producers realize the Internet Movie Database is a marketing gift for such a film? And 'The Return of The Soldier' is definitely a gem waiting to be discovered. Get with it, people. Let's eliminate any discussion about the use of non-Asian actors playing Asian roles. The movie is 67 years old. In 1937 studio chiefs believed that any actor could/should be able to play any role. Actors were under contracts, and did not always have a choice about what role they played. End of story.

This is a truly great epic story of love, individual rights, class strata, and men/women issues. The centerpiece of the film is two brilliant performances by Luise Rainer and Paul Muni.

Muni plays Wang, a Chinese farmer, who is about to take a wife (Rainer). From the start, he treats her with respect, during a time when women were looked on as little more than hired help. Without giving too much of the movie away, they go through the highs and lows of all relationships, and even though the story may take place in late 19th/early 20th century,the story and much of their feelings, seems credible.

Other than the fact that the movie is about 5-10 minutes longer than it needs to be, and the performances of Charley Grapewin and Walter Connolly are typical 1930's cartoon characters, this is a really wonderful movie that, unfortunately, has become a victim of political correctness.

9 out of 10 Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.

This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.

Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the "senior" Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.

Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.

Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want! This is a bit long (2 hours, 20 minutes) but it had a a lot of the famous Pearl Buck novel in it. In other words, a lot of ground to cover.

It was soap-operish at times but had some visually dramatic moments, too, capped off by a locust attack at the end of the film. That was astounding to view. Considering this film is about 70 years old, the special-effects crew on this film did a spectacular job.

Paul Muni and Luise Rainer were award-winning actors in their day and they don't disappoint here, both giving powerful performances. The only problem is credibility as all the Asians are played by Caucasions and some of them, like Walter Connolly, just don't look real. I'd like to see a re-make of this movie with all-Asian actors, not for PC reasons but to simply make the story look and sound more credible. I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.

I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the "epics" of today. What Irving Thalberg did in making this film today would never be attempted again. Making a Chinese story with occidental players even if they are of the caliber of Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, Charley Grapewin, and Walter Connolly among others.

Perhaps it's partly because the story was written by a westerner, Pearl Buck who got a Pulitzer Prize for her novel in 1932. Ms. Buck, daughter of Chinese missionaries, probably brought China closer to the consciousness of America than any other person. Not the political struggles of China, but the lives and toil of the every day people we find in The Good Earth. Unfortunately later on, Pearl Buck became an apologist for the Kuomintang China of Chiang Kai-Shek in all its virtues and excesses. The rest of her literary output never matched The Good Earth.

In The Sundowners there is a great description of comparing China to Australia by Peter Ustinov. When asked the difference, Ustinov said China was very big and very full and Australia was very big and very empty. That's what you see in The Good Earth, China very big and very full of people, more than she can deal with at times.

The Good Earth tells the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) as a young man who purchases a wife from a large house where she was a slave. The woman O-Lan (Luise Rainer) bears him two sons and sees him through all the good times and bad they have, drought, famine, revolution, and a climatic locust plague.

Luise Rainer won the second of two consecutive Oscars for portraying O-Lan. She may have set some kind of record in that it has to be the leading player Oscar performance with the least amount of dialog. Everything she does practically is done with facial expressions, her performance could have been on a silent film with very minimal subtitles. I think only John Mills in Ryan's Daughter had fewer words and he was playing a mentally retarded man.

Muni is not always appreciative of how supportive she is in that male dominated culture. Rainer helps in the field, bears and raises the kids, does the housework. When Muni becomes a man of property he takes a Chinese second trophy wife who causes him a lot of grief. Still Rainer stoically bears it all. Still Muni is not a bad man and it's a tribute to the film and his acting and Buck's writing that you don't hate him and the culture gap is bridged.

We've got a group of oriental players now who do more than just Kung Fu movies. I'm surprised The Good Earth of all films has not been remade at this point. I'll bet the Chinese government would even let some American company do it on an actual location.

Till then we've got this great classic to appreciate and enjoy. This is where the term "classic film" comes from. This is a wonderful story of a woman's bravery, courage and extreme loyalty. Poor Olan got sold to her uncaring husband, who through the years learned to appreciate her. (Yeah right, A PEARL!!)

Luise Rainer was the beautiful star who had won the Best Actress Oscar the year before for her small role (and what a waste of an oscar) in "The Great Zigfield". It really didn't show what, if any, talent she had other than her exotic beauty. But in "Good Earth" she shows that she can really act! Her beauty was erased and she had no great costumes either. People say that she didn't show any real emotions in this film. Like hell. Her character Olan is a shy and timid woman, with inner strength. She is quiet during parts of the film with only her eyes and body to convey her emotions. Example: those scenes during the fall of the city and when looters were being shot. If you people are saying that she doesn't act well in this film, you are NOT looking!

Paul Muni shows that he can act as well. His character is not a likeable one to me. He never sees her for what she is, until the very end of the story. A sweet loving and dedicated wife and mother, with her own special beauty. The greatest one of all, the beauty from within, like a pearl.

If you get a chance to see this film, watch it. You will see one of the best films that the golden age of Hollywood created. "The Good Earth" is a great movie that you don't hear much about anymore. There are a lot of big disasters and events, but it is also a non-passionate love story. All of this happens in a little over two hours, which is short by today's standards. The special effects and costumes are very good for the time period.

I am surprised that Luise Rainer received an Oscar for such a limiting role. She basically only has three emotions: submissive, hungry, and heart-broken.

The performances by the Asian and Asian-American actors are terrific.

From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called " The Good Earth." It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. **** This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.

A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever. Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.

Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. Sidney Franklin's "The Good Earth" has achieved classic status thanks to a timeless story and superb acting, especially from Luis Ranier, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of O-Lan. Rainers performance is so complete, she is nearly unrecognizable. Having very little dialogue throughout the entire film (and it is a long one), Rainer relies instead on facial and body language. She looks and acts Chinese to the point that anyone unfamiliar with her work could easily mistake her as such.

The film remains relevant today because it explores the rags to riches story and the universal themes that come with it. When Lung and wife O-Lan finally achieve financial success after years of famine and poverty, they find a life full of possessions but lacking in meaning. It is only when they return to the earth after fighting off a swarm of locusts (the special effects used to create them are still incredible and beautiful to watch) that they again find fulfillment. A common formula told with the unique perspective of a Chinese family (especially for 1937) makes the film a classic. Money isn't worth anything without friends and family, a point that the film drives home perfectly in it's last 10 minutes with an emotionally fulfilling conclusion. My main problem with the film is that it goes on too long. Other then that, it's pretty good. Paul Muni plays a poor Chinese farmer who is about to get married through an arranged marriage. Luise Rainer is a servant girl who gets married to Muni. They live with Muni's father on a farm and they are doing pretty bad. When he finally gets some money to buy some more land, a drought hits and nothing is growing. Everybody stars to head north by Muni stays behind at first. When they leave and arrive at town they find that their are no jobs and they are worse off than before. They even think about selling their youngest daughter as a slave for some money but decide against it. When a bunch of people start looting the town, the military show up and start executing people . Paul Muni does a good job and Luise Rainer won a second oscar for this movie. This film was an interesting take by Hollywood on the novel by of the same name by Pearl S. Buck. While some today might think it is rife with racial stereotypes, for the time the very idea of Chinese protagonists was progressive in and of itself. I found that the white actors playing Chinese was not as bad as I expected, that it wasn't the Asian equivalent of blackface. Back then there were not really any Asian actors in America (not even George Takei was acting) and Rainer did a good job with her part. It wasn't the greatest performance I have ever seen but for old-school pre-method acting it was nice. The locust scene was very well shot and contained convincing special effects.

I wonder that the timing of the release during the Great Depression sort of turns this film into an allegory. Especially the political upheaval bewildering the peasant farmers and how them seem to be left behind by all of it.

The film had some parallels to the John Ford style, but I think the Eastern influence affected it as well. If this had been an western family, the locusts would have won at the end, punishing the farmer for his pride, lust, and gluttony. However here he learns his lesson, then wins. I first read Pearl S Buck's splendid novel in my ninth grade history class, and I enjoyed every thrilling page of it. It was almost inevitable that Hollywood would get hold of it, and considering that it was made in 1937, the results are excellent.

Certain things have to be accepted: in 1937 there was no question of casting Asian actors in a major Hollywood film. In a way this renders the end product rather more interesting than if they had been able to use a more authentic-looking cast.

With that obstacle to overcome, executive producer Irving Thalberg and director Sidney Franklin (among others) took the trouble to hand-pick a splendid and stellar cast. Paul Muni plays Wang Lung. Muni was at the peak of his powers as an actor during this period, and could very nearly play anything he put his mind to. Once you get past the makeup (it's good, but no one is going to really mistake him for a Chinese man), his performance has all the verisimilitude of his best work.

Then there is Luise Rainer. Coming off an Oscar win the previous year for her performance in THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, the Viennese actress's star was on the rise and she was given the plum role of O-lan despite her lack of experience in Hollywood. Her performance won her a second consecutive Oscar, the first time in history that happened.

Much criticism has been leveled at Rainer's performance, and her Oscar win here. She has been called wooden and one-note. There is a small grain of truth in that. HOWEVER, that being said, all you need to do is go back to the book. For Rainer, though not Chinese, played O-lan pretty much as Buck wrote her; it is in fact a splendid performance, and one of the best transfers from book to screen I have ever witnessed.

As for the rest of the cast, well this was MGM. They had the biggest roster of stars and character actors in Hollywood at the time, and a big budget to pay for the best, and in the end they got the best.

The film softens Wang Lung's marriage to O-lan somewhat. In the novel, with wealth come the lusts of the flesh and he takes on a concubine, a move which devastates his wife but her feelings as a mere woman do not concern him. In the film, a contrite Wang Lung returns to his wife on her deathbed the two pearls he had taken from her years before, realizing too late that she was his true love.

Corny, yes. But that's Hollywood. Considering the obstacles they were up against, the film might well have opened to screams of laughter. But despite the noticeable dearth of real Asians in the cast, this film has worn surprisingly well with the passage of seventy-three years. In fact the most amazing thing about this film is how good it is, when it might so easily have been a disaster. 1st watched 8/29/2009 - 7 out of 10 (Dir-Sidney Franklin): Well told account of farmers in China and their rise to prominence and struggles with what Mother nature throws at them. This movie is based on an award winning novel and chronicles a family starting with the son's arranged marriage to a slave girl. The movie does a good job of keeping your interest despite a somewhat hammy performance by the lead played by Paul Muni. It chronicles , Wong Long(the character played by Muni) and how he works the land, buys more land, eventually becomes very rich but then returns to the land where he originally started. The relationship between him and his wife, played by Luise Rainer, is the main thread of the story(besides the land itself) and despite the obvious non-Chinese actors it does a pretty good job of displaying the country and it's people. It's obvious that MGM used it's money to create a really good epic with this one in an era where they could probably afford it. The scene with the locusts is done exceedingly well and the rest of th movie really looks good warranting the Best Cinematography award at the Oscars in that year. The definitive definition of an epic is what this story is and it's pulled off pretty well. The quote I used for my summary occurs about halfway through THE GOOD EARTH, as a captain of a Chinese revolutionary army (played by Philip Ahn) apologizes to a mob for not having time to shoot MORE of the looters among them, as his unit has just been called back to the front lines. Of course, the next looter about to be found out and shot is the main character of the film, the former kitchen slave girl O-Lan (for whose portrayal Luise Rainer, now 99-years-old, won her second consecutive best actress Oscar).

The next scene finds O-Lan dutifully delivering her bag of looted jewels to her under-appreciative husband, farmer Wang Lung (Paul Muni), setting in motion that classic dichotomy of a man's upward financial mobility being the direct inverse of his moral decline.

For a movie dealing with subject matter including slavery, false accusations, misogyny, starvation, home invasion, eating family pets, mental retardation, infanticide, exploited refugees, riots, civil war, summary mass street executions, bigamy, child-beating, adultery, incest, and insect plagues of biblical proportions, THE GOOD EARTH is a surprisingly heart-warming movie.

My parting thought is in the form of another classic quote, from O-Lan herself (while putting the precious soup bone her son has just admitted stealing from an old woman back into the cooking pot after husband Wang Lung had angrily tossed it to the dirt floor on the other side of their hut): "Meat is meat." Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.

She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.

she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.

Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.

Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937. This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look "authentic". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can. This timeless proverb reverberates in this movie and in my heart. So many years have I waited to see this eternal story! I was not ready, perhaps. It is possible that my sensibilities would not have appreciated its power. So I now gratefully welcome it into my soul with gladness.

My respect and admiration for PAUL MUNI has been long. His is now a legendary luminescence. But now I have finally discovered the priceless gifts of LUISE RAINER's splendid talents. Oh, how many faces can speak as did hers? Some have said that it was wrought from her silent years, and this well might have been but her speech, is eloquent enough when it is given a chance. She amply deserved her Oscar.

This movie is in an epic in the most classical proportions. All parts equal, necessary and perfect. Naysayers may walk away if they wish, but they would be shunning a storytelling which stays with one a lifetime.

THE GOOD EARTH enriches one in ways that one does not expect. But all will not come from it with the joy that I did. But I can only hope that this film will be remembered for many years.

Do not prod me with mere technicalities regarding the race of the principal players. These are expectations of modern times when we are obsessed with utter perfection. But I dare a million score of newer films to tell PEARL BUCK's story with such poignancy, power, conviction and grace.

If any modern artist would dare to re-film this masterpiece, I warn them that they will never come close to the aromatic fragrance which still emanates from the core of this telling. Time will not diminish this effort nor will progress improve upon its greatness. The Good Earth is a great movie!!!Everybody must see...It is tear-jerking and very heart warming. It caters to the enhancement of values-formation on perseverance, humility and the love of family...The story can be related to our life today especially that poverty is at the threshold. The way on how we respond to such problem is very crucial and if a person is not strong enough to face such, he may be left defenseless and useless. I am very pleased on how the characters justified their roles even the young actors...Their emotions has captivated the audience. The movie may have been done in black and white, but the story is so captivating that you do not want to end. That makes it really great! There should be a re-make for this very nice movie. Saying a film is depressing isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm very willing to watch a depressing film if there is a point to be made and this one certainly has one. It's the often heartbreaking story of a Chinese man and his family as they experience many years of both hardship and plenty. BUT, I must warn you that this might just be about the most depressing film to come out of Hollywood in the 1930s--because peasant life in China was TOUGH to say the least. Be prepared to watch segments about famine, death and disease.

About the only negative other than the persistent tone of misery is that the lead is played by Paul Muni. While he was an exceptionally talented man, it's just a real shame that Hollywood always cast people of European descent to play Asian leads during this era. If you are paying attention at all, it's pretty obvious that Muni is wrong for the part. Another Channel 4 great canned long before it's time. Compelling acting from Phil Davis and the rest of the cast. Sexy, intelligent and funny. I remember watching it at the time and even then, asking around, no-one had really heard of it. But trying to find someone now who can recall it is even harder. Perhaps Channel 4 don't do their job well enough in drumming up the enthusiasm needed. Either that or the general public is too interested in the TV vomit that is Big Brother. I suspect the latter. Downloading of Garth Merengie's Dark Place prompted Channel 4 to release a DVD of that series. Let's hope the same can happen with North Square. In 1958, Clarksberg was a famous speed trap town. Much revenue was generated by the Sheriff's Department catching speeders. The ones who tried to outrun the Sheriff? Well, that gave the Sheriff a chance to push them off the Clarksberg Curve with his Plymouth cruiser. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a couple of servicemen on leave trying to get back to base on time are pushed off to their deaths, if I recall correctly. Then one day, a stranger drove into town. Possibly the coolest hot rodder in the world. Michael McCord. Even his name is a car name, as in McCord gaskets. In possibly the ultimate hot rod. A black flamed '34 Ford coupe. The colors of death, evil and hellfire. He gets picked up for speeding by the Sheriff on purpose. He checks out the lay of the land. He is the brother of one of the Sheriff's victims. He knows how his brother died. The Clarksberg government is all in favor of the Sheriff. There's only one way to get justice served for the killing of his brother and to fix things so "this ain't a-ever gonna happen again to anyone": recreate the chase and settle the contest hot-rodder style to the death. He goes out to the Curve and practices. The Sheriff knows McCord knows. The race begins... This is a movie to be remembered by anyone who ever tried to master maneuvering on a certain stretch of road. I was about thirteen when this movie came out on television. It is far superior in action than most movies since. Martin Sheen is excellent, and though Nick Nolte has a small part, he too provides excellent support. Vic Morrow as the villain is superb.

When Sheen "tests the water" in his '34 Ford (COOL) along the mountainous highway it is spectacular!

The ending is grand.

I'm disappointed in the low vote this received. I figure the younger generations have more interest in much of the junk that is coming out these days.

Good taste eludes the masses! For those of us Baby Boomers who arrived too late on the scene to appreciate James Dean et. al., Martin Sheen showed us The Way in this great feature.

The premise is easy enough: cool hood meets small town sheriff and All-Hell ensues, but the nuts and bolts of this movie enthrall the car nut in all of us.

No, this isn't Casablanca, nor is it great Literature, but it IS a serious movie about cars, rebellion, and the genius that is Martin Sheen.

Enjoy this and appreciate it for what it is, and for what Martin will become. I loved this movie growing up as a teen in the 70's, and you will too. Martin Sheen, Michelle Phillips, Stuart Margolin and the late Vic Morrow are the human stars of this movie about a young man looking for answers about his brother's death. Mr. Sheen, Mr. Margolin and Mr. Morrow all turn in first rate performances in their respective roles; Ms. Phillips has the slightly less than enviable task of trying to spice up a made-for-TV movie (twenty-five years ago), by supplying the "sex interest" in an otherwise sexless film. The real star, however, is the "California Kid"; a 1934 Ford coupe, borrowed from "Jake" Jacobs, put before a camera and given a workout that'll leave the viewer panting, gasping and holding the edge of the seat with breathless anticipation.

The action scenes are spectacular, (although some of the dialog is a bit lame) making for a fine evening's diversion. This is how all "car movies" should be made.

Try to catch this one on the late movie channel; it's well worth the missed sleep. I caught this movie about 8 years ago, and have never had it of my mind. surely someone out there will release it on Video, or hey why not DVD! The ford coupe is the star.......if you have any head for cars WATCH THIS and be blown away. 1958. The sleepy small Southern town of Clarksburg. Evil Sheriff Roy Childress (the almighty Vic Morrow in peak nasty form) cracks down super hard on speeders by forcing said offenders off a cliff to their untimely deaths on an especially dangerous stretch of road. Childress meets his match when cool young hot rod driver Michael McCord (a splendidly smooth and brooding portrayal by Martin Sheen) shows up in town in his souped-up automobile with the specific intention of avenging the death of his brother (Sheen's real-life sibling Joe Estevez in a brief cameo). Director Richard T. Heffron, working from a taut and intriguing script by Richard Compton (the same guy who directed the 70's drive-in movie gems "Welcome Home, Soldier Boys" and "Macon County Line"), relates the gripping story at a brisk pace, neatly creates a flavorsome 50's period setting, and ably milks plenty of suspense out the tense game of wit and wills between Childress and McCord. The uniformly fine cast helps a lot: Sheen radiates a brash James Deanesque rebellious vibe in the lead, Morrow makes the most out of his meaty bad guy part, plus there are excellent supporting performances by Michelle Phillips as sweet diner waitress Maggie, Stuart Margolin as a folksy deputy, Nick Nolte as amiable gas station attendant Buzz Stafford, Gary Morgan as Buzz's endearingly gawky younger brother Lyle, Janit Baldwin as sassy local tart Sissy, Britt Leach as stingy cab driver Johnny, and Frederic Downs as the stern Judge J.A. Hooker. The climactic vehicular confrontation between Childress and McCord is a real pulse-pounding white-knuckle thrilling doozy. Terry K. Meade's sharp cinematography, the well-drawn characters (for example, Childress became obsessed with busting speeders after his wife and kid were killed in a fatal hit and run incident), the groovy, syncopated score by Luchi De Jesus, and the beautiful mountainside scenery all further enhance the overall sound quality of this superior made-for-TV winner. Whilst it is universally acknowledged that Fearful Symmetry was heavily influenced by the Kolchak episode They Have Been, They Are, They Will Be, whether this makes it a rip-off or a homage is an altogether more controversial point. As a huge fan of both series I subscribe to the latter belief, although the less charitable may not do. James Whitmore was brave to take on the task of directing such a difficult episode, invisible elephants and gorilla suits sounds like a recipe for disaster, but he pulls it off with style, the teaser being an absolute gem. Lance Guest does a great job of making a credible character out of Kyle Lang and Jack Rader seethes with menace as Ed Meecham. Forget Fearful Symmetry's dubious originality and just enjoy it as a deeply satisfying X File. It's easy to forget, once later series had developed the alien conspiracy plot arc more, that once upon a time, The X-Files' wrote episodes like "GenderBender" and "Fearful Symmetry", where the aliens weren't all little grey men or mind-control goop, but could actually surprise you.

"Fearful Symmetry" starts with an "invisible elephant" - actually an elephant somehow dislocated in space and time, not a mile away from "The Walk" - and ends with a pregnant gorilla being abducted. And it's very much an episode of wonderful moments. The subplot is annoyingly worthy - yeah, we get it, zoos are bad except when they're not - but the ideas that within it are fascinating, visually powerful, and very memorable, and it covers an angle on abduction that is largely overlooked - why *would* humans be the only things that aliens are interested in?

In the end, it wasn't an instant classic, but it was enjoyable viewing while it lasted, again, very memorable, and mainly, it's something that you couldn't imagine many other shows doing. Fearful Symmetry is a pleasant episode with a few faults. The first thing about the episode is that it takes place near Mountain Home Air Force Base in southwest Idaho. Season one's 'Deep Throat' takes place near Ellens Air Base, also in southwest Idaho. I'm wondering if the air force bases are one and the same but they decided to use the real name in Fearful Symmetry. Mulder and Scully have some good dialog, always a plus. Ed Meecham, the zoo keeper, reminds me of cranky, old school teachers. They must have liked children at one time, you just can't imagine how. Just like he must have cared more for animals at one point. I liked the concept of the episode, but I felt it had some inconsistencies. If aliens are so adept at abducting humans and returning them safely, why can't they put the animal back in the right place? And the aliens are just now having problems returning the animals? I don't buy Mulder's theory of a problem with the space-time continuum. As if he's an expert on that. I also thought Jayne Atkinson's performance as Willa Ambrose was not well done. Besides those nitpicks, I still enjoyed this episode because of the intriguing concept of aliens harvesting animal DNA as well as human DNA. The ScareCrow was on of the funniest Killers I have ever seen in the act! Plus he's really bouncy most of the time he jumped around, which was awesome! Also he had an excellent voice I mean it was just perfect for him. The story lines was excellent too. I like how the kids soul was transferred into ScareCrow that was cool! Plus he did have a reason for all that killing I mean after what those people did to him.....I would be angry too! ScareCrows look was really good! his look gives that person an "OMG!" reaction when they see him! Which was great the stares he got were funny! Those people were stupid, who would stare for that long! They should of glanced and ran for their lives...even though that wouldn't of made a difference! Verry classic plot but a verry fun horror movie for home movie party Really gore in the second part This movie proves that you can make something fun with a small budget. I hope that the director will make another one First off I'll be the first to admit that the scarecrow himself is quite a bit over-the-top. A toned down maybe less acrobatic scarecrow would've made this movie much less cheesy. But overall I think it's one of the better B-movies. Tiffany Shepis is absolutely wonderful, not to mention incredibly beautiful. Though this movie is missing the all-important nude factor, there are several other movies at which to view her. But here she gets all evil-hotness, especially towards the end as she's walking away from the engulfed scarecrow. Also Richard Elfman does a great job as sheriff and as the drunk boyfriend. Yes it's a low budget B-movie. But out of all of them I've seen, this is definitely one of my very top favorites. This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel! This movie is not your typical horror movie. It has some campy humor and death scenes which can be sort of comical. I personally liked the movie because of its off-beat humor. It's definetely not a super scary movie, which is good if you don't want to be scared and paranoid afterwards. I liked the performance of the hillbilly guy and of Lester... very believable. I think I'm going to dye my hair red like that girl in Scarecrow- very cool! Anyway, overall worth renting for the campy humor and non typical horror experience. What a fun b-movie! Shepis is absolutely beautiful and the Scarecrow is a distinct and original. He really brought me back to the monsters of the 80's. The budget is obviously low and not everybody is Pacino behind the lens but it doesn't matter because it never once takes itself seriously. From the trailer trash redneck to the high flying martial arts moves of the Scarecrow, this is truly a b-movie gem. Grab some refreshments, snacks and a couple friends and kick back and relax. I enjoyed this film so much I went out a purchased all 3 Scarecrow films. Sure, they're not for everybody but to each his own. Sometimes you just have to set the thinking cap down and smile. This film is an interesting take on the killer scarecrow genre - amazingly it manages to rise to become greater than the sum of its parts. Average montage scenes, 30-somethings playing teenagers, and some excellent facial expressions combine to become one of the "new-wave" of modern classics. As a viewer, I came away from the film with the same sense of "shock and awe" as when I first saw The Godfather in 1969. Tiffany Gardner's startling portrayal of the morally bankrupt Judy was deserving of her Grammy nomination, which was well documentedly stolen by Ricky Martin and restless hips. Unfortunately, the none of the sequels could live up to the expectation of the original (unlike the Godfather series which got better with each installment, and should culminate in 2012 with Godfather 4: Eat My Rage. There wasn't a day in 2002 where i wasn't chased by a scarecrow I felt that this film handled a serious issue well

It brought back a lot of memories as it was so realistic

Even today I have nightmares about corn on the cob, and can't even go near the tinned stuff in fear of my life

I have to admit though, at one point in the film I did have to turn it off as it hit too close to home

For those of you who have never been attacked by a scarecrow, by watching this film you could be educated about how it felt for us victims

This film teaches us not to take life for granted or to mess with corn, believe me, I've been there and I have the scars

Watch the film, its amazing and educational I don't think most people give this movie as much credit as it deserves. I love low budget horror movies and this takes the cake, especially for originality. Yes the Scarecrow is a Kung-Fu fighting frightner, but why not? No one else is willing to go that far. I really haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Candyman. So the town picks on this one kid calling him scarecrow, even his mom doesn't care about him. Then he gets killed and the spirit is infused with in the Scarecrow, who then goes on a Killing spree. His demise is relatively easy to assume once the movie gets going. The dedications at the end go straight to a bunch of horror directors, but with most dedication towards Dario Argento really struck me as cool, these folks who wanna make movies of a newer genre. Over the movie has a lot of Arnold rip offs, with one liners you'll definitely laugh at like stick around and he kills the sheriff with a stick. I would say, grab a pizza some friends an laugh your A$$ off with this movie. I love it for its originality, most fun. This is according to me a quite bizarre movie with a lot of humor in it. I wouldn't say that it is very scary, but more fun I guess. That is if you like horror movies. Scarecrow kind of remembered me of "Children of the corn", but still not. If you compare these two movies this is much more fun to watch =) When I first heard about the title, I thought of 'The Simpsons', just like so many other reviewers, but when I saw the cast, I was completely stunned, that so many great character-actors would actually be in this! First of all, we have Christopher Walken (Deer Hunter, Pulp Fiction), who plays the title character, McBain. He is rescued from a Vietnam POW-camp by some of his buddies, one of which is Santos (Chick Vennera, Yanks), who splits a HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL with McBain (Vietnam soldiers are loaded with cash apparently), and tells him that he can re-do the favor to him, if he ever gets into trouble.

Then, 18 years later, Santos and his sister Christina (Maria Conchita Alonso, The Running Man, Predator 2) join the rebels in Colombia trying to get rid of their evil dictator, El Presidente (Victor Argo, Taxi Driver, King of New York), and when Santos fails the mission, Christina goes to McBain for help.

McBain then asks his good ol' Vietnam buddies to help him. First there's the token tough black guy, Eastland, played by "American Ninja"'s Steve James, who was also in director James Glickenhaus' previous movie, "The Exterminator", where the exterminator's real name also was Eastland, coincidence? I think not. There is also a lot of other references to The Exterminator, among other things, the most notable one being that McBain himself wears a welders-mask when Christina sees him for the first time, when he is working on a welding-job on top of a bridge!

The other guys in the Vietnam-pack are: The rich guy who can afford all sorts of equipment for the team, Frank Bruce (Michael Ironside, Total Recall, Starship Troopers), and then there's the doc, Dalton, (played by Jay Patterson, who doesn't look like the guy the IMDb is linking to, and I haven't seen him in other movies, so who knows), and last but not least, there's the cop, Gill, who has had enough of his unsatisfying job, he's played by Thomas G. Waites, who some of us might remember from The Warriors and The Thing.

And in other big roles, we find Luis Guzmán (Boogie Nights, Carlito's Way), as a small-time drug-dealer who can't get a decent job. Also, there is Dick Boccelli as the drug-dealing kingpin who gets hung up in a crane on top of a roof by the McBain-gang, almost Exactly in the same way he got hung up over a meat-grinder by John Eastland in the EXTERMINATOR-movie! Now, I haven't seen Glickenhaus' "Shakedown/Blue Jean Cop" yet, but I'm almost ready to bet half a hundred-dollar bill that Boccelli gets hung up in that movie too!

Well, back to the plot of this movie.. they go off to Colombia and saves the day, yay! But who cares about the plot anyway, the cast is great, and the action-scenes are very well done, and you're never bored while watching this movie! Highly recommended to all action-lovers! First of all i'd just like to say this movie rawked more than any of the recent crap that hollywood has cooked up out of its bowels. McBain is a true action film with more violence than most viewers can handle. It has all of the classic elements of a late 80's/early 90's action film....the random gratuitous acts of violence (ie. when Walken and crew go in to confront the drug dealers to get money they just show up and kill them rather than letting them live and just taking their money), the snapping of necks, the guys on fire, the guys that get blown off buildings, and of course the guys who are on fire that get blown off of buildings. Walken is at his finest in this picture delivering memorable lines such as, "let's go sit..........out on the deck." and others that make this film a top buy off of the clearence rack at the local video store. if you have a bloodlust for unnecessary random acts of violence rent this movie today and satisfy your thirst. I don't have much to add to my summary, this film ranks right up the there with Top Gun as one of the funniest films ever made while not trying to be. I for one don't think it should be taken seriously when watched as it is very enjoyable.

I don't think it brings Christopher Walken's reputation down either as his reputation was on the wane back then anyway. It took Pulp Fiction to wake him from the slumber he had been in. As for Michael Ironside, he has been in some of the great funny while not trying to be serious films. Total Recall, Top Gun. What I think is amazing is the budget this movie had. The scenes and actors and explosions etc. are quite amazing so obviously someone liked it quite a lot and was willing to risk a lot of money. Whoever he or she was I like them because I love this film!

If anyone reads this looking for information on McBain (and I seriously doubt there'll be too many) just know that it is a hilarious movie and should be viewed with a smile on your face! Ah, McBain… The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always – to me personally, at least – remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse … McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it.

Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass.

Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and – last but not least – a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms". Everybody's got bills to pay, and that includes Christopher Walken.

In Vietnam, a group a soldiers discover that the war is over and are heading back home when they spot a bunch of POWs, including Christopher Walken. Following a Mad Max 3 (!) Thunderdome fight, and a short massacre later. Walken and some Colombian guy split a dollar bill promising something or other.

Cut to the present (1991), and Colombian guy is leading a revolution against El Presidente. He's successful at first, but after El Presidente threatens to crush folks with a tank, he's forced to surrender and is shot in the head on live television. This is shown in full gory detail as a news flash on American telly, which leads Walken to assemble the old squad (even though he wasn't actually part of that squad to begin with), in order to invade Colombia and gun down thousands of people.

McBain is a monumentally stupid film, but for all that it's also a good laugh, and action packed too. This is one of those movies where logic is given a wide berth - how else could Walken shoot a fighter pilot in the head from another plane without suffering from decompression, or even breaking a window? Also, it seems that these guys can gun down scores of drug dealers in New York without the police bothering.

There's plenty of b-movie madness to chew on here, from Michael Ironside's diabolical acting in the Vietnam sequence, to the heroic but entirely pointless death of one of the heroes, to the side splitting confrontation between Walken and El Presidente, and let's not forget the impassioned speech by the sister of the rebel leader, being watched on television in America (nearly brought a brown tear to my nether-eye, that bit).

It's out there for a quid. Buy it if you have a sense of humour. See how many times you can spot the camera crew too. This movie is pretty cheesy, but I do give it credit for at least trying to provide some characterization for it's principles. There are some great moments in the film and the dialogue has some great moments as well.

The aerial assault sequence is perhaps the best part of the movie.

I guess I really like the idea of what lengths a veteran will go for a fellow veteran. Sure it's not all that well done, but the premise is not at all bad.

Tom A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.

The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes. THE MAN IN THE MOON is a warm and moving coming of age drama centering around a farming family in the 1950's. The main story follows a 14-year old girl (Reese Witherspoon) who develops a crush on a 17-year old neighbor (Jason London) who ends up falling for her older sister (Emily Warfield) and how an unexpected tragedy alters this family's dynamics forever. The 1950's are lovingly evoked here and the screenplay gives you characters you come to care about almost immediately. Witherspoon already begins to show the Oscar-winning talent she would develop in this early role and London makes a charming leading man. Warfield lends a quiet maturity to the role of the older sister that is effective as well. Kudos to Sam Waterston and Tess Harper who play the girls' parents and Gail Strickland, who plays London's mom. I was unexpectedly moved by this quiet and affecting drama that stirs up strong emotions and gives deeper meaning to the phrase "family ties." Reese Witherspoon first outing on the big screen was a memorable one. She appears like a fresh scrubbed face "tween" slight and stringy, but undeniably Reese.

I have always liked her as an actor, and had no idea she started this young with her career, go figure. I actually gained some respect for Reese to know who she was so early on. I say that because whenever I have watched her perform, the characters thus far, in each portrayal she also seemed to have her own persona that lived with that character, quite nicely in fact.

Anyway, my first film experience with Reese was the Little Red Riding Hood parody Reese did with Kiefer Sutherland, somehow I assumed that was her first time up "at bat" Not so, well done Reese Really...and incredible film that though isn't very popular...extremely touching and almost life altering...was for me at least.

Definitely worth seeing and buying .....Added to my favorite movie list....it's number one now....

This is a very touching movie that all people should see..

The Man in the Moon.....we'll it's just incredible. It's now my favorite movie and I only saw it today and I'd recommend it to anyone above 15 as long as you're somewhat mature......If you don't really try to feel the characters emotions then you'll never get the true meaning and value of this movie....But it really is incredible....just watch it because it'll alter the way some people look at life....worth seeing 5/5 This movie has so many wonderful elements to it! The debut performance of Reese Witherspoon is, of course, marvelous, but so too is her chemistry with Jason London. The score is remarkable, breezy and pure. James Newton Howard enhances the quality of any film he composes for tenfold. He also seems to have a knack for lost-days-of-youth movies, be sure to catch his score for the recent "Peter Pan" and the haunting Gothic music of "The Village." I first saw this film at about 13 or 14 and now I don't just cry at the ending, I shed a tear or two for the nostalgia. Show this movie to your daughters. It will end up becoming a lifetime comfort film. Whoever said that horror wasn't an educational film genre, huh? Thanks to this marvelous Hammer short movie, I now at least know NEVER to offer a strange visitor any wine and a slice of bread with salt in my own house, because he might just be hypnotist and this combination will give him the power to control my thoughts & mind forever! Thank you Hammer! The tenth episode in the House of Horror series is another one I've been looking forward to seeing, mainly because the guy in the director's chair was Don Sharp; one of Britain's finest filmmakers but still sadly underrated. Sharp was responsible for some very cool Hammer films, like "Kiss of the Vampire" and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk", as well as some overlooked independent productions like "Dark Places" and "Psychomania". His contribution to House of Horror is easily one of the best in the series, with a complex yet fascinating plot outline and revolving on delightful occult themes. The plot centers on two antique dealers that stumble upon a strange object resembling a mirror, but it's actually an ancient scrying device that can be used to summon Choronzhon; the demonic guardian of the abyss. The mirror is heavily desired by a satanic cult since they need it for their ceremonies, but Michael is reluctant to sell it before knowing the real value of the device. When he picks up a clearly petrified girl who's running from the cult to avoid being sacrificed, Michael is drawn even deeper into an occult conspiracy. Satanic cults and the carnal sacrifice of young women are typical British horror topics, but David Fischer's screenplay is never dull and offers plenty of neat plot twits, among which a highly inventive climax. There's also plenty of tension to admire, the dialogs are wit and the acting performances are splendid (especially John Carson as the leader of the cult is genuinely eerie). Recommended! I love occult Horror, and the great British Hammer Studios, who delivered one of their greatest films with "The Devil Rides Out" (1968), have proved to be more than capable in this field of Horror. This occult tenth episode of Hammer's short running TV-series "Hammer House of Horror" (1980), "Guardian of the Abyss", is indeed a creepy entry to the series. Director Don Sharp, who had previously enriched the Hammer oeuvre with "The Kiss of the Vampire" (1963) and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk" (1966) and furthermore directed two "Fu Machu" movies starring Christopher Lee, is doubtlessly one of the better-known names among the HHH directors, and he also delivers here. Antiques dealer Michael (Ray Lonnen) stumbles over a mysterious old scrying glass. The scrying glass happens to be the object of desire of a devil-worshiping cult, who want to use it for their satanic rites. When he shelters a beautiful young girl named Allison (Rosalyn Landor), who is to be sacrificed by the cult, Michael gets into deeper trouble with the cult and their sinister leader (John Carson)... While this is not one of my absolute favorite episodes of "Hammer House of Horror" (the best one clearly is the brilliant seventh episode, "The Silent Scream"), it is a very creepy and atmospheric one. The plot has several interesting twists, and stays suspenseful and uncanny throughout the film. Ray Lonnen makes a good lead, young Rosalyin Landor is convincing as the innocent beauty, and John Carson is truly creepy as the leader of the Satanists. Overall, "Guardian of the Abyss" is another interesting and creepy HHH tale, and my fellow Hammer fans should not miss it. There's something about every "Hammer" movie I see that really takes me into a new fantasy world. In the world of "Hammer" movies, anything can happen. "Guardian of the Abyss" is one of those types of movies. It adventures deep into the occult and hypnosis to bring a different type of horror fantasy. All in all, an unforgettable movie. 7.5/10. _Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.

Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As André Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.

Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life... There's some very clever humour in this film, which is both a parody of and a tribute to actors. However, after a while it just seems an exercise in style (notwithstanding great gags such as Balasko continuing the part of Dussolier, and very good acting by all involved) and I was wondering why Blier made this film. All is revealed in the ending, when Blier, directing Claude Brasseur, gets a phone call from his dad (Bernard Blier) - from heaven, and gets the chance to say how much he misses him. An effective emotional capper and obviously heartfelt. But there isn't really sufficient dramatic tension or emotional involvement to keep the rest of the film interesting throughout it's entire running time. Some really nice scenes and sequences, however, and anyone who likes these 'mosntres sacrés' of the French cinema should get a fair amount of enjoyment out of this film. ... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure. This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years. Just watched this early Bugs Bunny (first time he's named here) and Elmer Fudd cartoon on the ThadBlog as linked from YouTube. This was Chuck Jones' first time directing the "wascally wabbit" and as a result, Bugs has a different voice provided by Mel Blanc than the Brooklyn/Bronx one we're more familiar with. In fact, according to Thad, he's channeling Jimmy Stewart (his "shy boy" type personality of that time). Anyway, after Elmer buys his pet, Bugs goes all obnoxious on him by turning the radio real loud, pretending to die after his master repeatedly throws him out of his shower, and saying "Turn off those lights!" whenever Elmer catches him in his bed. Even with the different voice, Bugs is definitely his mischievous self and I laughed myself blue the whole time! According to Thad, there was an additional scene at the end of Elmer just giving the house to Bugs after the hell he went through but that was probably considered too sad since he suffers a mental breakdown at that point so it's just as well that cut scene is lost. Anyway, I highly recommend Elmer's Pet Rabbit. Probably the two main significances of "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" are that the wacky leporid featured in "A Wild Hare" now has a name, and that he utters his famous "Of course you realize this means war!" for the first time. Mostly, the Termite Terrace crowd was still trying to figure out what exactly to do with this long-eared rascal. It's certainly a must-see for hard-core fans of this genre, but others will probably have little reason to take interest.

But make no mistake, it's quite hilarious what Bugs Bunny does to the eternally gullible Elmer Fudd. Clear shades of things to come abound throughout the cartoon. I recommend it. As Alan Rudolph's "Breakfast of Champions" slides into theaters with little fanfare and much derision it makes me think back to 1996 when Keith Gordon's "Mother Night" came out. Now for all the talk of Kurt Vonnegut being "unfilmable" it's surprising that he has gotten two superb cinematic treatments (the other being "Slaughter-house Five"). "Mother Night" is certainly one of the most underappreciated films of the decade and I cannot understand why. It's brilliant! It stays almost entirely faithful to Vonnegut's book (without being stilted or overly literary) and adds to it a poetry that is purely cinematic. How many film adaptations of any author's work can claim that? Vonnegut himself even puts in a cameo appearance towards the end of the film, and can you ask for a better endorsement than that? Not only is it a beautiful film, it is a beautifully acted, written and directed film and it is among my picks for the top five or so American films of the 1990s. It's a mournful, inspired, surreal masterpiece that does not deserve to be neglected. I would sincerely encourage anyone to see "Mother Night" - it doesn't even take a familiarity with Vonnegut's work to fully appreciate it (as "Slaughter-house Five" sometimes does). It is a powerful, affecting piece of cinema. I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.

Recommended. It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.

Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.

Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.

Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts). This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a "sleeper", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie? The folk who produced this masterful film have done fine service to a novel that stands as perhaps the best fiction work centering upon human guilt and human responsibility ever published. Nolte takes the role of Howard W. Campbell, Jr., and makes it his own, remaining true to Vonnegut's depiction of a man who has lost ALL (to and) for Love.

No weaknesses in this fine adaptation. I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.

Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut "hero": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.

Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading "Cat's Cradle," my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus "White Christmas" albums. So it goes! This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking. I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.

If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended. At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about "the most effective spy for the USA in WWII", who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't... There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only "friend" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...

The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.

Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in "Affliction", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.

I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10. Hard to categorize the film - perhaps it's an avant garde spy thriller? Mother Night is a very good Vonnegut novel, and most certainly one of his easiest novels to adapt into a feature length film. The film adaptation is very faithful to the original book. The "indie" approach to how this film was produced is probably more effective than having a big Hollywood studio financing it. These days, I doubt an intelligent novel like Mother Night would ever get the green light from the big Hollywood grindhouses. And normally that is too bad, but not in this case. Mother Night has tight direction and a solid cast. Nick Nolte who seems to be getting better roles as he gets older, still has that "everyman" persona that allows him to take on a wide range of different characters. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and great as always. I always thought she deserved better than she got out of the entertainment industry. I guess making your debut as a dead girl (Twin Peaks)with little air time isn't the choicest of roles, even if the TV show becomes a minor phenomenon. Anyway this film is totally enjoyable and you don't have to read the book to understand the movie. In fact, given today's geopolitical realities, the novel's premise may appear dated, and some younger viewers with little knowledge of history will be utterly confused by the events unfolding (I am talking to you, fellow Americans who are students and scoring the lowest in the industrialized world in geography, history, and lord knows what other subjects!). Before this, the flawed "Slaughterhouse Five" was the best. But this screen adaptation of "Mother Night" is very true to the book and keeps the comedy, mystery, and tragedy intent. Thankfully it wasn't Hollywood-ized or idiotized a la the movie of "Breakfast of Champions." Another good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book to follow it (as I think you do for Slaughterhouse Five). That's probably true of Breakfast of Champions also but they did such a bad job of that you're better off just reading the book and not seeing the movie! Nick Nolte did an excellent job in this film. Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.

This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.

Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's "Blue Fairy Godmother."

This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.

Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author. While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one! If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment. American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. (played with a musty obsolescence by Nick Nolte) lives happily in Germany with his actress wife, Helga Noth (Sheryl Lee) before the beginning of World War II. At the peak of his life, Howard is drafted by an American agent (John Goodman) to become a spy on behalf of the Allies; forewarned of the risks the job holds, Howard has everything to lose, but finds the offer irresistible. Following the death of his wife and the end of the war, Campbell camouflages himself with the anonymity of a solitary life in New York City, which muddies his neuroses even further. The central question (indeed, a question that has frustrated many critics) of the movie and Kurt Vonnegut's source novel is, "is Campbell a hero or a traitor?" Director Keith Gordon and screenwriter Robert B. Weide offer us clues, but no answer, and this ambiguity–this NOT knowing–is what keeps "Mother Night" fresh and interesting throughout. At the beginning of the film, Nolte portrays Campbell as intelligent and confident; by the end, he's either scared and uncertain, or scared and COMPLETELY certain of his contribution/debt to humanity for the role he played in the war. Gordon applies a certain icy sheen to the images of the film's first half, which complement his portrait of the Nazi bourgeoisie and captures Vonnegut's dramatic side. On the flip side, when Campbell is confined to his lonely New York apartment (which he affectionately calls "purgatory") only to be discovered by a group of Nazis, the humor produced also is purely distinctive of the author, and provides a temporary respite from the dramatic tension that unfolds. The moral (even spiritual) paradox "Mother Night" presents doesn't lend itself to simple resolution, and to a degree, should be left ambiguous–the black-and-white scenes of Campbell staring wearily into space as he is imprisoned in Israel suggest an unspoken contemplation we are not made privy to–as Campbell is a character whose inner workings we wind up knowing very little about; the war changes him, coming back to America changes him, and meeting up with the Nazis in New York compels him to prolong the facade of his "act" even further, to the point where he can only stare wearily at an image of himself projected on a wall, spewing anti-Semitic bile. Perhaps that's the best reaction we could hope for. Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages.

There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies. I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in "The Thin Red Line". Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.

I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.

Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.

So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.

The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.

I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.

Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part. Nick Nolte gives an excellent performance in Kurt Vonnegut's dark tale. Notle plays Howard W. Campbell who was a double agent working in propaganda during World War II. After the war, he lives anonymously until competing factions wish to dig up his past. As with much of Vonnegut's work, this is a meditation on the absurdity of war and those who use propaganda for their own aims. Nolte is fantastic - self assured and confident as the younger Campbell, and then broken and haunted as the older man who is forced to atone for the sins of his past. (7 out of 10) I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.

But, hey, that's the nature of people.

Andrew. The movie is a bit "thin" after reading the book, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and Nick Nolte is really "vonneguty". He makes great job expressing the feelings from the book to the film. Not many films engage the feeling of the book as well as Mother Night does. I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.

Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.

The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.

It will change you if you do. I haven't yet read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night (though I've read other books of his, all outstanding pieces of satire and game-changing novel pieces). After seeing Keith Gordon's film adaptation of his book, it will be an immediate must-read in the near future. It's the kind of material that I'm sure if it wasn't made in 1995/96 as a film, it would be picked up right away today in the time period when many period post/present-Holocaust/WW2 movies are quite popular. Except that this is much darker, though even more resonant, about the nature of playing roles and the real underlying horror of living with life after war than say The Reader. It's about the very real danger of pretending in wartime, which is what being a spy in WW2 is really all about.

It would be one thing if Mother Night had a script with a lot of emotional depth and complexity about the moral choice and constant role- even after the war ends- for Howard W. Cambpell (Nick Nolte), which is does. But it's also just a really strong feat of cinematic technique. Keith Gordon is not someone I usually think of as a director of really strong material (more-so I think back to him as an actor, oddly enough featured briefly with Vonnegut himself in Back to School), but this is a revelation. He takes the story of Campbell as a story of a fractured life: a German propaganda master (the "only American left in Berlin"), who is actually a spy for the Americans but can never have his identity revealed, and was before a playwright who really belonged to "a nation of two", himself and his wife (Sheryl Lee). It follows him from his prison cell, awaiting trial in Israel in 1961, as he writes his memoir and tells of his disillusionment about being a 'pretend' Nazi, and then in 1960 in semi-hiding in a New York apartment, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.

Mother Night can be quite heavy, like on a level one might associate with the Pianist, but on another more emotional-cerebral level than the stark poetry of that film. Gordon, by way of Vonnegut, is trying to give us a strong look at a man who has nothing, except the memory (and then later a weird transposition) of his long lost love in a "sister" who has come back to him in NYC, so he's left to his own devices when he befriends a painter (Alan Arkin, very very good here), and then is found out as a Nazi-in-hiding by a white supremacist newsletter, leading wackos to his apartment. On the surface this should be just a straightforward spy story, but not a thing is straightforward. The 'something' of this man's life is staggering, but it's ultimately of his own choosing. Campbell is one of those characters that could be analyzed for hours on end, but the same conclusions might be reached (and, in a way, mirrors the line Goebbels said): the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. That is except for the select few who started the lie and know its secret and power.

But oh, it would be one thing if it were just a wonderful and tragic-comic tale, or another if it were featuring some really fantastic performances (which is does: Nolte is at his very best here, and Sheryl Lee, who we might remember from Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer, stuns in multiple roles, especially in the scene when she reveals she's not 'really' Helga). It's also a gorgeously shot film, with brilliant lighting and shots that reflect the state of mind of the character, or just the starkness or sickening colors of the time (watch the scene where an old Campbell watches a film of his younger self spouting out a rant, the juxtaposition of faces is great). And the music selections rise the level of tragedy. It could be argued some of the music is too much, but at other times it elevates the material past its own usual dramatic dimensions and makes it operatic, solemn about human nature.

It's not always an easy film to take emotionally, and some of the twists do have that tinge of "whoa" as in any spy story. But it's the subversion from Vonnegut that sticks through, the way of taking appearance and performance, of life imitating art imitating life imitating death, and making it into something worth remembering. I have no idea just yet if the book is better than the film (or the other way around), but at the moment it's hard for me not to recommend this to anyone looking for a masterpiece of post WW2/holocaust storytelling. I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10 It takes a little while to get used to Nick Nolte's Nebraskan locutions before we can easily accept him as a famous intercontinental playwright. Once you get past the bar, it turns into a fascinating story of a man who loses everything while trying to do good.

Nolte, an American, moves to Germany, marries a famous actress, and is a satisfied success in every respect until war is about to break out. He's visited by a jovial American, John Goodman, who persuades him to accept a post as an anti-Semitic radio broadcaster for the Nazis. Nolte has no politics but thinks it's a challenge to write a role that's almost impossible and then play it himself. Another American secret agent will modify Nolte's radio scripts -- inserting a cough here, a sneeze there -- that will serve as a code for the transmission of intelligence to the Allies. There's a catch, though. Nobody will know about Nolte's real role as an American agent except Goodman, Donovan, and Roosevelt himself. If he's ever uncovered, he'll be refused recognition by the Americans.

Nolte plunges ahead and his vicious broadcasts are wildly popular in Germany. His adored wife, Sheryl Lee, knows nothing of what's going on, nor does she care. Nolte and Lee live in what he repeatedly refers to as "a nation of two." The war ends and the trouble begins. He's captured by Americans who are bitter because of his betrayal. They beat him and leave him in the mud. He's rescued by Goodman, his "fairy godmother", who sends him to an anonymous existence in Greenwich Village and sends him a little cash now and then.

By 1960, he manages to cultivate a friendship with his neighbor, the painter Alan Arkin, who has also lost his family and claims the two now belong to a secret brotherhood. But his location and his identity somehow leak out and he is more or less adopted by a group of ancient Aryan racists -- led by a dentist and a priest. His house front and mailbox are painted with swastikas and accusations. He's beaten senseless by an ex-GI. But -- miraculously -- his beloved wife is returned to him by the ancient Aryans. Another catch: it turns out later that it's not his wife, but rather her younger sister who has loved him since adolescence.

The ending has him typing his memoirs in an Israeli jail in 1967 before his trial for crimes against humanity. It's not a happy ending.

Nolte can talk with, but not see, the occupant of the cell above his in jail. It's Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann seems pleasant enough. He advises Nolte that it's a bad habit to type for fifteen straight hours. "It's important to relax. You must learn to relax." Nolte laughs out loud and shouts, "That's how I GOT here." The film is filled with such ironies. At one point in their relaxed conversations, Arkin tells him that "in spite of everything I still think people are good at heart." I don't know if the movie was a commercial success but if it wasn't, that's the sort of thing that might have torpedoed it for a younger audience of theater-goers who may never have heard of Anne Frank let alone that supposedly final statement in her diary.

The fact is that it's a movie for adults, and patient adults at that. The story moves slowly, there's very little violence, no car chases, no shootings, and people don't seem subject to manic speech pressure. A lot of it will probably slip past viewers who don't open themselves to its deliberate approach. Nolte refers to the war-time relationship between him and his wife as "a nation of two." This is a pretty compact phrase. No doubt anyone could come up with a glib definition but it takes a little concentration to grasp its emotional import.

It's a story of a man who loses everything -- his ability to write, his identity, his wife (twice), his sole friend, his country, his self respect. At one point he stops walking along a crowded New York street and simply stands there until after dark, when he is moved along by a curious cop. The reason he stopped is that he simply has no place to go. What Vonnegut is describing is far more than depression. I don't mean to sound condescending but it's the sort of feeling that's hard to understand in your youth. Adolescents might like to THINK they know what's holding Nolte in that one spot, but it really requires maturity and the quickened sense of finiteness that only maturity can bring.

Remember Robert Frost's line about home being the place that when you go there they have to take you in? Well no place will take Nolte in. I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".

The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.

Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.

Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.

It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.

But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.

As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head. Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.

Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.

The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory... I felt drawn into the world of the manipulation of mind and will at the heart of the story. The acting by Nolte, Lee, Arkin and the supporting cast was superb. The strange twists in the Vonnegut story are made stranger by odd details. Although not one of Vonnegut's better known works, it is a definite "must-see". Interestingly thought out, I especially like how the director filmed the couple in love. I saw this movie, and the play, and I have to add that this was the most touching story that I had ever seen. Until I saw this movie I was unaware of how awful life was and probably still is for the South African children and adults that were and are living in that era. It brought tears to my eyes and much sadness to my heart that any human being should have to struggle like that just to stay alive, And to bring the children right out of that area and teach them to act and preform and turn them loose to tell their own story is simply amazing. This simply surpass a five star, I rate it a ten. Thank You Mr. Mbongeni Ngema for such a astonishing story. Although it has been 12 years since this story has been told, it is still one that lays heavy in my heart.If there is a VHS, or DVD out there on the play, Please notify me ASAP.Thank You. PS There was nothing wrong with the kids wanting to bring awareness of their problems and conditions to the attention of other countries in hopes that some one would have a heart and offer assistance. A DAMN GOOD MOVIE! One that is seriously underrated. The songs that the children sing in the movie gave me a sense of their pain, but also their hope for the future. Whoopi Goldberg puts in a good performance here, but the best performance throughout the whole movie is that of the actress who plays the title character. I wish she was in more movies.

This movie should have a higher rating. I give it a 10/10. I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.

I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen "South Pacific" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget.

I believe Sarafina is a tremendous effort of Whoopi Goldberg. Besides her, there are no other stars in the film and her role is smaller than the title character, Sarafina. Since I work in a high school with urban children, I think this is an important film to show South African history of apartheid. Sarafina is a movie about education and a teacher's relationship with her student, Sarafina. I bought the video for practically nothing at a videostore. I watched it and fast forwarded through the musical numbers. But I strongly recommend this film to educators and their students to understand. Now while I don't know the other actors and actresses in the film, I assume that they are very popular in South Africa and I am glad that they filmed with a South African cast and crew with the exception of Goldberg in a small role but if it gets people to see this movie, than Whoopi reaches worldwide appeal. Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay Did not know what to expect from from Van Damme's partner & friend /trainer/and his fight choreographer for most of his films. It was nice to see him act as "TONG PO" in "Kickboxer and other Van Damme's films. Now he's on his own. He and his wife make a great team. In this one Qissi is the action director and lead bad guy and he's good. Really meanacing. His wife was the writer, producer and directed most of the scenes which didn't require action. She also did good job editing the film. Together they did a great job. The story made sense, the fight scenes were edited well, the leads were real fighters and looked good together - the story came together well, and if you can beleive it...no bad language, no sex, just action. A new one on me. Check it out!!! Not a bad martial arts film. Fight scenes were good. Michel Qissi did a good job directing his first film without Van Damme. Story worked without foul language and too much blood. Screenwriter Jeanette Francessca has a good line to the story that works. IT would be great to see something else from her in the same genre. She likes the art and having strong women promenant. IT was definitely worth watching. I recommend the film to all drama and martial arts lovers. Fox's epic telling of one a America's greatest pioneering efforts comes to DVD with some truly outstanding "Extras". BRIGHAM YOUNG (The "Frontiersman" was added for the European release), telling the story the great pioneer leader, who under inspiration brought members of the Mormon faith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)out to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, after mobs murdered their prophet/leader, Joseph Smith (played by Vincent Price), was brought to the screen in 1940, just as America was about to enter World War II. It was a daring move on Fox chief, Darryl F. Zanuck and it was a breath of fresh air to the Mormon people, as this was the first film attempt to favorably show their faith on the screen. Now Fox, working with James D'Arc, curator of the excellent Motion Picture Archives at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has brought this film to the DVD format in an outstading edition. Mr. D'Arc, who some years ago did his doctoral dissertation on the film, has provided one of the most in depth commentary tracks ever done for a DVD. He seperates the fact from the fiction and lets listeners understand why this films was so much appreciated by Church Leaders even though embellishments to the truth run throughout the film. One of the fun bits of information deals with Dean Jagger, the actor who plays the title role. Many years after the film he married a Latter-saint woman and was eventually converted to the LDS faith. There is much to be learned from D'Arc's knowledge and it is great to have this as part of the DVD! There are over 100 pictures from the Fox & BYU Archives included on the disc, plus newsreel footage of the incredible premiere at seven theatres in Salt Lake City. Thanks FOX for another outstanding DVD -- and thank you, James D'Arc for your great commentary! I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.

I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.

I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout. Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.

I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.

1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial. I find Alan Jacobs review very accurate concerning the movie;however I had the opportunity to rent the DVD from blockbuster with a commentary from BYU's Curator, Motion Picture Archives James D'Arc. The then LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant approved of the movie understanding the deviations from historic content for dramatic expression and telescoping events. For example the movie showed Joseph Smith on trial. despite Brigham Young's great oratory in defense of Joseph Smith he was convicted anyway. Then Joseph was killed. Historically Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Brigham Young was in Boston when Joseph Smith was arrested for this particular trial. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum where both killed before the trial took place. This is a wonderful movie about the struggle of the Mormons and their final settlement in Salt Lake, Utah. The beginning and the ending are especially powerful, and the message is one we all have to be reminded of - God doesn't talk, but he communicates, if we would only listen. As I am writing this in the midst of the horrors going on in New Orleans and the surrounding area due to Katrina, I was especially moved by the Mormons having to leave everything behind and move on after Joseph Smith was assassinated. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and yet they could not. The struggle of the Mormons to cross the country, the cost in lives, the hardship they suffered was truly awe-inspiring, demonstrating their tremendous strength. As far as the actual beliefs of Mormons, this is not heavily gone into, and polygamy is mentioned but is not a centerpiece of the film at all.

The cast is top-notch, though others who have commented know more about the actual characters and can talk about how true the portrayals were. But as actors, Dean Jagger, Mary Astor, Brian Donlevy, John Carradine, Jane Darwell all do excellently with the script they were given.

Though the film could have easily stood on its own (and certainly does today) Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell were added to the cast to get the crowds into the movie theaters to see a film about the Mormons. Power is magnificently handsome as a young Mormon, and Darnell, as Zina, is not a Mormon but stays on with the family after her father is killed. Power does not have much to do until the end of the film, when he has a big scene, and Darnell (still a teenager at the time of the filming) has even less, though they make a lovely couple. Their fate is left unclear regarding her conversion, and one does wonder about the polygamy in their case. You can't beat either one for eye candy, however. I enjoyed watching Brigham Young and found it to be a positive and largely true portrayal of the LDS faith. I think that a remake of this epic journey across the plains would be beneficial, since many people today are not familiar with the trials and persecutions faced by the early Mormon church. It is an incredible story of a strong and devoted people.

As a member of the church, the single most disturbing aspect of the film (most of the historical inaccuracies did not bother me much) was the portrayal of Brigham Young as one that had "knowingly deceived" church members into believing he had been called to be Joseph's successor as the prophet. Although I understand the dramatic reasons for this plot line, it creates the impression that his doubts in this regard are historical fact, when in reality, both Brigham and the bulk of the church members understood and believed firmly that he had been called to lead the church. Brigham did not knowingly deceive the saints; rather he led them confidently by inspiration. The point is important for Mormons because on it hinges an important aspect of our faith: that God truly speaks to prophets today, and that Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, was an inspired prophet of God.

Whether or not you believe this statement or not, just know that the film does not accurately portray what Brigham himself believed. A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers." And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question "Are we really that manipulative?"

It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light. I'm disappointed at the lack of posts on this surprising and effective little film. Jordi Mollà, probably best known for his role as Diego in Ted Demme's "Blow" Writes, directs, and stars.

I won't give away any plot points, as the movie (at least for me) was very exciting having not known anything about it.. If you have a netflix account, or have access to a video store that would carry it...I highly recommend it. It's a crazy, fun, and sometimes very thought provoking creation.

Mollà's direction is *quite* impressive and shows a lot of promise.

Unpredictable, with amazing imagery and a great lead performance spoken in beautiful Spanish "No somos nadie" (God is on Air) is an amazing film you can show off to your friends.

SEE IT. A wonderful surprise of the Spanish cinema. I never thought Jordi Molla could be such a great director, after all, I really don't care much for his choice in movies. However this film was absolutely fantastic and not predictable at all... something I ALWAYS enjoy! It hasn't enjoyed much good press and I really don't think it'll ever be released in the US market. We'll have to content ourselves with the DVD or VHS if even that... I don't want to say much about the story because I don't want to spoil it for you but basically the movie is about a homeless drunk who becomes the new messiah just for kicks and to get some money out of it (like sooooooooooo many), before he knows it he is immerse in a life he was not counting on. Salva and his pal Bigardo have been at the margin of the law during most of their lives. We see them panhandling in a car of the underground, where their pitch to get donations is so lame, no one gives them anything! Salva, who is a hardened petty criminal doesn't even have any redeeming qualities, that is, until he discovers a reality show on television that gives him the idea of what to do next. Religion and show business prove to be a winning combination, something that Salva capitalizes on.

He and Bigardo have been in jail after the accidental death of a priest that was critical of the duo. Salva shows he is a natural for the reality show. He transforms himself into a Christ-like figure who is an instant success in the program. Espe, who is a no-nonsense woman who is show's producer, can't escape from the way Salva pays her unusual attention. Ultimately, Salva is the victim of his own success in the end.

Jordi Molla, whose first directorial job this movie is, had some success in the way the film satirizes the role of television. Spain, which was vulnerable to these types of programs, has seen its share of the bizarre, which is what the director felt is an assault on the viewing public and wanted to set his story from the point of view of the people that are making a fortune out of the naive audience.

The ensemble cast has some good moments in the film. Mr. Molla, like any actor who decides to direct his first feature, would have been more effective concentrating on the picture in front of the camera. Candela Pena, a good actress, is one of the best reasons for watching the movie. Juan Carlos Villedo, David Gimenez Cacho, Franco Francescoantonio, Florinda Chico and the rest responded well to the new director. The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by. I thought the whole movie played out beautifully with fresh images and interesting cinematography the whole way through it. The actors were on top of their character's backs in nearly perfect timing and looked great. The music was lush and well-thought-out. It even had a decent twist of an ending. So what's with everyone voting it down? The story wasn't entirely fresh (felt like a remnant of "Running Man" with the whole television show idea), but the attitude towards Christianity and Judaism about how the public picks their Messiah certainly sounded true enough. It made sense to follow this one man who was put before a modern crowd and to put him on a pedestal because of his opportunity.

It's possible that Christians or other religious people pick this up because the movie has the word "God" in it, but that shows what the filmmakers were trying to do is to teach a possibility to people who maybe never saw the world like this, especially in the modern world where Christianity has been more and more accepted and forgotten about by some.

I gave it a 7/10 stars here on IMDb. I thought every ounce of the movie was entertaining and original, for the most-part. Check it out if you're not too offended to see an entertaining film from Madrid, Spain, about possibilities of the coming modern Messiah to a TV near you. Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public.

The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.

A diverting, but not great film. Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up. My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD. I guess this movie will only work on people who were all turned off by the giant hype of Lord of the Rings. Well, so I was. And so I really love this movie. Especially I like all those flawless superheroes from LotR being so perfectly and disrespectfully parodied. Most brilliantly is the counterpart of Gandalf (the brave and wise and completely humorless know-it-all wizard): Almghandi, the cowardice and brain dead transvestite. Sauron's counterpart ("Sauraus" from East Germany, of course) is wearing a simply bucket with eye holes as a helmet. Aragorns alter ego is yet another accident prone idiot who tries to fix his broken sword ("Ulrike" the legend) with scotch tape. And "Strunzdumm" (the counterpart of Wormtong) indeed has some strong resemblance with Brad Dourif! And don't forget Grmpfli and Heidi... huh-huh As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand. It was considered to be the "Swiss answer to the Lord of the Rings", but it is much more than that. It isn't an answer to anything, it's in itself something new, something funny and sometimes it's downright stupid and silly - but was Monty Python any different than silly?

The beginning immediately makes the statement that this film is low budget and not meant to be taken entirely seriously. Cardboard clouds on strings knock into the airplane in which the main character is seated. But, to compensate the missing special effects, the landscape does the trick. It is absolutely beautiful and stunning - who needs New Zealand, Switzerland has it all.

What I liked about the film was the simple approach and the obvious passion and energy that went into it. It isn't brilliant; yet it's got some good humorous parts. Edward Piccin as Friedo is absolutely convincing, it would be enough to go and see the film because of him!There are some good jokes, some of them are very lame, some of them won't be understood by people outside of Switzerland. I liked the idea of having "Urucows" instead of Uruk Hai; I loved the scene where Friedo decides to take "Pupsi", a telehobbie, with him on the journey. Also very funny is the scene when Rackaroll, the sword-fighting knight, decides to show off with his sword - and subsequently smashes it into a wall, breaking it. And there is this one scene where the "nazgul-ish" characters do a wonderfully comic scene that includes a toilet brush... I didn't approve of the idea of the Ring being used by Schleimli, the "Gollum" character, in order to "seduce" the ladies. That was a bit far fetched. The idea of Lord Sauraus wanting to cover the lands with fondue wasn't that brilliant either. Original, certainly, but not brilliant. But most of all did I dislike the idea of a gay dragon, that really wasn't necessary. All in all I recommend to see the film simply because it is so crazy and totally trashy. Don't expect a LotR parody like "Spaceballs" was for Star Wars. But if you go to the flicks thinking that this is going to be an amusing evening out, with absolutely no ambitions, then you'll enjoy. I am not sure if it works in other languages, because it does live from the Swiss dialects as well as from the jokes and actors.

All in all: hat off to the courage of the Swiss crew who did that! The thing I remember most about this film is that it used to air on local KTLA TV (Ch. 5) during every Christmas season during the mid to late 70s, mainly due to the fact that the true story took place on or near Christmas Eve. It was always a bit disturbing to see the hell that this girl goes through, being the lone survivor of a plane crash in the Peruvian jungle. The graphic scene of this young girl pulling leeches out of her infected leg made quite an impression on this young viewer. Not quite the kind of Christmas cheer I was used to seeing at the time. Definitely not a Rankin-Bass production. I liked this movie very much because it is a true story set in the Amazon, a part of the world that always has intrigued me. I believe a condensed form of the book was published in "Reader's Digest" soon after the actual event occurred.

Because I am a "baby boomer," the character and the actress are my contemporaries, and for this reason I related to the film. I also believe the movie is valuable for teaching survival skills if the viewer observes the character's following the streams that lead to the river and to the coastal settlements where she can get help, as well as other survival techniques. Most important was her will to survive and to maintain a positive attitude. In conclusion, I hope viewers learn something from it, in addition seeing it for entertainment.

I do wish the movie would be released in VHS and DVD soon as I should like to add it to my video collection. It also should be shown more often on the satellite movie channels. While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years. I first saw this movie back in the 1980's and now in 2006 this movie still is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I would recommend anyone to look at this movie. You will not be sorry. It is well acted out, so real and never a dull moment. The acting is superb and the location makes the movie seem like you are there. From the beginning right up to the end, this movie is the type that makes you lose your attention. The actress does an excellent job of portraying the girl who survived this horrific plane crash in the Amazon and it shows how she managed to survive in the Amazon all alone. It is unbelievable that anyone could survive under such conditions. This is why this movie is so appealing. The fact that this is a true story makes the movie even more interesting and to think that a young girl could survive from this ordeal is overwhelming. I find this movie one that I can watch over and over again and one that I never get tired of. This is indeed quite a compliment as I have hundreds of movies! I would say this is probably my favorite movie and the best I have ever seen! I saw this when I was 17 and haven't seen it since. The 'CBS Late Movie' used to show it on a regular basis at one point. I remember how sad and upsetting it was, it truly made me sick to my stomach. Effects then weren't what they are today, but nevertheless, it conveyed the feeling of being alone in the Amazon, after losing both parents and searching for a way out, very well. I remember the bugs and maggots the most, so realistic they were, eating her flesh. It's a dark film which was controversial subject matter at the time, even though likely it was strongly edited for TV. I wish I remembered more details, and if I ever get the chance to see it again, I can comment more. I have been looking for this for years. I believe it may have been shown on CBS under yet another title. I have no idea whether it was ever released on video. I have seen "Miracles Still Happen" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! I've been looking for the name of this film for years. I was 14 when I believe it was aired on TV in 1983. All I can remember was it was about a teenaged girl, alone, having survived a plane crash AND surviving the Amazon. I remember people were looking for her(family) and that she knew how to take care of herself---she narrates the story and I vividly remember about her knowing that bugs were under her skin. I don't remember much else about this movie, and want to see it again--if this IS the same one--and if any of you have a copy, could you email me at horsecoach4hire@hotmail.com? I'd be curious to attain a copy to see if it is in fact the same film I remember. It was aired on Thanksgiving(US) in 1983, and I was going through problems of my own and this film really impacted heavily on me. Thanks in advance! I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.

Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.

This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.

Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing. The main problem I see with this film is its score, which screams with every note, "This is a cheap-ass movie." There's not much more to say here. The score just plain sucked.

The second problem, which I see as quite severe as well as it involves the unwinding of the plot near the end of the film (one of the the money shots, if you will), is the dialogue between Martha (Adrienne Barbeau) and the sunflower man (Richard Ziman), in which Martha is revealed to be the leader of the experiment. At all times during this dialogue, the viewer is very much aware that s/he is listening to a movie dialogue. In other words, suspension of disbelief breaks down here. The integrity of a believable dialogue between two people is sacrificed for a willy-nilly stuffing of information the movie makers wish to impart to the audience.

The third problem was the casting of Adrienne Barbeau. While I honestly believe her to be a fabulous actress within her oeuvre, I feel that this part may have been too much of a stretch. The main point of her performance that didn't seem to mesh was the spectrum across which the character moves through the film from a loving mother of a troubled family to an almost Rambo-like woman on a mission. This aspect of the script would obviously have been a stretch for any actress, and one cannot place too much blame, therefore, upon Barbeau. To the degree that she fairly competently acted her part, however, I would only call this a moderately severe problem to the film as a whole.

Finally, the film did a wonderful job in the first half building a creep factor, most notably during its horror flashes. I feel that the film would have benefited by more of a commitment to these flashes as a mechanism for preventing a fizzling of the creep factor in the second half of the movie.

So what's my holistic grading of this piece? I'd give it a solid C+ to B-, depending upon how much credit you're inclined to give the makers for producing this film on a limited budget. Even with two severe and two moderately severe problems, the film is premised on the solid plot of the Jungian side of Nazi mysticism. I see no problems with plot development or coherence; the dialogue, with the noted exception above, is downright brilliant in places, especially the all important keystone scene between mother and daughter at the beginning of the movie; as mentioned, the creep factor was well crafted, if a bit fizzly in the second half; and Nicholas Brendan, who also associated produced, delivered a wonderful performance.

All in all, this film is definitely worth the view---see it with a Nazi you love. :) This one will get reviews all over the map because it doesn't comfortably fit any mold. It's horror-- but not a splatterfest. It's equal part Suspense as well as Horror-- yet without the usual Hollywood screams and jerky camera.

The feel of the movie is spare and lean with next to no special effects because I think you should listen and watch the faces of the characters.

Forget that Brendan is a graduate of the Buffy universe. That's a red herring. He IS acting here. 'Camp' is a misreading of the tone of this story. Adrienne Barbeau is giving a rock solid performance-- so she must believe the script has something to say. We all know the sorry excuses where the actors plainly don't care anymore and are just waiting for the director to snap "Cut" and get their paychecks. This is Not the case, here.

Forgive the fact that the bodies begin to fall with almost mondo-funny regularity. I don't think the intent was humorous-- but to keep you off balance.

Think of it less of a Horror 'Movie' and more of a Horror 'Play' on a stage-- that decrepit whitewashed house. Then you might see it's really about paranoia, fear, and spiralling madness set in an isolated someplace, USA.

And it is twisty. Time travel, Mind Control, secret experiments and Nazi's who may NOT be dead. . .yet.

I say rent it and give it a try if you're in the mood for something a little cerebral. This would be a good choice for a Saturday Midnight sit down. I am surprised at IMDb's low rating of this movie. With all due respect, its low rating is representative of the IQ level of those who rated it so poor. They would rather see a movie with cheap thrills, a bigger budget, and more gore.

The first misconception by people is that this is a horror film. It is not, nor does the film mislead you into believing it is one. It is a psychological thriller. It is for people who actually want an intellectual experience when watching a movie. Reel.com's review is the perfect example of how I feel about this movie. All the other negative reviews doesn't make much sense. It's almost as if trying to make an original movie for a change- very rare these days- is something bad and not worth it.

I will reveal some spoilers for the morons who said it was boring and didn't make sense. Martha was brainwashing herself and performing experiments on herself to be a caring mother while she really was an evil Nazi who would kill without warning. The evidence is all in the pudding and the fact that at first viewing, we sympathize with this cold-blooded monster for the duration of the movie is a testament to the film's direction and writing.

I definitely feel that this movie should at least be rated in the 6's range on originality alone. I recommend this movie for the people on the other end of the IQ scale- aka smart people- since this movie is obviously being butchered by those who would rather watch Scream or Freddy's Nightmare.

Kudos to the acting as well. For such a low budget film, you are amazed that this movie didn't hit your local cinema with the great direction, writing, and acting. Please don't be fooled by the rating by IMDb. This movie is worth it. I actually recommend buying the film since a first viewing on a rent will not do this justice. I am completely shocked that this show had been cancelled.Ity only lasted one year.I just recently started watching it and I love it.Its a show that could of gone as far as Friends went.It had the humour and was extremely enjoyable.

It is about 2 brothers and 2 sisters living under one roof without their parents.Kurt(Joey Lawrence) plays the part of the oldest sibling and takes on the more fatherly role.

This should of lasted much more than year as it was fantastic. Amazing show with all the best actors.

10/10 A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.

It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.

I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed. A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the "bed" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching... i loved this movie it was one of the years best pornos i remember watching it on starz or some god damn thing but it was great. i only saw like half of it and i taped it and all i can say is i loved every minute of what i saw. i didnt sleep for weeks after i saw this movie (although i was very tired.) One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas We tend to forget that the master/slave context of the past centuries lead to more than well-tended estates, powered by large groups of enslaved people, and a lot of money for the white owners. It lead to a group of people caught in the middle - the offspring resulting from slave owners interferring with their female slaves.

Some of these children just became more slaves, and others were free...but free and coloured, which back then meant anything but, relative to the lot of their sires.

A class formed around these offspring - the gens de couleur libre or free people of colour - and that class was able, to a certain extent, to own property, raise themselves from downtrodden to educated, and to attain a comparative dignity. That is to say, they weren't slaves, but they were still exploited to a certain extent.

Often, the women lived as mistresses to the white plantation masters and men of wealth, set up in their own houses, with allowances, schooling paid for for their children, and a kind of gentility, dependent on the respectability they chose to impose on their families. In essence, they were prostituting themselves to ensure their own prosperity, and relative independence from labour - an arrangement called plaçage.

Feast of All Saints is a beautifully written story about the children of one such woman, the result of just such an arrangement with a local gentleman, and the people who touched on their lives, in both a negative and a positive way. The tale was an eye-opener for me, a New Zealander, with no real conception of the black/white lines, let alone that grey area in the middle where the gens de couleur libre trod gingerly.

The characters are very three dimensional, and have been well-rendered in this adaption of the novel, by Anne Rice. The parts are well-cast, the costumes are wonderful, and the brutal way the lines are drawn out, with the blurred areas made all the more distinct by the conflicts the protagonists go through. The gens de couleur libre could not marry the whites, the slaves could not help themselves, and the whites, even the sympathetic ones, couldn't bear to face the economic reality of doing right by the people they depended on.

I recommend this story, both the novel and the miniseries, to everyone, unreservedly. If you can't handle the truth you'll cringe and cower through some parts, as one injustice after another is meted out on those of colour, both by their white oppressors, and by their own people. Bear in mind though that this is nothing more than reality, and this tale is an absorbing way to learn about it.

I know it may sound callous, but this miniseries both entertained me and enthralled me, despite the sour taste I found in my mouth at what went on, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Watch it. If not read up on the period, because there's a lesson to be learned from it all. This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library. I know that originally, this film was NOT a box office hit, but in light of recent Hollywood releases (most of which have been decidedly formula-ridden, plot less, pointless, "save-the-blonde-chick-no-matter-what" drivel), Feast of All Saints, certainly in this sorry context deserves a second opinion. The film--like the book--loses anchoring in some of the historical background, but it depicts a uniquely American dilemma set against the uniquely horrific American institution of human enslavement, and some of its tragic (and funny, and touching) consequences.

And worthy of singling out is the youthful Robert Ri'chard, cast as the leading figure, Marcel, whose idealistic enthusiasm is truly universal as he sets out in the beginning of his 'coming of age,' only to be cruelly disappointed at what turns out to become his true education in the ways of the Southern plantation world of Louisiana, at the apex of the antebellum period. When I saw the previews featuring the (dreaded) blond-haired Ri'chard, I expected a buffoon, a fop, a caricature--I was pleasantly surprised.

Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, the late Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Victoria Rowell and even Jasmine Guy lend vivid imagery and formidable skill as actors in the backdrop tapestry of placage, voodoo, Creole "aristocracy," and Haitian revolt woven into this tale of human passion, hate, love, family, and racial perplexity in a society which is supposedly gone and yet somehow is still with us. I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)

The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).

The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.

I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!

Historical drama and coming of age story involving free people of color in pre civil war New Orleans. Starts off slow but picks up steam once you have learned about the main characters and the real action can begin. This is not just a story about the exploitation of black women, because these were free people. They may not have had all the rights of whites but they certainly had more control over their destinies than their slave ancestors. The young men and women in this story must each make their own choice about how to live their lives, whether to give into the depravity of the system or live with optimism and contribute to their community. I enjoyed all of the characters but my favorites were Christophe, Anna Bella, and Marcel. I've bought, " The Feast of All Saints," and it's not truly a horrible movie, but a lot of things could have been better. It had a lot of historical value, played out by very talented actress/actors, and it's not an everyday occurrence that actors can play out such a role and have it be somewhat believable. There were some parts that were a little mediocre and confusing, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie was horrible. Once you think about that, capturing 1800's New Orleans, and making something out of it, it pretty hard, and much harder to get actors who can strongly signify those parts. But the only big problem I had with the movie was that most of the actors who did play the free people of color, were mostly light skinned Africans, not very universal in casting others who weren't light skinned; one of the old Creole stereotypes that still exists. Whomever did the casting could have picked a wider variety when it came to hue, despite many Creoles are color conscious.Rather picking actors that looked near white in a sense, could have been more thought out.The actors did a great job, the script could have better written, and overall I found the performances were very believable. My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can "pass" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza Wow this was a movie was completely captivating I could not believe that I started awake so late to watch it but it came on late ounce I started watching I couldn't stop it had a full range of very good cast members wow even Eartha Kitt and Ruby Dee Forrest Whittaker and James Earl Jones and many more well known actors and actresses this was more than a glimpse into history it was eye opening into another part of society that people don't know of and may even be embarrassed to talk about . I've never heard of a book or movie about this before and this is something that black history never addresses only looks down on because they were privleged and mixed race , I highly recommend this movie E! TV is a great channel and Talk Soup is so funny,in a flash you can view the episodes change. We want more funny writings by the best writer ever Stan Evans.. The patron Saint of the mindless masses... He is a truly talented, gifted writer, actor, comic, producer,director, and creative consultant.Anna Nicole loved him , but he was not a $$$$Billionaire so he left him for a Billionaire. Many super stars wanted to make films with the actor Stan Evans, who has a "Humphrey Bogart" {Clark Gable}acting style. He should make many more movies. Maybe with Stephen Spielberg, or perhaps many other talented producers.We wish him a moment of FAME with a great fortune to gain. Has he produced any mock-U-dramas? or perhaps any docudrama??? A project about Bernie Madhoff would be a great TV movie written by STAN EVANS. How many screenplays has he written?? Is he under $$$$$$$$$$$$billion contract with Disney?? He should earn more than $50 Million... He could also write a TV movie about the late KING OF POP.. Michael Jackson. We want to view a lot more of and by Stan Evans in the movies and on TV. Thank you so very much. Elvis has left the building!!!!! I don't watch a lot of TV, except for The Office, Weeds, Entourage and E!'s Soup. I think I hold this show in good company.

I love the scathing review of pop culture that this show gives. Soup also helps me stay on top of what people in the office are referring to when talking about a Sanjaya or Heidi Montag (sp?).

The best part is that Soup shows clips of the highlights of these shows, which are usually the funniest or most controversial moments (c'mon, most people get hooked into watching American Idol because of the freak show that are the auditions), which is why most people claim to watch. And that means, I don't have to suffer through the other 98% of these mind numbing talk shows or "reality" shows, for one nugget of "funny" or "shock." The only reason why Soup doesn't get a 10 in my opinion are sometime the sketches are not that funny, and on an even rarer occasion, the commentary isn't always up to par. But they can't all be home runs either, if so, Soup wouldn't be on E!.

Joel's quick wit and Soup's writing team (which includes McHale) make for a great show. I happen to enjoy the laughing and comments from the crew who are off-camera. Even when they're being blatantly obvious by giving occasional courtesy laughs, it's hilarious because it IS forced. They're obviously being ironic. And that's part of what makes this show funny. I can't believe how many people hate Hal Sparks! He was my favorite host of the show, hands down. I hate celebrity gossip and generally dislike talk shows, but when Hal Sparks hosted Talk Soup, it was must see TV for me. I rarely missed an episode during his run, and was saddened when the guest hosts started pouring in (although most of the guests still did a fine job).

Anyway, for all the people who dislike Hal Sparks, I imagine they must have never seen the weekend specials. They were hour long episodes of Talk Soup that comprised the best clips from the entire week, and were padded out by sketch comedy bits. The original bits that Hal Sparks did were hilarious. In one he got possessed by a bad comedy demon, and in an exorcist like scene his head spun as he told dated jokes about airline food. One episode was dedicated to making fun of Multiplicity, as a bunch of cloned Hal Sparks kept multiplying through out the episode, over-running the studio.

OK, maybe these don't sound as funny when I describe them, but all I know is that besides Talk Soup, the only other two shows I watched consistently during those years was The Simpsons and Late Night with Conan O'Brian. So if you like the comedy stylings of those shows, then you'd probably like Talk Soup during the Sparks years.

That said, Henson and Tyler were both great hosts as well. All three hosts brought something different to the table but they were all fine comedians in my opinion. Of course, throughout the Tyler and guest star years, my interest in this show began to wane, but every now and then I catch The Soup, the show's spiritual successor, and sure enough, the new host can bring some pretty unexpected laughs from time to time.

OK, I've wasted enough time talking about a TV show that isn't on the air anymore and on a channel that I generally despise. Go watch something else! In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it. College girl Joanne Murray takes on the unenviable job of readying the student housing building to become apartments,which includes selling the unneeded furniture This takes place during a break,so a mysterious psycho is stalking the nearly-empty premises on campus."Dorm that Dripped Blood" is a low-budget slasher flick that is quite entertaining.The acting is pretty bad,the plot is predictable,but the gore effects are quite good.The film was made by UCLA film students Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow for next to nothing.Soon a dreamy ambiance kicks in,very similar to the enveloping forests of Jeff Leiberman's fantastic "Just Before Dawn".7 out of 10.It's great to see Daphne Zuniga of "The Initiation" fame run over few times by a car. Not a bad word to say about this film really. I wasn't initially impressed by it but it grew on me quickly. I like it a lot and I think its a shame that many people can't see past the fact that it was banned in some territories, mine being one of them. The film delivers in the shock, gore and atmosphere department. The score is a beautiful piece of suspense delivering apparatus. It only seems fair that Chris Young went on to be one of the best composers in the business. The acting in this film is of a somewhat high standard, if a little wooden in some spots, and the effects are very real and gritty. All of this is high praise for a good slasher film in my book. I've noted in some reviews that the film has gotten serious flack having the famous killer's P.O.V shot. And I ask: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? It is a classic shot that evokes dread into any good fan of the genre and is a great to keep the killer's identity a secret. The only thing that stops this film getting top marks in my book is that the surprise twist(killer revealed) is not handled with more care, I mean it just happens kind of quickly, though the great performances make it just about credible. Aside from that PRANKS is a great movie (though I prefer the original title) and its a shame that so many people knock it off as just a cheap piece of crap. Its more than that, but only few know that as it seems to have gotten lost in the haze of early 80s slasher. What a shame.... Its a really good movie people! Believe me! Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did. Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young "adults" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in "Intruder," a creepy score by Christopher ("Hellraiser") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with "The Power" and "The Kindred"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun. I think that the movie was kind of weird. In the opening scene, a person is killed for no reason. He doesn't get mentioned again. The special effects could have also be better but i enjoyed watching an older horror movie. It isn't the best example of a classic horror movie but it still was an alright movie. I give it about a 5 out of 10 of the scale. i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable "aunt" type person. i can still recall her "ubba bubba um um" type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting!

It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.

i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the "Swedish Rhapsody" by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct. I must have been only 11 when Mr Peepers started. It was a must see for the whole family, I believe on Sun. nights. Repeating gags were Rob opening his locker (he had to use a yardstick or pointer to gage the right spot on another locker and do some other things, finally kicking the spot whereupon his door would open), and taking pins out of a new shirt(at the start of an episode he would open up a package with a new dress shirt and for the rest of the show be finding one pin after another that he missed when unwrapping the shirt, timing was everything and the pins got lots of laughs.) I remember an aunt that drove a Rio like Jack Benny and always wanted "Sonny" to Say something scientific. He would think and come up with "semi permeable membrane" or osmosis causing her to say how brilliant he was. (you had to have been there). Marion Lorne stole the show every time she was on screen. Why they didn't continue the series from her POV when Wally quit (he was afraid he was being typecast but by then it was way too late)I'll never know. I saw somewhere that the 1st TV wedding (big one anyway) was Tiny Tim on the Carson show. Horsecocky. It was Rob and Nancy (did I ever have the hots for her) and I remember it made the cover of TV Guide and got press in all the papers and major magazines. A trip to the Museum of Broadcasting in NYC years ago was disappointing in that they had very few episodes then and those might be gone now. I still remember it as wonderful and wish I had been a little older. I've just finished viewing the 1st disc in a 4-disc (26 episodes) collection created in conjunction with the UCLA Film & Television Archive (S'More Entertainment, Inc.). So far (aside from the 1st episode), the image quality is quite good. The DVD box is shown on the title page here on IMDb.

"Mr. Peepers" is just as charming as when I first saw it (5-years old at the time) and Wally Cox is truly endearing in this role. If you're in the mood for quiet comedy that sneaks up on you, as opposed to hitting you over the head, you'll treasure this chance to experience all the wonderful characters you might remember from your childhood. Although some of the gags are a bit corny, most are ingenious and well-executed...and even the corny ones are fun. This is one TV series that lives up to my early childhood memories of it. The 100 black and white half-hour episodes of the early situation comedy "Mr. Peepers" were originally broadcast from 1952-55 on NBC. Like a lot of baby boomers this and "Ding Dong School" are my earliest memories of television. Since both ran later in syndication it is hard to tell how many of these memories are actually tied to the original broadcasts.

"Mr. Peepers" is worth checking out for more than its nostalgia value. It represents a very different style of situation comedy than shows like "The Honeymooners" and "I Love Lucy". The genre could have gone in two different directions in those days and ended up taking the loud abrasive path of those two shows; which is probably why they still seem contemporary.

"Mr. Peepers", which was differentiated by its intelligent restrained tone, may appear slow and dull in comparison. But it's really more a matter of adjusting to the different style. Once you get into the characters it will win over most intelligent viewers. Credit should be give to the show's producer, Fred Coe, a key figure in early television whose dramatic anthologies are also worth checking out ("Philco Television Playhouse", "Lights Out", "Playhouse 90", "Producers Showcase", "Playwrights 56", "Fireside Theatre", etc.) even on kinescope.

"Mr. Peepers" offered a much more gentle style with Wally Cox (to be the voice of "Underdog" a few years later) in the title role, Robinson Peepers, a mild-mannered high school science teacher. His glasses were his trademark and a symbolic link to his name and role as a passive observer.

The series provided Cox with an outstanding supporting cast. Tony Randall played his brash best friend, history teacher Harvey Weskit. Jack Warden played Frank Whip, the loud gym teacher whose mild bullying gave the show most of its conflict elements.

There is some love interest competition involving the school's nurse, Nancy Remington (Patricia Benoit), with viewers quickly aligning with Mr. Peepers who seems a much better match for the gentle Nancy. Their on-screen marriage near the end 1953-54 season captured national attention, an early version of the "Who Shot J.R.?" frenzy.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. I first came across this film when I read a book (written in the 1970s) about the career of Mitchell Leisin. I have to admit that over the years I have watched many of his films and find his best work really high quality. SWING HIGH, SWING LOW was supposed to be one of his best. While it did not bore me, it did not impress me as much as HOLD BACK THE DAWN, DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY, KITTY, or even GOLDEN EARINGS. I suspect it just dates too much now to be well liked.

Working at Paramount Leisin had a problem in those films that he did which were musicals. Most of the scores he worked with were fairly mediocre. It's true that twice standards appeared in his films, but they were really rare cases: "Cocktales for Two" appeared in MURDER AT THE VANITIES, and "Mona Lisa" came out of CAPTAIN CAREY, U.S.A. But the rest of the score for MURDER AT THE VANITIES was forgettable. "Mona Lisa" was the only tune in CAPTAIN CAREY. It shouldn't have been this way - Leisin's studio had Rogers and Hart working for it in the early 1930s. Why couldn't he have been assigned to a project with them? The score for SWING HIGH, SWING LOW, is pleasant but forgettable. Unfortunately, the movie is centered in the entertainment world, as Fred Macmurray demonstrates great talents as a trumpet player (he even works Carole Lombard into his act by looping his arms around her when he blows his trumpet). The song (sung by Lombard) about how her lover's playing thrills her, is important to the plot. It works in the film, but it would have been better if the song was more memorable.

There is a picaresque style to the film - it begins on an ocean liner that Lombard works on, as a manicurist. She is constantly being bullied by her boss Franklin Pangborn (the ship's barber). Then the ship is entering into the Panama Canal, and we see MacMurray as a soldier, who's enlistment is ending shortly. Their first scene together has a nice Leisin touch in it: MacMurray is talking to Lombard, she on the deck of the boat and he on the edge of the wall of the lock. Nice way to keep the action going while the dialog hits a dull bit.

The film follows the rise and fall of the Skid Johnson (MacMurray) as he meets Lombard, and begins his reputation as a trumpet player, but meets the "other woman" in the film, Dorothy Lamore. The best moments in the film deal with the collapse of the relationship with Lombard, and his collapse as a jazz trumpeter (his appearance and need for alcohol is very untypical for a MacMurray character - even his darker figures like Walter Neff or Mr. Sheldrake or the naval officer who pushes the Caine Mutiny did not demonstrate a reliance on alcohol.

Lombard is good as the woman loved but wronged by MacMurray. Lamore has little to really do - possibly the film had more scenes with her in it, but one stands out is her attempt to get MacMurray onto the wagon again. In his opening bit Pangborn is fine. Rarely noticed in films, small part actor Carl Judels is effective as a fair weather fan/friend of MacMurray, who drops him as he goes under (though he gives him a hand-out).

Charles Butterworth is as trivial in this film as usual, but he does have one moment when he looks sheepishly at his hands on the keyboard of a piano in the rooms he, his girlfriend, MacMurray, and Lombard share - his red faced appearance is due to embarrassment about a lie that MacMurray is insisting is true. It was a nice, subtle moment. If only his subtlety had been in his acting rather than his moments of diffident humor. The third Fred MacMurray/Carole Lombard film is a bit more serious than Hands Across the Table and The Princess Comes Across. It's yet another adaption of the play Burlesque which apparently was popular back in the day.

The original play Burlesque ran on Broadway in the 1927-1928 season for 372 performances and it's the role that Carole Lombard plays that Barbara Stanwyck originated on Broadway that brought her to Hollywood. A version starred Nancy Carroll in the early days of talkies and later on Betty Grable and Dan Dailey did still another version of it in When My Baby Smiles At Me.

In fact I have a vinyl album of a radio version that Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler did for the Lux Radio Theater. That's an interesting work, believe me.

Anyway MacMurray and Lombard do fine by the old chestnut, the story is now set in a nightclub where Lombard is a singer and MacMurray is a jazz trumpeter. Note a nice performance by Dorothy Lamour as the Latin vixen who gets between Fred and Carole. Also Anthony Quinn is in one of his earliest films as a wolf on the make for Lombard.

Swing High, Swing Low holds up real nice today and I wouldn't be surprised if we see yet another version of Burlesque for the Twenty First Century. I am quite the Mitchell Leisen fan so it was a great anticipation that I rented this movie but the print I got was extremely bad, so worn down from use and scorched seemingly beyond repair, the movie was so dark. So dark that in certain scenes that are cinematographed in the dark, you can't see a single thing. That said, I believe I share the same opinion as the first review of this movie. It starts out unusually and does not tote the lines and rhythms of your typical Hollywood 30's movie. Heck, not even your typical Hollywod movie of any era. It seems the director has been influenced by the Europeans because there is a certain caustic realism to the proceedings from the opening shot which is so crafted in camera movement and placement as Maggie (Carole Lombard) and Skid (Fred Macmurray) meet. You half expect them to start singing "Make believe" from Show boat.It starts with a few laughs and poor Anthony in a one scene role where he speaks not a word of English gets slapped around by Freddie. Skids is a bum who doesn't care that he's a bum. That's why he signs up in the army where he can hide from the world. He's just been released though and in a set of screenplay shenanigans, she misses her boat for New York. This is when the movie kicks into high gear and we begin to get those French movie of the sixties vibes to the whole proceedings. The scenes are so well acted by Lombard and Cecil Cunningham, the movie gains a pulse. MacMurray is good too as he and Lombard fall for each other as she nurtures his talent for the trumpet. Then the temptress arrives in the form of Dorothy Lamour. Enough with plot. The movie has fantastic montage sequences that dazzled me. They are very good. And Lombard scores a home run in this movie but in the second half, a bit more is called of Freddie and he fails to deliver the goods. With a heavily melodramatic ending and an actor you don't believe, the movie falls short but since it is not your typical movie in structure, set design, and direction. It is worth a look. For what is what it was one of the 37 hits of the 1936-37 season. I don't know its exact rank though. ... so what's in those missing 10 minutes that were so horrible they had to cut them out from the original film? We were three years into the film production code... Barbara Stanwyck had starred in the original play, but here, Carole Lombard plays Maggie King. Co star Fred MacMurray is probably best known for "Double Indemnity", with Stanwyck, as well as his hit TV show "My Three Sons". Keep an eye out for a young Dorothy Lamour (Bob Hope movies) and the too-fabulous Franklin Pangborn, who spiced up just about every film put on tape. Of course, he works in the beauty salon on the ship! Add the sublime Charles Butterworth and Anthony Quinn. Good timing and clever banter at the beginning. Maggie's buddy Ella is played by Jean Dixon, who was the best friend in "Holiday" and "My Man Godfrey". In "Swing High", Maggie the tourist meets a soldier who is leaving the army. Maggie misses her boat when it leaves port and gets tangled up with the soldier. The dashing 20-something Quinn has a small scene at the local bar in Panama where Johnson (MacMurray) has been playing the trumpet. Maggie, Harry (Butterworth), and Skid band together and try to figure out how to get back to the States. Some good singing by Lamour. Good (but brief) acting performance by Cecil Cunningham as "Murph", the wise, helpful owner of the local saloon in Panama. While others have lamented at how bad it is, it wasn't so awful, and is even a little exotic, with the fake Central America locale setting for the first half of the film. I loved it! Fred MacMurray is wonderful as Skid Johnson, a somewhat conceited, proud yet at the same time very vulnerable saxophone player who is in love with Maggie (Carole Lombard), who's always there for him. They meet in Panama after Maggie comes off a ship and end up in a bar with Anthony Quinn. Tony gets punched in the nose after her insults Maggie by thinking her a loose woman - all because she took off her hat in public. Big brawl and Maggie ends up stuck in Panama. Romance. Carole and Arthur are great together. Maggie is always there for him whenever he needs her. She urges him to go to NY where (well watch the movie and find out). They have these wonderful scenes together where she sings in his arms while he plays the saxophone. I definitely recommend it. One of the best records of Israel's response to the murder of Rabin.Extremely true and natural, it captured the spirit of the nation.Especially important was the response of young people to the trauma of Israel's loss and the feeling that we shall overcome. I've watched this movie twice, and I plan to see it again. It is the movie that puts you in the director's place, regarding his romantic relations and the political situation in Israel. It also makes me cry because of remembering the wonderful time it was, and the horrible murder described there. It is really worth watching. Dan Katzir has produced a wonderful film that takes us on a roller-coaster ride through a real romance set in the troubles surrounding modern Israel.

For anyone who's ever been in love, the film brings back the uncertainties, the insecurities and heartache that make love so bitter-sweet. The atmosphere of fear and isolation that came with the difficult times in Israel at that time just serve to intensify the feeling. Instantly, you are drawn in to Dan's plight, and you can't fail to be deeply moved.

You can't write drama and passion like this - the contrast between the realities of Dan's desperate, snatched relationship with Iris, and the realities of a state in turmoil make this eminently watchable. If you have an ounce of passion, and have ever been in love, see this film. Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world. Touching; Well directed autobiography of a talented young director/producer. A love story with Rabin's assassination in the background. Worth seeing !

Excellent film. I cried when she cried, I loved when they loved , I was frustrated when they were. This film touched my heart. It was a reality check for me since this is reality for me, a 19 year old soldier with very little screen time and money, Dan Katzir manages to do so much. This movie, in its heart-warming simplicity, touches the beauty of love from a fresh angle. rejuvinated lust I enjoyed the story by itself, but the things that I learned about WWI Planes & boats, make this movie a must see. The close-ups on the plane & the torpedo boat & how they were used were completely new to me. I heartily recommend. and what a combo. Two of the century's great singers star together in this underrated musical. He writes music, she writes lyrics, and they both work for Basil Rathbone who can't write either because his wife died (actually she just got fat!). Best scene is the pawn shop number where Bing sings an impromptu number while the swing band gets their instruments out of hock. Just wonderful. And this is a rare starring role for Broadway legend, Mary Martin, and she's quite good. Charley Grapewin, John Scott Trotter, William Frawley, Oscar Levant (once again the manic pianist), Charles Lane, and Helen Bertram co-star. And who knew Rathbone could be funny? Poor Basil Rathbone, an egotistical composer who's lost his muse. He's been faking it for some time, buying his lyrics and his music from various sources. Trouble is that two of the sources (Bing Crosby music) and (Mary Martin words) happen to meet and fall in love. And then they discover what they've been doing. Complications ensue, but all is righted at the end.

Crosby and Martin sing terrifically. Mary had signed a Paramount contract and also at the same time doubled as a regular on Crosby's Kraft Music Hall Radio Show. For reasons I don't understand, movie audiences didn't take to her, so she went back to Broadway and did One Touch of Venus in 1944 and stayed there.

Basil Rathbone in one of the few times he played comedy does it very well. His ego is constantly being deflated by sidekick Oscar Levant and again I'm surprised they didn't do more films together.

As in most of Crosby's Paramount vehicles, no big production numbers, but I agree with the previous reviewer about the title tune being done as an impromptu jam session in a pawn shop. Good job by all.

A surprisingly original plot and great entertainment. While a pleasant enough musical, what stuck with me about this movie was the unexpected comedic chemistry between Basil Rathbone, as the has-been composer, and Oscar Levant as his assistant. Playing a high strung, distracted artistic type (a far cry from his more familiar roles as either menacing villains or the coolly logical Sherlock Holmes), Rathbone's character looks like he couldn't find his way out of bed without help. And that help is Starbuck, played with his usual droll humor by Oscar Levant. Upon hiring Crosby's character as his ghost song writer, Rathbone introduces him to Starbuck by saying, "He does all my thinking for me.", to which Levant responds, "Ah, it's only a part-time job." Of course this goes right past (or over) Rathbone, who's too busy fretting about where his next hit song will come from. As another reviewer said, who knew Rathbone could be so funny! Too bad he didn't have more opportunities to display his comedic talent. Billy Wilder is co-credited for the story, and his unsentimental touch is noticeable in this quite original tale of ghostwriting songwriters who both work for burnt-out music legend Oliver Courtney. The obvious misunderstandings are gotten out of the way quite quickly, thank heaven, and what remains is a witty and breezy concoction with some fine songs (and some more forgettable ones), Crosby at his most charming, a great turn by Broadway legend Mary Martin and Basil Rathbone and Oscar Levant providing most of the cynical barbs (Levant is in rare form and his quips haven't dated at all). A delightful surprise, and recommended for all fans of the genre. This superb film draws on a variety of talented actors and musicians at the top of their form - Levant, Crosby, Martin, Rathbone, Manone are completely at home in the story that apparently was supplied by Billy Wilder. One would love to know more about how much he had to do with it, because it's an exceptionally clever variation on the sterile master/fertile servant tale - nearly an allegory of the entertainment industry, run by dried-up numskulls, but made into a vibrant world of art and play by an exploited underclass of nobodies and non-WASPs. Looking at the last six decades of music, TV, and film in the US, it's hard not to see the underlying insights of this film as prophetic.

Artisticly shot, actors portray exactly their role. You get a real feeling watching Lucienne ascend from poverty to the most beautiful girl around. A sense of tragedy to triumph to tragedy again. All in all I have seen this film at least 10 times. And can VERY well say that Prix De Beute' (the Beauty Prize, Miss Europe) is a MAJOR favorite in my silent film collection. The expressiveness of Louise Brooks is perfect and I recommend this film to ANYONE who appreciates artistic beauty coupled with a tragic story line. Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.

This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.

The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.

The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.

This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.

Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for. Prix de Beauté was made on the cusp of the changeover from silence to sound, which came a little later in Europe than in Hollywood. Originally conceived as a silent, it was released with a dubbed soundtrack in France, with a French actress speaking Louise Brooks' lines, but was released as a silent in Italy and other parts of Europe. I was lucky enough to see the Cineteca di Bologna's flawless new restoration of an Italian silent print at the Tribeca Film Festival. I haven't seen the talkie version yet, but I think it's safe to assume the silent version is much more satisfying, since by all reports the dubbing is poorly done (Louise Brooks is clearly speaking English, so there's no way her lips could be matched.) Also, the film is made entirely in the silent style, with few titles and little need for dialogue. Prix de Beauté tells its story visually, with exciting, imaginative camera-work. The opening is instantly kinetic, with rapidly-cut scenes of urban life and swimmers splashing at a public beach. Throughout the film there is an emphasis on visual detail, on clothing, machinery, decoration, and symbolic images such as a caged bird, a heap of torn photographs, a diamond bracelet. This is silent film technique at its pinnacle.

Louise Brooks, of course, is responsible for saving the film from obscurity. Seeing this makes it only more heartbreaking to reflect that this was her last starring role. Lustrously beautiful, she dominates the film with her charisma and also gives a perfectly natural yet highly charged performance. Her role here, more than in the Pabst films for which she's best known, is a woman we can fully understand and sympathize with. She plays Lucienne Garnier, a typist with a possessive fiancé, who yearns to get more out of life and secretly enters a beauty contest, with immediate success. She is then torn between the excitement of her glamorous new life and her love for the man who insists she give it all up or lose him. All of the characters are drawn with nuance. The fiancé inspires pity and is not merely a brute: he loves Lucienne, but is a limited man who can't cope with her having a life apart from him or attracting the attentions of other men. Even the "other man" in the story is not the simple slimeball we first take him for, though his intentions may be just as possessive as the fiancé's.

*************************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW*****************

The film has many fine set pieces, including Lucienne's triumph in the "Miss Europe" contest, shown through the comic reactions of assorted audience members, who wind up pelting the heroine with flowers; her misery as a housewife, peeling potatoes while the pendulum of the cuckoo clock marks time behind her; a nightmarish trip to a fun-fair (in the silent version, this occurs late in the film, after her marriage) at which Lucienne, crushed among the low-lifes and depressed by her husband's macho antics, decides that she can't go on with her present existence; and especially the final scene in the projection room where she views her talkie screen test. Louise Brooks may never have looked more beautiful than she does here, with the projector's beam flickering on her alabaster profile, her shoulders swathed in white fur, her face incandescent under the black helmet of hair as she watches herself singing on screen. The double shot of her exquisite corpse and her still-living image on the screen is particularly poignant: Louise Brooks' image, like Lucienne's, remains immortal despite her frustratingly aborted film career. With lots of sunshine, gauzy light and shadow filtering through windows and into rooms, tracking shots moving through crowds with hand-held camera, quick-paced editing and extreme close-ups here and there, the photography is the thing in this interesting, artistically done film.

The plot of this film starts out as a bit of fluff about a beauty contest. The film begins on a warm Sunday at the local swimming pool, where we meet the lovely Lucienne aka Lulu (played by Louise Brooks) - a bit of a show-off in front of the gawking men by poolside, she soon decides to enter herself to represent France in the Miss Europe beauty contest, much to the chagrin of her very jealous, stick-in-the-mud fiancé (a pretty annoying fellow, really). Strutting down the runway the ten contestants display themselves in swimsuits, while the winner is chosen as the contestant who receives the longest applause (I was wondering, couldn't the girls just walk slower to prolong their length of time - and thus applause - on the catwalk?!). Lulu is soon being chased by a Prince and a Maharaja, but her hot-headed beau doesn't like the attentions paid to her by other men or her adoring public, for that matter (I guess he just wants her in his house, cooking his meals, and staying out of sight, eh?!).

Louise Brooks is beautiful and charming, her presence helps enhance this film, but it's really the way it is photographed that held my interest the most. A bit distracting is the odd dubbed sound, which is a bit off. The print on this version looked very clear and full of nice contrast though. Watching this I just tried to overlook the sound problems and watch the film visually, and I found the movie to be excellent, well worth seeing. We saw the silent version of this film, and it is quite simply shimmeringly beautiful. It's quite hard to see how a sound version could have been created, since it is shot with pure silent technique, long wordless sweeps of narrative without a single intertitle -- save for a few disconcerting sequences where Louise Brooks, playing a French typist, is quite visibly speaking in English... The only section that obviously cries out for sound is the final scene, where Brooks is watching the rushes for her test 'for a sound film': footage which plays constantly in the background as the action unfolds, with her mouth moving in ceaseless soundless song. I was unsurprised to learn afterwards that this passage alone in the talkie version had been hailed as an exemplar of new technique!

In the sunny beauty of its opening scenes and the fairy-tale inevitability of what follows, the film resembles a dream. As a 'Louise Brooks movie' it was not at all what I was expecting, either from her Hollywood comedies or from G.W.Pabst's German melodramas: I found the idiom more fluent and enjoyable than either, and Brooks herself is a different creature, a sturdy laughing young animal rather than a shop-window vamp or manipulated doll.

But what gives this film greater depth than at first appears is the unexpected second half; repelled by the rich parasites who cluster around her beauty, the pauper princess returns to a tear-stained reunion with her humbly-born true love... and the tale might very well have been ended there. Fairy-tale, however, turns to tragedy. The dilettante Grabovsky, confident in his ability to manipulate the woman he desires, is yet all too correct in his self-interested prediction -- the young lovers cannot make each other happy -- and André, ironically, was right to mistrust the social influence of beauty contests: after the intoxication of her moment's glory, Lucienne frets herself to despair over the humdrum routine of married life while her husband, in turn, is driven wild by any reminder of the whole affair. If it were a simple case of a mis-matched marriage, that would be one thing... but the true tragedy is that they do love each other.

In many ways "Prix de Beauté" reminds me of Murnau's "Sunrise". But if so, the fairground and photographer scenes here would form a distorted mirror-image of the joyous reconciliation in "Sunrise"; no dream but an alienating nightmare. And the following dawn brings not a miraculous reunion but an empty bed and deserted home. Leaving a letter to say that she loves him and will always love him, Lucienne vanishes again from André's life in quest of brightness and freedom; and this time she will never come back.

Gossip columns confirm all André's worst convictions, as he learns of his wife's whereabouts through reports coupling her name with Grabovsky. When the young workman penetrates at last to the lavish sanctum of the screening-room, it is with drawn gun -- to be greeted by the sight of his rival courting and caressing a laughing Lucienne, the same woman who had pledged her undying affection as she left him. He kills her, but even as he kills is transfixed by the living image on screen, Lucienne in all her transformed glory as he never saw her. The two women are juxtaposed in an endless, powerful moment, as André is seen, seized, unresisting, and pulled away: the dying girl and her singing self still projected above, caught unknowing out of time into celluloid eternity, playing on unconscious of life or death or love beneath her...

The main jarring element in the film is the character of André's co-worker Antonin, who appears to serve no role throughout other than to be the licensed butt of his contemporaries' malice. He is the ugly one who can never get the girl, the ungainly wimp who is tripped and tormented in the washrooms and at work, and must take it all with an uncertain ingratiating smile in his fruitless hope for social acceptance: a typical product of the bullying of the more gifted and popular, in other words, but one the audience is apparently being invited to laugh at along with his tormentors. Unless the intention is to expose a darker side to the protagonists (for which I perceive no sign), the character seems to exist merely as comic relief, but comic relief with a distinctly nasty edge. When we know him only as an inept Peeping Tom at the waterside, it's easy to laugh, although the others' revenge seems a little over the top; when we discover that he is no chance-met stranger but André's colleague and regular sidekick, the continuing attacks rapidly cease to be very funny.

But it is the images that remain. Beauty, nightmare, and dream. A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does "reconcile" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing "live" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie. Famous was "famous" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.

The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that "virtue always triumphs". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always "learns her lesson". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.

You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and "Tom and Jerry" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer. This a Casper the Friendly Ghost short from my childhood, and I re-watch it on YouTube (Thank GOD! for You Tube); after that I love this short, and it is one of my favorite Casper shorts.

I love how the short starts off spooky with Frank Gallop's haunting narration; until we get to see Casper sitting by his tombstone in the cemetery, reading. While every ghost rose from the graves to "boo" people, Casper decides to leave in search for a friend. But in trying to make a friend, anyone who sees Casper runs away. Poor Casper sat on a log and weep; until a little fox cub comes up an nuzzles him. Casper and the little fox quickly bond and he quickly names the cub Ferdie and considers him to be his very best friend.

Casper and Ferdie's relationship is put in tremendous jeopardy however when Casper is not keeping a close eye on Ferdie while they are playing a game of Hide and Seek. While Ferdie is hiding a hunter and two of his hunting dogs come and try to kill little Ferdie and Ferdie is running as fast as possible until he is out of breath and starts panting. While the hunter is firing gunshots towards Ferdie Casper notices they are trying to kill him and flies in the hunter's direction and pleads that the hunter leaves Ferdie alone. And the hunter and dogs are terrified of Casper. Casper yells to Ferdie that the hunter and the dogs are gone and that everything is fine. But Casper sees Ferdie's body is not moving and asks if he is OK. When Casper sees Ferdie has died he starts mourning in pain because he lost "the only friend he ever had in his whole life." Casper returns back to the cemetery where he has buried Ferdie and has made a gravestone for him next to Casper's gravestone. Casper continues mourning in pain until he sees that Ferdie has resurrected as a ghost himself. Ferdie starts licking Casper on his cheek. Casper screams for joy because he has been reunited with Ferdie.

Overall, it is a really good short; though surprisingly disturbing, showing death in a family-oriented cartoon. If you loved Deep Cover, you might like this film as well. Many of the poetic interludes Fishburne recites in Deep Cover are from the lyrical script of "Once In the Life," a screen adaptation of a play that Fishburne wrote. If you love Larry as much as I do, you'll love this film that is all Larry, all hot, and all fleshed out. Of course there is gun play and illicit substance use, this is a gangster movie of sorts, after all, but the script is beautiful and the story is touching, even a little on the chick flick side.

AMAZING film...dark, frightening, sexy, and exciting. If you ever sneaked out at night or hung out in a clubhouse, you'll get the proper impact of the cramped sets (metephorically echoing being trapped in the life). Full of clever foreshadowing and complex relationships, this film is tight..every sentiment mirrored in the set dressing and camera shots. GOOD WORK! As an old white housewife I can still appreciate that Laurence Fishburne is one of our finest actors. anyone who appreciates his work like in Deep Cover might enjoy watching the incredible acting range of this actor. Since I think this is his directorial debut it might prove even more interesting. All of the acting is quite good. If you can't take lower Manhattan junky worlds or the reality of crime life (not glorified action shoot-em ups) then this is not a film you would enjoy. It is Mr. Fishburne's usual contribution to incredibly subtle relationships. I would love to see Larry and Anthony Hopkins go at each other some day in a movie. This is really a great unknown movie.Perfect dialogue without the typical clichés.This movie relied on the actor's talent and it was pulled off.It even had a little bit a comedy in it,but it wasn't overdone.Once in the Life is what a crime drama is supposed to be,not the typical special affects garbage with sex thrown in.I especially loved the interracial aspects of it all.

Now onto the actors themselves. Laurence Fishburne was superb at playing a career petty criminal.It's a shame that he's only allowed to show his talent in his own movie. Titus Welliver was fabulous as Fishburne's junky half-brother. Eamonn Walker added flavor to the already perfectly spiced film. Paul Calderon was perfect as a grease monkey/drug lord.I loved his acting since "King of New York". But the best acting in this film came from Gregory Hines and Michael Paul Chan,who were paired perfectly as two of Calderon's henchmen.

Once in the Life is for sure a keeper. ****1/2* out of *****. "Once in the life" is a very good movie. However it's not good for everybody, due to the extensive use of vulgar language and the violence of some of the situations. The movie manages to represent in an anecdotic, believable way the "life" in NYC neighborhoods where drug problems are important. This depiction is in turn used as the decor for a most thoughtful and suspenseful drama backed up by powerful dialogs (however I had a hard time understanding some of them because english is not my mother tongue. On video it's OK). There is a little overplay sometimes, but I think it fits quite well to the general orientation Fishburne gave to the movie, which gives matter for reflexion more than just being a good style exercise, notably in the time/action management. The characters, even though not simple, are easy to relate to and actors do a fine job at impersonating them. By the way I much enjoyed the soundtrack (B. Marsalis). If you're not too prude, you should enjoy seeing that movie once, twice, three times. I rated the movie 9/10. I caught this movie on IFC and I enjoyed it, although I felt like the editing job was a little rough, though it may have been deliberate. I had a little bit of a hard time figuring out what was going on at first because they seemed to be going for a little bit of a Pulp Fiction-style non-linear plot presentation. It seemed a little forced, though. I certainly think that the movie is worth watching, but I think it could have used a little cleaning up. Some scenes just don't seem to make sense after others.

I'm surprised to see the rating here as low as it is. It's not outstanding, but it doesn't have any really serious problems. I gave it a 7/10. The movie did show at least that Laurence Fishburne can act when he wants to. They must have just told him not to in the Matrix movies. Three scumbags get their just deserts after wasting their lives in greed, drugs, ego, and bad attitudes. Interesting and well done; this style of film always makes me wonder where reality leaves off and imagination takes over. Even though these folks were the scum of the earth I still found myself pitying them. They never really stood much of a chance. Once in the Life means that once a hoodlum, always a hoodlum, and nobody gets in or out of `The Life' for free. Neighborhood hoodlums in New York sell drugs and run scams because they can't make it in the legitimate world, maybe because they have a criminal record, or a drug habit, or because they're just lazy. This simple story with a couple of twists about mostly despicable characters manages to draw compassion out of the audience for its main players because of their loyalty and compassion for each other. The film is written, produced, and directed by Laurence Fishburne, who also stars as 20/20 Mike (all hoodlums have nicknames), and is based on his play, `Riff Raff.' It feels like a play from beginning to end, especially during the longest scene where the three main players square off to decide who can be trusted. Often times the dialog comes very fast, much faster than it would on stage, and I think it's the film's biggest flaw. Mixed in as flashbacks throughout the film are poems from the street, a sort of iambic pentameter rap, that is violent and evocative of the world this movie discloses. The poetry makes it difficult to dismiss these men, these hoodlums who murder, cheat, and betray each other, as unworthy of our attention or below our contempt. The disturbing thing about this film is that its realism shows us not only how these people live, but how they suffer for the same reasons as us all. One is too stupid, another a junkie, and the last suffers from conscience while the audience wonders, or even laughs, at the irony of executioners demanding from him hanging in the gallows to tell jokes in the midst of his demise. Yeah,it's low budget. Yeah,it's one of Candy's earliest films, but it is maybe his funniest! John Candy was not so far removed from his SCTV days in "Going Berserk" and it shows. If you don't crack up when Candy tries to help a guy with his groceries while being hand-cuffed to an escaped cohort in the process of having sex with his girlfriend with only the apartment door separating them (huh?, see the movie!), or the way Euguene Levy (the creator of Kong Fu Yu) is talking to his mom on the phone, or just the countless number of facial expressions that only Candy could deliver you better check your pulse! If you like the John Candy of "Only the Lonely" this is may not be a movie I would advise you to see, but if you enjoy the SCTV days of John Candy, this movie is a must see! You should not take what I am about to say lightly. I've seen many, many films and have reviewed a great deal of them, in print. So when I tell you that this film has the single funniest scene I have ever seen in a movie, you might want to listen to me. There's a lot of diversity of opinion as to what makes this INCREDIBLY stupid movie as funny as it is. And to those who just didn't get, well, I can't blame them, too much. The scene I speak of, comes at about the 30 minute mark and involves a dead convict shackled to John Candy. Up until that point, I had found the film dumb, confusing and it was beginning to lose me. When this scene came up, I laughed so hard, I peed my pants. No movie has ever done that to me before. When the project began, "Going Berserk" was supposed to be the SCTV movie. I remember it being announced. As time went on, the cast was whittled down To John Candy, Joe Flaherty & Eugene Levy. There also must have been a regime change at Universal, while it was being shot, because upon being released, it was shown in nearly ZERO theaters. When watching this a second time, I listened to the theme song (which actually flaunts how incomprehensible the plot is, in the lyrics), relaxed my logic nerve and figured out what was going on. Aside from the aforementioned routine, "Going Berserk" has many other hilarious scenes to recommend it. This is almost a 3 Stooges flick, except it's much funnier. Director David Steinberg has razor sharp timing, and he must have been laughing all through this. As for Candy, who's basically in charge here, he has NEVER been funnier. With all the plot devices and explanatory scenes thrown out the window, he absolutely runs wild. Flaherty and Levy follow him effortlessly. There is a plot, but it's a plot like "Animal House" had a plot, and yeah, the script is uneven, and a little slow to start. Once you know this, however, you can well appreciate the full SCTV style craziness that transpires. It IS stupid, but it's stupid on purpose, and you need to remember that when you see it. DO see it, and discover for yourself, if it has the funniest scene of all time in it. If you enjoy the subtle (yes, I said subtle) actions and reactions of John Candy, you can't help but like this film (pronounced "fillum" by Salvatore DiPasquale). The unobservant (and uninformed) watcher always saw Candy as a broad actor - a big buffoon. And sometimes he was (see "Stripes" and "Splash"). But, when given the opportunity, he could really be razor-sharp and quite subtle. It's too bad he was cast in so many roles that only showed his broad side, because we'll never get to see more of the other. Oh, yeah, the movie. One can watch "Going Berserk" over and over (I know I have) with the frequency of "Caddyshack." It's just that good. The plot, although a little convoluted, is actually fairly deep for a farce of this kind. It allows Candy and the always under-rated Joe Flaherty and Eugene Levy to bounce off of Candy...and they bounce HARD. Definitely worth a glance for anyone who enjoyed SCTV or Candy's other work. Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.

One of John's Funniest, Eugene Levy is great in this one as well, Just wish the studio would figure out that this one needs to be on DVD, i have it on video tape, but feel that this film deserves DVD (and extras would be great) the Kung Fu Uuniversity (Kung Fu U) skit is so very funny, as is the entire film, also the scenes he has with his girlfriend and her family are great, this movie never seems to be on TV, but it loses most of it's hilarity when edited for broadcast TV, if you can find the video i would suggest you buy it (ebay is a good place to find a copy) I will keep my VHS until one day we get to see it on DVD. there are so many great movies out there that still have not been released to DVD, and this is one of them. "Going Berserk" is actually one of the funniest Candy films I have ever seen, period. Sure, it's kinda low budget, but it's a non-stop comedic tour de force. There are tons of memorable quotes. For instance, when his soon-to-be father-in-law asks him how much he earns, Candy says "Oh, I pull down anywhere between thirty and...eleven thousand dollars a year, sir." Oh course, it is Candy's delivery that sells it. Just classic stuff. Eugene Levy also turns in a hilarious performance as a sleazy filmmaker. A clip of his horrible low budget movie "Kung Fu U" will have you rolling.

So if you are a Candy fan and want to rediscover a forgotten gem, I can't recommend this movie enough. yeah, it's a bit of a silly film, so if you are looking for an oscar performance, forget this one......but, if you love John Candy's humor, this is a must-see. We lost John Candy before he made enough of his great brand of comedy, and he is only better in one movie: Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (with Steve Martin). Excellent supporting performance by Eugene Levy, perhaps his best work ever as the hot-headed Sal DiPasquale. Also good acting by Richard Libertini, Alley Mills & Pat Hingle. You must see this obscure and out-of-print film if you are a John Candy or Eugene Levy fan. i am totally addicted to this show. i can't wait till the week goes by to see the next showing. it's a great story line and it has the best actors and actresses on the show. i will tune in every week to watch it even if i am not home i always have my vcr set to tape monarch cove. simon rex is the best actor on the show. it is suspenseful and exciting. i think this show should stay on the air and i believe everyone should tune in to watch it. i saw the very first episode and actually i wasn't going to watch it but i was watching lifetime one day and i decided to watch it because it was on and i absolutely love it and right now it's my favorite show. i am really mean it. Monarch Cove was one of the best Friday night's drama shown in a long time.I am asking the writer to please write a long series and air it on Lifetime, SOON.Each person was very interesting and did a wonderful job with their lines to make the plot come true. However, the movie needs to continue for a long time. I would love to see Bianca and Jake's child grow-up and get a major role in the movie, along with the new grandparents planning for her educational future. Also, bring kathy back to see her niece and help foster her life.It was great seeing the grandparents work out their problems, but the family business needed to be restored to working status,and let us see how Jake and Bianca survive through the marriage years. Love the TV show. Was hooked first time I saw it. Wish I was there acting in with them. It touches reality when you love someone and you are thinking that you want to spend the rest of your life with, then at a turn of events that you meet someone else and that person is more of who you want to be with. You are in a situation were you have to choose one or the other. Someone is going to get hurt, there's no stopping that. Making the decision is hard but, do you want to go on being unhappy when you could have been. Why go on and live a life that you thought that you wanted or thinking you are doing the right thing and you both be unhappy. That other person isn't going to wait a life time waiting, they have a life a well. Making the decision that you really want will be better in the end. Making the best of what you have is a good thing a well. Money, cars, houses, etc....don't make you happy, having the one person that you really want to be with to share it with does. I feel Monarch Cove was one of the best written and acted out "Drama" Series to come on any Network in a long time. This show had great potential and I couldn't wait to view it each week. This could be developed into a great Primetime Soap. People look forward to this type of acting as we are being "Reality TV" overkilled. I long for the type of writing and acting that shows like Dallas, Knots' Landing, Dynasty, MelRose Place, etc. provided. Monarch Cove updated this concept quite well and I anticipated it only getting better. There's so much to expand on with these characters and they were all very interesting and captivating in their own right. It would be a loss to not explore this and develop these characters after having drawn and hooked us into their world. I absolutely loved this show because it was mysterious, interesting and sensuous without going overboard or offending. Loved It. This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the "Passion" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of "The Passion of the Christ" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, "just doing my job" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to "authenticity", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more "right" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, "The Death"--not the Life--"of Christ"), ultimately a very rewarding one. This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others. This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups. Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate "And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in "The Story of Jacob and Joseph" and "The Story of David". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator. The first time I saw this film, I loved it. It was different.

I am a Christian (Bible believing). I don't go along with the crowd of right wing believers. I dropped out of that atmosphere.

To me in their attempts to take over our government they are doing what Judas tried to do. I call it the Judas Syndrome.

Judas didn't get it, even though Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world.

This film certainly showed some of that.

I also liked that Jesus enjoyed the simple pleasure of playing games and jokes with his disciples.

Also he was a very gorgeous Jesus.

It's a watch-over and over movie.

Very satisfying. this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.

the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).

it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible. Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.

Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.

Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)

It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.

The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway. Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7/10.

The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.

Its a good rental!

7/10 I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8/10 The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and clichéd. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching. Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, "I'll take it under advisement," and "Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no," is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy. I do see what my forebears saw in the youthful Bette Davis. She's splendid throughout this almost-madcap political comedy which actually stars Warren Williams as the political operative constantly behind on his alimony. Vivienne Osborne is brilliant as his ex, and I found myself rooting for her throughout. The Williams character is not at all sympathetic, and he's not even a decent op.

Guy Kibbee is one of the best at what he does. As a candidate dragged out of his sleep at a political convention and nominated to be governor in order to prevent a rival candidate from being nominated, so this whole mess is borne of internecine political warfare in a party called the "Progressive Party." If you're of a political mind, you will probably see a party other than the one with which you are affiliated reflected in the fictional "Progressive Party" of Williams and Kibbee. I could draw exact parallels, but we're not here for that.

This is a good movie for those of us who love these old comedies. If you've ever watched any of the old Wheeler & Woolsey titles (HALF SHOT AT SUNRISE, THE RAINMAKERS), you'll find Frank McHugh, as Williams's right arm, looking and behaving a lot like Bert Wheeler. He had me fooled.

Yes, both my wife and I recommend this one. This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well. I really enjoyed this movie. It took a pretty dark story-that of Shakespeare's Macbeth- and wrapped it in a quirky, often funny and poignant modern yarn.

Kudos to the way the filmmaker brought the very different worlds of modern NYC and Macbeth's Scotland together under one roof. The opposing worlds act to

really bring out the intrigue and comedy of the play and you have to love Harold Perrineau as the Chorus, a part which doesn't exist in the play but really helps to jazz things up. The ending stands out among little indies I've seen for it's closure and originality. Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film "Knots" (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" - another wonderful Shakespeare "play within a movie." I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan. This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film. Though it had the misfortune to hit the festival circuit here in Austin (SXSW Film) just as we were getting tired of things like Shakespeare in Love, and Elizabeth, this movie deserves an audience. An inside look at the staging of "The Scottish Play" as actors call "Macbeth" when producing it to avoid the curse, this is a crisp, efficient and stylish treatment of the treachery which befalls the troupe. With a wonderfully evocative score, and looking and sounding far better than its small budget would suggest, this is a quiet gem, not world-class, but totally satisfying. Nice, pleasant, and funny, but not earth-shattering. It does a good job of showing the "behind the scenes" world of theater groups and the lives of the actors. The three witches are great- both on- and off-stage. I would assume the movie works wonderfully (lots of apparent inside jokes) if one was involved in theater (which I'm not). This episode is certainly different than all the other Columbos, though some of the details are still there, the setup is completely different. That makes this Columbo unique, and interesting to watch, even though at times you might wish for the old Columbo. I liked it a lot, but then, I like almost any Columbo. I have a 19-month old and got really tired of watching Care Bears all the time. Rooney is a great dancer, who cares if he is gay. This guy must have been a cheerleader or something.

Beats Barney, cant get the songs out of my head....must...stop singing........Doodlebops songs........NOW.

Must have 10 lines of text so I must continue.....what about when the say all the Canadian stuff like OOOUT Aboooot. Whacky Canadians.....Jazmine is rhyming too much, she must be Dutch.

Knock knock, who's there, Dee Dee, super Hottie

Bus driver Bob cannot dance, take lessons from Rooney My husband and I enjoy The DoodleBops as much as our 8 month old baby does. We have bought him DVD's and CD's just so we can watch and listen to them ourselves. They are fun, energetic, and very entertaining. They encourage children to be active, share and care. They always have a positive message along with fun entertainment. Every time our son hears the theme song he quickly turns his head toward the television and starts bouncing up and down in excitement. Dee Dee is a wonderful singer, she has a great voice. Moe is a great dancer. I would recommend The DoodleBops to anyone with children. Our favorite song is The Bird Song. You just can not help but smile and want to dance when you hear it. My 2 year old likes the Doodlebops show, it seems to keep his attention for awhile. The characters are interesting, vibrant with primary colours and all. There's not much educational content that the intended target audience could benefit from, but they do seem to have a theme each show and try to teach kids about sharing and respect and other basics, so I like it for that. It's well produced with high production values. But it's really just an average show like most of the shows on TV these days. We don't buy into the merchandise angle and have our son wearing everything Dooblebop. I don't think we'd spend money to go to a live show, if they ever came to town. Going to The Zoo or the Science Centre is a far better experience for everyone involved and in my opinion is money better spent. I work with children from 0 – 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs. I LOVE the Doodlebops. My son has been watching them for over a year. We went to the Doodlebops concert last year as well as one concert yesterday (connecticut). He LOVES them. The doodlebops do not teach the alphabet or numbers but who cares? are you being serious? the TV isn't suppose to teach your children about numbers or the alphabet. the parents should. Get over it. The Doodlebops actually CAN sing. Deedee has a beautiful voice and in concert you can tell all 3 of them have nice singing voices and do NOT lip sing. Imagine, they dance, jump around and STILL sing. they have talent, the kids love them i even enjoy watching the show. This show is by far the best show on TV for kids. AND a rock band for children. How amazing is that? Why are people saying Chad (rooney) is gay? where did you hear that from? Whether he is or not, He is awesome! Leave him alone. Its not like he or anyone else is promoting homosexuality to our children! I have a six month old baby at home and time to time she fights sleep really bad. One morning she was having a particular difficult time getting to sleep when the doodle bops theme song came on T.V. She stopped crying almost instantly, and for the rest of the show was content. I sat her in her bouncy seat and watched her kick her legs, swing her arms, and actually laugh at this show. The kept her entertained and happy the entire time. I also got a video of them so that at times when my little one is flustered I have something to calm her. Granted, late at night if she awakes with colic to fuss the doodle bops are not her cup of tea, but they sure do come in handy when I need a little time to do housework,etc. The biggest surprise about the doodle bops is that my child doesn't even like watching T.V. She'd rather be in the floor playing with a toy or with our small toy poodle than watch T.V. yet, the doodle bops have totally captured her attention. I don't know if she will continue to like them in the future but for now she's attached. The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).

The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.

In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. In the old commercial for blank audio cassettes, the tag line was "is it real or is it Memorex?" The same might be said for the events in this episode - a compilation and remix of "The Cage," the first pilot of Star Trek. Mr. Spock has cleverly commandeered the ship to take it to the forbidden planet Talos IV in order to allow Capt. Christopher Pike, his first captain who has been burned and paralyzed, to return there. Why the finagling? Because to have any contact at all with Talos IV invites a death sentence. Why this is so is never explained - that bothered me tremendously - but, if nothing else, it adds to the story. After he has gotten the ship to travel to Talos IV, Mr. Spock turns himself in to Dr. McCoy (the senior-most officer present; Capt. Kirk was off the ship) for arrest and says, "The charge is mutiny, Dr.; I never received orders to take over the ship." What follows is a court martial in which - thanks to the Talosians - we learn why it was so important (besides the obvious paralysis) for Capt. Pike to get to Talos IV even at risk of Mr. Spock's death. The illusions the Talosians create, the background music and the entire storyline are fantastic. And Meg Wyllie as The Keeper (the head Talosian) is wonderful. Call me sexist but it never occurred to me to have a woman in that role but she was perfect! The Talosians, having given up almost all physical activity and becoming almost completely reliant upon the power of illusion, are also unisex; you can't really tell if they're male or female and it really doesn't matter. This episode, more than almost any other in the series, makes me hope and pray there are other worlds out there and that there are civilizations that are so far advanced! What a neat thing if this were so! This is one of my favorite episodes and, no matter how many times I've seen it (I even have it on video), it never fails to fascinate me. Meg Wyllie LOOKS like an alien and I do NOT mean that unkindly. It is a well known fact that when Gene Roddenberry first pitched Star Trek to NBC, the original pilot episode, The Cage, was rejected for being "too cerebral". When the series was given another chance, Roddenberry thought it would be fun to establish the events of the rejected episode as canon, and did so by writing The Menagerie, which has the unique distinction of being the sequel to what was still, at the time, an unaired episode.

This time, rather than exploring a new planet, Kirk and his crew are on Starbase 11, paying a visit to the former commander of the Enterprise, Christopher Pike (Sean Kenney), now horribly disfigured and paralyzed because of an accident. Pike joins his successor on the starship, where an unpleasant surprise awaits: Spock, who used to serve under Pike, has effectively hijacked the vessel and set the course for Talos IV, a planet which is off-limits (the punishment is death) since Pike and Spock's last visit there, 13 years earlier. Naturally, being a logical creature, Spock turns himself in and arranges a court-martial so that he can justify his actions.

There's no need to say more about the plot, since the rest will play out in Part 2. What really impresses is how Roddenberry creates the connection between The Cage and the rest of the Star Trek universe, by coming up with a particular type of flashback (to say more would be too much) that allows everyone, on screen and off, to see what could have been of Trek, had NBC not turned down the original project. In particular, it's fun to see Jeffrey Hunter (who was unable to return in The Menagerie) play Pike as a more serious captain than Kirk usually is and Nimoy's early days as Spock, whose personality hadn't been fully established yet: this is the only time in the entire series that everybody's favorite Vulcan spontaneously grins.

In short, not just a great "mystery" episode, but also a treat for those who can't be bothered to track down The Cage in its original form (it's available as part of the Season 3 box set). Imagine that you could have anything you wanted, go anywhere you wished, be anything you'd ever dreamed of being - through thought alone. Now imagine yourself sharing this gift with the love of your life. What would you do? Would such powers be worth your soul? This is the dilemma presented to Captain Christopher Pike in "The Cage" the now-legendary pilot episode of the original Star Trek series. Famously deemed "too cerebral" and "too cold" by NBC brass and rejected, "The Cage" was nevertheless the most ambitious and costly pilot ever made in the history of the network at the time, and Gene Roddenberry did not want to let all that effort and expense go to waste, with the result being this truly classic Star Trek episode, which embeds "The Cage" into a frame story which deepens and extends the emotional and philosophical depth of this haunting tale, a landmark in TV history and one of the first truly serious sci-fi stories ever filmed for the small screen...Star Date 3012: The USS Enterprise diverts to Starbase 11 after Mr. Spock receives an urgent message from the former commander of the Enterprise. Surprisingly, the message cannot be from Captain Pike after all, as he is now confined to a wheelchair, mute and horribly disfigured after a tragic accident. Kirk and Starbase commanding officer Commodore Mendez attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery, but before the matter can be cleared up, Spock - for reasons as yet unknown - commits an act of open mutiny, kidnapping the helpless Captain Pike and hijacking the Enterprise via a brilliantly thought-out and timed plan aided by a few Vulcan nerve pinches. Soon, the Enterprise is headed for the remote, forbidden planet of Talos IV. Mendez informs Kirk that Talos IV is under interdiction, and any contact with the planet by Starfleet vessels or personnel carries an immediate death sentence, meaning that Spock appears to be deliberately destroying himself, and Kirk as well, given that the Captain will be held responsible for the ship's activities. Appalled, Kirk and Mendez give chase in a shuttlecraft, which itself becomes dangerous when the Enterprise refuses to answer their calls or pick up the craft until power and oxygen are nearly gone. Spock - knowing that Kirk must be the one following the ship - is of course unable to consign the Captain to certain death. After ordering the craft to be retrieved and the occupants beamed aboard, Spock reveals what he has done to McCoy and demands to be arrested, after having set the starship on an irreversible course to Talos IV. Upon reassuming command, Kirk demands an explanation, whereupon Spock requests immediate court martial by a tribunal of Starfleet commanding officers - of whom there are three on board - Mendez, Kirk, and the crippled invalid Captain Pike. Spock's encyclopedic knowledge of Starfleet regulations enables him to manipulate the tribunal into allowing him to present otherwise inadmissible evidence. Spock presents video recordings of the only contact ever made between the Federation and the inhabitants of Talos IV - a journey taken 13 years earlier by the Enterprise itself under Pike's command. Kirk expresses doubts about the authenticity of the video due to its extreme detail, but the reality of the events depicted is confirmed by Pike himself, who turns out to have been lured to Talos IV by a distress call from the alleged survivors of a Federation research vessel which crashed there 18 years previously. Among the survivors is Vina, a stunning beauty said to have been born just before the disaster. Pike is attracted to the girl and allows her to lure him to an isolated spot, whereupon he is waylaid and captured by the Talosians, a race of androgynous humanoids with enormous cranial capacity and the power to transform thoughts into virtual reality. After Pike's capture, the rest of the "survivors" vanish as none of them really existed except Vina. The episode ends when the tribunal learns that Spock's "evidence" is in fact being transmitted to the Enterprise directly from Talos IV, in violation of Starfleet regulations. Starfleet orders an immediate halt to the transmissions, and we wonder what will happen next...To be continued in a review of "The Menagerie: Part II"! For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter. "The Classic War of the Worlds" by Timothy Hines is a very entertaining film that obviously goes to great effort and lengths to faithfully recreate H. G. Wells' classic book. Mr. Hines succeeds in doing so. I, and those who watched his film with me, appreciated the fact that it was not the standard, predictable Hollywood fare that comes out every year, e.g. the Spielberg version with Tom Cruise that had only the slightest resemblance to the book. Obviously, everyone looks for different things in a movie. Those who envision themselves as amateur "critics" look only to criticize everything they can. Others rate a movie on more important bases,like being entertained, which is why most people never agree with the "critics". We enjoyed the effort Mr. Hines put into being faithful to H.G. Wells' classic novel, and we found it to be very entertaining. This made it easy to overlook what the "critics" perceive to be its shortcomings. I didn't mind all the walking. People really did walk places back then. It loaned an air of authenticity to this period piece and some perspective on the technology of the Martians. I too was disappointed by the effects, in particular the "Thunderchild" scene, which I regard as one of the most exciting in the book. But I can't praise this film enough, for its faithfulness to Wells's story! It's about time. The actors are likable and the performances are charming. Also this film is very much worth seeing just to hear Jamie Hall's truly great musical score. It was interesting to see the same actor play both the writer and his brother in London. The H.G. Wells Classic has had several Incarnations. The 05' Speilburg Version and the classic 53' version But only this one stays completely true to the book. Nothing is changed nothing is removed.

Originally Released as a 3-hour film. The director Re-Cut the film down to 2-hours of pure excellence. Its got a chapter by chapter visualization of the novels pages that "Wells would be Proud Of" The story is as everyone remembers. Martians Invade the Earth with Capsules containing an army of Tripod walking War Machines. The people of 19th century earth are ill-prepared to repel the alien forces and fight back with canons and guns who mes shells bound right off the Walkers and when humanity is no longer a world wide power they are saved by the smallest of organisms on earth.

The Film is an excellent accomplishment for director Timothy Hines who has great potential as he brought this vision to life with a meager 5 Million budget. Today B-Movies have larger budgets. This movie is a lot better than the asylums version mainly its war of the worlds. The tripods look pretty cool but their walking and deaths could have been better. The action scenes were really cool. Walking... walking...walking...walking!!! oh my god stop walking please or i'm going to kill myself. The thunder child scene was my favorite sequence mainly because a ship rammed bunch of tripods. Good movie I recommend it for people ho have read the book. The music is awesome and the directors cut looks pretty cool.

pros. Good soundtrack 99% to the book Cool violence Tripods and handling machines are cool to look at

cons. some bad acting cheesy looking London I have waited a long time for someone to film a faithful version of H.G. Wells' classic novel, "War Of The Worlds". Timothy Hines has finally done it! I just couldn't believe how good it was! From the acting, to the costuming, the out-of-this world special effects, I just can't say enough!It was wonderful! Dramatic, intense, full of first-rate performances by a top-notch cast! It's got to be seen to be believed. I sure didn't. And I've read all those negative comments by the others, and can't believe what they were saying. We must've been watching a different movie, huh? And those real bad comments by that vepsaian guy, guy whoever he is, well, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Keep up the good work, mr. Hines. All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines "do not compute". They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it. i honestly think that that was the best version of war of the worlds i've every seen. it was funny but it was also educational i learned whole lot the movie and if i could i would by that movie. my favorite part was when the soldiers killed on robot and another one came right from behind it. in the last movie war of the world i think that it should have been more like the first one and it would have been better. but any way i give this movie 2 thumbs up.

and if they where to make another movie like this i will definitely watch it.

thank you The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900 … using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.

IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.

This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented – in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on – as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s – and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward – such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.

This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative – as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians – a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles – is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England – plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.

The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate – who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).

This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due – in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman – also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.

This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds – and not some wholly distorted version of it – see this film! Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.

I liked this film, with certain reservations.

How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.

Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.

But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.

The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.

I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.

A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.

Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.

BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka "INVASION") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007. Just watched this after my mother brought it back from America for me, was dreading watching this after all the negative comments on here but I have to say, yes the acting is cheesy, some of the effects are laughable.

But you have to remember this was meant to be 1898 not 2005, and for such a low budget I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed this version much more then the Spielberg version I saw last week.

I have read the book so many times, and found myself going "ahh yes that's in the book" almost all the time, with the other version hardly anything of the book existed.

So well done for at least trying to make a true version. I suggested renting this movie to my friend and he obliged since he had already seen the film and he said it was okay. I thought the title was a bit campy since the version at our store was called "The Fear:Halloween Night". I expected this movie to be somewhat of a Halloween rip off with a killer wooden guy. But it opened with a good scene and the killer murdered two victims immediately and flashed forward twenty years later where his son who had witnessed him kill the two people(including his mother) and he even witnessed his fathers suicide is going to a secluded cabin in the woods with his friends and his girlfriend where he attempts to face his fears until a wooden statue comes to life with his fathers spirit. Pretty good for a sequel and I never even seen the first. It's a great American martial arts movie. The fighting scenes were pretty impressive for American movie made in 90's. Of course the fighting scenes aren't that good as in Honk Kong movies, actually only few American movies have fighting scenes which are as good as in Honk Kong movies, even nowadays. When you watch American martial arts movie, you are expecting to see less impressive fighting scenes, but still having some nice moves, which can be surprisingly good sometimes, or at least that's what I'm expecting from these movies. I was impressed by this film. Some fighting scenes were really impressive, the acting, direction and the plot were good enough, so it's a really worth watching movie, if you like American martial arts films of the 90's. This movie really rocks! Jeff Wincott is terrific in the film! His fighting incredible! He is such a fast martial artist! Brigitte Nielsen & Matthias Hues was very good! Mission of Justice is an action packed movie that is never boring! If you like fighting movies with incredible non stop action then check out Mission of Justice today! The plot:Kurt Harris (Jeff Wincott), a bitter, ex-cop goes undercover in the "Peacemakers" after his friend is killed by their leader. While there, he discovers that the woman wants to run for mayor, and will do anything to achieve this goal, even murder.The cast is good(Jeff Wincott is a good martial artist and good actor)...Brigitte Nielsen plays a sexy antagonist together another bad guy plays Matthias Hues also him good martial artist.The direction is good(the fight scenes also).The rest is OK, with Tony Burton who plays a friend of Kurt killed from Nilsen,and Cyndi Pass plays a bad girl.From producers of another action/martial arts film(Bounty Tracker with Lorenzo Lamas)a good action film.The best film of Martial Law series. I could not take my eyes off this movie when it showed up on cable. The dialogue and costumes are of a quality most readily associated with soft-core porn. In this case the expedient plot serves as a vehicle not for sex but for serial thrashings with nunchuks. (Perhaps for sex as well, but not on Indian TV, anyway.)

Not being a fan of the genre I couldn't place Jeff Wincott, and had no leads to search from. Only once Brigitte Nielsen traded in her futuristic-nurse coif (so mayoral!) for the high-top fade we remember from Beverly Hills Cop II did I make the positive ID on her.

This movie will no doubt entertain any admirer of early 90's couture or nod-and-wink schlock à la Paul Verhoeven. Can we add a genre tag for "so-bad-it's-good"? This movie (with the alternate title "Martial Law 3" for some reason) introduced me to Jeff Wincott for the first time. And it was a great introduction. Although I had never heard of him before, he seemed to be an excellent fighter. The action scenes in this movie are GREAT! There are lots of them too, by the way. The recruit fight at the Peacekeepers HQ is especially good. There's just something about one single guy beating the crap out of a bunch of people that's really fun. And for the rest of the cast: Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for the villain. Roles like this fits her (but others don't). Matthias Hues also did a good job, as always. He's a great fighter and macho-like character, and was a good rival for Wincott in this movie. Jeff Wincott is not only a Hunk, he can kick butt! This movie has some of the best Martial arts moves I've seen in a very long time. Ok, so maybe Bridgette Nielson isn't the first person I'd hire to play a ruthless politician, she did a GREAT job nontheless! And let's not forget that Wincott has a partner in this movie played by Martial arts expert/stuntwoman Karen Sheperd. So she's not Cynthia Rothrock, Who CARES?! She's just as good, if not BETTER! (just check out her fight scene at the end of the movie, one word: OUCH!!). My suggestion would be to buy this movie as soon as possible, because if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on some great martial arts action. I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.

I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.

10/10 This adaptation of M.R. James's short story 'A View From A Hill' was first shown on British television in 2005, on the little watched digital channel BBC 4. I saw that it was being repeated again on BBC 4, and decided to give it a go, remembering the BBC's successful 1970's adaptations of other M.R. James stories including 'Whistle And I'll Come To You My Lad' and 'The Signalman'. Though not in the same class as these masterpieces, 'A View From A Hill' is nonetheless an enjoyable and at times suspenseful drama.

A historian arrives in a small rural village to look over the collection of a recently deceased collector of antique artifacts. Whilst out in the countryside, he sees an abbey that has been in ruins for hundreds of years. But what does this have in connection with an old pair of binoculars and a gruesome legend about the ominously named Gallows Hill? And what do the brusque country squire and his servant know about the situation? Whilst not scary in any way, I enjoyed this little production, and had the running time been longer than 40 minutes it could have become a truly great adaptation. As it is, it all feels a little rushed and a bit more exposition to set the mood would have been welcome.

I give it 7 out of 10. The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I also work in an acute care medical facility. Over the years I have seen people die from hemolytic reactions to blood transfusions, have attended numerous conferences on blood born pathogens, and have seen several patients become seriously ill from pathogens induced by transfused blood. I have also heard several Jehovah's Witnesses being told that they will die if they refuse blood and after 26 years in the field I have never actually seen it happen, leaving the question, "is it really unreasonable to refuse blood transfusions or is the community at large benefiting from the battle on this issue?" The issue for Jehovah's Witnesses is a moral one. "You must abstain from blood" is not an ambiguous statement. Thank you for this movie and allowing comments on it. Felt it was very balanced in showing what Jehovahs Witnesses have done in protecting American freedoms. It also showed the strong faith of two families who were first generation witnesses. I also appreciated how it showed how by becoming a Jehovahs Witness affects non-witness family members and how hard it is for them to accept the fact that they don't celebrate holidays, the sad part is that non-witness families do not think of having their witness family over for family dinners/visits or give them gifts at any other times but for holidays or birthdays. When it comes to medical care the witnesses want and expect a high standard of medical care, what people forget is that blood transfusions allow for sloppy medical care and surgeries whereas bloodless treatments causes the medical team to be highly skilled and trained, which would you prefer to treat your loved ones? I highly recommend this video! I think if you were to ask most JW's whether they expect a miracle cure because of their faith, you will find they do not. I know I do not. What you will find instead is that they believe the promises Christ made of a resurrection. So, even even if the worst were to happen and we die while holding onto our integrity, Jehovah can, and will correct this.

It really gets down to a simple question: is God real to you or is this all just make believe? If he is real, and you trust him, you will follow his directions no matter what the short term outcome may be.

I had a heart attack about a year and a half ago. One in my family was horrified when she saw the words "NO BLOOD" written in large letters over my chart. I reasoned with her that if I were in a position that only a blood transfusion would save my life, would that be a good time to anger the only one could return me to life when the time came? She didn't get it -- God just isn't real enough to her. Too bad. I wish she could have the comfort a strong faith gives. Pushing Daisies is just a lovely fairy tale, with shades of "Amelie"'s aesthetic and romance. It's got a beautiful palette, its shots well thought out and detailed, its names and dialogue whimsical and too cutesy to be real, its imagination great, and its romance deep.

Watch the blue in the sky pop out at you, as blue can't be found in the rest of the sets or shots (with few exceptions).

Watch a weirdly natural and totally satisfying song break out of a scene.

Its score is gorgeous, its cast is supremely likable, there's great music, and the two leading romantic stars can't touch each other or she'll die. How much more sexual tension do you need? (Actually, I had wished they found a way around this one, but c'est la vie).

It is simply a show that it is a pleasure to spend an hour with, and I recommend it highly. There hasn't been other television quite like it, and I would like to see more. It got me through a flu one crappy week, as it makes for good company.

Bring it back! After having read two or three negative reviews on the main page of IMDb for "Pushing Daisies", and having literally minutes ago finished watching the final episode, I thought it was about time I said what I thought of PD.

First off, to address what some of the issues that I have seen other people having with this show: something along the lines of "I expect the people who have been woken from the dead to have a more realistic reaction". Realistic, on this show ? Pushing Daisies is, truly, pure and utter escapism. It's colour palette, the dialogue used, the scenarios, situations, music: all of it, to me, is just an escape from everyday life. An escape from the mundane and boring. It is here where Pushing Daisies exceeds exceptionally well Pushing Daisies isn't for everyone: A large majority of the television audience don't "get" it, for some people it's just too out there and silly. But for people like me, even from the first episode I watched of it (Season 2's "Frescorts") and I was just blown away by the show. From then on, I bought both the box sets and they have barely been out of my DVD player. Other people I know can't stand it, it really seems to be like Marmite.

The show follows the adventures of Ned, the Piemaker, with a magic finger, who brings back childhood sweetheart Charlotte Charles, works in association with private investigator Emerson Cod, owns the Pie-hole and employs waitress Olive Snook. Completing the main cast members are aunts Lily and Vivian, whom Charlotte (Chuck) is never allowed to see. They live in a fantasy world where the dead are brought back to life, everything is shown with a wonderfully bright splash of colour, and narrated by Jim Dale.

Other than outlining the basics of the show, I really can't praise it much more without saying: Just watch it. Despite being screwed over by the Writer's Guild of America strike, with only 22 episodes ever to be made, it provides wonderful plot twists, story lines, characters and situations while providing (for me) a satisfying ending (yes, I could tell it had been tacked on the end and rushed, but I was still happy with the way it went out). Whether it is creative or just pretentious, for a lot of people (me included) it made the most addictive and wonderful viewing, and I hope for the future of television that more shows like this are created so I'm not left with just 22, 40 minute memories of what true entertainment can be. Pushing Daisies was a wonderful show. Much like Dead Like Me and Wonderfalls, you can tell was created by Bryan Fuller. I can understand how people who don't have much of a love for theater, cinema, musicals and the like would be annoyed. This is not a typical television program and the fantastic is too much for some. These people seem to need some a little more linear and muted tone to keep them happy. This program explodes with color, winks at old movie scenes, hums with incredible music and talented performances. There is nothing random about the choices that are made from costume to leitmotif. The story takes many twists and turns but all very accessible because the conversations are about love, honesty, courage, loss and so many other things we face every day. The only unfortunate aspect was the ending of the show and that was rushed because Pushing Daisies was canceled. Don't approach this as a typical TV show. Think of it as an evening at the theater, then sit back and enjoy! ... but I enjoyed this show anyway. I've been reading some of the comments prior reviewers have had to say about this show, and I'm having a hard time completely nullifying all the criticism in my own head (except one: that the show was stale; this program was ANYTHING but stale). A lot of the stuff people take issue with about this show is on the money: pretentious; forced; overwrought; desperate for attention; self-satisfied; annoying ever-present narration. But you know what? I really liked it. It was different, it was original, it really, really TRIED; and that made up for all the minuses. The show was bright, verbal, quick, witty, interesting, fun to look at ... you know, it was only on once a week, I could take it once a week and look forward to it and enjoy it. I will mourn its passing. But I guess nobody will be bringing this back to life. It was such a treat when this show was on because it was such a fresh, innovative, and original show. This makes every show I've ever watched look plain boring. The moment the first episode aired I was entranced and I became attached to all the characters so easy (which usually never happens because I always hate a few characters). It is a pity this show won't have a third season, because it has to be one of the best shows I have ever seen and that isn't exaggerating my feelings for the show at all. Nothing can ever replace Pushing Daisies, because what could ABC possibly find to replace this show? This is easily the best show on television.

I came for Kristin Chenoweth and I stayed because I fell in love with the entire show. "Pushing Daisies" for sure is one of the best TV shows of its genre in the last 5 years, agree you with that or not. Bryan Fuller, the creator, has an amazing creative mind. He's the mind behind other great TV Shows as "Dead Like Me" (2003), "Wonderfalls" (2004), and the other one not as great as these ones, but also interesting, "Heroes" (2006). It's a mix of the marvelous worlds Brian Fuller created in previous TV shows, mixing once again an amazing fantasy world with real kinds of people disguised into colorful images and exaggerated feelings, something that a fairytale always is. So, being a kind of fairytale, you cannot expect more than a unrealistic world and unexpected situations, or also situations a lot expected but not in a way that it would usually be told.

A gift always comes with a curse, and what is sweet can also be bitter. That's so, Ned (Lee Pace), The Piemaker, is a simple guy with an interesting gift other than being an amazing chef: he can give life to the dead with just a touch. This could be a power that everybody would die - or live - for if wasn't for another simple and very sad thing: he can also gives the forever dead if he touches it again. The curse of this amazing gift doesn't stops there... everything has a compensation and if he brings anything to life for more than one minute, another specie of that one would die instantly. He's a guy full of unfortunate events in life in a way that he grown up introspectively, always afraid to touch everything and lose once more things he one day used to love. Till the day he could finally be close to his biggest childhood love, Chuck (Anna Friel), if wasn't for another sad fact: she was dead. He gave her life again and she loves him so much as he does, but this love is untouchable. The truly kiss of death. And that's how this beautiful modern fairytale starts.

When I heard about "Pushing Daisies" for the first time it was promoted as something very familiar (or maybe some kind of tribute) to everything that Tim Burton has created since "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" (1985) to "Big Fish" (2003) and "Charlie And The Cholate Factory" (2005). The results could not be better. The world around The Pie Hole was magnificent. The stories around Ned and Detective Cod (Chi McBride) to solve unsolved crimes can be a lot common in TV, but this is just a way to guide people thru amazing stories surrounding characters as Chuck and Olive (Kristin Chenoweth) in a wonderful world full of beautiful and dreamy images that you can almost sense the taste of the colors. Not only that, you are merged into a bunch of amazing and charismatic gentle characters, even those ones with the most deep dark humors.

Forgetting the trivial concept of murders and unsolved crimes, the show brights and is triumphant in a lot of other things. The actors here are top of note. Lee Pace is tender, soft and contained as the character asks for. Anna Friel is the muse of the show as her character is supposed to be. But the most superb times are always with the supporting actors as Chi McBride (Detective Emmerson Cod), Swoozie Kurtz (as Lilly Charles), Ellen Greene (as Vivian Charles) and Kristin Chenoweth (as Olive Snook). Swoozie Kurtz shines performing a so dried character drowned in a impossible dark humor that could frighten a clown, for sure she has the best dialogs and her expressions and body languages are mesmerizing. But if the best dialogs are given by Swoozie and her character, the best funny moments are given by Kristin Chenoweth. Seems that she's improvising all the time, she's so naturally fun that every single scene is a show aside. Kristin shines so bright in the show that winning the 2009 Emmy for her supporting role in the show was totally fair and deserved. Also there's the chemistry between actors and their characters, that are also amazing.

There are no words to express what this TV Show really is and what it was meant to be. For those ones who think this show is a waste of time or claimed to find no sense in it, for sure needs to open their minds and comeback to a time that they probably never had: childhood.

Truth be told... TV has never been so daring in a TV Show as with this amazing one. "Pushing Daisies" was a huge step forward in terms of great artistic entertainment and its sudden death was a lot disrespectful. It's true that TV doesn't respect great TV shows as those ones Bryan Fuller created - except "Heroes" that's still on air and is far from being so amazing as the other ones. I have to say, when "Pushing Daisies" came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.

The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.

Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.

Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask "what just happened?" in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode "Comfort Food" feel like the episode "Bitter Sweets" in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).

Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not "Dead Like Me." Then again, it's in "Pushing Daisies time," according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.

It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem. First I want to clarify that the average user's inability to appreciate imagination is appalling. What makes this show so unique is the hyper-reality it creates. You don't need to know why Ned can bring people back from the dead, or why it can only be for a minute. Where has the wonderment of childhood whimsical tales gone, much like A Wrinkle in Time.

I say it is refreshingly original because it is a polar opposite to the masses of lay-it-all-out television that leaves no room for imagination or wonder.

It's nice to add a bit of escapism to the television experience.

The hyper-reality is my favorite aspect of the show. The 1950's-esque setting, the innocent and rare characters, and the scenery and physical setting which are not meant to be taken as pure reality.

This show masks the morbid nature of death, while others embrace it. While entertaining, other television shows have taken a back shelf to this series. It truly has restored a sense of curiosity, imagination and wonder to television.

Pushing Daisies quickly made it to the top of my list. I for one have shamelessly enjoyed every episode of Pushing Daisies this season, and hope that the writers' strike won't brutally end the beginnings of a very good show. Ned is a pie maker who owns a restaurant in the middle of town and has a secret talent. Emmerson is a private investigator with his own unique quirks like his love of knitting. Charlotte (Chuck) is the once-dead-but-not-anymore childhood friend and sunny spot of Ned's life. Olive is the jealous but good-hearted waitress. Oh, and add the dog. Jim Dale brings all the characters together with his wonderful narration of the show. Chuck, Ned, and Emmerson along with Olive and occasionally the dog solve multiple murder mysteries with the assistance of Ned's special gift of bringing dead people back to life. The show is funny, clean, and romantic in a very cute and good-hearted way, and I'd recommend it to anyone. It is a pleasure to see such creativity on TV again. This show is poetic, artistic and good fun. The characters relate well and the writing is not bad (I think it will improve as they get their legs). Definitely worth a look.

The girls steal the show so far in this series. Chuck is adorable as is Olive. The two aunts are a delight. I sincerely hope they write them into bigger parts as they are magic.

Well, that's all the news that is fit to print. Go make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy something fun in an old fashioned way. This is like Dr. Seuss for adults. This show is quick-witted, colorful, dark yet fun, hip and still somehow clean. The cast, including an awesome rotation of special guests (i.e. Molly Shannon, Paul Rubens, The-Stapler-Guy-From-Office-Space) is electric. It's got murder, romance, family, AND zombies without ever coming off as cartoony... Somehow. You really connect with these characters. The whole production is an unlikely magic act that left me, something of a skeptic if I do say so myself, totally engrossed and coming back for more every Wednesday night. I just re-read this and it sounds a little like somebody paid me to write it. It really is that good. I just heard a rumor that it was being canceled so I thought I'd send off a flare of good will. This is one of those shows that goes under the radar because the network suits can't figure out how to make it sexy and sell cars with it. Do yourself a huge favor, if you haven't already, and enjoy this gem while it lasts. OK so one more thing. This show is clever. What that means is that every armchair critic/"writer" in Hollywood is gonna insert a stick up their youknowwhat before they sit down to watch it, defending themselves with an "I could've written that" type speech to absolutely nobody in their lonely renovated Hollywood hotel room. In other words: the internet. This is a general interest/anonymous website. Before you give your Wednesday TV hour to Dirty Sexy Money or Next Hot Model reruns or whatever other out and out tripe these internet "critics" aren't commenting on, give my fave' show a spin. It's fun. Good, unpretentious fun. I have been a fan of Pushing Daisies since the very beginning. It is wonderfully thought up, and Bryan Fuller has the most remarkable ideas for this show.

It is unbelievable on how much TV has been needing a creative, original show like Pushing Daisies. It is a huge relief to see a show, that is unlike the rest, where as, if you compared it to some of the newer shows, such as Scrubs and House, you would see the similarities, and it does get tedious at moments to see shows so close in identity.

With a magnificent cast, wonderful script, and hilarity in every episode, Pushing Daisies is, by-far, one of the most remarkable shows on your television. Very sweet pilot. The show reeks of Tim Burton's better films...Edward Sissorhands, Big Fish, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. The cinematography, the narration, the music, the external sets all scream Tim Burton. There has to be a connection, or a STRONG influence, I just haven't researched enough to know where it is.

As I've seen in the forums, yes Anna Friel is playing a poor man's Zooey Deschanel. Every time I see her on the screen I see Zooey. Don't get me wrong, Anna Friel does a great job. Her character is very sweet and lovable and you easily get attached to her. It's more of a distraction that I keep thinking "Why didn't they get Zooey Deschanel".

Lee Pace does a great job too. I kept trying to remember where I knew him from and just looked it up. Wonderfalls!!! Great, short lived series from 2004. If you enjoy Pushing Daisies you MUST go rent Wonderfalls, which is another Brian Fuller creation….hmmmm

Loved seeing Swoosie Kurtz (World According to Garp) and Ellen Greene (Little Shop of Horrors) again. Two underrated character actresses that never fail to bring it with their performances. I really enjoyed the first episode and am looking forward to more. A little soft on the crime front (it's almost an afterthought and not terribly suspenseful or fleshed out) but thought the romance angle was wonderfully charming. Will be watching again for sure!

I'm hoping that they'll have a bigger role for the aunts who are wonderful actresses and were somewhat underused this time around. The actress who plays the assistant/waitress (also from Bewitched I think) is very sweet and bubbly and comes off as nicely dorky and sweet instead of dumb and annoying which is very nice.

Check it out. I'm one of those people who usually watch programs and keep my feelings about a show private. However, Pushing Daisies is my exception. I became curious about the program from the commercials that aired which gave glimpses of the premise of the show. I was skeptical about it at first, especially after the finale of Six Feet Under was still in my head. Here we go again, I thought. I watched the first, second, third and all the other episodes. Wow! First of all, I thought it took the subject of death and presented in a way that was palatable without being morbid. The characters were engaging and I like the thought of Ned the main character not being able to literally touch the love of his life, Chuck without the consequences of her dying.

Most of the characters have a longing for things they can't have. Besides Ned and Chuck, Olive longs for Ned. Lily and Vivian longs for their niece Chuck and Emerson is always longing for the monetary rewards from the mysterious deaths they solve. I think the characters are picture perfect and believable. I like how Emerson who is black plays off of the rest of the characters since as an African American; I like the subtle cultural humor that sometimes comes from him.

All in all, this visual fairytale is one of the most valuable pieces of entertainment that I've seen out of the 2007 season. I think the show has enough romance for the romantics and enough who-done-it for the mystery buffs. I just wish the writers would get back to work, so that the show can continue to evolve. Thank god ABC picked this up instead of Fox. The best description (for those in the know) is really Wonderfalls meets Dead Like Me in the best way possible.

I'm not sure whether an experience with death and destiny early in life makes me a fan of Brian Fuller but I certainly enjoy his productions. I also enjoy checkered floors, pies, talking toys, gravelings and other mischievous items :) While a bit "Burtonesque", I certainly think this enjoys its own niche that doesn't require J Depp or HB Carter to be a wonderfully imaginative playground. Here we can find the joys and sorrows of childhood and adulthood crashing into each and actually making sense and making us want to live life to the fullest! I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is "original." It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.

The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British "Carry On ..." series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a "Harry Potter" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.

Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride ("Boston Public," Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.

I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain. This is indeed a funny show, done in a creepy sort of way, much like a Tim Burton film. It's worth a look, as it's far more creative than most of the shows this season. Best of all, it's not a "reality" show. I'm wondering why the viewing public is so ready to accept shows like that (which lack creativity) and ignore wonderful shows like this that actually have a creative bent.

While some decry the premise, I think it's really unusual. Much more enjoyable than "Ghost Whisperer" and "Medium". I think it's the funniest thing on the tube since "My Name is Earl".

Oh, and the narration and music are wonderful. If you enjoy shows that are a bit off the beaten path, I'd recommend it. It's not as strange as Twin Peaks was, but it's got a serious kink to it. I instantly fell in love with "Pushing Daisies". This show manages to put a smile on my face with it's great storytelling, witty dialog and great acting. But that's not all: It also manages to keep you until the end. The basic idea behind the show - Bringing people back to life with one touch, ending the undead status with a second - is interesting and could still be in later seasons. But the suspenseful murder cases, the unique look of the show and the highly proficient narrator add to the experience. But "Pushing Daisies" is more than it's parts. It has a certain charm that I really enjoy and I'm looking forward to enter the world of Ned and Chuck for a second season. I love this show. Now, I'm not a big fan of many science fiction shows, so if it bares any resemblance to them, I didn't notice. I like the storybook quality of the cinematography. I even like the love story, even though as I am enjoying it I wonder in the back of my mind how the heck that part of the story can truly develop seeing as Ned cannot touch Chuck or else... well, you know. I even like Chuck, I don't find her annoying at all, and I generally hate overly sweet, nice, perfect characters. I even like the narrator's voice, even if it bothers one of my family members and bares some resemblance to some Walgreens commercials. I could nitpick about all the other things about Ned's predicament and how the writers are going to address it in the future but I just rather watch and wait and see what tale the writers weave. Many of these other viewers complain that the story line has already been attempted. That may be so, but the addition of the narrator and Dr.Suess like scenery makes this show a must watch. With adult innuendo throughout the series and a touch of childhood through the set, the show is both reminiscent and invigorating. The investigative portion of the show is not what drags viewers in. The twisted plot and love lines scattered throughout this seeming paradise are what keep loyal viewers coming back for more. This is a success that ABC should never let go of. Bravo ABC. LOST was getting old, way to revitalize prime time. 9 episodes prior to the writers strike left audiences wanting more. This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between "Pushing Daisies" style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen "Amelie." "Pushing Daisies" is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to "Dead Like Me" but "P.D" comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an "undead" young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.

I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of "without consequences of any kind" because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.

But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on "NYPD Blue" did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year. When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.

For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.

Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.

One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.

This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes. That's what t.v. should be. And Pushing Daisies lives up to those expectations. A beautifully crafted and well-designed show, Pushing Daisies is one of the few shows left on prime-time that has integrity, is good for the entire family and sparks your imagination. It's not about the normal action, sex, money or murder angles of every other show on t.v. It's a show that makes you think and laugh, but although the basic plot may seem impossible, the concepts are real to us all. Wanting something you can't have, hoping for someone to want us, running away from your past and searching for family, even in the most unlikely of places, etc...

I realize that ABC has basically canceled this wonderful show at this point, and will most likely replace it with some show beyond the point of integrity. I suppose everything does come back to money... it's too bad that there are now no other shows on ABC that actually make you feel good after watching. Pushing Daisies truly is a landmark in Television as an art form. Everything seems to pay homage to Amelie and Tim Burton, but so what, in a world where fresh ideas are distinctly rare, this show will guarantee that you do not care about whether its fresh or not. It is just Brilliant.

I have been captivated from the start, the intelligent writing, the Directing to the backdrops and dialogue make this show the most incredible masterpiece since The Shield and The Wire (ok not exactly good comparisons but the beauty of Pushing Daisies is that it has no comparisons on television).

Truly addictive and an absolute pleasure. Perhaps like one of the Piemakers pies that get mentioned in such tantalising ways. I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are. "Imagine if you could bring things back to life with just one touch" As soon as I first heard that, my attention was locked on the Trailer, And after the First Episode I found my self in love with this show. A Modern day Fairy Tale that Brings my Spirits up and Holds my attention throughout the entire show. I think the Acting and Casting is just perfect, Each Character brings Something Unique to the show that adds to it's perfection. Even the one time Villains manage to overflow with A Unique sense, From the Bee Man to the Guy who can Swallow Kittens, they never seem to let me down. And the Deaths that would Normally lead to a Depressing Moment often end up being Purely Comical (Such as an Exploding Scratch & Sniff book)

Even with the large amount of Crime shows we have now a days, Daisies is one of the few that really stands out from the rest, Being not just a Mystery but a love story, Comedy and a Fairy Tale with a hint of Drama all baked into one Wonderful pie.....err show.

What really shocked me was the fact that it was on ABC, For Years I never had a reason to turn to ABC, But this brought me back each week with a Smile on my face. It was as if Pushing Daisies Brought ABC back to life for me. But just like that, after two seasons, A few Awards, A Large Fan Base and Positive Responses from Critics the show has been dropped. It seems as though Ned has Touched ABC again and forever killed it for me. I will always be a fan of this show though, And I Recommend this to anyone who likes a lot of talking and a lot of love from the shows they watch. At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love "Pushing Daisies" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on "Pushing Daisies" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen "P.D.", I highly recommend watching it! This show is good. I like the acting, funny bits and the cuteness of it. The actors, Lee Pace, Ann Friel... etc, they all did great in the show. The show started off great with its funny, illogical basic idea of bringing dead people back in the first series and honestly, as what people said, the first few episodes of the second series were a bit of a let down but it later came back looking good anyway. And now I really hate the fact that it's going to be cancelled. Why doesn't ABC just let it finish until the very end when all the episodes are already done?? I really wanna know how the story's going to be. I think it should be given a chance as there're still so many viewers who love it. "The Man in the Moon" is a beautifully realistic look at life through the eyes of an adolescent. Director Robert Mulligan magically re-creates screenwriter Jenny Wingfield's autobiography of her childhood with gorgeous cinematography and a haunting, lyrical musical score. This film hits home as one of the most powerful and emotionally affecting films in recent times.

This film is incredible, all the acting first rate, especially Sam Waterston and an astonishing performance by Reese Witherspoon in her film debut. You will feel every emotion as this life changing summer in 1957 on the Trant family farm comes to a conclusion.

"The Man in the Moon" was a limited release in 1991, and you will love the fact that most of you're family and friends will probably have never heard of it. Buy this dvd and enjoy 100 minutes of pure poetic art. This film is truely the essence of filmaking at its finest. Perfect movies are rare. Even my favorite films tend to have flaws - Rear Window looks a little stagey at times, Chris Elliot's character in Groundhog Day doesn't work, the music score in Best Years of Our Lives is too cheesy, the beginning of Nights of Cabiria is a little too slow - but this film is perfectly executed from start to finish.

The script is brilliant, the acting is superb all around (although Reese Witherspoon and Sam Waterston are amazing, the whole cast shines), the directing and the photography are inspired, and the music score is touching without being intrusive (like some Miramax scores that are too manipulative). Every sad moment is truly moving, every light moment makes me smile. This truly is one of the best films I have ever seen and I wish there were more films like it.

I am glad that Reese Witherspoon has gone on to stardom after this film, but I am sorry to see that her recent movies are so much more escapist and silly than this serious film which is about real people, real feelings and real problems. Brilliant! A must-see. A 14 year old girl develops her first serious crush on the 17 year old boy that lives near by, while simultaneously trying to overcome her feelings of inadequacy in comparison to her older sister. That is the simple premise of this beautiful, poetic coming of age film from Director Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is famous for previously directing Summer of '42 in 1971 and To Kill A Mockingbird in 1962, two giants of the coming of age genre. Here he directs newcomers in the principal roles: Reese Witherspoon, in her film debut, as the 14 year old girl; Emily Warfield, as the older sister; Jason London, as Court, the 17 year old boy. Reese Witherspoon is astonishingly good in her film debut, displaying every emotion that a 14 year old girl feels in experiencing young love and hurt, never striking a false note. Warfield and London are both equally good as well. The film accurately depicts each adolescent's thoughts or feelings in regard to love with heartfelt sensitivity, never crossing over into maudlin excess even once. Kudos to the autobiographical screenplay from Jenny Wingfield; this is one of the very few films about young love that is honest and consistent in tone without being emotionally dishonest or sensationalist. The music is wonderfully simple, accentuating the tone and mood from scene to scene, but never becoming intrusive. The beautiful cinematography is by famed horror director Freddie Francis, who was in his 70's when this was shot. Tess Harper and Sam Waterston play the girls' parents with dead aim accuracy for 1957, caring, strict, and emotionally simple. Gail Strickland is good also as the boy's mother. There are feelings to sort out, lessons to learn, and truths to face in this sweet-natured film that packs an emotional wallop. To date, this is Robert Mulligan's last film. This is one of the very best films of 1991. **** of 4 stars. Dani(Reese Witherspoon) has always been very close with her older sister Maureen(Emily Warfield) until they both start falling in love with their neighbor Court(Jason London). But it is not after a terrible tragedy strikes that the two sisters realize that nothing can keep them apart and that their love for each other will never fade away.

This was truly a heartbreaking story about first love. Probably the most painful story about young love that I have ever seen. All the acting is amazing and Reese Witherspoon gives a great performance in her first movie. I would give The Man in the Moon 8.5/10 Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.

Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry. As I watched this movie I began to feel very nostalgic. As a child growing up in a rural area I felt as if I was a kid again! The swimming pond (it's called a "tank" in Central Texas), the running through the countryside like a wild free spirit! The story was very believable and I totally lost it and cried toward the end. Through the pain we go through in life...life goes on and there can be forgiveness. "The Man In The Moon" is a pretty good movie. It is very touching at times and is very well done in all respects. I wouldn't say the film was terribly original, but what is these days?

The cast members all did a great job with their respective roles. I really enjoyed seeing Reese Witherspoon at such a young age, and does quite a good job. Jason London does a fine job as well. And the only other person I recognized was Sam Waterston, who did a fantastic job with his role. I really liked Sam's character (Matthew Trant) a lot. At times he seemed to be the kind of father you dread, but in the end you really like his character. The rest of the cast was very good as well.

If you're into touching movies about growing up and dealing with what life throws at you, then you ought to watch this film. I'd suggest reading the plot synopsis and if that sounds like something you'd be interested in, then go for it. Anyhow, hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,

-Chris That magical moment in life, that point between the beautiful innocence of childhood, and the confusing whirlwind that marks adulthood . . . this is what this movie is all about.

Danni (wonderfully played by Reese Witherspoon) is right at that moment in life when the movie starts. She swoons over Elvis, playing his records and wishfully thinking about love. Maureen her sister will soon be off to college, has no trouble with attracting boys, is beautiful, and seems to have it all figured out although she doesn't. She dates a local loser whos father is also after her, and just wishes she could find a decent boy and be swept off her feet. Danni like most young teenagers wishes she could be anyone else but herself because most teenagers think that who they are just isn't good enough. She wants to be Maureen but doesn't see that she is beautiful herself.

The moment adulthood begins to intrude itself upon her life is when she meets Court Foster for the first time. Court whos father has recently died has moved to their old farm to work it with his mother and two younger brothers. He has been thrust responsibility when he should be having fun. On one particular hot day he goes to the pond and jumps in only to find Danni skinny dipping. They yell and argue and Danni leaves. But they see each other a day later when Courts mother is invited to Danni's to visit old friends(Danni's Parents). Danni becomes attracted to Court, and Court to Danni. She is a tomboy and is spunky, has attitude and says whats on her mind.

Court is 17 and Danni 14 and he knows it but they continue to grow closer with their days at the pond between Court working the farm. By the time Court kisses her one day, Danni is smitten. Danni's father tells her to invite Court to the house and he does. but things are uncomfortable for Court on his "sort of date". The silence though is broken by his meeting with Maureen who has yet to see Court. One look between the two and its all over. The looks of pain and defeat on Danni's face are both beautiful in their trueness to life and painful at the same time. The rest of the movie I will not tell but the movie has more to it than a relationship between a boy and two sisters.

The greatness of the movie is in its depiction of lifes moments both beautiful and painful and the relationship between two sisters whose love is tested by both a boy that they love, and the pain they must endure both together and individually. Danni eventually marks her entrance into the world when she sees that the world is unfair, painful, and maybe even a little less hopeful than when the movie started. Few movies can truly capture the wonder of childhood and the pain of adulthood so perfectly. This movie has since the first time I watched it stuck in my mind. Its in the my Top 100 movie list and deservedly so. I only wish more movies like this were made, because if so . . . my faith in Hollywood would be a lot better. Here's the kind of love story that I do enjoy watching. And mostly, it's for two reasons. One, it concentrates of young people, VERY young people. People who are still in their teens and are experiencing love for the first time, or at least think they are. All of us have been there in our lives and "The Man in the Moon" is a magnificent reflection upon our memories, maybe adding on a few more details and enhancing it further than any of us have experienced. The second reason is that is a love triangle. And I do believe that as teens, it's the most dramatic. And the story is so well developed that you believe the characters could really be in love, or are just so new to love that they just strongly believe they are and after a tragedy or so occurs, will believe it for the rest of their lives.

The cast of "The Man in the Moon" is full of great talented names. It stars Sam Waterston, who is truly a versatile actor, well capable of playing tough district attorneys as well as strict, yet caring and wise fathers as in this film. Also there is Tess Harper, Jason London, and a young, young Reese Witherspoon. You look at the young, talented actress as she is at age fourteen and you think that about ten years down the road, she's going to win the Academy Award. All members of the cast pull off great performances and with the dialogue of the compelling screenplay, they are enhanced into looking like real people in real situations. As if it all really happened. This the kind of movie that I would like to see come out more often. Love story or not. I would love to see films that make everything look real and is not phony or disbelievable in any way. Not only is this movie a great film for basic cinematography (screenplay, acting, setting, etc.) but also for it's realism. This movie could take place in any farm or rural setting. It makes no difference if the movie takes place in Louisiana or if it would take place in Kansas. The story and the messages it includes would remain the same. This movie shows family values and connections for an older audience, while at the same time it shows youthful behavior for the younger viewers. Everyone who watches this will walk away with something having touched them personally, I know I did. The ending hits way too close to home for me not to burst into tears every time I watch it. The ending stresses the importance of farm safety, and everyone who has ever worked on a farm needs to see this film. Not paying attention and carelessness gets you into dangerous situations.



It's a generic coming-of-age story -- think "The Member of the Wedding," "Summer of '42," "A Summer Place," even "Little Women" -- and there are moments where Mulligan might have omitted the soupy music, not used slow-motion, or played down the golden-lit prettiness of the setting. Otherwise, it's done with rare emotional perfect-pitch. Nothing's forced, every line has feeling, and the pacing is just right. Even the below-A-list casting helps: Bigger movie stars with more recognizable personalities might have overwhelmed the material. In particular, Witherspoon is excellent: Her line readings are fresh and original, and her body language is just right for a gawky, hoydenish 14-year-old on the eve of womanhood. Waterston is also very fine, even if he has to spend much of the movie climbing in and out of the family truck.

One senses that the film's makers were aware of its unpromising commercial prospects -- no big stars, no big car crashes, no special effects -- and consciously decided to make the best possible movie, box office be damned. It's intimate and honest, and it sticks to the ribs. If you find yourself misting up at the end, you don't have to feel you've been duped. I saw this movie as a teenager and immediately identified with Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of Dani Trant, a 14-year-old tomboy in rural Louisiana circa 1957. She feels that she will never be as beautiful as her older sister, Maureen (a now rarely seen Emily Warfield), and feeling out of place in terms of her conservative Baptist upbringing. Then seventeen year old Court Foster (Jason London), the son of her mother's close friend (Gail Strickland) moves in next door, Dani experiences her first crush, while Court enjoys her company, and willful spirit. Dani succeeds in getting her first kiss from him, but as soon as he sees Maureen, he falls head over heels for her, leaving Dani behind. The sisters' close bond is fractured severely by the rivalry that erupts, which only deepens when Court dies in a tragic accident. The girls then are made to realize how much they need each other.

Sam Waterson and Tess Harper are just perfect as the loving parents, trying to balance their daughters' individuality, at the same time trying to keep the family together. The beautiful cinematography, and the wonderful soundtrack featuring Elvis Presley, The Platters and many more contribute wonderfully to the film's atmosphere of a simpler time.

A touching coming-of-age film with a timeless message. Loved the film! This was my first glimpse at both Reese Witherspoon and Jason London, both of which are two of my favorites. Must say that no matter how many times I've seen this movie I can't help but tear up. One of those movies that should become a classic for all. I watched this movie by chance, get curious by the trailer on TV. I like when I discover movies like this, little, tender stories about ordinary people. Even if the end is tragic, "The Man in the Moon" has some funny moments, especially in the first characterization of Dani, with her innocent and pure love affair with Court. It's really a beautiful, moving love story with 3 high points: the performance of Reese Witherspoon, who maintained her promises in the world of cinema, the beautiful cinematography by the "Old Lion" Freddie Francis and the fantastic score by James Newton Howard, which is really the soul of the movie. His themes (which deserved an Oscar nomination) are so intimate and lyric that it seems they had transformed the screenplay in music. There is so much of worth in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin with praise. Let me begin by expressing my admiration for a perfect portrayal by Reese Witherspoon. That her performance stands out in the excellent cast is praise indeed. Robert Mulligan has seldom disappointed those of us who have admired his work. Every frame of The Man in the Moon is evidence of film making at its best. I had heard good things about this film and was, you guessed it, a bit disappointed. Reese Witherspoon is as promised surprisingly good, surprisingly confident, at a young age; really all the (small) cast are quite solid, in their simple 50s American setting. The reason I didn't rate this film higher is mainly that towards the end, the grief shown by the older sister didn't seem so real and this pulled me out of the film a bit. Perhaps we are expected to fill in the plot, or perhaps the film needed to be a bit longer. Maureen's character is quite underdeveloped I think. It is understandable that Dani (Reese W., the younger) would be traumatised and angry, but why is her sister shown to be more upset? Because she's a few years older? Hasn't the end rather undermined the rest of the film? The pacing of the movie makes it seem that Maureen and Court have only just met, when he gets tractored (warning: this scene is surprisingly brutal, in retrospect it seems like it might have been trying to shock a bit. well it works!). It depends what you want - if you want the girls' happy story of young love that it seems like you're going to get, you're in for a surprise. Man in the Moon is both quaint and dreamy and a harsh coming of age film – a rather awkward combination? I liked the character of Court though, I can see what girls watching this might be watching. And I loved that they had the courage to both let him hurt the younger sister (most men would, most films wouldn't) and get killed.

7/10 on my pretty harsh ratings scale. For some reason I found Jason London on a tractor funny. This "coming of age" film deals with the experiences of two young girls, Dani and Maureen, as they learn about life and love one fateful summer.

Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.

I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc. A young man named Court is loved by everyone. His painful bloody death brings everyone closer. You can find other symbols and allusions throughout the movie. Whether predictable or not, and irrespective of ecclesiastical beliefs, this is a moving story, full of milieu and sensuality.

One other thing, someone mentioned that his fate was so quick that it didn't seem plausible. But the elements for this are set up subtly. Note what his mom says about bringing his lunch out to the field. Note how he is holding the steering wheel and his gloves. He is sweaty and operating dangerous equipment. To this day, tractors are pretty dangerous. Reese Witherspooon's first movie. Loved it. The plot and the acting was top notch. You are emotionally involved with the characters. In my opinion, a must see.

After watching this movie you will see why Reese Witherspoon's acting career has been so successful.

The other cast members do a great job also.

The movie flows extremely well. There is not a boring moment in the whole picture. The Man in the Moon's length is just right.

As I said earlier, I think this movie was excellent. I have seen it numerous times, and have enjoyed every one of the viewings. I was so surprised by how great The Man In The Moon truly was.I mean at first I was kinda expecting a cheesy, and predictable film, but I decided to put that aside when watching.Well, when it was over I was just left stunned(mainly in tears), by how great The Man In The Moon turned out to be.This movie is so entertaining and is so aware of its tone, and its just a fabulous film.The acting was great especially from Reece Witherspoon(who was so cute and lovable), and everyone else.There wasn't anything that really bothered me, I felt the ending kinda predictable, but very well done at that.Also I felt some things to be plain or as if it had been done before, but still a great film.Overall I must say I don't to much to say about this film, not that it was bad, its just a film you either like or don't like.I would however recommend this to any and everyone, even if you don't like these type of films, its still an enjoyable film.

8.7 out of 10 stars It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching. I checked this out as an impulse when browsing through the movie store and couldn't have been any more pleasantly surprised! My mom and I watched this film together, and we thoroughly enjoyed it. It isn't the typical "chick-flick" with a sappy love story and tears all the way through, but it definitely touches a nerve in the twist at the end. It's an ending where, although unexpected and tragic, the movie's overall effect is not harmed by it. I think Reese Witherspoon was a great actress even in this film, her debut, and this is definitely worth watching! I didn't recognize many of the supporting actors, but they all play their important supporting roles well. "The Man in the Moon" is such an believable story about a young teenager falling in love for the first time. Most women can definitely relate to everything-from Witherspoon's words, her subtle glances, and her not so subtle emotions (raging like the typical teenage girl). While she's playing a character confused about love, she does not come across as silly and immature, which was much appreciated considering many movies today. i must say this movie is truly amazing and heartwarming. Reese Witherspoon is so charming and Jason London's not so bad either! it is so sweet watching Dani fall in love and it breaks my heart and yet warms my heart at the same time watching Court fall in love with Maureen. however it is even sweeter watching how much he cares for Dani. I must admit though i did kind of want him to fall for Dani in the end. it is just so cute watching her fall for him i did not want her to get her heart broken so badly. but the biggest tragedy i have ever seen occurred in this movie. watching him die made me cry for a whole day. i just could not believe it. however never a more loving relationship has been shown in a movie then Maureen and Dani. they really can make it through anything. i am giving this movie a 9 because i didn't want Court to die but it was still one of the most amazing movies i have ever seen. Had never heard of The Man in the Moon until seeing it last evening on THIS HDTV channel. Look, my taste is like any others', eclectic. My favorites run from Blue Velvet to Dr. Strangelove to The Ghost and Mrs. Muir thru The Wizard of Oz and The Loved One, Eraserhead, repo man, and The Spy Within.

The Man in the Moon is superbly made, a gentle hearted, joyous and tragic film, beautifully filmed, one in which the actors truly live in the moment rather than act. This sweet tale shortly will be in our private library. This beautiful story of life in a far finer era in rural Louisiana literally transports you to its pastoral setting.

It's hard to remain stoic during the film's last moments, particularly when the young girl the extent of her older sister's heart searing private pain and forgives all.

Rather than spoil the enjoyment or bore you to sobs with my dull prose, will end now with this suggestion from one who enjoys films which speak from the heart to ours.

If you purchase no other film, please, purchase the Man in the Moon. This moving story is one you'll enjoy reliving time and again. It is a joy and a gem, a film all too scarce in this world of hardening hearts.

The simple virtues evinced in Man in the Moon are a joy to behold.

Paul Vincent Zecchino

Manasota Key, Florida

05 April, 2009 I thought this was a very good movie. It would have been nice to have seen a little more into the movie about the 2 sisters knowing about each liking the same boy before he was killed off. I'm sure if the movie had been done this way there would have been a very different ending, that's why this made this move such a good movie. It shows that no matter what happens in your life with your siblings that you can always get thru it and that if it's 2 sisters dealing with a boy, (the same boy) that working thru the pain and hurt makes things to seem better and easier to work out between the 2 of them. It's nice to see love stories that have a terrible thing to happen in someone's life that you can still get thru it become even closer after its over. I really enjoyed watching this movie, and I still do now when it comes on. I seem to find myself watching it every time it comes on. It would have been nice if there would have been a part 2 for this movie, maybe having the older sister to come up and have his baby, this would really have made a great finish to the story since he died, this way it would keep him alive even though he's dead. I thought this movie was very well done. Taking place in the mid 1950's, everything looked accurate to me. It was well cast and believable. I don't usually care much for this type of movie, because they just don't have any depth, but I felt this movie delved in to the characters and you could feel how they felt, you got to really know them and care about them. It did take me back to my youth and let me reminiscent about a more innocent time. This movie could be enjoyed by both male and female and by all age groups. After the movie was over I wished there was a part two. I wanted to know what happened to Dani and her family. This movie is bound to be a classic. If you haven't seen it you should try to catch it when it is on TV or rent it... Having borrowed this movie from the local library a couple of weeks ago intending to originally see this on or a few days after Memorial Day, I finally got to seeing Sayonara just this morning. In this one Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd "Ace" Gruver, a General's son who's been raised a certain way, being transfered from Korea to Japan where his girlfriend Eileen Webster (Patricia Owens) conveniently happens to be. Before leaving, he tries to persuade one of his men, a Joe Kelly (Red Buttons), out of marrying Japanese woman Katsumi (Miyoshi Umeki) since that's a violation of military fraternization laws. With the romance of him and Eileen on the outs, however, Ace not only becomes the best man at Joe and Katsumi's wedding, he falls for an Asian himself after he and Captain Mike Bailey (James Garner) go out on the town and watch headlining entertainer Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) on stage. Bailey himself is dating one of the dancers, Fumiko-San (Reiko Kuba). Eileen herself seems to have a fancy for one of the Kabuki performers, Nakamura (Ricardo Montalban). I'll stop right there and say that this was a mostly compelling drama about the prejudices concerning American-Asian relations of romance that was very touching from beginning to end. Even seeing Hispanic Montalban playing an Oriental isn't too embarrassing (though it's a good thing his part is short). And there's some nice touches of humor like that of Brando's head hitting the top of Button's and Umeki's inside doorway more than once. Red and Miyoshi themselves deserve their Oscars especially Red with his defiant and proud emotions throughout. Rookie Garner, before being cast in his legendary role on TV's "Marverick", is fine in his scenes with Brando and Miiko Taka shows great restraint in her initial characterization as an anti-American. While I've read there were some changes from James Michener's novel, I can't imagine director Josha Logan, who had previously adopted another Michener work into the Broadway musical "South Pacific" and would eventually make that into a movie as well, not staying true to the original source. He certainly provided some inspiration with the ending scenes that made the heartbreaking earlier tragedy in the film a somewhat necessary plot twist. Some of the production numbers may have made the movie a little longish but otherwise, Sayonara was wonderful educational experience about the '50s mores that permeated America and Japan at the time. I married a Japanese woman 14 years ago. We're still together.

However in the 1950's it would never have been as easy.

Life in the military had been mined for action, drama, and comedy for years by this point. Mined to death. The mixed relationships gave it new ground to cover. This is old hat today, but then...? Marrying an Asian back then meant you either owed somebody something or you were a freak of some sort. This touched on both possibilities along with the third. Maybe it IS love?

Brando did his usual good job. Garner did a better job than he usually does. He's good, but this showed how good he could be. Umecki-chan had a helluva debut here and while I think she earned her statue, she didn't really stretch. It was a role that no one who hadn't been overseas would have recognized and the newness was the corker.

The real scene stealer was Red Buttons. Red was the best thing in this film. Bank on it. And the Japanese lifestyles were shown in an admirable light as well.

A classic. I, myself am a kid at heart, meaning I love watching cartoons, still do! I remember watching Bugs Bunny when I was a kid, he was my favourite still is. I thought man, this was a great "new" show on TV, and than my dad said, "Bugs Bunny, I remember watching him when I was younger" and I'm like, "Dad, Bugs didn't exist when you were younger". So I guess he's definitely pleased more than one generation, possibly 3. I love the show it's great for kids and adults, OK, everybody. It's very funny, me and my husband, both in our 20s, love watching the shows, and we don't mind the re-runs either. This show brings back a lot of memories, happy ones. I love the Christmas special too with Tweety as Tiny Tim, it's cute. I can't pick my favourite Looney Toons character, because they've changed over the years. When I was little it was Bugs of course, and Porky Pig. Pepe is cool, I always loved him. Actually, I have to say there all my favourite. I'm giving this show a 10 out of 10, because it's a great show for all ages, very funny, voice acting is incredible, the only flaw is that unfortunately it came to an end, 2 decades ago, but the re-runs are great! And a made for TV movie too, this movie was good. the acting in it and the plot was just so great. this one of the only movies I've seen that I felt warped my mind because after seeing it I was afraid of Reaper coming to kill me through my computer screen. There were just a few minor things wrong with this movie, but it's very easily over looked.

Antonio Sabbato Jr did an excellent role in this movie along with Janine Turner and Robert Wagner. this movie just has so much suspense and it made me wanting more because I never thought a low budget TV movie could be so powerful. After viewing this I read the novel this movie was based on (four times) and it too kicked was great. If you ever see this movie come on TV, I'd watch it. The effects in this movie were pretty well done, I honestly don't know what a live calcifying human would look like but with the way the FX team did this movie I was impressed and all it shows is that all these bad made for TV movies out there with low budgets shouldn't suck so bad.

watch it. It's really good, no really, it is! The movie wasn't all that great. The book is better. But the movie wasn't all that bad either. It was interesting to say the least. The plot had enough suspense to keep me watching although I wouldn't say I was actually interested in the movie itself. Janine Turner and Antonio Sabato Jr are both gorgeous enough to keep you watching :)They have a few cute scene's that should appeal to the romantic's. Overall I'd give the movie a 7 or 8. It wasn't bad, Just a little lacking plot wise. The way this story played out and the interaction between the 2 lead characters may lead me to believe that if the X-Files continues without Mulder and Scully, these would be a pretty good replacement duo. I really liked this movie despite one scene that was pretty bad (the one when Samantha and Nick are flirting in the hotel). The story is so cool and can't wait to read the book! Bravo for the super station! Fatal Error is a really cool movie! Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., Janine Turner, Jason Schombing, Malcolm Stewart, and David Lewis are in the film. The movie's cast all acted really well. Robert Wagner played his role good. The relationship between Saboto Jr. and Turner was a nice one. There maybe a big age difference there but they are a unique couple. The two actors really worked together rather well. The music in the film is really good by Ron Ramin and fits the flick very well. There is a bunch of stuff that happens in the movie which you don't know what is going on and what is going to happen next and this movie keeps you going from beginning to end. If you like Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., and Janine Turner then watch this excellent movie! This almost unknown gem was based on a French farce--which shows, and I mean that as a compliment.

Caroline (Lee) is being courted by a wealthy Argentinian (Roland), who asks her father for her hand in marriage. But Caroline is already married to Anthony (Colman), who has just arrived by plane and launches immediately into an audience-directed reminiscence about the last time Caroline decided she was in love with someone else: a dilettante-ish sculptor (Gardiner). The film plays out the story of Anthony's strategy in uncoupling Caroline from her sculptor, and how that experience aids him with her Argentinian.

It is perfectly cast: Ronald Colman is at his most sophisticated and charming, Reginald Gardiner is at his most priggish, Gilbert Roland is at his most exotic, and Anna Lee is just deliciously whimsical. The film is wonderfully directed by Lewis Milestone (who also produced); the whole production feels like a labor of love. There are wonderful touches, such as Colman breaking frame and addressing the camera, and exceptional use of a sliding bar-cabinet door. It is a sin that it hasn't been released on DVD--this is the kind of film that can singlehandedly awaken interest in classic film. This is truly one from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next.

All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added. The wonderfully urbane Ronald Coleman is show-cased here as in few other of his films. He is literally in every scene and this comical movie remains fresh because of him, not in spite of him. He is handsome, witty and very clever here as he remains a step ahead of his wandering, lovely wife--played perfectly by Anna Lee. The movie is based on a french play and brings all the best qualities of that farce. Most of the supporting cast is well known, at least by face if not name...and are absolutely perfect for this very funny film. The fantastic Mr. Coleman is a combination of Sean Connery and Clark Gable as he stays a step ahead of the other characters. His multi-talents can be further appreciated in the classic "Lost Horizon" which every film buff must see. Karloff and Lugosi - Together again! This is one of those films that casual fans will pass over and tend not to appreciate as much. It's not an all-out horror film like the duo's previous two hits, The Black Cat and The Raven. But, it is very worthy of both's talents and is a fun film when re-visited.

The Invisible Ray was directed by Lambert Hillyer, a director who mainly made westerns, but curiously in these final days of the Laemmles' reign at Universal, he found himself helming this and the Laemmles' final horror film, Dracula's Daughter. Both are crisp, clean-cut fantasies that are very light on horror content despite the fantastic elements.

Just as Lugosi went wild in The Raven, much needs to be said of Karloff's hamming in The Invisible Ray. The one aspect of the story that is particularly unsatisfying is that Karloff's character, Rukh, acts so madly before he is poisoned by Radium X, that there really isn't much of a change once he starts glowing. This is very similar to the complaint people have about Jack Nicholson in The Shining - He's basically a loony right from the start. There isn't any real transformation. Same here. Halfway through Karloff simply has an added purpose for revenge in his mind. I still enjoyed his performance, though, just as I did Lugosi's over-the-top antics in The Raven.

Meanwhile, Lugosi completely surprises you and gives a restrained, and thoughtful turn as Rukh's rival in science, Dr. Benet. Lugosi also has some of the best lines in the film, including a memorable warning to the police trying to catch Rukh, of which I am in alignment with horror film writer John Soister on - "And if he (Rukh) touches anyone?" the inspector inquires. Lugosi hesitatingly replies, in a way that only Lugosi could deliver, "They die". Just as Lugosi could be so off, he could also be more perfect than any actor. This is one of those moments.

Therefore, Karloff and Lugosi's interactions are all very good as we get the mad antics of Karloff pared off against the cool logic of Lugosi. Karloff would go on to play similar mad scientists many times, however, one wishes Lugosi would have gotten to play more straight roles like this one. He only had one more chance (Ninotchka).

The Invisible Ray is a fun film, and a real treat to the true Karloff and Lugosi fans. It is one of those films that improves on each viewing, not because it is a masterpiece, but because of the charisma and talent of its' stars and how this story complements the darker, more horrific pairings they had. The special effects, by the always innovative John Fulton, are terrific and the supporting actors are all adequate. Frances Drake looks as beautiful as she did in Mad Love and plays a strong woman, something seldom seen in classic horror films. The scene in the end when Karloff stalks her and she doesn't scream is one of the most haunting moments of the film. A terrific, fun film! One doesn't get to enjoy this gem, the 1936 Invisible Ray, often. But no can forget it. The story is elegant. Karloff, austere and embittered in his Carpathian mountain retreat, is Janos Rukh, genius science who reads ancient beams of light to ascertain events in the great geological past…particularly the crash of a potent radioactive meteor in Africa. Joining him is the ever-elegant Lugosi (as a rare hero), who studies "astro-chemistry." Frances Drake is the lovely, underused young wife; Frank Lawton the romantic temptation; and the divine Violet Kemble Cooper is Mother Rukh, in a performance worthy of Maria Ospenskya.

The story moves swiftly in bold episodes, with special effects that are still handsome. It also contains some wonderful lines. One Rukh restores his mother's sight, he asks, "Mother, can you see, can you see?" "Yes, I can see…more clearly than ever. And what I see frightens me." Even better when mother Rukh says, "He broke the first law of science." I am not alone among my acquaintance in having puzzled for many many years exactly what this first law of science is.

This movie is definitely desert island material. This is just about in the same league as `The Black Cat', although I'd give this a 9 rather than a 9+. That's praise indeed for a film that has been so badly underrated that it is amazing!

`The Invisible Ray' is part horror, part drama and certainly part sci-fi. For a movie made in 1936 the sci-fi elements were a good deal ahead of their time. The mixture of horror, drama and sci-fi are a perfect blend, while the acting on the part of Lugosi and Karloff couldn't be better.

Director Lambert Hillyer captures a lot of elements that James Whale did so often. What I'm saying is that this film is eerie and well shot. The scene with the gargoyles outside of Lugosi's room is a perfect example of the mood. It's a standout moment in the film, which is so sadly missing in today's movies of the genre.

As with `The Black Cat' and `Island of Lost Souls', I can't understand why this film has yet to be released on DVD. When you consider some of the junk that's already been transferred to DVD it's that much more puzzling.

Anyway, watch this film if you get the chance. When it's released on DVD grab it fast and put it in an honored spot within your DVD library. The Invisible Ray is an excellent display of both the acting talents of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Karloff pulls off a flawless performance as a sullen and conflicted scientist who appears to put his scientific achievements ahead of his relationships with others, even his wife. His already loner personality becomes unbearable as he becomes paranoid.

Lugosi plays the consummate professional, who is passionate about his work but still finds time to maintain on good terms with everyone, but still seems to have no real close friends. This was one of his few roles as a good guy and he plays it very well. It is hard, however to hear his accent and believe he is French.

The biggest problem with the movie was that it was all based on "junk science" but, in a way, even the junk science makes it work well. Since the ideas and theories are completely idiotic, they are as "relevant" today as they were when the movie was made. And they are also as forward reaching- and always will be.

This is a perfectly delightful movie to watch again and again. I saw it maybe 5 times this weekend and I could easily sit through it five more times. The acting is marvelous and the science is amusing. I highly recommend it. There is no doubt that during the decade of the 30s, the names of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi became a sure guarantee of excellent performances in high quality horror films. After being Universal's "first monster" in the seminal classic, "Dracula", Bela Lugosi became the quintessential horror villain thanks to his elegant style and his foreign accent (sadly, this last factor would also led him to be type-casted during the 40s). In the same way, Boris Karloff's performance in James Whale's "Frankenstein" transformed him into the man to look for when one wanted a good monster. Of course, it was only natural for these icons to end up sharing the screen, and the movie that united them was 1934's "The Black Cat". This formula would be repeated in several films through the decade, and director Lambert Hillyer's mix of horror and science fiction, "The Invisible Ray", is another of those minor classics they did in those years.

In "The Invisible Ray", Dr. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) is a brilliant scientist who has invented a device able to show scenes of our planet's past captured in rays of light coming from the galaxy of Andromeda. While showing his invention to his colleagues, Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) and Sir Francis Stevens (Walter Kingsford), they discover that thousands of years ago, a meteor hit in what is now Nigeria. After this marvelous discovery, Dr. Rukh decides to join his colleagues in an expedition to Africa, looking for the landing place of the mysterious meteor. This expedition won't be any beneficial for Rukh, as during the expedition his wife Diane (Frances Drake) will fall in love with Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), an expert hunter brought by the Stevens to aid them in their expedition. However, Rukh will lose more than his wife in that trip, as he'll be forever changed after being exposed to the invisible ray of the meteor.

Written by John Colton (who previously did the script for "Werewolf of London"), "The Invisible Ray" had its roots on an original sci-fi story by Howard Higgin and Douglas Hodges. Given that this was a movie with Karloff and Lugosi, Colton puts a lot of emphasis on the horror side of his story, playing in a very effective way with the mad scientist archetype and adding a good dose of melodrama to spice things up. One element that makes "The Invisible Ray" to stand out among other horror films of that era, is the way that Colton plays with morality through the story. That is, there aren't exactly heroes and villains in the classic style, but people who make decisions and later face the consequences of those choices. In many ways, "The Invisible Ray" is a modern tragedy about obsessions, guilt and revenge.

A seasoned director of low-budget B-movies, filmmaker Lambert Hillyer got the chance to make 3 films for Universal Pictures when the legendary studio was facing serious financial troubles. Thanks to his experience working with limited resources, Hillyer's films were always very good looking despite the budgetary constrains, and "The Invisible Ray" was not an exception. While nowhere near the stylish Gothic atmosphere of previous Universal horror films, Hillyer's movie effectively captures the essence of Colton's script, as he gives this movie a dark and morbid mood more in tone with pulp novels than with straightforward sci-fi. Finally, a word must be said about Hillyer's use of special effects: for an extremely low-budget film, they look a lot better than the ones in several A-movies of the era.

As usual in a movie with Lugosi and Karloff, the performances by this legends are of an extraordinary quality. As the film's protagonist, Boris Karloff is simply perfect in his portrayal of a man so blinded by the devotion to his work that fails to see the evil he unleashes. As his colleague, Dr. Benet, Bela Luogis is simply a joy to watch, stealing every scene he is in and showing what an underrated actor he was. As Rukh's wife, Frances Drake is extremely effective, truly helping her character to become more than a damsel in distress. Still, two of the movie highlights are the performances of Kemble Cooper as Mother Rukh, and Beulah Bondi as Lady Arabella, as the two actresses make the most of their limited screen time, making unforgettable their supporting roles. Frank Lawton is also good in his role, but nothing surprising when compared to the rest of the cast.

If one judges this movie under today's standards, it's very easy to dismiss it as another cheap science fiction film with bad special effects and carelessly jumbled pseudoscience. However, that would be a mistake, as despite its low-budget, it is remarkably well done for its time. On the top of that, considering that the movie was made when the nuclear era was about to begin and radioactivity was still a relatively new concept, it's ideas about the dangers of radioactivity are frighteningly accurate. One final thing worthy to point out is the interesting way the script handles the relationships between characters, specially the friendship and rivalry that exists between the obsessive Dr. Rukh and the cold Dr. Benet, as this allows great scenes between the two iconic actors.

While nowhere near the Gothic expressionism of the "Frankenstein" movies, nor the elegant suspense of "The Black Cat", Lambert Hillyer's "The Invisible Ray" is definitely a minor classic amongst Universal Pictures' catalog of horror films. With one of the most interesting screenplays of 30s horror, this mixture of suspense, horror and science fiction is one severely underrated gem that even now delivers a good dose of entertainment courtesy of two of the most amazing actors the horror genre ever had: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. 8/10 Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi made many films together, but on the whole (interestingly enough) Karloff usually is the better man of the two. The real exception is "The Black Cat" (1934) where Karloff is playing the evil head of a devil cult, and Lugosi is seeking revenge on him for destroying his life. But more usual is "Black Friday", where (whatever his motive) Karloff is trying to improve brain surgery while Lugosi is a murderous thug. In "The Raven" Lugosi is a sadistic surgeon, who blackmails Karloff to assist his evil plans until Karloff finally has had enough. Rarely are they both negative characters totally. In "The Body Snatcher", Karloff does kill Lugosi, but Lugosi is trying to blackmail him.

The one exception where they are both extremely sympathetic but at cross purposes to each other is this 1936 film, which I feel has rarely had the audience acceptance of some of the other movies I have mentioned. In it Karloff's Dr. Janos Rukh is a hard driven scientific genius who has been sneered at by the "official scientific community" for his theory that a rare form of Radium is in Nigeria on a meteorite that landed centuries ago. He has finally gotten the support of a well financed expedition led by Sir Francis Stevens and his wife Lady Arabella Stevens (Walter Kingsford and Beulah Bondi), and has another scientist, a Frenchman named Dr. Felix Benet (Lugosi), Rukh's young wife Diane (Frances Drake) and a friend and protégée of the Stevenses named Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton).

Before they leave, Rukh is warned by his mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) that he is possibly seeking wisdom that he shouldn't and it may end in tragedy. He tries to dismiss this, but he is worried by what she says, his scientific standing, and whether or not he is going to get his due credit.

What he gets is a disaster. He finds the substance, but is infected by it's remarkable radioactivity. He finds that he is slowly burning up, and if he tries to touch people or animals they die. He's actually built up a friendship or understanding with Benet, who figures out a type of radioactive fighting cocktail for Rukh to use to counter the danger. But there are two things that are unbeatable here. The antidote can only last for a certain amount of time, and has to be replenished. And the radioactivity has affected Rukh's brain. He is increasingly jealous of Diane's friendship with Ronald (encouraged, unfortunately by Sir Francis and Lady Arabella), and he is equally upset that (due to his having to pretend to have died - the effects of the radioactivity are like that) Benet and several others are collecting the kudos of the wonders that "Radium X" is giving to man. Soon Rukh is on a murderous rampage that destroys many lives, ending with his own.

The film certainly picked up on science to an extent. Madame Curie had died recently from cancer she got due to work with Radium. Few fully understood the dangers of radioactivity in 1936, but some idea of it was coming out. The wave of murders by Rukh cause the newspapers to talk about a "curse" on the expedition. Of course, with the idea of a "cursed" expedition (on the continent of Africa) for a hidden treasure buried centuries ago, financed by a titled Englishman, we have entered archeology not physics or geology (paging Howard Carter and Lord Carnaevon).

On the other hand, Benet tries to settle the cause of the string of deaths, and reverts to an idea that was actually demolished in 1888 in England. During the Whitechapel Murders, Sir Charles Warren ordered the retinas of several of the dead victims to be photographed to see if the last image on the retinas was Jack the Ripper. It turned out he only got the photographs of the retinas of dead prostitutes. But the idea did not die. Jules Verne used it in his novel "The Brothers Kip" in 1899, and here Dr. Benet uses it. As this is a science fiction story, he finds the image of Rukh on the the plate, but Benet drops the plate accidentally and it shatters.

The film is good on many grounds, the most interesting that for a change Karloff and Lugosi are not unsympathetic towards each other. There is a type of tragic fatalism in this story that is missing from their other films. The other performances are good as well, in particular Ms Kemble Cooper. She is best remembered as Basil Rathbone's frightening sister (Jane Murdstone) in "David Copperfield". Here her final act is the only way to bring this tragedy to an end, and who can say it did not hurt her more than her target. With a special telescope, Dr. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) successfully proves that years ago a meteorite landed in Africa containing an unknown, but extremely powerful element. Dr. Benet(Bela Lugosi) form an expedition led by Rukh to locate the element. Unexpectedly, Rukh discovers "Radium X,", even more powerful than radium and very radioactive and Karloff becomes contaminated and can kill anyone by just touching them. The sparks really fly between Lugosi and Karloff in this classic science-fiction film during the post-World War II era. Director Hillyer used a few standing sets from "FLASH GORDON" series which was being filmed at the same time and also inserted some footage of electrical machines from Frankenstein. Universal kept the public unaware of the special effects being used in this great classic film. Karloff and Lugosi were at their very best and they both enjoyed working together and will be enjoyed by future generations. Okay, note to the people that put together these horror acting legends DVD-collections: I truly am grateful and I hugely support the initiative, but … have you even watched the films before selecting them as part of the collection? When I purchased the Boris Karloff collection there were several films in which the star only played a supportive and unessential role ("Tower of London", "The Strange Door"). "The Invisible Ray", however, is part of the Bela Lugosi collection and here it's actually Boris Karloff who overshadows Bela! This actually would have been a great title for the Boris Karloff collection instead! Bela Lugosi's character is quite possibly the most good-natured and earnest one he ever portrayed in his entire career and good old Karloff actually plays the mad and dangerously obsessed scientist here. "The Invisible Ray" features three main chapters. The first one, set in Dr. Janos Rukh's Carpathian castle is pretty boring and demands quite a lot of the viewer's patience, but of course the character drawings and the subject matter discussed here are fundamental for the rest of the film. Dr. Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to a couple of eminent colleagues (among them Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet) how he managed to capture extraterrestrial rays inside a self-manufactured device. The scientists are sincerely impressed with his work and invite Rukh and his lovely wife Diane along for an expedition in the heart of Africa. There Dr. Rukh isolates himself from the group, discovers the essential element "Radium X" to complete his medical ray and goes completely bonkers after being overexposed to the meteorite himself. The third and final act is obviously the best and most horrific one, as it revolves on a good old fashioned killing spree with ingenious gimmicks (melting statues) and a surprising climax. Karloff glows in the dark and, convinced the others are out to steal his discovery and even his life, he intends to eliminate them using his deadly touch. The narrative structure of "The Invisible Ray" sounds rather complicated, but the film is easy to follow and entertaining. The story is rather far-fetched but nevertheless compelling and director Lambert Hillyer provides several moments of sheer suspense. Boris Karloff is truly fantastic and so is Lugosi, even though he deserved to have a little more screen time. Their scenes together are the highlights of the film, along with the funky images of the glowing Boris. While not as famous as some of their other collaborations (such as THE BLACK CAT and THE BODY SNATCHER), this is a dandy little horror film even though the casting decisions were a bit odd. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a weird scientist who lives in the Carpathian mountains--near where the Dracula character's home town. Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Benet--whose nationality was never discussed though the name certainly sounds French. I really think it would have made sense to have the two switch roles, as the Carpathian role seems tailor made for Lugosi--especially with his accent. However, despite this unusual twist, the two still did excellent jobs. Karloff's was definitely the lead role, but Lugosi acquitted himself well as a relatively normal person--something he didn't play very often in films!! It seems that Dr. Rukh is a bit of a pariah, as other scientists (especially Benet) think his theories are bizarre and nonsensical. However, over the course of the film, Rukh turns out to be right and Benet is especially generous in his new praise for Rukh. But, unfortunately, the wonderful new element that Rukh discovered has the nasty side effect of turning him into a crazy killing machine (don't you hate it when that happens?). While this could have just been a simple nice scientist turned mad story, the plot was well constructed, the characters nicely developed and the mad Rukh was NOT a one-dimensional killer, but complex and interesting.

This film is bound to be enjoyed by anyone except for people who hate old horror films. You can really tell that Universal Pictures pulled out all the stops and made a bigger-budget film instead of the cheap quickies both Lugosi and Karloff unfortunately gravitated in later years. Good stuff. For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness ("I can see!" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).

There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock.

There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun.

One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will.

Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science.

If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: "I can see!" There are so many good things to say about this “B” movie.

“B’ maybe in connections, but not in commission. This is about the best of its genre that I have ever seen. A grade A effort by Universal. The script is well done, imaginative, and without fault. Writing credits: Howard Higgin original story & Douglas Hodges story, John Colton (screenplay). Director Lambert Hillyer handled the complex story and story locations very well. No skimping on the loads of extras and locations. I loved Beulah Bondy (Jimmy Stewarts mother in “It’s A Wonderful Life”. The fem lead, Frances Drake is a beauty and handled her part with grace and pathos for her Karloff husband. Lugosi likewise was correctly underplayed. I think this is the best part I remember seeing him in. As I said there were so many good things: the African discovery of the Radium “X”, the melting of the stone statues ((somewhat reminiscent of the Ten Little Indians in And Then There Were None (Agatha Christie) (the Barry Fitzgerald version)), the glowing of Karlof in the dark. Karloff’s mother played by Violet Kemble Cooper with elegance. And because of all these virtues, I found myself believing in the science it portrayed. I guess that’s the mark of a good piece of art. Boris and Bela do well together in this film,whether they are against each other, or paddling the same boat.I saw this one in 1972, and just purchased it from Borders this year. This time watching it with my children,I took note of 2 things: It held the attention of a 3, 4 and 5 year old; and I caught a few things I hadn't when I first watched it.Very swift story with an unpredictable end. A must for movie buffs!!! The thirties horror films that are best remembered are always the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein; and there's a very good reason for that, but there were a number of smaller but nevertheless excellent productions, and The Invisible Ray is certainly one of them. The plot is not particularly original and similar plots have been seen many times before (even way back in 1936) but the way that everything is put together is certainly very imaginative and director Lambert Hillyer has created a very nifty little original horror film. The plot focuses on the good hearted Dr Janos Rukh; a man who has discovered a way to recreate the history of the Earth. His discovery leads him to believe that there may be an unknown radioactive element somewhere in Africa and so he sets off along with a team of esteemed colleagues to find it. However, tragedy strikes while on the expedition and the good doctor ends up becoming exposed to the element; which makes him glow in the dark, and also sends him mad...

The biggest draw of the film is undoubtedly the fact that it stars the two biggest horror stars of its day - Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, and both give excellent performances. Karloff really shows what a good actor he is and his character has plenty of meat for Karloff to impress with. Bela Lugosi has a role which is extremely different from what we're used to seeing him in, and it's a great performance from him also; it's nice to see a bit of versatility from Lugosi. The film does get off to a rather slow start; but things soon start to pick up. The second half of the film is the best and that's really when the film gets exciting and Karloff gets a chance to shine (literally). The film does not put its focus on big special effects and largely relies on the actions of the central character to keep things interesting; and it does work very well. The film remains interesting throughout and boils down to a very decent climax that wraps everything up nicely. Overall, The Invisible Ray may not be one of the very best horror films of the thirties; but it's a very good one and comes recommended. Prof. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) discovers Radium X--a powerful force to be used for atomic power. Unfortunately Rukh has been contaminated by the Radium and starts to glow in the dark--and his touch causes instant death. Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) develops an antidote--but Rukh starts to go mad due to the Radium AND the antidote and sets out to kill all he believed wronged him.

The plot is silly and the "effects" that make Karloff glow in the dark are laughable, but this is still a fun little chiller. It moves quickly, has some great atmosphere (notice Rukh's "house" and the movie starts on a dark and rainy night) and Karloff and Lugosi (as always) give great performances. There is also good acting by Franic Drake (as Rukh's wife) and Violet Kemble Cooper (as his mother). So it's OK but just a notch below all the other Karloff/Lugosi movies. The plot is just too far-fetched for me to swallow. Still I did like this. I give it a 7. Scientist working frantically in seclusion finds a way to locate the impact crater of a meteor carrying a new radioactive element. All (pseudo)science and breakthrough technology talks of the 1930s are right there, including the idea that radioactivity could heal any illness if properly harnessed. When he summons his rivals -who had cast him out of the scientific community and ridiculed him - to witness his discovery, they propose a 'joint' expedition to Africa...of course they end up stealing much of dr. Rukh's original discovery, giving him only residual credit. In addition to that, an effeminate weakling who looks like a supporting comedy actor from the worst Abbot&Costello (Lawton) literally steals dr. Rukh's young trophy wife (Drake), who falls head over heels for that scrap of a human being. Having grown horns like a deer wasn't going to make dr. Rukh (Karloff) any friendlier, so he embarks in an undercover revenge mission...killing 2 of his foes and friendly dr. Benet (Lugosi), the only one who had helped him...finally succumbing to the deadly radiations that had allowed him to embark in his revenge to start with but ( to my utmost dissatisfaction ) sparing the adulteress and that poor excuse for a human being she had married. Acting is mostly fine, with Karloff & Lugosi being very good. Check the hysterical chambermaid scene... Other characters aren't worth mentioning... Recommended, much like ALL old Universal horrors... Horror Gods Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi should be more than sufficient a reason for any Genre-lover to watch a film, and, even though the most convincing one they are not the only reason to watch this particular little Sci-Fi/Horror gem. While Lambert Hillyer's "The Invisible Ray" of 1936 does not nearly share the brilliance of other contemporary films starring Karloff ("Frankenstein, "Bride Of Frankenstein", "The Mummy",...) or Lugosi ("White Zombie", "Island Of The Lost Souls", "Dracula",...), or both ("The Black Cat", "The Raven",...), this is doubtlessly a highly entertaining film that no lover of cult cinema should consider missing. Compared to other Universal Horror pictures, the storyline seems a bit silly, but in a delightful manner. Karloff and Lugosi, of course, shine as always, and the film furthermore profits from great sceneries and an excellent photography. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a brilliant scientist who has invented a technique to look into the past through a telescope, and finds out that a meteor has hit the earth thousands of years ago. Stunned by Rukh's invention, the celebrated French scientist Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), invites him to join an expedition in to find the meteor. In Africa, Rukh makes a discovery that is capable of causing great beneficence and great destruction alike... It is somewhat odd that Karloff, who was in fact British, plays a Hungarian scientist here while Lugosi, who was Hungarian, plays a French Scientist, but they are both excellent as usual. As far as I am concerned, these two Horror Deities could have probably been filmed reading the telephone directory, and I am sure they would have made something out of it - either man is an icon of the Horror genre, and seeing them together is a treat for every fan of the genre. By the way, this is one of the few films, if not the only one, in which it is obvious that Lugosi was actually taller than Karloff. Frances Drake makes a very good female lead in her role of Dr Rukh's beautiful young wife. The rest of the performances are also good, if not particularly worth mentioning. Other than the casting of Karloff and Lugosi, the film's greatest qualities are probably the atmosphere due to great settings and photography, as well as the wonderfully cheesy and highly entertaining storyline. My main complaint is that I would have wished for more screen time for Lugosi, and for his role to have a bit more significance. He is fantastic as always, but his role could have been bigger, and more sinister. Otherwise, "The Invisible Ray" is a wonderfully entertaining film which should satisfy every lover of classic Horror/Sci-Fi cinema, and a must-see for all my fellow Lugosi/Karloff fans. The third collaboration for Karloff and Lugosi sees a move away from Poe and into the realm of the science fiction serial. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, creator of a device that can capture light rays through his telescope in the Carpathian Mountains and translate them into pictures that form a visual history of the universe.

Before several guests, including Lugosi as Dr. Benet, an astro-chemist who had previously scoffed at Rukh's theories, he demonstrates the existence of an unknown radioactive element, here termed "Radium X", contained in a meteor that fell to Earth in darkest Africa several thousand years ago. Karloff joins the expedition to prove his theories, but Radium X is a tricky compound - it levels mountains at long range, and cures blindness at short range. Rukh is careless, however, and poisons himself, glowing in the dark rather like those old Ready Breck commercials! Dr. Benet is on hand to devise a counter-active for the radiation, but combination of poison and cure drives Rukh insanely paranoid. Convinced he has been cheated, he seeks out the members of the expedition in Paris, including his estranged wife, and his very touch while in his radioactive state means death...

Along the way we get the old pseudo-scientific idea that a dead person's eyes record the image of their killer (a remarkably distinct Karloff!) and the Radium X device used to symbolically melt statues that represent the expedition members. And even a touch of James Whale in a cockney landlady in Paris!

The Invisible Ray is great fun, aside from the Gothic opening it's interesting to see Universal move the action around to Africa and Paris. The film lacks pace, but is always absorbing. Karloff slightly overdoes his performance but Lugosi is terrific. Universal used the basic story outline again in Man Made Monster, this time with Lon Chaney Jr. as the glowing menace (this time caused by electricity) and Lionel Atwill as a much madder doctor than Lugosi is here. The Invisible Ray is a sombre and clever little film with much to admire. Not as famous as other Universal Horrors, perhaps, but it works and is highly entertaining. Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher. One of the joys of picking up the recent Bela Lugosi collection is getting to see delightful movies like The Invisible Ray. Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi team up in a movie that delves into meteorites and radiation and while the science is all perfectly absurd (especially the camera technique Karloff, as Janos Rukh, uses to determine the site of a certain meteorite) and downright laughable, I didn't care in the lease because the movie is thoroughly enjoyable. The effects are done well for the time, the acting is great, and the finish is particularly strong. It reminds me of the pulp sci-fi comics and novels of the 1940s and '50s, complete with ray guns and ridiculous science. You must watch this movie! "The Invisible Ray" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.

Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.

Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names "Radium X". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.

Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.

While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.

But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........

Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.

At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way. So many consider The Black Cat as the best Karloff/Lugosi collaboration. I disagree. The Invisible Ray is their best. A great storyline, fantastic special effects, and classic Karloff over-acting. I love it!! This is what I call a "pre Sci Fi; Sci Fi" movie. It gets no better than Lugosi/Karloff in this incredibly good "mood" type motion picture. These two genuine artists are at their very best, as is the story line.

Karloff does an amazing job as a scientist that sees himself caught in a vise of vanity, pride, and scientific competition. I was caught up in the idea of watching a man as he drowns himself in the three previously mentioned concepts. I was saddened and at the same time fascinated with the two stars as they do themselves in.

This is the sort of motion picture that begs for a remake. This time put Harrison Ford in the Karloff part and maybe Kieffer Sutherland as the Bela Lagosi role. It might be possible to do it almost as good.

This is one of the very best that Hollywood EVER produced. As I said..it gets no better. No way. It's awesome! In Story Mode, your going from punk to pro. You have to complete goals that involve skating, driving, and walking. You create your own skater and give it a name, and you can make it look stupid or realistic. You are with your friend Eric throughout the game until he betrays you and gets you kicked off of the skateboard team(you can pick a team to be on) and you then start your own team! There are many levels like New Jersey, Manhattan, and even School II(not part of story mode though) from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. You can unlock secret skaters like Iron Man, Gene Simmons, and another skater. You can create your own goals like SKATE letters, COMBO letters, Tricktris, Gap, and much more. You can create the goal pedestrian and write what they speak. If you get bored of doing that, you can do the premade goals in premade parks. The only thing I didn't like about this game was that sometimes it was hard to drive the cars. 9/10. Tony Hawk Underground came at a point where the series was really starting to lose its luster, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 did not live up to expectations and left the series really up in the air on what Neversoft and Activision could do with the series that would be different and interesting.

Underground introduced the storymode, which was very cool because it made a whole new world for Tony Hawk Pro Skater fans. Another feature introduced which fans pretty much argued for and that was being able to get off the skateboard, which is nice because now you can actually climb, run, and do all sorts of new things.

The levels are good, Neversoft also improved on an issue that started with Pro Skater 3 and that was the length of the level designs. The first two games for the PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were great because the levels were nice and long and some hidden features in some. Pro Skater 3 and 4 were shortened because of a handful of features that were added and really pushed the systems too their limits. In this version, they shortened those features, there isn't as many people wondering the streets, in fact there are almost none in some levels, and the graphics and the skating physics are toned down a little but not a lot.

This game does have one con, the storymode is a little short, of course this is Neversofts first time doing this with Tony Hawk Pro Skater, so that is understandable. However, with that being said you will definitely finish this game within a day.

Overall, a great addition that was very refreshing. I did not expect the performances of Gackt and Hyde to be as well done as they were, nor did I expect them to be cast in such an artistic well-developed movie with enough plot to keep you interested and enough diversity to make it original. This movie was an unexpected masterpiece for me, and I'll be on the lookout for the next movie like it. I especially like the fact that it is a vampire movie, but it wasn't a cheesy vampire flick, nor did it over embellish that fact. The characters all had human traits. The way it shows the growth of the characters was incredibly tasteful, and it makes you actually feel sorry for them throughout their lives. I give this movie two thumbs so far up. Definitely the best movie I have seen in the past five years. When I first heard about Moon Child, I thought it was a joke. After a few months, I figured I guess it's for real. The few reviews I read that WEREN'T made by squealing fangirls were not very promising.

When I was given the opportunity to watch it, I was fully prepared to groan, wince, and otherwise need to close my eyes to avoid the silliness.

I was more than a little surprised, and in a good way.

Yes, Moon Child has its moments of cheese, camp, and general dorkiness -- I think that's kind of impossible to avoid when it involves Gackt Camui, a man not known for his sanity -- but all in all, it was wholly enjoyable.

No, it is not a work of cinema genius but it is very, very heartfelt, amusing, with fun choreography, a touching score, and a fun cast. I know little of Japanese cinema so I can't really judge the acting but considering the fact that the cast was speaking a language or extreme dialect foreign to them at one time or another and that a couple of them have almost no acting experience, I was rather impressed.

If you can enjoy a good action movie, a good drama, a good comedy, see this film. At least rent it since it's coming to Region 1.

On a side note, there is zero homosexual/homoerotic content in this film. I didn't even see much of a subtext. Don't let people that read too much into things ruin this for you. I must admit, at first I wasn't expecting anything good, at all. I was only expecting a cheesy movie promoting Gackt's and Hyde's image, but I'm glad to say it has much more to offer.

Yes, the acting is not that great, but it doesn't suck either, all the cast's well disciplined and they bring enough strength to their characters. Effects lack consistency but action scenes are satisfying enough.

What really hooked me up was the essence of the storyline, although it merges fantastic elements, it also displays a crude reality. The developing of the characters, their doubts and their feelings really got on to me and I think that's the key of this movie. It puts you to think and it does well transmitting all the angst.

It fulfills any expectations for a good drama. I would definitely recommend it to everyone. I must admit - the only reason I bought this movie was because I am a big fan of Gackt and a *huge* fan of Hyde. I was expecting a good movie with a lot of shots that were, shall we say, pleasing to the feminine eye but a slightly cheesy story. I mean, the synopsis sounded really out there. And now that I have just finished watching it - I feel the need to tell the world of its brilliance! Hyde and Gackt both gave heart-wrenching performances, and my eyes are still hot from the crying that lasted throughout the last half of the movie. You get sucked into the story, and you really feel for the characters by the end. The element of vampirism - which I love, but is very easy to overdo or to ruin a movie with - is subtly mixed into the storyline as to make it something merely exotic, normal to this setting, rather than a random unnecessary addition to the story. I ranked it at a 9 out of 10 at first...and then I went back and tried to think of why I wasn't giving it that last point. Came up with nothing. So a ten out of ten it is. After all - I'm not much of a critic - the fact that I'm bothering to write a review at all means I either really hate the movie or really love it. You can tell what side I'm on with Moon Child. Despite what others had said (*cough*), this is my favourite movie of all time. I don't know how long I had been waiting to see it, but once I finally did, I immediately fell in love. Sure, it's strange, but that just gives it more of an exciting flavour. For those who don't know, Moonchild is one of Gackt and Hyde's first movies. They haven't done very many at all, maybe 3 or 4 tops each. So, give them some credit. We all know that Adam Sandler wasn't the best at first either. I do believe that they do throw some odd situations in there, but I over look that to find the best points of this movie, the emotions displayed and whatnot. Therefore, I have given, and always shall give, this movie a 10 out of 10. This movie is really special. It's a very beautiful movie. Which starts with three orphans, Sho, his brother Shinji and their friend Toshi, They're poor children's, living on the street, but one day they succeeded to steal a bag full of money, and then their able to live on, to buy a house, and their life seems to become much better. They're making new friend, life-friends. But something went wrong and they're becoming enemies and it all ends up with them killing each other.

I was negative about this movie in the beginning, because when singers (Gackt - Solo, ex-singer in Malice Mizer, Hyde - Solo, singer in L'Arc~en~Ciel, both very famous in Japan and Wang Lee-Hom - Taiwanese singer) trying to become actors, but this isn't like the other singers-going-actors-movies. They're doing a great job, and with no earlier experience in movies (except for Lee-Hom, who had been in two movies before).

This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. Maybe that's a little because I'm a very big fan of Hyde, but - it was this movie who made me discover him.

Well, Gackt (playing the main character - the orphan Sho) was a part of the group who wrote the script, and it was he who insisted that Hyde should play Sho's friend, the vampire Kei. At that time they didn't know each other, at least not like friends. But after the movie they became really good friend, and that shows us too that they really worked hard on this movie and that they had good cooperation.

The movie have many different feelings running trough the story, Love, Hate, Sadness, Pain, Loneliness, Happiness and so on. I think the first hour are the best, it's so beautiful. After that people are dying, Kei's leaving and it all changes so much. But still it's a great movie, it's the only movie who has ever made me cry, it ends up so sad, but still beautiful.

So if you haven't seen this movie, you really should. Because it's wonderful, but sad. You won't regret it. ^^ This is, by all categories, the best movie I have ever seen. Forget Hollywood - their movies always sucked - this is art! Moon Child's story starts with Kei - a Japanese vampire, who loathes what he has become and lives in denial. His wish for final death leads him to Mallepa, where refugees from several Asian countries live. Here, he meets Sho, an orphan living on the street.

From here, the movie is an intense experience which bases on the visual and emotional part of the movie. It has everything; you laugh, you cry, you get angry, excited, sad, happy... Never has a movie touched me the way this movie do. And the actors are amazing - never have I heard anyone speak so many languages without it sounding strange. A big praise to the editor for creating this masterpiece...

A last comment on this brilliant movie, is that it stars Gackt (ex-vocalist of Malice Mizer) and Hyde (vocalist of L'Arc~en~ciel) in excellent roles as Sho and Kei. I am amazed at how Gackt can change his way of speaking and acting depending on what age he is acting out.

This is a must see. If you never see any films, see Moon Child, the Crow (Brandon Lee) and the newly released masterpiece Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children. All in their original languages, of course! I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch. Based on the idea from Gackt, Moon Child took place in a poverty-stricken country called Mallepa. In a futuristic timeline, the story followed the lives of the two main characters, Kei (HYDE) and Sho (Gackt) and their friends growing up together.

Despite some actions might be overly done or perhaps humorous, I strongly believed that this is a movie about friendship. Even amongst all the hardships between each character, in the end, each of them wanted to have someone on their side, to have friends.

Unlike most vampire characters, Kei portrayed a vampire that loathed the idea of having to kill in order to live. A vampire found friendship in the hand of a young boy, Sho who's not afraid of Kei. Regardless of what some might've thought, I see Kei as a fatherly figure to Sho. Kei was there throughout the earlier life of Sho, he took care of him, and taught him to live in a world where power between gangs controls their lives. On the other hand, Sho who perhaps can be seen as an innocent enthusiastic style young man, he grew up to be a man who realised that life isn't all about fun and games, that death exists and able to take away his loved ones.

I love the part where Lee Hom, the actor who played Son, first appeared on the screen. The way they met up was quite cool indeed. Son also has a big part within this movie, the fact that he's from a different race, a Taiwanese, made quite an impact to the friendship theme within the movie. The way how friendships were developed despite background differences was portrayed excellently in this movie.

I believed that each actor did a great job considering that this was their first time to appear in such big screen movie. Both HYDE and Gackt managed to act quite well and created quite believable characters. Unlike movies that had musician turned actors and filled the movie with songs, they've done great acting jobs! Moon Child really made an impact for me, it has given friendships a new meaning and consideration, that we have to appreciate every friendship in our lifetimes. The movie shows a lot of hope, despite all the bad things that happen in their lives, that there's always hope. Life can be cruel, that it seems hope doesn't exist anymore. It also shows a very strong sense of friendships between each other, even when Son became the enemy, Sho did have some sort of "fun" at their last battle. Every single one of them desired peace in the end, no matter how far apart they've become. The ending scene showed it to us. Moon Child, starring Japanese rockers Hyde and Gackt, was a better movie then I expected. In fact, I was very impressed and it immediately became one of my favorite movies.

Set in Mallepa, the story follows a group of street orphans, Sho, Sho's brother Shinji, and Toshi who rob and murder to make a living. On one of robberies, Sho encounters Hyde's Kei vampire burning in the sunlight. Through the coarse of events Kei's true nature is shown, yet no one shuns him away.

The time passes and implies that the immortal, never-changing Kei has raised Sho, and the two have a an extremely close bond. Sho and Kei then encounter Son in an outrageous gun fight, and they become quick friends. Both Kei and Hyde fall in love with Son's sister, Yi-Che.

Time skips ahead again and shows a grown Sho, this time void of Kei. It also explains that Sho and Son have become enemies.

Through tragedy after tragedy this movie dives into the reality of life and all it's hardships, focusing on friendship and love. It is a truly touching movie that is sad yet beautiful at the same time.

As for the acting, I think Gackt did a magnificent job. Hyde did an amazing job for a first timer.

The shots were beautiful, but the movie did have it's rare and short gruesome shots.

All in all, I must say this movie is amazing, moving, and I highly recommend it. I voted 8 for this movie because of some minor childish flaws. Other than that, this movie is one of my favorites! It's entertaining to say the least. The shooting scenes are ridiculous though, and I think Gackt (who wrote the book) takes a little bit too much of his "Matrix obsession" into it. It seems like their enemies just stands there...waiting to get shot at. However, this movie is touching and it always makes me cry. It has a lot of GREAT humor in it so it makes me laugh as well. Gackt is a superb actor I must say..he shows so much emotion. This was Hyde's first time acting and he did okay. The role fits him. Wang Lee Hom is absolutely great. The whole cast is what I would say, perfect for this movie. DON'T MISS IT! YOU'LL REGRET IT! Beautifully done. A lot of angst. Friendship may not endure all, but in the end it's all that matters, or so a group of friends learn. I have watched it over and over again. The music is also amazing. When Kei loses the one friend he has he gives up until he meets Sho, an orphan boy who is not repelled by his true nature. In the lawless streets of Mallepa they struggle for their own place among a melting pot of Asian races, and learn that sometimes being on top can cost you more than you are ever ready to pay. A surprise ending that grips as much as the whole movie does. I couldn't get enough of it. Gackt and Hyde do a wonderful job of acting, proving they are more than pretty boys who sing. Being a huge fan of the Japanese singers Gackt and Hyde, I was terribly excited when I found out that they had made a film together and made it my mission in life to see it. I was not disappointed. In fact, this film greatly exceeded my expectations. Knowing that both Gackt and Hyde are singers rather than actors, I was prepared for brave yet not really that fulfilling performances, but am delighted to say that both of them managed to keep me captivated and believing the story as it went on. Moon Child has just the right amount of humour, action, romance and serious, heart-wrenching moments. I can't say that I've ever cried more at a film and these more tender moments are admirably acted by the pair, in my opinion, definitely proving their skills as actors. The fight scenes are absolutely stunning and although there are a few moments of uncertainty to begin with, you are quick to get into the movie and begin to bond with the characters. I thoroughly recommend this film to anyone, especially those who are fans of Gackt and Hyde. I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right??

Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.

At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.

It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.

I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf. Moon Child is the story of two brothers and a friend trying to make it in a futuristic, economically-unstable Japan. After a cunning disaster gone wrong, someone new enters young Sho's life, a special friend by the name of Kei. Years later they have grown rather close, and have found ways to combine both their talents into one unstoppable team. During another escapade, they encounter a new friend and his mute sister who become part of their band of friends. Before long disaster again strikes and the group falls apart. Alliances turn to enemies and their worlds are all turned upside down. Regrets and hopelessness claim some while power and success take others. Tragedy claims still others. Truths are revealed and lives are forever changed.

And you will never see a more beautiful sunrise.

This movie is a gripping tale of undying friendships, webs of relationships, and a team that not even death can keep apart for too long. Moon child combines sci-fi, drama, and action with the perfect cast and talent to create the most sensationally moving movie of the time, and great for most audiences. It minimizes the everyday romances and puts more emphasis on the important values we can all relate to such as friendships, loyalty, and believing in yourself. Nothing could possibly compare. I personally have never seen anything quite like it, and I don't suspect I ever will again.

It appeals to the wider population in many ways and is a must see for all. Vampires, sexy guys, guns and some blood. Who could ask for more? Moon Child delivers it all in one nicely packaged flick! Gackt is the innocent Sho - who befriends a Vampire Kei (HYDE), their relationship grows with time but as Sho ages, Kei's immortality breaks his heart. It doesn't help that they both fall in love with the same woman. The special effects are pretty good considering the small budget. It's a touching story ripe with human emotions. You will laugh, cry, laugh, then cry some more. Even if you are not a fan of their music, SEE THIS FILM. It works great as a stand alone Vampire movie.

9 out of 10 This movie is amazing. The plot was just...wow.

I was very surprised by Gackt's and Hyde's performance, after growing up in the American world of the actors who can't sing and singers who can't act.

In this movie, a young Sho (Gackt) comes across a vampire, Kei (Hyde). Over time, they form an unlikely friendship. Kei is suffering because of how he is forced to live off others, the half-life of a vampire.

It's a sad movie, but not sappy. The plot was very unique, and contrary to your typical vampire flick. The storyline was thick with twists and turns and very entrancing.

The only fault I would say the movie had, despite it's lack of a happy--albeit peaceful—ending, would be it's multiple languages. I had the unsubdued version (I'm lucky that I understood it all save some of the Cantonese), so I would recommend getting something with subtitles.

All in all, the movie was just awesome. Moonchild is a very difficult movie to categorise. It's easiest to think of it as several snapshots of the lives of the two central characters. The fact that these characters are members of a street gang set in an multicultural city of the near future and that one of them is a vampire does not preclude them from having moments like any other people, and this is one of the places where this movie is different to anything else I've ever heard of. It doesn't get wrapped up in the fact that one of the main characters is a vampire, it's just something that has to be dealt with like any other problem. The way the characters interact is surprisingly realistic- there are embarrassing relatives and tricks that are meant to look cool that just don't work, which leaves the film with a lovely sense of not taking itself too seriously for the most part.

The other area that really stood out to me is the languages. The fictional city of Mallepa contains various cultural groups, and characters speak the language that they would be expected to speak. Japanese gang members speak Japanese to each other, but Chinese when talking to characters of Chinese descent. Possibly the most amusing exchange involves an Australian and is conducted in English. The actors of the four arguably main characters have three separate mother tongues between them and speak varying levels of each others' languages, so it's quite a feat that the movie was made at all. Which, I suppose, brings me to the lead actors.

Much has been made of the fact that the movie stars two of Japan's biggest rockstars, Gackt and Hyde, as well as Taiwanese superstar Lee-hom Wang, whether it is to praise them for their acting or criticise it or simply fangirl about them. In my opinion, Lee-hom is the best at playing a straight and realistic character. However, any lack of acting ability on Gackt's part is mostly masked by the fact that the character he plays is prone to being over-dramatic. I wasn't sure if Hyde's character was supposed to be as sulky and sarcastic as he came across, but it doesn't really detract from the movie either way.

There are several scenes which take rather melodramatic turns, which made it difficult for them to affect me much emotionally (Although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people). I found it's best to just enjoy the movie for what it is and not take it too seriously- It's perfect for getting out and watching with a group of friends. It does have its flaws, but overall it was very enjoyable and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind a few subtitles. Moon Child was one of the more symbolic movies I've seen. What I really liked about it was the illustration on immorality/mortality,and the obstacles and guidances through life. The movie depicts a great deal of vampire Kei having the power of immorality and the advantages to it. Whether if it is having supernatural abilities or everlasting life, these are what humans usually wish for. Moon Child shows the pain and disadvantages of being immortal, since the feelings towards loss impacts almost all the characters especially to the main characters Sho and Kei. The meaning of the title 'Moon Child' reveals as the film comes close to the end where it clearly shows that everyone is a moon which shines other people's way, giving guidance. I personality quite like that moral the movie depicted on. The weaknesses of the film lies in some parts of the acting and special effects since it made the film less authentic. The scene where character Toshi dies could have been more powerful and realistic if more authentic emotions in the acting were put into it. Some scenes with special effects like the gun shots also could have been more authentic without making it seem too much like an action video game. The sparks that came out of the guns appeared too fake and I think that could have been eliminated or fixed. Nevertheless, I think Moon Child should be a movie everyone should consider watching. The symbolic ideas and images the movie brings out would be easily accepted by everyone and may interest many viewers. It is quite a thoughtful film and also entertaining to watch. Many people judge it as a fan service film because a lot of super star starring in this movie (Gackt, Hyde, and Wang Lee Hom is very famous singer in Japan). But don't judge it before you watch, is what I say. Gackt and staff are very serious when made this film, and they worked so hard. It's a good film with a touchy story inside. Several scenes can be so fun and some others are so sad. They made it so good until I can't stop watching this all over again.

The story has written pretty well but I admit that their act are little disappointing. This is especially for Hyde because his skill of acting is under from the other and it is weird to hear the way when he speaks with other language except his native language (Japan). But, it's comprehensibility because this is their first time to act in the movie.

I think Gackt trying to show us about how someone can be so weak when they lose the most important person in their life. When Toshi was killed, when Sho asked Kei to turn Yi-Che to being vampire like him because he won't let her die, When Sho's Brother died, Kei Shoot Son die, and the best and beautiful scene is When Sho pass away~ even I told that Hyde's skill is still weird but I give him two thumps up at that scene!!

There's a time where The plot goes too fast like they didn't tell the reason Why Son can join the local mafia and being Sho's enemy because they are a good friend at the past and also Son is Sho's brother in law.

Whatever, I love this movie~ (very much ^^).

This is an action movie with a touching beautiful story. When I first saw this movie, the first thing I thought was this movie was more like an anime than a movie. The reason is because it involves vampires doing incredible stunts. The stunts are very much like the Matrix moves like the moving too fast for bullets kinda thing and the jumping around very far. Another reason why I the movie is good is because the adorable anime faces they do during the movie. The way Gackt does his pouting faces or just the way they act, VERY ANIME. I think that it's a really good movie to watch. ^_^ The action in this movie is a 10 (not to mention Gackt and Hyde too are a 10). ^_~ If you are Gackt and Hyde fans, you have to see it. I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.

I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.

Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.

Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.

Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's "Audition" and "Suicide Club" fame?

Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.

10/10 This movie surprised me! Not ever having heard of Hyde of Gackt I was not expecting much! The reason I wanted to watch this movie was because somebody mentioned that the movie contained some serious action scenes in John Woo style! Normally I am very careful when this is claimed! There is only one John Woo and til this day there hasn't been one director that comes close to his brilliance when it comes to action! The fact that "Moon Child" would feature a vampire convinced me even more! How can you go wrong with gun blazing vampires! Sounds promising and interesting! The first thing I noticed about this movie that the pace was considerably slow! It takes it's time to set the mood! This movie contains some nice Hong Kong style action scenes! But "Moon Child" isn't an action movie! It is a drama about friendship and loyalty! The focus is on the characters and their relation to each other! The pop singers Hyde and Gackt do a good job in acting and are very believable as friends! The only problem I had was with the plot! A couple of times the movie seems to skip a few years without explaining what happened and why they had to skip! Example:When one member of the gang dies (very dramatic moment) Alexander Wang sees Kei (Hyde) drinking blood of one of the attackers! Without warning and explanation the movie skips 9 nine years and most of the friends aren't together anymore! Also without a proper reason given Son (Alexander Wang) and Sho (Gackt) have to kill each other! I know that this is done to add some serious drama! Because of the actors it is very effective but sometimes it does feel forced! Apart from the flaws in plot this movie has an ambiance and slickness that makes it hard not to like this movie! It is hard to explain why this movie is wonderful! But it just is! The overall experience you get is heartwarming and sincere! I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...

I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first applause goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply wonderful and got into it,especially Gackt reflects his characters emotions and changes pretty well,I like many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is good but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it still has brilliant moments,but the real jewel of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments but it's OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really well developed and touching at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some memorable death scenes it reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Only problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters.But all in all;this movie is really good and very emotional sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to see their other movies in future,and I recommend this to everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 8/10 ...would probably be the best word to describe this film (in my opinion). besides one great heck of a fan service for fan girls (well, that was redundant~), it was the story that blew me away. hurray for Takahisa Zeze and Gackt! and i know some people will disagree with me on this one, but it wasn't any of the big three actors (the guys that played Sho, son, and Kei) that gave the best performance (for me, anyway). it was Taro Yamamoto, boy #5 from battle Royale!

don't get me wrong, i like Hyde, i worship his voice, but the problem was that some of his scenes came a little bit 'off', but i loved that scene where he danced with the dead guy's body killing the other guys. and Gackt wasn't at all that bad too, i preferred how his character was kind of aloof from the start. nothing much i can say about my background on lee-Hom Wang, i won't pretend to know him, but he carried his own weight with the star-studded cast.

this movie paved the way for one of the best collaborations I've ever heard, Orenji No Taiyou (forgive my spelling if it's wrong). while the complete song lasts about nine minutes, you wouldn't notice the length because you'd be enjoying hearing Gackt and Hyde together.

anyway, this movie is a must-see not only for the fans (huge fan base~) but for those who enjoy sci-fi, futuristic movies, Asian-style. This film was amazing. It had an original concept (that of a vampire movie meets Yakuza mob film). It is a humorous and yet highly dramatic and tragic movie about friendship, love, immortality, death, and happiness, and comments subtelly on society. On the part of Gackt Camui, the role of Sho was excellently delivered, and HYDE was surprisingly good for his first film as the tortured yet humorous vampire, Kei. I also laughed and cried at the happy-go-lucky character, Toshi, who grew up with Sho. I loved each and every second of this this film, especially moments such as the funny Cigarette scene, the fighting scenes, and most of all, the heartrenching ending. I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.

On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.

But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster. Indeed: drug use, warehouse shoot-'em-ups, 'Matrix'-esque bullet dodging, a futuristic city with a mix of Asian races, and a lonely vampire --all in the same movie-- seems like a story that could only be envisioned by a Japanese pop/rock star. And that is exactly what 'Moon Child' is, and more. While all these elements combined may sound like the perfect subject for a campy B-movie of the week, 'Moon Child' pulls it off with but a few expected bumps and hitches along the way.

The film has a gritty, definitely independent feel to it, jumping from one scene to the next not in smooth transition, but rather sporadic leaps and bounds, giving glimpses into the characters' lives and barely scraping at a true plot. But the film makes no excuses, instead turning the story into one of friendship, love, trust, and betrayal all sugar-coated in the aforementioned elements of a futuristic society, warring gangsters, and vampires.

HYDE as the somber vampire 'Kei' is excellent, giving depth to the character and balancing-out the overly-zealous acting of Gackt as 'Sho,' an orphan who befriends Kei. Lee-Hom Wang also shines as the vengeful 'Son' who becomes friends with a grown-up Sho. The story revolves around these characters and their extended friends and family through different periods in their lives, and how simple friendship can so easily be turned into grief and betrayal.

While the action at times is all-too unrealistic and special effects appear just to show-off, one thing the film never does is presume to be about the immensely popular Asian singers it features. The superstars as actors have their flaws, and so do their characters. The movie rarely gets boring, and ends where it should, after jumping about quite a bit. 'Moon Child' is rather enjoyable, humorous at times, and even very touching: it is definitely worth your time! No rubbish - no where even near rubbish. Not an original? thats the last thing that could be said of "2.4 children".Predictable? certainly not! Although it was somewhat an unusual series for the BBC, it was hilarious, funny, and witty. I particularly liked Belinda Lang and John Pickard - who I believe preformed wonderfully.Gary olsen was also very good and so were all the other cast members..I never quite new why it was can-celled till reading here today about Gary Olsen's death at a relatively young age. I do wish that they would make more of comedy of this type, much more of them (and show them here in Israel).Thumbs way up! A weird, witty and wonderful depiction of family life! Writer Andrew Marshall has written something that is funny, foreboding and occasionally frightening! Yes, don't be fooled by 2point4 children's cheerful tune and bubbly characters; the show has a dark side, and at times can be quite chilling. And that's what's so good about the show, it's not just a simplistic sitcom where every character is a 2D comic device (the case with My Family). Instead the characters are fully rounded individuals that show the full roller-coaster of human emotions. The occasionally dark moments such as Bill being supposedly haunted by a curse and Ben waking up in a bizarre village are two examples of the show taking a surreal, dark turn, that help add a little depth. Of course the show is also incredibly funny, and is a guaranteed to make you smile. It's a real shame Eureka Video have stopped releasing this comical gold on DVD. Veoh.com is your last hope to get hold of episodes unavliable in the shops. This first two seasons of this comedy series were very strange and they weren't very funny and had a drama element where Bill (the mother) was struggling with all the usual problems in life but that element was a bit depressing and didn't mix well with th comedy elements which is probably why it was dropped. After that it soon became one of the funniest comedy series the BBC have ever made! The chemistry between Bill and Ben's character's were very funny and there was always so many brilliant and memorable sketches in each series. The Christmas specials were hilarious and a real treat for Christmas.

The show came to a stop when the main actor Gary Olsen playing Bill passed away which was very sad because he was a brilliant actor in films such as Up 'n' Under and a very funny man RIP

This underrated show has sadly disappeared from our television screens and doesn't to be repeated that often - Though it does appear on UKTV Gold once in a while but it should be repeated on BBC one or two to show this brilliant Comedy to a new audience Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day "My Family". Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. "Bloody Thatcher" possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of "catherine Tate" "the office" "little Britain" and bring back the classics! this is one of the funniest shows i have ever seen. it is really refreshing to watch and i was in stitches many times. i guess there is a social awareness factor to this too which makes it quite interesting. if these were white girls would they get the same reaction? maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't? the characters know no limits (check my lyrics) and do not exclude anyone from their twisted sense of fun!There are so many funny sketches. my favorites is the bob the builder one. it's so silly it's genius. if you like twisted black comedy then this is for you. if you like keeping up appearances it probably isn't.3 non blonde's is yet another hilarious British BBC comedy shown on TV! It is such a funny show and the characters unleashed on the unsuspecting public are laugh at loud funny! It would be impossible to keep a straight face watching the crazy characters and the reactions of the public! This series easily adds to the excellent comedies being produced! Budget limitations, time restrictions, shooting a script and then cutting it, cutting it, cutting it... This crew is a group of good, young filmmakers; thoughtful in this script - yes, allegorical - clever in zero-dollar effects when time and knowledge is all you have, relying on actors and friends and kind others for their time, devotion, locations; and getting a first feature in the can, a 1-in-1000 thing. These guys make films. Good ones. Check out their shorts collection "Heartland Horrors" and see the development. And I can vouch, working with them is about the most fun thing you'll do in the business. I'm stymied by harsh, insulting criticism for this film, wondering if one reviewer even heard one word of dialogue, pondered one thought or concept, or if all that was desired of this work was the visual gore of bashing and slashing to satisfy some mindless view of what horror should mean to an audience. Let "The Empty Acre" bring itself to you. Don't preconceive what you expect it should be just because it gets put in the horror/thriller genre due to its supernatural premise. It's a drama with depth beyond how far you can stick a blade into someone with a reverence for a message that doesn't assault your brain's visual center, but rather, draws upon one's empathetic imagination to experience other's suffering of mind and spirit. mark ridgway, Curtis, "The Empty Acre" Those of the "Instant Gratification" era of horror films will no doubt complain about this film's pace and lack of gratuitous effects and body count. The fact is, "The Empty Acre" is a good a example of how independent horror films should be done.

If you avoid the indie racks because you are tired of annoying teens or twenty somethings getting killed by some baddie whose back-story could have come off the back of a Count Chocula box, "The Empty Acre" is the movie for you.

Set in the decaying remnants of the rural American dream, "The Empty Acre" is the tale of a young couple struggling with the disappearance of their six-month-old baby. As the couple's weak relationship falls apart, a larger story plays out in the background. At night, a shapeless dark mass seethes from a sun baked barren acre on their farm and seemingly devours anything in its path, leaving no sign that it was ever there.

The film is loaded with enigmatic characters and visual clues as to what is happening, and ends with a well executed ending that resonates with just enough left over questions to validate the writer/director's faith in an intellectual audience.

There seems to be a sub-text concerning the death of the American dream, but I would hardly call the film an allegory. Riveting, well acted, and technically astute, "The Empty Acre" is a fantastic little indie that thinking horror fans should love. Hugh (Ed Harris) is a hotshot, bachelor senator determined to run for president. One day, however, he happens upon an old high school classmate named Aggie. Aggie (Diane Keaton) is an accomplished and award-winning author with a lovely face and an independent spirit. Hugh is smitten. He convinces Aggie to become his fiancé. But, will Aggie have to sacrifice her principles of honesty in the world of politics, where things are not always what they seem to be? And, will she be able to withstand the rigors of a harsh media blitz? This is, mostly, a nice romance for those who adore tales of affection. Hugh and Aggie are absolutely in love and their banter and conversation are a good view. However, although the movie tries to show the political life in its reality, it doesn't completely succeed. Nevermind. The production values are high and the script is very elegantly written. With these advantages and the handsome personages of Keaton and Harris, those who sit down to the film will find it to be good entertainment. To me, the final scene, in which Harris responds to the press corp, is worthy of viewing this intelligent and timeless slice of politics(especially the campaign phase). If only the "real-life" pols would respond in the intelligent, articulate manner as did Mr Harris,then the arrogant, self-serving members of the press would perhaps think twice before surfacing irrelevant, confrontational "garbage" that has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates abilities to effectively handle the challenges of the office for which he/she is pursuing. I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.

One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.

Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it. It's hard to say anything about a movie like this because there isn't enough words to give this magnificent, stylish and unique film the veneration it unquestionably deserves. They should make this the official and only true real Hamlet -movie because all the previous films out of the same immortal spectacle are being overshadowed by Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet".

It's a perfect, complete version of the play, potent, massive, earthshaking first-class masterpiece Shakespeare would have been proud of. They've packed over a dozen of world-famous top actors in the same film and everyone of them is having one of the greatest performances of their career. Every moving and charming sequence leaves behind a comprehensive sense of satisfaction.

The cameras embrace gracefully the enchanting coulisses. Branagh is phenomenal in the leading role. His sharp, irresistible performance is the only one of it's kind and will be permanently part of the glorious movie history. Every second in this presentation is feast for the movie lover from beginning to the very end. Branagh's version of "Hamlet" is among the ten best motion pictures ever. What an ambitious project Kenneth Branagh undertook here and how well it was realized! This is the first filmed version of 'Hamlet' to use the full text of Shakespeare's play, but Branagh didn't do it just because "it was there." His intention, I believe, was to make the play accessible and understandable to the general viewer without dumbing it down, so to speak. In return he asks viewers to put in a little work themselves, a fair enough proposition and one that's a bargain.

The setting is a generic 19th century European one and this does more than work well, it keeps a modern or ancient look from possibly distracting from the work itself. The production design and cinematography and both outstanding, which helps immensely when you're watching a four-hour movie. Branagh's casting once again is inspired and the acting is likewise. The direction accomplishes the heavy task of making this a movie rather than a deluxe version of a play. Since so much of 'Hamlet' is based on interior monologue and there are relatively few duels, battles, etc., this can be a daunting task. But everything Branagh tries to do seems to work.

Branagh has always been one of the most interesting actor/writer/directors, if not always the best, since he made his big splash with 'Henry V.' One quibble I had with him was what I saw as a tendency to ham it up at times. In his portrayal of Hamlet here he might be accused of that again, but there is a method at work. Let's face it, 'Hamlet' is not an easy work for the average person to understand and if one has never seen it performed before, he or she needs help even if they've read the play. Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearian character and Branagh makes sure that his viewers know what this man is thinking and feeling throughout the film, even if you don't know the literal meaning of every arcane word. This performance by Branagh was at the very least worthy of an Oscar nomination.

There are so many other outstanding performances here they're almost too numerous to mention, but some of them must be acknowledged. Derek Jacobi as Claudius is superb but even he takes a back seat to Kate Winslet when it comes to handing out praise. Her portrayal of Ophelia is awesome in its depth of feeling, made only more outstanding by the knowledge that she was only about 20 years old at the time! She looks to me like the finest young actress around. Other super performers in no particular order are Richard Briers, Nicholas Farrell, Michael Maloney, and Reece Dinsdale and Timothy Spall as Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, respectively. Honorable mention goes to Julie Christie, Charlton Heston, and Robin Williams, who manages to do his thing here successfully. Even Billy Crystal as a gravedigger works. The one cast member who doesn't, inexplicably, is Jack Lemmon. In the very opening scene he appears, and while the other three actors do a great job at setting the tense mood, Lemmon sounds like he is just running lines in rehearsal as a favor. You know this must have been a real dilemma for Branagh, since everything else about the movies screams out that it's the work of a perfectionist.

Not to be facetious when speaking of a four-hour movie, but it does seem just a tad too long. Some monologues and conversations do tend to go on a bit, if I may be so bold, and a little bit of judicious pruning would be welcome.

Did I forget anything, other than Patrick Doyle's score? No doubt I did. I'll just sum up by saying that Kenneth Branagh may have made the definitive film version of 'Hamlet,' and it will be a truly monumental production that tops this one. Olivier, Kosentsev, Richardson, Coranado, Zefferelli, and Almerayeda have all directed Hamlet but Branagh's the only one who got it right.

This is the only film of "Hamlet" that contains the full four hours of William Shakespeare's masterpiece and gives a unique feel to the whole story.

Not many directors could pull this off without boring their audience but Branagh's skillful use of bravora film style and stunt casting allows people to see the importance of the scenes that are usually cut out.

Examples of this include Gerarde Depardue as Ranyaldo whos entire purpose in the film was to simply say "yes my lord" as Polonius asks him to spy on Leartes. This also included Billy Crystal as the grave digger, Robin Williams as Osric, Jack Lemmon as Marcellous, and Charlton Heston as the actor.

Branagh's performance of the Act 4 scene 4 soliloquy (Which again is usually cut out) is nothing short of c cinematic marvel as the camera slowly pulls back as the intensity grows. It is a scene that literally made me want to jump out of my chair and start applauding.

Branagh is the only film maker that understood the importance of every scene in this film and knew how to convey that importance to the general audience.

This is a must see for everyone who enjoy's good story telling, brilliant acting,and incredible direction. All of these part of William Shakespeares greatest triumph. Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.

The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.

The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.

Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.

Overall 7/10 The actors play wonderfully, especially Kenneth Branagh himself. It's good that Robin Williams got the comedy role of Osiric, otherwise it could be a bit strange to see him in such a production. It is really great that Kenneth decided to use the fullest version of the text, this happens definitely not too often... Thanks to that the viewers can see the whole, not the chosen - by the director - parts. Also - thank God that the film is in a classical form; NO to surrealistic fanfaberies ! Although "Tytus Andronicus" was impressive nevertheless, but still Hamlet is a different story, at least that's my point of view. I admit I've only seen about three of Shakespeare's plays (Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, & of course Hamlet) one I liked, the other I found so-so (Macbeth), and Hamlet I just found a masterpiece. I'm pleased to tell you that this adaptation is every bit as good as the intense and dramatic play. The acting is extremely strong (With a cast that features Kenneth Branagh, Robin Williams, and Billy Crystal how can you lose?) and the change in time period (Looks like somewhere between the 17 and 1800's) plays off beautifully as the characters move about and say their infamous lines straight from the script itself that any fan of the Shakespearean play will get chills from. If you're into this popular drama I highly urge you to watch this powerful 1996 adaptation from Shakespearean admirer Kenneth Branagh. First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?). (Sorry for my faulty language, i am no native speaker ...)

Yes, this is a movie that almost demands an overwhelming reaction. Personally i agree upon all those superlatives that are around. But i won't use this rather sematically void way myself to describe the movie here. Because those "perfect! the one-and-only! best-ever!"-reviews make some people turn away (including me).

So if you are looking for another 'Hamlet' that has the potential to rival with many theatrical and all cinematic ones - Then don't miss this one, if you happen to find it anywhere. (Unfortunately not too many people will have any chance to see it. It seems there is no DVD out there, and the German language version - which is quite well done - is not available in any format.)

Just in case you decide to get a copy: Spare out that cut down two hours (or so) version of this movie. It is no use and no fun, and gives a wrong impression of a movie, that deals in an interesting way with flow and architecture. And its also crippled down to 4:3 aspect ratio.

Greetings from Germany, F.L. The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.

The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.

The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).

Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.

This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it. Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon This was the second of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's, starring Mel Gibson, from 1990. Zeffirelli's version, like Laurence Olivier's from 1948, was based upon an abridged version of the play, with much of Shakespeare's original text being cut. (I have never seen Tony Richardson's 1969 version, but as that ran to less than two hours, shorter even than Zeffirelli's, I presume that was also abridged). Kenneth Branagh was attempting something much more ambitious- a film based on the complete text of the play, with a running time of around four hours.

With his "Henry V", Branagh claimed Olivier's crown as the cinema's leading Shakespearean, confirming his claim with his brilliant "Much Ado about Nothing", a rare example of a great film based on a Shakespeare comedy. "Hamlet" was his third Shakespeare film as director (he also acted as Iago in Oliver Parker's 1995 "Othello") and, as one might expect, it is very different to "Much Ado….". The earlier film, shot in a villa in the hills of Tuscany and the beautiful surrounding countryside, is a joyous, summertime film about everything that makes life worth living.

"Hamlet", by contrast is set in the depths of winter. (The flowers in the description of Ophelia's death suggest that Shakespeare himself thought of the action happening in summer). The look of the film is particularly striking, both sumptuous and chilly. It was filmed at Blenheim Palace, possibly England's most grandiose stately home, but also a rather forbidding one. The snowy exterior scenes are cold and wintry; the interior ones formal and elaborate. The action is updated to the mid nineteenth century; the female characters wear the elaborate fashions of that era, while the principal male ones mostly wear splendid military uniforms. (There is a contrast here with Zeffirelli's film, where both the interiors and the costumes were deliberately subdued in tone). The play is dominated by images of corruption and decay; Branagh's intention may have been to contrast a splendid surface with the underlying "something rotten in the state of Denmark".

The film is notable for the large number of big-name actors, some of them in very minor roles. (Blink, and you might miss John Gieldgud or Judi Dench). Apparently, an all-star cast was required by the production company, who were nervous about a four-hour film. Some of the imported Hollywood stars, such as Robin Williams' Osric, did not really come off, but others, like Charlton Heston's Player King or Billy Crystal's First Gravedigger, played their parts very well. Yorick, normally only seen as a skull, is here seen in flashback, played by the British comedian Ken Dodd. Brian Blessed, who often plays jovial characters, is cast against type as the Ghost, and makes the scenes in which he appears genuinely frightening.

Of the major characters, perhaps the weakest was Kate Winslet's Ophelia. Branagh's leading lady in his first two Shakespeare films was his then wife Emma Thompson, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1995. I did, however, find myself wishing that Thompson had been cast in the role; although Winslet came into her own in the Ophelia's mad scenes, she seemed weak in the earlier ones where her character is still sane. (I preferred Helena Bonham Carter in Zeffirelli's version). Richard Briers plays Polonius with a greater dignity than he is often given, a wise and experienced counsellor rather than a prating old fool. Julie Christie also brings dignity to the role of Gertrude; there is no attempt here, as there was with Gibson and Glenn Close in the Zeffirelli version, to suggest an incestuous attachment between her and Hamlet. (An interpretation which owes more to Freud than it does to Shakespeare). The age difference between Christie and Branagh is great enough for them to be credible as mother and son, which was certainly not the case with Close and Gibson. (Olivier's Gertrude, Eileen Herlie, was, bizarrely, thirteen years younger than him).

Branagh stated that his intention in restoring those scenes which are often cut in cinematic versions was to "reinforce the idea that the play is about a national as well as domestic tragedy." Much stress is placed upon the war with Norway and the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras- a subplot ignored altogether by Zeffirelli. This emphasis on national tragedy is perhaps best shown in the character of Claudius, sometimes played as a one-dimensional villain. There is something about Derek Jacobi's performance which suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, but that he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. He could have been a good and loyal servant to his brother, but chose to rule as a bad king. Although he is tormented by guilt, he can see no way to make amends for the evil he has done.

Branagh, a wonderfully fluent speaker of Shakespeare's verse, is superb in the main role. Like Gibson, he has little time for the old concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His is an active, physical, energetic Hamlet, something best shown in his fatal duel with Laertes. His guiding principle is not world-weary despair, but an active disgust with evil and corruption.

It was a gamble for Branagh to make a four-hour epic, and the film did not do well at the box office. It was, however, praised by many critics, James Berardinelli being particularly enthusiastic. My own opinion is that, whatever the financial returns may have been, Branagh's gamble paid off in artistic terms. By concentrating on the full text, he was able to bring out the full meaning and full emotional power of Shakespeare's most complex play. When I reviewed his "Much Ado…", I said it was the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare comedy. His "Hamlet" may just be the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare tragedy. 10/10 Branagh is one of the few who understands the difference between a film and a play. Hamlet is probably the most faithful adaptation of Shakespeare to a film and yet is a very dynamic film, almost an action thriller. The scene of Hamlet's meeting with his father's ghost won't leave your mind. There were a lot of things going against this movie for me before I watched it.

First, I was a typical high school senior, in a Shakespeare class I didn't really even like, much less understood half of! Shakespeare would be no more than UNINTELLIGIBLE without me pouring ALL my concentration into his almost encrypted plays... encrypted with his extremely difficult to understand language.... and then I still wouldn't get most of it.

Second, it was 4 hours long! I never thought that could be a good thing.

Well let me tell you something. This movie was so masterful, so beautiful, I actually understood all the language as it was being performed. Now, the script was followed to the letter in this movie, the same script that was incomprehensible to me in Shakespeare class. And here I was my mind opening and me understanding it. I was doubting myself while watching the movie almost! But lo and behold... when performed, and only then, Shakespeare comes to life. So this version of Hamlet showed me that Shakespeare is indeed a master, who wrote great stories. When I saw it on the big screen, especially in the high budget major motion picture style (with beautiful cinematography and photography), and acted amazingly by Brannagh and cast, somehow.... I understood what was going on. What was being said. The language is awesome and passionate. It allows for more raw emotion... when words can't describe something, maybe Shakespeare's words can.

I still hold to this day that Fist of The North Star (animated, english dub) is the greatest movie ever made. No movie provides more sheer entertainment. But for a movie to come close to dethroning Fist from that position (which Hamlet did -- it came close) is truly amazing.... awe inspiring. It wasn't a movie. It was an event.

Even more amazing, it made me appreciate shakespeare. Wow. Powerful. Powerful is the word. One of the rare, TRULY powerful movies out there.

This gets 2 hundred trillion stars out of infinity stars. Yes yes.

By the way, all you kids out there in a Shakespeare class... forget it. You're wasting you're time. You have to see the plays performed. Only then will justice be done to them. When I first read Hamlet, I couldn't help but think of the ending of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE, where Bette Midler puts down the play because of how indecisive he is, and says, "Give me Romeo any day." Five acts of a man trying to decide whether or not to kill his uncle or not? Seemed like overkill to me. But upon further reading, I grew to really appreciate the play. I've seen the Olivier and Gibson movie versions(and part of the Nicol Williamson version), and all of them take their model from Olivier; the melancholy Dane. Olivier at least did it without being self-indulgent about it, but Gibson and, from what I saw, Williamson, looked like they went to the "Look, Ma, I'm acting! I'm acting!" school.

Now here comes Kenneth Branagh's version, which is breathtaking from start to finish. It finished #2 on my top ten of 1996(behind THE ENGLISH PATIENT, and ahead of LONE STAR, JERRY MAGUIRE, FARGO, SECRETS & LIES, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU, FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, BIG NIGHT, and LOOKING FOR RICHARD), and it's the best Hamlet, and maybe the best Shakespeare, put to film. Obviously, Branagh's talents as a filmmaker, for making the full-length version, in 70mm print, and not losing our interest for four hours, is great, but what seems to get overlooked in discussions about this film is his performance in the title role. This was my favorite performance of the year by far. Branagh avoids the melodrama which actors seem to get trapped in by playing Hamlet as a normal, regular human being, and makes us understand his actions and feelings each step of the way. And unlike Olivier, who depended mostly on his voice, Branagh uses his entire body to demonstrate the range of emotions that Hamlet goes through, but since he plays him as normal, none of it seems like scenery-chewing.

The rest of the cast is top-notch as well. I didn't even mind Jack Lemmon, though I agree he was the weakest member of the cast. The most surprising turn came from Charlton Heston; I've always found him stiff as a board, but he's quite commanding as the Player King. The other big surprise was Billy Crystal; I thought I'd find him all wrong as the 1st Gravedigger, but he was his usual funny self while being in character. All in all, a glorious film! Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note. I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.

But now on to the movie...

I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.

That's my two cents. After the initial shock of realizing the guts of Mr Branagh to film this, I was literally shaking with the excitement of having this epic just ahead of me. I was not disappointed. So true to Shakespeare and yet so accessible. It blew my mind. I always enjoy seeing, or rather listening to, Branagh and it made me wonder...is this movie dubbed in other countries? That would be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. This is the definitive movie version of Hamlet. Branagh cuts nothing, but there are no wasted moments. I went to see Hamlet because I was in between jobs. I figured 4 hours would be great, I've been a fan of Branagh; Dead Again, Henry V. I was completely overwhelmed by the direction, acting, cinematography that this film captured. Like other reviews the 4 hours passes swiftly. Branagh doesn't play Hamlet, he is Hamlet, he was born for this. When I watch this film I'm constantly trying to find faults, I've looked at the goofs and haven't noticed them. How he was able to move the camera in and out of the Hall with all the mirrors is a mystery to me. This movie was shot in 70 mil. It's a shame that Columbia hasn't released a Widescreen version of this on VHS. I own a DVD player, and I'd take this over Titanic any day. So Columbia if you're listening put this film out the way it should be watched! And I don't know what happened at the Oscars. This should have swept Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Direction, best cinematography. What films were they watching? I felt sorry for Branagh at the Oscars when he did a tribute to Shakespeare on the screen. They should have been giving a tribute to Branagh for bringing us one of the greatest films of all time. Why didn't this pick up a bag full of Oscars? It is an amazing interpretaion of an oft-filmed/performed piece. The visuals are breathtaking (especially in wide-screen...the pan & scan really kills this film's wonderful cinematography and sets). Every frame is a painting. Astounding. The play is almost completely intact, and Branagh's passion for it is clear from the opening titles on. No Zefferelli here, just great storytelling the way only film can, but rarely does. Jacobi is especially perfect as Hamlet's murderous Uncle: he doesn't play him as a mustache- curling evil villian, but a charming politician, allowing us to see why only Hamlet suspects foul play. Branagh also nails the subtlety of the line between Hamlet's fake/real madness and the burning revenge inside him. And the many cameos come off quite well, everyone from Billy Crystal and Robin Williams to Gerard Depardeu and Charlton Heston, unobtrusive if you are sucked into Branagh's vision the way I was. A mesmerizing piece. I have never observed four hours pass quite so quickly as when I saw this film. This film restores the power and art to Hamlet that it was always meant to have. Even those oh-so famous speeches are done in new and inventive ways. And the cast is incredible, Brannagh the brightest star. It is his charisma, power and command of the role that defines the movie. Making it a full and complete version fills so many holes and allows for new appreciation of the tragedy despite the length. Where one would expect the dark, gloomy cliched castle, we are treated to a sumptuous feast for the eyes. The only gloom comes from Hamlet himself, as it should. Well worth your time, all four hours of it. A lot of people don't think Branagh's Hamlet film is all that good, but I must admit I think it is splendid. Like virtually every production of Shakespeare, it has problems and it has had to make hard choices, not all of which work out. The thing about the "secret doors everywhere", for instance, simply doesn't work. That element never achieves the ominous feeling of metaphor or analogy that it attempts to, which results in the play being too gaudy and losing its trademark sense of a thousand mysteries looming. This is the biggest problem with this production. And while it's a biggie, I'm also inclined to say that it's the only problem. Almost everything else works out absolutely beautifully. All right, so Branagh is a mite too old for the title role. And the relationship with Ophelia seems a little forced. And he gets too hysterical at times. But that's it. No other complaints. Even with these faults, I think this version is a seminal one, and if it's not as powerful a drama as it ought to be, it's every bit the literary work that it equally ought to be. We get the complete text of the longest version of the play, innovatively and expensively brought to the screen, mostly enunciated in perfect and modern and highly understandable voices - even if they sometimes speak too quickly in order to get the massive text over with. But in a staging of Shakespeare, it simply is not possible to speak slowly enough for the audience to really appreciate the full depths of the language. For that, one must delve into the print versions of the plays.

All the actors of this version are simply mesmerizing and utterly and instantly classic (incl. Jack Lemmon). Julie Christie as Gertrude is surely one of the best ever, and even the American actors are astounding, esp. Charlton Heston as the Player King - who would have thought it?! (A story is going around that Heston once played Hamlet on stage, and when a critic in the front row couldn't stand his hammy acting and said out loud, "This is terrible!", Heston reportedly retorted right from the stage: "Well, I didn't write this crap!" Of course it may not be true, but it's a funny story - and if true, a bold and ironic choice for Branagh to include Heston here.) Robin Williams as "Young Ozric" is perhaps not young enough for the part, but he makes it a comical one, which is warranted.

Overall it is a very well-produced version, with most of the key scenes being, to my mind, supremely memorable. Of course, I watched this movie just as I was becoming interested in Shakespeare (and around the same time as Luhrmann's formidable Romeo+Juliet), and it made a great impression on me, which must account for some of my fondness for it.

All things considered, I must pronounce Branagh's Hamlet to be my favorite one, with Derek Jacobi's 1980 BBC version a close second. I probably like Branagh's Shakespeare work more than most, finding him an expert interpreter and popularizer, with an attractively casual attitude to the words and a deep and appropriately and unashamedly enthusiastic appreciation of the text. In the world of Shakespeare acting, the two brightest luminaries remain Olivier and Branagh, and while Olivier is the superior actor, Branagh brings Shakespeare down from the pedestal of snobbery and artifice, and transforms it into churlish, easy-going, populistic worldliness while compromising none of its dignity. Branagh, I believe, brings out a truer Shakespeare than the world has yet seen.

And so, 10 out of 10 for an absolutely tremendous Hamlet. One of the best movie-dramas I have ever seen. We do a lot of acting in the church and this is one that can be used as a resource that highlights all the good things that actors can do in their work. I highly recommend this one, especially for those who have an interest in acting, as a "must see." There are several scenes of note. For one, the graveyard scene when Hamlet encounters Yorick (everyone knows about THAT scene by just going to elementary school), and his interaction with the skull was extremely well done. The logic used in this scene was tremendous--I suppose a testament to Shakespeare more than anything else. For a second, I very much enjoyed the scene where Hamlet, Horatio and the character played by Robin Williams discussed the upcoming duel. William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.

We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.

Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though.

All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more. It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.

As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.

The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.

The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.

To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh. Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.

Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.

Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed – strong praise, but well deserved. Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say "two thumbs up". A beautiful and touching movie that deserves a wider viewing than it is likely to get. Semra Turan plays Aicha, a second generation Turkish immigrant, who tries to break the mold. Neither entirely at home with her moderately conservative Muslim family, nor with her liberal Danish friends, Aicha's martial arts experience becomes a fight to find herself and have the strength to allow herself to be who she wants to be in spite of both family and friends.

Director Natasha Arthy manages to balance introspection and narrative so that it has depth without becoming ponderous philosophical discourse, and drawing on Xian Gao's choreography skills pays off in spectacular fight sequences. In the end, however, it is Semra Turan's stunning debut performance that gives this movie spirit. Raw charisma and requisite martial arts skills are complimented by heart to make her personal drama believable.

Well worth your while. When I took my seat in the cinema I was in a cool mood and didn't plan on changing it. But this movie is a dramatic powerhouse. I was all in sweat and needed a shower afterward. So what have we? Theoretically a coming of age story of a teenage Turkish girl living in Copenhagen, Denmark. It came to my mind soon that the plot seemed pretty much completely borrowed from "Bend it like Beckham", where we had an Indian girl playing football and spoiling the wedding of her sister. Here we have it transferred to a Turkish girl spoiling her brother's wedding by doing Kung Fu. And we have a love story and a competition of course, too. After I accepted this, this really turned out to be a gripping, emotional drama and it shows off some beautiful Kung Fu (I'm not an expert, though). The lead actress Semra Turan is not only Denmark's female champion but she also delivers an excellent performance, so that it appears to be safe to assume that we have quite some autobiographic impressions here taking into account that this is her first movie and that she has no education as an actress. Rest of the supporting cast is okay, camera good, Kung Fu intense. Sidenotes: - The male Turkish audience showed respect so that they must have done something right. - The audience burst into cheers when our heroine finally fought back and attacked the boys who were gravely beating up her brother in revenge. - Xian Gao, a Chinese cinematic Kung Fu instructor/actor (Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon) played the lead role's master

If you get the chance to see this in cinema do it, you'll probably have a good and intense experience and I don't know if this works on small screen as well When you are in a gloomy or depressed mood, go watch this film. It shows a lot of beauty and joy in a very simple everyday setting, and it is very encouraging, in particular from a feminist and a humanist perspective.

When you know both the Turkish language and either the Danish or the German language, go watch the film in any case. Half of the dialog is Danish in the original, synchronized to German in the translated version, the other half Turkish, subtitled in Danish or German, respectively. When i watched it in Mannheim, Germany, the reaction of the Turkish-speaking audience proved that there must be a lot of humor in the Turkish dialog, which, deplorably, mostly escaped me, being only imperfectly rendered in the subtitles. Still, the film is interesting even if you lack knowledge of the Turkish.

Esthetically, the movie is playing a lot on the theme of speed and slowness. On first sight, there is lots of corporeal movement fast as lightning, making it a quick, an agitated film. In particular, even though this is a Kung Fu movie, watch out for the running scenes, beautifully expressing a wealth of emotions. But there are quite a few very slow, emotionally intense scenes, too. And above all, the characters develop at a much slower pace than you would expect in a drama about the coming of age; still, there is some movement in the characters to: Closely watch the villain Omar, whose part and acting i liked very much.

The contrast of speed and stillness nicely contributes to the depiction of human rage and dignity - shown at once, in the same characters, at the same time. When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .

I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions.

Yes, the movie is very much like "Bend it like Beckham", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better. It's a rather good movie, but too Americanised in it's predictability. Change the Kung Fu for football and the Turkish Family for a Pakistani one, and you get to watch Bend It Like Beckham (2002) almost scene for scene. A nice feature the serves as the backbone of the movie is the progression of fights with the mysterious ninja under the highway, beginning with miserable losses and slowly progressing until the last fight is a win against oneself, as the Kung Fu master stressed several times. On a different level, the Danish life is revealed quite different than the image it has by outsiders: the non indigenous immigrants that make a large proportion (actually, the majority) of the Danish citizenry, the graffiti in the Copenhagen suburbs, the taunting of the immigrant girl in the begging of the movie. All portray a different picture than one has in mind when one hears the word Denmark. Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.

Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.

Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.

The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler. The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...

It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee. It's a good show, and I find it funny. Finally the bad Latin stereo types are over! ¡Gracias, Señor Lopez! I love this show, and I just started watching it about three months ago. The whole concept about a Latin family TV show really amazed me. I am surprised that finally Latinos have a good shot to be on TV. This show is probably one the best I've seen, it's funny, heartwarming, touchy, and nice. George Lopez is a funny man even without the sitcom. The first episodes I saw of this too often made jokes at the expense of his mom. As I have watched this more, there has been more & more variety. No one on the cast is really safe from his wit now.

It seems to me as this season has progressed that George is getting more comfortable with the family sitcom Dad role. At first he wasn't, but he is getting More & more into a groove. This makes both him & the shows progressively funnier. They had added a couple of characters for George to play off this year too. His wife's dad is getting more & more involved in the plot.

His mom is still there, but not as central as past seasons. I think it is prudent to say with George's sense of comic timing, & ABC's lack of good sitcoms, George Lopez has a good chance of being here on ABC long after George W. Bush. I have been watching this show since I was 14 and I've loved it ever since. I love this show because it's just plain funny! You will enjoy this show a lot because it shows something new and funnier everyday and my favorite part is when Benny always has her last comments on George after every punchline about his fat giant head.*laughs* I would laugh and I'd watch it with my friends at home it'd be like we were watching a funny movie but short. Love George Lopez. Funny, talented,funny,spectacular. This is a cool-funny-family comedy series enjoyable to everyone and you will definitely enjoy it--I did! And if you haven't watched it yet I suggest that you start watching because you wouldn't want to stop watching it. Even though there aren't anymore brand new episodes I still enjoy the re-runs. Still funny. Never wears off.

9/10 when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement. Yes, it's over the top, yes it's a bit clichéd and yes, Constance Marie is a total babe and worthy of seeing again and again! The jokes and gags might get old and repetitive after a while but the show's still fun to watch. Since it's a family show the humour is toned down and the writers have incorporated family values and ideals in between the gags.

George Lopez is funny. Don't take him seriously and the show's a winner. I'm sure he didn't intend his character to be serious or a paragon of virtue. His outbursts and shouts of glee are hilarious...

I do have to say that the one big, dark, bitter spot is Benny. I hate the character...so much so that anytime she's on for more than 30 seconds I mute the TV just so I don't have to hear her. There is nothing funny about her dialogue or her jokes. As a mother she has to be the worst out there and I am just shocked and surprised that George, as the character, would stand by such a deplorable person for so long.

Even so anytime I get ticked off at seeing Benny I think to myself: seeing her is a lot better than having to watch the Bill Engvall Show. Now there's a bad sitcom... George Lopez never caught my interest in his stand up comedy and he still doesn't. But this show is a work of art. It's not ever show where the jokes keep you laughing every time you remember it (and jokes that re memorable at that). This show just has an upbeat look to it and the characters range from an old, short drunk to an dyslexic teenager. I don't know who writes this show but that person does a great job. If they had just continued the show I'm sure that it would get a positive response from the critics of this great country. If you are looking for a good, traditional comedy, then George Lopez is the show for you! The one bad thing is the title. George Lopez? Really? Imagine the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air being "Will Smith". C'mon man! But otherwise, this show is genius! 10/10 From the beginning of the show Carmen was there. She was one of the best characters. Why did they get rid of her?! The show not the same as before. Its way worse.

The best episodes were with Carmen in them. You can't replace someone from the beginning! That is like South Park without Kyle or Child's Play without Chucky! It's not right! The niece who replaced her is just, ugh! Awful. She doesn't fit into the storyline at all. She was one of the main characters, and the niece can't replace her. She was an awesome actress. Way better than the niece. Get her back, or you'll lose a TON of viewers. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. "GEORGE LOPEZ," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoy it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Amy (Sandra Bullock) walked into a moving piece of machinery. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though new episodes can currently be seen, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. This movie might not put the Catholic church in the best light but it is telling a story based on true events. Unfortunately not everything in life, including religion, are all nice and rosy. Sometimes people and groups do things that at the time seem like the right thing but in retrospective do not look as great as they once did. "A Love Divided" tells the story of a family, yes it does incorporate religion, but really the story is about a family, and that family's ability to stay together no matter what is thrown at them. This film is also based on true events which is not to say that this story, scene by scene, is true, but if you were to look at news articles from that time period you would be able to see that neither churches handled the incident in a way that was helpful towards the family. Both churches are at fault here, the Catholic church for forcing such a regulation on the family in the first place and not responding to the violence that came with it and the Protestant church for telling the mother that she should just obey her husband and his priest and not put up a fight. In this case both let this family down. I believe that the film does a good job in showing this struggle in both the church and the family. It in no way shape or form is putting down the Catholic church, just the opposite, it shows how one incident can change the course of that religion's ideas and how one person can have an effect far more reaching then just themselves. This movie is about a side of Ireland that Americans don't normally see, the narrow-minded religiously prejudiced side of the 'friendliest race in the world'. The movie, by the admission of the inhabitants of Fethard who are old enough to remember the events, is fairly accurate (though they insist that the film-makers invented some of the more violent scenes just to spice up the action).

The movie was very unpopular in Ireland as it portrayed the Catholic church in a bad light, but the simple fact is that representatives of the Catholic church *did* organise vetoes of minorities (before Protestants it was the Jews).

The film is a fascinating insight into the whole issue of religion in Ireland I never fail to be amazed and horrified by the evil that has been predicated in the history of the world in the name of religion, and it seems that the machinations of the Catholic Church in Twentieth Century Ireland rank right up there near the top - considering that the wisdom of history and modern times should have had some sobering effect.

A Love Divided is the story of a real family scarred by ignorant intolerance and prejudice all in the name of an inane Church doctrine. At the beginning of the film, we are offered a view of the bucolic life in a small Irish village in which Sheila and Sean Cloney are happily married with two young children. Sean is Catholic and Sheila is Protestant, but she has no qualms with their children being raised as Catholic. There is no sign of any animosity between the Catholics and Protestants in the village. The peaceful and loving relationships are soon shattered when Sheila expresses the desire to have their older child attend the Protestant school. The local priest takes it upon himself to forbid this "sin" and soon has Sheila's husband and the entire Catholic population of the village turned against her as well as her father, the local dairy farmer. In an act of defiance and desperation, Sheila kidnaps her two daughters and flees from the area.

Special note should be given to Orla Brady who plays Sheila. She gives an extremely powerful performance in which the viewer is drawn in to the emotional trauma in which she decides to reject the wishes of a husband she deeply loves in order to express her fervent desire to establish herself as independent from the pressures of the establishment. On an equal footing is Liam Cunningham who plays Sean for he gives a realistic portrait of a man not nearly as complex as his wife who is torn between his love for her and the influence of Church and community.

If fiction, this film would have been a compelling and interesting drama. Considering it is true, it changes to a horrific tragedy. In real life, the people and the village never fully recovered from the events that took place there. It took almost half a century for the Church to acknowledge its negative role in the events, and even though Sheila and Sean lived out their lives in the area, they never fully recovered from what was done to them by the religious leaders and their fellow villagers.

Whether it be denying basic rights to education of choice, crashing planes into buildings, subjugating women, condemning whole races, or just plain on torture and murder, we humans certainly have the ability to use religion as a powerful negative force in our society. OH WOW. I saw this film at the Irish International Film Fleadh in Manhattan on 12 March 2000. Both stars were in attendance and were available for questions afterward. WHAT A GORGEOUS FILM! Although set in Ireland amid Catholic/Protestant antagonism, the story could have happened anywhere between any two groups of people who hate each other. The horror of how quickly people can get carried away when they are given a chance to vent their hate and anger was woven beautifully with a moving love story drizzled with humor and fun. If this one does not get picked up in the USA, it would truly be most unfortunate.

As for the stars and supporting players...FIRST RATE. They call Orla Brady the Irish Meryl Streep, I heard. It is my opinion that she is BETTER than Meryl Streep. They should be calling Meryl the American Orla Brady! And, Liam Cunningham's steady and powerful portrayal of a simple and private man sucked into a political war was brilliant.

SEE THIS MOVIE. Oh dear . Yet another example of " Oireland " and religion . No doubt we'll be seeing some depressing nonsense featuring some " hunky and macho freedom fighters " from the IRA . Well that was my initial reaction when the credits started but just over an hour and a half later I was in a state of shock . What a superb movie

The story starts on the day of the wedding between Sean Cloney and Sheila Kelly in the 1950s . There is a slight problem since they're getting married in the catholic church and that is Sheila is a protestant but in order for the wedding to happen Sheila takes a pledge that her children will be brought up catholic and attend the catholic school when they're old enough . The story - Which is set in the 1950s - then jumps forward a few years when the Cloney daughters are about to start school but Sheila has decided they'll be attending the local protestant school much to the disgust of local priest Father Stafford . From there things escalate

Let me put my cards on the table and state that despite having both Irish catholic and Scottish protestant heritage I was brought up as agnostic and have considered myself as an atheist throughout my adult life . In fact when it comes to religion I consider myself a Marxist and religion is a cynical weapon used to manipulate people . A LOVE DIVIDED shows what happens when self appointed moral guardians take it upon themselves to tell other people what to think and believe . May I have the temerity to state that if Karl Marx saw this movie he'd love it and call it a masterpiece ? Perhaps I shouldn't since the drama of this story shows what happens when other people do your thinking for you

In reply to the couple of reviewers who have claimed this movie is propaganda of the worst sort I don't claim to know the exact details of what happened in County Wexford and there's no denying that Father Stafford and his flock of catholic sheep are portrayed as being the bad guys but Sheila isn't blameless herself . Think about a woman living in a rural village in 1950s Ireland who takes a pledge to bring her children up as catholics then changes her mind and believes there will be no consequences of this ? This is a warning against taking pledges and not keeping to them . Not only that but she disappears to let other people pick up the pieces of their shattered lives . There's also something that no one else has picked up upon and that is that the only character with any type of moral sense is former IRA man Andy Bailey who is shown as being gallant not because he was a former IRA member ( That makes a change . We're not talking about THE DEVIL'S OWN here ) but simply because he is an atheist who has decided to think for himself

A LOVE DIVIDED is a superb movie that has a lot to say for itself , all of which I agree with . If there's any sort of criticism it's that it feels too much like a TVM rather than a cinematic movie but believe me I can live with that and is essential viewing to anyone who thinks religion is the opium of the masses This was a gem. Amazing acting from the leads Liam Cunningham, Orla Brady and all the supporting cast. The movie raises a subject not only pertinent to Ireland and Irish history but to many communities around the world and many marriage units within those communities. With intensity and sincerity the movie shows how the religious convictions and traditions drove a wedge on a loving and passionate family. The title "Love divided" couldn't capture it any better. Even though it was a true story and happening in Ireland of the 50th seeing how the life of the whole village erodes and "pogroms" are starting reminded me of Russian history. The intolerance and prejudice are still too powerful in the world and unfortunately it's deeply hidden inside the human nature. Just like in the movie the Liam Cunningham's character says "the hatred had always been there under the surface". It was interesting to watch the moral choices people were making in this story. Also the character of a catholic priest and what happened to him in the end of the story was quite meaningful. The story however gives hope that love of two people can conquer everything and love makes us better, stronger. Liam Cunningham's character goes through the whole transformation in the course of the story becoming a man he always wanted to be. Again acting is a top notch. Story is fast-paced. Irish countryside is as beautiful as ever. Highly recommended. To say this film is simply a demonisation of Catholics and a misrepresentation of history is untrue. That is not what this film is.

What this film is is a comment on the abuses of the Church (although this could be substituted for any powerful body), the ways that this abuse affects people and families and the way so many people choose to simply allow and often participate in the abuse without thinking for themselves. The fact that it is the Catholic church which is in the wrong is simply because of the nature of the true story the film is based upon. To label this as propaganda against Catholics seems to miss the truth about what the Catholic Church has done at times; its history is often not great and is something that films like this highlight and that needs to be highlighted. Yes we should comment on the abuses committed by other organisations but that is not for the remit of this film.

It is an amazing film which brought me to tears and well worth watching - 'if we do not study the past, we are bound to repeat it' Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: "What if it was my family? My choice?" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do! I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats! I've often wondered just how much CASPER was meant for children...with all the issues revolving around his identity (in this film we are lead to believe that he is the spirit of a dead child, as his home is a cemetery plot), as well as the disturbing message brought by this particular film. Maybe Casper was meant more as a morality play, or Famous Studios felt like breaking new ground in 'reality' cartoons.

THERE'S GOOD BOOS TONIGHT is a well-animated project-no doubt there. But, the plot development involving the fox (who becomes Casper's friend, but meets a tragic end) is a concern.

Give Famous Studios credit--they tackle death with respect...but, the stark image of Casper's mourning is rather graphic and disturbing for children (though the denouement does offer a happy ending, but I won't give away the ending), and the violence is rather steep, even for 1940's standards.

This might be a good cartoon for parents to use in helping explain death to children--but I wouldn't pop it into the VCR for a perky cartoon break. I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic "Casper the Friendly Ghost" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...

Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming "A Ghost!"

Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...

The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.

I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Peace on Earth," this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short. I remember Casper comic books, but don't remember any cartoons. Maybe they weren't memorable; I don't know but at my advanced age, here I am watching this very early Casper animated short yesterday. Afterward, I was shocked to read the user-comments here. Did people miss the ending?

I have to learn all over again that Casper isn't like the other ghosts, who like to go out each night and scare the c--p out of everyone. "He sees no future in that," according to the narrator here. Instead, one night he goes out to the rural section of town, inadvertently scares some animals and can't find any friends. It brings him to tears, until a little fox hears him bawling and befriends him. The two become buddies but soon, the fox is running for his life with a fox hunt in progress.

Other reviews have all mentioned what happens, so I'll touch on that, too. The fox is killed by hunting dogs (not shown) and Casper is in tears for losing "the only friend I ever had." But, nobody mentions the happy ending to this story. "Ferdie" the fox becomes a spirit-figure like Casper, jumps on his lap, licks his face and the narrator comments "they lived happily ever after." Both characters look overjoyed.

What is so sad about that? This is a nice story with a nice, happy ending. No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say "_____" is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - Ed

Uh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait La Teta y la Luna is a symbolic spain film. Everything that in this film occurs has a symbolic meaning. It is totally different to the usual movie that one has access.

This film is good but it will be good only for the people who want look for the meaning of everything in the film's tale. I must advice that this is not a sample film.

Please enjoy!!! This is actually one of my favorite films, I would recommend that EVERYONE watches it. There is some great acting in it and it shows that not all "good" films are American.... I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its humor and pathos. I especially like the way the characters welcomed Gina's various suitors. With friends (and family) like these anyone would feel nurtured and loved. I found the writing witty and natural and the actors made the material come alive. Franco proves, once again, that he is the prince of surreal & erotic cinema. True, much of his work can be viewed as entertaining sleaze but with Succubus (Necronomicon) he shows what he is truly capable of when he lets his warped creativity run riot and gives us a film that is both hypnotic and enigmatic whilst still maintaining the delirious eroticism intrinsic in his work. Jerry Van Rooyen's splendid score pulsates as the viewer is thrown from one bizarre scenario to another as we follow the trials of a striptease artist (Reynaud) who may be schizophrenic, or may indeed (as one mysterious character states) be a devil, attempt to come to terms with the world she inhabits. A beautiful and enigmatic piece of cinema highly recommended to anybody with even a passing interest in alternative cinema. I haven't seen all of Jess Franco's movies, I have seen 5, I think, and there are more than 180 of them. So maybe it's a bit early to say so but "Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden" (better known as 'Succubus', but that is the cut version) is according to me if not the best, certainly on of Franco's best. Franco is best known (although 'known' might be slightly exaggerated) for "Vampiros Lesbos", a weird cultish movie that got more acclaim in the mid 90's when people found out Jess Franco was also an interesting composer. Through the soundtrack a happy few discovered the man and found out what was to be expected after seeing the video clip of 'The lion and the cucumber' ('Vampyros Lesbos OST'): Jess Franco is an overwhelming director. When the phone rang during 'Vampiros', I let it ring. I just wanted to see more of the movie. Since that moment Franco never could grip me that much. But then I stumbled on this movie. It is even better than "Vampiros Lesbos", I think. Franco is looking for what he can do with a story and a camera. We find out he can do a lot. I certainly didn't expect to find "Necronomicon" that great: its beginning didn't impress me at all. Remember, I had seen "Vampiros Lesbos" before (although chronologically that came only three years later) and both movies kinda start the same. But then the story went on, puzzling and gripping, beautiful camera work and the stuff you would like to see Godard do if he weren't so occupied with spreading his political messages. Later on in the movie I heard a dialogue about which art was or wasn't old-fashioned. The man says that all movies have to be old-fashioned because it takes weeks before the audience sees what got filmed. But the girl replies that "Bunuel, Fritz Lang and Godard yesterday made movies for tomorrow". Janine Reynaud is an interesting lead actress and of course Howard Vernon, a Franco regular, is also there. Luckily the acting is good (something that can spoil a lot of Franco movies for you, but not this one). But certainly watch out for the dummy scene. The erotic tension, the wild directing and the fact that it's a yesterday's movie for tomorrow make it a movie a lot of people should see. The fact that it is a bit more accessible than "Vampiros Lesbos" certainly helps. As you probably already know, Jess Franco is one prolific guy. Hes made hundreds upon hundreds of films, many of which are crap. However, he managed to sneak in an occasionally quality work amongst all the assembly line exploitation. "Succubus" isn't his best work (thats either "The Diabolical Dr. Z" or "Vampyros Lesbos"), but it has many of his trademarks that make it a must for anyone interested in diving into his large catalog. He combines the erotic (alternating between showing full-frontal nudity and leaving somethings left to the imagination) and the surreal seamlessly. This is a very dreamlike film, full of great atmosphere. I particularly liked the constant namedropping. Despite coming off as being incredibly pretentious, its amusing to hear all of Franco's influences.

Still, there are many users who don't like "Succubus" and I can see where they're coming from. Its leisurely paced, but I can deal with that. More problematic is the incoherency. The script here was obviously rushed, and within five minutes into the film I had absolutely no idea what was going on (and it never really came together from that point on). Those who want some substance with their style, look elsewhere. Also, if its a horror film, it never really becomes scary or even suspenseful. Still, I was entertained by all the psychedelic silliness that I didn't really mind these major flaws all too much. (7/10) Lorna Green(Janine Reynaud)is a performance artist for wealthy intellectuals at a local club. She falls prey to her fantasies as the promise of romantic interludes turn into murder as she kills those who believe that sex is on the horizon. It's quite possible that, through a form of hypnotic suggestion, someone(..a possible task master pulling her strings like a puppet)is guiding Lorna into killing those she comes across in secluded places just when it appears that love-making is about to begin. After the murders within her fantasies are committed, Lorna awakens bewildered, often clueless as to if what she was privy to within her dreams ever took place in reality.

If someone asked me how to describe this particular work from Franco, I'd say it's elegant & difficult. By now, you've probably read other user comments befuddled by what this film is about, since a large portion of it takes place within the surreal atmosphere of a dream. Franco mentioned in an interview that he was heavily influenced by Godard early in his career, as far as film-making style, and so deciding to abandon a clear narrative structure in favor of trying to create a whole different type of viewing experience. And, as you read from the reaction of the user comments here..some like this decision, others find the style labouring, dull, and bewildering. I'll be the first to admit that the film is over my head, but even Franco himself, when quizzed by critics who watched "Succubus", admitted that he didn't even understand the film and he directed it! Some might say that "Succubus" was merely a precursor to his more admired work, "Venus in Furs", considered his masterwork by Franco-faithful, because it also adopts the surreal, dreamlike structure where the protagonist doesn't truly know whether he/she is experiencing something real or imagined. In a sense, like the protagonist, we are experiencing the same type of confusion..certainly, "Succubus" is unconventional film-making where we aren't given the keys to what is exactly going on. And, a great deal of the elusive dialogue doesn't help matters. "Succubus" is also populated by beatnik types and "poet-speak", Corman's film, "A Bucket of Blood" poked fun at. My personal favorite scene teases at a possible lesbian interlude between Lorna and a woman she meets at a posh party..quite a bizarre fantasy sequence where mannequins are used rather unusually. Great locations and jazz score..I liked this film myself, although I can understand why it does receive a negative reaction. Loved that one scene at the posh party with Lorna, a wee bit drunk, writhing on the floor in a gorgeous evening gown as others attending the shindig(..equally wasted)rush her in an embrace of kisses. Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering…. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah! Hey now, I can't claim to have seen all of the films of Jesse (Jesus) Franco, and there sure seem to be a lot of them, but this is one of the better (and weirder) of the lot that I have seen. I'd say most likely he was in his prime back in the late sixties/early seventies and anything lately has been a bit TOO strange for me, and it takes a lot for me to declare that. Anyway, this is like one big bad dream where parts of it seem to come true at various points. This woman is an actress or something, performs in some theater in Berlin where acts of "fake" torture are performed for an appreciative audience (?!) and she seems to have this problem with dreaming. The catch to what's real and what's not in this movie is apparently the real stuff is in sharp focus and the dream stuff isn't. She seems to exist in a state of deja vu. I won't say this makes a whole lot of sense but it is pretty wild and weird and entertaining. Shots of Berlin make it seem like a lonely and creepy place, so that adds to the atmosphere. The ending is extremely abrupt though, the film just ends and the tape went black, I guess no need to let you know it was over at that point. My copy was from the Anchor Bay Euro-Trash collection, and I say, give me more Euro-Trash, I can't get enough of that crap. But it's GOOD crap. This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory. Everyday we can watch a great number of film, soap... on tv. Sometimes a miracle happens. A great film, with real feelings, with great actors, with a great realisator-director. For me there are two films that everyone needs to see : the first is the Pacula ? "Sophie 's choice" with Meryl Streep. The second is "Journey of Hope". As human beings, we need to learn about humility, about love of the others, about acceptation of other civilisation, other way of living. We also have to struggle against racism and fascim. We must avoid judging, criticize; we only have to love our earth companion. This wonderful film, helps us reaching John (Lennon) his dream : Imagine all the people living live in peace. These two films are difficult to see : watch these, but sure you will be hurt, but better. Great film, great actors, terrible story, pain and cry guarantee, but also better understanding of the others. Enjoy it. Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation. If the redundancy of getting off the boat, on the boat, off the bus, on the bus.. is a way to waste time then you should go back to the Hollywood films that wrap this part up in one montage in order to get to the money shots. and in doing so leave you unconnected and in the cinematic limbo that results from not really showing the realities of life. The long drawn out travel sequences actually allow the viewer the same frustration and 'wait- in-line' feeling the characters must endure. Frustrating? yes. Vital? Indeed. the limbo of that travel is the key to the 'rootlessness' of this Turkish family. Beautiful film with great acting. Sad, but worth it. The Journey of Hope (1990) is about a trek that many nomadic and poor Turks make so they could live the good life in Switzerland. These people are so desperate to live like Westerners that they'll give up their life and lives in an attempt to reach the promised land. So many of them are swindled by greedy crooks who make their living off of charging huge fees for desperate people who are in a no win situation. One family braves the cold, the treacherous mountain range and predatory criminals only to discover that there's not always a shining white light at the end of the tunnel. This problem exists world wide, not just in America. Some people tend to forget that. A heart breaker of a film that'll leave you wondering why at the end.

Highly recommended. "Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated. Anthony McGarten has adapted his play, Via Satellite, and directed the best comedic film to come out of New Zealand for a long time. Chrissy Dunn (Danielle Cormack) is a drop-out. She hasn't achieved much in her latter years and has grown resentful of her family since her father's deathbed confession. Her twin sister, Carol (also portrayed by Danielle Cormack) is basking in the media limelight as she represents New Zealand in swimming at the Olympics. A middle-aged, desireless and desperate director (Brian Sergent) and his good-natured cameraman - who is also Chrissy's one-night stand from the night previous - Paul (Karl Urban) film the Dunn family's proudest moment; watching Carol swim to victory. This wouldn't be so bad but Chrissy's family is the epitome of embarrassing. First of all there is the matriach of the Wellingtonian Dunns, Joyce (Donna Akerston). She makes fairy cakes and cocktail sausages for the all-important film crew and refuses to change the way she is. Her oldest daughter, Jen (Rima Te Wiata) is desperate to be something more than common. She has a nice home (with bedroom walls painted "Blackberry sorbet"), expensive tastes and a nasty parasitic attitude to match. She is also nearing 40 and desparate for a child. Her husband, Ken (Tim Balme) is an electrician and forces himself on jobs that don't need doing...as well as doing jobs that need to be done, ie Jen. The middle daughter, Lyn (Jodie Dorday - who won Best Supporting Actress at New Zealand Film Awards for this portrayal)is a "knocked-up" tart who has a dubious history with Ken. Both older sisters clash, the mother is in a state, Ken is as bad a ToolTime Tim Taylor, Carol is fuelling her Olympic desire and Chrissy is aware all of this is to be splashed on national tv - why shouldn't she be embarrassed? It is great to see some famous New Zealand faces perform in the suburban comedy that has witty lines to spare. I loved the sparring between Jen and Lyn. One is like an adult Mona-my-biological-clock-is-ticking-away, the other a narcisstic tramp who has what her sister desires - a bun in the oven. Climax of the film is quite sentimental and is nicely done. The performances are a treat and the film works perfectly. A great way to spend an hour-and-a-half.

I think Via Satellite is one of the best New Zealand made movies around. I loved the way the movie delt with all the characters within the entire movie. It was brilliant, and a heartfelt movie.

A well made movie, one which I will always remember, and watch again. This tale set in Wellington, New Zealand suburbia (Tawa -home of the renowned Tawa College) is McCarten's first feature.

With a contemporary New Zealand flavour Via Satellite abounds with absolutely hilarious situations which develop in the (adult) family context. At the same time it manages to invoke intense emotions of sadness and despair.

One of the most moving and humourous movies of the year - not to be missed! Chilling, majestic piece of cinematic fright, this film combines all the great elements of an intellectual thriller, with the grand vision of a director who has the instinctual capacity to pace a moody horror flick within the realm of his filmmaking genius that includes an eye for the original shot, an ice-cold soundtrack and an overall sense of dehumanization. This movie cuts through all the typical horror movies like a red-poker through a human eye, as it allows the viewer to not only feel the violence and psychosis of its protagonist, but appreciate the seed from which the derangement stems. One of the scariest things for people to face is the unknown and this film presents its plotting with just that thought in mind. The setting is perfect, in a desolate winter hideaway. The quietness of the moment is a character in itself, as the fermenting aggressor in Jack Torrance's mind wallows in this idle time, and breeds the devil's new playground. I always felt like the presence of evil was dormant in all of our minds, with only the circumstances of the moment, and the reasons given therein, needed to wake its violent ass and pounce over its unsuspecting victims. This film is a perfect example of this very thought.

And it is within this film's subtle touches of the canvas, the clackity-clacks of the young boy's big wheel riding along the empty hallways of the hotel, the labyrinthian garden representing the mind's fine line between sane and insane, Kubrick's purposely transfixed editing inconsistencies, continuity errors and set mis-arrangements, that we discover a world guided by the righteous and tangible, but coaxed away by the powerful and unknown. I have never read the book upon which the film is based, but without that as a comparison point, I am proud to say that this is one of the most terrifying films that I have ever seen. I thought that the runtime of the film could've been cut by a little bit, but then again, I am not one of the most acclaimed directors in the history of film, so maybe I should keep my two-cent criticisms over a superb film, to myself. All in all, this movie captures your attention with its grand form and vision, ropes you in with some terror and eccentric direction, and ties you down and stabs you in the heart with its cold-eyed view of the man's mind gone overboard, creepy atmosphere and the loss of humanity.

Rating: 9/10 I was never a big fan of horror movies. They usually try cheap tricks to scare their audiences like loud noises and creepy children. They usually lack originality and contain overacting galore. The only horror movie i like was Stir of Echoes with Kevin Bacon. It was well-acted, and had a great story. But it has been joined and maybe even surpassed by Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, quite possibly the scariest movie ever.

The movie follows a writer (Jack Nicholson) and his family who agree to watch over a hotel while it is closed for the winter. There were rumors of the place being haunted and the last resident went crazy and murdered his family. But Jack is convinced it will be OK and he can use the quiet to overcome his writer's block. After months of solitude and silence however, Jack becomes a grumpy and later violent. Is it cabin fever or is there something in the hotel that is driving him mad?

One of the creepiest parts about the movie is the feeling of isolation that Kubrick makes. The hotel is very silent, and the rooms are huge, yet always empty. It is also eerily calm when Jack's son is riding his bike through the barren hallways. Jack Nicholson's performance is also one of his very best, scaring the hell out of me and making me sure to get out once in awhile. My favorite scene is when he is talking to a ghost from inside a walk-in refrigerator.

The Shining is tops for horror movies in my opinion, beating the snot out of crap like the Ring and The Blair Witch Project. It may be a oldie, but is definitely a goodie. 8/10 Okay, okay, maybe not THE greatest. I mean, The Exorcist and Psycho and a few others are hard to pass up, but The Shining is way up there. It is, however, by far the best Stephen King story that has been made into a movie. It's better than The Stand, better than Pet Sematary (if not quite as scary), better than Cujo, better than The Green Mile, better the Dolores Claiborne, better than Stand By Me (just barely, though), and yes, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption (shut up, it's better), I don't care WHAT the IMDb Top 250 says.

I read that, a couple of decades ago, Stanley Kubrick was sorting through novels at his home trying to find one that might make a good movie, and from the other room, his wife would hear a pounding noise every half hour or so as he threw books against the wall in frustration. Finally, she didn't hear any noise for almost two hours, and when she went to check and see if he had died in his chair or something (I tell this with all due respect, of course), she found him concentrating on a book that he had in his hand, and the book was The Shining. And thank God, too, because he went on to convert that book into one of the best horror films ever.

Stephen King can be thanked for the complexity of the story, about a man who takes his wife and son up to a remote hotel to oversee it during the extremely isolated winter as he works on his writing. Jack Nicholson can be thanked for his dead-on performance as Jack Torrance (how many movies has Jack been in where he plays a character named Jack?), as well as his flawless delivery of several now-famous lines (`Heeeeeere's Johnny!!'). Shelley Duvall can be thanked for giving a performance that allows the audience to relate to Jack's desires to kill her. Stanley Kubrick can be thanked for giving this excellent story his very recognizable touch, and whoever the casting director was can be thanked for scrounging up the creepiest twins on the planet to play the part of the murdered girls.

One of the most significant aspects of this movie, necessary for the story as a whole to have its most significant effect, is the isolation, and it's presents flawlessly. The film starts off with a lengthy scene following Jack as he drives up to the old hotel for his interview for the job of the caretaker for the winter. This is soon followed by the same thing following Jack and his family as they drive up the windy mountain road to the hotel. This time the scene is intermixed with shots of Jack, Wendy, and Danny talking in the car, in which Kubrick managed to sneak in a quick suggestion about the evils of TV, as Wendy voices her concern about talking about cannibalism in front of Danny, who says that it's okay because he's already seen it on TV (`See? It's okay, he saw it on the television.').

The hotel itself is the perfect setting for a story like this to take place, and it's bloody past is made much more frightening by the huge, echoing rooms and the long hallways. These rooms with their echoes constantly emphasize the emptiness of the hotel, but it is the hallways that really created most of the scariness of this movie, and Kubrick's traditional tracking shots give the hallways a creepy three-dimensional feel. Early in the film, there is a famous tracking shot that follows Danny in a large circle as he rides around the halls on his Big Wheel (is that what those are called?), and his relative speed (as well as the clunking made by the wheels as he goes back and forth from the hardwood floors to the throw rugs) gives the feeling of not knowing what is around the corner. And being a Stephen King story, you EXPECT something to jump out at you. I think that the best scene in the halls (as well as one of the scariest in the film) is when Danny is playing on the floor, and a ball rolls slowly up to him. He looks up and sees the long empty hallway, and because the ball is something of a child's toy, you expect that it must have been those horrendously creepy twins that rolled it to him. Anyway, you get the point. The Shining is a damn scary movie.

Besides having the rare quality of being a horror film that doesn't suck, The Shining has a very in depth story that really keeps you guessing and leaves you with a feeling that there was something that you missed. HAD Jack always been there, like Mr. Grady told him in the men's room? Was he really at that ball in 1921, or is that just someone who looks exactly like him? If he has always been the caretaker, as Mr. Grady also said, does that mean that it was HIM that went crazy and killed his wife and twin daughters, and not Mr. Grady, after all? It's one thing for a film to leave loose ends that should have been tied, that's just mediocre filmmaking. For example, The Amityville Horror, which obviously copied much of The Shining as far as its subject matter, did this. But it is entirely different when a film is presented in a way that really makes you think (as mostly all of Kubrick's movies are). One more thing that we can all thank Stanley Kubrick for, and we SHOULD thank him for, is for not throwing this book against the wall. That one toss would have been cinematic tragedy. The Shining, you know what's weird about this movie? This is the movie that everyone, for people who claim to not like horror films, will always say that The Shining is a terrific film. This is Stanley Kubrick's classic vision of Stephen King's horror tale of madness and blood. This is just an incredible film and wither you have seen it or not, you have heard of it, know a few lines from it, and know some of the classic images. Who could forget Jack's "Here's Johnny!"? Who could forget "All Work and No Play Make Jack a Dull Boy"? Who could forget that chilling ending? This is the film that is unforgettable and honestly in my opinion is Kubrick's best work. I know there is a lot of argument in that department, a lot of people say it's 2001: A Space Odyssey or Clockwork Orange or even Dr. Strangelove, but if those film pioneered film making, then The Shining perfected it. This is the tale of isolation, madness, terrifying images, and the ultimate ghost story that will crawl underneath your skin.

Jack Torrance, Jack's son Danny, and Jack's wife, Wendy arrive at the Overlook Hotel on closing day. The elderly African-American chef, Dick Hallorann, surprises Danny by speaking to him telepathically and offering him some ice cream. He explains to Danny that he and his grandmother shared the gift; they called the communication "shining." Danny asks if there is anything to be afraid of in the hotel, particularly Room 237. Dick tells Danny that the hotel has a certain "shine" to it and many memories, not all of them good, and advises him to stay out of room 237 under all circumstances. Danny's curiosity about Room 237 finally gets the better of him when he sees the room has been opened. Danny shows up injured and visibly traumatized after Jack tells Wendy that he loves his family. Seeing this, Wendy thinks Jack has been abusing Danny. Jack wanders into the hotel's Gold Room where he meets a ghostly bartender named Lloyd. Danny starts calling out the word "redrum" frantically, and scribbling it on walls. He goes into a trance, and withdraws; he now says that he is Tony, his own "imaginary friend." Jack sabotages the hotel radio, cutting off communication from the outside world, but Hallorann has received Danny's telepathic cry for help and is on his way. Wendy discovers that Jack has been typing endless pages of manuscript repeating "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" formatted in various ways. Horrified, Jack threatens her and she knocks him unconscious with a baseball bat, locking him in a storage locker in the kitchen. Jack converses with Grady through the door of the locker, which then unlocks releasing him. Danny has written "REDRUM" in lipstick on the door of Wendy's bedroom. When she looks in the mirror, she sees that it is "Murder" spelled backwards. Jack picks up an axe and begins to chop through the door leading to his family's living quarters. "Here's Johnny!", and Jack's legendary image is born.

The Shining is one of those films that you seriously have to make time to see, this is an incredible film and still gives me nightmares. Jack Nicholson's performance is timeless and unforgettable. But one I also feel is extremely overlooked is Shelley Duvall, her scene of finding Jack's rant All Work… is incredible, that's a look of horror and you can see that fear in her face after realizing her husband is mad. Also another incredible scene is when Jack sees a ghost woman in the bathtub, it's honestly one of the most terrifying scenes in horror cinema. The reason this film is so well known is because it's a film of perfection, it's been on The Simpsons, it's been shown in other films and it's a film that will forever stay with you when you see it, trust me.

10/10 Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script. Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.

It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.

Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.

Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.

Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress. *!!- SPOILERS - !!*

Before I begin this, let me say that I have had both the advantages of seeing this movie on the big screen and of having seen the "Authorized Version" of this movie, remade by Stephen King, himself, in 1997.

Both advantages made me appreciate this version of "The Shining," all the more.

Also, let me say that I've read Mr. King's book, "The Shining" on many occasions over the years, and while I love the book and am a huge fan of his work, Stanley Kubrick's retelling of this story is far more compelling ... and SCARY.

Kubrick really knows how to convey the terror of the psyche straight to film. In the direction of the movie AND the writing of the screenplay, itself, he acquired the title "Magus" beyond question. Kubrick's genius is like magic. The movie world lost a great director when he died in 1999. Among his other outstanding credits are: Eyes Wide Shut, 1999; Full Metal Jacket, 1987; Barry Lyndon, 1975; A Clockwork Orange, 1971; 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968; Spartacus, 1960 and many more.

The Torrences (Jack, Wendy his wife and Danny, their son) are living in the Overlook Hotel for the winter; Jack has been hired as the caretaker. It is his job to oversee the upkeep of the hotel during the several months of hard snow, until spring when the Overlook reopens its doors. It seems there are many wealthy and jaded tourists who will flock to the Colorado Mountains for a snow-filled summer getaway.

The Hotel was an impressive piece of architecture and staging. It lent to the atmosphere, by having a dark, yet at the same time "welcoming" atmosphere, itself. The furnishings and furniture was all period (late 70's - early 80's), and the filmography of the landscape approaching the hotel in the opening scene is brilliant. It not only lets you enjoy the approach to the Overlook, it also fixes in your mind how deserted and isolated the Hotel is from the rest of the world.

The introduction of Wendy and Danny's characters was a stroke of genius. You get the whole story of their past, Danny's "imaginary friend," Tony, and the story of Jack's alcoholism all rolled into this nice, neat introductory scene. There was no need in stretching the past history out over two hours of the movie; obviously, Kubrick saw that from the beginning.

Closing Day. Again, the scenic drive up the mountains to the Hotel (this time, with family in tow), the interaction between Jack and Danny was hilarious while also portraying a very disturbing exchange.

The initial tour through the Overlook is quite breathtaking, even as the "staff" is moving things out, you get a chance to see the majestic fire places, the high cathedral ceilings and expensive furnishings, dormants and crown moldings in the architecture. "They did a good job! Pink and gold are my favorite colors." (Wendy Torrence) Even the "staff wing" is well designed and beautifully built.

The maze was a magnificent touch, reminiscent of the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur of Crete was Guardian. When Jack Nicholson stands at the scaled model of the maze and stares into the center, seeing Wendy and Danny entering, it's a magickal moment; one that tells you right away, there are heavy energies in that house; there's something seriously wrong, already starting. "I wouldn't want to go in there unless I had at least an hour to find my way out." (The Hotel Manager)

Scatman Cruthers, as Dick Halloran, was genuine and open in his performance. His smiles were natural and his performance was wonderful. You could actually believe you were there in the hotel, taking the tour of the kitchen with Wendy and "Doc." His explanation of "the shining" to Danny was very well delivered, as was his conversation with the child about Tony and the Hotel. It was believable and sincere.

The cut out and pan scan of the hotel itself, with the mountains looming behind, the cold air swirling about, mist coming up from the warm roof of the snowbound hotel, adds so MUCH to the atmosphere of the movie. It also marks the "half-way-to-hell" point, so to speak; the turning point in the movie.

Shelley Duvall's portrayal of Wendy Torrence was masterful. (So WHAT if she also played Olive Oyl?! It just shows her marvelous diversity!) Honestly, before I saw the movie on the big screen in 1980, I said," What? Olive Oyl? *lol* (Popeye was also released in 1980.) But I took that back as soon as the movie started. She's brilliant. In this Fiend's opinion, this is her best performance, to date! (Although I did love her in Steve Martin's "Roxanne," 1987.)

Once Kubrick has established the pearly bits of information of which you, the viewer, need to be in possession: the Torrence's past; Danny's broken arm; Tony; the history of the Hotel itself; the fact that Danny is not "mental," but rather clairvoyant instead, and the general layout of the Hotel; all of which you get in the opening 3 sequences; the movie never stops scaring you.

The two butchered daughters of the previous caretaker, Delbert Grady (the girls having appeared several times to Danny, first by way of Tony in the apartment before the family ever left for the hotel) were icons with which Danny could identify, and of which he was afraid, at the same time. They were haunting (and haunted), themselves and showed Danny how and where they were killed, in a rather graphic and material way.

Kubrick's Tony was written as an attendant spirit, like a spirit guide which he acquired as a result of his arm nearly being wrenched off his body by his own father. He was..."the little boy who lives in my mouth." He would manifest in the end of Danny's finger and physically spoke through Danny in order to speak TO Danny. NOT like in the book, I realize, where Tony was intended by Stephen King to be the projection of Danny as an older boy, trying to save his father. Kubrick left out that little twist and it somehow made it more frightening when Tony "took ... Danny ... over." The idea of Danny's older self projecting back to his younger self isn't...scary.

The "Woman in the Shower" scene, done by Lia Beldan (about whom I can find no other credits for having done anything before, or since) as the younger woman and Billie Gibson (who ALSO appears to suffer from a lack of credits for works before or since), was seductively obnoxious and thoroughly disgusting. It was dramatic, and frightening. Abhorrent and scary. When Nicholson looks into the mirror and sees her decomposing flesh beneath his hands; the look of sheer terror on his face was so complete and REAL.

Jack quickly embarks on his trek from the "jonesing" alcoholic to a certifiable insane person. The degradation of his character's mental state is carefully and thoroughly documented by Kubrick. Jack's instant friendship with Lloyd the Bartender (as only alcoholics, would-be mental patients and drug addicts do) portrays his pressing NEED of the atmosphere to which Lloyd avails him; namely, alcohol ..."hair of the dog that bit me." (Jack Torrence) In Jack's case, it's bourbon on the rocks, at no charge to Jack. "Orders from the house." (Lloyd the Bartender) Nice play on words.

When Wendy find's Jack's "screenplay" is nothing more than page after page of the same line typed over and over, albeit in 8 or 9 different creative styles...when he asks from the shadows, "How do you like it?" and Wendy whirls and screams with the baseball bat in her hand...is so poignant. It's the point where she realizes how messed up the whole situation is...how messed up Jack is. It's very scary, dramatic and delivers a strong presence. That coupled with Danny's visions of the hotel lobby filling with blood, imposed over the scene between Jack and Wendy, and with the confrontational ending to this scene, make this possibly THE strongest scene of the movie.

The "REDRUM" scene. Wow. What do I say? What mother would not be totally freaked by awakening to find their young, troubled son standing over them with a huge knife, talking in that freaky little voice, exclaiming "REDRUM" over and over? Even if it HAD no meaning, it would still be as scary as the 7th level of HELL. It was something everyone could (and has) remember(ed). Speaking of memorable scenes...

Nicholson's final assault on his family with an axe was perhaps one of the scariest scenes of movie history. His ad-libbed line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" was a stroke of brilliance and is one of the most memorable scenes in the history of horror. It also goes down in horror movie history.

The ending..? Kubrick's ending was perfection. I felt it ended beautifully. No smarm, no platitudinous whining, no tearfully idiotic ending for THIS movie. Just epitomized perfection. That's all I'll say on the subject of the ending.

Who cares what was taken out?! Look what Kubrick put IN. Rent it, watch it, BUY IT. It's a classic in the horror genre, and for good reason. IT RAWKS!!

*Me being Me* ... Take this movie, and sitck it in your Stephen King collection, and take the 1997 "Authorized" version done by King and stick it down in the kiddie section. That's where it belongs. .: This movie rates a 9.98 from the Fiend :. ... This isn't the first time Stanley blurred the distinction between genres to such great effect, either. In Dr. Strangelove you had a comedy about a horrific situation, and here the basis is a terrifying scenario which actually yields some very funny moments. Slow-burning madness and attempting to kill one's family isn't hilarious of course, but the dialogue is very knowing ("five months of peace is just what I want... ") and there is a terrific drinking scene which would be riotous if you included just one type of spirit, but is spine-chilling when you factor in the other.

I disagree with those who say that the hotel has a negligible effect on Jack Torrance in the filmed version. The cues Nicholson provides the audience as an actor merely hint at the potential for madness, which is only reinforced when we learn that the head of the family has struggled with alcoholism and is emotionally distant from his wife and son. The environment that he is in, however, then absorbs those personality defects and unleashes them upon his consciousness. In much the same way as buildings are sometimes thought to soak up events that happen there, the hotel feeds on the frailties of a troubled but sane man, and uses his weaknesses against him to eventually take him beyond the point of no return. He may have dormant flaws in his personality before he arrives, but to me the Overlook itself is the trigger that sets them off.

Kubrick's cold and detached approach to directing works splendidly for a chilly horror film, and the unpredictable force of nature that is Jack Nicholson teeters all the time between making you giggle and scaring the wits out of you. When he explodes, you won't be sure how far he can go. Together they made a great team and with a blend of their talents gave us a classic. If you want a great viewing experience, then this is an example that well and truly shines... When i first went to watch The Shining I was expecting a decent film from what I had heard about it and I liked a lot of Stanley Kubrick's other work but when I started to watch it it was so much better than I thought it would be.At times I seriously felt ridiculously uneasy and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen still there's something very disturbing about everything in the film. Now some people don't like Kubrick's version of The Shining since it doesn't entirely follow Stephen King's book but in my opinion both Kubrick's version,the mini-series and the book are all great.Jack Nicholson gives an awesome performance.If you are looking for a good original movie that will keep you thinking even after the movies over then watch The Shining. The Shining starts with Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) driving to an isolated hotel named the 'Overlook' situated high in the Colorado mountains for an interview with it's manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) about becoming the Winter caretaker. Ullman tells Jack that he will be responsible for the basic upkeep of the hotel but will be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world for six months as the harsh Winter sets in. Together with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) & young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) Jack moves into the hotel & at first everything seems fine, it's a beautiful hotel, absolutely huge & whatever they need is at their disposal. However the Overlook hotel has a murky past with a previous caretaker murdering his entire family before committing suicide & Danny has the ability to 'shine' which means he has psychic powers that let him see & hear things 'ordinary' people can't. As the days, weeks & months begin to pass Jack become more & more insane, Danny keeps 'seeing' things & people while Wendy becomes frantic as she doesn't have a clue what's happening to her family, as a heavy snowstorm leaves them trapped Jack finally loses it...

This English production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick & is a fine horror film. It appears that The Shining is another film that exists in two distinct different versions & the one I will be commenting on is the shorter European cut that runs just under 2 hours in length. The script by Kubrick & Diane Johnson, is based on the novel by Stephen King which I have not read so I can't compare them, goes for psychological horror rather than visual with only one murder during the entire film. There are very few character's in The Shining with Jack, Wendy & Danny the only ones that really matter, since the film concentrates on them almost exclusively you care for them, become involved with them & what they go through. The pace is somewhat slow but this is one film that didn't feel that long & keeps you interested throughout. On the negative side I don't think the reasoning behind Jack going crazy & wanting to kill his family was strong enough to convince me, the fact that Jack escapes from the freezer without any explanation bugs me & I don't know if I missed something but that ending didn't make any sense to me whatsoever, I'm still trying to work out what that picture is all about! There is very little in the way of violence or gore, a couple of rotten zombie ghosts & someone is killed with an axe but The Shining is a horror film that doesn't need to rely on blood & special effects as it has a gripping story. With a budget of about $19,000,000 The Shining is technically flawless as you would expect from an obsessive filmmaker such as Kubrick, the cinematography is brilliant with some fantastic free-flowing & smooth steadicam shots as the camera effortlessly follows the character's around the maze of corridors, the sets look absolutely real & instead of clichéd old haunted house themes like dark corners, basements & cobwebs Kubrick brings things right up-to-date with brightly lit corridors, massive open expansive spaces & a modern decor (well 80's modern, just check that red toilet out!). The acting is good from everyone involved although as usual in horror films the little kid is highly annoying & Nicholson seems crazy from the very start. The Shining is an absorbing film that I enjoyed watching although I'm not sure I'd watch it again anytime soon. For those looking for explosions & fancy special effects you will be disappointed, for those looking for a good haunted house type horror with a strong story I definitely think The Shining is for you, well worth a watch in my humble opinion. Kubrick again puts on display his stunning ability to craft a perfect ambiance for a film. Mainly through cinematography, but also using an ingenious score, he creates a chilling and ominous tone that resides over the entire film and thoroughly gets my spine tingling from the start. It really is this flawless ambiance that makes The Shining the masterpiece that it is, in my eyes. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. A frighteningly authentic portrayal of a mind gone mad. Duvall and Lloyd are artificial, to be nice, but it's easy to look past those two when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Plus it features the actor with the greatest name of all time (Scatman Crothers). "Nothin'. There ain't nothing' in Room 237. But you ain't got no business going' in there anyway. So stay out. You understand? Stay out."

Never has there been such a feat of psychological horror as this film achieves. This is the highest rated horror film of all and rightly so. Jack nicholson is a superb actor and this is one of the greatest performances in cinema.

Its about a family moving to an isolated and deserted hotel for 5 months over the winter. Then the father (Jack) becomes almost possessed by the horrors in the hotel.

Kubricks direction is nothing short then perfect. The tense tracking shots, agonising music, mystical messages and perplexing plot makes this the best horror film ever made.

Throughout the film there is constant references to danger, death and horror. Red is used in EVERY scene. Is the red purposely put in by Kubrick? Of course!.

This is a definitive Kubrick classic and this is the third of his films I have given 10/10. He is a perfectionist in his direction and you can see it in all his films. He loves to perplex his watchers in everyone of his films.

I will be talking about this film for months to come. It has infinite depth.

In conclusion, this is the cornerstone of horror and tension. A masterpiece of terror 10/10 At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book – which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death – because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.

What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy – since most of us have read the book – and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the f*** alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.

Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question – how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? – but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well – seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that – but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history – probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap – and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.

I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that. The Shining is a weird example of adaptation: it has very little in common with the source novel, written by Stephen King, yet it is widely remembered as one of the best cinematic renditions of the horror master's work. This is due to two factors: Stanley Kubrick's masterful direction and Jack Nicholson's chilly acting.

Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a writer who accepts to take care of the Overlook Hotel in Canada during the winter period, unaffected by the gruesome stories surrounding the place: he claims a nice, isolated location is just what he needs to finish his new book. Therefore the Overlook becomes the new home of the Torrance family: Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their five-year old son Danny (Danny Lloyd). The boy in particular senses right from the beginning that something's wrong: he has been told by the cook, Dick O' Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) that he is endowed with a mysterious psychic energy, the titular Shining, which allows people like him and Dick to see flashes from the past and the future, among other things. Because of this "gift", the forces that inhabit the hotel immediately take an interest in Danny, even though he is quite capable of resisting them. That is not Jack's case, however, as he gets increasingly paranoid regarding his wife's affections and seeks comfort in the company of what can best be defined as ghosts, triggering a chain of insanity and dread which is very hard to break.

The Shining works as a horror movie because Kubrick, though having never worked on this kind of film before, knew exactly what was effective and what wasn't, hence the larger focus on atmosphere and psychological shocks than gore and creative bloodbaths. King criticized the director for changing most of the story, omitting most of the Jack/Danny subplot (merely hinted at in the film) that led to the book's emotionally strong climax, and while his disappointment is valid, the omission was actually necessary: the novel dealt with redemption, albeit in an unconventional way, and redemption is a theme Kubrick, one of the most famous analysts of human decay, never had a soft spot for. What he is interested in is the mental, and subsequently physical, unbalance that threatens the characters, and he keeps the creepy tone even thanks to a very cold approach and expert use of the steadicam shot (Danny's encounter with two ghostly twins being the best example).

Another criticism King raised was about the actors, especially Nicholson: in the writer's opinion, his trademark grin at the start of the movie seemed to indicate Jack already was insane, thus undermining the rest of the story. Now, it is true that Nicholson looks a bit goofy from the very beginning, but it is equally true that Martin Sheen (King's ideal choice for the role) probably would not have been able to deliver a performance as terrifying as Nicholson's: from the moment he starts grinning in a more unsettling way than before to the immortal "Here's Johnny!" scene, it is impossible to picture another actor playing that part, and even though the TV version of The Shining from 1997 isn't bad the Torrance character is indelibly linked to the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest star. As for Duvall and Lloyd, both add terrific support, the latter especially deserving a place alongside Harvey Stephens (The Omen's Damien) and Haley Joel Osment as cinema's great horror child icons. One might complain about Duvall being completely different from the book counterpart (blonde and beautiful) and not having much else to do but scream and run, but two things ought to be considered: a) back in 1980 the "scream queen" cliché wasn't one yet; b) rarely has any actress looked so genuinely terrified on camera, making the book-movie differences secondary compared to the real fear that emerges from Wendy's eyes.

Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting, once said there is no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation of any literary work (and he should know, given the liberties Danny Boyle took when his junkie masterpiece was brought to the screen), yet that doesn't mean the movie is necessarily bad. The Shining proves said point to perfection: very little from the novel, approximately 5%, is included in the film, but in Kubrick and Nichlolson's hands this masterclass in loose cinematic translation becomes one of the finest, most original horror pictures of all time, which really is saying something given the genre's current poor form. Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!! Kubrick proved his brilliantness again, now in a suspense-horror film based on Stephen King's book titled the same way. Jack Torrance is a man in his forties, married, with one child, and with a past of trouble and alcoholism. The Overlook Hotel in Colorado suspends service during the winter because of its extreme weather, and there is a well-paid job for the person who takes care of the facilities during those five months; and Torrance, who was looking to become a writer, found it perfect. But, the manager advised Torrance about the loneliness in this place during the winter, potentially dangerous, and told him that some caretaker in the past went crazy and murdered his family. Even before they got there, his son Danny, who has some sort of imaginary friend who illuminates him the future (shinning), knew the place wasn't good and didn't want to go. Once they installed themselves in the hotel, things started right but within a month, Jack began acting strange, irritated, and depressed. At this point, we know something is going to happen, but don't know when and how. Scary things happen such as the appearance of two twin girls talking to Danny, and someone who attacked him violently. They are not alone in this place. Later on, Jack started to see other people and immediately felt good with them, like if they were his family; among them the famous psychotic caretaker, Delbert Grady. Grady tells Torrance that he must kill his family because they are "intruders" in the hotel. Obeying this order, Jack went for the objective and many of the most scary things I've ever seen happen here. The ending is spectacular and the viewers will stay interested and shocked until the last minute. Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like "The Shining"? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.

So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.

This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as "scary". It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.

Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.

There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley. That's right. The movie is better than the book. Don't get me wrong, I love the book. But the movie is just so much better. This film has Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall at their best. (I haven't seen Scatman Crothers and obviously Danny Lloyd in anything else.) Some of the ideas used in this movie are better than the ones used in the book. But I already talked about those in my comment on the mini series. But, I missed a few. The film is shot at a better location than where the mini series was shot. And the REDRUM scenes are creepier than those in the book. So if you're looking for a great movie, get Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. But count on having nightmares every night for 3 weeks Besides the fact that my list of favorite movie makers is: 1)Stanley Kubrick 2)God Allmighty 3)the rest... this movie actually is better than the book (and the TV miniseries though this is an easy feat, considering the director). The flawless filming stile, the acting and (Kubrick's all time number one skill) the music - make it THE masterpiece of horror. I watched the TV miniseries a few years ago and liked the story and I had my hopes about this when I got a hold of it. IT BLEW ME AWAY!!! It is far better than I ever imagined it. It starts slow (Kubrick trademark) and has a lot of downtime that builds up the suspense. The intro scene is a classic by all means and I watched it about 20 times just for the shear atmosphere it induces to the whole film. Also the film doesn't offer a lot of gore (it has just enough and it is by no means tasteless) a trend that I hate in recent day horror films. Just watch it! Walking with Cavemen, hosted by Alec Baldwin, is a look back at all the hominid (that's us!) species of the past 5 million years: who they were, what they were like, and how they died out. Along with being a very interesting scientific look at the information we have on these species, Walking with Cavemen also examines what it is that makes us human. I waited several weeks to watch this, and I was not disappointed. Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love. This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists) I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those "genius" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right. No movies have grabbed my attention like this one has. You see, I have wanted to watch this movie again for over twenty-five years. The one and only time I saw it was as a teen-ager which may have been the year it was released, 1977.

What I do remember of the movie is that it touched those deep-held emotions so profoundly that there is still an overwhelming desire to watch it again. The intrigue this movie provides by the human element of father/son seeking and searching is sure to touch every human soul who watches it. Why this movie has not been brought out of storage and shown as often as many other movies of lesser depth, I do not know.

Postscript: Received copy of movie and after watching it again was delighted to see that my memory held true. Rating reflects movie content. Would like to watch this movie on DVD as seeing this 1977 production on a used VHS tape took away from the overall quality. I don't know what it is I find so endearing about this film, but the first time I saw it, I wanted to see how it ended. I'm not a big fan of Paul Winfield nor of war-dramas, but I was truly wondering just how and when Winfield would find his child. All he knows is that the boy has green eyes. Truth be told, I have not seen this movie in years nor has it been shown on TV in a while, but this movie is somewhat of one man's odyssey after the pains of war. Winfield shows a very sympathetic and heart warming portrayal of a man lost by his memories. There is an underlying message in this movie that he is looking for the last shred of human morality in the aftermath of this war and the reality that he does confront. Why this movie is not yet on DVD or video is a mystery to me. I really can't say too much more about the plot of the movie that hasn't already been said. I haven't seen the movie in about 25 years and the memory of it has never left me. I have been searching for it every where. I have done net searches for it in the past but came up empty. Last night I was thinking about the movie again and was trying to remember who was in it but I was only about 10 or 12 when I last saw it and I wasn't even sure if I had the right movie name so I decided to do another search and I finally found this sight. I was right. If any one knows where I can get a copy of this wonderful movie to share with my family could you please let me now at tawnyteel@yahoo.com I would really appreciate it. And to anyone who has not seen this movie and has the chance to it is well worth it. Truly this is a 'heart-warming' film. It won the George Peobody Award, winning over "Roots", so that may tell you something of the essence of this film. I am looking on the Internet how to order this movie since my former father-in-law, Eugene Logan, the co-writer of this film has been deceased for a few years now so I no longer have the opportunity to receive information from him. I would love to have his only grand-daughters, my daughters, see this film, as well as to pass this wonderful story on to his great-grandsons. My oldest daughter was seven years old at the time it was aired on television and I since have been looking forward to seeing it again. One of my friends said it was her favorite movie. I won't 'spoil' this movie for you. Green Eyes is a great movie. In todays context of supporting our troops, it is interesting this movie showed the lack of respect soldiers received from doing their duty, during this period. From a historical view, the end of the Vietnam war left all of us with something to remember and learn from. Gene was very proud of this movie, and he deserved the credits he received from writing "Green Eyes". I agree, I do not understand why this movie is not shown more often, or at all. This movie is the kind of movie that should be shown on TV every year, much like the Wizard of Oz. The dedication of one man towards his lost son is entirely moving. I was a friend of Gene Logans and I was proud to know him. Rocky Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies. Being a fan of the first Lion King, I was definitely looking forward to this movie, but I knew there was really no way it could be as good as the original. I know that many Disney fans are wary of the direct-to-video movies, as I have mixed feelings of them as well.

While watching The Lion King 1½, I tried to figure out what my own viewpoint was regarding this movie. Am I going to be so devout about The Lion King that I will nitpick at certain scenes, or am I just going to accept this movie as just another look at The Lion King story? Most of the time, I found myself embracing the latter.

The Lion King 1½ definitely has its cute and funny moments. Timon and Pumbaa stole the show in the first movie and definitely deserved a movie that centered around them. People just love these characters! My favorite parts of the movie include the montage of Timon & Pumbaa taking care of young Simba and the surprise ending featuring some great cameos.

I could have done without many of the bathroom jokes though, like the real reason everyone bowed to baby Simba at the beginning of Lion King 1. I guess those types of jokes are for the younger set (which after all is the target audience. I don't think many kids are really concerned about Disney's profit margin on direct-to-video movies.)

However, I will say that I was somewhat annoyed when they directly tied in scenes from the original movie to this movie. I'm just too familiar with the original that those scenes just stuck out like sore thumbs to me. Something would be different with the music or the voices that it would just distract me.

As for the music, it wasn't too bad, but don't expect any classics to come from this movie. At least LK2 had the nice ballad, "Love Will Find a Way." As for the voicework, it was well done in this movie. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella did a great job as always, and even new cast members, the classic comedic actor Jerry Stiller and Julie Kavner (best known as Marge Simpson), did a great job also. You can even enjoy these great voice talents even more by checking out the Virtual Safari on Disc 2 of the DVD. That feature is definitely a lot of fun!!

So all in all, The Lion King 1½ isn't a perfect movie, but it's cute and entertaining. I think many Lion King fans will enjoy it and appreciate it for what it is - a fun, lighthearted look at the Lion King masterpiece from our funny friends' perspectives.

My IMDb Rating: 7/10. My Yahoo! Grade: B (Good) One of the best movies for all ages. You will never be able to look at LION KING again without thinking of the extra history this movie adds. Nearly 40 years old, I watched this with my wife and two sons after work tonight & I have not laughed & enjoyed a movie so much in a long time.

Take time out and watch this with the kids. It will remind you of how Disney used to be when you were a young one. This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.

My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).

A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.

Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)

All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :) The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it. My Take: A funny take on THE LION KING, posing as a sequel. Surprisingly amusing.

Surprisingly, "Lion King 1 1/2" is actually another funny straight-to-video, that's worth a theatrical treatment. I don't see why Disney released this straight to video, and release crappy movies like "Chicken Little" and "Return to Neverland" theatrically. Those movies are better off seen in the video stores (in the "new releases" area), rather than seeing their theatrical posters outside the theaters.

This one is merely a spoof of the first film (although the events in "Simba's Pride" hasn't taken place yet), on Timon (voiced by Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa's (voiced by Ernie Sabella) point of view. We get to see them make fun of the events in the first film. Original voices from the first film, like Matthew Broderick, Woopie Goldberg, Cheeche Martin and Robert Guillaume, return to their voicing roles from the first film, while Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller give some hilarious comedy relief as Timon's mom and grumpy uncle.

So doesn't this sound fun. Maybe not now, but go watch it for yourself. The fact that it's not that serious in its plot makes it the more enjoyable. It's kinda like MST3000 with Timon and Pumbaa.

Video movie rating: ***1/2 out of 5. Lion King 1 1/2 is a very fun and addictive sequel. Don't expect the production values of a theatrical release, but do expect the highest quality of direct to video release.

It is set up as Timon & Pumba begin watching the original Lion King in a darkened theater and abruptly switch tracks and begin narrating their own story. This is done with frequent comedic interruptions. For example, during one particular tense moment a home shopping commercial pops on and a chagrined Pumba realizes he has sat on the remote. These little moments pepper the movie, and whether you find them entertaining or not will greatly depend on your sense of humor. If you are particularly bothered by movies that deliberately remind the viewer is watching a movie, than this may not be your cup of tea.

Animation is the best they've invested in the Disney DTV line, and is integrated almost seamlessly with the original material. The newer, independent material uses a lot of the artistic style of the original. The voice talents are all well performed, though I couldn't help thinking of Marge Simpson every time I heard Julie Kavner.

Many of the jokes in the movie will be well recognized by viewers as recycled over the generations, but are presented more with the familiarity of comfortable quirks of old friends than annoyingly repetitive.

The music has made me realize how much I enjoyed and miss a good musical integrated with a Disney feature. The toe-tapping opening feature of 'Dig A Tunnel' is well choreographed and hilarious. Timon and Pumba's take on the Lion King's opening sequence and their introduction to paradise are also amusing. The only problem was the reprise of the 'Dig A Tunnel' at the end of the movie, switching its lyrics and tune from defeatist to uplifting.

Story line is pretty well done, and the integration of new plot elements is done almost perfectly, though the final bit during the hyena chased stretched the storyline credibility a little. The new story doesn't seem to handle saccharine or emotionally charged moments to well, and does better when it is resorting to full comedy.

Overall, worth purchasing. If you like all the bonus features that come with a typical 2-disc set, then go for it. For the penny pincher who still is willing to invest on a good flick, wait until it drops four or more dollars and go rent it right away.

Damion Crowley. I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10 7 if you're a kid- 6 if you claim to be an adult. This semi-sequel to the Lion King sees to spin off side characters Timone and Pumba, retelling the original story through their eyes, including the story of how they met. In the grand tradition of Disney, inferior sequels are made, and occasionally TV series featuring the adventures of minor characters from their biggest hits. You can be as sceptical as you want about this, but kids and fans of the series will likely not care; their are enough jokes and songs and interesting things to ensure that this is one of the few above average sequels. This works because of the charm of the much-loved central characters, the quick pace, the in-jokes involving the first film, and for older viewers there are some funny gags. The animation is as good as ever, if a little less flamboyant than the original, but the plot here is all about taking it easy, Hakuna Matata.

Timone and Pumba decide to watch the events of the first film, frequently stopping mid-film to joke about parts of it, like a real audience. We see how Timone is a near outcast, he feels he does not fit in and decides to go looking beyond what he sees to find his ideal home. On the way he meets Pumba, another outcast and they become friends. Soon they meet Simba, a Lion cub, natural predator of T and P, but they form a trio. However, when Simba realises he must follow his own destiny and leave the group, it is up to the others to decide whether to help or not, and how. Of course the usual Disney elements and themes are here, friendship, good versus evil etc. The plot is simple but works on many levels, making it smarter than your average animated movie. As the CG movies appear, Disney's traditional form must become smarter, but not forget the roots which made them popular. Toy Story and all that have come since have been clever, with jokes to suit all ages, and it seems this is the way the market is shifting. However, there will always be a place for films like this, and you cannot go wrong buying this for the youngsters.

7 out of 10 If The Lion King is a serious story about a young lion growing up to avenge his father's death, The Lion King 1 and a half is the total opposite, full of whimsy and cheer. The Lion King told the story from the side of Simba the young lion, 1 and a half is from the view of Timone and Pumbaa, a less than perfect duo made up of a meercat who left home because he could not dig tunnels without burying his friends and neighbors and a warthog who has an odor issue. The movie is a little short on substance, but Disney does a good job of filling time with various sketches starring Timone and Pumbaa as they "watch" the movie with us. My favorite is the sing-along that happens halfway through the movie, make sure you watch the bouncing bug! Disney has advertised 1 and a half as "the rest of the story," though it really isn't. It is just a different perspective of The Lion King, without all of the serious stuff that pervaded most of the second half of the original Disney classic. Credit Nathan Lane as Timone and Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa for their voice work, without their efforts, the movie may not have worked. The sing, they entertain, and they make us laugh. They also give us a reason to avoid a hot tub with a warthog. "The Lion King" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries!

8/10 I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all. I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10! Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...

'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!

Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.

But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.

Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking "Oh my god this is so lame..." and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.

And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.

The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.

The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.

In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.

Am I starting to sound creepy?

Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking "Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!" "Lion King 1 1/2" is the funniest non-theatrical release from Disney. I recently saw this movie again after not seeing it in many years. I remember first time I saw it I didn't had any expectations at all and were pleasantly surprised by this watchable and highly entertaining movie.

Is it better than "Simba's Pride"? In many ways, yes. Though "Simba's Pride" wasn't exactly bad, it did suffer some problems: lack of an good script and bad characterizations, which made impact of what otherwise a okay film.

Anyway: It's nice to see Timon and Pumbaa's personalities blossom again in the way that we (or certainly me) loved about them in this film; in "Simba's Pride" they were completely annoying and I didn't liked the "Timon and Pumbaa" series neither.

This film could easily have been a stupid one, but fortunately the filmmakers didn't took the wrong turn and instead focused to make this film at times extremely hilarious. There are a few jokes that adults can enjoy on their own. The score is quite good. There are two new songs, which are catchy and two new characters, Timon's mom, (voiced by recognizable Marge Simpsons' Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max, which are enjoyable. The friendship between Timon and Pumbaa are touchingly portrayed. The emotional scenes are well integrated in the comical story and doesn't feel out of place, which it could have easily done (especially in comedies).

But is there something that distracts this picture from getting 10 votes from me? Yes, there is. Although they fortunately doesn't impact too much, but I'll mention them: 1. Many of the scenes from the first film are used in this one. Personally, it was weird to see the old scenes integrated with the new ones.

2. During the climax, some of the jokes becomes lame.

3. Storywise, this is Timon's story and although the filmmakers try to integrate his tale with Simba's, it makes the screenplay feel a little rushed at times.

But hey, those details doesn't impact this otherwise amusing movie. It is the only really acceptable Disney sequel, which should be in every movie collection. Surprisingly not terrible and well animated for one of Disney's straight to video throw away sequels. Like the previous sequel (The Lion King 2) I was glad that Disney brought back most of the original voice actors which makes a big difference and they kept a good level of traditional animation. The plot wanders around for a while but we are distracted by an unending string of jokes ranging from hilarious to dull. To break up the detached plot and jokes they gave us some silly musical sequences, which much like the jokes, range from entertaining to a quick trip to the fridge. For the most part the MST3K-like moments are bland and full of untapped potential and really don't add a whole lot to the movie other than to act as a vehicle for an hour-long flashback. The new characters are at least likable, and the old characters are out doing their thing so I can't fault them there. Overall this movie in not bad and it makes for a nice frivolous filler between the more serious Lion King titles. In this film we have the fabulous opportunity to see what happened to Timon and Pumbaa in the film when they are not shown - which is a lot! This film even goes back to before Simba and (presumbably) just after the birth of Kiara.

Quite true to the first film, "Lion King 1/2 (or Lion King 3 in other places)" is a funny, entertaining, exciting and surprising film (or sequel if that's what you want to call it). A bundle of surprises and hilarity await for you!

While Timon and Pumbaa are watching a film at the cinema (with a remote control), Timon and Pumbaa have an argument of what point of "The Lion King" they are going to start watching, as Timon wants to go to the part when he and Pumbaa come in and Pumbaa wants to go back to the beginning. They have a very fair compromise of watching the film of their own story, which is what awaits... It starts with Timon's first home...

For anyone with a good sense of humour who liked the first films of just about any age, enjoy "Lion King 1/2"! :-) I actually like the original, and this film has its ups and downs. Here's just a few:

Ups: Most of the original voice cast returned.

Downs: I didn't like the voice of Timon's Ma. I know she did a voice in The Simpsons, but that show is just plain stupid.

Ups: We get to see Simba as a "teenager."

Downs: They wasted it with a slug-slurping contest between Timon and Simba.

Ups: It was Rafiki who told Timon about "Hakuna Matata."

Downs: How did Pumbaa find out about it?

Ups: Songs again. (some of the original songs were there, but they were just background music.)

Downs: But stupid songs. (a.k.a. Timon's solo.)

Overall, this is a pretty good movie. I'd recommend it for fans of the original. But if you don't like the original, chances are you won't like this one.

My Score: 7/10 Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else!

Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, "Twas beauty who killed the beast", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema.

However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?

But apart from that , IT"S GREAT! Disney have done it again. Brilliant the way Timone and Pumbaa are brought back to life yet again to tell us how they came to meet and help Simba when he needed them. I love this film and watch it over and over again. It shows how Timone lived with his family and fellow meerkats before setting off to find his dream home and adventure. Then he meets Pumbaa and things do change. Together, they search for the home Timon wants and repeatedly fail, which is funny as Timone gets more and more crazy. Then Simba turns up and we see more of his childhood than we did in the previous 2 films. The rest, you already know. What a pleasant surprise: A Disney DTV (Direct to Video) sequel that's actually GOOD. "The Lion King 1 1/2" is a comedy affair that involves everyone's favorite meerkat and warthog, Timon and Pumbaa. It starts out with them watching the original movie and making comments, until Timon complains that "we're not here yet". After fighting over the remote, Timon and Pumbaa decide to tell the audience "their story". They start the new movie, and the laughs begin.

To be honest, I was losing hope in Disney. Most of their direct-to-video fare has been aggressively awful, with the story lines desperate to cash in on the original. "1 1/2" decides to try something different: It tells the original story from a new point of view. Okay, it adds some stuff, like where Timon came from and how he and Pumbaa met, but it's an interesting concept. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella perfectly recapture the bond and friendship that made us love them in the first movie. There's also some neat movie parodies (including one scene that simultaneously spoofs 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' and 'Cool Hand Luke), and the script is filled with funny memorable lines.

Added to the cast are Julie Kavner ("The Simpsons") as Timon's worry-wart mom, and Jerry Stiller as Timon's slightly crazy Uncle Max. Matthew Broderick shows up as Simba, and his "teen" scene reminded me of Ferris Bueller. Everyone does well, especially Robert Guillame (is that how you spell it?) as Rafiki, who exudes more and more Yoda-speak in this movie (Timon comments on this several times).

'The Lion King 1 1/2' is a perfect alternate choice for those of you getting tired of the Shrekification of animation. 10/10 If the Lion King was a Disney version of Hamlet, then the Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata is a Disney version of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Dead. Just like Tom Stoppard's beguiling film, we get to view the action from the point of view of two of the minor characters from the original: Timon, the meerkat with a penchant for breaking into song at the drop of a hat, and Pumbaa, the warthog with flatulence issues. By following their story - rather than Simba's - we get to see why all the animals bowed down as Simba was presented from Pride Rock. We find out what made Timon and Pumbaa decide to follow Simba back to Pride Rock to oust Scar. And we find out how they dealt with the hyena's once and for all. Nathan Lane as Timon gets most of the best jokes, but he is ably supported by Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa. It is also good to hear Matthew Broderick and Whoopi Goldberg reprising their roles. Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller lend their distinctive voices to two new characters: Timon's mother and uncle. The only downside is the constant stop-start-rewind-fast-forward device which doesn't always help to progress the story. Having said that, there is a brilliant zoom near the beginning of the movie. With more laughs than any other third-in-a-Disney-series movie, Hakuna Matata is worth watching - if only for the hot tub scene which is still funny despite being a little bit predictable. Possible SPOILERS: Not Sure

While watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.

There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the "Circle of Life" or "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" sequence).

The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.

There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?

As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the "Who Wants to be King of the Jungle" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.

Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2. I watched Lion king more times that all my friends put togther. Having a baby sister.. you know how it is. By now i memorized both the plot and the lines. After Lion king 2 came out i was like ok well let me see... the second one was significantly weaker... then i saw an ad for lion king 1 and 1/2... I was like ok there we go again. After watching the 1 1/2 i was like wow. All my expectations (for repetitevness) were broken. A truly lovely and original plot keeps you glued to your seat for the entire time. I have noticed that the cartoon was filled with so many comical moments that ROFlmao will apply here 100%.

I definetly recommend seeing the cartoon. The Lion King 1 1/2 is a very cute story to go along with The Lion King. It basically follows the original story of The Lion King but with a couple of twists. In the movie,e vents are explained by a different characters point of view. This story is still an original plot.

As far as sequels go, Disney isn't all that great at making worthwhile ones. This one, being the third part to The Lion King (Simba's Pride is the second.) actually has an original idea to it while still involving the fun of the first. Timon and Pumbaa travel along looking for the ideal place to live. After searching far and wide, they find the place of "Hakuna Matata". They then meet a small lion named Simba, and go through many things that parents today go through.

I think this is a very good movie, and I'm happy to add it to my collection. While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.

I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.

You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.

Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.

*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:

- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :

what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.

interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me! Why has this not been released? I kind of thought it must be a bit rubbish since it hasn't been. How wrong can a girl be! This film is, in a word, enthralling.

You will be captivated. It holds your attention from the start and its pace never slows.

The final part of the film, the "episode" as it were (not giving anything away, you saw that in the trailer) is also unmissable. You will chose a favourite, you will be shocked, you wont be able to go and make a cup of coffee because you need to find out what happens. The adrenalin rises and you cant not watch. Cudos to the actors, it's very believable. And it doesn't stop there, they have a final shock for you.

It also makes you question reality TV and if you would watch. And how far away from this are we, really? Endemol (who make big brother) made a TV show in Holland last year offering a dying woman's kidney to patients in need of a transplant. The show was revealed at the end to be a hoax, ostensibly to raise awareness of organ donation, but are we getting too close for comfort? This movie probably would only get a 7 or 8 from me to tell the truth if I had seen trailers or had any kind of knowledge of what the film is all about. Since it was virtually all a surprise it was almost a perfect piece of edgy entertainment that gets a strong 9 from me.

I read through some of the comments briefly and saw that someone else had almost the same experience as me and he advised to just watch it. It was good advice. Read the rest at your own risk of spoiling.

Eva Mendez plays a head-strong, success-starved network TV programmer that took a joke made by a co-worker while brain-storming TV program ideas about Russian Roulette seriously. The story follows her in a documentary style on her pursuit to make this happen. This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy! This is widely viewed in Australia as one of the best cop dramas ever produced here ... and for my money, anywhere. It's raw, gritty, the characters are real, the situations are believable and it doesn't shy away from the darker side of life confronted every day by cops and the criminals, victims, lawyers and other people in their various orbits.

This show ran for 2 seasons and was discontinued because the show didn't sell well overseas. We are all sorry for its loss: however, like Fawlty Towers, we will be able to revere this as a limited-length series of uniformly high quality. In the ten years since Wildside aired, nothing has really come close to its quality in local production. This includes the two series of the enjoyable but overrated Underbelly, which have brought to life events in the recent criminal history of both Sydney and Melbourne. The miniseries Blue Murder (which also starred Tony Martin, but as someone on the other side of the law) may be the exception.

Wildside is currently being repeated late at night on the ABC. Having not watched the show in quite a while, I'm still impressed by its uncompromising story lines and very human characters. The cast is excellent: Tony Martin as a detective haunted by the disappearance of his son, Rachael Blake (who later hooked up with Martin in real life) as a community worker struggling with alcoholism, and Alex Dimitriades as a young cop whose vice is gambling. Equally good support roles are provided by Aaron Pederson, Jessica Napier, Mary Coustas (yes, Effie herself), and a young Abbie Cornish.

The ABC inexplicably released only the first three episodes on DVD a couple of years ago. The logic of this sort of marketing is beyond me, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with licensing disagreements with the original producers.

A great series which has aged remarkably well. Here's hoping the ABC's DVD department gets its act together.

(According to a moderator on an ABC message board, some sort of further DVD release is due in December 2009) I'm writing this 9 years after the final episode was aired and I am still reeling from the impact Wildside has had on me.

It has effectively gone where numerous other cop dramas have gone and succeeded. But it took it further and didn't stray from the realism of the streets, often portraying life events and characters down to a T.

I am sorely missing this series, instead we have are given the stupid "Underbelly" which is over dramatised and acted creating a whole load of American-esquire garbage.

Wildside stayed true to the uniqueness of Sydney and for that I am truly indebted to this wonderful series. The acting was A-grade and it's a shame to see only a few actors have furthered their career whilst others have faded into obscurity.

I don't want Australia to forget this wonderful piece of their television history, thus I ask the ABC to release the complete series on DVD, not the first three. Give this series the ending it deserves. The final season of Roseanne was a roller coaster ride of crazy. This final episode does just what a previous comment says, it tells us that as much as we might have thought we knew the characters we did not. Roseanne reaches back to season one, and tells us that this show has been her rendition of her life. She says in this final episode that she changed events and people as she sees fit. Scott was not really with Leon, but he existed. Mark and David married opposite wives in real life, and Dan died when she made him live. As events happened in her life, she changed them in her writing. Don't we all wish we could do that. Don't we all have a moment in time that we wish we could just use an eraser and change to our liking. This is what she did with the entire episode. And to another comment I would say that I don't feel cheated, the family was real in my mind, she just changed the way that events happened in their lives. An A+ ending to an A+ show!!!! The season finale sent mix messages, I felt feelings of joy, and also feelings of being lied to and deceived. Roseanne tells all her viewers that the entire season nine was a lie because her husband, Dan, had died. She also admits the family never won the lottery, and what season 9 was a lie just being how she wished or wanted it to be. I'm still confused about when she said Becky ended up with David, and Darlene with Mark because Becky and Mark admit to being pregnant. So I believe that is just how she wanted it to be, but it wasn't. So the season finale was good, but sent mixed feelings. I will always be a fan of the show. :) Maybe some people may consider this a slow movie. However, it's precisely this "slow burning" that allows it to profoundly affect the viewer. Like that marvelous first scene: first, we can hear the voices; then, we are allowed to see the characters; finally, the camera slowly pans back and to the side and we see another character, a young man who is just sitting there, apparently not even listening to the conversation or, at least, not really caring. The fact that this young man will be the leading role shows the movie's strategy: allowing the character to develop and be determined by the environment surrounding him but without remarking the points more than necessary. People come and go, flow in and out of his life. Although most of the movie follows him (and most of the supporting characters are only seen when close to him, defined according to the relationship maintained with him), we are induced to believe that we are being objective, so subtle is the director touch. This is the touching story of two families in Israel and the relationships within each family. Each family has a gay son. The stories are interrelated at that point but this film is about all of the family members, not just the two sons. The portraits of each of the family members in both families are well drawn and the story is consistently interesting if a bit bleak. "Amazing Grace" has a languid feel to it as it tells a contemporary story of various lives in an apartment building. The language spoken is Hebrew, but the drama could take place in any modern city. It observes family values, romantic relationships, and age group characteristics with equal aplomb. It does not judge the characters, only present them in a straight forward manner, as they strive to work out their individual problems in this modern world. The quality of acting is very good, and the observations made on the characters are astute and sharp. I appreciate this flowing film very much. Unfortunately, the director Amos Guttman died from Aids-related illnesses the year after making this film, so we don't know how many more gay-related films we might have had from him. I found this used DVD, from Cinevista, on Amazon, but it looks like none of his other works are still available. Hessed Mufla (Amazing Grace) contains full frontal male nudity, at least in magazines, which turn into a wishful dream sequence. and some drug use. This is the story of two families getting by, or trying to, but the mothers, the daughters, and the gay sons all have their own problems to figure out. Jonathan (played by Gal Hoyberger) meets up with the next door neighbor Thomas, who has his own problems, of course. Either the translations are a little weak, or maybe Guttman kept the conversation sparse on purpose, for a little mystery. Watching this, I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story, but that's OK. Throw in a cute gay roommate ex-lover Miki (Aki Avni, who went on to do many projects, mostly Isreali TV) Lots of smoking. Lots of worrying by the mothers. A great blues song "All Night Long Blues" done by an unknown female artist; if she is listed in the credits,sadly it was not translated to English. Nice to see mothers and siblings treating gay relationships with respect, like any other relationship. But then, USA always has been years behind other countries in this way. A good way to spend 98 minutes... I wanted to see even more of it. Won awards at several film festivals, acc to IMDb and the film jacket. ever watched. It deals so gently and subtly not only with Aids (which is only alluded) and gay life, but also with old age, dying and death. It's a deep and beautiful movie, (also visually), of a very special director. Highly recommanded1 This wartime sitcom written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, who wrote TV's best programme ever Dads Army, was not as good as Dads Army, but still very, very funny.

It is about A concert band in India. Most episodes were about BSM Williams (Windsor Davies) trying to get the concert party, who he referred to as a bunch of puffs, posted up the jungle. He was always unsuccessful as the vague Colonel Reynolds (Donald Hewlett) and the stupid Captain Ashwood (Michael Knowles) were big fans of the concert party. The concert party consisted of Bombadier Solomans (George Layton), Ginger Rogers impersonator Gunner "Gloria" Beaumont (Melvyn Hayes), University educated piano player Gunner "La de da" Gunner Graham, a.k.a Padarouski (John Clegg), singer Gunner "Lofty" Sugden, Gunner Parkins (Christopher Mitchell) (Williams thought Parkins was his son, he was quite wrong), big eater Gunner "Nosher" Evans and animal impersonator's (Kenneth MacDonald), he was no Percy Edwards. Also, heavily involved in the adventures were faithful Indian servant Rangi Ram (Michael Bates), with the Char-Wallah and the Punkah-Wallah (Dino Shafeek and Babar Bhatti) giving Ram wonderful support.

The show, just like Dads Army left many catchphrases. Rangi Ram used to say to his Punkah Wallah "Don't be such clever dickie" and he ended a lot of the shows saying "Here is a very old Hindu Proverb e.g When wife is having affair with best friend, it doesn't stop your house from catching fire" It was Williams though who had the most catchphrases. He would always shout "Shuddup!!!!!", say "Oh dear, how sad, never mind" and when talking to Gunner Graham, he would always sarcastically talk in a posh accent.

This show doesn't enjoy the same recognition as Dads Army did. This is probably due to a question of taste: This is seen as being crude. Williams is homophobic calling his men "Puffs", though it has to be said Williams is a bore. Also, some people think there is a racial element in the humour, using the fact that Michael Bates was blacked up to play Rangi Ram (Bates was actually born in India though and spoke Urdu before he spoke English), so the BBC will feel a bit uneasy putting it on, even though the vast majority of people who have actually WATCHED the show would agree that the show isn't racist, I know someone who is half Indian, and they weren't the slightest bit offended and agreed like I did that it was a very funny show. When I see an episode for the first time, I laugh probably more than I do for any other sitcom, but when I see it second time round, I don't laugh all that much, but no matter how many times I see Dads Army, I laugh many times in an episode.

Best Episode: The Road to Banu, series 1, episode 7 At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: "No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.". Indeed.

'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.

Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.

The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.

The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).

Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: "I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!" Having enjoyed Joyce's complex novel so keenly I was prepared to be disappointed by Joseph Strick's and Fred Haines's screenplay, given the fabulous complexity of the original text. However, the film turned out to be very well done and a fine translation of the tone, naturalism, and levity of the book.

It certainly helps to have read the original text before viewing the film. I imagine the latter would seem disjointed, with very odd episodes apparently randomly stitched together, without a prior reading of the text to help grasp the plot.

It's amazing to see how "filthy" the film is, given that it was shot in Dublin in 1967. The Irish film censors only, finally, unbanned it for viewing by general audiences in Ireland as late as 2000 (it was shown to restricted audiences in a private cinema club, the Irish Film Theatre, in the late 1970s). Joyce's eroticism is not simply naturalistic and raunchy, it offers many wildly "perverse" episodes. Never mind that so many of these fetishes were unacceptable when the book was published in 1922 - they were still utterly taboo when the film was made in 1967.

It is astonishing and heartening to watch the cream of the Irish acting profession of the 1960s, respected players all, daring to utter and enact Joyce's hugely transgressive text with such gusto.

Bravo! As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom. Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining. The film adaptation of James Joyce's Ulysses is excellent. The actors, the voice overs, the direction, it all captures the feel of the novel without sacrificing its own merits. The Milo O'Shea does an excellent job as Leopold Bloom, the cuckolded man married to the sassy Molly. I absolutely love this picture. Brilliant adaptation of the largely interior monologues of Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus, and Molly Bloom by Joseph Strick in recreating the endearing portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 - Bloomsday - a day to be celebrated - double entendre intended! Bravo director Strick, screenwriter Haines, as well as casting director and cinematographer in creating this masterpiece. Gunter Grass' novel, The Tin Drum filmed by Volker Schlöndorff (1979)is another fine film adaptation of interior monologue which I favorably compare with Strick's film.

While there are clearly recognized Dublin landmarks in the original novel and in the film, there are also recognizable characters, although with different names in the novel. For example, Buck Mulligan with whom Dedalus lives turns out to be a then prominent Dublin surgeon.

This film for all of its excellence is made even richer by additional viewings.

Brian invinoveritas1@AOL.com 15 June 2008 This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. "Wilder Napalm" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge. It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious "thing" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.

The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the "what the hell?" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.

The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.

I'm in the latter group. I used to watch this on either HBO or Showtime or Cinemax during the one summer in the mid 90's that my parents subscribed to those channels. I came across it several times in various parts and always found it dark, bizarre and fascinating. I was young then, in my early teens; and now years later after having discovered the great Arliss Howard and being blown away by "Big Bad Love" I bought the DVD of "Wilder Napalm" and re-watched it with my girlfriend for the first time in many years. I absolutely loved it! I was really impressed and affected by it. There are so many dynamic fluid complexities and cleverness within the camera movements and cinematography; all of which perfectly gel with the intelligent, intense and immediate chemistry between the three leads, their story, the music and all the other actors as well. It's truly "Cinematic". I love Arliss Howard's subtle intensity, ambivalent strength and hidden intelligence, I'm a big fan of anything he does; and his interplay with Debra Winger's manic glee (they are of course married) has that magic charming reality to it that goes past the camera. (I wonder if they watch this on wedding anniversaries?......."Big Bad Love" should be the next stop for anyone who has not seen it; it's brilliant.) And, Dennis Quaid in full clown make-up, sneakily introduced, angled, hidden and displayed by the shot selection and full bloomed delivery is of the kind of pure dark movie magic you don't see very often. Quaid has always had a sinister quality to him for me anyways, with that huge slit mouth span, hiding behind his flicker eyes lying in wait to unleash itself as either mischievous charm or diabolical weirdness (here as both). Both Howard and Quaid have the insane fire behind the eyes to pull off their wonderful intense internal gunslinger square-offs in darkly cool fashion. In fact the whole film has a darkly cool energy and hip intensity. It's really a fantastic film, put together by intelligence, imagination, agility and chemistry by all parties involved. I really cannot imagine how this got funded, and it looks pretty expensive to me, by such a conventional, imagination-less system, but I thank God films like this slip through the system every once in awhile. In a great way, with all of its day-glo bright carnival colors, hip intelligence, darkly warped truthful humor and enthralling chemistry it reminds me of one of my favorite films of all time: "Grosse Pointe Blank".......now that's a compliment in my book! Offbeat and rather entertaining sleeper concerning two very different brothers who are both not only so-called "fire starters" (think Stephen King's snore-fest of a book with the same name), but also forever at odds with each other over a woman who has a rather nasty habit of being a pyromaniac! Good special effects (especially towards the end), quirky performances from a pretty talented trio of actors and topped by a really interesting and oddly appropriate soundtrack ultimately make "Wilder Napalm" a unique treat of a film to watch...if you can find it that is! On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to snatch it up (so to speak) from the two-dollar bin at my local video-rental store. (*** out of *****) The people who are bad-mouthing this film are those who don't understand film to begin with. These are the people who love movie blockbusters and adverse to any movie that doesn't star Leonardo DiCaprio. Wilder Napalm is a neat little film that may seem quirky and maybe even stupid at first, but what it lacks in plot, it more than makes up for in substance.

One thing in particular about the movie that impressed me was it's use of music, which plays a large part. Those students of film music will notice how important music is in the movie, both in Vida and Wilder's life, and in the background. Wilder's theme, Vida's theme, and Wallace's theme are all heard in the opening sequence, and it is funny how some of the lyrics play out. For instance, in the scene where the men are singing "Duke of Earl", Vida is with Wilder when the men sing something like "She is my girl", and then she goes over to Wallace to give him something when the men sing the lyric "She will be my girl" cleverly showing the tension between the two brothers There are all sorts of little intricacies like this inside the movie, and while it may look like a flop on the outside, the real student of film will notice how good this movie really is. Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.

There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour, wit and romance. The soundtrack is great also. And similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' too 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)

Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'

I love this movie (I just ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :) Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.

There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour and romance. The soundtrack is great similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire ~ and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' to 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)

Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'

I love this movie (I ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :) Found this one in the video store and rented it. It's one of those quirky, quasi-comedies that's more interesting and weird than funny. It's a good one at that. It reminds me a lot of Being John Malkovich. If you enjoyed that movie you will most likely enjoy this one. The characters were alive and interesting, the plot was excellently paced, the pyro effects were masterfully accomplished, and it takes a basic love triangle story and tosses in a science-fiction element into it. I could identify with many of the characters and their motivations made logical rational sense in the framework of the story.

The camera-work was great, the audio clear and accurate, the background music perfectly chosen for effect, the singing firemen a nice talented memorable oddity, the sets brilliantly crafted, and the special effects performed with a skilled talent.

I am a tad puzzled how an entire mini-carnival in a chain-store's parking lot could be powered by one single lamppost outlet. That seems impossible to say the least. The fight between the brothers near the end of the movie was brilliant though. Having Jim Varney in a non-clown role was a wonderful touch too as played the semi-serious role of a carny very well. Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.

"Wilder Napalm" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics.

Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.

Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire!

Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!

The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. "Wilder Napalm" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.

Give this one a look... The film starts out very slowly, with the lifestyle of Wallace Napalm, an attendant at a photo-service drop-off station. His wife has been restricted to her home with an ankle bracelet as the result of a sentence for arson. Wallace is a member of the volunteer fire department, and takes firefighting seriously.

As we watch Wallace's rather dull life proceeding, suddenly there comes something new and jarring: a traveling carnival comes to town. One of its stars is Wilder Napalm, Wallace's brother. He's a clown, but he has a special talent.

So does Wallace. They're both pyrokineticists or "pyrotics," people capable of starting fires through mental energy. Wallace keeps his powers secret; Wilder lets his acquaintances know what he can do.

Spoiler: Some of their differences go back to a childhood incident where they inadvertently caused the death of a vagrant. Wallace holds back from using his powers; Wilder wants to go public on national TV.

Complicating the matter, Wilder wants Wallace's wife, whom they both dated years earlier. She becomes a bone of contention, and becomes one of the reason that the brothers finally have a literal firefight.

The film is entertaining, but not laugh-out-loud funny. I think enough of it to have a copy in my library. It's a good offbeat film. The greatest games of Kasparov or Fischer can be a mess for a total rookie. This is a great movie. There is no special agency involved in the plot. This is the clue! This is a PRIVATE plot, built as a PRIVATE enterprise. This is a self-destructive and a self organized plot. As a conclusion, the scenario described the perfect professional plot: private, self –organized, self-destructive, with no trace at the end. Anyone can be behind the plot: a smart "director" with some money. All can be done just by delegation. The "director" must be just trigger. If the normal viewer cannot see the essence of the plot in the explicit sequences of the movie, a real plot has fewer chances to be discovered. All the actors' performances are well done , with some special mention for Gene Hackman and Mickey Rooney. In the aftermath of Watergate, a number of conspiracy movies appeared, such as this one, written by the late Adam Kennedy ( based on his novel ).

Gene Hackman plays ex-Vietnam veteran 'Roy Tucker', a loser who has wound up in prison. He receives visits from Marvin Tagge ( Richard Widmark ), who claims to represent an organisation designed to assist the wrongly convicted. They offer him freedom, and despite distrusting Tagge he accepts. But he brings along a fellow cell mate by the name of Spiventa ( Mickey Rooney ). Exactly why is hard to see, as Spiventa is an irritating little man who drives Tucker mad with persistent talk of sex, not what you want to hear when you are behind bars.

Tagge's benefactors kill Spiventa before Tucker's astonished eyes. Reunited with wife Ellie ( Candice Bergen ), and given a new identity ( strangely, he does not attempt to change his appearance. Shaving off that cheesy moustache would have been a start ), he settles down, but finds there is a catch - Tagge wants Tucker to do no less than assassinate the President of the United States. He refuses, so Tagge has Ellie abducted...

I will leave the synopsis here, but I am sure you can guess the rest for yourself. The script has enough plot holes to make you want to read the book ( neat trick that! ). The people Tagge represents are never revealed. The allusions to J.F.K.'s killing are unmistakable. Despite the findings of The Warren Commission, the doubt as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone persists to this day.

This was Stanley Kramer's first movie in years, and while no turkey, it lacks the grip of say John Frankenheimer's 'The Manchurian Candidate' or Alan J.Pakula's 'The Parallax View'. Being a left-wing conspiracy movie, it tends to skirt around its subject matter instead of getting to grips with it. I prefer right-wing ones myself - they are funnier! 'Domino' has the look and feel of a made-for-T.V. movie, and boasts what must be the easiest prison escape in movie history not to mention an ending copped from the Michael Caine classic 'Get Carter'.

What makes it watchable are Gene Hackman and Richard Widmark. The latter, who sadly passed away earlier this year, is superb as the mysterious Tagge, who initially appears to be behind the operation until he too is ruthlessly eliminated, beginning a chain of deaths designed to remove all trace of evidence as one by one the perpetrators of this evil plot fall - just like dominoes. As Tucker, the innocent pawn, Hackman is marvellous. You have to wonder though why he chose to hide out in such an obvious place. In his shoes, I'd have fled to the other side of the world, anywhere to get away from these fanatics. Hackman's love scenes with Bergen slow the plot down, and it is almost a relief when she gets snatched. Presumably the producers thought so too, which explains why it opens with a bizarre prologue setting out the film's entire premise - voiced by British actor Patrick Allen - warning the audience that 'they' are out there, and that 'they' are out to get us. Comedian Les Dawson later spoofed this opening in his B.B.C. show 'The Dawson Watch'.

Mickey Rooney had earlier worked with Kramer on 'Its A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'. His 'death' scene here resembles like an outtake from that picture, with the actor looking as though he has been stung by a wasp rather than shot dead.

Conspiracy movies used to be only made by the left, but now the right are getting in on the act too. Last year, 'Taking Liberties', an absurd concoction of lies and half-truths about Tony Blair's Government turned out to be Britain's answer to 'Reefer Madness'. At least, 'Domino' had lovely Candice Bergen. The best Chris Atkins' film could offer was Anne Widdecombe!

Surprisingly, 'The Domino Principle' was made by Sir Lew Grade, the legendary British television mogul behind 'The Saint', 'Jesus Of Nazareth' and 'The Muppet Show'. He worked with Adam Kennedy again in 1980 on 'Raise The Titanic!', whose failure was so great it sank Grade's ambitions of being the new Louis B.Meyer. Being somewhat open-minded, I would not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy. People are being too hard on the film. Sometimes we should just sit back and enjoy the story without attempting to "review" it.

The whole thing comes together when Hackman decides not to pull the trigger but his target still goes down. Then the fun begins as everyone about him also "go down".

Just think JFK and all the people associated in any way with his assassination, who's lives ended abruptly and in questionable ways and you'll appreciate what is implied in this film.

I think it's an excellent interpretation of what may well have occurred. Though the EXACT story line my not have been followed (hindsight here after reading Jim Maars "Crossfire") but it's what is implied that is of interest.

I'd love to get a copy of it to view it again. In light of what is known today, The Domino Principle is right on. i say the domino principle is an enormously underappreciated film.anyone who has taken the time to investigate our contemporary history of conspiracies;jfk, rfk, mlk,g.wallace and in fact numerous others can only draw the conclusion that the author of the domino principle really knew what he was talking about.roy tucker could be lee harvey oswald or james earl ray or sirhan sirhan or arthur bremer maybe even john hinkley or timothy mcveigh.to mention a few.the conspiracy scenario involving spies, big business and political assassinations is not really a fiction but an ominous part of our convoluted existential history.god help us,but the domino principle is more fact than fantasy.if this causes a little loss of sleep, maybe it should.don't take my word for it,investigate for yourselves. It must have been several years after it was released, so don't know why it was at the movies. But as a kid I enjoyed it. I just found a VHS tape of Superman and the Mole Men at the flea market and decided to watch it again (it's been a lot of years). I wasn't expecting much, now knowing how the B movies were made at that time. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie very watchable and the acting by all outstanding. Usual acting in these type movies leaves a lot to be desired. Surprisingly, the writing wasn't bad either. Forget the fact that Superman went from sequence to sequence and could have kicked all their butts in the beginning, because then the story would have ended, right?! OK, the mole men costumes were hokey and not very scary (they didn't even scare me as a kid). However, making allowances for the probable low budget for background and costumes, it was a job well done by all. I recognized the sheriff right away as The Old Ranger from Death Valley Days and plenty of supporting roles in TV westerns. J. Farrell MacDonald played old Pop and was always a great supporting actor in more movies than I can count. Walter Reed and Jeff Corey were familiar faces as well from other movies. Did you recognize the old doctor as the captain of the ship that went to get King Kong? Did you recognize the little girl rolling the ball to the mole men as Lisbeth Searcy in Old Yeller? Some of the mole men were famous too. Jerry Maren has played Mayor McCheese for McDonalds, Little Oscar Mayer, was the Munchkin that handed Dorothy the lollipop, was on a Seifeld episode and a wealth of other work. Billy Curtis played an unforgettable part with Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, was one of the friends met by the star in Incredible Shrinking Man, he had a part in a movie I just luckily grabbed at a flea market titled My Gal Sal with Rita Hayworth, Wizard of Oz and plenty of other parts - great actor. John Brambury was also a Munchkin. Phillis Coates, who played Lois Lane in this movie, was without question wonderful in the part and George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent WAS Superman. He did a great job of playing the strong man. Bottom line to all I've said is that this movie is worth watching because of the cast and writing in dealing with a pretty flimsy idea for a movie. But it was the 50's and anything was possible from intruders from outer space to mole men from inner space. It is definitely worth seeing, there isn't a bad actor in the group. Whomever put the cast together was very, very fortunate to get so many gifted actors into a B type film. Some already had a wealth of experience and some were about to obtain a wealth of experience - but all were gifted. So if you get a chance to see the film, forget the dopey costumes and just enjoy the excitement and acting. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, just a good, old fashioned movie to enjoy! Superman and the Mole Men is quite possibly Superman's toughest adventures ever.

Lois Lane and Clark Kent are sent to Silsby, home of the world's deepest oil well. While there, some radioactive mole men come up through the oil well and explore the town. Jeff Corey and many other townspeople try to dispose of the invading mole men. Can Superman change the people's ways in time to save the mole men? Can Superman warn the people in time about the radioactive danger the mole men bring?

In my opinion, Superman and the Mole Men is a very intelligent, well-written and well-acted movie. Even though we only get to see Superman fly once briefly, It still makes a great Superman adventure. A must see for anyone.

10/10 Stars My father grew grew up watching George Reeves as Superman and when I was a little kid he had episodes on VHS and let me view them including this movie (passing them down in the family if you will), and I loved it.

Clark Kent and Lois Lane get sent to a small town with and oil mine and from the mine emerge mole men radioactive and targeted by the town assumed to be deadly and it's up to Superman to stop this mayhem.

It's just so wonderful and fun to view. The old style special effects and sound - the crew pulled off such a beauty with such little technology. George Reeves was my hero when I was a little kid, and I'm 16 now, it just goes to show how timeless and classic these adventures are. I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman.

This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.

Give Blood Today God Bless! I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.

An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.

Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.

Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.

The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed. Ten years after the first movie, James Belushi, one of the most gifted, and over looked light comedic actors of the last twenty years, returns as Detective Dooley for this movie.

If you are expecting more of the same from the first movie, you will be disappointed, but this is still a good movie. Realizing that all the Dog vs. Man battle of wills scenarios had probably been used up in the first movie, this one turns slightly more psychological in its approach as it concentrates on a criminal with a fixation with Dooley's recently deceased wife after she rejected his book, and blames Dooley for her death.

The script may not be the best, but the movie allows both Belushi and Christine Tucci to show their good acting ability, while still retaining enough of the light humour of the first movie to make it work, and the chemistry between the two stars is there for all to see.

An easy, light going movie, which, while maybe not worth a purchase unless you are a true fan of either the first movie or Belushi, definately worth a watch when it comes on TV.

When my 14-year-old daughter and her friends get together for movie night, there's one movie they insist on watching over and over again: You guessed it, K-911, the third installment in the highly successful K-9 franchise starring everybody's favorite TV dad, Jim Belushi.

Folks, I knew it was possible to wear out a VHS tape, but a DVD?! This has been played so often that it's starting to skip; no joke! But of course you'll have that when you own a film so charming, so brilliant.

Of course, we have to thank the one and only Tom Hanks for introducing us to the beloved Cop-Dog genre with Turner and Hooch; however, even that film doesn't measure up to the sheer excellence presented in all three K-9 movies.

Some nay-sayers say Belushi ran out of steam with this third movie in the series. Poppycock, I say. While you might suspect that a third installment - direct-to-video, at that - may not seem like something worth watching, you'd prove yourself wrong after watching this quality movie.

I won't give away the plot, but I will say that Belushi and his panting partner give their best performance yet - one that will have you HOWLING with laughter! It's a shame John Belushi isn't alive to see what great strides his brother has made in the acting world.

I highly recommend your teenage daughter introduces this film to her BFFs at her next slumber party. Don't forget the puppy chow! I thought it was a very funny movie. I love dog movies and comedy movies so combined they were twice as good. K-9, k-911, and k-9 PI are my favorite movies. Jim Belushi is hysterical and Jerry Lee is hilarious and adorable they make a great team. The only downside is that i really didn't understand how Dooley's wife died. She died before this movie but how? If they said it i must have missed it. Other than that I give it two thumbs/tails up! Those dogs (Jerry Lee and Zeus) must have had A lot of training. They were so funny and all the noises Jerry Lee would make when Dooley was talking to him was so funny. my favorite was when Jerry Lee sang and when he would bite peoples privates to get information very very funny lol Arrrrrggghhhhhh, some people take life far too seriously!!! Watch this film for what it is, sit back, relax and have a giggle. The film does not take itself seriously, so neither should we. If you like James Belushi, you will like this film. If he is not your cup of tea - give it a miss.

I like James Belushi, so I liked this film. So simple isn't it?? :-) Well, this is probably one of the best movies I've seen and I love it so much that I've memorized most of the script (especially the scene in the storage unit when Jerry Lee breaks wind) and even with the script in my head I still like to watch it for Jerry Lee, that German Shepherd is hysterical and really is put to the test to see who's smarter. The tag line holds true as well. Not to mention the acting is great, though Christine Tucci sounds different in a whisper (Check filmography under CSI if you don't know what I mean). It's too bad that this movie only contained the single issue Dooley and Jerry Lee had to work with, it would have been pretty cool to see the tricks that Zeus and Welles had up their sleeve. This film to me is a very good film!!

I have a German Shepherd myself and I wish to god he was like Jerry Lee!! I hope too that there is another K-9 in the running!! With Jerry Lee and Dooley in them!! I don't care what any one say these two films were excellent!! In this sequel to the 1989 action-comedy classic K-9, detective Dooley [James Belushi] and his dog Jerry Lee return to fight crime, but this time they are teamed up with another detective [Christine Tucci] and her partner, a mean Doberman named Zues who does not get along with Jerry Lee very well. Dooley does not get along with his new partner much either. That all changes as the movie goes along. The movie is intense as their is a guy that really wants to kill Dooley for the way he treated him in the past. There is some dramatic scenes dealing with the death of Dooley's wife that don't really seem to be with the tone of the movie because the rest of the movie is action sequences, dog poop jokes, fart jokes, and jokes about dogs biting bad guys in a certain area. I know that that seems like very low humor, but some of it is actually very funny. I didn't see this movie for the jokes, I saw it for two reasons. The first reason is because I am a big James Belushi fan and the second is for the action sequences. James Belushi is funnier than he was in K-9 and the action sequences at are better too. It would have been nice to see more characters from K-9 to return, but it's still a fun movie. If you are a James Belushi fan, you'll love this movie. The books of James Michener taking readers to faraway places with strange sounding names were probably at their most popular in the 1940s and 1950s. His Tales of the South Pacific became a major blockbuster Broadway hit for Rodgers&Hammerstein. South Pacific was directed by Joshua Logan and he was a natural to do the film adaption of another Michener success, Sayonara.

It was only a decade before that American films during World War II did not portray the Japanese kindly. I'm sure it wasn't easy for people who fought the Pacific war to change attitudes overnight. That and a general no fraternization policy with occupied peoples in general are at the crux of this story about interracial romance.

Sayonara is a relevant film today. The military has always butted in to the personal lives of its personnel in ways no civilian employer could get away with legally. In America at the time Sayonara was made there were still miscegenation laws on the books in many states. Today gays in the military is a big issue. Someone may one day do a Sayonara like film on that issue.

Joshua Logan was on familiar ground. South Pacific also had racism as a component of its plot. With a sure hand, Logan assembled a great cast and crafts a beautiful story.

Marlon Brando, Patricia Owens, James Garner, Kent Smith some of the occidental players do a fine job. But the picture is stolen by the orientals here. Miko Taka hits the mark beautifully as Brando's love interest. But the real stars are the two that one both Supporting players Oscars, Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki.

Buttons is your everyman enlisted man Air Force member. He falls passionately in love with Katsumi played by Miyoshi Umeki. They marry and the military cruelly does everything they can to break them up. They presume to KNOW what's best for Buttons and Umeki. Buttons was a TV comedian and a fair talent, but he never got a part as good as this the rest of his career.

And Miyoshi Umeki's Oscar was the first one given to an oriental. It got a great deal of attention because at the time of the Academy Awards, Miyoshi was starring on Broadway in Flower Drum Song. I was privileged to see it on Broadway, it was the first Broadway show I ever saw. I still carry the memory of it.

That Oscar symbolized something else too. Our war with Japan was really over and we saw in Sayonara a great nation with a proud tradition and culture.

Ricardo Montalban plays Nakamura, a Kabuki Theatre actor. If Sayonara were done today, Logan would never get away with it. But Montalban is fine.

Good location photography and a grand story. This film should be revived more often it has a great moral. Any film that deals with bigotry in a positive manner is a film that should still be seen by current audiences as the message and moral of the story will always be relevant as long as we have a world full of bigotry.

Aside from that, the film is really an old-fashioned love story..boy meets girl..boys loses girl...boy gets girl back....

The weakest role goes to the late Kent Smith as Lt. General Webster(Riccardo Montalban is a close second)...my question would be how did he ever get to be a 3-star general...the character is such a wimp in the presence of his wife and military subordinates, it's a wonder they show him any respect at all.

Brando's southern accent is a little overdone, and some scenes have a few holes but overall, I enjoy the film every time I see it.

Red Buttons is great...I always love seeing comedians in dramatic roles...as in Button's case, often a comedian can better portray the tragedy of a person than a more traditional dramatic actor. I really enjoyed this movie about the relationships that sometimes developed between American servicemen and Japanese women in post-war Japan--as well as the obstacles that prejudices created for them. Brando goes from having contempt for the Japanese (which is natural considering WW2) to falling in love with a Japanese woman and wanting to marry her. His performance is okay (I am not a major fan of his acting style) and the movie is marvelous throughout. Red Buttons received an Oscar for his touching performance of another GI who falls in love in Japan (though the Japanese women who plays opposite him also did a remarkable job).

I don't want to spoil it but the movie is a good one to watch with a box of tissues.

This movie manages to say SOMETHING and be entertaining at the same time. A mostly underrated gem. Personally, I think Sayonara was the greatest movie he ever made. It touched every emotion from anger to romance to complete tragedy. And Brando should have won for best actor. Anyway, the movie is awesome, the man is attractive to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and now you have no reason not to see it! Do so, and fall in love. I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?

Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing "cold". Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country. This is one of the greatest love story movies I have ever seen. Yes, I can agree that some parts may seem dated, but this does not distract from the film. One should try to observe, criticize and enjoy any art form from the perspective of the time. Clearly by the "Sex in the City" standards, Charlie Chaplin was horribly boring. However, when judged from the prospective of 1925 America, he was fantastic. Likewise Sayonara is a breakthrough film in its look into a mixed-race love affair, American "manifest destiny" arrogance and prejudice, and the complexity of different cultures. It is a natural next step to such films as Gentleman's Agreement. Its purpose, however, was not just social commentary, rather, it is entertaining and enjoyable, with innumerable lines that one just doesn't forget.

However, even when taken only as a love story, it is terrific. Although, some attack Brando's accent, he is at his near best in nuance and characterization. Buttons and Umeki (who both won Oscars) and the rest of the supporting cast add much to the film.

Taka, the real star, does a fabulous job making you feel the passion she has for Brando, while being torn by her sense of obligation and loyalty. Her speech when she first meets and speaks with Brando is a classic and something rarely if ever matched in cinema. The dialog between Taka and Brando in her dressing room in Tokyo at the film's end is equally good. Of course, it doesn't have the mouth-sucking, spit-swapping and worse, that exemplifies love in today's movies, but that makes it all the better. It portrays true love and passion, and not just "heat." If this movie doesn't touch you, then you are just too young, too cynical or dead. Released in December of 1957, Sayonara went on to earn 8 Oscar nominations and would pull in 4 wins. Red Buttons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in his role as airman Joe Kelly who falls in love with a Japanese woman while stationed in Kobe during the Korean War. Oscar nominated for Best Leading Actor, Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd Gruver, a Korean War flying ace reassigned to Japan, who staunchly supports the military's opposition to marriages between American troops and Japanese women and tries without any success to talk his friend Joe Kelly out of getting married. Ironically Marlon Brandos character soon finds love of his own in a woman of Japanese descent. This movie highlights the prejudices and cultural differences of that time. Filmed in beautiful color and with stunning backgrounds I found this movie to be well worth watching just for these effects alone. Good movie, gimme more...GimmeClassics Brando plays the ace jet pilot, just back from shooting MiGs down in the Korean War. On leave, he discovers his Madame Butterfly, falls in love. The lovers both see the folly of racism and the cruelty which conservative cultural norms can bring to human relations.

This film is an excellent romance with a nice twist which rejects the racist, conservative standards, dominant at the time it was made in 1957. "Sayonara" will make you laugh and cry. Beware though, sometimes the musical background will make you wish it was not there, although, Irving Berlin's title song will entice your memory for a very long time after your theatre lights come on again. Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.

The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action "fuflo" (a Russian word that means "bull*beep*"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the "Chinese football" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be "Star Wars".

Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.

Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.

This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.

Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention. This is the finest film ever made to deal with the subject of AIDS. It's a documentary about two men living with and dying of this illness. The film is beautiful, heartbreaking, funny, and incredibly moving. Above all, it is an amazing true love story. Be sure to have a few hankies ready before you watch this movie---you will need them. Extraordinary. This is a complex documentary that shows many things about early Gay life. To put it in perspective it was when Gay was the word used for the homo-sexual revolution, and not just Gay as a descriptor. Or is it still used that way today? I believe most of the film comes from circa 1968 to 1989. It was released in 1993, so it's been around.

I was touched by the documentaries capturing of one man's love for another over a 20 some odd year period. A love expressed in ways that only true love can be. There are many scenes of incredible empathy and pain, along with scenes of joy and pleasure. There are scenes of life as a homo-sexual and life as a gay. The film itself was a work of love, and I believe it to be a diamond.

At the very least one will get out of this film an understanding of the devastating impact of AIDS. As I write this, I am thinking how much earlier this film seems to me to have been set. The advances in medical, political, and social sciences and culture that have taken place since this film was set (some 15 years ago) are amazing. However, obviously, in the case of the disease of AIDS itself, we are not done yet. Heck I guess we aren't done on all fronts.

Anyway, it's just a pretty darn good documentary. I'd encourage anyone that feels that they don't quite understand gay life, gay issues, or the devastation of AIDS to watch this film. "Silverlake Life" is a documentary and it was plain and straightforward. Actually, it was more like a home movie, and if you want dramatic illuminations, see something else. And it's by no means a tearjerker. But I mean that in positive ways. It shows two men who love each other and how being afflicted with AIDS is affecting the quality of their every-day lives. It's almost difficult for me to say whether this was a quality film or not, because it was so undressed that I had to look for other ways to respond. It's an admirable film, actually one of the most admirable, sincere documents I've ever seen. These two men have incredible integrity as their lives are reduced to the most basic parts. It makes Hollow-wood productions on AIDS seem hip and heartless. These men made this movie for themselves, which is one of the best reasons to create something. The scene where Tom sings "You are My Sunshine" to Mark and tells him goodbye is the real thing. Silverlake Life, The view from here, is an absolutely stunning movie about AIDS as well as about a gay love relationship. Some images are indeed really hard to take, especially when one is gay or fears about AIDS, and probably for any sensitive person watching it. It's not easy to make a movie about such a terrible illness and its consequences about not only one, but two people's lives. This movie teaches how to care for each other in such hard times, but it never gets too morbid, it still shows life at any time, reminding you that outside of the theater or of your room, life goes on, whatever the destiny of some people may be. The characters are incredibly endearing, while we watch their intimacy in shots that never go beyond a very strict limit, never unveiling anything too private or offensive. Children should certainly not watch this movie, but grown-ups whether they have to deal with such situations or not, should do it, and will not regret the tears they shed. This documentary is incredibly thought-provoking, bringing you in to the lives of two long-time lovers who are in the final stages of AIDS. The past footage of their twenty-some-odd years together really brings their final moments home.

If this movie doesn't make you feel the pain and agony of these two fascinating people, you don't have a heart. The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.

Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.

In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug "cocktails" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see.

Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the "gay cancer", and governments preferred to "let them die" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain. This film is not morbid, nor is it depressing. It -is- sad, because AIDS in the early '90s -was- sad. But its real message is one of love and perseverance.

Mark and Tom were in a long-term, loving relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident right away, and as the ravages of AIDS escalate and become the focal point of their lives, you see strength and commitment that are truly heartwarming.

When "Silverlake Life" was originally released, I was deeply involved in HIV/AIDS education and health care, volunteering as a counselor at an HIV/AIDS clinic. The film spoke to me like no other AIDS film of its day could, because Mark and Tom were real people, living the very experiences that I saw on a daily basis in real life. I knew from firsthand experience what it was like to watch AIDS eat away at formerly vibrant, young, healthy people; seeing it happen to Mark and Tom in the film was very much like watching my real-life friends deteriorate. It touched me in a way that, even all these years later, still affects me. I caught the last half of this movie on cable one night and was struck by just how morbid it was. Even when one of the two victims is at his most deteriorated, the camera keeps going. the lingering shots of his corpse being uncovered and his concentration-camp figure being zipped into a body bag are both moving and depressing. don't watch this movie if your already depressed. then again don't watch it if your feeling really good. Okay, first of I hate commenting on this thing but I felt like I had to stand up for this movie. So many people were bashing on it and I felt like people who might want to see it should get a second opinion.

First off, Bend It Like Beckham is not meant to be the most profound movie of the century. If that's what you're looking for go somewhere else. Just because it is an independent film does not mean it has to be artsy. It's supposed to make you feel good and you're supposed to have fun watching it and those two things are handily accomplished.

Secondly, the acting though not "Halle Berry in Monster's Ball" is still good. The movie doesn't need acting like that honestly so don't look for it. It's a family movie. If that's what you wanted you wouldn't or shouldn't even be looking into this movie honestly.

Lastly, It has a really cute story. I think it's thought out well and it's entertaining to watch. It's also very true to life for the most part for that culture so if you want to sit down and watch a movie that you can enjoy and feel good about when you're finished. If you're looking for something with deep thought out plot lines and big dramatic scenes this is not for you.

-Lyndsay Wow, I can't believe I waited so long to see this film. I just never got around to watching it. The plot has nothing that interests me. I know nothing about soccer (football.) I am one of those American fools that has no clue. I had never even seen David Beckham before this film. I chose to ignore the buzz surrounding this film at the time it was released in America. Enough about me.

Truth be told, it was a mistake to ignore this little piece of movie-making heaven. What a fun film. It's full of color and exuberance. I had a goofy grin on my face through the whole movie. Parminder Nagra is so sweet and lovable, you can't help but root for her. No wonder why the American television show E.R. has snatched her up. I have a new appreciation for Indian culture. Those people know how to have a good time. The wedding scenes are dazzlingly beautiful.

The only problem I had was deciphering some of the British slang and dialogue through the accents. I turned on the English subtitles to make sure I didn't miss anything. (This is not a criticism of the film!) I'm sure audiences worldwide have trouble understanding the constantly changing slang in American films as well.

This is a perfect date film. It has a great sports plot like Rocky, and a strong sense of feminism that is empowering for women. I watched it with my wife, and sixteen year old niece, and we all loved it. I highly recommend it. The title of this film nearly put me off watching it. Not being a Manchester United fan, the mere mention of Beckham was a bit off putting, however I put my prejudices behind me and I'm glad I did.

I wasn't expecting much of a film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film sped along with me never looking at my watch and I enjoyed every second of the film. If you liked East is East then you'll love this film. OK so the storyline is nothing new, and the classic storylines are contained within the film but it's all done very funnily, and with a breath of fresh air. The film moves very fast and keeps the audiance entertained. The occaisional funny moments are a good chuckle and not some poor attempt at humour, and best of all it's a good british comedy. As a former 2 time Okinawan Karate world champion, I like movies about sacrifice for sport. But this movie is about so much more. This movie is so good and so deep. I have recently been plagued by very serious injury and pretty much a disastrous lack of passion. Almost lights out for me. And this silly little movie touched me so deep that like out of a daze it reminded me about what life is supposed to be about. This is a movie about living. Living your life for yourself and respect for others. Empowerment. God, bless "Bend it like Beckham" I believe it is a true gem. As someone who's never been into sports, it seems like it would be hard for me to get into the football (or as we Americans inexplicably call it, soccer)-themed "Bend It Like Beckham". But I gotta say, this was one cool movie! Anglo-Indian Jesminder Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and her WASP friend Juliette Paxton (Keira Knightley) love to play football (yes, I'm going to say it the British - and international - way) and just adore football player David Beckham. But Jesminder's traditional Sikh parents don't approve (her mother offers a really whacked-out description of football early in the movie). Okay, so maybe it was sort of a cliché in that sense, but you gotta love this movie! And if like me, you go to this movie not knowing the definition of "bend" in football...don't worry, the movie explains it (I'd also never heard of David Beckham prior to this movie). And we all know that Keira Knightley hit it big: a few months after "BILB" came out in the States, she starred in the equally cool "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl". My scalp still smarts from the burning coals heaped on it when I vowed I love this film. Bring on the coals; I'll walk over them as well to say again that I love "Bend it Like Beckham." Granted, there's a lot of "in spite of" in that confession. It's a bit movie-of-the-week; the screenplay is on the paint-by-numbers side. And, most troublingly, the director's commentary implies that in this film beauty can be found primarily amongst the white of skin.

The film's genius is not in what's obvious to the Syd Field-doctored eye: character arcs, themes, construction. It's in both the surface and what lurks deep beneath, but not in those layers of artistic topsoil that reviewers seem most often to scratch at. Powerful, sometimes semi-clad female bodies not simply on display but kicking the crap out of a football do a better job of naturalizing female strength and agility than Lara Croft or Zhang Ziyi will ever do. These are real bodies (Keira Knightley's excepted) whose work is not to look great first and kick butt later. They are working bodies whose beauty is in their movement and self-determination. And, in my book, lead actress Parminder Nagra is one of the most gorgeous creatures ever captured on screen – not only because she can lay claim to that hackneyed adjective, "luminous," but because her performance has an honesty and un-bookish intelligence that's utterly compelling.

The result is a film women can enjoy without feeling like they're making a pact with the devil to do so. As in Chadha's "Bride and Prejudice," the relationships amongst women sizzle with a chemistry that can't be neatly slotted into the stodgy, Sweet Valley High categories of "best friends" or "sisters." Perhaps Chadha is even right in her commentary to disavow the film's flirtation with lesbianism. "Bend it Like Beckham" has an electricity that can't be reduced to the simple hetero/homosexual love triangle its conventionally structured script would suggest. The precise nature of its pleasure is, ultimately, a bit of a mystery – and is all the more seductive for it.

Oh yes, and did I mention that it's hilarious? David Beckham is a British soccer star and the husband of Victoria Beckham ("Posh Spice" of the Spice Girls). His trademark is a goal shot that curves across the pitch and into the net. The soccer equivalent of an unhittable curve ball in baseball. "Bend it like Beckham" means making that type of spectacular shot. Apart from that, and a little shrine to him in the main character's bedroom and a faux-cameo at the very end, the movie has nothing to do with him.

The movie is full of little soccer in-jokes, such as the present that one of the characters' parents give her of a jersey with the number 9 on it (property of the great Mia Hamm, to those in the know), references to "Posh 'n' Becks," the video homage to the WUSA one of the characters plays for a disbelieving friend ("They *have* that??"), lesbian gags, sports-bra gags, and so on.

The story is about a teenage girl in England who idolizes Beckham and wants to be a soccer star. She has a real gift, but the two seemingly insurmountable obstacles she must overcome are the absence of a professional women's league in the UK (hence their fascination with our WUSA), and her parents, who are Indian immigrants set in very old-fashioned ways that do not allow daughters, among other things, to engage in contact sports. The girl's family are portrayed as figures of ironic fun, but with great affection -- think My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The girl loves and respects them enough to go through sitcom hell to conceal her growing soccer stardom from them. As an anti-football person, I (on the surface) grudgingly took my younger brother to see this film, although secretly I hoped it might be East is East II. The trailers looked fun so I thought I'd give it a go.

It took about ten minutes but after that I was glued to the screen, and that wasn't anything to do with the neck cramp caused by sitting too near the front due to a packed auditorium. The acting was fresh and vibrant, the characters engaging, and the jokes genuinely funny. The entire auditorium was laughing out loud every minute or so. Football fan or no football fan, sport became irrelevant to the main principles of love, friendship, family, independence and rivalry. Add a dash of Sikh culture and you have the formula for the best British comedy I've seen in a long time, dare I say it.... better than East is East.

This film trots along nicely at a lovely pace, never dwelling on anything longer than necessary nor leaving anything unfinished, keeping the viewer entertained and mentally engaged. Though not a characteristically twisting-and-turning film, there are some pleasant surprises on the way and things don't always happen as you would expect.

Saying that, there were elements of predictability but these were exploited satirically more than used as script-fillers. I suppose depending on your particular penchant for happy-endings you could be either delighted/let down by the ending. Personally, if there was any other outcome I would have written a strongly worded letter to the script writers.

As for the actors, I would have to say that Juliet Stevenson (Paula) put in the finest performance. I never knew that people like that existed but she her realism with sometimes bizarre concepts has convinced me that they possibly do! Prize for the most unconvincing (of the main characters) goes, unfortunately, to Kiera Knightley (Jules), but don't get me wrong, even she offered a great performance, it's just that someone has to be last of the best and sorry Kiera, this time you're it.

Tip: Don't leave before the credits. Once the lights came back up I realised to my horror that perhaps I shouldn't have watched this film after all. My beloved but forgotten Ice Junkie had melted into a sugary blue juice. Oh, what am I saying, it was absolutely brill and I can't recommend it enough. I will definitely buy it when it comes out and add it to my collection of 3 videos. I'm a student. I only splash out if it's really worth it. Jess is 18, very smart and wants nothing more than to play football, when she joins a local team she has to lie to her parents again and again, as they would never approve of her chasing her dream, they want her to settle down with a nice Indian boy and learn how to cook.

Bend it Like Beckham is a very funny feel good movie that doesn't need to be deep and complex, it's just fine as it is. The cast are all very good and they play their roles very well, the story is simple and predictable, but it works perfectly and the script is very realistic and very funny.

A great Family movie 8/10 10/10 for this film.

i'm a british india doctor, currently in india. the word Beckham put me off, 'cos i'm a die hard Liverpool fan, and personally think that Owen is really cool. Since Liverpool and Man Utd are rivals, i was DEAD sure that i wouldn't watch the film.

But then i was in delhi to meet some friends, and i had an early morning flight, so i thought, "what the heck, let's bide time by watching this film", 'cos it was a late night show.

What a moron i was. I should've seen this film the day it was released. I guess using Beckham's name was to draw audience attraction (which had back-fired in my case!!!), but then i really can't think of a better title for the film.

And Nagra, Knightley (drop dead gorgeous), and Rhys-Myers did a superb job.

If you hate football, dislike Manchester United (or England for that matter), then this is DEFINATELY the film for you. In fact, i'm just 29 yrs old, a psychiatrist by profession, but a kid at heart. This film has knocked "Star Wars" off my no.1 position.

Surprisingly, there aren't very many comments on this film by indian-brits like me. I wonder why?

10/10 for this film. This movie explores the difficulties that strain hopes, dreams, love and friendship, and incorporates humour beautifully. Along with a stunning cast and brilliant filming, the sound track enhances and amplifies the atmosphere and mood of this work of art. All actors and actresses give an extremely good performance, surpassing expectation in every way. Parminder Nagra is brought on to the big screen for the first time in this film, and she is exceptional, capturing the vividness and vitality that this movie is all about. Keira Knightly also works well with her co-stars, and this is her best work so far.

All in all, this is brilliant film, and one that everyone should make the effort to see at least once. I love playing football and I thought this movie was great because it contained a lot of football in it. This was a good Hollywood/bollywood film and I am glad it won 17 awards. Parminder Nagra and Kiera Knightley were good and so was Archie Punjabi. Jonathon Rheyes Meyers was great at playing the coach. Jazz (Parminder Nagra) loves playing football but her parents want her to learn how to cook an want her to get married. When Jazz starts playing for a football team secretly she meets Juliet (Kiera Knightlety) and Joe (Jonathon Rhyes Meyers) who is her coach. When her parents find out trouble strikes but her dad lets her play the big match on her sisters Pinky (Archie Punjabi's) wedding. At the end her parents realise how much she loves football and let her go abroad to play. How can a movie be both controversial and gentle? This one does it with a near-perfect structure. No one wants their daughters to be athletes. Apparently most cultures don't want their daughters to be small-breasted, either. Here we see a bunch of superb actors we've never heard of before portray folks of different cultures living fairly humdrum lives until their female children want to, and have the potential to, become professional soccer players. The structure around the parallelism of the two cultures is wonderful. There is no condescension. Both cultures are seen as modern and valid. (And yes, both are silly, too). One flaw: the Hindu wedding ceremony seemed to involve hundreds of relatives but not one child among them. It's such a shame that because of it's title this film will be avoided by people who hate football. Bend it Like Beckham is much more than a cheesy sports flick. The story line is touching and intelligent without being soppy, the jokes were laugh out loud funny, and the characters are well acted. Parminder Nagra and Keira Knightley are brilliant as teenagers Jess and Jules, putting in great performances both on and off the pitch. Anupam Kher is wonderful as Jess' worried father, and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who was so amazingly evil in 'Ride with the Devil,' comes across so well as the nice guy for once, making full use of his gorgeous Irish accent! Even if you don't like football, go see this film. If anything it'll make you smile. I love this movie. It is great film that combines English and Indian cultures with feminist-type issues, such as girls wanting to play sports that were previously reserved for men. It shows the struggles of both an Indian person wanting to break outside her cultural barriers and women wanting to break outside the gender restrictions found in sports, especially in England at the time. I feel that the cultural struggles are more emphasized than the other issues.

In contrast to the other comment, I do not think this movie is anything like Dirty Dancing or any other such chick flick. This move is loved by many types of people, men and women, young and old alike. This is one of my all time favorite movies and I would recommend it to anyone. On my list of favorite movies (mental list, mind) the only ones on par with it are movies such as The Lord of the Rings series, Spirited Away and Fly Away Home.

I can really relate to the main character Jess. At the start of the movie she's a shy girl with a slightly odd background who has a lot more friends who are boys than that are girls. She really sucks you into her life. I also certainly can't fault any of the protagonist's acting, or anyone else's in the film.

The soccer was interesting to watch even for someone like me who has no idea of the rules. The movie is never boring. The romance is really cute and didn't make me blush tooooo hard! One thing that really made it though was the Indian factor. Jess' parents are Indian and there are many colourful Indian conventions throughout the film providing a very interesting cultural insight as well as everything else. The Indian people are also hilarious! Essentially this is a coming of age film about choosing the path you want and fighting for it.

Feel good comedies are becoming my favorite movie genre thanks to this film. They're funny, they're refreshing and they make you feel good! ^_~ Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.

Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.

Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.

Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.

Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.

With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.

Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.

In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old. Bend it like Beckham is packed with intriguing scenes yet has an overall predictable stroy line. It is about a girl called Jess who is trying to achieve her life long dream to become a famous soccer player and finally gets the chance when offered a position on a local team. there are so many boundaries and limits that she faces which hold her back yet she is still determined and strives. i would recommend it for anyone who likes a nice light movie and wants to get inspired by what people can achieve. The song choices are really good, 'hush my child, just move on up...to your destination and you make boundaries and complications.' Anyway hope that was at help to your needs in a review. Bend it like Beckham great flick This is a so called 'feel-good' movies, however it made me sad in a way. Why? Because I had the talent, but my parents didn't let me study at the sports academy, as well the fact that at the age of 12 I decided to quit soccer.

And soccer is the red line in this movie. Together with the struggle youngsters have with the expectations parents have. An English-Indian girl and her parents, with their traditions and strong family ties, and on the other hand the English family with a daugther who dresses like a boy, and plays soccer... a combination which worries her mother! This movie also lines out the lives of ordinary people, as well as the Indian community in England. It is about believe in your dreams, and live your one life (where did we hear that before).

Paraminder Nagra (a beautiful women!) plays Yasminda, a girl who is not interested in boys, new clothes, make-up and the typical 17 year old girl stuff. In contradiction with her sister Pinky, complete the opposite of Yasminda.

A real must it is, to see how a young beautiful girl struggles with the traditions of their parents, and finds her luck eventually. With great music from Blondie, Curtis Mayfield, Texas, Melanie C, as well as Indian hit songs.

Pleasant to watch, but if you, as myself, ever played soccer, and never made it to the top, then this movie will make you melachonic. Originally I rented this film for my daughter since she is keen on soccer - and I was not disappointed that way (except the plot interfered with the soccer scenes). As a dad I suppose I was a little surprised at the introduction of the topic of lesbianism - but I have to admit that as a parent these issues are completely available to children nowadays (as uncomfortable as I feel with the topic). In a way this emotion was a segue right into the main premise of the film - that at some age you must trust your children to make their own choices. This dilemma is introduced by a young British-born teen girl - Jasminder (Jess) - of east-Indian heritage who dreams of playing professional soccer. The pending marriage of her older sister in a traditional Hindu marriage provides many rich opportunities for her to explore (in a nice way) her hopes and fears for her future.

The multi-cultural challenge was a very interesting technique to explore Jess's frustration with her parents expectations for her - again no different in substance than most child-parent relationships.

In SUMMARY, the soccer scenes are GREAT (lots to learn in slowmo) and while I didn't need the storyline - something was needed to keep the movie going. What surprised me most about this film was the sheer audience it attracted. Similar films such as Anita and Me have never caused as much hype as this film has, though I think that's probably because of the mention of 'Beckham' in the title more than anything else.

It's a brilliant film putting across a brilliant message - you can do anything if you're determined enough, and put your mind to it, which is such a positive message to anyone watching this film.

I think this is one of Keira Knightley's better films, and I think she's a brilliant actress, and was excellent for the role. Parminder Nagra was brilliant too. Sadly, I can't say this for Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, because I don't think that he was that much of a good actor, and to be honest, his eyes were a little scary.

All in all, a brilliant film, and a brilliant story "Bend It Like Beckham" reminds me of the best of those 80's teeny-bopper movies directed by John Hughes. Everything takes place in a bubble-gum colored world where everyone is attractive, there are some easily-resolved conflicts that occasionally take away from the mostly happy proceedings, and vast amounts of plot are summarized by montages set to bouncy pop tunes. Nothing wrong with this, however. "Bend It Like Beckham" is an absolute treat from beginning to end. My wife and I found ourselves totally won over by the cornball cheesiness even as we were making fun of it, and at the end, as embarrassing as this is to admit, we applauded (and we saw this, by the way, in our living room, not in a theatre). Watch this movie and enjoy.

Grade: B+ Nagra comes from conservative Indian family that isn't exactly into girls playing competitive soccer. But our attractive young star CAN play some serious soccer. Rhys-Meyers coaches Nagra and encourages her to perform, while Knightley is supportive teammate and friend. When sis' wedding is scheduled for the same day as the ultimate soccer match, what's a girl to do? Similar in its own unique way to BFGW as Nagra tries to push the envelope on traditional family ways. Here it's dad (well-played by Kher) who can see both sides of the issue. Docked an entire point for a hokey late sexual preference non-crisis, if they needed filler they could have gone elsewhere. Nice final wrap up to the whole deal. Not one of your harder-hitting stories, and that's a real strength of this film. There are at least two relationships in which less confident writers would have added some all-too predictable romantic tension. They not only spare the audience this, but throw in some surprises at the same time. There are a few Disney-ish moments, particularly near the end, but they are manageable. Overall, it was worth the rental and it was good, relaxed fun.

BTW, if you get the DVD, watch the segment where the director teaches you how to make aloo gobi. We followed her directions and it was BRILLIANT! Next time we will make it the day before we plan to eat it, because this is one dish that definitely gets better with a full night in the fridge to let the spices out! "Bend It Like Beckham" is a film that got very little exposure here in the United States. It was probably due to the fact that the movie was strongly British in dialogue and terminology and dealt a lot with football, (soccer here), which some may have trouble relating too in the U.S. It's unfortunate because this movie is absolutely fantastic and deserved much more coverage over here. I think the basis of the storyline, (following a dream), is something many people can relate to and in the end, "Bend It Like Beckham" proves to be a good-feeling film with a source of inspiration and really good acting. I was not overly excited about seeing this film initially but now I regret not seeing it sooner. I highly recommend this movie! This was an adorable movie. A real feel-good movie when you need one. The story is light (this is no Gone With the Wind) but sometimes, one needs this kind of plot. Funny and warm characters, fantastic acting and beautiful costumes/wardrobe.

Parminder K. Nagra (also from the TV show ER) is WONDERFUL in this role. She is definitely a new shining star for Hollywood. All should keep an eye on her, she's going to be BIG in the future.

Also impressing was the soundtrack for this movie. A nice mix of modern and Indian tunes. I was dancing throughout most of the movie.

Highly recommended if a fun movie is what you need. Great movie -I loved it. Great editing and use of the soundtrack. Captures the real feeling of Indian life, yet we can all relate. A well chose cast with some great characters. The movie develops all the characters so that you real care about them all and you feel like you know them. The use of the Indian music and drums in some of the soccer scenes is great and the direction really works as everyone comes off as real and natural. You just can't help but to root for Jess in this film! The acting was really good, even the tomboyish walk and body posture of both leading ladies is very convincing as a someone that played lots of soccer. To "Bend It Like Beckham" may not mean much to us Americans who know very little about the other football (soccer), but to English sports fans, it is equivalent to "Hit it Like Bonds" or "Dunk it Like Jordan." Any young soccer player dreams of bending a soccer ball around one player and into the net for a goal, much like star player David Beckham does, much like the young Indian girl, Jess (Parminder Nagra), does in the film Bend It Like Beckham. Jess loves to play pick up soccer games, the kind forbidden by her traditionalist mother. However, while playing one day, a passing friend named Jules (Keira Knightley) sees her play and invites her to try out for a traveling, all girls soccer team. After satisfying the coach Joe (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), she makes the team, something she knows her mother would not approve of. The movie is not about disobeying parents, but rather a girl doing what she wants to do, even if that goes against culture, not just the parents. There is humor thrown throughout the movie, especially when Jules' mother thinks she's a lesbian. The movie does resort to a bit of a cliché moment, as the big soccer game is the same day as Jess' sister's wedding, but it does not come off a cheesy, but rather fun and light. The soccer action looks good, so sports fans will enjoy it, and a story about girls growing up in a boy's world, the world of soccer will inspire some in the audience. Bend It Like Beckham is not just about soccer, but rather a girl trying to find herself and please her parents at the same time, something that proves to be rather difficult. I saw this with few expectations and absolutely loved it! Bend it like Beckham is a fairly typical coming-of-age movie about a fairly atypical girl. This is Parminder Nagra ("ER")'s breakout role, playing Jess, a teenager in England who is caught between her traditional Indian family and her love of football (that's soccer to us North Americans). And even though she's actually much older than her character, she plays the role pitch-perfect.

This is a movie about friendship - specifically Jess's friendship with Jules (Keira Knightley), her teammate who is also going through family issues, especially with her mom, who wears purple nail polish and little bows on her shoes, and who wants Jules to be more feminine, wear lacy underwear and flirt with boys and is terrified that playing sports means her daughter is a lesbian. Jules and Jess both love playing the game and have issues trying to convince their families to let them go after their dreams. They also, unfortunately, both love the same man - Joe, their coach (played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). The love triangle causes some strain in their friendship.

In some spots, Bend It Like Beckham falls into clichés. In others, scenes drag on far too long, and this movie probably could have benefited from overall tighter editing.

But this was a refreshingly fun film about growing up, culture clash, and the love of football. It's about female empowerment, chasing your dreams, and supporting your friends. Funny, charming and fun, Bend It Like Beckham is the little film that could... and did.

Excellent. 8/10. To some, this Biblical film is a story of judgment and condemnation... Others see it as a story of grace, restoration, and hope... It is actually both – Henry King illustrates the portrait of a mighty monarch almost destroyed by his passion, his downward spiral of sin, and his upward climb of healing..

'David and Bathsheba' is an emotional movie full of vividly memorable characters who attain mythic status while retaining their humanity... Henry King handles the powerful story, taken from the Old Testament, with skill...

David, 'the lion of Judah,' having stormed the walls of Rabgah, saves the life of one of his faithful warriors Uriah (Kieron Moore), and returns to Jerusalem...

Back at his court, his first wife complains of neglect, and offends him for being a shepherd's son, distinguishing herself for being the daughter of King Saul...

One evening, and while walking on the terrace of his palace which evidently held a commanding view of the neighborhood, David's eyes happened to alight upon a young lady who was taking a refreshing bath... She was beautiful and attractive... David could not take his eyes off her... He finds out later on that she was the wife of one of his officers...

Sending for her, he discovers that she, too, is unhappy in her marriage... By this point, it's apparent that David's intentions shift from an interest in taking Bathsheba as a wife, to just plain taking Bathsheba... As usual, sin had its consequences, and David hadn't planned on that possibility...

When a drought sweeps the land and there is a threat of famine, David suspects that the Lord is punishing him and his people for his sin... But when Bathsheba tells him that she is pregnant and fears that she may be stoned to death according to the law of Moses, David tries to cover up his sin...

He sends word to Joab, the commander of his army, and ordered him to send to him Bathsheba's husband... David did something that was abominable in God's sight... He sends the man to the front line where he would be killed...

The soldier is indeed killed and with him out of the way, David marries his beloved Bathsheba in full regal splendor...

God punishes the couple when Bathsheba's child dies soon after birth... Meanwhile, a mighty famine has spread throughout the land and the Israelites - led by Nathan - blame the King for their plight... They storm the palace and demand that Bathsheba pays for her sin...

Peck plays the compassionate king whose lustful desire outweighed his good sense and integrity..

Hayward as Bathsheba, is a sensitive woman who begins to believe that every disaster occurring in her life is the direct result of her adultery... The sequence of her bath which could have been a great moment in Biblical film history, is badly mishandled, and the viewers eyes are led briefly to Hayward's face and shoulders...

Raymond Massey appeared as Nathan the Prophet, sent by God to rebuke David after his adultery with Bathsheba; Gwyneth Verdon is Queen Michal who tries to resist the ambition and greed that have become integral to David's personality and kingship; ex-silent screen idol, Francis X. Bushman, had a brief part as King Saul...

The best moments of the film were: The Ark en route to its permanent home when God breaks a young soldier who tries to touch the sacred object; the defining moment in David's life when he confesses his sin and is prepared to accept his punishment of death; and for the film's climax, inserting it as a flashback, David remembering his fight with the giant Goliath...

With superb color photography and a masterly music score, 'David and Bathsheba' won Oscar nominations in the following categories: Music Scoring, Art and Set Direction, Cinematography, Story and Screenplay, and Costume Design.. This film is famous for several qualities: a literate script, for once in partly-religious film-making, by Philip Dunne, some very good performances, a first-rate production in every department and its intelligent direction by veteran Henry King. If one were making a film, then getting such talents as Leon Shamroy as cinematographer, Lyle Wheeler as art director and Alfred Newman as composer of original music would guarantee a quality production. Add the cast of this film, including Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward as the title characters, James Robertson Justice, Raymond Massey, Kieron Moore, Jayne Meadows and John Sutton plus a dance by Gwen Verdon and expectations might be raised that the resulting film could be made into something special. But in a biblical subject script, usually a sub-genre prone to illogical motivations and miraculous interventions, everything would ultimately depend on the author's skills. Philip Dunne here has supplied human beings, a rare achievement in biblical films. David is a man in this film, many-sided, not someone doing mythical deeds on paper in the Old Testament. Gregory Peck makes him curious, passionate, self-controlled, self-deprecating and appealing. As Bathsheba, Hayward is scarcely the perfect choice but conveys a good deal of common-sense earthiness and emotional normalcy that helps one see why the King of Israel would risk so much for her. The rest of the cast is stalwart and capable by turns. The familiar storyline provides them little to work with, but author Dunne and the cast do as much as is possible with the human situations. David's youth is told in flashback; how he was chosen by a Prophet of Yahweh to be King of Israel, and earns his way to be second to the king, Saul, by defeating Goliath the Phiiistine in battle when all else are afraid to beard the giant warrior. Thereafter, he finally is driven from the court of King Saul of Israel, becomes a famous warrior, and returns to claim the kingdom and become the instrument of death of Jonathan, the King's son, formerly a friend. His wars are successful-- the film opens in fact with a successful attack scene; but his life is empty since his wife Michal, Jayne Meadows, is Saul's daughter and is cold to him. He turns to Bathsheba, whom he sees from the palace roof bathing naked; later she admits she had hoped he would see her. But she has a husband, Uriah; when she becomes pregnant, it becomes necessary for Uriah to come in from the battlefield and spend time at home; he instead asks David to set him in the forefront of the battle, even after being aroused by Verdon's dance. David agrees. He is killed, a war hero; but this does not solve the infidelity question. Drought comes to Israel, and the king's infidelity is blamed for the phenomenon. At last, David places his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, recently brought to Jerusalem and housed in a temple, which has caused the death of others who accidentally came in contact with it, inviting his god to punish him--and nothing happens...David exits the temple, and finds that rain has come to his parched land. This film is always interesting, varied in its types of scenes and physically beautiful. The director and author make use of the observer principle, and are frankly more successful in humanizing the characters than in almost any film outside the Grecianized- Near Eastern canon, wherein the feat is a bit easier since neither miraculous nor religious themes are made central in such adventures. . Well-remembered for its glowing realization, fine performances and intelligent dialogue, this dramatic effort bears repeated study. Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one "The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe." Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end. To me movies and acting is all about telling a story. The story of David and Bethsheba is a tragedy that is deep and can be felt by anyone who reads and understands the biblical account. In this movie I thought the storytelling by Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward were at their best. To know and understand the story of David and his journey to become the King of Israel, made this story all the more compelling. You could feel his lust for a beautiful woman, Gregory Peck showed the real human side of this man who in his time was larger than life. Susan Hayward's fear, reluctance, but then obedience to his authority as her King was beautifully portrayed by her. One could also feel David's anguish the nigh that Uriah spent the night at the gate instead of at home. As well as the sadness when he was killed in battle. Raymond Massey's powerful and authoritative condemnation of the King made me feel his anger. The sets were real enough, and the atmosphere believable. All in all I think this was one of the best movies of it's kind. I gave it a rating of ten. There's no shortage of bad dialogue in David and Bathsheba – "I was quite a hand with a slingshot," "The King of all Israel out there in the darkness exposing himself to the enemy" (full marks to Dennis Hooey for delivering that one with a straight face), "Go and sit with the concubines." And somehow I doubt a bored David ever told the prophet Nathan "Whatever you say." He even tries the old "My kingdom doesn't understand me" routine on desperate housewife Bathsheba at one point. So it's probably a tribute to Henry King's direction that the film isn't at all bad despite the pitfalls much of the first third provide. Maybe it's the censor-baiting nature of the plot – a married man kills a femme fatale's husband and gets away with it! – but King brings out the growing moral and theological complexities in Phillip Dunne's script rather than upping the sin and sandals hokum. This is the conflicted David on the downhill slope, abandoned by a vengeful God he no longer understands, and the film doesn't back away from the awkward unanswerable questions about why a loving deity would choose to wreak vengeance on the innocent rather than the guilty. It even offers a genuinely surprising criticism of the sexual inequality of the law, where the failings of husbands result in the punishment of their wives.

Unlike King David, which sidelined the king in favour of the admittedly more interesting Saul, David is firmly at the centre of the drama and despite an interesting display of shoulder twitching and a frankly gormless overlong close-up when visiting the site of Saul and Jonathan's death, Gregory Peck's performance grows in stature as David shrinks. Susan Hayward is pure Hollywood pro, Raymond Massey is an appropriately theatrical prophet (why be naturalistic when you've got a voice that makes the very heavens quake?) and Kieron Moore's Uriah such an intransigent unreconstructed chauvinist that you can't exactly blame David for putting him in harm's way, but despite threatening to soft peddle the film doesn't allow David a moral get out of jail free card over his death. With surprisingly strong but subdued design and Technicolor photography this is definitely a cut above most 40s-50s Biblical epics.

Fox's new DVD is a good transfer, including an incredibly hokey 'candid' behind-the-scenes short and a trailer with brief shots deleted from the film's sole battle scene. I've always believed that David and Bathsheba was a film originally intended for Tyrone Power at 20th Century Fox, although Gregory Peck does give a good account of himself as King David, the monarch with a wandering eye.

A whole lot of biblical subjects get covered in this film, adultery, redemption, sin, punishment and generally what God expects from his followers.

When you're a king, even king in a biblically prophesied kingdom you certainly do have a lot perogatives not open to the rest of us. King David has many wives, including one really vicious one in Jayne Meadows who was the daughter of Saul, David's predecessor. But his eyes catch sight of Bathsheba out in her garden one evening. Turns out she's as unhappily married to Uriah the Hittite as David is to quite a few women. Uriah is one of David's army captains. David sends for Bathsheba and him being the King, she comes a runnin' because she's had her eye on him too.

What happens, an affair, a pregnancy, and a carefully arranged death for Uriah in a battle. But an all seeing and knowing Deity has caught all of this and is not only punishing David and Bathsheba, but the entire Kingdom of Israel is being punished with drought, disease, and pestilence.

The sexist law of the day calls for Bathsheba to have a stoning death. David shows weakness in his previous actions, but here he steps up to the plate and asks that the whole thing be put on him. He even lays hands on the Ark of the Covenant which was an instant death as seen in the film.

My interpretation of it is that God admires guts even if you're wrong and he lets up on David and forgives them both. Bathsheba becomes the mother of Solomon and she and David are the ancestors of several successors in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah until they're both conquered.

Susan Hayward is a fetching Bathsheba caught in a loveless marriage with Uriah played by Kieron Moore. The only thing that gets Moore aroused is a good battle. I liked Kieron Moore's performance as a brave and rather stupid horse's rear.

No one can lay the law down like Raymond Massey. His Nathan the Prophet is in keeping with the John Brown character he played in two films, same intensity.

So when His own law called for death, why did God spare Bathsheba and keep David on the throne. Maybe it was the fact He just didn't want to train a third guy for the job. He'd replaced Saul with David already.

But I think the Christian interpretation might be that this was a hint of the New Testament forthcoming, that one might sin and receive mercy if one asks for it penitently. I'll leave it to the biblical scholars to submit interpretations.

Watch the film and you might come up with an entirely new theory. David and Bathsheba is a lavish Hollywood Biblical picture produced out of 20th Century Fox by Darryl F. Zanuck, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck {King David}, Susan Hayward (Bathsheba), Raymond Massey (Nathan), Kieron Moore (Uriah) and Jayne Meadows (Michal).

The film is based around the second Old Testament book of Samuel from the Holy Bible. It follows King David, who as a child had slain the giant Goliath, and now we find him in adulthood as the second King of Israel. A tough and assured King, David however has affairs of the heart causing great problems. For once he spies Bathsheba taking a shower {re;bath}, it 's the start of a journey encompassing adultery and betrayal; a journey that will end in the judgement of God being called upon.

Typically for the genre, David & Bathsheba is a large, grandiose production. From its excellent set designs to it's positively gorgeous Technicolor photography {Leon Shamroy}, it has enough quality to warrant sitting along side the best the genre has to offer as regards production values. Untypically, tho, the film is sedately paced and relies on 99% of its worth being driven purely by dialogue. This is not one for action fans or anyone who needs some swash to go with their buckle. This is a very humanist picture, in fact lets not beat around the burning bush here, it's a Biblical love story flecked with sins of the heart. But that is no bad thing at all, because breaking it down we find it's very well acted {Peck has a stoic yet vulnerable thing going on real well & Hayward is pushing it to the max}, and it be a fine story directed with knowing skill by the often forgotten Henry King. And although some of the dialogue is admittedly cringe inducing, the character flow is never interrupted as Phillip Dunne's (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir) Oscar nominated screenplay holds the attention throughout.

Sometimes a forgotten picture in terms of the Biblical/Swords & Sandals genres (most likely because it is a talky piece that has heart as its main selling point), but really it's well worth the time of anyone interested in the most lavish of genres. 7/10 Watching David&Bathsheba is a much better way of getting your bible lesson that going to Sunday school. Despite a script that at times is unintentionally funny the film is highly entertaining. The studio system had its faults but it spared no expense when a lavish production was called for. Peck portrays King David as a lusty but tormented poet who commits what is tantamount to murder to bed a sexy Bathsheba, Susan Hayward. Raymond Massey as the prophet Nathan delivers his usual saturnine and ferocious performance. Look for the silent screen star Francis X. Bushman as King Saul and a young Gwen Verdon as a dancer. Hooray for the Old Testament and Hollywood. This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. The best thing about it is that it does not diminish them in the eyes of the viewer. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great people like David are flawed people who find their faith and greatness in facing their flaws.

The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own truthful but larger than life style of acting is quite at home here. She is ever the seductress, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.

Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like "The Robe" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.

Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country ruthlessly but was at one time a faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.

I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today. Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, "The Song of Ruth" and "Esther and the King." It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife. Gregory Peck gives a brilliant performance in this film. The last 15 minutes (or thereabouts) are great and Peck is an absolute joy to watch. The same cannot however be said for the rest of the film. It's not awful and I'm sure it was made with good intentions, but the only real reason (if I were to be honest) to see it is Peck. For the rest you are better off just reading the Old Testament. For anyone with a moderate sensibility, a moderate feeling of the human and humane condition, for anyone capable of getting above the Hollywood ilk, for anyone who is satisfied seeing cinema which does not have a series of Seagals/Willis/Van Dammes blasting the brains out of anybody or seeing who gets into bed with whom, for anyone whose intellectual level reaches a capacity to grasp, sympathise with, comprehend, laugh WITH, cry WITH natural tender heart-warming hilarious compassionate HUMAN BEINGS, `Le Huitième Jour' is waiting for you. Jaco van Dormael has not achieved simply a masterpiece, that would have been too simplistic; he has achieved one of those rare monumental works of art in the cinematographic world which defies any kind of encapsuling. Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? No: it is the story of Georges, a wonderful funny pitiful laughable loving frightened beautiful personality, a sufferer of the Downes Syndrome. It is a story which has you laughing through your tears, but this is not one of those classic tear-jerkers; this film moves through a world that has you at once mixing your feelings of compassion or pity or even shame with those of admiration, warmth and even love. A successful banking salesman, Harry, bumps into Georges: they were both going in opposite directions with absolutely opposing ideas, problems and priorities; skillfully van Dormael melts these two unlikely men into a warm friendship, but which is so much more than the good buddy friendship of those having a beer down the road. This is a relationship which develops into a profound needing by both for the other. The cuasi-surrealist scenes fit in perfectly: Georges recalls (or invents) past scenes of his life while either day-dreaming or sleeping; even the almost phantasmagorical final scene is totally correct. The only scene which might be considered a little out of place is when they steal a bus and drive it out of the show-rooms. However, this does not detract from the whole. This film is a monument. Even if your French is not up to much, please bear seeing it with sub-titles. `Le Huitième Jour' is worth the trouble. As for anything else, well, just read the following commentaries – I go along with all of them. This film is a joy, it is majestic, it is unique. If you have seen `Rain Man' which I consider an excellent film, you must see this one: it is far superior because it has not the superficial veneer of famous Hollywood-produced world-renowned actors; it has Pascal Duquenne and Daniel Auteuil – TEN oscars for these two, and three more for Jaco van Dormael. Who cares…………? Yes: 11 out of 10 if the IMDb rating doesn't break down under the strain.

Magnifique! Chapeau! This is the French and Belgians doing what they do best. It's quirky, visually inventive, exhilarating and emotionally challenging storytelling. Director Jaco van Dormael takes us into the world of Georges, a Down's Syndrome sufferer and his quest for a meaningful relationship with someone, just anyone. This is not done in a patronising way but with a great sense of fun and also honesty. Georges' interplay with corporate management guru, Harry is dazzlingly handled - shifting from comedy to tragedy back to comedy again with breathtaking ease.

The Eighth Day puts similar Hollywood fare like Barry Levinson's Oscar winning Rain Man or Robert Zemeckis's Forrest Gump well and truly in the shade. At times, it evokes the humour of Milos Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with shades of Dennis Potter thrown in for good measure.

As the emotionally blunted and desperately lonely yuppie, Harry, Daniel Auteuil turns in yet another sublime performance. But it is matched by the brilliant Pascal Duquenne as Georges. It's a movie with uniformly strong performances and so many, memorable set pieces - the shoe shop scene, car showroom scene, George's dance to Genesis's 'Jesus He Knows Me,' the conference scene, the fireworks scene. If you haven't seen it, there's only one thing to do. Just rent it or attend a screening at a retro cinema near you and see what you've been missing. Better still, buy this movie. Sheer genius..... On the eighth day God created Georges. But the same as an eighth day doesn't fit into the week, Georges doesn't fit into the modern world: He has Down syndrome and is therefore marginalized by society, shunted off to an asylum after his mother's death four years ago. She was the only one who loved him.

Harry is another man that isn't loved anymore. His wife has left him, for reasons that she is unable to explain. He loses the love of his daughters, too, when he arrives too late at the railway station to collect the two kids, who wanted to spend the weekend with their father.

Harry is a highly ranked businessman. He knows all the rules that enable us to succeed in our modern meritocracy. But he has entered a state of crisis, which reaches a climax after the loss of the love of his daughters. He questions the sense of his life, without obtaining any definite results.

Harry and Georges meet. At first Harry tries to get rid of Georges, the same as all the others do. But Georges can't be shaken off. And it gradually dawns on Harry, how much he needs Georges, if he wants to get over his identity crisis. It is Georges who opens a new access to the world for him and who makes him view his life with different eyes. Friendship and human warmth take the place of calculating striving for success. It is no surprise that Harry now cannot avoid failing in his job.

Georges helps Harry to regain the recognition of the daughters. Even his wife has to admit that the fireworks which he organized were worth seeing. Nonetheless a reintegration into the old life is no longer possible. And the new one turns out to be nothing more than a dream with a time limit, which unstoppably will reach its end. The camera watches Harry and Georges from above, for one long minute, as they are both lying down in the grass, just savoring the moment. But the same as this minute will unavoidably go by, the friendship of the two men, which came into being in such a wondrous fashion, will not be long-lasting. Georges is destroyed by the impossibility of love to the opposite sex and can see no other way out but to commit suicide. Harry turns into a city tramp, who asks the car drivers that are waiting in front of the traffic lights for charity.

The movie describes modern meritocracy as a disastrous mechanism which devours positive values such as human warmheartedness or friendship. It is Georges, the mongol, who seems to be capable of showing the way out of the dilemma, but unfortunately his plea comes to a bad end. However, his failure does not necessarily have to mean that it is impossible or not desirable to reach the aspired goal. The way he shows us is surely passable, although it requires a huge amount of willpower and, above all, the courage to apply a radical nonconformism. People tend to complain about the number of films being made about mentally disabled people. I don't see this as a valid criticism, no more than complaints of too many films about any sort of people. Jaco van Dormael does a wonderful job with the script and direction. Daniel Auteuil and Pascal Duquenne work perfectly together, with Duquenne basically playing himself. The film covers a surprisingly large ground of events, and isn't simply content to go over what was seen in "Rain Man". The ending is rather depressing, but it doesn't ruin the wonderful story that has come before.

7.8 out of 10 This film is close to be my favorite piece of celluloid. There is really not much I'd need or want to say here. Except maybe "See this film" and "Enjoy the excellent work by Daniel and Pascal", who carries you through this neat, funny and heartbreaking story about 'spending your eighth day' - your own day!

Seeing this film made me think seriously about how I spend my eighth day = my life! It appears, that some of us are wasting precious time doing things we think we need to do. Either if it's pleasing a career or just consuming TV-shows and ballgames. What we tend to miss is the satisfaction of being something for another person - make a difference. About taking room and time to be spontaneous and live - NOW! (on the eighth day)... At least that was what I got from 'The Eighth Day'. I saw this film first on my way home from Paris to Newark aboard Air France in August 1996. The film itself I believe is quite a masterpiece. It's the kind of film that people should be making. I still think Daniel Auteuil is one of the sexiest actors around. In this French film, he plays a divorced father and businessman who has lost his zest for life until he across a Down Syndrome man who lives in an institution with other Down Syndrome patients. The actors including the actor who actually has Down Syndrome create a believable friendship and relationship between these two unlikely men. Daniel's life and ours changes forever with the Down Syndrome man. He realizes that life is not just work and not play but for the living and loving and that's what life should be all about. The ending is kind of silly though but I still think it's one of my favorite movies. It's enough to bring a tear to your eye. Everyone we meet influences our thinking, modifies our ways, a little bit of that person rubs off onto us. "The Eighth Day" takes up this theme (Compare "Rainmaker"). In this film Harry (Daniel Auteuil) a businessman expert in sales psychology meets up with Georges (Pascal Duquenne), a Down's Syndrome child on the run. Winning performances from both these actors give this film its main strength. The opening sequence is excellent where Georges relates his theory on the creation of the world and in the closing scene we discover what God created on the eighth day. There are some moments in the story that are very frustrating for Harry. For example, Georges who is completely uninhibited demands a pair of expensive shoes and hasn't enough money. It's the kind of scene where you laugh through your tears. I liked the scene where the Down's Syndrome group on a trip to the Art Gallery escape on a bus and gate-crash the Paradis fun park. The most humorous of all the embarrassments is the scene where Harry and Georges pass a horse-float on the highway and, looking back, Georges gives the driver a rude salute. But there are some gentle scenes as well, especially the impressive use of close-ups of hands - hands feeling the sun,wind and rain, hands reaching up, hands reaching out and clasping in love and friendship. This is true cinema which touches the heart. There are very moving scenes where Georges proposes to Nathalie, where Georges cradles Harry's head in his arms, where Georges keeps calling for his dear Mom, where Georges teaches Harry to laugh..I felt there was a profound message in the film that life is beautiful- the very presence of grass (Did you know it cries when you cut it?), the trees overhead, the song of birds, the little insects - all nature's miraculous creatures. They are all there to be enjoyed if we but lie back (like Harry and Georges) look around us and listen......A beautiful film. The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see. This film is about the unlikely friendship between a businessman and a man with Down Syndrome.

The character development in this film is excellent. We get to believe that Harry is a businessman who neglects his family, and Georges is an innocent man who craves loving and care from the "normal" society. Acting is excellent, and the Cannes best actor award is well deserved.

The fantasy scenes in the film highlights the fact that Georges misery towards his abandonment by his family, and his desire to be treated like a normal person. The song that gets played repeatedly also reinforces this message. The film shows that people who are mentally handicapped are good natured. We have been treating them with discrimination and neglect, a fact that is highlighted by the scene where Georges gives a present to the waitress in the kitchen). If we get to understand and share these people's world, both we and the mentally handicapped can become very happy.

I was so drawn into the film and the characters' emotional experiences. It is a touching film for good natured souls. If you would like to see a film of different kind, if you feel the Love in your heart, even if you miss the Lord, this film makes you think. Although Georges is mentally handicapped, you can see the ultimate intelligence at the end, when love gives you directions not the brain. I am not emotional, but this film makes you feel the human being. The film is as good as Forrest Gump in my belief. The foreign movies are sometimes more interesting, yet there is not enough advertisement to make them popular. "Rang-e khoda" (The Color of The God) by Majid Majidi is another example of such foreign movies, almost with similar taste. I picked this film up based on the plot summary and critics' quotes on the back of the box. I'm not big into foreign films, and didn't know what to expect. I don't really care for subtitles either. But I absolutely loved it! It has a simple, lovable quality that leaves you feeling good about life. I found myself laughing out loud repeatedly. I'd recommend this picture to anyone, even those who abhor foreign films with subtitles. This one makes it worth the effort. When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical "love thy neighbour" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10 I really love this movie, saw it again last week after 3 years or so. This movie is perfect, great acting, great story, great directing/camera-work/music. It is a gift to show it to someone you love. too bad jaco van dormael did not make more movies after this one. Top 5 work. Really!!

Today, it's 3 years and 3 days later then the comment above. it was never posted because it was not more than 10 lines. Anyway, i saw "le huitieme jour" again yesterday. This is with no doubt in my movie top 3. together with "Cinema Paradiso" which is also a masterpiece. The soundtrack is also really good. I am really curious about "jaco von dormael's" new movie. I hope it will complete my movie top 3. If you see this movie, rent it. Or even better. buy it. Because you will want to see it again. My all-time favorite movie! I have seen many movies, but this one beats them all! Excelent acting, wonderful story. You will, as a "normal" caring person start to love George. Altough he is an actor, he is also himself and a very lovable person. And maby most important thing: you will learn to respect & look different to people with Down Syndrome. Though the plot elements to "The Eighth Day" seem like they have been done plenty of times, the film still has much of the spark, mystery, and symbolism that Jaco Van Dormal's first film had. Though not as good as "Toto the Hero", which will always remain on my favorites list, the movie still leaves us with lots of emotions. Daniel Auteil, from 2001's flavorless "The Closet" downplays his part, afraid to overact (rightfully so, the role could have easily been ruined if the actor was overly dramatic). However, I felt the part needed a bit more realism to it, focusing more on the character itself instead of simply the character's growth.

Don't walk into this movie expecting the dark humor and unexpected twists that you got from "Toto the Hero" because you will be disappointed. However, the film still serves as a decent, if not flawed, movie This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I loved Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise. This movie is in some ways similar, but makes Rain Man seem artificial, shallow, unemotional, and trivial by comparison. This is the kind of movie the US doesn't make. It's why people rent foreign films. It's a great story about how one person, even if he is retarded can make a person find reason in an empty life. Everybody can learn from Georges. It also shows how people that are mentally challenged suffer in their life and shows them in a very realistic way (I think). As its classic in foreign films this movie has a bittersweet ending, but that only makes it a better movie. A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.

Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.

The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need. This film, I thought, was the great journey that Forrest Gump should have been. It's a rare treat to watch a cable movie in the middle of the day and come across a foreign film that is done so well. This film is very well acted, and I strongly suggest it to anyone who can take sub-titles. Although it was released way back in 1967, IN COLD BLOOD still remains the benchmark by which all true-crime films are matched. Veteran writer/director Richard Brooks (ELMER GANTRY) adapted Truman Capote's non-fiction book into a chilling docudrama that retains a disturbing power even today, thirty-five years later.

Robert Blake and Scott Wilson portray Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, two ex-cons who, on a tip from Hicock's old cellmate Floyd Wells, broke into the Holcomb, Kansas home of Herbert Clutter, looking for a wall safe supposedly containing $10,000. But no safe was ever found, and the two men instead wound up killing Mr. Clutter, his wife, and their two children, getting away with only a radio, a pair of binoculars, and a lousy forty dollars. Two months on the run, including an aimless "vacation" in northern Mexico, ended in Las Vegas when cops caught them in a stolen car. But it eventually comes out, after merciless grilling by Kansas law enforcement officials, that these two men committed that heinous crime in Holcomb. Tried and convicted on four counts of murder, they stew in jail over a five-year period of appeals and denials until both are hanged to death on April 14, 1965.

Blake and Smith are absolutely chilling as the two dispassionate killers who show no remorse for what they've done but are concerned about getting caught. John Forsythe also does a good turn as Alvin Dewey, the chief detective investigating the crime, as does Gerald S. O'Laughlin as his assistant. In a tactic that is both faithful to Capote's book and a good artistic gambit all around, Brooks does not show the murders at the beginning; instead, he shows the two killers pulling up to the Clutter house as the last light goes out, then cuts to the next morning and the horrifying discovery of the bodies. Only during the ride back to Kansas, when Blake is questioned by Forsythe and narrates the story, do we see the true horror of what happened that night. We don't see that much blood being spilled in these scenes, but we don't need to. The shotgun blasts and the horrified look on the Clutters' faces as they know they are about to die are more than disturbing enough, so there is no need to resort to explicitly bloody slasher-film violence.

Brooks wisely filmed IN COLD BLOOD in stark black-and-white, and the results are excellent thanks to Conrad Hall's expertise. The chilling jazz score by Quincy Jones is the capper. The end result is one of the most unsettling films of any kind ever made, devastating in its own low-key fashion. It is a 134-minute study of a crime that shook an entire state and indeed an entire nation, and should be seen, though viewer discretion is advised; the 'R' rating is there for a reason. Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.

What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, "In Cold Blood" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.

Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.

Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.

After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.

Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, "In Cold Blood" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night? I've seen a great many films, but 'In Cold Blood' stands alone in a class by itself. It excels in every department. The fact that it contained few big stars helps push it over the top as you pay closer attention to the characters and their story, rather than the name on the marquee. Blake and Wilson turn in stellar performances of the killer duo. The fact that much of the films is filmed in the actual locations where the crime took place, even inside the very house, add additional chills. The black/white photography darkens the mood and the photography is magnificent. There are many outstanding cinematic works out there, but if I could only vote for one to top the list, it would most probably be "In Cold Blood". Remarkable, disturbing film about the true-life, senseless, brutal murder of a small-town family, along with the aftermath, and examination of the lives of the killers, Dick Hickok and Perry Smith.

No matter how much time goes by, or how dated this film may look, it still resonates the utter incomprehensibility of criminal acts such as this.

This really traces multiple tragedies: The tragedy, brutality and senselessness of the murder of the Clutter family, a decent farm family in small-town Holcomb, Kansas; and the wasted, brutal and sad lives of Hickok and Smith.

An interesting point is made in the film: that neither of these two immature, scared, petty criminals would have ever contemplated going through with something like this alone. But, together, they created a dangerous, murderous collective personality; one that fed the needs and pathology of each of them. They push each other along a road of "proving" something to each other. That they were man enough to do it, to carry it out; neither wants to be seen as too cowardly to complete their big "score"; an unfortunate and dangerous residue of the desolate lives they led. These were two grown-up children, who live in a criminal's world of not backing down from dares; who constantly need to prove manhood and toughness. in this instance, these needs carried right through to the murder of the Clutters.

The film contains a somewhat sentimentalized look at the Clutter family, but the point is made. These were respected, law-abiding, small-town people, who didn't deserve this terrifying fate. The movie also gives us a sense of the young lives of Hickok and Smith. Perry Smith, whose early life was filled with security and love, but watched in horror as alcohol took his family down a tragic path. Hickok, poor and left pretty much to his own devices, not able to see how he fit in, using his intelligence and charm to con everyone he came into contact with.

An interesting, and maybe the first, look at capital punishment, and what ends we hope to achieve. Is this nothing more than revenge killing for a murder that rocked a nation at a time when we had not yet had to fully face that there might be such predators among us, or does putting these guys at the end of a rope truly provide a deterent to the childish and brutal posturing of men like these? Is it possible to deter men who live lives of deceit, operating under the radar, believing they fool everyone they come into contact with? To be deterred, you must believe it's possible you will be caught. Is it possible to deter these men who believe they are too clever to be caught?; who have committed hundreds of petty crimes, and got away with them? This was supposed to be a "cinch", "no witnesses".

When caught, Hickok finds he can't charm and con the agents the way he had department store clerks. Smith, who believes he deserves such a fate anyway, who seemed to be the only one who truly grasped the gravity of what they had done, willingly tells the story when he learns that Hickok has cowardly caved in. Hickok blinked first. A silly game of chicken between two immature, emotionally damaged, dangerous men.

Fascinating psychological thriller, telling a story of a horrendous crime in this nation's history. Stunning portrayals by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. These roles made their careers. In the year 2006, "In Cold Blood"-a riveting thriller from 1967-has two new interesting contexts that it did not previous have. First, and most chillingly, is the fact that it's star, Robert Blake, was recently on trial for murdering his wife. Second, the recent Oscar winning biopic, "Capote" showed the muddled back story of this haunting true crime tale's author, Truman Capote. These two new twists make the film timely for a modern audience.

As a stand alone film from it's era, "In Cold Blood" is top notch in every way. Most notable is the stunning black and white cinematography from Conrad Hall (later of "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition" fame). Many of the stills from this film of the Kansas farm house at night or the tree-lined back country roads could be sold as fine art photography. Combined with the cracker-jack direction from Brooks and superb editing in the early scenes (where we see the mundane daily life of the innocent family about to be senselessly slaughtered beautifully intertwined with the plotting of the two hapless killers), a rich brooding atmosphere is created that sets the stage for riveting suspense (even when everyone knows how this is all going to end due to the fact its all based on real life events). It's also great to see in this day and age how brilliantly staged a harrowing murder scene can be depicted where the graphic nature of the act is transmitted to the viewer subliminally with nary a drop of blood shown on screen.

The film is also anchored nicely by Robert Blake's eerie performance as the more sympathetic yet senselessly brutal side of the killing duo. The flashback scenes to his horrible childhood are extremely well done. Then there is the scene towards the end of the film where he is speaking to the reverend before being sent to the gallows and he makes his last "confession" so to speak. It's one of those classic movie moments that is a perfect marriage of gritty acting, superb writing, flawless direction, and haunting photography. I dare you to erase from your mind the stark image of the rain's reflection from the window flowing down Robert Blake's pallid face in lieu of actual tears.

The only thing hampering "In Cold Blood" is the slow moving middle act where the killers are on the lam and the forced nature of the social commentary at the end. The tacked-on political message about the death penalty is secondary to its compelling depiction of the mad killers and their prey. Richard Brooks excellent 1967 film of Truman Capote's novel IN COLD BLOOD is a perfect companion piece to Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar winning performance in the 2005 CAPOTE. They really play well together (try them on separate nights). It is unusual to find films made 38 years apart that mesh so well. These two truly enhance each other. Even though different actors play the roles of killers Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, the two pieces blend well. Only the part of the writer (played by Paul Stewart) in the Brooks films is weaker, as they give him a different name then Capote. I'd suggest watching CAPOTE first, followed by IN COLD BLOOD. It makes for a powerful experience! As I have matured, my fascination with the Academy Awards has evolved from intense interest to casual amusement. As in a few other comments that I have written, the bizarre results of Academy Award voting are often difficult to explain. The omission of "In Cold Blood" in 1967 as one of the five Best Picture nominees is one of those inexplicable instances, especially when one of the nominations that year went to the wretched and unwatchable "Dr. Dolittle." While only an insomniac or masochist would tune in to that Rex Harrison disaster, Richard Brook's powerful adaptation of Truman Capotes non-fiction novel retains its ability to capture the viewer's attention and leave him or her completely drained by the final fade out. While there is nothing particularly graphic or gruesome on screen, the film is definitely adult material. Based on a Nebraska multiple murder in the 1950's and filmed in the actual locations where the murders took place, "In Cold Blood" was filmed by master cinematographer Conrad Hall in stark black and white, and his screen compositions demand to be seen in their correct widescreen aspect ratio. Together with Quincy Jones's unsettling score, Hall's work should have been credited above the title with Brook's screenplay as the three pillars on which this intense classic is built. The performances are fine as well. Scott Wilson is all cold charm and Robert Blake intense introversion as the two killers. (There is an inside joke at one point when Blake speaks of Bogart and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" while the duo are driving to Mexico. As a child star, Blake sold the lottery ticket to Bogart in that John Huston film.) The film, like the book, is definitely slanted towards the killers and has an anti-capital punishment tilt, although the remorselessness of the murderers somewhat negates that sentiment despite the difficult-to-watch final scenes. Some have criticized the film because it does focus on the criminals, their backgrounds, and lives, while the Clutter family, which was literally murdered in cold blood in the middle of the night, come across as one-dimensional characters of little import. This lack of balance comes from the book as Capote spent much time with the two killers while they were on death row. The Clutter family was apparently not researched to the same depth. However, whatever feelings one may have for or against capital punishment, "In Cold Blood" will leave you mired deep in conflicting thoughts. Run a double bill with "Dead Man Walking," and you may not speak for days. Tremendous black--and-white nighttime cinematography, and plenty of it, highlights this supposedly-true life account of a 1950s murder in Kansas in which an entire family was wiped out by two men.

The story was written by Truman Capote, so you get the very Liberal anti-death penalty message at the end of the film, which is ludicrous knowing the facts of this case. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson play the two atheist losers who have twisted outlooks on life and who unnecessarily murder this nice family.

Despite the annoying slant at the end, this is a riveting story from the start and the cinematography makes this even more fascinating. Famed photographer Conrad Hall did a fantastic job on this. It makes me wish more modern-day films were made in black-and-white. See it on DVD.

Blake, Wilson, John Forsythe, Jeff Corey and the entire supporting cast are excellent in here. My third viewing of this film came in early April of 2005, shortly after Blake, in real life, was pronounced innocent in the murder trial of his wife. One can't help but look at Blake and this film differently after that. Criminals Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock believe Mr. Clutter of Holcomb, Kansas keeps a large supply of cash on-hand in a safe.On November 15, 1959 at two a.m. they end up murdering Mr. and Mrs. Clutter and their teenage son and daughter.After a little police investigation the two men are found and sentenced to be hanged.In Cold Blood (1967) is directed by Richard Brooks.Now, I haven't read the Truman Capote novel this movie is based on, so I can't make any comparisons.The movie does a brilliant job telling of those horrific events that actually took place.Robert Blake is excellent as Perry.Of course, Blake had the murder case of his own a few years back, being accused of murdering his wife.He's free now, but we still don't know the truth.What ever that may be, he's still a very fine actor.Scott Wilson does remarkable job as Hickock.John Forsythe is terrific as Alvin Dewey.Paul Stewart is very good as Jensen.Jeff Corey is marvelous as Mr. Hickock.Same thing with Charles McGraw who plays Tex Smith.John McLiam portrays Herbert Clutter, Ruth Storey is his wife Bonnie, Brenda Currin is the daughter Nancy and Paul Hough is the son Kenyon.Great job by each of them.There is much to remember from this film.Let's start from the lighter side.It's pretty great when Perry wants to go hunting for gold in Mexico and says to Hickock: Remember Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre?" And Blake himself was in that movie as a boy! And it's a fun moment when they, giving a ride to that boy and his granddad, collect bottles and turn them in for refund money.Those darker moments are the most haunting ones.The flashback sequence, where you see the murders happening, is extremely terrifying.When Perry goes to kill the girl, Nancy last, and she says "Oh, please, don't"...The brutality of man, it's impossible to explain.Then the hanging scene.First there goes Hickock and then Perry, first talking to the minister.In the last image of the movie we see Perry hitting the end of the rope.Sure movies,and books may try to sympathize these villains.Especially Perry's character is someone you could feel sorry for.He thinks of his mom, and dad who he hates, but still loves.But it doesn't change the fact both of these men these actors portray are brutal murderers, who don't feel sorry for anybody.They go to this house and murder an entire family, in cold blood.How could you sympathize these people? I haven't seen this in over 20yrs but I still remember things about it.

This film could NOT have been made in color. The stark grays are what make it, and was life really that simple in the 1950's?? What stands out the most in my memory is Perry Smith going to the gallows. His breathing under the hood just before they sprung the trap. I don't think I could watch that again.....once is plenty. It's like that unnamed guy at the beginning of "Papillon" who is dragged out in terror to the guillotine. The guy that said watch this on a double bill with "Dead Man Walking" should have added the last 10 minutes of "I Want To Live" as well.

Some of my ancestors being "aristos" went to the guillotine in 1794-95 so my feelings on the death penalty are rather intense. The movie was gripping from start to finish and its b/w photography of the American heartland is stunning. We feel we are right there with them as they cross the big sky country and then into Mexico and back to America again. Near the end of the movie, the reflection of the rain on Robert Blake looks like small rivers of sweat and tears rolling down his face. In the end, we follow them up the stairway to their final moment.

The two criminals, performed by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as Perry Smith and Dick Hickock could be seen on any street in any town. Hickock is a smiling boy next door and Smith, the guy with stars in his eyes from the wrong side of town. This point is made in the movie and it always surprises us that criminals are no different in appearance than anyone else. Evil, even the most vile, is part of the human condition. These two delusional men kill an entire family, looking for a safe that isn't there. Once on the run, they start writing bad cheques, carving out a trail for the authorities.

There are many fine supporting actors. I like John Forsyth as the detective on the case, Alvin Dewey. Also, Will Geer shines in a brief but excellent scene as the prosecuting attorney.

I have often wanted to see this movie all the way through, having only caught it in short snatches; I did finally get to it after buying the DVD. The result is the finest classic crime movie I have ever seen.

Don't miss this brilliant movie. To me, this is what great film-making is all about. A unique film...one of the best of all time. Acting, script, Quincy Jones' score, cinematography, editing, etc. -- just fantastic. As most viewers know, this movie is based on Truman Capote's book about the famous murder of a Kansas farm family (the Clutters) by a couple of young guys during a misguided robbery. I've never seen a movie that so brilliantly turned a true story into a riveting film.

The actors are solid across the board, but the focus is on the killers, Dick and Perry, and the law enforcement team pursuing them. Scott Wilson, as Dick Hickock is amazing. Cocky, twitchy, and devoid of compassion he comes across so charming, oily and plausible. Robert Blake as Perry Smith is extraordinary as well -- lonely, and at once empathetic and cold-blooded. Who could fold these characteristics into one individual and make us buy it? He does, and it's brilliant! A key point of the book is how it took the intersection of these two very differently sociopathic individuals to create the critical mass to commit such a stupid and heinous crime, and these two actors make it work beautifully. Both had moments in their subsequent careers, but these performances are high water marks, and that stands for acting period.

The cops are wonderful too. Leading the investigation is John Forsythe, but the other three detectives are great as well. Unlike contemporary movies where producers feel it necessary to endow police with superhuman assets or foibles, these are just genuine flatfeet, working the case with determination and competence. They seem so real. I've never seen cops on the screen so powerful in their authenticity; and I've seen most of the crime classics going way back. Really one of a kind in this respect.

PARTIAL SPOILER COMING (this movie's unique in that you already know what's happened, but I'm warning for the record).

Of course, the best scenes from the best crime shows and movies are the interrogations -- the intellectual fencing matches between the cops and the crooks, Mano a Mano. This movie has hands down the best interrogation scenes you'll ever see on film. Watch Dick and Perry try to bluff their way through and slowly unravel, unaware the cops have the goods on them. But the cops need to deftly prep their suspects to fracture their alibis and hopefully elicit confessions. This is some of the best acting you'll ever see. Think Glengarry Glen Ross without the showboating.

To help translate the sad and horrific angles of this true story, ICB was filmed at the actual Clutter house, and I've heard the Clutters were played by film students to give them a genuine feel. It works. These seem like decent, simple folk. It makes the crime so palpable and sad.

I'll stop here. It's not a feel-good movie, but it is one of the best movies ever made, and so unique, it's mandatory viewing for every film buff. The actual crime story at the core of In Cold Blood might seem a little 'tame' for those who are weened on the classic serial killer stories (Gein, Bundy, Dahmer), or just the more notorious cases out in Hollywood (OJ, Manson). The essential facts in the case don't amount to anything terribly convoluted: Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (here played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson respectively) met by some luck, conspired to rob a man's farmhouse safe out in Kansas, and after killing a family of four with a shotgun and dagger came away with 43 dollars. Aside from their returning to the US after fleeing briefly to Mexico, there isn't a whole lot of mystery to the resolution either. They were caught by some stroke of ironic chance (a cop followed them and stopped them for having a stolen car after Smith and Hickcock helped out a boy and his old man collecting bottles for change), and sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. The story ended in 1965.

But it's the handling of the story, moments of moot, the performances, a pure cinematic touch that Brooks and his absolutely marvelous (the late/great) DP Conrad Hall provides in crisp widescreen black and white, and a storytelling style that feels realistic without going into too much naturalism or too much melodrama (save perhaps for near the end, which is pitch perfect). The air of tragedy hangs over the story, and not so much because of the killings themselves, no matter how brutal they are as the "third" man that is conjured up, as the narrator observes, by Smith and Hickcock teaming up, but because of the inevitability of the story. You feel somehow for these criminals, who in any other hands would be just be conventional figures or something out of a B-movie. These aren't good people, but they aren't necessarily monsters either, at least all the way through.

It's also an excellent 'road-movie' as we see Smith and Hickcock on the road down to the Clutter residence (the actual night-time scene of the crime taking place late in the film), then on to Mexico, then back to America towards Las Vegas. We get to soak in the personalities of these two, probably even more than that of the police detectives who at first have no leads and then finally get a break with an inmate. It's actually kind of disturbing to get this close to these two (sort of akin to the aimless quality of Malick's Badlands characters), and it's also a sign of daring for the period. There's no sermonizing, like "he did this because of that and this or the other." We see how Smith had an abusive, psychotic father, but that Smith loved and hated him. The complexity there is too much for the movie, maybe even too much for Capote's book (which, I should confess, I've still yet to read, though I plan to). And we see Hickcock is this creature of slick confidence (i.e. getting the suit and other things with bad checks), but without any deep-rooted explanation to it all.

The streak of fatalism in In Cold Blood is some of the starkest of the 60s, and it's the luck of Brooks to have its stars as Blake in his top-of-the-pops performance (this and Lost Highway, oddly enough considering his real life saga in recent years, his quintessential pieces of work), and Wilson's breakthrough before becoming a character actor. While they're surrounded by fine supporting work, they themselves are eerily absorbing, driven more or less by greed and fantasies of escapism with treasure, and staying pretty much grounded in their situation through the death row and on through their ends. Is this a morale of the story, if there could be one, that it's more horrifying to confront the possibility that those who kill can't be classified, of good vs evil getting smudged? Smith apologized for his crime before being hung, and he points out, "but to who?" This is a story bound to give the most hardened fans of true-crime the bonafide chills, and it's quite possibly the best American film of 1967. Easily one of the ten best movies of the 20th century. In Cold Blood is brilliant in the simplicity and realism of its storytelling, and absolutely riveting.

Robert Blake walks away with the film. The story seems to be presented almost entirely from Perry's viewpoint, despite Dick being the leader and planner of the pair. The viewer will invariable perceive Dick as being more unstable, immature, and generally feel like Perry would not have been pulled into this nightmare but for Dick and his need to be somebody and pull off a big score.

Based on a true story with particular attention to accuracy, In Cold Blood depicts the story behind the brutal and senseless murder of a rural Kansas family one cold, windy night, because Dick has bought into an age-old rural myth about prosperous farmers having a safe full of cash in their home. As "prosecutor" (a character that isn't given a name in the script), played by Will Geer, so astutely points out, their lives are bought for only $10 a head. Director Richard Brooks wisely chooses not to share with us the gruesome details of the murders until the end of the film, prior to this we only know it has happened and watch the lives of Dick and Perry slowly unravel as they attempt to escape not only being apprehended by law enforcement, but also Perry's own ever-escalating sense of impending doom. He repeatedly makes remarks, "No one ever gets away with a thing like that," and "I can't help thinking we left something behind that belongs to us." Dick is neither mature nor moral enough to feel any compelling sense of guilt over their crime, only irritation at Perry's. Indeed, after they are caught, it is Dick who breaks first, and suddenly faints when finally confronted with irrefutable proof that places the two men at the scene of the crime. I felt somewhat sorry for Perry from the very beginning of the film, and more-so as events progressed, but I only loathed Dick.

The genius of the film is the engaging manner in which the story is played. We do not for a moment think we are watching actors portray characters, but that we are watching the actual participants and events as they occurred. The story is unrelenting, taunt, the run time slightly in excess of two hours feels more like just a few minutes.

For those of you who are interested in such things, I noticed a couple of the "Goofs" listed here on the IMDb page for In Cold Blood are incorrect or exaggerated. Such as the "reversed" process shot, at the beginning of the film, as Dick and Perry are driving across the bridge into Kansas. To begin with, this isn't even a process shot, the camera is actually positioned in the backseat and the image you see beyond the windshield of the car is real. A large cargo truck located to the left front of Dick's Pontiac creates the optical illusion that they are going backward because it is traveling at a greater rate of speed, but closer examination will reveal that they are indeed going forward and it is an actual shot filmed from a moving vehicle.

As I previously stated, this is one of the ten best works of 20th century cinema, not recommended for the very young due to some course language and implied and inferred violence (no actual in your face gore as a modern film would resort to), but a thoroughly excellent film. The premise to this movie was one which focused on the polarization of of ideologies in the United States.. This was a highly combustible scenario in America whereby two entirely different cultures collided. What justified such heinously depraved actions anyway?.. As this film presents the scene,(while Hickock and Smith drank) these two men were not intoxicated, nor were they under any kind of influence of drugs!! It was a clear cut case of cold and calculated deliberation.. Basically, these violent acts were the end result of emotional and social neglect... Anytime past 1975, we as a nation have nurtured an empathy for deviates who have been victimized by their environment... However, this incident takes place in 1959!! This dreadful revelation sideswiped us, and mired the nation into a tailspin of conflicting ethics!! With the recent release of the movie "Capote" based on Truman Capote, who was the creator of the documentary "In Cold Blood", the American people have cultivated a new found fascination with this film!! Robert Blake played the role of Perry Smith, one of the villains in this movie... This is seemingly appropriate given the notoriety he has been involved with concerning his personal life!! "In Cold Blood" centers on the element of the unexplained... There was no vengeance involved, there was no material gain to be acquired, there was no potential for social advancement here either, this is merely an instance of a latent and insidiously belligerent anger which ends certainly did not justify the means!! The situational diatribes which Hickock and Smith lamented about were always ambiguous!! Under the circumstances, why then should they take their frustrations out on an anonymously unsuspecting and innocent Kansas family?.. Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) plays the prosecuting attorney who is sickened by this act of macabre capriciousness!! His argument is thoroughly convincing... His contention being: "These two men who demonstrated no mercy are now asking for yours" This is a line of logic which would induce me to render a verdict of a conviction if I were to be one of the members of the jury!! Absolute disdain for your precarious plight in life does not serve as vindication for orchestrating a capital crime!! It was Capote's instincts that dictated that such a deranged act of violence should have been brought to the American public's attention!! As it turn out, it was a harbinger of things to come.. "In Cold Blood" did just that!! This incident was the calm before the storm relating to a pertinent aspect of emergence to the radical 1960's!! Such a lethal charade also served as an insight to the isolated interests which would besiege many typical Americans for the future!!!

Truman Capote does a tremendous job on authenticating this savage occurrence with his book, (which was a best seller) and, with this documentary as well... The acting in this film by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as well as people like John Forsythe, was incredible!! The director, Richard Brooks, ("Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "Blackboard Jungle" "Elmer Gantry" and "Key Largo" to name but a few!!) was outstanding in his collaborative efforts in this movie!! I think that "In Cold Blood" is one of the best films in the history of movies!! The film depicts two reprehensible spawns of depravity who delved into demented theatrics, and wound up captivating a trite gratification for being acknowledged at a pejorative nationwide level!!.... This movie pinpoints a psychological discontentment which spurs on an emerging bevy of counter culture purveyors of violence!! Our nation's ideologies are incredibly different now, than they were in 1959!! This movie introduces the American people to the emotional and vacillating culprits who initiated such a precarious metamorphosis in our overall value system!! I recommend to everyone that they see this movie..."In Cold Blood" was the focal point to the film "Capote"! Think about it, making a movie about a movie constitutes a rare and coveted accolade in Hollywood!! In the case of "In Cold Blood" it is an extreme example of a movie which is vicariously clairvoyant, intellectually elevating, and, of course, it goes without saying, "In Cold Blood" was utterly spellbinding, as well as a totally remarkable movie!! Herbet Clutter, wife Bonnie, and their teenage children Kenyon and Nancy were much liked and respected in their tiny town of Holcomb, Kansas--but in the early hours of 14 November 1959 all four were brutally murdered. Rather unexpectedly, the crime made an impression on author Truman Capote, who rushed to the scene and followed the course of the case to its conclusion. The result was the book IN COLD BLOOD. Controversial, shocking, and exceptionally well-written, it became an international best seller and it remains a touchstone for crime writers to this day.

The 1967 film version of Capote's work is almost as remarkable as the book itself. Filmed in black and white in many of the real-life locations, it has a slightly documentary quality, icy and detached--and the overall cast is exceptional. This is the film on which Robert Blake's reputation as an actor rests, and deservedly so. As killer Perry Smith, Blake traps you between a profound distaste and the shock of unexpected sympathy; it is a masterful performance from start to finish. As Richard Hickock, Scott Wilson is no less fine.

Like Capote's book, the film opens with Smith and Hickock as they travel to Kansas and brings them to the Clutter home--only to suddenly flash past the crime to detail the investigation that finally resulted in their arrest and conviction. The centerpiece of the film has always been the moment at which we at last see what occurred in the Clutter home; actually filmed in the Clutter house itself, it is a spinechilling sequence, horrific and deeply disturbing.

Director and writer Richard Brooks guides the film with a very powerful sense of deliberation, erring only in the sense that he allows the film to become slightly preachy. Given the overall power of the film, however, this becomes a trivial annoyance. Strong stuff--and recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer Sorry, I don't have much time to write. I am not a psychologist but have known one for 25 years. She said that Scott Wilson portrayed a sociopath (no conscience) extraordinarily well. I agree! She also said that Robert Blake portrayed a person with anger and impulse control who had a conscience but couldn't control himself superbly. I agree! What a chilling and tremendous film. I have seen over 2000 films and would rank this in the top 100. My lifelong friend deals with clients such as these regularly. My only criticism was the preachy narration at the end of the film. Many people grow up in less than ideal circumstances but only one in a million will behave as these 2 losers did. I saw this in the theater during it's initial release and it was disturbing then as I'm sure it would still be. It was the first part of '68 and this was still making the rounds in towns across America and there had recently been a mass-murder in my hometown where I saw this where a man went on a shooting rampage. The freshness of that close-to-home event combined with this dramatized true story made for a very disturbing theatrical experience. It really brought to life the excellent acting of Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. I was familiar with the novel based on the true event by Truman Capote and the screenplay and direction by Richard Brooks wove the event and Truman's interpretation into compelling gritty cinematic adaptation. Music from Quincy Jones effectively scores it's story. I've only seen this a couple times since. It was too real. Almost like being a witness to the crime itself and riding along with the killers. I would give this a 9.0 of a possible 10. Society is so desensitized to violence and crime today that this probably seems slow and tame and could be viewed with less effect but to anyone over 50 this will be a hallmark into the examination of the criminal psyche. I voted excellent for how well the acting was, not for the content. It still gives me chills after reading the book, then watching the movie. Two ex-cons are traveling to their destination to rob a family of money from a safe one of the cons learned about while in prison. During the ride, the tension begins to mount, as the soundtrack in the movie adds to the overall anticipation. After the killers are done with their work at the farm, the following morning the family's remains are found by the daughter's church friend. The blood-curdling scream, as the scene pans onto the telephone with the cut cord, really made my blood run cold and gave me chills. That the killers met their just fates is a small comfort for this doomed family. Robert Blake was excellent in his portrayal of Perry Smith. The book was also excellently written by Truman Capote. Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure!

Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended! One of the best true-crime movies ever made and very faithful to Truman Capote's book which invented the true-crime novel genre. Haunting Quincy Jones musical score and terrific acting by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake as Dick and Perry, the killers. Why Wilson didn't go on to be a big star after this movie is a mystery to me.

The black and white cinematography and editing in this movie are top notch. The re-creation of the murders is frightening and since it leaves the actual murders to your imagination, even more scary than if they had shown the shotgun going off. The movie was filmed in the actual Clutter house which had been sold to another person after the murders. The movie has a very documentary feel---besides the scenes at the actual Clutter home other scenes were filmed at the gas stations and stores the killers actually went to. Nancy Clutter's beloved horse, Babe, is even in the movie. Will Geer has a great turn as the prosecutor in the short trial scene which is not only filmed in the actual courtroom but has several of the real Clutter murder jurors portraying themselves as the jury for the movie.

This is a solid movie, scary every time you see it. This movie is up there with the all-time classics. The music, camera shots, and acting are excellent. Showing the movie in black and white gave it a much better appearance and complemented the music perfectly, like Psycho. Its surprising how so few people have commented on this movie. My guess is that its a hard movie to find. I gave the film a 9. See the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about. "In Cold Blood", adapted by director Richard Brooks from Truman Capote's famous novel, deals with the brutal and senseless murder of a family of four by a pair of hapless criminals. The film excels as a character study of the killers, particularly trigger-man Perry Smith (Robert Blake).

The cast includes few recognizable names but they nevertheless bring the story to life with ease. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson are excellent together as two criminals with disparate personalities. They play off of each other effortlessly while Blake also gets plenty of opportunities to explore his character's idiosyncrasies. The rest of the cast is merely average and isn't worth remarking on.

Richard Brooks received Oscar nominations for both his script and his direction. In my opinion, both were excellent, though the script does miscalculate with some ill-advised narration in the late stages. The Oscar-nominated cinematography by Conrad Hall is also top-notch, as is the editing. Also worthy of note is the jazzy score by Quincy Jones which secured the last of the film's four Oscar nominations.

Unlike so many other crime films, this one doesn't glamorize violence. Brooks turns the killers into pitiable characters rather than flatly condemning them. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment the film does present an interesting alternative to the usual Hollywood approach. I recommend the film for this reason and also for the expertise with which the technical aspects are handled. Many of the classic films of the late '60s haven't retained their ability to disturb and confront the audience. "In Cold Blood" hasn't lost an ounce of its power. Its exceptionally well made yet forces the viewer to think. Some have complained not only about the film, but about Truman Capote's source "non-fiction novel", that the central message is unsubtle. That may be true, but this is definitely a case where the lack of ambiguity doesn't detract from the film at all. Its refreshing, especially considering today's simplistic and manipulative moral dramas, to see a film with a convinced political voice unafraid to force the audience to consider its viewpoint. To be honest, I'm not sure if I agree with the film's central message, but I admire its audacity nonetheless.

Even if you disagree with the anti-capital punishment message, there's plenty to admire about the film. The acting from the two leads is terrific. Scott Wilson (still one of the most underrated actors ever) is chilling as the nihilistic leader, one who uses his charisma to hide his weaknesses. Robert Blake is also chilling as the more submissive of the two and the one with a conscience. His character obviously has a voice of reason, but is terrified to go against Wilson (theres a good amount of homoerotic subtext on his character's part). The cinematography is terrific, sleek yet gritty and really giving the impression the viewer is watching a documentary. Add another classic score from Quincey Jones, and you have a masterpiece. (9/10) IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote "character?") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall. This recreation of the infamous 1959 murders in Kansas, based on the Capote book, is starkly filmed by Brooks and cinematographer Hall in black and white, giving it a documentary feel. There are good performances from Blake and Wilson as the killers and Forsythe as a cop who pursues them. The scenes leading up to the murders, filmed at the actual house where the crime occurred, with a soundtrack of whistling winds, are quite intense and chilling. Brooks directs with a lot of verve and uses several interesting transitions between scenes. The only complaint is that it is a bit overlong, with the denouement dragged out and somewhat preachy. The real story (took place in Kansas in 1959) of a murder (Perry and Dick, two ex-convicts who broke into a remote house on a rainy night to steal and kill everyone they met). Richard Brooks directed the chilling and disturbing Capote's book about the reasons that drove these kids to the crime (Are they Natural Born Killers ?). The crime scenes are very brutal and haunting because of the lack of senses and reasons for what we witnessed. Stunning black & white cinematography from Conrand Hall, excellent country - road music score from Quincy Jones, amazing performances in two principal roles from Robert Blake and Scott Wilson and first time in a movie a sad comment about capital punishment at the last moments before their deaths. Jones, Hall and Brooks (as director and as writer for adapted screenplay) are Academy Award nominees. Gripping, superbly directed and frightening, one of the best films of this decade IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.

It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.

Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.

Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.

Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.

JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.

After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.

It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.

Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling. I saw this film after watching Capote and Infamous. It is just incredible how the homosexual relationships between author and protagonists are sublimated in the movie. The reporter is straight, the protagonists are more beatniks than gay.

The film starts slowly, but on reviewing it a second time, we get all sorts of interesting information from similes that the writer/director Brooks creates.

Notice the incredible cutting at the beginning where killers and to-be-killed are linked. Cutter on the phone is matched-cut to Perry on the phone. Cutter washing his face is matched-cut to Perry washing his face. Only Perry's looking in the mirror and seeing his eroticized male body sets off a fantasy of his playing a guitar in Las Vegas to empty chairs. This failure/fantasy matches the failure-fantasy that Perry tells us about his father who built a beautiful motel in Alaska only to find it perpetually empty.

Dick talks about shooting pheasants and the fact that the pheasants don't know that that they're going to die. we cut to the Clutters.

Perry talks his dream about a yellow bird, "Taller than Jesus" who attacks the Nuns who have persecuted them. "The Nuns begged for mercy," he tells us, "But the bird slaughtered them anyway." The bird lifted Perry to paradise. Strangely, Perry says that he has an aversion to Nuns, God and Religion. This echoes later in his last words when he wants to apologize but does not know to whom.

The director puts in all sorts of what-ifs and only-ifs.

Nancy Cutter gets an offer to sleep at a friends house. She is holding a horse. Perry will comment on a picture of her and the house later on. Nancy can't sleep over at her friends' house because her boyfriend is coming over for dinner. The decision seals her fate.

Perry talks of Bogart in "Treasure of Sierra Madre". But it is another Bogart picture, "Beat the Devil" which Truman Capote co-wrote, where a fictional treasure hunt is the McGuffin. But Dick knows that the protagonists of that film ended up with nothing. Dick wants the hard cash, the $10,000 he thinks is in the Clutter's safe, (which ironically turns out to be as much as a fantasy as Perry's Mexican Treasure.

Cut to Herb Clutter signing a $40,000 life insurance policy. He's thinking about mortality at the moment. Ironically his mortality is about to end in a few hours. The insurance agent on behalf of the company wishes him a long life, again ironic when we know what will happen in a few hours.

Dick has said that they wanted no witnesses so nobody would remember them. Later, in fact, it is because they eliminated all the witnesses that they were remembered.

"There was one witness," the detective keeps telling Dick later. But was that witness the jail-house friend, Dick, Perry, Truman Capote, or God? The viewer becomes the witness after watching the movie.

Fascinating film. Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.

I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).

It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.

This is a film that stays with you after viewing. I can't remember many details about the show, but i remember how passionate i was about it and how i was determined not to miss any episodes. Unfortunately at the time we had no VCR, so i haven't ever seen the series again. However i can remember strongly how i felt while watching it and how thrilled i was every time it came on. Sam Waterstone was my favorite actor these days (i think i was almost in love) and he remains one of my favorite actors to the day, mostly due to his appearance in the series. I would gladly buy/steal/download this series, i think i would go to great lengths in order to see it again and revisit a childhood long gone... Any ideas? Does anybody knows of a site devoted to the series or has the episodes on tape from their first airing? Everything I remember about it was excellent... great cast with Sam Waterston & George Innes (before he became more familiar to US audiences).... excellent scripts as only the English can do - Edwardian Sherlock Holmes/Lord Peter Wimsey/Albert Campion type mysteries, but with a Jules Verne twist. Sort of like MacGyver would have been had it been in England 80 years earlier... right at the beginning of the scientific/technological revolution of the 20th century.

I've often wondered if the creators of MacGyver saw these shows. MacGyver first aired about 3 years later.

I still have 1 episode on a much deteriorated tape. Q.E.D. was a brilliant TV series and it truly was one of the very few worth scheduling for! I suspect that in this era of TIVO and recording devices that it would fare much better than it did in 1982. I am eagerly awaiting its availability on DVD!

While it is true that it has some in common with other television shows like The Wild, Wild West, The Bearcats and The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., all of which I am a huge fan of,Q.E.D. had a much more intellectual quality to it. It did not suffer for that, however - the dialog was witty and the action was high. The show ran in the UK as Mastermind, and it did have something of the BBC feel to it, but with better production values than BBC typically had in that era.

I was a nineteen year old lad when this series ran initially, and had much too much to do in my life to make time for television. I remember my dear mother, however, calling me to remind me that Q.E.D. was on, and we would sit on the phone and watch it together. Wonderful memories.

Truly, Q.E.D. is a sad loss and, if it could be done with the same quality and values today, I would love to see it make a return. This was one of those wonderful rare moments in T.V. that I wished I'd captured forever on VHS. Won't it ever air again?

It was so creative and I remember it was aired once a week and the wait for the next episode was excruciating. I want to see it all again. I want to buy it. I want what I can't have. Not even on EBAY.

So, having ranted enough it was, by far, one of the best series the 80's put out. It should be considered a classic but is lost in space. At least this website and Wikipedia mention it. Sob.

It was utterly appealing, funny, flirtatious, and original. Maybe not like Sherlock Holmes original, I actually think Quintin is far more attractive and has a better chance with his leading lady than the stiff and chalky Holmes ever could. Wilson (Erica Gavin) is nabbed by the cops and sent to prison in this slick and amusing example of prime 70's exploitation, marking the directing debut of Jonathan Demme. After writing and producing a few of mentor Roger Cormans' New World films, Demme was afforded the opportunity to direct for the first time, and he delivers a movie that not only delivers the expected and tasty doses of nudity and violence, but has an appealing tongue-in-cheek quality to it as well; it's often as funny as it is flashy.

Standout scenes include a lewd and crude vaudeville style act performed for the prisoners, as well as a potent dream / fantasy sequence for uptight and obviously very repressed Superintendent McQueen (horror icon Barbara Steele, doing a marvelous turn in this antagonistic role). I also enjoyed a bank robbery scene gone haywire and a carjacking scene that was simply uproarious. As in other movies of this kind, it's also commendable that it's as much a portrait of female empowerment as it is pure exploitation. These women are tough, they take no garbage from anybody, and they're more than capable of handling themselves.

Our attractive cast here makes the most of their roles: Juanita Brown as the aggressive Maggie, Roberta Collins as the sassy Belle, Rainbeaux Smith as the cute and timid Lavelle, Gavin as the wide-eyed newcomer, and Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire) in a bright appearance as an accomplice on the outside.

As our climax plays out, Demme comes up with a tense "beat the clock" finish as our heroines race to save Belle from being lobotomized by predatory Dr. Randolph (Warren Miller), the type of man who thinks nothing of taking advantage of women.

Bouncing along to John Cales' flavorful score, "Caged Heat" is upbeat entertainment and a guaranteed good time.

8/10 Jonathan Demme's directorial debut for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures rates highly as one of the finest chicks-in-chains 70's grindhouse classics to ever grace celluloid. Beauteous Russ Meyer starlet Eric ("Vixen," "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls") Gavin gives a robust, winning performance as a brassy, resilient new fish who does her best to persevere in a grimy, hellish penitentiary. The always fabulous Barbara Steele offers a deliciously wicked portrayal as the mean, crippled, sexually frustrated warden (her erotic dream about doing a slow, steamy striptease in front of the lady inmates is a real dilly). Longtime favorite 70's B-movie actress Roberta ("The Arousers," "Unholy Rollers") Collins delivers a hilariously raunchy and endearing turn as a cheerfully forward, foul-mouthed kleptomaniac felon who tells a gut-busting dirty joke about Pinnochio. Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire of Tobe Hooper's "Eaten Alive" and Curtis Harrington's "Ruby") makes her lively film debut as uninhibited wildcat Crazy Alice. And the ever-cuddly Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith does a lovely, touching reprise of her fragile frightened innocent role from "Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural."

Although this picture does deliver the expected ample amount of coarse language, nudity, rape and violence, it's still by no means a typically crass and sexist piece of lurid mindless filth; the movie very effectively explores the many ways in which men cruelly exploit women and strongly asserts the pro-feminist notion that women can overcome any obstacles if they band together into a group so they can bravely face their misogynistic oppressors as one mighty fighting force. Demme's zesty, confidant direction comes through with a glorious abundance of astutely observed incidental details and delightful moments of engagingly quirky human behavior. Furthermore, both Tak Fujimoto's vibrant cinematography and John Cale's marvelously dolorous oddball blues score are 100% on the money excellent. Patrick Wright (Sheriff Mack in the uproariously awful cheap-rubber-monster-suit creature feature howler "Track of the Moonbeast") has a sidesplitting bit as a jerky cop who has his car stolen by a trio of prison escapees when he stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Lively, rousing and immensely enjoyable, "Caged Heat" qualifies as absolutely essential viewing for 70's drive-in movie fans. When I think 'Women in Prison', my mind often goes to sleazy Italian/Spanish productions by directors such as Jess Franco and Bruno Mattei; and while these films are often very sleazy, they're also very samey and once you've seen one; you might as well have seen them all. I have to admit that these types of films generally aren't my favourites; but in fact the idea of women behind bars has been done very well on several occasions outside of Italy and Spain; and Roger Corman's New World Pictures is responsible for some of the best of them. Caged Heat is the directorial debut of Oscar-winning director Jonathan Demme, and it's a well done little flick with plenty of entertainment value! Naturally, the film centres on the story of a girl who is caught committing crime and sent to a women's' prison where she is introduced to a host of violent inmates. This prison is ruled over by the stuff wheelchair bound Superintendent McQueen; and she takes offence to a play put on by the girls; leading them to plot an escape.

This film is much lighter on the sleaze than I'm used to in a women in prison flick; but this is more than compensated for by some great action scenes and dialogue and that's what ensures Caged Heat entertains throughout. It does have to be said that the plot is not particularly original or ambitious and basically follows a structure similar to many other women in prison films that came before it; but that's not such a big problem. The film never gets boring and is peppered with standout scenes; including an escape attempt while out working in a field and a bank robbery. The film is helped along by assured direction from the man who would go on to helm the masterpiece The Silence of the Lambs and a great cast with plenty of standouts; including best of all the legendary Barbara Steele in the role of the head prison warden. Overall, Caged Heat may not leave the viewer with much to think about by the end; but it's a brilliantly entertaining little grindhouse flick and anyone that enjoys this type of film will surely want to track it down. This is not my favorite WIP ("Women in Prison"), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a "banana republic" like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though. To finally see what many consider to be the greatest women-in-prison film of all time, I felt like I had accomplished something as ridiculous as that sounds. Boy, it sure contained the elements I expected, and delivered so much more. A constant I'm discovering in these films is the toughness and grit of the actresses in the roles of prisoners preparing for escape while their threshold, tolerance, and resolve(..not to mention sanity)being tested by their superiors. While most of them were hired for the way they look naked, because the nature of the genre demands such gratuitous elements, something else emerges, other attributes, such as attitude and guts, that I ultimately respond to.

This, as you may know all too well, was Demme's debut for his mentor Roger Corman, and he provides the target audience with exactly what they desire while putting his own stamp on the proceedings. For instance, there are bizarre dreams certain characters have which define their current psychological states(..there's a particular number featuring warden Barbara Steele where she reminded me of Alex de Large of A Clockwork Orange).

The film has female prisoners planning a daring escape, tired of the crazed antics of their wheel-chair bound warden and her nutty prison doc, Randolph(Warren Miller). Juanita Brown is Maggie, the tough, sassy sister who is fed up with the environment and will do whatever it takes to get out. She's the one all the girls fear to cross. Erica Gavin is Jacqueline Wilson, the newest prisoner who was busted by police and sentenced for the murder of a cop, unwilling to give up the names of those she was involved with. Roberta Collins is Belle, a serial kleptomaniac, best pals with Pandora(Ella Reid). Belle becomes the obsession of Randolph who promises Superintendent McQueen(Steele)that through a surgical procedure he can remove her violent tendencies. Drugging her up, Randolph takes nude pictures and sodomizes her, whimpering like a little girl due to his own mental deficiencies while hugging her naked body in his arms. Cheryl Rainbeaux Smith is Lavelle, in prison for life for murdering a scumbag whose relative was a Senator. Lavelle receives work in Randolph's office and is the one responsible for relating his dirty antics to Pandora. Demme effectively builds the movie to the expected finale as a planned break-out, using those behind the various traumas inflicted on the prisoners as hostages, with gunfire erupting.

I was quite impressed with the photographic work of long time Demme collaborator, cinematographer Tak Fujimoto, as he is able to establish some visually arresting moments within the cramped confines of the prison, cells and rooms, not an easy task. The prison is appropriately crummy and the girls, despite being quite attractive, look the part of desperate inmates longing, yearning from the very pits of their souls, to escape such horrid entrapment. Steele is superb as the warden, understanding how to take the role close to the brink without going to far, candidly able to express the madness of her repressed character within a restraint..notice how she works her glasses and settles herself without blowing her top particularly when certain behaviors she has contempt for push her teetering to the edge. Cale's bluesy score is incredibly depressing, while also casting a wink to the audience that the movie is still fun-and-games..I think Cale's score mirrors Demme's handling of the material. Cale and Demme's partnership is an uncanny alliance that presents the setting as a sad, isolating, oppressive place, while, almost simultaneously, showcasing a humorous tone that permeates due to the colorful characters thanks in part to the personalities of the cast. My favorite scene happens outside the prison, as two of our girls(..joining forces with a third)interrupt a bank robbery already in progress..the kicker is it was a bank they were planning to rob! As you might expect, you get naked women in showers, prisoner in solitary, a cat fight, shootouts, attempted escapes which go awry, and other exploitative elements(..such as a horrifying shock therapy session, not to exclude the shocking aforementioned sequence where the screwy doc takes advantage of Belle). Interesting enough, Demme relates the film to the audience without a whiff of pretension, understanding exactly the kind of movie he was making. After being sent to prison for no less then 10 nor more then 40 years for being busted with drugs and refusing to give up her accomplishes, Jackie (Erica Gavin of Russ Meyer's "Vixen" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", in her last film role) has to get accustomed to life in the big 'doll' house, or at least try to, in this early film by Jonathan Demme. Due to it's tawdry nature and sheer watchability, I would also rank this as one of his best films, right below "Silence of the Lambs" and "Stop Making Sense", but so far above any of his other movies. This minor classic is just campy, sleazy, and fun enough to be an amazingly good guilty pleasure and thankfully never once goes overboard into all out parody of the Women In Prison genre. It ALMOST washed out the rancid bad taste of the ludicrously preachy "Philidelphia" from my mouth. However, the film is not without it's downfalls (the 'un'talent show is a HUGE chore to sit through and goes on far too long, Barbera Steele is sadly wasted, among other small things) But don't let those gripes stop you from watching an otherwise enjoyable movie.

My Grade: B-

DVD Extras: 5 minute Roger Corman interview; Cast & crew Bios; Original Trailer; and Trailers for "Candy Stripe Nurses" (with nudity), "Big Bad Mama 2", "Big Doll House" (with nudity), & "Crazy Mama"

Eye Candy: Juanita Brown, Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith, Erica Gavin, Roberta Collins, Ella Reid, Lynda Gold, and some others all show skin Cor blimey. This film really surprised me as it is a comedy masterpiece. Billy Zane is stunning as the central character, and everyone manages to play it straight enough for the comedy to be natural and easy.

The soundtrack is really good, and the set pieces are a joy to behold. I recommend that you watch this film with a bunch of mates, a few bottles of your liquor of choice, and prepare to be astonished and highly entertained.

This carries on so perfectly from kitsch masterpieces like Plan 9 From Outer Space that it is in the true "B" movie tradition. But what makes it more than that is the caliber of the people who took part in the film. Ron Pearlman for example. I still find my self giggling at the scene where Zane prances down a set of steps for no apparent reason in an almost ballet style. All a bit mad, and all the better for it. I saw this film at the International Film Festival Of Brussels. I also met the director of the film. I heard that Ed Wood wrote the story in 10 years! I'm sure he thought his would be his masterpiece - his triumph.

Well, if you take the film seriously (like mr. Wood did) it is really one of the worst films you will ever see. And this is cool. The big joke of I Woke Up Early The Day I Died is that it doesn't even try to be a decent film.

This makes the film very, very good. The script is filled with nihilism and anarchism - a lot of black humour. Billy Zane's role is absolutely excellent. You see, this is either high art...or low rubbish.

****/***** This is a script that Ed Wood worked over 10 years on trying to get made. Aris Iliopulos finally got the chutzpah to film a script that Wood saved from his burning home at the expense of other, more transitory valuables.

This is a dialogue-free movie, that some may foolishly describe as silent. In fact, it is a quite noisy film, without the inane chatter of most flicks. In the hands of these filmmakers, the music and sound effects provide a rich audio experience that works better than almost any grist from the Hollywood script mill, particularly that stupid boat movie Billy Zane last was in ('Watch out!', 'Oh no!' - J. Cameron.... ick...) I'll take Zane's wonderfully communicative monosyllabic grunts in this film over empty dialogue any day.

Billy Zane heads a team of players who obviously really wanted to be in this film. Ricci is radiant as always, and the gods are shining when you can put Sandra Bernhard, Rick(y) Schroeder, Eartha Kitt and Andrew McCarthy's name on the same poster.

The design is perfect, the pyramid set exquisite, and Ron Perlman's beastly performance is simply wonderful. Overall, this is a chaotic, visceral masterpiece lovingly crafted by fans of Ed Wood Jr., auteur and cinenephile. A must see for anyone who really loves movies the way that the first rate Iliopulos and his cast obviously do. A film to make you wish you had made it yourself. I've been disappointed, if not surprised, at the lack of appreciation this film has received. Once again, Billy Zane proves he's more than just a Hollywood pretty boy in a silent performance that combines spastic slapstick with understated pathos. Calling this a silent film is inaccurate, as there's a lot of music and sound. It has a manic pace and is full of the goofy inventiveness that Ed Wood is finally beginning to be appreciated for. Look at the cast listing, and realize that everyone shines. No one is there just to show their face. I believe they're all in the movie to show their appreciation of Wood, and to do a broad, physical kind of acting not seen much these days.

But, today, reviewers try to guess what's going to become a hit much more than they show any kind of esthetic appreciation for a movie. And IWUETDID has no discernable target audience. It was made mostly out of love for Wood's script. Even after his death, the trendy social parasites have dealt him another serious blow, and deprived the world of a minor classic. This is a highly entertaining and a genuinely experimental film that really deserves to live, at least on DVD. I am not a huge fan of camp kitsch and the "so bad it's good" type of viewing. However, I really like this film for its fun factor and - believe it or not - it's innovation.

The whole thing has a ring of John Waters and is boundlessly enthusiastic, but with some superb actors and considered direction making the most of the slapstick and styalised movements. Billy Zane moves with incredible expression (see the scene on the bus for a text-book lesson in how to use movement) and is framed by some unexpected stars.

You may not like this film, you may not enjoy it, but if you get the chance to watch it, then spare the time because chances are you will end the film with a confused smile on your face, and a new perspective on the sense of humour of some big stars. Highly reccomended. OK, so I know of this movie because of a friend of mine's in it and I actually visited the set when they were filming, so from a personal stand-point, I was intrigued to finally view this obscure little gem. If you dig at all on info regarding this movie, you'll find it's mired in legal troubles (even over 7 years after being filmed) so, if you are at all like me -- then you'll do whatever it takes to obtain a copy. My source? Ebay. About $15 but I felt ripped because when I got it today in the mail, it was a very rough, grainy copy of a "SCREENER ONLY" release, complete with annoying top mini time-code but alas, I could still enjoy it but not as much as if I had a proper copy, something I suggest you obtain if you want the full impact this film may or may not have on you. From what I have gleaned, it's been released on DVD in Germany & now Spain. With that, good luck & happy searching/bidding...;). The score/sndtrk is worth it alone. Very eclectic and varied (somethinbg rare these days IMHO in film) -- I think that will be my next sndtrk/score to locate, but I digress...

Now, onto the review. The film opens as Billy Zane's character is injecting a nurse in the mental ward he is apparently locked up in. He steals her clothes (even shoes) and quickly moves into a series of holding up a bank/loan shop but after escaping with the loot, well, I guess this is where the "plot" begins -- he inadvertently looses it. After perpetrating several campy over-the-top crimes & dalliances to various A to C-list celebs to locate the money, he finds himself somehow in a cemetery where a funeral -- I think for the dead guy he shoots in the loan office/bank, and -- even with 1950's police cars and cops looking all over for him steadily throughout -- he never gets seen or nabbed. (He sees daily newspapers reporting his "crimes") This I liked, because it gave the thin plot an extension. After all, it's a MOVIE (see: fiction) & director Iris Iliopulos does what I think is everything possible to 1) Bring Wood's vision to fruition and 2) Give it an updated feel, yet have shots of authentic 50's police cars intertwined with, ahh, local L.A..99$ stores -- so well hence my 9 rating. If the period and props were authentic -- I would have given it a 10. Now it wraps it self up kinda weird and I won't spoil it for anyone but let's just say the final ending is somewhat disappointing for it, to me, it had promise, action and comedy -- all up till the end, so...with ALL that said --locate a copy at your own discretion.

Just realize that, as there is no dialouge (except for some narration and singing) this may be up your alley -- maybe not-- but I definitely think it's worth a watch. The actors all do fine performances and it's only the inconsistency in proper period pieces that really made me long for just that correction -- then I would say by all means check this film out for it's not like anything these studios put out these days (or will in the future, too) I am sure. This 1998 film was based on a script by the late Edward D. Wood, a script that featured NO dialogue in the tradition of films such as THE THIEF. While much of Wood's work was quirky low-budget entries into various genre-film traditions, his first released feature GLEN OR GLENDA was a truly visionary attempt to express the inexpressible through primitive avant-garde techniques. I WOKE UP EARLY THE DAY I DIED represents THAT side of Ed Wood, the experimenter, although this film is a comedy (a nightmarish comedy, however!), while the cross-dressing theme of GLEN OR GLENDA was taken so seriously by Wood that there was not room for comedy there. From the first few seconds of this film I knew that I was being taken to a new cinematic world, and I can't really compare that world with anything else. The technical side of the film--production design, sound design, music scoring, photography, etc.--is groundbreaking on any number of levels. In particular, although the film has no "dialogue" there is sound of all kinds and also "language", but you'll have to see how it's done yourself, as the cleverness and surprise of the methods provides a level of excitement throughout. The Glen or Glenda-esque technique of juxtaposing stock footage for surreal effects works well in the film and is kept to a minimum. The whole film is played at a hysterical fever-pitch, and Billy Zane provides an amazing tour-de-force performance that shows what a brilliant physical comedian and actor he is. In a just world, he would have been given some award for this performance. He even LOOKS like Ed Wood, and as played by Zane this character is at various timesfunny, sleazy, tragic, sympathetic, and anonymous(sometimes simultaneously!!!). What a shame that this film was caught up in legal troubles and never received a North American theatrical or video release, only playing a few festivals. Right now, it's only available on video in Germany (in fact, my copy is from a German source--the excerpts from Wood's screenplay that are shown on the screen from time to time are translated into german, although the newspaper headlines (that great low-budget technique of giving plot elements, especially those that would be too expensive to film, via newspaper headlines is used here in the Wood tradition)that Zane sees are in English). I think that this film could have gotten a word-of-mouth following had it been played at midnight in some large cities with some careful promotion. And if played off city by city slowing on the art-film circuit, it could have done well. In fact, if the legal issues can be resolved, I'd like to suggest that the film should STILL be given a theatrical release, especially a MIDNIGHT "cult" release. This is a classic waiting to be discovered.

Did I "understand" every scene? No, but I "felt" every scene emotionally. Did everything "work" in the film? Perhaps not. I've only seen it twice, and the first time I saw it I was interruped a number of times. However, with all the assembly-line junk playing the multiplexes and with so much "alternative" film being fetishistic or pretentious shot-on-video film-school rejects, we need actual Hollywood-made experimentation like this. The recent Bob Dylan film "Masked and Anonymous" took similar chances as did something like Steven Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL. This film could find an audience much larger than either of those. If you are reading this review a few years from now and the idea of this film sounds intriguing, see if it has ever been released on video. You will NOT be bored. Invite some friends over...make it a party. Play the amazing soundtrack LOUD. I have a feeling that, wherever he is in the afterlife, Ed Wood is happy with this film and feels as though his unique vision has been justified and validated somewhat by the making of this film. Wood's probably also laughing that, just like he always seemed to get the bad breaks in life, the film made in tribute to him after his death is held up in lawsuits and sits unreleased in the country of its making. We fans of Ed Wood tend to be an obsessive bunch in the first place, but this movie in particular has driven me to a level of fan-dom that I have never before approached! One of the most intense thrills of non-mainstream movie adulation - at least as far as I am concerned - is the pleasure of unearthing the obscure. I remember how, as a teenager, I longed to see Eddie's "Revenge of the Dead" (a.k.a. "Night of the Ghouls"), which at that time had been vaulted for a couple of decades. Likewise such arcane masterpieces of low budget filmmaking as Doris Wishman's "A Night to Dismember" or half the works of Jesus Franco! However, recent years have seen video and DVD rendering these once unfindable treasures almost TOO accessible - even for those of us on the 'wrong' (!) side of the Atlantic....

And then, behold, there was "I Woke Up Early the Day I Died" - a movie that SHOULD have been so 'big', yet which disappeared into the ether even before Fangoria printed the first fairly lengthy article on it that first whetted my appetite. The 1990s NEEDED a hard-to-find movie though which would REALLY be worth hunting out: and this, to be sure is it.... I don't especially wish to add too much of a commentary on all those marvellous aspects of the film - its classy-yet-kitsch cast, its haunting yet often hallucinogenic visuals, its wondrous moments of "pure cinema" (in the sense of the 1920s French cineastes) and surrealism, or even its resoundingly memorable soundtrack - since this has all been described most eloquently by other users here.

What I DO wish to mention, briefly, is the pleasure that I have received also from hunting down certain obscure artefacts relating to this almost-lost-to-us-but-thankfully-not-quite movie! I think the German video, which I picked up while in Cologne on a cold crisp winter's day, is fairly well-known to Ed Wood's followers now. It is also quite common knowledge that a promotional poster for the film was released. However, there is thankfully more to be found!!! Firstly, there are a number of reviews available from the film's German THEATRICAL release - I have used several of these in my translation classes in an attempt to "Woodify" my students..... some of these reviews are positive eulogies to the film's artistry and entertainment value - and most interesting of all is that most critics placed it squarely within both the American trash AND European arthouse traditions. Secondly, there is the score by Larry Groupe', which can be acquired from the man himself - many of the tracks exert a truly emotional pull on the listener, particularly if you are contemplating the film's currently "vaulted" status and growing a little melancholy at the same time. Finally - for now - I wish to mention the promo SOUNDTRACK that Cinequanon put out in extremely limited numbers. BEG, BORROW, STEAL, KILL or do whatever it takes if you get the chance to acquire one of these!!!!!! It features 14 tracks from the film, including Eartha Kitt's ballad, the late Darcy Clay's "Jesus I Was Evil" (two versions of which are also available on CD from New Zealand, although that is another story again!), the cool radio music to which Christina Ricci dances, and also those amazing techno drops by Minty and ZHV (the latter being Billy Z's very own techno band).....

Become obsessed - let Ed Wood rule your life. There are other reviews here so I don't need to say how great it is or what it's about...My point is: I heard about this movie ages ago, before it was shown. I can't even remember HOW, I just know it was through the internet. The distributors went under before it ever hit! For months I moped and complained. Please note that on this page there's a link to buy this film and the only highlighted area is VHS at Amazon.com in Germany. You can use Alta Vista's Babelfish to translate. I know it's PAL format and they DID change the text on the screen to German and there's a tiny little bit of narration at the beginning that's also been dubbed in German, but as hilarious and campy as this film is, it really only makes it funnier! If you want to see this movie and you have a place nearby that does conversions it's SO worth it! It cost about twenty dollars or so to get to the U.S. from Germany. Trust me, it might seem like a lot to spend on a film, but if you're into corny b-flicks you'll be blowing money left and right getting conversions for your friends! I liked the movie a real lot. Wanted to see it just for Dara Tomanovich, but the plot and story were ok too. A very cool change in plot when you least expect it. Nothing revolutionary here; just impeccably elegant, restrained cinema.

GARDE A VUE is confined almost exclusively to a drab police station, and mostly to one interrogation room, but director Claude Miller (who made the wonderful film THIS SWEET SICKNESS, among others) intercalates spare glimpses of exterior tableaux as minimalist locale scenography. Miller's restraint, especially early on, is breathtaking, and his exquisite handling of the consequently-pivotal interior mise-en-scene makes for captivating viewing.

Lino Ventura is superb as usual, succeeding to legitimize a character that, on paper, is cliche: the laconic, hard-nosed, world-weary homicide detective. Ventura lives the role, making it completely believable, even though the script allows us little access to his inner workings; the film ends at the very moment it appears he will be forced to confront his failure for the first time.

Michel Serrault is equal to the task as the suspected child-killer who shrewdly spars with the single-minded flic. The exchanges between the two are more-often-than-not pregnant with tension and the aura of a constantly metamorphosing playing field for a battle of wits. Serrault's character is by turns deplorably haughty and cunning, and pitiable; then later....

The "message" of GARDE A VUE, if one were to search for one, is a condemnation of police methodology and the kind of pressures that make a cop over-zealous to, if necessary, close cases at the expense of justice. For most of its length though the film shines as nothing more than an exemplar of how to turn a potentially soporific set-bound scenario into a suspenseful drama of the utmost cinematic economy.

Police, investigations, murder, suspicion: we are all so acquainted with them in movies galore. Most of the films nowadays deal with crime which is believed to involve viewers, to provide them with a thrilling atmosphere. However, most of thrill lovers will rather concentrate on latest movies of that sort forgetting about older ones. Yet, it occurs that these people may easily be misled. A film entirely based on suspicion may be very interesting now despite being more than 20 years old...it is GARDE A VUE, a unique movie by Claude Miller.

Is there much of the action? Not really since the events presented in the movie take place in a considerably short time. But the way they are executed is the movie's great plus. Jerome Charles Martinaud (Michel Serrault) is being investigated by Inspector Gallien (Lino Ventura) and Insector Belmont (Guy Marchand). It's a New Year's Eve, a rainy evening and not very accurate for such a meeting. Yet, after the rape and murder of two children, at the dawn of the old year, the door of suspicion must be open at last. In other words, (more quoted from the movie), it must be revealed who an evil wolf really is. To achieve this, one needs lots of effort and also lots of emotions from both parties...

Some people criticize the script for being too wordy. Yet, I would ask them: what should an investigation be like if not many questions and, practically, much talk. This wordiness touches the very roots of the genre. In no way is this boring but throughout the entire film, it makes you, as a viewer, as an observer, involved. Moreover, the film contains well made flashbacks as the stories are being told. Not too much and not too little of them - just enough to make the whole story clearer and more interesting. The most memorable flashbacks, for me, are when Chantal (Romy Schneider), Martinaud's wife, talks about one lovely Christmas... But these flashbacks also contain the views of the places, including the infamous beach. It all wonderfully helped me keep the right pace. And since I saw GARDE A VUE, I always mention this film as one of the "defenders" of French cinema against accusations of mess and chaos.

But those already mentioned aspects may not necessarily appeal to many viewers since they might not like such movies and still won't find the content and its execution satisfactory. Yet, GARDE A VUE is worth seeing also for such people. Why? For the sake of performances. But here don't expect me to praise foremost Romy Schneider. GARDE A VUE is not Romy Schneider vehicle. She does a terrific job as a mother who is deeply in despair for a lost child. She credibly portrays a person who is calm, concrete, who does not refuse an offered cup of tea but who does not want to play with words. Her part which includes a profound talk of life and duty is brilliant, more credible than the overly melancholic role of Elsa in LA PASSANTE DE SANS SOUCI. It is still acted. However, Romy Schneider does not have much time on screen. Practically, she appears for the first time after 45 minutes from the credits; she, as a wife and a different viewpoint, comes symbolically with the New Year, at midnight. Her role is a purely supporting one. Who really rocks is Lino Ventura. He IS the middle aged Inspector Antoine Gallien who wants to find out the truth, who is aware that his questions are "missiles" towards the other interlocutor but does not hesitate. He is an inspector who, having been married three times, is perfectly acknowledged of women's psyche. He is the one who does not regard his job as a game to play but a real service. Finally, he is a person who does not find it abnormal to sit there on New Year's Eve. Michel Serrault also does a fine job expressing fear, particularly in the final scenes of the movie. But thumbs up for Mr Ventura. Brilliant!

As far as memorable moments are concerned, this is not the sort of film in which this aspect is easily analyzed. The entire film is memorable, has to be seen more than once and has to be felt with its atmosphere and, which I have not mentioned before, gorgeous music. For me, the talk of Chantal and Inspector Gallien is the most brilliant flawless moment. You are there with the two characters, you experience their states of mind if you go deeper into what you see.

GARDE A VUE is a very interesting film, a must see for thrill lovers and connoisseurs of artistic performances. New Year has turned and...is it now easier to open the door? You'll find out when you decide to see the memorably directed movie by Claude Miller. 8/10 What keeps us going - or at least what I feel the writer wanted us to keep us glued at an early point is our desire to know whether Martinaud has done the dirty deed. Without spoiling so much, of course there is a red herring and a twist. But then we discover that this is the story of Martinaud's imperfections and his difficulty in coping. When there is the revelation - we begin to sympathize and pity him because as the story progresses we are made to think he is the sick, perverted pedophiliac that we're predisposed to have in mind. One of those things he has to cope with is the distant gap he and his wife have even though they live on the same roof. These problems of course are given their denouement in the film's shocking finale.

This movie demands your patience and it has certainly tried those of restless teenagers sitting at the rear. They were heckling obviously because they aren't partial to "central location" films. Although there is a bit of travelling, when we get to the woods and the beach. And we realize that Gallien isn't as clever as we are made to think he is.

The Inquisitor is 5/5 Garde à Vue has to be seen a number of times in order to understand the sub-plots it contains. If you're not used to french wordy films, based upon conversation and battle of wits rather than on action, don't even try to watch it. You'll only obtain boredom to death, and reassured opinion that french movies are not for you.

Garde à Vue is a wordy film, essentially based upon dialogs (written by Audiard by the way)and it cruelly cuts the veil of appearances.

Why does Maître Martineau (Serrault) prefer to be unduly accused of being a child murderer rather than telling the truth ? Because at the time of the murder he was with a 18 years old girl with which he has a 8-years sexual relation. His wife knows it, she's jealous of it and he prefers to be executed (in 1980 in France, there was still death penalty)rather than unveiling the sole "pure and innocent" aspect of his pitiful life. Though the story is essentially routine, and the "surprise" ending is nothing but a bad joke on the audience, you can see what attracted these good actors to the project - it offers them the kind of roles in which good actors can shine, and shine they do. The film is impeccably made - for its time. It was remade in 2000 as "Under Suspicion" and if you only want to see one version of the story (that's all it deserves, really), I recommend the latter one, with Hopkins' up-to-date direction and the more explicit references to plot points that the original could only hint at. The ending, however, still blows. (**1/2) I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.

Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.

This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...

I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10 Probably Bigas Luna's finest achievement for it achieves a delicate balance between sleaze, eroticism and surrealism. The delicious Mathilda May, who spent most of Tobe Hooper's "Lifeforce" in the buff, is the object of young Biel Duran's pre-teen lust. He can't get May's breasts out of his mind and wants so badly to suckle them and suckle the breasts of his own mother, too. His pursuit of May IS the film. As in Luna works such as "Lulu" and "Jamon! Jamon!", the director brings a slightly warped sexual sensibility to his strange but beautiful tale. The usual suspects will be offended, but those with open minds will enjoy this frothy erotic poem to the female breast. José Luis Alcaine's images are gorgeous and Nicola Piovani's score is sweet and rich. A gorgeous cinematic confection with a delightfully anarchic sensibility that the Spanish do so naturally. La Teta i la Luna (The Breast and the Moon) describes the life of a 9-10 year old boy named Tete who is obsessed with breasts growing up in Catalunya. I love this movie because the characters are very honest and very human, like all the characters in Bigas Luna's movies (also director of Jamon, Jamon). Tete reminded me of how intriguing and exciting life can be at that age. Also being from Catalunya (North-east of Spain) it brought lots of memories to my mind. This movie shows how beautiful Catalunya is, nice people, nice life and specially lots of non-uptight people. This is a warm, funny film, in much the same vein as the works of Almodovar. Sure it has a 10 year old boy sucking milk from breasts, but the style is so playful that I can't understand at all those readers who found it sick or perverted (but would I be willing to let my 10-year old son play the part? Not so sure!).

Spanish cinema is often quite sexual, but in a very open and healthy way that leaves the viewer without any sense of voyeurism or kink. I think that we if we northern European types had the same attitude, we'd be much better off as a result.

This liberal attitude is also seen in the hilarious 'Fartman Maurice' character. As his lover says to him: 'Most people are embarrassed about farting. You turn it into an art form.' ******* SPOILER! ********

i saw this gr8 film a few years back, its a lovely story about a young fella who wants to drink his mothers milk at the breast but she thinks he is to old for it. he ends up lusting after another ladies breasts and ends up in competition with his brother who fancies her. throw in a jealous husband of this woman who cannot get "aroused" and you have a cheeky yet warm story about love, friendship and lovely pairs of jugs hehe

its brilliant

dont be put off by sub-tit-les hehe! I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's "bring the pain", and Allen's "Men are Pigs" that are hilarious; "Damon Waynes last stand" is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless. LOL!!! delirious was so funny.. i was in tears. Eddie Murphys impressions are absolutely spot on. The best impression was of James Brown and Mr T> SO FUNNY!! Its weird how Eddie Murphy was back then and how he is now DELIRIOUS is a must see but if u don't like foul language don't watch BUT AMAZING AND SO FUNNY.. i have seen it 6/7 times and still pee myself every time.. This is Eddie Murphy at his prime and you can see where he got the humour and ideas of movies such as nutty professor from. He does impressions of his family as well, which is real funny.

if only i was there... This is the ultimate one-man show in which Eddie Murphy is at his very best. Just forget the Nutty Professor and the Distinguished Gentlemen, this is the real Eddie Murphy. His imitations of Mr. T. (pretending he is gay), Michael Jackson and other artists are killers. I think it's also quite daring to make fun of artists who where really popular in that time. My favorite act is the one where he is at his annual BBQ with the family and plays his drunken dad and aunt Bunny who falls from the stairs.

This show is the best medicine when you feel down ! If you watch the sequel 'Raw' don't be disappointed. It's quite good too but doesn't match 'Delirious'. The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie. Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!

Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-) So terrific, so good. I have never seen a man be more funny than Eddie Murphy. In this stand-up-comedy you will see a lot of imitations more done by anyone!

If you have seen Raw (1987) you will have to see Delirious. It's so funny! It's so professional! I know it's crude, and I know that it isn't at all PC, but it's so funny. If you can put it into perspective that it's from the early 80's and it carries all the stereotypes of the time--and the movie still makes you almost pass out with laughter--than it is truly a good comedy. Going with the tradition of what comedies have been for thousands of years, the subject matter of this film is exagerated. If you can suspend your political correctness for an hour and a half, just to have an all-out laugh, than please watch this.

P.S. Would someone please put this out on DVD, it's so hard to find on VHS anymore. If only Eddie Murphy were born 10 years later. Then we'd all remember it. But even I was only 4 when it came out. If you haven't seen it yet, rent Dr. Dolittle, Showtime, I spy, Pluto Nash and all Eddie's family comedy movies - then watch this. Hands down, you'll laugh 90% of the time. The other 10% you'll be wiping the tears from your eyes.

It really needs to be watched more then once to understand all the jokes. From crude humor to a joke for kids!(if you've seen it you'll laugh here) - you'll love his stuff. If you can, (or are a big fan) try to download clips from Eddie's acts. Allot of the shows are different as you'd imagine and he has even more funny jokes.

But this is like the "best of" Eddie Murphy 'X-rated' if you will.

And all I can say is please don't watch Delirious if you don't like comedy, don't have a sense of humor or are not fun to hang out with. You will only put down this great Eddie Murphy classic and possibly make someone miss out on it.

If you wanna know how Eddie got Beverly Hills Cop and got famous from it- Delirious is it. Eddie Murphy Delirious is by far the funniest thing you will ever see in your life. You can compare it to any movie, and I garuntee you will decide that Delirious is the funniest movie ever! This movie is about 1hr. 45 mins., and throughout that time, there was barely a moment where I wasn't laughing. You will laugh for hours after it is over, replaying the punch lines over and over and over in your head. Eddie Murphy has given so many funny performances over his career (48 Hrs.,Trading Places,Beverly Hills Cop,Raw,Coming To America, The Nutty professor,Shrek,etc.),but this is by far his MOST HILARIOUS moment. I have seen this movie so many times, and it is funnier every time. It never loses its edge. From this day forward, every great stand up performance will be emulated from Delirious. ***** and two thumbs up! And Gi Joe go stuck in the water, I die of laufther every time I see this movie, and then a big brown shark came, This is comedy at it's best, this blows away the kings of comedy and anyone else, Andrew Dice Clay, Jerry, Tucker, Rock, They can't thouch the man the myth the legend Eddie Murphy,

Yo EDDIE WE WANT MORE

MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you ever see a stand up comedy movie this is the one. You will laugh nonstop if you have any sense of humor at all. This is a once in a lifetime performance from a once in a lifetime performer. This is a stand up standard. I have seen my fair share of comedy and standup movies but this one is so original, so fresh, it will make you wonder why you always walked right pass it in the video store. Murphy has some pretty raunchy jokes but this is just too funny to pass. If only every movie could be this funny. it should be called "107 minutes of the most incredible comedy" Murphy is a comic genius in this film and will make you say "this is the guy that did dr. doulittle!" He talkes about the ice cream man, shoe throwing mothers, his aunt with a mustache, racism, and everything else you could possibly think of and the ones you couldnt. Please if you ever see one comedy in your life this is it, if only all movies could be Delirious. Eddie Murphy Delirious is undoubtedly the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. When I saw it for the first time about 2 years ago I was in stitches for weeks after it. To date I have seen it a further 17 times and i still laugh my ass off each time. For those who dont know Eddie Murphy was a brilliant stand up comedian before he was a Hollywood superstar. There is not one dull spot in this piece of genius unlike Eddie Murphy Raw which was released in 1987 which goes flat during the middle. If you are not the sort of person who can't stand swearing then I wouldn't advise you to see it as you will probably hear swearing of some form every 5-10 seconds. I gave this a 10 out of 10 because it displays the greatest comic genius of them all at his best. The film is side spliting from the outset, Eddie just seems to bring that uniqueness to the stage and makes the most basic thing funny from having an ice cream as a child to the long old tradition of the family get together. The film is very rare in this country but unsure of availability in other countries i have searched through a lot of web sites and still no luck, phoned companies that search for rare videos and there are year waiting lists for it. SO HINTS ARE VERY WELCOME. If any one likes Eddie Murphy as a comedian and see's the video get it,it is worth the money and can't go far wrong. This was the funniest piece of film/tape I have ever witnessed, bar none. I laughed myself sick the first three times I watched it. I recommend it to everyone, with the warning that if they can't handle the f-sharps to stay FAR away. At his best when telling stories from a kids point of view. EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.

Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.

Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that. This video is so hilariously funny, it makes everything else

by Eddie Murphy seem very disappointing (even Beverly Hills Cop and The Nutty Professor, which just goes to show you how good this really is). To be honest, I don't think that I've ever

laughed at something as much as this, including Naked Gun and the rarely seen Bargearse. This show is amazing, although it must be said that it is certainly filled with the word beginning with F that is four letters long (plus its extended version beginning with M) but it didn't bother me. See it, the funniest thing I've ever seen and probably the funniest you ever have too. ... It even beats the nasty "raw". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!

8/10 during eddie murphy's stand up a women from the audience yells at eddie and a man from the audience responds. what is said is,, women - DO MR ROB (this is a character from Saturday night live), the man responds with SHUT UP BITCH. unlike the previous post saying the women yelled do gumby, this is incorrect, although the post-er said he was there they must have a hearing problem! despite what the post-er says about not being able to here it on DVD have a close listen as you actually can hear it on the DVD - DO MR ROB!!!! i hope this helps anyone curious out the outburst cheers gaz!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! Rated NR(would be Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Crude Sexual Humor). Quebec Rating:16+(should be 13+) Canadian Home Video Rating:18A

Eddie Murphy Delirious is Eddie's first stand up comedy routine.This came out in 1983.Back then he starred in the movie 48 hrs and Trading Places and he was on Saturday Night Live.Eddie made two stand up comedy films.Delirious and Raw.I preferred Raw because I just found the subject matter to be more humorous.Delirious however is also very funny with Eddie talking about his childhood and making fun of celebrities such as Mr.T and singers such as Michael Jackson.Any fan of stand-up comedy films should see Eddie Murphy's Delirious. Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of "The Honeymooners",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.

Eddie Murphy,when he was on "Saturday Night Live",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of"Saturday Night Live"."Eddie Murphy Delirious"is his best stand up performance next to "Eddie Murphy Raw".

I give "Eddie Murphy Delirious" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars. This movie is a perfect example of a film that divides people into 2 groups.. Those who get the joke and those who don't. People usually attack what they don't understand. This film has a comic style and charm that has been unparalleled since. It's a GREAT comedy.. and a GREAT romance. It's a perfect date movie. A perfect movie for someone who wants a good lighthearted laugh. And if your perspective is too tense, maybe this movie isn't for you, and you may need counseling. It is an injustice that Paramount has kept this film on the shelf since the early 80's, having never seen the light of day on DVD. Yet they feel an Urban version of "The Honeymooners" is a good idea. I find it odd that my two alltime favorite romantic comedies have never been released on DVD. The other being Gene Wilder's "The World's Greatest Lover" which Fox has sat on since the early 80's as well... Yet, "From Justin To Kelly" is in nearly every video store in the country. There is no Justice in the world. Maybe those who took the time to bash this will enjoy "From Justin To Kelly", I'm sure that one is watered enough for them to "get". Sometimes with age people lose their sense of humor... Or sometimes it just goes stale and they find comic satisfaction in reruns of "Full House". The One and only was a great film. I had just finished viewing it on EncoreW on DirecTV. I am an independent professional wrestler, and I thought this was a good portray of what life is like as a professional wrestler. Now this film was made 4 years before I was born, but I don't think the rigors of professional wrestling traveling has changed all that much. Sad, funny, and all around GREAT!!! **** 10+ Well I guess it supposedly not a classic because there are only a few easily recognizable faces, but I personally think it is... It's a very beautiful sweet movie, Henry Winkler did a GREAT job with his character and it really impressed me. I saw the film twice in the space of one week, both times the at a cinema in Orpington, Kent, UK. The place was packed both times and people had to be turned away. From the start of the film with Henry Winkler getting 'injured' on the football field the whole audience was in uproar with laughter, laughter that lasted until the credits.

For those who love American wrestling this film is a must, but be ready to see Henry Winkler as you have never seen him before. Also look out for a very well known actor whose trademark wrestling move is a head-but!

If you get a chance watch this movie and it is family comedy entertainment at its best! ...I saw this on cable back in the late 1980's as I was a big wrestling fan since 1986. I saw this on VHS in a 'for sale' bin and bought it.

In 1998, I started training as a wrestler after the Air Force and would always go back to watching this to see how it was a very accurate portrayal of people that are involved with wrestling ( families and friends that wouldn't understand us, the travel, the heartbreak, etc. ). Henry Winkler is funny and sometimes sad to watch as nobody else can understand what a genius he is creatively. A great way to separate himself The Fonz character he played on Happy Days at the time. Plus, look at the cast...William Daniels ( Knight Rider ), Polly Holiday ( Alice ), and wrestlers Roddy Piper and Chavo Guerrero Sr. If you get a chance, watch it. While this movie isn't a classic by any stretch, it is very entertaining as I remember it. I saw it about 15 years ago on HBO and loved the movie. It was written by the same guy that wrote and directed "Arthur" and though it isn't as funny as that movie, it does show the potential that Steve Gordon reached with "Arthur". Of all the movies I have seen, and that's most of them, this is by far the best one made that is primarily about the U.S. Naval Airships (Blimps) during the WW-II era. Yes there are other good LTA related movies, but most use special effects more than any real-time shots. This Man's Navy has considerably more real-time footage of blimps etc. True, lots of corny dialog but that's what makes more interesting Hollywood movies, even today. P.S. I spent 10 years(out of 20) and have over 5,000 hours in Navy Airships of all types, from 1949 through 1959. Proud member of the Naval Airship Association etc. [ATC(LA/AC) USN Retired] Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason… his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn… Bunny Comes Home… gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true… then, the future we spin into again is fantastical… now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane… how expensive, blissfully optimistic… still, "You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true…" Not many movies were made about the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) aspect of aviation, but this is one of them and it's damn good. Just a fun film to watch.

Most of the movie takes place at the Navy blimp operations at NAS Lakehurst (with NAS Tustin playing the role). Wallace Beery plays a likable but Munchausen-like Senior Chief Ned Trumpet, an enlisted pilot, whose tall tales have gotten so frequent nobody really believes him. Half the fun is near the end of the movie when events start proving that most of his more outlandish tales are actually true.

Set during WWII, the main plot centers around bachelor Trumpet wooing a local widow only to end up having a father-son relationship with the widow's crippled son, Jess. Told he would never walk without crutches by doctors, Chief Trumpet pulls some strings and a Navy flight surgeon helps in restoring the lad's crippled leg. Jess goes on to join the Navy to become a flight officer, flying blimps back at Lakehurst and facing a whole new set of challenges.

A very well-done movie, albeit not without some corny Hollywood dialogue slipping past the technical advisers, and Beery's apparent inability to march in step. Otherwise this movie gets good grades for technical accuracy, and gives a rare look into the Navy's LTA operations. The Cash Register Scene, an exchange between Trumpet and Jess's future love interest Cathy, is an absolute hoot. "This Man's Navy" is, as other comments have indicated, a rare and well-filmed look at Navy lighter than air (LTA) activities. The LTA crews were justly proud that the convoys they shadowed never lost a ship to submarine attack. And the filming at the various NAS locations give a valuable glimpse at a type of aviation that is long gone. However, the first half of the movie is all about Beery, his relationship with his service pals, and him meeting the Tom Drake character and his mother, and getting Drake's leg fixed. Only then does the second film start. The second film is mostly LTAs in action, taking on a surfaced sub, guys get killed and much damage is caused. The look is fairly gritty and realistic, I imagine. Then we shift to Southeast Asia. Did the Navy have LTAs there? Never mind, this part is really wild, with a blimp being used to extract some downed aircrew from the jungle. And the Japs are shooting like mad. Shades of Vietnam, except the getaway is oh, so leisurely. This is a blimp we're talking about. In the end, a feel-good WWII drama about a very unusual part of the war. We toss around the term "superstar" way too lightly these days, but here's one guy that truly deserves it.

I was glued to the set this entire show. The song selection was perfect -- it only contained the songs I actually wanted to hear and cut in with documentary footage during the weaker new songs. I loved that the band was just a five guys on stage in a very minimalist environment. (With songs of this strength, you don't need a circus to be entertained).

The shots of the crowd were amazing, too. How many performers can affect the original Beatles fans (now in their 50's and beyond), get young kids to jump up at the opening lines of "Can't Buy Me Love" and impact everyone in between?

While watching, I also realized that in the wake of John Lennon's tragic death, Paul McCartney instantly became an afterthought. Paul not only lost John and George (no matter what their final relations were, it must be hard to lose someone with whom you changed the world), but he also lost his wife Linda and never really seemed to garner the acknowledgment Lennon's murder received. I agree that Lennon's murder was horrible, but only now did I realize that Paul was sort of forgotten in the aftermath. I was very happy that he's found love again in Heather.

As for those complaining about the audio/video quality, I had no complaints whatsoever; both were crystal clear on my set. I think these same people will complain about the quality of DVD when the next format comes out; they'll never be satisfied.

My only regret was not buying a ticket to this show when I had the chance. Thanks to this video I was able to enjoy it.

When people remember John Lennon, they will first remember his murder and then his music. I now have a new appreciation for Paul McCartney, because, if nothing else, he will be remembered for his music first. And let's hope another lunatic won't change this, because the McCartney catalog is pretty good. This is one of the finest music concerts anyone will ever see and hear. I grew up when All My Lovin' was brand new and to hear it again today by the original artist today is a measure of Sir P Mc's power to spellbind any crowd of any age. This doco goes way behind the scenes to show us life on the road not just for the band but everyone down to the roadies. I saw this guy live in Aussie 1975 and can assure you his performance here on this DVD is no less than he gave almost 30 years ago. I have a huge 5.1 surround sound system that does do this justice and would recommend this anyone especially a Beatles fan. This is the closest you will get to a Beatles concert today. Singer, Songwriter, lead/rhythm/ bass guitar, piano, ukulele, just pure genius. There are few entertainers who can stand alone with one instrument and hold the crowd in his hand. If you want note perfect music, buy a studio recorded CD. If you want to hear raw music as it is intended and spontaneous to the crowd, with all the excitement and emotion of the crowd-this DVD is for you. This is a great film for McCartney's and Beatles fans!A splendid time is guaranteed for all.The audience (feat some celebrities such as Nicholson ,Cuzak,Michael Douglas) is ,as always,quite amazing:from small children to old campaigners of the sixties.They know the words to all the songs by heart ,and some of them are crying when Paul breaks into "blackbird" "yesterday " "all my loving" and all the treasures of his catalog (who ,except John Lennon and Dylan ,can claim such a repertoire?).There are two particularly moving moments:

-The double tribute to Lennon and Harrison;first "here today" performed solo (the title was included in "tug of war" 1982 and was its best track),then "something" when Paul uses an ukulele.

-"The long and winding road" rendition,a key moment,when Paul's voice cracks ,as he is moved to tears by the hearts the members of the tour crew hold in front of the stage.

I remember,in the early seventies ,when people used to despise Paul ,cause he was not involved in politics,as his ex-partner was.They had to change their mind for Paul is a committed artist: "fame is great cause it allows charity".The film shows different aspects of Paul's activities ,an artist who is anything but selfish. I love Paul McCartney. He is, in my oppinion, the greatest of all time. I could not, however, afford a ticket to his concert at the Tacoma Dome during the Back in the U.S. tour. I was upset to say the least. Then I found this DVD. It was almost as good as being there. Paul is still the man and I will enjoy this for years to come.

I do have one complaint. I would of like to hear all of Hey Jude.

Also Paul is not dead.

The single greatest concert DVD ever.

***** out of *****. A journey of discovery, this film follows the lives of one family living in a sleepy, island town in British Columbia. Languorous and dreamy, the inhabitants are satisfied to allow life to go on around them until a young, fresh-faced teacher, with new ideas arrives and brings with her life from the mainland. Slowly, their indolent state is awakened, the father (and principal of the local school) looks for excitement, the mother for stability, the oldest daughter for love, and the youngest for power. While not an incredible or ground-breaking piece of cinema, the movie is quietly enjoyable and good for a tired night when the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone outside of Canada will find it easily accessible. In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really. A hilarious Action comedy in which Damian Szifron takes into the lives of Díaz, a cop whose wife has cheated on him. He is living in a hotel feeling guilty about his wife's unfaithfulness, falling into depression he stops caring, running red lights just for fun, feeling sorry for himself. And Silberman, a Jewish shrink on probation, a leftist liberal who does not trust cops at all. He is told to accompany Díaz in his daily duties, unable to refuse due to the terms of his probation. Soon the situation reverts when Silberman himself finds out his wife is cheating on him, and ends up being comforted by the very person he was supposed to help, a person he did not trust at all in the beginning. A nuclear conspiracy, car thieves, international spies, a hysterical wife. Weird characters in a delightful comedy about friendship and heroism. This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a "bravo" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately. This movie is Damian Szifrón's second immersion in movies after his excellent character study in "El Fondo del Mar". With "Tiempo De Valientes" he creates extremely well done characters, far away from prototypes and with an unprecedented chemistry between them. I've seen Szifron's talent to present every character in a lighthearted way but just enough to involve us emotionally with them. His control over them is magnificent, so he restores on the movie a great direction and an overall brilliantly polished script, the characters laugh and cry with real sentiment and invite the viewer to join them in their emotions and their evolution on screen.

The Spanish takes over the English, the Buenos Aires urban landscape at night replaces Hollywood sets and the premise is just as interesting as any other, so we have a film daring to compete over Hollywood's Machinery.

But I want you to see the movie mainly because I've never dealt with such endearing characters, all of them. It seems the script suits perfectly to the actors and vice versa. I really believe with a film making like this Argentina is really up to the Competition. Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy.After his great fist movie called El fondo del mar and the spectacular TV pro-gramme Los simuladores,Damian Szifron made another great work.Tiempo de valientes looks,for moments,a movie made in Hollywood.Diego Peretti and Luis Luque are two great actors and here,they have great performances.The movie is very fun and funny and it has superb moments.Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy that I totally recommend if you wanna have a great time.And I have to congrats Szifron for all the talent he has.

Rating:9 I sit through movies like "Tiempo de valientes" and I want to talk about cinema for hours. The admiration this movie caused me is beyond my own limits of explanation, because I'm watching the scenes of the film and I search inside my thoughts for film-making ideas and dialogue innovations that could emerge from something bigger than Damian Szifron's mind.

Looking the environment, so uncompromised, so simple, I'm thinking; this man is a genius. No wonder he created what is probably the best television show Argentina ever witnessed, and then a first movie full of elements some contemporary directors haven't still achieved. "El fondo del mar" is the name and, it awakened (a few years ago), my enthusiasm for our everyday cinema.

Starting his journey from people's daily real lives, Szifron goes where Pablo Trapero never could in "El Bonaerense"; the Federal Police Department's life. Trapero's film was a journey into a man's mind and experiences, not into the places he saw. Yes, there was a detailed training and lots of crime situations, but Szifron in "in there", his is more of a detective story, like the ones we know and love, with the mysteries and the thrilling music.

But there's a lot of humanity in his writing, and he shows us his investigation through the eyes of his main characters, Alfredo Díaz and Mariano Silverstein. There are a lot of actors of great caliber in the film, but these two actors are the ones the film can't do without. The first character (Luis Luque) is a detective that has just found out his wife cheats on him; and has to work on a case.

The second one is a psychiatrist that is assigned the treatment of the detective. He wants to deal with him in regular sessions but the sheriff takes advantage of the time disposition and suggests he joins Díaz in his routines: "It's nothing, the usual stuff; no problem". But it is bigger than that, and it will unfold a part of the doctor's personality he didn't know.

The relationship developed between the two leads can't be explained unless it is observed, because it regards such a complexity that demonstrates how talented are some men like Szifron that are trying, today, to leave a signature in our history. Reaching points of unbelievable spontaneity, during a high pressure situation, Díaz tells Silverstein: "How do we continue our treatment?", and Silverstein answers: "No, I'm not your doctor. You call me to have dinner; I'm your friend": we laugh because we can't help it.

And we can't help laughing when Díaz crashes a car in the street and doesn't gives importance to it, or when he trespasses all the red lights in the street, or when he smokes pot in his police patrol and Silverstein can't believe it (but then smokes it too because he's screwed up); or when Silverstein tries to be friendly with Díaz's robber friends. Magic from Diego Peretti is what we receive there. He, a psychiatrist himself, gives a performance in plan "Locas de amor", but impresses with all his range. Luis Luque on the other hand, is back on track with a top-notch portrayal that reminds us the great actor he is.

There's a passion I have for this, and as I said, I could write about it for hours, but unfortunately that's not the way it works and I have to be precise and summarize. Although I have to watch a lot of the old movies and study them, I could assure that "Tiempo de valientes" is the comedy Argentina had been waiting for and never got…Until now. Tiempo de Valientes fits snugly into the buddy action movie genre, but transcends its roots thanks to excellent casting, tremendous rapport between its leads, and outstanding photography. Diego Peretti stars as Dr. Silverstein, a shrink assigned to ride shotgun with detective Diaz (Luis Luque), who's been assigned to investigate the murder of two minor hoods who seem to have been involved in am arms smuggling conspiracy. Diaz has been suspended from duty, but he's the best man for the job and must have professional psychiatric help in order to be reinstated. Silverstein and Diaz soon find themselves enmeshed in a conspiracy involving Argentina's intelligence community and some uranium, and the film separates them at a crucial point that allows Silverstein to develop some impressive sleuthing skills of his own. Peretti and Luque are excellent together and remind me of screen team Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, though Peretti isn't as classically handsome as Hill. Remarkably, even at almost two hours in length Tiempo de Valientes doesn't wear out its welcome, and indeed writer-director Damian Szifron sets up a potential sequel in the film's charming coda. All in all, a wonderful and very entertaining action comedy that neither panders to the lowest common denominator nor insults your intelligence. Should this be an American movie I'd rate it 7: we've seen this before. Being this an Argentinean movie, and being myself Argentine, I'd like to give it a 10, since it's the kind of quality I'd been hoping -rather than expecting- for. It's superb quality is astonishing, given all the limitations imposed by the 3rd World...

I can't forget the scene when Díaz forces Silverstein's fiancé to confess -you know what I mean if you saw the movie. I think that's the key moment of the movie, not surprising maybe, yet original. That's when the real action begins.

Before watching a movie I always try to gather some previous information. Being this a mainstream, satyric, commercial one, I press "Play" and make a suspension of reality and logic, I'd say the best state of mind to enjoy movies like this. It's impossible to discuss the plausibility of the whole plot, yet it's believable in a certain way. As for me, I couldn't stop laughing at every single joke and commentary -"sos malo" ("you're mean")... put in the mouth of Díaz, the greatest one.

I'm rather tired of seeing movies "designed for" Peretti. I know he's a superb actor, but sometimes I feel his roles unfairly opaque the rest, Luis Luque's role in this case. I'm not very fond of Argentine television, so I haven't seen much work from Luque, but it's pretty obvious that he's an excellent performer. His physical role, his stares, his content attitude in this movie made me fall in love with his performance. I think his role should need some upgrading, just to let him show us how great he can be!

I don't know whether Szifrón is planning to make a sequel or not. I know he won't make it if it's to follow the rule that "second parts were never good", so if he makes it, I'll surely go see it. And I hope that, in the future, takes into account the possibility to give Peretti's counterparts the same chances to develop their roles.

Great movie, great performances, and lots of laughs! Very intelligent humor Excellent performing I can't believe how people could think it deserves a 1/10! I hope this movie will be shown everywhere so everyone can enjoy it If you ever have the opportunity, watch it... don't miss it There is a part when the principal actors are driving and singing "Happy birthday" and "el payaso plinplin" (an Argentinian song for kids (I think... it could also be south American, I'm not sure)). This two songs that have the same melody... but people don't usually realize that... it's just grate! I tried to write this in both Spanish and English, because it's an Argentinian movie... but the page wouldn't allow me :( Hope you enjoy it! What would happened when a depressed cop works with a shrink on probation? May be a lot of fun... This movie set a benchmark in the action/comedy genre of the Argentinean cinema. Dearable characters, probable story and a pace that between laughs has some thrill. I recommended it for a pleasant time of entertaining. Peretti and Luque join their efforts to fight against a cold and daringly foe in a time when it's difficult to trust someone. This movie will surprise you, the other side of the coin of "Analyze me", but not alike, with nothing to envy. And if you like to know Bs.AS there where few scenes of downtown and the city center. Legendary movie producer Walt Disney brought three of the world's greatest fairy tales to the screen. They remain among the most popular animated films of all time. The first was his groundbreaking classic "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" released in 1937. The last was the then-under appreciated "Sleeping Beauty" which made it's debut in 1959. In between these two was perhaps his most satisfying adaptation of a classic fairy tale: "Cinderella" (1950). Of the three films, "Cinderella" is the one most faithful to its origins. Ironically, unlike "Snow White", which for better or worse, became for many the definitive version of the story. "Cinderella" did not follow the same path. Although it was a hit and, like "Snow White", was responsible for restoring the dwindling Disney fortunes, it never achieved the same audience recognition which it certainly deserved. Disney, for once, did himself proud, electing not to tamper with a classic, instead elaborating and adding substance to the tale, rather than rewriting it for the screen. The result was enchanting.

A combination of superb animation (in beautifully soft Technicolor) and the perfect voice talents brought the story to life with a radiance that endures to this day. Ilene Woods, who was a radio performer, recorded demonstration discs of the songs as a favor to the authors of the material, Al Hoffman, Mack David, and Jerry Livingston. When Disney heard them, he knew he had found his Cinderella. And indeed he had. Woods heartfelt renditions of "A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes", "So This Is Love" and "Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale" are perfect. Eleanor Audley, who would go on to voice Maleficent in "Sleeping Beauty", masterfully captured the icy cruelty of the stepmother, while Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss were convincingly nasty stepsisters. Luis Van Rooten admirably performed as both the King and the Grand Duke, and James Macdonald was endearing as both Jaq and Gus, Cinderella's devoted mice. William Phipps has little dialog as the prince (future talk show host Mike Douglas provided his singing voice) but film (and Disney) veteran, Verna Felton was born to play the fairy godmother, and she made the best number, (the Oscar-nominated "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo") her own show-stopper.

Among the artists responsible for the "look" of the film, was Mary Blair, whose inspired use of color was greatly admired by Disney. Her elegant French-period backgrounds add tremendously to the quality of the movie. But, most important of all' are the believable characters--from Cinderella, right down to Lucifer, the stepmother's deliciously evil cat. They bring both life and vibrancy to the often told story, something very difficult to create in an animated film.

In conjunction with the film's 55-year anniversary, (and, not so coincidentally, the coming holiday season) "Cinderella" has just been released on a special edition DVD. It simply has never looked better. The fully restored film must be seen to be appreciated--suffice it to say, it looks wonderful. An enhanced stereo soundtrack has been added, and serves the music well. The DVD extras, now a standard part of Disney Platinum Editions, are too numerous to list here, but as usual, some are directed towards children, some are slanted to adults, and the rest fall somewhere in between. But real fans will want to get the Deluxe Gift Set, because, along with an actual cell from the film and eight character sketches, it includes a 160-page hardback book, which not only incorporates most of the material found in the book with the 1995 special edition home video release, but much more as well. As usual for Disney, "Cinderella" will only be available for a limited time. So, if like me, you are a "Cinderella" lover, get it NOW! This edition is truly a "Dream Come True." People criticise Disney's animated features of the 1950s for being overly glossy, set in landscapes that are much too pristine. That criticism is just. And yet it can't be the whole story, because the two least glossy - "Alice in Wonderland" and "Peter Pan" - are also the weakest. "Cinderella", on the other hand, set in a world in which the very dirt sparkles, is clearly the best.

It DOES look good. The backgrounds are subtle and consistent; the colours are pure without being too bright. The animation varies a bit. I'll swear that some of the humans are rotoscoped - but then, the rotoscoped humans (including Cinderella herself) aren't full-blooded characters in the script, so this approach works well enough. It's really the animals that make the movie. I think the studio had never quite used animals in this way before, as totems rather than sidekicks. The mice, for instance, are the creatures who draw us into the story; but they are really representatives or allies of the more colourless Cinderella. The cat, Lucifer, is a kind of witch's familiar to the Wicked Stepmother. (The cat is brilliantly conceived and animated - one of the best feline creations of all time. The supervising animator was Ward Kimball and he modelled it on his own cat. I wonder how he put up with the animal.) This approach allows the animals to steal the show without drawing our attention from the main story. Their actions are of maximum interest only in the light of the main story.

Among the supporting cast the notable humans are the King and the Grand Duke. The King is a one note character - he wants grandchildren and appears to have no other desires at all - but the note is struck in a pleasing fashion. The Grand Duke is a put-upon character who deserves to be lifted out of his sphere as much as Cinderella does. (Although he, of course, is richer.)

"Cinderella" is Disney's return to features after an eight-year hiatus, and neither with it nor with any subsequent movie would he recapture the raw brilliance of his early years. Moreover he made things hard for himself by picking "Cinderella". She's a passive heroine and there's not much anyone can do about that. (Maybe I'm wrong on this score - I haven't seen the recent "Ever After".) Nonetheless it is remarkable how successful Disney was in bringing this unpromising story to life, without cutting across the grain of its spirit. Cinderella takes me back, when I was a little girl I loved the princesses of Disney. Cinderella was one of my favorites because I always was so enchanted by the story. Any child or family members will enjoy this wonderful and magical story.

We have Cinderella who is a beautiful girl enslaved by her wicked step mother and ugly step sisters. She cleans and cooks for them without ever receiving thanks. The only friends she has in the world are the mice in the attic that are so charming and musical. When the ladies receive an invitation to the King's ball to find a lady for his son, the prince, a.k.a. Prince Charming, they all get excited, Cinderella overhears the exciting news and asks if she could come too. Her step mother makes a false promise and says if she does her chores and such, she can come too. Of course, she doesn't keep her promise and destroys a beautiful dress she and the mice made for the ball. Leaving poor Cinderella behind, a wonderful thing happens, Cinderella's fairy god mother appears and creates a beautiful dress and carriage out of things from around the house and even makes the mice and horses into elegant horses and a driver for the carriage. When the prince sees Cinderella at the ball, he has fallen hard for her. All the ladies are jealous, including her step mother and sisters. But Cinderella must return home at midnight when the spell is broken, all she leaves behind is her glass slipper. The next day the prince is on a hunt to find this girl who fits the slipper and is making a stop at Cinderella's house where her step mother has found out about her night and locks her in her room.

Can she escape in time to tell the prince that it was her at the ball? You'll just have to find out. Trust me, this is a true Disney classic with beautiful animation and classic music that is so charming. You can't help but fall in love with this masterpiece. A dream is a wish your heart makes, this movie captures everything a girl could want.

9/10 As a young boy, I always sort of hated "Cinderella," since I was outvoted by my two sisters when my parents were considering what Disney movie to buy. I wanted "Dumbo," but my sisters won out, and we got "Cinderella." They thoroughly enjoyed the movie while I sulked in the back of the room playing with my Star Wars action figures.

A lot has changed since then. My love of the Disney theme parks landed me an internship at Walt Disney World, and I now have two young nieces. I like to showcase Disney to them as much as I can, and we recently watched "Cinderella" together. With my newfound appreciation for all that is Disney, I watched "Cinderella" with a new perspective and was impressed with what I saw.

From the beginning of the movie, though, I didn't quite understand why Cinderella was trapped in such a horrible predicament. Why was she such a slave to her stepfamily, and why couldn't she just run away? I wasn't too sympathetic to Cinderella, but as the story progressed, I found myself becoming immersed in the story. Maybe the eye-catching animation or the fun-loving characters drew me in, or maybe it was the timeless songs. Listening to songs like "Bibbidy-Bobbidy-Boo" and "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" sort of whisked me back to the theme parks. I can picture myself in that carefree and fun atmosphere while looking at the awe-inspiring Cinderella Castle.

Something about this movie just evokes the magic of Disney. That may make many people scoff, but go to the Magic Kingdom and see all the little girls dressed up like Cinderella that are excited to be in this fantasy world, and you'll know what I'm talking about. The images of Cinderella and the glass slipper - as well as Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and Tinkerbell - embody why Disney is one of the most beloved companies in the entire world.

While "Cinderella" may not be the strongest story, it is sort of iconic in Disney and movie history. It represents that fun, idealistic, and fantasy-like wonderment we held when we were kids. I imagine this movie holds a lot of meaning to many, many people out there. It may not be my favorite Disney movie, but it does represent all that I love and admire about the Company.

My IMDb Rating: 10/10. My Yahoo! Grade: A (Outstanding) Walt Disney's CINDERELLA takes a story everybody's familiar with and embellishes it with humor and suspense, while retaining the tale's essential charm. Disney's artists provide the film with an appealing storybook look that emanates delectable fairy tale atmosphere. It is beautifully, if conventionally, animated; the highlight being the captivating scene where the Fairy Godmother transforms a pumpkin into a majestic coach and Cinderella's rags to a gorgeous gown. Mack David, Al Hoffman, and Jerry Livingston provide lovely songs like "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" and "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" that enhance both the scenario and the characters.

Even though CINDERELLA's story is predictable, it provides such thrilling melodrama that one shares the concerns and anxieties of the titular heroine and her animal friends. Both the wicked stepmother and her dreadful cat Lucifer present a formidable menace that threatens the dreams and aspirations of Cinderella and the mice. It is this menace that provides the story with a strong conflict that holds the viewers' interest. The film's suspense, however, is nicely balanced by a serene sweetness, especially in the musical numbers. It is in these segments that reveal the appealing personalities of Cinderella and her friends, moving the viewers to care for them. Overall, Walt Disney's CINDERELLA is wonderful family entertainment that has held up remarkably well after half a century. Cinderella....

I hadn't watched this film for about five years the last time i saw it. The magic remains. There is something that definitely contains that storybook feel, the songs entertain and the secondary character's all please. The villains in the form of step sisters are perfectly evil and vile. Then there is the most magical of all Disney, the mice making the dress and well you know the rest. To sum up the four of the Disney princess movies are all great but this is a charming magical experience, watch and enjoy. Oh and of course, Cinderella is wonderful as the main character in the movie.

If you think about it Disney movies can really lost their charm. With Elene Wood and others the movie has such a feel to it, you simply can't help but smile

They say the moral of this story is that dreams come true. Of course in the real world some are believers others are hoper's. In this film it's even more the magical when her rainbow comes smiling.

And of course the rest is...Cinderella We watched this on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC last night, and I came to the conclusion that things must be tighter there at "the Mouse" than usual.

Since this movie only runs 74 minutes, and they had to pad it out to 2 hours of broadcast television time, they had, and I'm not making this up, commercial breaks that lasted 6 to 7 minutes. And during these commercial breaks, they had another advertisement in the guise of a "TV show" hosted by the oh-so-annoying Kelly Rippa that loudly proclaimed the magical wonders of "Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True".

Again and again, break after break, Disney took time out of the real movie to tell us, the loyal viewers, that we needed to get a copy of the sequel. Thank you, Disney, for doing us the service of creating a sequel to your beloved gem of a movie.

Anyway, all this commercialism and cash-register-ringing made it a difficult task to get into the actual movie of "Cinderella", because by the time the commercials were over, I had forgotten where the story had left off.

But of course, the original "Cinderella" still maintains its magic, and the story is still a good one, though we've all seen it countless times. It's a shame they had to cheapen it with all the marketing for what looks to be a lame follow-up. The 12th animated Disney classic is a reasonable movie told through a simple story. Even though a little dated, it deserves a place in the list of Disney classics.

It's not among Disney's top works, but is satisfying. One of Disney's most "simple" works, yes, but keeps a certain magic and enchantment (which old Disney is well known for). This was an important movie because it saved Disney from a delicate situation. If this was a failure, there wouldn't be any more Disney animated classics.

"Cinderella" is somehow like a return to Disney's 1st animated classic ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs") because it brings back the fairy tale genre. It's not clear where the story takes place, but I suppose it's somewhere in France because this is based in a tale by Charles Perrault.

There are plenty of likable characters, such as Cinderella, the Prince, Bruno (the dog), Jaques and Gus (the two main mice), the Fairy Godmother (for a fairy she sure is funny), the birds, the King and the Grand Duke.

Jaques is very smart and amusing. I love his voice. Really has that mouse-like quality. Gus might not be that smart, but he's humorous.

The King is hilarious, but I think that what makes him so funny is his short temper. The Grand Duke is a very cool chap and funny too. They're two of my favorite characters in this film and responsible for many of the most amusing moments.

The Prince is certainly one of the most charming in Disney. No doubt that Prince Philip from "Sleeping Beauty" was inspired on this prince, because they are very similar-looking.

On the other hand, Lady Tremaine (the stepmother) isn't supposed to be likable because she's cold, jealous, bitter and cruel. Her daughters (Anastacia and Drizella) aren't much better than her. However, the stepmother isn't as annoying as her ugly and selfish daughters. Cinderella, the main character, has nothing to do with them. Cinderella is gentle, kind, pretty and lovable. By the way, I think her beautiful pink dress is much nicer than the one given by the Fairy Godmother.

Lucifer (the cat) is hilariously malicious. The way he walks, sticking up his nose in the air and those arrogant and snobbish facial expressions make him funny. Ironically he's very much like the stepmother when it comes to personality. He always agrees with the stepmother's attitudes towards Cinderella. Lucifer has the right name for him because he's such a devilish and mean cat. Yet, there's nothing annoying about him.

The soundtrack is simple but pleasant, although not among Disney's best. The best song in this movie is "Bibiddi Bobiddi Boo".

There are plenty of well known talented voice actors in this, such as James MacDonald, Marion Darlington, Eleanor Audley, Verna Felton and Luis Van Rooten.

Despite being simple-looking, the movie has good artwork, as well as its nice details, although never something "out-of-this-world". However, the King's palace is a spectacular masterpiece, being truly majestic and colossal. ***Might not consider this having a spoiler, but I'd rather be cautious than careless*** I never saw this movie when I was little. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it with my three year old daughter. I can watch it over and over again.

For the little acting Ilene Woods did in her lifetime, she was a wonderful voice for Cinderella; very appealing; very believable. The music really fit the movie perfectly. The acting was great; loved the mice!! You really "hated" Lady Tremain and the step-sisters; they were just awful. The cartoonists depicted the spoiled behavior very well.

This is a wonderful movie, especially if you are into love stories. My daughter has seen the movie about 25 times and still gets excited at the end. Any child old enough to sit up in front of a screen will be absolutely captivated by the beautifully drawn images and wonderful music in this heartfelt and humorous re-write of the Grimms' fairytale. They'll be singing 'Bibbity-Bobbity-Boo' before they can even formulate a complete sentence and will continue singing it till their dying days. It is a classic for all children, especially those adults who are young at heart. Cinderella is one of Disney's greatest films, one of those films I think you appreciate more the older you get. Disney creates a magical adaptation of the classic fairytale. I consider the film to have been the greatest of his films at the time of its release. The characters became more dimensional than earlier films, creating more depth to appreciate the characters more. Cinderella herself is, in my opinion, one of the greatest characters Disney ever created. With her kindness and dash of dry humor, she is extremely likeable; however, it is the inspiration she provides which makes her memorable. Like many people she is an endless dreamer, and she holds onto her dreams, never giving up. Even in the most adverse of situations, her dreams endure, and she won't let anyone take that away from her. Her example should serve as inspiration to everyone, and encouragement to never let go of your dreams. Cinderella is a beautiful film, with beautiful songs of course. In fact, it's one of the best films of the 1950's.

I think all the characters are portrayed amazingly. You can see the cruelness of Cinderella's stepsisters and her stepmother, the sweetness of Cinderella. The mice are funny and sweet too.

I think they changed the tale a bit, but I think it's for the best. It's such a nice film, and I don't think anyone could resist it deep down.

I give it a 8/10. I don't think it's the best Disney film. But it sure is a true classic. When it comes down to fairy tales, Cinderella was the one that made you cry the most. poor Cinderella is a girl who had her whole life stolen by 2 evil and ugly stepsisters and a slave-driving step-mother. and thanks to Mr. Walt Disney, We got to witness Cinderella in animation.

Before the story begins, Cinderella and her father are lonely, and rich beyond their needs. to share his wealth and to give his daughter some sisters, Cinderella's Dad marries a woman, but then dies soon after. the stepmother, only seeing dollar signs in her eyes and slavery in her gorgeous step-daughter, Cinderella.

So for many days, Cinderella is a slave to her step-mother and her step-sisters. she has hope however, thanks to her friends, the mice of the home (sounds like Cinderella wasn't playing with a full deck.) she has hope that one day she'll find her prince. the chance eventually comes when the prince of the kingdom needs a girlfriend.

9/10 Out of all the Princess stories Disney has put out there, Cinderella probably has the most enduring appeal. I can't really say why, but for some reason, generation after generation thrusts her to the top of their lists. As a little girl, I wanted nothing more than to be Cinderella with her glass slipper- it was my absolute favorite costume.

Honestly, I don't think there is any story that more realizes the longings of the human heart than Cinderella. Who has never wanted to run away from the drudgeries of daily life and find someone who sees you as no one else ever had? The story is older than the English language and somehow it still rings true.

As for the characters, if nothing else, Disney can make a wonderful villain. Lady Tremaine is evil to the T, in a wonderfully calculating, not overtly physical way. Her cutting tongue and eyes do the work for her- she doesn't need staffs of lightening to strike fear into your heart. The animal friends tend to grate, especially that idiotic Gus. I would have cheered had he met his fate in Lucifer's jaws. Cinderella herself was no pushover- making some justly catty remarks at times. However, she just lacked the drive to make her entirely sympathetic. Sure, she was nice and fed animals, but what was keeping her at that place? We never know. Even if she only became a maid in another house, at least she's be getting paid and have a shot at respect. It seems the only reason things work out in the end for Cindy is that everything sort of falls to place in her lap. She never works for her dreams that she sings so fondly of.

Which brings me to the music, which is lovely, as ever. Ilene woods has a lovely, rich voice, probably my favorite of any Disney heroine. Some big standards originated here- A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes, So This is Love, Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo...

Cinderella is a wonderful heartfelt story with a ton of musical highlights. While it is lacking in some character development, it does provide some classic villains and excellent voice work. If you are feeling sick at heart, pop it in- it'll warm you up and make you hum Mmm Mmm Good!

Quote of the film:

-Surprise! Surprise! -Duh duh duh- Happy Birthday! "Cinderella" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.

Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.

My favorite thing about "Cinderella" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life. Cinderella was one of the first movies I ever saw, and to me it is timeless. It is a lovely looking film, with gorgeous animation. My favourite animation scene was the dress scene- I just love those mice. The songs are also lovely, not as good as Snow White's, but they are a delight to sing, and are reminiscent of Tchaikovsky. A dream is a Wish and So this is love? are standouts. The characters are also a delight. Cinderella is idealistic and strong, and the mice provided great comic relief. The stepsisters were also well done, as well as Lucifer. But I loved the stepmother the best, she was really evil, in comparison to a great character in the name of the Fairy Godmother. It is true, the movie drags slightly, with the antics of the mice, but they were genuinely funny, so I don't care. I don't think it is overrated, underrated don't you mean? It rarely plays on television, but the really bad sequel does on Cinemagic on a regular basis. if you want a great Cinderella adaptation, try the wonderful Ever After, or the lavish Slipper and the Rose, which isn't as good. But whatever you do, avoid the sequel, which I have the mistake of owning, because you'll thank me. 9/10. Bethany Cox Walt Disney & his 9 Old Men put their own 1950 spin on the classic fairy tale of Cinderella, which I guess you could say helps form an unofficial "fairy tale princess trilogy" from the classic Disney years.

THE PLOT: Cinderella is a nice girl who can't catch a break. She is the daughter of a nice, wealthy widower who loved her dearly, but her mother passed away when Cinderella was very young, and Cindy's father felt she needed a mother figure, so he eventually married the woman who would become known as Lady Tremaine, herself a widow with two daughters about the same age as Cinderella, Anastasia and Drizella. At first they all seemed to get along, but then Cinderella's father died, and Lady Tremaine's true nature was revealed - she was a cold, cruel, callous, heartless, mean spirited woman, and she passed those traits on to her daughters, who were spoiled, bratty, and equally mean spirited. Anastasia & Drizella hate Cinderella because they know deep down that she's better looking and an overall nicer, more attractive lady than themselves (i.e., more appealing to men), and their mother, Lady Tremaine, hates Cindy for pretty much the same reasons. As the years passed Lady Tremaine began to squander the family fortunes in a stubborn but futile quest to improve/refine her awkward, unattractive daughters (to call them "homely" would be an insult to homely people everywhere) while all three relegated Cinderella to being the multi-tasking servant of the house, abusing her, mistreating her and humiliating her every chance they get (they are particularly fond of increasing her already absurd workload). That brings us to Cinderella in the present, where she has blossomed into a good looking young lady who somehow manages to remain kind hearted and nice despite her abusive step family and holds on to the hope that one day the tables will turn in her favor.

Cinderella gets her shot at freedom & happiness when a royal ball is held to introduce the local prince to an eligible young maiden so that he can take her as a wife, settle down, start a family, etc. Naturally, her step family tries to keep her from attending, even going so far as to physically assault her and rip up the dress she had procured for herself (with a little help from her mice friends - the dress belonged to her biological mother). Finally pushed beyond her breaking point, Cinderella runs out into the courtyard and cries in despair. It is at that point that her Fairy Godmother, a short, plump, jolly woman, arrives and provides Cinderella with transportation and a transformed dress (after all, Cinderella wouldn't make a very good impression at the ball if she entered the scene looking like she had just gotten gang raped). Cindy arrives at the ball, the Prince falls hard for her, but that pesky midnight rule gets in the way, forcing her to flee, but leaving behind a glass slipper. Make a long story short - after a long harrowing quest to find the mystery girl via trying on the glass slipper, Cinderella is found and she and the prince get married, giving her the happy ending she deserves.

Overall, an enjoyable Disney classic. Not without its flaws, the most glaring of which is that the Prince is little more than a MacGuffin to help push the plot along - he has very little screen time and even less dialogue, so we never get to know him very well or get a good look at his relationship with Cinderella (which is unfortunate since, according to the making of documentary, the Prince was originally meant to play a bigger role), and a few additional scenes to help flesh out Cinderella herself might have been helpful (there was a song that showed her fantasizing of turning into an army of maids to clean up the house as well as eavesdropping on her step-family post ball to show her amusement at their jealousy, which was cut because Walt himself thought it made her look spiteful). Still, Cinderella herself is a likable enough heroine, even if she is upstaged by her mice friends, and there's a sweetness to the film that is becoming harder to find these days. Of course, if this were being made now, Cinderella would probably put up more of a struggle against her family during the dress ripping scene and would probably free herself in the climax (either by picking the lock herself or making an impractical yet exciting jump down from her window) but this is beside the point.

And for all those who say Cinderella sets a bad example for young girls, well, consider this - at least Cinderella didn't go around getting publicly drunk and indecently exposed, unlike some modern day "princesses" (you know who I mean). "Cinderella" is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...

The story of "Cinderella" on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since "Cinderella" is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.

The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Three Caballeros" and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.

Overall, "Cinderella" ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true. Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes," "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo," and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying. For quite a long time in my life, I either did not like this film, or I liked this film but not as much as many more. I watched it recently (at a sleepover, funnily enough) and I liked it more than I had done since I was under 6 or something. I now appreciate it more, as I do with a few other Disney classics that I have watched recently (including "Sleeping Beauty" and "Pinnochio" or however you spell it).

I now very much appreciate the animation, the clever "Disney" plot turns, the humour from the mice, the emotions expressed and the plot. The animation is very well done, often it seems you are wherever the other characters are, watching them. The animation also does well portraying the styles of the backgrounds, including the town (which is shown twice briefly). Disney changes this from the original fairy tale in a surprisingly good way, injecting clever plot turns ,such as the mice making the clothes and the key part (usually I do not like Disney films very much if they are not that similar to the original story, but with this I am not overly bothered. I feel they made necessary changes to make this a good Disney film. Often I do not think Disney changed the book in a good way in some of their films).

You know the story already, Cinderella is a girl working for her horrible stepmother and stepsisters. She goes to a ball with the help of her fairy godmother and loses a glass slipper...

This is a film very much to be watched with other people. Immediate family is not good enough. To enjoy this, I recommend you watch it with friends (and immediate family, if you like. :-) ).

I recommend this to people who like Disney at least a little bit, people who like fairy tales and for people who like mice. Enjoy! :-) I don't think I need to tell you the story. For it has been told for years and years. So I will just share my feelings. I first saw Cinderella was when I was five years old. From then on I was a Disney child in a good way. The animation now seems childish and old fashioned, but that is part of its charm now. Now, in the age of High School Musical and computer generated images, it seems like people have forgotten the genius and magical essence of early Disney movies. Thankfully I was born before that so I was introduced to this classic. And it seems no matter how old I get, I turn back into that five year old watching it on VHS. Which is the true magic of Disney. The story of Cinderella is one of my favorites from Charles Perrault, with Sleeping Beauty which was also made into a Disney film in 1959; this film is a sweet, enchanting masterpiece from Disney.

The film has a great soundtrack; that's one I like in a movie is a very good soundtrack, and I love the songs too; my favorite song is the romantic "So This is Love." I love the mice from the film too, they are cute. My favorite scene is the scene after the narration, the little birds tried to wake Cinderella up in the morning; I also love it when Cinderella's animal friends (the mice and birds) fix up Cinderella's birth-mother's dress, so she could go to the ball...until Drizella & Anastasia tore it to bits, the b****es! Cinderella In my opinion greatest love story ever told i loved it as a kid and i love it now a wonderful Disney masterpiece this is 1 of my favorite movies i love Disney. i could rave on and on about Cinderella and Disney all day but i wont i ll give you a brief outline of the story. When a young girl's father dies she has to live with her evil step mother and her equally ugly and nasty step sisters Drusilla and Anastasia. Made to do remedial house chores all day poor Cinderella has only the little mice who scurry around the house and her dog Bruno as friends. When one day a letter is sent to her house telling all available women to attend a royal ball. Cinderellas evil step mother and step sisters try to prevent her attendance Cinderella finally gets her dream and wish and is able to attend her captive beauty , Genorisity and beautiful nature help her win her prince. Cinderella is a beautiful young woman who is treated cruelly by her wicked stepmother and stepsisters. One day, a ball is to be held in honor of the prince, but Cinderella has no chance of going, because her stepmother and stepsisters won't let her. With the help of her fairy godmother and her animal friends, she is off to the ball, with the warning to return home by midnight. At the ball she meets the handsome Prince Charming. When the clock strikes midnight, she runs home, leaving behind one of her glass slippers. With the help of her animal friends, her true identity is revealed. She and the prince later get married, and they live happily ever after.

Cinderella, released 56 years ago, was a huge box office success, and it continues to charm audiences to this day. It has a well-written script. The characters are memorable. The songs, including "A Dream is A Wish Your Heart Makes", "So This Is Love", and the great "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo", help tell the story. This was my favorite movie growing up, and it hasn't lost any of its charm. A true Disney masterpiece! Recommended. 10/10 P.S. The recent DVD release is the best way to appreciate this film, including featurettes, deleted scenes, music video, vintage radio programs, and a restored print of the movie! This is one of Disney's top five animated features, in my opinion. Cinderella was a perfect return to the full-length feature animation film (as opposed to the compilation films of the 40's), and expensive depth via the multi-plane camera returns to the film in no other way. Although Disney adapts the story somewhat liberally, you gather the idea of the era via the dress and set stylizations---a clear time period the story takes place.

Cinderella is more mature than Snow White, and a multi-dimensional character. Actually, all of the characters are somewhat well-developed, except for the Prince--left the most flat--we know he has a sense of humor, and a great smile, but that's about all. Like Snow White, Disney has some permanent impact on the story in popular culture---in most versions of Cinderella, the stepsisters are attractive, just not as pretty as Cinderella, and their character takes away from their otherwise nice appearance.

Favorite Disney additions: the mice! Also, appreciated the continuity--Cinderella always loses her shoe throughout the film. The addition of the homemade gown as well as the following assault from the stepsisters was always horrific as a child--I remember View Master showing this with a black background and a large red light on it! The broken slipper shows the unwillingness of evil Lady Tremaine to give up her hold over Cinderella and admit defeat---Audley would go on to characterize the most wicked of all Disney villains, satanic witch Maleficent, in Sleeping Beauty. In my opinion, this is an absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece. If you ask me, the stepmother (voice of Lucille La Verne) was truly diabolical. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. On the other hand, despite the fact that she did a lot of housekeeping, Cinderella (voice of Ilene Stanley) was a very beautiful lady. To me, the scenery was beautiful, the cast was well chosen, and the writing was strong. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece to all of you who haven't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. Comment? Like my comment is necessary? We are talking about all time masterpiece, for all seasons and all generations. This is only type of movies that i still have patience to watch. In this, like in other Disney's movies is some kind of magic. All characters are in some way, "alive" and "real" so it's easy to understand message, even if you don't understand language, (like i didn't understood when i first watched movie, because i was about six years old). Maybe my English is not so good, but i learned what i know mostly from this kind of movies, and this is one more great dimension of this kind of movies, which in present time are rare. But there is a one big shame. In my country is now impossible to watch this, or any other Disney's movie! We don't have copyrights, so our children are disabled to enjoy and learn from this kind of movies. So, we will watch this movie again "Once upon a dream" or...? This movie is wonderful. It always has been always will be. I'm mean really what is better then a house maid falling in love. Walt really out did him self here. And the music! A dream is a wish your heart makes is beautiful! What else can you say besides terrific! I can't wait until the special edition comes out it will be so awesome! I can't wait to hear all of the deleted songs! This movie is done so beautiful and smart! It is lovely. What about the cute mice too! I know i keep saying the same things over and over and over again but hey this is a great movie! Woods was terrific in this beautiful beautiful BEAUTIFUL movie First off, I want to say, "Thanks, Disney, for finally releasing the "Cinderella" movie on DVD! Now you have all the Disney animated films on DVD (including the 1999 Limited Editions)! What are you going to do next? You're going to Disney World!!!!!" Well, technically (I mean, look at the castle!!!!!)

Anyways, Disney remains magical in his 1950 animated classic film "Cinderella," the movie that put fairy tale movies on the map. We are all familiar with the story of Cinderella, her stepsisters, her date, the glass slipper, the pumpkin that turns into a carriage just for saying "Bippity- boppity-boo!," and of course, trying to head home by midnight!

What I like about this film: It's a grand old fairy tale that children like, now in a movie form (as well as on DVD as well)!!!!!

"Cinderella" - thank you, Disney!!!!! 10 stars. First of all I need to say that I'm Portuguese and it's not usual to me spend my time watching Portuguese movies, probably one each year or even none...

...And the reason is the almost generalized idea between the Portuguese people that the national pictures are awful, really close to the worst ever made! However, in the last decade, it starts to surprises me when we get back the funny of the 40s when "Leão da Estrela" e "Costa do Castelo" were among the worlds best of their time, with movies like "Pulsação Zero" or "Sorte Nula", both from director Fernando Fragata and also with some actors and music in common.

This one is also good, not of the same kind because it isn't a true comedy; in fact it's officially a drama, a woman's drama the has some unexpected funny parts, cause of humorous characters or hilarious things that happen to them, like the hypothetical travel to the Caribbean just to get laid.

The plot works and can surprise us a few times; the actors are fine, the locations regular as the score; but the truth is that it all make sense, then we can count it as a nice effort for the national cinema, that seems to be starting from the ashes as the phoenix.

If you want to watch a Portuguese movie, surely you can take better option, but it stills one to be measured. I lost my father at a very young age.So young in fact,that I have no recollection of him.Over the years I have learned many things about him. One of those things was that he loved westerns,and watching Bonanza every Sunday evening was an absolute ritual for him.I,myself, remember the tail end of the series' run,having been 8 years old when the show ceased production in 1973.Watching this show over the years somehow makes me closer to my long ago lost father.It has all the right elements to make a show successful;laughter,tears,edge of your seat suspense,and it even angered you at times.My most vivid memory of the show's original run,came shortly after the death of our beloved "Hoss" Cartwright,Dan Blocker.One particular episode,and the end of the closing credits, flashed a picture of Blocker,and faded to black,and I can also recall my oldest sister with a tear in her eye at the sight of this.I can remember this as though it were yesterday.On behalf of my late father, who is not here to say so himself,we love Bonanza.Long live the Cartwrights. I grew up on this classic western series, and as a child always considered it a treat being allowed to stay up late on Sunday evenings to watch it. Bonanza is still infinitely re watchable in re runs.

The series chronicles the adventures of the Cartwright family, who live on a ranch near Virginia City, Nevada around the Civil War era. Their ranch (called the Ponderosa) is run and defended by the widowed father, Ben, and his unmarried three sons, Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe. These three brothers have different mothers, all of whom have passed away years earlier.

The Cartwrights are a hard working, prosperous, and honourable family, highly respected in those parts. The Ponderosa is large so reaching its extremities requires a lot of horseback riding. Also, trips away are often necessary in order to buy or sell cattle and so forth. Needless to say, few of these excursions pass uneventfully. Although hospitable, much of the Cartwrights' energy must be spent defending their ranch from interlopers, or protecting themselves from townsfolk jealous of their prosperity and stellar reputation. The Cartwrights do a fair bit of firing their guns up in the air and such, but only shoot to kill when deemed absolutely necessary. They are involved in various town affairs, even the political life of the Nevada territory.

One of the main assets of the series is the underlying warmth that is always present (despite occasional disagreements) between Ben and his three sons, and (despite frequent disagreements) between the three brothers. Now, one brother might beat up another every now and then, but generally has a good reason for it at the time and his anger never lasts long! The characters are all very well drawn. Ben is portrayed as a successful and noble man of great integrity. The oldest son, Adam, the most rational and suave of the brothers, left midway through the series. The middle brother, Hoss, is a gentle giant of a teddy bear, who has an insatiable appetite for food and is a little shy around the ladies. The youngest, Little Joe, is a hot headed, handsome charmer who, by contrast, has quite a way with women. This trio of brothers enjoy various romances but their love interests are typically killed off by the end of the episode or else marriage proves impossible, for whatever reason.

The actors are all stellar in their roles, including Pernell Roberts (Adam), Dan Blocker (Hoss), Michael Landon (Little Joe), and of course Lorne Greene as the principled family patriarch, Ben. I also love the ranch cook, Hop Sing, played by Victor Sen Yung.

This is a wonderful action packed western with great values. The Cartwrights are always the noble heroes and most of the bad guys quite villainous. If only there were more programs like this vintage western on TV these days! When I was born, this television series was the number one show on T.V.!! America epitomized the feat of the ultimate fatted calf country with big ambitions, limitless potential, and a very comfortable economy!! After a big Sunday dinner, why not sit back and watch "Bonanza", IN COLOR!!! This homey western evokes an American tradition which accompanies the complacency of the typical U.S. household during the era in which it was viewed.. The breathtaking cinematography of Lake Tahoe symbolized an infinite prosperity of the emerging American culture!! Western Movies were so popular that Western Television Shows followed suit!! This was a period in time in our country which yearned for a concise reflection on our own country's struggle for survival!! The end result of the trials and tribulations at the Ponderosa Ranch, as demonstrated in this series, sparked a realization that Americans are now auspiciously enjoying the fruits of the Cartwright's painstaking labor!!

The T.V. Show "Bonanza" was popular for so many different reasons, mostly on account of the fact that the late fifties and early sixties had not yet established the divisiveness of two different cultural mindsets which was ready to surface with our nation! The unification of ideologies in the United States which prevailed during the debut of "Bonanza" was a big reason for the show's success!! In the show's later years, "Bonanza" had established a firmly entrenched core market television audience!! The cast to "Bonanza" became famous, and the wholesome entertainment of "Bonanza" encompassed a camaraderie for the All-American idealist!! Everybody liked "Bonanza" and a lot of Americans totally loved it!! Reflecting on rough and tumble family values is a favorite past time of many Americans, and the television show "Bonanza" was perfect for that frame of mind!! I liked the show a lot, and most people I know like it as well!! Certainly, my entire family loved "Bonanza"!! This show was one of the all time American classics in the history of television!! It got to be a running joke around Bonanza about how fatal it was for any women to get involved with any Cartwright men. After all Ben Cartwright was three times a widower with a son by each marriage. And any woman who got involved with Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe were going to end up dying because we couldn't get rid of the formula of the widower and the three sons that started this classic TV western.

Perhaps if Bonanza were being done today the writers would have had revolving women characters who came in and out of the lives of the Cartwrights. People have relationships, some go good, some not so good, it's just life. And we're less demanding of our heroes today so if a relationship with one of them goes south we don't have to kill the character off to keep the survivor's nobility intact. But that's if Bonanza were done today.

But we were still expecting a lot from our western heroes and Bonanza though it took a while to take hold and a change of viewing time from NBC certainly helped, the secret of Bonanza's success was the noble patriarch Ben Cartwright and his stalwart sons. Ben Cartwright was THE ideal TV Dad in any genre you want to name. His whole life was spent in the hard work of building that immense Ponderosa spread for his three children. The kids were all different in personality, but all came together in a pinch.

The Cartwrights became and still are an American institution. I daresay more people cared about this family than the Kennedys. Just the popularity that Bonanza has in syndication testifies to that.

Pernell Roberts as oldest son Adam was written out of the show. Rumor has it he didn't care for the noble Cartwright characters which he felt bordered on sanctimonious. Perhaps if it were done now, he'd have liked it better in the way I describe.

This was just the beginning for Michael Landon, how many people get three hit TV shows to their credit. Landon also has Highway to Heaven and Little House On the Prarie where he had creative control. Little Joe was the youngest, most hot headed, but the most romantic of the Cartwrights.

When Roberts left. the show kept going with the two younger sons, but when big Dan Blocker left, the heart went out of Bonanza. Other characters had been added on by that time, David Canary, Tim Matheson, and Ben Cartwright adopted young Mitch Vogel. But big, loyal, but a little thick Hoss was easily the most lovable of the Cartwrights. His sudden demise after surgery left too big a hole in that family.

So the Cartwrights of the Ponderosa have passed into history. I got a real taste of how America took the Cartwrights to heart when I visited the real Virginia City. It doesn't look anything like what you see in Bonanza. But near Lake Tahoe, just about where you see the Ponderosa on the map at the opening credits, is the Cartwright home, the set maintained and open as a tourist attraction. Like 21 Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes fans, the ranchhouse and the Cartwrights are real.

And if they weren't real, they should have been. Although this show has been off the air since 1973, after viewing a DVD set I borrowed at our library, I felt compelled to say a bit about it.

I can remember when it was the only color show on television in the 1960s, and sometimes there would be a little "Sunday Night Party" with friends to watch this on NBC on one of the few color televisions.

I really enjoy history not so much for the names and dates but how it influences us today and how so much can be so profound based on the most inconsequential actions of the time. Case in point: Virginia City, Nevada, which became one of the richest cities in the world because of the silver, got its name from a character named "Old Virginny", who, in the town's early days, stumbled out of a saloon, fell and broke his whiskey bottle.

Old Virginny didn't want to waste the occasion so as the precious liquid was seeping into the dirt he decided to christen the town "Virginia Town". The area became known as the Comstock Lode because another character, Henry Comstock, had the reputation of trying to jump everyone's claim and the area became known as the Comstock Lode.

I just watched an early episode that dealt with these 2 subjects. Other episodes dealt with Mark Twain's literary rise while a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise...

It was wholesome (and frequently educational) family entertainment. As someone else remarked, each episode would really be considered a movie in its own right - rich scripts and characters.

One thing it twisted the truth on was the proximity to Virginia City and the Ponderosa. In truth, to ride from the Ponderosa (all of Northern Lake Tahoe), one would have to ride his horse about 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) down the Spooner Summit to the high desert (3,000-4,000 feet) of the Carson Valley then another 30-40 miles to Virginia city.

Needless to say the Cartwrights would have some sore rear ends doing this on a regular basis. But every writer should have some leeway with the truth.

How I miss that show, even today. My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure. I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.

I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of "leather", which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.

Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.

Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!

We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun! It ran from 1959-1973. Its more than its longevity that says a lot for this series. Its also that it survived changes in fashion and taste from the 50's , psychedelic 60's and remained popular in the 70's.

I remember repeats of this series. It was a successful combination of all its elements from stories, cast and productions that made it exceptional. Lorne Green had his defining iconic character from this series. Its appeal was across generations. All members of the family could enjoy this. It balanced morality with violence, humour with seriousness. A cartoon series was made as a spin off from this as a result of its impact. The shame is that this series is no longer repeated and many will not know its significance. I know this sounds odd coming from someone born almost 15 years after the show stopped airing, but I love this show. I don't know why, but I enjoy watching it. I love Adam the best. The only disappointing thing is that the only place I found to buy the seasons on DVD was in Germany, and that was only the first two seasons. That is disappointing, but that's OK. I'll keep looking online. If anyone has any tips on where to buy the second through 14th seasons, please email me at darkangel_1627@yahoo.com. I already own the first one. The only down side is that the DVDs being from Germany, they only play on my portable DVD player and my computer. Oh well. I still own it! Bonanza had a great cast of wonderful actors. Lorne Greene, Pernell Whitaker, Michael Landon, Dan Blocker, and even Guy Williams (as the cousin who was brought in for several episodes during 1964 to replace Adam when he was leaving the series). The cast had chemistry, and they seemed to genuinely like each other. That made many of their weakest stories work a lot better than they should have. It also made many of their best stories into great western drama.

Like any show that was shooting over thirty episodes every season, there are bound to be some weak ones. However, most of the time each episode had an interesting story, some kind of conflict, and a resolution that usually did not include violence. While Bonanza was a western, the gunfighting was never featured as the main attraction. While I am a fan of The Rifleman and Wanted: Dead Or Alive; those shows usually ended with a gunfight. Gunfights were how many westerns resolved every conflict, and Bonanza was very different in trying to seek peaceful resolutions and harmony instead of killing.

In the early years of Bonanza, there are some interesting episodes that do feature a lot of gunfights. Those episodes stand in contrast to the rest of the series, but they are pretty good in and of themselves. In 1964, when Pernell Whitaker wanted to leave the show, Guy Williams was brought in to replace him. Williams was playing the role of a long-lost cousin. Unfortunately, Whitaker decided to stay one more year, and thus Williams was written out of the series when he moved away to marry Adam's old girlfriend. If Williams had stayed on for the duration of Bonanza, one can only wonder how much better the series would have been in the years after 1965, when Pernell Whitaker left the show.

Undoubtedly, once Pernell Whitaker left the series, the stories focused more on comedy and country hijinks. Whitaker had often played the heavy in many episodes, and his absence left a void in the cast. Little Joe always wanted to play the nice kid, and Hoss always wanted to play the good old boy with a heart of gold. Since Ben was the kind and wise patriarch of the family, that did not leave too much room for any gunfights.

At some point they hired a ranch hand called Candy (David Canary) who became their fourth member of the cast, but Candy was never featured in any gunfights, and he was hardly more than an older version of Little Joe. For a year or two they also had Ben take in some other lost cousin (Jamie, played by the forgettable Mitch Vogel) who was a teenager that was usually getting into some kind of trouble with someone.

Apparently by adding the teenager, the studio was looking to attract younger viewers. It also gave the writers a chance to write episodes about teenage problems, alcohol, delinquency, etc. Those kind of preachy episodes were popular in the 1960s as a reaction of the establishment media to the counter-culture movement. Dragnet was probably the most popular source of law and order TV, though Hawaii 5-0, The F.B.I. and many other shows also tried to jump on the bandwagon by doing TV shows that featured irresponsible teenagers causing mischief, mayhem, and crime.

The addition of a teenager to the cast gave the Cartwrights more chances to show up and solve problems, but those episodes feel very contrived and are not very good in general. After Dan Blocker died, the series limped along for another year or so before it was canceled. The last season was pretty bad, as it featured Little Joe tracking down the killers of his wife, and most of the episodes were somewhat depressing because Little Joe was usually drinking or otherwise remembering how much he loved his wife, and how unfair it was that she was killed.

I don't think I have ever seen the last episode of the series, and I wonder if they ever officially wrapped it up in some way. By the last year, there was only Ben (Lorne Greene) actually living on the Ponderosa, as Adam had moved away (and never came back even once as a guest) and Hoss had died and Little Joe had left after his wife (in the series) had been killed by drifters.

Overall, the era from 1959-1965 is the best of this series. Once Adam left, it slowly declined. Most of the shows before 1970 are pretty good too. By 1970, the series was trying to hard to be hip and topical, and it had lost a lot of its western flavor. The addition of Candy and the teenage kid also diluted the general quality of the show, and the death of Hoss (Dan Blocker) was the final nail. Bonanza is probably the best western series ever made, and of the 465 episodes that were produced, at least one hundred of them are excellent western drama! That is a pretty good record. Even the worst of Bonanza is better than a lot of other TV shows. As part of our late 1950s vocabulary, we well knew the Ponderosa, Little Joe, Hoss, Ben Cartwright,etc. on that great show "Bonanza."

It came Saturday night and everyone was glued to the television set. This was a real show depicting family values. There may have been a weekly crisis, but it was the strong family atmosphere that pulled everyone together.

Lorne Greene was dominant as the patriarch of the family. His words depicted wisdom. We often were left to wonder that Ben Cartwright, a widower, must have been the best of husbands to that poor wife of his who had died. He reared wonderful sons.

Naturally, we all wondered why Pernell Roberts left the show. The show was a gold mine and Roberts surrendered loads of money when he departed. His career never took off as he was associated as a Cartwright son. He should have tried to get back into the series. He certainly lost a bonanza by dropping out. This is one of the movies that get better every time you see them. It's packed with so many original and unconventional ideas that you always find a new detail. As in Sabu's subsequent movies (I didn't see "Unlucky monkey" yet, but the other ones are as great) failure, chance and humanism play great roles. The cutting and Montage is inventive and artistic, without the movie being an "art" picture, but a highly entertaining one. When comparing it to "Run, Lola, Run" you have to keep in mind that "Dangan Ranna" was made some years before and was shown on German TV as early as 1997...so it's more probable that it served as inspiration for Tom Tykwer's movie, and not the other way around. Complementary to the other reviews I have to add that I like the acting and the ending very much. This movie is a lot of fun in many ways, and it manages to deliver a message without being annoying or pretentious. An entertaining and substantive film, Non-Stop has drawn deserving comparisons with "Run Lola Run". The film quickly develops into a chase sequence, during which the viewers learn about the three main characters through flashbacks and daydream sequences. The chase serves not as as a fast-paced climax, but as a journey that makes up the majority of the film. During the "run" we see the characters grow and momentarily forget about their dreary lives, about the "macho" roles they've bought into, and eventually forgetting about why they started running in the first place. Much like fighting provided a "clarity" for the characters in "Fight Club," running provides this film's characters with a means to step away from the false values that we all allow society to create for us. Their running serves as way to truly taste life from an unclouded perspective, and all three find some level of clarity and joy in the process.

My appreciation and enjoyment only wavered slightly in the ending of the film, where instead of learning from their experience, the characters seem to revert to acting out those false macho roles I thought they had escaped from through their journey.

Still, the only true problem with this film is that it wasn't distributed outside Japan sooner. A lot has already been said on this movie and I' d like to join those who praised it. It's a highly unique film which uses elements of different genres: drama, comedy, gangster film without making a mess of it. At points you just laugh out loud, at other points you feel for the characters whose mistakes and failures you watch. Sabu's genius can be shown with regard to some sequences of the movie. One is that where all three men chasing one another have an erotic day dream about a young woman that they just passed by on the street. This sequence is beautifully done and illustrates the characters of all three runners very well. It is erotic and funny at the same time. Another example of Sabu's genius is the part of the film where the runners get tired. First one of them, the typical loser among the three guys, hallucinates that the woman that left him for someone else is back again and you see them dancing with one another and in the next shot him dancing with himself which is deeply moving. All of the runners get to this point where they think that have something back they lost or are on track again. And at one part of the movie they stop chasing each other, running in line, just laughing.So here is it all the beauty and the ludicrousness of what we call life which Sabu manages to show throughout the film. His characters fail (do they at the end?) but he doesn't rob them of their dignity. "Monday" and "Postman Blues" that do justice to Sabu's claim that he is a genius. Go watch them!

I finally saw this film tonight after renting it at Blockbuster (VHS). I have to agree that it is wildly original. Yes, maybe the characters were not fully realized but it isn't one of those movies. Rather, we are treated to the director's eye, his vision of what the story is about. And it does not stop. And to be honest, I didn't want it to. I do believe that Sabu had to have influenced the director's of 'Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Run, Lola, Run'. But I absolutely loved the way the three leads SEE the beautiful woman on the street to distract them momentarily. I really need to see this director's other work because this film really intrigued me. If you want insight, culture, sturm und drang, go somewhere else. If you want a laugh, camera movement and criminal hilarity, look here. This movie has a very simple yet clever premise - an unemployed man trying to steal from a convenience store, and the store clerk catches him in the act... the thief runs away with the store-clerk right after him. All the while, the store clerk is in trouble with a low-rank Yakuza chinpira (gangster). Along the chase for the thief, they catch the eye of the Yakuza who's been looking for the convenience store clerk. The story then moves into high gear in the form of a Tom & Jerry (cat & mouse), but is added with the dog chasing after the cat. The entire 2nd act of D.A.N.G.A.N. Runner (can be translate to English as "PINBALL RUNNERS") is about the chase, and the chase goes on & on to the point that by the end of the 2nd act, the bum forgets why he is running away, and the Yakuza don't remember which of the 2 guys he is chasing, nor does he remember why they're running away from him.

Similar to SABU's later film POSTMAN BLUES, the bulk of the film is simply all chase and action, with plenty of physical comedy and dark humor injected to keep the audience engaged. What falls short is the ending, to which the chase stops when the three men run out of steam, and into one of the most chaotic Mexican stand-offs you'll see on film that looks almost as if Sabu was paying homage to Tony Scott's TRUE ROMANCE (written by Quentin Tarantino). Japanese indie film with humor and philosophy where the three main characters run literally almost through the entire film, chasing each other due to strange circumstances and comical coincidence. As they are running, we see what is going on in their minds and how they got where they are at the moment. The act of running is a metaphor for these down-on-their luck people's lives. In some way, what they're really chasing for is not what they were originally chasing, but for meaning in their lives and an escape from their personal problems and broken dreams. Running makes them all feel truly alive. The big life-altering running adventure comes to an end when they accidentally get in the middle of something big, violent, and so absurd that it's funny in a clever way. One of my favorite films of all time by genius director Sabu. The Japanese "Run Lola Run," his is one offbeat movie which will put a smile on just about anyone's face. Fans of Run Lola Run, Tampopo, Go!, and Slacker will probably like this one. It does tend to follow a formula that is increasingly popular these days of separate, seemingly unrelated vignettes, all contributing the the overall story in unexpected ways. catch it if you see it, otherwise wait for the rental. I cannot say this movie is a disappointment because I read some reviews before watching and it did not do as well as I thought it would have. The bar was not set that high, so the fact that my expectations were met is not saying much.

The Good: The city of New York. If you live in the city like me, you'll recognize certain places and understand that the city is supposed to be more than just a setting, rather one of the main characters. There are genuinely tender moments, humorous conversations, and plot twists left and right which all keep things interesting.

The Bad: The first thing I thought after leaving the theater was that I wanted more, but not in the positive "leave them wanting more" fashion. Certainly the good skits/scenes outweigh the bad, but there are a lot of skits that fall within the "in-between" category, too many in fact, which is what ultimately brings the movie down. Also, New York City's diversity, though hinted at though the many distant pans of the city and mentioned in conversation throughout the movie, is never really realized or analyzed to the point of doing the city justice. For example, many of the skits involve well to do middle aged whites. I mean I know the city is home to many of the said demographic but come on, Paris Je'taime's plot and character diversity makes New York City look like Lancaster, PA, or someplace really white. It is just disappointing to see the city shortchanged on its heritage like that.

Still, even after having said this, I would recommend giving New York, I Love You a view. Who knows, maybe you'll disagree with my opinion and maybe you won't. You will never know until you see it for yourself. This review is not meant to deter anyone from watching this movie, as everyone's opinion on art differs. I'm just giving you a very vague heads up on what to expect. New York, I Love You is a collective work of eleven short films, with each segment running around 10 minutes long. The shorts don't exactly relate but they all have something in common, love. Every short is about finding love, either if it's about a couple or just two strangers chitchatting.The film stars an ensemble cast, among them Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Orlando Bloom, Chris Cooper, Andy Garcia, Christina Ricci, Irrfan Khan, Robin Wright Penn, Julie Christie, Ethan Hawke, Bradley Cooper, Rachel Bilson, and Anton Yelchin. With such a stellar cast and such an interesting premise, I was expecting a tremendous film; the problem is New York I Love You doesn't add up. It remains the sum of its parts. Some of the segments are funny, original and interesting but others are so meaningless (Orlando Bloom/Christina Ricci and Ethan Hawke/Maggie Q segments) that it's appalling. The film is definitely uneven and has a very experimental tone. Story-wise, it seems like something a few film students could put together. Having said that, the film has some great moments as well, one of the best being the segment about an old couple, played by Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman, walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. And it's moments like this, that made me as a viewer, wish the film was more consistent, because, there's a lot of potential here. But, as unsatisfying as the overall story ends up being, for me, the cinematography and soundtrack saved the all thing. The editing was perfect, the way the film was shot was very impressive and the ethereal soundtrack, couldn't be more fitting. In the end, New York I Love You feels like an experimental film, and as in most experiences there's highs and lows. It's how one looks at the film as a whole that will determine if he enjoys it or not. It might be worthwhile for some and a waste of time for others.

7/10 As it is generally known,anthology films don't fare very well with American audiences (I guess they prefer one standard plot line). New York,I Love You, is the second phase of a series of anthology films dealing with cities & the people who live & love in them. The first was 'Paris,J'Taime', which I really enjoyed. The film was made up of several segments,each written and/or directed by a different director (most of which were French,but there is a very funny segment directed by Joel & Ethan Coen). Like 'Paris', this one is also an anthology, directed by several different directors (Fatih Akin,Mira Nair,Natalie Portman,Shakher Kapur,etc.),and also like 'Paris'deals with New Yorkers,and why they love the city they live in. It features a top notch cast,featuring the likes of Natalie Portman,Shia LaBeouf,Christina Ricci,Orlando Bloom,Ethan Hawki,and also features such seasoned veterans as James Caan,Cloris Leachman,Eli Wallach and Julie Christie. Some of the stories really fly,and others don't (although I suppose it will depend on individual tastes---I won't ruin it for anybody else by revealing which ones worked for me & which ones didn't). Word is that the next entry in the series will be Shanghai, China (is Rome,Italy,Berlin,Germany or Athens,Greece out of the question?). Spoken mainly in English,but does have bits of Yiddish & Russian with English subtitles. Rated 'R'by the MPAA for strong language & sexual content I'm not a writer or an critic...I'M just a student that has seen this movie few minutes ago....AND I want to thank people that worked on creating this movie!It is not the best or the most.... but it touched my heart...why???i would like to understand it myself...it is easy and accessible..it is a movie that makes you feel good after a bad day without any regret about the time wasted on watching it!It is about love and caring, about the life that we have but we miss it sometimes because of material stuff .......Look at all the time that we have but we miss it....why a fu*k do we do that???We need to live like were dying ...care about every second and remember:if we do good things-good things come back to us!HAppiness is real...and it has a special taste in New York...i love this town and the world the we live in!!!!thank you very much for the movie and sorry for my mistakes(English is my second language)... New York, I Love You finally makes it to our shores, but its 10 short stories on love somehow didn't find reason enough to be released over Valentine's, probably due to the fact that this year's festival also falls on Lunar New Year, and with that comes the usual LNY blockbuster films from the likes of Jackie Chan (no, not The Spy Next Door) and local filmmaker Jack Neo who has traditionally released his latest film over that period to resounding success. So why fix a formula that hasn't been broken?

Continuing in concept where Paris, Je T'aime had begun in spawning the City of Love Franchise (Shanghai will be next, so says the end of the closing credits here), the buzz here is definitely about the intertwining stories set in one of the cities of the world to allow for various interpretations from filmmakers all over to come up with stories based on love as a theme, although someone probably forgot to tell Scarlett Johansson some of the finer points in the sandbox ground rules, and her short was unceremoniously dropped from the theatrical edition for being unable to fit into everything else (well, it was shot in black and white), but here's hoping that it would make it to the DVD at least.

Structurally, this series is less compartmentalized compared to its predecessor, which if memory serves me right had individual stories set within its own confines and never really breaking out of its artificial borders created. Here a little more leeway is given, where characters from various stories interact in short filler segments used to bridge scenes together, and not just solely reliant on pick up shots made up of buildings and landscapes, in hopes of making things look a little bit more serendipitous with the idea of chance encounters amongst strangers, though one story craftily adopted this mindset for its own narrative to deliver a surprise, though already seen in Paris.

One of the top draws for sitting through a film like this one, is definitely the creative forces behind the stories, from writers, directors and cinematographers from various geographies and backgrounds mirroring the makeup of the cosmopolitan city, coming together for a concept film. And what more the star-studded cast too, with big names amongst the lesser known ones all upping the ante through picture perfect performances, be it for the entire length of the short, or as a support to build upon. You can't deny the initial star-gazing in recognizing the notables, from Irrfan Khan to Natalie Portman (who also had writing and directing duties), Rachel Bilson (looking quite like Bardot) to Spielberg's blue eye boy Shia LaBeouf, who surprisingly can act, and shows off more in his few minutes here than his entire filmography to date.

Story wise, like any anthology, you'll find some which will automatically appeal to you, and with others that don't. Some are straightforward in nature, while others have to come up with gimmicky twists that thankfully worked. But these 10 stories plus 1 (because Randall Balsmeyer was given duties to integrate everything together for a more organic feel instead of just plain pick up shots of lesser known areas and established landmarks) somehow lacked the more "anything goes" spirit from its predecessor, with stories more rooted in reality, compared to some fantastical elements in the previous film (Elijah Wood's dalliance with a vampire anyone?), or even less adventurous with its narrative style (Christopher Doyle's, and Tom Tykwer's starring Natalie Portman). Here it seemed that the filmmakers opted very much for safe, with none venturing into that spirit of adventure and experiment.

Minor quibbles aside, I still enjoyed almost all the shorts here, contrary to what many others have felt about it. The short film format is still very much alive, and having them strung together into a feature under the City of Love banner works fine, and left me wondering which other cities are or have been included in its lineup. I am hoping that perhaps the franchise will catch on and spread its influence here. We surely have enough prolific filmmakers to be stringing together a Singapore, I Love You, so here's crossing my fingers that maybe something will materialize down the road. Otherwise there's always the Sawasdee Bangkok route of just making it without any attachments to franchise house rules. I saw 'New York: I Love You' today and loved it! I was really looking forward to seeing this after watching 'Paris je t'aime' and overall I think I liked this one much better... Perhaps I need to watch 'Paris je t'aime' again I don't know... I read few of the reviews here about NY:ILY and yes, the movie is not without its faults. When you're paying tribute to a city like New York - it can get rather overwhelming and nothing seems fair enough to do the city due justice... so without elaborating on any of the film's shortcomings, I'll just write about what I liked.

Unlike 'Paris je t'aime' in which each director's short film was properly segmented and titled, NY:ILY isn't and many reviewers over here have found the seamlessness of stories and overlapping of characters here annoying and even confusing. I thought otherwise. I loved how the stories just flowed one after the other and I especially liked the overlapping of characters - it might be gimmicky because it's done so often in films now. But I still liked it because I didn't find it forced. And the idea that we're all connected in the end has a wistful, even whimsical quality to it - which some might find corny but I find beautiful.

I liked all the films but the one that touched me the most was the one by Yvan Attal with Robin Wright Penn and Chris Cooper. It was so well-acted and scripted that the reveal in the end - again not unused in the past - brought me to tears and I was crying throughout the segment that followed. I always liked Wright Penn and now I'm also a fan of Chris Cooper. Those precious initial few seconds when he's standing alone outside the restaurant, just before he gets the call - speak volumes about Cooper's ability to convey a character by just being there without saying anything.

Most of the stories in this film involve characters who are either meeting each for the first time or have met each other just recently with the exception of 4-5 stories in which the characters have known each other for a long time. It seemed to me (and I might be wrong) that the stories were different but they were all trying to drive home the point, the need even, to just step back and view in a new light the people and the things we've known in our lives for a long time; to see the people and the things around you with the eyes of a stranger and appreciate them just as you did when you met them and saw them for the first time.

The other films that I liked were the ones by Shunji Iwai with Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci, by Natalie Portman with Carlos Acosta and Taylor Geare, by Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby, by Shekhar Kapur with Julie Christie, Shia LaBeouf and John Hurt and once again the one by Yvan Attal with Ethan Hawke and Emilie Ohana when they're in the café. I really need to see more work by Yvan Attal as I seem to like him a lot!

Overall, watch this movie with an open mind. Don't read the reviews before watching it! It might not live up to your expectations of what a movie on and about love in New York should be and I doubt any movie will really live up to that conception. Just watch this movie for some good music, beautiful landscape cinematography, some slice-of-life comfort and a story or two that might just tug at your heartstrings. If you're not in the mood for more than an hour long movie than this film could give you some variation. What I love is the ongoing surprises. It's not only once that you want one or more of the short film in 'New York I Love You' to be continue. Yeah, some of the short films makes you curious, some of them very short, some of them longer, some of them has it definite ends, some of them don't.

Most of the story presents the sad side of the capital city. It shows many different nationality background. Many of it, make it feels the same way where I have been once went to a capital city in other countries for a year where it has many people came from different countries. This movie explore many type of things you might have known, but for all the characters it's a new things. Maybe some of you have traveled abroad alone to stay for a year or two just to feel something new, meet new people; feel dreamy, sad, but the kind of sad you looking for because it is just that bored you were in your own home. You might want to reliving it again, by watching this. New York I Love You just like its predecessor (Paris Je T'Aime) is a compound of various stories that reflects the different kinds and aspects of love but unlike it the rhythm is much faster and the stories much shorter. The movie offers a unique view of the city of New York with its various and different landscapes. New York, I Love You offers a first class cast, featuring such great actors like Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Ian McKellen, Hayden Christensen, Chistina Rcci and Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, James Caan and Robin Wright Penn among others and some excellent writers and directors like Brett Ratner and Anthony Mingella. As a fan of Paris Je'Taime, I went to see New York, I Love You with very high expectations. I gladly walked out with all my expectations met. It was funny, sweet, fast-paced, and entertaining. The film starts out with two cab hoppers (Bradley Cooper & Justin Bartha) trying to get to the same area but arguing which way to go. That was funny, and then the film goes into some of the best skits I have ever seen anywhere. There were four amazing ones out of all the good ones. Those four I will start talking about. One features Shia LaBeouf as a bellhop at a hotel who finds love in an old lady. The next one features Orlando Bloom as a music maker who is doing business with a woman played by Christina Ricci. Another one features Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirbly as two people going to prom, Thirbly's character being handicapped. The best one features Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as a bickering old couple. I will bring to your attention that Nataile Portman makes an impressive directorial debut directing, and writing a skit about a caretaker, and Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q are excellent as a flirting man and a hooker. New York, I Love You is definitely as good, if not better than the 2006 Paris Je'Taime. The skits are well-paced, and the film shows how indie films should really be. The film, however, does not have as many famous directors as Paris Je'Taime, which is why it was fantastic to live up to its excellence. If you want to laugh, see some great dramatic effects, see an amazing amount of great performances, and just plain be entertained then definitely go see New York, I Love You. I just saw a press screening of this film and I was pleasantly surprised. Not often is it that I get to see all of my favorite actors in one film at one time.

I really enjoyed the pick pocket scene and it was good to see Rachael Bilson and Hayden back together. I think their chemistry on camera is a direct result of their time together off camera. My favorite scene was by far (surprisingly so) Bret Ratner's piece... Without giving too much away, I'll just say that there is a surprise that leaves you hanging...

The old couple were really good together and you actually got the impression that they had spent a lifetime together.

Both the Chris Cooper and the Ethan Hawke segments packed a punch with surprises that seem realistic and similar to experiences that I've had in the big apple. Over all the film is a great place to take a date... especially if you're already fond of the city itself.

I can't wait for the next in the Cities of Love. I saw this movie at an advance screening and found it excellent.

New York I Love You is a true spin on a romance that explores clever, funny, and sometimes shocking situations around the human race's most powerful emotion.

The cast is huge, a veritable Oceans 11 with Andy Garcia, Ethan Hawke, Shia Labouf, Natalie Portman, Bradley Cooper and others. They all give stand out performances in one way or another.

That's not to mention that there is a who's who of directors interweaving stories in clever and interesting ways. Brett Rattner, Shaka Kapur, Natalie Portman, I mean -WOW! This movie is not a straight ahead romance or romantic comedy even though it is both romantic and funny. It also has serious stories and notes. But that's good in my opinion. Go see it for yourself and reply to my review, I want to hear what others have to say. New York I Love You is full of love and power. Not for everybody, however, but is a beautiful movie.

It has the likes of Shia LaBeouf (seen in Transformers, Disturbia, Charlies Angels, I Robot, Indiana Jones, and many more), Maggie Q, Kevin Bacon, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, and many more. With a star-studded cast, this movie is without a doubt, brilliant.

From many top-notch directors around the world, it does not fail to impress. The diversity from one story to another is creative and unique.

It is safe to say that New York I Love You is a popcorn movie, and should be watched on a BIG TV! This time, trust the IMDb rating, because it is an excellent film.

Eagerly waiting Shanghai I Love You in 2010.

Watch NY ILY, you won't be disappointed. Bored and unhappy young babe Zandalee (a winningly sultry and vibrant performance by luscious brunette knockout Erika Anderson) feels trapped in a stale and loveless marriage to failed poet and decent, yet dull businessman Thierry Martin (a solid and credible portrayal by Judge Reinhold). Zandalee has a torrid adulterous fling with sleazy and arrogant artist Johnny Collins (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Nicolas Cage). Can the relationship between Thierry and Zandalee be salvaged? Or is everything going to fall apart and go to seed? Director Sam Pillsbury and screenwriter Mari Kornhauser lay on the tawdry soap opera-style histrionics something thick while attempting to tell a wannabe serious and insightful story about desire run amok and its potentially dangerous consequences; the plot goes gloriously off the rails in the laughably histrionic last third. The dialogue is likewise hilariously silly and vulgar (sample line: "I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive"). Better still, this flick certainly delivers plenty of tasty female nudity (the gorgeously statuesque Anderson looks smoking hot in the buff) and sizzling semi-pornographic soft-core sex scenes (Johnny and Zandalee doing the dirty deed in a church confessional booth rates as a definite steamy highlight). The tart'n'tangy New Orleans setting adds extra spice to the already steamy proceedings. With his long, scruffy black hair, greasy mustache, foul mouth, and coarse manners, Cage's Johnny is an absolute hoot as the single most grossly unappealing "romantic" lead to ever ooze his way onto celluloid. The cast deserve props for acting with admirable sincerity: Anderson, Cage and Reinhold all do respectable work with their parts, with fine support from Joe Pantoliano as Zandalee's merry flamboyant homosexual friend Gerri, Viveca Lindfors as Theirry's wise, perceptive mother Tatta, Aaron Neville as friendly bartender Jack, and Steve Buscemi as a funny, blithely shameless thief. Walt Lloyd's sharp and gleaming cinematography gives the picture an attractive glossy look. The flavorsome, harmonic score by Pray for Rain likewise hits the spot. A delightfully campy and seamy riot. Recap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.

Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.

In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.

The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.

When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.

7/10 Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.

Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.

In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.

Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.

Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city. I haven't seen much German comedy, but if this film is anything to go by, I'm compelled to see more! The simple but effective storyline takes two very different people on a trip from Germany to Italy after Eva, an unemployed mother of two, discovers that her artist husband is having an affair with the wife of a wealthy lawyer. I won't reveal anything further, but what results is a very funny series of events with the perfect conclusion. My interest in international cinema has expanded since I first saw this film. I recommend it to anyone (any adult... don't let the inclusion of the young children fool you into thinking it's a family film) who love comedy - even those unfamiliar with the language. Just re-saw this movie after thirty seven years. I was eleven years old and caught this flick on South Beach at the long gone Cinema Theater on Washington Avenue. In 1969, I thought Where it's At! was a very good movie. Now, however, after almost forty years, it's not as good as it was. Times have changed, and this movie is now a tired old re-hash of the war between the generations. It did however, catch a place in time which is just a memory. It's really interesting to see the mod fashions, the old Vegas, a slim Don Rickles, chain smoking, and a hip opening song. The acting was decent, the script somewhat out-dated, but the memories were still fresh. Where it's At, may not be where it's at for you, but for me, it was still a nice and entertaining trip down memory lane. I saw this movie in 1969 when it was first released at the Cameo Theater on South Beach, now the famous Crowbar Night-club. It was the last year of the wild 60s and this movie really hit home. It's got everything; the generation gap, the sexual revolution, the quest for success, and the conflict between following one's family "traditions" to those of seeking ones own way through life.

It was a fast paced, highly enjoyable movie. Vegas was at it's hippiest peak, Sin City in all it's glory. Beautiful women, famous cameos, laughs, conflict, romance, and even a happy ending. A very enjoyable time over all.

The poster from this film rests on my bedroom wall. I look at it and I go back in time; a time of my youth and my times with my dad, a great time in my life. I stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion. The extraordinary Rosemary Forsyth is the main reason to see this flick. Why she never became a bigger store may never be known. But she is exceptional and steals every scene she's in. Garson Kanin directed this piece of fluff and the cast is first rate, with Robert Drivas and Brenda Vaccaro especially memorable. A "9" out of "10." Without a doubt, Private Lessons II is the greatest movie I have ever seen. A Japanese import (poorly) translated into English, its a joy to watch. Not much of it makes sense, but that doesn't matter. It's the greatest comedy around without ever being intentionally funny.

The film is rare and unavailable on video, but I have caught it a couple of time late, late at night on pay cable. My taped copy has been watched dozens and dozens of times as I slowly, person-by-person, introduce this film gem to the world.

Joanna Pacula plays the tutor/lover to Ken, our hero. (She apparently was just working for her check.) Ken is played by Goro Inagaki, of the Japanese pop band SMAP, who gives it his all and has great hair through out the movie. Stacy Edwards, of "In the Company of Men" fame, shows up in the movie too and is probably happy that she found other film work afterwards.

It takes at least three viewings to sorta figure out what the plot is. On repeating viewing you can enjoy elements like the abnormal amount of vases Ken has in his house (at least 50) or that Ken is wearing a shirt with embroidered husks of corn in the movie's finale.

The movie is predictable, but highly quotable. My friends and I reenact entire scenes. Yes, it sounds like we're lame losers and we are ... but we're lame losers who have seen "Private Lessons II." Be one of ten people in the world who have seen this movie. You'll thank me for it. After tracking it down for half a year, I finally found a copy and it was not disappointing.

Not disappointing because I'm one of those die hard SMAP fans who need to see all their works and I finally got to see the so called hot film of Goro. But I couldn't believe Goro was forced to make a movie as such. In his respectable self now, I'm sure he cringes that he made this movie. Nevertheless, they found the perfect person for looking embarrassed, ill at ease and half depressed most of the time.

Man, I still can't believe he made this movie...I had to cover my eyes at many parts not believing he really made such a movie....hahahaha....

But I'm glad to have watched it. Thank goodness he has grown up.... This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. It's...terrible. But it's so good! It's probably best if you don't watch it expecting a gripping plot and something fantastically clever and entertaining, because you're going to be disappointed. However, if you want to watch it so you can see 50 million vases and Goro's fantastic hair/bad English, you're in for a real treat. The harder you think about the film, the worse it gets, unless you're having a competition to spot the most plot holes/screw ups, in which case you've got hours of entertainment ahead. I'd only really recommend this film for the bored or the die-hard Smap fans. And even then, the latter should be a bit careful, because Goro's Japanese fans were a bit upset about it, they thought he was selling himself out. (He wasn't really, not when Johnny Kitagawa (who was the executive producer) can do that for him). I was given the opportunity to see this 1926 film in a magnificently restored theater that was once part of the extensive Paramount chain of vaudeville houses. This Paramount has a ‘Mighty Wurlitzer' organ – also magnificently restored -- that was used to accompany the silent films of the day.

We were fortunate enough to have Dennis James, a key figure in the international revival of silent films at the Mighty Wurlitzer playing appropriate music and thematic compositions fitting to the action on the film. The print was a nearly perfect digital copy of the rapidly decaying nitrate negative and the entire experience was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a silent film as it was meant to be seen.

This was Greta Garbo's first American film. She was only 20 years old but already had 6 Swedish films in her repertoire.

It is somewhat ironic that this is a silent film about an opera star; even though the Mighty Wurlitzer added immensely to the mise-en-scene, it was necessary to leave much to the imagination.

Modern audiences, for the most part, do not understand silent films… Acting was different then, with expansive gestures and broad facial expressions. Therefore audiences laugh at inappropriate times – the acting is seen as ‘hammy' and over-done – but it was simply the style of the period.

Garbo, with all her subtlety, did much to usher in the new age of acting: she could say more with a half-closed eye and volumes could be read into a downward glance or a simple shrug. She exemplifies the truism that `a picture is worth a thousand words.'

Even though this is Garbo's first American film it is pretty obvious the studio knew what they had on their hands: This was MGM filmmaking at its best. The sets and costumes were magnificent. The special effects – which by today's standards are pretty feeble – were still electrifying and amazing.

The script by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (from the novel by Entre Naranjos) would seem to be tailor made for Garbo; it showcases her strengths, magnifies her assets and there is no pesky language problem to deal with: a Swedish actress can play a Spanish temptress with no suspension of disbelief on our part.

Her co-star was MGM's answer to Rudolph Valentino: Ricardo Cortez. He does an admirable job and did something that few romantic stars of the day ever would have done in a film: allow himself to look unnactractive, appear foolish and to grow old ungracefully.

There are some fairly good character parts that are more than adequately acted – especially when you consider the powerhouse that was Garbo. Notable among them are Lucien Littlefield as ‘Cupido' and Martha Mattox as ‘Doña Bernarda Brull.'

This is when the extraordinary cinematographer, William H. Daniels, met Garbo – they went on to make 20 films together. (He was the cinematographer on 157 films and his career spanned five decades!) He was able to capture her ethereal beauty and it was his photography that was primarily responsible for the moniker by which she became known: The Divine Garbo. Without his magnificent abilities she would not have been the success that she was.

Seeing this film is an all-too-rare opportunity: if you ever have the chance, do not miss it. This film was quite a surprise. I wasn't expecting much, to be honest. Greta Garbo's first Hollywood film? So what? Probably something rough and with the usual exaggerated arm-waving and facial contortions that low-grade silent films so often show.

Well, was I mistaken. Greta Garbo must have just shocked the studio people as much as she did me, because this film made her a star, and deservedly so. She instinctively understood the power of just standing still, or of simply holding a meaningful expression for a long, lingering moment so its effect could be felt and not just seen. I kept thinking to myself, how did this modern actress get into a creaky silent film? She was just years and years ahead of her time.

The story isn't all that interesting, it is the usual tale of love found and lost. It is only the performance of Garbo as Leonora, the poor village girl who makes good in the big city and then returns to get the man who got away, that gives it life. Co-star Ricardo Cortez is serviceable, but his character is never really developed and he is demeaned by the script throughout. At one point he is made to wear Garbo's clothes, leave in a huff, then ignominiously return and give them back. And let's not even talk about his horrible final scenes with Garbo and then his wife. Way too ordinary, he didn't have much of a career after this and I can understand why. But he suffices as the somewhat mystifying object of Leonora's obsession.

There is one utterly fantastic line in this film that just says it all. "Leonora, you are becoming conspicuous." Yes, conspicuous indeed.

If you really want to know what it's all about without seeing the whole film, just watch the last 30 seconds or so - Garbo's glance as she sits quite alone in her luxurious car says everything. "She must be so happy, she has everything she wants" - yes, Garbo's face says it all about that. I have to see this one again, Garbo is just amazing. Greta Garbo's American film debut is an analogy of how our lives can be swept off course by fate and our actions, as in a torrent, causing us to lose a part of ourselves along the way.

Greta plays Leonora, a poor peasant girl in love with Ricardo Cortez's character Don Rafael, a landowner. Ricardo is in love with her too, but is too easily influenced by his domineering mother. Leonora ends up homeless and travels to Paris, where she becomes a famous opera singer and develops the reputation for being a loose woman. In reality, part of her attitude is bitterness over Rafael's abandonment.

She returns to her home to visit her family and eventually confronts Rafael. Surprisingly, no one knows that she's the famous La Brunna, and Garbo acts up her role as the diva she truly was and re prised with such cool haughtiness in her later portrayals.

Ricardo Cortez reminds one a lot of Valentino in looks in this part, and he was groomed to be a Valentino clone by MGM, though he never thought he could be in reality and he was right. He is believable in an unsympathetic part as a weak willed Mama's boy, and allows himself to age realistically but comically at the end of the movie. He fails to win Leonora when she returns home, and later when he follows her, his courage is undermined.

This movie is beautifully shot, with brilliant storm sequences and the sets depicting Spain at the time are authentic looking. There are also some fine secondary performances by old timers Lucien Littlefield, Tully Marshall, and Mack Swain.

Although this is a story of lost love and missed chances, I don't think Leonora and Rafael would have been happy together, as he needed a more traditional wife and she was very much a career woman, and I don't think would have been happy in a small village. The ending is true to life and pulls no punches.

See this one as Garbo's American film debut and a precursor of things to come MGM were unsure of how to market Garbo when she first arrived in Hollywood. Mayer had a lot of faith in her and her appearance in "Torrent" justified that. She did not speak a word of English so she must have found it difficult to work, also Ricardo Cortez did not make it very easy for her.

The torrent of the title is the river Juscar that winds through a sleepy little village in Spain. Leonora (Greta Garbo) hopes someday that her voice will bring great wealth and happiness to her struggling parents. Leonora and Don Rafael (Ricardo Cortez) are in love but he is under his mother's thumb and cannot get her to consent to his marriage. Meanwhile Dona Brull (Martha Mattox) has evicted Leonora's parents from their home and they send Leonora to Paris hoping to give her a chance to further her singing career. Leonora sends a note to Rafael, urging him to remember his promise and come with her. His mother is enraged and forbids him to go - so of course he caves in to her request.

Years pass. Leonora has a new identity - she has become La Brunna, the toast of the Paris Opera. Rafael has turned out just as his mother wished - he is running for office and is courting a "safe" young girl, Remedios (Gertrude Olmstead) who is a "hog" heiress. Mack Swain plays her father. Leonora decides to visit her old home, and I agree - why hasn't she helped her mother out. Her mother is still living at the family home, working as a skivvy and taking in washing. Leonora and Rafael meet but Leonora is full of ridicule. Garbo is so enchantingly beautiful, it is hard to believe that he could be happy with Remedios.

The dam is bursting and the torrent is flooding the town. Leonora's house is in the path of the raging river but when Rafael attempts to rescue her he finds she is quite safe. They then re-kindle their romance. There is a "horizontal" love scene in this film, very similar to the one in "Flesh and the Devil".

Dona Brull goes spreading gossip about how Leonora really got her wealth and Leonora's mother believes her and tells Leonora to go. Rafael meets Leonora just before she is about to tour America. Again he intends to go with her but again he lets her down. He spends so much time listening to other people destroy her reputation - "what will she do for you but drag you down". The irony is she has just secured a top government job for him if he comes with her. They meet again, years later - she is as fresh and vibrant as ever - he looks older than his years, bowed down by mediocrity.

It is certainly a good film with a positive message to follow your heart.

Lucien Littlefield does a good job as Cupido, the barber and Leonora's old and faithful friend.

Highly Recommended. The film Torrent was a first and a last for Greta Garbo. It was her first American made film at MGM, the only studio in the USA that she would ever work at. It was also the last time that someone else was billed above her in the credits, that being her leading man her Ricardo Cortez.

Torrent is based on the popular Spanish writer's Vicente Blasco Ibanez's work Entre Naranjos. It concerns a pair of mismatched lovers, Garbo and Cortez, who can't quite get together, mostly due to the machinations of Cortez's mother Marta Mattox.

Mattox is a wicked woman who has some set ideas about who her son should be marrying. Remember this is Spain and such arranged marriages were still even in those times quite proper. Mattox has Gertrude Olmstead in mind as a daughter-in-law, she's the offspring of Mack Swain a man grown rich in hog raising. Swain provides a few moments of comic relief with his tender concern for the piglets before they grow into big old hogs to be butchered.

Blasco Ibanez had previous novels The Four Horseman Of The Apocalypse and Blood And Sand previously filmed with Rudolph Valentino in the lead. It might have been interesting if Valentino had done this one with Garbo, but he might have been beyond film making when this was done. In any event, one of the Valentino wannabes Ricardo Cortez fills in with the male lead.

One reason Valentino might not have wanted this film is because clearly the lead character is Garbo's unlike the other two works previously mentioned. When she gets done dirt by Cortez who is doing what Mattox and her 'adviser' banker Tully Marshall tell her, she leaves Spain and goes to France where she becomes a great opera star. And leads quite the scandalous life there.

When she returns to Spain and tries to rekindle things, Mattox is even more outraged. She has a political career in mind for her son. Cortez is now running for the Spanish Parliament which curiously enough is called the Cortes.

The title refers to a flood and a dam breaking causing all kinds of havoc in the countryside. Cortez in fact braves the Torrent in a row boat trying to rescue Garbo from harm's way. When they do get together they have a brutally frank discussion, the brutality coming from Garbo.

The special effects here, primitive though they seem now are quite remarkable for their time. They look very similar to the shots used in 20th Century Fox's The Rains Came that came out in 1939 and that won an Oscar for Special Effects. Unfortunately for Torrent it came out one year before Oscar made his debut.

I'm not going to give any endings away so you'll have to see the film to find out if Cortez and Garbo get together in the end. Garbo rightly won rave reviews for her performance and in an age when exaggerated gestures was the norm in silent screen acting, she was remarkably subtle in her role. So she would be the rest of her career, she had a remarkable face for closeups.

Although Greta Garbo would go on to do far better work than Torrent, this film is still a fitting debut for her on the American big screen and holds up very well for today's audience. Despite Louis B. Mayer reportedly not being interested in signing the young Greta Garbo to a contract, this first American and MGM film for the actress looked quite beautiful. It's obvious that the film was assigned some amazing talent to film the production and make matte paintings, as it has all the nice polish and artfulness you'd expect from the best pictures the studio could produce. It simply looks beautiful--even 84 years later.

As for Garbo herself, like her other very early American films she, too, looks different. While she's quite recognizable, her makeup is much softer than it would become just a year later--giving her a less severe look and a gentleness about her you just didn't see in subsequent films. I kind of wish they'd kept this look, but considering how famous she'd become with the trademark look, who am I to say they shouldn't have gone that route?! The film is about Garbo and how she and her family are unfairly forced off their land by the landlord. While the landlady, the much esteemed Doña Bernarda, claims it's because the bank has demanded payment, it's because her son has fallen for Garbo--and what better way to get rid of her than to force them out on the streets! Nice lady, huh?! Years pass and by now Garbo has become a new singing sensation who is world-famous. When she returns to her hometown years later, her old boyfriend (who HAD promised to marry her but wimped out when his mother, Doña Bernarda, refused to allow it) sees her. His new love for another lady is now tested--will he be content to marry this lady who is the heir to a huge pig fortune or will he want his old flame? And, more importantly, will Garbo even take him back after he behaved so spinelessly? In the meantime, a huge rainstorm hits. The land begins to flood and homes soon are being washed away by the deluge. Cortez and a friend make a mad dash as the dam breaks! In a scene where they obviously superimposed his row boat over the cascading stream, he eventually makes it out alive and to the home where Garbo is now staying. She welcomes them inside and they stay with her until the storm passes. Then, he admits that he still loves her and had braved the storm to make sure that she was safe. She tells him to get lost! Next, you see Ricardo about to get married to his second choice, the daughter of the Pork King. He obviously has little enthusiasm for this--and you feel sorry for the lady, as she did nothing wrong. Soon, Cortez is seen wandering back to Garbo's home--he's love-sick and needs her. In this scene, Garbo is quite luminous and can't tell him to leave--as they dissolve in each other's arms. Once again, he tells her of his love for her.

When Doña Bernarda learns of this, she is not pleased. Evidently, a Pork Queen is a better catch than an internationally known singer. Because of the meddling of this nasty old lady, Garbo leaves--unwilling to come between the mother and her wimpy son. But, Cortez comes running--announcing he MUST have her and won't rest until he has her as his wife. Moments after making this proclamation, a family friend talks to Cortez and convinces him to give her up for the good of his career and reputation. So much for "won't rest until he has her for his wife", huh?! Despite Cortez being a wimp through and through, for some reason she cannot bring herself to hate him. And so, he marries the Pork Queen and lives a very dull life. When years later Garbo meets Cortez again, he is a dull looking middle-aged man--while she is as beautiful as ever. And, not surprisingly, she tells him, once again, to get lost.

At the time this film was made, Garbo was not a star in the US and Cortez was. So, in light of this, it's surprising they gave Cortez such an unlikable character to play. Instead of the usual confident Valentino-like role they'd been giving him, here he is an indecisive wimp--a HUGE wimp. And, from here on, his career was on a slow downward spiral. As for Garbo, the role helped establish her as a big star--as she was THE focus of the film and played a character much like her later personas.

As for the film, the new music composed for it was very nice, though a tad repetitive. The print, oddly, was nearly perfect throughout except for the intertitle cards--which could use some restoration.

A most enjoyable film--expertly constructed, wistful and worth seeing. And, for one of the few times I can think of it, I have no real complaints in this excellent film. This film has to be viewed in the right frame of mind. First, the central father-son relationship makes it pretty clear that the film was intended as a prequel to his Wong Fei Hung film "Drunken Master" (ideas from this film recur in "Drunken Master II), and not "Young Master"; that Chan backed away from this plan and renamed the characters indicates that he himself was not convinced the material was coming together properly; and, indeed, the film conveys a sense of being incomplete; for instance, the romantic relationship around which half the plot turns is left utterly hanging at the end of the film. "Young Master", from the same period, also feels underdone, but at least all its central threads are tied together at the end. This film feels as though Chan wrestled with the plot and characters trying to find his central theme, only to abandon the effort, possibly due to time and budget.

Or perhaps the film is simply over-ambitious. This is an important turning point film in Chan's career, because he commits himself to development of the central character above all other concerns - which is why there's such a lack of kung fu throughout the film. Chan wants to make an historical romantic comedy that just happens to have kung fu in it. But both the historical element and the romantic element come across as little more than plot-twists.

That leaves us with the comedy. Since Chan's concern is character-development, the comedy is largely character driven - as in the conflict between Chan's character and his best friend, an argument over a girl. But there's plenty of slapstick as well. Frankly, I find the comedy amusing enough to forgive the incompleteness of the plot.

This film represents an effort on Chan's part to find a viable formula that he can use and develop over time. It doesn't quite work, and Chan would only find that formula after abandoning the historical elements of his earlier films, with the making of the contemporary action comedy "Police Story". But going back to view this film is still very informative as to how Chan worked his way through the historical genre, and perhaps why he abandoned it. This movie is bufoonery! and I loved it! The "dragon lord" (Jacky Chan) and his buddy, "cowboy", totally made the movie fun, meaningful, and just plain silly. The movie is a rare blend of a good vs. evil fight and (somehow) the wonders and fun that is growing up. Long Shao Ye takes the viewer through the daily activities of the young "dragon lord" (so named because he is the son of a wealthy family) and "cowboy", which include implementing clever, elaborate ways to escape studying (with the help of the entire household, including the tutor), competing in rather boyish (and idiotically interesting) ways to gain the affection of a local girl, competing in "soccer" (you will see what i mean) and the list goes on. Somehow they find themselves in the midst of a fight to save the a shipment of valuable antiques and the lives of several people.

The movie has its serious moments. But they do not depress, but rather inspire. The playfulness of the boys are not lost in this exchange, but is actually employed against evil. What I really loved about this movie is how it ends. Not the typical confrontation (which in itself was awesome), but well, you'll see. Let me just say it truly captures the spirit of the movie.

silly, witty, meaningful, and nostalgic. great movie. "Dragonlord" sees Chan returning to his role of "Dragon" from "The Young Master". Not much has carried over from the first film though. "Tiger", his older brother, is nowhere to be seen; neither is the Marshall, his daughter or his son played superbly by Yuen Biao in the original film. Dragon does have the same master though - presumably all the other students have moved on to other things. (Dragon's laziness at training is portrayed heavily in this film, so maybe he's still studying!)

Originally titled "Young Master In Love", this film sees Dragon (for the first sixty minutes at least) pursuing a villager girl in various idiotic and slapstick ways. His rival for her affection is his friend (inappropriately named "Cowboy") played comically by the longtime Chan Stunt-team member Mars. We see various scenes where their silly schemes backfire. It is one of these scenes that we (thankfully) find "Dragon" in over his head.

This film is notorious in that it failed expectations at the box office. That said, I'm sure the expectations were pretty high, and I feel that this film has never had a fair judgment based on it's own merits. But even when I try to do this, I still feel that there is a problem with the film. It seems quite unfocused, sometimes rushed, and I think the action is too sporadic and not as brilliant as Chan's other work from this period.

The thing that really saves the film is the ending sequence. As in "The Young Master", there is a fantastic final reel that it full of incredibly exhausting action - you really feel every blow. And again, Chan goes up against the same rival from "The Young Master" (is it the same character?), and the timing and energy here is brilliant. Chan's style of using every last bit of his environment to help defeat his opponent - not just relying on pure physical ability - is as apparent here as anywhere else. The barn they fight in is full of clever little prop gags and improvisations. This is an absolute highlight of the film and one of Chan's incredible career.

It's not necessary to see the prequel before seeing "Dragonlord", in fact, it might even raise more questions than what it hopes to answer. But it must be said that the original film is the superior film, and "Dragonlord", with it's focus on girl-chasing and team-sports does seem baffling. Luckily, the few fight scenes it offers (plus a fantastic shuttle-cock scene) push it over the line as a must-see film in this genre. This review is for the extended cut of this movie.

I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.

That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.

Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old "original" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.

Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.

I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5 Panic delivers the goods ten fold with Oscar caliber performances from William H Macy, Neve Campbell, and Donald Sutherland. In a movie about the choices we make and the consequences we live with. Chillingly Honest and thought provoking, Panic is easily one of the best film to come out of Hollywood in years. The impact stays with you right after you leave the theater. "Panic" is a captivating, blurred-genre film about a brooding and conflicted middle aged hitman's reconciliation of infatuation with a younger uninhibited hairstylist, his love of wife and son, his duty to his employer/father with his own identity. Although the film has a nebulous purpose and an ambiguous ending, it is a superb production in almost all aspects. The characters' clarity and sincerity in such an improbable story may both fascinate and annoy audiences. The effects of job related stress and the pressures born of a moral dilemma that pits conscience against the obligations of a family business (albeit a unique one) all brought to a head by-- or perhaps the catalyst of-- a midlife crisis, are examined in the dark and absorbing drama, `Panic,' written and directed by Henry Bromell, and starring William H. Macy and Donald Sutherland. It's a telling look at how indecision and denial can bring about the internal strife and misery that ultimately leads to apathy and that moment of truth when the conflict must, of necessity, at last be resolved.

Alex (Macy) is tired; he has a loving wife, Martha (Tracey Ullman), a precocious six-year-old son, Sammy (David Dorfman), a mail order business he runs out of the house, as well as his main source of income, the `family' business he shares with his father, Michael (Sutherland), and his mother, Deidre (Barbara Bain). But he's empty; years of plying this particular trade have left him numb and detached, putting him in a mental state that has driven him to see a psychologist, Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter). And to make matters worse (or maybe better, depending upon perspective), in Dr. Parks' waiting room he meets a young woman, Sarah Cassidy (Neve Campbell), whose presence alone makes him feel alive for the first time since he can remember. She quickly becomes another brick in the wall of the moral conflict his job has visited upon him, as in the days after their meeting he simply cannot stop thinking about her. His whole life, it seems, has become a `situation'-- one from which he is seemingly unable to successfully extirpate himself without hurting the ones he loves. He can deny his age and the fact that he has, indeed, slipped into a genuine midlife crisis, but he is about to discover that the problems he is facing are simply not going to go away on their own. He's at a crossroads, and he's going to have to decide which way to go. And he's going to have to do it very soon.

From a concept that is intrinsically interesting, Bromell has fashioned an engrossing character study that is insightful and incisive, and he presents it is a way that allows for moments of reflection that enable the audience to empathize and understand what Alex is going through. He makes it very clear that there are no simple answers, that in real life there is no easy way out. His characters are well defined and very real people who represent the diversity found in life and, moreover, within any given family unit. The film resoundingly implies that the sins of the father are irrefutably passed on to the progeny, with irrevocable consequences and effects. When you're growing up, you accept your personal environment as being that of the world at large; and often it is years into adulthood that one may begin to realize and understand that there are actually moral parameters established by every individual who walks upon the planet, and that the ones set by the father may not be conducive to the tenets of the son. And it is at that point that Alex finds himself as the story unfolds; ergo, the midlife crisis, or more specifically, the crisis of conscience from which he cannot escape. It's a powerful message, succinctly and subtly conveyed by Bromell, with the help of some outstanding performances from his actors.

For some time, William H. Macy has been one of the premiere character actors in the business, creating such diverse characters as Quiz Kid Donnie Smith in `Magnolia,' The Shoveler in `Mystery Men' and Jerry Lundegaard in `Fargo.' And that's just a sampling of his many achievements. At one point in this film, Sarah mentions Alex's `sad eyes,' and it's a very telling comment, as therein lies the strength of Macy's performance here, his ability to convey very real emotion in an understated, believable way that expresses all of the inner turmoil he is experiencing. Consider the scene in which he is lying awake in bed, staring off into the darkness; in that one restless moment it is clear that he is grappling, not only with his immediate situation, but with everything in his life that has brought him, finally, to this point. In that scene you find the sum total of a life of guilt, confusion and uncertainty, all of which have been successfully suppressed until now; all the things that have always been at the core of Alex's life, only now gradually breaking through his defense mechanisms and finally surfacing, demanding confrontation and resolution. It's a complex character created and delivered by Macy with an absolute precision that makes Alex truly memorable. It's a character to whom anyone who has ever faced a situation of seemingly insurmountable odds will be able to relate. It's a terrific piece of work by one of the finest actors around.

Sutherland is extremely effective, as well; his Michael is despicably sinister in a way that is so real it's chilling. It's frightening, in fact, to consider that there are such people actually walking the earth. This is not some pulp fiction or James Bond type villain, but a true personification of evil, hiding behind an outward appearance that is so normal he could be the guy next door, which is what makes it all the more disconcerting. And Sutherland brings it all to life brilliantly, with a great performance.

Neve Campbell looks the part of Sarah, but her performance (as is the usual case with her) seems somewhat pretentious, although her affected demeanor here just happens to fit the character and is actually a positive aspect of the film. If only she would occasionally turn her energies inward, it would make a tremendous difference in the way she presents her characters. `Panic,' however, is one of her best efforts; a powerful film that, in the end, is a journey well worth taking. 9/10.

I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention. What a surprising treat to come across on late television. Had I only read a brief plot rundown on a television listing before seeing the movie, I would have passed. The idea of a movie about a hit-man-seeing-a shrink-wanting-to leave-the-business-and-falling-in-love....sounds trite. But the film works. From the start of the movie, it's clear the man carries a weight on his shoulders, before he even says a word. The look and feel of the film is perfect. dark, but not obnoxiously so.

Aside from the hit-man family aspect which provides a touch of surrealism, Macy's character grapples with his marriage, and his father's control. Macy shows a repressed sadness, and his bedtime talks with his young son are amazing. The young boy shows acting skills well beyond his years, and the interaction between the father and son is so very natural, personal and loving.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and I can't believe I came across it by accident on late night television. Everyone is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here.

I really liked this film. One of those rare films that Hollywood Really does not make anymore. William H Macy Is Just great as the hit man with a soul, and Neve Campbell is just flat out fantastic as the woman who puts his life on the track of redemption.

If you have a chance, see this film. It earns it's praise The extended nuclear family, united in business as well as in personal life, is examined in this serious study of a grown son's conflict with his father's desire that he remain in the family business. This triggers a midlife crisis which may or may not be ameliorated by an affair and retreat to a shrink's couch. Very fine acting by all. A sleeper that deserves wide attention. A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction. I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.

I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.

This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the "family business" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!

We're treated to a unique story in "Panic," and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.

More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable. It is always sad when "fringe" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. "Panic" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.

William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, "Panic," initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.

More than once I was reminded of his performance in "Fargo," another strongly character-driven movie. In both "Fargo" and "Panic" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.

Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.

Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.

In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like "Panic," but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, "Panic" is unmissable. A+. Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.

"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.

This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.

"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.

William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.

This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good. I bought this a year or more ago for $2 (yep, $2), left it on the shelf for ages, now watching DVDs while holed up with a cold.

This is a haunting movie. Brilliant performances by all involved, especially the 6yo boy (about the only smiles you get in this movie).

Plot reminds me of perhaps my favourite movie ever, Grosse Pointe Blank, but obviously that's lighthearted, this is heavy hearted.

As a psychologist, a clinical and forensic psychologist, a shiver went up my spine when the identity of the new contract was revealed. Scary stuff! Brilliant work all round.

Pete Wow I really liked this movie, William H. Macy is great as the quiet hit-man Alex.

All the performances here are really good, the plot is interesting and entertaining.

Alex, a married hit-man (like his father)with a little son, is going through a middle age crisis and wants to quit the family business so he goes to the psychiatrist for help and in this place he meets the young free will spirit Sarah of whom he falls in love to. One day Alex doesn't know what to do when he gets a job to kill a person he knows.

I recommend you to watch it if you like mature interesting movies.

8 stars = very good Had placed this on my TIVO for a rainy day due to the cast, some really hard working people in the industry, and when I finally watched I was NOT disappointed.

This movie has some Altman-like flavor (he's mentioned in the end credits as a "thanks" person) utilizing seemingly independent unrelated plot lines that intertwine as the film draws to its climax. Macy is pure, clean, and honest as a man who can't seem to escape his "destiny", Sutherland plays and portrays as few can, Neve adds splash to a deliberately toned down environment, add Tracy Ullman, Barbara Bain (remember Mission Impossible on TV?), not to mention the steady John Ritter and you have all the ingredients for a good FILM. The script is uncluttered, the dialog is free from cliché and thoughtful (especially between Macy and David Dorfman). Suspend belief and enjoy, this is truly time well spent. In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humor—an unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprise—through its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.

The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).

Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000—it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either direction—and it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come. "Panic" is kind of a crime comedy-drama with William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland and Neve Campbell in the leading roles. Alex (played by Macy) is a guy who kills people for living. But for the moment he's facing a depression and that's why he is seeing a therapist. That's where he meets Sarah (Neve Campbell) and he falls in love with her. He's also facing another problem: he wants to quit the family business (the killings), but he doesn't now how to tell this to his father.

What follows is the story of a guy during he's midlife-crisis, facing the regular problems: falling in love with a pretty young girl and everything that goes with that.

Pretty good acting performances by the cast. Macy is excellent as the depressed Alex. I had high expectations for this one and it was a good movie but he doesn't completely deliver. The story was rather flat and cliché..

7/10 William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences. Strange yet emotionally disturbing chiller about fed up middle-aged man (William H. Macy) who finally decides to leave the family business (murder for hire) run by his quietly over-demanding father (Donald Sutherland) while seeing a shrink (John Ritter) and flirting with another patient (Neve Campbell).

Talk about a major dilemma, but "Panic" is a top-notch thriller that looks like "American Beauty" meets "The Professional". Macy and Sutherland are the stand-outs here. Remarkable debut for first-time writer/director Henry Bromell. I'm surprised that this movie didn't get a chance to stay in theaters for more than a couple of weeks. I'd never heard of this movie, but boy was I surprised when I caught it on TV. Great cast, great acting. Excellent movie! How can a movie with William H Macy, Neve Campbell and Donald Sutherland go wrong? I wonder why I never heard of it before. This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.

So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong. When I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!

Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.

Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!

This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus! demonicus rocked, you guys need to understand how hard it rocked, unfortunately, the words needed to explain the extent of the rocking have not been discovered. for a tiny idea, pop like 50 hits of E, watch Death Factory while on the phone with Jesus, wait, Jesus is on call waiting, you're having phone sex with Will Smith on the primary line. seriously, that movie... so good. you need to watch it at least a 4 times to catch all the subtleties... well, not so much subtleties as much as it takes the length of the movie, times 4 in order to ponder why the people at full moon are allowed to A, live, and B, reproduce. what is our world coming to? Demonicus is a movie turned into a video game! I just love the story and the things that goes on in the film.It is a B-film ofcourse but that doesn`t bother one bit because its made just right and the music was rad! Horror and sword fight freaks,buy this movie now! All good movies "inspire" some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that "Gladiator" wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...

Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.

Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.

All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end! This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.

Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.

All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10. For anyone who may not know what a one-actor movie was like, this is the best example. This plot is ridiculous, and really makes no sense. It's full of cliched situations, hackneyed lines, melodrama, comedy... you name it!

But Amitabh Bachchan can make anything convincing, and this movie is by no means an exception. Everyone turns in a decent performance - Shashi Kapoor, Waheeda Rehman, Ranjit, Om Prakash, Smita Patil... But it is the Megastar who overshadows everyone with his towering presence. Without him, this movie would have been a non-starter... The story is about separation / mistaken identities / misunderstandings / love / hate / loyalty / good vs evil - everything, really! Amitabh's is a brilliant performance on all counts, in an otherwise silly film! And did I mention that it is ridiculously funny? This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.

Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties.

But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.

Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.

Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to "Shaaadaaaap" after the poisoned cake incident"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.

So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone. The film transported everyone back to October 20, 1944 where we seemed to be part of the great Philippine 'I Shall Return' landing scene… It was on that Leyte shore where General MacArthur reaped his fame…

Above all, Gregory Peck triumphed in his portrayal of the great general… It is the stride, the set of the shoulders, the intensity… It's what both men have had in common: intensity, total absorption, devotion… With MacArthur it was for the military… With Peck it was for the challenge of acting… An Academy Award winner for "To Kill a Mockinbird", an Oscar nominee for "Keys to the Kingdom", "The Yearling", "Gentleman's Agreement", and "Twelve O'Clock High"—he has played everything from an apparently homicidal amnesiac to a crusading journalist; from a troubled gunfighter to an obsessed attorney; from biblical David to Captain Horatio Hornblower… He has brought to them all his own unique insight, his character, his sincerity, warmth and love, and especially, his humor…

There is a scene where 'MacArthur' stands on deck with the 'President of the Philippines.' We can hear the dialogue: "General, I hope the water isn't too deep," says the 'President,' "because my people will find out I can't swim." Then come Peck's sonorous voice: "And my people are going to find that I can't walk on water!"

As "MacArthur," Peck once again justified his reputation as a giant in the film industry… Through him we felt MacArthur's emotions: we knew his anger, his happiness and we understood the relationship with his whole family… It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.

One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.

The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.

Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.

It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.

On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin. Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.

Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as "His Majesty,") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as "General," although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President ("He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10 Frank McCarthy who produced the Academy Award winning biographical film Patton follows it up with a strong tribute to another of America's fighting generals, Douglas MacArthur. Gregory Peck gives a strong characterization of the man, his genius as well as his egotism. With MacArthur you never knew quite where one began and the other left off and too many times they blended.

The whole story of Douglas MacArthur would be a six hour film or a TV mini-series. It would cover him from his days on frontier posts with his family to his time at West Point where he still has the highest scholastic average ever achieved by a cadet. It would talk about his service in the Phillipines as a young officer, his legend building bravery on the battlefields of World War I in France. It would also have to tell about him firing on the Bonus Marchers of World War I veterans in 1932, probably putting the final kabosh on any chances President Herbert Hoover had of getting re-elected. During MacArthur's last years he and Hoover had penthouse suites at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. That must have been a subject they avoided.

This film concentrates on the years 1941 to 1952 and it is told in flashback. The film opens with MacArthur addressing the student body in 1962. As he speaks the words of the famous Duty Honor Country speech, MacArthur's mind goes back to World War II and his desperate struggle against the advancing Japanese on the island of Corregidor and the fields of Bataan on Luzon. The film takes him through his struggle to win back the Phillipines, the occupation of Japan and the first 18 months culminating in his relief of command by President Truman.

MacArthur as a film would not work at all if it wasn't for the portrayals of Dan O'Herlihy and Ed Flanders as Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman respectively. It's the part of the film I enjoyed the best, seeing MacArthur and his relations with both these men.

FDR by O'Herlihy captures the aristocratic squire and exceptionally devious man that was our 32nd President. Roosevelt was a man who got his points across with unusual subtlety and cleverness. Sometimes he liked scheming a little too much for its own sake, but he was the master politician of the last century. Note how he deals with MacArthur both as a battlefield commander and potential rival at the same time.

Truman by Flanders is as people remember him, a blunt spoken man of the people who disliked MacArthur's haughtiness from the gitgo. Of course it's in the history books how Truman relieved MacArthur in 1951 for insubordination. MacArthur was insubordinate, no doubt about it.

Yet I could write a whole thesis on the Truman-MacArthur relations. Along the way it need not have ever come to a crisis. I've always felt that FDR would have dealt with the whole matter in a far better way had he still been president then.

MacArthur was also grandly eloquent and Gregory Peck captures some of that eloquence in some of the orations that made him as much a legend as victories on the battlefield. Listen to Peck at the Japanese surrender, at MacArthur's farewell to the nation before the joint session of Congress, and of course his speech to the cadets in 1962. Watch the newsreels and see if you don't agree. Since Douglas MacArthur affected more human lives—for the better—than any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's "MacArthur" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.

Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early "Star Trek" episode "The Corbomite Maneuver" (1966) to the recent HBO films "Something the Lord Made" (2OO4) and "Warm Springs" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us "Patton" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was "four years in preparation and production." Yet for all of this, "MacArthur" is perfectly adequate—and not much more than that.

The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was ordered—by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)—to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits:

· MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmen—thus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons;

· his graduation from West Point—first in a class of 95,

· how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines;

· his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz;

· how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General;

· his postwar service as West Point's youngest—and most progressive—commandant;

· his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924;

· his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932;

· his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's;

· his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines;

· and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.

All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boat—thus, we know that "General Mac" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to "Dugout Doug"—and so patently unfounded.

The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping "Hit 'em where they ain't" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos— "I shall return!"—his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that "old soldiers…simply fade away," after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.

Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactions—again, see Warm Springs—this refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.

And finally, there is a sort of "made on the cheap" feel to the film, as there is to "Midway," released about the same time. Both films were relegated to "television" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on "Midway," and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his "Patton" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.

There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatness—and love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.

In the end, "MacArthur"—like so many film biographies—is a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it. The movie "MacArthur" begins and ends at Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, Gregory Peck, Alma Mata the US Military Academy of West Point on the Hudson. We see a frail 82 year old Gen.MacArthur give the commencement speech to the graduating class of 1962 about what an honor it is to serve their country. The film then goes into an almost two hour long flashback on Gen. MacArthur's brilliant as well as controversial career that starts in the darkest hours of WWII on the besieged island of Corregidor in the Philippines in the early spring of 1942.

Told to leave he island for Australia before the Japanese military invade it Gen. MacArthur for the very first time in his military career almost disobeys a direct order from his superior US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dan O'Herlihy. Feeling that he'll be deserting his men at their greatest hour of need MacArthur reluctantly, together with his wife and young son, did what he was told only to have it haunt him for the reminder of the war. It was that reason, his escape under fire from death or captivity by the Japanese, that drove Gen. MacArthur to use all his influence to get FDR two years later to launch a major invasion of the Philippians, instead of the island of Formosa, to back up his promise to both the Philippine people as well as the thousands of US POWS left behind. That he'll return and return with the might of the US Army & Navy to back up his pledge!

In the two years up until the invasion of the Philippine Islands Gen. MacArther battered the Japanese forces in the South Pafific in a number of brilliantly conceived island hop battles that isolated and starved hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops into surrender. The General did that suffering far less US Military losses then any other allied commander in the War in the Pacific!

It was in 1950/51 in the Korean War that Gen. MacArthur achieved his most brilliant victory as well as his worst military defeat. After outflanking the advancing North Korean Army in the brilliant and perfectly executed, with the invading US Marines suffering less then 100 casualties, back door or left hook invasion of Inchon Gen. MacArther feeling invincible sent the US/UN forces under his command to the very border, along the Yalu River, of Communist Red China. Told by his subordinates that he's facing the threat of a massive ground attack by Communist Chinese troops Gen. MacArthur pressed on anyway until that attack did materialized cutting the US & UN forces to ribbons. The unstoppable wave after wave of attacking Red Chinese troops forced the US/UN forces to retreat in the "Big Bug Out" of 1950 with their very lives, leaving all their equipment behind, across the North Korean border even abandoning the South Korean capital city of Seoul! This turned out to be one of the biggest military disaster in US history with the US forces losing a record, in the Korean War, 1,000 lives on the very first day-Nov. 29/30 1950-of the Communist Chinese invasion!

Shocked and humiliated in what he allowed, due mostly to his own arrogance, to happened MacArthur went on the offensive not against the advancing Communist Chinese and Noth Koreans forces but his own Commander and Chief Pres. Harry S. Truman, Ed Flanders, in him not having the spin or guts to do what has to be done: Launch a full scale invasion of Communist China with nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent its troops from overrunning the Korean Peninsula! For Pres. Truman who had taken just about enough garbage from Gen. MacArthur in him running off his mouth in public in how he was mishandling the war in not going all out, like MacArthur wanted him to, against the Red Chinese this was the last straw! On April 11, 1951 Pres. Truman unceremoniously relived Gen. MacArthur from his command as Supreme Commander of the US/UN forces in Korea! Pres. Truman's brave but very unpopular decision also, by not going along with MacArthur's total war strategy, prevented a Third World War from breaking out with the Soviet Union-Communist China's ally- who at the time-like the US-had the Atomic Bomb! Pres. Truman''s controversial decision to dump the very popular Gen. MacArthur also cost him his re-election in 1952 with his polls numbers so low-in the mid 20's- that he withdrew-in March of that year- from the US Presidential Campaign!

In was Gen. MacArthur's misfortune to be around when the political and military climates in the world were changing in how to conduct future wars. With the horrors of a nuclear war now, in 1950/51, a reality it would have been national suicide to go all out, like Gen. MacArthur wanted to, against the Red Chinese with it very possibly touching off a nuclear holocaust that would engulf not only the US USSR & Red China but the entire world! It was that important reality of future war that Gen. MacArthur was never taught, since the A and H Bomb weren't yet invented, in West Point.

Back to 1962 we can now see that Gen. MacArthur, after finishing his commencement speech at West Point, had become both an older and wiser soldier as well as , since his retirement from the US Military, elder statesman in his feeling about war and the utter futility of it. One thing that Gen. MacArthur was taught at an early age, from his Civil War General dad Douglas MacArthur Sr, that stuck to him all his life was that to a soldier like himself war should be the very last-not first-resort in settling issues between nations. In that it's the soldiers who have to fight and die in it. It took a lifetime, with the advent of the nuclear age, for Gen. MacArthur to finally realize just how right and wise his dad a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, like himself, really was! Name just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.

Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie "Duty, Honor, Country" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.

Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man. MacArthur is a great movie with a great story about a great man…General Douglas MacArthur. This is of course, the story of one of America's great military figures, and a figure made familiar to me from the earliest moments of my memory. Though there is a continuity issue (there may be others) e.g. MacArthur's speech portrayed in the film as his 1962 address to the U.S. Military Academy on accepting the Thayer award did not contain the phrase "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." (That was in his speech to Congress upon his dismissal by President Truman) in 1951 for his alleged insubordination (these two did not see eye to eye!) Gregory Peck is im-Peck-able as the general who vowed he would return to the Philippines in World War II. The film moves quickly and easily with the General, his family and his staff from the beginning of the Second World War to the end of his service career. This film would be of much greater significance to one familiar with both WW II and the Korean War. Nevertheless, Peck's portrayal of this great man who fought the twin evils of fascism and communism and who hated war as only a soldier can is a memorable one indeed. "In war there is no substitute for victory." An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history. Good old black and white Graham Greene based people in dangerous times doing heroic and mysterious things. Hardly a shot fired or a punch thrown and a hundred time more interesting than the glop that's being minted by Hollywood today. Bacall lights up the screen of course and Boyer is entirely engaging. They don't make movies like this any more. While this is a faithful adaptation, it is much less exciting than Greene's novel. Also, it's a bit ridiculous when people say things to Boyer like, "You're Spanish, aren't you?"

Still, the movie's not at all bad, just slow-moving.

It could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.

It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love "The Fallen Idol" but I am not among them. I think I saw "Brighton Rock" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.

And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.

I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered. This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent "Mr Muckerji" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! "Fools -- Fools -- all my life"...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures. The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.

However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.

It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD. It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.

Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.

The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.

The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.

It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.

With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction. I watch a lot of films, good, bad and indifferent; there is usually something of interest to fixate upon, even if it is only set design, or the reliable labor of a good character actor, or the fortuitous laughter that emerges from watching ineptitude captured forever.

However, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, one I had never seen before. Graham Greene has been translated into film many times of course, in such masterpieces as "Thin Man" and in lesser vehicles. "Confidential Agent" is one of those lesser vehicles, yet it manages to get me somewhere anyway, despite lackluster direction, the incongruity of Bacall and Boyer's depictions as (respectively) British and Spanish, and the almost complete non-existence of any chemistry between the two leads. In some ways, this last "problem" actually begins to work in the film's favor, for how can love really blossom in the killing atmosphere of fascism and capitalism meeting about one person's tragedy? The most compelling aspect of the film arises directly from Greene's complex and guilt-ridden psychology, which pervades the film. I know some see the deliberate pacing here as dull, and I can understand that. Yet I found that plodding accentuated rather than detracted from what is a claustrophobic world. I was compelled to watch, not by any great acting (although Boyer is marvelous as usual, managing to convey a rich mixture of world-weariness, tragedy, hope, and fervor with his magnificent voice and yearning eyes), but by the down-spiraling rush of one man's slim hopes against a world of oppression and money. What is a thief? What good is love in the face of death? Where does mere profit-taking end and exploitation begin? The film does not rise to the level of art, and thus cannot hope to answer such questions, but it is much more than mere entertainment, and its murders and guilts are very grimly drawn. The lack of glitz, of "bubble," of narrative "bounce" help to make this movie very worthwhile.

And there is no happy ending, for history wrote the ending. Charles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in "Confidential Agent," a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.

This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.

The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.

Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.

Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws. Bacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.

I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.

Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.

Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage. A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin. This enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an "any old accent will do" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for "Confidential Agent" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget). Never realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) "Beast with Five Fingers" who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart. but it's worth watching for Boyer, Lorre and Paxinou. Greene's entertainments that were filmed during the war either required transplanting to American shores, as in This Gun for Hire, or the use of American actors in roles where they did not fit. Bacall fits that part here. I kept waiting for her to whistle and bring Bogie to life; her tone of voice is simply all wrong for an upper class Englishwoman. But listen to the dialogue! No, people don't talk that way except in books, but Greene was sending a message about an England that needed to wake up to the dangers of the world. One other positive note: Greene's range of characters were kept whole. While Mr. Mukerjee resembled more a Brahamin, at least his nationality was kept, and his final conversation with Paxinou is priceless. I'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.

After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.

Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.

Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...

Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.

What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though. To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the "big waves" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money. This movie is one exception of the rule that a sequel is worser than the original. Its comedy at its best. This movie is a fast action slapstick comedy where something seems to happened every second. At more than one occasion the entire audience laughed loudly at a joke.

Its a big advantage to have seen the first movie but its not a requirement.

Göta kanal 2 also have the advantage of being a parody on the latest decades reality production TV series such as survivor (expediton: Robinson in Swedish) This is a Swedish movie for the Swedish audience. Thus don't see it if you aren't familiar with Sweden and its language. Otherwise: Have fun! Johan Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond… He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy…

But there were vital differences… Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively… Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous… There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner…

"The Kennel Murder Case" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947… The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery – exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling "locked room murder," the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects…

Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type…

William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular "The Thin Man" at MGM… For those who like their murder mysteries busy, this is definitely the one to see, as it is chock full of interesting and suspicious characters, most of them wealthy Long Island socialite types. As the star detective, William Powell is alternately starchy and inspired, behaving at times as if he and his suit went to the cleaners and got pressed together. Mary Astor is very lovely here.

Powell had made a career out of playing the lead character, Philo Vance, in a series of movies made at a couple of studios over several years. In-between these films he developed into a somewhat offbeat romantic lead, at times even essaying gentleman gangster roles. Already middle-aged, he was stuck in somewhat of a career rut by the time this one came along. As with so many early talkie stars, it seemed that his time had come and gone, that he was fine for early Depression Prohibition-era films, but that with changing times he was perhaps too mature and dandyish to endure.

The Kennel Murder Case, directed by the criminally neglected Michael Curtiz, is one of the last of the "old Powells", while the next year would herald in the first of the new ones, The Thin Man, the success of which would catapult its leading players into the Hollywood stratosphere. In Kennel we can see the movies still in a somewhat stiff, ritualized pattern, as the camera does not move much, with the acting, like the presentation, tending toward the theatrical. There's no harm in this approach, though, which has its charms. It gives the movie a baroque quality. Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo! This fantastic whodunit is an early prototype of what soon became a very popular film genre. I was happy to see William Powell handling a detective story with charisma and charm, and without the silly attitude of his Nick Charles character (from the "Thin Man" series). While the story is good on its own, I think what really makes this movie fun to watch is Michael Curtiz' fantastically imaginative direction. From a visual point of view, this is a richly textured movie, with Curtiz showing an incredible command of the medium; from split screen images, to weird camera angles and imaginative flashbacks, Curtiz demonstrates that he was one of the best Hollywood directors. Highly recommended if you are fan of this type of movie. Talented detective Mr. Philo Vance (William Powell) cancels his overseas trip to investigate an apparently cut and dried case of suicide he has good reason to suspect is really something much more, a rather deliciously complex murder!

As far as murder mystery films go, it just doesn't get any better than this one. Populated with suspicious characters, all connected to a dog show and all having very good reason to murder the apparent suicide victim Archer Coe, it's truly tough to figure this one out or wrap one's head around it but boy, does it proves fascinating to watch unfold before us. Even the cops, the coroner and the district attorney prove colorful, fleshed out characters adding a level of unexpected gritty realism to this one's proceedings and amping up its overall "fun" factor. I particularly enjoyed the comic scenes involving the coroner (played by Etienne Girardot), who is always it seems to him being rudely and untimely interrupted by the discovery of corpses or injured men during this one's running time. Also Eugene Palette's Detective Sgt. Heath provides welcome, often later delightfully humorous at his expense, critical commentary during Vance's investigation. I cannot think of any valid criticism to give this movie in fact except perhaps that it hasn't dated particularly well. Doesn't stop the movie from being just plain good fun viewing though. Watch and see if you can wrap your head around this one's mystery. Highly recommended you try! This is one of those movies that you wish you hadn't seen before - so you could see it again " for the first time " . Van Dine's books still bring pleasure - but are termed excessively flowery by many . This movie is by far the best film adaptation of his works . William Powell is William Powell - say no more . The plot is intricate . The story moves all too quickly , because you want it to last . Enjoy. One of the better Vance films succeeds more on interesting plot and artful direction by none other than Michael Curtiz. This time around a generally hated financier is found dead - shot in the head - in his locked and bolted bedroom on the upper floor. Philo Vance, hearing of the situation while about to set off for Italy, decides to end his vacation and try to solve what he thinks is a murder and what everyone else is considering a suicide. William Powell is as affable a Philo Vance as you will find. He never seems to press and is always very smooth in what he says and does. Powell is aided by a host of very talented actors - some first-rate character actors and actresses like Mary Astor as a niece that hated her uncle, Ralph Morgan as the dead man's secretary, Paul Cavanaugh as a rival dog fancier, Arthur Hohl as a mysterious butler, Helen Vinson as the next door kept blonde, and two really good performances by James Lee as the Chinese cook and portly Eugene Palette as a wise-cracking police detective. Add into the mix a wonderfully comedic turn by Etienne Girardot as a public coroner always missing his meal. It is this depth of suspects and a story that has many plots twists and turns that make The Kennel Murder Case a fast-moving, fun mystery. William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.

The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances.

It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.

I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.

Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.

As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can. A film that is so much a 30's Warners film in an era when each studio had a particular look and style to their output, unlike today where simply getting audiences is the object.

Curitz was one of the quintessential Warners house directors working with tight economy and great efficiency whilst creating quality, working methods that were very much the requirements of a director at Warners, a studio that was one of the "big five" majors in this era producing quality films for their large chains of theatres.

Even though we have a setting of the upper classes on Long Island there is the generic Warners style embedded here with a narrative that could have been "torn from the headlines". Another example is the when the photographers comment on the girls legs early in the film and she comments that "They're not the trophies" gives the film a more working mans, down to earth feel, for these were the audiences that Warners were targeting in the great depression. (ironically Columbia and Universal were the two minors under these five majors until the 50's when their involvement in television changed their fortunes - they would have made something like this very cheaply and without the polish and great talent) Curtiz has created from an excellent script a film that moves along at a rapid pace whilst keeping the viewer with great camera angles and swift editing.

Thank heavens there is no soppy love interest sub-plot so the fun can just keep rolling along. The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset. "Markham," says urbane gentleman crime-solver Philo Vance (William Powell) to the district attorney, "I'm coming more and more to the belief that Archer Coe was killed in this room. That poker, this dagger sheath, now these fragments...it's all here." "But Vance," Markham says, "do you mean to tell me a dead man walked upstairs?" "I'm not trying to tell you anything but the facts," Vance says. "This is the most remarkable case in my experience."

We're sympathetic. Wealthy, arrogant Archer Coe, disliked it seems by all who knew him, had been found slumped in a chair in his bedroom, pistol in his hand and a gunshot wound to his head. But wait. Further examination shows Coe had been hit hard by a blunt instrument that fractured his skull. Then there's the dagger wound in his back. Complicating matters is that Coe's bedroom door and windows all had been locked from the inside. Coe was no suicide; this was murder. But how could the killer have escaped? What was the specific motivation since there are so many suspects? And why was Coe's brother, Brisbane Coe, found dead in the main-floor closet?

The Kennel Murder Case, now 73 years old, still provides a stylish look at the old locked- room classic whodunit. What makes it work as well as it does is, first, the mystery is complicated and clever, but still is logical. Second, is the amusing, assured performance of William Powell. Consider his work as Philo Vance as something as a rehearsal for his great performances as Nick Charles. Few things escape Vance. He uses his wits to piece things together. He's also good company. Powell was a star in the Twenties and moved steadily upward in status and popularity when the talkies took over. His intelligence, style and effortless sophistication have made him one of the most contemporary-seeming of actors from the past.

Also pleasant is seeing a few other great faces. There's Mary Astor as Hilda Lake, the young, resentful and potentially rich ward of Coe; Paul Cavanaugh as a titled Brit hovering around Hilda; Helen Vinson with her notably sultry and selfish manner (watch her really do her stuff in Vogues of 1938); Etienne Giraudot, a small elderly man as the fussy Dr. Doremus, whose job as coroner and medical examiner keeps taking him away from his meals; and Ralph Morgan as Archer Coe's private secretary. This movie has a high percentage of middle-aged men without an ounce of fat who can wear snug, English-cut tailored suits with ease. Most of all is Eugene Palette, with his noble belly and gravel voice, as Detective Sergeant Heath. Sergeant Heath and Vance are long-time acquaintances who actually seem to like each other. While a 9 might seem like an unusually high score for such a slight film, however, compared to the hundreds and hundreds of series detective films from the 1930s and 40s, this is among the very best and also compares very favorably to Powell's later "Thin Man" films. Now this does NOT mean that the film is that similar to the Thin Man movies, as THE KENNEL MURDER CASE is not a comedy but more a traditional mystery-detective film. Now you'd think that not having Nora Charles or Asta or a traditional comic sidekick (something found in practically all series detective films) along for fun would be a detriment, but I didn't miss them at all because this was such an exceptionally well-written film--having a genuinely interesting case as well as uniformly excellent performances by all.

The film begins at the dog show and is called The KENNEL Murder Case, though this Philo Vance film actually spends little of the time at the dog show and dogs are not a super-important part of the film. Instead, a thoroughly hated man is killed and left in a completely sealed room--an idea repeated in quite a few other detective films (such as CRIME DOCTOR'S STRANGEST CASE). However, how all this is explained seems pretty credible and fit together very well--keeping my interest throughout. I sure wish other detective films of the day had as intelligently written plots and exceptional acting as this one. This one is definitely a keeper. This is still the benchmark to judge all Golden Age whodunnits by, and taking into account the limited technology and dubious ethical standards of the authorities (on screen) bears up well against all generations of similar attempts since on film and TV. Fast and furious with plenty of Warner Bros wipes, and thankfully no time for a love interest it gallops along, taking the splendid cast with it to the violent end. I never understood why the DA had to trail Vance around everywhere, I always thought they were deskbound. Palette as the detective but especially Girardot as the doctor are delightfully eccentric and un-PC - when glancing over the second murder victim he sniffs that there were too many people in the world anyway. Of course it is William Powell as Philo Vance (and Michael Curtiz as director) that makes the film what it is - when did Powell ever make a dud?

The army of cops at the crime scene didn't really do a very good job in finding the second dead body and unconscious dog did they! The best bit is where Vance narrates to us all the sequence of events surrounding the murders - dodgy model sets combine with fantastic roving camera angles to produce a very modern feel, and startling with what has gone before. The only problem is as usual the conclusion can't match the overall deductive processes displayed throughout and a somewhat contrived ending is invoked; some Chan's, Moto's and many others of course could only be concluded this way too. But because it happens so fast and is ... slightly dubious morally it doesn't lessen my opinion of KMC's status as a classic!

All the prints I've ever seen of KMC are (at worst) like looking into a goldfish bowl, so if you're interested in seeing it bear with it until you're sucked in. Philo Vance (William Powell) helps solve multiple murders among the wealthy after a dog show.

Usually I hate overly convoluted mysteries (like this) but I LOVE this movie. It moves very quickly (only 72 minutes), is beautifully directed by Michael Curtiz (he uses tons of camera tricks that just speed the narrative along), has a very ingenious story line (including a solution to a locked room murder that was just incredible) and has a very good cast.

Powell is very suave and great as Vance--he doesn't seem to be acting--he IS Vance! Mary Astor isn't given much to do but she adds class and beauty to the production. Everybody else is very good too, but best of all is Eugene Pallette as Detective Heath. He's a very good actor with a VERY distinctive voice and some of his lines were hilarious.

Basically, an excellent 1930s Hollywood murder mystery. Well worth seeing.

Before he became defined as Nick Charles in the Thin Man Series, William Powell played another urbane detective named Philo Vance. The supporting cast is strong in this early talkie, and Powell's star quality is evident. Mary Astor, who eight years later would be defined by her portrayal of Brigid O'Shaughnessy, does a good job here as the featured woman who finds herself in the middle of it all. "The Kennel Murder Case" starts off at a run and doesn't stop until the very end. Everybody had reason to kill the victim, and several people tried. William Powell is terrific as Philo Vance, gentleman detective. Mary Astor is refreshing as the put-upon niece who only wants to marry her Scottish gentleman and enjoy her inheritance. This movie comes paired with "Nancy Drew, Reporter" on DVD, which is also fun. If you have to rent the disc (or check it out from your local library), do it. It's pure entertainment! Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out? Michael Curtiz directed this 1930 very-stylish whodunit from a script by Robert Presnell Sr., Robert N. Lee and Peter Mine. The original novel they adapted was "The Kennel Murder Case", perhaps from a writer's standpoint the best of the Philo Vance mysteries by the strange S.S. Van Dine. Vance was a long-worded and superior detective genius, and his character being assigned to William Powell probably meant the executives at Warner Brothers were aware of the possibility that in less-engaging hands this detective might alienate viewers. Fortunately they assigned suave William Powell first to the character.; later he was played by Basil Rathbone, Warren William, and Paul Lukas before being consigned to "B" picture status.The other question as always with Warner Brothers executives is why they chose Vance as a character; their penchant was to choose men who operated outside the law, with no apparent discrimination between a vicious murderer and a champion of individual rights against all comers. This film has a despicable villain who gets murdered, and a claustrophobically challenging locale inside an apartment complex. The characters are unarguably unusually well-realized, the direction rather good and unusually swift-paced; and except for a darkish B/W look, the film avoids the comedic asides, superfluous characters and irrelevant dialogue characteristic of many early detective entries. Jack Okey did the good art direction. The music by Berhard Kaun is serviceable; Orry-Kelly did the costumes. William Reese provided the mostly-indoor cinematography. In the interesting cast, Powell is THE Philo Vance of his time, mostly sober-minded with just a hint of sardonic humor here and there. Eugene Palette is better than usual playing very straight as an admiring police partner to Vance, with his very professional timing. The other actor who comes off best is handsome Paul Cavangh, very effective as always in what was written as a red herring part. Mary Astor is attractive but at this point in her career she talked a bit too fast to be as effective as she later proved. Also in the cast were Helen Vinson as the villain's woman, Jack La Rue, Ralph Morgan (best known as Frank Morgan's brother), Robert Barrat as the villain everyone has cause to kill, Archer Coe, and Frank Conroy as his likable brother with Robert McWade as the D.A.; quirky and funny Etiienne Girardot has a delightfully witty part as the funny little forensics doctor who comes onto the crime scene. James lee as the abused Chinese servant is excellent and intelligent. The story breaks into four parts. First there is shad doings at a dog show, where Vance, Coe and Cavanagh are all showing West Highland terriers. Cavanagh's dog is killed, by Coe, to prevent him winning the title over his own entry. The second portion of the scene involves a leave-taking; someone is confused enough by who has gone where, after Coe parts from his girl friend, Vinson, to murder his nice brother by mistake. Enter Vance, to find out who did in Archer Coe in a locked room and how, with the help of Palette; the romantic difficulties are straightened out, the Chinese servant is exonerated, we find out who broke the expensive vase, who will marry whom, how Archer Coe was done in and why the butler did not do it--but someone else with a good excuse did. This is a more-than-good little mystery, which skilled Hungarian-born director Curtiz took quite seriously. He used wipes, swift cuts, changes of camera angle and alternations between straightforward and daring camera-work to achieve variety, interest and a sustained pace. Many writers, critics and experts, myself included, consider this to be the best of the Vance projects, although others are estimable as well. There were times when this movie seemed to get a whole lot more complicated than it needed to be, but I guess that's part of it's charm. Detective Philo Vance's powers of observation seem greater than all the Oriental sleuths of the era combined when it comes down to that final evaluation of how the murders were committed. The dropping of the dagger into the Chinese vase was the kicker for me; I mean, couldn't somebody have just dropped it?

Vance (William Powell) had a line early in the film about Archer Coe's 'psychological impossibility' to kill himself - I had to think about that for a while. I was left wondering if there's some scientific basis in fact for that concept to be true, not having studied psychology myself. Seems logical, but then there's always the case that doesn't fit the rules.

You know, I got a kick out of the agitated coroner (Etienne Girardot), who reminded me of Star Trek's Dr. McCoy the couple of times he stated "I'm a doctor, not a magician" and "I'm a doctor, not a detective". I can picture DeForrest Kelley watching the film and saying to himself - 'I'll have to use that sometime'.

Once the killer's identity is revealed, it doesn't seem like such a big surprise, but up till then it's really anybody's guess. But Archer and Brisbane Coe aside, the film didn't answer the central question posed by the title, and the murder I was really interested in - who killed Sir Thomas MacDonald's dog Ghillie? Enjoyed viewing this film on TCM and watching a very young William Powell, (Philo Vance) playing detective just like he did with Myrna Loy in the "Thin Man Series". Back in the 1930's William Powell played in the Philo Vance Series and in this picture, the famous veteran actress Mary Astor, (Hilda Lake) becomes one of the suspects in a murder/suicide case where a man named, Archer Coe, (Robert Barrot) is found dead and Archer was in a room that was bolted from the inside. Ralph Morgan, (Raymond Wrede/Archer's Secretary) gave a great supporting role and was the brother to Frank Morgan who appeared "In the Wizard of Oz" 1939. Eugene Palette, (Detective Sgt. Heath) appeared in quite a few of these Philo Vance films and also gave a great performance in "Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn. Always remember, the least likely actor could very well be the killer. Enjoy a great Classic from the past. William Powell is Philo Vance in "The Kennel Murder Case," a 1933 film also starring Mary Astor, Paul Cavanagh, Eugene Palette, Helen Vinson and Ralph Morgan. A dog show in which Philo has entered his Scottish terrier Captain serves as the background for a locked room mystery with too many suspects. The mystery is very clever and the denouement both complicated and interesting. Since the talkies are still quite young, the camera work is a little static, but Michael Curtiz does a good job directing the action.

The supporting cast is excellent; the entire cast brings the film up a notch. Lots of actors have played Philo Vance, including Paul Lukas, Basil Rathbone, Wilford Hyde-White, Edmund Lowe, James Stephenson, Alan Curtis, Warren William and others. Powell played it the most (five times) and is the best fit for the role - very relaxed but serious at the same time. This was made before "The Thin Man" catapulted him to big stardom - he had spent about 12 years in film by then, beginning his career on stage in 1912 at the age of 20. A remarkable man, a remarkable screen presence and a remarkable actor who lived to be nearly 92. We're so lucky to have his films available on DVD and on TCM today. "The Kennel Murder Case" is a great story and a fun film - don't miss it. The film starts in the Long Island Kennel Club where is murdered a dog,later is appeared dead as a case of committing suicide a collector millionaire called Arched,but sleuth debonair Philo Vance(William Powell)to be aware of actually killing.There are many suspects : the secretary(Ralph Morgan),the butler,the Chinese cooker,the contender(Paul Cavanagh) in kennel championship for revenge killing dog ,the nephew(Mary Astor) facing off her tyrant uncle,the Italian man(Jack La Rue),the brother,the attractive neighbour..Stylish Vance tries to find out who murdered tycoon,appearing many clues ,as a book titled:Unsolved murders. The police Inspector(Eugene Palette)and a coroner are helped by Vance to investigate the mysterious death.The sympathetic forensic medic examines boring the continuous body-count .Who's the killer?.The public enjoys immensely about guess the murder.

The picture is an interesting and deliberate whodunit,it's a laborious and intriguing suspense tale.The personages are similar to Agatha Christie stories, all they are various suspects.They are developed on a whole gallery of familiar actors well characterized from the period represented by a glittering casting to choose from their acting range from great to worst. Powell is in his habitual elegant and smart form as Philo.He's protagonist of two famed detectives cinema,this one, and elegant Nick Charles along with Nora(Mirna Loy)make the greatest marriage detectives. Special mention to Mary Astor as the niece enamored of suspect Sir Thomas,she was a noted actress of noir cinema(Maltese falcon). The movie is magnificently directed by Hollywood classic director Michael Curtiz.He directs utilizing modern techniques as the image of dead through a lock-door,a split image while are speaking for phone and curtain-image.The tale is remade as ¨Calling Philo Vance¨(1940).The film is a good production Warner Bros, by Vitagraph Corp. If you love The Thin Man series, you will love this movie. Powell's character of Vance is very similar to his character of Nick Charles. There are even dogs. . .

The chemistry between Powell and Astor may not be as fabulous as Powell and Loy, but it isn't half bad. whereas the hard-boiled detective stories of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler have fitted to cinema like a fox in a chicken coop - indeed creating the definitively modern American genre and style in the process - those of what might be called Golden Age fiction have made barely any impression whatsoever. The problem with books like those of Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers or S.S. Van Dine (on whose work this film is based), is that they are low on action or variety - whereas Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe traverse the mean streets of LA, working class tenements, bars, offices, wealthy mansions, and meet all sorts of exciting dangers and violence, Golden Age fiction is generally fixed in location, the scene of the murder, usually a lavish country house, and the action is limited to investigating clues and interviewing suspects. This is a very static procedure, plot reduced to puzzle.

This, of course, is as much ideological as anything else, the Golden Age stories dealing with a society hostile to change and movement; the hard-boiled novels recording an urban reality increasingly moving away from a centre (both of authority, and of a city), dividing itself up into hostile, ever uncontrollable and lawless camps. Another major problem with Golden age fiction is character - because we cannot know the answer to the crime until the end, we cannot gain access to characters' motivations or emotions, being defined solely by their potential need to murder. The detective, unlike the anxious, prejudice-ridden private eyes, are simply there to be brilliant, and maybe a little eccentric.

The problem with most films from Golden Age books is that they try to be period recreations of the Merchant Ivory/Jane Austen school, and end up looking silly. There have been successes, for example the radical reworkings of Ellery Queen and others by Claude Chabrol. In the English-speaking world, there have really only been two. The Alistair Sim classic, 'Green For Danger', works because it pushes the form almost into parody, while never betraying the integrity or interest of the mystery.

Before that came Michael Curtiz's brilliant 'The Kennel Murder Case'. The narrative is pure Golden Age. A repulsive character is introduced who gives a number of potential suspects reason to kill him. He is duly murdered in a seemingly foolproof manner, indicating suicide, slumped in a locked room. The caricatured policemen fall hopelessly for the bait. It is up to Philo Vance, gentleman and amateur detective, neither old nor fat, to read the clues more insightfully, open the case out of the confines of the room, and eventually solve the case, the corpse being little more than the pretext for intellectual stimulation.

What is interesting is not this detective plot - which can only ever be unsatisfying as all solutions are - although it is rarely less than entertaining, and full of comical bits of business. There isn't even really an attempt to 'subvert' the image of the perfect detective - there is one alarming scene where a brutal sergeant threatens to rough up a suspect, with no protest from Vance, but that's about it.

What marks 'Kennel' as a classic is its modernity. Curtiz is not generally considered a great auteur, because he has no consistent themes or evidence of artistic development. But he was Hollywood's greatest craftsman, and he is on sensational form here. if the Golden Age detective story is mere puzzle, Curtiz takes this idea to is logical extreme, creating an abstract variation on his source, reducing narrative, character and location to geometry, a series of lines, from the beautiful art-deco sets to the glorious camera movements which suddenly break from a static composition , and, as they glide furiously at an angle, jolt the dead decor to life.

This treatment is appropriate to a story that resolutely refuses realism, it is a pattern that turns the detective plot into a hall of mirrors, like the two central brothers, or the original crime itself, borrowed from an 'Unsolved Mysteries' book. This fantasy world of nasty rich men who collect Oriental relics (shades of 'The Moonstone'?), inscrutable Chinese servants, ex-cons turned butlers, dog-loving fops, Runyonesque cops, is the perfect habitat for Vance, a man who will drop a cruise to Europe on a fanciful hunch, who knows the social world of these people, and yet is tainted by his interest in crime and association with the police, or would be if he wasn't anything more than a thinking machine, William Powell, the greatest American comedian of the decade, bravely subsuming his idiosyncratic humanity.

But if the treatment is rarefied, the climax is spectacularly brutal, involving vicious dogs and attempted murder. The police and the detective, supposed to be preventing crime, are guilty of inciting one. Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the "swarthy" Italian and of course, James Lee as "The Chinese Cook", this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step "peeling of the veneer of the mystery" is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance. It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.

Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.

It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.

If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.

I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.

There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think I bought this while I was playing chess in Hastings. I am from Denmark though. It is very good. Definitely with an understanding of the horror genre. The monster towards the end is very scary. People who criticise this on IMDB should recall that it was a huge succes among serious horror critics.

I think it was Ebert who gave Stella four out of four stars but, other than his, I have never read a positive review of this sadly misunderstood drama about class divisions, love, and sacrifice (three themes most great romantic stories or films have in common).

Here the major theme is class division. Stella is a story from depression era America. That said, it was translated to the screen then in such a memorable fashion that this remake (if you ask a Stanwyck fan or two) was not exactly appreciated. Fans of the original never gave it a chance. Furthermore, this version of Stella was made in the 1990s, not exactly a time of great financial trouble in America (as the depression was).

Now is the time to remove the rosy-coloured glasses, in the midst of a new era of recession and poverty in America, and see that this powerful story still rings true, is as timely and relevant as ever, in its updated format.

Yes, class divide is the major theme here. Stella is among the working poor, single, with big dreams but little hope of realizing those dreams. She works in a bar, doesn't have much money, lives in a crummy apartment. You get the drift. In the morning, she doesn't really want to get out of bed. On her wall, pictures of movie stars she idolizes.

A man sees her dance at the bar. He's wealthy, educated, from one of those upper class families that has nothing in common with Stella's. His major concern is what ivy league college to attend, her's is how to pay the rent, how to be 'happy.' They have an affair. They like each other. Stella ends up pregnant. Stella tells the guy the news. His response? "How about an abortion?" She replies, "I just wanted a room full of balloons." He supplies the balloons, and the proposal, but she sees his heart is not in it, and has too much pride to accept. She sends him packing.

Her daughter is eventually torn between the two lifestyles--the love she has for her mom and the advantages and happiness and love held out to her by her wealthy father. Stella, alone and unloved, and not wanting her daughter to become as unhappy as her someday, makes the ultimate sacrifice. She gives up the only love and happiness she has ever known to ensure the happiness of her daughter, and perhaps live vicariously, and with hope, knowing that at least her daughter found something to live for.

Now, for the movie. Everything is right about it. Beautiful score, artful cinematography, great set design (contrast between the two lifestyles; the messy apt. and the decorated mansions), wonderful and heartfelt performances by the whole cast, with Bette Midler, in particular, Oscar-worthy.

This is a film which is much more significant and well-made than you've been led to believe. First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4! The original with Barbara Stanwyk is saved only by Stanwyk's performance. The story and the other performances are too sickeningly sweet and the film itself is too dated to be really enjoyed today. Bette Midler's version is much more interesting. She is Stella Claire, an independent, free-spirited single woman who gets pregnant and refuses help from her boyfriend (Stephen Collins) or her friend (John Goodman in an underrated performance). She raises her daughter Jenny played so sweetly by Trini Alvarado and then comes to the conclusion that Jenny's father can do better for her and ultimately makes a life-altering decision. Through out the film, there are plenty of laughs, tears and memorable moments mostly between Midler and Alvarado. Marsha Mason co-stars as Jenny's would-be stepmother, who though wealthy turns out to be a very good influence on her. If you like Midler, Goodman or just good films with plenty of emotion you'll enjoy Bette Midler's version of STELLA. This is the weepy that Beaches never was. As much as I wanted to love Beaches, it always seemed too hurried for me to "feel" for it (its soundtrack is one of my favorite albums though). Stella, on the other hand, moves at a slower (and occasionally too slow) pace and though it's somewhat manipulative in its tears-inducing tale about a self-sacrificial mother, it works because Bette and the rest of the cast turn in great performances. 10/10 I'm amazed we see even one nay-sayer criticizing this old film. We don't ordinarily get good opera films, and here is a true grand opera rendition. Understandably, the visuals are not great. It's dated. But as opera it can't be faulted; and I'm an opera buff. I can't even detect one lip-sync; if we didn't know that was Tebaldi in the audio nothing would convince me it isn't Sophia Loren. She does EVERYTHING with flair! Her dark makeup is fine; and she brought the role to gorgeous life! The rest of the cast is wonderful, as is that stunning ballet troupe. Most of the actors are excellent; Loren truly marvelous. Her rival Amneris is also terrific. Whoever didn't care for this 1953 job is shamefully remiss. Verdi would have enjoyed it! Naturally, Renata Tebaldi as Aida is the engine behind the scenes. I love this old movie! The whole point of making this film, one of the earliest and best international color releases of cinematic opera, was to make it more accessible to the masses. And it succeeded admirably in doing so. The general public would not sit still for a love story about two young exotic lovers in ancient Egypt if played by the typical 300 pound over 40 tenor and soprano with the vocal equipment to sing the glorious music properly. Hence the visual substitution of the beautiful principals (a young Loren, handsome Della Marra, and a slinky Ms. Maxwell)who make the story much more believable, giving those not familiar with the plot or the music a better chance at being wooed into the lovely arias who otherwise might not be. Altogether, an enchanting introduction to one of Verdi's great works. I remember seeing this when I was in junior high school and it certainly awakened my interest in opera, a form with which I was then not well acquainted. I still regard this film fondly and would recommend it highly to those who might appreciate the great music accompanied by better than average visuals. Luciano Della Marra was a standout as Radames, and unfortunately for audiences did not appear in any other films. David Zucker has directed one of the most enjoyable comedies of the year with this goofy farce. Yes, it's a matter of acquired taste and depends upon a wealth of sophomoric gags, but it is consistently funny throughout unlike some recent comedic efforts. The film is loaded with all kinds of jokes ranging from the blatantly obvious to the more subtler kind that you must pay attention to everything in the frame or you'll likely miss them. Like his previous efforts which include "Airplane!", "Top Secret!", and "Naked Gun," the humor flies out almost every second. There are so many moments that work, it's easy to overlook the few that fall flat. What sets this movie apart from other pale imitations in the spoof genre is that it has an actual story line. While others have depended upon making fun of too many famous scenes in almost random movies (take "Mafia!", please), this film tells a new story with likable characters. It touches upon sports films in general as well as satirizing the real sports industry instead of lampooning any specific movies. Even for people who don't care for "South Park," its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, make a good pair of leading actors with natural chemistry. The film also makes extremely effective use of cameos of athletes, sports announcers, and other celebrities, especially a hilarious bit with Robert Stack of "Unsolved Mysteries." By the way, stay through the credits for a final joke with Bob Costas and Al Michaels. All in all, Zucker has achieved, in words perhaps applying to the movie's mix of sports, a home dunk. BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.

The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.

It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.

Vote: 7.5 out of 10. I thoroughly enjoyed this flick. I am of the firm belief that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are comic geniuses of our time. They have the uncanny ability to add this level of absurdity to pop culture and make it rediculous but in a realistic way ...if that makes any sense. This is mainly what makes South Park soooo funny. Once you get past the fact that it is probably the most vulgar and indiscreet cartoon ever, you see in every episode the message that is being conveyed. That is apparent in BASEketball. Although it is directed by David Zucker and is utterly rediculous, it has a sincere message about corporate America and the disgrace that is major league sports. I am also a fan of sports so I find this movie hilarious at times because it is so true in that bizarre way that people hate to love. The opening prologue is brilliant...tears from laughter form everytime I see those football players begin Riverdance! Some may not like this movie because it's just not everyone's cup of tea...but, just like South Park, once you look past the absurdity...it has a really genuine message that is conveyed through literal comic genius. I gave this movie 8 out of 10 stars. Why the crap is this movie rated so low?! I've seen this movie over 25 times, I know EVERY line to this movie. It's obvious that I love this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet masterpiece Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop "Airman" Cooper, and Doug Remer, or "Sir Swish." Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called "Townsell." I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: "And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami." His agent leans over: "Minnesota." Let us not forget this important piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with zany blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so absurd it'll leave you crying for more. Watch it dude, it's hilarious. This movie is just funny. mindless, but funny. to enjoy this movie completely you can't have a perception of how a film like this goes and just enjoy all the side jokes and puns which are involved with the film. I still find the bit at the start funny when he says "want a beer........cock". funny stuff. but what makes the film decent is the fact that it doesn't try to hard to create a serious spin on the film, too many comedies try to have serious aspects which you just don't believe. But this is different and just focuses on being funny. I must say though, Yasmin bleeth is terrible in the film and adds nothing but the 3 main guys, coop, remer and squeak are very funny to watch and make the film great to watch There really isn't much to say about this movie....it's crude, but fun.

Plot outline (From IMDB)

_____________________________________

Two losers from Milwaukee, Coop & Remer (Parker & Stone), invent a new game playing basketball, using baseball rules. When the game becomes a huge success, they, along with a billionaire's help, form the Professional Baseketball League where everyone gets the same pay and no team can change cities. Coop & Remer's team, the Milwaukee Beers is the only team standing in the way of major rule changes that the owner of the Dallas Felons (Vaughn) wants to institute.

_____________________________________

The Acting is pretty good, since there arn't many big stars in this movie. Although I am not a big fan of 'Southpark', Parker and Stone do a pretty good job in their first real movie.

There are so many funny moments in this movie I can't come close to naming them all. It never really lets up, and they don't try to put some cruddy drama in to make it more serious.

And my favorite aspect of this movie: The Soundtrack. It's GREAT. I especially like "Take me on" and "Beer" by Reel Big Fish. Very underrated.

Overall, a crude, but extremely funny, movie. 10/10

James "Black Wolf" Johnston BASEketball is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It is an off-the-wall movie starring South park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.They play two slacker friends who create a sport in their driveway which goes on to become a national sensation. Most of the gags are indeed hilarious but the funniest parts of the movie is when players attempt to "psyche-out" other members of the opposing team. There is no rule about what is not allowed, so naturally they do the craziest things possible. One flaw of this movie is that the pace is way too fast, and after watching for about half an hour I found myself asking "Wow this this over already?" Another hilarious part of the movie was how Joe and Doug continuously harass Squeak, who is a hyped-up little guy. BASEketball is a comedic classic with some very quotable lines, and it is very fun to watch! There are so many words I want to use to describe this movie, but can't really do that can I? This movie is a movie to watch if you just want to sit, laugh, cry and then pee. I'm serious. Don't watch this movie if you're easily offended by profanity, sex, nudity, homosexuality...and everything else associated with nature. Being a woman, and that might not even be a factor, I can watch this movie over and over again. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are absolutely brilliant. Along with all their other debuts, I think Baseketball is the prize winner. I'm laughing now just thinking about some of the stupid things they do in the movie. Watch the movie!! That's all I'm going to say. It's sort of hard for me to leave this comment because I'm one of those people, like Ozzy Osbourne, who has a curse word in almost every line that blurts out of their mouth when they speak. So I'm keeping it professional. Best movie. Heck yeah!! For a comedy this has a decent and inventive plot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's comic timing is perfect. There are dozens of funny moments to this fantastic movie. I especially like the multitude of colors and the way the clash in the sports arena scenes. Robert Stacks Unsolved Mysteries spoof is also very amusing. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the show 'South Park' , return with something entirely different.They create a new sport that combines baseball and basketball.This sport is known as baseketball.It's like basketball except that the rules of baseball are involved and there's another letter e in the title.Here's how you play: you just shoot the ball while these two guys try to distract you from making the shot.Sounds simple.In fact, I might try it one day.After the game hits the streets, it soon becomes a huge success.Who would've known that 2 immature friends could invent a sport that became so successful?

My opinion

'Baseketball' is a very crude and silly spoof filled with lots of slapstick violence, yet it actually delivers some laughs and plenty of entertainment.A definite recommendation for those of you who like slapstick and rude humor. This film is excellently paced, you never have to wait for a belly laugh to come up for more than about a minute and there's much more going on than the initial premise of the film. Throughout it there are mockeries of the traditional schmaltzy local-boys-done-good-overcoming-adversity genre of which this parodies. Don't let anyone tell you that they're trying to get cheap laughs just by using obscenities;- sure, there's plenty of that but it's all contextual, not gratuitous. I loved this film and it only cost me £2.99 on DVD , so in terms of entertainment value for money, it has been the best film I've seen this year. Here is one movie that is genuinely funny at every single moment that it covers. How can it not be given that this movie stars the creators of South Park and is directed by David Zucker? When I first saw this movie, I did'nt immediately realise that Coop and Doug were really Matt and Trey but their talent in acting and writing came out as quite impressive. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they were really Matt and Trey, later on. The humor is sometimes crude, sometimes foul, sometimes brilliant, sometimes subtle, sometimes loud and sometimes stupid but overall, this is one hell of a movie that is without doubt, under rated. Well actually, its insane. Totally insane. I must admit I am a big fan of South Park and was expecting Basketball to be funny but nowhere near as good as it turned out to be! I think this is what happens when you mix David Zucker, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker together. This movie has so much replay value and at no point bothers to take itself seriously. The slap stick style humor mixed with Stone and Parker just works flawlessly. The kind of humor present in Basketball was not popular upon the time of it's release and had it come out today it would be a hit. Don't bother trying to be critical, just leave your brain at the door and expect endless laughs to come. Recommended to anyone with a good sense of humor. I found this movie to be very funny, I loved how it made of the politics of modern day sports. This movie is not as funny as South Park but it is pretty funny. And since I am a sports fan I loved how they made fun some of the more ridiculous things in sports. This movie is great for non sports lovers too, probably better for them actually since they have to go through life wondering why people follow sports so closing when there are so many insane rules and intricacies to sports and the fact that it means absolutely nothing. I also found the actual game they came up with to be interesting, it is sort of like horse with bases and psyche outs (for the person shooting). Overall I highly recommend you see this movie, and believe that you will end up loving this movie. However if this style of comedy is not your favorite you probably won't like it. (but that is with any comedy movie) I thought that Baseketball was one of the most funniest films i have ever seen! It's witty humour made me giggle all the way through, and the fact that Trey and Matt are so over the top, boosts the film's comedy.

I have just bought Baseketball on DVD and its just one of those movies where you would never get tired of watching it. I have a very short attention span and i think this film has so any funny bits that it keeps me entertained throughout. The humorous quotes are memorable, and can make me laugh for hours if i remember them later..

So overall i think that Baseketball is brilliant movie which everyone should go see, especially if you're younger like me as it will keep you laughing for a long time afterwards.

P.s Does anybody think its weird for me to like them both? hehe This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny! Ernest Borgnine was so wasted in this movie.There was no point in putting this great actor in this movie.One of the greatest actors in the world wasted,and for what reason, none what so ever,so america if you want to put classic actors in movies DON'T WASTE THEM BASEketball is awesome! It's hilarious and so damned funny that you will wet your pants laughing. I have seen it so many times I have stopped counting. But everytime it gets funnier.

Trust me on this one...BASEketball is a surefire hit and I loved it and will continue to love it. I hope one day there will be a special edition DVD brought out!!!

Ten Thumbs Up!!! Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world. Oscar material. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this I suggest you see "South Park" one of the funniest cartoons created. Buy it, you will laugh every time you see it. Pure stroke of genius. If you don't think its funny then you have no soul or sense of humor. 10 out of 10. BASEketball is an extremely funny movie that delivers acting that generally makes the movie alot funnier,comedy material that is more than crap in your pants funny,and a pretty good plot despite the fact that its the classic slackers v.s the evil rich guy.The one and only thing I didnt like about BASEketball,was that that kid wasnt really needed in the movie,but,if the kid wasnt in the movie,some of the funny scenes wouldnt have existed.If you have read any pro reviews about this movie,exclude them all because basically all the reviewers didnt like this film.BASEketball is a great comedy that gives everyone what they want.8 out of 10. The creators of south park in their own film here, this is a brilliant film with a huge entertainment factor. If you like Naked Gun films and are not young and not too mature or serious on your humor, you'll love this. Parker and Stone transplant their pacy expletive-ridden humour from their animated masterpiece to a feature length live action film with generally good results. Much of the film is Trey and Matt running amok with their new toy box. The plot is simplicity itself: two average guys invent a new sport, a blend of driveway basketball with baseball scoring which becomes a national craze. Along the way they encounter numerous sporting movie cliches and send them up, along with any other bit of popular culture that comes into their sights. It runs like a stretched South Park episode, with the usual machine-gun dialogue, toilet humour and homilies from the heart.

If this film has a weakness it is the association with the team that gave us "Airplane" and the "Naked Gun" series. This influence is clearly seen with the heavy use of lame sight gags and the presence of a glossy and rather two-dimensional Yasmine Bleeth in the role usually given to Priscilla Presley. Robert Vaughn does a little better playing the corporate b**tard that has been his party piece ever since "Bullitt" and Ernest Borgnine overacts as only he can, but one must admit he's perfect for the role of the lunatic team owner.

For those who haven't noticed yet, Parker and Stone seem to be more comfortable as rock star wannabes than comics. This manifests in the prominence given to the soundtrack in just about everything they create. As usual, they give a good selection here including the obligatory track by their own ultra-non-PC vehicle DVDA.

A special mention must go to Dian Bachar, who deserves some sort of award for enduring the difficult job of playing Stan to Parker and Stone's rampaging pair of Cartmans.

In summary, this is an entertaining comedy which is held back from its full potential by too much reliance on the "Naked Gun/Airplane" formula. Parker and Stone could do something truly brilliant (or absolutely awful) if given full control over a future film. America, either lock these guys up or put them in charge. This is the only David Zucker movie that does not spoof anything the first of its kind. The funniest movie of 98 with Night at the Roxbury right behind But I did not think Theres something about mary was funny so that doesnt count except for the frank and beans thing he he. Dont listen to the critics especially Roger Ebert he does not know solid entertainment just look at his reviews.Anyway see it you wont be dissapionted Well the main reason I tuned in to watch this film is because it was done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. However as soon as the film started the laughs started erupting from my belly. From the subtle gestures towards a joke, to the blatant toilet humour throughout, along with a constant reliance on some very witty innuendo. This film could ruin event he sternest mans poker face, let alone his poker underwear. Some of the funniest blink and you'll miss it jokes ever portrayed in Hollywood, along with constant critique of themselves thrown into the bargain.

I just goes to show that not only is Trey Parker adept at writing he's not too shabby at the old acting game either. I was surprised with the amount that I was absorbed in this film. However I'm quite worried that it is not available to buy over the internet, here in the UK. Sort it out boys!

I am, and will continue to show it to all my friends annoyingly pointing out the funny bits, and occasionally snorting into my lager. All in all an excellent film if you are a fan of unnecessary comedy. However if you have no sense of humour about silly or rude things steer well clear! However I'm sure the inclusion of Jenny McCarthy and Jasmine Bleeth could have you gurgling past those prejudices. It was a saturday night and a movie called BASEketball was on TV. I had always wanted to watch it but never got around to it when it was in the cinema. Boy was i mistaken. Words cannot describe how funny this film is, starring the creators of South Park, who share a natural on screen chemistry when being funny. I taped the replay the next day and exactly one week after watching it for the first time, i have seen it 7 times!!. Im obsessed with it, and i know anyone who appreciates trey and matts work will appreciate this movie. A MUST SEE, THIS IS MY #1 COMEDY OF ALL TIME A comedy of epically funny proportions from the guys that brought you South Park, and most of the guys from Orgazmo. This vulgur, obscence movie has utterly disgusting, eggotistical, and satirical content. It portrays incredibly cruel treatment of humans and animals. I LOVE IT!!!!! This is some funny stuff. Really funny. Two loser friends create a game in thier driveway, which explodes into a national sensation. Corruption and greed and blackmail turn the sport sour, and its up ta Coop ta fix it. And along the way, you will laugh. Alot. That's all there is. Enjoy!!!! Witty and disgusting. Brash and intelligent. BASEketball redefines comedy/sports with a pot spoof of an easy target. Makes other so called comedies like dead boring. One of the best of all time! Trey Parker and Matt Stone play their roles as losers with apt perfection. There are very few performers today who can keep me captivated throughout an entire film just by their presence. One of those few is Judy Davis, who has built a successful career out of creating characters that are headstrong in attitude but very vulnerable at heart. She takes roles that most other performers would treat melodramatically and adds a fiery, deeply emotional intensity that pulls attention away from everything else on the screen.

Her skills are well displayed in "High Tide," a film that matches her up a second time with director Gillian Armstrong, who gave Davis her first major success with "My Brilliant Career." In that film, Davis played a young woman who was determined to make it in the world, despite the suffocation she felt from her community and upbringing. In "High Tide," however, Davis' character, Lillie, is roughly the opposite: she gave up on any hope for her future when she was young, and, after giving birth to a child, runs from her responsibilities and takes up a life without direction or meaning. When she finally meets up with her daughter years later, the thought of taking care of her child is petrifying; she knows this is her chance to atone for her failures, but how can she be honest with her daughter and still gain her respect?

Gillian Armstrong's films usually relate stories about characters who desperately want to communicate with each other, but face obstacles set up by their own personal habits and addictions. "Oscar and Lucinda," for instance, was about a man and a woman who desperately needed each other's love but were always blindsided by their craving for chance, represented by their gambling addictions. Here, we are immersed in the world of a family torn apart by the mother's inability to commit to a settled life and her struggles to redeem herself despite being fully convinced that it's too late to change for the better. This is not simply a film with a great performance at its center, but also a rare achievement: a fully convincing story of redemption. There's a certain allure I've always found in discovering the great (semi-) unknown film. These discoveries have nearly always been dramatic films - in my experience, unknown sci-fi, action and horror are unknown for very, very good reasons. I found "High Tide" on video at a junk store, mixed in amongst countless dozens of tapes of varying quality. Of course, that's the only place I would find it, as it is still not on DVD.

While I was watching Judy Davis (as Lillie) throughout the course of this film, I was somehow certain I was watching a great undiscovered performance. Yes, I had previously seen Davis in several small parts - and one starring role in "A Passage to India". But, although she was superb in the aforementioned film, "High Tide" is a different animal entirely. Since recently watching Gillian Armstrong's later film, "Charlotte Gray", I was acutely aware of the sort of actress which impresses her. Davis draws much more than a passing resemblance to Cate Blanchett - in both manner and sensibility.

Judy Davis' performance is stunning, I cannot say enough good things about it. She shares an amazing on-screen relationship with young Claudia Karvan (as Ally), this film's other great actress. There's a lot of drama and quiet humanity they share together, the details of which I won't presume to reveal here (see it for yourself!). There's too much good in "High Tide" to cover in one review. Indeed, I would hardly care to - the film speaks well enough for itself. In conclusion, I would like to praise screenwriter Laura Jones for her stunning dialogue, director Gillian Armstrong for her understanding of actors, and the great Russell Boyd for his brilliant, understated cinematography (please see his work in "Tender Mercies"). This film, though, critically acclaimed, has of course not yet been released in the U.S. on DVD, like another great - Christine Lahti's "Housekeeping", out the same year. But if you can support Region 4 (Australian) DVD's, this little masterpiece should be in your collection. There are still some VHS copies available on the internet as well.Davis is complemented by a great story, as well as memorable performances from her supporting cast, especially Claudia Carvan and the late, great Jan Adele. Amazingly, or maybe not, this film and its stars went unacknowledged at Academy Awards time, as did "Housekeeping", but treat yourself to both of them - you will be glad you did! This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding. Judy Davis shows us here why she is one of Australia's most respected and loved actors - her portrayal of a lonely, directionless nomad is first-rate. A teenaged Claudia Karvan also gives us a glimpse of what would make her one of this country's most popular actors in years to come, with future roles in THE BIG STEAL, THE HEARTBREAK KID, DATING THE ENEMY, RISK and the acclaimed TV series THE SECRET LIFE OF US. (Incidentally, Karvan, as a child, was a young girl whose toy Panda was stolen outside a chemist's shop in the 1983 drama GOING DOWN with Tracey Mann.) If this films comes your way, make sure you see it!! Rating: 79/100. See also: HOTEL SORRENTO, RADIANCE, VACANT POSSESSION, LANTANA. Yeah, it's a chick flick and it moves kinda slow, but it's actually pretty good - and I consider myself a manly man. You gotta love Judy Davis, no matter what she's in, and the girl who plays her daughter gives a natural, convincing performance.

The scenery of the small, coastal summer spot is beautiful and plays well with the major theme of the movie. The unknown (at least unknown to me) actors and actresses lend a realism to the movie that draws you in and keeps your attention. Overall, I give it an 8/10. Go see it. If you were ever sad for not being able to get a movie on DVD, it was probably 'Delirious' you were looking for. How often do you laugh when watching stand up comedy routines? I was too young to see Richard Pryor during his greatest time, and when I was old enough to see Eddie Murphy's 'Delirious' and 'Raw' (not as funny) I never knew where Eddie got a big part of his inspiration. Now that I'm older, and have seen both Pryor and many of the comedians after Murphy, I realize two things: Everybody STEALS from Eddie, while Eddie LOVINGLY BORROWED from Richard. That's the huge difference: Eddie was original, funny, provocative, thoughtful – and more. He was something never before seen. He was all we ever needed. These days Eddie Murphy is boring and old – but once upon a time he was The King, and 'Delirious' was the greatest castle ever built. Truly one of the funniest routines of all time. This is the funniest stand up I have ever seen and I think it is the funniest I will ever see. If you don't choke with laughter at the absolute hilarity, then this is just not your cup of tea. But I honestly don't know anyone who has seen this that hasn't liked it. It is now 17 years later and my friends and I still quote everything from Goonie Goo Goo to the fart game, Aunt Bunnie to the ice cream man, Ralph and Ed to GET OUT!! There are just so many individual and collective skits of hilarity in here that if you honestly haven't seen this film then you are missing out on one of the best stand-ups ever. Take any of Robin Williams, Damon Wayans, The Dice, George Carlin or even the greats like Richard Pryor or Red Foxx and this will surpass it. I don't know how or where Murphy got some of his material but it works. That is what it comes down to. It is funny as hell.

Could you imagine how this show must have shocked people that were used to Eddie doing Buckwheat and Mr. Rogers and such on SNL? If you listen to the audience when he cracks his first joke or when he says the F-word for the first time, they are in complete shock.

His first time he says the F-word is when he does the skit about Mr. T being a homosexual.

" Hey boy, hey boy. You look mighty cute in them jeans. Now come on over here, and f@** me up the ass!"

The crowd erupts in gales of laughter. No one was expecting the filthy mouth that he unleashed on them. But the results were just awesome. I have never been barraged with relentless comedy the way I was in this stand-up. In fact, the next time my stomach hurt so much from laughing wasn't until 1999 when I saw SOUTH PARK: BIGGER LONGER AND UNCUT . That comedy was raw and unapologetic and it went for the jugular, as did DELIRIOUS. I don't think it is possible to watch this piece of comic history and not laugh. It is almost twenty years later and it is still the funniest damn thing on video.

" I took your kids fishing last week. And I put the worm on the hook and the kids put the fishing pole back in the boat and slammed their heads in the water for two minutes Gus. Normal kids don't do shit like that Gus. Then they started movin their heads around like this and the m****f***** come up with fish. Then they looked at each other and said Goonie Goo Goo! I said can you believe this f****n shit?!"

See it again and be prepared to laugh your freakin ass off!

10 out of 10 It should be against the law not to experience this extremely funny stand up show with Eddie Murphy. I have never seen anything like it.

Murphy goes on for almost 70 minutes about dicks, pussy, tits and insaults so many famous people including his own "family". Among the people who gets it by murphy are: Elvis, Mr.T, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger, Luther Vandross and James Brown. I have seriously never laughed so hard of anything my entire life. I mean, when a person doesn't know who Mr. T is, but still laughs so hard of Murphy as Mr. T, there's something about it. At the time I saw the show I couldn't remember who Mr T. was but still laughed. Now I know who he is and that just makes it so much more funny. Because that's what Eddie do - he can make those impressions so good that it don't matter who the hell he's trying to do, it's still hilarious. And on top of that, we learn that Murphy actually is a very good singer. Please watch it.. If you haven't seen this, you do not know what you are missing. The first time you do, you will litteraly be in pain lying on floor throwing up from laughing so hard, and having probably wet yourself as well.

It is THAT funny. There hasn't been a single comedic performance to this date that I have seen that tops this or even comes close. So many classic one liners, stories, and segways..

The drunken uncle at the BBQ, Gi Joe, Mr T, goony goo goo, ice cream man, you say any of these things to anyone who has seen this performance and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they will not be able to keep a straight face and will burst out in laughter, or recite the rest of the dialogue from the act.

Pure classic!! Shame you can't get it on DVD..

Rating 10+ out of 10 I've never laughed and giggled so much in my life! The first half kept me in stitches; the last half made me come completely unglued! I think I giggled for 15 minutes after the tape was over.

His timing and delivery for his stories is almost unequaled. And though he talks fast, you catch every joke. Which is probably why my "laugh center" was so overwhelmed; it took an extra 15 minutes to laugh at everything.

I watched this film a few times in the 90's and nearly split my sides laughing each time. I love Eddie Murphy as an actor, but this stand up is some thing else. He is SO funny. Even the P.C. brigade would find this hilarious. It's a must watch, and even better if you've got the guys or girls in for a drink. The take off of Michael Jackson is so like him, if you close your eyes you believe it's him singing. The things he describes are true to life and you would seriously have to have a humour bypass if you thought this was not funny. My local video stores do not stock this video any more but I would love to get my hands on a copy to show my husband and boys when they are old enough to appreciate the humour. Anyway, highly recommended, hope you enjoy. This is hands down the greatest stand up show ever. I've seen a lot of stand up shows ,been to a lot of stand up shows, and watch Bet's Comic View, but I have never seen anyone who could match the skills of Murphy on this show. The impressions are excellent, the skits are great, and the timing is perfect. You can even tell the crowd gets really into. When he did Raw a few years later it was also really good, but this is # 1 in my book. Also shows that at one time, particularly the early-to mid eighties, that Murphy was funny. My favorite parts of the show is when he is retelling the family barbecue and "Ice cream !!! Mooommmm!! The ice cream man is coming !!!!" Another great part is where his mom is like Clint Eastwood. OK, I don't really think that Trailer Park Boys has bad story lines, because they kick ass. They just... conflict with each other.

For Example: Near the end of the movie, it shows Ricky and Julian telling "Patrick Lewis" to put the dog down and walk away. Then at the end, it shows Ricky and Julian saying that they've been in jail for 2 years. In the TV series pilot, the first clip they show is the same clip of Ricky and Julian yelling at "Patrick Lewis". But in the TV series, they've supposedly only been in jail for 18 months.

Also, they give us the impression that the movie's story line and the TV series' story line are connected (because of the yelling scene between the guys). But some actors portray totally different characters. Of course, Patrick Roach plays "Patrick Lewis" in the movie, but in the series he plays Randy. Sam Tarasco plays one of the guys who pays Ricky for an extermination, and then he plays Sam Losco in the series.

Also (again... I know, I have a lot to say), in the movie, the guys snort coke instead of smoking hash. The thing is, they never actually confirm that the two story lines are connected in anyway, other than the yelling scene.

Sorry to keep on blabbing. This is how i felt while watching this film. I loved it. It was hilarious. But i did feel a like i was getting sneaky view into somebody's psyche and then laughing as it got twisted around to make an interesting point. A friend put it this way:

"I feel like we broke into somebody's house and are now watching their awful home videos without their knowledge".

Another one of those fact is stranger than fiction pieces of film. "Groovin' Gary", the original "Beaver Kid", is a small town guy who turns up at a nearby TV station in the hope of getting on film - and he certainly does, though not, perhaps, as he initially expected. With high hopes of fame and significance he invites Harris to come and film a truly awful talent quest that he has organised in his home town - headlined by his own drag act "Olivia Newton-Don".

Director, Trent Harris, does a brilliant job with this slowly evolving story. Some footage of an awkward kid who wants to be someone morphs, over two subsequent reinterpretations, into the story of freedom from repressed sexual identity in small town America. Harris simultaneously critiques the attitudes of small town America, the cult of celebrity, and the exploitative practices of the film and television industry.

Both Sean Penn and Grispin Glover pull out stunner performances. a young Sean Penn is the most evocative - so closely does he follow the actual 'Gary footage', but with strong nuances given to push the sense of the interaction the way Harris wants it to go.

In the end the wide-eyed naivety the original Gary is what moved me - when contrasted against these possible interpretations of his situation.

A film not to miss. I have not seen anything else like it.

Jacob. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, you must see this. If you are a Sean Penn fan, you must see this. If you are a movie fan in general, you must see this. If you have no idea who Crispin Glover is and you have no idea who Sean Penn is, this film will probably still have a lot of value, but the more work you've previously seen by Crispin or Sean, the better.

This movie is so funny, but it is also pure genius. There is nothing that I know of that resembles this film. It is its own genre. I doubt that anything like it will ever be made again. I cannot say anything more about exactly why without partially spoiling it, and some of the other reviews here have already done a good job at doing that.

In response to any of the reviewers here that gave it a bad review, I ask that you view the film again. In reality, there is no point at which this film could fairly be called "boring." This is possibly the funniest, most entertaining, and least boring film ever made. And it only gets better with age and repeated viewings. A timeless classic that, unfortunately, very few will be able to claim to have seen.

Beaver Trilogy is the brilliant work of director Trent Harris, also responsible for the amazing Rubin and Ed, which Crispin Glover also stars in.

Unfortunately, copies of this film are rare and hard to find. I managed to find a VHS version after some diligent searching though, and there are a couple of ways to find it that I know of. But I really wish someone would put this onto a DVD. This movie is amazing for several reasons. Harris takes an extremely awkward documentary and turns it into a relevant social commentary. Groovin' Gary is a small-town kid who is (assumed) well-liked for his many impersonations. When he decides to play Olivia Newton John in a local talent show (for whom he is very passionate), Gary's actions show that he is at odds with the conservative social environment in which he lives. This results in him making various justifications for his actions so that people will not think that he is in fact a transvestite or other such social outcast. In the second installment, Harris exploites the struggle between Gary and Beaver in a novice attempt to make a narrative out of the original documentary. The third and final installment to the trilogy is truly amazing for Harris' extreme sensitivity with the subject. Unlike the second installment, "The Orkly Kid" shows Gary as a truly troubled character. He struggles to gain acceptance within his own community to no avail. His secret passion for dressing like Olivia Newton John distances him even further from the people that already consider him a social outcast. The movie is depicted so realistically that, like reality, it lends itself to many reactions. Surely, one can see Gary as a ridiculously pathetic character, but may also identify with him as an outcast. THE BEAVER TRILOGY is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant films ever made. I was lucky enough to catch it, along with a Q&A session with director Trent Harris, at the NY Video Festival a few years back and then bought a copy off of Trent's website. This movie HAS to be seen to be believed! I sincerely recommend searching for Trent's name on the web and then buying the film from his site. He's an incredibly nice guy to boot. Don't get confused: The cameraman in the fictional sections of THE BEAVER TRILOGY is NOT Trent!

After having seen the TRILOGY a few times, I do have to admit that I could probably do without the Sean Penn version. It's like a try-out version for the Crispin Glover "Orkly Kid" section and is interesting more as a curiosity item if you're a Penn fan than it being a good video. Penn is pretty funny, though, and you can see the makings of a big star in this gritty B&W video.

This is probably also one of Crispin Glover's best roles and I would just love to see an updated documentary about the original Groovin' Gary. Once you see this film, you'll never get Gary's nervous laughter out of your head ever again. There has never been anything like it, that's for sure. This episodic, seemingly redundant trilogy only really makes sense taken as a whole, and as such it is not a movie about Groovin' Gary, Utah cross-dressing sensation. It is very self-consciously a film about how the filmmaker REACTS to Groovin' Gary. For Harris the entire project is clearly an extended and spectacular contortion of guilt and repentance. He's trying to atone for his sins - yes, Gary did attempt suicide after the initial doc was aired - through correction, commentary, and convention, reclaiming such Hollywood-narrative standbys as the best friend and the defiant happy ending (two different ones, with a telling adjustment in the Glover version) and turning them to his own very personal uses. So while thematically it remains a movie about gender and difference, the structure ensures that it is also a movie about MOVIES - but on an almost unprecedented level of complexity. There is just so much going on; in telling and re-telling this story Harris is in the right place at the right time three times in a row, and he doesn't miss the opportunity to make something of it. Immensely moving, and as profound as camp ever gets. The short that starts this film is the true footage of a guy named Gary, apparently it was taken randomly in the parking lot of a television station where Gary works in the town of Beaver. Gary is a little "different"; he is an impersonator and drives an old Chevy named Farrah (after Fawcett). Lo and behold the filmmaker gets a letter from Gary some time later inviting him to return to Beaver to get some footage of the local talent contest he has put together, including Gary's staggering performace as Olivia Newton Dawn. Oh, my. The two shorts that follow are Gary's story, the same one you just witnessed only the first is portrayed by Sean Penn and the second by Crispin Glover titled "The Orkly Kid." If you are in the mood for making fun of someone this is definitely the film to watch. I was doubled over with laughter through most of it, especially Crispins performance which could definitely stand on it's own. When it was over, I had to rewind the film to once again watch the real Gary and all his shining idiocy. Although Olivia was the focus, I would have liked to have seen one of the "fictitious" shorts take a jab at Gary's Barry Manilow impersonation, whic h was equally ridiculous. Yes, this gets the full ten stars. It's plain as day that this fill is genius. The universe sent Trent Harris a young, wonderfully strange man one day and Harris caught him on tape, in all that true misfit glory that you just can't fake. Too bad it ended in tragedy for the young man, if only an alternate ending could be written for that fellow's story. The other two steps in the trilogy do retell the story, with Sean Penn and Crispin Glover in the roles of the young men, respectively. The world is expanded upon and the strangeness is contextualized by the retelling, giving us a broader glimpse into growing up weird in vanilla America. Recommended for anyone and everyone! Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles. This is your standard musical comedy from the '30's, with a big plus that it features some well known '30's actors in small fun cameo's.

There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.

Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.

It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.

The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.

7/10 This is one of the best ensemble comedy/musical "B" film's that I have seen (and since I'm in my 40's now and only seeing this now, I am not an expert but I have seen all the well known films out there). When there are a ton of actors getting their lead for minutes at a time, usually the comedy interferes with the musical bits, and very often the musical pieces interrupt the comedic flow. Call me in a crazy kind of mood but when I saw this on TCM Europe, I was laughing out loud with pleasure! So who delivered the laughs for me? Without a doubt Mischa Auer delivered me some terrific gut busting laughs, he even steals the ending, it was great! Speaking of which, I think why this movie works is because although L & H are a selling point (and why I got hooked to watch this one (them and Hal Roach), I love them in their early Hal Roach stuff), this keeps them at a minimum and stays squarely on ADULT fare (by 1930's standards, and not that far from today's standards if you read between the lines). Jack Haley is also great to watch, I admit that I only know him from W O OZ and I loved him there, and I also laughed out loud here at his waiter bit in the show. Patsy Kelly is the only "ugly" femme in the 30's movies that actually turns me on (something tells me she was a spitfire in real life); and the musical numbers have a real professional production (Busby Berkley'ish) quality, that blew me away from what I am used to in this genre. I could go on and on, but rest assured I really enjoyed this movie. 8 of 10 I saw it on TCM Europe and will record it to watch again with my wife on TCM USA. Good Stuff! I was having just about the worst day of my life. Then I stumbled on this cute film, watched it, and now I'm ready to go out & kiss a streetlamp.

I have to admit, I only watched it for 2 reasons: VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS. But it's really so much more. The plot is actually quite clever and creatively woven. It's almost like a Shakespearean comedy with all of its delightful misunderstandings. And of course there's also... VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS.

The only unfortunate aspect of this film is that the version I purchased (the "100 Family Classics" collection by Mill Creek Entertainment) doesn't have the best video quality, and I've heard the same about the Alpha release. The brightness and contrast are a bit too high, so a lot of the scenes seem bleached out especially when Vera is dancing in a white dress. But I suppose you can fiddle with the controls of your TV set to compensate. I can only imagine how it looked on the big screen back in '51. The stage sets, costumes & colours are otherwise dazzling & delightfully creepy--sort of in a "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" vein.

As far as the romance goes, this is just perfect. Not sappy, not contrived, not melodramatic. Just 100% ahhhhhh. Too bad, you poor schmucks, your miserable lives will never be as charming as this. Har har har. Wait, what am I laughing at? My life sucks just as bad as yours. Oh hell. Time to watch this movie again. A few years ago, I bought several $1 DVD's that contained two movies each. One of them had Three Broadway Girls (an alternate title for The Greeks Had a Word for Them) and this one, Happy Go Lovely. It's basically a backstage musical comedy that takes place in Scotland and concerns mistaken identity involving one of the dancers hitching a ride from a millionaire's limousine. Vera-Ellen is that dancer and-wow, what legs! Ceasar Romero is her producer who takes a chance on her after the original leading lady leaves because he thinks she's dating the millionaire whose car I just mentioned. And David Niven is that rich guy who, when looking for Vera-Ellen, is mistaken for a reporter who's supposed to interview her but gets stalled by Romero. What I've just mentioned may be confusing but (mostly) makes sense if you're willing to check your brain while watching this charmingly screwball comedy with wonderful musical numbers as performed by the exquisite Ms. Vera-Ellen. Romero can be a bit frantic here but Niven becomes hilariously bemused throughout. The print I saw was actually pretty good considering its age and the fact that it's in public domain. And Vera-Ellen does pretty well with her lines since she's not really an actress. So on that note, I highly recommend Happy Go Lovely for movie buffs who love old-fashioned musical comedies. I find this movie very enjoyable. The plot is simple and easily digestible, the humour is light and clean, and because the storyline involving mistaken identity is quite common, I find myself looking forward to how this movie flesh this story out. Turns out to be very nice. The performance of the female lead is admirable; her portrayal of an innocent, naive girl trying to fabricate some white lies to David's sophisticated role was very charming. I also find Vera's dancing very, very well done. I find myself drawn to her toes as she pranced about the stage effortlessly and flawlessly.

For those who have had enough of profanity-filled movies of today, you will enjoy this movie thoroughly. endearing tale........ voted ten against all averages for my age and sex... not all that much comedy (compared to a i almost wet myself movie) although funny enough. not a fan of musicals at all so probably a little too much for me, but they do give you time to grab a drink or soda without missing anything important. maybe a fifties version of when harry met sally? Ahab no not really but if that is in your top ten like it is mine you will like this movie. really it just leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, reminding you of what romance could and should be like, something to shoot for. my summary describes it best in very few words..... quite charming This Hong Kong filmed potboiler packs in more melodrama than week's worth of 'The Young & The Restless'. This one is more of a throwback to the original 'Emmanuelle' trilogy(especially 'Goodbye Emmanuelle') than a D'Amato sleazefest. Chai Lee(Emy Wong)undergoes a stunning transformation from dour nurse to hot-to-trot streetwalker. Future Italian porn star/politician, Illona Staller, who would later go by the name Ciccolina(and have sex with an HIV positive John Holmes) plays Emy's competition. Exotic locales and some decent soft-core scenes round this one out. Recommended for fans of the original 'Emmanuelle', of which I am one! Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated "Emmanuelle" series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest. Handsome and dashing British airline pilot George Taylor (a solid portrayal by Guiseppe Pambieri) gets beat up by thugs after a wild night in Hong Kong. George meets and falls in love with the sweet and virginal Dr. Emy Wong (a fine and charming performance by the lovely Chai Lee). George regains his health and goes back to work. When Emy fails to hear from George for a lengthy amount of time, she succumbs to despair and becomes a prostitute. While director/co-writer Bitto Albertini does indeed deliver a satisfying amount of the expected tasty nudity and steamy soft-core sex, this film is anything but your routine wallow in leering sleaze. Instead it's a surprisingly thoughtful, touching and tragic love story between two well drawn and highly appealing characters (Chai as Emy Wong is especially radiant and endearing). The picture starts out bubbly and cheerful, but the tone radically shifts into a more grim and harsh mood about two thirds of the way through. Emy's descent into vice after she falsely assumes that George has abandoned her is bleak and upsetting; ditto the remarkably sad and heartbreaking surprise bummer ending. Granted, the narrative is certainly melodramatic, but never too silly or trashy. Moreover, the sex scenes are quite tasteful and even genuinely erotic. Notorious Italian porn star Ilona Staller has a nice sizable supporting part as George's jealous and uninhibited secretary Helen Miller. Guido Mancori's polished cinematography offers many strikingly gorgeous shots of the exotic locations. Nico Fidenco's funky, throbbing score hits the groovy spot. Worth a look for those seeking something different. I had the opportunity to see this film debut at the Appalachian Film Festival, in which it won an award for Best Picture. This film is brilliantly done, with an excellent cast that works well as an ensemble. My favorite performances were from Youssef Kerkour, Justin Lane , and Adam Jones. Also, there are some great effects with dragonflies and cockroaches, that I was surprised to find out that this film was done on a small budget. The writer-director Adam Jones, who I believe also won an award for his writing, does an excellent job with direction. The audience loved this movie. Cross Eyed will keep you laughing throughout the movie. Definitely a must see. A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.

The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.

I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew. Who made this film? I love this film? Somebody has a wacky sense of humor...

This Zany, Surreal style of film making is appealing, but it is hard to create - or easy to forget - that substance, and characters who actually have souls, are what give such a film depth. Without that a comedy is just a bunch of ideas. Who cares. It may get laughs, but it goes through you like a half-good hamburger...next...

Crosseyed may not intend to change anybody's life, but I appreciate the depth and substance. They sneak up on you. I started this film thinking "Oh, I get it - indie comedy - off the wall - gonzo...yup." And it is that - but if you pay attention there is sub text and character moments filling it out. In this sense the film breathes. It makes propositions that give pause - if you're available to see them - and then, of course, it goes on its insanely merry way.

You will miss the point if you don't sign the contract to suspend belief at moments in the film. Stepping between reality and surreality IS one of the points of this movie.

Crosseyed isn't perfect, but smart people made it. I want more.

The dining room scenes are an absolute HOOT.

Put on your seat belt. The film "Cross Eyed" by Adam Jones propels the viewer on a ride of redemption as the main character takes back control of the wheel and sets his life in order. Adam Jones has found an imaginative and refreshing way to empower his character and actualize what matters most. These truths become apparent to both the characters and viewers as you laugh and gag to the credits with them. The simple yet attractive settings\costumes keep you guessing about what you will see next. You can't help but smile and laugh at the antics that take place in this movie. I can't wait for his sophomore effort. It is only a matter of time before Jones strikes again. Bravo! Adam Jones has a brilliant sense of humor. There is nothing i didn't like about this film. Cross Eyed was beautifully shot. Adam does a great job of, not only developing the main characters, but also the minor characters.

Cross Eyed gives hope to every low budget film out there. That you don't have to spend a lot to create something worth watching. There is something to like for everyone. If you've had a terrible roommate. if you've ever picked on a dork in high school. if you've ever parked anywhere in the city. if you have any type of sense of humor at all you will love this film. This is the type of film that will be around for a long time and ends up resurfacing again once Adam makes a bigger name for himself. I look forward to Adam's future projects. I happened to catch this film at a screening in Brooklyn - it's difficult to describe the plot; it has a lot of wacky characters, but let's just say I'd have a hard time choosing which one made me laugh the hardest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Even the peripheral roles are well written and well acted.

There are numerous small touches that make it unique and very enjoyable, it has a few "devices" that pop up and add another hilarious layer. It is refreshing to watch; not some recycled stuff I'd seen many times before. If this film could reach a wider audience, I'm certain it would be a real crowd-pleaser, the story is so original and heartfelt.

There's a lot here to like, funny back-stories, mishaps and misunderstandings which set up the final act and dramatic conclusion. Cross Eyed is a very funny movie with a ton of heart; it's a touching story with fast paced comedy woven throughout. Definitely worth seeing! It's great how this movie pulls you along. I had honest laughs. Don't care that it's low budget cause the thing works for me. To be honest my wife didn't really go for it in the same way but she prefers a different type of film. She did admit though that it was very creative and well put together and probably all on a shoe string. These characters who's lives are strange and troubled give me something to relate to in my own world. Just keep going and be who you are. Dreams are what you make of them. In watching this movie a second and third time I realized that there are some hidden moments that passed by me on the first time through. What can I say, I like my fun with some complexity. Anyway liked it. Hope to see more. Very rarely does one come across an indie comedy that leaves a lasting impression. Cross Eyed is a rare gem. The writer director not only tackled the challenge of directing his own work, but gives a hilarious performance as an evil roommate. The script takes an interesting look at not only the plight of the struggling writer, but mixes so much comedy into the desolate world of the writer that you can't help but commit to Ernie as a character. Very funny stuff. Despite the tiny budget Adam Jones manages to give the film a serious look. He's not messing around when it comes to making a good movie. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. This guy can make people laugh and think; that's special. An imagination is a terrible thing to waste ... especially when you have talented actors. Writer/Director Jones wastes no time in siding the viewer with his protagonist.

Anyone who has shared an apartment with a slob will be crying with laughter. Anyone who has arrived while a meter maid places a ticket on your windshield will just plain cry. We've all wanted to rip a terrible toupee off a man's head. These are only snippets of what's in store when watching "Cross Eyed", a heartfelt film that should be a stepping stone for Jones and his wry sense of humor both in front and behind the camera. Debut? Wow--Cross-Eyed is easily one of the most enjoyable indie films that I've watched in the past year, making it hard to believe that Cross Eyed is the writer's debut film. I mean--I logged onto IMDb to find more films by this writer...because Cross Eyed has that unique signature --you want to see what else this writer might have to say. These days, its rare to see a movie that is well-written, well-directed, well-edited and well-acted. For me--Cross Eyed encapsulates what movie making should be about--combining the best of all film elements to create a clever, artistic and poignant tale. More, please. Cross-eyed is a very original and funny movie. I think Adam Jones brings a refreshing new set of eyes to the comedy genre and really reinvents it in a good way. This film is smart, concise, and consistently entertaining and funny. As a writer/director, Jones exhibits complete control over his characters who are both absurd and lovable. The story is definitely something you haven't seen before which is good. It's unique and fun, and manages to work in visually fantastic elements as well as the long lost slapstick genre together to form a hearty comedy.

A very promising first film. Writer/Director/Co-Star Adam Jones is headed for great things. That is the thought I had after seeing his feature film "Cross Eyed". Rarely does an independent film leave me feeling as good as his did. Cleverly written and masterfully directed, "Cross Eyed" keeps you involved from beginning to end. Adam Jones may not be a well known name yet, but he will be. If this movie had one or two "Named Actors" it would be a Box Office sensation. I think it still has a chance to get seen by a main stream audience if just one film distributor takes the time to work this movie. Regardless of where it ends up, if you get a chance to see it you won't be disappointed. I rented this some years ago, the video store had only VHS at the time. Straight to video was hitting it's strides (you know, where the box covers use the same font and color schemes of successful films).I didn't know what to expect other than what was printed. First thing I thought while watching was "what the hells' wrong with the sound?"-Obviously there was no dialogue dubbing. Words echoed, so I stopped munching on whatever I had to pay closer attention-mind you there's no Shakespeare here!,just simple talk. The story is simple enough, boy meets girl etc.. What struck me as humorous and heartfelt was, the people in the movie didn't seem like caricatures written into the story,but rather non-actors plucked temporarily from their real jobs(uniforms included). All the while, you begin to sense what the filmmaker is after,then see that there are no attempts at cheap humor(people hurting their privates,using vulgarities this couldn't have hurt the marketing. There was something honest about it. I thought if they'd have a bigger budget then it would have been better, which i'm sure they considered daily,but, they went ahead and made it. This, I felt, was what independent film-making is all about.The word "Indy", is thrown around as if it's a Genre..Ha!..that's funny! This is a cute and sad little story of cultural difference. Kyoko is a beautiful Japanese woman who has run to California to escape from a failed relationship in Japan. Ken is a Japanese American manual laborer with aspirations of rock and roll stardom but little concrete to offer a potential partner. Kyoko "marries" Ken in order to be able to stay permanently in the U.S., with the understanding that although they will live together until she gets a "green card" the marriage will be in name only. It soon develops that the parties are not on the same wavelength - or perhaps in the same "time zone", hence the title of the movie. As an immigration attorney I have seen such "arrangements" take on a life of their own, so I was pleased to see how well the filmmaker developed the dramatic possibilities of this situation. This is one of those films that explore the culture clash of Eastern born people in Westernized cultures.

Loving on Tokyo Time is a sad film about the inability of opposites to attract due to major cultural differences. Ken, rock n'roll fanatic, marries Kyoto, a Japanese girl, so that she can stay in the United States when her visa expires. The marriage is only expected to be temporary, that is, until Kyoto gains legal status again. But, Ken, who seems to be lost in every relationship, takes a liking to Kyoto and tries very hard to make things work out. This, despite his friend's urging that dumping Kyoto and getting rid of all commitments to girls is bad for rock n' roll except to inspire some song writing about broken hearts and all of that.

But Kyoto comes from a strict traditional Japanese upbringing, and doesn't expect to be married to Ken all that long. Not only that, she is homesick and wants to return to Japan. It's sad in that this is finally someone Ken thinks he can love and be with and all that, except the one time he thinks he's found someone to feel that way about, the girl isn't expecting to stay that long. It's not that she doesn't like Ken, it's just that she's used to a whole 'nother way of life. She says, "I can't tell him the way I feel in English, and Ken can't tell me the way he feels in Japanese." It's a rather sad love story with a killer 80s techno-nintendo soundtrack.

I picked up Loving on Tokyo Time because it reminded me of one of my favorite 80s films, Tokyo Pop. And, for those of you who enjoyed Loving on Tokyo Time, check out Tokyo Pop (a New York singer goes to Japan and joins a Japanese American cover band), except it's a movie with a happy ending.

This show has come so far. At first EVERYONE in the cast from Eric to Fez, they were all new actors and actresses, fresh faces, and just look what they accomplished. They stuck with the show and it was a success. Its one of the best shows ever made and its probably the funniest sitcom I've ever seen in my life. It will be sad to see it end but if they end this show, I hope to God that the series finale goes out with one of the biggest bangs that any season finale has ever had. I don't care if the whole season sucks because they save all the fuel for the final episode. Go down swinging, get one last punch in. The show deserves it, the fans deserve it, if they go, let everyone know its going to end, like on Friends, and let the finale be huge. I say get Donna and Eric married, I say have Hyde and Kelso fight and become friends again, I say have something interesting happen between Fez and Jackie because Fez has been trying for so long, but of course it wont work out for him. JUST CLOSE OUT THE SERIES BIG TIME GUYS!

That 70s Show will always be the best in my eyes. Eric, Kelso, Donna, Jackie, Fez, Hyde, I wish I had you guys as friends. You are the best!

10/10... This was one of the funniest and greatest sitcom to hit national television. Its unfortunate that the show is not placed amongst great sitcoms where it truly belongs. The actors did a superb job and seasons one thru six were the show at its peak point. Although season seven was not as great when compared to the previous six, it was still funny. Season 8 was the real problem kicked in. Without Topher grace or Ashton Kutcher the show simply fell apart. Not too say, the other actors weren't great if any of 2 main characters had left such as Danny Masterson, Wilder Valderamma Kurtwood Smith, Debra Jo Rupp, Mila Kunis and Laura Prepon ( Don Starks and tommy Chong are great too) left the show it would have the same affect. And the inclusion of Randy ( Josh Meyers) didn't help either because he was not well received by the shows fans. I believe if the show ended a year ago it would have certainly gone down in history as one of the sitcom greats. Season 8 was a little dull but the finale was excellent. I am going to miss the show, i just hope i wake up one day to find out the show is back as That 80's show with the same cast because i am going to miss the hell out of it. I can't believe we don't have that 70's show anymore. I have all 8 seasons of that 70's show!! I absolutely Love It!! I lay in the bed every night and watch several episodes before I go to sleep. At the end of a long busy day it's nice to kick back and have a great laugh before you go to sleep. I was so sad they took the show off air... at least we still have the re-runs!! I am hoping and praying they will come back with at least a reunion...Like maybe when Donna finishes college and we finally get to see her and Eric get married!!!! Wouldn't that be awesome!!! It would be even better if they would continue it for several years!! How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...

First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.

Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.

Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.

Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem "clichéd", but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are "cute funny", purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective. Over the years, we've seen a lot of preposterous things done by writers when the show just had to go on no matter what, keeping "8 Simple Rules" going after John Ritter died comes to mind, but this is probably the first time I cared. The idea of having "That 70's Show" without Eric or to a lesser extent Kelso is ridiculous. They tried to cover it up with a comeback of Leo and increasingly outrageous story lines, but it always felt like why bother when you don't have a main character anymore. It just didn't really connect, it was a bunch of unrelated stuff happening that most of the time wasn't even funny. The last season felt like the season too much for every single character, simply because Eric used to take a lot of screen time and now we'd be smashed in the face by how stale and repetitive the rest of the characters were. Focusing on the gimmick that is Fez was thoroughly uninteresting and the character would simply stop working, because the whole deal was that he'd say something weird from out of nowhere, and you can't say stuff from out of nowhere when every second line is yours. They also brought in the standard cousin Oliver, only this time it just wasn't a kid. Whenever you heard somebody knock on the door, you started praying it wasn't Randy, please let it not be Randy. The deal with Randy was that he'd do really awful jokes, usually as Red would say, smiling like an ass and totally screwing up delivery and Donna would be in stitches. I think more than half of the last season was Donna pretending to be amused. The problems had started earlier though: what once was a truly great show with an equally great concept that for once wasn't about a dysfunctional family slowly got into the territory of soap opera. Everybody started being in love with everybody, emotional scenes were dragged out at nausea, with just one usually lame joke placed somewhere to divert attention that we were watching "As The World Turns". I'm guessing this was character development, but come on that was written almost as clumsily as the moral lessons from "Family Matters". To be fair, the last episode, also because it had a cameo by Topher Grace (a cameo in his own show), was really good, even if not that funny either.

By the way, yet more criticism on Season 8: what the hell was with the opening theme? Not only did they use the same joke twice (a character not singing), Fez scared the hell out of me. Dude, don't open your eyes that far. But the first five seasons or so,among the best comedy ever broadcast. I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one. This show has all the typical characters in a comedy: the good guy, the idiot, the pervert, the rich girl... but it's set on the 70's. That's the only difference that it has with other TV comedies. I don't know how you can like this show. Its humor is pathetic! I mean, the jokes are so direct... A typical dialog is this: "Fez: Oh, Jackie I want to have sex with you. (audience laughs) Jackie: Fez you're a pervert. (audience laughs) Fez: Oh yes I am. (audience cheers and applauds)" This isn't funny. I think that if it didn't have those laughs (I don't know how you call that in English, sorry) you wouldn't laugh at all. This isn't intelligent comedy, this is an insult to the public. I like most of the American comedies, but this isn't good at all. I would give it 4 out of 10. (Sorry for my poor English again.) ... and the series lets you forget all that. I am about three years older than the kids portrayed in the series. Born in 1958, I learned to drive during the first gas shortage, and got my first post-college graduation job during the second gas shortage in 1979. The 70's were a truly dreadful time to be young - inflation, competing for after-school minimum-wage jobs with laid-off thirty-somethings, dreadful music, worse clothes.

The funny thing is, this series doesn't ignore any of that and still manages to make the 70's look fun, even for those of us old enough to know better. It manages to look the 70's directly in the face - complete with time-authentic clothing - and yet fill the show with the hopefulness of youth and the things that make the high school and college years both the best of times and the worst of times. Then there are the parents. The two young lovers in the show - Eric Forman and Donna Pinciotti - truly have dreadful parents with the best of intentions. Eric's parents, Red and Kitty, are not exactly June and Ward although they are conventional for the decade. They represent what happened when the 60's finally reached the suburbs during the 1970's. Donna's parents are two people who have been waiting for the 1960's to show up their whole lives in order to give their weirdness legitimacy. Eric's friends Fez, Kelso, and Jackie round out the group representing nerdiness, well-meaning incompetence, and snobbishness respectively. Hyde is an unusual teenager for a show about the suburbs, but he largely represents someone who has to play the cards he was dealt even when those cards are dealt by largely absentee and negligent parents. I highly recommend all eight seasons even though season eight does lag a bit due to the absence of Eric. There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future. "That '70s Show" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes "you son of a bitch!", and when Kelso yells "burn!", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever. Like the characters in this show, I too was a teen during the 70s. The producers really nailed the whole zeitgeist, of being a suburban teenager in the 70s. The 70s fashions, cars, home furnishings, foods, and fads, are all very authentic in this show.

The show boasts a very talented ensemble cast, who all mesh together very well on camera. I really like the unique, psychedelic-style film sequences. No other show does camera tricks like this. These cutting-edge film sequences, really help to convey the campy hipness, that characterized the 70s era.

Overall this is a very funny sitcom. The one thing that bothers me about this show, is it's over-reliance on cruel humor, to generate laughs. In this way, I think that this show tries to be too much like Married With Children. While Married with Children is a great sitcom in its own right, it's tacky that the creators of That 70s show, keep trying to imitate it.

I do recommend That 70s Show, mainly due to it's nostalgia factor. It could be an even better show though, if the writers relied more on witty dialog, rather than bawdy, tasteless jokes and pranks. I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes. This show is freaking hilarious! the jokes are original, god and i Love Eric and Kelso! yeah i know what they say, after the 8th season it's not funny anymore because Eric and Kelso are no longer in the show, and Randy is a real dumbass. Randy is, comparing to Eric and Kelso.

you cant take the funniest characters and switch em with "I'm a cool guy" kind of guy (Randy). it isn't his fault anyway, but the writers are trying to keep the 8th season funny, it's still is, not as much as the earlier seasons, but its alright.

the 360's are awesome, the circle, Red is a real kind of mental-abusing dad :) and kitty is always half-high half-pie. Hyde tries to be cool all the time, he has his moments too. the least favrioutes characters are Jackie and Donna. they're cool, but not without Kelso and Eric.

great show. Dumbass! Im gonna make this short and sweet because i don't think there is much you can really tell someone about this show who has never seen it other than its hilariously funny and unique, for me its possibly the funniest show ever.

You have to really watch it to understand its humour and it took me a few episodes to really get into it but once your in there is no getting back out. For example the way Hydes character always wants to see his friends get in some sort of trouble the more it happens the funnier it becomes.

Its all round classic I mean the cast, the writers, the director, its just a recipe for success. One actor i think who always gets a hard time is Ashton Kutcher but i mean he's great in this show i don't think its possible for the the character Kelso to have been played by anyone else, it takes someone very smart to play someone that stupid. All the main characters are great and it wouldn't be a worth while review if i didn't mention the stone cold fox Mila Kunis, now thats a spicy meet a ball ha ha all joking aside amazing show. This show was absolutely great, and I always look forward to watching it.All the characters were funny and awesome in their own way, each and every episode provided non-stop laughter, and it was completely entertaining and different from a lot of other shows.Everybody was just absolutely insane and breathtakingly funny, that you couldn't help but love this show.There were a few dead weight episodes, but That '70s Show always managed to create some kind of likable atmosphere, to where it just really didn't matter.This was one of the best shows to ever be aired, and I will watch this show anytime I can, for it never gets old, never gets unfunny, and never gets uninteresting. I saw this show about 3-4 years ago. It was dam Funny! When i first time i saw it was playing on ETV(Estonian Television) And i started to like it. Too bad that that show is on bad time for me. Hyde is like a cool guy who likes to sing Frank Sinatra! And he comes on stupid ideas. He got these glasses which h are brown. I like it . And there's FeZ. The group Pervert. We all know what he does when his alone..... He wants to get laid badly. He even had it with his boss in one episode.His from India. And there is Michael , The stupidest guy on whole group , probably stupidest in town and his a cop! He is so stupid that i remember follows: Hyde says: Did u called cops ? - No Michael comes in and says. Does anyone know how to turn off siren? He is a town playboy. Then comes Jackie , who is former girlfriend of Michael and then she's Hyde's girlfriend. Then is Eric Who's son of grumpy war veteran and son of Kitty the housewife. His one big pussy. But he loves Donna , his girlfriend with who they plan for they're marriage. Donna is one hot girl. Hmm what i forget? ah Hyde lives in a basement . I haven't liked many TV shows post 1990, but THAT 70S SHOW is great. Never seeing it during it's first run, thinking a gimmicky period piece, I was wrong! I started watching in reruns and the more I watched, the more I liked! Now, it is the only show premiering post-1990 that I watch regularly.

Although THAT 70S SHOW mimics some of the styles, attitudes, music, and tastes of the 70s, it does not mire itself in that decade by going overboard with the references and look of the 70s. It contains so much funny, witty, biting dialogue that is delivered with confidence and certainty by its main cast that it overcomes any 70s clichés by just being humorous. The humor is what keeps the show eternally watchable.

Although a hilarious sitcom, no matter what time period, the uniqueness of mocking the 70s does work in its favor as it gives the show a signature identity. But its the focus on universal issues (family problems, teen angst, marital issues, peer pressure), dealing with all of them with comic aplomb, that gives the show a mass appeal.

The show's center is one Eric Forman (played to absolute comic perfection by future superstar Topher Grace). Eric is a super-skinny, geeky-looking, non-athletic teen and still comes off as super-cool due to Grace's brilliant self-deprecation of the character. Eric has 5 friends Donna, Hyde, Kelso, Jackie, and Fez (played respectively in hilarious fashion by Laura Prepon, Danny Masterson, Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, and Wilmer Valderama). We get to see life in Point Place, Wisconsin through the eyes of these 6 teens and boy do we get a lot to see! Donna, a forward-thinking feminist, is the object of Eric's affection and these 2 have the core relationship of the show. They become a couple pretty soon after the show starts and they are NEVER a boring couple. Most of the shows eps end with them having a meaningful conversation about them and their future and it works as a great insightful bookend, which works as a perfect counter to the prior hilarity. Hyde is Eric's best friend and soon moves in with the Formans when his mother abandons him; Hyde is the mellow, zen, cool one of the group and just sits back, observes, and makes fun of his fellow friends with easygoing aplomb. Kelso is the dumb one of the group and Kutcher plays it the absolute hilt, displaying amazing physical comedy as well as telling some of the most absurdly hilarious ideas and stories ever! Jackie, who starts out as Kelso's girlfriend, is a verbose, self-absorbed debutante cheerleader and is at first only accepted as part of the group b/c of Kelso, but she manages to ingratiate herself to the point where they all HAVE to accept her! And finally, Fez! Fez is the foreign exchange student from some unknown country (we never know exactly where) and he is a scene-stealer! "I said good day!" "You son of a b*tch!" Valderama is only sporting a foreign accent here as he hasn't one in reality and he is always in character and creates one of the most unique characters I have ever seen. His scene-stealing moments often help make the show for me.

The show constantly takes us into the minds and thoughts of these characters through engaging fantasy scenes of how they would like or imagine things to be. The gang repeatedly gets into trouble (most of it on purpose). They constantly play gags on the Point Place residents as well as each other. They hang out most of the time in Eric's basement plotting, pontificating, or just plain playing around.

Also figuring prominently in the show are Eric's parents, the menacing, commie-hating Red and the lovable, happy-go-lucky Kitty (played memorably by Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp). These 2 adults give the show a much-needed mature point-of-view and constantly berate and advise the 6 ne'er do-wells. Red and Kitty are ably supported by Donna's parents, the buffoonish Bob (played wonderfully for the full run by Don Stark) and blonde bimbo daft Midge (the super-sexy Tanya Roberts, who was on the show for about half it's run). Additionally, for 3 full seasons, Eric's sister from hell Laurie (played brilliantly by the wickedly sexy Farrah-Fawcett lookalike Lisa Robin Kelly) was a major refreshing relief to counter the shenanigans of the main 6 and to be the thorn in Eric and her parents' sides! Kelly came back as a guest character for a few Season 5 eps. But, unfortunately, Kelly's personal problems led to her being replaced by a terrible new actress in Season 6. The newbie didn't last, thankfully, and was gone after a few Season 6 eps!

Sadly, at the end of Season 7, Topher Grace (Eric) and early in Season 8, Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) left the show and it never recovered as Season 8 turned out to be it's last. Grace and Kutcher returned for the series finale, though, giving the show a satisfying end.

A lot of great supporting and cameo characters would help keep the show fresh through added nostalgia and humor. Top notch supporting players were eternally high Leo (played to the hilt by Tommy Chong), Pastor Dave, Roy (the terrific comic Jim Gaffigan), Big Rhonda, Mitch, Earl, etc. They also got legends Marion Ross (HAPPY DAYS) and Betty White (THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW) to play Red and Kitty's mothers, respectively. Many celebrity cameos from the 70s made appearances as well, from Shirley Jones (PARTRIDGE FAMILY) to Pamela Sue Martin (NANCY DREW) to Charo to Ted Nugent to K.I.S.S! It goes on and on!

With great nostalgic 70s homages and references, hilarious dialogue and delivery and a nonsensical, take-no-prisoners style of comedic storytelling, THAT 70S SHOW is a television classic! Not since The Simpsons made it's debut has there been a sitcom that I didn't want to turn of in a matter of 2 minutes. It has of course been said that The Simpsons killed the sitcom. Not this one though.

The first season was so so as the teenage characters were not quite as outrageous as they later became. They even went to school sometimes. The following seasons the character where fledged out. Eric, the sarcastic twit, Donna, his levelheaded girlfriend, Kelso, the dim bulb, Hyde, the conspiracy theorist and anti-establishment punk, Fez, the pervert exchange student and finally Jackie, the spoiled rich floozy. As for the adult characters there was Eric's mom, the "can you believe she is so ditzy" suburban mom, Eric's dad, the straight arrow who of course wasn't such a hard ass as he seemed, Donna's goofy dad and her dumb blonde mom. Everybody are true to their characters but special kudos to Kurtwood Smith who finds the perfect balance between toughness and still makes his Red Forman quite sympathetic without making us throw up with unexpected cuteness.

Topher Grace is of course the main reason why this show is so good. It's a tough character to play because it doesn't allow the actor to indulge in wild overacting like the Kelso character, played competently by Ashton Kutcher. I enjoyed seeing the two characters interact because they are the most different.

Hyde's character is a bit harder to enjoy because he is more realistic and do we really need to see the orphan story for the umpteenth time, although I will say that the writers came up with a brilliant story arc for him in the last seasons.

Jackie, played by Family Guy voice artist Mila Kunis is hilarious and she has a nails on a chalkboard type voice, which actually fits her character. The only sad part is that we didn't see more scenes with her and Eric because they were f...... hilarious together. Too much story was wasted on her relationship problems since we already got that in spades with Eric and Donna.

Last I will say that the casting of guest actors were always great. A few favorites: Fez' humongous girlfriend in the mid-seasons, Pastor Dan, the totally awesome Leo played by the equally awesome Thomas Chong, another one of Fez' girlfriends who is totally certifiable and a special appearance by the teenage witch Sabrina as a slutty catholic girl.

Coming up next on Fox, whatever. I love this show. Period. I haven't been watching very long, probably only about six months or so, actually, but it is now my favorite show and probably will be for quite a while. I love all of the characters, except I don't really care for Donna. I'm not completely sure why. I just..don't find her funny, and I don't think Laura Prepon is a very good actress. Other than her, I find the rest of the cast pretty good. Kurtwood Smith and Debra Joe Rupp, who played Erics parents, were extremely funny. Topher Grace is also a great actor. Unlike a lot of fans, I did not completely hate the 8th season. I still watch it, and it does make me laugh. But, if you compare it to the shows earlier seasons, its..not good. Randy is horrible. The finale was decent, nothing amazing, but good. =] I do think it would have been better to cancel the show after Ashton and Topher decided to leave, but oh well. I have the fourth season on DVD, and someday I hope to have all eight seasons on DVD. Some of its most hilarious episodes, in my opinion, were 'Dine&Dash', 'Grandmas Dead', 'Red&Stacey', and 'Streaking', but I love every episode I've seen so far, which is most of them, I think. =] 9/10 stars, I would definitely recommend it. =] This show is wonderful. It has some of the best writing I ever seen. It has brilliant directing by Dvid Trainer who also directed another smart television series called BOY MEETS WORLD.

This show is with out a dought one of the greatest. Like THREE'S COMPANY, ROSEANNE, and the famous COSBY SHOW this will be on television for a long time to come.

From it's perfectly crafted jokes to the great performances you would only dream of this is a wonderful show for people who lived in the seventies and the people who didn't. This show appeals to the young and the young at heart. A perfect show. If TV was a baseball league, this show would have a perfect record! With an excellent cast, and a perfect plot, this show gave 8 amazing seasons and a great joy to TV after dinner. With the constant changing of relationships and finding out who Hyde's real dad is, this show was a hit when it started in August of 98, though it was set in 1976. And hanging out in Foremans basement was always the thing to do back then, and it still is today, along with circles.This show gave great laughs in premieres, and it still does during re-runs. If you watch a few episodes of this show, you will get everything and want to get more. Now only is this show one of the best ever created, it is clever and funny. That 70s Show is the best TV show ever, period. It's up there with the Andy Griffen Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Simpsons in my book. That 70s Show continued on for 8 seasons, all of which focus around a group of teenagers/young adults dealing with relationships, separating from their parents, and their overall futures.

The two main characters, Eric and Donna, are two teenagers living next door to each other. They have been living next door to each other for most of their lives, and just begin to feel more feelings for each other at the beginning of the first season. A large amount of the show revolves around how their relationship is working.

Two other characters, Red and Kitty, are Eric's parents. Red was in the service, so he really pushes Eric around. Kitty is just the opposite. Even though she drinks heavily, she treats Eric and his friends with a lot of care. Bob, their neighbor, is obviously Donna's Dad. Bob giggles around with several different women throughout the coarse of the show's story. Bob also annoys Red to his full extent.

The remaining character, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie, are Eric's friends. They also play a major role in the show's story.

Well, the First Season is great. This is when the characters are beginning to feel new things for each other. The First Season is original, funny, and enjoyable.

The Second Season is good, although it isn't as good as the first. It is a basic continuation of the First. Eric and Donna are together, and everything is working out great.

The Third Season is my favorite. It went back and captured the First Season feel and humor. I also think that the character chemistry improved a bunch, making the show all that more fun to watch.

The Fourth Season isn't near as good. Eric and Donna Arne't together in this one, making the show slightly less pleasurable. It is still funny, although I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons.

The Fifth Season is the last season I enjoyed all the way through. It is the gang's Senior Year, so that really helps with the story. The Fifth Season also had the best ending out of all the seasons.

The Sixth Season is good for the most part. It is extremely funny, although it doesn't capture the feel that the other seasons did. The gang is out of High School, so I believe that it didn't hit the teen feel that the previous seasons did. I also didn't like the last three or four episodes considering that they had a major drama feel to them.

The Seventh Season captures the same feel that the 5th season had in a way, although it didn't do it all the way. I enjoyed the Seventh Season as I did all the others, and the ending is great.

The Last Season flat out sucked. Eric wasn't in it, which ruined it. Kelso wasn't in it for the most part either, which didn't help. I hated the Eighth Season up until the last episode. I thought that the last episode was really good, and a fitting ending to the series.

So overall, if you enjoy comedy, give That 70s Show a try. They stopped making new episodes, but it is still on TV a bunch. I also recommend buying Seasons 1-7. It is up to you if you want to buy Season 8. This is one of the better comedies that has ever been on television. Season one was hilarious as were most of the following seasons. The only reason that I give this show a 9/10 is because of the unfortunate final season. The only good part of the final season was the finale. My favorite part of this show was the scenes that cut to people's imaginations, often depicting the characters in famous TV shows or movies from the 70's. It is a rare show in that i liked every character (with the exception of the final season...too late to try to develop a new character and fez wasn't nearly as funny). Red's foot in your ass comments never got old, nor did Kelso's stupidity. Bravo to fox for keeping such a good show so long, too long even. If any show in the last ten years deserves a 10, it is this rare gem. It allows us to escape back to a time when things were simpler and more fun. Filled with heart and laughs, this show keeps you laughing through the three decades of difference. The furniture was ugly, the clothes were colorful, and the even the drugs were tolerable. The hair was feathered, the music was accompanied by roller-skates, and in the words of Merle Haggard, "a joint was a bad place to be". Take a trip back to the greatest time in American history. Fall in love with characters and the feel good essence of the small town where people were nicer to each other. This classic is on television as much as "Full House". Don't miss it, and always remember to "Shake your groove thing!!!" In what is a truly diverse cast, this show hits it's stride on FOX. It is the kind of sitcom that grows on you. If you just watch 1 show you might not like it much, but once you watch two or three- you get hooked.

This is because some of the jokes hit & some miss depending upon how you view them. As is usual today, the themes are very mature. The humor is usually very mature too. Often the most funny parts are the parts where the mature themes collide with the innocent ones.

Red (Kurtwood Smith) a veteran actor does some very good deadpan type of humor on this show. Debra Jo Rupp plays well in this ensemble cast too. Danny Masterson, the oldest actor of the "kids" is very good too. Laura Prepon (Donna) looks better in the earlier shows as a natural redhead (who got the idea of making her a blonde?). She shows very good talent & comedic timing often. She looks good without make up too.

This is one of the better entries on FOX in the sitcom department & it's most successful live action one since Married With Children Let's face it: the final season (#8) was one of the worst seasons in any show I've ever enjoyed (mostly, I've never found dry spells to last a whole season). But if you judge this show by the last season, of course it's going to come across as inferior. That is an entirely unfair assessment-- because "That '70s Show" was, in its day, a brilliant and hilarious sitcom about a bygone era and how the people who lived there weren't so different than we are here in modern times.

All right... ignoring Season 8.

Topher Grace stars as Eric Forman, a horny geek of a teenager with a perpetual love of Donna (Laura Prepon), the feminist girl next door. Playing their friends, Danny Masterson (Hyde), Mila Kunis (Jackie), Wilmer Valderrama (Fez) and even Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) give fantastic performances in (almost) every episode. The best one is probably Fez, a foreign exchange student who is as mentally promiscuous as they get. What country is he from? Try to figure it out! For another dimension of entertainment, Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith are phenomenal as Eric's parents. Rupp, as Kitty, is both formidable and sweet, sort of like Mrs. Brady meets Marie Barone, while Smith's Red exists mainly to scare the pogees out of everyone. Don Stark and Tanya Roberts play very well opposite each other as Donna's parents, the chauvinistic but likable Bob and the airheaded Midge. Tommy Chong has occasional appearances as Leo, a stoner who acts as a father figure to Hyde.

Apart from the anachronistic errors that pop up quite frequently and the over-the-top lessons that sometimes come (and that deplorable final season), "'70s" is a terrific show with amazing writing, spot-on direction, and a feel-good vibe pulsing through every episode. They're all alright. This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on. There are many kinds of reunion shows. One kind is where old actors are taken out of mothballs and set to recreate characters they haven't played for twenty or thirty years. These have mixed results. `Return to Mayberry', despite some silliness, was okay; `Return to Green Acres' as execrable (Eddie Albert used a word for the script I won't repeat here, but both it and the movie stink); `Rescue from Gilligan's Island' filled in a necessary gap in the story of the castaways, though the show itself was silly even from a `Gilligan's Island' viewpoint. In most cases, the scripts are weak; sometimes a silliness appears in the scripts that is too knowing – and in comedy it's nearly always fatal for the characters to know they're being funny. New characters are introduced who don't fit the mix. In the main, these reunion shows are pretty weak. A second sort of `reunion' show is the kind where the cast lays its past aside but sits around, telling stories, reminiscing, interspersed with flashbacks from the shows. Then there are movies based on the shows, which are rarely good; and movies based on the history of the show (`The Brady Bunch' has had both of these happen to it, with various results).

`Return to the Batcave' uses nearly all the above, with a wonderfully twisted viewpoint, which makes it the best of the reunion shows, and has raised the bar for the others.

Adam West and Burt Ward and summoned to a showing of the original Batmobile. While they are there, the car is stolen.

The Adam West of the movie is a man demented. He called Jerry, his butler, `Alfred'. He opens a bust of Shakespeare in his apartment and reveals a hidden pole to slide down to the parking garage. He's obsessed with being a crime fighter, when in fact he's merely a washed up actor. When the Batmobile is stolen he not only believes it's his duty as a crime fighter to recover it, he drags and unwilling Burt Ward in as his assistant.

The pursuit is largely loquacious, with West and Ward reminiscing about the old days. It is broken by `flashbacks' with actors playing West and Ward in the old days. The modern scenes and the `flashbacks' both have the wacky lack of reality the show maintained. There are also running gags that show West is able to make fun of himself: in Ward's book about his time on the show, he spoke frankly about West's libido and also his being a skinflint (West makes Ward pay for everything in their pursuit, down to tips and bus fare). The clues they follow, the characters they meet (even in flashback) all fit the mentality of the old series, and there are several homages, including a fist fight with written sound effects.

The whole thing is extremely funny and done with great panache. There are also cameos by Julie Newmar (looking like she's had one facelift too many) and Frank Gorshin, reminding us why he has such a cult following. Gorshin will be the Riddler when Jim Carey, his obvious successor, is long forgotten. The movie builds to a fairly obvious but funny climax.

This show is a model for reunion shows – unfortunately, there are few that can fit the pattern. This show had actors replaying their old characters; young actors playing a movie about the making of the show; the actors West and Ward reminiscing; and a modern-day movie with the real Adam West playing the demented Adam West. It has everything. If you loved the old show, this is the stopper on the bottle. Yes, I did, as I sit here red-faced, remembering having felt almost guilty as I watched it a couple of weeks back while my wife chose to watch something as inconsequential (in comparison) as "Mommie Dearest."

How does one explain the appeal of "Batman and Robin" - I mean the only ones who ever really counted, Adam West and Burt Ward. It was a terrible show, with terrible plots and terrible acting - and, oh yes, it was terribly funny! And the same applies to this "reunion" and "flashback" movie. Adam and Burt are invited to an auction where the old Batmobile is going to be sold off for charity. But it gets stolen, and our pals (as themselves) jump into their old characters' personas (if not their costumes) and head off to find out what's happened. Along the way they reminisce about the series, and we see how it all came together in flashbacks, with Jack Brewer and Jason Marsden playing the young Adam and Burt of the TV series. It really was quite interesting to get some behind the scenes looks at the old series, and Adam and Burt just stepped perfectly back into character (even though they weren't really in character - well, you'd have to watch it to see what I mean.) It was also great to see Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin.

If you're not a fan of the old series, you'll hate this. If - heaven forbid - you actually thought Michael Keaton and George Clooney made acceptable "Batmans" then you'll hate this even more. But if you grew up with Adam and Burt and are still willing to admit that you never missed an episode - well, this one's for you.

Yes, it's true - 9/10 This was basically an attempt to do the same thing with "Batman" that was done with "Gilligan's Island" in "Surviving Gilligan's Island." For those of you who missed it (and shame!) "Surviving Gilligan's Island" (full title: "Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History") was a special from a few years back, where Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), Dawn Wells ("Mary Ann") and Russell Johnson ("The Professor") related the story of the show's creation, cancellation, rediscovery & rebirth. Along the way, stories were dramatized with actors portraying the original cast and crew. It was very well done. It was funny, well cast and came across as a genuine document of the show.

"Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt" is in a similar style. The re-telling of the history of the show, the re-enactments, the general feel are all the same. What's missing is the straightforward approach that "Surviving" took.

In "Return", Adam West and Burt Ward both receive invitations to a car show to which they were not meant to be invited. After being allowed to stay, Adam and Burt witness the theft of the centerpiece of the show: the legendary Batmobile! Adam and Burt decide to chase after it themselves, leading them through clues that cause them to think about the history of the show. This eventually leads to the revelation of who stole the Batmobile and why.

Choosing to use this conceit (actually having a plot) is the biggest letdown of this show. Unlike "Surviving", "Return" forces the viewer to follow a less interesting storyline (the theft of the Batmobile) instead of focusing all its attention on what the audience would most be interested in (the history of the show.) It is the historical sections that work the best. The casting (as in "Surviving") is excellent. Jack Brewer ("Adam West") and Jason Marsden ("Burt Ward") capture the feel of the actors without looking *too* much like them. Brett Rickaby ("Frank Gorshin") bears a stronger resemblance to his subject, but captures none of the late Gorshin's charm, only his characterizations. Other actors' portrayals are short and functional, with none standing out as especially good or bad. Many of the stories have been told before, but they mostly play out amusingly, with only the occasional clunky presentation. Another wonderful bit from the historical sections was the use of audition footage of Lyle Waggoner's tryout for the part of Batman. The only place where the flashbacks fail is when they insert obviously made up plot points to advance the main story. This downgrades the accuracy of the flashbacks needlessly.

The "main plot" (if that is what we must call it) is, of course, ludicrous. This is not really a fault in and of itself, but it's just not carried off well enough to cover up the shortfall. Strong performances and good writing can make up for a silly plot (especially in these kinds of things) but we really get neither, here. The performances by West and Ward seem somewhat flat (even for them); the dialog too carefully written for it to feel natural. Again, I think the comparison to "Surviving Gilligan's Island" can be seen in that the dialog is mostly just there to set up a flashback. In "Surviving", that's all it intends to be. In "Return" it tries to do double duty and, unfortunately, often fails. Gorshin and Newmar do well (although I agree with others that Gorshin had not aged well and that Newmar had - and what's Waggoner taking to look that good?) but aren't given enough to do. Again, I think they all would have been better served by a more straightforward presentation than the one chosen here.

Another odd point about "Return". This special is about the "Batman" TV series and its history, yet all the clips shown are from the theatrical movie. Even the Waggoner footage is technically movie footage. If you know you're "Bat-history", then you know that the movie was originally planned to be made first, only to be delayed in favor of the TV show when CBS needed to fill time fast. So when Waggoner and West were testing for the role, it was for the movie, not the TV show. Why "Return" only uses movie footage is unclear. It most probably has to do with rights issues, but it is a distinct distraction to those in the know: seeing Julie Newmar in the present, but only footage of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman in the past.

Overall, I liked the show, mainly for the flashbacks. I would have preferred the style used in "Surviving Gilligan's Island", but I can understand why they'd want a more story-oriented piece given the subject matter. Besides, I like these people. It's nice to see them out and about, still having fun with one of the great pieces of entertainment history. I just wish they had done it a little better and when more of the original cast was still alive to be there. A strangely enjoyable effort, combining an appropriately far-fetched plot involving Adam and Burt and flashbacks to the original TV series. Most of the flashback scenes were lifted directly from Burt Ward's book "Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights" and I imagine his book was the inspiration for making this movie. Like the book, it left fans of the original series hungering for more.

If you missed this broadcast, it is definitely worth the effort to borrow a tape from a friend who may have recorded it. I'm making a copy for my kids right now. I loved this movie. I knew it would be chocked full of camp and silliness like the original series. I found it very heart warming to see Adam West, Burt Ward, Frank Gorshin, and Julie Newmar all back together once again. Anyone who loved the Batman series from the 60's should have enjoyed Return to the Batcave. You could tell the actors had a lot of fun making this film, especially Adam West. And I'll bet he would have gladly jumped back into his Batman costume had the script required him to do so. I told a number of friends about this movie who chose not to view it... now they wished they had. I have all of the original 120 episodes on VHS. Now this movie will join my collection. Thank You for the reunion Adam and Burt. This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.

Kudos!!! Extremely well-conceived - part whatever happened to, part behind the scenes revisitation, part reunion film - all done in the same campy style that made the original series so much fun. I only wish this had been done 10 years ago to include more guest villains who have passed on. I watched this last night with low expectations. The reasons being, I don't usually like "made for TV" movies and rarely have I liked "cast reunion" movies. But, the critic in the Los Angeles Times seemed to like this, so I gave it a chance. I'm glad I did. It was pretty good. Adam West and Burt Ward reunite as themselves. But, in a way, they were acting as their "Batman and Robin" selves. They were being campy and not taking themselves, or this movie too seriously. The movie starts out with them searching for the "George Barris" designed Batmobile, that someone stole before it was to be auctioned off for an orphan's home. While, they are searching for the car, they are also reminiscing about the series that they did together. This is told in flashback. It was well done. The actors that they got, for the younger Burt Ward and Adam West were dead on. And, for a TV movie, it got down to the nitty-gritty about their real behavior on and off the screen. I give this one a 9/10, I liked it that much. I really enjoyed this. I got it thinking it was going to be a documentary, but it revealed itself as a good piece of tongue in cheek fun.

I think this has been well done, pretty much an extended TV show into a film, but due to the characters or rather original actors willingness to have fun and be made fun off helps this work in a great old style Innocent way.

If you are a fan of the original TV series then i am sure you will enjoy this.

Q I'm a Belgian and grew up in the sixties. Most of the US series were shown over here (original language with subtitles) and Batman was one of the first I was keen on. Unfortunately over here it caused a "panic hysteria" amongst the mothers because Batman was considered as too violent. Geez, compare the innocence of that series to the crap kids get to see nowadays. So because of my the over-protective mothers from the 60s I only got a chance to see maybe two or three episodes ! I got so frustrated I started to collect the comics and bubblegum cards (still got them !) to compensate. I even got the View Master slides... I had an urge to see the caped crusader. All kids need some kind of hero.

Years later I finally got the chance to see the re-runs as an adolescent and I enjoyed it tremendously. The tongue-in-cheek acting would have escaped me when I would've watched it as a kid, but I understood it at the age of 17. Yeah, I've watched them all now and the occasional kind soul on the internet posts episodes because they haven't released the series on DVD (to my knowledge)

This evening I enjoyed "Return to the bat cave"... it was a delight to watch because it was full of trivia and inside-jokes. To see Adam and Burt was a delight and this TV movie is simply fantastic in every aspect. They play themselves as they played their parts in the series.

Congratulations to the people who produced this great nostalgic "feast"... I'm gonna watch it again. My advice to all Batman fans is: SEE IT !!! Rent it !!! Lend it from a friend !!! Buy it !!! I'd never expect myself to rate this as 9/10... Very well done ! This is one of the best reunion specials ever, with Adam West and Burt Ward parodying themselves and having fun while doing it. It's amazing the amount of effort that went into the detail, particularly recapturing the feel of the 1960's era, the Batcave set, Wayne Manor, the costumes, and the actors selected to play the younger versions of West, Ward, Burgess Meredith, Cesar Romero, and Frank Gorshin! This 90 minutes is well worth your time, and is a delight to all fans of the classic 1960's "Batman" television series. I note that clips from "Batman" were from the movie, and not the series itself, probably because of legal restrictions. Let's hope the three seasons of the show are forthcoming on DVD. Corny! I love it! Corny - just as the TV show was about 40 years ago! Adam and Burt rekindle the same on-screen chemistry that never seems to have left! They re-live old memories, plus the actors that play them from the 1960s show some behind-the-scenes things which are quite interesting to know. 1960s TV was corny escapism for so many of us back then, and this DVD is no exception, if you are familiar with the original TV show. The fight scene with the written Boofs and Bams or whatever is fantastic!! The movie theater scene shows clips of the villains who passed away. At the end Frank Gorshin makes an appearance. He passed away not too long after this DVD was made, I believe, so it is to his great credit that he came back to again play a villain to Adam and Burt, just as he did to Batman & Robin so many years ago. He didn't lose his touch! Thanks to Julie Newmar to re-living a villain role, also. In conclusion I think that this DVD is for great memories, and I wish to thank both Adam and Burt for coming back and recreating these memories for those of us who remember the original-!!! Thanks, Guys!!! I loved this movie. I knew it would be chocked full of camp and silliness like the original series. I found it very heart warming to see Adam West, Burt Ward, Frank Gorshin, and Julie Newmar all back together once again. Anyone who loved the Batman series from the 60's should have enjoyed Return to the Batcave. You could tell the actors had a lot of fun making this film, especially Adam West. And I'll bet he would have gladly jumped back into his Batman costume had the script required him to do so. I told a number of friends about this movie who chose not to view it... now they wished they had. I have all of the original 120 episodes on VHS. Now this movie will join my collection. Thank You for the reunion Adam and Burt. I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.

From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.

I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Review: After a thrilling set of two, we get the final installment. Here's my take:

The Bourne Ultimatum has it all. We have Jason Bourne(Matt Damon) on the coattails of the ones who know everything. He has been running for too long. This time, it ends.

The Bourne Ultimatum has a great plot, awesome writing, fantastic direction, suspense, and some of the best action of the summer. Matt Damon delivers possibly his best performance to date. He has the conviction and swelling desire of the troubled assassin.

There are some intelligent humor here and some fine suspense. The reactions to certain events will have you either laughing(in a good way) or cheering on. (or both) I heard a lot of intelligent laughter in the theater and lots of clapping. The audience was loving it.

The Bourne Ultimatum delivers all in a nicely gift-wrapped package. All of the goods and then some. This is, in my opinion the best movie this summer.

The Last Word: Excellent conclusion. The best of the trilogy. This is how summer movie thrillers should be done. I love the Bourne trilogy. Jason Bourne sits in a dusty room in with blood on his hands, trying to make sense of what he's just done. Meanwhile, a CIA chief in NYC outlines the agency's response to what's just happened on screen. An American flag stands proudly on the centre of his desk in the foreground of the shot, but as he speaks, it slips out of focus as his plan veers into morally dubious territory, as if it doesn't want to be associated with the course of action the government man decides is necessary in the interests of national security.

This shot effectively captures the mood of the film. As well as portraying Bourne's quest to find out how he became Jason Bourne, Ultimatum is also an examination of the human costs of the measures taken to protect us in the interests of stability and security.

It is also probably the best film you'll see in the cinema this year.

It's just so intense. Bourne says to Simon Ross (Considine) "This isn't some newspaper story, this is real" and in the audience you almost believe him. The camera shakes, but remains steady enough for you to see everything and feel like you're there with Bourne as he tries to elude his pursuers, and the performances are so good that these guys seem as though they are the characters they're portraying, instead of just being actors performing well-written roles. The action scenes are so brutally fast-paced and well choreographed that they seem instinctive instead of planned to the minutest movement; the stunt-work is nothing short of amazing.

The pacing is just incredible. It keeps driving forward towards its conclusion, but not so fast that it leaves you struggling to piece together the plot; the script delivers the information you need as quickly and clearly as possible before moving on to the next tense action set-piece. While they're often simple (the Waterloo sequence is essentially just a man on a phone being watched by a man on a phone) they're charged with such dramatic intensity that you can't take your eyes off them. The film is just so focused on powering forwards that you can't help being swept along by it.

With its intense action set-pieces, brilliantly paced storyline, and intelligent examination of the decisions made in the name of national security, the Bourne series is one that accurately captures the ambiguities of our age. Ultimatum is its peak. This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car! I have never been one to shy away from saying that most action films just plain do nothing for me. Most times they are blatant vehicles to blow stuff up, show off sexy models, and throw any semblance of reality or intelligence out the window. With that said, the Bourne series has been fantastic. Doug Liman ushered in a new take on action by using a more cinema verite style, showing the fights in full force and making our super spy someone we can relate to emotionally as well as humanly. This is not the sci-fi absurdity that was Bond (before they did an overhaul in the style of this series no less). There was a lot to worry for when the Bourne Supremacy came out. With director Paul Greengrass taking over, what could have been a second-hand copy of the original ended up being an improvement in style and flair. The stakes were raised and the story was enhanced because of it. Greengrass needs to be given a ton of credit for being able to keep up appearances with the latest installment, The Bourne Ultimatum. In what is an amazing conclusion to a top-notch trilogy, the action is brought to a new level and story and performance are never compromised.

Once again, Bourne is brought into the minds of the CIA by false pretenses. Someone has leaked information about the Treadstone upgrade called Blackbriar and once Bourne is located trying to converse with the newswriter who broke the story, he is assumed to be the mole. Only Pamela Landy, she who was on the case to find him in Supremacy, knows that he can't be the one. Bourne's motive has always been to stay clear of the government and live his life in peace. It has been the CIA who keeps bringing him back into the open to wreak havoc on them. What ends up transpiring is that Bourne wants to know the source as well to finally find out the truth of who he is and what made him into a killer. The film, then, becomes a chase against time and each other to find the source and see if the government can close the breach and tie off all loose ends, or if Bourne can get his revenge on those who took his life from him.

In what is probably the simplest storyline of the series, with only one chase lasting the entirety of the story, it has possibly the biggest cast of characters and turning over of loyalties to expose the corruption that has been behind the full story progression. This is not a detriment at all, however, as it allows for more fights and car chases that work in full context to the plot. Admission to this film is worth it for the apartment fight, between Bourne and the CIA's second asset, alone. The chase jumping through windows in Madrid is cool on its own, but when they finally meet up, we get a ten minute or so fight that is as invigorating to watch as any scene you'll see. Also, rather than using a massive car chase as a climatic set piece like in the first two films, we instead get around three small scale road races, just as intense, but staggered enough to never bog the action down into monotony.

After five years of waiting, we also find out the origin of our favorite operative with heart and feeling. By the end of the film we will find out what has been the cause of all the espionage and destruction that has taken place around him. No one could have done it better than Matt Damon. He has the physique and attitude to be believable in the action sequences, but also the range to pull off the moments of intelligence and cat and mouse correspondence with those against him. Joan Allen reprises her role with the same amount of dedication to her job, but also a bit more disenchantment for what is going on around her after how Brian Cox's character, from the first two films, took matters into his own hands. Needing a role in that mold, we are given a nice turn from David Strathairn. Like Cox, he is working at the top of the food chain and answers to no one when making a decision. With as much trying to cover up any connections to his bosses of the Blackbriar program as he is trying to do his duty to his country, you can never quite gauge what he will be capable of doing. Even the little guys do a wonderful job, like Paddy Considine as the reporter who starts the leak at the center of everything, Albert Finney as a man from Bourne's past and possibly key to his origin, and Edgar Ramirez as one of the CIA's operatives sent to take Bourne out. Ramirez is a nice addition to the role that has been successfully played by Clive Owen (Identity), Karl Urban, and Martin Csokas (Supremacy). He doesn't talk much, if at all, but he has the look and robotic efficiency down pat and hopefully will get more roles to show what he can do post a nice turn in Domino.

In the end, one has to applaud Paul Greengrass for continuing to exceed expectations and bring this series to a conclusion that builds on the success of its predecessors rather than destroy them. His skill at the close-up hand-held look is astonishing and has the same kinetic energy as Tony Scott, but without quite the seizure-inducing cuts. Rather than feel like over- production, his use of hand-held enhances the environment and puts you directly into the action. Let's also credit cinematographer Oliver Wood, who shot all three Bourne films. He was able to work with both directors and work his style into a nice harmony with them. When the Bourne Identity arrived five years ago I have to confess that I didn't think much of it. At the time I was eleven years old, so perhaps I was too young to really get into the storyline and understand the whole scenario. Two years ago when the Bourne Supremacy arrived I thought it was a better movie than Identity but still didn't think it was as good as I expected it to be judging by the trailers. Over the past two years I had been told numerous times that the Bourne movies were amazing, many a time I had to bite my tongue and not say what I really thought about the movies. Until two months ago I couldn't have given a damn about the Bourne Ultimatum, I really had no intentions of watching it. But then I decided to go back and re-watch the first two before I came to any abrupt decisions. So I went out and bought both the original movies. And what a surprise it was to me when I was gripped by them. Identity I found the superior of the two, but Supremacy isn't far behind. They're both slick, action packed and thrilling pieces of cinema that I have watched numerous times since I bought them. Because of this I was first in line today to see the Bourne Ultimatum. And boy did Bourne Ultimatum not disappoint!

Matt Damon was never one of my favourite actors until he appeared in the Bourne movies, I'd seen him in the Talented Mr Ripley, but I never thought much of him in general. However, it appears he was born to play Bourne (pardon the pun). Throughout this series we have seen the character change before our very eyes, in this movie we see Matt Damon at his very best, even better than he was in The Departed and I thought he was one of the best things in The Departed. You really do find yourself caring for the character and hoping that he finds out everything. Matt Damon plays the role with a quiet intensity and you always find his character extremely believable. The supporting cast of the movie were also absolutely outstanding. Joan Allen was one of my favourite things in Bourne Supremacy, here she excels herself. Her character is also very believable and she has some superbly acted moments towards the end of the movie. Julia Stiles turns up again as Nicky and finally we learn a bit about her character. Julia Stiles is a very underrated actress and I think she deserves a lot more roles, well decent roles, than she gets. David Strathairn is a newcomer to this series as Noah Vosen, he's definitely the bad guy of the movie and he really excels. He's definitely the nastiest character we've met, and some of the decisions he makes are truly nasty. Strathairn relishes the role and he too gets some superb scenes in the movie. Special mention must also go to Albert Finney who makes the most of his all too brief screen time, I will not say anything about the character, that's best left as a surprise, but trust me his scenes are some of the highlights of the movie.

The Bourne movies have always had a strict focus on the storyline more than the action sequences, this isn't to say the trilogy lacks action sequences, good god no there's loads of them dotted all throughout the movies. But running throughout the movie is a very well written and well acted storyline. This storyline concludes in the best way imaginable in this movie. As I watched Supremacy the night before I saw Ultimatum it was nice because I could notice certain little parts. That very final scene in Supremacy, in New York, a lot more important that I ever imagined at the time. Won't spoil it for people but I recommend checking up on Supremacy before you see Ultimatum. Unfortunately though for a lot of people they will go to see Ultimatum purely because of the action sequences. This is the part where I should condemn such people and say they should see it for the storyline, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that my favourite parts of the Bourne series as a whole are the car chases. The mini car chase in Identity is one of my favourite car chases of all time. Well the action in Ultimatum has to be the best of the Bourne series. In fact the movie kicks off with an action sequence in Moscow. So in the duration of the movie we get numerous punch ups, all very violent and shockingly brutal. A bike chase that is absolutely amazing, many foot chases which are even more amazing, a thrilling car chase that is unforgettable, and oh so much more! But the highlight for me has to be the scene in Waterloo station, won't ruin it but for some reason had me gripped.

So any flaws for the movie? In my eyes no, but if you are not a fan of the Bourne series or have not seen the previous two then I wouldn't recommend Ultimatum for you. The movie doesn't try to win over any new fans as it sticks to what the franchise does best and just adds a nice bit more storyline and action sequences on top. The Bourne Ultimatum is undoubtedly the best of the series and the best blockbuster of 2007. As a James Bond fanatic it is a great honour for me to say that Ultimatum is a lot better than a majority of the Bond movies, and trust me it takes a lot for me to say that. While Bourne as a whole might not be a better franchise than the Bond series, it is definitely nearly its equal. Paul Greengrass definitely saved the best Bourne for last! I've heard a lot of people complain about they way he filmed this movie, and some have even compared the camera style to the Blair Witch Project. All I have to say to that is...are you kidding me? Come on it was not that bad at all. I think it helps the action scenes to feel more realistic, which I would prefer over highly stylized stunt choreography. As for the rest of the movie I really didn't even notice it.

You can tell that Damon has really gotten comfortable with the role of Jason Bourne. Sometimes that can be a bad thing, but in this case its a really good thing. He really becomes Jason Bourne in this installment. Damon also has a great supporting cast in Joan Allen, Ezra Kramer, and Julia Stiles. David Strathairn was a great addition to the cast, as he added more depth to the secret CIA organization.

Even though the movie is filled with great car chases and nonstop action, they managed to stick a fair amount of character development in their with all of that going on. This film stands far above the other two Bourne movies, and is definitely one of the best movies of the 2007 summer season! "The Bourne Ultimatum" begins recklessly mid-chase and in pulse-pounding fashion explodes from there as Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, absolutely superb) tracks down the masterminds behind the CIA black-ops that turned him into the perfect killer in a final attempt to learn his true identity. A devastatingly icy David Strathairn as the "man behind the curtain" is added to the returning cast of regulars including Joan Allen (excellent) and Julia Stiles (non-existent).

Like the second entry in the series, I wished Paul Greengrass' shaky hand-held camera would go static at least for the few minutes of downtime. However, that being said, it's a perfect way to capture the tense, claustrophobic feel of the intimate hand-to-hand-combat scenes and works equally well in the chase scenes which are mostly on foot and across rooftops with the occasional big car pile-up. Part of the fun of the Bourne series is the constant globe-hopping and manipulation of technology and communications that seem to defy the laws of physics and current capabilities. The Bourne films seem to exist in some sort of gritty hyper-reality that is full of technological-based magic. It makes no sense that everyone seems to be just in the right place at the right time, but I'll be damned if it isn't a blast to watch them get there.

With the absence of the emotive and involving Franka Potente, the writers attempt to create some emotional connection between Damon and Stiles, but she is so blank-faced an actress it never really leads to anything. Still, this can be forgiven, for unlike the "Identity" and the "Supremacy", this "Ultimatum" reveals all and we finally learn the truth about Bourne's past. It's an entertaining and satisfying conclusion to the series, and if they have any good sense, and Damon gets his wish, this will be the perfect end to it. Having not seen the previous two in the trilogy of Bourne movies, I was a little reluctant to watch The Bourne Ultimatum.

However it was a very thrilling experience and I didn't have the problem of not understanding what was happening due to not seeing the first two films. Each part of the story was easy to understand and I fell in love with The Bourne Ultimatum before it had reached the interval! I don't think I have ever watched such an exquisitely made, and gripping film, especially an action film. Since I usually shy away from action and thriller type movies, this was such great news to me. Ultimatum is one of the most enthralling films, it grabs your attention from the first second till the last minute before the credits roll.

Matt Damon was simply fantastic as his role as Jason Bourne. I've heard a lot about his great performances in the Bourne 1+2, and now, this fabulous actor has one more to add to his list. I look forward to seeing more of his movies in the future.

The stunts were handled with style - each one was done brilliantly and I was just shocked by the impressiveness of this movie. Well done. I will begin by saying I am very pleased with this climax of the Bourne trilogy. Please, oh please don't ruin it by doing a sequel years from now or a prequel. Just leave it alone. Right..moving on.As talented and versatile as Matt Damon is...it seems as though he was just meant to play Jason Bourne.

If you are a fan of the first two Bourne movies, you will not be disappointed by the third installment. It sticks to what works and adds a little more. I was very pleased to see how well all the information we obtain in 'Identity' and 'Supremacy' all mesh in 'Ultimatum' to finally paint the full picture of Jason Bourne's troubled past. The action sequences are fast paced and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The fights between Bourne and the assassins are always fun to watch. I have always been a fan of movies surrounding CIA agents and how the CIA gather their Intel and this movie is right up that street, making it even more exciting for me.

If you choose to watch The Bourne Ultimatum without watching the previous 2 installments..you will still thoroughly enjoy the movie but I would still recommend you watch them first. This would allow you to fully understand the character Jason Bourne and become attached and be a part of his world. This allows you to appreciate and enjoy the movie even more. I'm not sure which is the better of the first 2 but I personally think 'Ultimatum' might, just MIGHT, have the edge when comparing the trilogy. The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.

The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.

The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever. First and foremost, speaking as no fan of the genre, "The Bourne Ultimatum" is a breathtaking, virtuoso, superb action movie.

Secondly, it is a silly malarky of cartoonish super-hero stuff.

Thirdly, the film carries a complex, important point, about crime-fighters turning into criminals themselves. No reference is made to Abu Ghraib or the Executive Branch's outrageous domestic assaults on constitutional rights, none is necessary.

So, the latest in the "Bourne" series, in the hands of Paul Greengrass (of the 2004 "Bourne Supremacy" and last year's "United 93"), is a significant achievement, perhaps held back but not actually diminished by the unavoidable excesses of the genre.

"Breathtaking" above is meant both as a complimentary adjective and a description of the physical sensation: for more than an hour from the first frame, the viewer seemingly holds his breath, pushed back against the chair by the force of relentless, globe-trotting, utterly suspenseful action. There is no letup, no variation in the rhythm and pull of the film, and yet it never becomes monotonous and tiresome the way some kindred music videos do after just a couple of minutes.

Oliver Wood's in-your-face cinematography is making the best of Tony Gilroy's screenplay from Robert Ludlum's 1990 novel (which doesn't stack up well against the "Bourne Identity," written a decade earlier).

Matt Damon is once again the inevitable, irreplaceable Bourne, the deadliest of fantasy CIA agents, this time taking on the entire agency in search of his identity, his past, and the mysterious agency program that has turned him into a killing machine. Nothing like his quietly heroic Edward R. Murrow, the always-marvelous David Strathairn is the nasty top agency official, pitched against Bourne in trying to hide some illegal "take-no-prisoners" policies and brutal procedures.

Joan Allen plays what appears to be the Good Cop against Strathairn's Bad One. And, there is Julia Stiles as the agent once again coming to Bourne's aid; a combination of Greengrass' direction and Stiles acting results in a surprising impact by a mostly silent character, her lack of communication and blank expression more intriguing than miles of dialogue.

So good is "The Bourne Ultimatum" that it gets away with the old one-man-against-the-world bit, this time stretched to ridiculous excesses, as Bourne defies constraints of geography, time, gravity... and physics in general. (Can you fly backwards with a car from the top of a building? Why not - it looks great.)

All this "real-world" magic - leaping from country to country in seconds, to arrive at some unknown location exactly as, when, and how needed - outdoes special-effect and superhero cartoon improbabilities. And yet, only a clueless pedant would allow "facts" interfere with the entertainment-based ecstasy of the Bourne fantasy. Im going to keep this fairly brief as to not spoil anything for you. This movie is awesome. From beginning to end, it is filled with genuine thrills. The fight scenes are fantastic, the chase scenes are enthralling, and it moves at such a pace that it really only felt slow toward the end when things are explained, but that is only because everything that preceded it. Damon shines and really has proved a very solid actor, daring you not to believe him in this role. He is this role. A welcome addition to the series in David Straithrain (hope i spelled that close to right) as a seedy CIA agent out to kill Bourne. This is non stop and will truly leave you on the edge of your seat for most of the way. Some things toward the end are just a smidgeon preposterous, thus negating a 10 rating. The ending is left open for sequels and I sure hope that they consider doing more of these, for none have been bad. Excellent film all in all and a fantastic ending to an amazing trilogy.

P.S. The shaky cam did not hurt any of the action, but I still think we could do without it. The good news is, you only really notice it when people are talking and not so much the action. The Bourne Ultimatum - Jason Bourne (Matt Damon in his best role ever), the newest spy kid on the block, brings his quest for his identity to a close as he also seeks to end the CIA's latest program "Blackbriar" to make super assassins like himself.

I was so psyched for this one that I watched it's predecessors yesterday and today. Identity was as brilliant as I recall and Supremacy remains the weak (but still enjoyable) link in the chain for the weakest plot and, aside from a car chase which this film's chase easily tops, slight lacking in action and suspense.

Hoo boy, does Ultimatum have suspense! Even when you know Bourne will escape the authorities (and boy do these films spotlight the police as inept), it's still brilliant watching him do it. It's mind-boggling to think that two guys with handguns and mopeds can create 10x more suspense than anything those $150 million giant robots did in Transformers.

Chalk it up to Paul Greengrass, who has this idiosyncratic style of shooting stedicam a la documentary, even though he's filming characters that are far from ordinary, in places like CIA headquarters where no one within 10 miles would be allowed with a camcorder. He seemed to listen to my various complaints with Supremacy, as the action in Ultimatum is nothing less than awe-inspiring, with various implements used as weapons being a candlestick, a hardcover book (I'll never look at those the same way again) and an electric fan (Don't ask). The music also helped generate much suspense, and there was hardly ever a moment to not nail-bite over.

The acting is good, and the evolution of Julia Stiles' character "Nicky" put her situation into a new highly sympathetic light. Damon plays his signature role with reserve but competency (which sounds minor but that it genuinely looks like Matt Damon could evade the CIA and Interpol is something), but noticeable moments of poignancy as he still struggles to find his humanity. This longing of his for a real life could get boring, and almost did in Supremacy, but just works better in Ultimatum (better script).

I am reminded of a scene in "Goldeneye" (the only good Pierce Brosnan Bond film) in which Sean Bean's character asks James if the martinis ever silence the screams of all the men he's killed. Bourne regrets all the people he killed, and he considers (or at least made me consider) the meaning of action without purpose, life without meaning, and how the government has transformed men into resources. Albeit, resources that know Krav Maga and can make weapons out of anything.

Sidenote: it's always bothered me that, despite being a superspy and hunted by the CIA, Interpol, and the police nearly ANYWHERE he goes, that Bourne never thought to make even the smallest attempts to disguise his features or forge some new passports. Sunglasses maybe?

If you have a pulse and love action movies, than Bourne Ultimatum is for you. Hell, it's probably the best action film to come out this year. Of course, you'd be a fool to see it without watching the others first. It kind of drags a touch near the end, but I almost feel tempted to overlook that. This is the first "3" movie this summer to at least match, if not exceed, the original and that is saying something.

A- I watched both Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy on DVD before seeing this in the theater. I'd been waiting for this since before they started filming. I wasn't disappointed.

Minor spoilers below-

Overall it was good, but it also lacked the continuity of the first two. Identity and Supremacy both flowed gracefully between adrenaline rush action to introspective drama. This movie felt choppy at times. The plot-building down-times were slightly too drawn out. That caused the following action to feel too frenetic.

Camera: Speaking of frenetic, the trademark Greengrass shaky cam was present and very annoying to me. I know its has been talked/whined about to nausea on the message board, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. All the martial arts training the actors went through was totally wasted. The ridiculous camera cuts and wiggling camera ruined most of the fighting in the movie. It is a cheap, student director trick to make the film feel unsettled. I'd expect those techniques to be used in some horror flick made for high school kids, but not in this classy, adult, action series. Too much extreme close-up also. Do some framing. Get some interesting shots. Constant close-up feels like lazy directing to me.

Story: The story was VERY confusing at first. They thrust new names and faces upon you from the get go. Gave me the feeling that you get when you come into a movie late and know you've missed some crucial information. Felt rushed or compressed for time reasons. After you catch up however the story is quite good. It's enjoyable following leads along with Bourne. HOWEVER, I did NOT care for the whole last scene of Supremacy (Landy/Bourne on the phone) being in the middle of Ultimatum thing. It basically makes the movie a half-prequel. I thought that was awkward.

Cast/Characters: The star of the movie is the action. Obviously there are only two originals left. Bourne and Nicky Parsons. Them teaming up was kind of odd to me. I think they just wanted to give Bourne someone to protect to and confide in. Unless I completely missed something, they never even tell you why they teamed up. The other assassins in the movie were pretty quiet. This felt like Gilroy/Greengrass/whoever wanting to not leave open ends. Understandable but disappointing. Seriously, Damon with Clive Owen in Identity and Marton Csokas in Supremacy.. Those scenes were phenomenal. These assassins are as uninteresting as Castel (the first fella Bourne fights in Identity). The cast in general has degraded as the the series went on. Clive Owen was practically an afterthought. That's a measure of strength for that first cast. The second, they basically trade Chris Cooper for Joan Allen.... Not exactly equal. This one trades Brian Cox and Franka Potente for 3 actors to be named later. Nothing against David Strathairn, Scott Glenn, or Albert Finney, but they're not the first names that come to mind for this kind of series. Aside from a couple pauses that seemed to long, the acting was right on.

As a whole, it was successful. Felt like they wanted to get the series over with though. If they would have trimmed or rearranged the slower parts, eliminated Scott Glenn's part entirely, zoomed out, and taken the camera away from the seizure victim, it would have been perfect.

ENDING SPOILER

I don't see why they leave Bourne alive at the end. It was my understanding this was the conclusion. They clearly made reference to the very beginning of the series with his silhouette floating motionless. I thought that was going to be it. A full circle type of ending. I did like Nicky reacting to the news report though.

SPOILER SPECIFICS WARNING - QUOTE FROM MOVIE BELOW -

Bourne's last line at the end "Look at this.. Look at what they make you give." quoting the first assassin he killed, I loved that. The final scene was great. (Except that it was Vosen {Strathairn} that shot at Bourne. Why would he do that? Just out for vengeance? If he was angry enough to murder, why not shoot Pamela Landy after she faxes his top secret file? That didn't make sense.) He now has a name, an identity, some memories and a a lost girlfriend. All he wanted was to disappear, but still, they traced him and destroyed the world he hardly built. Now he wants some explanation, and to get ride of the people how made him what he is. Yeah, Jason Bourne is back, and this time, he 's here with a vengeance.

OK, this movie doesn't have the most elaborated script in the world, but its thematics are very clever and ask some serious questions about our society. Of course, like every Hollywoodian movie since the end of the 90's, "The Bourne Suprematy" is a super-heroes story. Jason Bourne is a Captain-America project-like, who's gone completely wrong. In the first movie, the hero discovered his abilities and he accepted them in the second one. He now fights against what he considers like evil, after a person close to him has been killed (his girlfriend in "Suprematy") by them. That's all a part of the super-hero story, including a character with (realistic but still impressive : he almost invincible) super powers.

And the interesting point is that the evil he fights all across the world (there's no frontiers in the Bourne's movies, characters are going from one continent to another in the blink of an eye), is, as in the best seasons of "24", an American enemy, who's beliefs that he fight for the good of his country completely blinds him. Funny how "mad patriots" are now the N.1 enemies of paranoiac Hollywood's stories.

Beside all those interesting thematics, the movie isn't flawless : the feminine character of Nickie Parson is for now on completely useless and the direction is quite unoriginal when it comes to dialogs scenes. But all that doesn't really matter, for "The Bourne Ultimatum" is an action movie. And the action scenes are rather impressive.

Everyone here is talking about the "Waterloo scene" and the "Tanger pursuit" and everyone's right. I particularly enjoyed the fight in Tanger, that reminds my in its exaggeration and craziness the works of Tsui Hark. Visually inventive scenes, lots of intelligent action parts and a good reflection on American's contemporary thematics : "The Bourne Ultimatum" is definitely the best movie of the series and a very interesting and original action flick. The third and last part of the Bourne trilogy (duh), is lacking a bit in the story department, but covers it with extensive action scenes! Twi in particular take up quite some of the running time and make this movie better.

The director and star (Damon) themselves agreed that it was difficult to find a story for the last part, because the end of the second movie was quite ... advanced story-wise. How they got around that? The action scenes, for once, but they did another thing too, which I can't reveal, because that would be a spoiler. But if you watch the movie, than you'll notice it! Funnily enough I read, that this adaptation of the Bourne books is the least accurate of all three films .. if that means anything to you :o) The third and last film of this trilogy is finally crystal clear. It is a political film more than a plain entertainment. Jason Bourne will finally know who he was and he will discover and remember the tortures he was submitted to in order to kill his old identity: he really killed some one who became his corpse. But the film is finally revealing that all this had been organized and planned by the CIA within a Blackfriars program that is also clearly revealed in this film as aiming at eliminating all American citizens who tried to prevent the control of the whole society by an established and limited group of people. Who was one essential officer of the CIA up to 1980, when he became vice president? That goes along with what is being said on the Internet. Then the truth will come thanks to Jason Bourne himself but the main person who will be able to bring that truth to the public and the only authority that can take a decision concerning the CIA is a woman and that woman gets the Senate involved in a general investigation. A woman and the Senate; read my lips. In the USA politics are fought in the media and two media are essential for any presidential campaign: it is music and the cinema. Right now Hollywood and beyond the intelligentsia, academia and intellectuals are using the cinema in general, and this film in particular, to build up the idea in the public that salvation will come from a woman and from the Senate. So go and watch the film. It is pretty entertaining and it has the sweet fragrance of the end of a period and of the great change some are expecting and others are waiting for, but no one is able to pretend it won't come: the only point is to know how deep and serious it will be.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines This installment very much makes the CIA look like a very foolish organization. In reality, perhaps they are. After all, the way the plot goes on this it very much looks like one man has the power to sanction killing everyone including his own people in order to kill Jason Bourne.

Matt Damon does a very credible job as Bourne trying to stay one step ahead of being killed the entire film. He is still trying to remember who he was & how he has gotten where he is. He gets help from a couple of folks & it seems like every minute of the film, somebody is trying to kill him.

There is little time for rest in this film & the action sequences seem very very real. There are a lot of chase sequences filmed with the shaky cam which in a way add to the realism & make it seem less Hollywood than many pictures. These sequences add realism to the film in feeling.

The suspense in some of the sequences is brilliantly done as you wonder if someone is going to die or if Bourne can head them off. This is the kind of action suspense you go to see when you want to be entertained & I am sure this one will lead to the next film in the series. Picking up right after the Moscow-showdown of Supremacy, this is Bourne's greatest adventure and his final climax. Throughout the tight, 115-min-runtime the movie takes Bourne from Russia to Madrid, Paris, Marocco and ultimately New York. Damon is every inch of the hard-trained killer Robert Ludlum imagined, he is the most deadly spy in the movies right now, and it's the underpinned emotions to his character that makes him so believable, and it's exactly the fine way Damon manages to combine these two polar-opposites of himself that's so breathtaking. In this third, Bourne is on a mission to save his soul and while watching it, Ultimatum delivers such an high-octane performance that you'll find yourself sweating and gasping over its truly powerful branch of ideas and pull-offs; just look out for two great car-chases and a fight-scene as realistic as Bond vs. Shaw back in '63. Director Greengrass has surpassed himself with this compelling thriller and this is probably as exciting as cinema thrillers get; a true pay-off to Bourne fans and a new breed of spy-thriller standard. Having not seen the films before (and not being able to stand Matt Damon), I was reluctant to go see The Bourne Ultimatum when we were asked to see it for AS Film Studies.

However, I was pleasantly surprised that even a film with Damon in it could be enjoyable.

Fast fight scenes, crazy motorbike chases and BIG explosions were what threw you out of your seat in TBU. The near-misses between the CIA and Bourne kept you on your toes and throughly entertained.

Nevertheless, several things really grated my cheese.

Firstly, the fact that the film was just a series of Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA. This sequence got repetitive and ultimately dull. Although Damon did keep us entertained and seemed always one step ahead of the CIA, I was getting a bit annoyed with the constant survival of Bourne. He crashed a car and got out as if he had tapped it or something! Very unrealistic.

And secondly (inevitably) - the SHAKY CAMERA. It was so shaky it was completely noticeable and made me and everyone who went to see it in my class (even the tutors) seasick. We were told by the tutors that if we ever used that in a film we made in class, it would automatically be wrong and we would be told to use a tripod. Fair enough if Greengrass wanted it to look like we were there watching Damon and Stiles holding a conversation, but surely we wouldn't be shaking our heads that violently!

But all in all TBU is an enjoyable film and worth a watch. But I didn't think it was the best film of the year, despite being an entertaining piece of cinema.

8/10. The Bourne Ultimatum is the third and final outing for super-spy Jason Bourne, a man who is out to kill the people who made him into a killer. The Bourne series is one of the highest regarded trilogies by critics (Ultimatum has an 85/100 on metacritic.com, meaning it's status is "universal acclaim) and for good reason- the fighting is choreographed very well and the deep story can be very engrossing.

First, I highly advise you watch The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy, the two fancy-titled prequels to Ultimatum. There may be three different movies, but in reality they are all a continuance of one another: missing one leaves you stranded and confused, just like I was. You will still be about to enjoy the action and fight scenes of Ultimatum if you missed the first two, but then the story will definitely lead to some confusion.

If you were lucky enough to view the prequels to this movie, you probably had a treat watching Bourne take down his enemies and track down the man who screwed him from Supremacy. Jason Bourne is played very well by Matt…Damon. Damon does nothing to deserve an Oscar nod, but his work here is good enough to hold it's own. Bourne's adventures take place in many different cities; the cities are all varied enough to keep the movie from becoming bland at times. The agency tracking Bourne takes advantage of every technological tool known to mankind to track him down.

I won't go into detail on the characters because they are continuations off of the first two movies. However, it wouldn't hurt the movie to spell a few things out for the audience- not every viewer is a die-hard movie watcher who can pick up on every little hint about story development. Ultimatum wouldn't have been harmed at all if the story was a little more up front.

It seems most people agree that Ultimatum was a success of a film: the movie opened to $69 million, and -box office total now is up to $216 mil- is currently still going very strongly for a movie that has been in theatres since August 3. It's the best action movie I've seen since Live Free or Die Hard.

Good) Damon is solid but not spectacular, very smart movie Bad) Story is like many others This movie was excellent. I was not expecting it to live up to all the hype but it did. Like all the Bourne movies the action is fast paced, realistic and intense. If you liked the other two movies in the trilogy you will love this one also. The movie's plot is straightforward and there are no plot twists that are too unrealistic. OK, Julia Stiles character showing up in the Italian safe house was kind of far-fetched especially after what happened in Supremacy but it makes sense that she is the only character in "Treadstone" that Bourne knows, that does not want him dead and he could possibly trust and the only person to lead him in the right direction. The action is driven by characters and their reactions to what is happening all around them. The thing that I always loved about the Bourne movies is that Bourne can kick butt but when matched with people as good as he is the fights are struggles and he takes a lot of damage in them. They never treat the audience like idiots.

All the actors were solid in their performances. I believe that Damon could play Bourne in his sleep and receives excellent support from Joan Allen reprising her role from Supremacy, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn. I recommend this film and the trilogy. I do miss Franka Potente though. "Perhaps we can arrange a meet. " "Where are you now? " "I'm sitting in my office. " "I doubt that. " "Why would you doubt that? " "If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face. "

Bourne remains street tough, and elusive. Only his inhuman resilience leads the film a little too far into fantasy. Conversation is macho, to the point with only shards of Bond type gallows humour. Its all about the action.

The feeling that there is something going on at another level to the world we live in is what the trilogy coveys so well. A scene set in Waterloo with a Guardian journalist does this to great effect. There is no meeting of worlds - you are in it or just a superfluous body.

If the shaky cam doesn't annoy you too much, enjoy this film and hope they somehow keep the franchise going. I saw the The Bourne Ultimatum last summer with a friend, and, wow! I had already seen the first two films and I liked them, but Ultimatum, I loved.

Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a amnesia suffering CIA agent on the run, trying to discover who he is.

Like I already said, I loved this movie from start to finish, no plot holes, slow scenes, everything was paced just right and it fit in well with the other films, but in all senses it was much better.

Best stunts, car chases, actors, and effects I've seen in an action movie all summer, (surprisingly due to Spider-Man 3, Pirates, etc.) But I it wasn't just action in this film, Jason doesn't just kill and run. He has a soul and the audience feels for him, so drama is included. But that doesn't slow it down.

Of all the "threequels" that came out last summer, this was the best. Last Christmas, I was lucky enough to receive one of the 1200 Ultimate Bourne boxed sets from my Better Half but put off watching the final part of the trilogy until yesterday. Given how many recent trilogies have stumbled over the finishing line instead of striding triumphantly through it, I was somewhat wary of approaching "The Bourne Ultimatum" but I really shouldn't have been worried. The electric actions sequences and bruising fight scenes mix effortlessly alongside the intelligent story-lines to make this one of the very best action thrillers I can recall seeing and a sublime end to an excellent series.

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) returns after an apparent leak about Operation Blackbriar - a new program based on the old Treadstone project - to the journalist Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) at the Guardian. Determined to uncover more about his half-remembered past, Bourne picks up the trail once again but others at the CIA including Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) believe that Bourne himself is the leak and start to pursue the rogue agent with renewed vigour. Can Bourne finally find the answers he has been looking for or will his old employers silence him for good?

Personally, I felt slightly disappointed with "The Bourne Supremacy" as it ditched the trademark realism of its action scenes and focused on being a proper spy film. Not to say it lost it altogether but compared to the fantastic "Bourne Identity", it seemed more like a slow-burning spy novel rather than an action-thriller. No such worries here - every car crash, punch, kick and gun shot is heard and felt with visceral delight but thankfully, it still retains a wonderfully intelligent and gripping spy story at its heart to base the action around. It also brilliantly ties together the two earlier films, providing a suitable bookend to the trilogy as things are explained and expanded until the full picture is exposed. Performances throughout are nearly faultless - even Julia Styles begins to offer something more than book-wormy eye-candy. The only real downer is that this, like the other Bourne films, has little to do with the original novel but unless you're a die-hard Ludlum fan, this isn't really any real reason to dislike a movie like this of the very highest calibre.

Nothing pleases me more than a movie that takes me pleasantly by surprise and despite my fears, "The Bourne Ultimtum" is a cracking movie filled with enough bone-crunching action to satisfy the meat-heads as well as a plot that never threatens to let go of your attention for a single minute. Even at the final reel, you're never entirely sure whether a happy ending is assured but whether you are a fan of the series or not (and if not, what more do you want?), this is one film you really should track down as soon as you possibly can. No wonder this series forced the producers of the Bond movies to throw out forty-odd years of movie history in order to start again. Bourne is a modern spy hero and made recent Bond films look more like Austin Powers in comparison until "Casino Royale" gave the Bond series the reboot it desperately needed. Missing out of the Jason Bourne movies is a crime worthy of rendition - go and get yourself a copy of the DVD. Not the Ultimate Bourne collection though - limited edition, I'm afraid! By the end of the first hour my jaw was nestled comfortably between my feet. The movie never, and I do mean never, lets up in action. It may be mild action but it's action. Once again every member of the cast fits perfectly. The explosions were realistic, the chase scenes were feasible, and the fighting was incredible. Matt Damon will forever be Jason Bourne.

All I really have to say is that every Bourne movie gets better and this is no exception. The action, the stakes, the plot. How they do it I will never know. I applaud the man who wrote the screen plays to every one of these movies. Because if he hadn't done such a great job with the first movie, we wouldn't have this one to talk about.

So don't go see it in theaters, go experience it in theaters if it's still out where you live, but if not December 11th Bourne comes home to you! Along with "Brothers & Sisters", "Six Degrees" was one of my favorite new dramas of fall 2006.

Great cast all around, but really enjoyed the work of Campbell Scott (the come-back photog) and Hope Davis (recent widow of journalist killed in Iraq).

Aside from the acting, the writing was fresh and the acting superb. The show was also shot in NYC, the real city, not the Warner Bros. or some other studio's backlot, adding a secondary layer or realism.

I guess people are more interested in the latest "Survivor" and other reality garbage. Too bad it didn't last. I loved this show so much and I'm so incredibly sad its canceled i thought it came back too, but just two stupid weeks. Thats terrible. i hate how we never find out how everyone ends up. it sucks. Bring it back! ABC has stupid shows like Supernanny and whatnot but doesn't give time to good ones like Six Degrees. If they're complaining about ratings it was probably because they had a bad slot because this was truly a good show, something I could relate to and anticipated. JJ Abrams delivered, he's awesome, I wish ABC could just trust him enough to complete the story. I loved the entire cast too. I couldn't wait to see how everyone would someday meet each other at once. Everyone's story is now left incomplete, now I'll never know if Steven and Whitney would get together or Carlos and Mae. I wanted to see what would happen to Laura or Damien and everyone else. This is really such a downer. This show was Fabulous. It was intricate and well written and all the characters where likable with out being horribly sweet. Even Jonathan Cake the philandering boyfriend was likable. Since our airwaves are filled with crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, it was nice to see a drama that was not too soap opera like. It was always intriguing to see how each character would be connected to the next circumstance. It really is annoying that we finally get a show that makes you think a little bit and have it thrown out because of some mysterious number that most of us don't even pay attention to. Some of us are not sheep. This show will be missed maybe not by a lot of people but by some pretty loyal fans. Six degrees had me hooked. I looked forward to it coming on and was totally disappointed when Men in Trees replaced it's time spot. I thought it was just on hiatus and would be back early in 2007. What happened? All my friends were really surprised it ended. We could relate to the characters who had real problems. We talked about each episode and had our favorite characters. There wasn't anybody on the show I didn't like and felt the acting was superb. I alway like seeing programs being taped in cities where you can identify the local areas. I for one would like to protest the canceling of this show and ask you to bring it back and give it another chance. Give it a good time slot, don't keep moving it from this day to that day and advertise it so people will know it is on. So, what's the reason? Is there some sort of vendetta against this AWESOME show or somebody involved therein? Why would the best show I've seen in years be canceled? I'm addicted. I saw this show on randomly last fall, and immediately loved it, and watched it every week. Then it went away, and I tried to Tivo it, but it wasn't being aired. So I forgot about it for awhile, until I found the episodes on ABC's website. Now I want MORE. I agree with everybody else - with the rest of the junk on TV today, it was refreshing to see something as well-rounded and developed as this. I watch Boston Legal for my eccentric-comedic fix, and House for my intellectual-mystery-jackass fix. My wife loves Grey's Anatomy for its "realism", and I do love/hate the show, but it could not be farther from real for me. WAY too much drama. Everything that can go wrong, does. But for once, there's a drama that's REALLY real. Real people, real problems. Sure, there are some extremes like a former gangster turned good, girl running from the mob, etc., but these people (especially in NYC) are really out there, and I relate to each and every one of them. I can't seem to get enough. I just hope that ABC will get their heads out of their bean-counting butts and continue this show. Get some respect for having a QUALITY drama out there. This could be one of the best shows of all time. If somebody will just let it. This is the best and most original show seen in years. The more I watch it the more I fall in love with it. The cast is excellent, the writing is great. I personally like every character. However, there is a favorite character for everyone as there is a good mix of personalities and backgrounds just like in real life. I believe ABC has done a disservice to the writers, actors and to the potential audience of this show, to cancel so quickly and not advertise it enough nor give it a real chance to gain a following. There are so few shows I watch anymore as most TV is awful . This show in my opinion was right up there with my favorites Greys Anatomy and Brothers and Sisters. In fact I think the same audience for Brothers and Sisters would love this show if they even knew about it. Why is it always the loser shows that get so much extra time and the winning shows with great potential always get dumped right away. I am so sick of reality shows I do not watch any of them. It was so refreshing to have a new idea for a show and then to hire excellent actors, this show had so much promise. The recent episode was the best one yet as everyone has started to really get into their parts and make the show so real. Please watch this show on ABC's video and let ABC know you wish to have this show back. PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO ABC: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html Why didn't the producers give that show a chance Of all the junk on TV, why didn't the producers give Six Degrees a chance? Will the series go on video? I would love to see how it ends. Put season one on video and sell it. I was a loyal fan of Six Degrees and waited for it's return. I set my recorder to tape all of the shows. Thank God for that. I just found out that the show was canceled and I'm heart broken. I wish I knew it was going to be canceled, why didn't they tell us? I thought the show was just developing some depth in the characters. The writing was pretty good also. Steven (Campbell Scott) is my all time favorite. I am SO sorry to see it go! You probably all already know this by now, but 5 additional episodes never aired can be viewed on ABC.com I've watched a lot of television over the years and this is possibly my favorite show, ever. It's a crime that this beautifully written and acted show was canceled. The actors that played Laura, Whit, Carlos, Mae, Damian, Anya and omg, Steven Caseman - are all incredible and so natural in those roles. Even the kids are great. Wonderful show. So sad that it's gone. Of course I wonder about the reasons it was canceled. There is no way I'll let myself believe that Ms. Moynahan's pregnancy had anything to do with it. It was in the perfect time slot in this market. I've watched all the episodes again on ABC.com - I hope they all come out on DVD some day. Thanks for reading. This show is totally worth watching. It has the best cast of talent I have seen in a very long time. The premise of the show is unique and fresh ( I guess the executives at ABC are not used too that, as it was not another reality show). However this show was believable with likable characters and marvelous story lines. I am probably not in the age group they expect to like the show, as I am in my forty's, but a lot of my friends also loved it (Late 30's - mid 40's) and are dying for quality shows with talented cast members. I do not think this show was given enough time to gain an audience. I believe that given more time this show would have done very well. Once again ABC is not giving a show with real potential a real chance. With so many shows given chance after chance and not nearly worth it! They need to give quality shows a real chance and the time to really click and gain an audience. I really loved the characters and looked forward to watching each episode. I have been watching the episodes on ABC videos and the show keeps getting better and better. Although I think they owe us one more episode (Number 13?). We want to watch what we can! Bombard ABC with emails and letters and see if its possible to save this show from extinction. It certainly worked for Jerico. Some things are just worth saving and this show is definitely one of them. SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO ABC AT: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html I am so upset that ABC is giving up on yet another show that has the chance to be a real winner. This show is so good, the writing and storyline were great, an actual original idea for a show instead of another boring reality show. The casting was spectacular! Not only were the characters and actors right on, but these are a very talented set of actors. The concept and idea is really a new and cool idea for a TV show, many of us share this whole idea of "connections". I really love the characters of Steven, Laura, Whitney and Damien. But to be honest there is not one person connected to this show that I did not like, even those that only were in for a few episodes (Sheri Appleby for example). The acting and characters are so easy to like and so talented!!. I wish ABC had given this show more of a chance, and not interrupted the show midway, Also it was not advertised enough. Truly unfair!! to everyone!!. This show showed great promise. I for one will let ABC know how I feel and will keep sending emails to keep this show alive. Please join me, I know we can do it. It worked for Jerico. (By the way where is episode 13? I want that last show!). Please support this show and send emails to ABC,we can do it!!! This show is well worth it!!! PETITION ONLINE TO SAVE SIX DEGREES: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html WE CAN DO IT!! SIGN THIS PETITION ASAP!!! I got hooked on this as apparently ABC has licensed this show to Pearl TV in Hong Kong. It caught be my surprise, as it was a break from listening to anything Chinese. But i started getting reeled in, as the cast and the story lines are just NYC enough and thoughtful. Nothing too unbelievable, though I think it's very very stereotypical of them to write Damien as a potential black man with a sheet!!!! That has been the most disappointing aspect. The rest is great and I'm sad to learn on IMDb that i can't look forward to watching season 2 when i get back to the US. I'm am just as disappointed as the other commentators that this showed much promise and quality and taste. But just as shows that show characters getting closer, it's probably harder for people to watch if the start watching several episodes in. Which is apparently a bit too late for the eager networks. Unfortunately for myself - I stumbled onto this show late in it's lifetime. I only caught a few episodes (about three) before it was cancelled by ABC. I loved the characters, and storyline - but most of all the GREAT actors! I was a fan of Sex and the City, so I saw two characters I recognized (Bridget Moynahan was & The Character "Todd" was "Smith Jared"), as well as Jay Hernandez (From Carlito's Way: Rise To Power) and Erika Christensen (Swimfan). I enjoy watching young actors get their due, and felt like this show would propel their career further along. I hope this at least gets put back out on DVD, and maybe WB will pick it up for a second season sometime? In the meantime, I'm viewing it on ABC's website from the beginning. Six Degrees is a wonderful show! I watched the entire season online since I just found it and was terribly disappointed that there will not be a season 2 :'( and to top it all off, ABC has now taken it off-line, so it is unable to be viewed online anymore. Why would ABC create such a wonderful show, with a great story line and with great characters just to pull it off the air without ever completing the tale. It seems it is left to our imagination to figure out what happens to all of our connected characters. Honestly though I feel that ABC could at least place the show online for viewers who enjoied it while they continue to air overrated reality TV shows. Six Degrees we will miss you. Here Italy (I write from Venice). Why cancelated? The ABC should have given it a chance to build an audience. The cast (w/Hope Davis, Campbell Scott, Erika Christensen, Zoe Saldana, Jay Hernandez and Bridget Moynahan) is one of the best I've seen in recent. We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones. I hope that ABC will reconsider its decision or another station will pick it up. Please sign online petition to Abc: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html Please sign online petition to Abc: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html I watched the un-aired episodes online and I was so sad that the show won't be back. It had the best cast of mature, talented actors and an amazing chemistry. It seemed like all the actors are personal friends in real life. Towards the end the show became engaging, sexy and highly watchable. Of course, some of the story lines are not realistic, so what... The characters are all likable and you root for them. The show reminded me a cross between 2 other favorites: "Sex and the City" and "Felicity". Big kudos to all the cast. Note to ABC execs: Nielsen ratings reports do not show you true results. The show audience will mostly record it. I've been very disappointed with major networks for flooding us with reality-TV or teenage oriented shows. Why to get a mature, thoughtful, well-acted material we have to switch to HBO or FX? I can only thank the network for putting the rest of the episodes online. The new stream media will gain more and more popularity among viewers. Oh man, why? "Six Degrees" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.

When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.

Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from "Hostel", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.

Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.

It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow! This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.

The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.

We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.

If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed. What is really sad, shows like Six Degree's and Brothers & Sisters are the true reality TV, not that garbage that are nothing more than glorified game shows. I think the ground swell of discontent has been there for the past few years with very premature cancellation's of numerous shows with a cult following. But with the more vocal backlash the fans of Jericho (which I also enjoy) and other shows, networks may start to reverse this trend. I am like others, I will not support ANY new shows until they have been given a second season. I'll then possibly make a decision to watch and catch up via DVD's and online viewing. Until then ABC, you have lost me as a viewer to ANY new show. I borrowed (slightly modified) title from some other comment. I have to say, that as i usually don't like relationship series, I really did liked this one. Great characters, interesting and not cliché story, good acting, good and again not cliché (which in case of dialogs is rather rare) dialogs ... It is really interesting, how the characters cross paths with each other, and sometimes knowingly, sometimes more or less at random influence each others lives. But unfortunately, as we say in our country - do you know how do you recognize a good US series? It is the one that got canceled before the end of the first season. Sure, it isn't always true, but ... I have complained to ABC about the cancellation of six degrees. If enough people do the same then it could be enough to bring this fabulous show back to life!! Just go onto the official site and the rest is simple enough. I do not understand why this show has been cancelled. What a fantastic show, cast and characters. The whole concept is gripping viewing! I am astounded that my favourite show is over after just one series. Why is this? Six degrees is phenomenal, it's better than so many other TV programmes out there! Until I heard they were stopping it from a friend it hadn't even occurred to me that this might happen. While listening to an audio book, Cambpell Scott is the reader. I was so excited to hear his voice and that brought back my disappointment that "Six Degrees" was canceled. They never seem to keep the good shows on air long enough to capture an audience that can connect with the shows story. What a shame, and shame on th network for not giving this show a full seasons chance. This was an excellent show to watch with a great cast. The network gave "Men in Trees" a second chance witch is also a great show , but they took "Invasion" off and that also was something totally different to watch, not the same old-same old themes. Why can't the networks get it right. Loved this show...smart acting, smart dialog, great storyline with real people....please bring it back or make it available online...really miss it.. Hope Davis really shines in this show. I like the idea of SIX DEGREES... It really makes sense in this insane world. Rid yourself of those stupid reality shows and give this show a second chance Please bring it back Not to grovel..but please! When it went off the air, I watched in online and liked how I could watch it with minimal interruptions, in fact, online ABC makes it easy to enjoy shows when you miss them on prime time...gone are the days of endless taping. Anytime you want to bring it back, I am ready. I missed the entire season of the show and started watching it on ABC website during the summer of 2007. I am absolutely crazy about the show. I think the entire cast is excellent. It's one of my favorite show ever. I just checked the ABC program lineup for this Fall and did not see it on the schedule. That is really sad. I hope they will bring it back ... maybe they are waiting until Bridget Moynahan has her baby? Or is it only my wishful thinking?

I read some of the comments posted about the show and see so many glowing remarks, similar to mine. I certainly hope that ABC will reconsider its decision or hopefully another station will pick it up. Why Panic never got a good theatrical release is easily seen: it's much too smart, and audiences would have probably had a difficult time with it, comparing it to American Beauty in its probing of a midlife crisis, and Sopranos and Analyze This in it's study of illegal goings-on amidst family life. Though Panic may seem to derive from unoriginal material, Brommel's lifelike characters coupled with deft dialogue and observant direction make the film a realistic look at the undoing of a middle aged man.

William H. Macy stars as Alex, a hitman who works for his father's (Sutherland) contract-killing business. He leads a double life, with his wife (Ullman) and son unaware of his real trade. In his middle-age, he becomes increasingly disgusted with what he has done all his life. Under his calm, collected facade stirs repressed resentment for his father's controlling grasp on his life. When he meets a young woman(Campbell) he feels invigored and decides it's time to quit the family business.

The fact that writer/director Henry Brommel decided to make the profession his main character was trying to break away from contract-killing is disposable. He could have easily substituted it with any undesirable profession; his characters are so well-developed and believable, scenes handled so smoothly and realisticly and dialogue written so insightfully and naturally that the focus falls on Macy's conflicted character rather than his job as a hitman. Brommel's script feels like a Shakespearean tragedy, with a definite theme of destiny running throughout.

In Alex, Macy creates a tragic, easily sympathetic character, and turns in yet another brooding, great performance, as can always be expected. Donald Sutherland is also effectively abrasive and abusive as his overbearing father, and Ullman's dramatic turn as Macy's wife is a welcome change for the comedian. Consider a scene in a bicycle shop, where her mood subtly darkens and peaks in an affecting scene of emotional confusion.

Henry Brommel's first feature, Panic is a film that is well-crafted in its sincerity. With a first-rate cast, a plausible script, terse dialogue, and nice direction, this character-study is hopefully just a taste of Brommel's aptness for creating characters that seem real.

8 out of 10 A brilliant movie about family, guilt, sacrifice, betrayal, and love. Macy is such a great actor. It was almost a shame to see him in the same scenes with Campbell, who looks the part of a neurotic sex object but doesn't have the chops to work with him on the level the script called for. But he's such a good actor that he played down to her level to make the scenes work. I highly applaud the casting of Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife. Who knew? Sutherland is also very good. The way he moves makes his character look taller (and even younger in some scenes). Almost everyone knew what they were doing.

Macy's portrayal of the only situation in which his character is not able to be careful is nothing short of complete mastery. I recently caught up with this little gem of a film on cable. It took me by surprise, even though, I should have expected it from the team involved with this movie.

Henry Bromwell directed this film with a sure hand, and it shows. One always wonders about the secret life of hit killers. One doesn't have to go too far to realize they probably are one's own neighbors, or social acquaintances, or even friends; they're no different from us, at least on the surface.

In this story, the grandfather, is a despicable character who does not hesitate in eliminating anyone for the right price. He has no scruples in teaching the ropes to his own son, and even to the grandson!

Alex, is a man living in turmoil. He knows what he has done in the past and suddenly is coming to realize the consequence of his actions. He has to see someone to help him find peace with himself. In going to Dr. Parks, he is trying to find absolution, although, he doesn't find it there. On the contrary, there is a dramatic twist when Alex learns about who is supposed to kill next.

Alex, brilliantly portrayed by William H. Macy, mesmerizes us. Not only is he a fantastic actor, but he makes us believe he is that man. One of the best things in the movie is the late John Ritter. He is equally convincing as Dr. Parks, the man who unravels the mystery.

Donald Sutherland, as the grandfather is perfect. He is a natural actor in everything he does. Neve Campbell surprised in her pivotal role of Sarah. She shows a capability and range that are incredible. Tracey Ullman is Martha, the suffering wife, and she doesn't get to do much. Also Barbara Bain, in a rare appearance, is the grandmother from hell. David Dorfman, is a delight in the film. He shows a maturity beyond his years.

This is the kind of movie Hollywood needs to make more of. No extravagant props, no car chases, no clever one-liners. Just people dealing with being people.

William Macy plays an unlikely hitman who works for his father, Donald Sutherland. Macy is the dutiful son, Sutherland is the domineering father. Son wants out of the business, father won't let him. Macy loves his own son, played beautifully by David Dorfman ("The Ring"). He also starts to fall in love with Neve Campbell, a girl he meets in the waiting room of his psychiatrist's office.

It's an interesting juxtaposition of characters and the film follows the reluctant killer as he balances his own needs with those of his family. There are many touching scenes, especially between Macy and his little boy. And as you'd expect in a film with William Macy in it, there's a bit of humor too.

Excellent job all around, actors and director. Nice to know they can still make a good film in Hollywood on a small budget. Panic is a sneaky little gem of a film - you think you have it figured out by the first half hour only to realize, with great pleasure, that Henry Bromell is a much better writer/director than that.

The film builds slowly, with one quietly devastating scene after another, all enacted perfectly by William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland, Neve Campbell, Tracey Ullman, John Ritter, and the most remarkable child actor I've seen in a long time, David Dorfman, as Macy's son, who delivers his lines as if they're completely unscripted thoughts being created in his mind. Rich and rewarding, this film will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. I love and admire the Farrelly brothers! How come I only got to see this great movie 3 years after it's release? It made me laugh, it made me cry and it reeeaally warmed my heart. Big Time. It's hard to describe in my rotten English - but I have to try anyway:

The cast is excellent throughout - from the lead- to the supporting roles, the acting is great, the dialogs are great and the film is perfectly directed and edited.

I think that the Farrelly brothers movies are often underestimated - they are not light comedies - they're deeeeeep! They talk about what life is all about (I won't tell YOU!).

In my case, this movie affirmed to me what relationships are all about:

If you love somebody: Set them free, let them be - try to share the passion and the pain and always be true to each other.

I'm not a sports-hater, but definitely a sports ignorant. But in this movie - the vibes get you. I could smell the atmosphere of Baseball. Finally, this movie explained to me what being a sports-fan can mean to you and what cool fan-families there must be out there.

Thanks so much, Pete & Bob!

P.S.: If you haven't seen it - please check out KINGPIN! Fever Pitch has many of the clichés we have come to identify with Hollywood romantic comedies: a relationship between two people with little in common, the secret he's been hiding that she discovers, the inevitable breakup, and the very public – well, I won't go any further but you get the picture. In spite of its predictability, it works, especially if you love baseball as I do, though I'm not quite as obsessive as Ben Wrightman, a Boston schoolteacher played by Saturday Night Live comedian Jimmy Fallon.

Adapted from a novel by Nick Hornby by veteran screenplay writers Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, Ben is a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan whose Uncle gave him season tickets when he was seven years old and he's been kind of stuck emotionally at that point all of his life to the detriment of his relationships with women. Ben is not just a fan but a "fanatic" who travels to Fort Meyers, Florida each winter for the Red Sox Spring Training games and never misses a home game during the regular season. His family does not consist of parents or siblings but the fellow groupies who attend each game with him and his bedroom is not a place to sleep but a Red Sox museum to visit.

When he falls for business consultant Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore), he is threatened with the possibility of having to grow up but Ben is not quite ready to do that. He would rather attend the Yankee series than go with her to Baltimore to meet her parents or to go to Paris with her and miss the Anaheim series. It takes his relationship being on the verge of dissolving, for him to stop and think about his priorities, especially when a pint-size Dr. Phil wannabe asks him, "You love the Red Sox, but have they ever loved you back?" While the premise of Fever Pitch is that some things are more important than baseball (perish the thought), you would never know it from the way things turn out. Of course, to any one familiar with the history of the Boston Red Sox, it is a team that will break the hearts of its most die hard fans -- but this is 2004, the year the curse of the Bambino came to an end and as the Red Sox move to a new level, Ben might just do the same. Both lead performances are excellent and the Farrelly Brothers even manage a pretty gross gag. While Fever Pitch will never be mistaken for an art film, it is a joyous romp that will have to go down as one of my guilty pleasures. Go Blue Jays!. OK, I would not normally watch a Farrelly brothers movie. I can't recall ever watching one. I also don't recall watching a Jimmy Fallon movie. Alright, I did watch taxi, but I said penance and was forgiven for that mistake. But, this movie had Drew Barrymore and I just think she is the cutest thing. I don't know what it is about her, but I just smile the whole time I am watch her. She just captivates me that way. I mean I even watched Adam Sandler just to see her in 50 First Dates. How sad is that? This wasn't the greatest baseball movie - it wasn't supposed to be. It was a love story about a sad puppy that hung on to the only thing that never let him down until he found something worth giving that up for. It had a predictable ending, but there was so much on the way there that made it worthwhile. Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many. I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan.

First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics. If you want to watch something that is for 'him' and 'her' so to say then this is the film to pick. I am a sucker for rom coms but my husband is not always so keen (what a guy!!!). Anyway I managed to get him to watch it because I told him it was about sport, and you know what, he loved it!!!

Drew Barrymore is very funny and her leading man (sorry but can't remember his name) is equally as good. When I watched the film it was called 'The Perfect Match' but I think the title was changed for the UK as it is based on the book Fever Pitch and there was already a film made about football with that title (the same film but the UK version - phew!),

Anyway all of the reviews on here will tell you more details if you need them buy girls, take it from me, get your hubby/boyfriend in front of the television on a Saturday night and you will both laugh and cry together. A real gem. I saw "Fever Pitch" sort of by accident; it was playing on the airplane going over to Europe. It actually wasn't half bad. Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is the world's #1 Red Sox fan, but his relationship with Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore) may strain that. The movie is a fairly interesting look at how world events can affect peoples' relationships. It's especially eye-opening now that the Red Sox have ended their 80-odd-year losing streak. I guess that these sorts of things happen all the time and we just don't tend to notice them. Not too bad.

Another movie portraying an unusual relation to baseball is 2000's "Frequency". Check them both out. I liked this movie,,cute and funny.I found this film to be a good family film.the dirtiest part of this movie was when it made references to the New York Yankees. You have to be in Red Sox nation to understand that NY Yankees is a dirty word.Sorry to say that to the Yankee's fans.I recommend this picture for the entire family.Of course with your typical love/comedy movie,,there's a long moment in the movie,,with i'm in love and what do I do,,but the movie makes up for that with all the slapstick moments.The movie show's some moments of how the Red Sox nation( in Fenway Park)how the fans felt about 86 years of the Sox always screwed up at the end of the season and how the love of the Sox and the love with another human go hand to hand. As a long time Red Sox fan, I just had to go see the movie. It was great! While there can never be enough live footage from the miracle 2004 Red Sox season, there were great shots of some of my favorite Red Sox players. While the movie is certainly a chick flick, it has enough baseball footage from the amazing 2004 Red Sox comeback to make it one of my top 10 movies of all time. I especially enjoyed the Red Sox fans that were part of Ben's baseball family. The scene where Ben is meeting with his buddies on draft day to determine who will get seats to certain games is hilarious! A must see if you are looking for a wholesome movie to watch with your spouse, date, or significant other...especially if you are a baseball fan...and even more especially if you are Red Sox fan!!! A very cute movie with a great background provided by the city of Boston and Fenway Park. As a baseball fan and light movie addict, it hit a homerun for me. Plenty of laughs and plenty of authentic baseball scenes with real ballplayers and real references to past Bosox failures. And how enjoyable was it to watch a movie with a baseball theme without having to endure an overage, over-the-hill, self-serving Kevin Costner attempting to make believers out of a critical audience? Jimmy and Drew did a fine job as a young love-struck couple suffering from Jimmy's Bosox "jones". It was a bit whacky and out of left field, but there really are Sox fans that are that fanatic and live their lives through the fortunes of their beloved team. The movie coasted along at a fast pace and the ending, although predictable, had the charm and sentimentality of so many other popular movies, without being overly pretentious.

Also enjoyable was the return of Willie Garson to the screen. I miss the forever-popular "Stanford Blatch" from Sex & the City. He's always funny, even when he does or says very little.

So buy yourself two box seats, some popcorn, and get ready for a fun time. "Fever Pitch" is a winner. Bette Midler is again Divine! Raunchily humorous. In love with Burlesque. Capable of bringing you down to tears either with old jokes with new dresses or merely with old songs with more power & punch than ever. All in All Singing new ballads, power-singing the good old/perennial ones such as "The Rose"; "Stay With Me" and yes, even "Wind Beneath My Wings". The best way to appreciate the Divine Miss M has always been libe - since this is the next best thing to it, I strongly recommended to all with a mixture of adult wide-eyed enchantment and appreciation and a child's mischievous wish for pushing all boundaries! Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more "vocally correct" version of "Stay With Me" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time. Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in "Diva Las Vegas". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing "Stay With Me" from her 1979 movie "The Rose". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums. Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now! A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around. After losing the Emmy for her performance as Mama Rose in the television version of GYPSY, Bette won an Emmy the following year for BETTE MIDLER: DIVA LAS VEGAS, a live concert special filmed for HBO from Las Vegas. Midler, who has been performing live on stage since the 1970's, proves that she is still one of the most electrifying live performers in the business. From her opening number, her classic "Friends", where she descends from the wings atop a beautiful prop cloud, Bette commands the stage with style and charisma from a rap-styled number called "I Look Good" she then proves that she has a way with a joke like few other performers in this business as she segues her way through a variety of musical selections. The section of the show where she salutes burlesque goes on a little too long but she does manage to incorporate her old Sophie Tucker jokes here to good advantage (even though she actually forgets one joke in the middle of telling it, but her ad-libbing until she remembers it is hysterical). Bette also treats us to "Rose's Turn" from GYPSY and the title tune from her smash film THE ROSE as well as a shameless plug for her hit movie THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. She brings the house down near the end with "Stay with Me, Baby" from THE ROSE and her only #1 hit record, "Wind Beneath My Wings" from BEACHES. It's a dazzling evening of musical comedy entertainment and for Midler fans, it's a must. A common plotline in films consists of the main characters leaving the hustle and bustle of the city behind, and finding themselves in the tranquility of nature. In Power of Kangwon Province, we are shown two stories of individuals doing just that, trying to find themselves through a trip to the popular Korean parks in the mountains of Kangwon Province. However, rather than epiphanal moments, we have two characters whose trip into nature was just another form of escape.

The pace of this movie is slow, contemplative. We learn in the end what really brought each to Kangwon Province and we learn how they're connected. For those who want Hollywood glam and for a movie to give them a definitive answer, this movie will not satisfy. But for those who want a movie that leaves them thinking, wondering, affecting them years after, this movie will more than satiate that longing. In the film Kongwon-do ui him it features a relatively intimate look into the meaningfulness (as well as general meaninglessness) into the lives of various Koreans; empty people seeking ways to fill themselves, enjoying the escapism of nature. From the beginning to the end of the film we observe the fallibility of the various characters; we learn of their shortcomings and their desires, the overall complexity captured within human life (and yet the overal simplicity of humanity). Although the film is slow-moving, it can be very contemplative. It does not force any ideas, but allows the ideas to come about themselves, it allows the concepts to reveal themselves.

The film ends as well and as suddenly as it begins, and one truly understands the meaning of aloneness, that love is often an act of selfishness, and the many mistakes that we make. It is a look into everyday life, very well and beautifully done.

If you are looking for action or for intense drama, this is not the film for you. However, if you enjoy honest, original, and meaningful films that are not forced and without glitz, this is a great film to watch. This is a great film. If this is any indication, than Hong Sang-Soo really is "Asian cinema's best kept secret". It's very similar in style to Tsai Ming-Liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, and covers a lot of the same ground as them thematically, but I think I actually enjoy this more as a whole than any single one of their films. The overt minimalism is slightly less pronounced here than in their work, although it still completely fits that style (the camera never moves even once), and somehow I found the film less self-consciously "slow" than Tsai Ming-Liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien, which I think is part of the reason I enjoyed it more. Plus, it doesn't keep it's subjects quite as detached as Hou does. I felt like the film was also somehow more "complete" and less open-ended (just barely) than some of their work, although that's not to say it had much of anything resembling a forward-moving plot. I would have a hard time believing that Sophia Coppola wasn't directly influenced by this film for "Lost in Translation" (scenes of a young woman wandering around by herself, and languishing in her hotel room wearing punk panties can't help but seem familiar). The Power of Kangwon Province is director Hong Sang-Soo's second feature effort and clearly much of what he started with in his previous film returns in this film, including the multiple connected narratives (in this case, two), and stories of troubled or troubling relationships, as well as a potent dosage of irony.

One thing that's clearly reduced from his previous work is the flights of fancy that included elements of surrealism. However, this film also contains a single moment of surreal that strikes a contrast against the otherwise rather realistic depiction found therein. The two stories follow a young woman who goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with her friends, only to find herself drawn to a stranger, the second about a man who also goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with his friend and struggles with his relationship woes.

Again, Hong shows a strong understanding of irony and of the flaws in human nature and yet I don't think he's entirely unsympathetic when it comes to his characters, drawing in just enough compassion to offset the criticism he draws with his irony. I think the think I've come to love about Hong's films is that they just feel so real, especially the complex and conflicted characters. Not to say that every person is a hypocrite or suffering from confused feelings, but rather, that these characters he and the actors present, feel fully developed and believable.

This is not a fast moving film. There's a lot of lingering and like the previous film, things don't always connect immediately so patience does pay off and in surprising ways. There doesn't appear to be any element of the film that isn't intentionally placed in the film and it's made my a little hyper-aware of various seemingly extra characters as they get dragged into the mix as the film progresses.

Power is an excellent film that manages to inject a level of personal emotion, regret, longing into a story that highlights irony and the fallibility of human decision-making. It's a rather hard balance to keep and it's surprising how Hong manages to pull it off twice in a row. Technical production values have gotten much better since the first film and direction has gotten steady and clear. This film doesn't pack the same emotional wallop that the first does, but gains a lot in its assured exploration and the refinement really helps tighten the overall vision. Great viewing for art cinema lovers. 8/10. Let us begin by saying that this film's English title "The Power of Kangwon Province" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,"Kangwon-do ui him" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film. At last - I've finally got round to it and managed to see a "clean" copy of Pakeezah! Up until now I've only had a mangled scratchy jerky version taped off Dubai TV sometime in the '90's, with quirky English subtitles, dizzying widescreen coverage and a fluid colour with a mind of its own. Having thought the world of such a poor (and short) copy I find the decent one was well worth the wait and the full 140 minutes even more of a pleasure than I thought possible.

This was the lovely Meena Kumari's film from start to finish, and I believe was planned by her from 1958 on, finally realising it in 1971. What a shame it was that chronic alcoholism finally killed her soon afterwards, and in fact that she was too ill to perform in some of the scenes in Pakeezah, necessitating a body double. In some scenes the strain definitely shows in her face.

The story of Purity versus Adversity I can only treat as fiction having no experience of anything remotely close to it, but I'm led to understand that it faithfully depicts a world now gone that must have been common at one time in India. It's a sparkling and colourful film with a simple relentless epic message, an intense romantic tragedy which is somehow simultaneously feelgood too. But to me it's the peerless golden music by Ghulam Mohammed as sung by the incomparable Lata Mangeshkar - especially Thare Rahiyo - and its part in the unfolding of the story that makes this film so outstanding. I've seldom heard such serious, beautiful, poetic, wondrously sung and played songs on any movie soundtrack. Singin' In The Rain may be my favourite musical film but Pakeezah has my favourite music - yet Lata said that the songs themselves meant nothing special to her. The only pity is that the also unique Mohammed Rafi only had the one song in here, albeit a classic duet with Lata.

Because of all this but not blind to its faults, Pakeezah is my favourite Indian movie, filmed at a time when the Westernisation of India was gathering pace and watched now when Western values seem to be state sponsored and de rigueur. At the very least watch Pakeezah for a taste of what Indian "pop" music had to offer the world before it was all jettisoned for drum machines, the Bollywood Beat and bhangra. Without question, this film has to be one of the greatest ........ in cinematic history. I have it watched too many times to remember, and each time it is like I am seeing the film for the first time.

Where does one begin?

Meena Kumari's central performance is undoubtedly one of the finest of her career, followed closely by Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam and Phool aur Pathar. Each movement and nuance of her performance, makes any other Bollywood heroine pale into significance. Her masterly interpretation of Kathak coupled with her grace, tragic vulnerability and poetic delivery of Urdhu, is like nothing ever seen on the bollywood screen.

Pakeezah is perhaps the most stylised interpretation of the human condition; the photography, sumptuous cinematography and mise en scene, are so charged with symbolism and meaning, that the viewer is left breathless.

Naushads music, is unsurpassed, his knowledge of the music of the courtesan gharanas is incredible, and the way in which he punctuates the narrative with dark atmospheric motifs and overwhelming romantic melodies is indeed remarkable.

My only advice to anyone who seriously enjoys the spectacle of total cinema, should watch this epic mediation on life and art. This movie is one among the very few Indian movies, that would never fade away with the passage of time, nor would its spell binding appeal ever diminish, even as the Indian cinema transforms into the abyss of artificially styled pop culture while drill oriented extras take to enhancing the P.T. styled film songs.

The cinematography speaks of the excellent skills of Josef Werching that accentuate the monumental and cinema scope effect of the film in its entirety.

Gone are the days of great cinema, when every scene had to be clipped many times and retakes taken before finalizing it, while meticulous attention was paid in crafting and editing the scenes. Some of its poignant scenes are filled with sublime emotional intensity, like the instance, when Meena Kumari refuses to say "YES" as an approval for Nikah (Marriage Bond) and climbs down the hill while running berserk in traumatized frenzy. At the moment, Raj Kumar follows her, and a strong gale of wind blew away the veil of Kumari and onto the legs of Kumar........

Kamal Amrohi shall always be remembered with golden words in the annals of Indian Cinema's history for endeavoring to complete this movie in a record setting 12 years. He had to manage filming of some of the vital songs without Meena's close ups, because Meena Kumari, the lady in the lead role was terminally ill and fighting for her life in early 1971. Pakeezah is in my mind the greatest achievement of Indian cinema. The film is visually overwhelming but also emotionally breathtaking. The music, the songs, the sets, the costumes, the cinematography, in fact every creative element is worthy of superlatives. Perhaps the most polished and accomplished of all Indian films - Pakeezah does not fall into any of the traps commonly associated with Bollywood film (ie tackiness, farce, wholesale and unsuccessful imitation of western film themes/genres). Pakeezah is indigenous to the Sub-Continent and authentic, almost Madam Butterfly-like in plot. Characters are well-developed, direction, although sometimes unrefined by today's standards, perceptive and convincing. The Urdu-speaking milieux at the time of Pakeezah were masters of understatement and how the dialogue conveys the subtleties of the age! The acting (particularly the 'looks' and the dynamic between characters) are a delight to behold although the nuances may be lost on contemporary viewers or those not acquainted with the mores and customs of Muslim India.

Coupled, with a captivating screenplay is a beautiful musical score, enhanced by the protagonist displaying eminent command of classical Indian dance (kathak). As is the case with most romantic tragedies, the heroine must die, but she does not take her leave of the audience without the viewer feeling he/she has been party to a truly memorable cinema experience. Pakeezah is surely the pinnacle of what Indian cinema has produced and is unlikely to be paralleled. Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those "OMG, 5 minutes another song" movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.

A parody of all the dreams you've ever had.......... Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.

Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.

Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.

Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift. A great film requiring an acquired taste. If you're into action, wham bam films and hate serious love stories then its not for you. Otherwise, if you like to sit in front of a good intelligent movie now and again I recommend this very highly. Easily the best film produced in Bollywood this century.

The only other Indian film I would give 10/10 for is Dil Wale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Even then it comes second to this masterpiece. This is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen-- it has everything-- a genuinely touching screenplay, fine actors that make subtlety a beautiful art to watch, an actually elegant romance (it's a shame that that kind of romance just doesn't seem to exist anymore), lovely songs and lyrics (especially the final song), an artistic score, and costumes and sets that make you want to live in them. The ending was only a disappointment in that I was expecting a spectacular film to have a brilliant end-- but it was still more wonderful then the vast majority of movies out there. Definitely check this movie out-- over and over again. There are many details you miss the first time that deserve a second look. The ultimate homage to a great film actress.The film is a masterpiece of poetry on the screen.Like great poetry it is timeless.Direction,cast,screenplay,music,lyrics,in fact all the norms for movie-making are perfectly chosen to suit the message of the film.The Muslim society in India has never been presented with such respect,nobility and reality.The script is memorable in the hands of Meena,Ashok,Raaj Kumar,Nadira etc to name a few.Personally i was most impressed by the regal looking Kamal Kapoor.The master movie maker Kamal Amrohi's lasting legacy to the sub-continent.A very beautiful film on a controversial theme that makes humanity look up and face the reality of the outcasts in the world.'In ka naam? Pakeeza! haan Pakeza'.Such acting is unheard of in this age of sex,dance and pornography. Mina Kumari exhibits more style and grace just moving from standing, to sitting on the floor than you can find in most other movies. The director has produced more memorable scenes of touching beauty than it would seem possible. The music and dancing is of the highest possible quality. You may notice in the first dance scene the director has all sorts of things occurring in the background:other girl dancing, a drunk falling down stairs, much activity, but he knew that we would be watching Mina dance and I'll bet unless you viewed this many times, you didn't notice.All in all, perfection.J.Q. Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection. This film opened to poor showings in the first few weeks. Then Meena Kumari died and it just brought the crowds rolling in. Songs on All India Radio, especially Inhi LogoN ne were played so often that I was sick of them at the time, despite recognising their beauty!

Yes, it did take all those years to make. This was because the marriage was a very unhappy one and Kamal Amrohi also had difficulty finding the money to make the film; looking at the sumptous sets and costumes, not surprising!! Not only does Meena Kumari age and fall ill but listen carefully to Lata's voice. Inhi logoN ne has her 50's younger voice while songs that were re-recorded like Chalo dildar chalo show clear development. I only wish someone would find the Ghulam Mohammad songs that weren't included in the film, because of changing fashions that called for fewer though slightly songs and publish them. Lata in a recent interview (2007) rated Ghulam Mohammad as one of the best composers she had ever worked with, apart from Madan Mohan (a great personal friend). Notice also that you hardly see the actors at all in the Chalo dildar songs, very unusual. There is only a brief shot of Raj Kumar from the middle distance and you only see the back of the supposed Meena Kumari. Kamal Amrohi made a virtue out of necessity and focused on the stars and moon. Any other film, this song would have had close-ups of both of them.

As for this being the finest film ever, I would beg to differ. It means you have missed a lot of Indian cinema, in no particular order, films like Barsaat (old), Devdas (older versions), Bandini, Do Bigha Zameen, Garam Hava, Dastak, Guddi, Aan, Pyasa, Kagaz ke Phool, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, Kabuliwallah, Abhimaan, Guide, Sujatha, Bombay ka Babu, Daag, Parineeta (old), Umrao Jaan, etc. etc. And if you valued music more than story the list would simply grow with beautiful scores from Barsat Ki Raat to Naya Daur, Teesri Manzil, Mahal, Aag, Jugnu, Anand, Mera Naam Joker: the list is really endless!

So enjoy Pakeezah but don't miss out on any of the above... If ever I was asked to remember a song from a film of yester years, then it would have to be "Chalo Di Daar Chalo Chand Ke Paar Chalo" for its meaning, the way it is sung by Lata Mangeshkar and Mohd. Rafi, the lyrics by Kaif Bhopali and not to mention the cinema photography when the sailing boat goes out against the black background and the shining stars. The other would have to be "Chalte Chalte." Pakeezah was Meena Kumari's last film before she died and the amount of it time it took can be seen on the screen. In each of the the songs that are picturised, she looks young but after that she does not. But one actor who didn't change in his looks was the late Raj Kumar, who falls in love with her and especially her feet, after he accidentally goes into her train cabin and upon seeing them, he leaves a note describing how beautiful they are.

Conclusion: Pakeezah is a beautiful romantic story that, if at all possible should be viewed on large screen just for the sake of the cinema photography and songs. The movie stars the Meena kumari, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar and is directed by Kamal Amrohi.

Kamal Amrohi's grandson has now started to revive his grand father's studio by making a comedy movie. Paperhouse is the most moving and poignant film I've ever seen. Often classed as a "horror movie" this, I believe, is a grave error. Some journo once called it "the thinking person's Nightmare on Elm Street" and while I accept the logic of his conclusion I can't help but think it's a tag that is ill deserved and misleading. Those that can only see horror are truly missing out here and only serves to demonstrate they're really not thinking at all.

In fact, just attempting to classify this wonderful work is probably a bad idea. Quite simply, Paperhouse is perfect in every exquisite detail and will always have a special place in my heart. As someone wiser than me once said, "the film hits you on a completely emotional level", which may go some way to explaining why my comments are so unrelentingly gushing. To be honest, I make no apology for this so if you feel my words are too saccharine for your taste, stop reading now because there's more to come.

It's so rare to find a film that has at its heart the pain and heartache of childhood and the struggle to overcome the dreadful feelings of isolation and loneliness that can completely overwhelm us at this fragile time in our lives. Even more unusual to find child actors who can actually play their roles with the sensitivity and intelligence required to make it all work. In Charlotte Burke and Elliott Spiers we had an inspired piece of casting and the lasting impact of Paperhouse owes much to their ability to portray the melancholy and alienation of childhood (often overlooked) in a seamless and convincing way.

And yet both of these brilliant young stars seemed to have slipped through the grasp of the studios and have somehow faded away.

Add to all this an incredibly talented director (Bernard Rose), imaginative cinematography and the most beautiful and haunting soundtrack you're ever likely to hear and you may start to get an inkling of why I have such affection and affinity for this film that no amount of words can express.

A great film this, and a shame that it will receive little attention outside of arthouse circles and students who stay up until two in the morning to watch it on Channel Four.

The plot is a simple one but works very effectively, the blurring between child-like fantasy and hard-hitting nightmare is very well blurred. The budget looks pretty low, but to the credit of those involved it doesn't show too often. It also hasn't dated that much either.

I was lucky enough to tape this off the telly when it was on a few years ago, and it has withstood half-a-dozen viewings. It's one of those films that won't appeal to all; though as usual, those with a more thoughtful approach to cinema would get a lot out of this.

Charlotte Buerke puts in a good performance as Anna, the spoilt brat and it is a shame she seems to have gone from the acting scene. Cross is also very good, carrying the stature of his character very well within the context of the picture.

There are some genuinely (and I don't say that lightly) disturbing moments in this film, both half-second shockers and more drawn-out tensions. Watch it with the lights out!

Highly recommended.

9/10

Anna (Charlotte Burke), who is just on the verge of puberty, begins to have strange dreams which start affecting her in real life--especially involving a boy named Mark (Elliott Spiers) who she meets in her dreams.

Very unusual fantasy with some truly terrifying moments. Despite the fact that this is about a teenage girl and has a PG-13 rating, this is NOT for children. Also, if you hate fantasies stay far away. But if you're game for something different this fits the bill.

Well directed by Bernard Rose with a just beautiful music score and a few nice, scary jolts. The only thing that prevents this from being a really great movie is Burke--she's not a very good actress (it's no surprise that this has been her only film) and it hurts the movie. However, everybody else is just great.

Spiers is very good as Mark; Glenne Headley (faking a British accent very well) is also very good as Anna's mother and Ben Cross is both frightening and sympathetic as Anna's father.

A sleeper hit when released in 1988, it's since faded away. That's too bad--it's really very good. I do miss the company Vestron, they sure had their finger on the pulse of unique and unusual cinema back in the 1980s. This is very apparent with the astonishing Paperhouse, a film that touches me deeply each and every time I watch it.

The idea of a girl manipulating a dream world with her drawings (thusly the dream world manipulating reality), and also connecting with and affecting the life of a boy she's never actually met, is fascinating and never disappoints. Charlotte Burke at first seems quite precocious and yet you warm up to her because by being a bit of a mischievous child, it makes it hard for the adults to believe what she is experiencing. She becomes very self aware and strong towards the end, even finding she doesn't "hate boys" as she so defiantly claimed at first. Through this we are treated to many touching moments and some immensely scary ones, all visually stunning with a grand score from Hans Zimmer. I'm quite proud to be an owner of the soundtrack on CD when it was released in the United States on RCA Victor. At the time of this writing there is no DVD of Paperhouse yet available in the U.S. (only in Europe), here's hoping one of my wishes will come true as I truly cherish this beautiful film and a DVD of it would be very welcome!

It's satisfying watching the girl work out her thoughts like a puzzle game trying to make the dream world work for her and her newfound friend Marc (Elliot Spiers). Both Charlotte Burke and Elliot Spiers do a magnificent job throughout, I find the editorial comment on Amazon.com about it being "hammy acting" quite perplexing -- I found every aspect of Paperhouse to be exhilarating. Even in minor scenes of brilliance like when Charlotte and the girl in the classroom are staring at each other through the glass on a door, it's quite powerful.

You don't have to be an arthouse type to enjoy Paperhouse, just be a person that enjoys a film that stimulates and has you wanting more. There is enough in this film to invite repeated viewings and I'm still in awe of the cinematography and sets. For me, it's never like watching the same film twice, as there are so many details to absorb and savor. A very emotional experience indeed.

While there are many films I adore, there are only a few specific ones that strike a great emotional chord in me: films like Paperhouse, Static, Resurrection, and Donnie Darko. When I see so much drek out there passing as films that will easily be forgotten and in bargain bins, all I have to do is watch Paperhouse and my faith in wondrous storytelling is renewed. This is a way cool fantasy movie. One of my faves, it really is so cool. The director is Bernard Rose who went on to direct Candyman, he made a great start with this film.

The film about a girl called Anna who falls ill with glandular fever on her 11th birthday. She draws a house on a shred of paper from her exercise book and falls into a dream in which the house is real. Each subsequent dream that she has is altered by the presence of whatever she adds to the picture. In her third dream she meets a boy she thinks she has created called Mark. She befriends him and their relationship becomes stronger as the dreams become darker and scarier.

Charlotte Burke who plays Anna is a terrific actress and it is very strange that, after just one film, she should disappear and never be in anything ever again. She really does give a great performance in this film.

Hans Zimmer's score is also ace. Much like Broken Arrow, the music is ghostly and mysterious. It's a real shame that the soundtrack is not available on CD anymore. The DVD is available in R2 only. My friend and I picked "Paperhouse" out of a random pile of movies on our weekly excursion to the Horror section-- neither of us had heard of it, but the blurb on the box was really promising. And the movie didn't disappoint, though I still probably wouldn't call it a horror movie exclusively.

11-year old Anna Madden draws a house, and visits it in her dreams. She is definitely asleep when she's seeing the house, but it's so real in a sense that it's almost like a completely separate reality. Which, in view of later events, doesn't seem like a far cry from the truth. Anyhow, she finds she can add to the house, its contents and its surroundings by simply adding to the picture.

While this is going on, Anna is getting increasingly more ill with a fever, and besides that is getting totally obsessed with the house and her drawing. On top of that, she and her mother are also dealing with her absent father; he has a job that takes him away for long stretches, though one gets the impression there's actually more to the story than that.

OK, so the drawing stuff sounds nice enough-- but frankly there's something really menacing about it. The dreamworld is eerily surreal -- the house, for instance, is just a grey block in the middle of a desolate field. The folks who made the movie did a great job of making us very uncomfortable with this alternate world/ongoing dream...

One of the things Anna adds to the house is a boy, Mark, who seems to be the same patient her doctor keeps talking about (I'm not giving that away, you know from the moment he appears that it's the same kid). In reality, Mark can't walk due to an illness; in Anna's drawing-world, he can't walk because she didn't draw him any legs. She blames herself for his real-life illness, and tries to rectify the situation, but... everything starts getting really weird. She even brings her absent father into the drawing, with disastrous results. The bits with the father are really terrifying.

I don't want to give anything away, so I'll stop there... There seems to be a lot going on in this film. I'm sure you'll have a ball analyzing this thing do death with your pals after you watch it-- Is it a simple a story as it seems, or are there actually layers of meaning? I don't know, but either way it's quite fascinating. There was a "Nightmare On Elm Street"-ish quality about it, in that at a certain point reality and dreams intersect. I love things like that.

My only complaint is that it feels like it COULD have ended many times, but didn't. I'm satisfied with the ending it had (some of you sensitive types might want to have Kleenex handy!), though it really could have a variety of conclusions. Anyway, it doesn't exactly feel drawn out once it's actually over, but while you're watching and it keeps fading back in, it's a little nerve wracking.

Still, "Paperhouse" is a really GOOD film. It's well done, and acting-- especially Charlotte Burke as Anna-- is top notch. Burke, who has never before or since appeared in a film, is a real gem. I don't know why she never went onto do anything else, but either way she's really convincing and enjoyable to watch.

"Paperhouse" isn't exactly a horror movie, it's sort of a fantasy/suspense/something else type of movie, with some definite horroresque moments-- but you can still watch it with your family and not be worried that your little brother or grandmother will get grossed out by blood splashing or something.

Give it a chance, you won't regret it! And maybe you should read the book, too... Put quite simply, this film is terrifying.

It starts off simply, looking like a study of a rebellious young girl and goes on to become a beautifully crafted horror film.

Don't expect gore, or zombies. This is psychological, and just as he would also do in Candyman, Bernard Rose manages to convey the horror that is not being believed.

Each time you watch this film, you realise more about what's happening, and about how the two worlds in this film interconnect.

Drawings have never been scarier. Anna (Charlotte Burke) develops a strange fever that causes her to pass out and drift off into a world of her own creation. A bleak world she drew with a sad little boy as the inhabitant of an old dumpy house in the middle of a lonely field. Lacking in detail, much like any child drawing the house and it's inhabitant Marc (who can't walk because Anna didn't draw him any legs) are inhabitants of this purgatory/limbo world. Anna begins visiting the boy and the house more frequently trying to figure what's what and in the process tries to help save the boy, but her fever is making it harder for her to wake up each time and may not only kill her, but trap her and Marc there forever.

Wow! Is a good word to sum up Bernard Rose's brilliantly haunting and poetic Paperhouse. A film that is so simple that it's damn near impossible to explain and impossible to forget. While you may find this puppy in your horror section it's anything but. It's more of a serious fantasy, expertly directed, and exceptionally well acted by it's cast, in particular Charlotte Burke and Elliot Speirs (Marc). And yet, it's not a children's movie either, but meant to make us remember those carefree days of old that are now just dark memories. Rose creates a rich tapestry of moody ambiance that creates a thrilling backdrop for the brilliant story and great actors to play with. Paperhouse stays away from trying to explain it's more dreamy qualities and leaves most things to the viewers imagination. There's much symbolism and ambiguity here to sink your teeth into. Paperhouse enjoys playing games with the viewers mind, engrossing you with it's very own sense of reasoning. As the story unfolded I was again and again impressed at just how powerful the film managed to be up to the finale which left me with a smile on my face and a tear in my eye.

Bernard Rose's visuals are brilliant here. He's able to create an unnervingly bleak atmosphere that appears simple on the surface, but as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. The acting is of young Charlotte Burke in this, her feature debut, is a truly impressing as well. Unfortunately she's not graced the screen since. A much deserved Burnout Central award only seems proper for that performance. Toward the end the movie lags a bit here and there, but I was easily able to overlook it. I wished they had took a darker turn creating a far more powerful finale that would have proved to be all the more unnerving and truly riveting in retrospect. The movie as is, is still one for the books and deserves to be seen by any serious film lover. It's a poetic ride told through the innocent eyes of a child, a powerful film in which much is left to be pondered and far more to be praised. My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse …….

Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.

I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.

Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music. As a lover of the surreal (in art and film) I was pleased to discover this film on IFC. It is definitely a keeper. Most of the other reviews tell the general plot (not all correct) so I won't bother to bore anyone with that. The main thing is the alternate worlds concept which is brought on by Ana's impending illness, and the way she manages to link with someone else after being so "alone", and finally with her family, which I believe is still at least a little troubled. It only can be called a horror movie in that it has frightening scenes but is a fantasy (with a little hint of "coming of age" only because Ana is a pre-teen who "hates boys"). I heartily recommend it to those who appreciate the stretch of their imagination. Not knowing what this film was about, I checked it out at the video store and after seeing it, I enjoyed it. Little seen multi-genre flick from director Bernard Rose (Candyman, Immortal Beloved). Great story and characters. As a fan of Glenne Healdy's, I was surprised of her british accent. The only exception for this film was the ending. However, it is worth the rent. Who would have thought that such an obscure little film could be so haunting and touching? I am really impressed. It's a shame that more people have not seen it. I loved, as always, Hans Zimmer's score. And what a directorial debut by Bernard Rose! Yet I wonder if I should call this a horror film. It could easily be argued that it is a fantasy or a drama as well. Well, regardless, I love the interpretive potential it has. Everything and everyone in Anna's (played by Charlotte Burke)dreams represents a real conflict in her life...the house itself, the tree, Mark, the lighthouse, etc. It is the many details such as these that make the film so good for repeated viewings. I hope I come across another little movie as loaded with emotion and psychological meaning as this one some time soon. I've only ever seen this film once before, about ten years ago. I bought the DVD two days ago and after watching it I think it is even better than I remembered it to be.

Paperhouse is much more than just a horror. It had such an amazing level of emotion and great characterisation running through it. I especially thought Charlotte Burke was really excellent here. It's such a pity that she hasn't done anything else as she was an excellent actress altogether. Her portrayal of emotion throughout the film was perfect with just the right amount of subtlety to get the message across, especially at the end when she realised that although Marc had died, she knew he was going to be alright.

Several scenes did make me jump (which is a rarity for me in modern horror films), most notably the scene in the bathtub, the scene where Anna's father was chasing her with the weird radio in the background and the bit where the legs broke apart and crumbled to dust.

All in all, an excellent and very moving film. I'm glad that this is available on DVD now. This film is an excellent example of the triumph of content & style over empty-headed flashing lights & constant loud noises.

Essentially, if you have a short attention span or lack the wit & imagination to engage with literary narrative you won't like this film. The reasons for this are quite simple, but unfortunately rarely achieved: Matthew Jacobs has done a fantastic job of transposing the story of Catherine Storr's novel 'Marianne Dreams' successfully to a screenplay. An unenviable task as anyone who has seen a film of a book will undoubtedly know.

The casting is excellent, allowing director Bernard Rose to use the actors in a way that is rarely seen now; they indulge in the craft of acting! I know, I know, actors doing their job & acting instead of resorting to mugging inanely at the camera lens whist a kaleidoscope of car chases, explosions & fire fights break out around them is a genuinely rare treat, but it does actually happen in this film.

This brings me to the final reason that this is a film for the imaginative thinker & not the spoon-fed tabloid reader - Apart from a solid script, direction & acting, it relies on atmosphere, suspense & implied horror. If it is to be categorized as horror then the presentation of 'Paper House' is more in the vein of Sophocles than Tobe Hooper.

In conclusion then, if you like lots of loud noises, explosions, constant cuts, & bright flashing colours you'd be better off watching 'Transformers', but if you like a suspenseful story which unfolds through a skillful & evocative use of narrative without insulting your intelligence by force feeding you cacophonous nonsense then this might just be your thing. This is a wonderfully written and well acted psychological drama. It is not really a horror flick so those looking for something like The Ring or The Grudge will be disappointed. What really surprised me about this film was the intelligence and subtle attention to detail in the plot and the effort made to be internally consistent. I also appreciated the absence of Dr. Phil psychobabble or New Age revisionism. Rather than advancing an agenda, the filmmakers just told the story, told it well and let the viewer think about it. The sparse dreamscapes were reminiscent of Wyeth paintings and amazingly effective.

A great example of how to make a good film on a small budget, without big studios, star actors, big-name directors (this was far better than many of Hitchcock's films), special effects or "clever" plot twists. This film is fantastic as it explores storytelling and fantasy in the way a child would, for adults. The idea of a child's drawings becoming a place she can physically visit and have influence over is wonderful. At the same time you could get all child psychologist about it and say she's really exploring her subconscious, just as we all do in our dreams when we sleep. The bit that gives me goose-pimples is when her Dad is in the paper house, and chases her. The only thing I can't stand is that it was marketed as a horror film...it really isn't. If you want to see something British with plenty of storyline which keeps you guessing without the usual cheap thrills most films have to use, then watch Paperhouse. 49. PAPERHOUSE (thriller/horror, 1988) Sick in bed with a fever 11-year old Anna (Charlotte Burke) has only her drawings to keep her company. Her health progressively worsens as a series of mysterious 'black outs' grip her. In each of these episodes she dreams of a house in a desolate field, with only a sickly-invalid boy named Marc (Elliot Spiers) inhabiting it. When a dark, unknown danger threatens her idyllic "paperhouse", the life of Marc is put in jeopardy. Her life is also in danger as these dreams mirror her own state of health.

Critique: Haunting first debut feature from British director Bernard Rose. Taken from a fable ("Marianne Dreams") by Catherine Storr, it leaves plenty of other 'original' fantasy works in its wake. Whenever a story deals with dreams and nightmares it is hard to give it the mixture of fable and reality to make it work in film form. Director Rose successfully captures the children fantasy world aspect along with a darkness that seeks to usurp them.

Feverishly scored by Phillip Glass, Rose knows how to use music wisely with expertly timed 'jump out of your seat' moments. Most thrillers are very sloppy in this all-important aspect of scaring the audience into not knowing what the next scene will bring. I also like the way he captures suspense and never lets it go or falter sluggishly into the next sequence of events. Also, his mastery of placing objects within the frame (as in his P.O.V.shots) gives the cinematography an added dimension it would otherwise seem to lack. Only in Europe will you find such ominous looking places as the ones presented here: the lonely house, the fields, coastal towns, watchtower etc.

Rose would follow this film with "Candyman" (1992), a true 'thinking person's' horror gem and bona fide cult horror favorite. I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. Unfortunately I could not watch it to the end because it was aired late at night. Now I bought it on DVD because I can remember that I liked it.

This is really not an ordinary horror movie. It has some horror elements but I rather categorize it as fantasy. I liked it but I hoped for a bit more horror and scary scenes. Especially the scene when Anna's dad comes into the paperhouse trying to kill her is a bit short.

Now to the plot. This movie is about a young girl named Anna who gets ill. While she is ill and has to lie in her bed because of her high fewer she turns on to finishing her drawing about a house - the paperhouse. When she fells a sleep, which often strangely happens just immediately, she finds herself near the house on a big green field. She realizes that the house is exactly like the one she has drawn and that every new detail also appears in her dreams. One day she draws a boy into the house to have somebody to talk to. As she forgets to draw his legs (because he is sitting behind a window) the boy cannot walk. Later she is being told by the doctor, that a boy also has this strange disease and she realizes that with the boy she has drawn, she also got that boy into her disturbing dreams. She also notices that it gets harder and harder for her to wake up from her dreams. As she misses her father who is ofter abroad she draws her father into the house. She makes a mistake and her father is looking very angry on the painting. She tries to rubber him out but realizes that she cannot change anything already drawn. And next time she falls asleep the horror begins. Her father is mad and blind (because she draw s*** on his head to mark him as 'invalid') and tries to get into the paperhouse and kill Anna and his friend. Her dreams became a horrendous nightmare. They manage to escape and to kill her father and Anna can finally wake up. Than Anna finds her self in the hospital where her parents are sitting beside her bed. The doctors thought that she fell into a coma or so. They tell Anna that the other boy died and that they want to travel to the ocean to get over those tragical happenings. Anna draws a watchtower and notices that the same watchtower can be found near the hotel they traveled to. She runs to the watchtower and meets the boy (I am just not mentioning his name because I cannot remember it and do not want to go back to the previous html page) and can say good bye to him and forget those terrible dreams forever.

There were a few thing I did not understand in the movie. First of all it was the ending which I absolutely dislike. I think it is too long while the main part of the movie becomes a bit too short. How does the boy fly a helicopter and speak to Anna as he is supposed to be dead? Why did you have to put such a stupid radio on the wall? I hated that scene it was so dumb to me. It almost ruined the main horror scene.

Things I liked were the scene with the photograph of Anna's dad which was the first real scary and horror scene. I liked the boy. The actor was awesome. He was even better than Anna. I also liked how Anna tries to get her father out of the painting while she is asleep and how she is looking for it in the garbage.

Overall a good movie. I give it a 8 out of 10. This is one of three 80's movies that I can think of that were sadly overlooked at the time and unfortunately, still overlooked. One of the others was Clownhouse directed by Victor Salva, a movie horribly overlook due to Salva's legal/sexual problems. Another would be Cameron's Closet which strikes me as somewhat underrated--not great, but not nearly as bad as the reviews I've seen. Paper House is well worth your time and I think that it is one of those very quiet films that will just stick in your brain for far longer than you might think. I mean, 10 years after I've seen it and I still give it some pause, whereas something that I might have seen 6 months ago has gone into the ether. I'm giving it only 9 out of 10, because I need to view it again, in a more current mind-frame to have a fresh perspective. What I remember is an amazing psychological thriller that dazzled my brain and my eyes when I watched it. I would watch it every time it came on HBO back in the day (probably 1990 or so). I might have even recorded it, but that recording is long gone, I'm sure.

I wrote to GreenCine to try and get this title in, they currently don't carry it. I hope I can find it at a local video store.

I would highly recommend giving it a try if you find it somewhere. It's interesting at the very least. If you enjoyed movies such as Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Gummo, or anything sort of strange and along those lines, try this one out. Coming from the same director who'd done "Candyman" and "Immortal Beloved", I'm not surprised it's a good film. Ironically, "Papierhaus" is a movie I'd never heard of until now, yet it must be one of the best movies of the late 80s - partly because that is hands down the worst movie period in recent decades. (Not talking about Iranian or Swedish "cinema" here...) The acting is not brilliant, but merely solid - unlike what some people here claim (they must have dreamt this "wondrous acting", much like Anna). The story is an interesting fantasy that doesn't end in a clever way that ties all the loose ends together neatly. These unanswered questions are probably left there on purpose, leaving it up to the individual's interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that with a theme such as this. "Pepperhaus" is a somewhat unusual mix of kids' film and horror, with effective use of sounds and music. I like the fact that the central character is not your typical movie-cliché ultra-shy-but-secretly-brilliant social-outcast girl, but a regular, normal kid; very refreshing. I am sick and tired of writers projecting their own misfit-like childhoods into their books and onto the screens, as if anyone cares anymore to watch or read about yet another miserly, lonely childhood, as if that's all there is or as if that kind of character background holds a monopoly on good potential. The scene with Anna and the boy "snogging" (for quite a stretch) was a bit much - evoking feelings of both vague disgust and amusement - considering that she was supposed to be only 11, but predictably it turned out that Burke was 13 or 14 when this was filmed. I have no idea why they didn't upgrade the character's age or get a younger actress. It was quite obvious that Burke isn't that young. Why directors always cast kids older than what they play, hence dilute the realism, I'll never know. I was always a big fan of this movie, first of all have you seen the cast, the acting is superb and help make this movie move along very well. Cybill Shepherd was given great reviews for her role, and they were well deserved. The beginning of this movie starts in the past when Corinne Jeffries (Cybill) whose picture-perfect marriage comes to a shattering halt when her husband Louie dies unexpectedly. Fortunately, Louse gets a second shot at life when he agrees to be "recycled" back to earth as the newborn Alex Finch (Robert Downey, JR). Alex goes on to live his new life forgetting his past life while Corinne tries to get on with hers. But fate crosses Alexs path 23 years later when he meets Corinne's daughter Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson) and is suddenly flooded with a wealth of unwanted memories (this is where the fun begins, and embarrassing situations occur.) The music is great and the scenes are heart felt and very cute. You wont be disappointed if you give it a chance, Chances Are you'll like it. Very funny and sweet! Writers Perry and Randy Howze crafted a very engaging little story in "Chances Are."

Using the idea of a reincarnated man who happens to return to his former wife's home many years later, the plot takes unexpected, delightful turns.

Twenty four year old Robert Downey, Jr. renders a delightful performance, ably assisted by Cybil Shepherd as the widow and Ryan O'Neal as a good friend.

This trio has just the right chemistry for this caper, playing off one another with a graceful style. I've watched this film a number of times on tv, and each time found it most enjoyable. CHANCES ARE is a charming romantic fantasy about a woman (Cybill Shepherd) whose husband (Christopher McDonald) is killed shortly after learning she is pregnant. We then see the husband in heaven letting the powers that be know that he was taken too soon and that his wife needs him. He is told he can return to earth but not as himself. Flashforward 19 years where we see Shepherd's daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) preparing to graduate from college and encountering a young man (Robert Downey Jr.)who, it turns out is the reincarnation of her father. The film is a little on the predictable side...the story goes all the places you expect it to, but it is so charmingly played by an energetic cast (especially Shepherd and Downey) that you can't help but get wrapped up in the fun. Shepherd has rarely been seen on screen to better advantage and she and Downey are backed by a talented group of character actors in supporting roles. A lovely and charming fantasy that will engulf and enchant you. A charming romantic comedy. The plot is a little too complicated--I tried to summarize it three times and I can't. Suffice to say it's worth seeing. The movie is funny, beautiful--the plot is totally unrealistic but it works. Everybody in the movie is so nice and everything looks so great--it creates a sweet, romantic feel through the entire film.

The acting is great--Robert Downey Jr. and Cybill Shepherd are in top form and enjoying every second of it. Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson are just OK but fine. If you're a sucker for good, sweet sentimental films (like me), catch this one. Also Downey looks great in his underwear!

Extra bonuses--the title song sung by Johnny Mathis and another great song "After All" sung by Cher and Peter Cetera. Yes, I'm sentimental & schmaltzy!! But this movie (and it's theme song) remain one of my all time greats!! Robert Downey Jr. does such justice to the role of "Louis Jeffries" reincarnated and the storyline (although far-fetched) is romantic & makes one believe in happy endings!! Another Downey must-see! If you are an obsessed fan like me, you have got to see this movie! He plays Alex Finch, a 22 year old Yale grad who realizes that the life he just came into is the life he left 26 years earlier. Alex is the re-incarnation of Louie Jeffries, a no-nonsense lawyer happily married to Corrine (Cybil Sheppard). Louie is killed on their one-year anniversary when he is hit by a car. He demands to go back, only this time in the body of Alex Finch. Enter Robert Downey Jr., a lot of confusion, and a lot of laughs.

Although this movie is 15-years old, it still makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as re-incarnation. And if so, how often to you meet the same souls life after life. I don't know the answer. But I do know that you need to see this movie. It is a riot, and Downey looks SO GOOD in a tuxedo. This film makes you believe in love, and true love never dies. It just gets recycled. I've always been a big Cybill Shepperd fan, ever since I saw her series a few years ago!! This film certainly shows her in her best light yet!! The film was so wonderfully cast and played!! Every now and again she drops little amusing lines, just to make this film one of the best I've ever seen!! Everybody really out does themselves!! Especially Robert Downey Jr and Cybill Shepperd, they really made the film come true!! Also I loved the little bit where Mavis loses her wig and she nearly dies when she falls to the floor!! This is film at its best!! What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.

The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her "Moonlighting" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with "Fried Green Tomatoes" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.

SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.

Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with "Dirty Dancing", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.

Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to "Three Men and A Baby" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed! Ordinarily I really enjoy movies like "Chances Are," but I wasn't quite satisfied with this one for a few reasons. The first half was pretty well done overall, with Alex Finch dying and being reincarnated in a new body (played by Robert Downey Jr.). He meets up with his wife (Cybill Shepherd) and friend (Ryan O'Neal) and his daughter, who is now grown up. The scenes with them meeting again and Downey rediscovering who he once was are well done, and there is a good amount of emotion and happiness once Shepherd finally believes its really her husband reincarnated, but from there the film goes downhill. There are several sex-related scenes that turned me off completely, especially Downey and Shepherd wanting to get together again despite the difference in their age now. After that, however, the film manages to end in the most satisfying way possible, considering the circumstances of the plot. I was disappointed because I did not expect the film to become so immoral by the end. There was great potential with this story, and the scenes in heaven are well done. There is a good theme song sung by Peter Cetera and Cher, but ultimately the film is not great. For a better, similar film, try "Heaven Can Wait." Decent, but I really kind of wish I hadn't seen it because of the scenes in the second half.

*** out of **** I don't think I could have enjoyed it more, though certain things were disturbing. I'm not going to say what, if you haven't seen it...you'll have to find out for yourself. At any rate, what movie can lack with Robert Downey Jr.'s puppy-dog eyes? All-in-all, the plot was developed sufficiently. Nothing seemed too rushed, as movies like this tend to be. The characters were like-able, and there were plenty of hilarious scenes in it. The idea over-all is that the story is very well tied together, even if certain aspects may be unsatisfactory...by matter of opinion. But like I said before, it's hard not to love any movie with Robert Downey Jr. Nay Sayers of this film are likely bitter from some seriously unrequited love. This is a great film for anyone capable of understanding Johnny Mathis's song, or any song from that era: Bobby Darin's, Beyond the Sea... or Stan Getz's, The Girl From Ipanema, et al...

I measure films by how many times I have to watch them before I'm satisfied... Chances Are had me back a few good times.

I also watch the synergy between the cast... I thought they worked well together.

Open your heart, and let the comedic magic of film transport you.

'Alan People call this a comedy, but when I just watched it, I laughed

only once. I guess the problem is that I first saw it when I was 14,

and I wasn't old enough to understand that it wasn't meant to be

taken seriously. There were quite a few scenes that were meant

to be funny, but I cared too much about the characters to laugh at

them.

I suggest that you watch this film next time you're falling in love,

and try to take it seriously. I think you'll find that, despite a few silly

flaws, it's one of the most moving love stories you've ever seen. This isn't the best romantic comedy ever made, but it is certainly pretty nice and watchable. It's directed in an old-fashioned way and that works fine. Cybill Shepherd as Corinne isn't bad in her role as the woman who can't get over her husband's death. She has a sexy maturity. But I can't say much for Ryan O'Neal as Philip, because he is, at best, nondescript. He may be adequate in the role, but that's not good enough.

However, I get the feeling that some of the characters, particularly Alex and Miranda, are not written with enough in-depth thought. We don't know anything else about them because minutes after they appear the story gets thick, and the writers don't tell us much beyond what happens. But that problem was salvaged because Mary Stuart Masterson has a fresh-as-a-daisy sweetness to brighten it up, and Robert Downey Jr. is so charming that he melts the screen. Even his smile is infectious. And it so happens that his big dreamy eyes are perfect for the deja vu and flashback scenes.

Anyway, this movie is light and easy and if you like them that way, why not give it a try.

I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!! I've just seen this movie for the second time on television. It's lovely, warm, sentimental, very very romantic. I've rarely seen actors better able to reveal by their movements and gestures love for another -Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Downey,Jr. and especially Mary Stuart Masterson simply outdo themselves. Masterson probably has the hardest role and is just adorable.

The movie is in the vein of both romantic movies such as While You Were Sleeping, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and the "high gimmick" sorts of movies like Big, Back to the Future, Peggy Sue Got Married. I hate to say this, because this cast was superb and I'd never change any of them- but I think it didn't succeed as well as the movies mentioned above because the box office appeal of the cast was just not as great as Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Michael J. Fox, and Kathleen Turner at the time the movie was made.

It's not superbly written - e.g., the characters' lines are not particularly memorable. Yet it's executed to perfection.

The romantic yearnings are truly palpable, the "feeling" of people falling in love is exquisitely communicated, love's timelessness and all-encompassing sweep, the feeling of loss and desire to recapture that connection, are so touchingly delivered. Again and again, you will find yourself moved. Actually, a comparable movie is Made in Heaven -the same romantic yearning.

Do see this - it's lovely. Chances Are uses that marvelous song by the same name throughout the film. Robert Downey, Jr. is excellent in this movie. His extra large eyes and wonderfully variable facial expressions are part of expertise in acting as different people in diverse films. Compare Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin. You will enjoy Chances Are. I did. Every scene was put together perfectly.This movie had a wonderful cast and crew. I mean, how can you have a bad movie with Robert Downey Jr. in it,none have and ever will exist. He has the ability to brighten up any movie with his amazing talent.This movie was perfect! I saw this movie sitting all alone on a movie shelf in "Blockbuster" and like it was calling out to me,I couldn't resist picking it up and bringing it home with me. You can call me a sappy romantic, but this movie just touched my heart, not to mention made me laugh with pleasure at the same time. Even though it made me cry,I admit, at the end, the whole movie just brightened up my outlook on life thereafter.I suggested to my horror, action, and pure humor movie buff of a brother,who absolutely adored this movie. This is a movie with a good sense of feeling.It could make you laugh out loud, touch your heart, make you fall in love,and enjoy your life.Every time you purposefully walk past this movie, just be aware that you are consciously making the choice to live and feel this inspiring movie.Who knows? What if it could really happen to you?, and keep your mind open to the mystical wonders of life. Good work by everyone, from scriptwriters, director, and cast; a lovely fun film that becomes believable for sentimental reasons only; a good film for television on those cloudy, cold wintry days when you just want to sit back and enjoy. Not a film to be taken seriously, but a great little film nonetheless.

It's definitely NOT just a piece of fluff. The acting, IMO, is excellent.

One of those films you wouldn't go out of your way to see, but it brings a smile every time it comes around on cable. Like an old friend.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance.

- - - - - - - - The story of "A Woman From Nowhere" is rather simple and pretty much adapted right out of a Eastwood Spaghetti Western: A mysterious stranger comes into a lawless town run by a kingpin and starts shooting up the place. Even the opening credits and music have that spaghetti feel: Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone would be proud. The really interesting twists are that the stranger is a beautiful (!) woman, Saki (Ryoko Yonekura) on a Harley, and the location is in a town somewhere in Japan.

In this actioner, there's a considerable amount of gunplay, some of it good, some predictable, and other spots somewhat hokey, but it's a whole lot of fun. Ryoko handles her guns with believability and aplomb and gives the thugs their due. It wasn't much of an acting challenge for her as it was a physical challenge, but she handled things very well. She shows her acting skills much more as Otsu in the NHK drama, "Musashi."

I'd highly recommend film if you're a Ryoko Yonekura fan (which I adoringly am) and/or a "girls with guns" movie fan and it does hold up to repeated viewings. To me, there's something eminently and inexplicably appealing about "girls with guns" movies like "La Femme Nikita" and "The Long Kiss Goodnight." And to have a gorgeous gal like Ryoko starring in it as well is just gobs of icing on the cake. Yet another remake of "Fistful of Dollars", Sergio Leone's remake of Kurosawa's "Yojimbo" (suggested by the novel 'Red Harvest').

This one is strictly a B-Movie; taken as that, it is rather enjoyable. the direction is crisp, the acting full of verve, the limitations of its 'direct-to-video' photography well-handled.

The weakness of the film is in the disastrous decision to marry the 'fistful'/'yojimbo' plot to a sub-plot from Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Although leone directed both 'Fistful' and 'West', his motivations behind the two films couldn't be anymore different. The 'Man With No Name' (Eastwood) is a borderline socio-path with a soft spot for broken families. Harmonica (Chaeles Bronson) is obsessed with his own broken family, and obsessed with revenge. These two characters would not have had much to do with each other. In order to bring them together, 'Gun Crazy' has to twist it's plot and complicate it until we lose track of which story we're actually following.

But this is a B-Movie after all, and filled with action and silliness; it's entertaining on that level, just don't expect anything more. Another one for the Babes & Bullets crowd. The story is much edgier than any other musical I have seen: cannons hidden up the missing legs of females, and places each generatively in the other in a way that comes closer to intelligent comment than we might expect for the locale. More effective than contemporary 'drama.' It is hard identify with a woman who keeps a cannon up her pants -- in lue of leggage. Pretty remarkable if you consider the context.

Despite the cannon up the leg thing providing 90% of the surprises, this film also chronicles how greed supersedes all other considerations in the lives of a group of yakuzas who pursue a woman who keeps up her leg a concealed cannon/rocket-launcher (hence no group shower scenes or thongs) The hidden projectile-launcher which is pulled out from the behind the protagonists back, seemingly from nowhere, in miike's Dead or Alive (1999), The torch brought forth out of thin air by the heroine towards the end of the original Tomie (2000), or the harrowing flame-thrower scene in Sunny Gets Blue (1992), all testify to an almost third-world Cantinflas-esquire influence in the contemporary Japanese cinema, of which I am at a loss to explain, but cannot complain.

You won't see good quality movies of this essence made in Hollywood, its all but extinct and with cheap crap they pump out for a cheap thrill, is all but laughable. This is a true film and while its great in its entirety, the ending is a brilliant, if not unblatant rip-off of certain Sergio Leon pictures, involving cannons where legs should be, and certainly is appropriate! Corbin Bernsen's sent letters to four criminal associates he's worked with in the past and it's a real intergenerational mix with Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, and Ruben Blades. They're to meet him in this obscure Montana town and he doesn't explain why because he's then picked up by out of state police from New Jersey on a warrant.

Of the criminal group that's been gathered together, they all know Bernsen, but don't know each other. A lot of comedy involved is them feeling each other out. As the oldest Gwynne though denying it kind of takes charge with the others grumbling, but going along. Especially when they figure out what Bernsen had in mind.

As for Bernsen, he's got the good fortune to be picked up by a pair of bumblers in Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck. He gets the drop on O'Neill and escapes.

After that it's the four criminals trying to finish what Bernsen started and Bernsen getting away the police. In the intricately plotted screenplay, it's fascinating how both story lines keep intertwining with each other. Hoyt Axton as the local sheriff watches in amazement at what unfolds in his town.

Disorganized Crime is a fabulously funny caper film by a bunch of players who seem mostly to have had a background in television or would soon. I can't say that anyone stood out in the cast they also seem to click so well together.

Ironically none of these people are comedians per se, but they all exhibit a light comic touch that good directing brought out.

Disorganized Crime is one very funny caper movie, the kind of film that well known pessimist Mr. Murphy would have written. The plot is tight. The acting is flawless. The directing, script, scenery, casting are all well done. I watch this movie frequently, though I don't know what it is about the whole thing that grabs me. See it and drop me a line if you can figure out why I like it so much. I don't know why I like this movie so well, but I never get tired of watching it. I first saw this movie on cable about 5 years ago and I could not stop laughing. Everything about this movie seemed to click, the storyline, the characters, the setting. As far as film is concerned I wouldn't call this a great movie but for what it is supposed to be it is fantastic. It gets it's meaning across. The cast is maybe as good as any ever put together in a comedy movie. Corben Berbson, Fred Gwynne, Ruben Blades, and Ed O'Neil are hilarious. For this who haven't seen it, I will give you a brief synopsis: Four Criminals meet up in a small town in Montana after receiving a letter from their friend about a bank heist. However when their friend is arrested by two cops who chased him from New Jersey, they try to figure out whats going on and all hell breaks loose. The film is truly a great bank caper comedy and is sort of like a poor mans version of Oceans Eleven, only with four criminals who can't stand each other, and in Montana rather than Las Vegas. All in all if like to laugh I would strongly encourage you to see this movie. I like this film for several reasons. I have a soft spot for films about intricately plotted criminal plots like TOPKAPI. I also enjoy films (like TOPKAPI and BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET) that spoof the the genre. One of the best ones is DISORGANIZED CRIME.

Corbin Bernsen has met four cons over the years, and he decides they can all be useful in a bank robbery he is planning in a small Montana town. But he hasn't given any details on the crime to the fellows, nor do they really know each other at all. Shortly after he sends for them Bernsen is arrested by two New Jersey policemen (Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck) whom he escaped from before and have a warrant to bring him back. While he is in their custody the four cons (Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Philips, Ruben Blades, and Will Russ) show up without a clue about why they are there except that Bernsen was planning something.

The first twenty minutes of the film deal with the four cons slowly getting used to each other, with Gwynne and Philips managing to push away their own suspicions to figure out they have to trust each other. At the same time we see Bernsen patiently waiting for the right moment to escape from O'Neill and Roebuck again - not too difficult as they are not the brightest bulbs who ever existed. The result are two sets of plots that will keep juxtaposing against each other throughout the film: the four cons trying to figure out what Bernsen's scheme was, and how to put it into operation, and Bernsen trying to maintain his own freedom from his pursuers and regain his cabin (and hopefully find his gang there for him to take command of). There is also a third, smaller, plot involving the growing annoyance and anger of local Sheriff Hoyt Axton against the idiots from New Jersey who keep getting into his hair.

There are many delightful moments in the film, such as Axton, egged on by O'Neil and Roebuck, into surrounding a house in the town that Bernsen is supposed to be hiding inside of, and yelling (through a megaphone, "Come out, we have you surrounded!!", only to have the scene switch to a huge, Montana plain that Bernsen is struggling and stumbling through miles from where the police think he is at that moment. There are moments of misadventures by our four cons, who fortunately put the oldest (Gwynne) into leadership position. This does not always guarantee anything. At one point their car won't start, and they have to thumb a ride by truck. Unfortunately it is a truck carrying manure.

The conclusion with the gang successfully carrying out the robbery, including disabling all the police cars at the critical time (Philips specialty is cars) is also a gem of timing, suspense, and comic results. The film is very entertaining, and certainly worth watching. I couldn't agree more with Nomad 7's and I A HVR's comments. A perfect laid back Sunday morning movie. The humor is subtle (exact opposite of "slapstick" as one misguided commenter noted).

But what always ceases to amaze me is how often I find myself wanting to come back to this movie over and over. I originally copied this movie onto VHS about 12 years ago when it was premiered on one of those Pay Cable free weekend previews(HBO maybe?). Had never heard of it previously. Don't know why it wasn't marketed that well. ?? When DVD's were released en mass, it was one of the first movies I replaced. A great combination of cast and writing. Plus, the back drop of Montana wilderness doesn't hurt things either (beautiful).

It's probably not the type of comedy for everyone, but what is? If Adam Sandler type stuff is up your alley, this probably won't be your cup of tea. This movie needs your full attention. The humor is mostly in the dialog.

I believe my next viewing will probably be about my 12th. But I still know that when it gets to the scenes like the one where the hoods of the police cars start blowing off, I'm going to loose it (Ed O'Neill's face is PRICELESS!). Recommended 110%. Remember the early days of Pay Per View? I do, and i can almost remember the number you had to CALL to actually rent the movie on your t.v. As a kid we always wanted to rent playboy, but this meant actually calling someone from PPV and asking to rent it. And then you get the nerve to do it and your watching four hours of soft core no angle crap. Well the reason i bring that up is because this movie too was on ppv. And i remember almost every scene that was in the add. I've been on a kick in the last few years to obtain all the great movies i use to see as a kid and this was one of them. It's one that when its on its hard to shut off. All star cast trying to commit the perfect bank bust but nothing goes right. There are plenty of spoof bank capers that are good and this one has to fall in that category. It has enough action and laughs to sustain it. check it out if you dare! I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.

All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.

A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon. Action. Comedy. Suspense. This movie has it all.

The Plot goes that 4 would be professional thieves are invited to take part in a heist in a small town in Montana. every type of crime movie archetype character is here. Frank, the master mind. Carlos, the weapons expert. Max, the explosives expert. Nick, the safe cracker and Ray, the car man. Unfortunately for Frank, he is apprehended by 2 bumbling detectives ( portrayed very well by Ed O'Niel and Daniel Roebuck ) that have been chasing him from New Jersey write after he sends out the letters to the other 4.

Our 4 characters meet up at the train station and from the beginning none of them like or trust one another. Added to the mix is the fact that Frank is gone and they are not sure why they have called together.

Now Frank is being taken back to New Jersey by the 2 detectives but soon escapes on foot and tries to make his way back to the guys who are having all sorts of problems of their own.

Truly a great film loaded with laughs and great acting. Just an overall good movie for anyone looking for a laugh or something a little different I found this film by mistake many years ago & wondered then (still do) why it didn't get the acclaim it should have. Well written, beautiful acting, one ironic twist after another, and THERE IS PLAUSIBILITY in what the nefarious characters are attempting. I would not recommend this film for people with short attention spans; it requires sufficient intelligence to comprehend that there maybe a kernel of truth in this story. Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of "official" reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me. The Finnish version of Robert Altman's "Short Cuts", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the "routines" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art. Following my experience of Finland for slightly more than a week, I'd say this movie depicts the nature of the Finnish society very accurately. Especially the young-couple-with-a-baby-having-serious-issues phenomenon is very familiar to me, as I witnessed the exact same thing in person when I was in Finland. The relationships and problems of people, fragility of the marriage institution, the drinking culture, unemployment and the ascending money problem, all are very well put, without any subjectivity or exaggeration.

There are some points in the film that are not necessarily easy to comprehend and tie to each other, but the joint big picture is nonetheless rewarding. Not each one of the short stories is exciting or profound, but as said above, the big picture does not fail to deliver the feeling of "real life" and captivate the viewer. I happen to think in a calm moment: What is happening in the lives of all these people on the street? Well, this is what is happening. Movies like this are good to feed your imaginative power. It would be safe to assume this film could apply to the life in many countries, but it particularly reflects Finland as it is, and pretty damn well.

One comment about the acting: Being the fan of Finnish cinema I am, I've never seen any of these actors on any other movie, but I found the acting in this feature right next door to perfect overall. Maybe not a masterpiece, but a very good try by the entire crew. I'll be keeping an eye on the future releases of the director and the cast..

7,5 / 10 Half a dozen short stories of varying interest enlighten us about life in Finland. These stories are interwoven and each contains a scene in which a sonic boom is heard. This indicates that the events depicted happen at the same time.

The film begins with a bungy jump which promises some excitement but the early stories are quite low key. The film improves so stick with it. Two broken marriages in stories that follow provide plenty of drama while a scene in a hospital gives us a terminally ill patient begging for pain relief. The last moments with his wife are both convincing and moving.

While the various scenes of family life take place in Finland, the themes are of a general nature wherever you happen to live.

Collections of short stories are rarely as satisfying as a good tense 90-minute drama. Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki. I thought it was an extremely clever film. I was very pleased with it and truly couldn't' ask for more. I actually own the film because I didn't return it to someone... Which I should do, but I really want to keep it due to how much I enjoyed it. Also, the fact I don't own too many foreign films and this is a first. Now, I personally love Finnish stuff so, that definitely added to how much I enjoyed it. But overall, its worth watching. However, if you're not into the whole trying to understand Finnish or read Subtitles bit, then this film is not for you.

9/10 for sure. This is a top finnish film this year,although Tango Kabaree comes close.The Director Lampela made couple of years back another nice little film called Rakastin epätoivoista naista (I was in love with a desperate woman).Joki is truly true-to-life beautiful film of one saturday afternoon in a little village/town.The actors are maybe not so handsome or beautiful but they do act beautifully.I certainly do hope that many of them get JUSSI statue (finnish OSCAR) next spring.I think this film could make it abroad as well. Went to see this finnish film and I've got to say that it is one of the better films I've seen this year. The intrigue is made up of 5-6 different stories, all taking place the very same day in a small finnish town. The stories come together very nicely in the end, reminding, perhaps, a bit of the way Tarantino's movies are made. Most of the actors performed very well, which most certainly is needed in realistic dramas of this type. I especially enjoyed the acting by Sanna Hietala, the lead actress, and Juha Kukkonen. I noticed btw that IMDB has got the wrong information about Sanna. Her name, as you might have noticed in my review ;), is NOT Heikkilä, but Hietala. Soldier isn't a great movie, and everyone that hated it has plenty of good reasons. But I liked Soldier alot, partly because my expectations were so low that what I saw surprised me.

First, the art direction is tight and well executed. As far as science fiction backdrops go, Soldier was doing things with more design then 90% the genre. The sets, costumes and props were all consistent and competently executed; I didn't love all of their future military style, but I was impressed with the effort. For me, this made the movie worth the time it took to watch.

Second, I'm a Kurt Russell fan. I grew up watching this guy in some of the most memorable movies of my youth ... The Barefoot Executive and his John Carpenter films. Soldier is essentially an action movie, and the role of Sergeant Todd is an essential action hero. It's not an award winning role, but Kurt musters up convincing emotion with VERY little dialog.

Third, the fight scenes and battles are well choreographed. This isn't iron monkey, or even the matrix, but once again, it far exceeds the average level of quality in the genre.

If you haven't seen it, and you like sci-fi action films, pick it up if you pass at your rental depot of choice. Just don't expect the next Bladerunner. OK, so Soldier isn't deep and meaningful like Blade Runner or as big budget as Terminator 2 but on the whole I found it quite enjoyable.

The fact that Kurt Russell stayed in character not speaking and being virtually emotionless made the moments when his humanity broke through all the more poignant. I found his portrayal of restricted emotional development more touching than Arnie's in the T films (and before I get comments yes I know that Arnie was a cyborg and Kurt was human but the premise put forward by both films was the same).

So to the film itself, a reasonable US/Brit cast are able to flesh out this little story. Not really sure if Gary Busey and his two deputies were baddies or goodies, so was unable to decide whether I liked them or not. The colony was a little more realistic neither a misguided bunch of peace loving/gullible/cowardly hicks who get wiped out from the get go nor a group of subversive aggressive terrorists paranoid about offworlders and each other.

Kurt Russell is good and unlike other comments I do not feel this will have a negative impact on his career (unlike maybe Escape from LA - sequels are such fickle creatures!). Sean Pertwee has really done his late father proud by continuing the families noble Sci-Fi lineage. And the rest of the cast helped flesh out this pathetic band of people making the most of a bad situation and not doing too badly.

If you see this on your TV schedule I would recommend giving it a chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. In a future society, the military component does not have to recruit; rather, their candidates are chosen at birth, culled from nurseries and designated to spend their entire lives in the service of the government. They are given over to the war machine, body and soul, for no reason other than to protect and serve; they have no personal identity other than a name and rank, and no autonomy whatsoever. This is the fate of those whose destiny is predetermined for them in `Soldier,' directed by Paul Anderson and starring Kurt Russell. The scenario is hard and bleak as the movie begins by depicting the training of the soldiers during advancing periods of time, from preadolescence to adulthood. Russell is Sergeant Todd, the best of the best, and we glimpse his career as he discharges his duties in an exemplary manner in campaign after campaign; he is what he was born to be, a soldier. But even the best cannot go on forever, and the day arrives when Todd and his peers are no longer the elite. A new generation of soldiers has been created, products of advanced genetics and technology, and Todd's generation is suddenly obsolete. What follows is the story of a man who must fight for his life, while struggling to discover his own sense of humanity and individuality, traits new to a soldier who has known only two things his entire life: Fear and discipline. Russell gives a commanding performance as Todd, the soldier who above all else must obey orders without question while suppressing all emotion and individual thoughts. He has few lines in this movie, but Russell speaks volumes with his eyes. This role demonstrates that he is, in fact, one of the under-appreciated actors of our times; that he can disappear so entirely into the character of Todd is a credit to his ability, and with this part he has created someone quite different from any he's done before. And he's given Todd a depth and credibility that someone of lesser talent could easily have rendered as nothing more than a pretentious and superficial stereotype. Notable performances are also turned in here by Connie Nielsen (Sandra) and Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum). Rounding out the supporting cast are Jason Scott Lee, memorable as Caine 607, one of the new generation of soldiers; Sean Pertwee (Mace); Gary Busey (Captain Church); Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig); and Mark Bringleson (Rubrick). Anderson has delivered an action film with a message, a cautionary tale that transcends the genre of science-fiction. `Soldier' reminds us of the importance of keeping the humanity of our lives intact. It's an entertaining way of making us consider the alternatives, like a bleak future and a world in which good movies just wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Much like `1984,' and `Mad Max,' this movie, which is ultimately uplifting, is going to make you take pause and think about the kind of Universe in which we all must live together and share. I rate this one 7/10. David Webb Peoples meets Paul Anderson...if it already sounds weird to you, then you are right, because it is.

Peoples is known for his scripts with moral implications of what is right and wrong, the value of life, etc... He covered these issues in Bladerunner, Unforgiven, and pretty much in all of his screenplays there is something along those lines.

Paul Anderson's first successful movie was a violent thriller. Not surprisingly so have all of his other movies! And here is a violent thriller with moral implications!

Peoples' script is quite apparent in the first half of the movie. Soldiers trained from birth, taught to kill, and never had a normal life. They are replaced by better, genetically engineered soldiers and Todd, one of the original soldiers, is left on a planet and left for dead. There he must cope with a group of refugees, some want him to stay others hate him and there is an interesting drama here. BUT THEN...

...The bullets start to fly as the new soldiers move onto the planet for a military exercise and try to kill all the people. Big, violent, loud action ensues and Peoples' script turns into an Anderson action-fest. It is hard to believe that the script was originally written that way, but the end product is better then I expected. Entertaining, somewhat, though admittedly not very, thought-provoking, and exciting once the action starts. 7/10

Rated R: a lot of violence Kurt Russell is strong and (mostly) silent in this futuristic action-thriller from Paul Anderson (Event Horizon, Resident Evil.) Set on a garbage-dump planet, Soldier plays like a cross between Rambo and Shane, with Russell barely speaking as the title character, an "obsolete" genetic soldier left for dead. The supporting cast of colonists, including Connie Nielsen, Sean Pertwee and a surprisingly hirsute Michael Chiklis, is able. They spend most of the movie being scared of Russell, and the rest of it running for their lives. Russell's performance here is one of the best he's ever given. With almost no words to say, he conveys emotion, feeling and meaning with looks and glances. It is almost a mime performance. When the action sequences kick into gear, he kicks ass--and does so in a strong, silent, matter-of fact way. There are flaws. Jason Scott Lee is brutish as a "superior" genetic soldier. Jason Isaacs does a great impression of Frank Burns from M*A*S*H as a weaselly commanding officer, and Gary Busey busts a gut (and nearly busts his girdle) as Todd's mentor. This is an underrated, and excellent sci-fi flick, and recommended for anyone who wants a second visit to the universe of Blade Runner--David Webb Peoples wrote both screenplays. I don't remember this film getting a cinema release over here. I only saw it when it came onto cable. The film deals with the dehumanisation of children into killing machines. Specifically one person, the way he gets replaced and dumped (literally) into an off-world community where he finds himself unable to cope with coming to terms with who he really is and what he feels.

Seems to me that a lot of people expected this to be Rambo in space, and would have been happy if it was.

I'm certainly happy it was'nt - Kurt does a fine job of portraying an emotional cripple. The scene where he's sitting outside the compound shows this, albeit the decision for two slow-mo replays detracts from the moment.

This is not a classic SF movie in the way that Bladerunner, Alien, Silent running, Logan's run or THX1138 were, however it is unfortunately the nearest I've seen to it in a long time.

He changes in the movie to a believable degree, he does'nt crack Arnie one liners, he does'nt become Snake Plissken and there is no definative happy ending.

That's why this film did'nt do well. It did'nt follow formula, and among a 18-25 year old target American audience, that's unforgivable as it was was'nt what they expected to see.

Fear and discipline.

Always. When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film. I watched this movie expecting what I got: good sci-fi cowboy stuff. What really surprised me was that Kurt Russell did such a great job with an extremely limited role.

Imagine trying to act under these two restraints: you have hardly any dialogue, and because you are playing a hardass, military robot, you are not allowed to show emotions using facial expressions! Howzat? Kinda like asking a diva to perform a great aria while gagged and duct-taped. In spite of being verbally and expressionally handcuffed, Russell pulls off an incredible characterization. His robot becomes human, in spite of the constraints. Great job!

As usual, Jason Isaacs insures that he will go down in history as a great portrayer of the consummate villain--the one you'd love to see drawn and quartered. Connie Nielsen was sweet, soft, motherly, and gorgeous. I'm not sure how much of my impression is based on her acting and how much on her physical beauty, but it was hard to take one's eyes off her. Unfortunately, Gary Busey's role was too small and limited.

Much of the plot is quite standard, with a fair amount of weaknesses, but as it does have a sci-fi comic book feeling, I don't see what's wrong with a few weaknesses. By the end of the story the good guy wins, and the appreciative audience receives a great deal of emotional satisfaction. Yes!

The sort of feeb who thinks that Russell didn't do a good job of acting is the same sort of feeb who missed the whole point. Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith! The first two sequences of this movie set up the two conflicts: the -thematic- conflict between the soldier Todd and his suppressed humanity, and the -physical- conflict between Todd and his bio-engineered replacement. Both sequences are quite gripping in different ways.

Peoples' screenplay falters somewhat by resolving the first of these arcs half-way through the movie, which means the second half is little more than a straightforward action romp.

Nonetheless, kudos to the makers for creating an genre action piece with heart and even a bit of soul and especially to Kurt Russell who conveys much with very little.

Not a great film, but one worth seeing. In the movie several references are made in subtly to Blade runner, but one of the most obvious is the fact the Cain 607 and his unit are all genetic constructs, breed to be expendable warriors. But as favorite quote of mine from the movie is, " you should have made them smart as well as fast". Kurt Russell did a incredible job, his facial expressions or lack of in the movies gave more in the way of relating the story then the rest of the cast combined. Even when he falls in love with Sandra but does not know how to deal with these emotions, and his tears after being expelled from the group, or his shuddering when he is given a hug, and his attachment to the mute young boy who in many ways reminded Todd of himself, and what he could have been if not for his selection to be a soldier. Soldier may not have academy acting or Lucas special effects but it definitely does it for me. I won't tell you what its about, I'm sure you already read the summary. This is a great doomed futureistic action/science fiction movie. Kurt Russell doesn't say much, he usually has an eerie or drone look on his face but it fits the character. There are great action and fight scenes; some of the scenes are unrealistic, but thats Hollywood make believe land that we should have to escape our normal lives. I have not seen Soldier 2 but this one it one of my favorites. I'm lucky enough to have a wife that digs on guy movies; we both love this movie and recommend it to anyone who likes tough guy/sci-fi movies. This is a great movie. It has a captivating story, an awesome main character, very good acting and killer action. This takes place mostly in the year 2036 but shows scenes that take place in past years to explain the story.

The story is very well done and there are no holes. Kurt Russell is a solider named Todd who is trained from birth to kill and like all of the other soldiers have never had normal lives. Eventually the military introduces newer, younger, faster and stronger soldiers. Jason Scott Lee being one of them. As a result they don't have any need for the old soldiers like Todd. They test out the new soldiers by having them fight some of the old soldiers, in the battle Russell is injured and assumed to be dead. The military dumps his body as well as a fewer others assuming they are all dead but what they don't realize is that Russell is alive.

Todd finds a camp filled with civilization on this planet that the military dumped him on. For a while he lives there but can't adjust to normal life. He rarely says a word and he is at times very aggressive towards the other people. When they feel he is a danger to them they send him off to the desert.

Just as Russell's leaving the planet is attacked by the new soldiers. What the military forgot was to train the soldiers to be smart like Todd and the other old soldiers. So while these new soldiers are faster and stronger than Todd, Todd easily outsmarts them. The military starts realizing this and Todd kills all of their men but one. That one is Jason Scott Lee and in the end you see a classic fight scene between Russell and Scott Lee. Russell obviously comes out on top.

This is one of the best action films I've ever seen and I've seen a lot. This has everything you could ask for in a film including some great lines. The writer also didn't forget that Russell had never seen a woman before as he calls even women "sir". There are no holes in this film, every minute has a purpose and it's very entertaining.

An awesome one man army action film for fans of Rambo, Commando and Missing In Action. This is highly recommended for all Kurt Russell fans and action/sci-fi fans. Nine out of ten might seem like a high mark to give for a straight to video sci-fi movie that's been vilified at the US box office and roundly criticized as the poorest movie of Kurt Russell's career.

I have my reasons.

Firstly when you read negative reviews of this film, they usually start with the wooden nature of Russell's interpretation of Todd, the eponymous Soldier. I'm going to start here too, with my surprising statement that this is possibly the finest piece of acting I've seen Russell pull off. Todd is an emotional cripple and suffering from intense PTSD - this movie being written before the phenomenon was as widely recognized as it is now.

The portrayal is spot on. Todd is withdrawn, uncommunicative and a loner. He suffers from irrational anxiety - keyed to a fever pitch by training that teaches him to analyze every movement and interaction with another human being for signs of betrayal and danger. His hyper-focus brings with it an inability to comprehend the bigger continuum that the tasks he is given to do sit within - there is a scene where he cuts himself slicing carrots and continues to work unfazed, not cleaning up the cut or the blood. Many interpret this as a sign of his physical toughness and focus on the job at hand, but it is also a sign that he is simply performing the requested task by rote - not comprehending the relationship between the vegetables he's preparing and the food that will be eaten later.

Todd's dialog is spartan to say the least - the two big talking scenes he gets are central to the plot of the movie and both underline the bleak nature of his existence. Fear and Discipline we are told. Always. Fear to keep him pumped up to a hyper alert state where the smallest detail will not pass him by, keeping him ready to react on a knife edge. Discipline to hold him in check through his fear, to overcome it and perform tactically. The inference is that he has no time to think and cannot afford feelings. Many viewers have different interpretations of his reaction to the hug from Nielsen's Sandra - but I believe you have to interpret it from the perspective of a human who's only experience of an embrace is in combat - the trembling represents him suppressing his fight / flight instincts reacting to the fear of being grappled, his movement and vision restricted - Fear and Discipline indeed.

Then there is the subtext of his abandonment (Twice in fact) - so representative of the way our society tends to toss infantrymen onto the rubbish heap of society when they've served their terms. 40% of the unemployed are ex-military in OUR world, in HIS it can only be worse. Russell quickly picks up the mantle of Mace's responsibility to his wife and child - desperately in need of a mission, even one with such a high likelihood of his death.

Then there is the military subtext too - the conflict between Busey's Church and the hotshot from HQ, Mekum. Mekum's new men are faster, stronger, more accurate and aggressive. Any one of them could pound Todd into the ground - but it's not about the tools you have it's how you use them. An incentivized Todd given the freedom to exercise his initiative and acting without the numbing effect of perceived superiority utilizes ambush tactics and sneaky tricks to cut a swathe through the newer unit - sent in without support, cover or reconnaissance. It is a reminder that military power cannot make up for a failure in leadership.

There are many other subtle themes. When a film is shot and scripted so minimally, it leaves plenty of white space for your own interpretations to take root. Watch Soldier with an open mind and see what it teaches YOU. Kurt Russell is so believable and the action so non-stop that it takes thinking about it afterward to realize that there were honest-to-goodness important themes [overcoming fear of The Stranger, learning to rise above early conditioning, the strength that love and friendship can bring, etc.] in the storyline. This is so very rare for a 'guy's action flick' that even I [who thinks most A/A is violent pap] liked the film and have recommended it to every guy I know.....it's a shame this one was overlooked because by rights it should have been one of the biggest action-adventure box office hits -- it has something for everyone without straining credulity or losing the nearly non-stop action moments. I'm afraid the answer to it not becoming a hit lies in the fact that adults did not go to see it. Anyone under 20 probably has not only seen more violent action in their video games but probably would either not catch the multi-layered, multi-themed beauty or not care about it. This film could convert anyone who avoids A/A as mindless violence. If a guy takes his lady [or rents it or sees it in a cable listing] to see this film he'll be much more likely to get her to go with him to other action flicks. Stoic and laconic soldier Sergeant Todd (a fine and credible performance by the ever reliable Kurt Russell) gets dumped on a desolate remote planet after he's deemed obsolete by ruthless and arrogant Colonel Mekum (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Jason Isaacs), who has Todd and his fellow soldiers replaced with a new advanced breed of genetically engineered combatants. Todd joins a peaceful ragtag community of self-reliant outcasts and has to defend this community when the new soldiers arrive for a field exercise. Director Paul W.S. Anderson, working from a smart and provocative script by David Webb Peoples, depicts a chilling vision of a bleak, cold and harsh possible near future while maintaining a snappy pace and a tough, gritty tone throughout. Moreover, Anderson handles moving moments of humanity well (Todd's struggle to get in touch with his previously repressed feelings is genuinely poignant) and stages the stirring action scenes with rip-roaring gusto. Russell gives a strong and impressive almost pantomime portrayal of Todd; he conveys a lot of emotion without saying much and instead does the majority of his acting through his body movements and facial expressions. Bang-up supporting turns by Jason Scott Lee as brutish rival soldier Caine 607, Connie Nielson as the compassionate Sandra, Sean Pertwee as the kindly Mace, Jared and Taylor Thorne as mute little boy Nathan, Gary Busey as crusty seasoned veteran Captain Church, Michael Chiklis as the jolly Johnny Pig, and Brenda Wehle as the sensible Mayor Hawkins. Better still, this film makes a profound and significant statement about the spiritual cost of being a merciless soldier and the importance of intellectual strength over physical might. David Tattersall's polished cinematography, Joel McNeely's rousing full-bore orchestral score, and the first-rate rate special effects all further enhance the overall sterling quality of this superior science fiction/action hybrid outing. This was excellent. Touching, action-packed, and perfect for Kurt Russel. I loved this movie, it deserves more than 5.3 or so stars. This movie is the story of an obsolete soldier who learns there is more to life than soldiering, and people who learn that there is a time for fighting, a need to defend. I cried, laughed and mostly sat in awe of this story. Good writing job for an action flick, and the plot was appropriate and fairly solid. The ending wasn't twisty, but it was still excellent. If you like escape from New York, or rooting for the underdog, this movie is for you. Not an undue amount of gore or violence, it was not difficult to watch in that respect. Something for everyone. I fell in love with this silent action drama. Kurt Russell and only Kurt Russell could have played this so well. Raised from childhood to know nothing but war and fighting, Todd (Kurt Russell) is dumped on a planet after being made obsolete by genetically engineered soldiers.

The stage is set and another classic icon of action movies was born - SOLDIER. Not Rambo, not Schwarzenegger, not Bruce Willis, not Mel Gibson, not Jason Statham - Kurt Russell owns this role and made it entirely his - original, daring, and all too human. I miss the fact that sequels were never made.

10/10

-LD

_________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/ What a perfect example of "Less Is More..." Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out "Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior" and "Braveheart" both starring Mel Gibson. Also "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The "Thirteenth Warrior" starring Antonio Banderas and "Blade Runner" starring Harrison Ford. I've watched this movie a second time to try to figure out why it wasn't as successful (commercially or artistically) as it should have been, and discovered considerable artistic merit--which may ultimately have been its commercial undoing.

First of all, this movie attempts "serious" science-fiction, social commentary, more than action-adventure. There is action in it, but that's not really what it's about. If you focus on that, you'll end up with (as others have noted) a bad "Aliens" clone. But, again, that's not what it's about.

The movie is really about Todd's (Kurt Russell) transformation from human to near-machine and back to human (mostly *back*). But because it's not trying to give you a typically glib Hollywood style answer, Kurt Russell must make this transformation without speaking, and largely without broad expressions. And he really does a wonderful job--it can take two viewings to appreciate it.

The surrounding "social logic" is flawed and it's never adequately explained whether Todd's ability to hold his own against an army of supposedly superior troops comes from his experience on the battlefield or his newfound human-ness or what, but the movie still makes a marvellous showcase for Russell's (easy to underestimate) talent. this movie is ok if you like mindless action ,corny acting, and a very small plot !The special effects are decent considering this movie is from the director of"Event Horizon". The costumes are like something from a mad max movie .None of the soldiers talk ,so others tell them what to do.It eventually end up as a big shoot'em up movie with explosions all the place. I personally liked Russell better in "tango and cash""escape from la/new york" and "executive decision". It must see this movie leave your mind at the door for a no brainer action science fiction movie!! SOLDIER is not as bad as many have made it out to be. I found the film to have some of the sacarstic, cynical humour like that in Paul Verhoven's Starship Troopers. The lack of dialogue and over the top action is deliberate and adds to the comic-book atmosphere.

One particular trivia-bit stands out for me - Todd has the names of several space-war campaigns tattoo'd onto his chest and one of these battles is TANNHAUSER GATE. For the oblivious ones out there, Tannhauser Gate is mentioned in Roy Batty's elegiac last lines in Blade Runner. To imagine that Todd could have fought alongside android troops like Roy is mind boggling to say the least. Maybe script writer David Peoples was nostalgic?

I'll give this one 3 out of 5. Interesting mix of comments that it would be hard to add anything constructive to. However, i'll try. This was a very good action film with some great set pieces. You'll note I specified the genre. I didn't snipe about the lack of characterisation, and I didn't berate the acting. Enjoy if for what it is people, a well above average action film. I could go on but I've made my comment. I have to say I quite enjoyed Soldier. Russell was very good as this trained psychopath rediscovering his humanity. Very watchable and nowhere near as bad as I'd been led to believe. Yes it has problems but provides its share of entertainment. Of course, by any normal standard of film criticism, Soldier is a very poor film indeed. Kurt Russell is a futuristic super soldier raised since birth to kill but then made obsolete after being bettered by a bunch of really super soldiers at a dangly hoop ruck that looks a bit like a Gladiators contest without the crash mats.

Abandoned on a junk planet, he's befriended by a community of naff space hippies that teach him about gardening, family life and, um, breasts. Kurt doesn't talk much. Finally the really super soldiers turn up and kill the hippies by shooting them in the back while they're running away. Kurt gets angry and kills everyone. A planet gets totalled. The end.

Unless the Academy start a new category for "Best Explosion", Soldier is not going to win any awards. However, as ludicrous as it is, it remains an enjoyable experience. The military hardware is the coolest since Aliens (the APC's especially) and, at 90 minutes long, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Please note that the below mark is only a guide. Knock five points off if you intend to take it seriously and discount one more if you don't like miniguns.

7 out of 10 I really liked this movie. Kurt manages to act without speaking, letting moments speak for themselves. He doesn't have to verbalize or rationalize his actions, he simply decides and takes action. He is supported by a good cast of actors and settings, and is able to show us a more humane side of soldiers without getting to corny. I saw this in the theater and I instantly thought that it is good enough to own on video. I am a big nut for Sci-Fi action flicks though anyway.

Without giving any of the story away, it is worth seeing if you like Sci-Fi without requiring much thought. The story is basic, and the plot is very good. Worth your time to see!

Maybe they will make a sequel? :)

8 out of 10 I loved this movie and will watch it again. Original twist to Plot of Man vs Man vs Self. I think this is Kurt Russell's best movie. His eyes conveyed more than most actors words. Perhaps there's hope for Mankind in spite of Government Intervention? I think that this film was one of Kurt Russels good movies. Kurt russel is my favorite actor so I think that he is a good actor in any role he plays. But this movie had a lot of action in it and I know that it should have more then a 5.6 out of 10 on the meter but many people did not like this movie. Oh well I thought it was good so I think that every one should see this movie. If you see this movie and like it I think that you should see Back Draft also with Kurt Russel. I give Soldier *** 1/2 out of ***** I can't understand why many IMDb users don't like this movie. Why they think it's sooooo bad etc. It's not worse than anything else out there. Personally I think "Soldier" is a great movie, far better than most other films in the same genre.

Reasons why I liked "Soldier": Kurt Russel, Connie Nielsen, Jason Scott Lee, the script (David Webb Peoples), great visual effects, and the directing (Paul Anderson).

I even think that this is the best work I've seen from director Paul Anderson, who has previously directed the entertaining "Mortal Kombat" and the not so entertaining "Event Horizon". This is an early film "Pilot" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around "exterminating" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!

Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.

Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals) This is a great Canadian comedy series. The movie tells of how the stars Jean Paul Tremblay-(Julian) and the head writer of the show and his buddies Rickie and Bubbles play it over the top in what is a true life satirical look at trailer parks and the denizens of said trashy hoods. The movie will tell you why Rickie and Julian begin doing their more advanced forays into the world of crime. WHY and the reasons behind everything would be a spoiler so I shall not give the real reasons behind their more brilliant escapades. Their friend and oft-time partner(Bubbles) is a brilliant character. The whole show is brilliant and missing the movie will not affect the way you see the sit-com one bit. It is a comedy with a capital C and a brilliant satire on trailer park living and small time crooks with small time ideas but big time dreams. If you ever have the opportunity to watch--buy--steal this program grab it. You will be glad you did. And to my American friends---It will break you up also. 10 out of 9. Brilliant. TV how TV should be. Steven Spielberg (at 24) had already directed two superb episodes of a 1971 series called "The Psychiatrist", starring Roy Thinnes. One episode had been about an emotionally troubled 12-year old boy and the other was about a vibrant young man (Clu Gulager in his best performance) who is dying of cancer. Both episodes were stunning, visually unlike anything else on TV, and emotionally complex and adult. The creators of "The Psychiatrist" were Richard Levinson and William Link, who created "Columbo" and also produced its first season.

Peter Falk insisted on first rank, experienced TV directors for the first season of "Columbo", like Bernard Kowalski and Jack Smight. But Falk agreed to Spielberg after watching part of the Clu Gulagher episode of "The Psychiatrist".

Spielberg says on the DVD of "Duel" that he loved Steven Bochco's "Murder by the Book" script (based on a Levinson/Link story), and he tried to make the production look like a million dollar feature, even thought he had a lot less money to work with.

This episode of "Columbo" is far more visually stylish and makes better use of the sound track and background music than almost any other "Columbo" episode, even though the series always used top directors. Spielberg manages to keep the great Falk and Cassidy from hamming it up too much, but both actors are still a lot of fun. Spielberg also gets fine supporting work from Martin Milner, Rosemary Forsyth and Barbara Colby. All the performances have a freshness and vitality about them. The only "Columbo" episode that was close to being as well directed is the "By Dawn's Early Light" episode with Patrick McGoohan (directed by Harvey Hart).

I think the two episodes of "The Psychiatrist" and this episode of "Columbo" suggest Spielberg hasn't developed technically all that much as a director. He was great from the beginning. In a "Combat!" DVD commentary of a 1962 episode guest starring Albert Salmi, Robert Altman says that episode was pretty much as good as he ever got as a director. Maybe the same is true of Spielberg. First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.

I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.

Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.

I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't clichéd, pretty solid really.

overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing. Though this movie has a first rate roster of fine actors, special effects that are excellent, and a story line that is full of surprises, it wasn't picked up for studio distribution and went directly to DVD. Perhaps it contains too much 'anti-police force' information, or perhaps it is juts one too many action flicks released during a glut, but whatever the reason the big screens missed the opportunity, fortunately the new concept of releasing direct to DVD allows us to enjoy it.

The theme is old: rookie reporter uncovers an inner circle of cops that are corrupt - in this case the F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault and Tactical) team, a group of well trained policeman created to clean up the mythical city of Edison from its low point of crime, drugs, prostitution etc. Working undercover the temptation of pocketing the confiscated goods and money proves too much of an opportunity and now, 15 years after its formation, FRAT is responsible for murder, drug trafficking, terrorizing innocent people etc. The lead dog is Lazerov (Dylan McDermott, who makes a terrifyingly real gangster!) and his partner Rafe Deed (LL Cool J, even more buff than usual and proving he can be a sensitive actor). Reporter Pollack (Justin Timberlake) catches wind of a 'bad mistake' and reports his theory of fraud and corruption to his paper's boss Ashford (the always reliably fine Morgan Freeman). Gradually Polack convinces Ashford and subsequently Wallace (Kevin Spacey, also a consistently fine character actor) and they aid Pollack in this investigative reporting. The closer Pollack gets to the truth the more surprises and bad incidents happen and the story runs pall mall toward a series of unexpected results.

Timberlake lacks the charisma to carry the lead, especially in the company of such seasoned actors. But LL Cool J, Freeman, Spacey, and McDermott keep the well-oiled machine of a movie rolling to the very end. No, it is not a great movie, but it is one that makes for an edge of the seat action flick with a message. Grady Harp I thought it was a pretty good movie and should have been released in theaters first. It wouldn't have been a big Blockbuster but it would have made some pretty good money. The movie has suspense and makes you wonder just how much of this is going on in the real world. Justin Timberlake did a good job. I wasn't expecting Justin Timberlake to do that good a job. Considering it is his first movie he did a good job. This is a movie that is good to pick up and watch when you just don't know what you want to rent that night. It should go pretty well. The cast was great. So I highly recommend that everyone checks this movie out! First of all, this film was not released to theatres (TESTED POORLY THEY SAY),I say they figured the story of crooked cops, politicians & dedicated newspaper people had been done to death,just send it DVD & cable TV> & take the money & run.

That being said I usually like this type of movie, especially with this named cast. Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Spacey,

L.L.Cool J, Cary Elways, John Heard & on the distaff side, Piper Perabo & Roslyn Sanchez.

The plot & story have been done to death, BUT the above cast brings life to this violent movie & it is actually watchable.

Justin Timberlake Is good as the dedicated young reporter for a throw-away newspaper edited by Morgan Freeman, The others are either crooked Cops,& Politicians or somewhat decent guys, The 2 ladies are the girl friends of LL COOL J & JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE & do whats required, It is quite violent, many killings etc, not for children. By no means is the a great film, BUT for what it is & the cast It is definitely good,

Ratings *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10) Having never heard of this film until I saw the rental DVD I as a bit sceptical, there have been many films in the past with good ensemble casts that can't do anything film a bad script, and in some cases don't seem to care.

Well having just watched it there was no reason not to give this movie a theatrical release, it IS good. The story like most in this genre can seem a little forced at times but there does appear to be a good amount of realism here too that allows the momentum to carry. I was pleasantly surprised at how good a job Justin Timberlake does here too with such a major role, OK he's not Oscar material yet, but he'll learn with each role and he shows a LOT of promise for the future here. Dylan McDermott too was amazingly good in his unexpectedly nasty role and is definitely the cream of the crop in this movie.

Ultimately, just give it a go. you won't be disappointed, you won't be bored, in fact, I think you'll be more than happy with the end result. TACHIGUI: THE AMAZING LIVES OF THE FAST-FOOD GRIFTERS Japanese title: Tachiguishi Retsuden

Director: Mamoru Oshii Featuring: Toshio Suzuki, Mako Hyodo, Kenji Kawai, Shinji Higuchi, Katsuya Terada Narrated by Koichi Yamadera ----------------------------------------

Way back in 1995, Mamoru Oshii unleashed his dazzling animation feature Ghost In The Shell, which helped consolidate anime's international acceptance - and also burrowed itself into Andy and Larry Wachowski's overall concept for The Matrix.

The movie's sequel, Innocence (2004), was the inaugural Japanese animated film to compete for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and it left heads spinning as much for its style and innovative effects as for its oft unfathomable plot.

Always the trendsetter, Oshii has now presented us with Tachigui: The Amazing Lives Of The Fast-Food Grifters – which has absolutely nothing to do with Ghost In The Shell, nor Japanese anime for that matter.

Say hello to Oshii's creation "superlivemation": not quite animation, nor exactly live-action. Instead the cast endured somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 snapshots, which were digitally processed and reconstituted in a deceptively simple paper cut-out fashion reminiscent of Balinese puppetry. The movement itself is a stilted, stop-motion style that echoes sequences from Shinya Tsukamoto's experimental Tetsuo: Iron Man (1988).

"I couldn't think of any method but this one," said Oshii in a recent interview with The Daily Yomiuri. "I realized that this project was not suitable for traditional animation."

The cast choice is equally enigmatic. Kenji Kawai - who also composed the superlative soundtrack - appears as a ravenous burger fanatic, while renowned Studio Ghibli producer Toshio Suzuki spends his screen time being murdered in bizarre fashion. Others include Katsuya Terada, who dabbled with Oshii on Blood: The Last Vampire, and Shinji Higuchi - a special effects whiz who's worked on Godzilla movies.

Koichi Yamadera's narration sounds like the stuff of a dry NHK documentary – which belies the comic undertone here as well as Yamadera's extensive career voicing stoic anime characters like Spike Siegel in Cowboy Bebop.

And the plot itself is a bizarre re-imagining of post-WWII Japan in the context of various fast-food off-shoots - from soba ramen shops to gyudon stand-up bars; American dogs in the heat-up trays of convenience stores to McDonalds- inspired burger-chain restaurants. "Food is a primal root of desire," asserted Oshii, by way of explanation.

Thrown into the mix is a new breed of consumer: the fast-food grifters of the title, people who don't like to pay for their tucker and are constantly fine-tuning their elaborate scams to score free munchies.

Oshii said his ulterior motive was homage to the "art" of eating food on the streets – something still considered a bit of a taboo in this country, and which goes some way toward explaining the use of "tachigui" in the title.

The director of live-action movies (Avalon, Stray Dog) as well as animation, Oshii has often blurred the definition between the two mediums. The celluloid result here is deposited somewhere in the grey area between both formats.

At times the visual experiment here is as exhilarating as it can be irritating. Just don't ask what it's all really supposed to mean; Oshii's films, which are equal parts cerebral and innovative, are often not particularly clear story-wise. Where Oshii succeeds is via a liberal dose of black humor – here you'll find Kentucky Fried Rat, death by hula-hoop, the world's fastest samurai burger chef – and in the movie's very nature of surrealism.

This is a man who defers to the influence of filmmakers like Godard and Truffaut, and perhaps owes as much to Andrei Tarkovsky as he does David Lynch. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that at one stage a B-52 bomber does a fly- through in a Yoshinoya look-alike franchise. The 54-year-old writer-director seemed to think this natural. "The Japan I depicted in the movie may not necessarily be faithful to reality," he suggested.

Of course. --------------

By Andrez Bergen A documentary without a loss for words... ever...

Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable.

But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.

Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different. There is no director I like more than Mamoru Oshii. But sadly, even though he directed quite a few films that gained huge international attention, there are still a fair few of his films that have slipped through the cracks. Tachiguishi is one of them, and even though I loved it to bits, it's not hard to see why distributors in the West are somewhat reluctant to release it.

In between his big and serious films, Oshii is known to do some smaller and quirkier projects. While Tachiguishi definitely falls into this category, Oshii has really outdone himself with this one, creating something that is very hard to classify, even as a freaky Japanese flick. Go figure.

At its very core lies a documentary not quite unlike Otaku no Video. But rather than make a fool of an existing subculture, Oshii invents his own and delves into the lives of culinary heroes, scrounging away food for free and upholding the Japanese culinary level. Oshii's approach on the subject has close ties with Dai-Nipponjin, as the subject is handled with a deadly sense of gravity while the images on screen look as ridiculous as can be. Deadpan humor taken to the extreme.

But that is not all, rather than simply shooting his mockumentary Oshii decided to make it using a new visual technique baptized superlivemation. A weird mix of live action, photography, digital animation and puppets on a stick. Performed and acted out (or posed, if you want) by the greats of the Japanese animation industry no less, as the project was supposed to be as low-budget as possible.

And if you think that just about covers it, know that the film is extremely dialogue-heavy, making it a good companion piece for Innocence. The influence of the grifters is analyzed from all kinds of cultural, political and even philosophical angles, fired at the audience through a continuous stream of monologues and dialogues. And to make it even worse, the whole film is completely grounded in actual Japanese history and customs, making it even harder for a foreigner to get a good grip on the material. Needless to say, multiple viewings are advised to make the best of all the details tucked away inside the film.

That said, on a conceptual level the film is easy to follow and already pretty hilarious. Various grifters are introduced as were they the most influential historical figures of post-war Japan. The film plays like you'd expect a serious documentary of any other important figure to unfold, but somehow the big and crudely animated cut-out photography limbs of which figures are assembled don't quite make it all that serious. The range of characters introduced is sublime, Shinji Higuchi taking the cake as cow-creature wearing a nose ring while taking on the fast-food chains with his gang of bull/people.

Oshii regular Kenji Kawai provides, besides a pretty comical performance, a score ranging from atmospheric and dark to wacky, strange and comical. A lot of fun is to be had from the exaggerated noises and effects, complementing the animation and totally contradicting the tone of the rest of the film.

Visually the film is very atmospheric, though it must be said that the animation is pretty scarce and while effective, remains toned down, only to burst out in hyperactive weirdness from time to time. Which is not exactly a bad thing, seeing how Tachiguishi is so dialogue-heavy. Despite that, the film is still a visual masterpiece as each frame looks absolutely lush and is tailored to match and improve the general atmosphere of the film.

Beware though, because Tachiguishi does demand a lot from the viewer. If you don't speak Japanese, there is a lot of reading to be done and there are many cultural references that demand some attention. On top of that, the monologues in the film area quite extended and can be hard to follow. The film still lacks English subtitles and even though my French was largely sufficient to get what it was all about, I'm sure I missed many of the finer points of the film.

Tachiguishi is not an easy film to get into, but around halfway through it reaches full steam and it doesn't let off from there on. I still hope to see this one again with English or Dutch subs. A dub would actually be best for a film like this (much like Container), though I guess a quality anime dub is a bit too much to ask for.

With all of that said, I can only congratulate Oshii on another marvelous film. It's rare to find a film that blends and mixes so many styles and influences to create something that is so unique and still works. The film is smart, looks and sounds great and is filled to the brim with creativity. It is immensely funny, even if you can't catch all the details on the first viewing. But be sure to at least get this with decent subs, as the automated English translation that is floating out there is completely worthless and does the film no justice at all.

Tachiguishi caters to a very specific audience and I'm not surprised the French got their release while the rest of Europe (and the rest of the Western world) is still waiting for a sign of this film. But for those that like Oshii, appreciate dry and deadpan humor and crave creative spirits, it is a film that cannot be missed, even though it could just as well misfire. 4.5*/5.0* Yesterday I attended the world premiere of "Descent" at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC. I had a great time. It was sold out and attended by all the major stars including fellow my-spacer Marcus Patrick.

I give the movie 7.5 starts out of a possible 10 stars.

The movie begins with Maya (Rosario Dawson) at college. You can envision the typical college environment with wild parties and flirtations going on. The photography in this film was excellent. She meets Jared (Chad Faust) and they become sweethearts. It appears like any other relationship in the beginning. The man is in quest of the woman's attention and affection and the woman is playing hard to get. Both played this well. Very innocent flirtation between the two. He invites her to his apartment and everything falls apart.

The apartment is very dreary and dark. They eventually end up in the basement which is extremely dark and lit by numerous candles. This actually reminded me of a dungeon. Here is where he shows his true colors and proceeds to rape her. This is a very dark and gritty rape scene. This scene is not for the young or weak at heart. The rape scene is a little long and hard to take, but it is necessary for the rest of the movie that follows.

Maya now starts to lose her soul to drugs and sex. She falls into her own abyss. She starts attending the wildest of parties and wakes up one morning in a room with no recollection on how she got there. She is told to go see Adrian (Marcus Patrick). The first thing I remember about this character is that they say "he is the person who saves anyone who needs saving". He is actually the one who introduces Maya to drugs. They begin a relationship of dependency which comes into play later in the movie. The club scenes at this point of the movie are photographed with extreme expertise. I thought they were well done and I noticed that the director of photography was applauded at the end of the showing during the credits by the audience.

Maya is then back in college as a TA and who is in her class -- Jared her rapist!! You could see the confusion and emotion on Maya's face. What should I do?? What do I do next?? The shots of her face and the emotions are priceless.

What unfolds next is not actually whats happening. She acts interested in Jared. She appears to be looking to revive the relationship and be sweethearts again. I was sitting there saying could this really be happening. It wasn't. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

She invites him to her apartment and of course, he shows up. Now her apartment is dark and gritty. She has him strip down completely. He thinks he's going to get "lucky". She then teases him like any woman can. She's caressing him everywhere and he's getting excited. Note:: for anyone who plans on seeing this movie this scene is full frontal nudity - may not be right for the younger viewer.

She then turns the situation around and she becomes the beast and proceeds to rape him. Once again, the scene is dark, gritty, and very rough.

If you are going to see the movie and don't want to know what happens next, skip this paragraph and go on to the last paragraph.

This is where Adrian reenters the picture. Maya has Adrian save(?) her by performing extremely rough male sex with Jared. She thinks this is the final revenge. Adrian continues to take all of Jared's manhood and strips his dignity to nothing. Marcus, as Adrian, plays this scene as believable as anyone can. He is a strong actor playing a strong character and the strength comes out all over the screen. After the movie, during a Q&A session, Marcus explained that this scene required a lot of trust between him and Chad. Maya believes that this revenge will save her but I don't think it does. One of the final scenes has a closeup of Mays's face and you see a tear roll down her cheek. This was a fabulous closeup scene and evokes constant discussion from anyone who goes to see this movie. Did she get the revenge she wanted?? Was it as satisfying as she expected?? In my opinion, it does not. It only makes matters worse.

This is an excellent movie, will well acted roles, and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking about going to see it. I would just be a little hesitant if under 17 years of age. Rosario, Chad, and Marcus should be commended for jobs well done. The directing and photography must also be commended. It was a night that I enjoyed. First, this was a BRAVE film. I've seen Irreversible and can understand the comparisons. However, I cannot begin to understand the people who've trashed this film. I can see how the end may have come off extreme but I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished that every guy who's ever forced a woman into sex deserved exactly what Jared got. Conversely, it didn't solve anything or make anything better and the fact that the film doesn't pretend to is what made me appreciate it.

The comment prior to this one called the film pathetic and claimed no adult would stick with. I certainly did and intently. I'm 24 years old. The way the film drags made it realistic to me. People have become so used to eye candy and fast paced plots on screen that if you ask them to concentrate too long on one brick in the foundation of a film, not only do they lose interest, they demolish whatever has been built, and call it rubbish. When in actuality it's their lack of patience and comprehension that needs fine tuning and not the product of a creative mind such as Talia Lugacy's.

Rosario Dawson displayed the numbness of self-destruction flawlessly. I think she portrayed Maya pre and post assault with great ease and the transition between the two is an act I rarely ever see done well. Often times, much like the films "aimed at teens" mentioned in the prior comment, the effects of rape are displayed as either extremely manic and impulsive or terribly depressed, isolated and lifeless. Dawson, in my opinion, manages to perform the balancing act so many survivors fall prey to: drone-like existence in the waking hours, working some dead end job to survive (and distract) and then overindulging in vices in order to lose themselves in the haze of substance abuse rather than face what sobriety brings.

I thought this film told the truth and I appreciated it for finally showing people a different side of rape. So many people let the end of this film devour the middle and the beginning...I believe that Maya's face during the act was the end...not the act itself...not the vengeance or the meaning behind it...just her face...

thank you I rented this movie simply because Rosario Dawson was in it. I sat down to watch it with my buddy and 6 minutes in we were glued to our seats. Not because of any intensity in those 6 minutes, but because it was a real film. No Hollywood BS, no explosions, no corny one liners; film. It drew you in slowly, reeling you toward a tragically human fate. Some people think they enjoy film but they are sadly mistaken. They like movies; mindless entertainment for entertainment's sake alone. Michael Bay's Transformers and the like were produced for just this audience. No need to think people, just watch and allow ever stereotype we can muster to slowly dissolve your brain. We'll even place advertisements throughout the movie, to keep you buying our products. And don't forget the explosions, we all love explosions. Here we make the distinction, art can be entertaining, but it's also thought provoking and moves you in hidden ways. Entertainment is rarely artful and even then only arbitrarily. Movie are entertainment. Descent is a film. Film is art.

If you still house a soul within your walking meat-sack apparatus, this rape scene is every bit as powerful as "Irreversable". The distinction here is that "Irreversable" was a violent rape scene involving two people whose paths have unfortunately crossed at the wrong time and hell ensued. "Descent" is about date rape. No less disgusting. No less depraved. Just different. This is about trust violation, soul desecration and the scars that run deep. Had the character "Maya" been consenting it would have been a hot sex scene. But seeing as she was desperate to escape, the scene is sickening. "Jared" is a sick and manipulative serial rapist, and it's wholly unsettling because it so closely resembles a passionate love affair. How could "Maya" ever be close to anyone again when even in the midst of raping her "Jared's" slick lover boy facade only ever hints at slipping? She is ruined.

The film as a whole is beautiful. The camera work and lighting at times removes the surroundings and focuses everything on "Maya" and the silent inner workings of her mind. All this accomplished by Rosario with facial expression and gesture. The soundtrack was excellent, a blend of everything. My particularly favorite scene being a synchronism of all these film aspects working together; "Maya" dancing in a sea of writhing bodies, something inside her awakening, becoming aware, all set to a beautifully sad Jeff Buckley tune.

I don't think I've really spoiled anything here but I'm stopping before I do. Bottom line, I think this was the best film of 2007, hands down. Unfortunately it seems that everyone is so jaded these days that if you don't hack and slash, gang rape, or nuke anything then people just can't be bothered. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. It's only the last thing that will happen in this existence. The worst things that happen never leave you. They are always in your thoughts. When you shower; when you brush your teeth; when you buy a Christmas present, when you tie your shoe; they haunt you. They haunt you until that last thing releases you.

Treat yourself. Challenge yourself. Watch this film. A compelling, honest, daring, and unforgettable psychological horror film that touches on the painful experiences of pain caused by rape - "Descent" is a film that went under-the-radar due to its lack of distribution because, frankly, the film is so brutal in its depictions, that if it had been released theatrically, it may have met itself to some strong biased hate.

The film deserves to be discovered for, not only its dark themes, and not only for its amazing direction and authentic style - but most of all for its performances. Chad Faust is absolutely stunning, bringing enough sickness and enough vulnerability to make one, not relate to, but understand this fractured man with a twisted perspective on his sexuality with not only the women he rapes, but also the fragile insecurities deep within his own self. It's a supporting performance that is so complex, brave, and emotional on Faust's part. And hard to forget.

However, the standout is Rosario Dawson, whose performance here is an absolute revelation. A tour-de-force of realistic dramatic tics, and one of the most subtle, yet loud-as-can-be performances in quite some time. While Dawson is seen in some good supporting performances in some great-to-bad films, she proves here she has what it takes to deliver some emotionally sweeping and moving performances, believably and thematically.

One of the best films of its year (and 2007 was a strong one) - had this underrated and intelligent film hit theatrical release, I would be screaming praises for it, as well as Dawson and Faust. Too bad it was way too blunt for a widespread appeal. Films like this deserve better! This movie leaves the intellectual mind thinking and trying to analyze the story. I too cannot understand why people would trash this movie.

If you are a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, this movie may not suitable for u.

This movie presents high degree of realism. The actors and actresses' performance is examplary. Not fake, just natural.

No special sound.effects, so special side effects.

The camera work is excellent, the music is oh so good. I can't wait to get the soundtrack.

It leaves your body numb, like Constant Garderner.The directly has raw talent, certainly not a follower. This movie is incredibly realistic and I feel does a great justice to the crime that many people do not understand because of a lack of experience. The many people who think they could fathom what goes through a victim's mind are arrogant. As a victim, I feel that Dawson did a fantastic job in her role of Maya. I agree that this is an incredibly brave film. This looks at rape from a different, more realistic standpoint than any other movie I've ever seen on the subject. The end did drag on a bit long, but I know that many victims imagine this kind of justice, since the chances of an attacker being sent to jail for their crime is around 1%. It's good to see a movie that sticks closer to reality than most would dare to. Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.

Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.

Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.

Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated. "Descent." Yeah. Boy... I haven't seen anything this powerful and scintillating since Bruno Dumont's, "Twentynine Palms" (2003). (By the way this film is not to be confused with another fairly recent pic about the topic of "female empowerment," "THE Descent" (2005), directed by our Splat Pack friend, Neil Marshall, who also happens to be a major talent his own right.) But getting back to this "Descent," the NC-17 rated (uh-oh) effort on which the lovely Ms. Dawson takes a producer's credit (congratulations) and directed by Talia Lugacy (strong chance that's not a real name), as good as it is (in moments), it will not be appreciated by most lay people out there because the script is pretty flawed. As a producer, you really have to tighten up that script. Of course, in the premise alone, you have the promise of rising conflict, but there still lies the task therein of accomplishing rising conflict.

At times, this thing plays like an interesting piece of experimental theater and, well, I guess I'll let the others who've already commented here speak to the boringness of it, namely that which occurs in the second act -but find me a second act that isn't boring? There's also this Catch 22 that goes along with these quasi-independent films like "Descent" in which Rosario happens to be attaching herself to and leveraging her "fame-identity" to get a script into production that would, under usual circumstances, not get made at all while at the same time she is basically a miscast in the film's leading role. Rosario Dawson is gorgeous and, apparently, you can shoot this girl from just about any angle all day long, but, oh, wow-wee, how fast the time just slips away: Rosy ain't no undergraduate no more. That's part of the confusion about the screenplay: "Is she a graduate student? A TA? No, graduate students don't really have these type of qualms with football players, do they?" Again, if you are Rosario Dawson, Executive Producer, that's the one of many, many aspects to the professional film process you'll have to think about as you embark on this wonderful new role in your film career. And if you don't have the answer to why you're movie isn't convincing, let me tell you: there is a boatload and a bevy of vivacious, well-qualified, undergraduate aged talents, pining to get involved in the business, who might have nailed that lead character down, all the while, looking just as darn good as you know who; but unfortunately without Ms. Dawson -no Honey, NO money. I have to say, the camera department did an outstanding job, however, because this film is really well shot (i.e. lit) in all its dreary/dreamy darkness. The nightclub scenes look wonderful; one can tell all those music videos are starting to pay off and the play with time... The shooting/framing is all quite excellent which makes the picture a rewarding watch.

"Descent" is good not great. However, I have a feeling, thanks to NetFlix, this movie will find a life of its own. I hope this group continues making films. If you're into experimental American film-making, cinematographic imagery of implausibly well formed college studs (or male model drop-outs) in their early twenties, or if you're an undergraduate, just plain angry at the hormonally aggressive young men that comprise less than half of your American university, "Rosario Dawson's Descent" might be your flavor of RockaRoll. The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award. Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder "What would I do in this situation?" Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China). This film is a wonderfully simplistic work. Enjoyable from start to end it is both sad yet uplifting at the same time. The performances from Miranda Otto (oh, how she deserves so much more recognition!)and George del Hoya are beautiful and yet almost painful to watch, as the two tortured souls come to understand each other. The supporting cast of workers at the Dead Letter Office are wonderful bit-parts in them selves, as is Alice's long-suffering boyfriend, who I couldn't help but feel slightly sorry for. There's one particular scene I could watch over and over (and I have!), it's such a shame that films like these don't get recognition, and therefore bring them futher into the public eye for more people to enjoy. I cried, I laughed and I sighed. I'd recommend this film to anyone. If the Australian Post Office ever needed a promotional film for recruitment then this is it.This is one of those movies who's heart is in the right place and you can watch again and again. Miranda's performance is touching as it shows an aspect of Australia unimagined by many Europeans, in that it can be cold, wet and bleak, just like anywhere else and just like anywhere else what is important is the people that surrounds you. The characters in the movie are warm and welcoming and make the prospect of a career move into a 'dead letter office' a thought to be considered. Miranda has gone on to do bigger movies, but I hope she always keeps a thought inside for this one?. I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).

There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW. This is one of those landmark films which needs to be situated in the context of time.Darkness in Tallinn was made in 1993.It was a period of chaos,confusion and gross disorder not only for ordinary denizens of Estonia but also for countless citizens of other former nations which were a part of mighty Soviet empire.It was in such a tense climate that a young country named Estonia was born.As newly established governments are known to encounter teething problems,Estonia too faced numerous troubles as some corrupt officials manipulated state machinery for filling their dirty pockets by making use of their selfish means.This is one of this film's core themes.Darkness in Tallinn appears as an Estonian film but it was made by a Finnish director Ilka Järvilaturi. He has tried his best to infuse as many possible doses of Estonian humor.This is why one can call it a comedy film of political undertones.As ordinary people are involved in this film, we can say that this film signifies good versus evil.This is not a new concept as it is readily available in most of the religious books of different faiths.Darkness in Talinn shows us as to how ordinary governments can also be toppled by corrupt people.A nice film to watch on a sunny day. Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...)

Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w

There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess. I caught this at a screening at the Sundance Film Festival and was in Awe over the absolute power this film has. It is an examination of the psychological effects on our brave soldiers who join the military with hopes that they will protect and serve our country with honor as well as be taken care of by our government for it. The film details the psychological changes that takes place in boot camp as the soldiers are turned into "killers for their country" and put into the war and the after effects once they return home. It also portrays the effect that killing has on the human psyche. It pays homage to the Soldiers and never ever criticizes the soldiers unlike other films, instead criticizes a system that is not prepared to and does not take care of all the physical and psychological needs of the returned Vets.

This film is powerful, moving, emotional and thought provoking. It stands as a call to arms to support our troops not only by buying stickers and going to parades but by actually listening to them, and helping to support a change in the way their health and well being is taken care of after the killing ends.

The best film of the Festival so far, ****/**** I saw this film premiere Friday (1/19) night in Park City for Sundance and was incredibly moved. Sitting in a theater and hearing first-hand the anguish soldiers go through was almost more than I could bear. Others in the audience were equally moved and while we wanted to turn away, the least we could do was bear witness as these men and women shared their experience with us. Robert Acosta, Paul Rieckhoff, Sean Huze, and Herold Noel, all veterans of the war in Iraq and featured in the film, were present. While they may be home now, you can tell this war is still inside them and probably always will be. Whether you support the war or not, it is OUR duty to support the troops with something other than a bumper sticker. See this film! I saw this film tonight in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine. I didn't know what to expect, I'd not read much about it as I knew I would see it no matter what. All in All, it is very well done. It doesn't focus on the generalization of "Anti-War" statements, which to me, left the politics out of it. The soldiers mainly spoke of their awareness of toxicity in their training in boot camp, and how hard it was once they returned to civilian life. It was really good to see Paul Rieckhoff and Camilo Mejia tell about the difficulty in surviving not only the war, but refusing the command to go back when it was against personal morals. Make no mistake - this is not an anti-war film. Anyone who says it is hasn't seen it or is not living with the scars of war on their souls. This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.

The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. "The First Casualty of War is Innocence." That is no criticism of the film, but rather a comment on how blind we are to our own past.

I recently watched Winter Soldier, and The Ground Truth was like watching a remake or sequel-- except it was about Iraq rather than Vietnam. Similar to Winter Soldier because of it's one-sided message, both films illustrate how gleefully we rush to engage in conflicts based on false pretenses, and allow our young and brave (and often naive) to bear the brunt of this greedy war profiteering. Both films effectively show that the mentality forced into the minds of the young and willing make them efficient killing machines, but the training falls woefully short of teaching the diplomatic and policing skills necessary to effectively win the hearts and minds of the people they're supposedly fighting for. This is ultimately what lost the war in Vietnam, and will likely lose the war in Iraq as well.

My only negative comment is that the film is so one-sided it could be easily passed off as left- wing propaganda. Not by me, mind you, but by those aiming to discredit the film and message. A more balanced point of view would speak to a larger audience. There is an episode of The Simpsons which has a joke news report referring to an army training base as a "Killbot Factory". Here the comment is simply part of a throwaway joke, but what Patricia Foulkrod's documentary does is show us, scarily, that it is not that far from the truth. After World War Two the US Army decided to tackle a problem they faced throughout the war; that many soldiers got into battle and found themselves totally unable to kill another human being unless it was a matter of 'me or them'. Since then the training process of the US army has been to remove all moral scruples and turn recruits into killing machines who don't think of combatants as people. To develop in them a most unnatural state: "The sustainable urge to kill".

First off, this isn't an antiwar movie as such. Whilst it certainly paints war in a very bad light, Foulkrod focuses rather on an aspect that doesn't get as much media attention as, say, the debate over the legality of a war or it's physical successes or failures; the affect the process of turning a man into a soldier has on that person as a human being. It's the paradox that to train someone to be a soldier to defend society makes them totally unsuitable to live as part of that society themselves, and whilst most of the examples and interviewees are from the current Middle East conflict Foulkrod makes the links to past conflicts, especially Vietnam, painfully clear. This isn't about any particular war, it's about the problems caused by war in general.

Structurally the film seems to be split into three sections; how recruits are drawn into the army and the training they receive, how they are treated once they are in combat, and what happens once they leave the army. Once this point is reached you realise that the main target of this film is actually the policies that are inherent in the armed forced, policies that are put into place to make soldiers into an affective combat force but removing all humanity from the individuals. Those interviewed tell the camera how the recruiting process seems so clean and simple, how word like "democracy" and "freedom" are banded around, but once the training begins they become "enemy" and "kill" and "destroy". How once in action soldiers don't care what they are ordered to do, as they are ingrained with the idea that as soon as they carry out an order, whatever it may be, they are one step closer to going home. They have no political or social ideals to fight for but fight and kill as that's what they've been trained to do.

But The Ground Truth's main goal is to highlight the way the US Army discards those who have fought for their country once they return home. There is no real rehabilitation given to soldiers returning, and many are forced to go home unable to cope with what they have seen and done, and most policies in place seem to be to make sure the army has no legal responsibility whatsoever for psychological affects their soldiers pick up. This is the final indignity, that once they are used they are cast away.

If there is a flaw in the film it is that Foulkrod doesn't attempt to show another side to the argument. You would get the impression that every single soldier who ever went to war would come back with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. It would have been interesting to see those of a… less liberal upbringing give their opinions of how the army handles training and policies. There is never a chance for the other side of the argument to make itself known.

But other than that this is an expertly crafted documentary, and Foulkrod's use of stock footage and music is perfectly utilised to get across a side of war that too often get s passed by when discussing the fallout of war. The information contained in this movie is somewhat familiar to many who have been paying attention to the news lately. The Walter Reed scandals show a small part of the fact that we are not doing a good job taking care of our injured heroes when they return.

What this movie further shows is a truth common to all wars. The psychological trauma that soldiers suffer while engaging in war and the difficulty they have when returning to civilian life. They are not just changed or affected, they are different people and most do not know how to deal with that as they do not know themselves.

Finally, this film shows what the military does to our young men in women in getting them ready for war and the policies and practices that they have to follow in prosecuting war that leads to all the psychological trauma.

We have over 3000 dead soldiers in the four years of this invasion; but we have many tens of thousands that will suffer lifelong physical and psychological trauma because of this war. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it behooves you to know the cost of war to decide if we should be in that business. This film illustrates the costs to the men and women perfectly. Do not expect a depiction of the "truth". However, the accounts of these veterans of the Iraqi & Afghanistan wars demand thoughtful consideration.

The major strength of the film is that it vividly portrays the words and war wounds of these vets and their post-war struggles to reconstruct some degree of normalcy and functionality to their lives.

My major criticism of the film is twofold: it is one-sided and it advocates anti-war activism but nothing more to correct the serious shortcomings of the military's and Veterans Affairs' programs for helping those who've suffered and still suffer the traumas of war. These are NOT fatal flaws of the film.

As a veteran myself, I know that the horrible aftermath of war is real, and these young men and women articulate it very well. These vets vividly describe the physical and mental pain and torment that most veterans experience and that ordinary people need to understand because the horrors of ALL wars are so traumatic and disturbing. I desperately need this on a tape, not a DVD, and soon!

I have one nephew who is in the infantry but has not yet deployed, although he set to go to Iraq soon after December 2008. I lost my beloved step son in Ramadi Iraq on 09-15-05 from an unmanned missile in a green zone. I have another nephew who is joining the army as soon as he graduates from high school this spring because he, like his older brother, has some idealized and romanticized idea about what serving in the military is. My stepson died after only 10 days in country and he never went out on any missions so my nephews have no way to reference any of the experiences shown in this candid documentary from any type of personal experiences that might have been conveyed by my now deceased son.

There is nothing I can do about those who are in, or now gone, but I have one left that has not raised his hand and been sworn in YET. I desperately want him to do so informed, none of the others did.

Pleases help me with this.

The movie documentary The Ground Truth is the best visual reference I have ever seen. I need to somehow make my youngest nephew see what he is getting himself into before it is to late. BUT: ( do not laugh )I NEED my mother to see this first. She must actually see and hear these men and women, not simply the idea of them, but the truth of what they will be immersed in, possibly forever. Then she will have the emotional determination to make my brother watch this film and once he has then he may then make his son, my youngest nephew, watch it too. Then, my nephew might begin to take this seriously.

((( is there another time when this will be shown on TV ? if so please tell me when ? )))

However, my problem is, my mother does not own a DVD player, she still uses video ( is that correct? with tapes ? ) So, I need to find a way for her to be able to watch this film. Can I purchase this from anyone in that form? If not, is there any other way for me to get this in the form of a tape from anyone? Is there any legitimate link from which I can pay to download it onto my computer and then transfer it to a tape. If so who would I contact. I will gladly pay for the privilege providing it is a legitimate link.

Or,if you have any alternative ideas I will consider anything you can suggest.

Please help me, I have lost one very precious adored and loved one already, I already know my oldest nephew will never be the same when he returns and I may loose him too. I cannot loose three and the emotional toll for all of those that do make it back is too high a price to pay for every male child in my family of that generation. Please help me. I will happily call you, email me a number if that is the best way to get the needed information. Thank you so much for any help you can offer.

Sincerely, Lori Swanberg l.swanberg@yahoo.com This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.

Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of "Loose Change." This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.

God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006! This movie is a must-see movie for all. Congress should see this truthful documentary from the point-of-view of the soldier, as should everyone in America. The previous reviewer totally missed the point--the point is to reveal the truth about teaching our soldiers to kill people who are NOT terrorists, but who just live in our "enemy's" territory, and what it does to the soldiers. We must support our troops by bringing them home IMMEDIATELY, before another person is killed or injured. This also reveals that the government does not help its veterans, those who are injured mentally, with ptsd- post-traumatic stress disorder, or physically, with lost limbs. Julie A. Roberts, Streamwood, IL Having Just "Welcomed Home" my 23 YR old daughter from a year in Iraq, Camp Anaconda medical support unit, I felt compelled to get this DVD. I wanted to hear other returning vets feelings in order to attempt to better understand her mentality on arrival and not waiting until after something bad happened. Regardless on your take on the war and peace this movie serves as a great start for all Americans to begin the healing of our returning vets emotional void. The paramount statement of the entire movie is "Take Action" on the problem . Incredibly emotional movie. I would highly recommend this movie to the vet the vets entire mature family and ask that they follow through with a plan to listen comfort help the returning Gulf War Enduring Freedom vets.

Fast forward nearly one year later & My daughter has seen this DVD. Took account of her emotions and actually has made a commitment to re-up for another 6 years. Her take on her time spent in the sand is that she did some good. Local Balad children got first rate medical treatment for various common ailments not ordinarily able to afford free with an escort and translator. Her look over her shoulder at her Iraq tour was . "We changed some hearts and minds back there" Great DVD you have to keep an open mind and see all sides The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry...

"Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be found

desperate to find it :

medically unable to serve Before seeing this, I was put off by the subject matter, but this is not your average triumph over adversity story. Although this is technically about blind Tibetan kids climbing Mt. Everest, there is so much more to it. This movie shows the very strong, often contradictory personalities of two highly accomplished blind adults leading the children, Erik and Sabriye. Erik is an American blind mountain climber/athlete and Sabriye is a blind German academic who started a school in Lhasa Tibet. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but disagree on what will really build confidence in the kids. Erik wants them to reach the summit while Sabriye wants them to enjoy Erik as a role model and take pleasure in moment. The nuances are complicated and one walks away not really being sure who was right or if the whole climb was a mistake or a great idea. The most profound scenes are with the Tibetan children themselves and the hardships they faced before finding their way to the school. The most moving for me was the story of Tashi, a frail teenager who grew up on the streets after his parents abandoned him. I could watch a whole movie on his life and was happy to learn that thanks to the school, he is now running a successful small business with some of his fellow students. If you liked Spellbound or Murderball, you will love this. I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. I loved this, and not just for the obvious reasons. Blindsight is a documentary about a group of blind Tibetan teenagers who attempt to climb one of Mount Everest's sister peaks. Now, this kind of thing is usually a can't miss. Inspirational. Moving. Pretty standard, right? And even if the film were just that, I'd still have liked it. But it was so much more. Blind herself, German Sabriye Tenberken established a school for blind children in Tibet, in a culture that sees blindness as a curse, as evidence that a person did bad things in a previous life. Many of the children at the school have been shunned their whole lives, and at best, are a burden to their families. As part of their education, Tenberken shares with them the story of American Erik Weihenmayer, the first blind person to reach the summit of Mount Everest. She sends him a letter inviting him to come and visit her students. Instead, he comes up with a plan. He'll arrange an expedition for them to climb 23,000 foot Lhakpa Ri and provide all the guides and equipment. Sabriye finds six willing participants and this is when the fun starts.

Erik's team are mostly American, mostly male, and mostly sighted. As experienced mountaineers, they're Type-A personalities, very gung-ho and goal-oriented. Sabriye is European, female, and blind, and the students for her are more than a "project," no matter how well-intentioned. Additionally, the students are Tibetan, and not old enough or confident enough to always stand up for themselves. As the expedition unfolds, they become pawns in between the two adult "sides," wanting to please both, while at the same time wanting to gain the confidence that comes from accomplishment. As an additional obstacle (other than being blind, that is), they are speaking English as a second or in most cases, a third language, and struggle to understand and make themselves understood.

When it turns out that none of the students have any climbing experience, and that some are much more coordinated than others, it begins to unravel Erik's original plan for them all to reach the summit together. As both students and teachers begin to suffer the effects of high altitude, decisions must be made as to whether to continue on or to send some down the mountain. Among the effects of high altitude is increased irritability, and you can see how this feeds the conflict between the adults. At the risk of oversimplifying, on one side are those for whom the destination is all, and on the other are those who just want to enjoy the journey. I won't tell you how it all turns out, except to say that this was one of the most surprising and thought-provoking stories I've seen in a long time.

The film also weaves bits of each climber's story into the narrative, and this was sorely needed, since once on the climb, the kids tended to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. With all the drama going on around them, that wasn't surprising. The backstories are by turns charming and heartbreaking, and I found it very strange that I found myself closer to tears at the beginning of the film than at the end. This was contrary to my expectations, and another pleasant surprise.

In addition to all the human drama to cover, director Walker and her small crew had to contend with the frigid and oxygen-deprived conditions herself, lugging equipment up the mountains and hoping it wouldn't break down. As with all great documentaries, the filmmaker was just lucky enough (or smart enough, or prepared enough) to be at the right place at the right time, and she's captured a very special story that has as much to say about people who want to do "what's best for the kids" as it does about the kids themselves. This film was amazing. It is an inspiring piece of cinema. The characters are fully developed through the truth in which Director, Lucy Walker brings to the film. I highly recommend this to any one looking for that special film that shows the humanity in the human condition. Lucy Wlaker showcases the landscape beauty. This film id a true example of man vs. nature and sometimes man vs. man. The inner turmoil and triumph is tremendous in its subject matter. The subject of how the Tiebtans view blindness as a sign of demons is interesting. This film sheds light on a particular culture that has never been showcased. Lucy Walker has given Erik Weihenmayer a voice when he would have not normally been heard. Thank you Lucy for being true to your vison as a filmmaker. This interesting documentary tells a remarkable tale of an expedition to take blind Tibetan children trekking in the Himalayas; but also of a personality clash between two remarkable people. On one hand, there is Erik Weihenmeyer, the first blind man to climb Everest, and the team of (sighted) mountaineers who are guiding the kids. On the other, there is Sabriye Tenberken, a blind woman who runs the first school for blind Tibetans, who agrees to the expedition but subsequently has doubts about how it is progressing. At some level, Sabine simply doesn't understand the mountaineer's philosophy (with it's emphasis on summitting); she is probably right in identifying the mismatch between the mountaineers goals and the desires of the children but her certainty in her own correctness makes her a hard person to sympathise with, especially as she has an effective veto. In the background to this (reasonably well-mannered) clash, we get an insight into the lives of the children themselves. I enjoyed the film, although it delivers a message clearly designed to be uplifting - even though it details the quarrel, the film somewhat relentlessly asserts how amazing all those who feature in it are. But it's hard to argue with that assessment, even if it is presented to the viewer somewhat unsubtly. Just got out and cannot believe what a brilliant documentary this is. Rarely do you walk out of a movie theater in such awe and amazement. Lately movies have become so over hyped that the thrill of discovering something truly special and unique rarely happens. Amores Perros did this to me when it first came out and this movie is doing to me now. I didn't know a thing about this before going into it and what a surprise. If you hear the concept you might get the feeling that this is one of those touchy movies about an amazing triumph covered with over the top music and trying to have us fully convinced of what a great story it is telling but then not letting us in. Fortunetly this is not that movie. The people tell the story! This does such a good job of capturing every moment of their involvement while we enter their world and feel every second with them. There is so much beyond the climb that makes everything they go through so much more tense. Touching the Void was also a great doc about mountain climbing and showing the intensity in an engaging way but this film is much more of a human story. I just saw it today but I will go and say that this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. DOCTEUR PETIOT, starring Michel Serrault, is a brutal story about a brutal man. A doctor who heals the sick in occupied France, even if their ability to compensate is not there. Yet, he preys on the weakest amidst the populace. The imagery and cinematography are superb, and lend an additional macabre feeling to this complex story. He is the perfect psychopath. Seductive and altruistic, intelligent and caring, calculating and murderous. A movie certain not to be forgotten soon by the viewer. Kudos to Mr. Serrault, for his chilling portrayal. This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.

He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.

The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time. I discovered this film after reading the book that inspired it. It is not a strictly biographical film; it is "loosely based" on the facts. But I found it a compelling and eerie exploration of evil and madness, and Michel Serrault gives an unforgettable performance as Dr. Petiot.

There are many memorable images in this movie; Petiot traveling through the night like a vampire, his black cloak flapping behind him, is almost iconic. There are also several touches of expressionism - Petiot's crooked silhouette mounting the stairs leading from the cellar where the butchered remains of his victims await cremation, reminds me of some scenes from 'Nosferatu'.

But I found the primary appeal of this movie to be aural. The soundtrack is loaded with ominous sounds, starting with the foreboding music of the opening credits, accompanied by wordless wailing. Petiot lives and runs his medical practice in a complex with many small shops, and there is a persistent background noise of knives being sharpened somewhere, as well as a peddler playing eerie tunes on a saw. There are animal noises as well - the concierge keeps a goat, unseen cats howl - and later in the film we see hapless cattle being herded through an underpass. The whole atmosphere is unsettling, with overtones of violence and slaughter.

Not only animals, but human voices are often heard - the screams of Gestapo victims, Petiot's patients in his waiting room, monitored by a listening device, just the same as the suspected collaborators after the war are monitored in their cells. Even the action of the film is often arranged so that we hear the voices of the participants without seeing them - when Petiot goes to see Mme Kern, we hear her singing as she works, her voice echoing in the theater, before we ever see her. And even when she does appear, she is often filmed from behind, her voice calling out to her husband, whose voice calls out to her in conversation. Disembodied voices echo in large halls, and their owners, when seen at all, are photographed at a distance, so we cannot actually see them speaking. This is a ghost story, and these are the voices of ghosts - many of them Petiot's future victims.

Yet Petiot himself is often only a voice; his frightening laughter echoes as he retreats from the camera, throwing comments behind him or into the air to nobody. In a way, he is as much a ghost as those he murders. He is always frantically busy, scurrying from appointment to appointment, never at rest. But his activity is that of a machine - lifeless and imperturbable. It is interesting that among all the horror and danger of occupied Paris, Petiot alone is unafraid; he is amused, enthusiastic, angry, irritated, contemptuous, but never afraid, unlike those real people he lures to their deaths. It is no surprise that he boasts of his mechanical inventions, including a perpetual motion machine (a true detail from the book - he did claim to have invented many machines); he is a sort of perpetual motion machine himself. And mechanical imagery is everywhere in the film, from the opening giant wheel in the movie house, to Petiot's bicycle (with its squeaking wheels echoing the sound of sharpening knives), to the Victrola he keeps winding up to play music before he makes a kill. Even his routine with his victims is mechanical - write a note to your wife, let me disguise you before you leave, you need a vaccination, Barcelona, Casablanca, Dakar - like a well-oiled machine, the routine is always the same, just as the record is always the same.

Maeder, the author, says that it was the clockwork perfection of his crimes that weighed so heavily against Petiot at his trial. His system was as smooth and efficient as a Nazi concentration camp, and this may be why the movie invents a subplot of Petiot's involvement with the French Gestapo and the occupying Nazis. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work as part of the story, because it's very hard to figure out just what Petiot is doing for the collaborators, or what is going on when he ends up at their headquarters in the middle of the night. Disposing of bodies? Hiding stolen goods? It's hard to say, and harder to believe; it's not likely the state would turn to a freelancer like Petiot.

But it does remind us of the duality of evil people; Petiot is a robber and a murderer, but he is also a devoted father and husband. Just as we learned that Hitler loved dogs, and that Nazis guilty of the worst war crimes could also be loving fathers and family men, so we have to recognize that Petiot could commit unspeakable horrors and yet also function normally. His insanity is easily camouflaged by the insanity and horror of the wartime situation in Paris; when killing, robbing and disappearing are happening all around, nobody pays attention as Petiot tosses more corpses on the pile. North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.

The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him.

The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the "Arabic" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.

Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.

Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. I give this movie an A+ for the sheer camp of it! As Dietrich's daughter Maria Riva wrote in the book on her mother, "If one sees The Garden of Allah in the context of high camp, it can be very amusing." And how! I laughed with delight at the overwrought score and the astoundingly, ridiculously, fantastically melodramatic dialogue. Viewers who've read the accounts of Boyer's toupee (it kept coming unstuck in the heat) will snicker every time it makes an appearance.

Dietrich and Boyer rarely look at each other when giving their lines -- instead they gaze dreamily off into the distance, presumably so their faces can be photographed at the best angle and with the most advantageous light (if you're starring in a turkey might as well look good!). Dietrich's costumes are out of this world. As Riva notes in her book, Dietrich managed to steal Paramount's Travis Banton and have him design some of the most divine gowns, such as the chiffon beige dress & cape.

I heartily agree with the other reviewers who rave about the Technicolor. It really is hard to believe the film was done in 1936 -- the color is fantastic.

In short, if you watch The Garden of Allah with a lenient attitude and embrace its silliness, you can't help but enjoy it. Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer give solid performances in this beautiful but empty film. The irony is that Dietrich plays a woman with a beautiful but empty life. Truly gorgeous cinematography and sets, and yes Dietrich's bottomless trunk of clothes are also fabulous. She look great; Boyer looks young and trim.

Story of a woman seeking meaning and an ex-priest seeking life seems pretty stale, but set against such unreal sets and skies it somehow works, given the two stars, the terrific score by Max Steiner, and a good supporting cast. The film runs like 76 minutes and seems badly edited, plus certain characters just appear or disappear.

Joseph Schildkraut is funny as the Arab guide, C. Aubrey Smith is the old priest, Lucile Watson the mother superior, Tilly Losch the dancer, John Carradine the diviner, and Basil Rathbone plays.... well I'm not sure. He just rides in from the desert and spoils everything! As others have noted, John Gilbert was slated to star with Dietrich. I can't help but think he would have been wonderful. The role of world-weary Boris would have suited the great Gilbert quite well. And after the success of Queen Christina (with Garbo), his career might have gotten back on track.

I can't think of any other 30s film Dietrich did in color. She looks great and wears some terrific clothes. My favorite is the Valentino as The Shiek-like outfit she wears by the pool.

Certainly worth a look for the lush sets and color and the two great stars. In terms of visual beauty this movie is outstanding! I had no idea that Technicolor came out so early. Although I didn't like the ending, the entire movie is fantastic and makes me wish that I was in North Africa. The cast is excellent and Marlene Dietrich is a big plus and of course she is so alluring and I just loved her in this flick. Basil Rathbone is also perfect in this movie. I couldn't get over the scenery and the sets... The hotel, the palm trees, the desert, it's all there... the legionnaires also bring a "Beau Geste" feeling to the film. They certainly don't make movies like these anymore. Don't fail to watch this classic! "The Garden of Allah" was one of the first feature length, 3-strip Technicolor films. To correct a previous poster the first Technicolor feature (after Disney's 5-year exclusivity deal) was 1935's "Becky Sharp" which was a costume drama that used the color for it's garish color costumes.

"The Garden of Allah" looks as if it could have been shot years later as the cinematography uses not only the color but also the use of shadows. It must have been amazing for an audiences at the time to see a color feature after seeing basically only black and white films for their whole life. Unfortunately, the film does not stand up to the cinematography. That being said, the film is worth seeing just as a visual treat. Audiences back in 1936 must have been stunned at what they were watching: a full-fledged, beautiful full-length Technicolor film. I can't say for sure, but this might have been the first one (3-strip). At any rate, it still looks beautiful over 70 years later on DVD. In fact, just how good it looks is amazing.

Kudos for that have to go out to Director Richard Boleslowski, Director Of Photography Virgil Miller, Selznick International Pictures and, for the DVD - MGM Home Entertainment. All of them combined to give us one of the best-looking films of the classic-era age.

I thought the story was so-so: excellent in the first half, stagnant in the second. It gave a nice message in the end, even though a lot of people might not have been happy with it. I can't say more without spoiling things.

Marlene Dietrich never looked better, I don't believe, and certainly never played such a soft-hearted character ("Domini Enfilden"). Heart-throb Charles Boyer was the male star and Domini's object of affection, but some of the minor characters were the most interesting to me. People like Joseph Schildkraut as "Batouch;" John Carradine as "The Sand Diviner;" The most memorable, to me at least, was the dancer "Irena," played by Tilly Losch. Wow, there is a face and a dance you won't soon forget! I've never seen anything like it in the thousands of films I've viewed. Just seeing her do her thing was worth the price of the DVD. Looking at her IMDb resume, she was only in four movies, but they were all well-known films.

Basil Rathbone, the actor who really became famous for playing "Sherlock Holmes," also is in here as is C. Aubrey Smith, another famous British actor of his day. Schildkraut, by the way, will be recognized by classic film buffs as the man who played the arrogant sales clerk in the big hit, "The Shop Around The Corner," with Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullivan.

The beautiful direction, photography and color, and Tilly's dance, are the things I'll remember best about this movie which is a lot of good and not-so-good things all rolled into one. Had the last half hour been better - although I admire the ending - I would have rated it even higher. It's definitely one film collectors want to add to their collection. Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.

This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film. "The Garden of Allah" is a prime example of "popular women's literature", turn of the XXth century style, combining all the power of unbridled erotic and exotic reveries with the stimulating glamour of fake mysticism and the sado-masochistic bite of Catholic guilt. Just as Jane Eyre couldn't really be happy until her castle burned down around her and her lover was permanently maimed for his sins, or the heroine of "Rebecca" couldn't find true fulfillment in her marriage until her lordly husband was put on trial for the murder of his first wife (and her castle burned down around her), or poor Psyche couldn't leave well enough alone and had to extract Cupid's secret at all costs, Domini, the devout Catholic heroine of this piece of tripe, can only find true sexual realization by inadvertently marrying a man who has renounced his sacred religious vows. Like all such narratives aiming to stimulate the female reader and induce the vapours, this one relies on the oldest tricks in the book: basic misunderstandings and the inability to express one's true feelings at the right place and at the right time until it is too late. The logic is that any ultimate sexual ecstasy can be indulged in as long as one is willing to eventually pay a high enough price for it in atonement in the last act. It is Paul Claudel reduced to beauty salon magazine standards. Oh well... It could have been much worse and it often was...

Without the religious overtones, the film's plot is that of your basic porn flick: Oversexed monk driven mad by abstinence escapes to the desert where he has a few rolls in the dunes with a romantic, shapely but naive Catholic heiress before reintegrating his monastery, all passion spent, leaving her to clean up his mess. And I really resent another commentator's comparison with Anatole France's "Thais", a sophisticated novel whose intention was to make fun of the whole concept of Catholic sexual repression, some of which transpired in Massenet's opera of the same name, thankfully.

But what makes this picture unique in the annals of commercial female eroticism, of course, is the enormous constellation of talents gathered under one banner to make this cinematic wet dream come to shimmering, vibrant life. Imperishable Technicolor photography that will outlive us all, a truckload of worthy character actors (including one cute dog), a music score by Max Steiner that seems determined to accomplish the "composed film" that Michael Powell (who, ironically, had a bit part in the 1927 silent version) always dreamed about, tittering at times on the brink of dissonance but always coming through in splendid symphonic, operatic exoticism, a dream-like atmosphere where material considerations are no object, characters travel as if by magic from one spot to the next, dialog is sparse, vague and suggestive, the art direction is close to celestial, flower arrangements appear in the humblest hut or tent, the heroine's wardrobe is inexhaustible and all the male characters are either aristocrats, saints, doomed but horny sinners, mystics or poets.

Ahh... Hollywood! The MGM DVD presentation of this film is bare bones but impeccable. The bit rate is very high throughout, the colour registration is almost always perfect and the 2.0 mono sound truly does justice to Max Steiner's score and to Boyer's penultimate confession.

A historical note on this sort of "women's subject": The following year (1937), Julien Duvivier, visibly inspired by "The Garden of Allah", directed "Carnet de Bal", where a very similar clothes-horse butter-won't-melt-in-her-mouth heroine (widowed after taking care of an ailing husband in the exotic remoteness of some impossibly romantic Alpine lakeside villa) wants to discover what she has missed by looking up the male dancers in her first dance book. She finds them all in time, only to realize that whatever feeling there was at one point between her beaus and herself were either misunderstood, overestimated or else had lifelong tragic consequences. It was Duvivier's cynical way of telling us to beware of impossibly idealistic notions and that we all need to grow up sooner or later. The pioneering Technicolor Cinematography (Winner of Special Technical Achievement Oscar) is indeed enchanting. Add an endless variety of glamorous costumes and a romantic cinema dream team like Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer, and you've got a rather pleasant "picture".

Unfortunately the contrived plot as well as the over-blown acting leave much to be desired. Still, there have not been any more breathtaking Technicolor films before this one (1936), and very few since then, that can top this breathtaking visual experience of stunning colors. Cinema fans who have enjoyed the glorious color cinematography in "Robin Hood" (1938), "Jesse James" (1939) and "Gone With The Wind" (1939), will not be disappointed in the fantastic work done here. "The Garden Of Allah" will always be synonymous with brilliant color cinematography. Domini Enfilren (Marlene Dietrich) has spent most of her life caring for her father. Now that he has died she is free--but doesn't know what she wants. Boris Androvsky (Charles Boyer) is a monk who has fled a monastery to taste more of life. They meet accidentally in Algiers, fall in love and get married. But he can't leave his past behind and she can't live without him...

WAY overdone romance full of hysterically bad dialogue and situations. Dietrich and Boyer do their best to give good performances but NOBODY could get away with some of their lines! Still, in a way, it is a classic. It's shot in gorgeous Technicolor (try to see it on DVD) where every frame is breath-takingly beautiful. Dietrich is always dressed to the 9s (even in the middle of the desert) and strikes hysterical poses to show off the clothes and her body. Boyer just walks around looking stricken (no shock there). Still I was never bored. It was wonderful to look at and the non-stop stupid dialogue kept me in stitches. The end almost had me falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard! Now I love corny romances and give them plenty of space but really---this is unbelievable! It also runs a very short 80 minutes.

As a camp classic I give this an 8. As a serious movie--a 1. This was Eddie Robinson's 101st film and his last, and he died of cancer nine days after shooting was complete. All of which makes his key scene in the movie all the more poignant.

Although some of the hair and clothing styles are a bit dated (also note the video game shown in the film), but the subject of the film is pretty much timeless. Heston said he had wanted to make the film for some time because he really believed in the dangers of overpopulation.

Several things make this film a classic. The story is solid.

The acting is top-notch, especially the interplay between Heston and Robinson, with nice performances also by Cotten and Peters.

The music is absolutely perfect. The medley of Beethoven, Grieg, and Tchaikovsky combined with the pastoral visual elements make for some truly moving scenes. This was the icing on the cake for the film.

And the theme (or the "point") of the film is a significant one. Yes, it's a film about overpopulation, but on a more important note it's a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with Man's stewardship of Earth. It's in the subtext that you find the real message of the film. Pay attention to what Sol says about the "old days" of the past (which is our present), and note how Thorn is incapable of comprehending what Sol is saying.

This film is one of my top sci-fi films of all time. I saw Soylent Green back in 1973 when it was first released and maybe another eight times over the years on T.V. or video. It was always one of my favorite sci-fi and/or Charlton Heston films.

Recently, the Egyptian theater in L.A. had a twelve film Charlton Heston retrospective. I flew in from out of state to see six of the films over a two day period. Soylent Green looked great on the large Egyptian screen with a perfect new print. From its opening montage to the going home scene to the great ending the film was fantastic.

Charlton Heston as a cop who lives in a dog eat dog world with few natural resources left and no understanding as to how the world used to be and Eddie Robinson as a man who remembers the past are both great.

Their chemistry together is wonderful. The film also looks so much better in a great 35mm print. Fleisher really knows how to fill the screen,and the cinematoraphy, writing, music used, and everything about it works. The film is also very powerful in its bleak and very possible view of the future. Just think how the world population grew, the rain forest that disappeared, resources used up, green house effect getting worse since 1973. I just wonder why this film has not played in theaters all these years. Its reputation should be better.

Speaking of reputations, often people speak as if Charlton Heston is not a great actor. Seeing him in El-Cid, Soylent Green, The Warlord, The Omega Man, Will Penny, and Major Dundee back to back I am convinced he is one of our best actors. Of course he made about a dozen other great films and for those that care you know what they are.

Soylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.

I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.

I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.

The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie... Very interesting. The big twist wasn't as big a shock as maybe they had hoped for and it was very dated but it did get my mind working. It really got me thinking about a world without vegetation or livestock and made me appreciate the world I live in a lot more. Charlton Heston does a good job, as do all the supporting characters, and it was a very realistic film which was surprising. It lacked direction at times and a lot of the settings and background needed more explanation but it was still a surprisingly good and intelligent movie. The main fault that I could find was that I didn't want the film to end when it did, I would have liked to see what happened next.

7/10 This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including "furniture"--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed!

Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound. I watched this film sort of by accident, having bought it as the B side on The Omega Man DVD. The Omega Man was a bit of a disappointment - except for the beginning, which was clearly the inspiration for 28 Days Later, the rest of it is just the stuff of TV movies. But Soylent Green is in a whole other league. I bet this is one of Tarantino's favourites. There are at least 3 scenes in the film that I've never seen anything like before. Heston casually getting into bed with the "furniture" while discussing something else completely unrelated! A whole crowd of people being scooped up by a fleet of mechanical diggers! A priest taking confession and being shot by the confessor. Ok maybe that's been done since - but there aren't many films that are so consistently original like this. And what the heck is going on between Heston and Edward G. Robinson? Is this the most unlikely gay couple ever, or what? Luckily, I saw this film without knowing the ending - which apparently is rare. Then I watched it again, and enjoyed all the little clues that make the long early scenes worthwhile. A very nice script - and some great sets too. Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . . The only other film besides Soylent Green that has such an air of hopelessness is On the Beach. Both films deal with the consequences for the species and the planet from man made cataclysms. On the Beach with nuclear war and Soylent Green with the environmental poisoning of the planet.

Maybe there's cause for some optimism because as of 2007 we haven't reached either of the worlds described in those films and we were supposed to by now. New York City still has about 8 million people not the 22 million by the turn of the millenia as described in Soylent Green. Environmentalists always hail this film as showing the consequence of global warming. For myself it also shows the Right to Life ethic run amuck. Obviously there's no family planning in this world either.

Charlton Heston is an NYPD detective who lives with room mate Edward G. Robinson who's old enough to remember the Earth before catastrophe struck. There's been a murder committed, Joseph Cotten an executive with the Soylent Corporation, a multi-national concern that has come up with a food product, some kind of wafer in many colors to feed the world's population. It's latest product is Soylent Green.

The investigation finds Charlton Heston getting his man, but also it leads to some horrifying truths about the Soylent Corporation and the future of mankind. As Heston shouts in the end that Soylent Green is made of people, that we've become a race of cannibals, the horrifying thing is that there is no alternative. We've exhausted the planet and we have to eat our dead to survive.

This was the farewell performance of Edward G. Robinson and in his memoirs Heston spoke movingly of Robinson even though they had differing political views. A few weeks after Robinson wrapped that final scene of his screen demise by consented euthanasia, he passed away in real life. Not many did, but Heston knew that Robinson was terminally and there was no acting involved in that final death scene between the two of them.

Though the timetable was off, it doesn't mean that the world envisioned by Soylent Green may not come to pass. Hopefully we'll have not just the intelligence, but the sense of shared responsibility to keep that from happening. This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.

The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.

This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this. As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughable

But don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the

70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line " If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day " . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth The time is the future and for many not aware of it, that day is now. In this final movie for legendary actor, Edward G. Robinson, "Solent Green" becomes a landmark classic. Many a film buff and environmentalist believe this is our eventual history. The movie is taken from the novel entitled, 'Make room, make room' but who's working title was changed to "Solent Green." The story concerns the Earth as it evolves into the future with the world's environmental problems becoming nothing short of Catastrophic. The planet's natural resources have been exhausted and basic food has been reduced to simple staples. They come in a variety of colors, such as Solent Yellow, Solent Red, and now 'Solent Green.' However there are those who know the 'real' ingredient in Solent Green and cringe at their own culpability and fear divine retribution. The first is a food executive named William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotton). Upon his death, a dedicated police detective called Robert Thorn (Charleston Heston) seeks the truth behind his apparent suicide. Although corruption goes all the way to the top, it begins with Simonsons' Bodyguard, Tad Fielding (Chuck Connors) and Security chief Donnovan (Roy Jenson) who target Thorn for a Waste Desposal Factory. Thorn's boss, Lt. Hatcher (Brock Peters) believes his suspicions but warns him of those 'Higher and Hot' who want the case closed, but Thorn will not risk his "Job" for an easy way out. What Thorn discovers marks him for death, but like the film, awaits a final warning. **** The world of the 1973 sci-fi drama SOYLENT GREEN is what we could be seeing if we aren't careful. It is a world in which New York City's population has topped the 40 million mark in the year 2022. Overpopulation, air pollution, year-long heat waves, and food shortages are the rule. The only hope comes from a food product called Soylent Green. But what is this particular food stuff really made of? That question is at the heart of this admittedly somewhat dated but still intriguing film, based on Harry Harrison's 1966 novel "Make Room! Make Room!" Charlton Heston stars as Thorne, an NYPD detective who comes across the murder of a top corporate executive (Joseph Cotten). As it turns out, Cotten was on the board of directors of the Soylent Corporation, the people responsible for all those food stuffs that the people have to consume in lieu of the real thing. Heston believes that this wasn't just a garden-variety murder, that Cotten was bumped off for a reason. He gets a lot of help from his slightly cantankerous but very astute "book" (Edward G. Robinson, in his 101st and final cinematic appearance), and a few timely reminders of what the world used to be like. What Robinson finds out about Soylent Green shocks him beyond all imagination; but before he can tell Heston all of what he knows, he has himself euthanized. And when Heston does indeed find out the secret of Soylent Green...well, that part has become immortalized into cinematic history.

Under the very professional guiding hand of director Richard Fleischer (THE BOSTON STRANGLER; FANTASTIC VOYAGE), SOYLENT GREEN is a fairly grim but thought-provoking look at a Dystopian future that humanity might be living if we don't curb our tendency to strip our planet of its natural resources. Indeed, this was a project that Heston himself had had in mind for filming as far back as 1968, after he had struck gold in the sci-fi genre with PLANET OF THE APES--a fact that probably gets lost whenever his ultra-conservative political philosophy comes up in conversation (after all, SOYLENT GREEN is hardly a tract for unrestrained capitalism). Robinson, as always, is the consummate professional in his last role; the sequence where he is euthanized (as he looks at video of the world from a better era, set to the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) is quite simply heartbreaking. The film also benefits from solid supporting help from Chuck Connors (as a very convincing heavy), Brock Peters (as Heston's superior), and Leigh Taylor-Young as the woman who tries to help Heston in his inquiries.

It must seem easy these days to dismiss SOYLENT GREEN for being dated. But those who do it ought to think twice; for this film's world may end up becoming ours in actuality if we don't watch what we do with what we have today. NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens.

The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.

The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.

Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.

This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass. Truly amazing film, the concept as a possible prophetic vision of the future is frightening. A world vastly overpopulated, unbearable heat due to the damaged ozone layer, and all our natural resources spent. In this nightmarish degenerate society we have the great Charlton Heston as a likable film noirish style detective trying to fathom the truth behind a murder, opposite the film noir legend Edward G Robinson turning in a fine last performance.

One of the images that will always stay with me from this film, is the masses of people that populate the stairwells and the way in which Thorne (Heston) has to hop through them every time he uses them.

The movie's use of music is note worthy too, although it contains no score in the usual sense, The opening theme is good, and the subsequent snatches of music we here in Simonson's apartment, and especially the Beethoven pieces in the euthanasia clinic are outstandingly atmospheric. Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...

Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.

The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.

The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.

One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.

The Bottom Line:

An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy. Soylent Green I found to be an excellent movie.

If you like Logan's Run you'll like this.

Yes the movie is old and there are no special effects and some of the acting can somewhat be best described as "cheesy" but the story is excellent.

The story of how the world can be and its impact on society is very poignant.

At the end the mystery wasn't a mystery but the story unfolded in an easy at the right pace.

It's nearest modern day equivalent would be "Dark Angel" in terms of how the US is shown to be third-world country. My evaluation: 8/10

I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), "Soylent Green" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.

Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat "cookies" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.

Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like "Reality Show".

TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.

If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie. Especially for a time when not much science fiction was being filmed (1973), this is a terrific vision of a future where everything has gone wrong. Too many people, and nothing works. The only people who can live in comfort are the rich. It's set in New York in 2022 (I think), and it reminds you of your worst vision of Calcutta.

I got to appreciate Charlton Heston's acting after seeing him in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. He was (maybe is) capable of portraying a range of heroic or semi-heroic people. Here, he is torn between being a cop who is just a little bit corrupt (taking rare food treats from the rich), and being totally corrupt (actively condoning evil).

The movie all seems to take place at night, and sweat is dripping off everyone, except in one of the rare air-conditioned apartments. Even though I hadn't seen it before, I knew the famous ending (which will not here be revealed), but the ending is certainly foreshadowed.

Great scenes with Edward G. Robinson: going to the council (made up of elderly Jews with heavy accents, so it seems), where the truth is revealed. And then going off to the Thanatopsis to check out.

Gritty, pre-Star Wars dystopian science fiction. Not often have i had the feeling of a movie it could be visionary. But clearly this movie has the seed of a premonition.

We should not tend to be alarmists and see armageddon in something because it seems to fit our emotions of the moment. But, didn't we say this of "1984" ? Had James Orwell known the Internet becoming reality not long after 1984; In fact it was in 1994; he might have reconsidered writing his story the way he did. Hindsight rewarded.

It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that we often regard ourselves as superior to our surroundings but indeed become emotional about a "love apple" when necessity knocks at our door. A snapshot of ourselves at old age.

Whatever the time-line will prove to be for us, I know for a fact we haven't seen the beginning of it yet.

This is a great movie but there could be more about Soylent Green. There should be more scenes of what they do to people. How people act in 2022. I think it would be neat to see if all this does happen in the year 2022 and beyond. Even if you still know what the secret is it is a great movie. So go rent or buy this movie right NOW!! I've seen tons of science fiction from the 70s; some horrendously bad, and others thought provoking and truly frightening. Soylent Green fits into the latter category. Yes, at times it's a little campy, and yes, the furniture is good for a giggle or two, but some of the film seems awfully prescient. Here we have a film, 9 years before Blade Runner, that dares to imagine the future as somthing dark, scary, and nihilistic. Both Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson fare far better in this than The Ten Commandments, and Robinson's assisted-suicide scene is creepily prescient of Kevorkian and his ilk. Some of the attitudes are dated (can you imagine a filmmaker getting away with the "women as furniture" concept in our oh-so-politically-correct-90s?), but it's rare to find a film from the Me Decade that actually can make you think. This is one I'd love to see on the big screen, because even in a widescreen presentation, I don't think the overall scope of this film would receive its due. Check it out. In the '70s, Charlton Heston starred in sci-fi flicks of varying quality. "Soylent Green" is one of the better ones. He plays Robert Thorn, a detective in 2022 New York. In this future, most food is so expensive that everyone needs a product called Soylent Green. But when Thorn finds out the unsavory truth about this product, he finds himself on the run.

I guess that it's only natural that this movie should seem dated to us nowadays. But even so, it still brings up interesting questions about what will become of our agriculture. Also starring Leigh Taylor-Young, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters, Joseph Cotten and Edward G. Robinson (in his final role). This movie came to me highly recommended by Matt Groening. Well actually I watched both The Simpsons and Futurama and it gets a mention in both so I figured "what the heck". The film brings home a few "what if's" that make you realise how lucky we are in this day and age where we take simple things like soap and water for granted. Interesting though that in the year 2022 men are still shaving with a single blade safety razor! Nice that Those responsible didn't over load the film with unnecessary special effects, ray guns, etc. Some nice looking 'furniture' once you figure out what that means. Remember, "Tuesday is Soylent Green Day" Soylent Green is a classic. I have been waiting for someone to re-do it.They seem to be remaking sci-fi classics these days (i.e. War of the Worlds)and I am hoping some director/producer will re-do Soylent Green. With todays computer animation and technology, it would have the potential to be a great picture. Anti-Utopian films may not be that far-fetched. The human race breeds like roaches with no outside influence to curtail it. We, as humans, have the option of putting the kibosh on the procreation of lesser species if they get out of hand, but there's nothing to control human breeding except for ourselves. Despite all the diseases, wars, abortions, birth control, etc. the human race still multiplies like bacteria in a petri dish. Classic Malthusian economics states that any species, including humans, will multiply beyond their means of subsistence. 6 billion and growing....that's obscene. This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: "1984", "2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's). In this movie the year 2022 looks much like the seventies. This is amusing at first, but soon the viewer perceives how very different that decadent futuristic world is despite the appearances, how many things that we take for granted could become unavailable.

Characters often interact in a peculiar way, with no tact or manners or respect. I believe this is intentional, not bad acting. After all, who witnessed the social changes in the 60s and 70s may well assume that by 2022 an overpopulated city's inhabitants behave like that.

I didn't like most of the action scenes, apart the death of the priest: too cheap even for the seventies. The plot isn't too polished. But the great scenes and ideas - like the death of Sol, the way rioters and dead bodies are dealt with, the "furniture" - outweigh the shortcomings of this film.

8 out of 10. "Soylent Green" is one of the best and most disturbing science fiction movies of the 70's and still very persuasive even by today's standards. Although flawed and a little dated, the apocalyptic touch and the environmental premise (typical for that time) still feel very unsettling and thought-provoking. This film's quality-level surpasses the majority of contemporary SF flicks because of its strong cast and some intense sequences that I personally consider classic. The New York of 2022 is a depressing place to be alive, with over-population, unemployment, an unhealthy climate and the total scarcity of every vital food product. The only form of food available is synthetic and distributed by the Soylent company. Charlton Heston (in a great shape) plays a cop investigating the murder of one of Soylent's most eminent executives and he stumbles upon scandals and dark secrets... The script is a little over-sentimental at times and the climax doesn't really come as a big surprise, still the atmosphere is very tense and uncanny. The riot-sequence is truly grueling and easily one of the most macabre moments in 70's cinema. Edward G. Robinson is ultimately impressive in his last role and there's a great (but too modest) supportive role for Joseph Cotton ("Baron Blood", "The Abominable Dr. Phibes"). THIS is Science-Fiction in my book: a nightmarish and inevitable fade for humanity! No fancy space-ships with hairy monsters attacking our planet. In terms of the arts, the 1970s were a very turbulent era. In literature and the visual arts, it was the closing of a great fifty or sixty year period of creativity that has yet to be restarted. In music it was a decade that many see as a low point, due to corporate rock and disco. On television it was a Golden Age for situation comedies, from The Odd Couple to the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to All In The Family, but in film it was even a greater period of creativity, in all genres, that saw the rise of the American auteur- directors like Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese- from the ashes of the old studio systems that had dominated Hollywood for over half a century. These directors wanted to craft literate, arts films for the masses, of the sort that had been staples in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the studios were trying to keep pace, with socially aware films of the sort not seen since the 1930s.

But, unlike the films of the 1930s, starring actors like Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield (usually co-starring the Dead End Kids), that dealt with social issues in a gritty realistic way, or as realistic as one could get on a sound stage, the social consciousness of the late 1960s and early 1970s manifested itself most in science fiction films, which allowed the Left Wing of Hollywood to preach to the masses under the guise of what most considered little above comic strip entertainment. There was precedent for this approach, for several of the flying saucer films of the 1950s dealt with the political zeitgeist of the McCarthy era- most notably The Day The Earth Stood Still and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. And the early 1960s saw Rod Serling constantly subverting the political conservatism of the time by casting social issues into science fiction settings on his classic sci fi television anthology show The Twilight Zone. Among the studio offerings of this time were the ecologically sensitive Silent Running; George Lucas's first film THX 1138, which dealt with consumerism, group think, and existentialism; and Logan's Run, which hammered away at Communism and state control versus the rights of an individual. Some of the film's references are quite heavyhanded- and reek of the then current Arab oil crisis and rampant inflation. A few jarred strawberries cost $150, and Soylent rations its assorted colored foods- Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the new Soylent Green, reputedly made from 'the finest undersea growth,' in a manner not unlike the gas rationing of the time. Scenes of food riots are eerie echoes of the oil riots at many gas stations during the year of the film's release, and the scenes of crowding, and bodies, live and dead, lying all about are still chilling, as well as influential. A later film like Escape From New York is an obvious progeny. The rest of the script, by Stanley R. Greenberg, however, is rather pedestrian, and fairly standard for a dystopian flick, but Fleischer and cinematographer Richard H. Kline do a great job of filling the screen with interesting images and sounds, to spice things up. The use of soft, dimly lit visuals, murkily filtered, add a Stygian feel to the New York of the film, almost like a colorized version of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr. The only light in the film comes from artificial sources, and were it not for the fashion faux pas the film could truly seem timeless.

The end of the film, where Thorn sneaks into the processing plant where human corpses are made into Soylent Green wafers, is both chilling, and oddly drama-less. In the end, the Soylent minions hunt Thorn down, but he survives long enough to utter the film's catchphrase to Chief Hatcher. Yet, one does not know if it is enough, for Hatcher has already been co-opted, and has a track record of taking the easy way out. Yet, that fact, and its ambiguity, shows that the film does not recapitulate its characters' dilemmas, and has a depth many later, better made films, sci fi or not, do not have. It is also why Soylent Green is still a film worth watching. Its time to pay tribute to the great Charton Heston after his recent passing but this film is not the one. His other films of a past generation were BEN HUR, THE TEN COMMANDENTS, OMEGA MAN and PLANET OF THE APES were his better works.

This film made in 1973 attempts to prophesies a future earth , in 2022, that is so overpopulated that the human race has been manipulated by authorities to eat a universally produced food product called "Soylent Green" which is manufactured with Human flesh. This bizarre and implausible film was as ridiculous at the time of its release as it is now and assumes India's population which would be about 2 billion by that stage would be then meat eaters without knowing it.

Charlton Heston's character this supers secret international conspiracy that world powers have concocted to meet the nutritional demands of overpopulation by using cannibalism.

Unfortunately for the producers of this film the Green message they deliver is not the Greens Party of today's ethos thank god. Cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous populations in New Zealand , Fiji and Borneo up until only 40 years before this film was made but has been long abandoned by human civilization.

Another silly prediction in the film is that women become quasi sex slaves turning back the tide of radical feminism which was on the rise in 1972 when this film was made.

The film was stupid then and is as silly now but does contain a very unmemorable last film performance by the late and great Edward G. Robinson but still no a valid reason to revisit the film other than for academic reasons.

This is a dud of a film and I wouldn't even recommend it to baby boomers or Charlton Heston fans. All the other reviews of this film I have read all sound the same referring to a dystopian society in the future of which the centralised theme only seems to involve the USA in which an ecological disaster has occurred.

The only merit in the film is that earth does face overpopulation. No, this isn't a sequel to the fabulous OVA series, but rather a remake of the events that occurred after the death of Ghim (and the disappearance of Woodchuck). It is also more accurate to the novels that inspired this wonderful series, which is why characters (namely Orson and Shiris) are reintroduced, and why the story may seem slightly different to those used to the OVA. (The booklet included in the set provides excellent answers to such questions, as do various online sites.) The first eight episodes of this 27-part TV series focus on the fateful battle at Demon Dragon Mountain. The remaining 19 episodes introduce us to Spark, a blue-haired knight wannabe who identifies with Parn, and his ragtag team of misfits as they attempt to stop the Dark Wizard Wagnard from resurrecting Kardis the Destroyer.

While it isn't quite the equivalent of the original LODOSS WAR (we all love the finale where Parn saves Deedlit from Wagnard, don't we?), this TV follow-up is still great fun for fantasy fans. Even if the animation is limited (and a step down from the artistic streak of the first LODOSS), this 27-part series has its elements of appeal. The fully-realized characters, engaging storyline, magic, romance, and a superb soundtrack scored by Kaoru Wada of NINJA SCROLL, all give this uneven spin-off some punch.

While the OVA dub of LODOSS has been criticized for one reason or another, I generally liked it and still consider it one of my favorite dubs. So I had significant hopes for the dub for CHRONICLES, made in 1999-2000. For the most part, the LODOSS TV English track is of passable (if not stellar) quality; it does, however, have its share of problems. Much of the original cast who lent their English voices to the characters of LODOSS return (including Lisa Ortiz as Deedlit!), which is a nice bonus. On the other hand, Billy Regan's more mature sounding Parn is a bit offputting. He doesn't do a bad job, but his voice came across as grating for the first eight episodes (causing some anti-dub fans to instantly diss the dub), but by the time Spark and company take the stage, I found it less bothersome. (I don't know if it's because he improved or if it just grew on me.) Also, not everyone from the OAV dub returns. Jayce Reeves only voices Wagnard (terrifically) for one episode; he's replaced by Pete Zarustica for the whole show, who gives a scratchy, but still malevolent turn (as well as the expected evil laughter). Anthony Cruise's Kashue, on the other hand, is too weary and takes about five or so episodes to find his stride. Oliver Gregory is probably the most effective as Orson, especially during his final dramatic scenes.

Aside from Lisa Ortiz (Deedlit), Karen Smith (Shiris), John Knox (Ashram), and Al Muscari (Slayn), the dub's best voices come from some of the newer characters, including Crispin Freeman (Spark, Maar, Garrack -episodes 16-27-), Roxanne Beck (Little Neese), Meg Frances (who voices Pirotess in the OAV but also voices Ryna with vulnerability and sassiness as well as Karla) and especially Angora Deb (who steals every scene she's in as Leaf the Half-Elf). The rest of the cast isn't terrible by any means, but a little more uneven than the OAV dub. Some are all right (Aldonova, Greevus) while others are lackluster (Hobb, palace guards, dragons, etc.) and few were awful (in particular, Prince Reona's VA is too harsh and monotone for a fighter of justice).

In fact the lack of aural continuity (some cast members get new voices for some unexplained reason by the time we get to some of the later episodes) is one of the problems of the dub. Others include less memorable and more awkward sounding dialogue, uneven synchronization, and finally (I apologize in advance to the fans of this) the LODOSS ISLAND segments. These offbeat, super-deformed interludes at the end of each episode will either amuse or drive you batty. Admittingly, I at first found them to be a major nuisance, but they sorta grew on me after a while. (Besides, there are some showstoppingly hilarious lines such as "I'm King Kashue, and this is my CASHEW! I'm REALLY quite a nut!") These flaws rank the dub for CHRONICLES just a notch just below that for the OVA, resulting in an uneven English track summed up best as "OK".

If one wonders if the Japanese language track is the preferred listening choice, well, guess what? The Japanese version has its good and bad points, too. While some voices are less annoying than the English language track, I found others to be less appealing than the English equivalents (in particular, the actress who does Deedlit is nowhere nearly as good as Lisa Ortiz OR Yumi Tohma). Plus, I should mention that the Japanese cast is NOT THE SAME AS THE OVA. Because the series was made seven years after the original, all but one (Sho Hayami) of the cast members are replaced by new ones. Although they do a respectably good job, it may be a major annoyance for those who were used to the Japanese OVA cast. Shows that not everything in Japanese is better than English, eh? Despite its flaws, CHRONICLES OF THE HEROIC KNIGHT is still a fine series which deserves to hold its own ground. Its not without its rough spots and doesn't always live up to its predecessor, yet there's enough good points to counter the bad, making this a moderately enjoyable fantasy Anime. Having just finished Cronicles of the Heroic Knight mere minutes ago I find myself extremely please but questions still loom over me. While it would appear that the first 7 episodes or so are actually a retelling of the events of the first Record of Lodoss War the truth is that they really aren't. It would appear that the creator of CotHK had a different vision as to how the original ended (and that may be the reason that the first 7 episodes occur) but I do not find that to be the case. CotHK does say it starts 5 years after the War of Heros which Parn was a part of. I think the director made the first 5 episodes seem so much like a recap of the original just to give the viewer a small reminder and an introduction to characters and their deeds done because they appear much less after the series kicks into Spark's story. Now, once the series does kick into Spark's portion we find ourselves kicked up another 10 years (15 years now since the War of Heros). Spark and his crew do, in some cases, resemble Parn and his crew once the journey kicks into gear, especially the love story that brews between Spark and Neese. I also thought several times throughout CotHK that I threw in the original series and if it wasn't for Spark's long blue hair I know I would've pressed stop more than once to make sure the right disc was in. By no means do I consider these major set backs however, the writers did a fine job in crafting believable characters and a remarkable storyline. The only thing that makes me hurt is that Ashram and Wagnard return. Ummmm... how??? Don't get me wrong both are great villains even though Ashram's only villainous trait is that he supports the Marmo. Perhaps I missed something during the coarse of the series that explained that part. As far as sequels go though, I highly recommend CotHK. I place both CotHK and, even more so, the original Record of Lodoss War far above the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both of these are more epic than anything I've ever seen or read. I highly recommend this. Despite what the title may imply, "Pigs Is Pigs" does not star Porky Pig. Rather, it features a young swine with an appetite more insatiable than John Belushi's character in "Animal House". His mother repeatedly scolds him, but it does no good. So much so that he goes to another house where a deranged scientist force-feeds him more than any mere mortal can handle (but there's a surprise at the end).

I would mostly say that this cartoon seemed like a place holder in between the really great cartoons (Daffy Duck debuted three months after this came out). But make no mistake about it, they do some neat things here. The whole force-feeding sequence looks more relevant today, given the obesity epidemic overtaking our country.

Anyway, not the greatest cartoon, but worth seeing. A visit by Hitler in Rome is the backdrop of this tender story of love, friendship, homosexuality and fascism. Sophia Loren plays the housewife and mother of six children who stays at home while her entire family go to the military parade in honor of Hitler and Mussolini. She has to stay at home since the family cannot afford a maid. She would have loved to go though as she along with the entire housing complex where she lives is an ardent admirer of Il Duce.

There is one exception though. Across the yard sits Marcello Mastroianni on his chair contemplating suicide. The reason? He is homosexual and because of that has recently lost his job as a radio announcer. The film really takes off when these two people meet by chance. Mastroianni is in despair and badly in need of a friend. Loren, frustrated by her own cheating husband misunderstands Mastroianni and in a masterfully shot, directed and acted scene on the roof of the building complex offers her body to him only to be rejected. The initial chock is replaced soon afterwards by her hunger for this man, this anti fascist, this homosexual, this other world who is so willing to give her all that she longs for.

This is a beautifully crafted movie with two of the most talented actors ever. Loren proves here that she is an actress of caliber when well directed. This is a simple but yet powerful film about fascism, love, ordinary people and most importantly the human condition. Despite its sad ending there is a glimpse of hope in the denouement, things will change, someone has understood. This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece. Ettore Scola, one of the most refined and grand directors we worldly citizens have, is not yet available on DVD... (it's summer 2001 right now....) Mysteries to goggle the mind.

This grand classic returned to the theaters in my home-town thanks to a Sophia Loren - summer-retrospective, and to see it again on the big screen after all these years of viewing it on a video-tape ... it is a true gift.

To avoid a critique but nonetheless try to prove a point: i took my reluctant younger brother with me to see this film. He never saw the film before and "doesn't like those Italian Oldies..." Like all the others in the theater he was intrigued by this wonder. Even during the end-titles the theater remained completely silent.

This SPECIAL DAY is truly special. A wonder of refinement. And a big loss if you haven't seen it (yet)... A SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola - Italy/Canada 1977).

Every once in a while, you come across a film that really touches a nerve. This one offers a very simple premise, almost flawlessly executed in every way and incredibly moving at the same time. It's surprising Ettore Scola's "Una giornate particulare" is relatively unheralded, even hated by some critics. Time Out calls it 'rubbish' and Leonard Maltin, somewhat milder, 'pleasant but trifling.' I disagree, not only because this film is deeply moving, but within its simple story it shows us more insights about daily life in fascist Italy than most films I've seen. The cinematography is distinctly unflashy, even a bit bland, and the storyline straightforward, which might explain the film's relative unpopularity. Considering late '70s audiences weren't exactly spoiled with great Italian films, it's even stranger this one didn't really catch on with the critics.

The film begins with a ten-minute collage of archive footage from Hitler's visit to Italy on may 8th 1938. Set against this background, we first meet Antonietta (Loren), a lonely, love-ridden housewife with six children in a roman apartment building. One day, when her Beo escapes, she meets her neighbour Gabriele (Mastroianni), who seems to be only one in the building not attending the ceremonies. He is well-mannered, cultured and soon she is attracted to him. During the whole film, we hear the fascist rally from the radio of the concierge hollering through the courtyard. Scola playfully uses the camera to make us part of the proceedings. After the opening scene, the camera swanks across the courtyard of the modernist (hypermodern at the time) apartment block, seemingly searching for our main characters, whom we haven't met yet.

Marcello Mastrionani and Sophia Loren are unforgettable in the two leading roles, all the more astonishing since they are cast completely against type. Canadian born John Vernon plays Loren's husband, but he is only on screen in the first and last scene. I figure his voice must have been dubbed, since he's not of Italian descent and never lived there, to my knowledge, so I cannot imagine he speaks Italian. If his voice has been dubbed, I didn't notice at all. On the contrary, he's completely believable as an Italian, even more than the rest of the cast. The story is simple but extremely effective, the performances are outstanding, the ending is just perfect and the framing doesn't come off as overly pretentious but works completely. Don't miss out on this one.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10 I too was quite astonished to see how few people had voted on this film, and just HAD to write something about it, although my comments are quite similar to those written already.

I like many things about the film. The superb acting between Mastroianni & Loren. The way the film is narrated: Humanity and love slowly developing between these two outsiders, and contrasted to the simultaneously & continuously ongoing inhumane marching pace of the fascist radio announcer (who happens to be a colleague of Mastroianni's part)and the adherents "going to and coming from the show". To me this is a very fine film about what it is to be human. Maybe some of you would argue that the anti-fascist "message" is too clearly delivered, but to me this didn't destroy the film in any way. My vote is 10/10. The first thing you meet when you study fascism is ostracism:because this" philosophy " is a fake one,there's a need to use scapegoats to assess the "thought".Ettore Scola's movie,probably his masterpiece, focuses on the outcasts,the scapegoats of the regime.

Of the historical event (Hitler and Mussolini's alliance),we will see almost nothing:some military march,some garlands,some scattered voices ..Our two heroes are not invited for the feast of virility. "Genius is essentially masculine" :this is the golden rule Antonietta (a never better Sophia Loren)embroidered on her cushion;Antonietta ,whose world amounts to her kitchen,whose pride is her offsprings .At the beginning of the movie,she's a victim of this hypermacho world,but she does not realize it.She thinks she should be happy.Gabriel,on the contrary ,is politically aware,he knows about the cancer that is destroying inexorably his country.But as a gay man,he is no longer part of it,he's about to be arrested.

Forgetting everything that comes between them,they realize what they have in common and they make love.This is an act of rebellion,particularly for Antonietta ,whose ethic should forbid such a thing.Becoming an adulteress in a land where politics and religion combine to repress women as ever leads her to some kind of political awareness.One of the last shots shows her listening to the news on the radio.

Expect the unexpected and maybe a doctrine which denies the human being his intimate personality will see that its days are numbered. 'Una Giornata Particolare' is a movie that has a title that sounds so familiar I thought I had seen it more than once. Now that I finally I have seen it, I am very glad. This is one of the better Italian movies I know, with one of the most wonderful performances by Marcello Mastroianni, who stars in other masterpieces such as 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2', both from the great Federico Fellini. Directed by Ettore Scola, this is a movie that takes the time to introduce the characters and slowly develops a story on a special day, the day Adolf Hitler visited Rome.

Marcello Mastroianni plays Gabriele, the neighbor of Antonietta (Sophia Loren). She is a member of Mussolini's party, pretty fanatic in her thoughts, and he is a member no more. The reason for that I will not reveal. On the day every person from their building, including her husband and children, is out to see Hitler, they are still in the building. Antonietta's bird escapes and flies to Gabriele's apartment, and this is how the two meet. Right before Antonietta went to Gabriele he thought of killing himself, again for reasons I will not reveal. How the story develops from here I will not reveal, but it is what happens between the two that makes this such a special day, not the fact that Hitler is in Rome.

Like I said, Mastroianni has a wonderful performance. You see he is a man who desperately wants someone around him, although at first we don't know why. May be he likes Antonietta, may be he is in love with her, may be there are other reasons. Antonietta feels what we feel. What does this man want from her? She likes the attention anyway. We see how she does her hair to look attractive for the man. Loren plays the scenes very good as well. We understand her questions, although we can't be sure what her intentions are. The moments where we find out both their secrets, if that is what you can call it, is a great moment. How the story develops from there is even more interesting, but I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a movie you should see. Great performances and a beautiful cinematography, and the message it gives us still stands today. I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual!

By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.

The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences! A May day 1938 when happen a huge rally celebrating Hitler's visit to Rome serves as the backdrop for a love story between Antoniette(Sophia Loren)married to fascist(John Vernon) and Gabriel(Marcello Mastroianni). She's a boring housewife with several sons and he's a unhappy, solitary homosexual fired from radio and pursued by the fascists. She's left alone in her home when her spouse must to attend the historical celebration. Then both develop a very enjoyable relationship in spite of their differences. The film is set on the historic meeting Fuher Hitler and Duce Mussolini along with others authorities as Count Ciano and King Victor Manuel III, describing the events by a radio-voice in off which sometimes is irritating.

It's a romantic drama carried out with sense and sensibility. An unrelentingly passionate romance between two conflicting characters. Magnificent performances from two pros make a splendid movie well worth seeing. Of course Ruggero Macarri and Ettore Scola's sensible screenplay results in ever interesting, elaborate and sentimental. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Pascualino De Santis. Emotive musical score by Armando Trovajoly with sensitive leitmotif. The film won deservedly Golden Globes 1978 to best Foreign Film.

Director Scola's imagination stretches to light up the limited scenarios where are developing the drama. Usually his films take place on a few stages and are semi-theatrical. For example : ¨Le Bal¨(1982) uses a French dance-hall to illustrate the changes in society 2)¨Nuit of Varennes(1983) a stagecoach is the scenario where meet an unlikely group as Thomas Paine, Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette who fled from revolutionary Paris 3) ¨The family¨(1987)all take place in the family's grand old Roman flat; and of course 4)¨Una Giornata Particulare¨ or ¨A special day¨ where Loren and Mastroianni strikes up a marvelous relationship into their respective apartments and at the flat roof. Una giornata particolare is a film which has made brilliant use of closed spaces.It is in these dull,empty spaces that the audience sees the emotional turmoil and boisterous outbursts of Ettore Scola's two leading characters.Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren play two frustrated individuals who decide to come together for some brief moments of their listless lives.It is the element of sadness associated with the narrative that makes us believe that people will take sides with characters close to them.All men would really feel sorry for Sophia Loren's character.All women would surely cry their hearts out at Marcello Mastroianni's existential plight.Disguised sexualities are also one of the key issues of this somber,poignant film.Most of the characters grapple with issues related to their own sexualities.Una giornata particolare cannot be termed as a pro gay film although it has been nicely depicted that a homosexual chap mixes well with women.This is a film for which Italian director Ettore Scola has crafted a fairly good mix of fact and fiction.His idea is to show how the arrival of Hitler changed destinies of ordinary Italian folks.A word about the courageous personnage played magnificently by great Marcello Mastroianni.He acts as a real man who does not beg for pity.He happily accepts his fate and readies himself to face the worst time of his short yet meaningful life.A true masterpiece of cinema !!! First of all for this movie I just have one word: 'wow'. This is probably, one of the best movies that touched me, from it's story to it's performances, so wonderfully played by Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni. I was very impressed with this last one, because he really brought depth to the character, as it was a very hard role. Still, the two of them formed a pair, that surprised me, from the beginning until the end, showing in the way, a friendship filled with love, that develops during the entire day, settled in the movie. The story takes some time to roll, as the introduction of the characters is long, but finally we are compensated with a wonderful tale about love and humanity. If you have the chance, see it, because it's a movie that will stay in your mind for many time. Simply amazing - 9/10. While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.

The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.

Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it. Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film! May 1938. Hitler in Italy. Preparations for historical appointment with Mussolini.Emotions , tensions and forms of self-affirmation. a empty town, a housewife and a journalist. The meeting of two different worlds. Refuge for a mother with a sad life. Short filling for a classical victim. A story about solitude and silence. About the form of of life's nooks and desire like fight's form. The great character- a book gifted in a spring's afternoon. This movie is a poem, remarkable for the art to describe the shades of common loneliness. A pleading for a ineffable relation with reality. And with your interior world. The pictures of Il Duce, the clumsiness of Antonietta, the patience and the frailty tension of Gabriele, the art of director to give the sense of script grace two great actors makes this film sublime, foretaste of subtle delicacy, a wonderful film about hypocrisy and arbitrary verdict, about essence of life and repulsiveness of any tyranny. Loren and Mastroianni are the masters of a magnificent intelligent acting. A clear masterpiece. This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.

Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!

A masterpiece!

This film makes a strong comment about the Italian people of the time. The use of the mirrors to enhance the revelations of the characters is lovely and I can't not mention the beauty and magnificence of Sophia Loren and Mastroianni. I love them both. Their way of interacting is so beautiful and natural that you may question whether or not the camera is actually there. The husband, in his brief role, is also excellently portrayed as the fascist Italian who commands his wife and children but, in his own way, a loving father. The beginning scenes with Hitler at Piazza Venezia with all the Italians is incredible and really places the film historically. I loved the film and I also agree that it is funny it isn't more renowned. there should be a sub-genre in the Western called 'the Robert Mitchum Western'. Mitchum's brilliant, idiosyncratic, usually undervalued Westerns import his film noir persona to etch some compellingly dark character sketches, and bring an elegiac world-weariness more familiar from the films of Sam Peckinpah. 'Man with the gun' is one of his best. Directed by Orson Welles protege Richard Wilson, it is a stark, monochrome beauty, full of chilling silhouettes and terrifying outbursts of savage violence, as Mitchum comes to tame a town terrorised by a monopolist with a private army. Mitchum's regression from soft-spoken stranger to deranged murderer, with a host of dark emotions in between, is a marvel of expressive, physical acting. Very good western.This was the first time writer Richard Wilson directed a film, also this was a first for Samuel Goldwyn Junior as a producer. It is a pleasure to see a very young and pretty Angie Dickinson as a saloon girl. Robert Mitchum comes to this town dominated by outlaws and is hired as a town tamer, but people are worried that he will go too far, also about the harm that he will do to the town´s businesses. There are some similarities in the story with "Warlock" which was made in 1959. This film keeps a very fast and exciting pace, it really keeps you on the edge. I don't remember ever seeing this one before tonight, probably the title sounded so ordinary it kept passing me by. But it is a well crafted b Western, with an interestingly brooding storyline complimented by acting veering from the good to corny.

Robert Mitchum slopes into wide open town looking for his wife and news of their daughter, and stays for a time as town-tamer. As usual the good business folk have mixed emotions - they want to get rid of the baddies but like the business they bring. It still applies: relax drink and gambling laws and encourage the industries but pretend to deplore the seedy effects it can have on ordinary people. What's fascinating about this film is Mitchum's cynically intense portrayal in going about cleaning the town of baddies, and the townsfolk's acceptance that his violent methods were the only ones. Favourite bit: the sudden demise of 2 of the baddies in the Red Dog saloon. The firing of the main saloon bordered on nasty, but it was an effective way to combat the spread of poison.

Overall a very good film with its only fault tending to be a little hokeyness - not so good for Do-Gooders who would probably prefer a lifetime of negotiation with Evil rather than end it. Man With the Gun is pretty much forgotten now, but caused a minor storm of media interest back in 1955 when Robert Mitchum turned down both Jett Rink in Giant (which had actually been written for him and which was subsequently substantially reworked) and Charles Laughton's intended version of The Naked and the Dead to make it instead. Despite some obvious production problems and some harsh lighting that occasionally renders both Mitch and Jan Sterling in unflattering tones, it's a terrific dark western that more than stands comparison with his earlier Blood on the Moon as his 'town tamer' sets to work on a town that never had the chance to grow up before getting run down by the local badmen before turning out to – possibly – be almost as bad as the men he dispatches. Certainly his way of dealing with news of a death in the family – burning a saloon to the ground and goading its manager into trying to kill him – doesn't inspire much confidence in his stability. As well as a good script and a surprisingly good supporting turn from the usually irritating but here well cast Henry Hull, it also boasts a strikingly good early Alex North score, which even includes an early workout for one of his tormented emotional cues that would later turn up in Spartacus. Clint Tollinger arrives in a small town looking for his estranged wife and news of his daughter, tho he finds her, the chance of any sort of reconciliation is very slim. Whilst here, the sheriff and the important townsfolk learn of Tollinger's reputation as a pistol specialist town tamer. As they are living in fear of a mysterious landowner who is stripping the town from them bit by bit, they hold a meeting that chooses to hire Tollinger to rid the town of it's unsavoury elements.

Man With The Gun seems to be either a forgotten piece or a vastly under seen one, at the time of me writing this, it has just over 200 votes and a paltry 9 user comments written for it. It's a shame on either score because although the production values scream out that this is a B movie Western, this is a fine entry in the Western genre. That the piece takes on a rather standard plot theme of an harangued town turning to an avenging dark angel, probably hasn't done the film any favours over the years, i myself read the synopsis and thought it's just another in the line of similarly themed pictures. Yet i was pleasantly surprised to find a darkly dramatic picture boasting many enjoyable moments, both technically and as a functioning story.

Robert Mitchum is in the lead as Tollinger, perfectly cast, he strides thru the picture like some brooding menace. We often talk about the screen presence that John Wayne and Charlton Heston had {justifiably of course}, Mitchum is right up there with the best of them. One sequence here sees him standing in the shadows at the back of a room as a meeting takes place, we don't see his face, but we can feel that piercing brood staring out at us!. The rest of the cast are also very much in Mitchum's shadow, so really it's solely with the big man that the films acting credentials are high, perhaps it's unfair to single out Ted de Corsia for a kick, but Man With The Gun's minor failings are with its villains, and sadly de Corsia is lacking any sort of villainesque menace. The score from Alex North is excellently layered {fans of Spartacus will certainly be pricking their ears up} and the cinematography from Lee Garmes is highly impressive when one realises that the majority of this picture was shot on the studio lot. Directed and co-written by first time director Richard Wilson, Man With The Gun holds few surprises for the genre, but it's dark in tone, violent and above all else, highly watchable. 7.5/10 Robert Mitchum stars as Clint Tollinger in this short but tough western: Man With The Gun. Tollinger is a professional town tamer - as in, when a town needs someone to save itself; he is the one who is brought in to do it. Tollinger's latest gig comes by as an accident: strolling into town looking for his former fling, he stumbles into a town being played like a puppet by a local western gangster. But many townspeople begin to rue the day they hired Tollinger, as his way of cleaning up the town becomes very taxing (suddenly High Plains Drifter seems less original).

Man With The Gun starts off as an average western tough-guy film but begins to surprise you more and more as the film progresses. What starts off as forgettable and run-of-the-mill ends up dark and character-centered. The entire film is very well shot and the cast is very enjoyable. Mitchum is his usual excellent self here in Man With The Gun - not one of his very best performances, Mitchum still has his classic and effective tough-guy screen presence in high gear and he knocks the action-packed, meaningful, and shocking scenes of the film right out of the park. Man With The Gun is a nice Mitchum western and is easily worth one's time. In the Old west there are always the men who live breathe violence and the women who hold their breath. A famous ¨town tamer¨ named Clit Tollinger(Robert Mitchum) comes hired by the citizens to rid the gunslingers ( Leo Genn, Claude Atkins, among others), Baronland's hoodlums. There he meets the blacksmith (Emile Meyer) , his daughter (Karen Sharpe), her boyfriend(John Lupton), the marshal(Henry Hull) and the Saloon owner (Ted De Corsia). Clint as lawman is appointed deputy to bring peace and puts some cartels saying the following : ¨ Warning , wearing of guns or other weapons in town is banned. Check all hardware at the marshal's office ¨. Clint finds his ex-girlfriend, a local madame (Jan Sterling) in charge of the Saloon girls( Angie Dickinson, Barbara Lawrence, among them). But the town council afraid the raw methods carried out by Clint . At the end the kingpin landowner appears and attempts to murder Tollinger with his own hands.

This is a tremendously exciting story of a sheriff-for-hire who had only one more killing to go. It begins as a slow-moving Western but follows to surprise us with dark characters and solid plot. The tale is almost grim , a pacifier comes to a town just in time to make sure its citizenry but later the events get worse . The highlights are the burning at Saloon and the climatic showdown at the ending. Phenomenal and great role for Robert Mitchum as avenger angel and bitter gunfighter, he's the whole show. Vivid and lively musical score by Alex North (Spartacus, Cleopatra), Atmospheric cinematography in black and white by Lee Garmes. The motion picture is stunningly realized by Richard Wilson (Al Capone , Three in Attic) who made good Western as ¨Invitation to a gunfighter and ¨Zane Grey¨ episodes. Watchable results for this offbeat Western. What I expected: A rather lame overly-stereotypical portrayal of a sports-mad guy and an equally lame stereotypical portrayal of the gal who likes him yet suffers while being second banana to his overly zealous support for his favorite sports team.

What I got: An even-handed story where both guy and gal end up admitting -- to themselves and each other -- that they each have passions in their lives yet each can forgive the other to save the love they share.

Sounds sappy but with the nonstop humor and terrific performances this story works! Barrymore is classic Barrymore: that perfect blend of sweet, strong, and adorable. We expect that from her and she delivered.

But Fallon is the nice surprise in this film. He brings to the role the perfect blend of sports nut combined with the appreciation for the normal things in life, like caring about kids and his girlfriend. Fallon delivers his lines with subtle perfection. He can be caring ("You just ran across the field for me!") and in the same breath be obliviously blinded by his love for the Red Sox ("How did the grass feel? Kinda spongy?") at the same time. Fallon's portrayal "made" the movie. Hopefully, this movie marks the beginning of a better film career for Fallon, something beyond the over-the-top sophomoric humor typical of SNL alums (i.e. Will Ferrell).

In short, a movie that could have fallen victim to stereotypical male vs. female characters rose above that limitation and provided nonstop spot-on humorous lines, most delivered with brilliant subtlety by Fallon.

Hey, I saw this with my wife -- not a baseball fan -- and she loved it as much as I did. It's neither a "Guy Flick" nor a "Chick Flick". It's a terrific make-you-laugh flick. Go see it! I went to see Fever Pitch with my Mom, and I can say that we both loved it. It wasn't the typical romantic comedy where someone is pining for the other, and blah blah blah... You weren't waiting for the climatic first kiss or for them to finally get together. It was more real, because you saw them through the relationship, rather than the whole movie be about them getting together. People could actually relate to the film, because it didn't seem like extraordinary circumstances, or impossible situations. It was really funny, and I think it was Jimmy Fallon's best performance. All in all... I would definitely recommend it! My daughter gets really put out at me when I refer to Drew Barrymore as looking as if she'd been hit in the face with a frying pan, not to mention her Dudley Dooright chin that Jay Leno would die for. How wonderful, then, when I discovered in "Fever Pitch" that I really like Miss Barrymore; and Jimmy Fallon; and the Red Sox; and Boston! This film is probably best characterized as a sweet, light comedy. To be absolutely stereotypical, the girls will like the movie for its romantic charm and Jimmy Fallon's vulnerability, and the boys will like it for all the male bonding and the depiction of sports mania.

My sports-hating wife, my teenage daughter, and I all found something to like in the film. That says something in itself. It's a pleasant way to spend an hour and a half or so, and is probably a really good date flic, too. If you enjoy romantic comedies then you will find this tale of two 30 year old singles who fall in love during the American League pennant race satisfying. On the other hand, if you are hanging around waiting for Kill Bill Volume 3 or Sin City 2 then you probably should stay away. The plot contains the obligatory guy meets girl's friends, girl meets guy's friends, and guy meets girl's parents scenes. There is even a guy meets girl's pet dog scene. That's all par for the course in a movie like this. However, what I liked about it was that the plot delved into the decision making process people make as they begin to realize that their romantic interest is not perfect and is in fact a bit quirky. The plot centers around answering the questions; how much quirkiness is too much and how much love does it take to trump those quirks? It is interesting to see the characters work that out because deep down (if we admit it) we all have quirks. Barrymore does a very good job in her role and Fallon sorta surprised me -- he's good as well. I rate it a 7 out of 10 as a romantic comedy. Add one point if you are a baseball fan or romantically involved with one. Add another point if you are a Red Sox fan and subtract two points if you are a Yankees fan. I saw this movie on Thursdays night after having a really boring day. I had no expectations, those I had were rather negative. Being that the only movie I've ever watched Jimmy in is the American version of Taxi with Queen Latifah(?)...don't ask why! But seriously..this movie is so cute! Drew Barrymore is always sweet, but I almost fell in love with Fallon's character. Why can't I meet a cute nerd like that. :) Movies like that are excellent. Simple, sweet and necessary. Sunday on a Thursdays. I'm not even a sports fan, but it's something about American movies with baseball that fascinates me. Probably the fact that we don't have that sport here in Norway.

(My first comment ever.) Haha "Fever Pitch" is a sweet and charming addition to the small genre of sports romances as date movies or movies a son could be willing to go to with his mother (though the guys in the audience got noticeably restless during the romantic scenes).

I have lived through a milder version of such a story, as my first exposure to baseball was dating my husband the spring after the Mets first World Series win and then I watched the Mets clinch their next one because I was the one still up in the wee hours with our two little sons, who have grown up to teach me more about baseball through our local neighborhood National League team's other heartbreaking failures to win it again (and it was me who took our older son to his only Fenway Park game as I caught a bit of Red Sox fever as a graduate student in Boston).

So compared to reality, the script believably creates two people with actual jobs. It is particularly impressive that Drew Barrymore's character is a substantive workaholic who has anti-Barbie skills, though she pretty much only visits with her three bland girlfriends during gym workouts that allow for much jiggling and the minor side stories with her parents don't completely work.

It is even set up credibly how she meets Jimmy Fallon's math teacher and how she falls for his "winter guy" -- though it's surprising that his Red Sox paraphernalia filled apartment didn't tip her off to his Jekyll-and-Hyde "summer guy." Their relationship crisis during the baseball season is also played out in a refreshingly grown-up way, from efforts at compromise to her frank challenges to him, centered around that they are both facing thirty and single. Fallon surprisingly rises to his character's gradual emotional maturity.

While the ending borrows heavily from O. Henry, the script writers did a yeoman job of quickly incorporating the Sox's incredible 2004 season into a revised story line (with lots of cooperation from the Red Sox organization for filming at the stadium).

The script goes out of its way to explain why Fallon doesn't have a Boston accent, as an immigrant from New Jersey, but that doesn't explain why his motley friends don't. The most authentic sounding Boston sounds come from most of his "summer family" of other season ticket holders, who kindly kibitz the basics of Sox lore to neophyte Barrymore (and any such audience members).

The song selection includes many Red Sox fans' favorites, from the opening notes of the classic "Dirty Water," though most are held to be heard over the closing credits as if you are listening to local radio and are worth sitting through to hear. The Farrelly brothers, Bobby and Peter, are at it again. With "Fever Pitch" the creators of other films that have dealt with a lot of gross themes, abandon that tactic when they decided to bring Nick Hornby's film to the screen, something that it would have been hard to do. The novel, of the same title, dealt with a man's obsession with soccer, since it is set in England, where that sport consumes most of British sports fans. It's to the credit of the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandell, to transform the book into a language that would appeal to most Americans, when they make their hero, a Boston Red Sox fan.

"Fever Pitch" is a film that presents an obsessive fan, Ben Wrightly, whose life revolves into the Red Sox season, and who is an eighth grade teacher with uncanny ways for involving his students into the subject he tries to teach them. When Ben takes four of his best pupils for a tour of a local firm, he meets, and falls hopelessly in love with the brainy Lindsey Meeks, a young woman who is going places, but at thirty, has no life of her own.

The story follows the two lovers through the ritual of attending the Red Sox, at home games, in Fenway Park. This team's fans are probably the most loyal people in the world, having stuck with a team that does marvelous things but, until 2004, never won a World Series. In fact, the ending, from what we heard, had to be changed because that was the year in which they finally won the event that had eluded them for eighty six years! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon are perfect as the couple at the center of the film. Ms. Barrymore is a natural who always surprises in her appearances in front of the camera. Jimmy Fallon, a popular television comedian, turned movie actor, has a better opportunity here than in his last appearance in "Taxi", in our humble opinion.

The Farrelly brothers film will satisfy their fans as well as baseball fans with this baseball tale. Fever Pitch is a fun enough movie. It has a lot of funny moments (including a hilariously disturbing shower scene). Like most romantic comedies, it has a "dead zone" in the middle where all the heavy, "she's breaking up with me" stuff happens, but other than that it continues to be funny until the end.

Even though the plot revolves around fanaticism towards the Red Sox, it's not overloaded with sports. You don't have to be a fan to enjoy this film.

Of course that's easy for me to say: I've been a Red Sox fan since I was a boy, too.

7 out of 10.

Barky This is a great movie for the true romantics and sports lovers alike.

Drew Barrymore is at her best in this movie. As a Drew fan it was quite nice to see her shine after having several flops. I had my doubts about Jimmy Fallon but he totally delivered as Ben the comical, sports crazed sweetheart. The comedy in this movie is great, there were several laugh out loud moments.

Their first date started rocky when he showed up at her apartment with flowers and she was sick to her stomach from eating a new place earlier in the day. Instead of leaving he helps take care of her, helping her change into pajama's then cleaning up the puke on her toilet and bathroom later telling her that she was 'very lady-like...no chunks.' Everything goes great between Ben and Lindsay the whole winter but then baseball season starts. Lindsay starts to realize just how obsessed Ben is with the Red Sox and why this seemingly great guy is still single. She tries to shrug it off and think of it as a good thing as she has a busy work schedule and she wont feel guilty for working extra hours while he is at games. She even buys all the books on The Red Sox she can find including one on 'The curse of Bambino'.

Everything is going pretty well until Lindsay has a false alarm having missed her period. It both makes them both realize how serious they are getting and she begins to question if this is the person she wants to be with. A very touching part in the movie is after she tells him she got her period it shows him sadly putting away a baby sized Red Sox jersey he had bought just in case she was pregnant.

Eventually Ben tries to show her how important she is and decides to go to her friends birthday Party after she said "I had to check my calender and when I saw the there was a Red Sox/Yankee game I knew I would be going stag'. After the party Ben tells her it was 'the best night of his life'. Shortly after he gets a call from his pal who went to the game he gave up for the party and told him "IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER!!!" Ben freaks out about missing it and ends up really hurting Lindsay when she says "A few minutes ago you were saying this was the best night of your life" he says "well that was a few minutes ago."

So they separate for a while, he realizes how immature his obsession is and decides to sell his season tickets which he inherited from his uncle because if he didn't it would 'remind him too much of what he gave up for them'. Lindsay finds out through a friend and decides to stop him realizing he is doing it for her. It ends very sweetly showing how his childhood love for baseball has been over shadowed for a whole new deeper love, Lindsay. They still go to the games and even attend the final World Series game and St. Louis and it is a happy ending all around. 2 thumbs up!! I have to admit that I went into Fever Pitch with low expectations. It's no huge revelation for me to say that Jimmy Fallon's last movie (Taxi) was Catwomanly bad, and the trailers for Fever Pitch were all right but didn't mesmerize me. I was already preparing some cheesy baseball puns for my review...

"I like Jimmy Fallon, but Taxi was strike one in his movie career. Well, now we've got steeeeee-riiiiiike twoooooooo! One more strike, and it's back to SNL!" or "Buy yourself some peanuts and cracker jacks, but don't buy tickets to Fever Pitch. You'll walk out of the theater and never go back!" Then the movie had to go and be way more entertaining than I was expecting. But hey, I couldn't let my puns go to waste, right? Another reason I thought I wouldn't care for the movie is that I hate the Boston Red Sox. My whole family hates 'em. The mere mention of Pedro Martinez' name sends me running to the bathroom. Oh man, hold on...

...All right, I'm back. Anyway, my mom, who is a St. Louis Cardinals fan, still believes the World Series was rigged last year. She refuses to believe the Sox won it legitimately. But I'm man enough to admit that Fever Pitch caused me to sympathize, albeit only slightly, with the plight of Red Sox fans.

Anybody who has a passion for sports will be able to relate to this movie on some level. Unless you have a favorite sports team you can't fully understand the extreme highs and lows that a fan such as Fallon's Ben can go through. There's nothing quite so fresh as the smell of a new season and nothing quite so smooth as a clean slate. Well, figuratively speaking. It's the joy of being a sports fan. "Wait 'til next year," becomes your mantra, your motto, your prayer - and Fever Pitch effectively captures that essence.

I love the fact that the movie takes a fictional story and throws it against the real-life backdrop of the Red Sox' improbable World Series run last year. I don't love it so much that I want to marry it, but you know what I mean. I expected this to be handled in a fairly cheesy manner, and while some of the humor is a little silly, it's actually pretty realistic.

You see, Ben's uncle took him to his first Red Sox game when he was 7 years old, and when he died he left Ben his two season tickets. Ben hasn't missed a game in 23 years. At the beginning of each season he has a draft day where he and his friends get together to figure out who gets to go to which games with him. He makes everybody dance for the Yankees games and whenever somebody complains he threatens them with tickets for the games with the Royals (sorry Mr. Shade) and the Devil Rays. It's a very good scene, and it works so well because I actually know of people who do the "ticket draft day." I also must admit that I can relate to when Ben goes to dinner with Lindsey and her parents. The Red Sox are playing a road game, but instead of watching it live on TV Ben decides to tape it. One of the most dangerous things in life is taping a game and then being in public and trying to avoid hearing the result. Been there. It's a very tense and scary situation. Weeeeeell, Ben enters the danger zone when a guy shows up at the restaurant and mentions watching the game. Ben immediately covers his ears and starts shrieking like a banshee so as not to hear the outcome. Lindsey is embarrassed, and her parents don't know what to think. Yeah, sports fans can be weird, I don't deny it. But it's real.

Now if you're expecting the crude, edgy stuff that the Farrelly brothers are known for then you could be disappointed. They do have their moments though, like when Ben says he likes how Lindsey sometimes talks out of the side of her mouth "like an adorable stroke victim," but overall this is definitely a softer, more romantic side that the bros are putting on display.

That's not to say that the movie ever gets way too sappy. Thankfully, when the sap starts to ooze a bit, the Farrellys know when to pull away. A romantic moment with Lindsey jumping on the field and running over to Ben to declare her undying love for him turns into Ben sincerely replying, "You've gotta tell me about the outfield. Is it spongy?" Jimmy Fallon proves that with the right material he can handle himself well on the big screen, and Drew Barrymore remains a constant source of romantic comedy charm. Fever Pitch is just good, solid entertainment that takes a somewhat fresh look at the romantic comedy genre. It's a movie that guys and gals can both relate to. Particularly the guys who practice sports fanaticism at some point during the year and the ladies who must deal with 'em.

Now if the Red Sox fans could please shut up about the "Curse of the Bambino" I would appreciate it. My Memphis Tigers have NEVER won the NCAA basketball championship, so I officially declare my plight greater than yours.

THE GIST Fans of Jimmy Fallon, Drew Barrymore, romantic comedy, the Red Sox, baseball, or sports fanaticism in general should consider giving Fever Pitch a look. I wouldn't go out of my way to rush and see it at the first available time, but it'll make a great matinée.

Rating: 3.25 (out of 5) The movie shocked me. Personally i had herd mostly bad buzz. Well finally after owning the DVD for months now i pooped it in on a sleepless night. though the movie did drag the extra footage was used with purpose the seriousness of his passion and his recovery from addition to the game would have been less realistic if they had left out any scenes. The best thing about the movie is it's consistency with the relationship. There were no ex's popping up or characters threatening the relationship. I mean typically we see the girl meets boy by some amazing twist of fate,they date,something we saw coming breaks them up up and then they get back together in the last five minutes of the movie. but this movie did not follow that mold. We actually experienced the relationship and it's flaws and though the characters did have there moments of anti-love they did not have dramatic pauses were they went off and did a montage every 15 and then reunite in love again. i did not feel the movie was as predictable as the rest of the romance movies. The story was unique and truthful to reality in the way that i felt these people in the film were the most believable that i have seen in a romance film from modern times.And it did not hurt that all the baseball games were real and they were at the actual world series so fate kicked in a little there also. It's no "My fair lady" but it is a spirited and honest film. I'll simply say i like it. I really liked this movie because I have a husband just like the guy in this movie. This movie is about Lindsey who meets Ben in the middle of winter when baseball season isn't in. She falls in love but when spring comes along, she gets the shock of her life when she is placed one step lower on her pedestal that Ben has put her on.

It's a funny movie with all of the baseball obsession that Ben has. He can't part from what he loves the most, that's what makes it so funny and why so many women can relate to Lindsey in real life. Also the people he sits with at the baseball games are just as obsessed as he is.

It's a funny movie and you won't strike out if you rent this one. I got to see this on the plane to NZ last week, and was wondering how it would measure up to both the UK film and the book. I have to say I was favorable impressed. If anything the fanatical attachment to the Red Sox during the lean years works even better than the original devotion to Arsenal FC, who have had success through the years. As a Brit I was also interested to see that you don't need to understand baseball to get what's going on. One question springs to mind - Was the screenplay written using the Sox as the team even before they finally broke the Curse of the Bambino? Or was another team in the frame? As a Red Sox fan myself (weird I know, a Brit who understands baseball) I have to say that it added to the enjoyment. Yes, commitment. Let's say "Fever Pitch" might trick you into believing it's a baseball movie.

But no, you don't have to be a baseball fan to actually enjoy this picture from the Farrelly Brothers. But of course, if you are one, you will enjoy it even more; with all the references (pretty accurate ones, I'd say) to the Boston Red Sox and its bittersweet history; from the Curse of the Bambino and everything attributed to it, including those two words you CANNOT pronounce in front of a Boston fan: Bill Buckner.

Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon portray two people who, usually might have second thoughts of going into a relationship: the successful workaholic who is also affluent meeting a school teacher? Thing is, Fallon's character wins Barrymore's heart by being funny, caring, sweet and downright perfect. But her friends ask her a logical question: if he's such a keeper, why is he still on the market? Enter the Boston Red Sox. He's been so committed to his team ever since his uncle passed his Sox season tickets to him; he has never missed a Red Sox home game at Fenway Park in a long while.

And that delicate balance, how much is the workaholic willing to give up for his guy's obsession; and how much is that baseball-crazed teacher willing to compromise in order to keep the OTHER love of his life, is what this movie is all about.

At first, you might think that the sports-obsession bits of the movie are exaggerated for comic relief. Well, I'm sad to admit, they are not. Myself, as a die-hard Houston Astros fan, can say they are all true. I would try at every way available to see every 'Stros game; listen to them on the radio or follow them on the Internet. I read the Chronicle's sports section every day. And yes, my room looks like The Shed, Minute Maid Park's gift shop; with a closet full of Astros gear, including 5 jerseys, 20 t-shirts and you know the rest. Fallon's character even has the Red Sox MBNA MasterCard.

Fallon was credible enough as the fanatical Red Sox faithful, even though he could pull it off without becoming a cartoon (Thank God Adam Sandler wasn't in it); and the plot revolved around how this couple tried to manage with each other's passions.

I'd say it'll be a classical romantic comedy. Not enough to be among the best movies in history; but certainly breaks a mold into the genre and is appealing enough for men and women alike. Admittedly, I know nothing about baseball, I'm not even a fan of the sport, but that didn't stop me enjoying the Farrelly brothers' latest film, Fever Pitch, a charmingly irreverent romantic comedy. The film is not really about baseball; rather, it's really about relationships, and the emotional disconnectedness that can often take place.

Jimmy Fallen – giving his best performance to date – stars as Ben, a dorky, lightly nerdy schoolteacher. Ben is a kind of man-boy, who unfortunately has never really grown up, and he fosters an almost fanatical addiction to the Red Sox baseball team. Ben has devoted his life to the Sox, and does everything from making the pilgrimage to Florida for spring training to decorating every square inch of his apartment in team paraphernalia.

One day, while taking his honors geometry class to on a field trip to her office, Ben meets the go-getting Lindsey (a wonderful Drew Barrymore). Lindsey is a corporate, career orientated kind of girl, but she has a kind of cuteness that Ben finds totally endearing. He's initially hesitant to ask her out, thinking that she's way out of his "class," and, Lindsey doesn't immediately see a potential partner in Ben.

Their first date gets off to a disastrous start when Lindsey is stricken with a severe case of food poisoning — and her resonant retching provides the first clue that we are, in fact, watching a Farrelly brothers movie. Rather than accept Lindsey's - rather urgent - request to reschedule, Ben sticks around to play nurse, orderly, and janitor. So Ben scrubs the toilet and the dog's teeth, while his love interest is passed out with a bucket next to her bed.

When Lindsey wakes up in the morning and finds him asleep on her couch, she begins the long, fitful process of dismantling the web of status anxiety and ambition she has come to think of as her standards. Soon they are falling in love, with Lindsey blithely accepting Ben's fanatical devotion to his sport.

Having inherited choice season tickets from his beloved uncle, Ben has organized his life around the season — he's never missed a game. But their relationship, which has progressed without a hitch throughout the winter, hits a snag at the start of the season.

Lindsey wants Ben to do other things, like holiday with her parents and party with her friends, but Ben begins to have trouble modulating his interest to meet Lindsey halfway. Can Lindsey consent to his irrational devotion to the boys of summer in order to make their relationship work? Can she really accommodate Ben's infatuation with sports? Can a die-hard and nerdy Red Sox fan find true love after all? Of course, Lindsey and Ben come with a colorful assortment of opinion-wielding friends. Lindsey's strictest buddy, the skinny, rich and blond Robin (KaDee Strickland), insists that there must be something wrong with the guy if he's still single at 30. However, plump, curly-haired Sarah (Marissa Jaret Winokur) and Molly (Ione Skye) supply a more optimistic and positive view of Ben.

Ben's eccentricity could be applied to virtually any obsessive sports fan, while Lindsay's frustrations could be representative of any upwardly mobile career driven woman. Fallon is terrific as Ben, exhibiting real big screen potential, overcoming the not-insignificant challenge of keeping Ben from being unsympathetic. Barrymore, meanwhile, is equally charming as the workaholic Lindsey, particularly as she struggles to accept Ben for who he is without losing sight of her own needs.

Fever Pitch really works, and even though there are lots of inspired comedic moments, the movie is also addressing the serious problem of sports addiction and how difficult it can be for couples to negotiate this fragile territory.

Much of the movie was filmed at Boston's Fenway Park, which adds a fine sense of authenticity to the proceedings, as well as the ambiance of the games, though fully appreciating what transpired with the team will probably be limited to baseball aficionados. Even so, Fever Pitch is blessed with such a finely wrought and intelligently funny script that even novice baseball fans will find much with which to connect. Mike Leonard September 05. I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie. The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.

I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.

Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do? It's rare, nowadays, to find a romantic comedy that isn't incredibly disgusting in short doses throughout the entire movie (eg. Big Fat Greek wedding; Me, Myself & Irene). There were only a couple of unnecessarily demented jokes in this movie, nothing unpalatably profane. All around, it was a cute movie with likable characters. I thought the ending was a little abrupt. It feels like they should have ended it at the world series for a real bang up finish. The acting left a little to be desired, but was made up for by the pace of the story. If I'd known it was a Farrelly brothers movie I would have assumed it to be a stomach turning piece of garbage and not watched it, but it seems that even they are capable of accidentally making an okay movie. Good for them, I hope they pull their heads out the rest of the way and start consistently making good films. This was a great movie but it had the worst ending I think I have ever seen!!! The actors were great and displayed wonderful talent. The entire story was twisted and unexpecting, which, is what made it entertaining. As good as the movie was, the entire film is judged by the ending, which was terrible! Maybe a sequel could eliminate this bad ending. Here's yet another film from the 80's that most people just don't know exists. This slow, picturesque (the loving shots of the Montana landscapes are breathtaking and reminded me of Costner's recent "Open Range", which also starred Robert Duval), and emotionally satisfying film is the perfect type of movie to watch late one night when you can't sleep or on a listless Sunday afternoon. Those in the right mood will be treated to a finely detailed and intimate look at the grief of one family and how they come back together after the youngest son accidentally shoots and kills the eldest son while hunting. The performances are all top notch and quietly nuanced. Glenn Close, Robert Duval, and Wilford Brimley are pitch perfect in their portrayals, as are all the supporting players and young actors. I especially liked how director Cain (who unfortunately hasn't directed anything of note since this except the first "Young Guns") gives us quiet little glimpses into everyone's personal grief. We don't just see how the death effects the younger brother or the parents, but also the confused middle sister, the wayward uncle, his crazy wife, and the dead teenager's girlfriend. What we essentially get here is the rural Mid-Western answer to "Ordinary People." There's also shades of David Lynch's "The Straight Story" in some of the stoic downhome Mid-West morality of the folks depicted here and also in the lovingly haunting shots of the farmland they inhabit. This is one of the better and more realistic "tear-jerkers" of the era, and a nice little find for you quality movie hunters out there. I had seen this film way back in the 80's and had nearly forgotten it when I noticed it was on tv again and watched it. I remembered having liked this little sleeper when I first saw it, and I liked it even better on second viewing.

All of the actors, especially Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, Wilfred Brimley, Frederic Forrest, and Jason Presson (as the twelve-year-old boy who feels responsible for the accidental shooting death of his older brother), are superb. The film has a very genuine feel to it--an understated, quiet, deeply moving story of a family aching with grief. The dialogue is sparse but telling, and the nonverbal acting is outstanding. Sort of like a simpler, rural version of Ordinary People sans psychiatrist but equally impressive family dynamics.

The Stone Boy is well worth the time and emotional energy involved in watching it. I don't think a movie like this would be released today. It takes it's time to present the depth of the characters and the plot isn't full of twists and turns to keep you on the edge of your seat.

But, what this film does have: an interesting study in how families' deal with grief. How when the language for healing and over-coming tremendous loss leaves us mute, and we rely on raw emotions instead. Grief without reason and patience is anger, even hate. And unfortunately, the lead character (a young boy who accidently shoots and kills his brother while hunting) in the film is given more than his fair share of it. He eventually leaves and moves in with his grandfather (Wilford Brimley) who makes it clear to him that it WAS an accident. I got the impression that this young man knew that in his heart, but needed to hear those words from his parents, and to receive their forgiveness.

What I loved about this film: the lack of dialog. There was a tremendous emphasis on physical reaction, facial expressions. And the slower pace of the film allows you to really watch the reactions of the actors. Something we don't get to do alot of with today's films.

The Stone Boy is an almost forgotten drama from the 1980s. Considering how many famous or soon to be famous people are in the film, one wonders how it could have been so overlooked. This is a slow, moody, but touching account of a tragedy that befalls a farm family. The film is more or less an indictment of Midwestern stoic values and suppression of emotion. The film will not be for all tastes, but anyone who can appreciate real human drama should like it OK.

In the early moments of the film, we see two brothers head off in the early morning hours to pick some peas and maybe shoot a duck or two if they're lucky. While climbing through a barbed wire fence, the gun accidentally discharges and the younger boy fatally shoots his older brother. These boys have apparently never taken a hunter safety course. The way for two men to properly go through a fence like this with one gun would be as follows: First man climbs through. Second man then passes him the gun through the fence. The first man then sets the gun down and helps the other through the fence. At no time should either man have his hands on both the gun and the fence.

Anyway, once his brother is killed, 12-yr-old Arnold regresses into his own world. He does not even run for help after his brother is shot. He simply goes ahead and picks the peas and tells his family about the accident later. At no point during the funeral or inquest does Arnold seem to show any regret or sorrow at all. His family seems to shun him. Perhaps they are even angry at him for killing his brother. An ornery uncle played by Frederick Forrest is outwardly upset with Arnold, even though the older brother's death allows him to hit on the kid's girlfriend. Arnold's parents don't seem to understand how to deal with their son. They really don't even try to talk to him. About the only person he can communicate with is his grandfather who is played in typical grandfatherly skill by Wilford Brimley. After a while, Arnold even moves in with the old timer.

Nothing seems to get Arnold to open up until he takes a bizarre road trip to Reno Nevada to inexplicably look up his uncle's ex-wife. Once he meets her, he begins to emerge from his shell after apologizing to her for breaking up her marriage by starting all of the family's turmoil with the accident. From here on, the film becomes a quick study in reconciliation and reawakening.

The acting is hauntingly distant in most cases. Robert Duvall and Glenn Close make the perfect stoic farm parents. Forrest is good, but maybe trying too hard to channel Paul Newman's performance in Hud. The cinematography is exceptional, too. If you like moody pictures about common folk, this one may be for you. Some even may be advised to bring some tissues. 8 of 10 stars.

The Hound. 12 year old Arnald Hillerman accidentally kills his older brother Eugene. His feelings are arrested by the fact that his family can not interact with him (or feel it is not the right thing to do). His ONLY refuge is his grandfather, who is the ONLY one who seems to have compassion on him. The Realism will captivate "true-2-life" movie lovers, but will not satisfy those that desire action & thrills. This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't." Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.

A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.

But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is "made of stone" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.

The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.

Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.

Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie. Both Robert Duvall and Glenn Close played their roles with such believability, I simply cried. Glenn Close's role as Ruth, showed her wanting to deal with the situation, but she was under the domination of her husband. "Let him think about what he did," Robert Duvall's character, Joe, said staunchly. The story depicted a rural family dealing with an accidental death of a son by his brother, called "The Stone Boy," meaning he was so distraught and overwhelmed by what he did, he became emotionally paralyzed. Then towards the end when Jason Presson's character, Arnold, let it all out to a stranger, I was so broken hearted for him, that I actually thought of some of the terrible things that I did in my life. I personalized and identified with his character. Frederick Forrest's and Gail Youngs' roles, did NOT add not much to the film. I thought of Frederick Forrest, who played Ruth's antagonistic, womanizing brother, Andy, as a jerk who did nothing to try to help the situation. His wife, Lou, played by Gail Youngs, acted like a crazy-lady smacking Arnold around out of frustration with her own problems without pity and blaming him for her troubles. I could NOT really feel sorry for these two. Though Lou tried to keep her marriage together, she was unsuccessful. Both did NOT deal with their problems effectively. They really did NOTHING for the film and were totally ridiculous. Wilfred Brimley's minor role as the grandfather was, touching for he was the only character that showed Arnold any attention. I felt his role should have been elaborated. The players were just doing what they felt was adequate and sufficient. However, I really liked the ending so much, I actually smiled and cried tears of joy. I felt good. The Hillermans were a family again. I actually wanted to be a part of this family. They were so realistic. It's hard to say sometimes why exactly a film is so effective. From the moment I first came across "The Stone Boy", something told me it would be a great film. In spite of that, it seemed very unlikely that I'd ever have the opportunity to actually see it for myself. Then, one day, while looking through the online catalogue of my local library, I saw that they had recently purchased the DVD release of this film. Which I'm extremely glad for, because the cinematography is of a stunning depth and quality that an old VHS copy could never replicate.

And speaking of the cinematography, I must single it out as far and above the most stunning aspect of this film. As a photographer who pursues very nearly the exact visual style portrayed in "The Stone Boy", I'm a firm believer in the fact that a great cinematographer can almost single-handedly carry a film. Here, he has a lot of help from an extremely talented cast, and a director who understands perfectly what the story needs. But to have Juan Ruiz Anchía behind the camera makes virtually every scene something of beauty. And you can almost never say that. Most films would never even expect such a thing of you. Scene after scene captures some detail, some little bit of visual magic that takes your breath away.

The director, Christopher Cain, has had a long and interesting career. As far as I can gather, this film is not very representative of it. But, sometimes, to catch a director near the beginnings of his career, before all the big budgets and loss of focus, there's a real subtle magic to be found. Cain steps back in this film, lets things happen with a life of their own, and then ever further. Much like early John Sayles films, characters are given space to breathe, time to talk. Side stories happen because they do, and that's how life is. Cain displays a remarkable, raw, even outright painful understanding of human nature in this film.

The acting ties much of this story together. When people talk, when they exist in this film, they do so as actual people, not held back by the fact that they are playing characters. Gina Berriault's script allows immensely talented and respected actors like Wilford Brimley, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Frederic Forrest to spend time simply existing. Whether the things they have to say are minor or of deep significance, it all comes down with the weight of pure reality.

When you look at the actors involved, or the great soundtrack by James Horner, it seems strange that such a film be very nearly forgotten. Maybe much of what makes "The Stone Boy" what it is was the time period it was made in. There's this 1970s hangover feeling to this picture that reminds me deeply of my own childhood. People talk of the 80s in terms of modern styles and music, but that's not the 80s I lived in or remember. The look of the images, the understated and dark knowing quality of the acting, and the overall result should get under the skin of any person who grew up in or near this era of time in North America. I see myself in this. I see how I saw the world. And a film like "The Stone Boy" sees the world for how it truly is.

For more of this feeling, please see:

The Black Stallion (1979), Never Cry Wolf (1983), Tender Mercies (1983), Testament (1983), Places in the Heart (1984), Matewan (1987), High Tide (1987), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Secret Garden (1993), The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), Wendy and Lucy (2008) this film was almost a great imaginative film. A mixture of shakespeare, pop, jazz, and faerie tales. This movie was an imaginative twist on the Cinderella theme. Featuring a strong cast, headed by the perfectly cast Kathleen Turner, this movie had everything going for it. Everything but production values. I almost never think that a movie needs special effects or big budgets, but with an over the top production like this, it came off with the same seedy quality as every other made for tv movie. Besides better cinematography, this film was almost perfect.

I remember watching the Disney version and watching it now makes me think it has somehow lost its magic touch. Plenty of other renditions, Ever After put aside, of Cinderella, have, in fact, lost their touch throughout the years. Then I found this production with a flawless performance by Kathleen Turner as the evil stepmother and was blown away by the phantasmagorical essence of this fantasy story that has cast me under its spell since childhood.

We all know the story of Cinderella, a young girl who's father died and was dominated by her wicked stepmother and stepdaughters and longs to go to the ball for one last chance for freedom. But this plot line takes a different twist in the classic Fairy Tale by causing Cinderella (whose real name is Zizola, and is only called Cinderella by her family because of her slavery) to be trapped in a situation of her father (who still lives) slowly losing himself to a dominant wife who manipulates him into playing favorites with his wife and step-daughters against his own and tries to poison him. Thus, Zizola goes out to save her father by stopping her stepmother from finding another suitor at the ball by distracting the men who come her way. There, the bored Prince Valiant has a change of heart from his dull life and falls in love with the mysterious lady in the strange dress (forged by a water nymph named Mab) with rose petals for slippers.

What drew me to this film most of all was it's original take on the old Fairy Tale that none can compare to. It does not weave a web of lies like most Cinderella stories, it does not ignore any reason as to why Cinderella would want to attend the ball and nor does it show a shallow side to the Prince as the Disney version did. Instead it shows more of Cinderella's selfless heart more than any other production and the artwork is simply stunning! The costumes are all beautifully made, especially Zizola's sapphire blue ballgown to match the Marcella Plunkett's fantastical beauty and soft, spirit-like voice.

I would highly suggest this film for anyone who is interested in a dream-like sequence of the classic Fairy Tale with an interesting twist. My only problem is that the producers and director did not make a full collection of other Fairy Tales with this same element and the fact that the film is now out of print. I've seen this movie twice with my teenagers who love it. This one ought to be a cult fave! The best line, "Your dress is deeply cool!" says the Prince to Cinderella. Kathleen Turner shines as the stepmother. I also like the 1950's era cars and motorcycles. The melancholy prince is a great departure from the typical swashbuckler. He tries to stay cool, but fails to hide his love for the fairy-tale princess-to-be. Her slipper is not glass (truer to the original story), but Cinderella loses is nonetheless but gets it back from the heir to the throne. My only complaint is that it is not shown more and seems to be almost impossible to get. Hopefully Blockbuster or Amazon will start stocking this one sometime soon. I thought it was an original story, very nicely told. I think all you people are expecting too much. I mean...it's just a made for television movie! What are you expecting? Some Great wonderful dramtic piece? I thought it was a really great story for a made for television movie....and that's my opinion. Creative use of modern and mystical elements: 1956 Cadillac convertible to transport evil stepmother Kathleen Turner (John Waters' "Serial Mom") and the 2 twisted sisters; Queen Mab as the faerie godmother; David Warner (Evil in "Time Bandits") in redcoat at court; Cinderella (she's a babe) shovelling coal into an insatiable furnace; Cinderella and her prince charming both look like (and act like) rock stars. Isle of Man locations. This film moves the Cinderella story forward to the early 1950s and makes good, if eccentric, use of the Isle of Man as a background. The Ugly Sisters have become wildly glamorous upper-class English girls, and together with Kathleen Turner as the stepmother they flounce about in various wonderful period costumes. The story is altered a little from the traditional version: early on it is oddly combined with the plot of "King Lear", and in later stages Cinderella is rather more assertive than is usual. It looks splendid and works on the whole pretty well, but does go over the top at times. Damon Runyon's world of Times Square, in New York, prior to its Disneyfication, is the basis for this musical. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, a man who knew about movies, directed this nostalgic tribute to the "crossroads of the world" that show us that underside of New York of the past. Frank Loesser's music sounds great. We watch a magnificent cast of characters that were typical of the area. People at the edges of society tended to gravitate toward that area because of the lights, the action, the possibilities in that part of town. This underbelly of the city made a living out of the street life that was so intense.

Some of the songs from the original production were not included in the film. We don't know whether this makes sense, but this is not unusual for a Hollywood musical to change and alter what worked on the stage. That original cast included the wonderful Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye, and we wonder about the decision of not letting Robert Alda, Sam Levene, Isabel Bigley repeat their original roles. These were distinguished actors that could have made an amazing contribution.

The film, visually, is amazing. The look follows closely the fashions of the times. As far as the casting of Marlon Brando, otherwise not known for his singing abilities, Frank Sinatra and Jean Simmons, seem to work in the film. Sky Masterson is, after all, a man's man, who would look otherwise sissy if he presented a different 'look'. Frank Sinatra is good as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons, as Sarah Brown, does a nice job portraying the woman from the Salvation Army who suddenly finds fulfillment with the same kind of man she is trying to save.

Vivian Blaine is a delight. She never ceases to amaze as Miss Adelaide, a woman with a heart of gold who's Nathan Detroit's love interest. Ms. Blaine makes a fantastic impression as the show girl who is wiser than she lets out to be. Stubby Kaye makes a wonderful job out of reprising his Nicely Nicely Johnson.

The wonderful production owes a lot to the talented Abe Burrows, who made the adaptation to the screen. The costumes by Irene Sharaff set the right tone. In 1954 Marlon Brando was THE hot actor after his performances in Streetcar Named Desire and On The Waterfront. Frank Sinatra had yet to re-invent himself on the silver screen. But Sinatra's portrayal as the erstwhile Nathan Detroit, helped re-establish Sinatra with his fans.

It is a great screen version of a great play and the choices of leads and support players are terrific. Imagine a movie where Brando sings? This was his one and only singing role as he portrayed Sky Masterson. In addition the female leads, Jean Simmons and Vivian Blaine(replaying her stage role as Nathan's long suffering girlfriend Adelade), put in superlative efforts. Special mention goes to the great Stubby Kaye(as Nicely Nicely), and with all due respect to Eric Clapton, no one's version of Rockin' The Boat even comes close to Stubby's. Sheldon Leonard, who would go on to fame as TV producer of such shows as The Danny Thomas Show and The Dick Van Dyke Show does "Harry The Horse" wonders, B.S.Pulley is excellent as the harsh mannered and rough talking "Big Julie", and even Regis Toomey offers his excellence as "Brother Arvide".

It is one of the fun musicals to see, good comedy, and you get Sinatra and Brando. Soooooo "Luck Be A Lady Tonight" and brother..."it's your dice" Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson

(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can

run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the "doll" he chose was Sarah

Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes

Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double

wedding.

The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon

Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't

sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original

Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this. {Possible spoilers coming up... you've been forewarned.}

This is absolutely one of my all time favorite musicals and movie musicals! (The other is Damn Yankees with Gwen Verdon, Tab Hunter and Ray Walston) As we all know, sometimes the luster (not to mention the songs) of a show are lost in its transition from stage to screen. This is, for the most part, DEFINITELY not the case here.

The sets are divine, bright and colorful, the characters are bigger than life and you can't help but love them, and Michael Kidd's choreography is absolutely stunning. (So glad to know they used the original Broadway choreographer)

All of the actors "bounce the ball" (that is, have unbeatable chemistry) to perfection in this film. Frank and Marlon are absolutely believable as the proprietor of the oldest established permanent floating crap game in New York, and the most notorious gambler who bets on even the most minute things-- such as his fever going up to 104 if he doesn't take penicillin. Sweet, fresh faced Jean Simmons is perfect for the role of Sarah (although it is true, her singing pipes are not as outstanding as that of Isabel Bigley or Josie de Guzman)-- the mission doll with a heart of gold and a drive to heal all. And last but certainly not least (on my list anyway) is Miss Vivian Blaine, reprising her Broadway role as Miss Adelaide-- the Hot Box lead singer and dancer who would like to finally end her 14 year engagement to Nathan with marriage, and rid herself of the psychosomatic cold he's given her.

First off, kudos to Stubby Kaye and B.S. Pulley as they reprise their Broadway roles as Nicely-Nicely Johnson and Benny Southstreet. There were never two more loveable gamblers than these guys.

Brando is superb, as usual, and though he's not got the voice of Robert Alda or Peter Gallagher, you forget it-- as he has this sense of determination to bring all he can to his role as Sky Masterson. "Luck Be A Lady" gives me chills every time I see him perform the number. Especially enjoyable is hearing him say "Daddy... I got cider in my ear."

Simmons is charming and pleasant in a role well suited to her looks, voice and the way she carries herself. You long so dearly for her not only to win Sky (or, toward the end, believe him), but to help people overcome their gambling, drinking and other sins, and live a life with God. Her rendition of "If I Were A Bell" is splendid, to say the least!

Sinatra is the man. He is so perfect for the role of Nathan Detroit-- and here he sings parts that Sam Levene from the Broadway cast never could (terrific actor, but the chap was tone deaf... go figure). I really enjoyed the addition of the song "Adelaide"... wish some guy would sing like that to ME. Frankie's cool, slick demeanor transcends the boundaries of this movie. But most importantly, you want him to marry Adelaide.

And speaking of Adelaide, Vivian Blaine is just sheer perfection in this role. From the accent to her belting out "Adelaide's Lament", she's just terrific. And she's also my favorite part of the entire movie. She really makes you feel for Adelaide... especially when she cries right before and then again during "Sue Me". I still haven't decided whether I like "Pet Me Poppa" better than "Bushel and a Peck"... maybe I like them equally. Either way, she does fantastic with those as well as "Take Back Your Mink." (I'm sad that they left out "hollanderize" from the film...) She's absolutely MARVELOUS, not to mention hilarious, and my favorite part of the entire film.

One of the best things about this movie is their lingo. It's a mixture of high class and street slang. Never do they use "It's", "I'll" or "That's." It's always "It is", "I will" and "That is." Overall, Guys & Dolls is one of my favorite all time movies and musicals, and it's one that you should take time to watch every time it comes on. My only complaint? No "Marry The Man Today." Now THAT'S a good song. I'm intrigued by the strong sense of favour towards (or sympathy for!) Sinatra in the other reviews here. I've read elsewhere that Sinatra never seems to have forgiven anyone for *not* being cast as Sky Masterson.

OK, so who wouldn't want to be cast as Sky Masterson? – it's a great part: the charismatic successful gambler who makes a grave mistake when he allows himself to be suckered into a bet, in which he must take Salvation Army Sargeant Sarah Brown on a date to Cuba, or lose. It's not the money – it's the pride, but he and she meet their match. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit must juggle his long-suffering fiancée Adelaide with trying to find a spot for a craps game which will make him rich if it doesn't alienate his fiancée forever first.

The film started life as a series of short stories by Damon Runyon: that's his unique dialogue you hear, and those are his great character names, and that's his horse-racing/nightclub/late night gambling world. Then it became a musical, and you can't help but feel that in film form it never really left the stage. The camera is unusually static and the sets remarkably – and not pleasingly – flat and childlike. Fortunately the music is so great, I don't care that much.

My absolute favourite thing about this film, though, is the singing and acting of the two non-singers, Brando (as Sky) and Jean Simmons (as Sargeant Sarah Brown). Of course, putting pro singers into these roles would have produced better music; but what surely gets forgotten is that two such excellent actors brought something else to the party instead: what they lacked in vocal talent they more than made up for in gusto, acting ability, and pathos, pathos, pathos. You're with Sky as he argues with Sarah against reason, steadiness, pipes and safety. You enjoy Sarah's loosening up under the influence of Cuban "milk". You feel completely the suddenness and passion of their scene in the courtyard with bells ringing and an hour to go before the plane takes them home. As Sky rightly says, it's "chemistry". Pro singers – be they Broadway belters or smooth crooners – can't necessarily be relied on to make this happen. (And they certainly didn't.) I read somewhere that Brando criticised Sinatra for not putting all of himself into his role of Nathan Detroit. Sinatra in turn was infuriated by Brando's four-take acting method. As a Brando fan (does it show?!) I'm bound to take the other side, but I can't imagine that this film would have been the much-adored classic it is today if Brando and Simmons hadn't been in it with their wonderful chemistry; Brando's unpredictability; Simmons' face, all pink cheeks and brown hair, drunk and ashamed in a Cuban bar. Beautiful. I'll always want a copy of this film lying around in case I need to feel good again. You'll forgive me if give some of the Nathan (sleep)talking parts the 100% brush-off though, won't you? You won't? Oh, be quiet and have some more of Mindy's cheesecake! Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is the manager of the New York's longest- established floating craps game, and he needs $1000 to secure a new location. Confident of his odds, he bets the city's highest-roller, Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando), that he can't woo uptight missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons). 'Guys and Dolls (1955)' is such a great musical because it deftly blends the contrasting styles of film and stage. During a dazzling opening sequence, crowds of pedestrians move in rhythm, stopping and starting as though responding to backstage cues. Even the walking movements themselves are stylised and angular, halfway between a walk and a dance. Mankiewicz's New York City is a glittering flurry of art deco colour and movement, a fantasy world so completely removed from reality that even the business of underground gambling and criminal thuggery seems perfectly genial.

As I write this review, I've just received word that Jean Simmons has passed away, age 80. This, unbelievably, was the first time I'd seen her in a film, yet she dazzled me from the beginning. Her idealistic and sexually-repressed Sarah comes out of her shell following an alcohol binge in Havana, letting loose with an adorably playful rendition of "If I Were A Bell." Even though both Simmons and Brando were non-singers, producer Sam Goldwyn decided not to dub their vocals, contending that "maybe you don't sound so good, but at least it's you." Despite Goldwyn's backhanded confidence, the pair both do well to carry entire musical numbers themselves. Simmons suggests the same child-like liveliness that Audrey Hepburn might have brought to the role, and Brando exudes such self-assurance and charisma that it doesn't matter that his singing voice isn't quite there. At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. "Guys and Dolls," the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz ("All About Eve") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor ("From Here To Eternity") and Best Actor ("On the Waterfront") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with "Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat." The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes. Joseph L. Mankiewicz is not remembered by most today as one of the finest directors in Hollywood history, but this film proves that he is. Already a success by doing sophisticated American dramas such as A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve as well as successfully adapting Shakespeare to life in Julius Caesar, Mankiewicz does a marvelous job of bringing this hit Broadway play to film and does it with style. Marlon Brando is perfect as Sky Masterson, even if he can't sing too well. He is the only actor who could pull it off perfectly wit his sheer coolness and clarity. Frank Sinatra is a wonderful singer, as expected, and does a good job of acting as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons is also very good as Sarah Brown and her scenes with Brando sizzle with great chemistry. All supporting actors do their part, especially Sheldon Leonard as Harry the Horse in a very funny bit. Still, Mankiewicz should be given most of the credit for bringing a fine musical in its own right to the screen in such a way that it feels authentic in many scenes but is still a story in its own world. All in all, Guys and Dolls is a great musical and works on many levels it normally should not have. I love this movie. My only disappointment was that some of the original songs were changed.

It's true that Frank Sinatra does not get a chance to sing as much in this movie but it's also nice that it's not just another Frank Sinatra movie where it's mostly him doing the singing.

I actually thought it was better to use Marlon Brando's own voice as he has the voice that fits and I could not see someone with this great voice pulling off the gangster feel of his voice.

Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat" is a foot-tappin', sing-a-long that I just love. He is a hard act to follow with his version and I still like his the best.

Vivian Blaine is just excellent in this part and "Adelaide's Lament" is my favorite of her songs.

I really thought Jean Simmons was perfect for this part. Maybe I would not have first considered her but after seeing her in the part, it made sense.

Michael Kidd's choreography is timeless. If it were being re staged in the year 2008, I would not change a thing.

I find that many times something is lost from the stage version to the movie version but this kept the feel of the stage, even though it was on film.

I thought the movie was well cast. I performed in regional versions of this and it's one of my favorites of that period. Along with South Pacific, Guys and Dolls is for grown-ups - - it is sassy, sexy, and full of men being men and women being strung along.

There is an energy and drive that makes this stand out from the pack - the strength of Jean Simmond's performance, and the charm of a young Brando, and an already masterful Sinatra add much to the overall feel and look of the piece.

Guys and Dolls wins as it is unashamedly what it is: an MGM musical.

Still good to look at and listen too with great tunes and dance numbers - it will remain one of the classics of 20th Century cinema and be watched with pleasure for years to come.

Warmly recommended. This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!I am naming my next daughter "Adelaide". Just so that someone who sings like Ol Blue eyes can swoon her one day, and feel the butterflies I felt hearing it sung, and it wasn't even to me! I give it a 9/10 Oh, this is such a glorious musical. There's a bit of miscasting -- Frank Sinatra is sorely miscast as the Jewish Nathan Detroit, though it only becomes evident on "Sue Me", which is a distinctly Jewish song. Sadly, the filmmakers decided to cut out one of the best songs from the show, "Marry the Man Today", and replaced it with an inferior Sinatra showpiece. With these two flaws in mind, the movie is otherwise magnificent. Jean Simmons shines as Sarah Brown. Marlon Brando can't sing worth beans, but pulls it off anyway. Stubby Kaye wonderfully reprises his Broadway role (it was written for him). Damon Runyon's language and pacing and humor come through quite well. This is on my see-it-every-chance-I-get list. This musical was not quite what I expected, foremost being there weren't many scenes between Brando and Sinatra. As it was based on a Damon Runyon story, I expected irony and surprise, of which there was one really good one - when we find that Sinatra's gang has used the Salvation Army office for their crap game while Brando was in Havana with Simmons. If course it comes at the right moment too, when Brando brings her back. I really didn't expect much from Brando as a singer, but he surprised me. He wasn't great but he was just fine in the role. His big number in the sewer, however, with the rest of Sinatra's boys was the only place I felt Brando's voice was weak. He just didn't have the power the grand climax demanded. Overall I found the scenes between Brando and Simmons to be filled with electricity, something I didn't think would happen when we first see Simmons by herself, and later when we're introduced to Brando in the restaurant with Sinatra trying to pull a fast one on him. It wasn't until Brando goes to her office that the story came to life.

Frank Sinatra, on the other hand, was flat, even his vocal performances. And Vivian Blaine, who I never heard of, but who I guess played the role on Broadway, just seemed to slow the proceedings down. The scenes between her and Sinatra were obvious. Also, her songs felt the weakest to me both in terms of advancing story or character. On top of that, all the Goldwyn Girls numbers seemed shoe horned in, just there for glitz. For example, when Frank meets with Brando in the nightclub, we just cut to the stage routine for the cat number - then it cuts back to the guys who continue on as if there hadn't been any dance number at all. Whenever Brando and Simmons were on screen, I was having a great time, but each time we return to the Sinatra-Blaine story, my interest level waned.

As for the songs, there were some good ones, particularly the very first number with Stubby Kaye, the Fugue for Tinhorns number (Can Do!). That's a great song and it reminded me of the very first song in The Music Man - Cash for the Merchandise... whatever it's called. And the number in the sewer - I couldn't help but be reminded of "Cool" from West Side Story - which brings me to a point. I really did not like the art direction in this film. The fake Times Square was just so completely phony it drew attention to itself. Same for the Havana sequence, and particularly the sewer. I realize back in 1955 most musicals were shot on sets, but things were changing - Carousel, for example, made great use of location photography. Even On the Town shot scenes in Mahattan in 1949. By the time we get to West Side Story in 1961 it's a given that stuff taking place in Manhattan had to be actually shot in Manhattan. So by comparison, Guys and Dolls set-bound Manhattan felt dated and more than a little too cute. And changing Lindy's to Mindy's - did they really have to do that for legal reasons? Now, I always thought Guys and Dolls was a musical about Sinatra and Brando and their adventures with various girls. It was much more focused than that, which is to its credit. In that regard it is much better than Les Girls, which was interesting in it's own right, but had a certain shallowness to it.

My one major complaint about Guys and Dolls, and I don't know if this is endemic to the original stage show, but when Jean Simmons realizes that Brando never took any money for a bet that he made with Sinatra and even said that he lost the bet, she just runs off to find him and we cut to the wedding. It seems to me a scene between Brando and Simmons would have added to the impact of the story. To see Brando come around as she came around to him would have been a great scene. There is such a scene in The Music Man (SPOILERS AHEAD), when Harold and Marion have that duet while he's waiting for her to change. She's upstairs in her house, he's down on the sidewalk. He's singing 76 Trombones. She's singing Goodnight My Someone. They suddenly switch and sing each other's songs - a beautiful way to convey their cross over to each other. It's an emotional high moment of the film. Still, Guys and Dolls had a lot going for it. Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra HATED each other while doing this film and in the years following it.Brando asked Sinatra for some singing lessons,but Sinatra (who was already upset over the fact that he was cast as Nathan Detroit,when he wanted the part of Skye Masterson)wanted to be the star singer in the production and didn't want any one to be better than he was.He told Brando to get lost,so to get back at him Marlon kept screwing up the scene in the diner where Sinatra was eating cheesecake so that he would have to keep eating,eating and eating.In the later years,Sinatra gave Brando the nickname "Mumbles" or "Mr.Mumbles" because of the way he talks. Guys and Dolls is a movie itching for a remake. It was made forty-eight years ago. Its two main stars are either dead or 409 pounds. Although a remake, with big stars now, would be box-office success, it would not be able to capture the magic that went into this version. Its boundless energy can't be recaptured, nor can the pure joy you get when watching something like this: a huge, widescreen, big entertainment movie.

Marlon Brando (who last clocked in at 409 lbs. last time I heard) plays Sky Masterson, one of the biggest gamblers in New York. Frank Sinatra is Nathan Detroit, whose as-often-as-he-can-find-a-speakeasy-for-it crap game is city-wide famous. However, when the one place he has left to hold it is charging $1,000, Detroit needs the money fast. He bets Masterson $1,000 that he can't take missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to Havana with him the next day.

Guys and Dolls is basically nothing more than unsavory types singing and dancing, which usually, as it does here, add up to fun. It's obvious to see how this was a Broadway musical: there weren't that many sets, and the scenes were long. If I was to complain about one thing, it's how uneven the songs were. At times, there were two songs in a scene; other times, thirty minutes went by without one. Guys and Dolls is never boring, just a great time.

My rating: 8/10

Not Rated. I just want to add my two cents worth, and forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been posted, but I feel it is worth reminding people of the everlovin' genius of Damon Runyon. Without the wonderfully street, hilarious writings of Damon Runyon this film would never have been made - nor most of the other great classics that deal with gamblers & the like from before 1960. Damon Runyon worked as a newspaper man, and he was from Colorado, but he sure did _get_ the street scene of the East Coast. If you are not a dedicated fan of old Hollywood comedies, I would recommend a few other flicks from Damon Runyon's writings; "the Lemondrop Kid," and "Little Miss Marker," both feature Bob Hope, who, aside from his politics, has always been a funny man. (As a West Coast liberal, I find his politics fairly funny, too!) Damon Runyon lives!!!! This is a Frank Loesser masterpiece of amusing lyrics, competent themes and solid construction by those who adapted Damon Runyon material to the musical's "book". What is surprising about the film is how seamlessly the musical numbers flow from the storyline. Abe Burrows did the book with contributions from Loesser; Michael Kidd was the choreographer, and the outstanding art direction was contributed by Joseph Wright. The storyline can be told in two sentences. Nathan Detroit, played by Frank Sinatra, needs cash to finance his permanent floating crap game to amuse Big Julie, a Chicago Mob Boss. He bets odds-player Sky Masterson, well-presented by Marlon Brando, that he cannot get a Salvation Army girl to go to Havana with him; Masterson wins the bet, saves the Mission, falls in love with the girl, gets the gamblers and riffraff at the crap game to attend a service, and tells everybody the lady was impervious to his charms--a complete lie. Of course he ends up with the lady; and Detroit marries hi long-suffering fiancée, Vivian Blaine. Others in the cast include Stubby Kaye, Johnny Silver, Robert Keith, B.S. Pulley as Big Julie the Mobster, Sheldon Leonard, Regis Toomey, Mary Alan Kokanson, Kathryn Givney as the Salvation Army leader, Veda Ann Borg and Jean Simmons as the tepid Salvation Army girl, Sarah Brown. The famous musical numbers in this award-winning Broadway smash include "Fugue For Tinhorns", "Guys and Dolls", "Luck Be a Lady", "I'll Know", "A Person Could Develop a Cold", and "The Oldest Established Permnanet Floating Crap Game in New York!". Joseph L. Mankiewicz of "Cleopatra" and "Letter to Three Wives" Fame directed the proceedings; and the flow of the work is very interestingly and successfully kept moving. He is equally adept at getting fine dialogue acting and directing such huge numbers as "Luck Be Lady", the varied and challenging brawl section, the Havana "A Woman in Love" section created for the film that precedes it, the presenting of the title song "Guys and Dolls" and "Pet Me, Poppa" set in the club where Blaine works. The acting is very uneven. Simmons seems wrong for the part at times, Brando gets by with the singing and is very good much of the time on instinct, charm and underplaying, even in the comedy. scenes. Sinatra tries hard but is wrong for the role for several reasons as Nathan Detroit; Blaine is a bit too-theatrical in selling her numbers, which she of course sings professionally. Leonard, Toomey, Kaye, Keith and Pulley do what is asked and more at all points. The stylized opening and closing are made to work well; all in all, this film is a triumph for Loesser's amiable and subtle lyrics, for director Mankiewicz as ringmaster, and for the genre of musicals itself, so ably justified in this instance. Delightful and very different. This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.

Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.

It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.

Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed! It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the "stage", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).

The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the "heat is on", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the "saitn" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.

Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A- Just saw this movie version of Frank Loesser's Guys and Dolls for the third time with my mother who had never seen this before. She was pleasantly surprised by the singing voices of Jean Simmons and Marlon Brando. And she thought the Havana sequences where Simmons and Brando dance up a storm were excellent. Those were pretty impressive to me too and were usually the highlights of the film. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, this movie which originated as a story by Damon Runyon takes a while with the slow pacing of the non-musical scenes at first but pulls you in after a while. The other story with Frank Sinatra and Vivian Blaine wasn't as compelling to me but still had their charms especially during the "Sue Me" number. Also loved Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat" number and the performances of Sheldon Leonard and B. S. Pully. With a theatrical look throughout, Guys and Dolls isn't a great film musical but certainly a very good one. Entertaining musical where Nathan Detroit needs $1,000.00 to get up a floating crap game so he entices Sky Masterson to try and get salvation army girl, played by Jean Simmons, to go with Masterson to Havana.

5 years later, Simmons would be in the missionary again in the fabulous "Elmer Gantry." There she was sister Sharon and here she is Sister Sarah. Same temperament, different story.

Frank Sinatra is that devilish Nathan Detroit. He has been engaged to Vivian Blaine for 14 years and she loathes his gambling habit.

In a real change of pace, Sky Masterson was played by Marlon Brando who actually did his own singing here!

The film is saved by superlative choreography. Those dance and singing routines are fabulous. They are especially realized by Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely (Johnson).

All in all, it's a very nice production. One of the best musicals ever made, this is an example of where the producers and director were not afraid to pick actors for their talent, rather than for what people might expect. The lighting and set are unique, giving it a very interesting effect (this has a special name that I cannot think of). The dialog is also unique in that no contractions are used. The movie is well paced, beautifully acted and interesting from start to finish. A real joy is the MUSIC. Such an array of first-rate songs, from beginning to end, that are perfectly performed and orchestrated. Also, the music is very original and very memorable, and I think superior to many musicals from the thirties through the sixties. It certainly has more original and beautiful songs than most musicals, that might have only two or three. Not bad for a director with no experience in this type of movie. Another quality is that it is fresh each time one sees it. Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!

This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.

Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.

It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7. Guys and Dolls has to be one of my favorite musical movies ever. It is a very fun movie to watch and nothing more. it embodies what people have forgotten about musicals-musicals were made to entertain, not to to preach. Nowadays we have Rent and Chicago which are great musicals and good movies but they fail to bring us solid entertainment with no strings attached. The only thing that bothered me in the movie was Marlon Brando, the guy can't sing! It was very annoying to listen to him sing and talk when I couldn't understand him. If it weren't for Marlon I would have given this 10 stars. Guys and Dolls provides old-fashioned entertainment that we rarely get these days. Watch it to have a good time!! I won't try to speculate as to what Brando was attempting. At his best he turns in such oddball performances, insinuating so many things at once, that it doesn't seem he does anything so much as play by unfailing instinct. Often it seems he is calling attention to some favored aspect of his character over all others, a concentration which, if followed, turns out something of a red herring, as he turns out subtler, craftier than at first appeared. This is a mastery of artifice, not naturalism, as might be associated with the Method. The role of Sky Masterson, as Mankiewicz so wonderfully realized, seems tailored for him, which is to begin with odd, and odd still at the end, because whatever it is Brando has done, he has managed a grace maybe all his own, but a consummate grace nonetheless -- again, odd, coming from an actor with limited musical ability, not ever before or after associated with the musical comedy. Jean Simmons, also oddly cast, is not quite as impressive, but certainly above just-adequate, really delightful in the Havana sequence, and never less than enjoyable throughout.

And yet...perhaps because actors are both so concentrated on what it is they are doing, and characters on what it is they intend of each other, there doesn't seem to be the lovers' "chemistry" brought up so insistently more than once. Brando/Sky Masterson and Simmons/Sister Sarah respectively feed off one another well enough, but I for one don't see more beyond that. In a movie this outrightly dazzling and entertaining (and most everything about it, craft-wise, is just that -- dazzling), that lack would seem something tactfully and easily overlooked, but so much would depend upon true chemistry! An, at least partial, transformation of the characters through such chemistry, would lend something positively moving to the final scene. As it is, one leaves this film certainly delighted, but not really moved, except in a way as to negate the trueness of the union. Note Sister Sarah marries in her missionary's uniform, Sky Masterson in his same natty man-about-town duds rather than wedding tux. And they have changed back to those from their previous scene!

Funnily enough (that is, insightfully), the most touching, and most serious, scene is, I think, between Brando and Vivian Blaine, as Sinatra/Nathan Detroit's doll, Adelaide, the only scene where these two are exclusively together, not least because there is just no hint of flirtation between them even though it takes place in Adelaide's dressing-room while Adelaide is about to change. Though one may submit there is no place for that, Sky really is the type to "check out" Adelaide in this sort of circumstance. He is even there to tell Adelaide Nathan will not be meeting her to elope. Adelaide and Sky are both true in their respective ways to Nathan, even piteous of him, as is demonstrated through a tone in their exchange. Adelaide is of course also frustrated and disappointed, but her anger is mitigated by her deeper feeling for Nathan, as Sky is admonishing her that she can't love a man and then wish him to be someone else.

Guys and Dolls is another turn at the battle of the sexes, around the themes of gambling and salvation. Since both the compulsive gambler and the salvation seeker are more or less unconsciously courting despair, there just may be a dark secret deliberately behind Brando's and Simmons' lack of chemistry. After all, that lack may well denote an excess of narcissistic preoccupation (echoed by the Sinatra/Blaine pairing, though with considerably less self-deception involved), which might explain Brando's and Simmons' odd, rather provoking, interpretations of Sky Masterson and Sister Sarah. I realize Simmons may be mostly depicting coldness and skepticism, but Brando, though playing to confront her, isn't exactly heated and eager, and is more than keeping his distance -- he's also assimilating it, keeping his balance through it. His boldness consists in merely playing against her -- the trip to Cuba, a kiss, whatever it takes -- but he is not actually set on winning through seducing her so much as beating her then in her own turf. This may be shrewd, as playing to zeal may be the only way to get to the missionary, and through. But it makes Sky's transition from merely trying to win a bet to actually wanting Sarah Brown a little less than persuasive. Yet why does he want her? What does falling in love mean to Sky? I find the only way to get around this is by indeed accepting his humanity has kicked in, and that he does not want to end up a mere cad toward Sister Sarah, so he does, as he's promised her, need to deliver the sinners to her prayer meeting, make good by his "marker," as he puts it, as a way of winning her back when it seems he had already won only to lose her. But this still denotes self-concern more than anything. However, it also allows for Sarah Brown's own self-concern, as Sky will placate the missionary in her in order to get back the lover. Neither, at least it seems, will change much by their union, except perhaps in the acceptance of the other. Yet that would seem an all but fatally uneasy proposition: acceptance of is still quite a cry away from achieving happiness in the other, let alone the transcendence they each seem to imply by "chemistry." And behind all this, I suspect is Mankiewicz's full knowing.

For all those who might say, in defense of Guys and Dolls yet, that not much can be expected from musicals by way of depth, I need only remind them Cabaret, The Three-penny Opera, Carousel, A Star is Born, even The Sound of Music, which I don't care for as much (and one can keep adding to this list without even reaching forward toward post-Cabaret musicals), all wrap gorgeous music and dance around dire anxieties. Had I been familiar with the stage production of Guys and Dolls before seeing the movie, I might not be as fond of it as I am. Although in all fairness, I would probably still like the film production better because of my general adoration of both Brando (for his acting) and Sinatra (for his voice, although he is quite the actor as well, see The Manchurian Candidate or From Here to Eternity.)

As for some of the other reviewers' statements about the songs, I have the Broadway soundtrack and though Isabel Bingley's voice outshines that of Jean Simmons, it is not more pleasant. I find it to have a rather shrill quality. Jean Simmons' voice is much more realistic, though admittedly, that is not always a huge concern in musicals. Also the only time I particularly noticed Marlon Brando's particularly weak vocal register was during his rendition of "Luck Be A Lady" and only there because I was previously familiar with Sinatra's version. I also find Vivian Blaine's voice to be much more pleasing in the movie than it is on Broadway. And Sinatra's voice alone would be able to redeem the failings of all the others, if they indeed were in need of redemption. (They weren't) It is infinitely better than Sam Levene's, particularly in my favorite song, 'Sue Me'.

Also, the complaint that lots of songs were omitted from the movie for inferior songs, I beg to differ. 'A Bushel and a Peck' is hardly a gem and the song that replaced it, 'Pet Me Poppa" and its accompanying performance is more Hot Box material. I personally do not care for 'Marry the Man Today' at all and rejoice that it was not included in the movie. I adore 'I've Never Been In Love Before', and though it was not sung in the movie, the instrumental version can be heard when Nathan is in Adelaide's dressing room. The song 'A Woman In Love'expresses the same sentiment equally well and probably in a range that both of the stars could more capably reach. And the movie wouldn't be the same without the song 'Adelaide', not included on Broadway. In fact, if the movie soundtrack were available for sale, I'd recommend purchasing it instead of the Broadway.

Though I have not seen the original production, I cannot imagine that the acting would be superior to that of the movie's lead actors.

The important fact is that the story is as charming as ever and the acting and songs do not make it any less so. It was originally meant to be a film that Gene Kelly would star in, but when the makers couldn't get him they got "the greatest actor in the world", and the result is pretty good. Basically Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is having trouble doing what he does best, setting up a high stakes crap dice game, because he needs $1000 to get the place. So to get the money he needs, he has a $1000 bet with old friend Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) that he can't get Sergeant Sarah Brown (Great Expectations' Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. Meanwhile, Nathan is having trouble trying to get rid of the woman who wants him to ask her hand in marriage, Miss Adelaide (Vivian Blaine). Also starring Robert Keith as Lieutenant Brannigan, Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely Johnson and B.S. Pulley as Big Jule. An interesting romantic comedy musical, with Brando singing all his own songs, and Sinatra being smooth and cool. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Jay Blackton and Cyril J. Mockridge, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Frank Sinatra was number 43 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Marlon Brando was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 11 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, he was number 4 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Sinatra was number 35, and Brando was number 1 on The World's Greatest Actor, "Luck Be a Lady" was number 42 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for , the film was number 23 on 100 Years of Musicals, and it was number 36 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good! I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it.

The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job. Good: Engaging cinematic firefights, great presentation, vehicles are actually fun to drive, fairly appealing multiplayer, faithful to the movie, and the list goes on.

Bad: Main missions are a bit short.

This game defines what a "good" third person shooter(not necessarily a spy-game) is. Great firefights carry on the story and make you want to complete EVERY single mission through, and unlock all the genuine bonuses the game has to offer. The hype this game had, was lived up to, and I personally think you should buy it, and hook up with a couple of friends and play this one. Loads of fun.

The sound in this game, is a rip-roaring achievement from a few previous bond games, and firing a weapon, really feels like you're firing a weapon. It ties in with the aspect that you are a deadly and ruthless spy.

All in all, this game makes you excited and satisfied after you make it through, and some multiplayer that can compete with the standards of the crafty James Bond "Nightfire" game for gamecube. The goal of any James Bond game is to make the player feel like he is fulfilling an ultimate fantasy: step into the shoes of Agent 007. "FRWL" comes closer to this goal than any other game, because this time you control the real James Bond. No offense to Pierce Brosnan, who made a fantastic Bond and loaned his voice and likeness to "EON", but Sean Connery was the original James Bond, and there will never be anyone who comes close to his level of cool.

I must say at this point, like many others who have reviewed this game, that Sean 70 year old voice doesn't fit his 30 year old image on screen, and this takes some getting used to, but it's certainly worth it. He makes lines like "Bond… James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" into a big deal again. But controlling Sir Sean as he takes on the evil organization known as OCTOPUS is, as Bond said in "Octopussy", "only the tip of the tentacle." The awesomeness of the game begins with the opening gun barrel. It's the original gun barrel from the movies. Then you take on first mission, rescuing the Prime Minister's hottie blonde daughter from terrorists at Parliament, and everything from the cars to the clothes is perfectly retro. The world of the game is truly the world of the original James Bond, right down to the classic rock-n-roll rendition of the James Bond theme that finally plays during a key moment late in the game, as Bond infiltrates a secret factory.

After the game's opening, the plot faithfully follows the plot of the movie "FRWL." James Bond is sent to Turkey to retrieve a Lektor device from a Russian cipher clerk who claims she has a crush on him. In Turkey, Bond teams up with lovable sidekick Kerim Bey. Bond must retrieve the device, protect the damsel in distress, and get both safely back to London. Bond screenwriter Bruce Feirstein worked on the script, and he's done a good job of making the game the same but different to the movie. The characters from the movie are all recreated well, but some are better than others. The impersonators voicing villains Rosa Klebb and Red Grant are uncanny. And there's a moment early on in the game where you interact with a Miss Moneypenny, M, and Q who all look and behave as they did in the original Sean Connery 007 movies.

What puts this game miles ahead of the other Bond games, besides Sir Sean's voice and likeness, is two notable features in the game play. One is Bond focus. While you can dispatch villains simply by locking onto them with one button and killing them with the other, an additional button push will allow you to zoom in closer on a target and choose between spots Bond would shoot at, such as a grenade attached to a belt that will dispatch an enemy and a few of his friend or a rappel cord that will cause a suspended enemy to plunge to his death. The other notable feature is the stealth and mêlée kills. When you're in close enough range, just hit a button to beat down an enemy with the raw brutality that only Sean Connery's James Bond displayed.

Sean Connery's Bond relied mostly on his raw wit and talent, so you only have a few gadgets, but they're good ones. The Q-copter is a remote control helicopter that can self-destruct and explore areas Bond can't reach, like the Q-spider in "EON", only better. The classic laser watch is useful, not just for getting into sealed rooms, but dispatching enemies when you have no other weapon available. Sonic cuff links and a serum gun are the most fun to play around with, but you must experience them for yourself. Besides the gadgets, you can go dress Bond up in a number of retro costumes found during the game, including the gray suit from the movie, the standard black tuxedo, a retro stealth suit, and that classic white tuxedo, all which look exactly like they did when Sir Sean wore them in the movies. When you drive in the game, you drive the Aston Martin DB5 straight out of "Goldfinger." It can't turn invisible, but it has a gadget for popping tires like in the movie. And when you're not flying down the streets of Istanbul in the "Goldinger" car, you can fly through the air in the "Thunderball" jet pack.

Then there's the multi-player. Of course, it has to be compared to the standard of the "GoldenEye" game, and it fails. Also, you can only play Bond villains rather than Bond himself or the other heroes of the game. But the multi-player is amusing, and a decent bonus since the awesomeness of the single player campaign alone makes the game worth playing. The basic game does have other flaws. Some of the movie's most exciting moments, particularly the gypsy camp shootout, Bond's brawl with Red Grant on the Orient Express, and a confrontation between Bond and Rosa Klebb's bladed shoe, aren't done justice in game form. And the game is a fast play, even on the hardest difficulty. But overall, this game is the best James Bond experience so far. This James bond game is the best bond game i have played in my life it is my favorite James bond game so far because:

The missions in this game are really fun they can be really hard that makes it more fun to play the missions have lots of actions the weapons you use are really good. The cars in this game are awesome the car missions have lots of action and are really fun to play. The voice over actors are really good and it is cool that Sean Connery does the voice for James bond also the way bond looks is really cool because it looks just like Sean Connery when he played James bond in the movies and the other character look pretty much the same as the look in the movie. The graphics a pretty good in this James bond game. Also the game follows the movie pretty much but not all the but most of the time it does which is cool.

overall score ********** out of ********** EA have shown us that they can make a classic 007 agent and make you feel in the 60's world. The graphics of the game are outstanding and also the voice recording is very professional. I got this game April 2007 (two years after release), and I am still impressed with the gameplay. It's a shame that EA will no longer make 007 games.

I give this game 10/10 for the levels it contains, especially the "consulate" level. I would recommend this game to anyone from the age of 13 and over. The only thing I didn't like in the game is the Russian boat level, it was too much pressure. On the whole I like the game A LOT!! ** WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS! **

First of all, I would like to say that I really liked this game. I got it for Christmas after two months of dropping hints to my parents. I am glad that I did that.

First off, I would like to say that the single player was very good. The first level is probably one of the best in the game, when you are at a party in London, and some evil guys ruin it by kidnapping the Prime minister's daughter. Of course you have to rescue her, and it is quite a big level, but should probably take you at least five minutes. The best part, and I think also the funniest part, is when you are in the jet-pack, and people are rappelling down Big Ben. Just equip the jet-pack's most trusty rocket launcher and blast the clock faces and the enemies down. Pure fun!

The rest of the levels are very good, but pretty short. There are four mini-levels you can unlock, and that is one of the let downs, because only the first two of them are actually fun, and the last two to unlock are just 'kill 25 enemies' objectives, I mean, c'mon! We got loads of points to unlock these missions and the last two bonus missions are really bad!

The multi player, me and some of my friends agree, is very good and challenging, even if there are no bots. Halo didn't have any bots but that is still some fine multi player games! You can be a load of bad guys, and you go against each other, and you can also set traps, which is the best way of killing people without going into view of their character.

Gameplay - 8.5/10 (levels can be quite repetitive and bonus missions could be improved). Graphics - 9/10 (there is the odd bad graphic, but that isn't extremely often). Multiplayer - 10/10 (needs no comment, just great, you get to drive in jet-packs and vehicles). Sound - 8/10 Replay value - 7/10 (the only levels I go back on are the Loondon level and Istanbul Part 1).

I give this game: 8.5/10

Could have a bit of improvement, but it's still good. This is a very unusual film in that the star with the top billing doesn't appear literally until half way in. Nevertheless I was engaged by the hook of the Phantom Lady. Curtis, though competent as the falsely accused Scott Henderson, looks a little tough to be be sympathetic towards (perhaps he should have shaved his moustache) and his behavior when he first comes home should have convinced the cops at least to some degree of his innocence. While another commentator had a problem with Franchot Tone as Jack Marlowe I found his portrayal of the character to be impressively complex. He is no stock villain. Superb character actor Elisha Cook Jr. is again in top form as the 'little man with big ambitions.' His drumming in the musical numbers added a welcome touch of eroticism. This movie however is carried by the very capable and comely Ella Raines as the devoted would be lover of Henderson, Carol Richmond. She definitely has talent and her screen presence is in the tradition of Lauren Bacall. This is the first of her work I have seen and I am definitely inclined to see her other roles. The rest of the supporting cast is also more than competent. All in all a very satisfying film noir mystery which when viewed today fully conveys the dark and complex urban world it is intended to. Recommended, 8/10. Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns. Scott Henderson, the engineer that employs Carol Richman, as his assistant, makes a point to call her "Kansas", whenever he speaks to her. It shows us that Carol, effectively played by Ella Raines, is supposed to be a babe in the woods, as far as the Manhattan of the 40s was concerned. Only a woman, from out of town, would follow the shady bartender to a solitary elevated subway. Even then, only a naive girl could undertake such an adventure.

Robert Siodmak directed this film noir very well. He shows a flair for infusing the story with a lot of raw sex that was surprising for those days. How else could we justify the way the drummer in the orchestra of the musical, where Scott takes the mysterious woman with an unusual hat, makes such an overt pass at a lady on a date? The drummer played with high voltage by Elisha Cook Jr. doesn't hide his desires for any of the ladies who sat in the front row of the hit musical where he plays. It was a real explicit invitation, first to the "phantom woman" of the story, Fay Helm; afterward, Cliff the drummer, insinuates himself very openly to Ella Raines who goes to the theater disguised as the mystery dame her boss had taken originally.

This is a film that will hook any viewer from the beginning. There are things not explained in it, but it holds the one's interest throughout. The killer is not revealed until the end.

Ella Raines with her expressive eyes was an under estimated actress. She holds her own against much more experienced actors. Franchot Tone, a New York stage actor, working in Hollywood, never found in this medium the fame he deserved. He is effective as the accused man's best friend. On the other hand, Alan Curtis, comes across as a man, who when framed, accepts his fate and is saved only by the tenacity of the woman who secretly loved him. Thomas Gomez, as the inspector Burgess, is an asset to the film as a detective who has his doubts the police had caught the man who committed the crime.

This movie will not disappoint. Robert Siodmak does a fabulous job with this B noir starring Ella Raines, Franchot Tone, and Alan Curtis. And he does it, I might add, without a lot of help from his male actors, i.e., Curtis and Tone. It's Raines all the way, a pretty, leggy actress who for one reason or another never reached the status of some of her "noir" counterparts.

Siodmak's use of sex, light, shadows, and music is truly remarkable as he tackles this genre. The shadows, lighting effects, and camera angles are all effective. But the highlight of the film takes place in a nightclub with a very sexual drum riff by Elisha Cook, egged on by an excited Raines. It's this scene that brings "Phantom Lady" into new territory.

Siodmak's commitment to the material is matched only by Raines, who gives a sincere performance as a woman in love trying to save her man. Franchot Tone phoned this one in. Alan Curtis didn't seem upset that he might die and didn't seem happy that he lived. And he never, except for a brief moment in prison, seemed to be in love with Raines.

The amusing thing about many of these films is that, as World War II progressed, interest in psychiatry deepened. But often the terms were used incorrectly in films such as "Possessed," "Spellbound," and "The Greatest Show on Earth." Tone is called paranoid by Thomas Gomez - Tone probably has some paranoia attached to his disorder, but he appears to be closer to a psychopath. In actuality, as evidenced by his headaches, he may have had a brain tumor pushing against his brain.

Phantom Lady doesn't have the greatest plot, but it's well worth watching. I can safely admit (as an IMDb geek) that 'Phantom Lady' will never crack into my film noir top twenty. It may not even sneak into the top fifty. But rather than discredit the film for not being as good as so many other classics of the film noir genre, it should be noted that 'Phantom Lady' has enough strong and lasting images in it to make it a worthwhile viewing. All that is required from the viewer is the ability to get beyond the dreadfully slow beginning.

The film doesn't get cooking until 'Kansas' (Ella Raines) sets about trying to prove all but single handedly the innocence of her boss, Scott Anderson (Alan Curtis), who has been convicted of murder. 'Kansas' is Anderson's secretary by day and amateur detective by night. As the novice sleuth she does quite well for herself while working the streets of New York at night. Little by little she starts putting pieces of a murder mystery puzzle together. To be honest, the film belongs to Raines and it is only due to her presence that the film works well at all. Somehow she is able to breathe life into a film about a condemned man who is not interesting in the slightest. I'm not sure if this splintered dynamic of a characterless leading man becomes the fault of the actor or the director, but clearly this is where something becomes terribly wrong with the film.

As interesting as Raines is as a novice detective, things really accelerate into another hidden gear when 'Kansas' pays a late night visit to a wandering drummer (Elisha Cook, Jr.) in search of some information to help her condemned boss. She and the drummer paint the town a new kind of red while visiting the "all night" jazz clubs. Trying to describe this scene will either prove an injustice to the scene or worse yet, it could ruin the scene all together. You'll know the scene once the last cymbal crash has finished ringing out. If you're lucky enough to have this film on DVD, you'll more than likely be rewinding this scene again and again. As good as Raines is, it is this scene that makes this film noteworthy. It is mainly because of this scene that I rate 'Phantom Lady' a 7 instead of a 6.

For the most part this film comes off as tepid and bland with a few great scenes and one magnificent scene. It is the 'drum/sex scene' that separates this film from any others of the same ilk.

And just like it is said in the film that "you never go wrong with Vanilla", I would also like to add that "going with Vanilla" is the safe fall back choice when one can't decide on having a tastier treat.

7/10. Clark Richards Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) is unjustly accused of killing his unfaithful wife. The night she was murdered he was out with a mystery woman who refused to give him her name. After accused of the murder, the police visit all the places he had been with her, but people only remember him being alone. He's sentenced to die and his secretary (Ella Raines) sets out to find the murderer herself because she loves him.

This was made as a B film from Universal (look at the cast--all character actors and one star--Franchot Tone--on the decline). The budget was small and the cast mostly unknown but what came out is one of the best film noirs of the 1940s. It's beautifully directed by Curt Siodmak and has a fantastic script that came from an excellent book by William Irish (a pen name for Cornell Woolrich). It moves quickly and just looks fantastic. And there's the infamous jam session with Raines and Elisha Cook Jr. which just comes off the screen with incredible sexual energy (I'm surprised the censors didn't cut it).

There are only a few flaws that prevent this from being perfect. Tone gives a dreadful performance. He looks ghastly and he's just horrible. Also Curtis is stiff and bland as Henderson. You really wonder why Raines loves him--he's so unemotional. But Raines is pretty good in the lead role. She's pretty and full of life. Also the last scene when the murderer is after her never rings true. He's hardly a threat physically and her reactions just seem overstated.

Still I'm giving this a 9. A really great film--flaws aside. I rated this film 7/10 which is an average of 8/10 for screenplay, direction and 1944 production values and 6/10 for acting.My acting rating in turn was calculated at 4/10 for all the screen characters except for that played by heroine Ella Raines as Carol Richman who was excellent at 8/10.Also I commend Thomas Gomez as Inspector Burgess whose character convinces that he personally does not think the guilty verdict on Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) was just in view of his naive alibi.These two then form an alliance to prove Scott's alibi.

I have this film on a "Suevia Film Noir Cine Negro" DVD in Spanish as "La Dama Desconocida" with the original soundtrack "Ingles" as an alternative language, since despite searching I could not find a wholly English version.I was however anxious to see another performance by Ella Raines after being impressed with her performance as a heroine in "Impact" playing a sole female garage proprietor.Here Ella performs another heroic role believing in the innocence of her engineer boss and refuses several suggestions that she should return to her home in Kansas (her boss's pet name for her) before solving the missing alibi.The fact that she is secretly in love with her boss is a little hard to believe since he formally just seemed to have had a formal business relationship with her.He had however designed children's homes and playgrounds so I suppose "family man" had lit up in Carol's brain.

In the 1940s with "the film code" in operation, producers could only portray sex through metaphors and here it is done in the form of furious drumming played by Elisha Cooke jnr.Carol dolls herself up as a girl of easy virtue in an attempt to lure the drummer into giving her information about "The Phantom Lady" alibi.The other main character, Jack Marlow (an associate of Scott Henderson) is played by Franchot Tone whose performance I found too theatrical and wondered why Carol, for instance, did not notice him constantly and strangely admiring his hands.Here the screenplay should have been improved and provided more suspense as these theatrical moves telegraphed the plot far too early to the audience. Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) meets a mystery woman (Fay Helm) in a bar and invites her to see a show with him. She agrees on condition that they don't swap any information about each other - not even names. Sometimes these are the best kind of dates. However, when he returns to his apartment, Inspector Burgess (Thomas Gomez) and his team are waiting for him. Scott's wife has been murdered. His alibi is the mystery woman but no-one can remember seeing her and, as a result of this, Scott is sentenced to die for the murder of his wife. His secretary Kansas (Ella Raines) is not convinced of his guilt and sets out to find the woman who can save him from the death penalty.

This is a good film and the viewer is 100% behind the attempts of Kansas to get to the truth. We follow her through some memorable scenes, eg, her pursuit of Mac the bartender (Andrew Tombes) at night and the claustrophobic venue where Cliff the drummer (Elisha Cook Jr) takes her to hang out, drink and dance while he jams with his friends. This is such a blatant depiction of sexual desire that it is a stand-out part of the film as everyone sweats intensely and rhythmically for the duration of the scene. Ella Raines is good in the female lead role and Thomas Gomez makes a likable policeman. Alan Curtis started well as the confused, innocent man, but once he is arrested his performance took a left turn as he became thoroughly unpleasant to Kansas for no reason. God knows why she stuck by him.

The film doesn't keep you guessing as to who the murderer is as we know from about halfway through the film, but this doesn't matter. In fact, it adds to the tension and dramatic development of the story as we will Kansas to discover what is going on and then to get the hell out! It's a good film with some great scenes but although Elisha Cook Jr has a memorable role, I just never like him in anything that I see him in.... someone hand me a neck-tie..... Phantom Lady (1944) Dir: Robert Siodmak

Production: Universal Pictures

Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis), following a nasty fight and split with his wife, looks to drown his sorrows at the local watering hole. There he spies a woman in a similar emotional state and, looking for some companionship, asks her to a show at a club to get both their minds off their problems. She agrees, but only on the condition that they keep their names to themselves. Sure enough, when Scott gets home he finds the police there, waiting to question him. His wife's been murdered. Where were you at 8 o'clock this evening, asks Inspector Burgess (Thomas Gomez)? But Scott has an alibi, right? Only he doesn't know the woman's name. And the bartender remembers Scott but not the woman. Neither does the cab driver. Nor the drummer (Elisha Cook Jr.) at the club. Even the dancer at the club, who Scott clearly caught looking at the woman (they were both wearing the same hat), won't acknowledge there was someone with him. Something is going on, but whatever it is Scott is helpless to defend himself at a trial and is sentenced to death for his wife's murder (on the flimsiest 'evidence' in Hollywood judicial history). It's left to his loyal secretary, 'Kansas' (Ella Raines), who's later joined by a sympathetic Inspector Burgess, to find out the real killer before Scott is executed.

Phantom Lady is built on themes that recur, almost compulsively, in Woolrich's work. For example, the schizophrenic antagonist is also seen in Black Angel and The Leopard Man. Additionally, there is the character who becomes mentally unhinged by the death of a sweetheart or spouse as found in Rendezvous in Black and The Bride Wore Black. It can leave a viewer feeling like he's treading on well worn ground. But in the right hands, the feverish plots, sorry dialogue, the narrative inconsistencies, all are beside the point. Fortunately, Phantom Lady was being guided by sound hands.

This is Siodmak's first noir. He would go on to distinguish himself as one of the, if not the, preeminent practitioners of the style (The Killers, Criss Cross). Here he is fortuitously paired with cinematographer Woody Bredell (they would be reunited on Christmas Holiday and The Killers). There is some great storytelling done in the camera. In one shot, the deteriorating mental state of a character is shown as he sits in front of a 3-way mirror, suggesting multiple personalities. The same character, who is an artist, has Van Gogh's self portrait with the bandaged ear hanging on the wall in his apartment. But what Siodmak and Bredell are really doing in Phantom Lady is practically creating the look for noir. Released very early in 1944, it's all here; the wet pavement, the bags of atmosphere and dread, the sharply contrasting b&w, the wildly expressionistic versions of reality (when Kansas visits Scott in prison), the discordant shafts of light, etc. It is a terrific picture to look at.

Franchot Tone aside, the cast, as well as the subject matter and relative inexperience of the director (and presumably, the budget), suggests 'B' movie ambitions. I thought Tone was a little hammy. Alan Curtis (High Sierra) is not up to much, and actually comes off pretty weak in a few scenes. Ella Raines is mostly good (and quite beautiful). Her 'sex scene' with Elisha Cook Jr. is so delirious it has to be seen to be believed. Another standout scene is when Kansas goes after the bartender to question him. It amounts to a chase scene, as she relentlessly dogs him through the streets, with a stop at a subway station. Some real good tension in there.

*** out of 4 Man, this is a hard DVD to come by. I could only find it on Region 2, a Spanish import, and it was expensive.

Was it worth it? Well, yes. Not so much because it's a masterpiece of film making, though directed by Curt Siodmak (the credits on IMDb.com read "Robert" but the DVD credits list Curt), or because it has a couple of familiar figures from other murder mysteries -- Elisha Cook, Jr., and Thomas Gomez -- but because my decade-long curiosity about the movie has finally been satisfied.

Essentially, a respected but self-contained engineer (Alan Curtis) has been stood up by his estranged wife and finds himself in a New York bar with two show tickets in his pocket. A woman with a strange hat is on the stool next to his and he politely invites her to join him at the musical review. She accepts, a little gloomily. The mopey bartender gives them both the eye as they leave.

At the show, the tempestuous star notices that this lady in the audience is wearing the same hat and erupts offstage with anger. The drummer in the band, Cook, leers at the silent lady but gets no response. Curtis takes the woman to her home and asks her name but she won't give it, and she doesn't want to know his. If she'd been a Longfellow devotee she'd have said something about ships that pass in the night.

Okay, Curtis goes home to find his wife has been murdered in his absence. The head police officer, Gomez, turns him over to the DA. His only alibi is that he was with a phantom lady whom no one else seems to remember -- not the bartender, not the Latina star, not the cab driver ("Al Alp"), not the drummer -- and since the lady herself has disappeared, it's impossible to dig her up.

Curtis is convicted and sentenced to die. But Inspector Gomez has thought things over and decided her's probably innocent because nobody with a brain would make up such a stupid story. He joins Curtis's loving secretary, Ella Raines, in re-investigating the case informally.

They visit the supposed witnesses again. The ominous bartender is run over by a car, perhaps accidentally, so he's out of the picture. The hot-tempered Latina has left because the show closed and she's uncooperative and ignorant of the source of the hat anyway. Elisha Cook, Jr., is strangled by the real murderer but not before he is featured in a scene in which he pounds the drums in an improvised jazz group. His sweaty face assumes an expression which doesn't suggest intense focus but rather a monstrous, orgasmic insanity. His eyeballs roll to the ceiling, his mouth gapes, his hammering becomes frenzied. I laughed out loud.

Nobody's performance is otherwise outstanding, but all are professional enough. Thomas Gomez is always reliable. Best performance, though, is probably by Franchot Tone. He's the real murderer and he fakes his alibi. He's reserved and artistic. Even when he faints he's decorous. I don't know how to put this precisely but Tone seems to be thinking as well as simply acting his part. Alan Curtis as the innocent engineer is near zero on the Kelvin scale and belongs in a B picture.

I don't know why it's considered as classic. It's really your basic murder mystery by Cornell Woolrich, not as good as some of his others. But Siodmak's direction is sensitive. A man gets run over and his hat winds up in a gutter with water running around it. His use of shadows is quietly effective.

Glad I got it. For the attention of Chuck Davis and Emefy: I saw PHANTOM LADY many years ago, when I was not yet a jazz buff. There is an exhibition going until end of June in Paris's brand new MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY, named LE SIECLE DU JAZZ, not to be missed, with as a special entertainment NINE excerpts from jazz movies, including PHANTOM LADY's famous drums sequence. I've seen Gene Krupa - and Elisha Cook Jr - in almost all their film appearances, and I can confirm the following: 1.Elisha Cook Jr was DUBBED in the movie. That was some progress, since in most of his other appearances he was KILLED (mainly in Howard Hawks's THE BIG SLEEP). 2. Krupa probably dubbed Cook in PL. I could recognize his style, since he had already graduated from the tom-tom used (and abused) at the beginning of his career - namely in 1937's Hollywood HOTEL's SING, SING, SING sequence - and eventually got everything that was possible from what we call in French "la caisse claire". 3. The sequence from PL, at least as shown in the Museum,is not censored.harry carasso, Paris, France A bizarre and brilliant combination of talents between the director, Robert Siodmak and Ella Raines as a secretary trying to save her boss from the electric chair by tracking down a mysterious "phantom" woman, and Franchot Tone as a crazed and murderous sculptor. As well there are some fascinating smaller parts played by Elisha Cook Jr as a drugged out trap drummer, as well as the other characters who make up parts of the conspiracy. If you're used to seeing Raines in more wholesome parts, she's allowed to go overboard here, especially in her scenes with Cook. Franchot Tone also plays someone very different, and though it isn't a convincing part, he acts phenomenally. While the conspiracy is too contrived, the film has real atmosphere and is very interesting. This noir may not be the best remembered film from the era, but it features a great mystery plot, the common noir atmosphere and some good performances from its lesser known cast members. Robert Siodmak, the talented director behind the mystery/horror classic 'The Spiral Staircase' directed this film two years earlier than the aforementioned film, and shows a real flair for creating a dark and brooding atmosphere as well as creating a plot that both intrigues and fascinates the viewer. Phantom Lady focuses on Scott Henderson; a man married to a woman he doesn't like. He picks up a lady in a big hat in a bar one night, and the two agree to a 'no strings attached' night of fun. However, he then returns home to find his apartment infested by police officers and soon finds out that the reason they are there is because his wife has been strangled with one of his neck ties! He's dismayed to find that no one he saw while with the mysterious woman can remember her, and naturally the jury sends him down for the murder of his wife. However, luckily for him his beautiful female employee gets on the case...

The plot moves along nicely throughout, and unlike many of the better known noirs, this one features a few murders which make the proceedings more interesting. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that it was made in the forties and shot in black and white, I would swear Phantom Lady was an Italian Giallo! The central characters are all interesting enough, with Alan Curtis providing a good portrayal of the unfortunate victim, and Ella Raines being effective as the female impromptu detective. The real standout of the film, however, is Franchot Tone, who provides a memorable performance as the insane villain of the piece. The film also features a role for supporting actor extraordinaire Elisha Cook Jr, who features playing the drums in the film's most memorable segment. If I was to criticise this film, I would say that the identity of the murderer is revealed a little too early - although Phantom Lady does deserve some credit on that front for the original way it goes about it. The conclusion is satisfying and everything makes sense (which is amazing considering the unlikely plot line) and overall, Phantom Lady is surely one of the greatest and most under-seen noirs ever made! Other reviewers have summarized this film noir well. I just wanted to add to the "Whew!" comment one reviewer made regarding Elisha Cook's obviously coke-fuelled drumming episode. This WAS a doozy, I must say. Cook deserved some acclaim for his frenzied performance.

A bit of trivia that I am surmising about: Cook appeared as a waiter in the 1941 Barbara Stanwyck film, "Ball of Fire." He was a waiter in the nightclub where Barbara was singing and legendary drummer Gene Krupa was drumming, most energetically. Is it too much to suggest that Cook's spazzy drumming in the later film, "Phantom Lady," was very much inspired by Krupa's work, as witnessed by Cook 3 years earlier?

If you watch Krupa in "Ball of Fire," I think you'll note some clearly similar body movements. One hopes, of course, that HE was not influenced by any drugs at the time! This is a "B Series" Film Noir, and my vote reflects its membership in that genre. I saw this film last night at a left-bank cinema in Paris, where it opened a two-week film noir run. The film has some flaws, yes, but far too many delicious elements to ignore.

As the previous reviewer remarked, the drumming scene is incredible! (B-movies could tread where A-movies were forbidden to enter!) And the plot is intriguing. Regarding Franchot Tone, however, I beg to disagree: to me, he's suitably mysterious; just the right shade of creepy. One must bear in mind that there's a sort of German expressionism happening here (the director, Robert Siodmark, was a German who came to Hollywood during the war), and so an air of exaggeration fits into the whole of this film. At least it does for me.

However, it's the gorgeous Ella Raines who, in only her third credited performance, held this viewer entranced throughout the film. A "Girl Friday" type with a strong resemblance to Gene Tierney, it's a wonder that she didn't become a household name. But she's so good here that I've just ordered another film of hers ('Impact') off the Internet, and I can't wait to see it as well. Alan Curtis has a loud, violent sounding argument with his wife, slams out of his apartment, has a night of drinking with a mysterious lady with a large hat in a bar (run by Andrew Tombes, in a nice villainous part for a change), and returns to find his wife dead and the police, led by Thomas Gomez waiting for him. His attempts to prove his alibi - that he was with that mysterious lady - fall because everyone that he can think of (Tombes, Elisha Cook) claims there was never any such person. He ends up with no alibi, although his secretary (who secretly loves him) Ellen Raines believes him. Convicted after a trial, he is awaiting his death sentence. Raines starts going out after the truth, discovering that Gomez has some doubts of his own. She also finds an ally in a friend of Curtis, Franchot Tone, who was apparently out of town the night of the crime. Will she clear Curtis in time? THE PHANTOM LADY is based on a novel by William Irish (the great noir writer Cornell Woolrich). As movie fans know from other works by Woolrich (LEOPARD MAN, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, REAR WINDOW, NO MAN OF HER OWN) one cannot assume what is true on the surface anywhere. The missing wife of a salesman may not actually be upstate, sending him messages that she arrived, if he still has her jewelry. The mentalist may really be able to predict tragedy - or was he plotting the murder of his old partner, now an oil millionaire? Did a leopard kill the young women, or is the wealthy recluse in town actually hiding some guilty knowledge? Is the young woman, claiming to be the wife of a brother killed in a train wreck, actually an impostor? Here it is Raines and Gomez (with an assist by Tone) trying to prove Curtis did see a woman nobody will admit seeing - and if he did see her, why is nobody else able to recall seeing her? The problem with the story really is Curtis's personality - he gives in too easily when found guilty of the crime he did not commit. In reality anyone who is innocent would be screaming it to the moment they are executed. However, in defense of Curtis's collapse, it also happens to other people in various films: Gary Cooper, in MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, gets so disgusted about the framing he gets as delusional and mad by Douglas Dumbrille and his minions that he does not defend himself at first, until the people who would depend on his help cry out their fears in the courtroom and reawaken his sense of responsibility. But Curtis just seems to give up. In normal circumstances Raines, Gomez, and everyone else would not care if Curtis didn't.

But the film survives this weakness. The slow unraveling of lies by witnesses bribed by the real killer allows two set pieces for Raines with Tombes on a deserted elevated platform and Elisha Cook at a jazz session. Gomez turns out to be more perceptive than the villain expects in double checking his alibi again. And the villain manages to keep slightly ahead of Raines and Gomez until the concluding minutes of the film. If it is not as great a film as DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or THE MALTESE FALCON, it holds up pretty well until the moment Curtis and Raines are reunited at the end. Drum scene is wild! Cook, Jr. is unsung hero of this and many movies. Fantastic actor, great flick. A few twists that keep you moving. A must-see. This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal – marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches – but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.

Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star – Franchot Tone – packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor – he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead – Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945) – is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr. – the genre's quintessential fall guy – as an ill-fated "ladies' man" of a percussionist.

Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction – all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York – which results in his being mowed down by a car!

Notable, too, is the trial sequence – which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone "dizzy spells". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt – and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.

By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film – in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater – the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Ella was excellent, Franchot was unavoidably over-the-top (But he played similar parts in other films such as "The Man on the Eiffel Tower") and Alan was nearly non-existent but the film certainly "thrilled".

*mild spoiler ahead*: I wonder how many times Elisha Cook got strangled in his films but I seem to recall various other examples. I will avoid naming the murderer but I think it's necessarily obvious because of the plot "thriller" demands.

A very well-done but dated film noire (for example: everyone smoked like crazy and the police were really stock characters. And no dead bodies were ever shown, unlike today's gore fests.) done in the familiar short-scene tableaux format of the period.

8 out of 10. Pretty good picture about a man being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the murderer wanted to whack the dame, why not just off her and let the cops try to figure out whodunnit? Involving all these characters in the plot is dangerous, not to mention all the mouths you'd have to worry about staying shut. Why did the depressed lady go out to the bar when she could barely sit up in a chair or say a word? Are there really cops out there who are wise cracking, gum popping, grinning apes who approach a suspect in such a glib manner? This probably played well back before the wheel was invented, but it is so corny and unbelievable today. Catch the manic drum break by Elisha Cook; his frenetic hammering never once matched the recording. His mad facial expressions made up for the off kilter stick sync. The premise is a bit better than the execution, but that doesn't mean the film is worth a look. Splendid supporting cast makes this a fun mystery to unravel. Raines is great as the resourceful woman determined to solve this puzzlement. I always enjoy Thomas Gomez. Actor Herman José plays the role of a football of a soccer entrepreneur that acquires the pass of two African players and tries to sell them for very little money to the rival club of the Benfica (club of its heart),FC Porto, therefore these players did not play well, and it wanted that the FC Port was wronged with this. But what happens is that these two players after all are good and FC Porto sell them for much money to a foreign club, making a good business. The film, for a small country as Portugal, without great antecedents in great films, is a very good and funny comedy, showing all the rivalry that exists between North/South of Portugal (FC Porto/Benfica). Highly recommended I felt a great joy, after seeing this film, not because it is a master piece, but because it convinced me of, that the Portuguese cinema became really very good. We can see here the best Portuguese actores in this field. Along with Fernando Fragata, João Mário Grilo, Abi Feijó, Leonel Vieira, étc...(other commercial directors), Diamantino Costa is one of the best Portuguese Directors; "O Lampião da Estrela" was his (Diamantino Costa) First movie, before he made several successful commercials. This title is starred by one of the best Portuguese comedians of all times, Herman José and José Pedro Gomes are great. Its a very funny movie!! (28/07/2000)

BOA SORTE DIAMANTINO... True fans of film will love this authentic movie.

I disagree with the trolls who are rating this movie a one-star and calling it unrealistic. While I don't have the background or come from the environment of the protagonists, I've spent many years working in lower income and working class neighborhoods and feel the acting was very real and representative of how teenagers behave. I don't know what the basis is for others' comments that the film is "unrealistic". The dialog is great.

The low budget production value didn't bother me a bit. I felt that the natural lighting enhanced the character of the film. The focus was entirely on the story line and character development and not glitzy Hollywood propping or melodrama.

I completely bought into the character's motivations and reactions. The acting was believable and impressive for new and non-actors.

If your idea of good film is Transformers or Fast & Furious, then skip it. If you enjoy good character driven dramas, then see it.

(Regarding the negative commenters being "trolls": click on their names and you will see most have no other reviews or only negative reviews.) I saw this film a while back and it's still at the top of my 'favorite movies' list. It is amazingly put together and what really makes the film are the detailed tid bits (such as the 'Cafe Bustelo' coffee crate being reused as a cup to wash her grandsons hair) that people aren't seeing because YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE HISPANIC. This is just one of those films that is very culturally specific and particular. Please do not bash this film if you have no prior knowledge of what foundation it's being built upon. I completely see what the writer/director was going for, and he hit the target perfectly! This film is highly deserving of a better rating. Incredibly intriguing and captivating, I found it impossible to turn away once I began to watch. I am usually one of the harshest critics but to me this film was just brilliant, strange as this may sound I could almost smell the air and feel the textures of the locations.

From a cinematographic I thought there was great use of light and texture. From the orange glow of the summer light, down to the plastic wrapped couch all had a distinct air of realism to me.

From a character perspective I thought the notion of Victor Vargas as almost the glue that connects the story was quite inspired, each of the other members of the family having a more complete background simply caused greater intrigue in the main character himself.

Beyond that, having known someone just like the grandmother and having been on the receiving end of just such a situation, I can say the situation felt particularly realistic. The awkwardness, the accent, the cooking and even down to the comments made felt so authentic to me.

I think this film worked for me because I began to watch it with no expectations and found it completely immersing and brought back memories of teenage emotion, well worth a watch. "Victor doesn't have much, but that's not stopping him from trying to go out with Judy, the prettiest girl on the block. All he's got is hope and a one-bedroom apartment he shares with his family. His grandmother doesn't trust him, his brother worships him, and his half-sister just declared war. But Victor thinks love really can conquer all in this warm, genuine, and touching romantic comedy about life in the part of the city most people never see," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Peter Sollett' "Raising Victor Vargas" elicits engaging "debut" performances from lead actor Victor Rasuk (as Victor Vargas) and the cast. Mr. Rasuk and juicy Judy Marte (as Judy Gonzalez) are sexy and endearing as "Lower East Side Kids" discovering the joy of sexual attraction. Considering how attractive they look in this picture, it's not hard to predict they hook up - and, although you may wonder how "innocent" they really are, their characterizations seem true.

Victor's brother "Nino" is played by Victor's real-life brother Silvestre Rasuk, who looks the part his older brother is playing. Sometimes, it's nice to see movie brothers who actually look alike; and, hopefully they will work together again. "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" sister Krystal Rodriguez (as Vicki) and old world Altagracia Guzman (as Grandma) round out the sex-starved Dominican immigrant family. So, are hand-held-camera coming-of-age films in vogue, or what?

******* Raising Victor Vargas (5/16/02) Peter Sollett ~ Victor Rasuk, July Marte, Silvestre Rasuk Peter Sollett has created an endearing portrait about real people living in poverty in the Lower East Side of New York, or Loisaida, as it's known by the locals.

Mr. Sollett's heart is in the right place as he examines this dysfunctional family, that is typical of the different 'inner cities' of the country. Mr. Sollett accentuates the positive in the story he presents. These are basically good kids, the children of parents that have left them and whose grandmother has taken under her wing.

Instead of presenting his characters as losers, Mr. Sollett shows a positive side they all have. These kids are not into drugs, or are stealing because they are poor. Had this story been done by Hollywood we would have seen a parade of stereotypes, instead of children that are struggling, but deep down inside, they are not defeated.

Victor Rasuk, as Victor Vargas, was a revelation. He is a natural. So is July Marte. Her character shows us a no nonsense girl who will not be fooled or driven to do anything she doesn't want to do. Altagracia Guzman, as the grandmother is excellent. She conveys her frustration at not being able to steer her grandchildren into the things she believes in and that are so important to her.

All in all, this was an excellent picture thanks to Peter Sollett. I have no idea how IMDb sorts reviews but I do know that, as happens often on Amazon.com, there are a striking number of very negative reviews for this movie which repeat the same, somewhat obscure talking points, almost verbatim. A campaign? Only IMDb knows.

As for this movie: it's fine. It's a funny, cute and very straightforward movie.

It's been over a decade since I worked in Brooklyn, lived in Queens and visited relatives in the South Bronx. But I found nothing inauthentic or exploitative about these kids. Is the grandmother a bizarre character? Yup. Do the dialogue and plot acknowledge this? Yes, thankfully, they do. Are other movies set in the LES and featuring Dominican / Puerto Rican kids possible? You betcha. Does that make this movie a crime — as some of the (to my eyes, astroturf) comments would suggest? Hardly. Let a thousand plastic flowers bloom.

This is better than any episode of Degrassi JR. High or Degrassi High. Scoff at the comparison but _we've never had that_ and I'm touched, to the core, by this movie's humility of purpose and tender spirit.

That said, I'd love to know the backstory behind all this backbiting! :-D This movie feels like a film project. As though the filmmakers picked out a cross section of society with no experience and got to work. Characters are kind of uninvolved and naive though. Despite this amateurish feel, the movie is effective. It's like a cross-section of life with neighborhood kids trying to realize or nurture their honest sexual feelings. Being raised by a grand-parent, of course from that generation there is shame associated with sexuality. This provides for some predictable but well done conflict. Probably most enjoyable was the way the main character grew a little bit in his Romantic relationship realizing a greater depth to sexual feelings. A good watch but nothing stirring.... If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o) Wow! I loved this movie and LOVE Judy Marte!! This girl isn't just an awesome pretty face, she's funny and really really talented!! She made me laugh many times just by being very naturally rough with Victor who was desperately hitting on her! We'll be seeing her a lot in the next coming years... and probably also from director Peter Sollett and co-star Victor Rasuk!

Raising Victor Vargas is one of the best film I saw in a long time! Very refreshing! It's true, nice, funny, well filmed, it got it all : good story, good actors, good film direction!

If you like simple, slow paced, real life, urban movies, like maybe Jersey Girl from Kevin Smith, you'll love Victor Vargas! It's better! One of the best films I have seen in the past five years! The cast is universally spectacular in a tale of young love and bravado on the Lower East Side of New York City with the two leads being superstars in the making. Funny, charming, sad and inspiring, this is a totally refreshing take on urban youth that puts Larry Clark's often-nauseating shtick in the gutter where it belongs... although I have to admit that Bully was a cut above his normal fare. Raising Victor Vargas is one film you will kick yourself for missing... so don't miss it! This movie works because it feels so genuine. The story is simple and realistic, perfectly capturing the joys and anxieties of adolescent love and sexuality that most/all of us experienced during our teen years.

The actors are as natural as figures in a documentary but are as convincing and as charismatic as seasoned performers. The dialogue is fresh and honest... and thankfully not filled to the brim with cutesy pop culture references. Also, the cinematography is at once gritty and beautiful, bringing the Lower East Side setting to life in a very tangible way.

On an artistic level, I love this movie because it reminds me of great Italian neo-realism films like The Bicycle Thief and La Strada. Movies rarely feel as "real" as this does ... or as Bicycle Thief did. And the only other movie I've seen that treats teen sexuality with the same level of seriousness is Elia Kazan's Splendor in the Grass. Writer/director Peter Sollett deserves tremendous praise. This film is quite an achievement.

On a personal level, I am always glad to see a movie that treats members of ethnic America with love and respect. As an Italian-American, I hate the way my own people come off in the cinema (as racist, womanizing, criminal geniuses in irritatingly popular epics), and my aggravation on this count makes me acutely sensitive to other groups and their awful silver screen representations. Hispanics and Asians in particular seem cursed to playing villains in Westerns and action movies. (Good thing Gong Li didn't try to become famous in America!)

Of course, thanks largely to the rise of indie pictures, and the influence of Miramax, we are seeing a few more pictures about ethnic characters here and there ... but Raising Victor Vargas is easily one of the best. While I do really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is a refreshing change that Raising Victor Vargas is played straight (with less exaggerated and broadly-drawn characters) while still being very funny in its own right. Finally! Latino characters worthy of note. I have a feeling that this is a film that will be remembered.

Of course, now that he has made this wonderful picture about a family from the Dominican Republic, I hope Peter Sollett gets around to making a movie about Italians soon! :) - Marc DiPaolo Raising Victor Vargas is a movie you definitely need to see. It was very heart felt and had a lot of humor that gets you sucked right in. It is so much like real life with what teenagers have to go through. Victor, a cocky teen, but with a good heart at the end deals with love in all the right places dealing with girls and family. At the end Victor learns the true meaning of love after dealing with a old fashioned grandmother and a girl who he wants to use is actually using him too.I recommend people to watch this movie because it will be like you are watching a real family. Thats how much feeling this movie has. One heart felt moment was when Victor's grandmother throws victor out over something simple. Victor was really heart and couldn't believe that she would do something like that. It made me feel real sorry for him like it was real. Overall I give this movie a B+ There are plenty of reviews on this page that will explain this movie's details far more eloquently than I could; but I would like to offer a simple review for those who occasionally go to the movies for more than entertainment. Raising Victor Vargas is so true you will believe it. This flick gets inside your head. One more of those brilliant young men who went all out and dared to make a teen romance film( can i actually call it that?- it would invoke the devil out of its fans)on a micro budget but packed with such taste, sensitiveness and maturity. Peter Sollett- you deserve more admiration and respect.Thanks once again for demonstrating to the powers that be in the "industry" that stereotypes can be flushed down the toilet. One location,a handful of rich characters, low budget,good acting(and that too amateurs),decent lighting - worshippers of true indie cinema should watch more of this and STOP watching...well...you know what. I'm surprised how many people give this move less than 7 stars.

But they just don't understand the movie.

The story is about growing up in a difficult situation.

There is a crazy grandmother who really wants the best for your grandchildren.

And there's good reason why so many critics like this movie.

And the reason is because they understand the movie.

I feel sorry for the low scores given by some people.

I wish I could just write a brief summary of a movie but IMDb requires you to write 10 lines.

I frankly don't have anything else to say. This film captures the true struggle with identity that is ongoing in our teenage years. It is really moving and it feels strangely like a documentary-not contrived but very real. It is very interesting and unsettling For what it is, "Raising Victor Vargas" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of "street" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, "Raising Victor Vargas" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A) This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.

Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie Not as bad a film as i thought it would be.

It has a good cast.Nice to see Roger Moore back on screen as well as the use of other British actors.

Would like to see more of Olivia D`Abo in future projects.Maybe starring opposite her cousin the sexy Maryam D`Abo.

Also a good use of unseen locations such as Luxembourg.

Hopefully we will see more UK-European co-productions like this. The cast is excellent, the acting good, the plot interesting, the evolvement full of suspense...but it is hard to cram all those elements into a film that is barely 80 minutes long. If more time was taken to develop the plot and subplots, it would have a much better effect. Another 30 minutes of substance would have made this a very good film rather then just a good one. This movie was pretty good. The acting was great, and there were some really great actors in it like, Buchholz and Roger Moore. This film is full of surprises. Confusing at times...yes, but the twists and turns of the plot always keeps you in suspense. The only thing that this movie had too much of was exploding cars. I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating. WWE was in need of a saviour as Wrestlemania 14 rolled around. The departure of Bret Hart and subsequent evaporation of the Hart Foundation had left the Vile D-Generation X stable unchallenged in the WWE. Their despicable leader Shawn Michaels had stolen the title from Hart thanks to the interference of Vince McMahon and, with help from his cohorts Triple H and Chyna had systematically taken out anyone who challenged his supremacy. But at the Royal Rumble a new contender had emerged. Stone Cold Steve Austin. Hated by McMahonagement, Austin had DX worried. So worried in fact that they'd enlisted the help of "The Baddest Man on the Planet" Mike Tyson as a special enforcer. Austin would have the odds firmly against him in his title match with Shawn Michaels.

But first, there was an undercard to get through which kicked off with the Legion of Doom winning a forgettable 15 team battle Royal to become NO.1 contenders for the tag titles. I'd actually forgotten this match existed until I rewatched the PPV. No very good and really highlighted the lack of depth in the tag division at that period in time.

Next match saw the Light Heavyweight title defended by Champion Taka Michonoku against Aguila. The WWE had established the Light Heavyweight Title to compete with the strong Cruiserweight Division in WCW. It was not successful and this was the only time the title was ever defended at Wrestlemania. Short match, going about five minutes, and in fact too short for much to be achieved. What little they did was exciting and this was a nice little match which saw Taka retaining his title.

OK, our next match saw DX member Triple H defending the WWE European title, which he'd won in farcical fashion from Shawn Michaels on RAW in December and hadn't defended on PPV, against Owen Hart, the Sole Survivor. Triple H got a big entrance with the DX band there to perform his theme song. Chyna accompanied Triple H to ringside, but was then handcuffed to WWE Commissioner Sgt Slaughter. Triple H and Owen have a nice little match, before Chyna interfered causing a low blow on Hart which leads to Triple H retaining the title. Good match, could have been great had it gone slightly longer.

But of course we wouldn't want to take time away from our next match which saw real life husband and wife Marc Mero and Sable defeat Goldust and Luna Vachon in the first mixed tag match at Wrestlemania in 8 years. And, in all honesty, it wasn't worth the wait. While not terrible, the match was in no way memorable either. This was the nearing the end of Mero's only run in the WWE and the main purpose was to continue the disintegration of his relationship with Sable.

Next up we saw Ken Shamrock flip out and cost himself the Intercontinental Championship as he destroyed IC Champion The Rock, but then refused to let go of his ankle lock submission hold, resulting in the referee reversing his decision. This was a short match, but decent for what it was.

Next saw the first good match of the night as WWE Tag Team Champions the New Age Outlaws lost their titles to Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie in a fun dumpster match. The decision was overturned the following night as Cactus and chainsaw had thrown the Outlaws into a dumpster backstage, rather than the one being used in the match, but this was still a fun match.

NOw it was time for the highly anticipated first ever meeting between Kane and his brother the Undertaker. Kane had cost Undertaker the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble and then "killed" him when he helped Shawn Michaels lock Undertaker in a casket and set him on fire as revenge for the Undertaker burning down their parents house and leaving him horribly disfigured years before. This was a decent match and told a nice story as the Underataker absorbed everything Kane could throw at him and then knocked him out with three tombstones to end the match.

This left only the main event which saw WWE Champion face Steve Austin with Mike Tyson as the guest enforcer. Michaels had suffered a debilitating back injury in his match with the Undertaker at the Royal Rumble and was remarkable in this match despite his physical limitations. Triple H and Chyna were banished to the back in the early going after interfering from the outside. The match ended with Austin ducking an attempt at Sweet Chin Music and hitting the Stone Cold Stunner with the ref down. TYson then came into the ring to count the three, celebrating the win with Austin and then knocking out Michaels after the match. It turned out Tyson and Austin were together and the cat had been playing with the mouse all along.

That was the final PPV match for Shawn Michaels for four and a half years. It helped establish Austin as the biggest star in the wrestling business and the mainstream publicity garnered by Tyson's appearance proved a crucial turning point in the WWE's battle with WCW. Austin would go on to become the biggest star in WWE History, and along with the Rock, Mick Foley, the Undertaker and Triple H lead the WWE through the period where they would gain their highest level of cultural relevance. And it all started here at Wrestlemania 14. Wrestlemania 14 is not often looked as one of the great Wrestlemania's but I would personally put it, in my top 5, if not the top 3. It has so many great things, and it truly signified the birth of The Attitude Era, which was WWE's best era, in my opinion. HBK has the heart of a lion, and him putting over Austin like he did, on his way out, was pure class on his part. It has one of the hottest crowds you will ever see, and it has J.R and The King at their announcing best!.

Matches.

15 – team battle royal LOUD pop for L.O.D's return. I'm not a fan of battle royal's, and this is yet another average one. Very predictable, even when you 1st see it, it's obvious L.O.D would win. Looking at Sunny for 8 or so minutes though, definitely helps.

2/5

WWF Light Heavyweight Championship

Taka Michinoku|C| Vs Aguila.

Taka gets a surprising pop, with his entrance. Fast, high-flying, and very exciting. If these two had more time, they would have surely tore the roof off, with their stuff. Taka wins with the Michinoku driver.

3 1/2 /5

WWF European Championship.

Triple H|C| Vs Owen Hart Stipulation here, is Chyna is handcuffed to Slaughter. Nice pop for Owen, mixed reaction for Trips. A really, really underrated match, that ranks among one of my favorites for Wrestlemania, actually. The two mixed together very well, and Owen can go with anybody. Trips wins, with Chyna interference.

4/5

Mixed Tag match. Marc Mero&Sable Vs Goldust&Luna. Defining pop for Sable, unheard of that time, for woman. Sable actually looks hot, and the crowd is just eating her up!. Constant Sable chants, and them erupting almost every time she gets in the ring. Not bad for a Mixed tag match, it had entertaining antics, and passed the time well. Sable's team wins, when Sable hits the TKO.

2 1/2 /5

WWF Intercontinental Championship. Ken Shamrock Vs The Rock|C|. Before I review the match, I'd like to note The Rock showed off his immense potential, with his interview with Jennifer Flowers, before his match. Nice pop for Shamrock, big time heat for The Rock. Too disappointingly short, and I thought the ending was kinda stupid, though Shamrock's snapping antics were awesome to see, and the crowd went nuts for it. Rock keeps the title, when The Ref reverses the decision.

2/5

Dumpster match, for The WWF Tag Team Championship

Catcus Jack&Terry Funk Vs The New Age Outlaws. The Outlaws are not as over, as they were gonna be at this time. Crowd is actually somewhat dead for this, but I thought it had some great Hardcore bits, with some sick looking bumps. Cactus and Terry win the titles in the end.

3/5

The Undertaker vs Kane. Big time ovation, for The Undertaker. Much better than there outing at Wrestlemania 20, and for a big man vs big man match, this was really good. It was a great all out brawl, with The Undertaker taking a sick looking bump, through the table. WWE was smart, by making Kane looking strong, even through defeat. After 2 tombstone kick out's, Taker finally puts him away, with a 3rd one.

3 1/2 /5

WWF Championship.

Special Guest Enforcer "Mike Tyson"

HBK|C| Vs Steve Austin. Big heat for Tyson. Crowd goes ape sh*t for Austin, definitely one of the biggest pops I have heard. Mixed reaction, for HBK. This is truly a special match up, one of the greatest wrestlemania main events in history, you can tell when J.R is even out of breath. HBK gives it his all, in what was supposed to be his last match, and Austin has rarely been better. The animosity and electricity from the crowd is amazing, and it's as exciting as it gets. Austin wins with the stunner, with Tyson joining 3:16 by knocking out Michaels. Austin's celebratory victory, is a wonder to behold, with one of the nosiest crowd's you will ever see, King said it right, they were going nuts.

5/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 14 is one of the greatest for real. It has everything you want in a Wrestlemania, and truly kick started the Attitude Era. This is very special to me, because it was the 1st Wrestlemania I ever saw, back in 98. "The Austin Era, has begun!"

9 1/2 /10 Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match. This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow "In Your House" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night. This is just the best movie of all times! Sorry, Hollywood! I've seen it in early 70's, as soon as it appeared on the Bulgarian TV, and I loved it immediately (I was 14 then). 25 years later I bought it on a video tape, and a few months ago it finally appeared on a DVD here in Bulgaria. I live with this movie 35 years already, and so do all my friends and my family. My son was a teenager when he saw it for the first time, and he loved it immediately, too (and this is the generation that grew up watching practically only Hollywood movies and not speaking or understanding Russian at all!). What makes this masterpiece of Danelia so special? It's difficult to say, as it is difficult to describe what the beauty is... But the fact is that you can watch this movie dozens of times with the same pleasure as it was the first time. I can't remember any other such movie, no matter how many millions it cost or how great the cast was... Chapeau, Maestro Danelia! Bulgaria loves you! Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities. This is my first comment on IMDb website, and the reason I'm writing it is that we're talking about ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER! 'Ne goryuy!' will make you laugh and cry at the same time, you will fall in love (if you're not a fan yet!) with Georgian choir singing tradition, and possibly you will accept the hardships of your own existence and just feel good after watching it:) What I like a lot about this film is that actors in the non-leading roles create vivid and memorable characters and are just as interesting and important as the central character. The film is starring Vahtang Kikabidze (who is great), but you will remember every single face around him in the film. You will find yourself quoting their lines, that have become household names for so many Russian-speaking people. A film to live with. Simple, yet deep, you will want to watch it again and again. The quintessential Georgian film of Georgi Danelia, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't Grieve is loosely based on the novel by French writer Claude Tillier (1801-1844) "Mon oncle Benjamin" The novel takes place in the country side of the 18th Century France. The Great French Revolution is still ahead but some of its stormy signs are present in society. Benjamin, the local doctor is a soul of a local society, the educated, friendly, democratic person who often treats the poor for free. It makes him very popular with the locals but most certainly does not help with his bank account. He is in love with a beautiful Manette who is also crazy about him but is being watched closely by her father who called his daughter "his small capital" and is determined to protect her virginity until the moment the marriage contract has been signed... I never read the book, and from description it sounds like a charming very French novel but I am fascinated with the results of moving the characters and some plot elements from 18th Century France to the beginning of 20th century Georgia-Grusiya. I would think that it was Danelia who came up with all the colorful memorable characters that feel so much at home in his native Georgia-Grusiya, the land of long and wonderful traditions, including Art of making and drinking wine, rare music talent that all Georgians seem to possess, very unique humor, and high code of honor. When we watched the film last night together with my husband, he said, what a great example of an Art film, and I so agree with him. Don't Grieve is a perfect Art movie, visually beautiful, deep but funny, at times sad and philosophical but never in a preachy arrogant way but optimistic, celebrating life with all its beauty and sadness, full of interest, loving irony and understanding for its slightly eccentric but very human characters. What is the most important, the film is warm and gentle, it does not look down at its viewers as some of the Art pictures do. You don't have to be a movie buff to love it, to live with it, to smile and sigh at it, to follow the good-hearted young Doctor Benjamin (first role in a Danelia film of famous singer and actor Wachtang Kikabidze with whom Danelia would go on to make two more films including one of my all time favorites, Mimino) on his journey through the roads and mountains of Georgia. Or to be a guest on one of a kind party where the friends gather to celebrate life of the old doctor Levan who wanted to be a guest on his own wake, to hear what his friends have to say about him when he dies while he is still alive, and who gets to choose which color he prefers for his coffin. When I watched the film I thought that it is a sort of movie that Federico Fellini might have liked. I was not surprised at all to find the article about Danelia where he names Fellini his number one director. I also found out that according Danelia, the famous Soviet directors, Leonid Gaiday (the creator of many beloved comedies) and Sergei Paraszhanov (the visionary whom I don't have to introduce loved another Danelia's film, fairy tale about American boy Huck Finn, Sovsem propashchiy) felt and spoke negatively about Don't Grieve while Fellini praised it highly. I dare go a little further and just guess that perhaps Maestro Fellini kept in mind some images and the very aura and atmosphere of Don't Grieve when he was making Amrarcord in 1973. Just a thought, because there is something essential that connects both films. Both Artists came back to their roots, to the places that they love deeply, to the people they remembered, loved and wanted to honor. Both films have a lot of smiles through the tears. Both are Art movies that would get directly to the hearts of the viewers. Both are masterworks.

I think I am going to add Georgi Danelia to the list of my favorite directors. He has made some of the brilliant pictures in my most favorite genre of dramedy, even tragicomedies that are funny and bitter sweet, poignant and subtle, earthy and uplifting, gentle and shining. When I looked up the list of the movies he has written/directed, I was amazed at the fact that he has not made a single bad film since he started back in 1960 with the Award winning story of a young boy, Seryozha. Many of Danelia's films are among my favorites, as I am sure they are among his legions of fans. The man behind 'Seryozha, Sovsem propashchiy (1972) which is an adaptation of Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 33, Ya shagayu po Moskve (1964) aka Walking the Streets of Moscow, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't grieve, Afonya (1975), Mimino (1977), Osenniy marafon (1979) aka Autumn Marathon or Sad Comedy which is a very fitting title for this movie as well as for the whole genre that Danelia practically invented, and the cult favorite for over 20 years Kin-Dza-Dza (1986), is brilliant and deserves our true love and genuine gratitude for the unforgettable moments of cinematic happiness. this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.

I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.

And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show. This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were "I Left My Neck In San Francisco", "Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea", "The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly" and "When You Wish Upon A Star Creature". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as "Rocky Mountain YIIII!" and "The Ransom Of Scooby Chief". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told. some people think that the second series was where scooby was ruined..i disagree totally.the shows quality did not go up or down and scrappy ,win my opinion,as a very good chrecter.i looked at a poll on jumpedtheshark.com and 72% of people said scrappys second series was scoobys downfall.OK so loads said yes but 28%still cant be wrong.I do like the way most of the episodes focused on comedy.i believe the show would have gone rubbish if it was the same 5 people/dog solving mystery in same formula.scrappy was a breath of fresh air to the show.sure,some people tuned out but when scrappy was introduced viewing figures DOUBLED.Back to the show.All the episodes and segments were very funny.i was Intriguded by the yabba shorts and .But at the end of the day its a matter of opinion if you like scrappy or not is a matter of opinion,there is certainly no fact involved.But in my OPINION this was a superb series that gave a beginning to tire show a new formula and lease of life.Nuff said. Let's cut to the chase: If you're a baby-boomer, you inevitably spent some time wondering at the fact that, in 1976, McCartney had the gumption to drop in on John's city hermit life and spend the day with him. You also certainly wondered how things went. I heard the exact same reports that the writer of this film heard, from John's and Paul's perspective, and I admit that I reconstructed the meeting in pretty much the same way this film does. But none of my imaginings could have bought tears to my eyes the way this incredible piece of work and acting does. I found it amazingly lifelike, perfectly plausible and 100 % saccharin-free. Now, can anyone explain why I didn't hear of this masterpiece before it was shown by the CBC last night? I mean it's already three years old, for goodness sake! And yes, if you're a Beatles fan, this is a must-see performance! Even the subtle paraphrasing of Beatles' melodies in the background is inspired. Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney – even with some make-up and proper hairdos – didn't help one bit.

But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course – though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians – their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.

Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life – so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended. This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America. I admit I had some trepidation when I first saw the previews for this film. Was VH-1 treading on hollow ground here? I mean, Harris and Quinn don't really look or even sound like John or Paul. But I have to admit, this film really surprised me. It's far from the exploitation film I expected. Instead, it's a character study, a low-key, whimsical, and ultimately bittersweet look at friendship, and the ultimate lesson we all learn: it's hard, if not impossible, to capture what we once had, and what has passed us by. Very Slight Spoiler

This movie (despite being only on TV) is absolutely excellent. I didn`t really pay attention to the differences in looks or accents, so I can`t really comment on that. The acting in this was so good I had to pinch myself and say "Remember, it`s only a movie, this DIDN`T REALLY HAPPEN". As I sat and listened to Harris and Quinn talk, I knew that it was exactly what John and Paul would be talking about had they actually had this meeting. The offhanded comments and burns from John were right on with his character(especially in the restaurant!), as was his depression while Paul was very easy going and laid back. Both actors did and excellent job and I was thrilled to have seen this movie. It`s a wicked experience for any Beatles fan. And prepare for a few surprises! Recently shown on cable tv the movie opens with a disclaimer distancing itself from any co-operation of real life persons; that in itself is an eye catcher. Yet the script and acting from the main characters is superb and I found myself engrossed throughout.Due in no small way to the crisp, thoughtful and interesting dialogue.The film is about a meeting on one day between two real life musical "legends" who formerly composed together then seperated.The film captures the essence of their lives and philosophies, in a story which proffers an explanation for their initial "split". What is so impressive is that the actors give such seemingly realistic portrayals of the characters they play,faults and all, that this viewer at least was left believing I was witnessing a true event in almost every detail. The great skill of this play is that with astute writing and fine acting a movie basically about "two of us" talking can make an excellent picture. Worthy of at least an 8 out of 10. Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.

It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!

The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.

THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:

As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.

It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.

In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.

If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested. This is one of the few movies released about a "what if" type of situation that made me think. It was amazing to hear them speak to each other, and reminisce about all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things that happened between them. I actually think that there is a very good possibility this occurred like the movie implies, and they actually made peace with each other. Those are good memories for every fan to hang onto, and to ask what actually happened between them would be selfish. What an AMAZING movie this was. The comedic aspects of the movie were wonderful. To think that they were together to patch things up between them in such a way is a comforting thought to people who wish they had a chance to clear the air with someone they didn't get to. To see John as such a caring, laid back character was refreshing from hearing all of the trash that was spoken about him... I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the "Two of Us" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what "might have been." Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances. I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.

Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.

The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.

Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup. this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't I sat down to watch this film with much trepidation and little hope. I didn't think it would be possible for this film to live up to its subject matter. But it absolutely did, and then some. First, I must say that Jared Harris did an extraordinary job as John Lennon. At times it seemed that Harris was channeling Lennon. The resemblance was often uncanny, and he clearly studied Lennon's mannerisms and vocal inflections. Aiden Quinn was quite good as McCartney, also bearing a striking resemblance to Macca, although he did occasionally trip over his Scouse accent.

This work of fiction was well-written and well-directed. It was pure fantasy, of course, but sometimes I felt like a voyeur peeking through a keyhole at this reunion. The rooftop scene was especially moving, as McCartney told Lennon what he had never heard as a child--that he was worthy and important, and it could never be his fault that he was abandoned by his parents. I also enjoyed the scene in the park where the pair of them danced with absolute abandon to the reggae band!

My one complaint would be this: I am not so sure that John was as caustic as he was portrayed in the film at this stage in his life. He had settled in to his domestic situation quite nicely, and he was actually known to be quite friendly when approached by fans. Only a few years later, he was very friendly when he was first approached by his assassin for an autograph on the day he was murdered.

Mostly this film served to stir up those feelings again about what might have been had John lived a bit longer. I am quite sure the Beatles would have come back together at some stage. And I am quite certain that Lennon and McCartney would still be friends today.

Well done, VH1. I will watch it again and again.

*WARNING* Spoilers ahead... The writers of this story knew these men very well. The actors, likewise, portrayed them very well. The result is that by the end of the film you feel like you're actually watching John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The expected tensions are there, especially in the awkward first moments. But as the two begin to loosen up, the old camaraderie that made the Beatles work so well begins to show through. The bitterness is still there, and interrupts at times, but by the time John gets the idea to take Lorne Michaels up on his offer to pay the Beatles the gag sum of $3000 to appear on "Saturday Night Live", the two could be the same boyish pranksters that terrorized Liverpool together as teens, and survived playing the rough nightclubs of Hamburg to rise to Superstardom. But in the end, this wonderful fantasy grounds us gently. We are reminded why a Beatles reunion was most likely never possible even before Lennon's assassination: The two driving forces of the group outgrew each other. I am a big Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle is Paul and my least favorite is John. I already knew quite a bit about the Beatles music and the truth behind the breakup, as well as things like John Lennon's family and Paul's band Wings. I was curious to see how this movie would handle the relationship between John and Paul so many years after the breakup.

I was not disappointed by this movie. Although the story itself is fiction, many of the references that the two musicians used were very accurate. These included how Yoko Ono would always be with John wherever he went, the Wings song "Silly Love Songs" being the number one hit that year and the concert on the roof of Apple Studios playing music from the album "Let It Be."

The actors did a very good job in playing John and Paul. The accents could had used maybe a bit more work, but they seemed to act a lot like I've read the two former-Beatles used to act like. I also liked the dialogue between them, which was basically what the entire movie was.

The ending at first disappointed me, but the more you think about it the more you will appreciate it, especially since this was how it really went in real life. They also show the fantastic skit from "Saturday Night Live" in which the Beatles are offered $3,000 to perform on the show. (as compared to the $220 million others were offering them) Overall, I was not disappointed with this movie. It does really give you more of a feel for why the Beatles broke up and why they never got back together. This was the first televised episode of the Columbo series (although it was filmed after "Death Lends a Hand")and it heralded one of the most successful TV series in history.

Jack Cassidy (who played the murderer in the series three times) enthuses smugness, arrogance and self-assuredness in equal measure here, as Ken Franklin, one half of a mystery writing team who hatches an elaborate plot to kill off his partner, Jim Ferris (played by Martin Milner) who decides to terminate their professional relationship, leaving Franklin exposed as merely a good publicist rather than a prolific writer.

The initial murder set-up is fantastic and Cassidy's performance facilitates an arguable accolade that he was the best Columbo murderer in the series.

Peter Falk is wonderfully understated in his role as Columbo and the character's inherent traits and oddities, which are underlined by a seeming slowness and absent-mindedness, contrast particularly well with Cassidy's character's extreme smugness: one of their early scenes together where Ken Franklin fabricates a motive for the killing through Jim Ferris's non-existent expo-see of identifying hit-men operating in the underworld exemplifies this very well. Franklin hints to Columbo this potential motive and Columbo (purposely or ignorantly) fails to latch on, forcing Franklin to express his disappointment in a markedly patronising manner and compare him unfavourably with the detective in the books, Mrs. Melville.

Also, noteworthy is the early directorial contribution of 24 year old Steven Spielberg. Notwithstanding, some elementary inclusions of cameras shadowing the actors and actresses, he adds some stylish and elaborate touches to uphold the general professionalism of the episode. One particularly stark image is of Jim Feriss's dead body lying on the settee, almost dark in the foreground, as Ken Franklin raises a glass to him in the background after he finishes answering a phone call to Ferris's distraught wife. I have no doubt that working to a restrictive 10-14 day schedule, Spieberg's efforts should not be underestimated.

Unfortunately, the event of the second murder, necessitated by a blackmailing scheme which is plotted by a female friend of Franklin's (and ironically referred to as "sloppy" by Columbo in his climatic summing up) takes the steam out of the whole thing. The cutting edge of the plot is compromised and the screen-time between Falk and Cassidy inexcusably lessens at this point to perhaps help the script-writer (Stephen Bocho) out of a tight corner, since he cannot singularly develop the story without another murder.

The climax is the most disappointing aspect of this episode. The initial banter and exchange of words between Falk and Cassidy is strongly and effectively executed, but it merely advertises the fact that it should have happened more in the episode. The main aggravation lies with the sealing clue (if it can be called a clue): Cassidy's character's hitherto smugness and arrogance is amazingly expelled by a clue that really does little to imply his guilt; and once this is mentioned, he capitulates in a rather unspectacular and uncharacteristic fashion.

All in all, a bold opening to the series, which inevitably advertises and foretells all that is good about Columbo, and, conversely, the problems associated with such ingenuity, i.e maintaining the high standards and particularly, creating a credible and suitably intelligent ending. This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself. The story for the first-aired television installment of "Columbo" is simple: one-half of successful mystery-writing team does away with the other, frames an unseen Mafia group, is blackmailed by an admirer, does away with the admirer, and is tricked up by the stalwart Columbo.

With that said, this is still one of the most entertaining in the show's history, benefiting tremendously by the work of the late Jack Cassidy and star Peter Falk.

Besides the notability of being directed by a young Steven Spielberg, the episode also has a air of the macabre because of the future of two of its stars: Cassidy and Barbara Colby. The two share several scenes together and it is poignant that both would die tragically within a decade of this filming, Cassidy in an apartment fire and Colby at the hands of assailants, yet to be found after over three decades.

Now, both demises are true-life MYSTERIES! Along with Patrick McGoohan and Robert Culp, Jack Cassidy was an iconic Columbo villain. The very first "proper" episode of Columbo, following two standalone pilots, "Murder By The Book" is not far off classic status.

Jack Cassidy plays Ken Franklin, one half of a murder mystery writing partnership. His partner Jim is the talented one, whereas Ken has no talent other than the gift of the gab and a skill for promoting the books. As soon as Jim has decided he no longer requires Ken's marketing skills, Ken hatches a plot to kill Jim. Except it's not a new plot, it's actually the implementation in real life of a murder storyline originally intended for one of their books.

It doesn't take Columbo long to work out that Ken is the murderer, although unfortunately another murder has to take place (Ken romances and then kills a key witness) before Columbo has enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with "Murder By The Book", but it's not quite top-notch. I would just give "Publish Or Perish" the edge over this: both episodes feature Jack Cassidy and the world of publishing, but "Publish Or Perish" is a fraction more tense and unpredictable. But this is still a great episode. Casting Jack Cassidy as Ken Frankin was sheer brilliance. Cassidy personified arrogance, confidence, charm and wit - all with a condescending, evil little smirk on his face. In my opinion, Jack Cassidy is by far the best murderer (having appeared three times) in the Columbo series. This particular (and first) performance, is my favorite Columbo episode ever - hands down. A fresh faced Steven Spielberg did amazing camera work (yes, there were a couple of camera shadows on the actors at times)capturing the nuances and banter at different and intriguing angles between Columbo and Franklin. Also, the panoramic and tight in shots at Big Bear Lake, CA (Franklin's cabin home) were very impressive.

If you have not yet seen this episode, then you owe it to yourself to do so - it's a true masterpiece.

Jack Cassidy was a very talented actor and singer. His charismatic personality was highly infectious. His death in 1976, at age 49 was very sad and indeed very tragic - he surely had his best years ahead of him. Rest in Peace Jack, you will live on for eternity through your great work. This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.

This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.

The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.

The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.

The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.

A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.

7/10 There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question. "The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!" – Robert Altman

In 1955 Charles Laughton directed "The Night of the Hunter", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster.

Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in "Cape Fear", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade "Cape Fear", boat scene and all.

Now we have Robert Altman's "The Gingerbread Man", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted "The Night of the Hunter" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to "spread his wings and try a popcorn picture", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.

So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's "house ship". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.

Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.

Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the "thriller format" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. "Gingerbread Man" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.

The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's "Cape Fear" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.

7/10 – In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: "Kansas City", "Gingerbread Man" and "Cookie's Fortune". Unlike "Gingerbread Man", both "Kansas City" and "Cookie's Fortune" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with.

"Kansas City" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, "The Wire"). That said, "Cookie's Fortune", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.

Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed "Images", an art house thriller, in 1972.

Worth one viewing. Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: "Quintet", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in "Forbidden Games"; "HealtH", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; "Popeye", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; "O.C. & Stiggs", for its proposal of an anti-"adolescents flick"; "Beyond Therapy", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like "The Dumb Waiter" and "The Laundromat". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about "The Gingerbread Man", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike "The Gingerbread Man", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot "Red Sorghum", "Ju Dou" and "Farewell My Concubine". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his "foreigner's gaze", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa. Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.

Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film "The Long Goodbye." "The Gingerbread Man" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.

Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.

Grade: B A lawyer is drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when he becomes involved with a femme fatale in this adaptation of a Grisham novel. Altman creates a suspenseful, Gothic atmosphere but the script is weak. Sporting a Southern drawl, Branagh is convincing as the lawyer, and Davidtz is alluring as the object of his desire. Downey is likable as a private detective. Duvall has a small role, which does not allow him to do much with his weird character. Hannah and Berenger round out the impressive cast. After an interesting setup, the film bogs down and does not really deliver on its initial promise, but Altman is always worth a look. I found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.

Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.

But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?

Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.

Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.

Torn, in the end I judged it a 7.

The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions. I don't understand the low 5.7 rating on this film. It's a delight for people who like a strong suspense plot and dark atmospherics. The tone is reminiscent of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, down to the locale (Savannah). The acting is strong, and I was amazed at the verisimilitude of Kenneth Branagh's southern accent. Famke Jansen is great, Robert Duval is effective in a small part, and Embeth Davitz is the BOMB. Great full nude scene of her,too.

The plot is fairly standard but effectively executed. Generally, it's difficult to rate these cut-&-paste films. Some of the segments can be quite good while others bring down the rating of the overall product. In this one, for instance, the all-girl scene in the Doctor's office was quite exciting...one of the best in this viewer's (limited) viewing history. Then there's Asia's segment... the lady is always entertaining. And the story that binds the whole together was an interesting concept. The swap scene that closes out the offering ain't bad either. Technically, the production values are fairly high. Recommended. Ok, so it's an adult movie. But it really is very tastefully done. It's obvious that the producers spent a lot of time and money into making a classy sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised at just how good it was. Even the acting was fairly decent. The plot was more solid than most adult films I've seen. The camera work was above average. It's just a good flick!! Although Cameron Grant was clearly hired to replace Andrew Blake over at Ultimate Pictures when the latter started his own company (Studio A), he practically outdid the "Master" right out of the gate when it came to setting up steamy sex scenes. So, while all the window dressing Blake had pioneered (starlets in fetish lingerie and sun glasses, coiffed and made up as if they're about to hit the catwalk) remained very much present and accounted for, Grant added his own personal spin to the carnal content. In doing so, he raised the heat to a level that had eluded Big A ever since his first – and IMHO best – film NIGHT TRIPS. Cam's maiden effort, ELEMENTS OF DESIRE, might still have been handicapped by an overly slavish adherence to the Blake aesthetic (with a surfeit of girl on girl gropes), but his subsequent DINNER PARTY already shows him at the top of his form in what must surely rank as his masterpiece.

The title spells out the premise as a group of well to do friends and acquaintances gather over dinner to swap sexy stories, with an extended orgy at the conclusion. Scrumptious Juli Ashton and Tammy Parks smear food stuff all over each other's flawless physiques in their kitchen sequence that is sure to delight those with a taste towards combining pleasures of the palette with those of the flesh. Busty Crystal Gold (here : "Catalina") was rarely more than a reliable second-stringer, adding spice to several Ona Zee bargain basement noirs, yet looks absolutely stunning here in a romantic four poster frolic with Fabio lookalike Vince Voyeur. Beautiful blondes Kylie Ireland and Yvonne, making out with Marc Davis (for the record, the latter two were an item at the time) under a waterfall, complete the eye candy section of the movie.

Time to get cooking ! Early Jenna Jameson ("Daisy" back then) foreshadows the greatness to come as she drains Frank Towers ("Mark Slade" on his subsequent shift to the gay side of the industry) of all vital juices, albeit with a little help from brunette Diva for effective contrast, the scene's stylish industrial setting providing an atmospheric backdrop to the full tilt sex taking place. Impossibly hunky construction worker Gerry Pike seeks to cool off on a sweltering summer day by hosing down, a prospect too tantalizing for prim 'n' proper business woman Asia Carrera (at her all time most achingly pretty) to pass up. Best of show must be the imaginative sequence that has nasty Norma Jeane and handsome Sean Michaels teasing the pants off each other – for starters ! – while separated by a glass partition right until the predictably splashy conclusion.

With sex that proves either artsy or hot, and more often than not both, Grant has concocted a veritable smörgåsbord of fleshy wares to continue the film's gastronomic analogy the title implies. Couples may be the prime intended audience, but an alternation between naughty 'n' nice should rightfully include that "something for everything" recipe so many adult features are aiming for. Acting as his own DoP, the director shows great eye for detail, like the shot of Asia Carrera's pristine white shoes being spattered with mud, enriching his vision. This marks him out as a great filmmaker rather than a merely serviceable one, as was the case with Nick Steele who stepped up to take his place at Ultimate – effectively making him a replacement's replacement ? – when he packed up for greener pastures. The Dinner Party could quite possibly be in my opinion the greatest adult cinema production of all time. It is produced in such an exquisite manner and the actors portray their roles excellently. The kitchen scene starring Yvonne and Juli Ashton is magnificent. The use of the butter and milk really makes the scene. Additionally, the doctor's office scene is well done. The campfire scene is filled with enjoyable action, though the choice of actors in this scene is questionable. Asia Carrera's performance in the junkyard scene is incredible, but who would expect anything less from her. The closing scene is somewhat over used in adult films, but is classic none the less. I would highly recommend this film to all fans of adult films and those casual viewers. Run out to your video store and pick it up today. Cameron Grant is one of the best directors doing adult films. His only rival is Andrew Blake. Celeste is dynamite all thru the movie but the DR's office sequence with her & two other ladies is just incredible. Nearly as good is Asia Carrera's performance with the construction worker. I highly recommend this movie & gave it a 9. It's almost as good as Cameron Grant's ELEMENTS OF DESIRE which I gave a 10. "Who Loves The Sun" works its way through some prickly subject matter with enough wit and grace to keep the story not only engaging, but often hilarious. It's been a while since I've found such a thoroughly touching, thoroughly enjoyable film.

The film is gorgeous, drawing the eye with beautiful scenery and tranquil landscapes. The peaceful imagery contrasts wonderfully with the tension between the very human, very flawed, and yet very likable characters. Due to the excellent cast all five of the major players are wonderfully interesting and dynamic.

I recommend "Who Loves The Sun." It's a really funny movie that takes a poignant look at the hurts that we can inflict on each other, and the amazingly difficult but equally rewarding process of forgiveness. I had no idea what this movie was until I read about it in the L.A. Weekly. I generally agree with the reviews in the LA Weekly and decided to get a ticket for this film. the film stars molly parker (from my favorite television show Deadwood) and Lukas haas -- who I suspect we will be seeing more of in the very near future. The film is funny, heartwarming, features great acting, and beautiful photography. i don't know if the film has distribution, but I hope it does - or will - soon. this is destined to be a real indie gem. it even has music by my favorite band the silver jews! the only disappointment was that molly parker wasn't there at the screening. even without her there... this was hands down the best film i saw at the festival. I caught this movie on the Sundance Channel on cable one late afternoon. You might say "Who Loves the Sun" is a perfect leisurely pastime of a story, why ever not. You get to hang out with the trio: Lukas Haas is Will (returning after abruptly leaving everyone years ago), Molly Parker is Maggie (we learn she's very much part of the family Bloom), and Adam Scott is Daniel (is he friend or foe or fiancé), by the scenic Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada, captured in graphic compositions juxtaposed in vivid summer colors against sunshine and shadows. And supporting the trio are two more family members in the revealing mix: Wendy Crewson is Mom Mary Bloom, and R.H. Thomson is Dad Arthur Bloom. Writer-director Matt Bissonnette has delivered an ingenious unfolding of story-line and its various tentacle links - worry not, Haas may have a 'listless' face, but humor will come as Parker and Scott enter the circle of friends reunited, wry smiles will break and knowing delights stir. Dialogs may be terse or even nil, yet we'd get the flavor of what's cooking, bemused or wondering.

Yes, "Who Loves the Sun" can very well be categorized as a sleeper gem. The chemistry between all five principals sure gels and 'combusts', giving an energetic ensemble performance. After all, it's all in the family, and the film sure doesn't take itself too seriously.

Looks like the official site is still available at "wholovesthesun.com" and there are information on the soundtrack by Mac McCaughan (Portastatic with guitar tunes and strings) where score excerpts are being played, and behind the scenes production notes, interview with writer-director-producer Bissonnette on how the movie and concept came about, the casting and more. Have always appreciate Molly Parker since her spare yet mesmerizing performance in 1996 Lynne Stopkewich's 'Kissed', and she's married to Bissonnette, who "wrote the Maggie part for Molly." Although I live in Minnesota, I have been studying in France lately and came across this bizarre gem of a film.

This movie was amazing, to say the least. A creative and unique film, the different directors each lent something different to their interpretation of love in the City of Light. The first instinct is to attempt to fit each one of these little stories into an overall storyline, much as can be done with 2003's Love Actually. This attempt, however, renders the magic of each individual segment obsolete. When taken at face value, with each of the short segments taken as its own individual film, the love stories together tell a beautiful message.

The film is strikingly bizarre at times -- often to the point of confusion -- and each individual segment can be hard to follow. Still, to a watcher who pays close attention to each of the segments, the short plot lines become clear after a short time. The confusion is almost intriguing; it keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what will come next. It leaves the viewer wondering "Did that really just happen?" yet also leaves them satisfied that it did, indeed, occur. It's the kind of movie where the viewer, upon leaving the theater, can't actually decide whether they loved it or they hated it. The initial reaction is to go and watch it again and again, just to see these individual lives blend together into a cinematic masterpiece.

The interesting decision to make the movie multilingual adds something to the spectrum of people who can relate. It adds to the reality of the film -- here, the American tourists speak English, the Parisians French, and so on. The number of people that the film encompasses leads to an understanding of the international language of love.

From sickness to the supernatural, the love of parents to the love of husbands, this film covers all the bases of romantic storytelling. In its beautiful and quirky way, each unique event somehow falls into place to tell a story: that of all types, sizes, nationalities, and shapes of love. I was lucky enough to attend a screening in Stockholm for this elegantly expressed, enjoyable, and thought-provoking film. With romance as the heaviest weapon in its arsenal, Paris je t'aime boldly plunges into love in Paris, navigating the different forms in eighteen separate "quartiers" but without pouting Parisiennes and saccharine formulas. Its goldmine undoubtedly stems from frustration on the directors' parts – frustration over only having 5-10 minutes of screen time – thereby you are only presented with the best and most assured direction from each party.

Debating whether or not I should review all 18 segments, I reached the conclusion that it would be merely redundant and long-winded. Instead simply rest assured that each director graces the film with their eccentric styles and skills, and certainly you'll find your favourite. Although Gus Van Sant cannot resist the temptation to be introspective, his LES MARAIS is one of the better contributions, even sneaking in a well-placed Kurt Cobain reference. The Coen brothers recreate one of the more accessible segments in Paris, a scene with a muted but emotionally transparent Steve Buscemi, deadpan humour and clever camera angles that surely generated the most laughter in my theatre, and perhaps rightly so.

In this way, all story lines are exquisitely unique – filtered through the minds of different directors – but the one that deviates the most from the rest is Vincenzo Natali's QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE, a dark horror-Gothic love starring Elijah Wood as a lost tourist in the backstreets of Paris in the night who meets a vampiress. With a black-and-white format but blood-red colour contrast that seems to incongruously bleed off screen, it nearly becomes a pastiche of Sin City – a refreshing eerie and visual turn in an otherwise fairly grounded film.

Yet my single favourite segment was FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS by Tom Tykwer but I think I was conditioned to think so, given that I went in the theatre with him as my favourite and nudged my friend in the side saying "finally, that's my favourite director here". Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Tykwer delivers a lovely segment in which a blind boy picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - for once not annoying) that she breaks up with him, and he reflects on their relationship. As is Tywker's style, the story is dizzyingly fast-paced, kinetic and repetitive, featuring screaming and running (Lola Rennt) making it the most adrenaline-pumping segment in Paris je t'aime and possibly also the most touching once Tywker starts wielding his most powerful tool – music.

To fill the negative account, clearly not all directors manage as touching as Tywker, Van Sant, Cohens, Coixet and Dépardieu. Sylvain Chomet scrapes the bottom of the pile by carving out a truly disposable segment in which a little boy retells the story of how his parents met. They are two lonely mimes. This part is so in-your-face French and desperately quirky that it is insulting to international viewers. Suwa also directs a poor and fluffy segment with an unusually haggard-looking Juliette Binoche whom mourns the loss of her son. Nothing else happens. Finally, the wrap-up and interweaving of the 18 stories in the end feels somewhat rushed and half-hearted.

Yet Paris je t'aime truly spoils you with quality, for all the other stories are well-crafted with crisp acting and amusing writing. It is certainly one of the highlights of 2006 (not saying much, I suppose) and a very personal film in the sense that it is unavoidable to pick a favourite and a least favourite. Highly recommended both to mainstream of "pretentious" (heh) audiences.

8 out 10 Wasn't sure what to expect from this movie considering its amazing collection of stars and directors but in the end it didn't disappoint.

For me one of the highlights was the final episode with the American tourist speaking with a dreadful French accent (which made me feel better about mine) which was actually quite touching and a great way to wrap up the movie.

The story of the paramedic and the stabbing victim was also very moving and for pure comedy the Coen Brothers and Steve Buscemi take the award. The Tom Tykwer clip was also impressive although rather ambitious in its scope.

However, the Bob Hoskins segment was totally cringeworthy and the vampire story was completely farcical. The dialogue in Wes Craven's section also felt very forced and the Chinatown story was completely incomprehensible.

On the whole this film is worth watching for the good bits and has a strong finish. It's not too painful to sit through the bad sections - they only last 5 minutes anyway.

Ca vaut la peine!!! It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, "Paris, je t'aime" is breathtaking, showing that, as "Love Actually" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.

MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...

QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.

LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.

TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.

LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.

PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.

BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.

PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.

PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.

QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.

PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.

FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.

QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.

14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.

With Feist on the background, "Paris, je t'aime" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment! I watched this movie a couple of days ago in a small independent cinema in Paris. It was my last evening in the French capital and the best good-bye I could have chosen. These twenty episodes made me relive the impressions I had collected in Paris in a heart-warming manner without drifting off into kitsch or sentimental schmaltz. Each episode is full of surprise, strong emotions and suggestive pictures and each short-film is directed according to the rules of a good short story. To me this kind of movie demands a lot more talent and qualities of a director and a story board writer than any epic two hours drama and all of them succeeded in their task excellently! The stories were chosen carefully with regard to their matching Arrondissement and express the respective flair perfectly. Each episode was seen from a different ankle, had a different topic, a different style and still the twenty stories result in a harmonic orchestra of films. The most outstanding advantage with the concept of an episode movie in my opinion is based in the fact that you can switch in between a large variety of feelings and moods without the danger of overload, just the other way round: the melange of sadness, melancholy, pure joy, despair, wrath, anxiety, curiosity or passion gives this movie a unique freshness and harmony. And not to forget the all over topic of love! Love between the characters, love between the characters and Paris and also the love of the directors and actors/actresses for this project. I don't want to go into the details of the episodes since there are so many, but I must highlight the range of world famous actors and actresses from all over the world and their approach to this project. Some played with their image, some broke it completely and some interpreted the stereotypes connected with their home country or the roles they had played before, so intertextuality was given all through the movie. All in all I can absolutely recommend this great collage and will be looking forward to its release on DVD. The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, "Love in Paris", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish. Rudyard Kipling once wrote that God gave to all people the ability to love the whole world, but given that a human heart is very small in size, every human has that special place that he loves more than any other. It seems to me that this may have been the motto of some of the most eminent directors of today when they set out to profess the eternal love for that special place and depict situations in the lives of its denizens and visitors. The result is a wonderful collection of short films, Paris je t'aime, in which our guides, Van Sant, Coixet, Cuaron, Payne and others take us on a breathtaking stroll through Parisian arrondissements, human feelings, yearnings and expectations.

Always some other quarter, always some utterly moving story about ordinary people in search for love, be it in a parking lot, art studio, tube station. And Paris je t'aime is about vast array of loves- love for one's partner, child, parent, for those who meant the world to us but are no longer around, love that needs rekindling, serendipitous love for that stranger as your eyes meet, or love that just is not meant to be...today, but tomorrow- who knows?

Nevertheless, this film is not solely about love, but life itself, joy, pain, loneliness, confusion, everyday ups and downs. And its most important quality is the fact that it is not soppy at all, but rather warm and full of hope.

I give this film a 9 because the final section of it suggests how some of the stories might further develop, but not all of them and that is the thing that I find missing, and by "further development" I do not mean some specific reference to the characters' future. As far as everything else is concerned I can only say- captivating. Makes you want to leave everything behind you, flee to Paris and live those little romances yourself. Just saw this tonight at a seminar on digital projection (shot on 35mm, and first feature film fully scanned in 6k mastered in 4k, and projected with 2k projector at ETC/USC theater in Hwd)..so much for tech stuff. 18 directors (including Alexander Payne, Wes Cravens, Joel and Ethan Coen, Gus Van Sant, Walter Salles and Gerard Depardieu, among several good French/ international directors) were each given 5 minutes to make a love story. They come in all shapes and forms, with known actors(Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi ..totally hilarious..., Maggie Glyllenhall, Nick Nolte, Geena Rowlands ..soo good..and she actually wrote the piece she was in, Msr Depardieu and many good international actors as well. The stories vary from all out romance to quirky comedy to Alex Payne's touching study of a woman discovering herself to Van Sant and one of those things that happens anywhere..maybe? Nothing really off putting by having French spoken in most sequences (with English subtitles) and a small amount of actual English spoken, though that will probably relegate it to art houses (a la Diva.) Also only one piece that might be considered "experimental" but colorful and funny as well, the rest simple studies of sometimes complex relationships. All easy to follow (unless the "experimental" one irritates your desire for a formulaic story. Several brought up some emotions for me...I admit I am affected by love in cinema...when it is presented in something other than sentimentality. I even laughed at a mime piece, like no other I have seen (thank you for that!) The film hit its peak, for me, somewhere around a little more than half way through, then the last two sequences picked up again. Some beautiful shots of Paris at night, lush romantic kind of music, usually used to good effect, not just schmaltz for "emotions" in sound, generally good cinematography, though some shots seemed soft focus when it couldn't have meant to have been (main character in shot/scene). Pacing of each film was good, and overall structure, though a bit long (they left out two of what was to be 20 films, but said all would be on the DVD) seemed to vary between tones of the films to keep a good balance. Not sure when it comes out, but a good study of how to make a 5 min film work..and sometimes, what doesn't work (if it covers too much time, emotionally, for a short film.) Should be in region one when released, but they didn't know when. Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.

My favorite segments:

14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.

Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.

Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.

Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the "tenancier de bar" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.

Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!

Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.

Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.

I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!

Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.

84/100 (***) Greetings again from the darkness. 18 directors of 18 seemingly unrelated vignettes about love in the city of lights. A very unusual format that takes a couple of segments to adjust to as a viewer. We are so accustomed to character development over a 2 hour movie, it is a bit disarming for that to occur in an 8 minute segment.

The idea is 18 love/relationship stories in 18 different neighborhoods of this magnificent city. Of course, some stand up better than others and some go for comedy, while others focus on dramatic emotion. Some very known directors are involved, including: The Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Gus Van Sant and Gurinda Chadha. Many familiar faces make appearances as well: Steve Buscemi, Barbet Schroeder, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ben Gazzara, Gena Rowlands, Gerard Depardieu, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Bob Hoskins.

One of the best segments involves a mime, and then another mime and the nerdy, yet happy young son of the two mimes. Also playing key roles are a red trench coat, cancer, divorce, sexual fantasy, the death of a child and many other topics. Don't miss Alexander Payne (director of "Sideways") as Oscar Wilde.

The diversity of the segments make this interesting to watch, but as a film, it cannot be termed great. Still it is very watchable and a nice change of pace for the frequent movie goer. Diane and I saw this fabulous film today in Fremantle and we both agreed that of the pastiche movies it was head and shoulders above the rest. I say that because we were entranced by the brief, five to ten minute segments that composed the film and the fact that this film had a theme around which each piece was composed and of course that theme was love in its many forms.

Ostensibly the film took place in the various Parisian arrondisments thus giving a particular flavour to each segment. Having only been in Paris several times, I was not knowledgeable enough to readily recognize the locations but I am sure Europeans and particularly French people could easily recognize the city's locations. In any event, the viewer is immediately pulled into each story because of their production excellence so these city locations fade into in-consequence.

The film moves quickly and the viewer is left absorbing one scenario while the new one is on the screen. The stories themselves are not graphic like some pulp Hollywood nonsense, they are subtle and thought provoking and gentle as with most of life without the media swath that buries so much of life's beauty under the nearest dung heap just to sell, sell. sell ...

Go with someone you care for and allow this magical little film to bathe you like a spa treatment and when you leave my guess is you will feel renewed. It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.

20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.

I clicked on "spoilers" option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.

And smile. ... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest Hemingway

It is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris,

"It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris."

Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.

Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...

I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country. 18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):

1. "Quartier Latin", by Gérard Depardieu

One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.

2. "Tour Eiffel", by Sylvain Chomet

Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of "The Triplets of Belleville") story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;

3. "Tuileries", by Ethan and Joel Coen

The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious

4. "Parc Monceau", by Alfonso Cuarón ("Y Tu Mamá También", "Children of Men"), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);

5. "Place des Fêtes", by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);

6. "14th Arrondissement", Alexander Payne's ("Election", "About Schmidt") wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in "Million Dollar Baby") as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;

7. "Faubourg Saint-Denis", Tom Tykwer's ("Run Lola Run") frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;

8. "Père-Lachaise", by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);

9. "Loin du 16ème", by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);

10. "Quartier des Enfants Rouges", by Olivier Assayas ("Clean"), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;

11. "Le Marais", by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);

12. "Quartier de la Madeleine", by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;

13. "Quais de Seine", by Gurinder Chadha;

14. "Place des Victoires", by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;

15. "Bastille", by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated "My Life Without Me"), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;

16. "Pigalle", by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;

17. "Montmartre", by and with Bruno Podalydès;

18. "Porte de Choisy", by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of "Barfly", "Reversal of Fortune" and "Single White Female").

I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give "Paris, Je t'Aime" an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between. Oftentimes, films of this nature come across as a mixed bag of great work along with slight drivel to fill the runtime. Whether it be the big name support or the project itself, Paris je t'aime never falls into this realm. I believe I can truly say that the movie as a whole is better than its parts. Between the wonderful transitions and the fantastic ending sequence, merging characters together in one last view of love in Paris, I think the film would have suffered if any cog was removed. True, there are definitely a few standouts that overshadow the rest, but in the end I have a lasting image, even if just a split second of each short vignette. Love takes many forms, and the talent here rises to the occasion, to surprise and move the audience through shear poetry and elegance of the emotion's many facets.

Quartier des Enfants Rouges: Maggie Gyllenhaal surprises as a drug-addled actress shooting in Paris and meeting with her dealer. The reveal at its conclusion leaves you a bit off balance as the infatuation between the two changes hands.

Quatier Latin: Ben Gazzara and Gena Rowlands (recreating a relationship from an old Cassavettes film?) bring some great sharp wit and sarcasm as they meet to discuss their impending divorce. What of their conversation is true and what is just to anger the other, it is all enjoyable, leaving a smile on your face.

Quais de Seine: Director Gurinder Chadha gives us a touching portrait of love existing beyond religious and racial differences. It is a sweet little story of shy love between two people obviously feeling a connection, but unable to quite vocalize it.

Tour Eiffel: I will admit to being disappointed that Sylvain Chomet did not get an animated sequence together, however, this live action tale of mimes falling in love at a Paris jail has the same quirky nature as his film Les Triplettes de Belleville.

Tuileries: The Coen Brothers stick to their strange sense of humor and deliver some fine laughs. Steve Buscemi really shines and sells the performance without speaking a word. His facial reactions to the verbal abuse of a disgruntled Frenchman are priceless.

Bastille: Here is a heartbreaking portrait of a couple about out of love only to have it come back in the face of tragedy. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson a moving as the couple dealing with trouble and finding how strong the bond of true love is.

Pére-Lachaise: A surprisingly funny little tale from horror master Wes Craven. A little Oscar Wilde humor can add levity to any relationship.

Parc Monceau: Alfonso Cuarón looks to be practicing the amazing long-takes he perfects in Children of Men with this tale of two people in love, walking down the street. As Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier eventually come into close-up view, we also find the true context of their conversation of "forbidden love."

Porte de Choisy: A very surreal look into the glamour of Paris. This is probably the most odd entry, but so intriguing that you can't look away from the craziness that ensues. Do not anger your Asian beautician, whatever you do.

Pigalle: An interesting look at a relationship undergoing a role-play that seems to have been stagnant for years. A little variety from Bob Hoskins is necessary to fire kindled.

Quartier de la Madeleine: Even vampires in Paris can find love amongst the feeding hours. I don't know whether to be happy for Elijah Wood as a result or not. Beautifully shot and muted to allow the vibrancy of the blood red, this short is strange, but then so is love.

14th arrondissement: Leave it to Alexander Payne's odd sense of humor to really add some depth to this voice-over story told of an American in Paris to find what love is. Her harsh, uneducated French is a very stark contrast to the authentic accents we've been listening to until this point—just off-kilter enough to be both funny and totally true to the story.

Montmartre: An interesting introduction into the proceedings. Paris can be a city reviled for everyday activities like finding a parking spot, yet when love is discovered, it will take its prisoner anywhere to continue the journey.

Loin du 16éme: Catalina Sandino Moreno brilliantly shows what love for a child is through her subtle performance as the tale is bookended by her singing to a young child, yet totally different each time.

Place des Fetes: My favorite tale of the bunch. Seydou Boro and Aïssa Maïga are simply fantastic. The cyclical nature of the story and how fate brings the two characters together twice in order for Boro to finally ask her for coffee is tough to watch. Sometimes love at your final moment is enough to accept one's leaving of this earth.

Place des Victoires: One of the best stories about a mother trying to cope with the death of her young son. Juliette Binoche is devastating as the mother, desperate for one last glimpse of her son, and Willem Dafoe is oddly perfect as the cowboy who allows her the chance.

Faubourg Saint-Denis: Sometimes one needs to think he has lost love to accept that he has not been fully invested in the relationship. Melchior Beslon reminisces, trying to find where they went wrong through a series of sharp, quick cuts from his meeting Natalie Portman to eventually "seeing" how much he needs her.

Le Marais: Leave it to Gus Van Sant to show us a story about the gap in communication and understanding as his films almost always deal with some form of alienation. His photographer from Elephant is an American working in Paris who is the catalyst for Gaspard Ulliel's artist ramblings of love and soul mates. Sometimes one doesn't need to know what is being said to understand what is going on in the pauses. Paris Je T ' aime is a movie that explores the different kinds and aspects of love and all the emotions that it provokes. This movie reunites some of the best directors from around the world such as Gus Van Sant, Joel and Ethan Coen , Walter Salles a...(read more)nd Alfonso Cuaron to tell short stories about love located in Paris, each one with their particular way of directing. In this film we also have one of the best cast ever seen in a movie including such great actors like Willem Dafoe, Steve Buscemi, Natalie Portman, Elijah Wood, Gerard Depardieu and many more each one with great performances. In conclusion, this movie is a compilation of stories of happiness, separation, unexpected encounters and love. Paris, je t'aime (2006) is a film made up of 18 segments. You can do the math--18 segments in 120 minutes means each director had seven minutes to tell her or his story. The movie is based on the premise that you can, indeed, tell a story in that short amount of time. The premise works. Almost all of the segments are powerful, complete, and satisfying. Each presents a different aspect of the Parisian experience, and almost every director draws forth outstanding performances from a cast of great and near-great actors.

There were so many powerful portrayals in this film that it's hard to pick one or two favorites. Probably the most memorable to me were Juliette Binoche as a grieving mother in the segment "Place des Victoires," Gena Rowlands as an aging beauty in "Quartier Latin," Catalina Sandino Moreno as a maid in the segment "Loin du 16ème" and Margo Martindale as a Colorado mail carrier who has learned to speak French so she can visit Paris ("14ème Arrondissement" segment).

Special mention must be given to Gulliver Hecq, probably the meanest little boy to ever harass an American tourist in a Parisian Metro Station (segment "Tuileries").

This is an outstanding movie. My wife and I decided to rent it in a few months so we can catch some of the subtle points we surely missed. However, Paris is photographed so beautifully that I would suggest that you try to see it on a large screen. In any case, don't miss it! I just viewed the film two days ago, and I was filled with anticipation, being that Paris is my second favorite city in Europe and I spent a very romantic 18 months there in the '80's. I was somewhat disappointed that most of this group of vignettes, while original and artistically done, did not capture the "light" and beauty of the city very well.Nor enough of the romance! We saw none of the tree-lined boulevards... There was too much darkness, not only literally but figuratively. Some of the plots manipulated the viewer it seemed, and let him/her down "flat "(the Marais sequence, the coiffure salesman sequence, to give two examples). The uplifting, good ones: The Mime sequence, the cemetery, the Montmartre (though it left too much to the viewer to comprehend), the "Cowboy" vignette ,and the Sacre Coeur-- seemed few and far between, and I would have liked to have seen such a wonderful actor as Orlando Bloom be in something that would have showcased his originality more. it's a very nice movie and i would definitely recommend it to everyone. but there are 2 minus points: - the level of the stories has a large spectrum. some of the scenes are very great and some are just boring. - a lot of stories are not self-contained (if you compare to f.e. coffee and cigarettes, where each story has a point, a message, a punchline or however you wanna call it) but well, most stories are really good, some are great and overall it's one of the best movies this year for sure!

annoying, that i have to fill 10 lines at minimum, i haven't got more to say and i don't want to start analyzing the single sequences...

well, i think that's it! Thankfully saw this on a plane to Singapore recently (thought I'd missed it at the Cinemalaya filmfest). Paris, je t'aime is a collection of 20 short films (about 5 mins each) by 20 directors showing love in various pockets of contemporary Paris.

One of my fave segments is 'Parc Monceau' by Alfonso Cuarn (Great Expectations, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), which was done in one continuous shot and features Nick Nolte.

The Coen brothers' 'Tuileries' starring Steve Buscemi as a tourist in the metro was hilarious ! Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe in 'Place des Victoires' was haunting.

For Maggie Gyllenhaal as an American actress/druggie in 'Quartier des Enfants Rouges' to have portrayed anticipation and heartbreak in such a short period of time was just brilliant.

Elijah Wood as a vampire victim in 'Quartier de la Madeleine' was pretty surreal, while Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell played a cute couple in Wes Craven's 'Pre-Lachaise'.

Natalie Portman was beautiful as usual as the actress girlfriend of a visually impaired French boy in 'Faubourg Saint-Denis'. But despite the many portrayals of young love, a more mature execution by Gena Rowlands in 'Quartier Latin' was equally aww-inducing.

This movie is perfect for those with ADHD because each sequence is driven and carefully thought of.

There are also a number of memorable quotes. One in particular is this one from a cheating husband who eventually leaves his mistress to stay with his dying wife in her last days: "In pretending to be a man in love, he became a man in love." I took my 19 year old daughter with me to see this interesting exercise in movie making. I always find it intriguing to get views and opinions from a different generation on movies, especially as I'm such a cynic myself. It's good to get an unjaded opinion from someone who hasn't yet reached the "been there, done that" approach to every movie she sees. I'm pleased to say that we both really enjoyed it and regarded it as a successful mother / daughter evening out. Far, far better than going to see some brain dead "chick flick", which I gather is what we are supposed to enjoy, according to the demographics?

Eighteen directors were asked to produce a short piece about each of the arrondissements of Paris, a city I haven't visited in 20 years. But I wish I had. They are loosely linked by joining shots, and represent different approaches to love in the city regarded in popular culture as the quintessential romantic capital of the world. Some of the films work better than others but, as other reviewers have said, it never descends too far into kitsch. Some are funny, some are sad, some intriguing and some just plain puzzling (I'm still trying to discern some deep inner truth to the "Flying Tiger, Hidden Dragon" hairdressing salon.) Some are just fun and perhaps shouldn't be assigned too much meaning (the vampire and the tourist for example.) Possibly my only criticism of the whole film, is that it makes Paris look too good. It can also be cold, wet, foggy, indifferent and miserable, or, in summer, baking hot and packed with so many tourists that you feel like a sardine in a can queuing up for hours to see every attraction. But I'm nit picking.

My personal favourite by far was the Coen brothers film shot on the Tuileries Metro station, and starring a perfectly cast Steve Buscemi as a confused tourist who inadvertently finds himself caught up in a lovers' tiff. Absolutely perfect, and very, very funny, without Buscemi having to say a word. I also perversely enjoyed the piece about the two mime artists, which was probably the closest the movie got to being cutesy - that certainly teetered on the edge of kitsch, but it just stayed on the right side. Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer gaining insight from an encounter with Oscar Wilde's tomb left me pretty indifferent, and Juliette Binoche trying to cope with the death of her small son made me very, very uncomfortable. I thought both the Bob Hoskins / Fanny Ardent piece, and Ben Gazzara / Gena Rowlands fell a bit flat, but Maggie Gyllenhaal was good (has she cornered the market in junkies? I watched Sherry Baby last week.)

But I felt the two "social justice" pieces (for want of a better way of putting it), worked very well. By that, I mean first of all the film about the young mother leaving her own child in a day care to go and look after someone else's baby across town. And then the film about the African migrant, struggling to exist on the margins of an indifferent society, who is stabbed and dies in the street in front of a young, new paramedic. Yet another murder statistic, in a world which sees thousands of migrants dying in the struggle to reach what they see as a better life, every year. I thought both pieces very well observed.

The final film, 14th Arrondissement, in which Margo Martindale plays a postal worker from Colorado recounting the story of her first trip to Paris – in very badly accented French – to her night school French class, moved me. A perfect ending, to a good, intriguing if not quite great, movie.

Paris je t'aime was an ambitious idea, but it works pretty well. Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.

In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.

The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp With the sun shining brilliantly on a quiet Sunday that is just about to fully wake up, love can be felt in the soft breeze that sweeps past my feet and can be seen in the smiles of the people I walk alongside. It is the perfect day to stop off for croissants and a café-o-lait before heading off to the city of lights and love. Of course, a flight to Paris is not reasonably in this humble film critic's budget so I had to opt for the next best thing, Paris, JE T'AIME, a collection of 18 short films by a variety of international directors. Each piece is named after a different Parisian neighborhood and is a reflection on love. Careful not to over glorify the most powerful and persuasive of all human emotions, Paris, JE T'AIME explores love at the many stages of its own game. The results are spontaneously romantic and surprisingly consistent. And truly, what better way to express the fleeting nature of love and how a moment can change your life than with a collection of filmed moments.

The beautifully poetic quote above is taken from Tom Tykwer's Faubourg Saint Denis. True to form, Tykwer (RUN, LOLA, RUN) uses time-lapse photography and repetition to demonstrate the entire cycle of love, from inception to dissolution. Originally shot in 2004 and paired down for this anthology, Faubourg stars Natalie Portman as Francine, an American actress in Paris for a part in a film, and Melchior Beslon as Thomas, a blind man she falls in love with. Here, the blind leads the blind through the most unstable of terrain, where two people consume each other to a point where their lives nearly lose their own existences. As love seems to go from dazzling to dizzying, Tykwer reminds us of the tricks it can play on our minds and the illusions it can create when we stray towards doubt.

Perhaps the most giddily romantic offering comes from Sylvain Chomet's Tour Eiffel. Choosing the city's most identifiable attraction for its title, Chomet (LES TRIPLETTES DE BELLEVILLE) gives us a little boy who tells the story of how his parents met and fell in love. His father, a mime (Paul Putner), finds himself falling into one surreal scenario after another and eventually lands himself in jail. This is where he meets the woman who will become the love of his life (Yolande Moreau). Miming has become something of a dying art, if it isn't already dead. Yet by nature, it is dreamy and untroubled. Miming points its silent finger at the ridiculousness of human behaviour and what but love can make people act more absurd? We might find someone special in the least likely of circumstances if we could just take ourselves a little less seriously.

Paris, JE T'AIME keeps the flow lively by not always focusing on love between lovers. Three memorable shorts focus on the love between a parent and a child. Walter Salles (MOTORCYCLE DIARIES) has Catalina Sandino Moreno singing lovingly to her child before she leaves him to sing the same song with a distant longing to the child she watches over for her living. Nobuhiro Suwa (UN COUPLE PARFAIT) has Juliette Binoche trying desperately to overcome the emptiness she feels after losing her son. Binoche says very little yet, not surprisingly given her immense talent, her struggle is evident in her face as she learns that love sometimes means letting go. And Alfonso Cuaron (CHILDREN OF MEN) weighs in with one continuous shot of a father (Nick Nolte) and his grown daughter (Sara Martins) walking together for what must be the first time in a long while. We see them only from across the street and we only get close to them as the distance between the two characters narrows to a place of comfort and accepting.

The last short to screen is Alexander Payne's 14ieme Arrondissement. As usual, Payne (SIDEWAYS) takes an ordinary person and shows us what makes them extraordinary. Carol (Margo Martindale) is another American in Paris. She is there alone and for less time than she would have liked as she has dogs waiting for her at home. She is a plain person with an uneventful life who finds herself in a city that is rich and lush. In beautifully delivered Americanized French, she muses about the sights and how being there makes her feel. This woman spends so much time trying to be happy despite life's numerous disappointments and as she sits in a city made for lovers, she realizes that she is in fact happy and loves herself more than she knew. She falls in love, if only for perhaps a moment, with life and love itself.

The characters that appear but fleetingly in Paris, JE T'AIME find themselves at the romantic center of the universe. The moments they share with each other, be it helping someone up after a hard fall or reaching out your hand to another person without touching them or without their knowledge, are the moments that give love its flare and flourish. Outside the city of lovers, it can be easy to miss moments such as these but we must remind ourselves of their significance. It takes but a moment for love to shine through a cloudy sky. You just have to keep your heart open to see it. And if one city can be so abundant with love, one has to believe it can find its way one day to your door. Back in 2004 I saw "True", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.

Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.

First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the "Quais de Seine" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) "Quartier de la Madeleine", and "14th Arrondisement" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: "True" or "Faubourg Saint-Denis" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and "Quartier Latin" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.

Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.

Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.

I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.

There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...

What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - "Quais de Seine" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and "Père-Lachaise" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. "Tour Eiffel" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in "what will this director do with this?" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.

I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love! A mock documentary about a pair of Canadian producers, Bobby Myers (Matthew Modine) and Paul Linder (Saul Rubinek), trying to make their first film in the late 1970s. Hollywood North is the comic tale of their struggle to pull everything together, despite a number of conflicting threads.

Hollywood North works as a film in a way very similar to why This Is Spinal Tap (1984) works so well. Namely, although exaggerated in some ways, it is very close to the truth, and the truth consists of "behind the scenes" facts that are very different than the public face of the industry. It isn't easy to make a film, and it must have been especially difficult in Canada in the late 1970s. Films involve tens, if not hundreds, of people. Many have incompatible desires, motivations and personalities. Especially crucial are the financiers and the on-screen talent, as if either drops out or becomes undependable at any stage while the film is in production, it could jeopardize the whole affair, either necessitating extensive reshoots or abandoning the film altogether.

So it's not surprising that Hollywood North focuses on those kinds of relationships. The result is an excellent film that is both hilarious and tragic at the same time. The script is flawless and the performances are top notch. This is a must-see for any budding filmmaker and anyone with a serious interest in the craft of film-making. It should also be more than entertaining for any viewer with a modicum of intelligence and a sense of humor.

A 10 out of 10 from me. "Hollywood North" is an euphemism from the movie industry as they went to Canada to make movies because of tax breaks and cheaper costs in a civilized city like Toronto, in this case, later in Vancouver. Peter O'Brian, the director, probably saw a lot of the invaders from California that this movie seems to be the right way to deal with the arriving personalities trying to capitalize on the economics that Canada presented.

Needless to say, "Moon Lantern", the successful novel written by a Canadian author is turned into "Flight to Bogota", which has nothing to do with the original film. A great egotistical has-been, Michael Baytes, who is obsessed with what is happening in Iran, is offered the lead part, which turns to be a disaster.

The film seems to be saying that too many cooks have spoiled the broth, which seems to be the case with the ultimate product, which is saved by its producer, Bobby Myers. With the help of Sandy Ryan, who has been around making a documentary of the film being shot in Toronto, parts of the film are transformed into a cohesive movie at last.

The filming process is hilarious, and the acting, in general, is good. I rented this movie on DVD without knowing what to expect - and as I am about to study film-making in Canada of all places, I most certainly will bring this up in class.

The story, centered around the probably most unlucky film team in the history of film itself, is brilliantly written and the very talented actors manage to deliver every single pun on time.

If you simply couldn't laugh during "Hollywood North" I suggest seeing a psychiatrist right away - you might have serious issues.

Besides the wonderful script I also noticed the great chemistry between actors Deborah Kara Unger and Matthew Modine - where they really just acting? Jennifer Tilly (playing a hilariously bad actress) and Martin Landau, also delivered a very edgy, yet funny performance.

Great film, even better cast. This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, "Hollywood North" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, "Flight to Bogota" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, "Hollywood North" is a great place to start. I recently saw this film and enjoyed it very much. it gives a insight to indie movie making and how much work is really involved when you have a low budget yet need a name actor/actress to get people, any people to come see it and give the movie exposure. Bobby Myeres played by Modine and his partner Saul - Paul Linder make an excellent combination finding eccentric Miachel Bates, a "NAME" actor played by Alan Bates was a perfect casting decision in the movie and for the movie. My favorite cast member was Sandy Ryan played by the magnificent and underrated Debra Kara Unger with her own special performance again in the movie within the movie. If you enjoy thinking when watching a comedy then this one is for you. Low budget meets lower budget with High laugh content. Hollywood North is a satirical look at the time in Canadian film history when the Canadian government offered huge tax breaks for films made in Canada. Most of the time it was treated as a tax shelter or a cheap way to get American films made. For example, Porky's came out of it. Anyways Matthew Modine plays a novice producer who wants to make an adaptation of a beloved Canadian novel. However, in order to get the money he needs a American name star. He gets a loose cannon and learns he has to compromise to the point where the film no longer resembles the book it was originally based on. It plays well in Canada but may not be understood outside of the Great White North. Americans will think we're satirizing ourselves but will miss the point that we're actually satirizing them. For Canadians 8/10 for the rest of the world 5/10. As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.

Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: "Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". As she gets more and more curious about this "man", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.

The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: "Lots of planets have a North!".

The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.

First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor. They did it. And, boy, did they do it fantastically or what! The BBC finally brought the Doctor back to our screens on a Saturday evening where he belongs! And they did it with style!

EPISODE ONE: "Rose" - One of the strengths of the new series is Russel T Davies as a writer and executive producer. He's a fan of the show and knows what the other fans want, but also is an experienced writer in his own right, so knows what other people want. Another strength, as perfectly shown here in this first episode, is Billie Piper and her character of Rose Tyler. Finally the Doctor's companion gets a credible back story and a strong character. Also nice to see the return of the Autons - a nice nod to the Classic Series there.

EPISODE TWO: "The End Of The World" - In the start of this double bill to show off the TARDIS' strengths, we end up in a story where special effects is everything! They now have the technology to create real, believable environments and monsters - no more rubber suits of sorts! Also the hints at the end of this episode regarding the new Doctor's past - very intriguing to kill off all the Time Lords and make him the only one.

EPISODE THREE: "The Unquiet Dead" - We've had the future, now lets have the past. The first non-Davies written episode is a little flat in some places, but this is made up for by Simon Callow's Charles Dickens and the sudden twist in the plot when it is revealed the pitiful Gelf are not so pitiful after all...

EPISODE FOUR: "Aliens Of London" - The consequences of the Doctor's actions are fully explored in this series, not least with the repercussions of Rose running off with him. Also, we have our first cliffhanger; not the best of ones admittedly. The Slitheen are an interesting villain, though they can look too CGI for their own good.

EPISODE FIVE: "World War Three" - The second part of this story about the Slitheen suffers mainly from the same problems of the first. Also, the clips from the next episode coming up at the end of the current episode are annoying and spoil it for people.

EPISODE SIX: "Dalek" - Yes! We've had the future, the past, and the present(ish), but now we get to the good stuff - the return of the Doctor's arch-nemesis. Here I think we can complement Christopher Ecclestone - he was brilliant as the Doctor, and no more so then in this episode, where we see the pain on his face as he recollects the Time War and the alien nature of him as he almost turns into a Dalek himself.

EPISODE SEVEN: "The Long Game" - really only a story to act as a prologue for the series finale. Saved by Simon Pegg as the smarmy Editor and Tamsin Grieg in an amusing cameo. The media are controlling us - that's never been done before, has it...

EPISODE EIGHT: "Father's Day" - this is a great episode. Full of human emotion and heartache for Rose, and the true consequences of what happens when you really muck up history. Full marks to Billie Piper here.

EPISODE NINE: "The Empty Child" - I don't find this kid very scary. Sorry, but I don't. It's a good episode though, but the cliffhanger still could have been better - it's those "Next Time" bits that spoil them. John Barrowman is introduced here as Captain Jack, the dashing conman - he's a good actor who's been around for a while but only seemingly noticed now.

EPISODE TEN: "The Doctor Dances" - Part two of this WW2 story - very well made in historical context terms. A nice upbeat ending, though a little confusing perhaps for younger viewers when the "Mummy" is revealed?

EPISODE ELEVEN: "Boom Town"- probably the weakest of the series, but that doesn't mean its bad. A nice return for the Slitheen and also an interesting character study of the Doctor and Rose.

EPISODE TWELVE: "Bad Wolf" - this starts off quite silly, with some good-hearted humour and cheeky fun making at popular TV shows over her in Blighty. Things turn deadly serious quickly, though, and the revelation at the end is the best cliffhanger in the series!

EPISODE THRITEEN: "Parting Of The Ways" - Goodbye Christopher Ecclestone. A fantastic Doctor in so many ways, David Tennant is having to really work his socks off to be as good as him. The regeneration scene at the end is beautifully played. Oh, and the Daleks are back - in the extreme! God bless CGI, because they'd never be able to pull this off normally!

Overall - brilliant! 9/10 Picture the scene: a mountainous alien landscape. Twin moons illuminate the blood red sky. The Tardis lands, and out steps the Doctor, a middle-aged man in a Victorian frock coat, and Rose, his companion from Earth. A flicker of recognition crosses his face. "Well, I never! Its the planet Saurious-7. Where I fought the warlike Kraggartians. They tried to use giant Skinkons to take over the planet.". The girl sniffs the air. "Can't we go, Doctor. I don't like the look of this place. I keep thinking we're being watched.". The Doctor wags a disapproving finger. "Don't be silly, girl. I wonder if the King and Queen of Cordaraby City remember me from my last visit. Come along, Rose, come along!". He strides off, the girl struggles to keep up. High on a hill, sinister red eyes regard them with hatred...

That was not how 'Rose' began back in 2005, and thank heavens for that say I. Unfairly derided at the time of its original U.K. broadcast, 'Rose' can now safely be regarded as a landmark episode, putting 'Dr.Who' back where it belonged, as one of the B.B.C.'s flagship programmes. The mistakes made by the McGann T.V. movie were well learnt. Instead of trying to shoehorn the new 'Who' into existing chronology, it represented a fresh start for the series, beginning with shop girl Rose Tyler ( Billie Piper ) going about her daily routine. One day she goes to the basement to find a man named Wilson, and then the trouble begins. Mannequins come to life and attack her. It is only through the intervention of a mysterious stranger ( Christopher Eccleston ) that she is saved.

The story, slight though it may be, is more than adequate as a starting-point for the series. The Autons are, of course, an old villain ( this was their first appearance since 1971 ), but no references are made to their past appearances - another wise move. The finale effectively recreated the famous scene in 'Spearhead From Space' when shop window dummies sprang to life. As the Doctor, Christopher Eccleston lacked the eccentricity of his predecessors, preferring a modern leather jacket to the Doctor's traditional period clothes, but this made him more accessible to the show's hoped-for new audience. Billie Piper confounded her critics by making a big impression as 'Rose'. Also good was Noel Clarke as her boyfriend 'Mickey'.

Yes, there was an added emphasis on special effects, but then there needed to be - the wobbly sets and unconvincing monsters of the past have no place on 21st century television. What is more important is how good a script this is. Ten million people tuned in to see the new Doctor.

'Dr.Who' was back - and back with a bang! Perhaps the last film you would expect to come from Vittorio de Sica and Cesare Zavattini (who wrote the novel on which this film is based). It's a neorealist fantasy, kind of an oxymoron, really. An old woman finds a baby in her cabbage patch and raises him as her own son. After a few years, the baby is a young boy (named Toto) and the adoptive mother is dying. He goes to an orphanage and, when he finally turns 18, he leaves. Immediately, he finds that he has no home. Toto is optimistic, though, and won't let anything get him down. A man steals his valise, and instead of getting angry over it, Toto becomes his friend and goes and stays with him in a small shantytown. Toto takes some initiative and organizes the many homeless living in the area and they build a better shantytown. Soon, the landowner is trying to sell this plot of land, and the citizens of the shantytown have to protect themselves. After many attempts, the owner mounts a force of police to get rid of the homeless. At this point, the film becomes full-fledged fantasy (before this it was more comedic/fantastic melodrama in the style of Charlie Chaplin). This stuff is so weird and shocking that it's probably best for others to see it for themselves. It's quite amazing, and very funny. There are objections you could raise about the plot of Miracle in Milan, most certainly. Fellini and Visconti were greatly criticized when they started to stray from Neorealism. I think I read this was widely criticized at the time of its release. At this point, though, it's so enjoyable - I loved it very much. It might be my favorite of Vittorio de Sica's films, although Umberto D and The Bicycle Thieves come very, very close. 10/10. This is a really strange film--and that is NOT a bad thing. It is a combination of a neo-realistic film about the homeless AND a fairy tale. I'm sure that some may find this movie a bit too strange, but I loved it. Once again, this director brings together a wonderful cast of everyday people (not actors) and gets a great ensemble-type performance. Although not nearly as sad as Umberto D, both movies have a very similar point to make--this one just does it in a very absurdist way. Ignore the cheesy special effects--after all, it was made in the early 1950s and special effects aren't terribly important anyway (or at least they shouldn't be in films). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the very strange and silly ride. Unless you are a total curmudgeon, you'll have a ball.

By the way, since I first reviewed this film, I have seen another DeSica directed film that is an absolute must-see and that is THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US. While not a fantasy or light in spirit like MIRACLE IN MILAN, a great film nevertheless. The snobs and pseudo experts consider it "a far cry from De Sica's best" The ones suffering from a serious lack of innocence will find a problem connecting to this masterpiece. De Sica spoke in a very direct way. His Italianness doesn't have the convoluted self examination of modern Italian filmmakers, or the bitter self parody of Pietro Germi, the pungent bittersweetness of Mario Monicelli, the solemnity of Visconti or the cold observation of Antonioni. De Sica told us the stories like a father sitting at the edge of his children's bed before they went to sleep. There is no attempt to intellectualize. Miracolo A Milano and in a lesser degree Il Giudizio Universale are realistic fairy tales, or what today we call magic realism. The film is a gem from beginning to end and Toto is the sort of character that you accept with an open heart but that, naturally, requires for you to have a heart. Cinema in its purest form. Magnificent. This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was my first touch with Mr Sica so I really didn't know what to expect. But what I saw just broke all my expectations - in a good way.

The storyline is not complex and shows us a life of found boy- orphan and particularly his connection into the community of poor people who together built themselves a hood of simple metal plate houses. This little city in another city lives own life and things are going fine. But one day there is a water resource found and a rich nobles man is getting interested in the buying the place. But as the title of the movie hints - there is a miracle taking place. Our character gets a wonder dove from his dead mother. What is he going to do to protect his friends and all built city as well?

It was just a masterpiece of natural comedy. There is shown the behavior of poor people and how money and property can talk and play with people. Also many funny moments and scenes are included - at the beginning with the spot where sun is shining and many more.

So according to the fact that I m not a comedy lover you should see this movie because I liked it much

I This film is like an allegory of the gospel. It has such direct honesty and innocence you can not possibly believe it was made after the world war when Italy was ravaged and devastated, and was filled with a huge homeless, impoverished population. It is a monument to the best qualities of the human spirit, as well as to the endless creative resources of that land of inspiration.

Toto is a character like Doestoevisky's "Idiot", a modern Christ finding his way in a big city. He is goodness and purity fortified by love, and his acts change the people he encounters, as much as the miracle working dove. The story is told in a natural manner and simple style, yet imbued with a magic that is almost a premonition of Fellini's surrealist fantasies. It is one of the most inspiring, uplifting movies ever made. This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.

7/10 If you have trouble suspending disbelief then this isn't for you. Consider: a woman already in late middle age finds a newborn baby in a cabbage patch and raises it as her own. Think about it; she makes no attempt to locate the mother, who may well be a confused teenager in need of medical treatment and seemingly no one from the Italian equivalent of Social Services makes any attempt to put the baby into 'care' (no Social Services? now I KNOW it's a fantasy). Before you know it young Toto is ten or so and his adoptive mother dies leaving him to the orphanage from which he emerges a HAPPY man who loves everybody. In nothing flat he has not only given his suitcase to the man who stole it from him but organised the local homeless into bona fide Shantytown residents and for an encore he leads them in a fight against capitalism in the shape of the businessman who buys the land on which the Shantytown stands when oil is discovered there. This wants some swallowing without the subsequent 'miracles' beginning with Toto's dead mother (the old lady who raised him rather than his biological one) appearing to him and handing him a dove which doubles as a magic wand allowing him to grant modest wishes and a finale in which the hobos fly away to a better place located presumably somewhere over the rainbow.

On the other hand the film is up to here with Charm and is easy to surrender to. On balance a small masterpiece. De Sica is becoming one of my favorite directors, but this one was a hit-and-miss for me. A grinning idiot youth becomes the leader of a community of illegal settlers in a deserted area outside Milano. It is a detailed and sparkling story of the innocent poor masses, complete with evil capitalists and trigger-happy police forces, but slowly it evolves into a magic fantasy tale, as the boy wonder Toto develops unlimited superhero powers. I had it up to here with the ever-smiling Toto after 10 minutes, and when the magic took over, I was left in the dust. There were so many wonderfully orchestrated shots, so many good characters among the settlers, that I kept thinking it was a waste the movie wasn't more serious with its material. The coupling of neorealism and fantasy comes out more as an experiment of the "look-what-we-can-also-do-mum" sort than as a fully developed piece of work/art. Forget the jaded comments that come before these. This is an action packed but sensitive movie about people who overcome real problems in a beautiful setting. Well-acted, even by Elizabeth Berkley. Recommended for anyone who wants to feel something and experience change. Why a good actress like Elizabeth Berkley stars in this commonplace movie???!!! The cast gives some good performance (Elizabeth Berkley as a Barbie girl, Ele Keats as a girl without mother and Justin Whalin, a guy eternally lessened by his bother), but the direction is extremely boring and the story is NOT so interesting and original. I can NOT believe that a movie like this was produced for the big screen! Julie Corman (the producer): are you CRAZY???!!! I began watching a replay of this TV movie on a Sunday afternoon, thinking it was just another dumb airplane disaster flick. I was wrong.

"Pandora's Clock" is an intelligent political thriller that is far beyond the quality of most TV movies. It could just as easily have made its debut on the big screen.

The cast is excellent, including veteran actors Richard Dean Anderson, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and Robert Loggia. Daphne Zuniga turns in one of her best performances as a medical specialist working for the CIA, and Frasier's Jane Leeves is also very good.

The dialogue is well-written and the story is compelling throughout. In fact, the final hour is so filled with plot twists and suspense that you can't leave your seat for a second. If you get a chance to see this movie, invest the time -- nearly four hours. You will be richly rewarded! Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here.

Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.

There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.

It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless. Sometimes, Lady Luck smiles on me. I had originally made -- and copied over -- a VHS tape of this wonderful TV presentation. I was heartbroken when I realized what I had done since I had been unable to obtain a copy of it anywhere else.

Recently, I subscribed to digital cable, and while searching through upcoming movies, there to my surprise was a scheduled broadcast of the movie. This time, however, I made a copy of it to DVD so there's no chance of repeating my mistake.

I finally got to watch it again after eight years, and it was just as exciting and tense as when I first saw it. There is a little bit of prelude to this story in that my first contact with "Pandora's Clock" came with a live reading of the book on public radio. I just happened to tune in to the broadcasting station on my way home for lunch, and from the first installment, I was hooked. Each day, I waited with anticipation for the next chapter to be read.

When I learned a few months later that the book was going to be broadcast on TV as a movie, I made sure to clear my schedule for that event.

First of all, I'd like to say that the movie was very true to the book, contrary to what another reviewer had said. That, in itself, is a rare achievement for TV movies.

Secondly, I agree with others about the casting. I could not imagine a better choice for Captain Holland than Richard Dean Anderson. Literally, the movie could have crashed and burned without a proper cast for this pivotal role. Anderson has never been better, and it is a shame that we have not seen more of him. In fact, all of the cast members did a superb job.

My only complaint with the movie -- and the book -- was the interjection of the "terrorist plot" to arm a private business jet with air-to-air missiles and have its pilot stalk and shoot down the stricken plane. Basically, we are talking about less than 36 hours to orchestrate and execute a plan like this one, and folks, that is just not realistic at all given all the players involved. Also not realistic was how little the airliner was affected by having first one, then two of its engines blown off.

That beef aside, I enjoyed the building suspense and found to be very believable how the reactions of foreign governments were portrayed in the film, as well as our own.

If you have an opportunity to see this movie, do so by all means. I've seen a lot of TV movies in my time as a student, the majority the normal waste of time that US television throws out. This one, however, was well crafted and plotted and had a very nice twist at the end. Having only seen Richard Dean Anderson in MacGyver and Stargate I was surprised with his excellent performance rather than the rather gamut of expressions from A-B that he normally gives. It was a pleasant surprise to see Daphne Zuniga after quite a long time dating back to The Fly II. Also nice to see Robert Guillaumme in a leading role again. I can't say that I ever take Jane Leeves seriously after her Benny Hill days but she just about managed to cope well in her role. All in all a highly recommended film. "Pandora's Clock" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked "Pandora's Clock". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's "Frasier"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.

*** (out of four) I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.

All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)

Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one. Walt Disney's "The Rookie" is based on the story of Jim Morris, a former minor league picher who made one of the most amazing comebacks in sports history, ending an almost 10 year retirement and making his Major League debut in 1999 at the age of 35.

The film opens with a brief synopsis of Morris' childhood, which included a series of re-locations - his father was a military man. And even when his family settled for good in football crazed Texas, Morris' passion for baseball remained strong.

The childhood segment then jumps ahead about 23 years to the adult Morris (played by Dennis Quaid) who is now a baseball coach and chemistry teacher at Big Lake High School (in real life it was Reagan County High School in Big Lake, Texas). It is mentioned that he attempted a career as a baseball player but that it didn't work out.

Morris's team is struggling and he lectures them about giving up on their dreams. They turn the table on him, telling him that he should try out for a Major League team. At several times when he pitches to them in practice, they express amazement at the speed with which he throws. Morris seems unconvinced but agrees to a deal with his players in which if they win district, he will try out for a Major League team.

Big Lake does win district and, adhering to his end of the deal, Morris attends a Tampa Bay Devil Rays try out. Phenomenally, he throws 98 miles an hour - faster than he threw during his minor league career and an outstanding speed even for a Major League pitcher. After another try out with the team, Morris is offered a contract with the Devil Rays.

This leaves him with a tough decision - stay in his comfortable life or once again pursue his Major League dream by going through the minor league grind of making little money and spending months at a time away from home. And the decision is even more agonizing than during his first minor league stint because he now has a wife and three children.

Morris signs with the Devil Rays, begins at the AA level and moves up quickly to the AAA level, one level below Major League Baseball. But as the season winds down, the chances of him getting "called up" grow increasingly slim.

For the most part, I love this movie. There are lots of great performances and likable characters and it's easy to find yourself really pulling for Morris. Also, the movie does a great job portraying professional baseball at both the major and minor league levels. And most of all, it teaches the timeless message of holding tight to your dreams even when they seem distant and almost impossible to achieve.

Still, the movie has some flaws. While generally accurate, it exaggerates and even fabricates a few things. Check out http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020410.html for some examples. Also, except for one scene in which he prays with his players, the movie completely ignores Morris' Christian faith. But considering Disney's left wing zeal, that's not surprising.

Presumably, a lot of the exaggerations/fabrications were done to make the story more dramatic. Yet the 20 minute documentary on Morris that is included on the DVD features some information that makes his story more dramatic but is excluded from the movie.

For example, from birth until his family settled in Texas for good when he was 12, Morris re-located 14 times. And his initial minor league career ended after four surgeries through which he lost half of the muscle in his left (pitching) shoulder, thus making his throwing 98 mph even more inexplicable.

To fully appreciate and understand the story of Jim Morris, it's good to not only watch "The Rookie" but to watch the DVD's documentary, check out the aforementioned link to the movie's inaccuracies and probably also to read Morris' biography, also titled "The Rookie." I haven't read the book but I hope to one of these days.

But overall, "The Rookie" is a very good portrayal of a miraculous story and is a powerful testament to the power of dreams and the triumph of the common man. 8/10 A fine story about following your dreams and actually taking a stab at Doing something about them when the chance strikes. Nothing was easy for Morris either-he had a family, job, job opps elsewheres, a mortgage, etc-it wasn't like he could just drop what he was doing and blithely hop on the greyhound to play AAA ball for 4 months. It took guts. I am glad that they showed his indecision, almost up 'til he got the callup to the majors.

I can remember seeing him pitch against the Red Sox(I think...), it was a great story. Though Morris actually looks more like John Kruk or a Mills Watson than Quaid-that's okay.

Quaid does a very good job playing the man, the teacher, coach and 'oldest rookie'.... As someone who is in the the same age group, I certainly can ID with his plight. You're not Quite too old to do what you had dreamed of as a kid, but it's getting there. You have to do it sooner than lator.

Believably told, nicely edited, paced, acted, good to see the familiar faces of the late Royce Applegate, Brian Cox and Rachel Griffiths here.

Good job all around, glad to see it hit.

*** outta ****...who woulda thought that the Tampa Devil Rays woulda been the subject of such a good movie early on? The Rookie is based on the true story of a 40+ year old school teacher in Big Lake, Texas reaching the majors. Jimmy Morris (Dennis Quaid) is a small-town high school science teacher and baseball coach. His team is losing terribly until the team discovers that their coach played in minor leagues and can throw a pitch 98 mph.

After throwing batting practice and a wager is made, Jim agrees that if his team wins regional's, he'll try out for the Major Leagues. The movie tells the story from Jimmy being boy to playing in his first game in the majors. It is a great underdog story and a very friendly family movie. Dennis Quaid makes the movie worth while, giving an emotional performance and is supported by an excellent supporting cast which includes: Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones.

The story takes a little while to develop and some scenes are a bit slow but it all works in well by the end. The baseball scenes are fun, well-filmed, and portrayed excellently. The movie really isn't about baseball but about one man's quest to reach his dream. It's inspiring, it's emotional, and it's funny. I liked it, I hope you do.

The Rookie. Starring: Dennis Quaid, Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones.

4 out of 5 Stars. An end of an era was released here in the States in Spring 2002 with "The Rookie," a Disney live action film that seemed to be the "best for last!!!!!" It took place right here in Texas! Actually, the story began in West Texas, as evidenced by an area code found on a sign over there. It was about a high school coach who was so convinced by his high class baseball team that he decided to go professional!!!!!

What I liked about this movie: It was sooo nice!!!!! It was a very good sports movie, ala "The Mighty Ducks" trilogy. It had also taken moviegoers across Texas, from somewhere between the Panhandle and El Paso all the way to the Metroplex (where I live). I can tell because I recognize that ballpark (was "The Ballpark in Arlington;" now it's "Ameriquest Field")! It was nice to see Disney's "Golden Age" end here in my area!!!!!

R.I.P.

Golden Age of Disney

1920s-Spring 2002

"It all started with a mouse...and it ended with baseball." (sobs)

10/10 I first saw this movie 3 years ago, and it was introduced by then Disney chief Eisner and the real Jim Morris.

About a month ago, it came back on TV, and this time I taped it. Since then I must've watched it at least three times.

This is a wonderful, inspirational, feel good movie that is intelligently written and believably acted by everyone concerned. It resists going for every sentimental trick in the book, as well as all of the other clichés.

It is refreshing to see a movie where the kids aren't jerks and have a whole slew of behavioral issues, and the jocks aren't portrayed as testosterone driven muscleheads.

These are just normal people who have dreams like you and I.

In my opinion, Hollywood as gone the other extreme to what they term "gritty realism", making movies where everyone curses, and has problems with aggression.

This movie is about a man who has a dream, and is encouraged by friends and family to pursue that dream. The people in Big Lake TX seem so personable that I want to move there.

As I said b4, the film doesn't try to go overboard with sentimentality. Dennis Quaid, as usual, never disappoints. I've watched him from the late 70's, and he is so underrated.

But this movie has excellent performances from EVERYONE concerned, and kudos to the writers.

A gem in the movie is near the end when Jim is practicing in the dugout before the big game, and his wife calls out to him from the stands. He rushes over and reaches out to his family. The look on the faces of the three other pitchers sitting on the bench in the dugout is priceless.

If you're looking for a change of pace, then pick this movie up. This movie has several things going for it. It is a "feel good" story. The characters and actors are likable, realistic and present fine performances. Most important, I believe, is that Dennis Quaid knows how to grip and throw a baseball. Robert Redford looked good both throwing and swinging a bat in "The Natural, and so did Kevin Costner in "For Love of the Game" and "Bull Durham." In "Major League," Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen looked like they knew what they were doing, but many of the others did not, and that picture was pure silliness - and not very funny.

So many earlier baseball movies, even where the stories might be interesting, presented such a lack of baseball ability on the part of the leads, they were ludicrous in this respect. In "The Stratton Story" and "Strategic Air Command," Jimmy Stewart looked about as believable as a professional baseball player, as your overweight, non-athletic, elderly uncle in the softball game at the family reunion. Other virile and physically robust stars (e.g., Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig; Robald Reagan as Grover Cleveland Alexander; and Dan Dailey as Dizzy Dean) also exhibited a degree of baseball ability that would put them in the late rounds while "choosing-up" for a game at the Sunday picnic (even if coed, and even if your uncle were involved).

The scenes of Quaid's high school team he coached, the ones where he attends his tryout with the Devil Rays, and those with him playing in two minor leagues and in the American League, all ring true. The participants are believable and capable. In addition, he is an engaging actor who always delivers a talented and appropriate characterization (except, to a degree, some of his "over-the-top" scenes, and his forced accent, in his portrayal of Jerry Lee Lewis). But he's definitely on-target here, and this movie is a "9," as good, or better, as any others of this genre, except for "The Natural." This is one of my favorite sports movies. Dennis Quaid is moving and convincing in the part of a man who gave up his dream of being a baseball pitcher when his arm gave out on him. As a high school coach, he challenges his players to win the division championship by telling them he'll try out for a baseball team if they do. They win (partly because of all the batting practice they take with a coach who can pitch over 90 miles an hour), and he keeps his side of the bargain--and is signed!

If you have ever decided to try something new and terrifying as an adult, Jim Morris's story will resonate with you. It is moving and inspiring, and the man's relationships ring true.

Inspiration is not the only reason I rent this one, though. Dennis Quaid is just downright purdy in the part, and a baseball movie with a good-looking man changing a diaper is my idea of heaven. Ladies, if you feel the way I do, check this one out. This movie, to me, is about family. Jimmy Morris lived his dream not just for himself, but for his family. I can't begin to tell you how I would be able to tell my little girl that daddy was going to Kansas City to cover Priest Holmes and the Kansas City Chiefs. She'd think it was the coolest thing, like Morris' son did. Living dreams with the family is what this one is about. I think only a father who has a close relationship with his family can truly appreciate what Jimmy Morris did. Once upon a time Hollywood produced live-action, G-rated movies without foul language, immorality, and gore-splattered violence. These movies neither insulted your intelligence no manipulated your emotions. The heroes differed little from the crowd. They shared the same feelings and bore the same burdens. Since the 1970s, the film industry has pretty much written off G-rated movies for adults. Basically, modern mature audiences demand large doses of embellished realism for their cinematic diet, laced heavily with vile profanity, mattress-thumping sex, and knuckle-bruising fisticuffs. These ingredients constitute the difference between G-rated movies and those rated either PG or PG-13.

Miraculously, director John Lee Hancock, who penned scripts for Clint Eastwood's "A Perfect World" (1993) and "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" (1997), hits a home run with this G-rated, feel-good, four-bagger of a baseball epic that not only celebrates America's favorite summer time sport, but also extols the competitive spirit of the game. Essentially, "The Rookie" resembles the 1984 Robert Redford saga "The Natural" about an old-time slugger who makes a comeback. Unlike "The Natural," "The Rookie" shuns swearing, sex, and violence.

Moreover, rugged Dennis Quaid plays a real-life individual. Jim Morris' autobiography, "The Oldest Rookie: Big-League Dreams from a Small-Town Guy," served as the basis for Mike "Finding Forrester") Rich's unpretentious, Norman Rockwell-style screenplay about white, middle-class aspirations. Morris attained his dream when he debuted on the mound as a relief pitcher in 1999. Although it doesn't belong in the same league with the inspirational James Stewart classic "The Stratton Story" (1949), "The Rookie" qualifies as the kind of movie that Hollywood rarely makes anymore because audiences find them antiquated.

Hancock and Rich encapsulate their entertaining oddball biography in a halo of mysticism. A wildcat oil prospector convinces two Catholic nuns back in the 1920s to bankroll a West Texas well. Fearing they have blown their bucks on an ill-advised fantasy, the sisters blanket the arid terrain with rose petals and entreat St. Rita's patron saint of hopeless causes' to intervene. The well gushes! The Town of Big Lake emerges, and roughnecks swat at baseballs when they aren't drilling holes in the terrain. The spirit of baseball oozes from the earth like petroleum. Meanwhile, years later, the U.S. Navy doesn't keep Jim Morris, Sr., (Brian Cos of "Manhunter") and his family in one place long before uprooting them. The constant moving takes a toll on Jim Junior. Jim's dad shows little sympathy and berates baseball.

Nevertheless, Jim has baseball in his blood, enough so that when he accepts a high school chemistry teacher's job in his Texas hometown, he organizes a baseball team. Like the foul-mouthed "Bad News Bears," "The Rookie" chronicles Jim's triumph at turning losers into winners. Morris promises the team if they reach the divisional playoffs, he will try out for a professional baseball team. Predictably, Morris' students maintain their end of the bargain. At age 35, Jim stuns the big league scouts when he hurls fastballs at 98 miles-per-hour! "The Rookie" never fouls out. This was truly a great movie. I loved Dennis Quaid and the entire baseball team. Jay Hernandez is also a very likable actor that is very enjoyable to watch. The chemistry the team had once they got things together was spectacular, it just goes to show what you what can accomplish when minds unite as one with one goal. This team came back from the brink, having multiple losing seasons to winning just about everything. I love movies like this as they really are very inspirational.

On top of that, Dennis Quaid's character getting a place in the major leagues. You can't do anything, but root for this guy. It just seems like when someone is supposed to do something, they are going to do that. Things just happen to fall into place and makes everything click.

Based on a true story, this film will really make you think about the fact that "nothing is impossible." This is a feel good film, about one person's dreams and the drive or push to realize them. It is a beautiful and inspirational film. Why do some people have to try and find fault with every film that comes out, especially the good ones. Dennis Quaid gives a good solid performance in this true story of Jim Morris, a science teacher and high school baseball coach who is pushed by his team to take one more shot at a professional baseball career. With excellent supporting cast, including Brian Cox, as the crusty old ex navy officer who has let so much of his son's achievements go by without his support. It was good to see him as something other than a villain in a film. If I have one complaint with this film it is this: Don't ever let Royce Applegate sign the national anthem again.

Seriously, this film belongs to that handful of great baseball films like "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural." It rates two thumbs up and a big "well done." this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10 I had low expectations for this movie, but I was looking for something unchallenging for an evening. I walked out of the theatre totally delighted and somewhat surprised. This is a very fine baseball tribute film, and a nice lesson about pursuing your dreams. Dennis Quaid does a masterful job with his role, and I was touched by his performance. Definitely worth a full price ticket and a couple hours of your time! I was impressed that I could take my 5 year old son to this movie without having to cover his ears or eyes. No sex scenes, no profanity, and not even any violence. Just good entertainment, enjoyable from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid pulls off this movie very well. As predictable as a Hallmark card, but not without merit, The Rookie makes for a solid outing. Dennis Quaid, the most reasonable jock actor working today, is absolutely perfect as the science teacher turned baseball player Jimmy Morris. The film is never dumbed down for the children, as would be expected from a G rated film. As a sports film, The Rookie is one of the best I have seen since Any Given Sunday. The movie actually has a fairly good story, but gets bogged down in several key places. It's almost as if the director threw the movie together without taking the time to make some essential cuts in the film. Dennis Quaid does a fairly decent job in his role... but something is clearly missing from several key scenes.

This 2.5 hour movie could have been reduced to about a 2 hour movie. And probably would have been a much better film had it not had the feel as if it was thrown together.

As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much "Disney" for my taste. 'The Rookie' was a wonderful movie about the second chances life holds for us and also puts an emotional thought over the audience, making them realize that your dreams can come true. If you loved 'Remember the Titans', 'The Rookie' is the movie for you!! It's the feel good movie of the year and it is the perfect movie for all ages. 'The Rookie' hits a major home run! The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie. What a fun movie experience! I was expecting a sappy kids movie and found that I enjoyed it more than my teens. Take a tissue, it's not sad, just 'moving' in parts. Finally, its a 'feel good' flick for the whole family. Note: It's 2+ hours, so consider leaving the littlest 'squirmers' home for this one. AP This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B- This is the best picture about baseball since Redford whacked The Natural our way. Dennis Quaid and Rachel Griffiths light up the screen with a great story and a cast that seemed real enough to pull you into their lives.

Laced with dreams - dripping in reality, the American Dream reignites after 9.11 with a true story about the Devil Ray's mid-life rookie, Jimmy Morris. Australian born actress, Rachel Griffiths, plays a native West Texan better than a lot of Texans I know; and Dennis Quaid was perfection … cast as the wannabe, gonnabe and humble winner with as much psychological baggage as the average viewer in the audience. It's real. The on-screen chemistry works. If you like baseball heart-warmers, you're going to love this film. The ingredients for Americana and apple pie were all in there. My popcorn became the ‘a la mode'.

And hey: buy the CD! The music rocks and carries the story magnificently! Syncing words and music pushes the story forward exactly the way it should, an area that disappoints me more often than not.

Criticisms: I'd have given the baseball to somebody else. But Quaid has something to teach us all about ‘character' and heart. St. Rita and the nuns were a nice decoration, but they never really found their place in the story to open and close around them. A little long. Worth every minute in the last analysis. 8 / 10.

The Rookie kept me smiling from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid played the role to perfection. The little boy that plays his son was fantastic. He made this a father-son movie to remember. The messages are good ones. Follow your dreams. Failing at the pursuit is alright as long as you try. The excitement is palpable. I believe this movie will be a classic. Disney might just be on to something here. First, they had "Remember the Titans" with Denzel, a story based on truth involving sports and a small town in middle America. Now, with Quaid and The Rookie... yet another sports story based on truth.

Both movies move you to tears at times, and both make you smile and feel all warm after seeing them. My wife and I took in The Rookie and we expected it to be a great feel good type movie. We were not let down, when asked if we'd be buying this on DVD when it comes out, it was a no-brainer. Most definately. I knew I was going to see this when I saw the first preview. Dennis Quaid was one reason, but the theme of holding on to your dreams speaks to me. People talk about this as a movie for kids, but I think it's a movie for baby boomers who are coming to terms with aging, infirm parents, our own mortality, our kids growing up and leaving us, and all the other things we never thought would happen to us.

The movie doesn't fall into the trap of tragedy; it's about what living your dreams means when you have a real life.

Quaid is too small for a pitcher but he makes it look good, and Rachel Griffiths makes a small part as the wife into a thoughtful, layered performance. The camera-work is slow and sweet. When they put this movie together, they left out anything that wasn't necessary. Very nice. This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie. I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C) Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success. The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.

First time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.

Making her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.

As positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.

The supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10.



"Girlfight" follows a project dwelling New York high school girl from a sense of futility into the world of amateur boxing where she finds self esteem, purpose, and much more. Although the film is not about boxing, boxing is all about the film. So much so you can almost smell the sweat. Technically and artistically a good shoot with an sense of honesty and reality about it, "Girlfight" is no chick flick and no "Rocky". It is, rather, a very human drama which even viewers who don't know boxing will be able to connect with. Casting unknown Michelle Rodriguez as Diana was a stroke of genius. She's perfect. Her acting inexperience actually works in her favor. We've never seen her before so it really feels like her story. She also brings across genuine toughness. This works against her though, because we never doubt her. You never have to cheer for her to win because she never goes up against any fighter we don't think she can beat. So as a boxing movie, it fails.

Then again, this isn't really a boxing movie. How do you make a movie about a girl who wants to be a boxer that isn't a boxing movie? You don't. But Karyn Kusama has anyway. Like many indie films, "Girlfight" defies classification or genre and stands on its own as folklore that could darn near happen in real life.

Diana is doing poorly in school. She beats up people she doesn't like (all the other girls in her school for example). She doesn't fit in. Her father is forcing her kid brother Tiny to learn to box so he can defend himself when things get tough. He gives Tiny money for his boxing sessions and gives Diana nothing, as if she has no need to defend herself, nor anything worthwhile to make of her life. Tiny wants to go to art school (cliche', yuck), so he gives up his boxing allowance to Diana, who actually wants to box. Things get complicated when Diana falls for another boxer, Adrian (Santiago Douglas), who's looking to turn pro. From there the story winds down toward the inevitable...the two meet in the amateur title fight.

What left me cold was that I never found any of this all that interesting. It's all just a bit too believable. Kids with tough lives growing up in rough urban areas fall back on sports. A lot of professional boxers have risen from these circumstances. The mental and physical toughness this upbringing requires lends itself to a game like boxing, where anger is your friend. So this time it's a girl. Big deal.

Or there's another position to take: finally, a boxing movie about a girl. Women's boxing has been around a long time. The brutality we usually see in boxing films is replaced here by discussions of people's their lives and their feelings. The whole fighting thing is used as a platform from which to paint a larger picture. Respect. Overcoming adversity. Self-discovery.

I recommend "Girlfight" because it has a good spirit and is an example of some great work by a first time director. The dialogue never rises above soap opera quality, but the story itself actually changed my view on some things. Yes, the world now seems like a better place. A film did that.

Grade: B- I was not expecting the powerful filmmaking experience of "Girlfight". It's an Indie; low-budget, no big-name actors, freshman director. I had heard it was good, but not this good.

Placed in a contemporary, ethnic, working-class Brooklyn, Karyn Kusama has done an extraordinary job of capturing the day-do-day struggles of urban Latinos. Diana, the protagonist, is seething with anger and lashes out at her high school peers, getting in trouble with the school and her friends. She is being raised by her single father, who appears to love her and her brother, but applies a strict, sex-based double standard on his children. The father's double standard is illustrated by the fact that Tiny, the brother, is taking boxing lessons at the local gym, but Diana is denied similar pursuits. On an errand to the gym to meet Tiny, Diana is captivated by boxing. Tiny doesn't like boxing, so he and Diana trade places; he gets the money from Dad then gives it to Diana to take the lessons in his place.

This is actually a feel-good movie, as Diana grows and learns about herself through boxing, meets a guy, and addresses some very serious issues head-on. There's no giggly, 'everything that can go right does go right' resolution a la "Bend It Like Beckham". The reality and attendant personal issues are too big for pat resolutions, but in my opinion, "Girlfight" is a better and more satisfying film for it. Girlfight is like your grandmother's cooking: same old recipe you've tried a million times before, yet somehow transformed into something fresh and new. Try and explain the story to people who haven't seen it before: a young women from the wrong side of the tracks attempts to improve her situation by taking up boxing whilst dealing with a bitter, obstructive father and her growing attraction to a male rival. Watch them roll their eyes at the string of clichés, and they're right: it *is* clichéd. Yet I was hypnotized by how well this film works, due to the frequently superb acting and dialogue, and sensitive direction that makes it 'new'. I avoided this at the cinema because it looked like complete crap but don't make the same mistake I did. Definiately worth a look. When "Girlfight" came out, the reviews praised it, but I didn't get around to seeing it. I finally saw it when it got released on video, and understand the glowing reviews.

The movie opens in a high school in the middle of a ghetto. We quickly get introduced to student Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez). She has a bad-ass expression on her face, and any idea about Diana that we might derive from this expression soon gets corroborated when she gets in a fight. As Diana gets in trouble for this, we then meet her father, an aggressive type in his own right; clearly we can't totally blame Diana for her attitude.

But then the movie really picks up, as a new thought germinates in Diana's mind: boxing as a way to escape this grim existence. Her older brother has already gotten into boxing, but her father most likely won't approve. Only Diana herself can decide what to do.

Just the first few minutes alone identified that I was in for a very gritty, non-Hollywood movie, but the brief appearance of John Sayles in a supporting role truly affirmed that. Even before they get to any boxing scenes, you feel like you're getting pounded in the face at seeing the ugly life that Diana lives. And when they finally arrive at the film's main story, there's no turning back.

All in all, I definitely recommend this movie. I will admit that using boxing as a means to show someone trying to make something of himself/herself has been sort of a cliché in cinema for many years ("Rocky", "Million Dollar Baby"), but I still think that they did a great job with it here. In fact, this may have brought the genre to its apex. Really good. Too bad that Michelle Rodriguez wasted herself in Hollywood movies after this one. Michelle Rodriguez is a well-built high-school senior who discovers that she has a powerful punch and begins amateur training at a Brooklyn gym. Santiago Douglas is a a handsome young man, barely older than she, who also trains there. They meet after class, so to speak, and feel attracted to each other. No sex. Santiago has been instructed to save it for his next bout.

Both are participants in a "gender-blind" athletic program that makes no distinctions between males and females, a misguided attempt to level the athletic playing field.

A conservative radio commentator recently announced -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- "Let's face it; the president is black." I'm here to make an equally perspicacious observation -- "Men and women are different." Now, in 99 cases out of 100, this needn't make any difference in physical performance. But in the top one percent -- trained athletes whose skills have been honed to a fine edge -- men generally have the advantage. With their narrow hips they can run faster. And they have greater muscle mass and upper torso strength. These differences in body build make it possible for women to give birth and raise children and for men to catch and kill food for them. This sexual bifurcation is the result of the perfectly normal process of natural selection. Without it, there might not be any humans at all. And that, boys and girls, is why they have men's events and women's events at the Olympics. I speak to you as your anthropologist. That will be ten cents, PayPal preferred.

That's why I called this gender-blind program misguided. As talented a boxer as Rodrigues is, as she approaches the zenith of the game, she will eventually lose to a male.

That's where the complication arises in this movie. Rodrigues is finally matched against her boy friend, Douglas. Neither wants to loose any anger on the other, not to mention roundhouse rights, but the pride of both is at stake, and the pride is both personal and gender related. Douglas refuses to fight a woman in the ring. And Rodriguez is offended by what she sees as his patronizing attitude. It ends happily.

I wasn't really expecting much from the film. I thought it would be a rip off of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" until I discovered that this was released years earlier. And I'd never heard of the director or of any of the performers. That sort of obscurity generally augers ill -- made-for-television weepers and so forth.

But I was surprised at how neatly this is put together. The total absence of bathos left me open mouthed. So did the minimal use of boxing clichés -- the frayed ropes, the blood, the cutting of the swollen eye, the battered post-bout faces, the fat and sweaty onlooker shouting "Kill him!", the slow motion landing of glove on nose, the spray of sweat from the mauled head, the heroic music signaling the long-awaited apotheosis of the victor. None of that here -- well, almost none. The whole plot could be considered formulaic. Tough kid finds outlet in the ring, etc.

The feeling you're left with is that this is probably pretty much what these amateur contests are like. Different from those we see on TV and in ordinary movies. No bells ring, for instance, Instead a dancing and observant referee yells "Stop!" And "Box!" The contestants wear head gear. The gym is populated not by a crowd of cheering spectators, but only by a handful of people who have some particular interest in the goings on. It's a clean movie, despite the rather grim setting and the unhappy family dynamics.

Michelle Rodriguez can look pretty mean, what with her muscular bulk and her eyes glowing under her lowered brow, but once you get used to the idea that this is a girl who can beat you to a pulp anytime she wants, and once you hear the feminine contours of her supersegmentals, she ain't bad. (A scene in which she battles her father to the floor is overdoing it.) It was a little hard to understand Douglas's restraint when Rodriguez crawls all over him in bed. The director, Karyn Kusama, has chosen her talent carefully.

Shows what you can do with some talent, imagination, and a modicum of money. There ought to be more films like it. Take one of those multi-billion dollar blockbusters full of dinosaurs or space ships and spread the generosity around a little. I saw this movie after i saw Blue Crush and other of Michelle's movies, i thought she had a bleak future in this business.I was extremely wrong after watching her performance in "Girlfight" i was amazed in the way she captures the emotion of one a fighter, but also a warrior.In this movie the way she confronts her father about the treatment of her and her brother, the way she conveys anger when getting hit.Her characters learning curve in the movie of she cant always put up a wall and hide from love, or that just because she has power she wont win.I believe this role was fit perfectly for Michelle even though she had no prior experience, the director saw talent, I criticize myself for not seeing the talent in her. Girlfight is a story about a troubled teen named Diana Guzman (Michelle Rodriguez). Diana is burdened by her mothers suicide and a sexist father living in a sexist community. A short temper and plenty of things to spark a fire, shes about to get kicked out of school for fighting. Her brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago), is training with Hector (Jaime Tirelli) in boxing. Diana is told by her dad, Sandro (Paul Calderon), to deliver that weeks payment for Tiny's training. While Diana is walking through the gym, she realizes thats what she wants to do. She wants to box. Diana asks her dad for money to train but he refuses because shes a girl and should do more 'girly' things. All Diana wants is to be treated like any other guy. Not looked down upon because she is a woman. She steals money from her father to begin training.

Great movie. Genius, pure 'effing' genius. Recommend to anybody who needs to see a good clean movie with no 'monkey business'. Went to Wal-Mart and found this film on DVD and had no idea whether I made a bad purchase or a good one. It is the later outcome to my viewing the entire film from beginning to end. Michelle Rodriquez,(Diana Guzman),"BloodRayne",'05, gave a great performance and her looks are beautiful, sexy, and at the same time a real study in the art of how acting is really performed. Diana did not like her home life and especially her own father for the abuse he gave her mother. She decides to get boxing training in a local Brooklyn Gym and is not really well accepted by the male boxers. In her high school there is plenty of friction between her female classmates and guys. There is lots of action in the ladies bathroom and references as to private parts of guys. If you like boxing, and seeing a hot sexy gal do wonders in the ring and knock the boys on their you Know What, this is the film for you. Sports movies have never been my thing, but a small handful of them work for me. The best are the those which focus less on the sport and more on the character, such as Raging Bull, the Wrestler and Girlfight. This is a great directorial debut for Karyn Kusama, and an outstanding first performance for Michelle Rodriguez. Girlfight feels is both realistic and involving, that is enough so to make it a memorable film.

The plot is strait forward enough. Diana Guzman, is in her fourth year of high school, but due to her picking fights in the hallway she is close to expulsion. As a possible means of unleashing her anger, she signs up for Boxing lessons at the club where her brother is training (at the wishes of there father).

In the course of ninety minutes, we the viewers see something extraordinary. Diana almost literally changes from a girl to a woman. We see it in her body as well as her behaviour, especially when one of the boys at the club finds himself drawn to her, and she gets into it. There is not a bad scene or a lame/contrived moment in the film. The only error that I would say could be corrected is that one of the subplots ends on what feels like an unfinished note. Aside from that, Girlfight is a great movie. So I flipped on the digital subscriber channels one night a couple of years ago and thought I'd pass a half hour watching "Girlfight" while waiting for "Hart's War" to start. With a title like that I figured it was some exploitation 'B' flic about inner city girl gangs.

Much to my surprise it wasn't about that at all. Instead it is a well acted, well scripted story about a young woman who almost accidentally gets into female boxing. She is responsible for taking her younger brother to his practice sessions and get interested while observing his bouts. As he doesn't really want to be a boxer (only following through on their father's wishes) she convinces his coach to take her on in his stead.

The story unfolds in an intelligent and believable way as she goes through various trials on her quest. For starters, her brother's coach doesn't want to take on a female boxer. After grudgingly doing so there is the problem of lining up matches for her. Then the confrontation with her father when he finds out what is going on. Yes, a love interest develops but it serves to enhance the plot, coming across more of an interesting inter-human reaction with its own fight related consequences.

All in all this is a great little sleeper movie that few seem to have heard of. Some time later when I saw the much advertised and acclaimed "Million Dollar Baby" I thought "wait a minute, this seems kind of familiar". Needless to say, I didn't watch "Hart's War" that night. I really enjoyed Girl Fight. It something I could watch over and over again. The acting was Fantastic and i thought Michelle Rodriguez did a good job in the film. Very convincing might I say. The movie is showing how women should stand up for what they want to do in life. She had so much compassion and yet so much hate at the same time. Dealing with a ignorant dad didn't really help her much. Even though he loved her he was really hateful. Her mother died when she was younger and that also put some sadness in the role. The love story was a part that i really enjoyed in the movie also. I felt the passion the y had for one another. Then again drama sets in and then its like she is choosing between her boyfriend and her life long dream. I thought it ended just right. It was the kind of ending where you have to decide what happened in the future for them.For all you people who likes a movie based on a sport with a good plot i 'd suggest that you check this one out girlfight is using a well-known formula as someone pointed out, however, i have seen plenty of movies that don't do it this well or that are not this credible. i believe it is in the end easier for a woman to empathize the character and that way feel more touched by the movie.

the movie is encouraging both mentally and physically even if your life and environment were completely different and, i think the viewer can still gain a lot by seeing this. although it took me 5 years to start boxing and sports in general, this is the movie that gave me the spark.

so the plot is familiar/common. actors are good. but the thoughts that it can spark are what make it above average in my opinion. it made a big impression on me and i know i'm not the only one. I Think It's a great movie. because you get to see how Diana's life at home is. she got so much aggression, and she wants to prove that girls can fight too. I think she and Adrian were great actors. Because of this movie I Am Boxing too. It really impressed me. the only negative part I think. Is the end. because It's alright between Diana and Adrian. But you don't get to see how it is at home. And I Didn't really like it that you also don't get to see how her father is doing, and her brother. but i Think it was A great movie and I Think I'm going to watch it a lot more:) I recommend it to anyone, even when you don't like boxing, you get to see a lot more than only boxing. I had a great time watching it. "Girlfight" is much more of a coming-of-age-story than it is a fight flick. And what a relief to have one in an urban school, with naturalistic, realistic Latinos and believable use of Brooklyn project settings.

It made me realize that virtually all Hollywood high school movies are set in luxurious suburbia or small towns. (Even the somewhat comparable "Love and Basketball" which focused on teen African-Americans was set in suburbia.) While these kids share some of the same peer problems, those issues shrink compared to the other struggles of these kids, where high school graduation could be the major accomplishment of their lives.

The feminist element here is riveting in its originality, as you hold your breath to see if she can have a relationship--and a victory-- on her terms. A lots of audience sympathy goes to the guy who is challenged to rise to a gender-bending-expectations situation.

The movie does drag a bit here and there, but this is no cheap thrills "Rocky" fight movie, as the practices and fights have complex outcomes, and all the relationships--especially with fathers and father-figures-- take more center stage than the center ring.

There were lots of interesting music credits listed at the end, but I hadn't really noticed the songs.

(originally written 10/7/2000) While the story of a troubled kid turning to boxing for self-respect and anger management is hardly a new thing, the story is given a fresh twist here when the protagonist is a girl instead of a boy.

Diana has trouble at school. She just can't stay away from fighting. At home her father is constantly putting her down. Her brother trains boxing at a gym and one day when she picks him up she decides she also wants to train.

It would be easy to call this movie a "Rocky with girls" i guess. But that is not at all what this is about. The story actually benefits very much from the main character being a girl rather than a boy. That way you can deal with more problems at once. First the problem of her not being accepted because she's not a girlie-girl, and then when she comes to the boxing gym because she's a girl at all. It's also a story about how a purpose can change someones life. How positive things can make you grow. I don't want this to sound pretentious, because the movie doesn't feel pretentious at all, but what i'm saying is true.

Also Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the lead. It's a shame really that she has become stuck in the "tough girl" typecasting now, because that's really not what her part in "Girlfight" is all about. Sure she's a female boxer, but rather it's the more sensitive moments that really makes her shine.

So maybe this is basically your average underdog story with a twist, but it's lifted way above the crowd by Rodriguez' performance. I rate this 7/10. Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.

Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.

I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work. At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.

In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.

I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour. This movie is a real gem. The arc of the the plot is defined in the first 3 minutes, the characters are sympathetic and clearly drawn, their motives completely believable. The dialogue is fresh, and oh so real. The situations are unique to the characters and not at all cliched or hackneyed. Until the climax, that is. Then it's as if the movie went off the rails a bit and it got a bit hokey and unbelievable. But I don't want to discourage people from watching this film. The first 3/4's of it are truly remarkable. I gave it an 8. There are some remarkable performances here. Check out this movie. Being a person who does not usually enjoy boxing movies, feeling they only focus on the boxing and not the characters themselves, this movie truly moved me. I loved being able to see the main character Diana(Michelle Rodriguez) go through so many things in such a short while, it was amazing to me. Michelle (Rodriguez) did such a wonderful job playing Diana especially since this was her first acting experience, she showed true emotion and portrayed Diana wonderfully. All actors had chemistry on screen and made this movie even more amazing. I highly recommend this movie even to those who do not usually watch boxing movies. 10/10 (spoilers)

I was blown away by this movie. I've been renting on movielink for a bit, and decided to check this movie out. Alot of boxing movies seem to overblow the blood. In this movie, it shows it at the amature level. Though I do wish that perhaps more attention would have been brought to perhaps her improving her grades. The movie points out the problems some families face with gender.

I was a bit concerned with the ending. But the ending wasn't a disappointment either.

I think it was pretty clear by the title that she'd win. What was unexpected was that the two of them got back together sort of at the end.

Loved the score for some of the scenes. Highly recommended.

10/10

Quality: 9/10

Entertainment: 10/10

Replayable: 10/10 I finally sat down and saw this film the whole way through, and I must say, I was very impressed. Michelle Rodriguez is probably one of my new favorite actresses---it's not only the fact that she *can* act, but that she chooses the roles best suited to her that are more meaningful and important than what would first seem. I've read a few comments expressing their relief that this was not some awful feminist thing as they thought beforehand, but I certainly disagree. Diana is a feminist. She follows her dreams and believes in herself contrary to what practically everyone around her thinks (with the exception of her caring brother Tiny and her trainer and manager, Hector, who proves to be more a father figure than her real parent), which is what the word "Feminism" is all about. It's good to see films like this showcasing the true side of feminism--that they're not a bunch of manhating losers--but that they have dreams and can do anything. Diana is true to herself while still falling prey to love, and she and Adrian have a more realistic, complicated relationship rather than just something that magically works out. Girlfight is a true taste of reality and it put some faith back into my perception of people. Thanks, Michelle.

8/10 - A very important movie that's relatable to not just young women, but everyone wanting to go far in their lives. This movie has made me want to become a director, and Michelle Rodriguez is brilliant. How the hell wasn't she on mtv's top 25 under 25, she beats them all. This film definitely deserved the grand jury prize at sundance, best film i have ever seen. Michelle Rodrigez was made for this movie, when I first saw her in Fast and the Furious. You could tell that she was a tough woman. With this movie, she has not only proven her acting, but shows no fear and is tough like she should be in this movie. She is more a bad girl and that's what I like about her. This movie is about a troubled girl, living the life as a tom boy and getting in constant trouble with school and family. As she gets interested in her brothers training to be a boxer, she decides to go after her love to fight and asks her brothers trainer to train her. Even though they don't think she has the potential, they get to be shown proven wrong.

I think this movie was a little slow at the ending, but was well done. It shows, that people can do anything even if they don't think you have the potential. I recommend it to be seen. Michelle Rodriguez plays Diana, a high school girl with an insolent scowl and 2 x 4 on her shoulder. She's ready to battle anyone, especially her father who is paying for her brother's boxing lessons. Diana decides boxing would be a good way of focusing her anger.

I liked the relationship between Diana and Adrian. Santiago Douglas as Adrian is excellent. Watch how their emotions towards each other are shaped by the squared circle. Another powerful chick flick. This time, it revolves around Diana Gusman who is always getting into fights at school. Instead of getting expelled, she takes her anger elsewhere, to the boxing ring. She trains to be a boxer and there she meets featherweight Adrian and begins to fall in love with him. This movie has a powerful message of taking your dreams and going with them even if someone doesn't believe in you (in this case, her dad doesn't believe in her). That alone makes the movie worth the price. Enjoy I never bothered to see this movie in theaters although I remember hearing the name over and over. I finally watched it this week and what a delight. For some reason, I was expecting it to not be very good so I was completely surprised when I sat down and stuck with it and then found myself completely pulled in. I read a lot of the other user comments and it impressed me how much people talk about her fighting in the ring, but what was wonderful about Diana is that she's a true fighter in life. All she needs to do is find her place where she be who she is and the ring helps her to get there. A very intelligent story and I'm amazed that this is the first time up for Michelle Rodriguez - what an excellent job she did. Adrian and her coach were also quite good.

This film is a little rough around the edges, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The story, the will, and the performances completely outweigh any flaws (that usually come with indie filmmaking anyway). A compelling portrayal of a girl finding herself and triumphing over her circumstances and a K.O. for Michelle Rodriguez! I just saw this movie the other day when I rented it, and I thought this was going to be just another movie with a girl trying to prove a point, but Diane joined boxing because she wanted to. I thought this movie was good. I gave it a 8/10. That's how good it is. Plus a movie with Michelle Rodriguez is always good. Even is she's been in only six. I enjoyed this movie,and after watching it,it made me wonder just how many 'Caitlin Rose's' exist in the world.How many other girls have been subjected to this sort of sexual abuse,and torment by classmates and have been too frightened to open their mouth about it? Just how threatening and cruel can teenagers be towards one another,because as this film demonstrates,who's right is not foremost important,its who is popular,and feared which manipulates the minds of youths,and influences them to allow this sort of immorality to happen.Tiffani Amber Thiessen gives a powerful performance as the rape victim,and Brian Austin Green is convincing as the guy torn between the girl he thought he loved,and his best friend.This is the kind of film that doesn't get the exposure it deserves.Remarkable,and brilliant,too good to be just a film made for TV. When I saw this movie, I was amazed that it was only a TV movie. I think this movie should have been in theaters. I have seen many movies that are about rape, but this one stands out. This movie has a kind of realism that is very rarely found in movies today, let alone TV movies. It tells a story that I'm sure is very realistic to many rape victims in small towns today, and I found it to be very believable(which is something hard to find in other rape centered movies). I also thought that Tiffani Theissen and Brian Austin Green were awesome in the parts that they played. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys movies that have a bit of a harsh reality to them. I enjoyed it very much. I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story. I first saw this when it premiered more than ten years ago. I saw it again today and it still had a big impact on me. She Fought Alone is about a girl, Caitlin (played by Tiffani Thiessen), who is raped by Jace (played by David Lipper), a classmate who enjoys hurting girls. Caitlin is in a popular high school clique, but when she reveals she is raped the clique turns against her, led by Ethan (played by Brian Austin Green).

This movie chronicles Caitlin's struggle against an entire town, including a high school that essentially lets athletes determine the social environment, allowing them to get away with whatever they wish.

Thiessen and Green are the top performers, and there is real chemistry between the two of the them throughout the entire film. All of the actors in this film, which was inspired by actual events, did a great job. She Fought Alone really captures the essence of what it is like to be in high school (at least in 1995), and having one's self-esteem and reputation at stake. Recommended. 10/10 Excellent story about teenagers, leaders, high school football "stars". How far will you go to protect your friends? Lie, kill? How much can You lose if you stud by an innocent girl? Can love beat the odds? Can you defeat narrow-minded small town people? When your friend scores and you "lose", will you do everything in your power to make her pay for it, or will you be a man about it, and respect her right to chose? Will you rape her and show it as your victory over a "problem" girl? Can you stand by the one who's only sin is to have an opinion of her own, to be able to make her own decisions, to chose for herself? It made me think twice before giving my judgment about who was right and who was wrong, but one is for sure - very disturbing movie and theme in general. Thumb up! my name is Heather and i am the girl whose story this movie was based on. I want to thank all of you who saw this movie and enjoyed it. as crude and harsh as some of the things that were depicted in this movie were, it didn't really even come close to describing how bad things actually were. not to mention the affect everything had on my mother and little sister. thanks once again for the great comments that everyone had,i truly appreciate them

Hi everyone!

This is Heather's mom. It's hard to believe that so many years have gone by since this movie was made. Harder even to believe that people were still watching it a year ago. For any of you out there who have gone thru the same or similar kind of situation, please know that there are people out here in cyberspace that do understand completely how you feel. Our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of you. Most people know Paul Verhoeven as the director of many good (and bad) sci-fi movies in Hollywood. But long before that he was churning out generic thrillers in his native land. The story is a basic femme fatale premise, nothing new or enthralling. Verhoeven thinks he can make it better by adding in a series of dream sequences, which instead of defining our main character and his situation, are just used as a way to drive forward the predictable plot. The screenplay was solid, the dialogue helping to pad the effects of the bland story. What really made the movie at at least good was some terrific acting. Jereone Krabbe was amazing as the "tortured artist", and the supporters were very good as well. Also, Jan De Bont's cinematography adds at least some life to the film, helping to make Verhoeven look at least capable as a director.

6.5/10

* * 1/2 / * * * * THE FOURTH MAN (Paul Verhoeven - Netherlands 1983).

A film based on a novella by Gerard Reve, that works best as a thriller. That's quite surprising, considering Reve roughly needs a hundred pages for just a minor plot twist and tension is the last thing on my mind when reading his work.

"The Fourth Man" is top-heavy on symbolism. Paul Verhoeven is generally extremely preoccupied with proving something to mostly hostile critics and I'm never sure what it is exactly he is trying to prove. He usually underestimates his audience and tells his story in such an unsubtle way, he quickly diverges from the original idea or storyline, and almost seems to forget what needs to be seen on screen and what needs to be left out. In "The Fourth Man" he is not as explicit on detailing the plot as he is with sex and nudity (of which there's plenty) but, as in most of his films, he seems afraid the audience wouldn't get it and hammers home the story with overt symbolism mixed with some supposedly shocking nudity and graphic sex scenes. There's hardly a scene without sex or full-frontal nudity, most of it so maddeningly gratuitous and in your face, it undermines an otherwise good story.

Nevertheless, when you can cope with Verhoeven's pretty obvious satiric approach, it's quite an entertaining thriller at times with some intriguing plot twists and good performances all round, Thom Hoffman and Jeroen Krabbé in particular.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10 Back in the forties, when movies touched on matters not yet admissible in "polite" society, they resorted to codes which supposedly floated over the heads of most of the audience while alerting those in the know to just what was up. Probably no film of the decade was so freighted with innuendo as the oddly obscure Desert Fury, set in a small gambling oasis called Chuckawalla somewhere in the California desert. Proprietress of the Purple Sage saloon and casino is the astonishing Mary Astor, in slacks and sporting a cigarette holder; into town drives her handful-of-a-daughter, Lizabeth Scott, looking, in Technicolor, like 20-million bucks. But listen to the dialogue between them, which suggests an older Lesbian and her young, restless companion (one can only wonder if A.I. Bezzerides' original script made this relationship explicit). Even more blatant are John Hodiak as a gangster and Wendell Corey as his insanely jealous torpedo. Add Burt Lancaster as the town sheriff, stir, and sit back. Both Lancaster and (surprisingly) Hodiak fall for Scott. It seems, however, that Hodiak not only has a past with Astor, but had a wife who died under suspicious circumstances. The desert sun heats these ingredients up to a hard boil, with face-slappings aplenty and empurpled exchanges. Don't pass up this hothouse melodrama, chock full of creepily exotic blooms, if it comes your way; it's a remarkable movie. Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.

But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity. This film is amazing - it's just like a nightmare. The bizarre story, the dark decors, the swarming insects everywhere, the idea jumps and the surrealistic dreams... Really great! People who love cult movies or very dark thrillers will find this fantastic. It seems a little to the films of David Lynch: the strange story, the bizarre dreams, the red curtains. Nuit Noire contains almost no plot. It's rather a succession of surrealistic happenings, nightmares and meetings. That's a drawback. If the film had a really fascinating plot full of tension with a captivating denouement, I would give it a 10 out of 10. But that's missing, and that's why I gave the movie an 8. Nuit Noire is a film worth watching. Search that DVD and you'll be rewarded! A great film! Slow: YES.

...but original, deeply atmospheric, dark and horrifying, perfectly SURREAL (feels like a nightmare).

I'd compare it to David Lynch (Eraserhead, Inland Empire, Blue Velvet) style maybe with mixed with a little bit of Barton Fink and Naked Lunch (Insects!). Also a bit of Jodorowsky (Fando y Lis)....

Add some Night on Earth, Angel Heart and a bit of Begotten, Pi, (would it be wrong to mention Tetsuo?) Jacob's Ladder, Barker's The Forbidden and Salome - that should form together at least the concept of a dark night... NUIT NOIRE.

If you're out for avantegardistic and/or surrealistic cinema (like I am) you're gonna like this one. If you're expecting anything else like a movie full of action with some average plot - try your luck with something else.

Final words: The plot is very, very strange and unusual and that's probably the #1 reason why most people who don't appreciate this film hate it. I can't believe others took such a serious view of all this. God, it was a lot of fun rooting for Hop-a-long Cassidy. It was a great tribute to the Western serials of years ago. It wasn't meant to be a great cinema experience, except it was. So what if there wasn't a big special effects bonanza. It was a fun, tongue in cheek, look at old Western's. Man, relax and enjoy. Late one night on a desolate road, in an empty saloon Martin Sheen spins a yarn for Robert Carradine of Hopalong Cassidy and friends tracking a group of murderous cattle rustlers, who've killed a few men and kidnapped Cassidy's girl.

Writer/director Christopher Coppola May have incurred the wrath of William Boyd purists by daring to make a modern low budget film featuring their beloved Hoppy, but I'm glad he did it! No character should be so tied to an an actor that no one else ever be allowed to play him or her again!

I thought it was good fun and an interesting updating of the classic programmers of the thirties and forties. Though guilty of some bad acting, this is earnest enough and unpretentious, making it hard for me to dislike.

The whole production is a bit odd though, but I really enjoyed the scenes between Sheen and Carridine. The fact that we're watching a story within a story makes the oddness and exaggerations more palatable. This an free adaptation of the novels of Clarence Mulford; fans of the Willaim Boyd films will probably feel a little at sea here (and the reviews here so far reflect that). But I knew of Hopalong from the novels first, and never cared much for the Boyd films once I got around to them.

Christopher Coppola has made a wise choice - he has not made a nostalgic "Western"; instead, he has approached the Cassidy story as a slice of what we used to call 'Americana'; or what older critics once called 'homespun'. As the film unraveled, I found myself more and more reminded of the great "Hallmark Theater" version of Mark Twain's "Roughing It", with James Garner narrating.

Both these films remind us that, although films about the 'old west' are probably always to be mythic for Americans, they need not be 'westerns'; they can very well be just films about what it meant to be American in that time, in that place.

I never feel pandered to, watching this film; there's no effort to shove the Boyd-Cassidy legacy down our throats, no irony, no camp. Consequently, I get a sense of these characters as having walked - or ridden horseback - across some real western America I too could have walked a hundred years ago.

Given that, the plainness of the film - it positively avoids anything we have come to call "style" - is all to its favor; and the plain acting of the performers fits neatly in with this; gosh, it really does feel like some story told around a campfire on a cattle drive - no visual dressing, just the quirks and good humor - and sudden violence - that we expect from the good narration of an adventure yarn. I was very pleasantly surprised by this film, and if the viewer sets aside encultured expectations, he or she will find considerable pleasure in it.

I would have given this film 9-stars, but I'll give it a ten just because most reviewers here have missed the point completely; and I urge them to set their memories of Boyd aside and give this film another chance.

Note 1: A reviewer complained that Hopalong shoots people dead in this film, rather than shooting the guns out of their hands (ala Boyd's Cassidy); first, Cassidy DOES shoot people dead in the novels; second, if Cassidy were a real cowboy he would have shot people dead - the problem with shooting guns out of people's hands is that they can always get another gun - which happens to be part of the subtext of this very film.

Note 2: I admit that I am jealous of the Coppola family, that they have the Director of "The Godfather" among them who can get them all opportunities to make movies that I can't; but a good movie is a good movie; and this is a good movie. If it's by somebody by the name "Coppola", well, that's just is as it is. America is the land of opportunity (or was, until Bush got into office) - that's what the great American novels are all about. The first time my best friend and I sat down to watch this movie, we were watching it for Alex Winter of "Bill & Ted's" fame. We didn't know what to expect other than who and what it was about.

By the time the movie was over, we knew that it was love at first sight. This movie, while not completely historically accurate, was and is the best one of its genre. I have seen other movies depicting the history of this famous summer and in my opinion, none of the others can compare. It fibbed a little at certain details, but those parts did not take away from the sheer elegance and romance of the story. I have seen the other movies about this summer and I find most of them to be good, but none as captivating as this one.

"Haunted Summer" has the qualities of a painting. The colors and settings seem to be something one would find on a canvas, framed and hung in a museum or on the walls of an eccentric's home. The costumes were gorgeous and, despite not being the most comfortable clothes in the world, made me want to find a seamstress to create such garb for myself. The whole movie was set on the picturesque Lake Geneva (where I hope to one day go because of seeing this movie) and the serenity that these historical figures found there.

This movie shows, besides the tranquility found by all the escapees of England's harsh judgements, the strangeness that surrounded this adventure as well. Yes, there were drugs. It was a fairly common practice during that time, a time when drugs were not illegal. And the taking of laudanum (the liquid form of opium) was medicinal as well as recreational. Shelley suffered from consumption. Lord Byron suffered the pains of a clubbed foot. It was not surprising that there would be prescriptions of the strong drugs that were in their possession during that summer. And they were poets during a time when experience was the key. There was no time for prudish caution. Passion and experience were a big part of the Romantic Era. And out of the thoughts and discussions of science, religion and philosophy came the creation of a legend: "Frankenstein."

Yes, in this movie, we see the beautiful and liberated Mary Godwin (not married to Shelley at that time) played by beautiful and talented Alice Krige. She is the control factor to all that goes on until she, too, gives in to experience. But she stands her ground and experiences things on her own terms. As was the strength that she inherited from her mother and father.

The actors and actresses in this were perfect for the parts they played. The music fitting. The direction captured the essence of the summer, as I've read about it. This movie was based on a wonderful book "Haunted Summer" by Anne Edwards. If you like this movie, read the book. The author takes the story from what she was able to put together from the actual journals of Mary Godwin Shelley and the other participants of this story.

If you are a person who loves history (even the little inaccuracies from time to time) and romance and the gothic, then this is a movie for you. It shows the birth of the birth of the monster, which even today teaches us about the morals of "playing God."

A definite must see movie! In this glorious telling of a weekend shared among literary greats. Mary and Percy Shelly,Lord Byron and others created a entrancing group. Showing their quests for sexual enlightenment. Personal freedoms from political to moral. Liberal drug use for both stimulations and as addiction. Their creative views of life and writing. Describing without boring the viewer how each writer seeks to find their muse. Along with the distractions and affections each share. With breathtaking scenery that does not detract but very much enhances the story. Well created characters from grim to loving then angry to peaceful. With some of the most lovely and scene enhancing costuming to be had. I would love to comment on this film. Alas , my search has always endeth in vain. If any good citizen could help a desperate inhabitant of this ailing planet and restore his confidence in humanity by offering the whereabouts of either a UK VHS or loan him a DVD copy of the VHS; he would, without reservation, be eternally grateful.....

Blake wrote "The road to excess is the path to wisdom", one hopes my weary road of excess will offer the path to fruition .... If not, I will have to replay the excellent Mr Russel's Gothic in the knowledge that those who have seen Haunted Summer (for better or for worse) have enriched their viewing pleasure of the events of July 1816 whilst I, a fellow member of this melodious plot, rests his lonely case in solitude ... I have no idea what the other reviewer is talking about- this was a wonderful movie, and created a sense of the era that feels like time travel. The characters are truly young, Mary is a strong match for Byron, Claire is juvenile and a tad annoying, Polidori is a convincing beaten-down sycophant... all are beautiful, curious, and decadent... not the frightening wrecks they are in Gothic.

Gothic works as an independent piece of shock film, and I loved it for different reasons, but this works like a Merchant and Ivory film, and was from my readings the best capture of what the summer must have felt like. Romantic, yes, but completely rekindles my interest in the lives of Shelley and Byron every time I think about the film. One of my all-time favorites. I love Korean films because they have the ability to really (quiet eerily really) capture real life. I tend to watch Korean movies just for that reason alone. I've seen this directors other movies before. The one that comes closest to the feelings I got from this is Oasis and another awesome film called This Charming Girl.

However, my title summary is supposed to be from a Chrstian perspective so I'll just start doing that instead of just showering it with praise.

For a non Christian perspective Director Chang-dong Lee has captured an unbiased and almost eerily real portrayal of a modern Protestant church (regardless of denomination) warts and all. I've always been waiting for a Christian film that truly portrays the darker recesses of church life. Because Christian films tend to speak in a language that is different to those they want to share their faith to. Many films with religious undertones, though having good motives, tend to just have the resonance of a Disney film or after school special. They need to show life as it is. Real people curse, real people lust, real people fall. And though Christians believe that salvation is available to those that seek it, we are still challenged by the everyday horrors of this life. And Do-yeon Jeon's character is a totally honest and almost brutal portrayal of a woman that found God, but because of life's bitter realities, loses that love for Him she once had. She doesn't deny God exists. It is just that she refuses to accept to live with the idea that He is an all loving and forgiving God.

In her decent to the edges of morality and madness, her character asks questions that are in the mind of every one, religious or not.

"If God is Love, why does He allow such terrible things to happen?" This film doesn't answer that, rightly so. And I believe the last 10 minutes of the film, though open to interpretation, leaves us with a hopeful future for our main character and brings the idea of "secret sunshine" full circle.

I don't believe for a second that this film tried to be religious or had in any way tried and set out to be that. There in lies the reason why it worked even more. It's real, it's honest. And because of that, it is by far the best summation of a real Christian life I have seen on film. A young woman comes to the home town of his husband after he passed away in an accident. She barely settles down in this small town, but shortly after, loses her little son in a kidnapping and all her hopes... This could lead to all kinds following plots in a normal movie: find a new partner and being happy finally; or depressed enough to struggle and finally kill herself... She does try to kill herself, but not after a series of severe fights, with God. She trusts in God, only to find that God seems to forgive everyone, even the killer. Well, I should be careful here about God, the movie doesn't mean a thing against God. The way the movie deals the issue is quite interesting: not in the woman's point of view or from God's perspective (in this way, there would be lots of grass growing, clouds flying views, I suppose). Rather, it's from a third party's eye, the movie let us to perceive and doesn't explain a thing.

The movie wouldn't be so interesting were there only the woman. There's this man who's everywhere around the woman and obviously in love with her, but in his own way. He's a funny guy, like a clown I should say, who shamelessly hangs around our heroine. The combination of these two, the woman full of tension, crying and throwing up always, and the man, smiling and talking stupidly, ends up in a good balance of emotions: nothing absurdly wrong or too tedious.

Highly recommend. I did not intend to write this review, but having read the default review that shows up on this movie's URL, I felt compelled to write a rebuttal. The movie in a word is superlative. It does not deserve the slanderous review that the writer has written. I think the writer has totally missed the point of the movie to a large extent. In fact, I too was turned off by the excessive show of Evangelist devotions that occupied the middle of the movie to a large extent. However, I must beg to differ with the reviewer in that, this movie in the end is not a propaganda piece for evangelist action. I think, what the director has shown is that how religion is not enough to find all the answers, how religion is to a large extent incapable of providing answers to basic, simple questions that one may ask and all that religion has to offer is sometimes just banal platitudes of one kind or another. This does not demonstrate a value judgment on religion as we have to remember that religion is transmuted and expressed by ordinary, mostly well meaning, basically good people and they usually have no monopoly on truth and thus religion can not in the end provide the ultimate answers to some questions in life. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith. You have to take it on faith and that's all. And if you are given to faith, then you can appreciate any show of faith. And if you are not given to faith then any show of faith is tiresome. It is thus at the same time, instructive to note the reviewer reaction to the movie. In any case, the director shows us that one can choose not to accept the religious interpretation of events and answers to questions and in spite of that life goes on and there are 'secret sunshine' in this world that awaits all wounded souls, regardless of their religious orientation. And that's just the core message of the film! Please note the last scene of the movie, if you don't get this! In the end, the movie is a great one and very thought provoking and confronts you - the viewer with questions that you have to answer for yourself. Thus it is a work of art that is challenging to you personally. I do agree with the reviewer in that, the Evangelical stuff was a bit too much. However, given the above interpretation of religion as shown in the movie, I think the director was trying to balance the act whereby he might not be called an Evangelist – basher! The actor Kang-ho Song was great as always. He's so balanced and just perfect that he's just amazing. He's my favorite Korean actor no doubt. I know the actress Do-yeon Jeon got the Cannes award for best actress for this movie. However, I did not find any specialty in her acting. It seems that to get awards you just have to act really convincingly in crying and hysterical scenes and all… All in all a great movie. If you don't like it – please watch it again and see if you get it! If it leaves you dissatisfied or uncomfortable or asking questions then think, if that was not what the director was actually aiming at through this movie in the first place! I saw this film in the worst possible circumstance. I'd already missed 15 minutes when I woke up to it on an international flight between Sydney and Seoul. I didn't know what I was watching, I thought maybe it was a movie of the week, but quickly became riveted by the performance of the lead actress playing a young woman who's child had been kidnapped. The premise started taking twist and turns I didn't see coming and by the end credits I was scrambling through the the in-flight guide to figure out what I had just watched. Turns out I was belatedly discovering Do-yeon Jeon who'd won Best Actress at Cannes for the role. I don't know if Secret Sunshine is typical of Korean cinema but I'm off to the DVD store to discover more. Lee Chang-dong's exceptional "Secret Sunshine" is the single most emotionally ravaging experience of the year. It is an instantly sobering, brutally honest character piece on the reverberations of loss and a graceful memento mori that resonates with a striking density of thought, yet remains as inscrutable as the emotions it observes. Through its layered naturalism and stunningly trenchant view of small-town dynamics, Lee implicitly deconstructs the traditional Korean melodrama by pulling apart the cinematics of excess and ripping to shreds the arcs that shape its characters and grounds the proceedings into a crushing grind of stoic realism.

"Secret Sunshine" remains an immensely compelling, fluid work throughout its 142-minute runtime. Its bravura first hour is filled to the brim with subtextual insinuations, remarkable foreshadowing and adroit reversals of tone brought about by humanistic capriciousness. Adapted from a short story, Lee infuses the film with his sensitivity for the sublime paradoxes of life, last seen in his transgressively comic and irreverent "Oasis". Understanding how personal revolutions are forged when views of our universe are changed, Lee not only sees the emotional cataclysm of a widow's sorrow through an inquiring scope but also feels the tumultuous existential currents that underpin the film when religion becomes a narrative scapegoat in comprehending the heinousness of the human experience.

Do-yeon Jeon's ("You Are My Sunshine") Best Actress accolade at Cannes in 2007 is well deserved. Her performance as the widow Shin-ae remains an unrelenting enigma. As a character pulled apart by forces beyond her control, the sheer magnificence of this performance is central to the film's turbulent nature. With Jeon essaying one cyclonic upheaval after another, there's a tremulous sense of collapse that the film, to its credit, never approaches. Instead it finds a delicate balance that saps the charged theatricality and subsequent banality from ordinary tragedies and its fallouts. She becomes the centre of the film's universe as well as ours. Filmed in glorious hand-held CinemaScope, the film demolishes the cinematicism of frames and compositions by becoming visually acute just as it is quietly harrowing when the camera never relinquishes its gaze from Shin-ae through times of happiness, guilt and remorse.

Lee captures the details of life in the small, suspicious town of Miryang – the awkwardness of communal situations, its uncomfortable silences and its devastations spun out of personal dramas. Shin-ae's interactions with the townsfolk rarely inspires dividends, especially when they are merely done out of obligation to fit in for the sake of her son, Jun (Seon Jung-yeop). The one recurring acquaintance is Jong-chan (Song Kang-ho), a bachelor mechanic of uncertain intentions who helps her en route to Miryang in the film's enchanting open sequence set to a captivating stream of sunlight. Song has situated himself as a comedic anti-hero in South Korea's biggest films but his nuanced, low-key delivery here purports the director's thought process of never having to reveal more than plainly necessary.

If pain is ephemeral, then grief can never truly dissipate. And Lee finds complexity in subsistence. When Shin-ae attempts to head down the path of reconciliation only to be faced again with unimaginable heartbreak, she unsuccessfully employs the fellowship of evangelical Christianity as a foil to her sorrow. But Lee knows better than that when he understands that religion, in the context of the human canvas of strife and misery, is never a simple solution. But Lee never rebukes the essence of religion as he realises the value of salvation for some through a higher power even if it serves a form of denial in others. The scenes in its latter half which deal with religion doesn't allow itself to become aggressively scornful, which is a feat in itself considering how many filmmakers let the momentum of the material take over from what they need to say to be true to its story and characters.

Lee's first film since his call to office as his country's Minister of Culture and Tourism is an uncompromising dissertation on human suffering. In a film so artless and genuine, it arduously reveals that there's nothing as simple as emotional catharsis, just the suppression and abatement of agony. "Secret Sunshine" leaves us with tender mercies pulled out of evanescence, and points towards a profound understanding of despair and faith. Secret Sunshine (2007) is famous for its awards at the Festival de Cannes in 2007 and other film festivals. Jeon-Do Yeon, who played the newly widowed Shin-ae, won the best actress trophy at the 60th Cannes festival. Secret Sunshine was also a winner of best feature film and Jeon-Do Yeon received a best actress nod from Asia Pacific Screen Awards. In addition, this movie won the best film awards in virtually all Korean film festivals. Masterfully written and directed, and uniquely photographed, Secret Sunshine expressed the hope and salvation that can be found when life is painful because of continuous tragedy. This film also talked about the forgiveness of God and people. Lee Chang Dong, director and writer of this movie, said in an interview, "In a vast sense, I wanted to express what love is and this movie could be a melodrama in a sense. Without love, we can't talk about hope and salvation." Lee acknowledged that Secret Sunshine had no apparent genre. This movie is not a movie about religion, but it drew attention from many Christians in Korea because there were a lot of Christian elements in the movie.

The turning point in Secret Sunshine comes when Jun, Shin-ae's son, is kidnapped and killed. The kidnapper asks for money because he presumes that since she can buy land, she must be rich. Her lie causes much sorrow.

Shin-ae becomes a church-goer and wants to forgive the murderer. She decides to visit her son's murderer in prison and forgive him. Jong-chan, Shin-ae's guy friend, says, "Just forgive in your heart. Do you have to go to the prison?" Her church fellows cheer for her and say they will pray for her. Her pastor agrees with what she wants to do. That is a sad moment because it is too early for her to do an action. The result of the meeting with the murderer is another turning point in Shin-ae's life. The murderer says with a peaceful smile that he has already been forgiven by God. This sparks anger in her toward God. She says, "How could You forgive the man before I forgive?"

She begins to fight against God. She looks up to the sky and proclaims, "I won't lose to You." She becomes a snare, her heart is a trap, and her hands are chains. It is more bitter than death. She becomes crazier and crazier and is sent to a mental hospital. On the day Shin-ae is discharged from the hospital, she goes to a beauty shop and sees a familiar face. The daughter of her son's murderer works in the shop and cuts her hair. The murderer's daughter has helped kidnapped Shin-ae's son. While she cuts Shin-ae's hair, the protagonist can't understand what's going on and gets out of the shop quickly.

It is difficult not to talk about Jong-chan in the movie. Jong-chan does his best to be by Shin-ae's side. Although Shin-ae doesn't care about him at all, he is beside her all the time. Shin-ae leaves church quickly, but Jong-chan, who started attending church because of Shin-ae, stays there because he feels peace with God. Lee Chang-dong, the director of Secret Sunshine, says that Jong-chan is like Milyang( secret sunshine), the rural city or vice versa. He seems to "be too secular and frivolous, but he is always two steps behind her and takes care of her. Milyang is like him." Mr. Lee adds, "Someone joked that Jong-chan could be an angel. I think that he could be the angel. Who knows? We can't say for sure that there is no angel." If there is a person like Jong-chan who forever accompanies his lover's twists and turns, we can defend ourselves against the overpowered. The life of Shin-ae is full of meaninglessness. Her husband died after he cheated on her, and her only son was killed cruelly by a murderer after she moved to her husband's hometown. And her soul was damaged because she learned Christianity in a wrong way—and that makes her crazy, literally. It is too easy to say that her life is filled with meaninglessness. Does she still have hope in her life? Can she find meaning in her life? The final scene gives us hope. Shin-ae tries to cut her hair by herself: we walk our life's journey by ourselves. She, however, realizes that it is hard to do it by herself, and we know that we can't do everything by ourselves. We see Jong-chan holding the mirror for her while she cuts her hair. That's her hope. She has Jong-chan beside her and he is willing to help her in whatever situation she is. As I mentioned earlier, Jong-chan is like an angel for her. If we feel that an angel is always beside and behind us, we can find joy in life even though we face adversity in our lives.

Secret Sunshine was a hot topic of conversation in Korea. It is like Da Vinci Code. While Da Vinci Code helps us discuss the early church history, Secret Sunshine prompts us to deal with life's messiness and find meaning when life seems unbearable. With a shallow interpretation of the movie, people misunderstand Christianity and its theology. With a deeper interpretation, this movie will help us see beneath the surface. Some people say they quit attending church worship service after they watched Secret Sunshine, and Lee Chang-dong responds by saying, "They were already anti-Christ before they watched this movie. Secret Sunshine is a life story of a woman and we can interpret our life through Shin-ae's life. This is a story about Shin-ae, who moves to Milyang from Seoul with her young son Jun to start over after the accidental death of her husband. Her husband was born here, and she is opening up a piano school, but also has ambitions to own some land with the insurance money she received from the death. If that is what the film was about, it probably would have been like a Hollywood film, with her falling for some local guy and being happy with her son in their new home. But, this is not Hollywood. Her son gets kidnapped and murdered, ostensibly because it is known she has cash from the settlement. The grief process, attempts at moving on, attempts to clear her conscience of guilt, are all done admirably, and the lead actress is superb. The only caveat, and it has to be stated, is that this is a depressing film. You have to know that going in. You want Shin-ae to go through her grief and find some measure of happiness. Again, this is not Hollywood, it is Korea and in Korean cinema, especially drama, they pull no punches. Life is what happens to you. Great acting, but sometimes a tough film to watch, due to the goings on. If you stay, you'll be rewarded. Do that. I've waited to see this movie for a long time and at last I could manage to see it in Istanbul Film Festival. Maybe because I expected too much from this film and that's why i was slightly disappointed. I was not the best movie from Korea but still it is really worth watching.

The subject was nice and the film makes you keep watching without getting bored though it is long. But there are gaps in the movie and you jump from one point to another. However, the acting of Jeon Do-Yeon is incredibly beautiful. It was was one of the best performances in the early cinema history and I think this movie wouldn't be that nice if she was not in the leading role. Secret Sunshine marks the return of director Lee Changdong to the film-making world after a multi-year absence. Having three critically acclaimed films already under his belt, he recruits now veteran thespian Jeon Doyeon and her considerable (Cannes-winning) talents for the primary role of Lee Shinae. What follows is a journey through one woman's tragedy and an exploration of her coping mechanisms.

One of the things that becomes apparent while watching Secret Sunshine is that it doesn't really care to follow any specific genre, but rather picks up genre traits when necessary to convey what it's trying to convey. The story itself follows Lee Shinae as she moves with her son to the city of Milyang (whose Sino-Corean translates to Secret Sunshine). She moves to Milyang in the aftermath of the death of her husband as it was his hometown, so the film is born from tragedy. And you think things might just get better as she opens up a piano shop and encounters a bit of a bumbling nice-guy mechanic Jongchan (played by Song Kangho). But this isn't a romantic comedy.

As we (and Jongchan, doggedly) follow Shinae as she encounters Milyang and the fate that it has in store for her, the cracks in her armor quickly become apparent. She is a troubled woman trying to grasp onto her own strength to overcome tragedy and we watch as she finds that it's not enough. Secret Sunshine still manages to follow a mostly Aristotelian dramatic arc, but pulls back on the catharsis, which might confound some viewers, especially the ending, but the novelistic symbolism present in the name of Milyang, the discussions of sunshine and the imagery used in the film very well left me satisfied, once I started to think over the film some more.

Ms. Jeon is rather impressive throughout, especially considering that if the role were any less well played, it would've quickly turned into a rather painful melodrama, but she captures the nuances of Shinae's attempts to deal with her losses with a layer of subtlety. Mr. Song has a much smaller role in this film than other films, but he performs adequately, appropriately giving stage to Ms. Jeon. Technically, the film is well done in a classical sense. No flashy aesthetics are employed here--the director is clearly trying to let the story tell itself. I think my only real complaint, and one that might not be able to be fixed, is that despite all the time we spend with Shinae, there is a bit of distance between Shinae and the audience (or at least, me). I think some of this stems from the nature of the work, because if total empathy were pushed, then we wouldn't be able to see the problems that Shinae has objectively. On the other hand, I never felt moved along with Shinae's plight, despite her many tears and increasingly erratic behavior.

All the same, the film still stands quite impressive, especially in that it stimulated me to think about it, the further meanings present in it and its ruminations on tragedy, coping, self-deception, isolation and faith stuck with me well after the credits had finished running. Propelled by a strong lead performance, I honestly didn't notice its 2.25 hour runtime. And that says something. Well done. 8/10. If you've had drama in your life, either your own or by someone close to you, the stages of pain this woman (but, in my opinion, it could easily have been a man too)goes through are very very real. It is a movie about not being able to cope with your pain, about not knowing what to do to help yourself get through it. Obviously it then also is a movie about not knowing how to help someone close to you get through their pain. It is a movie that makes you realize that everyone is alone in their suffering. It is a movie that might push someone over the edge...which hardly sounds like a recommendation. I'm not sure I would recommend someone to go see this film, especially someone close, but for me...it is a movie that puts things into perspective, that shows real pain, and is therefore much relevant to being alive. It makes you realize that hey, you or the person close to you have lived through pain, that hey, all the things you worry about now are of so little importance "Secret Sunshine" reminded me of "The Rapture" (1991), with Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny, but this Korean production is a better film. It portrays super-religious Korean Christians in a provincial Korean city, and the main character's experiences interacting with them in the wake of a horrible personal tragedy. Shin-ae is a widowed single mother who moves to the city of Milyang ('Secret Sunshine' in Chinese) from Seoul with her young son. She has chosen Milyang because her late husband (killed in an auto accident) was born there, and she feels she needs to make a new start in life in a new place. She does not react well to the overtures of the local Christian zealots, one of whose members tries to convince her to come to their church and prayer meetings. Shin-ae is essentially irreligious and brushes these people off as politely as she can. In fact, she brushes just about everyone in Milyang off to begin with, but some of them are persistent in trying to invade her world, and the consequences are often hilarious. To say more would be to give the film away, but it should be noted that the performance of the woman in the lead role (Jeon Do-yeon) is stupendous. Having read that she won the Best Actress award at Cannes in 2007, I expected her to a decent job. But Ms. Jeon is captivating and it is impossible to take your eyes off her when she is on screen. The movie is a sort of harrowing Evelyn Waugh-esquire piece of work, showing how Fate can feel insane as much as strangely inevitable. Corean cinema can be quite surprising for an occidental audience, because of the multiplicity of the tones and genres you can find in the same movie. In a Coreen drama such as this "Secret Sunshine", you'll also find some comical parts, thriller scenes and romantic times. "There's not only tragedy in life, there's also tragic-comedy" says at one point of the movie the character interpreted by Song Kang-ho, summing up the mixture of the picture. But don't get me wrong, this heterogeneity of the genres the movie deals with, adds veracity to the experience this rich movie offers to its spectators. That doesn't mean that it lacks unity : on the contrary, it's rare to see such a dense and profound portrait of a woman in pain.

Shin-ae, who's in quest for a quiet life with her son in the native town of her late husband, really gives, by all the different faces of suffering she's going through, unity to this movie. It's realistic part is erased by the psychological descriptions of all the phases the poor mother is going through. Denial, lost, anger, faith, pert of reality : the movie fallows all the steps the character crosses, and looks like a psychological catalog of all the suffering phases a woman can experience.

The only thing is to accept what may look like a conceptual experience (the woman wears the mask of tragedy, the man represents the comical interludes) and to let the artifices of the movie touch you. I must say that some parts of the movie really did move me (especialy in the beginning), particularly those concerning the unability of Chang Joan to truly help the one he loves, but also that the accumulation of suffering emotionally tired me towards the end. Nevertheless, some cinematographic ideas are really breathtaking and surprising (the scene where a body is discovered in a large shot is for instance amazing). This kind of scenes makes "Secret Sunshine" the melo equivalent of "The Host" for horror movies or "Memories of murder" for thrillers. These movies are indeed surprising, most original, aesthetically incredible, and manage to give another dimension to the genres they deal with. The only thing that "Secret Sunshine" forgets, as "The host" forgot to be scary, is to make its audience cry : bad point for a melodrama, but good point for a good film. The most interesting thing about Miryang (Secret Sunshine) is the actors. Jeon Do-yeon, as Lee Shin-ae, the main character, is a woman with a young son whose husband has died in a tragic accident, and who leaves Seoul to live in Miryang, which was his home town, with her young son. Jeon's face is very changeable. She is girlish, flirtatious, elegant, aged and sad, desperate and joyous, with it and terribly isolated by turns, and it's all in her face. The film also stars Song Kang-ho as Kim, a man who meets her when her car breaks down coming into Miryang, who happens to run a garage in town, and who follows her around all the time thereafter, despite her apparent lack of interest in his attentions. Song is the biggest star in Korea right now, renowned for his work with Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance; Memories of Murder and The Host). And yet here he plays a throwaway character, almost a forgotten man. But of course he makes him interesting and curiously appealing. He is the essential ballast to keep Jeon's character from floating away.

Lee Shin-ae is a piano teacher. She comes to the new town, which is a neutral place, a kind of poor-man's Seoul, a town "just like anywhere else," as Kim says (just as he is in a way just like anyone else). Her little boy is sprightly, as little boys are, but plainly damaged and withdrawn at times too. His father used to snore, and when he misses him he lies awake, pretending to snore. He goes to school, and Shin-ae meets parents and students and shopkeepers. There is a sense of place in the film, even though the place is in a sense "anywhere." People speak in the local dialect, and everyone knows everything, and Shin-ae's Seoul origin is immediately noticed. Is life really harsher here, away from the big city and its sophistication? Shin-ae seems not to realize the danger she is in.

Something terrible happens. And Shin-ae doesn't necessarily deal with it in the best possible way. But it happens and she must face the consequences. But she can't. She goes to pieces. A perpetrator is caught, but that's no consolation. Eventually she becomes so despairing, she relents and goes to a born-again Christian meeting an acquaintance has been pressing her to attend. She finds peace and release with this. But when she decides not only to forgive the perpetrator but to go to the prison to tell him so, that experience is full of ironies and it destroys her all over again. She becomes embittered and desperate and she no longer finds solace in religion. And it gets worse than that.

Jeon Do-yeon gives her all in this extremely demanding and protean role. Lee Chang-dong may be a very good director. If an actor of the stature of Song Kang-ho expresses enormous admiration for him, that is convincing. According to Scott Foundas of LA Weekly, Lee's first three films, Green Fish (1997), Peppermint Candy (2000) and Oasis (2002) have marked him out as "one of the leading figures of his country's recent cinematic renaissance." But this is not as successful a film as those of other Korean directors whose work I've seen, such as Yong Sang-Soo, Bong Joon-ho, and the prodigiously, almost perversely gifted Park Chan-wook. It may indeed begin as Foundas says as a kind of "Asiatic Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" and then "abruptly and without warning" turns into "something of a thriller, and some time after that a nearly Bressonian study in human suffering." But that progression not only seems random and indigestible; the film sags and loses its momentum toward the end and then simply fizzles out, with no sense of an ending. There are also weaknesses in the action. Shin-ae takes foolish chances with her son, and makes bad choices all along. If she is destined for madness like Betty in Jean-Jacques Beineix's Betty Blue, which might explain her peculiar and mistaken choices, that isn't something that is properly developed. This is an interesting film, certainly a disturbing one, but one that leaves one doubtful and dissatisfied, after putting one through an emotional wringer.

An official selection of the New York Film Festival presented at Lincoln Center, 2007—an event that has done right by Korean filmmakers in the recent past. Initially, I would have thought that Secret Sunshine had something critical to say of religion (and here being Christianity), and wondered if it would be something of a rant against the ills of blind faith, or the manipulative power of those who are supposedly holier than thou. Surprisingly, it was none of the sort and was largely non-judgemental, putting in place events as a matter of fact, and allowing the audience to draw their own judgement and conclusion.

And I can't help but to chuckle at the role of Song Kang-ho, a man who's taken a liking for widower Shin-ae (Jeong Do-yeon), and starts going to church when she does. The reasons for church going are many I suppose, either to find inner peace, to seek help, being afraid of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell, to reaffirm faith, or even things like wanting to get married in a church, or to skirt chase (I kid you not). But to each his own reasons for turning up in church every Sunday and participating in prayer groups for fellowship, what is indeed dangerous, is when the underlying ulterior motives, do not get satisfied, and that's when frustration sets in. Or when you discover how hypocritical man can be, portraying one face inside the house of God, and displaying yet another outside.

Shin-ae and her son Jun moves to the town of Miryang, which is the birthplace of her deceased husband. Wanting to start life anew, she opens up a piano shop to give lessons, though in discovering her new found freedom and in a moment's lack of good judgement, has another tragedy befall her. And that takes one hour to get to. Secret Sunshine really took its time to get to this point, where things then begin to get slightly more interesting with Shin-ae now taking to embracing religion to deal with and accept her current state, reveling in the comfort that religion, and fellow believers, can offer.

What began as crying out for sympathy turns into acceptance and belief that religion offers that silver bullet to solve the ills of all mankind, and sometimes you wonder if it's because of your personal myopic view of what the almighty is doing for you, that you begin to adopt a somewhat selfish opinion that everything's good going your way, and in Shin-ae's case, her magnanimous attitude in wanting to forgive others who had trespassed against her, forgetting something very fundamental that it the feeling can cut both ways too.

The last act is probably the most fun of the lot as it says plenty, where most of us can identify with - why me, and why not someone else, as we rage against our faith and start questioning, unfortunately, with no hard and fast answers available. It is then either we fall by the wayside, or continue with destructive deeds so rebelliously. But somehow the plug gets carefully pulled in Secret Sunshine so as not to offend, and what could have been an ugly character mouthpiece, got muted.

If you bite into the hype this movie is generating, then perhaps you'll realize only Jeong Do- yeon's excellent portrayal is worth mentioning, as she totally owns her role as the widow Shin-ae who is probably the most unluckiest person on Earth in having to deal with that many tragedies over a short period of time, and if you look at it carefully, most of which are of her own doing. Watching her transformation, is worth the ticket price, and despite having my personal favourite Korean actor Song Kang-ho in the movie, this is something he just breezed right through. This is a real eye candy. A world made of floating islands and flying ancient cities. Huge monsters whose preferred method of attack is hurling cathedrals at their opponents... Who can resist that? An ancient prophecy, a bunch of underdog heroes and a cute princess in search of her hero... sounds familiar...? Yes we heard that song before. But You will forget that while looking at the spectacular scenery.

This movie is fun to watch while it lasts. But after leaving the cinema You'll be longing for a little bit more story.

What is behind the 30-years-circle? What drove the knight crazy? Who built all these fabulous monuments, castles and cities... and why are they falling apart? And apart from that one bunch of farmers, where are the people? Really, this picture looks so intriguing, but it's no Lord of the Rings. For a long time i haven't seen so beautiful animated feature. Having healthy respect for Pixar, i must say that Ratatouille or any other movie made by 'em can not be compared to this. Animators have created an incredibly beautiful world here. The graphics is amazing, the background surroundings are mind-blowing, almost every object in every frame is drawn perfectly. Sometimes i felt tingles down my spine - so much i loved what i've seen.

The plot is absolutely romantic. As romantic as the animated film plot can possibly be. The characters are lovable, especially Hector, the blue rabbit, he owns, pawns, rocks and rules! The other char-s are very nice also. The humor is top-notch.

Generally it seemed that creators didn't invest much effort into this. I mean it looked like it didn't take em too much in difference from people of Pixar&Dreamworks who try hard every time to think on something new. And i'm very glad that a product of European animation studio turned out to be SO great. They've made a magnificent, touching movie, a candy for eye and heart.

The only minus is stupid beginning and that's why it's 9of10 not 10/10 this is my first review on IMDb, i didn't really want to write one but since there are only 2 for this great movie right now, i feel compelled to add my perspective...and no, i'm not associated to the movie makers in any way (yeah yeah how often did you here that before ;-) ) FYI i'm in my late 20s

1st of all i have to admit i really like animated movies, because what you see is only limited by the imagination of the creators and they were pretty imaginative on this one. Not so much in terms of story but in achieving a very unique and imo fresh visual style. The characters look good but far from real and it works well for the movie, after all it's a fairytale-like world. But the backgrounds and the world in general is filled with awesome visuals that my jaw dropped several times while watching this. The blue, bunny-like mini-dragon steels the show and has easily some of the funniest moments of the movie, he is already an instant classic, much as Scrat from Ice Age. The story is not too surprising (a bunch of anti-heroes have to go out and slay the biggest dragon you can imagine) but who cares if the movie looks and sounds THAT good ;-) 1 thing i have to point out, imo the movie is not suited for VERY young children because it has some darker scenes in it and maybe frightening for kids under 6-8 i would say, these are only very few scenes but worth mentioning imo. Anyway i had a great time watching this and can't wait for it to hit the stores in high def to watch it over and over again just for the sheer beauty of it.

8,5 for me Have you heard the story about the reluctant heroes who were hired by a King to slay a dragon? Oh, you have? Was it set in a world entirely composed of small islands floating above clouds, and did the heroes have to make dangerous leaps from one island to the next on their journey? Did water flow upwards and remnants of great cities levitate on the horizon? I didn't think so.

I stumbled onto this movie by accident and I'm really glad that I did! It's one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. Much like the Pixar movies, it's a piece of computer animated art that could only be possible in today's world. The animators have invested thought into almost everything that appears on the screen, and this attention to detail is staggering (the scene where the mushrooms in the foreground belch green smoke whilst the characters walk obliviously in the background is one of my favourites). The monsters are also fully realised and wonderful to watch in action.

Although the plot may not be entirely unique, the movie has enough charm to make sure you keep watching. Our protagonists are likable and interesting, ensuring the audience is behind their almost impossible quest to reach the end of the world and destroy the dragon which might otherwise devour everything in its path. Of course, Hector is the character most will fall in love with. A small blue creature with a crazy grin and a tendency to speak a mixture of nonsense and English, Hector provides comedy relief in a way Jar Jar Binks could only dream of.

In summary, I'd recommend watching The Dragon Hunters if you get the opportunity. Watch it for the incredible animation, the breath-taking battle scenes and for a glimpse into a world that's unlike anything else you've seen on a cinema or television screen. At the very least, it's a fun way to spend an hour and a half - no matter if you're nine or twenty-nine (which, in fact, I am)! I voted this a 10 out of 10 simply because it is the best animated story I have been able to see in quite some time. The animation is stunning. The artwork behind each and every landscape was beautiful. From the colors to the lighting to the not standard fare of artistry. I was amazed. Moving beyond the beauty on the screen, you are immersed in a storyline that is at once timeless and at the same turn fresh. Character development is brief yet these touchstone moments are exactly what is needed to clue the viewer in to what and why and how the character has come to where they stand. I'm impressed with the entire affair and think this is a must see for the entire family. My first impression would be this is Beowulf only with all the good bits of fighting Grendel and dragons intact, making it one thrill ride from start to end. Written by Frederic Lanoir and Arthur Qwak, the two of them had created a fantastical landscape that becomes a character in itself within their story, with its ever changing environment made up of small spheres of land floating around, which can either be wastelands, or globes of greenery.

The story's a simple one, which tells of a land which is cowering in the expectation of a mighty dragon's unwanted visit to plunder and destroy, and the resident knights have all but been annihilated. Enter the king's granddaughter Zoe (Marie Drion) who gathers Lian-Chu (Vincent Lindon), a huge brute with immense strength but truly a gentle giant, and his partner-in-arms Gwizdo (Patrick Timsit), who balances the partnership with his cunning brain. Lian-Chu and Gwizdo (together with their pet creature which too proudly spews incipient fires) share a common dream of owning a farm land and spending idyllic days tending to their farm animals in retirement, but in order to do that comes the requirement of being financially free, hence their career in monster-extermination which doesn't exactly pay off.

That's basically the whole gist of it, but what makes this film a spectacle, is its CG graphics, which is solidly rich, detailed, and an eye-popping marvel to behold. It has some wonderfully crafted set action pieces that were painstakingly designed to draw you into the thick of the action,, and during those fight sequences, there's nary a boring moment. Photo-realistic moments of non-existent landscapes make you put aside the fantasy of make-belief, and it's easy to be in awe of the landscape which goes beyond the usual three-suns and a kaleidoscope of flying thingamajigs (here's having at you George!) And I couldn't get enough of the finale battle as well, though the usual brick-bats will find some fault at the indestructibility of the principle characters.

I guess this film had opened my eyes that there are many more computer-animated companies out there around the world that have quality in their product to match that of Pixar's. And this is definitely a movie that the local filmmakers of Zodiac: The Race Begins and Legend of the Sea can learn from – to keep the story effectively simple, and let your moving artwork do all the talking. Definitely highly recommended! This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it!

I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!

The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical!

They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story. After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious. My 3 year old loved it. I loved it, my wife loved it. So 10 out of 10 from our family. As for violence level? Not really that violent, mostly of the slap stick variety. Nobody truly dies, no gore, no blood, no torture, so it certainly is appropriate for children, much more so than many Saturday morning cartoons.

This movie really takes the idea of CG movies where it should go.

First of all beautiful graphics, textures wonderfully done, with true depth, not trying to be realistic, but forming an artistic whole. The moss on the stones, the rust on metal, the reliefs on the wood and the stone, everything adds to the whole.

Character modeling, unlike many contemporary CG movies, is quirky, not cute, again within an artistic whole. The faces may look less malleable than in some other movies, but the characters are more puppet-like than human-like. I think that is a good thing, it lends veracity, how strangely it may sound, it is easier to suspend your disbelief.

Hair, fur, clothing, on par, at least with the likes of Pixar. Just note in the opening scenes when Lian-Chu is fighting the giant slug; Gwizdo is in front of some farmers, and all of them have detailed clothing which caused me to pause the movie just to admire it.

The setting. Far beyond the likes of Cars, and even Wall•E. Space has been done many times, but the fantasy environs of Dragon Hunters are only comparable with some scenes in Never Ending Story and Lord of the Rings, but again it is an artistic whole, and with lots of good ideas thrown about effortlessly. Magnificent vistas like the scene in Monsters Inc. where they ride all the doorways through its storage facility, or Wall•E where we see the immense trash towers he made, abound in this movie, everything is grand, yet never dwelt upon; it is just the background the whole way! The interlude where they walk through the area with the fantastic falls. The Chinese wall, the islands floating in the sky. The Broccoli in the sky? That is truly where I believe CG should go, make something which takes your breath away, and do it again and again.

The sound is good, the music is varied and not only epic, and thankfully without any vocals, and purely original for the movie.

Animation is quite good. Lending its inspiration to cartoons, especially some good use of stretch and squeeze. Sometimes not that realistic, but the 3d models are not realistic either.

Characterization is well done too. Lian-Chu the gentle and uncertain giant is gradually growing in confidence basking in the attention of little Zoé.

Gwizdo the wily manager of Lian-Chu redeems himself in the end, while Zoé isn't really changed at all, but who wants that cute child to change anyway? I at least loved Lian-Chu more than any other recent character since Sulley in Monsters Inc.

The internal strife in the group gets ironed out by the external pressures, just as it should in a proper fantasy story.

The story is mostly reminiscent of the Never Ending Story, especially how the world brakes apart. The monsters are pretty standard fare, except the flocking one. It lacks the emotional impact of Wall•E, which is the really strong point of that movie, but it is a much more fun ride, and lacks the annoying musical scene replaying in the former one, and has action from the first scene. This movie is what you want to watch for a fun and exciting time.

The whole movie has, as I've mentioned a whole vision, which seems to have been followed rigorously throughout.

It seems, that the setting is ready for more adventures, and I for one would hope so.

One side note, the French actor doing Lian-Chu sounded a bit like Jean Reno at first, but I'm happy it wasn't him, though he is one of my favorites. Nice to hear a new, to me, voice.

I give it a max rating, a bit surprised at the mediocre and low ratings by some; I have tried to address some of the concerns made by two of the reviews with the lowest vote. Approach this movie as an adventure, and as a European movie, not opposed to Hollywood, but different. What people fail to understand about this movie is that it isn't a beginning, middle, and end, it is just the conclusion of a 26 episode long TV series. So remember that when you all talk about how the world wasn't explored enough. That was all done in the TV show.

As great and stunning as the visuals are, I think the ***SPOILERS*** argument between Lian-Chu and Gwizdo near the end of the film was what really made me love this movie. Seeing characters I had followed through 26 episodes fight like that was agonizing, and seeing Gwizdo walking sadly off by himself amidst the floating ruins while Lian-Chu sharpened his blade was almost tear-jerking.

Then we got a total contrast with Lian-Chu fighting these insanely awesome dragons (Which had been featured before in the series) while Gwizdo is babbling insanely and indirectly threatening to kill Zoe. *Shudder* I'm surprised that this particular scene hasn't been mentioned more in the warnings. Any kid that has a lick of sense will be able to see that Gwizdo wasn't himself and was fully intent on strangling that little girl. It was enough to bother me, and I'm 15.

The world is amazing, the plot is a lot better than most multi-million blockbusters, and it was a nice way to see some of my favorite characters go. Check it out. :) Dragon Hunters has to be the best-looking animated film I've ever seen. It was jaw-dropping. The film is about a couple rogues in search for some cash, their weird furry blue dog that pees fire, and a girl who dreams about becoming a knight, and they are sent on a quest to go to the ends of the earth to kill the world gobbler, an impossibly immense dragon. But honestly, it doesn't even matter what the film is about. Because, it is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. The gravity in this fantasy world is different, so blocks of architecture and spheres of land float around amidst cathedrals and castles and villages alike, and there are forests of floating lily pads. The world is so creative, so uniquely beautiful, with a sort of muted storybook look to it. The world looks like a set of gorgeous paintings. The monsters are visually stunning as well, like a fire dragon comprised of a swarm of evil red bats. Some of the plot isn't too original, like the main protagonists wanting their farm a la Of Mice and Men and never seem to be able to make it in the world; but the gorgeous graphics, some seriously sinister scenes, and emotion-evoking dialog makes this film spectacular. This is a CGI animated film based upon a French 2D animated series. The series ran briefly on Cartoon Network, but its run was so brief that its inclusion as one of the potential Oscar nominees for best animated film for this year left most people I know going "Huh?" This is the story of Lian-Chu, the kind heart muscle, and Gwizdo, the brains of the operation, who along with Hector their fire farting dragon,he's more like a dog. Travel the world offering up their services as dragon hunters but never getting paid. Into their lives comes Zoe, the fairy tale loving niece of a king who is going blind. It seems the world is being devoured by a huge monster and all of the knights the king has sent out have never returned or if the do return they come back as ashes. In desperation the king hires the dragon hunters to stop the world eater. Zoe of course tags along...

What can I say other then why is this film hiding under a rock? This is a really good little film that is completely off the radar except as unlikely Oscar contender. Its a beautifully designed, fantastic looking film (The world it takes place has floating lands and crazy creatures) that constantly had me going "Wow" at it. The English Voice cast with Forrest Whitaker as Lian-Chu (one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard) and Rob Paulson as Gwizdo (think Steve Bucsemi) is first rate. Equally great is the script which doesn't talk down to its audience, using some real expressions not normally heard in animated films (not Disney nor Pixar). Its all really well done.

Is it perfect? No, some of the bits go on too long, but at the same time its is damn entertaining.

If you get the chance see this. Its one of the better animated films from 2008, and is going on my nice surprise list for 2009. The world of the Dragon Hunters is a 3D gravity challenged world. Planetoids, bits of buildings and strange flat plants float around in the atmosphere while the ground towards most of the characters are falling is nowhere to be seen. It is a world reminiscent of Neverending Story, when the Nothing came to eat the world away.

Funny enough, the villain here is the World Gobbler, as well. This time it is a huge skeleton dragon with fiery eyes. The heroes are a big yet taciturn warrior, an annoying and greedy sidekick managing the entrepreneurial side of the duo and a strange useless animal. They are joined by the most talkative little girl in the world who, to my chagrin, did not die a horrible painful and hopefully early death.

The animation is great. The voices and the sounds are top notch. Too bad the story is as simple as one can possibly imagine. They go to stop the World Gobbler, they reach him almost immediately, they defeat him. The end. No real character development or story twists. Not even the ones I would expect from a movie with such a plot.

Bottom line: it's a cute thing to watch, kids would probably enjoy it, but that's about it. No depth to this world (pun intended). When you start watching this animation-masterpiece, you quickly notice, that it's a European production. Although the Europeans have (sadly) integrated some of the clichés you would normally find in an American production of this kind, most are missing. One of these is that there is an overwhelming evil that only our (very few and very unlikely) heroes can vanquish. Another is that one of the group is only in the business for the money, is greedy, runs away when the heat is up but somehow gives in to his better nature. This movie would have been better off without both.

The movie is based upon a TV-Series that was out four years before the movie. Unlike the movie, the TV-Series is a cartoon and not a computer animation. At first I thought the computer would kill the charm and character of the plot but I was quickliy convinced: Whoever did the animation knew his or her stuff! Although the characters are obviously fictional (in stills they don't even look real), they seem as alive and sentient as the audience following their quest. Making characters who by "normal" standards could be considered deformed (those micro-legs could never carry that giant body let alone make it jump) so alive and lovable is more than "just a highlight"! The creation of the world is another masterpiece. Not so much because of its looks but because of the inventiveness of it. The world our heroes travel is not solid like our own but is made of many pieces of land varying in shape and size that seem to be floating in mid air. When a person steps on a smaller fragment of ground, it nods a little bit as if feathering from the weight. In some cases up and down no longer apply but our heroes still manage to get a foothold somewhere. Although the world of floating islands is completely surreal, in this movie it is absolutely believable and after a short time it doesn't seem any weirder than running into a car somewhere in New York.

I wrote that the looks of the world aren't as breathtaking as the idea. As true as that might be to my mind, the quality of the world, the characters and the attention to details is staggering. Although the faces of the characters have relatively few attributes, emotions can be read as clearly as in Sean Connery's or Dustin Hoffman's face. The world around the characters is wonderfully colourful and no two settings are alike. The background is always in motion, something is always going on which makes the world seem even more alive. If you stop the movie and look at the background you will be surprised how many details you can find.

The existence of Hector actually puts the cherry on top. Hector is a furry little "thing" (possibly the equivalent of a dog in our world) who is totally lovable and extremely funny. Although he isn't really important for the main plot, he would be missed like Scrat would be in Ice Age. The really cool thing about Hector is that you need to speak Gibberish to understand him.

If the movie is so great, why didn't I give it 10 stars? Well, the plot in itself was rather thin. Two hunters are sent out to rescue the world from a really bad dragon who wants to swallow the world, isn't really original. That in itself wouldn't be much of a problem. What I missed was the background information. What kind of a dragon was this and why did it look that way? I love mythical stories but if they get too thin then they seem to be written after the movie is finished in a feeble attempt to give the whole thing some depth.

Another thing I didn't like was Zoé. Although a little girl like her could be considered adorable, she was somewhat of a pain in this movie. She seemed pretty resistant to all types of learning about reality, kept dreaming of some hero from a story book and basically slowed the others down. She would have been OK if she had developed a little more and a little earlier in the movie - or had been less of a girly to start with. To me the idea of this girl who was there to twist the story a little backfired on the writers.

All in all, this is a really good movie for just about all ages. "Some day, we'll walk in the rays of a beautiful sun. Some day, when the world is much brighter"- The 5 Stairsteps "O-o-h Child"

Movies about Black teenagers usually involve inner city gangs dealing drugs or committing violence to a hip-hop soundtrack. Films about the everyday problems of ordinary inner city teens are hard to find, yet there is an undiscovered gem that I would like to recommend. Our Song, by Jim McKay is about three girls in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn who learn that their high school will be closed for asbestos removal and must decide on their future direction, one that may involve going their separate ways. The story is told from the point of view of a 15-year old, not from an adult reminiscing about the past as in most coming of age movies. Avoiding the mandatory street slang and excessive use of F-words, it delivers an honest and loving portrait of three friends at a crossroads in their life. The girls: Lanisha (Kerry Washington), Joycelyn (Anna Simpson), and Maria (Melissa Martinez) are in their sophomore year at the local high school. They are active members of the Jackie Robinson Steppers, a real-life marching band whose rehearsals for a Labor Day parade provide discipline and purpose to their lives.

Similar to David Gordon Green's George Washington but less stylized, the film showcases non-professional black and Latino actors with Kerry Washington as the standout. While the performances have some amateurish moments, I became so involved with the story that I forgot the girls were even acting. Maria, whose father is in jail, has learned that she is pregnant by Terrell, a local student. She wants to have the baby in spite of the fact that she is only 15 and knows that Terrell is probably not going to be of much help. Joycelyn works in an up-scale dress shop but dreams about becoming a singer. In a very poignant scene in her bedroom, she pretends to be talking to her fans, then lies down in bed to recite one of her poems. She is close to Lanisha and Maria at the beginning but drifts off to make friends outside of the neighborhood. None of the girls receive much support at home and Maria is too afraid to even tell her mother about her baby. Yet, the single moms are not typical movie deadbeats or alcoholics. They are warm and loving parents whose time with their children is limited because of the pressure of supporting the family.

Lanisha's parents are divorced but she is able to visit her father, a doorman in a luxury apartment building and talk about music. Her mother is comforting when Lanisha learns that a friend in the neighborhood has committed suicide, a somewhat melodramatic plot point in an otherwise realistic film. As the summer winds down, the girls drift apart and each decides on a different course. There are no big dramatic moments, however, only the sad recognition of the inevitability of change. Though we do not have blinders on about the frustrations that may await them, we identify with their hopes and dreams without dwelling on the negative. Our Song is an emotionally satisfying film about growing up in the projects that refuses to see life in any terms other than possibility. I reflect back to the days when I held my boyfriends hat to smell him into existence in my time alone when I was 16. The little moments of this film are so accurate and right on pace with what is going on in the minds and hearts of young girls during those coming of age teenage years. Now at my age I want to preach to them about their decisions and how life during those times are not as important as it all seems in those moments. That if they can be patient in their youth and wait to experience the hardships of life both external and internal that life would be so much sweeter. But then again young people today are faced with some variables that I never had to deal with a youth.

The three main characters well played by all three actors (Kerry Wahington - Lanisha, Anna Simpson - Joycelyn and Melissa Martinez- Maria) give us the very believable depiction of a piece of reality for young girls living in impoverished situations. They have impoverished family lives all being raised by single mothers with expectation of Lanisha whose father is present but not actively supporting her day to day. The have impoverished educational systems and lack direct contact with achieving role models. These situations powerfully affect them and is their reality but all this is of no great depressive concern to these young women in their day to day. They except their plight and focus on the same things young girls all over the world are concerned with. Finding true love in a male, having good friends that you can depend on, gaining some respect/love and responsibility from parents and enjoying life. This is were this film cross the race, age and gender gap imposed upon it by its characters and the setting in which it is stamped.

The Director and writer McKay explains on the DVD how each of scenes got into his head, by just observing young people of that age that lived in those types of neighborhoods. Plus you add three up and coming actresses who are not so far removed from that time in their own lives that you get a real good synergy of reality and acting at its best. The one thing I know about (African Americans and Hispanics) is that there is always a spiritual family member or neighbor that is in the foreground or near ground believing in a better day and better life and future in spite of the present situation and is role modeling that to some extent. This was never touched in the movie in order not to preach and I understand that but it also narrows the culture to having no hope in anything other than themselves.

The HOPE FACTOR: I now think about my future and where I have come from and say as Lanisha did ` Today is a good day.' Yes poverty still exists, racism, sexism, and any other ism that we can added. Yes some of each of these young girls actions perpetuate the isms and are self-destructive, everything around them is impoverished but NONE of those actions past or neither present nor their environment leaves them without hope for a bright future. I was left with saddened hope of each of the characters and a deeper desire to be a role model in the life of some young girl on the edge of making a destructive decision. I suppose that is the value of film it should not only entertain but cause each of us to think, reflect and then act in some positive way to make this world a better place.

Jim McKay has made one of the best films you will see all year.The quiet simplicity of this film draws you in from the opening shot and never lets go.There is not one false note in the entire film.Not one.Everything works.The hand-held camera is never distracting and always where it should be.The three young ladies whose lives we follow are always real.There isn't a single beat where the audience is reminded we are looking at actresses performing a role.These are just real girls trying to find themselves.There is no political agenda,hidden or otherwise.This is cinema at its most basic,and although it will probably only be seen by a handful of movie-goers,it deserves a much wider release.A special hats off to Hugh Hefner for providing the film-makers with the grant money needed to get this important film made.I can't wait to see what Mr. McKay does next. After seeing this film at the SF Independent Film Festival, I couldn't wait to hear about how to get a copy. Jim McKay gave a talk (Q&A) about the film afterward which presented his ironic situation: how to get distribution for a film which portrays minorities (women, non-whites) working on resolving controversial issues (teen pregnancy, teen motherhood, racial identity, single-mother households), and how to write a faithful script on all of these topics being a mid-thirties white male. The multi-racial, multi-gendered audience of mostly-adults raved about the film's fantastic storyline, detailed characters, and fantastic portrayal of "real teen life." Most of the teens, however, had left the building--leading me to think this is a film best seen by adults with kids, as a starting point for discussion rather than, as many adults there felt, "a film teens should see because it's about them." Hence, distribution questions--how do we get our hands on it? The Internet (retail) would be a great path--this is a film that will be buried, like "Pups" or other radical modern teen films--and McKay seemed responsive. As for his credits as a writer/director, McKay was _extremeley_ sensitive and detailed in his work--allying himself to the Crown Heights neighborhood in which the film is set, working with actors to portray characters in their own vision of what they think should be--with the results being disarmingly realistic. `Our Song' gives us the lives of the three teenagers Lanisha, Maria and Joycelyn - best girlfriends hanging at the end of summer. Adolescent summer - even if we don't know the signals and landmarks of this particular terrain, Crown Heights, Brooklyn - is/was the same for us all. A lazy respite from the pressures and tumult of school. Welcome heat and idleness.

But if this experience of adolescence is universal, the inner city of the 90s is a different place than most of us know - maybe as foreign a country as any. Young bodies carving new silhouettes...beckoning new territory...the maze towards adulthood. The young mind coming into itself, speaking for itself, saying this is who I am, this is who I want to try to be. It is/was always thus. But this is how it plays out in Brooklyn in the late 90s.

Jim McKay is the writer/director of this film project but he acknowledges all who have shouted suggestions at him. The opening title slide `A film by' seems to list everyone in the universe. It's a gesture but by the end of the film, we know it to be a genuine one. [The closing titles also have some of the most on-the-money and appreciative credits I've read.] The vivid sound recording by Jan McLaughlin deserves to be especially noted. McKay's a modest leader who knows who is telling this story - it's his three graces Lanisha, Maria and Joycelyn. They're the real thing, their interactions have the fire of real friendship and the focus of reality. This ain't no music video shorthand telling of teenage life. It has the seriousness of the long unblinking stare.

Hanging out with them, we don't quite feel included but we do feel privileged to be listening in. These are real voices speaking with plainness about the crises and dullness of daily life. We are witness to the modern math of teenage life - how its problems are interpreted, calculated and summed and solved. Small scenes illustrate large thoughts throughout. Lanisha hangs with her dad at his security job - it's the only way she gets to spend time with him. We see the love that exists between them but also the failures of family and fatherhood. In a connected scene, Lanisha defends her dad to her mom, and we see how desperately she needs to love them both and for them to love her in return. Later, the three friends lay in the dark sharing visions and dreams - and we remember how crazy/funny kids are and more tragically, how realism hammers idealism these days. And at the end, Maria simply walking down the street is a short story in itself. We see her gather up the courage to hold all her fears and doubts at bay. She demonstrates for us the strength one needs to have to be able to embrace the fragility that makes life livable.

`Our Song's greatest gift is that we really feel deeply the terribly ephemeral nature of friendship - how, one day, alive and enlivening, that intimacy can, in the next, just turn and drift away. It's awful, but that's just the way it is, isn't it? This is the first American film to successfully adopt the naturalistic style used by Europeans, particularly the French and Belgians, for at least a decade, and isn't it about time? Following three high school girls in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn during the last days of their summer break between freshman and sophomore years, it does what all good art should: it discovers the universal in the particular. Even though the girls' preoccupations are outwardly conventional--boys, sex, popularity, money, freedom, and clothes--we glimpse how their whole lives are being shaped, the universal interface between character and destiny.

The naturalism is whole, complete. The film breathes, stays in the moment, inhabits real time. The story tells itself. The medium and its artifacts, for once, are not the message. The film unwaveringly, truthfully conveys the childhood perspective of its characters; it does not impose its own adult meanings or morals. Details emerge of their own, are never pushed, and thus seem all the more real and powerful for their understatement. Even though great pains have been taken to capture the authentic social reality of Crown Heights, part of the largest Black ghetto in New York City and one of the most dangerous violent places in the US, the subject is childhood in the ghetto, not the ghetto itself.

Documentary footage of the practice sessions of a marching band, the Jackie Robinson Steppers, punctuate the film at regular intervals with an explosion of color, movement, and sound. Otherwise, the camera stays very close, very intimate, a patient, sly, and unobtrusive observer. The language is rich, spontaneous, the acting transparent. Some scenes standout, such as the girls lolling about, each revealing her deepest fantasies. Lanisha's confession of her acceptance of a death by random violence is the most shocking, one of the deepest scars of the ghetto. Her sharing with her mother her confusion and fear before the stark challenges of adult life is equally moving, and beautifully, unsentimentally affirmative.

Social realities are respected, not propagandized: All three girls are being raised by single moms, only one, Lanisha, has a father active in her life (and, not coincidentally, of the three she is the most emotionally stable and empathetic to others, and the one with the most self-respect). Two of them suffer from asthma, a disease disproportionately prevalent in the inner city. Gunfire, an accepted daily occurrence, only momentarily interrupts their conversation. Only one of the girls, Joy, feels hope for, feels she has control over the future, while the other two to varying degrees have already accepted despair.

This is by far the best dramatic American film I've seen in years. See it, see it, see it. I saw this film earlier today, and I was amazed at how accurate the dialog is for the main characters. It didn't feel like a film - it felt more like a documentary (the part I liked best). The leading ladies in this film seemed as real to me as any fifteen year-old girls I know.

All in all, a very enjoyable film for those who enjoy independent films. Our Song is a marvelous example of passionate, movie making at its aesthetic best. It is, in fact, a genuine wonder of a movie; a penetrating and insightful work of art that chronicles the lives of three young inner city (Crown Heights, Brooklyn) girls during a particular summer in their lives when the perplexities of their approaching adulthood will compel each of them to make a number of difficult, life altering choices that will likely re-define who each of them is, as well as how they will continue to relate to one another in years to come.

Jim McKay's writing/direction is graceful and uncluttered. There is no sappy, gratuitous sentimentality nor are there cliché ridden solutions in this film. What we see here seems, at times, to be heart breakingly real. There is a naturalism - a credibility, if you will - in Our Song that surpasses that of other giants in this genre, including American Graffiti and Cooley High.

Much of the credit for the film's spirit goes to its principle actors. The combined presence of Melisa Martinez (Maria), Kerry Washington (Lanisha), and Anna Simpson (Joycelyn) is dazzlingly powerful. It would be easy - and, of course, blatantly obtuse - to dismiss, as some apparently have, the performances of these three as apathetic or unemotional. In fact, their quiet charm, their instinctive sense of dignity and their raw, sometimes unconventional intelligence, throughout the film, are absolutely riveting. One would have to be completely "out of touch" with, or completely indifferent to, the behavior of teenagers to miss the resounding authenticity in what these three young ladies bring to the screen. Likewise, the supporting cast, particularly Marlene Forte as Lanisha's mother, compliments the work of the three girls as well as the overall tone of the film.

Our Song is a film not to be missed - by anyone of any age. I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it. Bravo to Czechs, their once-powerful movie industry seems to awaken from post-Communist slumber.

The Loners is a comedy done with all the elements you would expect to see in a modern "hollywood" production minus the garbage that seems to get attached to the genre over the past several years. Superb soundtrack, excellent visual editing, beautiful Prague cityscape, to mention but a few.

The story is actually comprised of several sub-stories that frequently intertwain and overlap, an is in essence a collage of destinies, fates, desires... It follows a group of urban youth-to-mid-thirties people through a variety of situations ranging from daily life and leisure activities to careers and obsessions. And it IS hillarious. There's actually a point in the movie where the entire theatre I was in (about a 100 people in a small art gallery) laughed non-stop for about 40-50 seconds. How often do you experience that with modern hollywood productions?

Although the entire main cast is excellent (especially the upcoming Macedonian star Labina Mitevska in the role of an immigrant facing the all-too-familiar hardships) I have to single out Jiri Machacek for his superbly believeable portrayal of Jakub, a constantly stoned bohemian whose brain is severely affected by the stuff he smokes landing him in a plethora of funny situations.

Conclusion: don't miss this one! It's got a lot to offer. This movie is gorgeous. It's real and down to heart, but at the same time totally crazy. The characters are easy to fall in love with, because they have so many different minds, but each of us could refer to at least on. In Canada, we don't have many movies from Eastern Europe, and for the few I have seen, Loners is one of the best. It's very funny, and magic. If you want to see something new and refreshing, go see Loners. Saw it as critic at the 49. Internationales Filmfestival Mannheim Heidelberg.

As every film that I know and Zelenka is involved in it is simply genious.

I love his way of combining different stories and characters.

His *Knoflikari* and the truly magic *Powers* (part of Regina Zieglers *Erotic Tales IV*) are definitely worth being checked out. Go and get it, folks! Ying, a Chinese girl who speaks Czech, invited us to screening of a Czech movie (with English subtitles) in the Department of Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). It was the first time I saw Samotáři (Loners, 2000) and it was pretty good.

Much like in many other Czech movies, the seven central characters seem to have a pretty difficult, dirty life; the web indicates that this theme was popular among the U.S. movies in the early 1990s. Their relationships are breaking up, combining, and recombining. Another typical feature of the Czech movies is that neither of the characters is designed to be a universally negative one and neither of them is a permanently positive character either. Also, you can see how the characters judge the features of others depending on the context; that's a very realistic feature of the movie's psychological analysis.

Ondřej is a talented and married young surgeon who has two daughters. Nevertheless, you learn that he has only studied neurobiology to prove how much he loved another woman, Hanka. He is so obsessed that he repeatedly dresses up as a plumber to get into Hanka's parents' house - a house that he repeatedly burns.

Meanwhile, Hanka has a very mixed relationship with her parents. She just decides - by tossing up a coin - to break up with Petr who works in a private radio station. Hanka does not view her parents' bourgeois life as a good example but seems rather unsuccessful in creating a better environment. But she is a very flexible figure, as far as the type of her boyfriends go.

For a while, Hanka seems to have serious plans with Jakub, an innocent drug addict whose memory seems to be rather devastated by the drugs. However, the friends from his band inform Jakub that he already has another girlfriend. Hanka is disappointed and returns to her parents.

When Hanka and Petr break up, it is organized by Robert, a matchmaker who also works for a travel agency where his job is to show the life of ordinary Czech people to Japanese tourists. Robert - who also provides Jakub with marijuana - is never serious about anything and he usually sleeps with many different women; eventually, his mother dies in a hospital and he has his own ways to deal with the depression.

Vesna (a Slavic word for "Spring") who came to Prague from Macedonia works as a barmaid - and you won't learn whether she came to Czechia in order to see her dad or UFOs. She seems pretty confused but sometimes helps the other characters from their problems.

Petr works in the radio station and he is the only one who likes his job - a job that he eventually loses. He announces to his audience that he broke up with Hanka - which is how Ondřej learns about the news that make him very happy.

Finally, Ondřej's wife Lenka is always ready to forgive him and stabilize their marriage - even after Ondřej asks a magician to make him disappear so that Ondřej can try to capture Hanka again. (The magician pays his debt because he is a brother of a victim of an important car accident - Jakub and Hanka bring the victim to the hospital and Ondřej saves his life.) Lenka also works for the travel agency - as a translator - and eventually she has to translate some hysterical scenes for 20 or so Japanese tourists who are shooting their movies during Hanka parents' dinner.

The seven characters interact in interesting and exciting ways that would be natural if Prague were smaller by four orders of magnitude. Given the actual size of the Czech capital, it looks a bit unlikely that all these events would take place among seven people, but it is fun. This movie is very underrated. It's highly imaginative, creative and clever. It's just plain fun and in my opinion this film tops the first one. But the film was forgotten when it first came out, and became even more overlooked as the years passed. "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" also bombed at the box office, whereas the first one was a pretty good hit and very popular.

I think the problem may be that this film was just released a couple years too late. In 1991, Bill and Ted already seemed "so '80s". Even though the '80s were only a couple years ago back at that time, the landscape of the music and style for kids had changed so radically with gangsta rap, hip hop, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, grunge and the Seattle sound. Bill and Ted with their Ozzy Osbourne, Van Halen and Guns N' Roses music along with their '80s style seemed so out of place and very outdated in '91, and I think that's one BIG reason the film bombed at the box office. Nobody but surfers were still saying stuff like "excellent!" and "bogus!" in 1991. "Gremlins 2" which also came out in the early '90s suffered a similar fate of being a good film that bombed at the box office because it was too associated with the '80s. The transition from the '80s to the '90s was a much faster change then now with the '90s and '00s. 1991 was nothing like 1988 or 1989, whereas right now, 2002 and last year 2001 still looks/looked like 1995 or 1996.

If only "Excellent Adventure" which was made in 1988, was released THAT YEAR instead of 1989, and "Bogus Journey" was made quickly and released in 1989, then it too would have probably been just as wildly received as the first. One of the most underrated movies I've seen in a long time, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey is the second hilarious adventure of Bill S. Preston Esq. and Ted Theodore Logan, aka Wyld Stallyns. There are two ways to look at this film: First, you see dumb dialogue, far fetched plot, juvenile idea. OR.. You see brilliantly downplayed idiots who yet again find themselves in a situation too big for their brains. Throw a Bruce Willis or a Arnold Schwarzeneggar into this plot and it becomes a big blockbuster movie. Bill and Ted go into the story with the same level of sincerity, only it's Bill and Ted. This is a tricky fence to balance on, but when you watch the movie not as a throwaway screwball comedy, but as an adventure featuring two guys who have no business being in an adventure, it becomes so much more. I admit it's very silly, but I've practically memorized the damn thing! It holds a lot of good childhood memories for me (my brother and I saw it opening day) and I have respect for any movie with FNM on the soundtrack. When I was a kid, I totally loved both Bill & Ted Movies. The other night, Bogus Journey was on and since it was at least 5 years since I last saw it, I decided to tune in. AND I LOVED IT ALL OVER AGAIN! This film is still funny after all those years. 'Excellent Adventure' is better, but this one rocks just the same. Sure, some of the perfomances are a bit cheesy, but hey, this entire film is cheesy in a cool way. Plus it features the coolest personation of Death ever in a movie! Concluding: Totally like non bogus movie dude! Way Excellent! STATION!!! I wouldn't dare say this film is better than the original, but it is very good in it's own right. The comedy in this film is just as good as the original though, there are so many scenes that get me laughing just thinking about them.

The story in this film is even more bizarre than the original, but that's what makes it so great. Peter Hewitt does a great job directing this film with a great cast. The core cast from the original film returns to their characters in this film and all do a fantastic job with their roles. I don't care what anyone says, I think Keanu Reeves is a great actor! I really enjoyed his portrayal of Ted in both of these films as I did Alex Winter's Bill. I was very happy to see George Carlin returning to the role of Rufus, very cool! Hal London Jr, who plays the part of Ted Logan's father does a really good job. The scene where Ted possesses his fathers body and Hal London Jr begins acting like Ted is a great scene, and he pulls it off impressively well. I can't forget to mention William Sadler as Death, he completely made the movie for me. The rest of the cast is quite good as well.

If you liked the first installment of the Bill and Ted series, then I would hope you would like this film as well. But, don't expect it to be as good as the original. I really hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,

-Chris It was only on my second viewing, years later, that I realized two things about this movie: 1) I enjoyed it immensely, and 2) that because its execution is decidedly sharper than the premise itself warrants. I had laughed my way through the movie before it occurred to me to renew my initial protests--valleyspeak and loogies and airheadedness (even *good*-natured airheadedness) just aren't inherently funny, especially when drawn out to feature length. But though the movie's momentum does begin to sputter out towards the end, Reeves and Winter and Sadler (and Hal Landon Jr. in an unforgettable scene) display such a remarkable sense of comic timing throughout that even the more clumsily-scripted jokes (e.g. Ted failing to recognize a certain inhabitant of Hell) work as effortlessly as the witter ones (e.g. the challenge). And the teaming of Winter and Reeves clicks so well that the teaming of Bill and Ted (who spend only one scene separated in the entire movie, disaster if they're not well-matched) appears utterly unstrained.

(Side note: I found the first movie to be only sporadically entertaining--sightly different comic sensibilities there, it seems.)

I give it a 7.75. Surprisingly good fun. I got the first Bill and Ted movie for christmas and I had to get the second when I saw it in a store. This one was (I think) just as funny as the first but a much wierder story. It was funny how they had their own personnal hell and how they had to play death. The funny thing was that they played him in stupid little games like clue. The only thing I'd change is Station and Death being in the band but other than that it was great. The first film had little ambition so nothing sticks to the screen. It was a bad version of 'Back to the Future' with zero charm. Once accepted that Bill & Ted are nitwits, the joke can only get hammered at the audience for so long before it breaks.

This is a surprise. This is your only spoiler warning...

By today's standards, this is more fun. This was shunned upon release, sad considering that more talent is involved than the first time. We get the photographer of 'Face/Off', the editor of 'Fugitive', a production designer from Burton's early work, and the sound designer of 'Matrix'.

The writers made up for their shallow first outing with something deep. Since this was shunned by the fanbase and public, the director probably decided the style was too extreme. It's not, it fits the material. Like 'Death Becomes Her' and 'Catch-22', this dares to be smart, but we like our movies "simple" so we don't buy it. Probably since this dared to be different is why it took 12 producers to pull it off. What's so good?

--Nice self-reference towards Keanu; from airhead to Messiah. See also Arnold Schwarzenegger.

--Joss hates his creations as much as he hates their counterparts, he makes his own hatred. The Evil B&T and the "good robot usses" have the same vocabulary as their originals: lesser copies and depreciation of language.

--The "duality" motif. Nowhere else is this evident than in the photography styles, lots of high and low angles. They even use Roy Brocksmith from 'Total Recall' to emphasize the point.

--The "choices" motif. I don't know where this started in the genre (maybe 'Ghostbusters'), but it's used pretty well here. It even boils down to the 7 games against death--Battleship and Club.

--Film self-reference, even present in the game against Death (Clue). This is smarter than Tarantino or Brooks. Notice the Premier magazine cover at the end: "Bill and Ted: The Movie." Ironic also how Death and Nomolos were villains in the 'Die Hard' and 'Lethal Weapon' sequels.

I still have some minor nits, but nothing compared to the original. Music and film are different mediums so it makes no sense why many scripts revolve around the former--particularly in the teen market. Carlin is a great comedian, but in these movies he's wasted. Also, for all the daring this effort shows, even cracking gay jokes, they can't kill a cat?

So, despite looking like a Nickelodeon production, this is incredibly interesting. From this movie we got Beavis and Butt-Head. "We're in Heaven and we just mugged three people."

Final Analysis = = Midrange Material Anyone who doesn't think Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is one of the greatest movies of all time needs their head checked. It somehow manages to be both completely inane and no-brainer, but also terrifying knowing and clever at the same time. One of those rare films that actually improves upon it predecessor, Bogus Journey can be enjoyed again and again. Notable highlights include the duel with Death and the ending, which is highly "emotional". Keanu wants to forget all that Matrix rubbish and get down to doing what he does best, Ted Theodore Logan in Bill and Ted: The Return. What can I say? I know this movie from start to finish. It's hilarious. It's an strong link to my past and will change the way I view film in the future. Hypothetically speaking :) The down-fall? There's no Socrates Johnson! My Take: A goofy, yet imaginative mess.

Keanu Reeves (Yes! That Keanu Reeves) and Alex Winter return as the two punk-rock idiots in this sequel to the time-trotting adventure comedy BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, now a cult classic. In this sequel, Bill and Ted are given much more to do than travel through time. They might as well travel Heaven and Hell too! During the beginning of this sequel, Bill and Ted are preparing for a "Battle of the Bands" competition which may make them more famous than ever. Meanwhile, many years in a futuristic civilization, the time-wizard from the first film (the always watchable George Carlin) is running a university praising Bill and Ted's names. There, an evil tyrant (Joss Ackland, from THE HUNT FOR RED October) plots to get rid of the two idiot rock-stars once and for all. So he sends two identical android replicas (In the words of Bill and Ted: Robot Us's) to do the dirty job.

There after, Bill and Ted experience death and must find their way through Hell, with inhabitants that happens to include the duo's worst memories, and then through Heaven in an attempt to get back to earth to save their girlfriends... and their show. Along this whacked-out voyage, they play board games with none other than Death (William Sadler, from DIE HARD 2), reminiscent to a similar moment in the 1957 foreign film classic THE SEVENTH SEAL, aid help from a couple of intelligent alien beings and more.

BOGUS JOURNEY's array of exuberant special effects gimmicks aren't up to to-date standards, and even some of the humor and the for-the-time look and feel are somewhat dated (to be honest, the film also feels like it was released on the wrong year, even for the 90's). But with it's no little lack of imagination and a lively turn by both the performances and direction, BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is fun, imaginative, and yes, bogus.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5. In the sequel to the brilliant Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, Bill and Ted are under threat from the future, as the evil Chuck De Nomolos sends two evil robots, disguised as Bill and Ted to earth to kill human Bill and Ted, in order to change the future.

In a great comedy pairing, Winter and Reeves excel to deliver delicious humour to the audience in this entertaining sequel. Though lacking the sharpness of the first, Bogus Journey still has the great catchphrases and dialogue from the leading pair, not to mention an hilarious performance by William Sadler, who brings a humorous side to the figure of depth, the grim reaper. Watch for the games sequences, the best moment in the entire film, but one of many great techniques used to justify the genre.

Though still packed with humour, this film has a more dramatic film towards it, with stakes being more serious and situations more risky.

This gives the film great dimension and another lovable feature. The creators also stretch the boundaries of the fantasy genre and the use of realism, with hell and heaven being heavily symbolic and present in the plot. The fantasy genre is again spot on with the use of that amazing time travelling machine, though again somewhat confusing at points with the use of timing, and objects and situations being placed before it happens in the present, as is evident in the final couple of scenes.

The first watch I hated this sequel, but the second time was a real joy as I appreciated the jokes and story more, and though the jokes and plot aren't as strong as its predecessor, Bogus Journey has enough feel good motives, jokes and a fairly steady plot to make it a good natured family film. Bill and Ted are back, only this time an evil dude from the future has sent back an evil Bill and Ted to destroy them, thus destroying 'Wyld Stallions' and the basis for human society in the future. This time Bill and Ted have to travel through the afterlife 'Totally Bogus' and save humanity 'Excellent'

With much of the same zany humour and some wonderful new characters like the grim reaper, station and robot Bill and Ted (stations creation) Bogus Journey once again entertains, and is worth watching for its soundtrack alone.

7/10

A most triumphant sequel

Party on Dudes! Hehe Bill and Ted's bogus journey is possible the most excellent film I have ever watched. Though the acting and scenery etc is poor, who cares. The story line is brilliant and the jokes and words they come up with are most excellent, the ideas are great as well. I recommend anyone to see this classic. The best part is obviously when they 'melvin' death, i was cracking up for 10 minutes and missed the next part of the film. This is so much better then the first one, which was great as well. Possibly the funniest movie of all time!!!!! I think the best parts of the film however, are when Bill and Ted shout excellent and play the guitar solo, it was hilarious. Rock on Bill, Ted and Eddie Van Halen, bring out a 3rd film!! 1991 saw the release of the two best sequels of all time: TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY and BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY. Out of the two, I've always liked BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY a bit better. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY is the better made, but there's just nothing like Bill and Ted. Besides Chris Farley and David Spade in TOMMY BOY, it's hard to think of a greater comedic duo than Bill and Ted. They are one of a kind.

Seemingly influenced by National Lampoon's O.C. and Stiggs, Bill and Ted were created by Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, two incredibly talented writers who invented the duo while performing at a local theater in L.A. back in the 1980s. The two quickly began writing a screenplay about two and before long BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE was born. The film, shot in 1987 and released in 1989, became a big box office success and an instant cult classic. It wasn't long before work began on the sequel. Stephen Herek, the director of 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' wasn't keen on working on the sequel since he considered it to be too mean-spirited and unlike the first one so Peter Hewitt, making his feature film debut, was brought in to direct the sequel. There couldn't have been a better director for the job. BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is marvelously directed. It's filled with its own unique style and energy that can't be matched.

What makes 'BOGUS JOURNEY' one of the best sequels ever is that it while it is darker than the original, it is just as fun. It doesn't change the characters like most sequels do. Bill and Ted are the same lovable characters that they were in the first film. This is because it was written by the original writers. Most sequels are not written by the same writers as the first one, but since 'BOGUS JOURNEY' had the same screenwriters, it ended up being just as good as 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' if not even better. Just like the first one, 'BOGUS JOURNEY' is absolutely hilarious, well written, fun, and above all, original. It's filled with spectacular special effects and fantastic comedic performances from Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves, and William Sadler. It's an unforgettable 'journey'. 10/10 When will people learn that some movies are made for fun and are not necessarily out to change the world? If you realise this then expect to have heaps of fun while watching "Bill and Ted's bogus journey." This is a movie that is heaps of fun to watch, Keanu and Alex make a great on screen team reprising their characters from "Bill and Ted's excellent adventure" with even more 'style' then they had in 1st movie. It's not rocket science but it's great for a laugh, the characters being extremely like-able and the story-line being so radical you have to laugh. Don't expect 'deep-and-meaningfulls' just expect pure fun! Oh, come on, learn to have a little fun. When I was a kid, oh, this movie was Oscar-worthy to me. I thought it was absolutely hysterical. One of the best movies I had seen.

Now, it's a little stupid, but come on. If you enjoyed "Excellent Adventure", you should most likely have fun with "Bogus Journey". This was the movie before "Dude, where's my car?". Only this one is actually funny. Like I said, it's just a good time. It shouldn't be taken seriously and if you enjoyed the first one, you should like "Bogus Journey". It's just a funny movie with some memorable characters. For your enjoyment only, watch it, let go, and remember that it's a silly comedy. That's all.

7/10 I realize that alot of people hate this movie, but i must admit that it is one of my favorites. I happen to like it better then its predeccesor and happy to like it better than alot of movies.

First off, I think that people never give the story any credit, much like Back to the Future, Time Travel is hard to write, and in this movie they included Time Travel and a Spiritual Journey.

I also feel that Keanu and Alex were on there best performances in this movie, they looked cooler, acted cooler, and said cooler things.

The set design of this movie is awsome as well, The sets are quite detailed and massive at times and it can be hard to believe that these sets were made for a movie about two teenage buds who can hardly spell...but isnt that the genius of the whole franchise, making these two idiots bigger than life characters that are responsible for the entire utopian future of earth.

The costume design was awsome as well. Bill and Ted actually look cool in Bogus Journey, where as in Excellent Adventure they look rather like, well as they would put it, FAGS!!!

Even the music in this movie is awsome, the score especially. There so much i could say about this film, cause i love it. But this is one of those movies i grew up watching and everytime i did i liked it more, so i can understand why people hate or just think its Bogus compared to Excellent adventure (which i also love by the way).

GET DOWN WITH YOUR BAD SELF!!!! Go way back to page ten of this review section, and work your way back up. Go ahead; I'll wait.

Done? Well, then you've probably noticed the same trend that I have. You could nitpick all day long about the lame jokes, dated timing and obviously derivative plot points and shtick in 'Bogus', but this movie seems to be one of those 'hate me now, love me later" flicks.

Bill and Ted's biggest problem was that the original appealed to those 80's kids who followed the tends and considered themselves on the cutting edge of fashion. That worked fine for the original, but obviously bombed in 1991, when no self-unrespecting slacker would be caught dead wearing anything but flannel or admitting he liked anything about the 80's. As Ted would put it: "Dude, this is a totally deep hole. Wanna play 20 questions?"

They say nostalgia goes in 20 year cycles, and that certainly seems to be the case here. Here in 2010, those of use who grew up with Cindi Lauper and Megadeth are beginning to look back to appreciate some of those pivotal films that (like it or not) made us who we are. If you're one of those who look at 'Bogus' as if it were an outdated ("Fa gs!") ripoff, then you're missing the point and probably spent six years growing facial hair, wearing flannel and looking like you just crawled out of bed.

In self-referencing its own origins (the Star Trek episode" and and time traveling with a phone booth), B&T makes no attempt to hide its creators' love for homage. Quentin Tarantino, anyone? I'm not saying 'Bogus' is 'True Love,' but I do think it needs to be appreciated for what it is: a fun snap-shot of our society at a time before child psychology, Ritalin, anti-smoking ads, terrorist paranoia and the proliferation of media fear-mongering.

So, for all of you B&T haters out there...turn off your Screaming Trees CD, get that hair out of your face, go to the beach and lighten up. Narcissistic depression and intellectual ennui are SO corporate. Visual creative epic of inimitable style.

This film may neither have the most alternative dramaturgy nor the most artistic acting. But who dares to say this film is no art? I'm not a supporter of the idea, that an important film must be serious, non-commercial or bothering me with questions. Even there are a lot of films, apposite to this attributes, that I like.

Bogus Journey, for sure, is not one of this films. What you get is pure, excessive creativity with a very positive charged, childlike energy. This film doesn't reflect reality. Its friendly-naive and utopian. Imagine the world of the future described by Rufus - for me it would be a pretty nice time-place combination to live in! Except of that music ;- )

Technically, Bogus Jorney is very well made. I always liked the cinematography and the sceneries of this movie. Especially in this point Bogus Journey tops its prequel by far. Also the effects are good, and I think most of them very made without cgi. I generally prefer the good old effects in big budget movies. Sure its 'just another Hollywood movie' out of some peoples view. But I think it is this in a very charismatic way.

A short word to the soundtrack: all the band and orchestral music fits very well into the film. Also the sound design has no lack. I am not a big fan of rock music, but I had to get this track by Winger from the scene 'station' builds the bill and ted robots in the van. I love the unorthodox camera work at its beginning.

Let me conclude saying this:

This film is very naive and very imaginative! It is way better than Panzerkreuzer Potemkin, The Godfather, Eraserhead or Aguirre - the wrath of god. It is absolutely superior to citizen kane, apocalypse now or chris markers sans soleil... ...it is even better than Total Recall... No way!? Yes way!

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is simply the best movie ever made.

Who dares to disagree makes himself guilty of "artsie-fartsy behavior" or likes Terminator Salvation (what is the bigger self-defamation)

PS: part 1 is not the better movie. So Bogus Jorney is a superior sequel. Not even Terminator 2 is a superior sequel! Its NOT! Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.

Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6. Okay, I'll admit it--I am a goof-ball and I occasionally love a really silly comedy. While I have seen more films by Kurosawa, Bergman and Truffaut than practically anyone on the planet, I still have a soft spot for a dopey comedy that doesn't try to be sophisticated but is simply funny. A few such films that immediately come to mind are MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, UHF, START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME, STRANGE BREW and the Bill and Ted movies. They all lack snob appeal but only a zombie or professional film critic could dislike them.

While BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY isn't as wonderful as the original Bill and Ted film, it still is great fun. Also, unlike the original, it actually seems to improve with repeated viewing. I remember not loving the film the first time I saw it--possibly because the other movie set such a high standard for laughs. But, every time I see it again I am amazed at all the great moments--particularly those involving the Grim Reaper. And, by the way, this reaper is about as different from Bergman's in THE SEVENTH SEAL as you can get!! In addition to a lot of laughs, this film features some excellent music--one way that it's actually better than the first film. The Kiss anthem at the end is great but so are the rest of the hard rock tunes--provided you aren't an old killjoy like De Nomolos. Great viewing for kids and adults alike. Now this is more like it! The first movie had some iffy dialogue and some weaker acting, but it seems like the team behind this got their stuff together for the sequel and put out a solid, thoroughly enjoyable, hilarious and creative comedy that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats the whole way through.

Seriously, this is just full of great stuff, brimming with creativity, and it's less of a spoof on 80s movies at the same time. The scenes in Hell are great, and so are the ones in Heaven. There's really no shortage to the mad-cap adventurous romp that this one promises, and you will never see another movie like this. Even the hammy final act of the movie isn't as bad as the first one, being generally heartwarming and enjoyable in its extremely cliché repertoire of family fun movie bliss. And even Keanu Reeves, despite looking about 30, isn't that bad here.

Sounds like a good deal to me. Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves return as the two dopes from San Dimas who get sent on another trip of a lifetime as someone from the future feels exactly the opposite the way it was presented in the first movie.

The only difference is that their trip is "somewhere" between Heaven and Hell and ends up being both. When they meet the Grim Reaper, they get the chance of an after-lifetime to play him for a chance to return and stop two evil robots from ruining what future they were supposed to have. Besides playing roles they have...er...perfected, they also play (and revive a couple of extra sales in the process) some classic games (I even have my original copy of Battleship in the closet).

The reason I liked this movie better than the original is because it deals with "what it might be like" instead of "what was." Without spoiling the movie, I can't give you anymore information about this (I guess you'll just have to watch them both and decide for yourself! 8 out of 10 stars. Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is the sequel to Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. Their bogus journey follower almost directly after the first movie, and does just as good of a job if not better to entertain the viewer.

The plot is an evil person from the future is trying to kill Bill and Ted using evil robots that look exactly like Bill and Ted. Once the robots kill Bill and Ted, they must compete with the grim reaper (death) and return their lives to normal.

The acting in the movie is top notch, and even thought it is a little weird at times, especially Bill and Ted's conversations, it is a great movie. The wannabe rockers sure have made another great movie. Pick this up the next time your at blockbuster! It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.

Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!! Two years later... Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are becoming near rock stars in the present future but still needing more work in their instruments. In the future, Bill & Ted are in the public popular history but then a evil man (Joss Ackland) is set to kill Bill & Ted by sending cyborg look-likes to destroy them. Cyborgs are sent to the past present and they actually murder the real Bill & Ted. Now, Both guys are spirits and they have to travel through Heaven and Hell to save themselves and their future.

Directed by Peter Hewitt (Tom and Huck, The Borrowers) made a clever sequel with terrific visual effects. Much more funny and entertaining than the original. William Sadler (The Shawshank Redemption) steals the show as The Grim Reaper.

DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the theatrical trailer and an amusing behind the scenes featurette. This sequel was a Box Office hit like the original but it is also (Believe it or not), one of the best sequels ever made (depending on your point of view). George Carlin reprises his role from the original briefly. Pam Grier also appears in a bit role. It's a enjoyable fantasy comedy. (****/*****). This movie is awesome. If you take it too seriously, of course you will hate it; however, it's quantity of "dudes" and "right ons" brings laughs and faint memories of about 15 years ago. I like its ability to make me simply chuckle at obvious jokes and silliness, and its ability to make me want to watch its precursor, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). If you are looking for a film full of multifaceted jokes, and totally mature humor, don't watch it; however, if you want a film that is humorous and silly, yet intelligent and engaging, you will enjoy it. I actually wish more of this sort of picture showed up in today's theatres. And hey, it's Keanu Reeves acting the way everyone parodies him as acting...right...doesn't get much better than that :) As with a bunch of guys at school we must give this a thumbs up. Even the Grim Ripper made us smile. Those two alien things made me laugh, Bill and Ted were the stupidest yet the funnest in the entire movie. This is a lot better than the first one. And yet for some reason I feel that it misses something. Something big. Something important. Made a better house and girlfriends. No, I'd say better villains. Use clones instead of robots.I gave this a 7 out of 10 because of those two robotic doinks.

The Grim Ripper, don't be scared he's not the deathy kind, is funny. When he fell from the sky I split a gut. Splat, I'm not sure about those aliens. What where they? Scientists? No way. Made only ten years after the actual events, and set in the Bunker under the Reichstag, Pabst's film is wholly gripping. It reeks of sulfurous death awaiting the perpetrators of world war. Haven't seen this in over three decades, but it remains strong in my visual and emotional memory. The characters seem to be waiting to be walled up in their cave. Searing bit of dialog between two Generals: "Does God exist?" "If He did, we wouldn't." Shame this is not more readily available for exhibition or purchase because it would be interesting to view and compare this film with the documentary about Traudl Junge, "Im Toten Winkel" {aka "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary") and "Downfall" with Bruno Ganz. I remember this film from many years ago. Certainly the best film on the subject in my experience. The fact that I vividly remember so much of the film after so long a time testifies to its impact.

It is difficult to comment on the level of the performances because of the language barrier. But they were nonetheless very powerful.

This subject continues to fascinate us even with the passing of years. And it was most effectively treated here, with the proper proportion of historical perspective and skepticism.

I wish it would be shown on TV at least once. Or at least be available on tape or DVD. Or is it? Is some art film archive hoarding a copy of it?? I remember watching this film on Saturday afternoon TV in the 1950s or 60s. It was well presented but I do remember there was a message of hope broadcast from transmitters secreted in lamposts in one of the last maniacal executions for impending liberation. I'm not sure that squares with the facts.

Still the film is well done. The German High Command reports wryly without emotion "The Russians are advancing down The Fredrich Strasse" as if all went according to plan.

it was my impression that this film and a later American made for TV knock-off was based on the British historian Trevor-Roper's account by a similar title Last Days of Hitler. I was surprised to see no credit to Trevor-Roper.

I agree the newest German film on the subject DOWNFALL was as well done as the classic. The American knock-off was a little flat.

Few figures have attracted as much attention from the cinema as Adolph. Yet I find it interesting that none of the many films and books that have come out ever speak of Hitler's double alluded to in passing in John Toland's magnificent historical piece.

Was gibs? This short film that inspired the soon-to-be full length feature - Spatula Madness - is a hilarious piece that contends against similar cartoons yielding multiple writers. The short film stars Edward the Spatula who after being fired from his job, joins in the fight against the evil spoons. This premise allows for some funny content near the beginning, but is barely present for the remainder of the feature. This film's 15-minute running time is absorbed by some odd-ball comedy and a small musical number. Unfortunately not much else lies below it. The plot that is set up doesn't really have time to show. But it's surely follows it plot better than many high-budget Hollywood films. This film is worth watching at least a few times. Take it for what it is, and don't expect a deep story. This film is unusual and bizarre, and it is nearly unusual and bizarre in a very good way. I give this short a 7 just because it is so unique and off-the-wall, but much of the time it seems as though it is being bizarre just for the sake of being bizarre. If the film had managed to integrate its more bizarre moments into some semblance of a plot then it would have been really fantastic.

The main problem here is that it looks as though the creators just jumbled together a bunch of crap about spatulas, then threw in a whole bunch more crap that sounded as though it would sound funny coming from the mouth of a spatula.

This is definitely worth checking out, but it is not top rate by any stretch of the creators wild imaginations. I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.

-R This is a great short. i think every voice is done by jason steele. (you can only just barely tell if you've heard his normal voice though, so don't worry about them sounding the same. they don't.) its about 15 minutes long.

edward the spatula is fighting the war against spoons and he meets some weird people. in fact, everyone he knows seem pretty crazy.

"edward!" "general peterson, we have to get you to a medical unit!" "no, I'm not gonna make it edward." "dont talk like that, I'm sure you'll be fine." "im a goner edward, and you know it. before i go-" "yes?" "can i just have... one kiss?" "umm, no." "come on, just one, small, peck on the lips?" "im walking away now sir."

there's gonna be movie pretty soon. the date for that is in September, but its probably gonna get pushed back. I laughed a lot while watching this. It's an amusing short with a fun musical act and a lot of wackiness. The characters are simple, but their simplicity adds to the humor stylization. The dialog is funny and often unexpected, and from the first line to the last everything just seems to flow wonderfully. There's Max, who has apparently led a horrible life. And there's Edward, who isn't sure what life he wants to lead. My favorite character was Tom, Edward's insane boss. Tom has a short role but a memorable one. Highly recommended for anyone who likes silly humor. And you can find it online now, which is a bonus! I am a fan of all of Jason's cartoons and can't wait to see what he comes out with next. I've watched it plenty of times and I'm planning on buying the full feature. I love all of Jason Steele's comedy. It's very different and unique and is very enjoyable. I love indie films and this one is just great. The plot is strange but very funny. This short film is about a talking Spatula named Edward. The order of the events are a bit jumbled, making this film very interesting to watch. At first you see Edward fighting the spoons, but then the focus changes to earlier in his life. This is a silly movie, but of course, it's still great. I highly recommend that you watch this film at www.spatulamadness.com or www.filmcow.com. It's very funny. The humour may not match everybody's taste but watch anyway. It'll only take 16 minutes of your time, and it's free. GO WATCH SPATULA MADNESS! I've never seen many online movies in most of my life, but if I'd pick any of them, I'd pick Spatula Madness, A clever reference to most movies like star trooper (etc.), using a camera, and wits of steel, Jason Steele mastered the art of turning a normal image into a painting, and then putting it all together with frame-by-frame animation to get a world inhabited by spatulas. the story begins at the middle, hows that for directors delight? then the middle is at the beginning, and so on, when I first watched it, I expected a soggy pixely look, but Jason, Like me, Loves looks, so took every detail to the max. although I don't recommend it for children, or would anybody besides me like it, but please search it up on the net (its a short film, look up film cow), its style reminds me of south park, but less violent. 10 for the look, 6 for the laughs, and 6 for the story, it all comes to a 10/10, good work

Jason Steele, I'm anxious to see the movie. I love this movie/short thing. Jason Steele is amazing! My favorite parts are The French Song and in the opening title when the spatula soldier yells " SPOONS!" I crack up every time. I would recommend this movie to Knox Klaymation fans, and people who enjoy Jason Steele's other movies. His style of animation is very original. It takes a few views to notice the detailed backgrounds. His humor is also hilarious, and is definitely not something you'd hear before. Like Max the deformed Spatula who has a sound and light system in his head that beams colorful lights and happy music whenever he talks about his miserable life. This is a wonderful animation to watch anytime any where. Many mystery stories follow the standard whodunit path: murder most foul, gathering of clues, gaggle of possible perps, sprinkling of red herrings, and inevitable showdown between clever evildoer and even more clever crime solver.

"Forgotten" abandons the well-trod and gives us complex characters who may or may not have committed terrible acts. The fact that at the end of three episodes we have no easy answers and no neatly-tied package might frustrate some, but for me it was the indication of an intelligently crafted tale which probes, disturbs, and haunts with the question: What does an evil person look like?

Excellent acting and production combine to make a mystery not easily... forgotten. This is possibly the best short crime drama I've ever seen. The acting is superb especially Amanda Burton who's character goes from scary to sweet to disturbing to sad and then some...She does an amazing job balancing Rachels/Carlas feelings and acting out the pain of someone who's lost a child, its so believable that it feels more like a real life story then a drama. The other actors are of course great too which they usually are in British TV/Film. The ending,which I'm not going to give away,is fantastic mainly because you don't really get one... (you'll get what I mean after you've seen it) This is well worth buying and seeing over and over again and if you're not touched by this you're one cold hearted person. Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....

Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.

There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?

The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.

Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is a asylum movie or "Cool Hand Luke" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.

The plot is the same as "One flew over the Cuckoos nest" and "Cool Hand Luke", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon".

Eric War drama that takes place in Louisiana in 1971. It follows a bunch of recruits through basic training and then Tigerland--an accurate portrayal of Vietnam on American soil, before they're shipped over. It focuses on two men--Booz (Colin Farrell) and Paxton (Matthew Davis)...how they meet, become friends and deal with a corwardly squadron leader (Clifton Collins Jr.) and a borderline psycho (Shea Wingham).

A surprisingly non-commercial film directed by Joel Schumacher. He uses a hand-held camera throughout most of the movie and uses digital video for the combat scenes. It works very well--the film looks gritty (as it should) and uncomfortably realistic.

Farrell successfully covers up his Irish brogue and adopts a pretty convincing Southern accent. His performance is just superb--he's an extremely talented young man. Davis, unfortunately, is not that good. He's tall, muscular, very handsome--and very bland. The rest of the cast however is just great.

This film was thrown away by its studio. It had no stars in it, a familar story and was considered "just another war film". It only played a week in Boston! It's well worth catching on video or DVD.

Also, Farrell and Davis have a lengthy nude scene. While it was filmed at a Florida National Guard site, "Tigerland" totally reminded me of Fort Polk, LA., firing ranges, maneuver areas, waist-deep water and all. The movie was fairly authentic and the characters similar to those same ones at my AIT in 1974. The difference between the Tigerland year, 1971, and mine of 1974 is all the drill sergeants and instructors knew they weren't going back to Vietnam, as it was pretty much all over, so training was very relaxed - not a challenge at all. That was the precursor to all our troubles in the 70s and 80s, which I know for a fact as I stayed in until 2004. I never heard anyone mention "Tigerland" but the Army did have realistic Vietnam training villages at different bases across the U.S. Vietnam Vets tell me that up to 1972 Basic & AIT could be pretty rough and rugged, because the trainers had been there and were mandated to train Vietnam-bound men those skills to make it, although that was not always the case. Both a drill sergeant at Polk and later one of my Vietnam Vet NCOs, when we had become instructors at a basic training brigade at Fort Bliss, told me there was nothing they could do to get anyone ready and people just had to find out and figure out for themselves. This movie rates high. I really like this movie. Bozz is an ultra-cool, not to be intimidated soldier who does not want to go to war. His persona is similar in a way to Yossarian in Catch-22, Joseph Heller's classic novel about men and war. This film, however, is not set in a war zone, but in a pre-war combat prep training. This wonderful film is all about the sickening realization that the Vietnam war was a mistake and those men who were pegged to be sacrificed for a losing cause.

Colin Farrell is brilliant as Bozz, a soldier who showed as much genuine love and compassion for his fellow soldier as he did disdain and irreverence for the establishment that was trying to kill him. Bozz is totally cool and non-plussed, testing and tweaking his military superiors, getting their goat at every opportunity. He is a Jesus Christ figure with a psychology degree, "saving" his fellow soldiers and showing the ones in genuine need, the way out of this man's army.

The acting and action is crisp and believable and as a "Sleeper", Tigerland goes down with Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket as one of the top three Vietnam films in my opinion.

FIVE STARS, a top pick. TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war.

I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff.

Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.

If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such.

First off, this movie was a wild ride the whole way. The story of the training of the soldiers, fighting with their superiors, and in the end grouping together.

From the very beginning to the very end. This is one War Drama worth seeing if you are in for the constant cussing (at times beyond reason) and the horrors of what boot camp are.

The dynamics of how the actors interacted was quite amazing at times, and sometimes humorous. How Bozz (Colin Farrel) deals with Paxton (Matthew Davis) throughout the storyline, from camp to Tigerland, and even in the end helping him.

The innovative free-hand filming did add a certain taste or flavor to the film. Constant moving, constant action, and just constant confusion. At times, it was a help. Others, not so much.

Throughout the film, it was increasingly realistic. Some points in the film (the sex scenes in particular) seemed to be just a tad too realistic even though they added an effect to the movie that wouldn't have been there without them. it was a very gritty movie, through and through.

In my opinion, this is one of Colin Farrel's better movies (if not his top performance). The acting for every character was superb. 9/10 -sysnuk3r In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.

But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.

But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: "You are all dead in this situation!" barks a sergeant. "Any Questions?" "Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.

Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.

What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.

While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military. Really touching story of a recruitment camp in America, where young men are prepared for the Vietnam war. The human study always appealed to me when it comes to war movies, because it translates personal, subjective opinions on war, opposed war action movies where action, and technical data are being analyzed to the prejudice of the human factor.

The movie manages to put a new spin on an already ancient subject, and manages to distance itself from usual war movies, especially by focusing on an anti-hero from the view-point of traditional standard. The movie focuses on the tragic character of Bozz, who smartly avoids being sucked in by the dehumanizing war machine, and refuses to give up control over his destiny and fight for something he doesn't believe in, spends his energy in searching ways to avoid being sent overseas, both for himself and comrades and ironically ends up finding his own just reason for finally going to war. Perfect irony.

The acting is truly exceptional, and the documentary-style shooting almost makes you feel transposed into the movie. Also the movie will provide food for thought for those exhilarated by the action in usual war movies or war-games enthusiasts, hopefully awakening some minds of a generation which luckily escaped the terror of being drafted. The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre. I had an uncle who committed suicide after serving in Vietnam because of mental problems he experienced after coming back. So when I saw part of this movie one night on a pay-for-view channel I was intrigued. I wanted to know what my uncle went through and felt as he got ready for Vietnam. I went out and rented this movie and I have to say it is the most heart-wrenching film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD immediately after renting it. The way it pulls you in so many different directions emotionally is something I've never experienced with any other film. As far as Vietnam subject films go, I think it is the best one, although Platoon runs a close second. Besides all of that, I think it is also Colin Farrell's best performance as an actor. I like him in most of his movies but in this one he was incredible. I gave this a 10 rating because it is one of my top five favorite movies. Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed "Phone Booth",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),"Intermission",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),"Blue Crush",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),"All The Real Girls",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view. To me this was Colin Farrells best movie evr! He introduced himself to America through this movie and he was great. He really got you into his charictor and made u feel the passion he was putting into his role. In my opinion it is a great movie and my favorite. If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real "fought" in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an "ill-fated destiny" is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between "Stand By Me" and "Saving Private Ryan." What do men do when they are with a situation that's "hard pressed" in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing "The best film of the year," and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10. While I suppose this film could get the rap as being Anti-Vietnam, while watching it I didn't feel that such was the case as much as the film was simply an honest look into the perspective of the young guys being trained for a war that the public didn't support.... it showed their fear, their desperation, their drive... all of it, out in the open, naked. As a soldier myself alot of the themes rang true to me in my experience in the military - especially boot camp. On the whole this movie, although it was shot on a very small budget, looks great, is very well put together, and features excellent acting and directing. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for another excellent Colin Farrell film. 10/10 Never heard of this movie,saw it on DVD.Great movie,perfect example of a movie that took every cast member to make it work.No overhyped typical Hollywood movie with the same old overhyped actors.No current Quote "A" list actor could have pulled off any performance in this movie.Brought back memories of my own post Vietnam war military experiences.It concentrated on the people who were sent to fight.As was portrayed by the characters who had fears and emotions even if some volunteered for service.They were regular people too,some just weren't cut out for military life,I remember a few in my experience--to put it mildly couldn't adapt to military life either-but I'll never forget them-should have stayed in touch.I highly recommend it and then think about those serving present day in Afganistan.Basic training is a trip, notice those drill sergeants aren't morning people and maybe they need "sensitivity training" HA!HA!HA! Tigerland is one of the finest films that i have seen, and in my opinion it outdoes even full metal jacket, a film of similar nature. Bozz is played exceptionally well by Farrell, and is a character who stays in your mind long after the film ends. The ending is brilliantly cut by schumacher - with the melodic harmony singing and the slow mo of the troops preparing to leave. What a film. I wasn't expecting the highest calibre of film-making with Joel Schumacher directing this one, so I was surprised that TIGERLAND wasn't a complete waste of time.

In technique, it's often derivative of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with the shaky camera work, grainy shots, the film occasionally running like it's skipping a sprocket---all those techniques Speilberg used to make his film seem more realistic but in the end was more distracting than anything else.

But unlike SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the emotional component wasn't as weak, as the characters in this film seemed more like real people and the story less contrived, not so wrapped up in the American flag (Speilberg gets an 'F' in subtlety).

Next to the first section of Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET, this is the most realistic portrayal of boot camp that I have seen in a film, and for that I think it's worth watching.

It's not a great film, but neither is it a bad film. There are four great movie depicting the Vietnam War. They are (in no particular order: Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and finally Tigerland. All but Tigerland focus on the actual war and the men in it. Tigerland focuses on men in advanced training for the Vietnam War. The character of Boz is one of the most important depictions of a man questioning war, and the absurdity of it. This has been done in many war movies, but rarely in boot camp. Also, this is a very complex character, whose method with dealing with his feeling and emotions are the driving force of this movie. The character of Boz makes this movie so good. It is a shame it did not get a major release. It belongs on the shelf of any movie fan alongside the aforementioned movie titles. Tigerland follows the lives of a group of recently drafted men into the army who are called up to fight in Vietnam in 1971.

At this point, America knows they are fighting a loosing battle, and the director takes us through a 16mm handheld documentary shot film of the lives of several recruits in the 'Tigerland' training camp in Louisiana.

The film is more of a character study no real plot, but it focuses on a key character Roland Boz, who is a dissabordinate yet intelligent man, who only wants to escape the camp. We are taken through several characters in the unit waiting for the story to unfold.

I'd have to say this is a great story about Vietnam and more importantly about the army in general.. Great acting, and very memorable. Also the directors use of film and style works so well, cause it looks a lot like the old film footage you always see regarding Vietnam. Its great to see how the film shows that all the infighting and problems were so significant to the problems of fighting this battle. The particular scene where Boz walks away from a training mission where an instructor is showing how to use a radio as a torture device just about sums up everything about war in a nutshell... and it's futility.

Fantastic film. Not just about Nam but about who individuals have to decide what is morally right by being 'in the army'.

Rating 9 out of 10. There's an inexhaustible hunger for "basic training" movies, so it's surprising that this one got so little notice when first released. Looks likely to have a well-deserved second life on DVD/VHS.

Tigerland isn't uniformly great by any means, there are some terribly cliched characters (especially the portrayal of the NCO's, makes you long for the return of Lee 'Full Metal Jacket' Ermey) but the lead performance of Colin Farrell is the stuff of instant stardom. Charisma to burn and a role any actor would kill to get. First of all I saw this movie without knowing anything about it I just knew that Joel Schumacher did it and that was enough for me. A friend and I went to see it at a Danish film festival called the night-film festival which is a lot of different movies shown after hours the festival pretty much specializes in showing movies that wouldn't otherwise be shown in Danish theaters.

Anyway My friend and I went to see it and we were astonished at how real it seemed and that it really struck a cord with our feelings, we really got caught up in the plot without being able to figure out the ending which is a great plus in our book.

The film is recorded in a style that reminds me of the Danish initiative "dogma 95" which was started by 4 Danish directors including Lars Von Trier (Dancer In the Dark).

In conclusion the movie is really worth seeing it gives a different perspective on how things were for the American G.I. Joe coming out of school being expected to serve their country in battle a long way from home.

Also Colin Farrell is exceptional in this movie I haven't seen him before but I can't wait to see more of him.

Lars P. Helvard This was one of the best war movies I've seen because it focuses on the characters more then the actual war. All of the cast do an excellent job and because most of them are relative unknowns it makes everything seem more believable. The camera footage is great is so was the pacing and editing. This movie will actually get to you and causes the audience to care for the charcters. Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years. Just caught it at the Toronto International Film Festival. This is a good story, told in a compelling way. The handheld camera approach to action scenes added to the intensity of those scenes (in a documentary style, not a Blair Witch style). Joel Schumacher shows he doesn't need a big budget to produce a gripping film.

The actors were strong, particularly the actor playing the focus of the events in the film, Boz. This was a good movie. It wasn't your typical war flick but something a bit different. This movie showed us recruits in training before the war and not actually fighting a war. This film is one of the more realist views on war and the army than most other films like this made. Colin Farrel did a great job at portraying an army recruit and Clifton Collins Jr and also Matthew Davis contributed reasonably well. Seeing Colin Farrel move from b grade to a grade in a few short years, You would never thought it would happen. I will also add that the makers of tigerland did a great job at filming a movie in the year 2000 and making it look like 1970 was a good touch. Its good to see talent used wisely and i hope to see this same talent again in the near future. It was only when I saw Napoleon Dynamite that I remembered seeing Cracker Bag. Just beautiful sentiment and yet never stooping to being soppy. There is some terrific cinematography and the lead girl is quite brilliant. It captures more than the nostalgia of the time. It has a real heart to it. It is the Achilles wound of childhood that is exquisite and painful. A simple story is always effective when done well. This Glendyn Ivin has a big future and I for one, am looking out for his next project. The follow up is always the most difficut thing. It's like the second album blues for most people.

I just hope his next film is not something lame like a shark film. Cheers to all. Enjoy your cinema. I was treated to a viewing of Cracker Bag last night before a preview screening of Disney's Holes. I don't know who decided to show it but I'm so very glad they did. Cracker Bag is an absolute gem, a snapshot of Australia in the early 80s as seen through a child's eye. The "conversations" between Eddie and her brother were hilarious and, as with the rest of the film, so true to life. Each shot brought a great sense of nostalgia as it reminded me of my own childhood (being the same age as the director probably helps a little) and the audio multiplied the feeling. I only hope I get to see Cracker Bag again some day. Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is not to say that they're not tasteful references...just that they feel very modern and very fashionable...which makes me feel like this is closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) than the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.

The cinematography is just...too perfect for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years. First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.

Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.

That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done.

With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out. Robert Altman shouldn't make a movie like this, but the fact that he did- and that it turns out to be a reasonably good and tightly-wound thriller in that paperback-tradition of Grisham thrillers- shows a versatility that is commendable. In the Gingerbread Man he actually has to work with something that, unfortunately, he isn't always very successful at, or at least it's not the first thing on his checklist as director: plot. There's one of those big, juicy almost pot-boiler plots where a sleazy lawyer gets caught up with a desperate low-class woman and then a nefarious figure whom the woman is related with enters their lives in the most staggering ways, twists and plot ensues, yada yada. And it's surprising that Altman would really want to take on one of these "I saw that coming from back there!" endings, or just a such a semi-conventional thriller.

But it's a surprise that pays off because, oddly enough, Altman is able to catch some of that very fine behavior, or rather is able to unintentionally coax it out of a very well-cast ensemble, of a small-town Georgian environment. The film drips with atmosphere (if not total superlative craftsmanship, sometimes it's good and sometimes just decent for Altman), as Savannah is possibly going to be hit by a big hurricane and the swamp and marshes and rain keep things soaked and muggy and humid. So the atmosphere is really potent, but so are performances from (sometimes) hysterical Kenneth Branaugh, Embeth Davitz as the 'woman' who lawyer Branaugh gets caught up with, and Robert Downey Jr (when is he *not* good?) as the private detective in Branaugh's employ. Did I neglect Robert Duvall, who in just five minutes of screen time makes such an indelible impression to hang the bad-vibes of the picture on?

As said, some of the plot is a little weak, or just kind of standard (lawyer is divorced, bitter custody battle looms, innocent and goofy kids), but at the same time I think Altman saw something captivating in the material, something darker than some of the other Grisham works that has this standing out somehow. If it's not entirely masterful, it still works on its limited terms as a what-will-happen-next mystery-Southern-noir. This isn't among Jimmy Stewart's best films--I'm quick to admit that. However, while some view his film as pure propaganda, I'm wondering what's so wrong with that? Yes, sure, like the TV show THE FBI, this is an obvious case of the Bureau doing some PR work to try to drum up support. But, as entertainment goes, it does a good job. Plus, surprisingly enough for the time it was made, the film focuses more on crime than espionage and "Commies". Instead, it's a fictionalization of one of the earliest agents and the career he chose. Now considering the agent is played by Jimmy Stewart, then it's pretty certain the acting and writing were good--as this was a movie with a real budget and a studio who wasn't about to waste the star in a third-rate flick. So overall, it's worth seeing but not especially great. JAMES STEWART plays an FBI agent who began working with the agency before it was called the FBI and the story involves dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, the Prohibition Era gangsters, World War II German and Japanese spies, etc. A continuously interesting picture covering 40 years of history; far superior to any films being made these days.

Of special interest to older viewers familiar with Washington, DC. In a scene about 20 minutes into the movie --- where James Stewart finds out from Vera Miles that she's expecting their first child --- the scene was filmed in Herzog's Seafood Restaurant on the former Washington waterfront, the only movie in which this historic location appears. Shortly after taking office, President Kennedy decided that Southwest Washington, a 99% Black neighborhood, was an eyesore and ought to be torn down. By decree befitting his position of undisputed royalty, the entire area, including the popular waterfront restaurant district, but excluding 3 historic churches; was reduced to rubble. Black residents evicted from their homes relocated as best they could, and without Federal assistance; likewise businesses were simply put out of business, few re-locating. Restaurant Row was converted into a sidewalk, and Washington had no waterfront (restaurants, seafood stands, boats, etc) for about 10 years. As a lifetime resident, the Herzog Restaurant scene was our #1 reason to see this fine movie again. The film as entertainment is very good and Jimmy Stewart is excellent as Chip Hardesty, with well done co-starring turns by Vera Miles and Murray Hamilton. But the film, directed by legendary director Mervyn Leroy, was constantly vetted and script approval as well as every aspect of the film, down to clothing, was closely watched and controlled by J. Edgar Hoover. Not that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have something to be proud of. His management of the bureau from 1924 to his death crated on of the finest investigative services in the world. But by 1959 Hoover was already beginning to worry about being forced out and had already started to collect dossiers on powerful people to make sure and protect his little kingdom. And he was determined to make sure that no motion picture showed even a single wart about the bureau. The films shows only continued successes and glosses over the failures which occurred, and the bureau's part in the witch hunts of the early 1950's. Enjoy the story, but with tongue firmly in cheek. I found The FBI Story considerably entertaining and suitably upbeat for my New Years Day holiday viewing. Its drama and action-packed episodes were thrilling. The Hardesty character was well drawn and admirable. Overall the photography, script and direction was perfectly creditable. Rather than taking the film to be a repugnant piece of propaganda, as some might, I enjoyed it as a well mounted portrayal of the necessity of ingenious minds and brave bodies in the fight against crime. Again, the depiction of a family holding together even under the strain of the husband's commitment to his (arguably) important work, I did not find to be a twee representation but an ideal and exemplary one. The history of the FBI, as told from the point of view of Agent Stewart via flashbacks, interwoven with his personal life story. Stewart and Miles (as his wife) are pretty good, as is Hamilton as an earnest agent. The problem is that the episodic nature of the story makes it difficult to get involved. It's like watching bits and pieces of a dozen different movies as we get glimpses of a who's who cast of gangsters. Some of the episodes are too long, some too short, and some just look out of place (Stewart's daughter's school sequence). Overall, it goes on way too long. Nevertheless, it's worth a look for its handsome production values. Marvelous James Stewart, Vera Miles vehicle. What makes this historical film dealing with the FBI so good is the family element that is involved during a 35 year career as depicted by Stewart in the film.

The film shows a history of the great investigatory agency. It deals with airplane bomb plots, killing off of Indians in Oklahoma for real estate gain, fighting organized crime, Nazis and Communists in that order. The human element is never far behind as Stewart weds Vera Miles. They raise 3 children as Miles' heart goes out each time Stewart goes out on assignment.

Look for a brief but memorable performance by Murray Hamilton. Years later, he appeared as Mr. Robinson in 1967's "The Graduate."

The film has nothing but praise for J. Edgar Hoover. He certainly brought the FBI up to par.

True, this could be viewed as right-wing propaganda, especially with Stewart's real-life Republican views, but it's well done, historically informative, and the view of the family so well depicted. This is the magnum opus from the Swedish king of crap, Mats-Helge Olsson. Seldom has a movie of this magnitude been made in Sweden and it truly stands out as one of the most amazing achievements in Swedish film to date. Who pays for these things?

The Russian nuclear scientist Markov wants to defect to Sweden. But his plans are ruined by the Russian military who kidnap him and tell him that he has arrived in Sweden. This trickery is their way of seeing to that Markov continues his work in nuclear physics that will revolutionize the energy supply for the whole planet. The CIA however is bent on getting Markov to the west and send their ninja to liberate him.

The practice of having Swedish actors speaking English is something that Mats-Helge has perfected in his later works. The cheap b-movie feeling this creates is probably unmatched for performance. But besides this? Well the action is standard direct-to-video style. Machine guns firing huge clouds of smoke. Thousands of Russians dying. People running around in black ninja suits, trying to hide in the snow.

What really stands out though is the insanely poor way the fighting scenes are choreographed. When they say "Ninja" in the title i expect martial arts, i expect close combat. But there are maybe two or three scenes of actual martial arts in this movie. And they are hilarious. It's so bad i lack the words to describe it. If the ninjas moved any slower their hearts would stop. And of course the whole movie ends in a bang that indicates a special-effects budget consisting of four food-stamps and a McDonald's voucher.

So what's the verdict? Instant classic of course. Never before has a movie been made that is so obviously meant to be consumed along with huge amounts of alcohol. It's the ultimate party movie. Insert into video and laugh. One just has to realize that movies like these are not made any more. This is film history.

Therefore the rating is 8/10 for entertainment, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for accents. According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a "B" or "C" movie. It is a "Z" movie - but an enjoyable and fun "Z" movie! Maybe one of the most entertaining Ninja-movies ever made. A hard-hitting action movie with lots of gore and slow motion (eehaaa!). Made in ´83 and still the greatest swedish action movie made so far! And we can hardly wait to see the upcoming sequel, Ninja mission 2000 - The legacy of Markov! Moe and Larry are newly henpecked husbands, having married Shemp's demanding sisters. At his music studio, Shemp learns he will inherit a fortune if he marries someone himself!

"Husbands Beware" is a remake of 1947's "Brideless Groom," widely considered by many to be one of the best Stooge films with Shemp. The remake contains most of the footage from that film. The new scenes, shot May 17, 1955, include the storyline of Moe and Larry marrying Shemp's sisters, along with their cooking of a turkey laced with turpentine! A few new scenes are tacked onto the end of the film as well(a double for Dee Green was used; if you blink, you will miss the double's appearance.)

"Husbands Beware" would have made for a good film with just the plot line of marrying the sisters. Budget considerations, coupled with fewer bookings for two-reel comedies, influenced the decision to use older footage.

Although completely new films were still being made by the Stooges, most of their releases by 1955-56 were made up of older films with a few new scenes tossed in. "Husbands Beware," while one of these hybrids, is watchable and entertaining; we get to see most of "Brideless Groom" again, and the new scenes are funny enough to get the viewer through the film. This film is one of the last Stooge comedies to feature new footage of Shemp, and it was released six weeks after his death.

7 out of 10. The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

One of My favorite Stooges shorts with Shemp is none other than Husbands Beware! All appearing in this short are the beautiful Christine McIntyre, Dee Green, Doris Houck, Alyn Lockwood, Johnny Kascier, Nancy Saunders, Lu Leonard, Maxine Gates, and Emil Sitka. Green and McIntyre provide great performances here! There are so many funny parts here. This is a very hilarious short. There is another similar Three Stooges short like this one called Brideless Groom and I recommend both! HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.

HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.

**** out of 4 stars. I cannot believe how unknown this movie is,it was absolutely incredible. The ending alone has stuck with me for almost thirty years. The road sign through the rearveiw mirror blew me away. If you liked "RACE WITH THE DEVIL" you will love this movie Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply "Black Noon" and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.

I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.

If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.

If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film! I saw this movie on TV when it came out, and never seen it again. For the life of me, I couldn't remember the title and just stumbled across it while checking Roy Thinne's movie credits. Excellent, dark, and spooky TV horror movie in the same class as "Crowhaven Farm"; "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark"; and "Satan's School for Girls", all lost Satanic classics. I also think it has many parallels to Clint Eastwood's classic, "High Plains Drifter". Why don't they release these great little movies, especially when you consider all of the more recent garbage that fills the discount DVD racks at Wal-Mart? Most of these flicks have a cult-following, so sales shouldn't be a problem. I feel like I have some uber-rare disease that no one has heard of and I have finally come across a support group on the net! I finally found this title by asking for an answer on an "experts" site on the web. I too, saw this movie in my youth and was struck by the atmosphere and especially the ending. I have never forgotten it and have never seen it since. No one I know saw the film and I had almost given up on ever finding it's title. Alas, even knowing the name, I shall probably never see the film again as it is impossible to find commercially. Small steps...

G I have seen this film only once, on TV, and it has not been repeated. This is strange when you consider the rubbish that is repeated over and over again. Usually horror movies for me are a source of amusement, but this one really scared me.

DO NOT READ THE NEXT BIT IF YOU HAVE'NT SEEN THE FILM YET

The scariest bit is when the townsfolk pursue the preacher to where his wife lies almost dead (they'd been poisoning her). He asks who the hell are you people anyway. One by one they give their true identities. The girl who was pretending to be deaf in order to corrupt and seduce him says "I am Lilith, the witch who loved Adam before Eve". Finally got to see this classic TV movie on an unofficial disc recorded from an old VHS, it is a classic piece of horror. Its a pity more of this neglected corner of horror in terms of official releases on DVD and VHS ... the TV horror movie. Recommended for all fans of the 70's TV movie much like trilogy of terror. Those interested should get the book on the subject by David Deal - Television Fright Films of the 70's. Email me for a chance to see it.....its fabulous to see it again.

It does have it problems like many TV movies they have to be rather inventive in the effects dept and even at 70 mins it can seem to drag possibly we are all used to more modern editing but still great stuff and far better than many theatrical frights released today. Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.

Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.

One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.

That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video! So, finally I know it exists. Along with the other Uk contributors on here I saw this on what MUST HAVE BEEN it's only UK screening in the 70's. I remembered the title, but got nowhere when I mentioned it to people. It scarred me (that's 2 'r's) but when you go to bed with doom whizzing about your brain and listening all around for impending terror, then isn't that what a TRULY CLASSIC horror movie is all about?? I can barely remember the intricacies of the movie, but what I do recollect is my shivering flesh and heightened senses. Can anyone confirm my suspicions that this is black and white? Again, if anyone has any info on how to obtain a copy of this, please get in touch... Based on a true story of how a man ahead of his time - the great 19th century American poet and humanist Walt Whitman - made a significant contribution to how western medicine treats people with psychological problems.

Interested in the treatment of people with psychological problems, he began to associate with psychiatric workers and patients. After seeing the psychological methods of the time (inhumane and ignorantly cruel methods), Walt rejected those methods, and treated patients with compassion and dignity, encouraging other people to do the same> The story of Walt's interactions with psychiatric workers, patients and townsfolk is full of drama, good humor and wisdom. : ) I found the one and only comment about this movie entirely uninformative and altogether too harsh, so I have decided to write my own. I first saw this movie when it came out and have caught it a few times more since then. First of all let me say that, overall, the things that this movie gets RIGHT are what make it worthwhile. It doesn't matter that it has some low budget quirks and other faults. It is worth watching. The idea of basing a movie on Walt Whitman's visit a restrictive, narrow-minded Anglo-Canadian community in Southern Ontario and bringing people to life is a brilliant mis-en-scene. The movie is about the kind of humanizing catalysis Whitman inspired in people. And in that sense it is exactly accurate. The acting - especially by Rip Torn (Whitman) and Colm Feore as the doctor - is very good. The scripting and dialogue are strong and pay proper attention to the mores and inflections of the time. Overall, what's not to like? Besides, name another film in which Whitman is brought so vividly to life? The rating is only a 5 because it's a movie that could have used better acting and direction (or at least music!). However, for the achievements of Walt Whitman, it deserves a 10. A previous poster calls the movie cheesy, however, I think it's a simple case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The film makers were apparently more interested in getting the story out there than to have a Hollywood shiny feature film. And for this, I applaud them - the fact it is non-mainstream reflects the life of Whitman as well. This film is more documentary than for the sake of acting. To be fascinated with a story such as this, when you rarely hear of these types of stories that shape current day mental health, is the most important thing. I found it a highly enjoyable look at history. This little film had long been on my "keeper" list. Do people realize how stressed out, menopausal, emotionally abused women (as well as the mentally retarded) were REALLY treated by the medical profession at the turn of the century??!! All of the pious uptight Christian attitudes of that time were deadly to exploring TRUE emotional feelings that would allow us to embrace suffering souls, let alone explore what it means to embrace our humanity. Can you really imagine (by today's standards) that Walt Whitman's books were banned because he acknowledged women as having feelings and emotional responses as great as a mans? Think about that! The sensitivity of this movie still gets me and I give credit to the director for capturing this through his eyes. In his otherwise excellent book, Lincoln in American Memory, the historian Merrill Peterson calls Young Mr.Lincoln a "boring, dreadful, film". This amazingly wrongheaded analysis simply proves that great historians are rarely fine film critics. I am working on a doctoral dissertation on Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. As part of my preparation for writing the dissertation, I made a careful analysis of this film, and of Tag Gallaghers brilliant interpretation of it in his seminal book on Ford. Young Mr. Lincoln comes out that culminating year of the first phase of Ford's cinematic authorship, 1939.In that greatest of Hollywood years, Ford directed three superb, still not fully appreciated films: Drums Along the Mohawk, Stagecoach,and Young Mr.Lincoln. It might seem odd to say that Stagecoach is not fully appreciated, all but the most purblind of critics must perceive that it is one of of the greatest Westerns, and perhaps even one of the hundred greatest films of all time. However, what is NOT fully appreciated is that these three films work together as a kind of trilogy-a triptych, in fact. Ford is creating a sort of mythic history of America on screen. Drums Along the Mohawk is the Revolutionary War. Young Mr.Lincoln is pre-Civil War America.Finally, Stagecoach is Post Civil War America. What the three films have in common is that they are an extended meditation on the American Adam and his "errand into the Wilderness". What are the Psychic and social costs of American manifest destiny, as America strives to build a new human city in the wilderness?Lincoln symbolizes Americas journey, as he seeks to reconcile the civilizational inmpulse (law), with the freedom of the wilderness.Young Mr.Lincoln is not history, ( It is full of historical "howlers'-as both Ford and Trotti were well aware), but myth. This is Lincoln, the symbol of justice and mercy, Lincoln, the man of the wilderness, striving to found a civilization within himself, and to become the "remarkable lawgiver' of young America. Young Mr. Lincoln is not history-like James Agee's long forgotten teleplay about Lincoln, and like Sandburgs biography, it is an epic poem...a very beautiful epic poem. 1939 is universally accepted as the greatest year in Hollywood history, with more classic films released than in any other, and John Ford directed three of the best, "Stagecoach", "Drums Along the Mohawk", and this beautiful homage to frontier days and a young backwoods lawyer destined to eventually save the Union, "Young Mr. Lincoln".

With the world plunging into a war that America dreaded, but knew it would be drawn into, Abraham Lincoln was much on people's minds, in 1939, as someone who had faced the same dilemma in his own life, and had triumphed. On Broadway, Robert E. Sherwood's award-winning "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", with Raymond Massey's physically dead-on portrayal, was playing to packed houses (it would be filmed in 1940). Carl Sandburg's continuation of his epic biography, "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years", was published, and quickly became a best seller. President Roosevelt frequently referred to Lincoln in speeches, and the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C., became the most popular landmark in town (a fact that Frank Capra made good use of, in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").

All this was not lost on Darryl F. Zanuck, at 20th Century Fox; as soon as he read Lamar Trotti's screenplay of Lincoln's early days as a lawyer, he designated it a 'prestige' production, and assigned John Ford to direct, and Henry Fonda, to star.

Fonda did NOT want to play Lincoln; he felt he couldn't do justice to the 'Great Emancipator', and feared a bad performance would damage his career. Even a filmed make-up test, in which he was stunned by how much he would resemble Lincoln, wouldn't change his mind. According to Fonda, John Ford, whom he'd never worked with, cussed him out royally, at their first meeting, and explained he wasn't portraying the Lincoln of Legend, but a young "jackanape" country lawyer facing his first murder trial. Humbled, Fonda took the role. (John Ford offered a different scenario of the events, but the outcome was the same!) Obviously, they found a chemistry together that worked, as nearly all of their pairings would produce 'classics'.

Unlike the introverted, melancholia-racked Lincoln of "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", Ford's vision was that of a shy but likable young attorney, who made friends easily, and misses the mother he lost, too young (resulting in a bond with a pioneer mother that becomes a vital part of the story). Injustice riles him, and he speaks 'common sense' to quell violence, interlaced with doses of humor. Both productions play on Lincoln's (undocumented) relationship with Ann Rutledge; in Ford's version, the pair are truly in love, and committed to each other. After her death, Lincoln would frequently visit her grave, to share his life with her 'spirit' (a theme Ford would continue in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon").

A murder trial is the centerpiece of the film, and shows the prodigious talents of the star and director. Fonda deftly portrays Lincoln's inexperience, yet earnest belief in justice tempered with mercy, and Ford emphasizes the gulf between the big-city 'intellectuals' (represented by pompous D.A. Donald Meek, and his slick 'advisor', Stephen Douglas, played by a young Milburn Stone), and the informal, rule-bending country sense of Lincoln. With Ford 'regular' Ward Bond as a key witness, the trial is both unconventional, and riveting.

With the film closing as Lincoln strides away into the stormy distance, and his destiny (dissolving into a view of the statue at the Lincoln Memorial), audiences could take comfort in the film's message that if a cause is just, good would ultimately triumph.

"Young Mr. Lincoln" is a truly remarkable film, from an amazing year! Young Mr. Lincoln marks the first film of the director/star collaboration of John Ford and Henry Fonda. I recall years ago Fonda telling that as a young actor he was understandably nervous about playing Abraham Lincoln and scared he wouldn't live up to the challenge.

John Ford before the shooting starts put him at ease by saying he wasn't going to be playing the Great Emancipator, but just a jack-leg prairie lawyer. That being settled Fonda headed a cast that John Ford directed into a classic film.

This is not a biographical film of Lincoln. That had come before in the sound era with Walter Huston and a year after Young Mr. Lincoln, Raymond Massey did the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Robert Sherwood Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Massey still remains the definitive Lincoln.

But as Ford said, Fonda wasn't playing the Great Emancipator just a small town lawyer in Illinois. The film encompasses about 10 years of Lincoln's early life. We see him clerking in a general store, getting some law books from an immigrant pioneer family whose path he would cross again later in the story. And his romance with Ann Rutledge with her early death leaving Lincoln a most melancholy being.

Fast forward about 10 years and Lincoln is now a practicing attorney beginning to get some notice. He's served a couple of terms in the legislature, but he's back in private practice not really sure if politics is for him.

This is where the bulk of the action takes place. The two sons of that family he'd gotten the law books from way back when are accused of murder. He offers to defend them. And not an ordinary murder but one of a deputy sheriff.

The trial itself is fiction, but the gambit used in the defense of Richard Cromwell and Eddie Quillan who played the two sons is based on a real case Lincoln defended. I'll say no more.

Other than the performances, the great strength of Young Mr. Lincoln is the way John Ford captures the mood and atmosphere and setting of a small Illinois prairie town in a Fourth of July celebration. It's almost like you're watching a newsreel. And it was the mood of the country itself, young, vibrant and growing.

Fans of John Ford films will recognize two musical themes here that were repeated in later films. During the romantic interlude at the beginning with Fonda and Pauline Moore who played Ann Rutledge the music in the background is the same theme used in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for Vera Miles. And at a dance, the tune Lovely Susan Brown that Fonda and Marjorie Weaver who plays Mary Todd is the same one Fonda danced with Cathy Downs to, in My Darling Clementine at the dance for the raising of a church in Tombstone.

Lincoln will forever be a favorite subject of biographers and dramatists because of two reasons, I believe. The first is he's the living embodiment of our own American mythology about people rising from the very bottom to the pinnacle of power through their own efforts. In fact Young Mr. Lincoln very graphically shows the background Lincoln came from. And secondly the fact that he was our president during the greatest crisis in American history and that he made a singularly good and moral decision to free slaves during the Civil War, albeit for some necessary political reasons. His assassination assured his place in history.

Besides Fonda and others I've mentioned special praise should also go to Fred Kohler, Jr. and Ward Bond, the two town louts, Kohler being the murder victim and Bond the chief accuser. Also Donald Meek as the prosecuting attorney and Alice Brady in what turned out to be her last film as the pioneer mother of Cromwell and Quillan. And a very nice performance by Spencer Charters who specialized in rustic characters as the judge.

For a film that captures the drama and romance of the time it's set in, you can't do better than Young Mr. Lincoln. This film was not only one of John Ford's own personal favorites but also numbered directors Sergei M. Eisenstein and Bertrand Tavernier among its high-profile admirers. Ironically, I've just caught up with it myself via Criterion's recent 2-Disc Set after missing out on a couple of original language screenings of it on Italian TV many years ago and again a few times on TV while in Hollywood!

The film marked Ford's first of nine collaborations with Henry Fonda and is also a quintessential example of Ford's folksy Americana vein. A beautifully made and pictorially quite poetic piece of work, the courtroom sequences (and eventual revelation) in its second half still pack quite a wallop, apart from giving stalwart character actor Donald Meek a memorably meaty role as the prosecuting attorney.

Fonda is, of course, perfectly cast as a bashful, inexperienced but rigorous and humanistic lawyer who was destined to become President; Fonda would go on to portray other fictitious politicians on film - most notably in Franklin J. Schaffner's THE BEST MAN (1964) and Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE (1964) - and it's surprising now to learn that he was reluctant at the time about accepting the role of Lincoln since, in his view, that was "like playing God"!

It is interesting to note here that Ford had previously tackled Abraham Lincoln (tangentially) in THE PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND (1936), a superb but perhaps little-known gem which has, luckily, just been released as a Special Edition DVD by the UK's veritable Criterion stand-in, Eureka's "Masters Of Cinema" label. Besides, I also have two more Abraham Lincoln films in my DVD collection which I've yet to watch and, incidentally, both were directed by D. W. Griffith - THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) and ABRAHAM LINCOLN (1930) - and, had I not just received a bunch of films I've never watched before just now, I would have gladly given them a spin based on my highly-satisfying viewing experience with YOUNG MR. LINCOLN. According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in "the worst way." Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.

The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.

The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt. Henry Fonda brilliantly captures what we have long believed Abraham Lincoln was like. It is a fooler. Through Fonda's performance we are led to believe (on the surface) that Abraham Lincoln was a country bumpkin. But, through his confrontation with the lynch mob and especially during the court proceedings, you can see that beneath the exterior posturings is a brilliant man who has a very good command of what is going on around him and how to influence the people around him.

In this movie Henry Fonda shows that he has a very good grasp of how to present humor. It is an aspect of him that has been lost over the years. When he is telling stories and jokes he has the timing down perfect. There is a sequence in the trial that had me laughing quite hard. He shows this gift again in The Lady Eve in 1940.

The ending by John Ford is absolutely brilliant with Henry Fonda going to the top of a hill and in the distance a tremendous storm symbolic of the Civil War. He goes forward into history. The movie is fiction but the insight into Lincoln is tremendous. Definitely worth seeing again. The early career of Abe Lincoln is beautifully presented by Ford. Not that anyone alive has seen footage of the real Lincoln, but Fonda, wearing a fake nose, is uncanny as Lincoln, with the voice, delivery, walk, and other mannerisms - exactly as one would imagine Lincoln to have been. Ford, in the first of three consecutive films he made with Fonda, is at the top of his form, perfectly evoking early 19th century America. The story focuses on a pair accused of murder that Lincoln defends and the courtroom scenes are quite well done. The supporting cast includes many of Ford's regulars. This was Alice Brady's last film, as she died months after its release. This is an evocative and idealized portrait of the early life of Lincoln(born 1809 Hodgensville-Kentucky- and died in Washington 1865). Ford's excellent movie takes Abraham Lincoln(Fonda) from his youth. He studied laws, common law and began practice as lawyer in 1837.This Hollywood biography follows Lincoln from his log-cabin days, initial relationship to Mary Todd(Weaver), following the couple from their first ball,and his departure for congress candidate. But focuses mainly on a brothers(Richard Cromwell,Eddie Quillan) accused for murder, the posterior trial with amusing court debate scenes and the protection for their mum(Alice Brady). The Lincoln-Fonda as defender advocate and Donald Meek-prosecutor are nothing short of brilliant.

Excellent performance from Henry Fonda as idealistic,traveller Springfield solicitor , he was to star regularly for Ford from this movie, as ¨Grapes of wrath,My darling Clementine, and Fort Apache¨. Besides sterling acting by Alice Brady as grieved mother, she was a great actress from the silent cinema, but this one results to be her last movie because she early died from cancer.The Lincoln's deeds developing make for skilfully appealing entertaining.His portrayal shows a nostalgic longing for things past and old values and describes his goodness,uprightness and willful. Lincoln, like John Ford, was a straightforward man who never varied the ideals of his youth.This American masterpiece is correct on both counts, as splendid biography and as magnificent drama.

Another biographies about Abraham Lincoln are the following: 1) ¨Abraham Lincoln¨(1930) by D.W.Griffith with Walter Huston, Una Merkel, talking from his birth until his assassination; 2) ¨Abe Lincoln in Illinois¨(1940)by John Cromwell with Raymond Massey, Ruth Gordon, concerning similar events to Ford's film through his career as lawyer 3)TV version titled ¨Gore Vidal's Lincoln¨ with Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore as Mary Todd. The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout. Young Mr.Lincoln is a poetic,beautiful film that captures the myth of one of the most revered figures in American history. Henry Fonda had the difficult task of portraying a mythical figure and at the same time make him human enough for people to care about. It is perhaps the actors best performance.Watch how he singlehandedly stops a lynching-mob.Alice Brady is fantastic in the role of a simple farmer woman.Most of the last part of the film plays out in a courtroom,and there lies the only negative thing I can say about this movie.Most of the characters from judge to spectators are given so many folksy humorously lines that distracts from the serious trial that is on hand.But I'm quite used to this because the humor is a Ford trademark. Supporting parts by Ward Bond and Donald Meek are very good. The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with "Young Mr. Lincoln:" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.

This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.

There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.

The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.

John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.

It's a nice watch, but not a classic. In the same tune as his Americana Drums Along the Mohawk, John Ford captures American history in a way that is fictional yet very believable. Henry Fonda made three consecutive films in this era with Ford and all three are about a certain time and place with emphasis on the setting and the cultural surroundings. In Mohawk, pioneer America is in full bloom with Americans fending for themselves against Indians and other forces. Here, Ford shows us 19th century America; a time when invention and creativity were beginning to blossom and this nation truly was becoming great. Amongst it all was a tall, lanky, young lawyer from Illinois named Abe Lincoln and this film fictionalizes his life as a lawyer, foreshadowing the greatness he would later accomplish.

Fonda is superb in this movie, capturing the essence of what is considered to be the persona of Lincoln, although no one knows exactly what he was like then. The sets and supporting cast also work well together and give a unique balance in Ford's picturesque of the American dream and its many forms. This is not a film to be taken literally but rather symbolically, showing that Lincoln was indeed warming up for the events in his life that were to creates his legacy. We even get some scenes between him and a young Mary Todd; and it is hard to see how they did end up together but that is not the point. I believe this is simply a tribute to the greatness of Lincoln, widely regarded as the greatest American president. His quiet and straightforward demeanor was rare then and would be today. Indeed, our government surely needs more men like him. A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.

The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.

In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.

The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.

The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in "To Kill a Mockingbird", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film. It's remarkable that for 'Young Mr. Lincoln's' supporting players Ford cast lesser known, other-than-star actors. This not only heightens his film's focus on the central character of Lincoln, but it also affords the audience a refreshing insight into Lincoln as a man of his place and time, a man embroiled, as each one of us inexorably is, in the issues and sentiments of his time and seeking his way to resolving them. It's not so much through Fonda's Lincoln's words and actions but in the faces, the reactions of the supporting players that Ford tells the story of the formation of the young Lincoln's worldview, sense of place in society and polity, and of how the people responded to Mr. Lincoln's words and deeds and placed their trust in this man whom they deemed to have earned their respect and heeding.

Give this a try: instead of focusing on Henry Fonda, next time you view 'Young Mr. Lincoln' shift your focus to the supporting characters - you will, I expect, be handsomely rewarded with a more profound appreciation of both Lincoln and Ford. I like to suspect that Ford's storytelling through the supporting characters' reactions to Fonda's Lincoln may have appealed to David Lean when he directed Omar Sharif in 'Doctor Zhivago', in which it's the supporting characters' reactions to Zhivago that actually tell about Zhivago. My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson.

We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.

It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics).

Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.

Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos. Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, "I'll just call you Jackass then"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.

The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.

I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head. OK, first a correction to the tag posted on this movie's main page. Abe Lincoln did not walk with his sister in the movie, nor did he stop at his sister's grave. The individual in question is Ann Rutledge who was a very close friend to Lincoln in his New Salem days. Some say that Ann was, in fact, Lincoln's girlfriend, but there is no evidence to support it.

Now, there are fabrications and fictionalizations in this film. Hollywood has always taken dramatic license with anything under the sun, and "Young Mr. Lincoln" is no exception. However, the courtroom case that is in the film is based on a real event: the accusation of murder against William "Duff" Armstrong, and even though it's largely fictionalized in this film with lots of name changes, it will still have viewers riveted to the screen. This is Hollywood's Golden Age, with drama at it's finest, and Henry Fonda gives possibly the best Lincoln played by anyone. Plotwise this is a rather silly little whodunnit masquerading as a period drama/biopic.

However the only reason I wanted to see it in the first place was because I was curious about what the great Henry Fonda was really like at his peak. I wasn't disappointed - he produces a truly warm and charismatic performance.

In addition I can honestly say that I was never really bored at any stage during the film, so a strong ***1/2 Out of ***** Undoubtedly one of the great John Ford's masterpieces, Young Mr. Lincoln went practically unnoticed at the time of its initial release, no wonder because the year was 1939 when many of the greatest movies of the whole cinema history had been released, including the most mythical Western in the history of the genre, John Ford's milestone Stagecoach and many others, such as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which took the Oscar in the only category Young Mr. Lincoln was nominated for, which is Original Screenplay.

It continued to be the most underrated Ford's film for many years ahead destined to gradually fade away in the shadow of other John Ford's masterpieces, but by the end of the 1950s American and European film critics and historians took a hold of a note written by legendary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein about the Young Mr. Lincoln where he praised it and acknowledged that if he would only have had an opportunity to direct any American film ever made till then, it would be definitely John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. Impressed by such an undoubted preference from Eisenstein, critics began to see the film again but only with a bit different eyes and film's reputation has been increasing ever since.

It was far not for the first time the life of one of the most legendary American presidents was brought to the screen. Right in the beginning of the 1930s Griffith did it in his Abraham Lincoln and the same year as Ford's film, MGM released John Cromwell's one called Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Curiously enough both of them were based on a very successful Broadway Stage Play released in 1938 and written by Robert Sherwood.

As far as John Ford's films are concerned, we can easily find many references to the life and deeds and even death of mythical Lincoln's figure in several of director's works, such as 1924 The Iron Horse or 1936 The Prisoner of the Shark Island, the second one, just as Young Mr. Lincoln, utilizes as the main musical theme the favourite Lincoln's song - Dixie.

The screenplay based on a previously mentioned Stage Play and Lincoln's biographies was written by Lamar Trotti in collaboration with John Ford himself, which was quite a rare thing for Ford to do but final result was simply superb - a script combining elements of the Play with several historical facts as well as myths and legends about the beginning of Abraham Lincoln's life and law practice culminating in a hilarious but mostly heartbreaking trial scene, which is the film's highest point and main laugh and tears generator, where Lincoln defends the two young brothers accused of a murder and have to devise a manner to help their mother too when she is brought before the court as a witness and where the prosecuting attorney (played by Donald Meek) demands her to indicate which one of her sons actually committed the murder obviously obliging her to the making of an impossible choice of condemning to death one and letting live the other.

Overall it's a very touching, heart-warming and even funny film with simply magnificent performance from Henry Fonda in his supreme characterization of Abraham Lincoln and with overwhelming richness of other characters no matter how little or how big they are incarnated from the wonderful and intelligent screenplay and conducted by the ability of John Ford's genius at one of its best deliveries ever. A definite must see for everyone. 10/10 This 1939 film from director John Ford and writer Lamar Trotti tells a fictional tale of young lawyer Abraham Lincoln, his trials (literally) and his tribulations. It's a sentimental film, reasonably well made but hardly breathtaking. The casting of Henry Fonda as Lincoln seems a mistake, for while the actor had the right doleful qualities for the part, even with several inches of makeup and a false nose he's way too handsome for Honest Abe, who was famously homely. It's a good try from Fonda, who's nothing if not sincere, but his miscasting throws the entire film off. The supporting cast is excellent, though, and includes Alice Brady, Ward Bond and Donald Meek. But Ford is too reverential in his treatment of Lincoln, who is presented as just shy of a saint, and in the final scene the movie goes way over the top. This is an amazing film, both for the incredibly energy evoked from the frenetic flamenco dancing, and from the unique way that the filmmakers interweave the story of the stage production with the lives of the characters preparing for it. Spellbinding is the only word I can use to describe the experience. This is not 'Bizet's Carmen' by any usual standard. This is not a usual film by any standard. Every nuanced glance, every stomp of the foot, every piece of the music is intertwined so captivatingly that you can't take your eyes off the screen. You don't need to love opera or flamenco(I don't)to be captured, enraptured, enthralled by this film. Subtle and direct; loud and still; One of, if not the best, movies of it's kind, because there are so few like it. Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing. In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps? The movie within the movie - a concept done many times in the history of cinema. It is accomplished here as well as in any.

If you love Carmen, you'll love this version.

If you love flamenco, you'll love this version.

The plot of the classic opera is played out in the actual rehearsal of the opera by a flamenco troupe. The music is authentic. The direction wonderful.

If you like dancing, you'll love this version.

There is tragedy. There is passion. There is intrigue.

There is...

Carmen. While rehearing Carmen of Bizet, the middle-aged choreographer Antonio (Antonio Gades) brings the sexy Carmen (Laura del Sol) to perform the lead role. Antonio falls in love for Carmen, who is an independent and seductive woman incapable to accept a possessive love. When Carmen has an affair with another dancer, Antonio is consumed by his jealousy like D. José in the original opera, entwining fiction with reality.

"Carmen" is another great movie of Carlos Saura's trilogy dedicated to the Flamenco dance. The dramatic love story is developed with the lives of the artists entwined with the characters they are rehearsing, and many times is not absolutely clear whether what is happening is reality (with the dancers) or fiction (of the play). Paco de Lucia is another attraction of this original version of the famous Bizet's opera, which is based on the novel of Prosper Mérimée. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Carmen" Passionate, dramatic, riveting as Flamenco itself, the film is simply amazing. It is set on the immortal Bizet's music. The original music is written and performed by one of the greatest classical guitarists, leading proponent of the Modern Flamenco style, Paco de Lucia who plays a musician with the same name. Legendary Flamenco dancer and choreographer Antonio Gades co/wrote the script and choreographed this fabulous version of the celebrated Georges Bizet/Prosper Mérimée novella/opera. He plays a main character Antonio, the famous dancer/choreographer who works on retelling the story of Carmen in the Flamenco style that combines dances with singing and rhythmic hand clapping and has a highly charged level of dynamics that appeals enormously to the viewers.

Brilliant and graceful Cristina Hoyos whose technical excellence matches the elegant artistry of her dancing shines in the supporting role. Hoyos had been the first dancer in Gades' company for twenty years (1968-1988) and she was the protagonist of three films that Carlos Saura made of Gades' three great shows: "Bodas de Sangre" (1978), "Carmen" (1983) and "El Amor Brujo" (1985). Gorgeous Laura del Sol is a young dancer named Carmen in whom Antony sees from the first sight another Carmen, who was immortalized by two Frenchmen, the writer Prosper Mérimée in his most famous novella written in 1846 that had inspired George Bizet's world famous Opéra-Comique version from 1875.

As in the opera and in the novella, Carmen in Saura's film is desirable and deadly, the ultimate femme fatale who has to be free above anything else. She could not tolerate the possessive love of any man and would prefer death to submission. There some 50 movie adaptations of the story and the opera to the screen, and as different as they are, they all have in common the only possible tragic end. Saura/Gades' film is unique as the most sensual of all and truly Spanish. I fell in love with it from the first time I saw it over twenty years ago and it is as special and beautiful today as it was back then. Highly recommended. I first saw this movie when it was released in the U.S. in 1984. I have seen it many, many times since. What strikes me about the film is the incorporation of the art of the rehearsal into the lives of the characters and visa versa. Throughout the movie the two intertwine and at times one is never too sure if one is watching the lives of the characters or a scene from a rehearsal. This continues up to the climax of the film. All these years later my friends and I still love to debate whether or not "Carmen" is really stabbed at the end. From the reactions of the other characters, to the stylized murder, it is open to debate. The passion of the dance, the quality of the acting, the love of art, and the brilliance of the performances all combine to create a superb movie that, once again, blends and twists the line between life and art. This is one of the best films we watched in my high school Spanish class. If you are a fan of the opera, this film will strongly entertain you. Of course, the dancing is wonderful. Watching these amazing dancers moving to the music of Bizet is well worth checking out. I've seen this film at least 4 times since '84 and it's still great every time I see it. It's a very compelling version of the opera Carmen, with amazing Flamenco dancing, bare bones sets, and, of course, wonderful music.

This telling of Carmen is a story within a story, with each paralleling the other, until the doubly tragic ending. Obviously a low budget Spanish production, the film contains dancing by some of Spain's premier Flamenco dancers. The combination of the soaring opera music and the sound of the dancers boots on the wooden stage, makes the telling of the story even more powerful.

It's independent movie making at it's best and probably my all time favorite foreign film. Personally, I think that the film was done very professionally, I loved the choreography and the acting. The plot is also gripping and mysterious. The film itself is very emotional, and what I liked about it most is that it makes you think afterwards. Antonio Gades has absolutely lived his role to the end, and I must say that it's one of my favourite pictures and Saura is a wonderful director. Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling. Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released? Eddie Izzard is a one-in-a-million comic genius. He goes from squirrels to WWII to Stonehenge to religion to Englebert Humperdink and it's absolutely hilarious and it all makes sense! Get a copy of this now, you won't regret it! I give this an 11 out of 10. So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how "Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'" 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it. I love Eddie Izzard. I think this is awesome, and the other television specials should be looked at as well. He has a good book "Dress To Kill" out to buy as well, which I think people should read. I loved that this program won an Emmy, and anyone who likes history will probably get a laugh from Eddie. Enjoy :) I had no idea that Mr. Izzard was so damn funny, It really boggles the mind that he is not more well known! His command over the crowd and his timing is perfect.The monologue about Star Wars will kill ya too! If only all the stand up performers had his wit... I find myself comparing all stand-up acts to this one performance now. Even older recorded performances I once thought were funny just don't seem as funny after seeing Eddie Izzard in this award-winning look at history, language disparities, and Englebert Humperdink... This has to be the funniest stand up comedy I have ever seen. Eddie Izzard is a genius, he picks in Brits, Americans and everyone in between. His style is completely natural and completely hilarious. I doubt that anyone could sit through this and not laugh their a** off. Watch, enjoy, it's funny. witty. funny. intelligent. awesome. i was flipping channels late one night years ago. came across this and a wildfire started. i was staying up late every night and taping it for everyone i know. a few. like 3 people out of the almost 100 people i made watch this didn't think it was as awesome as i did. the others were laughing out loud so hard they were crying and thanking me at the same time. please do yourself a favor. run don't walk. watch this and enjoy. intelligence and humor. it's a win-win situation. i wish i could have afternoon tea with him and meet the truly rare comedian that we as a society need more of....sanechaos. In my opinion, this is the best stand-up show I have ever seen. I became an instant Eddie fan after seeing Dress to Kill, but I must say I think this is his best work. I would say, though, if you ever get the chance to definitely go see him live. It is worth it!

Most of the time after seeing a stand-up routine a couple times, the jokes start to get old. But I have to say, I've seen this show SO many times that I literally have the entire thing memorized (which yes, I realize is kinda sad) but every joke still makes me laugh. This is truly a feel good show.

Dress to Kill will never get old for me. I own it and watch it anytime I need a good laugh. Stumbling upon this HBO special late one night, I was absolutely taken by this attractive British "executive transvestite." I have never laughed so hard over European History or any of the other completely worthwhile point Eddie Izzard made. I laughed so much that I woke up my mother sleeping at the other end of the house... I'd heard of Eddie Izzard, but had never seen him in action. I knew he was a transvestite, and when I saw he was on HBO one night last summer, I put it on, not knowing how my husband would react. Well, he blew us away. He's better than Robin Williams ever was. He has total control of the audience; when he does the 'Englebert is dead - no he's not', routine, the audience doesn't know what to think by the end. God as James Mason is also an inspired touch, and his version of the Python Spanish Inquisition as carried out by the Church of England - 'Cake or Death?' is priceless. My jaws were aching from laughter by the end of the show. We scoured the TV listings for months after that to be able to see him again, and were lucky enough to tape him the next time he came on. If you get the chance to see this show, cancel everything and tape it, you won't be disappointed. This video rocked! Eddie is one of the funniest comics I have ever seen. Not only does he have class, he makes some of the funniest observations on history and culture that I have ever seen. Eddie is the most original and most intelligent comic I've seen in a VERY long time. Tell all those other stand-ups to get off the stage and let this "executive" reign! This is right up at the top of my list of the most hysterically funny shows I've ever seen. I laughed so hard, I'm sure I missed half the jokes. This showcases Izzard as the brilliantly gifted comedian he is. What I particularly like is that he seems never to be "dumbing down" the material for his audience. His timing is impeccable and the routine is tied together as a performance piece rather than just a series of gags. Thumbs way up. This is another gem of a stand up show from Eddie Izzard . You cannot fail to laugh at the wide range of topics he talks about. He even takes the piss out of his American audiance at times and most of them didnt even realise it! A must see for anybody who likes comedians. 9 out of 10. Hilarious hardly begins to describe this one of a kind genuine tour-de-Star-Wars-force (Luke: how strong? Vader: the strength of a small pony), in which, being the master he is, he doesn't even break a sweat, ingeniously sparing himself mascara leakage.. -and that's with almost 2 hours of whirling his way thru history, its birthplace, Europe, and more.

From Heimlich's middle-of-the-night, "I've invented a maneuver!" to the British Empire's "..do you have a flag..?" and ancient deadbeat gods, "Jeff! The God of Biscuits!" and many more, this is fish-flop-on-the-floor-to-jumpstart-your-lungs funny.

And I confess to having passed on this video dozens of times over the years, seeing as a British transvestite standup, vogueing on a chair, is one longshot of a rental after all, especially one going back 10 years now. And yet, the material is not only timeless but almost oracular, turning present day into nothing more than an amplified, funnier/sadder version of where we were at a decade ago, although come to think about it, that may just be a coincidence. This video was my first exposure to Eddie Izzard. We had several friends over one night and for some reason or another had channel-surfed to HBO during the course of the evening. Someone by the name of "Eddie Izzard" was on.I tried not to laugh too loudly at the first few jokes. I didn't want to be held "responsible" for the rest of the group's enjoyment of something that was obviously killing me. After holding in my laughs for more than was healthful, I let go--as did the others of us(we were not stoned, by the way, nor talking of insurance and pensions...). We were asphyxiated after that. The story lines, the plot, the bizarre yet ingenious connections throughout the sketches are nothing short of brilliance. I have since been addicted to every Eddie-Izzard-piece-of-comedy I can get my hands on. His work is sheer genius. His comedy appears effortless. He seems more like that hysterically funny friend hanging out at your house and rambling on about this or that...It's convulsively funny. He gives you the impression that the joke is between you .. and himself, the only true aficionados of humor, after all. If you are disappointed in this video, you have no sense of the penultimate in humor--or humour, as they say in the UK. Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way. A bit of Trivia b/c I can't figure out how to submit Trivia: In the backdrop of this performance, one of the images is

George Serat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" painting (seen best in chapter 18), this painting is the subject of a Sonheim musical Sunday in the Park with George.

A bit of Trivia b/c I can't figure out how to submit Trivia: In the backdrop of this performance, one of the images is

George Serat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" painting (seen best in chapter 18), this painting is the subject of a Sonheim musical Sunday in the Park with George. I wish I could laugh again as much as when I saw this show for the first time. I have not done so ever since.

The strange thing is, I find myself laughing almost as hard after watching the show again, and again.

Eddie Izzard is cultivated, is poignant, is a man of the world. He is deft talking about politics and yet feels no need to "engage" in political discussion. He is above that. I would contrast him to George Carlin, who uses his comedy to try and convince people about his ideas, and does not seem to enjoy the fact that he is trying to entertain.

Funniest guy on Earth What more could anyone want? He's a history lesson, foreign language tutor, NRA representative and ambassador to Burundi dressed in a nice silk frock and heels. I laughed so hard I left a puddle. His woes about puberty, transvestism, public school, and done in several languages made the absolute finest stand-up routine I have ever seen. I think about it now, years later when I see cake (tea and cake or death) and hear something translated into French (the mouse is under the table, the cat is on the chair and the monkey is on the branch. I like his versions of what Jerry Dorsey could have been named before he settled on Englebert Humperdinck. I really hope to see a lot more from this wonderful guy. He has a lot to teach us, and a wonderful way of telling it. Thanks for your time. Right, then, he's absolutely brilliant. But you must be intelligent and quick to understand his humor. He covers (attacks?) all sorts of topics, such as the first moon landing, Easter/Christmas, transvestitism, movies, and Herr Doktor Heimlich.

For those of you are averse to swearing, this isn't for you. While some of us punctuate with commas and periods, he uses the f-word. Also, if you can't laugh at yourself, never watch this; you will feel the fool.

Incidentally, I've watched his other stuff and even saw him perform live, and this is by far his best work. He simply shines.

What might go so far as to say he is Glorious. One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the "Cake or Death" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the "Hitler/Pol Pot" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in. This is an excellent stand-up DVD! Eddie Izzard is the funniest person I have seen in years. His routine is hilarious and makes for great conversation with others who have seen it. I HIGHLY recommend this one. The part about the history of Europe is a bit slow, but the ending jokes in French are quite good, because you don't have to speak French to get it (although if you do, it is still hilarious). Also, the parts about being a transvestite are quite good. The first scene (about San Francisco) is not great, but funny the first time. Skip over those if you can. It's almost not worth watching. However, this really is a funny, funny stand-up show that everyone should see. "I was dead at the time!" Eddie Izzard is nothing short of a comedic genius, and this is Eddie at his very best. His material is extremely witty and hilarious, and his delivery is some of the best ever witnessed on stage. Instead of insulting the audience's intelligence, he relies on it to draw humor from his wardrobe preferences, Hitler, the moon landing, and the British. With so many memorable laughs, one can't help but repeat some of his lines. Forever more, "Do you have a flag?" should be considered one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a standup routine. Every fan of top notch standup comedy needs to see "Dress to Kill". By far the best British standup comedian I've ever witnessed, Eddie Izzard has struggled for success off of the live stage. However, his lack of commercial success in film should not be indicative of how extremely talented he genuinely is. "Dress to Kill" is a treasure, one that luckily has found its way to home video, and can and should be enjoyed again and again. This is definatley one of the best stand-up shows evre. EVER. Eddie is so off the wall that I've been watching this damn show for nearly five years now, and it still rocks every single time. Just everything from his big broad physical comedy down to the little off the top of the head side remarks, it's a masterpeice. You need look no further than this line "The word herb. You say erb, and we say herb, cuz ther's a f###ing h in it". Brilliant. I managed to tape this off my satellite, but I would love to get an original release in a format we can use here in the States. Eddie truly is Glorious in this performance from San Francisco. I don't remember laughing so hard at a stand up routine. My wife and I both enjoyed this tape and his work on Glorious I just wish I could buy a copy and help support Eddie financially through my purchase. We need more of his shows available. Eddie Izzard is genius with his non-stop humor. I could listen all day. His unique approach to life is quite logical. His understanding of discovery (such as the Heimlich Maneuver) is creative. Eddie Izzard captures the heart of what we think. I don't know when I laughed so hard at anyone's off-beat mind. I was first introduced to "Eddie" by friends from "across-the-pond" who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!

Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and "Do you have a Flag?" Izzard was both hysterical and insightful in his humor. He definitely represents his own little niche in the comedic world.

It's a pity more Americans won't see this stand-up routine due to its PAL-only availability. Until I saw this special on HBO, I had never heard of Eddie Izzard. I sure am glad that I have now! He is one of the funniest comedians I have ever seen! Rarely has a comedian immersed himself so completely in his craft then Eddie. I could not stop laughing for the entire show. If you like to laugh you HAVE to see this special! i watched this tape, immediately rewound it, watched it again and laughed twice as hard. I strongly recommend this tape for those who are not hateful of, but uncomfortable around transvestites. It shows you that transvestitism is a feature, rather than the entirety of one's being. The comedy is not single issue. This man is brilliant. All comics should aspire to his level of candor, intelligence and talent. This movie grabbed me with the incredible opening sequence which tricked me into a complete reversal of perspective, so I was hooked by the time the title came on. The theme of this movie is that everyone is acting, trying to re-invent themselves, but not in a tricky way like Identity or the Usual Suspects, but in the way we all try to make whatever banal life we find ourselves in a little more interesting. The scenes in the chicken warehouses are spectacular. At one point Jorgen (who owns the chicken farm) attends a seminar in laughing, where he's the worst student. His discomfort at this lets you see the depth of his yearning to change himself. The movie made me wonder about the hidden mysteries that lie behind the surface of the most commonplace people I see every day. There's not a lot of plot here. Guessing the old man's secret is pretty easy, but the fascination lies in trying to guess what all the other characters will do when they figure it out. This movie appealed to me in the same way that Sideways did, although the characters couldn't be more dissimilar. Well, for starters, this actually was THE most elegant Clausen film to this date.

The man's always got a sense for characters with a slice of humor to them, but I think that he in this movie adds a dimension unparrallel to anything he's made earlier. His work has - in very black n' white words - been accepted by the broad but not that critical audience, and we've always appreciated his sense of humor and his ability to mix it with human problems and a distinct way of letting the audience know what he needs to say.

In "Villa Paranoia, however, for the first time, he surprises with an unseen wisdom and a respect for the minorities. Not only the ethnic but also the normal people you tend to forget. Set in Jutland - in 'the country' - it deals with the everlasting issue of lack of love, but in a close and at times brutal way that keeps you looking and keeps you focused. And on top of that, he himself manages to play a b******d! A true b*****d, who wants the right thing but has no clue how to get there, and people therefore suffer. Bitterly.

I'd have to say it's one of the best movies I've seen this year and I'm greatly anticipating his next. A typical Clausen film, but then again not typical. Clausen writes, directs and play one of the leading roles. This is really a great film about normal people living normal lives trying to make the best of it. The 4 primary actors were fantastic.

Fritz Helmut was convincing. You believe that he really is sick.

Sonja Richter plays a nurse that really is an actor, but it turns out that she is the best nurse to take care of the old man.

Everybody has problems and those who nobody believes in ends up being happy. But nothing good comes easy, they have to fight to win their life and love. ROUEN PRIZES AND THE TRIUMPH OF "VILLA PARANOIA" The favorite film of the general public, actually more important than the jury prize, was Erik Clausen's brilliant bittersweet dramatic comedy, "Villa Paranoia", which was also selected by the European Youth Jury indicative of its appeal to cinephiles of all ages. The following day director-actor Clausen traveled to the remote Town of MAMERS, Pays de Loire, for a provincial festival of new European cinema, where "Villa Paranoia" picked up three more prizes -- Best film, Professional Jury; Best Film, Audience prize; and Best film of another youth jury composed of "lycéens", French high school students. Five prizes in a single weekend -- not a bad scoop for a film from a small country with unknown actors. In addition, "Villa" was awarded the Grand Prix, the MAVERICK SPIRIT AWARD, at San Jose, California, just a week ago, by distinguished British actor Sir Ben Kingsley ("Ghandi"), making for a grand total of six prizes in a single week. If Lars van Trier has put Denmark on the offbeat-oddball Dogma Cinematic map in recent years, there is now a good chance that Veteran Maverick Erik Clausen (62) and his capable crew of actors will soon show the world that Denmark has more to offer than dogmatic drivel, which is to say, a mass audience pleaser for young and old alike. Moreover, the female lead of his film, Sonja Richter, has such a magical screen presence that, with a little more exposure, she stands a good chance of becoming the next international Scandinavian Diva. For the record, "Villa Paranoia" is a fiction film, written, directed and acted in by Mr. Clausen, and employing certain motifs from Moliere's "The Imaginary Invalid". Anna (Richter), an ambitious young actress, has lost a deeply coveted role in the Moliere play and, reduced to making an utterly stupid TV chicken commercial, is on the verge of suicide. However, Jorgen (Clausen) who runs a massive chicken farm sponsoring the spot, offers her a job with room and board taking care of his cantankerous, senile, wheel-chair ridden father, Walentin, who has not spoken a word since his wife Stella committed suicide years before. Anna is the only one who eventually finds a way of communicating with the hostile silent old grouch -- and moreover, discovers that he has been faking deafness and immobility all these years -- a living "Malade Imaginaire". This will lead to her playing the greatest role of her own life in order to uncover the dark secret which led to Walentin's total withdrawal from life and reality. Villa "Paradise-Paranoia", true to the Moliere tradition from which it is partially derived, is a heartwarming, multi-layered, serial-comic psycho-drama that literally has something for everybody and only needs proper placement to attain the kind of general international outreach it richly deserves. Alex Deleon, Paris / 21 MARCH, 2005 Being from Canada, I cannot say whether this film is original in the context of Danish cinema - unfortunately, we, here, do not get to see many Danish films in a year! I also cannot comment on Clausen's acting in the context of his other roles - I personally found him quite believable - a touching monstrosity of a man, this Jorgen! As for the actor who played Kenneth - why would his participation in a TV show rule him out as an actor - aren't we over such elitist attitudes? International viewers unaware of his Big Brother participation will find him a fair actor.

In spite of the movie's faults (the writing could have been subtler in some instances), I do subscribe to what one could call the 'message' of the film - namely art's essential role in everyday life, art as healing force. Art, as Nietzsche said, sanctifies the lie ('Kunst heiligt die Luege') - it is a holy lie: the wedding scene is fabulous in this sense - a theatrical, not religious, wedding, celebrating love and life as play... The lovely Danish actress Sonja Richter steals this film from under the noses of everyone, no small feat considering the terrific performances surrounding her.

Richter plays Anna, an out-of-work, independent-minded, somewhat neurotic (and perhaps suicidal) actress who lands a desperation job looking after a wheelchair-bound, muted, aged father named Walentin (the great Danish actor Frits Helmuth, who died at 77 shortly after this film was made).

SPOILER ALERT

Walentin refuses to respond to anyone --until he confronts the gifted Anna, whose whimsical and mischievous manner brings the poor old battered devil back from a self-imposed death sentence.

Writer/director/actor Eric Clausen has made a strong film about the difficulty a ponderous businessman son (Jorgen, played by Clausen) has loving a father who has never accepted him. The film sags toward the end, but Clausen has some important things to say about euthanasia, the nature and value of loving and caring, and how one person, the irrepressible Anna, can alter the course of a human life. Highly recommended. Sonja Richter's performance is alone worth the price of admission. This movie has been made by one of the most absurd humorists in Canada, Yves P. Pelletier. I was shocked for a second that he made a ROMANTIC comedy, but knowing he was a heavy cinephile, was seen in every local festival and in the local cinematheque, I had a positive feeling about this movie.

Hell, I was right. Right off the bat, the scenario (written by Pelletier himself) is a bit twisted and hard to follow, but, in Pelletier's fashion it's a one-of-a-kind 90 minutes jack-in-the-box.

Loosely inspired and mostly transformed allusion to Dangerous Liaisons (by Laclos) "Les Aimants" consists of a twisted game of writing notes on the fridge. Throughout the movie you'll get the occasion to find out who's who and who's writing to who on that goddam fridge....which pops up in an interesting love affair.

Great storyline, great photography, great quotations of other movies. Should we ask more for a first movie? And I absolutely adore Isabelle Blais!!! She was so cute in this movie, and far different from her role in "Quebec-Montreal" where she was more like a man-eater. I think she should have been nominated for a Jutra. I mean, Syvlie Moreau was good, but Isabelle was far superior, IMO. Pelletier has done fine work for his first time out, and I noticed he snuck in a couple of his buddies from Rock et Belles Oreilles, Guy A. LePage & Andre Ducharme. It was fun to see them in this, I didn't know they were going to appear.

I don't think I've seen a romantic comedy from Quebec that I didn't like, and this one is as good as any I've had the pleasure to see. And if you're in the states and wondering how you can get a copy of the DVD, www.archambault.ca delivered it to me in less than a week. This movie is light, funny, and beautifully filmed. The lightning is absolutely superb, and the colours convincingly remind Vermeer paintings.

This is sentimental comedy at its best, way above US and French standards, and arguably better than English ones too.

Every character is touching, and interpretation is close to perfection. Isabelle Blais is splendid, Sylvie Moreau is better than in the Catherine series, Stéphane Gagnon is charming, Emmanuel Bilodeau is great in that weird role of his, and Geneviève Laroche is the perfect best friend!

I could go on for hours before finding any negative comment on this movie, so give it a chance, and add your own review. After you've seen this small likable and comical film, you will for sure feel better. Cheer to Yves B. Pelletier to have given birth to this small magnificent movie moment, that according to me, will be recognized as a marking movie of year 2004 for the Quebec. The actors Isabelle Blais, Emmanuel Bilodeau, Sylvie Moreau and Stéphane Gagnon all deliver a touching performance. I would compare the feeling that this wonderful story gives you to the ones that Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain have given me. So if you've like the Jean-Pierre Jeunet magnificent film, I would say that you should also like the first movie from Yves B. Pelletier, Les Aimants Esther Kahn is a young Jewish woman living in an overcrowded, Jewish Ghetto in 19th century England. She is surrounded by looming, oppressive, dreary, featureless, worn brick architecture, narrow sidewalks and streets, blacked out windows, and hordes of black-and-brown jacketed crowds.

She lives in a tiny apartment with her large family whom operate a clothes shop within the apartment. As child, she worked, had no privacy, wore colourless clothing, shared a bed, and remained silent to avert the mockery of her mother and siblings who ridiculed her for mimicking them out of boredom.

As a young woman, her life remains the same - she has no privacy, lives in a state of mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and inertia, exudes a blank, featureless expression, is clothed in plain, unremarkable clothing, and is continuously oppressed and dwarfed by the grey, mundane, massively imposing buildings, and narrow streets, and narrow hallways, and narrow doorways, and her loud-mouthed mother and siblings, and the prosaic, banal lifestyle of her family.

Her only form of mental escape is the Yiddish theatre. Sitting in the balcony, front row, leaning over the rail, there is a vast space between her mind and the stage, a space that enables her to breathe, think, feel, and yearn.

Yet despite the freedom of thought the open stage provides for Esther, her face and body remain torpidly somnolent, impassive, dispassionate.

The plain and common looking Summer Phoenix brilliantly conveys Esther's emotionless demeanour - Summer/Esther does not convey any desire to want anything or anticipate anything.

After an unusual explosive confrontation with her mother, Esther finally decides to break free from the bleak life she is trapped in.

She is eventually cast in minor parts in a few stage plays, and meets Nathan Quellen, portrayed by quintessential British actor Ian Holm, who commences to teach Esther the technical skill of acting.

From this point forward, Esther begins a grueling dual journey of learning how to act and learning how to feel.

She begins experiencing emotions she never felt before, and she begins gaining the experience she needs to fully comprehend and wield the technical aspects of acting.

Nathan walks her across the stage through the physical and emotional steps of surprise, hesitancy, anger, disgust, self-loathing, etc; she then begins walking through those emotions in her personal life.

There are three truths, Nathan tells her - the truth of how a character reacts, the truth of how the actor would react, and the truth that a character and actor are not the same person.

These technical steps and three truths slowly deconstruct Esther's defenses and lead her to two edifying experiences in the denouement of the film which mark the beginning of her freedom of thought, movement, and emotion.

Esther Kahn is a technically challenging film to watch because of its odd and narrow camera shots, lackluster photo direction which conveys the realistic lackluster setting of the Ghetto, and Summer Phoenix's characterless and insipid and unappealing portrayal which brilliantly conveys Kahn's mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and lackluster nature.

A must-see film for people who want to learn the technical craft of acting, and for people who appreciate minimalistic films and character studies. This is an extremely dense, somber, and complicated film that unravels quite slowly, revealing excruciating detail, like the attention paid in a novel, and watching this film "IS" like watching a novel unfold. While I didn't care for the narrator, as I felt he was out of balance with the rest of the performances, this film features some of the best ensemble acting I have ever seen, and the lead, Summer Phoenix, is fabulous. Her innocence and naivete some might find implausible, sort of a cross between Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland. I can buy that critique, but she's still fabulous, partially because she's unlike anything I've ever seen before.

This film is unbelievably beautiful, filmed by Eric Gautier, and part of what is so unique about this film is how it doesn't ever show what you'd expect. It's always surprising, and despite it's length, the film never reveals more than it needs to. At 163 minutes, it's extremely concise, to a fault, I'd say, which is one of the wonders of this film. It's filled with brief moments which are simply stunning, some of the best you're likely to see all year, and all these moments add up in the end to an extraordinary film experience. The family moments are unique, Ian Holm is brilliant, and what this film has to say about the theater hasn't been seen in films since Cassavetes' "Opening Night," or perhaps Chaplin's "Limelight." But, believe it or not, this film is much "less" conventional. I never knew where this film was going, and now, having seen it, it still has multiple possibilities. This is a powerful, incredibly provocative film. I have seen the movie at the Viennale a few years ago, where the audiences liked it. I liked it as well, Summer Phoenix performance still haunts me, that´s why I decided to write a comment.

The story unfolds in London around 1900, where a jewish girl decides to become an actress. She tries desperately to become one, but it isn´t before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being.

There were certain reviews, were her performance was smashed, they accused her of being dull, not able to bring life to her character. I think that´s her strong point, that´s exactly what Esther Kahn should be and Phoenix makes a brave decision to make her Esther a rather boring girl. So her transformation at the end is more powerful than it could have been otherwise.

The cinematography is great, the images of London around the turn of the century are very dark and sad, you can see how unpleasant life was back then.

The only fault in my opinion is the length of the movie, you loose touch with the characters, after all it´s only about finding the actor in yourself, so there are no dramatic actions in the film. It´s Phoenix credit that we don´t loose the interest in the movie after the first hour. A masterpiece.

Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.

The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.

Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.

The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing. Summer Phoenix did a great performance where you really feel what she's not able to feel and you just cannot understand what she has on her mind. Besides, she portrays a jewish girl who behaves really confronting the status quo of that century. This unassuming, fairly routine series deserves credit in the TV history books for two reasons: it was the first to win an Emmy award for best syndicated series, and it was the very first show to come from the fabled studios of Republic Pictures, known for its low-budget but high-powered shoot-em-ups in the 30's and 40's.

Republic was one of the first Hollywood studios to make a leap into the small screen, which was still in its infancy. But the studios' tenure as producer of TV pulp fiction would be brief. After this show, they would later dabble with the other format that they were known for, the adventure serial, with "Commando Cody", as well as other series, but like this one, they didn't last longer than 39 episodes. Also, Republic was in its last stages as a studio; it would finish out its tenure in Hollywood as rental stages for several Revue Studio series such as "Soldiers of Fortune", the original "Dragnet", and "Kit Carson", before finally shutting its doors in 1959.

Anyway, "Stories of the Century" wasn't that bad of an oater, its calling card was tales based on authentic figures in Western history, mainly outlaws like Black Bart, Johnny Ringo, John Wesley Hardin, The Dalton Bros. and the like. The late Jim Davis, best known for his role as the Ewing patriarch in "Dallas", put in an amiable job in the lead role as Matt Clark, a fictional railroad detective who has to contend with said outlaws, played by veteran and soon-to-be veteran character actors.

Two amazing facts here: The incidents would take place in different time lines, some in the 1880's, some at the turn of the century, but Clark never ages. And also, Matt has the good luck to saddle himself with two lovely female detectives as sidekicks, Frankie Adams, played by Mary Castle, and her replacement, Margaret "Jonesy" Jones, by Kristine Miller. The Lone Ranger could only wish for lady companionship. You can only spend such time with Tonto for so long.

"Stories Of The Century" is a Studio City TV production from Republic Pictures Corp. 39 episodes were made during 1954, all 39 of which are in public domain and on DVD. "Stories of the Century" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as "Jonesy" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.

A very good early adult western. This rather poorly named western series won an Emmy for best syndicated program and is certainly an interesting series. It was produced by Republic, the studio which did action better than anyone, and they put their best into it. Each episode was built around a real historical figure of the old west. A railroad detective named Matt Clark, similar to the later Elliot Ness with the gangsters of the 1920's and 30's, managed to become involved with almost every notorious western outlaw between the middle of the 1800's and WWI. The series' best asset was Jim Davis. Tall, rugged, ruggedly good looking, in prime shape, with an authentic western accent, and great riding skills which made him utterly convincing in the action scenes, Davis was every inch the western hero. He was teamed with two lovely and active co-stars, Mary Castle as "Frankie" during the first season, and Kristine Miller as "Jonesy" during the second. Each worked well with Davis.

What separated this show from its contemporaries and much of what came later was the professionalism invested in the action scenes. Ace action directer William Witney directed 30 episodes. Franklin Adreon the rest. Both filmed the action with polish. Republic's vast store of stock footage from serials and B's was utilized to give scope. The level of individual episodes rose or fell with the quality of the guest stars brought in to the play the outlaws. Among the really good ones were Marie Windsor as Belle Starr, Lee Van Cleef as Jesse James, Fess Parker as Grat Dalton, Jean Parker as Cattle Kate, and Joe Sawyer and Slim Pickins as Butch Cassady and "The Smilin' Kid". The cream of the western up and comers, Pickins, Parker, Denver Pyle, James Best, and Richard Jaeckel, honed their craft. B veterans with decades of experience under their belts, Harry Woods, Glenn Strange, Kenneth MacDonald, Earle Hodgkins, Steve Darrell, and Chief Yowlachie, provided the old leather feel of vintage westerns.

The weakness of the concept was that there are only so many famous western outlaws. By the second season the famous figures were becoming a mite obscure for all by the most dedicated history buff. Nevertheless, a few of the later shows were a match for any, due to the guest stars. Henry Brandon portrayed rustler Nate Champion, and former Republic star Don Barry was outstanding as small-time outlaw Milt Sharp.

Western fans or history buffs will want to see this. This is an interesting series that takes real life people (Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin, etc)...and dramatizes part of their real story with a continuing series character taking part in that story. Railroad Detective "Matt Clark" -- takes a role in tracking down famous outlaws from the Old West in stories that are at least partly based on the true accounts. In that sense, it's almost an anthology series, and as someone else pointed out, this odd structure poses some timeline conflicts with the real events, but it's a fun series with plenty of action to satisfy a western-hungry 1950's audience -- and it still holds up pretty well 55 years later. Clark cuts a powerful figure in his western gear as he goes up against some of history's baddest baddies. And his girl-sidekick Frankie is quite a dish. If you're a western fan, be sure to check it out if you have a chance. As I am always looking for something new and unique, I watched this film online. I thought that it would be just another "B" rate movie but I was amazed at the acting by the two main characters. All of the actors in this film were very capable and well directed. The plot was wonderful and unique as well with an excellent moral to the story.

This movie is definitely not for someone looking for a sex romp, "Dumb and Dumber" or blood and guts. This is a wonderfully poignant film showing some grim realities of life coupled with the kindness of the human heart and just enough frivolity to keep it interesting.

I would prefer this movie to many "A" rate movies I have seen even a great number with high box office earnings.

I highly recommend this movie. 2 WORDS: Academy Award. Nuff said. This film had everything in it. Comedy to make me laugh, Drama to make me cry and one of the greatest dance scenes to rival Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo. The acting was tip top of any independant film. Jeremy Earl was in top form long since seen since his stint on the Joan Cusack Show. His lines were executed with dynamite precision and snappy wit last seen in a very young Jimmy Walker. I thought I saw the next emergance of a young Denzel Washington when the line "My bus!! It's.... Gone" That was the true turning point of the movie. My Grandmother loved it sooo much that i bought her the DVD and recommended it to her friends. It will bring tears to your eyes and warmth to your heart as you see the white Tony Donato and African American Nathan Davis bond. Through thick( being held up at knife point) and thin( Nathan giving Tony tips on women) the new dynamic duo has arrived and are out to conquer Hollywood. In Holland a gay writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe) gives a lecture. He stays overnight with a beautiful woman Christine (Renee Soutendijk) and has sex with her (by imagining she's a boy). He plans to leave the next day, but gets a look at a picture of Christine's hunky boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and decides to stay to have a try at him. Then things get strange.

A big X-rated art house hit in the US in 1983. Why was it X rated? Let's see...there's strangulation, full frontal male and female nudity, castration, mutilation, simulated sex, a scene in a church with a cross that will shock most people, a gay sex scene in a crypt...and it's all a comedy!!!!! Paul Verhoeven made this after "Spetters". "Spetters" was attacked by the critics for it's extreme sexual sequences and denounced as trash. So, Verhoeven filled this film with very obvious symbolism thinking the critics would think it was art and praise it. He was right! Critics loved the film not realizing that Verhoeven was playing a big joke on them. Still, it's a great film.

It's beautifully shot by Jan de Bont (now a director himself) and there's so much symbolism and obvious "hidden" layers in the dialogue that you're never bored. All the acting is great--Krabbe plays a thoroughly despicable character but (somehow) has you rooting for him; Soutendijk is just stunning to look at and plays her part to perfection--the little smile she gives when Gerard agrees to stay with her is chilling; Hoffman is extremely handsome with a great body--he deserves credit for doing the church sequence and going at with Krabbe in the crypt.

This is not for people easily offended or the weak of heart, but if you like extreme movies that playfully challenge you (like me) this is for you! A 10 all the way. Paul Verhoeven's De Vierde Man (The Fourth Man) is one of the most compelling thrillers I have ever seen. It really was a pleasant surprise. The story concerns bi-sexual writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe), as he is lured into a relationship with beautiful hairdresser Christine (Renée Soutendijk), but in the twisted mind of Gerard there could be more to the story. Verhoeven and cinematographer Jan De Bont create a beautiful and thick atmosphere full of surreal and sickening sexual imagery, this really pulls you into the story, you don't want to watch, but you can't turn yourself away. This is by far Verhoeven's best film (maybe second only to Robocop). True The Fourth Man isn't for everyone, some of the sex scenes are quite gratuitous (just ignore them, but trust me, if you watch for at least ten minutes you'll be hooked. This is one of those films that you need to know how it ends, a true whodunit it in the Hitchcock tradition, compelling, controversial and thrilling. I even like the spider metaphor.

8/10 Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended! Paul Verhoeven's predecessor to his breakout hit 'Basic Instinct' is a stylish and shocking neo-noir thriller. Verhoeven has become known for making somewhat sleazy trash films, both in his native Holland and in America and this film is one of the reasons why. The Fourth Man follows the strange story of Gerard Reve (played by Jeroen Krabbé); a gay, alcoholic and slightly mad writer who goes to Vlissingen to give a talk on the stories he writes. While there, he meets the seductive Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk) who takes him back to her house where he discovers a handsome picture of one of her lovers and proclaims that he will meet him, even if it kills him.

Paul Verhoeven twists the truth many times in this film, and that ensures that you never quite know where you are with it. Many of the occurrences in The Fourth Man could be what they appear to be, but they could easily be interpreted as something else entirely and this keeps the audience on the edge of their seats for the duration, and also makes the film work as this narrative is what it thrives on. Paul Verhoeven is not a filmmaker that feels he has to restrain himself, and that is one of things I like best about him. This film features a very shocking scene that made me feel ill for hours afterwards (and that doesn't happen very often!). I wont spoil it because it needs the surprise element to work...but you'll see what I mean when you see the film (make sure you get the uncut version!). There is also a number of other macabre scenes that are less shocking than the one I've mentioned, but are lovely nonetheless; a man gets eaten by lions, another one has a pipe sent through his skull, a boat is smashed in half...lovely.

The acting in The Fourth Man isn't anything to write home about, but it's solid throughout. Jeroen Krabbé holds the audience's attention and looks the part as the drunken writer. It is Renée Soutendijk that impresses the most, though, as the femme fatale at the centre of the tale. Her performance is what Sharon Stone would imitate nine years later with Basic Instinct, but the original fatale did it best. Paul Verhoeven's direction is solid throughout as he directs our attention through numerous points of view, all of which help to create the mystery of the story. Verhoeven has gone on to make some rubbish, but he obviously has talent and it's a shame that he doesn't put it to better use. Of all the Verhoeven films I've seen, this is the best and although it might be difficult to come across; trust me, it's worth the effort. "De vierde man" (The Fourth Man, 1984) is considered one of the best European pycho thrillers of the eighties. This last work of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven in his home country before he moved to Hollywood to become a big star with movies like "Total Recall", "Basic Instinct" and "Starship Troopers" is about a psychopathic and disillusioned author (Jeroen Krabbe) going to the seaside for recovering. There he meets a mysterious femme fatale (Renee Soultendieck) and starts a fatal love affair with her. He becomes addicted to her with heart and soul and finds out that her three previous husbands all died with mysterious circumstances...

"De vierde man" is much influenced by the old Hollywood film noire and the psycho thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells. It takes much time to create a dark and gripping atmosphere, and a few moments of extreme graphic violence have the right impact to push the story straight forward. The suspense is sometimes nearly unbearable and sometimes reminds of the works of Italian cult director Dario Argento.

The cast is also outstanding, especially Krabbe's performance as mentally disturbed writer that opened the doors for his international film career ("The Living Daylights", "The Fugitive"). If you get the occasion to watch this brilliant psycho thriller on TV, video or DVD, don't miss it! The morbid Catholic writer Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) that is homosexual, alcoholic and has frequent visions of death is invited to give a lecture in the literature club of Vlissingen. While in the railway station in Amsterdam, he feels a non-corresponded attraction to a handsome man that embarks in another train. Gerard is introduced to the treasurer of the club and beautician Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk), who is a wealthy widow that owns the beauty shop Sphinx, and they have one night stand. On the next morning, Gerard sees the picture of Christine's boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and he recognizes him as the man he saw in the train station. He suggests her to bring Herman to her house to spend a couple of days together, but with the secret intention of seducing the man. Christine travels to Köln to bring her boyfriend and Gerard stays alone in her house. He drinks whiskey and snoops her safe, finding three film reels with names of men; he decides to watch the footages and discover that Christine had married the three guys and all of them died in tragic accidents. Later Gerard believes Christine is a witch and question whether Herman or him will be her doomed fourth husband.

The ambiguous "The Vierde Man" is another magnificent feature of Paul Verhoeven in his Dutch phase. The story is supported by an excellent screenplay that uses Catholic symbols to build the tension associated to smart dialogs; magnificent performance of Jeroen Krabbé in the role of a disturbed alcoholic writer; and stunning cinematography. The inconclusive resolution is open to interpretation like in many European movies that explore the common sense and intelligence of the viewers. There are mediocre directors that use front nudity of men to promote their films; however, Paul Verhoeven uses the nudity of Gerard Reve as part of the plot and never aggressive or seeking out sensationalism. Last but not the least; the androgynous beauty of the sexy Renée Soutendijk perfectly fits to her role of a woman that attracts a gay writer. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O 4o Homem" ("The 4th Man") When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of "Basic Instinct" and some maybe of "Showgirls". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: "De Vierde Man". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. "De Vierde Man" makes even "Basic Instinct" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least... I don't know if I'd consider it a masterpiece of not, but it's damn near close; it's extremely well made, artistic, suspenseful, intricately plotted, thematically challenging and full of bleak foreshadowing and sexual-religious imagery. There's also some great camera-work from Jan de Bont, an atmospheric score from Loek Dikker and outstanding acting from Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk, the latter giving one of the most sneaky, subtle 'femme fatale' performance I've ever seen. Like many other European movies, this movie has an unashamed, non-judgmental attitude toward sex, nudity and the complexities of sexuality and has zero reservations about mixing it all up with religious and/or surrealistic (some would say blasphemous) images. In other words, if you can't bear the thought of seeing a lust-driven homosexual envisioning the object of his carnal desire as Jesus crucified on the cross before the two of them go at it inside a cemetery crypt then this might not be the movie for you. What surprised me more is how this bizarre movie managed to completely dodge being a pretentious mess. It mixes the abstract/surreal/parallel fantasy-reality scenes and somehow makes it all work. Like any good mystery, you can see the pieces slowly falling into place as the movie progresses. There is NOT an out-of-left-field resolution here. The movie has direction, there's no needless filler and once it concludes, you begin to understand the purpose of what may have confused you earlier. If you like the work of Ken Russell and David Lynch, I can almost guarantee you will love this movie. Hell, if you have no idea who they even are, you still might like it.

I'm not going to spoil the plot by getting too detailed, but the film's opening shot - through a web as a spider catches its prey - sets the stage as Krabbé, as unshaven, smug, bisexual writer Gerard Reve (interestingly, also the name of the writer whose novel this is based on) crosses paths with a wealthy, mysterious, sexy woman named Christine (Soutendijk, melding androgynous stylings with Simone Simon-like innocence/cuteness that's pretty unnerving), who may be a literal 'black widow' responsible for the deaths of her three previous husbands. The two become lovers and move in with one another, but we're led to believe (through Christine's bizarre behavior and the frequent appearances of another woman - played by Geert de Jong - who may or may not actually exist) something terrible is boiling under the surface. When another of Christine's lovers, the young and "beautiful" Herman (Thom Hoffman), shows up at the house, things take an unexpected turn. And that's all you need to know.

THE 4TH MAN was a huge art-house success in much of the world, but didn't make it over to the US until 1984, where it was awarded the Best Foreign Film of the year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The most common video is the Media release, which has been horribly dubbed. Try to avoid that one and head straight for the newer subtitled Anchor Bay DVD release. Since coming to America, Verhoeven's career has had its ups and downs. He has made a few decent films (Flesh & Blood, RoboCop) and some lousy ones (Showgirls). In fact, Verhoeven's big hit Basic Instinct is almost like a less interesting, junior league version of The Fourth Man. Soutendjik also tried her hand at acting in America and since GRAVE SECRETS (1989) and EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991) were the best offers she was getting, she headed right back home to the Netherlands. Viewing DE VIERDE MAN (aka THE FOURTH MAN) is a slightly unsettling and rather fascinating experience. It's a very tight and intense psychological mystery/thriller from Netherlands's Paul Verhoeven. He directed this film just before he got big with his "free-ticket to Hollywood"-movie FLESH + BLOOD. In a lot of user-comments on this site I noticed the mentioning of Alfred Hitchcock. Indeed, this movie might very well be Hitchcockian, but I also noticed touches of early Cronenberg (the visceral), flavors of David Lynch (surreal story-linked visuals) and even Roman Polanski (plot-wise set-up). Funny thing is that the movies by those directors I was thinking of while watching DE VIERDE MAN weren't made until after 1983, the year of release of THE FOURTH MAN. So go figure.

Very much credit indeed must be given to the story of the original novel by Gerard Reve this movie is based on. Gerard Reve is also the fictional name of the main character (a tormented writer, played by Jeroen Krabbé, balancing on the dangerous line of a severe psychosis). Now, has anybody stopped and thought about the fact that the word "rêve" is French for "dream"? And the film does feature a lot of dream-like/nightmarish sequences, often to that extend that you don't always know for sure if Gerard is awake or dreaming himself. Could this be coincidence...? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so. Renée Soutendijk is pretty amazing as the leading lady (in a rather demanding role). She sometimes seems to be guilty of over-acting (in a subtle way). But that aspect was clearly intentional to portray the character she plays, since as this movie progresses, you become unsure about what to actually think of this lady and her intentions. Proves again what an excellent actress she is. I might add that the movie contains also several scenes portraying full frontal male & female nudity, as well as some rather explicit sex-scenes (and you will even notice that some scenes and aspects clearly were the blueprints of scenes later to be shot for Verhoeven's BASIC INSTINCT).

Another aspect this movie has is a lot of symbolism and biblical references/images, which supposedly made the film thoroughly hated by some conservative/catholic movements at the time of its European release. Either way, it makes the movie worthy of a second viewing. Now, someone recently told me he had grave misgivings about DE VIERDE MAN. One of them being that the film supposedly manoeuvers itself into a position where it needs the divine intervention of the Virgin Mary to resolve itself. I myself have big issues with the way Catholicism has been, and still is sometimes, portrayed in many movies in any genre (so not only when it comes to religiously themed horror movies). But surprisingly, I had no misgivings whatsoever when it comes to THE FOURTH MAN. Although the Virgin Mary-aspect in the plot did make me scratch my head at one point, I also had fun with it, in a way. I think the keyword as to why it didn't bother me at all is 'duality'. Because, this movie works on two levels. Although 'divine intervention' might have resolved the plot-line from the protagonist's point of view... on the other hand: the movie implies that all this might have been the delirious ramblings of a raving madman. And that's the fun part: You never know for sure. And then there's the question: Could it be that Gerard Reve was somehow receiving distorted visions of things to come... like receiving omens? At one point in the movie, Gerard even tries to fool Christine into believing he is clairvoyant. The way he is playing Christine in that particular scene is exquisite to behold.

So with its compelling story, convincing acting performances and adequate direction, DE VIERDE MAN is a very much recommended viewing indeed (especially if you enjoy a solid European psychological horror film). But make sure you see the original Dutch version (not the dubbed one). Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.

From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he "lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen."

The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Buñuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.

The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his "lying the truth." The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience. This is the last Dutch language film Paul Verhoeven made before going on to make mainstream Hollywood films "Basic Instinct," "Robocop," and "Total Recall," among others. He sets the stage by opening this story with a black widow spider catching prey in her web before we meet Gerard Reve, an annoying self-centered writer with a morbid imagination. Gerard has been invited to be the guest speaker at a Literary Club meeting in sea-side town an hour or so from Amsterdam. Verhoeven lets us have glimpses of how Gerard's imagination twists reality. Asked if writers are a bit close to insanity he admits when he reads the newspaper "and it says 'boom' I read 'doom,' when it says 'flood' I read 'blood,' when it says 'red' I see 'dead.'" When he tells a story enough times he begins to believe it; "I lie the truth." He accepts an offer to be the overnight guest of the Club treasurer, a beautiful wealthy salon owner. As he gets to know her and learns her husband has died, he begins to imagine she is 'a black widow.' Is this his more of his reality twist or is she a murderess? This is a psychological drama and in recounting which of these old films have stuck in my memory, I figured out is my favorite gender. Looking at his body of work it is seems to be Paul Verhoeven's too, and he is a master in making us question our own understanding of reality. It's a nice change of pace from the usual Hollywood fare. I saw it in 1983 and it is a film that "stuck." This last Dutch speaking film of Verhooven made me laugh good. As a film buff looking for all the small details and cross references etc in any movie I can assure anyone interested in film art that this piece amuses all the senses. I haven't read Gerard Reves book, on which the film is based, but I still believe we get a candid picture of a somewhat self-conceited poet/writer who gets his (in a way - no spoiling here). An anti-hero surrounded by characters that have their ambiguous intentions, as has he. All this in a superbly packaged cinematography, Paul Verhopven manages to turn the otherwise rather cute "gesellich(?)" Dutch locations into a suspenseful film-noir setting, impressive work! Gerard is a writer with a somewhat overactive imagination. He is also homosexual and Catholic prone to Catholic guilt and something of a clairvoyant, or so it seems. On a trip to Flushing he is 'seduced' by Christine. When he discovers that Christine's new boyfriend is the bit of rough trade he's been fancying from afar he decides to stick around. After all, enforced heterosexuality has its compensations. Then he realizes that Christine's previous three husbands have all died violent deaths. Did Christine murder them and is he or the boyfriend, Herman, going to be 'the fourth man'? Verhoeven's overheated, over-egged melodrama is a delicious blend of Hitchcock and David Lynch, full of OTT eroticism and religious imagery and an awful lot of the colour red. A lot of the time it looks and feels like a dream and we can never be sure that what we are seeing is real or a figment of Gerard's imagination. The fun is in figuring it out. Also the fact that Christine is an infinitely more likable character that either the priggish Gerard or the bullish Herman means we are hardly like to root for either of the men over her. In fact, it's fair to say Gerard's comeuppance can't come soon enough. Super performances, too, from Jeroen Krabbe and Renee Soutendijk and easily Verhoeven's best film up to his wonderfully subversive piece of sci-fi "Starship Troopers". In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).

Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.

But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;

Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.

The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.

Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.

I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece. basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in "Basic Instinct".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.

well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit "Basic Instinct" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.

this movie "The Fourth Man" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named "Reve"(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named "Christine", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.

that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!

especially, i like the character "Reve" which is brilliantly played by "Krabbe".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.

i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.

i rate this movie: 10 out of 10. Offbeat, slow-paced, entertaining erotic thriller with many graphic and "blasphemous" scenes that will undoubtedly disturb some viewers. However, it'll be hard even for them not to appreciate the several imaginative sequences this film contains, or to ignore Krabbe's first-rate performance. Verhoeven maintains an intriguing ambivalence throughout the film, playing with the meaning of the hero's visions-omens. Unfortunately, in the last 5 minutes everything turns into a blur, and the unsatisfying ending is certainly not as good as the rest of the movie. (***) When you read the summary of this film, you might come to think that this is something of an odd film and in some ways it is, for the primary character of this film, Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) is haunted by visions and hallucinations. The visions Gerard see are all (more or less) subtle hints to what will happen to him as the story continues and it is great fun for the viewer to try and figure out the symbolism used in the film. Despite the use of symbolism and a couple of hints to the ending of the film, the film maintains a very high level of excitement throughout and does not get boring for one minute. This is mostly due to the great performances of Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk (Christine) and the great direction of the whole by Paul Verhoeven. His directing style is clearly visible and one can say, looking at it from different angles, that 'De Vierde Man' is a typical Verhoeven film. It will not only seem typical for people familiar with his American films because of the nudity and the graphic violent scenes, but it will also seem typical for people familiar with his Dutch films, because of the same things and his talent to tell a great story. When people watch Verhoevens American films, short sighted people might say, he has no talent in telling a good story and only focuses on blood and sex. That is what some people think, whereas I think that he is a very talented director who tries to convey a deeper message in each with each film. Although not a good film, Hollow Man (his last American film) is an example that Verhoeven can do more than science fiction splatter movies and maybe companies should trust him more and offer him more various films to helm. He needs that. Just watch his Dutch films. Not only do they show that he needs a certain amount of freedom, but they also show that he has remarkable talent. 'De Vierde Man' brought him one step closer to Hollywood and is certainly one of his best.

8 out of 10 The first time I saw this film in the theatre at a foreign film festival, I thought it intriguing, fascinating, the sensitive bi-sexual artist. So very European, so very Dutch! I recently rented it for a second viewing and could hardly keep from laughing at that overworked theme of the mad writer with a religious-sexual orientation persecution complex. Get a grip! This guy is a freeloader, living off of society. I suspect that the real reason he is having these fantasy-nightmares about the "spiderwoman" is that his guilt complex is kicking in after year's of ignoring mother's advice about getting into cars (and bed) with strangers! Not only is he making outrageous sums of (probably taxfree) loot for making up stories (lying guilt trip) but he is too cheap to pay for a hair cut, hence he hustles the beauty salon owner. Then he has the nerve to complain about the bill! But I also suspect the world has changed alot since this film was made. On a serious note it was entertaining to see some of Jan de Bont's camera work and one of Paul Verhoeven's earlier films. Hmmm, maybe the world hasn't changed so very much after all? An occasionally surrealistic thriller that will push most people's buttons., the 4th Man is sure to offend anyone with a taste for the politically correct. The story's protagonist is a bisexual alcoholic Catholic writer, Gerard (Krabbe), with a seriously twisted sense of imagination. Verhoeven offers up

Gerard has an example of everything wrong with the modern man. He's shiftless, delusional, unable to control his urges, afraid to commit to

meaningful relationships, and utterly apathetic about life in general. As the character himself states at one point, he is a professional liar, unable to recall the truth.

The movie opens with Gerard dreaming of spiders consuming Christ, and then waking to begin the long march to his own destruction. He chases off

one man (a boyfriend presumably), then chases another at a train station. Later, at a lecture, he meets a woman who seems to want to help him, or

perhaps she has more nefarious plans.. She quickly captures Gerard in her web, enticing him with sex and money, having plenty of both. She's also got

secrets, like three dead husbands. Is she lonely, and genuinely looking for someone to nurture - or is she a deadly black widow, luring Gerard to his

death? Will Garard be the 4th man she kills? The woman is Christine (Soutendijk), and Verhoeven does his best to keep you guessing what she's up to.

This is an interesting movie, with a lot of sex and intrigue. It's similar to Verhoeven'sBasic instinct, but has a lot more depth, and is certainly more shocking. There's a lot of very strong gay content, which may make some viewers squirm. Highly recommended for fans of intelligent

psychological thrillers, or anyone looking for something entirely new. Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors...... Jerome Crabbe has the lead role in this movie. I saw this movie 6 times and I still am not tired of it. This movie is similar to Flesh + Blood in some ways. Gerald Soetman is a great writer. He wrote all of Paul Verhoeven's Dutch films. Paul Verhoeven is one of the greatest directors. I have seen all of his movies all except for Showgirls. My Mom does not like him so much but I disagree. I think all of his films are a ride to watch especially Total Recall and Basic Instinct. Jerry Goldsmith did some of his movies which include Total Recall, Basic Instinct and Hollow Man. I wish Jerry Goldsmith never died. Dutch films are different but still enjoyable. Now my friends, films like "La Bête" (aka "The Beast" or "O Monstro")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: "Orloff Against the Invisible Man" and "Alterated States". For anyone who has only seen Disney Productions beautifully animated version of 'Beauty & The Beast', or even Jean Cocteau's surreal fairy tale vision will be quite taken aback by this 1975 French (but with a director from Poland) version. The plot concerns a French family of fading aristocracy that is marrying into a well to do English family. The major catch is that the bridegroom is carrying an ancient curse on the family. The film also includes many flashback sequences (potentially) explaining this family curse. From the opening credits, to the very end, it's a nearly non stop erotic fun house ride, with some VERY explicit & graphic sexual content (hence the film's X rating in the U.S. in it's initial run,which is now unrated). The film's somewhat contemptuous sentiment at the ruling class will probably remind one of Bunuel's flights into similar territory. If you have a taste for the truly bizarre, and are not offended by "taboo" material, then this film may just scratch that itch for you. Regardless of what personal opinion one may have of Walerian Borowczyk grotesque yet beautiful gem "La bête" of 1975, one has to admit that this bizarre gem is an absolutely unique cinematic experience. Borowczyk erotic fairy tale was banned in several countries for a long time, and it is quite obvious why this controversial gem fell victim to stuporous film censors. "La bête" is a fascinating blend of intense and beautiful fairy-tale-like atmosphere, quite explicit eroticism and genuine weirdness that bravely refuses to take any compromise. The fact that beastiality (of sorts) is one of the film's central themes did certainly not help it with the censors, but it made it highly controversial and therefore known to a wider audience.

Pierre de l'Esperance (Guy Tréjan), the head of a French aristocratic family, has arranged for his somewhat demented son Mathurin (Pierre Benedetti) to marry Lucy Broadhurst (Lisbeth Hummel), the young and beautiful daughter of a wealthy English family. Due to an old curse, Mathurin's uncle (Marcel Dalió) is strictly against the wedding. When Lucy and her mother arrive at the French estate, Lucy immediately gets fascinated with a portrait of the 18th century ancestor Romilda (Sirpa Lane), and with an old book depicting bizarre drawings. The story soon descends into a bizarre sexual fever-dream... Without giving away too much, I can say that fans of exceptional cinema should not consider missing this film. As bizarre as it is, "La bête" is doubtlessly also stunningly beautiful in style, settings and cinematography. The fever-dream-like atmosphere is present within- and out of dream-sequences. The forest estate and the imposing family mansion are magnificent settings, and the beautiful score and incredible cinematography build an overwhelming atmosphere for this grotesque tale. The very explicit sexuality ranges from erotic (elegant female nudity, ravishing actresses) to seriously demented and even somewhat disgusting (close-ups on horses' genitalia while having intercourse,...); in either case it is not likely to be forgotten. The entire cast of "La bête" is fantastic and all involved deliver great performances in eccentric characters (some of which are seriously demented). The film profits from an exceptionally beautiful cast, be it Lisbeth Hummel in the lead, Finnish actress Sirpa Lane (who sadly died of Aids in 1999) as the ancestor in the dream-sequences, or the relatively unknown but particularly ravishing actress Pascale Rivault, who plays the aristocratic daughter who takes ever opportunity to have sex with a black servant in a cupboard.

I am intentionally not giving a full description of the most important parts of the plot as they simply have to be seen to be believed. Some scenes are among the most bizarre ever caught on film, the scenes with the eponymous 'beast' definitely being among them. Certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but very highly recommended to fans of controversial and unusual cinema. A true cult gem! Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them. I saw this film in a London cinema in 1975 and have not seen it since. I found it hilarious. I loved it's originality. It's rare that someone MAKES a movie like this - and it's sad too.

What I mean is, I once read a book called "The Black Hotel" - and as a film-fan, I always "picture" books as films. Kinda "adapt" them, you know? But as I read it, I thought, well, this would make a great movie - but of course it would have to be "adapted" - to the point where it would bear little relationship to the book.

But then I thought, well WHY? Sure, it could never be shown on Sunday afternoon TV, but provided it were shown in cinemas to ADULTS, who knew what it contained, where's the HARM? Dammit, my civil liberties were being crushed here. A director SHOULD be able to make a literal film adaptation of "The Black Hotel".

In an ideal World, censorship of films for adults should not EXIST. But sadly, whilst I accept that with INTELLIGENT adults, such freedom might be harmless, there would always be those who would lack the rationality to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and who might be spurred on to commit foul deeds.

However, it's hard to see how "La Bete" falls into that category.

On it's appearance in England, the British censor dismissed it out of hand. Despite the '69 relaxation on nudity, given the film's theoretical theme of bestiality, had the censor passed ANY of it, he'd have been looking for a new job on Monday.

BUT... in those days, there was an alternative. The G.L.C. This was a local town council with a department who had the power to pass a film just for London, where it was deemed audiences were more "sopisticated" than those who lived out in the sticks.

The film was duly submitted and PASSED. However, it later emerged that the "board" consisted of just four people - three who voted, plus a "chairman". And on the day, one of the voters was off sick. Thus the remaining two voters and the chairman sat down to view "La Bete".

One of said voters thought, like me, that the film was hilarious and hardly likely to encourage foul deeds by ANYONE. The other lacked imagination and simply thought the piece disgusting. And the chairman didn't understand it, so decided to err on the side of FREEDOM.

When the missing voter finally saw the film, they too thought it disgusting, but it was TOO LATE! The film had received its "X-London" certificate and opened to mixed reaction. The G.L.C. film censorship board was disbanded soon after! Thus "La Bete" only opened in London by what could best be termed a FLUKE! But I'm glad it was. It's GREAT! If you haven't seen it, DO so. It's a FANTASY, and as such, it's far less disturbing than most things you see on the news these days... This movie is simply incredible! I had expected something quite different form the film that I actually saw. However, it is very insightful in that it shows the aggressive nature of human sexuality and its linkage with animal behavior. Let me warn those among the readers of this article who are easily offended by content that is all too sexual, for the explicit sexual nature of this film feels like a high-brow sort of pornography. It even features a scene that comes extremely close to rape.

Meanwhile, I strongly suggest seeing this rare work of "sexual art". Every minute of the picture breathes the sexual spirit of the seventies, by the way. One should not forget how times have changed!

Go see it! It´s worth your money and time! Strangely erotic schlock Gothic horror that will be loved by Hammer House of Horror fans the world over. Appears to be an interesting take on "Beauty and the Beast". It is definitely worth a look and surprisingly well acted when taking into consideration the genre and era.

Corsets, castles, rutting horses, rampaging faux fur monsters in the woods, proof that no-one had a Brazilian in the 70's, and more bodily fluids than you can shake a stick at, what more could you possibly want?!

It certainly brightened my Sunday afternoon! this one is out there. Not much to say about it except that it deals with a rarely touched topic in films of beastiality. I can see why this film was banned for so long, the topics dealt within the film are still a little taboo for most of the world will say the eroticism in the film is well deserved and fits in with the mood of the film. It's a good film that is well acted and serves a purpose ...to shock the viewer and cross boundaries that we don't see to often in films. I came across this film on the net that I thought I might check out. I enjoyed the film as it is thought provoking and somewhat erotic at the same time. Something you don't rarely see in films today. I must say, I thought I had seen it all. I am an extremely jaded movie buff. This movie didn't shock me, by any means. I'm way past that point. But it did take me to certain emotional places I didn't know I could go to. I had no idea I could ever find (ick) the idea of beastiality erotic. Never never never. Ever. Ever. But there you go. He did it. I have to give the director credit. He pulled it off.

For the first 40 minutes this movie is a TOTAL bore. We start off with some very explicit footage of two horses having sex. After five minutes of this I started wondering if buying this movie wasn't a mistake. Then an old guy in a wheelchair talks to some other old guy about two people getting married. Then some nervous guy shaves. Then we see (briefly) a hot chick getting it on with a butler (but this is very brief). At this point I was cursing the movie out loud while trying to stay awake. In fact, I fell asleep at about the 40 minute mark and forced myself to finish it the next night.

We finally get the good stuff when a girl (who knows who she is, or who anyone is in this movie) has a dream about a Victorian-era gal being ravaged by a beast-thing in the forest. The scene goes on for quite some time and is really the meat (heh-heh) of the whole deal. It's beautifully shot, superbly edited, and does deliver the goods. They do try to wrap up the plot at the end and it sort of makes sense but sort of doesn't either. Oh well. I would definitely recommend this film. The first 40 minutes made me want to shoot myself (and my TV) but the last 50 minutes totally redeems it. Wow. Uhm...well...wow! I guess I'll start with the plot. A betrothed woman (Lucy) arrives at the family home of her would be husband (Mathurin) in France, where they are awaiting the arrival of the Bishop or Cardinal or someone in the Catholic Church to marry them (to satisfy a will.) While waiting, young Lucy learns about a legend of a Beast who roamed the grounds centuries before. In bed that night, she begins fantasizing about the Beast and his rape-turned-consensual tryst with the former lady of the house. That's where it gets interesting! The plot is really pretty thin (and it seems to drag on for quite a while in the middle of the flick), but the filmmaker rewards (?) those who stick it out with a shocking and hilarious finale.

This movie isn't for everyone. If you're looking for great cinema, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a far-out movie about bestiality (that almost casts a sympathetic glance over the subject) this movie is for you! (If you have a weak stomach, don't be afraid of this one. Outside of some horse-on-horse action at the beginning, the 'deeds' are pretty cartoonish, IMO) If you were born around the time this movie was finished, and had a liberal/open minded household that I had, I'm sure during the early 80's you'd be first introduced to walking in on your parents watching dirty movies or extreme dirty movies. You know, not 100% pornographic but rather an alchemical mixture of actual drama and pornography, or that you'd sneak into their collection and pop in the plastic rectangle representation of such a film in a big dookie machine called a VHS. You had to be very quiet and ninja like but still having minor heart failure when huge pop noises were made when pressing the tablet-like buttons out of fear of being discovered. Whatever the case, such films were sent into the back of your mind, waiting and waiting to be reunited with such visual "art". Needless to say, this movie fits into the aforementioned description to a "T". Many people will comment on the extreme sexual nature of the film but perhaps due to me being desensitized, I am more disturbed by the subtleties. Was the creator speaking to us on deeper levels of human carnality and or what could be considered a true abomination, interracial relations, bed frame masturbation, voyeurism, or could it be desperation for social status to the point of murder, pedophilia/homosexuality, or the repressed sexual nature of social elitist females in 18th century France? Who can say, but despite Mr. Borowcyzk's taste for vivid, raw sexuality being the "norm" for his works, I'd say that indeed this movie does speak to the viewer on a deeper level concerning bestial carnality. Once I have learned this, the story became much more interesting beyond the giddiness of shock value and there fore, it is well worth checking out. I guess this is meant to be a sort of reworking or updating of "Beauty and the Beast", but I can't say I've ever watched a movie that began with several minutes of graphic horse sex. Wow. Anyway it seems that a young woman and her..aunt? Have traveled to this castle in France where the woman is to be married to the son of the castle owner, who is the man who takes care of making sure the horses get their rocks off. It seems that there are legends in that area of a beast that was rather, uh, frisky, I guess you could say, with the ladies, or at least, one in particular. There are all kinds of references tucked away in that regard but every time the soon-to-be-blushing young bride gets her curious little hands on one the groom's father removes it from her sight. Anyway, the young bride-to-be goes upstairs to sleep while the family is waiting for a Cardinal to show up to the wedding (a family member, I guess) and as she dreams she dreams of a beast in the woods that has its way with her. The effects in this leave a little to be desired, and any attempt at eroticism (not that I know much about that) is kind of rendered laughable, especially when certain featured appendages appear about as realistic as a bed post or a baseball bat. This has a rather strange and abrupt, yet twist ending, with not really any clues or much build up to it, but it was kind of fitting and definitely not what I expected. I don't know, this is kind of a tough one to get through but it has its moments and is definitely weird. 7 out of 10. This is a film exploring the female sexuality in a way not so often used. Almost every other film with this kind of sexual scenes always becomes rated X, and so seen as a pornographic movie. Here is a kind of romantic horror story combined with the females "own satisfaction" need.

A very good film! Hayao Miyazaki has no equal when it comes to using hand-drawn animation as a form of storytelling, yet often he is being compared to Walt Disney. That is just so unfair, because it becomes apparent by watching Miyazaki's films that he is the superior artist. He really has a gift of thrilling both grownups and children, and Laputa is indeed one awesome ride.

But where can I begin to describe a movie so magical and breathtaking! Miyazaki's works have never cease to amaze me. Laputa is an adventure of a grand scale and I wonder how a film can be so packed with details and imagination. Ask yourself this question: if you are a kid dreaming of an adventure so grand in scope and so magical, what would it be like? The answer would be to strap yourself in some seat and watch Laputa, because it's truly a childhood fantasy come true. Every minute of the movie is rich and engrossing ... from the train chase to the amazing air-flying sequences... and to the wonderous sight of the floating castle itself. Not to mention the excellent score by Joe Hisaishi! Everything you ever possibly want from an adventure movie is here. I have seen just about all of Miyazaki's films, and they are all beautiful and captivating. But this one rises above the rest. This movie totally impressed me!

I fell in love with Pazu and Sheeta, and their sweet, caring friendship. They were what made the movie for me. Of course, the animation is also superb and the music captures the feelings in the film perfectly. But the characters are the shining point in this movie: they are so well developed and full of personality.

Now, let me clarify: I'm really talking about the Japanese version of the movie (with English subs). While the English dub is good (mostly), it simply pales in comparison to the original language version. The voices are better, the dialogue, everything. So I suggest seeing (and hearing) the movie the way it originally was. This is one of the best animated family films of all time. Moreover, virtually all of the serious rivals for this title came from the same creative mind of Hiyao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli. Specifically, other great films include "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kikki's Delivery Service." Spirited Away is quite good, but a bit too creepy for typical family fare - better for teenagers and adult. The one thing that sets "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" apart from other films by Miyazaki is that it is far more of a tension-filled adventure ride.

Why is this film so good? Because it's a complete package: the animation is very well done, and the story is truly engaging and compelling.

Most Japanese anime is imaginative, but decidedly dark or cynical or violent; and the animation itself is often jerky, stylized, and juvenile. None of these problems plague Castle in the Sky. It has imagination to burn, and the characters are well drawn, if slightly exaggerated versions of realistic people. (None of those trench-coat wearing posers) There is plenty of adventure, but not blood and gore. The animation is smooth, detailed, and cinematic ally composed - not a lot of flat shots. The backgrounds are wonderful.

The voice acting in the dubbed English version is first rate, particularly the two leads, Pazo (James Van der Beek) and Sheeta (Anna Paquin). The sound engineering is great, too. Use your studio sound, if you've got it.

One aspect that I particularly enjoyed is that much of the back story is left unexplained. Laputa was once inhabited, and is now abandoned. Why? We never know. We know as much as we need to know, and then we just have to accept the rest, which is easy to do because the invented world is so fully realized. Indeed, it is fair to say that the world is more fully realized than most of the minor characters, who are for the most part one-dimensional stock characters (e.g., gruff general, silly sidekick, kooky old miner, etc.) Highly recommended for people aged 6 to 60! I first saw this film when I was about 8 years old on TV in the UK (where it was called "Laupta: The Flying Island"). I absolutely loved it, and was heartbroken when it was repeated a while later and I missed it. I was enchanted by the story and characters, but most of all by the haunting and beautiful music. It would have been the original English dubbed version which I saw - sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Streamline Dub" (the dub was actually by Ghibli themselves and only distributed by Streamline) which is sadly unavailable except as part of a ridiculously expensive laser disc box-set.

Unfortunately I feel that the release has been partly spoiled by Disney. The voice acting is OK but the dialogue doesn't have the same raw energy that the "streamline" dub or the original Japanese had, and I think James Van Der Beek sounds too old to play the lead. They have made some pointless alterations, such as changing the main character's name from "Pazu" to "Patzu", and added some dialogue. But worst of all I feel that they have ruined many scenes with intrusive music - the opening scene of the airships for example was originally silent but has been spoiled thanks to Disney's moronic requirement that there be music playing whenever anyone is not speaking, which I find annoying in many Disney films.

This film still blows away most recent animated films, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. The plot is simple yet captivating and the film shows a flair which is sadly missing from most modern mass-market, homogenized animation. This is one of my all time favorite movies, PERIOD. I can't think of another movie that combines so many nice movie qualities like this one does. This flick has it all: Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Good vs. Bad and even some Romance (without even an innocent "peck" on the cheek between the Pazu and Sheeta). Maybe best of all, you don't have to be in Mensa to "get it" and enjoy the movie like you do with some of Miyazaki's other movies (I don't know about you, but I watch movies to take a break from thinking). This is just a flat-out enjoyable movie that everyone will like, so do yourself a favor and go buy it. The only sour note is the American Dubbing. I found Vander-Geek to be just plain annoying. But all is not lost, the original Japanese version is on the two-disc set and it rocks! Who cares if you can't understand spoken Japanese? If you can read at a second-grade level then watch the original Japanese recording with English subtitles. You won't regret it. I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.

Enjoy By now you've probably heard a bit about the new Disney dub of Miyazaki's classic film, Laputa: Castle In The Sky. During late summer of 1998, Disney released "Kiki's Delivery Service" on video which included a preview of the Laputa dub saying it was due out in "1999". It's obviously way past that year now, but the dub has been finally completed. And it's not "Laputa: Castle In The Sky", just "Castle In The Sky" for the dub, since Laputa is not such a nice word in Spanish (even though they use the word Laputa many times throughout the dub). You've also probably heard that world renowned composer, Joe Hisaishi, who scored the movie originally, went back to rescore the excellent music with new arrangements. Laputa came out before My Neighbor Totoro and after Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which began Studio Ghibli and it's long string of hits. And in my opinion, I think it's one of Miyazaki's best films with a powerful lesson tuckered inside this two hour and four minute gem. Laputa: Castle in the Sky is a film for all ages and I urge everyone to see it.

For those unfamiliar with Castle in the Sky's story, it begins right at the start and doesn't stop for the next two hours. The storytelling is so flawless and masterfully crafted, you see Miyazaki's true vision. And believe me, it's one fantastic one. The film begins with Sheeta, a girl with one helluva past as she is being held captive by the government on an airship. Sheeta holds the key to Laputa, the castle in the sky and a long lost civilization. The key to Laputa is a sacred pendant she has which is sought by many, namely the government, the military and the air pirate group, the Dola gang (who Sheeta and Pazu later befriend). Soon, the pirates attack the ship and she escapes during the raid. She falls a few thousand feet, but the fall is soft and thanks to her pendant. As she floats down from the sky, Pazu, an orphan boy who survives by working in the mines, sees Sheeta and catches her. The two become fast friends, but thanks to her pendant, the two get caught up in one huge thrill ride as the Dola gang and government try to capture Sheeta. One action sequence after another, we learn all of the character's motives and identities as we build to the emotional and action packed climax which will surely please all with it's fantastic animation and wonderful dialogue. Plus somewhat twisty surprise. I think this film is simply remarkable and does hold for the two hour and four minute run time. The story is wonderful, as we peak into Hayao Miyazaki's animation which has no limits. The setting of the film is a combo of many time periods. It does seem to take place at the end of the 1800s, but it is some alternante universe which has advanced technology and weapons. Laputa is also surprisingly a funny film. The film has tons of hilarious moments, almost equal to the drama and action the film holds. I think the funniest part is a fight scene where Pazu's boss faces off against a pirate, and soon after a riot breaks out. It's funny as we see the men compare their strength and the music fits right in with it perfectly.

Now let's talk about how the dub rates. An excellent cast give some great performances to bring these characters to life. Teen heartthrob James Van Der Beek plays the hero Pazu, who has a much more mature voice then in the Japanese version, where in the original he sounded more childlike. Either way, I think his voice is a nice fit with Pazu. Anna Paquin, the young Oscar winner from "The Piano", plays Sheeta. This is also a nice performance, but the voice is a bit uneven, she doesn't stay true to one accent. At times she sounds as American as apple pie, but at other times she sounds like someone from New Zealand. The performance I most enjoyed however was of Coris Leachman, who played Mama Dola. Not only is this an excellent performance, but the voice and emotion she gives the character really brings it to life. If there was ever a live action Laputa movie (G-d forbid), she would be the one to play her, you can just imagine her in the role (well, somewhat). Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill is Muska, and this is another top rate Hamill performance. You may be familiar with Hamill from a long line of voice work after he did the original Star Wars movies, but he renders Muska to full evil. His voice sounds like his regular voice and mix of the Joker, who he played for many episodes on the animated Batman series. Rounding out the cast is voice character actor Jim Cummings, who does a great, gruff job as the general and Andy Dick and Mandy Patakin as members of the Dola gang.

Now let me talk about what really makes this dub special, Joe Hisaishi's newly arranged music! For those who have never heard of him, Mr. Hisaishi does the music and like all of Miyazaki's films, the music is very memorable. Each of his scores has it's own personas which fits the particular film perfectly. Now, these new arrangements he has done are more "American like", which I think was the goal of the new recordings. Don't worry, the classic tunes of the Japanese version are still here in great form. The score, to me, sounds to be arranged like this is a Hollywood blockbuster. It has more power, it has more emphasis, it's clearer and deeper. The film's prologue, the first seconds where we are introduced to the airships, has some new music (I am not sure, but I believe when we first saw the ships there was no music at all). But a majority of the music has new backdrops and more background music to enjoy. Things seem very enhanced. In a powerful scene, the music is more stronger then in the original versions. In a calm scene, it's more calmer. Overall, I think many of you will be pleased with the new arrangements an mixes, I highly did myself, and personally think it helps improve the film. I prefer the new score over the old one, and I hope Disney will release or license the music rights to a full blown soundtrack.

Another plus side to the dub is that the story remains faithful, and much of the original Japanese lines are intact. In Kiki, I'm sure a few lines where changed, and this is the same way, lines have been changed. But a majority are close or exactly the original lines and dialogue Miyazaki has written. I was afraid some excellent lines would be butchered, but they were there intact. Some new lines have been added as well which help out. But I am not sure whether to consider this a good thing or a bad thing, Disney DID NOT translate the ending song, it was in Japanese. I was mortified when they did completely new songs for the Kiki dub, but with this version it's the original song... in Japanese. So I guess it's good it's still the original, but bad since a majority of people seeing this dub speak English.

There is a big down side to this dub, and it deals with how the voices match the character's lips. Of course in any dub it won't be perfect, but I think in Kiki and Mononoke the dubbing of lines to match were much better executed (and Disney had a little bit more time with this one...). Some of the time everything matches perfect, some of the time it doesn't completley match, and in a rare case, someone says something and the lips don't move at all (there's a scene where Sheeta chuckles and her mouth doesn't move one bit).

As far as things about the film itself, these are my thoughts. I thought the most amazing part of Laputa was the animation. From the opening sequence to the ending, the animation is so lush and detailed, you just have to watch in awe. You see the true nature of each character, true detail to their face with extreme close ups and action. You have to give a ton of credit for the effort that these animators put into this film. Everything is so well done and beautifully hand drawn, it's like a moving piece of art. And to think, this was done in the mid 1980's. The animation is quite different from Disney, Ghibli has it's own distinctive flare which is very different, but very good. And after all these years, the colors look as vibrant as ever. Laputa also has tons of action sequences, lots of plane dogfights plus a few on ground. These sequences are so well done and so intriguing, it's scary that they are comparable to a big budget action film. And the finale is just something you MUST see. The sound effects are pure and classic and fit explosions, guns firing and everything else well. And like all Miyazaki films, each one focuses on a different theme (i.g. Kiki: Confidence). This one has a great a lesson on greed and power. People don't realize how greed can take over you, and how having too much power isn't good. People are obsessed with power, and are greedy, and the main villian, Muska, greatly shows this.

All in all, Laputa: Castle In The Sky was a great film to begin with, and is now improved for the most part. I am glad a more mainstream audience now have the chance to see this classic animated film in all it's glory. With a great voice cast who put a lot into the film with the excellent redone musical score from Joe Hisaishi, Disney has done a nice job on this dub and is quite worthy. Though I think the voices matched the mouths better in the Kiki and Princess Mononoke Disney dubs, Castle In The Sky is still a great dub and is worth the long delays because now more can expierence a fantastic film. Laputa: castle in the sky is the bomb. The message is as strong as his newer works and more pure, fantastic and flying pirates how could it be any better! The art is totally amazing and the soundtrack, which is reused many times after this, (im not sure if this was the first time i heard it) and evokes in me the most emotional sentimental response of any movie soundtrack. Sheeta, the female lead in this movie is totally awesome and the boy, Pazu is also a great role-model--he lives on his own! The plot is classic Miyazaki. I won't give it away, but the end is really great. I rank this as one of Miyazaki's three best with Nausicaa and Spirited Away. Also you may want to check out Howl's Moving Castle when it comes out (sometime next year i hope) If you like Miyazaki check this one out as it readily available in the USA. Enjoy, Piper A It's always difficult to put a stamp on any film as being 'the best,' whether of all time, a certain genre, or what have you, but I believe a strong argument could be made that in fact, Laputa is the greatest animated film ever made. It is in my mind the masterwork of Hayao Miyazaki, the most talented of Japan's animated directors, and it best captures his strengths as a director, storyteller, and designer, as well as encapsulating all of his favorite underlying themes. The version I'm reviewing is the 2003 American dub (I know, sacrilege for a hard-core anime fan to not watch it in its native language); there is at least one other English language dub out there, I have it on VHS (I have no idea from what source), and that version is the single best dub I have ever encountered of any film. But I thought it better to concentrate on the version people can actually find.

Laputa tells the story of a boy named Pazu (voiced by James Van Der Beek here), who's growing up in a mining town when one day a young girl named Sheeta (Anna Paquin) literally drops from the sky. It seems she is being pursued by a sinister government agent, Colonel Muska (Mark Hamill), who is more interested in the magical crystal that hangs around her neck. To keep things lively, there's also a wickedly funny pirate gang after the crystal, led by the aging but still boisterous Dola (Cloris Leachman). The plot revolves around the crystal's ability to reveal the location of the fabled flying city of Laputa, a potential treasure trove of scientific knowledge and hidden treasure. It's all very much in keeping with a fairy-tale setting, but Miyazaki knows exactly how far to take the story, and the plot is peppered with 'gosh-wow' moments and threaded with his customary morality and warnings about abusing the power of nature.

The design work on Laputa, nearly twenty years later, is still revolutionary. Flying machines of all sorts abound, utterly impossible but so meticulously designed that you instantly accept them without blinking. The world is set somewhere around the start of the twentieth century, with telegraphs and ancient motorcars alongside those wonderful impossible flying machines. But it is the city itself that is sheer brilliance in execution; Laputa is both the Garden of Eden and the Fire of Heaven itself, and in that juxtaposition lies its appeal, its power, and its danger.

Besides being a thoughtfully designed and beautifully rendered film, Laputa is blessed with a wonderful sense of cinematography. From sweeping flying shots to high speed chases on tiny one-man flyers to ships submerging into the clouds as if they were water, Laputa displays a scope that most films – even with the magic of CGI – can only daydream about. Though we only see a small fraction of this world, its simple elegance extends beyond the borders of the frame and we have no trouble believing in it. The film also contains one of my favorite, if not the most exciting, action sequences ever: a guardian robot that fell to Earth is accidentally reactivated and wreaks havoc on the fortress it is kept in, all the while trying to protect Sheeta (who was the one who woke it up). Meanwhile, Pazu and the pirates swoop in on their little flying machines to snatch her, literally, from the jaws of destruction. From the horrific sight of the robot incinerating the countryside to the exhilarating last-second rescue, the entire sequence is a masterpiece of timing and camera angles and knowing exactly how far to take the audience.

It helps that Laputa has an amazing score. Composer Joe Hisaishi captures the wondrous beauty of this world, the dewy innocence, the exciting action, and the creepy otherworldliness of the flying city and its bizarre robot guardians. Though he re-recorded it for this DVD release (which IMO is not an improvement over his original score), adding pieces here and there, the score matches the visuals perfectly, a rare total union of sound and vision.

This isn't a bad dub. I'm inordinately fond of the older English dub, and this one over-explains things just a tad in spots, but I was almost shocked how closely these voices matched those (and those matched the Japanese pretty well). Dola in particular is hard to get right, but Leachman is spot on as the fiery old pirate woman (her sons aren't quite as good as the original). Paquin does a good job as Sheeta, and Mark Hamill, while I knew it was him early, is more than talented enough to do Muska (I liked the other English dub of Muska a little more, but Hamill's good). Much of the film rests on Pazu's shoulders, and Van Der Beek is wonderful. Listening to him made me think this crew must have had access to the other English dub, because VDB matches up very closely with the original Pazu. Although again watching a dub is grounds for excommunication among the otaku faithful, as much as I love this film, I don't think you're sacrificing a great deal simply watching this particular Anglicized version. John Lassiter of Pixar introduces it up front, and my suspicion is that he, like so many others, simply love this film so much that they tried very hard to ensure its high quality.

Miyazaki has had success in America in recent years with Spirited Away and Mononoke (one of his few films I didn't care for), but to me Laputa is still his crowning achievement. Anyone familiar with his later work will almost certainly enjoy this earlier work, and again, this film is a master at the top of his form hitting on every cylinder. I'd pay big money to be able to see this on a large screen; while that will probably never happen, it's good to know that at least this classic has been preserved on DVD. Have you ever wished that you could escape your dull and stressful life at school or work and go on a magical adventure of your own, with one of your closest friends at your side, facing all sorts of dangers and villains, and unraveling the mystery of a lost civilization that's just waiting for someone to discover all its secrets? Even if you're not quite that much of a fantasy-lover, have you ever wished you could simply experience what it's like to be a kid again, and not have a care in the world, for just a couple of hours?

This is exactly what Miyazaki's "Castle in the Sky" is all about. Pazu, a young but very brave and ambitious engineer, lives a rustic life in a mining town until one day, a girl named Sheeta falls down from the sky like an angel and takes him on a journey to a place far beyond the clouds, while all the while they have pirates and military units hot on their trail. Simply put, it is just the incredible adventure that every kid dreams of at one point or another, and I can't help but feel my worries melt away every time I see it.

As it is one of Miyazaki's older works and takes much place in the everyday world, the film is not as visually spectacular or deep in its storyline as Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, or even Princess Mononoke. Still, I find it difficult to say that any of these films are superior over the other, because all three of those films are, at some point or another, mystical to the point of being enigmatic, if not perplexing, especially for the youngest of viewers.

"Castle in the Sky", on the other hand, doesn't try so much to be an allegory of any kind, and it's not a coming-of-age story either; it is instead quite possibly one of the best depictions of the inside of a child's mind I've ever seen. Not only is the artwork beautiful, but the use of perspective from the kids' eyes is just amazing; whether it's the panning up of the "camera" to see the enormous trees or clouds overhead, or the incredible sense of height from looking down at the ground or ocean while hundreds of feet in the air, I just can't help but FEEL like I'm there with Pazu and Sheeta, just a kid in another world, far far away from reality.

Even the kids themselves don't have a complex relationship that suggests a need for hope like Ashitaka/San or Chihiro/Haku; Sheeta is Pazu's angel, having literally fallen into his life from the sky one day, the absolutely perfect person for him right from the very start. As the film progresses, more and more of their true adventurous childhood spirit comes out through their kind words and beautifully realistic facial expressions. Not only are they an adorable reminder of who I used to be, but their endearing friendship never lets up throughout the whole film, only growing stronger all the way to the last frame. For that reason, I've fallen in love with the two of them more than I have with any other Miyazaki couple.

At the same time, "Castle in the Sky" is such an easily accessible film because no matter what kind of casual moviegoer you may be, you'll be sure to find your fix here. Mystery, action, drama, comedy, suspense, sci-fi, romance, even some western...it's all here, just about everything people go to the movies for (except maybe horror). This why I can easily recommend it as a first Miyazaki film; it's perfect for those who have no expectations from having already seen the incredible otherworldliness of some of his more recent works.

Even the ending song of the film, when translated into English, conveys the sense of longing for the discovery of some kind of lost civilization, and some kind of soul-mate, that could not be found in our mundane lives. "The reason I long for the many lights is that you are there in one of them...The earth spins, carrying you, carrying us both who'll surely meet." Miyazaki has always provided poetic lyrics to make ending songs out of Joe Hiasashi's gorgeous scores, but this is the only one I've seen that's both a touching love song and an inspirational dream. I have found myself near tears just listening to it.

"Castle in the Sky" may not be Miyazaki's most developed, spectacular, or meaningful work, but it's absolutely perfect for what it really was meant to be: a true vision of childhood fantasy, and a wonderful escape from reality for any adults who wish they could have the same wonderful sense of imagination they had when they were just carefree little kids. Sit back, relax, and love it for what it is. Hayao Miyazaki name became prominent with Spitied Away, however what is often overlooked are director's first film efforts. Who remembers that Spielberg directed Duel or George Lucas directed THX 1138? I remember seeing fragments of this movie - almost certainly the last 45 minutes in late 80s and what stuck with me was the visual lushness of the design and animation. So when I found a copy in a well known store for £9 I couldn't resist but buy it. The odd thing is that the last 45 minutes of the movie do not tally with my memory of it (memory is funny that way).

Viewing this movie now with all the gained knowledge of artists portfolios is how very like Jean 'Moebius' Giraud some of the artwork is. I can only assume some influence here.

When Pazu catches a falling girl (Sheeta) his adventure really begins - the quest for Laputa - a reference to Jonathan Swift's overlooked portion of Gulliver's Travels. With healthy references to Jules Verne it's a basic good vs. bad chase movie with the final portion having the heroes end up on Laputa.

This is the portion that is strongest in my memory - the 'pastoral' ecological aspect of Laputa returned to nature - the multitude of robots covered in moss beneath the giant tree. This is, in my opinion, the highlight of the movie - the views of the surface of Laputa, as opposed to the mechanised underground.

Although this is the dichotomy of this movie - to show that even technology cannot overcome nature - the irony of the last robot tending the garden and animals. The ending of the movie Silent Running is almost exactly the same.

It is incredibly stylish, I would not say 'slick' - very beautiful and organic and a tremendous amount of detail in the buildings, airships and the design and look of just about everything.

Myazaki is a true master of this kind of Japnanese anime. Buy this movie and treasure it. I first saw this film when I was about seven years old and was completely enchanted by it then but for years was unable to find out what the film was called. now i am twenty one and stumbled upon the film by accident about two weeks ago and bought a copy. although my memory of the film was a little hazy I was in no way disappointed by what I saw. the animation in this film is superb conjuring up an entire world that is so believable and so well animated that you are drawn in to the film by that alone. But this film also has a plot that will enchant and entertain adults and children alike. with a floating island, a mad general, a friendly pirate granny and a well constructed love story this film will not let you down I would recommend this film to any one. I know Anime. I've been into it long before it became a national phenomenon; i loved Ranma before most people knew what Dragonball Z even was. And just so you know I'm not bragging about my, let me say this: out of all the animes I've seen, Castle in the Sky is by far one of the best. It's obvious people say Spirited Away is the best, but I really disagree. Most people only know that movie because it one an Acedmy Award; this isn't an exaggeration - I've shown Princess Mononoke and Castle in the Sky to people who'd only ever seen Spirited Away, and they agree that the latter two are the superior of the three. Personally, I'd never thought that anything could compare to Princess Mononoke, until I finally saw Castle in the Sky. I still think that the prior is the better of the two, but Castle in the Sky is easily on par with it; in many ways, Castle has major elements that Mononoke was missing. In either case, if you've only seen Spirited Away, and think that that is Miyazaki's best film, be prepared to have your earth shaken. Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.

I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.

In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.

It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.

Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same. breathtaking, this is without doubt the best anime cartoon ever made. i first saw castle in the sky in the late 80s as a child and it left a lasting impression. years went by and i forgot the title of the film, and only by chance browsing on the internet i found this masterpiece again. after reading other peoples reviews and analysis I'm not surprised it has such acclaim and touched so many because it does leave an impression. a true fantasy adventure, a must see for all children and adults. its best not giving the story away so i would say watch this movie will a clear and open mind. if you have kids treat them to this i promise you they will love it. there's not much to say about this piece of art but if you've not seen it watch it and enjoy. Hayao Miyazaki's second feature film, and his first one to be widely acclaimed both commercially and critically (though his debut - Nausicaa AKA Warriors of the Wind is considered by many fans his best), 'Tenku no Shiro Rapyuta' AKA 'Castle in the Sky' may seem childish and simplistic when compared to his more recent masterpieces like 'Kiki's Delivery Service', 'Mononoke-hime' and 'Spirited Away', but in 1986 it was years ahead of its time and it was one of the milestones of modern anime. It's important to remember that 'Castle in the Sky' was made two years before the revolutionary 'Akira', and while it's not provocative and controversial like the aforementioned masterpiece, the lead characters are all mainly basic manga hero / heroine / villain type characters, and the story is quite predictable and obvious (at least in today's standards), Miyazaki's designs and animation work are of standards never seen before. While the story and humor are a bit silly and outdated at times, the movie is still very entertaining and very enjoyable - if not as breathtaking as 'Spirited Away'. And if you'll allow yourself to see the beauty of the frames themselves and ignore the low-budget coloring and animation and the identical twin faces - at this point Miyazaki is still faithful to his roots and to the agreed standards of Japanese cartooning - you'll see Miyazaki's genius shine through as well as it does on 'Spirited Away' and Mononoke. While 'Castle in the Sky', being a sci-fi adventure and very suitable for children, fits in more neatly with classic anime than anything else he had done since, his motifs and principles still show and play an important part. To say much more would be to ruin the movie, so I'll kindly shut up. Suffice to say that I'm giving it only nine stars because if I gave it ten I couldn't go any higher for 'Spirited Away' and 'Princess Mononoke'. And that would be a crime.

As in most anime movies, I recommend watching the Japanese version with the English subtitles, even if you don't speak a word of Japanese - the English overdubs just don't tend to be very good, and in this case it's just horrendous. You might want to watch it in the English version once, though, just for the laughs, and for the star-filled cast (the English dub was only recorded following the success of 'Spirited Away', as it was for 'Kiki's Delivery Service') - Anna Paquin and James Van Der Beek (Yeah, the Dawson guy!) fill the lead roles, Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker from 'Star Wars', in case you don't know!) plays the villain, and other roles are filled by Andy Dick, Tres MacNeille (The Simpsons, Rugrats, Animaniacs...), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck from Kevin Costner's Robin Hood travesty) and Mandy Patinkin (Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya...) Good for a laugh, or a few laughs really. But watch the Japanese one first. Lapyuta (Castle in the Sky), more than any of Hayao Miyazaki's movies, brings the joy of storytelling to the audience. It is the kind of movie that makes one feel like a kid again; it's just magical. It's a crime that it took this long for it to be released in the states, but now that it's here check it out! And stick with the original language; the dub changed my impressions of the characters somewhat, which is something that should be avoided at all costs in a translation of a movie (or book, whatever.)

I give it a ten/ten. I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa! I never met a single person (out of hundreds) who hated this movie. Bet that anyone who votes it down is a petty saboteur, or a victim of one. This film has everything. Ask yourself, "Are you a fan of. . . ?" Then go see "Laputa".

It's not my favorite movie, but my favorite IS directed by the same person (Hayao Miyazaki). In any case, this one ranks among my top five. And I've seen a LOT of movies. Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent!

Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries … but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicãa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best.

The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward!

A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain!

Don't miss this one people! I just realised I've been using IMDb for years now and I've never reviewed my favourite film. By favourite I don't mean something I like for now, I mean this film is so supernaturally perfect that there is never another animated experience going to touch it. This is obvious because I am never going to be a child again; I saw this film on ITV in the early nineties. I was 12 which is the age group this film is directed at, I'm also male, the gender that this film is intended for (the overwhelming majority of Miyazaki's protagonists are female). Consequently this film indelibly inspired my childhood psychology and I am forever indebted to Carl Macek (sp?) for producing the English dub of this film which is far superior to the Di$ney production which is not even funny - I've never even been able to watch that one - of course subtitled is the only way ultimately however the Macek version is SO good (the voices almost exactly corresponding to the original Japanese actors) that this version is available on the Japanese DVD! It's not available on any distribution in an English-speaking country. Go figure.

There are hundreds of competent reviews so I'm going to put some trivia here, not that I'm the definitive archive of information for this film.

First up I'd like to agree with the reviewer who stated that you need 20 out of 10 to review Miyazaki's films - they are so in their own league that they make almost the whole catalogue on IMDb combined pale into insignificance.

The fascinating story with this film is that Miyazaki based the countryside around Slag's Ravine (Pazu's town area) on the Welsh mining communities. He visited Wales for a few months in the early 80s (might be late 70s) just after one of the great mining strikes. Being an avid supporter of the student socialist movements in the sixties he felt their plight. The fight between the townsfolk and the pirates at the beginning serves to illustrate this empathy with the working man. The countryside and the clouds especially in this film remind me of where I grew up as his film depicts a fantasised version of the rolling hills of the midwest British Isles.

The island is of course from Swift's genius satirical novel of the eighteenth century - the story in Swift's book is, deliberately, ridiculous. In Castle in The Sky, Miyazaki weaves together myths such as Atlantis and the Tower of Babel - I think the architecture in addition is based on Peruvian ruins though I'm not sure, someone told me that.

Anyone who gets round to reading this review and who likes this film REALLY will want to check out Miyazaki's epic series Mirai Shounen Conan - Future Boy Conan - based on the short sci fi novel 'The Incredible Tide' by Alexander key (novel is available online). Conan is basically a prototype for Laputa's Pazu and Shita. In addition you may not be familiar with his earlier work for Masterpiece Theatre - some of his key frame animation. He also did key frame for Sherlock Hound - this has some of the finest backgrounds I've ever seen too. Also check out Miyazaki and Takahata's first feature film Horus Prince of the Sun (1968) - amazing by today's standards in fact. What else... Gauche the Cellist and The Flying Ghost Ship - though they're pretty rare.

This film is such a gift, I don't know what we'd do without it with all this other crap storytelling around, this is like an oasis. Arigatou Miyazaki-sensei! This is the best dub I've ever heard by Disney, as well as the best adaptation since the biggest abuse ever on soundtrack, themes, characters, dialogues in Kiki Delivery Service. Urrrghhh

This one has different atmosphere, especially the deviation from the common heroine. This one has both hero and heroine (although I don't really endorse the use of hero & heroine here, since Miyazaki is out from the stereotype & common theme). As usual, after being introduced by Spirited away, amazed by Mononoke, troubled by Grave of Fireflies, and deeply touched by Majo no Takkyuubin , this one start with a bit doubt in my part. Wondering if this will be the first Ghibi's dud. Well, in the end just like Only Yesterday and Whisper of the Heart, I ended up giving 10 rating. I'd give 9.8 rating, but the additional 0.2 is there to share the good feeling by encouraging people to see the movie.

SPOILER Somehow I see this as a sad movie, people die in this one, the lonely robot, the abandoned place, and it ends with destruction. It is as if mankind really can't live with too much power. The collapsing scene gave me patches of Metropolis ending. It's just sad somehow. The plot is apparent in most reviews and the soundtrack rules as well (as always). Joe Hisaishi really belongs to Uematsu, Kanno, Williams caliber.People who can brings a movie, a game, an event to life, even to be a lingering moments by astounding composition.

This is a feel good movie that used to be part of US cinema in the classic days (It's a Wonderful Life etc etc). Well, things change.... It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better. The first of the official Ghibli films, Laputa is most similar to its predecessor Nausicaa, but whereas Nausicaa was a SF epic, this is more of an action comedy-adventure with a fairly weak SF premise.

For the first half hour of the movie I thought I was going to love it. Once again you find yourself in awe of Miyazaki's attention to detail, and his ability to conjure up an imaginary world in meticulous, beautiful perfection. The animation, though still not in the league of the later Ghibli films, is a little better than in Nausicaa.

I mentioned in my review of Nausicaa that one character is drawn in a more 'Lupinesque' anime style. Here there are a whole bunch of them: the pirates. They provide the comic element in the film, though quite why it needs a comic element I'm not sure. There was nothing funny about Nausicaa, and I think it was better off for it. Still. having said that, Dola, the pirate leader, is easily the most memorable character in the film (even if she's basically a female Long John Silver. Don't be surprised if you're reminded of 'Treasure Planet' at times) and is well voiced by Cloris Leachman in the American dub.

The English voice cast acquit themselves well for the most part, actually. However something started going pear-shaped for me about this movie by about the halfway mark. I think the best way that I could describe it is that the characters get swallowed up by the vast scope of the story. I'll come back to that later.

There is so much to admire about Laputa, and so many people obviously love it, that I almost feel mean for only giving it 8 out of 10, but for me the operative word here is 'admire'. It was more impressive than personally affecting, and at over two hours it just started to drag.

The crucial thing for me was this: I really found that I didn't care much about any of the characters. Disney would have taken the care to develop the characters, make you really fall for them, rather than leave them as relatively two-dimensional pieces to be moved around while you gawked at the amazing vistas in the movie. Even that would have been tolerable if there was some hard SF in the story to make up for it, but it was basically a lot of gobledegook about Princesses and magic crystals. That's where Laputa falls down as far as I'm concerned, and that's what holds it back from being a potential 10 out of 10 movie. Having said that, it must be admitted that Miyazaki was leagues ahead of Disney in general in 1986, when you consider that their movie of the same year was the pretty dire 'Great Mouse Detective'.

Laputa is a good film in some ways an amazing film, and you should definitely see it, but I do feel it's over-rated. I definitely prefer the earlier 'Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind'.

BTW, if you manage to watch them in chronological order, watch for the fox-squirrel from Nausicaa popping up briefly in Laputa. Retitled from its original Japanese name of LAPUTA (for being an offensive phrase, something which director Hayao Miyazaki was oblivious to at the time), CASTLE IN THE SKY is the master animator's third film, and it's one of his most beloved of all time. Initially a box office disappointment in its 1986 release, it has since been embraced by critics and audiences around the world. Inspired by Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", CASTLE IN THE SKY is a steampunk-themed action adventure tale about two young orphans -- young miner Pazu, and mysterious girl Sheeta (who wears a magic crystal around her neck) -- who team up to find the long-lost island of Laputa, which is rumored to have great riches and gems. They are aided by a band of bumbling yet sympathetic air pirates led by the feisty Dola (who at first chase them, yet turn out to be true allies) and pursued by the government headed by its villainous topmost-secret agent, Muska, who wants the power of Laputa for his own benefit.

For anyone looking for an exciting way to spend two hours, this film is an excellent choice, featuring just the right amount of humor, exploration, wonder, and mystery to keep one interested. The artwork, although not as spectacular as in some of Miyazaki's later movies, is fantastic and gorgeous enough to watch with imaginative characters and locations, incredibly exciting action scenes, and breathtaking flight sequences that will make one feel giddy. And while the characters that populate this tale are less complex than Miyazaki's other works, each has a memorable, endearing personality that stays with the viewer long after the film is over. Dola, in particular, makes for a terrific comic character, shouting orders to her dimwitted sons one moment and being protective of Sheeta the next. Muska is one of the few Miyazaki creations to ever come across as an irredeemable villain, but like Dola, he commands every scene he's in with a sinister charisma that is both alluring and chilly.

Anime fans have often compared this movie to Gainax's sci-fi adventure series NADIA: THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER. After all, both works share similar story and character elements... not to mention that they were both created by Miyazaki himself. Where both differ is in their execution. NADIA, although charming for the most part, suffered from taking a wrong turn at its midway point, devolving into cartoonish nonsense which all but distracted from the main plot, even though it did have a strong ending. CASTLE IN THE SKY, on the other hand, remains consistently entertaining and focused for its two hour running time, and is all the better for it. While the film's epic tone is sometimes broken up by some "cartoonish" moments, like a brawl between Pazu's boss and one of Dola's sons, it's never to the point that it detracts from the film.

About eleven years ago, Disney released an English version featuring a cast of big-names such as James van der Beek, Anna Paquin, Cloris Leachman, Mark Hamill, Mandy Patinkin as well as some cameo appearances by veterans such as Tress MacNeille and Jim Cummings. It also features an ambitious reworking of Joe Hisaishi's gorgeous musical score for a performance by the Seattle Music Orchestra (interestingly, the man behind this rescore is none other than the composer himself). As much as purists have cried blasphemy over this version for its occasional extra dialogue and the aforementioned rescore, Miyazaki had no such problems; in fact, he is said to have applauded the reworking, and for good reason, because the newly rerecorded music is truly the star of the new dub. While there are some instances where filling in some critially silent scenes from the original Japanese is a bit jarring (notably the journey through a dragon-infested storm cloud), the overall reworking is fantastic and in many ways improves on the original, particularly in scenes such as when a robot attacks a fortress and the climactic moments toward the end. Here, Hisaishi displays his musical versatility and genius for matching music to visuals.

As far as the performances in the dub go, the leads are probably at the short end of the stick; James Van Der Beek's Pazu sounds significantly more mature than his character, while Anna Paquin's Sheeta speaks with an odd accent that fluctuates at times (a problem which actually works in favor of the character). That said, both do good jobs overall and provide a fairly believable chemistry throughout. It's the lively supporting cast, however, that really make this dub so much fun, particularly Cloris Leachman's Dola and Mark Hamill's Muska. Both are perfectly cast and steal every scene they're in; as with the rescore, these two really warrant a listen to the Disney dub. The script adaptation borders on the loose side at times--there's quite a bit of extra lines and/or commentary (some of which are pricelessly funny and others somewhat overdone)--but aside from at least one debatable alteration (Sheeta's speech in the climactic showdown "the world cannot live without love" as opposed to the original "you can't survive apart from Mother Earth"), the overall characters, story, and spirit remain fairly faithful to the original. On the whole, there is little point comparing the Disney version to the original language track; each puts their own stamp on this legendary masterpiece, and I like them both. (They're also better than Streamline/JAL's more literal but frightfully robotic, lifeless, abysmally acted and poorly written older dub from the late 1980's; don't believe anybody who says this version is "superior" to Disneys--trust me, the opposite is true.)

Either way, though, you can't go wrong with CASTLE IN THE SKY. It's one of Miyazaki's all-time greatest, and I highly recommend it. Like many Americans, I was first introduced to the works of Hayao Miyazaki when I saw "Spirited Away." I fell in love with the film and have seen it many times. Now I am on a search to see every film by Miyazaki. One of his earlier works is "Castle in the Sky." Although it's still enjoyable, it's not as good as "Spirited Away" (though comparing this or any film to his 2002 masterpiece is perhaps unfair).

A young boy named Pazu (James Van Der Beek) is working in a mine late one night, when he sees a girl fall slowly from the sky. When she wakes up the next morning, she introduces herself as Sheeta (Anna Paquin). But Sheeta has a secret, and before he knows it, Pazu is pulled into an adventure that will lead him into danger with pirates, the army and a lost floating city.

Going into a film by Hayao Miyazaki means you can expect one thing: a sense of wonder and magic. Many filmmakers have tried, but no one can create a sense of magic and awe like Miyazaki. Watching a film by Miyazaki is like experiencing a fantastic dream from your childhood.

Because the film is animated, dubbing the film does not pose much of a problem because it is next to impossible to determine whether or not the lip movements match up to the words. It also helps that the translated dialogue is well-written and voiced by talented actors. The voice acting is varied. James Van Der Beek fares best. He brings an irresistible enthusiasm and excitement to the role of Pazu that is perfect for the character. Anna Paquin is nearly as good as Sheeta. She's frightened by the events going on around her, but she knows what she has to do. Mark Hamill is unrecognizable as the evil Muska. He's dangerous and wants something from Sheeta, and will do anything to get it. The other voices are bad. Cloris Leachman is awful as Dola. Leachman may have won an Oscar for "The Last Picture Show," but she's annoying as the pirate leader. Leachman gives the character an obnoxious squawk that's nearly always monotonous. It's so bad it nearly ruins the film! Jim Cummings is an effective voice-over actor, but he's miscast as the general.

I would definitely recommend seeing "Castle in the Sky." I'll probably end up buying it myself. But even though it's not as good as "Spirited Away," it's still pretty good. Saw this on SBS TV here in Australia the other week, where it was titled "Laputa: Castle in the sky". I had enabled subtitles and I think SBS provided their own for that, which, as usual, was of very good quality.

Just looked up "Laputa" on Wikipedia and it confirms what I suspected...the floating island of this tale is taken from the classic Jonathan Swift novel "Gulliver's travels", which was published in the early to mid 1700s.

Anyway, this is an engaging Japanese fairytale, which features an English speaking voice-cast. It's suitable for young children, I think, but it does run at just over two hours in length, so it may be too long for some, though not for an adult like me.

The story concerns two children who seek to find a legendary floating island which has a castle on it. The children are not the only ones looking for this island. They have pirates, the army and spies looking for the island too, and looking to capture the children (Sheeta, the girl, voiced by Anna Paquin, and Pazu, the boy, voiced by James Van Der Beek) in order to help them find it.

The graphics are magnificent...sort of photo-realistic at times, especially the scenes of stonework lit by torch-light, or the pretty scenes of bright, sunny days, with white clouds, or mist.

Recommended. This film is amazing and I would recommend to child and adult alike. The animation is beautiful, the characters are rich and interesting, and the story is captivating; far better than anything the American studios were producing at the time. However, there is a couple of caveats to this statement. It's a shame that Disney bought the Studio Ghibli back-catalogue and then proceeded to butcher it. My main point being, Disney re-dubbed the film, despite the original English version being very impressive. The new cast with Van Der Beek et al ruined it and took away much of the attractiveness of the characters e.g. Pazu and Sheeta went from adventurous companions to whiny teenagers. The Original music score is also far better than the Disney remix. It begs the question why did Disney make such changes? It seems to me is that by having Van Der Beek et al being cast then Disney can draw in more money, which is fair enough, but in the process they tainted they film. It is still a beautiful film and I would still recommend it to anyone. My main beef is that Disney ruined a film from childhood which I loved and still love. I am lucky enough to have an original Japanese import with the original English dub which I am now going to guard with my life! The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.

I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.

To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.

I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film..... I remember liking this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the winds at an age when that tone of story was too serious for me. Laputa, whose title seems to have affected its release in the U.S. to avoid confusion to its wide Hispanic audiences, has the cartoonish knack of the director's debut production Conan. In fact, Pazu has the thick bones and immortal vitality of Conan--who jumped off a thousand stories carrying his girl in his arms and landed on his feet, then started running. This makes him the most animated and pleasing character to watch. The techie fans of Nausica may be disappointed by the flying bugs and the retro technology through out Laputa--the only exception may be the robot. Unlike Princess Mononoke and Valley of the Winds, the theme in Laputa is not directly connected to environmentalism. If it has a theme at all it's anti-warfare. The importance of living naturally--this is related with the flying castle, is dismissably shortly discussed, and not really followed through. Overall, I now regard the piece as being at an intersection between feel-good and corny. This is quite an amazing film to watch. Using digital technology, the director, Rohmer, has literally encrusted his living actors into painted backdrops. Most of the time this works brilliantly, especially at the start where the film is like a pop up story book come to life. It is less successful in a few scenes, where it limits camera angles (they had not painted the side of some of the buildings for example) but it is a very interesting way to film a historical film which is as much about our own misconceptions and limited views of history as History itself. It is narrated using the memoirs of the Duc d'Orleans' ex- mistress, Grace Elliott. So, an event usually claimed as one of their own by Marxist historians, especially in France, is here told from the point of view of a female aristocratic foreigner. Inevitably a different point of view emerges -there can be no objective representation. The use of the memoirs device does give the film a rather episodic quality. Personally, I found the story line around the King's death the most interesting. A staunch Royalist she is shocked when the Duc votes for the King's death (a basic knowledge of the French Revolution is probably helpful to follow the dialogue between Grace and the Duc here. He was Louis's cousin and had himself elected to the Assembly, where he promptly changed his name to Philip Equality). The filming of Louis's death is masterly. Grace and her maidservant are in Meudon, out of Paris, watching from a hill with a telescope. We do not see the execution, we only hear the maid's commentary, like Grace. The most dramatic event of the Revolution happens off screen. Grace cannot bear to watch her king be killed. Her view is that of an aristocrat. Any justification of Louis's death is literally beyond her vision. This is powerful, keenly intelligent film making. The love story between the duc and Grace is insinuated, never told, and is powerfully moving (tho the Duc does seem a bit of a pompous fool at times; what does she see in him? No accounting for taste). The undercurrents of madness (simply existing being enough to be a suspect) that sweep individuals along in a time such as the Revolution are illustrated as Grace's life is turned upside down, her house is searched daily, yet she still orders her servants to cook her food and is incapable of dressing herself! If you have any interest at all in a subtle, well told film, making clever use of new technology to tell an old tale, or the representation of a pivotal moment in Europe's history narrated by an aristocratic foreign woman, its ultimate outsider, then this is well worth your time. It is a little slow in places but your patience is amply rewarded. Eric Rohmer's "The Lady and the Duke". could have used a better translation for the title. "The English Woman and the Duke", perhaps, would have been more accurate. While it's obvious this film is not for everyone, judging by the comments to this forum, it is worth watching because in spite of the intricate pattern of the story, Mr. Rohmer has created a movie that could be seen as an art exhibit in a museum. The mixed technology used in the movie, ultimately, works well.

The strange story of Grace Elliott, a noble lady who had been the mistress of the king of England and of the French Duc d'Orleans, holds our attention. The setting is Paris during the days that followed the French Revolution. The country was in turmoil and the power was in the hands of the people, who couldn't care less for the aristocrats. The images show the agitators running around with heads of famous people right after their trip to the guillotine.

Grace relation with the Duc had ended, but she remains a true friend to the great man that is in danger, himself, of losing his own head. Grace moves through all the horrors around her without being able of an escape. She even has an enemy in her own house, in the form of the cook, Pulcherie, who would not hesitate to denounce her at the least provocation.

Watching the movie, at times, gives the viewer the impression one is going on a trip through the Louvre watching those huge canvases that depict this crucial era of the French history. Rather than finding the digitalization process distracting, we found it to enhance the film in many ways.

Lucy Russell, as Grace Elliott, does a fine job to portray this woman who saw a lot during her lifetime. Her French seems to be excellent, as it appears she is fluent in it. As the Duc d'Orleans, Jean Claude Dreyfus made a fantastic contribution making us believe he is the nobleman himself without any effort. The supporting cast also was great. As an ensemble piece Mr. Rohmer gets good performances all around.

For lovers of history, "The Lady and the Duke" will be an interesting movie to watch thanks to the vision of Eric Rohmer. Anyone who finds this film boring is a hopeless bonehead who should stick to car chase movies and romantic comedies. This film is riveting and doesn't have a boring moment. Why? Because it is comprised largely of intelligent dialogue between real people in a moment of crisis and details their efforts to survive that crisis. I repeat--intelligent dialogue! That is what characterizes nearly all of Rohmer's films, and that is why a lot of people don't like them. They prefer action. Fine, let them spend the rest of their lives watching action films, while those of us with taste and discrimination will continue to seek out films like this.

Rohmer has always been accused of being "talky." Well, he is, but to me that's a compliment, not a criticism. Shakespeare was talky, too. Is there a talkier play than "Hamlet?" Whenever the subject, or theme, of a work of art consists of ideas and conflicts over values, there must of necessity be a discussion of these ideas and values, an that is largely what this film is all about. Aristocracy and noble birth vs. egalitarianism; loyalty to old friends that is put to the ultimate test when that friend takes what we believe to be a wrong path; the value of human life and the responsibility to help save that life, even if the person possessing that life is not so nice, or even despicable. (Anyone ever hear of Dostoyevsky, or "Crime and Punishment?") These are what this film is all about.

The two leads in this film are impeccable, as if they were born to play these roles. Lucy Russell, who is English and speaks French as her second language, is especially brilliant. Do yourself a favor and see this riveting film. It may be the last film by this screen Master. Erich Rohmer's "L'Anglaise et le duc" makes a perfect companion piece to Peter Watkins' "La Commune (Paris 1871)." Both films -screened at this year's Toronto International Film Festival- ironically illustrate how history is shaped to by the tellers of the tale. Ironic, given the tragic events that were taking place in the U.S. during the festival.

Set in Paris during the French Revolution, the movie, based on Grace Elliott's (Lucy Russell) "Memoirs," is a first-hand account of how she survived those heady but dangerous days. She also details her relationship with The Duke of Orleans (played by Jean-Claude Dreyfus), who, in contrast to herself, is a supporter of the Revolution.

True to form, you don't know whose side of history Rohmer is going to come down on. One of the earliest of the French "New Wave" filmmakers, Rohmer has often been criticized for being too conservative. After all, in the midst of the rebelling-youth-Viet-Nam days of the late 60s and 70s, he was filming romantic little confections like "Claire's Knee." But don't sell the old boy short, folks, he's always been a student of human nature, not an ideologue, and "L'Anglaise et le duc" continues to bear this out.

Rohmer's characters are never the "bad guys" nor the "good guys'; they are first and foremost human beings who are capable of exhibiting a full range of human potentialities -and limitations. That's why his movies are always provocative, and this film is no exception.

Now for the technological nuts and bolts.

Rohmer, though making his way into his 80s, is still on the cutting-edge of cinematic innovation. The look of "L'Anglaise" is like something you've never seen before. You guessed it, the old guy -like several of the festival's directors this year- has gone digital.

All of the movie's exterior scenes look as though they are taking place in their original 1780s Parisian settings. As a matter of fact, you may get so distracted from marveling at the authenticity of the film's look you may have to go back for a second screening to catch the subtleties of the film's psychological -and yes, I'll say it- political insights.

Toronto features some of the world's edgiest young filmmakers this year, as well as some of the world's oldest. And the old masters are standing there on cinema's cutting-edges right alongside the young ones.

Long live youth. Long live old age. And long live Erich Rohmer.

Rohmer strays from his usual portraits of french middle class to tell this costume drama about the difficulties of an aristocrat lady during the french revolution. What's more attractive about "La Anglaise..." (apart from the story itself) is the fabulous aesthetics that Rohmer has achieved. The images have been digitally decorated too make them look like baroque pictures. In some moments you can't really say whether your watching a movie or a series of pictures in Louvre Musseum. Every shot is like a piece of art.

*My rate: 7.5/10

----------------

-------------- -

------------

------------------- I was particularly moved by the understated courage and integrity of l'Anglaise, in this beautifully acted, intellectually and visually compelling film. Thank you so much, Monsieur le directeur Rohmer. Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be. I am so glad that i got a chance to see this rare little gem of a movie. I saw it at an independent film festival, so don't expect it to come to your town anytime soon. During the film, i noticed about 10 people get up and walk out. Too bad for them (down here in the south, folks don't like having to read subtitles). The movie starts out slow, but is so rich in dialogue that i never felt bored. When the action finally arrives, i found myself glued to the screen as if i were riding a roller coaster.

I also got a big kick of the Chapter Titles appearing before the chapters, especially the ones that introduce the characters as they appear on screen. It reminded me of Zelda (Ocarina of Time) when you face level bosses.

If this is the future of "video game/comic book" movies, then i welcome it. I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.

It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.

Excellent film. Alive

Alive is a very entertaining SCI-FI movie from Japan. I have noticed a lot of disappointed film geeks who loved Versus this director's debut film or his third film Azumi. I have heard they are blood drenched films with swords and zombies and all kinds of goodies. Frankly I went to the video store to get Versus but I am just fine with Alive.

If you are looking for beginning to end wall to wall action then Alive is not your pick. There is plenty of action however it comes as pay-off for a whole hour of character driven build-up. Personally I think it is well done and worth it.

Of course some of the plot is silly as with many SCI-Fi action films and I think the subtitles using the term foreign object could have replaced with parasite for greater effect. This film is brutal when it needs to be so faint of heart need not apply.

They kept the budget down by for the most part confining all the action to one underground building(taking a cue from the cube) but the film doesn't suffer for it. Another bonus for this film is intense gothic imagines that are done with great artistic flair during the many Flashbacks and dream sequences.

Rent this! The movie starts out with a bunch of Dead Men Walking peeps sitting in individual cells, waiting for their inevitable meeting with death represented by the electrical chair.

Then our "hero", who is called Tenshu, is taken to the chair, he's zapped, and then....he's still "Alive". AHA ! He is given a choice by some creepy military guys who look really cool : Either we zap you until we've made sure you're actually dead OR you can walk through this door and take whatever destiny might lie ahead of you". Our hero says yes to option 2, and then the actual story commences.

He wakes up in a different sort of cell (very high-tech and very big), where he finds another cell-mate, who also managed to survive the electric boogie-ride. A voice in the speakers tells them that they are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it happens within that room. Sounds a little suspicious, but the two men accept : What else can they do ?

What these two men do not know is that they have been set together, so they can awaken an inner urge to kill within them. Basically the unknown scientists in the background p**s them off until they decide that they should kill each other. Sounds weird ? Indeed, but there's a greater purpose to all of this. THIS is the part which should not be revealed, and so it shall remain unrevealed.

But fear not, it is the unknown that lures the viewer to watch more of this pseudo-action movie, fore it has an entirely different approach to the question : How long time can you stand being with a man who's an S.O.B. and would you kill him to obtain freedom ?

The first hour is basically trying to awaken your interest, it sneaks up without you actually knowing it. Then it becomes a roller coaster ride with WILD Matrix-like action fight-scenes with a touch of individuality to honor the comic book from which the movie is based upon.

The movie is indeed very special, so special that normal cinemas won't view it under normal circumstances. However, the story is fascinating, the music is fantastic, and the actors do their bit (some more than others) to make the movie truly unique.

If you should be so fortunate that your cinema or video store has it, watch it, and enjoy the fact that not everyone is trying to make mainstream movies to earn huge bunches of cash.

Tenshu is imprisoned and sentenced to death. When he survives electrocution the government officials give him a choice to either be electrocute at a greater degree or agree to some experiments. He chooses the experimentation and is placed in a large metallic cell with a bad ass criminal who also survived the electrocution. They can have whatever the want in the room (within reason), but they can't leave. after a few days there meals are cut down to one per day and the room temp is set up too 100. After some more alarms are sounded at intervals so they can't sleep. One day a 'witch' come into their cell (albeit a glassed off portion) What happens next I'll let you find out. I may be in the minority here but I liked the build up, it was intriguing to me. Now if the payoff was half as good as the build up was I would have rated this so much higher.

My Grade: C+

Media Blaster's 2 DVD set Extras: Disc 1) Director's Cut; Trailers for "Versus", "Aragami", "Attack the Gas Station", and "Deadly Outlaw Rekka" Disc 2) Theatrical Cut; Commentary with Hideo Sakaki, Ryuhei Kitamura, Sakaguchi Takuand Tsutomu Takahashi; Cast and crew interview; Making of; Original Trailer; and Promo Teasers An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW – two men trapped in room and pitting against each other – but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night. Most complaints I've heard of this film really come down to one thing: It isn't Versus. Yes, the cast and crew is basically the same. Yes, Kitamura rehashes a few shots in the fight scenes that come in the film's second half, but that's about where the similarities end. Versus takes place essentially all outside, showcasing Kitamura's ability to craft an interesting B-movie in natural locations. For Alive, almost everything takes place inside. In small, cramped spaces. Here the art design is thrust into your face, and WHAT art design it is! We are treated to several very intricate and interesting spaces, and our characters are for the most part confined to those spaces. Also a key difference is that we don't get much action here until the end of the film. Versus was all about action and cool, here a LOT more emphasis is put on characters and situation and messing with your mind. Because of this, Alive is a far more interesting film than Versus. You may not pop it in and go to a random scene to watch five or ten minutes of cool zombie bloodshed, but you will sit glued to the screen for nearly two hours watching he interaction of a few genuinely interesting characters.

I'm now ecstatic that I ordered the DVD despite some naysay. You should too! But be sure to realize this is a different animal from Versus - it's often slow, and requires a bit of thought to get the most out of it. I hope Media Blasters picks it up for subtitled R1 DVD release! This may be the only film that actually comes close to capturing on film the essentially uncapturable world of the American college experience of the late 60s-early 70s. Go ahead, name another movie that even approaches this one: "Getting Straight"? "RPM"? These are caricatures. "Return of the Secaucus Seven" has its moments, but that's a retrospective film about (self-obsessed) individuals more than a film about a time and a place depicted *in* that time and place. "Drive, He Said" portrays-- with subtlety and nuance where it should, and a swift kick in the shorts where that's the only appropriate way-- the anti-draft movement, the ambiguity of big-time college sports (especially when there's a war on), the sexual revolution of the period, and the general unreality of the day. Believe me, it was like that.

The whole cast deserves commendation (as does the director, of course) but particular praise should be reserved for Bruce Dern, as the basketball coach, and Karen Black, the hero's very unusual-- except for that time-- love interest. William Tepper, as the lead, also rates a real round of applause both for his perfect capturing of the student-athlete of the period and for actually playing real college basketball in the film (remember Anthony Perkins in "Tall Story"? Yikes!).

All in all, a classic of a kind-- and the last film someone currently in 6th grade should be writing comments on ("boring", "repellent"-- um, right, sonny, please go back to your Arnold movies). Why isn't this film available from imdb? As Jack Nicholson's directorial debut, Drive, He Said displays at the least that he is a gifted director of actors. Even when the story might seem to lose its way to the audience (and to a modern audience - if they can find it, which pops up now and again on eBay - it might seem more free formed than they think), the film contains vivid, interesting characterizations. The film tells of two college kids: the protagonist is Hector (William Tepper, in what borders on a break-out performance), a star of the Leopards, the college basketball team he plays on. While he has to deal with a coach (Bruce Dern) who puts on the pressure to stay focused, and a on and off girlfriend (Karen Black) with her own emotional problems, there's Gabriel (Michael Margotta), the other kid. Gabriel, it seems, is just a little more than freaked out by the possibility to be drafted, and so in his own radical mind-state he does what he can to keep out. But as Hector tries to find the balance between his oncoming fame and those he loves, Gabriel is going over the threshold of sanity.

Nicholson, on the technical side of things, displays a fascinating editing style that keeps things on edge during the basketball scenes, and implements darkness in many other scenes with a documentary-feel throughout. And from Tepper, Black, and even Robert Towne (writer of Chinatown, Last Detail, and Mission: Impossible among others, who rarely acts) he garners some credible acting work. Though in Tepper there is a tendency to downplay his emotions. In some scenes, for example, when he could act brilliantly sarcastic, he doesn't play it for what it's worth. From Margotta, on the other hand, there is a vibrant, twisted force in his performance, and as he descends it's frightening, but perhaps understandable from the times (and what a climax). Dern steals most of his scenes, by the way, in a performance that should have garnered him an Oscar nomination. Every line of his dialog is appropriate, true, and it's never hammed up like in recent coach movie performances.

But what drags down the film is that elements involving the characters aren't explained to the degree one might wish more. The film was based on a novel by Jeremy Larner, who co-wrote the script with Nicholson, and I was expecting that the film to be longer than it was. It's a slim volume with a lot of information, about the times, about the sport, about the underlying feelings that were with those of the younger generation. Nicholson presents us with these characters and situations, and rarely are they shown to what's motivating them (the anti-war protesters not included, their part's understandable enough). Gabriel is perturbed by what's going on in Vietnam, but what else is there? Hector, too, is a guy who has apprehensions about being drafted for the NBA, and he still loves to play, but what's holding him back? This whole atmosphere is intriguing, how the late 60's college/basketball experience was, but that intriguing quality, which does lead to some unconventionality, is kept at a point where it can't go too further. Overall, the effect of the film as a whole is bittersweet, and somewhat memorable for its good points, and not for it's low ones. And, for sure, you can tell who's behind the lens every step of the way. B+ Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.

No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more.

Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.

Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.

Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?

It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why. In a word...amazing.

I initially was not too keen to watch Pinjar since I thought this would be another movie lamenting over the partition and would show biases towards India and Pakistan. I was so totally wrong. Pinjar is a heart-wrenching, emotional and intelligent movie without any visible flaws. I was haunted by it after watching it. It lingered on my mind for so long; the themes, the pain, the loss, the emotion- all was so real.

This is truly a masterpiece that one rarely gets to see in Bollywood nowadays. It has no biases or prejudices and has given the partition a human story. Here, no one country is depicted as good or bad. There are evil Indians, evil Pakistanis and good Indians and Pakistanis. The cinematography is excellent and the music is melodious, meaningful (thanks to Gulzar sahib) and haunting. Everything about the movie was amazing...and the acting just took my breath away. All were perfectly cast.

If you are interested in watching an intellectual and genuinely wonderful movie...look no further. This movie gives it all. I recommend it with all my heart. AMAZING cannot describe how excellent it is. Pinjar is a genuinely good film, with great acting, good narrative, good presentation, touching emotions, etc.

It seems to me that the quality of films that Bollywood is producing is quite improving these days, and this film is one evidence.

No Bollywood movie that I can remember of made such an impact on me - I was literally thinking about the movie for hours - marvelling at the various emotional situations that test the human in a human.

The film rests on the great acting of Urmilla Matondkar, and also some from Manoj Bajpai. Urmilla plays a girl in North India in the background of the partition, and all troubles seem sweet if compared with the problems she happens to face.

A must-see film. A technically superior Bollywood product, which I feel is comparable to the best movies coming out of other countries in the world. Many of the reviewers have made it a point to note that Pinjar is unlike the run of the mill films produced in Bollywood. While this is true, Bollywood films in general are geared to a specific audience and should be appreciated for accomplishing their aims in this regard.

However,Pinjar is an excellent film for those seeking a change from the normal equation based Bollywood film. Set during the time of Partition between India and Pakistan, Pinjar focuses on a Punjabi girl who becomes the victim of societal and cultural attitudes toward the treatment of women in her time. Paro, the protagonist, is forced to choose between a life with a man who has abducted her and the fleeting hope of a life with her family back in Indian ruled Punjab. More than an issue of Hindus and Muslims, Pinjar addresses and defines a woman's role as a daughter, as a wife, and as a mother in India and Pakistan in 1947. Unlike typical Bollywood films which are escapist in nature, Pinjar is a film that makes its audience contemplate these issues during and after the film. Pinjar is one of the few movies that really leaves a mark and makes you think hard. Set in Partition India, this film Shows the true reality of partition India. Urmila gets full marks for her beautiful and deeply emotional portrayal of a suffering woman with no way to go. Her freedom, personal identity and family respect taken away overnight over a tragic land dispute. Manoj bajpai is simply brilliant as her remorseful abductor. There several moments in the film where one is brought to tears. The film at points is deeply traumatic. Some of the partition scenes are spine chilling, yet Urmila's endurance and survival are both remarkable. From a woman robbed of her freedom to woman who gave freedom to women in similar situations. A remarkable film that should be given credit for intelligent characters and storytelling. I have been a Hindi movie buff since the age of 4 but never in my life have a watched such a moving and impacting movie, especially as a Hindi film. In the past several years, I had stopped watching contemporary Hindi movies and reverted to watching the classics (Teesri Kasam, Mere Huzoor, Madhumati, Mother India, Sholay, etc.) But this movie changed everything. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I found it not only to be moving but also found it to be very educational for someone who is a first generation Indian woman growing up in America. It helped me to understand my own family history, which was always something very abstract to me. But, to "see" it, feel it and understand it helped me to sympathize with the generations before me and the struggle that Indian people endured. The film helped to put many things into perspective for me, especially considering the current world events. I never thought that a movie could change the way I think like this before... it did. The plot is fantastic, the acting superb and the direction is flawless. Two thumbs up! This movie was absolutely wonderful. The pre-partition time and culture has been recreated beautifully. Urmila has given yet another brilliant performance. What I truly admire about this movie is that it doesn't resort to Pakistan-bashing that is running rampant in movies like Gadar and LOC. With the partition as a backdrop, the movie does not divert to political issues or focus on violence or what is right and wrong. The movie always centers around the tragic story of Urmila's life. Her fragile relationship with Manoj Bajpai has been depicted excellently. The movie actually shows how the people, both Hindus and Muslims, have suffered from this partition. The theme that there is only one religion is truly prevalent in this film. I don't have words to describe how good this movie is. Only a genius like Amrita Pritam could have written such a real depiction of the days of partition. The movie kept haunting me for many days.

Urmila did the role of her life in this movie. She put life in the role of Puroo and Manoj Vajpai did no less in his role as Rashid. It is hard to imagine anyone other than these two doing the role of Puroo and Rashid. The Punjabi costumes looked so natural on Urmila and Manoj looked like a natural Punjabi Mussalmaan.

Sandhali Sinha as Lajjo and Suri as Ramchand did fabulous job. Priyanshu Chattarjee did good work as Triloki.

Some of the scenes you just can't get out of your mind. When Puroo meets Lajjo for the first time, it brings tears to your eyes. The climax is just killer. I was expecting a tragic ending but thankfully, the ending was wonderful.

This movie is in the same category as Pakeezah, Mughal-e-Azam, Banaras etc. Not to be missed. I come to Pinjar from a completely different background than most of the other reviewers who have posted here. I'm relatively new to Bollywood films and was born and raised in the US. So I don't have a broad basis for comparing Pinjar to other Indian films. Luckily, no comparison is needed.

Pinjar stands on its own as nothing less than a masterpiece.

In one line I can tell you that Pinjar is one of the most important films to come out of any studio anywhere at any time. On a mass-appeal scale, it *could* have been the Indian equivalent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" had it been adequately promoted in the US. This could very well have been the film that put Bollywood on the American map. The American movie-going public has a long-standing love affair with "Gone With the Wind", and while Pinjar doesn't borrow from that plot there are some passing similarities. Not the least of which is the whopping (by US standards) 183-minute run time.

Set against the gritty backdrop of the India-Pakistan partition in 1947-48 is a compelling human drama of a young woman imprisoned by circumstances and thrust into troubles she had no hand in creating. Put into an untenable position, she somehow manages to not only survive, but to grow -- and even flourish.

If the story is lacking in any way, it's in the exposition. Puro's (the protagonist) growth as a person would be better illustrated -- at least for western audiences unfamiliar with Indian culture -- if her character's "back story" were more fully developed in the early part of the film. But that would have stretched a 3-hour movie to 3 1/2 hours or perhaps even more. Because not one minute of the film is wasted, and none of what made it out of editing could really be cut for the sake of time. Better that the audience has to fill in some of what came before than to leave out any of what remains.

I could use many words to describe Pinjar: "poignant", "disturbing", "compelling", "heart-wrenching" come to mind immediately. But "uplifting" is perhaps as apropos as any of those. Any story that points up the indomitability of the human spirit against the worst of odds has to be considered such. And Puro's triumph -- while possibly not immediately evident to those around her -- is no less than inspirational. For strength of story alone I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Equally inspiring is Urmila Matondkar's portrayal of Puro. All too often overlooked amid the bevy of younger, newer actresses, Urmila has the unique capability to deliver a completely credible character in any role she plays. She doesn't merely act Puro's part, she breathes life into the character. Manoj Bajpai's selection as Rashid was inspired. He manages something far too few Indian film heroes can: subtlety. His command of expression and nuance is essential to the role. He brings more menace to the early part of the film with his piercing stare than all of the sword-wielding rioters combined.

If you only see one Bollywood film in your life, make it Pinjar. A very good adaptation of the novel by amrita pritam. Urmila and manoj bajpai have given their best.

there is a natural flair in the movie and i felt it right through. It looked like bollywood finally gave away it's glamor and had some quality artists performing on screen.

Content wise, the movie depicted very much what exactly happened during partition by showing the sufferings of a particular family and also shows that trust in one's life goes beyond religion.

The best part was they did not make it a drama with a lot of tear shedding and melodrama.

I simply loved it. Pinjar is truly a masterpiece... . It's a thought provoking Film that makes you think and makes you question our culture. It is without a doubt the best Hindi movie I have seen to date. This film should have been shown at movie festivals around the world and I believe would have been a serious contender at Cannes. All the characters were perfectly cast and Urmila Matkondar and Manoj Bhajpai were haunting in their roles.

The story the movie tells about partition is a very very important story and one that should never be forgotten.

It has no biases or prejudices and has given the partition a human story. Here, no one country is depicted as good or bad. There are evil Indians, evil Pakistanis and good Indians and Pakistanis. The cinematography is excellent and the music is melodious, meaningful and haunting. Everything about the movie was amazing...and the acting just took my breath away. All were perfectly cast. Superb. I had initially thought that given Amrita Pritam's communist leanings and Dr Dwivedi's nationalist leanings film will be more frank than novel but when I read the novel I was surprised to find that it was reverse.

Kudos to marita Pritam for not being pseudo-sec and to Dr Dwivedi to be objective. This movie touches a sensitive topic in a sensitive way. Casualty of any war are women as some poet said and this movie personifies it. It is also a sad commentary on Hindu psyche as they can't stand up against kidnappers of their girls or the Hindu Brother who can only burn the fields of his tormentor. On the other hand it also shows economic angles behind partition or in fact why girls were kidnapped in the first place. I think kidnappers thought that by kidnapping girls they Will become legal owners of the houses and thus new govt. will not be able to ask them to return the houses. This apart one has to salute the courage of characters of Puro and her Bhabhi they are two simple village girls unmindful of outside world and risk everytihng by trying to come back after being dishonored . Because there are many documented cases when such women were not accepted by their families in India.

No wonder that it required a woman to understand the pains of other women. I was very fond of this film. It kept me guessing till just before the very end what would happen. One of the better movies about the partition that I have seen. Urmila Matondkar is gorgeous too. This is one of the most personal and down-to-earth films I've seen on the partition. It's a little less mainstream than Gadar, and is really an emotional roller coaster where you start out with one opinion of what is going on, and come out completely one the other side. This isn't typical bollywood fare, but rather an art-house type film. The best part of this movie is that it doesn't dehumanize one side of the partition conflict when focusing on the story of another. It doesn't blame or castigate but rather lets you draw your own conclusions about things. This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.

But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.

The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.

There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.

This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".

In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off. Another detailed work on the subject by Dr Dwivedi takes us back in time to pre-partioned Panjab. Dr Dwivedi chose a difficult subject for his movie debut. He has worked on all meticulous details to bring the story to life. The treatment of the subject is very delicate.

Even though we have not been to the region during that time, the sets and costumes look real. Unlike most movies made on partition, this one focuses not on the gory details of violence to attract audience, but on its after-effects. The characters come to life. Priyanshu Chatterjee has given an impressive performance. Manoj Bajpai has acted his heart out showing the plight of a guilt-ridden man. The rest of the cast has done a good job too. A complex story laid on the background of partition of Bharat. An honest Muslim who kidnaps an innocent Hindu girl, and an educated Hindu who burns the harvest of a Muslim man - yet in the end you end up liking them both. The story is powerful, yet the screenplay and flow are hesitant. Background music score and the songs are outstanding. Next comes memorable acting by veteran Urmila Matondkar. Photography captures the time, the violence, and flavor of rural Punjab very well. Others actors either did not act well, or did not get a chance to act. Direction is really the weakest link. The characters were not developed well. Not crisp, in contrast to "the Earth", where even a 5-line character leaves a mark. The end is very interesting. This story could have several different ending - and all of them could have been equally good. Pinjar by Mr dwivedi is an awesome movie. Its definitely the greaest and finest of 2003. There are very good performances in it. Dwivedi knows what he can extract from MAST Urmila. she is like u have never seen before. one true great performance. along with her is a fine actor Manoj bajpai, who has shown bollywood what he is with Bhiku Mhatre. The movie is about a girl(Urmila) living in Pre-partition pakistan. she is from a punjabi family livin in a small town. she is been kidnapped by a muslim guy as a part of a going-on-for-years kinda fight with the punjabi family. and then follows a series of twists and turns as urmila's arranged marriage is due in few days. this movie is truly a very good movie. the storyline is solid with an amazing screenplay. all the performances like lillete dubey, isha koppikar (u wont believ but she can act as well besides jus dancin on Khallas), kulbhushan kharbanda and many more. those sets with pre-partition pakistan, costumes, cinematography, sound, background score add to the positive points. from the start till the end u r stuck to u'r seat with the question whats next? this movie is not jus worth watchin but deserved to be a part of your movie collection. the ultimate scene is the end of the movie. i would suggest all those No-Kabhi-Khushi-Kabhi-gum-and-No-Dil-To-Pagal-Hai crowd to watch this amazing flick. my rating: 10/10. Being that I am not a fan of Snoop Dogg, as an actor, that made me even more anxious to check out this flick. I remember he was interviewed on "Jay Leno," and said that he turned down a role in the big-budget Adam Sandler comedy "The Longest Yard" to be in this film. So obviously, Snoop was on a serious mission to prove that he has acting chops. I'm not going to overpraise Snoop for his performance in "The Tenants." There are certainly better rapper/actors, like Mos Def, who could've done more with his role. But the point is Snoop did a "good" job. He can't seem to shake off some of his trademark body movements and vocal inflections, but that's something even Jack Nicholson has a problem doing. The point is I found him convincing in the role, and the tension between him and Dylan McDermott's character captivating. McDermott, by the way, gives the best performance in the film, though his subtle acting will most likely be overshadowed by Snoop's not-so-subtle acting. Being a big reader and aspiring writer myself, I couldn't help but find the characters and plot somewhat fascinating. It did aggravate me how Snoop's character would constantly ask McDermott to read his work, and berate him for criticizing it. But you know what? I'm sure a lot of writers are like that. His character was supposed to be flawed, as was McDermott's, in his own way. My only mild criticism of the film would be its ending. For some reason, it just felt too rushed for me, though the resolution certainly made sense and was motivated by the characters, rather than plot. THE TENANTS began as a 1971 short novel by the now deceased Bernard Malamud - writer/philosopher - examining the conflicts between Jews and African Americans in the incendiary atmosphere of Brooklyn at the time the book was written. As a novel the story was gut wrenchingly real: as transcribed into a screenplay by novices David Diamond and Danny Green (who also directs) it is more of a cerebral dissertation that gradually erupts into action in the final moments.

Harry Lesser (Dylan McDermott) is a Jewish novelist with one book under his belt but currently attempting to finish his 'newest' book ten years into the writing. Convinced that he must complete the novel in the same environment where it was started. he is the sole tenant in a condemned Brooklyn tenement owned by Levinspiel (Seymour Cassel) who constantly tries to 'buy out' Harry's lease so that the filthy dilapidated building can be demolished. Into this atmosphere enters another Black militant quasi-anti-Semitic writer Willie Spearmint (Snoop Dogg) whom Harry befriends, hides, and offers help to the nascent novelist's attempt to write about the death of all white people. Harry's attempts to help Willie lead to conflict, not the least of which is Harry's meeting Willie's girlfriend, the white Jewish Irene Bell (Rose Byrne) at a less than friendly gathering of Willie's militant black brothers and sisters. Willie and Irene are on the skids and Harry gradually falls in love with Irene and they plan to leave New York as soon as Harry finishes his novel. When Willie hears of the assignation and is further critiqued by Harry, Willie explodes and begins the downward descent of not only a delicate friendship but also a competition between writers. The ending 'reveals the slippery nature of the human condition, and the human capacity for violence and undoing'.

The actors do their best with a script that is a bit awkward but despite scripted lines that border on preaching they create believable characters. The cinematography enhances the story, keeping the mood dank and dense and primarily confined to the condemned building. The musical score appropriately makes use of the solo jazz trumpet and blues piano to underline the tension and isolation of each of these groundless characters. Though it takes some patience to make it through the cerebral ramblings, the film in the end is worth watching. At least it attempts to recreate Malamud's bizarre look at life in the big city. Grady Harp This is a very memorable spaghetti western. It has a great storyline, interesting characters, and some very good acting, especially from Rosalba Neri. Her role as the evil villainess in this film is truly classic. She steals every scene she is in, and expresses so much with her face and eyes, even when she's not speaking. Her performance is very believable. She manages to be quite mesmerizing without being over the top (not that there's anything wrong with being over the top). Mark Damon is surprisingly good in this movie too.

The music score is excellent, and the theme song is the kind that will be playing in your head constantly for days after seeing the movie, whether you want it to or not. There are a couple of parts that are very amusing. I especially like the part where Rosalba Neri undresses in front of the parrot. There's also lots of slick gun-play that's very well done.

I would probably have given this movie 8 or 9 stars if it wasn't for two things. The first being a silly bar room brawl that occurs about 25 minutes into the film. This is one of the most ridiculous looking fights I have ever seen in a movie. It is very poorly choreographed, and looks more like a dance number from a bad musical than any kind of a real fight. One might be able to overlook this if it were a Terence Hill/Bud Spencer comedy, but this is a more serious western, and the brawl really needed to be more realistic. The other thing that annoyed me about this movie was Yuma's cowardly Mexican sidekick. I guess he was supposed to be comic relief or something, but the character was just plain stupid and unnecessary in a movie like this, and he wasn't at all funny. All I can say is where is Tuco when you need him?

All that having been said, let me assure everyone reading this that Johnny Yuma is a classic spaghetti western despite the faults I have mentioned, and all fans of the genre need to see this movie. This wonderful little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so exciting and fun: GREAT music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), EXCITING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and BEAUTIFUL scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very good story with a nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do marvelous jobs--with truly standout performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the best endings of any film I have EVER seen! One of the more satisfying Western all'italiana, Johnny Yuma has the freshness of many WAI made during the heyday of the genre and is highly recommended for fans of the genre or offbeat, intelligent cinema.

Johnny Yuma is, in most respects, not terribly original, but this actually does not count against it. The success of a genre film depends on how well it meets the audience's expectations as well as provides surprising variations on these expected elements. Earlier, pleasing experiences are recreated but with subtle (or major) twist that provide continuing interest. The quality of the execution is also, obviously, important. A tired retread will be less successful than a sincere attempt to entertain or move the audience.

Given these criteria, Johnny Yuma succeeds. There are numerous reprises of elements from earlier films. The setting is the brutal, twisted semi-feudal twilight world of shared by many of the best "Gothic family" westerns made 1964-1968 such as Tempo di massacre (1966). The plot is a combination of the basic Fistful of Dollars (1964) plot and the Ringo films, a fact not surprising as screenwriter Fendiando di Leo was involved in both. Di Leo was one of the best screenwriters in the popular cinema coming out of Cinecitta in the 1960s-70s and his work helped provide much of the thematic continuities and coherency to the genre (Along with a couple of other personalities in a few distinct circles of actors, directors, and screenwriters). In the FOD plot, the protagonist arrives in town, stirs up a tense situation, then undergoes a near-death followed by a resurrection (in some films, like Quella sporca storia nel west (1968) it is quite literally a crucifixion). The Catholic undertone to the narrative and the symbolism is intriguing, especially given the implicit populist/explicit socialist leanings of the filmmakers and their films. The Ringo plot, developed more fully by screenwriter Ernesto Gastaldi in a series of films starring Guliano Gemma, a egoistic protagonist chooses the interest of a community over his own through the medium of a relationship with a member of that community (with a healthy dash ironic uncertainty).

The relationship between Carradine and Johnny is clearly based on that of Manco/Mortimer from a Fistful of Dollar (1965). The two scene of the exchange of the gun belts provides a clever dialog and understanding between the two. Numerous films, including Da uomo a uomo (1968) or even El Chuncho, quién sabe? (1967), use this relationship between an older and younger man (father/son, older/younger brother, Anglo adviser/adversary and peasant revolutionary) as a central dynamic to the plot.

Additionally, there is the focus on deception and misdirection, mazes and mirrors, that recur throughout the best early WAI. The canons and pueblos of Almeria become literal mazes through which protagonist and antagonist play shifting games of cat and mouse.

What distinguishes Johnny Yuma from other WAI is the quality of director Romolo Guerriri's use of visual/psychological space together arrangement with the script's intelligent mechanisms to forward the plot. Dialogue was never very important to the WAI and often absurdly unintelligible (thought there are exceptions, such as the cynical commentaries in Django (1966) or Faccia a faccia (1967).

Psychological depth of character is created almost entirely through iconic imagery, it's juxtapositions, and it's description of the overall narrative situation. See how the presence of the deadly Samantha is felt during the beating scene – watching from the roof or from the background of the action. Or how Johnny strips Samantha and Pedro of their security and confidence in their power through his stealthy invasions of their ranch, hotel, even bedroom (this, again, is a theme from FOD). Finally, note how there is a focus on the search for information. Like many elements, this is borrowed from FOD which was ultimately based on the hard-boiled mystery novel Red Harvest. It is through incidental contacts, wanted posters, overheard conversations, glances out of windows, watches left in the dust, or mistaken identities and movements through the ripples created by the actions of Pedro and Samantha within this surreal and absurd reality that the narrative tacks forward to it's conclusion.

The movie was notable in it's time for what were perceived of as excesses in violence. Of course, these films were hardly more violent than many American westerns. What was different was the psychological intensity of the violence and the causes to which it was attributed, which is to say that it was not the violence but it's meaning that had changed. Johnny Yuma is distinct and interesting in it's use and portrayal of violence and this is another interesting aspect of the film.

What I personally find most interesting about most of this genre is the link it provides to the anonymous, nameless audiences in Italy and Spain to whom these recurrent narratives held some significance and interest. The artifact may have no intrinsic worth in and of itself – some flint debitage from a prehistoric site, a shard of cruse pottery, or a moldering piece of leather and rusted metal – but it is reference to some nameless presence, lives, that were significant simply because they existed. While Johnny Yuma has intrinsic worth, much of it's interest for me derives from this connection and mystery.

Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907

Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889

For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890 Spoiler for anyone who is lucky enough to ever see this film (so not really spoiler after all). Saw this film when it was released and can still remember parts of it. It's all set in a small town in the west or what is left of that town. It more resembles a ghost town with few inhabitants. Among them a couple, where the wife is especially wicked. She lets her man die in the end of the film and leaves the town but has to cross the desert. We never know what happens to her next but just before she left her dying man shoots after her and deliberately does not hit her and instead the water supply. She is not aware of that soon she will be very thirsty. Mark Damon kills a couple of bad guys in a funny manor - but that's another story, which I don't remember too good. The remaining impression of the film was that it was one of the first times I saw a really wicked woman on film, who pretends to be anything but wicked - can't be compared with the witch in 'Snowwhite', who, in comparison is easy to find out. Very tight western with few main characters and still absorbing. In the opening scene, the eye patch wearing desperado named Hawkeye has a smooth forehead, but when he follows Johnny into the pueblo, he's shown with a scar over his patched eye. That's just one of the many continuity lapses in this edgy 'spaghetti' Western, but rather than detract from the picture, it adds a special flavor to the proceedings.

Another occurs when Sanchez turns in his three dead bodies, they have to be examined for their identities - "You just can't imagine how many false cadavers we have in our town". Immediately after, Carradine (Lawrence Dobkin) shows up to collect his bounty with no more than a wanted poster in hand.

As for the film's principal Johnny Yuma (Mark Damon), he's shown with his holster alternately on his right and left hip throughout the movie after exchanging gun belts with Carradine following the barroom brawl. Johnny's bound for San Margo at his uncle's request, but will have to avenge his death at the hands of deceitful wife Samantha (Rosalba Neri) and her conniving brother Pedro (Louis Vanner). It takes some time getting there, but it's a fun ride with one of the best music scores on record. As for that saloon fight, I got a kick out of the kung fu sound effects every time a punch connected.

Care for some more story exaggerations? Following the duel with Pedro the first time, Johnny wipes a small amount of blood from his lip which he manages to smear Pedro's entire face with. Similarly, when Pedro smacks around little Pepe later in the film he doesn't cut him, but by the time Johnny arrives, Pepe's face is covered with blood.

"Johnny Yuma" is probably one of the best of the genre that doesn't have Clint Eastwood in it. As Johnny, Mark Damon is a reasonably suitable stand in but without the seething exterior. Carradine seemed to be a replacement for the obligatory Lee Van Cleef character, without being a total bad guy. At first the identity exchange between Carradine and Johnny didn't seem to make sense, but it all tied together by the time the film ended. You knew each henchman would wind up getting his due; marking time for each was part of the anticipation.

In case you're wondering, the title hero has nothing to do with the Nick Adams character from the classic TV Western "The Rebel". In this film, Johnny got his name from a gunfight he had in Yuma once.

Perhaps the most unique element of the story had to do with the way it tied things up with the evil Samantha who pulled the strings behind the scenes throughout. After shooting Carradine she beats a hasty retreat before Johnny can get his revenge. Still alive, it looks like Carradine tries to shoot her and misses, but it doesn't take long for Johnny and Sanchez to track her into the dessert where she perished without water - Carradine aimed for her canteen. After some difficulty, Johnny Yuma arrives at his ailing uncle's ranch to take over day to day operations, only to find out that the old man has been murdered by his beautiful gold-digger wife and the woman's vicious brother.

Good production values, a likable performance by Mark Damon, and a breezy action packed script combine to make this an entertaining, if not exceptionally deep, above average addition to the spaghetti western genre.

Co-star Rosalba Neri is one of the hottest European babes ever to grace the screen. Here she's absolutely perfect as the cold-hearted user (and abuser) of weak men.

Damon and Neri appeared together in at least one other picture, The Devil's Wedding Night, a pretty good horror movie that's of particular interest for those of you that want to see what's underneath Rosalba's dresses. After the SuperFriends and Scooby Doo left the Saturday morning airwaves in the fall of 1986, I pretty much stopped watching Saturday morning cartoons at that point since those were the only two that kept me tuning in. And since neither the Real Ghostbusters nor the Flintstone Kids seemed very promising to me, I "retired" and started sleeping in on Saturday mornings. I only returned to Saturday morning TV in 1988 for that one year only for one and only one animated show.

A new animated show of Superman was something I was not going to pass up. I was 17 and in high school at the time, but so what! I loved this show. From what I can recall, this series was a gift to fans I suppose in celebration of Superman's 50th birthday that particular year. It had the theme music and the music style reminiscent of John Williams movie score from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I honestly felt that the animation style Ruby Spears did was reminiscent of the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians series by Hanna Barbera a few years before. Sadly, Danny Dark was not back as Superman, but I felt Beau Weaver did a very impressive job as the voice of Superman and his Clark Kent was nerdy like the Chris Reeve version. After hearing him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic on the 90's Fantastic Four, I could still see this version of Superman in my mind. Ginny McSwain as Lois Lane. LOL! What a rhyme. She was a voice director for Hanna Barbera and Ruby Spears and I guess she took it upon herself to do Lois. Memories of the SuperFriends lingered in this series when it came to the voice over cast. Jimmy Olsen is Mark Taylor, who on the SuperFriends was formerly Firestorm. Perry White is none other than former Batman TV writer Stanley Ralph Ross, who on SuperFriends was Gorilla Grodd and Brainiac in the Super Powers shows. And Lex Luthor, now a wise cracking billionaire tycoon is none other than SuperFriends voice alum, Michael Bell, whom I know best as Zan and the Riddler as well as many other characters on many other series.

I felt this series was a combination of the movie Superman along with the post crisis John Byrne re envision of Superman, with Lex Luthor as a billionaire tycoon, Jonathan and Martha Kent being alive to see Clark as Superman. The Bruce Timm series and Lois and Clark would also do this. Unfortunately, we never saw Brainiac, Bizarro, Toyman, Metallo, or Darkseid. Other than Luthor, we saw only the Prankster and we did see General Zod. I especially enjoyed that one episode with Wonder Woman, who was voiced over by BJ Ward who played her on the Super Powers Team as well.

The episodes were smashing and I also enjoyed Clark's growing and development stories from infancy to childhood to adolescence to an adult moving to Metropolis in the short little segment, Superman's Family Album.

The only two things I didn't like. It only lasted one season. And after Wonder Woman's guest spot, I was hoping Batman would turn up voiced over by Adam West (Still thinking about the Super Powers Team episodes I guess). I also hoped for it because on the Prankster episode, the Metropolis baseball team was pitted against the Gotham Goliaths.

Every popular Super Hero has one cartoon series that is ultra rare. For SpiderMan, I feel it's the 1981 solo series that aired the same time as Amazing Friends. For the Incredible Hulk, it's the 1982 cartoon. For the Fantastic Four, it's the 1978 series with HERBIE the Robot. For Batman, it's the New Adventures of Batman 1977 by Filmation featuring BatMite. But for Superman, the rarest series is this one.

Superman books and documentaries never cover or mention it. This is another series that WB should consider for DVD release. All in all, this 1988 version of Superman is well....Super!! In my mind, this remains one of the very best depictions of Superman on TV, as well as one of the most faithful to a particular comics period.

This series paid homage to both the Superman films of the '70s/'80s and the Superman comics series "reboot" of 1986-onward ("Man of Steel," "Superman Vol 2," "Action Comics," "Adventures of Superman," etc). The opening score and titles were stirring, based on the John Williams score from the films, updated for a Saturday morning action series. Marv Wolfman, one of the main contributors to the comics reboot (writer of "Adventures of Superman") was a perfect choice to be involved in this animated series. Overall, the series had a more mature feel while continuing to be very kid-friendly.

Superman was presented as believable, strong, and iconic. His recurring nemesis was Lex Luthor in his megalomaniac/CEO incarnation. The Daily Planet characters Lois, Jimmy, and Perry were portrayed well. One of my favorite appearances was by Wonder Woman, and the story revolved around her home island of Themyscira ("Paradise Island"). Both her design and that of her mother Hippolyte were in keeping with the similarly rebooted Wonder Woman comic book series of the era, and it seemed like an equally well-done animated series could have been developed for her if handled the same.

The one thing that is hard to believe is that this has not been released on DVD/Blu-ray! It deserves to be. Kids - of whatever age - do not want to know about their parents' sex lives. And grown-up children are often seriously baffled and disconcerted by any evidence that aging parents possess an active libido. Lastly, many moviegoers are very uncomfortable watching a dowdy, frumpy widow who would pass unnoticed almost anywhere discover her aching capacity and need for raw passion with a handsome man half her age.

"The Mother" is a provocative look at a scarcely filmed reality - a woman who isn't ready to stay home, watch "the telly," and vegetate after her husband of nearly three decades, and a controlling, dominating chap at that, packs it in with a massive heart attack.

May (Anne Reid) and her husband have two children, each dysfunctional in his or her own way. The male son lives with a beautiful wife who may well be driving him to the Bankruptcy Court with her extravagant commercial venture. Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw), is a teacher with aspirations of succeeding as a writer. She's attractive, not pretty, and she seems to have a close relationship with mum - at first.

Back at her house after burying her husband, May determines to not stay there. Rejecting typical widowhood with its legacy of boring days and no adventure, she goes to stay with Paula who has a young son. Paula's boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig), is a ruggedly handsome contractor who seems to be taking an awfully long time to complete an addition to May's son's house. May is quite taken with hard-drinking, coke-sniffing Darren whose treatment of Paula ought to have alerted May that he was, for sure, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Cads.

What follows is a torrid affair between Darren and the besotted and now bubblingly alive (dare I say reborn?) widow. The love scenes are graphic but take second place to amateur artist May's pen and ink sketches of their trysts which then play a role in the enfolding drama (or debacle, take your pick).

The theater in Manhattan was packed for today's early afternoon showing with well over half the audience in the range of May's age. That some were shocked or disturbed to see her disporting herself with erotic abandon in the arms of a much younger man is an understatement.

This blindingly honest look at an older woman's awakened passion after decades of dutifully obeying her husband's desire that she stay at home and raise kids (she also mentions he didn't like her to have friends-what a guy) surfaces a number of issues. While May's dalliance with Darren doesn't constitute incest, there are real psychological dimensions, and issues, with a mother bedding her daughter's lover. And Paula isn't made of the stoutest stuff to begin with. The affair, once disclosed, allows the peeling open of the mother-daughter relationship which, from Paula's viewpoint, left something to be desired. Ms. Bradshaw is excellent in the role of a daughter who wants her mother's support as well as her love-she hasn't been dealt a terrible hand by life but it isn't a bed of roses either.

May is strong in her resolve to both acknowledge her sexuality and expect, indeed demand, a future of happiness. But she is also inescapably vulnerable. She's fishing in uncharted emotional waters. Who controls her relationship with Darren and why are difficult issues for her to understand, much less resolve. In her sixties, she's still a work in progress.

"Something's Gotta Give" recently showcased mature sexuality but in an amusingly antiseptic way assuring no viewer would be discomfited. After all it's Jack Nicholson and the always beautiful Diane Keaton cavorting in the world of the rich. And to insure that no serious psycho-social issues were explored, Keaton's young girlfriend, Amanda Peet, daughter of Keaton, not only blesses the match but insures that the audience knows she and her old(er) would-be lover never hopped into the sack.

No easy out here. Anne Reid's inspired performance forces discomfort on some while drawing respect from others. Her naked body bursts with sexuality for some and appears absurd as an object of physical attraction to others (the comments of audience members leaving today reflected all these views).

Kudos to director Roger Michell for tackling a fascinating story with verve and empathy.

9/10. It's hard to imagine a director capable of such godawful crap as 'Notting Hill' pulling off something as sensitive and as attractive as this, but well, here's the evidence and it's quite compelling. Several have alluded to TV drama, and yes, this does have a seventies Play for Today feel at times, but is always a cut above, mainly I think owing to some quite superlative acting from Anne Reid and to a fine script which shadow-boxes with cliché without ever getting one on the nose, except maybe right at the end. (I didn't like either the tracking shot of indifferent goodbyes through the hallway, nor the oh-what-a-beautiful-morning final scene: she deserved a more studied finale than that I think, after all that hard work. The slippers business was a bit OTT too, on reflection).

What I mean about avoiding cliché: well, I for one had a sinking expectation that the "mature" man May's daughter tries to set her up with would be cast in 2 dimensions as a repulsive old bore, so as to point the contrast more painfully with the attractive, virile young geezer he is unwittingly competing with. Instead, we get an unexpectedly subtle and sympathetic cameo of a lonely, clumsy, not entirely unlikeable and very human fellow, who nevertheless doesn't have much of a clue about entertaining a woman. It was around that point I started to sit up and pay more attention. Here was a script that let the actors breathe and do something interesting with fairly minor parts. Almost Mike Leigh in that respect (minus the contrived catharses that the latter inexplicably goes in for).

And of course I was, as everyone probably was, dumbfounded by what Anne Reid does with her character and with her body. She's /not/ "the repressed, dutiful housewife discovering herself for the first time", this is far too simplistic for the character we have. Again and again there are allusions to her having been a "bad housewife", not to mention that thing she does with trays, trying to look nurturing and comely and only succeeding in looking awkward. The daughter accuses her of having "sat in front of the TV all day" instead of, well, whatever her motherly duties might be presumed to have been: she has no answer. She never was a model wife and mother, at least not to herself - that's where a lot of the poignancy comes from, the sense of someone having wasted a life trying to fulfil a role she simply wasn't good at, ever. A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote "My Beautiful Laundrette", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.

As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year. [WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]

I have this adult friend for whom the notion that her parents have sex makes her terribly uneasy. She came to mind when I reflected on the audience's reaction to "The Mother."

People gasped when May (Anne Reid) writhed passionately in bed with her younger hunk lover, Darren (Daniel Craig) or later saw sexually explicit drawings by May. I doubt the audience was aghast at the nudity or the drawings' content as much as feeling uneasy at seeing a woman in her 60s rapturously enjoying sex.

Screenwriter Hanif Kureishi ("My Beautiful Laundrette," "My Son the Fanatic") again proves why he's among the most trenchant storytellers on either side of the Atlantic. His story's not easy to take. This searing family drama isn't a film you can claim you enjoyed watching because it's raw, complex, and often makes us very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it's powerfully good stuff.

Kureishi and Roger Michell (who directed "Notting Hill," of all things) craft an unsentimental, wrenching and superbly-acted portrait of an older woman who realizes, after all these years, she can and should still enjoy all of life's pleasures. In a wonderfully epiphanous moment, when her son, Bobby, asks her not to be difficult, May shoots back, "Why not?"

Why not, indeed.

Anne Reid deserves an Oscar nomination for her turn as May. It's subtle, restrained, powerful and sad, often all at the same time. Watch Reid when May observes Darren and Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) in a seemingly passionate clutch in a pub. Or, when she begs Paula to open the front door after a disastrous date. Reid's eyes and face reveal all of May's anguish and despair. In the film's most devastating moment, May drops to her knees before Darren, willing to do anything for him, only asking him to be kind. This is a tremendously gutsy performance by a remarkable actress.

I enjoyed Michell's use of natural sound, especially when May and Toots first arrive at Bobby's place. It perfectly illustrated the cacophony around May and Toots, the flippant manner in which their own family welcomes them.

This film, at times, reminded me of the honesty and rawness of Mike Leigh's work, except "The Mother" hangs on to a slight sense of optimism to keep afloat.

My one quibble: Michell's decision to give May and Darren's first love scene an almost cheesy sensibility. The lovers remain out of focus while, in the foreground, a white curtain flutters gently in the breeze. And the only sound is of May in the throes of passion.

The problem with Michell's approach is that both Reid and Craig, who completely envelops the role of Darren, plough their way so fearlessly into these roles that it's unfair to hide their characters' almost primitive energy from the audience. Especially since Michell has no qualms about making later sex scenes visceral.

This film doesn't have immensely likable characters. We sympathize with May, but she, too, causes her daughter's suffering. But I doubt Kureishi intended to people his story with likable folk. His point, I believe, was to unmask a family that's already cracking when something emotionally cataclysmic happens. It's unflinching in its candor and ultimately unforgettable. Although at one point I thought this was going to turn into The Graduate, I have to say that The Mother does an excellent job of explaining the sexual desires of an older woman.

I'm so glad this is a British film because Hollywood never would have done it, and even if they had, they would have ruined it by not taking the time to develop the characters.

The story is revealed slowly and realistically. The acting is superb, the characters are believably flawed, and the dialogue is sensitive. I tried many times to predict what was going to happen, and I was always wrong, so I was very intrigued by the story.

I highly recommend this movie. And I must confess, I'll forever look at my mom in a different light! 'The Mother' is that extraordinary piece of film making - it gets you thinking, it pulls no punches - and ultimately it leaves you thinking. Very much open-ended as to the lead character's fate. Anne Reid (which I only knew briefly from her appearances in some Victoria Wood-led projects and thought a fine comedienne) is truly superb here. Not the stereotypical widowed housewife that was perfect in marriage and motherhood at all. And not all that free-spirited and adventurous at first. She plays her character just with the right note that rings true (well, it did to me). Powerful cast. Great script. Renaissance of European cinema indeed ;) A woman left alone after the death of her husband finds herself attracted to her son's friend and handy man. In a slightly twisted story, the woman begins sleeping with the handy man in an effort to revive herself. The twisted part? The handy man is also her daughter's on and off love interest.

As if this wasn't strange enough, the mother manages to fall for this man and when her daughter finds out, she blames not only her dysfunctional relationship but also her messed up life on her poor mother.

Though you may think badly of this woman, the truth is movie manages to portray her in a positive light. Beautifully played by Anne Reid, this character has dimension and portrays great emotion.

A truly brilliant performance and an enjoyable film.

8/10 At the beginning of the film we watch May and Toots preparing for their trip to London for a visit to their grown children. One can see Toots is not in the best of health, but he goes along. When he dies suddenly, May's world, begins to spin out of control.

The film directed by Roger Michell, based on a screen play by Hanif Kureshi, is a study of how this mother figure comes to terms with her new status in life and her awakening into a world that she doesn't even know it existed until now.

May's life as a suburban wife was probably boring. Obviously her sexual life was next to nothing. We get to know she's had a short extra marital affair, then nothing at all. When May loses her husband she can't go back home, so instead, she stays behind minding her grandson at her daughter's home. It is in this setting that May begins lusting after young and hunky Darren, her daughter's occasional lover.

Darren awakes in May a passion she has not ever known. May responds by transforming herself in front of our eyes. May, who at the beginning of the film is dowdy, suddenly starts dressing up, becoming an interesting and attractive woman. She ends up falling heads over heels with this young man that keeps her sated with a passion she never felt before.

Having known a couple of cases similar to this story, it came as no surprise to me to watch May's reaction. Her own chance of a normal relationship with Bruce, a widower, ends up frustratingly for May, who realizes how great her sex is with Darren. The younger man, we figure, is only into this affair to satisfy himself and for a possibility of extorting money from May. Finally, the daughter, Helen discovers what Mum has been doing behind her back when she discovers the erotic paintings her mother has made.

The film is a triumph for the director. In Anne Reid, Mr. Michell has found an extraordinary actress who brings so much to the role of May. Also amazing is Daniel Craig. He knows how Darren will react to the situation. Anna Wilson Jones as Helen is also vital to the story as she is the one that has to confront the mother about what has been going on behind her back. Oliver Ford Davies plays a small part as Bruce the older man in Helen's class and is quite effective.

The film is rewarding for those that will see it with an open mind.

This is an excellent film dealing with a potentially exploitative subject with great sensitivity. Anne Reid, previously best known in the UK for her TV roles including 'Dinnerladies' (a Victoria Wood scripted series on in-company catering workers, if you're wondering), gives a performance of finely judged understatement as May, a late-60s bereaved mother of two chattering class adults in an inner-London borough. Her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan) dies on their visit to the male of the latter species (Bobby), and we see the pair being rather casually greeted by Bobby and his family. May's teacher daughter Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) lives nearby, however, and the relationship between May and Paula initially appears closer. Thus when May decides she cannot live in her own home and comes back to London, she is able to stay in Paula's house and do some child-minding of Paula's more appreciative offspring.

It is on May's visits to Bobby's house that she embarks on an affair with Darren, a mid-30s friend of Bobby who is working on a house extension. In what may be the first mainstream British film to so portray it, it is May and not Darren (Daniel Craig*) who initiates the encounter, and, at least to begin with, it seems that the relationship is founded on mutual respect. There is no explicit sexual content (at least in the DVD I saw: differences in the IMDb cast list suggests the existence of other versions), and the physical basis of the affair is handled directly but not exploitatively. More strongly portrayed is the relationship between May and daughter Paula, a recent convert to 'therapy and self-exploration', who announces that mummy has never been supportive of her. Paula is also Darren's lover, and when she finds May's explicit but rather poor drawings of Darren and May together, things go downhill in dramatic but controlled fashion. Only in an English film, perhaps, could a daughter announce that she is going to hit her mother, politely ask her to stand up, and duly wallop her.

In the mean time, May is being drawn into a putative relationship with a decent but older (of her own generation) member of Paula's writing group. The contrast between the ensuing unwanted intercourse and her affair with Darren is clearly made; it is at that point that May starts to acquiesce to Paula, and Darren's worm begins to turn (he reveals on cocaine that he may have been after her money, if not all along, but for some of the ride). So May finds herself superfluous to both of her children's needs, and finally does return home (but later leaves on a jet plane for pastures new).

The film's strength is that it portrays with unflinching but sympathetic truth the nature of contemporary adult parent-sibling relationships, where bereavement may leave the surviving parent feeling more alone than if they had no-one to care for them. This is not new, but the openness of the portrayal of sexual need in the over-60s may well be. The darkness of the film's content, from a screenplay by Hanif Kureishi, stands in contrast to the way in which it is lit (it seems to be perpetual summer), and the overall mood is uplifting - it could so easily have been yet another piece set in a dour and rainy England. The ending is perhaps under-written, as we don't know where May is going or for how long - perhaps she's Shirley Valentine with a pension, she's certainly no Picasso. Anne Reid is, however, revealed as a fine actor whose professional life will surely have changed forever. Like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain (said by Paul Newman), "There goes your Mary Poppins {read Dinnerladies} image for good".

* Yes, he: announced Oct 2005 as the new James Bond. Wow. Saw this last night and I'm still reeling from how good it was. Every character felt so real (although most of them petty, selfish a**holes) and the bizarre story - middle aged widow starts shagging her daughter's feckless boyfriend - felt utterly convincing. Top performances all round but hats off to Anne Reid and Our Friends in the North's Daniel Craig (the latter coming across as the next David Thewlis).

And director Roger Michell? This is as far from Notting Hill as it's possible to be. Thank God.

Watch this movie!!! I am embarrassed to say that I missed "The Mother" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films. I somehow missed this movie when it came out and have discovered it as late as last week thanks to a friend's recommendation. I can honestly say that I cannot remember another intimate dramatic film, which does so many things so well. The writing is crisp, realistic, nuanced, and even restrained. The cinematography and editing are understated but inspired, enabling the visual storytelling to dominate through marvelous close-ups and framing of images, capturing loneliness and alienation in most memorable ways. The acting is also wonderful, with all of the characters becoming painfully real and vulnerable in the most compelling ways that a film can offer. They reveal their innermost weaknesses with unprotected, raw vulnerability. A real triumph for Roger Michell and Hanif Kureishi, and the rest of the team. A must see for serious film lovers. What a moving film. I have a dear friend who is in her sixties and for the past 15 years has told me that people don't see her anymore, and she longs for companionship. Being in my late 40s I am beginning to see what she has been complaining about. You are no longer youthful, beautiful or touchable. When May says "...this lump of a body..." wow. How our bodies change and how we are told it is no longer beautiful. I love when she begins to change what she wears...the colorful scarf...no longer the frumpy wife.

It is a sad and wonderful picture at the same time. Sad in that May betrays her daughter's trust...beautiful in that she finds herself through the difficulty of the affair, and chooses to move on and finally have her own life. I love the character's daring to even initiate the love affair.

Mostly I love the movie because finally it is a picture that shows the intricate nature of relationships, be they familial or not. We see Paula's vulnerability, yet she will have what she wants at all costs...(when she tells her mum that she will have a baby for Darren whether he wants one or not after her mother asks if Darren even wants a child). The movie hits the mark on the how relationships can change, and yet reveals what has been there all along, dormant. May has stifled her own creativity to raise a family. A family that she didn't really want, but was "something you just did when she was young". I love the scene when Darren calls her an old tart, and she smiles and says "I was never called that before". It was truly a gem of a movie.

And Daniel Craig. Well, i just love him. I was pleasantly surprised. Not only is he pleasant on the eyes, he is a real talent. What a neat role. He is much more than any 007 that is for sure and I look forward to seeing him in more roles of this nature. The scene where he is pleasuring May and the look he gives her is sort of a look of wonder that he has such control over this woman, and also one of pleasure of being able to give this to her. He is actually enjoying giving her pleasure. A wonderful scene. The contrast is the love scene with Bruce. Bruce is totally absorbed with his own pleasure...two completely different men.

Alas...I wonder where is my Darren? With the death of her infirmed husband, May, an older woman faces a future in an urban world that views her as invisible, dead from the neck down, and unwelcome in the pseudo- sophisticated yuppie homes of her son, Bobby and his shallow wife, Helen, and Paula, a self- absorbed, clinging, and minimally talented daughter. The central family is anything but warm, supportive, and understanding of her new and tragic stage in life with the death of her husband. The Mother is a quiet character study that points up how in some societies, the elder parent is both unwelcome and a burden to grown children whose careers and status seeking overshadow all else.

As May comes to realize the world is still important to her, the lonely widow finds her libido reawakened and alive with her daughter's boyfriend, a carpenter and rough sort. May embarks on an uninhibited sexual affair with Darren whose character is sympathetic to her at first, but his flawed nature is quickly revealed through the pressures of the women who surround him.

This is the kind of role Hollywood actresses of a certain age whine is never written for them, but would never appear in because the film's frankness, overt sexuality, unglamorous wardrobe, little makeup, and social commentary on the vapidness of the very society most film industry women are enchrenched. The performance by the lead actress, Anne Reid ranges from quiet to giddy and her interpretation blossoms on screen from the drab widow to a sexually alive and freed middle age woman without face-lift, hair extensions, and liposuction. She bares more than her soul for the screen.

Daniel Craig is the enabling handyman, Derrek who beds both mother and daughter. He turns in another stellar performance that is at first sympathetic to the widow's situation, but in the end is without redemption as his true nature unfold and he is literally the rooster in a hen-house. His aimless character's inability to say no to the ex-wife, boring girlfriend, and her mother is blamed as the root of his ineffectual existence. While good with his hands at building a conservatory, he is unable to construct meaning in his life.

One of the best films from Britain in years, it is simply adult in its storyline. The Mother is the rare kind of film that is perhaps too honest for American audiences to tolerate having no car chase, no bling, no rap soundtrack to drown out the cretin performances by TV starlets and buff studmuffins. The Mother reflects how the aging baby boomers are now disposable people that offspring are willing to overlook, send to the retirement home, and get out of the way. May doesn't know what to do as she is made alive by Darren, isn't willing to go to the old folks home, and finds her kids are more conservative than she ever was at their age. Kureishi hasn't exactly been blessed with movies that justify the quality of his writing. Recent adapted travesty's like 'Intimacy' have ruined great writing. But The Mother surpasses all his previous incarnations, eclipsing even My Beautiful Laundrette. A middle-aged woman overcomes widow-hood by having a very carnal relationship with the boyfriend of her emotionally-weak daughter. The fact that you believe all this is credit to the quality of the acting as it is to the finite gift of the writing. And in Daniel Craig we have a strutting, brash, gruff anti-hero who denies the audience to ever question why a young stud would contemplate bedding a sagging grandmother. Beautifully shot, the film fails only in the weak depiction of the peripheral characters, but as a study of inconceivable lust, it's a winner. I went to this movie only because I was dragged there and I would have left again immediately because the audience consisted mainly of elderly people and I felt out of place. However, the film was utterly fascinating and far from being targeted towards old people. The characters were all very real and believable and I found myself discussing the film, the characters and the storyline for hours afterwards. There are a few quite engrossing scenes in there but they are necessary and help you to understand the situation much better. All in all, this is a great and valuable film - slightly off mainstream but that does not mean that this film cannot be enjoyed by people who prefer mainstream. It's a thrilling and interesting movie experience. "The Mother" is a weird low-budget movie, touching at least two uncomfortable themes not usually explored in the cinema: denial of love of mother for their own son and daughter, and lust and passion in the third age.

The characters are awful: May is a disgusting old lady and I believe it is impossible to feel any kind of sympathy or sorrow for her. She confesses that she did not love her son and her daughter. She cheated her husband twice with an intellectual. She steals the beloved man of her daughter, not to protect her from a guy without moral, that does not love her, but just because she feel horny with him. She is trying to organize her life after the loss of her husband in the worst possible way, destroying her daughter delusions. Paula, her daughter, is a fragile loser, who accepts her life the way it is. Her brother Bobby is a man who lost his savings because of his wife, who insists in having her shop, a terrible business indeed. Darren is an amoral addicted jerk who does not like anybody, even himself.

The acting and direction are excellent: the actresses and actors have outstanding performances and the direction is very precise. I liked this movie, but I recognize that it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Recomeçar" ("Re-Start") While movie titles contains the word 'Mother', the first thing that comes to our mind will be a mother's love for her children.

However, The Mother tells a different story.

The Mother do not discuss the love between a mother and her child, or how she sacrifice herself for the benefit of her child. Here, Notting Hill director Roger Michell tells us how a mother's love for a man about half of her age hurts the people around her.

Before Daniel Craig takes on the role of James Bond, here, he plays Darren, a man who is helping to renovate the house of the son of the mother, and sleeping with her daughter as well. Anne Reid, who was a familiar face on TV series, takes up the challenging role of the leading character, May.

The story begins with May coping with the sudden loss of her husband, Toots, in a family visit to her son, Bobby. While she befriends Darren, a handyman who is doing some renovation in Bobby's house, she was shocked to found out that her daughter, Paula, was sleeping with Darren. At the same time, May was coping with life after the death of Toots. Fearing that Harry and Paula do not wanted her, May starts to find her life going off track, until she spends her afternoon with Darren.

Darren was nice and friendly to May, and May soon finds some affection on Darren. Instead of treating him like a friend, she treated the man who was about half her age with love of a couple. Later, May found sexual pleasure from Darren, where he gave her the pleasure she could never find on anyone else. And this is the beginning of the disaster that could lead to the break down of a family.

The Mother explores the inner world of a widow who wanted to try something she never had in her life, and solace on someone who is there for her to shoulder on. This can be told from May buying tea time snacks for Darren to fulfilling sexual needs from a man younger than her, where it eventually gave her more than she bargained for.

Anne Reid has made a breakthrough for her role of May, as she was previously best well known for her various role on TV series. As she do not have much movies in her career resume, The Mother has put her on the critic's attention. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, had took on a similar role in his movie career, such as Sylvia (2003) and Enduring Love (2004). If his reprising role of James Bond fails, film reviewers should not forget that he has a better performance in small productions in his years of movie career, and The Mother is one of them.

The Mother may not be everyone's favorite, but it is definitely not your usual matinée show to go along with tea and scones, accompanied by butter and jam. "If I sit down I will never stand up again", that's what the mother (the one of the title) says to his son when he tells her to get some rest (she's just widowed). He means that resting is what a woman of his age and in her situation has to do: to rest in peace, to neglect herself. But she's not in the mood for "resting", not yet. She also has a daughter who reproaches her for each and every disasters in her life... Suddenly, the revelation comes: sex and passion in the figure of a muscular carpenter 30 years younger than her (Daniel Craig, the brand new James Bond) when she "thought nobody would ever touch her again". It is a story that makes you reflect on many things, specially on what's a 60 something woman is supposed to do with her life when his husband dies. It doesn't look that we've advanced that such in those aspects. I mean, nobody's surprised when Sean Connery has a love affair in a movie with Catherine Zeta Jones... but what would you think if it was otherwise? An old woman, a young guy... nah, you ain't ready for that, are you?

The movie has intimist tones all along its length, except for 2 or 3 sequences in which that tones breaks and out comes some explicit and foul-mouthed dialogs. Those vulgar touches and the way the son and the daughter find out their mother's love affair (pretty absurd -you'll know what I mean when you watch it-) are the only discordant elements in "The Mother".

*My rate: 7/10 May and her husband go to visit their children and grandchildren. The visit is awkward because the grandchildren and "kids" don't really seem to know each other as one might expect. The warmth that should be there is missing. After dinner, May's husband says he doesn't feel well, blames it on his daughter's cooking, and irritably says he wants to go home. He dies that night.

May, now a widow, is lost. She clearly did not have a passionate marriage or a very interesting one, but she had a purpose. She had someone who needed her, and even though her own needs had gone unmet for years, she had something to do with her days.

She is depressed and unmotivated. She goes to stay with her daughter, Paula, who shortly after her mother's arrival, lets her mother know that she has never felt that her mother has given much of herself at all. She lets loose with anger over her mother's lack of nurturing. May seems disarmed and surprised, yet she also doesn't seem to have the energy or the desire to really make it right. "I'm your mother and I love you." What does really say? (I've heard this from my own mother way too many times and have yet to figure out what it means.) Paula is a bit (well, more than a bit) neurotic. Both women are needy, though they show it very differently.

Paula has been involved with a friend of her son's, Darren, who is a handyman working on the house owned by her son. While Paula is working during the day, May begins to have conversations and lunches with Darren. Darren is a married man who has stayed with his wife because of their autistic son, Nicky, but supposedly doesn't live in the home with his wife.

May becomes attracted to Darren because he is virile and she enjoys the connection they seem to have. Darren becomes attracted to May because she offers a kind of peace and understanding that he does not get from the other women in his life. (He also becomes too interested in money that May says she can give him to "get away from it all," though he is clearly not interested in her desire to join him on such a journey. They end up sleeping together in the spare room during the day, and May enjoys fulfillment as a woman that she has not known in years, nor had ever expected to know again. As her daughter Paula had often told her that she would leave the married Darren, this becomes part of May's rationalization that what she is doing is okay.

At a writing group that Paula leads, May is introduced, rather forced to get together with a widower to whom she is not attracted. There is one scene where she has sex with the older man, who clearly can barely perform, and it truly painful and unsettling as we see the total disgust on May's face as she endures the one-time ghastly liaison.

Eventually, Paula discovers through some very graphic sketches done by her mother, that indeed her mother and Darren have been having sex.

This film will undoubtedly be seen by many in myriad ways. Sympathies will be divided. At one point, during Paula's writing group, May reveals through a short essay that she used to feel as though she hated her kids by the end of the day, and would leave for pubs after they were asleep, making sure to get back home before her husband.

Clearly, a good mother does not think of leaving children alone while she goes off to the local pub. May, however, also had revealed earlier in the film that her husband didn't like her having any friends, so she didn't have any. She did what he wanted her to do. She was miserable but she put up with it because, as she said, "it was easier." So, while May was not the best mother, for those inclined to have any sympathy for her, one might see May's actions as the act of a woman just wanting to be sexual and to be a live for "a few minutes" in her lifetime. A woman who just wanted someone to listen to her, to know her as a human being, to have a friend and a lover.

Paula, though neurotic and unhappy, perhaps has become that way because of the distant parents who raised her. Certainly, it is not difficult to understand why Paula feels completely betrayed by her mother.

It is a well-done film, with more complexities than I have mentioned, and certainly one that will leave the viewer with many, perhaps conflicting, reactions. It is a film worth discussing and debating, and above all, worth seeing.

One thing the film leaves us with is the horror and fear of a lonely life. No matter who is deemed "right" or who is deemed 'wrong" by each viewer, that theme of old age and loneliness, evoking a sense of dread in most of us, is inescapable. "The Mother" tells of a recently widowed mid-60's mother of two adult children (Reid) who, on the heels of her husband's death, finds herself awakening from a life of sleepwalking as she has an affair with a young carpenter who is also her daughter's married lover. The film dwells on the quietly passive Mom, her tenuous relationship with her grown son and daughter, the silent needs she attempts to soothe in bed with her young lover, and the convolutions arising therefrom. A somewhat antiseptic drama with rumbling psychodramatic undercurrents, "The Mother" does an excellent job of dealing with uncomfortable issues realistically while avoiding gratuitous sensationalism. Will play best with more mature audiences, possibly women, who may better empathize with the central character, her needs and issues. (B+) This is a really interesting film. It's the first time I have seen the relationship between an older woman and a younger guy on screen without it being sensationalist. For the director of Notting Hill this is a bold move to something serious The Mother is one of those films that you know is good, maybe even great, but it is like eating vegetables or doing math homework is to a kid - too much work and a whole lot of pain to get invested in.

The story is potentially distasteful in many ways: the death of a character within the first half hour, the December-May romance, the idea of a man cheating on his wife and then cheating on his lover with her mother, the collection of weak and rather unpleasant thirty-something characters, the apparent indifference of the adults to the children in their lives. This movie was made in the 2002 or 2003, but is a throw back to a collection of British (usually made-for-TV) movies from the late 1980's - it has a moral severity that never lets up, which produces an enveloping throbbing angst.

The Mother is flawless, but that is in part the problem; if a film dealing with so many sensitive issues has some flaws - inconsistencies of script, some lesser actors - it takes the edge off, but if such a film is so pitch perfect, the experience of watching it is raw and painful. Even the technical qualities - lighting, editing, etc. - make the viewer ache; the London in this movie is bright and open, filled with harsh, cutting light.

If you are tough as nails, or are one of those super-sensitive people who likes to torture themselves with gut-wrenching sad movies or novels, then you will enjoy The Mother. Anyone in between, give it a miss, or be prepared to squirm. And be warned: as tough as the movie is from beginning to near-end, the worst is to come.

Toward the end of the movie, the mother asks her daughter what she can do to make up for it (for having slept with her boyfriend), and the daughter calmly says that she has thought about it and would like to hit her. The mother agrees to this, they both stand up, and - instead of a well primed slap - the daughter clenches her fist and delivers a boxer's blow. Argh!!! I am a college student studying a-levels and need help and comments from anyone who has any views at all about the theme of mothers in film, in the mother. Whether you have gone through something similar or just want to comment and help me research more about this film, any comment would much greatly appreciated. The comments will be used solely for exam purposes and will be included in my written exam. So if you have any views at all, im sure i can put them to use and you could help me get an A! I am also studying 'About a Boy' and 'Tadpole' so if you have seen these films as well, i would appreciate it if you could leave comments on here on that page. Thank you. Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.

It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.

The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.

Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.

The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction. As part of the celebration of the release of Casino Royale, this film with the new Bond starring in it was shown, from director Roger Michell (Notting Hill). I almost turned it off for being a bit boring, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Basically May (Anne Reid) is a single mother of Helen (Anna Wilson-Jones) who hardly sees anyone and has not had a boyfriend in years. Her daughter says that she might want to get married to her new boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig, of course). After knowing each other only a few days, May and Darren have a secret affair. And at her age, with a 30-something, and the new Bond?! Anyway, they obviously want to keep it a secret, but May has regrets and wonders if Helen will find out. When she does, Darren gets less hassle than May. In fact, Helen asks her permission to hit her. Also starring Peter Vaughan as Toots, Danira Govich as Au Pair, Harry Michell as Harry, Rosie Michell as Rosie and Johnny English's Oliver Ford Davies as Bruce. Very good! Fully deserving its prestigious Hollywood award nomination, this is an entertaining little gem with lots of pizazz and some delightful surprises. Outstandingly funny scenes include an hilarious shoot (and re-shoot) of a WW1 trench scene with Australian comedian Clyde Cook as an optimistic non-com and the hapless McDoakes as a Boyer/Colman messenger — all under the beady eye of Ralph Sanford's delightfully irascible Anguish; a lost McDoakes guided and re-guided by equally perplexed Jack Carson; assistant director Chandler rejoicing in a McDoakes-sent opportunity: "I'm going to be a director!"

Ace comic O'Hanlon has a dual role, playing both McDoakes and himself playing McDoakes! Oddly, Richard L. Bare who does play himself in one or more other entries in the series, has turned down that opportunity here. In real life, Bare's a youngish, six-foot Rock Hudson lookalike, but here he's impersonated by veteran actor (over 500 movies!), Jack Mower. This particular Joe McDoakes short subject was obviously inspired by the all star Warner Brothers spectacular Thank Your Lucky Stars, one of those all star wartime morale boosters of the period. In that one Eddie Cantor played both himself and a would be comedian who'd like to break into films except for his resemblance to Cantor.

George O'Hanlon who starred in the McDoakes shorts is both himself and McDoakes who's just trying to get a break in film. Like Thank Your Lucky Stars a few Warner Brothers contract players with a free moment strolled through this film.

O'Hanlon's been sent by central casting for a small one line role in a World War I film, but lookalike McDoakes gets the message. The poor guy is so nervous about his big moment, he starts thinking of ways to deliver his one line. Maybe sounding like a real movie star would help.

86 takes later to the exasperation of director Ralph Sanford and the patient Clyde Cook who plays a British cockney soldier they do find a niche in the film business for poor McDoakes. It's worth seeing this very funny short subject which was nominated for an Oscar to find out what happens to O'Hanlon/McDoakes.

Both of them. This is my fourth Joe McDoakes short that I've seen and so far the funniest one. In this one, Joe takes voice lessons from a record impersonating Charles Boyer and Ronald Colman. When he goes to Warner Bros. Studio (the company behind this series, incidentally), he asks Jack Carson for directions which gets both confused. Then he encounters actor George O'Hanlon (who's also McDoakes) who speaks in his more normal voice that's not too far from his later Geroge Jetson and gets to the set where he automatically upsets the director. I'll stop there and just say how funny I found the whole thing and was fascinated by the movie star cameos provided near the end. The final scene was especially a hoot so on that note, go to YouTube if you want to watch So You Want to Be in Picutres! I've been watching this every night on VH1 this past week. This is a terrific revealing portrait about the drugs epidemic and how drugs were displayed in the media during the late 60's and on through the 70's.Woodstock,Easy Rider,The Beatles,The Death of Morrison, Hendrix, Joplin are all here. Vh1 has fashioned a complete intricate portrayal of the life and times during the "Drug Years". From the Sanfrancisco Bay Area to Studio 54 this documentary shows the evolution and advancement of the drug business and the death and new life it breathed into the American culture.From Marijuana to LSD to Cocaine this documentary shows the ways drugs were getting into the country, the hippie movement, the conservative resistance, and how drugs effected the arts (music , movies etc.) Featuring tons of fascinating interviews and news reel footage.

Drug Films: The Trip Easy Rider Up In Smoke Reefer Madness Blow Boogie Nights I would just like all of the fans of this documentary to know that Martin Torgoff is my uncle and I am so darn proud of him. This mini-series that in shown on VH1 is a great look at the culture of drugs in the past 30 years and my uncle worked very hard on it. The amount of time and effort that I have watched him put into this documentary and the book that started it all (Can't Find My Way Home) makes it that much better to watch him on TV. I know that he loves what he does and he does it well. His eloquence is shown in the interviews, which he did himself, and the amazing additions that he himself adds to the commentary. From the music to the videos and everything in between, this is a great documentary that really shows the experience of the drug culture through the eyes of someone who lived through it. I appreciate any comments on this from those who enjoyed it (or didn't) and would love to hear from fans! Three cheers for uncle Martin!!! I have had the pleasure of reading Martin Torgoff's book "Can't Find My Way Home" which is chock full of info on the drug culture of America, spanning the years 1945-2000. This guy knows his stuff!! I found him to be an excellent spokesperson for this documentary. I particularly enjoyed watching the film clips from the hippie era, and the 70's stoner culture. The soundtrack was excellent. Whoever compiled it definitely was in touch with the tunes of each era. Hopefully they will package them and sell them as a CD set. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in how the 1960's experiments with LSD forever changed American culture as we know it. One thing that was missing was any mention of George Jung (played by Johnny Depp in the movie "Blow"), who was supposedly responsible for much of the marijuana and cocaine coming into this country in the 60's-80's. I personally watched this to see the footage of the 60's and 70's. It was fascinating to learn how the drug movement essentially started and became pop culture and an eventual uncompromising force in life. The interviews of the classic rock stars are titillating and humorous. You feel like you're in on a secret and nodding your head at the same time...because it feels so good and familiar. I loved it, all segments from 60's-present day. I highly recommend this for all aspects, including rock music, the hipper movement, politics and good 'ol history. I check marked the box saying this contains a spoiler, only because I have no idea what some might consider a spoiler or not in this regards, since I discussed what's in all 4 segments, so just wanted to be safe. I just saw The Drugs Years on VH1 and I love it. I think it reflects the drug history very well and most importantly IT HAS A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE ALL GENERATIONS. There is woodstock, there are Joplin's, Hendrix's and Jim Morrison's deaths, there are many many examples of drug use and drug abuse. It completely cover the time line and evolution of drug use in America in both good and bad ways. In my opinion this documentary is well done and I would like to congratulate to its creators because this is exactly what is needed to be playing in the TV in these days. I am waiting for the DVD release. You should definitely see it!!! This movie is stunning-- BIG TIME! If you lived through the 60s, this film can be at times painful and other times quite joyous. It's all there but the small print in the counter culture tabloids prevalent at the time. These are the roots of a social revolution that is still playing out: "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, for the times they are a-changin'". While the film focuses on the revolutionary nature of LSD and it's dissemination at the time, that alone played a tremendous hand in the evolution of the intelligentsia, influencing engineers, scientists and aiding in the hyper-development of computer related activities. A salute to the filmmakers from one who was there - you've captured the era better than I've seen before. The Drug Years actually suffers from one of those aspects to mini-series or other kinds of TV documentaries run over and over again for a couple of weeks on TV. It's actually not long enough, in a way. All of the major bases in the decades are covered, and they're all interesting to note as views into post-modern history and from different sides. But it almost doesn't cover enough, or at least what is covered at times is given a once over when it could deserve more time. For example, the information and detail in part three about the whole process and business unto itself of shipping mass amounts of drugs (partly the marijuana, later cocaine) is really well presented, but there are more details that are kept at behest of how much time there is to cover.

Overall though the documentary does shed enough light on how drugs, pop-culture, government intervention, the upper classes and lower classes and into suburbia, all felt the wave of various drugs over the years, and the interplay between all was very evident. Nobody in the film- except for the possibility of small hints with the pot)- goes to endorse drugs outright, but what is shown are those in archival clips about the honesty of what is at times fun, and then tragic, about taking certain drugs. The appearances of various staunch, ridiculously anti-drug officials does hammer some points down hard- with even in such an overview of the drug cultures and America's connection as a whole- as there is really only one major point that is made a couple of times by one of the interviewees. The only way to really approach the issue of drugs is not 'just say no', because as the war on drugs has shown it is not as effective as thought. It is really just to come clean on all sides about all the drugs and the people who may be hypocritical about them (as, for example, oxycontin continues on in the marketplace).

Is it with the great interest and depth of a Ken Burns documentary? No, but for some summertime TV viewing for the young (i.e. my age) who will view a lot of this as almost ancient history despite most of it being no more than a generation ago, as well as for the 'old' who can reflect some decades later about the great peaks, careless times, and then the disillusionment prodded more by the same media that years earlier propagated and advertised it. There are those who might find the documentary to be particularly biased, which is not totally untrue, but it does attempt to get enough different takes on the social, political, and entertainment conditions of drugs interweaving (for better or obvious worse) for enough of a fascinating view. This is an entertaining "history" of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.

One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.

The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.

As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is. In the tradition of G-Men, The House On 92nd Street, The Street With No Name, now comes The FBI Story one of those carefully supervised films that showed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the best possible light. While it's 48 year director J. Edgar Hoover was alive, it would be showed in no other kind of light.

The book by Don Whitehead that this film is based on is a straight forward history of the bureau from it's founding in 1907 until roughly the time the film The FBI Story came out. It's important sometimes to remember there WAS an FBI before J. Edgar Hoover headed it. Some of that time is covered in the film as well.

But Warner Brothers was not making a documentary so to give the FBI flesh and blood the fictional character of John 'Chip' Hardesty was created. Hardesty as played by James Stewart is a career FBI man who graduated law school and rather than go in practice took a job with the bureau in the early twenties.

In real life the Bureau was headed by William J. Burns of the Burns Private Detective Agency. It was in fact a grossly political operation then as is showed in the film. Burns was on the periphery of the scandals of the Harding administration. When Hoover was appointed in 1924 to bring professional law enforcement techniques and rigorous standards of competence in, he did just that.

Through the Hardesty family which is Stewart and wife Vera Miles we see the history of the FBI unfold. In addition we see a lot of their personal family history which is completely integrated into the FBI's story itself. Stewart and Miles are most assuredly an all American couple. We follow the FBI through some of the cases Stewart is involved with, arresting Ku Klux Klan members, a plot to murder oil rich Indians, bringing down the notorious criminals of the thirties, their involvement with apprehending Nazi sympathizers in World War II and against Communist espionage in the Cold War.

There is a kind of prologue portion where Stewart tells a class at the FBI Academy before going into the history of the bureau as it intertwines with his own. That involves a bomb placed on an airline by a son who purchased a lot of life insurance on his mother before the flight. Nick Adams will give you the creeps as the perpetrator and the story is sadly relevant today.

Of course if The FBI Story were written and produced today it would reflect something different and not so all American. Still the FBI does have a story to tell and it is by no means a negative one.

The FBI Story is not one of Jimmy Stewart's best films, but it's the first one I ever saw with my favorite actor in it so it has a special fondness for me. If the whole FBI were made up Jimmy Stewarts, I'd feel a lot better about it. There's also a good performance by Murray Hamilton as his friend and fellow agent who is killed in a shootout with Baby Face Nelson.

Vera Miles didn't just marry Stewart, she in fact married the FBI as the film demonstrates. It's dated mostly, but still has a good and interesting story to tell.

Have you ever felt like your being watched, like someone keeps tabs on every move you make? Well, just remember before you decide to break the law, the FBI will always be there. At least that's the feeling you get after watching the gripping but slightly mellow crime drama, The FBI story. It traces the roots of the organization from a small bureau to one of the most modern facilities in the world (in 1959), by telling the story through they eyes of one of its agents, Chip Hardesty (James Stewart).

Chip was with the FBI from day one, and he gladly puts his job above everything else in the world, even occasionally his family. The FBI Story tracks his life by depicting what he does as an agent, and how being one affects his personal life. The film does a spectacular job of showing what kind of cases the FBI handles and how they handle them. The audience gets to see Chip stop Ku Klux Klan riots, go undercover to solve an Indian murder/estate scandal, bring fugitives into custody, rescue hostages, and helped fight in WWII. He even helped bring Communist spies to justice.

Stewart, in a vaguely complex performance, is stellar (as always) as the slightly neurotic agent who loves his job maybe a little too much. One of the best parts about this film is that we get to see the inside workings of both Chip's family life and his job. We witness him suffer through the death of his best friend and then his son. We also observe his wife having a miscarriage, and his marriage having rocky times. Almost all of his personal problems are caused by love of his job. Vera Miles gives a spotty performance, but it's very convincing, none the less. She was never a brilliant actress, but there was always something very attractive and alluring about her. Well maybe that's just me? Sadly, none of the other performances are worth mentioning, but the attention-grabbing story managed to keep me exceedingly interested.

The cinematography of this film was impressive, especially the scenes in the South American jungles. The colors all had a texture that really set the atmosphere of the film. Perhaps the greatest part of this movie was Mervyn Leroy's fabulous direction. Every scene was so fluid they just rolled together to tell a brilliant story. It's chock full of ingenious camera shots, some with a very Hitchcockian feel.

All in all, The FBI Story is a spectacular, but overlooked film. Clocking in at two and a half hours some viewers might be intimidated, but if you get the chance I recommend jumping into this one. I enjoyed Jimmy Stewart's spectacular performance, and the captivating story. This is a film that on the surface would seem to be all about J.Edgar Hoover giving himself a a big pat on the back for fighting Klansmen,going after Indian killers, hunting the famous gangsters of the 1930's, fighting Nazi's in the US and South America during world war 2 and Commies in New York during the early 1950's. Of course in 1959 we did not know about Mr. Hoover's obsession for keeping secret files on honest Americans, bugging people like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, but worst of all,his secret love affair with his deputy director,Clyde Tolson( If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest seeing the film Citizen Cohn). Hoover aside, This story of a life in the FBI as told by Jimmy Stewart makes for a decent, but dated film. Vera Miles as his devoted wife is also good. But Jimmy is the movie. As much as Hoover controlled production and always made sure the FBI was seen without fault, Jimmy Stewart gave the film a human side,quite an achievement considering Hoover was always looking over his shoulder. The background score is also pleasant. I have read recent online articles suggesting that this is a forgotten film. Jimmy Stewart was one of the greatest film stars of all time and none of his films should be forgotten. TCM was the last network to show it a long time ago and I hope they show it again. Has anyone noticed that James Earl Jones is the waiter who is serving when Hagarty's wife reveals that she is pregnant while they are at the restaurant next to the lake. I watched this movie on a video that I had taped off of the television. When I watched this scene I thought I recognized the voice of Jones when the "waiter" laughed at the end. I rewound the tape then slowly stepped through that part as the camera pulled back and showed the waiter. Listen closely as the waiter laughs when Hagarty looks up and tells him that they are going to have a baby, then watch closely or slow down the scene when the camera shows the waiter, albeit, quickly. I first saw this film as a young boy and recently purchased it on DVD.

James Stewart brings great depth to the role of Chip Hardesty, a hardworking and dedicated FBI agent. His life in the Bureau is intercut with his family life, which is not all rosy. His wife (an excellent portrayal by Vera Miles) lives in fear of the dangerous nature of his job, and they even separate for a time; Chip's best friend and fellow agent Sam Crandall (Murray Hamilton) is killed in a gunfight; Chip's son, Mike, enlists in the Marines during World War II. Through it all, the family carries on with bravery and dignity.

The action sequences are quite exciting and the semi-documentary style of the film works effectively. And the music by Max Steiner says it all; fidelity, bravery and integrity.

This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the FBI and, yes, to J. Edgar Hoover as well. If Mr. Hoover's type of vigilance had been observed, we might have been spared 9/11, the surge in crimes against children and many of the venal politicians we've had to put up with since his passing. The movie has a great written genre story. It features all of the usual Columbo ingredients; The way Lt. Columbo approaches and bonds to his suspect, the way the mystery unravels for him, Columbo's dog, the cat and mouse play, which is great in this one and luckily as well some good relieving humor, mostly involving the Columbo character. It's all written despite the fact that it doesn't even have a truly original concept. Columbo hunting down a detective/murder novel writer had been done more than once before in a Columbo movie.

It's also an extremely well directed movie from James Frawley, who after this directed 5 more Columbo movies, in the '70's and '80's. He provided the movie with style and some truly great and memorable sequences.

It's one of the slower moving Columbo movies, despite not having a too long running time. This style and approach doesn't always work out well for a Columbo movie but in this movie it does, which is perhaps not in the least thanks to the acting performances of the movie.

Most Columbo movie either starred a big well known star or a star from the early days of film-making, as the movie its murderer. This movie stars the rather unknown 81 year old Ruth Gordon. She didn't starred in an awful lot of movies throughout her career but she is still well known to some, mostly for her role in "Rosemary's Baby", which also won her an Oscar. She had a realistic and somewhat unusual style of acting, which some people might not like though. It earned her 4 more Oscar nominations throughout her career, prior to her win for "Rosemary's Baby", in 1969. She has some great interaction as well with Peter Falk in their sequences together.

The movie also stars a still young G.D. Spradlin. I say young because I only know him from his latest productions out of his career, despite the fact that he already was 57 at the time of this Columbo production. He is still alive but retired from acting, ever since 1999.

An even better than usual Columbo movie entry.

8/10 I like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.

But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.

It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days. I loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.

The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments. This is the one in which the diminutive Ruth Gordon plays an Agatha-Christie type of murder mystery author who locks her nephew by marriage into a safe. Gordon believes that he murdered her niece and the young fellow dies of suffocation, while Gordon is traveling back and forth to New York. He manages, however, to leave behind some clues, scratches on a couple of black safe deposit boxes and an improvised and well-hidden note. Columbo enters the case, suspects her at once, and solves the mystery by simply using his supernatural mystical intuitive powers. Oh, and Mariette Hartley is on hand as Gordon's secretary and would-be blackmailer. Hartley is, I believe, the grand daughter of the psychologist B. F. Skinner. I'm not sure her ancestry had anything to do with her attractive belly button, which is on display during a belly dance sequence, but I've always admired Skinner anyway.

The murder is well handled. It's a good plot, and none of the performers or crew fluff anything. But the outstanding figure here is Ruth Gordon, only a skosh over five feet tall. She was over 80 years old and looked it. There are moments when she almost teeters, but she consistently exudes charm. Her acting is idiosyncratic. You can never be sure when she's being serious or when she's putting Columbo and the audience on. She's given some good lines too. What humor there is comes from Gordon. Columbo doesn't have any of his frequent comic moments.

All in all, a nice job by everyone concerned. **SPOILERS** Since the disappearance at sea of her favorite niece Phyllis murder mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, Ruth Gordon, has strong suspicions that it was Phyllis' husband Edmund Galvin, Charles Frank, who was responsible for her death. In fact Abigail is convinced that he murdered her and made it look like a tragic accident.

Knowing that there's no evidence to have Edmund arrested for Phyillis' death and deciding to take the law into her own hands Abigail cooks up this elaborate plan to do him in and make it look, like Phyllis' death, a tragic accident. Getting Edmund to secretly come over to her mansion to give him the combination to her walk-in safe, as she's about to leave on vacation for New York City, Abigail tricks him into going inside locking the startled and surprised Edmund in. With the safe being soundproof nobody at the mansion the butler maid and Abigail's personal secretary Veronica, Mariette Hartley, hear him screaming for help and the next day Edmund is found suffocated to death. Veronica discovered Edmund's body as she was about to put away, for safe keeping, Abigail's latest murder mystery manuscript.

Lt. Columbo, Peter Falk, is called on the case involving the strange death of Edmund Garvin to determine if it's a murder or a tragic accident. Going through Edmund's apartment Columbo is puzzled to find out that he doesn't have a single photo of his late wife, who's been missing for just a month! This ties into what Abigail always felt about him in Edmund not being in love with Phyllis and also a suspect in her, in Abigail's mind, murder.

Columbo a big fan, together with his wife, of Abigail's murder mystery novels has a hard time realizing that she in fact was responsible for Edmund's death. All the evidence points to Abigil including a pair of missing car keys that was Edmunds. This all proved that Abgail was in fact in the house, not on her way to the airport, when Edmund was locked inside the walk-in safe.

Going through all the evidence Columbo comes up with this strange conclusion that Edmund must have left some evidence inside the safe in writing to who his killer is. That conclusion is quickly checkmated when it's found out that Edmund didn't even have a pen or pencil as well as light, with the safe light-bulb burned out, on him to write it. There's also something very odd that's inside the safe that has been on Lt. Columbo's mind ever since he came on the case. This has to do with the black paint residue that was found under the dead Edmund's fingernails and on his belt buckle!

It's that evidence, when put together with a number of other items in the safe, that in the end hangs Edmund's murder on the tricky and very cunning mystery writer Abigail Mitchell. Edmund let Abigail unknowingly convict herself in his final attempt as the air in the safe was being used up, by his breathing, in using burnt out matchsticks to write on Abigail last manuscript who murdered him: Abigail Mitchell! I haven't really seen too many of the Columbo films... actually, I think I've only watched one or two, apart from this one. I've always liked Columbo, though, somehow without even having seen that much of him. Peter Falk is and has always been the perfect choice for the character, because of his looks, his voice and his charm. The perfect proof of this is that though the series started all the way back in 1968, the latest(and probably not last) of the films was made in 2003. That's 35 years. And Falk was 40 back when he made the first one. The series consists of 68 films(unless my count is off), all of which are made for TV. Everyone knows the character, even though no one has ever seen a film featuring him in the cinema. That is quite an accomplishment, if you ask me. The plot is pretty good. The only problem I have with it is that the killer and murder is revealed at the very beginning(though that may be the same for all of the Columbo films), leaving no mystery but how Columbo solves it, making it somewhat dull(since there's not much to look forward to at the end of the film). The pacing is good, there's hardly a scene where you're bored. The acting is very good, particularly that of Falk and Ruth Gordon. They have some great exchanges of dialog in the film. The characters are well-written and credible. The dialog and script is unusually good for a TV-movie. All in all, the film is, yes, surprisingly good for a TV-movie, and definitely worth watching for any fan of Columbo and/or crime/mystery flicks. 8/10 It is always satisfying when a detective wraps up a case and the criminal is brought to book. In this case the climax gives me even greater pleasure. To see the smug grin wiped off the face of Abigail Mitchell when she realises her victim has left "deathbed testimony" which leaves no doubt about her guilt is very satisfying.

Please understand: while I admire Ruth Gordon's performance, her character really, *really* irritates me. She is selfish and demanding. She gets her own way by putting on a simpering 'little girl' act which is embarrassing in a woman of her age. Worse, she has now set herself up as judge, jury and executioner against her dead niece's husband.

When Columbo is getting too close she tries to unnerve him by manipulating him into making an off-the-cuff speech to an audience of high-class ladies. He turns the tables perfectly by delivering a very warm and humane speech about the realities of police work.

Nothing can distract Columbo from the pursuit of justice. Abby's final appeal to his good nature is rejected because he has too much self-respect not to do his job well. Here is one situation you can't squirm out of Ms Mitchell! Pickup On South Street is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. An example of the directing: When Candy (Jean Peters) starts going through her purse and notices her wallet is missing, an alarm goes off in the background in the building she's in -- as if it's an alarm going off in her head. It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just "clicks" that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.

Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for "Moe," the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter. Later, in her apartment, you are not seeing a movie -- you're seeing a real person. I've never seen anyone "act" so real I felt like I was looking into a real room until Ritter's performance -- right down to the way her hair stuck out a bit when she removed her hat.

About a million other things just *worked,* from the way Lightning Louie picks up money with his chopsticks to the way Candy's jewelry clicks when she flicks Moe's hand away from her brooch, to the way Moe gets the dollars and change from the police captain across the FBI guy's chest -- and even the way the captain opens his filing cabinet, like he's been doing it in that way in that room for many years. "Pickup On South Street" is detailed moves (directing) with consummate performances (acting) and superb now-nostalgic visuals of the day, such as the panel truck, the boards leading to the shack out on the water, the dumbwaiter, -- and the unforgettable place Skip stashes his pocket pickings. Wonderful stuff.

"Pickup On South Street" is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a "three-time loser" and Candy as a youngish woman who has "knocked around" a lot. When these people behave a little more badly than you'd expect, it's in sort of novel ways that make it seem you're looking in at people you'd never otherwise imagine -- and yet you know that they are possible because the actors make them so recognizably human. In this excellent Twentieth-Century Fox film-noir, the metropolis is a labyrinth of despair in which scavengers and predators survive by living off one another. Brooding cityscapes lower over puny humanity in bleak expressionist symbolism.

A prostitute has her purse snatched on the subway. It contains a microfilm, and a communist spy ring will go to any lengths to recover it. Two parallel investigations unfold as both spies and cops hunt down the precious information.

Anti-hero pickpocket Skip McCoy is played with scornful assurance by Richard Widmark. He knows the cops to be his moral equals and intellectual inferiors, so he taunts them: "Go on," he says to captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye), "drum up a charge. Throw me in. You've done it before." In this pitiless world, the cops are just one more gang on the streets. Just as Candy the hooker bribes Lightning Louie to get a lead, so the police are busy paying stool pigeons for information.

It is hard to believe that when Widmark made this film he was already in early middle age. The 39-year-old star, coming to the end of his contract with Fox, plays the upstart Skip McCoy with the irreverent brashness of a teenager. Today it may not be acceptable for the romantic lead to punch his love interest into unconsciousness then revive her by sloshing beer in her face, but by the mores of the period it signified toughness - and Candy, after all, is a fallen woman.

Jean Peters is radiant as Candy. Here, right in the middle of her five-year burst of B-movie fame, she is beautiful and engaging as the whore with the golden heart. She is the story's victim, a martyr to her beauty as much as anything else. She means well, but is constantly being manipulated by cynical men - Joey, Skip and the cops.

The real star of this movie is New York. Haunting urban panoramas and snidering subway stations offer a claustrophobic evocation of the city as a living, malevolent force. Like maggots in a rotting cheese, human figures scurry through the city's byways. Elevators, subway turnstiles, sidewalks - even a dumb waiter act as conduits for the flow of corrupt humanity. People cling to any niche that affords safety: Moe has her grimy rented room, Skip his tenebrous shack on the Hudson River. As the characters move and interact, they are framed by bridge architecture, or lattices of girders, or are divided by hanging winch tackle. The personality of the city is constantly imposing itself. The angles and crossbeams of the wharf timbers are an echo of the gridiron street plan, and the card-index cabinets in the squadroom mimic the Manhattan skyline. When Joey's exit from the subway is barred, it is as if the steel sinews of the city are ensnaring him.

A surprising proportion of this film is shot in extreme close-up. Character drives the plot, as it should, and the close-ups are used to augment character. When Skip interrogates Candy, the close-up captures the sexual energy between them, belying the hostility of Skip's words. Jean Peters' beauty is painted in light, in exquisite soft focus close-ups. The device is also employed to heighten the tension. The opening sequence, the purse snatch, contains no dialogue: the drama relies entirely on close-up for its powerful effect.

Snoopers, and snoopers upon snoopers, populate the film. Moe (Thelma Ritter) makes a living as an informant, and her place in the hierarchy is accepted, even by her victims. When Skip observes, "she's gotta eat", he is chanting a recurring refrain. Just as 'straight' New Yorkers peddle lamb chops or lumber, the Underworld traffics in the commodity of information.

And yet even the stool pigeons are superior to Joey and his communist friends. Joey's feet on Moe's bed symbolise a transgression of the most basic moral code. Joey is beyond the pale. Moe will not trade with Joey, even to preserve her life: " ... even in our crummy business, you gotta draw the line somewhere."

"Pick-Up" was made in the depths of the Cold War. Richard Nixon had just been chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, having made his name with his phoney Alger Hiss expose - bogus communist microfilm and all. The McCarthy show trials were a daily reality. We see the cops in the movie inveigh against "the traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb".

New York can be seen as a giant receptacle in which human offal cheats, squeals and murders. Containers form a leitmotif throughout the film. Moe carries her trade mark box of ties, and candy's purse, container of the microfilm, is the engine of the plot. Skip keeps his only possessions in a submerged crate, symbolising his secretive street-wisdom. The paupers' coffins, moving down the Hudson on a barge, are containers of just one more cargo being shifted around the pitiless metropolis.

The film is a masterpiece of composition. Candy is shown above the skulking Skip on the rickety gangway of the shack, signifying her moral ascendancy. When the gun is placed on the table, the extreme perspective makes it look bigger than Candy - violence is beginning to dwarf compassion. The lovers are eclipsed by the shadow of a stevedore's hook, reminding us that their love is neither pure nor absolute, but contingent upon the whims of the sinister city. Enyard the communist is a shadow on a wall, or a disembodied puff of cigarette smoke. He is like the lone alley cat amongst the garbage - a predatory phantom of the night. Camera shots from under taxi hoods, inside newspaper kiosks and through the bars of hospital beds constantly reinforce in us the awareness that we are all trapped in the metropolis. We are civilisation's mulch. The best of the seven Sam Fuller movies that I've seen (including Park Row, Run of the Arrow, Verboten!, Shock Corridor, The Naked Kiss, The Big Red One, and this film), Pickup on South Street counts as one of the best film noirs. It represents Fuller at his most controlled. I like him when he's out of control, of course, but nearly everything in Pickup is perfect. The film is absolutely beautiful. Richard Widmark stars as a pickpocket who steals some microfilm that was meant to go to communist spies. Jean Peters plays the woman who was carrying the film for her boyfriend, played by Richard Kiley. Peters is forced to find Widmark and get it back. She finds him through a stool pigeon played by Thelma Ritter. Widmark and Peters are attracted to each other, which changes Peters loyalties (that, and the fact that she learns she's working for communists; the Cold War stuff is really interesting). The love story is done a little quickly and not entirely believable, but it's not so bad that it harms the film (unlike Fuller's previous film, Park Row). Richard Widmark is great. This must be one of his best roles, but I'm not so familiar with his career that I can say that for sure. Thelma Ritter gives the most memorable performance. Her role gives the film an unexpected emotional resonance, and her final scene in this film is as touching as any you will find in the cinema. I will never forget that. 10/10. Director Samuel Fuller concocts a brilliant visual set-up: cocky pickpocket unwittingly lifts some microfilm from a woman's purse; it turns out she's a courier for the Communists, and now she and the grifter are being watched by the police. The Film Noir Formula is all its glory--before the ingredients became clichés--including waterfront locales, floozies, saxophones on the soundtrack, and one hell of a climactic fistfight. Performances by Richard Widmark and Jean Peters are right on target, and the smart, sharp script is quite colorful. Fabulous Thelma Ritter received an Oscar nomination for knockout supporting role as a "professional stoolie". Exciting, atmospheric, tough as nails. *** from **** Directed by Samuel Fuller, who also wrote the screenplay, Pickup on South Street is a tough, brutal, well made film about a pickpocket (Richard Widmark) who inadvertently aquires top-secret microfilm and becomes a target for espionage agents. Also involved are Jean Peters as a tough broad who is used as a courier by her evil ex-lover Richard Kiley. It's film-noir at its best and although the performances are very good its grand character actress Thelma Ritter who steals the movie. As Moe a weary street peddler selling neck ties (and who also sells information) she is terrific in a role that brought her another Oscar nomination. Its amazing that Miss Ritter was nominated six times for an Academy Award and she never won. This should have been the role that copped it for her! I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre! I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10. "Pickup On South Street" is a high speed drama about a small time criminal who suddenly finds himself embroiled in the activities of a group of communists. The action is presented in a very direct and dynamic style and the momentum is kept up by means of some brilliant editing. The use of a wide variety of different camera angles and effective close-ups also contribute to the overall impression of constant motion and vitality. Samuel Fuller's style of directing and the cinematography by Joseph MacDonald are excellent and there are many scenes which through their composition and lighting produce a strong sense of mood and atmosphere.

Ace pickpocket and repeat offender Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) gets into deep water when he steals a wallet from a young woman named Candy (Jean Peters) on the New York subway. She was being used by her ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) to make a delivery to one of his contacts in a communist organisation and unknown to her, she was carrying US Government secrets recorded on microfilm. Two FBI agents had been following Candy and witnessed the theft. One of the agents continues to tail her back to Joey's apartment and the other, Zara (Willis Bouchey), visits Police Captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye). Zara explains that the FBI has been following Candy for some months as part of their pursuit of the ringleader of a communist group.

In order to identify the pickpocket, Tiger calls in a "stoolie" called Moe (Thelma Ritter) who after being given a precise description of the "cannon's" method of working makes a list of eight possible suspects. Once Tiger sees Skip's name on the list he's immediately convinced that he's the man that they need to track down and he sends two detectives to arrest him. When Skip is brought into Tiger's office, Zara tells him about the microfilm and Tiger offers to drop any charges if he'll co-operate with the investigation. Skip is flippant and arrogant. He clearly doesn't trust Tiger and denies all knowledge of the theft on the subway.

Joey orders Candy to find out who stole the microfilm and then retrieve it. Candy pays Moe for Skip's address and when Skip returns from being questioned by Tiger, he finds Candy searching his home and knocks her unconscious before stealing her money. When she recovers, Skip demands payment of $25,000 for the microfilm. She tells Joey about Skip's demand and Joey's boss gives him a gun and orders him to recover the microfilm by the following evening.

Skip and Candy are attracted to each other and it's because of their uneasy, developing relationship that a means evolves by which they are able to shake off the attentions of the police. It soon becomes apparent, however, that resolving matters with the communist gang will only be achieved by more direct action.

The depictions of Skip, Candy and Moe as characters that inhabit a seedy world in which they are forced to face considerable risks on a daily basis are powerful and compelling.

Moe's work as a police informer is dependent on her knowledge of the people in her community but also those people know what she does and any one of them could seek their revenge at any time. She appears to be cunning and streetwise but also has her vulnerable side as she describes herself as "an old clock running down" and saves money to be able to have a decent burial in an exclusive cemetery in Long Island. Her belief that "every buck has a meaning of its own" leads her to sell any information regardless of danger, friendships or principles and yet there is one occasion where she refuses and this proves fatal. Thelma Ritter's performance certainly merited the Oscar nomination she earned for her role.

Skip is a violent criminal with no concern for his victims and having already been convicted three times in the past, lives under the constant threat of being jailed for life if convicted again. Despite this, he still continues with his criminal activities and strangely, is merely philosophical when Moe betrays his whereabouts and then later, he even ensures that Moe receives the type of burial she valued so highly. Candy is an ex-hooker and someone whose activities constantly put her in peril but behind her hardened exterior a warmer side gradually becomes more evident. Widmark and Peters are both perfect for their roles and like Ritter portray the different facets of their personalities with great style and conviction. Every now and then there gets released this movie no one has ever heard of and got shot in a very short time with very little money and resource but everybody goes crazy about and turns out to be a surprisingly great one. This also happened in the '50's with quite a few little movies, that not a lot of people have ever heard of. There are really some unknown great surprising little jewels from the '50's that are worth digging out. "Panic in the Streets" is another movie like that that springs to the mind. Both are movies that aren't really like the usual genre flicks from their time and are also made with limited resources.

I was really surprised at how much I ended up liking this movie. It was truly a movie that got better and better as it progressed. Like all 'old' movies it tends to begin sort of slow but once you get into the story and it's characters you're in for a real treat with this movie.

The movie has a really great story that involves espionage, though the movie doesn't start of like that. It begins as this typical crime-thriller with a touch of film-noir to it. But "Pickup on South Street" just isn't really a movie by the numbers so it starts to take its own directions pretty soon on. It ensures that the movie remains a surprising but above all also really refreshing one to watch.

I also really liked the characters within this movie. None of them are really good guys and they all of their flaws and weaknesses. Really humane. It also especially features a great performance from Thelma Ritter, who even received a well deserved Oscar nomination for. It has really got to be one of the greatest female roles I have ever seen.

Even despite its somewhat obvious low budget this is simply one great, original, special little movie that deserves to be seen by more!

10/10 Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) pick-pockets Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet which contains an important microfiche that is intended for the Communist cause. She is being followed by 2 federal agents that are waiting to pounce once she hands the microfiche over to her contact. However, Skip steals the purse on the subway under everyone's noses and so starts a hunt for him by both the police and Joey (Richard Kiley) and Candy who want the microfiche back. Skip can only be traced through Moe (Thelma Ritter) who sells information on criminals. It is made clear to Skip that what he has stolen is important and both sides want the film, but he intends to hold out for a high price. This leads to Joey hunting after him and a conflict between Joey and Jean, who has fallen in love with Skip. Joey has a deadline to deliver the microfiche to his boss.

Its a well-acted film and it has a good beginning that gets you involved straight away. Its a bit unrealistic how Jean Peters immediately falls in love with Widmark, but this point is necessary as otherwise why would she later hold out from Joey. Its a good film. Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations.

Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller enthused this adaptation with heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice.

Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 50s, and i'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy, all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent, and is the films heart. However it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically.

It's a B movie in texture but an A film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is the best of its most intriguing director. 9/10 Samuel Fuller is hardly one of America's great directors. I'm not sure he qualifies as one of Hollywood's great craftsmen. But he certainly ranks up there with the best of Hollywood's true professionals who were willing to march to their own music. During the time he worked for Hollywood studios, he knew how to take an assignment, shape the middling material handed to him and then turn it quickly and efficiently into something usually better than its parts...on time and on budget. Pickup on South Street is a case in point. On the surface it's one more of Hollywood's early Fifties' anti-Commie movies, complete with appeals to patriotism, a hard-boiled hero and a slimy (and copiously perspiring) bad guy. Fuller turns this bag of Hollywood clichés into a taut, exciting drama with any number of off-kilter twists. The hero, Skip McCoy, is a three-time loser, a petty crook with soft fingers who doesn't change his stripes until the very end. The girl in the caper, Candy, has a level of virtue that would be easy to step over if you're so inclined. One of the most appealing characters, Moe Williams, is a stoolie. And in an unusual approach to Hollywood's battle against Commies, the appeals to patriotism fall on deaf ears; the hero isn't motivated by anything so ennobling. He just wants payback for a personal reason, and winds up becoming...at least for now...a good guy.

Plus, all the actors were mostly assigned to Fuller by the studio. He had to make do. Richard Widmark by now had established his presence as an actor and star, but Jean Peters is a surprise. She gives a fine portrait of a woman sexy and dumb, and no better than her boy friends...or her clients...want her to be. And Richard Kiley, who later would become a two- time Tony award winning star on Broadway, is convincingly slippery and cowardly. It's hard to remember that he was the actor who inflicted on us, I mean introduced to us, "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha,

More than anything else, this tale of a pickpocket who picks a purse in a subway car and finds himself with microfilmed secrets instead of cash, pursued by the Feds and the Commies, moves straight ahead with great economy. The whole enterprise, with a classic noir look, only takes 80 minutes to tell. The dialogue, with Fuller as screenwriter, has that party corny, partly pungent hard-boiled pulp fiction style. "That muffin you grifted...she's okay," one character says to Skip about Candy. Fuller moves us just fast enough from scene to scene to keep us hanging on what will come next. Then Fuller throws in the character of Moe Williams. All of a sudden the story ratchets up to a whole new level of interest, part comedy relief and part sad inevitability.

The thing I like best about the movie is how the opening exemplifies Fuller's talents and strengths. In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, starting right after the credits, Fuller is able to instantly power up the movie, to establish for us what the story is about, and to show us what kind of characters -- Skip and Candy -- we're going to be involved with. And he does this with so much enticing curiosity in that hot, packed subway car that we can just about feel Fuller setting the hook to catch us.

Says Glenn Erickson, in my opinion one of the best of movie critics, "In what should be an inconsequential story, Sam Fuller defines his peculiar view of Americanism from the bottom up: stiff-necked, aggressive self-interest that when fully expressed recognizes what's wrong and what's right and isn't afraid to fight for it. As always in his work, the individuals who fight the hardest for their country are the ones least likely to benefit from the effort." He's right, and it makes for a movie still vivid after 55 years. and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.

Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.

The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.

The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10. This is yet another gritty and compelling film directed by Sam Fuller in the early 1950s. This minimalist and fast-working director has something unusual for his earlier films--a cast with some stars. Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Richard Kiley star in this film about a group of Communist agents who are trying to sneak secrets out of America--and they'll stop at nothing to succeed.

The film starts with Peters on a subway car being watched by federal agents. They know she is a link in a long espionage chain. Unknown to everyone is the wild card in the equation--a small-time pickpocket (Widmark) is also on the train and he manages to steal the secrets that Peters is carrying. Widmark thinks it's just another purse he's ransacked--only later does he realize the seriousness of what he's stolen. Now it's Widmark on his own--with Commies and the FBI hot on his trail.

Widmark and the rest are exceptional and the film is gripping from start to finish. Although she didn't get top billing, a special mention should be made of Thelma Ritter. This supporting actress had perhaps the performance of her lifetime as a stool pigeon. Seldom was she given this much of a chance to act and I was impressed by her ability to play a broken down and sad old lady.

As far as the script and directing go, they are very good--but with one small exception. At first, I loved the way Widmark and Peters interacted. It's one of the few times on film you'll see a woman punched square in the mouth! Now THAT'S tough. Later, inexplicably, they become amazingly close--too close to be believable. Still, with so much great drama and such an effective Noir-like film, this can be overlooked. See this film. Sam Fuller's excellent PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is the pick of the bunch from a number of early 50's Cold War-influenced low-budget noir vehicles. With a running length of under 80 minutes, PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is tough, gritty, explosive and endlessly entertaining.

Widmark stars as pickpocket Skip McCoy, who has already been picked up three times. Yet McCoy can't keep his wandering fingers out of trouble- and trouble is exactly what he slides into when he grifts the wallet of gangster's moll Candy (Jean Peters). Candy's wallet contains a roll of microfilm invaluable to the Communist movement, and it's her last job for ex-boyfriend Richard Kiley to make the delivery. However, when Widmark lifts it, Peters must do whatever it takes to re-claim the film she (initially) knows nothing about.

It's a tasty set-up, with Widmark's character, while not the psycho of KISS OF DEATH, a real live-wire, unpredictable and tough, yet curiously charming.When Bogart or Mitchum stepped into a film noir role you knew what you were going to get: a lone anti-hero maintaining his moral integrity and winning out in the end (Bogart), or an overly-laconic guy who allows himself to be drawn into a trap (Mitchum). With Widmark you just don't know what you are going to get, and with his incredibly modern acting style (his films always hold up well) he is amazing to watch. Here he is torn between making a big score for himself by selling the film, or handing it over to the police and fighting the "Commies" on the right side of the law. And he still has to pretend he never pickpocketed Peters to avoid the fatal fourth rap on his sheet.

Peters gets her best role as the moll-with-a-heart-of-gold Candy. Widmark's unpredictability is perhaps best expressed in his scenes with Peters; the gorgeous tramp quickly (and rather unbelievably- the romance angle is rather rushed)falls under Widmark's spell, yet Widmark alternates between kissing her or slapping her around. Peters hard-edged beauty, yet lack of over-lacquered Hollywood glamour (Lana Turner would never have worked well in this role), is a major asset to the film. Candy is not innocent, yet she's very vulnerable, constantly being passed between and slapped around by men. Widmark knocks her cold on first meeting and wakes her by pouring beer over her face, yet by the final act he's a lot more tender to her (after she cops one hell of a going-over from Kiley). The scene in the hospital with Peters and Widmark shouldn't work, but it does.

Thelma Ritter is brilliant as stoolie Moe, well-deserving of her Oscar nomination. Ritter's performance, like everything else in the film, is gritty, real and heartbreakingly honest. Her death scene is stunning. Fuller's camera movements and location settings are particularly interesting. Fuller loved a good close-up, and PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is full of uncomfortable, cloistering tight shots that only enhance the tension of the plot. Fuller isn't afraid to let the camera linger on a shot for longer than standard Old-Hollywood really allowed, yet stunningly pulls away from Ritter's death scene to give the audience maximum impact. The urban locales and unusual, confronting camera angles give PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET, a bold, uncompromisingly modern look.

10/10. Pickup on South Street (1953), directed by movie maverick Samuel Fuller, contains a stunning opening that establishes a double complication. Subway rider Candy (Susan Peters) collides with pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark dipped in shades of Sinatra cool). She's unaware that she carries valuable microfilm; McCoy is unaware of grifting it. Both are unaware of being observed by two federal agents. Thus the grift sets in motion a degree of knowledges. Candy is doubly watched (Skip and the police) and therefore doubly naive; Skip, the overconfident petty thief, is singularly unaware, trailed by federal agents; the feds, all knowing, are ultimately helpless. They can't stop the "passing" of government secrets or the spread of communism. Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is anomalous: A "Red Scare" movie devoid of hysteria, in which the Communist threat is nothing more than the McGuffin that ignites the plot. Pickpocket Richard Widmark relieves loose woman Jean Peters of her wallet containing a strip of microfilm; unbeknownst to either of them, it harbors secrets vital to the Cold War. Peters, as it happens, was under surveillance by FBI agents who are as nonplussed by the theft as the man who's running her, cowardly comsymp Richard Kiley. In trying to retrieve the precious film, both sides enlist the help of Thelma Ritter, a streetwise old jane who's always on the earie and willing to sell what she hears.

Fuller draws from an opulent palette of tempos and tonalities in telling the story, which becomes a race against the clock of escalating brutality. From the subways to the waterfront, his midsummer Manhattan takes on a sweaty sheen that's almost pungent. The love scenes between Peters and Widmark become an unstable mixture of the tumultuous and the tender, and they're scored to "Again," a song introduced by Ida Lupino in Road House, also starring Widmark. The pace slackens for Ritter's beautifully written and played death scene -- among the most poignant vignettes in all noir, and a kind of mirage-oasis in a film parched of sentimentality. This is writer/director Fuller's only work in the strictest confines of the noir cycle; his later explorations of American pathology (The Crimson Kimono, The Naked Kiss, Underworld U.S.A.) never resulted in a synthesis as satisfying as Pickup on South Street. The only thing about this film that bums me out is that the DVD is so expensive. It's too much for my budget at the moment, or I would purchase it, because the film is a good example of film noir...and I enjoy watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.

Criterion produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much. That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is good but nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.

The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse. (say that three times!). Everyone but Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant. She and Widmark are the stars of this film.

Peters does a decent job of playing the cheap floozy but loses her credibility early on by "falling in love" with Widmark on the first meeting even though he's nasty to her. Only in world of film!! Too bad, because that ludicrous romance part of the story takes away from it.

This an average film noir which means good, but not great and certainly not worth owning at a price of $25-$35. For that price, one could do a lot better in the film noir market. From the opening scene aboard a crowded train where a ruthless pickpocket is at work (RICHARD WIDMARK) stealing from a woman's purse (JEAN PETERS), PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET is relentlessly fascinating to watch. Partly it's because the acting is uniformly strong from the entire cast, the B&W photography is crisp and adds to the starkness of the story and characters, and because Samuel Fuller's direction puts him in the same league with the biggies like John (ASPHALT JUNGLE) Huston. In fact, it has the same urgency as the Huston film about a heist that goes wrong--but the payoff is not quite as strong.

JEAN PETERS is excellent as the hard-edged girl whom Widmark describes as being "knocked around a lot". She gives a lot of raw energy and sex appeal to her role of the not too bright woman carrying a micro-film in her purse for her boyfriend (RICHARD KILEY), something the FBI already knows about. They're on her trail when the theft occurs.

THELMA RITTER adds realism to her portrait of a woman called "Moe" who buys and sells anything to make a profit and ends up paying for it with her life. She's particularly touching in her final scene with Kiley.

This one is guaranteed to hold your attention through its one hour and twenty minute running time. Good noir from Fox and notable for the performances of Widmark, Peters and Ritter. 'Shock Corridor (1963)' was my first film from Samuel Fuller, and there I was impressed with the director's astute blending of B-movie and big-budget aesthetics, even if the story itself was pure schlock. 'Pickup on South Street (1953)' was released a decade earlier in Fuller's career, obviously produced on a larger budget from a big-name studio, Twentieth Century-Fox. Nevertheless, the visuals are still notable in that there's a somewhat raw, naturalistic element to the photography, not unlike Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)' and Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' {the latter was also shot by cinematographer Joe McDonald}. In some scenes, Fuller shoves the camera so close to his actors' faces that they're out of focus, bluntly registering the intimate thoughts, emotions and brief inflections that are communicated through that most revealing of facial features, the eye. Though (unexpectedly) prone to melodrama, and with just a hint of anti-Communist propaganda, 'Pickup on South Street' is a strong film noir that succeeds most outstandingly in its evocation of setting – the underground of New York City.

When just-out-of-prison pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) snags the purse of a woman on the subway (Jean Peters), he pockets more than he'd originally bargained for. The woman, Candy, and her cowardly ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) had been smuggling top-secret information to the Communists, and McKoy has unexpectedly retrieved an important roll of micro-film. Will he turn in the MacGuffin to the proper authorities, or sell it to the highest bidder? If 'Pickup on South Street' has a flaw, it's that the story seems designed solely to bolster an anti-Communist agenda, reeking of propaganda like nothing since WWII {Dwight Taylor, who supplied the story, also notably wrote 'The Thin Man Goes Home (1944),' the only propagandistic movie of the series}. For no apparent reason, every identifiable character – even the smugly self-serving Skip McCoy – eventually becomes a self-sacrificing patriot, the transformation predictable from the outset. In traditional film noir, the unapologetic criminal always gets his comeuppance, the rational punishment for his sins, but apparently not when they've served their country; patriotism wipes the slate clean.

Richard Widmark, an actor who I'm really beginning to like, plays the haughty pickpocket with composure, though always with that hint of ill-ease that suggests he's biting off more than he can chew. The opening scene on the train is the film's finest, as McCoy breathlessly and silently fishes around in his victim's hand bag, recalling Bresson's 'Pickpocket (1959).' Thelma Ritter is terrific as a tired street-woman who'll peddle information to anybody willing to pay for it (though, of course, she draws the line at Commies). Jean Peters is well-cast as the trashy dame passing information to the other side, playing the role almost completely devoid of glamour; Fuller reportedly cast the actress on the observation that she had the slightly bow-legged strut of a prostitute. Nevertheless, Peters must suffer a contrived love affair with Widmark that really brings down the film's attempts at realism. Fascinatingly, upon its release, 'Pickup on South Street' was promptly condemned as Communist propaganda by the FBI, and the Communist Party condemned it for being the exact opposite. Go figure. This crime thriller is sort of like a film noir, though changes the context from post-war to Cold War and has something relatively decent to say about humanity. In "Pickup on South Street", policemen are good guys, criminals are genuine guys, and the only enemies are "The Commies", who are ultimately differentiated from the good-guys in that they are emotionally personable, driven by an actual care for their own worth, as shown in the constant tracked-in close-ups that speckle the movie.

This movie revolves around characters. The personalities in this film are rather unique and detailed: Skip the pick-pocket who is able to stare down any danger, and sometimes while going through their personal possessions; Moe the informer who is just trying to save up for a spectacular funeral, but who manages to capture the hearts and respect of nearly all the other characters (and the audience); Candy, the ill-named innocent girl who only thinks she's doing government work and doesn't fully comprehend the conspiracy she's involved with; and Joey, the ex-boyfriend evil Commie baddie who is trying to hide everything from everybody and, ironically, is the worst person at doing it. Throw in a bunch of very colorful supporting characters (such as the guy with the chopsticks and the policemen) and "Pickup on South Street" treats you to a splendor of personalities as they hunt down the mysterious and accidentally stolen microfilm frames.

--PolarisDiB This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus. It turns out Candy was doing a favor for her (ex?)boyfriend, who's working for the "commies".

Superficially, there's a mystery here regarding Candy's motives and Skip spends much of the film determining her motives…. Actually he seems to just initially assume that she's a "commie", going so far as to pour beer in her face in a callous gesture. But the real question is – what's going on with Skip? What are his motives, and why does Candy like him so much? Why do we (the audience) want to like him so much? Basically what the film-makers have done here is create a very striking "male fatale" in Widmark's character and his performance. Just as the male audience tends to ponder through the length of a film like "The Big Sleep" or "The Glass Key" along with the main characters whether the female character is trustworthy or just a pretty face, the film-makers have here created a similar quandary for female viewers. Widmark is handsome, and there's also a charm in his boyish insouciance – but the first two times he meets our leading lady, he robs her and then punches her in the face. Eventually the question becomes – would Skip sink so low as to sell out his country for a buck (his comments to the police, like "you're waving a flag at ME?" make us suspect he would) or is he simply out for revenge for the murder of his friend Moe (Thelma Ritter)? I'm not sure that the film gives us a conclusive answer either way.

Thelma Ritter's character work deserves special mention – she has created a truly indelible character here. Fuller isn't afraid to give her plenty of "business" – in the form of physical objects that she uses to draw the audience into her world, particularly her used ties. Another example of Fuller's "business" would be the scene with Victor Perry (an actor I've seen elsewhere used to less effect) using the chopsticks to intimidate Candy.

The emphasis on Moe's relationship with Skip provides one of cinema's most revealing "honor among thieves" themes. In fact Skip has the same kind of ease and the same kind of casual relationship with the police, with the notable exception of Capt. Tiger (Murvyn Vye) who has a grudge against him. I loved the scene where he invited the cops in by name and offered them a beer when they came to pick him up at his shack. Those are the kind of details that make this film feel real – whether or not it really is "realistic" or whether that would matter are entirely separate questions.

All told, I would say this is an essential crime film which displays a lot of the best and most durable attributes of the "film noir" school of film-making. A predictable plot is off-set by a host of colorful characters (uniformly well-performed), cheap sets are disguised by the film's unrelenting pace, and the final product feels a lot more substantial than it probably is. This is the best film I've seen so far by Sam Fuller and helps me to see better why he's regarded as a master director – here he accomplished some things that I think he tried but ultimately failed to do in other films like "The Crimson Kimono" and "Shock Corridor" as far as very emphatic acting styles and really gripping suspense. This is one of my favorite performances from Widmark that I've seen so far – and Widmark was a talent that I'm tempted to say (based on the few extraordinary films I've seen with him) was comparable to that of Alan Ladd or Humphrey Bogart, although arguably he didn't make as many classic films. Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.

Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.

Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.

Grade: A+ Director Sam Fuller has something of a cult following, particularly in Europe. Yet the bulk of his films are more than forgettable. He did however direct one really terrific movie in "Pickup on South Street". Made pretty early on in his career, the movies that followed were vastly inferior.

From the first to the last frame, "Pickup" works on all levels. It's filmed with flawless fluidity, boasting fine performances all round. Richard Widmark and Thelma Ritter both players with a fine record of top notch performances, are at their peak. Widmark, who was no stranger at playing villains, while truly mean to the core, still manages to reveal just the slightest humanity which makes his character fascinating as well as making Jean Peters character's falling for him all the more credible.

Fuller holds no punches in this genuinely tough movie. There is a scene in which Jean Peters get roughed up by Widmark. It's truly shocking in its reality. This is not a case of carefully choreographed photography.

Less self conscious than many film noir's of the period this remains a great example of the genre. In what will probably find itself on my list of Fuller's best movies (that is, once I see more of them that just this and Shock Corridor), Pickup on South Street is a film noir where the femme fatale, as well as the male protagonist, are not the stereotypical ones in the genre. Like most of his other works, Fuller injects his own experiences and the sense of New York style that is usually absent in the Hollywood noirs. On a small budget- at least for the likes of Darryl F. Zanuck- Fuller and his actors create personas that are likable even in such a dark atmosphere. The good guys are basically the ones who won't get violent with you even as they're looking for an extra buck.

Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter are all terrific in the lead parts. Widmark is one only a few actors I can think of who could've really pulled off this character. He's a little like Bugs Bunny, as he can be a wise-ass who is a little sneaky. On the other hand, the character of Skip McCoy does have a set of values in his life. He doesn't go into other people's affairs, and doesn't try and care about much of the working world outside of his little shack on the river, after being sent away for three years. He slips up, unbeknownst to him, when he pickpockets a woman (Peters) on the train, and lifts an item that's under the eye of the Government. It may have some secrets that could make him a lot of money. But at what cost is the centerpiece of the film, as it involves stoolie Moe (Ritter is one of the finest, and most believable, character actors from the period), the woman's ex (a volatile Kiley), and the police department.

Aside from the thematic elements, which are told with a keen dramatic, journalistic style (as was Fuller's previous position, along with boxer), the dialog is fresh and involving. There's a spontaneity in many of Fuller's camera moves. And what a third act. This is a lean, tight film-noir that is worth checking out even if you're not familiar with Fuller (it's comparatively less bizarre than some of his later works). This 1953 Sam Fuller movie contains some of his best work, and its sad that he couldn't continue to get the backing of major Hollywood studios to do his stuff. The story line goes something like this. A tough hard broad (read prostitute) is riding the subway one hot summer day, and gets her pocketbook picked by Skip McCoy. What Skip (and the dame) don't realize is that she is also carrying some microfilm to be passed to commie spies. This opening shot without dialogue, and mostly in tight close-ups is a beaut,one of the many that Fuller uses throughout the movie. Playing the babe known as Candy is Jean Peters, who was never better nor better looking. One forgets how beautiful she was, and she handles this role very well. The Pickpocket is played by Richard Widmark, who had already made his mark, and set his style with 1947's Kiss Of Death as the crazy creep with the creepy laugh, and although he's a little "softer" here, he's still scary. These hard edged characters do have soft spots here and there, but its noir and nasty all the way. The standout performance belongs to the wonderful Thelma Ritter,who plays Moe the stoolie saving up her dough to pay for her own funeral. Ritter received a well deserved Oscar nomination for her performance, but lost out to the boring but popular performance of Donna Reed as the B girl (read prostitute) in "From Here To Eternity." Hollywood loves it when a good girl goes bad, and loves to Oscar them even though their performance is usually awful. See for instance Shirley Jones in "Elmer Gantry. Set among the docks and dives of New York City, with crisp black and white photography by the great Joe MacDonald,and some very good art direction. Especially good is the set representing the New York City subways and Widmark's shack near the river. Made at the height of the cold war and red scare, the villian of the piece is the ordinary looking commie, played by Richard Kiley who is much more dangerous than the pickpocket who is a criminal but is just trying to make a living and above all is a loyal American. Thelma Ritter did steal the picture. I just finished watching it again. I couldn't help becoming emotional in her final scene. She didn't get the Oscar. That's why you shouldn't put too much faith in Oscars. Richard Widmark never had a better part and was perfect casting as a 3-D, flawed human being. Jean Peters was great as the streetwise, tough girl in her best role ever. And Richard Kiley must have been very good; why else would I have hated him so. Yes, it was heavy handed on the patriotism; but, without it, you don't have much of a film. Watch their faces! The top three stars didn't really need much script. I would like to have seen them do this film without dialogue. If you've ever seen Ray Milland and Rita Gam in "The Thief", maybe you know what I mean. When I was a kid in 1956 on my first trip to NYC, I made my Bronx uncle drive us to the foot of South Street looking for No. 66. That's when I knew that Hollywood couldn't be trusted. But I did find the river.

I'm not giving away much of the story because I hate it when I know what happens before I see it for myself. If you have seen it, no elucidation is necessary. Just maybe, someone who is reading these comments hasn't seen "Pickup On South Street". You will like it; just don't go looking for 66 South Street in New York City. Richard Widmark is a tainted character in this movie. He is a professional pickpocket. He's been in prison three times, yet at the beginning of the film, he tries to make it four. Thelma Ritter is a busy body selling information to almost everybody. Jean Peters is amazing as the girl flamed by Widmark.

This is a period piece during the McCarthy era where the Red Scare ruled the politics and is worked into this plot quite nicely. What is unusual about this film is that Peters & Ritter are both victims of violent beatings in an era where women were seldom more than sex objects in films. This is what makes this film noir as women often got different roles in this type of film.

The film is only 87 minutes long and was obviously made by Fox as the under card for double features in the theater. The sets show it is a limited budget film. The script made J Edgar Hoover mad because patriotism is given short shrift. Hoover wanted it changed.

Instead, it became a B under card picture that was a sleeper hit in 1953. The script & acting in it are better than other big features were that year. Samuel Fuller is an interesting filmmaker, mainly because he had some very inconsistent politics in his films. While "Shock Corridor" and "The Naked Kiss" represented the hypocrisies and lunacy of America and "The Big Red One" was an effective portrait of the horrors of war, "Merrill's Marauders" painted war as necessary hell and "Pickup on South Street" is about the dangers of communist spies. All of his films make for very entertaining viewing, and even though he was often pigeonholed as a b-filmmaker, Fuller was just as good as any of the major studio contractors. "Pickup on South Street" is no exception, and despite the dated themes, the film-making style is remarkably ahead of its time. Its also a very quickly-pace, tight, and occasionally brutal film noir.

The acting across the board is fantastic. Richard Widmark makes for a great anti-hero and Jean Peters is quite sexy as a girl who works for her communist spy boyfriend. The show stealer is Thlema Ritter however, in an absolutely delightful performance as a police stoolie. The angles Fuller employs are great, making the acting sequences all the more exciting and brutal (this is very violent for its time). The camera continuously moves around just as Tarantino and his school would do forty years later. "Pickup on South Street" is a great action-paced noir thriller. "Shock Corridor" remains my favorite Fuller film, but this is a very close second. (8/10) This is a pretty decent example of film noir. The setting is the early 50's with the Communists trying to steal weapon secrets from the US Government.

Richard Widmark is the suave pickpocket without scruples. He gives a pretty decent performance but there is nothing A-List about him. The interesting thing was that he was not only an anti-hero but through most of the film, an unlikeable anti-hero. That is not very normal. Jean Peters gave a so-so performance as the hooker with the heart of gold. That great character actress Thelma Ritter shines as the stool-pigeon.

The plot had its fair share of twists and turns, wisecracks and tough talk. There is a fight scene near the end of the movie (in the subway station) that was pretty gritty and exciting.

I think noir fans (like myself) will enjoy this film. For non-noir viewers, it may seem a little dated and the whole Commie thing a tad overdone. I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.

Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short. This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the "Corpse Eaters Drinking Game": Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.

The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer! Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.

This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of "The Highest Honor" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story. I had seen this movie long time back, but found it amazing and to this day it has never stopped amazing me.

A wonderful movie that describes the account of a group of Australian commandos who tried to sink some Japanese ships at the Singapore harbor during the height of WW2.

These commandos are caught in plain-clothes and they are considered to be spies by the Japanese captors. But something happens that hasn't been explored much in any Hollywood WW2 movie that I have seen.

A close and friendly bonding develops between the captors and the captives. They begin to respect each other, while the captain of the captured Australian soldiers become the best of friends with a senior Japanese prison guard. This is the most wonderful part of the whole movie and it really tugs your heart.

Soon, one day as the two friends are conversing, the Aussie captain learns that some other captives are going to be tried and executed for the sinking of the Jap ships in the Singapore harbor.

He mentions that it was his team and not some other's that had sunk the ships to his Japanese friend, and upon hearing this the Japanese guard tells him to keep quiet as it might lead to his whole group getting executed. But the captain remains adamant on confessing this to the Japanese authorities.

Finally, the Japanese authorities sentence them to death in the most respectful way that is according to their rules. This is the Highest Honor accorded to the captured warriors in Japan.

This is the most awesome part of the film where the Aussie soldiers are awaiting their imminent death and the tense indecision of the friendly Japanese guard who is still not ready to believe that why did his Aussie friend confess being guilty.

I won't give away the ending here. But it is more poignant than one can even imagine and can easily move one to tears.

All in all, an excellent underrated movie that possibly didn't get the recognition that it deserved internationally. Get one copy today and be mesmerized. I saw this Australian film about 10 years ago and have never forgotten it. The movie shows the horror of war in a way that Hollywood usually glosses over. The relationship between the soldiers of the two warring countries is highlighted by the differences in culture and the ultimate knowledge that in the end we are all really not different on the inside. If you can find any type of copy of this--buy or rent it. You won't be disappointed, just awed. It's been so long since I've seen this movie (at least 15 years) and yet it still haunts me with a vivid image of the horrific consequences that prisoners of war can face despite the terms of the Geneva Convention.

A unit of Australian underwater demolitions experts are captured in an archipelago near Japan following a successful mission to set mines in a Japanese harbor.

Once in prison these men expect the same treatment as any other POWs but to their dismay soon learn from a friendly Japanese prison guard that they are being tried as spies since they were out of uniform when captured. The consequences of such an infraction, by Japanese martial code, is execution by beheading.

Despite their pleas, and the pleas of the sympathetic prison guard, the day of reckoning approaches like a ticking time bomb. The tension is so high you will actually hear the ticking, though it may just be your chest pounding with the percussion of a marching execution squad.

The ending is actually too painful to reenact in my head much less write it here. But I can promise you-- you'll never forget it. Good luck finding the video in the U.S. I was overtaken by the emotion. Unforgettable rendering of a wartime story which is unknown to most people. The performances were faultless and outstanding. This is the story of Australian commandos who are captured out of uniform after a raid. Since they are out of uniform, they are, justly, treated as spies. As such, they are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Japanese court-martial, out of admiration for their heroism, authorizes that they be given a warrior's death. Of course, under the code of Bushido, this means that they are to be beheaded. A fate for which, as westerners, they are unprepared. This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam. A delightful piece of cinema storytelling in a simple but effective way. Cinema after all is a visual media and Igor used its full potential. A young restless man boards a train with no destination in mind. In one of the compartments he meets with a girl. Words are not exchanged but their laundry washing are and from there we are taken on a ride with other peculiar characters and situations. The two leads are perfectly cast as their unique features tell you a story that needs no words. What an amazing film. With very little dialogue, the whole story is told with glances and body language. Very involving almost voyeuristic. My only gripe is that it has not been released on video in Australia and is therefore only available on TV. What a waste. I always wondered what happened with that magic kind of feeling the old Slovenian movies seemed to have in them... Well, in time I wondered if that feeling was just the nostalgia. Or did that "feeling" decide to pack its bags and say "goodbye" somewhere in the middle of our cinematic history, and then never came back? Or did it? Because for me, it came back the first time I saw "Ekspres, Ekspres". And it was it's old self again.

There are three qualities of this movie that makes it somewhat unique and as enjoying as it is to watch - the smooth flow of the story, the warmth of the colors and, what I appreciated the most - the lack of excessive use of verbal communication (something many of other (not just) Slovenian screenwriters should at least consider). There is no use for words, when you can understand each other just as well (yeah, or better) by other means in use. Just watch Bakovic and Cerar. Uh.

So this, in only so many words, is why I would recommend "Ekspres, Ekspres" to all of you, as a must-see Slovenian movie, regardless of what you may heard of Slovenian films (if you ever even heard anything , that is...).

Oh, and that scene, where Bakovic is dancing to Vivaldi's music... A treat.

Treat yourself. Watch it. ... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.

Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this. A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details. Go, Igor, go, you are the proof that Slovenian films may, should and must be different. There's soul in it, and this is rare. Don't let anybody put you down! I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).

I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective "jump" moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The "edge of dreamland" muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.

Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile ("Cujo"?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, "I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at" look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.

While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the "Witch Mountain" movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.

The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.

Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about "Blade Runner". :-) I've seen this movie more than once. It was on par with a lot of the spooky stuff that was being shown in television movies back then. The only problem I had was with the title for the obvious reasons... One immediately thinks of the famous snack cake by Drake's! Leaving off the first part, 'Hound of Hell' would have sufficed.

Richard Crenna always manages to bring a sense of seriousness to anything he does, anyway - whether the plot is good or bad. But this was an enjoyable Halloween fare offered by the CBS network. I loved the part where Crenna takes a flight to some obscure country to find the mystic who would help him conquer the evil beast. He asks the cab driver how to find this guy. Great dialogue between the native cab driver and Crenna in terms of the cabby dissing his own people's ethnic beliefs. 'Aw, Mr. Barry, I left that stuff behind when I came down from the mountains...' - referring to the mystic who rarely sees or advises people, and nobody knows how to really contact him.

As far as supernatural fare goes, this movie is still enjoyable. Yes it was a little low budget, but this movie shows love! The only bad things about it was that you can tell the budget on this film would not compare to "Waterworld" and though the plot was good, the film never really tapped into it's full potential! Strong performances from everyone and the suspense makes it worthwhile to watch on a rainy night. Not only does this film have one of the great movie titles, it sports the third teaming of 70s child actors Ike Eissenman and Kim Richards. I seem to remember this film being broadcast Halloween week back in '78 going against Linda Blair in Stranger in our House. I missed it on the first run choosing to see the other film. Later, on repeat, I saw I made the right choice. The movie is not really bad, but, really lacks any chills or surprises. Although, I did like the scene where Richard Crenna shoots the family dog to no avail. The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed! Before Cujo,there was Lucky the devil dog. In 1978,on Halloween night the movie"Devil Dog,The Hound of Hell" premiered. A story of a family getting a new puppy (from a farmer who just happen to be in the neighborhood selling fruits and vegetables) because their dog Skipper was killed.Coencidence? Everyone loves the new dog,but there is something strange about him.

It isn't long until the father Mike Barry(Richard Crenna,First Blood)starts to notice.His wife Betty(Yvette Mimieux,Where The Boys Are,Jackson County Jail,Snowbeast)is different and his kids Charlie and Bonnie(Ike Eisenman,Witch Mountain and Fantastic Vourage and Kim Richards,Witch Mountain,Nanny and the Professor,Hello Larry,Tuff-Turf)also have changed. Does the dog have something to do with it? He's determined to find out and do whatever it takes to save his family.

This movie is great because it has Ike and Kim playing a darker side of themselves than what we saw on those witch mountain movies. This is one of the many 70's made-for-TV horror movies that was actually scary for a made-for-TV horror movie. The music was creepy and even the ending which I won't tell made you think.

This movie also stars Ken Kercheval(Cliff Barnes of Dallas)and R.G. Armstrong(who couldn't stay away from devil movies remember"Race with the Devil"?)

It's worth watching. No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in "Jackson County Jail," sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney "Witch Mountain" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ("Night Tide") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo. Those childhood memories...when things were new, and we were filled with curiosity about the world around us; as we took those initial first steps in the long journey we call life.

One of the initial memories I have from childhood is this animated program "Galaxy Express 999," about a young boy named Tetsuro, who goes on a train ride around the galaxy, in the hopes of gaining a mechanical body in order to avenge the senseless death of his mother at the hands of cold-hearted, trophy gathering mechanical hunters. Accompanying Tetsuro on his journey is Maetel, a woman of exquisite golden beauty who reminds him of the mother he lost all those years ago...

Back in the early-80's, as a boy who attended kindergarten and the early years of elementary school in Seoul, South Korea, "Galaxy Express 999" was a phenomenally popular animated program imported from Japan, which inspired young boys who tuned in to dream of countless adventures in their often tumultuous and exciting journey through life that awaited them. The memories of tuning into this animated program on weekdays between 8 to 9pm before bed time...

Those were some wonderful memories, never to be had again...

As I moved to America, and while residing here for over 2 decades, I sometimes wondered about that time and place, in a country thousands of miles away divided from America by an enormously vast ocean, of this childhood program, with its hit theme song, and of the boy named Tetsuro, his protective companion Maetel, the enigmatic train conductor, and of the spacefaring train Galaxy Express 999.

Many, many years passed...

Last summer while I was in Korea, I was able to track down a copy of the original "Galaxy Express 999" (1979) on DVD, and it brought back a lot of nostalgic, heartfelt memories. "Galaxy Express 999" remains as captivating as the first time you discovered it all those years ago, opening up those nostalgic memories of new discoveries, an important stepping stone for young boys who tuned in and embarked on their life's journey into manhood.

Here's to wonderful memories. "Good-bye, Maetel. Good-bye, Galaxy Express 999...

Good-bye, to my childhood."

10/10 I saw this as a child in the late eighties and I must say, Galaxy Express is one of those films that sticks in your imagination for a long time. If you've never understood the appeal of anime, discovering this film may be your golden ticket to Otaku-town.

The story is as delicate and poetic as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The cell animation, while somewhat traditional, possesses a vivid style that explosively portrays Leiji Matsumoto's great talent for character design and visual storytelling.

This is one of those unique children's films like Star Wars, The Dark Crystal and The Wizard of Oz that completely transcends 'family entertainment' status and stands as a classic of cinema on its own terms.

I highly recommend this film. Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it. Galaxy Express 999 (Ginga tetsudô Three-Nine). Made in 1979. Directed by Rintaro. Based on the original work by Leiji Matsumoto.

What little I know of the history of GALAXY EXPRESS 999, it was first published as a popular manga in 1970's and was created by Leiji Matsumoto. GE999 is set in the same Star Wars-type of space universe as Matsumoto's other famous space manga: CAPTAIN HARLOCK. In fact space pirate Harlock and other characters from that manga (including Queen Emeraldas and Tochirô Oyama) make appearances in GE999. GE999 was a success as a manga and was soon followed by also popular anime series which included over 100 episodes. It was aired in 1978. A year later came this anime film, which isn't a sequel to the series, but summaries the main points of the story in two hours long movie.

The story is set in unidentified Star Wars-type of future where journeying to different planets has become a possibility. People of the future can have themselves mechanical bodies in which they can live hundreds of years, maybe even forever. The protagonist, Tetsurô Hoshino, is a young boy who witnesses how a cruel Count Mecha, whose entire body is made of mechanical parts, kills Tetsurô's mother. Tetsurô swears revenge and is convinced that he can only achieve it by having a mechanical body. To obtain it he must travel to a far-away planet with space train Galaxy Express 999. However, since Tetsurô comes from poverty, he has no money to obtain the expensive ticket. By a chance coincidence he meets a beautiful young woman, Maetel, who bears a resemblance to his dead mother. Maetel offers a ticket for Tetsurô on a condition that she accompanies him on his journey. And so the journey begins…

I first saw this film last October, about six months from now, and again yesterday. I feel that I must first tell about the thing that bothered me the most in this film: it seems very rushed. Then again what can you expect from 2 hours long movie that tries to tell the main points of over 100 episodes long series? Whatever the case, the situations change with a fast speed and Tetsurô meets other important characters in the story mostly by pure chance. I feel makers should have either left something out or include extra 30 minutes.

However, there's no arguing that GE999 has deserved its place as an anime classic. The animation itself, very faithful to the style of Matsumoto's manga, is detailed and beautiful to watch. Even after almost 30 years of its release the animation has not become "out of date" but puts many later anime films in shame. The music through out the film is enjoyable to listen even if somewhat "old" these day (it was the 70's after all). I have not heard any English dub of this film so I can only comment the Japanese audio which is good. Voice actors give life to their characters, most memorable ones being Masako Nozawa (mainly known as the voice of Goku through out the entire Dragon Ball saga) as the excited and young Tetsurô, and Masako Ikeda as the calm and mysterious Maetel. The supporting characters are not left in shadows, but also have a life of their own, most memorable to me being waitress Claire.

The story itself is suitable for both those who are looking for an entertainment for couple of hours, as well as for those who try to find deeper messages. GE999 is an entertaining adventure film but can also be seen as Tetsurô's journey from boyhood to manhood. The whole film is told from his point of view, so we are forced to feel what he feels. I think many people can relate to Tetsurô, for despite the fantasy elements, he is a very realistic character: young, hot headed, awkward and naive. We follow him as he starts to see differences between humans and machines and come to conclusion whether he wants the mechanical body or not. Maetel on the other hand stays as a mystery in the film and even in the end, when she reveals who and what she really is, it doesn't much answer to anything. Maetel can be seen as a dream of a growing young man, always close but just out of reach.

It's is the strange yet beautiful relationship between Tetsurô and Maetel that still awakes talking and questions, and fascinates after the decades. People have argued if their relationship is that of a two friends, of mother and son, or of two possible lovers (which wakes a lot of critique since Maetel's age is unknown and Tetsurô hasn't even reached his puberty yet). Without any means to sound deep, I think the best term to describe them is "soul mates". There is no question that the two feel devotion, caring and love for each others, yet it goes beyond that of friendship, family and lovers. I think that if their relationship would be stuffed in any of those categories, it would take something out of the whole film and of the characters. The ending scene, even if you already know what is going to happen, is still very touching and memorable.

All in all, despite the rushing of plot and some corny scenes, GALAXY EXPRESS 999 holds its place as an anime classic amongst the films like Katsuhiro Otomo's AKIRA (1988) and Mamoru Oshii's GHOST IN THE SHELL (1995). The film is directed by Rintaro, who had previous experience of Leiji Matsumoto's works as he had worked in CAPTAIN HARLOCK series. Later Rinatro directed a wonderful looking METROPOLIS (2001) that also questions the difference between humans and machines.

GALAXY EXPRESS 999 (1979) is a classic that should be seen at least once by every anime fan. One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out. Anyone who thinks anime is nothing but sex and violence will be silenced forever after watching this movie. This is a fine movie that tells about Tetsuro's quest to avenge his mother's death, but also grows up in the process. The journey on the train sort of represents Tetsuro's journey from boyhood to manhood. The music and visual styles of the movie are a bit dated (you can tell it's a 70's movie) and the animation is only slightly better than your average "Star Blazers" episode. But the story and the characters are so strong, it really doesn't matter. A must-see for any animation fan! What can I say ? An action and allegorical tale which has just about everything. Basically a coming of age tale about a young boy who is thrust into a position of having to save the world ..... and more. He meets a dazzling array of heroes and villains, and has quite a time telling them apart. A definite must-see. This early Anime movie was a rather good film that I caught once on the Science Fiction channel when Anime was actually popular here in America and not the ratings disaster that adult swim claims it is on the cartoon network. I quite frankly think it has less to do with it being less popular and more with the fact people would rather now buy dvds are watch the episodes uncut on the internet. This film though probably did not have all that many cuts and the voice work was okay for a dubbed movie, though I would rather watch the original Japanese version. Americans tend to use some rather annoying voices for children in anything dubbed. This film features a young boy who boards a train called the Galaxy Express in the hopes that he can make it to a planet that has the technology to turn him into a robot. He wishes to become a robot to avenge his mother, who was brutally murdered at the hands of a robot who hunts humans for fun. During the course of his adventures he becomes friends with the various workers aboard the train as well as a woman that resembles his deceased mother, a beautiful woman named Matel, who as with most woman in Anime movies has a secret that could either be really good for our young hero, or really bad. He goes from planet to planet too as the train makes various stops and he runs into a space pirate named Captain Harlock who apparently starred in his own animated cartoon series, so basically the Galaxy Express takes place in that universe. All in all a very good ride with a rather strange and unexpected ending. There would be a sequel to this one, but it was not quite as good as this one, however the ending was a bit more final than it was here. I've watched a bunch of episodes of Cold Case since its premiered (especially now that it immediately follows The Amazing Race, but this was one of the best instances of writing and acting I've seen from the house of Bruckheimer. The casting, especially of the younger officers, was spot on, and the script and editing, the soundtrack, and the acting made this episode a tour d'force. If I were the producers I would submit this episode for Emmy consideration. It amazing how complete a portrait was made of Coop and Jimmy within the confines of s 48 minute episode; that takes a lot of talented people doing their best. I hope there's is advance warning of when this episode is repeated, because I'm sure I'll notice a lot that I did not notice the first time around. What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful. This was one of the all time best episodes. Officer Sean Cooper was murdered in his patrol car back in '68. A dying convict in the state penitentiary reveals that he stole a block of heroin from the car after the shooting. His case is reopened with the presumption that he was corrupted as a policeman.

Further investigation into him as a police officer and a human being reveals a war veteran involved in a forbidden love. This type of love was considered shameful and something to at least keep hidden at that time.

While this isn't the type of love I personally support, he was still a policeman and a human being and shouldn't have been killed for it. The sound track was excellent (keeps me watching the DVR), and the selective use of black and white mixed with color to emphasize one object or give a particular feeling to a scene was especially appealing. I shall be watching this one in repeat! this was a fantastic episode. i saw a clip from it on YouTube, and i vowed that should it ever show on TV, i would glue myself to the set in order to watch. i wound up watching it with a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, and the two of us cried at the end. this was a truly well-written, heartfelt episode of the forbidden love between two cops who, i felt, really were (in Coop's words) "the Lucky Ones". it is episodes like this one that really make Cold Case one of the most captivating and much-loved works of television magic on CBS. i anxiously await more episodes, and a re-run of "Forever Blue" because i will always watch it again and again. I have watched quite a few Cold Case episodes over the years, beginning with Season 1 episodes back in 2003-2004. And while most have been good, this particular episode was not only the best of the best, but has few rivals in the Emmy categories. Though some may not agree with the story content (i.e. the male-to-male romantic relationship), I doubt that anyone could watch this without being deeply moved within their spirit.

The story is essentially about a case that was reopened, based on the testimony from a dying drug dealer. The two central actors are two police officers in the 1960's named Sean Coop (aka, the cold case victim who goes by his last name, Coop) and his partner, Jimmy Bruno.

In the story, Coop is single, a Vietnam war vet, with a deeply troubled past. Jimmy, however, is married, with children no less. Both are partners on the police force and form not only a friendship, but a secret romantic relationship that they both must hide from a deeply and obviously homophobic culture prevalent at that time.

The flashback scenes of their lives are mostly in black and white, with bits of color now and then sprinkled throughout. Examples include their red squad car, the yellow curtains gently blowing by the window in Jimmy's bedroom, where Jimmy's wife watched Coop and Jimmy drink, fight, and then kiss each other while being in an alcohol-induced state. I found it interesting that only selected items were colored in the flashback scenes, with everything else in black and white. I still have not figured out the color scheme and rationale.

The clearly homophobic tension between fellow patrol officers and the two central actors only heightens the intensity of the episode. One key emotional scene was when Coop was confronted by his father after the baptism of Jimmy's baby. In this scene, Coop's father, Sarge, who was a respected fellow officer on the force, confronts Coop about the rumors surrounding Coop's relationship with Jimmy. One can feel sorry for Coop, at this point, as the shame and disgrace of Coop's father was heaped upon Coop - "You are not going to disgrace our family...and you're not my son, either." - clearly indicative of the hostile views of same-sex relationships of that era.

Additional tension can also be seen in the police locker room where Coop and another officer go at it after Coop and Jimmy are labeled "Batman and Robin homos".

As for the relationship between Coop and Jimmy, it's obvious that Coop wanted more of Jimmy in his life. Once can see the tension in Jimmy's face as he must choose between his commitment to his wife and kids, his church, and yet his undying devotion to Coop.

In the end, Jimmy walks away from Coop, realizing that he cannot have both Coop and his family at the same time. Sadly, Coop is killed, perhaps because of his relationship with Jimmy, but Coop may also have been killed for his knowledge of drug money and police corruption that reached higher up in the force.

The most moving scene in the whole episode was when Coop, as he sat dying from gunshot wounds in his squad car, quietly spoke his last words over his police radio to his partner: "Jimmy...we were the lucky ones. Don't forget that."

The soundtrack selection was outstanding throughout the episode. I enjoyed the final scene with the actor Chad Everett, playing the still grieving Jimmy, only much older by now, and clearly still missing his former partner, Coop.

I highly recommend this episode and consider it the best. It is without a doubt the most well-written, well-acted, and well done of all Cold Case episodes that I've ever seen. A convict serving time comes forward to give the Cold Case unit information about the murder of a policeman, committed years before. The murder of Sean Cooper, a good cop, was never solved. Naturally, the detectives believe the new evidence will help them put together all the pieces of the puzzle that frustrated their colleagues.

In flashbacks we are taken to the baptism of James Bruno's baby. Sean and Jimmy were partners. There is tension as Sean, who is the godfather, arrives disheveled and late for the rite. Eileen Bruno doesn't appear to be happy being there. The real mystery is revealed by her. She caught Sean, who was drinking with Jimmy in the backyard, kiss her husband, and more shocking yet, Jimmy responding willingly.

Somehow at the station the partners become the center of gossip. Sean has not endeared himself to his superior because he discovered the involvement with a criminal in his area who controlled the drug business. Sean realizes this man is in with the drug strong man because he always makes an excuse to free the scum bags Sean and Jimmy haul into the station all the time. The pressure is too much on Jimmy. Sean is comfortable in his homosexuality and wants to be honest about it. Cooper's own father doesn't want anything to do with a queer son. Even his superior McCree wants him out of his jurisdiction, but the case is complicated because Cooper comes from a long line of Irish men serving in the police force. Sean is killed because his homosexual condition, and for knowing too much on his peers' involvement in taking dirty money.

Tom Petit wrote this honest portrayal of the life of a police officer in the closet and his secret love with another fellow cop. We thought it was a frank account of a serious matter no one talked about in those days. Sometimes the people involved with the show, fearing reprisals from sponsors, or the networks, don't dare to present these real situations. Jeannot Szwarc, shows a sensitive approach to this thorny issue, which is dealt without the sensationalism the case might have been shown with a different team.

There is a rare Chad Everett appearance as the older Jimmy Bruno. His take is right on target with a touch of sentimentality that doesn't get out of hand. Shane Johnson makes an excellent contribution to the show as Sean Cooper. The cast is marvelous and it includes good all around performances from everyone under Mr. Szwarc's direction.

In this episode, Nick Vera, gets closer to his neighbor, the mother of the basketball player the detective took his ball away. Nick is heading for romance with the woman! I watch Cold Case because of the real life experiences depicted. This one was very close to me and touched me deeply, so beautifully handled, thanks, Merideth. All the characters are well developed 3D especially Coop. The material is still difficult to approach, the US is far behind the developed nations of the world. only this kind of honest actual experiential portrayal and treatment makes an impact on the population. of course, not everyone sees things the same way but i am heartened that 3/4 of the men polled in the under 30 crowd voted the same as me 10. you're reaching the hard ones - i will forever reserve the "best episode" place for this episode. Please continue taking chances and accept my heartfelt gratitude. Reading some of the comments on the message boards here I was expecting this movie to be a complete letdown - but when I watched it I could not stop laughing! It has officially become my new favourite movie.

I don't know what all the hate here is about, maybe it's because a movie of this kind has never really been around before. I am at a loss to name another completely female driven comedy. Plenty of comedies will have one or two actresses in the lead, but there will be a lot of supporting male characters. This one was almost ALL women - with the exception of Seth Meyers, Justin Hartley and the brief appearance of Will Arnett - and it worked. All of the actresses delivered very funny performances (especially Missi Pyle) from a quirky and lovable script.

The charm of this film, to me, seems to be in its subtle feminist message: accepting who you are, female success in the public sphere, the strength of female friendships and breaking gender roles. Light-hearted though it is, each of the lead characters face a challenge as their attempts to be more 'fun' conflict with their feminist values and who they knew themselves to be.

Missi Pyle proposed that this film missed a theatrical release because of its all-female cast and lack of a big-name actor to get the studios behind it, and I have to agree. Everyone I've recommended this film to has loved it and I think it's a shame that a comedy celebrating female dorkiness hasn't been widely accepted and successful.

I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind or a love of female-centred comedy. Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable I don't think this movie is for everyone. But I saw it this weekend in Seattle and I thought it was so funny. I haven't laughed that hard during a movie in long time. I thought the entire cast did a great job. You will find yourself laughing from the first moment through the very last scene. I suspect some moviegoers (especially the ones who take themselves WAY too seriously) will be turned off by this brand of humor. Not me. The movie was a real surprise. And the entire theater was rolling with laughter throughout the showing I went to which makes me think that a lot of people enjoyed themselves and were happy to have a good time at the movies for a change. I cannot wait to see it again! If you're in the mood to LOL then this is for you. Funny funny funny funny! Anyone who lived through the ages of Revenge of the Nerds and Girlpower will appreciate this film. It is one of those films that delivers everything you want in a "spring break movie" PLUS it makes fun of the college film genre. It's funny, it's got a cast to die for (Amy Pohler! Rachel Dratch!, Sophie Monk!, Parker Posey! Jane Lynch! Amber Tamblyn! Missi Pyle!) and its guaranteed to make you laugh out loud. Writer/ actor Rachel Dratch is a comic genius and Sophie Monk is such a great villain. Wilson Phillips! OMG! (I'm just repeating myself now...) It will live on with girls who like Miranda July but feel like eating ice cream and pretending they're dumb. This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape. For a while I was caught in the trap where I found myself watching independent and foreign films and lying to myself that I liked them. Fatty Drives the Bus is the exception. It is the truth. It is the best "bad" movie ever.

The "badness" of this movie seems to come naturally. Halfway through Satan's opening monologue, the word "Hell" appears at the bottom of the screen. The glamorous Bridget is an unshaven man in a wig and a thrift store dress. It takes the eccentric couple that keeps trying to kill each other FOREVER to walk down the stairs. Jesus walks to a funk soundtrack.

Anyways, Fatty gives the impression that someone lost their tenure for advising a senior's film project. But it's the sincerity of how bad it is that makes it so wonderful. You get the impression the makers knew it was going to be bad, but never forced it.

Never to be duplicated in wonder, Fatty delivers. Highly highly recommended. No, I'm not joking around. If you ever, EVER, have the chance to see this movie see it. If you need chop off your arm to see it, see it. It's worth it.

Fatty Drives The Bus is unlike any film you've ever seen. It takes trash cinema and elevates it to a work of art. While it contains poor shots, idiotic characters, bad dialogue, strange acting, and cinematography that belongs on public access in Iowa, it actually succeeds in its goal as a film. It strives to be the dumbest, strangest, most inane movie you've ever seen. And boy does it ever succeed.

I will lay out the plot for those of you who worry about such things (the filmmakers obviously didn't), but really you needn't pay too much attention because the entire film's plot is presented in a very long piece of text played before the opening credits. In any event, FDTB (as its admirers call it) is the story of a bus tour through Chicago, which is led by Satan. You see, Jesus is in town, and all the passengers on the bus are supposed to die, and all their souls would have gone to hell, except with Jesus in town, a lackey in hell calls off the job, and this angers Satan because, well he doesn't like looking like a fool in front of the guy, so he decides to get the people on the bus to sign over their souls to him directly, but he's a devil, so he needs to disguise himself, otherwise, who'd go on a tour with him right, so he disguises himself as Roger and he gets on the bus, where the driver is never referred to by name, but he is kind of fat, so I guess he's Fatty. The bus (and the riders) are on a collision course with wackiness!

Examples of some lunacy: The title repeats on the screen 3 times. I don't know why. A character appears on the bus in mid-trip without explanation or introduction, and occassionally sits next to the others, and they look at her like she doesn't belong. I don't know why. Two characters fall in love and exchange longing glances, that are really the same shots repeated over and over again. I don't know why. After Satan gives a minute long monologue about transforming into human form a title card flashes "Satan is going to transform." I don't know why. One character is a woman who is very obviously a man in drag, and is referred to by other characters as "the glamorous Bridget." I don't know why.

If there was one good thing that came out of my internship at Troma last summer it was getting my own copy of Fatty Drives The Bus. FATTY DRIVES THE BUS is simply the funniest, most original and entertaining piece of work i have ever had the pleasure of seeing.

this movie is by no means up to Hollywood standards, or even that of a straight-to-video movie fluff comedy starring terry "hulk" hogan, in terms of camera work, editing, acting, budget, or anything else.

what this movie DOES have though, is a very original and enjoyable story, and it is obviously done by people who love making it, and the enthusiasm of the all the cast and crew really break through all its budget and acting downfalls.

this movie proves that you don't need a huge budget or decent actors to make a great film, all you need are some original ideas and some passion for what your doing.

simply the best movie ever. i don't care how you get it, rent it, order it, steal it, download it, just see this movie.

now i just hope they make a DVD version. This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW! What an amazingly funny and original show. The cast starting with the hysterical Julie Brown(Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun) is just perfect. Add Amy Hill(All American Girl-Grandma Kim) who plays a lesbian who is always arguing with her partner and business partner(Asian restaurant-WOK-DON"T RUN) I have laughed harder during this show than any other I have ever seen(including Newhart-one of my all time favorite shows) If you like movies like Naked Gun and Airplane- you will love this series!! One of the best moments of the show is Cindy Williams playing herself. When she snubs Tammy at the dry cleaners, Tammy finds a picture of Cindy Williams in her coat. The picture is of Cindy Williams doing an unmentionable act with a bowling pin-upside down. It is awesome to see an actress like Cindy Williams being able to play herself like this. Soap opera like with many surprise twists during its short run. I can only hope that this will someday be released on DVD with special many bonus special features. Funniest series I have ever seen!!!! I really wonder how this show plays in the U.K. and the rest of Europe. IT IS SO SELF-LOATHING ABOUT BEING AN American(particularly white Americans). That could be a big reason for some of the venom and vitriol expressed here on this board. I love the show but it is with some reservations and I feel it took the easy way out by Spoiler Spoiler:

Crashing and burning everything at the end of the second season. Julie slammed the door shut on any hope of reviving the show unless her character lands on a haystack in the middle of some farm. Who knows? It was a funny, raunchy and on occasion, kinda scary show. Another reason to watch this delightful movie is Florence Rice. Florence who? That was my first reaction as the opening credits ran on the screen. I soon found out who Florence Rice was, A real beauty who turns in a simply wonderful performance. As they all do in this gripping ensemble piece. From 1939, its a different time but therein lies the charm. It transports you into another world. It starts out as a light comedy but then turns very serious. Florence Rice runs the gamut from comedienne to heroine. She is absolutely delightful, at the same time strong, vulnerable evolving from a girl to a woman.Watch her facial expressions at the end of the movie. She made over forty movies, and I am going to seek out the other thirty nine. Alan Marshal is of the Flynn/Gable mode and proves a perfect match for Florence. Buddy Ebsen and Una Merkel provide some excellent comic moments, but the real star is Florence Rice. Fans of 30's/40's movies, Don't miss this one! Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon did two movies together within two years. One is considered one of the great romantic films of all time, and the movie that made Olivier a great movie star (and gave Oberon her best performance role): WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The other is this film, made in England a year earlier. THE DIVORCE OF LADY X is a romantic comedy (as WUTHERING HEIGHTS is a romantic tragedy). Olivier is a lawyer, Everard Logan, who is a dynamic barrister, but is also a total misogynist. One night he checks into a hotel just ahead of a crowd of people. It is a very foggy night (the type of pea soup fog that London was known for up until a notorious "killer" fog in the 1950s), and the crowd (who'd been attending a party in the hotel) need beds. The management tries to get Logan to allow one or two socialite ladies to sleep on a couch and a day bed in his rooms, but he refuses. But he has not reckoned with Merle Oberon as Leslie Steele. The granddaughter of a high court judge, she manages to get into Logan's rooms and manipulates him to not only agree to her sleeping there, but appropriates his bed (he goes onto the couch - much to his discomfort).

The next day they share a breakfast, and in the smalltalk it is evident that despite his mistrust of women Logan finds Leslie very attractive. But she kittenishly refuses to tell him her name. She is determined to learn more about him, and she finds his attitude toward women infuriating. In the meantime, Logan is approached by a wealthy nobleman (Ralph Richardson as Lord Mere) as a potential client. Mere suspects his wife Lady Mere (Binnie Barnes) of having an affair. In fact, he tells Logan her Ladyship was with her lover in the hotel that Logan knows he was in on the night of the fog. Logan (naturally) jumps to the conclusion that Lady Mere was his mysterious roommate that night. I will not go into the plot any further, except to say that Leslie eventually realizes what a mistake Logan has made, and decides to use it to teach him a lesson about women.

The script has the feel of a Wodehouse novel, but is slighter. Still the performances of Olivier, Oberon, Richardson, Barnes, and Morton Selden (as Oberon's grandfather) are all splendid. It shows what a good cast can do with even the slightest of materials. Take a look at some of the minor scenes to see what I mean: Selden's first scene, complaining about his weak coffee to his butler/valet, who tells him off properly (they've been used to each other's personalities for years). Or Olivier dealing with a young clerk in his office, who is certain there were two Lady Meres in the office two minutes before (there were, but Oberon and Barnes left together), and ends up thinking the poor clerk is a simpleton. Or the waiter in the hotel who can't understand why the tenant in Olivier's room is constantly changing from a man to a woman to a man. As I said, a slight charming comedy - but it is very charming. I have become quite fond of Laurence Olivier in the past few weeks, and was thrilled when I discovered this gem. I have always found it wonderful when I run across a film where I do not have to have my finger on the remote control in case nudity rears its ugly head.

The Divorce of Lady X is charming till the final scene, and must have been a true delight for viewers back in 1938. I only wish people today could accept and love true humor instead of the horrid trash talk people now call funny.

The Divorce of Lady X is well worth anyone's time. This is an absolutely charming film, one of my favourite romantic comedies. It's extremely humorous and the cast is wonderful. Though Laurence Olivier is mostly associated with his Shakespearean work he shows in this film that he is by no means restricted to play only classical theatre. He manages the transition from the cynical divorce solicitor, who tries to avoid women and their traitorous ways, to the lovesick puppy that falls for Lady X played by Merle Oberon effortlessly. The dialogue is wonderfully witty and refreshing and the atmosphere enchanting. Ralph Richardson was a delight to watch as well. I highly recommend it. Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in "The Divorce of Lady X," a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.

We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.

The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing. An incredible little English film for so many reasons. First it's a rare look a Laurence Olivier in a light comedy. While his performance is not up the standard he would latter set as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century, he is perfectly believable as the hoodwinked barrister. Historically this film is of great interest because of both where and when it was shoot. Being English it didn't have the big budget of the Hollywood films of the same era and it often shows, but more interesting is the fact this movie filmed just prior to the war and shows an England that would soon be gone. When we watch it today we think in terms of modern morality and over look the fact that this movie and its closest American counter part `It Happened One Night' were in their day as risqué as `Fatal Instinct' was in our time. But after watching and enjoying this movie the first time I can't help but feel sadness when I watch it today. With half of film shoot before 1950 gone, saving the remaining films means hard choices, and unfortunately films like this are often passed over to save movies that we all consider important. The color shifting, lack of contrast, and generally poor quality of the print most often seen is heartbreaking. This movie along with `It Happened One Night' are perfect to curl up with a love one under a blanket on cool a cool evening and watch, or better yet why not a double feature. A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up. I had really only been exposed to Olivier's dramatic performances, and those were mostly much later films than *Divorce*. In this film, he is disarmed of his pomp and overconfidence by sassy Merle Oberon, and plays the flustered divorce attorney with great charm. Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon. It's a cooking competition show, Americanized. It's not going to be the Japanese version.

The show is great. I could care less about cooking but this show is just entertaining to watch... From the intensity put into the dishes by the chef to the goofy chairman. Truly a good way to spend some time watching TV.

You could critique the show for having guests like Marc Ecko as a judge... But... Meh. It's entertaining enough to watch and generally the winner deserves the prize.

Oh yeah and I'm bitter John Besh isn't the new Iron Chef...

Ala Cuisine! With all of the violence on TV and in the local news, it is refreshing to have a show that has no violence or adult language, yet is still entertaining. My children look forward to watching with us every week. Each of us have a favorite chef and favorite judges. We all enjoy Elton Brown. We enjoy learning about the background of the main ingredient, unique vegetables and seasonings. We play along at home to guess who the winner will be.

It is a great hour of entertainment, as well as informational. Best of all in our hussle, bussle life, it is an hour the family spends together. I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour. What a night. Perry Mason then Have Gun, Will Travel followed by Gunsmoke (when it was a half hour) and finally at 10:30PM came 'Sea Hunt' with its wonderful opening theme music and Mike's boat sailing off to a new adventure. Terrific.. Regardless of the story it was the lead character (played by Lloyd Bridges), strong, honest, sincere. A Man's Man and a Boy's Man. This brought on an interest in boats that lasted for years. Why they don't show on cable or make it available on video, no idea.. Too bad. I loved watching ''Sea Hunt '' back in the day , I was in grammar school and would get home do my homework and by 4:30 would be ready to watch ''Sea Hunt '' and Mike Nelson in his underwater adventures .I loved it ! He took to you a place not very accessible at that time , under the great blue sea . Pre ''Thunderball '' or even before Cousteau became common , there was Mike Nelson sparking the imagination of kids .I'd be willing to wager that more than a few kids developed their passion for oceanography or biology or one of the sciences from watching this show .Underwater photography also progressed , the fascination for exploration is easily stimulated thru watching this show . Watch and enjoy !!! Lloyd Bridges as Mike Nelson and his boat were all the stars of this series. What made it so good to me when I watched it was the real feel of going underwater. The show exhibits a youthful energy energy for exploration under water which is infectious.

The show was educational as well showing the viewer things about scuba diving from someone who appeared to be a consummate pro, Mike Nelson. There were excellent shows, and the program always appeared to be well produced. Granted, the drama in the scripts sometimes hit the same notes in more than 1 episode but each show holds it's own with any other show produced during this era, the infancy of American television. The freedom of having your own Sea Going Power Boat, the excitement of going on underwater adventures a rugged,an's man of an adventurer and lovely(and so well endowed!) assistants in fine Bikinis were all definite selling points for "SEA HUNT"(1958-61).

Just what was the reason for producing a sort of sea going "gun for hire"* series. Let's look closely now. There must be a some clues around.

If we were to look back just a little, we see the RKO Radio Pictures production of UNDERWATER! (1955). It starred Jane Russell, Gilbert Roland, Richard Egan and Lori Nelson as a quartet of very attractive Scuba Diving Adventurers working on salvage in the Carribbean, including a Pre-Fidel Cuba. The film was moderately successful and was memorable not necessarily for its story as for the looks of the principals in swimming suits. Fine, shapely Women Folk in some really keen 2 piece bathing suits (Woo, woo, woo, woo!) are always a plus for the Guys; and the presence of rugged, athletic men folk displaying their best beefcake "poses" is equally pleasing to the Gals.

And there is one element that is a true legacy of this old RKO Feature. It is on the Soundtrack contained in between the musical queues and themes. It is the Recording of "It's Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White", written by Louiguy and Jacques LaRue and performed by Damaso Perez Prado and His Orchestra.

Anyone who hears this Insturmental or Song (with Lyrics)will not soon forget it. Its Carribbean Beat is so very lively and its rich use of the Brass Section of the Orchestra is Powerful and instantly renders instant impression and memory. The 45 RPM Record of this Song made it to the Top 10 most Popular Songs of the Week for many Saturday Evenings on NBC TV's "YOUR HIT PARADE". We can't remember just how many weeks nor just how high it got. (Maybe some one can fill us in on that one item, please!) So, we got back to "SEA HUNT" and its own odyssey in getting on "the Tube". The public had taken to UNDERWATER! all right, but would they go for a TV Series.

ZIV TV Productions was getting a reputation for putting out a type of product that, for the most part, didn't get signed on by the Networks for the multi-station hook-up treatment. But they had been having some great successes with Television Syndication.** By that we mean, offering a Series for Stations for showings on a one to a TV Station per each Market Area. (Much like the various Newspaper Syndicates "sell" Comic Strips to various Papers around the Country, and World, even.

So, we got 'Mike Nelson', himself, in the physical presence of Lloyd Bridges. Mr. Bridges had been around for approximately 15 years or so and had turned in some very memorable performances in mostly supporting and highly varying roles in a couple of Boston Blackie movies (with Chester Morris)to THEY STOOGE TO CONGA (3 Stooges 1943), SAHARA (also 1943), HOME OF THE BRAVE (1949) and THE WHISTLE AT EATON FALLS(1951).

Lloyd brought a very convincing manner to his characterization, along with a fine, convincingly athletic physique, having the look of a guy who makes his living with his physical abilities. He took very well as the Diver's Diver, whether it's performing duties on board ship, or fathoms beneath the Sea.

And Lloyd did take to the role quickly, but contrary to a lot of misinformation out there, he was not familiar with S.C.U.B.A.*** prior to landing this Mike Nelson gig. But the Athletic Mr. Bridges proved to be a quick learner, as so many of the close-up shots underwater revealed that there was no doubt about it, that it was Lloyd with the mask, the bubbler(air tank) and the flipper fins.

Stories almost always involved the helping-out some client for pay, much like a Private Detective would. So what if the client was a lovely Lady who looked good in the Bathing Suit, all the better.

Like so many of the other ZIV/UNITED ARTISTS TV Productions,"SEA HUNT" possessed a fine, haunting Opening Theme and Closing, along with some original incidental music and queues.

At one time, I believe that "SEA HUNT" was the top syndicated TV Series, a success that ZIV Series had known before with the likes of "SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE"and "HIGHWAY PATROL". As far as the showing venue for this underwater saga, here in Chicago it was shown late night (after 10:30 P.M.) on WNBQ TV, Channel 5 (our NBC Affiliate, now known as WMAQ TV).

And I can remember just who was the original sponsor in this particular market was. And there were even on scene commercials done by the Star! How well we can remember and visualize Lloyd as Mike Nelson, riding on his Power Boat. And as we were being invited to return the next week and watch ".....another adventure of "SEA HUNT", sponsored by the G. Heileman Brewing Company of LaCrosse, Wisconsin' the makers of Old Style Lager Beer!", all while Mike was toasting us, raising an Old Style Bottle. (Shame on you, Mike! Drinking Beer on your moving Boat! We're tellin' the Coast Guard!) Then, the Boat would leave the dock, accompanied by the Sea Hunt Theme and rolling the Credits.

NOTE: * More figuratively than literal, Mike was for hire and things ran very much like a Deterctive Story.

NOTE: ** ZIV's Syndicated successes included "SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE", "WEST POINT"(and its clone "MEN OF ANNAPOLIS"), "SEA HUNT" and "HIGHWAY PATROL".

NOTE*** And of course, SCUBA is a acronym for Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it. This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film.

In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.

The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.

Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films. Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience. If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.

The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.

There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.

Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.

With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality. "Dô desu ka den" is the first colored movie of Master Akira Kurosawa, and surprisingly is not about samurais, ronins, warlords or battlefields. It is inside a very poor community in a slum in Tokyo, where the dwellers are homeless drunkards, beggars, tramps, abused women, losers. I do not know the reason why Kurosawa selected this tragic theme and environment to put colors, but indeed they are very sad stories, some of them heart-breaking. I personally like the touching story of the boy and his father that dream with a house of their own and built by them; the story of the retarded boy that believes he pilots a train; the story of the man that raises five children as if they were their own sons and daughters; and the story of the young woman abused by her stepfather. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Dodeskaden – O Caminho da Vida" ("Dodeskaden – The Way of the Life") Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film.

Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons.

DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways).

I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema. This is one of the weirder movies I have recently watched. That's because it seems less like a movie and more like an experimental film. Kurasawa's experiment was to take a variety of individuals who live at a garbage dump and weave their experiences into a tapestry that offers glimpses of their generally harsh existences. Not every episode is depressing and harsh, but overall this is definitely the tone. Let's see,...we have a case of incest/rape, attempted murder, wife swapping, alcoholism, infidelity, death of a little boy after eating tainted fish, a man with severe depression (he never talks during the movie and looks very scary), a hopeless dreamer who would probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a mentally retarded young man who thinks he is a street car conductor and spends all his waking moments "driving" his street car through paths among the garbage piles, a man married to a total shrew (I think I liked her character even less than the incestuous rapist!), etc., etc. In fact, it is depressing enough that it seemed almost like an Ingmar Bergman movie set in Japan, as Bergman made MANY movies that tended to deal with mental illness and the hopelessness of life. Is it any wonder that after making this film Kurasawa tried to kill himself?! So, did I like it? No. It was not a fun experience. But, it was a very well-made movie that definitely kept my attention and as a result, I really wanted to see what happened to these people. It was sort of like watching a train wreck--you don't WANT to see all the carnage but you can't help but watch! Of all the vignettes, I think that the older man who tended to look out for everyone and who didn't really seem to fit in (he was too well-adjusted and wise to be living in a garbage dump) was perhaps meant to represent Kurasawa himself. Maybe. I dunno.

If you've seen a variety of Kurasawa films and have a high tolerance for strange art films, give this one a watch. However, do NOT make this your first experience watching his movies--it's sure to scare away many viewers! The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.

There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.

There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10. The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.

First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.

Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.

Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.

Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces. The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema. I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.

Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.

It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film. This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.

This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house").

Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance. Kurosawa is a proved humanitarian. This movie is totally about people living in poverty. You will see nothing but angry in this movie. It makes you feel bad but still worth. All those who's too comfortable with materialization should spend 2.5 hours with this movie. Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.

Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by. I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen! This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.

It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.

Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing. Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own. It helps if you understand Czech and can see this in the original language and understand the Czechs obsession with 'The Professionals', but if not, 'Jedna ruka netlaska' is yet another great Czech film. It is funny, dark and extremely enjoyable. The highest compliment I can pay it is that you never know quite what is going to happen next and even keep that feeling well into the second and third viewing.

For a small country the Czech Republic has produced an amazing amount of world class film and literature, from Hrabal, Hasek and Kundera to the films of Menzel, Sverak and numerous others. Czech humour by its very nature is dark and often uncompromising, but often with a naive and warm sentiment behind it. This film is just that, it is unkind and deals with the less lovable sides of human beings, but underneath it all there is a beautiful story full of promise, good intent and optimism.

I highly recommend this and most other projects Trojan and Machacek are involved in. Enjoy it, it's a film made for just that reason - anyway, it's as close as the Czechs will ever come to writing a truly happy ending... The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.

Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.

While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!

Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.

I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Pelišky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema. I like this movie much, it's special type of humor by Ondricek and Machacek... I think it's better then Samotari (Loners).. Maybe it's difficult to understand when you are not Czech. If you are not watching that movie, just enjoy it, don't mind about anything else.. just relax !! If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.

The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.

Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.

Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance. "La Bête" by Walerian Borowczyk is based on the short story "Lokis" written by Prosper Merimée.Lucy Broadhurst(Lisabeth Hummel),an American heiress betrothed to the son of an impoverished Marquis,arrives at the family's crumbling château and learns of a mythical ursine beast purported to prowl the nearby forest.It is fabled that a former lady of the house(Sirpa Lane)once engaged in perverse sex with the creature and Lucy finds herself consumed by dreams of the incident. "The Beast" is an art-house mix of surreal horror,explicit sleaze and porno.There's implied bestiality,assault and perversion in the priesthood,copious fake ejaculate smeared on bared breasts,masturbation with a rose and, most graphic of all,the eponymous beast toying with incredibly big phallus.Still this genuinely erotic film is wonderfully photographed and tasteless.The women here are stunningly beautiful and they are naked most of the time.Overall "La Bête" is a visual feast.Whether it be from the fetishistic attention to detail,or the visual motifs pregnant with information,Borowczyk's masterpiece should be watched with care and attention.A must-see for fans of European cult cinema. OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...

The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...

THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10 Polish film maker Walerian Borowczyk's La Bête (French, 1975, aka The Beast) is among the most controversial and brave films ever made and a very excellent one too. This film tells everything that's generally been hidden and denied about our nature and our sexual nature in particular with the symbolism and silence of its images. The images may look wild, perverse, "sick" or exciting, but they are all in relation with the lastly mentioned. Sex, desire and death are very strong and primary things and dominate all the flesh that has a human soul inside it. They interest and temptate us so powerfully (and by our nature) that they are considered scary, unacceptable and something too wild to be true.

A sophisticated young woman travels with her mother to a French countryside to meet her soon-to-become husband whom with she has had a letter affair of some kind. All are very exciting and each others' parents and relatives wait impatiently to see the new people arriving to their families. The innocence of the young bride shines through and no one knows what can happen and wake up inside the walls of the big and beautiful French mansion, with all its humans and animals, and a mysterious "la bête" that turns out to be something that the characters, nor most of the film's audience, could have never imagined to be real and (in front of) them.

The film is about the same theme as Canadian David Cronenberg's debyt feature Shivers (1975), which happens inside a huge luxury building in which destructive and gory parasites spread from human to human by sexual contact and make people act furiously and violently in their lust for pleasure and fulfilment of instincts. Human has instincts that can be and are stronger than his will and that is why those instincts can be as dangerous and powerful as the instincts of some other animal, a beast, be it a lust for blood, revenge or sex and carnal pleasure. Humans are only animals that have intelligence and tools to convey it but because we are also animals, that intelligence is not always used too much as can be seen anywhere around us. The film opens greatly, and very shockingly for most hypocritic attitudes, showing a horny male horse raging in fury as he waits to get inside the mare and continue the race, but the rage and visible lust we see from his eyes and violent movements are the key elements of that beginning and why it is there, not the close-ups of organs as could be so easily claimed. The horse is a beast that battles in an almost unbearable heat, in heat that's much stronger than his will as he doesn't have any control at that point anymore. The power of the instinct makes an animal a beast.

After the memorable beginning, the characters get introduced, and the film fantastically has all the necessary age groups inside it from the little innocent children waiting to grow up and develop to their blossom, to the adults and elders that all represent their own part of the lifespan, creating the face of human life on screen. A film doesn't necessarily need more characters this way as all the important ones are already there and represent the whole race, including the urban and countryside inhabitants, and both sexes. The mansion makes the protagonist girl's sexuality wake as she saws the horses coupling and acting like she obviously has never thought of. For the first time she sees something unique and something that excites and feels almost vital for her and her body, like getting water when you're very thirsty. The transformation of the girl is a very important element in the film as she has lived unaware of these things inside her, with his mother and camera and a letter-boyfriend, even though the things have just waited for the moment to burst out. Flesh desires flesh and that belongs to being a humanimal, but still those things are not so easily admitted everywhere and films like these trying to depict it get banned for decades? Man's stupidity and unwillingness to interpret images must not be an argument for a film being banned or otherwise violated.

The film's last 30 minutes are also as important as the beginning, and once again show how powerful cinema is without needless words and talk. As the girl and audience realizes what her body starts to feel and desire, she starts to have dreams about the mysterious beast that turns out to be none other than the undressed form of ourselves, having lived in the woods without other people/beasts near him. The dream sequence is the one that causes and caused most of the controversy alongside the film's overall straight and honest attitude, and the images are so easy to be judged as "perverse" and "pornographic", without a courage to go deeper into them, character reactions and thoughts behind what we see. The images are exciting in her dream and also eventually inside the dream for the dream's (more) human character, and Borowczyk forces us to admit it with the images that are so close to a "normal" sexual act between a man and a female, which is a beautiful thing and expression of love, another human need. Also the numerous, and cleverly blackly humorous love making scenes inside the mansion, between the young mother and the black servant, get interrupted many times as someone screams for the servant, for example, and there's no doubt that the sensual image of two young human bodies being together and being interrupted with an angry shout at least doesn't become any more pleasant by the interruption. Borowczyk has managed to paint his images so beautiful and "sensitive" that his message is almost impossible to be misunderstood, but nothing seems to be impossible for our cultures and minds that criticize art. He uses dialogue only when it's necessary, otherwise the images do the job and make the film powerful.

Death is also there, as flesh dies sooner or later, after years of life and instincts, it dies. The ending is inevitable but the meaning of the dream sequence could have also been as powerful without the kind of dramatic and "revealing" ending too. Another blackly humorous element comes when we see the shocked city women running out of the place in which they saw a little more than they were looking for! They visited the mansion of truth about flesh, us and them. The film reminds me of French writer Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye with its same themes about eroticism, death and how they both are always connected to the nature of our flesh. The book is well written and fantastic as well as this film, and naturally both have been blamed for their "too explicit" content and other equally noteworthy shallow comments.

Borowczyk's film is also very beautiful visually alongside its raw honesty, and the nature and forest have rarely looked so bright and shining as they do in this film. The sun shines through the trees, and to everyplace where humans live, and the beauty of it is always there, but so is the ugliness that originates by the inhabitants of the world. To every innocent white sheep there's a selfish, evil and horrible beast in our world and that is why the intelligence we have been given never fully seems to overcome the power of our bad instincts and the other side of the sheep, present inside every human soul. It is about how many manages to keep the dark side passive and not active. The fulfilment of some of our instincts is not a bad thing, and by using this intelligence and seeing which of the instincts are good and which bad, they can be satisfied without exploitation, violence and the lethal and destructive circle created by it. Human is not more than an animal with intelligence, intelligence that is so easy to be forgotten and eaten to the background by things that feel better and more satisfying at each and perhaps sudden moment. Borowczyk's film is a masterpiece, unforgettable and clever piece of magical cinema with ageless theme and also an example of how much can be achieved, expressed and given by a film maker, who is also only a human. Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once. Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it.

Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality.

Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods.

But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more!

Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals.

Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one. Peter Falk is a diverse and accomplished actor. The movie is well written and the acting seems like real life. For all lovers of Columbo this is a superior piece of work. Because it shows what a talent Peter Falk is. He doesn't play a detective he plays a retired carpet salesman. By the time the credits begin to role you already want to watch it again. The interesting part of the movie is that the message will apply to every person that watches it; the depth of its' pertinence will be the only thing that varies. It is a shame that the liberals in Hollywood only promote smut and skin because this is the type of movie that the people in the business should be proud of. This would be a great movie to turn into a live stage play. This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it. Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here. Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.

Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.

Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp I won't go into too much detail about the plot of this movie as other reviewers have covered pretty much the same ground.

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the film very much. Peter Falk's performance alone is reason enough to watch the film.

A small scale 'road trip' movie with Falk & Paul Reiser in upstate NY in the fall is the setting for most of the action in the film.

Very well written with an adult target audience in mind. Plenty of reality based humor & some well played drama give the film a feeling that it could be your own family.

Really can't say enough about this film except that it's a damn shame that a lovely movie like this doesn't get more exposure while other trashy junk out there does.

It's great to see Falk with a big leading man role again & he makes the most of it. It proves that his famous friend & writer/director John Casavettes was right in casting Falk in many of his ground breaking films of the 60s & 70s. Paul Reiser is one of my favorite people in show business. I have read both of his books and think that he is great. Peter Faulk can deliver a punch line with the best of them. The combination of the two is magic.

This is a story about a family really getting to know each other. Through a road trip a father and son connect for the first time in their lives in the midts of a family crisis. They do all the things that fathers and sons are suppose to do in life...they are just doing them much later in life. The situations are very funny, but have the feeling that they could actually happen to people in real life (not obsurdly over the top or cartoonish). This is the first time that I watch Paul Reiser and fully believed every emotion that was portrayed. At times, his eyes look so sad.

Gret movie and great story and plot. It has comedy and emotion but an uplifting message...Olympia Dukakas does a great job also :) It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.

Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.

Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more.

Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.

Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made. The movie gets to the guts of the tension between a son and a father.

The brilliant dialog, lovely scenery and great acting serve as an excellent way to present the onion that keeps peeling back layers.

The core issues of parenting, communication and manhood are explored indirectly.

In fun ways the curtain is pulled back, the masks slip off a little and truths are exposed.

All of this happens amidst a road trip format. The backdrop is rural New York state in the early fall just as the trees are changing colors. WOW! Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.

Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.

The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.

The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.

We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.

The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change. This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: "Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does..." Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk.

The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!

This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.

This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it..." ...and I ended up just loving it! Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?

I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.

Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.

Nicely done, Paul and Peter! I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I feel greatly touched by the theme the movie intends to convey. One sentence that keeps coming up on my mind is that "history repeats itself". Life is what it is shown in the movie: when people are young, they seem not to understand their parents, their own spouses; people have every excuse for not sharing the dearest time with their children until too late; people always have to work hard to support the whole family but are just liable to neglect the subtle feeling of their partners; people always change their perspectives at different stages of their lives; people can always be forgiven if their heart is full of love for their beloved; nothing is more important than the blood relation people share in this world, and one is never too late to talk with their folks about what they feel at the bottom of their heart so as to achieve a better understanding between themselves, so that when life has to end some day, people should not feel sorry or regretful since they have kept their words and there is always hope ---a new life. The actors and actresses are fantastic. They have understood the director's intention perfectly. The movie's charm lies in, to me, the effect of bringing a skillful and splendid fusion of cheers and tears to the audience. The movie was very moving. It was tender, and funny at the same time. The scenery was absolutely beautiful! Peter Faulk and Paul Reiser gave award winning performances. Olympia Dukakis was great. I understand due to the story line her part had to be brief, but I did wish I could have seen more of her-she is a true pro.You will be able to recall experiences from your own life , hopefully in a positive way after seeing this movie. We were fortunate to see Paul Reiser at a Q and A after the viewing. He is a wonderful man, clever, eloquent and a "real Person". It was truly an enjoyable night out!This is a must see movie. You will be so grateful you went. I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.

Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.

This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television. The Thing About My Folks is a wonderful film about relationships - first and foremost an adult son and his father, but also that son with his wife, his sisters and his mother. Paul Reiser has written a semi-autobiographical movie about his relationship with his father. The movie is funny, poignant and thought-provoking. It led me to re-evaluate my own relationship with both my now-deceased father and my adult son. Peter Falk is excellent as Paul's father - the role could not have been better cast. I hope that both Mr. Falk and Mr. Reiser are recognized in next year's movie awards for their efforts - Falk for his performance and Reiser for his script. Oscar-caliber performance by Peter Falk in an Oscar-caliber-written role. I loved the nuanced, balanced exploration of a long-time marriage - how often do we get that in films, where usually the movie ends when boy & girl get together? This is a movie for adults, a complex view through the eyes of all parties - husband, wife, son - how each have adapted to each other in the past and grow during the story. On top of that, it gave me about 10 major belly laughs, and I'm one of those people who usually sits unamused when the rest of an audience is laughing. This was one of the few truly funny movies I've seen. Great, original jokes. Who wouldn't want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has more character than most actors today. This is the kind of funny and touching movie we are all looking for as a counterbalance to all the bombastic special effects bores. Women are going to love it for all the wake-up romance advice for men, and men will love it for its spot-on father/son character study--one great little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a true indie find. Obviously this is a labor of love for Paul Reiser who understands what it's like to be both a father and a son, as well as to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The most fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor really enjoying Peter Falk's special craft. Really delightful. Let's hope this film makes it into theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with Paul Reiser and folks. saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different. Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

"Bleak House" is hands down the finest adaptation of a Charles Dickens Novel ever put on screen. Alway one of My favorite novels,I was exteremely pleased with this Television Mini Series. The late, great Denholm Elliot was perfectly cast as the noble John Jardyce and Diana Rigg was sheer perfection as the doomed Ladty Dedlock. The film captures the essence of Dickens era and is extremely faithful to the book,oly making minor plot cuts that do not effect the story. over all a brilliant,moving and atmosphereic film. This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.

Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.

But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it. I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.

Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh! I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...

I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation. I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.

The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.

The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.

I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.

A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.

My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.

Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow. This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada. You don't need to read this review.

An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.

Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.

The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.

I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House.

This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.

The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.

Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.

It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.

Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.

Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.

Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.

The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.

It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.

This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.

The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.

A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.

Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.

Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.

This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version. This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first? I know of only a few).

I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?

The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated). The only omission that I wish had been kept was the Jellyby incident but as the first episode is already a trifle slow (after the first episode the pace is perfect) I can see it had to go.

The only other criticism I have is that Jo's death could have been more faithfully done. I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.

Has theowinthrop actually seen the series? HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE?? Who is this uncle? I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).

I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law. YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House. It fails the descendants of Jarndyce whose valuable inheritance is eaten up by the costs of litigation, it fails the deceased Tom Jarndyce and Rick Carstone and all who have faith in the suit. It fails Miss Flyte. In some sense it also fails Captain Hawdon who is driven to his death by the monotony of law copyist work. Yes it feeds the scavengers of Vholes and Tangle. But it also makes men like Guppy and Kenge able to move beyond their station in life. Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett).

Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward. Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.

I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning. Neither are you supposed to "get" all the connections immediately. Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.

As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!

I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).

It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"! and you get all you need of the Rouncewell subplot. Perhaps you won't care for the social commentary, or the film makers point of view (I myself am mystified at the ‘insignificance' angle Kasdan seemed to promote – when clearly, the actions taken in the movie promote CERTAIN significance. The ending confused me). However, there's absolutely no denying the manner in which the story is presented; the magnificent symbolism throughout; the threaded character arcs; visuals; dialogue – is absolute masterwork. I've watched the movie dozens of times, and I still marvel at its perfection. There's not a moment, action, cut, or line that doesn't have everything to do with the theme. Realistic human performances from all the actors. Scene to scene it's woven fantastically.

I have a pretty level sap-meter. The buzzer never went off during this film. If you're a thinker (rather than a casual viewer) – this movie delivers. Exponentially. Absolutely mesmerizing. (Do you have to agree with the message to appreciate the display? Who cares if it made you warm and fuzzy or not, was it interesting?)

Personally, the movie affected me – significantly. In my top 5.

Note: The front-page reviewer clearly speaks from a flawed African American perception. What he may have failed to recognize, is, there was a hand – shake. Not a hand - out. The ‘spiritually dead white man', simply saw a man to respect, and admire. And he did something about it. The fact he was black had little, if anything, to do with it (color is simply used to draw the parallel. And the chasm. It's no accident the opening sequence shifts from black and white to color either). If you view the blacks in this movie as ‘token' – you may want to reassess YOUR angst. You may be seeing only black and white yourself, eh. Just a thought. I'll keep this one quite short. I believe that this is an extraordinary movie. I see other reviewers who have commented to the effect that it's badly written, poorly shot, has a terrible soundtrack and, worse, that it's not real in its portrayal of life. OK, so it may not be quite believable for its whole length, but this movie carries a message of hope which some others seemed to have missed. Hope that it isn't too late to save people from the terrible things that go on in so many lives. Gangland violence is real, right? Is it right, no! This movie carries an important social message which the cynics may dislike but which nonetheless is to be praised, rather than denigrated. I have watched this movie with great enjoyment at least eight times, each time with equal enjoyment and each time with the feeling that maybe the world could be made better and is not beyond saving (well not until 2008 anyway). 9 out of 10 from me for this one. It's very nearly perfect in my view. JMV This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life.

Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.

But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.

We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.

On second viewing of this movie, I like it even more than the first time. It is full of nuances and a perception of life as being quite ordinary and often fearful but what lifts this movie to a height rarely realized is its focus on the little incidences in our lives to which we normally only offer the briefest of attention spans. Here the movie spins into the celebration of these incidences, the meeting of a tow truck driver and client, the jogger hearing a baby's cry from the bushes. The dialogue, acting, casting and direction are superb. No two by fours, no grand revelations. What I did observe was how true the characters were to their basic natures and how enhanced their lives became when these were celebrated. Kudos to all involved in this, we need more "Grand Canyons" in our lives. 9 out of 10. One measurement for the greatness of a movie is, 'if it came on t.v. right now, would you want to sit there and watch it again?' My answer for the Grand Canyon is as powerful a "yes" as it would be for nearly any movie I have ever seen. There are just so many powerful moments, such an intelligent and moving story, such incredible performances.

It perfectly captures the confusion and violence that were so rampant in the early nineties. But it also dramatically affirms the capacity of individuals to love, think and care. In a slight way, the movie was of its time. It partly portrays society as a balloon about to burst. Because the country was in a recession, and so void of leadership, this was true of that time. But the movie is also timeless. I think it could honestly stand up against any movie that has ever been made, and it is the most overlooked film of all time. I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction.

A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell.

Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.

Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)

There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience.

Grand Canyon is a very human film. I just watched this film again and remain dismayed at the number of cynics who dismiss it as just New Age pap. A great film, one that takes its time to develop, it keeps coming close to going over the edge but never does and ultimately is meditative, affecting, and truer to life than most films people who dismiss its "coincidences" can see. I was angry at the time that movies like "Prince of Tides" and "Bugsy" (though I liked the latter) were nominated for best picture that year (let alone that "Silence of the Lambs" won!) and this was ignored completely except for one nomination for best screenplay. Upon revisiting it, I think history supports my initial reaction! I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.

It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".

Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.

I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too. Grand Canyon falls under a very scarce category: it is a very clever film, with very clever dialogs and food for thought everywhere from start to end. I have the impression that it never made it to it's deserved ranking (and never will), because of it's simplicity. This kind of flick needs sensitive watchers. Pity thought that IMDb makes me write ten lines, because this is in no way necessary in this particular case. Anyway in order to fulfill this request, I will tell you that the weak point of the film if any is in the acting: not that it is bad but it could have been done much better. Exception made for Kevin Kline who was perfect. Go ahead and watch it. If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.

Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making..... This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.

The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.

This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.

All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.

I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.

It rates a 9.1/10 from...

the Fiend :. If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene "made it" to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen "Star Wars", suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of "Happy Days". These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? "Grand Canyon" written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.

Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her "rescue" of the infant was preordained.

The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.

It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often. A lot of the comments people have made strike me as (sorry) missing the point. Kasdan wants to present life, simply, ordinary life. The conventionally structured story, where characters have insights that change their lives, and then fade out, music up, and the film is over, is absorbed into this much larger canvas. Several characters in this movie have just such illuminations, and then they move on. Sometimes they can hold onto their insights, sometimes they can't, and that's the way life really is. In other words, Kasdan jettisons conventional dramatic structure in favor of an exploration of the the ongoingness of life – there is no happy ending, only an eventual ending; and everything before that is still in process, still always up for grabs – and, if you absolutely insist on a theme, an exploration of the role of the miraculous in our lives. What is a miracle? Well, life itself, for a start. Then add in all the random incidents and cross-connections that make up a life, or several interconnected lives, and you have miracles by the bucketful. Kasdan underscores this theme lightly, rather than insisting on it, and bolsters it in various ways, most memorably by the device, right in the center of the film, of having Mac and his wife, lying in bed, each dreaming their own dreams, but as well showing, later on in the film, how those dreams have the power, within the film, to shape reality. This is not a film with an easy or obvious message. You just have to let it play out in front of you, and then let it sit in your mind for a few days, a month, a few years, and see what it has wrought there. This is, without a doubt, Kasdan's best film, his most mature, his most humane. A major meditation on life from one of our most gifted writers and directors. The tragedy is, of course, that he has not been allowed to work for a number of years now, mostly due to studio constraints around "Dreamcatcher." Hopefully we haven't heard the last from Larry Kasdan. A great film from a great artist. Keep in mind that art does not have to rationalize itself completely in order to succeed. Before there was Crash, there was this interesting film called Grand Canyon. Released about 14 years sooner than the former film, Grand Canyon was a movie about two people from different backgrounds who come together as friends over a lifetime. To me Crash was still a slightly better film, but Grand Canyon was no slouch either.

Taking place in Los Angeles, an upper-class lawyer named Mack (Kevin Kline) takes a shortcut through the seedier side of town only to have his car break down at the worst time. He calls for a tow truck, and has to wait for awhile, only to soon be threatened by a group of dangerous people who want his car. Soon the tow truck driver arrives at the perfect moment, and out steps Simon (Danny Glover) to take the truck away. Both men are threatened, but Simon manages to get himself, Mack, and the car out of dire straits. It is from here on out that a friendship develops between the two men over a lifetime with Mack helping out Simon just as Simon had helped him out of a dangerous situation earlier. You see Simon's sister Deborah (Tina Lifford) is living in a dangerous neighborhood with her two children, and fears for her oldest son who seems to be roaming the streets at night with some bad people. Mack offers them a better place to live as well as hooking Simon up with his secretary's friend Jane (Alfre Woodard).

This is the main plot of the film, but there are other smaller plots involving the same secretary mentioned above (Mary Louise Parker) as well as Mack's wife, (Mary McDonnel) who discovers an abandoned baby not long after their son Roberto (Jeremy Sisto in his first movie role) has gone to camp for the summer, and will likely be moving on with his own life soon. The details of all these plots are brought together into one complex movie which uses a police helicopter as a metaphor for life and as a bridge to entwine all the different scenes. This simple plot device works very well and helps greatly with the flow of the story.

The director Lawrence Kasdan, whose biggest movie to this date was The Big Chill, has created a splendid movie here. The cast is excellent, and most of the ideas are well thought out, but alas it falls short of greatness because some points, that would've made the film even stronger, are glossed over. The story involving the secretary is one, and the second involving Simon's nephew is the other. These scenes should've been more apart of the entire story, and then maybe Lawrence Kasdan's views of life between the upper and lower classes would've been more on a superior level instead of just very good. Still Grand Canyon exceeded expectations, and yes you will get to see a view of the canyon that this movie was named after. There is also a small role for Steve Martin as Davis, a producer of violent films, who offers his own views on life, and has a small part to play in this movie's ideas. Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.

It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard. The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film. Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.

It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.

The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.

Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working. I remember seeing this movie when I was about 7; and at the time it shocked me. I had seen a violent movie before, but I never saw a movie with the consequences and reality of violence. This movie not only shows this, but it also shows how people can change their lives and choose happiness. What this movie did and crash failed to do was to be truthful. Crash tried to show how racism was bad (and Crash actually had a built-in anti Asian bias) and to come at it from a morally superior position. Grand Canyon came at things from such a raw and real perspective that it actually ends up on a higher ground than crash. Especially when you compare the endings. The ending of crash is this supposedly neat little ending that ties everything up. While Grand Canyon simply ends on a quiet note, where you know nothing much will change in the character's lives but that's because life just goes on too, there's no suitable ending. No matter how good...bad you are. There is no ending of a chapter to begin another. This is an excellent movie with a stellar cast and some great acting. I never tire of watching it. I especially love the scene where Danny Glover's character and Kevin Kline's character namely Simon and Mack have brunch together. Kevin Kline is such a natural and it seems his mannerisms are effortless and one you would encounter often. SO its a very 'real' movie.

One of the most powerful scenes in the movie however, is at the beginning of the movie when Simon arrives at the scene where Mack's car has broken down. The movie also has a strong message and is unlike the stereotypical message carrying movie where there's one person preaching his guts out to an audience. Instead the actors' emotions and situations deliver an impactive message that does best without the use of words. And lastly, Mary McDonell is brilliant as always. ... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)

This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R. In my opinion, the best movie ever. I love when people ask me what this film is about. I usually smile and say "life". They shrug and probably never give it another thought. The fact that everyone from every background can relate to some part of this movie makes it all that much more amazing. Definately a must see for everyone. This film could well have been one of those ordinary "soapies" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined…..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!

Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asks…in this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.

Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says… he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.

This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role. At your video store, you might find this gem.

The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.

Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.

The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!!

Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.

And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.

If you havent seen it, DO! This movie awed me so much that I watch it at least once a year. At times I find it uncomfortable. At times I find it empowering. And I always find the characters human and real. It is a movie that shows you the gritty reality of life in LA, starting with the recurring helicopter search lights scanning for the dangers lurking so close to the ordinary lives being carried on by the characters. It is also a movie that shows you how the kindness of a stranger can change your life and empower you to make a difference. Grand Canyon reminds you that every action you take, whether intended or not, has powerful repercussions. I found this movie to be similar in many ways to Robert Altman's film Short Cuts. Both had a star-studded roster of perfectly cast actors & actresses and both movies allowed you to gradually see how the the characters interrelated with one another and affected each other, for better or worse. Grand Canyon did a better job of providing a cohesive message, (hope in the face of despairing reality), than Altman's film, although I found them both intriguing in their own way. This film is a definite must see!!! Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden This would have been my number one movie of the year for 1991, except it got beat out by the brilliant JFK. This is such a wonderful movie! I loved it. I love stories where different characters' lives intersect with others and how deal with their lives. Kevin Kline is good here, but is outshined by Danny Glover and, especially, Steve Martin. I've never much like Martin or his style, but here he is great. I loved the whole speech he gave to Kline near the end about the Grand Canyon. The writing was excellent. Larry Kasdan is, IMO, a great dialogue writer, along the ways of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino. Here, he has formed several three-dimensional characters and well thought out storylines, and messages that give a positive feel to our lives. A truly excellent film. 4 out of 4 stars Alain Chabat claims this movie as his original idea but the theme of reluctant lovers who finally get it together is as old, if not older, than Shakespeare.

Chabat is a "vieux garcon", happily single and not wanting any member of the opposite sex to disturb his life. He has a problem, 5 sisters and a matriarchal mum - the G7 - who decide he should be married. Enter the delightful, charming Charlotte Gainsbourg and what should be a simple plan. Charlotte has to pose as Chabat's girlfriend and then simply not turn up on the day of the wedding. No more talk of marriage from the G7. Of course the best laid plans have a habit of spiralling out of control.

There are very strong supporting roles from Lafont as the mother and Osterman as the tight-fisted brother of Gainsbourg.

There are some fantastic scenes as first Charlotte has to charm, then revolt the family. French farce with an English. There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.

Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times! Alain Chabat is a fine actor, writer and director but maybe a trifle misguided to take an 'idea' credit for a story that probably had them rolling in the aisles when Aristophanes was still learning that it's 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. But, like I said, Chabat is a fine actor and he can do charm when he needs to. I'm also gradually overcoming an aversion to Charlotte Gainsbourg who also turns in an accomplished performance. If you absolutely insist on knowing, the 'plot' is the one about the guy well into his forties and more than content to be single. This doesn't sit well with his mother and five sisters and to get them off his back he makes an 'arrangement' with the sister of a colleague to pose - for fifteen thousand euros -as his new girlfriend, allow the romance to come to fruition with a wedding and then jilt him, thus getting him off the hook. Naturally they wind up together but along the way there's some sub-Benedek and Beatrice duelling and all things considered it's a pretty painless ninety minutes and performing so well at the French box office that a sequel may not be out of the question. Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the "no expectation" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.

The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the "romantic" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.

The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.

This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do. From the opening shots of the lead actor, we are given a early view on how so many mens lives are run by the women in them, and the humour that comes thru with all that goes on in the day to day of 'normal' life.

Eric Lartigau, the director picks up on how so many European men feel that they are in complete control of their lives, yet without the help/support of the women around them cannot seem to make things work. The use of facial image throughout the film is superb, and his clever positioning of the senior member of the family (mother) is spot on.

While there are more than enough laughs in the movie, it still deals with single parents/adoption and the strength of family in society. Truly rewarding to watch, and again one that only the French seam capable to make.

So far one of the best 50 or so Films I have seen this year, and well worth a five start rating. I look forward to adding this one to the DVD collection when it is released and highly recommend it to all ages. I think Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the best performers in the world. I can't understand why some people say she's not. Boring....??? Maybe the one who said she's boring is because he/she is boring. She's a great actress and the movie was excellent. It has lots of wonderful ideas and very good performers. The direction was great. I imaging myself in the French environment with all the sophistication and perfume, flowers, churches, problems, etc. When she goes to the sister's shop is simply amazing. Everything's great. We have a very good actress, wonderful, for long time. Alain Chabat and Bernadette Lafont are perfect. I like him more than in his next movie LA SCIENCE DES RÊVES. And Eric Lartigau did a very good work.

Ana I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.

While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that "Préte-moi ta main" has plenty of flaws.

My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment "of romance" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.

In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.

Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.

I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.

Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.

Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.

The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.

Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema. Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.

Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...) This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!! I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality. This "tragicomedy" written by famous Serbian theatre/film writer Dusan Kovacevic is probably one of the best movies ever made in the comedy category. And yet, its appearance of a theatre play transformed into a feature film takes nothing of its value. A masterpiece one should not miss to see (preferably with subtitles, and not dubbed).

In an aged bus en route to capital Belgrade, a looming war decides the passengers' behaviour. Two Gypsy musicians sing of their miserable life but also foresee a tragedy to come; their singing both divides and connects stages in this extraordinary road movie (real life Kostic brothers are amateur actors, but together with Stanojlo Milinkovic as farmer who's plowed the road give a real-life performance).

The spectrum of characters gives a brilliant image of a society facing a war, an insight into nation's collective person: everyone is aware that war is just about to begin but they try to live their own lives the best they can, hoping that ignorance might avert the tragedy. Using a simple movie language, director Slobodan Sijan paints a picture of society torn by previous war (World War I), but also highlights personal portraits with success: provincialism of a singer, inexperience of the newlyweds, seriousness of the Great War veteran who is on way to visit his recently conscripted son, and gloomy predictions from a man who seems to be a German spy.

Brilliant in its narration, with memorable soundtrack (especialy the Gispsy songs) and adjusted atmosphere, well photographed and edited, this feature (Sijan's feature debut) was only an introduction into a series of the directors bitter-sweet comedies that will define Serbian cinematography of the 1980s: "Maratonci trce pocasni krug", "Kako sam sistematski unisten od idiota", and my other director's favourite "Davitelj protiv davitelja"). This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen? A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word. Superbly developed characters into the lots of funny situations full of spirit, absurdness and Serbian mentality. Movie is a great comedy, enjoyable, interesting, unpredictable. Best point in a film: characters, then humor itself, story and dialogs. Humor has 'inner development' , rare in Serbian movies. So, it is consequence of characterization, is well motivated, spontaneous and cogent. Also it is sharp, intelligent and lucid. Most of the movies, unfortunately, had constructed humor (devise a joke and put it into a characters's mouth) or ordinary situation comedy, burlesque, farce. Some of the 'art immortality' are incorporated in this movie. Little masterpiece, hardly reachable. One of my favourite "domestic" movies. I don't know if there is any person in our country who hasn't seen this movie! It's funny, and sad at some moments...I don't know how did people around the world (who had opportunity to watch it) accept this movie, because you have to know some moments in our serbian history and character of Serbs in the first half of the 20th century, to be able to understand it! But as I see here, there is somebody from Canada who watched it...and he liked it.

I think that I'll try to put all good quotes from the movie on this site, but first to find out how to do that...

Cheers. The group of people are travelling to Belgrade in an awful bus led by a drunk conductor and his dumb son (who likes to drive with his eyes closed). Their journey is frequently interrupted by many hilarious events which with much irony describe the fall of nation`s spirit in 1941 and are so funny that they are even today used as a common jokes. The man who "steals the show" is a peasant 4 feet tall with his 4 sons who are almost two times bigger than him. In the end, the movie takes one dramatical turn and the trip becomes nothing but a swan`s song of a dying country. Years ago I was lucky enough to have seen this gem at a >Gypsy film festival in Santa Monica. You know the ending >is not going to be rosie and tragedy will strike but it's >really about the journey and characters and their dynamics and how they all fit into what was "Yugoslavia". >While I am not Yugonostalgic and tend to shy away from >the current crop of "Yugoslavian" films (give me Ademir >Kenovic over late 90s Kustarica) I'd be happy to have the >chance to stumble on this film again, as it shines in my >celluloid memories. Ever since seeing Who's Singing Over >There" 15 years ago I still hear the theme tune, sung by >the Gypsies, ruminating through my head… "I am miserable, >I was born that way…" with the accompanying jew's harp and accordian making the tune both funny and sad. The late, great actor Pavle Vujisic (Muzamer from When Father >was Away on Business) was memorable as the bus driver of >the ill-fated trip in his typical gruff yet loveable manner. Hi This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection. "Ko to tamo peva" is one of the best films I ever saw. A tragicomedy with very deep implications on the fate of humankind shown through the eyes of seemingly very plain and common people from a God-forsaken Serbian province just before the start of the World War II. I saw it in a small movie theater in Russia where the film had had a very limited distribution, and I had no chance to come across it ever since. It is such a pity that this excellent film is almost forgotten now. I searched for a VHS or DVD copy of it many times, and alas - could find none. I would be most grateful to other fans of this little gem of movie-making for a suggestion of the ways to purchase a copy. At first sight, Who's Singing Over There just seems to be an absurd and excellent comedy… with only a kind of unusual, quiet and slow motion : what a mistake !

Beginning with two singers on a desert landscape, then a bus and a wonderful bunch of actors, it hides a gem !

The folded story, and a false rhythm induces you to think, yes it is comic, but just lets you guess it will be a gentle kind of movie.

Not at all : very funny by instant, dark subtle cynical on others, its development surprises you all along the story… Very ingeniously and cleverly presented, all the characters are important, and the actors give them full life.

And what is astonishing, it's based on deep observation, great mastering of the camera work and has a great meanings, and really everything, the general direction and how also the details are presented, that it simply makes you forget it's a movie: it is like to watch a kind human society, you yet don't know,shot by a friend behind a camera.

And you're the one behind him. It is simple, and simply exceptional !

Don't misunderstand me; in no way that would means the script , the quality of picture, the music score have a kind of amateurish way, no, no ! It's great Art !

Because it flows like a river… From high up in the mountain, down to the sea, with all the different sort of grounds and peregrinations that a real river will face on its journey to the sea… from a tiny thing to a main stream.

This metaphoric image I used is the very best way I can find to explain all the charm that has Who's Singing Over There. For me, again, I take the hammer : simply exceptional...

I've seen that The Director is the one who made Chat Blanc/Chat Noir, which I know is quiet famous… But as I yet didn't see it, I had no idea about this gentleman.

Others reviewers wrote dithyrambical comments on that film, I fully agree !

European Eastern Cinema is not well know because seldom translated, but I am lucky to have this exemplar one in original language, with good English subtitles. All in all : deep, delicious and exceptional...

For fast and empty exploding types and special effect buffs, avoid it at any cost, it may be too subtle and good for you !

But if you're interested in different genres and/or classics, I guess you won't regret this one, and in case of buying, it will have good companionship in your personal DVD library, with such no less than merited big names like Billy Wilder, Lubitsch, or Sacha Guitry among some of my preferred directors . At least for this movie !

***A film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles*** Actually I'm surprised there were so many comments about this movie. I saw it as part of a Slavic film festival at a major American University. But nobody in USA has heard of it, which is a real shame! The dynamics between the people are what makes it both funny and sad. They are stuck together on a long bus trip--someplace most of us have been!! But I never had one like this!!

My favorite scene is the one where they stop for the funeral. Then the man & woman sneak off for some Lovemaking in the forest but everybody follows them to watch without them knowing! Just as she raises her skirt and he enters her all the way--the consumptive starts hacking & they realize everybody is watching!! Talk about surprised! But...you really have to feel for them even if it is hilariously funny! When you see the ending it is sort of ironic that they enjoyed themselves while they did! Serb humor at it's best! I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.

All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas. I watched this film over a hundred times. It is really best Serbian movie made ever.I wood like to recommend this movie to everyone. It is very good comedy. I surely like it!!!! this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together.

watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.

and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!! This is the best movie I have ever seen.

I've seen the movie on Dutch television sometime in 1988 (?).

That month they were showing a Yugoslavian movie every Sunday night.

The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl

The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl Ko to tamo peva is the best comedy of all times. Believe me i saw a lot of movies and comedies but tell me which one make you smile every time you watching it. But truth is that the humour in this comedy is special.It is caratherisic for serbia. And all former republic of yugoslavia know it very well!!! So i think the rest of audience (for example: In Europe)can't enjoy it so much. Because the subtitles ruin the hole thing. But they should at least try!!!! Yes it is ironic! This is the best flick in Serbian history and the world doesn't understand it! :-) If you have got a chance to see this one, don't blew up OK! Along with the "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity. i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)

can't be explained - must see! During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. First saw this half a lifetime ago on a black-and-white TV in a small Samoan village and thought it was hilarious. Now, having seen it for the second time, so much later, I don't find it hilarious. I don't find ANYTHING hilarious anymore. But this is a witty and light-hearted comedy that moves along quickly without stumbling and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It's 1945 and Fred MacMurray is a 4F who's dying to get into one of the armed forces. He rubs a lamp in the scrapyard he's managing and a genie appears to grant him a few wishes. (Ho hum, right? But though the introduction is no more than okay, the fantasies are pretty lively.) MacMurray tells the genie that he wants to be in the army. Poof, and he is marching along with Washington's soldiers into a particularly warm and inviting USO where June Haver and Joan Leslie are wearing lots of lace doilies or whatever they are, and lavender wigs. Washington sends MacMurray to spy on the enemy -- red-coating, German-speaking Hessians, not Brits. The Hessians are jammed into a Bierstube and singing a very amusing drinking song extolling the virtues of the Vaterland, "where the white wine is winier/ and the Rhine water's Rhinier/ and the bratwurst is mellower/ and the yellow hair is yellower/ and the Frauleins are jucier/ and the goose steps are goosier." Something like that. The characterizations are fabulous, as good as Sig Rumann's best. Otto Preminger is the suspicious and sinister Hessian general. "You know, Heidelberg, vee are 241 to 1 against you -- but vee are not afraid."

I can't go on too long with these fantasies but they're all quite funny, and so are the lyrics. When he wishes he were in the Navy, MacMurray winds up with Columbus and the fantasy is presented as grand opera. "Don't you know that sailing west meant/ a terrifically expensive investment?/ And who do you suppose provides the means/ but Isabella, Queen of Queens." When they sight the New World, someone remarks that it looks great. "I don't care what it looks like," mutters Columbus, "but that place is going to be called Columbusland."

Anyway, everything is finally straightened out, though the genie by this time is quite drunk, and MacMurray winds up in the Marine Corps with the right girl.

I've made it sound too cute, maybe, but it IS cute. The kids will enjoy the puffs of smoke and the magic and the corny love story. The adults will get a kick out of the more challenging elements of the story (who are the Hessians?) unless they happen to be college graduates, in which case they might want to stick with the legerdemain and say, "Wow! Awesome!" If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good. I happened to see this movie twice or more and found it well made! WWII had freshly ended and the so-called "Cold War" was about to begin. This movie could, therefore, be defined as one of the best "propaganda", patriotic movies preparing Americans and, secondly, people from the still to be formed "Western NATO block" of countries to face the next coming menace. The movie celebrates the might of the US, through the centuries, while projecting itself onwards to the then present war, which had just ended. Nice and funny is the way of describing the discovering of the American Continent by Columbus and pretty the "espisode" of New Amsterdam and the purchasing of Manhattan from a drunk local Indian .. Must see it (at least once, for curiosity of fashion of propaganda through time)! :) During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. Saw it as many times as I could before it left the scene. A delightful and entertaining film with some of my very favorite stars. Only wish I could find it again! Would certainly buy/view it if I could. Please, somebody, bring it back. Fred MacMurray was perfect in his role as a patriot during World War II, and his leading ladies, Joan Leslie, and especially June Haver were beautiful and charming. It was a musical, but also romantic, funny, and clever. This was my favorite movie starring June Haver, although I always liked her. Her dazzling smile lit up the screen, and her beauty and talent were an asset to any film. The supporting cast lent credit to their individual roles. A well-balanced and light-hearted film; only wish we had more like it! I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.

A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking "the German dream" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.

In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it. After Fatih Akins first work "Im Juli", which was fairly good, he created a really gorgeous italian family epic. Its a german movie, which is unfortunately a bad precondition, cause we rareley produce more than moderate movies ;). But this movie makes some very good snapshots of the time then. "Solino" is about a Italian immigrant who arrives in the "Ruhr" region of Germany during the 60s. The immigrant and his family then start the first Pizza restaurant in the region. The characters are excellent drawn. Especially Gigi, the main actor. You live every second, every feeling he does. His brother, played by Moritz Bleibtreu, isnt that good. Well, you just dont believe him the role. But the character is wellbalanced and fits perfectly into this script. I feel an urgent need to compare the style of this movie with the style of "The Godfather". Many people will probably hate this movie, say its boring. Not much tension? - yes, but an outrageous movie. 9 out of 10. Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry. This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few... This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!

It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say. Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world – living all life – curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene – and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour – that's the key to life. And looking through the camera – focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life. I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards. I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards. really excellent movie, one of the best i've seen. Touching and simple - just like life, sometimes you cry sometimes you laugh and it's just beautiful. not too much of anything, just as it's suppose to be. Really loved the idea of the movie, noone is bad or good, all or just people, sometimes make mistakes mostly because of society's pressure, everyone tries to stay strong and some succeed more than others and the most important thing is that you don't have reasons to get angry - you can do it, but eventually the anger goes away and then you to need to let love come back in although it's hard, there lies the true happiness.

Great actors and cast, the movie really gets you into the feeling of the movie.

nice nice nice.

I recommend to see it, especially if you like to see italians' life... this film takes you inside itself in the early minutes and holds you till the end. it has a very humane story and very good selected music. The acting of Moritz Bleibtreu (Giancarlo Amato) and Barnaby Metschurat (Gigi Amato) is satisfying. Recommended to people who get bored of action films and want to see a good movie. I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO! Todd Rohal is a mad genius. "Knuckleface Jones", his third, and most fully realized, short film has an offbeat sense of humor and will leave some scratching their heads. What the film is about at heart, and he would almost certainly disagree with me on this, is how a regular Joe finds the confidence to get through life with a little inspiration. Or not. You just have to see for yourself. The short is intermittently making rounds on the festival circuit, so keep your eyes peeled and catch it if you can - you'll be glad you did. It is hilarious. And check out Todd's other short films also popping up here and there from time to time: "Single Spaced" and "Slug 660". Whether it's three guys in their tighty-whiteys rapping to a dude bound in twine or a girl saying "What up, dog?" to a lump of roadkill, there's something please everyone in Knuckleface Jones. It is strange and surreal and not altogether a completely comprehensible yarn... yet it never loses you. The first time I saw it, I nearly laughed myself sick. And every night after I would come home and watch it again. Forget Coyote Ugly... this is the movie that cemented my crush on Piper Perabo. See it... before it's too late! there is a story, but more essentially, the world of this film begins in chaos and comes to order over the course of ten minutes.

it is a celebration of life and an optimistic assertion of objective truth and good. representing along an axis unexplored in previous cinema, this film should be taught in every high school.

*CHIASMUS* THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI arrives in New York City knowing exactly what she wants: to amount to something solid by marrying a millionaire - without losing her virginity. With her knockout good looks she quickly catches the eye of the playboy son of a tycoon, but by staying true to her virtue will she also discover true love?

Jean Harlow sizzles in this excellent little comedy. With her platinum hair & gorgeous accouterments, she is a dazzler. But her beauty should not obscure the fact that she was also a very good actress. She has rightfully earned her spot at the very top of the Hollywood pantheon.

An excellent cast gives Harlow fine support: Lionel Barrymore as the wily old tycoon, wise to Harlow's ways; handsome Franchot Tone as his son, smitten with love; raucous Patsy Kelly, stealing her scenes as Harlow's sidekick; debonair Alan Mowbray, as a well-mannered English Lord; elderly Clara Blandick as Barrymore's feisty secretary; hearty Hale Hamilton as a rich man with an eye for the ladies; muscular Nat Pendleton as a lifeguard who catches Kelly's flirtatious eye; and Lewis Stone, unforgettable in a small role as a bankrupted businessman.

It should be noted that this film was produced soon after Hollywood's Production Code was instituted. A comparison with RED-HEADED WOMAN, made two years earlier, would be fascinating - in which Harlow's character goes after the same ends, but uses very different means. In this film, made JUST as the production code was being enforced, Jean Harlow is Eadie, and Patsy Kelly is the wisecracking, man-chasing sidekick "Kitty". Girl from Missouri starts out with the girls getting on a train, with Eadie making a promise to herself to earn money while looking for a millionaire husband, staying whole-some in the process. It doesn't take her long to meet up with Frank Cousins, (Lewis Stone, was the kindly Doctor in Grand Hotel, as well as Judge Hardy in the "Andy Hardy" films.), but all is not as it seems...The censors must have LOVED Harlow's line "A girl couldn't accept an expensive gift like that from a gentleman unless she was engaged." Later, someone says "You know we've never been alone together" and Eadie replies "Yeah, and we're not going to be!" Lionel Barrymore is T.R. Paige, another rich, uppercrust who comes to her rescue when trouble comes looking for Eadie. At one point, Paige declares "You oughta scratch me off your list - I'm not a ladies man".... I wonder what that line would have been just a couple years earlier before the Hayes code came rolling into town. What was he really saying? Carol Tevis seems to be the high-pitched "Baby Talker" as listed in the credits on IMDb. Looks like she was only in showbiz from 1931 - 1939, with "Munchkin" in Wizard of Oz being the last part she played. Fun, cleancut romp as the girls chase men around the country. Look for Nat Pendleton as the lifeguard, who was an Olympic Wrestler 1920 (silver medal winner) turned film star (he was in many of the Dr. Kildares, and would appear in four of Harlow's films.) Mistaken identity, plot twists, a young Franchot Tone, love stories, even Jean Harlow in a bathing suit in "Palm Beach", although the outdoor scenes of downtown appear to be a backdrop. If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.

And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.

Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices.

Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.

The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.

Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given.

Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry. This film has slipped through the cracks of film history. It is by far much better than some other New York films of the same era such as: "The French Connection" or "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". There is a gritty reality to this film which also manages to effectively use humor to further the plot line. It's engaging from start to finish and hasn't tarnished with age as is the case with the above two examples.

Ron Liebman turns in a bravura performance as "Batman" and it's a shame his career didn't take off as a result of this project.

Gordon Parks directs and, coming as it does after "Shaft", it at first appears to be a strange choice. Yet it is the flip side of that earlier effort and approached with just as much in your face machismo.

Unfortunately this film has not been made available on either DVD or VHS in the United States. United Artists really has a gem on their hands and it's a shame they're not doing anything with it. Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.

Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and "Serpico." These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.

Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.

Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s. I read the book and saw the movie. Both excellent. The movie is diamond among coals during this era. Liebman and Selby dominate the screen and communicate the intensity of their characters without flaw. This film should have made them stars. Shame on the studio for not putting everything they had behind this film. It could have easily been a franchise. Release on DVD is a must and a worthy remake would revive this film. Look for it in your TV guide and if you see it listed, no matter how late, watch it. You won't be disappointed. Do yourself another favor - read the book (same title). It'll blow you away. Times have changed dramatically since those days, or at least we like to think they have. I loved this movie!!! The characters were people that you could feel for. The young man back from the service still in love with the girl he left behind. Tom Drake is always perfect in the romantic lead as well as Donna Reed as the love of his life. The looks he gives her as if he has been starved for the sight of her as well as her hesitation and confusion as too her feelings for him were played very well. The rest of the quirky characters at the store were perfect as they tried to bring them together. The most touching scene however, was the young couple at his great grandfather's house. I laughed in parts, cried in some and thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. In fact I've re-watched it about 5 times. A definite must see for total romantics. The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.

The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian. My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.

I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.

10/10 On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical. Charleton Heston wore one, James Franciscus wore one but Mark Wahlberg opts not to don the traditional loin cloth. I hope no one casts him as Tarzan. Linda Harrison wore a bikini in the first 2 Planet movies but Estrella Warren barely shows cleavage - her hair is always in the way. Tim Burton could have sexed up this simian saga & given the adults in the audience something to look at. Even the chaste Helena Bonham Carter never gets out of her costume which looks like a large curtain. She's cute but all the the love stuff is restricted to anxious looks & a little bitty kiss at the end. As in Artificial Intelligence which discusses inter species sex between robots & humans but never delivers - Planet of the Apes hints at inter species romance between the humans & the apes but only hints. Lisa Marie is the only ape that dares to be sexy. This movie has three great actors Tim Roth, Ms. Carter & Paul Giamatti chewing up the scenery as a trio of apes & they are fun to watch. Superlative make up (a certain Oscar) costumes, sets, music make this the hit summer movie of 2001. Take this movie for what it is, not a remake, but a completely different approach to the same concept. It's not an epic like the original, it's more of a popcorn thriller. Visually, it's incredible. Everything else was just OK.

For what it is, I think the movie is awesome, but I like everything Burton has done. People need to calm down and stop acting like it's the end of the world b/c of this movie. It wasn't supposed to be a remake, and it's not.

The ending was cool. . I took it as a parallel universe. ....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.

**out of****stars ATTENTION, SPOILER!

Many people told me that «Planet of the Apes» was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because `a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.

It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as `Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as `Beetlejuice' or `Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.

What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a `re-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with – AND HERE IS THE SPOILER – Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever.

Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first `Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because – and here I'm disagreeing with various `Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms – it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again… Kim Basinger stars as Della, a housewife who has twin children (Terri and Tammi-played by Luke Gair and Erika-Shaye Gair) and an abusive jerk for a husband (Kenneth), played by Craig Sheffer.

The movie opens on Christmas Eve. Kenneth is on his way home from work, driving a nice car too I might add. He is on his cellphone arguing with a business partner I would assume. When he gets home, he sees that the floor is a mess with shoes and toys spread all about. This angers him even more and he takes up with his wife, Della, asking her why the house is always a mess. He pins her up against the wall. The twin's watch from the stairs. He punches the wall, leaving a hole in it and walks away. She tends to the children, trying to comfort them. After that is all said in done, she needs to go to the mall to do some last minute shopping and because she is out of wrapping paper. She gets there and the parking lot is full because there is a lot of last minute shoppers there. While she is looking for a parking space, she notices a car taking up two spaces and this irks her. She finally finds a spot to park, makes her way over to the hoggish car and leaves a note under the wiper calling the owner a "selfish jerk". Then she goes in the mall to do her last minute shopping.

When she finally does leave the mall, it is closing and many people have left already. Not the owner of the car she left the note on however and she notices this on the way to her vehicle. She also notices that the note she left under the wiper is no longer there. Odd. When she gets to her vehicle, she gets in to start it up. She notices a car coming up behind her and it blocks her from backing up. She gets out of the car only to be confronted by the owner of the car (Chuckie-played by Lukas Haas) she left the note on and a posse of his thug friends. Yelling ensues and a mall cop (no, not Paul Blart) makes his way over to them to see what the problem is, only to have his brains blown out of his head by Chuckie. While this happens, Della jumps in her vehicle, starts it and drives over the median in front of her. Chuckie and his posse hop in his car and give chase. Della ends up crashing her vehicle into a log pile at a housing development but she is unharmed. She manages to make it to the back of her vehicle, open up the hatchback and grab a toolbox before the thugs get there.

With that, Della spends the rest of the night trying to outrun and out wit the thugs armed with only the tools that she has in her toolbox as weapons. The first kill, in my opinion, is the best. The first kill that Della performs anyway. The last one was probably the weakest and it should of been the best considering that this was the main bad guy she was offing.

I will admit that there will be some that are put off buy the ending and I was let down a bit myself. As a whole though it was a fun flick and moves along nicely at it's 1 hour and 20 minute run time. In all my 60 years of age, I have learned that when we watch a movie there is an identification (whether we want it or not) implicit with an specific character.

Sometimes because the character executes certain gesture, sometimes because the character speaks determinate word, or sentence – that we use or that we would like to use – in determinate situation.

The movie in question, should be seen by this point of view. Who now find a parking space – in a mall,downtown, or in the street - taken by a car whose driver can't remember to think that he is not the only driver in the world?

Who hasn't the urge to "rubber out" the ill mannered spat?

Haven said that I ask: - Did you identify with DELLA (played by Kim Bassinger)? If your answer is: YES!, then try not to find absurd details – comparatively with life's reality – in the movie, because you'll certainly find the movie ridiculous.

Abstractions made, you will see that the movie has moments of surprise, such as: 1- In the sequence in which Della grabs the box of tools in the trunk (does that box contains a gun, and does she haves the guts to use it?); 2- In the sequence in which Terry dies whilst falling; 3- In the sequence in which Della gets attracted by Chuckie's "mermaid's call".

If you have already seen the movie, or if are planning seeing, keep in mind that there are "realistic" movies, "fiction" movies, "political" movies, and movies in which you can "wash your soul"… To exemplify the last one, we can quote: "Tropa de Elite".

According to newspaper's , there was unanimous applause when BOPE officials take certain attitudes. (As I have seen the movie in DVD, I could not ascertain the audience's reaction)…

As for the direction part (Susan Monford), interpretations (Kim Bassinger, Lukas Haas, Craig Scheffer, etc. Edition (William M. Anderson – 'Dead Poets Society', 'Green Card' – exceptional edition, 'Robocop 2', etc. It is well situated in context. In a scale of 1(Awful) to 10(Master Piece), I rate "When She Was Out" a 7(Regular). While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.

Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.

Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.

Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.

Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V. For Columbo fans, such as myself, this is the episode of episodes that made a case for why Columbo was so popular, and just how good it really was. Ruth Gordon has a field day (as ever) playing the wittily intelligent crime novelist Abigail Mitchell. Seems Abigail calls her nephew-in-law to sign some papers making him her heir. She never got over her niece's death, and is convinced her dead niece's husband (Charles Frank) did the dirty deed. To tell more would be unthinkable. Mariette Hartley has a sly role as Abigail's personal assistant. This episode of Columbo is in a class by itself. It's a truly well made television movie. I recommend it most highly. Don't waste time reading my review. Go out and see this astonishingly good episode, which may very well be the best Columbo ever written! Ruth Gordon is perfectly cast as the scheming yet charming mystery writer who murders her son-in-law to avenge his murder of her daughter. Columbo is his usual rumpled, befuddled and far-cleverer-than-he-seems self, and this particular installment features fantastic chemistry between Gordon and Falk. Ironically, this was not written by heralded creators Levinson or Link yet is possibly the densest, most thoroughly original and twist-laden Columbo plot ever. Utterly satisfying in nearly every department and overflowing with droll and witty dialogue and thinking. Truly unexpected and inventive climax tops all. 10/10...seek this one out on Netflix! A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.

As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.

The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones. Ruth Gordon at her best. This episode is my favorite of the whole Columbo series. Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon worked so well together that they should both be inducted into the television hall of fame, regardless of the rest of their work. Even the music was outstanding in this episode. I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb. Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon. I love this episode of Columbo. Maybe it's because Ruth Gordon is in it and she is wonderful as successful mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, an American version of Dame Agatha Christie. She is delicious to watch as the perky, lovable author who suffered a terrible loss when her niece died in a drowning accident. She blames her niece's husband, the nephew. She plans to kill him to avenge her death since the police have abandoned her. I would have loved somebody else than Mariette Hartley to play Veronica. I never really like Hartley in anything personally. And of course with Columbo, there are some laughs like when he questions Veronica at a belly-dancing class. Ruth's Abigail is a smart sleuth herself and she matches wits with Columbo always played wonderfully by Peter Falk. Since I first saw Anchors Aweigh in 1945, viewing it on videotape holds a lot of nostalgia for me. At age 15, it was easy for me to be drawn into the first of the great MGM Technicolor musicals. Now I am perhaps most interested in thinking about the future careers of the leading players. Though Sinatra had done a couple of negligible films soon after his emergence after his Dorsey days, as a solo singer, this was his first major film appearance. As another viewer noted, this seems almost to be a warm-up for On the Town. Sinatra may have had to work hard at it, but his dance with Kelly is credible, and he would do better in their next pairings. However, observing his physique, it's easy to see why he was caricatured as a string bean. Who would have imagined that within a decade he would win an academy award for acting, and go on to play many roles as a tough detective or leader in combat. Though Gene Kelly's personality and dancing dominated this film, his winsome performance did not suggest that he would become a major creative force, almost the iconic figure, for MGM musicals, where he developed a style of dance complementary to that of Fred Astaire. Finally, it was strange to see the fresh-faced Dean Stockwell and remember that he would later play a "thrill" killer in Compulsion, based on the Leopold-Loeb murder from the 1920s. An additional note: One reviewer praised the performance of Betty Garrett as Sinatra's love interest. She later played opposite him in On the Town, but Pamela Britton was featured in this film. Overall this is a delightful, light-hearted, romantic, musical comedy. I suppose a small case could be made for the movie being to long. But I'm not sure what you would cut out. The singing that Kelly and Sinatra do? No. The fabulous dancing that Kelly does? No. The time the movie takes to develop the story line and develop the relationships of the characters? No (that seems to be a common complaint many times that more recent movies don't develop the characters).

Some comment that Iturbi didn't bring much to the movie but this gives us a chance to see and hear a great talent from the 1040s. So what if he wasn't an actor? He was an important part of the movie as the basic plot was to get Grayson an audition with him.

Originally Katherine Grayson wanted to be an opera star. Louis B. Mayer brought her to MGM for a screen test that included an aria. During her audition in the movie there is a shot of the MGM brass nodding and smiling. You can just imagine it was like that when she had made her real screen test years before.

This movie is so full of life it is hard to hit all of the highlights. Great use was made of color and lighting throughout the movie. You can see why Frank Sinatra became the star he did. A nice counter-point in the movie is how Sinatra (a ladies man even then) played the role of wanting to just find a date while on leave. You'll feel good after seeing this movie. 7/10 This one has a lot going for it - Sinatra, Styne, Cahn, Pamela Britten -and a lesser amount of dross - Iturbi, Grayson - plus a little ho hum - Kelly. It was Sinatra's first real movie where the producer's spent a buck and you could see it on screen (previously he'd appeared in two low-budgeters, Higher And Higher and Step Lively) but if they'd only relied on the Sinatra pipes and deep sixed Grayson's plus Iturbi's ego-tripping piano spots we'd have been left with a much tighter movie and a better showcase for Sinatra. As it is he scores heavily in all his songs from the two duets with Kelly - We Hate To Leave, I Begged Her - to his own solos, What Makes The Sunset, The Charm Of You and I Fall In Love Too Easily. Despite this Step Lively remains the best Sinatra musical of the forties on one tenth the budget. Joseph Brady and Clarence Doolittle are two sailors, who have a four-day shore leave in Hollywood.Joe knows everything about girls and can't wait to see Lola, while Clarence is shyer and needs some advice from his buddy on how to meet girls.They then run into a little boy, Donald Martin, who has ran away in order to join the navy.They take him home and meet his beautiful aunt Susan, who wants to be a singer.Clarence wants Susie to be his girl, but his shyness gets in the way.But he doesn't feel shy with a waitress, who comes from Brooklyn, like he does.Soon Joe notices he's in love with Susie.The boys are in a fix when they lie to Susie on meeting with a big time music producer they don't even know.As they are in a fix with their feelings.George Sidney's Anchors Aweigh (1945) is a great musical comedy.Gene Kelly is top-notch, once again, in his singing and dancing routines.Frank Sinatra is terrific as the shy guy from Brooklyn.Shy isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Frank Sinatra, but he plays his part well.Kathryn Grayson is fantastic as Susan Abbott.We sadly lost this gifted actress and operatic soprano singer last month at the age of 88.The 9-year old Dean Stockwell does amazing job as the little fellow wanting to become a sailor.Jose Iturbi does great job performing himself.It's magic what he does with the piano.Edgar Kennedy plays Chief of police station.Sara Berner is the voice of Jerry Mouse.There's a lot of great stuff in this movie and some fantastic singing and dancing numbers.Just look at Kelly and Sinatra performing "We Hate to Leave".It's so energetic."If You Knew Susie (Like I Know Susie)" is quite funny.It's a nice moment when Frank sings Brahms' Lullaby to little Dean Stockwell.It's lovely to listen to Grayson singing the tango "Jealousy" .The most memorable sequence is the one that takes into the animated fantasy world, and there Gene sings and dances with Jerry Mouse.Also Tom Cat is seen there as the butler.They originally asked Mickey Mouse but he refused.The movie was nominated for five Oscars but Georgie Stoll got one for Original Music Score.Anchors Aweigh is some high class entertainment. The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.

This film could've been called "The Search for Jose Iturbi" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years.

The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that "GI" meant "Get Iturbi" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).

Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.

And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.

Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them "ignorantly" complimenting the other's music.

If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews "of the day" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.

Trout This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white "Pomeranian" navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.

But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.

Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one "Lola", an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank.

It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of "instruction" about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help "teach him" how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.

I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.

The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent.

Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,"consistency"! Thy name is not "screenwriting" necessarily! Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.

Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.

Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.

There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively "proper" and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.

The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.

Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29 – 30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.

And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.

As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character. Right from the start you see that "Anchors Aweigh" is a great comedy. Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra make such a funny team! The songs they sing together are pure entertainment. Kathryn Grayson is gorgeous and really sweet. Dean Stockwell is the cutiest child actor I've never seen. If you are fond of piano, you'll be amazed by José Iturbi. This movie was the first one to combine animation with real actors and it did that wonderfully in an unforgettable dance number. Undoubtedly one of Kelly's funniest movies. Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, and Jose Iturbi star in "Anchors Aweigh," directed by George Sidney.

Kelly and Sinatra are Joe and Clarence, two navy guys on leave in Hollywood. They meet a little boy (Dean Stockwell) and on taking him home, they meet his aunt (Grayson). Clarence falls for her. She wants an audition for Jose Iturbi. They try to help, but there's a mix-up.

This is a very energetic musical with great dancing and singing by Kelly and Sinatra. Kelly gets to dance with Jerry the Mouse in a delightful sequence. Grayson sings Jalousie and My Heart Sings. Not one of my favorite voices, but she does well. Iturbi's piano work is beautiful.

Sinatra gets to show his versatility and why the girls swooned over him, with those big blue eyes and boyish face. For Kelly, this was a major break for him at MGM.

Wonderful movie, very buoyant. Similar to "On the Town," this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of "Tom and Jerry" fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag. Usually musicals in the 1940's were of a set formula - and if you studied films you know what I'm talking about - a certain running lenghth, very "showy" performances that were great on the surface but never got into the real personalities of the characters etc.

THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT - and light years better and well worth it's nomination for best picture of the year - 1945 (although had no chance of beating the eventual winner - Lost Weekend).

Gene Kelly was probably in the best form of his career - yes I know about "American in Paris" and "Singing in the Rain". This one is different. He really gets into his character of a "sea wolf" thinking (at first) that "picking up any girl while on leave" is nothing more than a lark. And if you had to make up a "story" to get her - so be it - until. Sort of like the Music Man when he gets "his foot caught in the door". The eventual hilarity of the film stems mostly from his and his new pal (Sinatra)'s attempt to make the "story" good in order to "get the girl" that he REALLY and unexpectedly falls in love with. You are going to have to see the movie to see what I mean.

Besides that there are so many other elements of great film in this one, it's a classic buddy story, nostalgia to a time when WWII was almost over (the war ended about a month after the films release), a realization that a guy that always laughed at life can find out that he really is a great human being, great songs and probably a few other elements of classic film making that I can't think of right now.

Why not a 10? Near the end - at nearly 2 1/2 hours starts to feel a bit long. There is a small ballet number that Gene Kelly does that must have been a sensation in 1945 but seems dated and feels like it just adds minutes now. But overall, this ones a definite winner on every level. Two sailors are on leave--ladies man Joseph Brady (Gene Kelly) and shy innocent Clarence Doolittle (Frank Sinatra). They meet beautiful Susan Abbott (Kathryn Grayson) and both fall in love with her. There's more but you've probably guessed it.

The story (even for a 1940s musical) is ridiculous and everything is so nice and wholesome--gets annoying pretty quick. Also this movie is far too long. It's 140 minutes and that's way too much for such a silly story. There are also some boring numbers by Jose Iturbi and his orchestra. Still this is worth catching.

When Kelly is dancing or Sinatra or Grayson are singing this becomes magical. None of the songs are particularly memorable but Sinatra had such a beautiful voice you won't care. It's shot in rich Technicolor with all the gloss MGM had. The acting is OK--Kelly is fine (although seeing him as a ladies man is pushing it) and Sinatra is just great (although seeing HIM as a shy guy was pushing it too!). Grayson is given nothing to do but she's incredibly beautiful to look at. Some shots of her literally took my breath away! There are plenty of highlights here: Sinatra and Kelly's big dancing and singing number; Sinatra singing anything; Grayson's two songs and the justly famous animated sequence in which Kelly dances with Jerry--an animated mouse! Tom does a funny cameo too. Also there's little Dean Stockwell who steals every scene he's in.

So it's too long and the plot just doesn't hold up but it's still worth catching. This was a huge hit in its day. Absolutely enjoyable singing and dancing movie starring Frank Sinatra and gen Kelly, as well as Kathryn Grayson.

The film won and Oscar for George E. Stoll's score, and it garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Kelly, and Best Cinematography, as well as a Best Son nomination for "I Fall in Love Too Easily" sung by Sinatra.

It was a cute story about Kelly helping his pal Sinatra get a girl and falling in love with her himself. The lovely Grayson (The Toast of New Orleans) dazzled us with her singing, and we had a lot of great songs and dance routines by Kelly and Sinatra, as well as the artistry of pianist-conductor José Iturbi.

A classic Hollywood music from an era gone by. "Anchors Aweigh" is the product of the classic MGM musical production unit, and on the whole the film is every enjoyable – good music by Jule Styne and others, excellent dancing by Gene Kelly (and even a passable job by Frank Sinatra), and a funny well-paced script. The only major element I would criticize would be the casting of Kathryn Grayson, whose presence in a film always means the audience will be subjected to endless pseudo-operatic warbling from the petite Miss.

Kelly plays a naval serviceman named Joseph Brady, a man with a mythic reputation around the ship as a lover but whose Valentino-charms are constantly being subdued by the presence of his less cocksure friend with the improbable middle-American name of Clarence (Sinatra). Upon receiving 3 days of shore leave for saving Clarence's life, Joe reluctantly agrees to help Clarence find a girl based on the dubious premise that he owes him something for saving his life. They are drafted by a policeman (Rags Ragland), who needs them to help coax a precocious young boy (Dean Stockwell) who wants to join the Navy into returning home to "Aunt Susan" (Grayson). At first it is Clarence who is interested in wooing "Aunt Susan" but eventually Kelly's character emerges as the more likely candidate.

There are several standout musical scenes but nothing to come close to Kelly's more famous work in films like "Singin' in the Rain" and "American in Paris". The closest we get is a gimmicky sequence with Kelly's character in a fantasy sequence dancing with Jerry, the mouse from "Tom and Jerry" (although he seems to be closer in size to a dog or cat here than to a mouse). It's a startling sequence for its time but doesn't have enough complexity or emotion to really stand the test of time. I actually enjoyed the parts of the sequence that took place prior to the animation, where Kelly was using semi-balletic moves to emphasize the transition into the fantasy world and where we see him dance down a tunnel that looks like something right out of "Alice in Wonderland".

Eventually the characters find their way to Susan's favorite bar, a somewhat sanitized Mexican restaurant/bar in Tijuana. There the patrons happily allow Ms. Grayson to chirp her arias with abandon, and the management becomes very excited at the opportunity that Clarence and Joe have extended for her to sing with their "friend" Jose Iturbi (playing himself with a light humorous touch). Of course they've never met their "friend" Iturbi and they spend much of the film's length trying to reach him (in an amusing scene Sinatra's character meets Iturbi but mistakes him for a piano tuner and urges him to abandon tuning pianos and try a professional career), sneaking into the studio and the Hollywood Bowl, where Iturbi is rehearsing a surreal symphony comprised of dozens of young piano players – you haven't seen anything like this outside of "1000 Fingers of Dr. T". Iturbi himself is a kind of a god-figure in the story – he represents the opportunity for salvation from the drudgery of unfulfilling work and the possibility for fame and artistic achievement for the heroine. Everyone is 100% sure that as soon as Mr. Iturbi so much as hears Ms. Grayson, her operatic career will be a reality. The 3 primary characters are desperate to reach him and they think of him as some kind of remote and distant mythological figure – a lot of the film's charm and humor comes from the contrast of this perception to the very down-to-earth "real" mannerisms of the maestro. And speaking of Iturbi's contributions to the film, he also provides a very stimulating musical moment with his orchestral interpretation of "Donkey Serenade".

When all is said and done, this is a film that nobody who enjoys musicals will want to miss. The majority of the music was written for this film, a nice contrast to recycled soundtracks for other Kelly opuses like "Rain" and "American". Kelly is still at his early peak, adventurous and boisterous in both his dances and his interpretation of the character. Sinatra's voice was never in better form and he rarely had better songs to sing. Stockwell is a charming addition to the clan, and Grayson's character is endearing when she isn't posturing on stage. Iturbi adds that well-grounded but sophisticated tone that perfectly matches the atmosphere and style of the classic-era MGM musical. This is one of the better ones. ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including "We Hate to Leave", Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of "Jalousie"; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of "I Fall in Love Too Easily" (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and "The Worry Song", a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory. Incredibly ARTISTIC NOBODY COULD MAKE THEM NOW I THINK.It seem to be perfect the biggest and the greatest musical ever made listen to the beautiful songs the are quite poetry.I'M Italian AND ADMIRED BY American MUSICAL. why can't you do something like that now?American were the best and for that i absolutely show my devotion to you with this movie.there are words to describes the perfection of this movie. all of a sudden my heart sings, what makes the sunset? i fall in love to easily,jealousy...and the scene with Tom and Jerry. the greatest without reserve. if you you doesn't know your eyes are not open my friends you must see it and appreciate...wake up! A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, "I Fall in Love Too Easily," before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these. One of the first of the best musicals, Anchors Aweigh features several memorable musical sequences, such as Kelly dancing with Jerry the mouse, Kelly dancing with 7-year-old Sharon McManus, Sinatra singing with Jose Iturbi playing piano, Kathryn Grayson singing with Iturbi conducting, and much more. The Technicolor is perfect, with some innovative camera work such as seeing a piano played from beneath, through transparent keys, and Grayson singing, seen through the finder of another camera. The plot is thin, but you get involved from Kelly's & Sinatra's enthusiasm. Sailor's on leave, they have to take home a runaway boy (Dean Stockwell) and Sinatra falls for his aunt. To set him up with the aunt (Grayson), Kelly suggests that Sinatra can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. But Sinatra's young and naive in this one, and in his own sung words falls in love too fast. While they're trying to contact Iturbi, who's never available, he starts to fall for another girl (Barbara Britton); but Kelly's now falling love with Grayson. Anchors Aweigh is most often remembered for the combination live-action / cartoon sequence with Tom and Jerry, but there's a lot more here that's worth a look. I'm giving it nine stars because, while it's not quite as good as the best musicals - Singin' In The Rain, The Music Man, Oklahoma - it is one of the first of their class of Technicolor big productions (perhaps Meet Me In St. Louis was the first), and better than most others. I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting. Ah, a Kelly/Sinatra sailor-suit musical. So familiar, right? Yes, but this isn't the one you usually hear about. On The Town's that-a-way. But if you stick around, you might learn something. Okay, probably not. Anyway, Anchors Aweigh tells the story of two sailors on a three- or four-day leave. Joe is the "Sea Wolf" and Clarence, the bookish type, begs Joe to get him a "dame". Now, after they're picked up by the coppers they get little Donald home. That's where they meet Susie, that temptress, that jezebel. Just kidding! Clarence falls in love with her. At least he thinks he does. Is he right? Or is he a moron? Or is he just misguided by society? Find out all this and more when you watch {trumpet fanfare} ANCHORS AWEIGH!

P.S. If you want to see Kathryn Grayson be anything but sickeningly sweet, try Kiss Me Kate (1953). For such films like `Anchors Aweigh', few have been bestowed with as many Academy Award accolades in a warm up for happy hour. Either 1945 was a beleaguered year for good film or they were still suffering advance shock by Billy Wilder's `The Lost Weekend' that they wrote anything starting with A on the ballot for best picture to please the still musical picture faithful public. Since Gene Kelly was nominated for this performance instead of his role in `Singin' in the Rain', then there had to be something wrong with the behind the scenes rigging systems at MGM. Of course, the studio is on its best behaviour during this much lauded tour of the great studios and of Hollywood itself, handy for those stuck on the other side of the world.

Yet a sailor suit musical with the brilliant talents of Gene and Frank Sinatra is certainly an enjoyable farce, despite the need for more people to yawn at the previews for the musical so today's audiences wouldn't be slapped with an unnecessary runtime. There have been many longer pieces before and since, but in this case all of the charming Kathryn Grayson's scenes could have been eliminated. Until the viewing of `Kiss Me Kate' it may have been necessary non-opera enthusiasts to watch any of her films with remote control in hand.

If there was a need to practice picking up women for 1949's `On the Town', then perhaps the shore leave lucky sailors did not have to promise an audition with Jose Iturbi and strike up the piano for a whole hearted `Susie' rendition. Few are lucky to get a screen test at the golden studios of MGM. Then few are even luckier to be attended to. There are no regrets to be had about the successful screen tests of Susan Abbot or Kathryn Grayson, but it makes the continual non-opera enthusiast hope for the eventual pink slip to be handed out to both.

But for all, the star talents are good shape and an above average score thrown in with a slight, but fun great navy story intertwined with young ambitious navy boys good for late bursts of wartime morale, makes `Anchors' at least doesn't question picking the wrong MGM film. The direction holds up as the cast carries the story in lovely colour cinematography. Whenever anyone bursts into music or song, the film makes for a joyous occasion.

The natural highlight of the film is Gene Kelly's cartoon adventures in a fantasyland, climaxing in a brilliant dance with Jerry the mouse. This is a well-deserved masterpiece number of Kelly's career, and it's nice to know he thought of it before Fred Astaire started taking to dancing on walls and ceilings.

It's not exactly sitting down to a triple flavour, rainbow sprinkled, chocolate wafer, cream and cherry and banana split sundae, but it is a square solid lump of sugar that somehow eventually melts in your mouth and despite the guilt, is still a pleasant feeling.

Rating: 7/10 This has some excellent spots but the length of the film can not sustain the wafer thin plot. It is another sailors on leave film, zippier than Astaire's 'Follow the Fleet' but not as good as 'On The Town'.

Kathryn Grayson is bland but Kelly and Sinatra work well together. Their 'If you Knew Susie' number is hilarious as they make up the song as they sing it. 'I Begged Her' is also fun with Sinatra showing how adept he was at hoofing. Sinatra's solo songs are dull and seem to be inserted to show off his singing rather than as part of the story. Fortunately there are accomplished supporting actors like Grady Sutton, Rags Ragland, Carlos Ramirez and Pamela Britton and an unlikely but impertubable Jose Iturbi as himself, to keep one watching.

Kelly is the star of the film, although third billed and it is interesting to see him interact with children, which Astaire never did. Dean Stockwell plays a child who wants to be in the navy and latches on to the Kelly character. He also visit a school resulting in him telling the children a fictitious story of his life in the Pomeranian (!)navy which leads to his wonderful dance with an animated Jerry Mouse. In another scene he dances a charming Mexican Hat Dance with a sublimely grave faced little girl, Sharon McManus, that is entrancing and sweet.

Very pleasant then but a bit too long. A taster of better musicals to come. Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood?? Lots of singing and dancing in this one, especially by Gene Kelly. Two sailors go on liberty to see if they can find love and romance. They meet up with a woman who is trying to break into show business. Musical lovers only. Though I liked On the Town better I really liked it. I'm a new comer when it comes to Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. Though I had heard of them I had never seen anything with them in it until recently. The first one I saw was Singin in the Rain that made me a fan of Gene's. I think that is better too. But I thought that this movie was good and like all movies there are some parts that are better than others but in my book it's an awesome movie and I love it. Frank and Gene make a good team. I have yet to see them together in Take me out to the Ballgame. But I'm sticking to my guns bu saying that I really enjoyed it, and that I love it! Virgil Manoven is an old man who lives alone in his remote rural farmhouse.Chasing his beloved cat one morning into the woods around his property,Manoven glimpses what looks like the murder of a young child in the middle of the woods.He reports the crime to the police but there's no body to be found.Troubled by disturbing visions,he investigates further and eventually is guided to a spooky orphanage where events take a supernatural turn…"Soft for Digging" is a fantastic experimental horror with lots of creepy atmosphere to spare.This minimalist film is almost completely devoid of dialogue.Some scenes are genuinely nightmarish and the acting is excellent.The location sets provide plenty of creepiness:the eerie Maryland woods rival those used in "The Blair Witch Projcect".Give this strange horror film a chance.9 out of 10. I really think I should make my case and have every(horror and or cult)movie-buff go and see this movie...

I did!

It-is-excellent: Very atmospheric and unsettling and scary...

Incridible how they could make such a gem of a film with the very low(read-"no"!)-budget they had....

Synopsis taken from website: "One morning, an old man wanders out into the woods in search of his runaway cat. He finds instead a child without parents and a murder with no corpse..."

On this website(IMDb) there is no trailer, but I will leave a link here to the site of the movie itself where there IS a trailer which is quite unsettling so please go and check it out...

www.softfordigging.com Don't be swayed by the naysayers. This is a wonderfully spooky film. This was a thesis project for the writer/director , JT Petty. He did a great job of having me on the edge of my seat. I never really knew what to expect, and for a jaded horror-movie goer, this is Nirvana! The film concerns an elderly man who lives in a isolated log cabin in the woods. One day, while searching for his cat in the woods, he witnesses the murder of a child, or does he? He agonizes about this the rest of the film. What is most unusual about this film is that here is no dialogue until the last few scenes. I found this to be intriguing. The writer manages to get hold of your senses and gives them a relentless tug. Give this film a go, you won't be disappointed. The premise of the story is simple: An old man living alone in the woods accidentally stumble upon a murder of a small child, and tries to convince the police that the murder has occurred. Though very little dialog is provided throughout the film, the visual narrative told by the camera's eye alone made the film quite engaging. The setting of the gray woods conveys a feeling of loneliness, which complements the quietness of the characters themselves. We can also sense helplessness in the old man's inability to convince the police of the murder, which parallels the silenced child's inability to tell her own story.

True horror lies in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and irrationality. This film successfully addresses these elements by visuals alone, rather than relying on cheap sound effects or blood and gore that other bad horror films use when the narrative is weak.

Cleverly, the story unfolds at a slow pace to build up tension for a few creepy and startling moments. The ending is also unexpected and believable. Reminiscent of Japanese horror films, such as "The Ring," and "Dark Water," or English horror films, such as "Lady in Black," and "The Innocents," this film provides viewers the experience of true atmosphere horror. I recommend anyone who enjoys a good chilling to the bone scare to give this film a try.

By the way, if you haven't seen the films I just mentioned above, you might want to give them a try as well. An old man who lives in the mountains wakes up one morning and loses his cat. He wanders the woods to witness a murder but did he see the murder or is he losing his mind? Is he just getting old? The movie so great because the viewer has to make up their own mind on what is going on. There is very little dialog in this movie but it doesn't need words, the whole movie speaks for itself. You knew what was going on and I liked it.

The other part that I liked were the shots of the woods in late fall and winter. Those were pretty but the only thing I didn't like was the view of the old man in his underwear. He could have tied the robe a little tighter but other than that, it was a pretty deep movie. This is an excellent film and one should not be put off by its strangeness. There is genuine skill in manufacture of this work. It manages to be intrigiung, funny and frightening at various times. Work with it for the first few minutes and you won't be disappointed Saw this film yesterday for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a student of screen writing and I loved the way the minor characters intervened just when something pivotal/climatic happened in a scene.

I thought the dialogue was very sharp and the premise of story is rather shocking - at one particular point Barbara Stanwyck is openly flirting with her daughter's boyfriend; AND rekindling some passion in her husband whom she hasn't seen in ten years; AND with the gunshot signal 'two shots and then one' she hooks up with her old shag mate Dutch (the reason she left town in the first place!) ALL AT THE SAME TIME! The moral majority must have been totally incensed when they saw this flick back in the 50's.

Love the costumes and cinematography and the straight from the hip dialogue - just to watch Barbara Stanwyck and Co doing the 'Bunny Hug' is good enough reason to rent this film on DVD.

One of the best films from that period I've seen in a long time. Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show. Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.

Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.

The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.

I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. This early Sirk melodrama, shot in black and white, is a minor film, yet showcases the flair of the German director in enhancing tired story lines into something resembling art. Set in the 1910's, Barbara Stanwyck is the woman who has sinned by abandoning her small-town husband and family for the lure of the Chicago stage. She never fulfilled her ambitions, and is drawn back to the town she left by an eager letter from her daughter informing her that she too has taken a liking to the theatre (a high school production, that is). Back in her old town she once again comes up against small-mindedness, and has to deal with her hostile eldest daughter, bewildered (and boring) husband (Richard Carlson) and ex-lover. The plot is nothing new but Sirk sets himself apart by creating meaningful compositions, with every frame carefully shot, and he is aided immeasurably by having Stanwyck as his leading lady. It runs a crisp 76 minutes, and that's just as well, because the material doesn't really have the legs to go any further. Most italian horror lovers seem to hate this movie since because it has no connection to the first two Demons films. And with the "Demons III" in the title, one would assume it would. The problem is that this film was never intended to be part of the Demons series. The distributors only a "Demons III" above its original title "The Ogre" to cash in on the other films popularity. The new American DVD release of this picture has the title "Demons III: The Ogre" on the box art but the film itself only says "The Ogre". I don't know if past releases had the title "Demons III" on the actual film itself, but this new release just seems to be a little white lie. If you can get past the "Demons III" in the title, you might some enjoyment in "The Ogre". It starts out with a creep intro, and stays pretty creep throughout. There's no gore and the film movies slowly, but I still dug it. Just don't expect it to be like the other Demons films. I give "The Ogre" 7 out of 10. Italian fans should try it out. To anyone who hasn't seen this film yet, I have a friendly warning: don't watch "La Casa dell'Orco" expecting any demons at all, because you won't find them here. This film is not a third installment to the "Demons" series and it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, except the fact that Lamberto Bava directed them. As a matter of fact, Michele Soavi's "The Church" is also known an unofficial "Demons 3" and it's a deceptive title in that case as well, so go figure. It is obvious that due to the "Demons" films success; they tried to deceive the audience with misleading titles, even though it is obvious that this is a disconnected story. Having said that, I think it's unfair on the other hand, to say that "La Casa dell'Orco" is not worth the look. Honestly, the movie is quite atmospheric and even though there are a few unintentionally hilarious situations, I thought it was genuinely creepy on the whole. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the story somehow tries to emulate Lucio Fulci's "The House by the Cemetery". Of course, that's just a speculation I have, but I think I have my valid evidences. For instance, in both films, Paolo Marco is the man of the family, in both films, there's an irritating little son named Bobby, in both films, the woman of the house is a beautiful thirty-something, who seems to be the only one to see that there's something really wrong in the new house, and in both films, there's something really, really wrong going on in the basement. I'm sorry but I can relate both films very easily and I'm not saying that as an accusation. For the contrary, my point is that those who enjoyed "The House by the Cemetery" are probably going to enjoy this movie as well, keeping in mind of course, that "La Casa dell'Orco" is far less pretentious, less scary, not nearly as atmospheric, but the formula is still there.

In "La Casa dell'Orco", Charel, her husband Tom and their little son, Bobby, go on a vacation trip to an old deserted castle, situated in the heart of an Italian villa called Trifiri. Leaving aside the beauty of the place, shortly after their arrival, Charel starts to have the feeling that she has been there before, which is impossible, considering that she had never been to Trifiri before. Sadly, Charel can't get over her déjà vu and the worst part is that her visions, come along with the image of a horrendous creature going after her. Tom, who is not a very patient guy to begin with, advices her to leave the nonsensical hallucinations aside and enjoy the vacation. However, the woman's visions become more and more real and the peace and quiet that they were supposed to enjoy, suddenly turn into a living nightmare. The old nightmare from Charel's childhood becomes real and this time, she won't be able to escape without confronting that menacing ogre first.

As it is expected, the plot somehow turns out to be a little bit simplistic and as a consequence, it is hard to fill an hour and a half. This means that "La Casa dell'Orco" offers more than a couple of sequences with nothing but total silence and the image of the main character, walking around the castle for several minutes, reviving the images of her childhood and nothing else. It gets rather tedious from time to time, but overall, it's nothing serious. Like many Italian horror films that came out throughout the late eighties, this movie is pretty stylish and effective, but it also offers a nice variety of unintentionally funny moments, that make the movie unforgettable in a way. For instance, the part in which Charel is brutally slapped by her husband and instead of going to her bedroom crying like I would have expected, she strikes back against him by punching him on the face really hard and running away to the woods like a maniac. The funniest thing however, is the fact that two minutes later, they're a happy couple again, as if punching each other like that, was the most natural thing in the world. I know it's silly, but I myself, found it absolutely hilarious. The ogre (which is obviously the villain of the story) looks creepy and funny at the same time too and let's face it: a villain who can freak us out and make us laugh a little bit, it's twice as welcomed. It reminded me of Michael Jackson in "Thriller", but much more natural and human, of course. But if focusing on the genuinely good aspects that I mentioned before: the music composed by Simon Boswell is one of the high points and even if it pretty much always the same, it fits perfectly and it helps to create a rather dark atmosphere during the moments of tension. So if I have to give my final statement regarding this movie, I'm going to have to say that I can't help loving it, including the small flaws and most people who enjoy these typical Italian horror movies from the late eighties, won't be disappointed by this one. It has all the typical and always well received clichés, like the crazy old man who actually speaks the truth, the foxy local woman who is said to be a witch, a creepy castle, a huge dark basement with a terrible secret and the local folks who try to prevent the tourist with their hostility, to stay away from the infamous lands. I would say that "La Casa dell'Orco" deserves two thumbs up and a punch at your spouse's face, as a way to pay tribute to the heroine of the story. Take this movie for what it is and enjoy it. The Ogre is a film made for TV in Italy and wasn't intended to be a sequel to Demons as Lamberto Bava even mentions it on the interview on the Sheirk Show DVD, but it was called Demons III to be part of the Demons series. The music in Demons and Demons 2 was 80's rock music while this is more creepy music and while the first two was gory horror Demons III: The Ogre is a architectural horror so that's how Demons III isn't a proper sequel to Demons but I still like this film.

The music is creepy and that adds a tone to the castle that the film is set in, The Ogre is another thing why I like the film. There are two other films that are classed as Demons III and that is Black Demons (Demoni 3) and The Church (Demons 3). Demons III: The Ogre is a good film as long as you don't compare it with Demons and Demons 2. Alright, before we review, I have to ask: why isn't this listed individually? It may have been merely a TV item in Italy, but to international Lamberto Bava fans this is its own FILM. In America this film is distributed on VHS and DVD as either "The Ogre" or "Demons 3". Yes, I know it has nothing to do with "Demons" apart from one cast member and the crew. But yes, I personally was upset that this was so hard to find on this site which is otherwise so useful.

Finally, let's review "The Ogre". I've seen the trailer for this many times on YouTube and honestly found that rather scary. The movie itself (it is feature length, therefore making it a movie) has many many strong parts and does manage to scare. I was displeased by the last act, but on the whole I don't regret having bought the DVD before seeing it (available from Shriek Show). I guess the film's TV origins explain the last act. I won't give out any spoilers.

The plot is somewhat familiar: an American horror writer vacationing at an ancient spooky castle with husband and son only to find it exactly resembles the setting of her childhood nightmares. There are faint echoes of "The Shining", but this is a different brand of supernatural horror. The woman (Virginia Bryant) finds more and more proof that this is the real life place of her nightmares, but her husband won't believe her. Great atmosphere and terror follow.

The multiple nightmare sequences were pretty freaky. The Ogre cocoon effect was good, it reminded me a bit of Uncle Frank's resurrection from the first "Hellraiser". There's also a few good shocks and a well done underwater scene. I give them props that the film never stooped to imitating American films with similar concepts, namely "A Nightmare on Elm Street". "The Ogre" is an original. And the monster itself was a scary one, when it was presented correctly.

On the Shriek Show DVD there is a Lamberto Bava interview in which he is careful to mention that this is not part of his classic "Demons" series. He also gives a lot of credit to the real castle in which the movie was filmed. Indeed, this setting contributes a lot to the film. The Simon Boswell music helps too.

There's lots of good stuff here. "The Ogre" is not perfect, but it is very much worth seeing. Take it is a lesser Lamberto Bava achievement. The Ogre doesn't seem to have won itself a very good reputation since its release in 1988, and I guess a reason for that may be down to the fact that it was given the subtitle 'Demons 3' in order to help it sell better. Well, the film is directed by Lamberto Bava; the man behind the first two Demons films, and ogres and demons are somewhat alike (in that they're both 'monsters' anyway)...but other than that, this film has no connections to the other two films. It is, however, rather good! Italian filmmakers are famous for ripping off popular films, and while it's not completely obvious; it seems to me that this one has taken a fair bit of influence from Hellraiser. The plot focuses on a female horror writer who moves with her husband and son to a castle in Italy. She is haunted by memories from when she was a child and found an Ogre living in her basement. It's not long after moving into the castle before these visions return...and it may be more than just a coincidence as she comes to believe there's a murderous ogre living in the basement.

The film was obviously shot on a budget and it was made for Italian TV, so it would be unrealistic to expect something brilliant; but for what it is, this is certainly a very decent horror film. Lamberto Bava may not have as keen an eye as his father Mario did; but he takes time in building up a foreboding atmosphere that really compliments the film well. The central setting, a large castle, makes the perfect place for a story like this to take place in and Lamberto makes the best of it; even if it does involve ripping off superior films at times; such as the Inferno-style pool scene. The plot itself is not quite as good as the atmosphere as several scenes are drawn out far too long and the relationship between the characters is rather strange (particularly between the husband and wife). There's not a great deal of bloodshed, but Bava does get to do a little bit with the special effects. The ogre itself looks really silly and it's a good job that we don't get to see it very often. We do boil down to a fitting, if highly predictable, ending and overall I have to say that this film is much better than expected and comes recommended. Best-selling horror novelist Cheryl (a solid and sympathetic performance by the lovely Virginia Bryant), her husband Tom (the likable Paolo Serra), and their son Bobby (nicely played by Patrizio Vinci) go to a remote castle located in the countryside for summer vacation. Local legend claims that the area is cursed. Cheryl discovers a creepy, hairy, nasty ogre (hulking David Flosi in a strikingly hideous costume) living in the basement. Cheryl has to surmount her deep-seated childhood fear of the beast so she can defeat the foul find. Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava does an expert job of creating and sustaining an eerie and unnerving nightmarish mood. Moreover, Bava eschews the standard blood'n'guts fright flick routine in favor of crafting a compelling and provocative dark adult fairytale-like fable on how the best way to overcome that which frightens us is to face said source head on. Sturdy supporting turns by Sabrina Ferilli as friendly school teacher Anna, Stefania Montorsi as hottie babysitter Maria, and Alex Serra as batty painter Dario. Gianfranco Transunto's glossy cinematography boasts a few fluid tracking shots and plenty of great atmospheric lighting. Fabrizio Sforza's gnarly make-up f/x, Simon Boswell's splendidly spirited spooky'n'shuddery score, and the dank, dark, cobweb-covered cellar set all hit the skin-crawling spot. Well worth watching. Director Edward Montagne does in a little more than one hour what other, more expensive and hyped films fail to do. Mr. Montagne shows us a police story written by Phillip H. Reisman Jr. that while, is not one of the best of the genre, it keeps the viewer involved in all that's going on.

This is clearly a B type movie. In fact, the best thing going for "The Tattooed Stranger" is the opportunity to take a peek at the way New York looked in those years. The crystal clear cinematography by William O. Steiner, either has been kept that way through the years, or has been lovingly restored.

There are great views of New York in the opening sequence. Later we are taken to Brooklyn to the Dumbo section and later on the film travels to the Bronx and the Gun Hill Road area with its many monument stores in the area.

John Miles and Walter Kinsella made a great detective team. Patricia Barry is perfect as the plant expert from the Museum of Natural History. Jack Lord, who went to bigger things in his career, is seen in a non speaking role.

It was great fun to watch a city, as it was, because it doesn't exist any more. This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.

Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.

The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.

The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest. The Tattooed Stranger was another of those rare B-movies that BBC2 screened over Christmas/New Year 2005-2006. See also They Live By Night and The Brighton Strangler.

In this one, a man walking his dog in Central Park comes across an abandoned car and discovers a dead woman inside. She was shot and police then try to identify her with only a tattoo as the main clue. After being identified, the murderer is discovered and is shot in the shootout at the end.

Most of this movie was shot on location in and around New York, so we get to see some areas of the city we don't normally see, especially the back streets.

Mostly unknowns are in the cast, with John Miles getting top billing.

The Tattooed Stranger is worth seeking out. Excellent but rather obscure.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.

Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him! Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.

A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.

The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials. The story: On the island Texel, photographer Bob, who makes a photo shoot for a magazine, meets the mysterious Kathleen. Her free spirit and lust for life intrigues Bob, who has suffered a very traumatic experience shortly before. Her life is not so simple as it seems, however. Through Kathleen, Bob gets entangled in a dangerous network. Will Kathleen be able to win his trust?

Review: The dialogue in this movie is very natural and the story unfolds nicely although it stays a bit on the surface and it would have been nice if the character's 'psychology' would have been worked out a little more. Why do these people do the things they do? What motivates their choices? This is what gives a movie depth and something to think about in my view. The story never reaches an emotional climax, even though the characters go through enough to justify that. So you don't get to know the characters on that deeper level. The actors deliver good work and play in a very natural and 'believable' way, but I think it would have suited the movie better if Kathleen had been played by a younger actress, as this character's naiveness doesn't quite work for a grown-up woman. Camera-work is nice, and there are some great shots of the nature on the island. I give the movie a 7/10. I happily admit that I'm a sucker for a beautiful film, and sufficiently inventive camera movements and angles can be enough to keep my interest in a fairly long film. Not one the length of Gojoe though, even though it had some of the most remarkable cinematography I've seen since the Korean period piece MUSA. However, Gojoe provides far more than just beautiful images (as does MUSA... don't which to imply a contrast) - it's second greatest strength is superb acting, and a fascinating story with some very dark philosophy. I must admit to being quite unsure what the point was it was trying to make in the end, but it definitely provokes some thoughts along the way. Vague ones, but definitely thoughts :p

One department in which the film could have been better is the action. There's a tremendous amount of bloodletting in the film, but the action is all filmed with hyperkinetic close-ups, and frequently obscured by objects in the foreground. It does create some very intense and impressive visuals, but it would have been nice to see some more actual moves, something to make it more believable that the villains could just wade through entire armies laying waste to everyone.

Still, the film is definitely one of the most interesting and most beautiful films I've seen for quite some time. Recommended! This movie rates as one of my all time favourite top 10 movies. Many people seeing it for the first time and knowing little about many of the themes in the movie probably won't understand why I find it so enthralling so I will try to explain...

The movie is very rich in historical detail and cultural insights, and while it has a few minor anachronisms, they are completely forgivable. The story is a retelling of the famous duel between the Monk Benkei and the young Prince Yoshitsune on Gojo bridge. During the fight according to legend Yoshitsune bests Benkei and the monk becomes the prince's loyal retainer. This movie is a revision of that story however and involves war, dark prophecy, and political maneuvering.

One of the main themes in the movie is "Mappo", which is the prophecy by the Buddha that after 1000 years his teachings would fail and the world would fall into chaos. It was believed in Heian Japan, after the eruption of Mt Fuji and the civil war between the Taira (Heike) and the Minamoto (Genji) that the world would fall into anarchy and everything would collapse. It is a time of demons.

Next you have the way in which the movie resolves the issue of Yoshitsune's sword training by the Tenku (Raven Goblins) of Karuma. Defeated clans often escaped into the mountains and disguised themselves as demons to scare the locals off. This is said to be where ninja clans began historically. Yoshitsune's depiction in Gojo nicely accommodates all of this.

Then there is Benkei, and the various strains of Buddhism depicted, including a lot of Esoteric Buddhism of the Shingon sect. These are all depicted quite accurately, and just to add a little extra, the movie manages to convey the power of meditation and Ki energy in a way that makes it integral to the story, i.e. it uses magic realism to add an extra dimension to the film but does it in such a way as to make it tactical and menacing.

All-in-all it is filled with fascinating tidbits and rings surprisingly true-to-life for the period. The scenery and the costuming are also completely unmissable and very authentic. The soundtrack is great, very brooding and ominous. I also thought that the actual acting performances were surprisingly good. Benkei is a great brooding anti-hero, Shanao (Yoshitsune)is depicted as a young man testing his limits and growing increasingly drunk on his own power, and Tetsukichi the scavenging sword-smith makes for and interesting depiction of the "common man" and his less than flattering opinion of the killers who fancy themselves his social betters.

As to the plot, to see why it is so good, I really suggest you dig up an old book on Japanese history and see how this retelling turns an almost lighthearted Robin Hood vs Little John story into a gory tale of intrigue, violence and infernal karma. One of the less widely lauded of recent Asian period action affairs Gojoe is an at first slow and often curious but overall pretty terrific offering, exciting, layered and beautiful. I'm sad to say I know virtually nothing of the Buddhist philosophy or Japanese history and legend that surrounds this film so its deeper meanings are lost on me, but even without contextual knowledge this is still rich fare, taking a traditional fantasy structure into a, impactful higher plane. The story is of Benkei, a warrior monk and perhaps demon who seeks enlightenment by destroying the demon of Gojoe Bridge: Prince Shanao, himself a mortal seeker after his own higher plane but this time the power of demons. Thus the film becomes a matter of illusions and in Benkei's case, indecision, a conflict in which the real goal is self knowledge, for Benkei to come to terms with his true nature and for Prince Shanao to come face to face with the nature of what he seeks to become. Benkei is even more hampered here by the fact that his dark nature makes him fundamentally at odds with the world, even when not in open conflict he is never at ease. Director Sogo Ishii handles this one as an epic, with measured pace, camera work always stylish and often frenzied, without neglecting the need for more sedate moments to let the location sink in, there is also great use of lighting and fog to give an ethereal atmosphere, there is an air of fantasy to much of the film but outside of the overtly supernatural moments it is a down and dirty fantasy with more period fell than flights of fancy. The cinematography of Makoto Watanbe is important here, vivid and detailed, a richly evocative affair. Actingwise Daisuke Ryu is dignified and powerful with a mysterious savagery as Benkei, while Tadanobu Asano has a driven, cold arrogance as Prince Shanao. Of the leads Masatoshi Nagase rounds things out as an ordinary man, smart and cynical but still unaware of just exactly what the stakes are. The film all fits together well, it is however a touch flabby at times, it begins slowly, some shots are a little drawn out and the epic fight scenes at times go on longer than strictly necessary. As for the fighting it is filmed frenetic rather than for actual moves, it has artistic impact but may disappoint regular action fans, often obscured by objects, flashing blades and fast moving individuals, whirling with deadly force through their adversaries are the order of the day, it is invigorating to watch but in the end I could have done with a little more traditionalism. There is some unfortunate cgi bloodshed as well, it somewhat works in the context but is still distracting. Overall though I found this to be a pretty great film, its not one for regular action fans or swordplay enthusiasts seeking another Azumi, rather a deeper and more mystical beast, its ending in particular will not go down well with fans of the more generic wing of such fare. But as for myself it really hit the spot and for those more adventurously inclined it might do so too. Well recommended at any rate. I personally thought the movie was pretty good, very good acting by Tadanobu Asano of Ichi the Killer fame. I really can't say much about the story, but there were parts that confused me a little too much, and overall I thought the movie was just too lengthy. Other than that however, the movie contained superb acting great fighting and a lot of the locations were beautifully shot, great effects, and a lot of sword play. Another solid effort by Tadanobu Asano in my opinion. Well I really can't say anymore about the movie, but if you're only outlook on Asian cinema is Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or House of Flying Daggers, I would suggest you trying to rent it, but if you're a die-hard Asian cinema fan I would say this has to be in your collection very good Japanese film. I have to totally disagree with the other comment concerning this movie. The visual effects complement the supernatural themes of the movie and do not detract from the plot furthermore I loved how this move was unlike Crouching Tiger because this time the sword action had no strings attached and most of the time you can see the action up close.

I think western audiences will be very confused with 2 scenes one of which involves a monk trying to burn himself alive and the other concerning the villagers chanting that it is the end of the world. The mentioned scenes are derived from certain interpretations of Mahayana Buddhist text (Mahayana Buddhism can be found in China, Korea and Japan) and the other scene deals with a quirk in the Japanese calendar...people back then really thought that the world would come to an end... Gojoe has the action, story and visuals to mesmerize any viewer. I strongly believe that with some skillful editing it can be sold in the U.S. My one complaint is in the last fight scene (I can't give anything away--sorry). Sogo Ishii has taken the old myth of Musashibo Benkei and stood it on its head to produce a dark, gory, spellbinding and terrific-looking movie. Those unfamiliar with the legend won't need to be; the story explains itself nicely as it goes along. Well worth seeking out even though there are no English-language home video versions. I am glad I saw this film having seen some of the director's other films in the past. I thought the production values was great like the costumes and settings with the bridge. It was interesting to see how the concept of spirit and demons were handled.

I do agree with some of the other comments about the fight scenes. They were hard to follow at times.

Ultimately, a moral tale. It would be interesting to know what some Japanese viewers thought of the film. It is a film I would like to see again.

Some scenes like the ones where Benkai and the Prince were fighting on a "psychic" level were well done.

I did come out of the cinema thinking what has just happened here. Intense. Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.

Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's "Ran". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near "Ran's" league.

Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's "Seven Swords", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.

Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights. As incredible as it may seem, Gojoe is an anime- and Hong Kong-inspired samurai action flick with a pacifistic message. This ankle of the film is effectively portrayed through the protagonist (a great acting job done by Daisuke Ryu), a killer-turned-to-boddhist-monk Benkei. Benkei has sworn never to kill again, but he still takes up the sword to fight what he thinks is a demon invasion...

Gojoe is a film difficult to rate. It's visual imagery is stunningly crafted and beautiful, but it uses too much trickery (circling camera and high speed drives, expressionistic shots, leeched colors, digital effects etc.), so the end result is somewhat tiring. That said, the beginning and the ending of the film are nevertheless both elegant and powerful. If only the director Sogo Ishii would have been wise enough not to overuse his bag of tricks.

Other problem with Gojoe is the amount of violence. For a film with such an anti-violent message Gojoe wastes way too much energy and screen time to depict the endless battle scenes. Also, the way the violence is shown is always on the edge of being self-indulgent; in fact, a blood shower against the night sky seems to be one of the films signature images. Luckily, Ishii is wise enough to show the ugly, tragic side of violence as well. Still, it seems that Ishii is not sure whether he's making a traditional action film or a deeply moral allegory. The audience can't be sure of this, either, until the very end of the film. The powerful (albeit cynical) ending is what saves Gojoe; it clearly emphasizes that this film is something more than a mere gore-fest. GOJOE takes a little getting used to at first, but the final result is very satisfying. The tale, about a murderous samurai who seeks to redeem himself by opposing an effeminate, but dangerous samurai, is worth more than a watch. There is a lot at stake here, from physical survival to soulful salvation. The movie may seem a bit similar to other anime-inspired Samurai film at first, but it does eventually delve into more mature/adult territory soon after.

Not to be missed. GOJOE is one of the better samurai movies to come around post-Kurosawa.

8 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the movie and reviews of other foreign films) Well, if you are one of those Katana's film-nuts (just like me) you sure will appreciate this metaphysical Katana swinging blood spitting samurai action flick.

Starring Tadanobu Asano (Vital, Barren Illusion) & Ryu Daisuke (Kagemusha). This samurai war between Heiki's clan versus Genji's clan touch the zenith in the final showdown at Gojo bridge. The body-count is countless.

Demons, magic swords, Shinto priests versus Buddhist monks and the beautiful visions provided by maestro Sogo Ishii will do the rest.

A good Japanese flick for a rainy summer night. Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call "period pieces". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003). At two and a quarter hours this is a sometimes slow moving thoughtful film interrupted by vast sword battles. The battle between darkness and light is signified by the constant motif of the blazing sun and is superbly demonstrated by a three way fight between 'demons', bandits and soldiers in a forest during an eclipse.

Be prepared: following a stunning sword fight under lightning filled skies the end of this picture will have you scratching your head in puzzlement. I saw this film and heard the writer-director, Juan Gerard, speak at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival.

All I knew about it was that it was the story of an 8-year-old boy at the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1958 and how it affects his home and family.

Its opening scene will bring to mind "Cinema Paradiso". In fact, the film is filled with references to classic films: The Roulette Wheel (Casablanca), "chicken clucking" (Rebel Without a Cause), references to Bunuel, "Touch of Evil"; you'll find more. The homeless man (Georg Stanford Brown)is a reference to Cuban folklore which often uses a black man as a type of Greek chorus.

What this film really is is the culmination of a dream. Gerard's wish to honor his family and medium of film that he has loved all of his life.

This is the true story of Juan Gerard and all the people in it are real,as are the events depicted. Gerard is actually an architect and engineer (and passionate film lover) but his dream was to make this movie. He and his wife decided to live that dream and Harvey Keitel became an "angel" who believed in Gerard and agreed to produce and star in it. Keitel holds the screen powerfully as the mysterious and secretive grandfather "Che". Brown and Keitel are the only Americans in the cast. Iben Hjejle (High Fidelity) and Gael Garcia Bernal (Y tu Mama Tambien) offer strong support in key roles.

Truthfully, the first half of the film suffers from stiff delivery of lines, and some overracting, but stay with it. The last half is much better as the events of the revolution combine for the bittersweet, and honest climax. It is the first effort of Juan Gerard, but it is honest as he is and his passion and heart really come through,in this sincere first effort. I would definitely see it again, and hope that he continues his film career.

Saw this at the Hawaii Film Festival where the director and his wife (who produced it) took a Q&A afterwards.

I found it hard to believe this is a first time director and all kudos to Harvey Keitel for once again taking a risk and going out on a limb for a script he liked.

Certainly reminiscent of Cinema Paradiso, it tells the story of the young director on the turning of the revolution in Cuba. However, don't expect this to be a movie about the revolution, it's political stance is wonderfully ambiguous. Many references to the directors obvious love of film history (a great "Bicycle Thief" homage") and some whimsical scenes which work with out being pretentious.

Enjoy! This film is a lyrical and romantic memoir told through the eyes an eleven year old boy living in a rural Cuban town the year of the Castro revolution. It is an obviously genuine worthy labor of love.

The names CUBA LIBRE and CUBAN BLOOD are merely attempts to wrongly market this as an action film. DREAMING OF JULIA makes much more sense. It has more in common with European cinema than with RAMBO and the revolution is merely an inconvenience to people's daily lives and pursuits. That fact alone makes the film more honest than most works dealing with this time period in Cuban history.

The excessive use of the voice-over narrator does undermine the story but the film makes up for it with unqualified clips from Hollywood films that say so much more visually than the narrator could.

The comparisons to CINEMA PARADISO and are fair game as the film does wax melancholy about movies, but there is an underlying pain at the loss of a lifestyle that surpasses lost love.

The revolution, like the film JULIE, never seems to have an ending. Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended. Although some may call it a "Cuban Cinema Paradiso", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie. Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually. Dreaming of Julia was the title of the original script, and was filmed in the summer of 2000 in Santo Domingo Republica Dominicana. To release the picture they change the original name to Cuba Libre. The director's cut was 3 and a half hours long. It was released on the festival of Bangkok in Thailand. It was the second film of Gael García Bernal (the first was Amores Perros)

and the first of Juan Gerard as a Director. In the poster the names of Diana Bracho and Cecilia Suares does not appear. Diana plays the grandmother and Cecilia the mother of the kid. They are great actresses and they keep the story together specially Diana. Check her out in other things you would be surprised. I've watched this movie twice now on DVD, and both times it didn't fail to impress me with its unique impartial attitude. It seems more like a depiction of reality than most other Hollywood fare, especially on a topic that is still hotly discussed. Even though it sticks closely with the southern viewpoint, it doesn't fail to question it, and in the end the only sentence passed is that the war is lost, not matter what, and cruelty is a common denominator.

What really makes this movie outstanding is the refusal to over-dramatize. Nowadays truly good movies (in a nutshell) are few and far apart, with mainstream fare being enjoyable (if you don't have high expectations), but terribly commercially spirited. I think this movie comes off as a truly good movie (without being a masterpiece), because it sticks to itself, and gives the viewer a chance to watch and analyze it, instead of wanting to bombard him with effect and emotion to blot out his intelligence. This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.

The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy. Still she doesn't come off as weak, in fact I think she's one of the stronger characters, she's always in control of the relationships, with the men just tagging. And I take it very gratefully that she's not a weeping widow. I believe in the 19th century death of a loved one was something a lot more normal than now. You could die so easily of even minor illnesses and injuries, so the prospect of of someone dying, while surely causing grief, didn't traumatise people like it does now. People didn't seem to build shrines about their lost ones like they do now, and I like that attitude.

My recommendation is for intelligent people to watch this movie, if they are in the mood for something different than the usual hollywood fare. Don't watch if if you want non-stop action or heart-renting emotion. Easily 9 out of 10 for a film by director we will continue to grow to admire. But don't watch this movie expecting to be "entertained." Ang Lee takes an objective look at a relatively unexplored aspect of the Civil War. What is beautiful about the movie, like all of Lee's films, is that he doesn't "side" with his characters. He creates characters, embodies them with life, problems, and ambiguity ... and endows them with a reality that often hits far closer to home than with which many are comfortable. This film has action, but it is not for the action lover since the violence is deeply disturbing and far from gratuitous ... i.e. like the characters, it is real. And as you would expect about one of mankind's most horrific wars, the violence is horrific.

But as an exploration of the greater human ambiguity that surely dwelt within the Civil War, it is a masterpiece. Was the war about slavery and an abolitionism? Lee seems quite willing to blur that line made so popular in depictions like the Blue and the Grey. Neither is about idealism, though, as seen in Gone with the Wind. It is about freedom, about the desire to have something which is yours and to fight for it. As you watch the characters, you will ask yourself "how can they be fighting to preserve slavery?" The fact is, I don't think they really are, and in that the film shows the problem of why so many were caught up in the maelstrom of the Civil War.

The fact seems clear that many of the characters we learn about are fighting out of senses of loyalty to "home" though they may never have examined what home represents or whether they truly espouse its values. The letter scenes are very moving and yet subtle. Jake and Daniel are other examples of loyalty stretched to the limits. And when the tension finally snaps, and these characters find themselves suddenly "free" ... we see the birth of new men.

All this mixed in with Lee's beautiful incorporation of humankind's environment with breathtaking vistas and frames. Lee has a style which is his, somehow European in its "art" (a slow camera, unrushed), Asian in its epic-ness and development of story, and yet somehow familiar and easily accessible to so many in North Americans.

Relax, let go of your preconceptions about what the Civil War is, what the "western" as a genre is, what a war movie should be ... and let Ang Lee take you into a world so fragile, so hard, so real that few of us can comfortably see it.

In this, Lee continues what he wrought in Ice Storm. Again, the movie is slow paced and without apparent "direction" ... a sure sign of Lee's ability to direct without "imposing" himself on the story or screen. His direction is amplified by what he brings out of Jewel (yes, the singer), a hitherto unproven actress who puts in an amazing performance.

A movie for those who love film and are not lovers of the standard Hollywood epic.

In anticipation of Ang Lee's new movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," I saw this at blockbuster and figured I'd give it a try. A civil war movie is not the typical movie I watch. Luckily though, I had a good feeling about this director. This movie was wonderfully written. The dialogue is in the old southern style, yet doesn't sound cornily out of place and outdated. The spectacular acting helped that aspect of the movie. Toby Maguire was awesome. I thought he was good (but nothing special) in Pleasantville, but here he shines. I have always thought of Skeet Ulrich as a good actor (but nothing special), but here he is excellent as well. The big shocker for me was Jewel. She was amazingly good. Jeffrey Wright, who I had never heard of before, is also excellent in this movie. It seems to me that great acting and great writing and directing go hand in hand. A movie with bad writing makes the actors look bad and visa versa. This movie had the perfect combination. The actors look brilliant and the character development is spectacular. This movie keeps you wishing and hoping good things for some and bad things for others. It lets you really get to know the characters, which are all very dynamic and interesting. The plot is complex, and keeps you on the edge of your seat, guessing, and ready for anything at any time. Literally dozens of times I was sure someone was going to get killed on silent parts in the movie that were "too quiet" (brilliant directing). This was also a beautifully shot movie. The scenery was not breath taking (It's in Missouri and Kansas for goodness sakez) but there was clearly much attention put into picking great nature settings. Has that rough and rugged feel, but keeps an elegance, which is very pleasant on the eyes. The movie was deep. It told a story and in doing so made you think. It had layers underneath that exterior civil war story. Specifically, it focused on two characters that were not quite sure what they were fighting for. There were many more deep issues dealt with in this movie, too many to pick out. It was like a beautifully written short story, filled with symbolism and artistic extras that leaves you thinking during and after the story is done. If you like great acting, writing, lots of action, and some of the best directing ever, see this movie! Take a chance on it. This movie is one of the sleepers of all time. I gave it a 10 rating. The story is of the famed 'Bushwhackers' out of Missouri that fought on the side of the South during the War Between the States. The clothing they wore were authentic, the history and why they fought is very accurate and well researched. There was actually one of the battles that did not take place as they depicted... but not bad for Hollywood. The actors were well cast and were either the most brilliant of actors or the director really know how to get the best from them. I suspect it was a combination of great directing, super casting to find the right people and excellent performing by the actors. Not just one or two... this movie really jelled! It has action, romance, suspense, good guys and bad guys (sometimes depending on your individual perspective) and history all rolled into one movie. Even has the future Spiderman and Jewel. And she's good! Taiwanese director Ang Lee, whose previous films include 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Ice Storm', turned to the American Civil War for his latest feature. Based on a novel by Daniel Woodrell, it follows the exploits of a group of Southern guerrillas, known as bushwhackers, as they fight their Northern equivalents, the jayhawkers in the backwater of Missouri.

As one might expect, there is plenty of visceral action, but the focus is on the tension that the war put on the young men who fought it - many of whom were fighting against their former neighbours and even family. Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) is such a man, or rather, boy, as he is only seventeen when the war reaches Missouri. He is the son of a German immigrant, but instead of following his countrymen and becoming a Unionist, he joins his lifelong friend Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and rides with the bushwhackers. Despite a lack of acceptance because of his ancestry and an unwillingness to participate in the murder of unarmed Union men, he remains loyal to the cause. So does his friend Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), a black slave freed by another bushwhacker and so fighting for the South.

Lee handles the subject with aplomb, never rushing the deep introspection that the plot demands in favour of action and this lends the film a sense of the reality of war - long periods of boredom and waiting interposed with occasional flashes of intensely terrifying fighting. The action is unglamorised and admirably candid, recognising that both sides committed a great number of atrocities.

The performances are superb, with Maguire and Wright both courageous and dignified. Up-and-coming Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers is particularly chilling as a cold-blooded killer, while Skeet Ulrich is enjoyably suave and arrogant. Lee never flinches from the reality of war, but his actors do an admirable job of showing the good that comes from it - the growth of friendship, the demonstration of courage and, on a wider scale, the emancipation of oppressed peoples. Ride With the Devil is a beautiful and deeply compassionate film that regularly shocks but always moves the audience. For those who commented on The Patriot as being accurate, (Which basically satanised the English), it was interesting to see this film. By all accounts this was the bloodiest war that Americans have ever been involved in, and they were the only nationality present. It was therefore very refreshing to see something resembling historical accuracy coming from that side of the Atlantic that did not paint America as either martyrs or saviours. All in all though what this film did bring home was the true horrors of any conflict, and how how whatever acts are committed in war only breed worse acts, often culminating in the suffering of the innocent. This was not a film where you cheered anybody on but both pitied and loathed all. Strangely enough this movie never made it to the big screen in Denmark, so I had to wait for the video release. My expectations where high but they where in no way disappointed. As always with Ang Lee there is fantastic acting, an intelligent and thrilling plot that has you guessing right till the end and superb filming. Along with Unforgiven this is easily one of the two best westerns of the 90`s.

People who expect something along the line of Mel Gibson in The Patriot(corny) or Braveheart(acceptable) will be sourly disappointed, all others who appreciate the above mentioned qualities will have a fantastic time watching it. 9 out of 10. The War Between the States was perhaps the darkest hour in the history of America; a war that pitted brother against brother and family against family and left scars that even today have not yet healed, and in all probability never will. And, as in any story about any war, beyond any historical significance it is the personal discord behind the greater conflict that creates the emotional impetus that makes it involving. It is the human element that renders the context necessary to give it perspective, which is what director Ang Lee provides in `Ride With the Devil,' a Civil War drama in which he focuses on the personal travails within the broader depiction of the War itself, and along the way manages to include an examination of one of the bloodiest chapters of the War, the infamous raid on Lawrence, Kansas, by Quantrill and his raiders, which he succeeds in presenting quite objectively from the Confederate point-of-view.

In 1863, the Union influence predominates in the State of Kansas, and even across the border in neighboring Missouri, those with Confederate loyalties are finding it increasingly difficult to hold out against the encroaching Northerners, especially without the aid of what could be considered any `regular' Confederate troops. And when things begin to really heat up around their own town, Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) form a band of their own and join in the fray, doing damage to the Union cause wherever it is practicable. Jack Bull and Jake do not like the War and do not like killing; but they are standing up for what they believe to be right.

There are others, however, even among their own, men like the young Pitt Mackeson (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), who will use the conflict as a vehicle for personal gain and as nothing more than an excuse to express their own violent nature through unnecessary brutality, perpetrated in many instances against innocent victims. And so, for Jack Bull and Jake, as well as many just like them, it becomes a time in which loyalty and moral judgments will be sorely tested; a time during which their souls will be tempered in blood. And they will have to ride with the very Devil himself, against seemingly insurmountable odds.

As with all of his films, director Ang Lee approaches his story through an incisive, yet subtle examination of the traditions, cultural aspects and moral attitudes of the people and times he is depicting. And in so doing, Lee provides his audience with at least some understanding of his subject that goes beyond the actual story and ultimately offers, perhaps, a deeper grasp of the motivations that propel his characters and the drama in which they are engaged. Whether it's the traditions and customs that account for the relationship between a father and his daughters (`Eat Drink Man Woman'), the effects of class distinction (`Sense and Sensibility'), the honor and code by which a warrior lives and dies (`Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon') or the moral ambiguities fostered by a lack of all of the above (`The Ice Storm'), Lee infuses his films with insights into the human condition that take them to a higher level. This film is no exception; and (as he does with all his films), Lee presents his story with the aid of breathtaking cinematography (in this film, by Frederick Elmes, who also did `The Ice Storm' brilliantly), which under his guidance is nothing less than visual poetry. It's that special Lee touch, and it adds a wistful, reflective sense to whatever story he is telling, which is one of the elements that make his films so memorable.

As Jake, Tobey Maguire initially brings a sense of youthful innocence to the film that contrasts so effectively with the maturity he conveys later on as the story develops, and his character along with it. Most importantly, Maguire convincingly and believably responds to the events that unfold around him, which adds to the credibility of the overall film and underscores the realism of the presentation: His stoic acceptance of death and the news of those `murdered' in the various skirmishes and battles; the moral propriety to which those he encounters adhere, even in such troubled times; the betrayal, which because of the nature of the conflict is almost commonplace; and the loyalty and beliefs to which he and his companions cling adamantly. It is all of this that Maguire achieves through his performance, and it is no small accomplishment. It is, however, the kind of studied, understated performance that is often taken for granted, which is unfortunate; work like this is worthy of acclaim, and should be recognized.

Skeet Ulrich is effective, as well, as Jack Bull, and Jewel (in her motion picture debut) turns in an engaging performance as Sue Lee Shelley. It is Jeffrey Wright, however, who stands out in a notable supporting role as Daniel Holt, as well as Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who brings a chilling Christopher Walken-like menace to his role of Pitt. Also, in what amounts to a cameo role (one scene), Mark Ruffalo leaves an indelible impression with very little screen time.

The supporting cast includes James Caviezel (Black John), Simon Baker (George Clyde), Tom Guiry (Riley), Tom Wilkinson (Orton Brown), John Ales (Quantrill), John Judd (Otto Roedel) and Kathleen Warfel (Mrs. Chiles). The Civil War will forever be an open wound upon the nation; but hopefully, as time goes on, it will be through the objective contemplations of filmmakers like Ang Lee and films like `Ride With the Devil' that will ultimately help to close the schism and promote healing. In light of more recent events, it is something that is sorely needed, worldwide. Film is a powerful medium; it can be educational as well as entertaining, and perhaps in the future more filmmakers, like Ang Lee, will embrace and promote a sense of unity through the sensitive depiction of the events and attitudes that make us what we are. 8/10.





Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.

As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.

The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.

There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.

No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any. Ride with the Devil, like Ang Lee's later Brokeback Mountain, is a film of aesthetic and historical importance. Film lovers ought to see it at minimum twice as its artistic nuance is worthy to be over comprehended.

A perfect piece of art, surprising depth of humanity. I really don't recall another war film, will so capture you, will change your existing conception of history and politics, will restore your belief in humanity. After seeing so many killings, so many sufferings , you don't feel yourself numb, instead you treasure the bond between human beings more. The actors' performances haunt your heart, the music drives your mind. Some shoots, are not just some pictures, they transcend themselves, becoming the seeing of soul. Such is the true sense of film being a genre of art.

A film like this doesn't need long comments or reviews, everything it says by itself. Ovation to the cast which includes Tobey Maguire, Jeffrey Wright and Jewel Kilcher, the cinematographer and the composer of the beautiful and lyrical music, what an achievement! After seeing all the Jesse James, Quantrill, jayhawkers,etc films in the fifties, it is quite a thrill to see this film with a new perspective by director Ang Lee. The scene of the attack of Lawrence, Kansas is awesome. The romantic relationship between Jewel and Toby Mcguire turns out to be one of the best parts and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is outstanding as the bad guy. All the time this film makes you feel the horror of war, and the desperate situation of the main characters who do not know if they are going to survive the next hours. Definitely worth seeing. Ride With The Devil directed by Ang Lee(Crouching Tiger) is another gem in this fine directors cap. For those unfamiliar with the history of the Kansas-Missouri border wars during the American Civil War. See this film & you will visit a sad piece of Americana. Besides some superb action scenes (quite bloody at times). This is a story of love & devotion between men & one lady in particular. It stars Toby Maguire, Skeet Ulrich Jeffrey Wright & as the young lady Jewel, I never heard or seen her before, I want to see more of her).The acting is top notch, superb production values, very well written (adapted from a novel)

This is a long film 128 minutes, but well worth seeing.

my rating is ****

respectively submitted

Jay Harris

The star of this film is the screenplay. Attention to detail for the period in dress, language ,social mores ( we don't hurt women) and the politics are remarkable. It is a reminder of Kosovo to-day. The subtle pieces in the action scenes are there for an attentive viewer and the choreography of these action sequences is superb. Perhaps this film is to close to the bone of reality to earn the support it should have received. It is like a staircase of increasing violence with well paced pauses of peace and serenity between each step. A great film.... The most succinct way to describe Ride With The Devil is with but one word: authenticity. I will not rehash what has already been said about this wonderous film, but I would like to say how much the historical research and painstaking attention to detail the crew no doubt went through was appreciated by this filmgoer.

As a student of history familiar with the period and setting of this film, I must say that this production is one of the most accurate fictional films regarding "bleeding Kansas". Yes there were liberties taken on the actual events, as all fiction is apt to do. But the overall feel of the film is genuine. Authentic costumes, authentic attitudes (no PC hindsight here) even the actors look authentic.Even Jewel Kilcher (who has a small part in the film) looked like she stepped form a mid 19th century photograph.

A few viewers I talked with have expressed their incredulity at the stylized dialog. They cannot believe that 19th century farmers would "talk like poets".

What they don't realize is that in this age of verbal slobbishness, the American public public of the 19th century was a surprisingly literate and eloquent bunch. These people were raised on Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible. The screenwriters reconstructed the most likely verbal styles of these people, judging from documentation of the time. The stylized dialog just adds to the magical atmosphere of the film.

But in addition to a historical document, this film works on a visceral level as well. Beautifully photographed and performed, it harkens back to the days of the great western epics. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, done so many times before in so many other, lesser films is portrayed with a sense of urgency that puts the viewer right in the midst of the action.

Romance, adventure, moral and ethical conflict.This film has everything a discerning moviegoer could want.

In a year that was dominated by overhyped garbage like American Beauty, this great artwork was buried by an indifferent studio system. But I am certain that Ride With The Devil will be given it's due in the coming years. Please rent this film. You will not be disappointed. When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.

This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.

The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.

Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.

Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.

Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.

While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.

Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.

An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing. I really enjoyed the detail that went into the script.

Jonathan Rhys Myers (misspelled) and Jewel were outstanding in their support roles. As was Jeffery Wright. Toby McGuire gave as fine a acting job as ever depicted, when he had to amputate his best friend's arm, knowing he would die without the procedure.

Attention to detail, with good dialect coaching to catch the Southern accent incredibly well.

Why this movie was swept under the rug by the Hollywood promoters I can only imagine. I have strong suspicions. Which makes it all the more appealing to me. I have given a dozen DVD copies out for presents.

Completely overlooked movie. Rent or buy it and give it your full attention for a couple of hours, then judge. One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.

When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known. So, neighbor was killing neighbor. Reminds me of Iraq. As I watched the American flag (50 stars in 1864?) being dragged behind the horse, I realized why burning that piece of red white and blue doesn't upset me as much as our destruction/indifference to the Bill of Rights. I'm a Southerner, and must have some historical memory.

Watching the Tobey McGuire character learn to respect the dignity of a former slave, as he looks at the scalps of blacks and Germans (his ethnic background) being wagered at a poker game.....was interesting. Many twists in this movie. The wife, who is forced into her marriage, shows both lust and a strong will, characteristics we're not used to seeing in 'respectable Victorian southern belles'.

The crazy wacked out renegade southerner gave me some insight into why my cousin, head of the Copeland Horse-thieving Gang, Inc. in Mississippi, was hung about that time. Bands of homeless men were roaming the countryside, armed. Remind you of Iraq? And how similar we are underneath the facade of religion and ethnic background? And why southerners are STILL fighting that civil war today.

Too bad we can't use that same knowledge in our handling of the country we've just invaded and are occupying, fomenting civil war everywhere. That's Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, who happen to have the misfortune to sit on oil. The wild-eyed killers in Missouri, raiding Lawrence, Kansas could as easily be the insurgents we're fighting now with no success.

Another anomaly was the father's tribute to the Yankees who move into Lawrence and erect a school "even before they erect a church. And for that reason, they'll win." Huh????? I was taught history in Birmingham, Al and we were taught that the North was much more industrial and richer.....that's why they won. Course, they also LITERALLY had God on their side. As you see here, when the freed slave indicates that he's cutting out to free his mother, sold into slavery in Texas. God, what a horrible legacy slavery gave us.

Acting pretty good, lots of blood and gore as the warriors ride gleefully into battle (but didn't hear any rebel yells, so reminiscent of football games in Alabama). You also get a real feeling for how stupid the war was, as the bushwackers and jayhawkers gather their forces for another raid. They have lost sight of why they're fighting, and so do we. Just more mindless slaughter.

You're also brought up to date with the limbless kids coming home from Iraq, as the bushwacker (ahh, what connotations) first has his arm seared shut, trying to save it, then has it amputated, and then dies. So much suffering for such a stupid cause.

The cinematography is fantastic. Now I have to get back to the DVD and get the production notes, one of my favorite parts of any movie. I suspect that this movie was written by a Gore Vidal, as the spoken language is of a type you would associate with that era, if you knew History. The dialogue is definitely thought-provoking. Not your ordinary blood and guts war movie, by any means. You see the wounded but still active-duty soldiers, still fighting cause they have nothing else to do. You see the southern raiders, living off the land, stealing indiscriminately. Yet, at the beginning, you've seen the battle stop, so the women could be evacuated from danger. As I read the escalating number of women and children dying in Iraq, I'm thinking, "Where did we lose our sense of honor as a people?" I have forgotten why I sought this movie out and bought it after 20 years, but some book somewhere lauded it. With good reason. Tobey at his best, pre-Spideyman. Buy the DVD or rent it. And tell me why others laud this, not just liberals cest moi. Ang Lee clearly likes to ease into a film, to catch action, characters and setting on the hoof, as they emerge. Covering the haphazard endgame of the American civil war via the haphazard actions of a young militia, unformed in mind or manhood, this is an ideal approach. The film turns out to be about the formation of personalities, adulthood and relationships. Lee also shows the beautiful panoramas of the mid-south as a silent character, enduring the strife like a hardy parent.

James Schamus' script is probably the standard bearer for this film; close behind it are a number of well-appointed performances that carry it admirably. Jeffrey Wright's name alone could carry this film for me. He's brilliant here but in a slow burning role: instead we are treated to very good (if not revelatory) performances from a large, often recognisable ensemble.

A noble, optimistic film. One to watch if you don't fancy the harder, more bittersweet Cold Mountain or The Claim, for example. 7/10 I enjoyed this film very much.Tobey Maguire gives a terrific performance as Jake. He has got to be one of the best actors I have seen. And I was surprised there were so many humorous lines throughout the film. He was extremely good at this too although I have never seen him deliver a comic line before. The film gets you involved with the characters and really makes you wonder what is to become of them all. I did not know what to expect from Jewel's performance but I think she did rather well. Lots of exciting scenes. A thoroughly good ride. I am absolutely a fan of Maguire's. Check out Cider House Rules. One of the all time Best Ever. You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.

The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.

Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.

Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.

It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.

It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.

The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.

There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.

This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.

Recommended. Complete success. In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.

It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition. From the excellent acting of an extremely impressive cast, to the intelligently written (and very quotable) script, from the lavish cinematography to the beautiful music score by Carter Burwell, Rob Roy offers a rarity in movie going experiences: one that is nigh impossible to find fault with in any area.

There have been several comparisons made with Braveheart, which came out the same year. With all due credit to Mel Gibson, Braveheart struck me as too much of a self-conscious and preachy epic to rival Rob Roy as the kind of movie I would care to see more than once. While Braveheart works hard to be a serious epic, Rob Roy just grabs you and absorbs you into its tightly edited storytelling. Not a single scene is wasted.

Rob Roy contains the perfect balance of dramatic tension, action and even occasional humor. The characters are well fleshed-out, perfectly conveying vernacular and mannerisms that anchor them in their authentic period setting.

Further, they are not caricatures of good and evil as we all too often observe in even modern film.

For example, while we hope the heroic Rob Roy prevails, we realize his predicaments are products of his own pride and sense of honor. Tim Roth plays one of the most hateful bad guys in the history of cinema, yet there are moments when we can understand how the events of his life have shaped him into becoming what he is. Rob Roy employs a level of character development that makes its story even more believable and gripping.

Rob Roy is a delightful treasure, featuring one of the greatest sword fights ever choreographed and a climatic ending worthy of all the tense anticipation. Michael Caton-Jones's Scottish period piece bears little connection to the Sir Walter Scott novel of the same name...

The film opens in the Scottish highlands, with Robert Roy McGregor and his men hunting down a bunch of cow thieves who have stolen several heads of His Lordship James Graham's cattle... The scene then switches to a sword-fighting contest attended by noblemen with longhair wigs, adorned shirts, soft colored coats, paleface make-up and conventional gestures...

MacGregor lives under the protection of a local lord named Marquis of Montrose... When he enters an ill-advised trade agreement with Montrose, he innocently leaves himself exposed to the malicious plots of Montrose's evil-doers... The unfolding of their perfidy is the most creative and pleasant part of the movie, though it takes a repugnant turn with a violent rape... When Rob Roy is finally compelled to rebel against the English soldiers, the action becomes well understood, ending with the predictable duel between him and an expert with the blade...

Liam Neeson injects heroism and passion to his character... He is intelligent, fair and virile... He carries his height with grace as the Scottish chieftain of a small community... He is a loving father, a passionate lover, and a noble husband, driven to desperate acts by dastardly villains... He'd rather die than tell a lie or betray a trust...

Oscar winner Jessica Lange gives the film class as the strong robust devoted wife, a proud peasant woman, brutally raped by an icy psychotic aristocrat... Lange's lines are filled with dignity and integrity: 'I will think on you dead, until my husband makes you so. And then I will think on you no more.'

John Hurt brings his usual clever touch with character roles to make Montrose something more than a greedy Marquis, ruthless with money and tempered by the English court's fashion for foppery... He is a pompous arrogant man with two villainous servants at his service... Honor, in his view, seems a quaint notion... He has two objectives: ruin the reputation of his rival, the Duke of Argyle, and to hunt down the fugitive MacGregor... He sends his soldiers to burn the Highlanders' homes, to kill their people and their livestock...

Tim Roth—the perfect antithesis to the hero, is fearsome and strangely an effeminate enforcer... He is a penniless British aristocrat, a nasty 'hired sword' wonderfully evil, ravishing and murdering his way through the Scottish mist... His name is Archibald Cunningham... He turns out to be a liar, a thief and a murderer... He dismisses himself as 'but a bastard abroad, seeking his fortune and the favors of great men," and therefore can't care about anyone else: "Love is a dung hill and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow." He even jokes that he once raped a young boy whom he mistook for a girl...

Cunningham seems pathetic... He smiles foolishly, and utters words with affected refinement, but not terribly harmful-until a muscular swordsman insults him, and we discover that he's a cool head and an expert with a sword... He really does steal the film with a performance that earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination...

And while Brian Cox is suitably odious as Killearn, Andrew Keir is Montrose's rival, the powerful local aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, one of the few trustworthy men McGregor meets outside his own family...

Set in 18th-century Scotland, and with an atmospheric musical score, 'Rob Roy' is really a love story between a man and his wife, a recognizably human story, unjustly dwarfed by Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart,' that does tell essentially the same story of provincial resentment of overbearing English landlords... This is a strong movie from a historical and epic perspective. While the story is simple it is pure and straightforward. In truth, it is the standard story of a simple, honorable man whose honor comes into conflict with the more educated and wealthier men of the period.

Poor vs. Rich, honorable vs. dishonorable, a classic but well-told tale without much of the glitz of hollywood stinking up the screen.

Extra points just because you can almost smell the people on the screen. :) This is one powerful film. The first time I saw it, the Scottish accents made it tough for me to understand a lot and that ruined the viewing experience. I gave up on it but then acquired the DVD, used the English subtitles when I needed them, and really got into this movie, discovering just how good it is. It is excellent.

The widescreen picture makes it spectacular in parts, with some wonderful rugged scenery and the story reminded me of Braveheart, an involving tale of good versus evil. Here, it's Liam Neeson (good) vs. Tim Roth (evil). Both do their jobs well.

Few actors come across as despicable as Roth. Man, you really want to smack this guy in his arrogant, irritating puss. (He is so nasty and vile the sick critics love his character more than anyone else's here). Neeson is a man's man and a solid hero figure as Gibson was in Braveheart. Jessica Lange is strong in here as the female lead. The movie draws you in and gets you totally involved, so prepared to have an emotional experience viewing this. What can one say about a film that has one of the blackest, most nihilistic, and occasionally most weirdly -I wont say 'sympathetic'..I will say 'charismatic' villains in the history of the Cinema, and the best sword fight since Flynn and Fairbanks were in their heyday? This is an epic about a stubborn, sometimes foolish, incredibly courageous and honest mans fight for his honor and freedom against tyranny. I loved it. John Hurt and Tim Roth were great villains. Jessica Lange was very moving, tender, and sensual. MAJOR SPOILERS!! THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!!

Commenters have touched on the major theme of "honor" in the film, and too many comparisons to "Braveheart." I'll point out a few things about this movie that I have not seen other comments touch on:

This movie has a decidedly different take on abortion. The first character to get pregnant is the villain's (Roth) girlfriend, and when he coldly suggests an abortion, she states it is too late for that. The shame of her situation ("I'm to have a bastard's bastard.") leads her to commit suicide in a much later scene. The second character to find herself pregnant is Mary, Rob's wife, after a rape by Roth's character (and at least one sex scene with her husband, Rob). Late in the movie, as Rob is leaving for a final confrontation with Roth, Mary asks what she should do about the pregnancy of questionable origins, with a tone hinting of abortion. Rob replies in a noble tone, "it's not the fault of the child," and then states what he thinks the name should be, girl or boy. I find this "pro-life" stance on the part of the hero to be very un-Hollywood. Rob walks from the darkness of the house to the bright outside to make this comment -- not coincidental symbolism.

Another related theme is Roth's character is a bastard, someone who evidently does not know who his father was, and has few kind words for his mother, though he wears a picture of her in a case hung from his neck. Is it coincidence that Roth (devoid of family stability) is the walking definition of psychopath, while Rob is the strong husband/father figure, and of course the hero. In the final sword fight between Rob and the villain (Roth), the former slices the latter deeply across the chest -- the left side of the chest, over the heart. His employer and pseudo-father figure (John Hurt character) holds the mother's picture in his hand and gazes at it, before snatching it from the neck of the dead Roth.

Also what I find interesting was the direction of the rape scene, which was not quite graphic but neither was it off-camera and implied. I found it surprising in it's somewhat matter of fact depiction, with Mary convincingly showing the characteristics of someone going through the ordeal, and subsequent post traumatic stress (as we call it now). My point being that the rape was neither sensationalized nor just implied, which I find an interesting middle road for Hollywood to take.

In the final fight scene, I have to correct an earlier commenter: The weapon Roth chose was a rapier (or perhaps a short sword), the weapon Rob chose was a Claymore. Someone was really doing their homework on this entire scene. Roth would have the upper hand in such a situation, but of course the Claymore is a distinctly Scottish weapon. What is even more striking to me (as a fencer and someone who has read a bit on the subject) is that this final sword fight is one of the most convincing of any film ever made: The actors seem actually trying to kill each other -- not the usual slashes to the opponents blade we see in most movie fights (including the movies opening fight). Even more true to history, Roth is seen several times using the rapier as a thrusting weapon, which is it's purpose by design! (Rapiers were edged, but primarily a thrusting weapon with the edges used mainly for parrying an opponents thrust.) Rob uses the Claymore in broad slashes, as it's design intent. The fight goes down as I would expect it to -- Roth effectively wins. Though Rob wins the day by grabbing Roth's weapon (more symbolism) and striking him dead with a powerful slashing cut.

Folks, it is RARE to see this level of historical accuracy in a movie sword fight.

I'll also note that for whatever reason, I remember 1995 (the year of release) distinctly as a time of distrust of the U.S. government. Hollywood was obviously tuned into that, with the release of both "Rob Roy" and "Braveheart," and I think the anti-government leanings are why both films get so much comparison.

I think the different perspective that this film gives is refreshing to avid movie fans, tired of the same old, not so hidden messages from Hollywood. **Attention Spoilers**

First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...

it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to "Braveheart". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". I like "Braveheart" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to "Rob Roy" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love "Braveheart", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love "Rob Roy". Here are my particular reasons...

-"Rob Roy" is about real people.

Let's face it, the William Wallace in "Braveheart" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.

The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a better film than "King of Kings", and that is also one of the reasons why I think "Rob Roy" is better than "Braveheart". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.

Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in "Braveheart". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.

Throughout "Rob Roy", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.

The villains in "Rob Roy" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in "Braveheart" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in "Braveheart", but from Brutus in "Julius Ceasar" to Fredo in "The Godfather Part II", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism.

"Rob Roy" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. "See to it that I am not mocked" are his favorite words to his "factor". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.

Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in "Rob Roy", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.

Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. "Rob Roy" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.

Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.

- The final duel in "Rob Roy" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in "Braveheart".

One thing I get tired of is people telling me that "Braveheart" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From "Spartacus" to "Gladiator", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. "Braveheart" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.

Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...

First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.

The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell "FREEDOM!". But hey, maybe that's just me.

- "Rob Roy" is more realistic than "Braveheart"

I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in "Rob Roy", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by "Rob Roy" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. "Rob Roy" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.

By contrast, the dialogue in "Braveheart" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before "Rob Roy", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of "Aye"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.

So, do these descriptions prove that "Rob Roy" is a better film than "Braveheart"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". To put simply, "Rob Roy" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. "Braveheart" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...

Grade - A Score - 9 Overshadowed by "Braveheart" released the same year, the two costume dramas beg comparison. I admit my bias against Mel Gibson, yet I maintain a rational preference for "Rob Roy." Both "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" compellingly depict Scots history in bloody, romantic fashion. "Braveheart" is an epic paean to individual honor and courage and a fine revenge fantasy. It's also melodramatic, anachronistic and maudlin. Note its cornball usage of slow motion filming. Its violence is both ugly and glorious. It is the latter quality which makes it more appealing to the adolescent mindset. While "Braveheart" surpasses "Rob Roy" in sheer levels of carnage (not to mention its indulgent running time), the latter film is ultimately more mature and satisfying. Its action is more understated, yet more surprising and clever. Its sex is less showy, yet more erotic. "Rob Roy" also has a better realized romantic interest. Its dialog attempts to approximate the poetry of the period. Its rotted teeth in the mouths of the actors attempt to approximate the dentistry of the era. And Tim Roth is a superlative villain. Also recommended: "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Patriot." You may find the latter more akin to "Braveheart" with its emphasis on blood lust, with the former more similar to "Rob Roy" in tone. All the of the aforementioned movies merit their R ratings for violence. This sweeping drama has it all: top notch acting, incredible photography, good story. It is often compared to "Braveheart" because both movies take place in historical Scotland. Even though I love Braveheart, I think this is the better of the two films. Jessica Lange gave an incredible performance (should have been nominated for an Oscar). Liam Neeson is fantastic in the title role. Tim Roth plays one of the most evil, despicable, characters in film history (he was nominated for an Oscar). John Hurt is excellent as Lord Montrose, another dislikeable character. I am always amazed at the incredible range of characters that John Hurt can play. This is a story of a dispute over money between Rob Roy and his clan, and Lord Montrose. Rob Roy is a self made man, who will not solve his problems with Montrose if it violates his sense of honor. Montrose, who, inherited his title, has no sense of honor. And that is basically what this story is all about; honor of the common man versus corruption of the nobility. This movie is very entertaining, it should appeal to all. It has romance, action, beautiful scenery, and has a exciting plot. One of my favorite films. This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.

The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.

Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.

Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word "honour" 1 too many times.

The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.

The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.

All in all just shy of a classic. Its not Braveheart( thankfully),but it is fine entertainment with engaging characters and good acting all around. I enjoyed this film when it was released and upon viewing it again last week,find it has held up well over time. Not a classic film,but a very fine and watchable movie to enjoy as great entertainment. This is the moving tale of Scotland's legendary hero, Rob Roy, and his battles with the feudal landowners. Like Braveheart to which it is frequently compared, it is not very historical. Despite their primarily fictional nature, I rate both of these movies highly and would be hard pressed to choose between the two. The 13 Century William Wallace is, as others have noted, a larger than life national figure, while the early 18th Century Rob Roy comes across as an honourable but ordinary Scotsman.

The story revolves around a clan chieftain, Robert Roy McGregor, who lives in a Scottish highland cottage with his wife Mary and their two young sons. As the movie begins, he and his fellow clansmen are hunting down some thieves who have stolen the local lord's cattle. Rob Roy then wishes to improve the living conditions of his people so arranges to borrow one thousand Scottish pounds from a local noble, the Marquis of Montrose, in order to buy cattle to herd to market. He temporarily entrusts this money to his friend, Alan McDonald. When both McDonald and the money turn up missing, Rob Roy finds himself in conflict with Montrose as well as his despicable protégé, Archibald Cunningham, and his sleazy factor, Killearn. Rob Roy's honour is also tested when Montrose seeks to involve him in false testimony against his rival, the Duke of Argyle, whom he wishes to accuse of being a Jacobite.

The charismatic Liam Leeson is brilliant as the kilted highlander Rob Roy, an intelligent, virile, and noble hero and a man whose sense of honour is pivotal to this tale. Personally, I feel that this is Neeson's best performance, his brogue (albeit Irish) adding authenticity for the average viewer. Rob Roy is a stubborn, proud, courageous, and honest man whose word can be trusted. He is a loving husband & father, and also touchingly loyal to his friend, McDonald, who is accused of robbing him.

Tim Roth masterfully portrays his major adversary and surely one of the most heinous and sadistic cinematic villains, Archibald Cunningham, an egotistical, ruthless strutting peacock. He is very effeminate for someone who makes it his major business to ravish the local women, whether willing or otherwise. The pathetic Cunningham himself constantly refers to the fact that he is a bastard unaware of his own father's identity, though this hardly justifies his horrendous misdeeds of murder, rape, and thievery. Also, he mercilessly casts aside the young servant girl, Betty, after she becomes pregnant with his child, resulting in her suicide. John Hurt plays the arrogant and foppish Montrose, who is eventually implied to be Cunningham's father.

The movie is essentially the very believable love story between an ordinary man and his wife, beautifully depicting the passionate relationship between Rob Roy and Mary. Those who question the presence of passion within marriage should watch this husband and wife! I think the phrase used by this pair, 'How fine you are to me...' is surely one of the most beautiful expressions of love in all cinema.

The most compelling performance is possibly by Jessica Lange as Rob's wife, Mary McGregor. Lacking make up, she has the pretty but natural look of a sturdy peasant wife and mother. The actress brings great courage and dignity to her role when she is brutally raped by the despicable Cunningham, while the disgusting Killearn looks on. Her dialogue is plain spoken but filled with pride and grace. I give Hollywood its due that for once they showed just enough in the rape scene to reveal its cruelty as well as Mary's pain and humiliation, but nothing intended to sensationalize. Their kinsman, Alastair McGregor, shows emotional anguish when he learns of Mary's rape, and further torment when she swears him to secrecy never to reveal to her husband her violation by Cunningham.

Of course this film features the beautiful scenery of the Scottish highlands, also lavish period costumes and appropriate musical scoring. There are no grand battle scenes as in Braveheart, but continuous engaging action and a particularly gripping sword fight in the final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham. This is a captivating movie featuring both tense action and a beautiful love tale. The early to mid 90s were a high point, in my opinion, for the historical drama. Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Rob Roy - all portrayed a distinctive passion and intensity in their respective time periods.

Rob Roy was a unique and intriguing taste of a time and place rarely represented by film. It really has everything - interesting story, great acting, remarkable dialog, and breathtaking scenery. I was particularly impressed by the apparently genuine dialog. I can imagine this is how early 18th century people spoke and behaved.

Something else that surprised me was the vulgarity expressed by the characters. I found it to be more repulsive and shocking, albeit often more subtle, than most found in films set in modern times. The movie had a very racy and sexually charged edge to it that was unique and most likely very realistic in the context of the era.

The pace was very tight, with hardly a dull moment. There was much intrigue and political subplots that complicated things a bit, but yet did not detract from the main storyline.

The action was also very well done and gripping. Something that I will forever find remarkable is that during the highlight action piece in the film, there is no soundtrack whatsoever. It makes for a very tense, exciting sequence, since we have no musical cue as to the direction and resolution of the scene.

Rob Roy will always remain high on my list of favorite films. I would recommend it to all. Liam Neeson portrays the Scottish legend Robert Roy Macgregor from the early 18th century. He is a true actor. He captivates the audience with his charisma as he does in all his roles. Jessica Lange is excellent as his wife Mary. Mary is such a beautiful woman. It's her love that makes Rob Roy the legend, but it's his passion that makes her love undying. They need each other. Tim Roth as the evil Cunningham is perfect; in one way or another, upon watching the movie, you will find Cunningham disgusting. The Scotland scenery is beautiful. The environment and conditions of the times are depicted quite well. If you like history, romance, passion and love, you'll enjoy Rob Roy. There is violence and blood, but it's unavoidable in telling this story as it should be told; no gratuitous violence. And you do have to listen carefully if you're not used to a Scottish accent. One important point that makes this movie so good is that no one actor or actress is glamorized; they get dirty and actually look unattractive in various scenes. It's their skill as actors that attracts you, they don't rely on marquee names, popularity or sex symbol appeal. This is something special. Mel Gibson's Braveheart was a spectacularly accomplished film, but it left a sour taste in the mouth. Rob Roy, by contrast, is slightly less polished, but a better film by far. This is a historical film which combines timeless themes with truly historical values, whereas Braveheart put a gross and unpleasant comtemporary gloss on an ancient tale. What makes this film is the cast. Liam Neeson plays the hero, in a role he basically reprised (in a watered-down fashion) in the Phantom Menace. The character is heroic, but is neither the greatest fighter nor the most demonic lover. Admirable yet human, he commands the screen. Against him are set a selection of equally human adversaries including Tim Roth's Cunningham, obnoxious but brilliant, and John Hurt's morally bankrupt laird. Also to praise is Jessica Lange, as Rob's pragmatic wife: also strong and noble, but 300 years away from a modern heroine, which is only as it should be. This is not the most original film you will see, but it has the courage of its own convictions, and the strong performances make you care. To bad for this fine film that it had to be released the same year as Braveheart. Though it is a very different kind of film, the conflict between Scottish commoners and English nobility is front and center here as well. Roughly 400 years had passed between the time Braveheart took place and Rob Roy was set, but some things never seemed to change. Scottland is still run by English nobles, and the highlanders never can seem to catch a break when dealing with them. Rob Roy is handsomely done, but not the grand epic that Braveheart was. There are no large-scale battles, and the conflict here is more between individuals. And helpfully so not all Englishmen are portrayed as evil this time. Rob Roy is simply a film about those with honor, and those who are truly evil.

Liam Neeson plays the title character Rob Roy MacGregor. He is the leader of the MacGregor clan and his basic function is to tend to and protect the cattle of the local nobleman of record known as the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt). Things look pretty rough for the MacGregor clan as winter is approaching, and there seems to be a lack of food for everyone. Rob Roy puts together a plan to borrow 1000 pounds from the Marquis and purchase some cattle of his own. He would then sell them off for a higher price and use the money to improve the general well-being of his community. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? Problems arise when two cronies of the Marquis steal the money for themselves. One of them, known as Archibald Cunningham, is perhaps the most evil character ever put on film. Played wonderfully by Tim Roth, this man is a penniless would-be noble who has been sent to live with the Marquis by his mother. This man is disgustingly effeminate, rude, heartless, and very dangerous with a sword. He fathers a child with a hand maiden and refuses to own up to the responsibility. He rapes Macgregor's wife and burns him out of his home. This guy is truly as rotten as movie characters come. Along with another crony of the Marquis (Brian Cox) Cunningham steals the money and uses it to settle his own debts. Though it is painfully obvious to most people what happened, the Marquis still holds MacGregor to the debt. This sets up conflict that will take many lives and challenge the strengths of a man simply fighting to hold on to his dignity.

Spoilers ahead!!!!!

Luckily for the MacGregor's, a Duke who is no friend to the Marquis sets up a final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham to resolve the conflict one and for all. This sword fight has been considered by many to be one of the best ever filmed. Cunningham is thought by many to be a sure winner with his speed and grace. And for most of the fight, it looks like these attributes will win out. Just when it looks like Rob Roy is finished, he turns the tables in a shockingly grotesque manner. The first time you see what happens, you will probably be as shocked as Cunningham! Rob Roy is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and perfectly paced. The score is quite memorable, too. The casting choices seem to have worked out as Jessica Lange, who might seem to be out of her element, actually turns in one of the strongest performances as Mary MacGregor. The film is violent, but there isn't too much gore. It is a lusty picture full of deviant behavior, however. The nobility are largely played as being amoral and sleazy. The film has no obvious flaws, thus it gets 10 of 10 stars.

The Hound. I question anyone saying they don't care for this movie. Some reviewers have said it didn't have enough action, some said it was too long, etc. Don't listen to them!!! If you like Shawshank Redemption and/or Braveheart, you will definitely love this movie!

The acting performances are superb! Tim Roth, John Hurt and Jessica Lang are allsuperb and Liam Neeson does an admarible job and is a very imposing character because of his size. The Cinemaphotography was brilliant and breathtaking. It is onw of the few movies I have seen in my life (along with Shawshank) that was virtually flawless from casting, directing, writing, acting, etc.!!!

I was amazed this wasn't in the top 50 or 100 movies reviewed. I felt so passionately about it that I just registered with IMDB so I could let everyone know the real scoop. I have seen this movie about 10 times (each time with a different person) and everyone has loved it! You must be awake and pay attention carefully for the first 30 minutes because they introduce quite a few characters in the beginning. If you have the attention span longer than most of these juvenille kids writing reviews for the movies on this site, than you will love this movie! Come on...all 3 Lord of the Rings movies in the top 9 and the Matrix at #32?!?! That should show you the age range of most reviewers here!

This is a top 50 movie!!! Rob Roy is and underrated epic of passion and action!SOME MILD SPOILERS WITHIN. Liam Neeson gives a towering performance as Rob Roy MacGregor,one of the best in his career.Jessica Lange is letter-perfect as his wife Mary.They have the most passion and chemistry I've seen in a screen couple.John Hurt gives his best snotty aristocrat performance.Tim Roth portrays one of the great screen villains.His rape of Mary is repugnant and harrowing.He really is a magnificent bastard in this movie.The final duel between Rob and Cunningham is one of the best swordfights ever.Well scripted ans scored,and Michael Caton-Jones direction is flawless. 10 out of 10. When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing. A very engaging, intelligent, and well-made film. Liam Neeson and Tim Roth play their roles superbly. The cinematography is outstanding. The fight scenes are amazing. This is a film I will enjoy watching again and again. One of my favorites. I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, "Rob Roy" scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a "popular" film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And "Rob Roy" has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than "Braveheart"--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!) This is a very exciting and romantic film. I have seen it several times and never get bored with it. Everything is realistic and it is a good plot. The actors are excellent Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, Tim Roth and Brian Cox.

I actually prefer this film to Braveheart as Braveheart contain so many historical misstakes. There is many exciting scenes - watch out for the Bridge Scen and the last fencing scene. This is really good and surprising scenes.

The music are lovely...it really suits to the movie. The setting is amazing. I haven't seen this film in years so my knowledge is a little rusty. I do remember thinking that this film is twice the film of Braveheart. It is simply more realistic and has more believable characters. Ridb Roy looks like one would imagine Rob Roy to look like, messy hair and beard with simple clothing. Also the Liam Nesson has a Celtic look about him, he looks like a Scot and more importantly looks like Rob Roy. It's a comparison which angers some people but compare him to Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Gibson is supposedly playing a man who's legend has caused him to be described as a 6 foot 7 giant while Gibson is almost a foot shorter. The story contains a little romance, conspiracy and an underdog story. Sound anything like Braveheart? But instead of a film that cries out "freedom", liberty and nationalism we get a film which says honour, love and justice. This makes it a more interesting film. Much like Gladiator. The cast is fantastic and Liam Nesson is a very strong leader in this endeavour. The story is great with how it deals with heroism and humanity. The scene where Mary is raped and she walks out of the burning house with a look of true Scottish strength is followed by her washing the semen from her crotch in an extreme panic. This is something a heroine in Braveheart would never do. Overall this is a stunning and almost flawless watch. Go and see it! The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.

It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of "Scottish Robin Hood" who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...

Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual.

Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.

All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...

And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.

ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically "highlands of entertainment" and rate it 9/10 I first saw Rob Roy twelve years ago. With little money for entertainment, I rented it for my fiancé and I to watch on a bone chilling winter's night. The movie I had wanted was gone, so I rented this instead, not expecting much, and was very much surprised with how good it was. I just recently watched it again, and loved it every bit as much as the first time.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about Scottish outlaw Robert Roy MacGregor, a cattleman and folk hero. From the little I know about the man and his story, liberties have been taken with the facts, but it's a movie, not a textbook, and so the filmmakers can be excused. Basically, the plot of the movie is that Rob Roy borrows money from the Marquis of Montrose to buy cattle which he then intends to sell and reap a large profit from. But, his plan is foiled when the friend entrusted with the money is robbed of the cash and murdered in the forest. Our hero finds himself on the run after failing to settle the matter with the Marquis, and Mary, his wife, suffers a sadistic rape at the hands of Archibald Cunningham, a smarmy Englishman with no soul. Atrocities ensue, until, in an immensely satisfying conclusion, Rob carves Archibald up like a Christmas turkey.

There are many great performances in this movie, but allow me to touch specifically on a few. Liam Neeson, as usual, is fantastic, a sexy beast you can't take your eyes off of. Honestly, this man is like ice cream: even when he's bad he's good. His Rob Roy is an honourable man struggling to provide for those who depend on him, in the best way he knows how. Jessica Lange, as Mary, gives this woman a fierceness which is a nice change from the simpering, dull movie wives audiences are usually forced to endure. You just know she doesn't take any b.s from Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Tim Roth is completely over the top with his portrayal of the evil Archibald, yet somehow, it works. All the posturing and preening, combined with some wicked dialogue, result in one of the most memorable movie villains in recent memory. Combine all of this, and the stellar work by other supporting players, with the luscious scenery of Scotland, and you have what amounts to one really, really cool movie. If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you do. I had never heard of Robert Roy MacGregor before "Rob Roy" came out, but the movie is definitely worth seeing. Playing the title character, Liam Neeson brings the same spirit to the role that he brought to Oskar Schindler, and Jessica Lange also does a really good job as his wife Mary. Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) is one person very likely to make your skin crawl.

All in all, this comes out as good as "Braveheart" (maybe even better). I laugh when I think of how Hollywood released two movies almost back-to-back taking a swipe at England. Very good. Also starring John Hurt, Eric Stoltz, Brian Cox and Jason Flemyng. It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.

I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I.

As the "man" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).

If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss. Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant. This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week! In this grim melodrama, Barbara Stanwyck plays the eldest of three wealthy sisters who become orphans when their father dies in France. Threatened with the danger of losing the opulent family home, Big Sister makes a grand sacrifice and secretly marries a real estate developer so she can inherit her... aunt's fortune. A few years later, she learns that he is after the family estate and wants to tear it down so she leaves him and tries to stop him. More time passes and the husband ends up taking her to court when he learns that she has borne him a son without telling him. The part of "Gig Young" was played by actor Byron Barr who later assumed the name before he became famous.

Anyone interested in purchasing a copy let me know by writing to me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com One woman, by herself in a house for 45-minutes of screen time, doesn't sound like a formula to hold you on the edge-of-your-seat... but FUTURE SHOCK is truly as thrilling as they come! Writer / star Vivian Schilling takes on those little fears we all suppress, and enlarges them to terrifying proportions, so don't watch this film alone! Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for "10" to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself! I saw the film at the Nashville Film Festival. It was beautifully done, from cinematography to the acting. It's the story of a father and son, and how they come to appreciate each other during a family crisis. Beautifully written with dialog that never rings false, the film showcases the acting talents of Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, among others in this outstanding cast. The film begins with the aging father (Peter Falk)is trying to figure out why his wife (Olympia Dukakis) has left him. The father presents himself, unannounced, on the doorstep of his son and daughter-in-law. The father and son take off the next day to look at some property and end up taking a classic road trip. They fish, play pool, watch a baseball game, get drunk, get involved in a barroom brawl, and dance with strange women. But more important, they each confront the unspoken tensions that can affect any family. It's the kind of film that touches the heart and makes one appreciate those who are closest to them. "The Thing About my Folks" came in as a surprise. We had no idea about what to expect. The film directed by Raymond DeFelitta, and based on a screen play by one of its stars, Paul Reiser, proved to be a pleasant time at the movies. Although the film is predictable and we know what will be the outcome, this is a voyage of discovery where Ben gets to know his father, perhaps for the first time in his life, Ben sees his father for what he really is, and not the mythical figure he has in his mind.

The film seems to be a vehicle for its star, Peter Falk, and he runs away with the movie, as it was expected. Mr. Falk, one of the most endearing actors working in movies in this era and in past years, is an actor of such stature, he must be reckoned with. As Sam Kleinman, the distant father to Ben, he is a man that clearly is misunderstood, not only by Ben, but it appears by the whole family and his wife of forty-seven years.

When Muriel, the matriarch of the Kleinman clan, runs away, everyone goes into a panic because this woman, who has been the strong figure of the family, is vital to keep everyone together. Not knowing where she has gone, Sam shows up at Ben's house confused as he feels abandoned, suddenly, by the woman he married and has been faithful for all those years.

Ben, the youngest son, takes his father on a trip to look for a house he wants to buy so he can get his own family out of Manhattan into the country. The trip provides the excuse for Ben to bond with his father in ways he never knew about because the old man had always projected an aloof figure to his younger son. Along the way, father and son realize how much they love one another and how misunderstood the old man has been by his children. The love of Sam for Muriel spans the many years they have known one another; they seem inseparable.

Peter Falk is magnificent in the film. He makes an excellent Sam Kleinman, the man who suddenly realizes his life is about to change for the worst. Mr. Falk shines as the older man and there's never a false movement in his interpretation of the man whose whole world is crumbling under him.

Not being a Paul Reiser fan, we must confess that as Ben Kleinman, he is right. Ben and his father discover how much in common they both have and their love for Muriel, the mother that has sacrificed her life in order to keep the family together. Olympia Dukakis is only seen at the end of the film. She makes a good contribution as the fleeing mother. Elizabeth Perkins plays Rachel with great style..

The film has a beautiful look thanks to the cinematography of Dan Gillham, and the excellent musical score by Steven Argila. Ultimately, the film shows a great team effort between its director, Mr. DeFelitta and Paul Reiser who wrote it for the screen.

Although this film is clearly targeted for an older audience, it should please anyone. I also viewed this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival. It was an excellent film about adult family relationships. Paul Reiser wrote the film and included some similarities to his family. It was funny, warm, poignant, and moving, as well as entertaining. A film like this would do very well with the word of mouth reviews. I would definitely tell my friends and family to see this film. Let's only hope they'll have the chance. I would rate this film as one of the best movies I've seen in a year. It contains no violence, action scenes, murders, sex, so evidently distributors question whether or not to pick it up. Believe me, there are people out there who would love to go see a movie like this that has redeeming value, instead of the many typical big box office blockbusters we are usually given. I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this #4. The 900+ theater was full and at the end it received a standing ovation. This was classic Peter Falk if you are a Falk fan and displayed a lot of chemistry between the Peter Falk and Paul Reiser characters. The film's title seemed to long and too odd sounding to me. I am surprised this didn't make it into general release. This was far better than the majority of junk that the major studios throw at you. Maybe too adult in that it was geared to the baby boomer and senior audience. A lot of people could relate to situations in this movie. This will probably enjoy a revival of sorts years from now when people look back at this film and consider it a kind of a gem. I would rate this 8.0 to 8.5 on a scale of 10 and definitely recommend it. So fortunate were we to see this fantastic film at the Palm Springs International Film festival. Upon entering the theater we were handed a small opinion card that would be used for our personal rating of the film. Looking at the card I turned to my wife and said, "How many movies in your life do you think you can rate as superb? Only about 5 for me." But then watching the interaction between Peter Falk and Paul Reiser while viewing the spectacular scenery in the film's setting of New York state, I slowly starting bumping the movie up a category at a time. Certainly it was good but the totally natural repoire of the actors and an award winning performance by a man who will unfortunately probably be remembered for a raincoat wearing detective rather than this film, the movie jumped to the excellent level.

By the end of the film there were few dry eyes in the house and my usually stoic and callous heart melted just like the Grinch's and I ended up giving this a superb.

This picture is a must for anyone who has parents. No violence or nudity but some strong language. I was looking through the movie listings in my area on yahoo and seen a movie that had not been advertised. I looked closer and noticed that Peter Falk and Paul Reiser were in it. Having watched "Mad about you", once, I was not a fan of Paul Reiser. However, I am a big fan of Peter Falk. So the spouse and I took a chance. We were both swept into this story. The beautiful scenery, the heartfelt acting and the sense of family and moral values that are seldom seen in movies and the world today. Not that sappy emoted junk, but real life situations from real life-like people. I even have to say, Paul Reiser was excellent, although, I still won't watch "Mad about you". I don't know where this movie has gone. I heard it was put out in limited release. It should be shared with the world. It is one of the finest movies I have seen. M. My favorite Jackie Chan movie will always be "Drunken Master" (1978), followed by this film from 1985, "Police Story." In it, Chan plays a Hong Kong super-cop who busts a notorious crime lord and his gang, and is then assigned to protect the man's girlfriend (Brigitte Lin) so that she can turn state's evidence. As the story goes on, the gangster sends his goons to dispatch Lin, but Chan takes matters into his own fists and feet, while keeping girlfriend Maggie Cheung at bay. Like "Drunken Master," "Police Story" has many of the signature stunts and over-the-top martial arts/action choreography that Chan has become famous for, climaxing in a battle royal at a crowded shopping mall. In his role as director, Chan exceeds in excellence, giving a charismatic and funny performance that accentuates the action. While light on the overall slapstick humor of "Drunken Master," at heart "Police Story" is just that, a police story, a gritty cop-thriller that would be oft-copied over the years to come.

10/10 Police Story is arguably one of the best works by the master of action himself.Compared to other action films,Police Story makes Schwarzenegger and Stallone look like beginners.The stunt scenes are well cheorgraphed and the action scenes are superb.If New Line Cinema has any sense,they would release this in theaters. This is not only one of the greatest Jackie Chan films, but also one of the greatest kung-fu movies of all time.

We've come to expect crazy stunts, and fast, creative action in Chan's movies, and this one set the benchmark for others to follow. It's two hours of pure entertainment, that impresses all the way through.

As well as the superb action, we have a viable storyline and believable characters, with Chan taking what appears to be a more western approach to the writing, mixing eastern resolution methods (ie kicking ass).

Overall, it's funny, serious, entertaining and groundbreaking. A must for any kung-fu fan, whilst at the same time remaining accessible to the wider reaches of the film community. This movie is without a doubt a perfect 10/10.. for all you people out there who are rating this film low grades because it has no "good plot" or anything like that, thats ridiculous, saying that a Jackie Chan movie is bad because of its plot is like saying a porn movie is bad because it has no plot! you watch Jackie Chan FOR THE FIGHT SCENES, for the action its not so much concentrated on a good story or anything like that, if you look at how he makes movies and compare it to other American films from that era and even later you will realize that Jackie Chan's movies had over the top fights scenes and not really good plots while American movies had good plots but shitty action scenes compared to what Jackie Chan was doing at the time. Porn is watched for the porn, Jackie Chan is watched for the ACTION, i think you people are rating it bad because there's no plot because you think thats how a smart movie critic would rate a good movie but the way i see it is a good movie is a movie that can keep me entertained. Sure the middle of the movie was boring, VERY BORING, but put it this way the rest which is all action scenes and stunts very much do pay for all of that. This did change the way how American action movies were created, they have even stollen scenes from this movie. If you want a true man, a true entertainer then watch this movie and many more of Jackie Chan's, hes pure in everyway. He literally makes American movies look like a walk in the park, and even in TODAYS movies. American movies rely so much on special effects and safety wires and stunt doubles and so much more. Police Story and many other Jackie Chan films are pieces of work of a true entertainer who just goes all out and is very talented in what he can do. a masterpiece There is one detail, which is not very common for Jackie Chan movies, but which is present here. It has some very tough and serious atmosphere about it while the funny elements are present too. Jackie is menacing and psychotic here. He is not a hero who is attacked and only then fights back (in a usual laid-back pattern), but he is the one who can go and start the tumult. His manner of hitting that evil guy in the glasses is amazing. Every time it goes "crack!". I also especially enjoy the scene when Jackie goes to the pub and thrashes the villains who had fronted on his girlfriend. It's one of the best blitzkriegs put on screen. Besides, the whole scene is shot with the background of some action character painted on the wall (it also looks like a poster of "rabochiy" from our Soviet era) and some lines in Russian on the left (I noticed that quite accidentally). That looks terrific (and nostalgic for Russian people). I also like when the windows are being smashed in the movies. Here there's a lot of this stuff. It's quite amazing watching the characters falling/jumping/running/driving through all manner of panes.

All three movies are great. I had been preparing myself to see the down-slide of the quality but I saw a perfect trilogy with sense and incredible stunts (and not only Jackie Chan's character appears in all three movies - that's also excellent and keeps continuity up).

I would like to describe each movie just in a few words: No.1 - great (in all aspects - it is one gripping story from the very beginning to the very end) and funny (many scenes are ridiculous); No.2 - raging (Jackie is really *beep* off here) and painful (Jackie gets tortured); No.3 - unbelievable (the woman that fights alongside with Jackie is incredible) and bombastic (should I mention a lot of guns and explosions?).

As to the rest - much has been mentioned by the others.

It's a trilogy that can be watched over and over again (at least by me). Its place is in top 10 among action/comedy jewels. Finally it's been released in Russia on DVD (the 2nd film has the best options - the Chinese/Russian soundtracks and English/Russian subtitles).

Solid 10 out of 10. Thank you for attention. Police story brought Hong Kong movies to modern day cinema.

Jackie plays a policeman who tries to catch some drug dealers and at the same time take care of a young woman from the bad guys, and still take care of his relationship with his girlfriend Selina (Brigitte Lin).

The movie features plenty of stunts, not only from Jackie, but also from other actors (who are now in Jackies stunt club).

Three of Jackie's stunt members went to hospital during filming on the film.

The movie also have some incredible fights scenes like ''the car park fight'' and ''the shoppingmal fight ranks as one of Jackie's finest.

The movie also won award for best movie and best action design by Jackie Chan at Hong Kong film awards.

Everyone who loves Jackie Chan and/or martial art movies shud see this Police Story is a stunning series of set pieces for Jackie Chan to show his unique talents and bravery. Some of the stunts here are among Jackie's best and most dangerous the whole mall fight finale is probably Jackie's greatest single fight sequence, more brutal and less comedic then say Project A or Drunken Master at the end of the fight you can almost feel the pain of the impact.

But unfortunately the rest of the film doesn't hold up to this quality as it is a rather formulaic cop thriller with some comedy elements. I always prefer JC in films such as Project A where his natural comic talents shine through. In the serious confines of some elements of Police Story it just doesn't work for me. Having said that though this is still up there with Jackies best films due to the incredible stunt work and sheer spectacle.

As usual with Hong Kong films avoid the English dubbed DVD version as it is truly awful stick with the subtitles.

Great stunts, OK movie a fine starting point if you've not seen a JC movie before and well worth a watch for any movie fan 7/10 This is sad this movie is the tops this should at least be in the top 250 movies here. This is still the best Action movie ever done. The action movies of today are badly done The actors and action directors do not no how to do it fighting and stunts properly. only some no how to do it mostly from Hong Kong like Jackie Chan. The stunts are so clever and wild i do not think we will see the likes of ever. The start where Chan and his team go down the hill car chase through the hill town is just amazing. The end fight stunts are for me the best fight stunts ever put to film. The end stunt sliding down the pole crashing through the glass Jackie was badly hurt. This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie and in an interview, Jackie said it was his favorite as well. It contains some unbelievable stunts and jaw dropping fight sequences as well as some very funny scenes as well. This movie was a favorite of Brandon Lee, who used parts in Rapid Fire, and was also lifted in Tango and Cash, which used some of the opening scenes.

Jackie plays a policeman in Hong Kong. The story immediately jumps into a fantastic chase through a shanty town and continues as Jackie slides down a hill and jumps onto a moving bus to catch the evil Ku (who is one of the greatest villains in any Jackie Chan movie.) You can expect some very funny scenes as Jackie tries to balance his duty as a policeman with his girl friend, played by Maggie Chung. His job is to protect Ku's secretary who has enough information to take him down, but even that poses many problems. Jackie is at his absolute best here. The last fight scene at the mall is my favorite fight scene by anyone - period. It was the most intense fight I have ever seen Jackie do and climaxes in a slide down a pole amidst exploding lights. All in all, one of his greatest stunts he ever did and left him with skin pealed off his hands. He was fortunate he was not electrocuted as the person in charge of the stunt used high voltage instead of a lower voltage.

All in all, another Chan classic and definitely one of his greatest movies. By the end of this movie, you can tell he held absolutely nothing back and neither did his stuntmen. So many of his stuntmen were injured during this movie that nobody would insure them anymore - Jackie had to take responsibility himself. There are no gimmicks, wires or stand-ins - it is all true-life action that is a treat to watch. It is this type of action that made him the phenomenon that he is and it is a movie that will amaze people 100 years from now. If you have not seen this movie and are a fan of Jackie Chan or action in general, give yourself a treat and watch this movie. It is truly sensational. This is one of Jackies best films that is him without opera buddies Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao it has one of the best openings in any action film and it carrys on in that way with Jackie showing some high quality stunts the only critisim is that in the middle it gets a bit slow but it shows up for a frantic last 25 mins in the film and the end credits show what a crazy fool jackie chan is just to keep us film addicts happy Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?

As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.

In short, this remains a quality "popcorn" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period. This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.

The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.

The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.

So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!! Jackie Chan name is synonomus to stunts. This movie never let you down.The opening best chase scene and last roll down scene from the pole is so risky than one wonder ,if he knows the meaning of fear.This movie comes very close to Jackie's best which is PROJECT A.But the main difference being that PROJECT A contains three stars where as in this movie Jackie carries the film entirely on his shoulders.This is perhaps the main reason that this movie made jackie an biggest martial arts star followed by Bruce Lee.The film has nice comic touches too. What makes this film work is Jakie's ability to show his venerable side which his in contract to the typical martial arts action hero.This movie was followed by a sequel which was good but was quite tame in comparison to its predecessor. The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!! Police Story is one of Jackie Chan's classic films that helped shape the Hong Kong cinema. It is a masterpiece that should not be missed by any action movie fan. From the beginning it is obvious that Jackie Chan's stunt team literally risked their live to make this film. Both the action and the stunts are extremely realistic and innovative. Even today, no movie has outdone police story in dangerous stunts. Many people were hospitalized in Police Story including Jackie Chan. The fighting is not as indisputably exceptional as the stunts but the fighting in this movie helped change and define Jackie Chan's use of props. Throughout the film Chan uses odd object to stop attackers and is constantly throwing assailants through thick glass. The action feels real because the stuntmen are giving the movie all they have to give and Jackie Chan's coordination is outstanding.

The rest of the aspects of the film are not without flaws but they will not disappoint any action fan. Chan not only plays a believable risk taking cop but shows the powerful changes that his character goes through as he falls into escalating desperation. The plot is powerful but a modern viewer may find it tedious at times. While the comedy will provide a good number of laughs it does not always distract the audience from the lack of action. However, for the time period it was made in, the driving aspects of the plot are entertaining. There a good number of interesting and well played characters dispersed throughout the film as well.

Overall police story is without a doubt one of the best action movies ever made. And even in Hollywood the influences of this one film are not to be ignored. Jackie Chan's Police Story is a landmark film for both the Honk Kong action genre and the career of Jackie Chan.

Directed/written by Chan, Police Story has a basic plot as did all the films of that era and genre, and like most of the the films of Police Storys' kind, the script is nothing to be raved about. But the plot of the film is Jackie Chan, who plays a nice guy cop, struggling to convict the local gang lord.

The direction of the film is nothing special and by no means the best directing effort that Jackie Chan has given us, that responsibility falls to the underrated masterpiece "Miracles". However the job that Jackie does directing is sufficient and respectable. The standout out directing of the film comes with the fight scenes.

The performances in this film also vary with Jackie giving a very solid typical Chan nice guy up against it role, but this is by no means his best acting role, that can been seen in the Sammo Hung directed film "Heart of the Dragon". The other actors in the film also give as good a solid performance as Jackie with Bridgete Lin playing her part of the unwilling witness reasonably well, but neither does she display full acting potential. The standout acting comes from Maggie Cheung as Jackies' suffering girlfriend and Bill Tung as the sympathetic and funny police chief. None of the performances in this film is of a low enough standard to affect the quality of the film.

The action in the film is what really separates this film from others with stunning contemporary choreography to suit the urbanised, modern setting, the action is some some of the greatest fight scenes ever put on camera. To begin with there is a shootout in the slum where Koo (ganglord) is making a drug deal, whilst being no John Woo style sequence, this serves as a nice starter for the film. This is then followed by the famous car run down the side of the hill and through the heart of the slum wrecking everything in sight. This is a breathtaking sequence that has since been shamelessly copied by Bad Boys 2. In the middle of the film is yet another standout sequence as Jackie tries to transport Bridgete Lin from her house to his. This is really the first scene where we get to see the awesome fast paced hand to hand combat that has since become the norm for all modern set martial art films. This sequence is fantastically choreographed, timed and seamlessly edited together to maximise the brutality of the scene. However, as tradition dictates, the standout fight sequence is at the end of the film. This sequence displays some of Chans' best choreography, stunts and camera/editing work. This sequence is now famous for two things, the amount of people sent through high density glass, which has to be said a phenomenal amount of people, and the stunt at the end where Jackie leaps from a 5th storey balcony, grabs hold of a pole and slides down through a glass roof (this has to be seen to be believed). Whilst the two for-mentioned factors are both uniquely brilliant, i think that the most impressive part of this fight sequence is Chans' ability to incorporate anything into the fight sequence and the sheer originality of the choreography, that for me has never been bettered. I also believe that the action in Police Story is some of the best filmed and edited action of Chans career helping to set the action apart from others.

Overall, Police Story, despite its unspectacular storyline and script and over running in the middle due to plot padding, is one of the best action films of all time displaying Chans best choreography, best filmed action and arguably his most spectacular stunt making this essential viewing for everyone. Afterall, we watch a Chan movie for the action!! It's depressing to see where Jackie Chan has ended up. He used to be an unstoppable hurricane of punches, kicks and incredible stunts. To be fair, he's now in his fifties and one would expect some slowdown. But with 'Rush Hour 3', where he takes a back seat to Chris Tucker (of all people!), and then there's 'Kung Fu Panda' where not only is he in a purely vocal role but his character barely has any dialogue... to say that Jackie Chan has seen better days is a colossal understatement.

It's times like this when the only solution is to whip out a dusty old VHS tape and watch Jackie kick some arses in his younger, fitter, Chris Tucker-free days.

Enter 'Police Story'. Jackie Chan plays Kar-kui, a policeman whose task it is to protect a witness before a major trial. He faces resistance from both the unco-operative witness and the numerous hit men sent by the mob to silence them both.

But on the other hand, who cares? We don't watch Jackie Chan films for the story. We watch them to see Jackie Chan perform eye-popping stunts and generally punch and kick a whole lot of people who are less awesome than he is.

And on that level, 'Police Story' doesn't disappoint at all. There is an awesome showdown in a shopping mall at the end that culminates in Jackie sliding down a giant, high-voltage chandelier. Seriously, if this sort of thing happened more often, no male would ever need coaxing to go shopping for clothes.

There is also comedy, much of which involves Kar-kui inadvertently upsetting May (Maggie Cheung), his eternally suffering and apparently ever forgiving girlfriend. The humour on the whole is pretty unsubtle, but it works so I'm not complaining.

The acting isn't too subtle, either. Indeed, I'm not sure there was anything subtle about 'Police Story' at all. Director Jackie Chan (yeah, he does that too) clearly has a deep understanding of why we watch his films, and knows that while we're waiting for the next fight to start, the last thing we want is to be looking for nuance and depth and inner meaning.

So 'Police Story' is a blast. As is the case with most of his films, the fact that Jackie actually does the stuff you see on the screen puts it head and shoulders above the competition. I mean, when Jackie Chan really is hanging from a speeding bus by an umbrella, a whole new "Wow!" factor is added to the action. Maybe the movie itself isn't one of the best Jackie Chan's movies, but I think everybody will agree with me that the mall fight was one of the best fighting scenes ever made. There also was some memorable stunts, which were so impressive that they made this movie an action classic. This movie influenced many other action movies and I think that nowadays action movie makers should learn from this film (like they could remake that chase scene, I thing with modern technologies they could make it even better). There also were some funny scenes which made this movie enjoyable even when Jackie wasn't fighting. Althou I think they could put more fighting scenes in this film. Well, I would consider Police Story as one of Jackie Chan's best film. The plot, the fighting scenes and the stunt works are excellent. In this film, Jackie himself acted as a police officer called Chan Ka Kui (Kevin Chan in some versions) who successfully arrested a crime lord. After the crime lord was released due to lack of evidence , he framed Chan for the killing of a police officer. Due to this, he became wanted by the police. Later on, Salina (Brigitte Lin), who was the secretary of the crime lord, went to a shopping mall and started to steal the evidence of the crime lord's crimes from his computer and preparing to pass them to Chan. However, the crime lord knew that Salina had downloaded his incriminating data and hired his henchmen to capture her. Later on, Chan appeared at the scenes and began to fight all of the henchmen, defeating them one by one. At the last scene, Chan was seen punching the crime lord. Lastly, this is the best action and comedy movie. Everyone should watch it. Highly recommended. Rated PG-13 for violence, brief sexual humor and drug content. Quebec Rating:13+(should be G) Canadian Home Video Rating:14A

I have seen Police Story a couple of times now.In my opinion Police Story is Chan's best film from the 80's.He originally made it because he didn't like the other cop film he had to star in which was The Protector.I have not seen the protector so I cant compare.The acting isn't too bad and the plot is pretty good.I don't remember the plot well because I saw this film a while back but what I do remember is this film has lots of great action,stunts and comedy just what a good Chan film needs.If you can find Police Story and you are Chan fan then buy this film!

Runtime:106min

9/10 Although John Woo's hard Boiled is my number 1 favorite movie. But i have to say police story is my number 2 favorite movie. I say this because the stunts, the fights and the action my favorite part of the movie is when Jackie Chan jumps off the rail at the top of the esculator at the mall grabs on to a pole surrounded with Chrismas lights and slid down the pole fell through a skylight and finally land on his back on the hard marble floor. OUCH! Buy it at amazon.com for 14:98. (Or something in 14 dollars.)VHS new line home video. any questions or comments please feel free to reply. (i'm only 14 but i know where you can find any movie ever made.) if you looking everywhere for a movie and can't find it please reply to me. Thank you and good night! Jackie Chan's classic directorial feature POLICE STORY (1985) is among the most influential and over-the-top modern day police actioners ever to come out from Hong Kong. Jackie wanted simply to make a movie which would include the usual kung fu and also fierce gun play and other "urban" action which would later become very popular and typical among HK directors like John Woo and Ringo Lam. POLICE STORY mixes these two action elements and styles and the result is as wild as it sounds.

Jackie plays Chan Ka-Kui, a police who gets to protect an important witness (Brigitte Lin) who would soon testify against a powerful gangster boss and his ring of criminal activity. Jackie's girlfriend is played by young and sweet Maggie Cheung, who isn't as wild here as she would be in her subsequent roles like Heroic Trio (and the sequel) by Johnnie To, Savior of the Soul by Corey Yuen and David Lai and many many others. The plot in POLICE STORY is very simple but it is the action why this film was made in the first place.

Jackie did of course all the stunts of his character by himself and also hurt himself pretty badly in couple of scenes, some of which are also in the completed movie like at the end in which Jackie hits his head (near the eye) through a very nasty looking sharp piece of glass. Also Jackie's stunt team members almost got themselves killed during filming of this film. The scene in which a bus stops right before Jackie, spitting the kidnappers through the windshield, went really bad as the bus stopped too early and the stuntmen didn't fly as they were supposed to. They were supposed to fly on the car parked in the front of the bus but their flight was too short and they hit through the asphalt with hospital level injuries. During the end credits, there is a behind the scenes imagery and images of these injured actors and it all looks really bad and almost tasteless, but fortunately no one got killed or injured too severely.

The action is more than plentiful and imaginative as can be expected by (action) director Chan. The now legendary bus scene and shopping mall scene at then end are most likely among the wildest scenes any action film has been able to deliver. Jackie always tells how important editing is (which is true) and it really shows in his action scenes and their timing which is perfect and makes the films look so ultra kinetic when compared to Hollywood efforts, for instance. There's hardly any slow moments here and also those moments are interesting and the film never becomes boring or hard to watch.

But there is again one negative point which I cannot stand in HK action comedies, which is this comedy itself. The comedy isn't funny especially when the errors and amateurish elements in the screenplay aren't there by accident but because of the writer wanted to add them there, without necessarily understanding that they are signs of bad script and stupid dialogue. I mean those scenes like the stabbing murder attempt at the beginning when the murderer just shouts and screams and makes faces and acts like a drunken clown from some slapstick nightmare, and he is there to "murder" that girl. This kind of acting is stupid and inept and I wouldn't like to see it in a film which is otherwise very great in its own genre. Characters also speak their thoughts which is also a sign of bad script because those "loud thoughts" are there just to make things clear even for the stupidest viewer and thus making things way too simple and "light." Even if the film is comic and not so serious, these kind of stupidities should not be there and they cannot be forgiven too easily.

POLICE STORY is a fast speed, full impact, balls to the walls action adventure miracle from Hong Kong and from the time when Jackie was very sad because of the bad result he got with the US produced The Protector as he didn't have the same thoughts about the film as director James Glickenhaus had and thus the result didn't please audiences and Jackie and he returned to Hong Kong to make more personal and inventive film. That he definitely did and the result is as wild today as it was back then in the 80's. This is among the most insane action films ever, and it would be somewhat perfect without the flaws I mentioned. 7/10 This movie is Jackie's best. I still cant get enough of watching some of his best stunts ever. I also like the bad guys in this movie (the old man looks like a Chinese version of John Howard). Unlike some of Jackie's other work, this movie has also got a great story line and i recommend it to all of Jackie's fans. I have not seen each and every one of Chan´s movies, but this is for sure the best one I have seen so far.

The story in it self is nothing special really, so I won´t go deeper into that. What makes it special is the stunts, the fighting, the good acting, the warm sense of humor. The movie has a raging tempo all the way through and you are just stunned seeing it. All the cool stunts (of course made by Jackie himself)makes you want jump around in the couch and scream. It´s just awesome! Even my mom was impressed by this cool movie when she saw it.

I know this Police Story can be a bit hard to get a hold of, at least it is here in Sweden. But I can assure you, it´s worth a try. I saw this on a Cantonese VCD with the English subtitles. I thought the story was good but there were times when some of the subcharacters were grossly over-acting. This took away from the film as did the fairly lame musical score, which really irked me throughout the entire movie. If the musical score was improved I could overlook the few overacted scenes. Then the film would be much, much better. I do find it a bit overrated. Maybe it's just because I've never seen a subtitled version (dubbing stinks!), but I just don't get into it like a lot of other people do. The finale is really great though as Jackie trashes a mall, a scene that plays in my head every time i go shopping! A French novelist, disgusted by his wife's society friends, goes to North Africa for a respite. There he encounters a vivacious & talented Bedouin girl, living in poverty. To spite his wife, who is romancing a Maharajah, he decides to train & educate the girl, and present her to Parisian society as the PRINCESSE TAM TAM...

The marvelous Josephine Baker is perfectly cast in the title role in this very enjoyable French film. With her enormous eyes & infectious smile, she makes contact with the viewer's heartstrings immediately. Her over-sized personality & obvious joy of performing make her a pure pleasure to watch. Baker makes us care about what's happening to poor Alwina during her transformation & introduction to European mores.

Albert Préjean does very well as the Pygmalion to Baker's Galatea; also effective are Georges Peclet as a half-caste servant, and Jean Galland as the mysterious Maharajah.

The film is very handsome & well made, looking a little reminiscent of Busby Berkeley movies being produced at the same time in America - although unlike American films of this period, PRINCESSE TAM TAM hasn't any racism. It should be pointed out that there was no Hays Office or Production Code in France. Some of the dialogue & action is rather provocative, but it must be admitted that Baker singing & dancing to 'Under The African Sky,' as well as her culminating performance in the Parisian nightclub, are two of the cinema's more memorable moments.

Actual location filming in Tunisia greatly enhances the film.

Josephine Baker was born in St. Louis in 1906, into a very poor family. Her talent & driving ambition, however, soon pushed her into moving East and she was briefly a cast member of the Ziegfeld Follies. Realizing that America in the mid-1920's held great limitations for a gifted Black woman, she managed to get herself to Paris, where she eventually joined the Foliés-Bergeres & Le Negre Revue. The French adored her and she became a huge celebrity. A short return to America in 1935 showed Baker that things had not changed for African-Americans. She returned to France, became a French citizen & worked for the Resistance during the early days of the War. Baker relocated to Morocco for the duration and entertained Allied troops stationed there.

After the War, Baker's fortunes began to slide and she faced many financial & personal difficulties. For a while, she was even banned from returning to the United States. Finally, Baker accepted an offer from Princess Grace of Monaco to reside in the Principality. Josephine Baker was on the verge of a comeback when she died of a stroke in 1975, at the age of 68.

Having appeared in only two decent films - ZOUZOU & PRINCESSE TAM TAM - Baker is in danger of becoming obscure. But she deserves her place alongside Chevalier, Dietrich & Robeson, as one of her generation's truly legendary performers. Princess Tam Tam is without the trappings of racism, in the way we think of racism in the United States, but there are more subtle (to the American viewer) assertions about ethnic identity during the time. Pay attention to Alwina's (Baker) placement within shots, how she is addressed by the other characters, the settings around her that all depict her as a "savage" African, and ask yourself if Alwina has any shred of agency throughout the film. I don't want to ruin anything but at the end pay very careful attention, the dichotomy between "Eastern" and "Western" culture is to say the least offensive, such diction is thankfully disavowed these days. The French have a checkered past as an imperial force throughout the areas depicted (see Chris Marker's Les Statues Meurent Aussi- 1953), and pay attention to the places the European travelers visit while they are in Africa, and what does that reflect about their attitudes towards the "other". I give this film a 7 because I am a sucker for Baker, much of what she did in her professional career, like Princes Tam Tam, that is regressive is certainly overshadowed by her efforts towards integration, her work as a freaking spy (I am gushing, sorry.) However the film for me is captivating because of her performance, besides that it is a telling relic of bygone mentalities. I think that this movie was reasonbaly good. It's kinda weird that now the Olsen twins are 13 and have boyfriends and all. I enjoyed them alot when they were little kids on Full House. Anyway, the casting was good and the movie was somewhat funny. I kind of got mixed up between all the switching places and their names. It's just kind of an older version of It Takes Two. I, as a teenager really enjoyed this movie! Mary Kate and Ashley worked great together and everyone seemed so at ease. I thought the movie plot was very good and hope everyone else enjoys it to! Be sure and rent it!! Also they had some great soccer scenes for all those soccer players! :) This movie is so good I could watch it all day long! Mary-Kate and Ashley were robbed at Oscar time!! If I got to be one of the actors I would be so excited!!! I can't wait for the new Charlie's Angels movie starring Mary-Kate and Ashley. I thought that this was an absolutely charming movie centering around the lives of Mary-Kate's and Ashley's characters Sam and Emma Stanton! They are both trying to make both themselves and their parents happy but; unfortunately, it's just not that easy for them to actually do! I thought that this was an utterly charming and sweet movie and if you are a real fan of these marvelous young ladies then I'm sure that you'll agree with me here! If you haven't seen this movie yet then I say you really missed-out; big time, and that you should definitely take the time out to see it now! This movie is a real winner! Sincerely, Rick Morris I'm a HUGE fan of the twin sisters. Although this was one of their "not soo good" movies. I'm not saying it's bad, I can't say it's bad, but this whole popular and not popular thingy isn't good. Although I give this movie a 4. Let me state at the outset that I have Cerebral Palsy and I went into this film expecting to have to make allowances for the lead performance. I left the theater half-convinced that they'd cast an actor who had Cerebral Palsy in the role, even though I knew that was not the case. The performances were generally excellent, with a special nod to Brenda Fricker and to Hugh O'Conner (I believe that's his name) as the young Christy Brown. Christy is talented, brash, arrogant, at times vulgar and petulant-in other words, human. This film, along with Gaby: A True Story and the documentary King Gimp, are excellent portrayals of life with CP. By no means a complete portrait, but fine examples of the disabled as human beings. Most highly recommended. Daniel Day Lewis is one of the best actors of our time and one of my favorites. It is amazing how much he throws himself in each of the characters he plays making them real.

I remember, many years ago, we had a party in our house - the friends came over, we were sitting around the table, eating, drinking the wine, talking, laughing - having a good time. The TV was on - there was a movie which we did not pay much attention to. Then, suddenly, all of us stopped talking and laughing. The glasses did not clink, the forks did not move, the food was getting cold on the plates. We could not take our eyes off the screen where the young crippled man whose entire body was against him and who only had a control over his left foot, picked up a piece of chalk with his foot and for what seemed the eternity tried to write just one word on the floor. When he finished writing that one word, we all knew that we had witnessed not one but three triumphs - the triumph of a human will and spirit, the triumph of the cinema which was able to capture the moment like this on the film, and the triumph of an actor who did not act but who became his character.

Jim Sheridan's "My Left Foot" is an riveting, unsentimental bio-drama about Christy Brown, the man who was born with cerebral palsy in a Dublin slum; who became an artist and a writer and who found a love of his life.

I like every one of Day Lewis's performances (I have mixed feelings about his performance in GONY) but I believe that his greatest role was Christy Brown in "My Left Foot" As someone who has lived with cerebral palsey for over forty years, I find this movie to be inspirational. If someone with such a severe case of CP as Christie Brown has can do so much, then there's no reason that I couldn't achieve my own dreams. Daniel Day-Lewis and Brenda Fricker both give awesome performances.

The most important thing about this movie is the brilliant performance by Daniel Day-Lewis and Hugh O'Conor as Christy Brown, guineas artist and fighter who despite of her physical condition overcame all the odds. As a person who did work with patients with cerebral palsy, I can assure you that their performance were shockingly convincing. The enormous support that Christy got form his family, low-income, working class Dubliners, encouraged him to do the impossible and this picture depicted this support brilliantly have not read the book, but the dialogs were written wisely to capture Christy Brown's witty arrogant personality. I do recommend this movie to everyone, especially to classic movie-lovers. Even if you know absolutely nothing about Ireland, you have to love "My Left Foot" (and especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in it). He plays cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown. Due to this, he has spent most of his life ostracized. Even when trying to warn people about something, they just laugh at him. The light in the darkness for him is that he has control over one body part: his left foot. He uses that appendage to paint and write poetry, bringing him to prominence.

Daniel Day-Lewis and director Jim Sheridan did very well on this collaboration, and also on a later collaboration: "In the Name of the Father" (but "The Boxer" was unnecessary). "My Left Foot" can make you feel many ways: sad, hopeful, or something else. But in any case, Daniel Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime here. A great movie in every sense. DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.

The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.

Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.

DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.

BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.

Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.

Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone. Seriously, can you imagine such a spread of talent in one film without a huge budget: Daniel Day-Lewis, Ray McAnally, Brenda Fricker, Hugh O'Conor AND Fiona Shaw? There's no doubting that Fricker and Day-Lewis deserved their awards: but it would have been entirely justifiable to have seen O'Conor (as Young Christie) and McAnally awarded: the cliché is true here: they don't perform the roles, they inhabit them. Day-Lewis' performance is a tour de force - such a transformation that it is awe-inducing, but it was truly a mark of the Academy's intelligence that alongside this performance, they also honoured Brenda Fricker's beautifully restrained, still and heart-wrenching work as Christie's mother. By the way, if you haven't seen this magnificent actress in "Swann", that's another film well worth checking out for her contribution (and the sublime Miranda Richardson). My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds

I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.

The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.

Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.

this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it! Daniel Day-Lewis is Christy Brown, a victim of cerebral palsy who uses "My Left Foot" to write and paint in this incredible 1989 film. The movie also stars Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother, Ray McAnally, Fiona Shaw and Hugh O'Conor. Their brilliant performances, great script and wonderful direction by Jim Sheridan help to paint a vivid portrait of Christy Brown, an artist and writer who died in 1981 at the age of 49.

Brown was born into a lower middle-class Catholic family where his mother was constantly pregnant (22 children in total, 13 of whom survived). His father considered Christy mentally retarded as well as physically handicapped, but he would not permit his son to go into a home. The children in the family would bid goodbye to him each day as they went off to school, and then his mother would feed him and talk to him.

In the movie, Fricker conveys the sense of a woman who, despite being surrounded by a huge family, needs someone to talk to. Christy doesn't talk back. Eventually a cart is found for him to ride in, and the neighborhood kids, all of whom have known him since he was a baby, include him in all of their activities. The only part of his body that works really well is his left foot, and when the kids find out how well he kicks, they put him into soccer games for just that purpose. One of the nicest parts of the film is the relaxed way the in which the other children treat him.

There are many powerful scenes, but none as powerful as Christy writing "Mother" on the floor holding a piece of chalk between his toes. "He's a true Brown," his father declares, hoisting him on his shoulders and carrying him to the pub. Walking into the pub, he announces, "My son's a genius." Things change when Christy grows older because he has a young boy's desires and emotions. He develops crushes, is rejected and goes more into himself, turning to painting. Eventually he goes into therapy in a nearby clinic and works with a therapist, Eileen (Fiona Shaw) at home. He falls in love with her. When he finds out she's engaged, he nearly goes crazy. But he survives to live, to paint, to write (three books in total) and to love again.

Because it's a film, by necessity certain things had to be left out and characters combined. Brown wasn't actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy for some time, which was left out of the movie. The therapist Eileen is actually a combination of three important therapeutic figures in Christy's life, and though we know that his mother believed he had a good mind, in truth, she worked very hard with Christy when he was a child teaching him the alphabet, etc. Also, before Mary, Christy had a 12-year relationship with the woman to whom he dedicated "My Left Foot." And the typical Hollywood ending, 9 years before his death where neglect by his wife may have been a factor, doesn't finish the story.

Despite all of that, Christy Brown's biopic is incredibly powerful, all the more so because of two performances: Hugh O'Conor as young Christy and Daniel Day-Lewis as the adult Christy. O'Conor's facial expression and the way he drags his warped body is gut-wrenching. One is exhausted for him and heartbroken at the same time.

And what can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the greatest actors in the world - he brings Christy totally to life, a fully fleshed out, intelligent human being capable of swearing, becoming angry, bitter, drunk, pushy, lecherous, funny and loving. A well-deserved Oscar won in the same year that Tom Cruise was nominated for "Born on the Fourth of July." I remember someone writing a letter to the editor somewhere that Cruise was so sensational, what was wrong with the Academy? Uh, nothing for a change. Nothing at all.

Brenda Fricker is amazing as Christy's mother, who never stops believing in him and what he can do and who holds her family and husband together during the hard times. The wonderful thing about Fricker's performance is that the support, love and work ethic seem to come naturally to the mother. The character would never consider herself a heroine or as someone doing something out of the ordinary. Fricker shows us a religious but not fanatic woman who believes her duties on earth are to be a good wife and mother. And no matter what, even when her husband is out of work, throws their daughter out of the house for being pregnant, whatever, she manages. She saves money for Christy's wheelchair, she receives photos of her daughter and the baby, she starts building a room for Christy in the back of the house. All part of a day's work. A performance worthy of the Oscar she received.

Brown's life was more complicated than this inspiring film, but this is an amazing achievement by all involved and a must-see. A noted cinematic phenomenon of the late eighties and early nineties was the number of Oscars which went to actors playing characters who were either physically or mentally handicapped. The first was Marlee Matlin's award for "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986, and the next ten years were to see another "Best Actress" award (Holly Hunter for "The Piano" in 1994) and no fewer than five "Best Actor" awards (Dustin Hoffman in 1988 for "Rain Man", Daniel Day-Lewis in 1989 for "My Left Foot", Al Pacino in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman", Tom Hanks in 1994 for "Forrest Gump" and Geoffrey Rush in 1996 for "Shine") for portrayals of the disabled. Matlin, who played a deaf woman, is herself deaf, but all the others are able-bodied.

This phenomenon aroused some adverse comment at the time, with suggestions being made that these awards were given more for political correctness than for the quality of the acting. When Jodie Foster failed to win "Best Actress" for "Nell" in 1994 some people saw this as evidence of a backlash against this sort of portrayal. My view, however, is that the majority of these awards were well deserved. I thought the 1992 award should have gone to either Clint Eastwood or Robert Downey rather than Pacino, but apart from that the only one with which I disagreed would have been Hanks', and that was because I preferred Nigel Hawthorne's performance in "The Madness of King George". In that film, of course, Hawthorne played a character who was mentally ill.

"My Left Foot" was based upon the autobiography of the Irish writer and painter Christy Brown. Brown was born in 1931, one of the thirteen children of a working-class Dublin family. He was born with cerebral palsy and was at first wrongly thought to be mentally handicapped as well. He was for a long time incapable of deliberate movement or speech, but eventually discovered that he could control the movements of one part of his body, his left foot (hence the title). He learned to write and draw by holding a piece of chalk between his toes, and went on to become a painter and a published novelist and poet.

Life in working-class Dublin in the thirties and forties could be hard, and the city Jim Sheridan (himself a Dubliner) shows us here is in many ways a grim, grey, cheerless place, very different from our normal idea of the "Emerald Isle". (Sheridan and Day-Lewis were later to collaborate on another film with an Irish theme, "In the Name of the Father"). Against this, however, must be set the cheerfulness and spirit of its people, especially the Brown family. Much of Christy's success was due to the support he received from his parents, who refused to allow him to be institutionalised and always believed in the intelligence hidden beneath a crippled exterior, and from his siblings. We see how his brothers used to wheel him round in a specially-made cart and how they helped their bricklayer father to build Christy a room of his own in their back yard.

The film could easily have slid into sentimentality and ended up as just another heart-warming "triumph over adversity" movie. That it does not is due to a number of factors, principally the magnificent acting. In the course of his career, Day-Lewis has given a number of fine performances, but this, together with the recent "There Will Be Blood", is his best. He is never less than 100% convincing as Christie; his tortured, jerky movements and strained attempts at speech persuade us that we really are watching a disabled person, even though, intellectually, we are well aware that Day-Lewis is able-bodied. The other performances which stand out are from Fiona Shaw as his mentor Dr Eileen Cole, from Hugh O'Conor as the young Christy and from Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother (which won her the "Best Supporting Actress" award).

The other reason why the film escapes sentimentality is that it does not try to sentimentalise its main character. Christy Brown had a difficult life, but he could also be difficult to live with, and the film gives us a "warts and all" portrait. He was a heavy drinker, given to foul language and prone to outbursts of rage. He could also be selfish and manipulative of those around him, and the film shows us all these aspects of his character. Of course, it also shows us the positive aspects- his courage, his determination and his wicked sense of humour. Day-Lewis's acting is not just physically convincing, in that it persuades us to believe in his character's disability, but also emotionally and intellectually convincing, in that it brings out all these different facets of Christy's character. His Oscar was won in the teeth of some very strong opposition from the likes of Robin Williams and Kenneth Branagh, but it was well deserved. 8/10 If ever there were an inspiring story that could move anyone, disabled or not, to persevere despite the odds and make it (even when "make it" as an expression, proper, can have a wide berth which is an ultimately personal truth), MY LEFT FOOT is it. It's a hard film to watch at times: seeing the less placid aspects of Christy Brown's personality emerge in two key scenes -- one when his sister declares she is pregnant and about to get married while his father has a bad reaction, and at a dinner table when the woman who's reached out to him, made him able to communicate effectively, now has announced at a key moment (the inauguration of Brown's art) she is about to marry another man -- is tough. Very, very tough. More so because this is a man who cannot react accordingly to these events and can only express himself in the only way he knows how: via screams, shrieks, and profanities aimed at hurting himself. However, this is not a story of heartache and family dysfunction even when there is quite a bit of it furnishing the autobiographical account, but that of a man overcoming his severe disability, becoming a functioning human being and a force of be reckoned with in the art world. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for his powerful, unforgettable performance as the flawed but tenacious Christy Brown, and Brenda Fricker did so as well for her supporting role as Brown's solid mother. Hard to imagine this film is based on a true story, and how Christy managed to accomplish the miracle is so heart-stirring. Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon, really hard to imagine how much effort he had done to create this disabled character. Watching him on screen is a shocking and breathtaking experience.

The movie is not so pessimistic as I thought before, the story is kinda bright and intriguing. Christy is not despised by the normals, his life is also colorful and delightful, although we can be aware of the loneliness and the painful fetter through his eyes.

One important factor of Christy's success is his mother's support which seems to be more touching, and the unknown actress Brenda Fricker also deserves her Oscar award for this role, this fat little middle-aged woman uses her all to make Christy's dream come true. So lucky for Christy!And Hugh O'Conor is also excellent as young Christy, what a performance for a child! The love story of Christy is very well-done, trustful. Christy wants love and nothing can derive him of the right to love, his crush on the beautiful Dr. Eileen Cole (surprisingly played by Fiona Shaw, I am deeply impressed with her role in Harry Potter series, the loathsome Aunt Petunia, so her appearance in this role is really beyond my mind, but anyway, any woman has her own youth...) is paranoiac and offensive, I do have sympathy for him, love is a two-edged sword, happiness and agony are just next to each other.

Btw, Jim Sheridan's works are all good (IN America, THE BOXER etc.) except GET RICH OR DIE Trying', god knows why he chose to direct that crap! Really a career taint for him, what a pity! Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself. I have seen this film three times now, and each time I see it, it becomes more personal and more emotional to watch.

The acting is amazing, which is not hard to believe since it is Daniel Day Lewis, who is an amazing actor. Brenda Fricker is the surprise wonder in it, though. She captures your heart as the mother of a physically disabled boy, who is not able to walk, or speak until he is in his late teens.

I can't say enough good things about the movie, but I will stop here. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies that are based on actual events, or just enjoy good dramas in general. I've just returned from a showing of "My Left Foot" at our public library. What an emotional experience -- I feel drained and uplifted.

It's the story of Christy Brown, Irish writer and painter, and based on the author's autobiographical "My Left Foot." Christy was born with a form of cerebral palsy such that the only limb he had good control of was his left foot. Doctors advised his parents he was hopelessly mentally retarded but his mother didn't give up on him and, somewhat as Annie Sullivan had done with Helen Keller, helped him achieve a breakthrough in which he learned the alphabet and then to read, write, and paint.

This film won Academy Awards for Daniel Day-Lewis (best actor) as well as best supporting actress for the actress playing his mother; it also received Oscar nominations for best picture, best director, and best adapted screenplay.

As a retired clinical psychologist and family therapist, while many films may entertain me, many also often leave me having to overlook gross fictions or improbabilities in realistic psychological reactions.

Not this film--it was absolutely "spot on" in portraying typical Irish parental roles & behaviors (see, e.g., see typical Irish families in McGoldrick's "Ethnicity & Family Therapy") as well Christy Brown's uneven emotional maturation--some immature personality reactions that were even further amplified by his picking up traits of his father.

The film presents the greater truth while changing certain sequences in his development (painting & writing) and condensing several important people into one person, for the sake of telling a coherent, believable story, not burdened by small, distracting, less important actualities. (See Christy Brown in Wikipedia for more accuracy.) The DVD version we were shown had some English subtitles that were a great help in understanding Christy's speech (& some of the Irish speech); the initial release of the film may have lacked this. (If you see this on DVD, enable that option.)

The performance by Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest, believable acting jobs I've ever seen. Truly magnificent, outstanding, superlative.

"My Left Foot" bears more than some similarity to a more recent film, "The Diving Bell & the Butterfly," in that each portrays the life of a real person successfully surmounting the imprisonment and isolation of an extremely severe physical handicap.

And in doing so, it resonates with William Ernest Henley's "Invictus" which begins: "Out of the night that covers me,//Black as the Pit from pole to pole,//I thank whatever gods may be//For my unconquerable soul." My older sister was born in March of 1985 and has cerebral palsy. in her 22 years of life, she has seen nothing but the walls of our house and her school which is also occupied with other disabled kids. i have been the butt of everyone's jokes because my sister is disabled, and i still think to this day that nobody is, or ever will give a damn about her and her condition. Then i saw this film.

I knew what Christy's family was going through. but they were lucky. Christy could talk, he could communicate, and he had artistic skills. my sister can walk, but she can't utter a word, and she can't use her hands to do anything but grab onto things. but this film made me realize there were other people in the world like my sister, and the ending (to tell the truth) made me cry. AND I'VE SEEN SHAWSHANK!!! This film is seriously underrated, and it shouldn't. This movie tells people something. that people should be proud of their own lives. thinking you can't write well? this guy wrote with his foot. thinking you're not attractive? this guy got turned down by lots of girls, because of his condition. not the fastest runner? christy couldn't even stand up.

My point: Parents of young children, i suggest your children watch this movie with you, so they'll know the next time they see someone on the street in a wheelchair, they don't stare at them like they're aliens. My sister got millions of stares, and it breaks my heart to think that this is still happening to many people. This film will teach people, that people who might not seem "normal" are people too. 10/10 MY LEFT FOOT, in my opinion, is a great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. The performances were smashing, the soundtrack was great, and the casting was perfect. I thought that Christy (Daniel Day-Lewis) was a very talented man, although I couldn't understand what he was saying most of the time. In addition, when he threw a tantrum, I got a little scared. Also, it's just so sad that he suffered from cerebral palsy. In conclusion, if you are a die-hard fan of Daniel Day-Lewis or like biopics, I highly recommend this great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. You're in for a real treat and a good time, so don't miss this one. I thought Hugh O'Conor was astounding as the young Christy Brown, and really deserved greater recognition for his role. I couldn't believe how well he played the part. Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant too. My favourite scene is where the boys are playing football and Christy uses his head to stop the goals and then kicks the penalty! Amazing performances by the two Christys (and other also). I watched this film in shire joy.

This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.

All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.

The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.

And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.

If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all. Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10 There aren't many overcoming-the-odds stories quite like that of Christy Brown. Born with cerebral palsy in 1930s Dublin, his parents thought his handicap was mental as well as physical. Though eventually properly diagnosed, Brown, in a lower working-class family with nearly 20 children, had to push himself just to be appreciated by his family. Through the use of his only fully-functioning limb, his left leg, he taught himself to write and paint, both skills he developed expertly.

But what makes the film version of Brown's autobiography "My Left Foot" such a great retelling is its humility. Both director/writer Jim Sheridan and star Daniel Day-Lewis have managed to tell this story in a way that doesn't scream for attention and resort to melodrama. Cheesy struggles and scenes of frustration as well as glorious moments of minute victory are easy pitfalls of a story so miraculous, yet "My Left Foot" stays real and intrinsically inspired.

Day-Lewis is the easiest to highlight. Playing anyone with such serious physical impairments has to be a demanding task. Not only does Day-Lewis give us a very complete picture of Christy, but he also manages to chronicle the growth, improvement and inner change of the character in different stages of his life. He plays Christy at 17 when he had limited language capability and was emotionally volatile just as crisply as he does the intellectually learned Christy who struggles to cope with why he can't find non-platonic love. The latter theme is the film's strongest and it would've been nice for Sheridan and co-adapter Shane Connaughton to really flesh that out. Regardless, Day-Lewis gets us to understand and sympathize with all those elements, giving a performance that's so believable you often don't have time to think "wow, he's such a great actor." Those are the most commendable performances.

Equally important but through more subtle means is Sheridan's work on the film. This story is about day-to-day life and struggles. Although Christy has such a unique set of circumstances hampering his life, his struggles are not unlike our own and Sheridan grasps that concept completely. Christy struggles with love, parental attention, questions of self- worth and capability. His struggles are just more physically manifested (literally and figuratively) than ours.

Sheridan gives us moments that capture the spirit of the large Brown family and Christy's unique place in it. The drama evolves naturally when tensions are highest and the humor comes in much the same way. The dinner scene when Christy learns that his doctor/teacher -- the woman he loves -- is going to marry his brother Peter is the film's finest example of both Day-Lewis and Sheridan's efforts. It's built up to so well by Sheridan that it comes out when we're ready and Day-Lewis takes us from there with his stunning work.

The other strong component of the film is Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown. I did not know she'd won the Oscar, but there was something about her performances as Christy's loving and wise mother that just screamed Oscar-worthy. Her love for Christy and constant fighting for him just seems so convincing and heartfelt and she earns a lot of sympathy given her situation.

The emotional punch of the film given the story is surprisingly minimal. Perhaps that was part of the sacrifice of trying to create a film that feels organically human. The two should be reconcilable, but I imagine it's challenging to tell a story that feels true-to-life and one that provides enough dramatic moments to take our emotions on a roller coaster. The choice to downplay the latter was definitely the wise one for "My Left Foot." Brown's circumstances speak for themselves -- they don't need to be squeezed for weightier dramatic impact.

~Steven C

Visit my site moviemusereviews.com for more As far as I know the real guy that the main actor is playing saw his performance and said it was an outstanding portrayal, I'd agree with him. This is a fantastic film about a quite gifted boy/man with a special body part helping him. Oscar and BAFTA winning, and Golden Globe nominated Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Browna crippled man with cerebral palsy who spends most of his life on the floor, in a wheelchair and carried by his family. He has a special left foot though, he can write with it, paint with it and hold things with it. He learns to speak later in the film, it is very good for a guy like him. Also starring Home Alone 2's Oscar winning, and Golden Globe nominated Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown and BAFTA winning Ray McAnally as Mr. Brown. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Director for Jim Sheridan, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Film, Best Make Up Artist and Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis was number 85 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 20 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 9 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he was number 15 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number 28 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Outstanding! Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances. I had never seen such an incredible acting job in a motion picture as I did when I saw Daniel Day-Lewis play Christy Brown in My Left Foot. In fact off the scene his role wasn't even over. He played the role of Christy Brown or at least disabled like him all through the filming of the movie and needed surgery because of the damage his superior acting had done to his back. To me that is remarkable and through all the pain he put up with to act that role I believe it is quite true to say he put on the most Oscar worthy performance in history. He was so masterful in this tough a part that I believe no one could have done it better or with more of an impact than him. Although I cannot say it is the greatest movie of all time I can say that how he played this impossible a role and then kept on acting it until it wasn't even acting anymore is without a doubt the greatest feet I will ever seen an actor do. Probably a man too for that matter. Daniel Day-Lewis is the most versatile actor alive. English aristocratic snob in A Room With a View, passionate Irish thief in In the Name of the Father, an impudent, violent butcher in Gangs of New York (in a performance ten times stronger than Adrian Brody's in the Pianist) and as the outrageous Cristy Brown with cerebral palsy in My Left Foot (just to name a few). His roles all influence eachother, but each is seperate, and utterly unique. He changes completely, with each character he takes on. And I'm beginning to believe that he can act as anything. Anything.

As Cristy Brown he is stunning. He does not ridicule the character, and he does not pity the character. A difficult achievement. And Cristy Brown comes to life. A smart man. An outrageous man. Human.

This movie, despite small scene-transition faults and the like, is an inspiration. Yes, it's predictable. But is it stupidly sentimental? No. I laughed. I cried. Not a single moment of cheese. Proof that this isn't a Hollywood movie.

My favourite scene is the scene in the restaurant, when Cristy is discussing painters with Eileen, Peter and her friends. Here's where Daniel Day-Lewis reaches an acting climax. "I'll kick you in the only part of your anatomy that's animated." "Wheel out the cripple!" And his performance never slows down, never falters, and is beautiful. Simply. He has a lot of screen time here. I watch it again again, and I never get tired of Cristy's perspicacious eyes, twitching and guttural speeches.

A must-see. Fo sho, yo! "My Left Foot" is a pretty impressive film that tells the story of Christy Brown, an artist who was crippled with cerebral palsy and learned to paint with his left foot, the only limb in his body he had control over. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Oscar as Best Actor for this film, which I'm not absolutely certain was deserved, but is still noteworthy. Day-Lewis give Brown a realistic and occasionally almost humorous touch. Brenda Fricker, as Brown's devoted mother, also won an Oscar for a believable and touching role. My problem with this film is that it is a bit too real at times. When Brown is in desperation and must help someone and do it all with his left foot, the film can be difficult to watch. This gives it an often depressing feel that may turn off some viewers for a time. However, if you look beyond that, you will see a sense of hope and inspiration for those who have handicaps and other difficulties to overcome. Those of us who are not crippled and still consider ourselves to have problems are inspired by this film, because if somewhat with a much worse condition than us can overcome their difficulties, we can certainly do the same thing. Well made, occasionally enjoyable, but difficult to watch. May not be for everyone, but not bad at all.

*** out of **** At the time, "My Left Foot" was the little movie that could. It was hugely popular, and everyone applauded the fact that such a small, independent film could make it all the way to the Oscars.

Since then, movies like "My Left Foot" are a dime a dozen, so it might be hard in retrospect to understand what all the fuss was about. It's certainly a well made and competent film, but it's clear that the bulk of its success rests on the shoulders of Daniel Day-Lewis, who immerses himself in the role of Cristy Brown, a man living with cerebral palsy. Day-Lewis pulls off the same bit of stunt acting that had won Dustin Hoffman an Oscar the year before for playing a man with autism in "Rain Man," and the Academy followed suit by giving Day-Lewis the same honor.

The only thing really separating this film from a big budget Hollywood production is just that -- its budget. In every other way it's just as formulaic as any standard product. That's not to say it isn't a good movie, but it's not a masterpiece.

Grade: A- This could be a 10 if it wasn't for the quite predictable and hollywood-ish scenario. Daniel Day-Lewis confirms its position as one of the leading actors of our time (why not THE leading may I ask) and the rest of the cast stand in a very high level. I personally was impressed with Hugh O' Connor who played Christy Brown as a child. The very first scene I watched him was really strong. Wow. This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall "Tex" Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days. I saw this movie recently. 2 hours later, my head still hurt from laughing. The plot was soo awful, the jokes were soo bad, but what I didn't count on were:

1. the 2 scenes before and after the movie that had Pat and Jay posing (that caused more than enough laughter)

2. The kick through the windshield that decapitated the evil-doer.

This movie is about 20 times better than the Rush Hour series, and my copy even came with a disclamer saying if you didn't like the movie, send certificate to HBO. While I considered it, the date you had to send it in was January 1991 (which also caused wackiness to ensue). Okay, I know I shouldn't like this movie but I do. From Pat Morita's loveable interpretation of a Japanese stereotype to Jay Leno's annoying yell, I laughed throughout this movie.As long as you take into account that this is not the best movie in the world, it's a good mvie.

My favorite part is Morita talking to his boss in Tokyo with the drinking a close second. Well no, I tell a lie, this is in fact not the best movie of all time, but it is a really enjoyable movie that nobody I know has seen.

It's a buddy cop movie starring Jay Leno and Pat Morita(Mr Miyagi) with some fluff story about a missing car engine prototype or something, but that doesn't matter. the reason this movie is fun is because of the interaction between the two leads, who initially dislike and distrust each other but in a shocking twist of fate end up becoming friends. The whole culture difference thing is done quite well,in that it's fun to watch, it's completely ridiculous but in a cheesy and enjoyable kind of way. The soundtrack is cool,once again in a cheesy 80's kind of way, it suits the movie, I've been trying to find one of the songs for ages, but as I'm working from memory of what I think a few of the words were i can't seem to find it.

Another thing this movie has is the most fantastic pay off of any movie ever, but I won't give that one away, oh no! In conclusion I'd take this movie over 48 Hours\most of Eddie Murphys output including Beverly Hills cop, and whatever buddy junk Jackie Chan or Martin Lawrence have to their names. If you're looking for a buddy cop movie and are getting fed up with "straight white cop meets zany streetwise black cop" give this a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised cos this turns the whole formula upside down with "straight Japanese cop meets zany streetwise white cop".

I'm giving this 7. to be honest I like it more than that. I'd rather watch this than a lot of stuff I'd give 8. But I guess I know deep down that it's some sort of insanity that makes me like this movie. Centered in the downtown and out skirts of Detroit, this comedy I found to be a terrific new comedic duo. 'Noriyuki Pat Morita' is a very funny man, who happens to be a cop from Japan on the trail of an industrial secrets thief, who has stolen a 'proto type' turbo super charger, reluctantly he goes to the United States to follow the thief, after being ordered by his commander. Pat's character collides with 'Jay Leno's' character, a fast talking' but down to business-player type Detroit cop. When they cross paths though, the honorable 'Ways' of Japan meet the all-out old school Detroit police investigative 'Ways'. The two stumble and trip over each other at first, but then develop a 'rythym' that turns into an explosive two layered powerhouse team, that solves the case, cold. After battling a city crime boss for the stolen 'equiptment' and closing the case, these two go from despising each other to being friends and working well together. A little worse for wear and in need of an extended-vacation on top of it all, they manage to come to a victorious closing. I rated this a 9. Lewis's direction makes' this a near perfect comedy. Fun for all ages. I recommend it highly.(***) i saw this movie on cable, it was really funny, from the stereotype police chief to the stereotype big bad guys, jay leno and mr mayagi from karate kid star in this good comedy about a prototype car part. I compare this movie to "RUSH HOUR" in which a local cop has to partner up with an asian police officer to solve a case. The chase through farmers market in downtown detroit brings back memories. Enjoyable soundtrack, good script, i give it 10/10. This movie stars Jay Leno as a Detroit cop, Tony Costas and Pat Morita as a Tokyo cop sent to Detroit to retrieve a stolen prototype of a car motor. A Japanese man traveled to Detroit hoping to sell it to a up and coming car company ran by a man named Derrick Jarryd. Unfortunately for him the men who were supposed to negotiate the deal killed him and took the prototype. An angry Derek Jarryd tries to distance himself from Phillip Madras who led the men. But Madras(played by Chris Sarandon) has none of it and threatens Jarryd forcing him to continue their partnership. Meanwhile in the same junk yard where the Japanese man had been killed, a friend of Tony Costas was also killed by the same men. Tony's friend had been watching the junk yard.

Tony sets out to find the killer against his superior's order. Tony is on robbery while obviously homicide should investigate the case. While Tony is investigating the crime he runs into the Japanese cop and mistakingly he arrests him. Eventually they end up working together on the case. They make an odd pair and there are some genuinely amusing parts as well as some ridiculous scenes such as Pat Morita jumping and kicking right through a the windshield of a moving car and kicking Madras in the head. But it ends up being an enjoyable buddy cop movie, at least in my opinion. Jay Leno is no actor, but he is likable in the role and Pat Morita is good as well. Still, they make for one of the more unlikely buddy cop duos in an action film. If you liked buddy cop films, cheesy 80's movies or you want to see Jay Leno as an actor then I recommend this movie. The acting is pretty cheesy, but for the people in this area up in the 80s and are now Detroit area automotive engineers, this is a great movie. I even work with a Japanese supplier so that makes this movie even more funny.

Jay Leno was showing his age last night on The Tonight Show! He looks pretty young here...17 years ago. The opening scene, with the drag race on what appears to be Woodward Ave was great.

Leno also owns some bad a** cars now, it would e great to see a remake of this with his modern collection. I'm sure the blown Vette in the opening scene was his own car.

Typical 80s movie. Watch it and enjoy. No computer generated crap! I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead. I saw the film for the first time at BBC on July the 27 of 2005. For me it was a good interpretation of the person Conan Doyle,and I truly wonder what the sherlock fans think about it. I also think it is a movie for these fans whether they agree or not what is mentioned.You may ask yourself was A.C. Doyle a strong person or did he put himself in question. However he was the creator of the famous Holmes,but how much of it was a sort of semi-biography? Not the less I strongly put this adaption forward, it is a movie you have to see - even if you aren't interested in the Sherlock Holmes movies or books - look a it , enjoy yourself and have your own opinion of it. Written by the writer who penned the excellent Murder Rooms series which chronicled ACD's adventures with Doctor Joseph Bell, I was looking forward to this and I wasn't disappointed. It was quite slow moving, with a lot of emphasis on Doyle's frustration at Sherlock Holmes which was very accurate and excellently portrayed. It was an interesting character study and very well shot ( on digital video, unusual for a period piece ). The acting was excellent all round, particularly Tim McInnery and Brian Cox although the actor who portrayed ACD, whose name I cannot remember impressed me no end. An excellent character study which has about the same amount of twists as any normal Sherlock Holmes case. Do see this if you get the chance The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece. Loosely intended as a satire of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance, The Three Ages was Buster Keaton's first attempt at a full length comedy feature. The only similarities to Intolerance are the opening "book" scene and the fact that similar stories through the ages are edited together into a complete film. Keaton's reasoning for appropriating this style was that if it didn't succeed as a feature film, it could be reduced to three two-reelers. Fortunately, The Three Ages succeeds brilliantly as a comedy and contains some of the funniest routines I've seen in any of Keaton's film. There is nothing unique or daring about the story lines. They are simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plots, but the period satires are riotous and set the standard for future works by Mel Brooks and all films of this genre. However, I don't believe that anyone has ever topped this comedy. No one can play the lovable goof like Keaton and the stunts in this film are some of his best. In addition, Wallace Beery's appearance as Keaton's rival adds to this film's appeal. Anyone who thinks that comedy from the 1920's cannot be appreciated by modern audiences needs to see this movie. First time of seeing Buster Keaton's first feature film and I have to admit I liked it a lot and only wish I'd stumbled across it years ago. The Rohauer blurb at the start warns that the Three Ages single nitrate print was rediscovered and salvaged in 1954 just in time before combustion, and many frames that seemed hopelessly glued together were separated. So, it's rocky viewing in places, but I've seen and survived much worse.

It would have been OK as the 3 short films but as a take on Intolerance it's inventive and funny from the start to the finish: In the Stone Age with baddie Wallace Beery riding an elephant and goodie Buster riding a pet brontosaurus; In the Roman Age Buster riding a chariot with wheel locks and adapted for sledging, No Parking signs in Latin; In this technological Age of Speed Need and Greed his car beautifully falls to bits at the first hump. Both him and Beery are after the Girl through the ages, a never ending tussle. Favourite bit: As the caveman he gets knocked backward over a cliff edge but still blows a kiss to the camera - an amazing second or two!

Great stuff, reaffirming my love of silent film comedy. This was Keaton's first feature and is in actuality three shorts, set in different periods (Stone Age, Roman Age, Modern Age) on the eternal triangle of romance. The stories parallel each other as in Griffith's INTOLERANCE, which this was intended to satirize. The strengths of the jokes and gags almost all rely on anachronisms, bringing modern day business into ancient settings.

**** WARNING - SPOILERS FOLLOW TO ELABORATE BEST POINTS ******

Here are the classic moments:

Using a turtle as a wee-gee board (Stone Age); A wrist watch containing a sun dial (Roman Age); A chariot with a spare wheel (Roman Age); Using a helmet as a tire lock (Roman Age); Early golf with clubs and rocks(Stone Age); Dictating a will being carved into a rock (Stone Age); The changing weather forecaster (Roman Age); The chariot race in snow -Buster using skis and huskies with a spare dog in the chariot's boot(Roman Age).

The above are all throw-away gags that keep us chuckling. There are however unforgettable moments as well:

Buster taking out shaving equipment to match girl putting on make-up; The fantastic double take when an inebriated Buster gazes at his plate to discover a crab staring up at him (within one second he has leaped to stand on his chair from a sitting position and leaped again into the arms of the waiter - one of the funniest moments I've ever seen). And that lion - the manicure -just brilliant.

There's also an off-color bit of racism when four African-American litter bearers abandon their mistress for a Roman crap game.

Kino's print is a bit fuzzy and contains numerous sequences of both nitrate deterioration and film damage- most probably at ends of reels. The Metro feature is scored with piano and flute and borrows heavily from Grieg.

Lots of fun and full of laughs. This is a cleaver film featuring love through the ages. The film consists of Keaton seeking out a lady love in the stone age, in ancient Rome and in the present (1920s). In all three cases, he is the usual wimpy Buster and he battles against Wallace Beery for his lady love. Of the three time periods, I think I liked the Roman one best even though I admit it might have also been the cheesiest. I actually liked the scenes with the lion that was obviously a guy in a costume as well as the weird chariot race in the snow--but what I really enjoyed the most was seeing all of Keaton's amazing acrobatics. However, all three time periods were good old fashioned fun and the film, while not his best, is still an exceptional and enjoyable film. Check it out! D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.

Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Müde Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.

Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded. As is well-known among long haired youngsters who are incredibly interested in this Herr Graf's silent rants, during summertime aristocrats like to travel to exclusive and distinguished places in order to avoid the heat as well hordes of coarse people taking their ease. Such bizarre travels around the world also happen in "Three Ages", a charming and elegant piece of silent work directed by old hands, namely Herr Buster Keaton and Herr Eddie Cline.

Obviously this German count liked most the first segment focused on the Stone Age due to the affinity that this aristocrat feels about that ancient time. preferring that to the second segment which takes place during the glory of Rome (It should have included the cause of the fall of the Roman empire, that is to say, Barbarians, or the same thing, Germans). Of course, the third segment takes place during modern times but this Teutonic aristocrat thinks that even 100 years ago should qualify as modern.

The leitmotiv that moves Herr Keaton and his companions to travel and endure the strange and hilarious happenings during three different ages, is the search for love, a very complicated subject to understand for aristocrats who prefer the search for money and self interest. Every time that "Three Ages" is shown in the Schloss theatre, it is always a pleasure to watch a funny, witty silent film (even for a serious German count), an oeuvre full of gags and gadgets, puns, pratfalls and acrobatics, visual and astounding technical tricks, an absolute silent delicatessen that is perfect to allow one to endure the various and coarse summertime severities.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must flirt with an old Teutonic heiress who doesn't look her age.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/ Although the movie is clearly dated, audiences can still easily identify with the plight of hapless Buster in this timeless and very funny underdog tale. Buster fights against unkindly odds in three different ages: the Stone Age, The Roman Age, and the Moden Age, playing almost the same character with just a change of scenery to help us identify the different "ages". In this movie we see one of the earliest comedic depictions of the "caveman" stereotype, who wins his love not by romance but by brute force, as well as a funny twist on Roman gladiatorial combat, two comedic sketches that long predate such spoofs as Mel Brooks' "History of the World: Part I". The underlying theme of the movie is simple yet convincing: Although the times may have-a-changed, we still face the same struggles even in modern times that we fought in prehistoric times in order to "win the girl" (keep in mind this is the theme of 1923 America, a time when chauvinism was still en vogue). It is interesting to look at this movie over eighty years later, and consider how dramatically things have changed from this movie's "modern times" to now. One of the ten best comedies ever

This seems a comedy so joyous and light that sings. Keaton's comedies are _innerly, harmoniously, intelligently ordered, thought.

Wonderfully amusing, deliberately delightful and inventive, THREE AGES should belong to a draft of a comedies top ten if I were to sketch one. A threefold love story will enchant the viewers; I want to bring here this approach—Keaton's comedy is like Lang's DESTINY upside—down—or À REBOURS. Again a couple traverses the waters of time—and of epochs—in the Stone Age, in Rome and in Keaton's times—in a Mohammedan country, in Renaissance Italy and in China. The same device works in the both movies—one, a grim, eerie melodrama; --the other, a light, virtuously—paced comedy. At Keaton it's essentially the same couple; and maybe the same is with Lang. The babe desired by both Buster and Beery is nice. I have found THREE AGES well written and smart, without being ostentatiously sophisticated; the plot is basically very POPEYE—like—the babe is a piece of furniture, the only protagonists are the two male rivals—Keaton and Beery.

Keaton's movie is simply enormously likable, and perhaps one would be tempted to assert this looks like ambitious fun—yet it's not, but it is grand fun, large fun, ample fun. And Wallace Beery makes a fine nemesis. This movie is really funny!! The General is Keaton's finest work but there are many of his works that are more hilarious - in this one are multiple sight gags and creative humor. We watch it over and over and it only seems to get funnier! Buster Keaton was finding his feature length voice in "Three Ages." There are some fine sequences, but it doesn't quite hang together. The "chariot race" in "Three Ages" is hilarious. Included are 2 shorts, one of which, "The Goat," is excellent. This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an "art" film, but a little, lovely motion picture! When I heard that Adrian Pasdar was in drag in this movie, my expectations that I would watch the entire movie were low. The only reasons I gave it a chance were the magnificent Julie Walters and the recommendation of a friend.

What i thought would be a broad "Mrs. Doubtfire" type of farce turned out to be a gentle and insightful comedy. Pasdar is entirely credible and empathetic as the ambitious business man who needs to release the female part of his being by cross-dressing on occasions. He transmits these needs to the audience in a thoroughly believable fashion. Julie Walters is magnificent, is as her habit, as the landlady who teaches him unconditional love. This one took me by surprise because i had often been disappointed by Adrian Pasdar in the past, but he caught the perfect balance in this performance, avoiding both farce and pathos while delivering humour and real emotions. The always-wonderful Julie Waters is terrific here, and anyone who has not yet scene her in 1983's Educating Rita should rent it immediately (marvelous film). The rest of the supporting characters are well-played as well, many marvelously eccentric without going over the top. This one is fun. Julie Waters is always marvelous but Adrian Pasdar is a positive revelation in this wry gender-bent comedy about a transvestite who cannot suppress his obsession, and the changes he goes through when he's discovered. Unerringly eschews the vulgar, raucous easy jokes for genuine wit and true insight, and has an absolute ball while doing it. A very nice, low-key, feel-good, comedy Somewhat too long and going over the top towards the end, this comedy is an utterly delightful, never condescending or ridiculing look into the problems of a "power man", who likes to wear women´s clothes at nite.

Julie Walters is lovely as always, but Adrian Pasdar is utterly credible and steals the film. He (she)is absolutely gorgeous in high heels and silk stockings. Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you. Adrian Pasdar is excellent is this film. He makes a fascinating woman. With this topic, it is so easy to take cheap shots. You know, the guy with hairy legs trying to look like Marilyn Monroe. Not here -- Adrian Pasdar does a superb job of making Gerald a REAL person, someone you care deeply about, and as a result you feel for his plight trying to live both as Gerald and Geraldine. Not only that, but as Geraldine, he looks HOT! And the chemistry between him and Julie Walters is electric. These are two characters who feel love for one another, and it comes through even when they simply look at each other over the breakfast table. Even the potentially cheesy sub-story line of corporate takeovers is believable, and you find yourself cheering at the end! At least I did! Since Educating Rita, Julie Walters has been one of my role models, and her performance in this as a woman who helps the man she loves get in synch with his feminine side is magnificent. I would never have believed her character in the hands of a lesser actress, but Walters pulls it off with gusto and panache. Adrian Pasdar gives his best performance to-date in the male lead. That film is absolutely fantastic!! If you watch it with your friends it can be a very nice day... Obviously you have to know that the film is stupid and very bad directed and acted (Tomba/Unziker what a couple), and that is probably the worse film in the world, but you can enjoy it very much. We watched it in 19 and it was a very nice evening. The best scenes are the first one, when the criminals kill the friend of Alex, and he tries to act like a desperate, and the result is a comic scene of first category... And then when he shows to Leva (Antevleva, what a name) the "Palassio di giusstissia", and then the accident of Leva, that once is going on her car out of the road, and a second later, the car is completely empty! What a magic! I've recently watched this movie, in a lazy Sunday afternoon, with some friend of mine and we have a lot of fun! This movie is a masterpiece of trash. Try to watch it with this purpose! It hadn't been expected, of course, but the performance provided by the actors (and Alberto Tomba is absolutely the best), the weak script and the low-cost budget had created an amazing mix of foolish things. Tomba was just retired from alpine ski racing, where he was a dominant technical skier in the late 1980s and 1990s. Tomba won three Olympic gold medals, two World Championships, and nine World Cup season titles. Seriously about the director: nobody knows why Damiano Damiani he has signed this movie. All the other Damiani's directions are considerable. A kid with ideals who tries to change things around him. A boy who is forced to become a man, because of the system. A system who hides the truth, and who is violating the rights of existence. A boy who, inspired by Martin Luther King, stands up, and tells the truth. A family who is falling apart, and fighting against it. A movie you can't hide from. You see things, and you hear things, and you feel things, that you till the day you die will hope have never happened for real. Violence, frustration, abuse of power, parents who can't do anything, and a boy with, I am sorry, balls, a boy who will not accept things, who will not let anything happen to him, a kid with power, and a kid who acts like a pro, like he has never done anything else, he caries this movie to the end, and anyone who wants to see how abuse found place back in the 60'ies. I saw this movie today and I have to say, it was much much better than I expected it to be about couple of hours before going to see it. Personally I had some prejudice due to the language of it, but it did totally change my idea. The movie was in most cases surprisingly good with the great actor and actress performances. It was a story about a boy who had a dream and who did everything to reach it. This really touched me and as a film, which is based on a true story, it convinced me. A new school, psycho headmaster and a young boy who get known with a new teacher, a bit different one than the others and about fighting for the things even if they doesn't seem to work out. It showed how little things can make huge changes in many things, and how difference can sometimes cause difficult situations. Also I think the actor selections has succeeded perfectly. It really felt like you had been some person watching the episodes as an outsider when they happened. Before I spoil this movie with praises, I have to admit that there were some things and situations that didn't look and feel realistic..like the one where the headmaster of the school beat Frits aka. Martin in front of the class, at the end of the movie. He really got beaten badly, but the only thing that it caused to him, was some blood coming from the nose when comparing that to the first beating in the beginning, when Frits got some stitches..well I guess every movie has it own faults..have to say, that if I someday somewhere find this DVD from the store, it's sure thing, that I take it with me. I just picked up the DVD release of this movie while on holiday in Norway where it has been released with English subtitles.

The film is beautifully photographed and powerfully acted. The youngster portraying 'Frits' the lead character has an astonishingly open face which mirrors with painful accuracy the tragic events which unfold around him.

Early on in the film we see that the father whom Frits loves so much has mental health problems and this is brought up when the brutal headmaster denies assaulting the boy and suggests it was his own father.

The climactic scene where Frits refuses to show any respect to the headmaster; simply standing his ground and repeating 'Liar' as he is brutally assaulted in front of his classmates is a scene you are not likely to forget.

The films only weak point is the rather clichéd 'Flower Power' teacher who uses every 'friendly teacher' trick in the book. Other than this I feel sure that this is a film you will really enjoy. Insisting that Martin Luther King's inspirational spirit resides not just in American civil liberties but inside the hearts and minds of people everywhere, Danish helmer Niels Arden Oplev transplants this belief to a 1969 Danish middle school. More specifically, it works its way into the crusade of a young boy named Frits (Janus Dissing Rathke) against his oppressively rigid and churlishly abusive headmaster Svendsen (Bent Mejding). Adapted from a true story, the performances are executed with certain aplomb and a refreshing command over its varied characters keeps it involving. A battle of ideologies between a 13 year-old and a demented disciplinarian gives way to inherent humour but awkward shifts in mood disorients despite keeping it shrewdly cynical in the same vein as a "Dead Poets Society" more than a "Matilda". It treads a familiar path but a continued and precise service to its young protagonist including a personal subplot that rounds off Frits as a young boy becoming a young man, manages to raise the film into a rousing family film with its nose right on the money. The arrival of White Men in Arctic Canada challenges the freedom of a fearless ESKIMO hunter.

W. S. Van Dyke, MGM's peripatetic director, was responsible for this fascinating look at life in the Arctic among the Inuit. His production was on location filming from April 1932 until November 1933 (although some annoying rear projection effects show that some of the shooting took place back at the Studio). While considered a documentary at the time, we would likely term it a 'docudrama' as it is scripted with an intriguing plot & storyline.

The film shows the daily life of the Eskimo, both Winter & Summer, and in fact starts in the warmer time of the year without any snow or ice in sight. The constant striving for food is depicted, and the viewer gets to watch the exciting hunts for walrus, polar bear, whale & caribou. The native language is used throughout, with the use of title cards; the only English is spoken by the fishermen & Mounties encountered by the Eskimo. In fact, it is the arrival of White Men, both good & bad, and the change they make on Eskimo society, which is a major element in the narrative.

This Pre-Code film deals in a refreshingly frank manner with the Eskimo moral code, particularly with their practice of wife-sharing, which was an important and completely innocent part of their culture. In fact, the entire film can be appreciated as a valuable look at a way of life which was rapidly disappearing even in the early 1930's.

None of the cast receives screen credit, which is a shame as there are some notable performances. Foremost among them is that of Ray Wise, playing the leading role of Mala the Eskimo. Wise (1906-1952) was an Alaskan Native of Inuit ancestry and is absolutely splendid and perfectly believable in what was a very demanding part. As handsome as any Hollywood star, he would continue acting, using the name of Ray Mala, in a sporadic film career, often in tiny unbilled roles.

Lovely Japanese-Hawaiian actress Lotus Long plays Mala's loyal second wife; the names of the fine actresses playing his other two wives are now obscure. Director Woody Van Dyke steps in front of the cameras as a strict North West Mounted Police inspector. The two decent-hearted Mounties who must deliver Mala to Canadian justice are played by Joe Sawyer & Edgar Dearing, both longtime movie character actors. Danish author Peter Freuchen, upon whose books the film was based, has a short vivid role of an evil wooden-legged sea captain who unwisely rouses Mala's icy wrath. I was impressed by the beautiful photography in this film, which was shot on location in Alaska. Although technically a melodrama, we see lots of activities Eskimos are involved in, such as hunting, dancing, building igloos, etc. And their customs, such as offering their wives to visitors, are routinely in the story. The hunting sequences were sometimes from stock footage, as it was easy to recognize some rear projection scenes of animals, but even these were fascinating. Spear fishing for salmon, hunting for walrus, caribou and even a polar bear and a whale made it seem like a documentary at times. There was no cast listing, which reinforced the documentary flavor. The film-makers tried to make it seem very authentic, with the natives speaking only in an Eskimo language that was either translated by someone on screen or by intertitles. The introduction stated that except for the white traders and the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, there were no actors in the film, but this was not strictly true. The two leading characters, played by Mala and Lotus Long, were Eskimos by birth, but were professional actors with credits for earlier films and you could see sometimes they had makeup on. But they were excellent in their roles and they went on to have Hollywood careers. All in all, the film is definitely worth a look. I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects. I want to add to the praise for the production of this film, especially the luminous cinematography. Firelight glistening off of smooth and muscled skin creates stunningly beautiful imagery. The film was nominated for (and won) a single Oscar - the first given for editing. Mala's performance is moody, penetrating and powerful. Eskimo is a serious movie about the cultural chasm between an indigenous population and the encroaching white man. Although filmed in a documentary style seemingly with non-professionals, Eskimo is a skilled production that contains a believable story the audience will want to see through to the final shot.

The native Eskimo simply has different beliefs and behaviors about women and life than do the whalers that darken his landscape. When an Eskimo man loses his mate, it is natural that other men share their women with their friend. It is also usual for their women to want to take the place of the missing spouse. All of this seems natural in the context of the desolate foreboding Arctic setting. The trusting Eskimo falls prey to unscrupulous white whalers (with heavy European accents) that do not view these natives as their equals. Deceit, drunken orgies, rape, and death occur after the Eskimo men depart for work on the icy cold seas. Eventually the lead Eskimo (Mala) realizes that he has been duped and he takes his revenge. The audience would have cheered in the 1930's theaters.

Enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the moral dilemma of whether to bring back Mala for trial. The Mounties are played as feeling policemen that know this is not a cut and dry case. Will the Mounties get their man? Is it fair to hold Mala to a code of behavior outside of his traditional society? Is there a way out that does not punish Mala? Is it inevitable that the white man's law must prevail? Is there no hope for innocence?

This is not a great movie, but one that you will enjoy for the depth of the issue addressed in a very different setting. I suspect that the filming of the sequences with animals was done before today's disclaimer that none were injured in the making of the film -- so beware of the raw nature sequences. Highly recommended. Here I thought "Nanook of the north" was the last word in archaic semi-doc 'eskimo' movies. How wrong! As an avid sea-kayaker I stayed up till 330am to watch this hoping to get a glimpse of some hand-made 'skin-boats'. The movie did not let me down. Any student of kayak/umiak construction should have a look-see here. (Note to fellow SKers: they appear to be using Norton Sound kayaks with single blade paddles).

But the film went way beyond this admittedly narrow interest. Even though there were as others have noted some little back-shot-fakey-bits the movie has so much heart they are just a minor annoyance. It was (from this very amateur anthropologist's viewpoint) probably the perfect time to make this movie. Early thirties: the 'talkies' are so new that they (including Louie B. Mayer!) actually let the Inuit speak in their own tongue. And there is so much that was still, despite the infused melodrama, authentic. They are really whacking that polar bear, that whale and those caribou. A fifties version of this film would have been so cheesy with 'stars', Technicolor, etc. to gum it up. The seventies version? Don't even. A very good companion piece to this excellent movie is "White shadows in the south seas" (1928) Geograpically the mirror image to "Eskimo" it also deals with the relentless and profound disruption of Western culture/technology on an unsuspecting people. This zippy and fun short from 1916 - the time when Charlie Chaplin and Fatty Arbuckle were the big names in comedy - features the young Oliver Hardy as a ne'er-do-well who has to quickly impress his wealthy uncle by producing a wife and baby for his visit.

Of course this does not go smoothly and soon there are rather more wives and babies than he can cope with; plus the mandatory chases and misunderstandings that are the hallmark of early movie slapstick.

Restored well it can be viewed as part of 'The Early Films of Oliver Hardy' and is now available on DVD, a fine addition to the available corpus of the big screen favourite comedy duo. I have seen virtually all of Cynthia Rothrock's films, and to me this is the funniest. It reminds me of early Jackie Chan movies. Admittedly, Ms Rothrock may not be the greatest actress, but she is very good to watch as both a martial artist and as a very cute young lady. This film, while probably not the best of all her films, was the most entertaining. This group of English pros are a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast could form a series of their own. It's a seen before love tiangle between the head of surgery, his wife, and a new pretty boy surgery resident. Only the superior acting skills of Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen, and the sexy Robson Greene lift this from the trash category to a very enjoyable "romp". The only quibble is that it's hard to accept that the smoldering Francesca Annis would fall in love and actually marry Michael Kitchen, who like me, is hardly an international, or even a British sex symbol. You can readily understand why Robson Green would light her fire, with apologies to the "Doors". The guy who almost steals the show with a great "laid back" performance is Owen's father David Bradley. Watch him in "The Way We Live Now", in a completely different performance, to get an idea of his range. Daniela Nardini as Kitchen's secretary, sometime sex toy, is hard to forget as the spurned mistress who makes Kitchen sorry he ever looked at her great body. Conor Mullen, and Julian Rhind-Tutt, as Green's sidekick surgery buddies as I've said could have their own series. They are that good. The whole thing is a great deal of fun, and I heartily recommend it, and thank you imdbman for letting the paying customers have their say in this fascinating venue. Hunky Geordie Robson Green is Owen Springer, a young doctor who moves home to Manchester to be near his father. Along the way, he falls for Anna, a woman 20 years his senior, and who happens to be the wife of his new boss, Richard Crane. Despite warnings from his new colleagues, Owen proceeds to get Anna for himself, going as far as to sabotage Anna and the cheating Richard's marriage. This is a romantic drama with many humorous undertones and a quick wit. The actors are superb: Green of "The Student Prince" and "Touching Evil" smolders on-screen as the cunning, yet warm-hearted Owen; Annis of "Dune" fame is lively and proves a good match to Green; Kitchen, from "To Play The King" is the right menace as Richard, whose comic missteps and snobbery underline his masterful, building hatred for Owen. This is a perfect love triangle, and despite the foibles and fallacies of our three characters, you come away better for knowing and watching them. This gripping tale of intergenerational love, jealousy and revenge was even more enjoyable to see on DVD years after its PBS broadcast, with a sharper picture and crisper sound. My only reservations are that the plot has a few improbable moments and that some of the stronger Manchester accents are difficult at times. Luckily even missing a word here and there won't spoil the fun: the primary actors are ideally cast. Robson Green brings an enigmatic smile, a go-for-broke temperament and an athletic physicality to his role as a young surgeon who falls hopelessly for the wife of his boss at the hospital where he's just begun to work. Francesca Annis is one of the most striking 50-ish women imaginable; her acting rivals her beauty. (The love scenes between these two demonstrate better than words how little the age difference matters to them!) Each of the supporting characters is sharply drawn and excellently portrayed as well. The mix of pithy dialog and passionate excess makes this a delightful miniseries. As Russell Baker notes in his introduction, you may not be morally improved by viewing "Reckless" -- but you'll have plenty of fun. (The sequel, a part of the DVD box set, provides a wild yet satisfying two-hour denouement. You won't want to miss it if you've enjoyed what came before.) Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen AND Robson Green!! Wow, what a trio...OK, so this is no Anna Karenina, but it is a good love story, very well-written and well-acted by all. Even a few 'laugh-out-loud' moments mixed in with some pretty serious observations on fidelity, age bias, and parental aging/Alzheimer's issues.

Quirky guitar music added to the story as well.

While I have been a fan of Ms. Annis' since 'Lillie' (in the '70s) and Mr. Kitchen's since 'The Buccaneers' and 'Enchanted April', I have only recently discovered Mr. Green ('Me and Mrs. Jones', 'Touching Evil', etc.), making me ask the question - why had I not seen 'Reckless' until recently??!! Admittedly more of a 'chick flick' than something a man will sit through, it is perfect for a rainy afternoon's lazy viewing. I saw only the first part of this series when it debuted back in the late 90's and only recently got a chance to watch all three parts via Netflix (convenient service by the way). All in all, I liked this lighthearted, sometimes genre challenged, mini series. The story of a younger man falling for an older woman seems to work and the actors are all fine. Yes, it does have some romance clichés of running in the rain or a train station goodbye, but the characters have a chance to be explored so it doesn't seem cheesy, like it would be if this were some Tom Hanks vehicle or similar. Robson Greene, who at times reminds me of a separated-at-birth Scott Bakula does a fine job of someone who is head over heels in love and the ebb and tide of desire and rejection throws the series into watchable fare. Personally, I think the series could have been done with two episodes, but that's up for debate I suppose. Apparently, there's a sequel, and that should be arriving tomorrow via Netflix. To put it simply, I enjoyed this film. The reason for my interest & enjoyment was not related to anything other than the subject matter itself. I had heard tales from my mother and grandmother about how Northern England working class life and attitudes used to be (as experienced by them)and this is an interesting depiction that seems to faithfully represent what they told me. In particular, the paternalistic but overbearing father who "knows" what is best for his family along with his stubborness when this paradigm is challenged. (Not much has changed there then!!)

People who have seen the play will probably be disappointed with the film because the story does not easily transfer across the different media. In a sense however, the film is an historical document and I personally enjoyed it, if only because of the way it conveyed a social phenomenon. Outside the household is a different world and the family struggle to tread the line between Dads authority and their hopes and dreams.

The period is captured; The bakelite light swithes, the Georgian floorpan, the picture rails, the wall paper, the short skirts, the cheeky lads, the Mini van, shiny modern mangles....

The location is captured; A wind lashed glacier hewn rocky landscape, walls of local stone, community, freedom.

But there is much much more; Childhood, happiness, sensuality, pride, values, freedom, authority, rebellion, violence (in the deepest sense), love, struggle, puberty, naivety, morality, trust, faith, deceit, machismo, manners, maturity, loss, poverty, sacrifice, horror, acceptence, revelation, comedy and parenthood are all there. (And in no particular order!).

This film is a richly woven expression of family tensions that are as relevent today as ever. The fact that some of these aren't tackled directly is testament in itself to the attitudes of the day but the fact that they are all here is a testament to the acting skill, the story and the direction.

If there's anything bad about this film, it's that all this deeply entrenched and wonderfully enacted tension is swept away a little too lightly towards the end. Maybe I missunderstand - the doom and gloom felt by many teenagers really does disappear if they deal with it (**) - maybe the film is trying to send even that message too - well worth doing.

What is the film trying to say? Kids: Parents were young too, parents struggle too, everyone makes mistakes, everyone learns, things change, struggle can end happily. Parents: Don't try too hard! Try to remember that your support is the key to their well being.

It sounds simplistic doesn't it? Sometimes the film feels like that too but it's then that you notice how much is being being challenged and uncovered.

The film is a classic.

(**) - Not the problems themsleves. As an native of Bolton, this film has obvious appeal for me. The location shots are fascinating and show a Bolton very much in transition - there are a number of scenes of apparent dereliction but this serves to show the town being rebuilt - and the idea that the old must make way for the new is right at the heart of this film. A slightly miscast James Mason leads an enjoyable ensemble in a story about a fuss over a herring that spirals into a full-blown generational conflict, then a pleasingly schmaltzy resolution. Though I'm a bit too young to remember it fully, the minutiae of Lancashire life in the 60s is all here: cashing up on a Friday, songs round the piano, the Sunday constitutional, good neighbourliness, the trepidations of courtship, the massive importance of self-respect, and I was pleased to see Naughton's funniest lines from the play left intact. There is no doubt that this film ought to be made available on DVD - it is well crafted and most performances are well realised. This is an excellent film about a traditional working class family in Northern England. Filmed on location in Bolton, it stars James Mason as the father who is the dominant force within his home. Or so it seems. Cleverly, the film, based on the play, portrays the complexities of family life. The supporting cast is terrific as well, with many familiar faces lending support. but I want to say I cannot agree more with Moira.

What a wonderful film.

I was thinking about it just this morning, wanting to give advice to some dopey sod who'd lost money on his debit card through fraud, and wanted to say 'Keep thy money in thine pocket' and realised I was talking like James Mason.

Even tho he didn't say those words, I still think he would! I've never forgotten 'Are ye carrying?' in his reconciliation with his son, Hywel Bennet: 'Always have money in thine pocket!' Good advice.

Not enough kids have fathers with such unforgiving but well-meant attitudes any more. Or any father at all.

It would be a good thing for us to reinstate 'thee', 'thy' and 'thine' in our language to show we care. It is only the same as 'tutoyer' in French or 'du' in German.

Addendum: I just realised that a lot of my remarks were about James Mason in The Family Way!

I think it's because I mixed up Susan George with Hayley Mills. Well, easy mistake.

I stand by the comments tho'.

And Spring and Port Wine is so very similar to The Family Way.

When you took a girlfriend to the pictures in those days, you really had something to say and talk about afterwards, something that affected your knowledge of the world and your personal development.

Theatrical experiences are almost real, and they are important in helping young people to grow up.

It doesn't happen now, I think, that teenagers can just go to the pics like we did. I love this film 'Spring and port wine'. I was born in Leigh, a town about 7 miles away from Bolton, I moved to Bolton in 1965 when I was 20. My place of work was daily via Little Lever through Farnworth, sometimes on a bike but then by car when I could afford it.The film brings back all the memories of the working class neighbors who were almost always broke but who would always help you if they could. Fred Dibnah was round the corner from Bromwich St. were my bedsit was. If you didn't see the film when first released then you may be forgiven for comparing it to a soap such as Coronation St, well I agree it is a soap, but then, it was called 'Kitchen Sink Drama!' Watch this film for the talented cast who shortly afterwards became household names from frequent roles on TV, I watch mainly for the shots of the locality and the feel good factor of people being poor but happy! Superb movie. Very good photography of 1969/70 Bolton, which seems now to be a different world. Thoughtful and an excellent dramatisation and production. James Mason a real first class star. It is and I would agree with the above comment that this movie is a national treasure. This film is NOT about a cat and mouse fight as stated in the other comment. Its about a cat that has used up 8 of its 9 lives and now lives in fear of loosing its last one. The cat is jumpy and scared to death all of the time, hence the name 'fraidy cat'. Fraidy Cat's previous lives haunt him as ghosts which are from different era's in time and are constantly trying to kill him off, but he is most fearful of the ninth life which is represented as a cloud in the shape of a number 9 and spits out lighting bolts. very old now but would still be fun for the kids if you got hold of a copy.

i watched this movie almost every day as a child :o) Here is a favorite Tom & Jerry cartoon perfect for Halloween. I know it dosen't have much creepiness, but has the 'trick' as in "Trick or Treat," as Jerry did to Tom with the window blind and the vacuum-cleaner with a collared-shirt hanging on it to make it like a ghost; but still like to put it on my list of Halloween cartoons. In this short, Tom was listening to the "Witching Hour," a ghost-story program on the radio, and being frightened by the horror story being told. Halfway into the story, the dramatics (hair standing on end, heart leaping into throat, icy chills on spine) begin happening to Tom . . . literally. And Jerry has been observing the whole thing and laughing to himself, thought he highen Tom fears by scaring him.

I love the ending, it was a little funny. And you know, This short is the first of four cartoons in which Tom attacks Mammy Two Shoes; the others being The Lonesome Mouse, A Mouse in the House and Nit-Witty Kitty. And also This short is the first of twenty-five cartoons where Tom speaks. The others are The Lonesome Mouse, The Zoot Cat, The Million Dollar Cat, The Bodyguard, Mouse Trouble, The Mouse Comes to Dinner, Quiet Please!, Trap Happy, Solid Serenade, Mouse Cleaning, Texas Tom, Mucho Mouse, and The Cat Above and the Mouse Below directed by Chuck Jones. "Fraidy Cat", the 4th of these cartoons, is a good one. At least I like it, so I'm surprised that this is getting mixed reviews.

This one is more of a macabre story than a funny one, although it has its moments of comedy. The atmosphere is dark and spooky. Suspense is another strong element here. As for humor, it's mostly dark humor.

In this short, Tom listens to a creepy radio show at night and is absolutely terrified because it is about ghosts, something he believes. While Tom is scared to death, Jerry is watching everything and can't help but laugh the whole time. In fact, Jerry quickly finds a way to torture him more and more. With the help of a white shirt and a vacuum cleaner he creates a big "ghost".

Tom lives the scariest experience of his whole life. Although Jerry scares Tom without a good reason, the way the story is made ends up being funny. Plus, once again, there is no violence here because this is one of Tom & Jerry's oldest cartoons. However, I don't get that joke of Tom's 9 lives nearly sucked into the vacuum cleaner.

When Tom finally finds out that it was all a Jerry's scheme and that Jerry made a fool out of him, Jerry is «caught with the hand in the cookie jar» (he deserves to be discovered). Yet, Tom shows an incredible patience before reacting. He angrily looks at Jerry for about a minute. The funny thing is that Jerry invites Tom to laugh with him and takes about half a minute to realize that Tom is looking at him with a very serious face. Jerry tries to be funny, but Tom doesn't laugh.

Overall, this is a different, peculiar and remarkable Tom & Jerry experience. SPOILERS

Tom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into "others."

Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.

Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.

7/10 This is my favorite of the older Tom & Jerry cartoons from the early 40's. The original version with Mammy Two Shoes is on the Tom & Jerry Spotlight Collection 2 set, disc one, and showcases the wonderful detailed animation of the early cartoons. The gags on this one aren't all madcap Avery style, but more subtle and aimed at anyone who's ever stayed up late watching scary movies (or radio programs)! Tom is listening to a creepy radio show, and Jerry decides to play a number of tricks to spook him. The nine-lives gag is well done here, and I don't know how many times I tried to make a vacuum and a sheet that scary when I was a kid. When Tom's owner is awakened by the ruckus- Mammy was NOT the maid, it was HER house- she gets one heck of a surprise, with a big laugh. Get your pause button ready, it's worth it! Released some months before the end of the war, "Anchors Aweigh" is one of Gene Kelly's major musical triumphs of the forties…

Under the direction of George Sidney, it had the benefits of a pleasant score, and—best of all—the services of Gene Kelly in his first true starring role at MGM… The year before, in Columbia's "Cover Girl," he had revealed an innovative approach to dance on the screen, a light but agreeable singing voice, and considerable charm In "Anchors Aweigh," although he was billed under Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson, he was laying the solid groundwork for his most revealing years at MGM…

The film's story, a kind of dry run for "On the Town" four years later, follows sailors Kelly and Sinatra on shore leave, spend their holiday in Hollywood, where they become involved in the affairs of an aspiring singer (Grayson) and her little nephew (Dean Stockwell).

Grayson, it appears, has her heart set on an audition with conductor-pianist Jose Iturbi… She gets the audition, of course; Kelly gets Grayson after some misunderstandings; and Sinatra, has forgotten to be shy, and has lost his heart to a girl from Brooklyn (Pamela Britton).

The plot is conventional for the period but, regrettably, it now seems barely tolerable… But there is Gene Kelly, who dominates the movie with his agreeable personality… Perhaps he grins too much, but when is permitted to dance, the film finally lifts off the ground…

"I Begged Her," his early song and dance with Sinatra, is amusing and slightly absurd, in which he imagines himself as a bandit chieftain in a Spanish courtyard, courting maiden Grayson with a flamboyant flamenco dance and some athletic leaps… He also does a charming Mexican dance with little Sharon McManus in the square of a Mexican settlement in Los Angeles…

The highlight of the movie, however, is Kelly's famous dance with the cartoon character Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame). Delightful and innovative, it skillfully combines live action and animation in its tale of a sad mouse king who refuses to allow music in his kingdom until Kelly, a sailor in the "Pomeranian Navy," wearing a striped shirt and a beret, shows him how to dance… "Look at me, I'm dancin'!" says the gleeful mouse king... Everything a musical comedy should be. Gene Kelly (as Joe Brady) doesn't miss a step, and Frank Sinatra (as Clarence Doolittle) doesn't miss a note. Scenes with them together are very good, showing how much talent can add to a somewhat uneven plot. Sinatra's "I Fall in Love Too Easily" is an indication of his then and future best. Kelly's "Mexican Hat Dance" with a young Mexican girl is delightful. Kelly certainly earned his nomination as Best Actor. And there is a bushel of truly funny lines, like: "You think the navy takes dopes?"; "You think anybody sings a sailor to sleep?"; and, "We got in a little trouble, we picked up a little kid." A thoroughly enjoyable movie, just the thing for shaking off the dust of a recently concluded World War II. ANCHORS AWEIGH sees two eager young sailors, Joe Brady (Gene Kelly) and Clarence Doolittle/Brooklyn (Frank Sinatra), get a special four-day shore leave. Eager to get to the girls, particularly Joe's Lola, neither Joe nor Brooklyn figure on the interruption of little Navy-mad Donald (Dean Stockwell) and his Aunt Susie (Kathryn Grayson). Unexperienced in the ways of females and courting, Brooklyn quickly enlists Joe to help him win Aunt Susie over. Along the way, however, Joe finds himself falling for the gal he thinks belongs to his best friend. How is Brooklyn going to take this betrayal? And does Joe end up with Susie, who loves him too?

The first and second times I saw ANCHORS AWEIGH, I also saw it at the same time as I did ON THE TOWN, the Kelly/Sinatra collaboration from 1949. Both times I felt that ANCHORS AWEIGH was the better film in terms of plotting and structure--all the dances and songs fit the moment in the plot, and they develop the characters and story rather than hamper them. Yet, both times I came away feeling that ON THE TOWN is the better film overall. Having now seen both films a third time, I still stand by that judgement. Somehow ON THE TOWN, as a film and a piece of entertainment, is just lighter, gayer, purely and simply *happier*. The numbers are more outrageous and less integral to the plot, and yet somehow it works better than all the dances and singing in ANCHORS AWEIGH. I'm not quite sure why this is. The typical argument is that the latter film is over-long: at almost two and a half hours, this is certainly a valid criticism to make. I certainly felt the length the first two times I saw it! However, it's also a film that grows on you--the more you see it, the shorter it feels and the more you appreciate the technical mastery involved in its making. And yet, something just doesn't hang together quite right. It feels almost as if the script was pored over, and *every* single moment when Kelly could break into dance or Sinatra into song was noted, and that's exactly what happened. No opportunity to shoehorn a musical number in was given up... and that's probably the film's biggest weakness. It has 16 numbers (give or take a few), and no matter how big a fan you are of Kelly or Sinatra, this really starts to turn one numb after a while. (Contrast this, for example, with the ten numbers in ON THE TOWN.) You might well feel that each song, each dance, can't be taken out of the film without leaving it lacking... and that's true. But that's also because the writers weren't more restrained in adding them in in the first place.

All this long preamble doesn't mean there's nothing good about ANCHORS AWEIGH. The musical *is* splashy with great songs bursting out all over, like the duets between Kelly and Sinatra ('We Hate To Leave', 'I Begged Her' and 'If You Knew Susie'), the singing of Sinatra ('What Makes The Sunset', 'The Charm Of You', and the best of all, 'I Fall In Love Too Easily'), and without a doubt the always inventive, always breathtaking dancing of Kelly. It's also hard to miss with a cast of this calibre. Grayson is sweet and seems to improve on each viewing (her voice becoming stunning rather than frightening); Jose Iturbi's role is written sympathetically and he does a great job with it; even Clarence's own Brooklyn, Pamela Britton, is cute and charming... as close as one could get to Betty Garrett without being Garrett herself! Sinatra is adorable with those blue eyes and curls of his, and plays the innocent boy-man wonderfully (a role he reprises in ON THE TOWN). His singing is, as usual, simply faultless from enunciation through to timing and phrasing. His solo numbers might seem to drag a little, but when you've got the voice of a century, showcasing it is probably as good a reason as any to slow up the rest of the film!

Gene Kelly's sheer genius in this film is worthy of its own paragraph. Third in the billing behind Sinatra and Grayson respectively, ANCHORS AWEIGH really is Kelly's film. His Joe Brady is a believable, real character--he's tough on the outside, glib and willing to lie when necessary to win a gal, but he's actually the biggest softy on the inside. Kelly makes this charming rather than cloying, but also gives Joe a real edge that you see in the scene when Joe chases Brooklyn around the room with a genuinely murderous look on his face and his breakfast tray in his hands. And the *dancing*--again, the film suffers from the 'too much of a good thing spoils the effect' syndrome, as it does with Sinatra's singing. But once again, if it's Gene Kelly doing the softshoe, or tapping across the screen in a sailor's outfit or dressed up as a bandit chief... might as well err on the side of overdoing it! All of Kelly's dances are breathtaking, be it the pared-down simplicity of his tap number with Sinatra to 'I Begged Her', his 'Mexican Hat Dance' with the sweet wide-eyed little girl, or his lavish Spanish-influenced dance 'La Cumparsita'. Of course, the classic image left in audiences' minds for all time would be Kelly in his red, white and blue sailor suit, dancing with Jerry Mouse of 'Tom & Jerry' fame. A well-deserved golden film memory, to be sure--it's not often that one can say you're impressed by the special effects in a film made in 1945, given the saturation of CGI in the contemporary film market. But Gene and Jerry still look great, with Kelly always hitting his spots and looking exactly where he needs to look. It *would* turn out that just about the only people who could really keep up with Gene Kelly would be Kelly himself (in COVER GIRL) and a cartoon animation.

It's doubtless that this first daring, inventive Kelly dance with Jerry has reserved a place for ANCHORS AWEIGH in film history and the hearts of classic film buffs. But it's also notable for being the first of three Kelly/Sinatra film collaborations, and though rather too drawn-out, still a great couple of hours of entertainment. Watch it first, then again and maybe again--it'll grow on you before you realise it! 7.5/10 The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul "sampled" Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed. In the Citadel film series book The Films of Gene Kelly, Anchors Aweigh is described as a kingpin of a musical. I sure can't do better than that. It's such an important film in both the careers of Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra. Kathryn Grayson didn't do too badly with this either.

Louis B. Mayer had lent Gene Kelly out to Columbia where Harry Cohn had an inspiration to let Kelly choreograph his own numbers and because of it, Cover Girl became a classic. So if Mayer didn't learn a lesson, producer Joe Pasternak did and allowed Kelly artistic control. When Anchors Aweigh was finished, Fred Astaire at last had a dancing rival for monarch of cinema dance.

The main number everyone talks about with Gene Kelly here is the dance with Jerry Mouse. Originally Kelly wanted to do the number with Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, but Disney wasn't lending Mickey out to nobody. Mickey would have to wait until Who Framed Roger Rabbit to do an outside film. Not to worry because MGM had it's own animated rodent one half the team of Tom and Jerry.

Kelly as dancer always strived to do something new and different on screen as did Fred Astaire. For the next dozen years, these two were allowed all kinds of artistic control and were praised for their work even if the films themselves weren't up to snuff. It was like each inspired the other to bigger and better creativity, Kelly for MGM, Astaire for MGM and any number of other studios. In Anchors Aweigh, Kelly got Sinatra to dance a bit. In fact Frank Sinatra always gave credit to Gene Kelly for showing him how musicals should be done as he gave credit to both Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift for their help in earning him is Oscar for From Here to Eternity.

When Frank Sinatra had half of his contract bought from RKO by MGM he insisted on a little artistic creativity on his own. He'd become friends with the songwriting team of Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn. In his autobiography Sammy Cahn tells about how Sinatra insisted that they write his songs for this film. Louis B. Mayer gave in and the team wrote some really fine ballads for him to sing. One of my favorite Sinatra numbers comes from Anchors Aweigh, I Fall in Love Too Easily. Frank sings it accompanying himself on the piano at an empty Hollywood Bowl. It's Sinatra at his best.

With Jule Styne and later with Jimmy Van Heusen, Sammy Cahn richly earned the title of having put more song lyrics in Frank Sinatra's mouth than any other person. They were lifetime friends and Cahn always credited Sinatra with this milestone boost in his career.

On a bet Styne and Cahn said they could write a song just using a chromatic scale. They proved it in Anchors Aweigh when Kathryn Grayson put her soprano to work on All of a Sudden My Heart Sings. She also did some classical numbers.

Here singing in fact is the basis of the plot. Two sailors on leave through a combination of circumstances meet up with Kathryn Grayson and her orphaned nephew Dean Stockwell. Trying to fix her up with Sinatra, Kelly says he can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. They spend the film trying to accomplish just that.

My only disappointment in Anchors Aweigh was that Pamela Britton, who plays the waitress 'Brooklyn' never got a number herself. She had gotten rave reviews from her performance as Meg Brockie in Brigadoon on Broadway and that's what brought her to Hollywood. I have a suspicion she had a number that was cut and somewhere in MGM's vaults it might still be.

Anchors Aweigh is a great example of why musicals just aren't made any more. All that creative talent was under contract to Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. If you had to pay market value for it, the cost might retire some third world country's debt.

But the film results would be extraordinary. I saw the new redubbed and edited version yesterday and loved it. Then I went home and watched it with subtitles and I loved it. I am ready to watch it again.

I am a sucker for the mild mannered secret identity and what could be more mild mannered than a pacifist librarian? The scenes where he reveals his super powers to his friends or absent mindedly forgets to be meek are my favortites.

Of course the martial arts are stunning. There is really not much I can say about them if you are familiar with the HK style. However, if you are not... we paused playback briefly and Walker, Texas Ranger was on. We noticed that after every strike there was a cut. Not in Black Mask.

I am a massive fan of Jet Li! He is THE best HK action film star alive... and consequently - This film rocked! I saw it in the video store and, as it was in the mainstream section of this mainstream video store, I didnt register its presence at first, and had to look twice. I immediately knew what I would be renting out. My only qualm (I suppose I expected it) is that it was dubbed (AAARGh) and not subtitled. Elsewise, the movie's original/strange/cool plot, and full on action made it one of Jet Li's better movies... even though they all fall under that category.... Once again Jet Li brings his charismatic presence to the movie screen in the film Black Mask. In this film Li plays Tsui, an escapee from a super soldier program who seeks to regain the humanity that the program had taken away from him. To do this Tsui decides to become a librarian in order to live a normal and peaceful life, but fate demands that he clean up problems from his past before he can continue to seek peace. Other members of the super soldier program had escaped at the same time as Tsui, but they want to get even with the world rather than find inner peace. Thus Tsui becomes the only thing that can prevent his former team mates from releasing information that could cost many innocent people their lives. This film screams across the screen at a frantic pace and never lets its audience go. The martial arts is amazing, but because it uses wires it may not be appreciated as much as it deserves by American audiences. If you like action movies that have an interesting story and demand good acting performances because they deal with psychological as well as physical conflicts, then Black Mask is for you. I am glad to see that some of Jet Li's movies are finally getting main stream release in the United States and look forward to seeing how the changes that that release will require (things like dubbing and soundtrack) will affect the film. This is one of Li's best films, go out and see it on May 14 when it is released in America. I'm no big fan of Martial Arts movies, but the video shop was nearly empty and Jet Li was in Lethal Weapon 4 and I got it free when the other films I'd rented, either way I rented it. I absolutely loved it, my flatmate and myself (22 year old Biochemistry and Accountancy students) spent the half hour after the film making strange Kung Fu noises and throwing beermat shurikens at each other. I can't explain it (well maybe a little tequila). I never enjoyed Bruce Lee, skinny bloke kicking big bloke, beating him, kicking bigger bloke etc film ends. Think Jackie Chan with a little less comedy and more action. This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts. The story deals about Jet Li who has to fight against his old

friends.But there is one problem, the friends are superfighters. The film is filled with blood, super action and the best stunts forever. And Lau Ching-Wan is a great Co-actor. Of course the movie has the typical HK-Fun.But I love it! In Germany "Black Mask" is uncut. A struggling actor finds the best way to break into Hollywood is to start knocking off the competition. But what makes Break a Leg a real gem is the sardonic look into the existence of the struggling (and not so) LA actor. It brings us into that world with effortless irony and wit. It's also got a polished look and very adept direction under Monika Mitchell. Break a Leg is one of those rare independent films that doesn't compromise its production values at any level. The writing is tight, the dialogue first rate. Cassini is an actor's actor, and the role really shows off his talents. The climactic scene between him and Rene Garcia is an instant classic, and may go down as one of the funniest Hollywood scenes of all time. I saw it at an advanced screening, and everyone in the audience laughed uncontrollably and raved about it afterwards. After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.

I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.

The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.

I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'. I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some "inside" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the "festival" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz. This movie's origins are a mystery to me, as I only know as much as IMDB did before I rented it. I assume that before "Starship Troopers", "Killshot" was one of the countless unaired pilots that never made it to network, cable, or otherwise. The new title of "Kill Shot" is comically thrown into the opening sequence, the first of many quick clues that this was not ever intended for the cinema. The quick cuts, cheesy "Melrose Place" music, and short 2-second close-up candid shots of the main actors let you know what you're in for.

And I don't mind at all. I rented this movie seeing the repackaging that puts Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards on the cover in front of a volleyball net thinking it would be funny to see them in a movie besides the SciFi travesty of Starship Troopers (an excellent book, in my opinion, not so hot a movie - but that's another review). After looking it up on IMDB, my roommate and I surmised that the pilot was dragged up after the apparent success of Troopers and Richards own career (see Bond-Girl and Wild Things references here). They threw in a sex scene involving a minor character to reach the coveted R-rated status - coveted in suspense Video Rental sections, that is. In any event, they should have left it unrated if you're trying to sell it in the suspense/softcore porn section.

All in all, it's entertaining. I hate to spoil the fun of telling you it's a TV pilot, though. That was the biggest pull while watching it - when you expect a cinematic movie and get a TV show, the differences between them make themselves more clear than usual.

Would I rent it again? No. Would I watch this TV show? Well, why not - it's better than Baywatch. And their meager attempts at hitting all demographics would have done well back in the mid 90s. Token black guy (who's gay to avoid the TV taboo of inter-racial dating), token Asian (Japanese, I assume from the name Koji) more adept at science and computers than talking to women, beautiful, intelligent Latina pre-med student who has everything going for her except her family's bank account - this show probably would have done ok.

But as a movie it just cracks me.

I gave it a 7 out of 10, considering what it was and what it was forced to become. It made for a very enjoyable evening, and that's all I ask of rentals. Despite the lack of logic present in the storyline, Kill Shot is a highly enjoyable film. Through a moving performance Kasper Van Dien brilliantly portrays the emotional rift between a hard working wealthy father and his misguided son. Each member of the supporting cast pitches in with a solid performance, highlighted by the vivid acting of a young asian man whose name I cannot recall. A shockingly tragic ending may unnerve some younger viewers, but as a whole Kill Shot truly delivers a death blow. Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.

We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.

soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.

Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.

firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.

furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.

The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.

enjoy. Really enjoyed this little movie. It's a moving film about struggle, sacrifice and especially the bonds of friendship between different peoples (the child actor who plays Miki is especially good). There's so many large scale impersonal films set around WW2, that this convincingly told little story is a real break from the norm, and an original one at that. I'll also add that this film is far from boring, very far!! Of course the Horses are wonderful and the scenery breathtaking. To anyone who really treats their animal as part of the family (I do), you'll find this film especially rewarding. Recommended to movie fans who look for something a little different. Given the low budget and production limitations, this movie is very good. It is plausible, realistic, and shows how the Csikos (Hungarian horsemen who lived on the plains (puszta) risked their lives to save a downed American pilot from the ruthless and savage Nazis. We are drawn into strong feelings for the young, impressionable, yet highly courageous boy--who admires the American pilot. If you're looking for special effects, superman heroes, and magical endings--this movie is not for you. If you want to feel what it must have been like to dodge the persistent, amoral Nazis and their lack of compassion, then you will be enthralled by this movie. I truly enjoyed it and for those who love horses, dogs, and humble, helpful people who value freedom and those who aspire to that end, this movie will be one you'll remember for a long time. Sad story of a downed B-17 pilot. Brady is shot down over occupied territory. The local ranchers extended him kindness and protection at the cost of their own lives. I had never heard of this movie and it snagged me for two hours. After the film is over, I'm glad I took the time. It's an entire story told to explain the look on Brady's face at the start of the film. A beautiful movie, especially if you like horses,WWII films and the austere Hungarian Plateau.A story of courage, compassion and loyalty that transcends generations. The horsemanship is spectacular as well as the main characters' horse in his own training.

I will buy this movie and watch it again. This is a family film and I recommend it highly.A good ''Family Nite'' movie. Although there are some violent scenes, it was the Nazi occupation of Hungary.The native people were very interesting in the way they stood their ground even in the face of certain death from a Nazi officer who had his own personal reasons for hunting down Brady.A hauntingly beautiful film. This movie is why I found this website. I couldn't find this movie anywhere else! I am so glad we found it here! We have seen it on TV before and wanted desperately to find it and buy and have several friends interested in buying it. One other poster commented that it is was boring, though I must say that it is NOT. Especially if you are a horse person, you will love this movie. The horses are awesome, well trained and the movie is well done. It is certainly one we will be purchasing for our home DVD library. We will be recommending it to our friends. The bond made between man and horse in this film was so inspiring and made you want to spend more time with your horses. This is certainly a movie that we will watch several times. This movie was made in Hungary i think. anyway,the countryside is gorgeous,the people who play the farming folks were totally fascinating. their horsemanship is awesome. I got more into the native people, the farm life, and how heroic they were trying to hide Brady from the evil Nazis who where looking for these parachutists. They even sacrificed their life in several instances. the young orphan lad that Brady befriends was a sweet kid. you will marvel at the riding i think, and the action of trying to evade the Nazis. it is entertaining and comic in some spots and very tragic in others. Ladies have hankies handy, as you will be devastated at the end. i own it, and have watched it several times. in other words, not just a one time around flick. its a keeper.... How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than "Mafia" did for the criminal underground. This movie is just too funny, a totally non-PC gangster romp. If Mel Brooks made a picture about the Mob in the 30's, it would probably look like this. Too many great one-liners to to remember, and while its not for everyone, anyone who DOESNT laugh a whole bunch of times doesnt have a pulse. So, put it on and LAUGH you Iceholes!!! For a movie that gets no respect there sure are a lot of memorable quotes listed for this gem. Imagine a movie where Joe Piscopo is actually funny! Maureen Stapleton is a scene stealer. The Moroni character is an absolute scream. Watch for Alan "The Skipper" Hale jr. as a police Sgt. Famous words of foreign nightclub owner Roman Maroni, that "lousy cork sucker" who spends the whole movie not only as Johnny Dangerously's rival, but butchering the English language as well.

Another underrated classic that you can only find on afternoon matinées or "Late Late Late Show"'s, Johnny Dangerously is a terrific satirical hit about a good hearted boy who secretly leads a life of crime to help pay for his mother's medical care and put his brother through law school.

Yes there's a story, but who cares?? A cast that includes Joe Piscopo, Dom DeLuise, Marilu Henner, and Alan Hale Jr will keep you waiting to see what happens next.

There's too many laughs in this to put on here. Like Airplane, you have to pay attention or you'll miss something. Highly recommended to anyone who can use a good laugh or two!!! One the whole, this movie isn't perfect. It doesn't 'hang well' together as the story line is basically a bunch of hooks to hang jokes.

Some of these jokes are a little 'too 80s' and tend to date the picture.

But some of these jokes are classic.

You know a movie has something special when you and your friends still reference silly quotes from it over 2 decades later.

Plus, there are a bunch of familiar faces; Michael Keaton, Danny Devito, Joe Piscapo, Peter Boyle, Marilu Henner, Maureen Stapleton, Bob Eubanks, Griffin Dunne, and one of the last roles of Alan Hale Jr., the Skipper from Gilligan's Island.

Also, there are some great absurdist moments, like when Johnny is labelling the puppies with a pricing gun, or the Pope making an appearance in Johnny's neighborhood. Also, the scene where the fake priest makes up a lot of words in Latin is excellent. ("Summa cum laude, magna cum laude, the radio's too louda... Post meridian, ante meridian, uncle meridian").

Other Classic Scenes include Ramone Maroney butchering the English language Danny Devito urging Griffin Dunne to 'Play Ball' Peter Boyle thinking he lost his manhood The fake VD movie

This movie is no home run. But like 'Porky's', it has enough classic comedy bits to make it memorable. The jokes are obvious, the gags are corny, and the characters are walking characatures - but I couldn't stop from laughing at his highly entertaining movie. No matter how many times I see it, I still get a kick out of this one, and I recommend it highly for all lovers of mindless entertainment. It contains many quotable moments, and some of the best sight-gags I've seen to this day. If you've had a bad week and you need a chuckle, rent this one on your way home Friday night to give your weekend a good start. Oh, what fun there is here!

Amy Heckerling has a flair for directing comedy (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Look Who's Talking) but here it looks like she told the actors to go out and have fun. Micheal Keaton breezes through the role of Johnny, easily his best screen performance. Joe Piscopo is great as the appropriately named Danny Vermin, what a shame directors didn't pick up on this. And I have even mentioned Richard Dimitri playing Moronie and the character's unique vocabulary. I don't think it's an accident that the bulk of the character's name is spelled MORON.

Good lines are sprinkled throughout the movie, with Peter Boyle, Griffit Dunne.Maurren Stapleton, Merilu Henner given good lines. Even actors with minor roles like Dick Butkus and Alan Hale get in a good lines.

recommend it to a friend. As far as parody films go, there are few that are worth time and energy. but with a recent resurgence of horrid parodies such as Date Movie and The Comebacks, it is a breath of fresh air to come back and rediscover a truly funny farce like Johnny Dangerously.

After his mother has no end of medical problems, little Johnny goes to work for the mob. What fallows is a series of gags, most of which work, there are, however, the occasional flops. But a foreign gangster who can't master the American language (profanity wise, at least), a rival gangster with a penchant for shooting his mouth off (...once!), a younger brother with the D.A. who is out to get Johhny Dangerously, and a hot young starlet hot for his affections have Johnny busy.

And the viewer will be busy laughing, for the most part, as every gangster-movie cliché is skewered by a talented cast and decent writing.

Not perfect by a long shot, but definitely good for a smile on a bad day. Okay - I'll confess. This is the movie that made me love what Michael Keaton could do. He does a beautiful parody of someone doing a parody of James Cagney, with charm to spare.

The supporting cast are solid workers all, and will step right up and do a fine job in this '80s comedy. A spoof of the '30s-'40s gangster movies, it breaks new ground constantly, with remarkably original material. (Well, yeah - some of it has been copied since - but when this movie was made, it was original, and much of it has _not_ been copied elsewhere.) Watch Joe Piscopo warn people to not do ______, with one of the great taglines of spoofs. Watch Roman Moronie do things with English profanity that would make your spinster grammar teacher laugh. Watch amazing sight gags, such as pet-store owner Johnny Kelly using the price-tag gun on his puppies and dusting his kittens. Watch the greatest "warning against sex" educational film ever made. Watch the most amazing misrepresentation of church Latin done, while a guy who never took shop class assembles a Thompson machine gun from parts. Watch lines you'll be using in casual conversation for the next decade. Watch Maureen Stapleton do the perfect antithesis to the hard-working mom, with surprise gags that you'll never see coming.

If you see a gag that doesn't hit your funny bone, be patient - another will come along in 30 seconds or less, and the odds are, you'll need to pause until you're done rolling on the floor several times. Duckies and Bunnies? Them, too. Watch for the subtle stuff - some of the sight gags can go by unnoticed the first few viewings.

There are a few minor flaws - but it's probably the best of the spoofs. Some come close, but none of them are quite this good. Yes, Keaton looks like he really did enjoy making this film. With a skip in his step in his tailored pin-striped suits, he'll remind you of Jimmy Cagney! Johnny (Keaton) is the young hood who only does it to pay for his mother's high-priced medical bills & to send his younger brother (Griffin Dunne) to law school. No one even knows Johnny Kelly IS Johnny Dangerously until later on in the film. Joe Piscopo is Vermin & doesn't like Johnny one bit (& I don't like Vermin). Marilu Henner has a nice singing/dancing routine while Johnny revels in it. I love the part when they're in the ever-changing getaway car! The cop who's "calling all cars" is the Skipper from Gilligan's Island! See this one for 1930's gangster laughs! The gags in this film are hilarious but you have to catch them or you'll miss them! Look in the background of every scene. "Johnny Dangerously" is a sort of hit and miss comedy that has it's laughs and "huh?". But I suggest to give it a chance. I think it is greatly over looked. Not too many people give this movie a chance. It does work. Just think of it as a little parody of "Goodfellas". Michael Keaton is very funny in his role. And he does it well. Johnny Dangerously is a gangster who wants to go higher in life. He just works his way up from the big bosses to a beautiful wife. And of course like a lot of the mob movies, someone wants him dead. 90% of the jokes get a laugh. Like, I said give it a chance. Just take your favortie gangster movies and mix a comedy in. You have "Johnny Dangerously".

7/10 Sure it may not be a classic but it's one full of classic lines. One of the few movies my friends and I quote from all the time and this is fifteen years later (Maybe it was on Cinemax one too many times!) Michael Keaton is actually the worst actor in this movie--he can't seem to figure out how to play it-- but he's surrounded by a fantastic cast who know exactly how to play this spoof. Looking for a movie to cheer you up? This is it but rent it with friends--it'll make it even better. All of those who voted less than 5 are obviously not fans of clean, tongue-in-cheek humor. Keaton is brilliant in this - as in most of his work. This is not a blockbuster, bigger-than-life affair. This is campy, slapstick humor played out by some of Hollywood's best (and very versatile) actors. Piscopo was equally on the mark as the top dog wannabee, once.

If you want to see the funniest attempt at not really cussing ever filmed, you gotta see Dimitri do his piece as Morone.

I gave it a 7. This movie is just a lot of fun. I've seen it a couple of times, but it always has something funny that I remember. The "duckies and bunnies" car scene is one of my favorites, and I still quote Morone's versions of certain words!

There are so many running jokes, that it's amazing. But I love Michael Keaton anyhow! This movie is utterly hilarious. Its cast clicks immediately with frame one and takes us on a wonderful ride through spoofing gangster films. The conflict of brother vs. brother appears when Johnny's brother becomes a do-gooder D.A. However, the best character is Johnny's crimelord rival, the overly accented Moroni. As Johnny says "That man should be arrested for butchering the English language."

Check it out on video. It's worth a look. If this movie proves only one thing, it's that Keaton is, was and always will be a comic at heart, even when dodging bullets, heading for the electric chair and getting at the wrong end of an information line in prison.

But "Johnny Dangerously" goes on to prove even more. In the '80s, the ZAZ boys (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker) were the pinnacle in the world of genre spoofs. But there were several pretenders to the throne. This time, Amy ("Fast Times at Ridgement High") Heckerling tries her hand, with an amazing amount of television writers behind the script (go and check).

This slap-happy slapstick spoof of the 1930's cops-and-"gag"sters movies throws just about every cliche for a loop and even adds a few cliches that didn't exist way back when.

And not only is the ever-dependable Keaton on hand as the Johnny of the title, but so are such funny guys and dolls as Piscopo, Henner, Stapleton, Boyle, Dunne, DeVito, Walston and just about every other actor in Hollywood that happened to walk into the immediate vicinity. You'd be surprised by how many faces you'll recognize. I know I was.

And the jokes? Well, when they start out, they come at you fast and furious, like a machine gun. There are too many to count in the beginning, topped off with a crazy theme song by Weird Al Yankovic. But you have to watch for when they reload. And they have to reload a little too often.

Everyone tries, they seem to be having fun and I was laughing a good amount of the time. In the end, though, there was plenty of time to think about how certain scenes could have been funnier - not usually the best thing to think about after watching a comedy.

But for a slow night when there's nothing good on TV, pop in "Johnny" and be ready for some "Dangerously" serious laughter.

Eight stars. Check out "Johnny Dangerously"... don't be a "bastidge". "Roman Troy Moronie" is my comment on the movie. What else is there to say?

This character really brings out the moron in Moronie. A tough gangster with an inability to pronounce profane words, well, it seems that it would have been frustrating to be tough and yet not be able to express oneself intelligently.

Roman Moronie will go down in the annals of movie history as one of the greatest of all morons.

There is of course great comedy among the other characters. Michael Keaton is F.A.H. and so is Joe Piscipo.

I just like the fact that Moronie kept the movie from an "R" rating because he could not pronounce profanity. I could not believe the low 5.6 rating on IMDb about Johnny Dangerously at the moment I wrote this review and I thought I had to do something to promote that memorable piece of comedy as much as I can. Seriously, to get a rating so low, the people who voted must have a very limited sense of humor, not to mention a very shallow opened mind. If you don't like humorous flicks, don't watch them! Combining absurd humour, a very good storytelling, and an outstanding pace given by the multiple running gags, this movie has made its way into my DVD collection. And that is without mentioning the visual farces embedded here and there and of course, the use of "clin d'oeils" and "clichés" based on our favorite organized crime movies.

I showed this movie to a lot of people and, being introduced to it without any specific expectations (except maybe watching a comedy)- the very state of mind you should have to watch any movie in my opinion - they all liked it very much. It goes well, it's not long to watch and there are absolutely no slowing downs in the evolution of the story, which I think is really straightforward. Sure it's not perfect, some gags fall a bit short, but no movie is perfect, especially when considering other opinions that yours. That is why I rated this movie 9 out of 10. This movie is in my opinion a precursor like "Top Secret" and "Spaceballs" in the field of absurd but well-thought comedies. Which are nowadays more and more absurd while cutting down on the thought and ingeniosity side. Sometimes gags need more culture than a lot of people imagine to be understood correctly, if at all. As a final word, I would like to say : watch it for yourself, do not follow average Joe's saying and if you don't like it, then you'll know for real it was not good for your tastes, which is understandable but unlikely in my opinion. This did for crime what "Not Another Teen Movie" did for school. I laughed all the way through as 2 inept gangs warred with each other and among themselves. An unsubtle comedy using overt jokes and gags that kept me rolling all the way. I suppose the biggest gag in the entire film was that time never seemed to go forward leaving the characters trapped in the 30's. Just like wine, "Johnny Dangerously" gets better and better with every day. This clever, witty, well-acted film could very well stand on its own - but as a parody of the gangster genre, it's truly outstanding. In fact, it's quite obviously the best film of its kind... the funniest spoof of mob movies and even the respective period - although, admittedly, this position is probably easier to achieve when its main competitors are such primitive, vulgar and dull pseudocomedies as "Jane Austen's Mafia". Michael Keaton is "Johnny Dangerously" in this take-off on gangster movies done in 1984. Maureen Stapleton plays his sickly mother, Griffin Dunne is his DA brother, Peter Boyle is his boss, and Marilu Henner is his girlfriend. Other stars include Danny DeVito and Joe Piscopo. Keaton plays a pet store owner in the 1930s who catches a kid stealing a puppy and then tells him, in flashback, how he came to own the pet store. He turned to thievery at a young age to get his mother a pancreas operation ($49.95, special this week) and began working for a mob boss (Boyle). Johnny uses the last name "Dangerously" in the mobster world.

There are some hilarious scenes in this film, and Stapleton is a riot as Johnny's foul-mouthed mother who needs ever organ in her body replaced. Peter Boyle as Johnny's boss gives a very funny performance, as does Griffin Dunne, a straight arrow DA who won't "play ball" with crooked Burr (Danny De Vito). As Johnny's nemesis, Joe Piscopo is great. Richard Dimitri is a standout as Moronie, who tortures the English language - but you have to hear him do it rather than read about it. What makes it funny is that he does it all with an angry face.

The movie gets a little tired toward the end, but it's well worth seeing, and Keaton is terrific as good boy/bad boy Johnny. For some reason, this film was underrated when it was released, and like Keaton's other gem, "Night Shift," you don't hear much about it today. With some performances and scenes that are real gems, you'll find "Johnny Dangerously" immensely enjoyable. even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh.

one particular quote in the movie stands out.

when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says

" can't park here, it's for the handicapped".

Danny replies " i am handicapped,i'm psychotic".

that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.

Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.

As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked. What ever happened to Michael Keaton? What a great actor and he proves it in this movie. This movie is actually FUNNY! And the reason why this movie is funny is for two reasons: an excellent script and Michael Keaton. This movie is one of the funniest comedies in the history of Hollywood. This movie is the ultimate spoof of gangster movies. In this movie, Hollywood actually pokes fun at itself by using the the gangster movie genre as the basis for a truly original comedy. The rest of the cast is funny too, especially the supporting cast. If you like to laugh and want to watch a movie that contains nonstop humor, then this movie is for you. If your a fan of Airplane type movies this is a must see! Set in the 1920's and 30's Johnny Dangerously has not only great actors but great lines. "knock down dat wall,knock down dat wall and knock down dat #@$%#@$ wall." "You shouldn't hang me on a hook johnny" or "Sounds like Johnnys getting laid". Its definitely a spoof of the old James Cagney Movies and references them a lot. There's a great scene when Jhonnys walking down death row and has a priest set up for his escape. Listen closely to the fake priests readings, its pretty funny. Another great scene is when Dom Delauise plays the Pope. Watch his reaction to Johnny after he tips the Pope, a lot said without making a sound.I recommend this movie to all who love to laugh or are old movie buffs. Johnny Dangerously falls completely in the hit or miss category with it's overblown gags and complete lack of a comprehensive script or story that makes ANY sense. But that's the point, right?

The cast is likable; Michael Keaton an excellent comic performer before he took himself too seriously as the years passed. Griffin Dunne, Peter Boyle, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner and Danny DeVito all perform with enthusiasm and at least get a lot of laughs from me. But the complete scene stealer here is Richard Dimitri (sneaking the word "Iceholes" into movie history) as a mobster who fares best at murdering the English language.

I associate many childhood memories with this film, as I watched it quite often so maybe I'm prone to enjoy it more than many others. Johnny Dangerously is at least a completely innocent gangster film spoof that even relays some well meaning messages about the dangers of smoking (and sex).

I like it but it's hard to recommend.

7 out of 10. Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.

Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended. This film is one of Michael Keaton's best. Throughout the film he is 'on'. With co-stars like Ms. Henner, Joe Piscopo and Danny DeVito, you can't go wrong. Great laughs, great fun for everyone. Twenty five years ago, I showed this film in some children's classes in Entomology and can still remember the excitement of the kids; they were spellbound! It is not just about the termites who have built and live in the "Castles of Clay," but also about the other animals who use the mounds. There is a fantastic scene in which a cobra fights a monitor lizard while a colony of mongooses watch. It is a not only good for entomology classes, but also for teaching about ecology since there is so much about the interactions between the termites and other organisms and the whole ecology of all of the organisms that live in and around the mounds.

I wish it was available on DVD, so that I could watch it again and show others. I agree whole-heartedly with the comments so far. I remember this documentary as being one of the most amazing and informative I've ever seen. As stated before, I recall that I began watching, thinking it was just another nature study - interesting, not necessarily special, but I was so wrong. Not only was the story of the colony incredible, but I remember the music as being so much a part of it's appeal. If I remember correctly, it was Native Americn pipes (akin to the music at the end of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest). I, too have been looking for a copy. This should be required watching for anybody, but especially the schools. It should be re-released. I showed this to my 6th grade class about 17 years ago and the students loved it. I loved it, too. The story of the termites and their interaction with their environment is amazing. The cast of creatures is deep and they all play their parts well. The battle between the two cold-blooded titans is truly classic footage.

Alan Root has done some incredible camera work and this should have won the Best Documentary Oscar. The copy I have doesn't have Orson Welles narrating it (Derek Jacobi) and it isn't called the "Mysterious Castles of Clay," just "Castles of Clay." This makes me think that it must have been done with Welles added for star power and an Oscar push.

I was lucky enough to find this VHS just recently and it is now my children's favorite movie. They brought it to the latest family gathering instead of a Disney movie. If you can find this movie you are indeed lucky. Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes is an important film, dealing with the dark side of female sexuality (and including full frontal female nudity, which sure beats the male kind). It flirts with sadomasochism and the captive falling in love with captor theory.

This treatment of feminine libido is sometimes shallow and jerky, but Borden has travelled well beyond feminist dogma of females gaining power through their insatiable lust.

One striking scene exposes the female fetish for horses, when the antagonist, a counterfeit fashion photographer, is seducing an older woman wearing breeches by asking her to show how she rides a horse. He shoves a riding crop between her legs, pressing it against her crotch, and this greatly increases her excitement.

Then suddenly he leaves her home and she swears abjectly at the closed door.

Patrick Bergin plays the con artist, and though he falls a long distance from handsome, he picks on plain Janes and has enough screen presence to make one believe the women could swallow his line. By all reports, Sean Young proves a weird person, and she is scarcely beautiful. Yet in this film as the district attorney her intense face and long-limbed slender body and accentuated hips and periodically disjointed movement alchemize into erotic fascination. Her performance is forceful and complex.

Borden possesses an intriguing worldview, and the fact that it stands so at odds with the modern feckless zeitgeist I truly appreciate. This is by far my favorite film of all time. That's mainly because it's not afraid to delve into some very politically incorrect topics (such as spanking and female submissiveness) that other mainstream films are just too timid to touch. Nothing seems to be off-limits in this film as the director freely develops the story without any concern given to possibly offending the viewer. However, I don't think anything was done here purely for shock value or to purposely offend anyone. Sean Young turns in an excellent and courageous performance. Most established mainstream actresses would not have taken on this role or would have asked for some major script changes before accepting it. The other cast members do a fine job as well.

Have you noticed that this movie hasn't appeared on pay cable since an obligatory brief run a year after it hit the theaters? Have you ever wondered why? The obvious reason is that it just doesn't fit today's political atmosphere. It seems quite ironic to me that some premium channels now carry softcore porn (that's getting closer and closer to hardcore porn) but will not carry a mainstream movie like "Love Crimes". Sadly, even though this movie is only 11 years old, it could probably not be made today.

In Lizzie Borden's "Love Crimes" (1992), Sean Young plays a gritty D.A. in Atlanta. She's a loner who gets herself too deeply involved in the case of a man (Patrick Bergin) who poses as a famous fashion photographer and seduces women, takes compromising photos of them, then leaves them.

Naturally, this tough loner decides to enter the phony shutterbug's life by posing as his prey, intending to bring him to justice. They meet, they make love, then the next thing she knows, she is over his lap, getting spanked. (Note: The spanking scene is only in the "unrated" version of this film. The R-rated version omits it and several other scenes that would make the plot more lucid.) This psychological thriller includes several scenes of female nudity and disturbing images, such as Bergin chasing one of his victims around the room, flailing at her with a riding crop.

As a thriller, "Love Crimes" is at its best when Sean Young is playing her cat-and-mouse game with Bergin, trying to catch him in an incriminating act. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't end, it just stops. That's true. Director Lizzie Borden may have just run out of story to tell, but after 92 minutes the credits roll, and we are left with a puzzling "what just happened?" bewilderment.

The unfolding of Young's plan is played out in engaging style, but the lack of a coherent ending will be a turn-off for some viewers.

Dan (daneldorado@yahoo.com) Petter Mattei's "Love in the Time of Money" is a visually stunning film to watch. Mr. Mattei offers us a vivid portrait about human relations. This is a movie that seems to be telling us what money, power and success do to people in the different situations we encounter.

This being a variation on the Arthur Schnitzler's play about the same theme, the director transfers the action to the present time New York where all these different characters meet and connect. Each one is connected in one way, or another to the next person, but no one seems to know the previous point of contact. Stylishly, the film has a sophisticated luxurious look. We are taken to see how these people live and the world they live in their own habitat.

The only thing one gets out of all these souls in the picture is the different stages of loneliness each one inhabits. A big city is not exactly the best place in which human relations find sincere fulfillment, as one discerns is the case with most of the people we encounter.

The acting is good under Mr. Mattei's direction. Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, Carol Kane, Michael Imperioli, Adrian Grenier, and the rest of the talented cast, make these characters come alive.

We wish Mr. Mattei good luck and await anxiously for his next work. (Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) This film sat on my Tivo for weeks before I watched it. I dreaded a self-indulgent yuppie flick about relationships gone bad. I was wrong; this was an engrossing excursion into the screwed-up libidos of New Yorkers.

The format is the same as Max Ophuls' "La Ronde," based on a play by Arthur Schnitzler, who is given an "inspired by" credit. It starts from one person, a prostitute , standing on a street corner in Brooklyn. She is picked up by a home contractor, who has sex with her on the hood of a car, but can't come. He refuses to pay her. When he's off peeing, she answers his cell phone and takes a message. She runs away with his keys.

Then the story switches to the contractor, who pays a professional call on a rich, bored New York woman, who plays with him until he is aroused, then she pulls away. She tells him how desperate and unhappy she is; he tells her how beautiful she is, and lucky. As he is leaving, she asks if he would have sex with her. She sits on top of him, bounces up and down. This time he comes, the he leaves.

The woman and her husband throw a dinner party for their trendy friends. Hubby (Robert) is talking business, wife (Ellen) is bored, and switches the subject to sex, and how often men and women think about it. Husband switches conversation to desert. Later, after the guests leave, Ellen tries to entice Robert into sex. Robert wants none of it, and puts on a jazz record. Ellen turns on the radio; Robert turns up the music; Ellen turns on the TV; Robert turns on another TV. Cacophony ensues. Ellen goes up on the roof, Robert joins her. Ellen confesses that she needs to experience more men, men other than Robert. Robert says that he too needs to experience men.

We next follow Robert as he visits an artist, Martin, played by Steve Buscemi. I wish Buscemi could have more roles like this, where he is a sexy, smart, totally desirable guy. Robert praises Martin's work, much more than it deserves, promises to get it into a show. Martin is excited, until it turns out that Robert is speaking out of his groin, it is all a mating dance. Robert tries to kiss Martin, on the lips, and Martin pulls back, saying that he is not gay. Robert asserts that he's not gay either, Martin scoffs. Both admit that the artworks are bad. Robert is about to leave, when Martin allows Robert to kiss him. They make out, and Robert goes down on Martin.

Next we follow Martin, as he prepares for an art show at a Manhattan gallery. He is smitten by the receptionist, Anna, played by Rosario Dawson. (I had to cut some of this review to keep it under 1000 words) ... and they make love to each other.

We next follow Anna, who is sitting at a lunch stand. Her boyfriend, Nick (Adrian Grenier), enters, bearing flowers. She is cold toward him; he tries to figure out why. He coaxes out of her the information that she has had sex with someone while he was in San Francisco. She coaxes out of him the fact that he has stayed with his ex-gf while in San Francisco, and had sex with her. The latter revelation turns out to be a lie. The two of them make out in the luncheonette, but she decides that they must break up. Nick is heartbroken.

And we follow Nick, who confesses his troubles to an older woman who he meets on a park bench, Joey (Carol Kane). Joey is sort of weird and child-like, but is a good audience for Nick, who needs a sympathetic ear. The two of them go to Coney Island at night, and look at the stars. Nick falls under Joey's spell, despite the age difference between them. They go back to Joey's apartment, and Nick gradually realizes that he is about to have sex with a crazy old woman. She is on top of him, doesn't want to let him go. But he manages to escape.

(This is, by the way, the best Carol Kane role since she played Latke's wife in Taxi.) Joey's phone rings, and it is a man calling the Psychic Friends Network, and Joey is one of the psychic friends. Although she is still hurting from Nick, she gradually gets into her psychic shtick. The man is at his office, late at night, and wants to have phone sex with her. Although that is not Joey's business, Joey goes along, and coaxes the man to come. She wants to keep talking, although the man want to get off the phone, and finds out that he has embezzled a lot of money from his company, and will be found out tomorrow. His life is ruined. Joey realizes that the man is going to commit suicide, and she tries to make him believe that she is his friend, that she cares about him. And she does care about him.

But the man packs a gun into his briefcase, and goes off to seek a prostitute on the Brooklyn waterfront, and we come back to the beginning, to the same prostitute who started out La Ronde. She wants to give him $75,000 in cash if she will kill him. He tried to kill himself, but couldn't do it. The prostitute does not want to do it, but he insists, holding her hand, holding the gun inside his mouth, telling her where to aim. Eventually, the gun goes off, and we see the prostitute walking down the street, and arriving at the corner where she normally does business. The contractor who didn't pay her earlier in the movie drives up, rolls down the window. They look at each other. THE END. Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to indie film lovers.

However, I really want to note the similarities between parts of this film and Nichols' Closer. One scene especially where Adrian Grenier's character is questioning Rosario Dawson's about her sex life while he was away is remarkably similar to the scene in Closer where Clive Owen's character is questioning Julia Roberts, although it is acted with less harshness and intensity in "Love." Also note that "Anna" is the name of both Dawson's and Roberts' character. Can't be coincidence. Now Closer is based on Patrick Marber's play and supposedly this film is loosely based on Arthur Schnitzler's "Reigen" so I'm not sure how this connection formed.

Anyone have an idea? Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). I chose to watch this film at Tribeca based on Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen and found it to be one of the best movies in the festival. Both leading actors deliver a well rounded sensitive performance that seems to match the characters on a personal level. The director did a great job bringing the characters and story to life with skill that is usually not seen in a first-time production.

One interesting aspect of this film is the love of woodwork and New York City (Brooklyn in specific). The movie revolves around the family furniture making business and weaves delicate cinematography of both carpentry and ordinary Brooklyn life – again kudos to the director on this fine choice.

This is gem and I would whole heartedly recommend it (I'm sure it will make it to the screen). I understand this film to be a debut feature and as such, it is very impressive. It has the feel and pacing of a "true indie", yet director Todd Yellin clearly possesses the photographic and editorial vision, command and judgment of a mature and seasoned professional. The shots are well framed and thought out and serve to move the story forward. He, and screenwriter Ivan Solomon deliver a story that has much more depth and lyricism than typical "paint by numbers" type scripts. It's a story that needs Judd Hirsch caliber character talent to have a shot at working. Judd is fantastic as usual; as are Scott Cohen and the beautiful Susan Floyd. The real surprise though is Elliot Korte who plays Adam Groden. Yellin was able to coax nuance out of the young actor in a role that could have been easily devalued by stereotype or overreach. Anyway, I found the film refreshing and entertaining. I found this movie thought-provoking, and its ambiguity refreshing in a world of quick-fix films where we are manipulated into loving the "good guy" and hating the "bad guy." Scott Cohen, a very handsome television actor, does a great job of portraying the family black sheep/lost child who aspires to gain his father's love and respect, as well as that of his widowed sister-in-law with whom he apparently has a history. Judd Hirsch plays against his usual good guy image as a father who triangulated his sons and now is left with the one he always rejected.

When I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival, I was enchanted by the lovely way the sawdust was used to portray a family tradition, as explained by the director.

This is a fitting successor to the classic "Ordinary People." I just realized, Judd Hirsch was in that, too! I saw "Brother's Shadow" at the Tribeca Film Festival and found myself still thinking about it two days later. The story of a prodigal son (Scott Cohen) returning to his family's custom furniture business after a stint in jail, it offers all the necessary qualities of a solid drama--memorable characters; sharp, observant dialog; sensitive use of the camera by a filmmaker who thinks visually.

But more than that, it presents something that is all too rare at the multiplex these days: the uncompromising vision of a mature sensibility. The talent of director-screenwriter Todd S. Yellin seems to emerge full-blown, but we get the sense he (like his protagonist) has paid his dues. He knows how real people struggle in this world, and he knows how we yearn to see--or at least, to experience vicariously--success. Yet Yellin respects his audience too much to blow happy smoke up our rear ends. In the end, we see that Jake's triumph doesn't lie in commissions, or even in the esteem of his family, but in "the work" he couldn't abandon if he tried.

It's an essential theme in a world (and especially a movie industry) that can't rise above "the bottom line". This film deserves a wide audience. What percentage of movies does a person go to see these days that leave them wondering what happened to their eight to ten dollars? ANSWER: TOO MANY! This movie isn't like that. It is a story about real people that are sometimes a combination of both likable and unlikable.

Downside:

Not enough character development & some plot lines left twisting in the wind.

Upside:

Forces viewers to think about the choices they have made for good or bad in their own lives.

Well acted by: Scott Cohen, Judd Hirsch, Susan Floyd, Ato Essandoh and Elliot Korte.

Contains some good lighthearted humor. One of the things that interested me most about this film is the way the characters and their associated histories are developed on the fly. I suppose the writers wanted us to gain interest in the characters by not force feeding their characters. The premise of using the art and craft of furniture design and construction was a unique theme and/or analogy for what families/siblings go through in life. The complexity of having a twin serve as a surrogate father and even husband added great tension towards making this film emotionally interesting. Also, although the story was not one that the masses might directly relate to (i.e. Jewish/twins/family business) the themes are fairly universal as every family has a black sheep in it. That made it very engaging. I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait. Kudos to the writers of this film for creating a supremely engaging drama. The curious character development is indicative of a nuanced and well schooled writing team. The audience member cannot but help but to feel that (s)he must make wrenching emotional decisions pitting the cerebral against the libidinal. The viewer has an opportunity to develop the character herself, though her predictions are rarely validated.

Credit is also due to the filmmakers for breathing life into the setting. The wood-shop is transformed into a unique persona as the film unfolds, with its own traits, faults, a variety of highly charged relationships, and of course a fate inexorably tied to that of the other principals.

Make sure to catch this one at your local art-house. Those who only remember the late Sir Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot or a professional raconteur would do well to seek out this charming piece of late '60s satire. Ustinov stars as a convicted embezzler (we first see him during his last day in gaol where he is preparing the prison governor's tax return) who, sensing that the future is in computers, poses (by means of a deft piece of identity theft) as a computer expert and sets out to infiltrate an American multinational.

Ustinov (who co-wrote the script) is on top form, as is the delightful Maggie Smith, here unusually cast as an accident-prone cockney-sparrow dolly bird. Bob Newhart also puts in an amusing performance as a suspicious executive who has designs on Maggie Smith. In addition, Karl Malden is satisfyingly sleazy as Ustinov and Newhart's womanising boss.

What do I particularly like about this film? Not only is it a well-thought-out 'caper movie' but it's also a touching little love story; Ustinov and Smith are very convincing as the two misfits stumbling into love (the whole scene involving the deck of cards is particularly effective.)

So, what is there not to like? Well, the script is no more computer-literate than most films (that is, hardly at all) even though it captures the feel of late '60s 'big iron' business computing quite well. Also there are a couple of small plot glitches that you're not likely to notice until the second or third viewing, but I consider these to be minor niggles.

As I said, this is a film which is well worth seeking out, and after you've seen it once you'll want to see it again at regular intervals.

If there were two more charming performers than Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith appearing together in a more charming movie in 1968, I don't know who they were. I first saw this delightful little satiric gem 25 years ago at the age of 16, and I consider any year in which I have failed to sit down to watch it again a wasted one. It's intelligent, quirky, neat, wistful, sweet, gently subversive, and utterly enchanting. The romance of these two social misfits is both richly comic and terribly moving - never more so than in Maggie Smith's desperate attempt to bring up the right card in the deck, a scene that's both ruefully funny and a perfect thumbnail portrait of heartbreaking loneliness. And that final freeze-frame on the anxious, concerned, loving face of Ustinov as he asks, "Are you all right?" - has anyone ever made the look and sound of devotion so perfectly and nakedly honest? I would never want to know anyone well who didn't love this movie. This movie is now appearing on digital TV at least once a month, I've watched it a dozen or more times, and it never ceases to delight me. If it was on tomorrow I'd watch it again. Such is the artistry that Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, two great magicians of the acting profession can create, helped in no small way by the superb supporting trio of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Robert Morley. Not forgetting others in minor roles.

It is a simple tale, simply told, of an ex-con, a lovable embezzler, battling and succeeding with the then "new age technology" i.e computers, and finding affection in the process. Even if it is a tad (tongue in cheek) implausible, even unbelievable, the characters are not. There is no violence, no sex, no bad language, and best of all no awful method acting which is so prevalent today. A real lesson to modern movie-makers on how to make a great show from, and with, virtually nothing...except outstanding talent. I recently found this movie on VHS after looking for it for a number of years, I was not disappointed. It gets better every time I see it. Peter Ustinov stars and co-wrote the original screenplay (nominated for an Academy Award). Other stars you've heard of include Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Cesar Romero. Ustinov plays an accountant/embezzler, just released from England's infamous Wormwood Scrubs prison (he had embezzled from the Conservative Party headquarters, selected because he is a Liberal). He immediately begins a search for a new employer from whom he can embezzle, and discovers that computers are the wave of the future. He social-engineers his way into a London men's club and learns the identity of the best computer experts in town, he steals the identity of one Caesar Smith, who has just left town for South America to pursue his hobby of collecting moths in the wild. He talks his way into Ta-Can-Co, an American conglomerate headed by Carlton Klemper (Karl Malden). Klemper hires Smith and shows him around the computer center, especially its security feature consisting of a flashing blue light. Ustinov asks the computer how to defeat its security and the computer obligingly tells, him, "Disconnect blue light." Using hacking techniques from 30 years in the future, Ustinov breaks into the system and programs the computer to generate checks written to various bogus companies. The scheme starts to unravel when Klemper's assistant Willard G. Gnatpole (Bob Newhart) notices the amount of business Ta-Can-Co appears to be transacting with Ustinov's scam companies. With the help of his secretary Patty Terwilliger (Maggie Smith), Ustinov manages to avoid prosecution and lives happily ever after. To tell you how would spoil this very funny, romantic, intelligent, and ahead-of-its-time picture. It's very sly for all of the 60's look to the movie. The humor is quite gentle, but it grew on me much more than I expected. The cast is first-rate and they appear to be having a wonderful time. Ustinov wanders through the film muttering some quite funny things under his breath, and it's all very inconsequential; I'll buy the movie as soon as it comes out on DVD. The plot is that Ustinov as an embezzler released from prison posing as a computer whiz and embezzling money from an American company with an office in London. Maggie Smith is his secretary for a while, and watching her get fired from many different jobs is part of the fun. Bob Newhart is his usual deadpan self, and Karl Malden has fun as the dense and sleazy executive running the London office. The ending is funny and nicely cynical. I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the "retro hacker" perfectly. "O Nolo Mio"!!!!! "Hot Millions" is a delightful comedy that is made even better by the presence of the marvelous cast assembled for it. The movie is a tribute to the genius of Peter Ustinov, who wrote the screen play and appears as the key figure of an enterprising embezzler. The movie, directed by Eric Till, doesn't show signs of having dated as terribly, as some others from that period.

At the center of the action is a friendly man, Marcus Pendleton, who, before being released from prison, fixes the income tax forms for the warden, who is amazed of the refund he is owed by the government. Marcus, who is a genius at numbers, sees opportunities where others wouldn't. He starts working for a firm that uses the latest computer for its accounting, but Pendleton is a resourceful man who finds a way to take advantage of the system and establishes different phony accounts in different parts of the continent.

Marcus is assigned a secretary, who also happens to have a flat in his building. The inept Patty is seen working as a bus fare taker who manages to make a mess of everything. How she lands a job as a secretary is beyond comprehension, but things are never the same in the office when the creepy Willard Gnatpole decides to go after her, but have no fear, Patty's heart belongs to Marcus, who is an accomplished pianist and she is a flutist and they make beautiful music together.

The best thing in the film is Peter Ustinov. He clearly understood how Marcus should be played and runs away with the film. Mr. Ustinov gives an assured account of the embezzler. The excellent Maggie Smith is also at her best with her take on Patty, the kind woman who adores Marcus and who proves to be a genius herself when it comes to investing the money she finds in Marcus' pockets.

Karl Malden is perfect as the American in charge of the corporation. Bob Newhart also appears as Gnatpole, the man who desires Patty, but can't get her to reciprocate. The marvelous Robert Morley is seen as Caesar Smith, whose identity Marcus has assumed. Cesar Romero appears also in a cameo role as an airport customs inspector.

"Hot Millions" will delight everyone looking for a fun time in the company of that unsavory, but charming character, Marcus Pendleton. I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero. I just saw Hot Millions on TCM and I had completely forgotten this gem. Ustinov creates a clever and divisive plot that has him cleverly going from two bit con man to ingenious... Well you'll see. Maggie Smith is perfect as the bumbling secretary/neighbor who has a tough time holding a job but has a warm and vibrant personality that beams through in this picture. She creates a fine portrayal of a warm, witty and real person who in the long run...well...

Molden and Newhart as top executives take on the challenge of making what could be banal roles and make them come out into a comic life of their own.

Robert Morley and Ceasar Romero are just a pleasure to see and I know at least in Romero's case Ustinov is extending a helping hand of work.

This film is meant to be a shot back at the rising computer age and it's problems for the average con man or man for that matter but in fact the characters are so involving and so much fun to watch that the computer sub plot is almost lost...I say almost.

Let down your usual expectations of modern comedy and look for the great performances and friendly, forgiving and deeply involving plot in this picture. I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.

One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.

There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.

Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.

Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.

CD "Hot Millions" is a well-written, well-acted tale about an embezzler who steals (whoops! -- too low class a word for an embezzler, according to Peter Ustinov's lead character) a "hot million" from the London branch of a U.S. corporation by creating shell corporations on the continent and using the firm's ostensibly secure computer to transfer funds to them. (Remember, spoiler police, this is a comedy, not a mystery.)

From 1968, this movie's depiction of computers may seem naive to today's more computer-literate populace; but as one who has worked with computers since before this film was released, I would assert that even then, this smacks of having been written by and for computer illiterates, probably on purpose to heighten the droll comedic aspects of this British flick.

If one has little taste for this type of entertainment, the movie may seem to drag in spots. Fortunately, it has a nicely wrapped-up ending; unfortunately, the end credits give no indication of the classical music used therein -- the symphonic piece at the end and the piano-flute duet in the middle -- just the song sung by Lulu which I totally don't remember. Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans. Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.

This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked." Hot Millions is a great movie in every way. A fun, offbeat story with wonderful performances by four of the best professionals ever to work in the business. Peter Ustinov is brilliant, as usual, and Maggie Smith---definitely one of the greatest actresses of all time--- is a total delight. Karl Malden and Bob Newhart round out the cast and are also perfect. If you want a movie that has perfect casting, this is it. What is so impressive is the way these people work off each other in such a natural and effortless way, creating lots of laughs and fun moments throughout. Peter Ustinov was a genius with a wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his most memorable performances. The direction, photography, and editing are also first-rate, and it's a great time capsule of London in the '60s. It's definitely on my all-time favorites list. A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time! Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.

At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.

If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end. It's about an embezzler, Peter Ustinov, who infiltrates a British company, Texa-Conn or something like that, posing as a computer whiz and security expert. He secretly learns to hack into the computer, while gathering the admiration of his boss, Karl Malden, the enmity of his office rival, Bob Newhart, and the love of his inept secretary, Maggie Smith.

Some of the business details were a little murky to these non-business-oriented eyes but they're believable enough and I got the general idea. Ustinov, the peculating Peter, establishes phony businesses in Paris, Rome, and Stuttgart, and uses Texa-Conn's computer to send all kinds of money to these ersatz establishments. The overseas companies, of course, consist of nothing more than himself, Ustinov, and the addresses are an abandoned artist's loft in Paris, a barber shop in Rome, and a bakery in Germany. He simply visits them to collect the checks he's sent himself.

I didn't think I'd like it for the first few minutes because it seemed rather on the slow side. I was expecting something with a faster tempo and more outrage, along the lines of "The Pink Panther" or "The Lavender Hill Gang." But this film insinuates itself into your good graces as you come to appreciate the understated humor in the plot, the characterizations, and the dialog.

Probably it would be a bad idea to give away too many of the relatively subtle gags but here are some examples of the more noticeable.

Ustinov to Secretary Smith: "Let me have the assets of these companies." Smith: "Assets? What are they?" Ustinov: "Little female donkeys." Now, nothing is made of this little exchange. There's a quick cut and no delay for any laughter, which is appropriate because one's reaction is more likely to be a smile than a laugh.

Ustinov searches out that crummy loft in Paris. It's covered with cobwebs. Bricks are strewn around and a couple of the former occupant's paintings have been left behind. The landlord doesn't speak English and Ustinov knows no French. Ustinov points to a child-like painting of a nude woman and chuckles, "Ah. A fam fye-tal, eh?" Landlord chuckles too, replies: "Vous le prenez pour une anee?" Ustinov: "Oh -- ANNIE, so that's her name!" Landlord: "Oui?" Ustinov: "Entente cordiale!" (Mes amis, if I got those genders wrong, je m'excuse.) Bob Newhart as Willard Gnatpole (!) has the hots for Maggie Smith and is supposed to be driving her home but tells her he's taking "the scenic route." There is an immediate sequence of suggestive traffic signs. "Caution." "Lay-By." "Give Way." "Yield." Ending with the imperious "STOP/CHILDREN." There's another montage when Ustinov's scheme is about to be discovered by the board of directors -- blurry rooftops, police cars, a farewell embrace from Maggie, ending with a sign: PRISON, Wormwood Scrubs.

Well, maybe one more. I still can't get over Malden as the boss, declaring decisively, "I never agonize over decisions," then gulping a handful of pills and washing them down with a glass of water.

The acting is unarguably fine. It's Bob Newhart's best role, for instance. Not that he had that many, and not that his range wasn't limited, but he's perfect in this part. The musical score by Laurie Johnson obviously had a good deal of effort put into it. She seems to have written a brief concerto for flute. Ustinov's passion is music and his overseas establishments are headed by false names like Claude Debussy and Giacconino Rossini. Stuttgart's phony president is somebody named Schmidt, and he's an anomalous clinker. Maggi Smith is pretty, sexy, bourgeois, and turns out to be not nearly so dumb as she seems.

Delightful, in its own quiet way, but don't expect comic fireworks. This is a rip-roaring British comedy movie and one that i could watch over and over again without growing tired. Peter Ustinov has never performed in a bad role and this is no exception, particularly with his dry wit but very clever master plan. Karl Malden has always been an admirer of mine since he starred in 'Streets of San Francisco'. I believe that Maggie Smith is the real star of this film though, appearing to be so inept at everything she tries to do but in truth is so switched on, particularly at the end when she informs everyone that she has invested so much money that she has discovered whilst laundering his clothes. One thing does concern me though, could someone please tell me why i cannot purchase this on either DVD or VHS format in the UK, could someone please assist? I think this movie is well done and realistic. I you are used to watching Hollywood "action" movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is much closer to real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what lifts it above the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the "making of" extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any mistakes. This is a movie i will recommend for others to watch. High quality realistic story and movie. I did not set very high expectations for this movie, which left me pleasantly surprised. The story is a little strange sometimes but overall I think it has an acceptable credibility. The action scenes are rather nice and the accompanying music is used to induce a a bit of patriotic feelings common to US movies. This may not be the best movie ever but it's uncommon for Sweden and I hope to see more similar ones in the future. As an employee of the Swedish Air Force I enjoyed the nice Gripen and Hkp 9 (MBB Bo 105) flight scenes in this movie. One of the few disappointments was the EWS 39 jammer pod, in this case an inert Rb 75 (Maverick) missile painted black with the letters "EWS 39" in white along the side. Real jammer pods definitely do not look like that, at least not the ones I've seen.

But apart from that, it's an entertaining movie with a very amusing ending (the last minute). Anyone interested in seeing various Swedish military units, including the now-legendary SSG, on film should see this one.

This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake.

You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.

The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture.

What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.

I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.

Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon. Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.

Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.

Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).

Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive. It takes a very special kind of person to make a movie that is so wretched, beguiling, disgusting and repulsive, but make it in a way that also makes it brilliant and the quintessence of personal cinematic liberation. Crispin Glover, in all of his "out there" antics and predispositions, truly made something that is unique. In a world that has become starkly partisan, this film seems to evade the standard lines of creativity and art and effectively startle everyone.

Right off the bat, the film takes on a rather distant paradigm (if there really is a model at all) and initially shapes it with the likes of Shirley Temple in front of a swastika and naked women pleasuring a man with cerebral palsy. It's rather shocking stuff, but if you had the opportunity for the Q&A sessions after the screenings, it clearly opens up a bag of worms that leaves you wondering whether this is art or just the lowest common denominator. In either guise, you sense the tremor that this film will ultimately cause. It will never be accepted, not even by the supposed auteurs of the world who boringly speak about the human condition. You may not like it, but it is certainly something worth watching. I didn't know what to make of this film. I guess that is what it was all about really. I have never seen a film like it and I doubt that I really ever will again. Glover puts together something that is unique to him. I think to appreciate it you have to read some of his poetry, maybe see one of his slide shows. I really like this guy, he is just so bizarre I can't help it. Note: I saw this film before it was through its final editing, so maybe what I have seen and what others have seen are different. I will know, I guess, if I choose to view the film again. I think I will have to be properly drug influenced... This film is very interesting. I have seen it twice and it seems Glover hit the nail on the head with what he claims to he wants to accomplish. I for one can relate to the outrage that the filmmaker clearly expresses against the current thoughtless corporate drivel that is an onslaught in our every media center, and the things that we as a culture are supposed to not "think" about due to corporate media control. The outrage that Glover expresses through the "outrageous" elements in the films is both clear in its visceral aggressiveness and beautiful in its poetic potency. I am glad I saw this film and it is even clearer that Glover is up to something interesting with part two of what will be a trilogy. It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. See that also. People that dismiss this film as "thoughtless" or "pretentious" are really missing the boat. This is an intelligent films. If you can see it with his live show he performs before with his books, that is also very wroth while. The way you get in to his mindset is really something. You will have an experience! Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.

This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.

It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.

Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come. I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.

After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, "The Bubble" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.

The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.

To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.

I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted. The reviewer who called this movie a bust has clearly missed the point. It's obvious he hasn't been young or innocent in a very long time, or he might have understood that the tragedy of it was that the well-meaning young characters actually thought they COULD make a difference by putting up posters and holding a rave for peace. If only it was that easy. But the cynics sit and sneer at people who earnestly try their best to make things better, as the situation gets worse and worse every single day. Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

The central theme is that revenge begets more revenge, which begets even more, in an ever-expanding bloodbath. Both sides will tell you tales of atrocities committed by the other side, which they think justify their committing even MORE in retaliation. Where does it end? And apparently he missed the significance of "the bubble" referred to in the name, which was that people living in Tel Aviv are strangely cut off from the ugly realities of what is going on all around them, which is partly why they seemed so naive. (He also seemed to think that Ashraf could slip through the checkpoints without a problem, which tells me he wasn't paying attention when Ashraf related the delays and problems he had encountered.)

I found it very brave of the director, the screenplay writer, and both star-crossed lovers, to update the Romeo & Juliet story to a modern troubled land, and to make both lovers male. Let's be honest here: Very few people would have a problem if one of them had been a female (young love wins all hearts) -- but when people's uneasiness with their sexuality is added to the fact that, incredibly, these same people would rather have them HATE each other, then the conclusion is inevitable. Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.

I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.

Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as "just love". (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!) It's one of the best movies I've seen in the last 2 years (I've seen the premier in Tel-Aviv, Israel in the summer of 2006, exactly when the last war has began...) This problem in communication between the people, that causes wars, is interesting me for a long time, and it doesn't matter who- boys and girls, straight and gays, Jews and Arabs... I've seen the Bubble already 3 times, and it still surprising and exciting me- each character reminds me of one of the many people i know, and the difference between them, like between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem... The last time i saw it- was with my friend, who is a Christian Arab, and it was on the independence day of Israel ( the most symbolic i could ! how ironic) and... he cried in the end!!! - if he's been touched and wasn't embarrassed- everyone would be touched by The Bubble! I got this one a few weeks ago and love it! It's modern, light but filled with true complexities of life. It questions and answers, just like other Eytan Fox movies. This is my favorite, along with Jossi & Jagger. This pictures a lot more, universally, than only the bubbles we may live in. You don't need to be Jewish or homosexual to enjoy this - I'm not, but the movie goes directly to my top ten movies. At first it seems like pure entertainment but it does make you think further. Relationships we have to live with are superficial, meaningful, deep, fatal, you name it. You don't know what's coming, and you definitely don't know where this story is heading as you watch it the first time. It is worth seeing several times. Fox movies include great bonus material - here a great music video and "the making of" (including explanation of the title, interviewing Lior Ashknenazi who plays himself in the movie and Arabs with doubts about the Israeli life styles). I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.

This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!! The Israeli/Palestinian conflict persists and while the world may be aware of the violence surrounding the division of the two countries, few have a clue to the other aspect of the division - the group of people who want peace and work toward eradicating the separation. Eytan Fox, in THE BUBBLE ('Ha-Buah'), has created a much needed alternative viewpoint of the schism, electing to tell a story that contains some fine humor, a lot of love, and a taste of brutal reality. It is a window into a situation that begs for understanding.

In Tel Aviv three close friends are roommates: Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), a beautiful young woman with strong opinions; Yali (Alon Friedman), a very 'out' gay young man who works in a popular café; and Noam (Ohad Knoller), a handsome, somewhat shy fellow who, in addition to his day job in a music shop, is a member of the National Guard and therefore spends his free time serving as a guard at the city's checkpoints. It is during one of these guard duty weekends that he meets a young Palestinian named Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), and a mutual attraction occurs. The three friends decide to 'stowaway' the illegally present Ashraf (whom they nickname with an Israeli name) and while Ashraf and Noam settle into a love relationship, Yali hires Ashraf at his café, and Yali and Lulu both proceed to find love interests, too. All goes well until Ashraf must return home for his sister's wedding. Though in Tel Aviv Ashraf has been able to be openly gay with Noam, life is far different in Jerusalem: Ashraf is told he must marry his sister's groom-to-be sister. In an attempt to rescue Ashraf from his fate, Noam and Lulu disguise themselves as French reporters to gain access to Ashraf. In a moment of supposed seclusion, Noam and Ashraf are discovered kissing by the groom-to-be, and this act gives cause for blackmail in order for Ashraf to remain 'in the closet'.

While the young people in Tel Aviv are dancing at an event to raise attention for peaceful coexistence, an attack occurs in Jerusalem - one that has grave consequences not only immediately, but also in the revenge mission Ashraf must now assume. The ending is tragic on many levels and it underlines just how serious the problem between these two countries is.

The acting is so very natural that from both the comedic and the tragic aspects the audience completely believes in these beautiful young people. The story finds the right balance between the serious and the lighthearted and it is this balance than makes Eytan Fox such a fine writer/director. More people should watch this important and very fine film. In Hebrew, Arabic, and English with subtitles. Grady Harp Since the advent of literature, people of all nationalities have been fascinated and easily touched by accounts of unhappy love. Even more fascinating have always been the tales of impossible love, love that cannot be. The Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox' latest film „The Bubble" is about that. And then it is also not. The title of the film refers to the „bubble" that is Tel-Aviv set against the background of the political realities of Israel. The country's cosmopolitan and unofficial capital city doesn't have much in common with Nablus, a city in the Palestinian West Bank which also features in the film. It doesn't have much in common with the tense and hateful atmosphere at the Palestinian checkpoints. Actually, it doesn't seem to have much in common with anything surrounding it. The „bubble" of Tel-Aviv allows people to have a lifestyle which isn't much different from what you may expect in any Western city. Teenage girls looking for Britney Spears' records, a lifestyle magazine editor looking for a sexy cover for his next issue, trendy people sitting in trendy cafes discussing trendy things over cups of cappuccino and other similarly trendy drinks, while those at home are watching the local edition of Pop Idol. It is this „bubble" that also has the potential to lull one's mind into a false sense of reality.

The film evolves around the lives of three young Israelis who share a flat and, for the most part, try to stay out of politics. Yelli, the camp owner and manager of „Orna & Ella", a hip cafe, rarely leaves the city and prefers not to think about the „crap that surrounds them". Noam, a soft and easygoing employee of a slightly avantguard record store, seems to be equally unwilling to engage in long political discussions and contemplations. Lulu, the only female of the lot, is on the contrary linked to the Israeli Left, although her political activities seem to be confined to „raves against the occupation". Yelli and Noam naturally don't object to participating in these. Lulu and her political friends make t-shirts with the rave's logo, put up posters and hand out booklets advertising it in the neighbourhood. Their main concern seems to be that there are never any actual Palestinians participating and that the police might come and spoil all the fun for them again. The closest they come to an actual confrontation is when they get into a scuffle with some not so Palestinian-friendly locals who try to prevent them from handing out the leaflets. In other words, predictable products of the „bubble".

The opening scenes of the film take us to a checkpoint on a road to Nablus where we also find Noam doing his reserve duty. A group of Palestinians is being thoroughly checked before entering Israel, among them a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labour and gives birth to a stillborn child despite the best efforts from Noam and the doctor who eventually arrives in an ambulance. The woman is comforted by a young man who later turns up on Noam's doorstep in Tel-Aviv with his ID which the latter obviously dropped during the ordeal on the border. His name is Ashraf, he's Palestinian and he's gay. And he hasn't just come to hand back the ID, he has come to see Noam. Without a permit to live in Israel and despite the initial hesitation from Noam's flatmates he stays. He soon gets a Jewish name and a job at Yelli's cafe. Having grown up in Jerusalem with Hebrew, he doesn't have an Arabic accent which makes it possible for him and his newly found friends to conceal his identity. The sky is light blue and the air is sweet. But it cannot last. For he has become part of an equation which was never meant to be.

At one point, Noam and Ashraf watch a play called Bent about two prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp who have a love relationship which can never become physical or visible to the surrounding guards. They find a way of being together on another level, a metaphysical one, a level where no one else has access. This is also where our couple arrives in the end. And it couldn't have been much different for them, not in today's Israel.

„The Bubble" is a political statement about the bubble that bursts when confronted with the political realities of today's Israel set against the background of a beautiful and awkward love story involving an Israeli and a Palestinian, the impossible love story in a divided world where no such things as compromise or other colours than black and white exist. „The Bubble" is also a beautiful film about people, gay and straight, inhabiting that strange city, Tel-Aviv, shown through the eyes of people who really care about them. The film's premise may have its flaws and the fatal chain of events may seem somewhat construed, but its strong message and emotional impact will not leave you untouched. It's difficult to not have a liking for Israeli director Eytan Fox and for his movies, which describe the life in the middle east and the inherent problems gay people can have in these regions. Besides he also gave voice to the young generations, and to the remarkable part of them, who really need PEACE and who want to take no further notice of a war that for too much time marked the existences of people, both in Israel both in Palestine. These reasons, in my opinion, are sufficient to consider Fox a noteworthy director, even when his feeling for the melodrama is a tad out of control. However the fans of his movies (that he realized on team with Gal Uchovsky, his producer, co-screenwriter and also life companion) seem to not being vexed by this, since his new feature, THE BUBBLE (HA-BUAH), is having the same success of the previous YOSSI & JAGGER and WALK ON THE WATER. Announced as a contemporary gay version of "Romeo & Juliet", set in the present day Tel Aviv instead of Verona and with two men (one Israeli and the other Palestinian) at the place of the two Shakespearean young lovers, the film actually is quite different from that or, better, it's also something else. In fact the bubble of the title is the world apart in which the leading man, Noam, played by the Fox regular Ohad Knoller (Yossi in YOSSI & JAGGER, but I must confess I miss Jagger, the astonishing Yehuda Levi!) and his two co-tenants, a guy and a girl, chose to live. Around thirty-years-old, restless, witty and firm (despite the protagonist just spent a period as national service in a checkpoint on the frontier with the Palestine) to live a life that won't be only made of war. The two guys are gay and along with the girl they have established a trio in which they brotherly love and support each other. Their lives are destined to change when Noam falls in love with Ashraf (the TV star Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) a young Palestinian who came to live in Tel Aviv. The laws so far in force among the group are neglected, but not the will to aid one friend. Still it won't be easy for Noam and his friends, 'cause Ashraf is clandestine in Israel and in the meantime his family, who lives in Palestine and doesn't know he's gay, is looking forward to settle his wedding with a very beautiful girl, who is a relative of Ashraf's beloved sister bridegroom-to-be, who he is also a terrorist and he will have a strong liability in the development of the plot, with consequences not just for the two men. Because the prejudices against the homosexuality and the peace (interesting dualism, if not automatic) are stubborn and so the tragedy is unavoidable. Even if the film focus on the obstacles the relationship between Noam and Ashraf meets with, it doesn't the overlook the other characters, which turn out well written (for example Golan, the boyfriend of Yelli, Noam's fellow tenant, introduced as a lively boor, and then disclosed as a sweeter and more open minded person) and aptly performed (besides the two leads, we mustn't disregard the funny Zohar Liba and the lovely Daniela Virtzer, the girl of the gang; moreover LATE MARRIAGE's star Lior Ashkenazi appears as himself in a cameo). It also melds the gloomy tones with the more brilliant ones, even if the director can't do without a melodramatic conclusion. I watched this movie more than a month ago and in the meantime I often thought about it, proof that Fox and his pal have a knack to strike home. This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne Here's one more beauty in the string of beautiful films directed by Eytan Fox. The movie presents the story of star-crossed lovers (one Israeli, one Palestinian)in modern Tel Aviv. The film's effectiveness comes not only from its depiction of cross-ethnic conflict, but of conflicts personal and political within ethnic groups as well. For example, there's a telling moment when one of the secondary characters, openly gay, is visited in the hospital by his boyfriend who brings him flowers and tries to kiss him in front of his visiting family, and suddenly we see a wave of awkward discomfort wash through the room. Clearly the young man is not as open as he seems, and the family not as accepting as he might want them to be, while the boyfriend is confused and rejected. A good deal of complexity is packed into a fleeting moment. As we know from Yossi & Jagger, Fox is a master at efficiently packing emotional and psychological complexity into brief sequences. The film is also effective for the even-handed way it presents the mutual brutalities that Israelies and Palestinians inflict on each other. If you're not heartless, you'll cry through the last third of the movie. Though the plot is melodramatic, it's so intelligently written and acted that it reminds us of how satisfying good melodrama can be. Directed and co-written by Eytan Fox the writer/director of the highly acclaimed 2002 mini feature "Yossi & Jagger" (2002). This comparative epic, at 1hr 53 minutes, is another fine romantic drama in which we must deal with tragedy as well as celebrate the beauty and joy in life. Westerners, especially urban gay men like myself, need to be moved outside our safety zone and be informed of the real life and death struggle elsewhere to be able to love with equity.

While "Yossi & Jagger" focused on a pair of gay lovers in the closeted confines of Israeli military service, "Ha Buah" is centred on a group of civilian friends, both straight and gay, who share a unit in the heart of Israel's generally gay-tolerant, but not always gay-friendly, capital Tel Aviv.

"Ha Buah" opens with a dramatic border check point scene in which Noam (Ohad Knoller – Yossi from "Yossi & Jagger") first meets handsome young Arab Ashraf (Yousef Sweid). Romance soon blooms – but in that political climate opportunities would have to be seized quickly or lost altogether.

From there we follow an intricate interplay among the members and lovers of the housemates and the unavoidable effect of Ashraf's very conservative family. If you follow this film's dialogue attentively enough then you will have no reason to be disappointed with the ending.

The soundtrack for "Ha Buah" is vibrant and the visuals are both beautiful and stark – i.e. real life in the Middle East.

The English subtitles are very easy to follow and you quickly relax and appreciate world cinema at its best. Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say "I love you" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.

One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of "Bent". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.

Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and "Friends". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting "blowed up" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in "Friends".

This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch. This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.

But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.

But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.

This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see. My father was the warden of the prison (he is retired now) showcased in this documentary and I've grown up around the prison life, so perhaps my views will be totally different from everyone else who watches this movie. I will say this, the filmmakers who brought us this 93-minute miracle are fantastic artists and even better people. They were brave enough to A) Show up and tell this story, B) Get inside these inmates minds and hearts, and C) Do all of this responsibly. Responsible to their art and, more importantly, responsible to the inmates and staff of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex. They should be commended without end for this work. To take 170 hours, yes HOURS, of footage and be able to cut and whittle it down to 93 riveting minutes is nothing short of extraordinary and they have my utmost respect.

I saw this film under circumstances that only a very, very few were able to see it. I was at the inmate screening. I was in the same room with these men as they watched their hearts being poured out on screen. I saw men crying on television crying in the chair in front of me and let me tell you, it was a very profound experience. These men have committed horrendous crimes in some cases, yet have found ways to try to redeem themselves, even if they view themselves as unredeemable. How many of us have the courage to do this? How many people could do what they have done in such a harsh environment? To see them react to the film was an experience I am eternally grateful for, and I will never forget that. I thank the men who allowed me this glimpse into their lives, I thank my father for making ALL of this possible, and I thank Philomath Films for taking the time to pour their blood, sweat, soul, and tears into this project.

This movie will change everything you think you know about prison life, and the inmates held within it. 'Oz' is not real, television is not real. 'Shakespeare Behind Bars' is. One of the best parts of Sundance is seeing movies that you would otherwise almost certainly miss. Unless you're a real art-house devotee, you probably don't catch many documentaries. Only a handful get any recognizable distribution. Fortunately, Sundance has increased its commitment to documentaries in recent years.

Shakespeare Behind Bars is a powerful documentary about a dramatic production group at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. Every year a group of inmates present a Shakespearean play. Director Hank Rogerson and his crew follow the troupe as roles are self-selected, interpreted, rehearsed and ultimately performed.

The movie is filled with fascinating revelations for those of us that have not been exposed to prison environments. Despite the labels we know them by (convict, felon, murderer, etc.) we soon began to appreciate and respect these men as thinking feeling human beings. Serendipitously, the play chosen for the year of filming was The Tempest, with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption. The actors all grapple with the relevance of the play to their lives, finding patterns and parallels with their characters and the meaning of the drama.

For a documentary film, like a book, the best that can be hoped for is that we experience something that changes our lives. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a personal revelation for me. "O brave new world, that has such creatures in it." If you're going to put on a play within the prison walls why not go for the top playwright William Shakespeare? And if you are going to choose your cast from a whole lot of criminals serving long sentences for the most heinous crimes, you can be sure there will be plenty of time for rehearsals. In a Kentucky Correctional Prison a courageous project such as this was undertaken with amazing results. This film shows how it was all done….the casting….the rehearsals….the set and costumes…and the final presentation of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." It had not occurred to me before but there is an analogy between the setting of the play and the correctional prison. In the play the ship-wrecked characters are confined to an island with no contact with the outside world. Prison life too is much like that.

With a simple painted back drop of a surrounding seascape, the characters in a most pleasing assortment of costumes bellow out their lines to an approving audience, may be not quite as Shakespeare intended but with good heart and true sincerity for sure.

More interesting than the play itself were the little cameos of each man behind his character. One inmate saw the play as a lesson in forgiveness another as a redemption of his sins. It was quite moving to see the men wipe away a tear as they spoke of murder, shooting and strangulation. One had the feeling that they would all like to wind back the clock and reconsider their brutal actions. However (as someone said) the past was past, and the present was the beginning of a new future. At least the play gave temporary relief from the depressing thoughts of past events.

The prison authorities should be applauded for allowing the play to take place. Such an event would put Kentucky on the map and hopefully other prisons might follow their good example. It seems to me that everyone stands to benefit…not only the Kentucky prison but the prisoners themselves who need to find new confidence and self esteem and be prepared for the day when they go out on parole. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc… and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc… everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now. Shakespeare Behind Bars was the most surprising and delightful film I've seen all year. It's about a prison program, somewhere in California if I recall correctly, where the inmates have rehearsed and performed a different Shakespeare play every year for the past 14 years. The film follows their production of "The Tempest" from casting through performance, and in the process we learn some pretty amazing things about these men, who are all in for the most serious of crimes. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction -- if anyone tried to adapt this story into a fiction film, the audience would never buy it, but knowing that it's real makes it breathtaking to watch -- literally; I gasped out loud when I learned of one particularly gifted felon's crime. It's like some loopy episode of Oz, and all the more entertaining because the characters and their bizarre stories are real. Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.

My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.

While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.

And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.

Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.

Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for. Despite its rather salacious title, this is a light teen dramedy. Unless you're an old coot, you'll probably find it likeable. It isn't so good on developing characters or situations smoothly, though. When you view it, you get the feeling that you've been running back and forth to the kitchen even if you've been sitting down watching the whole time. This is one of those films that counts a great deal on your liking the characters, and they are appealing enough. Jennifer Connelly is the heartthrob of many, I know, but I've always liked the more obscure Maddie Corman. The teens get most of the screen time without a lot of intrusions from those pesky grown-ups. Is it just me or did most of the young males look an awful lot alike? I originally came across Linda Feferman's Seven Minutes in Heaven when I was 14 and worked at a video store and I loved it. I recently watched the movie again and have realized that it is a lost treasure. The movie stars Jennifer Connelly, almost twenty years before she would go on to win an Oscar for Beautiful Mind, as Natalie Becker. Byron Thames plays her best friend in the world, Jeff Moran. The film is definitely a milder, cuter and softer version of the Pretty in Pink's and Some Kind of Wonderful's of the 1980's, which is exactly why it is so good. It's honest, not forced like those films, and parents will enjoy watching this movie with there kids.

When Natalie's Dad leave home on a business trip, Jeff convinces her that he should move in because his home life sucks. With support from Natalie's friend, Polly, played exquisitely by Maddie Corman, she lets him. But this movie isn't about putting kids in situations and seeing what they can get away with. The three leads are so natural and the script, surprisingly so honest, that what comes through best in their performances is heart breaking. These characters really do care about each other. It's a great film to show to kids who are reaching pre-teen adolescence.

Considering all the teen films like "the Breakfast Club" and "Pretty In Pink" that are lionized. It is surprising that this one is so ignored.

There is no sex in it, but sex is thought of, including the idea that it may matter what others think about it. The kids do not always get along with their parents, but neither the parents or the kids are seen as always right or wrong, and the parents are not seen as monsters.

It deals with hero-worship. How one girl does a dangerous thing, which could have lead to real dustier, before realizing that she was wrong.

The movie is kind of ahead of its' time. One kid asks another kid what birth control she uses. She says she is doing nothing to need birth control. She replies (wrongly) "oral sex". This movie rocks" Jen sexy as ever and Polly wow were we really ever that young this movie can still touch the hearts of a lot of teens it needs to be put on DVD soon or it will become a classic. i Really enjoyed growing up to this movie i have always had a crush on Jen now i am too old but to this movie is made for all gens> you know i come from the early 80,s area were i Had to watch everyone els live the life i wanted but thru movies i can do that all over again i guess in short i am hoping and wishing that this movie not be lost in time but reborn to the youth so they may enjoy the heart warm filling you get learning about hormones and datting problems and how to get away with stuff that seems so major back then but don't mean nothan now so this movie is a dating tool. First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of "Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me..." is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives. I really enjoyed this movie.I was fifteen when this movie came out and I could relate. This will be a movie I would show my kids to let them know, the feelings they are having are normal. It is funny to see how we could be so devestated by things at such a young age..who knew that we would bounce back....again and again....Great movie!!!! I've been a Jennifer Connelly fan since Phenomena, and after I heard about seven minutes in heaven, I saw it as soon as I could. The movie is not only a comedy if you think a lot of these things most of us went through as kids and are currently going through not only was the movie terrific led by the phenomenal jennifer connelly it captivated my attention that this movie was terrifically written directed and acted out it was one good deal I loved it and have watched it again and again and for those of you who enjoy a good laugh or love jennifer connelly you to can not put off seeing this movie!!!! The title of this film is taken from a party game called "Seven Minutes in Heaven." The game was popular among my husband's friends when he was in junior high school in Brooklyn, NY, and he describes it as something like "Spin-the-Bottle," "Lifesaver Relay," and other preteen kissing games. According to the rules, a boy's name and a girl's would be drawn, and the chosen ones ordered to get into a dark closet together and to stay there for seven minutes. In the meantime, there would be speculation among party guests as to whether or not the two had the nerve to hold hands, embrace, and/or kiss each other in the privacy of the closet. At the end of seven minutes, the game leader would say, "Time's up" or knock on the closet door, and the couple would emerge from the closet. After being quizzed by the other guests, the couple would have to admit what they had done during their "Seven Minutes in Heaven." Then other couples would be chosen to enter the closet until all the guests had participated. The couple who admitted to doing the most would be the winners of the game.

Such games have served as social "ice-breakers" for children and teens, but they can be embarrassing and intimidating to shy individuals. The film has been given this title because it deals with the teens' first experiences with crushes and romantic love. I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.

The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining. This movie is ridiculous! That's exactly what I like about this piece of "Guilty Pleasure". It is easy to condemn this movie for not including Pat Priest and Butch Patrick, the original Marilyn and Eddie. But look at the year and do the math. Pat Priest and Butch Patrick had long outgrown their parts! Time does that to young stars. Yvonne De Carlo, who re-prised her role as Lili, was pushing the Big 6-0 (even though she still looked good and was still the perfect "Lili").

It's a shame that Yvonne De Carlo wasn't given a larger part. Still, it was good to see Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis in the roles that made them so famous! During the 2 seasons that THE MUNSTERS was on prime time, it was the Gwynne/Lewis chemistry that made the series such a success. The rest of the cast were supporting cast members, not to say that they weren't needed. They were! The TV series wouldn't had survived as long as it did without them. Given the choice between Butch Patrick or Happy Derman (the original "Eddie"), the choice was too easy. Yvonne De Carlo was also the better choice over Joan Marshall.

Though this movie doesn't measure up to the original TV series, it still measures up nicely and is one of the better "reunuin" TV specials that plagued the boob-tube during the late 1970s/early 1980s.

' This movie has one of the cheesiest plots I have seen. For me, that's what makes it so awesome! Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis are very good at what they achieved in the original Munsters series. While there was less slapstick, they still worked wonderfully together "comedically." I wish Yvonne De Carlo, as Lily, would have had more plot involvement. She showed that she could do comedy in the original series, but it was mostly wasted in this movie. This movie also stars the great Sid Caesar, but sadly he doesn't have any interaction with Gwynne and Lewis. I think some better work could have come out of that. Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did. Version: Universal / Hong Kong Legends R4 DVD release. Cantonese / English subtitles

Once upon a time, five years ago, the world was obsessed with 'The Matrix', and I was perhaps one of the few fifteen year olds left who still believed that 'Terminator' was better than 'Matrix'. I was but a simple teenage boy, looking for a good action movie, and then there was a shining light on a TV station I had never really watched, a little station known as SBS. One night I noticed in the TV guide that a movie starring Jackie Chan - 'Police Story' would be on later. Being fifteen, and having only seen 'Rumble in the Bronx' and 'Rush Hour', I said... "WOW AWESOME" and sat down to watch it, and continually shouted "WOW AWESOME" as the movie progressed. Two weeks later, after SBS had shown the 'Police Story' trilogy, I knew I had found my new favourite actor.

Jackie plays Chan Ka Kui, a Hong Kong cop who busts a major drug-lord, Chu (Yuen Chor). Chu's secretary, Selina Fong (Brigitte Lin), is being held by the police as a witness against Chu, and Chan is assigned to protect her. Things go bad - reaaaal bad - when Chu's case is dismissed and he decides he wants Fong and Chan dead.

'Police Story' is one of the greatest action movies ever, and certainly one of my favourite Jackie Chan films. It starts off strong, and ends with one of the most incredible action sequences ever filmed. Everything in between is great. However, some of the funny parts may seem a little tasteless to more than a few people...

As a story, this is still one of Jackie's better efforts. For an action movie, the story is pretty good, and Jackie is a much better actor in this than he is in the acting & plot intensive 'New Police Story'. This isn't 'Miracles', but maybe that's a good thing.

'Police Story' is one of Jackie's finest works. It got me hooked on Jackie Chan movies, and should provide a nice start for any potential Jackie fans. The bad news for anyone who sees this first is that Jackie Chan movies don't come much better - 10/10 A winters day, 28th December 1986, two bored 14 year olds hire a movie. "Hmmmm, Police Story, looks interesting", "who is this Jackie Chan?", "never heard of him". Two hours later after watching the film, in a daze, we wanted to know more. 16 years later (and severely out of pocket from collecting JC movies!) the film still grabs me like no other. Ok, maybe I have a soft spot for it as it was my "first" (Cannonball Run doesn't count!!) JC movie, but it is an excellent movie. It has all the classic JC elements, Action, Humour, Action, Heart and ACTION! Some comments say it's dated, it was made in 1985, of course it's dated! But then so must Jaws, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and The Godfather!!!!!! Without movies like Police Story where would Hollywood action be today? PS set standards, many a scene has been stolen for use in other movies. To really fully appreciate it you must see it in widescreen, you miss so much of the movie otherwise (yes, he really does fall off the bus going round the corner!). If you haven't already, SEE THIS MOVIE NOW!!!!

Probably Jackie Chan's best film in the 1980s, and the one that put him on the map. The scale of this self-directed police drama is evident from the opening and closing scenes, during which a squatters' village and shopping mall are demolished. There are, clearly, differences between the original Chinese and dubbed English versions, with many of the jokes failing to make their way into the latter. The latter is also hampered by stars who sound nothing like their Chinese originals. In fact, the only thing the dubbing has corrected is the court trial—at the time, trials in colonial Hong Kong were conducted in English, while the original has this scene in Cantonese!

Nonetheless, Chan's fighting style and the martial arts choreography inject humour where possible, so non-Cantonese audiences don't miss much. It's not, after all, the dialogue that makes a Chan flick, but the action and the painful out-takes. The story is easy to follow: Chan plays an incorruptible Hong Kong detective pursuing a gangland godfather (Cho Yeun), and assigned to protect a star witness (Brigitte Lin). The action is superb from beginning to end, and there's not much time to breathe in between. It'll never get you thinking, but what an entertaining, and well strung-together, film. Arguably, this is one of the best martial arts films out there. Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.

Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.

I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name.

The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with.

Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.

Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.

Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.

Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first. Back when musicals weren't showcases for choreographers, we had wonderful movies such as this one.

Being a big fan of both Wodehouse and Fred Astaire I was delighted to finally see this movie. Not quite a blend of Wodehouse and Hollywood, but close enough. Some of the American vaudeville humour, the slapstick not the witty banter, clash with Wodehouse's British sense of humour. But on the whole, the American style banter makes the American characters seem real rather than cardboard caricatures.

Some inventive staging for the dance numbers, including the wonderful fairground with revolving floors and funhouse mirrors, more than make up for the lack of a Busby Berkley over the top dance number. They seem a lot more realistic, if you could ever imagine people starting to sing and dance as realistic.

The lack of Ginger Rogers and Eric Blore don't hurt the movie, instead they allow different character dynamics to emerge. It's also nice not to have a wise cracking, headstrong love interest. Instead we have a gentle headstrong love interest, far more in keeping with Wodehouses' young aristocratic females. This musical is decidedly mixed, and none of the elements really fit together, but it somehow manages to be mostly enjoyable. The plot contains some of the elements of Wodehouse's novel, but none of its virtues, though he co-wrote the script. The songs, though charming, have nothing to do with this particular film, and are unusually crudely squeezed into the plot, even by pre-Oklahoma standards. Burns and Allen do their usual shtick quite competently, but it misses the tone of the rest of the film by about forty IQ points.

There are a few high points. Reginald Gardiner does good work when he remembers that this is a talkie, and stops mugging like a silent actor. And there are a few bits of writing which could only have been written by Wodehouse, though most of the film feels like the production of one of the Hollywood meetings he later parodied. Joan Fontaine is "A Damsel in Distress" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.

The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including "Nice Work if You Can Get It" and "A Foggy Day." The best scene is the "Stiff Upper Lip" number, which takes place in a fun house.

Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.

Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws. A Damsel in Distress is a delight because of the great Gershwin songs, Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine, and a terrific supporting cast headed by Gracie Allen and George Burns.

Typically silly plot for an Astaire film has him as an American dance star in England with Burns as his publicist and Allen his secretary. They concoct a story about his being a love bug with women falling victim to him left and right. He runs into Fontaine who is being held captive in her castle by a domineering aunt and docile father. Silly plot.

The great songs include A Foggy Day, Things Are Looking Up, Nice Work if You Can get It, and I Can't Be Bothered Now. Fontaine does not sing, but does a brief (and decent) number with Astaire. Surprisingly good in a few dance numbers with Astaire are Burns and Allen, including an inventive and fun romp through an amusement park.

Also in the cast are Reginald Gardiner, Constance Collier, Montagu Love, Harry Watson (as Albert), Ray Noble, and my favorite--Jan Duggan as the lead madrigal singer.

Jan Duggan is in the middle of the swoony trio who sings Nice Work if You Can Get It. Her facial expressions are hilarious. She was also a scene stealer in the W.C. Fields comedy, The Old Fashioned Way, playing Cleopatra Pepperday.

Much abuse has been heaped on this film because of the absence of Ginger Rogers, who, as noted elsewhere, would have been hideously miscast. The TCM host notes that Ruby Keeler and Jessie Matthews were considered. Yikes. Two more would-be disasters. Fontaine is fine as Alyce and the dynamic allows the musical numbers to belong to Astaire, with ample comic relief by Burns and Allen.

Fun film, great songs, good cast, and Jan Duggan in a rare spotlight! I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.

It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.

Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.

Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number.

When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.

The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.

Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.

P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.

The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.

Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more? Soon Americans would swarm over a darkened, damaged England preparing to invade Europe, but in 1937 the picture of hip Americans in the sunny, slightly ridiculous English countryside was an appealing, idyllic diversion. American dancing star & heartthrob Jerry Halliday (Astaire), on a European tour & weary of the screaming female crowds generated by the lurid propaganda of his manager (Burns), is unwittingly caught up in the marriage prospects of frustrated heiress Lady Alice Marshmorton (Fontaine). The tale is complicated by a betting pool among the Marshmorton servants that is run by (and rigged for) head butler Keggs (Gardiner), who's betting on Lady Alice's cousin Reggie (Noble), the favorite of Alice's stuffy, domineering aunt (Collier). The story would have been much better as a half-hour TV episode. The usual Wodehouse plot devices of mistaken identity and jumps to wrong conclusions wear thin in a full-length film. Both Alice & Jerry appear impossibly (and annoyingly) clueless by the second half of the film. The amusement park interlude & the climax in the castle are too long & begin to drag. Fontaine is too beautiful, too dignified & too quiet to be a ditzy blonde, no matter how aristocratic, while young footman Albert (Watson) is painfully awful. But while "Damsel" is a pretty diminutive vehicle for so much talent, the talent doesn't let us down. Astaire's romantic comedy skill is no less enjoyable here than in any of his films with Ginger Rogers and his dance scenes, both solo & with Burns & Allen, are up to par, though his one dance with novice hoofer Joan is necessarily tame. Gracie nearly steals the whole show as George's bubbly secretary who is at once airheaded, conniving & coolly self-confident. Her scene with solid character actor Gardiner as the devious snob Keggs is a one-of-a-kind classic. This & Astaire's priceless scene with the madrigal singers give "Damsel" a delightful color of naive but noble-spirited Americans mixing with noble but dull-spirited Englishmen. Gershwin is at the top of his game with "Nice Work if You Can Get it" & "Stiff Upper Lip," which carry the film through its weak points. And is there another film where madrigals get a Gershwin swing treatment? "Damsel" is more than a piece of trivia for those who might want to see Astaire without Rogers or Fontaine before she was a real star. It's a fine diversion as entertaining as any of the vaudevillian musical comedies that ruled the 1930s but will never be made again. This movie appears to have designed as a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film--the plot outline, dance numbers, zippy music and the entire formula is there...except for Ginger! Whether it REALLY was originally intended as a re-pairing of the team is uncertain but it sure has the look of one of these films. Instead of the usual sidekicks for Fred (such as Eric Blore or Edward Everett Horton), Burns and Allen are used--probably since despite being known as a comedy team, they COULD sing and dance quite well. This actually shocked me, but the team were a welcome addition and some of the traditional Fred and Ginger numbers were done with either Fred and Gracie or these two along with George. Only once, at the very end, does Ms. Fontaine dance with Fred but it's very brief and with a distant camera shot.

And speaking of Burns and Allen, I think I owe it to the team to talk about them in the film. I have never been a fan of their show or their movies. In general, I find Gracie's idiot act very annoying and I have given some poor reviews to their movie shorts and full-length films. However, in this film I must admit that they were great--not only dancing competently but I actually thought they were funny and filled the hole left by Edward Everett Horton very nicely. They were on top of their game and the writers did a wonderful job in this department.

Now as for the rest of the film, it's all a lot of fun and is entertaining. The problem for me, though, was that Joan Fontaine was not a particularly good choice for the movie--not just because she was acting outside her range (after all, she wasn't a singer or dancer), but because she had the screen presence of a ball of lint. Because of this, the usual balance and great boy-girl dialog was lacking. There was also a very charming performance by Harry Watson as a devilish little boy who did everything he could do to play cupid--all because he wanted to win a bet! And finally, I loved the Fun House and Tunnel of Love sequence--it is too hard to describe but is so much fun to watch! Overall, I did like the film quite a bit--it had a lot of charm and excellent writing. Unfortunately, it also featured a bland performance by Ms. Fontaine that knocks off a point--bringing my score for this film to 7. I first saw this movie years ago and have continued to view it several times a year when I have an opportunity. It is on my list of favorite movies along with some of the classics. Should anyone tell you it is foolish or outdated, ignore them... this movie is for anyone who enjoys laughing and music. The dancing isn't as important in this film as in other Astaire movies so the comedy and acting shine through. See this movie if you can, it may be light but it is still completely amusing. So I know that many people hate black and white films, they think old movies can't really be funny, this movie should make them change their minds. No one I know can watch this movie without being at least mildly amused. The only problem with the film: Fred Astaire singing without dancing. He may be a great performer and capable singer but it just isn't fascinating and leaves a big hole in the middle of the story. The comedy gets a bit cliché at times but the vaudevillesque performances of G burns and G Allen are just perfect for the piece and can satisfy anyone looking for some easy laughs. Give this film a chance even if you don't like old movies, this movie can appeal to the ridiculous in any one. The question of whether or not one likes this film version of "The Ghost Train" invariably depends on one thing and one thing alone: your reaction to the performance of Arthur Askey.

He tends to steal almost every scene he's in, and not always in a good way. Sometimes you wish he'd settle down or back off just a little, to allow the plot's many characters to feature and develop (which they do to some extent). But somehow everything keeps pointing back to Askey's Tommy Gander character.

Personally I like the film, and even like Askey to an extent. I always seem to plonk it into the vcr at those odd hours of the early morning when I can't sleep and really can't find the energy to watch anything else. There is something about watching old b/w movies in the quiet dark of pre-dawn that I find appealing.... Curl up with this one on a dark and stormy night and prepare to be alternately amused, irritated and frightened. The creaky old plot about about a phantom train that's said to run through the lonely English countryside at dead of night may be implausible, but it's a lot of fun. There are some wonderful old cliches like "THE ACCIDENT" which the locals can remember but won't talk about. But primarily the movie's a vehicle for comedian Arthur Askey to showcase his particular brand of vaudeville style humour in between the scary bits. Askey's corny humor is not very trendy these days but if you just let it wash over you it can be fun. This is probably the best of Askey's movies. I have a thing for old black and white movies of this kind, movies by Will Hay and Abbot & Costello especially as those are my favourites. I picked this movie up on DVD as it was using the same idea as Will Hay's "Oh Mr Porter" which is one of the finest comedies ever made. I just finished watching this movie less than ten minutes ago (the movie finished at 12:45am). I find that movies of this kind, to do with Ghost Trains, etc, are best viewed at night time with the lights out. That way you get into the storyline more and night time viewing works well with this movie.

The one-liners in the movie may seem a little dated to some viewers, I guess this depends on the viewer. They are not dated to me though. I am 28 and even though I am not old enough to have been around when this movie was first released (my dad was though). I still have a lot of appreciation for some of the old movies of this kind. Sitting in the room in front of the TV with some snacks and drinks and kicking back and relaxing at night while watching these movies, not many things can beat the feeling you get while doing this. It is an escape from reality for a while.

I noticed that one of the men in the movie (he has a black mustache) he appears about three quarters of the way through the movie after his car crashes and he is looking for a woman he was followed to the station. This man was in the Will Hay classic "The Ghost of St Michaels" as well. Just thought I'd point that out in case no one noticed :).

The set pieces in the movie are very atmospheric. Outside the abandoned station looks good and as if there is not a soul for miles in any direction, and the inside of the station is very cosy looking away from the rain storm that is outside. I felt like I would have loved to have been there in the movie with the cast. The atmosphere in this movie is something that is missing from a lot of movies now. It keeps you hooked from the moment the movie starts till it finishes.

We need more of this type of movie in todays market. But sadly it could be over looked in favour of movies with nudity and swearing and crude humour. This sort of movie making era (The Ghost Train, Oh Mr Porter, etc) to me is the golden age of cinema!. Now this is one of Big's Best, Jack Hulbert's single role in 1931 split into two for the Band Waggon radio team Askey & Murdoch. It boasts a great stalwart cast, who ham the play up for all they're worth, especially Askey of course. Histrionics were provided by Linden Travers, melodramatics by Herbert Lomas, and pragmatics by Richard Murdoch.

The group of rail passengers stranded at the lonely country station for the night find more than they bargained for, ghostly trains, spectral porters, hairy sausage rolls and Arthur trying to entertain them all. His repartee with everyone falls between side-splitting and ghastly dull. When the formula works it's very good, but it sometimes gets very contrived and forced making the film seem more dated than it is. But those damn treacherous fifth columnists - thank any God Britain hasn't got any nowadays!

Ultimately a nice harmless film, to welcome back to the TV screen as an old friend, but if you were expecting to be shivered out of your timbers you'll probably be very disappointed! Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.

For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy. So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do?

I will tell you!

Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!

The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.

It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.

The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary!

(The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )

Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.

Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer! The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".

The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.

If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion. This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.

It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.

But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.

A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff .... This film is one of those nostalgia things with me and I never REALLY expect anyone else to "get it" but am pleased when I recommend it and somebody DOES enjoy it. My late father HATED Arthur Askey but this film was one he really enjoyed and his consistent enthusiasm for "The Ghost Train" and "Old Ted 'Olmes" transferred to me as a child. Years later, I watch it every now and again, enjoying the familiarity. I always wonder if it will not be quite the same but I am never disappointed in it. There is much to enjoy. The sequence on the train is truly inspired when Askey and Murdoch proceed to annoy the arrogant male passenger. Then the whole section in the station is amazing with so much going on you have to keep up. Yes, it is dated and full of wartime Britishness in accents and plot (based on the original play by Arnold Ridley of Dad's Army fame!) but full of wonderful character performances - including Kathleen Harrison as a dotty spinster. The atmosphere is truly as near sinister as an Arthur Askey vehicle could get. This is available cheap as chips in the UK on DVD so treat yourself. It is a perfect Saturday/Sunday morning or any day lazy afternoon lightweight piece of entertainment. I Thank You....

OLD MOVIES CAN BE GOOD MOVIES! This is a classic British comedy-thriller I had always wanted to check out but no opportunity had arisen for that until now. It's based on a popular stage play which had already been filmed a number of times previously (most notably in 1931 by the same director but, unfortunately, this version seems not to have survived in its entirety!); for the remake under review, the plot has been updated to the then-current wartime situation.

Anyway, I was mainly familiar with early British comedians through the films of Will Hay: given that this one features a similar plot of legendary hauntings, smuggling and enemy agents, it's very much in that vein (it was actually scripted by Hay's regular writing team of Marriott Edgar, Val Guest and J.O.C. Orton); the stranded travelers element, then, was an equally tried-and-true formula. The star this time around is Arthur Askey (abetted by Richard Murdoch) - none of whose films I had watched before - who is as unlikely a hero as Hay himself and whose personality proves to be just as potentially irritating...but one soon warms up to him, and Askey certainly comes up with a number of witty lines and amusing bits of business throughout to justify the fact that the lead character of the play (and the 1931 film version) was split into two here, with Murdoch acting as the star's straight partner.

The remote single setting (the events of the film largely take place during one stormy night) provides for some wonderful atmosphere; the last half-hour - with the sudden appearance of a mysterious couple (Raymond Huntley and Linden Travers) and eventually the arrival of the titular vehicle itself - is especially gripping and well handled. Also worth mentioning from the remaining cast list is Kathleen Harrison as the stereotypical frightened spinster, with a parrot as her constant companion and who is driven by all the excitement to take her very first drink. Hello Playmates.I recently watched this film for the first time ever and it is also my first experience of Arthur Askey, I have to admit I was very impressed by this film. As a fan of black and white films generally, passport to pimlico, the lavender hill mob and Tommy Trinder (who is apparently a distant relative), this film appealed in that it provided good old fashioned British humour. I notice that there are some on here who have criticised Askey's performance, however in my opinion it stands the test of time as a fine example of forties comic acting and if anything adds to the picture by creating characters that are more than the mere stereotypes which seem to so dominate films now.If you can get hold of this film I would recommend you get hold of it,shame these films generally aren't shown on Sunday afternoons anymore.I am also glad to have had the opportunity to watch another piece of work by Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in dad's army).I thank you One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, "Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes.." Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile. As a matter of fact, this is one of those movies you would have to give 7.5 to. The fact is; as already stated, it's a great deal of fun. Wonderfully atmospheric. Askey does indeed come across as over the top, but it's a great vehicle for him, just as Oh, Mr Porter is for Will hay. If you like old dark house movies and trains, then this is definitely for you.

Strangely enough it's the kind of film that you'll want to see again and again. It's friendly and charming in an endearing sort of way with all of the nostalgic references that made great wartime fare. The 'odd' band of characters simply play off each other as they do in many another typical British wartime movie. It would have been wonderful to have seen this film if it had been recorded by Ealing studios . A real pity that the 1931 original has not survived intact If the very thought of Arthur Askey twists your guts, don't worry, you can still watch and love The Ghost Train, like the equally marvellous Back Room Boy, it is a film that is simply too damn good to be sunk by a single performance, even that of the lead actor. Personally, I love Askey, perhaps it's because I go into his world, rather than unreasonably expecting him to come into mine, which is a mistake too many people make. The Ghost Train is so intensely atmospheric that you couldn't conceivably watch it without being amazed at the deep, dark world it transports you to, it is immersive in a way that few cheap and cheerful flag-wavers managed to be during the desperate early '40s and it's a film that I would imagine few people have ever watched just the once. The cast are, without exception, extraordinarily good, perhaps Linden Travers lays it on a bit thick, but against the backdrop of a lonely railway station in wartime, she could hardly play a nutter and not stand out. The sad passing of the lovely Carole Lynne earlier this year broke the last link we had with this incredible film and now it really is in the past, but waiting patiently for us to press play. In the colonies we're not all that familiar with Arthur Askey, so I nearly skipped this film (which had its TCM preview recently) on account of the negative comments here on his appearance in "Ghost Train" -- which I expected to be thoroughly annoying. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing audibly. The physical aspects of Askey's comedy and his timing when delivering a line suggest what you'd get if Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen had a baby. There is no comparing him to Bud Abbott or any of the other usual purveyors of comic relief who turn up in films of this genre. One can feel, moreover, the thread connecting Askey to British comedy 30 years later; at least it is clear from an American point of view that he has more in common with the Monty Python troupe than with any of his counterparts over here. As for the rest of the film -- the more movies you've seen, the more likely you'll guess at the ending, but it is still quite entertaining and atmospheric and worth waiting for its next appearance. I have seen the recent Region 2 DVD of this movie displayed in the "horror" section in an Oxford Street store and also advertised as a "classic thriller". In reality it is almost solely a vehicle for Arthur Askey, one of the most popular names in British comedy and light entertainment for over four decades.

Perhaps his incessantly cheerful, exuberant and essentially good-natured humour comes as a bit of a culture shock to many accustomed to the sour and cynical flavour of much British comedy of the past twenty five years. However there are still those who appreciate his lively and cheery persona and total avoidance of pathos. Askey was an idol of the great Tommy Cooper who frequently borrowed the "self-strangulation" gag that Arthur attempts to entertain the stranded passengers with.

There is a striking, rare appearance by the under-rated Linden Travers, who makes an impact as the mysterious Julie. a timeless classic, wonderfully acted with perfect location settings, conjuring a marvelous atmospheric movie. a simple story mingled with humor and suspense. i wish that a video was available in Britain. i have seen this film on many occasions and it remains one of my favorites along with Oh Mr Porter. This movie reminded me that some old Black & White movies are definitely worth the look.

Initially I had some reservations, however from the beginning of the movie until the end I was captivated. I was VERY impressed with the mixture of drama, suspense & comedy.

Arthur Askey (Tommy Gander) is HILARIOUS and had me in stitches the whole time.

Definitely add this movie to your movie-night for some light relief from the sometimes depressing and "too" powerful or overly "funny" movies of today. I was young film student in 1979 when the Union of the Soviet Filmmakers came to Sofia Bulgaria and premiered Konchalovsky's "Siberiade"; Tarkosvky's "Stalker" and Danelia'a "Autumn marathon". I was stunned by the cosmopolitan dimension of the art form. Then and only then, I saw "Siberiade" 4 and 1/2 hours epic and was speechless. Way better then Bertolucci's "1900". By far!

Hope Andron will somehow get to the negative and make "director's restored version full lenght " someday! On DVD of course! Also I fiercely fought in defense of this Cinema against most of my colleagues who were equating Soviet film with bad taste! Time is on my side. I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like "Cruel Romance" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in "The Insulted and the Injured" ("Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye"). "Sibiriada" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like "Tango and Cash" and less forgettable like "Runaway train". I would prefer "Kurochka Ryaba" to them... It is a story of Siberian village people from the beginning of 20th century till the 60ties. It is about passion and feelings, about Russian soul, and very romantic. This movie IS NOT action packed, it flowes slowely. In second part one can find great songs - Russian romances. It is much more better than Doctor Zhivago. The director of this movie moved to America and made Runaway Train for example. For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).

The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.

This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts. The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. "It can't matter", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers "it must matter" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.

Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema. Apart from having the longest reign in British history (63 years), Queen Victoria also holds two other distinctions. She was, apart from our current Queen, the oldest ever British monarch, living to the age of 81. And she was also the youngest ever British (as opposed to English or Scottish) monarch, coming to the throne as a girl of eighteen. And yet whenever television or the cinema make a programme or film about her, they seem far more interested in the older Victoria than they do in the young girl; the version of Victoria with which modern audiences will probably be most familiar is Judi Dench in "Mrs Brown". "The Young Victoria" tries to redress the balance by showing us the events surrounding her accession and the early years of her reign. It has the rare distinction of being produced by a former Royal, Sarah Duchess of York, whose daughter Princess Beatrice makes a brief appearance as an extra.

There are three main strands to the plot. The first concerns the intrigues of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, a highly unpopular figure even with her own daughter, largely because of the influence of her adviser Sir John Conroy, who was widely rumoured to be her lover. (According to one unfounded rumour he, and not the late Duke of Kent, was Victoria's natural father). The second strand concerns the growing romance between Victoria and her German cousin Prince Albert, and the attempts of King Leopold of Belgium, who was uncle to both of them, to influence this romance. (Leopold's hope was to increase the prestige of the House of Saxe-Coburg, to which both he and Albert belonged). The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.

Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party. Their leader Robert Peel is shown as statesmanlike and dignified, whereas Melbourne, for all his dash and charm, is shown as devious and uninterested in social reform. There may be some truth is these characterisations, but Fellowes glosses over the fact that only a few years earlier the Tories had opposed the Reform Act, which ended the corrupt electoral system of rotten boroughs, and that they had benefited from William IV's unconstitutional dismissal of a Whig administration.

Lessons in dynastic and constitutional history do not always transfer well to the cinema screen, and this one contains its share of inaccuracies. Prince Albert, for example, was not injured in Edward Oxford's attempt on Victoria's life, and Melbourne (in his late fifties at the time of Victoria's accession) was not as youthful as he is portrayed here by Paul Bettany. King William IV certainly disliked the Duchess of Kent (who was his sister-in-law), but I doubt if he would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at her during a state banquet, as he is shown doing here. I also failed to understand the significance of the scene in which the Duchess and Conroy try to force Victoria to sign a "Regency Order"; the Duchess's constitutional position was made clear by the Regency Act 1830, which provided that she would become Regent if her daughter was still under eighteen at the time of her accession. No piece of paper signed by Victoria could have altered the provisions of the Act.

There are also occasional infelicities. In one early scene we see Victoria and Albert playing chess while comparing themselves to pawns being moved around a chessboard, a metaphor so hackneyed that the whole scene should have come complete with a "Danger! Major cliché ahead!" warning. Yet in spite of scenes like this, I came to enjoy the film. There were some good performances, especially from Miranda Richardson as the scheming Duchess and Mark Strong as the obnoxious Conroy. It is visually very attractive, being shot in sumptuous style we have come to associate with British historical drama. Jim Broadbent gives an amusing turn as King William, although he does occasionally succumb to the temptation of going over the top. (Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in "Moulin Rouge").

The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert. Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman. Her love for Albert, and their happy family life together, was one of the main reasons why the monarchy succeeded in reestablishing itself in the affections of the British people. (With the exception of George III, Victoria's Hanoverian ancestors had been notoriously lacking in the matrimonial virtues). Blunt and Friend make "The Young Victoria" a touching romance and a gripping human drama as well as an exploration of a key period in British history. 8/10 I went into this expecting not to like it; I figured it would be terribly worthy and earnest, and rather plodding and dull.

It's actually far better than that, and I found myself really enjoying it. I don't know too much about Queen Victoria beyond what most know - married to Albert, who died young, and she mourned him ever after. Seeing the circumstances she grew up under was fascinating; in fact I found myself wishing I'd seen more of the story, and I imagine we may see a sequel at some point.

Visually the film is stunning. The sets and costumes are incredibly lavish without being too gaudy and over the top. The acting is top notch from everybody involved.

In a word, it was great! Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie. The 63 year reign of Queen Victoria is perhaps one of the most documented and popularly known historical reigns in British history. On the one hand, her story lacks the theatrics of earlier royals thanks to a change in social climate and attitudes, and on the other her story is one that perpetuates because it is notably human. Taking on the earlier years of her life where the budding romance between herself and the German Prince Albert was taking forefront, director Jean-Marc Vallée who has only until recently remained in the unbeknownst shadows of the industry here takes Victoria's story and captures that human element so vital to her legacy. It's a story that feels extremely humble considering its exuberant background, and yet that's partly what gives it a distinct edge here that separates it from the usual fare.

Taking a very direct and focused approach that centres in on a brief five or so year period between her ascension and marriage to Albert, The Young Victoria does what so little period pieces of this nature offer. Instead of attempting a sprawling encapsulation of such a figure's entire life, Vallée instead opts to show one of the lesser known intricacies of Victoria's early years which are easily overlooked in favour of the more publicly known accolades. The result is a feature that may disgruntle historians thanks to its relatively flippant regards to facts and the like, yet never to let document get in the way of extracting a compelling story, writer Julian Fellowes sticks to his guns and delivers a slightly romanticised yet convincing portrayal. Vallée takes this and runs, making sure to fully capitalise on those elements with enough restraint to maintain integrity in regards to both the history involved and the viewer watching.

A major part in the joy of watching The Young Victoria play out however simply lies in the production values granted here that bring early 1800's Regal Britain to life with a vigorous realism so rarely achieved quite so strikingly by genre films. Everything from the costume designs, sets, hair styles, lighting and photography accentuates the grandiose background inherent to Victoria's story without ever over-encumbering it. Indeed, while watching Vallée's interpretation come to life here it is very hard not to be sucked in solely through the aesthetics that permeates the visual element; and then there's the film's score also which works tremendously to further the very elegant yet personal tones that dominate Fellowes' script. Entwining the works of Schubert and Strauss into Victoria and Albert's story not only works as a point of reference for the characters to play with, but also melds to the work with an elegance and refrain that echoes composer Ilan Eshkeri's original work just as well.

Yet for all the poignant compositions, lush backdrops and immaculate costumes that punctuate every scene, the single most important factor here—and indeed to most period dramas—are the performances of the cast and how they help bring the world they exist in to life. Thankfully The Young Victoria is blessed with an equally immaculate ensemble of thespians both young and old that do a fantastic job of doing just that. Between the sweet, budding romance of Victoria (Emily Blunt) and Albert (Rupert Friend) and the somewhat antagonistic struggles of her advisors and the like (spearheaded by a terrific Mark Strong and Paul Bettany), the conflicts and warmth so prevalent to Fellowe's screenplay are conveyed perfectly here by all involved which helps keep the movie from being a plastic "nice to look at but dim underneath" affair so common with these outings.

In the end, it's hard to fault a work such as The Young Victoria. It's got a perfectly touching and human sense of affection within its perfectly paced romance, plus some historical significance that plays as an intriguing source of interest for those in the audience keen on such details. Of course, it may not take the cinematic world by storm and there lacks a certain significance to its overall presence that stops it from ever becoming more than just a poignantly restrained romantic period drama; yet in a sense this is what makes it enjoyable. Vallée never seems to be striving for grandeur, nor does he seem content at making a run-of-the-mill escapist piece for aficionados. Somewhere within this gray middle-ground lies The Young Victoria, sure to cater to genre fans and those a little more disillusioned by the usual productions; beautiful, memorable but most of all, human.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net) Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown. And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!

Before I saw "The Young Victoria", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it.

Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...

For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design!

The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother!

BRAVO: 9 out of 10! This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain.

"The Young Victoria" has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make "The Young Victoria" very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.

Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.

Overall, "The Young Victoria" is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush. Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the "regents" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the "right" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings. The cinematic interests in the British monarchy continues with The Young Victoria (1837 to 1901), after having seen in recent years, the efforts with Keira Knightley's The Duchess, Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films, and Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman's take on the Boleyn sisters with The Other Boleyn Girl. More contemporary stories would include Helen Mirren's award winning portrayal of The Queen on the current reign of Queen Elizabeth II at the turn of Princess Diana's death.

Each of the films mentioned featured stunning actresses with acting gravitas (ok, so some may dispute Johansson) or were the flavour of their moment, and each film had a definitive moment in their historical character's legacy that it becomes a no brainer to have those events featured, and in fact Elizabeth had enough to span two films. However, The Young Victoria, as the title already suggests, is a lite-version of the young queen's life, and if you're looking for that definitive event, or the staple political intrigue that plague all royal households and their dealings with shady, self-serving politicians, unfortunately there's nothing of depth here.

That's not to say The Young Victoria is without. Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent). As if that wasn't enough, the political power play enters the picture with Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) being a Prime Minister-in-waiting trying to gain the trust of the new Queen, and subtly plants his own trusted allies into positions within the palace. On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?

Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers. For both, they've been brought up under the influence of others, and told each step of the way exactly what to do. Even their union may seem like a firm registration of an alliance, if not for both lovers recognizing their common need to establish their own grounding, and to do so with the help of each other. Instead of being pawns, there's this constant search and probing of opportunities to break out of stifling, and at times absurd, rules and regulations. Trust also becomes a much valued commodity, and loyalty too can be traded for wanting to set the slate clean.

However, all these themes become but a breeze through the narrative, from childhood to romance, marriage and children. In fact, there's so much fast-forwarding here, especially the last few minutes filled with inter-titles, that it actually leaves the audience wanting for more, and room of course for another movie, which I suspect would probably not see the light of day, but perhaps a television series might pick up on the film's response, and come out with a mini-series or such. It's a pity that all the effort here in ensuring the gorgeous costumes, sets and art direction would be confined to a film that's quite lightweight in theme and brief mention of issues, that they don't really challenge the protagonists in order to allow for some overcoming of character-defining adversary.

With its star-studded cast, one would expect more, but one would be left wanting more instead. Recommended for those who are ever curious about Kings and Queens in the British Monarchy, only as a complement to other more engaging stories available in the other films already mentioned. It is a tricky thing to play a queen. On the one hand, the actress has to be majestic and imperious, and on the other, she has to show vulnerability in a tough situation as well as the gathering of the courage and resolution to overcome the odds, since almost all movies about queens have that basic plot line.

Emily Blunt is quite radiant as Victoria, but it's not as full a performance as I'd like, no blame to her. I can't help but feel like this is a Mills & Boon novel adaptation compared to a darker, more dramatic movie about another young queen, Elizabeth. Hence Blunt doesn't get to run the gamut of queenly emotions, at least not to the full extent, since she's, y'know, the young Victoria. To see the old Victoria, check out Mrs Brown.

Jean-Marc Vallee is an interesting choice of director for the movie. He last did C.R.A.Z.Y., which was excellent and propelled him to fame. It was quite a different movie but I remember it looking gorgeous and that's probably the main similarity between the two movies. But while Vallee wrote C.R.A.Z.Y., this one was by Julian Fellowes, and though I really enjoyed his Gosford Park, the story for this movie was much less interesting. I soon got lost with all the governmental politics. Maybe it was less engaging because there was no potential beheading of the monarchy. I'm just saying. Having to have someone hold your hand whenever walk up or down stairs? Having others taste your food before you eat it? Facing an over-bearing mother? These are only a few of the obstacles which the young Victoria has to deal with in this film (there's also the various power struggles going on, as well as attempts on her life). Needless to say, it makes for very fascinating and informative viewing.

I had only previously seen Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (and little else). As she was in that film, she is once again the standout here. I was extremely impressed with her portrayal of the young Victoria, and thought she handled the role very well. She makes the transition from the young Victoria we meet at the start of the film to the Queen Victoria she becomes later entirely believable. Blunt is perfectly cast in the role, showing all the different sides (from the vulnerable, to the strong, from the young Victoria who makes mistakes to the Queen who takes control). Not enough can be said about Emily Blunt in this role. She's - quite simply - exquisite, commanding your attention every second she's on screen. She keeps you transfixed up to and including the final shot of the film.

Rupert Friend proves to also be well-cast as Victoria's love interest (and eventual husband), Prince Albert. The actors have nice chemistry and you absolutely believe in their developing relationship. They have their disagreements, but you can tell that they are in love. Blunt and Friend are excellent in every scene that they share and keep you interested in what is happening between Victoria and Albert. The other actors in the film are also very good. Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy and Jim Broadbent as King William. There is not a single bad performance in this film. The less-focused-upon people are well-portrayed also, given what little screen time they have. Even Victoria's dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Dash) is memorable and makes an impact in the film.

Although the movie does tend to skip more than a few aspects of Victoria's life - especially at the end - and instead *tells* us what happened (with her and Albert) on screen, what matters the most is what we actually *see*. This is, after all, a film about 'The Young Victoria' (not 'The Middle-Aged Victoria', nor 'The Old Victoria'). While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.

The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it. It's exceptionally shot and, unlike a lot of films these days, this movie is actually a good length, as it doesn't run on so long that you lose interest or feel that it's needlessly being drawn out.

It goes without saying that what makes this film so great is Emily Blunt. She's in fine form here, turning in another excellent performance and elevating this film above what it might have been, had another actress been cast in this rather important/historic role. This is one finely-crafted film, with excellent performances that should definitely be seen. If you have an appreciation for a fascinating look at a woman who was extremely significant in history, this is a must-see. One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, "No they didn't!", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional.

I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.

Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.

The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance.

As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety.

For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.

So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt.

In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen. Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.

Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.

The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.

Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.

BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say "unexpectedly" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.

"Victorian era" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.

I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it. The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the "I am not amused" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.

As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.

Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt! Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!

Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.

The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full?

'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with "Mrs. Brown" or even "The Queen". Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time. This is on my top list of all-time favourite films! It is a fantastic and insightful film. It was Historically interesting and great to watch! I thought the acting from Emily Blunt was fantastic and Rupert Friend was a fantastic Albert, the best actor was chosen for Albert. The costumes were gorgeous and the settings and scenes such as the opera house, were amazing and detailed. I just loved it, all of it! I loved the childhood scenes were she's getting 'bullied' by John Conroy. And where her mother says she has to walk stairs with an adult. One again the writers have done it! They produced this fantastic script!

It thoroughly deserves the awards they got. (Oscar and BAFTA wining Sandy Powell, for costume design. A BAFTA for best make-up and hair, an Oscar in Best Achievement in Art Direction, Best Achievement in Costume Design, Best Achievement in Makeup. Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards for Best costume design, also nominated for best actress Emily Blunt. CDG for Excellence in Costume Design for Film - Period. Hampton's International Film Awards for an Audience Award for Best Narrative Film. PFCS for Best Costume design.Sudbury Cinefest, doesn't say what for. VFCC for Best Actress, Emily Blunt.) Overall 10 wins and 11 nominations! That pretty good! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/awards Have a look yourself, its really interesting! Personally Rupert Friend should have got an award. I saw this on the big screen and was encapsulated with it. The period of Queen Victoria's younger years are a mystery and this is a perfect description of how a young girl was thrusted into one of the highest roles in the world.

The script is perfect, the acting is amazing, the history and attention to detail is out of this world. Emily Blunt is perfect as Victoria. Funny how her mother is played by Elizabeth the 1st and William IV is played by Prince Albert! (Think Blackadder).

This portrayal of Victoria shows that she was a rebellious young woman once - I'm sure she would have been on Jeremey Kyle Show if it had been around then: "My mother and her boyfriend are trying to steal my life".

A Perfect piece of a major part of British and Commonwealth history. It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it. I was initially forced to attend by my wife as she is fascinated by the Royal families of Britain and their history, and she won't go to the cinema without me. Although viewers shouldn't expect to be electrified, this film is very well made and the visual aspect is second to none. In many ways it helps dispel the myth that Victoria was the miserable unsmiling dumpy woman usually seen in photographs. She was a bright intelligent and according to the history of her early years, a fun loving happy young woman. Her love of Albert was the essence of true love, and even if you only count the number of children she bore (9), they must have had a passionate relationship. All of this is well borne out in the film. To this end, the cast has been well selected with both Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend giving sound performances as Victoria and Albert.

(SPOILER ALERT) The historical accuracy is somewhat questionable as at no time did Prince Albert get shot while defending Victoria. There was at least one assassination attempt when they were out together, but nobody was struck by the shot/s. I also found it odd that little was done to expand on the allegedly intimate relationship between Victoria's mother and Sir John Conroy. It is quite likely that this relationship was the true reason for Victoria's distaste for both her mother and Conroy. I also found it odd that there was an attempt to portray the relationship between Victoria and Lord Melbourne as erring on the romantic, or at least having the potential to become romantic. He was already in his late 50's when Victoria came to the throne, and while marriages between older men and young women were common in that era, the movie portrays Melbourne as being a dashing 30 something and rival to Prince Albert. There were apparently rivals to Albert, but she could never have married even slightly below her station in life, and Albert was one of only a handful who would have been acceptable in any case.

All in all I have spent worse times at the cinema, and brownie points with my wife can't be a bad thing either. Who knew? Dowdy Queen Victoria, the plump Monarch who was a virtual recluse for 40 years after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, actually led a life fraught with drama and intrigue in her younger days. 'The Young Victoria' not only chronicles the young Queen's romance with her husband-to-be but also does a pretty good job of detailing the political machinations surrounding her ascent to the throne.

The Act I 'set-up' draws you in right away. Following the death of Victoria's father, the Duke of Kent in 1820, less than a year after Victoria's birth, the Duchess of Kent eventually hooked up with former Army Officer John Conroy, who offered his services as comptroller to the widow and her infant queen-to-be. Conroy insisted that Victoria be raised under the atrocious 'Kensington system', rules designed to prevent the future Queen from having any contact with other children while growing up. What's more, Victoria was forced to sleep in her mother's bedroom everyday until she became Queen.

The film explains that in 1830 Parliament passed the Regency Act, which established that Victoria's mother would become regent (and hence Guardian) in the event that Victoria acceded to the throne while still a minor. During this time, the Duchess and Conroy tried to intimidate the hapless princess and insisted that she sign papers making Conroy her private secretary and treasurer. Strong-willed Victoria would have none of it, and refused to go along with Conroy's and her mother's nefarious plans. The Duchess disliked King William as she regarded him as a philanderer who brought disrespect to the Monarchy; the King felt the Duchess disrespected his wife. As a result, the Duchess attempted to limit Victoria's contact with the King. In an over-the-top scene which seemed to actually have occurred in history, the King berated the Duchess at his birthday banquet, stating that it was his goal to survive until Victoria reached her 18th birthday so that her mother would not become regent.

King William kept his word and died a short time after Victoria became eligible to accede to the throne. Victoria took revenge on her mother for her support of Conroy, whom she blamed for making her childhood so miserable. They were both banished to a secluded apartment in Buckingham Palace and for a number of years Victoria had little contact with her mother.

'The Young Victoria' conveys the excitement and pomp and circumstance surrounding Victoria's coronation as Queen. A good part of the film deals with Victoria's relationship with Lord Melbourne, the Whig Party Prime Minister who unfortunately is depicted in the film as much younger than he actually was. In the beginning Melbourne gains the young Queen's trust and they become good friends. In the early years of her reign, she sees Melbourne as a progressive, but later loses respect for him somewhat as he's revealed to be a typical politician, hiding his contempt for the masses whom he's supposed to be championing. In reality, Melbourne was more a father figure to Victoria, but the film hints at some sexual tension between the Prime Minister and Prince Albert, as though they were romantic rivals.

The plot thickens when Melbourne is forced out and the Queen must commission Sir Robert Peel, of the more conservative Tory party, as the new Prime Minister. The film chronicles the events of 'The Bedchamber Crisis' in which Peel resigned after Victoria refused to replace some of her Bedchamber ladies with the wives of Tory politicians. The film leaves out another scandal which involved a Lady Hastings, one of the Duchess's ladies-in-waiting who was accused of having an affair with John Conroy and becoming pregnant by him. Because of her hatred for Conroy, Victoria contributed to the nasty rumors being spread about Hastings' alleged pregnancy. As it turned out, Hastings only appeared pregnant—what she actually had was an abdominal tumor. Victoria's inexperience shows during the Bedchamber Crisis but the film's scenarists ignore some of the more unsavory aspects of her character as evidenced by the Hastings Affair.

The rest of the 'The Young Victoria' deals with -- of course -- the romance between the Queen and Prince Albert. Victoria kept Albert waiting, as the film makes clear, since she wanted to acclimate herself to her duties as the new Sovereign. They spent a good deal of time corresponding with one another until Albert returned to England and gave Victoria support during the trying times of the Bedchamber Crisis.

I find a good number of parallels between Prince Albert and Prince Philip, the current Queen's husband. While Philip is mainly Danish, he went to school in Germany and had in-laws who were of German background. Both Albert and Philip made it their business to reform etiquette in the Court (there's a great scene where Albert discovers that the servants are still setting a table for King George III even though he had been dead for years!). Albert's struggle was the same for Philip—as husbands of Monarchs, they had to find something to do. Both Albert and Philip became involved in various civic projects and proved that they didn't have to live continually in the shadow of their ever-popular wives.

Fortunately there's an excellent scene toward the end of the film where Albert infuriates Victoria with what she perceives as his 'interference' in her affairs. Albert doesn't want a second 'Bedchamber Crisis' so he goes over his wife's head and arranges a compromise involving Victoria's bedchamber ladies. Victoria is barely talking to Albert when an assassin's bullets almost cuts them both down (in the film Albert is shot in the arm but this never happened!).

The performances in the film are uniformly excellent, especially the principals, Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. The Young Victoria ends rather abruptly and the closing credits lean too much toward hagiography (no mention of Victoria's depression after Albert's death). But 'Victoria' is still an engaging drama and fascinating history lesson. Just when it was easy to assume that a costume drama about royalty couldn't go anywhere, we are given a treat, a moving and intelligent drama anchored by strong and charismatic performances by Emily Blunt, a marvel in the leading role, Paul Bettany, Rupert Friend, Miranda Richardson, and Mark Strong, as the immediate forces that help shape the development of one of England's most powerful monarchs. "The Young Victoria" dramatizes the tumultuous transition of the young woman into power.

Emily plays the queen, with a good combination of raw strength and innocence, someone who recognizes the complexity of the task at hand, but who possesses enough confidence to move forward. She is able to portray Victoria, as an astute young woman who knows she needs support from some key players and must be able to stand up to those who might now have her best interests at hand.

Victoria must fend a barrage of intrusions on her way to the crown, and even when she takes command of her new position, she discovers the road to self sufficiency will depend on making some very important decisions and of course, the right support. Luckily for Victoria, there is Albert, a man who appears to like her and is her soul mate. There is amazing chemistry between the two performers, and there's little doubt what the outcome will be, but there is the figure of Bettany's Prime Minister, a man who provides Victoria with some wise support and is also fond of her.

Miranda Richardson and Mark Strong shine in supporting roles as two parties who might be of questionable character and exert a considerable amount of power in the upbringing of the young girl. Every one of the supporting characters could use a bit more of development, but what we can see in the screen might be enough to keep us focused on the central character and a superb performance by Blunt, an actress who has shown enough fire and passion in previous performances. In here, she is given the breakout role of her career, a real life historical figure, who broke the rules and managed to rule for a very long time. She shows the seeds of the strength and character the monarch might have needed in her later years. She also has a sweetness and innocence that became the foundation of her charitable work and future intervention in social changes.

"The Young Victoria" is not a royal epic portrayal of England's ruling class. It is an intimate story of how human beings grow up and whatever special circumstances surround and shape them. In the end, the movie is a lovely entry in a year that has shown much emphasis on war and destruction. In here, there is a message that good writing and good mediation can take us very far, and there is of course, a good old fashioned love story. With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking THE YOUNG VICTORIA is a elegantly costumed and reproduced bit of history that benefits from some fine settings, solid direction by Jean-Marc Vallée of stalwart Julian Fellowes' version of the youthful lass who was to become England's longest reigning monarch - Victoria. Much of the early portion of the film, that part when Victoria is a child whose ascent to the throne is contested by her mother (Miranda Richardson) and Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) seems to drag and get lost in the multiple costumes and scenery variations. But once Victoria (Emily Blunt) comes of age and is courted by Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) the film blooms. Blunt is a strong actress and finds that delicate line between girlish infatuation and royal dignity that makes her a fine foil for those at court who would seek to control the 'child queen' - including her secretary Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). But as she matures into her role as queen her eye dwells on the dashing German Prince Albert, and a love affair that has lasted in the memories of everyone is matched by the concept of joining Royalty with concern for the care of her subjects - much due to the sensitivity of Albert. The film takes us to the birth of their first of nine children and then ends with some statements about the influence of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's effect on the various Royalties throughout Europe! It makes for an evening of beautiful costume drama and allows us to appreciate the growth of two young stars in Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. A solid if not transporting epic.

Grady Harp I really thought that this movie was superb. Not only is the history correct, but the style is sumptuous and yet intimate. I was a fan of Emily Blunt's portrayal of Victoria and how she kept her spirit even though she was forced into a virtual exile while in her youth. Blunt depicts the charismatic and sometimes dogmatic manner that Vicotria became famous (perhaps infamous) for. The romantic elements of the movie are so genuine and tender that by the end of the movie you genuinely understand why Vicotria chose to live the rest of her days in mourning of Albert.

The technical aspects of the film are worthy of note as well. I appreciated the beautiful score, which moves quite wonderfully along with the dramatic movement of the story. I also considered the cinematography to be outstanding, some scenes leaving me quite breathless because of the lushness and splendor they depict.

There have been so few movies this year as beautiful and tender as this film and it rates as one of 2009's best! A new side to the story of Victoria and Albert is brought to life by director Jean-Marc Valle. Most people's cursory thoughts of Queen Victoria is that of woman who reigned for several decades and lived her life in mourning. Emily Blunt is more than capable in the title role as she gives audiences a different perspective. She portrays Victoria in her youth, ascension to the throne, and early years. Blunt's Victoria both fresh and restrained throughout the film. Her strongest scenes are with Albert (Rupert Friend) and Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). All the actors acquit themselves well including Miranda Richardson in what could of been a throw-away role.

Though this is not a story of dramatic arcs and histrionic "acting" moments, the story is still interesting enough to make it worth viewing. There are a few historical liberties that has been taken by the screen writing, the film tries to stay true to the relationship between Victoria and Albert and of the social and royal structure of the time period. The set design and costumes are outstanding.

This film will be most appreciated by those drawn to history, period dramas, and of Blunt and the other actors. Heartily recommend.

Grade: A when i first heard about this movie i thought it would be like The Duchess(2008), but when i saw the first 30 minutes of The Young Victoria i knew this wouldn't just be a solid movie. Almost everything in this movie is great, the costumes are really amazing and the settings are also beautifully shot.

The only thing that really let me down are the performances. Emily Blunt(The Devil Wears Prada) is the star of the film, bringing Victoria to life and with this movie she shows that she is a great actress and maybe picking a first Oscar nomination for her performance. Rupert Friend is almost bland as Prince Albert but he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt. Paul Bettany is also solid as Lord Melbourne although i expected more of him. Jim Broadbent and Miranda Richardson both have supporting roles but are forgettable.

To me the film feels like unfinished. Maybe that the screenwriters changed too many things in the script, i don't know but that's how i feel about the movie.

But overall it's a great movie about the early years of Victoria with a Great performance from Emily Blunt. I have watched this movie on DVD a couple of times now,the first time, I watched the second half after the hour and then went back to the first hour. an engrossing entertaining film, thank god no kiera knightley in it, refreshing and it gives us all a genuine insight into the difficult life of Queen Victoria and the difficult choices she had to make. Nothing bad about the movie at all, no real bad language or anything of a sexual nature which would offend for family viewing. Might prompt the kids to research a little about the queen victoria herself and perhaps lesser known characters such as Conroy and Lord Melbourne It's hard to find an outright bad historical drama that's based on the life of any number of British monarchs. Just take a well respected British or Australian actor, make things look pretty, and you're guaranteed a formula for Oscar success.

The Young Victoria is no exception, getting just about everything right, the cinematography striking and beautiful, with soft lights and lush colors and fabrics. Starring Emily Blunt in a role she can finally soar in, the film begins with Victoria's 18th birthday and moves through the intrigue and issues that surrounded her eventual rise to the throne and her famous marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend). As the young Victoria herself laments, she's moved like a chess pawn by a variety of parties as she finds her footing and her voice as one of Britain's most influential rulers.

While this moving around the chess board is fairly typical territory, it is the development of Victoria's relationship with Albert that makes the film slightly more interesting. I confess: I have a degree in history with a specialization in the Victorian era, so I'm a bit attached to these figures. Despite their many flaws as rulers, Victoria and Albert were some of the first leaders devoted to improving civilization for their people. They left their legacy in the arts, in public health and education, and in Victoria's conservative views and mourning culture after Albert's death. But these things are only briefly hinted at during the film.

It is fairly well established that Victoria and Albert were not only madly in love, but held a level of respect for each other not usually seen between monarchs in arranged marriages. Even if it did occur behind the scenes, their's was certainly one of the best known. Blunt and and Friend have just the right type of chemistry to do the famous pair justice, the proper mix of restraint and desperation. It's a different love, not usually shown on screen, especially in this sort of film. It's encouraging to finally see a relationship in which man and woman are on a equal playing field.

But we don't get to see that love enough. While the filmmakers try to fit the affair amongst the political trappings, it doesn't quite build up the sort of momentum needed to keep the tension high. Also, without delving into the more advanced important public work of the pair, things feel a bit in limbo, superficial instead of intimate, and sometimes confusing. It's not as big an issue during the film, but afterward, the effects wear off rather quickly and you find yourself trying to remember what you just watched, despite the perfect performances by the leads, most noticeably Blunt who even captures the famous monarch's expressions.

For as much as it tries, Victoria succeeds on many levels but lacks that certain sparkle that would take it from solid to classic. I just saw this episode this evening, on a recently-added presentation by one of our local independent channels, which now presents two episodes each weekday.

As the gentleman opined in the other, previous comment here, I agree this may not have been one of the best programs of the series, but I find it entertaining nonetheless.

My father was a friend of one of the principals (in my hometown, Cincinnati), for whom young Rod Serling had worked in the media there -- and I remember Dad telling how talented and creative he was remembered there. Overall "Twilight Zone" is certainly one of the true classics in television, and given its production during the height of the Cold War period, provides not only a view of this era in the country, but also (today) a nostalgic picture of production techniques, creative viewpoints and the actors of this era several decades ago.

* Minor "spoiler."*

This particular story depicts, as did other presentations in this series and elsewhere, a story where the locale is meant to provide a "surprise" ending. Sometimes the characters are on earth, from elsewhere, while the story at first implies at least one is an "Earthling." These usually contained the message (as here) of a situation prompted by the doomsday buttons having finally been pressed by the super powers during this Cold War period.

Viewed today, stories like this one provide a nostalgic look at this worldly viewpoint 4-5 decades ago, and still provide some food-for-thought. -- as did this episode.

While the dialog may not have stretched the considerable talents of the leads, it still presents a simple, important message, and a worthwhile 20-some minutes of entertainment and interest. I watched this with my whole family as a 9 year old in 1964 on our black and white TV. I remember my father remarking that "this is how it could have happened - Adam and Eve." I vividly remember the scene when Adam finds Eve, her eyes were blackened. I asked my father why were her eyes blackened and he told because she was tired and hungry. Having not seen this episode in 45 years, I still remember it vividly - the TV transmissions back and forth with the home planet, scenes of bombs shaking the headquarters, with the final scene of the two walking off, Adam carrying his pack and Eve following. It may not have been a theatrical work of art, but it certainly left an impression on me all these years. I went into The Straight Story expecting a sad/happy type drama with nice direction and some good acting. These I got. What I wasn't expecting was an allegory for the trials of human existence. Leave it to Lynch to take a simple story about a 300 mile trip on a lawnmower and turn it into a microcosm for the human condition.

If you didn't notice, watch it again, paying attention to the ages of the people Alvin meets, the terrain he's driving through, the reactions people give him, the kinds of discussions he has (one of the first is about pregnancy and children, one of the last is outside of a cemetery). The last road he drives down is particulary haunting in this context, as it narrows and his fear and nervousness mount. The last mechanical failure could be seen as a death, and the miraculous rebirth of his engine relating to an afterlife, in which he achieves the desired reunion.

I only hope some of the people who branded this as a slow sappy melodrama take the time to watch with a more holistic attention. Perhaps more than many films, this one is not for everyone. For some folks the idea of slowing down, reflecting and allowing things to happen in their own time is a good description of their personal hell. For others an approach like this speaks to some deep part of themselves they know exists, some part they long for contact with.

I suppose it's a function of where I am in my own life these days, but I count myself in the camp of the latter group. I found the meditative pace of this film almost hypnotic, gently guiding me into some realm almost mythological. This is indeed a journey story, a rich portrayal of the distance many of us must travel if we are to come full circle at the end of our days.

Much as been written of Mr Farnsworth's presentation of Alvin Straight, though I'm not sure there are words to express the exquisite balance of bemused sadness and wise innocence he conjured for us. Knowing now that he was indeed coming to terms with his own mortality as he sat on that tractor seat makes me wish I had had the opportunity to spend time with him before his departure. I hope he had a small glimmer of the satisfaction and truth he had brought to so many people, not just for "acting" but for sharing his absolute humanity with such brutal honesty.

Given the realities of production economics, I'm not sure full credit has been given Mr Lynch for the courage he showed in allowing the story to develop so slowly. An outsider to film production, I nonetheless understand there are few areas of modern life where the expression "time is money" is so accurately descriptive. Going deep into our hearts is not an adventure that can be rushed, and to his credit Mr Lynch seems to have understood that he was not simply telling a story--he was inviting his viewers to spend some time with their own mortality. No simple task, that.

If you'd like to experience the power of film to take introduce you to some precious part of yourself, you could do worse than spending a couple of hours with The Straight Story. And then giving yourself some time for the next little while simply listening to its echoes in the small hours of the night. This is not a movie for fans of the usual eerie Lynch stuff. Rather, it's for those who either appreciate a good story, or have grown tired of the run-of-the-mill stuff with overt sentimentalism and Oprah-ish "This is such a wonderful movie! You must see it!"-semantics (tho' she IS right, for once!).

The story unfolds flawlessly, and we are taken along a journey that, I believe, most of us will come to recognize at some time. A compassionate, existentialist journey where we make amends för our past when approaching ourt inevitable demise.

Acting is without faults, cinematography likewise (occasionally quite brilliant!), and the dialogue leaves out just enough for the viewer to grasp the details od the story.

A warm movie. Not excessively sentimental. I have always been a fan of David Lynch and with this film Lynch proved to critics that he has the talent, style, and artistic integrity to make films outside of the surreal aura that he's become known for in the past decade. As much as the film is G-rated, it's pure Lynch in style, pacing, and tone. The film moves at a masterfully hypnotic pace and is filled with scenes of genuine emotion and power.

The cinematography is terrific, as is to be expected from a Lynch film, and the transitional montage sequences are breathtaking. It's also very refreshing to see a film where the characters are all friendly, kindhearted folk and not unmotivated characters that are clearly labeled as being either "good" or "evil".

Richard Farnsworth turns in a beautiful performance as do the rest of the cast, most notably Sissy Spacek in an endearing performance as his daugher, and Harry Dean Stanton in a small but infinitely crucial role.

With this film, David Lynch proved to critics that he could make a powerful moving motion picture just like he did in the 80's with 'Blue Velvet' and 'The Elephant Man'. Critics seemed to lose faith in the past decade after he produced such surreal films as 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me' and 'Lost Highway' but with this film he showed that there was method to FWWM and LH, and it looks as if critics finally caught on with his recent film 'Mulholland Drive', considering the high praise it's received and the Oscar nomination for Lynch.

'Straight Story' is to me one of the most moving motion pictures I've ever seen. It's a loving story about family, friendship, and the kindness of strangers. I would highly recommend it. "A truly nice story with a moral about brotherly love" describes this odd David Lynch film. This was especially "odd" because it wasn't the kind of film Lynch had been putting out in the last 15 -20 years. Those were dark and shocking films (Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart, Mulholland Drive) and this is the opposite. I know it disappointed a lot of his fans. Others were delighted by it. Count me as one of the latter, and I own all three of those "dark" films, too.

This was another supposed-true life story, here detailing an elderly man's trip in a seated lawnmower from western Iowa all the way to Wisconsin to see his ailing brother who he hasn't talked to in years but wants to see before the latter dies. Well, I guess that premise - an old man driving a lawn mower 400 miles - still makes this an "odd" film of sorts, so Lynch stays in character with that!

Richard Farnsworth plays the title role. He is the type of guy, face-wise, voice-wise, low-key personality-wise, that just about everyone likes. The wrinkles on his face tell many a story. It was so sad to hear what happened to him in real life a year after this film was released.

The first 25 minutes of this film isn't much, and not always pleasant as it shows the main character's adult and mentally-challenged child (Sissy Spacek) and her tragic past, but once Alvin Straight (Farnsworth) begins his trip, the story picks up. I played this for several friends and they thought the film NEVER picked up, but I am more generous with it. I think it's a hidden gem. To them, it was a sleeping pill.

I found his trip pretty fascinating but you have to realize in advance this is NOT going to be a suspenseful Lynch crime story. It IS slow and if that's okay with you, you might like this. Charm enters the picture in some of people Alvin meets along the way, such as a wayward young girl running away and some nice town folks who help the old man out when he gets in trouble. (Henry Cada as "Daniel Riordan, is a standout in that regard.) Harry Dean Stanton gets third billing, but that's a joke: he's only in the final few minutes of the movie!

The Iowa scenery is pleasant. I lived there for several years and can attest to the rolling hills and the rich soil. It's a nice state with nice people....like this movie. Whenever I hear a movie being touted because it has no sex, violence, bad language, special effects, and so on, my b.s. detector goes off. Usually, a movie like that is sentimental hogwash which panders to people who don't want anything to surprise them, but to affirm how superior they are to us craven folk. So when David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY began getting those kinds of reviews, I was apprehensive, especially since I was not a fan of his other "uplifting" story, THE ELEPHANT MAN. For all the stunning images and the good acting in that film, it seemed more interested in preaching to us than inspiring us.

I needn't have worried. THE STRAIGHT STORY is an honest movie rather than a saccharine one. Most of that is due to the fact that Lynch and writers John Roach and Mary Sweeney tell it straight and simple for the most part. There are a couple of homilies by Straight I could have done without, and the shots of grain being harvested are repeated a little too much, but those are only quibbles. There's no heavy-handed message, no sentimental strings to jerk our emotions, and no condescension towards us and its characters. Instead, they depend on the story to build its own power, and it does, so by the final scene, we are genuinely moved.

Of course, casting Richard Farnsworth adds realism to the part. He really is someone who looks like he's lived through a lot but still perseveres, and except for those homilies, the desire he has to get back together with his brother doesn't seem overly sentimental, because you can sense here is someone who's lived too long and seen too much to be driven by anger for long. And he knows his time is running out, so he wants to make some peace, not only with his brother, but with his life. Sissy Spacek also does fine, unmannered work as Straight's daughter. And although I am a city and suburban boy, the Iowa and Wisconsin landscape are beautifully shot, making me want at least to visit some day. It takes patience to get through David Lynch's eccentric, but-- for a change-- life-affirming chronicle of Alvin Straight's journey, but stick with it. Though it moves as slow as Straight's John Deere, when he meets the kind strangers along his pilgrimage we learn much about the isolation of aging, the painful regrets and secrets, and ultimately the power of family and reconciliation. Richard Farnsworth caps his career with the year's most genuine performance, sad and poetic, flinty and caring. And Sissy Spacek matches him as his "slow" daughter Rose who pines over her own private loss while caring for dad. Rarely has a modern film preached so positively about family. After seeing this film I feel like I know just a little bit more about the USA. David Lynch is synonymous with shock value and weird for weirdness sake, and indeed these elements are not missing from The Straight Story. However it is in a light that I have not witnessed from Lynch before. We begin with a simple family living a quiet life but end up with an array of absurdly interesting characters with depth in their lives that cannot be apparent from their introduction. Especially moving was the bar scene with two WWII veterans discussing the events of fifty years ago and how it still affected their current lives and emotions. If you are looking for Wild at Heart or Dune, don't look here. But if you are looking for real people with real stories this is the film for you. The Straight Story is a multilevel exploration of the goodness and beauty of America. At one level a slow walk through the heartland, it's kind inhabitants, and amber grain, at another level about growing old and remembering what is important(and actively forgetting what isn't). David Lynch gives us time in this movie and helps me to remember that so much can be said with silence. A remarkable movie that will rest gently with me for some time to come. Who would have thought that a movie about a man who drives a couple hundreds of miles on his lawn mower to see his brother, could possibly be good cinema? I certainly didn't. I thought I knew what to expect: one of the most boring experiences of my life. Well I was as wrong as I haven't been wrong too often yet, because this is one of the best, most realistic and honest Hollywood films I've ever seen...

Giving a short resume of "The Straight Story" isn't very difficult. It's about an old and stubborn man who steps on his lawn mower and drives off to another state to pay his brother a visit when he hears that the man has had a severe stroke. That's already special on itself, but what makes it even more special is the fact that he hasn't seen his brother in ten years because of some stupid argument. In the meantime he has his share of bad luck and problems, but he also meets a lot of people whose lives he influences in one way or another with his philosophical approach to life. Despite all the difficulties he drives on for weeks, not knowing if he will reach his goal: seeing his brother again before it's too late...

I can easily understand why there are people who don't like this movie and that's also the reason why I will not say that these people don't have a heart or things like that... This movie hasn't got any flashy action scenes, it is as slow as the lawn mower the man is driving on and no, you don't have to watch it for the nice soundtrack either, because there isn't any. But why should you watch it then? Well, the simple answer is the story. I haven't seen such a touching movie with such a powerful story very often and the fact that this actually comes from Hollywood and - to make things even better - from the Disney Studio's (that's right, the same studios that overwhelm us with sugar sweet nonsense) makes it even more special. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had the tears in my eyes a couple of times while watching it, probably because the whole situation of not seeing someone for many years because of some stupid argument is all too realistic for me.

Some people will argue that the story is very shallow, but I really don't agree with that. Perhaps it is because they only see that old man driving on his lawn mower and don't want to think any further. If you look close enough than you'll understand that this man is doing all this because he knows he has once been wrong, that only his pride stood in the way of seeing his brother again and that he wants everybody else to see that too, so they won't make the same mistake. If that isn't deep enough, how much deeper does a story have to go for you then?

I would also like to add that this movie really had it all. Some beautiful landscapes (finally an American movie that shows something else than the skyline of New York, Chicago or some other big city), some very fine acting by Richard Farnsworth, Sissy Spacek,... and a very understandable way of telling despite the fact that this is a David Lynch movie. I know now that I was completely wrong by assuming that this movie wouldn't be to my taste. It's one of the very best movies I've seen in a long time. This movie aimed for my heart and hit the bull's eye. I give it the full 10/10. Upon The Straight Story release in 1999, it was praised for being David Lynch's first film that ignored his regular themes of the macabre and the surreal. Based on a true story of one man and his journey to visit his estranged brother on a John Deere '66 mower, at first glance its an odd story for Lynch to direct. Yet as the story develops you can see some of Lynch's trademark motifs coming through.

Lynch's focus on small town America and its inhabitants is still as prevalent as in his previous efforts such as Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks, but the most notable difference is that the weirdness is curbed down. The restrictions imposed means that the film has the notable accolade of being one of the few live action films that I can think of that features a G rating. Incredibly significant, this films stands as evidence that beautiful and significant family films can be produced.

The Straight Story was the first feature which Lynch directed where he had no hand at writing. For many Lynch devotees this was a huge negative point. Almost universally acclaimed, the only overly negative review by James Brundage of filmcritic.com focused on this very criticism, that it wasn't a typical Lynch film. "Lynch is struggling within the mold of a G-Rated story that isn't his own." Brundage claims, with his protagonist Alvin Straight "quoting lines directly from Confucious." He argues that the story is weak and the dialogue even worse. Yet this is about the only criticism that many will read for the film. Whilst it is true that it is not Lynch in the sense of Eraserhead, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive - all films which I also adore, The Straight Story features a different side of Lynch that is by no means terrible. If you are a Lynch fan, it is most important to separate that side of Lynch with this feature.

The narrative is slow and thoughtful, which gives you a real sense of the protagonist's thoughts as he travels to his destination. Alvin constantly is reminded about his past and his relationships with his wife, children and his brother. Yet particularly significant is that there are no flashbacks, which only adds to the effect, which reminded me of my conversations with my grandparents. The conclusion arrives like watching a boat being carried down a slow meandering river and it is beautiful to watch. The natural landscapes of the US are accentuated and together with the beautiful soundtrack by Angelo Badalamenti, makes me yearn to go to America. The performances are also excellent with every actor believable in their roles and Richard Farnsworth is particularly excellent. His Oscar nomination was greatly deserved and it was a shame that he didn't win. Regardless, however it is probably the finest swan-song for any actor.

So whilst The Straight Story features none of Lynch's complex narratives or trademark dialogue, the film is a fascinating character study about getting old and comes highly recommended! David Lynch's (1999) film of John Roach / Mary Sweeney's story is set in Iowa and Wisconsin some time well before the film's eventual release.

We come into the life of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) late on in life. His medical condition is poor, his life is mostly behind him and he knows it.

This makes what he decides to do, even more remarkable and endearing. He decides (and at every point in the film his own name reverberates through his actions) to put a few things straight.

Alvin is, by this time in his life, a man of great experience but modest means. His daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek) struggles with a speech impediment that makes communication a great effort on the audience's behalf. But it's worth it, because Rose's story cannot help but come out as the film progresses.

This film is the story of a journey. But like all journeys it is a journey in the geographical sense and in the human sense. Early on in the film, we begin to understand that this is an ambitious journey, which no elderly gentleman of Alvin's age should reasonably undertake.

But along the way, we slowly learn how Alvin has so many qualifications which equip him to achieve his unlikely objective. His objective is very simple and straightforward. His brother is ill and likely to die and he wants to visit him. He has had a falling out with him many years ago and they have not spoken in a very long time.

Along the way, Alvin meets many people. The way he behaves towards them and the benefit they get from having known him is the essence of this film. We come to know who Alvin Straight is, from what Alvin Straight does. And at the end of the film, we know who we are .. better. This is one of the greatest films I have ever seen: I glowed inside throughout the whole film. The music and cinematography held the spell when little was happening on screen. The slow pace was set by the mode of travel (a riding lawn mower with a big trailer) and was maintained by the background sights and sounds and the slow-paced lives of the other characters.

The story actually happened; Alvin Straight died in 1996 at the age of 76. There was no acting; everything was completely real, as if the actors had actually transformed into the characters. Sissy Spacek gave a poignant performance as a somewhat disabled daughter who had suffered much but forged ahead, always wanting to do the right thing. Richard Farnsworth was cast perfectly and he beautifully became Alvin Straight, a stubborn but loving elderly man who treks across Iowa to visit his estranged brother, Lyle, who has had a stroke. Alvin had learned much wisdom during his life and that seemed to bring out the best in the people that he encountered along the way.

The film underscores the importance of family to this man and, hopefully, to all of us. I eagerly anticipate seeing it again, and again. Directed by David Lynch, this films proves his directorial skill. Farnsworth was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor; at 79, he was the oldest nominee ever for that award. David Lynch usually makes films that resemble puzzles put together the wrong way. They are interesting to look at and think about but they really don't gel in your mind. Perhaps art will always mean the most to its creator.

The Straight Story is not a typical David Lynch film. Not that there's anything typical about them anyway. It's an odyssey through rural America. A real life journey Alvin Straight took on a lawn mower to get to his brothers house. He rode 300 miles from Laurens, Iowa to Mt. Zion, Wisconsin to make amends to his sick brother for past offenses.

At the heart of this film is sweet voiced Richard Farnsworth. He brings Alvin Straight right to us in a simple and honest way. The fact that the film is slow paced matches Alvin's slow journey toward realization.

Along the way Alvin meets a confused and frightened young girl. She is pregnant and has decided to run away from her situation. After listening to Alvin speak about family she reconsiders.

Later Alvin witnesses a distraught woman kill a deer with her car. She complains that she has killed several and leaves. Alvin feels bad but is smart enough to cook up some dear meat that night.

Later Alvin's lawn mower loses its brakes and nearly kills him. A nice man and his wife let him stay in their yard while he gets it fixed. They even let him call his sweet but slow daughter, nicely played by Sissy Spacek, whose haunted by a terrible tragedy in her own past. Alvin insists on paying for the call. The man even offers to drive Alvin to his brothers with pleasure. Alvin declines with thanks.

While Alvin waits he also goes off to a bar with a kindly old man as they discuss the harshness of war and the price it took on their souls. Alvin even confesses a fatal mistake he made as a sniper that has forever haunted him.

Alvin also encounters two bickering brothers who've repaired his lawn mower. He talks them down in price wisely calling them on their high labor and repair costs. He even helps them to appreciate one another learning from his own mistakes with his brother.

The night before Alvin leaves the man's yard he takes his hat off to him. The man tells him it was an honor having him stay and asks Alvin to write to him. This scene is perfect in it's simplicity. It's heartfelt because it's so straight, so real.

The journey continues and we can't help to get more and more involved with it. We want Alvin to get to his brothers. We want him to make amends. We want to know this world is full of forgiveness.

This was Richard Farnsworth at his best. It was his last film and his performance was amazing. You can't help but to understand his pride, to listen to his wisdom, and to ultimately feel his pain. One becomes as taken with him as the man who offers him his back yard to stay in.

If there's justice in the afterlife then Alvin Straight, his brother, and Richard Farnsworth are together sitting at a bar. I can picture them discussing their lives, regrets, hopes, and joys. As Alvin says in the film, "My brother and I used to look up at the stars." Well, I know they all are with the best view in the house. The Straight Story is the tale of an old man who decides to visit his sick brother who lives across the state line. He decides to make the trip on his lawnmower as he can't drive and he wants to make the rip by himself. The film beautifully depicts his journey and the lives he touches along the way.

Richard Farnsworth turns in a beautiful performance as do the rest of the cast, most notably Sissy Spacek in an endearing performance as his daughter, and Harry Dean Stanton in a small but infinitely crucial role.

At first I felt that a story of an old geezer trip across the country side would be dull but I soon discovered that Lynch with all the insights in to the man life makes this a movie I would recommend to anyone. [No Spoilers]

Being a David Lynch film, one could have the idea that it depicts that enigmatic mind of his like the majority of his feature films do. But it is a very straight story as the title might hint. Don't except to be caught in the usual Lynchian void of incomprehensibility that usually occurs after viewing i.e. Lost Highway. It is a simple film but it is indeed a great film. That is both from a innovative and an entertaining aspect. It's innovative because it so not Lynch. But maybe that IS Lynch. He likes to twist our minds and therefore puts together a film that might seem very mainstream and far from Lynch himself. Being a very avantgarde director, he might just make a film like this just to tease his regular audience because he knows what they expect but he doesn't give it to them. That would be crafty.

The pace of the film is slow. I would almost say lawn mower speed... Don't expect an action orgy, but the film is truly entertaining for the ones who go with the flow of the film. Look carefully for those small details that Lynch plot throughout the movie for our entertainment. Look for the great cinematography that makes this film come to life. And listen to Badalamenti's score and the main theme that really animates the Iowa and Wisconsin landscapes shown frequently.

Farnsworth puts in one of his best performances in this film, making him one of the most likeable ol' men ever depicted on film. He doesn't have to say anything to express his feelings and thoughts. His cheerfulness just shines right through him and his acting earned him an Oscar nomination. Need I say that his weak health in this film wasn't acted? He was diagnosed with cancer and shot himself right after this film was complete. That knowledge just puts more emphasis on the film because it becomes more of a homage to Farnsworth.

All of the above form a very nice motion picture that is suitable for all kinds of people that like a film the way they are supposed to be done. One could ask for homilies that aren't that obvious and a bit naive but it doesn't ruin the overall picture, being that it is a memorable motion picture. 9/10. It's nice to see a film with real people with honest feelings. Sissy Spacek is so absolutely convincing as a simple, yet nice, daughter to Robert Farnsworth,

who finally, in his last role, gets to show what a fine actor he was. It is hard to believe that this is a David Lynch film. It is slow and even, sweet and moving. One of the best unless you like car chases, sex scenes, and violence. "The Straight Story" is a truly beautiful movie about an elderly man named Alvin Straight, who rides his lawnmower across the country to visit his estranged, dying brother. But that's just the basic synapsis...this movie is about so much more than that. This was Richard's Farnworth's last role before he died, and it's definitely one that he will be remembered for. He's a stubborn old man, not unlike a lot of the old men that you and I probably know.

"The Straight Story" is a movie that everyone should watch at least once in their lives. It will reach down and touch some part of you, at least if you have a heart, it will. Well, it definitely is unlike anything else directed by Lynch. No supernatural stuff, no violence, no profanity. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful flick. It's a little slow but perhaps that was intentional because it's the story of an old man's 6-week(that's my best guess for its duration) journey. The characters are everyday people and thus, they are believable. The performances are good and the final scene was incredibly touching. Everyone who has a sibling can relate to it. Lyle and Alvin don't even have to say anything. For a moment they are back in the old days and all the fighting is forgotten. MULHOLLAND DRIVE made me the definitive fan of David Lynch. He's a modern genius, because he's not only a film-maker. His stories and his style have a spell that cross the screen. So THE STRAIGHT STORY was quite a surprise to me, with its easy to follow storyline and sunny sets. Still, Lynch is there, and, while this is far from his best, it's a film not to be missed. Late Richard Farnsworth's performance is one of the reasons.

8/10 Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see. On paper, this movie would sound incredibly boring. The idea of a 75-year-old man traveling the country-side on a riding mower certainly doesn't have much appeal to it, but the real power behind the film is its charm and its intelligence. Writers will not find a better study of what makes a movie work than "The Straight Story."

The perfect example of this is a scene in which Alvin meets a runaway teenage girl. She's pregnant and afraid of what her parents would do if they found out. Alvin tells her a story about his own kids, long ago. He had them each take a stick and break it, which they could easily do. Then he had them bundle the sticks and try to break them. "That bundle," he said, "is family." So many other movies would feel compelled to continue and make sure we knew that an individual could be broken but together the members were stronger. "The Straight Story" realizes that we're smart enough to understand this and simply leaves us to contemplate the thought and draw our own conclusions.

Alvin's journey across Iowa is full of such refreshingly un-Hollywood character interactions. Each interaction is full of warmth and humor, and Alvin is so cute riding his mower that we can't help but smile as he makes his way to Wisconsin to make peace with his brother, Lyle, who has suffered a stroke. And the simplicity of the final scene emphasizes that the real story here is not the destination but the journey. It's a journey in which Alvin shares his life with everyone he meets--to their benefit and ours. It's a slow, simple, relaxing ride meant to remind us of all that we've lost with the urbanization of America.

"The Straight Story" is the rare live-action "G"-rated movie that truly should not be missed. Grade: A Like his early masterpiece "The Elephant Man" Lynch proves to his detractors that he can tell a straight, simple story without losing his artistic touch. This is a true story of an elderly retired man (expertly played by Richard Farnsworth) who decides to ride a tractor across a few states to pay a final visit to his estranged brother who now stands at death's door. A beautiful score from Badalamenti, exquisite photography of rural life (love those aerial corn-field shots), and a sly director's hand that reveals man's basic humanity, this is a beautiful slice of life film. Its extremely slow pace may lull some viewers to sleep, but those who stay for along for the ride will be well rewarded in the end. Perhaps the most personal of David Lynch's works is his most accessible. This time, rather than the enigmatic thematic structures that may or may not involve a plot or represent anything more than vivid nightmares, Lynch provides a reflective, fragile meditation on the universal subjects of aging and family and finds reassurance in both. The simple true story of an Iowa farmer (Richard Farnsworth) who rides a lawn mower to Wisconsin to visit his estranged, stricken brother, there are still plenty of the unique and original visual dreamscapes (some rather striking aerial shots of the heartland, filmed by veteran cinematographer Freddy Francis) to make it an undeniable Lynch effort and characterizations that are some of his most unforgettable. Farnsworth is excellent in a stoic yet personable way, allowing the stories he hears on his journey to become a part of his life, and Sissy Spacek turns in some of her finest work in a smaller role as his mentally challenged yet observant daughter (whose painful secret is revealed in a poignant way through a gentle turn in the sensitive script by John Roach and Mary Sweeney) but the rest of the small cast to a person delivers indelible performances, one of the most notable being Barbara Robertson, whose accidental killing of a deer is both uproarious and sad at the same time. But that's vintage Lynch with his ability to engage and unsettle you at his best. To those unfamiliar with Lynch or know him only by his violent, disturbing reputation, this is an excellent place to begin; for those who know his work, this is one of the finest in his repertoire. I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.

At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.

Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing. If it's action and adventure you want in a movie, then you'd be best advised to look elsewhere. On the other hand, if it's a lazy day and you want a good movie to go along with that mood, check out "The Straight Story."

Richard Farnsworth puts on a compelling performance as the gentle and gentlemanly Alvin Straight, in this true story of Alvin's journey on a riding mower across three states to see his estranged brother who has had a stroke.

Farnsworth is perfect in this role, as he travels his long and winding road, making friends of strangers and doling out lots of grandfatherly type advice about family along the way. The story moves along as slowly as the riding mower, but somehow manages to keep the viewer watching, waiting for the next life lesson Alvin's going to offer.

Stretch out on the couch, relax and enjoy. It's the only way to watch this very good movie, which rates a 7/10 in my book. This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that! Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.

When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?

A beautiful fraternal love story. This movie is maybe the most touching and uplifting one that I have ever seen. I am not a religious person, but sometimes a great piece of art like this movie can give me an almost religious experience. One suddenly realizes that there is really meaning to life.

I must admit that when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical. I thought the plot sounded contrived and I was afraid that the story would be banal. But being a David Lynch fan I decided to give it a go. It took me about 30 minutes to be fully captured by the movie, but then I was completely lost in it. There is so much wisdom and warmth in this movie! I left the cinema feeling that I had truly learned something valuable about life.

This is not a typical David Lynch movie, and in some ways it was very surprising that he should make such a film after exploring the dark sides of human nature for so many years. On the other hand, I am not surprised that he manages to convey deep emotions and profound human insight because I also thought he managed that very well in The Elephant Man. Lynch is one of the most gifted directors around and I think The Straight Story is his best yet. 9.5/10 The zenith of two brilliant careers. David Lynch, better known for less accessible material, crafts a delicate and exquisite story around the most unlikely premise. A man travels to see his estranged brother. Having no other means of transportation, his journey takes him over six weeks on a lawn mower. Richard Farnsworth, in his last film, delivers a stunningly layered and nuanced performance in the starring role. Achingly beautiful in its exultation of small things, Straight Story is a classic cinema experience that must not be missed. Sissy Spacek is notable as Farnsworth's daughter, an impaired middle-aged woman living with the loss of her children. The only show I have watched since 90210! Why did they discontinue it? It was the only show that captured the essence of Hawaii and made you feel like you are a part of it all! The least they should do is release it on DVD!

I checked out similar shows, but nothing has come close. The cast had incredible chemistry and I looked forward to each episode with much anticipation.

They made a big mistake by pulling that show. If anyone has any info regarding where I can obtain a DVD of North Shore please post a few lines here. Thanks! Aloha! I'm sure this is a show no one is that familiar of and might not think good of it; after all it is almost close to Baywatch Hawaii. With the cast, the location, style of the directing and its publicity – shows women walking around on the beach and all that. No wonder people have misconception and decide not to watch it.

It was wrong of them to do that. Cause after I decide to watch the show, there are actually more thing going on, real juicy story and conflict, turn out to be really exciting to watch and pretty much – addictive.

The story of the hotel clerks, the manager, the owner and their complicated love life. Also enter the troublesome hotel's visitor and powerful man trying to steal the hotel. It actually more exciting than it sounds here.

I won't deny that the acting suck but it ain't that bad that you'll look away. The story is not so consistence but good enough. The soundtrack is fitting pretty well with the scenario and the action is all the time. I took me couple of episode before there is actually anything happen solidly so be patience.

Recommendation: I Really Do Enjoy Watching This. Zillion Times Better Than Expected.

Rating: 7.5/10 (Grade: B)

Please Rate My Review After Reading It, Thanks. i LOVED IT and was SO shattered that there not making another season!!! i wish they would! it was the best show ever!!!!!! there's probably not any chance of them deciding to not cancel the show is there! ha ha i wish there was though! i would be so so excited!! i really would! I miss it! and was especially shattered not to know what happens to Jason!! i think they should make another one.... it i also think its silly that u have to writr ten lines to post a comment.. it makes your comment drag on..and no one will read it!! i really want to know what would have happened between jason and nicole... maybe they could make a spin off!! I don't see how this show is like the OC at all.

First of all, the OC centers around teenagers and their parents trying to get through life. North Shore is about a hotel staff who is trying to run the hotel and have a social life at the same time. Second, The OC takes place in California. North Shore takes place in Hawaii.

And why would Fox make a show just like one of its other shows on the same network? I think this is a great show with good actors for the most part. It has a good storyline and plot. I like the events that happen and how the people take care of them and work them out. The most recent episode was surprising how the story worked out. It wasn't predictable like most stories on most shows.

I hope Fox keeps it on the air. It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.

Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.

I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".

Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime.

"Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.

The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.

Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.

In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.

The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.

I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.

A priest who has abandoned his ministry meets a young man who has just been ordained.

This movie is about the cruel dilemma between a life dedicated to God and faith and a life of more earthly pleasures. In post war France it is also about the mortal aspect of Faith itself.

This may not be the movie of a lifetime but it is a sin to have allowed it to fall in oblivion. Besides, Pierre Fresnay is sublime. There are some comments about this film that say that it is a bad and silly one and such an excellent actor as Pierre Fresnay should not have accepted to act in it.

I think, just the opposite, that, even when the film is strange and has some weaknesses, the performance of Pierre Fresnay is so formidable that it converts the film in something excellent.

His performance is probably the best in history.

The film itself has a very polemic scene about the consecration of wine in the cabaret.

For somebody who does not believe that a priest – even a defrocked one – can convert it in Christ's blood, the scene is perhaps bizarre. But for somebody who has been raised in a catholic framework, it is very emotive even if quite unpleasant.

The scene of the death of the younger priest is tremendously shocking. But it is very well acted. Pierre Fresnay turns the crazy act of murder in something understandable within the temporal madness of his character, the tortured defrocked Morand who, in this terrible way, comes back to his duty. Unlike other commentaries, I found this film fascinating, even with all its faults and the zombie acting of some of the actors.

Being a technologist, I found that the experiments interesting and the hardware realistic. Although the reading of people minds via computer sounds fantastic, experiments are being conducted now to do just this. I will note that this experiments are in a very early stage, with results so far not favorable.

The characters in the movie are well cast. The girl, although overacting a bit, looks suitable dumb. The truck driver is a a ringer for real truck drivers. The minister conveys doubt at first, (The principal investigator tells the minister that him (the minister), is not sure whether he believes that God created man or that man created God. But the minute when the chips are down, he falls back on his faith. Only the PhD plays the zombie. The secrets that they harbor are suitably appropriate for their characters. In the face of death they react as real human beings would.

The movie is a warning against the dangers of unlimited surveillance by government. As strictly a thriller, the movie does not have enough thrills. As a scientific exercise with philosophical underpinnings it is fascinating. I thought "The River of Souls" was a very good Babylon 5 movie, with some exceptional performances from Martin Sheen, Tracy Scoggins and Ian MacShane. If this were an episode of the series (without the humour) it would probably be one of my favourite stand-alone stories of the series.

Personally, I've always preferred Scoggins to Christian, although granted JMS didn't write her as well for much of the series and she did have to endure the Byron/Telepath plot. If you take out the smutty humour about the brothel and the "poorer" actors in those scenes, then this movie is solid stuff. Probably my third favourite of the four movies, but in no means bad at all. An excellent film with great performances from Zack & Lochley. Much to their displeasure (& mine) Garibaldi arrived on station. (All due respect to Jerry Doyle but in Seasons 4 & 5 I lost sympathy for the character.) It doesn't take him long to start criticizing Zack (who I love best of all on the show)and taking charge. I'm sure Zack could have coped. The Soulhunter plot is fascinating, especially if you believe in heaven as Zack does. The humour supplements it nicely. 10/10 Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than "Thirdspace" but not as good as "In the Beginning" as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series "Crusade" up to the standards of B5. Nifty little episode played mainly for laughs, but with clever dollop of suspense. Somehow a Martian has snuck aboard a broken-down bus on its way to nowhere, but which passenger is it, (talk about your illegal immigrants!). All-star supporting cast, from wild-eyed Jack Elam (hamming it up shamelessly), to sexy Jean Willes (if she's the Martian, then I say let's open the borders!), to cruel-faced John Hoyt (the most obvious suspect), along with familiar faces John Archer and Barney Phillips (and a nice turn from Bill Kendis as the bus driver). Makes for a very entertaining half-hour even if the action is confined to a single set. After an anonymous phone call about a spacecraft that would have crashed in a frozen wood, two police officers find evidences that the event really happened and apparently one Martian had walked away from the spot. They drive to the nearby Hi-Way Café and they find a bus stopped and seven passengers waiting the reopening of a snowed in bridge. However the driver tells that he had only six passengers when he parked the bus. While interrogating the travelers, weird things happen in the diner, with the lights switching on and off and the turntable turning on and off. When the passengers are released and the bus follows his travel, one passenger returns to the diner and discloses a plot of invasion of Earth.

"Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?" is one of the best episodes of this great series. The intriguing story has ironic and witty dialogs, funny characters and situations and a surprising and totally unexpected plot point in the very end. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Marciano" ("The Martian") Rod Serling was, of course, a genius and his wonderful, playful, creative mind left something of the period in which he lived and examples of television at that state of development. There are no such shows now, but rather "Housewife" sluts ala Eva Longoria or Terri Hatcher, or the pitiful stabs at humor and witty banter that litter our high-tech screens.

Jack Elam edged into the episode with such acting precision and with his usual craziness that I can't help but think that Rod Serling was tailoring that long ago week's show around Elam, even though he was an ancillary to the flow of the story. This episode ends with a twist, as usual, but shock and humor are mixed with especially "Serlingesque" dexterity.

Rex Lewis Field This is one of the more adorable episodes of the Twilight Zone, with some fun dialog and amusing characters to break the tension of some creepy moments. There's the usual blond vamp "dancer" (what is up with Serling's fondness for that kind of character, such that she keeps showing up in various episodes?) and other assorted characters, but it's Jack Elam's "old man" who totally steals the show. I consider this the funny, light-hearted version of "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" -- or, perhaps, a 20-minute Twilight Zone parody of "The Thing." On another note: I thought the young lover of the episode might be someone who eventually went on to other things -- he looked familiar -- but it seems that "Ron Kipling" disappeared after just two TV credits to his name. A bus full of passengers is stuck during a snow storm. The police have closed the bridge--saying it's unsafe and they are stuck in a little café until the road has been cleared. However, after a while, their boredom is turned to concern, as it seems that one of the passengers was NOT originally on the bus and may just be an alien!! This leads to a conclusion that is ironic but also rather funny in a low-brow way.

This is another of the fun episodes of The Twilight Zone. Instead of the typical twists or social commentary, this one features no lasting message. However, it's also very and watchable, so who cares?! Exactly WHAT occurs you'll just have to see for yourself.

By the way, this one stars John Hoyt--a face most of you will recognize from countless old TV shows and movies. In almost every case, he played a real grouch (like Charles Lane during the same era), but boy did I love seeing him--as he perfected the grouchy persona and was kind of funny at the same time. One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes. And the next day we were in the supermarket at Hollywood Blvd. and La Brea, my father and I, and guess who was coming toward us in the aisle! Barney Phillips, but no hat on -- at least, I don't think he had a hat on.

We asked him about his third eye, and he said something like he left it at home, and everybody he met that day had asked him about it.

A friendly guy. We used to see all kinds of character actors in LA in those days.

BTW, I was a teenager and it took a long time for me to get over the "three hands" on the other alien!

Robyn Frisch O'Neill

Hollywood native and resident 1947 to 1963. In a series chock-full of brilliant episodes, this one stands out as one of my very favorites. It's not the most profound episode, there's no great meaning or message. But it's a lot of fun, and there are some fine performances.

But what makes it really stand out for me is that it is, to my knowledge, the *only* Twilight Zone episode with a *double* snapper ending. The Zone is rightly famous for providing a big surprise at the end of a story. But this time, you get a surprise, and think that's that, but it turns out there's *another* surprise waiting. I just like that so much, that this is probably one of my two favorite episodes (the other being a deeper, more message-oriented one). A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.

The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: "I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin." The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.

It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible "depth" to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.

I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.

Oops. I have no idea why this flick is getting such a bad rap by so many IMDb users (Some are saying it's his 'worst movie ever.' What?? Haven't any of you seen Cradle 2 The Grave?) My favorite criticism is that the plot is totally stupid, and just an excuse to hang all of the action sequences on. Duh! What the crap were you expecting from a Jet Li movie? Did you honestly believe that someone thought up the story, then just loaded it up with action? Of course not! Black Mask is awesome, wall-to-wall action throughout nearly it's entire running time. It's also deliciously gruesome, and we get plenty of severed limbs, decapitations, and creative ways of watching the bad guys (and quite a few innocent people, too!) get slaughtered. Most of Li's other martial arts films are nursery-school when compared to Black Mask; there is no holding back on the gratuitous violence, bloodshed, or action sequences whatsoever! And that made me a happy camper. Again: if you go into a Jet Li movie expecting magnificent dialog and an intriguing plot, you are going for the wrong reasons. Black Mask is probably my favorite of his movies (though, beware of the horrendous dubbing). In Stand By Me, Vern and Teddy discuss who was tougher, Superman or Mighty Mouse. My friends and I often discuss who would win a fight too. Sometimes we get absurd and compare guys like MacGyver and The Terminator or Rambo and Matrix. But now it seems that we discuss guys like Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee and Jet Li. It is a pointless comparison seeing that Lee is dead, but it is a fun one. And if you go by what we have seen from Jet Li in Lethal 4 and Black Mask, you have to at least say that he would match up well against Chan. In this film he comes across as a martial arts God.

Black Mask is about a man that was created along with many other men, to be supreme fighting machines. Their only purpose is to win wars that other people lose. They are invincible in some ways. Now that is the premise for the film, but what that does is sets up all the amazingly choreographed fight scenes.

Jet Li is a marvel. He can do things with and to his body that no human being should be able to do. And that is what makes watching him so fun.

Besides the martial arts in the film, Black Mask is strong with humour and that is due to the chemistry that Jet has with his co-star, the police officer. They are great together. But to be honest. if anyone is reading this review, they want to know if the film is kick ass in the action department. And the answer to that is a resounding YES!!! Lots and lots of gory mindless action. You will love this film. I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.

My rating was an 8. The story would never win awards, but that's not what it's about... the script was just entertaining and suspenseful enough to make room for the incredibly choreographed fight scenes. Who needs a story with fighting like that? Really, it's worth watching for that reason alone. IF you can handle the gore, of which there is a LOT... none of it done realistically enough to be tough to look at. I gave it a 7. Anyone who had never seen anything like the fight scenes in The Matrix has never seen this movie. The fight scenes were choreographed by action scene psychopath Yuen Woo Ping, who also did the fights in The Matrix. And the fight scenes are somethin.

Li plays a supersoldier who feels no pain, who now lives a life as a pacifist librarian (ya got me). When other evil supersoldiers begin killing off local drug lords to take over the drug trade, Li teams up with his cop buddy to help stop them.

There are some absolutely crazy things going on in this movie (one badguy gets his arm lopped off with a pane of glass and hardly notices). The fights scenes are filled with flying kicks and punches; the body count is way up there. Li has seldom been better, and he has surrounded himself with a bevy of beautiful female costars (Yip kicks some serious ass as a fellow supersoldier). Anthony Wong even makes a cameo as a drug lord (no suprises there; he makes a cameo in every HK movie). It's unfortunate they don't make action movies like this in the US; I wouldn't have to sit through all of these horrible dubbing jobs to see that action that I crave so much. Recommended. This film appears to draw a borderline - on one side, those who love it, on the other, those who find it unbearable.

To begin with, there is an awful lot of comedy in this film that many viewers are not "getting". Of course jet Li's Mask looks like Bruce Lee's Kato - he's supposed to, it's a joke. The guy who has a time-bomb sewn to his heart - outrageous? of course, it's a joke! Some readers will probably ask, if this film is supposed to be so funny, why all the excessive and gory violence? well, for one thing the tolerance for this level of violence is actually different, from culture to culture; and while Hong Kong audiences would recognize this violence is extreme, it's certainly only slightly more than average for a HK action film.

Also, Black Mask is really the kind of film that takes a genre's conventions and pushes them to extremes, simply because the conventions themselves are wholly unrealistic. After decades of watching people get shot without any noticeable open wounds, many people were horrified to see Bonnie and Clyde and the outlaws of the Wild Bunch spurting blood all over the place. But the fact is, when you're shot with rapid metal projectile, it's almost certain that blood will spurt, especially from an artery.

This film is a Chinese comic book movie. It is true that the Spiderman films never get this gory - but if they were faithful to reality, they would be! Well, despite its comic-book origins, this film is faithful to reality.

The only complaint I have is the flashy, over-stylized filming and editing. If the makers of this film had shot it with an eye to Hollywood-style nostalgia (as, e.g., The Rocketeer, or the recent Sky captain film), I doubt anyone would have found it offensive.

But as it stands, I still had a lotta fun watching this movie. I can't understand why they decided to release this film to introduce the American audience to the dynamo that is Jet Li. Fist of Legend would have been a much better choice. Anyway, Black Mask isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great either. The final fight sequence is well staged by Yuen Woo Ping who went on to coordinate The Matrix. But the English release suffers from rough editing and dubbing. (I'm begging the Hollywood studios to release these films uncut with subtitles.)Jet Li shows his characteristic charisma in the title role and Francoise Yip has a cool but brief role as the female 701.

Black Mask has a strange goth style that adds some interest but it is overloaded with gun battles and explosions. More focus on Li's fantastic physical skills were in order. Black Mask is a decent film but do yourself a favor and pick up Fist of Legend if you want to see a tremendous film that really shows Li's skills. In Black Mask, Jet Li plays a bio-engineered super-killer turned pacifist, who has to fight against other super-killers. Bad plot, bad sfx(60 million dollar budget), but the fighting scenes were excellent! Jet Li is the greatest martial-arts star alive! This is a very strange HK film in many ways. First, many of the action sequences really aren't that much fun. The very first gun battle the occurs in the film was just silly. Not cool silly, or even funny silly, but just silly. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes, but most simply don't come up to the level of some of the other films I have seen. The opposite side is that this film actually has CHARACTERS, not just people. All of the main characters are interesting (except for the head bad guy, who is flat as a billiard table) and most are fairly well acted. All the protagonists in this film are just fun to watch. The dialogue is quite witty, and doesn't seem to lose much in translation. This film is worth seeing, but I hope that uninitiated American audiences don't think this is the best HK has to offer. This film contains more action before the opening credits than are in entire Hollywood films of this sort. This film is produced by Tsui Hark and stars Jet Li. This team has brought you many worthy Hong Kong cinema productions, including the Once Upon A Time in China series. The action was fast and furious with amazing wire work. I only saw the wires in two shots. Aside from the action, the story itself was strong and not just used as filler. To find any other action films to rival this you must look for a Hong Kong cinema outlet in your area. They are really worth checking out and usually never disappoint. What more could I say? The Americans totally hated it because the U.S. cut was so bad, although you could detect the underlying goodwill in it.

Talking about the U.S. theatrical release(along with the newly released Blu-ray Disc version), it's faster and tighter than HK cut, the background musics were all changed from the dark, grim HK musics to Hip-hop musics; and there were a lot of gruesome scenes cut out. Though, the dubbing was a notable job given that they tried to capture the original actor's voice and tone. But, the problem is Hak Hap(Black Mask) the movie was designed and meant to be dark, grim, super-disturbing and totally gruesome. Very unfortunately the U.S. release just skimmed the cream they wanted, which in return completely changed the movie's undertone(HK release was rated 18+) to be even more comical and amateurish.

Now let's talk about the original HK release. This movie is like a hidden gem, a prototype for the whole "matrix" tide and era. The fighting scenes are totally awesome even the camera works were a bit "old-school" among HK movies. However the style the movie created was a unique blend of Kungfu and pop culture. With all the leather, black costumes and decorations, this movie features a batman-like superhero in a black mask against a run-of-the-mill gang of multinational super-soldiers lead by a punk heavy metal rock star boss. Yes it sounds like imaginations of a retarded child, but it works. It's so impressive that the whole movie's gonna give you nightmares featuring foreigners fighting a bloodbath battle in leather coats. In year 2002 they made a sequel which had a PG-13 rating, but without Jet Li and Liu Qing Yun. And you know how bad that was because Li and Liu were the core characters in the movie and had strong personalities and an interesting friendship. And, did I happen to mention Francois Yip? Her roundhouse kick was totally cool, even cooler than the villain boss because she didn't use a stuntman for all the fighting. Did I mention she was also smoking hot? Anyway, there are a lot of things to like about the movie.

However, the movie also suffered from a lot of problems. First off, it's a mediocre script made at its best potential, which means this production team deserved a better screen-writer. There are a lot climaxes in the entire 100 minutes but they often felt like far-fetched and don't totally make senses to the audiences(US version was even worse because all the character developments were cut). Anyway, you can't ask too much out of a comic-inspired action movie. Also, this movie is entirely improper for children. I won't recommend it to you if you are less than 20 years old. It's saturated with disturbing contents including blood, gore, sado-maso costumes, extreme brutal violence and so on. Along with the style of the movie, it can be called a wet dream for heavy-metal rock music fans and action fans. (the U.S. cut was milder, but if you want to see it, see the HK release for what it is.) 7/10. Status: inspiring, hidden, undervalued, adult. OK, it's not a perfect movie by any means but I disagree with the overall IMDb opinion that it's really really bad. I watched a lot of Hong Kong flix in the 1990's and loved the era dearly. I never saw 'Black Mask' at the time and only saw it last week for the first time. Apart from the embarrassingly poor dubbing which my DVD copy didn't give me the option to turn off, the movie contains the raw energy and bravado that permeated Hong Kong movies during this time. I still stick to my guns in the opinion that, when it comes to action, these guys, no matter what their budget, add an element of magic to the screen no Bourne Supremacy, Casino Royale or Mission Impossible (I'm not knocking these movies - I just reckon they lack the spontaneity of this one and feel too regulated) will ever achieve. What is it? It's the feeling that the film-makers were experimenting as they shot and edited, not afraid to leave in some blemishes so as to learn lessons for the next time. For me, this makes watching movies, all the more fun and dangerous. Very good martial arts film and Jet Li is the best since the master himself Bruce Lee .Li is excellent as the low key librarian/cop who saves all time and time again . He has a presence and a look that is riveting and believable as the kung fu king that you don't mess with .Francoise Yip is simply beautiful in that mixed race original way that is unique because of her mixed heritage , she has an innocence and an allure all at the same time that I found unforgettable .The villain , the man with the sunglasses and long hair was very good as well but I can't find his name in the credits , can some one help me out with that ? Thanks ! Enjoy Hak hap or Black Mask , in any language its good entertainment ! Now let me tell you about this movie, this movie is MY FAVORITE MOVIE!!! This movie has excellent combat fighting. This movie does sound like a silly story line about how Jet Li plays a super hero, like Spider-Man, or etc. But once you've seen this movie, you would probably want to see it again and again. I rate this movie 10/10. Hak hap(Black Mask)is what I'd like to call a ballet with fists and explosions. Sure the plot has been tried and heard before, (A biologically engineered soldier that is part of a elite fighting force of supermen that decides he feels that killing and brute force aren't the ways to settle every thing and becomes a pacifist, and a librarian. But when he learns that the rest of his group is trying to get an antidote that will keep them alive by taking on the police -his best friend is a cop- he becomes the black mask.) the style that the movie goes for, very visual, works and at least for me is entertaining. I love martial arts movies that are a spectical. People flying around lighter than air and recovering a split second after impact keeps the pace and action non stop. But that is what this movie is about anyway right, a showcase of Jet Li doing what he does best, and that is spectacular showmanship of his skills, which to say the least are top notch. As with most of the fast action martial arts movies ala. Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung that are just now showing themselves here in the states for the first time, these movies are low on plot and high on amazing physical feats. But I must say, even with the large holes left in the plot (like how do we see him safe in his apartment when just one scene before he had 20 men that are no more than 15 feet from him with sign of escape? Who knows the scene just cuts to him in the apartment.......ohh well suspension of belief I guess) , the movie to me stays interesting. It is only until the last 20 minutes that the film seems to feel like it could have been a little shorter. But still all around a great high paced action movie. This movie is rich with action and gore. The story line is strong enough to support the action sequences. The English version needs a tad bit of help in the dubbing department but it was still enjoyable. This movie ranks among my personal favorites next to "Hard Boiled" ... It's a shame this movie is so hard to get your hands on in the US. I found it through a rare video dealer, and it was certainly worth it. This is, without a doubt, the best film made during the pre-code era, and the finest film of the 1930s. Masterful director Frank Borzage made wonderful films about the Depression, and with MAN'S CASTLE he created a fairy tale amidst the hardships of the era.

Loretta Young and Spencer Tracy have a wonderful chemistry between them, and they help make this movie a wonderful romance. Young's Trina is sweet and hopeful, while Tracy's Bill is gruff and closed-off. The dynamic between the character creates one of the most difficult, but in the end rewarding relationships on film.

MAN'S CASTLE is the most soft-focus pre-code film I've seen. Borzage uses the hazy and dreamy technique to turn the squatter's village where Bill and Trina live into a palace. The hardships of the Depression are never ignored, in fact they're integral to the film. But as Borzage crafts the film as a soft focus fairy tale, the love between the characters makes the situation seem less harsh. It makes the film warm and affectionate.

MAN'S CASTLE is the crowning achievement of the pre-code era. If only more people could see it. As other reviewers have noted, this is an unjustly neglected Depression-era film. Directed by Frank Borzage (two Oscars) and written by Jo Swerling (Leave Her to Heaven, The Westerner, Lifeboat, etc.), it is a tough-minded, well-structured and -realized move about denizens of a New York City shantytown. They're grifters, beggars, and women forced into prostitution, but they're a community of people both good and bad, with loyalties as complex as any group's.

Perhaps primary among this movie's many admirable qualities is the contrast between Spencer Tracy's character, Bill, and Loretta Young's Trina. He tough-talking, physically aggressive, and evidently fearless-- but Bill is not the character who gives this film its steely sense of survival. While he blusters, Trina actually hangs tough (if that term can be applied to a character so ladylike). Her devotion to him is obvious, and complete. When she becomes pregnant, she says she will raise it herself if he wants to leave, or "I'll even give up the kid if you'll only be happy." Such is the dignity of Loretta Young's performance (at age 20) as a quite simple character, that she seems neither weak or dependent, but rather a woman who recognizes happiness when she finds it, and wants nothing more. This is very dated, but that's part of the charm with this 1933 movie. You can say the same for most Pre-Code films; they're just different, and usually in an interesting way.

It was the short running time, the great acting of Spencer Tracy and the beautiful face and sweetness of Loretta Young's character which kept me watching and enjoying this stagy-but-intriguing film.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a nicer girl than "Trinna," played by the 20-year-old Young who was already into making her 50th movie! (She started acting as a small child. That, and the fact they made movies quickly back in the old days.) The camera, although in soft focus throughout much of the film, zoomed in on Loretta's face and eyes many times and I was mesmerized by her beauty.

Playing a crotchety man with a cynical outlook on life, Tracy's "Bill" slowly transformed into a loving man, thanks to Trinna. Spencer delivered his lines here with such naturalness that you hardly knew he was acting.

Although they have small roles, supporting actors Walter Connolly, Marjorie Rambeau, Arthur Hohl and Glenda Farrell leave lasting impressions long after viewing this 75-minute film. I was particularly fascinated with Connolly's role as the minister/father figure of the camp.

The story is a little far-fetched but - hey - that's the movies. This story is about two lonely Great Depression victims trying to survive in a "Hooverville"-type camp and it winds up to be a very touching tale. Man's Castle is set in one of those jerry built settlements on vacant land and parks that during these times were called 'Hoovervilles' named after our unfortunate 31st president who got stuck with The Great Depression occurring in his administration. The proposition of this film is that a man's home is still his castle even when it's just a shack in a Hooverville.

Spencer Tracy has such a shack and truth be told this guy even in good times would not be working all that much. But in a part very typical for Tracy before he was cast as a priest in San Francisco, the start of a slew of classic roles, he's playing a tough good natured mug who takes in Loretta Young.

One of the things about Man's Castle is that it shows the effects of the Depression on women as well as men. Women had some additional strains put on them, if men had trouble finding work, women had it twice as hard. And they were sexually harassed and some resorted to prostitution just for a square meal. Spence takes Loretta Young in who's facing those kind of problems and makes no demands on her in his castle. Pretty soon though they're in love, though Tracy is not the kind to settle down.

The love scenes had some extra zing to them because Tracy and Young were having a torrid affair during the shooting of Man's Castle. And both were Catholic and married and in those days that was an insuperable barrier to marriage. Both Tracy and Young took the Catholic faith quite seriously.

Also in the cast are Walter Connolly as a kind of father figure for the whole camp, Marjorie Rambeau who's been through all the pitfalls Young might encounter and tries to steer her clear and Arthur Hohl, a really loathsome creep who has his eye on Young as well. Hohl brings the plot of Man's Castle to its climax through his scheming.

Man's Castle is grim look at the Great Depression, not the usual movie escapist fare for those trying to avoid that kind of reality in their entertainment. Though I like E.E. "Doc" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.

Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)

Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.

P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well. Lensman is a rather lesser-known Anime gem from Toho and MK studios.It's loosely based on the novel,but it reminds me more of the game "Metroid".

If you want to see this,see it in Japanese with Subtitles or just plain Japanese.The English dubbed version was almost cropped and edited to death.

There is not much new,despite the fact that it's the 1st animated feature to combine CG-graphics with hand-drawn animation,but it's fun to watch,nevertheless. People don't seem to be giving Lensman enough credit where its due. A few issues have been overlooked which are key to understanding the Lensman experience.

The Year: For the year it was made in (1984) Lensman features some of the most stunning effects I've ever seen. As a person who watches a lot of early 80's animation Lensman is unique in it's use of what appears to be computer-generated imagery at a time when computers were extremely primitive. Kim's battle against the geometric cutter pods in the laser maze can be taken as an excellent example of this. Every time I watch that I have to keep repeating to myself that it was 1984 when it was made.

The Soundtrack: Lensman has one of the most insane soundtracks that I've heard, and this mad hysterical beat permeates every corner of the film. Lensman borrowed heavily on two western mistakes and managed to somewhat deal with the first one - the need to fill in every second of silence in a film with music and the need for a heroine. While the music is attuned well and galvanizes scenes such as the motorcycle battle in the Thionite Factory on Radelyx, the heroine theme fails due to the sheer annoyance value of Chris. It's interesting to note that the constant music thwarted my attempts at noise removal when I was archiving lensman over from analog tape to digital format - since there wasn't a single second of silence available to use as a reference point.

Western Influences: Helmut - sounds like "helmet" and has roughly the same voice as Darth Vader. Clarissa Fairborn - has the same hairstyle as the princess of SW and her name sounds suspiciously similar to Marissa Fairborn of Transformers. Takes over Han Solos role by flying the ship and having some technical expertise. Buzzkirk - a definite improvement on Chewbaka. The lens - a nice concrete copy of the force that comes across less as a chance to preach Christianity at the audience than in the original SW. While the force relied on belief far more than concentration, the lens is a pure concentration tool. Theoretically, anyone could wield the lens. The lens is far more limited than the Force - being purely a defensive/offensive weapon.

Technology: The boskone alliance have interesting meatball sponge ships. They look like stormtroopers only with red uniforms instead of white. The idea of a DNA weapon was nice if only it had been developed. The Galactic Alliance looked like Starblazers (or whatever it was called - that 60's series where they were battling the Xylons). There weren't enough ship to ship battles for me - this is much improved upon in the second Lensman film.

Finally a note on Worzel. This character is a unique and very interesting character-design who fortunately continues on to the second film.

"Secret of the Lens" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.

My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.

Check this out.

WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans! A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.

It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.

This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. I love these "Diaper Baby" movies! You couldn't make a movie like this today and it is rich in cinematic history. It is goofy and the film was made to make you laugh, which it does. How they ever got these kids to "act" I'll never know. I think they are precious and the kids make me laugh but so do the others who made this movie as it shows the naiveté that existed in the early 30's. You have to remember that this is when the film industry was very young, the stock market had crashed, the world wide depression was beginning and these films were made to give a person a break from the real world. The fact that you could see movies for five cents is beyond my comprehension, but then dinner for 25 cents is too. It was a different time with a totally different mind set. I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost. While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth? This is the second Baby Burlesk short to be released, and probably the most popular one, is a spoof of the 1926 silent film What Price Glory.

I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm) A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being "seen and not heard" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove. So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).

Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming. A Frank Capra WONDERS OF LIFE film.

Keeping the blood pumping through our veins is the responsibility of hardworking HEMO THE Magnificent.

In the mid-1950's, AT&T and Bell Science teamed with famed Hollywood director Frank Capra to produce a series of CBS television science films to educate the public about the Universe around them. A far cry from the dreary black & white fodder so often foisted off on young scholars, the Capra films would both instruct and entertain with lively scripts and eye-catching visuals shown in Technicolor. The four films - OUR MR. SUN (1956), THE STRANGE CASE OF THE COSMIC RAYS (1957), HEMO THE MAGNIFICENT (1957), THE UNCHAINED GODDESS (1958) - quickly became schoolhouse favorites, where they were endlessly shown in 16mm format.

The star of the series was Dr. Frank C. Baxter (1896-1982), an affable English professor at the University of Southern California. This avuncular pedagogue proved to be the perfect film instructor, genially imparting to his audience the sometimes complex facts in a manner which never made them seem dull or boring. Dr. Baxter, who won a Peabody Award for his achievements, continued making high quality instructional films after the Capra quartet were concluded.

HEMO THE Magnificent, which was produced, written & directed by Capra, relates the story of the human heart and blood circulation system, using animation and gentle humor. Film star Richard Carlson appears as the Fiction Writer, energetically helping Dr. Baxter tell Hemo's tale.

Movie mavens will recognize Sterling Holloway as part of the TV production crew, and the voices of Marvin Miller, Mel Blanc, June Foray & Pinto Colvig as various cartoon characters, all uncredited.

The devotional Scripture which begins the film is completely in tune with the tenor & tone of the production. By God, it's been a long time since I saw this. Probably about 18 years ago?

The movie tells us (kids) all about human blood and the circulatory system. Very professionally put together--Disney-style animation, plus human actors--it was directed by Frank Capra, for pete's sake!

Kind of an overkill. I wonder if the very high production value is worth what amounts to a film-strip's worth of information on the human body? But boy will those kids watching it learn: even now I can clearly remember Dr. Baxter being challenged by Hemo himself to name what common material most resembles human blood, to which the Doctor immediately answers "sea water." This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of "all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word "Thalassa" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood.

Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning. I remember watching this is its original airing in 1962 as a five or six year old and REALLY enjoying this. I recently had the opportunity to watch it again, for the first time since then, as it was aired on "Walt Disney Presents" on the Disney Channel. I'd forgotten most of it, and some of it was geared towards kids, but it was still enjoyable. I can't wait to show it to my niece and nephews. LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT was the first film I saw in 2000 and I doubt I'll see a better one this year. This beautiful tragicomedy by Belgian filmmaker Benoît Mariage is set in the industrial wastelands of Wallonia. Benoît Poelvoorde plays a father who desperately wants his son to win a car (a Lada!) for him. To do this the son has to break the record opening doors. What the father actually wants his for his son to be someone, because he himself has never made it further as the reporter of local news for a newspaper ironically called L'Espoir (Hope). Of course nothing works out as planned. This film can best be compared to Aki Kaurismäki's DRIFTING CLOUDS, although it is more dramatic and the humour is darker. Just like in that film however the tone is more melancholic than depressing and the ending upbeat, without being unrealistically happy. The humour is absurd, without making the plot unbelievable, and Mariage finds stunning images in the bleak settings that never seem artificial. The best thing about LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT is the acting by Poelvoorde. This actor shot to fame with the also brilliant cult-classic C'EST ARRIVÉ PRÈS DE CHEZ VOUS in which he played the charismatic hitman Ben. Since then he only played two small roles in films that were not released in the Netherlands, because, as he said in an interview, he was not convinced of his own acting capabilities and all the roles he was offered were reprises of the Ben character. With his return to a leading role in LCA there should be no doubt anymore about his acting. He's simply brilliant as a man stupid and evil enough to put his family in misery, but smart enough to realize what he's done and be torn by remorse about it. A must see. This is an absurdist dark comedy from Belgium. Shot perfectly in crisp black and white, Benoît Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog) is on fine form as Roger, the angry, obsessive father of a family in a small, sullen Belgian mining town. Roger is a photographer who, along with his young daughter Luise, visits road accidents to take photos. He is also obsessed with winning a car by entering a competition where the contestant has to break a record - and he decides that his son, Michel, must attempt to break the record of perpetually walking through a door - he even hires an overweight coach to train him. Michel dresses as Elvis and has a spot on a radio show called 'Cinema Lies', where he describes mistakes in films. Luise is friendly with near neighbour Felix, a pigeon fancier. Roger is a callous figure as he pushes Michel right over the limit during the record attempt, which almost results in his death. Interspersed throughout the film are Magritte-like surreal images. It's undeniably charming and well worth your time. Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.

The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.

By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.

It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life.

But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds.

There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair. Diego Armando Maradona was, and still remains as the best football player, the game has offered. Not just an athlete, but an artist. This documetary if the 1986 World Cup will forever live in the memories of every football fan around the world. Because of his tremendous and unbelievable goal, which he scored against my own country(england). There's absolutely no point of diminishing this star. Although I dont undersand spanish, I can appreciate the argentine narrator. He actually cries of happiness, and can barely express his emotion..... Anything I wrote can be senseless and difficult to comprehend, but readers.....you have to watch this to know what I mean. This movie is a must for all people that enjoy soccer as an art. What strikes first about this movie about a soccer world cup is the way it is filmed. Besides following the play like a TV broadcast, there is generous footage dedicated to follow individual players in the games. This brings forward the emotions and situations these men go through as they attempt to reach glory. Today's TV broadcasting style, so different than that of 1986, is still inferior in quality compared to this movie.

The players are not the only stars. The audience, the referees, the journalists covering the matches and the environment itself all play a central role in the development of what today is history. In this movie you can see how all these factors play together in a very explicit way. In that regard, today's TV broadcasting style has not yet reached this level of quality, although it is now much closer than before.

There are several highlighted players: Maradona (Argentina), Elkjaer and Laudrup (Denmark), Francescoli (Uruguay), Platini (France), Lineker (England), Rummenigge (Germany), Butrague#o (Spain), Socrates (Brazil), and Sanchez (Mexico).

This movie is not a collection of the best soccer moves of Mexico 1986, although most of them are well covered. Across all the movie, there is a stress for presenting several aspects of the game and the competition itself based on the progress of these players and teams, even at the cost of skipping relevant plays of the games themselves. This is what makes this movie so interesting and unique.

Because of what happened because of referees during Mexico 1986, much of the comments about this movie and world cup are extremely Maradona-biased. Much of these comments do not take into account that there is a referee and two linesmen, that they are as human as the players, and that all of the abovementioned make mistakes one way or the other. Soccer rules do not allow referees to use TV based replays to make decisions, so for the most part referees have to decide on what they perceive. As a consequence, referees play an active part in the development of a game. Their influence can be seen in several parts of this movie.

The sequel movie for the 1990 World Cup, compared to this one, is just a source of bitter disappointment. Much of it comes from the fact that it became too involved in the game, whereas this movie tells things from a more distant, unbiased point of view. Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.

History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.

But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.

Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.

England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.

After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.

The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.

Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.

During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup. Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 best. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the greatest world cup ever and consequently arguably also the greatest player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.

The musical score is evocative and the images are powerful. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably unbiased and also calmly dramatic. This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the beauty of the event itself.

Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the greatest games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly recommended. A classic of world football. to be watched over and over again, esp if you're a Maradona fan. I really really love this show! I have always liked the 1990's shows of Space Ghost! This show was hilarious and I can't believe why Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would take such a funny show like this off the air. I hope they put this show on DVD or something. The show is about Brak (from the Space Ghost cartoons, SGCC and Cartoon Planet) who lives his every day life with his Mom and Dad and his best friend who likes to drop in a lot, Zorak! My favorite episodes were the one where Zorak gets this really good singing voice and then his voice doesn't give him any money that Zorak made from singing at all. Another episode I like is the one where Brak and Zorak didn't finish their homework and then they go back from Sunday to Friday and they just goof off and then they go back to the day homework was invented and then when they go back to the present homework didn't exist! Another episode I like is the one where Brak's Dad and their next door neighbor, Thundercleese the Robot keep getting into this agrument and then they get eaten by a giant worm. Another episode I liked was the one where Zorak makes a bully stand and then some new guy took over his stand. I also like a lot of the other episodes! One thing that never fails to make me laugh is when Zorak is getting beaten up, blasted and zapped! Leave it to Braik to put on a good show. Finally he and Zorak are living their own lives outside of Spac Ghost Coast To Coast. I have to say that I love both of these shows a whole lot. They are completely what started Adult Swim. Brak made it big with an album that came out in the year 2000. It may not have been platinum, but his show was really popular to tons of people out there that love Adult Swims shows. I have to say that out of all the Adult Swim shows with no plot, this has to be the one with the most none plot ever made. That is why I like it so much, it is just such a classic in the Adult Swim history. I believe this is just such a great show, if you don't like it. Hey there were tons who hated it and tons who loved it. "The Brak Show " is good .Probably not in the same level than "Aqua Teen Hunger " or "Space Ghost Coast to Coast ", but definitely it have many brilliant moments .Basically it follows the life of Zorak and Brak that have normal lives and go to the school ,living in a neighborhood on the style of the 50 'sitcoms . The humor and the animation of this show it's very much as "Aqua Teen Hunger " (and in one episode you could see Meatwad) with bizarre situations and strange characters .But it is good ,it have funny parts . Some of the songs are great ,others not very much but I like this show . The funniest character is the father of Brak . (that is a human ,nobody knows why ) Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are the mismatched pair who get in the car and go about doing errands according to the need of one or the other. Morgan Freeman is superbly human, relating with one and all, while Paz Vega is the edgy cashier behind the "10 Items or Less" check out line, intimidating customers and bored out of her mind. Together they explore, discover, and learn from each other. To do that of course they must be vulnerable, interested in change, and have a sense of humour, all of which they both have. I wish this film was realistic, I wish this type of story happened more often, I wish we didn't have to go to the movies to realize that we can indeed connect with each other even if we come from vastly different backgrounds. The film's message is based in the open heart, and makes us wonder about the possibility of another world where we meet each other from there - a world where peace could be a possibility. This movie is a little ray of sunshine in a dark season. It celebrates a quality best described as plain old friendliness. Morgan Freeman plays a character very like Freeman himself--a successful actor pushing 70. He has traveled to a small, rather grimy grocery store intending to research a part he might play, as a manager of such a place. He soon beguiles the staff and the customers, especially the lovely, if cranky, young woman (Paz Vega) who presides over the "10 items or less" checkout lane.

10 Items Or Less doesn't have a big statement to make and doesn't pretend that it does. It follows Freeman and Vega as they become friendly, and as the older man offers his counsel, in exchange for a ride home--the movie-company gofer who is supposed to pick him up never shows and Freeman has forgotten his own phone number so he can't call for help. I had a little case of the blues on a gray Sunday afternoon in New York City and this flick cured what ailed me. I'm a big fan of Morgan Freeman. 'The Shawshank Redemption' ranks at the top of my all-time favorite movies. But I have to admit that I have often wondered about his choice of roles. So many of his titles were big budget clichés with no heart. '10 Items Or Less' for me marks the return of Freeman to a role that truly showcases his considerable acting talents.

Freeman plays an unnamed, formerly big time Hollywood actor who hasn't worked in several years. He has been offered a part in an unspecified indi picture for which he is doing some research at a grocery store in a poor neighborhood in LA. After being stranded there by his flaky driver, Freeman is offered a ride home by checkout girl Scarlet (Paz Vega), whom he has semi-befriended. Before she can take him home, however, Scarlet has a big job interview she needs to get to, and Freeman agrees to tag along in exchange for the ride.

The movie follows Scarlet and Freeman to several locations, but the movie is really just a character piece about the interactions between the two. Freeman is the quintessential disconnected Hollywood type who hasn't heard of Target, and doesn't know his own telephone number or even what day of the week it is. He spouts wisdom from the Dalai Lama filtered thru his 'the whole world is but a stage' mentality, and repeatedly calls Scarlet's job interview an 'audition'. And yet he has a way with people, a way of affecting them that extends beyond his fame. He is a fan of humanity. He studies them, asks incessant questions about them, and delights in their quirks where others would simply be annoyed. In Scarlet, he sees the stubborn, proud loner that he was; he sees the man he used to be.

Scarlet, for her part, displays a fierce pride and sharp tongue that serve to hide her own insecurities about herself. Vega plays the role with a connection to Freeman that skates the line between an almost daughterly love and physical attraction, although she plays it beautifully and it's not at all as creepy as it sounds. But even as she feels her connection to Freeman grow, Scarlet has a keen eye for the reality of their different worlds and cuts thru Freeman's Hollywood bull*hit with a sharp pragmatism that refuses to accept anything but the truth.

The movie is smart, funny, and well written, with dialogue that is simple but effective. I read one IMDb review that said the lines were 'stilted', which I think is a misinterpretation of realistic human speech. There are no big soliloquies here, no deep soul searching moments. And so the trick is, I think, to show how people in ordinary, everyday life can forge connections with one another. And I think Freeman and Vega pull it off beautifully, painting a picture of a bond between two people that glitters like sun on the ocean, ethereal and elusive. Long after it's gone it lives on in your memories, tantalizing you with what might have been. OK, that was a bit flowery, but I really did like the performances and the movie. I would definitely recommend it. Full disclosure: I'm a cynic. I like my endings sad and my hankies dry. I didn't cry when Bambi's mother was shot. Will Smith's new film Happiness looks like a desperate plea for an Oscar. Basically I was born without an artistic soul.

So why on earth did I like "10 Items or Less?" Maybe it was the double espresso I downed before the show. Or (more likely) maybe it was that even the most hardboiled of movie fans could use an occasional shot of sweetness.

And sweet it is. From the moment "Him" meets "Scarlet" (an event far from a Nora Ephron "meet cute") the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. (Aided beautifully by Phedon Papamichael's cinema verity style camera work.)

The main argument about the film is that it's too far fetched. Is the film far fetched? I don't know. You tell me. I've yet to meet Adrian Brody at the market. (However, not for lack of trying). Do I enjoy considering the adventures that might occur should this momentous event take place? Darn straight I do . . .that's where most reviews of "10 Items or Less" fall short . . .they fail to take into account that even we cynics have fantasies. And heck, sometimes, it's worth the price of admission to vicariously live them, 82 minutes at a time. 10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.

Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.

It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp This movie is really genuine and random. It's really hard to find movies like it in bunches of movies now in Hollywood. I really enjoy watching this movie, i bought its DVD Tuesday this week and i've watched it for 4 times. I love the Spanglish accent of Paz, it s just really cute as she is. And her acting and Morgan's are so funny and natural.

My movie taste might be really different from others but i have to say i really love this movie, the simple is the best!

I've learned something more about life from this movie (well, or at least USA's life)... life is really random... Sometimes, u meet someone, they pass by your life and be your friends coincidently, and u don't spend so much time with them, maybe just a while but u enjoy that ''while'' with them, and then u and them will never meet each other again, but the time u are together is really unforgettable. Just keep those moments in your mind as grateful and nice memories...

This movie might be cheap in the making price but its meanings are totally not cheap. I rarely can learn anything from movies, but this is an exception. I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.

What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.

I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, "You make me want to be a woman." He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.

In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse. A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece! Running only seventy-two minutes, this small, overlooked 2006 dramedy is really just a two-character sketch piece but one that works very well within its limitations. Taking place almost entirely in various, non-descript spots in southern Los Angeles, the story itself is inconsequential, but like Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation", the film is far more about two strangers who meet unexpectedly, find a common bond and go back to their lives enlightened for the momentous encounter. It also helps considerably that Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are playing the characters. Finally freed of the wise sages and authority figures beyond reproach that have become his big-screen specialty, Freeman seems comparatively liberated as a somewhat self-indulgent movie star. His character is driven to a low-rent grocery store in Carson, where he will be able to research a role he is considering in an indie film.

Out of work for a few years, he is embarrassed when he sees DVDs of his films in the bargain bin, but his ego is such that he does not lack the temerity to watch and even mimic the enervated store staff. Of particular fascination to him is Scarlet, an embittered worker from Spain and relegated to the express line where she is the unsung model of efficiency. She has an interview for a secretarial job at a construction company, but her deep-seeded insecurity seems to defeat her chances already. Still looking like Penelope Cruz's Amazonian sister, the beautiful Vega (one of the few redeemable aspects of James L. Brooks' execrable "Spanglish") brings a stinging edge and realistic vulnerability to Scarlet. She and Freeman interplay very well throughout the story, which includes stops not only at the grocery store but also at Target, Arby's and a full-service carwash. Nothing earth-shattering happens except to show how two people realize the resonating transience of chance encounters.

Silberling keeps the proceedings simple, but the production also reflects expert craftsmanship in Phedon Papamichael's vibrant cinematography (he lensed Alexander Payne's "Sideways") and the infectious score by Brazilian composer Antonio Pinto ("City of God"). There are fast cameos by Bobby Cannavale (as Scarlet's soon-to-be-ex-husband) and as themselves, Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, as well as a funny bits with Jonah Hill ("Knocked Up") as the clueless driver and Jim Parsons (the "knight" in "Garden State") as a worshipful receptionist. The 2007 DVD is overstuffed with extras, including a making-of documentary, "15 Days or Less", aimed at film students and running a marathon 103 minutes; six extended scenes; a light-hearted but insightful three-way conversation between Silberling, Freeman and Vega in the middle of Target; and a couple of snippets that specifically advertise the DVD. Reviewed at the Sept 12, 2006 2nd screening at the Paramount 1 theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival. The film had World Premiered the day before at the Elgin Theatre VISA Screening Room.

The basic plot involves Morgan Freeman playing a one time popular actor who is on the downward slope of his career and who is taking on roles that may be beneath him, but which he still does with a positive attitude knowing that he needs to pay the rent etc. The downward slope is indicated by his being a long time between roles with previous flicks in bargain DVD bins and his being chauffeured by a not too sure of himself production assistant who drops Freeman off at a local community market where he is going to do research for a role as supermarket manager. He soon discovers the real-life market is run by a iron-willed "10 Items or Less" checkout line clerk played by Paz Vega. When Freeman's ride never returns and Vega needs help in prepping for an interview the circumstances cause them to join forces in a ride across town to get Freeman back home and to get Vega a job that'll get her on a more upwardly mobile career path.

While the film was enjoyable, it felt like it was still a sketch or a work in progress. There were two extended musical sequences (One with Vega & Freeman teaching each other children's songs in the car, one that literally plays like a Paul Simon music video) that felt like padding to bring up the time and even then the film was only about 80 minutes long.

It's a good thing Morgan Freeman is as well liked as he is because without him this would have been too little. Sure it was funny in parts and Paz Vega is a delight as well, but there was just not enough here to say it was a complete film.

They lost me when Morgan Freeman started talking about stopping the car to ask for directions and Paz Vega said she never does that. Who ever heard of a guy wanting to ask for directions and the woman saying no!? In the real world it's the exact opposite.

Make sure you stay for the outtakes in the credits. The bit with a Target Store saleslady teaching Morgan Freeman how to hustle sales is just hilarious! An early bit where Freeman's chauffeur insists it is Freeman's voice on a "Books on Tape" reading was also pretty funny.

The director/writer Brad Silberling and actress Paz Vega were there for a brief Q&A after the screening. Silberling answered one question saying that the script was not written specifically for Morgan Freeman and that once Freeman took the role he actually changed very little of what was there. Quite a compliment for both Silberling's writing and also about how Freeman can just slip into a role and make it feel entirely like he was born to play it. In all honesty, if someone told me the director of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, City of Angels, and Caspers was going to do a neat little low budget indie film and that'd it be real good, I'd say that person must be joking. But that's what director Brad Siberling did. And it was really good.

"10 Items or Less" has a similar conceit to films like "Before Sunrise," "Lost in Translation," or more recently "Once." It involves the chance meeting of two people who if serendipity didn't put them there, they'd probably never cross paths, or if they did, they wouldn't say word one to each other. Like those films, "10 Items or Less" focuses on the relationship that builds and how the characters come to understand each other and build on each other's strengths and weaknesses.

The story involves Morgan Freeman, playing an unnamed actor who goes to research his role as a grocery store employee for an upcoming independent movie and because of things beyond his control, ends up spending the day with the lady in the 10 items or less lane played by Paz Vega. She has a rotten marriage and is hoping to land a new job as a secretary. Initially, Freeman's character just needs a lift home. After spending time with her, however, he wants to get to know her and maybe even offer her some advice.

Brad Siberling builds the characters almost entirely through the exchanges between Freeman and Vega. The plot is merely a setup for these two characters to interact with each other for most of the film's 80 minute duration. Freeman has fun with his character, as he appears an outsider in lower class world that Vega's character, Scarlett, inhabits. Vega, in the meantime, grows beyond the stubborn checkout clerk upset with her life's situation looking to move on.

There a couple things that really stood out in this film. First of all, Siberling has probably taken note from independent cinema to make sure the relationship is sincere and doesn't fall into any Hollywood pitfalls. It's a very mutual friendship that develops convincingly throughout the film. It works, even though the situation itself does seem a little inconceivable.

I am also impressed with the performances. While Freeman's presence gives this film credibility from the get-go, he shows a certain amount of charm and fun not usually seen from him. Paz Vega, meanwhile, is priming herself for a breakthrough in US film sometime in the future. I loved her in Spanglish and she's equally good here as the tough, no-nonsense Scarlet. Towards the end of the film, she successfully conveys the growth of her character. I'm looking forward to seeing her in more films.

Overall, 10 Items of Less functions best as a character piece, well scripted and directed by Brad Siberling. He hasn't done much writing and his feature film work has consisted mostly of big Hollywood films. Yet there's certainly an artist at work here and am anxious to see if he'll take this road again. Knowing when to end a movie is just as important as casting, directing and acting. And it's nice to see when a director/script get it right. Clocking in at just 82 minutes, 10 ITEMS OR LESS doesn't stretch the story, trying to grasp at inane topics. It stays focused, being funny, sad, and well thought out.

Morgan Freeman (LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN) stars as "Him", an aging actor grasping at any roles presented to him. We're introduced to "Him" as he travels to a supermarket in an out-of-the-way section of town by The Kid (Jonah Hill, CLICK). Realizing he has a star in his car, The Kid pressures Him to talk about his absence in cinema over the past few years. Him isn't very forthcoming because, not only has he been out of it for while, he's also en route to a shooting location of an indie film he might act in ("I haven't decided if I'm going to accept the part."). The Kid is a relative of the director involved in this indie venture and soon drops him in the middle of nowheresville. Stuck, Him decides to check out the local market. He immediately runs into the beautiful Scarlet (Paz Vega) who operates the 10 items or less register. Not just strikingly pretty but intelligent, Him begins using her as his prime research subject for his upcoming independent film role. He learns how she figures out numbers so quickly and why she knows the quirks of every member of this isolated community.

But Him doesn't just use Scarlet, he helps her so he can see deeper into her life. They travel together to get her car back from a cheating husband, and he teaches her how to act to get a new job she's pining for, and how to dress for success even when confronted with Target as the epitome of local clothing. This is probably one of the funniest moments as we get a glimpse of Him, too, showing his complete lack of understanding of the chain-store retail world ("These shirts are only $12 bucks! How is this possible?!") The ending, as stated at the beginning of this review, is abrupt but apropos. There's no way these two could ever remain friends even though they form a unique bond. They know when to say goodbye and what each garnered from the other. It's a quiet but riveting moment as Scarlet's clunker car sits idling outside Him's L.A. mansion.

This is a great independent production and one that wastes little time getting going. And it won't waste your time either. 10 ITEMS OR LESS is one of those 'under the radar' pictures that is drenched in the simplicity that most independent movies have: honest, ad hoc performances by its two leads -- Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega who establish quite a complementary if unlikely duo. The great thing is, this entire movie looks improbable despite its 'road movie' roots. How Morgan Freeman's unnamed character psychically (not physically)arrives to where he meets this jaded check-out girl who has an unhealthy relationship with her current supervisor (who also happens to be getting it on with her philandering husband played by Bobby Cannavale in a small role) is somehow left for us to witness more than deduce and their witty banter -- two people on opposite sides of the coin of society -- is deceptively simple. So, in a nutshell, while there aren't any bang! moments of Earth-shattering revelations, this movie is a quirky little mood piece that probably otherwise got lost in the shuffle of indies which came out in 2006 but deserves to be seen, if only for its honesty. This is a splendidly done simplistic film that explores a theme, and gives each viewer something different that they take from it. The premise is simple: an unnamed celebrity actor (Morgan Freeman) decides to research for an upcoming role by visiting a store and watching people. He takes particular interest in the cashier at the "10 Items or Less" lane (Paz Vega), who he finds an amiable, strong, and curious presence.

Both actors play off each other brilliantly and bring solid dimension to characters in what is a character study. Not a conventional character study; they each represent entire worlds. The cashier's life is mired in a harsh and frustrating "real world," while the actor is so enmeshed in his fantasy existence that he can't do simple tasks like remember phone numbers. He readily admits he's putting on a face when he talks to people, and the whole point of researching real people shows he's not one of them.

But not only is the actor inspired by real people for his work; we see the reverse process as well. Several characters recognize "Him," and make reference to how he has inspired them with his movie roles.

The cashier's favorite song "Al Pasar la Barca," about how a girl refuses to hide behind beauty and prefers instead to pay (ie: do honest work) for boat passage, couldn't have been chosen better. It parallels with the Vega character, the only store employee with any brains or ambition, who is willing to work hard to succeed. (That's quite an aspiration, for somebody who looks like Paz Vega.) It's an odd little film, probably made on a shoestring. If you don't mind slow pacing and a "talky" approach, this film will entertain. The characters are perfectly contrasted, and the effective acting makes them endearing. A nice watch. One can only hope that there are many times when someone as powerful as Morgan Freeman can take the time to assist someone who needs help.

It all comes down to loving people. As Will Rogers said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Of course, if you meet Paz Vega, what's not to like? That smile of hers can melt diamonds. She is just so fantastic that I can watch anything she is in. The same goes for Freeman. he is just magic on the screen.

The two of them gave us a film that was funny from start to finish. From the Mexican supermarket to Lorraine & Bobby to Packy. It was tender, charming and just plain funny.

You have to check this out. Bravo! Morgan Freeman is an actor, who researches a character he is selected to play, before he makes a commitment. Freeman is a 'good fit' for this film (like he was for "Driving Miss Daisy"), and he is not only believable, but he gets a chance to change his image of playing a character with reserved dignity and propriety. Although there are no guarantees in life, for anyone, this gives an actor a great opportunity to play different or unique characters that stand out, in order to avoid getting stereotyping. And it must be said that stereotyping has hampered, or completely ruined, a significant number of acting careers.

This is a low-budget film that, amazingly, was made in a time span of only two weeks. It is a film that is well directed and written by Brad Silberling. The location manager chose Carson, CA for the film's setting, and the location helps set the tone and timing for the film. The editing is fair to good, but a little rough.

Silberling was the 'subcontractor', in getting Freeman to do this film, while the actor was in-between film projects.

There is a good chemistry between Freeman and Paz Vega, a Spanish actress, and this opens an effective dialog between each of the cast members, who are diverse and come from different cultures. The film also encourages an understanding between people, who not only speak two languages (English and Spanish), but come from two different worlds of ethnicity, race, gender, norms, mores, beliefs, folkways, principles, and values. The film strives for some honesty, and arrives at some truth, to maintain the film's integrity.

Part of the comedy is that Freeman plays an unemployed actor that has been out of work for four years. In truth, Freeman is so-in-demand as an actor that he is constantly working.

The film offers an adventure of bonding, caring, sharing, changing, and exchanging. And, the film's outtakes give the viewer a preview of some of things an actor must go through in preparing for a role.

If necessary, tell your boss that you're taking a 'mental health day', and go see this film. If you're able, take your significant other or your family with you. I rank the film a 10 out of 10. It's enjoyable, interesting, informative, poignant, and worthwhile. It's a difficult movie to classify "10 Items or Less". Generally, I don't care about defining genres, but there's something about this movie that makes you want to put it in a specific category, in order to transmit, even with only one word, your feelings about it. I completely recommend this film to anyone and, if you truly enjoy cinema and if you enjoy life, you'll want to do the same as soon as you've finished watching it.

I recommend this movie and call it beautiful and delightful admitting it's not perfect but it doesn't do anything wrong. I don't want to sound like I contradict myself, but I believe writer/director Brad Silberling knew exactly what he was getting into when he finished writing this inspiring script. I'm sure he wanted to achieve a product that had nothing to do with perfection: a product that would be as simple, appealing and uncompromising as its title. Well, he's done it.

Silberling, director of long, complex, dramatic movies like "City of Angels" and "Moonlight Mile", proves with "10 Items or Less", which closes in at just 70 minutes, the passion he has for his work and also the faith he has in it. To put an actor (Morgan Freeman) in front of a woman (Paz Vega) in a grocery store and take them exactly to the places ordinary life would take them is what Silberling proposes here.

I can't tell you no more because within the apparent simplicity lies a thought provoking background that shouldn't be underestimated. Because here everyone's exposed: the camera focuses directly on the two main characters, who share endless conversation in a car ride with stops that's not endless only because life is life. And let me express how praise how well Silberling handles the situation by saying that he reaches, in less time (not only in movie duration time, but in the single day that the movie develops its events) and in a smaller place, the kind of connection between two characters that Sofia Coppola generated in "Lost In Translation".

That movie, set in Tokyo, also encountered an actor and a woman, and they also had conversations about the moments they were living in their lives. It's in the conversations where we sense the though provoking quality of "10 Items or Less" and, just as in Coppola's movie, the naturalness of every situation is never lost and the images with all music and no words don't seem forced or included in the picture to 'buy time'.

In this aspect, the collaboration of Silberling and his director of photography Phedon Papamichael. The man who shot the beautiful sceneries in "Sideways" and focused on every emotion in "Patch Adams", delights us here with visual passages of true natural beauty.

But the ultimate beauty of "10 Items or Less" can be found in its cast (by Avy Kaufman), in its two protagonists. They are the ones who transmit this feeling I mentioned at the beginning and I can't specify; we feel their connection and we can tell they're having fun and that they may even be improvising stuff. Academy Award Winner Morgan Freeman, also an executive producer of the film, simply stands there and confirms the status he has today in the movie industry, and one that's well deserved: a quiet man, filled with wisdom that can easily make you cry as he can make you laugh. And the beautiful Paz Vega (well, I said she was great in "Spanglish")…Here she proves she's the real deal, and Hollywood's not small for her. Not that much things happen in this movie but A lot of meanings. The woman thought she had all that she can in life, but that was indeed not true, and she found out herself when she met this person who was conducting some research for his next job. There really should be more types of movies like this, im not even that old as considered "mature" ( im 13 by the way) and i still got the idea and point of the film. The main point is in my opinion: DON'T THINK YOU CAN'T HAVE A BETTER LIFE, JUST BECAUSE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THIS ONE.

Though I got to admit i was thinking of watching another movie but after reading all the reviews and seen the trailer i decided on this one even though i knew not that much action would appear in the film. I recommend anyone to watch this movie as it has very good points in the film, and is a really good ending. This is film-making at it's simplest and it's best.

I had my doubts, because even though Freeman is great actor, sometimes he gets involved in bad projects; this is not one of those times.

It's a small story that runs just over an hour and fifteen, in a time when we are getting used to having movies become longer and longer, and not necessarily better, the director uses the short time to his advantage, because the characters are so well defined from the start (great portrayals by freeman and Vega by the way), that the little bit of background info on them seems real, Morgan is himself even though his name is not mentioned, he has been out of movies for a couple of years now because he was saturated by the business, and developed a fear to commit to a script, and is doing research for a character in a indie movie where he plays a store/supermarket manager. The story begins by him being drop of in a supermarket in a rough neighborhood, where he meets the cashier of the 10 items or less (Vega) and has to take a ride with her cause "the production" forgot to pick him up.

In many ways it's a road movie, Morgan provides the laughs, and quirks with his unbeatable smile and positive perspective on everything, showing off an accomplished actor who has trained his mind to be able to define everyone he sees into a character he could play, and Paz (by the way, what an extraordinary beautiful woman, even more gorgeous than Penelope Cruz) brings the vulnerability of a 25 years old separated woman who works harder than everyone else without getting any credit in a dead end job at a crappy supermarket.

It's a talkie, there is a lot of dialog, but the balance between light and fun and serious and sad is well sustained, the characters become so lovable right away that you spend the last 20 minutes begging for more screen time of this odd couple, but the shortness is in the nature of the story, so it was a good call from the director not to give in. I have to admit that for the first half hour or so of this movie I was basically lost. There had been some mildly amusing humour, but at best a barebones plot and a general sense of pointlessness that was on the verge of making me think that I was wasting my time. Then - for no apparent reason - I suddenly realized that I was enjoying this. There was no blinding moment of realization and no suddenly dramatic scene that grabbed me. In fact nothing very exciting happens in the entire movie. It was as if I just all of a sudden realized that the movie was meant to be largely pointless - and that in its very pointlessness was its charm.

Morgan Freeman starred as an unnamed actor who finds a “little project” to jumpstart his career. He's going to play a supermarket manager, and spends the day in a neighbourhood supermarket to research the role. While there he meets and bonds with Scarlet (played by Paz Vega) - a cashier who wants more out of life. He helps her prepare for a job interview as if she's auditioning for a role, while she introduces him to real life. It's truly funny watching “him” (for that's how the character is identified in the credits) be overwhelmed by a visit to the local Target store.

Freeman and Vega were great together, with a strange but completely believable sort of combined romantic but father-daughter chemistry. If you feel lost at the beginning, stick with this. In the end, it turns out to be a delightfully charming movie. 7/10 I believe a lot of people down rated the movie, NOT because of the lack of quality. But it did not follow the standard Hollywood formula. Some of the conflicts are not resolved. The ending is just a little too real for others, but the journey the rich characters and long list of supporters provide is both thought provoking and very entertaining. Even the cinematography is excellent given the urban setting, the directing also is excellent and innovative.

This is a 10 in my book, this movie will take you places the normal and expected Hollywood script will not. They took some risks and did a few things different. I think it worked well, I am purposely trying to avoid any direct references to the movie because seeing it for yourself is the best answer, not accepting someone else's interpretation. This movie is about human relationships. Charming, funny, and well written, with meaningful text. It seems that Morgan Freeman surely have fun at the set. Also good music. Paz Vega is a beautiful and smart woman. I really enjoy her acting. Woman like her are a good motivation to learn Spanish language. From the moment Morgan Freeman meets the cute Paz Vega the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. 10 Items or Less is about zest of life. If you enjoy this film see also The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith and his son. Thats not a action film or a nude comedy. Its all about human relations. This movie is not great, but it is a good and enjoyable one. It feels like an indie film made out of a play script. Morgan Freeman basically plays himself, although the director swears the script was not written for him. And there is the small irony of the actor that goes in a supermarket to do research for a film that he hasn't committed to yet. I mean, he actually made the film in the end and we are watching it :)

I found the dialogue a bit too positive for my taste, but refreshing nonetheless. This is a film that inspires the viewer to take a look at their own lives and choose the direction in which to go. A bit too much emphasis on appearance, if you ask me.

Bottom line: a nice little film, made in two weeks, with basically two actors and a few extras, dialogue driven, makes Morgan Freeman look good :) Panic In The Streets opens in high noir style, a view along a dark street followed by a camera tilt upwards to a window, behind which is playing out a sleazy card game - an opening flourish which, along with some of the location shooting, anticipates some of the atmosphere Welles brought a decade later in Touch Of Evil. One of the players throws open the window; it's an appropriate action, serving as an introduction to the events within as well as literally opening up our first view of the underworld.

Shot in high contrast black and white, Panic In The Streets benefits immensely from a strong cast as well as some fine location shooting in New Orleans. Scenes set in such places as the mortuary, the crowded shipping office or amidst the peeling paint of 'Frank's Place' offer a unique, and sometimes claustrophobic atmosphere, impossible to recreate in the studio. With these elements, Kazan's film shows the influence of Dassin's groundbreaking Naked City of two years earlier, which established the gritty, almost documentary style within the noir cycle. In fact, Widmark's previous role had been in Dassin's even finer Night And The City, a film in which a sense of rising panic was even more prevalent. Joe MacDonald, a favourite with the director, photographed Panic In The Streets' detailed environment. MacDonald also worked on Kazan's Pinky and Viva Zapata!, and went on to shoot Widmark again three years later in Fuller's masterpiece Pick Up On South Street.

As others have noticed, in a manner typical of some noir films, Kazan's work offers a contrast between the confusion, sickness and immorality of the streets with the modest, calm home life of the Reeds. But whereas (for instance) in Lang's The Big Heat (1953) the home life of the hero is destroyed by elements of vice surrounding the embattled central character - ultimately sending him back to work with an increased vigilance and sense of vengeance - Panic In The Streets places Reed's rising anxiousness within the confines of what amounts to just another working 'day'. Despite all the danger, ultimately he returns back to the bosom of his family justified and satisfied. The implication being that social balance has been restored, at least for the moment by his professionalism and curative skills.

That imbalance of course, has been created by crime and disease. The two are closely associated in this film. It reminds one of the tagline from the much cruder Cobra (1986) - where "Crime is the disease. Meet the cure," a neat analogy in context, if one which rings too uncomfortably of social reductionism. At its climax, as Blackie attempts to flee aboard ship, the visuals specifically allude to rats as being similar to criminals, both posing a menace to society's health. As (the presumably infected) Blackie prowls round the cheap rooms and the docks with his cronies, in search of something he suspects everyone is after, if without knowing exactly what it is, 'plague' and 'Blackie' resonate together in the audiences mind, adding further to connected associations. Ironically Blackie's hunch about Poldi's unfortunate cousin, that "he brought something in" of note is correct - even if, finally, its nothing he can sell or steal. Blackie's logical assumption that the police would not normally bother with the murder of some anonymous illegal immigrant has a ring of truth about it, and his so confusion is understandable.

Dr Reed, although home-loving, and on the side of society, is a true noir hero. Familiar to the genre is the chief protagonist as a man who walks alone, forced to travel beyond the limits of the law. In his way, Reed is forced to take morality into his own hands for the sake of society at large - a dimension of the film that is particularly apposite, given director Kazan's controversial personal history. The director testified before the infamous HUAC, naming suspected communists and fellow travellers. His film depicts suspects being hauled in for questioning, and the manhandling of the press, on the grounds that the overriding public good justified the means. These actions perhaps echo the director's sentiments at the time, presumably accepting the McCarthyite witch hunt and the suppression of civil rights it entailed in the light of presumed communist infiltration of the entertainment industry. In these times of terrorist threats and state response, such issues as they appear in the film are strikingly modern.

Standout scenes in the film include a notable scene where Blackie interrogates the dying Poldi as to the precise nature of his cousin's presumed contraband. Cat like, Blackie stalks his victim across the room, eventually preying over the doomed man's sick bed, holding Poldi's feverish head in his hands - a striking, evil cradling. It's a gesture emphasising the intimate nature of corruption, whether moral or physical. Apparently, the actors did many or all of their own stunts, which leads to some other, very dramatic scenes at the end, as the police and health authorities close in on the villains under the wharfs. Half crawling, half scrambling over the slippery timbers at the edge of the dock pool must have been an experience very uncomfortable for Palance, but it is sequence that adds immensely to the immediacy of it all.

Occasionally less convincing elements distract the viewer. Apparently Dr Reed is left to fight a potential national emergency little government backup. Perhaps just as astonishingly, he never inoculates himself - inviting a dramatic turn which never materialises. At the end of the film, too, the potential epidemic has been halted, all contactees located, a little too neatly. But these weaknesses are more than outweighed by the other satisfactions of a film that still makes for compulsive and relevant viewing today. This film is actually pertinent even today given the threat of bio-terrorism, and the threats of superbugs, West Nile Virus, and SARS. As a thriller, the tension is fairly intense. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are more than serviceable in their roles. The domestic scenes between Widmark and his wife provide a nice interlude to the main plot. The actor in this film who most left his mark is Jack Palance. His sharply defined features and seemingly easygoing exterior always wither way to reveal the avaricious and cruel man beneath the surface. The chase scene through the packing plant is impressive even today. Recommended, 7/10. When a stiff turns up with pneumonic plague (a variant of bubonic plague), U.S. Public Health Service official Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) immediately quarantines everyone whom he knows was near the body. Unfortunately, the stiff got that way by being murdered, and there's a good chance that the murderer will start spreading the plague, leading to an epidemic. Enter Police Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas), who is enlisted to track down the murderer as soon as possible and avert a possible national disaster.

While Panic in the Streets is a quality film, it suffers from being slightly unfocused and a bit too sprawling (my reason for bringing the score down to an eight). It wanders the genres from noirish gangster to medical disaster, police procedural, thriller and even romance.

This is not director Elia Kazan's best work, but saying that is a bit disingenuous. Kazan is the helmer responsible such masterpieces as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and East of Eden (1955), after all. This film predates those, but Kazan has said that he was already "untethered" by the studio. Taking that freedom too far may partially account for the sprawl. The film is set in New Orleans, a city where Kazan "used to wander around . . . night and day so I knew it well". He wanted to exploit the environment. "It's so terrific and colorful. I wanted boats, steam engines, warehouses, jazz joints--all of New Orleans".

Kazan handles each genre of Panic in the Streets well, but they could be connected better. The film would have benefited by staying with just one or two of its moods. The sprawl in terms of setting would have still worked. Part of the dilemma may have been caused by the fact that Panic in the Streets was an attempt to merge two stories by writers Edna and Edward Anhalt, "Quarantine" and "Some Like 'Em Cold".

The gangster material, which ends up in firmly in thriller territory with an extended chase scene near the end of the film, is probably the highlight. Not surprisingly, Kazan has said that he believes the villains are "more colorful--I never had much affection for the good guys anyway. I don't like puritans". A close second is the only material that approaches the "panic" of the title--the discovery of the plague and the attempts to track down the exposed, inoculate them and contain the disease. While there is plenty of suspense during these two "moods", much of the film is also a fairly straightforward drama, with pacing more typical of that genre.

The dialogue throughout is excellent. The stylistic difference to many modern films could hardly be more pronounced. It is intelligent, delivered quickly and well enunciated by each character. Conflict isn't created by "dumb" decisions but smart moves; events and characters' actions are more like a chess game. When unusual stances are taken, such as Reed withholding the plague from the newspapers, he gives relatively lengthy justifications for his decisions, which other characters argue over.

In light of this, it's interesting that Kazan believed that "propriety, religion, ethics and the middle class are all murdering us". That idea works its way into the film through the alterations to the norm, or allowances away from it, made by the protagonists. For example, head gangster Blackie (Jack Palance in his first film role) is offered a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he'll cooperate with combating the plague.

The technical aspects of the film are fine, if nothing exceptional, but the real reasons to watch are the performances, the intriguing scenario and the well-written dialogue. In New Orleans, an illegal immigrant feels sick and leaves a poker game while winning the smalltime criminal Blackie (Walter Jack Palance). He is chased by Blackie and his men Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Poldi (Guy Thomajan), killed by Blackie and his body is dumped in the sea. During the autopsy, the family man Lieutenant Commander Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) of the U.S. Public Health Service finds that the dead man had pneumonic plague caused by rats and he needs to find who had any type of contact with the man within forty-eight hours to avoid an epidemic. The City Mayor assigns the skeptical Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas) to help Dr. Clint to find the killers that are infected with the plague and inoculate them.

"Panic in the Streets" discloses a simple story, but it is still effective and with a great villain. The engaging plot has not become dated after fifty-seven years. Jack Palance performs a despicable scum in his debut, and the camera work while he tries to escape with Zero Mostel is still very impressive. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Pânico nas Ruas" ("Panic in the Streets") "Panic in the Streets" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront" and "East of Eden". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still "Panic in the Streets" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.

The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.

The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.

Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.

Yet, "Panic in the Streets" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.

8/10 Refreshing `lost' gem! Featuring effective dialog combined with excellent acting to establish the characters and involve you enough to care what happens to them. The Douglas and Widmark characters are realistic heroes. Palance is his usual evil presence. Widmark win the fisticuffs fight scene, a car chase of less than 60 seconds with a `logical' end, and a lengthy chase on foot that shames the overdone chase sequences of contemporary Hollywood. You know how it will likely end, but the suspense and interest are sustained throughout. The end of the chase is one of the most realistic you will ever see. The film seems to slow a little past the middle, but stay with it for the rewarding conclusion. In Panic In The Streets Richard Widmark plays U.S. Navy doctor who has his week rudely interrupted with a corpse that contains plague. As cop Paul Douglas properly points out the guy died from two bullets in the chest. That's not the issue here, the two of them become unwilling partners in an effort to find the killers and anyone else exposed to the disease.

As was pointed out by any number of people, for some reason director Elia Kazan did not bother to cast the small parts with anyone that sounds like they're from Louisiana. Having been to New Orleans where the story takes place I can personally attest to that. Richard Widmark and his wife Barbara Bel Geddes can be excused because as a Navy doctor he could be assigned there, but for those that are natives it doesn't work.

But with plague out there and the news being kept a secret, the New Orleans PD starts a dragnet of the city's underworld. The dead guy came off a ship from Europe and he had underworld connections. A New Orleans wise guy played by Jack Palance jumps to a whole bunch of erroneous conclusions and starts harassing a cousin of the dead guy who is starting to show plague symptoms. Palance got rave reviews in the first film where he received notice.

Personally my favorite in this film is Zero Mostel. This happened right before Mostel was blacklisted and around that time he made a specialty of playing would be tough guys who are really toadies. He plays the same kind of role in the Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. Sadly I can kind of identify with Mostel in that last chase scene where he and Palance are being chased down by Widmark, Douglas, and half the New Orleans Police. Seeing the weight challenged Zero trying to keep up with Palance was something else because I'm kind of in Zero's league now in the heft department.

Kazan kept the action going at a good clip, there's very little down time in this film. If there was any less it would be an Indiana Jones film. Panic In The Streets won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year.

Kazan also made good use of the New Orleans waterfront and the French Quarter. Some of the same kinds of shots are later used in On the Waterfront. In fact Panic In The Streets is about people not squealing when they really should in their own best interest. Very similar again to On the Waterfront.

Panic In The Streets does everyone proud who was associated with it. Now why couldn't Elia Kazan get some decent New Orleans sounding people in the small roles. When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in "Panic in the Streets," one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.

The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director. "Panic in the Streets" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.

Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.

The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. "Panic in the Streets" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10) I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.

There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.

There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.

That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.

The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away. Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast. Just a comment on New Orleans accents...

An earlier reviewer noted the following: "This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country." There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.

Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound "broklynese". I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent. Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With "Panic in the Streets", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, "On the Waterfront", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.

Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting "The Big Easy". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.

This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.

One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.

The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.

The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie. A neat 'race against time' premise - A murdered John Doe is found to have pneumonic plague, so while the health authority and NOPD battle everybody and each other trying to find his waterfront contacts, the murderers think the heat is because the victim's infected cousin is holding out on them.

This movie is freely available from the Internet Archive and it's well worth downloading. A lot (all?) of this movie was filmed in genuine New Orleans locations, which makes it interesting to look at for what is now period detail, though to me it does look under-exposed, even for noir - maybe mobile lighting rigs then weren't what they are. There is also a plenty of location background noise, which is slightly distracting - car horns in the love scene, anyone? There are a lot of non-professional supporting artists in crowd scenes, and this may explain why the pacing of the film is slightly saggy to begin with - not much chance for retakes or recasting, though the final chase is worth hanging on for. There's not much wrong with the lead actors either: Jack Palance is genuinely scary as a charismatic, intelligent psychopath - the later scene as he alternately comforts and threatens the sick cousin is terrific, while Widmark, as he often did, pitches the righteous anger of the man on a mission at a believable level - most of the time.

Somebody should remake this - no supernaturals, no mysticism, no special FX, just a good yarn full of character conflict, and a topical theme. Another reviewer mentioned the writer John Kennedy O'Toole, and that's spot on with the number of oddball New Orleans types peppering this dark, sleazy, against-the-clock drama. There's even a midget newspaper seller.

"Community? What community? D'you think you're living in the Middle Ages?" A doctor and a policeman in New Orleans have only 48 hours to locate a killer infected with pneumonic plague.

An effective, and classy, little thriller directed by Elia Kazan that blends documentary realism with a race against time pulpy heartbeat. Set and filmed in and around New Orleans, Panic In The Streets is taken from the story Quarantine, Some Like 'em Cold by Edna and Edward Anhalt who won an Oscar for original story. It also boasts a fine ensemble cast that deliver top rate performances for their director. In turn, Richard Widmark {bringing the method a year before Marlon did for Kazan in A Streetcar Named Desire}, Paul Douglas, Jack Palance (as Walter Jack Palance) & the wonderfully named Zero Mostel, all get sweatily moody as the pursuers chase the pursued to halt the onset of a potential Black Death epidemic.

Where the film scores its main suspense points is with Kazan's astute ability to cut back and forth between the protagonists without altering the flow and mood of the piece. From Widmark's Public Health doctor, with hypodermic needle in hand, running around trying to locate the bad guys so he can do good; to the bad guys themselves who are bemused as to why there is such a wide scale hunt for them; the tension is stacked up to fever breaking point. To which thankfully the final thirty minutes becomes a cracking piece of cinema. With Palance excelling as a nasty villain that ironically puts one in mind of Widmark's own Tommy Udo from Kiss Of Death three years prior.

It's an imaginative and intelligently written story, one that cunningly links rats and criminals to being carriers of disease. A blight on society as it were. It's noirish elements, such as paranoia, blend nicely with its basic procedural thriller being. While some memorable scenes are suitably cloaked by the stifling atmosphere that Kazan has created. Although some of the early character psychologizing threatens to steer the film down some over talky based alleyway, this definitely is a film worth staying with to the end. Not essential film-noir, and maybe not even essential Kazan, but certainly a highly recommended film that begs to be discovered by a new generation of film lovers and reappraised by the old guard who may have missed it back in the day. 7.5/10 "Panic In The Streets" is an exciting and atmospheric thriller in which director Elia Kazan achieved a great sense of realism by shooting the movie in New Orleans, using a number of local people to fill various roles and making intelligent use of improvisation. As a result, the characters and dialogue both seem very natural and believable. An important deadline which has to be met in order to avoid a disaster, provides the story with its great sense of urgency and pace and the problems which delay the necessary action from being taken, then increase the tension to a high level.

Following a dispute between the participants in a card game, a man called Kochak (Lewis Charles) is shot and his body is dumped in the dock area. When the body is found and the coroner identifies the presence of a virus, U.S. Public Health official Dr Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) is called in and his examination confirms the presence of pneumonic plague. Reed insists that all known contacts of the dead man must be inoculated without delay because the very infectious nature of the disease means that without such action, anyone infected could be expected to die within days.

As the identity of the dead man is unknown, the task of finding his contacts is expected to be difficult and this situation is not helped when city officials and the Police Commissioner are not fully convinced by Reed's briefing. They doubt that the threat to the public is potentially as serious as he claims it is and their initial lack of commitment is just the first of a series of obstacles which prevent action from being taken urgently. The investigation that follows is hampered by a lack of cooperation from the immigrant community, a group of seamen, the proprietor of a restaurant and also some illegal immigrants before the man's identity and his contacts are eventually found.

Kochak, an illegal immigrant, had been in a gang with Blackie (Jack Palance), Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Vince Poldi (Tommy Cook) and when gang leader Blackie becomes aware of the ongoing police investigation, he presumes that Kochak must've smuggled something very valuable into the country. As Kochak and Poldi were related, Blackie assumes that Poldi must know something about this and goes to find out more. Poldi, however, is very ill and unable to provide any information. Blackie brings in his own doctor and together with Fitch starts to move Poldi out of his room and down some stairs and this is when they meet up with Reed and an exciting chase follows.

Richard Widmark gives a strong performance as an underpaid public official who copes efficiently with the onerous responsibilities of his job whilst also dealing with his domestic preoccupations as a family man. In an unusual type of role for him, he also portrays the determined and serious minded nature of Dr Reed very convincingly. Jack Palance's film debut sees him giving an impressive performance as a ruthless thug who misjudges Kochak's reason for leaving the card game and also the reason for the intense police investigation. His distinctive looks also help to make his on-screen presence even more compelling.

In typical docu-noir style, expressionist cinematography and neo-realist influences are utilized in tandem to effectively capture the atmosphere of the locations in which the action takes place. Elia Kazan directs with precision throughout but also excels in the memorable chase sequence in the warehouse and on the dockside. I wonder what audiences of the day thought when first laying eyes on Walter Jack Palance (Blackie). Certainly he looks like no one else of the time, that skull-like face, flattened nose, and elongated body-- even now he remains an unsettling presence. And what could be more appropriate than his emergence out of those dingy New Orleans slums that appear to fester like the plague Blackie is loosing on the city. I'm just sorry he didn't have more scenes.

The movie itself is very skillfully assembled— the morgue's black humor, the Widmark- Douglas interplay, the un-touristy locations, the battles among officials—all are woven into a tensely realistic thriller with a menace unlike others of the time. Even Widmark's domestic scenes that put a woman (Bel Geddes) on the marquee manage not to be too disruptive. Director Kazan certainly shows his aptitude for helming a studio (Fox) product, no matter how he may have felt about the commercial aspect.

Widmark does a solid low-key job as the public health officer. But my money is on the one- and-only Zero Mostel. Was there ever a sweatier performer who could squeal louder or get pushed around more than the bulky fall guy (e.g. The Enforcer, 1950). That scene with Mostel, where Palance argues with Mostel's shrewish wife (Liswood), is a gem of frantic subservience as Mostel tries to pacify each like some berserk pinball. Too bad he lost so many years to the blacklist. (I wonder if it was the voluble Kazan who named him.)

But it's not only the professionals that add color. The locals add both character and authenticity, especially the two Asian guys interviewed by the cops. That whole scene has an improvised air, as if Kazan recognized their potential and fashioned a nifty little scene on the spot. Then too, that colorful hiring hall with all the deck hands is pure inspiration. And what about those flea-bitten coffee shops that have me running to the nearest Denny's.

Anyway, the movie is still a well-staged, riveting thriller with an apocalyptic air that oddly foreshadows many of today's mega-hits. Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can. No, not really, but this is a very good film indeed, and is sadly a forgotten gem. Black and white suits the film.

Straight forward formula, a guy had the plague and the authorities have to track down everyone he came in contact with before they die.

Very well directed, and the acting is great. Richard Widmark as the male lead is good but is completely over shadowed in the acting stakes by Paul Douglas as the police captain, and Jack Palance (never better than this) and Zero Mostel as the baddies. Sadly Palance went on to play similar characters in some really second rate gangster or war movies. Kazan's early film noir won an Oscar. Some of the reviews here go into extraordinary detail and length about the film and its symbolism, and rate it very highly. I can almost see where they are coming from. But I prefer to take a more toned-down approach to a long-forgotten film that appears to have been shot on practically no budget and in quasi-documentary fashion. Pneumonic plague is loose in the streets of New Orleans, and it is up to a military doctor (Widmark) and a city detective (Douglas) to apprehend the main carrier (Palance). The film is moody, shot in stark black and white, and makes very good use of locations. Widmark is wonderful as usual. Forget the symbolism (crime equals disease, and disease equals crime) and just enjoy the chase. It is not always easy watching a film like this now that we are well into this new century, as it is of a particular style that was very short-lived (post WWII through the early 1950s) and will unlikely be of interest to the casual film watcher. For those who will be watching this for the first time, sit tight for the big chase at the end. It is something else, and frankly I don't know how they filmed some of it. I can say it probably took as long to film the finale as it did the first 90 percent of the movie. As the film opens, two thugs kill another thug. When the body is discovered and about to be autopsied, the doctor realizes that although the man was shot dead, he was also suffering from the Pneumonic plague--a very nasty and more virulent version of the Bubonic plague! So, it's a race against time to find those who came in contact with the dead man and treat them immediately, otherwise a disaster could erupt.

Oddly, I actually know quite a bit about the Pneumonic plague, as I taught a series of lectures on it for my history classes. The film really did not do a good job of getting the facts right about the disease in that it looked little like what the people had in the movie. The biggest problem is that this illness is so incredibly grotesque that in 1950 they really wouldn't have been allowed to show it. Sure, there is high fever and coughing (they got this right) but also lots of bleeding and explosive vomiting of blackened blood--along with the enormously swollen lymph nodes like you'd get with the Bubonic plague--all purply and gross! I can certainly understand why they didn't go this far. Also, I am sure that the federal government would have had a much, much greater involvement in controlling and treating the disease--here in the film it was handled on a very local level and everyone seemed ill-prepared and a bit dumb. No one seemed willing to believe the doctors!! As for the acting, the film had some excellent actors here. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are, respectively, the public health doctor and police chief. Good actors but also known actors back in 1950. However, in his first film is the very menacing Jack Palance (still going by his original moniker, 'Walter Jack Palance') as well as the relatively unknown (at the time) Zero Mostel. Palance was great--very scary and very physically adept in his own stunts. Mostel played a heavy typical of his early work--a greasy and cowardly sort of evil.

Overall, despite really not getting the details right and wrapping everything up a little too neatly, the film is very tense and has excellent acting--and is well worth seeing. 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' owes more to British noir that its American counterparts. Like Reed's 'The Third Man (1949)' and Dassin's 'Night and the City (1950),' director Elia Kazan chose to film largely on location, capturing the fresh and vibrant decadence of the New Orleans slums. In a decision borrowed from the masters of Italian neorealism, he also hired many non-professional actors for minor roles, lending an air of authenticity to the cityscape. However, any further comparisons with neorealism would be misguided, for 'Panic in the Streets' is pure melodrama, of the best kind. A murdered illegal immigrant, fished out of the bay, is found to be infected with pneumonic plague, a deadly air-borne mutation of bubonic plague, which is transmitted from human-to-human and, untreated, has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark), an officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, convinces the doubtful police-chief (Paul Douglas) to undertake a city-wide manhunt for the men responsible for the homicide, lest they also be infected with the illness.

In my younger years, I found Wolfgang Petersen's 'Outbreak (1995)' to be among the most horrifying movies I'd ever seen. That thriller, which owes plenty to 'Panic in the Streets' {working title: "Outbreak"}, terrified me so efficiently because it depicted the ebola virus as both an invisible and invincible killer – how does one defend themselves against such a thing? Kazan's film is the first (that I know of) to approach the subject of biological epidemics, though it has difficulty ascribing visual recognition to an enemy that is basically undetectable to the human eye; it instead uses Jack Palance as a human personification of the Plague. Despite his venturing out among the filthy dregs of human society, you never get the sense that Clinton Reed is placing his own life at risk {some viewers have noted that Reed never inoculated himself against the plague, though I think it's safe to assume that he did so at the same time as the morgue staff}. Nevertheless, there's still a strong sense of urgency in the hunt for the infected man's killers, underground street-rats who pollute the sewers with their misdeeds.

In medieval times, when the Black Death (now widely believed to have been bubonic plague) swept across the civilised world, killing a third of Europe's population, many identified the destruction as being the work of the Devil. Jack Palance's character, Blackie, serves effectively as Satan in human form: the angular-jawed thug can occasionally be charming and charismatic, but is always liable to explode into fits of violence; his two hoodlums (played by Guy Thomajan and Zero Mostel), through terror more than anything else, are constantly grovelling at his feet. When one lackey falls ill with fever, Blackie deduces that the man's immigrant cousin must have "brought something in with him" (the irony of his conclusion not passing unnoticed), and so attempts to ascertain what this presumably valuable object must be. He cradles the dying Poldi in his arms, a grotesque display of faux affection that is both pathetic and unsettling. Blackie/Satan is finally stopped – not by the authorities, but by the burden of his own infection/evil – as he attempts to board a cargo ship, the primary vessel by which the Plague spread across Europe. Plague replaces femme fatale in this highly suspenseful noir shot in New Orleans by director Elia Kazan. Kazan as always gets fine performances from his actors but also shows a visual flair for claustrophobic suspense with a combination of tight compositions and stunning single shot chase scenes.

A man entering the country illegally is killed after a card game. It turns out he has a form of bubonic plague so it remains crucial not only to arrest the killers but to find an inoculate all those who have had contact. City and health officials implement a plan of secrecy rather than alert the community for fear the culprits will flee the city and spread the disease. A detective and an epidemiologist up against the clock form an uneasy alliance as they comb the waterfront employing their contrasting investigatory styles.

Streets raises a huge ethical question about the publics right to know as the medical officer argues for a media blackout thus possibly creating a greater risk to the community. Regardless of outcome, you still may find yourself second guessing the actions of the the film's protagonist.

Richard Widmark as Dr.Clint Reed and Paul Douglas as Detective Warren display short tempers and grudging respect for each other in their search for the killers. Barbera Bel Geddis as Reed's wife has some good moments with Widmark in some domestic scenes that bring the right touch of (restful more than comic) relief from the tensions of the desperate search amid the grim environs of the New Orleans waterfront impressively lensed by cinematographer Joe McDonald. Zero Mostel as a small time criminal is slimy and reprehensible but at times sympathetic. Walter Jack Palance as the skeletal Blackie (Black Death?) is simply outstanding. With riveting intensity Palance dominates every scene he is in not only with ample threat but disturbing charm as well. In addition he displays a formidable athleticism that allows for a more suspenseful continuity, especially in the film's powerful final allegorical moments.

Panic in the Streets is probably Kazan's best non-Brando film. It's tension filled, suspensefully well paced and edited. It's ambient on locale setting lends a sense of heightened reality that allows Kazan the flexibility to display his visual style beyond the movie stage and with Panic he succeeds with aplomb. And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.

Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.

He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.

The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.

Check this out. It's good. *** outta **** A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.

Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks)

His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.

I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on. The title overstates the content of this movie somewhat, which might lead to some unrealized expectations. Frankly speaking, there's very little "panic in the streets" to be seen here. In fact, throughout the movie very few people actually know that there's a murderer on the loose who may well be spreading the plague to everyone and anyone he encounters. Having said that, what we do have here is a very well done story with a level of suspense that starts out reasonably high anyway (because, unlike the people "in the streets", the viewer knows what's going on) and that director Elia Kazan builds very deliberately. As the plague-infected killer is sought, one of the more interesting sidebars I found was the developing relationship between Dr. Reed (Richard Widmark) and Police Captain Warren (Paul Douglas). At the beginning, the two really don't like each other, even though they have to work together. By the end, they've forged a real bond of respect for each other. Kazan did a good job with that.

Pretty much all the performances here were excellent. Widmark and Douglas were great, and I was quite taken with a very early look at Jack Palance playing what would become his typical "heavy" role. I found very little to criticize here. Perhaps Barbara Bel Geddes came across as a little bit flat as Reed's wife Nancy, but her role wasn't really central to the story. All in all, an excellent piece of work. 9/10 One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten. This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience. This very good movie crackles with tension. The stakes are, of course, high--will the police and Widmark, the public health doctor, apprehend the criminals who don't know that they are carrying plague before a full-scale epidemic breaks out? But smaller plot elements introduce tension in every scene--between Widmark and the police captain, between the bad guys played by Palance and Mostel, between Palance and a dying plague-stricken man whom Palance mistakenly believes is the subject of a manhunt because he has smuggled in some valuable commodity, between Widmark and his wife, and with the underlying question of whether the public is better served by informing them of the danger or hiding the situation to avoid a full-scale panic. The movie is beautifully shot by Kazan, in extraordinarily well-choreographed long takes shot on location in New Orleans, and ends in a stunning climax, where Palance flees like a rat from his pursuers, through the docks and warehouses of the city. The commentary is superb, probably the best that I've heard, covering the cinematography, the framing and lighting of shots, the production design, the casting of non-professional actors in small roles, and the ironies and parallelisms in the plot, like an insightful seminar on 1950s film techniques and film noir generally. Watch it once to enjoy the film on its own, and, if you are interested in film-making, a second time with the commentary on to learn. Most movies about, or set in, New Orleans, turn out to be laughably bad, and laughably inaccurate (examble: remember "The Savage Bees"? But I'll make an exception for "Tightrope", which almost got it right).

Here's one that doesn't inevitably get it wrong. The accents are not too bad (yes, the "yat" accent down here is way more Brooklynese than southern), the city of 1950 is shown the way it is/was, without the obligatory "tourist" shots, and they understand a good drama without trying to make everyone a "quirky southerner".

One of the few films to do justice to this city, and a good film to boot.. I first saw Martin's Day when I was just 10 years old, at home, on The Movie Channel, and still remember the impact it made on my life. It touched me as no other film had touched me, and I remember balling my eyes out.

After the first time I saw it, I couldn't find it anywhere else. I would ask around and no one had ever heard of the film! I guess it was one of those more rare films that not many people knew about, because no one, and I mean no one, knew what I was talking about. I searched and searched throughout the years, checking video stores shelves and scanning cable TV listings, but always came up short. Finally, in 1996 I found out I could special order it, I did, and have probably watched it at least 50 times since--and it still makes me cry, every time.

Martin's Day is about Martin Steckert, a man who is in prison (but genuinely a good guy), who yearns to make it back to the special lake where he grew up as boy. This was a special place, where he lived off nature, spent time with his dog, and was left alone to enjoy life. Soon into the movie, he escapes and starts making his way back to the lake.

It isn't long before the cops find him, and Steckert grabs a child as a hostage to convince the police to back off. Soon Steckert and his hostage (the 2nd Martin) become best friends, and have many fun adventures together--from robbing a toy truck, to hi-jacking a train, all on the way to this special lake.

Throughout the movie, Steckert has great flashbacks of him at the lake as a boy.

I won't ruin the ending for you, but I will tell you, this movie is a must see. It is the BEST movie I have EVER seen in my life! I am, without a doubt, the biggest fan of this movie EVER! I managed to find the song that the two Martin's are singing throughout the movie ("I'm going back, to where I come from...). I'm even planning a trip to Canada to see the lake and cottage where Martin's Day was filmed. Crazy, I know--but that movie just means so much to me. A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his "prisoner". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province. I don't believe this was an acting challenge for Richard Harris. This was an uncomplicated plot, yet interesting. It is a good movie to watch when you don't want to do a lot of thinking, just want to be told a simple story. The Canadian scenery was breathtaking. The beautiful Fall shots alone made the picture worth seeing. "An album of songs so old everyone thinks they're new." This film has the elusive combination of pace and mood that set some films apart from the opening moments. And why not? Towering talent from Dame Judith Dench as a widow who plays saxaphone with a street musician to help him get the songs right, to Olympia Dukakis as the merry widow living in a Scottish castle on the alimony of her many marriages, to Ian Holm as the drummer who loved all the members of a World War II all girl (more or less) swing band. But wait, there's more. Add in Leslie Caron on bass, and the incomparable Clio Laine on lead vocal, at last, and the Blonde Bombshells are the hottest band in England since the Beatles. Well, OK, not really, but this movie is a winner.

Elizabeth (Dench) spends the whole film trying to reunite the Blonde Bombshells to play at her granddaughter's school dance. And before you roll your eyes, imagine how difficult and courageous it would be for a bunch of sexegenarian women to step onstage in front of the Britney Spears generation following an act called "Open Wound."

In an age when actresses careers are over by the time they're 30, most bands' second album is a greatest hits compilation, and music more than a month old has almost no chance of airplay, it's great to see real talent, real music and a really good movie come from, where else, the BBC.

I love this movie, and I know I'll watch it many more times, and enjoy it more each time. Charming in every way, this film is perfect if you're in the mood to feel good. If you love jazz music, it is a must see. If you enjoy seeing loveable characters that make you smile, can bring a tear to your eye and swing like there's no tomorrow this film is for you. If you are looking for an intense, deep, heavy piece of art to be dissected and analyzed perhaps you best stick with something by Darren Aronofsky (in other words - reviewer djjohn lighten up, don't you know a good time when you see one!) My only complaint is that the movie was just too darn short. I guess I'll just have to watch it several more times to get my fill. Inspired at least a little by Ivy Benson & Her All Girls Orchestra, who performed throughout the war years at the Covent Garden Opera house, this film chronicles the attempts by an elderly saxophone player to reform the (almost) all girl band with whom she played as a schoolgirl towards the end of WWII. All too brief flashbacks to the original band on stage bring us some wonderful music, and help to fill in the background to the band members, and in particular to the girls' relationships with the lone male member - their transvestite drummer (who is trying to dodge the call-up).

Ian Holm ("Lord of The Rings", "Cromwell and Fairfax") and Judi Dench turn in superb leading performances as the recently widowed Elizabeth, and the conniving, womanizing Patrick, the drummer. The late Joan Sims is perfect as the band's leader, now playing bar piano at the sea-side, and June Whitfield glows as the Salvation Army trombone player. Cameo appearances by other greats like Cleo Laine, Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Billie Whitelaw make this an unforgettable experience. The movie is a romp down memory lane, with an all star cast of what ought, by all rights, to be a bunch of over-the-hill actresses. All I can say is, I hope I look as good at their age! Leslie Caron, in particular, is still an incredible fox, at 69 years of age. She certainly still gets my pulse going! As I watched it, I was mentally berating the casting director for not using women of the appropriate age. Afterwards, I looked these girls up, and discovered that every one of them is old enough to have been performing in the London of 1944 (although this might be a bit of a stretch for Judi Dench).

If you like swing bands, thrive on nostalgia, or just want to see how good a woman can manage look with almost three quarters of a century behind her, don't miss this film.

Much to her adult children's chagrin & nearly immediately after Elizabeth's (Dame Judy Dench) husband's death, the widowed, attic tenor saxophone player becomes bent upon openly returning to her musical hobby. Now that George is dead, Elizabeth no longer has to practice playing sax in the attic. As she grows more pleased with playing in the open, Elizabeth takes a stroll along memory lane, remembering when she was a 15 year old member of a jazz swing band, "The Blonde Bombshells": supposedly, an all-girl WWII group of talented jazz swing musicians. One of the "Blonde Bombshells'" band members was a womanizing, cross-dressing drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), with whom Elizabeth remained friends.

Both Patrick & Elizabeth's 12-year-old grand-daughter, Joanna (Millie Findlay), press Elizabeth to round up the former band members & take up performing together again; this time as a bunch of sexagenarians. Among the band members she finds are the (still foxy!) bass playing, Madeleine (Leslie Caron); Dinah (Olympia Dukakis), a trumpet playing, alcoholic & out-spoken, money-grubbing divorcée & widow living off of wealth from her many (ex)marriages in a Craigievar Scottish castle; Gwen, (real life US star jazz singer, Clio Laine), having at the lead vocal; Annie, (June Whitfield), as the Salvation Army trombone player; Betty, (the late piano player, Joan Sims), who's located training the ivory keys in a Hastings pub.

As Elizabeth, Patrick & Joanna scout the world for members of the 1940's band & try to convince them to resume performing together, Elizabeth is oft times beside herself as she learns more than she wants to know about their adult lives--including her own--while having a blast playing terrific music with the last of the living 'Blonde Bombshells'.

Amusing, nostalgic, historical, sentimental, multi-generational entertainment that is seriously fun. The actors deliver wonderful performances. Regardless of their ages, they are still Bombshell entertainers who put on quite a show. (The DVD is now out & worth owning because of the bonus features & Dolby Digital sound). Surely as a fan of any of these terrific actors the VHS is a collector's item. No message. No symbolism. No dark undercurrents.Just a wonderful melange of music, nostalgia and good fun put to-gether by people who obviously had a great time doing it. It's a refreshing antidote to some of the pretentious garbage being ground out by the studios. Of course ANYTHING with the incomparable Judi Dench is worth watching. And Cleo Laine's brilliant jazz singing is a bonus. This lady is in the same league as the late Ella. This goes on my movie shelf to be pulled out again anytime I feel the need for a warm experience and a hearty good natured chuckle. Just a wonderful film! This is a quirky movie that the Brits do so well. Low budget, cameo type roles, well executed. The story is a little weak, a recently widowed Judi Dench decides to round up the "blonde bombshells' a all (well almost all) girl band who performed during the war in London. The obligatory son/daughter who thinks she's gone potty. I did like the way the movie lets young people see that they don't have a monopoly on feelings, love and even lust! That the "old wrinklies" can have a good laugh too. Judi Dench was superb as always, a pity we didn't get to see more of the other "blonde bombeshells, the end was a little rushed I thought. I kept thinking as I watched that David Jason would have made an even better Patrick than Ian Holm, although he was quite adequate as the "transvestite" drummer. All in all a cheery movie well worth a night in with the girls :) I'm so glad I happened to see this video at the store. I was looking for some happy movies and this one turned out to be a true gem. I loved that the movie, a love story of sorts, wasn't about some beautiful twenty-somethings; rather, it's a story of some beautiful sixty-somethings, who used used to be twenty-somethings. It's a good, well written, and wonderfully acted story with fabulous WWII band music thrown in as well. It's also got a delightful surprise in it for Scottish castle lovers. It left me smiling and ready to watch it again, which I did a couple more times before I turned it in. I highly recommend it. A charming little film set in the UK about the reunion of a WWII all girl (almost) swing band. A fine cast of oldsters bring lighthearted perspectives on life to this fun tale with an award winning performance by Dench and Laine's always great "pipes". Time well spent and a fun watch for all. This film pulls you in from the get-go because it grabs our attention by acknowledging, yeah, that this story is opening with a cliché – a funeral.

In hands other than Judi's I wouldn't have given it an 8 as this material has been done over and over again: The great reunion of a once famous, pick one please, team, army platoon, theatre group, singers, band.

But this movie never stoops to cheap sentimentalization, and when you think it is going to it swoops off in another direction. A case in point is the flowers that are sent by an admirer to Judi.

The band members are an interesting group and ride above the clichés too. One is in jail, one has found religion, one is an alkie, and one has sunk into dementia. But the joie de vivre rediscovered by Judi, ignited by her granddaughter's interest, carries us along and makes us overlook the sometimes simplistic nature of the plot.

The cast are a who's who of talent, Leslie Caron, the incomparable jazzist Cleo Laine with her amazing high notes, a last performance from Joan Sims, brava Joan, a cute as a button flirtatious Ian Holm having a ball, and Olympia Dukakis as a money-grabbing divorcée living in the highlands of Scotland with her ghillie and her whiskey, The closing scene is standard Hollywoodland fare, the judgmental children of the star converted to fun-loving supporters, the old lovers reunited, the youngsters swept up in the old timers' music. Life should be this simple. But I would watch it again, and intend to, with my own granddaughter. For in the right hands, sometimes one just loves these brazen old clichés. 8 out of 10. "I hate those stories that begin with a funeral, but I'm afraid this one begins the day we buried George. Not that we buried him. In the interests of the environment we had him incinerated." So speaks Elizabeth (Judi Dench), George's widow. She's led a comfortable, predictable life with George. She has two grown children and a 12-year-old grandchild. But when she was 15 and in school, in the midst of World War II, she played the sax at night in an all-girl (almost all-girl) band called The Blonde Bombshells. The 'almost" was because the drummer was Patrick, a charming rogue who had no desire to fight and possibly be killed. With a yellow wig, a long red dress and makeup, Patrick looked almost as good as the others.

One afternoon after the funeral, Elizabeth finds herself in the attic of her home playing the sax she had put away. She used to practice, but only when George was out of the house on the golf course. Then two things happen. Her granddaughter, amazed at how good Elizabeth is, starts talking about how the Blonde Bombshells could be reunited and play at her school dance. Then Elizabeth encounters Patrick (Ian Holm), now just as much an aging oldster as Elizabeth, and just as much attracted to her as he was more than 50 years ago. (He also was attracted to all the other members of the Bombshells. The roses that would appear on his bass drum had a special meaning that attested to his affection.) Well, why not see if the other band members can be located, and why not give it a shot for a reunion performance at her granddaughter's school?

Why not? One member of the band is gaga. One is dead. One is in jail. One has found salvation with the Salvation Army. One they can find no trace of. One is last known to be in the States. One is a professional singer and has no intention of doing a school gig, even for a reunion. But one by one Elizabeth and Patrick bring together the surviving members of the Bombshells. We don't know if enough of them can be found. The rehearsals more often than not turn into off-key shambles. While they do this, we share Elizabeth's flashbacks of what life was like when she and Patrick were young in war-time London, playing in the band while the bombs were falling. As terrible as it was, it was the most exciting time of their lives. When the night of Elizabeth's granddaughter's dance arrives, of course, the Blonde Bombshells, filled with jitters and renewed friendship, blow the youngsters away. Afterwards, Elizabeth informs us that the Bombshells are continuing to play at gigs, and that she and Patrick have no plans to get married...but see nothing wrong with a little fooling around.

This is sentimental hogwash, expertly done, and not bad at all. What makes it work are the skill and charm of Judi Dench and Ian Holm. When I hear the term, "warm-hearted comedy," I usually cringe unless the actors are first-rate. Dench and Holm are wonders to watch as they take something as light-weight and predictable as this script and turn it into something that charms us. Then there's the "old broad" gambit that's fun if you remember the old broads. Among the Blonde Bombshells are Leslie Caron, Joan Sims, Olympia Dukakis, Billie Whitelaw and Cleo Laine. Laine sings three numbers and almost over-balances the production. She is so strong and unique a jazz talent that while she's singing the program nearly becomes the Cleo Laine Show. Another attractive feature is the number of great WWII songs played in strong swing. It's rare that I sit down in front of the TV specifically to watch a particular programme. It's even rarer when I actually enjoy the programme in the end, but Last of the Blonde Bombshells was one of the best movies I think I've seen.

A remarkable cast, led by Dame Judi Dench and Ian Holm, and an excellent, witty and poignant script combined to make it a truly rewarding experience. I can't really express how good I thought it was, so I won't try, I'll just say, if you get the opportunity, PLEASE SEE IT!!!! I only hope it comes out on video. I grew up during the time that the music in this movie was popular. What a wonderful time for music and dancing! My only complaint was that I was a little too young to go to the USO and nightclubs. Guess it sounds like I'm living in the past, (I do have wonderful memories)so what's wrong with that?!!? World War 2 was a terrible time, except where music was concerned. Glenn Miller's death was a terrible sadness to us. This movie will be a favorite of mine. Clio Laine was excellent; what a voice! I don't know how I ever missed this movie. My main reason for this commentary is to alert the modern generation to an alternative to Rap and New Age music, which is offensive to me. Please watch this movie and give it a chance! This film was in one word amazing! I have only seen it twice and have been hunting it everywhere. A beautiful ensemble of older screen gems who still have that energy. Judy Denchs ability to carry the whole film was amazing. Her subtle chemistry with the knight in stolen armour was great This was a wonderfully clever and entertaining movie that I shall never tire of watching many, many times. The casting was magnificent in matching up the young with the older characters. There are those of us out here who really do appreciate good actors and an intelligent story format. As for Judi Dench, she is beautiful and a gift to any kind of production in which she stars. I always make a point to see Judi Dench in all her performances. She is a superb actress and a pleasure to watch as each transformation of her character comes to life. I can only be grateful when I see such an outstanding picture for most of the motion pictures made more recently lack good characters, good scripts and good acting. The movie public needs heroes, not deviant manikins, who lack ingenuity and talent. How wonderful to see old favorites like Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Cleo Laine. I would like to see this movie win the awards it deserves. Thank you again for a tremendous night of entertainment. I congratulate the writer, director, producer, and all those who did such a fine job. A great concept, a great cast, and what a pity there wasn't more time to flesh out the story. I loved it and wanted more. Dench, Dukakis, and Laine, now there are some REAL women! Still, Dench and her character alone had enough substance to carry the script over some of its lesser moments. I have it on tape and will continue to watch it, hoping that there is a clue at the end that suggests there will be a sequel.

Top drawer! - No Question! - No Argument!

Superb cast, more please!

If you can catch just about anything else written by Plater (or starring these wonderful actors). For anyone who doesn't know Plater has a real feeling for jazz, my recommendation is to see the 'Beiderbecke' trilogy whenever you can.

"There's three kinds of jazz - Hot, Cool and 'What time does the tune start?'" This movie was on British TV last night, and is wonderful! Strong women, great music (most of the time) and just makes you think. We do have stereotypes of what older people "ought" to do, and there are fantastic cameos of the "sensible but worried children". Getting near to my best movie ever ! This has just been broadcast on BBC and I am absolutely delighted to have seen it. As the credits rolled, the cast alone made certain that I would give it a go. After just five minutes I was completely immersed in this beautiful film.

Yes it was formulaic and predictable, but that somehow added to it's charm. The flashbacks to the forties were wonderfully placed and captured a feeling equalled in few productions.

A real feel-good film, punctuated throughout with outstanding music. When it's released, I'll buy it! How can you resist watching a film with some swing? It's a delightful little film full of wonderful actors and a wonderful story line. Too bad they don't tour out here...I'd go see them. See it if for no other reason than to hear some good music. The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.

Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.

Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.

Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's "talents" other than drumming.

Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.

I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.

Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff. Possible spoilers re: late-appearing cameos

Seldom does one see so many fine & memorable character actors (almost entirely actresses to be precise) in one film. Even though a few only appear for cameos, each one is a gem. The British do this mix of comedy and real-life pathos better than anyone IMO, so it is no surprise that most of the actors are Brits.

The music is great; no doubt much had to be dubbed (does Leslie Caron *really* play the bass so well? maybe - who knew?) But Clio Lane was unmistakably herself - her warm visceral sound still turns my crank like few other jazz singers.

As an aging musician myself, not quite as old and certainly not in that class of course, it was a heartening film as well -- a great film for anyone whose wondering if they're past it in their profession or avocation whatever it may be. And of course a great celebration of the life of the stage.

I missed a little of the opening, but a provisional 9/10 -- and it certainly makes we want to see the whole thing. For persons of a certain age, W.W. II was the defining time of their lives, and whatever followed could never compare. As the movie opens, a recently widowed but still lively woman (Judi Dench) hears a street musician gamely attempting to play the classic song, "Stardust."

This recalls her memories of when she played in an almost all-girl band that entertained between bomb raids during the War. The drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), happily avoided the draft and enjoyed the ladies.

Patrick and Dench's character meet and decide to reunite the band, which takes them on a series of mini-adventures. Despite ups and downs, the band does reunite and makes a successful reappearance.

The movie is exquisitely written and understated, with superb performances from all involved. The characters are well-developed and all people who have not quit living, despite their years. And there's all that glorious old swing music!

This isn't the pontification of Steven Spielberg, but a serious movie nevertheless. The War affected everyone and that lesson is not forgotten in a movie that isn't afraid to entertain as it teaches. We, as a family, were so delighted with 'The Last of the Blonde Bombshells' we purchased a copy for our home video library.

The acting is A1 and the cast contains many favorite actors and singers. The theme is unusual and the script well written. The music/songs are timeless and takes us back to our young days when we sang the songs at the top of our voices. To outline the story here would spoil the 'plot' as it is really nice to sit back and enjoy the story as it unfolds.

Full marks to this most enjoyable and uplifting production and we heartily recommend it to anyone who is looking for a belly-laugh and lots of music. It's a funny business, reviewing movies. These days when "internalized emotions" and "emotional detachment" are favored over straightforward sentimentality, it must be hard to stay faithful to your true feelings.

Soon after completing jury duties at the 58th Berlinale, I managed to catch Yoji Yamada's Kabei.

After the screening, I watched folks dreamily amble out of the theatre hall, watery-eyed, men, women, and reviewers alike. Even the director of the Berlinale, obviously a hardened viewer of cinema, confessed to having been caught unawares and found himself crying three quarter's way into this unashamedly sentimental experience.

But what really surprised me were the reviews that came after. Despite being ineffably moved by the film, many reviewers chose to be tepid and emotionally non-committal in their writing. Apparently, post weeping, they had put on their "thinking cap", and consequently, missed out on what I felt was the genius about Kabei.

Allow me to explain.

Set in pre-war Japan, the story of Kabei revolves around one writer's family, and their fate therein, after he is held in jail for what was described as "thought crimes" against the Imperial will. Through a series of protracted emotional scenes, Yamada gets us familiar with the man, his loyal wife and two daughters, as well as three side characters—the man's pretty young sister, a bumbling ex-student, and a cad of an uncle – all come to help the family cope with their plight, in the absence of the man of the house.

The story moves along at a slow albeit steady pace, and heartbreaks occur at precisely the moments everyone is able to predict. This of course makes it near impossible for anyone in the audience to get too emotionally distraught by any dramatic event.

In other words, although you learn to love the family and their helpers, and sympathize with their unfortunate situation, you get so lulled by the certainty of the plot that you find yourself expecting a particular kind of ending.

However, two hours into the film (don't worry, Yamada provides the viewer with sufficient moments of gravity and levity to tide you along), he slaps you with what I can only describe as "the sting". All that you have assumed to be what the story was about—an innocent man wrenched from his faithful wife and daughters – now suddenly points to one of the family helpers. Someone you have hitherto taken for granted is now thrown into an unexpected twist of fate.

At this point, something curious happened in the theatre I was in. Everyone started sobbing with little or no inhibition.

"My word!" I muttered under my breath. It struck me then that "Kabei", in the final analysis, was more than a film about a family torn apart by an empire on the verge of war. It was, in fact, a cunning examination of one common human foible: How little we cared about the secret feelings of people who are closest to us.

Now, the most common criticism made about the film was that it was technically solid, but lacked innovation. That's what happens when reviewers put on their proverbial thinking cap, I guess. With Kabei, I believe Yoji Yamada knew exactly what trick he was going to employ to touch on one unique aspect of humanity. A wicked old trick he so seamlessly applied in the Tora-san series, and later, in Tasogare Sebei.

After lulling the audience into a sort of narrative comfort zone, he throws us into a realm of emotions rarely explored in cinema.

This, to me, is the most effective cinematic tool of all. One which avoids detection, but affects you deeply. And proof of its effectiveness was a thousand wet pieces of Kleenex, thrown into a litter bin just outside of that thousand-seater cinema hall.

Now if only some reviewers would resist being so caught up with being smart that they forget what cinema is really about. Human emotions. Pure and simple. "Kaabee" depicts the hardship of a woman in pre and during WWII, raising her kids alone after her husband imprisoned for "thought crime". This movie was directed by Yamada Youji, and as expected the atmosphere of this movie is really wonderful. Although the historical correctness of some scenes, most notably the beach scene, is a suspect.

The acting in this movie is absolutely incredible. I am baffled at how they managed to gather this all-star cast for a 2008 film. Yoshinaga Sayuri, possibly the most decorated still-active actress in Japan, will undoubtedly win more individual awards for her performance in this film. Shoufukutei Tsurube in a supporting role was really nice as well. It was Asano Tadanobu though, who delivered the most impressive performance, perfectly portraying the wittiness of his character and the difficult situation he was in.

Films with pre-war setting is not my thing, but thanks to wonderful directing and acting, I was totally absorbed by the story. Also, it wasn't a far-left nonsense like "Yuunagi no Machi, Sakura no Kuni", and examines the controversial and sensitive issue of government oppression and brainwashing that occurred in that period in Japan. Excellent film, highly recommended for all viewers. My introduction into Yoji Yamada's cinematic world is through his famed and recent Samurai Trilogy with The Twilight Samurai, The Hidden Blade and Love and Honor. I had enjoyed all three films, and looking at the prolific, veteran director's filmography, I think it'll take me a very long while to watch all his films, especially the Tora-san series. Needless to say when Kabei Our Mother has finally reached our shores, I jumped at the chance to watch what would be an ode to Mothers everywhere, celebrating their innate love for their children.

Based on the autobiography of Teruyo Nogami, Kabei - Our Mother tells of a close knit family of four – Mother Kayo "Kabei" (Sayuri Yoshinaga), Father Shigeru "Tobei" (Mitsugoro Bando), eldest daughter Hatsu (Mirai Shida) and youngest child Teru (Miku Sato). From the get go their lives would be changed forever, when Shigeru gets arrested under the Peace Preservation Law for his morally controversial writings against the nation, set in the late 30s where Japan had begun their "crusade" in China, and thereafter their participation in WWII.

So begins Kabei's struggle to hold down jobs to feed her family, and the frequent, difficult meetings with her husband behind bars. Help comes from relatives, especially on Shigeru's side, since Kabei's own dad had adopted an "I told you so" attitude with her choice of spouse. Shigeru's one time student Yama (arthouse buffs should recognize Tadanobu Asano here) provides laughter as a bumbling man who slowly becomes confidante and surrogate guardian to the children, and Kabei's sister in law Hisako (Rei Dan) from Hiroshima, which I believe would have sounded some hindsight alarm bells as to her unfortunate fate as the film progresses through its timeline.

While the film centers primarily on how the kids are growing up under the presence of their mom, and in a distant relationship with their dad, what I enjoyed is how the microscopic family events unfold under the macroscopic worldwide events that have impacted on the common folk in Japan. It's against the historical backdrop of Japan's push to regional dominance, and there are characters here that don't mask those ambitions, even discussing what the country would eventually do should it be successful in holding onto conquered lands. This is something I rarely see in Japanese films, being that frank in their discussion of that era, and also to get a glimpse of how the common man have to struggle against domestic issues made all the more difficult with resources channeled toward the war effort.

The actresses casted here are pitch perfect in their delivery and roles, be they the veterans or the child actors. Actress Sayuri Yoshinaga deserves special mention for her role as the motherly figure who has to dig deep and find that inner strength to carry the household through under trying circumstances, while Mirai Shida and Miku Sato are lovable as the understanding children who have to learn to make do and compromise. Each scene with the three of them together just makes it heart wrenching when the going gets tough, or fill your heart with Joy should they be celebrating. Before long you'll soon find yourself being attracted to want to be part of this family, thanks to the primary cast's powerful performances, with Yoji Yamada coaxing some really natural performances from the kids.

Kabei - Our Mother boasts some stunningly beautiful art direction, and is classy in its delivery of both happy and sad moments without going over the top, or relying on cheap melodrama to cheapen the emotions it seeks from the audience. There are plenty of little things here done right which makes it pitch perfect, with every scene not being wasted, and with every nuance very meaningful in conveying its message across, be it compassion or love.

Aside from the very abrupt ending (I had hoped that it could have continued for a lot more, despite its more than 2 hours runtime), Kabei Our Mother comes highly recommended, and you'll find it difficult to be holding back either your tears, or that thought about your own mom and her sacrifices she makes for you on an everyday basis. Just what those sacrifices are should you need another reminder, then the scene during the end credits roll will remind you of the stuff that you'd probably have taken for granted. A Chinese scholar who criticizes harshly the arrogant nationalist, warmongering policies of the ruling clique around the emperor in pre-war Japan, is accused of being a 'communist' and jailed for life. His loving wife, who supports totally her husband and his ideas, is left alone to save her family from starvation. This movie is a huge statue erected in praise of the role of the mother in the history of mankind. Sayuri Yoshinaga is not less than sublime in the title role and it was a monumental scandal that she didn't get an Asian Oscar for the best female role in 2009. It went to a young girl with very limited acting potential.

This deeply moving and most 'human' feature is a must see for all 'true children' on earth. Kabei: Our Mother (2008) is a poetic and sublime beauty from Japan. A real weeper! I had heard great reviews for the film and rented it from Netflix. Am I glad I did! In many ways this film reminded me of the old style of Japanese classic film-making from the 1940's and 1950's that I've come to love so much, such as seen in Yasujiro Ozu pictures -- the title credits even begin in the same way, with the Japanese letters (characters) in red against neutral color burlap material. I immediately thought: this director loves Ozu. The same style was used too: mostly indoor sets with only a few outdoor scenes. Even a couple of "pillow shots", as Roger Ebert calls them. The strength of the film is built on the love of the characters for one another.

The story follows the lives of a Japanese family before, and during, and after, World War Two. The mother takes care of her growing girls the best she can after the father (a University professor) is arrested for anti-war sympathies. He's never freed and only has a few brief meetings with his wife in prison before he dies of starvation and disease. Meanwhile a former student of the professor comes by often to help take care of the mother and two girls. He begins to fall in love with the mother and is a substitute father for the two girls. But war starts and he's drafted and they have to say an abrupt farewell. Will they ever express their love for one another? Will he ever return from the war?

There is so much heart and gentle spirit in the performance of the lead actress, Sayuri Yoshinaga. She's almost a Madonna type, she's so beautiful! Big soulful eyes and flawless skin. The actor who plays the student is phenomenal as well: his name is Tadanobu Asano. What a sensitive performance. There is no macho in him at all; he's gentle and kind. I'd certainly love to see both of these two in other movies. I think I'll check to see what's available for them. The two little child actresses are wonderful too.

The film is just released on NTSC DVD for American audiences, with very easy to read English subtitles. I gave it a 10 out of 10 on the IMDb. I cried almost as much as with the Japanese film classic Twenty-Four Eyes (1954). Don't miss this film! Actually one particular person/character isn't "right there", but my summary line is referring to the power of the movie. And this is all achieved without any fancy camera moves and/or big production sets, but with a great story and very (believable) and good actors conveying the story (arc).

You could call it a companion piece to great japan movies/cinema (such as Tokyo Story etc.), not so much story-wise of course, but more mood-wise! Great acting, nuances in the performances that are truly gems. If you're eager to experience a touching story and want to see a movie touching you emotionally, than this is the one to go. As you have noticed (as with many of my reviews), I'm not getting into the story. There are places here at IMDb where you can look those up, I'm not one to spoiler the story whatsoever! I don't know why some guys from US, Georgia or even from Bulgaria have the courage to express feelings about something they don't understand at all. For those who did not watch this movie - watch it. Don't expect too much or don't put some frameworks just because this is Kosturica. Watch the movie without prejudice, try to understand the whole humor inside - people of Serbia DID actually getting married while Bil Clinton bomb their villages, gypsies in all Balkans are ALWAYS try to f*ck you up in any way they can, LOVE is always unexpected, pure and colorful, and Balkans are extremely creative. For those who claims this is a bad movie I can see only that the American's sh*t (like Meet Dave, Get Smart etc) are much much worse than a pure, frank Balkan humoristic love story movie as Promise me. The comment should be useful and on second place should represent the personal view of the writer. I think the movie is great and people watch it must give their respects to the director and story told inside. It is simple, but true. It is brutal, but gentle and makes you laugh to dead. "Father is still away on business" was headline of an review after "Promise Me This" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in "Life Is A Miracle". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film. Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it. For those of you who are not aware with the theme that Kusturica continues to explore intermittently in his films--the Western assault on traditional Serbian values--it will be impossible for you to understand his narratives. This continuous theme, expressed through fantasy and outrageous comedy as its vehicle, is one that Kusturica has elected to mandate. Since his fantastic work and Magnum Opus 'Underground', Kusturica's films' 'Black Cat White Cat', 'Life is a Miracle', and recently with 'Promise Me This', his slapstick, carnivalistic style underscores the 'westernization' of Balkan culture, its ambivalent arrival and assault on the traditional idiom. In the case of 'Promise Me This', the paradoxical world of city (urban space) and village (traditional idiom) space are contrasted. The world of the city reflects western attributes that have ensconced the spatial and temporal setting; organized crime, sexual exploitation, a ruptured sense of identity and vehement disregard for traditional values--as expressed toward the young kid--villager. The end of the film further exemplifies this notion as we observe a funeral mass and wedding on a one-way dirt road. They are on a collision coarse; appropriately, the wedding, which represents the lifeline and pulse of the village, i.e. traditional values, are about to collide with the funeral mourners, exemplifying the death of tradition within this context. Yet Kusturica brilliantly examines this theme through his own unique, stylistic singularity. With his outrageous and flamboyant style serving as a vehicle in its portrayal. Before 'Zavet' there was similarity between Tim Burton and Kusturica artistic vision. They find their own, poetic style, and then they cowardly become prisoners of it. Burton has (and still have) Depp, Kusturica has Miki Manojlovic, and somehow they got critical praise for repeating same formula over and over again. However, there are persons like me who find joke funny only when they heard it first time. That's main reason why Kusturica's worst movies are 'Black cat white cat' and 'Life is miracle'. 'Zavet' is something completely different. You may like it, you may hate it, but this is NOT just another Kusturica poetic – Balkanic dreamlike stuff. Of course, if you want to be praised, you have to play safe. It was very easy for Kusturica to make just another flying gypsies movie and get award. Fortunately, as a brave person he chooses to make movie that will be ironic look to his previous works. 'Zavet' can be described as a strong and very harsh parody on previous Kusturica movies directed by Kusturica himself. It is beautiful to see one big movie director to not take himself too seriously. This is quality that Kusturica have and even the biggest, like Bergman or Kubrick, didn't have. This movie is so meaningless that becomes absurd, so absurd that becomes deep, and so unfunny that becomes hilarious. Same stuff that make 'Plan 9 from outer space' cult would made this masterpiece to people who knows how to watch it. Average western viewer would not get few references. Most notable, tire shop owner is Srbljanovic , and this refers to Biljana Srbljanovic, famous Serbian dramatic writer. Politically, she is very active as left oriented liberal, and she despises Kusturica's political views and anarchism. Kusturica's 'everything but not subtle' take to her work was to castrate Miki Manojlovic in Srbljanovic shop. Second reference is made to Goran Bregovic – previous Kusturica's composer. He formed 'Funeral and wedding orchestra' and start performing around Europe. Although he is praised as big composer, Bregovic is just performer and most of his songs (if not all) are poor covers of traditional Serbian songs. Kusturica's take on Bregovic was to confront one wedding and one funeral, with funeral mocking the wedding. Also, music is covering western classics as 'London Bridge is falling down' or French lullabies. You find this unfunny? Now you see how we feel in Serbia when listening Bregovic's horrible covers. I really liked this movie because it is not pretending to be deep, it is so overfilled with symbols that it becomes parody, and it is beautifully directed, as all of his works are. If you like previous Kusturica's movies, there is a big chance that you will hate this. If you don't like couple of his last movies, you may find this as pleasant surprise, because this is like Fellini directing 'Pink Flamingos'. On purpose. I have massive respect for this guy after 'Zavet'. Next Tim Burton movie would surely have main character with pale faces. Next Kusturica movies can easily be about aliens invading Earth. That's the reason why he is most interesting director on Earth, whether you like it or not. It takes a Serbian or at least a Balkan familiarity to understand and enjoy many of the situations, characters and jokes of 'Zavet' as well as of many other films of Kusturica. See for example the opening scenes, with the remote village in the Serbian mountains, with the low-tech devices that defend the integrity and way of life of the inhabitants, the nostalgia for the good days of the Communist rule, and the awakening of the young brat watching his nude teacher at the sounds of the Soviet hymn. Kusturica not only tries to depart from the tragic history of Serbia described in his previous movies, but creates a whole world of himself in the process.

This is not a political film or not an explicit political film in any case. It's a fun film before all. Kusturica creates a set of characters that we care about. Music plays an active role in this film same as in all his other movies. His style is direct and grotesque, we now what he feels about his characters and we know that he wants us to feel the same. The space he develops melds present, history and magic, and the colours seem to be of a Douanier Rousseau of modern cinema.

This is not a perfect film either. The principal flaw is the length, some editing and shortening would have been useful, as at some point in time the director seems to have run out of ideas and repetitions show up. It is yet one of the most catching, amusing, moving films that I have seen lately. The movie celebrates life.

The world is setting itself for the innocent and the pure souls and everything has "Happy End", just like in the closing scene of the movie.

The movie has wonderful soundtrack, mixture of Serbian neofolk, Gypsy music and jazz.

This movie is very refreshing piece of visual poetics.

The watching experience is like you've been sucked in another colorful, romantic and sometimes rough world.

Like Mr. Kusturica movie should be. Not for people without swift mind or without a drop of Balkan blood in their veins. If You don't have any of these You can not understand it. And if you don't understand, you can't enjoy it. :) For example if you think Picasso is a name of a car produced by Citroen, probably if you see a Picasso's painting you just will walk by it, deciding that it's a trash-work of some street painter. :) So do not judge, before trying to understand it :) In the end i think it's a MUST for every one with open minds. Still my N1 remains The Shawshank Redemption! And remember that not all things can be put in frames. Because there are things in this world, that any frame just won't fit. I gave this film 8 out of 10, reserving 10 for e.g Amadeus, and 9 for Slumdog Millionaire most recently. This film is close to Slumdog, but it is difficult to judge on such film without understanding Balkan life, mentality and a soul which Kusturica presents masterfully. To understand it you really need to be one of Balkan. This is an amazing movie, much better and more contemporary of his previous films, which are boring at this time, I think Kusturica is moving forward with this movie. I like humour (Balkan humour), photography is an art itself, each scene is artistic to the limit. Plot is probably a fairy tale , don't recall it now, but remember reading to my daughter-going-to sleep a similar story. Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful. First of all, in defense of JOAN FONTAINE, it must be said that Ginger Rogers would have been terribly miscast as Alyce, the young British lady who has the title role. Fontaine makes a fetching picture as the heroine here, but her acting inexperience shows badly and her dancing is better left unmentioned. Fortunately, she went on to better things.

But here it's FRED ASTAIRE, GEORGE BURNS and GRACIE ALLEN who get the top billing--and they are excellent. Fans of Burns & Allen will be surprised at how easily they fit into Astaire's dance routines. Especially interesting is the big fun house routine that won choreographer Hermes Pans an Oscar. They join Astaire in what has to be the film's most inventive highlight.

Unfortunately, not much can be said for the slow pacing of the story--nor some of the stale situations which call for a lot of patience from the viewer. It must be said that some of the humor falls flat and the usual romantic misunderstandings that occur in any Fred Astaire film of this period are given conventional treatment. Only the musical interludes give the story the lift it needs.

Some pleasant Gershwin tunes pop up once in awhile but not all of them get the treatment they deserve. The nice supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner, at his best in a polished comic performance as a conniving servant, Constance Collier and Montagu Love (as Joan's father mistaken as a gardener by Astaire).

It's a lighthearted romp whenever Burns & Allen are around to remind us how funny they were in their radio and television days. Both of them are surprisingly adept in keeping up with Astaire's footwork.

Director George Stevens makes sure that Joan Fontaine's hillside dance number with Fred is filmed at a discreet distance but clever camera-work cannot disguise the fact that she is out of her element as Astaire's dance partner, something she seems painfully aware of. I couldn't wait to get my hands on this one, when I read about Fred Astaire teaming up with George Burns & Gracie Allen in a movie with a script by P.G. Wodehouse and music by the Gershwins. It is definitely worth seeing, but lacks the cohesive quality of the Fred & Ginger movies.

The story would probably be better to read in a Wodehouse book, where the humor comes across better. Some of the acting is downright painful to watch (notably the young boy and the damsel).

But...! The funhouse dance is worth more than most movies. I never knew that Gracie Allen could dance, but boy does she in this movie. Have you ever tried to remain standing on one of those spinning discs in a funhouse? Imagine tapdancing on one in high heels! She keeps up wonderfully with Astaire and adds greatly to the overall quality of the picture.

Several nice songs, particularly fun are Nice Work if you Can Get It and Stiff Upper Lip.

Recommended for fans of Astaire, Burns & Allen. I had to go back and re-watch the funhouse dance as soon as the credits rolled. In a famous essay he wrote about Charles Dickens, George Orwell points out that many readers always regretted that Dickens never continued writing like he did in PICKWICK PAPERS: that is, he did not stick to writing funny episodic novels for the rest of his career. This would not have been too difficult for Dickens. His contemporary Robert Surtees did precisely that, only concentrating on the misadventures of the fox hunting set (MR. FANCY ROMFORD'S HOUNDS is a title of one of his novels). Among hunters and horse lovers Surtees still has a following but most people find his novels unreadable. Dickens was determined to show he was more than a funny man (and don't forget, his first book, SKETCHES BY BOZ, was also a funny book). So Dickens third book is OLIVER TWIST (which got pretty grim at points). Orwell says that for any author to grow they have to change the style of their books. Dickens would definitely (and successfully) have agreed to that.

But Orwell overlooked the genre writer who transcends his fellows. Surtees, as I said, is a genre writer concentrating on hunting - but not everyone is interested in hunting. But P.G.Wodehouse saw himself as an entertainer, poking fun at the upper reaches of the British social system. His Earl of Emsworth is prouder of raising the finest pig in England than being...well Earl of Emsworth! His Psmith is always prepared to counterattack when he is supposed to be submissive to an unfair superior. His Stanley Uckridge will always have a "perfect" scheme that should net a huge profit (but always manages to come apart at the end). And best of all, his Jeeves will always put his brilliant brain to work rescuing the inept Bertie Wooster, his boss. Since Wodehouse had a limited view of his mission as a writer - he was there to do cartoon figures of fun for the entertainment of the world - his books never lost their glow. They served (and still serve) their purposes. In fact, compared Wodehouse with his far more serious contemporary Evelyn Waugh, who also wrote funny books, but of a more intellectual type. The best of Waugh remains among the high points of 20th Century British literature: BRIDESHEAD REVISITED, DECLINE AND FALL, and the rest. But in his determination to make his points, if his points failed to interest the reader the book frequently collapsed. For every VILE BODIES there was some failure late in his career like THE ORDEAL OF GILBERT PINFOLD. While Wodehouse could do lesser hack work too, his falling did not go as far as Waugh's did.

Wodehouse also was a gifted lyricist (when you hear "Bill" in the score of SHOWBOAT, it is not Kern and Hammerstein's tune, but Kern and Wodehouse's tune transposed from "Oh Lady, Lady" a dozen years earlier). He was a handy dramatist too. So it is pleasing to see that he took his novel A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS and turned it into the screenplay here.

It has the normal Wodehouse touches. That perfect butler Keggs (Reginald Gardiner in a wonderful performance) is a scoundrel in rigging a "friendly" gambling game of chance among the staff of the stately home he heads. He is also unable to refrain, occasionally, from singing Italian opera - despite Constance Collier's attempts to control his impulse. This is typical Wodehouse characterization. So is the way the love affair between Lady Alyce and Jerry keeps going well and going down due to the antics of Keggs and young Albert, both of whom want to win that game of chance pot of cash. Wodehouse always does that type of plot switch, with antagonists switching their point of view depending on their present state of interest.

Wodehouse was also lucky here to have Burns and Allan to work with. It is generally considered that of all the films they made as supporting actors together (such as SIX OF A KIND and WE'RE NOT DRESSING) George and Gracie did their best support with Fred Astaire. The Fun House sequence, which includes the song "Stiff Upper Lip", is wonderful, as is an earlier sequence where the three do a "whisk broom" dance (that Astaire learned from Burns). But Gracie's marvelous illogical logic is used by Wodehouse in scenes with Gardiner (see how she manages to confuse him into giving her more money than her change deserves to be - only Albert happens to notice Keggs/Gardiner's mistake, and looks at Gardiner as though he's either stupid or mad). Her dialog with Lady Caroline (Collier)'s son Reggie (Ray Noble, the British band leader)leading him to imagine that he will marry her, but saying goodbye to Gracie as she drives off with George to get married is wonderful too.

The film supposedly failed at the box office because of the lack of Ginger Rogers in it, and the weakness of Joan Fontaine. Fontaine is not doing a remarkable job in the role, but the flaw is really Wodehouse's - he didn't make the character very interesting. But the film can stand without that, given the other performers and their characters, Gershwin's music, and Wodehouse's marvelous sense of fun. I just have to say, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. I cannot even count the number of times I've seen it. I was already in love with John Travolta, but the first time the camera pans up his body after he's all clean-shaven looking beautiful for his first trip to Gilley's, I was in awe. Debra Winger, as always, delivers a perfect performance as the young, naive wife of Bud, but with the necessary attitude to be married to a stubborn and hard-working cowboy. If you're not a country music person, which I wasn't, this is 1 soundtrack that'll have you singing right along with every word. If you get a chance, please see this movie-it won't disappoint. ********Spoilers--Careful*********

What can I say? I'm biased when it comes to Urban Cowboy. I love it and have watched it countless times--and usually find out something new about it with each viewing.

I think one of the things I like about it is that Urban Cowboy is about working class people, not rich people who live in either L.A. or New York. Well, it is true except for Pam.

Travolta plays Bud, a small town Texas boy who moves to Houston to work in the oil fields. And this is when Travolta actually played in good dramatic movies like Saturday Night Fever instead of playing stereotypical bad guys/good guys in big budget movies. This is a really good movie--the mechanical bull riding contest and two-step dancing may be silly, but you have to enjoy this for what it is.

Bud meets Sissy (played by Debra Winger with slutty brilliance)--and soon after, they are married and living in their dream trailer. But their relationship becomes a real life battle of the sexes. Bud wants to be a real cowboy. Sissy wants to be with a real cowboy. But in modern times, men's roles are not as clear. Where can Bud prove he's a real man? He can work his dangerous job by day and ride the mechanical bull by night--he can be a "urban cowboy." But Sissy wants to drive his pick-up truck, and she wants to ride the mechanical bull, too. So where does this leave Bud? As Sissy asserts her independence, she lies about riding the bull and flirts with the ex-con and prison rodeo star--a real bull rider--, Wes (played wonderfully greasy by Scott Glenn). Bud is threatened, and Bud and Sissy break up.

Sissy shacks up with Wes, who abuses her. Emasculating himself further, Bud becomes the boy toy of Pam, a rich girl whose Daddy is in oil and all that implies. Sissy comes by the trailer to clean it up--Pam doesn't do that kind of thing. She writes a make up letter to Bud, but evil Pam tears it up and takes the credit for Sissy's housework.

Bud's Uncle Bob dies tragically at work when lightening strikes and causes an explosion. Bud and Sissy have a chance at reconciliation, but are too stubborn. Later the mechanical bull riding competition is at Gilley's, and you know Bud is going to win. Pam realizes that Bud doesn't love her, but Sissy--he did it for her. Wes tries to rob Gilleys, but wouldn't you know that urban cowboy, Bud, saves the day and wins back the woman he loves.

Of course, you may ask yourself why Bud and Sissy would go to Gilleys about every night and "live like pigs." Maybe that contributed to their bad marriage. Or why didn't Bud stay with Pam--she wasn't that bad and had money. Or why they had to kill off Uncle Bob. Or why Bud and Sissy had such stupid friends like Marshall and Jessie who were always trying to break them up: Marshall says to Bud, "She {Sissy} rides that bull better than you do!" But part of the fun of Urban Cowboy is making fun of it a little bit--and saying, isn't that Bonnie Raitt on the stage! Very few movies have had the impact on American culture the way Urban Cowboy has. Thank god it was temporary. But UC is almost in a class by itself as one of those flicks that when you're flipping channels at 3:00AM you just can't take your eyes off....my top three are Animal House and Walking Tall BTW but that's beside the point. I remember Urban Cowboy hit the theaters and overnite there were honkytonks being opened on every corner, men were sporting cowboy hats with their penny loafers, and if you didnt know how to two-step you were considered a social moron! Personally I think it's a great movie. Travolta really surprised me on the heels of SatNiteFever. Who'd a thunk. He's actually believable too. The soundtrack is awesome. Too bad Charlene Tilton, of TV's Dallas fame ruined Johnny Lee's career cause that guy was just terrific. The show stealer here is Scott Glenn as the greaser ex-con redneck cowboy. And I ain't got nothing against greaser ex-con cowboys semi-being one myself, but I've always envied what I feel to be the greatest power line of all time...."Pack-at S*#t!" Sort of like Clint's "make my day." And watching him slap Sissy around is the closest thing I'll see to my Julia Roberts fantasy so..... Like I said, beautiful. 9/10 I must say as a girl with a cowboy of my own,I love this flick.It left me lovin them boots and wranglers even more.I told my friend about it and she loved it just as much,we were 'bout 13 at the time.I think it's the greatest love story ever told!I own it and never get tired of Bud & Sissy. I did not see this film in the theater. I confess to an anti-Vinnie Barbarino bias. Who the hell was John Travolta to be making movies? I remember the Oscar broadcast that year, with Travolta looking absolutely devastated when he didn't win. How dare he, when there were "real" actors in the running? I'm sorry John, you should have won. After catching this film on cable years ago, I fell in love with the entire movie. Bud, Sissy, Uncle Bob, Wes, all wonderfully done. I, also, confess to never passing it by when I channel surf. I HAVE to stop and watch. Over the years, I've learned to do most of the dialogue, dance with my thumbs in my waistband, and learned to appreciate Travolta more. The only disappointing thing to me was the oversight, on the soundtrack, of some of the music from Urban Cowboy. "Looking for love" defines the film, but Urban Cowboy was chock full of classics that DIDN'T make it to the soundtrack. It should have been a double CD........ While Urban Cowboy did not ooze with the same testosterone you might find at a rodeo, it did provide an accurate glimpse of that day and age, in urban Texas. I also think that to truly critique this movie, one would have to have lived in the time and relative place that it was made. There was good music, fun times and, yes, a few "rough and tumbles" at the honky tonk roadhouses. The relationship of Bud and Sissy, like "two ships passing in the night", was well conceived. When Pam tore up the note that Sissy had written to Bud, it echoed the tragedy of many true life romances. The entire story was well thought out. I thought the cast and crew did an excellent job. I thought the screen play was well written and directed. Scott Glenn should have received an Oscar for best supporting actor. This movie was a classic. I would have to say that this movie caught the best of a working man who learns from his mistakes. if we could all get along and learn the way everyone in this movie did. It had an important part of showing how family is an important part of life, and how pride can cause you to lose something important in life if we can not find a "BIG THROAT" and swallow are pride. This movie has it all, action, fighting, dancing, bull riding, music, pretty girls. This movie is an authenic look at middle America. Believe me, I was there in 1980. Lots of oil money, lots of women, and lots of honky tonks. Too bad they are all gone now. The movie is essentially just another boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, but it is redeemed by the actors and the music. There is absolutely no movie with any better music that this movie, and that includes American Graffiti. It is a movie I watch over and over again and never get tired of it. Every time I watch it, I am young again, and it is time to go out honky tonking. The only reason I only gave it a 9 is because you cannot rate a movie zero, I do not feel you should rate one 10. Does anyone know what kind of pickup John T drove? I looks like a mid to late 70's Ford. This movie is my favorite as well as my wife's. It was the first memorable movie we saw as a married couple. The pick up is of interest as it is similar to the first truck I drove and recently found another like it. I would like to restore the pick up I have to resemble the on in the movie. Also the music was awesome, and the acting was great. Where and what is the lady who portrayed John's aunt? Also did John have a stunt double for the scene on the tower when he almost fell? Also what year of Mustang did Debra W drive in this show. It looked like a 60's model. Thanks, I was about 11 years old i found out i live 0.48 miles from the uncle house. the uncle house is on Westway Dr, deer park, TX. they have added homes since the movie was made. i don't know the house number but you can go look it up. i am now 21 and i enjoy watching this movie. the bar on Spencer is no longer their. Pasadena ISD wants to build a school their. I drove by the house last week the house still looks great. My dad and uncle would go to the street where the house is and watch the actors come in and out of the house trying to make the movie. where john cross over the railroad cracks they have made 225 higher. when i hear about john loesing his son i start thinking about when he made urban cowboy he was 26 or 25 at the time. I grew up in Houston and was nine when this movie came out. As a result I don't remember anything about the movie. But I do remember the sensation it caused from Gilley's and the mechanical bull to Johnny Lee's hit song "Lookin' for Love" which still brings back memories of childhood whenever I hear it.

However, a few years ago I saw this movie for the first time as an adult and all I can say is, I was blown away. Few movies have hit me harder. This movie is as raw and real as you can get. From Uncle Bob's ranch house, the chemical plant in Texas City, Gilley's dance hall, and Bud and Sissy. And maybe for that reason it doesn't have a wider appeal. But no matter how you feel about country music (I for one can't stand it despite my Houston roots) Urban Cowboy is a unique slice of American pie. For that reason I love it! This is my FAVORITE ALL time movie. It used to be my Friday night movie with a pizza and bottle of wine when I was single. I first saw this movie with my aunt Brend and sister Chasity. I was in the 2nd grade. I fell in LOVE with Travolta and Sissy was my new best friend. I've read a lot of comments about why Bud left Sissy & how Sissy has to "learn to act" married. But let's go back and look at this for a second: SPOILER - My interpretation of the movie now, not when I was eight is this about Bud & Sissy's relationship takes a turn for the worst because she makes a fool of him at Gilley's riding the bull. They get in a huge fight. Bud tries to make Sissy jealous by asking Pam to dance. Sissy then thinks two wrongs will make a right and Wes asks her if "she needs any help". They're all on the dance floor acting like fools when Bud asks Pam, "when are you going to take me home and rape me?" Pam answers: "When ever you're ready Cowboy". Bud then goes home with Pam to her condo in downtown Houston. Which Daddy has bought for her with his oil money and "all that that implies". Bud is the one who cheats on Sissy. Sissy is waiting for Bud when he returns home the next day. Sissy is the ONE who leaves Bud. Then, it's up to Bud to prove to Sissy that he is a real "cowboy" and win her back.

Anyways, that's my interpretation. Everyone has their I'm sure! I love this movie.

And believe it or not, I got myself a REAL cowboy! I love him too! :) What an overlooked 80's soundtrack. I imagine John Travolta sang some of the songs but in watching the movie it did seem to personify everything that was 80s cheese. Clearly movies that rely on mechanical bulls, bartenders and immature relationships were in style. The best was his lousy Texas accent. Compare that to Friday Night Lights.I suggest watching Cocktail and Stir Crazy to start really getting into the dumbing down of film. Also, as a side note Made in America with Ted Danson and Whoopie Goldberg is an awesomely bad movie. I was so shocked to realize I had never watched it. One more weird movie of this genre would have to include Cadilac Man with Robin Williams. Just remember all of these BIG stars played big roles in these CHEESY movies.. Tom Cruise, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams and John Travolta I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America. How can anyone argue the fact that Urban Cowboy was, and still is, the best document of Texas life for the time period. Consider the following: men beat their wives, get drunk at bars nightly, get married to settle a fight, commit adultery, and compete on mechanical bulls. Try and name a movie that depicts real life so vividly. They dont make them anymore. It seems current films are always about people with lots of money, they live in huge homes, drive expensive cars and don't work. This movie has a celebration scene about getting a trailer for pete's sake !

Anyway, I watch it at least once a week. No kidding. I have dissected this movie from end to end. feel free to email me to learn more about my reason for calling it a documentary. Consider the following scenes: Bud sees Sissy - they are split up - he amicably honks and waves, she flips him the bird - he returns half the peace sign honking his horn to add impact then tears off.

Buds mom calls him approx. 18 hours after he gets into town, on a Sunday, to see if he has a job yet - all he has accomplished is getting drunk and laid(x2), with help from his uncle and aunt who cover for him.

"You all live like pigs" Think about why this scene is needed. Think about it. Was it necessary ? Could we not figure it out without showing the filthy sink ? God I love that !

Sissy allows Wes to help her ride the bull. Only a few days (or possibly the next day) after Wes just kicked the crap out of her husband. Steve asks - Hey Sissy, remember Wes ? Oh yeah, didnt you beat my husband up the other night, so let's get this lesson goin', to make no mention of the fact that she seeks solace in him later during one Bud and Sissy's many fights, which by the way all take place in public - in Gilley's !

The Wedding reception picture taking session (oh the humanity !) could they at least arrange or move the chairs out of the way. "My legs are sweatin' momma"

In conclusion, you don't put scenes like this in a movie to try and show insight into human psychology. It is a documentary of real life.

I only wish there was a director's cut.... This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie. Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like "Saturday Night Fever", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them. don't mind the soundtrack, which is played out by now.

Still, Debra Winger is always interesting and while this was an earlier role for her, she is quite good as Cissy, girl from the wrong side of the tracks, lived in trailer with Bud, (Travolta), only to be replaced for a time by city slicker Madolyn Smith as a rival.

I agree with an earlier review regarding Scott Glenn, he is used for plot only, thrown in to the mix to create suspense; the story is predictable and contrived.

Also, even though I am from the east, many of us did NOT like "Saturday Night Fever", while it had its moments, the perpetual stereotypes are beyond criticism at this point.

Worth seeing for Debra Winger; she is still so likable, and never had that Hollywood persona we are subjected to by too many actresses today. 7/10 John Travolta, the biggest honkeytonk in the world, and a mechanical bull...what more can you ask for! Yeah, you're probably not going to get many surprises or deep meaning in this one. Yet, I have always found it fairly enjoyable to watch this redneck romance. Bud (Travolta) and Sissy (Debra Winger) meet at Gilley's and fall in love. They have all the difficulties you might expect a hardcore redneck couple to have. The honkeytonk scenes are fun with dancing, mechanical bull riding, and -of course- the required brawls. It has a good, 1980 country soundtrack, featuring "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places", "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", and "Hello Texas" by my favorite Jimmy Buffett. Break out your cowboy boots and have a boot-scootin' boogie!

*** (Out of 4) My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music! The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.

We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.

Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER. Even longtime Shirley fans may be surprised by "Now and Forever." The movie was filmed with Paramount studios – not with Shirley's parent company Twentieth Century Fox – in 1934, before Fox producer Darryl Zanuck had perfected the successful Shirley formula (cute songs, cold hearts for her to melt, young couples for her to play cupid to, happy endings). Thus "Now and Forever" falls into the category of a Shirley vehicle without the standard Shirley story. It is an awkward position for any movie, but this impressive, talented cast makes it work.

Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard star as fun-loving, irresponsible con artists Jerry and Toni Day. The only thing that this devoted yet dysfunctional duo seems to hate more than being together is being apart. When they are suddenly landed with custody of Jerry's young daughter Penny (Shirley Temple), it is Toni – and not Penny, as many believe – who persuades Jerry to give up his criminal career. But Jerry flounders at his desk job, and desperate to prove that he can provide for his new family, he soon returns to thieving and dishonesty. In a standard Shirley device, Penny tries to melt the heart of crusty curmudgeon Felix Evans, the victim of one of Jerry's cons, but her attempt fails, for Evans is revealed to be a con artist himself, and he blackmails Jerry into helping him steal jewels. The drama, gunfight, death, and sorrow that follow all make this film a very unusual one for Little Miss Sunshine. There is no happy ending, no dancing, and only one song sequence (the cute number "The World Owes Me a Living").

But this does not mean that Shirley fans should avoid "Now and Forever." Rather, it's divergence from the usual Shirley story make it more interesting and memorable than many of her other films. But beware: You should avoid colorized version of this film, and see it in black-and-white if you can. The color is bright, garish, and unrealistic, and in many scenes, Shirley's famous curls are actually red instead of blonde. Yikes! This is a very rare film and probably the least known from Shirley Temple as it isn't on any of her collections.The reason why is probably because it doesn't have a happy ending,unlike all her other films.Its also not a musical,although she does belt out one song called' The world owes me a living'.The film was made in 1934 and originally in black and white,the version i have is in colour and on VHS,i would say they have done a fine job as the colour does look realistic,unlike i would say the colourised films of Laurel And Hardy which are dreadful.The film is good for its age and the story hasn't dated at all,I'm surprised no one has tried to do a remake.At times the film is a little bit to talky as some of the scenes with Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard seem really dragged out, in some scenes they seem to take fifteen minutes to say what they could have said in five.Although don't be put off by this because this film does have some genuinely good moments in it,especially when {Jerry}Gary Cooper steals a necklace,and hides it in Shirley's teddy bear.The tension and slow build up to his actions,{while at the same time his daughter is singing to an audience in another room}is very well directed.Gary and Caroles edgy facial expressions when they are put under scrutiny are also very good.In all this is a good film from the early 30's,accept it for its age. This is a sprawling (4 hours) remake of the Rider Haggard story, with the usual added female and an extraneous subplot with Russian soldiers seeking a "Stone of Power" buried along with the treasure of King Solomon. It's very well shot, giving a vivid sense of the wide open spaces of Africa, and very well acted. Patrick Swayze is an excellent Alan Quatermain, and Allison Doody is attractive as Elizabeth Maitland, who hires Quatermain to help rescue her father. Sidede Onyulo as Umbopa, Gavin Hood as McNabb and the leader of the Russian soldiers (not named in IMDb's listing) are also memorable. For all that Hollywood can't leave a good story alone when they adapt it, this one is well told and, except that it's too long, I enjoyed it. 6/10. King's Solomon's Mines brings us Patrick Swayze (playing Allan Quatermain)who has spent a lot of time in Africa, but decides it is time to return to England and be a father to his son. He finds that his wife's parents have taken custody of his son and that he has very little chance of getting custody of him with lots of money for a law suit. In comes Alison Deedy (playing Elizabeth) whose father is in Africa and being held by an African tribe for ransom of the map Elizabeth's father had sent her. Elizabeth seeks out Quatermain to take her back to Africa to find her father.

There is a good cast of supporting characters that go along with Quatermain and Elizabeth and of course there are some enemies (Russians) who want the map also.

The movie holds your attention until the end. Patrick once again plays a ruggedly handsome honorable man who comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Patrick is a great dramatic actor who can easily portray passion, loss and despair, the rugged silent good man, anger and strength; In King Solomon's Minds his character actually smiles a few times. I would really like to see Patrick Swayze in a relaxed live-loving story again, one in which he doesn't have to clench his jaws and be quite so strong. Maybe a little dancing would help. But this is a good movie for the entire family and worth the time to watch it. If you a purist, don't waste your time - otherwise, hold onto your hat and enjoy the adventure. I loved the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version - I've seen it dozens of times, but this film is every bit as good, only different. I won't detail the differences because it would spoil the film. Also, it is a pleasure to see Alison Doody again (I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan), Patrick Swayze is good as Quatermain, and the supporting cast is superb. I find the quality of the supporting cast one of the trademarks of a Hallmark Production and this film was no exception. The cinematography is splendid and the score is perfect. If you are looking for entertainment, you won't be disappointed. The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there).

It was labeled by many critics to have been a "great parody," or "unintentional comedy." Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.

With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots.

Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.

Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be.

This version rates a 9.8/10 on the "TV" scale from...

the Fiend :. I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles. Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile. I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work. True, it does not follow the book very closely, but it's still a very entertaining take on the story. Swayze was far better in the role than I expected. And Doody avoided the "silly woman out of her depth in the wilderness" portrayal most of us probably expected (cf. Kate Capshaw in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom").

At any rate, it's amazingly better than Richard Chamberlain's awful pair of Quatermain flicks.

It is very reminiscent of a western in many ways. About the only thing I didn't care for was all the mysticism, but I guess that is part and parcel of the genre. Like "how can you have an African adventure story without witch doctresses and preternaturally wise wandering tribesmen?" Heh. I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!

The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end.

On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.

I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10. Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! When I heard Patrick Swayze was finally returning to his acting career with KING SOLOMON'S MINES I was very excited. I was expecting a great Indiana Jones type action adventure. What I got was a 4 hour long (with commercials) epic that was very slow. The second and third hour could have been dropped altogether and the story would not have suffered for it. The ending was good (no spoilers here)but I was still left wanting more. Well all a guy can do is prey that Swayze does "RoadHouse 2" so he can get back into the action genre that made him famous. Until than if your a fan of King Solomon's Mines than read the book or watch the 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone which is also not very good but its only and hour and forty minutes of your life gone instead of 4 hours. The tourist season has just ended on a remote island off the coast of Scotland, winter is beginning to set in and the inhabitants, both humans and sheep alike are settling down to much quieter times ahead. Michael Gaffikin (James Warwick) a former paratrooper in the British Army, is the local dentist, he's not an islander by birth and as such his relationship with local artist and cartographer Fiona Patterson (Celia Imrie) is always being viewed with a little suspicion, not maliciously, but just out of the protective instincts the tight knit community have for their kin. The islands serenity is broken when Gaffikin out for a solitary round of golf finds the headless remains of a brutally slain woman. He immediately reports his gruesome find to Insp Inskip(Maurice Roëves) at the islands police station, Inskip arranges for delivery of the remains to local GP, Dr Goudry, for closer inspection. A quick search for the killer proves fruitless, as does a search for a missing local woman. Over dinner that night with Michael Gaffikin, Fiona realises that the dead woman might be Sheila Anderson, a woman from the mainland, who lives on the island through the winter months. A quick search at her home Dove Cottage reveals the missing remains of her body, her home proving to be the murder scene, but why did the killer drag her torso over a mile into the woods? Suspicion immediately falls on the one stranger left on the island, one Colonel Howard (Jonathan Newth)who also happened be the last person to see her alive as they came across on the last ferry together.

Goudry asks Gaffikin for some dental expertise on the victims body, it reveals that she had been torn apart my somebody or something with great strength, one set of teeth marks on the body seem to point at a human killer, another points to that of an unknown animal of some kind. A sheep is found mutilated and then a Canadian ornithologist is found slain. With a heavy fog rolling in, the island is cut off from the mainland and any possibility of help, the radio also doesn't work, seemingly being blocked and the phone lines have been cut. Reports of UFO's and the sighting of a camouflaged soldier are compounded by the finding of an odd looking craft hidden behind rocks on the beach. Inskip is confused and refuses to listen to anything but the facts and laughs off Gaffikin's idea that aliens might be involved, but a rise in radioactive levels on the island, has him doubting himself.

The Nightmare Man is based on the novel, Child of the Vodyanoi by David Wiltshire, it is here adapted by Dr Who and Blake's 7 scriptwriter Robert Holmes and directed by Douglas Camfield who also had directing experience on both Sci/Fi classics and the film benefits from having such experienced genre experts on board. The Nightmare Man though is on the whole, a succinctly better crafted piece, that builds its plot alongside solid character development, even down to the minor characters, time is given to giving them all a firm background. The island setting is perhaps a genre cliché that has been used over and over, but its one that I enjoy very much, the remoteness, the sense of being under siege with no way out always add to the atmosphere and here it is given an extra oomph by having an impenetrable fog close in to hamper all efforts. In many genre efforts of this kind it is very easy for proceedings to get silly and for the plot to resort to melodrama, but credit to Camfield, he holds it all together with the emphasis being on believability at all times. There is an authenticity about proceedings, the characters even speaking Gaelic at times to further this point. If there is one negative about the killer its that, we are given his/her/its POV for the killings, an acceptable cliché on its own, but when seen through a red filter and a fish eye lens, it just screams of overkill and dates the film just a little. Still though you will be hard pressed to guess the outcome or the identity or for that matter the species of the killer, given the clues presented, but it's a fun and very well acted piece. The local Scottish cast are exceptional, the local bobbies Roeves and Cosmo in particular spar well off each other and are a delight to behold. Imrie, never one i've taken to in other works, is also pretty good and displays hew womanly physique as if she were in a Hammer production. The outlandish, maybe even preposterous ending may irk some viewers, it disappointed me in some ways, but taking into account when it was made, its an understandable and acceptable addendum that if you think about it, is even more terrifying. I was surprised, that ''The Secret Fury'' was an enjoyable good film...... Probably because, I didn't have any expectations for this movie..... Though, the film does have it's plot holes..... I would say, that you couldn't guess who was behind the whole scheme, until the very end of the movie..... At first, I thought, it was Robert Ryan, using the same method, like ''Gaslight'' where husband tries to drive his wife mad, but I was wrong...... The main problem, with the movie is, they drive at a whole other direction, which gave no clues at the beginning...... I thought, Robert Ryan & Claudette Colbert carried their parts well...... Plus, Vivian Vance, a fine character actress, who steals scenes in this one...... Those who like movies, that keeps you guessing, will like this one...... In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found "Silent Fury" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main "baddie" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly. The Secret Fury, in many ways a run-of-the-mill romantic suspense drama (directed by Mel Ferrer) boasts top-notch principals in Colbert and Ryan; it stays puzzling if not quite gripping until towards the end, when implausibility conquers suspension of disbelief -- as so often it does in this genre. But for some viewers the film's highlight will be the portrayal of blowsy Leah by Vivian Vance -- the immortal Ethel Mertz on "I Love Lucy." Oddly, Vance had very few film roles; her true home was Broadway, where (among other gigs) she understudied for Ethel Merman. Here she contributes a winning turn as a chambermaid suborned to play a minor part in a nefarious scheme; watch her half-heartedly trying to wave away the smoke when she's puffing a furtive cigarette in the hotel's linen-storage room -- a transgression for which she ultimately pays the supreme penalty. This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.

The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent. When ever a film is produced or directed by Mel Ferrer, you can bet your life any of his pictures will be seen for generation after generation. Just having Claudette Colbert,(Ellen R. Ewing),"The Egg & I",'47 appearing and starring in the film will make it even more of a great Classic Film. In this film, Ellen Ewing gets married and then she encounters all kinds of mental problems and even murder. The mystery gets very much involved and Robert Ryan,(David McLean),"Battle of the Bulge",'65, comes to the aid of Ellen and sometimes you even wonder about David being on the up and up. As you view this picture you just about find yourself beginning to understand who is the real nutty person and all of a sudden, you begin to change your mind how the film will end. Great acting by Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan who played an entirely different role than he usually portrays on the screen. I forgot to mention that Mel Ferrer, was married to a great film star, Audrey Hepburn. Great Classic film, with great Classic Actors ! Well, would firstly like to clarify that Kaakha Kaakha is a part of a Tamil prayer and roughly translated it means "to protect". Khakhee on the other hand refers to the color of the police uniform (which is Khakhi!).

Also, the Tamil film industry is rather full of purely commercial ventures , any Rajnikanth or Vijay movie would stand testament to that statement.

Now Kaakha Kaakha is an EXCELLENT movie with a great soundtrack. Certainly very stunning in the final scene, especially love the ending (which is certainly unexpected!). The gore is rather too much at times, but certainly this is a great movie! This one stood out for it's originality. I'm seriously tired of seeing Hindi movies that are a hotch-potch of a whole bunch of Hollywood and Brit movies. Some flaws were inevitable, nonetheless, this movie is a must-see. Surya's portrayal of the clean-cut, conscientious cop (as opposed to the pot-bellied, money-hungry ones that we normally see) was awesome. He's come a long way from his work in Nerukku Ner. I liked the movie so much that I had to own it. I'm not usually into the mindless violence type of movies, somehow I actually felt for each character and therefore can't really bring myself to call it 'mindless' violence. I do not appreciate the excessive melodrama and sentimental scenes that go hand in hand with most Hindi and Tamil movies. I absolutely loved this movie for it's lack of the same. ACP Anbuselvan's reaction to loosing his wife, is not overdone, is heart-wrenching and makes me want to bawl my eyes out. There are certain times when I'm watching a movie when I want to hit the FF button. Plenty of times I've wanted to do that at a cinema hall. Never wanted to do so when watching this movie. I'm really hoping that Ghajini releases soon. Indian cinema typifies cops of two broad categories: they are either the honest type or the bad guys. The honest guys always shout at the top of their voice and fight the system while the bad cops enjoy for most part but suffer at the end.

This movie at least breaks this usual formula and gives a refreshing view of cops and their lives. The direction takes an inside look at the life of a young ambitious cop who. The music is interesting and the editing is a trend setter as far as Indian cinema goes.

The movie is slow at times and the dilemma which Anbu faces when it comes to Maya is overplayed at times. But I would still give this one 9/10 simply because it has many firsts to its credit. It has been almost 5 years since the release of this stylish action flick.I have watched this movie almost 10 times and it a great effort by Gautham.From my perspective,I feel this movie is virtually flawless. Surya as ACP Anbuchelvan-no doubt..classy.Jyothika played her role as Maya very well.The character suits her very well.The character that caught movie-goers attention was Pandia.Jeevan played the role of Pandia very well.Brutal and fearsome.Jeevan deservedly received the Best Villain award in the ITFA 2004.The supporting cast of Daniel Balaji,Devadharshini and other performed well.

Racy screenplay,perfectly-timed dialogues and brilliant narration by Gautham.The soundtrack by Harris Jeyaraj are all chart-busters while the BGM suits the movie very well.Cinematography by R.D. Rajasekhar is rich.Peter Hein choreographed the stunts well.Anthony's editing is precise.Above all,Kaakha Kaakha is a perfect cop film filled with right doses of action and romance.

Even some Hollywood film cant compete with Kaakha Kaakha...undoubtedly. A well-made run-of-the-mill movie with a tragic ending. Pluses: The way the story moves - begins with Soorya struggling to live followed by a long flashback about why he's there. The Music. A disinterested look at the life of policemen. Minuses: The violence and the gore, but I guess they add to the realistic effects. Still, having people's heads chopped off and sent in boxes and sacks could have been avoided.

No complaints - 7/10 Originally conceived as a solo vehicle for Dudley Moore, 'Not Only...But Also' saw his ex-'Beyond The Fringe' collaborator Peter Cook guest on the first show, and so well received was it the controller of B.B.C.-2 insisted that he be on it every week from then on. They were a classic comedy team - Cook was tall, handsome and witty, while Dudley was short, charismatic, and musically gifted. The sketch that brought the house down had them in a pub, wearing flat caps and mufflers, fantasising about movie stars such as Jane Russell and Greta Garbo. It remains one of the most hilarious skits of all time, and even when Cook corpses it still holds together well.

Those characters - idiot Pete and even-bigger idiot Dud - found their way into every episode of the show proper, seen in a different setting, such as a zoo or an art gallery. In the latter, they munched sandwiches while discussing works of art. "That Leonardo DaVinci cartoon...I don't see the joke!", says Dud. Pete points out that when it was first unveiled it probably had people in fits. Dud nearly chokes on his repast. "You really are enjoying those sandwiches!", ad libs Cook. The pair bounced their humour off each other in a way that was joyous to behold. The sketches themselves set new standards for comedy, standards that would not be matched until the arrival of 'Monty Python'.

As the show's popularity increased, so did the quality of the guest stars. Peter Sellers for instance, and John Lennon, the latter presenting a filmed item based on his poem 'Deaf Ted, Danoota, & Me'. 'One Leg Too Few' - had Dud as 'George Spigott' ( a name later re-used in the film 'Bedazzled' ), a one-legged man, who hops into the office of film producer Cook to audition for the role of 'Tarzan'. Cook tries to let him down as best as he can. "I've nothing against your right leg!", he says. "The trouble is - neither have you!".

Dud would on occasion interview the eccentric Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling ( Cook ), who when he was not teaching ravens to fly underwater, was planning on opening a restaurant called 'The Frog & The Peach'. Another classic was 'The Leaping Nuns' ( also reused in 'Bedazzled' ). But my all-time favourite has to be 'Superthunderstingcar', a wickedly funny ( and accurate ) parody of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's 'Thunderbirds'. Pete and Dud played all the roles, with the latter making a fetching 'Lady Penelope'. 'Ludwig' had Ludwig Van Beethoven as the star of a 'This Is Tom Jones' style variety show. 'The Immortal Bargo' was a spoof documentary on the life of reclusive movie star 'Emma Bargo'. In an unforgettable moment, she drove through London, bellowing through a loudhailer: "I want to be alone!".

A Season 3 feature was 'Poets Cornered' with the likes of Ronnie Barker, Spike Milligan, Barry Humphries, Willie Rushton and others suspended over a gunge tank. They each had to improvise the line of a poem, and anyone failing to make it rhyme wound up in the nasty stuff.

Three seasons were made in all, produced ( at different times ) by Joe McGrath, Dick Clement and Jimmy Gilbert. Sadly very few editions survive. To make matters worse, the scripts were destroyed as well. It beggars belief that this situation was allowed to happen.

The show ended in 1970. The comics then hit Broadway, made the infamous 'Derek & Clive' tapes, but Cook's ever-increasing alcoholism broke them apart. Eight years later, Cook announced that a new series was in the offing, but it turned out to be wishful thinking on his part. His ex-partner was making films in America, and had no intention of working with Cook again ( not at that time anyway ).

Enough footage was scraped together for a season of B.B.C.-2 repeats in the early '90's. As expected, some items had not held up as well as others. Cook died in 1995, and by way of a tribute the B.B.C put together a programme compiled from various 'Parkinson' interviews and 'Not Only...But Also' shows. It ended rather appropriately with Pete and Dud finding themselves in Heaven. "Bloody Hell!", exclaimed the latter. Moore passed on in 2002. This docu-drama is what you would expect from Richard Attenborough, the man who gave us "Gandhi": beautifully photographed, compellingly casted, well written in the measured, literate manner that Hollywood discarded in the 30's, and scrupulously accurate. It stands out as a genre film, excelling in its portrayal of native American (or, more appropriately for its Canadian setting, "First Nations") culture and standing with "Black Robe" as a wonderfully photographed piece of Canoe Country and its culture (here, circa 1934). This idyllic portrait derives drama from its subject: Archie "Grey Owl" Belaney, a Scot raised in Hastings (England) by maiden aunts who became so obsessed with the "red indian" tales of his childhood that he went to Canada, disappeared into the woods, and became a trapper and adopted son of an Ojibway band. He was a vain man with a habit of marrying and abandoning

Indian brides, none of whom seem to have thought less of him for it, for he was also an extraordinarily charming and picaresque character. One of his wives (one smarter than he, by most accounts) propelled him into fame as a writer and early advocate for protecting the wild country of the North, and this forms the focus of Attenborough's tale. The chemistry between Brosnan and Annie Galipeau (as Grey Owl's wife Pony) is engaging and, if not firey, is nonetheless quite touching. A good film when you need some time from the madding crowd. Pierce Brosnan will probably be the only thing familiar in Richard Attenborough's new biopic. The rest is new to international audiences: Canadian history and First Nations Culture.

"Grey Owl" is a light examination of how an man came to be adopted into the Ojibway of Northern Ontario, learning and preaching environmentalism decades before it became politically correct to do so. The film contains a love story, a moral message, and a man tortured by his past. That torture, though, is not always brought to life with the dramatic impact that it might.

Nevertheless, it is a film which holds its audience without any violence. It pays deep respect to Canada's First Nations, and presents them in a dignified and non-stereotypical manner. Brosnan's performance is somewhat stiff, but I suspect that's just how Lord Attenborough wanted him.

Thanks from a proud Canadian. I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.

This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.

You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes. Recently I was looking for the newly issued Wide Screen DVD of FLY AWAY HOME and came upon interesting title that I had never heard of: GREY OWL. The fact that it was a Richard Attenborough Film caught my attention (he responsible for such fine films as GANDHI, CHAPLIN, and SHADOWLANDS). I noticed that the screenplay was by William Nicholson (author of SHADOWLANDS). This "Special Edition" was full of interesting sounding material and the price was just under $10.00 -- so I chanced it & bought it. WOW! What a beautiful film. Pierce Brosnan stars as Archie Grey Owl, a real life trapper in the 1930s, who came to love and respect the wild lands of Canada, and worked to help protect them. Brosnan (who starred in a James Bond film) gives a shaded, warm, powerful performance as does Annie Galipeau as the young woman who loves and influences his feeling for the creatures of the land -- especially the beaver. A fine score by George Fenton (THE CRUCIBLE) and beautiful photograhy by Roger Pratt add greatly to the effectiveness of the film. AND the extras on this DVD are something else! Includes two shorts made in the 1930s with the real Grey Owl as well as audio commentary tracks by Attenborough and Producer Jake Eberts; 2 Featurettes; and many other fine additions PLUS options for those having access to a PC with DVD-ROM features. GREY OWL has been released directly to DVD in the United States -- a fact that Richard Attenborough attributes to Hollywood's lack of interest in distributing something that isn't loaded with a lot of violence and sex. This is a film that not only informs and entertains but leaves you with something to think about. I had a very warm feeling at the films conclusion -- and a whole new love and understanding for beavers! GREY OWL is a very fine film -- worth checking out! This is one I look forward to sharing with others. The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.

This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.

A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?

This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.

The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.

The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.

I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot. Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.

The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.

Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it.

And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl. I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? "Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well." Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films. All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently. This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre This is an interesting true story of Archie Grey Owl, Who dreamed of being an Indiain when he was a child until the age of 17 he was born in England then moved to Canada where he was adotped by Indiains and he writes collums in magazines and he wrote a book that caugt the attention of millions the book was of his life. But at the end he told his wife that he was not a real Indiain and she was fine with it and he died at the age of 43 two years after he went back into the wildness. If you know the story of Grey Owl, you'll love the movie! Annie Galipeau is a great actress, and Pierce is better than never in Grey Owl. But in this movie there's no real scene of action. I think this movie should be nominated at the Oscars! Welll go see this movie, it's A CLASSIC! well worth watching, especially with the nice twist of a journalist with integrity, you are expecting a big fall down story line as Grey Owl is unmasked as a fraud, but it is not to be and adds to the generally optimistic and uplifting theme and drama of the story and film.

This has to be Brosnan's best performance to date, he convinces admirably as the English boy playing Indians. The stand out scene is the return to his ?Aunts? where Brosnan and the two elderly lady actresses make a wonderful scene full of feeling of nostalgia and a life lost with so little dialogue, just with expressions and good direction. Perfect.

The story is so little known and the message so universal and all important it is a real pity this film did not get better recognition, maybe in time it may become a bit of a classic and a sleeper. I hope so.

Well done Dickie Attenborough and cast. The movie is wonderful. It shows the man's work for the wilderness and a natural understanding of the harmony of nature, without being an "extreme" naturalist. I definitely plan to look for the book. This is a rare treasure!

We viewed the vcr and found it to be fascinating. Not knowing anything about this true story, I thought: "Oh, no, P.Brosnan as an American Indian ('red' Indian in the film), what a bad choice" until I discovered the truth about Grey Owl. The film does a good job of demonstrating the dignity of these native peoples and undermining the racist myths about them. And Annie Galipeau, WOW, what a beauty, and very convincing as an Indian woman (I believe she is French-Canadian; she sure reverts to the all-too familiar speech of such). In spite, of Brosnan's detached, grunting style, in the end he comes through convincingly as a passionate, dedicated man. The plot is a little weak in demostrating his conversion from trapper to animal coservationist. Good film, highly recommended. There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach! amazing movie I saw this movie for the first time on a flight and could not believe that I had not even heard of it before getting on that plane. while it may seem, at first to be a "chick flick", it is a film that everyone should see and will enjoy. Men, watch this movie with someone you love. You will enjoy it as much as she does and it will score you big points. Radio was not a 24 hour 7days a week happening when I grew up in the 1930s England, so Children's Hour was a treat for me when we had batteries and an accumulator to spare for the power. The few programmes I heard therefore made a great impression on my young mind, and the 3 that I recall still are "Toytown", one about all the animals at the Zoo, and --- Grey Owl, talking about the animals he knew, which he called his "brothers". It was only in recently that I learnt that Grey Owl wasn't a genuine "Indian", but the tribute paid by the Sioux Chief makes great sense to me "A man becomes what he dreams". Would that we could all dream as world changing and beneficial as Archie Grey Owl Belaney. Would that a new Grey Owl could influence world leaders to clean up the environment. I didn't expect much when I first saw the DVD cover. I mean, Pierce Brosnan as Grey Owl??

Ah...but then the story got underway, unfolded in a beautifully photographed and paced film. I was surprised and delighted at this (basically) true story. Made me want to read more about this fascinating character, which means, the director fulfilled his purpose, and the film was a success! Richard Attenborough who already given us magnific films as "A Chorus Line" and "Gandhi", once more surprise us making a beautiful hymn to the Nature. Indeed, the vast and (in that time) unexplored territory of Canada helps to compose the stunning beauty of the landscapes picked up by the motion picture camera. If the movie is really based on a true story, once more becomes evidente that "men of vision" are, in truth, men that lives beyond their time, with a historical perspective that only the Time will give them reason. The cinematography is magnificient, such as the cast lead by Pierce Brosnan, whose performance is due to Attenborough's master hands. A pleasing surprise is the appearance of Annie Galipeau in the role of Archie's beloved. Movie that must appears in a list of those who really loves the Nature... Okay, I'll admit the casting in the film is REALLY strange--part of this is due to the plot, but I still had a bit of trouble believing Pierce Brosnan playing this lead (though he really did a pretty good job).

It's based on a true story of an Englishman who went to live with the Canadian Indians in the early 20th century. He claimed to be a mixed blood Indian. He was, in fact, so successful and well thought of that people came from all over to hear his lectures and be taken on his wilderness treks--even though he was not a mixed blood Indian and all his knowledge was from books or faked! The movie centers on this and what occurred when the hoax was uncovered.

The acting and settings were great and I really liked the film (once I suspended disbelief about Brosnan). It didn't get widespread distribution--probably because it was pretty cerebral--not a Bond film nor a romance--just a really odd film about a remarkable man. This is an excellent movie. As a Canadian who grew up with a rural lifestyle much of it is familiar , the winter, canoeing , trapping , hunting and the like. It is easy to take the familiar for granted but after watching this film a few times it has grown on me .

The story of Grey Owl is well known to many Canadians credit to director Attenborough and screenplay writer Nicholson for expanding the story.

Brosnan does well portraying a complex man , a very fine performance. Annie Galipeau is lovely in her first large role. The rest of the cast is solid. A number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- "Young Winston", "Gandhi", "Chaplin". "Grey Owl" is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.

Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.

The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.

The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a "fraud". His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.

According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.

One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is "miscast" as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like "The Hill" or "The Molly Maguires". Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.

Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is "boring". Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like "Gandhi", and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10 We really enjoyed Grey Owl: a simple tale well told in classic Attenborough fashion: a little over-romanticized, with archetypes, humor, and a stress of dignity and values.

Beautifully shot and told at a nice pace this is the true story of Archie, an Englishman who turned native Indian, and went to live and trap in Canada.

Solid performances from all makes this film with a message easy viewing.

Two of the stars of the film are without a doubt the cutest we have ever seen - and the message is a good one with its ecoleanings. It must have been great to meet or read Grey Owl in the 1930s, a unique character and this is a fitting film tribute. I had to see this gem twice to really appreciate all of it. When a widowed father of two interrupts his two sons' sleep with a shocking revelation, they are torn between believing him and not. As the horrifying events of this tale unfold, we learn a lot about the father, about his two sons, and about their destinies. With shocking twist after shocking twist, this film never allows for a lull in the plot. Bill Paxton plays the father, but the most notable performances are that of his older son, Fenton, played by Matthew O'Leary and his younger son, Adam, played by Jeremy Sumpter. This is one of the best thrillers that I have seen in a while, and you will want to watch this a few times to appreciate every intricate aspect of the plot. I give this film a 9/10. This is a very dark and intriguing horror type thriller based on the idea of religious murders. The storyline centres on a deranged man who lives in Texas, US who suddenly goes on a killing spree with his two young sons after being instructed by God to redeem the world of bad people.

Bill Paxton who directs this movie plays the deranged Father who is known as the Hand of God Killer while Matthew McConaughey plays his finest performances to date as the oldest son, Fenton Meiks. The film revolves around Fenton who decides he can no longer hold the burden of his murderous childhood alone and uses flashbacks to hauntingly tell the story to FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (played by Powers Boothe).

I cannot think of many movies that literally keep the viewer chained to their seat from start to finish and this is definitely one of them. Even if you want to stop watching, you wont be able to because of the sheer power of this movie.

The directors have filmed this movie very well, and they help to set the plot through the good scenery. The acting in this movie is great but if there is any drawback it is that some parts are very powerful and may disturb some people.

Whilst the concept of this film is very dark, the young children help to portray the idea through brilliant acting. This really is a spine tingly movie and it is guaranteed to have you at the edge of your seat throughout. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys horror, disturbing and powerful movies or anyone who just wants to see something different.

8/10 Actor Paxton made his directorial debut with this chilling, dark, and competently made thriller about a widowed mechanic (Paxton himself) who ropes his two sons into participating in savage ax murders, claiming that the victims are not human beings at all but "demons", and that they have been selected by God to destroy these "demons". This is all told in flashback by one of the sons, now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) to skeptical FBI agent (Powers Boothe).

Hard to automatically forget this film; better than most serial killer features, it's a twisty and unsettling tale told in straightforward fashion with a bare minimum of cinema gimmicks. Paxton, commendably, barely shows any blood at all until near the end. Well acted by all, especially the two child actors (Jeremy Sumpter of the recent "Peter Pan" and Matt O'Leary of "Spy Kids 2" and "Domestic Disturbance"). The only reason I deducted any points at all is because I can understand that some people may find all of this hard to stomach. In any event, it's an atypical thriller with a decent script.

8/10 There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.

Father of two sons hears messages from "God" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.

When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.

And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class.

All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional.

This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'. The film is very complete in what it is, keeping one continuously interested with the flashbacks to childhood and growing up with such a bizarre father, and interspersing it with the tails of serial murder, one simply cannot go wrong. The very plot in itself, the very story and essence of the film, is entertaining. It is the sort of story that the director (Bill Paxton) could do so much with, and in this case, he really did do a lot with it.

From beginning to end you are kept anticipating more and more about what is happening and where the film is going, and the creativity that is behind this story is first class. I felt as if this film was exquisitely done from start to finish, and one of those rare gems that seemed to be without any boring lulls -- the action flowing neatly, quickly, and tightly from one scene to the next.

It demonstrates just how far people can go: so as to do such horrible things to their loved ones, and to do such acts of evil, in the name of 'God' when they are disillusioned as in this case. It also is sometimes interesting in its' twists & takes on the concept of morality as a whole.

Overall, this is the sort of film that one easily overlooks, but I would recommend you to not do likewise and to check this film out -- it is very much so worth your time. Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it. A very promising directorial debut for Bill Paxton. A very dark thriller/who-really-done-it recommended by Stephen King. This is a strong, well-conceived horror tale about a devout, but demented man in Thurman, Texas that goes on a murdering spree after getting orders from God to eliminate demons trying to control mankind. A couple of plot twists and an eerie finale makes for your moneys worth. Most of the violence you don't really see, but still enough to double up your stomach.

Director Paxton plays the twisted man to be known as the Hand of God Killer. Matthew McConaughey is equally impressive as the demented man's eldest son that ends up telling this story to a Dallas FBI Agent(Powers Boothe). Boothe, as always, is solid and flawless. Suspenseful white knuckler! Highly recommended. The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version.

Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton.

It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists.

The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.

This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy. Matthew McConaughey is a mysterious man waiting for Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) in his FBI office. He claims to have information about a serial killer chased by FBI. When Agent Doyle arrives in the office, he tells him that the serial killer is indeed his dead brother. Agent Doyle requests some evidence, and the man tells the story of his life, since his childhood. They were a simple family of three: his widow father Meiks (Bill Paxton), his brother and himself. One night, his father gathers the two brothers and tells them that an angel of God had just visited him and assigned his family to destroy demons. What happens next is one of the most scary movie I have ever seen.

I watched this movie four months ago on VHS, and yesterday I watched again, now on DVD. Although being a low-budget movie, the screenplay is sharp, with no flaw. The cast is outstanding, but I would like to highlight the performance of Matt O'Leary as the young Felton. It is a very difficult and complex role to be performed by a young teenager. The direction of Bill Paxton is remarkable. There is no explicit violence in this horror movie. A great debut behind the camera. I regret the Brazilian title of this movie: 'A Mão do Diabo' (The Devil's Hand'). If at least it were 'The God's Hand', it might be acceptable. But calling this movie as 'the devil's hand' is indeed ridiculous. Brent Hanley, the screenwriter, did not deserve such a lack of respect from the Brazilian distributor. This film is highly recommended. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Mão do Diabo" ("The Devil's Hand") I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.

I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.

One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.

A true gem. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill "demons". He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.

The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now. What a real treat and quite unexpected. This is what a real thriller movie is all about. I rushed into the video shop, grabbed a movie without reading the entire blurb on the back and hoped for the best. I was totally surprised and delighted. I really enjoyed the actors and their characters. I thought they all gave a great performance and made their characters realistic. The plot was well thought out,well written and directed. It kept you interested from start to finish and never got boring for a single minute.

I highly recommend this movie for those that like thrillers, especially thrillers that are well paced and ones that keep your attention. Definitely a 10 out of 10 from me. This could be the most underrated movie of its genre. I don't remember seeing any advertisements or commercials for this one which could be the reason why it didn't do so well at the box office. However, Frailty is an excellent and a truly original horror movie. I rank it within the top 10 most favorite horror movies on my list.

Movie begins with snapshots of photos and news articles telling us about a killer who calls himself "God's hand". And then a man walks into a police station and tells the chief officer that he knows the killer is his brother. Two of them leave together to go to a location where victims are buried which might help solve the case. During that trip, the man begins telling the story of his brother and we go back in time when the events began. Fenton and Adam are two young brothers living with their strict and religious father who, one day, claims that he has received a divine message from God asking him to kill the demons that appear to be regular human beings. He receives from God a list of names of demons to be destroyed and asks his sons to help him carry out this divine mission.

This is an absolutely horrifying and suspenseful film that will keep you at the edge of your seat. The tension runs high, innocent people (or demons?) get killed and religious experiences are questioned. It has not one but few very intelligent twists at the end. If you like this genre, I highly recommend Frailty for you. I own the DVD and it is one of my all time favorite horror-thrillers. Bill Paxton, of Aliens, Near Dark, and Terminator fame, surprises me with his debut as director for Frailty. He hits on all cylinders, but there is one implausibility near the end that involves the FBI agent (Powers Booth) which deducts a point from this otherwise chilling and thought provoking thriller. Other than that, this movie was just fine.

Bill Paxton plays Dad. He's never given a first name, but that is not a weakness of the film. It in fact strengthens the film, allowing the viewer to see him as a sort of symbol of some kind. He has a vision one day which he says was sent from god telling him that the world is coming to an end and both he and his two sons Fenton Meiks(Matt OLeary) and Adam Meiks (Jeremy Sumpter) must fine the demons and kill them. The demons look like normal people which they kill, and this makes the viewer wonder if Dad has just lost his mind, or is he really doing god's work. There are scenes that reflect both points which adds to the confusion and gives the film more suspense.

The story is told in flashback by one of the sons who is now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) and is speaking with FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) who is very skeptical and rightfully so. After all it's not everyday that someone comes in to your office to tell you that he knows who the killer is.

The film has many twists, and Bill Paxton directs splendidly by keeping us guessing without losing interest. The acting is incredible. The two young leads and Paxton work great together, looking like a normal family even though they are all involved in murder. Like I said there is the one implausibility involving Powers Booth's character, but it really isn't a big thing. This was an extremely well made film involving faith and family. McConaughey in a horror/thriller? I had to see this. I was pleasantly surprised.

The plot is told in flashback mode, and it concerns an otherwise normal and happy family of three going through a very bizarre predicament. I can't say much more without spoiling the whole movie, sorry. Just know that if you decide to watch it, you'll be, in the very least, surprised.

All the main players are very good. Bill Paxton did a great job directing those kids, and his acting is awesome. McConaughey's acting is solid throughout and fits the bill perfectly.

This movie challenges you to think. Is Dad crazy? Is there a God? Do Demons exist? How far would you go to right a wrong. And what is "right" anyway? I'm still thinking.

And thus I recommend "Frailty". 7/10 and this is one of those movies that deserves and rewards a second, or even third viewing. Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision – the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.

Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them – while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the "demons" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.

This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: "This is our job now, son. We've got to do this." When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, "If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this." The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.

The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02 This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is "Game over, man! Game over!" (from the movie "Aliens").

The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their "work." It really makes the movie believable and memorable.

Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I"m sure to love! The movie "Frailty" is actually more of a psychological thriller than it is a horror film. It has all the trappings of a horror film but this it is not. "Frailty" is a film about perceptions of religion and realizing the differences between right and wrong.

In "Frailty", a middle-aged father (Bill Paxton) and his two sons claim to be doing the work of God. It turns out that they are a trio of notorious serial killers called "God's Hands". We watch the father kill the "demons" in some rather brutal ways while convincing his sons and himself that they are doing the work God and that what they are doing is right. He claims that he received a message from an angel who gave him specific instructions to eliminate the demons living here on earth. God has given him a list of names and in return for his "services"; he and his sons will be given protection, which basically means the police will never be able to capture them. We see all of this unfold in front of us in a very disturbing manner. But what is really disturbing about it all is the effect that it has on the two sons, particularly the oldest son, Adam. Adam himself seriously doubts the existence of a supreme being, that is until his father and a week in the cellar changes all of that. He knows that his father has obviously lost his mind and is pretty sure the same is happening to his younger brother, Fenton. Fenton, the other half of this puzzle, takes everything in as if it were his own religion. He seems trapped in his father's world of God and demons. I suppose this is because he's so young and easily impressionable. But everything that happens to these three is rather convincing, in fact, TOO convincing.

The events that occur in the film can be looked upon as a vivid hallucination that is being experienced by the three main characters. I say this because they each react to the situation in different ways and at one point in the film they each claim to see God. Dad first sees the murders as his mission. His "mission" eventually consumes him and quickly turns into an obsession with eradicating demons. In fact, his hallucination is the primary one. His "orders" and the list of names he receives are all a part of this hallucination. Watch the scene where Dad finds the ax in a barn to figure out where I am coming from. Fenton, the younger son, is easily impressed by all of this talk of demons and destruction. Since he is so young, it's easy for him to fall into his father's trap. Adam, on the other is very skeptical towards his father's actions.

***SPOILERS***

In a way, the hallucination ends when Dad is killed towards the end of the movie. (I will not say how or under what circumstances). But I will say that it is not pleasant. After his death, it fast-forwards to the present day. (The story is being told through flashbacks, as seen through the eyes of the oldest son Adam). In actuality, it is Fenton that is telling the story, not Adam as originally believed. The story is being told the way he perceived it, through his actions and his brother's actions. Fenton has gone insane and is continuing what his father started by luring the FBI agent into his trap.

Since religion is a major theme in this movie, the film also plays on how easy it is for religion to be misinterpreted by those that do not have a full understanding of it. Before Dad discovered his newfound mission, he himself did not have a clear understanding of religion nor did he fully believe in a supreme being. His sons Fenton and Adam often sang innocent little children's church hymns but yet probably did not have a clear understanding of what the lyrics meant. After the revelation of Dad's newfound mission, they both took off in separate directions - Adam remained in doubt of there being a supreme being while Fenton was gradually sucked into his father's madness.

A very good thriller that will creep the heck out of you, do not watch it alone. This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind. Something surprised me about this movie - it was actually original. It was not the same old recycled crap that comes out of Hollywood every month.

I saw this movie on video because I did not even know about it before I saw it at my local video store. If you see this movie available - rent it - you will not regret it. The suspense builds throughout and the twist ending is excellent.

I went into this movie perhaps a bit jaded by the hack-and-slash films rampant on the screen these days. Boy, was I surprised. This little treasure was pleasantly paced with a somber, dark atmosphere. More surprising yet was the very limited amount of blood actually shown. As with most good movies, this one leaves something to the imagination, and Bill Paxton did a superb job at directing. Scenes shot inside the car as are well done and, after watching the "Anatomy of a Scene" episode at the end of the video tape, It was good to see that some of the subtle, yet wonderful things I had noticed were intentional and not just an "Oh, that looks good, keep it" type of direction. This is a moody movie, filled with grimness. Still, for the dark subject, a considerable portion of it is filmed in daylight, even some of the more disturbing scenes. The acting is exceptional (Okay, I've always been a fan of Powers Booth), and never goes over the top. Au Contraire, it is very subdued which works extremely well for this type of film. If there is any one area where this film lacks, it is in the ending, which seems just a bit too contrived, but still works on a simpler level without destroying the mood or the message of the movie. What is the message? It's something that each individual decides for themself. Overall, on the 1-10 scale, this movie scores an 8 for those who like the southern gothic genre (ie: "Body Heat" or "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), and about a 5 for those who don't. It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.

They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton.

I gave this movie a 10 because it needed to be rewarded for its scary elements and actors AND my god the enging! The thing is I don't want to tell anyone anything about the acting or story because it will ruin the movie. But I will recommend that you go straight to your nearest moviestore right now and rent it! (Don't forget popcorn!) This is a great movie that everyone should see. It plays like a Dean Koontz book.

Bill Paxton's performance was great in that it really seems like he believes in what he is saying and doing.

I don't know why viewers have to read in some kind of advocacy for religious murder in to the film. It is fiction. The ending is surprising, but fictional. So what? I think that is what makes this movie so good. SPOILER DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE. Throughout the movie, the viewer is continually shocked at the sickness of Paxton's character, the impact on the children, and the way the children handle this outrageous conduct. And then at the end, it turns out to be true. God has put him on a mission to rid the world of demons. Paxton is not clairvoyant as other viewers suggest. Sure, he is given info that he couldn't have known otherwise, but the movie goes further to show how God is "protecting" Adam through the convenient video quality problem and the complete lack of memory of the second FBI agent. The film isn't advocating Christian murder, it is merely taking the viewer on a very unexpected ride. Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did! I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...

This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.

A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive. My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :) Frailty--8/10--It's non-sensical title and "Bill Paxton Directs" headline aside, this is a pretty good old fashioned rip snorting biblical horror thriller. In the end, it may end up only being the inbred Southern Gothic cousin of Kubrick's "The Shining"---but hey, that's a pretty damn entertaining notion. It's also got a doozy of a plot twist...and a very ambiguous moral message. This is the kind of movie that years from now people will catch late at night on basic cable and scare the beejesus out of themselves watching it. Too bad director Bill Paxton had to go hire himself to star...oh well....still a devil of a good rent. I rented this movie and watched it 20 times before I took it back to the store. Bill Paxton hired some first rate talent to make a good thriller with some interesting twists. The story is original and well written. Powers Booth and Paxton both deliver good performances. The story is told in an interesting manner with both flashbacks 20 years back, then spots in the present, alternating back and forth. This style of storytelling makes for a good thriller that can't get dull. Bill Paxton, please make more horror movies, you have the talent for it! This is what a movie should be when trying to capture the essence of that which is very surreal. It has this hazy overtone that is rarely captured on film, it feels like a dream sequence and really moves you into a dark haunting memory. The Kids were extremely believable and I do expect some things to come of them in the future. Very natural acting for such young ones, I don't know if Bill pulled it out of them or there just that good, but no the less excellent. Bill scored as far as I'm concerned and for the comment by KevNJeff about Mr. Paxtons bad acting, what can one do in that role. He played the part rather well in my opinion. This is coming from someone who said Hamlet was good (The Ethan Hawke Version?) Wow......... Do not listen to his Comments. Great flick to make you feel really uncomfortable, if that's what you want? Cinematography gets an above the average rating also. Hi

my name is Jessica, i'm Italian!

Some time ago I have seen this film : ' For the very first time', with Corin Corky Nemec. It was the story of Micheal and Mary Margaret. I need to know the title of the song of the most important love scene in Micheal's bedroom.

In Italy this film hasn't been programmed for many years and I don't know how to find the song. A lot of thanks for who can help me! I love this film! Is Very romantic! The soundtrack is beautiful! I love Cheryl Pollack! Jessica if you are like me then you will love this great coming of age teen movie.i think it is up there with mischief/book of love/high school USA/shout/calender girl/crybaby/ all great movies set in the lat 50s & early 60s and it has a wonderful soundtrack.not as many songs as in some of these type of movies but still great.it is all so very funny at times and has a great love interest.all the young cast are great.i wish there were more type of these wonderful movies.my favourite movie of all time is back to the future when Marty mcfly gos back to 1955 well in these wonderful movies it stays in the fab 50s(early 60s) there are some movies of this type better than this but not many. I was 15 years old when this movie premiered on the television. Being raised in Texas, I understood the boredom & monotony of teenage life there. This movie touched my impressionable teenage heart & I remembered it fondly through the past 12 years. I recently got to see it for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th times thanks the the LOVE channel. I still cry because the movie reaches in & touches my inner confused teenager. This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night. Hardly a masterpiece. Not so well written. Beautiful cinematography i think not. This movie wasn't too terrible but it wasn't that much better than average. The main story dealing with highly immoral teens should have focused more on the forbidden romance and why this was... should have really gotten into it instead of scraping the surface with basically "because mom says we can't." Some parts should have been dropped altogether or reworked to have more importance to the plight of the two main characters. Couple times i was wondering if the writer/director was a fan of George Lucas' classic American Graffiti. Not that it's wrong to be a fan of that movie but to make your movie at times look like that, i mean come on! Worst part of this was that Madchen Amick had such a small part, i mean double come on!! She was the only one, in one or two lines, who actually tried a southern accent. (Take a good listen, it was there even though her character was from California! DOH!!) Maybe if she was the star others could have followed and we would have had a more authentically sounding movie. Oh well, what can ya do when you have a director who's just a director and not an artist, also. Too bad. Overall i give this a B- and that's being a little generous 'cause i'm partial to Ms. Amick. Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand. If people didn't know who Barbra Streisand was before this,...(is that POSSIBLE?)...they sure knew who she was after!

This show went on to win 5 Emmys, & stands out as one the best things Streisand has ever done.

It's made up of 3 acts....

ACT I...Barbra singing standards from room to room, filled with musicians, including a segment where she is a little girl again,all ending with a splendid version of her signature song,(at the time)..."People".

ACT II....A musical tour of Bergdoff-Goodman,while Barbra Sings poverty songs..it's better than it sounds...

ACT III.....The best part, Just Barbra,musicians,& some great songs,like....."Happy Days Are Here Again",& a "Funny Girl" medley....

all in all, a great part of television history,made by one of the greatest performers in the world! In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television. This was Barbra Streisand's first television special and is "must see" viewing for any Streisand fan. Even non-Streisand fans will enjoy this highly energetic and entertaining piece of entertainment history. Performers like this only come our way once in a lifetime. Brilliant! Streisand fans only familiar with her work from the FUNNY GIRL film onwards need to see this show to see what a brilliant performer Streisand WAS - BEFORE she achieved her goal of becoming a Movie Star. There had never been a female singer quite like her ever before, and there never would be again (sorry, Celine - only in your dreams!), but never again would Streisand sing with the vibrancy, energy, and, above all, the ENTHUSIASM and VULNERABILITY with which she performs here - by the time she gets to that Central Park concert only 2 or 3 years later, she'd been filming FUNNY GIRL in Hollywood and her performing style has become less spontaneous and more reserved, more rehearsed (and, let's face it: more angry) - there's a wall between her and the audience. Live performing was never what she really enjoyed - she did it because she knew it was her ticket to Hollywood, and once she no longer had to do it she's done it as little as possible (and oh, that legendary stage fright provides such a good excuse!).

Her vocals here and on her earlier Judy Garland Show appearance are incredible: Streisand could truly make an old song sound new again, and composers such as Richard Rodgers and Harold Arlen loved her for it. But by the 1970s Streisand was trying to be a "rock" singer, her albums pandering to the younger audiences, with over-wrought shrieking of songs that were unworthy of her effort or her voice.

In the '80s she came back with that brilliant "Broadway Album," but went on and on about what a struggle it was to get it done, how "they" told her not to do it, etc. Oh please - when has anyone told Streisand what to do? She could have been doing good stuff like that all along, bringing audiences UP to her level instead of stooping to what she thought the young public wanted. (The "Back to Broadway" sequel wasn't nearly as good, as Streisand seems to feel it necessary to improve on other composers' work: if he were alive at the time, would Richard Rodgers have even recognized his own "Some Enchanted Evening"? Rodgers, notorious for taking singers to task for playing around with his melodies, would undoubtedly have been after Streisand to sing what he'd written! She also blows Michael Crawford off the CD in their duet of "Music of the Night" - apparently reminding him just whose CD this is. Why does she insist on taking songs that are duets and singing them by herself, and songs that aren't duets and singing them as duets with someone else who she then goes on to diminish?)

Supposedly Judy Garland took Streisand aside and advised her, "Don't let them do to you what they did to me," advice Streisand wasted no time in heeding - despite her protestations to the contrary, surely it looks like it's always been her way or the highway. Just imagine - SHE told the CBS brass how her first TV special would be done - no guests, just HER.

But nobody can argue with the results that are so evident here. Treat yourself to this brilliant musical phenomenon BEFORE she was a legend - you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference!

PS - I watched this again last night (12/01) after not having seen it for many years - it was even BETTER than I remembered! The 1st Act begins with "I'm Late" and includes "Make Believe" and "How Does the Wine Taste," and Barbra's homage to childhood, "I'm Five" - it climaxes as Streisand appears with full (and I mean FULL) orchestra to sing "People" - she wasn't bored with the song yet and although it's a somewhat shorter rendition it really soars - compare it to some of her later "auto-pilot" versions. The 2nd act (after Streisand's "kooky" schtick-patter, which hasn't changed much over the years) is the famous series of Depression songs set amidst the extravagance of Bergdorf-Goodman's.

The 3rd Act is the stunner - call it "Streisand, the Orchestra, and the Audience" (although we never see the audience that supposedly witness this historic event). With her fear of audiences and dislike of such performing, this may have been the toughest part for her, but if so, to her credit it doesn't show. She tears through "Lover Come Back to Me" and the torchy "When the Sun Comes Out" (though I can't remember in which order!), the poignant "Why Did I Choose You? (one of my all-time favorite Streisand performances) and offers a medley of FUNNY GIRL songs, including (of course) "Don't Rain on My Parade" and my favorite song from the score, "The Music That Makes Me Dance". Explaining that "Fanny Brice sang a song like that in 1922, and it made her the toast of Broadway", Streisand then sings "My Man", and it's almost a dress-rehearsal template for her later screen rendition in the FUNNY GIRL film (the main difference being that the black gown here is sleeveless - her film gown had long sleeves and against the black background all we saw were her hands and face), but the vocal here is more urgent and charged than her later film vocal. (Her performance of the song has everything to do with Streisand and nothing to do with Fanny Brice who, of course, never sang the song in such an all-out manner as Streisand does here or in the film - see THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD for a glimpse of Brice's more understated version.) The show ends with Streisand singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" over the credits.

When it was over I said to the friend I was watching it with, "She has NEVER, EVER, done anything better!"

And she was TWENTY-THREE YEARS OLD! As the first of the TV specials offered on the elaborate box set, "Barbra Streisand: The Television Specials", released last November, this disc is being released separately for those who do not want to fork over the dollars for all five specials. As an investment, this is indeed the best of the bunch if only for the fact that this is Streisand at her purest and most eager to impress. That she succeeds so brilliantly is a key component of her legend. Signed to a long-term contract with CBS to produce hour-long variety shows, an almost extinct format nowadays, Streisand was all of 22 in this CBS special first broadcast in April 1965. At that point of her career, her notoriety was limited to a handful of best-selling albums, a few dazzling TV appearances on variety and talk shows, and her successful Broadway run in "Funny Girl".

Filmed in crisp black-and-white, the program is divided into three distinct parts. With the creative transitional use of "I'm Late" from Disney's "Alice in Wonderland", the first segment cleverly shows her growing up from childhood through numbers as diverse as "Make Believe" and "I'm Five". Opening with a comic monologue about Pearl from Istanbul, the second part moves on location to Manhattan's chic Bergdorf Goodman's where she is elegantly costumed in a series of glamorous outfits while singing Depression-era songs like "I've Got Plenty of Nuthin'" and "The Best Things in Life Are Free" with comic irony. Back to basics, the third segment is a straight-ahead concert which opens with a torchy version of "When the Sun Comes Out", includes a "Funny Girl" medley, and ends with her classic, melancholic take on "Happy Days Are Here Again" over the ending credits. Also included is the brief introduction she taped in 1986 when the special was first released on VHS. For those who know Streisand only for her pricey concert tickets and political fundraising, this is a genuine eye-opener into why she is so revered now. Barbra Streisand's debut television special is still a pinnacle moment in entertainment history - in any media. Cleverly divided into three separate acts (to minimize the interruption of commercial breaks), Streisand made the bold-yet-masterful decision to drop the typical variety show format of the time (which is why there is no guest stars nor forced banter) and carry the entire show on her shoulders alone. The risky move paid off enormously, as MY NAME IS BARBRA set a new standard for musical programming on television.

Filmed in glorious black-and-white (which actually adds to the effectiveness of the show), MY NAME IS BARBRA is flawlessly-conceived and impressively shot. However, what makes the show truly transcendent is Streisand herself. Watching the then-23 year old performer navigate herself through the show's 55 minute runtime is nothing less than thrilling. She is in fantastic voice (and even performs the entire first and third acts live), and gives first evidence of the immense star power that would soon follow her to the big screen.

The special's biggest asset is it's boldness in allowing Streisand to simply stand on stage and sing some great songs. After the powerful opening performance of "Much More" (with a brief opening snippet from Leonard Bernstein's "My Name Is Barbara"), Barbra proceeds to wander through a multi-level studio set performing a frantic version of the Disney classic "I'm Late." In between verses of "I'm Late," Streisand stops at various levels of the set to sing some terrific numbers such as the haunting "Make Believe" and the thundering "How Does the Wine Taste?" Halfway through the Act I, Barbra re-enters her own childhood to the strains of "A Kid Again," and then gives highly energetic performances of "I'm Five" and "Sweet Zoo" while romping among an over-sized set. The illusion is eventually shattered, however, as Streisand finds herself out of the fantasy and back in the real world. She then sings about this lost childhood innocence in the lovely "Where Is the Wonder?" Streisand then dashes out onto a platform stage surrounded by an entire room-full of musicians and performs a rousing rendition of "People" before the thunderous applause of a live studio audience.

Act II of the special begins with Streisand hamming it up for the studio audience with a campy rendition of "I've Got the Blues," before delivering a comedy monologue about "Pearl from Istanbul." Streisand then heads off to Bergdorf Goodman's department store, which allows her to sing a medley of poverty songs while parading around in some of the store's elegant fashions. This segment is the brightest highlight of the special for many fans and critics. Some high points of the Act II medley include Streisand singing a restrained version of "Second Hand Rose" to the audience, appearing as a Latin bullfighter to the tune of "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out," and portraying a frustrated paperboy while mugging to "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime." The third Act of the special is a straight concert, with no set pieces or concepts. Streisand is a performer who really thrives on the concert stage, and this segment is the most thrilling moment of the special. Streisand enters belting out an almost gravity-defying rendition of "When the Sun Comes Out," and continues to amaze the viewer with a lovely version of THE YEARLING ballad "Why Did I Choose You," a scorching performance of "Lover Come Back to Me," and an impassioned medley of three songs form FUNNY GIRL. Streisand really outdoes herself, however, with a phenomenal rendition of the Fanny Brice/Billie Holiday standard "My Man," which instantly became on of the singer's best-loved signature songs.

Streisand performs her immortal ballad version of "Happy Days Are Here Again" as the closing credits roll by on the left-hand side of the screen. The iconic finish to the number reaffirms to the viewer that he or she has indeed seen something truly special. MY NAME IS BARBRA was a huge rating triumph when first aired, and it eventually picked up five Emmy awards in addition to spawning two Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack albums. Watching it all again, it's absolutely no surprise. Barbra Streisand's first television special was simply fantastic! From her skit as a child to her medley of songs in a high-fashion department store -- everything was top-notch! It was easy to understand how this special received awards.

Not muddled down by guest appearances, the focus remained on Barbra thoughout the entire production. I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought "This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life." 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!

You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this. With films like "Wallace & Gromit" and "Chicken Run" under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of "Creature Comforts".

Derived from a short done early in their careers, "Creature Comforts" is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.

Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, "Are you a liar?" and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.

The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.

How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, "I like them kind of thin." is an insect, the Walking Stick.

There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.

There are two birds in a cage. As the "wife" tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.

While it might take some time for "Creature Comforts" to find it's "legs", it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, "Creature Comforts" is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.

Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults. but just as entertaining and random! Love it or hate it, but don't expect a sophisticated plot or nail-biting cliffhanger. Think of it like Seinfeld, but without the follow-through and repeat performances of wacky characters (well...so far; i have a feeling i will develop favourites as the season continues).

"Creature Comforts" is not for the faint of humour - it's meant to be enjoyed with the least amount of effort on your brain's part. Which is why this show embodies everything i need in a program when i get home from work in the evening: superficial conversation in the background with just the right amount of "cute" to the characters for me to enjoy when i eventually look up from the computer to see what i'm missing.

Funnier than most of today's sitcoms, calmer than an evening at NASCAR. Just the right mix of dead air and comebacks. Can't wait for the next one. I wasn't going to watch this show. But, I'm glad I did. The critics of this just don't get it! It's one of the funniest and most entertaining thing on T.V at the present moment! Though, when the interviews were done with common folks they probably seemed useless; but, put them in the mouth of animals and insects, and it's a laugh riot. I laughed so hard, I had tears in my eyes. The pig with the babies suckling and her mother is priceless. The husband and wife birds talking about health problems, and the male bird taking a crap after the wife said she was constipated completely broke me up! Creature Comforts is the most imaginative show I've ever seen in awhile! Hopefully, it will be back next summer when this run is over. I was privileged to have seen some snippets from Aardman's original run of this show in the UK. It was always fun and always funny. None of the charm has been lost in translation--it's as fresh as the people interviewed--whether some of it is scripted or not, as has been rumored, is beside the point. It's always entertaining.

Aardman Animations shows great imagination in the characters used for each voice, the single aspect that I probably love most about the show and its concept (the hostility between the pandas, the porcupines discussing fear of needles, the painting ape). Regulars really grow on you as well, such as the horse and donkey teens from Maryland, most every married couple (the parrots, the insects, and the cats to name a few) and child-voiced character, and I've really come to dig the ferret! Monday's finally become a day to which to look forward. Aardman does it again. Next to Pixar, Aardman Animation proves again and again how to do animation properly.

I had a great time watching the first episode of Creature Comforts. I thought it translated well for American audiences. My only concern is that most of the audiences aren't going to get the subtle humor in this show.

Having been a fan of the BBC version and the short film, I knew what I was in for when I sat down to watch this. The animators did a great job matching up pre-recorded voices to a perfect match animal. Look at the first episode with the Goat, who sounds stoned, and the dogs on the street that keep calling each other "dawg".

Is this for everyone? Not by a long shot. In fact, I'd be happy to see the show last for a full season. But like I said before, audiences aren't going to get it. Creature Comforts in America should have been released on a different network, or at least been given the chance to have its full run of episodes. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Given that American audiences (seemingly) have the attention spans of a gnat when it comes to the humor that does not consist of profanity laced diatribes, or has a preoccupation with scatological functions (both sound and smells), shows like this will be few and far between. One of the main problems was that however brilliant it was, it was made for a rarefied audience who knew what to expect but was viewed by an audience and board rooms that did not have a clue at to what they were watching. Which is sad, but not unexpected. I would have liked to have seen at least three more seasons of this show even if it was produced for direct DVD release. The material and the interactions between the creatures were rich with sub context and there were other conversations just waiting to be had under the surface. But thanks to Political Correctness, such conversations take place only in my mind. Got to this show late - believe it was the 3rd, and final episode, when first watched it - and was blown away by a social commentary that hasn't been seen on American TV since 'All in the Family'.

Was very surprised CBS would even run this in the first place.

Which is merely to say the last time CBS 'had a set' - if you know what I mean - was back in the day of 'All in the Family'. The most controversial decision they're willing to tackle today is how much eye make-up to put on Katie Couric.

If you want to make a bunch of folks really, really mad - let them discover the truth about themselves. And if you want them willing to pull strings, make calls, and get a work of Art removed - let them discover that truth by hearing their own words spoken from their own mouths.

The Aardman folks have always been WAY ahead of the curve. And this show is no different. Somehow it snuck under the CBS 'corporate/social/political/censor radar' to get it onto the schedule (perhaps the 'big brass' never really watched it till it finally aired?), but once good 'ol middle 'merika heard and saw themselves being themselves - well, can bet the farm that message, or the messenger, won't last long.

Now, if only the 'missing episodes' can find their way onto Usenet or bit-torrent ;-)

Thank You BC Kelly Tallahassee Fla Shannon Lee,the daughter of Bruce Lee,delivers high kicking martial arts action in spades in this exhilarating Hong Kong movie and proves that like her late brother Brandon she is a real chip off the old block. There is high tech stuntwork to die for in this fast paced flick and the makers of the Bond movies should give it a look if they want to spice up the action quotient of the next 007 adventure as there is much innovative stuff here with some fresh and original second unit work to bolster up the already high action content of "AND NOW,YOU'RE DEAD". When you watch a movie as fast paced and entertaining as this you begin to wonder how cinema itself was able to survive before the martial arts genre was created.I genuinely believe that movies in general and action movies in particular were just marking time until the first kung fu movies made their debut. Bruce Lee was the father of modern action cinema and his legitimate surviving offspring Shannon does not let the family name down here.Although there are several pleasing performances in this movie (Michel Wong for one)it is Shannon Lee whom you will remember for a genuinely spectacular performance as Mandy the hitgirl supreme.Hell;you may well come away whistling her fights! This is a great movie for any fan of Hong Kong action movies. Asides from it's little plot, the weak drama and bits of comedy antics, the movie is action packed with gun-fighting and martial arts action. Kept me entertained from beginning until the end. I thought Shannon Lee was awesome in the movie.

Having an action director like Corey Yuen is what keeps Hong Kong action going strong. This modern action film is highly recommended!! I've seen tons of HK actioners, and this one is right at the top of the genre. The action scenes are as exciting and kinetic as anything you've ever seen in any action movie. The kung fu is spectacular, the pyrotechnics eye-popping, the stunt work heartstopping. The editing is perfectly paced, heightening the tension and complimenting the fluid camera work. This film is directed by old pro Corey Yuen, whose resume is stuffed with some of the best work of the genre, including the Jet Li vehicle The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk. If there is one thing lacking in this film it is the presence of a three-dimensional character, though Martin, the male lead, comes closest to it. This movie is full of archetypes rather than characters--the sexy killer, the goofy thief and his bitchy girlfriend, the cackling villains. That said, Shannon Lee has a terrific screen presence; she's great with the fighting, the stunts, and the guns. When she's onscreen it's hard to take your eyes off her. She's that good. Why isn't this woman a major star? I don't think most of us would tend to apply the term "must-see" to action films, but I was very impressed at how good this film was and it deservedly gets the "must-see" stamp from me.

Mandy played by Shannon Lee (daughter of the late and great Bruce Lee and sister of the late Brandon Lee) is recruited by Martin, a professional thief to help pull off a diamond heist at a museum for a criminal syndicate, and get rewarded handsomely for it. Little do they know that another pair of thieves (Lucy and Tommy, a pair of lovebirds), who were spurned earlier by Mandy and Martin to get in on the deal, are also planning to steal the diamond.

How each pair of thieves plans out the heist is a thrill to watch. Things go awry, as Martin and Mandy unknowingly find themselves a step behind Lucy and Tommy.

You'll find yourself rooting for these thieves as they find that they need each other to stay alive from the crime syndicate, who are not happy at all that the diamond is not in its hands.

Action fans will not be disappointed, as there's a healthy dose of gun battles, martial arts, and hand-to-hand combat sequences.

What is surprising is that, it's not just the action that carries this film, but the romance and laughs (and I don't mean your typical one-liners prevalent in action films) that sneak in.

It's not easy to root for bad guys, but we get to see the human side of these thieves and the chemistry they develop.

A great film and one NOT to miss!

9 out of 10 Man's Castle is a wonderful example of a Pre-Code film. It involves realistic events with truly enjoyable and imperfect characters. Spencer Tracy plays Bill, a free soul without a dime in his pocket. He makes a living doing odd jobs and traveling to a new city when he gets bored of his surroundings. One night, he meets Trina, a beauty by any standards who is cold and alone. She has refused to resort to prostitution so she has not eaten for several days, but the two take very well to each other and form a relationship. His free spirit tempts him to leave her, so life is rocky, but there is a true spark between the two, even if they live in a shack by the river.

Tracy is one of the great actors of the silver screen. His characters are amazing and relatable. We can see his thoughts on his face, making him easy to identify with, even if we believe he is behaving badly. Young is great in pre-code films. Her character is very sweet but far from perfect, making her all the more likable.

Pre-code elements include skinny dipping, pregnancy before marriage, and crime. Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known. I generally find Loretta Young hard to take, too concerned with her looks and too ladylike in all the wrong ways. But in this lyrical Frank Borzage romance, and even though she's playing a low-self-esteem patsy who puts up with entirely too much bullying from paramour Spencer Tracy, she's direct and honest and irresistible. It's an odd little movie, played mostly in a one-room shack in a Hooverville, unusually up-front about the Depression yet romantic and idealized. Tracy, playing a blustery, hard-to-take "regular guy" who would be an awful chauvinist and bully by today's standards, softens his character's hard edge and almost makes him appealing. There's good supporting work from Marjorie Rambeau and Glenda Farrell (who never got as far as she should have), and Jo Swerling's screenplay is modest and efficient. But the real heroes are Borzage, who always liked to dramatize true love in lyrical close-up, and Young. You sort of want to slap her and tell her character to wise up, she's too good for this guy, but she's so dewy and persuasive, you contentedly watch their story play out to a satisfying conclusion. Clearly an hilarious movie.

It angers me to see the poor ratings given to this piece of comic genius

Please look at this for what it is, a funny, ridiculous enjoyable film. Laugh for christ sake!

This film deserves a 10 for its brilliant portrayal of the world as experienced in the mind of a playboy. While I found that world morally repulsive, the film did best what storytelling should do, and that is take us through an experience that we would otherwise never undergo. Tim Meadows so convincingly portrays Leon Phelps, and the story so drew me into the reckless world of Leon, that I momentarily forgot that I was watching a parody of the playboy world and felt compelled to rebel against it. Herein lies the film's undoing because its great and bold achievement in storytelling comes at the price of its own success. Understanding that the vast majority of moviegoers will respond only to the story of this film that lies on the surface, and reject that story, I hesitate to be misunderstood by them and admit that I loved it. I loved it not only for its fascinating insights into the deluded mind of the playboy, not only for its amusing portrayal of the idiocy of the human sex drive, but also for its courage to fearlessly explore what is in the shadows of heterosexuality. Besides, it's just funny. I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies "from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank." Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his "father" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting "the Ladies' Man". "The Ladies Man" suffers a common problem among movies based on "Saturday Night Live" skits. And that is, a sketch that usually succeeds in five minutes will not do so well in ninety minutes. Although this movie does have its laughs, like Tim Meadows as Leon Phelps, a sex-maniac straight out of the '70s, and Will Ferrell as a wrestling-obsessed husband cuckolded by Leon. So this movie is funny enough, but it's no "Wayne's World"! I sought this film out because I'm a new Frain fan and wanted to see more of his work. First of all, his Irish accent is great. He's got a keen ear for dialects, it seems. His acting was marvelous, as usual. James Frain aside, I thought the film was very well done. It showed the conflict in Northern Ireland as the *mess* it really is. Both sides are guilty of grave injustices, and the men drawn into the conflict usually have very little to say about their circumstances.

Also, it is interesting to realise that not every man (or woman) that is supposedly fighting for his country, is really doing *just* that. For example, when Kenny (James Frain) asks Ginger (Ian Hart) why he does "it", Ginger can't come up with a morally acceptable answer. Why? Because Ginger isn't in it for the noble cause of protecting his country or the rights of his fellow Protestants...Ginger is in it for the fun of killing. He's full of blood-lust and it's the perfect job for a guy like him. In a struggle like this there are guys like Liam (John Lynch) who just want to live their daily lives and enjoy their families...guys that see all of the fighting just begats more fighting. There are guys like Kenny that are born leaders full of charisma, and they add fuel to the flames, rather they mean to or not. Also, Kenny genuinely believes in the "cause". He believes what he is doing will make a difference in the future...which is a bit odd 'cause his character seems too intelligent for it all. But, like a lot of other seemingly intelligent men, he is sucked into a gang lifestyle not even realizing it...'til it's too late. Then there is Ginger, a pure psycho who isn't in the fighting for any other reason but for the sheer thrill of it, which in a gangland type war makes him a valued asset, some might argue. However, now, in this film, Ginger has out lasted his worth, and has become a very dangerous loose cannon.

Everything comes to a boiling point, and predictably, the ending is a tragic one. What makes this film worthy is that is shows both sides of this ages old conflict. Being American, I can't begin to fully understand what all struggle is about. But, I do know there has to be a better way.

All in all, a well acted, touching...but troubling film. I quite enjoyed this movie for two reasons. The first is that it gives an insight into the world of loyalism in northern ireland, which is very rarely treated in movies, most of which tell us about the republican struggle. The second reason is the performances of the actors. I thought they gave very honest and convincing portrayals of a very seedy underworld that not many people hear about outside my native shores.

All in all, it is an entertaining ganster movie with stellar performances from a who's who in northern irish actors cast. It wont move the earth, although it may slightly open some peoples eyes to the murky world of loyalist paramilitaries. Excellent film from Thaddeus O'Sullivan featuring strong performances from a host of British and Irish actors. The film deals well with a thorny subject matter, and effectively captures the hopelessness and grim atmosphere of 1970s Belfast. Surprisingly realistic, it does nothing to glorify either side in this conflict. On one hand, it shows a young Catholic father trying to raise his family without getting drawn into the troubles. On the other it deals with a Loyalist gang who are intent on propagating violence. Very interesting and, thankfully, entertaining. Don't be expecting any laughs, though. 7 out of 10. Some of the acting was a bit suspect. I remember that asswipe Alexander Walker (Evening Standard critic, yeah OK, he's now dead) launched into a rant about this film saying it was a disgrace portraying NI Protestants as murderers. Now with respect to all NI protestants, this film was loosely based on the Shankill Butchers (who were loyalists)and who roamed Belfast in the 1970's. Believe me, they were not called butchers for nothing. my main moan about this film is the it shows no ray of light or hope, it's all doom & gloom, i mean did the little girl at the end have to die. Maybe this sounds corny but it could have taken the tact that not all Prods & tiags are bad or wholly good either. This movie shows how savage the troubles really are. People who do not want to be involved have no say in the way their lives are altered. This movie shows how the people of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant are held captive. At any moment their lives may be changed forever whether they want to be involved or not. I liked Top Gun. It held my interest. Predictable plot, decent character development and story line. It is pretty similar to High Noon in that the town people appear weak and scared to stand up to a villain. This movie has some quality actors who really did not get a chance to share all of their talents. Also some of the actors did not receive credit for their roles. Denver Pyle was a good looking man in his younger days. John Dehner, Rod Taylor are outstanding in their roles. Sterling Hayden did the best that he could with poor material. It is hard to imagine him as a gunslinger. Laura, played by Karen Booth, was a nauseating character. She seemed flattered that two men may have been fighting over her. Ugh. Finally, How can people travel without luggage? Especially women. We all create our own reality, or do we? That is the core question behind this highly original and masterfully crafted examination of the illusionary nature of reality. Blending Eastern and Buddhist philosophies with the visual chicanery of M.C. Escher, this fascinating treatise manages to take on the rather cerebral question of `Who are we and what is our place in the universe?', and turn it into a captivating and fun-filled 100 minutes. The film centers on Bart, a writer struggling with his screenplay, `The Sea That Thinks.' As he sits at his computer, the work begins to unfold as nothing more than a description of his sitting at the computer, writing the screenplay. Before long he is stuck in a whirling conundrum in which everything he writes becomes reality. Director Gert de Graaff approaches his subject with an impish sense of humor and dazzles the viewer with a series of astounding visual tricks that confront the nature and validity of our perception. Ultimately, de Graaff's film challenges the audience at several levels to question whether anything we see or touch or taste is really what it appears to be, or whether our entire understanding of the universe and our place in it is merely a trick played on us by our senses. Note: AFTER you've seen the movie, check out the film's entertaining web site. (Dutch with English subtitles) --Eric Moore This stylistically sophisticated visual game presents ‘a story within a story'. The protagonist is scriptwriter Bart Klever who fights persistently with his new text – which is, at the same time, the screenplay of the film we're watching. In the movie Bart plays a scriptwriter writing the script of the film… Bart's struggle with the text becomes a narrative theme, as does the environment of the flat where he works and takes care of his little girl. The intimate environment offers ample opportunity for games of illusion involving space, light, colours and a couple of cats. The outwardly simple world of the room is further complicated by the unstable dimensions of a text continually influenced by the filmmaker's interventions, which appears on a computer monitor and serves as a counterpoint to the similarity mutable environment. The constantly changing viewing angle complicates answers to questions which arise: What is ‘truth' and what ‘illusion' ? Which of the observed worlds is primary and superior to the rest? Can anything serve as a basic orientation point in the narrative space? The plot doesn't begin to describe the film: a man is writing a film, or rather, *this* film. It's totally self referential to the point that you think it's going to fold in on itself like a black hole. The writer writes something and it happens, or something happens and he writes about it.

It's very philosophical, like "Waking Life" but more Zen oriented and for that matter, much better, in my opinion. At one point there are person-on-the-street interviews and then you see shots of these people being filmed, and then you discover that their responses are scripted when one keeps flubbing her lines. There is beautiful scenery and optical illusions.

I hope it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again more carefully. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 2/25/2002. After going for a bike ride that day, lying beside a lake in a nature reserve, spending half an hour feeding and talking to a donkey who lived in a beautiful field with a small wood in it, this film made absolute sense to me.

The imagery of the film was beautiful and that is all you need. Switch off the conscious control knob of the mind and job done.

Reminded me of Baraka (1992) but with the added lesson of my previous paragraph.

This comment requires a minimum of ten lines, ten lines is the minimum not 9 lines but ten. After finishing counting all the lines you realise that there are less than ten even though less than ten lines is all that is needed to make my comment. One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.

This movie is a journey through the mind of a screenwriter caught in his own paradoxical philosophy. He examines the ever illusive question of 'who am I' and 'what is I?' It's a courageous and thought provoking enterprise. There is a shipload of beautiful images, dream-inspired, Escher-like paradoxes reminiscent of the hand drawing itself, or rather, erasing itself. More and more we follow the writer in his agony over what to say and what to film, we see him phoning with his wife who left for Peru, leaving him to take care of their baby, a task he performs with less and less attention until he's so absorbed in his dilemma's that he hardly looks at the child anymore. His wife comes back and makes a scene, destroys his notes and helping him go over the last treshold until he erases him-self. Interspersed with eye-pleasing and I-destructing images, the story is mainly philosophical. It's about the veils of Maya, the world of illusion. The paradox of the movie however, is that it needs a lot of talking and thinking to prove that thinking should stop. During the more than two hours of provocative beauty and rapid philosophising the movie made me long for silence or a shorter movie. If that was the purpose of the maker, he succeeded quite well. to communicate in film essential things of life - like what is life, does it have a meaning? - is sheer impossible. Of course possible answers to these questions are demonstrated in every film (story), but communication needs a direct appeal to consciousness. This happens if the input from the senses overrules the "input" from our mind, i.e. our thoughts. Few directors know how to communicate essential things. Tarkovsky, is one. His "Stalker" shows images of existence, communicates life as it shows itself and yet escapes your mind. I think De Zee and De Graaff do the same. Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. "Men in white" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option. This movie has recieved horrible ratings from just about everyone who has voted here but i am here to say if you like movies like Dude Wheres my Car and Dumb and Dumber this movie is for you. If your into movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca id have to sugest you in a different angle. Yet i still love this movie and everything about it even if it is kind of "kiddy" this is one of the few movies me and my freinds have been able to keep watching over the years and quote whenever possible. GREAT MOVIE. This movie should the AFIs number 1 because its so friggin' high class. The only problem with this movie is you may have trouble seeing it because it was a made for tv movie on a channel that no longer exists. So i dont know how to get this movie, id like to buy it for dvd but i cant find it anywhere. I still have it taped from when it was first on, you can come over if you want and watch it bute i might be sleeping. this movie rocks and thats basicly all you need to know. I found this movie hilarious. The spoofs on other popular movies of that time were some of the funniest I have seen in this sort of movie. Give it a try. If you saw the movies that this movie is spoofing, and you get the humor, you should enjoy the movie.

I (and the others who watched the movie with me) felt the funniest part in the movie (this is not a spoiler because I will NOT tell you what actually happens) was a scene with the "flashy thingy" from MIB. When they first discover the device and do not know what it is does... and then again later in the movie... you'll understand when you get there.

My only complaint about the movie is that I have never been able to find it in DVD so that I could buy a copy. The "Men in White" movie is definitely one of the funniest, if not THE funniest, comedy movies I ever watched! (and I watched quite a lot!) It is about two garbagemen, who become "Men in White" and then stop an invasion from space. It is also a parody of lots of classic movies, such as "Men in Black", "Star Wars" or "Dr. Strangelove". Anyone who says that this movie is crappy has something wrong with his head. There are tons of funny gags and jokes here, and you might actually get injury to your mouth from laughing too hard (it happened to me!). If you can watch this movie on TV, watch it now - you certainly won't regret it! What is with all of the European (especially England) comments here? All i gotta say is that when i saw this movie for the first time when i was like 13 i thought it was great. Of course it's stupid. That's the point. You have to see the movie Dr. Strangelove and Men in Black to get the whole joke behind this movie, but come on people, what did you expect to see? I can think of many movies that are far worse than this, and they were expensive Hollwood films with real actors in them. For what it's worth, Men in White is a very stupid-funny mock of a movie. And with all the stupid-funny stuff that England has been making for the last half century, i am shocked at all the negative comments. Us stupid Americans like our stupid humor. P.S., see 'Team America: World Police" for some true laughs that Europeans will especially like. HA! I think this movie is a very funny film and one of the best 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very catchy spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very good ending in is very funny (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a pretty cool dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, but that is what makes the film funny, it is a comedy, loosen up!! I love the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because it is interesting to see how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, and with this films, it is hard to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) or the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, but this film carries it off successfully. The two garbage men are so funny, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is a must for your collection and is one of the best, most entertaining, funniest, best storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!! Ayone who whines about how this movie was crap or that it had no plot must have been looking for "Jean de Florrette". HELLO! this film was made to be a random act of comedy and in no way involves a plot in any way shape or form. I would also like to remind these whiners that if you are going to flay the crap out of this film that they seem to be missing the point. This film is clearly made for people who don't appreciate the so called "american humour" which seems to me just a pile of smutty crap. The point is everyone has an opinion and you should be a bit more appreciative that some peoples sense of humour may not be in line with your own before shooting your mouth off.

Thankyou It does not seem that this movie managed to please a lot of people. First off, not many seem to have seen it in the first place (I just bumped into it by accident), and then judging by the reviews and the rating, of those that did many did not enjoy it very much.

Well, I did. I usually tolerate Gere for his looks and his charm, and even though I did not consider him a great actor, I know he can do crazy pretty well (I liked his Mr Jones). But this performance is all different. He is not pretty in this one, and he is not charming. His character is completely different from anything I had seen from him up to that point---old, ugly, broken, determined. And Gere, in what to me is so far his best performance ever, pulls it off beautifully. I guess it is a sign of how well an actor does his job if you cannot imagine anyone else doing it instead---think Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, or Washington as Alonzo in Training Day. That is how good Gere was here.

The rest of the cast were fine by me, too. I guess I would not have cast Danes in this role, mostly because I think she is too good-looking for it. But she actually does an excellent job, holding her own with a Gere in top form, which is no small feat. Strickland easily delivers the best supporting act, in a part that requires a considerable range from her. I actually think she owns the key scene with Gere and Danes, and that is quite an achievement.

So what about the rest of the movie, apart from some excellent acting? The story is perhaps not hugely surprising, some 8mm-ish aspects to it, but adding the "veteran breaks in rookie" storyline to the who-dunnit, and also (like Silence of the Lambs) adding a sense of urgency through trying to save the girl and the impending retirement of Gere's character. All that is a backdrop to the development of the two main characters, as they help each other settle into their respective new stations in life. That's a lot to accomplish in a 100 minutes, but it is done well, and we end up caring for the characters and what happens to them.

Direction and photography were adequate. I could have done without the modern music-video camera movements and cutting, but then I am an old curmudgeon, and it really wasn't all that bad, in fact I think it did help with the atmosphere of the movie, which as you might have guessed, by and large isn't a happy one.

Worth seeing. After Chicago, I was beginning to lose all respect for Richard Gere and then along came The Flock. There's just so far a nice smile and a couple of stock facial gestures can get you, but he proved to me that he's finally gotten hold of his craft and can act with the best of them. Clare Danes was also super as his "trainee/replacement". Some have suggested there was too much unnecessary violence, but I don't see it that way. Nothing I saw detracted from the power of this film. I was really shocked I hadn't heard of it being released in theaters and came across it at Blockbuster instead. Really an exceptional film with just the right blend of action, suspense, thrills, and social consciousness. As good as 7even? Well, maybe. And you'll see better acting out of Gere than anyone's ever gotten out of Pitt. I did not have too much interest in watching The Flock.Andrew Lau co-directed the masterpiece trilogy of Infernal Affairs but he had been fired from The Flock and he had been replaced by an emergency director called Niels Mueller.I had the feeling that Lau had made a good film but it had not satisfied the study,so they fired him and hired another director.This usually does not work well (let's remember The Invasion).But The Flock resulted to be better than what I expected.It's not a great film but it's an interesting and entertaining thriller.The character development is very well done and I could know the characters very well.Also,the relationship between the two main characters is natural and credible.Richard Gere and Claire Danes bring competent performances.Now,let's go to the negative points.One element which really bothered me (there was a moment in which it irritated me) was the excess of edition tricks to give the movie more "attitude" and style.That tricks feel out of place and their presence is arbitrary.Plus,I think the film should have been more ambitious.In spite of that,I recommend The Flock as a good thriller.It's not memorable at all,but it's entertaining. I really like Richard Gere...I always have and it seems as of late that his status as a Hollywood star and money maker has slipped but it would appear to me that the reason is that he is taking very mature, intense roles and has been very successful at it just not financially because I have seen him in some truly great gems as of late including The Hoax, The Hunting Party (both must see films! See my reviews) and now this The Flock which apparently was meant to be a big release considering it's substantial 35 million + budget. It seems that some of the other IMDb reviews are very, very harsh because I thought the film dealt with a potentially very serious social issue in a very direct, violent and disturbing way and Gere just brings it all home. It's an action thriller drama that kept my glued to the Television with it's story. I think part of the problem that people seem to have with it is that it Hollywood-izes a very serious issue but I don't think it does it with disrespect but rather tries to take a different spin to make people aware that this exists. In fact it's much the same way that The Hunting Party dealt with war. Hong Kong director Wai-keung Lau did a decent job holding it together but I think the cast is what made it watchable.

Richard Gere as you may have guessed from my previous comments is brilliant as a social worker of sorts Erroll Babbage who has kind of created his own style and laws when it comes to keeping track of his "Flock" who are registered violent sex offenders. He holds no punches in tracking these people, following them and making absolutely sure they don't re-offend and if they do he'll be the one to identify and stop them any way he can. Gere is so intense and looks drained from this job and he's become violent and angry at watching these monsters loose on the street. He is just fantastic. Claire Danes is also terrific as Babbage's new partner and his replacement who he has to train to do his job. Danes' character is far more typical social worker and is a little taken aback by Babbage's style and methods but slowly realizes what he is trying to accomplish and go up against. The two of them are brilliant together and have terrific chemistry with such vastly different characters. KaDee Strickland plays a disturbed registered offender who appears to be torn from the headlines as she plays a character very reminiscent of Karla Homolka (Paul Bernardo's wife who is now out) for those of you who follow Canadian serial killers. Her character goes a little over the top but she is convincing and horrifying all at once. Russell Sams has a small role as Strickland's new boyfriend and he would have been better probably given a bigger role. Ray Wise, who is a terrific character actor (check him out in Dead End as well as the amazing turn as Satan himself in the WB show Reaper) and he gets a small but good role as the head of the Public Safety department and Babbage's boss.

The movie isn't perfect despite the terrific performances of it's lead cast. It takes liberties by really trying to make the film more entertainment than educational but it's just a different angle not unlike the Nicholas Cage dud 8MM. The Flock takes you into the underbelly of the sex trade, kidnapping, human trafficking and more and is just really something to watch. Perhaps it wasn't directed or written as well as it could have been but I am telling you that Danes and Gere together make this movie completely watchable and a really great thriller. It's disturbing but also something that isn't very complex and yet Gere's character in many ways is intensely complex with many layers and also opens social stigma and makes you contemplate about vigilantism in many ways when you see the people Gere deals with. I encourage you all to ignore poor reviews and see it for yourself because it's worth checking out!! 8.5/10 Gere and Danes star as 2 workers for the department of public safety who keep track of released sex offenders. Gere, who plays Babbage, refers to them as his flock. Gere is an over obsessed vigilante whom is on his way out. He is training, new comer Allison, to take over his job. Gere sees his flock as very sick, disturbed puppies. He asks them questions that are not on the list, and tries to act like the police and solve crimes. He keeps getting warned for this behavior, hence the reason he is being replaced. During his final few days on the job, a young girl goes missing, and Babbage is sure it is one of his flock whom has gone astray. Him and Allison narrow a list down and discover some of the offenders have gone AWOL. So, he decides that he needs to track the missing girl down rather than help the police. That part is a little far fetched.

There is some sick, twisted stuff shown in this film. Like when Babbage and Allison go to this building where a bunch of sick people do disturbing things to each other. Also, there are the people who kidnapped the girl. At the end of the film, we see what sick freaks they are. However, I wouldn't call this movie excessive because not really much is shown on film.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like thrillers and films about serial killers and cops chasing killers, then you will like this. The Flock is unjustly maligned as a lesser "Se7en" ripoff. There's really no reason to compare the two, except maybe for the similar scenery in the final showdown.

Now that that's out of the way I'll go into why The Flock is very interesting in some respects. Mostly it's a drama piece rather than a full blown thriller about a very vigilant social worker who monitors sexual offenders. At the very beginning you can clearly see his work has got the better of him. Evident in two scenes where first he's interviewing an offender and slaps him around and second when a woman tries to pick him up and all he can think of are his standard questions from his questionnaire.

Gere is very good as Errol Babbage, the aforementioned social worker. His way of performing his job is not unlike that of a police officer, he carries a gun and is constantly checking newspapers and supplies law officials with information if some of his "flock" may be responsible for a sexual crime. He's also a person who's lost all happiness of living and his only relief seems to come from exacting his own vigilante justice on his flock. Twice you see him smile, once when he's apologizing for treating his partner rudely and the other after he's beaten up a member of his flock.

As a suspense flick, The Flock isn't as successful. Somewhat confusing and with some irritating plot holes but it does have a number of striking set pieces.

Overall The Flock is a solid drama about a man performing a dehumanizing job and in the end he has to work hard to keep from being swallowed by the abyss he's surrounded himself in. The world we live in is a pretty sick place and the further one can distance himself from the worst the happier that person is. The Flock gets that point across nicely. I caught this movie late at night on cable, and I was pleasantly surprised. I can only imagine the reason this movie was not better known, is because the subject matter is very disturbing. But if you can handle the sexual abuse topic, it is a well acted, suspenseful and very interesting movie. Both Richard Gere and Claire Daines are very good in it. And although the subject matter is not for the faint of heart, the movie doesn't go out of its way to be brutal either (like 8mm for instance).

I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys serial killer and suspense type movies. Erroll works for The Department of Public Safety and his job is to check up on sex offenders. Sometimes he pushes the line at his job and beats on the sex offenders. I don't blame him but his boss is ready for him to retire so along comes Allison. Erroll is now training her to do his job and it's like job shadowing. Allison is somewhat naive about the job in the beginning but she doesn't realize how much danger she really is and it's all Erroll's fault. He starts to go to far with his obsession of finding a missing girl when his job isn't to be a police officer.

It's a fairly decent movie about a crazy guy who pushes the boundaries and works outside his "scope of practice." Erroll did do a good job but at the sake of the safety of Allison. It has some good mystery to it too and just when I had it figured out, there was more to it. All I can say is, first movie this season that got my attention. I picked it because of the actors, Gere and Claire, and the story looked promising..I have just watched it and i can say - i'm overwhelmed. There are shocking scenes, true..but that's what makes it more realistic. We shouldn't run away from our reality, these things are happening right this moment. And there are experts who are trying to change things and make things better and who get laughed out about their commitment to the cause. Actually I can't seem to feel the "Hollywood touch" in the movie..and that's what makes it better. Both Claire and Richard did a great roles, and deserve a 10 from me. Hong Kong directors crossing over to Hollywood to make movies is nothing new, with the temporary exodus of the likes of Tsui Hark, John Woo, Ringo Lam in the 90s. From their collective output, only a few movies (or may I say just one?) made an impact at the box office. The Andrew Lau and Alan Mak partnership has been a tour de force in recent HK cinematic history, especially with their now famous Infernal Affairs trilogy which was remade into Martin Scorsese's The Departed, so it's no surprise when Hollywood comes knocking on the door.

But without fellow collaborator Mak, who usually has script/story duties, how did Lau fare with writers Hans Bauer and Craig Mitchell? It's like the X-Files without the X, in the way the story is crafted, the characters and the parallels drawn with the Chris Carter series. Richard Gere and Claire Danes pair up ala David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, only that they don't belong to any federal investigative agency who bear arms, but are employees of Protective Services, who's chief role is to ensure that sexual predators who belong to their jurisdiction, are kept safe from society when they are released from having served time. Hence they are the shepherds tending to their flock, only that their flock suffer from sick sexual perversion with the propensity for violence.

The parallels in characterization are so blatantly obvious, that it's just a cosmetic touch up on the outside. Like Fox Mulder, Gere's Erroll Babbage is a strange, lonely man, consumed by his obsession in his quest to doggedly harass his flock to tote the line. Pained by a failed attempt to rescue a missing child, just like how Mulder pines for his missing sister, Babbage is shunned by colleagues and given the marching orders disguised as a retirement plan. He has deep disgust for the people he's monitoring, sick of their crimes and what they stand for, that he has no qualms in using unorthodox methods, short of flying off the handle while dishing out illegal, preemptive punishment. At the same time, he too has strong urges that he has to fight against, in order not to cross the line into becoming like those he loathes. As part of routine, he also scans newspapers and tabloids for clues and leads toward his objective, that of seeking closure, salvation for himself, and possessing a strong belief that the truth is still out there, and he wants to believe.

Danes' Allison Lowry on the other hand, is the ingénue brought in to replace Babbage. But in the meantime while learning the ropes on the job for the next 18 days, she is required to spy on him, and to report his shenanigans, pretty much like what Dana Scully was tasked to do with Fox Mulder. As the disbeliever of pre-emptiveness and holding onto the notion that those discharged back to society have been cured of their temptations, she slowly starts to see what Babbage sees, and understands that it takes a whole lot more than being just a desk and administrative job if she truly wants to help people.

And it is this discovery of the world of fetishes and deviant sexual practices, that we open all our eyes to, much like how 8mm starring Nicolas Cage brought snuff films into the spotlight. It's a decent investigative drama with the usual red herrings, and my, are they really good ones as it made you wonder quite often if your guesses are correct, and you soon find yourself firing from the hip as you get proved incorrect at alarming frequency, though I don't credit this to a tight narrative, but more from the sprawling number of characters (watch out for Avril Lavigne's cameo) and sub plots. The scene in the darkened ware/shophouse was akin to Se7en's David Mills and William Somerset when they raided John Doe's apartment and find plenty of bizarreness inside, though here, given the subject nature, it wasn't lingered upon much.

Apparently, The Flock somehow decided that Enrique Chediak's cinematography was good enough, despite its very strange style of having no style, utilizing almost every trick in the book to try and recreate feelings of watching another Se7en, only that this was deeply steeped in tinges of brown, rather than the doom and gloom of black. It does take a little while to get used to this, and I put this effect as one which actually distracts from what is happening in the story. Not a really good move though, with somewhat frequent repetition of scenes involving flashbacks.

But The Flock still makes decent entertainment, though X-philes out there would probably find it hard not to picture their favourite actors in the lead roles, given so much similarities in character. Gere and Danes do put forth some chemistry as the old fogey (heh) and his protégé, and while it's not exactly great, Andrew Lau did manage to pull off something enjoyable. This is the first review I've wrote for IMDb so bare with me, but I caught this flick on HBO and was sure glad I watched it. Richard Gere is great in this film as the passionate agent/detective who bends the rules to get the job done. I think the story is great, and there's never a dull scene that slows the pace of the movie down. Some parts of the movie which have to do with demented sex addicts are pretty shocking, but if you've ever seen a crime film like Se7en, you'll be able to stomach the scenes just fine.

So all in all, if you're looking for a good detective/suspense movie, ignore the low rating this movie got on IMDb and definitely watch it. STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

A notably bad actor, getting by on his (now fading) looks rather than any strong dramatic talent, Richard Gere has always occupied a rather curious position in the American Hollywood scene, always a sure bet in leading man roles who still holds a notable presence today. But nowadays he seems to have settled more into these sort of direct to DVD/limited release roles and as such maybe seems to be more settled in his forte now.

He has to draw on some stern matter here as hardened, cynical case worker Earl Babbage, one such worker assigned to a few hundred sex offenders in one area of the US, who along with his new protégé Allison Allthrop (Claire Danes) must take to his latest case, delving into the abduction of a young woman while trying to forgive himself for a case he failed on ages ago.

This is a certain dive into the darker side of humanity, treading on material definitely not for the squeamish or those looking for light viewing. And as such it's a pretty strong, compelling film, unflinching and not constrained by it's direct to DVD budget. The only thing really pulling it back is the overly used jittery, fast cutting camera sequences used in the more dramatic moments that look a bit corny after a while. But it's still some of the solidest material I've seen Gere in, relentlessly getting darker and more over the edge as it goes on. *** Since their nasty divorce from the Disney Company (with Disney keeping the Miramax brand) the Weinstein Company seems to specialize in above average movies which are then under-promoted and seen by few. THE FLOCK is a prime example.

A story about the civil servants who have the nasty job of keeping track of registered sex offenders, this picture will tell you more about sex criminals than an entire season of Law and Order - SVU.

Richard Gere gives his best-ever performance as the soft-spoken agent worn-out by the task. Claire Danes for once has the opportunity to get into a solid role (instead of the junk she normally gets stuck in) and she makes the most of playing the novice. The cinematography, pacing, editing, all of it is first rate --- and I saw no trace of the attention-deficit-disorder camera jump-around or excess camera cuts that others complained about. The subject is handled with restraint, but it's still a tough subject and might make you sick.

Fifty years ago there was almost no problem with the kinds of sex crimes herein shown in abundance which will shock even the jaded. Then came the Supreme Court decisions which simultaneously tied police hands as the "rights" of sex perverts were opened up and America was turned into a shopper's paradise for sexual perversity, both willing and unwilling. Each such step was met with praise by Liberals, who celebrated the Warren Court's ill deeds with glossy covers on Time and Newsweek. Everyday liberals also praised the Court's action and mocked those who disagree. In 2007 how many Americans know that the kind of pornography that depicts savage violence and torture of young women -- can be subscribed to, and delivery of it is subsidized by the discount periodicals rate by the US Post Office. Just one part of the problem -- a problem that can tare anyone's family to shreds.

Richard Gere is a Liberal, but he gives his best in his performance here. Perhaps in his maturing age he's gained a measure of wisdom. Its a shame she didn't get screen credit , she by far did the best job in the film has the girl on the cross , best part of the movie .She had much more impact than Avril , or just about anyone else in the film . She almost made S/M look like fun ! She really was believable has the S/M model that gets scared of her situation . Although they seem to really have messed up that sort of dreamy feeling of looking for the bad guy , Those sets were very well built but they just sort of skimmed the surface of what was shot . This is one film were both cuts should be made available. It seems they left out a lot of what was shot , and almost all of the really dark stuff that would have made the film much more demented . Its kind of like they stopped short of the mark they were going for during filming . What was shot would not have gotten a R rating probably a NC-17 or X , but that is what it would have needed to make the film they way it should have been . I saw this important intense film tonight. Its Richard Gere and Claire's Dane's most important and best work. Gere deserves an Oscar for his fine portrayal of a man being forced into early retirement as a sex offender registrar administrator. Claire Danes is riveting as the woman Gere handpicks to replace him - a woman he tries to teach all he can while investigating one final case in which Gere's character is convinced one of those he is charged to monitor may be holding a young girl hostage. The subject matter is shocking, sex offenders and those who monitor them, but this film will not soon be forgotten. I know I will be haunted by Gere's portrayal for a very long time. Not since Anthony Hopkins portrayal of a serial killer has a screen portrayal terrified and so engaged me. The film opens with a shocking statistic so don't miss the opening credits. Intense and memorable. Richard Gere's finest role proving the man can act. Danes can as well and both do extraordinarily well in this often challenging film.

This is a gutsy film and Gere gives a multi-layered deeply felt performance. Just give him the Oscar now...he deserves it! If you want your vision of Chaplin limited to a lovable tramp and you get your belly laughs from pathos, watch something else. If, however, you love slapstick comedy as performed by one of the best, do watch this one.

The image is of the tramp who really cannot get the girl. He spots another couple kissing on a park bench, and he has a blast ruining their fun.

This is one of Chaplin's "park comedies," filmed in Mack Sennett's park, with pickpockets and cops and couples. These shorts work, as the format allows Chaplin to shine as he weaves through predicaments.

I checked the box, as this could be considered a spoiler, though it's not if you've seen these films. Everyone ends up in the pond except Chaplin. He gets the girl, who in this case was played by Minta Durfee, a.k.a. Mrs. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. If you were a director that was looking to cast female victims for a slasher movie, then surely it would make sense to add a couple of porn stars? It's not as if they're inexperienced in front of the camera, they have no qualms with the requisite nudity and how many unattractive porn queens can you name? Christian Viel obviously recognized the potential of mixing hardcore actresses with hard-gore effects and so he cast four of adult cinema's sexiest and most notorious stars. Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn Allen and Taylor Hayes all turn up for cameos in arguably the most intriguing slasher flick to be released since Scream Reinvigorated the genre.

Samhain was originally intended for a cinema release in October 2002 - thus keeping in check with the Halloween-based synopsis. Unfortunately, the shoot was plagued by numerous problems, which have thus prevented the feature from achieving the exposure that it deserves. Last I heard it had been signed by Film 2000 here in the UK and was penned for a late October release direct to DVD. Unfortunately that label has got a peerlessly abysmal track record with DTV slashers. Not content with polluting our shelves with Camp Blood and its follow up, they were also responsible for unleashing Granny, Bleed and the rancid Paranoid. Could Samhain finally be worthwhile ammunition to their contemptible catalogue cannon?

Five Canadian/American students and their teacher head to Southern Ireland as part of their history course. Upon arrival they are told the legend of a cannibalistic clan that roamed the hills of Scotland and murdered locals for food. The cannibals were eventually caught and burnt at the stake, but it's rumored that one of the tribe escaped and headed to the woodland of Ireland to find refuge. After the kids have settled and begun doing what all massacre-fodder does in these flicks, the mandatory goody two-shoes (and definite heroine candidate) begins to be spooked by a shadow creeping around late at night. Could it be that the flesh hungry maniac is still at large in the Forest? Well what do you think…?

It looks as if Samhain's production was jinxed right from the start. Almost immediately Wallmart refused to develop Jenna Jameson's nude make-up shots, and Chasey Lain began acting characteristically like a drugged-out primadonna. Finally to add insult to injury, the producers got cold feet just before the flick was about to hit shelves and began talking of re-editing and removing all the gore. Reports have said that they were unhappy about the copious amounts of violence and they wanted to trim scenes down so it would achieve an R rating. Veil of course disagreed, seeing how his entire synopsis was boosted by its creatively graphic display. Eventually after months of arguments, the director parted company with Warehouse productions and the feature was once again locked in the vaults.

Despite countless disruptions, Veil's slasher opus is still one of the best genre pieces to be released since the new millennium. The copy I was sent was the pre-release screener, which was obviously a test press without sound effects or the complete soundtrack. But still it boasted a few credible jump-scares, some superb cinematography and a couple of the goriest set pieces that I've seen for some time. One guy is disemboweled via his rectum before being strangled with his own intestine, Jenna Jameson is stripped naked and gutted in unflinching close up and Chasey Lain ends up 'spilling her guts' after an unfortunate rescue attempt from her boyfriend (Richard Grieco). Even though the murders are uncommonly gruesome, Samhain never feels mean spirited, which is basically due to the characters being thinly portrayed as basic slasher clichés. In all honesty the script was perhaps the movies biggest downfall, because the dialogue was not so much inspired by Wes Craven's Scream movies as it was flagrantly cut and pasted from them.

Certainly the inclusion of the mouth-watering Jenna Jameson was a great move by the producers. Her fans will be excited to know that she does whip off her top (as expected) and so does Chasey Lain and Taylor Hayes. But Samhain is no soft porn movie, and it benefits from sticking to the structure that it set out to produce. It's worth noting that the aforementioned XXX stars almost out-perform the supposed 'actors' of the feature, which isn't much of a complement. Ginger Lynn was at least notable (if you ignore the shameful 'Oirish accent), and her battle with the hulking killer was superbly performed and choreographed by Alan Chou. Taylor and Jenna delivered expectedly poor dramatics, which could have been caused by the numerous problems on-set. Veil's direction of the cinematography was excellently constructed and he provides some much-needed injections of suspense. Exciting and crisp photography is mixed with a good flair for storytelling and the net result is a slasher extravaganza to satisfy even the most critical gore hounds.

It will be interesting to see what kind of final cut is released of Samhain. Rumor has it that a second director was drafted in to shoot a different ending, and I'm curious as to how much of the explicit gore will remain intact for worldwide distribution. If the end result is only half as good as the rough print that I watched, then it's still better than nearly all of the genre pieces that have been unleashed over the past ten years. This one is certainly worth checking out… This film Evil Breed: The legend of samhain contains very little thought or effort. It is ridiculed with specs of ultra fast "slasher" style death and plain disgusting acts of death. The acting was rated a D as the actors show very little ability, and the stupidity of them in the film is too questionable. The way they portrayed what people their ages act like was incredibly different. The odd split of porn is fit in thought it really doesn't offer much, and any area that is respectable but is quite quickly run down with absolute gut wrenching death. Example is the poor fellow whom is disemboweled from his anus, and the scene lasts for about 5 minutes. It is terribly obvious of how little of a fight the kids put up. This film is a good choice for someone who likes to watch some awful deaths and practically torture. A bunch of American students and their tutor decide to visit the ugliest part of Ireland in order to study ancient religious practices. Despite being repeatedly warned about the dangers of straying off the beaten path (by the local creepy Irish guy, natch), they do just that, and wind up with their insides on the outside courtesy of a family of inbred cannibals (the descendants of the infamous Sawney Bean clan, who according to the film's silly plot, upped sticks from Scotland and settled on the Emerald Isle).

If you think that porn stars plus low budget horror automatically equals tons of nudity and terrible acting, then think again: Evil Breed is bristling with adult stars, but in fact, there's not nearly as much nudity as one might expect given the 'talent' involved, and the acting, although far from Oscar worthy, ain't all that bad (with the exception of Ginger Lynn Allen, who we know can do marvellous 'French', but whose Irish is lousy).

Evil Breed opens in superb style with the brutal slaughter of a couple of amorous campers: after some brief under-canvas sex, the silicone enhanced hottie is dragged from the tent and torn in half; the guy has his arms and legs cut off and is roasted on a spit. It's a very gory start, and bodes well for the rest of the film.

Unfortunately, after this promising beginning, things start to go seriously downhill: we are introduced to the main characters, an annoying bunch of twenty-somethings just begging to become cannibal chow, and are subjected to a fair amount of time wasting in the form of some terrible false scares, a lot of blarney about murderous druids from local Irish weirdo Gary (Simon Peacock), and worst of all, some sub-Scream, post-modernistic conversation about the conventions of horror films (how clever!).

Then, just as it looks as though the film is never going to get any better, director Christian Viel decides to get serious: a guy gets a knife rammed through his head and there's a gratuitous sex-in-the-shower scene featuring lovely blonde Gillian Leigh (NOT a porn star, but I'm sure there's a career there waiting if she wants it). After that, things improve rapidly as the cannibals kick into top flesh-eating gear, and the film is transformed into a veritable bloodbath: Gary has a machete rammed up his ass (about time!), and is strangled with his intestines; Ginger Lynn kick-boxes a mutant; Jenna Jameson is torn open, eviscerated and has her silicone breast implant gnawed on by confused cannibal; a guy gets decapitated by cheese wire; and Taylor Hayes is seen bloody, bruised and naked with a dead foetus between her legs (apparantly, she's been captured and used as breeding stock).

All of this is so outrageously gory that it makes sitting through the less interesting stuff worthwhile, and earns Evil Breed a final rating of 7/10.

NB. A very troubled production and studio meddling resulted in Christian Viel eventually abandoning the project. Re-shoots were done and the gore was heavily trimmed for a US release. The good news is that although the film doesn't flow as well as it might have, and is cursed with a terrible ending, the UK DVD (the version I watched) seems to have been left relatively intact as far as the splatter is concerned (only 13s were cut from the film in total). I don't watch much porn, but I love porn stars. And I love gory movies. So when I heard about a porn-star gore movie, I was really excited. Of course, that was years ago and when I heard about all the trouble with making and finishing the movie, I never thought I'd actually get to see it. But I did and I'm not ashamed to admit I loved it, even with all its flaws.

First, the flaws. The story is set in Ireland and is called Samhain, but the story it seemed to want to tell is about the Sawney Beane clan from Scotland. So why not just set it there and skip the third-grade report about Samhain/Irish immigrants/Halloween? Also, it breaks its own rules by stating that you're safe on the trails, but then the cannibal mutants just start running amok everywhere. It's never clear how many cannibals we're dealing with. There's a big stone castle that's obviously ancient, yet no one's noticed it before. The self-conscious horror film references are annoying and so are the characters. The heroine has a flashback montage of all her dead friends that include a character she NEVER MET. The ending makes no sense.

So what works? The gore! Sure I would have liked more, but it was refreshing to see such a nasty movie that wasn't afraid to be nothing more than a gore movie. Two murders are waay over the top and Taylor Hayes has a nice disgusting scene. The two wild murders are even given extended shots on the DVD. I've always been of the mind that gore can overcome a stupid story and Evil Breed reinforced that. Honestly, I was expecting to HATE this one, and really only checked it out because Jenna Jameson is in it...but I have to say I got a kick out of EVIL BREED. A group of college kids and their teacher go on a "field trip" to Ireland. Their lodgings are located near the woods where it is rumored that strange things happen and tourists often disappear without a trace. The group of post-teens is warned by the property's caretaker not to venture into the woods - but being the stupid B-movie characters that they are - of course they pay no attention and pay for their mistake one-by-one... First off, there is plenty wrong with EVIL BREED. The acting/dialog is pretty weak, and my major gripe is that a film that has Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn, and Taylor Hayes should have FAR more gratuitous nudity than was on display here - and Jenna's role in this production is grossly over-hyped, as she has a combined total of about 2 minutes of screen time. Even less with Chasey, and Ginger Lynn shows no skin and has the worst Irish accent ever. Also the last scene of the film makes absolutely no sense and feels like it's thrown in just to end the film. Those gripes aside - there is some good stuff as well. Richard Greico and Chasey Lain are both dispatched early on, with Greico's nude torso ending up on a roasting spit and Chasey's guts hanging out from being torn in half (though how she ends up this way isn't shown on-screen)...not bad for the first 5 minutes. The other kill scenes are pretty inventive, including Jenna's forced breast implant removal, a guy getting his colon pulled out through his ass, a knife through the face, and a few other notables. The implant and colon scenes also have uncut versions that are on the special features and it's a shame the producers made them chop 'em, so to speak. Also the film moves along at a pretty good clip once it gets moving so you don't really have too much time to be bored. The "creature" FX are also done competently which definitely helps. Overall, EVIL BREED was not NEARLY as bad as I expected. This one, along with SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER have ALMOST renewed my interest in American low-budget straight-to-video films. I usually steer clear of them as a whole, but these two have been decent enough to give me some faith. EVIL BREED is no masterpiece, but it is a decent way to blow 90 minutes - might not hurt to suck on a bottle of cheap bourbon while you're at it - I know I was, and I'm sure it didn't hurt the experience. 7.5/10 Just got through watching this version of "Samhain", and even though I still like it, it's nothing like the "rough cut" version I have. If you check the message board, you'll see an apology from the director for this cut down version, 79 minutes., and he says he had nothing to do with this R-rated trimmed down edit with a completely new screwed up ending. Christian really doesn't need to distant himself that much, because the basic gore elements still stand up, even though highly trimmed down. This is a damn shame, because this had the potential of being one of the goriest and best gore films in years. It still has the porn stars, and the inbreds, and some of the extreme gore can at least be partially seen. I'm just glad I have that "rough cut", because to me, it's a jewel for any gorehounds library. Christian Viel definitely has the skill and vision to deliver the goods, and hopefully his next project will be better produced. The idiots had a near classic in their hands, and screwed it up for everybody. "Samhain" may be one of the most controversial and mishandled horror movies ever, and too bad gorehounds didn't get to see what the director intended.

********************************************* Just so you know what you missed, this is my review based upon the "work print" of SAMHAIN.

The movie runs a little over 90 minutes and has no chapter stops. There is absolutely NO music soundtrack, and some of the scenes have no audio on the dialog, because I think they are meant to be looped in later. However, most of the movie does have audio with sound affects, and when an effect or scene is missing, a message appears as a cue for insertion when the movie is completed. It's exactly as it says, a "Rough Cut", BUT the only uncut version of "Samhain" you are ever likely to see. Reason, because the gore is extremely graphic, much more than even an NC-17 would allow. Yes there are a few porn stars, but they are just there for the killing, and to add a little sugar and spice. The story is pretty standard, American tourists on a vacation in Ireland and end up staying in a home in the middle of the woods. An area that is heavy on folklore, involving the ancient Druids and the celebration of Samhain, or as we call it Halloween. (spooky)

The movie starts off with a HUGE dose of gore, as a camping couple is attacked by one of the local inbred mutants. This is a great gore scene, as the guy find his girl hanging from a cliff, with her crying for help. All he sees is her head, arms, and shoulders hanging in front of him and when he pulls her up, she has been completely sliced in two. This is what I would call EXTREME GORE, with entrails, blood, and severed limbs all over the place. We are in Herschell Gordon Lewis territory here folks, except the effects look much more realistic. I'm going to just skip the story, because it's your standard stalk and kill plot.

The next gore scene is something to behold, as the boyfriend from the first killing is taken to a cave like location (TCM-2 stuff), and bound to a table. This geek then cuts all of his limbs off (off camera, with a cue to insert a scene), and then we see his torso on a barbecue pit, turning slowly over a fire, and the torso has a hard-on (if you can believe that). Yes, very bad taste, gross, gruesome, you find the right word, and it will probably fit too.

Then later Jenna Jameson, her beautiful body and all, is cut from neck to crotch, and all her entrails are pulled out in graphic glee, and her blood drains into a pot. Yummy, a real turn on huh?

But the best gore scene happens inside the house, and I have to admit, this is one of the best gore scenes I have seen. This guy (doesn't matter who) is caught from behind from a geek, and cut open at the ass hole. The geek then puts his hands in and rips out all the guys entrails, intestines, and what the hell ever else there is, right from his asshole. This goes on FOREVER, as the guy is screaming and more and more innards are pulled out laying all over the bathroom floor. This is so extreme, so over the top, that I found myself laughing all to hell. Obviously, you will NEVER EVER see this scene on a proper DVD, IMO, along with most of the other really extreme gore scenes.

So, what to think of all of this. Well, first of all, even though I doubt this movie would ever be released in this totally uncut presentation, it makes this "Rough Cut" a rare jewel for gorehounds. Yes, it's a little difficult at first, with no soundtrack, a few scenes to still be inserted, and credits that have missing names all over the place. But that's what makes this so unique, and I wouldn't trade it for anything right now. Extreme gore, yes yes, extreme extreme gore. This makes "Haute Tension" look like a Disney movie. The Human Tornado is a campy 70's Blaxploitation movie starring nightclub comedian Rudy Ray Moore in perhaps his most endearing role to date. The movie tells the tale of Dolemite, a bad ass pimpin' hustler who gets on the wrong side of a white, racist sheriff by sleeping with his wife. Dolemite barely escapes, and journeys to sunny California to visit an old friend, a nightclub owner (and Madam to Dolemite's 'ladies') named Queen Bee. However, it seems that a rival nightclub owner with Mob connections is trying to muscle in on her racket, so Dolemite takes matters into his own hands. Rudy Ray Moore showcases many diverse talents in this landmark film, including strong dramatic skills, a mastery of Kung Fu, an impressive singing voice (he provides two of the songs on the soundtrack), a touching, compassionate side with the ladies, and an overall compelling charisma and keen sense of comic timing. This film has it all, people: A deep plot, blistering action, laugh-a-minute comedy, beautiful women in distress, a slam-bang ending...what more could you ask from a movie? Run, don't walk, to your local video store and rent The Human Tornado today. And be sure to share it with your family. Rudy does it again with this hot off the streets follow up to Dolemite. This entry is filled with the requisite Rudy Ray Moore raunch, humor and martial arts. Rudy eludes a crazy red-neck sheriff in this movie that also features an infamous scene where Rudy dives down a steep hill. See it for laughs and for a brain-blasting hit of Blaxploitation magic. Not only is this a great African-American classic comedy, but one of many great American cult classics.I have recently purchased the collection edition of Rudy Ray Moore.If you love the old school karate movies and black comedies, this is for you! They don't make movies like these anymore. My entire family are movie buffs, so this site is an extreme help on solving many debates. I am deployed in Iraq right now. This helps me to stay connected to world that I know in the states. Thank you IMDb.I recommend this site to all my friends. Dolemite rules! Don't just take my word for it, check them out for yourself. Ten lines is a lot for commenting on one movie I think, but if it gets the point across, I'm all for it! What can be said about Mr. Moore? He's the godfather of rap, he's the king of the Z-level blaxploitation flicks, and here, he is back as his most famous character, Dolemite! Can you dig it? This movie is one whacked-out roller-coaster ride of politically incorrect humor, trippy kung-fu, nudity, cheese, violence, and a whole lot of other stuff you'd never find in most modern movies (or any movies, really, haha!). The stand-up routine he gives early on is not to be missed! At any rate, D2 is definitely an entertaining way to waste an hour or so. Dolemite: "He think he's bad and ain't got no class! I'm gon' rock this shotgun up his *beep* a**!" This movie completely ran laps around the original Dolemite. It had everything that makes a movie great..except for real actors. (Ernie Hudson couldn't do it alone and you KNOW that! LOL) I admit that I have killed my first video tape of this movie and I plan to buy the DVD version again as soon as possible! This movie has so many catchy lines it's pitiful! I am embarrassed to say that I know the theme song backwards and forwards! I love Jimmy Lynch's character to death, and he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Award in Blaxploitation, but the Oscars were NEVER ready for this! This is a random film consisting of Crooked Cops, Breasts, Chases, Bad Editing, and of course martial arts. (Being that it's the 70's and I can say everyone knew some kind of martial arts). I think this movie should be restored and shown one night in the midst of a marathon in local theaters! Human Tornado (1976) is in many ways a better film than it's predecessor. The director knew what he had to work with and catered towards Rudy Ray Moore's limitations as an actor. It's a fun movie that's more technically sound and acted. The performers don't take themselves too seriously and it seems that this time around everyone is on the joke and goes with the flow. Rudy Ray Moore seems more relaxed in front of the camera and not as stiff like he was in Dolemite.

I enjoyed the film very much and I highly recommend it. Just like his first film, it's catered towards a certain audience (I highly doubt that Mr. Moore was trying to broaden his audience at this point in his career). Check it out!

Highjly recommended. As a lover of bad movies, I definitely hit paydirt with this one. The plot isn't really that bad, but there are a few instances where you really have to ask yourself "what the heck is going on here?"

There are many many things that make this the funniest bad movie ever. First off, Rudy Ray Moore had gotten so fat and slow when this movie was filmed that the special effects consist of speeding up the fight scenes to double time. There are also scenes where there is a slow-motion instant replay, jumping onto a ten foot high wall (by playing falling off of it backwards), naked men walking out of huge letters, and sex that literally brings down the roof (with the cable holding up the roof catching on fire).

Of course, no Rudy Ray Moore movie would be complete without a completely gratuitous and random comedy club scene where Rudy makes fun of all the customers, interposed with people doing some odd dance. There are so many things bad about this movie, but they're bad in an entertaining way, and if you take your eyes off the movie, you might miss another mistake.

Rating: 1/10 for actual value, 10/10 for cheese factor, 10/10 for picking out mistakes and goofs, averages out to 7/10. This is one of my favourite martial arts movies from Hong Kong. It is one of John Woo's earliest films and one of only a few traditional martial arts movies he directed. You can see his influences from working under Chang Cheh in this film. The action is good, the fight choreography is conducted by Fong Hak On who appears as one of the bad guys in the movie. It stars Wei Pei of "Five Venoms" fame and a whole host of faces familiar to fans of Golden Harvest and Shaw Brothers productions. The story line is interesting, there are a few decent plot twists and the build up of the characters and their relationships with each other is cleverly done. This film has only had a VHS release in the UK. Media Asia have released a region 3 DVD and there are versions of it on DVD available from the USA. The film is lovely to watch in either it's original language or in it's English dubbed version. I highly recommend this movie. The sword fighting was out of this world, the fights scenes spectacular without the flying on a wire techniques (until the end) that are way too common today. The scene with Chan and Pray was probably the highlight of the movie. The characters in the assault on the bad guys mansion were cliché but the movie is comfortable with it. An injection of humour from Woo.

The plot with it's twists and turns was unpredictable and exciting and you couldn't tell who was good or bad or which side people were on.

A good sense of suspense and well timed surprises. The depth of the story is quite intense for a flighty film of this genre and reaches you in ways most kung-fu flicks don't. I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! And John Woo surprised me here by producing a highly entertaining kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing is possible! This is good stuff.

Many of the fight scenes are very good (and some of them are less good), and the main characters are amusing and likable. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, but entertaining none the less. You gotta see the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's hysterical!

Upon repeated viewings, however, Last Hurrah For Chivalry can tend to get a little boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 7 out of 10. But it really is almost an "8".

All in all one of the better kung fu movies, made smack-dab in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair). Scott is right. The best 2 person sword duel ever put on film is in the middle of this movie. The sword fights with multiple fighters are not the best although quite good. However, the fight in the middle is the best even compared to Japanese samurai movies. Chinese swordplay scenes in my opinion have never surpassed the Japanese in terms of entertainment value. Especially in scenes where one guy must battle a group of enemies, Japanese movies excel, example being the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Even though duels in Japanese cinema last only seconds or a minute at the most, the sheer intensity of those moments made them better. But, this is one example where Chinese swordplay surpasses the Japanese. The scene in the middle of this film was a five minute long fight with the most amazing choreography ever. The other fights in this movie are good too but even if they sucked this movie would get a 7 for that one scene. If you haven't seen it, you have to. John Woo is the man. The pros of this film are the astonishing fighting scenes - absolutely incredible sword-moves and martial art show off. A true John Woo masterpiece. The story tends to be a bit week though, but it never overshadows the overwhelming display of acrobatic martial art action. If you are into martial art movies, you are going to LOVE this one! Another Woo's masterpiece!

This is a best wuxie film i'm ever seen! Woo - RULEZ forever (except some Hollywood moments...). John Woo - greater director of the century.

Maybe hi is not more intellectual than lot of Big Directors... But he is lyrical and spiritual idol of all free-mind people!

His movies like the great poetry! Woo is a Movie Sheakspeare! Woo is a Movie Biron! Woo is a Mozart of Bloodshet!!!!

IMHO violent in Woo films is not a directors bloodlust, but a instrument of art. Themes of Woo movies is more humanistic that more of the new films. Steven Spielberg produced, wrote, came up with ideas for and even directed episodes of Amazing Stories, so naturally this would have to be the greatest anthology ever right? Unfortunately wrong. Some episodes are just fantastic, but all too often it was a mixed bag. In fact, that might have been it's downfall is it was way too mixed. Some episodes were light comedies, some were dramas, some were horror, and one was even animated, which made this a similar, but not as good 80s version of the Twilight Zone (which also was around).

Normally I'd like having a mixture of stories in an anthology show, but they just didn't fully work here. Some of the more fantastical dramatic episodes felt like they would be better being shown late on night on the Lifetime network, like the episode "Ghost Train", which was directed by Spielberg himself. In that episode, it gave the message of hope, and gave us a fantasy story, but overall it was just a build up to the ending which didn't blow me away anyways. The horror episodes tended to work better than the drama, but there were far more dramatic ones, and they grow tiring to watch. Acting wise, this anthology got some big stars, similar to the original Twilight Zone. Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, Milton Berle, Dom Deluise, Harvey Keitel, Beau Bridges, Charlie Sheen, Forrest Whitaker, Tim Robbins, John Lithgow, Rhea Perlman, Danny Devito, Patrick Swayze, Christopher Lloyd, June Lockhart, Kathy Baker, Weird Al Yankovich and many other well knowns have been in episodes of the show. It's fun to see well known actors in almost every episode of the series. Great directors have also had part in episodes including Spielberg himself, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Bob Clark, Joe Dante, Mick Garris, Paul Bartel, Joe Dante, Robert Zemeckis, Danny Devito and even Martin Scorsese. I'd actually recommend this more to fans of the directors and/or the 80s than anyone else.

Amazing Stories was sometimes amazing, usually good, occasionally mediocre, and every once in a while a real stinker came out. But, this show has nostalgic value to me, and it's sort of fun to sit on boring afternoons and watch some episodes. John Williams' theme music for the show is sure to be caught in anyone's head who watches this, too.

My rating: Good show. 30 mins. per episode. TVPG This series was just like what you would expect from Mr.Spielberg. It is truly one of those frighting, funny, childish shows that you won't forget. Just like Outer Limits (another great show) this little series does what not a lot can. It was great, and deserved to run longer. It was a great show, that even kids could watch, though some of the shows were a little scary when they wanted to be, but all of them always had a moral at the end (like the Twilight Zone) that made you realize what situation you didn't want to end up in, or ones that you did. I remember watching some of these on Sci-fi when I was 10, and even now, I still enjoy seeing them when I can. Truly a fun, imaginative show. I loved it, and still do. I was delighted to finally see the release of Amazing Stories the first season on DVD. I had forgotten just what a stellar cast of actors and directors worked on this series. For the longest time the only way you got to see this remarkable series was with the VHS 2 or 3 episode collections or when Sci-Fi would re-run the episodes. However, when Sci-Fi would host the re-runs, they generally stuck to the same episodes. There were a few outstanding episodes in Season One like The Mission that they didn't repeat. Does anyone know exactly how long this series ran? It says 1985 to 1987 at the top here at IMDb but I thought it ran longer than two years. If you loved the Twilight Zone, Night Gallery and Outer Limits, you will love this series and you will not be disappointed with your purchase. I have watched this movie well over 100-200 times, and I love it each and every time I watched it. Yes, it can be very corny but it is also very funny and enjoyable. The camp shown in the movie is a real camp that I actually attended for 7 years and is portrayed as camp really is, a great place to spend the summer. Everyone who has ever gone to camp, wanted to go to camp, or has sent a child to camp should see this movie because it'll bring back wonderful memories for you and for your kids. Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel ("The Usual Suspects", "Three Kings") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of "THE EVIL DEAD" films and "The Gift", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders.

This movie is by far one of my favorites. I saw it while in college in the early 90's, and while I couldn't identify with the thirtysomethings in the film, I felt that the story, characters, and movie in general were top notch. To the people who spoke negatively of Indian Summer, feel free to stick to your overblown Armageddon-type movies and leave the movies with a great, wholesome story to those who can appreciate them. A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers. I thoroughly enjoyed this film overall, but four things really stand out: Sam Raimi's perfect comic timing and performance as the camp handy(?)man, Alan Arkin's wonderful characterisation of the camp owner, and best of all, the cinematography. The beautiful golden tones of the exterior scenes draws me into the film like a sunset at the lakeshore draws me into my own summer memories.

The dialog and mood feel very natural and believable. Some reviewers criticise the lack of a more "profound" script. To me, it is exactly that lack that makes this film work. The characters and their problems seem real and because of that, I care about what happens to them.

The bottom line is that all the parts come together to create a whole that feels right. There is this private campground in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that's been around since 1959. My grandparents were among its founders, my parents had a site starting in 1965, and my two brothers have sites there now.

(This doesn't have anything directly to do with the movie; bear with me.)

I spent summers at Blueberry Hill from when I was five years old to when I was eighteen, and it is to people like me to whom this film speaks: the ones for whom a group camp in the woods was, as my fiancée tells of me, "the good and happy place." If you've never experienced the lifestyle, Indian Summer will probably be lost on you; don't bother. It's not quick-paced, it doesn't have rapid cuts, the plots aren't in the least bit convoluted, it has no explosions, such dramatic tension as exists is mild, there aren't any A-list actors, there are no rapid-fire quips just to show off how clever the scriptwriters are (other than, perhaps, Kimberley Williams' killer line about how her fiancé shouldn't "overwind his toys." That is not the least degree what this movie is about, any more than The Godfather is a slasher flick just because it has a lot of on screen gore.

But Indian Summer is Godfather's polar opposite. If you have experienced the lifestyle, see this movie. Don't read any more, just do it.

For me, this is a 9/10 film. Indian Summer is a warm, multi-character film, that would make a fine afternoon film (with a bit of editing).

The film begins in the past with a group of children being shown a moose, which sets the tone perfectly before cutting into the present, when a group of adults from the "golden age" of the camp are invited back again to spend a few weeks holiday by the head of the camp, Uncle Lou. The film then allows the viewer to spend time with these characters as they remember their times at the camp, and form new memories in their latest stay.

The film succeeds in the great way it brings across its characters in this gorgeous setting, and allows them room to develop without having to worry about plot developments. Watching these people reminisce, and their relationships with each other is what the film is all about and why it works so well. It never goes to over the top and melodramatic, always keeping its warmth, charm and realism. I've never seen a film where nostalgia is captured so well, and found myself getting drawn in despite never having been to one of these camps as a child myself.

For a warm, nostalgic character movie, I sincerely recommend. Before Tuscan Sky, I saw Diane Lane's tender performance in this otherwise lark of a movie. Campers are invited to the camp of their youth and experience it as adults. Each of those that return seem to be looking for something they lost, which makes it so realistic. Maybe you had to be a camper to really get it, but in the words of one character noticing all her clothes were wet "this is so camp!" From the practical jokes and fighting over boyfriends, to the scary lunch lady and the early morning bell ... it's amp. Once exciting activities now seem mundane. A terrific ensemble cast makes the best of one-two dimensional roles and makes them believable. Bill Paxton, Diane, Elizabeth, Mrs. Brad Paisley (probably when he first fell for her!!) The beautiful scenery, bright colors, comical music (including variations of Hello Muddah)and a comic acting turn by noted director Sam Raimi makes this a movie you can pull out again and again like looking up an old friend. I watched this last night after not having seen it for several years. It really is a fun little film, with a bunch of faces you didn't know were in it. Arkin shines as always. Check it out; you won't be dissappointed. By the way, it was just released on DVD and contrary to its packaging, it IS widescreen. The transfer is rather poor, but at least the WHOLE movie is visible. ;-) A must see movie for anyone who ever went to camp, or wanted to. This film captures the absolute essence of what summer camp is all about. It is funny, it is compassionate it makes you want to watch more about the characters once the credits begin to role. If you have not seen this movie..what are you doing? get off you butt and run the video store. Have a great summer :) A great ensemble cast! A fond remembrance of younger carefree days. This movie takes me back to when I went to summer camp. Indian Summer, while full of practical jokes and pranks, is about growing up and coming to terms with life with middle-age life. My family & I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I swear I could watch this movie every weekend of my life and never get sick of it! Every aspect of human emotion is captured so magically by the acting, the script, the direction, and the general feeling of this movie. It's been a long time since I saw a movie that actually made me choke from laughter, reflect from sadness, and feel each intended feeling that comes through in this most excellent work! We need MORE MOVIES like this!!! Mike Binder: are you listening??? Rarely do I see a film that I am totally engrossed with; this was one of them. It had good acting, dialogue, plot, and the scenery was beautiful. I laughed out loud many times, especially the scene dealing with the kitchen raid. The slapstick comedy performed by the lunkhead hired hand had me one the floor, but I admit that I am a sucker for slapstick. The story dealt with a group of people in their 30's coming back to a summer camp that they had attended 20 years previously. It was a farewell week of camping, as the place would be closed down permanently at the end of the season. As adults the camp looked different, and they felt differently about it and each other. I recommend this funny, moving movie to all.

Indian Summer is a good film. It made me feel good and I thought the cast was exceptional. How about Sam Raimi playing the camp buffoon. I thought his scenes were very funny in a Buster Keaton-like performance. Solid directing and nice cinematography. If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0) I rented this movie when it came out on video tape and really enjoyed it. I had the opportunity to purchase it on DVD a few weeks ago and have watched it several times since. I would have to agree with others when they said Indian Summer was nostalgic film. When I watch it I wish that I could be 10-14 again. I think that is why we all like the movie to some extent. We all at times wish that we could relive our lives as children with the wisdom/knowledge of adults. Wouldn't it be nice to have all your friends/parents be young again? To not have to worry about your job, being a parent etc...??? I know that I would like to jump into a De Lorean and go back in time. While I enjoyed the film very much my all time favorite camp film though is Meatballs with Bill Murray. I wish that they could make an Indian Summer version of that. I saw the last five or ten minutes of this film back in 1998 or 1999 one night when I was channel-surfing before going to bed, and really liked what I saw. Since then I've been on the lookout, scouring TV listings, flipping through DVD/VHS racks at stores, but didn't find a copy until recently when I found out some Internet stores sold it. Then, being a world-class procrastinator, I still didn't order it. Finally, I found a DVD copy in a Circuit City while visiting Portland, OR, a few weeks ago. Then it only took me about a month after returning home before sitting down and watching it.

So, what do I think about the film? It's good. Not as good as I remembered and hoped for, but still well worth the $9.99 it cost me. After seeing the whole film for the first time I rate it as a 7/10, with potential to become an 8/10. I'll have to be less sleepy then, and have a better sound system to avoid rewinding to catch some dialogue. I am a sucker for films like this. Films that take you back and let you relive your childhood. I'm a grown up now and have many grown up responsibilities like a mortgage, kids, dogs, a wife and a slew of others. I enjoy my life but it is not as innocent and carefree like it was when I was twelve. Mike Binder's Indian Summer knows this and explores this like he was twelve years old. It brings you back to a time when life was simpler and much more fun. It brings you back to a time when worrying about your first kiss and wondering if you could finish the camp marathon were important issues. Indian Summer is a fantastic film and it is one that should be watched at least once a year just so you can sit back and laugh...and reminisce.

The film stars Kevin Pollak, Bill Paxton, Diane Lane and Matt Craven (to name a few) as childhood friends that are being summoned back to Camp Tamakwa by their former Head Camp Counsellor, Uncle Lou. Uncle Lou is played perfectly by Alan Arkin. He is kind of guy who is the patriarch of the group. He is also all knowing and encompasses the true spirit of a father figure and someone who understands the simple things in life. He has a hard time relating to today's kids that need a walkman blaring in their ears when they are at a place of immense beauty like Tamakwa. This is a camp that has moose wandering through the camp, leaves turning colours that God gave them and water for as far as the eye can see. Uncle Lou yearns for the days of old and asks his former campers back to the camp to see one of them will take over the camp. While they are all together again, we get to see their trials and tribulations and perhaps a new love could spring between them.

As the adults return to the camp, it isn't long before they act like kids again as the typical camp pranks get played all over again. They take toilet paper out of the stalls, the put toothpaste on sleeping bags and so on. All of this is done hilariously and with actors like Pollak and Paxton, it is all very funny stuff.

But beyond the hilarity, we get to explore some very real adult emotion that anyone can relate to. In one of my favourite scenes, Kevin Pollak and Elizabeth Perkins are overlooking a bay where they used to go canoing as kids. Pollak can't get over how small it all looks and Perkins finally tells him that the bay didn't get smaller, they just got bigger. It doesn't hammer the point home, but it does it subtly. We all grow up, we all move on and we all unfortunately can't live like we did 20 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Indian Summer is a character driven film and it is written beautifully by Mike Binder who actually did attend Camp Camp Tamakwa, (as did Sam Raimi, who played Stick in the film) and it is his fond and vivid memories of his experiences that fuel the film. There are many touching scenes and there are many hilarious ones also. Both are perfect.

I love this film. I love everything about it and it is a true hidden gem.

10/10 I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one. Indian Summer! It was very nostalgic for me. I found it funny, heartwarming, and absolutely loved it! Anyone who went to camp as a kid and wishes at times they could go back to the "good Ole' days" for a brief time really needs to see this one! It starts out as 20 years later, a group of old campers returns for a "reunion". I won't comment on the plot anymore cause you have to see it for yourself. The actors were great, and it contains an all star cast. Everyone in it played a terrific role. You actually felt like you were a part of the movie watching it. Alan Arkin was especially good in his role as Uncle Lou. He plays the kind of guy that everyone wishes they had in their lives. This is also a good family movie for the most part. I would suggest this one to anybody in a heartbeat! HIGHLY Recommended! This ensemble piece about adults who return to the formulative Summer camp of their youth was a very quiet entrant and exiter to the cinemas in the Autumn of 1993. I'd say that was a shame,but then again,some of the better movies ARE quiet releases that don't get much hype or praise.

Diane LAne,Kevin Pollack,Elizabeth Perkins,Vincent Spano,Julie Warner,Bill Paxton,Kimberly Williams,Matt Craven and Alan Arkin(who is painfully good here) are the group of actors who flesh out these roles as people who have grown old with good,bad and funny memories of summers gone past. This film covers the gambit of emotions,mostly pleasant,and the film never hammers away at the viewer to feel what the characters are feeling,preferring to allow the viewer to enter into the memories on their own. Since I am a movie viewer who bristles at bluntly,brazen manipulation in films,this is something that I appreciate from writer/director Mike Binder.

This film's a great cheap rent,a good main rent and even a pretty sit in a theater flick. You might run across this on TV,and I would definitely suggest a look-see. I attended Camp Chesapeake. It was located at the head of the Chesapeake bay on the North East River in MD. It was a similar type summer camp with cabins. It was established by the Coatesville, PA YMCA. I started out as a young camper and later became a Junior, Senior counselor and later, the Waterfront director. If the camp had continued, I would have done anything within my power to become the camp director. Alas the powers of the YMCA decided to close down the camp and sell it to the state of MD. I visited the former camp some years later by boat and was dismayed by the neglect of the state of MD and natural destruction by mother nature. The 350 acre site served so many with all the benefits of contact with natures offerings. A black man by the name of Curtis Ford, and his family were residents and caretakers of the property. Mr Curtis was my friend and mentor. I idolized his every being. Even as he could not swim he was a waterman. If I asked him where the fish were biting, he would designate the spot, and I would have a ball. Ther was also a Family camp at the end of the summer. These memories will be with me for eternity. An unusual take on time travel: instead of traveling to Earth's past, the main trio get stuck in the past history of another planet. They beam down to this planet, whose sun is scheduled to go nova in 3 or 4 hours (that's cutting it close!). In some kind of futuristic library, they meet Mr. Atoz (A to Z, get it? ha-ha) and his duplicates. It turns out, instead of escaping their planet's destruction via space travel, the usual way, the inhabitants have all escaped into their planet's various past time eras. Mr. Atoz uses a time machine to send people on their way after they make a selection (check out the discs we see here, another Trek prognostication of CDs and DVDs!). When Mr. Atoz prepares the machine (the Atavachron-what-sis), gallant Kirk hears a woman's scream and runs into the planet's version of Earth's 17th century, where he gets into a sword fight and is arrested for witchery. There's an eccentric but good performance here by the actress playing a female of ill repute in this time, using phrasing of the time ("...you're a bully fine coo.. Witch! Witch! They'll burn ye...!"). Spock & McCoy follow Kirk, but end up in an ice age, 5000 years earlier.

Kirk manages to get back to the library first. The real story here is Spock's reversion to the barbaric tendencies of his ancestors, the warlike Vulcans of 5000 years ago. This doesn't really make sense, except that maybe this time machine is responsible for the change (even so, Spock & McCoy weren't 'prepared' by Atoz - oh, well; it also seems to me Spock was affected by the transition almost immediately - he mentions being from 'millions of light years' away, instead of the correct hundreds or thousands - a gross error for a logical Vulcan). In any case, Spock really shows his nasty side here - forget "Day of the Dove" and remember "This Side of Paradise" - McCoy quickly finds out that his Vulcan buddy will not stand for any of his usual baiting and nearly gets his face rearranged. Spock also gets it on with Zarabeth, a comely female who had been exiled to this cold past as punishment (a couple of Trek novels were written about Spock's son, the result of this union). All these scenes are eye-openers, a reminder of just how much Spock conceals or holds in. It's also ironic that, only a few episodes earlier ("Requiem for Methuselah"), McCoy was pointing out to Spock how he would never know the pain of love - and now all this happens. Kirk, meanwhile, tussles with the elderly Atoz, who insists that Kirk head back to some past era ("You are evidently a suicidal maniac" - great stuff from actor Wolfe, last seen in "Bread and Circuses"). It all works out in the end, but, like I mentioned earlier, they cut it very close. A neat little Trek adventure, with a definite cosmic slant. The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.

Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story.

Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.' Kirk and crew land on a lonely planet where the sun is about to explode. They intend to evacuate the inhabitants but find the place deserted except for a Mr. Atoz who operates some sort of high-tech library. Despite trying to get a straight answer from him about everyone's whereabouts, Atoz is indifferent to their questions and insist they must quickly 'make a selection while there is still time'. They have no idea what he's talking about but wander about looking at the hand mirror-like disks on the viewers and they see images of the planet's past. Then, while a disk is in the viewer, Kirk runs through the doorway and is magically transported back in time to what on Earth would look like the time of Louis XIV (the 1660s). When McCoy and Spock follow, a different disk is in the viewer and they are sent to an ice age hell. All too late they realize that the library is a time travel machine and repository.

While Kirk's visit is pretty short and not all that exciting, Spock and McCoy's is much more eventful, as Spock falls head over heels for Mariette Hartley--who was sent to this awful place as a punishment. The scenes with Spock are exceptionally interesting and very atypical of the normally logical guy.

Spock's departure from the norm, the wildly inventive script and very diverse locales make this an exceptional episode--one well worth seeing.

FYI--Ian Wolfe, the excellent character actor, played Mr. Atoz. I am a huge fan of older films and have seen him as a supporting and bit player in countless films in the 30s and 40s and he looked almost exactly like he did in this episode from 1969. Interestingly enough, despite looking ancient, he lived on another 23 years--dying at over 95 years of age!! Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing "caution to the wind" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant "reminders" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.

This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some "emotion" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.

Perennial "old man" Ian Wolfe assays the role of "Mr. Atoz," the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. This is certainly one of my all time fav episodes of Trek. There is just so much going on in this one film that its crazy cool. First the guys beam down to an alien planet thats about to explode. They meet a freaky librarian type dude (very well played). Then Kirk manages to get himself transported back to what is very much like 16th century earth. McCoy and Spock try to follow but instead nearly freeze to death on the frozen version of the alien world 100,000 years in the past. Kirk manages to get himself locked up and charged with witchcraft while Spock enjoys some amok time with a sexy cavegirl who was vanquished to the this frozen, awful world by some bad guy.

Spock decides hes happy where hes at and gives McCoy a royal assestment whuppin' when the doc suggests they need to look for a way out. Anyhow,they all finally escape, leaving the poor cavegirl behind. It takes a ton of convincing before Spock finally gives in and leaves. You can literally taste the sadness at the end. Leaving the cavegirl all alone in her frozen wasteland just seems cruel and is really touching. Spock must have been out of his vulkin' mind to leave behind his greatest hope for love and being human. Albeit, in a not so nice neighborhood!

Anyway, you just get so much bang for your buck with this episode....A love story, the Salem witch trials, Spock as a human, the desperation of being left in total isolation...abandoned, and three entirely different settings on the alien planet. Its amazing they managed to jam all this into one fifty minute film. This one is a classic, don't miss it....I want it on DVD fer shure vulcans!!!!!! There's something compelling and strangely believable about this episode. From the very beginning, an atmosphere of tension is created by the knowledge that a certain planet is going to explode within a few hours. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have beamed down to evacuate the inhabitants, all of whom seem to have left already for parts unknown, except for an elderly librarian.

The librarian's polite but cryptic advice about where all the citizens have gone to is interrupted by a crisis in which all three Enterprise crew members find themselves unexpectedly hurled into different eras of the planet's past. Kirk finds himself in a time period resembling 17th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are stranded in a desolate, frozen waste.

The intercutting between the two stories, and the different hazardous situations the men find themselves in is superbly handled, with return to the present an unknown chance, while the minutes are counting down to the planet's explosion.

Imaginative writing and fine acting characterize this episode, with a touching performance by Mariette Hartley as a woman exiled to the Ice Age, and Ian Wolfe as the urbane Librarian. Somewhat reminiscent of the classic episode City On The Edge of Forever, this time travel story is a rich and compelling finale to the series, which concluded one episode later. This has to be one of the best of the whole series, especially remarkable given the generally lesser quality of the third season overall. The next-to-last episode aired of the original Star Trek series is an interesting, sometimes melancholy installment that proves the show was still exploring its characters even at this point in the third season; though flawed, 'All Our Yesterdays' has its moments and overall a moody, compelling feel to it. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet, assuming they are arriving in the nick of time to save or at least give some warning to whatever populace is there, since the planet's sun is due to explode within hours. But as it turns out, the people there are all too aware of the planet's fate, and using a kind of time travel device, have escaped into the past. Each person has been able to choose the time and place in the past where he or she would like to live at a 'library,' run by an elderly man named Mr. Atoz. Atoz assumes the three men are looking for a past to live in as well, and shows them various periods from which they can choose on viewers. There is some rather forced confusion at the start of the episode, with lines like:

McCoy- Where did they go? Atoz- Wherever they wanted to.

The misunderstanding could be cleared up rather easily, but for plot purposes, it isn't, and soon Kirk finds himself transported back to a period resembling 18th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are sent to an ice age, 5000 years in the planet's past. From here, the main focus is on Spock and his relationship with a woman exiled to this time by a tyrant as punishment. Spock begins acting increasingly emotional, showing anger toward McCoy and deep affection for Zarabeth, the woman. He eventually realizes that he is reverting back to the primitive emotional state of his ancestors on Vulcan, 5000 years ago. Kirk makes his way back to the library first, and finally convinces Mr. Atoz they don't belong in his planet's history. Spock and McCoy return just before it's too late, leaving Zarabeth behind; the Enterprise beams the three up and speeds away as the sun explodes, destroying the planet. The interaction between Spock and Zarabeth provides this episode's most memorable moments, though Kirk's adventure into the 'English' past is amusing. All in all, a very decent latter-day Star Trek outing. I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.

Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.

Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.

Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.

These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.

Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.

All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.

Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again.

"Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?

Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.

Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.

Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.

9 out of 10. *** 1/2 As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done. In Christian Duguay's movie, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, Hitler's early years in life and politics is shown in a successful way with some minor historical errors and some exaggeration. It is quite natural for a Hollywood movie to contain such things as the main purpose of production is the income that they will get from the movie. Even though such errors may disappoint some members of the audience who believes that everything should be done by the book, I believe that most of them fits well with the rest of the movie, making it more interesting. We should not forget that this movie is not a documentary. Who cares how did his dog died anyway.

Throughout the movie, Hitler is portrayed as a psychologically unstable figure that gets angry very easily and is very passionate about his ideals. But he was not portrayed as a super-villain but more like an ambitious politician. I believe that this is a nice perspective as the movie is not contaminated by tons of negative emotions and this made the movie somewhat objective. Yes he was a little mad, and his methods were rough but he was still a human not a totally insane figure as portrayed in "Inglorious Bastards". I believe it made the movie more realistic even with some inaccuracies in the historical facts.

The flow of history is nicely reflected to spectators. Even though the movie's focus was around Hitler we also had chance to see what is happening in the country as a result of these actions via newspapers, discussions of people and the songs in a Jewish cabaret. Also society's reaction was also reflected to movie but it was very limited. Struggles of journalist Fritz Gerlich and ironic plays that are played in the cabaret was amusing and interesting but that was all. Mostly we only saw his followers rampaging the streets and cheering him.

Another thing that was missing in the movie is information about the origins of his hatred for Jews. In the beginning of the movie, some ideas about this is given but they were quite superficial. All of a sudden he was a politician who is giving speeches about necessity of extermination of Jews.

In conclusion, Hitler: The Rise of Evil cannot be considered as an excellent movie that everyone will like but it is not unsatisfactory at all. If you can stand directors that change history for cash, it is an interesting movie reflecting Hitler's personality in a successful way. "Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.

I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.

When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.

As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.

My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists. There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. "Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it". He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play "dumb dumb *duuum*!" after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of "was this guy evil or what", incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10 Even though Ian Kershaw distanced himself from this project due to inaccuracies in regards to Hitler's life and yes, this is dramatised, but essential. Robert Carlyle plays Hitler during his later years, during this documentary that only deals with Hitler from boyhood until he became Chancellor of Germany, including The Night of the Long Knives. This TV-film (also a two-part mini-series) shows how a series of factors allowed Hitler to come to power, e.g. the financial disaster of 1930.

The series follows Hitler and little else, apart from the lives of Fritz Gerlich and Ernst Hanfstaengl. All in all, valuable and filled with interesting actors, yet I feel it should have been more tightly directed with stronger cinematography; most actors are portrayed in half-body shots which (for me) makes for a theatrical stance, not cinematic. The tempo is at times drowsy, and the film does suffer from it, being approximately 2,5 hours long. This is a tepid docu-drama that covers no new ground, reworks all the cliches and is sloppy with facts. For example, Munich is a very flat city. So why is it hilly in the movie? For example, the end of the Great War in 1918 was not a surrender but an armistice. Yet it is announced as a surrender. For example, European news vendors did not (and do not) shout headlines as they hawk their papers. Yet this strictly American custom is employed in the film. For example, the Nazis did not adopt the German eagle until after they had taken power but there it is on the lectern as Hitler delivers one of his stem winders. Indeed, most of this disappointing production consists of little more than Hitlerian oratory. The movie also perpetuates the myth that the beer hall putsch was hatched at the Munich Hoffbrauhaus. It was not. Robert Carlyle does a fine portrayal of his subject. But his supporting cast is adequate at best and very often not even that. These comments are based on the first episode only. One only can hope the second will be better but don't bet on it. I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the "experts" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.

So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???

There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.

The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.

The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.

It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay – who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person – who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.

Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.

There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good – brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that – very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively. As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power.

An old man works as a janitor in a mental hospital to be close to his wife who is a patient there and to try to get her out.

This is surely one of the most forgotten masterpieces of the silent era and an oddity in the history of Japanese cinema. Long thought lost, a print was found in the 70s and a music soundtrack added to it, which fits perfectly with the images. It might have been influenced by cabinet of doctor Caligary (director Kinugasa claimed he never saw the German film). However it surpasses it in style and in its more convincing (and chilly) portray of the inner mental state of the inmates in the asylum. To achieve this, the film makes use of every single film technique available at the time: multiple exposures and out of focus subjective point of view, tilted camera angles, fast and slow motion, expressionist lighting and superimpositions among others. It is also a very complicated film to follow, as it has not got intertitles.

The film opens with a montage of shots of rain hitting the windows of the hospital, wind shaking trees and of thunder. The unsettling weather metaphors the mental condition of the patients and introduces one of the them: a former dancer. The combination of sounds produced by rain, wind and thunder serves as the music that incites the dancer to get into a frantic, almost hypnotic dance. In another sequence involving the same patient engaged in another frenzied dance, she is being watched by other inmates. Multiple exposures of the dancer represent the patients' point of view and their confused "view" of the world.

These are just two examples from this amazing film trying to represent the patients' subconscious and view of the "sane" world.

In three words A MUST SEE. This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans). With rapid intercutting of scenes of insane people in an asylum, and montage/superimposition of images, and vague, interwoven narratives, this is a very hard movie to follow. Apparently a man (Masue Inoue) takes a job as a porter or janitor in an asylum so he can be near his imprisoned wife, and maybe to rescue her. But she's clearly mad, huddled on the floor, with a vacant expression much of the time and fear, misery, and confusion written on her face the rest of the time. The film-maker switches to her point of view sometimes, and we see vague images of her at the side of a pond drowning a baby, or clutching at a drowned child. She's tormented by something. When the point of view shifts to her or other mad folks, the filmmaker uses distorting lenses and such things, showing us what mad people see and then how they react. And the place is swarming with mad folks, laughing, hiding, and in one case dancing frenetically night and day. At one point the man tries to take his wife outside, but the night outside the door terrifies her and she runs back to her cell. Gradually the man slips into a nightmare in which he's interrupted in another attempt to steal her away, and he kills the doctor and many attendants, and all the while the mad folk laugh and applaud. When he wakes he is relieved, and mops the floor. Some fascinating shots of Japanes life, streets, buildings in the 1920s. It's easy to make really general comments about a film like this. The fact that it's one of the only remaining Japanese films from this era causes people to say that it "started Japanese cinema" and was "unlike anything the west ever made." The latter of these two comments is particularly false as Kinugasa himself admitted to ripping off "Caligari" on more than one occasion. But style was meant to be imitated, and doesn't take away from this film's importance. What we have here is experimental themes and composition built on already established visual styles, opening the doors for a truly brilliant layering of narratives and realities. For this purpose, the madhouse is the ideal setting, and the writers knew this. This is a landmark film, and every effort should be made to track it down.

5 out of 5 - Essential I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much going into this film viewing in my Japenese film class, but this film really blew me away. The director does a wonderful job following through with the title of his film, truly portraying a picture of madness. I think the fact that this film is silent adds to the resemblance of madness, helping the viewer experience the characters inner world rather than the world outside his mind. This film just added to my feelings about foreign silent films vs. American, in that the foreign films work much more to exercise your mind and make you think rather than going for the fluffy film always with the happy ending, exercising the imagination very little. I saw "A Page of Madness" in a silent film course at Wesleyan University and it haunts me still after 25 years. Truly ahead of its time - perhaps even still - this gem of a film reveals both the frightening and attractive aspects of madness. THis movie shows us once again, how genius the Japanese directors are and were. This movie could be seen as a sort of a "Silent - Movie Tetsuo". Well Eisenstein...:) Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.

I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.

After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.

I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.

It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.

Way to go, FX. Interesting, fast-paced and amusing.

I'm not one of those people who watches loads and loads of television. I stumbled across this show while home sick with a bad case of the flu one day, and was immediately hooked. I developed quite a crush on John Burke. Both he and Claire did an amazing job of hosting the show together. You could really tell that they both loved their jobs.

The super-collector segments were excellent. I found myself interested in things I had never previously given a single thought to.

What I would really like to know is: Whatever happened to Jack the dog? Did one of the hosts adopt him? Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.

It IS jazz.

The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.

Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.

Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).

If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.

All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.

What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ... This short was nominated for an Academy Award and I wish it had won! Basically a filmed jam session between some very talented musicians, including Lester Young and Joe Jones, the music is incredible! Hollywood quite often embraced Jazz (particularly animation, believe it or not) but this is a rare look on film at an improvisational jam. This has been added to the Film Preservation list and deservedly so. TCM runs this as filler periodically and runs it every March sometime for its' "31 Days of Oscar" tribute. From downtown at the buzzer, swish, nothing but net and the shot's so smooth, the net barely moved. Most solidly and highly recommended!!! Each of the major studios cranked out jazzy one-reelers throughout the thirties and forties (with Universal taking the lead). While most looked as cheap on screen as they were to make, Warner Bros. (which abruptly stopped making them in 1946) often distinguished theirs with offbeat camera angles, mirrors and optical effects, thanks to some creative directors like Jean Negulesco. It is fitting that the best of this genre should come from this studio.

What sets "Jammin' The Blues" apart from the rest of the pack is that it more closely resembles an avant-garde experiment than a Hollywood musical. Filmed in July 1944, it transforms an ordinary jam session into a "trippy" dream-escape from war-time troubles, highlighted by the tune of "On The Sunny Side Of The Street". Gjon Mili and cameraman Robert Burkes (later to work with Hitchcock) were allowed plenty of artistic freedom, perhaps because Lester Young was not Glenn Miller and the studio could care less how he and his fellow musicians were presented. The optical printer is put to good use, with multiple images of the same performer appearing at once. (Norman McLaren really milked this process two decades later in "Pas De Deux", while Linwood Dunn's team achieved different effects in "Citizen Kane".) The strong emphasis on silhouettes and lit cigarette smoke was also ahead of its time; in some ways, this predated the psychedelic sixties, but with a distinctly forties film noir style. Jazz aficionados will treasure this classic short showing some of the best men of jazz just doing their thing. It's like watching a no frills music video today.

The jazz men give us an additional treat in the person of Marie Bryant who sings a classic version of On The Sunny Side Of The Street. I had never heard her sing before, Bryant sounds remarkably like Billie Holliday. That's a compliment folks.

Their instrumental work is tops as well. With the black cinema of its time fed a lot of white stereotypes, this film is to be watched and treasured. No great production values, just a lot of good music. Jammin' the Blues is an Oscar-nominated short from 1944 that is basically 10 minutes of improvisational jazz played in one long jam. Marie Bryant sings "The Sunny Side of the Street" at one point for the film's highlight then jitterbugs with Archie Savage to bring this most entertaining "jam session" to its exciting end. The director Gojn Mili was a photographer and that experience shows in some of the double exposure shots of some of the musicians that makes this one of the most innovative angles of the '40s. According to some notes I read one of the musicians was white and had to be filmed in silhouette in reflection of the social attitudes of the time. What a shame. Still, this most unusual film of the time is available on YouTube so if you love jazz, I suggest you seek it out there. ...may seem like an overstatement, but it is not.

What is so hard to comprehend is - why didn't they make more musical shorts like this? Wasn't the beauty of it totally apparent to everybody involved? I guess not. So many shorts were made for commercial reasons only, and with some luck there may be some artistic value in there. This is one exception - the only one? - where it seems they were the director had a vision and clearly could appreciate the music as art. Why didn't anybody ever think to shoot Lester or Charlie Parker on a live date? Crazy, man.

A pity there were no sequels. If you've seen anything of similar quality please share it! I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or "that kind of music".

If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit. First let me say I am not from the south but I am an American. I don't love Country music but I can stomach it. I would never wear a cowboy hat but I wear hats. I don't live in a trailer but I do eat tuna salad and own a home. What does that have to do with this comment? A lot if you are one of those people who say only "country" people love this movie. This movie is loosely based on the "They loved and lost" premise. James Bridges directs an American love story as real as it gets. In an era of Jerry Springer and "Lets put it out there" mentality, this film rings truer than ever.

Bud is "coming of age" and embarks on a life of his own with a little help from his aunt and uncle so he moves to the big city with them. Bud finds himself drawn into the local honky tonk world for the only escape a blue collar man can afford. He quickly meets Sissy who is from a similar background and the two have a whirlwind romance filled with painful ups and downs.

(*This plot takes so many turns that one has to just sit for a few minutes before they get hooked. Marriage is a focus here that is often missed. Early in the film they marry and we view the transition from being single to married. The film highlights some of the modern struggles a woman has when she marries an old fashioned man. It also brings into view the male ego with women and competition.)

Bud is challenged and is excited when Micky's puts in an electronic bull. Sissy gets ideas of having fun on it too but is quickly reminded that she is married and need to start "acting like it." The emotion between the two characters is raw and expressive and the plot continues from there especially when they (NOTE THIS IS GIVING SOME OF THE STORYLINE AWAY) split and Sissy falls for an ex con with a penchant for abuse and cruelty. She soon realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.

How anyone can compare Bud to Vinnie Barbirino is shocking to me. John Travolta gave an exceptional performance that was worthy recognition. He was believable and real. The scene where he shaves his beard and you first see him at the bar..still gives me goosebumps. Mind you I am not a huge Travolta fan, but come on, I see why Sissy was kicking of her boots so early in the film. Deb Winger was so real that you found yourself sympathizing with her as she pens a note of emotions to Bud, after sneaking in to clean his house during their break up.

The supporting cast was incredible. Wes played by Scott Glenn gave a first rate performance that made you hate him and curse him as he abused Sissy. Madolyn Smith-Osborne, as Buds Mistress/girlfriend was so authentic that large chested girls across the U.S. prayed to wake up flat chested to wear the clothes she donned in the film. My biggest kudos's go to Barry Corbin and Brooke Anderson as Bud's aunt and uncle. They seemed like someone's aunt and uncle somewhere in Texas and however small their role, they made the film so much bigger and lifelike. Two memorable scenes were the Dolly Parton contest and the unforgettable scene where Bud and his aunt stand outside after one of the characters death. The dialog between them is touching.

If you can watch this for what it is, a true American love story. Then I recommend that you take it for what it is...a film before it's time that gave us voyeurism into a world unlike our own but real enough for our enjoyment and entertainment. If this world sounds similar to yours then you will enjoy it so much more. Lastly, the music however dated, is sure to send you back in time if you are over 30 years of age. Okay, so I have come a long way from Houston by now, but whenever I see this movie, I am taken back to a little cowgirl's dream to one day ride the bull at Gilley's. (It burned down before I was of drinking age.)

If you grew up in in East Texas, then you know this movie is an accurate depiction of contemporary life at that time. If you didn't then trust me and watch the movie. Either you will join the many who love it (and at the same time strangely repulsed), or at the very least, you can make fun of the red-necks. (There is plenty material for poking fun.) This movie doesn't try to be P.C. (what was that in the 80's) or hide the white trash element and it is honest to the time and place.

Gotta be a 10 for me! For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.

Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.

Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's.

Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.

I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders. I bellied up to the bar expecting this to be a hot beer on a sweltering Texas day but was pleasantly surprised. After suffering through "Saturday Night Foolishness" I had no desire to see a re-make in some south Texas barnyard....and I didn't. John Revolta was good as the jealous redneck, Scott Glenn was well cast as a thuggie ex-con, and Debra Winger was, as always, a delight. *Love that woman* Plus, the soundtrack was dynamite [and this comes from a guy that can't stand the sound of country music]. A fun film all the way. This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10 An unmarried, twenty-something hick (played by John Travolta) leaves the farm and goes to Houston, where he learns about life and love in a Texas honky-tonk. At face value, it's a modern love story ... Texas style. There's gobs of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, neon beer signs, and references to big belt-buckles and rodeos. The music, if not Texas native, is Texas adapted, courtesy of the talents of Mickey Gilley, Johnny Lee, and the Charlie Daniels Band. And that Texas twang ... "y'all".

The story and the characters are about as subtle as the taste of Texas five-alarm chili made with Jalapeno peppers. It's enough to make civilized viewers abort the film in favor of a genteel classic, one starring Laurence Olivier or Ingrid Bergman, maybe. "Hamlet" it's not. But "Urban Cowboy" is spicy and explicit, and I kinda like it.

Technically, the film is generally good. The dialogue, the production design, and the costumes are all realistic; the editing is skillful. And both the casting and the acting are commendable, if not Oscar worthy. I would not have cast Travolta in the role he plays, but he does a fine job ... ditto Debra Winger. Barry Corbin and Brooke Alderson, among others, are good too, in support roles. But, the cinematography seemed weak. The film copy I watched was grainy, and at times suffered from a reddish/orange tint, a visual trait I have noticed in other films from the same time period.

At first glance, the film does not seem to offer any social or political "message". But I would argue that when "Urban Cowboy" was released twenty-five years ago, it had rather prophetic implications. In 1980 the U.S. had all kinds of problems, not the least being American hostages held by Iran. In the minds of a lot of folks back then, the U.S. was being pushed around, bullied.

This film, along with others of its time, offered something that Americans wanted to see in their political leaders ... toughness. "Urban Cowboy" is a very physical film. The characters in it may not be the brightest people on Earth. But, they're tough!

Everything about "Urban Cowboy" is anti-intellectual. As a vehicle for cultural expression then, this 1980 film was one of several that augured a new get-tough era for the U.S. It started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. And that era continues to this day, with a President who probably will not be remembered for his intellect, but will be remembered for his toughness and aggression, traits that Americans seem to gravitate to as surely as Texans to five-alarm chili. #3 in young John Travolta's trilogy of blockbusters. He dances to disco, rock 'n' roll and country. He heads to Houston to find work and love. Gilley's is the hot spot, and it is the time of the mechanical bull. Not to be outdone, I rode the bull at a club in Nashville. I recently saw this nearly forgotten film on television and remembered how good it was and how good a year 1980 was. I wore a black cowboy hat that year just like Travolta. Debra Winger was in her prime. She looks stunning in her red top. There is plenty of charisma. Bud and Sissy seem the ideal couple even if they are trailer trash. They split up just because it feels so good getting back together. Urban Cowboy has an amazing soundtrack. We get to hear Lyin' Eyes by The Eagles and Lookin' For Love by Johnny Lee. I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a "smoke-filled bar" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work! Quick and simple, I love this movie.

As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love "Goodfellas.") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?

It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to "Pulp Fiction", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!

Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!! I'm still new to the Krimi genre and the only one I've seen prior to seeing this one was the earlier and somewhat disappointing 'The Dead Eyes of London', which didn't exactly inspire a great hope for the rest of the genre in me. If I'd seen this one first, however, the feeling would have been different as while The College Girl Murders is a bizarre and rather wacky attempt at a crime flick; it's great fun to watch and it's really hard to hate a film that throws so many weird and wonderful ideas into the script and manages to pull it off with style. The film begins in a lab where a crazy scientist has invented a new and highly toxic poison that kills its victim and makes it look like they died from a heart attack. This poison is used by a mysterious criminal mastermind who breaks common criminals out of jail to carry out his murders using this poison (and then has them put back in jail). As the title suggests, it's a nearby college full of girls that provides most of the victims. There's also a mysterious monk dressed in a red robe who marauds around breaking necks with a bullwhip.

Of course, with a plot like that; this is not exactly a serious affair and the director clearly knows that as there is a very tongue-in-cheek vibe to the film, which does bode well with the plot. The fact that there are so many different sides to the plot does unfortunately mean that everything does not run smoothly; although this isn't a big problem as things are kept ticking over nicely throughout the film and there's always enough going on to keep the audience interested. The atmosphere is superb and the colour scheme on display is great too look at. Of course, the film is based on an Edgar Wallace novel and clearly the man has a great imagination; the locations used are also superb and while a killer's lair decked out with a host of wild and exotic animals might not serve any relevance to the plot, it does help to give the film that extra 'something'. You cant expect a conclusion that fully makes sense after all the stuff that goes on in this film; but the reason for the murders sort of makes sense and is a satisfying way for the film to climax. Overall, College Girl Murders is an excellent little mystery flick and one that comes highly recommended! William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) buy an old house where a brutal murder happened years ago in very bad condition with the intention of restoring it. They move with their daughter Sophie (Emma RidleY), and become friends of their neighbors Jean (Patricia Maynard) and George Evans (Brian Croucher). However, eerie events happen in the house, inclusive the death of Sophie's cat. In Sophie's birthday party, a pipe leaks blood and they leave the place, disclosing a secret later.

"The House That Bled to Death" is a scary and one of the best episodes of the series "Hammer House of Horror". The fantastic twist, disclosing a secret, and the tragic conclusion are really excellent. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa Que Sangrou Até Morrer" ("The House That Bled to Death") Perhaps not the absolute greatest entry in the Hammer House of Horror series, but it surely wins the award for most inventively titled episode! "The House that Bled to Death"… I could yell out this title all day without ever getting tired of it! And besides the wondrous title, this short movie also benefices from a solidly written screenplay and a handful of genuinely suspenseful moments. It might require an extra viewing before you fully understand the peculiar end-twist, but it's definitely an original idea for a horror short. The story opens with images of an elderly couple drinking tea in their middle-class house. The husband sadistically kills his wife and several years later the "cursed" house is still for sale. A young couple and their cherubic daughter move in and start to restore it, but mysterious events occur and affect especially the young Sophie. Her beloved cat is killed an even her birthday party gets ruined when one of the house's pipes suddenly sprays blood all over the guests (a particularly chilling sequence, this one!). Is the old house really haunted? Or maybe the seemly helpful neighbors cause all the horror? The answers to these questions are provided in the original and fairly unpredictable climax and there's even room for a real shock at the very end. The tension is masterfully built up and the titular house is filled with eerie scenery, like the pair of rusty machetes used by the husband to slay his wife. Little warning though, the sequence with the cat is hard to watch when you're an animal lover. In conclusion, another winner for Hammer's short-running TV series! Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running "Hammer House of Horror" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title "The House that Bled to Death" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, "Growing Pains" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. "The House that Bled to Death" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans. I entered my first comment on this film almost five years ago. Then, the ideas presented in the movie still seemed mostly fictional, if indeed they could ever transpire at all. Not any longer. Now, the politics, society, and media in The Running Man seem very close to home indeed.

Consider the following factors, which were mostly absent in 1987 (the year The Running Man came out) that are present today:

Concern with, as Richard Dawson's character Damon Killian puts it, "traditional morality." CHECK

Entertainment in the form of extreme reality, including pain, fear, and discomfort on the part of contestants. CHECK

Cameras everywhere. CHECK

Restricted travel for citizens at the whim of the government, controlled by a centralized computer system complete with barcoded passports ("travel passes" in the movie) and sanctioned under the guise of national security. CHECK

An increased intermingling, bordering on incestuous, of government and media. CHECK

Computer-generated graphics that are advanced enough to manipulate real film footage (such as the "digital matting" of Ben Richards' image onto the stunt double). CHECK

Jailing of conscientious objectors or detractors of the current administration. CHECK

Flagging economy further widening the gulf between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy; increasing numbers of fringe groups reacting to the tightening noose of big government; civil unrest brewing just under or at the surface of nearly every sizable public event regardless of its origin or intent. CHECK, CHECK, CHECK

Then again, maybe it's just a movie based on a Stephen King novella. But just to be safe, I'm moving to Switzerland. Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.

The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.

Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).

The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.

First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.

This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. Mild Spoilers

In the near future, Arnold stars as Ben Richards, a wrongly convicted man coerced into playing 'The Running Man', a deadly TV game show where people have to keep moving to try and escape brutal deaths at the hands of the 'Stalkers'. Of course, people are expected to die eventually and its up to Arnold to prove the system wrong.

I haven't read the Stephen King book, but this is a great film regardless, one of Arnold's best. He does what he does best in the action man role, delivering death with unforgettable one-liners. Classics are probably the 'He was a real pain in the neck' after strangling a guy with barb wire, and 'He had to split!', referring to whereabouts he just chain sawed someone vertically. Dawson is perfectly irritating as the TV presenter, and all the 'Stalkers' are suitably camp. The action is violent, but its an action film. That's the point. The film is fast paced, and at 90 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome.

With Starsky and Hutch's Paul Michael Glaser at the helm, and made in the wake of the success of The Terminator, previously this film was probably seen as just another mindless action vehicle for Arnold, and very far fetched. But today, anyone who watches a lot of TV could see how the film is getting closer to reality. I wouldn't be surprised if I turn on the TV in the 'near future' and see a show not to far from this.

On that depressing note, I must however recommend 'The Running Man' to anyone who likes the 80s, Arnold, ridiculous acts or violence or just a good action film. 9. 5 / 10 This is an awesome action film with great one liners from Arnie!. It's stylishly made, with lots of tense action to keep one satisfied. The Characters were awesome, and Richard Dawson, is very menacing as the main villain. Yes it has tons of plot holes,however it's highly highly entertaining, with a great ending as well. It had a great story, too it, and Arnie and Maria Conchita Alonso had great chemistry together. The Character development was also pretty good, with, some superb performances. The Directing is great!. Paul Michael Glaser, does a very good job here, with awesome use of colors, keeping it stylish throughout, awesome camera angles, and overall keeping the film at a very fast pace! good job. There is a little bit of gore. We get a few bloody gunshot wounds, exploding head, slit throat, bloody chainsaw slices, skinless corpses, blood, and an impaling. The Acting is great!. Arnold Schwarzenegger is AMAZING as always, he is excellent in the acting department , has tons of hilarious one liners, kicks that ass, and as always is a big physical presence!, and was tons of fun to watch! (Arnie Rules!). Maria Conchita Alonso, does well here, she was really cute, and had good chemistry with Arnie!. Yaphet Kotto, is decent here, with what he has to do, which is not much. Marvin J. McIntyre, is good as the geeky type guy, he was cool!. Richard Dawson is awesome as the main villain, and was very very menacing, and he was fun to watch. Jesse Ventura,Jim Brown,Erland van Lidth,Gus Rethwisch,and Professor Toru Tanaka, all do what they have to do very well as the stalkers. Overall a MUST see! ****1/2 out of 5 This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did. I'm sitting here Nov 2006 and I still can't help rave about this movie. Arnold's best movies came in about a 4-5 year span. Running Man, Predator, and Total Recall (1990). All 3 are amazing. The cheesy one liners by Arnold in this movie will make you laugh on more than one occasion. I find the acting in this movie surprisingly good as was the case in Predator and Totall Recall. They did a great job in trying to make the scenes futuristic as it is supposed to take place in 2017, but you can't help but snicker at the 80's style haircuts on the men and woman in the crowd and the normal television monitors in the Running Man studio which we all know here in 2006 are on the way out with the emergence of flat panel and HDTV's. Also the computer graphics of the "The Running Man" game show intro would not look like that in 2017. Nevertheless the storyline is absolutely fantastic. Not once during this movie did I want to get up and not care about the ending which is something I do often with today's movie's. I really think that Arnold's acting is much better than he's given credit for. Now I would not have elected him governor but that's California for you. Buzzsaw, Dynamo, Fireball, SubZero are fantastic "stalkers" as well and I find the producers don't try to overkill the fight scenes. When the stalker is dead...he's dead. It doesn't go on for 20 minutes each. The stalker scenes are quick and entertaining but they don't try and overplay it. I give this movie a 10/10 and that's coming from someone who doesn't enjoy a lot of movies these days. If you get the right actors and the right story then the futuristic graphical displays that you'd see in 2006 are not important or necessary. The Running Man is often dismissed as being just another Arnie action thriller full of explosions, bad puns and gunfire, and to be fair, there is a lot of that in it. People used to look at it and compare it to the Terminator series, saying it was one of the poorer Schwarzenegger films.

But, give it 18 years, and you find yourself being able to appreciate it in a different light. Rather than just being another brainless action film, it works very well as a parody of reality TV. It is quite different to the Stephen King book, true, but I doubt whether Hollywood, with its love of upbeat endings and so-called 'ordinary guys' who turned out to have the skills of a trained commando, would have accepted it in its current form.

But, on with the review.

Ben Richards (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a cop working in a dystopian United States where democracy is a thing of the past, and the entire country is ruled by a government/media conglomerate amalgamation. The economy is in tatters, food is scarce and the state keeps people distracted by producing sadistic gameshows for them to watch, like Jumping for Dollars, where people jump for money over a pit of rabid dogs, and the most popular one is The Running Man, a gameshow hosted by the slimy Damian Killian (played by the entertaining Richard Dawson) where supposed 'criminals' are hunted down by theatrical, pro-wresting-esquire 'stalkers'.

Some, however, try and speak up against the government. When a group of hungry people hold a protest in the town of Bakersfield, California, a helicopter piloted by Richards is sent to 'calm' (i.e. kill) the protest. When Richards refuses to fire on innocent people, he is arrested and framed for the murder of the people in the crowd. He is sentenced to a slave labour camp, but escapes with the aid of a resistance leader (Yaphet Kotto) and goes on the run.

However, his freedom does not last long, and after he kidnaps network employee Amber Mendez (Marita Conchita Alonso) in an attempt to escape those pursuing him, he finds himself taken prisoner again, but this time he is forced to appear on The Running Man.

And there, of course, the entire film kicks into standard Arnie mode. Richards is launched into the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Los Angeles (why is LA always destroyed in these dystopian worlds?) and forced to run from the 'stalkers', along with two other prisoners who escaped from the labour camp with him. Amber also becomes curious about Richards' protestations of innocence, and discovers he was framed. Guess what happens to her, then? So, as Amber, Richards and the two other guys run around trying to avoid the stalkers, we soon become aware that Richards is no ordinary cop. He's Super Arnie, the unkillable one man army who can collapse evil corporate dictatorships and fight obese men covered in Christmas lights all while being just your average American guy with an Austrian accent.

Yes, the remainder of the film becomes dumb, loud, classic 80's Arnie fun. There's a lot of exciting fight sequences, the trademark dreadful puns ('He had to split' being my favourite), and the general formulaic final confrontation and happy ending. It's a lot of fun watching Killian react to it in the typical 'wholesome' gameshow host way, as well, and some of the funniest moments in the show revolve around the contrast between his interactions with the crowd as the seemingly benevolent host (watch out for the cursing old lady!) and the cold, cyncial man he is in reality who will do anything to increase ratings.

If you expect a high-brow, intelligent film, you'll be disappointed. But if you want a great 80s flick, well, this is it. But the great thing about this film is it was quite prophetic.

If you look at the entertainment we have today, you'll have noticed the way reality TV is going nowadays - shows featuring people willing to put themselves through anything for five minutes of fame, and producers all too willing to let them humiliate themselves on TV. It's not too far a leap to imagine that some vile TV exec out there has been trying to get the right to show people be executed live on TV. We've already had that, however, with the ghoulish al-Qaida hostage beheading videos posted on the internet. It seems that in the current climate, at least some people are perfectly fine with watching real death on their television sets.

With that in mind, and coupled with the fact that everything these days appears to be a revival of the 80s, you have to be impressed by the far-sightedness of this film. Of course, we haven't reached there yet, as it's terrorists, rather than the mainstream media, who have bought us easily available programs featuring real human death, but you just have to wonder how long it is before some exec decides to see if he can find a way of pitching a show that combines people's desire for entertainment and desire to indulge their morbid curiosity... Arnold once again in the 80's demonstrated that he was the king of action and one liners in this futuristic film about a violent game show that no contestant survives. But as the tag line says Arnold has yet to play! The movie begins in the year 2019 in which the world economy has collapsed with food and other important materials in short supply and a totalitarian state has arisen, controlling every aspect of life through TV and a police state. It's most popular game show is The Running Man, in which criminals are forced to survive against "Stalkers" that live to kill them.

The movie opens with Ben Richards (Arnold) leading a helicopter mission to observe a food riot in progress. He is ordered by his superiors to fire on them, refusing to gets him knocked out and thrown in prison, in the meantime they slaughtered the people without his help. The government blames Richards for the massacre earning him the name "Butcher of Bakersfield". Eighteen months later Richards along with two friends William Laughlin (Koto) and Harold Weiss (McIntyre) breakout of a detention zone they worked in. They make their way to the underground, led by Mic (Mick Fleetwood). Mic quickly identifies Richards as the "Butcher of Bakersfield" and refuses to help him, but his friend's convince him otherwise. They want him to join the resistance, but he'd rather go live with his brother and get a job. Soon he finds that his brother has been taken away for reeducation and a woman name Amber Mendez (Alonso) has taken his apartment. Knowing who he is she won't help him, but he convinces her, but is busted at the airport by the cops after she ratted him out.

Meantime, The Running man is having trouble finding good new blood for the there stalkers to kill. Damon Killian (Dawson) the shows host and one of the most powerful men in the country sees Richards escape footage and is able to get him for the show after his capture. Richards refuses to play, Killian threatens to use his friends instead of him, so he signs the contract. You'll love that part. But soon he finds they will join him as well and makes sure Killian knows he'll be back. The Runners begin to make there way through the Zones and fight characters that are memorable, Sub-Zero, Buzz Saw and many others. Eventually Richards is joined by Amber who suspected he was set up but was caught and thrown into the game too. Together they find the underground and make there way back to Killian and give him a farewell send off.

The running man is another one of Arnold's great movies from the 80's. The movie was apparently somewhat based on Stephen King's book of the same name. Some have said that the book is better. I'm sure it's not and I don't care anyway I loved the movie. As in all of Arnold's films the acting is what you would expect with classic one liners from Arnold and even Ventura gets a couple in. But without a doubt Richard Dawson is the standout in this film. Being a real game show host he easily spoofed himself and was able to create a character that was truly cold blooded. The whole movie itself somewhat rips on game shows and big brother watching you. Keep an eye out for them poking fun and some old shows, "hate boat" among others. Also the cast was great besides Arnold, Koto, and Alonzo don't forget Professor Toru Tanaka, Jim Brown, Ventura and Sven-Ole! With all the reality TV nonsense that goes on it almost fits in better now, but I'm sure the Hollywood liberals would make it into a movie about the "Evil Bush". The new DVD had mostly poor extras meet the stalkers being the only redeemable one. Some how the ACLU managed to get some of there communism into the DVD and is laughable garbage that should not be anywhere near an Arnold movie of all things. Blasphemy! Overall for any Arnold fan especially we who grew up in the 80's on him ,you can't miss this. Its one of the first ones I saw back in the 80's and it's still great to this day. The futuristic world and humor are great. Overall 10 out 10 stars, definitely one of his best. This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.

This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!

Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.

Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10! THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.

For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.

My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids." If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.

I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!

In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you..... Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put "good" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself "acting"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: "It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it." Ahh, more people have been called "Brenda" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine. Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see. This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time.

The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date! This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: "Send me a copy," after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; "What a pain in the neck," after strangling subzero with barbed wire; "He had to split," after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, "Now that hit the spot." Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger. Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there. Running Man viciously lampoons the modern-day American media complex, and hits its target dead-center. It may be an easy target, but they pull it off none the less. RM effortless takes on pro-wrestling (featuring some pro wrestlers as the Hunters), network television, the Nielsen ratings, the American government (suggesting it's entertainment-oriented anyway), crime & punishment, and a half-dozen other things along the way. It's a far cry from the original Stephen King novella, and Arnold is not the Ben Richards of the novella either. But who cares? It's basically a Arnie flick, with all the well-choreographed action sequences and one-liners such an undertaking requires. Why didn't Dynamo have any pants?! Where did they go?? It was never explained. That's why this movie was so awesome. Plus Starsky gave his kids the AIDS!!!! Great acting too. Richard Dawson deserved to win Best Supporting Actor! A I D S My favorite line from the movie was "That hit the spot" A I D S. This movie was for the "birds". I tried to give this movie the "stinkeye" but it continued playing. What am I doing wrong???!!!! I thought the "HATEBOAT" was funnnny lol ;) I would like that for a show. Why wasn't Dynamo wearing pants. I know his arm WAS skewered but... What's up with those crazy futur nets. Why didn't that family feud guy Ray Combs get a net?? He could have used one. AIDSSSSS Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.

Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).

Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.

Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).

Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.

With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.

The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general. This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.

In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.

It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.

In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.

If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy. Although this film is somewhat filled with eighties cheese i have a place for it in my DVD rack and i don't know why. I think i like it because the moral of the story is 'television is garbage so turn it off and go and get a life'. For those of you who do decide to heed the message then you should try reading the book, its nothing like the film at all. To ruin it for you at the end of the story a fatally wounded Richards ends up crashing a plane into the network building, killing himself, everyone inside and shutting down the network at the same time. I read it many years ago but today it would hard not to compare it to 9/11. I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!! The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.

My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.

In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.

Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben "The Butcher of Bakersfield" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).

The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)

Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?

I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).

Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10 Another Excellent Arnold movie. This futuristic movie has great action in it, and is one of Arnie's best movies. Arnold is framed as a bad guy in this movie and plays a Game of Death. This movie is excellent and a great Sci-Fi / action movie. I've always liked this movie and it has to be one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. 10 out of 10! PERFECTION Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.

Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.

A well cared production.

My rate: 7/10 Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.

Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.

The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.

Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie. Yesterday my Spanish / Catalan wife and myself saw this emotional lesson in history. Spain is going into the direction of political confrontation again. That is why this masterpiece should be shown in all Spanish High Schools. It is a tremendous lesson in the hidden criminality of fascism. The American pilot who gets involved in the Spanish Civil War chooses for the democratically elected Republican Government. The criminal role of religion is surprisingly well shown in one of the most inventive scenes that Uribe ever made. The colors are magnificent. The cruelty of a war (could anybody tell me the difference between Any war and a Civil war ?)is used as a scenario of hope when two young children express their feelings and protect each other. The cowards that start their abuse of power even towards innocent children are now active again. A film like 'El viaje de Carol'/ 'Carol's journey' tells one of the so many sad stories of the 20th Century. It is a better lesson in history than any book could contain. Again great work from the Peninsula Iberica ! This is a very good Spanish movie but I am worried that many out there will feel lost because many around the world have no idea what the Spanish Civil War was all about or when it was fought. Being a history teacher, I had a big advantage but could easily see how the film could be confusing until you piece together all the pieces. I doubt if this would be a big concern in Spain where this film was made, but for other audiences they may be a bit confused until later in the film.

The movie begins with 12 year-old Carol and her mother returning to her mother's home town. Years have passed and you gather that they are coming to Spain from New York City. Despite the strangeness, Carol speaks reasonably good Spanish and much of the film is about how she adapts. As for why her and her mother are alone, I'll spill it now for those who don't pick up on the fact that Carol's father is fighting in the war on the side of the Republicans (who eventually lost in this very bloody conflict).

The movie gets exceptional marks for its lovely camera work and music. The rather slow and rambling pace isn't bad provided you are someone who can accept films this way. I have seen several other Spanish films about this war and this compares pretty well to them--not better or worse--just a decent slice of life film about those who are left behind as well as a nice coming of age flick.

PS--If you don't know which side is which, the Republicans were mostly Socialists and they were backed by the Soviet Union and Mexico as well as volunteers from many countries (including the USA). The Nationalists were led by Franco and were aided by Portugal and the Fascist states of Germany and Italy. Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.

Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.

The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp I was deeply moved by this movie in many respects. First of all, I just want to say that Clara Lago was the most precious little thing! Such a pretty little girl. Her acting was superb as well. True to life and very human. Though I don't like the part where she had to smoke; I hope it was only a fake prop. Either way, she was absolutely wonderful and the story was so moving. I found myself immersed in the story and her character.

It's quite interesting how I came to discover this movie actually. I was walking in blockbuster and I just happened to notice her pretty smile on the cover as I was walking by. Luckily I glanced in the downward direction that this movie was in! I thought to myself, 'Awe, look at her!' So I picked it up and saw that this movie was described as such wonderful things as "A Little Gem." I read the plot on the back and then thought that, well, maybe I'd look it up on IMDb first and then come back and rent it at a later time. I'm glad I didn't, because I certainly would have been missing out. After searching for a movie with my friend, I knew that I would end up regretting not renting this film, so I went back to the spot in which I originally found it and snapped it up.

It had been on my dresser for a week, since school started for me this week and I really hadn't any time to watch it, but tonight was the perfect opportunity. I popped it in and was glued to the beautiful cinematography, delightful score and moving plot from beginning to end. I was so captivated and must say, some parts nearly moved me to tears.

I would also like to make a special mention for the young boy in this film, Juan Jose Ballesta. He was remarkable. Also the actor who played Carol's father, who's name is unfortunately not listed on the site. His voice was just so loving and gentle that I could really sense his love for Carol. Even though his appearance is not prominent, I really felt his character's presence.

This is truly a wonderful movie. If you are a person who is moved by light, but emotional films, then this is definitely one for you. CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages. Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch. I just saw "Behind Bedroom Doors," and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.

We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.

Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, "Oh...I'm...not that way." Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motion

First, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:

"Tell me about Gabe." "What do you want to know?" "Is Gabe happily married?" "I'm married." "There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl." "Yes." "She's not a bad girl?" "No." "Does that door have a lock on it?"

You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.

While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who "experimented" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.

While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. "It's only business," Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.

Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.

To wrap up, "Behind Bedroom Doors" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.

Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)

Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)

Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)

Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.) If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.

The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one. It may be the remake of 1987 Autumn's Tale after eleven years, as the director Mabel Cheung claimed. Mabel employs rock music as the medium in this movie to express her personal attitude to life, in which love, desire and the consequential frustration play significantly crucial roles. Rock music may not be the best vehicle to convey the profound sentiment, and yet it is not too inappropriate to utilize it as the life of underground rock musicians is bitterly more intense than an ordinary one. The director focuses on the depiction of subtle affection and ultimate vanity of life rather than mere rock music. The love between father and son, lovers, and friends is delicately and touchingly delivered through the fine performance. Mabel does not attempt to beautify rock musicians as artists at all, instead, she tries to reproduce a true life on screen, making huge efforts of years' working on this project and gathering information in Beijing underground pubs.

Daniel has given probably the best performance in all his movies made so far. His innate dispiritedness and reticence fit the blue mood of the film perfectly. I really like this movie because in Australia, Chinese movies like these never get shown during prime time. I must say this is one of the best serious movies ever, which outlines the difference between the Hong Kong people, and mainland Chinese. It really shows that there's discomfort between the two, but can only get better as HK are learning Mandarin. It also showed me how in mainland China the indie rock scene exists, and that Chinese people do know how to strum the guitar and get the house funking! Whoever said China isn't ready for rock music? Daniel Wu is absolutely superb, with his clean and crisp voice, honest acting, and a total chick magnet. I recommend this movie to those who don't know much about Asian people to cleanse themselves from the typical Western stereotypes, and people who just love Chinese/Asian cinema like myself. Check it out! it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!

I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.

This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.

I highly recommend it. How this has not become a cult film I do not know. I think it has been sadly overlooked as a truly ingenious comedy!

"Runaway Car" attempts to pass itself off as a fast-paced thriller, but taking the quality of acting (good God it's bad), the storyline, the practicalities of the car's demonic possession and the baby evacuation scene into account there is nothing you can really do but laugh. And laugh you will. Films are made to entertain us, and the degree to which they do this can be an indication of a film's worth. This film is the pinnacle in entertainment, I laughed from beginning to end. At one point I got short of breath and nearly choked, it really is that funny at some points. When the baby was airlifted out of the sunroof in a holdall by a helicopter with a robot pilot who managed to maintain a constant velocity identical to the car and a perfectly flat flight plain that meant the grapple hook didn't rip the car roof to pieces, I was laughing hysterically. But when the baby starting swinging around in the air, nearly hit a bridge and almost got tangled up in a tree, tears were running down my face.

It also occurred to me that the black cop was the guy who played Jesus in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video. He seems to get everywhere. In light of bad reviews - or car crashes - I feel possessed to get in gear and make a transmission to give merit where due, and do a service. I'm not sure people have license to say it was so bad, almost automatically.

It's rare for a movie to have SUSPENSE. This movie maintained suspense it's whole length, for me, despite any flaws that may be. How many films can say that? Not even many big ones. Because of the simple premise you don't know if the people will get out of the life-threatening situation, which lasts the whole movie. Yeh, the suspension was tight, and over some bumps the shocks did their work. It's not just a TV movie, but an all-action movie; there is no point where it stops, or deviates, or becomes talky. It would be hard to make a film like this, always on the road. Only Duel, or Speed, are this that I recall. The best thing in them also was the constant tension.

ACTING is not bad: The Judge is as good as ever, and the others are.

SCRIPT is good. But the jury is out as to whether it sometimes may be - or seem to be - a little awry. What seems unrealistic is not necessarily so. Your first judgments are not always right, but I think the lead actor's was right in being in this movie.

STUNTS are mostly terrific, especially for a TV movie. Their only failing may be the noticeable, and again, apparent, slow speed. But we all know how deceivingly slow Grand Prix cars can look.

I liked that THE BEGINNING said, "inspired by a true story." So you are not going to go how much is true? You know just the basis is. The usual "based on a true story" makes me think it should mostly be true. But maybe that's my error.

HOW TO SAVE THEM: Good idea of the reviewer to suggest a tow truck to lift the back wheels up. Just a few inches would do. A stunt driver could do that at 100 mph. Odd that they didn't call a car expert - or auto electrician or mechanic - to see if there's a way.

I hope this review has put in reverse that this film is a disaster. Or at least neutral. And help it become a runaway success.

Pic quality is a little soft for a DVD.

SPOILER: They would have been winched out after the baby was, but strangely that life-saving idea was cleverly dealt with in some joking conversation to fade it out. I guess we know why. End of movie. Suspension of disbelief went out the top window with the baby. just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!! i thought it was pretty interesting my social studies/language arts teacher was the police chief guy that was holding the microphone on the water barrel part =D i was excited my teacher is in some commercials he was in a gas/coffee/phone/play station commercial its nice seeing him on TV he was also on everybody hates Chris except he always get the small part la la why do we have to right 10 lines thats so stupid -_- i think I'm done never mind I'm still not done what is this a joke? why do we have to go all the way to line ten... really what's the point of it??!! i will just right random words for now -_- maple story is fun i love my friends This film was great.

The plot was preposterous.

The action sequences contrived.

But, provided you can lighten up enough to laugh, it was a throughly thrilling romp combining Keystone Cops and the Lone Ranger.

The baddies were more silly than bad. The good guys weren't too good. The black actors played normal characters rather than black stereotypes.

The inclusion of a baby added a good touch. Sympathy might have been a little difficult otherwise.

I have to disagree about the acting. It was, on the whole, very good. I really wanted to punch Judge Reinhold.

And, after all, isn't that the mark of a really good movie, wanting to punch Judge Reinhold? I can still remember first seeing this on TV. I couldn't believe TVNZ let it on! I had to own it! A lot of the humor will be lost on non-NZ'ers, but give it a go!

Since finishing the Back of the Y series Matt and Chris have gone on to bigger and better(?) things. NZ's greatest dare-devil stuntman, Randy Campbell has often appeared on the British TV series Balls of Steel. Yes, he still f^@ks up all his stunts because he is too drunk.

Also the 'house band' Deja Voodoo have since released 2 albums, Brown Sabbath and Back in Brown. The band consists of members of the Back of the Y team and singles such as 'I Would Give You One of My Beers (But I've Only Got 6)' and 'You Weren't Even Born in The 80's' continue their humor.

The South-By-Southwest film festival also featured their feature length film 'The Devil Made Me Do It' which will be released early 2008 in NZ.

All up, if you don't find these guys funny then you can just F%^K OFF!! As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). > "Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film. The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.

*** SPOILERS here on ***

Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.

The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film. Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.

The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.

I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.

Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.

My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.

All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.

The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.

If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan. There are a number of things that are not correct, although this is not too important since what happened to whom and when is still in dispute. The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.

I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots. I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.

Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film "Backbeat", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.

There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been "queer-bashed," only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along. Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering "Corn-Flakes mit Milch." My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught. That's rock 'n' roll.

Well worth watching. A true dark noir movie and a very graphic film, nice storyline of a man pursuing redemption, that may have just left it all too late. Visually there are some really nice scenes artistically amazing as to what can be done with a minimal budget. Full marks to Gareth Maxwell Roberts and team, I look forward to the next project with new ideas although hopefully more British actors would be great. Lisa Ray looked lovely not seen her before and hope to see her again in the future. Subject all interesting Sex,Drugs and Violence. Bring it on. I would definitely say to rent this one and check it out if you're in the mood for a semi moody noir. This movie really surprised me. I had my doubts about it at first but the movie got better and better for each minute.

It is maybe not for the action seeking audience but for those that like an explicit portrait of a very strange criminal, man, lover and husband. If you're not a fan of bad language or sexual content this really is not for you.

The storyline is somewhat hard to follow sometimes, but in the end I think it made everything better. The ending was unexpected since you were almost fouled to think it would end otherwise.

As for the acting I think it was good. It will not be up for an Oscar award for long but it at least caught my eye. Gil Bellows portrait of a prison man is not always perfect but it is very entertaining. Shaun Parkes portrait of Bellows prison mate Clinique is great and extremely powerful. On the downside I think I will put Esai Morales portrait of Markie.

Take my advice and watch this movie, either you will love it or dislike it! I started to watch this movie expecting nothing, just another movie to watch, but since the first twenty minutes, the artwork and main character, who is enigmatic, doesn't talk much, really got me in this movie.

I really liked this movie, it was dark, beautifully acted and really touching. It's a bit slow but the immersion was complete. The directing was awesome by letting us know bits by bits the story leading to the conviction of Joey and his life behind bars. The music was really great and very well incorporated into the scenes. The ending was unexpected with a twist I didn't see coming. It's not the kind of movie we see often. Forget that this is a "B" movie. Forget that it is in many ways outdated. Instead give writer-director Ida Lupino much deserved credit for addressing a subject which at the time (1950) was taboo in Hollywood. To my knowledge, this was the first film to address the subject of rape and the emotional and mental effects that that crime has upon its victims.

Although much of the cast's acting is pedestrian at best, Mala Powers, who at the time was eighteen or nineteen, gives an excellent performance throughout as the traumatized young woman, Ann, who tries to run away from her "shame." Based on her work in this film, I'm surprised that she did not have a more successful acting career. Tod Andrews, too, has some fine moments as the minister who reaches out to help her.

Ms Lupino, obviously working on a limited budget, was still able to create some memorable scenes such as the pursuit through the streets and alleys leading to the rape, and the police lineup following it. And, she created a bittersweet ending which left me wondering if Ann really could ever have a normal life again. Ida Lupino was one of the few women to break through the directorial glass ceiling in Hollywood under the studio system. Not surprisingly, she also tackled proto-feminist themes that, when touched at all, were approached in so gingerly a manner that it was seldom quite clear what was being talked about. In Outrage, she treats rape and its aftermath, and though throughout the short movie it's referred to as `criminal assault,' she leaves, for once, no doubt about what happened.

Mala Powers (in her official debut) plays a secretary-bookkeeper at a big industrial plant; she lives with her parents but is engaged to a swell guy (Robert Clarke), who just got a raise and now makes $90 a week. Leaving the plant after working late one night, she finds herself being stalked. In the ensuing scene – the best in the movie – she tries to escape her pursuer in a forbidding maze of buildings and alleys but fails.

When she returns home, disheveled and in shock, the police can't get much out of her; she claims she never saw her attacker (who manned a snack truck outside the factory). Trying to pretend that nothing happened, she returns to her job but falls apart, thinking that everybody is staring at her, judging her. She goes into a fugue state, running away to Los Angeles on a bus but stumbling off at a rest stop.

Waking up in a strange ranch house, she learns that she's been rescued by Tod Andrews, a young minister in a California agricultural town. She lies about her identity and takes a job packing oranges. The two fall vaguely in love, but it's clear to Andrews that Powers is keeping dire secrets. When, at a company picnic, she seizes a wrench and cracks the skull of Jerry Paris, who was trying to steal a kiss, the truth about her past comes out....

It was a courageous movie to come out in 1950, and that may explain and excuse some of its shortcomings. Lupino never recaptures the verve of the early assault scene, and the movie wanders off into the bucolic and sentimental, ending up talky and didactic. Yes, Lupino had important information to impart, but she didn't trust the narrative to speak for itself. Her cast, pleasant but bland and generic, weren't much help, either, reverting to melodramatic postures or homespun reassurance. But Outrage was a breakthrough, blazing a trail for later discourse on what the crime of rape really is, and what it really means to its victims. Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.

Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.

The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty.

Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing. This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars. This movie was very, very strange and very, very funny. All of the actors are quite real and very odd. The overall "look" of the film was different, too, sort of dreamy and bleached-out, which only added to the spacey, fumbling, weird vibe of the whole thing.

It's not for everyone, I mean, it's not what you would call "mainstream" but that is what I liked about it. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before . . . unpredictable, with a weird rhythm and punch lines in the strangest places. The kids are so heartbreakingly goofy (and pimply) that you can't help but feel for them. In other words, these are far from "hollywoodized" versions of teenagers.

All of, which for me, makes it a good thing. i first saw this movie at the sundance film festival this year, and being a teenager myself i found the movie to be quite appealing. these kids are out of the ordinary and very unexpected to be in a movie of this stature but with the right dialog and junk they made the movie a complete success. i enjoyed this movie more then others but i highly recommend releasing and watching this movie. it is a mixture of witty comments and hilarious reality. capturing the essence of high school, high school record has topped my favorites list and hopefully has a chance to be released into theaters. i truly thank all of the kids who put the hard work into making this film, it helped me cry my eyes our in laughter. As I am no fan of almost any post-"Desperate Living" John Waters films, I warmed to "Pecker". After he emerged from the underground, Waters produced trash-lite versions of his earlier works ("Cry Baby", "Polyester", Hairspray") that to die-hard fans looked and tasted like watered down liqueur. "Pecker", which doesn't attempt to regurgitate early successes, is a slight, quiet, humble commentary on the vagaries of celebrity and the pretentiousness of the art world. Waters clearly knows this subject well because he has also exhibited and sold (at ridiculous prices) some of the most amateurish pop art ever created that you couldn't imagine anyone being able to give away if it wasn't emblazoned with the Waters "name". Edward Furlong is fine as "Pecker" and Waters' non-histrionic style is at ease with the subject. Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci are an excellent couple and demonstrate it with their unique charisma featured in this movie.

This is the typical "alternative" or indie movie with a plot that features a rare situation that suddenly becomes really important.

Pecker is an average boy who has an old camera and his main hobby is to take photographs of the exotic habitants of the small town where he lives in. Suddenly an alternative artist pays attention to his work and hires him in order to expose his work in some important festivals and more.

But Pecker life changes drastically as now fortune and fame seem to infuriate the town's people who are Pecker's main inspiration. Even his sexy girlfriend gets mad because now he does not pays the "adequate" attention to her.

Well this is an Indie movie with an edge but not for everyone. It may seem boring or pretentious for some people but still I think it worths a watch only because it offers something "different" than Hollywood's typical standards.

To describe in a few words: This is the typical Christina Ricci and John Waters movie. That's it.

Oh and I almost forgot to mention that the "Full of Grace" lines are really annoying. Geez. John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashion

that cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day. Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10! The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun. I´m from Germany and I love the mvovies. I go 200 times a year. Tonight I saw "Pecker", it was a wonderful evening. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Everybody who has a chance to see the movie, go!!! "Pecker" is a young, unknown photographer from Baltimore who becomes a big star in the public, the media and the local art scene with his pictures showing the dirty reality of all-day life just as dirty underwear or human excrements. It's a typical topic of John Waters Baltimore-based independent comedies to show the weird sides of the American way of life between political correctness fashion and conservative backlashes by exploring the backgrounds of the middle class society of his hometown.

Edward Furlong of "Terminator 2" fame plays Pecker, supported by Christina Ricchi, photographer Cindy Sherman, legendary Patricia Hearst and Water's long-time actress Mink Stole. Although the pacing of the plot becomes a big flaw sometimes and can't compete with the fast and furious joke attacks of Water's brilliant "Serial Mom", it's still has some good laughs in it and some unforgettable scenes like a former junkie-girl who became a vegetarian by sniffing peas from a vegetable dish... "Pecker" is a great comedy about the arrogance of the art scene, media hypes, middle-class sex angst and the strange ways of how to become a pop star without realizing it. Recommended! Saw this again recently on Comedy Central. I'd love to see Jean Schertler(Memama) and Emmy Collins(Hippie in supermarket) cast as mother and son in a film, it would probably be the weirdest flicker ever made! Hats off to Waters for making a consistently funny film. This is John Waters best film to date. The characters are obvious and symbolic, just as in his other films. So there are no surprises or character changes. I enjoyed the film because of the wittiness and pace of the story. It was good story-telling with honest people. Pecker is a hilariously funny yet twisted film about a small town in Baltimore whose daily, humdrum routine is broken by Pecker, a young photographer who takes pictures of "real things." No pretty models, no gorgeous men, just hard living. This wonderful film pokes fun at the plasticness of the urban art chain. There is one particular scene when a homeless woman who shops at Pecker's mom's thrift shop buys the same exact coat as one of the Whitney art junkies for only 25 cents instead of five hundred dollars. This just goes to show you that no matter what kind of money you have, you might not always have taste. Yet again John Waters sends you into a never-ending spiral of laughter and raw reality. You can have your mainstream Hollywood movies with special affects and mountains of celebrities, but give me a "Pecker" or a "Hairspray" (another excellent John Waters film) over a "Titanic" or a "Godzilla" anyday!! John Water's ("Pink Flamingos"...) "Pecker" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu) This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.

There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.

There is not a false moment in this film.

The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.

It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work. In a very short time, the movie showed a boy's odd life of taking pictures, showed his life and everyone else's get turned upside down as a result of his photographs, then brought everything back to normal in the end. One to see if you're looking for something interesting. I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film. Once you can get past the film's title, "Pecker" is a great film, perhaps one of John Waters' best. A wonderful cast, headed by strong performances by Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, make the story very funny, and very real. There are some shocking scenes that are definitely not suitable for young children, but they are there for a purpose. Unfortunately this movie was not mass produced, and most of the public will be denied the opportunity to view it. If the opportunity knocks, then go see this film. John Waters has given us a genuinely enjoyable film. This certainly isn't without its shocking Waters-esque moments, but it is tamer than his older culty stuff, such as "Pink Flamingoes". "Pecker" harkens back to John's early mainstream stage in that it reminds the viewer of the same kind of humor that was evident in "Polyester". Overall, a really fun comedy with some great moments! Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like "jock" or "geek" or "cheerleader"...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often. Absolutely hilarious. John Waters' tribute to the people he loves most (Baltimoreans) is a twisted little ditty with plenty to look at and laugh at. It's like being turned loose in a museum of kitsch! I haven't laughed so much in a theater since Serial Mom. I loved seeing old friends from the Dreamland days, Sharon Nisep and Susan Lowe, back in front of Waters' camera. The cast is simply wonderful (especially Edward Furlong and Martha Plimpton). Uses the best elements of past Waters atrocities (especially the underrated Polyester) and plenty of new surprises. Made me sick, in a wonderful way. Thanks, John! I thought this was an utterly charming film. The story seems to be a thinly veiled autobiography of John Waters: Pecker's greatest gift is his ability to find beauty in unexpected places. Edward Furlong does well in the lead, but the best performances are by his grandmother, Mink Stole (a hilarious cameo) and, of all people, Patty Hearst. I think the reviewers are way off base on this one. They seem to be taking Pecker's worst valuation of his work as gospel, when I think the film pretty clearly states that he is indeed a promising artist. "Pecker" proves that Waters has no intention of changing his tacky ways in his old age. A lot of things have changed since Waters started making films in the 1960s, but 40 years later he is still doing what he wants to do. Over the years, the budget of Waters' films has increased considerably. This is one of his most recent productions, but I was amazed to see that Waters still has that "trailer-park" touch. Edward Furlong plays Pecker, a kid who is obsessed with photography. He lives a quite life in Baltimore, MD, with his friends and family. But Pecker attracts the attention of a New York art agent (the always watchable Lili Taylor), and his life changes for the worst. Once again, Waters makes fun of art, fame and heterosexuality. It is not among his best films, but there are some big belly laughs here ("Memama" has the best lines in the film!). It is consistently clever and funny, and has that very "queer" sensibility that I have come to love in Warters' movies. This is a very light headed comedy about a wonderful family that has a son called Pecker because he use to Peck at his Food. Pecker loves to take all kinds of pictures of the people in a small suburb of Baltimore, Md., and manages to get the attention of a group of photo art lovers from New York City. Pecker has a cute sister who goes simply nuts over SUGAR and is actually an ADDICT, taking spoonfuls of sugar from a bag. There are scenes of men showing off the lumps in their jockey's with grinding movements and gals doing pretty much the same. It is rather hard to keep your mind out of the gutter with this film, but who cares, it is only a film to give you a few laughs at a simple picture made in 1998. After "A Dirty Shame", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this "Pecker" sure is a lot better than "A Dirty Shame".

In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...

It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...

Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". I give this movie a 6.5/10. It has only been a week since I saw my first John Waters film (Female Trouble), and I wasn't sure what to expect the second time around.

While the previous film was outrageously over the top, Pecker is actually a funny film that satirizes the art critics in New York to a T. Anyone who cannot imagine what these "Experts" find so appealing about modern art, will enjoy seeing these pretentious snobs get so full of themselves over Pecker, a boy who just found a broken camera and starts shooting his friends and neighbors.

Edward Furlong (Pet Sematary II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) was surprisingly good as Pecker. There wasn't a lot of meat on any of the roles in this film, but he really shines.

Christina Ricci (Prozac Nation) comes in with another great performance as Pecker's girlfriend. In fact, it was a banner year for Ricci (Buffalo '66, The Opposite of Sex, and Pecker.

Lili Taylor, who had the only good role in The Haunting, was also a significant part of the film and really made it enjoyable.

There are many funny scenes, but I have to say the best was when a crown gathers screaming, "We want bush!" "We want bush!" "We want bush!" I thought it was a Republican convention until I saw the police hauling off the dancer.

I am going to have to look for more of Waters' work, especially Hairspray, now that that is in the news. Going for something far away from the deliberately gross stuff that he usually makes, John Waters (happy birthday, John!) made this parody of the celebrity/art world. Edward Furlong plays the title character, a working-class teenager in Baltimore who loves to photograph things. When a New York agent (Lili Taylor) discovers his work, she offers him his big break, which he accepts. But once he hits it big, he has to reconsider everything.

Basically, "Pecker" looks at how he loses his friends and his normal life once he becomes a celebrity. The sort of thing that we might expect, sure, but with Waters directing, there's always a few things to shock us (you'll know them when you see them). I certainly recommend it. Also starring Christina Ricci, Mink Stole and Patty Hearst. John Waters has made the most effusively buoyant, heartfelt, dark, personal little film I think I've ever seen (well maybe Fast Food Fast Women comes in close second) The directors vision is untainted...the narrative is whimsical, the characters are personal and odd reflections of family and his own inner life ...the tone never forced or stylistically over-arch.

There is no pretentious shot design, ennui, or magazine grading....Martha Plimpton is amazing as the sister..Eddie furlong is inspired casting. A grandmother with a talking Mary, tea-bagging, recycled clothing, yesterday's garbage becomes today's art -- and the lesson of the film is that the most important thing we can value is family ... and a humble life. This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.

This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.

I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less. This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring.

In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...

I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy "Hasty Hare"! :-) Part of what was so great about the classic Looney Tunes cartoons was their irreverence and how they weren't afraid to do anything that they wanted. In this case, Marvin the Martian has an assignment to bring back an earthling. Sure enough, he comes across Bugs Bunny, who warns of a mutiny on the part of Marvin's dog. After Marvin finally traps Bugs - by means of an Acme strait jacket-ejecting bazooka! - Bugs has more stuff planned for the voyage back to Mars. What I mean is, if you thought that it was a major change in the Solar System when they stripped Pluto of its planet status, then you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, "The Hasty Hare" goes all out. How they buy Acme products in outer space is probably beyond most people, but the point here - I mean "hare" - is to have fun. And believe me, you definitely will. After all, a little space-out never hurt anyone. You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.

Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.

But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.

The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.

It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.

It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house. Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.

This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.

See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did. The premise for this movie is simple and so is the script: an elderly Muslim gets his teenage son to drive him in his similarly elderly station wagon from France to the haj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, so that he can fulfill his holy Muslim obligation before he dies. The father is clearly devoutly religious, but the son is unimpressed; he accepts out of obligation to his father rather than to religion, he'd rather be with his (non-Muslim) girlfriend. The father is stubborn in a lot of things which the son doesn't understand and the petulance between them is the device that maintains the drama, although it is often rather irksome. However, like any good road movie there are oddball characters encountered along the way; for example a woman on a backroad in Croatia who upon being asked for directions to Belgrade simply gets in the backseat and points with her hand uttering one word which they assume to be a place but can't find it on the map. In Bulgaria another man they ask directions of confirms he can speak French but then provides an extensive commentary in Bulgarian. There is also occasional humor - in one country the son tires of eating egg sandwiches and wants meat - they are given a goat, but unfortunately (perhaps fortunately for the viewer) it runs away before the father can perform the Muslim slaughterman ritual. They eventually make it to Mecca - the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican but on a much grander scale. For westerners it is all bizarre but fascinating. The movie isn't sophisticated but is charming in its own way, a kind of National Geographic with soul. I don't know...Maybe it's just because it's an impressive tribute to some Muslim religious action(hajj)but I just felt the movie is so underrated. I just can't believe that the movie has just been voted by only 223 people so far given that the movie was produced in 2004 and it has won many awards since then.About the movie...it's one of those well-acted sweet movies.Reda,a French teenager due to sit for Baccalauréat, is asked by his devout elderly father to take him to Mecca.Strange as it may seem(if one doesn't know much about Islam)the father wants his son to drive them from their home in France to Saudia Arabia on a once-in-a-lifetime religious pilgrimage.The generation gap between the father and the son is based on simple enough terms('you may know how to read and write, but you know nothing about life,' the unnamed father to his son)but some sort of bromidic generation gap literature is avoided.Bot of them are affectionate in their frustrations.The father never speaks in French though Reda understands Arabic but can only seem to answer in French. Though they encounter many people on the road: "There's the scary old woman they pick up in the Bosnian border on the way to Belgrade, and the talkative Mustafa(Jacky Nercessian), who helps them out at the border of Turkey,the reticent and shy women wearing burqas on the way to Damascus" the focus is always on the mismatched father and son.There is not much of a conversation in the movie which makes it enjoyable to your eyes. You see magnificent views in every city they go.The director shows you even the Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sophia even though the movie is not relatively long.

Generally I don't like movies which don't have enough dialogs and which take their power from camera subtleties but this one was really great.Despite some unanswered details(like Reda's unseen French girlfriend)the movie appeals to senses.Great work of art and remember this movie is Ismaël Ferroukhi's debut. this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it. Reda is a young Frenchman of Moroccan descent. Despite his Muslim heritage, he is very French in attitudes and values. Out of the blue, his father announces that Reda will be driving him to the Hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca--something that Reda has no interest in doing but agrees only out of obligation. As a result, from the start, Reda is angry but being a traditional Muslim man, his father is difficult to talk to or discuss his misgivings. Both father and son seem very rigid and inflexible--and it's very ironic when the Dad tells his son that he should not be so stubborn.

When I read the summary, it talks about how much the characters grew and began to know each other. However, I really don't think they did and that is the fascinating and sad aspect of the film. Sure, there were times of understanding, but so often there was an undercurrent of hostility and repression. I actually liked this and appreciated that there wasn't complete resolution of this--as it would have seemed phony.

Overall, the film is well acted and fascinating--giving Westerners an unusual insight into Islam and the Hajj. It also provides a fascinating juxtaposition of traditional Islam and the secular younger generation. While the slow pace and lack of clarity about the relationship throughout the film may annoy some, I think it gave the film intense realism and made it look like a film about people--not some formula. A nice and unusual film. I won't repeat all that has been said already by other viewers of this film.

In my opinion this is an excellent film, not only as a very human tale of the developing relationship between a father and his grown-up son, but also as a little window onto the world of practising Islam, for those like me who are not very familiar with that religion.

An important aspect of this story is that of the young man's relation to his father's beliefs and practices, and how his attitude towards the religion seems to alter in subtle ways as we progress on their journey with them.

This is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable and well-made film that I would recommend to anyone with brain and heart. What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life. LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys.

Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values.

The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp I've joined IMDb so people know what a great film this is! It's not often you come across a film that's moving and visually cinematic yet humble. You've read the plot so all I want to say is don't watch it because you want to see a clash of cultural religious identity babble ,because that's the typical misconception people read in to,instead just appreciate and realise it's about a father and son on a voyage growing to know each other through their struggles. Buy it and pass it on before film4 get round to it. This was one of the very few films to be nominated for a BAFTA being independent and foreign. The beauty of it is that it manages to appeal to anyone even if you never watch anything subtitled or just used to the Hollywood formula, just a great story that will keep you engaged. The only thing I wish is for it to be longer and see what happens This movie is great! This movie is beautiful! Finally, a movie that portrays Moslems as PEOPLE, no stereotypes here. This movie is driven by the story, by the acting and above all by its theme, that of cultural affirmation and discovery. They may seem like clichés but they are not, at least not in this movie. The vista of the Grand Mosque of Mecca is absolutely stupendous and the audience is given a glimpse of a side of the Moslem world that is rarely of ever shown in the West. Here the people are caring, supportive, devout, tolerant and devoted to each other. What a welcomed and way overdue departure from the usual negative portrayals of Arabs. Outstanding movie. Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.

My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.

Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream… The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered… The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know… This was directed by Ruggero Deodato, a true icon to many horror film fans after he directed the seminal and notorious Cannibal Holocaust. However, don't expect to find any such notoriety in the film reviewed here as it proves to be incredibly tame in comparison and plays more like a Conan inspired outing for a young audience.

Such a description may instantly put off most fans of the whole Conan inspired Sword & Sorcery genre but before you turn your nose up at this, it has to be said, this movie is just so much fun!

It's mostly played for laughs and features two HUGE and highly likable heroes in the form of David and Peter Paul aka. the Barbarian Brothers who both seem to be having a ball with their characters.

B-Movie favourite Richard Lynch turns up as the main villain in the piece and it's also great to see roles for Big George Eastman and Michael Berryman.

Added to this, the ladies are stunning to behold and suitably scantily attired throughout the films duration (a staple and much welcomed ingredient in the genre!)

What can I say, - this simply is a really fun and lighthearted take on the genre and I recommend it wholeheartedly! Deodato brings us some mildly shocking moments and a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. Absolutely a classic in it's own particular kind of way. This movie provides a refreshingly different look at barbarians. If you get a chance to see this movie do so. You'll definitely have a smile on your face most of the time. Not because it's funny or anything mundane like that but because it's so bad it goes out the other way and becomes good, though maybe not clean, fun. As shallow as it may sound, I actually delayed my viewing of "The Barbarians" several times just because the VHS cover (as well as the picture image displayed here on the website) looks so incredibly gay! By now I wish I had watched it earlier because the movie isn't so much gay…. just trashy, cheesy, campy and enormously fun! It's almost unbelievable that Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" of all people, was the man responsible for this comical cash-in on the contemporary popular Sword & Sandal fantasy flicks, particularly Schwarzenegger's Conan movies. The film opens with a terrific 'once-upon-a-time' type of off-screen narrator, introducing us to the Ragneks. Their founder once traded an entire mountain of pure gold for just one magically powerful ruby that would allow them to travel in freedom and access every country as entertainers. In other words, the Ragneks are a bunch of traveling circus freaks! Their happiness abruptly comes to end when the greedy Kadar kidnaps the Ragneks' beautiful queen Canary and continuously attempts to discover the whereabouts of the ruby. Meanwhile, and as some sort of amusing waste of time, the two orphan twin-brothers Gore and Kutchek are trained to become muscled warriors and they're unwarily prepared to fight each other to the death. Instead of that, however, they escape and develop a plan to free their queen. Actually, the plot isn't half as bad as I initially feared, but still the most fun is provided by the beefcake brothers' on screen chemistry, the crazily inept dialogs and of course the utterly cheesy fantasy-monsters, like a dragon with adorably cute eyes, some kind of werewolf creature and zombies that randomly appear to pop out of the swamp. The soundtrack and make-up effects are great and our almighty director Deodato maintains a terrifically fast pace. The Barbarian Brother's acting capacities are much better than I anticipated, apart from the fact that one of them constantly produces gross belching sounds. The supportive cast is splendid as well. Eva La Rue never looked more beautiful as the witty savage girl Cara, Virginia Bryant is indeed bewitching like Richard Lynch states on several occasions and the lovely Sheeba Alahani makes her first and only appearance on film as a vicious sorceress with a donut-shaped hair style (I kid you not!). Last but not least, "The Barbarians" stars everybody's favorite Eyes in the Hills creep Michael Berryman as the appropriately named Dirtmaster. I know the displayed picture looks gayer than a promotional campaign for the musical version about the rise and fall of the Village People, but "The Barbarians" really is a must-see Italian exploitation highlight. This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!! I love bad movies. Not only, because they often are as entertaining as 'really' 'good' films (like Pirates of the Caribbean series and other Hollywood pathos), but they often are far better than those films. And that's the reason why I love Italian rip off cinema of 1970s and 1980s. And that's the reason why I especially love this movie, The Barbarians & the Company.

Director Ruggero Deodato has made some actually very good movies, like House on the Edge of the Park, and also his Atlantis Interceptors and Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man are enjoyable action movies. But this is really bad. The Barbarians is so idiotic movie. Peter and David Paul as the Barbarian Brothers Kutchek and Gore are very funny, because of their lack of charisma and acting skills. But if they can't act, they yell and scream every time they do something important. In one scene people try to hang the Barbarian Brothers, and they escape very extraordinary way.

Bad acting, bad special effects, very stupid story, bad direction, actually everything is bad in this movie. I can't describe how much I laughed when I watched this first time. The Barbarians & the Company is camp classic everybody should see once. If you thought Plan 9 From Outer Space is fun camp, this will be a real killer. The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!! Apparently Ruggero Deodato figured out, early on, that his story wouldn't work if he approached it too seriously, so he decided to camp it up. The result is a film that can be viewed as either a ludicrous sword-and-sorcery epic or as a very entertaining comedy! And I think I'll go the second way. The brief gore moments are well-done, the Paul Brothers openly mock the material (they even bark at each other in one scene!), and there is also a charming, spirited, good-natured performance by Eva La Rue, as the girl who tags along with the "boys". Plus, where else can you see the insides of a dragon lighted like a discotheque?? (***) Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al! I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl!

Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue.

I definitely recommend this film. A delight mini movie, a musical short based on three of Cole Porter's Broadway smash songs. Bob Hope's first credited film is a delight! He plays an American playboy millionaire on vacation in Paris. The film opens with him sitting at a table of an out door café telling his friends about this beauty that takes his breath away. Suddenly he spots her a few yards away. he is so over come his friends tease him and suggest "just show her your bank book." But Hope claims he can win her in less than 30 days with "no" money! They bet polo ponies over the issue and take all his cash and ID's. Hope follows her and when they are alone gushes out a proposal she does not believe he is sincere until he sings to her, "You Do Something to Me" by Cole Porter. But she must leave and he tries to earn money as a tour guide so he can pursue her. But when she sees him showing another girl around town, disillusioned she wants to drop him. He continues to chase her and catches up to her and her family at a race track where he bets his meager earnings on the last race hoping to win enough to impress her. Through a series of events and large synchronized dance numbers he loses the winning ticket and she decides to marry him rich or poor. So he wins the girl, the race and the bet and sings two more songs! Netflix should mention this short feature on the info for Silk Stockings. Superior in every way to that over-produced fluff. This had much better Cole Porter songs and lots more energy. Silk Stockings turned out to be a big disappointment. Fred was getting too old for this sort of thing, though the dances and Cyd are lovely. I will be on the watch for the Garbo--Melvyn Douglas version of Ninotchka. Was Peter Lorre ill during the making of Silk Stockings--he seems to be very passive in the more active numbers and with less lines? Very glad that I ran across Paree--Paree by pure accident. Made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Bob Hope, as a simple "song and dance man' is pure joy. Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.

Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.

So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing.

Do you like really inventive comedy or do you love "the wedding crashers", if the answer is the latter stop reading now. I can't believe this movie is not higher rated. Basically Meadows plays a character not unlike Austin Powers.There are so many inventive moments in this gagorama. From crudity - Leon playing with himself on the porch, the ex boyfriend tricked into eating . . Oh well. To inspired lunacy- clown sex , the Broadway routine, the voice over. Meadows is great as the childish, but very sweet natured Leon. Some great lines "don't blame the wang" "freaky deaky sex world" too many. . . Why this movie wasn't huge is a mystery. Great comedy. Yes it may be goofy and may not seem as funny as many high budget comedies out there, but this movie is truly hilarious if you really watch it. Tim Meadows has always struck me as being funny off of the Saturday Night Live show. Whenever he would do this character on the show I would crack up laughing. So after I saw this was going to be playing on Comedy Central one night I decided to check it out. All in all I was farily impressed with this movie, because it wasn't meant to win any Oscars or become comedy of the year, but it did entertain the Saturday Night Live fans that love the Ladies Man character. This movie is also packed with some highly quotable lines that can be recited for years to come. "What is love? What is this longing in our hearts for togetherness? Is it not the sweetest flower? Does not this flower of love have the fragrant aroma of fine, fine diamonds? Does not the wind love the dirt? Is not love not unlike the unlikely not it is unlikened to? Are you with someone tonight? Do not question your love. Take your lover by the hand. Release the power within yourself. Your heard me, release the power. Tame the wild cosmos with a whisper. Conquer heaven with one intimate caress. That's right don't be shy. Whip out everything you got and do it in the butt. By Leon Phelps" When Tim Meadows created his quintessential SNL playboy, Leon Phelps, I cringed. Hearing his smarmy lisp and salacious comments made my remote tremble with outrage. I employed the click feature more than once, dear readers.

So When the film version of "The Ladies Man" came on cable, I mumbled a few comments of my own and clicked yet again. But there comes the day, gray and forlorn, when "nothing is on" any of the 100+ channels...sigh. Yes – I was faced with every cable subscribers torment – watch it or turn my TV off! There he was, Leon Phelps, smirking and ...making me laugh! What had happened? Had I succumbed to Hollywood's 'dumb-down' sit-com humor? Was I that desperate to avoid abdicating my sacred throne? The truth of the matter is I like "The Ladies Man" more than I should. A story about a vulgar playboy sipping cognac while leering at every female form goes against my feminist sensibilities.

What began as a crude SNL skit blossomed before my eyes into a tale about Leon and his playboy philosophy, going through life "helping people" solve their sexual conflicts. "I am the Mother Teresa of Boning", he solemnly informs Julie (Karyn Parsons), his friend and long-suffering producer of his radio show, "The Ladies Man". And he's not kidding. Leaving a string of broken hearts and angry spirits, Leon manages to bed and breakfast just about all of Chicago. That he does so with such genuine good-will is his calling-card through life.

Our self-proclaimed, "Expert in the Ways of Love", manages to get himself into a lot of trouble with husbands and boyfriends. One such maligned spouse, Lance (Will Ferrell), forms a "Victims of the Smiling Ass, USA" club, vowing to catch our lovable Don Juan. "Oh yes, we will have our revenge", he croons to his cohorts, in a show-stopping dance number.

Plus it's such a total delight to see Billy Dee Williams as Lester, the tavern owner and smooth narrator of Leon's odyssey to find his "sweet thing" and a pile of cash. (Where has he been hiding?) But would I choose this movie as my Valentine's Day choice? Leon's search for the easy life changes him in so many profound ways - that I had to give the nod to our "Ladies Man". That he can, at the movie's close, find true happiness with one woman, while still offering his outlandish advice, is the stuff of dreams! The Ladies Man is laugh out loud funny, with a great diverse cast as well as having some very stupid but excellent scenes (including the funniest love song ever written).

Ferrell is his usual quality self in a brilliant side role.

Tim Meadows plays an idiot surprisingly well and has written himself some of the funniest lines you'll find in any comedy out there.

It is definitely worth a purchase as watching it every 6 months or so will lead to you still laughing as hard as you did first time round.

I am distraught to think at the time of writing this that it has a meagre 4.7 /10 and i urge you to vote!

And remember kids- "Theres more motion in the ocean" I must say, this movie has given me a dual personality. I've been told again and again to SHUT UP and start speaking like a normal person. But, it's very hard... no not the wang. Did you find that disgusting and disrespectful? Well, get in the mood for a lot more. This movie is just filthy! It's not a film to show your grand-parents, but you should show it to a teenager or some immature guy at your workplace. Anyway, back to the voice mannerisms. Fortunately this site has some Ladies Man (did anyone at the studio notice that there's supposed to be a apostrophe(?) between the e and s?) so you can always have a fine little something to say to your boss or the cops. I have a sheet in my wallet. This movie was so good. Leon Phelps is hilarious. I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.

Leon "The Ladies' Man" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for "doin' it in the butt"? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that "The Ladies' Man is back," to her obvious chagrin.

Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.

See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice. Enjoyable and watchable. Tim Meadows at his best. A big boost from Billy Dee Williams. He and a very funny John Witherspoon provide a solid foundation for Mr. Meadows' riffing. Have fun with this one. I really don't understand why people get so upset and pan this movie! Remember folks, this is an SNL movie, not anything that is supposed to be unpredictable and original in plot or direction! The Ladies Man is a hilarious movie, albeit stupid at times, with a wacked-out cast and, as usual, WONDERFUL performances by Will Ferrel and Tim Meadows. Yes some of the jokes are stupid, and yes, the characters are unbelievable but its comedy! I really don't understand how anyone couldn't laugh a lot during this hilarious film. Anyway, all I ask is that people take this as it is--an SNL, silly and irreverent comedy. Nothing that will win awards, but nonetheless, some modern comedy gold. "10-4 Apricot!" When i heard about this movie it was supposed to be the funniest thing i've ever seen, Yes it was funny. I mean i liked it all until the end where...........Oh no i can't tell u should it for yourself. It is funny except. The vulgar language. That's why i say if u like movies that r funny in sexual ways watch it , but if not don't waist ur money on renting it or buying it. well "Wayne's World" is long gone and the years since then have been hard for snl off-shoot movies. from such cinematic offal as "It's Pat" to the recent 80 minute yawn, "A Night at the Roxbury," many have, no doubt, lost faith that any other snl skit will ever make a successful transition to the silver screen. well fear not because Tim Meadows comes through in spades. the well-written plot maintains audience interest until the very end and while it remains true to the Leon Phelps character introduced in the five minute skit, the storyline allows the character to develop. the humor (consisting largely of sex jokes) is fresh and interesting and made me laugh harder than i have in any movie in recent memory. its a just great time if you don't feel like taking yourself too seriously. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of "Saved by the Bell" fame, makes an appearance in the film and looks incredible. finally Billy Dee Williams, reliving his Colt 45 days, gives the movie a touch of class. and for those out there who are mindless movie quoters like myself, you will find this movie to be eminently quotable, "ooh, it's a lady!" The world is made up two different types of moviegoers... There are the "English Patient" types, who can't be bothered to enjoy anything that isn't high-brow enough to be shown on PBS, and there are the "Happy Gilmore" types, for whom an hour and a half of genitalia puns are definitely worth the $7.

Certainly, there's a ton of gray area, but you know to which side you're leaning. If you're an English Patient person, save your time, save your money, and save us all your "Oh, this movie is so childish and stupid" comments. I know, you thoroughly enjoy belittling every movie you don't like, and every person that likes them, but maybe you could hold off just this once.

But if you're a Happy Gilmore type... go see this one... You'll find it hilarious. Tim Meadows has created a hilarious character, and Will Farrell continues to be hilarious in just about everything he does. Go check it out. You'll be glad you did. And that's OK. The choice to make this SNL skit into a movie was far better thought out than other recent ones. The humor involved in the character is not annoyance humor, and is also character driven enough to be stretched out for an hour or two.

Oddly enough the sexual content seemed like it could be avoided, but that may have been because the constraints of live television schooled me to not expect it. I suppose I was thinking more "Leisure Suit Larry" risqué than the producers were...

Definitely not a PG-13 movie, which will probably hurt it from ever reaching the heights of its more successful predecessors, but still better premise and writing than its more dismal ones.

I liked it, but I doubt it will be a smash hit... (which is sad, as Tim Meadows tends not to do characters that annoy me with quite the frequency other SNL alumni tend to) Okay, like many other such films, spawned out of a SNL skit. But Tim Meadows does a fairly fantastic job of making a 3 minute one-dimensional character into a moderately viable comedic movie character. He drops amusingly consistently-threated one-liners with fair frequency, Billy Dee Williams is in it though his Lando days are long gone, and the entire thing is shot pretty well. True, it's not great art, but if you went into Wayne's World looking for the Gone With The Wind, you did something wrong. Enjoyable for what it is....... The material in this documentary is so powerful that it brought me to tears. Yes, tears I tell you. This popular struggle of a traditionally exploited population should inspire all of us to stand up for our rights, put forth the greater good of the community and stop making up cowardly excuses for not challenging the establishment. Chavez represents the weak and misfortunate in the same way Bush is the face of dirty corporations and capitalism ran amok. Indeed, Latin America is being reshaped and the marginalized majority is finally having a voice in over five centuries. Though, in the case of Mexico, the election was clearly stolen by Calderon. Chavez is not perfect, far from it. He's trying to change the constitution to allow him to rule indefinitely. That cannot be tolerated. Enough with the politics and back to the movie; The pace is breath taking at moments, and deeply philosophical at others. It portrays Chavez as a popular hero unafraid to challenge the US hegemony and domination of the world's resources. If you think the author is biased in favour of Chavez, nothing's stopping you from doing your homework. One crucial message of the film is questioning info sources, as was clearly demonstrated by the snippers casualties being shamefully blamed on Chavez's supporters. Venezuela puts American alleged democracy to shame. Hasta la revolucion siempre! Whether this movie is propaganda or not (I firmly believe it is not), it really shows the power of Media. The importance of this documentary is not to show how good of a man Chavez is. It is really to demonstrate the way the Bolivarians saw how it happened, the Chavez way of seeing it. Although it may seem wrong and bias to support a film , I think the point of view shown in the movie is utterly legitimate. The Venezuelian people via the private media corporation of Venezuela only saw a one side perspective of the coup, the Neo-Liberal side. This movie shows us the way the Bolivarians saw it . Call it propaganda , I say it's a judgment call on your part. Ten out of ten stars is no exaggeration. This documentary provides the viewers with unique footage about the 2003 coup in Venezuela. This great film is now the minimum knowledge requirement if you want to express a competent opinion about Venezuela or Hugo Chavez.

The dramatic, electrified atmosphere, the unique footage will allow you to experience a true historic moment. You'll feel like you're in the middle of the situation.

The film will help you gain unique insight in the happenings of 2003 and will help you hear a side you will rarely hear on TV. It's something you shouldn't miss. This Documentary (Now available free on Video.Google.Com) is a fantastic demonstration of the power of ordinary people to overcome injustice. Everyone must see this.

Chavez was elected in a landslide vote in 1998. His platform was to divert the fantastic oil wealth from the 20% middle class to the 80% poor. He banned foreign drift net fishing in Venezuelan waters. He sent 10,000 Cuban doctors to the slums to treat the sick for free. He wiped out illiteracy and set up new free Universities.

But it was his 30% tax on oil company profits that got him in trouble with the Bush administration. In 2002, while Irish film makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were interviewing Chavez inside the Presidential Palace about his social programs, a CIA backed coup was launched. With the cameras rolling, Chavez was captured and flown out of the country. It was announced on national TV that he had 'resigned'.

But the poor of Venezuela didn't believe the media. They went to the Palace in their millions and demanded that Chavez be returned. In the face of such overwhelming numbers, the military turned on the coup leaders and the plotters fled to the US. Chavez was rescued by military helicopter and returned to jubilation. I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture

was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.

This documentary has been aired on both RTE and BBC in the last number of months. Having seen it twice now I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in media and documentary film making.

Initially this documentary was meant to detail the political life of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The Irish crew set off with those intentions. What happens when they get to Venezuela is startling as they witness first hand the attempted overthrow by rebel factions (particularly the oil concerns in Venezuela) of Chavez and his government. What we the audience witness is just how the media manipulates the situation and in effect backs the overthrow of Chavez by distorting events that transpire as the coup heightens.

It really is an excellent documentary and a remarkable piece of work by a couple of novice filmmakers.

A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American "caudillos". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film "we're making history", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff. Someone has already mentioned "being at the right time at the right place" It was so true for this documentary that i had doubts about the genuineness of the scenes and thought it included perhaps some acting but it is not. It is all real. The story is nothing new for the people of the developing and/or poor countries. It sheds light on the manipulation of the people by corporate media, the misinformation, the artificial polarization of the people by deliberately creating tension on the streets, sometimes to the point that the army, intelligence agency or even the government(many believe,led by the US) uses agents who attack "any" side to provoke the masses into violence and therefore justifying their coups. A marine officer in the film mentions this also. That they wanted to see the peoples confront on the streets. All of these scenarios have been played in Turkey(USA's pet dog in the middle east) throughout its history who has experienced 3 coups and lately, secret plans made by the Turkish army have been exposed, ironically through a pro-government religious/conservative media opposing the a-religious doctrines of the army, in which a very important mosque is bombed by an army agent to provoke the people etc.

What makes this film unique is that they were filming from inside, perhaps by chance, when the events have happened. It is clear that the directors are pro Chavez. Whether or not this caused the directors to filter and manipulate the events and the information, I would not know.

And whether Chavez will be defending the people of Venezuela against the dictatorship of US and the global economy without repressing any opposing thought with force and in the end becoming a self-indulgent tyrant, history will tell.

But at least Chavez is hope and I believe it is worth taking the chance. One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...

1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.

2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.

3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.

4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.

5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).

6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.

7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.

8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.

9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.

10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.

11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.

12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.

13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.

14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.

8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".

Worth one viewing. With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'état against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'état against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him.

That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in. It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.

The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.

The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.

The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.

I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.

All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud. I've been impressed with Chavez's stance against globalisation for sometime now, but it wasn't until I saw the film at the Amsterdam documentary international film festival that I realize what he has really achieved. This film tells the story of coup/conspiracy by Venezuela's elite, the oil companies and oil loving corrupt western governments, to remove democratically elected president Chavez, and return Venezuela back to a brutal dictatorship. This film is must for anyone who believes in freedom and justice, and is also a lesson to the rest of world ! I commend the people of Venezuela for taking matter into their own hands, and saving their country from the likes of Halliburton and the Bush regime. Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.

But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, "they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice." Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to "beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters." Duh! Of course they are.

In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)

Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.

Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.

The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!

If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an "unelected tyrant" and does not "rule by decree" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.

This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed! This really is an incredible film. Not only does it document the eternal struggle of indigenous and disenfranchised people to gain their rightful voice but it also shows the United States up for its dishonesty, subterfuge, and blatant disregard for human rights and self-determination. Chavez is shown as a very brave and charismatic leader struggling against what can only be characterized as a despicable elite devoid of any sense of proportion or justice. These filmmakers have recorded a coup unlike anything witnessed before.

And in the cross hairs we see the USA, once again pulling the strings and blurring all sense of reality. It's heart-breaking to watch the initial stages of the revolt knowing full well that the subversion of democracy that we're witnessing is a tool long used by successive American governments and their seemingly blinkered citizens. The footage makes it clear that this is not a manipulation of TV or generic footage but an active documentation of a people and its government fighting for its future. Truly a moving experience for anyone with a conscience. These Irish film makers deserve our gratitude. Long live Chavez.

We need to enshrine the notion that each country must be allowed to choose its government and to develop in ways that the majority sees fit. First phase in this process is the need to know what the realities of the situation are, and this documentary does a great job of doing just that. Very good point there : "only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.

Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;).. A case of being in the right place at the right time. What a fascinating film. It is easy to see why Chavez is so popular with his people. He gets things done. He is accessible. And it is also easy to see why the west hates him so much. He has control of the resources of his country and gives the profits back to the people. Mostly the poor. And it easy to see how the TV stations can portray misleading images to put there case. Just like the Iraq war, or the war on Terror. Or those missing WMD's. Or how about the axis of evil. People need to wake up. And get different points of view. Stop the neo cons ruling the world. Go watch this movie with an open mind. And make your own mind up. Then I suggest you see Aaron Russo's: America: Freedom to Fascism. It is not the people of America that are the problem. It is the government. You've never seen anything like it. Once the coup begins, it's the most dazzling, edge-of-your-seat thriller you'll ever see -- even though you know the outcome. And it's all real, because it's a documentary -- amazing.

By the time it was over, it was on my Top 10 list of All Time Great Movies.

Disregard the slobbering right-wing fanatics. Everyone I know who has seen this film gives it the 4-star rating. Even if you don't care about politics or about Venezuelan politics, you will find yourself nerve-racked and -- believe it -- on the edge of your seat.

It's a roller-coaster ride. Yes, the cameras were in the right place at the right time. It's so interesting to see how a world leader (like Chavez) who supports the poor people in his country, can be held in such low esteem in the US. His worst "sin", in my opinion, is caring about those who are at the bottom of the barrel. What can be so bad about that? I have always been fascinated by the US government+media reaction to Fidel Castro. At first, Castro was a good guy (around 1959) when he supplanted Batista. Soon, however, Castro started turning the corporations in Cuba toward the needs of the poor instead of the fat cats. We're a decent country, but why does our media and government have such a problem with sharing with the poor? If these guys are "dictators," then we could use more "dictatorships" especially where the poorest of the poor live in the world. One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the "U.S. backed, Latin American coup", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage!

The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of "American politics". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it! This movie is basically a documentary of the chronologically ordered series of events that took place from April 10, 2002 through April 14, 2002 in the Venezuelan Presidential Palace, Caracas Venezuela.

The pathos of the movie is real and one feels the pain, sorrow and joy of the people who lived through this failed coup d'etat of President Hugo Chavez.

One comes away from viewing this film that Hugo Chavez is truly a great historical figure. Hugo Chavez's persona single-handedly brought the Venezuelan people to overthrow the 3-day old military-installed junta and re-establish the democratically installed government of Venezuela.

It is obvious from the film footage that George W Bush aided and abetted the Venezuelan coup d'etat. That the mainstream media aided and abetted George W Bush is not surprising.

What is surprising is how few people has seen this movie and how few people realize the total corruption of America's mass media.

It has taken only 20 years for Ronald Reagan elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1986 to turn America into blind and rudderless state.

May Hugo Chavez open patriotic Americans' eyes to the truth and beauty of the true American vision. I very much enjoyed "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It gave me, once again, a positive feeling about the power of people to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.

It is unfortunate that in Venezuela the twenty percent of wealthy citizens have made all of the decisions for the eighty percent of the poor for decades, if not centuries. However, when their coup failed; after the interim government dissolved the Supreme Court, and The Constitution, and the Ombudsman, and the Electoral Boards, and all Civil Rights, no one took the plotters out behind a barn somewhere and shot them. They haven't even gone to jail. The major plotters are living in Florida, carrying on. And the protection that they had was the "Bolivarian Constitution" passed by a large majority of the Venezuelan People. It is not only History that Bites. Democracy can give you one hell of a nip if you let it loose. And in Venezuela it is loose. This is an astounding film. As well as showing actual footage of key events in the failed coup to oust Chavez, we are given the background picture which describes a class-divided society. Many of the rich, it appears, have a choice with the people's democratic choice, and are willing to use the military for regime change. 'Be careful what you say in front of your servants' is a revealing comment. The head of the country's biggest oil company appoints himself as the new president, with US backing, and these young Irish film makers have it all on camera. A great film to educate young people about democracy. We see transparent documentation of how media can be manipulated, and force used, in the interests of big business, against the interests of the democratic wishes of the people. Riveting stuff. To me this was more a wake up call, and realization that most all we see, hear, read and think about most anything, is dependent on what the media feeds us. This is a classic example of high level spin doctors attempting to control the masses through controlled information. It is also an excellent example of how people that have a constitution that they freely bought in to, will not be swayed by this media control or any attempted mis-information. Once again this shows that at the end of the day the needs of the many will in fact outweigh the needs of the few. It is also enlightening to see that in in a country where there is no religious civil war going on, that democracy is not a real hard thing to implement. This is a great movie, it shows what our government will to to other countries if we don't like their government. This isn't as bad as what Reagan and Bush number one did to South America, but the US still has no business messing around with other countries like this. This movies also proves that American media spouts government propaganda. This is exactly what they did to Aristide in Haiti. The reason this coup against Chavez didn't succeed is Chavez was elected with over 90% of the vote.

This movie isn't just a political documentary, it would still be a great movie if it were a drama, it's amazing that this is real.

The other reviewer is lying when he says "Chavez seizes the airwaves", the private media is running anti Chavez propaganda all the time.

Arriving by boxcar in New York City, the shrewd young woman with the BABY FACE begins to methodically canoodle her way to the top floors of power in a great bank.

Barbara Stanwyck is fascinating as the amoral heroine of this influential pre-Code drama. Without a shred of decency or regret, she coolly manipulates the removal or destruction of the men unlucky enough to find themselves in her way. A wonderful actress, Stanwyck has full opportunity here to display her ample talents.

Appearing quite late in the story, George Brent is a welcome addition as the one fellow possibly able to handle Stanwyck; his sophisticated style of acting makes a nice counterpoint to her icy demeanor. Douglas Dumbrille, Donald Cook & Henry Kolker portray a succession of her unfortunate victims.

John Wayne appears for just a few scant seconds as an unsuccessful suitor for Stanwyck's affections. This would be the only time these two performers appeared together on screen.

Movie mavens should recognize Nat Pendleton as a speakeasy customer, and Charles Sellon & Edward Van Sloan as bank executives - all unbilled.

The music heard on the soundtrack throughout the film, perfectly punctuating the plot, is ‘Baby Face' (1926) by Benny Davis & Harry Akst and ‘St. Louis Blues' (1914) by W.C. Handy.

BABY FACE is a prime example of pre-Code naughtiness. In its frank & unapologetic dealing with sex, it is precisely the kind of film which the implementation of the Production Code in 1934 was meant to eliminate. No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly.

1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.

In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process.

2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.

Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it. An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules! "Baby Face" is a precode melodrama starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck, an almost unrecognizable George Brent, and Theresa Harris. It's about a girl who goes to the city to make good...or should I say make time. Stanwyck's father has been pimping her for one reason or another her whole life in dingy, depressed, filthy Erie, Pennsylvania. After her father dies, one older father type who knows what she's been through and truly cares about her future advises her to go to the big city and take advantage of opportunities there - and not the easy ones - and to take the high road in life. (Note that I saw the censored version and not the uncut - this part of the film was redone for the censors.) She and Chico (Harris) go to New York where Lily (nickname: Baby Face) decides the low road's a lot smoother and will get her where she wants to go a lot faster. In the movie's most famous scene, the camera moves us up the corporate ladder by taking us from floor to floor as Lily sleeps her way to the top. She finally corrals the big man himself and is able to quit her day job. Trouble follows, and she's soon involved in a huge scandal.

Stanwyck wears lots of makeup and for most of the film is cool as a cucumber as she seduces one man after another with no regrets, and she's great at playing the innocent victim. In one scene, she sits staring at a king's ransom in jewels while wearing a black dress that looks like it's decorated with diamonds at the top. Then she asks Chico for another case, and that's filled with more jewelry, plus securities. All in a day's work.

Theresa Harris was an interesting talent - she could be played down or glamorous, and was a talented singer and dancer as well. Here, she sings or hums the movie's theme, "St. Louis Woman" throughout. She worked in literally dozens of movies and is very good here as a friend of Stanwyck's, her best work being in the precode era. As a bizarre byproduct of the code, blacks were often given less to do in films after it was put in place.

Precode films could be more sexually blatant and therefore, though they're 70+ years old, seem more modern. Even though these films didn't have to have moral endings, Baby Face learns her lessons - how like life it is after all. There were several endings of this film, all with the same message. The one I saw had an added scene, but apparently, there were two other endings that didn't pass the censors. (There wasn't a code but there were always censors.) At any rate, it's a neat surprise. "Baby Face" is an important film in movie history - a must see. Finally, the uncut version of "Baby Face" surfaces and from what source? The Library of Congress. The restored four minutes, snippets here and there, make for a much better film. We now know that Baby Face was pimped by her old man from the time she was at least fourteen years of age. Another reason d'tat for her behavior and cold, calculating exterior.

Barbara Stanwyck is indeed amazing in the role of Lily Powers (notice the moniker), a part that called for just the right amount of sexuality coated with power, cunning, and revenge, yet tinged with virginal pretense when called for, a very difficult portrayal to make convincing. Barbara Stanwyck conveys the necessary nuances to show that though she sleeps her way to the top (literally), she still has good in her heart--note the way she treats those few who have been kind to her such as Chico (the marvelous actress Theresa Harris) and the old philosopher. And though she exploits her sexuality to make mush of men who are rich and powerful, those same men are attempting to exploit her for their carnal desires with no intention of permanent ties until they fall in love with her.

Lily Powers fails to understand, at first, that emotions are difficult to ride, that it's easy to lose control. One possible result is death. Hitching a wagon to a star of course materialism can take one to a destination where nothing else exists but the ephemeral, and it's a cold lonely location.

A word should be said about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche whose will to power is stressed in "Baby Face" by the elderly philosopher who befriends Lilly when she is still turning tricks for her old man. "Baby Face" was released the same year Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Though it's highly unlikely that the semi-literate Hitler understood much about Nietzsche, he considered himself a Nietzschean to the nth degree and touted it along side his other rantings. "Baby Face" serves as an indictment of the popular interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power concept, especially in the final scenes.

Although "You've got the cutest little baby face." is apropos as a theme for "Baby Face," an even more telling and applicable melody is W. C. Handy's "St. Louis Blues" played throughout the film, especially at times when the camera has to drift away from what would otherwise be sexually explicit scenes. "St. Louis Blues" is also used wisely toward the end as Lily begins to see beyond materialism to eternal values. Chico is singing a raw, salacious version of "St. Louis Blues" when Lily, now disagreeing with the lyrics, orders her to stop.

The restored version of "Baby Face" makes the film more modern in its approach and attitude toward sex as power than many a new Hollywood release. By all means watch this gem from the distant past and enjoy. The National Gallery of Art showed the long-thought lost original uncut version of this film on July 10, 2005. It restores vital scenes cut by censors upon its release. The character of the cobbler, a moral goody-goody individual in the original censored release of 1933 is here presented as a follower of the philosopher Nietsze and urges her to use men to claw her way to the top. Also, the corny ending of the original which I assume is in current VHS versions is eliminated and the ending is restored to its original form. A wonderful film of seduction and power. Hopefully, there will a reissue of this film on DVD for all to appreciate its great qualities. Look for it. This one is considered a key Pre-Code film – from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)! – and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.

She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day – George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor – more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!

Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no "ball of fire" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy – directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper – of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one – relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power – in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.

The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing – because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores her…but, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring – as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).

Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits – a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes – and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche! Barbara Stanwyck as a real tough cookie, a waitress to the working classes (and prostitute at the hands of her father) who escapes to New York City and uses her feminine wiles to get a filing job, moving on to Mortgage and Escrow, and later as assistant secretary to the second in command at the bank. Dramatic study of a female character unafraid to be unseemly has lost none of its power over the years, with Barbara acting up a storm (portraying a woman who learns to be a first-rate actress herself). Parlaying a little Nietzschean philosophy into her messed up life, this lady crushes out sentiment all right, but she never loses our fascination, our awe. She's a plain-spoken, hard-boiled broad, but she's not a bitch, nor is she a man-eater or woman-hater. This gal is all out for herself, and as we wait for her to eventually learn about real values in life, her journey up and down the ladder of success provides heated, sexy entertainment. John Wayne (with thick black hair and too much eye make-up) does well in an early role as the assistant in the file office, though all the supporting players are quite good. *** from **** During 1933 this film had many cuts taken from it because it was very over the top for the story content and the fact that Lily Powers,(Barbara Stanwyck) would do anything to obtain great wealth and power. Lily's father had forced his daughter into prostitution at the age of 14 and she grew up in a steel mill of a town with very poor people and her father ran a speakeasy which brought into his home all kinds of male characters who had their eye on Lily. As the story progresses, Lily meets up with man after man and eventually finds a guy who has everything and is a playboy bank president It is great to see a very young John Wayne, (Jimmy McCoy Jr.) who was only 25 when this picture was produced and Jimmy did not even get to first base with Lily, not even for lunch. A very young George Brent, (Coutland Trenholm) stars along with Barbara Stanwyck and both gave outstanding performances. This is a great film from 1933 which was produced by Darryl F. Zanuck and was locked up in a fault for many years and just recently is being shown on the silver screen. This film is rather mild compared to what we view on the Hollywood screens today, but in 1933 it was very naughty to watch this type of film. Enjoy BABY FACE is one of the better of the "forgotten" films before the code. It was shown last night after the 1931 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE on the TURNER CLASSIC NETWORK, so I was able to watch the film as it is now with four plus minutes of it restored.

Stanwyck is living in East St. Louis (where she may have known the drunken parents of "Myra" - Mae Clarke - in WATERLOO BRIDGE). Her father is Robert Barrett. She has lived with him since the death of her mother, and (in the restored dialog) he has been pimping her since she was 14 years old. Now she is resident waitress and part-time whore in his speakeasy, her closest friend being Chico (Theresa Harris), the African-American servant who Barrett keeps bullying. It is one of the two good points of Stanwyck's personality that she keeps standing up to her father about Harris, threatening to leave if Harris is fired (and since it is the grubby workers like Nat Pendleton, who enjoy seeing Stanwyck serve them, rather than the flavor of the hooch he serves that brings them in, Barrett has to obey her).

The one guy who comes to the speakeasy regularly whom Stanwyck likes is the shoemaker and intellectual Adolf Cragg (Alphonse Ethier), who sees great potential in the spirited girl if she will just leave her forsaken home. He is also pushing the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, and the idea of the will to power. More about this later.

After she knocks out the local political bigwig (Arthur Hohl), and has an argument with Barrett about this, a still explosion kills Barrett, and enables Stanwyck to leave her home town. She and Harris head to New York City, managing to get free transport by a railroad freight car by sleeping with a brakeman (James Murray). They reach New York, and after walking about they see the Gotham Trust Company (established 1873), and the friendly guard tells her where the personnel office is.

We slowly watch Stanwyck ascend the corporate ladder to the top, similar (but sleazier) than Robert Morse dared in HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. But Morse was a man in a man dominated company. Stanwyck knows her sexual allure is her weapon. She goes through John Wayne, Douglas Dumbrille (a section of the film that I always felt was the most shocking - curiously enough - when I watched it), Douglas Wood, Henry Kolker, and finally George Brent. Each ends up falling for her, and either being pushed aside when no longer useful, or destroyed by her. Brent, the new President of the Bank his grandfather founded, eventually marries her - and the crisis of the film is when the bank's economic situation is shaken (especially after Brent buys her a fortune in jewels and gives her valuable bonds). Brent is indicted. Will she stick up for him?

SPOILER COMING UP:

The one thing about these films that is not admitted is that the theatrical and moral conventions of the time still dictated endings. The original ending had Stanwyck boarding a ship for Europe abandoning Brent to his fate, but realizing she can't do it to him, returning to their apartment house, and finding he's shot himself. She is riding with him to the hospital as it ends. Now before the rediscovered footage was found, the film ended with them apparently giving up all their money to the bank to save it, and retiring back to East St. Louis, to live happily if poor.

Neither of these are good endings. Stanwyck should continue on her destructive course, with Brent the last of her victims. But even without the Breen office the script writers (one is Darryl Zanuck, by the way) saw fit to have her find a moral center. She has none - at least none for powerful men (whom she hates). I don't think that a depression audience would have tolerated that type of conclusion.

There are other problems, due to the changing styles of public opinion and changes in society. It was a man's world in the corporate world in 1933, so Stanwyck has her work cut out for her. Wood (when she is going to be fired for an indiscretion with him) admits that he did not want her to work.

But in 2006, Stanwyck would have been finding woman all over the place. In the film there are nasty, catty remarks (obviously some based on jealousy) towards Stanwyck from other secretaries and female employees at her rapid rise. In 2006, she'd be frequently confronting women superiors, and she would find them cutting her off at the legs very quickly. Of course, if she finds one or two are lesbians she might try that road but it is doubtful. And she also never seems to meet any men who are gay. They do have gay male executives in business, who wouldn't give a damn about her legs or breasts.

Then there is her mentor, Mr Cragg. Cragg is remade in the "bowdlerized" version into trying to make her seek a moral center. In reality he pushes Nieztsche, but the way (in a broader sense) the Nazis pushed Nieztsche - find your way to power and push it. While Nieztsche did stress power sometimes, it wasn't the be-all and end-all of his theories. Otherwise nobody would read him today in college courses. Cragg is obviously self-educated, but only half-educated. In short if somebody who thoroughly studied Nieztsche confronted Cragg he'd make him look like a half-educated fool. And this is Stanwyck's mentor! A good film, and for it's day worth a 10...but seriously flawed. The pre-release version of 1933's "Baby Face" would make an ideal introduction to a corporate seminar on sexual harassment. Mentored by a Nietszchean professor, Lily Powers rises from a life of easy virtue at her father's speakeasy to a rapid climb up the corporate ladder at a large bank. Because each rung of the ladder is an executive with his brain below his belt and his ethics locked in the vault, the film has no victims, except Lily's childhood, which was destroyed by an abusive exploitative father. The destructive relationship with her father suggests Lily's hidden motive for using men to advance without regard for their fate. While Lily is cynical and obvious in her approach, the men she targets willingly betray wives and fiancés to trade jobs for sexual favors. Perhaps the bank failures in the 1930's owed less to economics than to morally corrupt executives distracted by ambitious women.

The plot moves fast, and the camera amusingly moves from window to window up the façade of the office building as Lily climbs ever higher. Barbara Stanwyck reveled in tough hard-bitten roles, and she is in top form here. Sentiment does not intrude when she is ready to climb the next rung. Only her African-American confidante, Chico, receives Lily's affection, trust, and loyalty. In more enlightened times, the fresh natural beauty of Theresa Harris, who plays Chico, would have had the men throwing the furs and penthouses at her. Stanwyck often appears overly made-up and stiffly coiffed in comparison to Harris. However, despite Stanwyck's tough demeanor, obvious tactics, and artificial visage, she manages to leave a trail of duped and seduced men, including Douglass Dumbrille, Donald Cook, and a young John Wayne.

The preferred version of "Baby Face" is the 76-minute restored cut. The edited release version of the film shyly turns from the hard facts, which the longer cut restores and makes explicit. Perhaps Darryl Zanuck, who wrote the story under an assumed name, intended a lesson by quoting from Nietszche, whose views on women were controversial. However, despite Alphonse Ethier's lectures and advice not to be defeated by life, Lily's grab for power and money likely owed more to her upbringing and her father than to her professorial mentor. However, the philosophy is but a distraction. Short, fast paced, and entertaining, "Baby Face" is as contemporary in its morality as "Wall Street." Substitute Gordon Gecko for Nietszche, and Lily could have declared her guiding philosophy to be "greed is good." I hand't seen the restored, or any version for that matter, of "Baby Face" with Barbara Stanwyck till I caught it on TCM. What a great movie! In a nutshell Lily lives in a speakeasy, she's been pimped out by her own Father since she was 14! Then his still blows up and he's killed leaving Lily (Stanwyck) alone cept for her black maid Chico, played very nicely by Theresa Harris. Lily leaves for the big city ( New York) deciding to use her sex to get to the top. She does this in great style!

She seduces a pudgy clerk to get in on the ground floor and proceeds to go through men like disposable candy! One dumps his fiancée and kills his near father-in-law, also Lily's sugar-daddy, then commits suicide! Lily barely blinks! STanwyck is terrific as a girl who really doesn't know what love is.

Then in Paris, she falls for Courtland, played by George Brent, they marry, but when he's in deep financial straights, she bolts. Nearly free with Chico and a half-million, she realizes she loved Court! Lily races to find him, but will she be too late?

This is pre-code Hollywood at its best. Stanwyck is tremendous and the look and music in the film are perfect. This reminded me of "Original Sin" with Angelina Jolie, another unfairly ignored flick with an amoral woman, those who disliked that films ultra-romantic leanings, will not like Baby FAce any better, those with belief in sex, love and power, will love it. Highly recommended! See it! In my opinion this has to be one of Barbara Stanwyck's best performances. She was one of only a handful of actors, then and now, who could say more with a single look than an entire page of dialogue. And I was lucky enough to see the original and uncensored movie, with the extra 4 minutes of additional footage. Too bad the movie is so short. Lily is a young woman barely holding it together working for her father in his illegal speakeasy. Her only link to anything is her good friend, Chico, played wonderfully by Theresa Harris. Though Chico is African American (and having a white woman be best friends with a black woman back in the 30s was as controversial as the subject matter of this movie), and Lily is not, they have a special bond. And it is not sexual. Just 2 women stuck, or shoved, into a situation beyond their control. After Lily's father dies, and she does not know what she will do, she is told that she has the power to get out and to get what she wants. Yes, it's immoral, but that's the entire point of this movie. Then "they" had to go and ruin the last few minutes. So, up until the last few minutes of the movie, it's a superb film and worth watching. The "lesson" of the movie is still as valid today as it was back then, and I'm sure will be a 100 years from now. Women, it's awful what Lily does in order to get what she wants, but it works. Men, take note. Excellent, pre-code amoral tale with Barbara Stanwyck as the newly inspired (by writings of Nietzsche!) to drive out her sensitivities and exploit herself, use men to her advantage. Not really fair on the German philosopher but interesting that this was the year Hitler came to power. Stanwyck, even in this young version doesn't do a lot for me but she certainly performs well here, ever driving herself and the film forward. Not as much flesh on display here as one might have expected but plenty of risqué situations and astonishing quips and innuendo. Great fun, if not a particularly attractive presentation of men and I suppose in all honesty not a very attractive view of the gold digging female. Still, that's life! This is a hard-boiled Warner Brothers film starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck. A consummate master at portraying Machiavellian cool, a technique she perfected eleven years later in Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity", Stanwyck plays Lily Powers, the well-worn daughter of a violent speakeasy owner in a suffocating steel-town. She has been rendered cynical and numb by years of being offered up as a sexual favor to her father's customers. Once her father dies in a distillery explosion, she hops a freight train to New York and literally sleeps her way up the corporate ladder of a bank.

This would come across as preposterous were it not for Stanwyck's blazing work here. With her dead-eyed stare and amoral seduction methods, it is easy to see why men become addicted to her aggressive carnality. One of the young men she seduces along the way is a fresh-faced John Wayne as of all things, an accountant named Jimmy McCoy. The melodrama gets heavy-handed toward the last third of the film with a murder-suicide, a hush-hush job in Paris to keep Lily quiet and the new bank president who is so addicted to Lily that he embezzles company funds to keep her in luxury. A tacked-on ending is somewhat disappointing but not before Stanwyck sears the screen. The film has curious touches like Lily's bonding friendship with an African-American woman named Chico and the German immigrant who teaches Lily about Nietzsche philosophy regarding the importance of avoiding sentimentality. Babyface - Notorious Barbara Stanwyck flick where she is told by the local professor type that she has power- he tries to get her to read Nietzche- she says books ain't never done her no good.Soon we find out her father is basically pimping her out to a local politico and others.Finally she has had enough and relocates to the big city.We follow her trail of men up the ladder of success in an international bank.The dialogue is quite saucy for it's time and it was one the last films to come out before the self inflicted Hollywood production code.Look for a cameo by a young John Wayne as one of Stanwyck's willing victims.Part of the Forbidden Hollywood collection - I watched the extended version- the DVD has both versions plus Red-Headed Woman and Waterloo Bridge.An interesting movie and foreshadowing for future femme fatale roles that Stanwyck would play in the era of film noir. B+ Very slick, very Pre-Hays Code, and still very sassy. I would highly recommend seeing this movie, even if you are not a fan of Stynwyck. She's funny, she's sexy, she's hard-working - and love that perm she gets!

Barbara Stynwyck is fantastic as a doozie of a floozy who rises up in the world, perfectly portrayed by a bank building. John Wayne (in a suit!) plays one of her first conquests.

The last three minutes are a letdown, but the sets, the lines, the clothes all add to one heck of a movie about rising vertically in the horizontal position. First off, if you're planning on watching this, make sure to watch the UNCUT version (although it is very interesting to go back and then watch the scenes that were tampered with due to censorship), it makes a HUGE difference. This film is about a young woman, played by Barbara Stanwyck, who since the age of 14 has been forced into prostitution by her own father. When her father suddenly passes away, she is able to go out into the world on her own. After reading about Nietzsche's philosophies on life, she uses her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her what she wants and leaves them in ruins and desperate for her love. Throughout the movie she becomes increasingly materialistic and manipulative and the audience begins to wonder is she has any sense of morality left at all. Overall, Baby Face is a very shocking movie with blatant scenes of sexuality that most people would not expect to see in a black and white film. While no sexual acts are explicitly shown on screen, it is very obvious what is happening off camera.

I enjoyed watching this film very much and I believe most modern audiences will get at least some enjoyment out if it, especially with the films shock value. I did think while watching it that the pacing seemed a bit slow at parts, but I think that about most movies the first time is see them. Actually, I think that almost all movies I've seen made from the early 30's had some minor pacing problems or certain parts just didn't quite "flow" right. This was probably just the craft of film-making wasn't quite perfected yet – it would take just a few more years. Compare a film from 1939 and compare it with an early 30's film and I think you'll see what I mean.

Once again, I'm very glad I was able to watch the original cut; it really does make a big difference. Also any John Wayne fans will be surprised to see him in this movie before he was famous in an uncharacteristic role. Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.

Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him. Lily Powers works at a speakeasy until her father dies.She then goes to New York to work at an office building.There she notices that if she wants to get any higher she has to give the men what they want.And what men want is her...well, you know.Alfred E.Green's Baby Face (1933) is a movie of high sexual content.For a movie of that era, anyway.This was one of the last Pre-Code films that were made.Barbara Stanwyck gives a very sexy performance as Lily.Other actors of this film include George Brent (Courtland Trenholm), Donald Cook (Ned Stevens), Alphonse Ethier (Adolf Cragg), Henry Kolker (J.P.Carter), Margaret Lindsay (Ann Carter) and Theresa Harris (Chico).The young John Wayne is seen as Jimmy McCoy Jr.This movie deals with a brave topic and it does it good.Baby Face is historically significant movie and therefore good to watch. BABY FACE is a fast paced, wise cracking, knowing smirk of a film that

lasts only an hour and 15 minutes, but oh what a smart 75 minutes they

are! That a story that covers so much ground could be told in such a

short time puts most of today's movie makers to shame. Screenwriters of

today should study the economy of BABY FACE and cut the bloat that

overwhelms so many of their films.

The story is no nonsense. An amoral woman rises to wealth first under,

and then over the bodies of the men who fall madly in love with her.

Sure the production code loused it up with a redeeming, happy ending,

but it isn't hard to see in which the direction the writers wanted to

go, so enjoy what's there and use your imagination for the rest. Stanwyck is terrific as is George Brent and Douglass Dumbvrille as a

hapless suitor. Not a great film but certainly an enjoyable one. If

you've never seen BABY FACE catch it the next time it's shown on cable

or rent the cassette. It's worth the effort.. I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot. This film is one of the more risqué black and white films of this time in the early 1930's before the Hoyts Code was enforced. It's the story of a young beautiful woman moving to New York and making her way to the top of the business by using her body as a tool to get there.

Barbara Stanwyck plays the young and beautiful Lily Powers who indeed does a fairly well job with her performance. Lily moves to New York and makes her way up the business place by sleeping with all the men. Stanwyck does an outstanding performance as being a strong woman who uses men as one time deals, hardly any emotion towards them playing them as if they were pawns. Lily Powers is a woman who doesn't have love on her mind just power and money.

I thought this movie to be a little bit different then other films I have seen because there is hardly any background music heard. I believe it is only because this is when people were first introduced to live sound and dialogue between the people of the film. The few times the music is heard is during the beginning as we are shown how she makes her way up the chain. The filming and different scenes were something fantastic! The director of this film did all the right angles and all the right tricks, making this film full of realism.

This film was all together an alright movie.The ending to this movie wasn't as good as it should have been, but it didn't entirely ruin it. Baby Face had its slow moving scenes throughout the movie, and perhaps a few predictable parts such as who she will sleep with next. But this is a lovable movie that can be watched more then once, and suggested to some people and friends. Director Alfred Green's melodrama "Baby Face" with Barbara Stanwyck ranks as one of the more notorious of the Pre-Code movies. These films were produced before the Production Code Administration had the power to enforce its rules in 1934. "Inspiration" scenarist Gene Markey and "Midnight Mary" scribe Kathryn Scola penned the screenplay, based on Mark Canfield's story, about the rise and fall of a girl who used her sexual charms to acquire wealth and position in society. Incidentally, Mark Canfield was a pseudonym for producer Daryl F. Zanuck. These Pre-Code films today seem tame, but they aroused controversy galore and contained more racy material than most movies until the late 1950s when the Code began to erode. The themes that the filmmakers explore are women versus men, women versus women, and women versus society. Our crafty protagonist does enough skulduggery that all themes are about equal.

Lily's worthless father Nick Powers (Robert Barret of "Distant Drums") operates an illegal speakeasy bar during Prohibition, when the Thirteen Amendment outlawed liquor, and brews his own booze in a still out back. Nick is such as an obnoxious fellow that he pimps out her beautiful, but hard-working daughter Lily (Barbara Stanwyck of "Night Nurse"), but Lily refuses to help her father out with a sleazy local politician. The politician. Ed Sipple (Arthur Hohl of "Private Detective 62") vows to retaliate for Lily's refusal to accommodate him. Later, Nick chews his rebellious daughter out. Lily reproaches him. "Yeah, I'm a tramp and who's to blame? My father, a swell start you gave me, nothing but men, dirty, rotten men. And you're lower than any of them." No sooner has she stormed off than Nick dies when his still blows up and kills him. Lily and her African-American maid Chico (Theresa Harris of "Arrowsmith") pack their bags and catch a ride of the first freight leaving town.

No sooner have our heroines arrived in New York than Lily uses her charm to get a job in a bank. Visually, director Green shows Lily's shrewd ascension up the ladder with camera angles that move upward until Lily's sexuality threatens to destroy the bank. At one point, Lily breaks up a marriage between one bank officer, Ned Stevens (Donald Cook of "The Public Enemy") and his fiancée, Anne Carter (Margaret Lindsay of "Cavalcade") after Stevens had almost fired her for flirting with her boss, Brody (Douglas Dumbrille of "His Women") in the employee restroom. Lily is extremely shrewd and manages to emerge from each debacle better off than before. The board of trustees hires Courtland Trenholm (George Bent of "Jezebel") to take over as president of the bank. The first thing that Trenholm does is pay off Lily instead of letting her publish her diary entries about the higher ups at the bank. Moreover, Trenholm ships Lily off to their branch bank in Paris where Lily doesn't create any commotion until Trenholm arrives and they become romantically attached. Lily fights tooth and nail for everything that she has gotten and hates to throw it all away, but she sacrifices everything at the end for her husband.

Ironically, Lily winds up back in the same town that she started out in, but Trenholm and she are happy now. "Baby Face" qualifies as one of the five best Pre-Code movies. Look for John Wayne dressed up in a suit and tie in one scene. Infamous pre-code film, really the one film that caused people to insist on the Hayes Code being strictly enforced. Barbara Stanwyck stars as a young girl whose liquor-selling father has no problem pimping her out to customers. When he dies in an accident, she's released out into the world with the knowledge that her nubile body can get her whatever she wants. She goes to New York and proceeds to climb the corporate ladder, one bed at a time. Although obviously there's no actual sex shown, the film is quite sleazy. Unfortunately, after the initial shock value fades (around the time Stanwyck screws a rail car inspector so she can travel for free), the film becomes a tad repetitive and dull. Stanwyck herself is the only thing that keeps the film worth sitting through. As always, she's fantastic. This is one of the most daring and important of the so-called "Pre-Code" films made in Hollywood during the 1930s. Unlike some Pre-Code films that occasionally dabbled in subjects that would have never been allowed after 1934-5, this film fully immersed itself in a very sordid yet entertaining plot from start to finish. The conventional morality of the late 30s and 40s was definitely NOT evident in this film, as the film is essentially about a conniving woman who sleeps her way to the top--and with no apologies along the way. This "broad" both enjoyed sex and used it on every man who could help her get rich--something you just never would have seen in films made just two or three years later.

The film begins with Barbara Stanwyck working in her father's speakeasy. In addition to being her boss, he is also her pimp and encourages her to sleep with a local government official so that he'll allow the illegal bar to operate with impunity. While not especially clear here, it appears as if Daddy has been "renting" his daughter's body out for a long time.

However, after nearly being raped and attacking this man by breaking a bottle of beer over his skull, Barbara has had enough and heads to the big city. It doesn't hurt that the still blew up and killed her father, but her feeling that she was whoring herself out and had nothing to show for it appeared to be the impetus to move.

Despite the Depression, Barbara uses sex to get a job at a huge mega-bank. She starts out at a pretty menial job as a file clerk, but in the space of what seems like just a few weeks, she sleeps her way from one job to another to yet another--until she is sleeping with the head of the bank and his future son-in-law!!! This all ends in tragedy, but Babs doesn't seem too shook up over the deaths of these two men. In fact, some time later, she is able to insinuate herself into the life of the NEW CEO and once again she's on top (perhaps in more way than one).

Now so far, this is a wonderful movie because it was so gritty and unrepentant. Barbara played a 100% sociopath--a woman with no morality and no conscience--just a desire to squeeze as much out of life as she could no matter who she hurt in the process. However, the brave writers and producer "chickened out" and thought it important to tack on a redemptive ending. Considering that this woman was so evil and conniving, her change of heart at the end was a major disappointment and strongly detracted from the film. In many ways, this reminded me of the ending of JEZEBEL--as once again, a wicked person somehow "sees the light" and changes at the not-too-convincing conclusion.

My advice is to try watching RED-HEADED WOMAN and DOWNSTAIRS. RED-HEADED WOMAN is much like BABY FACE but features no magical transformation at the end--the leading lady really is a skunk down deep! In DOWNSTAIRS, a film very much like RED-HEADED WOMAN, the roles are reversed and a man (John Gilbert) plays a similar conniving character. Both are classics and a bit better than this film.

This film is an amazing curio of a brief period of often ultra-sleazy Hollywood films and in this light it's well worth seeing for Cinephiles. Also, fans of The Duke take note--John Wayne plays a very small part in the film and it's very unusual to see a very young Wayne playing such a conventional role. In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent! A pre-code stunner with Stanwyck playing a speakeasy whore who sleeps her way to the top. These pre-code flicks really let it all go with nothing left to the imagination. Stanwyck is outstanding as Lilly the daughter of a speakeasy owner/father who sold more than booze to his patrons(johns).After the old man dies(good!) Barb heads for the big city for better things.She uses her female attributes to sleep her way to the top. John Wayne makes a poor "cameo" and proves that actors get better with age and an acting coach. I loved the banter and strong lines between the actors. I highly recommend this film to all film buffs and to watch Stanwyck who is great and beautiful as Lilly. I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.

From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing "happy ending" slapped onto the end.

All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.

After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The "happy ending" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - "The End". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.

I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending. Barbara Stanwyck plays Lily Powers. She's a waitress for her father's speakeasy in a little crummy mining town. He also sells her to men. She escapes to New York and literally sleeps her way to the top.

Originally I had only seen the 71 minute version but it's pretty extreme--for its time. Nowadays it's pretty tame. The movie moves very quickly and has tons of sexual innuendo--some of it comes off as pretty silly (but fun) today. It moves so quickly you can easily ignore that most of it could never happen--even in 1933. There's nothing classic or monumental about this--it's just a quick, gleefully dirty little film that's lots of fun. It only falls apart at the end with a little "moral" ending that the censors demanded. It comes across as unbelievable and stupid (I saw it in a theatre and the audience laughed at it--one guy quite rightfully said "No way") I just saw the uncut 75 minute version which has a different, somewhat tragic and MUCH better ending. This version was thought to be lost until 2004 when it was discovered by mistake! I believe this is the only one in release--but be aware.

The acting is good--Stanwyck jumps into her role and plays it WAY over the top. She makes you believe that she enjoys being cruel and sleeping around. There are also strong supporting performances from handsome Donald Cook and George Brent. Also look for a pre-stardom John Wayne in a hilarious bit as a meek and mild office worker! Fun, dirty and fast. I give this a 9. Did you know, that Anthony Kiedis, (singer from the Red Hot Chili Peppers) father is in this movie. Blackie Dammit, is Anthony's father. I noticed this after reading "Scar Tissue" Anthony's autobiography, and saw a picture of his father. I thought, "well, that guy kinda looks like that guy from that movie I saw in the eighties. Then I read more and it said his father was an actor that had a few small roles. After checking this site, and comparing with a search on the net, I realized it really is his father in the movie. It's funny, because nowhere in the book does it mention him being in this movie. Perhaps his son was ashamed of his father's acting job in this flick, but he need not be. I think his father, Blackie, did a great job in the show. This movie is probably my favorite movie of all time. Miriam Flynn is excellent as Bunny Packard. Zane Buzby as Delores is comic genius. The rest of the cast is amazing, and the film is really really funny. A definite satire of horror films, with a zany twist. If you enjoy a fun, comedy filled evening, then go and rent this classic. You'll laugh all the way through! Personal taste rules when it comes to talking about movies such as this treasured little gem. Way back in the eighties, the early eighties, i discovered this movie, like so many released at the time, "Night Patrol" "Bad Manners" or even "King Frat" the artwork and blurbs on the back of the covers tempted and teased you.

Of course being of an age, movies like that i have already mentioned as well as stuff like "Screwballs" and the many others, captured the imagination, and thankfully many years later i still remember some with fondness and some with disdain the many movies that help maintain my love of such genre as parodies or pastiches.

Made many years after the huge success of "Animal House" and having seen how it had fared down through the years, I now know that there would be no way this movie would ever eclipse the box office bucks obtain aforementioned nor would it linger in the memory, much like that of National Lampoon's Vacation.

To be honest, not everything that has carried the National Lampoon Logo has been a wild success, however to me Class Reunion remains one of my all time favourite movies, with instantly recognisable characters, such as the aloof Bob Spinnaker played to perfection by Gerrit Graham, so good in Charles Band's "Terrorvision" still lingering in the past glories of his youth. Or how about Stephen Furst's brash and ballsy turn as the high school lazy drunken sex crazed bum Hubert Downs.

Sweet as. Which makes me ponder. As i already said, personal taste not withstanding. People can be so cruel, so it will never win any awards or be compared to the like of its's peers within the comedy world. It does have some merit. Being one of the earlier scripts penned by John Hughes, who would later go on to do one of my own favourites of his work "Weird Science" as well as having a wonderful theme title sung by the great Gary U.S Bonds.

What more can i say, it's a movie just waiting to be rediscovered, time and time again. National Lampoon's Class Reunion is a classic comedy film from the early 80's which combines unique characters, lots of laughs, and some great music from Chuck Berry. When Walter Bailor is absolutely humiliated by his classmates at their high school graduation he seizes the opportunity to get his revenge at his class reunion. One by one he stalks his classmates who include an innocent blind girl, a horny fat guy, the high school beauty, the king of all preps and even the ugly old lunch lady who served up slops to all the kids during highschool. This film has a sort of scary element in it and it has a few brief scenes of sexuality so I wouldn't recommend it for young children but it's a great movie for teens. If you are looking for a movie with a beautiful score, complex characters or killer special effects you might not love Class Reunion. If you want to sit down for 90 minutes and have some great laughs and a lot of fun (and who doesn't) then this movie should be on your movies to see list. ++ I first saw this film around ten years ago and I thought it was very funny indeed. It was not as bad as some critics were making it out to be. The fact that it was written by the usually dependable John Hughes shows that you can at least expect some funny dialogue. (By the way, I also think Weird Science is quite good which was also penned in lightning speed by Hughes).

The film has a very garish look to it using all the primary colours - reds, yellows etc - which makes it look quite unique. The cast are also quite good. The prudish Bunny Packard and the devil-possessed Delores Salk are a stand out.

The film has certainly dated a little but I personally prefer it to all the other 'Lampoon' series. Class Reunion is a very underated comedy gem. It's 1982 and the 1972 class of Lizzie Borden High return for there 10 year reunion, among them are the usual stereotypes, the hunk, babe, the fat guy & nerd etc, but the former students are in for a bumpy night, one of their classmates is Walter Baloer, the class wimp who was subject to a comedy prank by the rest of the class on graduation night and since then has been in a mental home, Walter escapes and now plans to avenge his humiliation,,,,

Despite the dark premise, this is really just an excuse for lots of very funny gags & set pieces. To say too much more would spoil the film but if you enjoyed the Naked Gun & Airplane movies you'll love this, & what other film offers a music cameo by Chuck Berry?. A great comedy which deserves a wider audience. For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas. This is a great movie. In the same genre of the "Memphis Belle". Seen it about 10 years ago. And would like to see it again. There is a link with the history of the hells angels!! How the pilot crew fight the Germans in WO2. And most Changes form pilots to Harley motor cycle rs. The movie is in a way really happened. See the movie! And reed the history of the hells angels at hells at hells angels.com Regards Frederik.

Cast & Crew: John Stamos, John Stockwell, Teri Polo, Kris Kamm, directed by Graham Baker more » Synopsis: The story of a rowdy backwoods rebel biker who joins the Army to avoid a stiff prison sentence after a minor brush with the law. Though he chafes at Army discipline, he soon proves himself under fire as a daring and charismatic leader of men in a Motorcycle Scout Troop in pr-World War II Spain. more » MPAA Rating: PG Runtime: 88 minutes Anyone with a young boy in the house who won't watch black & white movies should put this on their television set. When the child walks by, wondering what all the on screen shouting and shooting's about, tell him this is a picture for adults and that he isn't big enough to watch it yet. That'll hold him there for a few minutes; director George Stevens and his team will keep him to the end.

I think my father did that to me, anyway, and I'm the better man for it. This classic adventure yarn, set in India during the British occupation, features a trio of Army sergeants who find their tight union facing dissolution as one prepares to marry his sweetheart. Help arrives in the form of a vicious Thuggie revolt that the soldiers find themselves united against.

"Gunga Din" was one of the great movies to come out of Hollywood's finest year, 1939. Even more than most great movies from that Golden year, it is entertaining in a very immediate and accessible way. The theme music is instant hummable nirvana. While shot in California, the camera work (the only thing in "Gunga Din" that got so much as an Oscar nomination) has a windblown grandeur that feels very much like the Raj of a hundred years before. The battle scenes are shot in a very realistic manner, not too violent but very messy as people fall and shoot and run in all corners of each frame in a way that feels real, not staged like some Cecil B. DeMille Biblical slaughter fest.

The script doesn't just set up action scenes, it also develops the relationship of the three sergeants with great dollops of humor. The main focus is on Sgt. Cutter, chasing after tall tales of golden treasures. It's a rare actioner for Cary Grant, and his lightness is just right for a film that never takes itself seriously even as it develops taut suspense.

Anchoring the trio is Sgt. MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), who dotes over his elephant Annie and tries to protect Cutter from his own hare-brained schemes. He's just as funny in his own way, leaving Sgt. Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks Jr., displaying some nice Errol Flynnish dash) as the one with the love interest and grounding enough to know he needs to chuck his boyish pals and grow up.

If "Gunga Din" was a Lifetime movie, it would be about Joan Fontaine's efforts to save her man from his two loser friends and their skull crushing hijinks. But since it's a guys' film, the accent here is on how the threesome must stay together and save Ballantine from a fate worse than death, not only marriage, but as Cutter indignantly exclaims several times, the tea business, too.

The political correctness police are hard on this film, not so much for the gender issue but the idea of British soldiers saving poor Indians from the vicious Thuggies. It reeks of colonial apologia. Thankfully, this film was made back when, and the producers thus felt no need to spell out the obvious liberalism at the heart of the film, that these three sergeants, so full of derring-do and false racial pride, have to be saved along with the rest of their army by a humble bhisti that only one of the three had any time for when he sought their approval. After all, for all their swashbuckling glory, the film's true sacrifice involves the title character, played so heart-wrenchingly by Sam Jaffe.

Back when this film was made, movie mogul Jack Warner had a saying: You want to send a message, use Western Union. Still, it seems like the messages were flying fast and furious in "Gunga Din." I watch the film now and wonder if audiences back then were meant to wonder what Gunga Din was really up to when he led Cutter to the golden temple. Was he really plotting revenge against his British overlords? Would he have been justified in doing so, especially given MacChesney's cold treatment of him? When Col. Weed delivers that eulogy, the poem by Rudyard Kipling on which the film is loosely based, was it with a nod in the direction of imperialism's folly, of lording it over someone who proved "a better man than I am" in the end? What did they make of the Guru's great speech, delivered in perfect clipped English: "You have sworn an oath as soldiers to maybe die for a faith, which is your country, England. Well, I can die for my country and my faith as readily as you...India, farewell."

Of course, the same character also instructs his brutal followers: "Kill for the love of killing! Kill for the love of Kali! Kill! Kill! Kill!" Which means we are allowed to hate him and root for the British, and save the questions about what it all means for later.

What "Gunga Din" means to me, most of all, is the quickest, surest 90-minute thrill ride on video. Cutter never found his golden temple, but there's one for all of us watching "Gunga Din." A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.

Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.

It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.

(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)

The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.

Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.

The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares. Obviously a film that has had great influence not only on the buddy genre but action genre as well. George Lucas had to be a fan of this flick as so much of his Star Wars series seems to a homage to Gunga Din. The characters that Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks play are just precursors of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Chewbacca. Even Sam Jaffe's Gunga Din morphed into C-3PO and R2-D2 and like him or not: Jar Jar Binks.

Today this film is viewed as non PC but there is a speech by Eduardo Ciannelli as Guru the leader of the Indian opposition to the British raj that could can be echoed in the sentiments of many today.

To a young boy this was a great film. Three strong male leads and only a hint of romance. There was a time when young boys deemed kissing the girl in Saturday matinee film was just mush. Not like today when the more skin is greeted with delight. Too late to lament lost innocence.

Hopefully this film will not be forgotten and a few who are channel surfing will stop at TCM and catch a film with action, adventure, and a cast of thousands instead of CGI actors. A rousing adventure form director George Stevens (before he would turn to more serious fare such as 1948's I REMEMBER MAMA and 1956's GIANT) that set the standard for all future action yarns to follow. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem of the same, GUNGA DIN follows the journey of three military officers in 19th century India. The noble trio must brave a series of battles and other various dangers including a thuggee cult and a temple full of gold. Their screen adventures remain thrilling even after more than six decades, and have lent inspiration to nearly everything from the cliffhanger-inspired space opera STAR WARS (1977) to the similarly-plotted RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARC (1981).

The biggest reason for the picture's success, however, is the pitch-perfect performances by the film's trio of extremely charismatic actors. Victor McLaglen has rarely been better as the strapping tough guy, Cary Grant is the ultimate comic foil, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr is as suave a swashbuckling hero as imaginable - perhaps even more so than rival Errol Flynn. The chemistry between the three actors simply could not be improved upon, and such warm and believable comradely is precisely what's missing from most modern action pictures - and they receive tremendous support from the marvelous Sam Jaffe, who overcomes the obvious physical miscasting and makes the title character a beacon of humane sweetness and quiet strength. A huge hit in its day (the film was reportedly the second-biggest money maker of 1939 behind the outrageously successful GONE WITH THE WIND), and it remains arguably the best film of its kind. Pandro S. Berman was "In Charge of Production" but that made him the so-called Line Producer. But who produced this epic, filmed not in Arizona but in California's Mohave Desert where scavengers have made off with all of the remnants of the "gold temple", the Thuggee huts, the British outpost at Muri, the village of Tantrapur, etc. The minor technical faults can and must be forgiven. What's unforgivable is the lack of an Oscar for best music, although maybe the Academy didn't offer such at the time. A single theme was played in various tempos including waltz, march and sweet, mood-setting. Brilliant! One of the curious aspects of the production was the widow Kipling's demands. An actor playing Kipling appears briefly before and after the battle scenes. In the initial release his scenes were cut, per Mrs. Kipling's demands. Later they were included and lent a "connection" of Kipling's immortal poem to Ben Hecht's screenplay. Interestingly, this very typically and pro-British story was by a great screenwriter who himself hated the British. For years I thought this knockabout service comedy was a product of John Ford, especially with Victor McLaglen as one of the leads. It certainly has the same rough house humor that Ford laces his films with.

To my surprise I learned it was George Stevens who actually directed it. Still I refuse to believe that this film wasn't offered to John Ford, but he was probably off in Monument Valley making Stagecoach.

Victor McLaglen along with Cary Grant and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., play three sergeants in the Indian Army who have a nice buddy/buddy/buddy camaraderie going. But the old gang is breaking up because Fairbanks is engaged to marry Joan Fontaine. Not if his two pals can help it, aided and abetted by regimental beastie Gunga Din as played by Sam Jaffe.

The Rudyard Kipling poem served as the inspiration for this RKO film about barracks life in the British Raj. The comic playing of the leads is so good that it does overshadow the incredibly racist message of the film. Not that the makers were racist, but this was the assumption of the British there at the time, including our leads and Gunga Din shows this most effectively.

The British took India by increments, making deals here and there with local rulers under a weak Mogul emperor who was done away with in the middle of the 19th century. They ruled very little of India outright, that would have been impossible. Their rule depended on the native troops you see here. Note that the soldiers cannot rise above the rank of corporal and Gunga Din is considerably lower in status than that.

Note here that the rebels in fact are Hindu, not Moslem. There are as many strains of that religion as there are Christian sects and this strangling cult was quite real. Of course to those being strangled they might not have the same view of them as liberators. But until India organized its independence movement, until the Congress Party came into being, these people were the voice of a free India.

But however you slice it, strangling people isn't a nice thing to do and the British had their point here also. When I watch Gunga Din, I think of Star Trek and the reason the prime directive came into being.

Cary Grant got to play his real cockney self here instead of the urbane Cary we're used to seeing. Fairbanks and McLaglen do very well with roles completely suited to their personalities.

Best acting role in the film however is Eduard Ciannelli as the guru, the head of the strangler cult. Note the fire and passion in his performance, he blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.

Favorite scene in Gunga Din is Ciannelli exhorting his troops in their mountain temple. Note how Stevens progressively darkens the background around Ciannelli until all you see are eyes and teeth like a ghoulish Halloween mask. Haunting, frightening and very effective.

It was right after the action of this film in the late nineteenth century that more and more of the British public started to question the underlying assumptions justifying the Raj. But that's the subject of Gandhi.

Gunga Din is still a great film, entertaining and funny. It should be shown with A Passage to India and Gandhi and you can chart how the Indian independence movement evolved. I saw this picture in 1940 for $.11 and I would like to secure a DVD in 2006 The film was the greatest adventure of the time and,like all epics,is still an entertainment marvel (B&W and all)You get a sense of real bonded friendship in the chemistry between the actors and the performances of Sam Jaffe & Eduardo Cianelli are outstanding (This could not be done today I particularly liked the ending where the colonel recites the end of Kipling's poem over the body of Gunga Din and tells the "Untouchable" "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din"They don't make movies of this character today.The only cast member that is still alive today is Joan Fontaine The film was shot at Movie Flats, just off route 395, near Lone Pine, California, north of the road to Whitney Portals. You can still find splashes of cement and iron joists plastered across the rocks where the sets were built. And you'll recognize the area from any Randolph Scott movie.

I won't bother with the plot, since I'm sure it's covered elsewhere. The movie stars three athletes -- Fairbanks fils, who must have learned a good deal from his Dad -- Grant, an acrobat in his youth -- and MacLaughlin, a professional boxer from South Africa. Their physical skills are all on display.

Not a moment of this movie is to be taken seriously. It's about Thugees, a sect in India, whence our English word "thug." I can't go through all the felicities of this movie but probably ought to point out that the director, George Stevens, was a polymath with a background in Laurel and Hardy movies -- see his choreography of the fight scenes -- and went on to the infinitely long dissolves of Shane and The Diary of Anne Frank. Dynasties rose and fell. Geological epochs came and went, while Liz Taylor and Monty Clift kissed in "A Place in the Sun." Here, in his comic mode, he excels.

This is a story of male bonding and it would be easy -- too easy -- to read homoeroticism into it, as many people do with Howard Hawks. Or hatred of women. But it isn't that at all. Sometimes things portrayed on screen don't deserve too much in the way of heuristic attention. Men WILL form bonds by working together in a way that women do not. (Women share secrets.) Read Deborah Tannen, nobody's idea of an anti-feminist. Well, when you think about it, that's what evolution should have produced. For most of human history -- about nine tenths of it -- hominids have been hunters and gatherers, and the men tend to hunt and the women to gather. Hunting is more effective as a team enterprise. Men who were not very good at bonding were Darwinianed out, leaving men who have a lot of team spirit. And Grant, Fairbanks, and MacLaughlin have got it in spades.

Sorry to ramble on about evolution but I'm an anthropologist and it is an occupational disease. Did I ever tell you about the horse in Vaitongi, Samoa, that slipped on the cement and fell in the bathtub with me? You've got to watch the hooves.

Joan Fontaine is lovely, really. Only got to know her in her later years and wondered why she was in so many movies. I lived in Saratoga, California, where her sister, Olivia DeHavilland, grew up and went to a convent school. Pretty place.

If you miss this adventurous lively farraginous chronicle of the British Empahh at its height, you should never forgive yourself. It's so famous that it's parodied in the Peter Sellers movie, "The Party." Yes -- the colonel's got to know. This movie is one of my all time favorites. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr...what a cast. Not to mention Sam Jaffe as Gunga Din. Drama, action, adventure and comedy all rolled up into one. The final battle scene still to this day gives me chills and the ending always leaves me in tears. If you haven't seen it, I'd strongly recommend it. ....Rather well done, actually--attack the evil villains in their lair, stop a Little Big Horn style ambush, save the day via the waterboys' bugling, works for me. Stiff Upper British lip and all that.

So how does it play on a DVD 66 years later? Struck me as being like a Western, subbing Apaches or Sioux for the Thugs, and the US Cavalry for the Imperial British Army. It's very Colonial in it's outlook, you know? White Man's burden and all that? Kipling certainly would have approved.

Cary Grant, Fairbanks and MacLaglen play it as broadly as possible, putting some buddy buddy slapstick into the mix between the shootings and brawlings for good measure. (I had no idea it was Joan Fontaine as the token army wife--did they leave some of her scenes on the cutting room floor? very short-) None of them were aiming for an Oscar here--in fact Grant was not at his best in a few scenes--but sod it, it still works. And where else would Ben Casey wind up as an Indian bugler? Only in Hollywood.

Def. check this out if you like adventure and pseudo-Western style antics. It was done by a bunch of pros, well I might add.

*** outta **** I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made "monsters" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it "corny" but i consider it "classic" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either. Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire." Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read

"Yes, Din! Din! Din!

You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!

Though I've belted you and flayed you,

By the livin' Gawd that made you,

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"

I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men. I did not know for some time in my youth all that could in general be known about this film however the ways of making a film was not what in fact drew my attention, what made this motion picture one the most liked films even to this very day that I have ever seen was of the Heroism,bravery and the Honor to have served in Her Majestys Service.This film is not always what it seems and that is perhaps as it should be,however I cant say enough for the courage exhibited by Sgt.Cutter in defense of The Uniform that he too would of sacrificed his life to save from peril of the sort that they and the troop were threatened with the emergence of this thugee group.

To be certain Sgt. Cutter is the kind of individual you might suggest something about and then you watch this unequivocal belief not only in each other but in her Majesty the Queen of England.I think for all of his lust for money and the such that that character was great.A reckless brave courageous soldier who did not know fear.I think Grant was excellent in this role,truly a very capable rendering made compelling by the uniform that he wore.I never felt Ballantine was a shoe-in ,in fact there was so much confidence in there assumptions that you might be well not to look to close because it is still only a picture.What do I mean?This picture is still only a motion picture and like the times in which these events take place as well as when the picture was actually made provide a look at how things were done then and what or why there are so many different opinions as to this motion picture will distract your attention.Both Ballantine and MaChesney are equal in there dedication with both men from time to time providing a unflinching daring as to there jobs as men in the service of Her Majesty.These three seem to bring things off rather well and I believe it is a useful,even enjoyable interlude when Ballantine has a date with destiny or so it would seem only to have fate as you would have it intervene.Is it Believable?I don't know.I think it is very fitting when the company having escaped the clutches of death in Tantrapur and they are dragging there tails as they are approaching the main gates to the Regiments Post when Ballantine allows the other two to know that he is leaving the service,and getting married and going into the tea business.MaChesney says he could sign up for another 9 years.It will make a man out of him.I like that sentiment.

I don't think there is any doubt as to just what it means to have brave dependable courageous soldiers representing your very best interests.Where does this end,in fact it may never end.Those interests are so well placed as to what is important in this world that I enjoy this picture today as much as perhaps I enjoyed the picture when I was ten years old.I had never known about the truthfulness of this film up to recently when I went into history and found the information about Kali.There is quite a good deal to learn however once all is said and done about the historical significance of the Goddess of Kali,this motion picture takes on a quality that I refer to as intelligence.This is a very honest attempt to convey a belief in what is being attempted.I think this is an excellent film.George Stevens directed.

There is a few items to be aware of I don't think all the information will jive with history however when the Journalist is addressed as Mr.Kipling things can get very emotional because all the rest are characters but this is Rudyard Kipling?George Stevens went over the top to convey a time and a time before when these events actually occurred.The information is honest,compelling and it will not only draw you in but you will need to understand about why we so love Gunga Din.There is in the distance the Black Watch is out in front and they are approaching a most certain peril and possible defeat unless the troop can be warned.Sgt.Cutter is seriously wounded and Ballantine as well as MaChesney are restrained.Din having a deep wound at the base of his back as the result of a bayonet thrust deeply into his body from behind is up to the demand of having to warn the Colonel of impending peril.With a effort worthy of our most sincerest desires in this life time Din slowly climbs and manages to scale the steeple which rests as the top of the tuggee temple.The sound of Gunga Dins horn allows the approaching army to be forewarned.A very large scale battle ensues and the enemy is nullified.It is so Dramatic and tense filled position that as Gunga Din lay Dead on a pile of rocks which his bullet riddled body now shows,Sgt.Cutter says good work soldier.I don't know of any more dramatic moment nor one where we learn what sacrifice means then when the troop is forewarned of the impending peril.

The end is far from being anti-climatic,it is the telling of who Gunga Din is and what he means now to the honored men in uniform for whom he willing sacrificed.Ballantine knows his heart and asks the Colonel to take care of his enlistment papers and this makes MaChesney quite pleased with the Colonel being honest places the enlistment papers in his pocket to be dealt with at perhaps at a more appropriate time.The Colonel says at the place where now all are gathered that we have all done enough soldiering for one long day and further comments on how pleased there efforts were in defense.MaChesney says he would rather here that from the colonel than get a bloomin medal.This is a very sober point and then he comes to Din.Now here is a man who has no actually status so I am going to appoint him a corporal and his name shall be written on the rolls of our honored dead.The poem is read as though it was just penned by Kipling himself who stands by the gravesite with the colonel and the rest of the men.Gunga Din Bravo! My favorite "Imperialism" movie and one of the best action-adventure flicks of all time. Grant, McLaglen and Fairbanks dominate the screen with daring-do and wise cracks to please all but the most "PC" of film goers. Memorable scenes abound -- the 3 sergeants and their 20 sepoys fighting off hundreds of Thugs; MacChesney & Cutter giving Bobby Coote the spiked punch ("save some for the elephant"); Cutter to MacChesney -- "I'm an expedition"; Din breaking Cutter out of jail, with a fork ("what do you think I'm trying to break out of? A bleedin' pudding?!) And the incredible temple scene with Cutter singing and then annoucing, bold as brass -- "All right, you're all under arrest!"

I could go on, but suffice it to say I try to catch this film whenever it is on. For armchair adventurers and generals, it's hard to imagine a better 2 hours. Three sergeants in the British army stationed in India, are sent out to stop an uprising of a tribe of murderers known as the Thuggees. One of the sergeants, Cutter, leads away from the camp in search of a golden temple and is captured by the Thuggees lead by the sinister Guru. Gunga Din, the regiment's water boy, goes back to the camp for help and the other two sergeants go after him, but are also captured. Now the major sends a full detail out after the three, but do not realize that they are walking into a trap set by the Thugees. It is though, Gunga Din who saves the day. Excellently made buddy film, even though it is today politically incorrect. Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks do give very humorous and thrilling performances with Jaffe very well in the title role and Cianelli very sinister as Guru. Rating- 10 out of 10. Its about time that Gunga Din is released on DVD. I cannot accurately say how many times I have watched this fine film but, I never tire of it. The lead actors worked so well together. Victor Mclaglen (Sgt McChesney), Cary Grant (Sgt Cutter) and Douglas Fairbanks Jr (Sgt Ballentine) are an unbeatable team.

I just cannot get over their exploits in India. Your first glimpse at the Sergeants Three, is when you see them engaged in fighting with other soldiers over a so-called treasure Map. The three Sergeants are sent on an expedition to find out what happened to the communications line an they enter a mostly deserted town- or so they think.

They engage in the necessary repairs and soon find a few "residents" in hiding. Soon after they get attacked by a group of madmen and barely make an escape back to base.

Later they are sent on another mission which gives Sgt Cutter a chance to go hunting for the Gold with Din. They find the temple of gold and are trapped by the evil Kali supporters. Din is sent to fetch help and Cutter gets captured. Soon McChesney and Ballentine arrive with Din, and they are too captured.

Faced with being killed, they watch helplessly as their Regiment comes to rescue them. The evil doers watch and are about to spring their surprise attack when a wounded Din climbs onto the golden dome and blows his bugle which then alerts the British to the ambush. In doing this, Din is shot dead.

The Soldiers attack the evil ones and soon defeat them. At the end, Din is honored as he is made an honorary Corporal in the British Army. This- and not a certain slightly overrated Southern Soap Opera-was the greatest epic to come out of Hollywoods greatest year, 1939.I will not not restate the obvious-Cary Grant,Victor McLaglen( who WAS a Bengal Lancer), and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. give superb comic performances.However, I want to note two other, less understood elements of this masterpiece. The Magnificent final battle sequence, as the wonderful Sam Jaffe climbs laboriously up to the pinnacle of the temple to blow his bugle and warn the regiment, is simply grand. It never fails to enthrall me. Yet another underrated element in the film is Eduardo Ciannelli's performance as the Guru. This is no Fu Manchu caricature, but an well drawn, articulate, historically informed ( "Have you ever heard of Changruputra Maurya?He defeated the armies left in India by Alexander The Great")villain. Indeed, one can see parallels between this mystical, evil nationalist and a certain well known figure of the thirties( A German, not an Indian). Gunga Din, anti-Nazi tract? Not quite. But still, a tremendous, funny, moving epic. "Gunga Din": one of the greatest adventure stories ever told! A story about the British Foreign legion in 19th century India and a lowly "water-bearer" named Gunga Din, a local denizen who aspires to be just like his military counterparts; three British sergeants whose loyalty and camaraderie for each other extend far beyond the bounds of mere patriotism. Their's is a true and abiding friendship for one another and each would be willing to sacrifice his own life for the good of the other. Gunga Din longs to be a soldier too, a Bugler in particular, but can never attain that rank due to his subordinate social standing. However, heroes are not made according to their social credentials, they're made through their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good of others. Gunga Din tries at every turn to prove his mettle, but will he ever attain the rank he so passionately seeks?...."You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"! One of Hollywood's classics and a perfect 10!!!! Gunga Din (1939) is based on Rudyard Kipling's poem.The movie is directed by George Stevens.It's set in India during the 19th century where three British soldiers have to stop an evil guru and his murderous cult.Gunga Din is a marvelous adventure war comedy with plenty of thrilling moments.The three leading men are brilliant.Cary Grant is Sgt.Archibald Cutter, Victor McLaglen is Sgt.'Mac' MacChesney and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.(the son of the legendary you know who) is Sgt.Thomas Ballantine.Let's not forget the other fine players who include Sam Jaffe playing Gunga Din himself in a brilliant way.The beautiful and gifted Joan Fontaine is Emaline Stebbins.It's awfully fun to watch the difficulties of Tommy's and Emmy's wedding plans.Gunga Din is awfully lot of fun.It can be funny, it can be thrilling.It can be everything a good movie requires. The story of the untouchable who acted like a great soldier, saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands, is told in the 1939 film "Gunga Din." Based loosely on the Rudyard Kipling poem, the film is brilliantly directed by George Stevens and stars Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor Mclagen. The title role is played by Sam Jaffe, well known in my era as Ben Casey's boss, Dr. Zorba, a name that became synonymous with big, out of control hair. Say "Dr. Zorba hair" to anyone of my generation, and they know what you're talking about.

Set in India at the time of the British occupation, three soldiers - two romantic, dashing figures in Grant and Fairbanks, and McLagen as a big lug - are cut-ups - in reality, three overgrown boys. Gunga Din is the water carrier, treated somewhat meanly - verbally, anyway - by McChesney (McLaglen), but Cutter (Grant) is fond of him. When he catches Din (pronounced Deen) practicing being his soldier walk and salute as he apes the unit during their maneuvers, Cutter gives him a few pointers.

The merry band of musketeers is going to break up when Ballantine (Fairbanks) announces he's about to be married to a lovely young woman (Joan Fontaine) and leaving the service. However, when Gunga Din and Cutter run across Thugees, a murderous cult led by a guru (Eduardo Cianelli), Gunga Din escapes to warn the unit, and Ballantine insists on re-enlisting to help save Cutter. It's a buddy movie after all.

"Gunga Din" starts out lightheartedly, with slapstick and wonderful, broad comedy, particularly by Cary Grant, who is quite funny. Both he and Fairbanks are so handsome, it's hard to decide which one to look at first. Much of the film is made up of huge action sequences which are very exciting. In the last part, the story becomes very dramatic and culminates in a tense, thrilling battle.

Grant has the showiest role, Fairbanks is the lovesick romantic, and McLaglen as McChesney, mostly due to his treatment of Gunga Din, is the most unlikeable character, although one detects his soft heart in his love for his elephant Annie. His softness comes through toward the end of the movie, particularly in the very touching, tear-jerking final scene.

Always a gentle and likable actor, Sam Jaffe gives a beautiful performance as Gunga Din, a simple, brave man with a big smile, powerful imagination and lofty dreams. Without much dialogue, Jaffe conveys Gunga Din's soul magnificently.

This is truly the ultimate adventure film, massive in scope, with good acting, rousing scenes, a wonderful musical score, and some beautiful cinematic images. Another one from that remarkable year, 1939. Highly recommended. " Now in India's sunny 'clime, where I use to spend my time as a soldier in the service of her Majesty the queen . . . " so goes the famous poem penned by Rudyard Kipling. This is the literal foundation upon which the movie "Gunga Din" is based. If you are fortunate enough to watch this legendary Classic, you will enjoy films the way they use to make them; for the sheer pleasure. Taken from the script of the established novelist and poet, this is a story of a humble Indian native named Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who works as 'a regimental beasty' during the British occupation of India during the 18th century. His greatest wish is to become a soldier. The water boy is part of a British Calvary contingent threatened with death by a notorious blood cult of Kali called the 'Thuggee.' Three particular soldiers stand out in this company who are noted for their bravery and comradeship. First is handsome and debonair, Cary Grant playing Sgt. Archibald Cutter. Next is Victor McLaglen as courageous Sgt. MacChesney and finally there's flamboyant Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Sgt. Thomas Ballantine. All three and their fellow soldiers are surrounded by a hoard of mountain stranglers led by their fanatical leader called the 'Guru' (Eduardo Ciannelli). Amid the Chaos of war, is the brave water-boy who hopes to earn a place in the army by playing a bugle he found. A solid story for an old black and white film which needs little fanfare for anyone looking to enjoy a classic. **** The film is based on Kipling's heroic lines that inspire Hollywood's biggest movie 1939.Out of the drumbeat rhythm of Kipling's most famous 85 lines rises a picture that will become known as the one great movie of the year.Big on the score of its armies in battle,its war elephants,its bandit hordes,its terror temples Thugs and mystic mountains of India .The picture is bigger still in its scope and sweep,is thrill and action but biggest biggest of all in the life breathes through three(Gary Grant,Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr) roaring,reckless,swaggering sons of the thundering gunfighters men who stride its mighty scenes in the flesh and blood of high adventure,it's a honest film of it all that makes Gunga Din a new experience in entertainment .Joan Fontaine gambled her against the valiant sergeants three.The romance between Fontaine and Fairbanks Jr aflame through dangerous days and nights of terror in a land where anything can happen. The motion picture has thrills for a thousand movies plundered for one mighty show.It's a fabulous,furious and far-flung adventure with the red-blood and gunpowder heroes who rise from the storied mystery of India and storm the screen with the lusty,rousing,robust life-thunder of men who fight for the love of it and love for the fun of it.The pictures is interpreted for the brave and roguish Gary Grant who rounded hundred villains Thugs and the mean Guru(Eduardo Ciannelli), Grant shouts : You're under arrest!.Besides is the heroic water man,Sam Jaffe,who regiment colonel(Montagu Love) says of him : You're a better man than I am,Gunga Din! This is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie. Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor McLaglen are three soldiers in 19th Century India who, with the help of a water boy (Sam Jaffe) rid the area of the murderous thuggee cult. The chemistry between the actors helps make this one of the most entertaining movies of all time. Sam Jaffe is exceptional as the outcast water boy who is mistreated by all and still wants to be accepted as a soldier in the company. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. A must see by anyone who enjoys this type of movie. This movie had it all,action,comedy,heroics,and best of all some of the finest actors.Gunga Din will remain a classic to be enjoyed by all who like good movies.Excellent picture,i have it in my collection. I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.

We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.

I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: "Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up. Early Hollywood at it's best!! A classic Kipling poem is transformed into an epic adventure featuring memorable performances by a stellar cast. I think the measure of a good film is how many times you can watch it and still genuinely enjoy it. I've seen it a dozen times and still cry at the end and, admit it, you do too!! This happy-go-luck 1939 military swashbuckler, based rather loosely on Rudyard Kipling's memorable poem as well as his novel "Soldiers Three," qualifies as first-rate entertainment about the British Imperial Army in India in the 1880s. Cary Grant delivers more knock-about blows with his knuckled-up fists than he did in all of his movies put together. Set in faraway India, this six-fisted yarn dwells on the exploits of three rugged British sergeants and their native water bearer Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who contend with a bloodthirsty cult of murderous Indians called the Thuggee. Sergeant Archibald Cutter (Cary Grant of "The Last Outpost"), Sergeant MacChesney (Oscar-winner Victor McLaglen of "The Informer"), and Sergeant Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. of "The Dawn Patrol"), are a competitive trio of hard-drinking, hard-brawling, and fun-loving Alpha males whose years of frolic are about to become history because Ballantine plans to marry Emmy Stebbins (Joan Fontaine) and enter the tea business. Naturally, Cutter and MacChesney drum up assorted schemes to derail Ballentine's plans. When their superiors order them back into action with Sgt. Bertie Higginbotham (Robert Coote of "The Sheik Steps Out"), Cutter and MacChesney drug Higginbotham so that he cannot accompany them and Ballantine has to replace him. Half of the fun here is watching the principals trying to outwit each other without hating themselves. Director George Stevens celebrates the spirit of adventure in grand style and scope as our heroes tangle with an army of Thuggees. Lenser Joseph H. August received an Oscar nomination for his outstanding black & white cinematography. The late 30s and early 40s were a golden age for adventure movies, what with the rise in budgets during the economic recovery, the changes to screen entertainment since the production code became enforced and the general carefree optimism of the times. While most of these were rip-roaring swashbucklers about the wild, superhuman and often frankly misogynistic exploits of heartthrobs like Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power, Gunga Din is very different in its focus, scope and tone.

Part of Gunga Din's secret is the division of labour in its writing team. The original story is by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, two of the most skilled and celebrated writers of Hollywood's golden age. However the actual screenplay was the work of Joel Sayre and Fred Guiol, both of whom, Guiol especially, had a background in comedy. What we get from these four is a plot that is well-balanced and engaging, yet also cleverly spiced up with comical touches. Most of the adventure flicks of this time were at least partly comedies, usually featuring one or two comic-relief supporting players, but they didn't use laughs in the way Gunga Din does. Here, all the main characters are capable of being objects or originators of jokes. We see the sinister menace of the bad guys suddenly diffused as the scene dissolves into a light-hearted brawl. The first main battle scene is an even-handed blend of action and gags, in the style of the silent swashbucklers of Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., something which the Flynn and Power vehicles largely failed to replicate. Towards the middle of Gunga Din the action must necessarily take a break and there are lots of talky scenes for the sake of the plot. However the continual forays into comedy – such as the spiked punch routine – make this "slow" portion bearable.

Producer-director George Stevens was a natural when it came to this sort of thing, himself having cut his teeth at the Hal Roach studios, and almost exclusively having directed comedy up to this point. This was his first full-on action feature, and he does a startlingly good job. In particular his use of moving point-of-view shots make the battle scenes extra exhilarating. He also brings something you seldom see in action pictures of this era – a sense of real dread and fear. He sets this up with those stark and foreboding mountains dominating many of the shots and dwarfing the characters. The portrayal of the abandoned village and the Thuggee cultists cry of "Kali!" is genuinely haunting. This dimension of fear plays into all the other emotions that are at work here, causing us to worry for these likable characters, and making the comedy a greater relief of tension.

A real touch of genius is in the way the eponymous hero is introduced to the audience. We are made aware of Din visually, as he is prominent in a number of scenes before any of the characters actually address him or verbally refer to him. Because of this, we are given the impression that Din is not an important figure within the regiment, but he quickly becomes a notable character to us, and crucially a sympathetic one, as we see him risking his life and giving water to dying men.

But the best efforts of writers and directors are all for nought without a capable cast. Fear not, for Gunga Din has a top-notch one! Victor McLaglan and Cary Grant were ideally suited to the material, since their best roles were generally found somewhere on the spectrum between drama and comedy. Grant in particular is at his best, largely believable but just occasionally breaking into that over-the-top whooping and capering that was his trademark. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is not quite up to the standard of his heavyweight companions, but he is by no means bad. And of course there is Sam Jaffe, cursed by his looks to forever play these wizened little oddballs, but who else could play them with such dignity and humanity? I have not set out to bash the swashbuckling adventures of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power, and indeed many of their pictures are absolute classics that I love absolutely. But Gunga Din does things that even the best of those swashbucklers could never achieve. Not only does it dispense with the dashing male lead or the clichéd defiant damsel, it successfully merges the action genre with comedy and poignancy, in a way that few pictures have done before or since. And that's fabulous. As a Pokémon fan I enjoyed this movie very much. It introduces new legendary Pokémon (as each movie does) and adds depth to the relationships between its characters. I however do not expect those who are not Pokémon fans to enjoy it(This includes MOST adults). Some of the lines were corny, but that can be somewhat unavoidable when dubbing the movie over to English. The animation was beautiful, although there were a couple parts that did not look good. And although the villain is kind of corny, I think that the movies have done a good job of cycling through different types of villains, and I guarantee you that they aren't all like this one. Those who did not like it, I say to each his own, but Pokémon fans will love it. I can't see the point in burying a movie like this in sulfuric sarcasm, when it is in no way intended to be anything more than a vehicle to entertain children and prepare them for the next line of merchandise to beg madly about.

This is a fun movie. My children sat quietly through the entire thing and loved every minute of it. Granted, the villain is a bit over the top with his silly costume and maniacal laugher, but this is a lot more easier to take than the dark, gloomy, and very morbid Pokemon 3.

My children have been watching Pokemon since it started and they are soon getting to the ages where they will "put off the childish things" and move on to others. I am glad that we got to enjoy this together. Another Pokemon movie has hit the theaters, and again, I'm hearing the same old, "Pokemon is dead, blah blah blah." The franchise's detractors couldn't be more wrong. Kids are still playing the trading card game, they're still watching the TV series, they're waiting for the Game Boy Advance games, and they want to see "Pokemon the 4th Movie."

That said, "Pokemon The 4th Movie" introduces us to two more "legendary" Pokemon: Suicune, the "north wind" of lore, and Celebi, guardian of the forest (and star of the show). Celebi transports itself and a boy named Sam 40 years into the future, to the present day, where Pokemon trainer Ash, his faithful Pikachu, and his friends Brock and Misty are traveling through Johto. Sam and Ash become fast friends, once they discover the other's mutual love for Pokemon (Sam's vintage Pokeball with screw-on top is a great moment). Together, they decide to protect Celebi from the villain of the story, the Team Rocket agent aptly named Vicious, who is hell-bent on capturing Celebi for his own ends. Will Ash and Sam be able to protect Celebi from Vicious' Dark Balls? Where does Suicune fit into the picture? Will Jessie, James, and Meowth have bigger parts in this movie than before? And just who is Sam, really?

Like with the first 3 movies, if you go into the movie deciding that you're automatically going to hate it no matter what simply because it's Pokemon (or just because your child/niece/nephew/younger sibling/et cetera "dragged" you into it), then you're going to hate it because you've decided that you want to hate it. That may be, but to blindly trash "Pokemon The 4th Movie" simply because it is a Pokemon movie, and especially without having seen it, is just plain stupid. Even non-fans can enjoy this movie without having to know every last detail of the world of Pokemon. I'm not saying that you WILL become a Pokemon fan because of this movie, but you CAN indeed enjoy it, if you'll let yourself.

Unlike the first 3 Pokemon movies, "Pokemon the 4th Movie" is being distributed by Miramax, who I've heard is also working on securing the rights to the 5th Pokemon movie, which was released this past summer in Japan. Miramax claims to have some boffo-aggressive marketing strategy for "Pokemon The 4th Movie," but all I've seen so far is a feeble limited release, which doesn't include the usual Pikachu short in the beginning, which I was really looking forward to this time. I hope that Miramax will see fit to put the Pikachu short, called "Pikachu's Exciting Hide-and-Seek," onto at least the DVD/VHS release, if not with a future wider release of "Pokemon The 4th Movie." I hope that the current release is just the tip of the iceberg for this very entertaining film. I so love this movie! The animation is great (for a pokémon movie), the cgi looks so awesome. I love the music in the movie. So great they kept the Japanese music.

As for the story: its great. It has a great feeling of friendship. Celebi is a very cute and powerful pokémon. Ash is really great in this movie, and I like his friendship with Sam. The only thing I didn't like was Suicune's appearance, he just suddenly pops up, helps Ash & co a bit and leaves. They could have made his part in the movie a little bigger.

But overall, awesome movie! Can't wait to own the USA version on dvd! Out of these Pokemon films (which are in order of best to least for me): Pokemon The First Movie, Pokemon 4Ever, Pokemon Heroes, Pokemon 200 and Pokemon: Entei and the Unknown, this is probably the one most concerning the environment, arguably the most beautiful and the most calming one. Whether these are good points for you or not, "Pokemon 4Ever," still has entertained many.

As well as the three points covered above, this pokemon film includes good humour and good CGI (as well as anime). The time travelling theme of the film is represented in a good way and Team Rocket (the comic reliefs/rubbish baddies) end up with quite good gags and end up being more main characters than sidekicks.

The flaws are, as always, the rather unnecessary violence and action and the baddie is pretty uninteresting, even more so than a few Pokemon film baddies.

A strange pokemon is being tracked down by a pokemon hunter in a forest. A young boy tries to save the pokemon and it takes him somewhere...

Meanwhile, Ash, Brock and Misty are entering a large forest...

Curious? Watch the rest...

Good for all Pokemon fans and "American" anime movie fans, enjoy "Pokemon 4Ever"! :-) I have always enjoyed the Pokemon movies. Yes, I know, all of them are very corny, mediocre in some certain areas and sure, even though they're aimed at little kids they're too adult in some fields to be able to guard them with the statement,"Hey, lighten up, it's a kids movie," but all that aside, aren't they still good pieces of entertainment? In my opinion, they are so and I enjoy them greatly. This one is just as enjoyable as the previous three, and certainly cuter. It has some really sweet and touching moments since it is the introduction of the lovable, fresh Pokemon Celebi. It's not the best Pokemon movie, but I do enjoy it more than the third installment, even though the third is not bad, and the entire series is just entertaining, harmless, popcorn family fun and should be considered nothing more, nothing less. This film has some high marks of intensity and interest, especially around the climax/ending, as do all the installments, and the characters, while a bit more lackluster than the previous three, I thought, are still likable and humorous. This films is the lowest rated and most criticized of the four feature length adaptions, and it doesn't deserve that. The 4th Pokemon movie made me cry when Celebi died. Don't you dare say that Pokemon sucks! I don't like it when people say that.... I've liked Pokemon for 5 or 6 years, so everyone should enjoy Pokemon, including this movie and other Pokemon movies. So, without further ado, please say that Pokemon is great and should be enjoyed by people for all ages. And also, why do Pokemon-haters give low ratings for all or most of the Pokemon movies? I don't understand.... They shouldn't do that.... There's absolutely no reason why people should just vote without proving that Pokemon sucks besides the fact that: 1) Pokemon is for little kids ONLY. 2) Pokemon is stupid. and 3) People shouldn't like Pokemon. I think this is why people don't like Pokemon. My Brother And I Have Pokemon 4Ever On DVD. We Watched It Like A Couple Of Times And It Was The Best. Too Bad It A New Pokemon Didn't Talk This Time. I'll Get Used To It.

The Iron Masked Marauder Was Pretty Mean When He Captured Celebi With His Dark Ball. Good Thing Ash And Sam Managed To Snap Him Out Of His Control.

There Was Only One Song In The Ending Credits Called Cele-B-R-A-T-E Performed By Russell Velazquez.

Pokemon 4Ever Became A Success Since The Three Previous Films And People Will Always Love That Film. Whoever says pokemon is stupid can die. This movie is superlative. I Even shead a tear when Celebei died. I DON'T CRY Much! This film is a touching animated thriller.

In this fourth installment of pokemon, Ash and friends must stop the bad jerk from making Celebei the ultimate evil weapon with his dark ball. In the time, Sam and Celebei travel through time and continuously are hunted by game hunters. I like the part with the double battle and Sam has the apricorn pokeball (if you've played pokemon gold, silver, or crystal, you know what it is.)

I also enjoyed having miramax in charge instead of Warner Brothers. Putting the mini movie at the end was a great idea. The pokemon in this movie come to life more than ever. This movie is the next segment in the pokemon movies which supplies everything on hopes and dreams of a pokemon warrior named Ash Ketchim and his friends. they go out and they look battle and run into new pokemon and take on new adventures with Pikachu and other pokemon favorites. This adventure takes on with a new pokemon called Celebi a time pokemon. Go join ash Brock and Misty to find all sorts of new things! Hitokiri (which translates roughly as "assassination"), a/k/a "Tenchu" which translates roughly as "divine punishment") showcases Hideo Gosha at the top of his form. Do NOT miss this one, or Gosha's other classic, Goyokin! Hitokiri is not only one of Gosha's best films, it's one of the best "samurai/chambara" films ever made, and perhaps one of the best Japanese films ever exported.

Be warned, all of the intricate plot details in Hitokiri can be a little hard to follow for those unfamiliar with 19th century Japanese history. Even so, the underlying human drama is obvious and open to all viewers. As per the norm for Gosha, Hitokiri provides yet another variation on his traditional theme of "loyalty to one's lord" vs. "doing the right thing". However, Gosha develops his favorite theme with such sophistication, that it's really _the_ movie to see (along with Goyokin, of course).

I suppose it breaks down like this: If you want a simpler, more action-oriented tale, you might want to see Goyokin. However, if you want a more thoughtful, multilayered (albeit grim) drama, see this one.

(OK, OK, essentially, the historical backdrop is a massive power grap between many different samurai clans who are either (1) working to reform, yet retain, the Tokugawa Shogunate, and (2) those who are trying to install the Emperor Meiji as the supreme ruler of Japan. Of course, those clans working "for" Emperor Meiji were often less interested in "reforming" Japan than in ensuring their own clan more power in the "new world order". Ironically, the entire feudal system was officially abolished as one of the first reforms of the Meiji government. It's ironic twists like this -- Gosha's big on irony -- that make the entire plot all the more bittersweet.)

What distinguishes "Hitokiri" from Gosha's other movies is Gosha's mature sense of cinematography. Every shot is thoughtfully composed, and (much like Kubrick's Barry Lyndon) each frame of the movie could hold its own as a still composition. Of course, this is typical Gosha. Hitokiri really stands out with stunning backdrops, including(as with Goyokin) many riveting seascapes. Just watch the opening sequence, and you're hooked! Make no mistake, this is no English period piece: Hitokiri is extremely violent (don't say you weren't warned).

What else, other than cool camera work, makes Hitokiri stand out? The performances seem (to me) a bit more subtle in this one. Katsu Shintaro (of Zatoichi/Hanzo the Razor fame) turns in a star performance as the conflicted protagonist/antihero, Okada Izo. Katsu manages to instill humanity to a character that seems almost more wild animal than villain. Throughout the movie, you're never quite sure if you're engaged or revolted by Okada's character. At the same time, Katsu's portrayal of Okada's ravenous hunger for respect, and his later pathetic attempts at redemption, seem so human that you can't help but feel empathy/sympathy. Of course, after seeing Nakadai Tatsuya play the tortured hero in "Goyokin", it's great to see him play such a ruthless villain in "Hitokiri". He's just perfect, there's nothing more to say!

As a final note, perhaps more interesting to buffs than to casual fans, don't miss the last screen appearance of Mishima Yukio (yes, the closeted gay right-wing ultranationalist novelist who committed suicide by seppuku before the crowd of jeering Japanese military personnel he "kidnapped" in 1970, and had a movie on his life and work made by Paul Schrader), who actually does a pretty solid job of portraying the honorable (for an assassin) Shinbei Tanaka. It's a testament to Gosha's incredible film-making prowess that he was able to complete both Hitokiri and his stunning masterpiece, Goyokin, in the same year, 1969. And it's a testament to how criminally underrated he remains for the general public (compared to media darlings like the great Akira Kurosawa), that both Hitokiri and Goyokin have received less than 500 votes between the two of them.

Shintaro Katsu is Okada Izo: mad dog killer, loyal to the Tosha clan and their boss Takechi, played by another genre stalwart, Tatsuya Nakadai. The Tosha clan was part of a larger alliance that supported the Emperor against the flailing Shogunate. The historical backdrop is fairly accurate - with Japan's increasing political turmoil between imperialists and the Tokugawa and the pressure by the West to end a 300 year social and political seclusion. It helps a lot to know a thing or two about Japanese history and what eventually led to the Meiji Restoration and the abolition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but it's not essential by any means. The movie was made primarily for a Japanese audience so certain things are taken for granted but it flows very well for the uninitiated as well.

As one would expect from a Hideo Gosha film in his golden years (the late 60's) the visual palette is breathtaking, the use of external and internal symbolism hiding behind pictorial beauty. Style however is never decorative for Gosha - it is always employed in the service of story.

And speaking of story, Hitokiri is dominated both literally and figuratively by the tortured main character Izo Okada. As most chambara protagonists, Izo finds himself in a moral double-bind, torn between giri (obligation) and ninjo (natural impulse) - although it takes a while for him to realize what exactly his giri is. In the first half of the movie Izo is trying for social self-advancement. Lofty aspirations of social rank and marriage with an aristocrat's daughter - a great progression for someone coming from a farmer's background in the rigid social caste system of 19th century Japan.

The turning point for Izo is when he realizes at what cost self-advancement comes, the loss of identity and by consequence the loss of self. It is at that point that he undergoes a very symbolic transformation from a famous swordsman of the Tosha Clan to a "nameless" drifter without past or future, Torazo the Vagrant. Although not technically nameless and not a genre drifter in Yojimbo's mold, it is the loss of his former self and the cast off of ego, ambition and self-dillusion that allows Izo to see things as they really are and redeem himself.

Hitokiri ends (which I won't reveal here) in the best way any story can end: both positive and negative with a deeply ironic twist that gives Izo the last laugh, a last sardonic remark in the face of death. This movie is a brilliant lesson on Japanese history set in at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate shortly before the Shogunate lost a big battle against the loyalist, who wanted the emperor back on the throne to rule Japan. Really, I had to read a lot of history to get the entire background.

Shintaro Katsu (also known as the original Zatoichi) gives a superb performance as Izo Okada, one of the four Hitokiri(=Human Slayer) of the Bakumatsu. He is a simple samurai who looses all of his wealth. In order to have a good life he becomes a retainer of Takechi Hanpei (played by Tatsuya Nakada = Ryonosuke out of Sword of Doom). Hanpei is a ultra-nationalist politician who lets his band of Hitokiri assassinate a lot of high ranking pro-west politicians in order to achieve his political goals. Izo Okada follows his leader without really questioning what they are doing. As long as he has money to go and drink and spend at his whore. Okada's killings get more and more brutal in the course of the movie and he is proud to have a reputation based on fear wherever he goes.

It is a splendid portrait on the life of a simple samurai who gets caught up in political affairs and is really to naive to realize what is happening. First after being betrayed and tortured and always having talks with Sakamoto ( who is a samurai who rejects violence) does he change his ideas and views on life. But too late....

Watch the movie to see the end of Izo Okada...

Shintaro Katsu and the rest of the staff give a brilliant performance. Each actor reaches up to their role. The sword-fights a very unique and fast...probably faster than several movies nowadays...

Check it out if you have the chance!!! Gosha's last great film of the 1960's. A resolute stylist with a great sense of purpose to his films, Gosha teamed up with Shintaro Katsu (of Zatoichi fame) to produce this scathing indictment of mindless nationalist loyalty.

"Tenchu" (heavenly judgment) is the word that the loyalists to the emperor yell while assassinating enemies or "traitors" to the cause. Katsu plays up his character' simple minded allegiance to a manipulative politician all in the name of patriotic pride. Anybody who questions the politician is labeled a "traitor" and becomes an assassination target.

One of the best photographed films ever, many shots are incredible compositions of form, color and light. The fight scenes are frequent and very bloody and brutal. The blood becomes a part of the color palette Gosha uses for his images. Gorgeous and disturbing. While the personal story is simple to follow, the historical background is complicated and while a basic history lesson for this time in Japan would be very helpful you can struggle through the film without it. The few drawbacks to the film are the music track, the length and Katsu's occasional scenery chewing. He has a drunken scene that's way over the top for a film but actually a very accurate depiction of a drunk.

Downbeat but one of the great chambara films. This is one of the best of the genre. I saw it twice about 25yrs ago and have not had another opportunity to see it again since then. It rivals the Zatoichi series (also starring Katsu) in exciting swordplay. Tenchu aka. Hitokiri- directed by Hideo Gosha - starring Shintaro Katsu and Tetsuya NAkadei belongs (together with Goyokin, HAra Kiri & Rebellion) to the best chambara movies existing.

Its the story about Shintaro Katsu (who plays Okada Izo) working for Nakadei, who wants to become the daymio. Okada, being the "cleaner" for Nakadei is being treated like a dog - and after quite a while he realises - what he realy is to Nakadei.

But there is so much more in this movie - every fan of japanese cinema should have seen it !!!!!!!

(Tenchu means Heavens Punishment) Simple, meaningful and delivers an emotional punch. I regularly trail through dull short films and it's always nice to come across something that has a simple and enlightened message, without pretensions or self indulgent directing.

A boy at school has to attend a lesson when his friend plays truant and is given the most important lesson of his life, only to find that when there are not enough copies to go around he has to share with the school bully.

Unlike most short films featuring children or actors these kids hold their own and it's believable. The soundtrack nicely complements the emotion of the piece and the punchline of the film works well. I remember watching this film, thinking was so interesting. I really wanted to know what happens next. I was amazed by how much they could fit into an 8 minute short. We start in a school yard. . Two friends are debating on skipping class. Kid B says to Kid A "Lets not go to class today." And Kid A declines, claiming they could miss something really important. So kid B skips and kid A goes to class. When he gets there the teacher informs him that today they were going to learn the only and most important lesson they will ever learn. They were going to learn the meaning of life. She gives everyone a pamphlet, and when she gets to kid A, she runs out and tells the boy next to him to share. Well, the kid won't share, so Kid A goes looking for the teacher. When he finally finds her, he gets a shocking revelation on what the real meaning of life is. I suggest everyone watch this short. It will only take 8 minutes from your life, but the message is so important, it could help you for a life time. I was absolutely mesmerised by this series from the moment Tom Long walked into shot - the whole 'bad boy' thing, it was just addictive.

The story has you hooked, what will happen next - will Joey get the girl in the end, after doing 5 years in prison, and all that time thinking about his lost love, crossing paths with her again, finding he has a son... Although he is a violent bad guy, you still want him to find happiness.

A truly captivating two parter - please bring it out on video! I was probably one of the few Australians not watching the tennis when this series aired. I have to say when William McInnes first appeared I though, that is one crappy actor! But as the series continued he toned down his performance and I totally loved him. He was such a rotten guy but he did make me laugh. I watched the show to see Hugo Speers (Heart and Bones, The Full Monty) and Tom Long (SeaChange, Two Hands). It was interesting to see Speers play a nice, quiet man and even more interesting to watch Tom Longs' rippling muscles! Sigh... Seriously, Long's performance was a total shock and really brilliant. He stole the show. Martin Sacks was good also in a small role, and the leading actress put in an entertaining performance. I'd recommend this programme if you enjoy stories with a twist and watching Tom Long walk around with no shirt on... The Waiting Womans Ward of a large lying-in hospital, with all its joys and sorrows, is the place where LIFE BEGINS.

This nearly forgotten drama is a fine little soap opera, replete with comedy and tragedy, all tied into the lives of the maternity staff and their patients. The frankness with which the subject matter is handled points up the movie's pre-Code status.

Marvelous Aline MacMahon, as the sympathetic head nurse, is the calm center of the film, the rock around which all the currents flow. Able to handle any crisis or emergency, she is the mothers' best, sometimes last, friend. Surrounding MacMahon is a bevy of excellent costars: Loretta Young as a convicted murderess released from prison long enough to give birth; Eric Linden as her frightened young husband; brassy Glenda Farrell as a dame who hates children; sweet Clara Blandick as a very mature mother in for her sixth birthing; Preston Foster & Hale Hamilton as thoughtful, compassionate doctors and Frank McHugh as a comically frantic father-to-be.

Movie mavens will recognize Bobs Watson as a wee tyke who wants to see the Stork; Paul Fix as a nervous husband who promises to behave like a `little soldier;' Gilbert Roland as a distraught Italian husband and Elizabeth Patterson as a snooty doctor's wife interested in adopting Farrell's son - all uncredited.

There are a few absurdities in the plot - some of the mothers are obviously much too old; Farrell becomes blatantly drunk in the Ward but none of the staff seem to notice; an obviously psychotic patient is able to wander around at will - but this really only enhances the quirky entertainment value of the film and keeps things from becoming too serious. Life Begins - and ends - in a typical 1930's maternity / recovery ward, where we view 48 hours in the lives of several high risk pregnant women, played by Loretta Young, Glenda Farrell, Clara Blandick (Aunty Em???), Vivienne Osborne, Dorothy Tree, and Gloria Shea, as they await to give birth. While the film features plot devices which seem far fetched today when maternity wards are much more controlled and restricted, it does offer us a look back in time to see what giving birth in a typical city hospital in 1932 was like for our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. I found the film fascinating and exceptionally moving.

Oddly enough, the most outstanding performance in this film comes from a male cast member, young Eric Linden as Jed Sutton, Grace's (Loretta Young) husband. What an actor! As a first time father, Jed is distraught and uneasy with hospital staff who seem to brush off his concerns about his wife as they might brush crumbs off a cafeteria table. I felt his every concern keenly. I'd like to see more of this actor's work. He had a very emotional voice, which was used to unforgettable effect in Gone With The Wind. In that film Eric played the young soldier whose leg was amputated without anesthesia, who screamed "Don't cut! Don't cut!" as Scarlett fled the hospital in horror. Chilling! Another great performance is from Aline MacMahon, who plays Miss Bowers, the nurse. Her character is a salt of the earth type, the kind of nurse we all hope to get for our hospital stays, who breaks the hospital rules constantly in order to show a more humane side of the medical profession.

Loretta Young did another superb acting job here as well, a very authentic and deeply felt performance as Grace. My, she is great in these precodes, I've really grown to appreciate her more as an actress the last few months.

Glenda Farrell played her role of a shrill unwed mother a little over the top for my taste (didn't anyone know back in 1932 that swigging brandy from a hot water bottle might be hazardous to unborn babies' health?) but her character redeems herself in the end.

Also in the cast was an uncredited Gilbert Roland, silent movie star, as a grieving Italian husband. His screen time was brief, but notable.

Life Begins is a must-see precode, try to catch it sometime on TCM, but remember to bring a few hankies to cry into. 9 out of 10. Life Begins is a wonderful pre-code film starring some of the best of the era. It is set in the maternity ward of a hospital, particularly in the room for the women expected to have trouble. In it is an older woman, a tough unwed mother (Glenda Farrell), a frail young woman, an Italian woman, and the main character (Loretta Young) who is spending 20 years in prison for murder. Her husband (Eric Linden) is at the hospital at every second aching to know that everything will be okay. Aline MacMahone plays the nurse who is great at her job.

This film is highly interesting and entertaining. It isn't terribly shocking in any way, but it is interesting to see such a neglected subject on the silver screen. The acting is brilliant all around. Loretta Young is gorgeous here in her prime. Eric Linden comes out of nowhere and is sincere as can be. His innocence is reminiscent of Michael J. Fox. Glenda Farrell is great as always, a staple of pre-codes and for good reason. Sort of like a very primitive episode of "General Hospital" set in a natal ward (and one for tough cases at that), this fast-moving programmer has a satisfying emotional impact -- mainly because Eric Linden, as the distraught young husband in the main plot, is so palpably a wreck, and with such good reason. His expectant wife, Loretta Young, is brought to the ward at the beginning of a 20-year prison sentence for offing a lecher who probably had it coming to him; Ms. Young, as always, doesn't do anything to disinvite audience sympathy, and she's a little too good to be true, though sympathetic and lovely to look at, of course. Her difficult pregnancy and relationships with the other girls of the ward form the heart of the movie, and the outcome -- not an entirely happy one -- feels right. Aline MacMahon, "one of the cinema's few perfect actresses," in the apt words of film historian David Thomson, exudes warmth and authority as the head nurse, and Glenda Farrell, as a none-too-willing new mom of twins, gets to croon "Frankie and Johnny" as a drunken lullaby. Frank McHugh figures in another subplot, and he gets to show more range than Warners usually permitted him. It's scaled and paced modestly, and Linden's expectant-dad panic stays with you for days -- this sort of part was often played for laughs, but he's a terrified young kid in trouble, and very persuasive. I saw this movie yesterday on Turner, and I was unable to stop watching until it was over, even though I sort of could guess what would happen. Farrell was great in her role, and everyone else did a super job. Some of it seemed to stretch the limits, but all in all, I loved it!! If you get the chance to see it, please do! I actually cried at a few scenes, but then I guess if you are a mom you would. Loretta is beautiful, and I was just in astonishment at the very idea of their being unwed moms there, it seemed ahead of its' time. I say, WATCH IT if you can, and don't listen to criticisms. As they say, I laughed, I cried! I thoroughly enjoyed it! Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.

Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.

Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up. This film is one that played very well back in 1932 and probably wouldn't work as well today because its style it a bit old fashioned and contrived. However, if you are the sort person, like me, who adores older Hollywood films, you cut the film a bit of slack and can enjoy it for what it is--an interesting soap.

The film is set in a ward for problem pregnancies. In this large room are about a half dozen beds in which women are waiting to give birth--but doctors are concerned about possible complications (yikes--such a room would really traumatize the mothers!). And, like an episode of "Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", each mother has her own special story. With so many rather extreme and crazy stories, you have to suspend disbelief. I could and enjoyed the film quite a bit.

Here are a few of the stories: One involves a father. You don't see the mom, but he is a very, very nervous father and it's included for comic relief. However, he was wonderful here--very touching.

Loretta Young and Eric Linden are a sad case. Loretta is sent to the hospital from prison--she apparently killed some horrible guy. You don't know exactly what occurred, but you assume he was trying to force himself on her! Yet, she was given a 20 year sentence--and her husband is devoted to her and is by her side as much as he can.

Glenda Farrell is an awful person. She has the maternal instincts of a hamster--a really, really bad and alcoholic hamster! She is pretty funny and worth seeing through most of the film. I loved her drinking from a hot water bottle filled with gin as well as becoming upset when she learns she can't make money selling her twins!! Late in the film, she has a typical Hollywood-style change of heart that was supposed to be touching--I found it contrived.

There is a woman who has given birth to a still-born baby. Amazingly, afterwords, they put the lady back in the same ward as the women waiting to give birth!!! A crazy woman, who you assumed lost a baby some time ago,wanders down from the psychiatric unit. She insists she's having a baby. Later, she escapes again and actually takes one of the kids!

There are most stories than this but the ones I mentioned are the main ones. As I said, it's a soap opera of sorts and is highly entertaining--and quite sad in the case of several of the stories. The ending, in particular, is heart-breaking and exceptionally well done. There were a few particularly good performances--especially Farrell and Aline MacMahon as the head nurse. All in all, a very good film--and I have no idea why they felt they had to remake the film just a few years later (which was typical for Warner Brothers). I never watched the 'Next Action Hero' show, and until reading the other comments here, did not know that this movie was the 'prize' from that competition. I was just flipping channels and came across this, and found myself watching, dare eagerly, all the way to the end.

Yes, the plot's been done (The Most Dangerous Game, etc.) but I was hoping for, and almost received, the 'gotcha' - how the protagonist was going to beat the hunter in the end. I think the high-tech was overdone (GPS's) and gave me cold-sweat flashbacks of Night Rider, but it nevertheless was not too overdone.

The basic problem I had with this movie was the degree of SOD (Suspension of Disbelief) that was required of the viewer. Do we really think that someone flying in a helicopter could lob countless incendiary grenades at a public bridge and NO COPS show up to investigate? Could a limousine do countless donuts in a Las Vegas intersection and NO COPS show up? Pleeease. Way too much of that type of thing - fun to watch, but keep it at least plausible, thank you very much.

The final solution was good, but the ending was disappointing, with the after taste of a bad Star Trek episode. At least now I understand why the acting was so cheesy - except for Zane, who doesn't get near as much work as he deserves IMHO - they were winners from a reality show.

Knock me out. I thought the movie was fairly well done for a made for TV movie, and it contained both a lot of action and humor. I found the entertainment value worth watching, and would watch it again or a similar show again. I'm disappointed that Sean was not credited here on IMDb.

I can see a possibility for an action series based on this concept or a sequel with Sean once again playing for even higher "cash" stakes, since his life would be on the line again anyway.

I felt that Sean played the role very well, and reminds me of an actor by the name of Matthew Ashford who plays Jack Deveraux on Days of Our Lives - the Soap Opera. I thought this movie was excellent,for the fact that Corrine and Sean are newcomers to the business.It was packed with action and a little romance,but there were some points when Corrine didn't speak very clearly (when she threatened Sean with the gun) and she clenched her teeth...maybe she was supposed to?I think the roles of Joseph and Sonny were portrayed very well,and there was an obvious contrast.Also,because i watched next action star,i am certain that Corrine and Sean did their own stunts,which were performed very well.I am looking forward to another movie by the pair,as they make a great team,or perhaps a sequel to bet your life-possibly called 'making it big in the big apple',it could this time be about Carmen..Bet your life is EXCELLENT! After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate. For a low budget movie this was really good. I put this well above your average action B-movie. Sean and Corinne delivered in this movie, and they didn't seem camera shy. Watch out for the cameos of Jeanne and Jared. I didn't think that the producers would even consider that, but the runner-ups deserve that much.

I'll be looking forward to more of Sean and Corinne's involvement in the movie entertainment industry. Sean's character seemed very genuine, and sexy Corinne's character was pretty hard-nosed and on point. She connected well with the action sequences and executed with confidence. It was a great idea to cast Billy Zane as the smart and witty villain. His charisma on screen is always a pleasure to watch. The chemistry between Zane and Sean's character was pretty good. The action sequences weren't cheesy and seemed to connect throughout the movie. Of course there were flaws, but that comes with the territory.

Overall, this was a good movie considering the budget and the fact that it was made for TV. Sean and Corinne did a good job considering that they are newcomers to the game. I hope that Jeanne, Jared, and the rest of the Next Action Star cast get their chance to also join their co-stars in entertainment success.

Final Judgment: ***/**** This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace "krimi" series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo "Whatever Happened to Solange?", which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences.

Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark "kicker" of hiding the "Ende" card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.

Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers. There's a lot going on in The College Girl Murders. A mad scientist creates an almost undetectable poisonous gas. Before he can reap the rewards of his discovery, the scientist is killed by a hooded, whip-welding monk. After a co-ed is killed in a church by the gas, Scotland Yard is called in to investigate, but the killing continues. Who can stop this mad killer who seems to be able to come and go as he pleases in and out of the college?

What Works:

- The Killer. What's not to like about a killer who sneaks around wearing a vivid red KKK looking outfit, complete with red gloves. The white whip he carries and uses very effectively stands out nicely against the bright red gown. Although the idea of a killer in a flaming red, pointy-head outfit sneaking around a girl's school is fairly far-fetched, it's one of the more sinister looking costumes I've seen.

- Groovy 60s Music. I really would like to track down the title music to The College Girl Murders. It's got a jazzy, hip, 60s feel to it that I just loved.

- Bizarre Touches. Beyond the killer's red gown and hood, the movie features a sliding fireplace, a pit of alligators with a cage handing overhead, poison spraying bibles, a strategically placed mannequin, mini-skirts, go-go boots, and mile high hair. I would describe it as a cross between the 60s Batman TV show and an Italian giallo. The College Girl Murders is a real treat for the eye.

- The End. Let's just say that there are more twists than a mountain road. Just when you think the killer has been uncovered, here comes a twist…..and another….and another…and another.

What Doesn't Work:

- Chief Inspector Sir John. I know the guy was meant to be comic relief, but his buffoonish character has way too much screen time.

- Why Have Alligators? Previously, I mentioned the alligators in the pit. And while they are a nice touch, they serve very little purpose. Why go through all the trouble and not use them?

- Plodding Plot. Some of The College Girl Murders has no flow or rhythm to it. There are far too many moments throughout the movie when things come inexplicably to a screeching halt. Better pacing would have made this a much more enjoyable movie.

I haven't seen many of these German krimis but of the few I have seen (Phantom of Soho, Strangler of Blackmoor Castle, Dead Eyes of London) this may be my favorite. This one has a real funky feel to it that I really go into. Had the plot flowed a little better, I could have easily given The College Girl Murders a 7/10. This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a "monk", and how anyone identifies this thing as a "monk" is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad.... "The College Girl Murders" is my first acquaintance with the writing work of Edgar Wallace – and generally my first real acquaintance with "Krimi" films in general – and I can say that I'm moderately impressed. This stuff is really entertaining, although I never would have expected it to be so … goofy! The film has an exhilarating and nicely convoluted plot, with a healthy dose of humor, flamboyant twists and pretty inventive killings. There's some James Bond type of evil mastermind – who always sits in the shadow and in front of a large monitor - recruiting prisoners to kill certain girls at a specific college with a new type of poison. There's also a villainous monk with a whip, dressed like a communist KKK member, getting rid of the leftover characters, like overly curious teachers and such, as well as a kooky police commissioner who persists on solving the case with a psychological approach. Seriously, if I had known sooner that these Krimi films were so colorful and crazy, I would have purchased a whole collection of them already. The pretzel plot actually raises more questions than it answers in the end, and the overload of comical gimmicks on the account of Scotland Yard Inspector Higgins are sometimes a bit much to swallow, but I don't care because it was sublime entertainment. Even the funky 60's soundtrack remained stuck in my head for a long time. It's like a variant on the Italian Giallo, but with slapstick elements. Prussic gas, a murderer donning a red clansman suit and hood wielding a white whip, and the murders of college school girls at the hands of paid convicts enlisted by a mysterious mastermind who keeps his face hidden within an office containing aquariums of turtles and fish. The inspectors at Scotland Yard, Higgins(IJoachim Fuchsberger)and his superior Sir John(Siegfried Schürenberg)certainly have their hands full with this case. It all seems to center around student Ann Portland(Uschi Glas), who, when she turns 21, is to inherit a great deal of wealth. The girls who are targeted share a room with Ann, but the reason for their murders remains a mystery SY's finest must figure out. The staff of the girls' dormitory all seem to be hiding something and certain members of the faculty are falling prey to the killer in the red monk robe disguise, talented enough to precisely strangle the necks of those attacked with the whip. Two prisoners are commissioned by a mystery man to use the newly created toxic gas created by a scientist murdered at the beginning of the film during what was supposed to be a monetary exchange for his creation. It's a clever scheme where a driver, Greaves(Günter Meisner)meets the convicts(..who hide in a barrel)who are assisted by a corrupt prison guard. Taken blindfolded to the secret room of the mastermind, he gives them orders on who to kill and how. Uncovering this operation is a top priority for Higgins and Sir John for it will lead them to the truth they seek in regards to the murders and why they are happening. Under suspicion are girls' dormitory headmistress, her author brother, a sweaty, incredibly nervous chemistry teacher, a snooping gardener, and the Bannister. Some are red herrings until they are disposed of, throwing the viewer for a loop each time until the real mastermind is discovered. The ending features multiple twists.

Out of the Krimi films I've seen, THE COLLEGE GIRL MURDERS is the closest to a giallo with it's colorful killer, a convoluted plot yielding lots of surprises and potential suspects, & sordid shenanigans between adults and the college girls at the dormitory. I think you can also see the influence of James Bond on this particular Krimi film with the villain mastermind's secret hideout with an alligator pit(..which isn't used), the fake bible/water pistol, when opened, fires the gas into the face of startled victims, the Greaves' Royles Royce which has latches that cause flaps to darken the windows without revealing the passenger in the back seat, and the peep holes used to spy on the girls in their rooms and while swimming. Many might consider Sir John a liability due to his bumbling, buffoonish behavior and how he often undermines Higgins' abilities to get at the truth(..perhaps poking fun at know-it-all British inspectors who harm a case more than solve it)..I felt he was used as comedy relief, particularly with his attempts at psychoanalyzing suspects and potential victims, often misunderstanding what are told to him. Higgins, using the skills adopted over his years as an investigator, instead follows the clues/facts, often avoiding Sir John as much as possible. Capable direction by the reliable Alfred Vohrer who keeps the pace humming at a nice speed, and the screenplay is full of interesting characters and lurid content..the fact that so many of the adults surrounding the dormitory are suspect, any of them might be the one wielding the whip or calling the shots behind those murdered girls' executions. I'd say this may be one of the best(..if not the best)examples of the Krimi genre, for it keeps you guessing, always one more ace up it's sleeve..the revelations unearthed at the very end are quite eye-opening(..and, you even get a literal unmasking of the real mastermind pulling the strings to top it all off). Kudos to Fawcett to taking on roles that, at the time were considered controversial. To my recollection, rape was still a taboo subject in the 1980's, and women's rights and emotions were rarely so deeply examined during that time.

Fawcett is simply a woman who is followed, then stalked by actor James Russo. He is adequate as the obsessed psychopath, but at times a bit transparent.

Diana Scarwid has a bit role, as does Alfre Woodard as the house mate. Woodard worries about the legal consequences when Fawcett, the rape victim, takes revenge on the culprit. The scene where she throws a frying pan of hot oil at Russo is classic, and as the rapist he deserves it. She then keeps him in bondage, and the consequences must be faced.

A very real story reflecting the emotions and rage of rape victims who have been violated, physically, and mentally. Highly recommended. 8/10. Marjorie (a splendid and riveting performance by Farrah Fawcett) narrowly avoids being assaulted in her car by vicious serial rapist Joe (superbly played with frightening conviction and intensity by James Russo). However, Joe steals her wallet and finds out where Marjorie lives. He pays her a visit one fateful day. After subjecting Marjorie to plenty of degradation and psychological abuse, Marjorie manages to turn the tables on Joe and locks him in the fireplace. What is Marjorie going to do with Joe? Director Robert M. Young and screenwriter William Mastrosimone concoct a harsh, gritty and often disturbing morality tale that astutely nails the stark brutality and painful debasement of rape while also showing how any person when pushed to extremes is capable of shocking acts of violence and inhumanity. Joe perceives women strictly as objects while Marjorie only sees Joe as an "animal." However, this movie to its admirable credit refuses to make Joe out to be simply a vile one-dimensional creep; instead he's a terrifyingly real and ultimately pitiable human monster with a wife and kid (Joe's climactic confession in particular is genuinely poignant). Fawcett and Russo are both outstanding in the leads; they receive fine support from Diana Scarwid as the passive Terry, Alfre Woodard as the sensible Patricia, and Sandy Martin as sympathetic policewoman Officer Sudow. Both Curtis Clark's agile cinematography and J.A.C. Redford's shivery, skin-crawling score greatly enhance the considerable claustrophobic tension. A real powerhouse. I loved this excellent movie. Farrah Fawcett played the part phenomenally and with good heart. She plays a woman who is driven to extreme measures to protect herself and her friends after she is attacked by a stranger. After being rejected by the police she realizes she is on her own.

Then one day when she at home alone the stranger breaks into her home and attacks her again. Not being about to call the police or get him out she is forced to spray him in the eyes and imprisons him in her fireplace.

I think there is a need for a wake up call to the laws of the land. They are too easy on these criminals. It's time for more harsh punishments. Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation.

The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful "victim," and the handsome, obviously extremely "off-center," blue-collar protagonist (if just short of "totally-deranged") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.

This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a "turning-the-tables" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.

Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.

But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work. This move actually had me jumping out of my chair in anticipation of what the actors were going to do! The acting was the best, Farrah should have gotten a Oscar for this she was fabulous. James Russo was so good I hated him he was the villain and played it wonderful. There aren't many movies that have riveted me as this one. The cast was great Alfie looking shocked with those big eyes Farrah looking like a victim and you re-lived her horror as she went through it. Farrah made you feel like you were there and feeling the same anger she felt you wanted her to hurt him, yet you also knew it was the wrong thing to do. The movie had you on a roller coaster ride and you went up and down with each scene. Marjorie, a young woman who works in a museum and lives with two female roommates, Pat and Terry.One night she gets in her car and is attacked by masked man with a knife.His plan is to rape her, but she manages to escape.The man has her purse.The police can't help her, since the actual rape didn't happen.Then one day, when Marjorie's roommates are at work, her assailant comes there.His name is Joe.A long battle begins against this man.But then she manages to spray his eyes and mouth with insect repellent, stuff that will kill him if he won't get help soon.She ties him up and makes Joe the subject of the same kind of physical and mental assaults he used on her earlier.The Extremities (1986) is directed by Robert M. Young.It's based on the controversial off-Broadway play from 1982 by William Mastrosimone.Farrah Fawcett, who sadly lost her battle with cancer last year, is terrific as Marjorie.James Russo, who played the attacker also in the play, is convincing as Joe.Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid are great as Pat and Terry.James Avery is seen as Security Guard.She got a Golden Globe nomination.This is not a movie that is supposed to entertain you.It asks a question is revenge justified.This is not a perfect movie, but I recommend it. Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young. I've never been a fan of Farrah Fawcett...Until now. She was truly amazing in this movie. The emotion she must have gone through shooting re-take after re-take doesn't bare thinking about. This was a very hard movie to watch, the subject matter is decidedly unpleasant and you feel so helpless just sitting and watching a woman being abused for what seems like an eternity. I actually felt that the whole thing deflated somewhat when her friends returned to the house and I didn't find the conclusion at all plausible. The director seemed very keen in using height in his shots and loved using mirror reflections, I believe he should have paid more attention to the pace in the second half of this piece. I'm sure this makes a heck of a powerful piece of theatre, this movie for me, although it had merit, just fell short. Farrah Fawcett gives the best performance by an actress on film in this gritty real life attempted rape thriller where she turns the tables & gives James Russo a taste of his own medicine. A must see for any movie fan. Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor. Meek, tiny, almost insignificant. Polanski finds the invisibility of his characters and makes something enormous out of it. In front and behind the camera he creates one of the most uncomfortable masterpieces I had the pleasure to see and see and see again. It never let's me down. People, even people who know me pretty well, thought/think there was/is something wrong with me, based on my attraction, or I should say, devotion for "Le Locataire" They may be right, I don't know but there is something irresistibly enthralling within Polanski's darkness and I haven't even mentioned the humor. The mystery surrounding the apartment and the previous tenant, the mystery that takes over him and, naturally, us, me. That building populated by great old Academy Award winners: Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, Jo Van Fleet, Lila Kedrova. For anyone who loves movies, this is compulsory viewing. One, two, three, many, many viewings. Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. "Le Locataire", or "The Tenant", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.

Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.

While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other "apartment-themed" films ("Repulsion & "Rosemary's Baby"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.

Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.

Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.

If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.

While "The Tenant" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. "Le Locataire" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10 I once lived with a roommate who attempted suicide, and our apartment was in a building where you could get a fifty dollar noise violation for sneezing after midnight - so, needless to say, I can easily relate to Polanski's "The Tenant."

But I also enjoy the film for other reasons. I'm not sure that it works, on the whole - the Polanski character's descent into paranoia and madness, which takes up the final half hour or so, seems rather jarring and bizarre. Ebert, for one, was totally unconvinced, and he slapped the movie with a vicious one-star review. But I think that individual scenes and moments work beautifully, so even though I don't quite understand the whole film - what does Egyptology have to do with it, for example? - I still have an overall positive impression of it.

I love the obnoxious friend portrayed by Bernard Fresson, for example. God, how many times have I settled for having stupid friends like that instead of no friends at all! I love the movie theater scene - the funniest "making out" moment in the history of film, I'd say. And boy, do I love Isabelle Adjani - she's so foxy in this movie, it's almost unbelievable. And she gives a great performance, as always.

Polanski is a good actor, too; I don't agree with the occasional disparaging remarks made about his performance here. His character is supposed to be low-key and thoughtful, so his low-key performance fits. I, for one, found him perfectly sympathetic - though he did lose me a bit when he started dressed in drag for no clearly discernible reason.

Yes, the movie's obscure. And slow. But it captures the alienating qualities of apartment living - something I've done entirely too much of - so I dig it. It's funny how all you need is a common reference point, and suddenly a weirdo movie like this becomes deeply significant! Definitely worth picking up for pocket change on DVD. This is one creepy movie. Creepier than anything David Lynch, and that shows what a great director Polanski is since this is not his usual type of work, and it is BRILLIANT.

It all starts of with Trelkovski moves into a tenement block in Paris. He soon learns that the previous tenant, a young woman, committed suicide and he believes the rest of the people living there drove her to it. He also believes that they are trying to do the same to him. What results is a amazing and frightening look at paranoia.

The whole production has classical horror written all over it: from the imagery to the music the viewer can feel poor Trelkovski's terror building up.

Are they all out to kill him? Or maybe just drive him mad? Is there a difference? Find out for yourself. 10/10 After his classic film noir homage Chinatown Roman Polanski returned to the themes that had given him his greatest hits in the 60s with this creepy psychological horror which, like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, deals with the paranoia and claustrophobia generated by apartment living.

Claustrophobic environments are the ones which Polanski is best at creating, and this has to be the most suffocating and confined picture he ever created. The emphasis on side walls and distant vanishing points is greater than ever, and even in the small number of exterior scenes the sky is rarely glimpsed. But The Tenant is not just confined spatially, but also in the intensity with which it focuses on its protagonist. Trelkovsky, played by Polanski himself is not only in every scene, he is in virtually every shot. When he is not on screen more often than not the camera becomes Trelkovsky's point of view. And of course almost everywhere he looks he sees his own reflection staring back at him in a mirror.

I can't think of any film that is more about the internalisation and solitude of one character. Some psychological thrillers, like M or Peeping Tom, manipulate us into feeling sorry for the mentally ill protagonist. Others, like Psycho, attempt in-depth scientific analysis of his mental condition. The Tenant fits into neither of these categories – it simply immerses us completely inside Trelkovsky's experience without demanding we actually understand or appreciate what is going on inside his head. We feel his paranoia and obsession even though it is constantly revealed to us that they are irrational.

Polanski was also a master of the slowly unfolding horror film. Often in his horrors there is an ambiguity as to whether there is actually anything sinister going on, but they are among the most effective at frightening audiences. Why? Precisely because they unfold so slowly and invest so much time in painstakingly setting up situations that they immerse the viewer in paranoia. A much later Polanski horror, The Ninth Gate is a bit of a mess plot-wise but at least it still manages to achieve that creeping sense of dread.

This is a rare chance to see Polanski himself in a major role. His talent in front of the camera was as good as behind it, and he is absolutely perfect as the meek Trelkovsky. Another standout performance is that of the all-too-often overlooked Shelley Winters as the concierge. In actual fact it is rather a stellar cast, although many of the familiar faces look out of place in this strange, Gothic European movie. Also sadly many of the French actors in supporting roles are atrociously dubbed in the English language version.

The Tenant is more polished and less pretentious than Repulsion, but it lacks the suspense and the character that make Rosemary's Baby so engrossing and entertaining. The Tenant is good, with no major flaws, and Polanski was really on top form as a director, but it's not among his most gripping works. What can be said, really... "The Tenant" is a first-class thriller wrought with equal amounts of suspense and full-blown paranoia. It's an intricately-plotted film--every detail seems included for a reason--even though the plot seldom makes sense, and much of it is never even addressed in an objective manner. Therefore we are left with the increasingly unstable Trelkovsky (Polanski)--a meek Polish man who has obtained an apartment due to the previous tenant's suicide--to guide us through a world of escalating fear and uncertainty. After an apartment-warming party thrown by a group of obnoxious coworkers, Trelkovsky comes under increased, seemingly inexplicable scrutiny by the fellow occupants in his building; the rest of the film chronicles his mental deterioration and gives us a thorough mindfu*k on par with the later efforts of David Lynch. "The Tenant," however, is more brooding and sinister, laced with unexpected comic relief, fine performances, and a truly haunting score. It's a movie that's better experienced than described, so hop to it. A Kafkaesque thriller of alienation and paranoia. Extremely well done and Polanski performs well as the diffident introvert trying hard to adapt to his dingy Paris lodgings and his fellow lodgers. Horrifying early on because of the seeming mean and self obsessed fellow tenants and horrifying later on as he develops his defences which will ultimately be his undoing. Personally I could have done without the cross dressing element but I accept the nod to Psycho and the fact that it had some logic, bearing in mind the storyline. Nevertheless it could have worked without and would have removed the slightly theatrical element, but then maybe that was intended because the courtyard certainly seems to take on the look of a theatre at the end. I can't help feel that there are more than a few of the director's own feelings of not being a 'real' Frenchman and Jewish to boot. Still, there is plenty to enjoy here including a fine performance from a gorgeous looking Isabelle Adjani and good old Shelly Winters is as reliable as ever. It took a long time until I could find the title in a special videothek in Berlin, and I was lucky to find an english version with hollandish undertitles. I think it´s one of the best horrormovies ever. It seems strange for me that some people call this movie a black comedy. I must admit, I wasn´t able to laugh about, when I saw it the first time (and it was the same with the second time!) On the one hand Trelkovski seems so nice and even cute in his shy behaviour, but on the other hand he beats this boy on the playground and there is no explanation for that. But the most weired thing is of course his transformation in Simone Choule and the fact, that he doesn´t know, who he really is. His halluzinations are the most terrifying in this movie. Of course it´s all in his mind, but is it this flat that brings out this female side of him or was it also before he moved in - I think that´s an interesting question. His shizophrenic behaviour is hard to understand and it´s horrible to see his two sides or identities fighting against each other. The result of it is that he cuts his hand first and later jumps out of his/her window. But this terrible cry - does that mean, that all will repeat again and again and again... that his soul is in a cage or something? And these egyptian hieroglyphs and other egyptian stuff ? The fact, that he/she looks like a mummy in the Hospital - that´s not an incident, but a clue in my point of view. I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.

I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers — not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure — you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.

Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.

Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood "9th Gate."

If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.

The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all — at all except a redhead wig.

I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.

To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; "Rear Window." The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. In Paris, the shy and insecure bureaucrat Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) rents an old apartment without bathroom where the previous tenant, the Egyptologist Simone Choule (Dominique Poulange), committed suicide. The unfriendly concierge (Shelley Winters) and the tough landlord Mr. Zy (Melvyn Douglas) establish stringent rules of behavior and Trekovsky feels ridden by his neighbors. Meanwhile he visits Simone in the hospital and befriends her girlfriend Stella (Isabelle Adjani). After the death of Simone, Trekovsky feels obsessed for her and believes his landlord and neighbors are plotting a scheme to force him to also commit suicide.

The weird "Le Locataire" is a disturbing and creepy tale of paranoia and delusion. The story and the process of madness and loss of identity of the lonely Trelkovsky are slowly developed in a nightmarish atmosphere in the gruesome location of his apartment, and what is happening indeed is totally unpredictable. The performances are awesome and Isabelle Adjani is extremely beautiful. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Inquilino" ("The Tenant") I saw this film at a time when I was timidly toying with the idea of moving into my own apartment and starting life on my own. Maybe that is the reason why I took it so seriously. I believed totally in the poor character's psychological degradation inside a Paris of perpetual construction sites, dust, squalor, selfishness, rudeness, malice and decay. I'm giving all the credit to Polanski's artistry in his direction, his playing and his inescapable script but I fainted during the horrible final scene and had to be revived by cognac in the office of the theatre's manager. Luckily for me, my life on my own didn't turn out as disastrous as this (so far) but I have always kept a great respect for an artist who can perform such illusions and so totally immerse himself in the (fake) reality he is trying to convey. Simply put, the man is a genius of the first order and a credit to the human race. This film is the sum of many, many instances of great acting and great casting. As some performances were done in English (the scenes with Shelley Winters and Melvyn Douglas among others) and others in French (with most other characters) and Polanski did his own dubbing in English and French, I heartily recommend, if you happen to be bilingual, to switch the audio from French to English and vice-versa, during the appropriate scenes while watching the magnificent transfer on Paramount DVD. This film is part of Polanski's so-called "apartment building trilogy" which also comprises "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby". Unfortunately, "Repulsion" still hasn't made it to a decent DVD transfer in Region 1. Needless to say, the three films would make a magnificent boxset. Roman Polanski masterfully directs this sort of a variation on the same theme as Repulsion. I can't imagine there is one honest movie goer not able to acknowledge the fine director in Le Locataire, yet both parts of the dyptic may not be thoroughly satisfactory to most people, myself included.

Polanski is very good at making us feels the inner torture of his characters (Deneuve in Repulsion and himself in Le Locataire), starting with some lack of self-assurance soon to turn gradually into psychological uneasiness eventually blossoming into an irreversible physical malaise. The shared ordeal for the characters and audience is really dissimilar from the fright and tension of horror movies since there's no tangible supernatural element here. While horror movies allow for some kind of catharsis (be it cheap or more elaborate) Polanski sadistically tortures us and, if in his latter opus the dark humour is permanent, we are mostly on our nerves as opposed to on the edge of our seats.

Suspense, horror, all this is a matter of playing with the audience's expectations (alternatively fooling and fulfilling them), not literally with people's nerves. In my book Rosemary's Baby is a far greater achievement because sheer paranoia and plain rationality are in constant struggle: the story is about a couple moving in a strange flat, while we are forced to identify with a sole character. What's more if the fantasy elements are all in the hero's mind the situation is most uncomfortable since we, the viewers, are compelled to judge him, reject him while we have been masterfully lured ("paint 'n lure") into being him. When this film opened back in 1976, legend has that it was met with massive jeering and disdain --- it was widely considered a failure. I vividly remember Ebert giving it one star and it was supposedly booed at Cannes.

Apparently these people didn't understand the movie, which is not that hard to comprehend since it's very esoteric, dark, and layered in ways that still astound me. Reading through many of the reviews here I find (even after about 7-8 viewings over the years) many elements of the film I had previously glossed over. But even without understanding much the psychological underpinnings of the story, it's still a cracking suspenser...even if you just take the escalating paranoia and persecution that overtakes Polanski's title character like a tsunami wave over the course of it's two hour running time.

Examining the source material --- an excellent novella by underrated novelist Roland Topor --- uncovers more intriguing layers. Polanski's Trekovsky is a milquetoast of the highest order. Though he seems at first to be yet another mild everyday soul, one gradually realizes he is one of those people who seems to aimlessly drift through life, letting it direct him. He seems to have few strong feelings about his likes and dislikes. He finds himself gently pushed this way and that, but never seems to get too bent out of shape regardless. This vague sort of wishy-washy-ness is more noticeable in the novel than the movie, but there are hints of it early in the film too.

Making a play for the apartment of a woman, one Mademouiselle Choule, who is in the hospital recovering from a recent suicide attempt, appears to be the most daring thing he has attempted (even effectively haggling down the price of the deposit in the bargain). He soon finds, however, that he is paying for his "good thing" in more ways than he cares, as he finds himself in the center of maelstrom created by a building full of neurotic, control freaks who are hypersensitive to even the slightest sign of human life, such as a footstep in the night or a knock on the door.

Instead of taking a stand though, Trelkovsky becomes increasingly alienated by the situation, and overtaken by paranoia and a sense of persecution. He becomes obsessed with Choule, imagining himself to be like her, dressing like her, etc. as his own personality rapidly begins to be wiped away by his own insanity.

If anyone has ever doubted Polanski's fearlessness as an artist, they'd be well-advised to see this film. His trademark black humor is prominently (and sometimes embarrassingly) on display here and --- god bless him --- he makes himself the butt of it. It's a tour de force performance in one of the richest, riskiest, most Gothic horror movies ever made. That more people haven't seen it is a true crime. Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.

In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10) Once I watched The Tenant and interpreted it as a horror movie. It uses many of the tropes of the genre: the sinister apartment, suspicious neighbors, apparitions, mysteries, hallucinations. The life of the hero, Trelkovsky, seemed surrounded by evil, secret forces trying to drive him mad.

Last time I watched it I challenged this initial interpretation. If this movie is a horror movie, it's only horror in the sense that a Kafka novel is horror. In fact this movie can be understood on a literal level as a lonely man slowly becoming crazy without any external influence.

Polanski made in his career three movies dealing with madness: Repulsion, which I don't particularly like because the development of madness in the heroine never convinced me; Rosemary's Baby, in which the heroine is driven mad by evil forces; and The Tenant, which might be the best study of paranoia ever made in cinema.

Trelkovsky is a young man who rents an apartment in which a woman killed herself. He becomes obsessed with her and slowly starts becoming her: he wears her clothes, puts on makeup, talks like her. But is he being possessed by a spirit, or is he just letting his wild imagination get the best of him? It's this hesitation between what is real and imaginary, and which Polanski never resolves, that makes this such a fascinating movie. Many events in the movie can be attributed to the supernatural as easily as they can be to normal causes, and it's up to the viewer to decide what to believe in.

Although this is not my favorite Polanski movie, it is nevertheless a good example of his ability to create suspense and portray madness in very convincing terms. And technically speaking, it's a marvel too. Suffice to say he collaborates with film composer Philippe Sarde and legendary director of photography Sven Nykvist (Bergman's DP) in the making of this movie. A slow pacing and sometimes uninteresting segments may make this movie difficult to enjoy, but it's an experience nevertheless. This is a very difficult movie, and it's almost impossible to get a handle on what's going on. At first it seems to be a rather pedestrian movie about a guy (Trelkovsky) who needs an apartment and rather crassly invites himself into one when the current tenant (a woman) commits suicide. Then the twists and turns start. Are the neighbors trying to kill him? And why are the dead tenant's clothes turning up in the apartment? One wonders, finally, if Trelkovksy _is_ the prior tenant.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

One of the tricks Polanski pulls on us is to lie to us. We assume when we see things from the point of view of a character that we see things as the character does and that there may be distortions of reality. We assume when the camera is showing us things from its omniscient point of view that we see actuality - but Polanski has the camera lie to us. This oddity from Roman Polanski clearly shows where his preoccupations lay at the time he made it. Polanski himself plays a timid man who rents a Parisian apartment where the previous tenant committed suicide. He becomes obsessed with discovering what led her to it, to the point that he's dressing in drag and reenacting events the way they might have unfolded. The movie's unsettling to a point, and it has that atmosphere of creepy dread that Polanski excels at, but it comes off too much as a rehash of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Repulsion," two other better Polanski films that deal with the eerie goings on in moody apartments.

But as for the preoccupation....unless I'm reading too much into the film, I have to believe that this was Polanksi's reaction to the feelings of persecution he felt at being labeled a sexual pervert and exiled from America. Not making a judgement about him one way or the other myself, but it's hard to deny the evidence of that in the movie itself.

Grade: B+ If you liked Roman Polanski's "Repulsion", you should probably check out "The Tenant" since it's a similar concept, just with Polanski stepping in and playing the schizophrenic wacko. This is actually one of my favorites of his movies - second, after "Rosemary's Baby", of course - and is a straight forward journey into the mental collapse of a man who moves into the former apartment of a suicide victim. The other residents of the building are all flaky and sticklers on keeping the noise level down - even the slightest 'titter' becomes a big deal and Polanski, who stars, becomes increasingly paranoid and succumbs to his loony hallucinations further and further as the film carries on. It gets to the point where he is dressing and acting like the former tenant and you realize it's only a matter of time before he decides tor re-enact her fatal leap out the window... The film is a bit slow and dawdling for a while, but if you have ever seen a Roman Polanski movie, you should know it's going to end with a bang and this flick doesn't disappoint. It's also best if you don't question the intricacies of the premise and just take it as a descent into madness, because it's pretty trippy surreal at times. Polanski is very good as the timid, deranged resident who, somehow, attracts the ever illustrious Isabelle Adjani. We also get to see him running around in drag, which is disturbing and hilarious all at the same time! Damn, he makes for one ugly chick! So, Polanski fans - who can actually look past his thirty year-old pedophile charges - should enjoy "The Tenant" as an entertaining psychological head-trip... Here is the example of a film that was not well received when it was made, but whose standing seems to be raising in time. 'The Tenant' is quite an interesting work by Polanski, one of the first of his European exile. It is set in Paris, and as in so many other exile films the city, its streets, the Seine and especially the building where the action takes place play an important role. It is just that Polanski chooses his principal character not to be an American (as in 'Frantic' for example) but a Pole, as himself was when going West. There is actually a lot of personal commentary in this film, made at what must have been a time of crisis in the director's life, and the fact that he decided to play the lead role (and does it masterfully) may also be seen as some kind of exorcism.

It's in a way a circular story. The hero named Trelkovsky rents an apartment in old Parisian building, inhabited by what seem to be first a well assorted team of grumpy old or just ridiculous neighbors. The previous tenant tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the window of the flat, and Trelkovsky has just the time to visit her in the hospital before she dies and meet there her young and beautiful friend Stella (a spectacled Isabelle Adjani in her first role after Truffaut's 'L'histoire d'Adele H.'). Soon the neighbors do not seem to be what they are, it's a conspiracy to make him crazy, or to make him enter the life and role of the dead girl. He fights, tries to run, enters the game and ends by entering the circle and slowly becoming her. The circle is closed.

It's not the most believable story we may have seen or heard, but the strength of the film does not reside in the story but in the details of the psychology, in the slow degradation of the mental state of the hero, in the permanent balancing game between reality and delusion. To a certain extent it is not what happens on the screen that matters, but how it happens, reminding the classical 'Knife in the Water' made more than a decade before, at the end of the Polish period of Polanski. There are many details that are never explained, but then this is how mystery films must be and this is actually how life is sometimes. The feeling of claustrophobia slowly contaminates the viewer. Unfortunately some of the graphical details in the last part of the film are not too well executed and the English spoken dialogs (the film was made in English) almost neutralize the overall atmosphere. However, waiting for the final punch scene is very worth the patience.

It's not the best film that Polanski made, yet has many good parts, it shows the hand and the style of the director, and was a significant step in the building of his career. Roman Polanski plays Trelkovsky who rents an apartment in France.The previous tenant is in a hospital after a suicide attempt.He goes to see her there where he also meets Stella (Isabelle Adjani), the friend of Simone.He and Stella become pretty close.Later Simone dies.Trelkovsky begins to think the landlord and the neighbors are trying to change him into Simone so that eventually he would also jump out of the window.Le Locataire (The Tenant) from 1976 is the last film of Polanski's apartment trilogy.The previous ones were Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby.Roman Polanski does not do good job only as the director but his acting is also superb.Isabelle Adjani with her big glasses is wonderful.The landlord, Monsieur Zy is played by the great Melvyn Douglas.Jo Van Fleet plays Madame Dioz.The fantastic Shelley Winters is The Concierge.The Tenant is something very scary from time to time.It gives a lot of that psychological scare.This film is not the easiest one to understand or explain but that makes it all so fascinating. One thing I'm sure everyone who has seen this film will agree on is that it is very creepy. The other films in Polanski's unofficial trilogy are creepy too, but they are all different in what makes them creepy, but they all roughly deal with the same thing, they all deal with the mind. Definitely the staring people are very creepy, each of them sent shivers down my spine that made me incapable of sitting still. Again, if you have seen the other two films mentioned, I'm sure you'll find this quite creepy, because you begin to expect typical Polanski traits that you think you have caught onto, he is aware of this and will keep teasing you with simple things, personally every time Trelkovsky would slowly turn around I would be bracing myself for a jump, maybe that's just me, but it felt intended to do that, though it was quite subtle, there is no build up of the music in those moments.

The acting in this was pretty good, mostly that from Polanski of course, the other characters in the film don't have all that much time to outshine the lead. Polanski really proves himself as an all-round great filmmaker, he not only can direct and write great films, but he can actually act too. I don't think there is any other better person who could have pulled off the Trelkovsky character, Polanski settled right on in perfectly. I like seeing films where the director is also apart of the main cast, to me it really highlights their fantastic versatility and talent, which I respect greatly.

One thing I didn't like about this film is how it was done in English. For those who don't know, this is a French film, American financed, and as well to make it more commercially successful it was mostly done in English. There are parts which it is very obvious there has been dubbing, and I don't know why it is, but 3/4 of the time when there is a dub they get the complete wrong person to do the dub. There is a women in the film who when she speaks it's obvious it's a dub, but they got the most annoying person to do the voice-over, it was seriously pain to my ears to hear her speak, she had the loudest high pitch voice I've heard in a while, it almost seemed fake, but I don't see what the point was, she was a rather small character. I honestly would of preferred if they just left it as it was filmed, parts of it in French and parts of it in English, because the dubbing in this film was a pain and was not near (two completely different films, I know) the high standard of another film that did a similar thing, which was, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I realise it's not a big problem, just when you do realise it, it gets annoying, but I'm sure you won't sit there the long trying to lip read what they are actually saying, regardless if you know French.

Whats so great about Polanski is that he will let you think you know him, that you know his style, which in some aspects you do, but really, you can't see whats behind that corner. This film is a lot more open to interpretation than the other two films mentioned, which I think really strengthens this one in particular. I personally feel this is the best of the three, I'm unsure which comes next, but they are all relatively close in their level of greatness. The ending is fantastic, it is so easy to dwindle on it for a long time to come and get nowhere. I choose not to think to much on it, just to have my personal opinion and leave it at that.

I've rambled on, and I haven't really given any insight on what makes this film so great, I don't think, so I'll quickly do it here. If you liked Repulsion and/or Rosemary's Baby, I guarantee you will enjoy this film to say the least. For those who are too unfortunate to have seen either then I recommend you check this film out if your looking for something that is quite a creepy film that is quite intelligent, particularly the end, as well if your looking for something that deals with the mind, paranoia even, though that is better fitted under Repulsion. This is my kind of film. I am fascinated by strange psychotic nightmares and this movie is just that. But it is also a dark comedy. While I see it mostly as a horror/thriller, there will be others who might see it as a black dramatic comedy.

But either way, it is a fascinating descent into madness. The ending caught me off guard, but what an ending! It leaves the viewer a lot to think about.

Powerful performances, a complex and detailed plot, a great script filled with dread and dashes of humor, and an eerie atmosphere make this a film worth watching.

Personally, I think that I will need to watch this several more times to pick up and understand all the subtleties that are within. But it is such a film that it will be a pleasure and not a chore so to do. This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.

A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.

Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!

The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout. I can understand how fans of filmmaker Roman Polanski could love this movie- and I could understand how some could totally hate it (Ebert was one of the few who couldn't understand why people weren't running out of the theater). After a first viewing, I'm not sure I could fall into either category, however as someone who can't get enough of Kafka and bizarre dark comedies of paranoia The Tenant is effective enough for its running time. Or maybe not- this is one of those cases where it might have been more of a masterwork if it were a half-hour Twilight Zone episode, with Serling delivering the coda as Terkovsky (or whomever it might be(?)) writhes in his bed in bandages. It's very similar in the treatment of the doomed protagonist as Repulsion was, however it could be argued that there was more ambiguity, more of a sense of the surreal coming out through a sustained disintegration of character and location (and, quite frankly, a better lead performance) than the Tenant.

As it stands, The Tenant does have an intriguing premise, the kind that one doesn't tire telling about to other people: Polanski is a Polish émigré to Paris who takes an apartment that was most recently acquired by Simone Choule, who jumped to her near death out of the window and died soon after. But the other tenants are conservative to the max in terms of noise; after a Saturday night at Terkovsky's with a few friends, there are complaints of too much noise. It won't happen again, Polanski's good-natured but slightly nervous tenant says, but there is no peace even in moving a cabinet or a chair. Soon complaints get registered against another tenant, but from him? Can he register complaints? This is a case of not so much mistaken identity but of there being a lack of peace of mind with oneself and the surrounding people. As the downward spiral goes on, Polanski ratchets up tension (and, dare I say, black-comedic laughs) by showing Terkovsky in the midst of a horrible dream- one of Polanski's strongest scenes from the period- and in finding teeth in the wall, not to mention the bathroom across the way (which, I might add, is always a cinematic lynch-pin of horror and surreal madness).

But somehow, the film never really feels all that significant aside from its excessive design as a would-be mind-f*** machine, with Terkovsky's tenants only seeming to not be what they seem for a little while: there's not as much suspense when finding out that they really aren't out to get him, which makes the paranoia more self-fulfilling. At least once or twice I thought to myself as well 'why did Polanski take the title role for himself?' It's not that he's at all a bad actor, and he has appeared in several films and plays that aren't of his own direction. But aside from being great at looking awkward and tense, like in the church, or in his moments of sort of flipping out when thinking that they really are out to get him to kill himself, his transformation is less creepy than tongue-in-cheek, a test of himself to see if he can pull it off, which he doesn't entirely do. Despite Polanski working at it well to look like the meek and frazzled Terkovsky, I could see at least a few other actors who could pull it off with more subtlety and affecting personality. By the time one sees him in drag, it goes between cringe-worthy and true camp, particularly when he goes for the double-climax at the end (which, of course, is of little surprise).

And yet there is pleasure for the film-buff and Polanski fan to see the supporting cast try and dig into the much more ambiguous characters (Winters and Douglas do this the best, even as they have to strain through limited characters), and the unexpected moments like Polanski and Adjani getting hot and heavy during a Bruce Lee movie, or when he gets really drunk, or in one almost random scene where he slaps a kid near a fountain, are rather brilliant in and of themselves. It's a very good film, and one that could maybe stick my attention up when on too many coffees after midnight. But an essential film? Not exactly. "Le Locataire"("The Tenant")is without a doubt one of the most important horror movies ever made.Polanski stars as a Trelkovsky,a timid file clerk living in Paris,who answers an advertisement for an apartment,only to find that the previous tenant attempted suicide by leaping from the apartment window.Trelkovsky is compelled to visit her in the hospital and there he meets Stella(Isabelle Adjani).Trelkovsky immediately moves in when the previous tenant dies and,at first,is quite pleased with having found such a nice apartment.His happiness is soon replaced by waves of paranoia as he becomes increasingly suspicious of his neighbours,who seem to be trying to provoke Trelkovsky into repeating the previous tenant's suicide.This film is great.Polanski manages to create a surreal atmosphere of dread and paranoia.Plenty of brilliant moments such as the classic scene where Trelkovsky discovers the previous tenant's tooth in a hole in the wall,or the fever dream where he wanders into the building's bathroom to find the walls covered with hieroglyphics.The photography by Sven Nykvist is truly beautiful."The Tenant" is a neglected gem.It may be difficult to track down,but it is more than worth the effort. "The Tenant" is Roman Polanski's greatest film IMO. And I love "Chinatown", but this one is so much more original and unconventional and downright creepy. It's also a great black comedy. Some people I have shown this film to have been *very disturbed* by it afterwards so be forewarned it does affect some people that way. Polanski does a great job acting the lead role in "The Tenant" as well as directing it. Polanski returns to the themes of solitude and madness which he explored to such tremendous effect in Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, in The Tenant.

The atmosphere is trademark Polanski - dark, brooding, unnerving - but there is something awkward about this movie and I am not sure whether or not it is deliberate.

Sven Nykvist, who was responsible for some of Bergman's most beautiful films, doesn't quite do himself justice here. As his name was one of the things which really attracted me to this movie, I was a little disappointed in how few instances of truly impressive cinematography are in the film.

The only thing that really lets the movie down is the acting. Polanski is certainly not a bad actor, but he seems to have bitten off more than he can chew with the difficult role of Trelkovsky. Some of the supporting cast are great, notably Melvyn Douglas as the landlord and Shelley Winters as the concierge, but others are weak and miscast. It is also hard to get past the fact that all these supposed Parisians have American accents.

Quite unexpectedly, there are some fine moments of dark comedy in the film. Anyone who has seen The Fearless Vampire Killers knows that Polanski is certainly a good comedic actor. However, there are moments when it slips dangerously close to being a parody of itself. Trelkovsky's sudden (and somewhat unexplained) 'transformation' is more likely to raise giggles than eyebrows, which detracts from what should have been a powerful moment in his psycho-dramatic journey.

All in all, The Tenant is an enjoyable and intriguing experience, if a little too languorous for its own good. There's a handful of exceptionally chilling moments and a consistently uncomfortable and foreboding atmosphere but this film, while being very good, does not quite hit the mark as successfully as it could have.

Alas, at the end of the day, an 'okay' Polanski movie is still better than most other 'good' movies. Definitely worth a watch, just don't expect to be blown away. Ecstasy (1933) (USA 1940) Starring Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Kiesler)

The world's first glimpse of a 19 year-old Hedy Lamarr occurs in the early moments of this 1930's treasure as she sweeps across the screen in an angelic wedding gown. This was to be the start of a legendary career. This was our glorious introduction to the most beautiful woman ever to grace the silver screen.

It is Eva's (Lamarr) wedding night and her older husband seems uninterested in her romantic advances. She retreats to the lonely bed and, in a beautiful scene, she fiddles with her wedding ring as the realization of her marital mistake overcomes her. The husband seems more interested in neatness and order than he does in love. Gustav Machaty uses gorgeous camera angles and pristine shot framing to capture Lamarr's considerable talent and beauty. With no words spoken in the early part of the film, she is able to grasp our sympathy, our hearts and our support. It is that combination that prepared the 1930's audiences for what they were about to see as the film unfolded. 'Ecstasy' was considered shocking for its time... Some thought it to be scandalous.

She returns home to her father's estate and files for divorce. The next day, she wakes with a complete sense of freedom and happiness. She just has to go outside and feel the freedom of the countryside and fresh air. Eva goes for a horseback ride and happens across a beautiful lake. And in one of the most famous scenes in film history, Hedy Lamarr became the first person to ever appear nude in a major film. Her frolic in the woods and her skinny-dipping adventure in the lake were legendarily scandalous. But the audiences couldn't stay away. As with many of today's movies, the controversy made it a must-see film.

Eva's mischievous adventure introduces her to a handsome young man who helps her find her horse, who had run off with her clothes. After an awkward meeting, they eventually fall for each other. Their first romantic rendezvous was almost as controversial as the nude scene, with its blatant waves of eroticism. However, Machaty does beautiful work in these romantic moments. Machaty creates one delightful moment, when Eva literally seems to sink into her new lover, using a gorgeous early camera trick.

It cannot be overstated how brave this performance was on Lamarr's part. Many might have presumed it was career suicide. Instead, it gained her worldwide fame and caught the eye Louis B Mayer, who signed her to a contract with MGM. There are some truly erotic moments in this film, even by today's raunchy standards. It is impossible to imagine how they were received in the 1930's. Again, Machaty was very clever with his imagery, leaving a lot to the imagination. But we all understand very well what we are seeing and it is supremely well done.

The meeting of Eva's former husband and her current lover is perhaps inevitable. However, the consequences of that meeting are not. The film takes a few unexpected turns in its final act and it all makes for a great story and a lovely debut on the grand stage of movie stardom for Hedy Lamarr.

I highly recommend this once controversial, now tame film and urge you to seek it out in its restored form on DVD. It is easily worthwhile, if only for the pleasure of seeing Hedy Lamarr. But the story is compelling too and the direction is ahead of its time. 'Ecstasy' is a memorable early treasure.

www.tccandler.com - TC Candler's Movie Reviews!!! This film could have been a silent movie; it certainly has the feel of one. I was extremely, extremely lucky to see this very rare version of this film. Extase, is a 'symphony of love', and transcends all language versions. French, which is the ultimate romantic language, seems quite suitable for this very sensual and lyrical version.A young Hedy Lamarr lights up the screen, in this film which, in a way is almost like a sex fantasy; but definitely far from being pornographic.Tech qualities may have been a little crude; but that does not detract from the magical spell this film exudes.Many lovers of early cinema, would absolutely adore this film. Famous for introducing the world to Hedy Lamarr and full frontal nudity, but it's oh so much more. In fact, this is one of the pinnacles of cinematic poetry, up there with some of the seminal works of 1930s art cinema, in the same prestigious group as Under the Roofs of Paris, Tabu, Olympia, and even L'Atalante. It's nearly a silent, relying mostly on its miraculous images, and also its fantastic, symphonic score by Giuseppe Becce. It's a masterpiece of cinematography and music, yes, and also of editing, direction, writing, and acting. A good 90% of the film moves along perfectly. Machatý seems an expert at using motifs. Perhaps not as subtle as it could be, and perhaps a bit overused, but the appearances of objects like insects, lights, and horses carry the story forward beautifully. The small snatches of dialogue are, thankfully, unintrusive. They don't jar as much as one would imagine. The final bit is odd, to say the least. Reminiscent of Russian silents, we have a montage of workers. This barely makes sense in the course of the narrative, but it's so gorgeously done that I refuse to harp too much on that flaw. Ecstasy is a film that is desperately in need of rediscovery. It belongs amongst the best films ever made. The alternate title of Ecstasy, is Symphony of Love; a title which appropriately describes the mood and feel of the film. Ecstasy is an early talkie, and could have very well been a classic film, if released during the silent film era. This film is a visual treat, and is deliberately paced so the viewer can savour its sensuous lyric quality, which is presented in an artistic low-key fashion. The director's style is distinctly European. The subject matter and approach to sexuality was far more sophisticated, than what was being produced in Hollywood, at that time. Consider the censorship code in the US, during the 30's, that pretty much sums it up. Hedy Lamarr, one of the great beauties of all time, was a perfect choice for this 'Symphony of Love.' (No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring.

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws".

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods. Dripping with symbolism and filled with marvelous cinematography, Extase is so much more than the erotic drama we've all come to expect. This is almost a silent film, with what dialogue there is in German, and highly simplified German at that. Perhaps the filmmakers intended the film to reach the widest possible European audience, as anyone with even a little high school level Deutsch can easily dispense with the subtitles. The story is of little importance anyway, with the film succeeding on a cinematic level, not a narrative one. Symbols of fecundity and the power of nature overwhelm the human characters--there are even scenes where flowers obscure the face of supposed star Hedy Lamarr--and there are moments here that will remind viewers of the works of Dreyer, Vertov, and Riefenstahl. If the film has any message to convey, I think it's a political one: bourgeois man is timid and impotent; working class man is a happy, productive creature; and woman is the creator, destined to be unfulfilled until she has borne a child. This blend of Soviet socialist realism and National Socialist dogma doesn't overwhelm the film by any means--it's a beauty to watch from beginning to end--but it does place it in a very distinct artistic era. And, oh yeah, Hedy does get her kit off. The first time I had the window of opportunity to see this all but forgotten classic was back in the early 1980's,at one of our art houses as a revival. As I watched this fever dream of an exercise in 1930's sexuality, I thought YOWZA! They got away with murder in Europe back in the day. Unfortunately, this film was heavily cut in it's original U.S. release by the blue nosed Hayes Office (the staunch government censorship board,started by the "holier than thou" Bible thumper, Will Hayes...a former Post Office official,if you can believe that),due to it's overall theme of human sexuality (Heaven's forbid humans actually had sex in the 1930's). The plot of Ecstasy concerns a young woman (played by Hedy Lamarr)who marries a much older man,and later regrets it. She (Lamarr)meets a handsome younger man & has an affair with him, resulting in a divorce from previous husband (another no no in Hollywood movies back then---Divorce!). Despite the fact that the film was produced in 1933, it was probably the director's first time working in the sound format (i.e. the film seems to possess techniques that were used mostly in silent films---i.e. 1920's expressionism's). It's still worth searching out for a window into early European talking pictures,along with Luis Bunuels L'Age Dor (1930),and Karl Gustav Dryer's 'Vampyre' (1931). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude swimming scene & some thinly veiled sexual references, which would fare little more than a PG-13 by today's standards (but would have easily landed the dreaded 'X',back in the 30's,if it existed then) First, let's get the "hoopla" out of the way.Hedy Lamarr was regarded as one of the most beautiful of women and the movies were a perfect medium for the many to see her beauty on screen.Here we have Hedy as a young fresh-faced 20 year old speaking in her native Austrian.I recently bought a 1990 uncensored version of this 1932/3 classic.Yes we see a brief close up of Hedy bare from the waist up but although she filmed the swimming & runaway horse scenes naked, the director Gustav Machaty uses the cover of branches, reflections in puddles, medium and long shots to show her thus in this famous scene; so don't go imagining there are any lascivious close ups or clinches.Her boyfriend , Pierre Nay keeps his clothes on at all times.Yes, fairly daring for its day but how innocous it looks now through 2003 eyes.

As other learned reviews have stated this film should be looked at for the imagary, expressionism, and allegorical statements it makes with pictures of drops of water forming a ripple on the surface of a pale of water, farm machinery, landscapes etc.Sweet sounding strings run for most of "Extase's" length and the film has a "feel" of a transition between silent and sound in its direction and concept.The script is highly minimalist and economical the story being mainly imparted through the medium of facial and bodily gestures with just a few words of German spoken by the actors with English subtitles beneath.Even these few words seem almost superflous in the general lyrical vein which runs through the film.

Put very simply this is the story of a young girl who marries a much older man (why we are never told and what did Eva see in him anyway?Money?), who is then trapped in an unconsumated and loveless marriage.She then returns to her father having left her husband and her father has to lie to his son in law.After a ride on her horse Eva decides to take a swim in the buff and loads up her clothes onto her horse's saddle.However her horse gets romantic notions itself and gallops off to greet its stablemate.Hedy rushes out of the lake naked and tries to recover her mount but an engineer at work sees and retrieves the horse then looks around for its owner.And so the romance is born.Her husband seeing that his rival must win Eva, later decides to shoot himself but I thought this was rather illogical and its main weakness bearing in mind his previous loveless relationship with Eva.

Despite being a 1990 reissue title on VHS, the sound being 70 years old, is a bit soft and with background crackles, in line with films of its age.After a period of mourning our handsome boyfriend obviously is so in love with Eva he imagines her as a mother with an infant so we have to assume they live happily ever after.Just let the imagary wash over you and disabuse your mind of the style of films even of late 1930's vintage.This is a lyrical piece that can be enyoyed for its own sake and not just for its eye catching title.I gave it 7/10. Eva (Hedy Lamarr) has just got married with an older man and in the honeymoon, she realizes that her husband does not desire her. Her disappointment with the marriage and the privation of love, makes Eva returning to her father's home in a farm, leaving her husband. One afternoon, while bathing in a lake, her horse escapes with her clothes and an young worker retrieves and gives them back to Eva. They fall in love for each other and become lovers. Later, her husband misses her and tries to have Eva back home. Eva refuses, and fortune leads the trio to the same place, ending the affair in a tragic way. I have just watched "Extase" for the first time, and the first remark I have is relative to the horrible quality of the VHS released in Brazil by the Brazilian distributor Video Network: the movie has only 75 minutes running time, and it seems that it was used different reels of film. There are some parts totally damaged, and other parts very damaged. Therefore, the beauty of the images in not achieved by the Brazilian viewer, if he has a chance to find this rare VHS in a rental or for sale. The film is practically a silent movie, the story is very dated and has only a few lines. Consequently, the characters are badly developed. However, this movie is also very daring, with the exposure of Hedy Lamarr beautiful breasts and naked fat body for the present standards of beauty. Another fantastic point is the poetic and metaphoric used of flowers, symbolizing the intercourse between Eva and her lover. The way the director conducts the scenes to show the needs and privation of Eva is very clear. The non-conclusive end is also very unusual for a 1933 movie. I liked this movie, but I hope one day have a chance to see a 87 minutes restored version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Êxtase" ("Ecstasy") This was a very daring film for it's day. It could even be described as soft-core porn for the silent era. It was a talkie, but dialog was extremely limited, and in German. One did not need it anyway.

The young (19) Hedy Lamarr gets trapped in a loveless marriage to an obsessive (stereotype?) German and after a short time in a marriage that was apparently never consummated, returns home to her father.

In a famous and funny scene, she decides to go skinny dipping one morning when her horse is distracted by another. She is then forced to run across a field chasing after it, as she left her clothing on the horse. An engineer retrieves her horse and returns her clothing - after getting an eyeful.

They sit for a while and, in a zen moment, he presents her with a flower with a bee sitting on top. This is where she thinks back to her honeymoon and the actions of her husband and an insect. She knows this man is different.

She returns home and eventually seeks out our young fellow, and finds the ecstasy she was denied. You can use your imagine here, but his head disappears from view and we see her writhing with pleasure. Since he never got undressed, you can imagine... Certainly, an homage to women by the director Gustav Machatý, and a shock to 1933 audiences.

The only thing that mars this beautifully filmed movie is the excessive guilt, and a strange ending. I cannot comment on this film without discussing its significance to me personally. As a child bad health prevented me from ever going to a cinema. I first encountered movies at the end of WWII through Roger Manvilles splendid Penguin book "Film", which brought me so much pleasure as my health began to improve that I wish I could buy another copy to re-read today. My introduction to many classics films such as The Battleship Potemkin, Drifters (Grierson's magnificent documentary), Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and Ecstasy; came first through this book and later at my University Art-house cinema. Ecstasy had incurred the wrath of the Vatican, for condoning Eva's desertion of Emil, her subsequent divorce, and the brief swim she took in the buff, but Roger Manville ignored these trivial matters and discussed the film as a triumphant, outstandingly beautiful, visual paean to love - a view echoed by many IMDb users. A very lonely young man, when I saw it, I willingly concurred. No further opportunity to see Ecstasy arose until the introduction of home videos - by then it had become a treasured memory not to be disturbed. Quite recently I finally added Ecstasy to my home video collection and found this assessment very superficial. Ecstasy is much more of a parable on the continuity of human existence, against which individual lives are insignificant - perhaps a tribute to what Bernard Shaw in his aggressively agnostic writings used to term 'The Lifeforce'.

Ecstasy portrays a young bride marrying a middle aged man whose sex urge is no longer strong. Disappointed, she returns home and divorces him. Soon after she experiences a strong mutual attraction to a young virile man she meets whilst out horse riding. She makes love for the first time and it is an overwhelming experience. Her former husband cannot face rejection and gives the young man a lift in his car intending that a passing train will kill them both on a level crossing. But the train stops in time and the apparently ill driver is taken to recuperate at a nearby hotel where he later commits suicide by shooting himself. After these exciting climacteric sequences, a bland, predictable and almost inevitable ending emphasises that whilst individual human lives exhibit both joy and tragedy, collectively life continues to carry us all forward in its stream and only through contributing to this stream can we be truly happy. This story is trite, the acting is no more than adequate; and normally such a film would have disappeared into the garbage, as did most of its contemporaries, long ago. What has given Ecstasy its classic status is exceptional cinematography, a continuous lyrical score and very careful loving direction, coupled with something fortuitous but in cinematographic terms very important - it appeared just after the introduction of sound and was probably planned as a silent film. It is sub-titled and its Director has exploited the impact of brief verbal sequences accompanying some sub-titles, and occasionally breaking into the score which so lovingly carries the film forward. This makes it not only almost unique but extremely rewarding to watch. The parable in the tale is stressed continuously but so subtly that only when reflecting after viewing does one become fully aware of it. For example, the names - Eva and Adam; the obsessive behavior of Emil on his wedding night which shows that triviata have become the most important thing in his life and predicate his eventual suicide since he has no adequate purpose to sustain him; the ongoing series of beautiful sequences showing erotic imagery (a bee pollinating a flower, a key entering a lock, a breaking necklace during Eva's virginal lovemaking sequence with Adam, etc.); and the final post-suicide sequences which could have been filmed in many different ways but serve to extol the importance to individuals of performing some type of work that contributes positively to Society, as well as of creating new life to sustain this society after we ourselves pass on.

As a 1933 film I would rate this at 9 - even comparing it with contemporary works I would not reduce this below 8. For me the film will always remain a "must see", (although you may feel that my background remarks above indicate some bias in this judgment). Unfortunately in North America contemporary assessments of this film have been distorted by the extreme 1930's reaction to Hedy Kiesler's very brief and relatively unimportant nude scene which she had difficulty living down in Hollywood (some critics, who have clearly not seen such classic films as Hypocrites, Hula, Back to God's Country, Bird of Paradise or some of the early works of D.W. Griffiths and C.B. deMille, have even erroneously referred to this as the first appearance of a nude actress in a feature film). This scene was probably part of the original novel, and the film would have been very little different if the Director had chosen to rewrite it.

Two further thoughts; firstly this is a Czech film, released there in 1933. Its final message about hard work generating positive benefits for society must have seemed very superficial to its viewers when a few years later their country became the first victim of Nazi oppression and was virtually destroyed for at least two generations (I do not remember these sequences being screened just after the war when I first saw this film - were they removed from the copy I saw then?). Secondly for me its main message today is that things of real beauty are often very transitory even though their memory may stay with one for a lifetime. We should all be thankful that today some of them can be captured on camera and viewed again at our convenience. I gather at least a few people watched it on Sept.2 on TCM. If you did you know that Hedy had to change her name to avoid being associated with this movie when she came the U.S. It was a huge scandal and I gather that the original release in the U.S. was so chopped up by censors that it was practically unintelligible. I watched because I had just seen a documentary on "bad women", actresses in the U.S. pre- movie censorship board set up in the early '30s. It looked to me as though they got away with a lot more than Hedy's most "sensational" shots in "Ecstasy". In fact Hedy looked positively innocent in this, by today's standards, and it was nice to see her early unspoiled beauty. It was a nice, lyrical movie to relax to. I loved it for what it was: a simple romance. I watched it after pre- recording it during a sleepless early A.M. I would love to see the first version released in the U.S. for comparison's sake. In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as "decadent" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a "Hayes Office" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema This picture was banned from American movies houses in the 1930 because of nudity by Hedy Lamarr, (Eva Hermann) which caused all kinds of problems among the ladies in the 1930's but not so much for the male population. This story concerns a young woman named Eva Hermann who gets married to an older man and is carried over the threshold on the wedding night and the husband never consummates the marriage and worries about all kinds of very petty things like his shoes and killing bugs. Eva leaves her husband's house and lives with her father and tries to explain her situation. On a hot Summer day Eva takes a ride on her horse and decides to go for a swim naked in a lake in the woods. Her horse runs off and she runs after him and is observed by a young man who finds her clothes and returns them to Eva. These two people become very acquainted and there is a romance that starts to bloom. There are many more interesting problems that arise as you view this film to its very end. Enjoy a great Classic film which was a Shocker Film in 1933. Enjoy. Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.

ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!

This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.

Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!

So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. I had never heard of this film until I came across it by accident when browsing IMDB. I saw it had gotten many awful reviews containing very colorful expletives on how much it stunk. Of course this meant I had to see it. I was pleasantly surprised as Whipped is actually rather a good movie. I watched it with a group of friends and we laughed more than we had at many recent highly acclaimed Hollywood fluff comedies. This is an independent film and as such portrays its subject matter (sex and dating) without the usual Hollywood fakery. I distinctly suspect that people's opinion of this film will depend very much on their experience of life. If you've never dated or partied much you won't get this movie because you won't have met people like these characters. If you have, you'll recognize many of the situations that portrayed here in comedic fashion. The ending was also good, as it did not portray women as unreal, helpless, virginal romantics in contrast to many Hollywood movies. A hilarious and insightful perspective of the dating world is portrayed in this off beat comedy by first time writer/director Peter M. Cohen. The story unfolds as the four male protagonists meet weekly at the local diner to confer about their dating woes. We meet Brad: a good-looking, wall-street playboy with a quick-wit and sharp tongue; Zeek: a cynical, sensitive writer; Jonathan: a sexually perplexed nice guy with an affinity for hand creams and masturbation; and Eric: the married guy, who cherishes his weekly encounters with his single friends in hope for some enlightenment to his boring and banal married existence. The trials and tribulations of the men's single lives in New York are amusingly expressed, mirroring that of Sex in the City and HBO's new comedy The Mind of Married Man, and bring an astute light to scamming. The story takes a twist as the three singletons meet Mia--wittily played by Amanda Peet-and all fall for her. She seduces them each with her uncanny ability to conform to the personalities' they exhibit. When they come to realize they have all met and fallen in love with the same woman, they chose her over their friendship. Whipped is a realistic portrayal of the dating world, one that the critic's failed to recognize. In plain language, they missed the point. The protagonist's here are caricatures of real people. The exaggerations are hysterical, mixing satire and humility, and are not to be taken as seriously as the critic's disparagement suggests. See this movie, you'll laugh from start to finish. I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a "7" rated movie! This movie is hilarious! I watched it with my friend and we just had to see it again. This movie is not for you movie-goers who will only watch the films that are nominated for Academy Awards (you know who you are.)I won't recap it because you have seen that from all the other reviews.

"Whipped" is a light-hearted comedy that had me laughing throughout. It doesn't take itself too seriously and should be watched with your friends, not your girlfriend. It won't win any awards, but it just has to be watched to be appreciated. True, some of the jokes are toilet humor, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone can use some of it sometimes. Some people need to lighten up and see "Whipped" for what it is, not what it isn't.

****1/4 out of *****. I didn't expect much from this, but I have to admit I was rolling on the ground laughing a few times during this film. If you are not grossly offended in the first ten minutes, this might be a film for you. Ditto if you are the type that would enjoy watching Amanda Peet shuffling cards for an hour and a half. It's certainly not a momentous work of comedy, but given the low-budget indy genesis this is masterful. To level the playing field for comparison, imagine all of the studio films with their budgets slashed by a factor of 100 or so and see what you get! Kudos to Peter Cohen and his network for seeing this through. I look forward to his next effort. Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products. A MUST SEE! I saw WHIPPED at a press screening and it was hilarious. We're talking nonstop laughs. It makes SOMETHING ABOUT MARY seem like a meandering drama. Amanda Peet screams star quality with her winning combination of beauty, brains, and serious acting ability. Peter Cohen, the director, has made a cutting edge film that shows the raw inside of men's egos in the urban dating world. For all of it's comedy, Whipped succeeds with it's intelligence. Which is so rare for a first time director, especially with a romantic comedy. He is a major talent. Judah Domke, Brian Van Holt, Jonathan Abrahams, and Zorie Barber round out the cast with depth and very strong performances as the would be slick lady's men. You've got to see these guys go to work and get caught in Peet's web. Check out the trailer on whipped.com, it's worth the 3 minute download. This movie was hysterical. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I mean, it's not "Good Will Hunting," but was it supposed to be? I actually went into the advanced screening expecting a lot less and was pleasantly surprised. The comedy hits hard and is fairly constant. Amanda Peet is hot and awesome. The entire audience that I screened it with seemed to be enjoying the film as much as I did. After viewing "Whipped" at a distributor's screening at the AFM the other night, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed. The audience was laughing all the way through. Unfortunately, every territory was already sold, so I did not have the opportunity to purchase the film, but I truly believe that it will be a big hit both domestically and over seas. I agree with the comment that "Whipped" should not be pitched as a male "Sex and the City," mainly because unlike "Sex and the City," "Whipped" is a satire about dating that never takes itself too seriously. "Whipped" pokes fun at relationships in a way that most sex comedies wouldn't dare. Also, the film that I screened at the AFM had more of a plot and story than "Swingers," "Clerks," and "Sex and the City" combined. "Whipped" never slowed down for a beat and provided the audience with non-stop comedy. The performances of Amanda Peet and the rest of the cast were all rock solid, which only made the film more impressive considering the budget. Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".

Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them? Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (1980) was the second film to star to pot loving duo of Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. The lovable burn out smokers are now roommates. They live in a condemned building looking for ways to score more smoke and just lay about all day. But Cheech is the "responsible" one. He has a job and a steady girlfriend. One day, Cheech wants to get his freak on so he tries to get Chong out of the house. Another problem arises as well, Cheech's brother "Red" (Cheech is another role) is in town and wants to hang with him. Firguring that he could kill two birds with one stone, Cheech pawns Chong off and Red. What kind of adventures will Chong and Red get into? Will Cheech get his freak on? How long will Chong go without some smoke? Just watch CHEECH & CHONG'S NEXT MOVIE to find out!!

Tommy Chong takes over the directorial reigns for the sequel. He received some experience when he did some uncredited work on UP IN SMOKE. Funny but not as good as the first film. But Cheech and Chong fans will enjoy it. Followed by NICE DREAMS.

Recommended. A typical romp through Cheech and Chong's reality which includes drugs, singing, more drugs, cars and driving, even more drugs, Pee Wee, aliens, gasoline, laundry, stand up comedy, surprisingly more drugs and SPACE COKE !!. It is not as coherent or plausible as Up in Smoke but it still is incredibly funny, without becoming as strange as Nice Dreams. There are some classic scenes, which include the opening scene where they get some gas for their car and the drive to work. Also funny is Cheech's song (Mexican-Americans) and Chong's follow up song. Another notable scene is the welfare office scene with Jones (human noise machine), from the Police Academy series, and the old laughing man. All in all, this is a great follow up to Up in Smoke and is quite watchable when sober or not.

-Celluloid Rehab And I'll tell you why: whoever decided to edit this movie to make it suitable for television was very ill-advised. EVERYTHING CONCERNING DRUGS IS CUT OUT AND COVERED UP!!! How do they do it, you might ask? Well, they don't do it very well, that's for sure. Anyway, instead of the marijuana which Cheech and Chong are supposed to have in their possession, they are said to have diamonds! Still, the characters go around in a haze of marijuana smoke stoning others along their way with no explanation whatsoever! This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R I'm a fan of C&C, going back to their records, and liked this movie, but at one point in the mid-1980's on cable television in San Jose California, it was aired with an alternate plot line that destroyed the entire point of the movie. All references to marijuana were replaced with "diamonds". The bag that "Red" drops to Chong has diamonds in it instead of marijuana, but the conversation still remains the same ("...it's worth ~$3000/lb"). There is also a subplot in which clips of aliens on a ship were added observing C&C, and talking to each other about getting the diamonds. At the end, instead of "space coke", it's something else. I'm not sure who created this version, but it was horrible, and obvious that they were attempting to make it family/child friendly. It would have been better if that network had not aired it at all. The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them... The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out. This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something. Ok, needless to say, this film is only going to appeal to a certain audience; namely stoners and like-minded people.

That being said, if you are one of these aformentioned people, this film is a MUST. In fact, I think it should be mandatory for head shops to sell a copy of it to anyone purchasing their first bong. What Monty Python's Holy Grail is to geeks and nerds, so is this movie to potheads. I first saw this film 10 years ago or so, and I still crack up every time I watch it. The jokes perfectly lampoon the pothead lifestyle, far better than latter day knockoffs like Half-Baked attempt to.

There isn't a plot, so to speak; the film is more of a collection of various skits; as the films protagonists wander around Los Angeles in their legendary haze. Despite this, the film has an excellent sense of pace, and doesn't drag at all. Many people cite Up In Smoke as C&C's best work, but I would have to say that Next Movie is superior.

So if you're in the mood for an hour and half of belly laughs, light up, tune in, and let your mind float away =)

Oh, and FREE TOMMY CHONG! SPOILERS

A buddy of mine said NEXT MOVIE was the best Cheech & Chong flick and went out of his way to have me borrow it and THE BLUES BROTHERS. NEXT MOVIE has no plot, has no pacing, really has no anything of what defines a movie ... but it is funny. And for what it is worth, Cheech and Chong show some heart.

Well, in this little paragraph I put in the plot, but being that four-fifths of the movie, nothing happens that would usually start a story. I will just say that Cheech 's cousin shows up.

Was there no other funnier moment when Chong made Cheech drink the pee twice? What about the rooster? Was that Pee-Wee Herman's first movie appearance? You would have to watch the movie yourself to enjoy it. I don't think NEXT MOVIE has strong enough balls to make it awesome, but the movie has heart and hey, my buddy let me borrow it so it gets a 7. This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong? This story is a familiar one in the long-running Tom and Jerry cartoons, especially in the 1940s, the only difference being that two cats instead of one are threatened to be evicted if they don't catch the mouse (Jerry). Tom has an unnamed buddy ("Butch?") living in the house with him, so this really upsets "Mammy Two Shoes" who can't believe that they have a mouse despite TWO cats in the house.

Anyway, the one who catches Jerry can stay while the other gets the boot, so the competition is on!

Even though it's familiar territory I still enjoyed this because the cartoon had enough original sight gags to make entertaining. You not only had the cats competing against each but Jerry in the equation as well, so there were enough good gags to definitely recommend if you are a Tom & Jerry fan. "A Mouse in the House" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.

This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».

If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the "rear" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too. Tom and Butch Cat fight over the capture of Jerry Mouse because the one who doesn't catch Jerry gets kicked out. The two cats dress in their master's clothing to disguise themselves and lets the other have it! Confused, Tom and Butch whack their master's rear and all three of them get kicked out. Action & Adventure.Billie Clark is twenty years old, very pretty, and without a care in the world,until a brutal street gang violates her life, and she turns into an ALLEY CAT bent on revenge! When the gang attacks her grandparents house and her car, Billie uses her black belt prowess to fight them off. But at the same time she earns their hatred, and she and her grandparents are marked for vengence.When her grandparents lose their lives to the brutal thugs. Billie becomes like a cat stalking her prey-and no prison,police force,boyfriend,or crooked judge can get in the way of her avenging claws. She's a one-woman vigilante squad,a martial arts queen,a crack shot with no mercy. She's the ALLEY CAT.Watch for the dramatic ending versus the Gang leader! Rated R for Nudity & Violence, Other Films with Karin Mani: Actress - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) .... Janie Soon Lee , "From Here to Eternity" (1979) (mini) TV Series .... Tawny, Filmography as: Actress, Stunts - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) (stunts)P.S. She should have been Catwoman in the Batman Movie!

This entertainingly tacky'n'trashy distaff "Death Wish" copy stars the exceptionally gorgeous and well-endowed brunette hottie supreme Karin Mani as Billie Clark, a top-notch martial arts fighter and one woman wrecking crew who opens up a gigantic ten gallon drum of ferocious chopsocky whup-a** on assorted no-count scuzzy muggers, rapists, drug dealers and street gang members after some nasty low-life criminals attack her beloved grand parents. The stunningly voluptuous Ms. Mani sinks her teeth into her feisty butt-stomping tough chick part with winningly spunky aplomb, beating jerky guys up with infectious glee and baring her smoking hot bod in a few utterly gratuitous, but much-appreciated nude scenes. Unfortunately, Mani possesses an extremely irritating chewing-on-marbles harsh and grating voice that's sheer murder on the ears (my favorite moment concerning Mani's dubious delivery of her dialogue occurs when she quips "Don't mess with girls in the park; that's not nice!" after clobbering a few detestable hooligans. The delectable Karin's sole subsequent film role was in "Avenging Angel," in which she does a truly eye-popping full-frontal nude scene, but doesn't have any lines.) The film's single most sensationally sleazy sequence transpires when Mani gets briefly incarcerated on a contempt of court charge and shows her considerably substantial stuff in a group prison shower scene. Of course, Mani's lascivious lesbian cell mate tries to seduce her only to have her unwanted advances rebuffed with a severe beatdown! Strangely enough, the lesbian forgives Mani and becomes her best buddy while she's behind bars. Given an extra galvanizing shot in the vigorously rough'n'ready arm by Edward Victor's punchy direction, a funky-rockin' score, endearingly crummy acting by a game (if lame) cast, a constant snappy pace, numerous pull-out-all-the-stops exciting fight scenes, and Howard Anderson III's gritty photography, this immensely enjoyable down'n'dirty exploitation swill is essential viewing for hardcore fans of blithely low-grade low-budget grindhouse cinema junk. Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.

Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.

Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours. I waited until the 4th of July to write this because . . . well . . . because it just feels right to be doing it on this day.

In 1924 D.W. Griffith needed a hit, he had not had a big one since ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921). He'd been working steadily since then but his movies had been smaller in scope and had failed to hit the right chord with audiences. He was planning a film about Patrick Henry when he was contacted by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) who asked if he might expand his ideas to encompass more of the American Revolution. This movie is the result. By the time he had finished he had a 14 reel history lesson and there wasn't a trace of Patrick Henry anywhere.

We all know the story of the Revolutionary War but Griffith threw in a love story with Patriot farmer Nathan (Neil Hamilton) falling in love with Tory aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster, a leading lady for Griffith for many years). Complicating matters is the fact that Nancy's father hates Nathan . . . well not just Nathan, he hates all rebels. It does not help matters when, during a skirmish on the streets of Lexington someone jostles Nathan's arm causing him to discharge his gun and accidentally wound Nancy's dad!

Paralelling the love story is the (mostly true but partially embellished) story of Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) a renegade British officer who feels he owes allegiance to no one. With Thousands of Indians form the Six Nations on his side he hopes to crush the colonials and become monarch of his own empire.

Comparisons with BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) are inevitable. The Montague family might just as well be the Cameron's from the earlier film while Nathan could be a part of the Stoneman family. The sequence of the Battle of Bunker Hill is staged very similarly to a scene in BIRTH OF A NATION with the attacking army, in this case the Redcoats, storming a trench packed with Patriots. The only thing missing is Henry Walthall charging across No Man's Land to stuff a flag into the muzzle of a cannon. Amazingly enough the battle scenes in America seem to lack the energy of the battle scenes in BIRTH and fail to draw the audience in. Something is clearly missing. It isn't scope, G.W. "Billy" Bitzer's camera work is quite good. Maybe what is missing is . . . dare I say it . . . sincerity?

The brutality of Capt. Butler and his men is well underscored although much of it happens in long shot or offscreen. Don't expect any heads to be lopped off in closeup like we saw in INTOLERANCE (1916). In one scene Butler's second in command, Capt. Hare (Louis Wolhiem) gouges out the eyes of a captive colonist. We see only the beginning of the deed, for the remainder the camera focuses on Hare's face as he obviously has a good time doing this. Lionel had been working with Griffith on and off since 1912. A story goes that he approached Griffith for work and D.W., knowing the reputation of his famous family, said "I am not hiring stage actors." to which Lionel replied "And I am nothing of the kind, sir!" He makes a very good and quite believable villain. Louis Wolhiem appeared with Lionel's older brother John three times; in SHERLOCK HOLMES and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (both 1920) and later in THE TEMPEST (1927). As Capt. Hare his wild staring eyes and disheveled hair not only mark him as a villain but make you think he is quite mad also.

Neil Hamilton later remarked that America was his first time on horseback and "I was scared to death.". He hides his displeasure very well though and we can believe he was quite the equestrian by the time shooting was over. Mr. Griffith was very much in love with Carol Dempster and at one point asked her to marry him. She refused and soon left his stock company, after which her star status gradually waned.

Speaking of horses, one accidentally amusing moment which had to be unscripted came during the depiction of Paul Revere's ride. He rides his horse right up on the front porch of a family to announce "To arms! The Regulars are coming!" but as he tries to leave the horse cannot negotiate the steps backwards and stumbles spilling his rider on the ground! I am amazed Griffith did not do another take.

So is America a classic? YES! Don't wait for July 4th to see it, it is enjoyable anytime. I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliché of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm). are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective. The silent film the Pride of the Clan starring Mary Pickford was supposed to be set in a fictional island off the coast of Scotland. In actuality, most of the exterior shots were filmed in Marblehead Massachusett on Marblehead Neck near several rocky seaside geographic areas including the Churn and Castle Rock. My initial interest in the film was because of two factors: 1) the Marblehead film location in my hometown and, 2) the fact that my grandmother Lizzette M. Woodfin was hired as a stand-in for Mary Pickford during filming of several scenes including the "cliff scene". Both women were small (5') in stature and both my father and grandmother related the fact that she was a stand-in with her back to the camera for the cliff scene as part of the Chiefton filming set. I just wanted to relate this story for future film historians and buffs. The film itself (my DVD copy is somewhat poor) is very well done with lots of action and expressive acting including several scenes where Miss Pickford portrays a strong woman characterization. I enjoyed it and would love to get a better copy of it although I am unsure whether one exists as I have seen in various movie sites that remaining copies are dark because of deterioration. A very nice film of the silent genre with lots of action! Star Pickford and director Tourneur -- along with his two favorite cameramen and assistant Clarence Brown doing the editing -- bring great beauty and intelligence to this story of poor, isolated Scottish Islanders -- the same territory that Michael Powell would stake twenty years later for his first great success. Visions of wind and wave, sunbacked silhouettes of lovers do not merely complement the story, they are the story of struggle against hardship.

The actors bring the dignity of proud people to their roles and Pickford is brilliant as her character struggles with her duties as head of the clan, wavering between comedy and thoughtfulness, here with her father's bullwhip lashing wayward islanders to church, there seated with her guest's walking stick in her hand like a scepter, discussing her lover, played by Matt Moore.

See if you can pick out future star Leatrice Joy in the ensemble. I tried, but failed. Strangler of the Swamp was made by low budget studio PRC and is certainly one of their best movies I've seen.

A man who was hanged for a murder he didn't commit returns as a ghost for revenge on the people who accused him. He uses a rope to strangle his victims and after several deaths, including the old man who operates the ferry across the swamp, he disappears. The old man's granddaughter takes over the ferry herself and also falls in love with one of the local men and they decide to get married.

This movie has plenty of foggy atmospheres, which makes it very creepy too.

The cast includes Rosemary La Planche, Blake Edwards and Charles Middleton (Flash Gordon) as the Strangler.

Strangler of the Swamp is a must for old horror fans like myself. Excellent.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5. Some people say this is the best film that PRC ever released, I'm not too sure about that since I have a fond place in my heart for some of their mysteries. I will say that this is probably one of the most unique films they, or any other studio, major or minor, ever released.

The plot is simple. The ghost of a wrongly executed ferryman has returned to the swamp to kill all those who lynched him as well as all of their off spring. Into this mix comes the granddaughter of one ghosts victims, the current ferryman. She takes over the ferry business as the ghost closes in on the man she loves.

Shrouded in dense fog and set primarily on the single swamp set this is more musical poem than regular feature film.Listen to the rhythms of the dialog, especially in the early scenes, their is poetical cadence to them. Likewise there is a similar cadence to the camera work as it travels back and forth across the swamp as if crossing back and forth across the door way between life and death, innocence and guilt. The film reminds me of an opera or oratorio or musical object lesson more than a normal horror film. Its an amazing piece of film making that is probably unique in film history.

This isn't to guild the Lilly. This is a low budget horror/mystery that tells you a neat little story that will keep you entertained. Its tale of love and revenge is what matters here, not the poetical film making and it holds you attention first and foremost (the technical aspects just being window dressing.) If there is any real flaw its the cheapness of the production. The fog does create a mood but it also hides the fact that this swamp is entirely on dry land. The constant back and forth across it is okay for a while but even after 58 minutes you do wish that we could see something else.

Don't get me wrong I do like the film a great deal. Its a good little film that I some how wish was slightly less poverty stricken. Its definitely worth a look if you can come across it. **** Includes Spoilers ****

I've been a horror film fan now for many decades. Just when I think I've seen all the great ones another pops up to surprise me. I had never seen this film before. It was a treat, off the beaten path too...not just the path to the swamp ferry boat either. Here was a horror film made in the 1940s that dared to try something VERY different. The pretty girl is (gulp) fearless for a change and saves the men, including the man she loves, from the monster ! How is that for a twist. This girl was the complete opposite of most women in films of that time, no screaming at her own shadow, no fainting from fright, no tripping over a leaf as she runs. This gal wasn't afraid to live alone in a secluded hut far away from the rest of the villagers. Not only that but the place was on a foggy swamp rumored to be haunted. Heck she even takes naps on the swamp grass outdoors...like a regular 1940s version of Ripley. No snake, gator or ghostly strangler would dare bother this gal. Books on early feminist films should be sure to include this overlooked work.

See this if you are a fan, like me, of those wonderfully atmospheric classic B/W horror films they made only in the 30s and 40s. And be sure to wear your cast iron turtle neck for protection. PRC which was the lowest of the low actually struck gold with this moody little thriller. They did the same thing a year earlier with "Detour" which is probably one of the finest low-budget films ever made.

"Strangler" is basically a one set film, filled with mist and shadows, a technique used by most poverty row studios to hide the sets, or lack thereof. But here, it works well. The ghost of Charles Middleton (better known as Ming the Merciless) lurches around the swamp killing those involved in his wrongful execution for murder and generates some sympathy from the viewer. His final victim is to be the daughter of the ferryman.....he concentrates his wrath not only on those directly involved in his fate but their relatives as well.

Rosemary LaPlanche does her usual imitation of someone in a coma that passes for her acting style. She offers herself up to the strangler in order to put a stop to the killing but as a sop to the audience, the strangler sees the goodness of her gesture as a sign that his mission is complete and he returns to the hereafter, somewhat chastened. If Ulmer(who directed "Detour") has directed "Strangler" she would be hanging from the nearest tree and the strangler's job would be done. But who's complaining? It's not the story that is the major attraction but the shrouded sets, lighting and the general moodiness of the piece. It stands, right behind "Detour", as PRC's finest hour Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler. Probably the best picture Producers Releasing Corp ever made, this little horror piece rivets the attention from first to last. Director Frank Wisbar obviously knows a good story when he writes one and what's more important he knows how to realize its full shock potential on the screen. Not only is the plot involving and the characters fascinatingly drawn, but the setting is absolutely out of this world! Just about all the action takes place either at night or in the middle of a clinging, pervasive fog. This chilling atmosphere is augmented by Wisbar's inventive direction and the wholly convincing performances he has drawn from all his players. The lovely Rosemary La Planche makes an ideal heroine, beautiful, spirited yet vulnerable. Robert Barrat delivers his usual no-nonsense, straight-down-the-line portrait of the local bigwig, though it's hard to believe that the personable, good-looking guy who plays his son is none other than the later dullsville writer/director Blake Edwards. A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story. At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some "repertoire" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious. When I watched this film the first time, it was a taped copy and the title was/is Caged Terror. I still own the tape, and I confess, I've watched it more than once from beginning to end! The film is extremely low budget and the dialogue is often unintentionally amusing! I have gotten a few of my friends to watch this and we've had some great laughs from the terrible script. The film concerns a couple, (remember this is like early 70's so they are just too hip man!) who go on a week-end camping trip in what I believe was supposed to be upstate NY. They have some hilarious dialogue after catching and eating a fish and the girl bemoans the death of the fish and that they ate it! The guy comes back with something goofy about how they ate the fish and now it was a part of them, and he goes; "And that's beautiful man!" Heavy man, really heavy! LOL! Anyway, along come a couple of Vietnam vets, one of who plays the flute, I believe. (At any rate they are musical fellows!) The guys are clearly attracted to the girl and when the couple prove unfriendly, they end up terrorizing them during the night. The guy ends up caged in a chicken coop, and has to watch his girl friend being ravished by the two guys. Actually, by the end of the night, she seems to be pretty into it, and when morning comes, the guys leave and the girl and guy are free to leave. Supposedly the guy has learned a lesson about how to treat people, and the girl has a smile on her face! :) Anyway, I would recommend this film highly to anyone looking for a damn good laugh! It never fails to amuse me anyway! If I could find this on DVD and replace my old tape copy, I'd actually buy it again, it's classic camp! You gotta love this stuff! A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.

This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.

The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.

In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out. Maybe it wasn't that good as a whole, but the second episode, which was the first one I say, was so memorable I still remember it today. I became a fan of Dick Francis. I would recommend it if you are interested in horse racing and mysteries.

The cockney slang of the sidekick, Chico Barnes, is a lot more amusing to those of us who have never been close to hearing London's Bow Bells, but the leads are attractive and the shows were interesting.

Sid Halley was one of Francis' more interesting characters, and the show actually minimizes some of the difficulties with his hand. Interestingly, electronic hands of the sort used in the stories are apparently less functional for the user than the sort invented after World War II. I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences. The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: "This is almost too beautiful." And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does. THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.

Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.

I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.

The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.

With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.

So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008. From the filmmakers who brought us The March of the Penguins, I guess that came with plenty of expectations for The Fox and the Child. From the harsh winters of the South Pole to the lush wilderness in France, the narrative now becomes part documentary and part fairy tale, which tells of the friendship between the two titular characters, Renard the fox and its friendship with the child who christened it, played by Bertille Noel-Beuneau.

The story's frankly quite simple, and at times this movie would have looked like the many Japanese movies which children-miscellaneous animals striking a friendship after the development of trust, and how they go about hanging around each other, dealing with respective adversaries and the likes. Here, the child meets the elegant fox near her home up in the mountains, which provide for plenty of beautiful picture-postcard perfect shots that a cinematographer will have to go into overdrive to capture.

But while we indulge in wistful scenery, the characters don't get to establish that level of trust from the onset, and we have to wait a few seasons to past, and 45 minutes into the film, before they find a leveler in food. The child persistently attempts at striking a bond with the objective of taming the creature for her own amusement, but the fox, well, as other notions of course. While I thought the narrative was pretty weak, unlike March of the Penguins which has that human narrative interpretation of what's happening on screen, what excelled here were the documentary elements of the movie, tracing the life and times of the fox as both a predator, and a prey.

Between the two, more tension and drama was given to the latter, especially when dealing with traditional foes like wolves, and granted, those sequences were fairly intense especially when the child got embroiled in it. Otherwise, it was plain sailing and quite a bore as the two of them go about their playing with each other, in shots that you know have undergone some movie magic editing. There were surprisingly dark moments in the movie that weren't really quite suitable for children, as those in the same hall attested to it by bawling their eyes out suddenly, so parents, you might want to take note and not let your toddler disturb the rest of the movie goers.

As a film, I would've preferred this to be a complete documentary ala The March of the Penguins, but I guess the way it was resented, probably had the objective of warning us not to meddle with nature, and that some things are just not meant to be, and should stay as such. Decent movie that leaned on the strength of the chemistry between Bertille Noel- Bruneau, and the multiple foxes that played Renard. Maybe I'm biased to foxes, fox stories and all but I thought this was wonderfully done.

I really enjoyed that it was shown when Lily wasn't comfortable, such as the fire and the room (trying not to spoil too much here). I think that's important for kids to see and try to understand.

After reading a few others comments I'm a bit confused, one says that at the end -spoiler- the mother and her son appear, as she's been the one telling her son about her story. The movie I saw did NOT have the mother or son at the end, merely a painting of a girl with a fox. Can someone enlighten me on that? Anyway I really enjoyed this movie, although some scenes can be a bit slow which might be difficult for high energy kids to sit through. Still worth it if they can sit still. Watching "The Fox and the Child" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.

The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.

I laughed. I wept. I learned.

This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.

Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art. A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.

Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.

But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing. I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.

Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.

Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating. This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children. There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will. I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story! Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che – Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?

James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One – that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward – usually everlasting love or material wealth – as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage – not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.

Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.

High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena – light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say – and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).

But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this – interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations – make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.

There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.

With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.

But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can. Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.

If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.

The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.

This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.

It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one. Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.

As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.

Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10 Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Che—struggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himself—such a struggle is best told exactly as that—a struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.

While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one man—if anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who –arguably- conducted the whole thing.

Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed back—there's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.

Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenes—the drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.

With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net) Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.

The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.

But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.

--PolarisDiB I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully – I might say lovingly – made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.

If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.

Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.

The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.

Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.

But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy………………!" I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.

Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.

Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.

The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.

If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role – so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel. Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.

This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.

The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.

In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking. It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks "Che: Parts 1 & 2". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto "Che" Guevara's revolutionary life. "Che: Part 1" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. "Che: Part 2" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see "Che" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of "Che" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly "too much talk and not enough action" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing "Che: Parts 1 &2". *** Average I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.

But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10. I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it. From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2. The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.

Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.

The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded. Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.

As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.

I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling. Possibly the most brilliant thing about Che: Part Two, as we begin to integrate it with Part One in our minds, is that there is no clarification of why Che chose to confidentially abscond from Cuba after the revolution, no allusion to his experience in the Congo, no clarification of why he chose Bolivia as his subsequent setting for a coup d'etat, no allusion to the political decisions he made as a young man motorcycling across South America, which Walter Salles has given prominent familiarity. Extraordinary focus is given to Che meeting the volunteers who accompany his guerrilla factions. Yet hardly any endeavor is made to single them out as individuals, to establish involved relationships. He is reasonably unreasonable. Che drives an unbreakable doctrine to leave no wounded man behind. But there is no feeling that he is deeply directly concerned with his men. It is the concept.

In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.

In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.

Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means. I'm going to review the 2 films as a whole because I feel that is how it should be considered, and watched. When I talk about 'the film' I am talking about parts 1 & 2 together when watched one after the other, as they should be.

Thank you Jon Anderson, Steven Soderbergh & Benicio Del Toro.

This film is a refreshing, bold, gritty and true film. And, it hearkens a new style of film making. No Faux drama. No Swelling sound track. Not Faux Documentary style. Just clean shots and an attempt to stick to the facts. I have been reading Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and recently finished Fidel's Auto biography, and this had helped my ability to soak this film in properly. But I have to say that it is Jon Anderson's exhaustive, penultimate and wonderful biography that has given this film the proper historical back bone. Anderson was consultant on this film (or these 2 films). What makes this film a true thing is that it is clean. No swelling music or slow-motion photography to heighten drama, and even more importantly; no fake documentary shaky camera. Just square shots and straight forward shooting style. The type of camera used makes you feel right there in the jungle. Benicio Del Toro should be given full honors for this, I never doubted him as Che throughout the film... not once. He did a wonderful job and I will respect him for ever for this. Some people complain that the film only deals with 2 slices of his life and not the whole. But I think this is one of the true beautiful aspects of this film: it doesn't try to be everything. It doesn't try to 'tell the story'. A person's life is too multifaceted to try and tell in 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 hours. This is one of the subtle beauties of this film, it resists that temptation, and stays focused on the intent of letting us GET A FEEL FOR CHE, HIS DEVELOPING MILITARISTIC MIND AND THE FORCES AROUND HIM. It focuses on 3 slices of time: The Battle to over throw Batista, Che's U.N. speech and the Gorilla preparations in Bolivia. "Motorcycle Diaries" already told his young man side, and I applaud S. Soderbergh for focusing on other aspects instead. I keep referring to Jon Anderson's book and the film stays true. The only weak link for me are the casting (not the performance) of Matt Damon. In a film so loaded with true to life performances, an American, (Matt Damon) playing a Bolivian is a clunky stretch - he does well, but after so much care in the casting, this was an over-site. Small and completely forgiven. The reality that the rest of the casting gives you, and most notably Benicio Del Toro's amazing job, put's this film at the top of my list.

The fact that this film went almost straight to video say's something about how the cold war ethics that would never allow the 'revolutionized Cuba' to become what it might have, are still at work keeping it's story quiet. If not out of clandestine muffling, then out of the effects of properly done propaganda that has prejudiced this topic.

This is a must see film, and Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" is a must read if you want to start to get a grasp of the early effects on the global mind set regarding the expansion of international / political financial chess moves of the 40's, 50's & 60's that placed unfair pressure on our South American neighbors, and the effects it fostered. The year is 1964. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, having been a Cuban citizen for the last five years,disappears from the face of the Earth,leaving a glum Fidel Castro to announce that he is probably dead,when in truth, he has left Cuba to move to Bolivia to live an assumed identity. Whilst living in La Paz,Guevara undertakes an idea to overthrow the corrupt,bourgeois government there. Once again,Steven Soderberg takes up where 'Che:Part One' leaves off (only better this time). The pacing is more on target,the job of acting is ever so fine (including a turn by a sickly looking Benecio Del Toro,as Che Guevara). Suffice it to say,it's probably best if you see both films,to get the true story of Guevara & what kind of a man he was (I had the rare open window of opportunity to see both films at one screening----talk about a long haul!). As with 'Che-Part 1:The Argentine',this film has no MPAA rating, but contains enough salty language & violence to easily snag it an 'R'. I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty. I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!! This is something new.

There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.

A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.

See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).

And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.

This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).

Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points. I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.

I collect Horror films from all over and I have seen the good and the very bad - Zombie Bloodbath is a low budget video. Sure, the acting is bad, the storyline is basically a mix of all zombie movies thrown together and the quality is low in some spots. The thing you seem to be missing is that it's still entertaining and really very fun. The effects range from, like someone on here has said, pasty-faced zombies that look like KISS rejects to really good ones with some amazing latex work. But the reason you buy a movie with a title like this is for the gore and this film is amazing in that area. The effects are very good for such a small film. Someone called it a Party movie and it is. 100% fun party movie. I have heard from various websites that this is actually a "rough cut" of the film that got general release but the actual "director's cut" is coming on DVD and it is very nice quality. I will buy it and judge for myself.

Story is basically a Nuclear power plant goes bad and makes zombies. The gov't closes it down, hides the story and sanctions houses to be built over it. Some of the plant is still underground and these undead come up and attack the area. A few actors do a great job, there's some pretty straight social commentary that is insightful and true, good music, great lighting, some effective suspense and tons of blood and sick gore. One guy gets attacked and ripped from the lower area all the way up, if you know what I mean. Then his guts are shoved out of his mouth. Another is torn in half like in Day Of The Dead and they did a great job of that effect. There are a million gore gags and it's almost ALL action. I say stop being a prude, enjoy life and get more movies like Zombie Bloodbath and Meat market. Two great undead epics.

OK - UPDATE!!! I just got the DVD set and here is what I thought:

MUCH better picture quality and for once I was able to see the actual DIRECTOR'S CUT of the film and it is a much better movie. I liked it before, but now I can see what Todd Sheets was actually trying to do with this one. And the commentary helps too, hearing Sheets talk about the film in detail, He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to all people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't this much fun!

PS - I heard they are now remaking this on a big budget??? This in my opinion is one of the best action movies of the 1970s. It not only features a great cast but is also loaded with wild shootouts and explosions that are still impressive today. The story is about a Vietnam vet (Kris Kristofferson) being recruited by his brother (Jan-Michael Vincent) to help clean up the criminal element in a small town and what happens when Kris starts taking advantage of his position and becomes as bad as the criminals he was hired to get rid of. It's great seeing Kris play against type. Bernadette Peeters and Victoria Principal both offer great support as the respective ladies of the two male stars. Jan-Michael shows real movie star persona in this film. I don't think Vigilante Force is on video but it occasionally shows up on TV. It's a great flick for guys who like movies. This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a little…off balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role – he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses – his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet… Anarchy and lawlessness reign supreme in the podunk hick hamlet of Elk Hills. The town elders deputize tough, cagey Vietnam veteran Aaron (a wonderfully robust and engaging performance by Kris Kristofferson) and several of his fellow vet buddies to clean up the place. The plan goes sour when Aaron and his cruel cronies decide to take over Elk Hills after they get rid of all the bad elements. It's up to Aaron's decent do-gooder brother Ben (amiably played by Jan-Michael Vincent) to put a stop to him before things get too out of hand. Writer/director George ("Miami Blues," "Gross Pointe Blank") Armitage whips up a delightfully amoral, cynical and wickedly subversive redneck drive-in exploitation contemporary Western winner: he expertly creates a gritty, no-nonsense tone, keeps the pace brisk and unflagging throughout, and stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable muscular aplomb (the rousing explosive climax is especially strong and stirring). The first-rate cast of familiar B-feature faces constitutes as a major asset: Victoria Principal as Ben's sweet hottie girlfriend Linda, the fabulous Bernadette Peters as flaky saloon singer Little Dee, Brad Dexter as the feckless mayor, David Doyle as a slimy bank president, Andrew Stevens as an affable gas station attendant, John Carpenter movie regular Charles Cyphers as one of the 'Nam vets, Anthony Carbone as a smarmy casino manager, John Steadman as a folksy old diner owner, Paul Gleason as a mean strong-arm shakedown bully, and Dick Miller as a talentless piano player. Moral: Don't hire other people to do your dirty work. William Cronjager's slick cinematography, Gerald Fried's lively, harmonic hillbilly bluegrass score, and the abundant raw violence further add to the overall trashy fun of this unjustly neglected little doozy. This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.

The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.

The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.

I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.

Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent. I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.

I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...

I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.) ***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike). This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful. What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed! But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy!

Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours.

Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started.

Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.

I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget. I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.

Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.

This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.

My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.

But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing. This film was excellent - the emotional power of Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta's performances brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart - this film shows us that there is still hope in the world. If this film had come out at the end of 1988, instead of Rain Man, Hulce would certainly have been at least nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Definitely a must-see! If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it.

It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.

However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.

"Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."

Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see. Words are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars.") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them. Dominick (Nicky) Luciano wears a 'Hulk' T-shirt and trudges off everyday to perform his duties as a garbage man. He uses his physical power in picking up other's trash and hauling it to the town dump. He reads comic-book hero stories and loves wrestlers and wrestling, Going to WrestleMania with his twin brother Eugene on their birthday is a yearly tradition. He talks kindly with the many people he comes in contact with during his day. He reads comic books, which he finds in the trash, with a young boy who he often passes by while on the garbage route. Unfortunately, Dominick has a diminished ability to use his mind. He has a disability.

Dominick's disability came as a result of an injury to the head in which he suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI). This injury left him slower, though it did not change his core characteristic as a strong individual who helps to protect others. Dominick is actually more able to live independently than he may seem at the beginning of the film. He lives with Eugene who is studying to become a doctor. Dominick provides the main source of income, while Eugene is off studying. Eugene must face the fact that he is to continue his education in a different city, and that he must move away from Dominick. Eugene also develops a romance which begins to separate him from his twin brother.

The film deals specifically with domestic abuse and how this can impact individuals, families, and then society as a whole. The strain that escalates between Eugene and Dominick as Eugene realizes that he must eventually leave Nicky, exploded on their birthday night. Eugene yells at Dominick and throws him against the wall. In this moment, Eugene must confront his own fears of being like his abusive father, the father which Dominick protected him against while he himself became the victim of the abuse. This event cemented the love between the two brothers, who from then on became the best of friends. Though they needed each other, they also both needed independence and the ability to grow and develop relationship with others. The fact that they must part ways became a very real emotional strain. However, by the end of the film, Dominick is able to say good bye to his brother and wish him luck. Eugene is able to leave his brother with the confidence that he has started to make a social network of people who care about him and will help him with his independence.

When Dominick witnesses the abuse of his friend he is forced to come face to face with the cause of his own trauma. In this state of extreme stress, Dominick almost completely shuts down. He then runs after the ambulance to the hospital to see what happened to his friend. After learning that the boy has died, he is confronted by the abusive father who, fearing his testimonial, tells him he didn't see nothing, doesn't know anything, and not to say anything, and that if he does he will kill him. Now that his own life has been threatened, he goes and find the hand gun that Larry used to kill the rats. He goes to the wake of the deceased boy and at gunpoint, kidnaps the baby of the grieving family. He runs away from the scene and hides in a building. When the police surround him, Eugene goes in the building to talk to his brother. Eugene then reveals the cause of Dominick's disability and they bring the baby back. The abusive father then wields a gun of his own threatening to kill Dominick, but Eugene stops him and Dominick tells the crowd that he saw the father throw his son down the stairs.

Through the climactic ending, the issue of dysfunctional behavior comes into view. Though Dominick's instinct to save the baby can be understood, we also see how damaging this response is. Dominick put the baby's life and his own life in grave danger. The larger societal consequences of these events is not directly implicated, but rather shown through the films ending. Despite the more optimistic ending portrayal, another sequence of events might just have likely occurred, in which Dominick is charged with kidnapping and possession of a firearm. It is somewhat difficult to believe that this went completely unaccounted. Furthermore, even if Dominick is not charged, there may still be a stigma against him within the community, not that there wasn't one before these events. Instead, the film shows that we must be able to recognize problematic behavior and act to curb it.

Dominick and Eugene was released in 1988, the same year as another film, Rainman, which won 5 Academy Awards. While Rainman was an achievement and helped increase the visibility with person with disabilities, it could be argued that Dominick and Eugene holds more valuable lessons for society. Whereas, Rainman demonstrated that mainstream American society might be able to learn from and care for a 'savant', if the 'savant' is the inheritor of a large estate. Dominick and Eugene show that a person with a disability might be able to care for and help save members of American society. The message of an independent person with disabilities may have been too strong for 1988. Hopefully someday society will see the strengths of individuals with disabilities, not as a threat, but as imperative for the strength of society. This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.

In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to. I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!! TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.

This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!

===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen! One of my favorite movies I saw at preview in Seattle. Tom Hulce was amazing, with out words could convey his feelings/thoughts. I actually sent Mike Ferrell some donation money to help the film get distributed. It is good. System says I need more lines but do not want to give away plot stuff. I was in the audience in Seattle with Hulce and director , a writer I think and Mike Ferrell. They talked for about an hour afterwords. Not really a dry eye in the house. Why Hollywood continues to be stupid I do not know. ( actually I do know , it is our fault, look what we watch)Well you get what you pay for guys. Get this and see it with someone special. It is a gem. The emotional powers and characters of Dominick and Eugene are the things that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. This is one of the most emotional, sensitive, and heart-felt movies that I have ever seen! Roy Liotta, Tom Hulce, and supporting actress Jamie Lee Curtis, deliver Oscar Winning caliber performances! There are not enough words to express how great this movie is. Sure, people who are not into sentimental movies may not care as much as the rest of us about Dominick and Eugene, but for the rest of us, this movie goes right to the heart and sole of compassion and humanity. You will never forget this film, EVER!

*****SPOILERS BELOW*****

The simple yet eloquent story is masterfully told. Eugene is a med-school intern who faces long hours and a demanding work load at the hospital. His fraternal twin brother Dominick (born 12 minutes earlier) is a little slow and awkward because of brain damage due to a victim of abuse by their father. (A heartbreaking moment when this is found out in the film that will leave you in tears!) Eugene (a.k.a "Geno") faces a painful dilemma. He must decide whether to finish medical school, which would mean accepting his residency in another city and leave Dominick (a.k.a "Nicky") behind, or forfeit the rest of his education to take care of him. Nicky helps pay his brother's med-school tuition by working as a trash collector.

The questions of ethics, morals, and responsibilities are masterfully blended in this landmark movie. Just when Gino thinks Nicky might be making progress toward independence, Dominick turns around and winds up doing things like helping out a drug dealer, or tying to use a faulty cord that he finds at the dump on an electrical appliance.

Larry, is "The Character" and Nicky's partner on his garbage route who fills gullible Dominick's head with all kinds of stories like Geno and Jennifer (his girlfriend, whom he is tutoring in Clinical Pharmacology) going to Atlantic City and gambling away all their money. But deep down, you can see that Larry cares for him. On their rounds, Nicky also befriends a little boy, whom we find out has also been beaten by his father. An end result is also tragic and the pain that you see on Nicky's face when it happens, speaks volumes.

The sensitivity that the two brothers share for each other can not be overstated enough. All Nicky wants to do is be loved and look for acceptance in anyway he can. (i.e he goes to church, loves Hulk Hogan) Geno loves Nicky more than anything in the world. But can his brother become independent enough so that Geno can pursue his dream of becoming a doctor? A brilliant film that should have gotten tons more recognition than it deserved, but unfortunately came out around the same time as Rain Man, which dealt with a similar issue. However, I like Dominick and Eugene better because it has a far stronger emotional component. Be forewarned that this movie is aimed right at the tear-ducts, so have Kleenex handy! What a film!!!! Ray Liotta and Tom Hulce shine in this sterling example of brotherly love and commitment. Hulce plays Dominick, (Nicky) a mildly mentally handicapped young man who is putting his 12 minutes younger, twin brother, Liotta, who plays Eugene, through medical school. It is set in Baltimore and deals with the issues of sibling rivalry, the unbreakable bond of twins, child abuse and good always winning out over evil. It is captivating, and filled with laughter and tears. If you have not yet seen this film, please rent it, I promise, you'll be amazed at how such a wonderful film could go un-noticed. I just purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the movie. I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

but again, that's the point ;)

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying. Dumland focuses on the lives of one (American?) family... The father; a violent and obscene person who loves to fart and use profanity and who has no redeeming qualities. The mother; who appears to be a paranoid psychotic, never really says much. The son; an obscure annoying repetitive little fellow. The animation is simple and crude, but does suite the stories and the characters. The episodes were originally only available from the davidlynch.com website, but have now been released on DVD. There are 8 episodes on the DVD and a brief synopsis follows:

1- The Neighbor: We meet the next door neighbor, and find out three things about him... he has a really nice shed, he only has one arm and he likes to do naughty things with ducks.

2- The Treadmill: We find out that the wife has an affinity for exercise, but the husband doesn't really think it's a good idea. In the end, the exercise treadmill is victorious.

3- The Doctor: The father has an unfortunate accident with an exposed live wire... the doctor's examination is quite thorough (if not unconventional) but the diagnosis is "you are perfectly normal" (but we knew that).

4- A Friend Visits: After an altercation with the new clothes hoist, a friend comes to visit (Believe it or not, he has one! but after we meet him we can understand why), no surprises when he tells us what his hobbies are.

5- Get The Stick: We meet another neighbor, he has a stick stuck in his mouth (although we never find out how it got there). Unfortunately, removing the stick from his neighbor's mouth ends up being harder (and more violent) than expected... but he is victorious in the end... Jesus some people can be ungrateful!!!

6- My Teeth Are Bleeding: This was my favorite episode... and was also the most mind- numbingly repetitive and annoying (hmm, what does that say about me??). Not sure why the son's teeth started bleeding, but believe me when I say it was minimal to the plot of the story. Which is an oxymoron, as the story had no plot. But did have a funny ending (involving a fly)!!

7- Uncle Bob: After meeting Uncle Bob, and Uncle bob's wife, we get a distinct feeling that the Dumbland gene-pool is very shallow. Uncle Bob is a sickly fellow (I shan't elaborate, lest I spoil it for you). Uncle Bob's wife definitely wears the pants in his family... and the father definitely ends up on the wrong side of her ample fist (and spends the rest of their visit cowering in a tree in the back yard).

8- Ants: After the home gets infiltrated with ants, and a misbegotten attempt to bug-spray them goes awry... he ends up spraying himself in the face with the bug-spray and starts hallucinating. The ants put on a fabulous song and dance show... he goes berserk trying to kill them, winds up in a full body plaster... and lets just say, the ants get their vengeance in the end.

As bad as these stories are, there is something that kept compelling me to watch them. They do give another insight into the mind of one of my favorite directors. David Lynch. Maybe they were an outlet for him, to get rid of some of his violent thoughts?? I did actually laugh out loud at many points within the episodes. Many aspects are absurdly funny!! This is a short, crudely animated series by David Lynch (as it says in the beginning), and it follows the misadventures of a backwoods, overall-wearing large man, with a wife who has a stress disorder and an annoying son. Both of those elements are harped upon repeatedly in the short episodes, and there's no real plot to be seen. It's easier if you think of this as an exceptionally odd, slightly macabre Looney Tunes- with far more gore, profanity, bloody violence, and occasional moments of hilarity.

I bought the DVD along with Eraserhead, having previously seen Eraserhead. Don't look to this series if you want an artistic masterpiece- this is anything but. In fact, it seems to almost be a statement against such things, as its rough style spits in the face of any sort of animation convention you may see. As Lynch says, "If this is funny, it is only funny because we see the absurdity of it all." I consider myself a great admirer of David Lynch's works, for he provides the viewers with absolutely unique motion pictures with typical "Lynch-elements." Having seen most of his works, I naively thought I could predict Lynch's next step. I was dead wrong. Dumbland is something I could have never imagined under the name of David Lynch. Still, after my recovery from the first shock, I started to contemplate about this extremely primitive main character, and I drew the conclusion that all the absurdities, cruelty, brutality and disgust presented here are mirroring bits from reality, being emphasized by distorting it. There are things in our lives we hardly ever emphasize, for they are either disgusting or horrible, however, they are surrounding us, so I take the courage to say, Dumbland focuses on these bits and pieces. This is not a movie to enjoy, though you'll sometimes laugh out of a strange, perverted sense of humor, this is an animated reflection of all things we rather reject to observe, with its simplicity, morbidity and absurdity. Take it as it is, you don't have to like it. It just exists. And finally, if you're attentive enough, you'll find elements typical to Lynch as well. I recommend it for tolerant people!!! I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

but again, that's the point ;)

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying. Since September of last year, I have been borrowing four to six films each week from the Harold Washington Library, which boasts an impressive DVD collection. (The HWL truly is a circulating library: three-quarters of its films are out at any given time!) Recently, I was thrilled to find The Short Films of David Lynch. Yesterday, knowing little about the animated series, I picked up Dumbland. I'm here to report that, for David Lynch fans, watching the eight episodes is half an hour well-spent.

The most remarkable feature of these brief pieces are their soundtracks. Each episode has its own rhythm. Respiratory and digestive systems provide percussion. Outrageous voices accent pauses' ends. Physical violence supplies the beats. Chirping birds and buzzing sockets brush along the edges. Many other elements fill out the orchestra. The pacing of the crude animation often keeps in sync with the sound, but the soundtrack itself struck me as Lynch's primary interest in creating and disseminating this work. In a way, these eight shorts are unique Lynchian rhythms.

That said, the situations are odd, ugly, profound, dumb and funny as hell. And there's enough space within them to reflect on how absurd we humans can be. I can't say that I'll watch the collection again, but for anyone who revelled in the movements that is the suite Inland Empire, Dumbland is worth half an hour of your time. It is said that David Lynch's films and shorts won't appeal to everyone. Neither will Dumbland, maybe more than ever. I have a feeling that Dumbland, as people come across it, will be a true mark of 'I get it' or 'what the hell'. It's not surrealism exactly, but absurd to the point of no return. It's also very, very, very stupid. But in this stupidity can be a sort of ironic intelligence to it, that the maker knows so well how childish and repugnant this is, and this self-consciousness is a plus, not a detraction.

It's just a bunch of crudely drawn shorts- the kind that might not even make it on Hertzfeldt and Judge's Animation show (which, I might add, Lynch here has a lot in common with both directors in their work- centered on a lummox with an IQ of 20 who has a constantly quivering-with-fear wife, and a child who looks like a cross between the gingerbread man and/or an alien. The episodes include little situations like a faulty treadmill, a salesman who can recite the Gettysburg address, watching over a sick brother in law, ant hallucinations, and just wallowing on the couch with noise all around. All the while, Lynch is still experimenting, as he was constantly for better or worse during the period of five years he made on and off Inland Empire.

For one thing, he's going back to the roots of his very first short, Six Figures Getting Sick Six Times, in the usage of repetition as a means to an end. This sometimes works excruciatingly well, and sometimes not. Sometimes, like with the episode with the sitting around the house doing nothing as teeth are bleeding and a fly buzzes around, the absurdism sort of waxes and wanes without much of a good effect. And even an episode like with the guy's friend coming over is funny more-so for the Beavis & Butt-head comparison (both laugh like idiots, and are equally engrossed by killing things like fish and sheep). What ends up working is how Lynch shows up front delirious abstractions, in the crudest ways imaginable, and excessive violence.

In what comes closest to surrealism in "ants", the guy mistakenly sprays bug-spray (just called "Kill", one of Lynch's very cheap but fun pokes at societal conventions) on himself, and envisions ants in a musical chorus line, solos included. And one of the most harrowingly funny things I've ever seen from the filmmaker is "get the stick", where we just see the guy, cheered on by his son, getting a stick lodged in his mouth. Soon the neck breaks, eyes pop out, and once said stick is removed he doesn't watch out for traffic waddling like a manhole cover. Other moments pop up like this in unexpected crevices, and it's drawn as if on cheap paper with an impetus to shock with foul-mouthed language (mostly from the man, as well as from the 'grandmother', who in one of Lynch's voices for the characters is the deepest of all), and a shaky quality that's reminiscent of the cream of the crop from (early) Hertzfeldt.

All the same I'm still not sure if Dumbland is something I would put into someone's hands if they haven't seen much of Lynch yet let alone anything by him. There are some little points on society made via complete exaggerations that may or may not be in Lynch's mind closer than we usually think to those in real life. However in general there's not a whole lot that should be read into it, which is why I'd say more than half who see it will hate it with a passion. Those who dig the bottom-less pits of animated comedy, be prepared have a blast. Dumbland is not for all. In fact Dumbland maybe in for nobody except Lynch and that's what make it funny and a collective cartoon. Violent? Yes. Profanity? Yes. Absurd? Yes. A piece of garbage? Never. Dumbland is a wonderful picture of some Americans that don't have brains and hit wife and kids for fun. From México I can say I love it! My favorite episodes are: 1- My teeths are bleeding, all the noise around and violence make me wanna scream and put me behind my bed. 2- Get the stick! Yeah baby get it and learn a lesson: some people never be thankful for your actions. 3- Ants. The more Lynch episode of all, music, surrealism and a very sweet revenge... This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.

Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland. I went to this movie expecting an artsy scary film. What I got was scare after scare. It's a horror film at it's core. It's not dull like other horror films where a haunted house just has ghosts and gore. This film doesn't even show you the majority of the deaths it shows the fear of the characters. I think one of the best things about the concept where it's not just the house thats haunted its whoever goes into the house. They become haunted no matter where they are. Office buildings, police stations, hotel rooms... etc. After reading some of the external reviews I am really surprised that critics didn't like this film. I am going to see it again this week and am excited about it.

I gave this film 10 stars because it did what a horror film should. It scared the s**t out of me. Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to "see how deep the rabbit hole goes".

Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.

The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.

Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning "rules" for the "monster". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.

However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of "main characters" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.

Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.

I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a "here's what really happened" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.

Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions. "The Grudge" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room. This is what I wrote to some friends earlier:

HOLY CRAP, The Grudge is, honest to God, one of the scariest films I've ever seen! I am either getting very soft in my old age, or Sam Raimi and Ghost Pictures did a KICK A** job! (Can't wait for Boogeyman!)

I was very scared sitting in the dark theater and wished I had someone, anyone, sitting next to me (except the protagonist in Grudge. I saw the movie by myself.) I swear, there were many many jump scenes that were NOT expected! I felt foolish but my nerves did not care! I was on edge the entire movie, from the opening credits, and the music was fantastically scary. I keep thinking of that sound, though, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!

I actually gasped aloud a few times, and cried, "oh" at one scene!! Oh, yeah, I even half-covered my eyes a few times! Word to the wise, though: I thought some of the scenes were a little psychotic. My DH hated Event Horizon and thought whoever wrote it was sick and psycho, but I don't remember the movie so can't compare.

I can't say I "enjoyed" this movie b/c I was terrified, but it was very very good and scary. The ending scene, too...whoa! For being a 32-year-old-mommy, I think I may have nightmares from this movie, especially because of that sound. Please get out of my head ;)

In summary, this is not a slasher flick like I grew up with (Jason, Freddy). This is a most-of-the-time spooky movie. Perfect for Halloween.

Two great trailers for this movie were Boogeyman and The Ring 2!! Massive multiple chills down the spine! I'm surprised there's people who didn't like it! I saw it at 10 o'clock in the morning and still got scared stiff! And I've seen hundreds of thrillers/horror movies! For crying out loud,I'm 22!!! I mean, OK, voice acting, not particularly good, probably even b-movie-ish. But the genuine look of terror, the sound effects, the flow! From the very start, hitting you again and again with relentless, unforgiving, terrorising scenes! So many clichés yet none fails to surprise/scare! You know it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, BOO! and you still jump off the chair. Grab a pillow and a blanket, call your closest friend over and do not watch it at night! Hats off to the Japanese! so, being a fairly deep fan of horror movies, it's been a while since i've seen one that really made me jump (or fidget nervously.)

definitely going to get this on DVD when it comes out... a hell of a lot better than the ring. the thing that i don't get is that so many people that we talkd with after the movie thought that it was horrible, well, if that's what you think, then so be it... i know what i liked and it takes a fair amount to get me to actually feel scared, so i have to say that this one is worth watching.

now, you might be disappointed in the story if you need everything in a neat and tidy line, because the plot goes back an forth a little bit to help build the story (i think that if it was shown in chronological order, it would have ruined the whole thing.)

i'm actually glad that this movie had very little bloody messes in it... maybe the rest of you studio writers and whathaveyous will realize that you don't have to splash the red stuff all over the set to make people afraid. This was great. When I saw the Japanese version first, it was probably the scariest movie I had ever seen. It was not blood and guts, it was eerie, atmospheric and terrifying. When the mother ghost lent over the bed in the Japanese version, I nearly had a heart attack... I was concerned that the American version would be watered down, and that Buffy would take away from the dark creepy nuances of the original version. I needn't have been concerned. The makers of this movie wisely kept the same Japanese people who were involved with the original movie on hand, and gave the direction of the movie to the same man. They also set it in Japan in the same location, in the same house. In fact, the Japanese director took pains to remake the same movie as it was in the original, the only difference was the casting of American actors. That actually turned into a benefit as it added the element of "Strangers in a Strange Land" to the overall horror. Not only were they being haunted by an absolutely terrifying and relentless ghost, but they were also stuck in a completely foreign land, having difficulty integrating into society. It just added to the overall anxiety built into the movie and I thought it was an excellent touch.

Buffy actually does a very good job. She looks vulnerable and is able to convey her fear well. There are none of the smart aleck remarks that are so common to American horror movies, or one liners that detract from the overall darkness and horror of the characters' situation. In fact, it was easily as good as The Ring which I also thoroughly enjoyed. I hope the future of American horror follows more closely the Japanese New Wave of horror started with the incredible success of Ringu. We are finally getting movies that actually can be categorized as "Horror"!! 8/10 I'm not sure I understand where all these enthusiastically anti-grudge people are talking about here, perhaps it's just that some people like to rant about things.

The movie was certainly imperfect (uneven acting, some may have had difficulties with the time-changes, actors all too willing to go places I'd really rather not go, etc.) but IMHO there were some things that more than made up for the imperfections.

First and foremost, I LOVED the 'breaking of the rules' bit. NORMALLY when you leave the haunted house the baddies leave you alone, giving you time to regroup, get friends, and find the token mysterious paranormal type. NORMALLY (semi-spoiler alert) when you're hiding under the covers they can only get you through that little opening you peek through. NORMALLY at the end the ghosts somehow have become less creepy because you've found out they're just misunderstood, or they've been freed, or whatever.

Secondly, the production was exceptional. While the movie was hardly special-effects-laden the supernatural bits while brief were extremely well done.

Probably not the best sort of movie for those who think Freddy and Jason are the ultimate sort of horror (nothing against 'em, they've got their place), but great for those who've begun to take the conventions for granted and who don't have trouble with the time distortions. I saw "The Grudge" yesterday, and wow... I was really scared, a good thing. I love horror-movies, and I really liked this one. There were so many 'surprise'-scenes (what's the English word?) that made you jump in your seat. Though, too much screaming from the audience made it difficult not to laugh. I think the most scary scene was... on the bus, when the face flashes by on the window, or when Yoko's walking without her chin. The make-up is also VERY good. Sometimes you could really see it was there, but it was still adding a freaky look to the scene. The boy was very good indeed, so cute without make-up and so terribly scary with it on. The next time I hear a cracking noise I will probably feel pretty scared... As I've noticed with a lot of IMDb comments, certain reviewers seem to demand that every film they see have smugly intelligent plots that wallow in there own cleverness. I am not one of those people. If I watch an action film, I want to see explosions, gunfire and heroics. If I watch a comedy, I want to have tears of laughter in my eyes. You get the idea. Therefore watching a horror film, I primarily want to be scared. The Grudge is a very scary film, in both it's well executed 'jump' scenes, and it's creepy imagery. I've been a horror film fan for many years, and I'm talking about the masters such as Dario Argento, rather than directors of some of the treadmill teen horror flicks that are churned out these days. If you want to be scared, watch this film. Way scarier than the original Japanese 'Ring' (which I also think is a great film). I wanted to see Sarah Buffy on the big screen, so I first bought tickets and then checked the reviews at IMDb. I worried about seeing a bad movie. Well, I had fun watching the movie. Some parts, which obviously were meant to be scary, were actually quite humoristic, almost as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I don't consider this a bad movie. It's not a great movie either. Just a rather well made horror movie. It does not rely heavily on special effects, but on camera angles, acting, music. In my opinion, the acting was OK. Sarah did a very good job, quite convincing. The other actors were definitely not bad either, I liked Yoko.

The sets are nice (and I don't care that the sets are the exact same ones that were used in the Japanese original).

The scary moments were often predictable. But not always. I have seen quite some horror, and did not expect to be scared now, but it happened at least twice. Nice.

The movie had some nice scenes that were almost original, like the trails of rubbish, the simple special effects for he ghosts, the eyes of the boy, the cat that made eery noises, the gurgling of the dead boy and his mother.

Don't go if you want to see Sarah in another Buffy episode, because it is very different from her Buffy work, much more serious. Don't go if you only want to see movies that gather Oscar nominations. It's a good horror movie, enough suspense. I gave it a 7. Omigosh, this is seriously the scariest movie i have ever, ever seen. To say that i love horror movies would be an understatement, and i have seen heaps (considering the limited availability in New Zealand, that's quite a lot), but never before have i had to sleep with the light on...until i saw The Grudge.

Some may say that it is a rip off of The Ring (both based on Japanese horror movies), both similar (yet different) story lines, but the Grudge holds its own as a terrifying movie - seeing at at the cinema, i even screamed at a certain point in the movie.

The acting is great, particularly from the supporting characters - KaDee Strickland is fantastic and steals the show, she is such an enthusiastic person. Jason Behr is a real hottie, and William Mapother looks like he is having fun. However, while i am normally a fan of Clea DuVall's, she doesn't really seem into this movie. Of the supporting characters, hers probably got the most depth and back story, but she doesn't seem like she is all there. As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, well, she stays about the same through all her films and roles doesn't she? The ghosts were genuinely scary, the music and sound effects were chilling (particularly the noise being made when KaDee Strickland's character answered the phone in her apartment), the ending was cool too.

Super highly recommended. 9/10 Haven't seen any of the Japanese Grudge-films, but I really enjoy this one. I rarely get SCARED when watching films. I can jump, if the effect and sound is startling enough, but getting scared from a movie is a rare thing for me. But I did get scared from Grudge. Maybe because I didn't expect anything at all when I watched it. I didn't expect getting scared. I didn't know anything about it either. That was probably a good thing.

This is a film that you, apparently, either love or hate. Most people seem to compare it to the Japanese Grudge-films, but even though I haven't seen them, I believe it isn't right to compare any film, actually. This film stands on it its own.

The story is weak, most people say. I don't agree. The story is minimalistic, and done so on purpose. The story-telling techniques used - the broken time frame for instance - is perfectly done. The director knows exactly what he's doing, and I believe he got his vision through as he wanted it.

I gave this film 8 of 10. It is a film you will enjoy watching, or hate. It's as simple as that. Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.

It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars! I was so excited to see this film because I had always heard it was very scary.

What's interesting about it is that it is a Japanese film they decided to bring to America, but they actually filmed it IN japan with the original crew! I think this made the film... more Japanese (which is probably why it managed to be fairly successful unlike most Japan-to-America horror movie flops) but it also made it a bit inaccessible to American audiences. The difference in what scares the Japanese culture and what scares the American culture felt present throughout the film. This worked well in moments when they meant to capture the nervous fear of the main character: a frightened fish in a big, busy, unfamiliar, Tokyo pond.

The storyline was quite confusing as well. In typical Japanese fashion it is extremely complicated and confusing. The beginning of the movie is actually the middle of the story and from there we move constantly forwards and backwards until, at the end of the film, we see the ending and beginning of the whole story. This constant flipping through time was very much confusing for me. Also, I didn't think some things were explained so well and I had to ask my friend to explain them to me (she had already seen it, as well as the sequel which apparently reveals more of the story).

Overall, there IS plenty for American audiences to love, tons of freaky imagery and macabre details which a healthy splash of jump scenes. I have lately got into the habit of purchasing any interesting DVD that the Criterion company releases. I figure that even if I dislike the movie, Criterion usually supplies enough extra material to compensate for any shortcomings in the actual film. I read up on them, and I buy the ones which are the most interesting to me.

Le Million is my latest purchase, and I must say that I was not disappointed in the film. It is cheery, funny, and romantic. Everything about it is quite excellent. The songs are wonderful. If I understood French, I would probably hum them and sing them all day long. The acting is very good for this kind of movie. American musicals of the classic Hollywood era relied more on song and dance than the actual characters and story, but in Le Million, the characters are rather well developed and the story, while not being anything extremely impressive, is not at all lacking. I loved the developments of the relationships, especially the relationship between the once best friends Michel and Prosper. The romantic moments are also very well developed. The direction is nearly perfect, with several very memorable moments. Probably the single most perfect scene of the film occurs right after the lead couple has an argument. They hide on the stage of an opera performance, and the opera singers sing lines which the couple, Michel and Beatrice, interpret to their own situation. This is definitely one of the high points in cinema history. The scene managed to make me laugh, to win me over with a very sweet romance, and make me smirk at just how clever the director was. I give this film a 9/10.

P.S. - Some information for anyone who has the same faith in Criterion that I do and is planning to buy it. Amongst the Criterion discs I now own, Le Million contains the fewest features. All it has is a photo gallery (not all that useful; one might flip through it once) and a rare television interview with Rene Clair, the director. This piece is of some interest. He was one of the many directors who had started out in silent film, and when talkies were first appearing, he said that they represented the death of film. I think most film-savvy people understand what these directors meant when they said that, but it is interesting to hear him explain it. Also, if you have read the description of this movie on Amazon.com, please note that they were wrong in one important respect: not every line in the film is sung. In fact, it contains no more songs than a regular musical. It is actually a lot more like a Chaplin or Buster Keaton or Marx Brothers film. My criticisms of the disc are not that important. Heck, Criterion has the right to smack me around for making those complaints. The fact is, their people probably spent hundreds of hours fixing up a film which only 20 (now 21!) people have voted for on imdb, and only about a hundred people, if that, will ever see the film. Heck, if you look at the Criterion web site, Le Million is nowhere to be found. I have no clue why not. It's something they should really be proud of (of course, their web site is surprisingly horrible). They did a fine job on this film. Bravo! They deserve all the money I can stand to give them! This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!

The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.

The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.

It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!

René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.

The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.

The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.

One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!

8/10 In Le Million, Rene Clair, one of the cinema's great directors and great pioneers, created a gem of light comedy which for all its lightness is a groundbreaking and technically brilliant film which clearly influenced subsequent film-makers such as the Marx Brothers, Lubitsch, and Mamoulian. The plot, a witty story of a poor artist who wins a huge lottery jackpot but has to search frantically all over town for the missing ticket, is basically just a device to support a series of wonderfully witty comic scenes enacted in a dream world of the director's imagination.

One of the most impressive things about this film is that, though it is set in the middle of Paris and includes nothing actually impossible, it achieves a sustained and involving fairy-tale/fantasy atmosphere, in which it seems quite natural that people sing as much as they talk, or that a tussle over a stolen jacket should take on the form of a football game. Another memorable element is that Le Million includes what may be the funniest opera ever put on film (O that blonde-braided soprano! "I laugh, ha! ha!") Also a delight is the casting: Clair has assembled a group of amazing, sharply different character actors, each of them illustrating with deadly satiric accuracy a bourgeois French "type," so that the film seems like a set of Daumier prints come to life.

The hilarity takes a little while to get rolling, and I found the characters not as emotionally engaging as they can be even in a light comedy (as they are, for instance, in many Lubitsch films.) For these reasons I refrained from giving it the highest rating. But these minor cavils shouldn't distract from an enthusiastic recommendation.

Should you see it? By all means. Highly recommended whether you want a classic and influential work of cinema or just a fun comedy. Rene Clair's groundbreaking musical. If you want to see where songs first drove a story this is the place. This is the story of a starving young artist who finds he's won the lottery just as his creditors come calling. Unfortunately his ticket is in his coat, which is in his girlfriends apartment and has been given to an on the run convict who then... oh but that would be telling.

This is a light and frothy story where much of the dialog is sung (most people think this didn't happen until Oklahoma or Andrew Lloyd Webber). Its the sort of movie that they don't make any more, and rarely did when they did. Its sound a film from the early days that plays like a movie from five or six years later. Clair moves his camera around in ways that not even Busby Berkeley was doing (though to be honest comparing the two film makers is unfair since Berkeley was doing essentially stage bound dance numbers and Clair was moving the camera through "the real world"). Its an amazing little movie. and its a charming movie that will just make you smile. Its just a fluffy piece of enjoyment.

I'm sorry I can't say more. Its just a nice little movie and thats really all you need to know. Made in 1931, this foreign film should be seen and enjoyed more often.

We open on a quiet little French village, scanning the roofs of the sleeping citizens. Then we hear something that sounds like a party. Upon investigating the uproar, two neighboring men are told the story of two men, supposedly friends, who picked two numbers for the lottery.

Our star of the picture has his number and his friend his. When he asks his friend, would he share half of the dough, should his ticket be the winning number, his friend promptly says no. In fact, H.E. double hockey sticks no! is the way he acts about it.

So when our man discovers he has the winning ticket and that it has been lost, through no fault of his own, he is frantic. Everyone is out for themselves, looking for this ticket, in something like a precursor to "The Great Race." Even though this is all a flashback, I was in knots the whole time and got so upset over every little thing in this all-for-me show-me-the-money cash-in-the-bank film. Watch Le Million today! This is so exciting! After I saw "La Roue" this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect. If one would see a René Clair film with the kind of distracted semi-attention which is the rule in TV watching - one might be better off doing something different.

Watching "Le Million" with all attention focused upon what takes place before eyes and ears will reveal a wealth of delightful details which keep this musical comedy going from the beginning to the end with its explosion of joy.

In the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende a journalist once wrote: "In my younger days I saw a film which made me feel like dancing all the way home from the cinema. This film is on TV tonight - see it!" Had this movie been made just a few years later, I would have knocked down the score a point or two because the sound quality was rather poor. At times, the movie appeared to be a silent film during the in-between-scenes (normal ambient sounds are missing). But, given it was 1931 and a French movie, this is quite forgivable. Especially since this also occurs in later French films--by which time the sound difficulties should have been worked out completely (such as in L'Atalante from 1934).

Okay, apart from some minor sound problems, this is a cute little film about a missing winning lottery ticket and a long list of people trying to get it. And, during the search there are lots of jaunty little songs that you can't help but like. A nice charming film all-in-all. A wonderful early musical film from Rene Clair, as fun and witty as his silent "The Italian Straw Hat". Using sound in a expressive way and not just for dialogue and effects, Clair influenced early musicals in America (the opera scene from A Night at the Opera is strongly influenced by Le Million, for example). Should (but won't) be seen by all cinephiles, and the DVD from Criterion is exactly as good as you'd expect. There's not a ton of extras, but most DVD extras I've seen are useless fluff, and the Clair interview on disc is one I hadn't ever seen. Get it while it's still around. To be fair, I expected car chases in this film. There was only really one, but apart from that, 'Freeway' was a great movie which I am glad to own on DVD. The only really big names in the cast are HOMICIDE's Richard Belzer as the radio psychiatrist and B-Movie villain par-excellance Billy Drago as the Revelation-quoting Freeway Killer. But the rest of the cast generally give good performances. I especially liked how Darlanne Fluegel gave her character, Sunny, a bit of guts. She could have been a helpless victim character but she is fully rounded as she seeks out Drago with the help of bounty hunter James Russo.

Russo, I'm afraid, comes across as rather wooden, but then again, the character he plays, Frank, isn't very well fleshed out save for a back story Sunny is given by his former commanding officer. The tone of menace is kept up superbly throughout the film and the atmosphere of the lonely LA freeway at night with the killer prowling its' length in his sinister grey sedan is an excellent way of building tension, and the music used to underscore the film is suitably composed. I don't know why there are some people who hate this movie so. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. But I absolutely enjoyed 'Freeway' and I can strongly recommend it. I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.

In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning. I didn't expect Val Kilmer to make a convincing John Holmes, but I found myself forgetting that it wasn't the porn legend himself. In fact, the entire cast turned in amazing performances in this vastly under-rated movie.

As some have mentioned earlier, seek out the two-disc set and watch the "Wadd" documentary first; it will give you a lot of background on the story which will be helpful in appreciating the movie.

Some people seem unhappy about the LAPD crime scene video being included on the DVD. There are a number of reasons that it might have been included, one of which is that John Holmes' trial for the murders was the first ever in the United States where such footage was used by the prosecution. If you don't want to see it, it's easy to avoid; it's clearly identified as "LAPD Crime Scene Footage" on the menu! John Holmes is so famous, he's infamous (as the Three Amigos would say). This is a Rashomon-like story about the events surrounding the Wonderland Murders of the early 1980's, in Los Angeles. The story is pieced together from the retelling of a few of the participants. There is story from the friend's perspective, namely David Lind (played by Dylan McDermott). He is a participant in the robbery assault at Eddie Nash's place (Eddie Nash is a infamous drug dealer - and is the suppose to be the same character Alfred Molina played in Boogie Nights) and is heavily into the drug scene. There is John Holmes' perspective (played by Val Kilmer), which makes him out to be a pawn stuck between two kings (with a severe case of cocaine cravings). There is also the patchwork recollections of John's wife (Sharon - played by Lisa Kudrow) and his girlfriend (Dawn - played by Kate Bosworth) that fill in the spaces between the two stories. It is basically the same time frame that we are looking at, just each character's version. The only thing that is missing is the perspective from the dead people.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights portrays John Holmes as a slightly heroic character, with a tragic yet comedic karma. He is a caricature of a real person. He was more of less, a mixed up kid that got what he got through his "large" endowment. Director James Cox turns the comedy off and makes this episode in John's life into a nightmare for all of us watching. The details of the real life murders make this movie even more eerie.

Val Kilmer took what he learned of Jim Morrison, from the Doors, enhanced the performance for the Salton Sea, and then further enhanced that to bring us the deterioration of John Holmes through cocaine. All of the actors pull off very realistic looking portrayal's of cocaine junkies. Josh Lucas' performance stands out as one of the best in the movie. He plays Ron Launius (I think this character is suppose to be the same as the Thomas Jane character from Boogie Nights). Ron was the leader of the gang, loved having John Holmes around as a novelty and had a cocaine craving like sharks enjoy blood. The cocaine use seems so realistic as to make one think. Did they really use Splenda ??

Where Boogie Nights has a bubblegum pop feel to it (lots of color and 70's nostalgia), Wonderland is dark. The action is fast and furious, with a lot of jumps. It is twitchy and grainy. There is no comedy, just a never ending pace, as if the director is trying to put us into the nervous, fast paced, edgy cocaine high to make us feel what the characters are feeling. This is a graphic movie. It has one of the most intensely violent scenes I have ever seen in a movie. It actually shows the murders themselves (through the eyes of John Holmes at first and then from a third person perspective). It is so graphic, it looks like police evidence of a crime. I had to pause after this scene and remind myself this was just a movie. This movie is definitely not recommended for everyone. I recommend it as a good alternative to Boogie Nights, for those interested in the other sides of John Holmes.

-Celluloid Rehab I've read many negative reviews of this movie and finally got a chance to see it on DVD. To be honest I really don't know what the problem with it is.

It's a decent murder mystery thriller, shown from various points of view, from an eccentric cast of often drugged out potential killers/suspects, including the late porn king, John Holmes. Please read the plot synopsis for the exact details of the movie's plot - I wish to contribute more to a review than a synopsis.

Many reviewers went so far to give this movie their lowest rating due to violence but I really don't see it. MANY modern movies were worse - Saving Private Ryan was ultimately more violent than this movie, which often relies on implied blood stains than actual brutal slayings (the murders depicted in this film were done with lead pipes, afterall).

I was enthralled with both halves of the movie - the first showing John Holmes as a hopeless cash hungry drug addict, and the second half showing his side as a minor conspirator in a senseless bloodbath. The movie has excellent acting, even though Dylan McDemorant looks more than a bit out of place in his biker-esque personia and goatee'ed bad boy personality.

The soundtrack was also awesome - a fantastic mix of 70's B-side rock and obscure pop, spread out over a couple of hours in all the right places ala Boogie Nights. One of the most disturbing and tragic periods in American history began. The members of the Summer of Love culture, at the end of the seventies and onset of the 80's, were eventually tool old for love beads and all night parties and evolved back into mainstream life, whatever that meant. For those who could not out grow their youthful and sometimes irrational exuberance, their's was the culture of Wonderland. A love for drugs and a sense of entitlement coupled with a distaste for authority, values and "the establishment" is the world that the film captures.

The sixties were a time of revolution and violent change that tore the American "house" apart. Once the battles were over, we all had to deal with the aftermath of the carnage. The characters in the Wonderland house are icons of the misfits of the Seventies; part biker, part hippie, part crook, all outcast. No ideology to express, just a sense of dissatisfaction with everything and allegiance to nothing. Ron, Billy and David fancy themselves as some sort of Robin Hoods with dope. They talk of love and behave violently; they take from the rich and sell to the misbegotten; they steal from everyone.

Holmes and company are the end result of a strange collision of anti-matter like sex, and drugs and rock & roll, when the lab technicians get bored and move on.

The film is skillfully directed and paced and captures the frenetic world of the drug fiends in their element. The fact that Holmes is a porn star is almost irrelevant. That story was told in "Boogie Nights". This is a story of a transitional and forgettable era. Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.

Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.

What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean. May 2004, Wonderland is fairly new in the UK. Brilliant film of a brutal true story. If you know LA from the early 80's, you will appreciate how well it is captured. The use of the elements which make up its gritty cinematic style is original, amplifying the experience and bringing the viewer very close to actually being there. The use of a disjointed 'Pulp Fiction' style time line allows exploration of the uncertainty concerning what really happened, while the direction and performances of the cast command attention, especially Val Kilmer as John Holmes; an Oscar for sure if I were handing them out. What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.

The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things – and about a porn actor – she fits in perfectly. Some films manage to survive almost on originality alone - "Wonderland" is certainly one of those films. The script manages to throw everything into a near-fever pitch, but without making it incoherent. The speed of this thriller is not to chosen to cover up a weak script, but rather to accurately reflect the drug-addled reality.

As director, James Cox as a very peculiar way of working his actors. Most of the characters are perpetually on edge, and often because they're rather quite ugly personalities. Val Kilmer has described John Holmes to be a hustler, able to manipulate and control. No offense to Kilmer, but his version of Holmes seems only able to control the drastically weak-minded. Nonetheless, it's a stunning performance. Comparing this to Kilmer's more 'Hollywood' roles like in "The Saint" it seems to prove he is far more at home in gritty indie flicks.

The actors are the main force holding all together. There are various little performances that stand out - especially the women. Carrie Fisher, Kate Bosworth, and Lisa Kudrow all have limited screen time next to their male counterparts, but they are all fantastic. Aside from Kilmer, Ted Levine and Dylan McDermott give a weird, stunning energy to their roles.

I originally put off watching "Wonderland" because I assumed it was a film about a porn actor, in the strictest sense. Yes, the story revolves around John Holmes, but it has literally nothing to do with his professional career. Basically, this film is a murder mystery, and as such - it's excellent.

RATING: 7.5 out of 10 Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing. The true story of a bunch of junkies robbing a not so honest businessman of drugs, jewelry, guns, and money. Some would say this is the tragic tale of America in the excessive eighties where the high of the peace and free love sixties had crashed into drugs and AIDS. Honestly, this is just regular people with no aim in life who sit around getting high and decide to rob a ruthless man. What is the second part of their master plan? Once they have his stuff...they'll sit around and get high again. Great plan. Even if you don't know the story, there is no suspense in this movie and no surprises. The fact that Cox tries to make some kind of folk heroes out of these characters, with party scenes and a montage of their loot, is weak and insulting. The story was better off with a more straight forward approach. As it is, this is just a sad story of small time drug dealers getting killed by big time drug dealers. The bigger story, in more ways than one, is John Holmes. He is the center of this story anyway. This movie should have been all about him, his life. He was the one in wonderland, with the wonders about to fade away.

P.S. Although it isn't official, Boogie Nights is a better version of Holmes life. It isn't entirely factual, but it's far more enjoyable. This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.

The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes.

The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization.

The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to "get lost".

Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it. I was very interested to see this movie when it first came out in the theaters, however, I wasn't able to get around to it. So, finally, it hit the shelves, and I picked it up. Not knowing exactly what to expect, I plopped the dvd in the player, settled in the for an evening of murder, and pressed play. What followed was one of the more engaging flicks I've seen in the last couple years.

*SOME SPOILERS*

This is the story of the Wonderland murders, which led to the seediest parts of LA and straight to the biggest porn start of the 70's, John Holmes (Val Kilmer).

I was hooked from the beginning, and the feel of the movie held me all the way until the very bloody end. I was surprised to find that the movie focused less on the actual murders and more on the events before and the investigation after. Aside from a few blood splattered walls in the beginning, and the actual showing of the murders towards the end, the movie was more or less an engaging show of great dialoge and great acting. Val Kilmer all but sells me as a junkie porn star, and even the "beautiful but that's it" Bosworth was a joy to watch (and just for her looks, mind you)

I personally felt the best aspect of the movie was, as I mentioned, its lack of outright showing the murders. It was shown in a very dark atmosphere, so you couldn't completely see the brutal bludgeoning bestowed apon the sleeping foursome. Furthermore, the sound effects of said murders were more than enough to whet my appetite. They were being beating with lead pipes, there's not much more that needs to be said.

My only real problem was Carrie Fisher's brief appearence. Her portrayal of the overly-religious figure was, I think, a bit too cliche of her appearence. Maybe that person was actually part of the story, maybe not, but I wasn't sold, and for some reason, Fisher seemed a bit too "akward" in her portrayal.

Overall, an excellent movie worth the watch, even if once!

***8/10*** Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.

Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better. First, this is a review of the two disc set that came together with the "Wonderland" DVD rental.

The two movies included with the rental, "Wonderland" and the Johnny Wadd documentary, totally obliterate the myth created by "Boogie Nights". That myth being that the characters involved in the adult movie trade were considerably more than slimy lowlifes that would do anything for money, basically denying that they were anything other than detestable self-centered whores. This is amazingly similar to what the book "Wiseguy" and the movie "Goodfellas" did to "The Godfather" fable and most of the rest of the gangster romanticism lore.

Now, what irritated me most while watching these movies, and will probably irk anyone who saw and liked "Boogie Nights", is how foolish and gullible supposedly educated and sophisticated people can be. "Dirk Diggler" in "Boogie Nights" is without a doubt John Holmes, who unlike "Dirk Diggler", had no redeeming quality. Holmes was a criminal sociopath who abused anyone close to him, was totally consumed by his quest for self-gratification, and was without a doubt a key participant in the brutal murders on Wonderland Avenue in Los Angeles in 1981. The movie lays bare the big lie that "Boogie Nights" was, and reinforces the Linda Lovelace description of the cruel and pathetic business that is known as the adult film entertainment industry. This should be required viewing, both features on the "Wonderland" DVD, for anyone who had any positive opinions on the story in the movie "Boogie Nights". Opening credits: great. Music: just right for this film. Cinematography: sleazy to great effect.

Harrowing excitement in a train-wreck sort of way. This is how out of control some lives can become. "Wonderland" depicts drug-induced wildness (and its consequences) not as an aberration, but shows how it really does happen in our society. It is better than depictions of another wild group -Manson's- because all Manson films, books etc concentrate so much on Manson's insane mind rather than the overall picture of the cheap fame and randomness that is so pervasive nowadays.

If you want to see some of the best "Method-acting" on film, watch Kilmer in this movie. He shows how "The Method" can be riveting in the right role.

The filmmakers here succeed in raising "out-of-control" to the level of an art form, not just for the sake of giving us cheap thrills. Unfortunately, in cases such as these, there are so many conflicting stories as everyone tries to cast blame on to others that it is a near impossibility to get a clear picture of what really happened. This movie is a victim of such circumstances. The writers (too many of them) have decided to take ALL of the stories and give them to the audience to let them decide which version of the truth they like the best. As in the real life case, there is no clear answer, no conclusion, and the audience is left with a general felling of being unfulfilled (like coffee without the caffeine, or sex without the climax). Whodunnits with no whodunnit are generally frustrating and makes you wonder why someone didn't do research before they put it out there. At least tout your movie as a fiction if that is what it amounts to (and this does).

That is not to say there are not some great performances here. Kilmer (as Holmes) does an outstanding role bringing some humanity to what is otherwise an unsavory character. Kilmer, and the real life lovers and friends who consulted on the film, let the audience see a selfish, troubled human being who, though his faults were many and large, was loved and cared for by many people (except himself). Kudrow as Holmes's wife, only gives a glimmer of the dramatic actress she can be, but it is very noticeable and unforgettable glimmer. Bosworth's character was not as emotionally complex as she could have been and needed to show more inner conflict to give credence to what ultimately happened between Dawn and Holmes (she turned him in 6 months after they fled to Florida). Bosworth's apple-cheeked performance is at time annoying, at times touching, but shows none of the backbone the real Schiller must have possessed. The other characters fade in to the woodwork which is a pity. Lucas is a great performer who could have sunk his teeth in to this role had it been fleshed out for him. Even Dylan McDermott was surprisingly capable in his role of drug dealing biker.

The fault of this movie does not lie with this cast, but with the writing. Too many cooks spoil the soup, and this kettle, filled with so much promise, ultimately leaves you hungry. The story and characters may have been less than sympathetic, but in what movie of this ilk are they not so? Other movies such as 1989's drugstore cowboy starring Matt Dillon (who was reportedly asked to take this role and refused) worked with similar subject matter and mastered it to such a degree that you felt a kinship with the main character by the end of the movie despite what he had done. Van Sandt could have given James Cox and his crew a few lessons. Had someone bothered to try and find the truth, this would have been an intriguing story. As it is, you will find the accompanying WADD documentary more palatable (in the 2 disc DVD)and much more informative. You will realize from the DVD that Holmes was not a bad guy, but not a very good one either..as are most people. *Wonderland SPOILERS*

July 1st, 1981: five people, Ron Launius (Josh Lucas), Susan Launius (Christina Applegate), Billy Deverell (Tim Blake Nelson), Barbara Richardson (Natasha Gregson Wagner) and Joy Miller (Janeane Garofalo) are attacked while they're asleep and brutally hit on the head with steel pipes in their home at 8763 Wonderland Avenue, Laurel Canyon, LA. Only Susan survives.

Main Suspect: John Holmes (Val Kilmer), former king of porn, owner of a 30 cm long dick, and now a hopeless addict.

Two investigators, Luis (Frankie G.) and Sam Nico (Ted Levine), are investigating on the case and try to crack it with the help of a witness that claims to know that John at the very least took part in the murders, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), Barbara's boyfriend, and trying to get a witness report out of Dawn Schiller (Kate Bosworth), Holmes' 19-year-old girlfriend and from Susan, who sadly doesn't remember anything more than shadows about the night her husband's head was bashed in and hers almost suffered the same fate, and the name of Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian), a major drug kingpin (who is always around ladies such as Barbie (Paris Hilton)), comes into light as a suspect planner of the Wonderland massacre.

But what did happen that night? And could Sharon (Lisa Kudrow), John's wife, know something about it? 'Wonderland' is a taught, intense thriller, a desperate love story and a story of a man's sad decline all in one; there is a clever use of the 'Rashomon' technique (we see the events of that fateful day and night from the eyes of David, John, Dawn, Susan (albeit very briefly) and Sharon), a nice direction and a great script, but is mostly compelling for the performances, especially Kilmer's, who takes central stage with his hopeless, tormented, sometimes childish Holmes, Lucas', whose Launius is strangely alluring, Kudrow's strong Sharon and Bosworth's innocent Dawn.

Wonderland: 9/10. Kudos to director and cast for such a realistic film. The grittiness, lack of glamor and desperation drew me into the film and kept me there. I was truly impressed by how dates and information were relayed within the film; ie newspapers, letters, etc. It kept the film moving at such a fast pace I didn't feel the urge to fast forward once. Personally, I thought all the principles did a tremendous job...it was great to see Bosworth and Kudrow in such difficult roles. It made me want to cry at times. Val Kilmer didn't surprise me...his performances of this nature usually leave me in awe. Overall, this is a brilliant film not to be missed! Wonderland is the fascinating film chronicling the x-rated film star John C. Holmes involvement in the brutal Wonderland murders.

The movie's promotion misleads one into thinking this a romanticized portrayal of the porn industry in the vein of Boogie Nights and that is not the case here.In fact,except for a few references made by newscasters that John Holmes is a porn star and a brief montage of real-life footage of John Holmes this film is strictly drama about a fallen celebrity's involvement with murder and how it happened.

Despite being mislead the film is actually engaging.The acting from all the cast is excellent and I'd like to say that Val Kilmer is amazing in his ability to get down all the mannerisms of John Holmes.I was completely convinced that I was watching what John C. Holmes probably looked and acted like in real life.

If you are a John C. Holmes fan or like stories about Hollywood then I think you will enjoy watching Wonderland. Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth. No, this is not no Alice fairy tale my friends! This `Wonderland' fable is based on the true story of the gruesome bloody Wonderland murders that occurred back in 80's California. At the center of this bloodbath was no other than `Johnny Wad' himself. Yes, John Holmes! Daddy ding-dong used other shotguns than his infamous 13-inch milk machine. Besides being a legendary adult film actor, Holmes was as also a hardcore drug addict who befriended various Hollywood junkies. Val Kilmer was occasionally majestic as Holmes, but for once this Holmes character did not milk it through completely. The film possesses a `who's who' of supporting players: Josh Lucas & Dylan Mcdermott as Hollywood riffraffs , Kate Bosworth & Lisa Kudrow as the women in Holmes life, and Eric Bogosian as a menacing Tinsletown entrepreneur. These characters do play integral parts, directly or indirectly, in the `Wonderland' murders. Out of this support group, it was Josh Lucas who was the most fierce & impressive as the ardent Ron Launius. Lucas is gradually escalating into a major Hollywood player with such charismatic turns in `A Beautiful Mind' & `Sweet Home Alabama'. Director James Cox sometime proved to be a bit of a coxsucker by displaying a vast amount of overextended scenes, just like Holmes' famous organ. Holmes was eventually acquitted of the `Wonderland' murders. He died of complications from the Aids virus. `Wonderland' will keep you wondering what really happened that bloody night, and if Holmes really laid out his weapon. Oops! Wrong Holmes movie! Ok! That is enough before I get `penislized' I mean penalized. Bye Holmies! *** Average I had no problem with the film, which I thought was pretty good. It's the actual LAPD crime scene video that disturbed me. I wonder if Lion's Gate REALLY thought that the general viewing audience would want to see people that were brutally beaten to death and blood all over the place. Sorry Lion's Gate, this was an INCREDIBLY BAD IDEA!!!

Getting back to the film: The cast was excellent, especially Val Kilmer as the late John Holmes. John Holmes was a sleaze ,mistreats the women in his life (Lisa Kudrow as his wife, Kate Bosworth as his girlfriend),and he is hopelessly deep into drugs. His connection to Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian)creates a spiral that resulted in the infamous Wonderland murders. Exactly how much was Holmes involved in the murders? We may never know the entire truth to the story(Nash is still alive and a free man),but the film does a pretty good job nonetheless. Holy crap this is so hysterical! Why aren't American comedies written like this? For anybody who thinks comedy has to be dumb-- there is more wit and intelligence in the six episodes of this series than in a shelf of novels! Hugh Laurie is a complete hoot. I couldn't believe it was the same guy as House! There are so many great lines and gags in this series you could watch each show dozens of times and still pick up on new things each time. Rowan Atkinson is hilarious as the verbose and put upon butler Edmund. This is my favorite of all the Blackadder series. And Tony Robinson is wonderful as ever as the somewhat obtuse heart of the series, "the oppressed mass" Baldrick. Some of my favorite lines: "When someone messes with a Wellington he really puts his foot in it" and Baldrick explaining how he got his name and cousin Macadder "the top kipper salesman" and homicidal swordsman from Scotland. After the success of the second instalment, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton decided that Blackadder should have a third appearance. This time instead of Tudor times or Elizabethan times, Edmund Blackadder (BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson) is living in the time of the French Revolution. Accompanied by the now stupid but lovable Baldrick (Tony Robinson) Blackadder is the "faithful" butler to George, the Prince Regent of Wales (Hugh Laurie). Throughout this third series to the wonderfully written sitcom Blackadder tries everything he can to get rich and powerful. He tries electing a lord for a rotten borough, tries to sell a book, tries to win a bet about The Scarlet Pimpernel, tries to be a highway man and finally poses as the Prince. This is a very good instalment to the popular comedy. Includes appearances from Robbie Coltrane, Tim McInnerny, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Fry. It won the BAFTA for Best Comedy Series, and it was nominated for Best Design and Best Make Up. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and Blackadder (all four series) was number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom. Outstanding! We could still use Black Adder even today. Imagine Rowan Atkinson resuming the role of assistant to the prime minister played by the wonderful Hugh Laurie. Hugh is sensational as the dimwit Prince George and Edmund as his brilliant assistant. I love the episode which Kenneth Connor guest stars as a British thespian. Every time, Edmund says Macbeth. The two thespians do a silly little act to ward off evil spirits. It's the funniest things that you will see. Of course, none of this brilliance and comedic genius could be without Ben Elton and Richard Curtis who are also behind the films like Love Actually, The Thin Blue Line, Four Weddings and A Funeral. Black Adder is funny and almost too good for television. Humor can be smart, sexy, and funny all at one. I was hoping last night on Saturday Night Live that Hugh Laurie would pay homage to his background in British humor. If the gang at SNL did some research, they would know what a treasure it was to have Hugh Laurie grace their stage. The 3rd and in my view the best of the Blackadder series.

The only downside is that there is no Lord Percy who was the funniest character from the previous series but Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent is suitably madcap laugh a line.

As a package it's quality through and through with convincing regency sets, superb cutting sarcasm and little bits of the wacky, the 'macbeth' actors standing out and Prince Georges 'lucky us' chicken impression, and the missing words from Dr Johnson's dictionary.

Few comedies have been quite as both clever as they are funny, okay the odd lame observation or line gets in but mostly it's a scream. SERIES THREE- BLACKADDER THE THIRD " If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick before you start" Hot on the heels of the second series the show returned with the current owner of the famous name down on his luck and in service as butler to the Prince Regent, a vain and stupid foil for Blackadders venom, played by Hugh Laurie. Baldrick is still in tow as the other piece of the comedic jigsaw. The format is similar to the previous show, after all now they had found the winning formula why change things. We see Blackadder trying to get rich off of the back of the gullible regent in many more ingenious ways, trying to make Bladrick an M.P.or trying to woe a suitable bride for the prince. In many ways this is one of the most accurate of the series historically, the prince regent did take control of the throne during his fathers bout of madness and some of the characters lampooned tell a lot about the times. Samuel Johnson, William Pit and Wellington all pass through the events and all manage to steal their scenes, not an easy thing with such a stellar cast Blackadder 3 is probably the Blackadder series that people have least heard of - it has basically the same principles as the second and fourth ones and has nothing revolutionary in it. But it is still great - a fiery Duke of Wellington and a fat foolish Dr Johnson (writer of the first dictionary in England) make this series one to be reckoned with. There are still more hilarious one-liners to be delivered in this series, and it brings out the humour in a lesser-known era - in historically accurate and enjoyable episodes. Blackadder's third outing is not the most famous and well-known of the lot, but Rowan Atkinson's role as a butler to a stupid prince is a funny and effectively done one, and Hugh Laurie is at his best in this series. Very good! 9/10 This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10 I think 'Blackadder the Third' is the best one of the series.

Actuelly all the episodes are funny, personally i really like the episode with the 'French invasion', but the one with the superstitious actors, in 'MACBETH' is also really funny, the way Rowan keeps playing on with them is really (English) Humor at the highest level.

Actors: 'Never say that again, always call it the Scottish Play; Blackadder: Oh, So you want me to say the Scottish Play? Actors: YES Blackadder: Rather than MACBETH...!

I am a big fan of Rowan and i have the majority of his work, but i think he did the series of Blackadder especially good.

I Hope Rowan is going to continue his great style, but i think we can count on him, because he is already working on a Bean 2 Movie, that will be out this year, i can't wait...

I Give this 3rd Blackadder a 9 out of 10 Rating. In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations. THE INVADERS IS A FAST MOVING SCI-FI THRILLER STARRING BEN CROSS AND SEAN YOUNG. BEN PLAYS RENN, A TRAVELLER FROM ANOTHER GALAXY TRYING TO FIND ANNIE (PLAYED BY SEAN) WHO IS PHYSICALLY IDEAL TO HAVE HIS CHILD. THIS CHILD, IF ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND RETURNED TO HIS PLANET, MAY BE THE ONLY CHANCE FOR HIS RACE TO SURVIVE. THE ENEMY, AN ALIEN WHO HAS DESTROYED RENN'S PEOPLE, HAS ALSO FOLLOWED RENN ACROSS THE STARS TO STOP THIS BIRTH. CROSS AGAIN SHOWS GREAT RANGE FROM COMICAL BEGINNINGS AS THE ALIEN ENTERS A LOCAL BAR AND ORDERS HIS FIRST EARTHLING COCKTAIL, TO HIS RACE WITH THE ENEMY AND THE DRAMA OF WHETHER HE CAN KEEP ANNIE AND THE CHILD SHE IS CARRYING ALIVE. Esther Williams gets her first post MGM starring role and gets off

to a good start. This film is a well acted entertaining suspense

with a mature theme that would be repeated a million times more

in the future - innocent girl stalked creepy woman hater. Esther

looks great and if she wanted to, probably could have gone on to

do more and better films but according to her autobiography,

pretty much gave up working for marriage. Either way she is so

likable and engaging that its fun to see her in a totally different role

outside of the 'swimming musical'. Universal was fabulous for

making films with former MGM stars after that studio began

dropping its biggest names as it began to slide down hill. Stars

like Lana Turner, June Allyson and others got to make quality first

rate films at Universal as they obviously still had drawing power at

the box office. I wish Esther had made more but since she didnt, it

makes this one all the more special. In her first nonaquatic role, Esther Williams plays a school teacher who's the victim of sexual assault. She gives a fine performance, proving she could be highly effective out of the swimming pool. As the detective out to solve the case, George Nader gives perhaps his finest performance. And he is so handsome it hurts! John Saxon is the student under suspicion, and although he gets impressive billing in the credits, it's Edward Andrews as his overly-protective father who is the standout.

Bathed in glorious Technicolor, The Unguarded Moment is irresistible hokum and at times compelling drama. I stumbled on this series rather by accident. After half an episode, I was hooked. American Gothic was a dark, strange series with Gary Cole as the mysterious, probably evil Sheriff Buck who is trying to gain control of his illegitimate son Caleb, played by Lucas Black. I was impressed with Gary Cole's sinister sheriff and I was even more impressed with Lucas Black. Lucas Black's Caleb was able to stand up against Sheriff Buck, one of the most frightening characters ever created for a TV series. I have rarely seen a child actor with as much presence or talent as Lucas Black. If you were not lucky enough to see Lucas in American Gothic, see him in Slingblade.

It was a remarkable show with many ambiguities and mysteries that were never explained during it's short run. Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.

I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.

The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.

All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange.

I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!! I loved this show when it aired on television and was crushed when I found out that someone somewhere decided that it wasn't worthy of being continued! For years I hung onto my copies of this show, ones that I had taped or had someone tape for me. That is until now. The powers that be finally decided to release this beautiful series on DVD and I finally was able to get my eager little hands on the complete set. Which, brings me to this part; the part about that this show is all about.

American Gothic is about good verses evil, basically a struggle between Lucas Buck (that is Buck, with a B). He is an evil sheriff of a South Carolina small town that runs things the way he wants things to be ran and stops at nothing to get his way.

I felt the show was wonderfully written and directed and had lots of life left yet to be lived. I really hated when it was canceled, but that is the way it seems to go for me when I finally find something worth watching on television.

Gary Cole did a great job as the role of Sheriff Lucas Buck, he has just the right amount of charm verses evil to pull it off. The other actors did a super job as well, so I guess you could say, even the casting was a hit with me. They had me from the first show.

Welcome to Trinity County. A sleepy little Mayberry-like place with one slight difference. The sheriff is really Satan. There's the spoiler. Not like you wouldn't figure it out in 10 minutes anyway.

Oh, but that's not all. It turns out that Satan has a son named Caleb. Some people are trying to keep him good, but it's an uphill battle. Sheriff Buck (Satan) knows who Caleb is and likes to spend time with him teaching him the ways of darkness. Subtle. Sneaky. He doesn't always come off as evil. Most of the time he's a hero. Everyone owes him a big favor, because he often sets up a calamity and saves them from it. So every time you think someone will finally take him down, one of his friends comes out of nowhere to sabotage it.

In one of my favorite episodes, Lucas and Caleb were out in the woods in a cabin and some guys with guns decided to rob them. Lucas used it as an excuse to teach Caleb a lesson about evil.

The robber (Ted) was hesitant to shoot them. Lucas told Caleb that Ted had half a conscience. If he had no conscience, he would have shot them by now. If he had a real conscience, he never would have become a criminal. So he started calling him Half-Ted. It was pretty funny. He was taunting the criminals. And of course he stayed 10 steps ahead of Half-Ted at all times. And of course he was in complete control at all times. They actually had you favoring Satan.

Very very excellent show. it was one of my favorite horror shows of all time. Twilight Zone Night Stalker Circle of Fear American Gothic Supernatural

That's good company. I really like this show. I can readily see how it achieved cult status. It's original, and thought provoking. For some reason though, I have never felt the kind of resonance from it that I could have. It doesn't pack the kind of open door, winter chill that was to be had from such an awesome premise. Each time I watch an episode, I find myself prodding, and pushing for it to answer some nameless, formless question.

Before continuing, let me preface this by saying that what follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. Different strokes for different folks.

I would have liked to have seen more scenes in "American Gothic" that were shot at night. There's too much daylight in this show, and I think it had a tendency to counteract the suspense. We're not afraid of the daylight, after all. We're concerned about what's in the shadows. The devil isn't always in the details. What we're not seeing is often the most frightening.

Second--and this is the one that's probably going to lead to tar, and feathers: Gary Cole is a tremendously talented actor...a character actor. I've followed his career from The Brady Bunch films on, which is why it pains me to say that he was probably miscast as Lucas Buck. He's almost too petroichan, too likable to be embodiment of evil, even by Biblical standards. Lucas Buck is a narcotic. He's Heroin. He's freebasing in a kitchen laboratory next to a gallon of Drain-O. You keep going back, even though you know the end will be madness, and death. He should be like the ultimate loan shark. He's a maker of book, but also of unspeakable condemnation. Sure. You've got the money, and before long you're also going to have broken fingers; a severed hand, a decapitated head, and eventually, a damned soul. Turning to Buck is an act of desperation, and whenever he's around, there should be some immediate, ambient finality--with interest compounded daily--in the air.

It's all largess, all strings attached, and by the time you realize that, you'll also know that it's too late.

Which leads me to three: they showed Buck a little too often. He's in most of the scenes, in fact, which may have caused him to lose his edge. The sheriff would be like the next door mythology. He's the apocryphal acquaintance. Many would know 'of' him, but only an unfortunate few would really know him. He'd be the stuff of flashbacks, and cryptic conversations, and the perfect person to deliver this plot exposition would have been the deputy character that Nick Searcy portrayed.

Four, the show could be very self-reverential--to a fault, some might say--and this is typified by the whistling of "Meet Me At The Fishing Hole" in the series pilot. I think we've already established that what Cassidy, and Raimi were shooting for was the anti-Andy Taylor. We probably didn't need the concept delivered to us via Fed Ex. I gathered that within the first five minutes so, for me, the piano on the head was unnecessary.

These remarks are all about what, FOR ME, would have made a good show great. I also understand that the producers had their own, unique style, and that there were many hands in the soup. In their everlasting quest for LCD programming, the network played a definite role in the demise of this series.

The least these jerk-off suits could have done was to air the episodes in order.

Get real.

Either way, it's a grievous loss to both genre fans, and casual viewers alike. 14 years since this show was made and it is still is the best show ever made. The writing was 1st class and the production second to none. This show would never be made today and that this a shame. I hope if you are thinking about finding this show to watch that you do.

AG came out the year I left high school at the time my fav TV show was the x files this gives you an idea of why I first got into this show. AG was a far better program with better writing but only got one reason? I know this is not the only program to only get one season another example that comes to mind would be the lone gunman (x files spin off) it had good writing and was funny but also only got one season. It does not seem right!

We also have to remember that this show was around before shows like twilight made dark shows 'cool' so I think this may have also let to the show going down hill.

Watch this program and enjoy it! 10 out of 10 for me. After realizing what is going on around us ... in the news .. in our homes .. the whole new world .. I remembered this show and how obsessed I was watching it every week (in my town) ..

I started looking for this series .. 3 days ago .. didn;t have luck till this moment .. and I was shocked when I read about it and about CBS ..

People, I believe they stopped the show because it's talking about something way ahead of our understanding of the new world ... it was trying to deliver a hidden message about something terrifying ..

The people who stopped it are the same who are controlling the world Now .. I remember in one of the episodes it was talking about the ONE dollar and the pyramid with the one eye ... I see a lot of folks on this site wishing AG would come out on DVD. Well, I bought it on DVD. (From Borders, no less!) While it is great to have this terrific show in a boxed DVD form, I am upset by the fact that they added very few in the way of "extra's" (A director commentary from Shaun Cassidy on the Pilot episode) and the episodes are shown in the same order they were put out on TV. The missing episodes that were never shown prior to being run on Sci Fi channel are in the box set, but are tacked on the final DVD. If you buy the DVD set, get the actual order they are to be viewed and you will be happier. (You will need to swap DVD's in and out of your player to see them in order, but you will be glad you did.)

S I MAY have seen an episode or 2 when the show originally aired but when I watched 1 episode on netflix I was also hooked. I watched the whole series in like 2 days. :) I really liked Gary Cole's character. First he's thoroughly reprehensible then you start liking the character ("These things have a thousand uses")! His folksy Andy Griffith meets Charles Manson meets Satan is great. Charming, charismatic, smarmy, and uh kind of dangerous and by "kind of" I mean "really". I wanna be like HIM when I grow up. Lucas Black is great too. The accents are great too. Anyway, I thought this was one of the best TV shows ever and you owe it to yourself to see it. AG was an excellent presentation of drama, suspense and thriller that is so rare to American TV. Sheriff Lucas gave many a viewer the willies. We rooted for Caleb as he strove to resist the overtures of Sheriff Lucas. We became engrossed and fearful upon learning of the unthinkable connection between these two characters. The manipulations which weekly gave cause to fear what Lucas would do next were truly surprising. This show lived up to the "Gothic" moniker in ways American entertainment has so seldom attempted, much less mastered. The suits definitely made a big mistake in not supporting this show. This show puts shame to the current glut of "reality" shows- which are so less than satisfying viewing.The call for a DVD box set is well based. This show is quality viewing for a discerning market hungry for quality viewing. A public that is tiring of over-saturation of mind-numbing reality fare will welcome this gem of real storytelling. Bring on the DVD box set!! This was one of the best shows ever made for TV. Full of mystery and intrigue and twists and turns. Compulsive viewing. I was lucky I saw this in the UK. They might have got the episode order wrong, I can't remember, but it at least was on at a regular time every week. My girlfriend and I got hooked from the trailer in, and neither of us is a big fan of American series normally.

After the pilot, we knew this was something special. We missed a couple of episodes, and it made you sad and mad for a week missing those ones lol.

Great casting, superb acting. Gary Cole was absolutely brilliant, better even than his role as Custer. Lucas Black turned in an amazing performance for a kid, and Paige Turco was at her best too since Party of Five. And Nick Searcy of course, as the Sheriff's long suffering sidekick.

Yes, there were some confusing and perplexing bits, which I presume would have been explained later, and no doubt would have been in a later series. That made the ending weak, and you could tell they'd killed it. Made us go WHAT? Why did they do that with one of the best shows ever? Shoot the exec. I remember watching American Gothic when it first aired, it came into my mind recently, all I could remember was the same guy appeared in Midnight Caller, which is Gary Cole, I don't watch much TV, but I watched American Gothic, I purchased the Complete Series on DVD this week,& it's still as good as ever, This is one of the best TV series ever, the reason I don't watch much TV is because it's just rubbish that's on, except for Derren Brown, it's all Reality TV or Soaps, such as Grease, Big Brother etc, i'm fed up with it, I got the Complete Series of American Gothic for £16.97 form the Asda website, that's the cheapest I can find it. I could never remember the name of this show. I use to watch it when I was 8. I remember staying up late when I wasn't suppose to just so I could watch this show. It was the best show to me. From what I remember of it, it is still great. This showed starred Lucas Black making him the first boy I ever had a crush on. I am from the country, therefore boys with an accent have no appeal to me, but for him I would definitely make an exception. Which after seeing Crazy in Alabama, Friday Night Lights, and Tokyo Drift you should see why. He is a great actor and has been since he was a kid. I miss this show and wish it would come back out. If anyone ever sees where they are selling the season please email me. kywildflower16@hotmail.com I watched this show on the basis of it being told it was reminiscent of David Lynch's Twin Peaks - a show which I adore. The show quickly starts introducing us to the main characters and rather unusually the pilot episode is to me the best of the lot, its extremely dramatic and really gets out the whole evil side of the show ready to progress throughout the rest of the season. My one biggest criticism is I felt a little let down by the show - probably not through its own fault, as it got cancelled after a mere 1 season, it seemed to display show much potential and it deserved a lot better treatment than it got. The acting is excellent, and this show has some of the best characters (good and evil) in it I have ever seen that are well developed in a short space of time. There is the odd cheesy effect for the first 5 or ten shows which are a bit overly dramatic, but this is rectified as the season progressed. Well worth a watch, definitely something out of the ordinary! I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state "Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify????? This was an absolutely spellbinding series and was sorry that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of stylish dread to it. All you have to do is read all the positive comments (not a single negative that I can see) to realise what a really innovative series this was and how it caught at the imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so unbelievable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there must have been (or just maybe still are) running around to do that. I love the series! Many of the stereotypes portraying Southerrners as hicks are very apparent, but such people do exist all too frequently. The portrayal of Southern government rings all too true as well, but the sympathetic characters reminds one of the many good things about the South as well. Some things never change, and we see the "good old boys" every day! There is a Lucas Buck in every Southern town who has only to make a phone call to make things happen, and the storybook "po' white trash" are all too familiar. Aside from the supernatural elements, everything else could very well happen in the modern South! I somehow think Trinity, SC must have been in Barnwell County! It was a bit bizarre and evil and i enjoyed it a lot, the characters in the show were great as well, and complimented one another well. I was sorry to see it cut off.. I would have loved to see where it could have went.You found yourself leaning toward Lucas Buck the sheriff who had more secrets than anyone. Lucas was frightening and alluring. And I would have liked to have seen more of him and how his character became. I will however buy the show just to enjoy, it was great to something different on TV. And Paige Turrco who was Caleb's cousin, she was a big mystery as to where and what she meant to Lucas. Its a shame it isn't around still.. or was never finished, i would have loved to see what would have happened. "Someones at the Door". OHHH, How I miss this show so bad.. but we are lucky to now have "Invasion". Thank You, Shawn Cassidy. American Gothic, had it all.If I had to pick one thing that I liked best about the show, it has to be its "not predictable plot-lines". Favorite actor was Lucas Black.. I adore that southern accent. I bought the DVD asap, and my kids are fans too. There is some hot n steamy scenes. Some Devilish ones too. So, if kiddos will be watching you may want to edit(fastforward/skip). It has humour, on a Joss Wheedon level, which so many shows lack. Adult wit and adult situation, that are handled with finese. The DVD has some extras, but I wish it has many more. If you want to get thrilled and enjoy a great show, come watch "American Gothic"! I'm watching the series again now that it's out on DVD (yay!) It's striking me as fresh, as relevant and as intriguing as when it first aired.

The central performances are gripping, the scripts are layered.

I'll stick my neck out and put it up there with The Prisoner as a show that'll be winning new fans and still be watched come 2035.

I've been asked to write some more line (it seems IMDb is as user unfriendly and anally retentively coded as ever! Pithy and to the point is clearly not the IMDb way.)

Well, unlike IMDb's submissions editors, American Gothic understands that simplicity is everything.

In 22 episodes, the show covers more character development than many shows do in seven seasons. On top of which it questions personal ethics and strength of character in a way which challenges the viewer at every turn to ask themselves what they would choose and what they would think in a given situation.

When the show first aired, I was still grieving for Twin Peaks and thought it would be a cheap knock off. Personally I'm starting to rate it more highly and suspect it will stand up better over the years. Reckon it don't get more controversial than that! I recently purchased the complete American Gothic series on DVD and it lived up to my memories of it. I was very grateful to be able to view for the first time episodes that were never televised. I loved "Ring of Fire" in particular of the stories I hadn't seen the first time around.

Gary Cole is fantastic as "evil, sexy" Lucas Buck. Lucas Black as Caleb is also a superb player. I thought Brenda Bakke as Selena Coombs was also superb in her portrayal. In fact, the whole cast was fantastically talented and had great chemistry with each other.

It's a shame the series was screwed by the network (in collusion with a burgeoning group of censors) because it was truly designed for adult viewing. A mixture of comedy, tragedy, farce, satire, Gothic romance and horror genres, it offered brilliant characterizations supported by acting at the genius level.

I had the most tremendous lust for the devil for once in my life. Long live Gary Cole (Sheriff Lucas Buck), the most luscious "fallen angel" ever. I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the best series ever! It was a great shame when it was canceled, and I hope someone will have the good sense to pick it up and begin the series again. The good news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I rushed down to the store and picked up a copy and am happy to say that it is just as good as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a wonderfully dark and creepy character, and all actors were very good. It is a shame that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will not be disappointed. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very interested, and will soon be a fan. She finds it "very twisted" and has enjoyed the episodes she has seen. I cannot wait to view the episodes which were not aired.

This show rocks!!!! Recently when i was shopping, i saw the box-set of Americian Gothic, and i thought 'I remember that!' I used to set my alarm to get back up & watch this when it was on CH 4 in 1996 at 1.30am (i was 14). I remember it mostly because it was really scary and weird, no person could ever be as frightening as Lucas Buck (with a B!!) No one ever was anyway.

What annoyed me though was they did the same thing to the box-set as when on TV. Episodes in funny order, I kept thinking when does Dr Matt leave??? - they made it so confusing.

However this is not the writers, producers or directors fault (its TV people in background the money makers They still do the same - Just look at shows like Carnivale and Farscape they don't like originality in studios!!!!!)

To finish - If you've not seen this and you call yourself a Sci-Fi Fantasy, Horror, supernatural drama..Fan = YOU MUST. They even said the same in SFX when reviewing the box-set. I purchased the DVD set on a recommendation from Amazon.com based on my other interests. They hit the nail on the head with this one. I remember watching the show when it was on TV but always wondered what happened to it. Ten years later, it's like watching it all again for the first time. Lucas Black as Caleb Temple and Gary Cole as Sheriff Lucas Buck are great together, even though they are somewhat rivals. Almost representing good (Caleb) and evil (Sherriff Lucas Buck). I never really understood exactly what Lucas was supposed to be, but let it suffice to say, he has some special powers that I don't believe were granted by anything Holy. He can make phones ring, writing appear, or even cause a person's emotions to change. None the less, there are a few episodes where he actually becomes the good guy in spite of it all. All in all, this is an excellent series that like so many others I can think of, (I.E. Point Pleasant, Threshold, Nowhere Man, and SeaQuest DSV just to name a few) were cancelled way before their time. The Steven King's The Dead Zone ( Sunday's USA Network) seems to be the only thing in this genre that seems to be making it. There is just nothing fit to watch on TV anymore. This is because anything that deals with Christianity and Satan is considered offensive and must be immediately pulled from TV. So, in the meantime, I'll just keep buying DVD sets and watching shows that should still be on TV but were booted off TV by religious zealots so we could watch "quality" shows like Family Guy and American Dad and The Simpsons (what a bunch of crap that is). When the US entered World War I, the government forced Hollywood to churn out propaganda films. THE LITTLE American is probably the best of the lot because it stars Mary Pickford.

Pickford plays a young woman torn between two men: Jack Holt (German) and Raymond Hatton (French), but her decision is delayed because of the war as both men enlist.

When the ship Pickford is sailing on is sunk by the Germans (think Lusitania) because it is carrying munitions, Pickford has a great scene as she stands on the lifeboat and yells at the German commander. Later on, of course, she runs into both Holt and Hatton when she is being held as a war prisoner at a château.

Director Cecil B. DeMille provides one truly great scene in this film as Pickford and Holt are wandering through a bombed-out village. They pass a destroyed church of which only one wall remains standing. Against the wall is a very large crucifix. As they stand and watch, the wall collapses but the Jesus figure remains, suspended in mid air. It's a very surreal moment in a film that is otherwise very straightforward and un-artsy.

Pickford is, as always, a pleasure to watch. She was always a very natural actress who avoided the arm-waving histrionics many other actors of the day used. She's also very very pretty. Holt is very good here in a leading-man role. Hatton is OK. Among the list of name actors in "extra" parts are Wallace Beery, Ramon Novarro, Colleen Moore, Ben Alexander, Hobart Bosworth, Norman Kerry, Walter Long, James Neill, and Edythe Chapman.

Not a great film, but interesting to see US propaganda at work. Mary Pickford ("Born on the Fourth of July" as Angela Moore) is "The Little American" (of French heritage); she falls in love with Jack Holt (as Karl Von Austreim), who had moved to America with his German father and American mother. French-American Raymond Hatton (as Count Jules de Destin of the "Fighting Destins") has fallen in love with Ms. Pickford. The love triangled threesome eventually wind up in France, with the Great War (World War I, in hindsight) complicating their lives considerably.

A mostly entertaining, if propagandistically flawed, Cecil B. DeMille film. The torpedoing, and sinking, of a ship carrying Pickford is "Titanic"-like. The war intrigue gets dramatic as Pickford slowly becomes an undercover spy for France, while the Germans occupy her ancestral home. Of course, German lover Holt arrives. It was difficult to believe they took so long to recognize each other as he moved in for the rape, but it was dark; and, prior events had them believe each other dead. The film goes WAY over-the-top in its symbolism. Pickford was, by the way, Canadian - though, few could deny she wasn't a "Little American", for all intents and purposes.

FUN to spot "extras" who later became major stars include Wallace Beery, Colleen Moore, and Ramon Novarro - especially, watch for Mr. Novarro exhibiting "star" quality during one of the film's more memorable sequences: Pickford and the wounded soldier saluting each other as he is taken by her on a stretcher. Novarro even gets Mary Pickford to write a letter for him; obviously, he's got a future in pictures. Also future-bound is Ben Alexander, who plays the boy "Bobby"; he becomes a dependable child actor, and grows up to become a Jack Webb partner on "Dragnet".

******* The Little American (7/12/17) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Mary Pickford, Jack Holt, Raymond Hatton (SPOILERS IN FIRST PARAGRAPH) This movie's anti-German sentiment seems painfully dated now, but it's a brilliant example of great war-time propaganda. It was made back when Cecil B. DeMille was still a great director. (Ignore all his later Best Picture Academy Awards; he never made a very good sound film.) This movie lacks the comedy of most of Pickford's other films, and really it was DeMille's movie, not Pickford's. The vilification of the Germans can be compared to the way "The Patriot" of 2000 did the same to the British. The only good German in the film was a reluctant villain who had the ironic name of Austreheim. They even had Pickford take an ill-fated trip on a luxury ship that gets torpedoed by a German submarine. So what'll get the Americans more stirred up to war? The sinking of the Lusitania, or watching America's favorite Canadian import sinking in it? All throughout the film DeMille runs his protagonist from one kind of horrible calamity to another, barely escaping death, hypothermia, depravity, rape, execution, and explosions that go off in just the right place to keep her unharmed. The way she is saved from a firing squad is no more believable than the way the humans in "Jurassic Park" were ultimately rescued from the velociraptors. If I was any more gullible to such propaganda I would punish myself for having a part-German ancestry.

Was it a good film? Aside from a humorous running gag about Americans abroad thinking they're untouchable – that was apparently a joke even back then – you might not be entertained. You'll find it more than a little melodramatic, and obviously one-sided, but the first thing that came to my mind after watching it is that it was years before Potemkin's false portrayal of a massacre revolutionized the language of cinema as well as a movie's potential for propaganda. It made me wonder: what became of Cecil B. DeMille? Somewhere between the advent of sound and "The Greatest Show on Earth" he seemed to lose his ambition. Ben Hur looked expensive, but not ambitious. In a sentence, this movie is for 1) Film historians, 2) Silent Film Buffs, 3) Mary Pickford fans, or 4) DeMille fans, if such a person exists. Yes, the plot is predictable; yes, there are a few plot holes; yes, it has a made-for-TV quality; and yes, Britney Spears "wrote" the book with obvious self-promotion.

But forget all of that... this movie is fun.

Fun in an After School Special sort-of-way, but fun nevertheless.

Virginia Madsen as the mother does a great job... so good that I'm going to start watching for her movies. She reminded me of Diane Lane for all the good reasons.

The rest of the cast does a fine job, too. If I was a casting agent, I'd be scouting some of these young actors.

The production values are above usual TV standards and the music was really great... better than several big-budget movies I've seen.

If you're in the mood for German noir this movie isn't for you. If you want a safe, fun and underrated movie, this is a good one. It's one you could show to your 10 year old daughter but enjoy it yourself too. I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though. I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.

I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.

I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.

I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.

I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.

This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal. I really enjoyed this movie. Britney is an excellent role model for teens and should be more appreciated. This movie is about following your dreams and never giving up no matter what people might do or say to discourage and criticize you. Holly fulfills her dreams just like Britney.

There are times in everyones' lives when people judge them for what they are not who they are. Watching this movie will make you understand that you are special in your own way and that you should follow your dreams no matter what happens.

I would like to thank Britney for encouraging me and my friends to follow our dreams. She will never know how much that means to me. Bravo Britney. You are the greatest!!! I'd just like to say that i've seen this film twice now and i love it! The acting is great and even though it is a similar plot to "Raise Your Voice" I think that the plot never gets boring for people who like that kind of thing. It has some great lessons in it and shows us that we can do anything if we try. An incredible film. I am sure that this is one i will be watching for a long time to come. Even though Britney Spears write the book it is quite a realistic plot, maybe not about the falling in love part, but the part about being different and struggling but coming out best in the end is very true to real life. The only minor criticism is why is the main girl in these films always beautiful? Do you really think that Holly would have met the perfect guy of her dreams if she was ugly or average? I doubt it.. In "Brave New Girl," Holly comes from a small town in Texas, sings "The Yellow Rose of Texas" at a local competition, and gets admitted to a prestigious arts college in Philadelphia. From there the movie grows into a colorful story of friendship and loyalty. I loved this movie. It was full of great singing and acting and characters that kept it moving at a very nice pace. The acting was, of course, wonderful. Virginia Madsen and Lindsey Haun were outstanding, as well as Nick Roth The camera work was really done well and I was very pleased with the end (It seems a sequel could be in the making). Kudos to the director and all others that participated on this production. Quite a gem in the film archives. This review owes its existence entirely to a review. We take a weekly TV magazine to see what is coming up, and duly decide what we will watch. Obligingly, there are brief reviews of most of the films scheduled to be shown on the five major terrestrial channels. In addition to the prose, each film is allocated a 1-5 star rating. 5 means Don't Miss (superior to 4 for Excellent!), down to 1 standing for Poor. We have learned from vast experience that, with few exceptions, stars are awarded for gross taste, foul language, offensive content, promiscuity, horror, blood & guts, and especially killing off the hero/heroine just when everyone was about to live happily ever after. (If that isn't done, the movie is denigrated as being 'predictable' - the worst insult imaginable!)

Brave New Girl was given only 1 star, thereby suggesting it was a candidate worthy of our time and attention. This was confirmed by the reviewer's description of the movie as being a "truly awful tale", and, "Stupid, just stupid". We watched it, and my wife and I were glad we did so. The TV magazine reviewer further stated that the movie was "not a reworking of War and Peace", with which we have to agree. Reading through the IMDb reviews for this title a day or two later, the urge to pick up my pen (so to speak) to add my halfpennyworth (pronounced harf'pen'uth (emphasis on the first syllable) for the uninitiated) became overwhelming.

Why did we take to this movie? Well, it's just a matter of taste. We like attractive characters, believable relationships between them, interesting situations, courtesy and respect, good triumphing over evil, and so on. We liked the integrity and personalities of Holly (Lindsey Haun), her Mum (Virginia Madsen), Ditz (Barbara Mamabolo), Grant (Nick Roth), Zoe (Joanne Boland) and the two male professors involved in the story. So what if the storyline includes a 'wicked witch of the west' in the form of Angela (Barbara Mamabolo), provided that she plays the part with some conviction. We appreciated the friendship depicted between the two room-mates, with one having a financially challenged upbringing by a loving single Mum, and the other having every material advantage but receiving little parental time and affection. Is it any wonder that Ditz felt the way she did about Holly's Mum? Is it surprising that Grant should take an immediate interest in Holly, considering the manner of their initial meeting, Holly's dazzling smiles and her lively self-possession? I think these issues and the events are believable enough, but it is necessary to pretend that the scholarship and other circumstances are realistic in order for the tale to have a setting.

My wife and I are greatly blessed by not having any significant musical education. This enables us to enjoy the sounds produced by instruments and voices without having our critical faculties intruding unduly on our listening, and thus spoiling the experience. We enjoyed both the classical pieces and the pop, which came over well on the TV, and we weren't struck by any lack of talent. Also, it mattered not that Holly's classical vocals were dubbed by someone else.

We enjoyed the movie enough to look for a DVD. The average delivered price we have paid per disk for the movies in our collection currently stands at £4.9484 (rounded to four decimal places). Brave New Girl was available from a trusted supplier on the Amazon Marketplace for £1.3516 (rounded to four decimal places) above this figure. Such a purchase would increase the average. Why I should resent this is a mystery to me, but it is a testimony to our enjoyment of this film that we placed an order anyway. I have awarded this film 7 IMDb stars out of ten, having docked one for overenthusiastic reception of the performances by the audiences, one for Britney advertising and one for something else I can't remember right now. (In case it hasn't tumbled, this review is an anthem in celebration of the use of brackets!) EXTREMITIES is the disturbing, yet riveting screen version of a play by William Mastriosimone (who adapted his own play for the screen) about a woman who is attacked in her car one night by a would-be rapist on her way home and is terrified when she realizes the man got her purse and knows where she lives. After her roommates leave for work the next day, the guy shows up at her home and attempts to rape her. The story takes a surprising twist when, at one point, the woman turns the tables on the man and is able to overpower him; but when she realizes there is no way that attempted rape can be proved and if the man is arrested, he will just get off, she decides to keep him prisoner in the house until she can get a confession out of him. Far-fetched? Maybe. Disturbing? Definitely, but there's a wonderfully claustrophobic feel about this film, especially the middle with just the woman and her attacker, that you can't help but feel completely a part of what's going on. I did not see the play on Broadway, but I would imagine a piece like this works better onstage, but that doesn't make this film any less riveting an experience. Farrah Fawcett, one of the last actresses to do the role on Broadway, was awarded the role of Marjorie in the film version and delivers a taut and deeply moving performance as the victim who refuses to be a victim. Many critics found Fawcett's performance to be one-note, but for me, Marjorie is a woman completely numbed by what she has been through and the performance works for me. James Russo, in the performance of his career, is slimy and menacing as the would-be rapist who finds Marjorie to be much more of a challenge than he assumed. Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid co-star as Marjorie's roommates, who come home after Marjorie has overpowered the guy and has him tied up and stuffed in their fireplace upon their arrival. And it's the arrival of the roommates that take the story to an unexpected level because they didn't see what we saw Marjorie go through and therefore, think she should call the police and let them handle the guy. Not for the faint of heart, but if you can stand it, a gripping film experience anchored by a lead performance that will surprise you. Farrah Fawcett is superb in this powerful 1986 drama, where she plays Marjorie, a woman who manages to escape the clutches of a would-be rapist. Well done to Farrah for being a Golden Globe 'Best Actress' nominee.

When her rapist Joe (terrifically played by James Russo) comes into her home, which she shares with her two roommates (who are conveniently out!), Marjorie has to play along with Joe's frightening demands. It does make for some disturbing and shocking images!

When her roommates come home, they are astounded (to say the least) by Marjorie's actions, and a great performance by Alfre Woodard who desperately tries to convince Marjorie to do the right thing and turn him into the police, makes the film even more nail-biting.

I do find Diana Scarwid quite irritating, but when Joe finally admits that he came there to kill them all, it makes the film a very emotional piece of drama indeed.

Overall, Extremities is a brilliantly thought-out and well-acted movie and I must have watched it hundreds of time by now! Well done to everybody involved. Riveting drama, scripted by William Mastrosimone based on his stage play, in which Farrah Fawcett plays Marjorie, attacked in her car by rapist Joe (James Russo). She manages to get away but the cops inform her that there is nothing they can do. She realizes, however, that Joe did get her wallet and knows where she lives. When her housemates Pat (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid) are off at work, Joe pays her a visit to finish what he started. After Joe humiliates and degrades her in a variety of ways, she gets a chance to strike back at him and imprisons him. Knowing full well she's in another "his word against yours" situation and that no rape technically took place, she has no intention of taking it easy on him until he confesses to Pat and Terry what his intentions were.

The movie ultimately amounts to a showdown between its two opponents. As it goes on, Marjorie displays such ruthlessness that one has to wonder if she hasn't become as unhinged as her nemesis. Fawcett does a creditable enough job, while Russo is truly excellent as the depraved creep who does his best to manipulate the situation. With only two characters on screen for much of the running time, the film has an intimate nature that does suggest that it would work even better on stage. Director Robert M. Young doesn't shy away from the uglier and more exploitative elements of the situation; the film does become uncomfortable to watch at times. And by the time Marjorie has the upper hand, things change enough so that it no longer becomes quite so easy to encourage her to go for blood, and one hopes that Pat can make her see reason.

"Extremities", I felt, was a pretty good movie that at least maintained interest and a fairly high level of intensity. Woodard and Scarwid are both fine in support (Scarwid has a great moment where Terry reveals herself to be a rape victim), and the pace is consistent. Granted, the dialog isn't always very sharp, but the material is compelling every step of the way.

8/10 So Mary and Rhoda have aged--who hasn't? I was a teen when Mary premiered, and a "young adult" when it left the air. Yes, it was great to see Mary and Rho together, and yes, maybe the film didn't sustain the comedy of the original series, but there were enough moments that recalled the spirit of the series to make this a fitting tribute. Example: the producer who hires Mary and then dictates the idea for a new series about "old people." Isn't this typical of the mentality of present-day Hollywood TV and film "bean counters?" This may not be THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW at its best--but it's a pretty damned good look back at one of the best shows we grew up with in the 70s. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper still can turn the world on with their smiles. The combined talent of these two wonderful stars make this combination reunion/newstart movie work. Watch it and look forward to hitting sixty! Mary defies the youth oriented society with wit and charm. A touch of drama adds 2000 realism. A TV series follow up would broaden the new characters and give us a chance to occaisionally see Lou Grant, Phyllis, Sue Ann, Murray, and Georgette! This movie pretty much surprised me. I didn't have very high expectations for it but I was wrong. Mary & Rhoda was very funny and well written. They didn't spend too much time rehashing the past so they weren't relying on the success of the old TV show to carry the movie. Overall it was very entertaining.

My girlfriend commented that this could be a weekly sit-com and I think I might agree with her. Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, "The Partridge Family"). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one. I watched, entranced and mesmerized, by the vocal and physical acting. The roles each character played were done with excellence.The lyrics,the words, every gesture, the sunrise, told it all.The movie spoke to me. It enlightened me to a different perception of a person who believes in mankind. Who believes in peace and gentle behavior. I was also held in disbelieve, by the sacrifices and human dignity was portrayed. Power without grace, is demented and without feelings. To want power at the cost of mankind, is so unbelievable. This movie made me so afraid for the people who are no longer in this world. And, it is with sadness that I think of them. I like this movie for the conversations and face expressions to it all. May this movie be blessed. In Mexico this movie was aired only in PayTV. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, is a true example about a good German and specially, about a good man. The conversations between Tukur's character and the Nazi prosecutor are specially interesting. A true ideas' war: two different Germans, both with faith in there believes. Bonhoeffer was a very complex person: man, freedom fighter, boyfriend, churchman and a great intellectual; Ulrich Tukur is outstanding as Bonhoeffer. I recommended this film a lot, specially in this difficult times for the planet. In Mexico we don't know a lot about Pastor Bonhoeffer life and legacy, this is a great work for rescue a forgotten hero. This movie was a fantastic comedy. It had a lot of comedians star in it like Akshay Kumar,Rajpal Yadav,Paresh Raval and John Abraham.

Rimi Sen was good at playing Akshay Kumars wife and so were all the air hostesses. Mr Hot as Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Mr cool as Sam (John Abraham) are two fashion photographers who like the same girl Maggie (Neha Dupia). When John Abraham cheats on his work he becomes Akshay Kumars senior and Akshay Kumar gets really jealous because his flat has to be given to John Abraham and Neha Dupia starts liking John more. Akshay Kumar wants to be better than John Abraham so he finds a flat and he is going out with three different girls (Nitu Chandra,Nargis Bagheri,Daisy Boppana). on the contrary to the person listed above me i felt that this movie was really funny particularly in the scenes were there is a lot of mix up. i don't want to give the plot and the storyline away to the people that haven't watched it yet but i will say that Paresh Rawal does not have an extensive role such as past Priyadarshan movies, for example, Hera Pheri and Hungama. Paresh Rawal does an amazing part in the little role given to him, John Abraham does equally well, Akshay Kumar has proved that he is no less in this movie like he had from Waqt and almost all his movies after Andaaz. Even though all three heroins in this movie were at a debut they did a pretty good job of acting particularly Nargis who is very good looking and hot. i would say that if you liked Hungama or Hera Pheri this movie is a must watch. One of the more sensible comedies to hit the Hindi film screens. A remake of Priyadarshans 80s Malayalam hit Boeing Boeing, which in turn was a remake of the 60s Hollywoon hit of the same name, Garam Masala elevates the standard of comedies in Hindi Cinema.

Akshay Kumar has once again proved his is one of the best super stars of Hindi cinema who can do comedy. He has combined well with the new hunk John Abraham. However John still remains in Akshays shadows and fails to rise to the occasion.

The new gals are cute and do complete justice to their roles.

A must watch comedy. Leave your brains away and laugh for 2 hrs!!!! After all laughter is the best medicine ! Ask Priyadarshan and Akshay Kumar !!!!! Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer. Okay this movie fine like I said but you surely need to watch it as its worth a watch . It's about two boys Mac and Sam who are great friends and work as fashion photographers and the laughing time starts when Mac ( Akshay Kumar ) starts dating with 3 air hostesses at the same time leaving his wife suspicious . Sam attains fortune and almost forgets his friend but not completely . But Mac thinks so and so he starts dating with air hostesses . there's garam masala at every step of the movie , songs rock but somethings lacking . The comedy's not up to the mark and deserves an award . Its nice but not all that excellent . Some people laughed till their stomaches ached but it didn't deserve that many laughs . But of course everyone's opinion is different . So if you wanna watch the movie you're welcome to do so . Now i really liked this movie, it was so funny.Both Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are brilliant actors, i think after watching this film they should do lots more films together in the future.

Akshay Kumar gets himself into a bit of trouble by dating 3 women at the same time, but the way he handles in when one comes out of the door and then the other one was just so funny to watch, he acted really well int his film and i hope that he makes more great comedy's like this one in the future, John Abraham plays his best friend, he plays his role really well and he is so underrated i am glad that some of his amazing work has got noticed but he is a really Good actor. i just love John, Neha Dhupia has a small role in this film and plays it well.

The muse is really good i really recommend this movie to everyone. These are one of the movies that don't require any brain or thinking, it's a very funny time pass which you forgot in the next hour or so. I was really surprised with John Abraham's acting he usually playing the gangster like character with the emotionless face,so from that to playing the complete opposite and does it successfully,by managing to shine amongst the comic geniuses such as Paresh Rawal and Akshaye Kumar. I was also quite surprised with the Akshaye's 3 girls because there roles don't require much talent but mostly moaning about Akshaye's dissapearence(to the other girls) i was surprised as they managed to establish and actual persona and you could differentiate between them which is a good thing ,also majority of songs are good,it is colourful and fun so on a boring Sunday evening this will sure lighten your mood. this move was friggin hilarious!!! funniest I've seen in a while, akshay and john kick ass as always, and the chicks are hot too. the story is awesome, lots of great jokes, and whoever reviewed this before me is an idiot. to him i say that u are not of Indian background so u wouldn't understand the humor u moron. don't rate movies u don't understand. what did u watch, the subtitle version where majority of jokes are lost in translation? thats what i thought jackass.

akshay kumar is the best actor ever and proves once again his versatility, he can do not only action but comedy as well, and is excellent at it. john has proved himself as well, this is his first comedy role and he was also excellent at it. This would've been a sure fire classic had they chosen ALMOST ANYBODY ELSE for John Abraham. This guy is an awful actor. Be it comedy, drama, tear-jerkers etc. He stinks. It seemed like at some point Priyadarshan realized this too, and pretty much had him jumping around like a monkey in order to make his solo-scenes a bit funny.

He's the only noticeable drawback(there are a couple more annoying tid-bits) of an ABSOLUTELY hilarious movie otherwise. Best comedy to come along in Bollywood since Hungama, IMO. Like Hungama, it's a situational comedy carried on the shoulders of a brilliant screenplay and of course,Akshay Kumar. This is probably his best performance to date. He better be a shoe-in for best comedian at every award function. AK's always been good at comedy, but he takes it to a different level here. The body language, the facial expressions and just the way he delivers every line. It's a genius performance. The packed theater was going nuts for pretty much the entire length of the movie and I don't think I've ever seen such an atmosphere for a Bollywood movie here in USA.

Garam Masala doesn't have one "lead" heroine. It stars 3 incredibly HOT+Beautiful girls who I thought did a fairly good job. Pretty sure they are all making their debuts. Paresh Rawal is solid as usual, although his routine wears itself out after a while. Rajpal Yadav is his typical annoying self(sick of his over-the-top act in every movie). Rimi Sen has nothing to do.

Overall, definitely worth a dekho. I'd say it's FUNNIER than No Entry, and that's saying a lot. Could've been even better had they chosen someone a little more competent than John Abraham.

8/10 Who votes in these ratings? "Jacknife" is a beautifully acted, brilliantly observed piece of work, with actors on top of their game, especially Ed Harris and the peerless Robert DeNiro(please don't mention Marlon Brando in the same breath of this man-see "Taxi Driver" for confirmation of this point). Is it a 'mundane' movie because it doesn't have sex/meaningless action/nudity in it. This movie is about the complexities of the characters involved. Ed Harris makes you feel every moment with him and his emotional outburst towards the end is heartbreaking. The part where he orders a young man in a bar to take off his army clothes is a wonderful observation of how fashion and the movies exploit tragic situations and how frustrated real men must feel to see a young upstart sporting military attire. While we are on this subject, "Casino" 7.8 out of 10? One of the greatest films of all time, from one of the greatest directors, starring THE greatest movie actor of all time, with the scariest film psychotic gangster ever, only warrants just above average? COME ON!!!!! I cherish each and every frame of this beautiful movie. It is about regular people, people we all know, who suffer a little in their life and have some baggage to carry around. Just like all of us. Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris and Kathy Baker breathe life into their portrayals and are all excellent, but Harris is especially heartbreaking and therefore very real. You would swear he really is a trucker who drinks so he won't have to feel anything. Baker as his put-upon sister also has some delicate moments - when DeNiro gives her flowers in one scene, it seems like she was never given flowers before and probably wasn't. Very worthwhile. JACKNIFE is a fine adaptation of Stephen Metcalfe's play 'Strange Snow' (the screenplay was also written by Metcalfe), sensitively directed by David Hugh Jones, that explores the too frequently forgotten effect of battle on veterans damaged permanently by the heinous cruelties of war. It is especially poignant to return to this 1989 film now as we watch the soldiers returning from the war in Iraq and the raw treatment they are receiving in our Veterans' Hospitals.

Three friends went off to the Vietnam War together and only two returned alive: the problem is that while both men suffered in battle the one David 'Highschool' Flannigan (Ed Harris) is so severely damaged by posttraumatic stress syndrome that he 'exists' in a drunken vacuum with his very plain schoolteacher sister Martha (Kathy Baker). As David deteriorates his buddy Joseph 'Jacknife' Megessey (Robert De Niro) returns to the town in an attempt to help his friend. In the course of events Jacknife at first offers succor to Martha and eventually the two date - at a Prom Martha must attend - and at that prom drunken David completely falls apart, destroying relics in the school and terrifying the townspeople and students. Jacknife makes Dave relive the moment in Vietnam when they lost their buddy and in doing so brings David to the point where he can begin his climb toward recovery. And the long-suffering Martha finds her needs tended by Jacknife, too.

All three actors give astonishingly fine performances: Ed Harris offers one of his most fully realized roles while De Niro and Baker maintain the high standards set by their careers. More people should help resurrect this all but forgotten film as it is a brittle reminder of the damages our wars bring to the men who fight them and to the families who receive them after battle's end. Highly recommended. Grady Harp after just having watched The Deer Hunter,which is a masterpiece,the movie Jacknife had big shoes to fill.it has same themes as The Deer Hunter,the devastating effects on a person after the Vietnam War.Robert De Niro is in this film,as in The Deer Hunter and is very good here,as is Kathy Baker.but this movie belongs to Ed Harris,who gives a powerful,emotional and impactful performance.the movie is based on a stage play,and there are one or two scenes where that felt obvious to me.by that i just mean that for those one or two scenes it felt like i was watching a stage play.that was not that big a deal,and doesn't really diminish the film.i actually really liked this movie.it's not an epic like The Deer Hunter.they are about similar era and have similar themes,but they are two very different films.i thought The Deer Hunter was great,and i also think this movie was great.it's the acting in this one that makes it so great.for me,Jacknife is a 10/10 I loved this movie. It is rare to get a glimpse of post-partum Vietnam, and this movie-sans combat scenes and exciting bombs and gunfire- did it. I had no idea I'd be so affected by it. What an amazing look at how alien Vets feel. It was tough to watch, quite frankly. We all understand the fighting and the Apocalypse Now type of drama, but this is so so different. What happens when they come back and try to live a life? They can't. It made me very aware of a large group of men that are rattling around lost in America. Not able to relate, can't sleep, can't have love affairs, can't deal with "normal society". They feel totally apart. This is a huge tragedy, and one that isn't addressed enough. Yeah, we've changed our attitude about Vietnam Vets, we like them now, but so what? It doesn't seem to have made any difference to them. It's too late? So it was a great film, but I cried a lot. I have no other criticisms. Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie. Jacknife is a war movie that is just about as far removed from the war as war movies get. It can hardly be classified as a war film, because the only way that any war has an effect on the story or the characters is in their memories of it, and even these we are hardly ever shown. It poses very interesting questions about life, especially in the way that the movie's tagline says that only one of them is really alive (and by the way, even though the tagline refers only to Dave (Ed Harris) and Megs (Robert DeNiro), it is talking about all three of the characters in the film). Dave and Megs were friends in the Vietnam war, and Megs has returned to take Dave out on a fishing trip that they have been planning for a lot longer than you might have guessed.

DeNiro provides a perfect performance of the character of Megs, who we are not really sure if we should like or if he really is as nuts as Martha thinks he is. Dave reminds Martha several times that Megs is not his friend, just someone he knows. There is a great scene early in the film where Megs has gone out to grab a six pack of beer from his car for breakfast, and he is just around the corner of the room when Dave says this. Megs pauses for a moment and then proceeds into the room with a smile and a huge greeting. It isn't until later that you realize how Megs must have felt when he heard that, having been the one to remember what they had planned to do on this day. It reminds me of the fakeness of the old, `Sure, let's do that,' thing that people so often say to each other, never having any plans to do any such thing.

Ed Harris delivers a wonderful performance as Dave, who never got over the effects that the war had on him. Even so many years later he has not managed to get over the death of a friend during the war, blaming himself to this day for it and thus drowning his life in alcohol, cigarettes, and loneliness. All he wants, he says, is for people to leave him alone. This is not a man who is living his life the way he wants, whether people actually leave him alone or not, he is a man trying to forget that he's alive, to detach himself from the world of the living as much as possible.

His sister Martha reminds me of myself, at least in terms of my roommates. I have two roommates who are 21 and 24 years old, and both act like they still live with their mothers, expecting their messes to just go away when they leave the room for a while. One on particular (the older one, sadly enough), has absolutely no clue how to care for himself, I'm surprised I don't have to wipe his chin while he eats. Martha has to do much the same for her brother, who she waits on hand and foot while he staggers through life from one hangover to the next. Martha and Dave are stuck in a stagnant life and neither of them can get out of it until something major changes, and Dave is the one that needs to do the changing.

I tend to complain about romance in movies where it just doesn't belong about as much as Roger Ebert complains about those pathetic little tension devices, the red digital readout. But in this case, I don't think that the romance that develops between Megs and Martha had any adverse affect on the rest of the movie. On the contrary, it made it that much more interesting, because it was not predictable. The problem with the romantic subplots in Bruckheimer movies and whatnot is that they are so predictable that you just wait for the obvious end to come and hope that something interesting happens along the way. In this case, however, it's not as obvious that something is going to happen between Megs and Martha because we don't know enough about Megs. Martha could be right about him, that he's one of Dave's crazy war buddies and that he's not the kind of man that she should be dating. Dave certainly encourages this idea.

(spoilers) A couple years after this movie, DeNiro did Cape Fear, where he plays a deranged criminal out for revenge against the lawyer that landed him in prison, a character that, in retrospect, makes it pretty easy to think that maybe at the end of Jacknife Martha realizes her mistake, gets rid of Megs, and she and Dave make up because he saved her from a horrible relationship and then he decides to clean up his act because he has done something good for her. I was half expecting this to happen, so I was pleasantly surprised when Martha and Megs wound up together and even more pleasantly surprised when Megs asks Dave all the questions about what they had planned to do after the war was over.

At times this is a slow moving drama, but Jacknife is entertaining along the way and has a huge payoff at the end, which amazingly manages to be sappy without being cheesy. There is an almost excess of emotion at the end of the film that scarcely fits with the rest of the movie, but it is so good that it doesn't dumb down anything that the movie has accomplished up to that point. Everyone involved gives a wonderful performance, and it is one of those rare films that just about makes you want to stand up and shake your fists victoriously in the air. Saw this on cable back in the early 90's and loved it. Never saw it again until it showed up on cable again recently. Still find it a great Vietnam movie. Not sure why its not higher rated. I found everything about this film compelling. As a vet (not from Vietnam) I can relate to the situations brought by both Harris and De Niro. I can only imagine this film being more poignant now with our situation in Iraq. I wish this would be offered on cable more often for people to see. The human toll on our soldiers isn't left on the battlefield. Its brought home for the rest of there lives. And this film is one of many that brings that home in a very hard way. Excellent film. I did not like the pretentious and overrated Apocalypse Now. Probably my favorite Vietnam War film is The Deer Hunter. The Deer Hunter focused on one part of the war, and then focused on the lives before the war. This movie is essentially Deer Hunter 2. The script is too loose compared to the Deer Hunter. The story is never developed to the point that the audience can truly understand and feel for the characters like the Deerhunter did. The Vietnam flashbacks are not as gripping or involved as the ones in the Deerhunter. This is why I can only give this movie 7 out of 10.

However, I think that the acting was outstanding. DeNiro and Harris are truly amazing actors. They totally immersed themselves in their characters and expressed the great anguish of two former friends who lost their best friend Bobby in combat. Harris' character is a half-dead alcoholic, who hides the guilt that he has in Bobby losing his life trying to save his.

I also like the supporting cast. Everyone in the town is part of the movie. The town obviously can't handle Vietnam vets very well. Like many small towns, it is all about being quiet, humble, and minding one's business. Harris' character, however, can't be any of these things. It is interesting how wars effect people. Some people rebound quickly, while others never really recover. Even 15 years after the end of the Vietnam war "Jacknife" came not too late or was even superfluous. It's one of the few that try to deal with the second sad side of the war: The time after. Different from movies like "Taxi driver" or "Rambo" which use to present their main characters as broken heroes in a bad after war environment this movie allows the audience to face a different view on the Vietnam vets. Their development is shown very precisely before and especially after the war. The problems are obvious but in all this tragic there is always the feeling of some hope on the basis of love and friendship. "Jacknife" might be the quietest Vietnam movie ever but after almost 15 years this is really plausible and therefor justified. Moreover, it can make us believe that the war has not finished, yet; at least for some of us.

The three main characters are amazing. De Niro has done one of his best jobs but Ed Harris is the star of this movie. Possibly,this was his best performance ever. There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing. Overall, I agree wholly with Ebert's review. In a sense, I feel that I should not even be commenting since it is so much a vet's movie and I am not a vet (I was a resister). The flaw is that Martha is badly underdeveloped and does not act consistently. My guess is that Stephen Metcalfe is a vet himself and spent too little planning time on her character. An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities. This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.

As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.

Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in "Spiderman 2." My evaluation: 9 out of 10. Spider-Man is in my opinion the best superhero ever, and this game is the best superhero game ever. While it may be somewhat easy, you have to play it several times to get all the costumes and comic book covers, which makes up for how easy it is to get through the game. It may seem hard to control at first, but once you get the hang of it, you will be web-slinging like Spider-Man himself.

The bosses, while like the levels are somewhat easy, are fun. The first boss, Scorpion, is incredibly easy to beat, which shouldn't be so because as fans of the comic books know, Scorpion is one of Spider-Man's most deadly villains. The second boss, Rhino, is also very easy. The 3rd boss is Venom, who is in my opinion the easiest boss in the game, which definately shouldn't be. The 4th boss is Venom again. This time, he is a little bit more difficult to beat but still easy. The 5th boss is Mysterio, who I think is the funnest boss to battle in the game. He is also one of the harder bosses, but once again, still fairly easy. Next boss is Carnage, who is, you guessed it, easy to beat. But Carnage is actually kind of fun to fight. 7th boss is Doctor Octopus, who is like all the other bosses easy, but not as easy as the other ones because he has a shield. The 8th and final boss is exclusive to the game, never in a comic book or cartoon. I won't spoil it for you for those of you who haven't played the game, but the boss is the only boss in the game that isn't too easy. Took me 4 or 5 tries to beat while the others I beat on the first or second tries.

All in all, a very good game. I gave it an 8 out of 10. The reasons why I didn't give it a 9 or 10 are that once you get all the costumes and comic book covers it gets kind of boring (getting all that stuff will take a while though), it is not very accurate according to the comic books or cartoon show, the bosses are too easy, and they should have used Hobgoblin and/or Green Goblin as a boss, I think it would be fun to battle someone flying around in the air! They didn't use them in the sequel to this game either! Well the Green Goblin is the villain in the upcoming Spider-Man movie, so hopefully they will make a video game based on the movie. Summary- This game is the best Spider-Man to hit the market!You fight old foes such as Scorpion,Rhino,Venom,Doctor Octopus,Carnage,...And exclusive to the game...Monster-Ock!Monster-Ock is the symbiote Carnage On Dock Ock's body.

Storyline- Dock Ock was supposedly reformed and using his inventions for mankind...supposedly...He was really planing a symbiote invasion! See the rest for yourself.

Features- You can play in numerous old costumes seen throughout the comics.Almost every costume has special abilities!You can collect comics in the game and then view them in a comic viewer.And last but not least..............Spidey-Armour!Collect a gold spider symbol to change into Spider-Armour.It gives you another health bar!

Graphics- Great!Though they they can be rough at times.But still great!

Sound- Sweet!Nice music on every level and great voice overs!

Overall- 10 out of 10.This game rocks.Buy it today! Rated E(Contains Violence).

I had the original spiderman game for the PC for a couple of years now.I still have not beaten it because on Windows XP there is a glitch on one level which I cant beat because of it.So be warned if you have XP.But for those who don't have XP give this game a try.Its a fun clean family game with action and its great for any spiderman fan.In the game you play spiderman and you take on various criminals who commit crimes.Spiderman is a fun little game and I recommend it to any spiderman fan or a parent wanting a fun,clean game for their kids.

8/10 If you played "Spider-Man" on the PS version, then you've seen it all. To truly experience it you should get the DC version. Simply put it's a much graphically superior game; the textures are sharp, levels are easy to navigate, and it has much better sound then it's PS cousin. I bought this game back in late '00s and it still holds up even till this day. Well, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is a much superior and strategic game but if you're a fan of 'ol Web Head then you owe it yourself to pick this up for your gaming library. Swinging around the city as Spidey has never looked this good and dead-on in a video game. If you have a Dreamcast, snag this up for cheap. The DC version is simply incredible. This game is fun and it has a plot that you could actually expect to see in the comics. Spider-man has been framed by a mysterious impostor. The city is being overrun by a strange gas, and symbiotes like those of Venom and Carnage are appearing all over the city. Who is behind these crimes? Could it be Doc Ock? Well he seems to have turned over a new leaf. Venom also does not seem to be involved as he is just ticked off that Spider-man has apparently cost him a rather good photo opportunity. Well cameos from other heroes and lots of villains later Spidey will unravel the mystery. The fighting is basic, not to hard to pick up, the fights with the bosses are rather fun. You get to collect comics, you run out of web and it is somewhat fun traversing the city. However, that is also a weak point. The swinging is not all that great as all you do is hover through the city as Spider-man seemingly attachés his webs to the sky. You also do not have much maneuverability web-slinging either especially compared to a say Spider-man 2 movie video game. Still, it makes up for the rather bad swinging with the other elements especially the story. So be prepared to see Scorpion, Rhino, Venom, Mysterio, Doctor Octopus, and Carnage for one wild action packed ride. I really liked this Summerslam due to the look of the arena, the curtains and just the look overall was interesting to me for some reason. Anyways, this could have been one of the best Summerslam's ever if the WWF didn't have Lex Luger in the main event against Yokozuna, now for it's time it was ok to have a huge fat man vs a strong man but I'm glad times have changed. It was a terrible main event just like every match Luger is in is terrible. Other matches on the card were Razor Ramon vs Ted Dibiase, Steiner Brothers vs Heavenly Bodies, Shawn Michaels vs Curt Hening, this was the event where Shawn named his big monster of a body guard Diesel, IRS vs 1-2-3 Kid, Bret Hart first takes on Doink then takes on Jerry Lawler and stuff with the Harts and Lawler was always very interesting, then Ludvig Borga destroyed Marty Jannetty, Undertaker took on Giant Gonzalez in another terrible match, The Smoking Gunns and Tatanka took on Bam Bam Bigelow and the Headshrinkers, and Yokozuna defended the world title against Lex Luger this match was boring and it has a terrible ending. However it deserves 8/10 This was the first PPV in a new era for the WWE as Hulk Hogan, The Ultimate Warrior, Ric Flair and Sherri Martel had all left. A new crop of talent needed to be pushed. And this all started with Lex Luger, a former NWA World Heavyweight Champion being given a title shot against Yokozuna. Lex travelled all over the US in a bus called the Lex Express to inspire Americans into rallying behind him in his bid to beat the Japanese monster (who was actually Samoan) and get the WWE Championship back into American hands. As such there was much anticipation for this match.

But every good PPV needs an undercard and this had some good stuff.

The night started off with Razor Ramon defeating Ted DiBiase in a good match. The story going into this was that DiBiase had picked on Ramon and even offered him a job as a slave after his shock loss to the 1-2-3 Kid on RAW in July. Ramon, angry, had then teamed with the 1-2-3 Kid against the Money Inc tag team of Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster. To settle their differences they were both given one on one matches DiBiase vs Ramon and Shyster vs The Kid. Razor was able to settle his side of the deal after hitting a Razor's Edge.

Next up came the Steiner Brothers putting the WWE Tag Team Titles on the line against The Heavenly Bodies. Depsite the interference of "The Bodies" Manager Jim Cornette, who hit Scott Steiner in the throat with a tennis racket, they were able to pull out the win in a decent match.

Shawn Michaels and Mr Perfect had been feuding since Wrestlemania IX when Shawn Michaels confronted Perfect after his loss to Lex Luger. Perfect had then cost Michaels the Intercontinental Championship when he distracted him in a title match against Marty Janetty. Michaels had won the title back and was putting it on the line against Mr Perfect, but Michaels now had a powerful ally in his corner in his 7 foot bodyguard Diesel. Micheals and Perfect had an excellent match here, but it was Diesel who proved the difference maker, pulling Perfect out of the ring and throwing him into the steel steps for Shawn to win by count out.

Irwin R Shyster avenged the loss of his tag team partner earlier in the night, easily accounting for the 1-2-3 Kid.

Next came one of the big matches of the night as Bret Hart prepared to battle Jerry Lawler for the title of undisputed King of the WWE. But Lawler came out with crutches, saying he'd been injured in a car accident earlier that day and that he'd arranged another opponent for Hart: Doink the Clown. Hart and Doink had a passable match which Hart won with a sharpshooter. He was then jumped from behind by Lawler. This bought WWE President Jack Tunney to the ring who told Lawler that he would receive a lifetime ban if he didn't wrestle Hart. Hart then destroyed Lawler, winning with the sharpshooter, but Hart refused to let go of the hold and the referee reversed his decision. So after all that Lawler was named the undisputed King of the WWE. This match was followed by Ludvig Borda destroying Marty Janetty in a short match.

The Undertaker finished his long rivalry with Harvey Wippleman, which had started in 1992 when the Undertaker had defeated Wippleman's client Kamala at Summerslam and continued when Wippleman's latest monster The Giant Gonzales had destroyed Taker at the Rumble and then again at Wrestlemania, with a decisive victory over Gonzales here. Gonzales then turned on Wippleman, chokeslamming him after a poor match.

Next it was time for six man tag action as the Smoking Gunns (Bart and BIlly) and Tatanka defeated The Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) and Bam Bam Bigelow with Tatanka pinning Samu.

This brings us to the main event with Yokozuna, flanked by Jim Cornette and Mr Fuji, putting the WWE Title on the line against Lex Luger and it was all on board the Lex Express. Lex came out attacking, but Yokozuna took control. Lex came back though as he was able to avoid a banzai drop and then body slam Yokozuna before knocking him out of the ring. Luger then attacked Cornette and Fuji as Yokozuna was counted out. Luger had won a fine match!!!!! Balloons fell from the ceiling. The heroes all came out to congratulate him on his win. Yokozuna may have retained the title, but Luger had proved he could be beaten. The only question was, who could beat him in the ring and get that title off him? *SPOILERS*

This is only the second pay-per-view I've given a perfect 10, the first being the 1991 Royal Rumble. It was full of exciting matches that weren't memorable, just disposable fun. And that's why I love it.

The opening match between Razor and DiBiase, as well as Ludvig Borga vs. Marty Jannetty were the only low points. They were OK matches, but DiBiase deserved better in his final pay per view match. These days, a match like this would have run-ins and a bigger climax for Razor's first major babyface push. And Jannetty, fresh off a Intercontinental title run, could have had a better match with Borga. But I don't think anyone really cared. They just needed a Borga push on pay per view television.

IRS and The Kid were great, as were Michaels and Perfect. I wish Perfect could have won, but Michaels lies down for no one. Notice how right after this, he left the WWF so he wouldn't have to job to Razor. Bret Hart had two great brawls with Doink (notice how everyone's best match is against the Hit-man) and then Lawler. Their rivalry was a classic; that's why that year's Feud of the Year was a no-brainer. How often do you see two legends win Feud of the Year this late in their careers?

The Steiners-Heavenly Bodies match was one of the best of the year. Who knew the Bodies could hold their own against one of the best teams ever?

Many say that the Undertaker-Giant Gonzalez match was a waste of time. But I loved it. Remember, what made the old WWF (as in, pre-WWE) great was the mix of athleticism and freak show. Is there a soul out there who didn't like Akeem?

The main event wasn't bad, although nowhere near match of the year status. They put Lex Luger over well, but made a wise choice in having Yokozuna keep the belt. He was the first heel since Superstar Graham to hold the belt for more than two months. Nowadays, heels are champions all the time. But from the beginning of the WWWF through the WWF of the 90s, if you blinked, you missed a heel title reign.

As an old school wrestling fan, this one and SummerSlam '88 are my favorites. It has been 16 years since it's original run, I would have hoped by now some "marketing wizard" would have promoted a live actor version of this classic by now, or at least sought to re-release the original 65 episodes. I can't fathom why the sci-fi or cartoon network haven't snapped this up. Galaxy Rangers actually had well thought out plots, and even better scripts.The animation was above average quality for it's time, and excellent when compared to the talking slide show Japanese animation of today. It predated the heavy toon-toy tie in market, this may have sealed it's doom too. I would willingly spend cash on a DVD of GR if available. Damn straight.....this show was kick ass back in the day and still continues to outshine cartoons today. I can't wait to track down some of the DVD's to share with my little guy and see the same sparkle in his eyes. I've already introduced him to Voltron (the 5 lions one, not the 15 vehicles one)and I laughed my head off when he said to me one day "Dad..you sure watched some awesome cartoons when you were a kid!!" How cool is that.

Come on Hollywood, dust this one off and give it a live action attempt. Couldn't be any worse than Spiderman 3 was...Man oh man... 2007 has been pretty lame so far for summer movies.

OK, I'll shuddup now

Cheers And I gave it a high 7.....

Why? Because it bloody well rocked. At the time when there were so many OTHER shows on that were tied to toys/games this show was unique in that it had overlapping stories. As others have said here it was ahead of its time.

Sadly this is why the show was doomed. They have released 4 DVDs with 16 episodes of the series so far. I am hoping that more come out.

How does this compare watching it now 20 years after it first came out.. I don't know I still like it despite the sometimes clunky animation, and that IMHO is it's only flaw. The writing was almost top notch and way ahead of the competition........

I do hope for more DVDs or even a set of all the episodes in proper order... The DVDs are good but I don't think the stories are in their proper order, but despite this the show rocked. Though this series only ran a season, it has stayed with me for 20 years. It was by far and above my all time favorite cartoon ever. I would give nearly anything to have it on DVD or whatever format I can get. If you find any means of seeing this series I suggest you take full advantage. This series was the first one (in my opinion) that had a truly coherent storyline that spanned across multiple episodes. It also made me truly care about the characters and what happened to them. Heck the character Goose actually scared me sometimes. He was just that odd at the time. Also the leader of the group reminds me a lot of a combination of Clint Eastwood/Tommy Lee Jones. If anyone has any way of contacting the creator/holder of the rights to the series and can get them put out on DVD please by all means do so!!! It was on at 7:30am, too close to school to see very often. The animation & computer graphics were spectacular for the time. The idea of cowboys & ordinary people casually throwing around space vehicles & robots was amazing. Maybe it inspired Treasure Planet.

Unfortunately, it's really boring in the DVD format. The shows are all basically identical. When viewing non-sequential episodes on a DVD, you're stoned by disk #3. By today's standards, the animation is spotty. We don't notice the computer graphics anymore and focus on how corny the characters are instead.

The bright spots are the heroine characters. They were a lot more believable, took themselves more seriously than modern heroines, and weren't corny. They actually saved men. I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.

For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!

The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...

The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.

Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.

This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home. In 1948 this was my all-time favorite movie. Betty Grable's costumes were so ravishing that I wanted to grow up to be her and dress like that. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., was irresistible as the dashing Hungarian officer. Silly and fluffy as this movie might appear at first, when I was eight years old it seemed to me to say something important about relations between men and women. I saw it again the other day; I was surprised to find that it still did. Lubitsch's last production but not his least interesting film. Somehow largely ignored by critics as he couldn't finish it himself and as the movie wasn't co-signed by Preminger who he did most of the staging... A very strange mix of musical (a remembrance of The Merry Widow ?)and classic Lubitsch touch sentimentalism (an impossible love-story like Cluny Brown)yet a very clever and intelligent one yet not to be understood as some nostalgia of some lost world but rather a testament on eternal feelings prevailing on the foolishness of mankind and especially men in times of war with a "moral" lesson still true today as it was in 1948. Billy wilder as an answer to Preminger who grieved at Lubitsch's funerals about having lost a great man replied that we still had his films and that sums it all up about that Lady in Ermine... Can I be as simple and primitive in my evaluations as to simply say "I liked it"? It's reasonably funny by bits, it got great stars and it's gorgeous to look at. The songs (there are about two which are then repeated) are forgettable, but they get a healthy ironic treatment (such as the terribly handsome Mr Fairbanks exploding into frenzied Wagnerian version of the tender ballad Miss Grable has just rendered); there isn't much dancing with all the 1861 crinolines draped around Miss Grable, and the comedy might be a bit heavy handed, but the result still is very uplifting. The photography (including real outdoor shots which are a thrill) is amazing, playing around with different shades of lush heavy gold. Miss Grable is a bit past her prime and on the plumpish side, but still fresh and comfortable in this continental "olde worlde" comedy. It's pretty much along the line of "Down to Earth" with Rita Hayworth, and that one tends to be rather disliked by many. So I suppose several people would deem "That Lady in Ermine" to be outdated and stuffy. But it's a fairy tale, and these tend to move along at a certain paste anyhow. My suggestion is - just enjoy the artwork, the costumes, the witty script and everything else this film has to offer, and stop complaining. The film has been released on DVD in Germany, with both German and English soundtrack. The story of peace-loving farmers and townspeople fighting for land, water, law and order, and the respect and ultimate subjugation of the long entrenched cattle interests and their hired guns had been worked over better in earlier (Shane) and probably later films as well. There's some good action scenes and the general layout of the story, excluding a disappointing ending, is well executed. Law and order and religion have established roots in the town, but the old order of cattle drives, cowboys, and gunslingers is still around as well. The clash of the two occurs in a nicely staged ambush scene where the townsmen ride right into a trap. Granger, an ex-gunfighter, plays the guy who is shunned by the very townspeople who need his expertise with a gun. While the premise of the film is pretty lame (Ollie is diagnosed with "hornophobia"), the film is an amiable and enjoyable little flick. It's also a darn bit better than the films they went on to make after this one--probably since this was the last Hal Roach-produced Laurel and Hardy film. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea not to see ANY of their latter films, as the entire chemistry is lost in these films and the boys play their parts purely for pathos--something true Laurel and Hardy films NEVER would do. They had a bit of an edge that all the later films lack.

Stan and Ollie work at a horn factory. This sounds pretty funny, but it isn't. Not surprisingly with all the racket, Ollie is about to have a nervous breakdown and must take some time off work. The doctor (James Finlayson--in his last film with the team) recommends an ocean voyage. However, they don't like sailing and Stan has an idea of just renting a boat tied to the dock--then they can get all the sea air they want without all the bother! Once they are on the boat, a dangerous escaped criminal boards the boat and they all accidentally set out to sea. Fortunately, this portion of the film actually was well-paced and the very end worked out very well.

While not a great full-length Laurel and Hardy film, it was much better than many of them since it had no annoying and distracting musical numbers (like in THE DEVIL'S BROTHER or BABES IN TOYLAND). Additionally, there is still a decent amount of physical comedy--something you would see almost none of after this film. Part of this was due to the boys' declining health (and Ollie's increasing girth) and part of it was due to the overall insipidness of these later films. The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the "lung tester", for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see "Dr." Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ("Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.") is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans. It follows BLOCK-HEADS and A CHUMP AT OXFORD, two films that are hard to top. Not that SAPS AT SEA is a bad film - it is the last good comedy (unless one insists on JITTERBUGS or another of the later films) that Laurel & Hardy made. It's just that it is a toss-off little film, without the crazy destructive crescendo of BLOCK-HEADS or the astounding sight of Stan's "real" personality in A CHUMP AT OXFORD to revel in. At 57 minutes it is shorter than the other two films a bit, but that actually is not a bad point for it. It has just enough time to it to hit the right notes. It's just not as special as the other two.

Stan and Ollie work in a factory that manufactures horns. I suspect that there was a bit of Chaplin influence in this sequence (one recalls a similar assembly-line incident in MODERN TIMES only four years earlier). Ollie's nerves finally snap, and he goes on a rampage. He goes home and (naturally) his roommate Stan does not help - Stan has a music lesson with an eccentric professor on his instrument (you've got it - a trombone). After beating up the poor professor, Ollie has problems with the incompetent janitor/engineer (Ben Turpin in a nice brief appearance), and then faces his doctor (Jimmy Finleyson) and his nerve tester (a balloon that inflates as you push air out of Ollie's stomach). Finleyson announces that it is a bad case of "horniphobia", and Ollie needs a vacation with plenty of quiet and goat's milk. They end up going to a ship but Ollie and Stan know nothing about seamanship - so they plan to sleep on the ship. Unfortunately the goat gnaws the rope until it breaks and the ship sails off. Also unfortunately, on board is Richard Cramer, an escaped dangerous criminal. This is not going to be a peaceful vacation.

SAPS AT SEA (like A CHUMP) could have been three shorts, one at the factory, one at the apartment, and one on the boat. Each would have been a successful short, and they all make a funny film - but the stitching of the parts together shows. There are some very amusing moments in the film - the discoveries of how Turpin's ineptitude causes various mishaps with water taps and stoves in the apartment; the accidental remarks of building manager Charlie Hall when Stan or Ollie runs by him and asks for directions ("Can you help me find the basement?" asks Stan - "Certainly,you can't miss it - it's downstairs!", says Hall, who realizes what a stupid comment he just made); and Cramer's mistreatment of his two hostage slaves. He calls Ollie "Dizzy" and Stan "Daffy" (an allusion to the Dean Brothers of the St. Louis Cardinal teams of the 1930s - see Dan Dailey's THE PRIDE OF ST. LOUIS). Cramer has the boys cook him up some food - and they make a synthetic meal (boot laces for spaghetti, for instance) to get him sick to be overpowered. When he realizes what they have done, he forces them to eat the meal themselves. Their reactions are brilliant.

SAPS AT SEA is not on par with the top line of Laurel & Hardy films, but it is a good film on the whole, and a good conclusion to the best years of their film career (1927 - 1940) when they were with Hal Roach. In the immediate couple of years before it appeared the boys and Roach had serious problems involving production costs (OUR RELATIONS, where Stan was producer on the film), artistic problems (scenes from SWISS MISS were cut meaninglessly), and contractual arguments (leading to Ollie appearing with Harry Langdon in ZENOBIA). Stan and Ollie hit back with THE FLYING DEUCES, wherein the production was not Roach's but Boris Morros'. At last a two picture deal of A CHUMP AT OXFORD and SAPS AT SEA concluded the arguments and problems - and on a high note the boys left Roach. Unfortunately they never found any subsequent film relationship with a producer as satisfactory as this had been. With Oliver Hardy bedeviled by the sound of horns, bells, phones and trombones, his doctor Finlayson advises peace and quiet and a diet of goat milk. Partner Stan Laurel comes up with a great solution, living on a docked boat so the salt sea air can help Ollie get all the rest he needs. It's a great premise for all the mad cap hijinks to ensue, as the boat is set adrift by the hungry goat, and an escaped convict (Richard Cramer) stows along for the ride.

I got a kick out of all the gags in the film, starting with that sign in the horn testing factory - 'Silence While Men Are Working'. The early story at the boys' apartment features a number of mixed up plumbing and appliance mishaps, with Stan doing a banana within a banana bit. Laurel has a couple of great lines in the picture, like "We must have been dis-unconnected", but the one that had me rolling was his response to the criminal on board ship - "Self preservation is the last law of averages" - precisely!

I'm not as great a student of Laurel and Hardy's films as many on this board, all I know is I enjoyed them as a kid and find them to be as entertaining today as they were back in my youth. On that count, "Saps At Sea" provides a decent hour of hornophobic fun, well on it's way to hornomania. Yes, as the other reviewers have already stated, this may not be vintage L&H but it's far from being their worst work as at 20th Century Stupid...I mean Fox. This film certainly has all of the basic ingredients for things to go wrong for the boys. But it's their serious approach and determination that makes them funny. They don't play it for laughs as other comedians might but they take their work and situation quite seriously and that is the essence of their eternal humor. In this film, they are faced with some basic issues that really might be encountered by any one of us today, namely job related stress. First, we would get checked out by a doctor and he would prescribe some much needed rest and perhaps staying by the sea. That's where the surrealness comes in to all of this. L&H always take a most plausible set of circumstances and exaggerate it but never to the point of being incredible, except maybe once in awhile. This makes us laugh because we can relate to their self caused predicaments and attempts at extrication. That's what makes Stan and Ollie universal in their appeal. In this film all those ingredients are presented in a delightfully artful and gracefully slapstick way. Not their best in comparison to their earlier work probably because this was the actual last film they did for Roach because he wanted to mirror the "big" studios and go into making features exclusively and also wanted to hurry up and finish their contractual obligation. BIG MISTAKE! They should have all stayed together and continued for maybe five more years. What the world may have missed in their not considering this as an option. Watch, laugh, and enjoy this as their last great performance. Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.

The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.

Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.

One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.

Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants. This is my third comment here attempting to connect two legendary movie comedy teams: Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello. The connection here is the year 1940. That's the date that the former had their last movie from their longtime home studio of Hal Roach. I'll mention the significance of the latter later on. Besides being the last time Stan and Ollie worked at the Lot of Fun, it's also the final time they would appear with such familiar supporting players like Charlie Hall and James Finlayson who appeared in most of their films. It's also the last time Art Lloyd would serve as their cameraman and Marvin Hatley-who composed their theme song which would be known as "The Cuckoo Song (Dance of the Cuckoos)"-their score. And it would be the very last time Stan Laurel would be allowed to exercise complete creative control over what goes on film. If there is a more gag-laden structure than usual in this L & H film, it's nice to know most of those gags are indeed funny. That includes most of the sound and visual effects, the latter provided by longtime Roach staffer Roy Seawright. In this one, Ollie has "hornophobia" from working at a noisy horn factory so Dr. Finlayson prescribes going out to sea for his rest. Ollie doesn't like to go boating so Stan suggests they just rent one that's docked so they wouldn't have to go anywhere. After they find one they like, we find out that convict Nick Grainger (Richard Cramer) has just escaped...I'll stop there and say this was as good a finale for L & H's longtime home as one could hope for. It's hilarious mostly from beginning to end and knowing this would be their last for the man partly responsible for their teaming is indeed poignant when one thinks of it. Oh, and I have a couple more lasts to mention: it's the final film appearance of both Harry Bernard, who plays a harbor patrolman after years of encountering Stan and Ollie as a policeman, and that of Ben Turpin, the cross-eyed comic who was born in New Orleans which is a couple of hours away from my current hometown of Baton Rouge, whose second L & H appearance this was having previously "married" the boys in Our Wife. The latter performer especially has a genuine comic moment. All right, I mentioned 1940 being the year Stan and Ollie had their last movie released from Hal Roach Studios. It was also the first year that a comedy team, both born in the state of New Jersey, would make their first picture at what would be their home studio, Universal. The director of that movie would be the same one that guided L & H in The Flying Deuces the previous year. His name was A. Edward Sutherland. P.S. It was during this filming that script supervisor Virginia Lucille Jones had an accident involving a rolled-up carpet. That incident caused Oliver "Babe" Hardy to send her roses to her hospital room. They fell in love and married on March 7, 1940. It lasted until Babe's death in 1957. I can't believe people are looking for a plot in this film. This is Laural and Hardy. Lighten up already. These two were a riot. Their comic genius is as funny today as it was 70 years ago. Not a filthy word out of either mouth and they were able to keep audiences in stitches. Their comedy wasn't sophisticated by any stretch. If a whoopee cushion can't make you grin, there's no reason to watch any of the stuff these guys did. It was a simpler time, and people laughed at stuff that was funny without a plot. I guess it takes a simple mind to enjoy this stuff, so I qualify. Two man comedy teams don't compute, We're just too sophisticated... Aren't we fortunate? Ever since seeing this film as a child, over 30 years ago, I never tire of watching it. From the opening scenes in the horn factory, to the car motor running from the back seat of the car, to Ollie answering the phone and being accidentally pushed out the window by Stan, I think this was perhaps their best latter day film. After this they moved to 20th Century Fox, and while those films weren't terrible, they lacked the comic timing of this movie. Jimmy Finnlayson, their long time foil, in his last appearance with the boys, showing up as the Doctor is super! quote: " I said goat milk " his reply to Stan asking him how do you milk a ghost! Charlie Hall and even Ben Turpin show up! I'd say all in all one of my favorite L & H comedies. SAPS AT SEA is evidently a pun on a Gary Cooper film, SOULS AT SEA. The title aptly describes the starring team, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. who go on an ocean voyage to soothe Ollie's nerves only to run into escaped killer Nick Grainger. As played by Rychard Cramer, this criminal is both amusing and chilling, making him a fine foil for the Boys' comedic characters. Despite his powerful presence, Cramer never upstages the Boys, a tribute to Stan and Ollie's beguiling charisma. That is as it should be, since the Boys are supposed to be the protagonists in this film.

Such is the charm of Laurel and Hardy's personas that they elevate average material. For SAPS AT SEA has its slow spots. For instance, as a previous commentator has noted, a bit where a doctor (the delightfully flustered James Finlayson) tries a balloon called "lung tester" on Ollie, lacks punch. The scenario is very episodic, with the first part, taking place in the Boys' apartment, almost completely unrelated to the second part where they go off to sea. But on the whole, the film is highly pleasant entertainment with a sufficiently brief running time so that it doesn't wear out it's welcome.

There's a certain poignancy viewing the final collaboration between Laurel and Hardy and producer Hal Roach. I haven't seen all of Laurel and Hardy's post-1940 films but those that I have seen don't measure up to even the weakest Hal Roach products. In these later movies, Laurel and Hardy seem to be in an alien environment, deprived of such colorful supporting players like Finlayson and Charlie Hall and Marvin Hately and LeRoy Shield's sprightly musical scores. They also aren't the well-meaning and optimistic bumblers we know and love but in the later films, are either exasperating blockheads or pathetic misfits.

It is a pity that many Hal Roach Laurel and Hardy films are now generally unavailable to the public. Even in a minor entry like SAPS AT SEA, one can see that Laurel and Hardy were great comedians. This was because Hal Roach, for the most part, allowed Stan Laurel, the guiding force behind the team, complete artistic freedom. Once Laurel lost his autonomy at other studios, the team lost much of its uniqueness. The boys are working outside a recording studio when they hear "the voice of an angel." That would be Miss Van Doren, auditioning and going under the name of Miss Andrews because her father doesn't approve of her being a "radio singer". However, she hopes a certain big-wig, Mrs. Bixby, a friend of her dad's will hire her, and then he will have to give his approval.

She leaves but within minutes the boys are running amok in the studio causing havoc and having other musicians out to kill them after they ruin the recording session. Finally things calm down. "Whew, we eluded them," says Moe. "Yeah, we got away, too," answers Curly.

The boys then fool around in the studio, put on Miss Van Doren's record and Curly gets dressed in women's clothes and pretends he's singing. Mrs. Bixby walks in, is impressed and hires "Seniorita Cucacha" on the spot! For an extra $500, she's asked to come and sing at their high-society party that night. The rest, as they say,is history as Curly pretends to be an opera singer with some funny results. Oh, by the way, he accompanied by "Senior Mucho" and "Senior Gusto."

What happens at the party is simply that the truth wins out, but not before a few slapstick antics take place. In all, a pretty good episode. I enjoyed it but wouldn't rate it as anything special. This is one of my two or three favorite Stooges shorts, and undoubtedly Christine McIntyre's best performance with the trio. She is good in a number of other shorts, but here she is absolutely brilliant. Her singing is not funny at all, in fact it is downright beautiful, but the plot is constructed in such a way that the singing enhances the humor rather than detracting from it. We listen to McIntyre sing the entirety of Voice of Spring no less than three times, but it never gets old, partly because we don't tire of her voice, and partly because it blends so well with the Stooges' antics. The use of operatic soprano in a comedy is reminiscent of Kitty Carlisle's role in the Marx Brothers' "A Night At The Opera," but the singing is much more a part of the comedy here than in "Opera," and McIntyre (perhaps more in other performances than here) exhibited a comedic talent of her own that Carlisle never did. The Stooges' buffoonery, McIntyre's singing, and a well-constructed plot combine for 5 out of 5 stars. Micro-phonies is a classic Stooge short. The guys are inept repairmen working at a radio station, and during some horsing around in a broadcast booth, Curly's perfect mimic of a recording of "Voices of Spring" is mistaken for the real thing, leading to a radio contract and a zany musical party. The trio's mock rendition of the quintet from "Lucia de L'Amamore" is especially entertaining. No doubt this is essential viewing for Stooge fans.

Although the evidence of Curly's failing health is visible in his face and voice, his performance is amazing, and it is probably the last glimpse of the old Curly. Some fans think that "A Bird in the Hand" is the last great Curly short, but his coarse voice and slow movement are just too difficult to watch. This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick "Disorder in the Court". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.

The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of "Voices of Spring". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.

What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed!

10/10 I remember when I first saw this short, I was really laughing so hard, that like with a lot of other films that I have seen, no sound came out! Curly is really great at "singing" opera in this one, I am surprised that he did not consider a career as a professional singer, because he was really good!

If you noticed, this was filmed near the end of Curly's career as a Stooge, you could really tell he had changed, because he had lost weight and was thinner, his voice was deepening, his face was getting lined with wrinkles, though he still could pull it off, he looked like he was fifty at the age of forty. This was because he was suffering many minor strokes before his big one that ended his career. Be he still managed to pull it off in his last ones!

If you don't mind the fact that Curly was really getting very ill at this point, this is actually one of their funniest shorts. I know that I didn't mind the fact that Curly was really changing, because I still thought that he was great!

10/10 Most Stoogephiles consider this to be the best Stooges short bar none, and they're right. Curly is a scream dressed up in drag as "Senorita Cucaracha", and Moe and Larry are in top form as "Senor Mucho" and "Senor Gusto", respectively. Christine McIntyre's beautiful operatic voice is given full rein--she actually was a trained opera singer--and it's wonderful. The great Gino Corrado is hilarious as a pompous Italian singer terrorized by the Stooges at a society party. Some truly funny gags, good direction and very tight editing make this rise to the very top of the Stooges' prolific output. What's even more amazing is that Curly was having severe health problems at the time, and in several of the shorts he made during this period, you can see that he is obviously ill; his timing is way off, he speaks very slowly and haltingly, and has trouble getting around. Fortunately, his health was in an upswing when he made this film, and it shows. Classic Stooge comedy, and enjoyed by even non-Stooge fans (I had a girlfriend who couldn't stand the Stooges, but even she laughed at this one). A must-see. This is without a doubt the funniest of the Curly stooges shorts. I've seen it dozens of times and it always makes me laugh. Hilarious pantomime sequences. A perfect example of "musical comedy". Even people who don't like the knuckleheads remember this one fondly. In Micro Phonies the stooges are at there best. In this short the trio are handymen working in a recording studio. They end up getting a look at Alice Van Doren (Christine Mcintyre)singing the voice of spring. The voice is amazing. Curly in drags is heard by Mrs. Bixby (Symona Boniface). Moe calls Curly Senior Cucaracha. The three stooges end up going to party where Curly is going to dress up in drags. They play a record of the voices of spring and all is going well until Moe destroy the record on Curly's head. They end up using the lucia sexlet until the baritone recognizes them and unplugs it. Alice Van Doren catches on to the boy scream and hides behind a curtain to help them out. All is well until the baritone wonders how Curly is singing without the aid of a phonograph discovers Alice behind the curtain. The three stooges are revealed to be frauds but Alice's father discovers his daughter's talent and agrees that she should become a singer. The stooge are pelted out of the room. Excellent. The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

This is a good Three Stooges short. It funny and its cast includes Christine McIntyre,Symona Boniface, Gino Corrado, Fred Kelsey, Sam Flint, Chester Conklin, Theodore Lorch, Lynton Brent, Judy Malcolm, Vernon Dent, John Tyrrell, Heinie Conklin, and Bess Flowers. The Stooges performed very well in this short! I recommend this one! I was quite surprised to read some of the comments on this work, honestly. Some people were looking for a plot??? OK, when this video came out over a decade ago, I watched it for what it was: a collection of music videos. It's not a movie. It doesn't have a plot, nor a central storyline. It's a rather artistic anthology of mostly long-form videos, all of them rather smartly or creatively done. Michael Jackson may be considered a freak these days, but, after all, this was the man who gave us Thriller (considered by many to be the greatest music video of all time) and set trends with Billie Jean and Beat It. With Moonwalker, he and the filmmakers and artists who collaborated with him once again took his music and dance moves to create some vividly entertaining stuff, incorporating claymation, special effects, live performance footage, and even self-parody (the "Badder" sequence). And for those wondering what Joe Pesci was doing there, this video came out just a tad before he became a household name, and was one of his most memorable appearances on film. And, IMHO, I think the Smooth Criminal sequence (the choreographed section) beats anything else Michael Jackson did up to that point! Ah, Moonwalker, I'm a huge Michael Jackson fan, I grew up with his music, Thriller was actually the first music video I ever saw apparently. Believe it or not there was a time where Michael Jackson was like a God to people, a time where women fainted at the sight of him before really fainting before seeing the sight of him, sorry, Michael. But Moonwalker was what started to be a tribute to all of Michael's success of the time right when he released his famous Bad album that was record breaking, was the first album to have 6 top ten singles. Michael is an incredible artist, there is no doubt, he writes, sings, dances, but when it comes to acting or keeping a story straight with his audience… not so much.

We start off pretty simple: Jackson's music, life, career, success and the mania that was the 80's biggest star in the world Michael Jackson. Later on, Jackson is a 30's style gangster who uses his powers as a crime figure to protect the children. When Jackson was allowed to be near children, we cut to him playing in a field with the children and their dog. The dog runs away, and in their search for it, Jackson and the children uncover the lair of Mr. Big, Frankie Lideo, a drug dealing mobster with an army of henchmen who wants to get the entire populace of planet earth addicted to drugs, starting with the children. Mr. Big discovers Jackson and the children, but they escape; Jackson tells the children to meet him at Club 30's, which turns out to be a haunted nightclub abandoned since the 1930s. The story goes back to the mobsters attack on Jackson, and here it is revealed that Jackson is actually a magical gangster, who draws his power from shooting stars. As one passes by the club, Jackson transforms into a sports car and mows down several of Mr. Big's henchmen. The story picks up on the children at Club 30's, and at first the children are afraid, but when Jackson appears the scary atmosphere of the club transforms and the children find themselves back in the 1930s. The club is now filled with zoot suiters and swing dancers. Jackson participates in a dance-off with the other club members, which serves as the music video for "Smooth Criminal". At the climax of the song, Mr. Big lays siege to the club and kidnaps one of the children, Katie. Jackson follows them back to Big's lair and ends up surrounded by his henchmen. Mr. Big appears and mentally tortures Jackson by threatening to inject Katie with highly addictive narcotics. While Katie manages to just grab Joe Pesci's glasses and get free from being injected, Mr. Big decides he's had enough and orders his men to kill Katie before finishing off Jackson, but not before a shooting star flies by. Jackson transforms into a giant robot and kills all of Mr. Big's soldiers. Yup, ummm, you want more weirdness? Watch the movie.

Moonwalker is fun for the first half hour, seeing Michael's success and all his hard work really makes his fans appreciate him once again. Is it mostly to hype up his album? Yeah, I love how he spends the first 25 minutes praising how awesome he is, then we go to his song called "Leave Me Alone", which is kind of hypocritical, not that it's not a great song, just a small turn of events. Then when we skip the crummy acting, the story was incredibly weak: The villain spells his name out loud while Michael and Katie are spying on him, lol, Michael is a transformer all of a sudden, the villain's big monster plan is to make kids high? Also the villain has some sort of massive ray gun that would make Marvin the Martian blush. But if there is one new thing that is incredible that the movie gives us is the new video for Smooth Criminal. This music video is perfection, it's choreographing, it's setting, it's song, it's smooth style, Michael always goes above and beyond perfection and Smooth Criminal was incredible. I loved Moonwalker as a kid, I still watch it for fun to this day, but it's not the best movie by any means, it's pretty silly, but it's all good if you're a Michael Jackson fan as well.

7/10 I've loved this movie ever since it first came out. I was about nine years old, and now I'm 27. I remember playing the video game on Sega Genisis. I had so much fun, I would love to show my son this movie. He likes Michael Jackson as well and I know he will love this movie just as I did when I was a kid. Even though he's much younger than I was when I first saw it. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD! I hope it comes out on DVD! Please let it come out on DVD!! I'm dying to see it again!!! Well that is my comment I hope that one day soon I'll get to view this movie again. I love all of the videos in this movie. My favorite mini-video is Badder! Actually this movie has silly moments, both in the claymation part and in the Joe Pesci and children part, and it's much worse than other MJ movies like "The Wiz", "Captain Eo" and "Ghosts". But as a die hard Michael Jackson fan since almost eleven years, (Yeah, that's half my life, you guys!), I can't complain too much about it. Just seeing this lovely guy and hearing his wonderful music is a trip to Heaven for me. But as a movie, it's not good at all, and I'm afraid, that it would get a much lower grade for me, if my darling Mike hadn't been the one starring in it. But since no one but Mike IS the moonwalker, it has to get a 7 out of 10 from me. If you want to remember MJ, this is a good place to start. This movie features sweet tunes, MJ as robot, and a crazy, messed-up plot. I recall, many a night, passing out to this fine feature film in college, and pondering the sheer awesomenes of whoever decided to green light this ridiculous piece of .

There is lots of singing. Lots of dancing. There is lots of singing while dancing. MJ slays it as you would expect when it comes to this stuff. But there is much more to this movie. There is claymation. There are fat children (clay). There is an anthropomorphic rabbit that michael jackson has to battle in a dance off (obviously clay too). There is Joe Pesci as well (not made of clay).

RIP- we love you Michael! It is a sad day for all of us. The first time I saw this "film" I loved it. When I was 11, I was more interested in the music and dancing. As I've grown older, I've become more interested in the acting as well. While the first half is just a retrospective of Michael's career (from the Jackson 5 up to "Bad"), it was still entertaining to watch. The "Badder" sequence could've been left out, though the kids were pretty good. "Speed Demon" and "Leave Me Alone" were funny, especially when the police officer tells Michael, "I need your autograph right here", after stopping him for dancing in a no-dancing zone. But it's "Smooth Criminal" that's the icing on the cake. Joe Pesci did an excellent job as the toughie (and that hair was wild). The dancing is perfect, and so are the special effects. The only thing I could have done without was the spiders. Any fan of Michael's should see this, if you haven't already. I give it a 10+! I was a kid .. crazy about Michael Jackson. His music, his dancing .. He was and is the greatest of all times. Few days ago a friend gave me a present .. "Moonwalker" DVD .. I just couldn't believe it! So I took my time and saw the movie again.. After a lot of years, and it kicked me back in time. I almost cried. Not because of Michael Jackson but of the good old times I remembered back than when I went to his concerts, enjoying music and dancing. The movie gave me some other perspective than back then when i was a kid. You can truly see the parody that Michael went through his life. Thank You Michael Jackson to bring me back to those great times, to Your great music and dancing. It's a shame that people has forgotten You .. I didn't because You gave me great moments with your music .. All the best to You where ever You are out there .. With all this stuff going down at the moment with MJ i've started listening to his music, watching the odd documentary here and there, watched The Wiz and watched Moonwalker again. Maybe i just want to get a certain insight into this guy who i thought was really cool in the eighties just to maybe make up my mind whether he is guilty or innocent. Moonwalker is part biography, part feature film which i remember going to see at the cinema when it was originally released. Some of it has subtle messages about MJ's feeling towards the press and also the obvious message of drugs are bad m'kay.

Visually impressive but of course this is all about Michael Jackson so unless you remotely like MJ in anyway then you are going to hate this and find it boring. Some may call MJ an egotist for consenting to the making of this movie BUT MJ and most of his fans would say that he made it for the fans which if true is really nice of him.

The actual feature film bit when it finally starts is only on for 20 minutes or so excluding the Smooth Criminal sequence and Joe Pesci is convincing as a psychopathic all powerful drug lord. Why he wants MJ dead so bad is beyond me. Because MJ overheard his plans? Nah, Joe Pesci's character ranted that he wanted people to know it is he who is supplying drugs etc so i dunno, maybe he just hates MJ's music.

Lots of cool things in this like MJ turning into a car and a robot and the whole Speed Demon sequence. Also, the director must have had the patience of a saint when it came to filming the kiddy Bad sequence as usually directors hate working with one kid let alone a whole bunch of them performing a complex dance scene.

Bottom line, this movie is for people who like MJ on one level or another (which i think is most people). If not, then stay away. It does try and give off a wholesome message and ironically MJ's bestest buddy in this movie is a girl! Michael Jackson is truly one of the most talented people ever to grace this planet but is he guilty? Well, with all the attention i've gave this subject....hmmm well i don't know because people can be different behind closed doors, i know this for a fact. He is either an extremely nice but stupid guy or one of the most sickest liars. I hope he is not the latter. This movie is great.

Now, I do tend to like my films heavy on the story and dialogue, but now and then, something like Moonwalker comes along, and it's watchable, despite numerous flaws.

This film is no more than a highly entertaining Michael Jackson advertisement. Beginning with sickly video set to 'Man in the Mirror' a montage listing his achievements, and bits and bobs from his career, it goes through all the highs of his life, then crashes down into a really, really entertaining segment which acts as a funny music video for 'Bad' and 'Speed Demon', following the adventures of MJ as he runs from manic stop-motion fans, and finally dancing against a rabbit costume. The stop motion isn't that bad as some would have you believe. It's passable.

Then we see the great video for 'Leave me alone', and straight into the main feature.

Yes, the plot is laughable. Very laughable. We see Michael walk out of a building, then get shot at by thousands of troops. Then we hit flashback, showing MJ and three children stumbling upon an underground lair. 'Mr Big' (Joe Pesci) is the nefarious villain who has a plan to get every child in the world hooked on 'drugs' (no specifics are mentioned) at an early age. MJ and the little girl he is with get caught, then chased... yada yada yada. The plot isn't really the important part. We get two very cool sequences where MJ turns into a car, then a robot-spaceship thing, and of course, the amazing 'Smooth Criminal' sequence.

It's a so-so film, but it is fantastic for anyone who likes MJ. It has most of his greatest hits, and some cool little bits, and some quite good special effects (the Robot/Spaceship sequence in particular) Worth it, especially seen as though you can pick it up for about a quid on ebay. It'll keep the kids quiet for a couple of hours, as well as most 20 somethings who were kids when it was first released. Moonwalker is probably not the film to watch if you're not a Michael Jackson fan. I'm a big fan and enjoyed the majority of the film, the ending wasn't fantastic but the first 50 or so minutes were - if you're a fan.

I personally believe the first 50 minutes are re-watchable many times over. The dancing in each video is breathtaking, the music fantastic to listen to and the dialogue entertaining.

It includes many of his finest videos from Bad and snippets from his earlier videos. It also includes some live concert footage.

If you're a big fan of Michael Jackson this is a must, if you're not a fan/don't like Michael Jackson, steer well clear.

9/10 Only a 9/10 from me, a perfect ten would have been if there was more of a plot to the movie, but nevertheless Moonwalker to this day remains a fun fest of music, dance and entertainment. Beginning with the montage of video clips from Jackson's long career, it reminds the viewer of just why he is often regarded as 'The King of Pop'. From his hit 'I want you back' to 'We are the World' the multi-award winning charity record for the benefit of Africa. Following this a short movie of sorts, although lacklustre in an Oscar winning script, nonetheless provides a fantastic and entertaining drama for the audience. Ending with a perfect (sexy!) rendition of 'Come Together'. Something the whole family can watch and enjoy. Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.

My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.

Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.

When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).

Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention. I think that this movie is very neat. You eithier like Michael Jackson or you don't, but if you like him then you have to see this movie. I think that it is a very neat film with great song play and good imagination. Not to mention the film center piece Smooth Criminal which has some of the best dancing you will every see. Moonwalker is such a great movie, from start to finish you cant take your eyes away. i love all the clips of Michael singing and dancing and I just love the 'studio tour' bit...soo funny :) And the 'mini movie' is to cool, with all the special FX etc...Michael is a genius and always will be!!! This is, in my opinion, a very good film, especially for Michael Jackson lovers. It contains a message on drugs, stunning special effects, and an awesome music video.

The main film is centered around the song and music video 'Smooth Criminal.' Unlike the four-minute music video, it is normal speed and, in my opinion, much easier to watch.

The plot is rather weird, however. Michael Jackson plays a magical 'gangster' that, when he sees a shooting star, he transforms into a piece of machinery. Throughout the film, he transforms into a race car, a giant robot, and a space ship.

The robot scene in particular is a bit drawn out and strange. I found it a little out-of-whack compared to the rest of the film.

A child is kidnapped, Michael tries to save her, is tortured and beaten, and suddenly turns into a giant robot that blows up all the bad guys. A little weird? Yeah.

But besides the bizarre robot scene, it's a very good movie, and any Michael Jackson fan will enjoy both the Smooth Criminal music video and the movie. If you see this movie, you know you will see an extense video-clip of popular music. But you will find more. Incredible FX, great music and a nice time to enjoy with your kids. If you compare this movie, you have to remember is a pop extravaganza. Clips of "Man In The Mirror", "Leave Me Alone", "Smooth Criminal" and Beatles' "Come Together". (There isn't much in the way of spoilers, since there isn't a plot to reveal, but still, I guess I describe some of what happens so...) This is it. This is THE most nonsensical film I've ever seen. There are simply no words to describe this movie, although "bizarre" "ridiculous" and "ego trip" are pretty close. the opening half hour or so are really, really weird music videos, with absolutely no plot or continuity, apart from that MJ falls into some from the previous. One of the highlights of this part of the "film" in the section where MJ is flying a merry-go-round aeroplane through what seem to be half-arsed bond intro rejects and sections cut from Yellow Submarine (dear lord you could not make this up).

Then, with a little over an hour remaining, the "film" begins, with a lot of claymation (some of it really creepy) spotting our "hero" and chasing him looking for an autograph. Obviously, this leaves our as of yet mute (discounting songs) lead somewhat worried, and he manages to temporarily lose them. Fortunate for him, because it means he can witness a falling star and, and again, I'm not making this up, turn into a claymation rabbit. He uses this cunning disguise to try and sneak past them, but, for reasons I can't recall right now, they see through it (oh no!) and the creepy chase begins again. Cue another song (big shock there).

Shortly after the end of the chase, MJ somehow brings the rabbit to life, until he is busted by a policeman (in the middle of the desert) because it is, apparently, illegal to dance there.

The rest of the film is equally as strange, highlights including MJ cleaning up a bar to the tune of Smooth Criminal, including shooting a man with his finger, not only killing the guy, but burning his shadow into the wall, a la nuclear fission weapons. Another good moment is when MJ, seeing, Mr Big (Joe "what the hell happened to his career at this point?" Peschi) kidnap one of the children he was friends with, magically creates a tommy gun, and in another moment of violence that pepper this film seemingly at random, opens fire at everything that moves. A final moment I shall mention is when MJ, surrounded by Mr Big and his private army. Seriously, this guy has dozens of people working for him, and they're decked out more like commando units rather than mobsters, which I guess they are. How does he get out? Why, he turns into a robot, complete with weapons and shield. This is the third of four transformations he makes, almost always when backed into a corner and/or on the run.

This film is quite, quite surreal, with little in the way of plot, and virtually no continuity. Michael Jackson is not very popular in USA anymore, however in Europe (especially Germany) he has still got lots of fans. Many will say that this is a bad movie, and it is: it has no plot, it's full of cliches, Michael praises himself constantly.

BUT, you can't expect a plot or non-cliches in this kind of movie! It has entertaining visual effects and the music is perfect. The Smooth Criminal fragment - the greatest song ever, full of Moonwalks, group dance acts and even the famous "Michael Jackson's Bench-over" - makes this film one of Jackson's masterpieces with an even good-looking (and white...) Michael Jackson!

A must for Jackson fans, a must for music fans, a must for dance act fans.

However, as I'm an MJ fan, I should warn all Michael Jackson haters out there: DON'T watch this movie, you'd only make your hate increase... Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!

The real gem however is the incredible "Smooth Criminal" video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone! Moonwalker is absolutely incredible !!!!!!! What else can I say !? Michael Jackson is the true King of pop, rock and soul !!! Moonwalker has everything ! Great story line, fantastic music, great visual effects, and of course it has Michael Jackson !!!!!! This movie is exciting,daring and the music is very good.The movie Moonwalker was meant to coincide with the album Bad(1987).I have Bad.It is excellent(*****).The movie begins with Michael Jackson performing"Man In The Mirror"on stage.then,it shows a history of Michael,from his early days in the Jackson 5 right up to the Bad era. Oh,and Badder is good too(Badder is a music video parody of the music video for Bad the single).It then shows the Speed Demon video.The song and the video are very,very good indeed.Same for leave me alone,which appears after.Then it shows the movie Moonwalker.after a few minutes,he plays smooth criminal in a club called club 30s.like it when he does the lean.anyway,nice to see you.bye bye. THIS IS BY FAR MY MOST FAVOURITE MOVIE IN THE WORLD!!!!! I enjoyed it when I was 4 and I still enjoy it at 16!! Its an absolute masterpiece! No video collection is complete without it!!! I enjoy every second of it and not only does the film have some great special affects but its sends a great message to the youngsters of the audience which may sound sheesy but in actual fact the movie is done very COOLY in actual fact! Although Michael Jackson has been in afew movies now, people still dont see him as an actor. In reality he's the most talented actor I know! He's so talented! He's incredible!!! MOONWALKER IS A MUST SEE!!!!!! At long last! One of Michael Jackson's most well known and beloved films comes to DVD! In Michael Jackson Moonwalker, (Michael Jackson) stars as Michael. A man with powers that are not of this world. Michael must save Sean (Sean Lennon), Katie (Kellie Parker), Zeke (Brandon Quintin Adams), and the rest of the worlds children from drug lord Frankie Lideo aka Mr. Big (Joe Pesci) who's mission in life is to get all of the worlds children hooked on drugs! A NOTE TO PEOPLE IN THE USA LOOKING FOR THIS FILM ON DVD: Make sure when buying this film on DVD you buy Warners Product #WK00817 as NTSC Region 3 which plays on North American NTSC Region 1 players. I first saw this when they showed this around easter time 1993/4 and didn't think much of it then, I bought this on DVD last summer when I started getting into Michael Jackson (I liked his music before) and enjoyed it more now I am older. It is a good film but it won't be this classic film like The Sound Of Music, West Side Story, The Wizard Of Oz etc. Michael Jackson as an actor was good and so were the other cast members. There were a disturbing scenes like the little girl Katie getting slapped by the gangster Frankie Lideo who was played by Joe Pesci. The scene that frightened me when I was younger was when Michael turns into a robot. My favourite song on the film was Smooth Criminal I think it was better than Thriller in my opinion. And I don't say it in a bad way.

I watched this movie at the cinema when I was 6 or 7. For me and my cousins it was magical, beautiful and scary at the same time. When we left the theatre, Michael was our best friend even though we knew he had no idea about it.

Over the years, I saw this movie being aired a few times but I always changed the channel. Even seeing a few seconds of it would bring back that feeling of magic and warm my heart. And I liked it that way.

So I've only seen this movie once and I believe it was a good decision not to watch it again. If I saw it today, I know I couldn't help but criticise MJ's acting, the plot (if there was one) and this and that. For me this is a childhood memory, so my feelings towards it are those of a child from 20 years ago.

I see my adult self intervenes in my rating and gives it an 8 for the memories and wonderful music. For that little kid who watched it in awe 20 years ago though, this is definitely worthy of a 10. Moonwalker is a Fantasy Music film staring Michael Jackson with different segments. I will rate each segment individually.

Segment 1 opens the film with a Music video. The Music video is a concert of Michael Jackson performing the song "Man in the Mirror", the Music video also show's montages of historical figures such as Gandhi, Martin Luther king JR, John Lennon and more. The first segment was a good choice to open the film i liked the song and also loved the montage of the historical figures. I even loved the message in the song. I give the first segment a 9/10.

Segment 2 shows a montage of Michael Jackson's start from the Jackson five to his solo career. The montage i thought was well made, i liked the animation they put into it and i also loved their choices of songs such as "I I want you back, Beat it, Thriller, can you feel it and the way you make me feel." The only thing i wish they could have done a little a better in one of the songs in the montage is "We are the world". The reason why is all you see is rain drops and in those drops are images of Michael Jackson and the chorus of the celebrities, but it's a little hard to see the chorus. Other than that the segment is still good. I give it a 9/10

Segment 3 is the song Bad. You're probably thinking it's Michael Jackson's Music video of bad,Well yes and no. This segment is the Music video but it's redone by Kids. The segment was cute but it wasn't as good as the other segments. I give it a 6/10

Segment 4 is a short Claymation Music film that takes place after the kid's version of bad called "Speed Demon". The short is about Michael Jackson being chased by his beloved fans and the press and he disguises himself as a rabbit and rides a motorcycle to try to get away from them. The claymation in the chase sequence was great but some parts in the film the Claymation characters looked a little fake when they interact with real people. Also at the end of the clip out of nowhere Michael Jackson rabbit costume comes to life and he's dancing with it. I liked the dancing but that was like out of nowhere. I give it a 8/10

Segment 5 is Michael Jackson's Grammy winning Music video "Leave me alone." The Music Video is about the media poking their nose at Michael Jackson's personal life and Michael Jackson feels they won't leave him alone no matter how much he's proved innocent. The music video really speaks out( but keep in mind this happened before the child molestation this just all about the rumors of him in the 80's.) but i didn't feel this Video should be in this Movie because it's a kids Movie and i don't think kid's will understand what he's singing about. I give this Music video 8/10

Segment 6 leads us to the main story of the whole movie called "Smooth Criminal." Michael Jackson plays a gangster who uses his powers of a wishing star as a crime figure to protect children ( including John Lennon's son Sean Lennon) from an Evil Mobster named Mr Bigg (Played by Joe Pesci). The segment i thought really brought out the film especially when he danced and sang the song "Smooth Criminal" with a bunch of Criminals. I also thought the special effects were good. The weird thing about the Segment is why are kids hanging out with a grown man it never explained why. Also Joe Pesci character talks about Drugs and what he plans to do with them. I mean why would you talk about drugs in a kids film. Other wise it was good. My rating for this segment is a 8/10

Segment 7 is the final segment of the whole movie. The film end's with Michael Jackson singing a Cover version of the Beatle's Song "Come Together" and then during the credit's we see Michael Jackson singing with Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Michael did a good cover of "Come Together" and i think it was good idea putting including a group of good singer's with a talented musican like him. My rating is 9/10

This movie is a good Michael Jackson film i think it really brings out children s Imagination. The film is almost as Imaginative as the Beatles animated movie "Yellow Submarine" if you like Michael Jackson and you're up to a film with a lot of creativity this is the film. My Overall rating for this movie is 8/10 This movie is my all time favorite!!! You really have to see Michael Jackson in this wonderful film!! I'm always over the moon, watching it!! This is a film, that you really have to see, also if you aren't a MJ Fan, cause this film writes, like Captain EO, E.T. and Ghosts, a bit of Film and music History!! This wonderful film, out of Michael's feather, is a must have!! And: Smooth Criminal, is really the most wonderful, exciting and amazing song I've ever heard in my life!! Thank you Michael for this film and I love you!!! MJ's the best musician to hit this planet, he's a fine man and he always brings sparkles in your eyes, when you listen to his music!! Please, if you don't know this film, watch it and don't miss it, because would be too bad for yourself if you'd miss it!! -Highly Recommanded film, for every movie lover- Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down. Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!

Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.

The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story "Mr. Big", because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.

During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!

The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!

I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: "But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!" Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see.. This movie is the only movie to feature a scene in which Michael Jackson wields a Tommy Gun. Plain and simple.

This movie rocks because it is freaking' hilarious! It may be creepy to see Jacko w/ little kids, but this movie also stars.......................................... wait for it,.....................

JOE PESCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think about it, Joe Pesci and Jacko with Tommy guns, throwing coins into jukeboxes from 20 feet away? Whats not to like? As stated before, THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This has got to be one of my very favorite Twilight Zone episodes, primarily for the portrayal of two lonely souls in a post-apocalyptic environment.

The cobweb-strewn shops and rubble-laden streets are eerie in that particular way the Twilight Zone does best.

While the parable can be a bit heavy-handed by today's drama standards, it is an excellent one - using the setting to make a statement relevant to the human experience, as well as geopolitics, in a way that is timeless. The entire drama rests solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bronson and Ms. Montgomery, who do not disappoint. (May they both rest in peace.)

A true classic. Wow! All I can say is that if Elizabeth Montgomery is the enemy (she speaks Russian), then I'm surrendering right now. In her short skirt, high-top boots, and pronounced bust line, she's a real babe, even if her zombie-like eye-shadow sort of comes and goes. This 30 minutes is no doubt the sexiest of the series. Note the realistic and revealing wrestling match with Bronson until he ungallantly slugs her on the chin, ruining all the fun. Okay, probably I should leave off my hormonal response.

This is a very well produced half-hour by that underrated force behind the series's success, Buck Houghton. Naturally, the producers want to lead off the third season with an above average entry. It's post nuclear-holocaust America (we know because she's part of the invading force) and only American Bronson and Soviet Montgomery are left, along with about twenty tons of realistic wreckage. They wander among the destruction in alternating moods, while we wonder how long it will take for biology to trump politics, which of course it eventually does, (lucky Bronson). And that's about it. No real talk, except for what Bronson has to say which is pretty overblown. Nonetheless, the screenplay is still entertaining, and rather daring for its time, even suggesting that not all Russian women looked like truck drivers (a popular Cold War stereotype of the time).

In passing-- it's rather curious that the very Slavic-looking Bronson (Buchinsky) would be cast as the American and the glossy-looking Montgomery as the Slav. Appearance-wise, it should be the reverse. My guess is that the producers did not want to cast the American in the physically weaker role of the female, regardless of appearances. However that may be, there is little of the usual TZ fright or atmosphere, still the episode remains a very, very watchable 30 minutes. This is one of my favorites along with the Mariette Hartley and Robert Lansing "Sandy" and the Agnes Moorhead-and-the-tiny-spacemen episodes.

It is an important take, from mid-1961, on the long Cold War that the U.S. was then embroiled in. The beaten-down city-scene, the near-starving characters' sparse dialog, their threadbare uniforms, and the minimal action "says" it all: the absurdity of an on-going conflict that threatens to destroy human life, modern civilization, and all that is sweet and redeeming about it.

It is a "fable" because it was made in a time in which, had events turned out differently, such as the second Berlin Crisis (Spring 1961) and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962), it would have actually been a reasonable representation of one of the U.S.'s major cities, ruined and replete with a few miserable survivors. I also see it as a "fable" because it is not only a cautionary tale, but because it is the most redemptive of all our popular myths: it is a love story, set in an impossible situation, and involving two highly mismatched lovers. This episode apparently grew out of the cold war. There has been a holocaust but somehow Elizabeth Montgomery and Charles Bronson have come through unscathed. It then becomes a battle for turf. She is attracted to him and vice versa, but the instinct for survival takes over. It's a quiet, slow moving, chess battle as they attempt to achieve trust. They come to truces but distrust takes over and they start again. Of course, the male female role of the sixties comes into play and modern viewers might find that her need to follow him is a bit offensive. But it still is captivating and interesting. Because she doesn't speak, we don't know here mind very well, but in the end we can guess. A lot is dated in this episode (just like most Twilight Zone episodes), such as the Woman's incredibly sexist military "uniform." And some things are so unbelievable, like the easy availability of clean water. Still, consider the year this was made and the time, and you quickly understand why this episode is so special as you watch. It has a nice sense of hope, something missing from a lot of Twilight Zones, as well as an interesting female character (despite the fact that she rarely speaks), something else rare on the Twilight Zone. "Two" is a great example of how the Twilight Zone, in just over 20 minutes, could pack more emotion and drama than most two hours movies today. And it's great to see two people who became American icons so early in their careers. Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:

Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...

At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10... Whilst reading through the comments left for this show, I couldn't help but notice that a large percentage of the reviewers had either not actually watched any episodes of the show either all the way through or of their own free will. The thing about Kerching! is that it's a children's show, FOR CHILDREN so obviously if your older it is going to seem cheesy, forced, and probably stupid. I even found one person saying the sets were stupid, but I remember as an eight year old wondering why Taj had ikea icecube moulds on his wall, and also wondering if my parents would let me stick some on mine (they didn't). Yeah, it can be annoying, the acting could be better and some of the characters do really weird things with their hair, but as a kids show, I rate it 10/10. Compared to the stuff they air in its place today, well, lets just say I wish it'd be re-aired. DVD release, anyone? I've noticed that a lot of people who post on the "Kerching!" board seem to hate this show, which I actually find very surprising. I think it's one of the best British kids' shows there is. It's a shame it's ending because it's very funny (if a bit cheesy sometimes) and has great characters. The main character is a little like Del Boy, although quite a lot smarter. With his 2 best friends he tried to make a million pounds for his mum by starting an online business and adopting a pseudonym of "Rudeboy". His friends are Seymour (who likes to cook) and Danny (who is simple minded and the comic relief character). Throughout the show, some characters have left and new ones have come in, but it's always been entertaining and improving. I've read reviews of Kerching on IMDb, and frankly,I've not seen one positive review, until now. I actually like Kerching. Kerching is about a teenage boy named Taj Lewis, in order to make £1,000,000 for his mother, he sets up a website called rudeboy. The website offers a lot of interesting things, if only Taj, and his 2 friends - Danny and Seymour can stop Taj from getting exposed. I find this show quite funny and I enjoy watching it. The acting is O.K., but it can definitely be better, the characters are funny, especially Danny Spooner, Taj's friend , his stupidity is what makes him funny. and Taj's other friend Seymour. Also Carlton, the owner of the café'e called "The Chill." We never see him, we only hear him. Taj's younger brother Omar, and his older sister Missy is funny too. And Missy's best friend Kareesha. So many times Taj's has almost got exposed, almost. As well as the comedy, the drama in Kerching such as love life and the loss of loved ones makes this programme great. The Internet Database lists this as a TV show. And yes, it was a series on MTV shown on the "Oddities" program, after "The Head" and before "Aeon Flux" if I recall correctly. But the version I watched this time was a VHS tape with all the episodes run together into a film without annoying credits in between or having to wait a week for the next fifteen minutes.

You have the story of the Maxx, Julie Winters, Sarah and Mr. Gone. The Maxx is a super-hero or a bum, Julie a social worker or a leopard queen, Sarah a girl who should listen to less of The Smiths and Mr. Gone a guy who can't seem to keep his head on. And then there's the other weird creatures...

I use "or" with Maxx and Julie, because part of the fun is trying to figure out which parts of the story are real and which are dreams. Maybe they're all real or dreams. Maybe one of the characters doesn't exist. Maybe only one exists and dreams of the others. You'll have to wait and find out.

I had the comic books before the show came out, and it was one of my favorites. The artwork was spectacular and the story was original -- unlike anything you'll find in Superman or Batman. It will bend your mind, and has strong adult overtones without being obscene or offensive. And the show used basically the same exact artwork (only now it moves) and the same story... guaranteeing that the beauty intrinsically found in the comic would be faithfully reproduced. This was the best show to appear on "Oddities", hands down.

If you like comics of a darker nature or need a good mind trip, this is a show to check out. It's "Donnie Darko" before there was ever such a thing.

The most astonishing thing is that this never went on to become another movie or television series, but I don't say this in disappointment. By keeping it simple, they have sealed this movie in gold and kept it free from the blemishes brought on by successive failures. "Most of us at least inhabit two worlds , the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstances and the world within ,the unconscious ,a safe place where we can escape ..." With those words ,Mr .Gone introduces inside the world of "The Maxx" a fascinating world where the fantasy and the reality are combined . Inspired in the comic books of Sam Kieth, "The Maxx " is very faithful to the material in what it was inspired , not only in the story but also in the graphic style ,that look like the pages of the comic ,giving this show a surreal and unique appearance . But also ,the story it's interesting and entertaining .At moments it could turn too weird ,but when you got inside it ,it's hard to get out of it . The story and the characters are wonderfully developed . The music goes perfectly with the style of the show and give it the proper atmosphere . Unfortunately , like many good animated shows ,this one was short -lived . "The Maxx" is a must see . It 's one of my all -time favorites . The Maxx is a deep psychological introspective lightly camouflaged as a weird-out superhero story. Julie Winters is a "freelance social worker" in an unnamed filthy city, ridden with crime, and she and everyone she knows has a lot of issues to work through. The Maxx is her friend and client, a street bum who thinks he's a costumed superhero - or is it the other way around?

The Maxx is not to be missed for the artwork, the story itself, or the excellent voice work - particularly the late Barry Stigler's deliciously urbane, drippingly evil voicing of the main villain, Mr. Gone.

If you get the chance to see this, don't miss it. For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.

I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.

The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).

If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?! Despite its budget limitations, this is a great film, proof that effort and imagination can overcome lack of cash. The opening, in which cave-paintings seem to show how some dinosaurs at least survived into the age of human beings, is a nice red herring. After that, a meteor comes down into a lake and causes heat which, in turn, causes the hatching of a frozen dinosaur egg (maybe the cave-paintings suggest instead that this isn't the first time such a thing has happened). When the prehistoric beast appears, it's a well-animated Plesiosaur which is soon causing disappearances in the local area. Alright, so it's not Jurassic Park, but it's still genuine entertainment for fans of monster movies. A meteor crashes into Crater Lake, the heat from the impact causing a prehistoric egg to hatch.

Alright, so the plot is just trash. But despite its obvious low budget, this comes across as one of the most gripping and entertaining monster-on-the-loose films in existence. There are also some good moments of humor. In an age filled so-called 'monsters' which are no more than laughable men-in-rubber-suit creations or lizards dressed up in frills and forced to rip each other to pieces (cheap exploitation-style), it's refreshing to discover that the Plesiosaur in this little gem is an excellent Harryhausen-style stop-motion creature.

Quite a hard film to find, but it's worth finding. One of my all-time favorite so-laughably-lousy-that-it's-totally-lovable el cheapo and stinko nickel'n'dime independent horror creature features, an enjoyably dreadful marvel that was released by the formidably fecund exploitation outfit Crown International Pictures so it could play numerous crappy double bills at countless drive-ins back in the 70's and eventually wound up being rerun like crazy on several small-time secondary cable stations throughout the 80's. I naturally first saw this gloriously ghastly abomination on late-night television one fateful Saturday evening while in my early teens and have had a deep-seated, albeit completely irrational abiding fondness for it ever since.

A meteorite falls out of the sky and crashes into the still waters of a tranquil country lake, thereby causing a heretofore dormant dinosaur egg to hatch. Of course, the baby dino immediately grows into a gigantic waddling, grunting, teeth-gnashing prehistoric behemoth with goofy flippers, an extended neck and a huge mouth full of little sharp, jagged, stalagmite-like chompers. Our Southern-fried male cousin to the Loch Ness Monster promptly starts chowing down on various luckless local yokel residents of a previously quiet and sleepy hillbilly resort town. It's up to drippy stalwart sheriff Richard Cardella, assisted by the painfully idiotic hayseed comic relief brotherly fishing guide duo of Glenn Roberts and Mark Seigel, feisty gal pal Kacey Cobb and terminally insipid nerdy scientist Bob Hyman, to get to the bottom of things before the over-sized gluttonous Jurassic throwback ruins the tourist trade by eating all the campers and fisherman that the hick hamlet makes its cash off of.

Director/co-screenwriter William R. Stromberg displays a wonderfully woeful and thoroughly clueless incompetence when it comes to pacing, atmosphere, taut narrative construction and especially eliciting sound, credible acting from his hopelessly all-thumbs rank amateur community theater level cast. The performances are uniformly abysmal: Cardella is way too bland and wooden to cut it as a solid heroic lead while the pitifully dopey redneck comic antics of Roberts and Seigel provoke groans of slack-jawed disbelief -- you aren't laughing with these two atrociously mugging clods so much as at them, particularly when the insufferable imbeciles discover a severed head bobbing up and down in the murky lake water. Better yet, a clumsily integrated sub-plot concerning a vicious on-the-loose criminal leads to a spectacularly ham-fisted supermarket hold-up scene which degenerates into a hilariously stupid mini-massacre when a young lady shopper interrupts the stick-up artist in mid-robbery! A subsequent car chase is likewise severely bungled as well; it's so limply staged and unimpressive that one feels more relieved than scared when the monster abruptly pops up to devour the nefarious fugitive. Moreover, David Allen's funky herky-jerky stop motion animation dinosaur is the authentic gnarly article, projecting a certain raw charisma, sneaky reptilian personality and overall forceful screen presence which makes all the horrendously underwhelming human characters seem like pathetically unbecoming nobody bores in comparison. And as for the rousing conclusion where the sheriff takes on our slavering beastie with a bulldozer, the operative word for this thrilling confrontation is boffo all the way. C'mon people, look at the title! LOL! I remember seeing this movie on Saturday Late Night Creature Features years ago. It's a great, cheesy monster flick with hilariously bad acting and two wonderfully moronic hillbillies that add to the schlock factor. The 2 redneck boat rental guys are the movie! LOL, and you'll love the boat scene where the English guy and his wife are talking about all the stars and it's midday and sunny. Bloody hilarious!!! You can tell they just didn't care about plot, they just wanted to blow through the filming of the movie as fast as possible. Bottom line, you'll love it if you love 70's schlock. A meteor drops from the sky and reawakens a plesiosaur that long ago used to terrorize the area around Crater Lake . As the monster eats the locals they try and find away of killing the monster.

Recent attempts at sending up old horror and science fiction films like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Alien Trespass are kind of rendered moot when you have films like Crater Lake Monster available for screening. It's the sort of film that those films spoof and send up only this is the real deal. Its everything those films try to be only with out the tongue in cheek and its so much more fun because of it. This is a real drive-in sort of film that had the unfortunate luck of coming just as Star Wars changed the way we look at special effects. The monster, a mix of stop motion and a life size head, is a charmingly quaint little beast. The filmmakers spoil the audience with frequent shots of the monster and its mayhem. Sure its clear that its all fake, but isn't movies about suspension of disbelief? Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.

I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way. If you want a real authentic drive in monster movie look no farther. This would be perfect for a double or triple feature with similar lake monster films (Boggy Creek etc.) Since I am so interested in lake monsters i really dug this movie. This movie is worth a see. If you like the so awful they are good types of films check it out. The effects are really good as well just think "Land of the Lost". I originally watched this movie in the early 90's maybe more like 89/90 on a local channel monster show called "Morgus Presents". I didn't scare me but I was 8 and anything B felt more like an A. Years later I seen it on DVD at a local Circuit City and bought it immediately so I can give it a 9 because it has a personal spot in my heart right there with The Monster Squad and Gremlins. Good B movie fun for all ages. I used to watch this show as a child, and I loved it! I watched it when it came on Toonami YEARS ago....Sheesh, I sound so old! I must've been 13 or 14 when it came on...But anyways, it had a great plot line, and I'm one of those girlie-girls who watched (and ADORED) Sailormoon, and I enjoyed it very much. The animation wasn't the best....Quite amusing in some parts, actually, and the voice acting was EXTREMELY lame in the beginning, but it was all a good watch, and I found myself sucked into it day after day.

Samurai Troopers/Ronin Warriors is a classic, and an all-time one of my faves. Go Ryo!!!! This is one of those movies that you happen across when you're channel surfing on a Saturday afternoon, and you get drawn into it and end up watching the whole thing. I thought that it was well acted and it really made me feel for the characters. Though it's a bit slow moving, focusing more on the relationships between Bonnie and Clyde and their family members, it never got boring. We don't really see too much of all the robberies that they were so legendary for, and instead most of the shootouts take place when they're ambushed by the police. I thought Tracey Needham, who played Bonnie, really did a good job with her character. Going from a nice country girl to a cold-blooded killer is a challenging thing to portray, and I enjoyed the subtlety she brought to the role.

Overall, an above average effort, especially considering it was a made for TV movie. this was the best bonnie and clyde movie i have seen. it has more accurate accounts of what happened and while it doesnt glorify their crimes it casts the pair in a normal light. i give this movie a 10. it has great actors,realistic scenes and excellent writers. Will all of you please lay the hell off Todd Sheets!?! Let's give you $30,000 to make a movie and see what you come up with! The guy got 735 zombies and a regular cast to work for FREE! Sure the acting is laughable at times. Yes the make-up is not greatest you'll ever see. But it's not the worst either, if you want to see that, go watch Zombie Nation with it's raccoon zombies.

This is pure, good old fashioned Guerilla Film-making! Todd is a consummate professional, and an all around nice guy. There are holes in the plot, yes. The plot does seem far-fetched. But what the hell, I still love this movie. I wish Todd Sheets would come out of hiding and do the remake of this that he was going to. If anyone has ever tried to make a movie, they know that just finishing it, is an achievement in and of itself. A meltdown at a nuclear power plant causes a majority of people to turn into lethal, rot-faced, shambling zombies who naturally go on a grisly rampage. A ragtag handful of uninfected folks do their best to survive this grueling ordeal. Director/co-writer/producer Todd Sheets displays an appealingly sincere love and passion for go-straight-for-the-throat lively and gruesome horror fare: he maintains an unflagging snappy pace throughout, fills the screen with wall-to-wall crazy action, and thankfully keeps the terrible dialogue to a pleasing minimum. Moreover, Sheets certainly doesn't skimp on the gloriously graphic and excessive over-the-top splatter: this picture delivers a tasty truckload of flesh melting, evisceration, lots of gut munching, one dude has his heart yanked out, and there's even a nice impalement on a tree branch. Sheets earns bonus points for keeping the tone grim and nasty to the literal bitter end (for example, almost all of the main characters wind up becoming zombie chow). Granted, this flick has its fair share of flaws: the ragged editing, several ham-fisted attempts at pathos, and the largely awful acting from a rank no-name cast all leave a good deal to be desired. Top thespic honors go to the pretty and perky Kasey Rausch for her winningly spunky portrayal of the resourceful Daria Trumillio. Frank Dunlay likewise does well as rugged take-charge army veteran Ralph Walsh. Best of all, Sheets' sure grasp of an infectiously slambang sense of unrelenting headlong momentum and obvious affinity for the horror genre ensure that this remains a total blast to watch from start to finish. So, Todd Sheets once stated that he considers his 1993, shot-on-video Z-epic, Zombie Bloodbath to be his first feature film. Anyone who's ever seen a little beauty called Zombie Rampage knows exactly how untrue that statement is. I mean, what makes this one that much more superior? Well, then again, Zombie Rampage doesn't include that mullet guy, now does it?

For one to comprehend exactly why Zombie Bloodbath is actually considered worth a damn, one must remember what the 90's were like for lovers of bad horror. A decade that all but said goodbye to B and Z-cinema as we knew it. Technological advances, awkward trends, and the internet would abolish the mysterious charms of the s.o.v.'s big-boxed golden years. And anything remotely resembling quality schlock was all too self-aware for it's own good, basically defeating the purpose. Luckily, not everyone changes with the times. Enter Zombie Bloodbath.

And I guess this is the part where I explain the same exact premise from 500 other zombie flicks from the last 40 years. Alright, so, Some kind of accident at a nuclear plant infects everyone in sight, turning them into flesh-eating zombies, who go on a rampage, inflicting some of the most gruesome, yet humorous gore-scenes of the 90's. The first 20 minutes are cluttered with the most awkward-sounding conversations you could imagine. Conversations that let you know that this isn't just a low-budget zombie flick, this is a Z-grade disasterpiece, fella. plenty Hysterical, non-existent acting to go around, and that goes triple for Mr. Mullet. That guy is truly the highlight of the night.

The fact that Todd Sheets seriously considers Zombie Bloodbath to be THAT superior to Zombie Rampage, amuses me to no end. I mean really, both are complete jokes on celluloid, but then again, so is Redneck Zombies, so, obviously Todd Sheets is in the company of awsomeness. By 1993, a movie this bad would no doubt, be a full-blast spoof, but Mr. Sheets stands his ground, giving us some good old fashion schlock, the way it was meant to be, unaware, clueless, and pointless. God bless Todd Sheets. For anyone seeking surprisingly worthwhile 90's B-Horror, Leif Jonker's Darkness should be at the top of your list. As for Zombie Bloodbath, if you're a gorehound who got bored sometime around 1990, then '93 would be the perfect time to pick up. 8/10 Just got my copy of this DVD two disc set and while not perfect, I found the overall experience to be a fun way to waste some time. I have to say right up front that I am a huge fan of Zombie movies, and I truly think that the fine people who made these films must be too. I also have a soft spot for people who are trying, sometimes against all odds, to live a dream. And again, these people are doing it. Is this some award-winning collection of amazing film? No. Not even close. But for what they do on their meager budgets, these films should be recommended. For me, the bottom line is always, was I entertained? Did I have a good time with this movie? And here the answer to both was "Yes." The first in the series is also the most raw. It opens with some kind of accident at a nuclear facility and people melt down or something. Cut to some years later and a new housing community is built over the old reactor site. Some kids making a video fall into a hole and find themselves trapped in the bottom levels of the facility. They get rescued, but the hole is not sealed and the people from the opening start lumbering out of the hole. Soon, the whole town is overtaken by the undead. And these zombies are fun. They go from cool rot makeup to the cheapest slap on white-face ever, but they are fun. The whole movie culminates in a showdown between the final survivors of the area and the undead, with our heroes going into the reactor's lower levels to take out the flesh eating zombies and seal the hole forever! Pretty cheesy, but I think it was meant to be. Still, it moves very fast, has buckets of gruesome effects and really tries to have some style. The acting is uneven, but a few good performances shine through and one really should listen to the commentary track. I went back and watched it again with that on and found it to be a good bit of information on the trials and fun that the crew and cast experienced on the movie. Director Todd Sheets seems pretty proud of this, his first film, but also has no delusions. He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't fun! Overall, this is a solid, if a bit flawed, release with plenty of extras and TONS of gore and splatter. While not breaking any grand rules of move making, I found the series to be fun and always a laugh, so I give this set a solid recommendation. Todd Sheets was not trying to make award winning art here folks, he was trying, sometimes against all odds it seems, to make fun zero budget, splattery horror and to that end, he has succeeded in spades. Zombie Bloodbath is a movie made by zombie fans for zombie fans with a true love of the Horror genre. As I understand it from the commentary and things I have read, it was made during the huge Midwest flood of 1993 when half of Missouri was underwater. Buildings were under water. cars and houses were underwater. One article said that zombies and the crew from this movie would help sandbag the river after shooting each day. The fact this movie got made at all is a miracle. It is like a huge mashing of every zombie movie ever made put through a Troma filter. It is a party movie to enjoy with friends who like loads of splatter and goofy characters. And it is fast paced and energetic and really funny.

A toxic spill accident in a nuclear power facility causes people to melt down or turn into zombies. The local Government covers it up, tears down the factory and builds houses over it. Some ground shifting (?) causes a cave opening to develop and some new residents find the cave and unleash the undead on the newly built community. From there it just gets crazy and gory and fun.

I have read these reviews on here a few times. And it seems obvious to me that the same person attacked this fun little movie three times as a different reviewer, using fake names. They use the same words and sentences. Zombie Bloodbath is cheap. It is raw. It has some bad acting. So does half the movies made. There is much much WORSE out there than this fun movie. If you hate this film so much, don't buy it. There is no need for personal attacks and to call the crew or cast "Trailer Trash." And it is obvious you are not from Australia or England. It is just upsetting that this great service, the IMDb does not catch people using it just to trash others. There are bad reviews and good reviews, and I don't mind those. I give both bad and good reviews myself. But it is painfully obvious that some fool just wants to use this forum to personally attack the director of this movie. Sad.

Some of these so called "Reviewers" even basically sue their "review" just to promote their own movies. One called this film Boring - well, love it or hate it, one thing you can NEVER say about this film is that it is boring. It moves fast and never has a dull spot.

Oh and this reviewer from The Netherlands??? Um - LIAR. You tried to post this same review at Amazon and it got yanked there. The SAME review only it said it was from Missouri.

This nonsense HAS to stop. Love it or Hate it - give it a real review or type nothing. It is obvious you have not seen the films.

But for the record, I have and though this one is not nearly the best that I have seen, it is far from the worst. And even the worst I would give an actual REVOEW and would not attack the director personally.

Hope this review helps some people see through the stupidity going on here. I originally reviewed this film on Amazon about 6 or 7 years ago, and blasted it. I believe I called it "wretched" and a "turkey." Okay, well, by most standards, it's still a turkey. It's got almost no production values, what little plot there is makes almost no sense, and the acting is on the level of a third-grade play. That said, this has really grown on me over the years as a sort of camp classic. In fact, all of director Todd Sheets' films have had this effect. They're almost like Ed Wood in that regard: Watch them over and over and pick out the flubbed lines, continuity errors (same zombie, two different locations!), and other flaws.

I'll say this: Sheets is a very nice guy, and while this, one of his first productions, isn't that great, he has gotten better. And I must add that the only really decent actor/actress in the film is Kasey Rousch, though I may be biased, as I attended school with her.

I have to admit to enjoying bad movies. I love them I watch all of them. Horror especially. My friends and I all gather after a hard week at school and work, rent some crazy tapes, order a pizza and have a blast. One of the ones we got at Hollywood Video, was this one, Zombie Bloodbath. This one had a great box, so I was expecting less than usual.

The story is about a housing project that is built over a nuclear facility that has had the above-ground layers bulldozed, and the other underground layers are simply covered up. The inhabitants of this neighborhood find the covered up facility when some kids fall into a hole inside a cave. This wakes up some zombies.

From this point on, it's chunk-city. The gore effects and action never stop until the end credits roll.

OK, it's not great art, but this one, with it's in-joke dialogue and over-the-top gruesome stuff was our favorite of the evening. Actually, it was one of the best "party tapes" I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And you could tell it was done on no money, with a bunch of crazy people. There are hundreds of zombies, and the Director looks like Brendan Frazer (he has a cameo) and it is just a wild trip. I have to admit to enjoying bad movies. I love them I watch all of them. Horror especially. My friends and I all gather after a hard week at school and work, rent some crazy tapes, order a pizza and have a blast. This one had a great box, so I was expecting less than usual.

The story is about a housing project that is built over a nuclear facility that has had the above-ground layers bulldozed, and the other underground layers are simply covered up. The inhabitants of this neighborrhood find the covered up facility when some kids fall into a hole inside a cave. This wakes up some zombies.

From this point on, it's chunk-city. The gore effects and action never stop until the end credits roll.

OK, it's not great art, but this one, with its in-joke dialogue and over-the-top gruesome stuff was our favorite of the evening. Actually, it was one of the best "party tapes" I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And you could tell it was done on no money, with a bunch of crazy people. There are hundreds of zombies, and the Director looks like Brendan Frazer (he has a cameo) and it is just a wild trip. I swear, that zombie was killed like twice, and kept coming back. I gave this movie an 8. Let's face it folks, this is exactly what the other reviewers are saying, i.e., a "handy-cam", shot film. Hey, hey, hey, welcome to total indy film making. The fact that Todd Sheets got over 700 zombies to appear in this movie is a tribute to his talents. Yes, the story has gaps, yes, we see the same zombies over and over again, but who really cares? Take it for what it is, a fun and gory horror film, one to share with your buds, or to gross out the people you really care about LOL. Mellow out people, I suppose you all liked hunks of garbage like "Titanic" or "Twister" instead. Peace, and support independent film making!!! My room-mate ordered this one off of the web a while back and I finally got around to watching it. It is gross. It is cheezy. It is pretty dumb... but it is also a lot of fun. I mean, this was the most fun we have had watching a movie like this since "City Of The Walking Dead" ages ago. It was like being at the old Drive-In Theater again! You could tell the guy who made this movie liked all the horrible dubbed zombie movies. This one has all the cliches and tricks from those films rolled into one, and it's neat because it is SUPPOSE to be like that. The cheeze factor is high, the gore flows and the laughs roll! The effects go from sloppy to good, with the one where the guy gets torn in half and the one where a guy gets his heart shoved through his chest both being excellent! The acting goes from terrible to actually pretty good. There is not much plot, just lots and lots of gore. This one is patterned after the zombie movies from Italy and Spain I think, because they linger on the gross scenes forever, like this movie. If you like Troma movies, cheezy B-grade stuff, then you can do no wrong watching this one. A nice way to waste a Friday night! In the early 1970s, many of us who had embraced hippy/acid/alternative culture wholeheartedly, had realised that mainstream society was not going to change in the way we thought it would. For me this film defined the tension of "now what?" that many of the people I knew felt at that time. Do we head for the commune and create our own vision of utopia or do we radicalize and push for change?

From the futile gestures to police, the radical rhetoric, the music of Pink Floyd, to the love-making and the explosive images in the desert - so much is in there. It captures well a significant moment in time. All of the reviews here about how much ZP lacks plot, the acting is wooden, the orgy scene makes no sense, etc., all miss the main point.

Let's be honest. This is a movie made in the heady times of late 1960s and early 1970s Los Angeles. It is a movie meant to be watched while your are H-I-G-H out of your mind on some psychedelic substance.

Find some kind bud and smoke up, or get a mild hit of acid. Seriously, these straight and sober reviews of ZP miss the point. You can't get anything out of this movie in a straight frame of mind.

Until you've watched this movie on the big screen (which I am lucky to have done three times in the 1990s when ZP was quite rare) tripping out, you have no idea what this movie is all about.

If you insist on watching it not intoxicated, you can at least appreciate the ending when the crap blows up to the soundtrack of Pink Floyd's wonderful re-working of "Careful With That Axe, Eugene," "Come in Number 51, Your Time Is Up." Watching this again after a gap of many years and remembering the flop it was upon its original release, I am surprised at how well it has held up. One of the reasons for its failure was that one generation just thought it was over indulgent crap and a younger one was disappointed that it did not show the full hippy glory. Seen now it is clear that Antonioni was already aware of and fascinated by the heady mix of fervent enthusiasm for change and a lack of any clear vision for the future. The lead pair are excellent and it is shameful that they took so much flak for the film's perceived failure. They are ideal and convey perfectly the various contradictions and demonstrate a pure delight in lovemaking. I blame others for the over emphasis on the student revolt sequences at the start but have to say that from there on in this is one of the directors most beautiful looking pictures and he certainly got the very best out of the man made and natural landscapes. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the highly explosive ending. Antonioni was aiming for another hip masterpiece, this time on the other side of the Atlantic than "Blow up". It wasn´t the success with critics and youth like the former though. Why? Maybe because it was a European´s view of America filled with clichés that didn´t work then and that have not aged well. (The revolutionary students at the beginning is embarrassing.)

Maybe when it was released big blockbuster movies and those aimed specifically at the youth market seemed dated. If it had been released a year before maybe hippes in deserts would have seemed fresh... It´s a very interesting film tho, very beautifully shot with some brilliant and Antonionian scenes in between, like the love-making in the desert, the stillness of the desert mansion and the explosive ending... That the leads were two amateurs didn´t help. They were beautiful but inexperienced. Mark Freshette is slightly better than Daria Halprin. It would have been so much better with proper actors! Maybe Michelle Phillips or a young Jessica Lange... The dialog is actually quite funny and poignant at times, tho you wouldn´t know the way the lines are delivered...

A very intersting document of the late sixties definitely worth a look for the photography and the soundtrack.... for my opinion, the middle of the film, specially the love scene is a bit too long, but the whole time you can imagine this desert feeling. but the best, what made this film unforgettable are the great explosion pictures, their color, slowmotion and the pink floyd music are unique in filmhistory!

destruction in its propper and popular form. "Zabriskie Point" (1970): This was especially interesting to me on a personal level, since it takes place under identical circumstances, with identical peers, in my own life – the Counter Culture movement of the late 60's/early 70's, on and off campus. We follow two unrelated young people in separate stories, who are slowly woven together. One is a young man in Los Angeles, tired of all the endless, pseudo-revolutionary jabber in the classrooms and lunchrooms of his campus, and, the other, a young woman driving to Phoenix to see her father & employer, and take on an "establishment" job. The film is FULL of our Italian director's (Michelangelo Antonioni) visual notations of America, and, the confused, psychedelicrazies of that era's self-righteous, "we know it all, we'll change everything for the better" youth. Just who IS the "revolutionary"? What does that REALLY mean? Do you dress like one and march around chanting? Do you "fly in under the radar" but give advance notice of your arrival? Do you keep your plans to yourself, and go about the business of change, with no need for group approval? "Zabriskie Point" is definitely a "period piece" - full of slang, uniforms, somewhat surreal film moments (after all, this is a film by the man who gave us the amazing "Blow Up" of 1966), and the era's artifacts, but it is more. It presents options for cultural revolution, and going by Antonioni (who DOES seem to be supportive of it), the youth are too self-involved to see what is needed for radical success. Because of this, it becomes a powerful, frightening film that applies to anyone, any time, any place. Mark Frechette stars as Mark, a college radical leftist. Mark is accused of killing a cop during a campus riot, and he flees all the way to the desert. He does so by stealing a small plane at the local airport, and flies it himself.

Once out flying over the desert, Mark spots a car from the air. A young woman named Daria steps out, and sees Mark circling in the plane. Mark swoops the plane very low several times, causing Daria to duck or get hit. When he lands, he becomes acquainted with Daria, who is strangely charmed by Mark's aerial highjinks.

After engaging in soulful conversation for hours, Mark and Daria get naked, and make love in the sand. But with Mark evading the law, they realize that he needs to keep running. So Mark and Daria's brief tryst is quite poignant, because it doesn't get to develop into a full-blown romance.

Zabriski Point was the Eraserhead of the early 70s. Both films have a rambling, vague quality, along with complicated meanings and characters. Frechette was as reckless in person, as his character was in this film. A few years after making Zabriski Point, Frechette robbed a bank in real life. While serving his prison sentence, Mark died an ignoble death. He was killed by a 150 lb. weight, which fell on him when he was weightlifting.

The best thing about this movie was the splendid cinematography, and special visual effects. The incredible, slow-motion scenes of debris floating in the air after an explosion, were a stroke of genius. Although not as ground-breaking a film as Easy Rider was, Zabriski Point still resonated with the early 70s counterculture. I recommend it, for those who like avant-guard films which showcase the upheaval, of the youth rebellion during the early 70s. When I saw the film for the first time in the early 1970s, I was in awe of this film. Visually it was stunning and the events on campuses in Europe and USA made you relate with what Antonioni was trying to say so well visually in the final 15 minutes of the movie: blowing up in your mind the "tyrannical" establishments and big business interests. The repeated blowing up of the beautiful house in the middle of a desert, the lead female character enjoying the natural stream of cold water, painting a plane in psychedelic designs (even the staid British Airways did it a few years ago) are some of the images that were copied by advertising personnel all over the world for decades. Even Pink Floyd increased their fan following after the film was released.

You see this film some 30 years later and you begin to wonder why the same film has lost its appeal. Today anti-establishment films have more substance--facts, documentation, fine performances, and superb screenplays. Antonioni seems to be out-of-date; a flawed genius. Even viewing Antonioni's "Blow Up" today gives you the similar feeling that he is passe.

"Zabriski Point" has to be evaluated for what it was when it was released. It was a great film if you were to see it on a wide Panavision screen as opposed to the dwarfed TV screens. The visual and aural (Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, Pink Floyd, et al.) allure of the film still remains. The lead pair were not great actors but they were cute and natural. One of them (Mark Frechette) died in prison in USA extending the reality of the non-conformist values he personified in the film.

Today, Antonioni seems out of "sync." But watch carefully and you will appreciate the muted sounds of the regular actors--Rod Taylor, G.D. Spradling, the ladies at the swimming pool, the cops at the air-strip. The real sounds in contrast are from the non-conformists. Antonioni was relevant 30 years ago but his grasp of the medium cannot be questioned even today. He knew what he was doing. If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".

It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.

The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.

This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy. When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or "preachy" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, "matter-of-fact" way. I hope to show it to my daughter. Although this film is somewhat sanitized (because it was made at a time when people just didn't talk about sex), it is an extremely helpful short film to show prepubescent girls so they know what to expect during menstruation. Not surprisingly, it was paid for by the Kotex company, though what may surprise many is that Disney made this film--as they made a lot of educational films during the 1940s-60s. However well made the film is, though, I think the film maker's missed a real opportunity. Instead of the nice female narrator's voice and the relatively bland visuals it would have been GREAT if they'd used Minnie Mouse and the rest of the Disney gang!! I know this would have given old Walt a heart attack, but wow that would have been a great film! By the way, although the notion of sex is barely hinted at in the film, it DOES adequately explain menstruation in general. However, it does lack some details (especially about intercourse) that I assume were included in the accompanying booklet.

Now if only I can figure out why I watched a cartoon about menstruation. The entire 10:15 minute presentation is done in a very non-threatening and non-medical way that even preteen children can easily understand. It dispels many of the myths surrounding menstruation that were going around in those days (1946) While sex is not explicitly mentioned, the part about fertilization is. This is also, purportedly, the first Hollywood production to ever use the word "vagina" in the dialogue.

It is cute how the animated character is shown topless in the shower in a purely animated character way with no defining features as was the way of the day. Many of the Betty Boop cartoons showed her undress without revealing any defining features either. Max Fleischer was a bit of a card and did this with many of the Betty Boop cartoons which required frame-by-frame viewing to find them.

There is no mention at the beginning or end of the film as to who the female narrator is. In fact, there are no credits whatsoever other than those mentioning Kotex and Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

This title is nearly impossible to attain; but for those who are Bittorrent downloaders, it can be found out there in the ether. This is one of those "keepers" that will become increasingly hard to find as older short subject features fade into obscurity. Heart pounding erotic drama are the words that come to mind when I think of "Secret Games". It becomes more erotic as the film goes along and at one point blew me away! I didn't expect the delightful scene I was about to encounter. The "call girl" has her first customer and what a customer! One of the most erotic lesbian scenes I have ever seen. The husband should have listened to his wife and perhaps she wouldn't have gone on this erotic journey. It turned out to cost them in the end but, it was one exciting ride! GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! This film had my heart pounding. The acting was great, the erotic music and the beautiful women add up to make this one a winner. The lead actress decides to join an escort service when she realizes that her husband has no time for her. She step's into a whole new world her first client being another woman. This is a film you definitely DON'T want to pass up. By no means a masterpiece, and far from Errol Flynn's best, Istanbul still has much going for it. The locations and beautiful technicolour cinematography, bring us back to a time long since past. Errol Flynn does show moments of his past glory, and is OK as Jim Brennan, a pilot who's past comes back to haunt him. The picture is actually a remake of 1947's "Singapore", and the story seems awfully contrived and cliche' by today's standards. Also many of the supporting cast seem to be simply "going through the motions" in this picture. Many people have also compared it to one of the all time greats, CASABLANCA. While watching the film, I could see many of the similarities, but hey, Casablanca has inspired countless imitators, so take that for what it's worth. In closing, if you are a fan of Flynn, or old fashioned love stories, you might want to give this film a look. Otherwise, I'd recommend Casablanca, or The Maltese Falcon, as a good introduction to some of Hollywood's classics.... Kristine Watts (Molie Weeks) is broken apart, missing her lover; she is not able to overcome her love for him that is lost in the past. She hires a stranger (Douglas Davis) and gives a list of her mistakes to him with things to fix. But time is irreversible and sometimes the cure for the pain is a tragic end.

The first point that impresses in "The Cure" is the stylish cinematography that alternates black and white with color. The concise and sharp screenplay is capable to develop a tragic and bleak tale of love with an unexpected plot point in the very end in less than eight minutes. The soundtrack is beautiful but the volume is a little loud and associated to the fact that English is not my native language, in some moments I needed to repeat some words whispered by the narrator. The unknown lead actress has magnificent performance and is extremely gorgeous. I hope to have a chance to see her again on the screen. Last but not the least, the debut of the director and writer Ryan Jafri could not be better. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available This is an odd film for me, as after I reviewed a nice film from a new film maker (FAR OUT by Phil Mucci), another writer/director, Ryan Jafri, contacted me and asked me to watch and review his film, THE CURE. I don't normally review films this way, but what the heck--I love shorts and couldn't wait to see another.

Interestingly, while it turned out I did like THE CURE, I was not thrilled by it and let Jafri know. To his credit, he encouraged me to review it anyway--giving it my honest appraisal.

The film has tremendous style and as far as Jafri's direction goes, it's exceptional--especially for such an inexperienced film maker (it's his first film). The combination of exceptional choices of color, pacing and music that well-suited the film created a great sense of atmosphere. You really are pulled into the film and that is a credit to the film making. However, the thing I didn't love was some of the writing. While the basic idea was great, the ending was just too easy to foresee. I really would have loved the ending had it come as more of a surprise or there to have been an unexpected twist. However, considering that this film is from someone who shouldn't be able to make such a professional film given his experience, it bodes well for his future. Good job. The Cure is an amazing film...So suspenseful and just so REAL! I was lucky enough to catch a screening of 'The Cure' at it's NYC premiere and it completely blew me away! I also heard it won an award from that particular festival, and it definitely deserved it. The first thing that struck out at me was the cinematography. Eric Giovon did an amazing job. The shooting style of the love scene halfway into the film was amazing. A love scene was necessary in this film, and Jafri got the point across but also kept the scene tasteful. Giovon and Jafri make an excellent creative team and they should definitely work together on future projects. Judy Maier's narration was so surreal but simultaneously heart wrenching, it made me feel what the main character felt. I'm a very tough critic but i must say The Cure is one of my favorite films..JUST LOVE IT! If you haven't seen it yet, check it out! Let me start by saying I have never reviewed a movie on IMDb before; however, I am in the video biz myself. And coming from that perceptive; I can say, without a shadow of a doubt that this film is what a short should be. It has a very good story and another thing I love-(an even better twist ending). Opening was very well done, I loved video chosen for it and how it was edited.

I am not a fan of B&W but the way this film uses the effect it works. And with any film that is all that matters. The flow of the film works perfectly and editing was very well done. From a technical side of things (which is side I normally work on) everything is also very well done. There is no major tech. stuff to point out. Only minor one I have is that the end credits are a little bouncy. This is probably due to a rendering issue. Let me also say that I would have prefer to seen more of the love scene but I am guy (so you can chalk that up to a guy factor).

So overall I rate it a 9/10. It is worth the watch if you fan of Indies and/or short films.

ps. sorry for bad grammar or spelling. Time and time again, I've stated that if people don't want remakes or sequels made, they should stop seeing them and instead venture into the world of independent film. Having said that though, the last time I saw an independent film myself must have been easily six months ago. So here's a review for an indie that I had my attention drawn to on Youtube; the Cure.

Right away, you can tell that the film is going for an avant-garde film approach which is telegraphed in its use of extreme close ups, scopophilia and fast editing. It is proud of the way it looks - and it has a right to be. For the most part it is a very nicely composed little piece, save for one inexcusable disregard for the 180 degree rule and a comically bad gunshot effect which is a phenomenon that seems to be THE calling card for self funded projects.

Still, despite these amateurish mistakes the majority of the shots are actually a pleasure to look at. We're presented with a good use of props and locations, good visual acting and some very atmospheric, fluid editing, which is made more commendable as this is definitely something you won't see very often at all from a Youtube submission. The plot is fragmented and although the basic premise is fairly simple some may find it hard to follow exactly what is happening, but what we are seeing here is avant-garde storytelling at work; you can't really expect a straightforward three act structure and if you do you might not be ready for this kind of movie.

Where the film is unfortunately let down however is the sound. What you're going to hear throughout is a distorted voice-over which often sounds insincere and worse still is the continuous background music, which goes through minimal change and doesn't add much to anything. So much attention is paid to the visuals that the audio frankly sounds neglected, and this becomes really apparent when you realize you've just missed about four sentences of the narration and have to backtrack to pick up what slipped past your attention.

So, give it a watch, but do it with the sound turned off.

Last thought; was anyone else reminded of the cover for Doug Naylor's Red Dwarf novel "Last Human" early in the film? If you have the book you know what I mean. Not sure if it was right or wrong, but I read thru the other comments before watching the short.I have to say I disagree with most of the negative comments or problems people have had with it.

As a first time "Lone Wolf" director/producer,I like to see things that I can aspire to,not necessarily from the pro's, but by people just getting their feet wet like me.

If indeed this is also from a first-timer,as I read,I applaud the effort.Marvelous job then in that respect! There were some comments about the music.I thought it was quite nice for the piece.Some say it kind of droned along for a while, but I found that created tension without(us)necessarily being conscious of it, and when he pulled the gun out and the guitar started crunching chords,it was like we knew there was a train on the tracks, but realize it is just now moving. Yes there is a 180 degree slip/clip in there, but shi* happens.Did anyone else see Hugh's dirty shirt turn white (near the end,in the rain) in "Australia"? Look how much money and people were behind that movie! Give the kid a break for Gods sake! All in all I think it was very well done. Only 2 things I would have mentioned are hardly worth mentioning-Don't walk up to a shiny brass picture frame with the camera, and I would have just displayed the splatter at the beginning shots to a still shot, so people wouldn't necessarily know what it is.

My experience so far has taught me that it's not that it's hard to make a movie,it just takes time to learn how to do it,then the time to actually do it, and then you better take some more time still to think of all the details you'll need to have shot before you call "post-production time!" IMHO, it looks like director/writer Ryan Jafri did his homework, and if this indeed is his first report card, I'd give him an "A". The rest of you report to the principals office for a whuppin'. I had pleasure to watch the short film "The Cure", by first time director Ryan Jafri. What really impress me are the camera work and music.

I think many young filmmakers (as I myself am one of them) would experience hard time with cinematography when just start making of an indie. We see the output are not exactly what we imaged or below our ambitions. But this film, directorial debut from a young director, handled very well on screen. The camera motion, color, lighting, compositing all contribute to the story and emotion of the film.

And music, as a key element of film language, helps a great deal too.

It's hard to portray a woman's heart, her desire, her fear, especially in a short. But still, I have to admit I am not a fan of v/o (narration), especially when the film is advanced by narration, instead of shots and cuts. My personal feeling to some of the narrative part is, my guess was the narrator tried a bit too hard. So the energy pushes audience back from the emotion of the film.

Overall, it's a short film nicely done, I could see the input from a director. Way to go, Ryan! Greeting from China, looking forward to your next.

tim The Cure uses voice over to create an intense mood. Although the VO accounts for all of the film's lines it amazingly does not take away from the visual story. The use of multiple film stocks add a lot of texture to the story. The choice of combining b & w and color worked nicely to enhance the leaps in time. The ending will make you jump despite being able to anticipate the result. I was especially enjoyed the thrill of the film's suspense. The close-ups for the love scene are also lovely and reflect a tasteful eye. The piece is quite short but accomplishes a lot. The tight editing really helps to show off what a short film can do. Worth watching more than once! I admit I had no idea what to expect before viewing this highly stylized piece. It could have been the cure for a zombie virus or the common cold for all I knew. It began with great visuals, little snippets to grab your attention and cause your imagination to run wild. As it continued I learned quickly through voice overs what was taking place. A nice little neo noir story that I felt was not a waist of a few minutes of my time. The little clues given to the audience through visuals at the beginning give them a sense of accomplishment as they piece together the plot. Along with a nice twist at the end its a cool package overall. The score, though not bad, gave the film almost a music video feel. It just felt a little dated, not adding anything to further the storyline. Some of the performances felt overly dramatic but fit perfectly with the feel of the overall piece. I walk away from this very satisfied. I was given a lot of information in a short period of time but through great editing and voice-over work it didn't feel rushed or pushed. Great job! A sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces in name only, The Angels Wash Their Faces suffers somewhat from the usual shenanigans of the Dead End Kids. As a matter of fact, with the presence of the Dead End Kids and Ann Sheridan this should have been treated as an actual sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces, at least for continuity's sake.

Speaking of Ann Sheridan, she is the one true shining light of this movie. To paraphrase a cliché, Ann Sheridan could read from a phone book for two hours and I would buy the DVD!

Another virtue of this movie is the chemistry between Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately , this aspect of the film is kept too far in the background. For a better example of the Sheridan-Reagan duo I would recommend Juke Girl or Kings Row. I don't have much to add to what has been said before, but it's very much a film of it's time, and the first (and likely only) time that the studio hung the film totally on the Dead End Kids.

The Warner's gave the boys plenty of help, from director Ray Enright and an 'A' budget, to an almost magical cast of supporting actors. At every turn, we get one of those gem performances from real pros. They are too many to list, but it seems like just about everybody on the Warner's lot (Sans the very biggest stars) walk through this picture. (See if you can spot John Ridgely)

The only over the top performance is from the always reliable Eduardo Cianelli as a mob boss with a messianistic complex. He plays this character almost exactly like that of the Thuggie leader in "Gunga Din". He's something to watch! And Marjorie Main is excellent and gets her best role since "Dead End".

My bid for this one is a second feature on a double bill with something like "City for Conquest".

Hooray for Warners! The film begins with a bunch of kids in reform school and focuses on a kid named 'Gabe', who has apparently worked hard to earn his parole. Gabe and his sister move to a new neighborhood to make a fresh start and soon Gabe meets up with the Dead End Kids. The Kids in this film are little punks, but they are much less antisocial than they'd been in other previous films and down deep, they are well-meaning punks. However, in this neighborhood there are also some criminals who are perpetrating insurance fraud through arson and see Gabe as a convenient scapegoat--after all, he'd been to reform school and no one would believe he was innocent once he was framed. So, when Gabe is about ready to be sent back to "The Big House", it's up to the rest of the gang to save him and expose the real crooks.

The "Dead End Kids" appeared in several Warner Brothers films in the late 1930s and the films were generally very good (particularly ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES). However, after the boys' contracts expired, they went on to Monogram Studios and the films, to put it charitably, were very weak and formulaic--with Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey being pretty much the whole show and the group being renamed "The Bowery Boys". Because ANGELS WASH THEIR FACES had the excellent writing and production values AND Hall and Gorcey were not constantly mugging for the camera, it's a pretty good film--and almost earns a score of 7 (it's REAL close). In fact, while this isn't a great film aesthetically, it's sure a lot of fun to watch, so I will give it a 7! Sure, it was a tad hokey-particularly towards the end when the kids take the law into their own hands and Reagan ignores the Bill of Rights--but it was also quite entertaining. The Dead End Kids are doing their best performances and Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan provided excellent support. Sure, this part of the film was illogical and impossible but somehow it was still funny and rather charming--so if you can suspend disbelief, it works well. This 1939 film tried to capitalize on the much better Michael Curtiz's film "Angels with Dirty Faces". As directed by Ray Enright, the only interesting thing is how tamed these kids were in comparison with what's going on with the youth in America's inner cities today.

The film is only worth seeing because of the presence of Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan, who showed they were well paired together. The Dead End kids have larger parts as the plot concentrates on them rather than in the older folks.

In a way it's curious how arson was used in the same way some scrupulous landlords did in later years right here in New York. It was the quickest way to turn a property around never considering the social problems it created. In today's climate with so many guns around there is a new reality. The young kids of the story seemed mere pranksters rather than criminals. How times change! Gabe Ryan (Frankie Thomas) gets out of reform school and goes back to the slums. His sister (Ann Sheridan) does her best to keep him out of trouble, but it just seems to follow him. Aside from his associations with the Termite gang, Gabe is followed by real-life gangsters who have a scheme to set fire to random buildings to collect the insurance. They need someone to blame for the arson, and Gabe is it. It is up to the Termites to work the law in their favor and give the gangsters their just desserts.

The the scene that introduces the Dead End Kids is really quite good. The boys wander on over to the new resident's furniture on the street, and proceed to make it their own. They talk to each other in phoney posh accents and talk about drinking tea together; Bernard Punsley takes a nap in a chair. The boys then proceed to start a fight with the new boy, but after he proves himself a good fighter, they ask him to join their club.

The initiation scene is rather good too, filled with mischief that seems dangerous at first, but is really rather clever and innocent.

Later, when Billy Halop studies to become the boy mayor, he has a dream about schoolwork. This is wonderfully staged, with tiny holograms of the kids walking on his face and firing questions at him.

Angels Wash Their Faces is a great title because it plays off of the success of Angels With Dirty Faces, and really tells what the kids are doing. Notorious for bad behavior on and off the set, these boys make nice in this film. But rather than seem disingenuous, it makes for some great laughs. This is a preview of what many of the boys would become in The Bowery Boys series. We even get a few garbled words from Leo Gorcey. This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11! God I love this movie. If you grew up in the 80's and love Heavy Metal, this is the Movie for you. They really don't get much better than this. The Fastway soundtrack is one of the best soundtracks ever. I put on the record when it first came out and spent the next month learning every song on guitar note for note. The plot outline is your standard Heavy Metal horror movie. Kid's favorite singer dies. Kid plays record backwards. Hero comes back in demonic form and rocks the town. What more could you ask for?

If you haven't seen it yet, rush out and buy it. You will not be disappointed. Metal Rules... This is a great movie if viewed in the proper context - It was meant to be a parody of teen-horror-devil-worship movies (and the '80s saw plenty of them)! I saw this movie when it first came out, and instantly liked it. Being a big fan of KISS, it was great to see Gene in the movie. And anything with OZZY as a metal-hating preacher can't be all bad! Also, Fastway was already a favorite of mine, so it was great to hear them on the soundtrack.

The original VHS (this was pre-DVD) cover for Trick Or Treat featured an illustration of Sammi kneeling, playing his guitar in a ring of fire with a "demon" looking on. It was a special order, and the price for the VHS copy at the time (circa 1987) was $90! I really wanted the movie, but not at that ridiculous price. The 'OZZY-Gene' cover was only created for the $5 re-release. The company releasing it probably figured Gene and OZZY were the only recognizable people in the movie, so they had better put 'em on the cover! Same thing with the original "Little Shop Of Horrors" - Jack Nicholson was in it for all of five minutes, but now they have him on the cover as if he were the main star.

I have a "Trick Or Treat" web site, and it's surprising how many people believe Sammi Curr was a real person! Fastway helped perpetuate that myth by dedicating their soundtrack album to 'Sammi Curr'.

All-in-all, it was just a good time, rock-n-roll movie. Definitely not to be taken too seriously, but just enjoyed! I first saw this film as a teenager. It was at a time when heavy metal ruled the world. Trick Or Treat has every element for a movie that rocks. With a cast that features Skippy from Family Ties, Gene Simmons of Kiss and Ozzy Osbourne as a Preacher, how can you go wrong? Backwards evil messages played on vinyl! Yes thats right, they use records in this movie. In one scene Eddie (Skippy) is listening to a message from the evil rockstar on his record player when things begin to get scary. Monsters start to come out of his speakers and his stereo becomes possessed. As a teenager I tried playing my records backwards hoping it would happen to mine. Almost 20 years later Trick Or Treat is still one of my all time favorite movies. One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?

Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!

If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself. TRICK OR TREAT is a fine example of Hollywood jumping on the "backwards messages in metal music" bandwagon that Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives kick-started in the mid-'80s (other, less successful entries in this mini-genre include the awful BLACK ROSES and silly THE GATE). I was a sophomore in high school when TRICK OR TREAT came out and couldn't wait to see it. It seemed to disappear from video stores by the end of the '80s, but I finally picked up a budget-priced DVD copy a short while ago and it brought back many pleasant metal memories from back in the day. Any teenage metal nerd could relate to the trials of Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer (Marc Price of "Family Ties")in this film as he is persecuted by the preppie "beautiful" people in his high school for his heavy metal fashions and musical taste. Eddie's favorite rock star is Sammi Curr (who looks a lot like Tommy Lee of Motley Crue), who is killed in a hotel fire early in the movie. Eddie is inconsolable till he receives a test pressing of Sammi's final, unreleased album from a radio DJ (Gene Simmons of Kiss in a brief cameo). Eddie soon discovers that this LP, when played backwards, allows him to communicate with the undead spirit of Sammi Curr himself! Soon Sammi is giving Eddie advice on how to get even with his preppie torturers but when the messages escalate in scariness ("Waste'em ALL... no false metal!") Eddie tries to destroy the album, which results in Sammi coming back to life via Eddie's stereo speakers. Sammi rampages to the big dance at Eddie's high school and takes the stage to rock the crowd and disintegrate a few unlucky "false metallers" before Eddie arrives to save the day and the girl of his dreams. (SIGH) No, it's not terribly scary in 2006, it wasn't even scary in 1986, but TRICK OR TREAT is a movie that will bring a smile to the face of any 1980s metaller and has a kick-ass soundtrack courtesy of the cult band Fastway. Well worth seeking out if you've ever banged your head or have a taste for B-grade horror movies (or both, like me). First off, this really is my favorite film ever. I don't need to give anyone a description because every a**hole does that. I am literally obsessed with this practically bloodless, cheesy, lame effects having', boom-stick showing', badly edited, 80's metal horror masterpiece. The director (I heard) had hoped for a hit at the box office so that he could do sequels and have a FREDDY/JASON type of deal for himself. Damn, I wish that could've went down like that! The soundtrack's banging'. The acting's good....CHECK THIS MOFO OUT. and any die-hard fans out there, feel free to email and chat sometime. Midgetorgy....I can be found at YAHOO. Undoubtedly the best heavy metal horror item made in the manically headbangin' 80's, which admittedly doesn't sound like much considering how utterly abysmal many other entries in this odd little fright film sub-genre like "Hard Rock Zombies," "Blood Tracks," "Terror on Tour," and the especially ungodly Jon-Mikl Thor-starring stinker "Rock'n'Roll Nightmare" tended to be. That aside, this one still deserves props for downplaying the excessive splatter and needlessly flashy special f/x razzle-dazzle in favor of focusing on adolescent high school characters who are depicted with greater acuity and plausibility than the norm for a mid-80's teen-targeted scarefest. Moreover, the film's pointed sardonic parodying of both ridiculously overblown 80's heavy metal stupidity and the nauseating self-righteousness of the uptight killjoy conservative stiffs who claimed it was the devil's music are very clever and on the money funny (famed Greed Decade heavy metal god Ozzy Osbourne has a hilarious bit as a smarmy anti-metal TV evangelist!).

Marc Price (the hopelessly dweeby Skippy on "Family Ties") gives a surprisingly strong and winning performance as Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer, a geeky, socially awkward and severely persecuted heavy metal aficionado who's constantly picked on by the stuck-up jerk preppie bullies who make up the majority of the student body at Lakeridge High School (the cruelty and mean-spiritedness of the high school kids is nailed with painfully credible accuracy). Eddie's life takes a turn for the worse when his rock star idol Sammi Curr (an impressively whacked-out portrayal by Tony Fields) perishes in a hotel fire. Hip local disc jockey Nuke (KISS front-man Gene Simmons in a cool cameo) hooks Eddie up with Sammi's final, unreleased album, which when played backwards resurrects Curr's malevolent spirit back from the dead. Sammi encourages Eddie to sic him on all the vile scumbags who make poor Eddie's life the proverbial living hell, only to have meek Eddie prove to be a most reluctant would-be accomplice. It's up to Eddie, assisted by token nice girl Leslie Graham (likeably essayed by the lovely Lisa Orgolini), to stop Sammi before things get too out of hand.

Ably directed with commendable thoughtfulness and sensitivity by character actor Charles Martin Smith (who also briefly appears as a nerdy school teacher), smartly written by Michael S. Murphy, Joel Soisson, and Rhet Topham, and capably acted by a uniformly up-to-snuff cast, this surefire sleeper even comes complete with a handful of nifty "jump" moments (an outrageous attack in the back of a car by a grotesquely lecherous long-tongued mutant thingie rates as the definite highlight), a rousing "Carrie"-style high school dance slaughter sequence, a neatly utilized Halloween setting, revenge being correctly shown as a truly ugly business, and a solid central message that you shouldn't make a particular over-hyped person your hero strictly because of the calculated anti-establishment posturing said fellow does to qualify for that special status. This is a true "80's movie": Back then they made maybe 100 times more movies than nowadays, and that makes many of them quite interesting... It was a cultural phenomenon, that don't exist anymore. Nowadays maybe the same kind of people that would have made cheap "straight-to-video"-movies in the eighties, are doing cheap porn. Porn seems to sell. Anyway, this is above the medium trash-movie level: It has good&fascinating story, and it's quite well made I think. In one scene you can even see the microphone swinging on the upper edge of the picture. Of course there are also little cameos by Ozzy and Gene Simmons, but they don't very much contribute to the film "success", although they are good in their small roles. The monster,heavy-singer "Sammi Curr", looks really terrible, especially when he's singing. One of the scariest monsters I've seen in horror flicks. I may have nightmares of him next night. Not recommended for intellectual movie lovers. Teenager Eddie spends his life being bullied and humiliated due to his obsession with heavy metal music. One day he finds out his hero Sammi Curr has died, supposedly burned by the establishment which wanted to put a stop to his music. But Eddie has his last record, never released, and when he plays it he starts receiving messages telling him how to deal with his tormentors. Before long Sammi has revealed he intends to return to life at the local Halloween party to exact revenge on the town which once mocked him.

Filled with humour and in-jokes, this is a highly entertaining film. Sammi himself is an original horror movie villain, plays on the 'evils of rock music' obsessions of the 80's. Well worth watching. Trick or Treat, Quickie Review This zany romp of a film revolves around the 80's culture of Heavy Metal and horror movies--two things which I love dearly. So, as you can imagine, this movie appealed to me pretty easily. Plus, for no apparent reason, Ozzy Osbourne plays a preacher.

This film is about an unpopular high school youth who, like all us losers, ended up drenched in a world of "evil" Heavy Metal. His favorite Metaldude dies and, of course, is miraculously resurrected--by playing his latest unreleased album backwards. This allows the corpsified singer to go around killing people with demons and sh*t helping out.

Okay, it's pretty cheesy at times, but you know what? It's got a surprising number of good qualities. Decent acting (including Gene Simmons as a radio DJ), pretty good special effects, very brief nudity, decent atmosphere... All in all, it's actually a decent horror film. But what really sucks is the music. Ironic, huh? Well, this "uber-evil" Metal guy is one of the most obnoxious, high-pitched, wailing, Motley Crue rejects on the planet--and the "Metal" is little more than putrid 80's Pop/Hair Metal. He hits all the cliché's here, from prancing around like a gay fairy, to looking mean, to screaming "Rock and Roll!!!" in a pitch high enough to make King Diamond retch. Aside from that atrocious musical representation, it's actually pretty good. 7/10

www.ResidentHazard.com Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.

The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.

Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.

There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10 I heard about this movie when watching VH1's "100 Most Metal Moments." On the segment, Gene Simmons (who played a cameo) and several other interviewees discussed how utterly awful this movie is. Unlike most people, I'm often more curious about checking out movies that have reputations for being ridiculously bad than, say, a masterpiece of cinema. The advantage of having that sort of attitude is half the time I find out that the movies are nowhere near as bad as people said, and I end up enjoying them a lot more than I initially expected. That was my experience with "Trick or Treat." Now, it's hard to make a movie about a teenage boy who receives messages from a dead heavy metal star by playing one of his vintage records backwards without people scoffing at the premise. Sure, it's certainly a strange premise, but one that's never been done before! Give the filmmakers points for originality for Pete's sake! If you're looking to buy the DVD, having no prior knowledge of the movie, don't be fooled into thinking Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons are the stars. However, though Simmons has a thankless role, Ozzy does have a funny cameo as a Reverend (that's right, a Reverend!!) who speaks out against heavy metal. For one thing, it's funny seeing Ozzy with short hair. And for another thing, you can't help but laugh at the irony. Sure, it's a cheap shot, but an effective one. The acting is pretty good. I found the performances convincing. The teen characters are horribly clichéd. So expect the usual array of jocks and nerds. And like in every one of these movies, the pretty girl is a decent person who has sympathy for the alienated main character, yet continues to go out with her jock boyfriend. Why's she going out with such a complete jerk in the first place? Because the plot needs an obstacle. No other reason. But I can't deny that one of my guilty pleasures is watching the evil jocks in these movies go down, since I was an outcast in high school. The movie kept my interest for the most part, but the third act is way too conventional and caused me to roll my eyes as there would be one predictable situation after another. But altogether the film is not at all bad and definitely worth viewing on a rainy day. (7 out of 10) This is a great, ridiculous horror movie that captures the essence of the mid to late 80s' obsession with how evil metal music supposedly was. I can remember being freaked out by metal teens when I was a kid. It doesn't help that I found a desecrated grave in my hometown's graveyard when I was ten. Turns out this weird metal kid had dug up some old bodies and used their bones in some weird sacrifice to satan. So maybe stuff like deterred me from metal for awhile, but I love it now, as a 24 year old.

I bought this DVD used for 6 bucks and I expected it to suck due to the lame cover, but to my surprise, it ruled. It is all about the extreme demonic power of metal. And you gotta love a scene where a guitar shoots lazers and vaporizes headbangers in the crowd. This movie is awesome, if you love 80s metal and bad movies, this one's for you. 9/10! Nobody said movies had to be realistic did they? I really liked this movie because I remember when I first saw it in junior high. For all the kids who remember the PMRC and albums before there were warning stickers, it's a cool story for all those kids who were part of the mid to late 80's headbanger crowd. Skippy from Family Ties goes from clean-cut to metal kid in this fairly cheesy movie. The film seems like it was made in response to all those upset parents who claimed metal music was turning their kids evil or making them kill themselves - except in this one a dead satanic metal star is trying to come back from the grave (using Skippy to help out). And while the plot is corny and cliche, the corniness (for example, an evil green fog taking off a girl's clothes)and the soundtrack are what make the movie so hilarious (and great). And of course, there's nothing like Ozzy Osbourne playing a preacher who's asking what happened to the love song :). Definitely a movie for having a few friends over for a good laugh. And while you're at it, make it a double feature with Slumber Party Massacre 2 - there's an "evil rocker" (as stated on the video box)driller killer in black leather w/fringe. A must see for cheesy movie fans. I love this movie and never get tired of watching. The music in it is great. Any true hard rock fan should see this movie and buy the soundtrack. With rockers like Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne you can't go wrong. This movie is sort of a Carrie meets Heavy Metal. It's about a highschool guy who gets picked on alot and he totally gets revenge with the help of a Heavy Metal ghost. it is such a classic. The soundtrack is A++++. You've got living legends of Metal in it. And Marc Price was great in this film. This is a must have for metal fans. When you come across a gem of a movie like this, you realize why the '80s were the greatest decade to live thru. The rock music ruled, & so did movies...especially horror movies. Filmmakers knew how to entertain us, & "Trick or Treat" is evident to this. When rocker Sammi Curr, who was most likely written after W.A.S.P. singer Blackie Lawless, dies in a hotel fire, his #1 fan Eddie, is distraught. He goes to friend & local dj Nuke (Gene Simmons) for support. Nuke gives him a copy of the very last recording that Sammi made; this is the only copy available. It was given to the radio station to be played live Halloween night. When Eddie plays it, it somehow brings back Sammi. He helps Eddie with the bullies at school, but then goes out of control. It is definitely one great movie. The bad thing is, this movie is out of print. I paid $25.00 to finally get it off of eBay. You should too...$$ well spent! Sammi, Curr a metal rock god, they tried to stop him, they tried to ban him, the tried to censor his music!! (much like the real life Dee Snider, from Twisted Sister,[Tipper Gore] or Ozzy Osborne) Killed in a fire, Sammi Cure was suppose to play on halloween at his old high school for a dance.. Now Eddie Weinbauer , his #1 fan, and the only one who knew how sammi was, and what he felt (or did he?) Nuke, the d.j. at the local radio station (Gene Simmons) has and gives the only copy of Sammi's last record Eddie.. But when Eddie tries to play the record backwards, he finds Sammi talking to him from the dead, and telling him what to do to get back at the bullies at his school that hate him and his music.. Everything works out until, Sammi starts to kill!! A great movie and must see for heavy metal hairband fans, with a great sound track by Fastway, and just in case you don't know what The songs sound like or know Fastway and doesn't like them, they changed there voice a bit and there style as well to sound like the more known Cinderella, or Ratt.. Is the movie a true horror movie? Well that depends on what you call a horror movie, To me a true horror movie is a slasher, with lots of killing, or just plain be scary.. This movie is neither, not enough deaths, but it can't be called a action, comedy, drama, suspense, or thriller, so that is why I would guess it has to be a horror.. So if you wanna "Rock N' Roll, Rockin' on the mid night steel your soul!!" Than Sammi Curr and Trick or Treat is the for you.. I mean "what are you afraid of? It's only Rock 'N' Roll!?!" Actually, I never bought into the metal was satanic and stuff, but this movie kind of played on that idea. Though certainly not a movie to take seriously or to rate really high, it does serve its purpose in that it entertains while it is playing. The story has a metal band burned to death in their hotel, one of their fans has a dream to this effect and said band starts to go on a kill spree from beyond the grave. So yes, a bit of "Nightmare on Elm Street" plot going on here. Granted Freddy never molested a girl in a car before. There was another movie featuring a heavy metal band in it, but it was very different in how it played out as it had a band that kind of took over a town of kids and made them crazy. This one simply has the one fan of the band kind of helping the killer spirit at first then trying to stop him. Nothing to gruesome in it as I do not remember all that many gory kills. Quite frankly, the scene I do remember most is the scene of the girl wearing the headphones and then being molested by some creature incarnation of the band. Nothing great, but a nice time filler. I gave this a 10 out of 10 points. I love it so much. I am a child of the 80s and totally into heavy metal for many years. Those are the reasons i like this movie so much. Its so cool to see those posters in the bedroom of that boy (Judas Priest, Lizzy Borden, Raven, Twisted sister...)and his vinyl collection(unveiling the wicked by Exciter, Rise of the mutants by shock metal master Impaler and Killing is my business by Megadeth). Also the soundtrack by FASTWAY is totally incredible and fits very well with the plot. If you are into metal, then TRICK OR TREAT is your friend. Don't buy or watch this movie for OZZY or GENE SIMMONS because they are in the movie for seconds, watch it because the soundtrack and the story that will take you back to the glory 80s. You will not be the same person after. Being a genre film fan, a child of the 80's AND a fan of hard rock music...this movie holds a special place in my heart. It has everything you could want in a supernatural movie: action, great special effects (for 1986) and a guitar wailing glam- rock soundtrack. It certainly was THE movie for all the heavy metal fans at the time. I didn't see this at the cinema because it was never released theatrically over here...but it's popularity on video during the mid to late eighties secured it's cult status and eventually led to a (sadly, mediocre) DVD release in 2002. If you're not a fan of creepy movies or rock music then this probably isn't your cup of tea...but, trust me, there are worse films of this type out there...and, despite average acting and some outrageously ridiculous situations, Trick or Treat is most definitely a wailing riff above the usual horror fare. You'll never look at your stereo the same way again. Or should I say MP3 player?

TRICK OR TREAT TRIVIA- Marc Price (Eddie) played geeky Skippy Handelman on the popular long running comedy sitcom 'Family Ties.' After a string of direct to video flops including, 'Little Devils''Killer Tomatoes eat France' and 'The Rescue' he gave up on acting to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. Recently, he has been considering a TV comeback.

Glen Morgan (Roger) is now a major Hollywood producer/ screenwriter. He has written and produced several major films and TV series, including: 'Space: Above and Beyond''The X-Files''Final Destination''Jet Li's The One''Willard' and most recently 'Final Destination 3'.

Tony Fields (Sammi) started his performing career as a dancer on the TV series 'Solid Gold'. He appeared in several low budget films and TV shows before landing his breakout role as the devilish Sammi Curr in 'Trick or Treat'. Sadly, Tony passed away on February 27th 1995 of AIDS related cancer.

Doug Savant (Tim) is probably best remembered for his pioneering role of homosexual twentysomething Matt Fielding on the popular sitcom 'Melrose Place'. Since then he has had a long and varied acting career, appearing in such films and TV series as: 'The One''Godzilla''CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' and the short lived Joss Whedon sci-fi series 'Firefly'. Currently he can be seen as Tom Scavo on the smash hit series 'Desperate Housewives'. This movie is horrible, but you have to see it because of that. I'm not here to discuss the entire film, just the greatest chase scene ever. When Eddie dumbs milk on Tim, he gets chased down the hallway. Eddie puts obstacles in the jocks way with hilarious consequences (like a cymbal nailing a trumpet player; buy the DVD and watch it slow). The best obstacle is a knocked over mop bucket which one jock jumps over but proceeds to slide on the ground out a door. But when he slides he picks up speed thus defying physics (mainly friction); yet what lies behind the door is supreme. The steepest stair case in any school ever, which this jock proceeds to CLEAR in the air. In reality he probably would die of a broken neck. Not only does he defy all concepts of reality, he makes the funniest noise ever made in that situation. Go and buy this one. Trust me this scene is worth your 6 bucks. I've seen a slew of "80s rocker horrors" over the years, from rubbish like "Terror on Tour" to ridiculously fun gems like "Slumber Party Massacre 2." Somehow I managed to keep putting this one off, which is strange because it's probably the most popular and well received one. Well, I finally caught up with it and it's easily the best of this mostly awful (but almost always endearing!) subgenre. The plot (which was pretty much lifted in the film "Black Roses") concerns a mulleted misfit named Eddie, whose ridiculed by all in his high school for his taste in music. He loves 80s metal, especially his idol Sammi Curr (played by the late great Tony Fields.) After Sammi is killed, Eddie favorite radio DJ gives him Sammi's final recording. Once Eddie plays the record backwards, he discovers he's a bit tougher, and bad things start happening to those who taunt him. Is Sammi's music possessed? "Trick or Treat" is well-made and a total hoot. The special effects are awesome, even though it does feature the typical 80s laser beams. I grew up in the 80s, and while I wasn't a fan of heavy metal, I do remember the urban legend about playing a record backwards hearing the sounds of Satan worshipping. Haha! I also remember being told by my older siblings and neighbors that both KISS and Ozzy worshipped Satan, so it's very amusing to see them both make cameos as a harmless radio DJ and a anti-rock priest. If only I had seen this film as a kid! While the film seems to poke fun at the popular connection in the 80s between alleged devil worship and heavy metal, the viewer never really finds out why Sammi Curr is back from the dead creating havoc and killing whoever gets in his way. This is movie's weakest point, but if you can overlook that, it's loads of fun. I may be biased, I am the author of the novel The Hungry Bachelors Club, self-published in 1994. The screenplay was written by my good friend and hungry bachelor, Fred Dresch, who was the inspiration for the character Marlon in the film. I couldn't be more pleased with the trailer, I hope to see the film in its entirety and I will further comment. But Jorja Fox, who plays Delmar Youngblood, my character, is stellar. She carries the bulk of the emotional vehicles in fine form. I couldn't have done better myself! This looks like real people, hardly formula driven and thankfully drives my statement against racial prejudice home, gracefully and heartfelt. It's great to see Jorja Fox in a role where she gets to smile a lot. Also loved hearing her sing. Nice change to see her out of her CSI/West Wing/ER roles. The movie itself was entertaining, but it seemed skip some explanation in a lot of parts. Several of the characters seemed to be miserable one minute and happy the next and it was left up to your imagination to figure out why. Each character was quirky though and in some cases, I couldn't wait to see what they would do next or hear what they would say next. This movie wasn't full of squeaky clean people, but rather complicated realistic people who could make mistakes, feel bad about them and then find a way to fix them. While this movie won't go down in the annals of great cinema, it is a fun way to spend an hour and a half with the family. The film is finally being released in video where it should have debuted in the first place.

The film is about an eclectic group of friends who gather for dinners which they have named, "The Hungry Bachelors Club". Jorja Fox plays a woman who serves as a surrogate in order to get a down payment for the restaurant that she wants to open. Bill Nunn plays a Cadillac-loving mystery man who becomes her lover. Fox gives an understated and touching performance and Nunn is reliably talented as always. Micheal des Barres is a hoot as an over the top attorney. The ensemble casts - made up of familiar faces - works nicely together to bring this wacky group of characters to life. This is a good rental and one of the few you can watch with the whole family. Unlike some comments, mine is positive. This movie wraps around the dinner table with a group of friends, some you like, some you don't. A few are related--mother, daughter, son. Their stories are not one smooth, happy with everyone and everything, type of life--much like real life. Some story lines do not evolve, they just happen. But like true families and good friends, they stick together. The wanna-be parents who are buying a baby are such a--holes! You are happy for the ending. Poor Delmar is stuck between a rock and a boulder taking care of herself, her mom, her son, and trying to keep all their lives together. This does not end with a sunset walk or house in the 'burbs and all are living in a dream world, but is a very real life portrayal of people living day to day, month to month. Overall, this is a good story and a great movie!! The title says it all.

I'm not a film critic nor will I act like the rest of the snobbish people commenting on this movie.

Obviously this movie didn't have a multi-million dollar budget, but the plot was very well done, the acting was awesome and the cinematography was great! It looked like you all had a lot of fun making this movie! I voted 9 out of 10 as the sound was strong on only one channel instead of both, but I imagine this might have been an error in the recording of the DVD.

I'll definitely be checking out other movies produced by Brain Damage Films!

Dylan O'Leary, cast and crew, I thank you! Yes, this is an ultra-low budget movie. So the acting isn't award winning material and at times the action is slow-paced because the filmmakers are shooting longer sequences and not a million instants that then get edited into a movie. This film makes up for that with an outstanding script that takes vampirism seriously, explains it and develops a full plot out of it. Aside from the vampire story, we get detailed genetics info, legal and law enforcement, martial arts action, philosophical musings, and some good metal music. Kudos go to Dylan O'Leary, the director/writer/main actor. It is beyond me how this man could have fulfilled all these roles and do them so well. I think to appreciate this movie, you have to be well-versed in all sorts of themes to see that the writer did a lot of research and knows about all these things. There are some great camera work, too, interesting camera angles and one underwater vampire attack- something I haven't seen before, but which pays homage to the underwater zombie attack in Fulci's Zombi. The casting is good, in so far as the sexy female is sexy indeed. The main vampire also looks perfect for the role. The female victim looks vulnerable. My only complaint is that for a low budget horror flick, there should have been more nudity. If you want to see an original vampire movie with a great story, this flick is for you. I'm looking forward to seeing future projects by Mr. O'Leary. As the maker of "This Darkness," I admit we neglected 3 very important acknowledgments in our end credits. The omissions were over-sights that could not be corrected once committed, nor did the parties involved --- who saw the movie --- mention it at the time. On behalf of the excellent cast and crew of the film, I extend them an apology. Obviously, some criticisms posted here are harsh in light of their credit being accidentally. Our production values were negligible and our "special effects" were quite special indeed, but the plot is very strong and the cinematography by John McLeod is superb. We hope you, the reader, enjoy "This Darkness" and the efforts of those who worked their butts off for free. Thank you, Dylan O'Leary, Director. I sense out there a mix of confusion and varying degrees of personal taste in the reactions to this film. Yes, there are vampire stereotypes. Yes, there are scientific stereotypes covered here. Even martial arts stereotypes. All well and good, and sure, not all perfectly done. However, I sense one crucial point about this film is being overlooked...the cultural significance of its location. The film is set in Pensacola, Florida, and does not try to avoid saying so. That's a bold move in the film world today, and a rare treat for fans of indy films. And indeed, it may not be the last. Pensacola is world renowned as a Navy town, an aviation town, a lumber town, and sometimes even as a hotbed for political controversy. Rarely is it seen as a growing film town. But that's all changing now. More film companies are coming in to shoot. And more native Pensacolians are discovering the power of cinema for themselves. This film is part of a growing trend of Pensacola-based indy films, and more are on the way. Pensacola is making a big noise in the global film community, and by and by, the world is taking more notice. Watch and listen, world. The Pensacolians are coming. Like a virus. I understand that Paramount wanted to film this with the Rodgers and Hart score, but couldn't work out the copyright problems, so Burke and Van Heusen who wrote the between them the most songs for Bing Crosby contributed a very nice score.

I read Leonard Maltin saying that this movie, "fit Crosby like a glove" and I couldn't have put it better. No, it's not Mark Twain's satire, it's a Bing Crosby film and in 1949 Crosby was the most bankable star in Hollywood. For once Paramount used technicolor and Rhonda Fleming was never lovelier on the screen. This was a woman that technicolor was invented for.

William Bendix's Brooklyn origins kinda stand out, but it's to a good comic effect. The trio of Crosby, Bendix, and Sir Cedric Hardwicke have a rollicking good time with Busy Doing Nothing. Bing has one of his patented upbeat philosophical numbers with If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon.

The third song he sings Once and For Always by himself and with Rhonda Fleming. That song was nominated for best song, but lost to Baby It's Cold Outside.

Nice also that Bing managed to record the score for Decca with Rhonda Fleming and Bendix and Hardwicke.

One thing I like about this film is that it shows Crosby's comic talents without Bob Hope. I like the Road pictures, but Bing was a comic talent onto himself and this film better demonstrates than any other.

This is Crosby at the top of his game. This movie is humorous, charming, and easily becomes a favorite for those who enjoy light entertainment. Hollywood is hardly the place for serious history lessons so I simply accept it as is. Bing, in his usual inimitable style, performs quite well as the blacksmith, Hank Martin, who by accident is transported back to another age, the time of King Arthur. The beautiful Rhonda Fleming is breathtaking as Alisande, or Sandy, the object of Hank's affections although she is betrothed to the brave and formidable Sir Lancelot, played by Henry Wilcoxon.

I just love that episode when King Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke), Sir Sagramore (Wm. Bendix), and Hank (Bing Crosby) dress up in tattered clothing and take to the high road with their knapsacks to experience the kingdom at firsthand. King Arthur's comment, "I say, we are not alone" while giving his scruffy garments a good scratch, is one of those hilarious moments in the film. William Bendix's portrayal is superbly ridiculous, not to mention his attempts at quaint "ye Olde English."

The story is not deep but it's well done in my opinion and I enjoy it more each time I see it. It's great family entertainment too.

Stylishly directed, picturesquely photographed and brilliantly acted — Crosby's interpretation seems exactly right, Hardwicke has his best role ever, while Bendix is a treat too — this Yankee's appeal is universal and irresistible.

One of the principal joys of the movie, of course, are the songs. As might be expected, Bing is in fine voice. And although Hardwicke's solo has been cut, we can still hear him sing heartily as he dances merrily with Crosby and Bendix in their famous novelty number, "Busy Doing Nothing". It's also a treat to hear Rhonda Fleming, who, although she enjoyed an extensive stage and concert career as a singer, was rarely given a chance to be heard in the cinema. She has a lovely voice that more than matches her ravishing looks—and she looks very fetching indeed in her Mary Kay Dodson costumes.

Director Tay Garnett gets the most out of his lavish budget, using all the resources at his command to present every fabulous scene as effectively as possible. (Perhaps the eclipse looks a trifle too contrived, but who's complaining?)

In short, as the trailer actually describes, an entertainment delight from start to finish. This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called "when you stub your toe on the moon" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir "Saggy" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie. Hello again, I have to comment on this wonderful, exciting, and believable tale of romance and intrigue. The music in wonderful and memorable. Very good colorful movie. Another movie I liked as well later on was High Society with Bing Crosby. Wonderful music. Thanks for listening, Florence Forrester-Stockton, Reno, Nevada Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it. 50 years old, this musical comedy fantasy might look its age, but it wears it with dignity.

This film is still great fun. Crosby was never really romantic lead material, but he delivers the material with the lightly humorous edge it needs. Bendix plays broad and is huge fun in a part which calls upon his strengths. Hardwicke - how joyous for a knight of the realm - a genuine one - to throw himself into caperings like this with such abandon. And Rhonda Fleming enjoys herself in the least showy of the main roles. Only Murvyn Vye disappoints as an unconvincing Merlin.

Though not a musical, the songs are very good, and the "dance" routine accompanying Busy Doing Nothing is perfect - funny, appropriate, dexterous without being challenging, and making a virtue out of Crosby's musical movement which, let's be fair, was inherently amusing due ti its never being his greatest strength.

The colour is fine, the sound is a little muddy in places.

And the story - well, it takes some liberties with the original, but I suspect that Mr Clemens might well have been pleased with the result. "World's Finest" is an unique project. It's a trailer for a Superman/Batman crossover movie that doesn't exists and will also never exists, at least not in this form, with these characters, actors and plot line anyway.

So the movie is one big tease, even more than standards everyday real movie trailers. The trailer will hype you all up for nothing. In that regard, I really didn't liked this short project. When watching this trailer it makes you hungry and excited for more and at the same time sad- and perhaps you'll even feel cheated afterward, when it turns out that a full length movie of this trailer will never exist at all. Sort of makes you wonder why this project was made in the first place. Surely to show off Sandy Collora's skills but couldn't he had also done this with a real movie short, like his earlier movie "Batman: Dead End".

But when you have to judge this short purely for what it is, so from a movie technical point of view, it's a really great one. It's great looking and way more professional than you'll perhaps at first would expect, although the people who've already seen "Batman: Dead End" will already know better than to expect a short with cardboard sets, cheap homemade costumes and third-rate actors. The short is not constantly impressive looking and obviously the budget wasn't sky-high but for most part it's very impressive and professional looking, with nice costumes, sets, special effects, cinematography and lighting.

The short has a good quick and typical trailer build up, with perhaps a bit too many posing shots too completely find it credible but hey, it works well for the trailer style. It has some impressive shots but also a couple of lame ones, mainly the Superman flying sequences. It was obvious that the guy was just standing at a moving car, with a camera aimed at him from an angle below. I even found it a pretty laughable thing to watch. But really the better and more spectacular moments really compensate for this.

Michael O'Hearn seemed like a pretty good Superman/Clark Kent, although he obviously isn't the greatest talented actor around. Clark Bartram reprises his Batman role well again and Kurt Carley seemed like an awesome Lex Luthor. The rest of the cast also served its purpose well enough.

It's especially interesting to watch this short after the recent new modern reinterpretations of the two main superheroes of this movie, in the movies "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns". It's interesting to compare the style and character treatment of those movies with this one. It's actually amazing and fun to hear how much Kurt Carley does sound like Kevin Spacey, the actor who played Lex Luthor in "Superman Returns".

It's a good looking and well made and constructed trailer that however will makes you hungry for more, even though you know that there won't be more. Whatever happened to the Waner Bros. plans to create an actual full length Superman/Batman movie by the way? I thought that developments were underway for it a couple of years ago but nothing has been heard of it ever since. Instead two new separate Batman and Superman movies were made; "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns".

7/10 Let me make one thing clear….for the most part, the mentality of those who run the show in Hollywood frankly p*sses me right off in general and even more specifically in relation to its treatment of much loved, iconic characters from the pages of comic books. Why? Well let's take a typical Hollywood executive board meeting scenario to illustrate shall we…..

Executive no.1 'Hey there's lots of dollars to be gleaned from superhero flicks these days.'

Executive no.2 'Good point, let's make one with haste then! – We'll do a lucky dip in a hat and pick out a superhero at random to base a film upon!' (The dip takes place and a famous superheroes name is pulled out)

Executive no.1 'Great! Now who can we get to play the part?'

Executive no.2 'Who's a big box office star at the moment?'

Executive no.1 '*name of big actor* is the in thing this week.'

Executive no.2 'But does he really suit the role? I mean he doesn't resemble the character whatsoever.'

Executive no.1 'Who cares?! He's a big name; We'll make the film with him in it anyway.'

Executive no.2 'You're quite right! And besides we'll fill the entire film so chock full of glitzy special effects to appease the moronic masses that no one will ever question it anyway!'

The above scenario clearly illustrates one of the reasons I generally loath most modern superhero movies. All style, no substance and simply pathetic casting of the iconic leads. Of course to be equitable, there are exceptions to the above rule; when Hollywood does get it right – take the casting of the original (and still easily the best!) Superman; Christopher Reeve and more recently Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen in the X-Men films.

But back to the general negative traits displayed by Hollywood today…..wouldn't it be wonderful if our studio executives were to ALWAYS choose actors who actually suited the roles? Well in this less than ideal world, one filmmaker does just this believe it or not, by casting actors based upon their genuine resemblance to their comic book counterparts. His name is Sandy Collora. Sadly (but typically) Hollywood has not as of yet allowed Collora to direct a full length film but luckily for us, he has given us tantalizing glimpses of what the finished outcome would likely look like in the form of two (as of yet) famous super hero short features. One is the superb Batman:Dead End and the other is this mock trailer for an entirely fictitious film called Worlds Finest.

Well, let's not mince our words here – this is absolutely awesome stuff!

The casting of Mr. Universe winner and male model Michael O'Hearn, (who looked similarly awesome but was utterly wasted in the lackluster Barbarian) makes for the most perfect choice to play the iconic man of steel. In fact, in terms of physical resemblance, there has undoubtedly never been a closer approximation to the comic character.

Added to this Clark Bartram is back fresh from his splendid portrayal as the Dark Knight in Batman:Dead End; Again, yet another hugely judicious piece of casting!

What can I say? – If only this was indeed a real, full length film! Hollywood studio executives – take note! THIS is how it should be done!

As a final note, I am once again intrigued by the vastly split reactions this short film has evoked from fans. Tellingly, the most acerbic and vehemently adverse reactions against it clearly come once more (as similarly with Batman: Dead End) from a younger, less cinematically experienced audience; a fact betrayed by their somewhat grammatically primitive rants and liberal usage of base diction. Such an unfortunate state of closed mindedness is indeed a sad phenomenon albeit one that our aforementioned studio executives in Hollywood, will no doubt derive great satisfaction from. After all, these very same misguided individuals are in all probability the exact same sort of CGI addicted, popcorn stuffing imbeciles that revel in the majority of crap that Hollywood churns out by the deluge these days. I'll say this to begin with:...Why, oh why, can't WB do what these short film directors do? Sandy is obviously an amazing Director, and deserves some credit from WB and DC. But I guess they're kinda put on edge when a man with a $12,000 budget can make a super-hero fan drool. The World's Finest is one of the best short films I've ever seen, Trailer or not.

I think choosing a Bodybuilder(Mike O'Hearn) to play Superman was a genius choice. Let's face it people, Superman is no super-model. He may be handsome, but a GQ Stud he is not. And I don't know what that guy a few comments above me was on, but Superman is actually pretty beefy(Have you ever actually read a Superman comic?). I Guess that fact alone just floors me...It seems like such an obvious choice to get someone with some actual muscle-mass to play a Super-hero, rather than a pretty-face. Same Thing for Batman, Bartram is in incredible shape, and an excellent Batman...I don't know guys...If given a bigger budget, and his own movie...I think Bale and Bartram would be Neck and Neck. Bottom line, This is one of only a scant few of Super-Hero movies with actors that actually LOOK the part.

The Acting is pretty nice as well. I don't know what every one is talking about, O'Hearn isn't that bad. He's damn convincing as Superman, and Bartram...Well, he IS Batman. I mean, come on people, this movie had a $12,000 dollar budget, what were you expecting?. Everyone Else is great too, except Two-Face seems a tad crazier than usual...But hey, we only have Tommy-Lee Jones as a reference. Oh, Lois is pretty hot too.

The SFX are flippin' sweet too. I mean, Seeing Superman lift the car up...MAN!, how cool is that. Versus the "Tank" scene in Grayson, I may have to put this one above that, since Mike actually looks like he's flying, and with ease. The Flying sequences left something to be desired, but once again, with a bigger budget...Oh, And he even used a Batmobile!(It was probably a Model, but it looked damned convincing).

All in all, this trailer's only downfall was a lack of a serious budget. And WB refuses to admit that Collora is a credible Director, and NEEDS to be apart of some kind a Project...But no, they'll(Like most of the Marvel projects) just keep getting these hack directors who show almost no regard for the fans and what they care about, and keep churning out these gamble movies. Thank god Superman Returns was a hit, or that seriously would've been the end of it. World's Finest is excellent, and in my book, counts as a Superhero Movie. This film is really cool. every thing looks like it came out of the comic book. the sets, the costumes, and the plot is great. Clark Bartram is again our favorite batman. he looked a bit better in dead end, but he still pulls it off. superman is great too. the flying effects are OK. but its a fan-film so we cant expect them to be the greatest. the shot with superman catching the car was VERY believable. it was cool. This is a movie i would definitely see if it were real. its got every thing you would want in a batman/ superman movie. one exception though, i would cast the joker instead of 2-face..... overall i give this film a 10 because its a great film. I really liked BATMAN: DEAD END, I thought that it had a theatrical feel to it and that given a chance Collora could make a fine film. This trailer didn't quite give me the same impression. The story line, or potential story line, was quite good but due to the acting and special effects left me feeling like this would have made a good TV movie or television show.

First, Michael O'Hearn is not that good a Superman. I actually thought he, in his brief appearance, made a decent Clark Kent. Sorry, I just don't think of SuperMan as being that buff. The suit Kent wore masked his size. Batman may have the body of a bodybuilder but not Superman. Supes is toned no doubt but not bulk. Anyway, I didn't care for all his posing and his transformation from Kent to Superman seemed cheezy. Now this may not be just O'Hearn's fault, Collora may have to take some of the credit for poor scripting and direction.

Second, the special effects for flying were cheezy. Superman flies through the sky. If was obvious that this Superman flew close to the ground, with the telephone cables and buildings visible above him. I don't think there were any full body shots of Superman flying. Evidently the harness and rigging supporting O'Hearn must have been located on his lower torso.

All in all it was a good trailer. I'd probably pay to see a film, if ever made, and would be sure to catch it on television. The story line, an alliance between Lexcorp and Wayne Industries, Superman jealous of Lois's attraction to Wayne, Lex and Twoface teaming to beat Superman and the joining of forces between Batman & Superman is a good one. I'm sure with a larger budget and approval for a full film Collora and company, even O'Hearn could deliver a decent film. Certainly one better than the most of the comic based crap coming out of Hollywood lately. This is a fan-made short film that pretends to be a preview for a new movie that pairs Batman and Superman! It's the sort of film that fans adore and watch at places like ComicCon and was made by the same person who made BATMAN: DEAD END, Sandy Collora.

As far as this film goes, I could easily pick it apart. Sure the CGI effects aren't perfect and the costumes are far from perfect. BUT, this was made on a shoestring budget and for a fan film this is incredible. I was particularly impressed by the very buff Superman--he was no wimpy little guy! If only this were a preview for a real film--they'd have fans lined up from here to Omaha to see it. Great job. this short film trailer is basically about Superman and Batman working together and forming an uneasy alliance.obviously,the two characters have vastly differing views on how to deal with crime and what constitutes punishment.it's a lot of fun to see these two iconic characters try to get along.i won't go int to the storyline here.but i will get into the acting,which is terrific.everyone is well cast.the two actors playing Superman and Batman are well suited to their characters.the same filmmakers that made Batman: Dead End and Grayson also made this short film.of the three,i probably liked this one the least,but i still thought it was well done.for me,World's finest is a 7/10 Batman and Superman. Iconic. The better part of a century old. Who doesn't know of these two? There must be countless of fans who would die to make a film about them. Sandy Collora went ahead and put together a trailer for such a film(which does not exist, and is not being created, much less by this team). Perhaps what this has most going for it is how polished it is. Throughout, the cinematography is solid. The editing is spot-on. The production values, even with the costumes looking more like their comic counterparts than the ones of the feature films featuring these character, are quite high. It looks quite "Hollywood", this trailer. The physical types fit for, as far as I can tell, every single character. The lines are reasonably written. The shots are well-thought up, nicely achieved and fairly effective. However, this does have problems, and in spite of looking good, it doesn't quite match the energy and skill of Grayson(which only had the problem of teeter-tottering too much back and forth between a short and a trailer, as well as unbridled passion leading to the inclusion of too many characters and ideas). The acting is perhaps the most evident. It's... not good. Even some of those who only have one line and/or hardly appear on-screen at all manage to fail at delivering a good performance. The actors cast in the parts seem to have been chosen more for how much they look like the characters they're playing than their talent. Then there is the writing. Really, the plot, well, what minuscule amount there is(this and this character team up, something about some evil plot...) is fine. There is a problem in the characterization. While most characters seem to fit, Two-Face is, well, about as much as a cackling lunatic(which is quite simply, as far as I've understood, not what the character is) as he was in Batman Forever(and having your work on portraying any element of the Batman universe compared to Joel Schumacher's efforts can be considered the greatest insult to a fan). Also, putting that character in this is going to cause comparisons between this trailer and that film(honestly, Collora is practically *begging* for it with such a similar initial reveal) to be made, and, let's face it, this loses in every respect. Michael Antonik most definitely does not possess the screen presence that Tommy Lee Jones does, and the make-up(which, in aforementioned reveal, is essential) isn't as strong as that of the film(whether or not it was good in the film is another matter). The sad thing is that while Fiorella(John, who created Grayson) seems to be far more into the comics, and get them, the depth of them, better(not to mention possessing more of an ability to come up with compelling plot... Grayson had enough material for half a dozen feature films, or more), Collora seems to be the one with access to funds and the one who's more likely to have contacts(on account of having non-indie credits on his filmography) to actually have a shot at making an actual feature out of his trailer. I intend to watch other of Collora's work. But Fiorella is the one of the two whose work I will most definitely be most interested in. I recommend this to fans of the characters. 7/10 Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions "other" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks "super" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the "bigwigs" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more "Batman & Robin" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to "reinvent" the hero for the movie, just to have it "bomb" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!! After seeing the "Batman Dead End" short, I didn't know what to really expect from World's Finest. Of Course, Superman AND Batman. All my World's Finest comic books have them as the team-up.

After seeing this 3-and-a-half minute trailer, it made me wish someone would make a serialized fan film for World's Finest, if not an actual full-length film.

Sure, some of the Superman stuff was cheesy, but movie trailers in theaters are always teasers, giving you only certain aspects of the entire product. This looks like it needs a complete product.

Other than director Sandy Collera's relative playing an achingly poor Perry White, most of the actors were unknown. If an actual movie was made, actors would be cast to fit the bill for the film, though I believe Nina Kaczorowski would make a good Lois Lane, especially if given closer-to-the-character dialogue.

Good to see Clark Bartram wearing the Batman costume from Dead End, but it should be updated a bit more and not be like the 40s Batman with the 80s-90s leather cape and cowl. His demeanor is Batman-like, but I still wonder about the validity of white contact lenses instead of just allowing his eyes to show through the mask. I believe the goal was to get it as close to the comic character than the movie persona.

Michael O'Hearn cannot play Superman, period. He stands around with a goofy look on his face that simply says, "slap me." And line delivery seems to be a problem with him.

Overall, though, I would love to see a complete story and film based on this ingenious piece of work. There was a rumor about a World's Finest movie being made, and with the correct additions to the script, this could be it. Hope more like this are made. I've just seen it....for those who don't know what it is, I suggest to download the entire feature and enjoy viewing it...it's kinda amateur made trailer featuring the same producer of the famous short Batman Dead End, but this time besides the black knight there is also Superman... It would be wonderful if they made the entire movie...but I'm afraid that it's almost impossible, especially just before the official Batman 5 film.

-- There is no greater crime against peace than the refusal to fight for it.

Lorenzo 'Purifier'Pinto After seeing the terrible, terrible, terrible BATMAN: DEAD END I knew I had to see this as soon as I heard about it.

Pressing play to view the trailer I thought I was in for another hideous short from what so-far looked like another bad wannabe film-maker trying to bring new depth to an existing character. But was instead greeted with a GREATLY put together trailer for a movie that sadly doesn't exist, as I would LOVE to see a finished movie even if it was only 30 minutes long.

WORLD'S FINEST makes up for BATMAN: DEAD END and then some.

I look forward to the next short! Sorry to say I have no idea what Hollywood is doing. Sure give us movies like Batman Begins. Oh, by the way Hollywood I think they may cover the story line in the movie Batman, but please don't entertain us what we would really want to see Batman and Superman together. I really hated this trailer because it left me wanting for more. I was looking around to see when it was coming out. It was like a terrible practical joke. The graphics where good the story line seemed solid and it had all the trappings of a great movie. Unfortunately it's not going to happen for now. To the producers, directors and all the actors great job but I hate you for doing this to me. You left me wanting more. There's a legion of Mick Garris haters out there who feel he couldn't direct a horror film of quality if he had to. And, SLEEPWALKERS(..screenplay written by Stephen King)is often used as an example of this. I like SLEEPWALKERS, though I fully am aware that Garris just says F#ck it and lets all hell break loose about fifteen or so minutes into the movie. Forget character or plot development, who needs them anyway. It's about violent mayhem and bloody carnage as a mother and son pair of "sleepwalkers"(..feline-human shapeshifting creatures who suck the lifeforce from virginal female innocents, moving from town to town, living a nomadic existence, truly powerful)set their sights on a teenager who doesn't surrender without a fight. Before all is said and done, many will be slaughtered as a mother shan't tolerate the possible death of her beloved son.

Garris wastes little time setting up those to be executed, as a teacher(Glenn Shadix), suspecting handsome, All American charmer Charles Brady(Brian Krause)to be someone entirely different from who he claims, gets his hand ripped off and his neck torn into. Charles lures pretty virgins into his arms, drawing their energy, in turn "feeding" his hungry mama, Mary(Alice Krige). The fresh new target is Tanya Robertson(Mädchen Amick), and she seems to be easy pickens, but this will not be the case and when Charles is seriously injured in a struggle(..thanks to a deputy's cat, Clovis), Mary's vengeance will be reaped on all those who get her way. Mary, come hell or high water, will retrieve Tanya in the goal of "refreshing" her dying son.

Like many teenagers, I had a crush on certain actresses I watched in movies. Such as Amy Dolenz, I was smitten with Mädchen Amick. She's simply adorable in this movie and I love how she bites her lower lip displaying an obvious attraction towards Charles, unaware of his ulterior motives. I just knew that Mädchen Amick would be destined to be a scream queen, but this would never be the case. Too bad because I would've welcomed her in the genre with open arms.

Krige is yummy as the menacing, damn sexy, but vicious and mean bitch who wipes out an entire police force and poor Tanya's parents in one fail swoop, in less than ten or so minutes. She stabs one in the back with a corn cob! She bites the fingers off of poor Ron Perlman, before cracking his arm(..a bone protruding), knocking him unconscious with his own elbow! She tosses Tanya's mom through a window after breaking a rose vase over her father's face! A deputy is stabbed in his ear by Charles(Cop-kebab!), falling on the pencil for extra impact. Poor Tanya is dragged by her hair from her home by Mary, driven to the Brady home, and forced into an impromptu dance with the crippled monster! The sheriff is hurled onto a picket fence and we see how cats combat the sleepwalkers unlike humans. We see Mary and Charles' abilities to "dim" themselves and his car using a power of invisibility. Writer Stephen King even finds time to include himself and horror director buddies of his in a crime scene sequence with Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper as forensics officers, Joe Dante and John Landis as photograph experts.

The film is shot in a tongue-in-cheek, let-it-all-hang-out manner with music appropriately hammering this technique home. It's about the ultra-violence, simple as that, with some deranged behavior and jet black humor complimenting Garris' direction and King's screenplay. The incestuous angle of the sleepwalkers is a bit jarring and in-your-face. Without a lick of complexity, this is closer in vein to King's own demented MAXIMIMUM OVERDRIVE than his more serious works. Best Stephen King film alongside IT, though this one is more fun than scary.

This one's got it all:

-a great cast with a Alice Krige and Brian Krause and a fun cameo from King himself;

-well dosed horror in an amusing storyline;

-great use of music, Santo & Johnny's "Sleepwalk" in particular;

-likeable characters in a typical King setting: middle of nowhere village;

-lots of humor. You can't really get good scares here because it's too much fun and over the top;

-old but really nice makeup effects like they don't make anymore!

A 4,5 rating: I don't get it really. When was the last time a horror film was as much fun as this one? Although written by Stephen King, an overrated writer if there ever was one, this is actually quite entertaining B-movie. Vampiric, incestuous creatures who live in the candle-lit house and drain the life-force of virgins, great graveyard scenery, heroic cats and very pretty virgin. The soundtrack even has Enya's music, an idea which I found quite... nice. I'm sure King is disappointed to this little movie, although it HAS crappy dialogue and ideas, all of them from a true and tedious King potboiler. (Albeit Sleepwalkers, if I'm understood right, is a script without any novel or short story behind it). Still, those touches of sewer-odors show he DIDN'T use a ghost-writer after all... Monstrous mother-son-duo (Alice Krige and Brian Krause) sucks life-force of virgins, and their newest target is pretty but lonely Tanya (Madchen Amick). However, these monsters are allergic to cat's scratches... I have never been fan of sleazy, overrated bestsellerists like King, Koontz or Barker, but this B-movie, written by Mr Dung himself, is actually not near as bad than it could be. Yes, it is sometimes jaw-droppingly atrocious, but there is actually some surprisingly impressive touches: good old-fashioned graveyard, eerie soundtrack and candlelit-Gothic-house-scene, mirror showing the monstrous form of the villains, etc. Of course, the film is polluted by Mr Dung's potty-mouthed dialogue and all-tactics-of-toilet-seat obsession to vilify fat people, leading to totally pointless subplot of rapist teacher, but there is roses among manure. Stephen King was raised on flicks like this. -Flicks NOT films.

Movies like this and 'Jeepers Creepers' are "throwbacks" to the good 'ol day drive-in horror flicks. They are meant to be fun, cheaply made and hopefully: a few good scares.

Anyone looking for a theory on the human condition should pass on this creature feature because that's all this is... all it ever will be.

Stop trashing what has already deemed itself as trash. -Good, fun, trash!

If you enjoyed this I recommend: 'Jeepers Creepers' 'Jeepers Creepers 2' '30 Days of Night' 'Scarecrows'('88) 'They Live' 'Planet Terror' 'Death Proof' and 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' This is not a good movie but I still like it. The cat Clovis is gold in a jar as well as the premise of the cats themselves - intrinsically opposed to the evil Sleepwalkers. I think there is more to this movie than people realize, basically it is very harsh, but this brusqueness can sometimes be good. It's got the corny lines, the abrupt ending and a comedic element conveyed by the bumbling policemen.

Did anyone find the incestuous element a bit disturbing? Ultimately this movie is casually and randomly acrimonious, which is quite effective, I liken it to Psycho - the relationship between the mother and son, the changing of protagonists. I think the abruptness works also, this is not a movie that you want them to lengthen, it only works if it's short.

I'm still not sure whether the director lacked depth, or whether he did these things with purpose, we know Stephen King has ability, yet I haven't even read his books, only seen some of his movies.

Anyway, I liked it. If you like harsh corny movies with 80's overtones just watch it. but don't expect too much. It really is so bad its good. Stephen King movies are a funny thing with me. I either really love them or I loathe them. Some of the fancier productions (such as Desperation and Storm of the Century) I didn't enjoy. Some of the smaller ones, I really loved. Sleepwalkers is one that I really do enjoy and watch it regularly.

The story revolves around Charles Brady and his mother Mary. They are Sleepwalkers, shape shifting creatures who although human like in appearance shift into a feline like creature. They are immune to the scratch of cats and whenever they move to a new town, lay out traps to catch and kill the animals. When they move to their latest town, they need to seek out a virgin and when Charles finds one, he actually falls for her,but his mother needs to feed from her to keep up her strength. The story revolves around what will happen with the girl. Will Charles spare her or use her to save his mother.

Although this story has overtones of incest which some may find unappealing it does actually play a part in the story and is therefore not just plonked in the movie for scandal's sake. Like most Stephen King stories it's based in a small town with lots of interesting characters. The acting isn't the best, nor are the special effects, however, somehow, the whole thing tends to 'gel' and is very watchable and enjoyable adaption.

For UK readers: This production has most recently been shown on BBC1, Sci-Fi and Sky Thriller/Horror channels. Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?

On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.

It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.

Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7. Because of all the negative reviews of this film I almost didn't watch it. However, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a fairly enjoyable horror movie. The acting wasn't great - apart from the wonderful Alice Krige - but some of the dialogue ("Just consider yourself lunch.") was quite amusing.

On the whole an above average Stephen King effort - 7/10. Woah! Is one thing I can say about this movie. Personally I'm one of those people who loves cats so that would have been a big down side to the movie, but I loved it how cats from every were got their revenge at the end.

I liked the movie, but I have to admit it was because I found Brian Krause who played Charles Brady very very irresistible, I guess lust got the better of me while watching this movie.

There was one thing that I was disappointed over. I've watched Charmed before and Brian Krause is married to Holly Marie Combs, his kissing scene was O.K. in Sleepwalkers, but really bad compare to his kissing scenes with Holly Marie Combs, I don't know if it is because Krause and Combs have great chemistry or maybe more it a bit more, that was the only disappointment in the movie but I guess it was made up for with Brian Krause in those tight ass jeans he was wearing in the movie.

If you are use to seeing Brian Krause as Holly Marie Combs heavenly husband and the father of her son your in for a big surprise with this movie, he was nothing like angle boy. Although now that I think about it, it would be great to see Krause's character on Charmed taken over by evil making him something like his was in Sleepwalkers.

I also have to say the music was GREAT in this movie too! A woman who hates cats (Alice Krige) and her son (Brian Krause) have moved into a small town, and must deal with a mean teacher (Glenn Shadix), their incestuous relationship, a lovely girl (Mädchen Amick) and one hell of a big secret.

Okay, so technically, this is a "bad film". But, who cares? It's so very fun!

Impossible things (involving corn) happen, people freak out about kitty cats, there's bad one-liners, there's too much cheese to handle!

So, yes. You will enjoy this. A lot. It won't move you, touch you, scare you, or thrill you in any way, but it will keep you entertained and laughing! I found this movie to be exciting right from the start--like a Spielberg movie is--and found the plot to be intriguing as I tried to figure out what the actual situation was.

Right from the start--before the opening credits-- the action starts, bringing with it immediate suspense.

The two main characters are very likable. (I have trouble liking any of the Baldwins, due to Alec's extra-curricular, political activities, but William was not too bad in this movie.)

There were several highly unexpected twists, which contributed to the enjoyment.

There were, unfortunately, many places where there was an annoying high pitch sound in the soundtrack--something like 19K Hz. I suspect the microphone was picking up video monitors on the set. I was the Production Accountant on this movie, and I also got to do some voice-over work on it, so I'm not entirely unbiased, but if it were awful, I would say so. I thought it was a fun film, not a critically acclaimed masterpiece, by any means, but there were plenty of laughs along the way. The Bible states that laughter does good like a medicine, so watching this movie could be good for your health.

So many of the actors in this picture hadn't yet reached their peak at the time we made this film. Susan Sarandon, of course, is one who has since gone on to much greater fame. Melanie Mayron was seen on TV on a weekly basis as a photographer in the "Thirty-Something" TV drama series. Robert Englund later became known as Freddie Krueger, still haunting people's dreams. One of my personal favorite actors on this show was Dub Taylor, who played the sheriff. He was an excellent comedic actor, and a truly nice, sincere person. We all had fun working on this show, and I think that fun comes through. American icon Henry Fonda portrays "Elegant" John Howard, an aging trucker who has had his beloved big rig "Eleanor" repossessed after a lengthy hospital stay has forced him to miss his payments. Deciding that he would like to make just one more perfect run, he breaks out of the hospital, steals back Eleanor, and hooks up with old friend Penelope Pearson (Eileen Brennan), who is in need of relocating her troupe of prostitutes.

Fondas' wonderful performance is a natural anchor for a film that tugs at the heartstrings as effectively as it tickles the funny bone in the more comedic scenes. A superb cast including Robert Englund, as a reluctant young sidekick, Susan Sarandon (who also gets co-producer credit), and Dub Taylor (a delightful ham, as always, in the most blatantly comedic portion of the picture) helps immeasurably.

The ultimately life-affirming nature of the picture and the poignancy of the journey carry incredible weight; this is a picture, that provided you get into it, you can remember long after it's over.

The promise of the open road is vividly displayed here; the countryside just looks beautiful. Set to Craig Safans' wonderful music score, it's a remarkable picture in terms of aesthetics.

It loses a little something in its final act (the characters played by John Byner and Austin Pendleton are little more than intrusions), but it still maintains its good vibes thanks to the appeal of its central characters.

Not at all the exploitation / drive-in schlock picture one might expect from the title (especially its alternate title, "The Great Smokey Roadblock"), it's a rewarding movie experience that I can recommend without qualms.

9/10 Street Fight is a brilliant piece of brutal satire. This is not a movie you just watch for fun. It is not a comfortable experience, although it does have some laugh-out-loud moments. This is a movie you watch when you need food for thought.

To dismiss this film as simply racist is to miss the point entirely. This is not only a satire of Song of the South, it's also a biting commentary on the prejudices that Americans still have as a society. Every ethnic group portrayed in the movie gets shown as grotesque caricatures of their stereotypes, which in turn are grotesque caricatures of real people. Through this wild exaggeration, the filmmaker shows just how absurd these tightly-held beliefs really are.

If you're the sort of person who's willing to acknowledge the ugliness of the prevalent prejudices American culture still holds, and if you're not afraid to look your own prejudices in the eye, this movie may be for you. One of the most interesting movies to be classified as "blaxploitation," Bakshi's "Coonskin" is a rich text full of wonderful insight. He wrote it in collaboration with Scat Man Crothers and Barry White, who appear in the film as well. The racist imagery can often be disturbing, but the message of the movie was so powerful that the NAACP gave it an endorsement (but only grudgingly).

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in an examination of the pervading atmosphere of racism that Bakshi attempts to deconstruct. Wonderful stuff. Streetfight (aka Coonskin) is a very unique film directed by animation pioneer Ralph Bakshi. It is an oddity of the cinema, and is very much worth seeing. It is live action mixed with animation, seemingly influenced on Disney's legendary Song of the South, almost as if it is a response to that flick. Philip Michael Thomas, later to become Don Johnson's sidekick on Miami Vice, and Scatman Crothers, most famous for his role in Kubrick's The Shining, are prison escapees. Charles Gordone and Barry White (yes, that Barry White) are Thomas' friends and plan to help him escape prison. They are stuck at a police roadblock, and Crothers tells Thomas a story about a black rabbit, a bear, and a fox who move from the South to Harlem in order to find a more peaceful existence. The story is animated, and provides a lot of wonderous things to see. Like all of Bakshi's films, most will be annoyed and will dislike the animation. True animation lovers will forgive its clunkiness and fall in love with its inventiveness. The movie is very violent, very sexual, and it is mostly about battles between the races. For a long time, I thought I was watching something extremely important, but after a while, especially after I got done watching it, it started to seem more like a run-of-the-mill blacksploitation flick, along the lines of Superfly. It's very sloppy and doesn't really say anything. Besides, isn't Bakshi white? Whatever the answer to that, Coonskin/Streetfight is still very much worth watching for animation aficionados as well as cult movie fans. 7/10. I had watched this film from Ralph Bakshi (Wizards, Hey Good Lookin'), one night ago on www.afrovideo.org, and I didn't see anything racial (I am not stupid), I do admit the character designs are a bit crude and unaccpectable today, but I think it's a satire and a very,very urban retelling of the old Uncle Remus stories that the Black American culture, created right down to the main characters and the blatant nod to "The Tar Baby" and "The Briar Patch." These aren't bigoted stories, mind you, but cultural icons created by Black Americans, and me being a white woman read and love those stories. And I also found it an interesting time-capsule view on the black culture in Harlem, New York in the 70's.

Well to get to the nitty-gritty of this film: This film is a live-action/animated film, which begins in live-action with a fellow named Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy the animated story of Brother Rabbit, a young newcomer to the big city who quickly rises from obscurity to rule over all of Harlem; you know, to me Rabbit,Bear and Fox are animal versions of Randy,Sampson and the Preacherman. An abstract juxtaposition of stylized animation and live action footage, the film is a graphic and condemnatory satire of stereotypes prevalent in the 70s — racial, ethnic, and otherwise.

So anyway, it is another GOOD Bakshi movie; and should we sweep films like this under the rug? pretend they never exist? hmmm...I think that would be a shame; I think we should watch these films entacted, and learn about what goes on back then, just how far we come since then. After finally watching Walt Disney's Song of the South on myspace, I decided to watch Ralph Bakshi's response to that movie-Coonskin-on Afro Video which I linked from Google Video. In this one, during the live-action sequences, Preacherman (Charles Gordone) takes his friend Sampson (Barry White) with him to pick up Pappy (Scatman Crothers) and Randy (Philip Thomas, years before he added Michael for his middle name professionally) as the latter two escape from prison. During their attempt, Pappy tells Randy a tale of Brother Rabbit (voice of Thomas), Brother Bear (White), and Preacher Fox (Gordone) and their adventures in Harlem. As expected in many of these Bakshi efforts, there's a mix of animation and live-action that provides a unique point-of-view from the writer/director that is sure to offend some people. Another fascinating animated character is Miss America who's a big-as in gigantic in every way-white blonde woman dressed in skin-tight red, white, and blue stars and stripes who has a hold on a little black man and has him shot in one of the most sexually violent ways that was shockingly funny to me! There are plenty of such scenes sprinkled throughout the picture of which another one concerning Brother Bear's frontal anatomy also provided big laughs from me. There's also a segment of a woman telling her baby of a "cockroach" she was friends with who left her that was touching with that part seeming to be a tribute to the comic strip artist George Herriman. I was also fascinated hearing Grover Washington Jr.'s version of "Ain't No Sunshine" heard as part of the score. Most compelling part of the picture was seeing the Scatman himself depicted with his head in silhouette during the opening credit sequence singing and scatting to a song that has him using the N-word in a satirical way. When I saw a VHS cover of this movie years ago, it had depicted Brother Rabbit in insolent mode in front of what looked like the Warner circles with the slogan, "This movie will offend EVERYBODY". That is ample warning to anyone who thinks all cartoons are meant for children. That said, I definitely recommend Coonskin to fans of Bakshi and of every form of animation. MPAA:Rated R for Violence,Language,Nudity and Brief Drug Use. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:18A

I saw Coonskin today.This film is also known as Bustin Out and Street Fight.After watching Fritz The Cat,I wanted to see more of Bashki's films.I saw Cool World and thought it was mediocre and I saw this.When it was first released, the film was very controversial.It was considered racist and Al Sharpton wanted the film banned, he even led protests outside the theatre where the film was playing.The film was only released on VHS under the title "Street Fight".It is now considered a cult-classic film and African-American celebrities such as comedian Richard Pryor,director Spike Lee and the rap group The Wu-Tang Clan are said to have enjoyed this film.I personally thought Fritz The Cat was a much better film but this is very enjoyable as well.Worth watching for Bashki or Blaxploitation film fans.The film mixes live action and animation sort of like the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit.I would have preferred it in full animation but whatever.The film starts off with a reverend and another man racing to rescue two of their friends from prison.While the prisoners wait,the older one tells a story of three men he knew.The film then switches into animation format, we see three black men who sold their house to this man.They decide to make names for themselves in Harlem.So the leader, a black rabbit, kills a big player in Harlem and he basically becomes a big shot.The film moves on as the Italian mafia want him out.The mafia involves the godfather,his three sons who are homosexual and an Italian clown.Coonskin is an entertaining animated film that's worth checking out, if you can find it. Coonskin might be my favorite Ralph Bakshi film. Like the best of his work, it's in-your-face and not ashamed of it for a second, but unlike some of his other work (even when he's at his finest, which was before and after Coonskin with Heavy Traffic and Wizards), it's not much uneven, despite appearances to the contrary. Bakshi's taking on stereotypes and perceptions of race, of course, but moreover he's making what appears to be a freewheeling exploitation film; blaxploitation almost, though Bakshi doesn't stop just there. If it were just a blaxploitation flick with inventive animation it could be enough for a substantial feature. But Bakshi's aims are higher: throwing up these grotesque and exaggerated images of not just black people but Italians/mafioso, homosexuals, Jews, overall New York-types in the urban quarters of Manhattan in the 70s, he isn't out to make anything realistic. The most normal looking creation in looking drawn "real" is, in fact, a naked woman painted red, white and blue.

In mocking these stereotypes and conventions and horrible forms of racism (i.e. the "tar-rabbit, baby" joke, yes joke, plus black-face), we're looking at abstraction to a grand degree. And best of all, Bakshi doesn't take himself too seriously, unlike Spike Lee with a film like Bamboozled, in delivering his message. This is why, for the most part, Coonskin is a hilarious piece of work, where some of the images and things done and sudden twists and, of course, scenes of awkward behavior (I loved the scene where the three animated characters are being talked at by the real-life white couple in tux and dress as looking "colorful" and the like), are just too much not to laugh at. It's not just the imagery, which is in and of itself incredibly "over"-stylized, but that the screenplay is sharp and, this is key for Bakshi this time considering, it's got a fairly cohesive narrative to string along the improvisations and madness.

Using at first live-action, then animation, and then an extremely clever matching of the two (ironically, what Bakshi later went for in commercial form with Cool World is done here to a T with less money and a rougher edge), Pappy and Randy are waiting outside a prison wall for a buddy to escape, and Pappy tells of the story of Brother Rabbit, who with Brother Bear and Preacher Fox go to Harlem and become big-time hoodlums, with Rabbit in direct opposition to a Jabba-the-Hut-esquire Godfather character. This is obviously a take off on Song of the South with its intentionally happy-go-lucky plot and animation, here taken apart and shown for how rotten and offensive it really is.

Yet Bakshi goes for broke in combining forms; animated characters stand behind and move along with live-action backgrounds; when violence and gunshots and fights occurs it's as bloody as it can get for 1975; when a dirty cop is at a bar and is drugged and put in black-face and a dress, he trips in a manner of which not even Disney could reach with Dumbo; a boxing match with Brother Bear and an opponent as the climax is filmed in wild slow-motion; archive footage comes on from time to time of old movies, some and some from the 20s that are just tasteless.

Like Mel Brooks or Kubrick or, more recently, South Park, Bakshi's Coonskin functions as entertainment first and then thought-provocation second. It's also audacious film-making on an independent scale; everything from the long takes to the montage and the endlessly warped designs for the characters (however all based on the theme of the piece) all serve the thought in the script, where its B-movie plot opens up much more for interpretation. To call it racist misses the point; it's like calling Dr. Strangelove pro-atomic desolation or Confederate States of America pro slavery. And, for me, it's one of the best satires ever made. by Dane Youssef

"Coonskin" is film, by the one and only Ralph Bakshi, is reportedly a satirical indictment of blaxploitation films and negative black stereotypes, as well as a look at life black in modern America (modern for the day, I mean--1975). Paramount dropped it like a hot potato that just burst into flame.

But this is a Bakshi film, controversial, thrilling, and a must-see almost by definition alone. Not just another random "shock-jock" of a movie which tries to shock for the sake of shock. It's by Ralph Bakshi. Anyone who knows the name knows that if HE made a movie, he has something big to say...

Although it's roots are based in cheap blaxploitation, "Coonskin" isn't just another campy knock-off of mainstream white film or any kind of throwaway flick. "Coonskin" wants to be more. It aims it's sights higher and fries some much bigger fish.

The movie doesn't just poke fun at the genre. Nor does it just indict black people, but actually seems to show love, beauty and heart in the strangest places.

"Coonskin" tells a story out of some convicts awaiting a jail-break. The fact that it's even possible to break out of a prison in the "Coonskin" world alone makes it old-fashioned.

One of the inmates tells a story about a trio of black brothers in Harlem named Brother Bear, Brother Rabbit, Preacher Fox who want respect and a piece of the action and are willing to get it by any means necessary. The Itallian mob is running all the real action.

Big name black musicians star: Barry White and Scatman Crothers, as well as Charles Gordone, the first black playwright to take home the Pulitzer. Something big is happening here obviously.

The movie plays out like a descent into this world, this side of the racial divide. From an angry, hip, deep, soulful black man with a hate in his heart and a gun in his hand.

Bakshi's films never know the meaning of the word "sublety." This one looks like it's never even heard of the word. But maybe a subject like this needs extremism. Real sledgehammer satire. Some subjects can't be tackled gently.

Bakshi is god-dammed merciless. Here, no member or minority of the Harlem scene appears unscathed.

The characters here are "animated" to "real" all depending on what the mood and situation are. The animated characters and the human ones all share the same reality and are meant to be taken just as literally.

Bakshi never just shows ugly caricatures just for shock value. He always has something to say. Nor is black-face is gratuitously. Here, unlike in Spike Lee's "Bamboozled," he seems to be using it to try and really say something.

Like 99.9% of all of Bakshi's films, this one incorporates animation and live-action. Usually at the same time. Bakshki isn't just being gimmicky here. All of this technique is all intertwined, meshing together while saying something.

Somehow, this one feels inevitably dated. Many of these types of films (Bakshi's included) are very topical, very spur of the moment. They reflect the certain trend for the day, but looking back of them years later, there's just an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia (as well as timeless truth).

Even though the music, clothes, slang and the city clearly looks like photos that belong in a time capsule, the attitude, the spirit and the heart remain the same no matter what f--king ear it is. Anyone who's really seen the movies, the state of things and has been in company of the people know what I'm talking about.

Even some of the of the black characters are a bunny (junglebunny), a big ol' bear and a fox. One of the most sour and unsavory racist characters is a dirty Harlem cop who's hot on the trail of these "dirty n-----s" after the death of a cop. But for him, it's not just business. Nor is it for the rest of the brothers who wear the shield. It's just pure sadistic racist pleasure of hurting blacks.

The sequence involving the Godfather and his lady is one of the most moving pieces in the whole film, of which there are many. It plays out like an opera or a ballet.

The promo line: WARNING: "This film offends everybody!" This is not just hype. Proceed with extreme caution.

You have been warned...

by Dane Youssef Remember Ralph Bakshi? The guy that was an animator on Terrytoons, then on Paramount Cartoon Studios, after that, he was a director on Fritz the Cat 1 & 2 and Heavy Traffic? Well, this is Coonskin. And it's actually pretty good. Racist, but good. The movie takes place in Harlem Nights (No, duh, it was a working title.) but with a twist that becomes a lampoon of a Disney movie, Song of the South.

It's about Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy a story about "three guys, I used to know, just like you and your friends". Pappy's story is told in animation set against live-action background photos and footage.

Brother Rabbit (voice of Thomas), Brother Bear (voice of White), and Preacher Fox (voice of Gordone) decide to pack up and leave their Southern settings after the bank mortgages their home and sells it to a man who turns it into a brothel. Arriving in Harlem, Rabbit, Bear, and Fox find that it isn't all that it's made out to be. They encounter a con man named Simple Savior, a phony revolutionary leader who purports to be the "cousin" of Black Jesus, and that he gives his followers "the strength to kill whites". In a flashy stage performance in his "church", Savior acts out being brutalized by symbols of black oppression—represented by images of John Wayne, Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon, before asking his parishioners for "donations".

Rabbit first goes up against Madigan, a virulently racist and homophobic white police officer and the bag man for the Mafia, who demonstrates his contempt for African Americans in various ways, including a refusal to bathe before an anticipated encounter with them (he believes they're not worth it). When Madigan finds out that Rabbit has been taking his payoffs, he and his cohorts, Ruby and Bobby, are led to a nightclub called "The Cottontail".

A black stripper distracts him while an LSD sugar cube is dropped into his drink. Madigan, while under the influence of his spiked drink, is then maneuvered into a sexual liaison with a stereotypically effeminate gay man, and then shoved into clothes that women were representative of the racist archetype, adorned in something racist, and finally shoved out the back of the club where he discovers that Ruby and Bobby are dead.

Then, while recovering from his delirium of being drugged, shoots his gun around randomly, and is shot to death by the police after shooting one of them.

Rabbit, Bear, Fox and the opponent boxer rush out of the boxing arena as it blows up. The live-action story ends with Randy and Pappy escaping while being shot at by various white cops, but managing to make it out alive.

This movie was controversial at that time of release, and was re-edited by the director several times under the title, Street Fight, which is obvious, since Street Fight is a 2005 documentary about racism in the streets. In fact, this movie has the same subject as the documentary.

That caused Bryanston Pictures, the distributor of this film and the original Tobe Hopper classic, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, to go out of business. Because Paramount wanted to produce and distribute this film, but due to racism, Bryanston took over Bakshi's production.

Despite the controversy, it was worth the entertainment. The animation was awesome at that time, the plot makes sense, and it's actually funny too.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10 OK, OK, don't get bent out of round. I was kidding.

"Bustin' Out" is actually a better and truer title anyhoo.

Racism and crime dramas get the satiric treat meant from our X-rated animator friend Ralphie boy. And he does one of his better jobs here.

On the crime front it shows the truth. They build it, defend it, then boredom and stronger rivals cause them to (maybe) lose it. See for yourself to see what goes down.

Racist? I don't know. With Scatman (RIP) and the love walrus (also RIP) being black and the main point of view, I saw it as an attack on racism mostly. The fact that Richard Pryor liked it says as much as well. And the younger (pre "Miami Vice") Phil Mike Thomas in there was a nice surprise.

It's an animated "Blacksploitation" film. That's a good thing. Done well and well done. It will make some squirm (like the lynching scene) but unfortunately that's based on fact.

But Ralphie REALLY should have re-thought that title. I remember when I was five and my parents thought it was a regular cartoon movie....except when the bras and bullets started flying. I have to agree this movie will make anyone and everyone upset because it is set to discriminate everyone and anyone....but the truth is it is funny as hell as it is deep. I recommend this to anyone who likes cult classics. Also try Fritz the cat and the NINE Lives of Fritz the Cat. If I'm correct Ralph Bashki did that movie too.It involves a cat that goes through hard times with family, streets,jobs , etc. When I was old enough I rented all of these movies out. Because Coonskin was an offensive title during that era it was also labeled as Street Fighter. Ralph Bashki also made Cool World starring a very young Brad Pitt. Heavy traffic was another cartoon that dealt with the street life of a young man. This is one of the most brilliant movies that I have seen in recent times. Goes way above even any international movie of any repute. I am really surprised why this has not received the recognition it deserved. Sonali Kulkarni winning the National Award is perhaps the only consoling fact. Renuka Daftardar simply amazes as she speaks volumes through her eyes. There are a few scenes that stand out: When Gauri comes back from the city on Krishna's wedding, she and Krishna meet for the first time in many years. Krishna notices a change in Gauri, but not a single line of dialogue is said. The entire gamut of emotions is conveyed through subtle mannerisms and the eyes. There's another towards the end when Krishna pleads to Abhay Kulkarni to marry Gauri instead. If you are not moved by that scene, you don't have a heart.

Watch this movie for sheer movie-making brilliance and acting capabilities. This is one of the best movie I have ever seen. My parents comes from rural India and to some extend I have seen the life of the villagers. Peoples are really poor and have financial and social problems.

The movie just reflects exactly the same. Full credit to the director and the actor. They have done an excellent job. I just wonder how can movies like Lagaan and Paheli can go for Oscar and not Doghi. I don't understand the criteria on which the movies are selected. Is the money that makes the difference or having some big names in the movie makes the difference.

Hope to see more movies like this in the future. Doghi is a wonderful movie and Renuka Daftardar is excellent. So is Uttara Baokar who is usually excellent in most of her roles. Along with Kairee, its an example of Marathi cinema at its best. There are certain parts in both movies that tend to the didactic - it would have probably enhanced the movie to not have the few scenes where the social message is hammered in. These scenes probably emerge from the film-maker's political concerns but the movie is realistic and moving enough to not need it. But apart from such minor quibbles, its a movie that deserves to be seen more and one I strongly recommend. Sumitra Bhave's concern and humanism shines through. This is a really well made movie. Sumitra Bhave has always made sensible cinema and this is my favourite film by her. This movie should have won the National Award and would have been my pick to represent India at the Oscars. It is at least a thousand times better than 'Shaaws', which is going to the Oscars, from India, this year.

It is such a pity that the information about this (and all other Indian movies) on IMDb is lacking and sometimes even wrong. Sadashiv Amrapurkar played a very important character in this movie and he is not even credited on these pages. The rest of the cast and crew too are not mentioned at all. Awards and nominations for this movie are not given even when Sonali Kulkarni won the Indian National Award for this movie. There was not even a single vote cast for 'Doghi'.

'Doghi' is not a Hindi movie. It is Marathi, and thankfully escapes the song and dance sequence, does not get tangled up in glitzy glamour and half-witted designer ware. It is a real life, soulful story that is made with a rare understanding and respect.

'Doghi' which can roughly be translated as 'two women' is a story of two sisters, Gauri and Krishna. It is actually a very simple story, Sumitra Bhave does not venture into many sub plots, and that makes it a very difficult film to direct. The entire movie is set in a non-descript remote village in Maharashtra and the screen rarely ventures far from the house of the two female protagonists. No aesthetic sunsets in this one.

The movie opens and we are introduced to the entire house, which is preparing for Gauri's wedding. Gauri and Krishna's father being a hard working farmer, the house is full and happy; there is nothing wanting in their simple lives. However on the eve of the wedding Gauri's to-be-husband meets with a fatal accident. Gauri's father cannot bear the tragic news and suffers a major stroke. Without a strong, working member the house could have fallen apart but Gauri's mother shoulders the responsibility. She works as and when she can, but cannot make ends meet. But her life still, is easier than Gauri's. Superstitions, that people half-heartedly try to forget, make Gauri an evil luck bringer. She is outcast from the society.

Gauri's mother writes to her brother. Desperate for help she accepts his suggestion. He takes Gauri off to Mumbai where she is made to work in brothels. Gauri sends home the money she earns and their conditions improve. Gauri gives her life for that of her family's.

However when Gauri returns home for Krishna's wedding, her mother does not come out to meet her. She does not allow Krishna near her and does not allow Gauri in front of the guests. She loves Gauri but fears for Krishna's life. This breaks Gauri completely and she decides to return to her unfortunate life. But Krishna runs out and holds Gauri. She begs her beloved sister to return. Krishna promises to stand by her. Promises that they would face the world – together.

There is nothing that is not required in this movie. Everything is necessary and sufficient. Gauri goes off to Mumbai but what she does there is never told – the subtle dialogues tell us what there is to know. It just the bare story, which is profound in its simplicity.

'Doghi' is responsible cinema. It is respectful to the subject it handles. It is respectful towards its audience – it does not think them to have the mental capability of a four year old.

The acting is first rate. The direction is marvelous – the silences carry the story forward in a way, no words could have. The script is well researched.

Anyone who appreciates good cinema is bound to like 'Doghi'. I was waiting to see this movie from a long time. It's promos gave a fair idea about the content and when I finally saw it, I really find it was quite well made. Most of the conventional romantic movies end with the lovers finally getting married or start of with a happy life after marriage but there is really a great adjustment needed for this transition from an old life to a new relation and life. This is what this movie is all about the period when a newly wed couple Fardeen and Esha get married through an arranged marriage and start off their life with their honeymoon. The acting is really spell binding though I think Esha remained a bit quiet and she could have used some lines for herself. The story was well knitted and dialogs were more or less appropriate. The editing and direction were also good, Meghna Gulzar really did a good job here. To summarize I would say it is a good drama cum romance, a true combination of what Bollywood can offer a clean entertainer. I liked this movie sort of reminded me of my marriage. It is very clean you can see it with family. Very nicely done. Songs are OK too. I think the writer director is great. The movie shows how marriages progress thru time. They have couples at different stages of life and relationships in their life the film beautifully depicts quite a few stages in parallel in the same story. Some of the dialogs are quite good. The movie depicts complex human emotion very nicely not with over dramatization. Also shows perfect is after all not so perfect. Shows very nicely the dynamics of arranged marriage when it is new. The movie is very well written and directed. As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching. It's a rehash of many recent films only this one has fewer stars, lesser complications and a more fuzzy feel to it. Abhay and Ritika (played by Fardeen Khan & Esha Deol respectively) meet at a friend's wedding where their own marriage (unbeknowst to them) begins its process of being arranged. Within no time the two strangers are married and sent of to a honeymoon camp where they meet other couples going through the motions similar to theirs. As they spend time together, secrets are revealed, hearts broken and/or mended and love blossoms.

If you've seen Honeymoon Private Limited and/or Salaam-e-Ishq, then you've seen this film. The plot twists are the same, there is not a single element of surprise in the entire two and a half hours of the film. Everything is predictable. I only enjoyed it because I had seen 'Darling' (also starring the leads Deol & Khan) earlier in the day and enjoyed their chemistry in that so I said "why not" when my sister suggested we rent 'Just married' as well.

See it: Because Kirron Kher co-stars and is her usual darling self in it.

Skip it: Because you've had enough of all this couple-fest nonsense!

C+ I am very sorry that this charming and whimsical film (which I first saw soon after it was first released in the early fifties) has had such a poor reception more recently. In my opinion it has been greatly underrated - but perhaps it appeals more to the European sense of humour than to (for example) the American: maybe we in Europe can understand and appreciate its subtleties and situations more, since we are closer to some of them in real life! Particular mention should be made of the limited but good music - especially the catchy and memorable song "It's a fine, fine night", which was issued separately on an HMV 78rpm record (10 inch plum label, I think!) in the fifties. I would urge anyone interested to give it a try if you get the chance: you may have a pleasant surprise. Cute idea... salesgirl Linda Smith (Yolande Donlan) inherits a teeny tiny little county of Lampidorra. That country, which wasn't even in North America, was made the 49th state... (of course, there were only 48 states at the time, since this was made in 1952...) Linda travels to the country she has inherited, and we follow her along as she tries to figure out what to do with this strange country and its even quirkier people. At one point, she sings a song that she claims is from her people the Navajo, and it gets ever-more sillier from there.... although Yolande Donlan's heavy lipstick and omni-present smile never get ruffled or shmeared. There are other songs scattered through-out as the citizens sing to welcome their new princess. Filmed in a glorious British version of technicolor, or some such equivalent, about the only big name here is Dirk Bogarde as British subject Tony Craig, cheese vendor. Bogarde made a big splash in the UK film industry after serving in the war, and was even knighted by QE II. Craig and "the new princess" keep bumping into each other, and their adventures become more intertwined as Lampidorra's financial problems worsen... Fun little farce....along the lines of Marx Brothers film. Also note that Donlan later married Val Guest, the writer and director of our little project, and stayed married for 50 years! Guest was better known for writing and directing his sci-fi flicks, in both the UK & the US. Penny Princess finds American working girl Yolande Donlon the inheritor of a small kingdom that lies in that triangle where France, Italy, and Switzerland meet called Lampidorra. It seems as though the Lampidorrans owe bills all over Europe and the main occupation of the country is smuggling due to its geography. An American multi-millionaire buys the place, but dies before he can take title. His nearest heir is Donlan.

But of course the estate has to go through probate in America and what are the Lampidorrans to do? Especially since Donlan who has now become a princess has forbade smuggling.

Enter Dirk Bogarde who is on a trip to Switzerland to learn about the cheese industry. It seems as though the Lampidorrans have a kind of cheese that they playfully refer to as Schmeeze. With a few bumps in the road, Schmeeze solves all the problems both financial, geopolitical, and romantic between Donlan and Bogarde.

How does Schmeeze work, well that's the gimmick to the whole film. But here's a hint. In Lover Come Back Jack Kruschen might just have gotten a hold of the secret of Schmeeze when he was busy inventing VIP for Rock Hudson and his advertising agency.

Anyway Penny Princess is a delightful blend of British farce and romantic comedy. Yolande Donlon once again plays a role that Marilyn Monroe would have been cast in if the film had been made this side of the pond. Dirk Bogarde was well cast in the part which was at the beginning of his career as a romantic heart throb, way before anyone but him suspected he had the acting chops he had.

This film was sadly shown at three o'clock in the morning on TCM. But at least I found a reason to be grateful for insomnia. This movie needs to be put on DVD. It was so funny and I loved it. Really, really cute and funny. Not realistic, but not suppose to be. The only thing I did not like about it was the girl relying on the guy too much. It represents the time period way of thinking though. I have been trying to get this movie for so long and it has been unavailable for US format only in the UK and will not play on US DVD players. It is sadly an over looked Classic film! Believe it or not, but this film could easily become a cult favorite, for all ages. Too bad, we do not legalize certain things that could really save small countries or our own. Lindy is unsinkable, a positive character that makes lemonade out of lemons. She is funny and charming. She stole the show! A really great movie and true story. Dan Jansen the Greatest skater ever. A touching and beautiful movie the whole family can enjoy. The story of Jane Jansens battle with cancer and Dan Jansen love for his sister. Of a important promise made by Jansen to win a gold medal to prove his sister Jane was right to believe in his talent in speed skating was justified. This picture is well worth the time. I wish they would make more films of this quality. Thank you for a great film with excellent actors and an excellent story. It is a very touching story about a beautiful family support and faith for their children and a special dream for their youngest son and his sister. I had read an article about Dan Jansen's Olympic and personal journey before seeing this movie. I'm always intrigued by a story of hope and overcoming life altering events, and this was no exception.

The background of the characters that is provided gives you a sense of the family's closeness and how they positively affected each others' lives. I can't speak to the accuracy of specific details in this movie, it is customary to take some creative license when organizing a script. However, the spirit of Dan and his family is what matters here.

Its a worthwhile movie of a story that should be told. I felt empathy for the characters and cheered at the end. A Brother's Promise is a wonderful family film. This is a biography of Dan Jansen, a champion Olympic speed skater. The movie depicts this athlete's life from a young age through full adulthood. The love and support of the family members is evident throughout. How Dan and the rest of his family handle winning and losing races is a life lesson for all of us. The commitment and determination of Dan's coach and his teammates, shows what it takes to make a real team. How Dan and his family deal with a devastating illness of a loved one is depicted without undo sentiment or sugarcoating. The faith of the family is shown in basic terms and is obviously a major part of their lives. This is a powerful family film which can be meaningful for a person of any age. Beautiful story of Wisconsin native, Dan Jansen, and his real life, agonizing struggle to win the 1994 Olympic Gold Medal in Speed Skating, despite his overwhelming emotional loss with the death of his much loved Best Friend and Family Member; his Sister, Jane.

This story's main focus is to sensitively portray the real life emotional turmoil of grief, that one feels in loosing a special Loved One, and the struggle to productively cope and rise above the great loss! It is the incredible story of Dan Jansen's heartbreak in loosing his beloved Sister to Leukemia, his struggle to cope with the intensity of his grief, while still maintaining his Dream to win at the Olympics, and his ultimate triumph in winning the Gold Medal in Speed Skating for America, and in honor of his Sister's memory; thereby fulfilling his childhood promise to Jane!

After Dan Jansen's remarkable Gold Medal performance in the Winter Olympic in Lillihamer, Norway, he established a Foundation in 1994 to help fight Leukemia, which claimed the life of his Sister, and to support youth sports programs, educational and scholarship awards. His Dan Jansen Foundation promotes the philosophy that: "as his Father always told him at a young age: 'there is more to life than skating around in circles!' Maintaining a proper perspective is key! So, too, is setting goals, and realizing one's Dreams through perseverence, overcoming adversity and never giving up!"

Recommended for anyone who has ever suffered the great loss of someone very special, and dearly loved within your life! And, for anyone who still believes in the Achievement of Dreams, and Never Giving Up! Thomas Ince always had a knack for bringing simple homespun stories to life with fullness and flair. "The Italian" is such a film. Solid acting, particularly by George Beban, father of silent child actor George Beban, Jr., and wonderful sets convey a realistic feeling of early immigrant tenements in New York. These give this 1915 film an authenticity which is unusual in features of this vintage.

The film begins with the modern day and a man (George Beban in modern clothes) reading a story about an Italian immigrant, and then we transition into the story with George playing the immigrant. He raises enough money to bring his fiancée from Italy to America, marries her, and has a son with her. But times are hard and the family struggles to survive. I found myself wondering why the mother didn't breastfeed her child, and avoid the complications with the dirty formula, but oh well, even the early Dream Factory was pushing political correct behaviour for women in 1915!

The best scene in the picture is when Beban has a chance to seek revenge on a crime boss who inadvertently put him in jail, and at the last minute he decides against his planned course of action. Very neat. I loved the curtain effect, it was great. Wonderful use of lighting in this film.

I give "The Italian" an 8 out of 10. THE ITALIAN is an astonishingly accomplished film for its time. Stunningly shot, with lighting effects that are truly sublime, this is an early gem that clearly reveals REGINALD BARKER to be a pioneer director of equal standing to D.W. GRIFFITH and MAURICE TOURNEUR. How much control Thomas Ince exerted over the production is hard to know, but this film still has extraordinary power. The simple story of an Italian immigrant struggling to keep his family alive in New York, is very moving. The themes of social injustice, revenge and forgiveness are completely relevant today. The use of close-ups is outstanding and the powerhouse performance of GEORGE BEBAN is electrifying. What we need now is a really good print transferred to DVD so we can truly appreciate this early masterpiece of cinema. 'The Italian' is among the great or near-great films of 1915 that are available today. The year was a turning point for the feature-length film, especially in America: Lois Weber's 'Hypocrites', Cecil B. DeMille's 'The Cheat' and, of course, D.W. Griffith's 'The Birth of a Nation' set new benchmarks for the art. Additionally, that year, Russian filmmaker Yevgeni Bauer made two of his best pictures, 'After Death' and 'Daydreams'. The French serial 'Les Vampires' also has its admirers today, although I disagree with them. The emergence of the feature-length film was led by Europe, mainly Denmark, France and Italy, but dominance of this market and, to a degree, the art shifted to across the Atlantic in 1915.

The most overriding artistic achievement of 'The Italian' is its stunning and often innovative cinematography. There are some picturesque sunsets, mobile framing, including a brief overhead angled shot of the Italian racing to buy a wedding ring and another shot of him holding onto a moving car, and, in general, there is wise use of varied camera angles and expert lighting throughout. An especially amazing shot is a close-up of the Italian enraged as he slowly approaches the camera for an extreme close-up, in reference to D.W. Griffith's 'Musketeers of Pig Alley' (1912). He's so enraged his environment even begins to shake around his anger.

Unfortunately, the cinematographer appears to be unknown. The director, although originally without credit in the film, is now known to have been Reginald Barker. Five or so of his other films made for Ince are also available today, but are rather unremarkable. 'Civilization' (1916), which he worked on, was a large production, but a deeply flawed movie. By the way, I'd guess that one or more of the various cinematographers who worked on 'Civilization' also photographed 'The Italian'.

Moreover, the entire production is very advanced for then. Venice and New York are well rendered despite the film being shot in Los Angeles (for romanticized Venice) and San Francisco (for the ethnic slums of New York). There are extensive flashbacks, although perhaps one or two too many. I especially like the clever framing of the narrative as being read in a book by a character played by the same actor, George Beban, who is also the lead in the inner, main narrative. The reading of the story is further briefly framed by the opening at the beginning and closing at the end of curtain drapes, à la the theatre, which is reflected within the inner story during the revenge climax in the child's room, with the opening and closing of window curtains. Parallel editing, in-camera dissolves and irises and such are handled expertly. Additionally, Beban and Clara Williams, as his wife, play their parts well.

On the other hand, 'The Italian' does have a few drawbacks. The film's early moments of comedy clash rather disharmoniously with the latter parts of harsh and heavy melodrama, although the environmental changes from romanticized Italy to naturalistic New York works well—mostly because it's supported by the lighting and photography. The harsh dissolution of the American dream in this film, enhanced by the stark photography, must have been poignant to the immigrant classes who comprised a disproportionately large population of the movie-going public back then. The Corrigan character should have been foreshadowed more; his brief introduction campaigning for another politician seems inadequate for his later centrality to the Italian's revenge. In addition, the filmmakers were either medically naïf or careless to not explain the lack of breastfeeding of the infant and the unwarranted faith in the healing powers of quietness for the other child. Aside from the deficiencies in plot, 'The Italian' is exceptionally well made. Alright, I have to admit that I have never seen "Rhoda" and only one or two episodes of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Even though I don't know anything about this duo of comedic talent, I still liked this movie a lot.

Mary goes back to work. Rose tries her luck at being a comedian. Rhoda struggles with a photography career. And Meredith...what exactly does she do again? These three stories that we follow over two hours are amusing and entertaining in their own way. When the two long time friends reunite, it only makes the film better.

I was surprised about how good the writing was. The little jokes thrown in by Mary and Rhoda were funny. The script itself was very well put together.

I had seen Moore and Harper in other movies over the past few years and thought that they were very good. But I had no idea that they worked this well as a team. While both actresses do their share to fulfill the title of this movie, they never seem to let me down. (During the run of this movie.) Joie Lenz and Marisa Ryan play their roles okay but nothing great. The rest of the cast like Jonah, Cecile and....everybody else also works well together.

Being that this is a reunion, you would expect for a fan of either show to enjoy this. From a non-fan I still enjoyed this little get-together. Good story lines for each character and the two main characters is what makes this film very good. (The newer version of the MTM theme song doesn't hurt either.) I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the "MTM" or "Rhoda" shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where "Rhoda" had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.

It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the "MTM" and "Rhoda" shows? Never viewed this 1971 film and was greatly entertained by this great production created by the Walt Disney Studios and great animation creations. Angela Lansbury, (Eglantine Price) played an outstanding role as a woman who had taken a course in witch craft and was an apprentice who was beginning to fly on a broomstick and had quite a few difficulties taking off. Eglantine discovered many tricks and was able to make a bed travel to different parts of the world. However, Eglantine missed her final exams to becoming an accomplished witch. Mr. Emerlius Browne, (David Tomlinson) was the person who sold Eglantine this course in witchcraft and he tries to help her in every way possible to find her solution. Eglantine has a purpose to her madness and that is to stop the Nazi's from evading England. Great family entertainment and we need more films like this today. Delightful Disney film with Angela Lansbury in fine form as a middle age spinster whose interest turns to witchcraft in World War 11 England.

Lansbury was about age 51 at the time of the film and she is just ideal for the part. She is Jessica Fletcher again but this time it's for the benefit or children and for mother England during a time of great peril.

The film follows the adventures of Miss Price (Lansbury) and David Tomlinson as the professor of witchcraft in trying to obtain certain information on sorcery. Those 3 little darlings sent to live with Price to escape the London bombings are just wonderful in this enchanting film for all of us regardless of age.

Too bad that Tessie O'Shea, Roddy McDowall and Sam Jaffe are given so little to do in this endearing film.

I really thought of the Ben Stiller film-"Night at the Museum," at the end of the film when the relics come to life to do battle with the Nazi invasion in the small British coastal town. Angela Lansbury plays Eglantine a middle aged lady in war torn England, during the WWI. She has been studying witchcraft by mail, and has been secretly learning it in her home, she is doing well, until three children who have been separated from their parents from the last air raid, are sent to stay in Angela Lansbury's huge house. She is not happy about having them, because of her secret. They only want to go back home. The oldest boy is very hard to get along with he is a brat. The other two a boy and a girl are just inquisitive about their new place to stay and the lady that is their hostess. The kids find out about her secret and that is when the fun begins. Fun and more of it. Family fun. Laughter, frolic, adventure, something for everyone. The special effects are quite good. This is a musical the tunes are every bit as catchy to sing later as any of the other Disney films. Add this to your Family Video Library. You will not be disappointed. This movie is one of the best ever produced by disney.

The plot is very original and entertaining. The animated sequence is also very well done with the live actors. (For the time).

Perhaps one of my favorite sequences is contained in this movie with the march of the suits of armor. A great movie. Lansbury and Tomlinson are perfect, the songs are wonderful, the dances, with a particular mention for the "Portobello Ballet" are gorgeous. As for the animated section, the match between animals has become an instant classic; the climax with the attack of the armatures is chilling and fascinating. I recommend to see the restored 134 minutes version or at least the 112 minutes video. Here in Italy we have only the 98 minutes version, although the film was presented in its original release at the running of 117 minutes. If possible, watch also the German videocassette: it was generated from the 98 minutes running but it's missing of every refer to World War II and of all the scenes between English people and their Nazi invaders! This is an old fashioned, wonderfully fun children's movie with surely the most appealing novice witch ever. Unlike many modern stories which seem to revel in dark witchcraft, this is simply a magical tale of hocus pocus that is cute, light hearted, and charming.

The tale is set back in 1940 in the English village of Peppering Eye, where three Cockney children, Charlie, Carrie, & Paul Rollins, are being evacuated out of danger from World War II city air raids. They are mistakingly sent to live with Eglantine Price, who is studying by correspondence course to become an apprentice witch. Eglantine and the trio of children use a magic bed knob in order to travel to London on their flying bed. Here they encounter Emilius Browne, the fraudulent headmaster of Miss Price's witchcraft training correspondence school. Miss Price sets about working on spells designed to bring inanimate objects to life. Meanwhile, they must also deal with a shady character called the Bookman and his associate, Swinburne.

Angela Lansbury is of course marvelously endearing as the eccentric witch in training, Miss Price. David Tomlinson plays Mr. Browne, headmaster of the defunct witchcraft school, who has now turned street magician. This actor was previously cast as the children's father in the movie Mary Poppins. In fact, this film is a tale quite reminiscent of the earlier Mary Poppins, both wonderful fantasy stories for children. Perhaps this movie doesn't have quite such memorable music as Chim-Chim-Cheree, but it does boast some appealing little tunes. Some have been critical, but the movie features excellent special effects. All in all, the story is enchanting family entertainment. It's a pity if modern children are too sophisticated for this lovely & bewitching tale, which should appeal to the child in all of us. What a great gem this is. It's an unusual story that is fun to watch. Yes, it has singing, but it is very nicely crafted into the story and is very melodic to hear. It was so pleasant to watch; I enjoyed it from start to finish!

The movie takes place in England during World War II. It is about an apprentice witch who is searching for a missing portion of a spell that she needs. She uses her rough "magic" to transport her and 3 children under her care to various destinations to find it. They are joined by her correspondence teacher, who is surprised to learn that the lessons from his school actually work!

Although the special effects may seem a little dated at first, once you get used to them they become part of the charm of this movie. In fact, the movie won an Oscar for these effects!

The movie is innocent and fun - and it's hard not to like the tuneful songs. The characters are wonderfully interesting to watch. I think anyone at any age could find something to like about this movie. i love bed knobs and broomsticks so much that it makes me cry a thousand tears of joy every time i have the magnificent pleasure of seeing it. i would also like to reiterate the simple fact that i love it so much.too much some have said. i have 27 copies on video and i love them all equally. i also love anyone else who loves it. i love you. my favourite scene is the dance scene at portobello road. i have learned the dance moves and practice it everyday. i have some audio recordings of myself singing the song. if anyone can play the drums or guitar i am thinking of forming a bed knobs and broomsticks band.i hope to call it 'the knobs'. love me (liz) Bedknobs & Broomsticks is another one of Disney's masterpieces. It was filmed with sequences of animation and the actors and actresses interacting with the animations. (A similar concept was used in Mary Poppins when the children and Mary disappear into the sidewalk art.) I am mainly rating this film through child's eyes because I have not seen it in years. Back then, it was one of my favourite films. It was magical and mystical, and the last scenes (the conflict beginning with the ghostly armour walking into battle) were my favourites. There was also a lot of stop-animation used with the spells (ie, people turning into rabbits), which may be a little dated and silly now. (Also, I believe that the film starts off slowly.) Through the eyes of a child, this is a fun film and it is easy for children to put themselves into the places of the children in the film. It is an imaginative film which is sadly largely-forgotten today. Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the "Portabellow Road" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories. Easily the greatest low budget horror film of all time. I first saw this movie when I was around nine years of age, and I have to say that it scared the hell out of me. Now that I'm all growed up, however, I see this movie for what it really is... a work of genius. Everyone, or at least everyone with any taste, has dreamed of seeing a snowman going around killing people, even if they won't admit it. I have always found something genuinely frightening about snowmen, so naturally, for a horror junkie such as myself, thismovie was a dream come true. Some people say that this movie is silly, or otherwise void of any intelligence... it's a movie about a serial killer snowman, what the hell did you expect? Anyone who gave this film a low score is obviously too uptight to sit back and have a good laugh at stupid one-liners and cheap gore. I love this movie for what it is, a comedy, and until the movie industry wises up and makes a serious horror flick about a killer snowman (which seems impossible, unfortunately) I will forever hold this great piece of indie horror close to my heart. I'm glad that users (as of this date) who liked this movie are now coming forward. I don't understand the people who didn't like this movie - it seems like they were expecting a serious (?!?!?) treatment! C'mon, how the hell can you take the premise of a killer snowman seriously? The filmmakers knew this was a silly premise, and they didn't try to deny it. The straight-faced delivery of scenes actually makes it FUNNY! Yes, there are times where the low budget shows (such as that explosion scene), but I think an expensive look would have taken away from the fun of the movie! So if you like B-movies, and the goofy premise appeals to you, then you'll certainly like "Jack Frost". This is one of the funniest movies that I have seen this year. The people that made it must be so incredibly whacked and twisted. It is a beautiful thing. There were a lot of quality one-liners. This movie blew Uncle Sam out of the water (it was made by tha same people, i think) Surprisingly good. The acting was fun, the screenplay was fun, the music was cheesie fun, the plot was stupendously fun. This was a fun movie to watch and to give your brain some rest. Parts of the plot and quotes I found to be very creative. 7 out of 10. Actually for what it was, it would deserve a 10 out of 10. You are not supposed to compare this to an arthouse film or to a bloody slasher film. Note that I did not say that it is better...just more enjoyable. The lack of social commentary and realism helps keep things moving.

I was actually sort of surprised that this was not a Troma movie, as it has all the Troma trademarks, including spewing acidic liquids, wisecracks from the villain after every murder, a ridiculous bathtub rape scene (which is sort of hard to get upset about, since the rapist is a snowman), and dumb deputies.

There's a lot to love:

1. A snowman, about whom it is remarked that he has no legs or feet, drives a police cruiser around town.

2. Even though it is supposed to be close to (or below) freezing, nobody's breath shows and there are no signs of car exhaust when cars are running.

3. The snow reminds you more of flocking or Styrofoam peanuts than actual snow.

4. A teenage girl gets the hots for her boyfriend just a few hours after her brother is gruesomely murdered. She talks him into breaking into the sheriff's house, of all places, in order to get it on. But first, she tells him that he has to build a nice fire in the fireplace and open some wine.

5. After teen-aged Jake's head is cut off by a sled runner, his father argues with the sheriff about whether Tommy, the sheriff's son, had anything to do with it. The sheriff maintains that Tommy wouldn't have been fighting with Jake because Jake "is at least two feet taller than Tommy." At that moment, someone in the background chimes in, "Not anymore!"

6. When the evil snowman finally starts to melt away, the sheriff wrestles with a flat snowman made out of some sort of fabric for an extended period. This is much better than Tarzan wrestling with rubber crocodiles or gladiators wrestling with stuffed lions. If I were an actor, I would not have been able to keep a straight face at this point.

All in all, a fun film. There's not really even that much blood. Yes this a B- grade horror. But at least the producers, directors, and cast does not pretend this flick is manna from heaven. The plot is corny, a psychotic serial killer on his way to execution is splashed with genetic acid turning him into a snow man. The snowman a.k.a. Jack Frost then goes on a murdering rampage to find the small town sheriff that finally arrested him. With a limited budget the crew had to make do with limited special effects, most of the money appears to spent on the snowman's costume. Particullary difficult shots are managed by cartoons or pan away shots (shots where the camera moves away to disguise the details).

This is no kid's movie and should not be confused with Disney movie of the same title. If you do not let your children watch pg-13 movies alone than parents should not let their kids watch this movie. This movie has two claims to fame. 1. The beatiful Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie)did her first major movie role. The scene where Jack Frost attacks Shannon Elizabeth is worth watching a few times. 2. This movie has the worst snowman joke ever. The joke is so bad that the directors credit the joke teller in the credit list. Jack Frost is about a serial killer who is sentenced to death. On the Way to his death sentence the prison truck that he rides in collides with a chemical tanker filled with a chemical that turns his molecules with the snow on the ground turning him into a snowman. Being a killer himself that would turn him into a killer snowman. Jack now wants revenge on the sheriff who caught him. Jack now starts his rampage all over again killing people in a small town.

I don't think Jack Frost has a chance of becoming a horror classic but its a entertaining flick. Just put your brain on hold and have fun with it, but just don't take it too seriously. I saw Jack Frost for £4:00 at my local store and I thought it looks pretty good for a low budget movie so I bought it and I was right it was good. For starters this film is about a killer snowman so that's something to laugh about and the way it looks was funny compared to the Snowman on the cover.

The acting was okay and the lines Jack Frost said had me laughing "I only axed you for a smoke" and "Worlds most pi**ed off snow cone" how funny and camp is that? The tale at the start was pretty funny and silly too "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack gouged eyes with candle sticks". If you're looking for a for a B-Movie Comedy horror that's full of puns then check Jack Frost out. 10/10 Okay, here's what I think about Jack Frost. I looked at the morphing box for the VHS tape and I thought to myself, this looks interesting. I rent it and I take it home. Boy was I right, it is interesting. They put serial killer's spirits in dreams, in walking corpses and inside every day machines. But this has got to be the most unique place to put the spirit of a serial killer. Inside the body of a snowman. I liked all the friendly snowman images littering the landscape, the pot holder, the snow globe, etc. I like the actor who played Jack, he put some fun into a killer really not seen since FREDDY KRUGGER. That's right, I said it. FREDDY KRUGGER. It's that level of "cool". I wish some of the puppet effects were better, the mouth movements could have matched better. But I chalk that up to a small budget. The cast does a great job, there are some great one liners and scares to make any hardcore horror fan jump. All and all, a great story, good effects, great dialog and a great cast. I give JACK FROST...9 STARS This movie is goofy as hell! I think it was written as a serious film, but then when it came time to film, Michael Cooney said "Hey, let's throw in some humor and spice it up!" The characters are actually slightly developed, too. Oh, and the death sequences are the best. One thing I hate, though, was the hairdryer-weapons. What was that all about? Before I comment about this movie, you should realize that when I saw this movie, I expected the typical crap, horror, B-movie and just wanted to have fun. Jack Frost is one that not only delivers but is actually one of the best that I've seen in a long time. Scott McDonald is great as Jack Frost, in fact I think he has a future in being psychopaths in big time movies if ever given the chance. McDonald is a serial killer who becomes a snowman through some stupid accidental mix of ridiculous elements. As soon as that snowman starts moving around and killing people, though, you will find it hard not to laugh. The lines that are said are completely retarded but really funny. The fact that the rest of the cast completely over-acts just adds to stupidity of the film, but it's stupidity is it's genius. The scene where the snowman is with the teenage girl is truly classic in B-movie, horror film fashion. I truly hope there is a sequel and I'll be right there to watch it on whatever cable channel does it. Of course it's only fun to watch the first few times and it's not exactly a good work of motion picture technology, but I just like to see snowmen kill people. I gave it a 7 out of 10, this is a great movie for dates and couples in the late hours. this film is absolutely hilarious. basically, the plot revolves around a serial killer being somehow turned into a snowman through some B-movie chemical accident. he then heads for town and starts terrorising the locals. its up to the local police chief and some other characters to try and stop him. its made on a wee budget and it certainly shows, but the great thing about this film is it knows that its rubbish. the improvisations of Styrofoam and polystyrene mimicking the giant killer snowman are classic, and this is clearly the intention - its one of the few films that has its budget as its main selling point. alongside the comic tackiness there are some other great comedy moments - listen out right in the beginning for the voice over of a dad scaring his kids to death, and the funniest rape scene ever committed to film. fantastic tacky fun How can someone NOT like this movie??? This movie is so good, that the first week I saw it on the shelf at the video store it was stolen....BEST Horror Movie Ever!!!....I mean he took the Carrot and he...well you know HAHAHA..How is that NOT funny? The only movie that comes close to touching this is Bride of Chucky and that was just great!! As far as horror flicks go, this one is pretty darn good. While it may not be a classic tale of horror and suspense, it does provide many quality chuckles that make this movie a must see if you're into the horror/comedy genre. okay, but just plain dumb. Not bad for a horror/comedy film. I was reading how people switched it with the Michael version and that is a good trick in my opinion because some grown ups hate horrors and when they see this one it will get them interested in horror films like this one or maybe (never seen it) the horror (possibly comedy) uncle Sam, i'll have to see about renting or buying that film but the 2nd is way better then this one but i bought this one on VHS of Amazon and got it November 21, the day before thanksgiving. worth the four bucks, l.o.l. at this film.

9/10 Jack Frost is Really a Cool Movie. I Mean....Its Funny. Its Violent. and Very Enjoyable. Most People Say that it Is B Rated, But That Couldn't be Farther from the truth. It has Great Special Effects and Good Acting. The Only Weird thing is of Course, The Killer Snowman. I Think this Movie was Actually one of The Best Films of the Late-Nineties. Most Films these Days lack the Criteria of A Clive Barker Master Piece. That is, Be Original and Give the Viewer What they Do not Expect. Jack Frost is Very Cool. 10 out of 10. Grade: A+. Ed Also Recommends The Movie Uncle Sam to Fans of Jack Frost. All I can say about the Necromaniac/Schizophreniac 2 series is... if you are even remotely "PC" or don't have a seriously messed up sense of humor, then you probably wont get it. As sick and disgusting as this movie is, it really is a comedy and not a "horror" movie at all. If you can appreciate somebody who pushes the bounds of good taste and political correctness to the most extreme limits imaginable, to the point where is becomes so out of hand that it's comical, then you must see this to believe it. This movie is so out of control that a major film studio couldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole (with a condom on the end). In my opinion though, the best, most extreme pieces of art come from way underground. If you don't stick to the same old formula that people are used to seeing, then they reject it.

I have seen stacks of terrible, boring, z-grade, Indy movies that were just a waste of a perfectly good VHS tape or DVD-R. I have also seen stacks of stink bombs coming from the big named studios that were a complete waste of millions of dollars. When a NO BUDGET film like these two from Ron Atkins/John Giancaspro come out and blow all of the other "shock" films completely out of the water, you really have to take a second look at the whole Indy movie scene. After seeing this, you can really see how much freedom an Indy film maker can have when they work on their own.

The funny thing is, even the other people who saw this movie and "hated it" admit to the fact that they laughed all the way through it. I don't think that is is possible for anybody to get bored watching either of these two. So if don't take everything that you seen in the mainstream media too seriously, and are able to laugh at a misanthropic, puppet wielding psychopath who has finally snapped, YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS. You may just be able to see it for the stand alone, cult classic that it is. Both Schizophreniac / Schizophreniac 2 are among the favorites in my collection of well over 1000 dvds. This film is like marmite. You either love it or you hate it. If you go into this film expecting a proper film with decent production values, a good plot and great characters you'll hate it. If you go into this film expecting a low budget slasher you'll probably hate it.

If you go into this film expecting to see one of the most deranged characters ever put to film in the form of Harry Russo you will love it. John Giancaspro is absolutely brilliant in his over the top portrayal of the insane, murderous coke fiend.

The special effects are abysmal at best but really, who cares? If you're the kind of person who's prepared to watch a film Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler you've undoubtedly seen scores of horror films filled with gore. With the budget this film was made for even if they had tried it probably would've mediocre at best. I'd much rather be able to laugh at something abysmal than be unaffected by the mediocre.

To sum it up, you'll probably hate this film but if you're one of the few who decide to see it anyway it'll become the best thing since sliced bread #2 I hate marmite. Did you ever wonder how far one movie could go?

Schizophreniac relentlessly explores the world of the extreme with Harry Russo.

Harry is an aggravated writer, killer and drug addict scumbag who will stop at nothing to destroy those who stand between him and insanity. Driven by the demonic voices of his ventriloquist dummy rubberneck, Harry begins his killing spree.

From director Ron Atkins comes the 1st installment of the vilest story ever to be filmed

The only other movie I have seen similar to this would happen to be the 2nd installment entitled Schizophreniac Necromaniac

This is a really low budget film and will not be for everyone, but if you are looking for something disturbing, different and horrific then this would make a fine choice.

DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING LIKE MODERN DAY HORROR (Such as Scream)

Viewer discretion is advised A really sweet movie that has some similarities to the 2001-hit "My Sassy Girl" but is able to enchant most of the time. The biggest applause should go to the two leads. Ha-Neul Kim is both sweet and quirky, Sang-woo Kwon is both attractive and rebellious. The chemistry between the two is very good.

Director Kyeong-hyeong Kim uses some CG-inserts to pepper up the visuals and also offers impressive fight scenes in which Sang-woo Kwon can shine. I liked him a lot better here than in the highly overrated "Volcano High". And that boy has a future - those looks, those fight techniques, and a romantic lead. Not bad.

Well, I can make it short: Nice film. My rating: 7/10 After having seen "Marrying Mafia", I'd nearly lost my faith in Korean movie business. But this one brought my faith back.

Leading female character who is university student forced to teach the spoiled, rich but charistmatic high school student guy. He is actually female character's age. Through some hilarious quarrells, these two end up being great friends.

I was pleasantly surprised that newcomer kwan sang woo did his job with excellency. He was such a revelation!! Actress Kim ha nul was also charming as usual.

This movie tried hard to avoid any cliches that can be seen in typical romantic comedies. And it didn't show us any unnecessary nude, sex scenes. It was brilliant, lovely , fresh, made me want to see it again.

It is first and foremost a chick flick, it is a romantic comedy. There is a fair balance between the two. This particular movie has the addition of some pretty sweet fight scenes, I don't think any wires were used or if they were they weren't flat out blatant. It isn't a terribly complicated movie so it easy on the brain, no need to analyze anything to get the deeper meaning, pretty simple, good chemistry between the leads, and a fun watch. I'd like it if they made brought out the full potential of the girls looks just once cause she can be amazingly cute, but throughout the movie they keep it low key kind of pretty. I'd watch it again...with a girl. I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.

I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.

The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.

Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-)

MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time. Like "My Sassy Girl", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from "My Sassy Girl" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than "My Sassy Girl"--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10 My Tutor Friend is a well scripted romance comedy movie that has something similar to My Sassy Girl.. there's no kissing/sex scenes. Hollywood should learn more from Korean productions. Sex is not always required in a good romantic movie.

The movie is of light hearted tone with occasional cartoon CG scenes blended into the movie. I like the part when Ji-Hoon almost kissed Su-Wan. The funniest moment is when Ji-Hoon punched Su-Wan's first love because he dumped Su-Wan for another girl and he is going to be a father soon. How he became a father was revealed in the next scene, which brings smiles to the audience.

Mao points: 8/10 I enjoyed this film very much. Many Korean people will feel familiar with this film because many of them have tutors when they go to school. Cinematography was average. The movie would have been better if the angel or the movement of the camera was more irregular. Editing, however, was very neat and unusual.

The acting was also very good. Kim Ha Neul usually played an innocent, weak girl in the Korean soap-opaeras. But this time, she plays a cute tomboy very well. Kwon Sang Woo also plays his role very believable.

What I like the most about this film is, the emotion of the characters are not too exaggerated. There are many Korean romance films that the characters cry river before the audience and I always thought it was very stale. There was no such crap in this movie.

Very funny and well-done. After, I watched the films... I thought, "Why the heck was this film such a high success in the Korean Box Office?" Even thought the movie had a clever/unusal scenario, the acting wasn't that good and the characters weren't very interesting. For a Korean movie... I liked the fighting scenes. If you want to watch a film without thinking, this is the film for you. But I got to admit... the film was kind of childish... 6/10 When it comes to the erotic genre, I'm lucky to get through the first 20 minutes of the plot without getting up or looking for something else to watch. This movie is different. Julie Davis (I love You Don't Touch Me) directed two very strong lead actors Kira Reed and Doug Jeffery in this enthralling thriller. Kira is convincing as "Kim" a sweet innocent romance novelist that gets caught in the web of seduction of Doug Jeffery's "The Man" a handsome stranger. Kira loses control of her inhibitions in the role, and as actress, giving what could have been simply another T and A depth and believability. I believe it to be her best performance yet. And Julie Davis' direction is a great gift to erotica. All Kira Reed fans MUST see this. The film's premise has struggling romance novelist Kira unable to come up with any new ideas. She's also getting over a divorce. However, she meets this guy at a restaurant and he helps her out of her shell (and clothing). They go into a corner room and they do it. Thankfully, Kira gets a condom out (Now don't ever tell me these Playboy films are worthless piles of soft-core fluff. Remember kids, safe sex). Later, she marvels to her publishist how great it was, but she didn't get his name. Despite this, the guy finds her and they continue their kinky games. But eventually she tires of his sneakiness and wants to know more. When she does, all hell breaks loose, and I'll leave it at that. This is easily the best of these soft-core Playboys films I've seen. Check this out, and marvel at the greatness of Kira. I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so.

"Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!

10/10 I saw the movie recently during the Boston Film festival. The movie was very entertaining and is something that I believe the world, and black America is ready to see. It has comedy,drama, the soundtrack is great. It is an all around good film. The characters were well developed, and the movie had a wide variety of prominent actors, such as Wood Harris(Remember the Titains, Paid in Full), Brian J. White (Trois 3, Mr 3000), and the wonderful Zoe Saldana(Drumline, Pirates of the Caribbean). The movie tackles many relevant topics in todays society in a short period of time, and does so with class and grace. This is not only a story about life in the hospital, however it is a story about people and their personal journey to discovering who they are, or who they are going to be. I had to give this film a 10 simply because it did what so many films thrown at black audiences have FAILED MISERABLY to do. This film was void of all the video whore clichés, and it also skipped the gangsters, rappers, and foul language. It examined several relationships among physicians, African Americans, and African American male/female romantic relationships on a completely new and refreshing level. I was highly impressed with the films careful mix of light headed humor with some pretty tough and heavy issues. The film will leave you feeling happy and sad all at the same time. I saw it at the Boston Film Festival as well. It premiered at AMC Loews Boston and I truly hope this film makes it to much larger audiences. Black People (and EVERYONE else) would LOVE a movie like this- if only the industry was SMART enough to put them out there!

As an extra- if your a doctor, a resident, a medical student, a premedical student, married to a doctor, have a doctor sibling, have a doctor in the family, or know a great doctor period- they would love this film as well. It portrayed residency and the practice in a true-to-life way that was greatly appreciated by the doctors, residents, and medical students who viewed the film. Dennis Cooper completely his residency in internal medicine- so he definitely applied his knowledge/experience to the film and that is greatly apparent. So I don't ruin it for you, I'll be very brief. There's some great acting and funny lines from the attractive cast. A young graduate of Harvard Med School (Brian White) finds out he doesn't know as much as he thinks about people. He goes to a small hospital in Florida for his internship because a girlfriend (Mya) left him for a job as a TV Producer. His Senior Resident (Wood Harris), helped marvelously by his 'creative collaborator'(Zoe Saldana) bring him up to speed. They help protect his career and show him the wider possibilities that come from being a compassionate doctor instead of a player who just wants to make money (as seems to be true for many of my pre-med friends). This is a really funny (and sexy) movie - that is not just silly but has great acting. It's the kind of movie where the characters are so entertaining that you feel like you are connected to everyone in the theater. I saw it at the Boston film festival, and I found myself frequently laughing out loud with everyone else, and also moved by some of the movie's more serious parts. It's a unique movie about two doctors, and I don't want to give anything away but there are some powerful scenes as well really funny ones - plus the dialogue is great. Wood Harris' character has a unique relationship with his girlfriend Zoe Saldana, and Brian White and Mya are also funny and sexy in their roles. If you get a chance to see it - go - you won't be disappointed. It's worth seeing again. Wood Harris deserves an award. I still have grainy, late night, no-cable, cheap VHS dubs of this show from waaaaaayyyy back when, late-night-commercials and all, when I would stay up to whatever weird hour they would slap this show on -- just so I could tape it.

The series wasn't really ABOUT Freddy Kreuger - only the first couple of episodes actually involved him as anything but a Rod Serling-esquire announcer. Instead, each episode was a distinct nightmare, using the traditional horror themes of horrific childhood, dating, cannibalism, dating, money, death, dating, and... hmm... dating.

From the episode where a teenage boy accidentally says "I will love you forever" to the wrong girl, and is stuck with her (literally, at least for a moment, they grow together...), to the one where a young stewardess goes home with a strange man, only to find herself in his cabin, where he has a trophy room full of other stewardesses, and one I only vaguely remember which compared blind dates to hockey (and the injuries and penalties that go with it) - dating was definitely the scariest thing in the series.

One episode had Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator, etc.) as a motivated pizza merchant with a tasty new secret ingredient. Not original, but still creepy and fun....

Even so, some of the episodes were great. My personal favorite was "It's a Miserable Life" where a young man is trapped working in his parents' burger joint, when he wants to go off to college. Stuck talking to himself and doing little puppet shows with old cheeseburgers - until one late night when a weird guy comes through the drive through and suddenly his life is not the same. No, not Freddy, just a thug with a gun - turns out the whole mind-blowing episode is just that - the last thoughts that pass through the kid's head... along with a bullet.

The second half of the same episode (many of the Freddie's Nightmares episodes were essentially two vaguely connected short stories) followed his girlfriend, who was also wounded, but not killed in the drive-by, and who is taken to "the hospital from heck" - they cram in all the most creepy hospital nightmare clichés, and then some - from accidentally having your mouth sewn shut - or waking up during an operation - to having your dead boyfriend try and lure you into the morgue for a little cuddle.

Again, that was my favorite.

Some of the episodes were much dumber, like ALMOST ALL OF THE ONES THEY'VE MADE AVAILABLE ON VIDEO. They put the crummy ones out as representative of the series, and then nobody likes them, thinks the show stunk, and then they don't put any more on video. It's a Miserable Life is only available on PAL DVD in England - but I'm still gonna buy it. This is one horror movie based TV show that gets it right. Friday the 13th the series had no connection to the movies. Poltergeist the legacy: I'm not so sure. It may have been loosely connected to the movies. It feels like they just throw a famous title on a show so fans will watch it.

It shows Freddy being burned by the Elm street parents(in the 1st episode I believe) and the amount of parents were disappointing. With all the kids he targeted in the 1st 3 movies, you'd expect there to be more parents. But oh well.

Freddy is basically the narrator for the show. He watches the actions of people in the real world sometimes getting involved somehow. Just like other anthology shows like Tales from the crypt, there's a supernatural or surprise ending twist involved.

The acting lacks but believe it or not: the violence sometimes surpasses that of the movie. This show lasted a couple of seasons and was made around the time of the 4th movie. i heard it was canceled due to protesting parents. I watched a lot of R rated stuff as a kid, so its a shame parents had to ruin it for everyone. 4 more movies came after the series , so it wasn't a total loss. I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance. i know technically this isn't the greatest TV show ever,i mean it was shot on video and its limitations show in both the audio and visual aspect of it.the acting can at time be also a little crumby.but,i love this show so much.it scared the hell out of me when it first aired in 1988.of course it would i was 5 years old.but i recently purchased the DVD of the first 3 episodes,which unfortunately i hear is now deleted.and i also heard warner's aren't going to release any more due to the first DVD's bad sales.also the TV show didn't have the same feel as the movies,in fact i thought it had a more sinister tone.even though the colour palette is similar to nightmare on elm street 4(both that film and the TV show were made the same year),this has more of a serious tone whereas the fims were progressively getting more and more sardonic and jokey.not a bad thing,i like freddy as the clown wise cracker.but i think that was the strenght of this TV show,you didn't have freddy popping up every minutes cracking a joke before and after he kills somebody.in fact this has more of a dream feel to it,reinforced by the soft focus of the lense.im not sure if its deliberate on the part of the shows creators or just to the limitations of being shot on video. i love this show,and taken not as a companion piece to the movies can be very enjoyable.much better than anything on TV today. I'm a bit conflicted over this. The show is on one hand awful, the acting is terrible (even when we get actual name actors like Brad Pitt and Bill Moseley in one episode), the dialogue is moronic and the premise/moral of each episode feels like something lifted out of a 50s educational short. There's no way you'll be scared for a moment from any of these episodes, and Robert Englund's cameos are short, pointless and corny in a sort of a Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos kind of way.

On the other hand this is one of the funniest things to ever be on television. The 80s fashions, the soft focus makes the actors look like their on the set of The View at all times, the premises lend the material more to self-parody than scares, so we're left with an episode where a high school kid is afraid if he fails his SAT's his girlfriend will dump him and his parents disown him, another is afraid she'll be locked up in prison because she's a substandard mom (her husband is played by Brad Pit), another is afraid that all the parents in the world are in league against him when he runs away from home, another is afraid she'll be confused with her socially-retarded twin, another is afraid if he doesn't break up his mom and step-dad he'll get killed for having a party at his house. The list goes on and on.

Being that these are dreams I suppose you could look past the ludicrous plot points and devices, but they're so out of left field that there's no opportunities for the writers to actually scare the audience. You have characters dressed like something out of a 80s-themed nightmare wandering around delivering bad dialogue in very hammy fashion and making illogical decisions that serve no other purpose but to move the story to the next weird plot point (typically watching as a peripheral character does something uncharacteristic of a sane person while our main character stares aghast and too shocked to do anything about it).

If you're looking for something that'll scare you stay away. If you're looking, on the other hand, for one of the funniest things to come out of the 80s ever. Watch it.

Its been showing on Chiller TV lately (pretty much every day) and I've been watching, earlier out of morbid curiosity, and now just so I can get a good laugh in each day. With Arrested Development and Extras off the air this is officially the funniest thing on television right now. These two stars are the only iconic heroes/villains i know that got a good TV series, so let's compare.

Freddy - 7 movies Robocop - 3 movies

Freddy - 1 TV series, 2 seasons, about 40 episodes Robocop - 1 TV series, 1 season, about 22-23 episodes

Freddy - 2 extra films (Freddy Vs Jason, Freddy Vs Ghostbusters) Robocop - 4 extra films (Robocop: Prime Directives: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Crach & Burn, Resurrection)

Freddy - 1 upcoming film Robocop - 1 upcoming film

Who's had more screen time? Well they've both had 7 movies, 1 TV series, and 1 upcoming film. But Freddy wins it thanks to his 2 extra films (one being a fan film) & 17-18 TV episodes.

Since this is a comment for the series, between Freddy's Nightmares - ANOES: The Series & Robocop: The Series I would personally choose Robocop... I just saw this movie at a sneak preview and all I can say is..."What did I just watch????" And I mean that in a good and bad way.

The plot is really simple. Stiller and Black play friends/neighbors. Stiller is the focused, hardworker while Black is a dreamer. Black invents this idea to create a spray that erases poo. The idea becomes very popular, and Black becomes very rich. The extravagant lifestyle that Black gains and the fact that he still tries to be best friends with Stiller causes Stiller to become crazy with envy.

As I said, the plot is simple. Everything else is plain odd. The direction is odd, with a weird rotating opening shot to out-of-nowhere sped up sequences. The dialouge and the acting is very odd; odd in a rambling sort of way. And the sound track is the oddest thing in the movie, from the weird "Envy" song that keeps on reappearing to the scene where you think you're going to hear a classic 80's song but suddenly it's in Japanese.

So, the true question is this...is odd funny? That depends purely on the individual. I was cracking up at the shear unwavering weirdness of the movie. After the screening I heard people call it horribly unfunny and glad that it was free. Strangely, I understood their point. There are no jokes whatsoever, so if you aren't hooked by the uniqueness of it all, you will hate this movie. Absolutely hate it.

This movie is destined to lose a lot of money at the box office and become a DVD cult classic. If you can laugh at a movie with no real jokes, like Cable Guy or Punch Drunk Love, then I suggest you see it. If you don't, run away from this movie. It'll only make you mad. Cult classics are nearly impossible to predict. Who could guess that Vision Quest, Fight Club, and 2001: A Space Oddysey, movies that were panned by critics and audiences alike upon their release, would become immensely popular? Like many IMDBers, I consider myself a movie expert. Unlike the majority of those who hated Envy(evidenced by a dismal 4.4 rating), I found Envy to be one of the funniest movies in the last decade.

The plot of the movie is ridiculous. The dialogue isn't clever, the scenes have little continuity, and the script seems like it was written by a fourth grader. But that's exactly why the movie is so hilarious. You see, in order to appreciate the accidental genius of Envy, you have to enjoy the movie from an ironically-detached point of view.

Why do I love Envy? Because the movie is bad to the point that it becomes good. This is the recipe for a cult classic, and Envy definitely fits the bill. Like Ishtar and King of Comedy, other great, misunderstood comedies, Envy has great performances by two actors playing essentially, losers (may be too harsh a word, I will call them suburban under-achievers).

This film was a dark comedy gem, and I'm not sure what people expect. I relish seeing a major studio comedy that isn't filled with obvious humor, and I believe that the small moments in this movie make it worthwhile. The look on Stiller's face when he sees the dog doo disappear for the first time captures a moment, a moment that most people should be able to recognize in themselves. Yes, it was a fairly simple story, but it examined the root of envy in a really interesting way. There were a lot of great scenes (the J-Man's decrepit "cabin by the lake", Corky's unceremonious burial, Weitz's wife role, and Walken's J-Man -- all great stuff.

I can't stand people that get on IMDb and mercilessly trash films when they have absolutely no idea what it takes to make one. I will take Envy over almost any of the top ten grossing comedies of the year (save Napoleon Dynamite.) It's wittier, wackier, and an offbeat, enjoyable gem.

Remember this people; Most times, Popular doesn't equal Good. envy is not as funny as i thought it would initially be, but after some of the reviews i read i found it to be much funnier than people was giving it props for, now true its not a gag a minute movie like zoolander or dodgeball, but ben stiller and jack black work well with each other and christopher walken is as great as ever, so the story is about jack black's character inventing a spray that makes dog pooh disappear, obviosly ben wants no part of it, but when the product makes jack black rich ben stiller starts to see the envy, its not great by all means and both ben stiller and jack black have funnier and better movies under their belt, but if your a fan of either i recommend this as its still a funny flick and i laughed my ass off quite a few times, as a big fan of ben stiller id have to say this is a lesser stiller but still great fun, give it a watch OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie. Was the script more fitting for a 30 minute sitcom? Yes, but they still make it work! I thought the actors did a fantastic job with an otherwise bland script, especially Jack Black and Christopher Walken. Most people on the board seem to really hate this film. I personally can't see how that could be, but Envy is just one of those film that you either love it or hate it. Much like Napoleon Dynamite and every Leslie Neilsen movie ever made. You either think it's one of the worst movies ever made or one of the funniest. Don't avoid this movie because of the reviews. Watch it and see if you're one of the ones who really like it! If you do, I guarantee it's worth your money. If you don't like it... well, now you know. I saw this movie in the first couple of weeks it was out, (I don't remember exactly when.) I thought that it was alright, for a Ben Stiller movie. This movie isn't for a person without a good sense of humor. Like most of Ben Stiller's jokes you have to think about them. Or like I said you have a good sense of humor. From a couple of people on this website I saw that people didn't have anything good to say about it and It didn't get a very good rating, But I would have given it a larger one This movie, I thought, was very good and it should have gotten a better rating. Maybe this isn't a movie for you. I'm just giving you another person's opinion. I saw this movie about a year ago, and found it to be completely Laugh-Out-Loud funny. A real winner, in my mind. It had the underlining of a stupid comedy, but indeed had an actual plot as well. Much like the hit comedy, Elf, in fact. It had a few serious moments, sandwiched between hilarity. When Stiller shot Black's horse, an ordinarily sober moment, you found yourself laughing at his bumbling antics. You can actually find common ground there, as I'm sure many people have done something they wouldn't want a friend to find out about, lest your friendship should end.

When I found out how much people disliked this movie, I was completely dumbfounded. That absolutely terrible movies like Napoleon Dynamite had ratings higher than it makes me wonder about the sanity of people on IMDb. Take my advice and rent it. If you don't find yourself laughing at least once, I'll compensate you the rental fee. =D The critics are dumb. This movie is funny and smart. I loved this movie a lot. Why does everyone hate this movie so much. I wish people would love this movie more than they don't. Ben Stiller and Jack Black are true comedians and they put through a lot of work to make this movie. I don't see you people out there making movies like them. So people should just watch it and not comment it. I like this movie. It is OK through it all. There are parts were it get's dumb but at least they made it. Jerry Stiller would love this because this movie has the acting just like the show King Of Queens. But this is better than that. I can't believe this was rated so low. I was pleased with the cast of reputable players. The story is one of standing up for a cause, even if you are at personal risk in doing so. In a time where violence and pain are often in the movie forefront, this movie focuses on the old fashioned good cop. Although similar plots have been done repeatedly, these guys pull it off well. Kick back and enjoy. Dennehy is a master of taking over a movie. Brian Dennehy, Bill Paxton, Joe Pantalino and, best of all, Jeff Fahey, all in one film. Wow is all I can think to say about that. These are four of the most underrated actors in the biz and they work beautifully together. It's like poetry the way they play off each other and ooze the natural ability to seem as though they had been best buddies for eons for even shooting the film.

The film itself is fine and one that can be quite intense to view the first time, and the four stars help the re-watch-ability to a great extent. I cannot describe how good it was to see Bill Paxton and Jeff Fahey together on screen, the greatest moment being when they watch a couple from a distance and fill in the vocals themselves, it almost brought a tear to my eyes.

A good film, a great cast, go see. Why? Four words, Fahey, Dennehy, Paxton, Pantalino. I've always enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's versions of the Shakespeare classics, as he always does a very good job, but in this movie, the one who lifts the whole movie, is none other than "the-always-great-actor" Laurence Fishburne. Surely he has made some poor choices in films, even though he's a wonderful actor, but in this one we're truly given the real Othello: the passion, the intensity of jealousy as it grows stronger alongside with Fishburne's well portrayed paranoia and, furthermore, we're finally given a black Othello!

I don't think they could have chosen a better Othello. Who else could have given him that blend of sympathy/antipathy, love/hatred and, not to forget, those fiery eyes...? Branagh is good as always, but not at his peak, Iréne Jacob's Desdemona is fairly good but a bit bleak, whilst Laurence Fishburne truly lifts it and makes it a very interesting and enjoyable movie. Do watch it. You do not get more dark or tragic than "Othello" and this movie captures the play fairly well, with outstanding performances by Lawrence Fishburne and Irene Jacob. Fishburne's expresses to the viewer Othello's torment as he falls prey to Iago's lies very convincingly, even providing a realistic epileptic episode. Jacob is the loving and loyal wife who becomes either the instrument of Iago's revenge against Othello, or the object of his wrath (it is not clear which since no motive for Iago's behavior is offered). Although Kenneth Brannagh (sp?) displays his usual talent for Shakespeare in this movie, he is somewhat marginalized. The characters of Cassio and Emilia also wander in and out of scenes even though they, like Iago, seem more crucial to the plot. I have not checked the movie against the play to see how many lines were cut out, but I know that Shakespeare tends to develop his characters, even the seemingly unimportant ones, very well.

If I had any criticism of the movie it would be that the story unfolds too quickly, and that the relationships between some of the characters are not laid out more. The director had a great cast, and no one offered a bad performance. The relationship between Cassio and Othello and that between Emilia and Desdemona need to be further developed earlier in the film. I have a feeling that they were closer to each other than the movie suggests, although you get a sense of this very late into the movie. Also, Othello and Desdemona need more time together. Although their anguish is convincing, the amount of interaction they have with each other makes it seem like they just met. On the other hand, maybe the did just meet---like Romeo and Juliet.

In brief: good performances, too short.

Othello, the classic Shakespearen story of love, betrayal, lies, and tragedy. I remember studying this story in high school, actually I found Othello to be probably my favorite Shakespeare story due to the fact of how fascinating it was, the fact that Shakespeare captured the feeling of friendship, love, and racism perfectly. I mean, when you really do study this story, you could go into so many philosophies on why Othello went insane with jealousy in the blink of an eye. But later on for my report I also watched this version of Othello and I have to say that it was absolutely brilliant. Lawerance and Kenneth just capture the story so well and understood it's darkness.

Othello is the big time soldier in his city, he is loved by everyone, including the king. But when the king finds out that Othello snuck off with his daughter, Desdemona, the king is infuriated, but excepts it. Othello is welcome in the city and makes his best friend, Cassio, his side man instead of Iago, who has stood by Othello. Due to his insane jealousy, he's out for revenge. Still pretending to be Othello's best friend, he just mearly hints at Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him with Cassio, never says that they are, just makes Othello think that it's happening. Othello is driven insane and doesn't have pleasant plans for Desdemona or Cassio and Iago is more than happy to help him out.

Othello is an incredible story, I highly recommend that you read it. It's an incredible story that keeps you thinking after you've read it. Othello the movie is also great and once again I recommend it, it captured the story perfectly and has a big tearjerker type of feel, or you could just be in utter shock of what happens between Othello and Desdemona, how quickly he believes that his true love would betray him. This is a terrific movie, great acting, good sets, and good direction, this is what Shakespeare meant when he wrote the story.

10/10 shakespeare's plays have a way of transcending time. The language somehow breaks the time barrier. but perhaps it is the actors who really do that.

after the disappointment in Romeo and Juliet (the version with Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio), was hesitant take on another modern rendition of Shakespeare. To my surprise Othello was great!

Iago's character was played so well by the Kenneth fellow! even thoough Iago is really evil and despicable, the character was played so well that it does what shakespeare intended for the charater to be, a pleasure for the audience to hate. i have to say that fishburne's performance here was really good as well.

i recommend this for shakespeare scholars and lazy students (who refuse to read the book) alike. I was especially delighted that in this movie Othello himself was dark-skinned and Desdemona didn't have fair hair like almost always. The cast played very well, too, and I liked the script following Shakespeare's original text so faithfully. But I must say some scenes were acted too erotically for such a character as Desdemona. I have always thought she is very modest, and that's why it is not proper at all to show her in bed with Cassio - although it was happening only in Othello's imagination. At first, I was a little surprised even that a love scene between Othello and Desdemona was shown so openly. But as a whole, I liked the film and especially Desdemona crying in the dying scene. I don't pretend to be an authority on actors who have played Othello, but I've never witnessed a performance of the play, on film or on stage, wherein Othello was portrayed with more humanity and authenticity.

According to the biographical notes, Fishburne never received any professional training as an actor. Perhaps this explains why his acting, in this beautifully edited film, comes over as so believable and so powerful. Instead of chewing the scenery in the approved fashion for such high-powered roles, Fishburne's portrayal is focused more on Othello's love for his wife, and on his profound sadness at her supposed betrayal, than on violence and vengeance. In a word, the performance is understated, and made far more impressive by Fishburne's extremely intelligent interpretation than it otherwise would have been.

The acting throughout is superb, and the (abridged) speeches gain grace from their light editing. (Even Shakesspeare, after all, can be improved upon, now and again -- and if that be treason, make the most of it! ... or was Honest Iago actually smirking at the end, as he died?

Loved how the Bard's iambic pentameter just rolled of Fishburne's tongue, with excellent clarity and emotion.

And how Branagh made Honest Iago seem to celebrate his own evilness...

This is a wonderful film.

I have often thought that Shakespeare is inherently not film-friendly: He uses words to create pictures in our minds, which creates a perennial battle with the camera, which only knows to show us what we need to think and feel. Every effort to film Shakespeare ought really to be celebrated. It is not an easy thing to do. Students often ask me why I choose this version of Othello. Shakespeare's text is strongly truncated and the film contains material which earned it an "R" rating.

I have several reasons for using this production: First, I had not seen a depiction of the Moor that actually made me sympathetic to Othello until I saw Fishburne play him. I saw James Earl Jones and Christopher Plummer play Othello and Iago on Broadway, and it was wonderful. Plummer's energy was especially noticeable. But in spite of Jone's incredible presence both physically and vocally, the character he played just seemed too passive to illicit from me a complete emotional purgation in the Aristotelian sense. Jones, in fact, affirmed what I felt when in an interview he noted that he had played Othello as passive--seeing Iago as basically doing him over. Unfortunately this sapped my grief for the character destruction. Thus, I felt sympathy for Jone's Moor but not the horror over his corruption by an evil man. In contrast, Fishburne's Othello is a strong and vigorous figure familiar with taking action. Thus, Iago's temptation to actively deal with what is presented to Othello as his wife's unfaithfulness is a perversion of the general's positive quality to be active not passive.1 The horror of the story is that this good quality in Othello becomes perverted. Fishburne's depiction is therefore classically tragic.

Second, Fishburne is the first black actor to play Othello in a film. Both Orsen Wells and Anthony Hopkins did fine film versions, but they were white men in black face.2 Why is this important? Why should a Black actor be the Black man on the stage?3 Certainly in Shakespeare's day they used black face just as they used boys to make girls. Perhaps then, the reason is the same. Female actors bring a special quality to female roles on the Shakespearian stage because they understand best what Shakespeare's genius was trying to present. A gifted black actor should play the moor because his experience in a white dominated culture is vital to understanding what Shakespeare's genius recognized: the pain of being marginalized because of race. An important theme in Othello is isolation caused by racism. Although it is a mistake to insert American racism into a Shakespearian play, there can be little doubt that racism is still working among the characters. Many, including Desdimona's father, think that a union between a Venetian white Christian woman and a North African black Christian man is UNNATURAL.

Third, Shakespeare was never G rated. He never has been. His stage productions were always typified by violence and strong language. But Shakespeare's genius uses these elements not as sensationialism but for artistic honesty. Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too. My college professor says that Othello may be Shakespeare's finest drama. I don't know if I agree with him yet. I bought this video version of the film. First I love Kenneth BRanagh as Iago, he was perfectly complicated and worked very well in this adaptation. SUrprisingly, he didn't direct it but played a role. Lawrence Fishburne shows that American actors can play Shakespeare just as well as British actors can do. not that there was a British vs. American issue about it. In fact, if we all work together then Shakespeare can reach the masses which it richly deserves to do. Apart from other Shakespeare tragedies, this is dealt with the issue of race. Something that has existed since the beginning of time. The relationship between Iago and Emilia could have been better and shown the complicatedness of their union together. While Othello loves Desdemona with all his heart, he is weak for jealousy and fears losing her to a non-Moorish man like Cassio. It's quite a great scene at the end of the film but I won't reveal the ending. IT's just worth watching. I think they edited much of the lines to 2 hours but they always edit Shakespeare. Branagh and Fishburne deliver excellent performances in this version of the Shakespeare classic. Branagh plays Iago better than I've seen the character played in film or on stage. Some might say this film is overly Iago-centric, but I disagree. Fishburne, the first black Othello in film history ironically, delivers a powerful performance. Fishburne has always been a good actor, but this performance as the Moor of Venice may be one of his best.

The one problem I have with this film, is the simple subtraction of a number of important scenes. Desdemona's character is given far less depth than she has in the play. In this film, she might as well not be added at all. One of the worst cuts made by Branagh in this film, was the subtraction of a conversation between Iago and Desdemona at the beginning of the second act. This part of the play shows that Desdemona may not be the innocent child she is portrayed as in this film. There were a number of subtractions that hurt the integrity of this film.

However, if you have not read the play, or seen a film version of Othello before, I recommend this movie. The story, cut or not, is still incredibly enthralling. The acting, as stated previously, is very good. If some important scenes had been added, and Desdemona's character been prioritized a bit further, this would be a great movie. As it stands, it's still an admirable version of the original. I give it a marginal recommendation. I claim no matter how hard I seek I'll never find a better movie version of "Othello". If you love Kenneth Branagh's magnificent masterpieces "Much ado about nothing" (1993) and "Hamlet" (1996) as much as I do I'm dead certain you'll also find Oliver Parker's "Othello" irresistible. Laurence Fishburne has been in a various splendid roles during his career. He was quite terrific in "Boys n the hood" (1991) - I've always considered his amusing role of Furious Styles as his very greatest achievement. That was, of course, way before I saw this.

He plays the part of Othello and he is probably in the most challenging role of his whole career but he does a brilliant, fantastic job. Irène Jacob is absolutely charming Desdemona and Kenneth Branagh is just simply phenomenal in a most fascinating role of the story's crooked, manipulate villain Iago. Marvelous "Othello" is part of the absolute elite among Shakespeare's ingenious works. It deals with his favorite topics: crookedness, envy, deceitfulness and jealousy. This movie adaptation is certainly one of the finest films I've seen that's based on William Shakespeare's plays. Yes, Shakespeare would indeed have been proud. Laurence Fishburne was not at his best but certainly not bad. Kenneth Brannagh on the other hand was brilliant. His scheming was wonderful as was his toying with the audience. Very nice work.

There were at times too little drama where more would have been expected. Cassio's slaying, for instance, was a bit clouded by too much happening to far apart, causing the spectator to twist his head to grasp it all.

Did I mention Michael Maloney? His madness striken Roderigo was unusual; annoying even.

If you haven't seen Othello before, see this. If you haven't read Othello, see this. If you haven't heard Othello, see this. You do, on the other hand, do yourself a favour by reading it, seeing it acted onstage and hearing it sung too. .......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.

He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.

Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.

Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.

His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.

He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.

Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide. Although i am inclined to agree with the other comments made by people who have seen this movie, i am ashamed to say i rather like it. Not often can such a huge pile of 80s pap be found outside of a Wham! video, so it is most definitely worth a viewing (£0.79 a night in my local store!). Watch out for the insanely obvious seams and zip on the monster's costume, the fact that the 'hero' looks a lot like Keith Chegwin and such classic lines as the following: Evil Wizard-Type Bloke: "At last we meet Kor..." Kor: "Thrilling, isn't it?"

Amazing!!I also like the fact that although the video box looks quite exciting with images of a castle surrounded by raging seas and a dangerous falcon-like bird carrying a handsome hero to safety (among other such 'interesting and engaging' suggestions of what goes on in the actual film, none of them actually happen. No, I'm not joking...there really isn't a raging sea or a ferocious bird, it's just trying to make you interested...classic in my opinion. This film gets 10 for pure entertainment value!! When I saw this movie first, it was long ago on VHS-Video. I did like this movie, because it was funny and excitingly. Some years ago I saw another movie, called: *Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure* In this movie were parts of *Wizards of the lost kingdom* used in. They called this movie "KOR the conquerer". I began to search for the "KOR"-Movie many years, because I wanted to see the complete movie, not only the parts which were used in the *Andy Colby*-Movie. No shop had this Kor-Movie to rent and no shop did know this movie. Many years I watched my old VHS-tapes I had at home, and what a wonder... I had this movie since many years still at home, but the movie had a different title, because in Germany it has 3 or 4 titles. So I was happy to find this tape at home and this time I had much more time in watching *KOR the Conquerer again. The music is great during the hole movie, but the best part of filming in combination with the music is this moment, when KOR is walking drunken through the green forrest. The music in the background had some kind of magic. I like Bo Svenson, and also the boy, who played Simon in the movie. Both of them did their job very good. Manfred Kraatz, Germany, 26.10.2004. Thanks to all for reading my comment. This movie is horrible- in a 'so bad it's good' kind of way.

The storyline is rehashed from so many other films of this kind, that I'm not going to even bother describing it. It's a sword/sorcery picture, has a kid hoping to realize how important he is in this world, has a "nomadic" adventurer, an evil aide/sorcerer, a princess, a hairy creature....you get the point.

The first time I caught this movie was during a very harsh winter. I don't know why I decided to continue watching it for an extra five minutes before turning the channel, but when I caught site of Gulfax, I decided to stay and watch it until the end.

Gulfax is a white, furry creature akin to Chewbacca, but not nearly as useful or entertaining to watch. He looks like someone glued a bunch of white shag carpeting together and forced the actor to wear it. There are scenes where it looks like the actor cannot move within, or that he's almost falling over. Although he isn't in the movie that much, the few scenes are worth it! Watch as he attempts to talk smack to Bo Svenson, taking the Solo-Chewbacca comparison's to an even higher level!

I actually bought this movie just because of that character, and still have it somewhere!

Gulfax may look like sh!t, but he made this movie!!! The only reason I've never seen the sequel, or even sought it out, was because of his absence! Perhaps should there be a final film, completing the trilogy, Gulfax will make a much-anticipated return! I have to start by telling you how I came across this movie.It was winter time in Alaska around the year 1990.A friend of mine from Australia was staying with me and my girl friend in a shoe box of an apartment.Winters in Alaska can be a bit brutal and most people stay indoors,drink heavily and watch anything that comes on the television.I had found this movie outside of a thrift store laying in a snowbank and right away new it was a treasure.It is quite possibly the best worst movie ever.We spent the next two weeks watching this movie and drinking like fish.We watched it so many times in fact that we would sometimes turn the television on its side or upside down for a more full filling effect.It is a true gem.The laughs will come nonstop and the memories last forever.If you see this movie for rent in a video store,steal it.You won't regret it! Wizards of the Lost Kingdom is a movie about a young prince (Simon) who is banished from his kingdom due to his father (the king) being killed by the cliche "evil adviser". This movie's about Simon's adventures. The special effects, plot, acting, and generally everything about this movie is BAD. However, it's so bad that it's funny. You will keep watching this movie simply because it's so bad it's funny, and, like the other reviewer of the movie said, it's so bad it's good. Only the chosen ones will appreciate the quality of the story and character design of this movie. Superior ancients that dwell in the lands of lore far beyond any average human creature's understanding. This movie pulls the adventure genre into a unique centrifugal magical force of fantasy unto thee mystical crystals of chalice. Stories come and go, but the idea for a good story is to think positive, not negative thoughts. To create a good versus evil battle like never before. Embracing an impounding shimmering process that keeps imagination glowing in one dimension and out the other. Striking a quick flash of energy that transports a human to another world. I enjoyed this movie so much that I watched it twice and that is something to say about a documentary. The musical score, cinematography and sound are absolutely stunning as you might expect from an Imax production. Even though it is shot for those huge Imax theaters, it looks and sounds wonderful on my home system. In fact this would make a perfect DVD to demo your system.

The subject is also so fascinating. It is about Mario Andretti and his son Michael. I was already a fan of Mario because he is the best racecar drive in history since he is the only person to win the CART Championship, F1 Championship, The Daytona 500 and the Indianapolis 500. The script follows the path of two cars very important to the father and son. The first car is found in a chicken coop and turns out to be the first roadster that Mario ever drove and we follow restoration to gleaming perfection. The other car is Michael's new racecar and we follow it from cutting the mold through the race season. Imax lends just the right magic to make car construction entertaining and fascinating.

Paul Newman, who was Michael Amoretti's team owner at the time this movie was made, narrates the film. His anecdotes and witticism, drawn from many years as an owner and driver, lends much to the production.

The main feature is the race scenes. Turn up the volume here! There is something about riding along at over 200 mph and the musical score that totally draws you into the screen for an experience you will not forget. Wow!

The final magical element is the humanity of the Andretti family. This god of the racing world, Mario Andretti, is loving father who proudly watches over his son's career. They work together so well that every father and son should see this. You can tell that they are a close family. I wish we could all have that experience. This is a great documentary film. Any fan of car racing should own a copy of this outstanding film. Director "Stephen Low" did a great job,as well as the main stars of the film, Father & Son, Mario & Michael Andretti. The DVD looks & sounds amazing. And best of all it's IMAX! Great home theater test disc. This is an excellent documentary, packed with racing action beautiful pictures and a great story. The IMAX Cameras give you a very wide perspective, as a DVD movie it is perfect. Your hear every speaker working almost all the time, The film is not speeded up and just gives you the natural feel of 230mph. Of course there are some sound effects added but i think they are good, they give a depth to the driving scenes... This is a well-made documentary on the exciting world of Indy Car racing. The photography is simply outstanding. The scene were Mario Andretti drives the old racing roadster down the New England street lined with the ancient maples, leaves blown to the side by the speed of the car, is incredible. The film does lose some of its beauty on the small screen but if you like watching cars driven to their limit you should see this film. Sure, for it's super imagery and awesome sound, it's a great home theater "show off" disk, but this is also a touching drama as well as an informative documentary. The parallel stories that are intertwined throughout this film will keep all viewers interested. Young, old, boys and girls alike will find that deep down, we are all fans of the automobile, especially the high performance indy machines that are the result of generations blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity and perseverance. The Mark Knopfler and Ry Cooder sound track is perfectly matched to the visuals and the content. I don't want to give away the ending, but the final driving sequence to Quincy Jones' "Days Like These" just might bring a tear to your eye. Enjoy it! Super Speedway makes a great demo of your new DVD / bigscreen / 5.1 channel sound system. The IMAX camera puts you right in the race car, where you cruise around various tracks at high speed, reminiscent of the driving sequences in Grand Prix (if only that would appear on DVD!). I enjoy watching it again and again.

The only minus, and why I didn't give it a 10, is some of the driving sequences look suspiciously like the film was speeded up. The soundtrack also requires a little suspension of disbelief - all you can hear in a real car is the engine. You won't hear swooshes as you go under bridges. I was not expecting much from this movie, but was very pleasantly surprised, as it is light and funny and very well observed. The central trio of deadbeat bikers were surprisingly likable as they staggered and clowned their way through their drug-centred trip to Wales. The humour was gentle and subtle, as indeed were the three characters (witness their sympathetic treatment of the little old lady shopkeeper). The atmospherics of rural Wales were captured perfectly, and the soundtrack was very well chosen. Cleverly and carefully scripted, with great attention to detail - I have never seen such a realistic portrayal of alternative culture - I felt I was there with them. Very light in touch and full of fun - not what you might expect from a movie about bikers and drugs. A delight on all fronts, and difficult to criticise, though I thought the last two scenes were a bit lame - the film should have ended when they left Wales. But overall, an unexpected treasure of a film. I saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird! A comedy gem. Lots of laugh out loud moments, the shop and pub scenes had me belly- laughing uncontrollably. The characters are recognisable and the dialogue well-observed - I know people like this! The humour is surprisingly gentle and the film (this may sound strange) puts me in mind of an Ealing Comedy. It's a quirky little film with lots of detail. It certainly takes a number of viewings. I've watched it a few times (I've been showing all my friends!) and notice something new each time - a bit of dialogue,something visual that I hadn't picked up on before. I could get really picky and find a couple of shortcomings in the film but I'm not going to because overall this is a great fun, feel-good film which is really worth a watch and which anyone with a sense of humour must enjoy. It is a film which will find it's friends and I hope there are a lot of them out there. Oh.... and It has a great soundtrack. Highly recommended!!

A well written, funny film which will appeal to everyone out there with a sense of humour!!!. Give it a go, it's good to see an Independent British Movie more than holding it's own against the big established studios!! Definitely worth adding to any film collection. There are scenes in this film that I'm sure a lot of people will be able to relate to. You will laugh out loud at the antics and enjoy the great soundtrack. I especially enjoyed the Orb's version of Jimmy Cliff's Vietnam and The Tower of London's take on Freebird.

Go on give it a go............ you won't be disappointed. This is a great British film. A cleverly observed script with many quotable lines, which captures perfectly what magic mushrooms can do to a man over a weekend. As per usual Phil Daniels is excellent along with that most under rated of British actors Geoff Bell. Peter Bowles with a joint hanging out of his mouth is a casting masterstroke and Gary Stretch with his brooding looks brings something strangely atmospheric to the piece. Although it seems to be billed as a biker movie, i think it will find an audience outside of this, purely on the premise that a lot of people have been there done it and got the t-shirt. also A great original soundtrack with a blinding version of Freebird. This really could be a 21st century heir to the famous Ealing comedies. Like the weed in the Welsh fields: it's a grower! At last! A decent British comedy that isn't centred around some mockney bank robbers or spun off from a TV series. John Ivay's film is a psychoactive tale of discovery, dressed in biker gear. The three protagonists are gentle fools with a penchant for failure and each at a turning point in their lives, giving a sensitive, emotional trio of sub-plots to sew the riotous comedy together. The chemistry between the three amigos is palpable and makes for a touching companionship with hilarious dialogue and some classic comedic moments. It feels part Withnail and I, part American Werewolf in London, and part Quadraphenia (but only because of the bike gangs, and Phil Daniels). In fact, Phil Daniels' lovable rogue reminds you of Danny the dealer in Withnail and I, with his scholarly approach and scientific commitment to drugs. This is a great film, particularly for those who've dabbled in psychoactive substances in the past, who will relate to many moments in the film. A personal favourite is the brilliant scene in the Welsh corner shop, buying munchies while tripping on 'shrooms. This gentle comedy will warm the cockles of your heart and have you laughing out loud. And you don't have to ride bikes or even like them to enjoy it. But it'll add to it if you do. Brilliant. Freebird is the perfect marriage of road trip comedy, gang caper, "stoner" film and feel-good British movie.

It is the brilliant lead characters that set this movie apart from other films in this genre. Stars Phil Daniels, Gary Stretch and Geoff Bell have a great chemistry and make their characters hugely likable and realistic. The main story centres around their road trip from London to Wales, and the adventures and mishaps that occur along the way. This small film also has a great heart - it is not just for bike fans, as it bases around the character's relationships with each other including dreams and regrets, such as Gary Stretch's Fred longing for the family he left behind. The cinematography is also great - a love letter to the Welsh countryside as well as capturing the grittiness of London streets and typical pub life in the Welsh country towns.

Stylish, slick, fantastic soundtrack, likable characters and funny storyline - I would recommend Freebird in a heartbeat! What a class bit of British cinema! It's about time. And a side splitting comedy to boot!

Anyone searching to relive a bit of freedom from their misspent youth this road movie will prove the ticket.

It's a mix between "Withnail and I" and "Easy Rider". The movie runs at a solid pace and doesn't let you drift off for too long... At times there are reflective moments, but I think they are well justified and add to the characters the actors are portraying. I was a little concerned with Phil Daniels character at the start but thankfully was won over half way through in what was one of the funniest scenes of the entire movie! Generally I found myself belly laughing through the film most likely annoying some people around me. Oh well.

I would thoroughly recommend it. This will become a cult British comedy. Well worth a visit. The brilliant thing about Withnail & I is that it captures that not long left college and life could go either way moment along with all its other finery. Freebird is something for those who probably never considered higher education and just went straight to work aged 15/16. I know some of the broad sheets stuck the knife into this film when it came out in Cinemas but i saw it at a packed house in Hailsham and everybody seemed to really enjoy it. I grew up in the forest of Dean and this took me straight back to my mushrooming and dope days (had some great mates - hate to think what they're all up to now - probably running the local council). I've watched it a couple of times on DVD and already i see the film as an old mate that will stay forever as part of my collection (how can i like this film and the Dambusters - doesn't seem right somehow) I certainly edge towards the second half of this film and i think the social interacting scenes with the locals are brilliantly done. I like the mix of the three lead characters and there really is some lovely writing in here along with some very quotable lines and dare i say a good smattering of integrity. I have tried to obtain the soundtrack, but it has not been released (shame, as it's a corker). Someone told me it was originally a stage play, not quite sure how that worked but i'm sure it was fun. I liked the little Shakespearian touches/references that seem to crop up throughout the film (also spotted the Dylan Thomas ref as well) and like all little gems, there will always be little things to discover like the final scene giving a nod to Easyrider as they start they're next journey. All in all a genuinely unpretentious piece of film making (love it!) I was pleasantly surprised by the film. Let's face it; the premise doesn't sound particularly appealing when having to hand over money for a the night's flick, but it had an easygoing nature that wins one over. There were no moments that I found uproarious, and I doubt any that I'll remember the next day, but this doesn't fail as a nice diversion. What I found funny was watching it here in Peking with my Chinese girlfriend who never understands anything I like. I told her there was a plot- three guys have to bring back some weed to London. Hardly satisfying for her. There is no mugging going on here for the camera which I'd been expecting after reading a number of the comments. I do take exception however to comparisons with Withnail and I; not in the same league, and I doubt was it intended to. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com I was in the film too, but i don't know if they actually put this scene in. On the way back from a school trip (in 2005) we stopped at a service station at the same time as they were doing the film, and we were asked (the whole of us) to run in and shout Go! Freebird! We were all around 10 years old, could anyone who has seen the film tell me if that part was actually kept in the film, it would be great to know! I remember I thought the film had never come out, because it was another 2 and a half years before it was released. All of your comments seem to be good so I'm guessing it has been quite a successful film, I might buy it, but first I would like to know if I'm in it! :D Thank you A great British Indy movie! Fantastic chemistry between the 3 main characters make for some hilarious drug-fuelled set pieces that Cheech and Chong would be proud of. Great to see Phil Daniels back on the big screen (even if he has swapped sides since Quadrophenia!) and Gary Stretch is surprisingly good and a treat for the ladies! Loved the final fight scene with it's nod to Zulu and now I know what happened to Arthur Brown after he set himself on fire on Top of the Pops!...he's not acting....he really is a bona-fide British hippie!!! You don't have to be a biker to enjoy this and it's straight into my Friday night post-pub repeat viewing collection.

Give this film a go and you won't be disappointed. I have seen the freebird movie and think its great! its laid back fun, about time the British film industry came through with something entertaining!! its good how the guy who met them at the service station gets mentioned way into the film in the news agents, nice touch. The acting was convincing (i am a biker) they reminded me of some good times i have had in the bike scene. It was good to see the film director getting in on the acting, well done jon ! At the end a new crop gets mentioned, in Ireland is this the foundation for a 2nd film? hope so keep them coming. Great film , well written, realistic characters ! Running out of films to rent, I picked up Freebird. I struggled through the first third of the movie wondering if the rest would be a waste to see. Fortunately, it really warmed up, and I loved the movie quite a bit. The second half of the movie had me grinning and laughing the entire time. Thankfully, although there were bits of CGI included, they were not overdone or prevalent.

I would have to say, though - the actors all have heavy European accents, so be warned if you have trouble understanding those voices or their cultural humor.

I really loved this movie, and will have to order myself a copy for my own collection. This is one to watch a few times. The excellent writing shows they had to have lived this story or know someone whom did because they nailed it. Freebird made me relive and laugh at my misspent youth. The title was a Great choice. Great film, setting, story, soundtrack and characters. It's a biker flick but would be a shame to pigeon hole it that way. Funny to the bone, kinda like Trailer Park Boys in the U.K. If you've never seen TPB, make a point to if you like this film. You will thank me. I hope to see more of these characters in other films. Sequel? Could be done. There's a whole lot more of the world I would like to see through their eyes. I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx Was lucky enough to be an extra in this great film and loved every minute of the filming. Went to the premier in London and had a great chat to Phil, Peter, Martin, and Jon as did my wife.Fantastic after party too. Then a few weeks later had trip to the cinema with members of our bike club. What a brilliant film, it deserves to be up there with all the great biker films. Now we have the DVD Sue my wife can't get enough of it neither can the kids. Get a bit of stick from the club who seem to think I'm a film star now oh well one can only dream. I think they are just jealous. The only downside of the first part of the filming was the weather, rain, rain and more rain but hey we was in Wales. Hopefully there will be a follow up so keep me posted Jon. Danny Beck But the opposite, sorry bud, i completely understand how you can be dragged into a film because you relate to the subject ( and you have). This film is terrible, the main character would give any charlie brown subtitler a run for his money he just constantly mumbles which is always a laugh, most scenes just feel awkward with characters more often than not gazing across to another with a look of...its your line now, then i will react. Best British comedy? Please buddy, have a strong word with your bad bad self...at the end of the day ...the sun goes down...and this film is Awful. I mean well done to the people involved...they have made a film...and maybe motorbike enthusiasts may be into it but people that still live here on earth with an actual sense of humour will struggle with this more than smiling at the Christmas present they're nan bought them...was that overly harsh? i do apologise... What a GREAT British movie, a screaming good laugh and sexy Gary Stretch too, and oh, lots of bikes and lovely Welsh countryside.

Members of our club the ARROWHEAD Bike and Trike Social Club appear in it as extras! Hooray!!

There are some genuinely hilarious bits, good acting, a good idea.

Met the director, Jon Ivay at a showing in Wareham, Dorset. A great man, down to earth and a good laugh. This film must be supported, as all great Brit movies should!

So please go and see it if you can, they have a website with cinemas that are showing it , so find one near you!

I can't wait to get the DVD. Some of our biker friends have seen the film two or three times already and can't get enough of it.

Amanda I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close. I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close. Last November, I had a chance to see this film at the Reno Film Festival. I have to say that it was a lot of fun. A few tech errors aside, it was a great experience. I loved the writing and acting, especially from the guy that played the lead role. There is a lot of heart in this movie, a lot of wit to. I got a chance to speak with a few of the filmmakers after it was done, and they seemed real nice. All in all the whole movie was just a positive experience, and one I'd definitely recommend. The story was entertaining and cool, as a woman I've been through a lot of the same problems as the lead guy, and I could really understand his problems because of it. The movie does a great job of giving us people we can sympathize with. The friends in the movie are really well written to, they are realistic. I know people like these, I only wish Imy friends and I could sound as cool as these people when we talk. The whole movie is just real cool, I wish there were more films out there like it.

- Jayden I would just like to state that this may be biased, as I am a producer on the film. However, I will maintain some sense of dignity.

The star of the film, Oscar Ovies, gives a stellar performance as Jeff Grinderlin, a nebbish hypochondriac who spends more time worrying than living. He brings a certain touch to his character that really allows the audience to connect with him, by stating his mind often and with a sense of harsh comedy. His mother, played by Christine Haber, is the constant support beam, that without, he would crumble upon himself. His friends also lend a hand in Jeff's life, often making choices for him rather than letting him use his free will... which often times he neglects is there anyway.

The writing is superb, and the conversations flow like scenes from a Kevin Smith movie, with half as much Ben Affleck boo-hoo fests.

The camera work is a little shoddy at some points, and the sound could also use a boost, however the performances out shine the minor details. It is also backed by a beautiful soundtrack with local talents and an exceptional composer.

All in all, this was a treat. A rare gem, among many jewels. Antonioni really showed some 'cojones' when he had this movie made. He went to America working under a contract from the most lavish studio (MGM) and he made the most damning portrait of American society i've ever seen. Having seen LA first hand this is the most accurate portrayal of the crowded, overheated and impersonal city. If only Antonioni had met Bill Hicks...

The subsequent burial by the studio is understandable, after such a whopping investment and dismal return. It is sad that people don't get to see this film any more as i believe Antonioni has been proved right. Here he predicts the end of the hippie/civil rights movement in the politics of America. Everyone is much more interested in what goes into their pockets and the relentless expansion of living space into the inhospitable (yet beautiful) desert and beyond. How i would love to see interest in this film re-kindled and a lavish DVD release.

I beseech people to watch Zabriskie Point with an open mind and an open heart. We have a genuinely unique film commenting on a turning point in the history of the most powerful nation on the planet, and we have forgotten about it.

An unexpected gem. About two hundred members of a Cleveland, Ohio USA film society, named Cinematheque, gathered on August 19, 2000 to view a pristine Cinemascope print of Michelangelo Antonioni's 1970 film, "Zabriskie Point." Cinematheque Director John Ewing, who does a superlative job of obtaining the finest prints for his series, shared with the audience beforehand that this print was specially flown over from Italy for this one showing only.

The audience was held spellbound as the film unfolded its artisty on the huge panoramic screen. Watching this superb print, shown the way Antonioni intended, made one aware that this is indeed a modern art work. It was all the more fitting that the series is housed in the Cleveland Insititue of Art in University Circle.

Antonioni's compositions are created for the Cinemascope landscape. His beautiful balancing of images, striking use of colors, sweeping choreographic movements, all are the work of a genuine artist, using the screen as his canvas.

At last the audience could understand "Zabriskie Point." As its narrative unfolded, it became obvious that this work is not about story per se, but rather an artist's impressionistic rendering of fleeting images of his subject. The setting of some of the more turbulent activities of the sixties provides only a dramatic motor for the artist's sweeping collage.

Antonioni is not bound by conventional narrative standards, and can pause at any point to creatively embroider an event with grandiose embellishments. The audience willingly went with the flow of his remarkable imagination, as his huge images on the massive canvas held one in rapt attention. While the audience may have been only tangentially involved in character relationships, it realized the theme here is human aleination, the director's recurring theme.

It was also realized that no print any smaller or of lesser quality than this original one in Cinemascope can do justice to this particular rendering. The audience was therefore all the more appreciative of viewing "Zabriskie Point" in its original, breathtaking format, and broke into thunderous applause at the end. I know that this is an unpopular position concerning Zabriskie Point, but I LOVED this film. I know, I know - I can legitimately be called an Antonioni fanatic. I love L'Avventura, I love La Notte, I love L'Eclisse, I love Red Desert, I love Blowup, and I love Professione: Reporter (aka The Passenger). The only Antonioni film that I don't love, the only one I've ever given less than an 8/10 (and one of only three that I have given less than a 10/10, La Notte and L'Eclisse being the other two, though I fully acknowledge that I have to see both of them again), is Beyond the Clouds, which can fairly be called an awful film. However, there is not better awful film, if you catch my drift. So if you're NOT an Antonioni fan, you should only logically ignore me. If you are even a casual fan, though, and you are wondering whether this particular film, whose name, when spoken, is often followed by

a spit, which is generally despised by even Antonioni's admirers, is at all worth seeing, the answer is YES.

Okay, the reason that people tend to hate it is because 99% of film watchers care ONLY for the narrative of a film. Well, that's not exactly true. If a film is amazing in a particular aspect, say acting or cinematography or direction, and just decent in its narrative, film watchers might very well love it. But a film can be the most amazing visual masterpiece and have a lame or illogical story - that's another thing that has ruined the cinema over the years: logic - then they absolutely hate the film. I will actually agree with that in some ways. As much as I may dislike it and want to change my view, it really is difficult to love a film whose narrative I perceive as poor. However, other people tend to get annoyed at a loose narrative. This is certainly what must drive viewers away from Zabriskie Point. I could relate the story to you, but you probably would just think it was nonsensical. It is, actually, but, to me, that just made the whole endeavor more fantastic and beautiful. I'd actually compare it favorably to 2001, which is my favorite film. However, 2001 is perfectly coherent compared to the rambling narrative of this film.

What Zabriskie Point has in spades is mood. The music helps a lot; the score includes a lot of acts of the day, including Pink Floyd. The mood is kind of similar to the moods of Antonioni's other masterpieces, filled with loneliness and desolation. Also the freedom that comes from that. The best sequence in the film is when the lead man and woman (her name is Daria, I know, but I don't remember his name) pull over in their vehicle next to a historic marker on a desert highway. There is, beyond the stone wall that has been erected to keep cars from flying off, an ancient lakebed. It's basically a rocky desert, and the two go to play in it. The setting is enormously beautiful. The woman says: "This is such a beautiful place. What do you think?" The man: "I think it's dead." There's no inclination to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. This is a lot like sentiments expressed in other Antonioni films - characters are constantly wanting to disappear or become invisible. Instead of David Locke, the protagonist of The Passenger, fed up with journalism, we have the young hippie sick of his friends' politics - he thinks they talk too much and don't act out what they feel is right, or at least he says he does. It seems to me more like he just wanted out of the situation.

The film is also simply amazing visually. Antonioni's films are all identifiable by just a few frames, but his visual style was always building. I like The Passenger more than I do Zabriskie Point, but Zabriskie Point might be his ultimate accomplishment in that aspect. Well, that might sound odd - L'Avventura and Red Desert are amazing pictorially. I think it's the camera movements that are particularly amazing here. He obviously made a ton of money on Blowup, which was the biggest arthouse hit of its day, the biggest ever at that point. He spends it well here, especially with his aerial shots. One of the film's greatest sequences involves the man, who has stolen a man's private airplane, dive-bombing Daria in her car.

The one thing that can be fairly criticized is the film's politics. They're certainly facile. Not that hippies were facile, but that Antonioni's vision of hippies - there weren't any in Italy, of course - are bizarre and, well, filtered through a foreigner's eyes. There's a rather childish criticism of advertising, but it's a criticism that still exists today. I say, can't you people just ignore it? What does it hurt? Are you walking around buying things you don't want because of billboards? Or there is also the criticism against capitalism. Daria, a secretary, works for a company that is stealing the land in the desert - the land that she and the man enjoyed to themselves - in order to make cheap, suburban homes for families. Rod Taylor, a very underrated actor whose most famous roles were in The Time Machine and The Birds, plays her boss. The ending, which I won't ruin - you've got to see it - is almost offensively cheap. I can, though, understand the treatment of police officers. Not that I disdain them generally, but they were awful at the time. They can still be awful now. They've always had too much power.

These trite arguments against the American way of life still don't effect my opinion of the film much. I find this filtered view of America extremely interesting. I really don't think a hippie would have disagreed with Antonioni. 10/10. There aren't too many times when I see a film and go, "huh, what?", but this was one of them. Maybe after seeing Zabriskie Point I felt much the same way Woody Allen felt after seeing 2001- he only liked the film after seeing it three times over a two year period, realizing the filmmaker was ahead of him in what was going on. Michelangelo Antonioni, in one of his few tries at making films inside of the US (after Red Desert, he did Blow-Up, this film, China, and The Passenger, all filmed outside his native Italy), I could sense he almost tried to learn about the ways of the country through his own mastery of the medium. The results show that he doesn't lack the means to present images, feelings, tones, colors, sounds, and a visual representation of this era. "A director's job is to see", Antonioni once stated. Whatever that means, he doesn't disappoint for the admirer of his post-fifties work (I say post-fifties since I've yet to see any of his films from before L'Avventura).

What he does lack is a point, at least the kind of point that he could bring in Blow-Up and The Eclipse. You get the feeling of what is around these characters, what the themes are bringing forth to their consciousness, however in this case the characters and the actors don't bring much conviction or purpose. Antonioni, coming from the school of hard-knocks, neo-realistic film-making, does do what he can with his mostly non-professional cast (those who look most like real actors are subjugated to the roles of the corporate characters), but the two stars Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin seem as if Antonioni's under-directing them. Perhaps that was the point. The story's split into three acts, thankfully not too confusing, as Mark escapes his existence around the boiling, dangerous campus life going on in the circa late 60's LA area, and Daria is sent out from LA to drive to Phoenix for some business meeting. They meet by chance as Mark's plane (how does he know how to drive, maybe a little background info there?) and Daria's car meet up, and they spend some time together in an existential kind of groove out in the desert. Aside from a stylistically mesmerizing if bizarre sex scene, much of this act isn't terribly interesting.

The two leads are fair enough to look at, but what exactly draws them to each other outside of curiosity? The ideas that come forth (in part from a screenplay co-written by Sam Shepard) aren't too revealing, except for one brief instant where drugs vs. reality is brought up. Then the film heads towards the third act, as Mark decides to do the right thing, under disastrous circumstances, and Daria arrives at her boss' place, only to be in full disillusionment (not taking into account the infamous last five minutes or so of the film). Although the film took its time telling its story, I didn't have as much of a problem with that as I did that the story only engages a certain kind of viewer. I understand and empathize with the feelings and doubts and fears as well as the self-confidence of the "anti-establishment", but maybe Antonioni isn't entirely fully aware of it himself. In some scenes he as director and editor (and the often astounding cinematography by Alfio Contini) find the scenery and backgrounds more enlightening and fixating than the people in the foreground. Not to say the technical side of Zabriskie Point isn't involving to a degree (this may make some feel drowsy, as Antonioni is probably far greater as a documentary filmmaker as he is a theatrical director like say Francis Ford Coppola is).

The deserts, skies, city, and even the faces in close-ups are filmed with the eye of a filmmaker in love with the art of getting things in the frame, bringing us in. The soundtrack is equally compelling, with a master stroke including a sweet Rolling Stones song at one point, and then a crushing, surreal Pink Floyd song (re-titled from 'Careful with that Axe Eugene, one of their best pre-Dark Side) in the explosion sequence. If only the performances weren't so one-sided I might find this to be on par with Blow-Up or The Eclipse. It's an unconventional stroke of genius on one hand, and on the other a boring take on what was the hippie/radical movement of the late 60's. But hey, what may be boring for an American such as myself born in the eighties may not be to others outside the US, such as say, Italy. And it does ask to not be discarded right away after one viewing. This is the film in Antonioni's middle period that most critics dismiss quickly, as a 'flawed' look at 60s American youth culture/politics. For what it's worth, I found it more touching and memorable than his more acclaimed films like L'AVVENTURA, perhaps because he shows more emotion & empathy here than anywhere else. The story is simple, but it is used as a frame for Antonioni's brilliant observations of, and critique on American consumerist culture, student life, the counter-culture, and the whole anti-establishment, anti-war backlash that was so prominent then.

Even from a purely technical point of view, it is a remarkably crafted film; from the opening credits sequence to the bizarre desert 'love-in', to the use of billboards, and right down to that jaw-dropping, cathartic finale that used 17 camera set-ups (in it's own way, as powerful as the climax of The Wild Bunch). Also, Antonioni chose one hell of a leading lady with Daria Halperin, one of the most beautiful ever to grace the screen. There isn't much 'acting' involved, as this feels more like a docu-drama, and so the use of non- professionals as the lead couple works quite effectively within that context. And the soundtrack is not only filled with marvelous music, its use is impressive as well (I can't forget the start of the film, mostly due to the selection of music - by Pink Floyd - that grooms the visuals so well).

Contrary to popular opinion, this is quite an achievement in cinema, and one I would enthusiastically recommend to anyone with a taste or tolerance for the off- beat. Well worth seeking out, and one of those key films of the 60s that demands a DVD restoration/release. I was told it was one of those "either you love it or you hate it" movies. Well, I loved it. Obvious hippie-era, dated and easy symbolism and all. So, I probably have no taste at all when it comes to Antonioni, but this and La Notte (made exactly a decade earlier) are my favourites among his movies so far. Made two years before I was born, Zabriskie Point was supposed to have been Michelangelo's great American epic. But apparently, it turned out to be a flop. I really can't see why. Before watching it I'd read that it was rather boring, so I braced myself for a very slow movie - though I love me a slow movie. For my taste, Zabriskie didn't have a tedious minute in it. While watching it, I made a mental note of how European it was on the director's part to make such frequent use of advertisement billboards in almost every urban scene, enormous billboards dwarfing any human form in sight. This recurrent visual element is obviously there to underline the way that consumerism crushes the individual in American society. But then I watched L'Eclisse straight afterwards, which is set in Rome in the early 60s, and noticed that Antonioni often included billboards in it as well. After all, the masterful use of landscapes, architecture and inanimate objects in each frame with or without human beings is an Antonioni trademark – this is precisely the way that he evokes his characters' psychological states, with more or less understated power and great visual impact. He is virtually unsurpassed in this skill.

Zabriskie Point starred two very appealing leads that should have become big stars of the 70s, but never did. Mark Frechette, whom I'd already seen in Francesco Rosi's fine WWI-set movie Uomini Contro, had a very tragic life and died aged just 27. According to his biography page, he donated his $60,000 earnings from Zabriskie to a commune. Mark's co-star Daria Halprin, apparently also Dennis Hopper's wife later on, has the stunning, natural beauty and appeal of a young Ornella Muti – one of those luminous beauties that don't need a shred of make-up to turn heads. Like Frechette, she has only graced a couple of obscure movies and has never become a star, but at least she didn't die tragically. Most notably, Zabriskie Point contains one of the most original sex scenes ever filmed - one that brings home a sense of youthful playfulness like few I've seen - as well as a powerfully cathartic ending. It may be the most banal sequence ever filmed as far as its symbolism goes, but I can't see how anyone can deny its beauty and wonderful sense of emotional release. Never has an explosion looked so good, and so poetic. It seems to be an explosion that restores order rather than bringing chaos. This film has a powerful philosophical ending. But that ending has meaning only if you watch the movie from the beginning.

Youth alienation in the late 1960's, from the viewpoint of a young man and a young woman, is the obvious theme of "Zabriskie Point". Neither Mark Frechette nor Daria Halprin had much acting experience, a fact that actually enhances the film's message. Having untrained actors conveys a sense of realism, as both players seem emotionally detached from the turmoil around them.

This is not a script-driven film. Except for the first ten minutes, it is mostly visual, with stunning cinematography. The beautiful naturalistic images seem other-worldly, and perfectly in sync with the emotional detachment of Mark and Daria.

I would have replaced the thematically weak Pink Floyd music with the more cogent music of The Doors. Many scenes cry out for "Riders On The Storm".

Even so, I like this film. It's different; it's unique; it is artistic and imaginative. And the desert badlands are beautiful.

As the years go by, "Zabriskie Point" seems more and more attractive. It conveys the mood of the late 1960's in America. It is amazingly artistic, in a bohemian sort of way. And the film's last eight minutes are philosophically mesmerizing. When this film was made, the hippie thing had gone mainstream. The ideas of the counter culture was well established, that is why such a big film could be made. Yet it has something to say, and it is said really beautifully. Apart from those who're only waiting for the wanking material, this film is given credit for its beautiful scenes(which in itself is more than enough reason to see the film) by the most. The soundtrack to this film, which actually became more popular than the film itself, is another plus. Pink Floyd's "Careful with that axe Eugene" suits really well with the explosions, the absence of music in other scenes gives the film a nice quiet mood. But. It seems as though the messages in this film have been overlooked by the most. If you didn't understand it, which seems to be the case for the most, I'll give you some hints: The man(tough guy, what ever his name is-Mark?) is a part of a "reality group". He leaves this group saying something like "I'm willing to die. But not of boredom" He later go for a joyride with a stolen plane, probably to seek some action. As he is in the air, Grateful Dead's Dark Star(from the Live/Dead album) is played(i think). This song contains the phrase "Shall we go you and I while we can", this is though not heard in the film.(Perhaps stretching it a bit too far meaning that quote is essential?) In the plane, he checks up a girl(Daria), who is driving in her car to a conference(about giving typical suburban families the opportunity to live in a super-relaxing place in the desert, where everything is so simple and nice. For the whole family!), by diving down, almost hitting the car. He lands the plane, and joins the girl on her way to Detroit. They stop at Zabriskie point, where they enjoy each other as living creatures and the nature. Later a family with a big car(of the type which you sleep in) and a speed boat is showed visiting Zabriskie Point, the father saying something like "what a waste driving all the way up here", and the kid sitting inside the car, grinning. I sensed a "this wasn't much better than on the telly"-attitude. Daria takes Mark back to the plane which now is painted in a psychedelic style, with the identity number changed to "no war" on one side and "no words" on the other. "Bucks Sucks" is also written on the plane. Mark takes the plane back to where he stole it from, saying to Daria before he leaves "I don't risk anything" or something, one of several hints about he not caring too much about his destiny. (This because he has the feeling that the environment that surrounds don't give him anything- "I wonder what happens in the real world") On the airport he is met by police officers who shoots him even though he just has returned the plane. Daria hears this on the radio, but decides to go to the conference in the fancy mansion. Here she feels alien after the adventures with her just killed friend. She enjoys fresh water running down a rock, more than the swimming pool. Inside the house the viewer is once again given a hint about anti-materialism -She looks out through a glass wall, holding her hands on the glass like she was trapped. The business men is seen arguing, the one side eager to make a big deal, the other afraid of losing money. Daria leaves the house and looks back at it, visualizing it blowing up. After the house, several other things blow up, for example a television. She smiles, happy she has inside herself destroyed what she after the meeting with Mark look upon as something negative.

To summarize: Mark obviously experience the "reality group" as not very useful as they just sit and talk, taking no action. He clearly has bad feelings about things being as they are, and it seems like he feels that it's no use fighting against it. He wants to leave. He helps Daria, who is "in mind but not in action" seeing his point of view. Where his feeling of being misfitted turns out leading to his death, one can hope Daria uses the ideas in a way that will turn out more constructive. In the film you see how a town (LA) is being polluted by commercial (too bad you have to show the commercial to make the point), you see business men deciding what is the future, et cetera, and you see people being unhappy with these and other situations which is parts of the modern world.

I have only seen the film once, so I have not caught all points, but I certainly got a feeling of what this film has to say, and I find it strange that this film can be called meaningless. If you say the points are being too obvious, I can see why, this film probably intended to appeal to the post-hippie radicals "digging" the thoughts of anti-establishment. Even though, it has a lot to say, and its message is still needed today, things pretty much evolving in the same direction as it did before the sixties. Zabriskie Point is a really great film, telling a story about quite normal young people (not far out hippies tripping around tip toe on acid, digging everything) seeking what they percept as real, dissatisfied with the conventional. And it is done in a truly beautiful way. I saw ZP when it was first released and found it a major disappointment. Its script seemed forced and arch and too fakey '60s. It's politics too upfront and ridiculous. And let's face it, I was still under a love-spell known as BLOWUP : and I still haven't completely shaken it. Now the "love" is twisted up with all sorts of nostalgia it evokes and, oh well . . . Good Luck to me!

But time marches on and time has been kind to ZP and time has been a teacher to me. I revisit this film about every ten years and it just gets better and better with age. And ZP is it's own "experience"and is only really linked to BLOWUP through its creator, the late,great Mr. Antonioni.

Twelve years ago, I had the great good fortune to see an absolutely pristine print, projected at its correct size (immense), restored by an Italian government cultural agency who knows a good work of art when they see it and knows the importance of keeping such a thing of beauty in good shape. To this day I remember the gasp from the audience when the first shot of Death Valley appeared. It was like a thousand volt visual shock Antonioni had intentionally delivered to wake us up to a new level of awareness. And indeed what follows from that point is an entirely different sort of "place".

What is astonishing to me is how this film is coming into its own.

I remember the second time around seeing it --- the early 80s --- I had begun to feel affection towards the film as a whole and towards Daria and Mark in particular. Whereas, before these two seemed like a smart-alecky shadow version of Zefferelli's Olivia and Leonard (read: Romeo and Juliet)they now were engaging me --- particularly The Girl in her insistent slo-motion-ality. She-took-her-time . . . To Live. Everything, EVERYTHING dies around her.

Upon exciting the theater the daylight of Reality quickly began to erase my new found "enjoyment". The encroaching shoulder-padded, big haired 80s whispered "But that's a hippie fantasy --- let it go"

The force of Antonioni's vision had, I had realised, already worked itself inside of me the FIRST time around so I answered "80s" with an "Uh-Huh" and guarded my "love" secretly, possessively and jealously.

But, this, then is what good art does it lives inside of you, and, if you wish it has its way and "loves" you back: secretly, jealously, and possessively. And you get "changed".

Was thrilled to see that Turner Classic Movies had decided to show ZP in its March lineup. Undoubtedly, ZP must be seen on a gigantic screen so that it can truly take you into its constructed environment. But, hey, sometimes even a glimpse of the Beloved in a newspaper photo is no better than no glimpse at all.

Today reality hit, ZP has been withdrawn mysteriously and replaced with the whiney antics of ALICE'S RESTAURANT.

So, it is still too "difficult", too "disturbing", too "what"?

Maybe it's that, as with all good art, it Lives while everything dies around it.

Peace. I have to admit I have always found it difficult to watch an Antonioni film from start to finish at the first try, and even for this one, I ended up watching it in three parts on repeated occasions. In the end, I realised perhaps it was better that way, because it forced me to stop thinking in the usual terms of plot and just enjoy the scenes one by one.

The first part seems a lot more fragmentary, which is not a bad thing, it just requires more of an effort to follow. When it gets to the desert scenes, all efforts are repaid in full. The stunning cinematography is only a part of it, what really makes it all unforgettable is how the landscape is made into an overwhelming presence, the silence and vastness of it, the sense of sadness and freedom, the way it fuses and contrasts with the two young characters. The desert is dead, but at the same time it feels less distant and alien than the urban scenes in the first part. The dance between the airplane flying over and the girl's car makes for a series of great shots. The love scenes in the desert are simply beautiful, it is hard to imagine this kind of approach from a film of our times. There is of course something very stylish and studied about them, but at the same time they manage to express a sense of natural, spontaneous innocence that is very rare these days. It all feels loose and unscripted (thanks also to the understated acting), but that is the result of a maniacal attention to detail and form, which comes to its climax in the series of explosions at the end, a really mesmerising spectacle. It just leaves you in awe.

I don't really care for some the usual objections: boring - well, yes, it is, if you want all films to follow a classic plot development and be packed with action twists, but then if all cinema was like that, that would be truly dull and sad; pretentious - maybe, but when that kind of ambitiousness is coupled with actual skills, depth, and style, pretentious is a compliment. The "political" criticisms make the least sense to me, I don't see the point of approaching a film like this with ideological blinders or worse, patriotic requirements. It just defeats the purpose. Perhaps it's true that, like a previous commenter remarked, Antonioni viewed these young 'hippies' and the politics of protests and riots with the police with the fascination of a foreigner, but I think that adds something rather than detracting from the film. It's not true that hippies did not exist in Italy at the time (think of the '68 protests, like in France), although they were obviously different from the American counterpart and in some ways even more militant. But his interest in this film was not narrowly political. The events seem more like a pretext for a film whose appeal has a universal, timeless quality.

A special mention for the fantastic soundtrack. Amongst other things, this film, along with Easy Rider, is probably one of the main earliest precursors of the contemporary 'artsy' music video as well as the concept of a film soundtrack that would stand on its own, but unlike the former, it uses music in a much more subtle way, blending it with the landscape rather than the action.

If you want traditional narrative in a film, then don't bother. If you want to be stunned, be patient and you won't regret it. The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after "Blow-Up", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.

Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.

The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the "rebel" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.

Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.

Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some "benefactor" but "destroying a genuine piece of American history". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.

And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, "joined" in fantasy by the "flower" generation reflects the similar sequence in "Red Desert", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.

The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.

Antionioni's two "international" films (the British "Blow-Up" and the American "Zabriskie Point") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge. Though this may not necessarily be a so-called "classic" film by today's standards, it's still worth seeing. The main reason why is because after experiencing this film, you get the feeling that you've also experienced the counter-cultural idealism of the 60's, no matter however good or bad.

I happened to see this film in an English literature class at SUNY Geneseo, and though at first it appears to be just a meaningless composition of 60's icons, the film is far from being simply "thrown together".

My point is that if you leave the film feeling unsatisfied and confused, the film has done it's job: it's conveyed a desolate view of the future that leaves you feeling unsure and angry. It was perhaps this same feeling that the film sought to explore in the youth it exemplified.

As such, "Zabriskie Point" may not tell a very good (or interesting) story, and at the same time its characters may be one-sided and predictable. However, it also conveys so well this sort of clichéd, rebellious desire to get out of the existence which both Mark and Daria must share. Even the anti-establishment students are as inauthentic as the gov't they rebel against. A beautiful new print of "Zabriskie Point" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful "extras" will be out in the near future.

I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a "near-miss" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.

The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.

There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.

Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.

I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.

I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans. ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film will be more easily understood if we go back to that time in life. During the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert do not represent an orgy but the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and appreciated the magnificent way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as the more accurate symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A depicts the death of the dream by these difficulties winning the game. In my point of view a film to remember. I saw this in the early 70s (when I was 16), and despite the long slow set-up, meetings, riots, etc, once the desert section began all fell into context and I loved it. (Still do, it has aged very well.) Back then I was in what seemed to be a tiny minority. All criticisms seemed to concentrate on the lack of action and narrative. Happily I'm no longer in such a minority.

It deftly shows (in a somewhat prophetic way) the political splintering, unrest, confrontation, brutal repression, commercialisation and deception which lay ahead.

Appreciation for this magistral film has grown, and I'm glad about that. There's no way to confront 'Zabriskie Point' from a rational standpoint or attempt to describe it using words and conventions you'd use for other movies. This is because it isn't a movie. It's an idea and a feeling that the filmmakers have that somehow got turned into an object as mundane as a film. What we see are not the unfoldings of a plot, but rather a sequence of events that we don't see in films every day but only imagine happening as the background we ourselves will supply when we hear about some tragic event in the news of or from friends. We we see is our imagination of people that are abstractions to us- no one we know, but we've doubtless heard of them in a book or on TV or somewhere. So what do we see? Events. We see people arguing, driving, and inevitably, escaping. Only the escape is from something intangible- it is the collective situation and cruelty that the mass of a civilization has allowed to exist though laziness, or...human nature. Set in late 1960s Los Angeles, our players act against and in response to the self-inflicted miseries of modern existence. These creatures are effectively blank slates that can display any trait we can imagine if we desire. Although the actions taken might be seen as criminal or irresponsible, , the characters are not themselves criminals. They are human beings seeking a return to a familiar, non-manufactured existence that is beyond the normalcy they experience everyday. Not that they are ever happy or sad, but they achieve a type of self actualization when they move beyond and away from the suicide of modern living. They only achieve true life in the natural world, even though that is the next victim of modern existence. At the end, 'Zabriski Point' is a eulogy of humanities attachment to the natural world. As even the most desolate pieces of the earth succumb to our notions of progress, we lose our souls on the path to death of the human spirit. This movie is one of the masterpieces from Mr. Antonioni. It is about youth, distraction, happiness, alienation, materialism, honor, corruption. And it is like everything else from great Italian director -true art.

I liked this movie. It was pretty cool. It has it all: cars, gun shooting, fighting, and even a token girl. It does not excel in any of this things, with the exception of the cars. A bit of shooting, a bit of fighting, a bit of smooching around, and LOT´s of car, with a great chase near the end. The jump, you may say, is impractical, but according to our good friends here at the IMDB it is possible, so the movie ain´t as bad as people are painting it. It has some quality, and I liked to watch it. In fact, I loved the film. And I didn´t need to turn off my brains to watch it. I wasn´t always thinking "Is this possible?" or tramp like that. 9 in 10. The movie was a big Car Commercial. :-)

But who cares? I went to the theater to view the Shelby Cobra, Angelina & Cage.

So I guess it was a good movie. *bg*

A pleasant surprise! I expected a further downgrade along the line: The Rock (9)-->Con Air (7)-->Armaggeddon (4). Especially for such an overhyped film. Perhaps that's the reason so few approved of this new type of Bruckheimer fare. Clever dialogue instead of snappy one-liners, decent background/motivation instead of shake-n-bake stereotypes and when the chase came you really thirsted for it. Fanboys expecting an Armageddon rollercoaster: stay away. This is one for the more intelligent action fans. It didn't even bother me Jolie appeared so little. Carter Wong plays a noble hero on a quest for a book of healing which leads him seeking ultimate vengeance! The pacing is good in this film and there are a lot of fight scenes to keep the movie going. The flying guillotines look wicked and the main villain has no problems using them. Although the story isn't strong, the action is fun and draws you to the very end (which I felt could've had a sequel).

Campy and dark, this is great ol skool kung fu!! I thought the original of this film was quaint and charming as well as having me sitting on the edge of my seat trying to figure it out.

Since I had already seen the original, when I saw this on Sci Fi Channel- I don't know if this remake was deliberately made for Sci Fi - I knew what it was within the first few minutes. Since I like Richard Burgi as a character actor, I wanted to see how he would pull it off.

The writers/producers etc, modernized the film a bit by trying to explain the plight of the "aliens" (They could no longer reproduce their own kind and needed help) using the same pseudo science that has been crammed in our ears in the 90's. Maybe it added a bit of polish to the film, or not.

This film. Film? This production takes on a more sinister edge than the original did- The original ended with a confrontation between the young woman and the alien and an understanding of sorts took place, although no resolution of the Alien's problem.

I sort of remember that in this remake, the woman became rather hostile towards the Burgi/Alien- I think it could have ended better. But the ending is just the ending, and the yarn is a swell yarn, being of the basic 1958 Science Fiction Pulp Stock. Many great science fiction stories were written in the 50's and some of them even made it to film.

This is a swell thing to watch on like a rainy day or something. I rate it highly cos of all the remakes of old 50's Sci Fi, this one came off well. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit.

But if anyone really wants to see this story told WELL, I suggest the original 1958 version with Tom Tyron and Gloria Talbott, directed by Gene Fowler Jr. This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.

The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.

All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.

These type of films often deserve a cult following:

8/10. Nick and Kelly are ready to be married but Travis (Kelly's dog) leads Nick to a strange blue wall that will change the honeymoon for Kelly. Richard Burgi and Susan Walters play Nick and Kelly and make a good couple. Nick loves to drink, smoke, and play pool with the fellas for fun but Nick suddenly abstains from this type of fun. Sex is the one thing that he loves because he wants a child. We find out that an alien race is dying and needs to interbreed with women from Earth to save their population. It becomes a battle of survival between humans and aliens with the dog population also being involved. A fine film. The team of Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack produced a documentary of 50,000 Bakhtiari people and their animals on the Summer migration to winter grazing. The basic worth of this film today is as a time capsule of a "forgotten people" and how they lived during what we in the West knew as the "roaring twenties." A more drastic contrast could not be imagined. Raging river and barefoot mountain crossings are brutally realistic and the animals that disappear under the water do in fact die. To make sure that the audience of the time believed that the story took place, a signed certificate of authenticity is offered up at the end. The version that I saw had fascinating Iranian music that can stand alone and be appreciated without the film. Having said all this, the film is probably of more value to the anthropologist than the casual viewer in search of a good evening's entertainment. The crew had just barely sufficient stock to take the shots that they recorded and there is no fancy camera work resulting from multiple re-takes. The Western inter-titles detract from the experience but are in fact a part of the record since they demonstrate how Hollywood tried to put their spin on the lives of an indigenous peoples lives so that they would be appreciated by the audience of the day. Off-duty entertainment by desert police becomes a "policeman's ball." The producers went on to make the docu-drama Chang (1927) and the totally commercial King Kong (1933). The migration theme is used again in People of the Wind (1976) and in Himalaya (1999). Recommended for those who know in advance what they are getting into -- and then highly recommended for them. The first collaboration between Schoedsack & Cooper is a compelling documentary on the migration of the Bakhtiari tribe of Persia. Twice a year, more than 50,000 people and half a million animals cross rivers and mountains to get to pasture. You'll feel like a pampered weakling after watching these people herd their animals through ice cold water and walk barefoot through the snow to cross the mountains while trying to get their animals to walk along steep and narrow mountain paths. This was incredible, meaning that it was hard to believe, that the "forgotten tribe" would make this astounding migration twice a year, and that the filmmakers, Cooper and Schoedsack, didn't stage some of the scenes and shots. But what shots they are! The cinematography, under mostly extreme conditions, is brilliant, and the score of Iranian music added to the video release give this memorable documentary an added richness.

I had the pleasure of seeing this and "Kon Tiki" on the same weekend, which was a thrill and certainly made me see how tough and hardy and brave people can be, whether for primitive survival or the need for adventure or in the name of science. Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful. Watch this and tell me if Cecil B. DeMille didn't take notes before making his The Ten Commandments. Merian C. Cooper, the photographer, later created Cinerama, an idea that probably hatched while filming the remarkable landscapes in this film. Fans of Werner Herzog will find this film to be a treasure, with heartbreaking tales of struggle, complimented by the land around them, never has the human capacity to endure been so evident. The fact that this was made when it was shows not only the will of the subjects, but of the filmmakers themselves. This was soul-provoking! I am an Iranian, and living in th 21st century, I didn't know that such big tribes have been living in such conditions at the time of my grandfather!

You see that today, or even in 1925, on one side of the world a lady or a baby could have everything served for him or her clean and on-demand, but here 80 years ago, people ventured their life to go to somewhere with more grass. It's really interesting that these Persians bear those difficulties to find pasture for their sheep, but they lose many the sheep on their way.

I praise the Americans who accompanied this tribe, they were as tough as Bakhtiari people. I am actually outraged at the comment I read stating that this movie was "boring" and the beautiful scenery was marred by the black and white footage. It was made in 1925!!!! I think it absolutely incredible for it's time!

The journey that these people had to go through is utterly remarkable. It took them a week just to cross a river. The women carried their children in heavy wooden cradles on their backs climbing up a solid sheet of rock, sometimes barefoot in the snow. I would like to see Anybody do that now!

I thought it was a wonderful film with some truly amazing shots and an incredible story. They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.

One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other "bank" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.

Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.

The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.

If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges. This documentary by Marian Cooper is absolutely amazing. I saw it tonight on Turner Classic Movie channel. I think I will see if I can order a copy of it on DVD. The film footage doesn't look all blurry and choppy like you might think from 1925 B & W silent film. Set in Iran in 1925, The nomadic tribe people in the documentary leave their desert home and cross a raging river, men, women, children, animals... Then up and over a snowy mountain pass all Barefoot. It is sink or swim and climb or die. In search of grass for their animals. They have cows, goats, dogs, horses, mules. In one scene a man is carrying a mule who is too sick to climb the mountain. The children in the documentary all look happy and healthy. They had such a hard life. I wonder if the nomadic tribes of Iran still live like this. Makes you appreciate modern life in USA. I may be getting ahead of myself here, but although the film itself was a technical masterpiece for its time, I watched it piece-by-piece on TCM last night, the question arises to me: Why did they do that? putting their lives in jeopardy, many of them died on the trek, why would they undertake such a life-endangering journey, just to find food for their animals (!) once they reached the "land of milk and honey", why didn't they just stay there? Would you endanger your life, and that of your entire community, just to find food for a herd of cattle? As dangerous as it was, to do it for that purpose alone, shows the inbred simplicity of these types of people. Risk death for a cow?? Better them than I! This film show peoples in the middle of the hottest 2 days in Austria. It shows people humiliating other peoples and being cruel to other peoples. It show the inability of people to communicate or talk with others.

In the screening I have attended people were leaving in the middle because they could no longer watch the film. And rightly so. Because the film is not and easy one to watch. It has a very depressing message and there isn't any moment of mercy in the film. It is a very cruel movie, not for everyone's taste. You can not speak of terms of enjoyment from this film. It grips you in your throat and never let go and in the end you simply feels breathless because of its intensity.

I can not "recommend" or "not recommend" this film. You should make your own mind based on what I have said earlier. Just be aware that this is not a regular film and it is not for everyone's taste. I just saw this film at the 2001 Toronto international film festival. The working title there was 'Dog Days'. The audience reaction was mixed. Some people found the graphic sex and realistic violence to be too much for them. Others seemed to genuinely appreciate how good this film was.

This film isn't for the faint of heart. It's like 'Happiness' with explicit sex and a less optimistic view of humanity. There's animal poisoning, a strip-tease from a senior citizen, an orgy'esque' bathouse in a shopping centre, anal candle penetration, and the molestation of the mentally incompetent.

If any of this sounds like too much to handle then this film isn't for you. This film shows humanity at its most desperate and pathetic. The banality of our existence is shoved in our face with utmost glee.

Seidl has no interest in redeeming humanity here. And why should he? This film features excellent performances from all involved, is always interesting, and is probably the most intelligent social statement to be made on film in awhile. This film is great. As often heard, it is indeed very realistic and sometimes brutal, but unlike some other people I am clearly not of the opinion that it is depressing, negativistic or dismantling Austria as a proto-fascist society. Quite the contrary: While there are indeed some very heavy scenes in HUNDSTAGE and some characters are to be called very bad persons, at the same time you watch love, beauty and humor in Ulrich Seidls film. And that's exactly what distinguishes HUNDSTAGE for me from other films that try to show the lives of the 'ordinary people' in an intense, realistic way; their hustle, their wishes, their dark sides: Seidl clearly never tries to prove, that the lives of the working-class people are trash! In my opinion, viewers who come to this conclusion seem to be very afraid of admitting, that nearly nobody's live is as 'clean' and 'normal' as we would like other people to believe. And that every live has its dark and often depressing sides. The most beautiful scene: The old Viennese man, watching his old girl dancing 'the oriental way', as he is calling it. I think everybody who finds this scene ugly lacks a sense of beauty and should ask themselves what it is, that's proto-fascist: The characters in HUNDSTAGE or viewers, who are turned off by the body of a 70+ year old woman, dancing with all her charms for her lover. This film has got to be ranked as one of the most disturbing and arresting films in years. It is one of the few films, perhaps the only one, that actually gave me shivers: not even Pasolini´s Sálo, to which this film bears comparison, affected me like that. I saw echoes in the film from filmmakers like Pasolini, Fassbinder and others. I had to ask myself, what was it about the film that made me feel like I did? I think the answer would be that I was watching a horror film, but one that defies or even reverses the conventions of said genre. Typically, in a horror film, horrible and frightening things will happen, but on the margins of civilized society: abandoned houses, deserted hotels, castles, churchyards, morgues etc. This handling of the subject in horror is, I think, a sort of defence mechanism, a principle of darkness and opacity functioning as a sort of projective space for the desires and fears of the viewer. So, from this perspective, Hundstage is not a horror film; it takes place in a perfectly normal society, and so doesn´t dabble in the histrionics of the horror film. But what you see is the displacement of certain key thematics from the horror genre, especially concerning the body and its violation, the stages of fright and torture it can be put through. What Seidl does is to use the settings of an everyday, middle class society as a stage on which is relayed a repetitious play of sexual aggression, loneliness, lack and violation of intimacy and integrity: precisely the themes you would find in horror, but subjected to a principle of light and transparency from which there is no escape. It is precisely within this displacement that the power of Seidl´s film resides. Hundstage deals with these matters as a function of the everyday, displays them in quotidian repetition, rather than as sites of extremity and catharsis - a move you would encounter in said horror genre. One important point of reference here is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder also had a way of blending the political with the personal in his films, a tactics of the melodrama that allowed him to deal in a serious and even moral way with political issues like racism, domination, desire, questions concerning ownership, sexual property and control, fascism and capitalism etc. Seidl´s tactic of making the mechanisms of everyday society the subject of his film puts him in close proximity with Fassbinder; like this German ally, he has a sort of political vision of society that he feels it is his responsibility to put forward in his films. During a seminar at the Gothenburg Film Festival this year, at which Seidl was a guest, he was asked why he would have so many instances of violated, subjugated women in Hundstage, but no instances of a woman fighting back, liberating herself. Seidl replied that some may view it as immoral to show violence against women, but that he himself felt it would be immoral not to show it. An artistic statement as good as any, I think. Thank you. It's nothing brilliant, groundbreaking or innovative, but 'Dog Days' is for some reason an extremely fascinating character study. It's like CRASH tripping on a bad dose of heroin, but not really. It's an Austrian film following the lives of several depressed, deranged and annoying people and their abusive relationships with each other. It's disturbing, yet very well-acted and it's interesting to watch the crazy little things these characters do. Certainly not for the weak-hearted, this highly pessimistic film offers no conclusion or revelation at the end, we just see the lives of these sordid individuals over the course of two days. Grade: B There is something special about the Austrian movies not only by Seidl, but by Spielmann and other directors as well. This is the piercing sense of reality that never leaves the viewer throughout the movie. Hundstage is no exception. This effect is achieved not only by the depicted stories but also by actors playing. In Hundstage I have never had the feeling that these are actors playing, but real people instead. So real is the visceral feeling of the viewer...Almost as if the grumpy pensioner or lonely lady in the movie are living below you in your block.

Any person living in Vienna can without any doubt painfully recognize the people in the movie with their meckern/sudern (complaining), their hidden sexual urges and the prolo macho guys. This is further reinforced by the Viennese dialect which is, according to many, especially made for complaining as a way of life. A special parochialism and arrogance typical for Vienna are also very well portrayed.

The Viennese suburbs have a vivid presence in the movie with their stupor and drowsiness where nothing happens. Moreover, they have been turned into a celebration of materialism with shopping malls and huge department stores. Inbetween are the houses of the people where they indulge into what they reckon is pleasure-giving activities, trying to stay in touch with their human selves, yet in vain. The examples are the sexual game of the old lady with the men which bordered on rape, the prolo guy losing his nerves and hitting his girlfriend and the young woman who hitchhikes and irritates her drivers.

The film has no soundtrack as it concentrates on the normality/abnormality of its images only. Another typical feature of Seidl (and other Austrian directors) is his showing of disturbingly sexual images. These include the stripping of the old woman for her husband, the sexual scenes in the bath, the sexual game of the lady with the two men in her apartment, etc.

In Hundstage Seild has portrayed the lives of people who eventually may be as much Viennese as they could be citizens of Paris, New York or Madrid. The viewers should not despise or feel pity for the Viennese in the movie as they themselves could become victims of the same human estrangement and alienation, albeit in different circumstances. In the end, I believe Seidl's film is a warning to us about the terrible state of human relationships so brutally revealed in Hundstage. And if the viewer does not succumb to the reasons for this evil transformation, Seidl has achieved his goal. Hundstage is an intentionally ugly and unnerving study of life in a particularly dreary suburb of Vienna. It comes from former documentary director Ulrich Seidl who adopts a very documentary-like approach to the material. However, the film veers away from normal types and presents us with characters that are best described as "extremes" – some are extremely lonely; some extremely violent; some extremely weird; some extremely devious; some extremely frustrated and misunderstood; and so on. The film combines several near plot less episodes which intertwine from time to time, each following the characters over a couple of days during a sweltering Viennese summer. Very few viewers will come away from the film feeling entertained – the intention is to point up the many things that are wrong with people, the many ills that plague our society in general. It is a thought-provoking film and its conclusions are pretty damning on the whole.

A fussy old widower fantasises about his elderly cleaning lady and wants her to perform a striptease for him while wearing his deceased wife's clothes. A nightclub dancer contends with the perpetually jealous and violent behaviour of her boy-racer boyfriend. A couple grieving over their dead daughter can no longer communicate with each other and seek solace by having sex with other people. An abusive man mistreats his woman but she forgives him time and again. A security salesman desperately tries to find the culprit behind some vandalism on a work site but ends up picking on an innocent scapegoat. And a mentally ill woman keeps hitching rides with strangers and insulting them until they throw her out of the car! The lives of these disparate characters converge over several days during an intense summer heat wave.

The despair in the film is palpable. Many scenes are characterised by long, awkward silences that are twice as effective as a whole passage of dialogue might be. Then there are other scenes during which the dialogue and on-screen events leave you reeling. In particular, a scene during which the security salesman leaves the female hitch-hiker to the mercy of a vengeful guy - to be beaten, raped and humiliated (thankfully all off-screen) for some vandalism she didn't even do - arouses a sour, almost angry taste. In another scene a man has a lit candle wedged in his rear-end and is forced to sing the national anthem at gunpoint, all as part of his punishment for being nasty to his wife. While we might want to cheer that this thug is receiving his come-uppance, we are simultaneously left appalled and unnerved by the nature of his punishment. Indeed, such stark contrasts could act as a summary of the whole film - every moment of light-heartedness is counter-balanced with a moment of coldness. Every shred of hope is countered with a sense of despair. For every character you could like or feel sympathy for, there is another that encourages nothing but anger and hate. We might want to turn away from Hundstage, to dismiss it as an exercise in misery, but it also points up some uncomfortable truths and for that it should be applauded. Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say "Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!". No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.

This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel "lover" on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the "official replacement" of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.

After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you! Trailers of this movie may show scenes of violence or non mainstream sexuality, but these scenes are just rare fragments, picked out to attract audience. They are, of course showing the main message of the movie:

People who are constantly kicked on their heads in their jobs and lives, using power, which they may have somewhere else, to notoriously oppress others. And at the low end of the oppression chain, mostly women.

A movie showing this as brutally as Hundstage is surely tough to face, but having to endure such lives, is even tougher.

Technically the film is much like Short Cuts, but consisting of documentary style episodes, featuring people like your neighbour, playing just the way they are. Without any glitter, and most disturbingly, without any hope. Its documentary style makes the movie even more disturbing, because you realize, such people are out there, and there are many of them, although our society focuses on the nice exterior looks. Somewhere the porn industry has to do its business, somewhere unreported domestic violence has to take place, somewhere hopes have to shatter. I sure do know such people.

If you want to see a movie without any funny scenes (some may think the handicapped woman repeating the top ten supermarkets is funny, but this happens for real) and without any melodramatic, go watch this movie. However it will lose when you are focusing on subtitles I fear, as subtitles can´t transport accentuation. It's not a brilliant idea to watch Hundstage if you're not 100% sure of your mental stability, because it will be severely tested with this film no matter how sane you are. I have to say Hundstage is an art film rather than an entertainment film, so the majority of the viewers wouldn't have the level of "maturity" to reach in to its delightful side. Kind of like Tarkovsky films, but different in a way. I, myself, can't say I had a lot of fun watching it. But it's an outstanding and very interesting experience for those who are only tormented by the cliché that Hollywood offers. Hundstage sticks a finger right into your brain and scratches your mind all over. You can't simply sit back and watch it, you'll be using exclamations or looking with eyes wide open throughout the film. A film that's similar to this in style is Nachtgestalten, but it was considerably better, and way less violent. This one for instance, is not for children or those who are mentally tender or bad-tempered. Most viewers would most likely give either a 10 or a 1 to this film. I give it a 9 because I've seen the multiple-stories-in-one-film phenomenon in another film and it was better. But this one's an outstanding piece on its own. Worth watching, but get ready to see something disturbing. "Hundstage" is seidl's first fiction film (before this he directed great documentaries as "animal love" or "models"). seidl worked on this project for more than 3 years but it only cost around 2 million dollars. the actors are very good especially the non-professional actors who nearly played themselves.the cinematography is good too. the whole film is shocking disturbing and some scenes may be too much for "ordinary" viewers.the film shows a lot of sex and violence but also that people are lonely and not able to communicate with each other. finally i've to say that this is one of the best and most rewarding austrian films in the past years. please excuse my bad english.

Every country which has a working film industry has some sane (and maybe some insane) artist which make movies that you can only completely understand when you're a part of this country. I guess Hundstage is such a movie.

You see the lowest level of Austria's society, dirty, disturbed, weird, hateful. But they still have enough money so they can afford tuned cars and big houses. And they are definitely doing a lot of strange things here which maybe seems for them 'normal' because they're doing it through their whole life. From a normal human viewpoint you can now easily follow the movie and be disgusted or fascinated and watch a fine piece of Austria's art movies.

But if you LIVE here and you know the people you see the characters in Hundstage as the tumor of the society. A society that is going more insane from day to day, creating their own rules that nobody else can understand, cave the social system from within. And you SEE the people. Sitting in the park, standing at the opposite street corner, queuing in the same line. Maybe you meet 'em in a bar or a disco you may visit. Maybe you even work with them in your job or they are living next to your house. You start to hate them without exactly knowing why. You'll try to get away - but you cannot. Maybe you'll end up like them. But it seems 'normal' for you because you're doing it through your whole life now...

Life isn't so bright though Austria is one of the richest countries in the world. It has beautiful people... but some are also ugly. There are a lot of hard working persons trying their best... but there are also some riding on the back of others and destroying everything that the folk of Austria has built up so far.

A very pessimistic movie. a movie about the cruelty of this world. I found it liberating, as only truth can be. It also contains some quite funny bits. Some of the acting is extraordinary, see Maria Hofstätter for instance. The director has tried to depict life as realistically as possible, succeeding. Coherently, the sex scenes are explicit and no more fake than those of a hard-core movie. Although I hardly understood a sentence, I found the vision of the movie in the original language with subtitles much more rewarding, because with the dubbing half the great work of the actors gets lost. The voice of the character played by Maria Hofstätter is particularly hard to duplicate by a dubber.

My favorite movie I agree with the previous comment in naming the film's content "everyday madness" but would like to specify that: "Dog Days" is about how women are treated in (a male) society. The episodes we get to see here show some variation in everyday discrimination of women, mostly categorized by age group. There is a senior man who makes his new partner look and act the way his late wife had, treating her like a doll that shall act "worthy of wearing" the former's dress. There is a middle-aged couple in whose relationship she is nearly a slave and he a (violent) master. Further we find a somewhat younger man who does not communicate with his friend/wife and instead of being really jealous about her affairs even makes friendship with his competitor(s). A young adult man makes clear to his friend - a girl who is really troubled by being pretty enough for him - that she has to be the jewelry at his side and to follow his narrow viewed rules of etiquette. Finally there is a man in his late fifties who calculating his own advantage delivers a simple-minded hitchhiking woman to a furious client who - taking her for guilty in having scratched his car - natural beats her up. To complete the examples we find the pal of the man in the "master-slave"-couple - after collectively abusing her - threatening and humiliating the former "in her sake" for she shall get rid of her partner and take himself as her new "master". During all this the inhabitants of the lately built neighborhood in which the action takes place rests under the burning summer-sun - absolutely motionless (sic!). Unfortunately I have not seen the last minutes of this shocking and authentic portray of the archaic structures that still reign in the relationship between women and men, but what I have seen convincingly analyzed the repertoire of discrimination. Probably a helpful tool in teaching even the less sensitive spectator what goes wrong - due to good visualization. at first I had the reaction a lot of people left with after seeing this: that shots of fat people sunbathing, etc were cheap shots in a way. OK so he's doing diane arbus meets. . . whatever. . . but it wasn't long before I realized that this wasn't being done in a dehumanizing way, as the images unfold I felt that the problem was entirely the audience's: we are conditioned by Hollywood and also movies from just about everywhere actually to feel that to watch people above a certain age behave in a sexual way is something unseemly, something that ought not to be shown. if this were all the film offered it would be a great deal. however, the story of the woman with the abusive boyfriend and his drunk friend really hits like a ton of bricks: very eloquent storytelling, incredible performances, and to think the scene was improvised. that blonde guy is a genius actor. finally I want to contradict those who say this film is all about how pathetic all these people are. the old man who is on the make with the woman who finally dances for him is completely an a OK character that breaks that mold, so don't oversimplify the film by overlooking him. yes his dog gets killed. this ain't a rosy picture of the world but it's not . . . completely hopeless. anyway I felt really grateful to the filmmaker for making such a beautiful film all in all. I wouldn't say each of the threads were as strong as the strongest, but I say this movie basically kicks ass and would highly recommend it. . . Dog days is one of most accurate films i've ever seen describing life in modern cities. It's very harsh and cruel at some points and sadly it's very close to reality. Isolation, desperation, deep emotional dead ends, problematic affairs, perversion, complexes, madness. All the things that are present in the big advanced cities of today. It makes you realize once again the pityful state in which people have lead society.

The negative side of life in the city was never pictured on screen so properly. I only wish it was a lie. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore...10/10. A movie/documentary about different people in Austria on the hottest weekend of the year. It follows what they are doing and maybe more what they are not doing. The tempo is very quiet......so you have to relax.......breathe in...breathe out before you see it......

First you think....but nothing is happening and you get a little angry over that..and thats the problem, because its the mood of the film and the really nice social realistic pictures which are nice in this film...........a lot of people will say its disgusting......but its not that bad...i think its more used for the marketing....and theres some really funny moments...a 60 old woman stripping.....i guarantee its the most unsexy striptease in film history......its movie which is real..i think thats the word......right up in your face.......and that makes it a bit scary.no computer manipulation here.....its real life...and as we all know movies can win over reality when it comes to doing sick things..........so its much worse in the real world.......

If you survive the movie you can start to look at your neighbors and think...maybe they are like the persons in the movie...i bet theres a lot of them out there......sick...crazy people living with a nice facade........after seing the movie i feel its more interesting to look at my neighbors........

But maybe you shouldnt see this movie on your first date......... Uncompromising look at a suburb in 21st century Vienna mixing the stories of six groups of characters by former documentary maker U.Seidl is a provocative, minimalistic and intense piece of observation cinema.

After the world-wide spread of Big Brother reality shows, Hundstage takes modern voyeurism to an unsettling, profound level. Hard to like but unignorable piece of European art-cinema might seem cruel and seedy, yet manages to convey the nihilistic alienated feeling of modern society in a praiseworthy manner.

A must for lovers of world cinema. Oh my, from the box description I thought it would be LA-crazy like 2 Days in the Valley or Hugo Pool. Ulrich Seidl must be a very strong man. Most, after directing this, would have driven off a cliff or at least committed a mass murder. I confess to only watching the first half hour (for now). Reading all the comments here, I have a lot to look forward to. Professional reviews often mention the Swedish film Songs from the Second Floor as a parallel but that's graced with humor and fantasy and this is unrelenting in its dour realism. What hath the Marshall Plan and the EU wrought? Seeing this in a theater with anyone I know would have only resulted in an enforced departure after many fewer minutes than I got through on DVD. There's a more annoying creature in the universe than Jar Jar Binks - the Hitchhiker from Hell. Whatever happens to her, it isn't enough! Soulless suburbia that I thought only existed in Arizona and Florida thrives in Lower Austria. Oh no! I thought sex clubs had ceased to exist even in New York and San Francisco, and here they are in suburban shopping malls? Was it Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru who said when asked about Western Civilization, 'why that might be a nice idea'? If the world were truly like this film, bring on that black hole, we're ready. The plot intellect is about as light as feather down. But the advantage here is the boy and girl classic refusal we have become accustomed to in "The Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat" is now absent. Instead of the typical accidental acquaintance, the dancing duo are the former lovers Bake Baker and Sherry Martin, who are still in love since their dancing days.

Of course, being a 30s musical, there's the problems of misunderstood romance, classy courtship and the slight irritation of a sabotaged audition with bicarbonate soda has costing Ginger something rather special. And then in the grand tradition of dwindling finances, there's nothing better for Hollywood's best entertainers than put on a show.

Delightful numbers from Irving Berlin are sprinkled throughout the show. Top hats and evening dresses are saved right until the end, which remains a refreshing change. Fred and Ginger are out again to charm the world...and charm the navy. Everyone and everything is once again just so enjoyable.

Pure classic silliness at its best. But with Astaire and Rogers, we just know it's got to work.

Rating: 8.25/10 This is one of the best Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers films, or at least one of my favorites. Most of the A-R movies feature great dancing but sappy romance stories. This still has the courtship corniness but not as pronounced as the other films.

This movie features not just great dancing but likable characters and a bunch of good songs. The music is the central theme here and what's nice is the addition of a tap solo by Rogers. She not only was a super dancer but a very pretty woman and one with tremendous figure. She dances also with Fred, of course, and they're always a fun pair to watch on the dance floor.

Growing up in the 1950s watching "Ozzie & Harriet" on television, it was a real kick the first time I saw this to see such a young Harriet Hilliard. No surprise than Ozzie fell for this beauty. Although she had that short early '30s hairstyle, I recognized her voice right away. Also in this movie are quick appearances by Betty Grable and Lucille Ball, but I have to admit that I have yet to out Ball. I can't find her, but I know she's in here.

Astaire, except for some obnoxious gum-chewing in the first third of the film, was fun to watch and Randolph Scott - although better in westerns - is likable, too.

This is simply a nice, feel-good film and good one if you want to to enjoy the great talents of Astaire and Rogers. This is my all-time favorite Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film. The dialogue between the two is so cute and funny and very clever. Not to mention this film contains some of the best songs recorded by the two; like I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket and Let's Face the Music and Dance. If I remember correctly, this was the film that introduced me to Fred Astaire so I suppose because of that it will always hold a special place in my heart (sorry for the sentimental cr*p but I'm woman so get over it)All in all this film gets an 8/10 from me. The choreography was superb and also the fact that Lucille Ball is in it makes it even more awesome. Musically speaking Irving Berlin gave Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers another pluperfect musical after Top Hat if that was possible. Although in this case like that Jerome Kern confection Roberta that they were in, Follow the Fleet retained Randolph Scott with another singer, this time Harriet Hilliard.

Randolph Scott is a career Navy CPO and Fred Astaire is an ex-vaudevillian who enlisted in the Navy to forget Ginger Rogers his former partner. But now the two are on shore leave. Fred and Ginger take up right where they left off, and Randy accidentally meets Ginger's dowdy sister Harriet who blossoms into a real beauty. But Randy's a typical love 'em and leave 'em sailor.

Again Irving Berlin wrote a hit filled score with him tightly supervising the production. Ginger gets to do some really outstanding vocalizing with Let Yourself Go which she and Fred later dance to. But the real hit of the show is Let's Face the Music and Dance which is a number done at a Navy show. Sung first by Astaire and later danced to by the pair, Let's Face the Music and Dance is one of the great romantic numbers ever written for the screen. Their dancing on this one is absolute magic.

I'm sure that when I mention Harriet Hilliard a few younger people might ask who that was. But they will know immediately when I mention her in conjunction with her famous husband Ozzie Nelson. That's right Ozzie and Harriet. It's something of a mystery to me why Harriet stopped singing when she just became David and Ricky's mom on television. Then again she didn't even keep her own name.

Neither Ozzie or Harriet sang on television. Ozzie was a pale imitation of Rudy Vallee as a singer, but Harriet could really carry a tune. She sings Get Thee Behind Me Satan and The Moon and I Are Here, But Where Are You, both with real feeling and class. I recommend you see Follow the Fleet if for no other reason than to hear a dimension of Harriet Hilliard incredibly forgotten today. One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.

Terrific songs include "Let Yourself Go," "Let's Face the Music," and "Putting All My Eggs in One Basket." The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings "Let Yourself Go" with Grable among the backup singers.

Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. "Get Thee Behind Me" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings "But Where Are You?" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.

Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.

Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with "Let Yourself Go".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.

Fun all the way, although I got tired of "We Joined the Navy" after the third time.... This is just a great, fun, lovely film. It captures the true essence of the decade and of the people, and tells a beautiful love story of two sisters with two sailors. Though this film may only be in Black and White, it definitely doesn't count against it now in modern days. The main basic purpose of the movie is timeless. This movie features great acting, beautiful song and dance numbers, and great design work and film shots. Follow the Fleet is also comical, there are funny moments, moments that will make you laugh, but other moments where the acting just gets you so involved into the storyline. Its amazing how though this movie may be set in a certain decade, how it can affect those today. If you want to see something great, check this out. 1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection – Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it – they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger.

The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly – no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video. One of several musicals about sailors on leave, it is the usual sailor meets girl, complications ensue, sorted out happily kind of plot. It proceeds along smoothly enough but it does drag in places too. The dialogue is not as zippy as 'Top Hat' for example and Randolph Scott seems out of place.

There are compensations. It has some of Irving Berlin's choicest songs including 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting all My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance'. It has Fred and Ginger who when they are dancing take any film into heavenly heights and they don't disappoint here. They do a snappy tap dance, a knockabout comic dance and a swirling graceful dance, all in the same film! Great versatility and artistry.

It also has Harriet Hilliard who is rather good in her role. She had a varied career, becoming the more famous Harriet Nelson with Ozzie. Here she is touching without being sentimental.Her two songs are simply and effectively delivered. She makes a good contrast with Ginger but you can believe they are sisters in the film.

More tightening up have made the film even better. Pretty good though. Another fun, witty, frothy RKO musical with Astaire and Rogers, FOLLOW THE FLEET is a charming film. While it lacks the stand-out great tunes of SWNG TIME (although the final number "Face the music and dance" is one of the team's best and rightfully so), it is hugely enjoyable, as these two could virtually do no wrong together in the 1930's. Once again, the plot is lightweight and forgettable, but watching Fred and Ginger dance together is sheer heaven. These two conveyed more romance and magic in dance than many couples in films do in a huge love scene. While there are better Fred and Ginger musicals, this is certainly a must-see. Definitely one of the lesser of the Astaire/Rogers musicals. It's just very poorly plotted and paced. It only runs a few minutes longer than Swing Time, for example, but it feels a heck of a lot longer. This is partly due to the secondary romance between Randolph Scott and Harriet Hilliard. Scott is rarely ever interesting. I like Hilliard. She's sweet, and I love at least one of her songs, "But Where Are You?" ("Get Thee Behind Me Satan", her other number, is a weak leftover from Top Hat, thankfully cut from that masterpiece). Follow the Fleet would actually be a bad film if not for at least three brilliant dance sequences between Astaire and Rogers. The dancing contest vies for the top spot of any of their numbers. The dance is just fantastic. "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" presents the two rehearsing a dance that they don't quite have perfected yet. Its imperfections make it all the more perfect. And "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is easily one of Irving Berlin's best songs. So the film is well worth watching for its great moments. Astaire and Rogers at the height of their popularity. In 1936 Americans thought of the Navy as a place for song and dance. WWII was still a few years away. Fred and Ginger dance up the town.

The plot is decent, but who cares... By the way, notice the cameo roles for Betty Grable and a glamorous Lucile Ball.

A load of Irving Berlin songs, including the famous "Let's Face the Music and Dance". In that scene, Ginger's heavy swooping dress smacks Fred in the face during one of her spins and almost knocks him unconscious. Fred insisted on keeping the take as the dancing was superb nonetheless.

Ginger once commented that she was a better dancer than Fred, since she had to do all the same moves, in step, and backwards...

Come to think of it, Fred's voice was nice too. The man was effortless in motion.

Here's a movie to cozy up on the couch with a loved-one, kick off the shoes, and enjoy the entertainment. This was the second of three films that Irving Berlin wrote for the Astaire-Rogers franchise and it has by far the largest score and is somewhat unusual in that two of the numbers are performed by Harriet Hilliard leaving the rest to be divvied and/or shared between the principals. As usual the storyline needn't detain us though for the record it was based on a play, Shore Leave, that also served as the basis for a Broadway Musical, Hit The Deck. Anyone who actually saw Shore Leave in the theatre may have been momentarily bemused inasmuch as the roles played by Fred and Ginger were created for the movie but what matters, as always, is the music, lyrics and hoofing and this is all out of the right bottle. It's a departure from the other titles in the franchise in that 1) we get to see Astaire play the piano - in real life he was an accomplished pianist and composed several songs, one of which, I'm Building Up To An Awful Let-Down, had a lyric by Johnny Mercer and spent a couple of weeks in the charts - and it is the only one of the series in which he played a serviceman, albeit an ex-hoofer who enlisted in the navy after being dumped by dancing partner Ginger before the story starts. He gets to perform a little-known but excellent Berlin number, I'd Rather Lead A Band as well as duetting on I'm Putting All My Eggs In One Basket but the ultimate number is the prophetic - in 1936 rumbles of World War II were already being felt - Let's Face The Music And Dance, one of the most potent ballads ever performed by the team. So what if Randolph Scott is a little wooden and fish-out-of-water without either a horse or a six-gun within easy reach and Harriet Hilliard doesn't exactly set the screen on fire; we came to see Fred and Ginger and the only question is, do they deliver. Answer: In spades. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Hollywood's premiere dance team, were usually dressed to the nines and gliding through elaborately exaggerated Art Deco sets in the 1930's. However, they go a bit more downscale for this 1936 outing, the fifth of their ten musicals together. This time, Astaire foregoes his top hat, white tie and tails to become a bubblegum-chewing sailor named "Bake" Baker; and Rogers plays dance hall entertainer Sherry Martin, who was Bake's partner - dancing and otherwise - before he enlisted. Consequently, unlike the mistaken identity ploys and romantic hesitancies prevalent in most of their previous pairings, they are already a couple from the film's outset.

Directed by Mark Sandrich (who guided five of their pairings), the film bears a narrative similarity to 1935's "Roberta" in which they are but one of two couples featured in the storyline. In fact, Randolph Scott plays the other male lead in both films, this time as Bake's womanizing crewmate, "Bilge" Smith. He is partnered with not Irene Dunne (who understandably turned down this follow-up) but Harriet Hilliard. Just married to Ozzie Nelson in real life and decades before Ozzie & Harriet, Hilliard plays Sherry's spinsterish sister Connie who falls hard for Bilge. In the silly plot, she is given a makeover by a young, bleached blonde Lucille Ball, and there is s classic three-way shot of Hilliard, Ball and a kewpie-doll adorable Betty Grable in front of a mirror.

Speaking of the story, what there is of one is credited to Allan Scott and Dwight Taylor and goes something like this...Bake and Bilge are on shore leave in San Francisco where they end up in a dance hall with their rowdy shipmates. Bake finds Sherry working there, while Bilge runs into Connie first when she comes in as a dowdy spinster and then showing up as a glamour girl. Romance blooms for both couples. Connie and Sherry inherit a steamer from their father, but they need money to keep it afloat. Multiple misunderstandings occur in both relationships, but it all works out when they turn the steamer into a theater and put on a fundraising musical revue. It's about as silly as it sounds, but it does provide a good excuse for some memorable Irving Berlin tunes and a trio of Astaire-Rogers dances.

The first two are casual in tone - a dance contest set to the percolating "Let Yourself Go" where they show off mercilessly to win and a physical shipboard comedy routine set to the toe-tapping "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket". However, their last dance is a classic return to formality with a melodramatic piece beautifully set to a stunning arrangement of "Let's Face the Music and Dance". Intriguingly, this movie contains not only an Astaire dance solo but the only time Rogers ever had a dance solo to herself in one of their movies, an energetic tap routine again set to "Let Yourself Go". Dressed in a creamy satin sailor outfit, she also sings the same song most winningly near the beginning of the film.

Acting-wise, Astaire and Rogers are in typically zesty comic form here. While Scott plays his role with his trademark cock-eyed virility, Hilliard is an extremely dull presence, and as a former band singer, she performs two Berlin love songs in a frustratingly diffident manner. Regardless, the magic generated by Astaire and Rogers in their prime make this essential viewing. The 2005 DVD has several good extras beginning with a thirteen-minute featurette, "Follow the Fleet: The Origins of Those Dancing Feet," about how Astaire and Rogers started to work together. There is also a live-action "soundie" called "Melody Master: Jimmie Lunceford and his Dance Orchestra", a poultry-themed cartoon called "Let It Be Me," and the original theatrical trailer. From a modern sensibility, it's sometimes hard to watch older films. It's annoying to have to watch the stereotypical wallflower librarian have to take off her glasses and become pretty and stupid to win a man. Especially such a shallow and inconstant man. He's obviously a player (I wouldn't trust him to stay true to her) who doesn't want to settle down, who only looks at dumb attractive women and always calls them "baby" (ick!). Even after she totally changes her appearance and her life for him, he only goes to her after he's (supposedly) rejected by another woman and learns that Connie spent all her money renovating a boat for him. I wanted her to stand up to him, not pathetically chase after him! His sudden conversion within a few minutes was totally unrealistic and did not work for me.

Apart from that subplot, I did like the movie. How can you not like sailors dancing with each other?! (You can tell they were from San Francisco.... ;D) The "rehearsal" dance was great, watching Ginger Rogers purposefully fall in and out of the "correct steps" was great. The last dance scene "Face the Music" with the beautiful costumes and the art deco set was beautiful. And I really enjoyed "We Saw the Sea" (though they did use it a few too many times, as if they realized it was their best song).

Anyway, the plot was a bit weak, like most musicals (IMO) - and the songs were OK, but the dancing was worth watching the film for. I wish they could have showed some shots of San Francisco since that was were the film was supposedly set.

It's also weird to see such a lighthearted naval film with the knowledge of what Hitler was already doing at that time. I have to try to suspend all knowledge to submerge myself into a made up fantasy land. This really is a great movie. Some of the songs have become immortal classics and the dancing by Fred and Ginger is among their best ever. But basically, all of Fred and Ginger's movies are the same. After the singing and dancing is over, it's the other characters in the movie who make the movie work. What really bothers me is why all the negative comments about Randolph Scott? His romance with Harriet Hilliard and the sub plot of the movie is the reason why I watch this over and over again. He adds to this movie, he doesn't detract from it. He has a winning personality and a great smile. Randy is in my top ten all time favorites list. It's great to see him as something other than a cowboy. OK, so he isn't really a great actor, but like so many other stars: Errol Flynn, Alan Ladd, Victor Mature, etc. he was very likable and could rise to the top on certain occasions. All of Fred and Ginger's movies had sub plots that depended on other actors to fill in the space between the musical numbers, otherwise the movie would have to be shortened by about a half hour. I just wish more people would appreciate Randy and I felt a need to stand up for him. Had this film been put together a tad better, it would be up there with the best of Astaire and Rogers. As it is, it's a fine movie but overly long with a tedious subplot, i.e., Randolph Scott romancing Rogers' sister, played by Harriet Hilliard (that's Ozzie Nelson's wife to you baby boomers).

Astaire and Scott are two Navy men. Scott meets Hilliard the first time when she looks like a stereotypical librarian, and later on after Ginger Rogers has asked her friend (a blond but unmistakable Lucille Ball) to glamor her up. Meanwhile, Astaire tries to pick up where he and his old dancing partner left off. The result is some wonderful dance numbers, with Astaire and Rogers as a team as well as separately: "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket," "Let Yourself Go," and "I'd Rather Lead the Band." Hilliard is sweet but a little lethargic as a plain Jane turned glamor girl, although she sings her two songs well, "But Where Are You?" and "Get Thee Behind Me, Satan" - one poster didn't care for that song, but I love the title. Rogers is vivacious, and a youthful Astaire is a dynamo.

The highlight of the movie comes at the end with "Let's Face the Music and Dance," one of the most achingly beautiful songs ever written and certainly one of the most brilliantly executed by Rogers and Astaire. In it, they epitomize '30s glamor and fantasy. It is truly to be treasured and watched again and again. Throughly enjoy all the musical numbers each time I see this movie. Never seem to tire of it. Fred and Ginger are always a pleasure to watch. Seeing "Lucy" and Betty Grable before they hit the big time, is fun to watch. What an entertaining movie. Astaire and Randolph Scott are in the Navy. Astaire has to woo back Ginger in San Francisco, while Scott must be persuaded that Harriet Hilliard is worthy of being his wife. Everything works out fine.

It's sometimes argued, and I can see why, that Scott's romance with Hilliard is unnecessary and slows the plot down. Especially painful are Hilliard's singing of sappy love songs. I could have done without her singing, right enough, but I found the romance rather touching. Hilliard enters the movie as a music teacher, wearing a pair of spectacles, no makeup, and the ugliest clothes known to man or beast. No wonder Scott avoids her until she grooms herself sexily under the tutelage of her sister Ginger and a slinky Lucille Ball. The problem is that AFTER her makeover she looks like the same irretrievably plain woman as before, only with a glossier outfit. It's tough enough for a homely guy. But at least a man can become wealthy and powerful and popular, then he can collect women anyway, even if he looks like JoJo the Dog-Faced Boy. But what does a plain-looking woman do? The same avenues to romance aren't open to her. Henry Kissinger had groupies. Did Margaret Thatcher? It must be terrible to be an ordinary woman in a culture as cruel as ours. As a kind of a footnote, I must mention that Randolph Scott was rumored to be bisexual by Hollywood gossips who needed some nonsense to chew on, and it's kind of amusing that he has the following line in this film when he's putting homely Hilliard off -- "Women don't interest me, sister." The movie probably gives more quality time to Ginger Rogers than any of her other films with Astaire. And she's marvelous. She's beautiful, sexy, a talented actress and dancer, and the script gives her good comic lines too. "Let's kiss and make up," suggests Astaire. "Let's just make up," she says, "that will give you something to work on." It's also the only film she made with Astaire that gives her a solo number during an audition. (Choreographed by Hermes Pan.) Her performance is accidentally sabotaged by Astaire who slips some Alka Seltzer or something into her water, and she hiccups through her number, burping being too indelicate for the time.

As a dancer, I'd make a terrific circus elephant so my opinion must be taken as that of an amateur, but I think their dances together are the equal of any they put on film. Their first, during a dancing contest, "Let Yourself Go," is the most wildly exuberant of any I can remember. And the only dramatic duet, "Let's Face the Music and Dance," must be among their finest. The last step as they exit is startling.

I like the film for reasons with personal resonance. I remember seeing it for the first time in a theater in downtown San Diego, next to a shop called "The Seven Seas" that catered to sailors. I was in uniform at the time and was impressed with the treatment of the naval careers of Astaire and Scott. What I mean is, here we have this frothy musical comedy which owed absolutely nothing to historical reality, and yet, unlike most of their other teamings, pays its dues anyway. Jumping ship, Astaire calls out for a "water taxi." I had just taken a water taxi ashore myself. The uniforms are correct to the period (unlike, say, those in "On the Town"). And they're worn properly, hats down to two finger-widths above the eyebrow and not cocked back. And there are two incidents in which Astaire runs into a problem with naval authorities and they're both handled with perfect seriousness and are thoroughly believable. An officer stops Astaire from leading a jazz band during inspection and reports to the captain, "They were playing when the call was sounded, sir. I'm certain no breach of discipline was intended." It's what an officer -- a good officer -- would say, and nobody laughs.

The series was getting a little repetitious by the time "Follow the Fleet" was made so instead of putting Fred into high society and a tuxedo, they turned him into a gum-chewing swabbie instead. It was a good idea. And the dance numbers are up to the concept. 79/100. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers never made anything but great films together. Although this is not one of their best, it is an excellent musical. There are a few outstanding musical numbers, good support from Randolph Scott. Two notable appearances, Betty Grable and Lucille Ball make memorable early screen performances. Ball is particularly good, and a blonde as well. The "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is one of the musical duo's best numbers ever. Harriet Hilliard, better know as Harriet Nelson of "Ozzie and Harriet" plays Ginger Roger's sister. The basic plot is pretty familiar, but with a cast this exceptional, it works. Excellent art direction and score. Follow the Fleet, an RKO production in 1936, stars Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a complex romantic comedy. Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have had many similar romantic movies together, RKO helped them to once again create a worth-while storyline that incorporates relevant situations to society at the time it was made. The narrative of Follow the Fleet relies heavily on the use of layered story lines between the two sets of main characters to create a satisfying romantic comedy.

The general plot of the movie revolves around Bake Baker, a Sailor in the U.S. Navy played by Fred Astaire, and Sherry Martin, Bake's former love and dance partner who is now a singer and dancer played by Ginger Rogers. Their story begins when Bake is on the ship and his shipmate Bilge Smith finds a photo of the two of them together, and Bake reveals that the last time he saw her he had asked her to marry him, so Bilge suggests that they try and meet up with her when they are on land, in hopes that she might have a friend.

The next major scene begins the second plot of the movie when Connie Martin, Sherry's sister, is refused entry into Paradise where her sister works unless she is escorted by a gentleman. She turns around to find Bilge behind her with a bag full of beverages, so she plays it off like she was waiting on him and buys his entrance into Paradise as well. Connie then finds Sherry and tells her that she is depressed because she cannot have the luck Sherry does with men, so Sherry suggests she get a makeover from her friends while she is performing on stage. Connie gets made over, and enters the ballroom once again, and approaches Bilge again, who is awestruck by the sight of her. This commences the second romantic storyline between Bilge and Connie.

Throughout the remainder of the movie the story and rising actions are transitioned between altering comedic reliefs of the two couples' troubles that create several mini rising and falling actions within the overall plot. Bake and Sherry hit it off their first moments together as they compete in a dance competition and end up winning it, reminding them of the success and pleasure the two have when they are together. Similarly, Bilge is able to swoon Connie through his romantic attempts of pleasing her, and they retire to her house.

This series of happy events is soon followed by unsettling measures that brings the rising action back down. Bake left Sherry the previous night to retire to the ship before midnight, and told her that he would come for her in the morning. Unfortunately the ship sets course after the shipmates have returned, upsetting Sherry and leaving her to think Bake was still being a typical sailor looking for a good time when he's on land.

The mood is again changed as another subplot is entered into the film when a "party of big shots" is taking a tour of the ship. This alternate storyline is used to create a buffer between the stories of the two main relationships of the film, as well as help build confidence and fondness of Bake's overall good intentions. The party is interrupted by the oblivious music playing coming from Bake and his companions when they missed the sounding to report on deck for the company. The ladies are intrigued and ask to hear them play, and Bake gladly begins to entertain them with some dancing, which ultimately helps brighten the mood of the film, as well as bring happiness to the sailors.

After returning to the couple's intertwined stories, Sherry is trying to prove to Bake that she does not need his help with landing a job. Unfortunately Bake is unaware that she is auditioning, and goes to put in a good word for Sherry when he overhears his friend at the studio talking about the remarkable lady auditioning. Bake takes it upon himself to help Sherry out by tampering with her water, making her unable to sing correctly and destroying her audition. In addition to Bake's mistake, Connie spent all of her money to repair a ship that she was hoping Bilge would take over as captain. She had also planned a remarkable dinner date for him when he was supposed to come over, but Bilge was aware of her intentions and hopes of soon marrying and was no longer interested, so he stood her up.

The remainder of the movie continues in the same format of mini rising and falling actions until the climactic point is reached between the two couples, ending the movie with the happiness of both couples. The use of the altering stories helps to build interest and emotion within each couple as they deal with both happiness and pain through each of their struggles. The intertwining stories are also able to relate with one another, as well as incorporate other unrelated subplots to help carry the narrative through to the concluding scenes.

Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have countless films together that incorporate romance, comedy, song, and dance, Follow the Fleet is a unique film for the two actors that successfully use the technique of subplots to aid the narrative between the two main characters. If Hollywood is to be believed, being in the the Navy is nothing but a bludge. Though the sailors may complain in chorus about the monotony of the ocean, it seems that their oceanic duties are completely non-existent, and somehow Fred Astaire finds enough free time during the day to offer dancing classes to a fleet of would-be romantics. Such is the world of Astaire and Rogers. Mark Sandrich's previous film, 'Top Hat (1935),' completely ignored the Great Depression that was then bringing America to its knees, and presented audiences with a glittering world of the rich and famous; it was the film's optimistic outlook on life that perhaps contributed to its success. Likewise, here Sandrich deliberately forgets that the life of a Naval officer is difficult and draining, and instead substitutes the duties of a sailor with an assortment of catchy lightweight musical numbers.

"Bake" Baker (Astaire) and Sherry Martin (Rogers) are two former dance partners whose romantic relationship fell apart after the latter rejected a marriage proposal. After Bake returns from several years of duty in the Navy, he finds Sherry as dance hostess in an unsophisticated San Francisco ballroom. While the two former lovers alternately attempt to woo and rebuff each other, Sherry's plain, music-teacher sister (Harriet Hilliard, looking really quite pretty) receives a complete makeover and tries to charm superficial sailor Bilge "Bilgey" Smith (Randolph Scott). There are plenty of the usual screwball comedy shenanigans, a few moments of mistaken identity, and even a hilarious trained monkey that steals every scene it's in. Particularly amusing is the scene in which Bake sabotages a performer's audition in order to create a window for his estranged girl; unluckily for both of them, it is an unfortunate Sherry who drinks the bicarbonate of soda and loses her ability to sing.

'Follow the Fleet (1936)' was the fifth winning collaboration between Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and the third (of five) in which Sandrich directed the pair. Irving Berlin provided the film's music and lyrics, and each musical number is enjoyably lighthearted and entertaining, even if they aren't quite as memorable as those in 'Top Hat (1935),' 'Swing Time (1936)' or 'Shall We Dance (1937).' Astaire attempts to break free from his typical rich-man-about-town persona, without much success, but it's hard to imagine the performer without the boyish carefree charm that could only accompany being considerably wealthy. The side-plot of the romance between Connie and Bilge works well with the antics of the two main stars, and Harriet Hilliard (wearing a brunette wig to avoid clashing with Ginger's blonde hair) has a couple of emotional solo numbers, including "Get Thee Behind Me Satan," which was originally written for 'Top Hat.' While I am not a big fan of musicals, I have loved the films of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers because they are just so much fun. Sure, they can be a bit formulaic, but even though you KNOW what is going to happen, they still are very pleasing to watch. However, despite this, I was a bit disappointed in this outing. Part of it was because this film doesn't have the wonderful supporting cast like you saw in TOP HAT or SHALL WE DANCE. Without Edward Everett Horton or Eric Blore, the film seems to be a bit lacking--especially in the "fun" department. The silly antics of these supporting actors gave the other films charm that you just don't get with FOLLOW THE FLEET. In addition, unlike the usual character played by Astaire, this one is more of a jerk--as his fat head gets Rogers into trouble again and again. And, as a result, it's a lot harder to like him or want to see them get together in the end of the film. Plus, although the music is by Irving Berlin, the songs just don't seem as memorable. In fact, none of the songs were all that special and I can't recall any of them even though I just saw the movie. While this is still a cute and worthwhile film, it just lacks the sparkle and magic of some of their other films. Good but far from great. Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but "Follow the Fleet"'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play "Bake" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.

But at the same time, "Follow the Fleet" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with "We Saw the Sea" and "I'd Rather Lead a Band." He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy "Let Yourself Go" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune.

The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of "Let Yourself Go". Later, they sing and dance "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, "Let's Face the Music and Dance", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.

It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of "Follow the Fleet" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over. Of course, the story line for this movie isn't the best, but the dances are wonderful. This story line is different from other Astaire-Rogers movies in that neither one is "chasing" the other. The dancing of Fred and Ginger is what makes this movie. I have a deep liking for this film despite it appearing deliberately less 'polished' than the other Fred and Ginger films, not to mention the slightly problematic casting of Harriet Hillard in the lead romantic role.

Once again with these films, the plot is of a minor consequence - Astaire plays a rather unlikely sailor (who happens to be a brilliant former hoofer (of course!)) and Rogers an aspiring performer in a seedy dime-a-dance music hall. Although their relationship is bright and fun to watch, they are bogged down by an un-involving main story of Hilliard and Randolph Scott not succeeding in finding any chemistry between them.

Although it was a last minute decision, Hilliard was rather miscast in this as she doesn't have the screen presence to give this film what it needs despite being sweet and likable throughout. The film may have benefited in promoting Lucille Ball's wise-cracking worldy brassy character to a larger role as she simply shined in every small scene, and would have made a great Helen Broderick-type side-kick to Rogers in this kind of bright film (See 'Stage Door', made the following year, for an example of wonderful scenes between these two fantastic actresses). That Scott's one-dimensional Neanderthal character eventually falls in love with Hilliard's is even harder to believe than Astaire being in the Navy!

Now onto the important part, the singing and dancing: Nothing more can be said about "Let's Face the Music and Dance" other than it is brilliant and moving and perfectly executed and I often finish watching that scene with tears in my eyes. However other songs in the film deserve some recognition as well; "I'm putting all my Eggs in One Basket" is a lovely example of the comedic instincts of Astaire and Rogers, and almost pokes fun at their reputation of bursting into spontaneous, perfectly synchronized dancing. Other highlights are "I'd Rather Lead the Band" and "Let Yourself Go" which show how these two talents could perform as brilliantly alone as together. I nearly forgot to mention that this is one of the few (if not the only) time we see Astaire brilliantly play on the piano; It seems this man's talents were endless!

Overall, I actually prefer this to 'Top Hat' and 'Swing Time' (although only just), as it is more earthy and performed so enthusiastically by all involved, it is hard to dislike the fun factor. Fleet was released in 1936 during the middle of the depression when people were having a tough time worldwide finding jobs or even finding food to put on the table. In Europe Hitler was on the rise, along with other nationalist/ socialist whackjobs. In the United States seeds of the Cartel sown with the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax amendment (16) were beginning to bear fruit for connected finance capitalists and their dominating secret societies.

For the average guy and girl, times were tough. Enter Hollywood with at least some hopeful images—I don't think we can properly call them propaganda at this point, even though this particular movie revolves around war-preparatory naval exercises. The real issue for boys and girls then, as now, was how to hook up with the right one, lead a decent life, have wonderful children, with a modicum of grace and elegance.

The odds were long.

...

For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and book reviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.

Brian Wright Copyright 2007 Fay Grim is, on its face, a tale of espionage and intrigue told with a nod and a wink. As the sequel to his extraordinary Henry Fool, Hal Hartley creates a surprising blend of film noir and hardboiled spy thriller that starts with a knowing smile and large dose of laughter and turns as poignant and warm as any film I've seen this year.

Parkey Posey is Fay Grim, an unwitting Mata Hari caught between the love of her exiled husband Henry Fool and the questionable intentions of a charming CIA operative. As Agent Fulbright, Jeff Goldblum is a master of wit and sarcasm, in a role that seems tailored to his talents. He has never been better. James Urbaniak is Fay's brother Simon, jailed but renowned for his wildly popular books of poetry. His love of his work and his sister brings a jolt of passion to contrast the dour nature of the spies which eventually populate Fay's world. And Liam Aiken is Fay's oversexed 14 year-old son. Although that may be redundant. Aiken's understated style is remarkably "old soul" for someone his age.

The entire film is shot Dutch angle, the off-kilter style made famous by Orson Welles and used primarily in horror films and psychological thrillers to impart a sense of foreboding. In Fay Grim, using that style from opening credits to closing is intriguing at first, deceptively clever the next. For just as the viewer begins to fall for the perfectly timed comedic elements and wit of Hartley's brilliant script, something happens. The film takes a dark yet strangely comforting turn as these characters magically become sympathetic before our eyes. What began as dark comedy morphs into romantic drama, and the transition is masterful. Slow pacing gives way to breathtaking action, and we are sucked right into the vortex.

In the end, Hartley's sharp dialog combined with the amazing performances of a perfectly matched ensemble cast makes for a delicious cinematic cocktail. Told with the luxury of one able to write, produce, direct, edit, and even compose the music, Hal Hartley has crafted a smart, sexy tale of espionage with tongue just barely planted in cheek. Fay Grim is one part Dashiell Hammett, one part Raymond Chandler, and one part Ian Fleming, shaken and maybe stirred as well. When I first heard that Hal Hartley was doing a sequel to Henry Fool, I was excited (it's been a personal favorite for years now), and then wary when I heard it had something to do with terrorism. Having just seen it though, I was surprised to find that it worked, while still being an entirely different sort of movie than Henry Fool. The writing and direction were both dead on and the acting was superb...especial kudos go to Hartley for reassembling virtually the whole cast, right down to Henry's son, who was only four in the original. Like I said though, this movie is quite different from the first, but it works: I reconciled myself with the change in tone and subject matter to the fact that 10 years have passed and the characters would have found themselves in very different situations since the first film ended. In this case, an unexpected adventure ensues...and that's about all I'll give away...not to mention the fact that I'll need to see it again to really understand what's going on and who's double crossing who. While it was certainly one of the better movies I've seen in some time, it suffers like many sequels with its ending, as it appears that Hartley is planning a third now and the film leaves you hanging. I'll be sure to buy my tickets for part 3 ('Henry Grim'?) in 2017. The 1997 low-key indie dramedy Henry Fool would seemingly have been a secure choice of movies no one would bother to revisit for a sequel. A rumpled, dissipated drifter (Thomas Jay Ryan) strolls into town. His anarchistic rantings and delusions inspire a nerdy garbage collector (James Urbaniak) to write poems, while Henry half-heartedly tries to boink the guy's sister (Parker Posey). As the poet prospers, Henry declines. Nothing special about any of the characters or the story. A pitch for Harold and Maude's Ghost would have been quoted higher odds of ever making it to a screen.

But Parker Posey ain't the semi-official Queen of the Indies for nothing'. So when writer/director Hal Hartley came up with a new incarnation for his cast, a film was born. Though we catch up with the same characters many years, they're in a completely different sort of dark comedy; this one's laced with espionage! Henry may have been an international spy - and possible double, or even triple, agent - for years before meeting the others. He's either dead or in hiding from agents and authorities of many countries. Everyone wants his rambling, incoherent journal which just may contain coded secrets that could destabilize nations and economies. Posey's Fay is either the wife he left to go on the lam, or his widow, depending on who's telling the truth. Fay's efforts to find Henry and/or the hotly-contested journals include a globe-trotting gauntlet of multinational hit-persons and henchmen at every turn. She never knows who to believe or trust. Nor do we.

While herding these unlikely characters into Jason Bourne/Jack Ryan territory, Hartley's script retains the ironic deadpan humor of their first appearance, steering clear of slapstick in exposing them to physical menaces. His sly lampoon of the paranoia, duplicity and musical-chairs alliances of today's geopolitics starts to crumble towards the end. Even so, fans of the first movie will be pleasantly surprised by the novelty of Hartley's recycling methods. (5/18/07) I just saw this film @ TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival). Fans of Hal Hartley will not be disappointed!! And if you are not familiar with this director's oeuvre ... doesn't matter. This film can definitely stand all on its own. I have to go the second screening ... it was amazing I need to see it again -- and fast!!

This film is very funny. It's dialogue is very smart, and the performance of Parker Posey is outstanding as she stars in the title role of Fay Grim. Fay Grim is the latest feature revisiting the world and characters introduced in the film Henry Fool (2000). Visually, the most salient stylistic feature employs the habitual use of the canted (or dutch) angle, which can be often seen in past Hartley works appearing in various shorts, available in the Possible Films: short works by Hal Hartley 1994-2004 collection, and in The Girl from Monday (2005).

I viewed this film most aptly on Sept 11th. Textually, Fay Grim's adventure in this story is backdropped against the changed world after September 11, 2001. Without going into major spoilers, I view this work, and story-world as a bravely political and original portrait of geo-politics that is rarely, if ever, foregrounded in mainstream fictional cinema post-911 heretofore (cf. Syrianna: of side note - Mark Cuban Exec. Prod in both these films ... most interesting, to say the least).

Lastly, for those closely attached to the characters of Henry Fool, Simone, Fay and Henry this film is hilariously self-conscious and self-referential. That being said, the character of Fay Grimm starts off in the film, exactly where she was when Henry Fool ended, but by the end of the film ... Fay's knowledge and experience has total changed and expanded over the course of the narrative. What can be in store for the future of Fay and the Fool family ... ?? I can't wait for the third part in this story! I'm an admirer of Hal Hartley's films, especially 1997's "Henry Fool." "Fay Grim" is a sequel to that film, and has a similar style and sense of humor. The plot, however, is completely different. Fay Grim (played brilliantly by the iconic Parker Posey) tries to track down her missing husband's notebooks, and finds herself amid conspiracies and espionage. The supporting cast (most of the folks from the first film as well as Jeff Goldblum, Saffron Burrows, and a much-welcomed return from 90s indie-darling Elina Lowensohn) is excellent and the film has lots of surprises. The director claims this is part of a "Star Wars"-like trilogy, serving as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series If this is true, I can't wait to see the third installment! I just hope I don't have to wait 10 more years for it. Convoluted, infuriating and implausible, Fay Grim is hard to sit through but Parker Posey is really the only actress who could take this story and run with it. She's at once touching,funny, cunning. The supporting actors commit to it as well.

I wont even try to tell you the plot.. It involves characters from Hartley's Henry Fool and attempts a tale of international espionage.

The film works well if you continue along with it-understanding it is. in a sense, completely ridiculous. It becomes more and more ridiculous as you plod along. (I resisted the temptation to turn off the DVD twice).

Fay Grim requires an adventurous film-goer willing to tackle something that isn't cookie-cutter. In the end, it offers something that defies description. Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.

This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.

Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.

I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride. A wonderfully quirky film with enough twists for a sack of pretzels. Parker Posey plays Fay Grim as a sexy, vulnerable, loving mother who may or may not be what she seems. The story is very tongue in cheek, and the dialog skillfully understated. Hints of humor and intrigue, neither of which overpower the characterization Posey pulls off so well. The supporting cast is stellar. The downside? This film needs your full attention, almost to the point of stopping the film and taking notes. Posey has more sex appeal in her lifting of an eyebrow than most actresses have in their entire body. She's worth your time, even if you don't understand the denouement. When I started watching "Fay Grim", I had no idea that it was a sequel to "Henry Fool". Now, the latter was not a movie that I envisioned as having a sequel. But one has arrived, and it's quite good. I assume that you've seen the original, so I won't explain it. This one starts with Fay (Parker Posey) living with her son whom she had with deadbeat Henry (Thomas Jay Ryan). Simon (James Urbaniak) is still in jail. One day, the son gets expelled for bringing a pornographic toy to school. But this is no ordinary toy. It holds a secret that explains much of what happened in the first movie. And this secret delves deeper into geopolitics than "Syriana".

I must say that I'm quite impressed with what Hal Hartley has accomplished here. Maybe this one doesn't quite reach the original's quality, but it certainly takes a good look at what's going on in the world. And the end leaves open the possibility for another sequel.

Also starring Jeff Goldblum. Hal Hartley's Henry Fool was an independent film masterpiece and certainly his best work. It has immense character depth, subtle, complicated dialogue, and an excellent, emotional ending which captivates. I remember pausing it several times during my first viewing to absorb what I was seeing and feeling. Henry Fool was a complete movie from start to finish, and needed no sequel.

Thus I was surprised when I heard about Fay Grim. Fay was not one of the main characters of the first film and seemed to exist more as the troubling imposition of real-world vanity and ignorance for her brother Simon to be forced to deal with as he matures. In her own movie, Fay matures herself, though her maturity takes a very different road. Simon went from near autistic isolation to a merely somewhat-introverted genius. Fay starts her adult journey as an immature, utterly normal, spoiled child and responds to the onslaught of ridiculous circumstances by becoming a mature, utterly normal, experienced adult who holds no advantages. She deals with problems the way any human does, with determination, a little thought, and weary disdain. While Simon learned to control his mind, Fay learns to control her emotion.

The movie contains several fondly remembered elements of its prequel, but differs vastly in tone for most of the film. Henry fool showed you a harsh, boring, ignorant world which contrasted with Simon's inner passion and creativity. In Fay Grim, the world is a lively, crazy, emotional place which shows the silliness of her young life, and through contrast unearths the inner wise woman which had not been previously developed or nurtured by her similarly weak mother.

The movie is in two parts, the first dealing with the beginning of Fay's struggle and subsequent hardening due to authoritarian hostility, and the second dealing with her battle to soften only just enough to regain Henry. At first, fans of Henry Fool may find themselves wondering how the movie can even be considered a sequel, and thinking it is profane to follow such an intense film with spy game antics and physical comedy. But this is where the subtlety of Fay Grim lies. The sequel is about Fay's journey, and as I said before, hers is one of finding the life-giving sanity in chaos, not the creative chaos in staid order. Parker Posey is an excellent actress who captures Hal Hartley's tongue in cheek humor perfectly. Elina Löwensohn perhaps eclipses her in emotional commitment to the role, allowing Parker to play both straight man and comic against the lively, stage-like comedy happening around her.

With the entrance of Henry into the picture, the movie begins to take a sobering turn. Hal Hartley's movies are all plays, and every play must come full circle. By the end, you are shown Fay's newly developed character and integrity are the offspring of her time with the fatally intense Henry, whose piercing honesty and unique passion lights a spark in anyone he meets.

Fay Grim is an excellent movie which does not surpass Henry Fool, but shows through Hal's range that the nuances of his art are the proof of his genius.

Honestly, I think anyone who bashes this movie not only missed the point by a mile (and especially the subtlety in Parker Posey's acting), but could not have been much interested the movie Henry Fool. Henry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan.

And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb. As someone who has seen and followed Hartley's public work for several years I think much of what used to be fiction told through true stories has been elevated into obscure philosophical mind games.

While entertaining, Fay Grim is another step in the Henry Fool line of thinking, where the movie reflects the quality of an object within the movie itself. In Henry Fool, the object is the memoirs... In Fay Grim, the object is encrypted memoirs - which are themselves stolen, forged and trans-mutated into something so obscure it can't really make any sense - i.e. the process of script writing and film-making in the modern era - where most blockbuster films are little more than a mash-up of the past. That is, in a philosophical sense, what Fay Grim is all about. The object, perhaps, is the tragedy that shock is now cliché and dull (as hinted in the opening scenes at the publishers office).

That being said, many of the movie best points are lost if you do not understand Henry's character and the significance of the memoirs being looked for. Henry is a thinly veiled devil, first visiting Simon as a modern Faust, etc. Without understanding how tragic Henry's character is, much of the quality of Fay Grim's plot and story is lost.

And there is not enough 'detail' expressed through verbal flashbacks - knowing the plot of Henry Fool cannot compare to 'feeling' the quality of the characters as one did in Henry Fool, and so I think for someone who walks into this movie cold there is about 10 minutes of 'so what' responses to highly constructed dialog and then that's it.

However, Henry Fool was also my least favorite Hartley film until I realized that it was bad - putrid and infested - precisely because Henry Fool's confessions were bad... not just raunchy or dirty, but inescapably broken. Henry can not even be a proper villain - and this is perhaps the tragic flaw that makes him most endearing... like Gollum in Tolkien's works, Henry is pitiable.

That doesn't come across in Fay Grim, although Henry's dialog is excellent. What does come across is that the entire movie is constructed as an encryption - a sort of molding of another plot around what ends up being yet another bad story to add to henry's confessions. It is an interesting twist, but one that can't really be digested without viewing the first film. Perhaps showing more of Henry earlier on would have been better than having the publisher describe the basic storyline of the first movie - although this plot is also not really what the first movie was about - unless perhaps one is a casual observer.

Part of the encryption? Hard to say... a little disappointed at the sex gimmicks though. Cheesy. I'm one of those people who'd crawl a mile through broken glass to see a Hal Hartley film. From TRUST and IRIS to HENRY FOOL and (my Hartley favorite) NO SUCH THING, Hal's unique brand of movies are an acquired taste. Infusing equal parts mystery/espionage with wispy comedy seems to be his forte. The comedy isn't in your face necessarily, and often runs throughout an entire scene before coming to fruition. And that's the case with FAY GRIM, the sequel to Henry Fool.

Parker Posey stars as Fay Grim, abandoned wife of Henry Fool and mother to Henry's only son Ned. Fay lives a quiet life until she comes home one day to find a CIA agent in her kitchen. His name is Fulbright (Jeff Goldblum, MAN OF THE YEAR) and he wants Henry's notebooks. There are many Henry Fool notebooks and they were all previously believed to contain nothing but mad wanderings. Apparently there's much more to them. Secrets weapons research or paths to terrorists? Who knows but Henry. Agent Fulbright tells Fay that her husband is dead but this is quickly surmised as a ruse to get Fay out of her home and searching for Henry (and it works ...but not the way they think).

Fay battles multiple spy rings to gather Henry's notebooks and to seek him out. She also makes a deal with the CIA to get her brother Simon (James Urbaniak) out of prison (he'd helped Henry escape the country in the original Henry Fool film.) Multiple overlapping events occur in rapid succession: spy rings shoot each other to death, Henry is discovered being held in "safety" by a jihadist, Fay frees her brother but unknowingly risks her son's life, and the CIA gets its comeuppance for putting Fay in danger.

Hal Hartley obviously loves to play with themes. And he does so to the extreme here. Even character names (Grim, Fool, Fulbright, Fogg) have implicit meanings of their own that are quite funny. The over-the-top espionage films of ol' are given plenty of screen time, too, as guns blaze in stop-motion sequences, never striking our heroine even though she's right in the line of fire.

Now that I've heaped praise on this creation, I will say that Parker Posey's excessive portrayal of Fay Grim isn't the best part of the film, which is a shame considering how much time she's on-screen. I realize this was probably what Mr. Hartley wanted: an uncurbed woman with hand gestures to the Italian extreme. But it was still painful to watch at times.

Even so, fans will probably devour Fay Grim and beg for more. Though this wasn't my favorite Hal Hartley film, I know I'm ready. Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.

This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.

Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.

I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.

If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely. Fay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.

Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.

Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004). After seeing this film months ago, it keeps jumping back into my consciousness and I feel I must buy it or at least see it again, even though I watched it at least 3 times when I rented it at that point.

I fell in love with Hal Hartley's directing many years ago - I found that these films could make me laugh in an place that is rarely entertained. It is a strange feeling, granted, and I assume most people out there really just don't get it, or it makes them feel confused and somewhat uncomfortable - I guess I just really get it - its as if these films were made for me.

Although I don't remember if I actually laughed out loud during this film, it remains one of the funniest films I've seen in many years. If you don't see the humor of the grocery bag Fay carries from the street to a church, to her brother's publisher's office, to her son's principal's office you may lack the intelligence to be highly impressed by this film. The bag is a silent character in itself, being dragged around as an icon of motherhood the usually brash, bitchy Parker Posey must carry before the international intrigue of the remainder of the film besets her.

I consider "Henry Fool" my least favorite of Hartley's films. I honestly don't remember it very well - I think the character himself was so despicable I found it tedious. Hartley's forte seems to be feminine character development.

Aside from Posey's brilliance, it was wonderful to see Elina Lowensohn, one of my favorite actresses, again. Her extravagant naiveté is perfect for Hartley's direction. His ability to make the outrageous seem banal helps define his style as a delicious chronic irony throughout.

This film erupts into a highly relevant international intrigue story, explaining political situations in Afganistan. This is never suspected at the beginning. The complexity of this film's development is unparalleled.

This is the epitome of a "stand alone" sequel. The less you know about Henry Fool the more mystery is spun around him, the less you expect his appearance toward the end of the film - as an alcoholic chain-smoking complaint machine, hurling insults at his Islamic terrorist caretaker who somehow seems to respect him. Its like finding out Santa Claus is actually a 12-year-old schoolyard bully.

Although I was impressed and satisfied with Hartley's other recent films "the Girl from Monday" and "No Such Thing", "Fay Grim" goes far beyond what I expected, with a sense of humor and originality no Oscar winner would ever dare. Henry Fool surprised me. I didn't expect it to entertain and amuse as well, or as strongly, as it did. Fay Grim continues to surprise in that it provides solid continuation to a story that seems not to need it. Once the viewer watches the first 20 minutes of the movie, however, it becomes blindingly aware that this is one of the BEST sequels to brilliant indie film. At least as good as Ginger Snaps Back, if not better.

I am a little disappointed that Jeff Goldblum's part is so small, but I'm happy he is a part of this short run. He is convincing and delightful as Agent Fulbright. Also a delight is Liam Aiken who quite aptly portrays Ned Grim, the son of Fay and Henry.

This movie is a pleasure for so many reasons. I am pleased, for example, to discover that Henry isn't really the loser he seems (by the end of Fool), and to further discover that he is, in fact, a genius...well, that really is a lovely stroke of the pen.

I am hoping they do a third...like the end of the trilogy. It seems to be missing. They should entitle it Ned Fool Grim and it should be Liam looking for his father, to validate the awesome change in his mother, and the sense of near-genius he himself feels welling inside him. Assuming, of course, that Fay continues withholding many of the most important facts from her son, concerning his father. It feels like it needs to be done. I'd buy it.

Even with more action, this is still not an action flick. It is more drama and intrigue...a mystery, of sorts. I'll watch it often.

It rates an 8.3/10 from...

the Fiend :. Generically speaking, Fay Grim is a highly entertaining thriller featuring two of the most inexorably enjoyable names in American movies, unshakably beautiful and gracefully spunky Parker Posey and endlessly charismatic and unavoidably hilarious Jeff Goldblum. They have many scenes in the first half of the film in which we see these two insatiable presences volleying off of each other, even radiating with charm when Goldblum rolls off Hartley's shamelessly epic info-dumps. Nevertheless, if one were to deconstruct Fay Grim, one would see many instances in which countless scenes could've been squeezed for much more benefit than they have resulted in being.

This sort of filmed in-joke is the sequel to Hal Hartley's Henry Fool, which was made ten years earlier. It has title character Posey forced by CIA agent Goldblum to track down the notebooks that were the precious possessions of her missing fugitive husband, the predecessor's titular anti-hero. Available within them is information that could concede the safety of the United States. Fay first makes for Paris to get a hold of them but becomes engulfed in a bona fide celebration of espionage clichés featuring everything from car bombs to ambiguous helpers to Following the Girl to double-crosses to triple-crosses.

The primary appeal of it all for me is that it's such a novel approach to the sequel of a movie about a garbageman and a struggling novelist in a small town. In the original Henry Fool, Posey played a simple woman leading a very simple life. Hartley's talents do not reach the heights of many of the other independent newbies from the 1990s, but I do admire his wild creativity in making an inadvertent Nearne sister out of her, giving her a terrific predicament, as he did to her character's brother, played by James Urbaniak, in Henry Fool, as she is trapped between whether or not she may still love her overwhelming refugee husband and the problematic but forceful plans of Goldblum.

Hartley, however, is simply riding on that fragmentary idea. His plot, though complex and labyrinthine, true to the form of the spy film, it seems as if to be entirely capricious. The reason I was not bored was mostly due to the pace at which the story unfolds, not to mention the presence of Posey and Goldblum. The problem with the remainder of Hartley's cast is that I cannot seem to become fond of the rest of them. It has nothing to do with how obscure they are compared to the relative star power of the two said charm masters, but with how they don't seem to hold their own alongside them, though Saffron Burrows certainly comes close. Most of the scenes not involving Posey or Goldblum are far too light on their feet, stringing us along with info-dumps we have no choice but to listen to or else be totally lost in the ensuing sequence of scenes. They are shot almost entirely in tiled angles, as if Hartley is compensating for that implacable feeling of a lack of material.

Liam Aiken, however, playing the now teenage son of Fay and Henry, has a certain allure about him, seeming wise beyond his years, certainly much wiser than any of the adult characters. Perhaps Hartley intended that, or maybe it's simply Aiken's presence. The problem with a Hartley film is that you never quite know what was intended and what just happens to be there. As Scorsese said, "Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out." One has to be able to trust that what we see is a conscious decision by the filmmaker to remain in the finished film. I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. It seems Hal Hartley's films are kind of hit or miss with most audiences. This film will be no exception to that rule. Fay Grim acts as a sequel to Hartley's 'Henry Foole' from 1998. The focus this time is on Henry's ex wife (played to perfection by the always welcome Parker Posey), who is being pestered by CIA goons about Henry's unpublished book about all of his shady dealings. In the interim of all of this, Fay ends up on an odyssey,dealing with international spies,etc. The film does get a bit bogged down in the second half. If you've been a fan of Hal Hartley in the past, this is one not to be missed. For the novice Hartley first timer who has only heard of his film making technique, you might want to check out his earlier films before taking on this one (especially if you haven't seen 'Henry' yet). I admired the camera work,which at times reminded me of certain early Man Ray photography. Fay Grim is the continuation of a story begun ten years earlier with Hartley's Henry Fool. I haven't seen the earlier film, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I can only regard the current film on its own merits.

For most people, Hal Hartley's style of film-making is something that you either like or you don't. His combination of action, drama, absurdity and dry, ironic humour really resonates with me, and Fay Grim is no exception. It has an air of sharply-written intelligent parody that had myself and many in the Melbourne International Film Festival audience laughing out loud. For the first half of the film it was relentless and delivered with deadpan straightness. It's a style of humour sadly lacking in cinemas and a welcome relief to the mindless teen comedies that Hollywood pumps out like pancakes.

During the second half of the film, the humour starts to thin as the film morphs into an international espionage/conspiracy thriller. Whether this was Hartley's intention or whether he ran out of ideas is not clear, but I think a bit of editing or re-writing to cut fifteen minutes off the film would have maintained the film's original momentum.

The performances were generally good, particularly Parker Posey and Jeff Goldblum, who had the most screen time. Saffron Burrows, James Urbaniak, Carl Montgomery and Elina Löwensohn all played good support roles. The film's visuals were nice (set in New York, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul) and the music (also by Hartley) was good without being intrusive. The film is well-written and I enjoyed this it immensely. If you like Hartley's earlier work, you'll probably like this. Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.

Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.

My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.

Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before. A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.

Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous "Sweet Marijuana" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.

We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is "Cocktails for Two." Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting "Where Do They Come From?" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.

Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.

Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls. There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.

Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.

Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.

Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.

A must stroll down Memory Lane. Released just before the Production Code crackdown in July, 1934, Mitch Leisen's all-star Paramount musical is leeringly suggestive -some even claim misogynistic- and highly entertaining. Two murders occur on the opening night of "Earl Carroll's Vanities" (one on-stage!), but that doesn't stop the manager (Jack Oakie) from putting on a show as a lascivious police detective (Victor McLaglen) investigates. Everyone is hiding something and Gypsy Rose Lee must have seen this backstage murder mystery before she penned "The G-String Murders" as the denouement is similar (although more satisfying here). Gertrude Michael, as a vicious diva, stops the show (in more ways than one) with her exotic "Sweet Marijuana" number and Duke Ellington finishes with the truncated "Rape Of The Rhapsody". The hit song, "Cocktails For Two", came from this film. A bizarre and bawdy camp classic highly recommended! Here's Louella O. Parsons in the "Los Angeles Examiner" on May 17, 1934

Earl Carroll's hand-picked beauties' pirouette about on the Grauman United Artists screen in a fig leaf and not much else. But September Morn herself never had a better figure than these charmers, who are made up to please the eye, especially the eye of the tired businessman. But don't for a moment think Mr. Carroll's girls, au naturelle, are the only attraction. Believe it or not, MURDER AT THE VANITIES is a musical comedy thriller, if you know what I mean -a murder mystery incorporated in a musical show. It all happens on the opening night at the time the play is in progress and a search is on for a murderer. Just by way of suspense, a cop threatens to stop the show every few minutes. Victor McLaglen is something new in cops. All the time he is trying to track down the murderer, he keeps his eye fastened on the chorus beauties. The murder mystery is good with the exception of the denouement, which is pretty flat. Probably faulty direction. Dorothy Stickney, who plays the maid, is about as melodramatic as the heroine in a ten, twenty, and thirty show. For no good reason, she rates a never-ending closeup in the big dramatic scene. The girl ensembles are good, and it's a positive relief to get away from the inevitable overhead shots. The costumes are beautiful; in fact, this is a musical that Paramount can feel is really to their credit. As for Carl Brisson -well, he would be an addition to any show. Good-looking with a delightful singing voice and an easy, assured manner, he is all his press agents claim for him. I also like Kitty Carlisle, who plays the leading lady in the show. Gertrude Michael, as the deep-eyed villianess, gives an interesting if rather fictional portrayal. Jack Oakie, as the stage manager, is the same old wisecracking Jack, but we wouldn't change him. Jessie Ralph is excellent as the seamstress. Others in the cast are Charles Middleton, Gail Patrick, Donald Meek, Barbara Fritchie, Toby Wing and Lona Andre. The screen play is by Carey Wilson and Rufus King, and the direction by Mitchell Leisen. The music is by Arthur Johnstone and the lyrics by Sam Coslow. In addition to MURDER AT THE VANITIES, there is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Paramount Newsreel, and a two-reeler, THE WRONG DIRECTION.

I disagree with Lolly on the denouement, it's satisfying if over-the-top. Why would she blame the director? Was she displeased with the story's ending -or the way it was staged? And what's a "ten, twenty, or thirty show"? Note the swipe taken at Busby Berkeley and his "overhead shots". As hard as it may be to believe today, the public was tiring of Buzz' schtick by May, 1934. Mitch Leisen said, "if you are showing a stage show that's supposed to be in a theater, you should stay within the bounds of the proscenium arch, and not do a Buzz Berkeley routine with a stage set that's acres big."

Q: Don't you think Berkeley's spectacular effects justified taking this liberty? ML: Apparently they did because they're reviving all of his pictures and none of mine, but personally I don't like it. I just viewed MURDER AT THE VANITIES in the newly-released Universal Pre-Code set, and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed the vehicle end to end. Most of the other commentators have covered the story, a murder mystery within a musical, but I wanted to add a few additional notes. Brisson and Carlisle are relatively bland, compared to even most of the minor players, and neither one really seems to have the proper voice for what they're singing (Carlisle being a trained opera singer, Brisson a bit wobbly on some of his high and low notes). The great Victor McLaglen and Jack Oakie play well off each other, with an excellent sense of timing that keeps the ball rolling between musical numbers. Yes, Lucille Ball and Ann Sheridan are Vanities girls, but let's not forget the splendid jazz singer Ernestine Anderson in the "Ebony Rhapsody" number. Gail Patrick makes one of her early appearances, sounding a bit like Eve Arden; Patrick would go on to become the executive producer of the Perry Mason TV series. Then there's Jessie Ralph as the wardrobe mistress--you'll spot her also in David COPPERFIELD (as Aunt Peggoty) and THE BANK DICK. The music is very good--Brisson introducing the standard "Cocktails for Two" in two different scenes; "Sweet Marihuana" with barely clad peyote button girls in the background (blood dripping on one chorine's white skin was wonderfully chilling); the "Ebony Rhapsody," with Duke Ellington's Orchestra and a bevy of beautiful dancers, both black and white, mixing it up. And I believe this is one of the only early musicals to feature such a mix--and the costumes leave nothing to the imagination. Since this is Black History Month and I'm reviewing the achievements of many African-Americans on film in chronological order, I got this movie on VHS from the library because Duke Ellington and his Orchestra were in it. Their jazz version of Franz Liszt's "Rhapsody" was the highlight of this mostly overlong murder mystery-musical comedy mixture. Many other numbers I liked were Kitty Carlisle's especially "Sweet Marijuana", Carl Brisson's "Cocktails for Two" as well as his duet with Carlisle on that earlier, and the ones by Gertrude Michael who's great as the woman you love to hate. Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen probably go a little too long with their love/hate banter as the producer and detective but they grow on you. And Toby Wing is a sexy dumb tease as Nancy who keeps trying to say something to Oakie but gets a "Not now" from him every time. While many of the characters have a motive for the murders that happen, I wasn't surprised by the revelation of who done it. And get a load of how naked the women here are (though of course their breasts are covered, either by their hands or some flimsy top). This was very obviously pre-Code. Worth a look for any film buff interested in this sort of thing. P.S. As a long-time Louisiana resident, I like noting when someone was born here as Carlisle was a New Orleans native. Financially strapped Paramount pulled out all the stops for this '34 stage adaptation entry: big budget, large cast, extravagant production and Mitch Leisen tagged as the director. What happened? Two things: Busby Berkeley didn't work for the out-of focus rock and a murder mystery script that didn't deserve to be in the same trash can as the worst Charlie Chan first draft down the street. I have to believe that the cutting was out of Leisen's hands since the great Duke Ellington's number is savagely chopped, but that doesn't mean that it ain't worth a look: the 'Sweet Marihuana' number featuring topless chorus girls is a mind blower, considering the looming production code and it also has the ravishing Toby Wing (whose unfortunately fed horrible lines and playing the prototype dumb blonde) as a chorion hot for an otherwise preoccupied Jack Oakie. Carl Brisson's acting is bland as Melba Toast but he's a competent singer. MacLaglen reaches for new plateaus as a stereotypical dumb detective. And try to spot Lucy in the chorus. This rates a 7.0 as a curiosity. Feb 2010 re-think: I recently gave the film another look and now feel I was wrong to berate the lack of Busby Berkeley production numbers. I can understand Leisen's argument for more realistic production numbers within the context of the plot. I still have enormous issues with the editing however. Paramount, the raciest major studio in town, faced huge issues with the Production Code at the worst possible time in it's history, financially speaking, and pulled out all the stops on this one (also check out 1934's Search for Beauty). A must see for pre-code buffs. This murder mystery with musical numbers is long on atmosphere and character but rather short on suspense and plausibility. Based on a stage play by Broadway showman Earl Carroll and others, it combines a whodunit plot with a backstage ambiance (a homicide investigation takes place on opening night at the theatre where a musical revue is being staged).

The cast is impressive and varied: tough-goofy Victor McLaglen as the police officer who leads the investigation and never fails to leer idiotically at whatever showgirl happens to be in sight; Jack Oakie (the prewar Jack Lemmon – or was Jack Lemmon the postwar Jack Oakie?) as the harassed director who must coordinate the staged performance as well as the chaos behind the scenes; the ever-homely Jessie Ralph as a wardrobe mistress with deep, dark secrets; Dorothy Stickney, who has a stunning close-up monologue near the end, as the tremulous maid madly in love with the male lead; Carl Brisson, the Danish star, as that very male lead, warbling the classic "Cocktails for Two" not once but twice; Kitty Carlisle, operatically delivering "Where Do They Come from and Where Do They Go" and other Johnston-Coslow songs; the glorious Gertrude Michael, who parted from us too soon, as a mean-spirited showgirl whose love for Brisson is spurned; the usually ridiculous Toby Wing who here at least is the center of a laugh-getting running joke.

When the plot complications get out of hand there is always an interesting performer or fun and tuneful musical number to distract the viewer. The film's most celebrated sequence is the "Marahuana" number, led by Michaels, but aside from its controversial history, it's really one of the lesser musical offerings. All of the songs here are staged as if they could actually have fit into a standard proscenium theatre space, as opposed to the cinematic fantasy setup of the Busby Berkeley style. A very enjoyable film, providing you know how to watch old musicals / mysteries. It may not come close to Agatha Christie or even Thin Man mysteries as a film noir, but it's much more interesting than your typical "boy meets girl" or "let's put on a show" backstage musical. As a musical, it's no Busby Berkley or Freed unit, but it can boost the classic "Coctails for two" and the weird "Sweet Marijuana". The film runs in real time during a stage show, opening night of the "Vanities", where a murder - and soon another - is discovered backstage. Is the murderer found out before the curtain falls? Sure, but the search is fun, even though somewhat predictable and marred by outbursts of comic relief (luckily in the shape of the shapely goddess of the chorus girls, Toby Wing). The stupid cop is just a bit too stupid, the leading hero is just a bit too likable, the leading lady a bit too gracious, the bitchy prima donna bit too bitchy, and the enamoured waif a bit too self-sacrificing, but as stereotypes go, they are pretty stylish. There's a bevy of really gorgeous chorus girls, who are chosen even better than the girls for a Busby Berkley musical of the same period, who sometimes tend to be a bit on the plump side. Yes, this film could have been much better than it is, and the Duke Ellington number is an embarrassment, but if you enjoy diving into old movies, this will prove to be a tremendously tantalizing trip. During the opening night of the Vanties a woman is found dead on the catwalk above the stage. As the show continues the police attempt to piece together who killed who and why before the final curtain.

I had always heard that this was a great classic comedy mystery so I was excited to find myself a copy. Unfortunately no one told me about the musical numbers which go on and on and on. While the numbers certainly are the type that Hollywood did in their glory days, they become intrusive because they pretty much stop the movie dead despite attempts to weave action around them. This wouldn't be so bad if the music was half way decent, but its not. There is only one good song. Worse its as if the studio knew they had one song, Cocktails for Two, and we're forced to endure four versions of it: a duet, a big production number, as the Vanities finale and in the background as incidental music. I don't think Spike Jones and His City Slickers ever played it that much. The rest of the movie is pretty good with Victor McLaglen sparring nicely with Jack Oakie. Charles Middleton is very funny is his scenes as an actor in love with the wardrobe mistress.

By no mean essential I can recommend this if you think you can get through the musical numbers, or are willing to scan through them. Its a fun movie of the sort they don't make any more. It's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a "musical", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to "Cocktails for Two". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of "Sweet Marijauna" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-up. Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.

You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.

As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.

The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better. The adaptation of Will Eisner's SPIRIT to the TV screen followed many other offerings developed from comic strip pages or comic books. (Remember, the two aren't exactly the same medium) It is indeed ironic that this is the one and only adaptation (as of the time of this writing)of Eisner's smart alec, wise cracking, tongue-in-cheek super hero.

Story has it that Republic Pictures was interested in doing a film version and was in negotiation with the copyright owner in the mid '40's, but they were never able to close the deal. The left over screen play became the serial, THE MASKED MARVEL, one of Republic's best. Perhaps that it was just as well, for that studio had a penchant for tinkering with material adapted from the comic strips, pulp mags, radio and the comic books.

As for this 1987 made for TV movie, it's pretty obvious that it was a failed pilot for a proposed television series. Whereas an old, long time comic reader,like myself, can be a little harsh in criticism of an adaptation, a viewer unfamiliar with the character may be able to give some fresh observations, clear of any preconceived notions of what this screen version should look like.

Well, while sitting and watching the story unfold, with the characters interacting amid some crime wave, the Little Lady (my wife, Mrs. Ryan) nailed it with one statement. "This can't make up its mind if it's serious or not!" That pretty well describes both THE SPIRIT and his creator, Mr. Will Eisner, the true creative genius in the comics.

The film is a sincere attempt to put Eisner's world on the screen. The casting of Denny Colt/The Spirit, Commissioner Dolan and Ellen was really quite well done. Though in a contemporary setting, it was still in the tradition of "the good old days" as far as the costuming goes, you know, when men and women still wore hats! That brings up this one final (and meandering) point, and that is that the director and the production made a conscious effort and succeeded in giving the characters a Will Eisner look as far as facial expressions and body language. We say,Kudos to them for their efforts.

It's just too bad that no series followed! Oh, well in today's motion picture world, comic adaptations seem to be a hot item. Maybe some big timer producer and director could do a really 1st class SPIRIT production for the Big Screen. We can only hope.

UPDATE: Dateline, Chicago, Illinois. 6/4/2008. By now, everyone who goes to the Movies at the Shopping Centre Multiplexes has seen the poster advertising the new film of THE SPIRIT, (subtitled, MY CITY SCREAMS); which is to be released Christmas Day, 2008. Well, we'll see then just what we've been talking about. Just keep your fingers crossed! TO BE CONTINUED.............

UPDATE II: We saw the new film, Writer-Director Frank Miller's rendition of THE SPIRIT a couple of days ago. Well, we got our wish; but is this a good thing or another case of "Be careful what you ask for; because you may get it?" Please read our write-up elsewhere in IMDb.com. THANX! The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon. I saw this pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless "Spirit" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of "camp". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, "Boy, was I stupid!" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of "camp", that was also "underplayed", by both the actor and actress. It's really unfortunate that most people outside of Canada think that the only things that Canada produces are snow, mounties and hockey players. This film is the second superlative Canadian film I have seen within the past few weeks (the first was "The Red Violin"), far better than all but the best Hollywood efforts.

Gustad Noble is anything but that; he is a middle-aged Parsi bank employee in Bombay in the 1970s. This film sensitively explores various things that happen to him concerning his family, his friends and his work, and their effect on him. At the same time, it is a fascinating, and, I would assume, accurate, portrayal of middle-class, urban life in India at the time.

However, I was somewhat prepared for this, having read Rohinton Mistry's book a few years ago. The film, as might be expected, cannot capture all the complexities of the book, but, if you want to read a really good book, and see a really good film, read and see "Such a Long Journey". A great film. The acting - from the doctor to the pavement artist to the head prostitute, with very few exceptions, was wonderful; i thought soni razdan(mrs.noble) and vrajesh hirjee(saurabh) were the best of the lesser known actors. Even Kurush Deboo (Tehmul), who might be accused of overacting, presented quite a believable and familiar character.

Another great thing was the camera work - and the way it captured the energy of bombay streets, the tranquility of gustad saying his prayers and life within the tiny apartments.

I liked the story of the wall that becomes a shrine and then gets broken down - and the artists philosophical take on it.

It's great to see good movies on indian themes. It is wonderful to watch Roshan Seth (the strict father in 1992 "Mississippi Masala"), who once again takes on the role of a father and head of the family, and more, in SUCH A LONG JOURNEY, set in 1971 Bombay, India. Besides the closely knit family settings, subject matters include the lost and found of a friendship; the unexpected death of a friend (somehow the calm smiling face of a friend in death in the presence of prayers felt peaceful - so Gustad Noble, Roshan's character, similarly noted); a sidewalk artist's chain of events - "the wall as a latrine turned into a shrine…shrine into rumbles and ashes" was at once prophetic and philosophical. It's packed full of life lessons in different aspects of varying relationships: between father and son; mother and son; father and little daughter; little daughter and father and mother; longtime colleagues; long lost dear friends; even that of a man to man, one whose an innocent slow-witted "fool".

In spite of the tone of the film's era, it's a colorful film rich in substance, and the strength of the story in textural layers with humor and suspense. For a director who is not Indian (Sturla Gunnarsson being Icelandic), he's made a political Indian/Pakistani film. He gets into the bone marrow of the life of this Parsi portrayed by Roshan Seth, whose performance has such nuances, subtlety, and joy. (There is singing, too.) The rest of the cast is equally strong: from Om Puri the mysterious friend of a friend; Soni Razdan the enduring wife; Vrajesh Hirjee the argumentative eldest son; Sam Dastor the longtime office mate; Ranjit Chowdhry the pavement artist; to a superstitious "witch" woman of a neighbor; an unbeguiling "fool" of a man; and a long lost bosom friend - it's a world of many faces and perspectives. Director Gunnarsson has demonstrated sensitivity in the treatment of that time period and subject was well researched with attention to details. He has the good fortune to have Sooni Taraporevala (1992 "Mississippi Masala", 1988 "Salaam Bombay!") wrote the script. This is truly a worthwhile journey of a film to partake.

Along the lines of cultural exploration (road movie style), Fridrik Thor Fridriksson 1994 "Cold Fever" is an Icelandic sojourn about a Japanese young man who went across the globe in search of the specific spot to pay his last respects to his parents, dutifully following memorial rituals for the dead. Such demonstrated reverence and cross-cultural attention to family ties are heart-warming in this day and cyber age. For those of you who have read Rohinton Mistry's highly respected novel, this film will definitely impress you, because of how honorable an adaptation it is . With the exception of one minor subplot, Sturla Gunnarson's feature film debut is an almost dead-on recreation of the book (down to the last line).

For those of you who have not read the novel, this movie might be a little tricky. It is certainly not a large cinematic drama story. Instead it has a strong element of realism to it, but I would not have it any other way. The best way to describe Such a Long Journey to movie fans would be to say that it is a small scale, Hindu version of 'Fiddler On The Roof'. Instead of a Jewish/Russian milkman, the protagonist Gustad Noble is a banker in 1970's Bombay during the time of the Muslim/Hindi war with Pakistan. He is forced to deal with a number of unexpected problems in his life, including his sick daughter, his individualist eldest son, a distant friend who gets him involved with some dirty money, and an unhealthy neighborhood. The Ending is not a happy one, nor is it a sad one, but that is essentially what realism involves.

Such a Long Journey is a fine little movie, but if you want to see it, then good luck finding it. Unlike the novel, it has received very little release. I saw this film at the Taos Film Festival last year, and was just overwhelmed by it. It's a rich, warm novel brought to the screen, beautifully acted, and well directed. More than anything, it reminded me of the films of David Lean, both in its ability to handle a complex story, and its knack for creating powerful scenes that affect you on several different levels. The best movie I've seen in years. Rohinton Mistry's multi-layered novel seemed impossible to adapt for the screen but the resulting movie is filled with passion, emotion, humour and pathos. The story is somewhat slow-moving but there is always something on the screen to captivate the audience. The movie perfectly catches a particular time and place with pinpoint accuracy. All of the actors are Indian - few if any known to "western" audiences - but they are a joy to behold, especially the little girl who acts very convincingly. Don't be put off by the title and plot summary - this is a movie to be seen on the big screen. We have much to learn from it. Aileen Gonsalves, my girlfriend, is in this film playing a secretary at the main character's bank. She has a lovely scene with Roshan Seth in a restaurant. There's more information on her website at >Having stated my personal interest in the film, I have to say that I think it is a beautiful movie - moving, funny and beautifully filmed. "Such a Long Journey" is a well crafted film, a good shoot, and a showcase for some good performances. However, the story is such a jumble of subplots and peculiar characters that it becomes a sort of Jack of all plots and master of none. Also, Western audiences will likely find the esoterics of the rather obscure Parsee culture a little much to get their arms around in 1.7 hours. Recommended for those with an interest in India. The Bill was essentially a cultural fountain from which a beautiful rainbow-haze of socio-introspection emerged, inspiring such famed derivatives as Cop Land, The Departed, The Godfather 3, and most recently of course, The Wire.

With multi-faceted characters and story lines that have been described as '4-dimensional Shakespeare', The Bill grabbed you by the collars from episode one and just would not let you go.

The show covered, anticipated, and even occasionally caused all the major global events between 1984 and 2010. The most famously prescient moment being episode 19 of series 5, which aired on the eve of the second Gulf War. Detective Jim Carver's misguided - and ultimately career ending - drugs raid on Craig 'Fun Boy' Richardson's flat in the Jasmine Allen Estate in early 2003, was widely viewed as a predictive allegory for the coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction following the invasion of Iraq several months later.

However, it was the work the Bill did to try and highlight some of the lesser-known problems experienced by police officers that won it the most praise. This was sympathetic drama covering such sensitive areas as helmet-phobia, under-uniform cross-dressing, in-van homosexuality, lost truncheons, casual drunken bestiality (regretted), siren aversion syndrome (SAS), groin chaffing caused by chasing suspects while wearing an overly starched uniform and many, many more issues that still trouble, disturb, haunt and excite officers to this day.

The last word should go to one of The Bill's most famous fans, Nelson Mandela: "…it is no exaggeration to say that I would not have made it through the dark void of loneliness that summed up my last years of incarceration on Robben Island if it wasn't for the heart-warming, casual buffoonery of Reg Hollis." Yes, some plots are a bit hard to follow, and The Bill does have a tendency to get violent, but it is actually an engrossing show, that I try not to miss. A vast majority of the episodes are very exciting and quite tense, and the acting is fairly good, though I do miss Roberta Taylor as Inspector Gina Gold and Todd Carty as Gabriel Kent. I will admit, I prefer the older episodes to the newer episodes, and it is a bit of a shame that the programme is now after the watershed, as I found it easier to watch when it was at 8.00. Still, why I like The Bill is because not only it is engrossing, but the cliffhangers at the end do make the next episode unmissable. It is true though, that it is more melodramatic than it was, but I really like this programme as a programme that doesn't try to take itself too seriously. 8/10 Bethany Cox Are we really making 'video nasties' again? In the guise of a digital wide screen big budget remake of 8MM, this is quite a ride. Unfortunately there is a bit too much story and at times this becomes like a travelogue as our heroine searches the sleaze spots of Paris, Hamburg and Amsterdam. I am however being rather churlish for the 'depraved' scenes, including everything from, hot wax, harsh whipping and rough sex to drowning, beheading and some. These scenes are immaculate and it's a pity Bruno and his budget couldn't stretch to make all the many characterful creatures introduced become more than simply caricatures. This is one of the few films where I consider the film rendition to be an improvement on the original book. The story is clear, accessible, amusing and interesting and the musical numbers are without a doubt exceptional. I adored the cyclical rendition of 'The old home guard' and the charming 'Portobello Road', a great combination of early animation + real actors techniques which, though dated do not detract from the charm of the piece. The background of the Second World War worked well and was not omitted as the film got under way, which so often happens in 'evacuee' stories.

An often far too underrated film, it produces no end to enjoyment for people of all ages. The performances from the actors are exceptionally well done and the entire text is neatly tied together and well designed. Guaranteed to put a smile on your face! I loved this masterpiece and quite frankly I, too found Mary Poppins (although I love Julie Andrews and Dick VanDyke) to be silly and sacrine-sweet. Angela Lansbury plays her character to perfection and I don't know why people think of this film as distorted. It was magical and it was lots of fun to watch. Every scene held a certain charm as you got to know the characters better. You truly see how this little thrown together family learn to bond with each other, despite their age and differences. I thought the characters were well developed, especially Charles who was at "The Age of not Believing". Mary Poppins may be more popular and cherished by others but this little gem will be the one that I will always love and cherish. Set during WWII, Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fun-filled fantasy adventure for kids, starring Angela Lansbury as an apprentice witch who, with the help of three evacuee children and a 'Professor of Witchcraft', thwarts a Nazi invasion.

Brilliantly inventive, with loads of laughs, this movie will delight kids of all ages with its great characters, exciting story and catchy tunes. Lansbury is perfect as Eglantine, the not-quite-perfect witch who takes the three children on the adventure of a lifetime, and her three young co-stars (Cindy O'Callaghan, Roy Snart and Ian Weighill) are equally impressive as the Cockney rascals who aid in battling the nasty Hun.

The special effects are somewhat dated, but let's face it, kids don't care too much about these things, so long as they are entertained. And entertained, they will be. With some impressive scenes which brilliantly mix live action and animation to great effect, and more genuine movie magic than a hundred Harry Potters, it would be hard not to enjoy this wonderful slice of cinematic escapism. In fact, only a rather drawn-out musical number set in Portobello Road mars the film's perfection, but with so much else to enjoy, that can easily be forgiven.

And besides, any film featuring UK television legend Bruce Forsyth as a 'Flash' Harry style spiv is guaranteed a good rating from me. SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I had just watched the extended version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Though I did like the extended version, I wish they would have left the original version on the DVD.

The Portabello Road could have been cut down to the orginal length. It was too long and dragged the movie along. Though the dancing is great, would have been much better left on the DVD as a Deleted Scene.

All in all this is a great movie. My 5 year old liked it. And it is wonderful that movies that I enjoyed as a child are being passed on to a new generation. This and Mary Poppins are added to my collection.

Just as I had remembered!

*** out of ****

This place in England during 1940. Three orphans (Carrie, Charles and Paul) are sent to live with Miss Price (Angela Lansbury). She doesn't want them but reluctantly takes them in. It seems she is studying to be a witch through a correspondence course with the College of Witchcraft. (OK--I realize this is a family film but--College of Witchcraft??? Come ON!!) Before she can finish the course though the college is closed because of the war (???) and she seeks down the head Professor Browne (David Tomlinson). And her and the kids travel around on a bed with the help of a magical bedknob.

I first saw this when I was 9 and vaguely remember loving it. It sure doesn't hold up as an adult! The story is silly (even for a fantasy), the kids are terrible actors and one of them (Charles) is incredibly obnoxious. Also Roddy McDowall is third billed and only appears in two short scenes! There's also a trip to the Isle of Naboombu which is run by animated animals. I thought that might be fun but the animation is poor (for Disney) and it has a very violent and far too long soccer game between the animals. There are a few saving graces here: Lansbury and Tomlinson are just great; the songs (while forgettable) are pleasant; the long dance sequence on Portobello Road is very colorful and full of energy and the Oscar-winning special effects are still pretty impressive at the end. But the weak story line, poor animation and unlikable kids really pull this one down. I heard the extended version is even worse! I can only give this a 7. What can i say about a tale such as this? This magical tale has followed me from my early childhood,evoking warm memories in my heart.The characters take you to to so many whimsical places making you want more of each scene. For example in the market there were so many different flavors of lore. I loved the exotic dancers that accompanied the steel drums.

The story line was wonderful.I wanted so badly for Landsbury to decide to keep the precocious children and for her to also stay with Mr.Brown,and find the other half of the spell so that the men less armor could win the war.

I am still a child inside,and this movie appeals to my inner child like no other. This movie is my definite favorite of all times. I hope that all children will be able to watch this classic and be swept away,and transported into another time. This is a movie I had never even thought of seeing until my 3 year old spotted it at the video store and grabbed it after liking the cover picture of the animals on Nabooboo Island. We got it and have watched it repeatedly since; in fact we've rented it several times since. There are very few non-animated movies that my son will watch and pay attention to; what a nice change from Dumbo and the Little Mermaid. The acting is outstanding, the songs are compelling, they get deep into your head and you can't help but singing along. The storyline, while specifically about WW2 is timeless in it's own way and there is something new to see every time you watch. I've heard it compared to Mary Poppins, but I think they are two very different movies, both excellent, but somehow my son has no interest at all in Mary Poppins. This is one of those movies that kids will want to watch over and over again and one that parents won't mind complying with. There are days we watch it before nap time and bed time and I don't feel that groan coming that comes when he wants to repeat any other movie. This movie has always been my favorit Disney movie. Then on 11/21/01 I saw the 30th aniversy of this movie DVD. WOW I remembered why I loved this movie. The DVD is So great, It has an extra 30 min that the original did not have. I did not know this when I first started watching. The movie made ever so much more since. The music they cut out should have been left in. You have not seen this movie until you have seen the Full 131 min version. A lot of people say that the music is forgettable. I remember every song in this movie by heart, every song has it's own Charm by it's self, and comes together as a hole. I remember when i was younger I had the "Eglantine" song stuck in my head for days at a time. As well as "Briny Sea" (that song was meant for marry poppens but was cut out of the film) Please Watch the new uncut 30th aniversy movie and re-vote for this movie. the 10 that it really is. "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is a magical adventure film with a certain charm, despite not being one of the best Disney works. It has a generally good story, nice songs, great characters, good actors, magical and delightful special effects, good settings and lovely landscapes of England.

It also combines very well live-action and animation. The animation itself is, of course, pretty good. The animation resembles very much that of the 1973 animated film "Robin Hood" and the same can be said about the animated characters: there are plenty of wild animals such as bears, elephants, hippos, lions, crocodiles and others like in "Robin Hood". Besides, the King (a lion) seems to be a mix of Prince John and King Richard, not to mention that the bear does look like Little John.

This movie is often compared to "Mary Poppins" with a reason. Both combine live-action and animation with a similar artwork. Both have similar settings in London. Both have their own magic and a magical woman. The kids (Carrie, Charlie and cute little Paul) are a bit like the Banks children. Both movies were directed by Robert Stevenson and both cast David Tomlinson. However, instead of a very serious man like George Banks, David Tomlinson plays a merrier and magical man - Professor Emelius Browne. With its magic, this movie has also some slight but significant similarities to Harry Potter's stories.

The majority of the songs are good. "The Age of Not Believing" and "The Beautiful Briny Sea" are the very best. "Portobello Road" is nice too.

David Tomlinson is great in this film once again. Angela Lansbury is great as Miss Price and the 3 kid actors are all fine too: Cindy O'Callaghan as Carrie, Ian Weighill as Charlie (a boy in «the age of not believing») and Roy Snart as the youngest brother Paul.

I like the black cat. It's pretty cool. It looks a bit like Salem, the black cat from the TV series "Sabrina, the teenage witch". I find cute whenever one of the movie's characters is transformed into a white rabbit. Rabbits are really cute, fluffy and adorable animals. I just love them! Even funnier is whenever Professor Emelius Browne is transformed into a white rabbit because, when he's transformed in human again, he shakes his nose like a rabbit. It's really hilarious, combined with his comical figure and that mustache.

Overall, this is an okay movie, but its ending is quite bad. The first minutes of the movie are nothing special, but then it improves a lot. The ending, however, is weak. That's my major criticism about it, in great part because the animated knights thing is a little too much for me and also due to the war feeling. I was lucky enough to catch this film finally on Turner Classic films tonight, as it is one of the films that won an Oscar (for special effects) in their yearly month of Oscar winning films.

BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS is easily a sequel film for the earlier success of MARY POPPINS. That film too was a big success, and an Oscar winner (Best Actress for Julie Andrews). Like MARY POPPINS BEDKNOBS has David Tomlinson in it, in a role wherein he learns about parenting. It is a fine mixture of live action and animation. It is set in a past period of British history (if not the Edwardian - Georgian world of 1912 London, it is England's coastline during the "Dunkirk" Summer of 1940). It even has old Reginald Owen in it, here as a General in the Home Guard, whereas formerly he was Admiral Boom in MARY POPPINS. Ironically it was Owen's final role.

The Home Guard sequences (not too many in the film) reminds one of the British series DAD'S ARMY, dealing with the problems of the local home guard in the early years of the war. The period is also well suggested by the appearance of the three Rawlins children as war orphans from the bombings in the Blitz in London. And (in typical Disney fashion) in the musical number "Portobello Road" different members of the British Army (including soldiers from India and the Caribbean (complete with metal drums yet!)) appear with Scottish and local female auxiliaries in costume.

All of which, surprisingly, is a plus. But the biggest plus is that for Angela Lansbury, her performance as Eglantine Price is finally it: her sole real musical film lead. In a noteworthy acting career, Lansbury never got the real career musical role she deserved as Auntie Mame in the musical MAME that came out shortly after BEDKNOBS did. She had been in singing parts (in GASLIGHT with her brief UP IN A BALLOON BOYS, and in THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY with LITTLE YELLOW BIRD, and - best of all - in support and in conclusion of THE HARVEY GIRLS with the final reprise of ON THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND THE SANTA FE). But only here does she play the female lead. So when you hear her singing with David Tomlinson you may be able to understand what we lost when she did not play Mame Dennis Burnside.

The rest of the cast is pretty good, Tomlinson here learning that he can rise to the occasion after a lifetime of relative failure. The three children (Cindy O'Callaghan, Roy Snart, and Ian Weighill) actually showing more interesting sides in their characters than their Edwardian predecessors in POPPINS (Weighill in particular, as something of a budding opportunist thinking of blackmailing Lansbury after finding out she is a witch). The only surprising waste (possibly due to cutting of scenes) is Roddy McDowall as the local vicar who is only in two sequences of the film. With his possible role as a disapproving foe of witchcraft he should have had a bigger part. Also of note is John Ericson, as the German officer who leads a raid at the conclusion of the film, only to find that he is facing something more powerful than he ever imagined in the British countryside, and Sam Jaffe as a competitor for the magic formula that Lansbury and Tomlinson are seeking.

As for the animation, the two sequences under the sea in a lagoon, and at the wildest soccer match ever drawn are well worth the view, with Tomlinson pulled into the latter as the referee, and getting pretty badly banged up in various charges and scrimmages. As I said it is a pretty fine sample of the Disney studio's best work. The obvious parallels between Walt Disney's charming fantasy Bedknobs and Broomsticks and C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia are pretty apparent. There are more coincidences here than comparing Bedknobs and Broomsticks than with Mary Poppins even though a lot of the same creative talent went into the two Disney films.

Like The Chronicles of Narnia it involves some English children leaving London during the blitz and coming to live in the country. And those kids have to deal with a world of magic. But unlike C.S. Lewis the Rawlins kids have the magic invade their world and help defeat the people making a mess of it in the here and now. No retreating to a fantasy kingdom like the Pevensie kids.

No heavy duty philosophy here from Walt Disney except maybe it's not a good thing to mess with witches even apprentice ones like Angela Lansbury who learn their magic from a charlatan like David Tomlinson. Ms. Lansbury didn't get to be one of the most bankable of performers for nothing. She carries her own brand of magic that even the special effects boys at Disney couldn't top. And they won an Oscar for the Magic Kingdom in that department for this film.

Two performers made their farewell to films in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Tessie O'Shea played her last role in this film, she graced many a film in the United Kingdom as one of their best loved music hall performers. And that grand character actor Reginald Owen as the retired general who leads the Old Home Guard in war and in song bids adieu to film audiences around the world.

The team of Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman who wrote the score for Mary Poppins wrote a good and serviceable one here. The Age Of Not Believing was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to the Theme from Shaft. Personally though I do like David Tomlinson's tribute to that most colorful of London streets, Portabello Road.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fine fantasy film that still holds up well after almost 40 years. Imagine what it would be like with computer generated graphics. Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly "flying bed" scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.

David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.

The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.

Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.

A great film that still holds up today!! I will always have a soft spot for this Disney flick, another of their part live action/part animation entries that sought to recreate the success of "Mary Poppins" and never quite made it. When I was in grade school, every once in a while we would have a movie day, where the whole school would crowd into the cafeteria, and a movie would be projected the old-fashioned way, multiple reels and all. At the time, it seemed like a momentous occasion whenever this day arrived, and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is one of the movies I can remember seeing this way.

And from what I remember, it's quite charming. Angela Lansbury never put her name to anything that wasn't at least competent, and she's winning here as a witch with a magic bed (boy, that could be misconstrued, couldn't it?) who can take her and a couple of young kids on magic adventures to far-off places. Come on, what kid wouldn't want a bed like that?

Grade: A I have personally seen many Disney movies in my lifetime, though absolutely none of them match up in any way to Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Although I personally wouldn't have crossed live-action with animation, it was an improvement on trying to dress people up as animation characters. The movie pits three evacuees from world war two who are sent to stay with a silent and socially awkward woman in the country. I would have to say that the casting was brilliant. Angela Landsbury made a perfect Miss Price, while David Thomilson made a great desperate entertainer love interest. Endings always surprise me and this was no exception. It was neither happy nor sad, though I do not know if this was intentional. The dialog wasn't great, but considering it was designed to be a kid's movie, that is alright. Overall, I would give the performance nine out of ten, the dialog six out of ten, the casting nine out of ten and the costumes eight out of ten. I've just purchased the restored version of a film that I remember with much affection from childhood and it's certainly made for a curious afternoon's entertainment. Bedknobs definitely makes more sense in its complete form, the deleted scenes (especially those with McDowall) link events together quite neatly. What is a little disconcerting is the way the scenes have been remastered. Clearly, the soundtrack to this footage had been lost or damaged, so some bright spark at Disney decided to dub the scenes with new dialogue. Which would have been great except that half the cast weren't around to do it (some for better reasons than others) and the whole thing has a rather shoddy quality to it. Some of the lip-synching is pretty poor, and David Tomlinson's voice has been dubbed by a bloke who sounds absolutely nothing like David Tomlinson (there's actually a hint of German in it, I think). However, good to hear the full versions of all the songs (although 'Step in the right Direction' is still absent) and the moments of magic in this film still shine through. And I challenge you not to giggle when young Paul gazes so innocently at Angela Lansbury and coos "but what's that got to do with my knob??" IN LOVING MEMORY OF DAVID TOMLINSON (1917-2000)

When I watched this movie for the first time I was 4 years old and I got fascinated by this story of witches in the 2nd World War. The scene, which impressed me the most, was the fight between the Nazi soldiers and the medieval army. It was exceptional to see this army without a body walk to fight the astonished singing their march. This movie is fantastic, from the trip to Portobello Road (which became to me the most fantastic place of London) to the journey to Naboomboo. Angela Lansbury and David Tomlinson are really a fantastic couple. She is always great, it seems the good aunt of a family and David with his always astonished face is her great co-protagonist. we'll miss him a lot. Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.

It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW. Perhaps Disney was hoping for another Mary Poppins but this is a very different story and while Angela is delightful she was a very different performer to the great Julie Andrews. Having said that Lansbury is perfectly cast and delivers a magical performance. There is something deliciously dotty about her character and she is given wonderful support by David Tomlinson. Tomilinson can carry a tune but he is certainly not much chop as a singer. It does not matter he was such a gifted actor you hardly notice. There are some great cameos from much loved stars of another time like Roddy McDowel who gives a winning performance and the much loved Tessie OShea who does very little but its nice to see the old gal again. Its also lovely to see Sam Jaffe and the king of English television Bruce Forsythe in small roles. The score has a couple of beautiful songs especially The briny sea and The age of Not Believing. The big number Portabello Road is stretched to the limit but it has plenty of theatricality. The effects look a bit cliché today but the scene with the German invaders being attacked by the wildest army in film is pretty impressive. The kids are not as annoying as other movies but one does struggle to understand what the youngest boy is saying. I loved the marching song of the home army. The home guard were very important to Britain and this is a warm tribute. The animation is delightful, much better than Pixar which I find grotesque. A warm happy film and its a wonder its not done on stage. Mary Poppins is definitely much better, but this is a lovely film nonetheless. Angela Lansbury is splendidly dotty as Engletine Price, and David Tomlinson has great fun as Mr. Brown. Their chemistry was just brilliant as well. The children, however just lacked the same sparkle, though Paul is very funny and cute. The songs were actually not as bad as some people say, "Beautiful Briny Sea" is the best, in fact all the songs are outstanding. The special effects were wonderful, that had plenty of magic, and the story is original enough. The highlights, though, like Mary Poppins, were the animated sequences. The underwater sequence was beautiful, but my favourite was the football match, which was absolutely hilarious. The only other criticism was that I didn't quite get the ending when I first saw it. All in all, a lovely film, that is hardly ever on. 8/10 Bethany Cox I saw this when on The Wonderful World of Disney as a kid, so I didn't recall much of it. As I watched it recently, I sat there thinking, "This is the weirdest thing I've seen".

The 'traveling' scenes look like something caused by an LSD overdose. The animated characters are mostly oddly colored/voiced versions of Jungle Book and Robin Hood characters. Some not-so-Disney things I noticed: kids being threatened at knife point and prostitutes(during the Portobello Road song).

It was very entertaining, though the musical numbers were long and I can see little kids getting bored with them. Also, the subject manner was a bit dark, seeing as it was set during WW2. While it certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, it was certainly worth the $8 (which can't be said for many movies these days.)

This was a pleasant account of a true story, although many of the details of the real story were twisted for the movie, (ie, Billy Sunday's character was three or four people in the real story combined together.) Robert DeNiro was of course good, and Cuba Gooding, Jr., was also impressive. "Inspirational" tales about "triumph of the human spirit" are usually big turn-offs for me. The most surprising thing about MEN OF HONOR is how much I enjoyed it in spite of myself. The movie is as predictable and cliched as it gets, but it works. Much credit goes to the exhilarating performances by both leads. It's a perfect role for Cuba Gooding, Jr., who's wonderfully restrained here. We have come to expect a lot from De Niro, and he doesn't disappoint. He creates a darkly funny portrait. Director George Tillman, Jr. set out to make an old-style flick and comes up with a winner. I gave it an 8 star rating. The story may have fallen short about 3/4 of the way into the picture but the performances remained strong throughout."Men of Honor" was changed from "Navy Diver" understandably so. Anyone who has served in any branch of the armed forces will probably feel that "Honor" is an appropriate word to use in the title. You think you've had it tough? You should check out this film. Carl Brashear is the epitome of courage and determination. What this man had to go through to become a navy diver, should be an inspiration to us all. And significantly, after seeing this film, I learned that what is shown is not even the half of it! Cuba Gooding, Jr. does some of his best work to date as Brashear. De Niro, as usual is good as the southern redneck who trains him. George Tillman in only his second major feature (after "Soul Food"), has made a quantum leap as a filmmaker. If you want to be moved and inspired, you definitely need to check out this one. For me,this is one of the best movies i ever saw.Overcoming racism,struggling through life and proving himself he isn't just an ordinary "cookie" ,Carl Brashear is an amazing character to play ,who puts Cuba in his best light,best performance in his life.De Niro,who is a living legend gives THAT SOMETHING to the movie.Hated his character in movie,but he gives so much good acting to this film,great performance.And appearance of beautiful Charlize was and as always is a big plus for every movie. So if you haven't seen this movie i highly recommended for those who love bravery,greatness who seek inspiration.You must look this great drama. My Vote 9/10. Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) was born to sharecroppers in the deep south. He joins the navy, whereupon he tells his father he will be back. The father gives him an old radio, and Brashear leaves on the navy bus. The Most valuable thing his unemotional father taught him was, "Never quit". After a recommendation from a white commander Powers Boothe), who admires his drive and guts, he gets sent to Navy diving school at Bayonne, NJ. He endures harassment from his pals in uniform and from his trainer, Chief Navy Master Diver, Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro), and from the commanding officer, called pappy, (Hal Holbrook, who "has almost as many loose screws as an old car". They all want to make him drop out, and the prejudice is quite fierce.The dangers of diving prove a further setback when he loses a leg due to an accident on board ship. Despite this setback, he tells his wife that he will train and achieve his objective, and with the help of Billy Sunday, (now both joined in commiseration in their sufferings), they train and he is able to become the first black Navy diver with his artificial limb despite the skepticism of a highly mocking and doubtful captain at the Navy Department hearing in Washington, DC to determine if he meets the criteria. An inspirational movie, showing that determination can overcome all odds. This is a must see for independant movie fans, but it also holds up well against mainstream movies. I think we have the makings of the next Woody Allen or

Trentin Tarrentino here.

The budget is painfully low. No special effects whatsoever, and they seemingly used ambient lighting (shot in digital video.) -And yet this movie grabs hold of you and never lets go. The screenplay is somewhat bizarre, yet the actors and director pull it off with complete realism. It has humor, it has intrigue, and it has pathos, and it all works together.

No point in describing the details. If you want to see an independant

masterpiece, a virtual lesson in how to make a low budget flick that really works, see this one.

-Oh yeah, it's also REALLY entertaining.

This independent, B&W, DV feature consistently shocks, amazes and amuses with it's ability to create the most insane situations and then find humor and interest in them. It's all hilarious and ridiculous stuff, yet as absurd as much of the film should be, there is a heart and a reality here that keeps the film grounded, keeps the entire piece from drifting into complete craziness and therein lies the real message here. This film is about how we all survive in a world gone mad. That seems to be the heart of the film. For as insane and off the wall as things get, Leon, the 30 yr. old paperboy-protagonist, always tries to keep it together. He's like a child forever trying to catch the balloon that is floating away so that everything will work out for the best, so that everyone can have what they want.

The acting in the film could have went far over the top but the exceptional cast really keeps the piece cohesive. Van Meter is perhaps the best of the bunch here with a performance that shines through her absurd diseased tics. Just as the characters in the film do, we overlook her sudden outbursts to see the real person underneath.

Majkowski is a true genius here. He takes the utmost ridiculous plot twists and keeps them real. It is his script and his cast that help keep the whole thing afloat. It's a true testament to the skill of Majkowski and all involved that this film, with it's grating plot and characters, never once works our nerves. Majkowski has taken a film that could have been abrasive and repugnant, and somehow given it heart and humor. This is a unique film. Not to be missed.

Caught this film at the Arizona International Film Festival. I wasn't expecting a lot (though the festival's director told me it was one of the best films submitted). Five minutes into it I was sold. Shot in B & W on a shoestring budget, this film is hilarious. The acting is solid, the writing is solid and the look of the film is solid. The acting is probably the biggest revelation, since most films shot on low budgets tend to have amateur or stagey acting. Not this one. It features one of the most convincing, endearing and funny portrayals of a character with Tourette's Syndrome I've ever seen. The plot is convoluted without being confusing and raunchy without being gratuitous. If you get the chance, see this movie. Filmmakers like Majkowski (hope I got that right) deserve the chance to strut their stuff to a wider audience. Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome. Passing stones definitely one of the best comedy independent films ever. You must have a sense of humor to fully enjoy this one. This film for some reason hasn't received its credit due. First, lets start with the story line everyone loves a good treasure hunt. When a dead father leaves letters behind advising of a hidden treasure it not only brings two families together but starts a whirlwind adventure. Mix in a polish translator, a comatose mother, a crack-head with turrets syndrome, a twisted homosexual hypnotist, and one drag queen, money not only makes the world go round but can turn family into enemies. My favorite character in this film would have to be the sister/crack addict with turret's syndrome,her sudden out burst will have you crying and mimicking for weeks. Here's what I knew about "Atlantis" before watching it:

* - It's officially Disney's first animated sci-fi adventure. I'm not sure how accurate that is (I like to nitpick) but it made me curious first time I heard it described.

* - The preview looked, for the most part, damn cool. Evidently, it was also "too cryptic" according to some critics after the fact.

* - It apparently did SO badly that Disney said, "Screw it, let's re-release 'Spy Kids'".

So, with all that said, how is the movie?

Hella-cool.

I'm a sucker for animated fantasy that involves stirring music and rampant special effects anyway, but "Atlantis" goes all out. It's a throwback to all the CGI eye-candy shots in "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin", so much so that it's almost an effects animator's Best-Of Show. The characters maybe aren't that memorable (except, perhaps, for the ship's medical officer), and the plot's a little dull, but this isn't a movie you watch for the plot.

Here's a controversy that bothers me. The "failure" (as in, it "only" took in, like, five-hundred-million or something; I know animators who'd kill to see fifteen bucks of that) of this movie compared to the popularity of "Shrek" and "Monsters Inc." has been seen as evidence of the death of traditional animation. I don't think that's true. How do you account for the "South Park" movie? What about "Final Fantasy"? Really, the story and the artistry is everything, not the method. I don't know what Disney's comeback movie will be like, but I don't think they're out of the picture yet. I thought this movie was very well put together. The voice-overs were also great. I liked how they all overcame their conflicts and reached their goals. I would recommend this movie to anyone. It was definitely worth the time and money to watch it. Atlantis has some comic scenes that made me laugh. Other scenes made me sad. And others made me glad. It is a movie any age can enjoy. From the moment Milo is the crazy "profesor" or until he gathers the crew up for the fantastic voyage under the sea. After I watched the movie, I read the book. It was good as well, but the movie puts better pictures in your mind. It is just like the book. But go ahead and watch this movie! Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like "Tarzan" and "The Emperor's New Groove" have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. "Atlantis" is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.

But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of "The Little Mermaid" et al.

So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's "Titanic". Both films feature a boat in some manner.

And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, "The Little Mermaid" (A good thing).

You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths – a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale – need I go on?

I don't know why this got to anyone – I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.

But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent "Titan A.E." down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, "Nadia", for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.

With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.

Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).

This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film – after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film. This movie was great! It was an excellent rendition of an ancient myth. The animation was somewhat odd, but nothing new from Disney. It was definitely better than expected for a Disney movie with no singing.

The background animation was magical. It was a different level of work for the Disney people. Some of the characters were a little boxy, but it was more than made up for with the beauty and lushness of the scenery. The music was largely instrumental but that was perfect for the movie. This was definitely not a film that needed the characters to bust into song.

Perfect. 10 out of 10. It is written in stone that Disney animations simply ~must~ be musicals. Right? Where? Show me. Because I found this attempt to be much more enjoyable for ~not~ containing the hokey made-for-five-year-old standard Disney musical fare.

While the story was not as enthralling as it could have been, it was still quite good, enjoyable, and adventurous. I had hoped for a bit more, yes, considering the subject matter, but this movie is ~not~ the bitter disappointment or utter failure it has been billed to be.

The animation quality is average, but the dialog is quite compelling, as is the story line, plot, sub-plot, and amazing creativity I found within this production. I will refrain from outlining the plot, as it has been done and done, but this movie is well worth a view if you are a fan of fantasy.

This is, in my opinion, THE BEST Disney Animated Feature Length Film.

It rates a 9.4/10 from...

the Fiend :. I thought that this film was very enjoyable. I watched this film with my wife BEFORE I had my first child. Therefore, I was not watching it as simply family entertainment and I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems as though many of the reviews are pointing out that this movie is not earth shattering, there were no unexpected plot changes and that the movie was predictable and boring. If these people were watching this movie expecting to have a religious experience doing so, then they were obviously going to be disappointed. This is simply an animated movie; nothing more. If you want to see this movie simply to sit back and let yourself be entertained, you will not be disappointed. In closing, this is definitely not the best movie Disney has made, but it IS entertaining and I do not understand the bad reputation it has received. Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending. "Atlantis" is a new and right step for a Disney feature. It's a good choice to make a film by such a mysterious legend like "Atlantis". I didn't have any expectations for this film, but after watching it, I don't quite understand why this film got so bad reviews. Even in my country the reviewers weren't positive.

"Atlantis" is not a perfect movie, but still one of Disney's greatest, even I doubt that this film ever will get "Disney classic" reputation. Well, that's another case. It's funny to think that this sci-fi movie was directed by the same directors as "Beauty and the Beast" and "Hunchback" (so Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale are trying to get away from their monster movies reputation, he he, I'm just kidding).

Well, enough nonsense. "Atlantis" is a watchable, exiting and very enjoyable film. Even this film it's a PG-rated action-feature, it's also suitable for kids, in my opinion (parents who mean the opposite, don't kill me for writing this, he he).

The story is a little predictable, but it doesn't ruin the movie. The comic book-inspired animation it's suitable for the film and set's a departure from the usual Disney-style. It's colorful, dark and detailed. The Deep Canvas sequences are pretty impressive. The film is also funny sometimes, even I more giggled than laugh through the movie. (SPOILERS) The characters of this film are also very likable, but unfortunately there isn't enough screen time to get to know everybody, so some characters are left behind (SPOILERS).

The score of James Newton Howard is absolutely great. It's daring and exotic. (SPOILER) The most impressive about this film is how they're making the Atlantean language sound very natural, ethnic and authentic. It's really awesome (SPOILERS OVER)

The script is tight and well-written, but still the there are some questions left unanswered in the story. But luckily there are not so much of them.

So do you're self a favor, don't listen to the reviewers and watch "Atlantis", cause it's waiting for you... Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a better movie than I thought. I never thought this movie would lead to my expectations. True, this movie started slow, but as the movie wore on it became more to my liking. The story takes place in 1914 and is about a guy named Milo. Milo believes in the fabled Atlantis. Along with friends of his grandfather, he embarks on an amazing adventure of his own. Along the way, he must endear friendship, betrayal, trust, and more. The voice cast is great. They surely know how to carry movies with only their voice talent. The music is nothing special but likable anyway. The animation is not the best, but it is still good enough. Overall, this is a good family movie for all ages. I rate this movie 9/10. The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is a shining gem in the rubble of films produced by the Disney Studios recently. Parents who have had to sit through "The Jungle Book 2" or even a Pokemon movie will surely appreciate this one.

The film is one of few to attempt at an original story; previous feature films were merely re tellings of existing stories. Films such as "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", and "Monsters Inc." all do the same, but it must be noted that all were made by Pixar and only distributed by Disney. Recent films from the Disney Studios are mostly released direct to video, and are sequels to an existing successful film. The quality of those films is given way to the profitability. A new era started with "Atlantis" following it were "Mulan", "Lilo & Stitch", and most recently "Open Range". The writers have created all original story lines instead of the fairy tales of the past.

A good portion of the movie is devoted to the quest to find Atlantis, a task that has captured the imagination of many for hundreds of years. Including that of young Milo Thatch, voiced by Michael J. Fox. Milo is employed by a museum in Washington D.C.. His grandfather was a renowned archaeologist, who had devoted his life to discovering Atlantis. This was seen as a waste by his peers, and they wish Milo to not follow in his footsteps. After failing to convince the museum board of directors to sponsor his expedition, Milo comes home to find a woman in his darkened apartment. She takes him to her employer, a Mr. Whitmore. Whitmore was a close friend of Milo's grandfather, and wishes to send Milo with a team to locate Atlantis. Mr. Whitmore is very wealth and has paid for the best of everything. The crew that is to accompany him is the same as his grandfathers. The journey is filled with many great obstacles to overcome and is great fun to watch. The viewer finds themselves caught up in if they will reach Atlantis. The plot takes an unexpected turn after the discovery Atlantis, not just the discovery of people. It is enough to keep the interest of the older audience.

The animators have done a wonderful job in then depth of the animation. The movie is very successful in blending traditional animation with Computer Generated Images. A feat not easily achieved, most audiences are quick to notice the difference in the two. The characters are believably human. There are some nice chase type scenes, with lots of action going on. A few lulls are filled with jokes that the children just may not get.

The creativity of the writers really shines through. The culture of Atlantis is richly developed, including an entire language. The film uses references to Atlantis from historical sources, such as Plato. The disappearance of Atlantis from the world is explained. Believable, if by a younger audience, that magic really does exist. The powers of the people of Atlantis are not exactly presented as magic, but can best be described in this way.

Although set in 1914 the level of technology used is unrealistic. The voyage is in a submarine very reminiscent of Captain Nemo's nautilus, complete with sub pods that fire torpedoes. The giant diggers are driven by steam boilers so they did try for some era technology. The female characters are empowered in a way that women of the age would not have been, even holding roles in leadership. This is not a bad thing. It gives a good role model for my daughter to look to, rather than an all male cast.

One reason this film is a favorite of mine over other Disney films is that there is not one single song, ever. A tradition that began with the first feature film, "Snow White", and carried on through to "The Lion King", almost every Disney film is full of upbeat songs. This is great and all, what would the Seven Dwarfs be without "Hi HO!"? After the millionth time through it'd almost be better without, but this one spares the parent. Not once does every single person on the screen suddenly know the words to a song that no one has ever heard before and break out in song. I for one am grateful.

The storyline and depth of animation is sure to keep the attention of both parent and child alike. It is a film I am willing to watch again and again with my children. Atlantis: The Lost Empire has some of the best, smoothest animation and cleverly written dialogue of any Disney movie I've seen. And I was convinced of that in the first 15 minutes. I especially love Don Novello's voice work on Vincenzo Santorini and Phil Morris as Joshua Strongbear Sweet. Too bad the whole film seems to move at about double the pace that would be appropriate - at least in the first act. One important aspect of any Disney movie is a satisfying antagonist - which Atlantis doesn't provide. He's average at best. Halfway through the movie there's a mediocre twist. That's all. It's a great movie nevertheless. Everyone should check it out. Atlantis is probally the best Disney movie that i have seen in years. It has great action scene, magic, an intelligent and weel written script. Atlantis, brings back the magic of the Disney Classics such as "The Lion King" or "Alladin". After Seeing this one i'm sure that this year summer blockbusters season will be great.

I recommend to you all, "Alantis : The Lost Empire is like a breath of inspiration.

9 out of 10 If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney "classics" because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement! While I have a great respect for Disney's animated films, as of late they haven't really been what I would call "must-see". Atlantis looked intriguing from the first movie poster and trailer, and thankfully lived up to my expectations.

Atlantis is a more "mature" Disney film in the sense that it lacks songs (a very unusual trait for a Disney film indeed), and is focused more on action and discovery than any other recent Disney offering. The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth's core, is fantastic, presented as desolate caverns with ruins, and then slowly developing into actual ecosystems, which, while usually containing some reminder of harshness, become more and more intriguing until the tropical paradise itself is reached. The presentation of simply Atlantis' landscape and setting, without some expendable cheery song, gave the kingdom a much more beautiful and intriguing appearance. The inclusion of an Atlantean language, as well as attempts to connect it into the mythology of real-life ancient civilizations adds to this, and works fairly well.

Also, with the exception of some scenes involving Mole's practical jokes, there didn't seem to be much of a "childish" element that I usually associate with Disney films. Instead, the main elements were the struggle to get to Atlantis, and the constant discovery that occurred at Atlantis, as Milo the outsider was able to learn all he ever needed to know about the place by helping the Atlanteans discover parts of their own history that they didn't know about. Part of this involves the Atlantean "weaponry", which is used in a very action-packed climax which is, for lack of a better word, quite exciting.

Granted, not all of the story makes full sense, and the film doesn't feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects, but, aside from the Toy Story movies, this is the most entertaining Disney film I've seen in years. Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a solid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis. Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a soid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis. Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling. Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel "Lord of the Flies", glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other "INTELLIGENT" characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing) To my surprise, I really enjoyed Disney's latest animation installment. The Film had its lows, but overall I felt the story was strong and the characters were easy to relate to. It was also pleasant to see an Animated Disney film that was not a musical. I was about pushed to the limits with Tarzan. Thankfully they gave the music thing a rest. Another nice feature about the film is that the comedy was not completely dumbed down (a la Hercules), rather subtle so it still made the kids laugh while not make the adults feel giddy or just plain stupid.

One disappointment was the animation. With all the great animated films happening outside Disney studios, you would think they would move along and catch up a little. There is something to say about tradition, but imagine the possibilities with the story of Atlantis! Overall the film was entertaining, and definitely worth a trip to the multiplex.

I LOVED this movie! I am biased seeing as I am a huge Disney fan, but I really enjoyed myself. The action takes off running in the beginning of the film and just keeps going! This is a bit of a departure for Disney, they don't spend quite as much time on character development (my husband pointed this out)and there are no musical numbers. It is strictly action adventure. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who loves Disney, be they young or old. While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think "The Castaways" or "The Island At The Top Of The World" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon. While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think "The Castaways" or "The Island At The Top Of The World" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon. that kid a is such a babe; this movie was no Titan A.E.(of which it is in many ways modeled after) but still came off as entertaining, the fact this lost to a piece of monkey crap like Tomb raider makes wanna cry; includes some of the most entertaining characters i've seen in disney film This highly derivative film will be entertaining for the many who have not seen some of the more obscure anime films. I enjoyed most of it, especially after the rather flat opening minutes in the museum (although the pre-title sequence is very entertaining and includes some of the better bits of animation). James Garner as the Commander and Leonard Nimoy as the King give impressive performances. "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was everything the previews indicated it would be. It is not often you find that. Most of the time, the previews show only the best parts and then the rest of the movie is terrible. Not so with this one. I was pleased with the original plot, even though the sub-plots were not. The animation was not break through like "Shrek" but it was good, none the less. The plot and the story line were well presented and there were only a few slow spots in them. This keeps you interested. I found myself enjoying this one. "Atlantis" gets and keeps your attention. You also have to think a little bit, but not too much. Once you think about it a little, you can figure out what needs to happen but you really don't know for sure how it is going to happen.

The casting was also good. Michael J. Fox, as Milo was an excellent choice. His personality fits nicely. The gruff natured Commander Rourke was also well chosen with James Garner. His character reminded me of his performance in "Maverick" which I also liked. I really liked the casting of Claudia Christian as Helga Sinclair. Her ability to play a no nonsense personality makes the film more interesting. It's just too bad she is a villain.

Over all, definitely worth you while (8 out of 10). I was quite a fan of the series as a child and after that it has always remained in my mind as one of those memorable cartoons that made a difference in the early 80s compared to previous animated series (Heidi, Barbapapa, Il Etait une Fois l'Homme..., most of which I love). I find that other similar Japanese cartoons of this kind released later can't match Mazinger Z, as they started to boringly repeat the same pattern.

That very thing, the novelty, may be one of the best features of Mazinger Z. Another good point is its inventiveness, with so many extravagant monsters, strange devices and bizarre characters; actually, we were eager to see each new installment to find out what kind of new fiend or evil machine was awaiting us! Granted I had seen some "Speed Racer", but I never really watched it and I had also seen other shows some featuring these characters dressed as birds who flew a ship called the Phoenix and another revolving around a space ship that looked like a giant ocean vessel and it flew backwards at times for some reason and was really dark and hard to understand for someone who was maybe five. This one though I watched nearly every episode and the amazing to me at the time was that this show had some resolution to it. It actually ended, the bad guys done in unlike nearly every American cartoon where nothing really concludes such as the last episode of the generation one Transformers that ended with Galvatron and this new bad guy vowing to get the Autobots, Dungeons and Dragons with the kids never making it home, with GI Joe with Cobra still out there ready to try again and so on and so forth. This one did end and did feature a rather cool robot that got new weapons as the show progressed, it was a bit bland to begin with as it could not fly and had only a few really cool weapons. As it went on he got a cool shooting fist like the one Android 16 used against Cell in Dragonball Z, then that weapon evolved to include razors that shot out. Then the big robot even got wings so he could fly and even more weapons were incorporated into the wings. He would also get a couple of allies in a female robot and a rather funny one called Bobo in America. The villains not only consisted of Dr. Hell, but a really weird person that was half man half woman and a dude with a flying head. Interesting show and it was kind of nice seeing a conclusion. I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed.

This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.

Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud.

It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small. I have just read the lead comment for this film that is on the front page with the voting results and cast run down.

Why is it that some people can not take a film for what it is supposed to be.

This film is supposed to be a light hearted, tonge in cheek, family comedy, things to make the kids laugh and things for the adults, and that is exactly what this film does.

I laughed my nuts off at this film, I thought Carey put in a great performance and the whole film (if watched at Christmas) really give you a bit of festive cheer

So to all of you film reviewers stop trying to sound like film students and knock every film because it is not "Taxi Driver" or "The Godfather" and take films for what they are supposed to be, entertainment!! If you went to this movie to see some huge academy award presentation...oh well..but if you wanted to see a funny delightful adaptation of an old classic, you will love it..Jim Carey was incredible as usual. The story line was great, a few parts added like the history of the Grinch made it even better. Ron Howard never misses a beat..But although there were a few ADULT comments and cleavage added, this is supped to be a kids or family show. Try not to lose sight of that ..if you do you really wont enjoy the movie...and as for the comments about Ron Howard, try to direct a major motion picture and see how you do..its not easy as it looks ... I love this movie, but can't get what is in this movie tht is not to like. People who don't like this movie must be Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert. But I can't believe that is Mr. Carrey behind all that makeup. And I am sure that most of the actors and actresses in the movie has made film before this. And there is a new face in the movie. Taylor Momsen who plays Cindy Lou Who. As the opens, the Grinch (Jim Carrey) comes out of hiding. And causes some mean fun to the whos in Whoville. Sicne we know that the whos love Christmas. While The Grinch does not like christmas. And even makes fun of little Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) who is the daughter of the town's postmaster (Bill Irwin). The movie was directed by Ron Howard. And the narrtor's voice is done by Anthony Hopkins. And Jeffrey Tambor (Muppets From Space) is cast as the mayor of whoville. Who doesn't like talking about the Grinch close to Christmas time. I found this a very entertaining small kids movie that actually is geared more for adults with a lot of jokes and humor only they would understand. A few things are inappropriate for the kiddies, but just a few. Othewise, "The Grinch" (Jim Carrey) cracks so many jokes you can't keep up with them all, ranging from sexual to cultural to insider-Hollywood to racial.

The film is very colorful and looks great on DVD. The little girl in here, "Cindy Lou Who" (Taylor Momsen) is really cute and the costumes and hairdos of the little people in here are fun to view. Anthony Hopkins' voice is pleasing, too, so having his narrate this elevates the movie further. His rhymes are fun to hear.

I saw this in the theater, though it was "fair," but on DVD, it was far better. I've seen in three times and it got better each time. I thought How The Grinch Stole Christmas was a pretty good movie.It wasn't horrible, nor was it great, but it was enjoyable to watch.I felt as if Jim Carrey got a little annoying at times.They made the Grinch seem like a special education person, when all he needed to be was evil and devious, but yet he turned out kind of retarded.I did think the scenery, when not inside the Grinch's cave, was beautiful, and there was a few parts where I laughed, but most of the time I thought it was just annoying.This movie could've been "SO" much better if they had changed the Grinch's personality, and they had included some more laugh scenes, because most of the humor wasn't funny.I liked How The Grinch Stole Christmas anyway, but it's not anything to get excited about seeing. I already loved "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" when it was released and I'm still loving it now, 5 years later. Still lots of people seem to disagree with my opinion and this movie never really had received much love at the time it came out.

Sure, the movie is over-the-top and campy but that at the very same is also the reason why this movie is so charming and fun to watch. All of the sets, costumes and characters are done perfectly over-the-top in a fun way, without ever becoming truly ridicules. It's a visually spectacular movie to watch. It's a campy movie making at its very best! Director Ron Howard really surprises with this fun little Christmas movie.

Main reason why the movie works and why it's so much fun to watch is Jim Carrey as the Grinch. He truly carries the movie with his good and fun role. He is of course helped by the convincing make-up, which also received an Academy Award. Of course if you're a Jim Carrey hater you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. This movie is really his movie and he makes it all work and so much fun to watch. Other fun and memorable roles are being played by Jeffrey Tambor, Clint Howard and Josh Ryan Evans as the young Grinch.

The movie has a good morale but it is all a bit sappy to me. Perhaps it's because I'm Dutch and we don't really celebrate Christmas that enthusiastic and big here, as in the United States or England. For me the movie was simply fun and entertaining and the morale just left me quite cold to be honest.

The musical score by James Horner is good and fun, even though it's your average every day Horner stuff, it still all works perfectly for the movie and helps to make some of the scene's work.

Perfect Christmas entertainment.

8/10 jim carrey can do anything. i thought this was going to be some dumb childish movie, and it TOTALLY was not. it was so incredibly funny for EVERYONE, adults & kids. i saw it once cause it was almost out of theatres, and now it's FINALLY coming out on DVD this tuesday and i'm way to excited, as you can see. you should definitely see it if you haven't already, it was so great!

Liz what can i say. oh yeah those freaking fingers are so weird. they scare the heck out of me. but it is such a funny film, Jim Carrey works the grinch. if you havent already seen it then what you waiting for an invitation. go, go and get watch it. you dont know what your missing. Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how the did it. I can't wait till this comes out on DVD. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it. When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS! I waited and waited for this film to come out,the trailers seemed to be on for years, it was worth it. I'm not a big fan of watching films over and over again but i cant wait for this to come out for all to buy! Not a big fan of Jim but this suited him perfectly, there was so much to see and the 'feel good factor' is off the scale, perfect for Christmas. I think Ron did a fab job turning this into a film, If you haven't seen it then do so, if you have, watch it again, i know you want to! jim carrey rocks! if he's in a movie its bound to be good! he did not disappoint me with this one!the rest of the cast was cute,especially little cindy lou who and martha may, i was laughing through the whole thing and cannot wait to see it again! Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few "Jim Carrey moments", it's definitely not a "Jim Carrey movie".

It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.

The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience! How The Grinch Stole Christmas instantly stole my heart and became my favorite movie almost from my very first viewing. Now, eight viewings later, it still has the same impact on me as it did the first time I saw it.

Screenwriters Jeffery Price & Peter S. Seaman of Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame do a fantastic job of adapting the story of The Grinch to the screen. Ron Howard's direction brought the story to full life, and Jim Carrey's typically energetic performance as The Grinch steals the show.

Some detractors of the film have claimed that it is not true to the spirit or principles of the original story. Having read the original story, I must say I cannot agree. The movie makes the very same point about Christmas and its true meaning as the original story. Indeed, it enhances the impact of the story by making it more personal by showing us how and why The Grinch became what he was.

*MILD SPOILERS* (They probably wouldn't ruin the movie for you... but if you haven't seen it yet and you're one of those who wants to know NOTHING about a story until you've seen it, you should skip the next two paragraphs.)

I think just about everyone can relate to The Grinch's terrible experiences in school. I think all of us, at one time or another, were the unpopular one in school who was always picked on. I know I was... and that's why I personally had so much sympathy for The Grinch and what he went through.

And Cindy Lou Who's naive idealism, believing that nobody can be all bad, was heart rending. When everyone else had turned their backs on The Grinch out of fear and ignorance, Cindy Lou was determined to be his friend. If only everyone could have such an attitude.

In fact, I think the only thing that might've made the film a little better would have been to further tone down the adult humor and content. It was already pretty restrained, but any of this adult humor (like when The Grinch slammed nose first into Martha May Whovier's cleavage) just doesn't fit in a story like this.

This one's well on its way to being a Christmas classic, taking a richly deserved place alongside the book and the Chuck Jones cartoon as a must-see of every Christmas season. I grew up watching, and loving this cartoon every year. I didn't think they would be able to take a half hour (20 min!) cartoon and make it a movie. They did it. With FLYING COLOURS! Fabulous, funny, heart warming, effective movie! The costumes and make-up were grand, there were some exceptionally funny lines, and the role was made for Jim Carrey. Carrey did as good a job as could be done given the rather disappointing script writing. Sure this was mostly a movie for kids, but if you are going to spend this much money making a movie you really ought to at least give the story enough body to go beyond that of Dr Seuss. I expected more from Ron Howard. It's worth a see, but it lacks the necessary qualities to become a major classic, by any measure. I'm overwhelmed by the work of Jim Carrey. I keep on getting this movie stuck in my head. The Grinch liking Martha May, Cindy Lou(who's very annoying; her sweet innocence) who tries to get the Grinch in the Christmas spirit, the childhood of the Grinch (very funny!), and moreover the weak obvious ending with- Christmas isn't all about presents. I have to say, I felt stupid walking out of the theater with a bunch of babies and toddlers laughing and so forth, but this movie was a good full-lengthed adaption of Dr.Seuss's short film and IS for all ages. Let me set the scene. It is the school holidays and there is absolutely nothing at the movies. I am with my friend deciding what to see. We look for a movie that is starting soon and "The Grinch" comes up. We buy tickets not knowing what to expect. What we got was a roller coaster of fun.

Jim Carrey (who may I add is my No.1 actor in the whole world) was absolutely magnificent as the Grinch in this Ron Howard's best movie (next to Apollo 13). The way that this movie was made, the scenery, the actors, the props and the music was just amazing. It really brought this childhood movie to life.

The story is based upon the story of the grinch. As we all know the Grinch is a horrible person who just can't stand christmas. He lives high above whoville and has never mingled well with the townfolk. But one little girl is going to change The Grinch's look on life and on others in a drastic way.

Cindy Lou Who (played by adorable new actress Taylor Momsem) meets the Grinch as finds the kind part of him straight away. She attempts to break the barrier and to help the Grinch move in and mingle with the towns people.

All up this movie is a barrel of laughs for the whole family both kids and parents. A SOLID 10/10. Well done Jim.

In a word - excellent. This is THE MOVIE. Go and see it. The director Ron Howard... I mean, The Director Ron Howard did a fantastic job, as he usually does. An incredible attention to detail, vivid colors and decorations, breathtaking Whoville atmosphere, astonishing variety of costumes. Wait, there's more to it than that - the story is very good, too. There's clearly a message to be extracted from it by the thoughtful viewers. Jim Carrey is top-notch. He is probably the best Grinch possible. The girl, Taylor Momsen, is real good. I'm sure she has some great future. The dog is cool. All in all, it's a very high quality Christmas fairy-tale. If you like fairy-tales, it's for you. If you like Christmas, it's for you.

Reading some other reviews here... Get a life. It hurts me every time to see people out there who... well... got their hearts two sizes too small. Although I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's latest "serious" performances ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon"), I've always thought his real genious lies in physical comedy. This is not to say he is a fantastic, talented actor: those bozos at the Academy Awards seem to dislike him so much, he has never had a (truly deserved) nomination or award. Well, any "institution" that nominates for 11 Oscars a bore such as "Titanic" shouldn't be taken seriously.

On with the review. "The Grinch" is the sweetest, best looking, best acted, more enjoyable seasons film since "The Nightmare before Christmas". Both movies seem very similar, too, with their highly stylized sets and the premise of someone stealing Christmas. Both make their principal actors seem like the villains (one in a higher degree than the other), both pack a strong moral lesson, and both are truly enjoyable.

That is, until you realize that Jack Skellington is a doll, and The Grinch is a human being. But a human being that is so incredibly expressive, so fluid in his movements, so cartoon-like, so unreal, that never gets in the way of the movie. He can be hilarious, he can be a sad soul, he can be angry. He lives in a 3-dimensional world, where 3-dimensional people live. He jokes, he laughs, he cries, and ultimately he saves the Christmas. I loved this film to bits, and cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. This is one of those films you will really enjoy 10, 20 years from now. As timeless as they come. First an explanation on what makes a great movie for me. Excitement about not knowing what is coming next will make me enjoy a movie the first time I watch it (case en point: Twister). There are also other things that go into a great first viewing such as good humor (John Candy in Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors), good plot with good resolution (Madeline and Matilda), imaginative storytelling (all Star Wars episodes-George Lucas is THE MAN), and good music (again all Star Wars episodes, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music). What makes me watch a movie at least six times in the theatre and buy a DVD or VHS tape? Characters. With that said, I present Cindy Lou Who and The Grinch. Excellent performance Taylor Momsen and Jim Carrey. The rest of the cast was very good, particularly Jeffery Tambor, Bill Irwin, Molly Shannon, Christine Baranski, and Josh Ryan Evans. But, every single scene with Cindy and The Grinch-together is excellent and very funny and/or heartwarming. Cindy Lou is my favorite character in this movie and the most compelling reason why the movie is better than the cartoon. The Grinch has a strong plot, good conflicts, and a very good theme (I can't get started because I don't want to spoil it). Jim Carrey was very funny as The Grinch-particularly when he interacted with Cindy. And the music! Wow! Excellent music by James Horner. I loved his selection of instruments and the compositions. Very good job Jim Carrey-I didn't know you could sing. Taylor Momsen! Whoa! Your voice is reason enough to see the movie at least once. On your solo - Where Are You Christmas - is your voice really as high as it sounds? Sounds like an F#? That is an obscene range for a 7-year old (obscene meant in the best possible way). Great job. This is the best performance by a child I have ever heard in a movie(Taylor beat out the Von Trapp Children-no small feat!). And now to the actors. Jim Carrey was great, funny, and, surprisingly very sensitive (this really showed through in his scenes with Taylor Momsen). Taylor Momsen's unspoken expressions(one of the secrets to a good acting performance) are very strong-she really becomes Cindy Lou Who. And when she does dialogue she is even stronger.

******************************danger:spoiler alert********************* ***********************************************************************

Examples: expression when she first sees The Grinch. This is a classic quote ("You're the the the" and then filled in with the Grinch line "da da da THE GRINCH-after which she topples into the sorter and then is rescued by The Grinch). The "Thanks for saving me" quote and subsequent response by The Grinch was also very good.

My favorite part of the movie is when Cindy invites The Grinch to be Holiday Cheermeister. This scene is two excellent actors at their best interacting and expressing with each other. Little Taylor Momsen completely holds her own with Jim Carrey in this spot. I sincerely hope we see Taylor Momsen in many more films to come. All in all everything was great about this movie (except maybe the feet and noses). The part of The Grinch was made for Jim Carrey and I was extremely impressed with his performance. Not being a great fan of his I was apprehensive but pleasantly surprised with the outcome. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who was the cutest little girl I have seen on the screen for a long time and she showed a maturity beyond her years in her acting skills. I was even drawn to tears at one point! I've never read the Dr Seuss book of the tale so I didnt know what to expect, the humour was quite dark. Overall,I enjoyed the film (apart from the songs!) and would recommend it, for family viewing especially. I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike. I've had a morbid fascination with tornadoes for more than 40 years, since my 5th grade teacher, a native Texan, told stories of ones he saw in his youth. Fortunately, I've lived my whole life in the middle Atlantic states, where tornadoes are rare and usually not as violent as the ones in the Midwest, but I have had two close encounters, one in PA and the other in NJ, in the past decade.

I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.

When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.

The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).

I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story. OK, so the FX are not high budget. But this story is based on actual events. Not something thrown together to make a couple of rich actors, even richer!! As most movies that are based on books, there are somethings that just don't fit. Only a couple of people have stated that this movie was based on real events, not a knock-off as most people believe it is!! This movie is in no way related too TWISTER! Other than both movies are about tornadoes.

For those of you who have problems with the science of the tornadoes and storms in the movie, there are a couple of things you need to remember... The actual "night of the twisters" was June 3, 1980. So this movie was released 16 years after the actual events. Try think how far storm research has advanced in that time. It happened in a larger town; Grand Island, Nebraska is the third largest city in the state. Even though the movie calls the town something else, and says it's a small town. For the real story check out: http://www.gitwisters.com/ Well , I come from Bulgaria where it 's almost impossible to have a tornado but my imagination tells me to be "very , very afraid"!!!This guy (Devon Sawa) has done a great job with this movie!I don't know exactly how old he was but he didn't act like a child (WELL DONE)!Now about the tornado-it wasn't very realistic but frightens you!If you want to have a nice time in front of the telly - this is the movie! This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to "Blainsworth" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.

It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.

Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house. I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.

While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book. This movie is good for TV. I like it because I'm a HUGE fan of disaster films even though this is a family film. Accuracy on the film from the book is half-and-half They got the characters names right but in the book there was no storm chaser, the the car scene involving the Hatch family running away from the tornado wasn't in the book instead it involved Dan hatch and his friend riding with a police officer on their way to the police station for safety. and in the book Dan and his friend are both 12-years old. Thats all i can think of. Overall this was a good movie even though it could of have been a little more accurate to the book. Did you know the book was based on a true story of a series of tornadoes devastating a small Nebraska town in 1980? Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out. The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.

Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.

And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech. It is so gratifying to see one great piece of art converted into another without distortion or contrivance. I had no guess as to how such an extraordinary piece of literature could be recreated as a film worth seeing. If you loved Bulgakov's book you would be, understandably, afraid of seeing some misguided interpretation done more for the sake of an art-film project than for actually bringing the story's deeper meaning to the screen. There are a couple examples of this with the Master and Margarita. As complex and far-fetched as the story is, the movie leaves out nothing. It is as if the filmmaker read Bulgakov's work the same way an orchestral conductor reads a score--with not a note missed. Why can't we find such talent here in the U.S. ? So now my favorite book and movie have the same title. One of the most excellent movies ever produced in Russia and certainly the best one made during the decline of the USSR. Incredibly clever, hilarious and dramatic at the same time. Superb acting. Overall a masterpiece. Score it 10/10.

Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history — anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over — for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).

Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it. Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!

Jur These guys are anything but the Usual Suspects! They are a total bunch of likeable oddballs who you want to see get away with it,but they are so hapless that there is very little chance of that.No one is better than William H Macy at portraying the man with a big heart but down on his luck.This is probably his best performance since Fargo.Sam Rockwell played the meathead boxer to perfection,and the rest of the gang were uniformly good also.Luis Guzman brought some great comic relief as Cosimo,and George Clooney stole every scene in his cameo role.The heist scene at the end was absolutely hilarious.

The direction was also spot on by the Russo brothers.There was certainly a Coen brothers feel to the film throughout and it will be interesting to see how they will develop their careers.They have a long way to go to match the Coen's but this is an excellent start and I look forward to their next celluloid outing. ......."Yo mutha's a whore"! "Welcome to Collingwood" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film "Big Deal on Madonna Street", directed by Mario Monicelli.

The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.

The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.

The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end! This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States. Cosimo (Luis Guzman) ends up in prison for car burglary and there he's given the plan for the perfect heist from a lifer in prison; so he has to get out of jail, fast. He tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) to find a man who will do his time in prison for some money. But no one wants to do the time for Cosimo's crime and yet everybody seems to know a guy who will do that. Soon bad boxer Pero Mahalovic (Sam Rockwell) founds out the details of this so called "perfect job".

First of all, I think this movie was very funny and from my point of view I would recommend it to everyone. This movie is remake of Italian comedy "I Soliti Ignoti". I didn't watch the Italian original so I cannot judge or compare those two movies. But "Welcome to Collinwood" is great comedy for itself, about four people trying to rob the money from the vault in one house. Everyone gave their part of brilliance from this movie cast. Really excellent movie for these actors: Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy (great), Isaiah Washington, Michael Jeter (great), Luis Guzmán, Patricia Clarkson, Jennifer Esposito and finally George Clooney gave their share in this project.

Maybe to say that this movie is only comedy, isn't fair. This is more then that. Because of one difference. All of thieves in this movie have very small wishes when they are asked: what will they do with their money? It is mostly securing their future in very humble way. This fact goes beyond comedy into the soul of that criminals. And not only them but also cop Babitch, who is presented like corrupted one; so here directors Russo presents us fact that criminals and cop are the same. Actually all in Collinwood are; and not only in Collinwood, cause all people chase money, on legal or illegal way. I don't like all movies were audience eventually likes and cheers for thieves. But, this one is exception. You have to love them all. Riley with his little baby and wife in jail. Toto with his pants. Cosimo with his line: "Your mother's a whore!" and all others. They are just like characters in my favorite comic, Alan Ford. They all trying to make some money, but simply they are out of luck. But they all did one good deed: they gave money to Riley, so he can get his wife out of prison. They are all heroes in my eyes, cause lots of "honest" people wouldn't do that. The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time! Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.

Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday, I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook "Riley" and Michael Jeter's as "Toto" they keep you in "stitches". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie. I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!

Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.

***7/10***

On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled. Although it has been remade several times, this movie is a classic if you are seeing it for the first time. Creative dialog, unique genius in the final scene, it deserves more credit than critics have given it. Highly recommended, one of the best comedies of recent years This is not a "loose", but a precise, faithful remake of 1958 Monicelli's classic "I Soliti Ignoti" with Toto', Mastroianni, Gassman, Cardinale etc. And that's the reason is good, it copies all the funny characters and the plot, even in details (like the scene where the photographer steals the camera from the local market).

I have watched the superb old version many times and I knew by heart all the gangs and the ending but I still enjoyed "Welcome to Collinwood", which has its own freshness and atmosphere. It is interesting to see how the life and ways of the little thieves in 1950's Italy are adapted to 2002's USA. Things haven't changed much. 8/10. Welcome to Collinwood is a lot of things, but it is none of the following:

A George Clooney star vehicle Unfunny Un-Original

And yes i know, the basis for the movie is another movie. But as far as Hollywood goes, this may rank with their most authentic outputs this decade - and for me, it does.

The movie is from start to finish, an absolute gas. Here's why.

There isn't a bad performance in the film. The funny parts are funny. The edgy parts are edgy. The script contains, not a dull moment of dialogue The cinematography is fresh and yes beautiful. And it doesn't conform to the Hollywood norm (you'll see what i mean, when you see the film)

When i was a kid, i remember seeing advertisements for the film. This film went under the radar after not grossing much at the box office, and isn't even a cult classic. The reason why Transformers 2, is seen as acceptable by average movie goers, is because they are used to seeing Transformers 2. If film's as original and funny as this were pumped out as often as multi-million pieces of s**t, the cinematic experience would be a much fresher place -

When 'they' say they don't make em like they used to, 'they' didn't see Welcome to Collinwood.

A fun, mini-masterpiece of caper comedy, that refuses to compromise. One of my favourites. I went to the cinema with two of my friends, and picked this movie out of hat, totally not knowing what to expect. And it turn out into a very enjoyable, die-laughing experience! It's an excellent movie with very unexpected story, very good dialogs and crazy humor. All characters are obviously made in "Alan Ford" (italian satiric comic) style, but that haven't bothered me for a second. In fact this kind of loser-bums line-up made a movie quite unique and interesting. Sam Rockwell gave very good and convincing role, Willian Macy too, Clooney is hardly recognizable and brilliant. But real star is actually Guzman. He made a role of his life in this movie! The scene when his character Cosimo dies in the movie, is so hilarious that it made me choke and almost die with him! Highly recommended for all "Alan Ford" fans! Cosimo (Luis Guzmán) is told in prison about a perfect heist.Since he's behind bars and can't do it himself he has to leave it to his girl Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson).Soon there are five guys organizing the crime- five guys with very little brain capacity.Brothers Anthony and Joe Russo are the directors of Welcome to Collinwood (2002).It's a crime comedy that's often very funny.You can't help but laughing when everything goes wrong with these guys.There are some great actors playing these characters.William H.Macy plays Riley.Isaiah Washington is Leon.Sam Rockwell is Pero.Michael Jeter is Toto.Andy Davoli is Basil.Gabrielle Union plays his love interest Michelle.Jennifer Esposito plays Pero's love interest Carmela.George Clooney (also producer) plays Jerzy, the tattooed guy in a wheelchair.This is a highly entertaining flick.I certainly recommend it. Before George Clooney directed Sam Rockwell in his directorial debut "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", they starred together in this movie. George Clooney also was involved with this movie as a producer, along with Steven Soderbergh, which shows that they really believed in this project. In potential this also seems like a fine and entertaining project, that is in the same line with movie-remakes such as "Ocean's Eleven" and "The Italian Job" but somehow this movie is only halve successful, or at least it isn't as good as it could had been.

The movie its characters are all being played by some fine well known actors but a shame is that the characters are not really given enough room to develop. Even though in their potential they could had turned into fun and enjoyable characters, they are now only characters that mildly entertain because mostly of some of the more quirky sequences that are in the movie. The fact that they are being played doesn't change much to this, even though they prevent their characters from ever becoming a total bore or perhaps even annoying, or anything like that at all.

It's of course due to the writing that the characters aren't used to their full potential. I can only assume that the original Italian movie "I Soliti ignoti" works out much better than this movie does. The movie relies too much on its simple story and predictable way of storytelling.

Nevertheless the movie is simply still a very fun one to watch maybe because of that very same simplicity. It's an harmless little caper movie, in which you simply shouldn't to worry much about the story. In that regard "Welcome to Collinwood" is still a movie that works out and simply serves its purpose well.

It's a movie that you won't regret watching once you've finished it but it also is a movie you can really easily do without ever seeing.

7/10 This movie is very hilarious, and it has a great compilation of actors like William H. Macy which always have perform this kind of roles, maybe his most representative, Fargo; and George Clooney which is a very good actor showing his comedian work in brothers Cohen film "Oh brother, where art thou?" which results to be one of my favorite movies ever! But it's been hard to find "Welcome to Collinwood", here in Mexico. My city lacks of good places where to buy some good films. I tried to buy it at Blockbuster but they don't know it by the original name, so maybe it will be a little easier to find if I have the name they gave to it in Mexico, do someone knows it?, because I can't remember! Cheers. A. Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.

Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday,I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook "Riley" and Michael Jeter's as "Toto" they keep you in "stitches". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie. I saw this gem of a film at Cannes where it was part of the directors fortnight.

Welcome to Collinwood is nothing short of superb. Great fun throughout, with all members of a strong cast acting their socks off. It's a sometimes laugh out loud comedy about a petty crook (Cosimo, played by Luis Guzman) who gets caught trying to steal a car and sent to prison. While in prison he meets a `lifer' who tells him of `the ultimate bellini' – which to you and me – is a sure-fire get rich quick scheme. It turns out that there is a way through from a deserted building into the towns jewellers shop – which could net millions. Sounds simple? – well throw in all kinds of wacky characters and incidents along the way and you have got the ingredients for a one wild ride!! – word passes from one low life loser to the next and soon a team of them are assembled to try and cash in on Cosimos `bellini' lead by failed boxer Pero (Superbly played by Sam Rockwell – surely a star in the making) and reluctant crook Riley (William H. Macy) who is forced to bring his baby along with him as his wife was locked up for fraud!!.

Based on the Italian film I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna street) which also inspired a similar film to `Collinwood' – `Palookaville'. This knocks spots of the latter effort and although its written and directed by the Russo brothers it definitely has shades of the Coen Brothers about it. Produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, who has a small yet hilarious part as a crippled safe breaker. Silly, hilarious, tragic, sad, inevitable.

A group of down-and-outs team up with a "seasoned" crook to elevate themselves out of their poverty. Great idea...if you ignore the screwup factor.

Nice to see George Clooney doing something genuinely funny for a change. The casting is perfect and the acting standards very high. Although it could be said that the motley crew subject isn't new, I think this movie handles it in an interesting and unique way. Sufficiently so that it stands out from what has gone before.

Very well done guys. I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages. Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of.

Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.

But that does not diminish its genius.

Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.

This is not some watered-down "Nutty Professor" comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.

One of the best comedies I've ever seen. Welcome to Collinwood is one of the most delightful films I have ever seen. A superb ensemble cast, tight editing and wonderful direction. A caper movie that doesn't get bogged down in the standard tricks.

Not much can be said about this film without spoiling it. The tag line says it all - 5 guys. 1 Safe. No Brains.

William H Macy and Sam Rockwell lead an amazing cast. George Clooney should be congratulated for producing this gem.



This is without a doubt the funniest comedy of the year. Everybody is brilliant. The acting is superb. You can see that the actors enjoyed making this film. It´s a shame to spoil the film with give aways, so rent it and laugh your ass off.

9 - 10. Having heard quite positive reviews and having seen the trailer I had to see this movie. With William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Michael Jeter and Sam Rockwell present it had to be good. And it delivered. Overall, the movie is not crack-you-up funny, but there is one scene that really stands out and is, in a my eyes, a classic. SPOILER At the end, where they break through the wall to get to the safe and we see Rockwell and Washington stare at Jeter is just fantastic. This is just as good as the scene in The Big Lebowski where The Dude is using a chair to barricade his door, but forgets the door turns outward! END SPOILER Just go see this movie, you won't be disappointed. Went to see this as Me and my Lady had little else to do on a sunday afternoon I like films that deal with sleazy,loser characters and this is full of em. After a slow start we get some good turns from the cast but it is the actual 'Bellini' that both makes and lets the film down. The 'Bellini' is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a film for a long while but is too short and could have made this a masterpiece overall 71/2 out of 10 I participate in a Filmmaker's Symposium, and this film was shown after we had already seen a not so great film and participated in a 40 minute discussion. Even though it was incredibly late and we were weary, the entire audience really enjoyed it.

Personally I thought the film was hilarious in all the right spots, and I loved the quirky cast of characters. They really grow on you in the film. I loved this film. I thought it would be easy to watch, and easy to forget. I ran out after watching this to buy the DVD, obv not easily forgotten!

The script is brilliant, and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Each character has their moment, and I laughed hard throughout this film, comedic timing was spot-on.

There are good ways to make a movie and bad ways and this very much the former. This short caper exacts nothing more than what it gives to the audience. It presents a simple story, told very plainly with enough wisecracks to keep you going, then just gets better and better. Clooney's cameo is funny and very welcome but the leads including Sam Rockwell and Luiz Guzman can easily make it on their own. Likeable and funny, hilariously so towards the end, Welcome to Collinwood is a welcome addition to the heist genre. Great fun. I went with 8 friends to a sneak preview viewing of this film. We came to see different one but after 10 minutes wondering what the heck we got ourselves into this time the jokes became funny and they stayed funny throughout the movie. In the first part you just keep asking yourself about this 'malinski' and 'bellini' stuff (there are many more examples of this lingo) and because they keep repeating the same jokes (with different twists) they get funnier and funnier. In search for this malinski all the main characters are introduced the first one even wackier than the next. Until half of the film was over we didn't even know the name of this movie because there were no opening credits and we went to this sneak viewing, but we sure had a good time. The house was loaded (appr. 250 people) and I think about half of them didn't like it and the other half loved the film. If you like weird comical movies with great dialogue you will love it. Apart from Clooney This movie deserves a lot better than the 5.6 IMDB rating it has at the time I write this, but when more ppl have seen it I am sure it will go up. 7.0 is reasonable I guess, I would give it an 8 out of 10. (10 out of 10 after a few beers)

My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.

Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.

But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".

The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.

I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love. Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of "how can I keep up this ruse" scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own "fake" gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it. I did enjoy this film, I thought it ended up being an old fashioned love story with a few twists. I expected him to get the girl, I won't tell you if he does or not you will need to watch the movie to find out. Overall if you are looking to watch a love story this one will suffice. This episode of Twilight Zone combines a silent section (1890) with melodramatic acting and sight gags, an homage to the early Buster Keaton films. Lots of slapstick: Buster falling on a bulkhead door, falling in a puddle, running around pants-less. Silly scientist's invention of a Time Helmet, reminiscent of a Flash Gordon idea of what the future would be. Cheap prices, like $1.95 for ladies hats, or 17 cents a pound for beef seem outrageously high to Buster. Even the world of 1890 is too much for Buster/Mulligan. How shocking when he is mistakenly transported to the "modern" world of 1960! Buster was trying to go backwards! The "scientist" of that time wants to return to a calmer world, the 1890 that he has studied and admired. They go back together, and Buster/Mulligan is now happy and the "scientist" regrets not having electronic equipment, modern beds or an electric blanket. So Buster sends him back with the crazy helmet.

This Twilight Zone doesn't have a heavy message. Since Buster Keaton died in 1966, it is one of his last efforts. That's enough.

One other cute thing--longtime underutilized Maytag Man Jesse White is a repairman who fixes the Time Helmet--foreshadowing his washing machine career. Buster absolutely shines in this episode, which is the only vehicle I've seen towards the end of the career that allowed him to do the physical (and silent!) comedy that made him famous. It's still a shock to hear his gravelly voice in the talkie sequences - his voice is about the only thing I don't care for, as far as Buster is concerned - but his ability to take a pratfall is still unparalleled. He even repeats some of the gags used in his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle.

My deepest gratitude to Rod Serling for presenting us with this episode, and for giving Buster's genius full scope. He didn't have much time (one episode) to do it in, but this is a touching tribute to Hollywood's greatest genius. This is a clever episode of TWILIGHT ZONE that was comic rather than strange or tragic. Buster Keaton is Woodrow Mulligan, a janitor from 1890 America, works in a laboratory. He is constantly griping about the life problems around him: meat is too expensive (it's like $1.00 / lb. Unheard of!). He is always yelling after crazy speeders (on bicycles - autos haven't appeared yet). Griping to the end, he sees a helmet like device by a scientist, and puts it on and tries it. Suddenly he is in modern America. The beginning was a seven minute silent film. Now it is all noise, all talking, all beeping, all blowing. Keaton is here only a few minutes when he realizes that the world has changed and not for the better. He runs into Stanley Adams, a Professor Rollo, who realizes that Mulligan is from c. 1890 (he mentions President Cleveland). Rollo has always wanted to live in that charming, quiet age. He helps Mulligan get the helmet repaired, and they go back in time. Rollo gets bored after awhile, due to the lack of scientific equipment that he can use. Mulligan puts the helmet on him and sends him into the future. But now Woodrow is fully content with the quiet, simple age he lives in. He has found contentment.

In his last fifteen years Buster Keaton was frequently on television (many times for Allan Funt on CANDID CAMERA, where he could help set up sight gag tricks on the public). He did make a few films as well (most notably A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM and THE RAILRODDER). But he occasionally popped up in television plays and episodes. He is in his element here, presumably advising the director (old comedy film director Norman McLeod - he directed the Marx Brothers in HORSE FEATHERS) on the tricks he could do. Watch how Stanley Adams and he time Adams picking him up when he is snatching a pair of trousers he needs. In terms of timing it reminds one of gags he did in the 20s in films like SHERLOCK JR. The episode does show Keaton in fine fettle for a man in his sixties.

The appearances of Jesse White (here as a repairman, of all things) is always welcome. But look a bit at "Professor Rollo". Stanley Adams was a well known figure in movies and television from the 1950s onward to his tragic suicide in 1977. Plump, with unkempt appearance, and heavy, booming voice, his best known dramatic role was as the wrestling promoter in the film version of REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT (he wants Anthony Quinn to be a wrestler wearing a costume as an Indian). His best known television appearance was as the space trader who introduces the crew of the Starship Enterprise in STAR TREK to those furry, fertile little creatures "Tribbles" (as in "The Trouble With"). Adams was always worth watching (like Jesse White, and certainly like Keaton), enhancing most of the productions he appeared in. I have never understood his suicide, but it was a sad end to a first rate character performer. Well now, this was certainly a surprise episode. In this anthology science fiction series, with all of this Alien Beings, Extraordinary Occurrences and many Brushes with the Hereafter, this episode would certainly rate as unusual. Its seemingly insignificant settings apparently not imparting any morale at story's end. Or does it? Kicking off with the Silent Movie Form, no recorded dialog, but having Musical accompaniment. In this case it's on the sound track, not utilizing the Playing of Organ or Piano by an on sight Musician. This part of the episode, along with the ending section, also made liberal use o Title Cards, just like "the Old Time Movies." While these Titles are a bit exaggerated and overdone, they are made so intentionally and with an affection for rather than any contempt for The Silent Film.

Veteran Comedy Film Director, Norman Z. McLeod, was the man in the Chair for this half-hour installment. He had been the Director of many of the greatest comedies of all time, featuring people like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Harold Lloyd and Danny Kaye. He was no stranger to to TV, as he had done a lot of work on Television Series.

It doesn't appear that he and Mr. Keaton had ever worked together before(as I cannot find any evidence of this)' but judging by the outcome of the film, they succeeded in doing so with flying colors! Anyone who directed Keaton was aware that Buster was also a fine comedy Director as well as a Comedy Player. He was just as comfortable behind the camera as he was in front of it. Their short partnership must have been a harmonious one, with 'give and take' about how to do things. It is apparent that many of the gags were Keaton's, resurrected from his own Silent Picture Days. For example, the gag of putting the pair of pants on with Rollo's(Stanley Adams assistance was done by Keaton and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle in one of the Arbuckle 2 Reelers, THE GARAGE (1919). That was a clear example of his craft in a nutshell.

Buster knew that we film our world with a camera, rendering it a two dimensional image. This one fact is at the bottom of so many of gags. It is a Cardinal Rule for his film making.

The cast was small and once again just chock full-of veteran talent. Stanley Adams was Rollo and served as Mr. Keaton's straight man. Jesse White, the old 'Maytag Repair Man', ran the fix it shop that fixed the 'Time HJelmet'. Gil Lamb, serene veteran of RKO Short Comedy series, was the 1890's Cop. James Flavin, George E.Stone, Harry Fleer, Warren Parker, and Milton Parsons all rounded out this largely silent cast.

Without spilling the beans, let's just say that yes, there is probably a lesson to be learned here. If not the one already mentioned, "The Grass Always Looks Greener on the Other Side of the Fence!", then how about, "Be Careful in What You Ask For, Because You Just May Get It!" Using Buster Keaton in the twilight of his career was an interesting choice. He may have been the most talented comedian of the silent age. This gives him a chance to display those talents in a little time travel story. He get hooked up with a guy living in modern times, and it becomes obvious that we are best left in our own times Keaton is able to do his sight gags very well. I've heard his voice before. I believe he did some of those Beach Party films, playing some vacuous characters just to earn a few bucks. Serling seemed to have respect for him and portrayed him that way. It's not a bad story. It shows how one reacts when we wish for something we don't have and get that wish. This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant "Bruck-buster" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me! GONE IN 60 SECONDS / (2000) *** (out of four)

"Gone in 60 Seconds" is an energetic, slick, stylish action picture with high octane star power and lots of awesome looking automobiles. If you are a viewer interested in cars this production, by producer Jerry Bruckheimer ("Con Air," "The Rock"), is worth seeing just to feast your eyes on the glossy vehicles. Although the film secretes a stench of weakness in many areas, its precise sense of action and excitement make it a moderately successful summer thrill ride.

The film stars Giovanni Ribisi ("The Mod Squad") as a young crook named Kip Raines, who, as the movie opens, fails to deliver a long list of expensive cars to the powerful criminal Raymond Calitri (Christopher Eccleston). When Kip's life is threatened because of such, his older brother, Randall "Memphis" Raines (Nicolas Cage), a retired but skillful car thief, is called upon to complete a task in exchange for his brother's survival: steel fifty cars-specified by model, color, year, and make-in only four days.

Memphis disburses the first three days recruiting a team of bandits to help him pull off the heist. The crew includes Sara "Sway" Wayland (Angelina Jolie), a sexy yet gruff retired car swindler knowing Memphis through previous business, a fellow named Mirror Man (T.J. Cross), the aging and wise Otto Halliwell (Robert DuVall), as well as Tumbler (Scott Caan), Atley Jackson (Will Patton), Toby (William Lee Scott), and Donny Astricky (Chi McBrde).

Contributing to the film's drive and tension is a subplot involving two police detectives, Roland Castlebeck (Delroy Lindo) and Drycoff (Timothy Olyphant), who suspect from previous experience that Memphis and his crew are up to no good and keep an extra close eye on them.

There is not much time for character development here; the audience gets to know these people though their rugged lifestyles and assume tough personalities through the films hard core, stylish atmosphere. To make matters even worse for the film, the dialogue fails to define the characters with a gritty cultural tone. I am not stating I think profanity and vulgarism is necessary for thrillers to flourish; I actually honor the director's decision to sustain from extreme foul language in a movie that could have very effortlessly earned an R-rating. However, I do believe in a movie such as "Gone in 60 Seconds," to strongly develop the character's enlightenment, dialogue needs to be believable and authentic.

In spite of problems, the characters are effective due to the top notch, perfectly cast performers responsible. Nicolas Cage's melodramatic performance is intense and convincing. Angelina Jolie's sleazy appearance is completely appropriate here. Delroy Lindo is deliciously sturdy and believable. Giovanni Ribisi, Scott Caan, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, and Christopher Eccleston provide persuasive supporting roles.

The film contains standard structure, with a satisfactory first act that elaborates on the story's style and the character's motives, sets up a fast-paced theme of action, but lacks depth and strong character introduction. In the second act we run into a few more problems: the story wastes time during much of this segment, never really building up for the third act. While the middle of the movie occupies much time, and a sex scene provides a solid mid-plot, not a whole lot happens. The third act is pretty much a sheer adrenaline rush containing furious wall-to-wall excitement and one of the most intense car chase sequences ever filmed.

The soundtrack to "Gone in 60 Seconds" contributes a great deal to the inspirational action scenes. It is scenes like the car chases that makes this movie work in spite of several destructive faults. Dominic Sena, whose career has mostly consisted of directing commercials, has an appealing style and a decisive attitude in "Gone in 60 Seconds" which will grant audiences with two hours of commotion, thrills, and excitement…but not much more.



gone in 60 seconds is a very good action comedy film that made over $100 million but got blasted by most critics. I personally thought this was a great film. The story was believable and has probobly the greatest cast ever for this type of movie including 3 academy award winners nicolas cage, robert duvall and the very hot anjolina jolie. other than the lame stunt at the end this is a perfect blend of action comedy and drama. my score is **** (out of ****) gone in 60 sec. where do i began, it keeps you in the movie with some good action and some cool cars. people say its not a good movie i disagree sure it has some cheesy parts but what action movie doesn't. i gave it an 8 out of 10 cause of the action and the comic relief if you like the Rock or Face Off than this movie is right up your alley cage dose a good job along with one of the most under rated actors in my mind Del-Roy Lindo. i think sometimes people look to far into movies some times you need to sit back enjoy the movie and after words ask yourself did they achieve what they where showing. meaning if they where going for action was it action pact. if they where trying to make a movie to change how movies are made and trying to win every award out their well did they? i think they made the action movie they set out to make, give it a chance and you wont be sorry. What's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.

In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.

Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.

Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.

Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.

3 1/2 out of 5 To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the ‘order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a ‘retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story.

You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.

OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool – feelgood ending.

As for Nicolas Cage, well… He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, ‘cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.

7 out of 10 As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.

It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.

The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.

The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.

All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.

So yes, this movie isn't an "epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!

I'd take it over the numerous iterations of "The Flaccid And The Tedious" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10 Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with "The Fast and the Furious" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.

My Grade: B-

DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; "0 To 60" featurette; "Wild Rides" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult "Painted On The Heart" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "Shanghai Noon", "Mission to Mars" and "Coyote Ugly" I have had the chance to watch several movies in BluRay and HD DVD. This movie stays to it's wonderful action and great story. Although if you are looking for a movie with an excellent picture this one is not it. Not having this movie on DVD helped make the purchase easier. I have always enjoyed the intense action and the excellent acting which don't always go together. Overall that is what makes this an excellent fun film to watch. Now on the Blu Ray scale. In many Blu Ray movies you either get two things. A picture that is almost crystal clear with no distortion or a movie with grainy hd picture. I was disappointed when I made this my first blu ray movie. I almost began to think that this was a blu ray standard. Although after watching other movies I know better. I don't believe they spent as much time as they should have transferring this movie over to hd. That is generally the problem with some movies. And for the price of Blu Ray players and the Blue Ray Discs you should only have the best picture. So I only consider this a worthwhile investment for people who have either never seen the movie or have not bought the DVD version. If you like cars you will love this film!

There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....

There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!

When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought "...sweeet.", but then i thought "...naaaa you suck!" but then finally after watching the film i realised "...yep he suck's!".Only joking he plays the role very well.

I'll end this unusual review by saying "If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say "Poor Criminal." I say: "Poor us."

p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice! It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well. I saw this on a flight over to the U.S and was a little sceptical at first as a few people had said there were so many characters in it that you didnt get to know any of them. However I didnt find this at all. The film is fast, but this is due to the nature of the director and the star. The chase scenes are excellent and yes it may be predictable but isnt that true of most films. The main villain is a bit of a let down, Christopher Eccelston is not as convincing as he could have been, but that said its still a good film. Good action and interesting plot. Having seen the original I must say it was an interesting improvement and showed more of the movie. Good cast .. meaningful acting.. although it would nice to see some more expansion in the action scenes rather than the background story. Fun movie to watch and keeps you alert all the time 7/10 is a right vote I think! Weak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all). The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10) i went to see this movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided.

Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie. I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little "too" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)

I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.

The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used... The documentary begins with setting the perspective to several light years. The voyager is traveling our milky-way with the sounds of our earthly lives, as a space monument for (possible?) extraterrestrials.

The documentary contains footage of Willy Dixen, Robert Johnson, Skip James and J.B. Lenoir. The footage of J.B. has never been published before. The narrative is from 'blind Willie' Dixon. However, it's done by an actor. The film shows the work of all these early blues men followed by covers and interpretations by musicians, such as Nick Cave and the bad Seeds among others.

The Death of J.B. Lenoir (John Mayall's song) is a striking event in the story. Lenoir got political engaged and is considered to be of the league of Martin Luther King and peers. His political interests can be found in the themes of his lyrics.

Blues is found to be 'THE' native music of America. Blues is the roots and the rest is the fruits.

The title 'Soul of a Man' is after a Willie Dixon song. I always enjoyed watching this when it came on television during prime-time every year in the 60's. It's a typical Hollywood history epic, dramatized, stylized and full of inaccuracies but so what, it's an entertaining movie and a good looking film. Cecil B. DeMille at the end of his life is the executive producer of this remake of his 1938 film. His son-in-law actor Anthony Quinn who had the supporting role of Beluche in the '38 film is the director in his directorial debut and swan song as he had never directed a film before and never would again. DeMille assembled a crew who had recently worked on his 10 Commandments to help Quinn pull it off including longtime DeMille associate producer/actor Henry Wilcoxon overseeing the project. Also from the 10 Commandments are screenwriter Jesse Lasky, cinematographer Loyalk Griggs, assistant director Francisco Day, 2nd unit director Arthur Rosson, art directors Walter Tyler and Hal Pereira, set directors Sam Comer and Ray Moyer, costume designers Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Lester who as a costume design team received The Buccaneer's only Oscar nomination. A great cast here from team DeMille headed up by Yul Brynner as pirate Jean Lafitte and Charleton Heston as future President General Andrew Jackson. Also in the cast are Charles Boyer, E.G. Marshall, Lorne Greene, Claire Bloom and Inger Stevens. At just over two hours it drags in some spots but makes up for it with some excellent battle scenes. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10. This interesting feature has a very fine story-line, rather colorful characters and a very steady pace. it also incorporates a plot device from "Reap the Wild Wind", and since Cecil B. Deille directed that and his son-in-law Anbthony Quinn directed this film from his preparations, that can hardly be a coincidence. it works in both cases, I must report. The unusual set-up tells the viewer that Barataria, an island ruled by Jean Lafitte is built upon piracy, but during the war of 1812, and before, he has always refrained from bothering United States' vessels. Now General Andrew Jackson has been charged with defending nearby New Orleans with only 12,000 men against 60,000 British Imperial redcoats and 60 ships. Lafitte's men want him to side with the stronger force; he wants freedom and pardons for his men before ceding such a strategic landing spot to the U.S. forces. There are other factors at work in the story-line; pirate Bonnie Brown and her father want to attack U.S. ships and do so in defiance of Lafitte's orders, leaving a boy alive without knowing they have missed an eyewitness. When his testimony finally comes out, Jackson cannot grant what Lafitte asks; but Lafitte supports him anyway and in the fog, the pirates and Jackson rout the British and he sails away to whatever destiny awaits a man who had genius and statesmanship but not fortune. The cast of this colorful and physically-lovely film are skilled indeed. Yul Brynner has one of his best roles as the pirate king, Inger Stevens is beautiful; as the girl he loves, Charles Boyer has many good lines as his adviser, powerful Lorne Greene is a rival, E.G. Marshall the Governor, and Claire Bloom is charismatic as Bonnie Brown. Others in the cast include Ted de Corsia, Douglass Dumbrille, George Mathews, Henry Hull as Jackson's adviser, Bruce Gordon, Onslow Stevens, Robert F. Simon, Henry Brandon, Fran Jeffries, and Leslie Bradley, among others. The music by Elmer Bernstein is very memorable, and the 1938 script remade here had only to be freshened a bit. The shiny cinematography was the work of veteran Loyal Griggs, the set decoration was supplied by Albert Nozaki, Hal Pereira and Walter Tyler, with set decoration by Sam Comer and Roy Moyer and costumes by Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Jester. Nellie Manley did the elaborate hairstyles and Wally Westmore the difficult makeup. The film contains quite a bit of good adventure-level dialogue and a very strong climactic battle scene. Charlton Heston, as as Andrew Jackson, prepared to play the part of an elder general and then discovered the man was young at the time of the battle; but he is often effective, grey-haired or not, especially in his exchanges with Henry Hull as Mr. Peavey. This is an exciting and well-mounted entertainment, which looks exactly as if C.B. DeMille had completed his production; it is a beautiful and nearly a very-fine motion picture.

If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures. Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance. During the whole Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy Craze Paramount Pictures really dropped the ball in restoring this Anthony Quinn directed Cecil B. DeMille supervised movie and getting it on DVD and Blu Ray with all the extras included. It is obvious to me that Paramount Pictures Execs are blind as bats and ignorant of the fact that they have a really good pirate movie in their vault about a real pirate who actually lived in New Orleans, Louisiana which would have helped make The Crescent City once again famous for it's Pirate Connections. When the Execs at Paramount finally get with the program and release this movie in digital format then I will be a happy camper. Paramount Pictures it is up to you to get off your duff and get this film restored now ! Taken in the context of the time it was made, I found this a worthwhile movie. While the details may be 'dramatized', the overall history was a nice primer. In addition, I found spotting actors I knew a real pleasure. Who would imagine Ben Cartwright as a dastardly cad? I'll leave the rest of the star spotting to you. As to the secondary casting, this movie (as one would expect from a movie made in the late thirties) has many an enjoyable character actor, but top kudos' to Andrew Jackson's right hand man Peavey. The perfect touch of comedy. Well shot, with beautiful ships, and competent acting throughout out, I recommend this for anyone with a taste for the slightly camp, or an eye for a double-period piece, set at the dawn of America, and made in a period when great names, and top notch character actors, were a real pleasure to enjoy. The original DeMille movie was made in 1938 with Frederic March. A very good film indeed. Hollywood's love of remakes brings us a fairly interesting movie starring Yul Brynner. He of course was brilliant as he almost always seemed to be in all of his movies. Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson was a stroke of genius. However, the movie did tend to get a little long in places. It does not move at the pace of the 1938 version. Still, it is a fun movie that should be seen at least once. This movie has great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time! of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.

after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.

Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.

the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.

the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.

there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory. I am afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like ....."LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58" you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.

DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!! hello. i just watched this movie earlier today for the 14th time in 3 days. i am a history teacher that has wayyyyy too much time on my hands. i need a life. i found the movie containing a striking resemblance to broke back mountain. i also found that i look a lot like jean Lafitte if he were white. also, my favorite line in the entire movie was from Mr. Petey--"this baby can shoot a chipmunk's eye from 300 yards!!" oh, and my favorite scene in the movie was when the British were coming in, and the one drummer who was so devoted to his work, and he drummed till the death, as if that drum would end the war altogether....but it wouldn't. well, thats all i would like to say about this movie. OH, one more thing..bonnie brown is an insane physco bipolar mood swinging BEEYOTCH. that is all. I almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out. I thought the children in the show did a very good job. I especially enjoyed the performance of the Emma character. Well done! The stunts were pretty good for a low budget show. I was able to follow the movie and enjoy it without having to look at my watch every 5 minutes.I enjoyed the scenes with the tooth fairy and the burning of her. The ghostly apparitions of the children's souls being released was also good. Another good point of the movie is that it kept moving along. There wasn't a lot of slow scenes. The adult leads were also believable and therefore helped to keep the show entertaining. All in all an enjoyable night of movie watching. To Be Honost With you i think everything was so good in this movie there should be no reason why it didn't go into theaters,The Deaths in the movie are awesome the fx are awesome when used,There are a few dull moments when the story's following the little girl but all in all this was a very good movie that i hope someday get's the props it should.The very first part of the movie is prob why it came straight to video with them killing a little boy but after that the story is based on a little girl and her mother who came to visit the moms boyfriend who moved out to try to become a writer,The property he buy's turns out to be where the Witch(Tooth Fairy)lives and anyone who live in her house or goes on her property will be in great danger don't wanna give anything really away just a little info if you've wanted to see this movie then do so it's worth the price of the rental My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course). Like many here I grew up with Scooby-Doo. Unlike many here who did, I love this show! I think that it has been very well done and thought through. Everything about it marks it as a spin-off which isn't meant to be taken seriously. The formula is simple - it is a parody of other cartoons with a single bad guy trying to get the better of the good guy. By using the well known Shaggy and Scooby-Doo characters it is much easier to engage the viewer with the parody humour from the outset of each 30 minute episode.

There have always been Scooby-Doo spin-offs which have annoyed fans. The classic being the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts from the 80's. These spin-offs had their place: They allowed new content to be sold, created new fans, and kept Scooby-Doo merchandise on the shelves. I would agree that "Shaggy & Scooby-Doo: Get a Clue!" doesn't fit in with this traditional role but it is probably what I had always wanted the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts to be: an action packed show which focuses on the best/funniest Scooby-Doo characters! Good features of the show: the animation, the voices, the attention to detail, the bad-guys, the "Best Friend" relationship between Shaggy and Scooby-Doo, the constant humour! Bad features: None, although the revamped Mystery Machine is pretty close at times.

Well done Warner Bros. Animation! One of the cleverest cartoons in a long time! I actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.

Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original "Mystery-solving" theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.

I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)

Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations. I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous "Scooby Doo" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled "Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.

Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running "Roobi-Roo" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays "GET A CLUE!" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping. I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon. This series, produced at probably the most propitious time following the events of the second World War, is on a scale of value that stands far above any individual's presumption to criticize.

The timing of World at War's production in 1974, amounting to some three decades after the events of the war, permits an accurate relating of events in a manner uncoloured by residual propaganda and slant. The passage of thirty years allows the telling to be backed up by an impressive and fascinating panoply of the very individuals involved, ranging from some of the highest military and political figures down to the field soldiers, civilians, and such survivors of the death camps as have remained to bear witness to the unimaginable inhumanities of which civilized humans are capable. Most approaching or well into their senior years, the interviewed subjects have had enough time to reflect on their experiences and in most instances have had enough time for whatever propaganda and fervor may have affected them in the past to have receded away, leaving only the memories of what they saw and what they did.

The information that these survivors give, strikingly reinforced by the postures and expressions they display while telling their part, give their stories all the more impact. Such names as Ira Eaker, Adolph Galland, Louis Mountbatten, Albert Speer, Gertrude Junge (Hitler's personal secretary)... the list is far too long to relate.

Today, within the lifetime of the survivors of this enormous lesson in the hideous price of political ambition, are young people who chant the same sort of militaristic and nationalistic war promotion as led to WW2. The DVD series we discuss here ought to comprise the core of a mandatory history subject in schools, that the lessons bought at such a horrible cost in those days should not have been wasted but should be taken to heart by those who did not see firsthand the terrible price.

I am almost done watching the 11 disk set, having seen most of the series when a local TV channel aired it more than 10 years ago. It has lost none of its poignancy to me, indeed has become even more of a magnificent chronicle of some of the very darkest days of human times.

The highest possible rating seems unworthy of being applied to this presentation. I think the value of this series is beyond counting. Utterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of "civility" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called "The century at war" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this. Theo Robertson has commented that WAW didn't adequately cover the conditions after WWI which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII.

Perhaps he missed the first ONE and a quarter HOURS of volume 8? Covers this period, and together with the earlier volumes in the series, shows clearly the existing conditions, I feel. A friend of mine grew up in Germany during this period, joined the Hitler Youth even, and his experiences were very similar to that mentioned in WAW.

This documentary is SO far above the History Channel's documentaries I also own, that there is no comparison.

The ONLY fault, and it is a small one, that I have with WAW is this: the numbers are not included, many times. For instance, if you're talking about lend-lease, then how much war material was lent/leased? How much to Russia, how much to Britian? How many merchant ships did the U-Boats sink, and when? How many ships did the German or Japanese Navy have, total, in 1941? What type were they? How many troops? How many troops did the allies have, in total, and by country? Lots of numbers could have made a lot of viewers nod off, but I would have preferred MORE! And naturally, I always want to see more military analysis. Like WHY didn't Patton & Clark trap the German army that was at Cassini, after they had it surrounded, instead of racing Monty to Rome, and letting it escape? I don't think you can begin to understand war until you've seen some of these video segments on "total war", like the fire bombing of Dresden. It's like trying to understand Auschwitz, etc., before you see the clips of the death camps: you just can't wrap your head around it - it's too unbelievable.

Unknown at that time, and of course, unfilmed, were the most egregious cruelties and inhumanities of the Japanese, including cannibalism, (read "Flyboys"), and some LIVE vivisection of medical "experimentation" prisoners, w/o any anesthetic!

Dave My wife and I have watched this whole series at least three times. I can't imagine how it could be better. This isn't the "complete" history of WWII—no library could hold such a history—but it is the best summary of that history. Lots of detail, lots of personal stories, and still keeps the overall picture in view.

Olivier's narration is excellently written and, of course, superbly given. The interviews are from all sides, except the Russian, because the producers were not allowed to talk to many Russians. It is very much worth owning this complete program on DVD. We treasure our copy.

The producer's do an excellent job of providing pictures and action where there was almost none extant in any archive: There are almost no films of convoys and submarine battles, for instance, but still, the episode on this subject is very well done. The music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.

I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.

I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.

See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener. Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as "The Nazis - A warning From History", "Blitz" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. "Britain At War In Colour", with its companion series "Japan", "Germany" and "America" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative. If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!! Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator. After all these years I still consider this series the finest example of World War II documentary film making. The interviews with the many participants from all countries set this apart from any other project. It would be great to see a contemporary documentarian(Ken Burns ?) take on this topic and try to gather information from veterans before they are all gone. With modern technology to improve old archival footage and lots of information that has been unearthed since 1974 when The World At War was produced, an updated version of this series would be welcome. The History Channel has made some fine shows dealing with many aspects of WWII but an expansive series such as the World At War has not been successfully attempted since the original. If you are interested in this era don't miss this series. It is required viewing. This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century. I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.

I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.

Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.

Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did. Example of how a World War 2 documentary should be made,using first hand accounts from actual troops and civilians whom participated in this awful conflict,and archived footage gathered from around the time .I caught this on a re-run on the History channel about a year and a half back,with no knowledge really of the Second World War at the time,but it enveloped me,and now I consider myself a World War 2 buff,watching and reading any and all that I can find about it,but nothing comes close to this landmark documentary,definitely worth buying the boxed set of.............

This is quite simply documentary making of the very highest standard. 10 out of 10, this brilliant, super documentary is a must see, with film clips from the war which people did not seen for years, untill this was screened in 1974. The film clips in this documentary from the war doesn't miss out anything, some of the clips left me dumbstuck. The whole series is over 20 episodes long, and Sir Lawrence Olivier is the narrator and tells a stunning story of war. Simply this is still probably the best documentary of war still, and now over 25 years old still is able to pack a tremendous punch. You must watch this at some time, even if it's a few episodes, even at that you will still be blown away at the impact this documentary means to those who have been there suffered and died in the name of WAR, in a WORLD AT WAR.. This is without doubt the best documentary ever produced giving an accurate and epic depiction of World War 2 from the invasion of Poland in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945.

Honest and to the point, this documentary presents views from both sides of the conflict giving a very human face to the war. At the same time tactics and the importance of Battles are not overlooked, much work has been put into the giving a detailed picture of the war and in particularly the high, low and turning points in the allies fortunes. Being a British produced documentary this 26 part series focus is mainly on Britain, but Russia and America's contribution are not skimmed over this is but one such advantage of a series of such length.

Another worthy mention is the score, the music and the whole feel of the documentary is one of turmoil, struggle and perseverance. Like a film this series leaves the viewer in no doubt of the hardship faced by the allies and the Germans during the war, its build to a climax at the end of every episode, which serves to layer the coarse of the second world war. After watching all 26 the viewer is left with an extensive knowledge about the war and astonished at just how much we owe to the members of the previous generation. I remember watching this as a child in the UK, mesmerized by the story and Laurence Olivier's narration. We would talk about nothing else at school the next day. I imagine the ratings for the first showing were huge. This is quite simply the best most comprehensive documentary series despite the fact they had to cut the story down to the bone they managed to capture so much. What is interesting is that the battles of Britain and North Africa were pivotal yet are widely unrecognized as such by Americans. The series captures the rivalry between Mountbatten and the American generals, the suffering of German troops on the Eastern front, the maltreatment of Japanese prisoners of war by American troops. The images of the holocaust made me, a non-Jewish European, feel forever guilty about the treatment of the Jewish people. I don't know why this is not number one in the IMDb rankings. Perhaps they are showing their bias against documentaries. Spoiler - we win. I am not a very good writer, so I'll keep this short. World at War is the best WWII documentary that I've seen. I've seen different WWII documentaries (not only English/North American) and this documentary seems to be the most complete WWII documentary that I've seen. I think it could talk a bit more about the Great Depression and why/how Hitler got to power, but it does a very good job at covering the war. It seems to be complete and objective/fair to everyone. It does not exaggerate or diminish roles of different nations. It has a lot of original footage, including color footage and many eye witnesses (it was made in 70's when a lot more were alive). It has great music and narrator. All-in-All I gave this one 10/10, because it's that good. (I haven't seen specials in DVD version so I cannot comment on those) World At War is perhaps the greatest documentary series of all time. The historical research is virtually flawless. Even after a quarter century, it is the most accurate and definitive documentary about WW2. An invaluable historical work that includes interviews with some of the most important and fascinating figures from the war. I highly recommend it as a learning experience. Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.

The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in "The Making of The World at War" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.

The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously. i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.

the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.

this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.

if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.

the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.

the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable War is hell. But this documentary of WWII is heaven.

Not only is this series a breath-taking, almost-exhaustive look at the Second World War, it's a poetic masterpiece told clearly and superbly by Laurence Olivier.

This documentary series defines the genre. It's sweepingly long, no doubt, but you will enjoy all of them and want to come back for more and more. (I have the series on DVD and I probably watch the series three times a year).

Truly, this is an impeccable bit of film-making. Other than Olivier, the best part of the series is listening to the veterans tell their stories; whether it be about an actual battle or about finding a hog to butcher so they could have something delicious for supper.

I'm going to go watch it right now (again, my... 11th time). This is what we can do to each other. This is the sort that everbody should see at least once.

It does not glorify world. It shows that it is the everyday person who is killed, mained and debased by war. The person on the "other side" eats sleeps, laughs and cry just as we do. As so many others have written, this is a wonderful documentary. Here is a list of the 'chapters' for anyone interested: 1: A New Germany: 1933-1939 2: Distant War, September 1939-May 1940 3: France Falls, May-June 1940 4: Alone, May 1940-May 1941 5: Barbarossa, June-December 1941 6: Banzai, Japan, 1931-1942 7: On Our Way, USA, 1939-1942 8: Desert North Africa, 1940-1943 9: Stalingrad, June 1942-February 1943 10: Wolfpack 11: Red Star The Soviet Union, 1941-1943 12: Whirlwind Bombing Germany, September 1939 13: Tough Old Gut 14: Its A Lovely Day, Tomorrow: Burma, 15: Home Fires: Britain 1940-1941 16: Inside The Reich: Germany, 1940-1944 17: Morning: June - August 1944 18: Occupation Holland, 1940-1944 19: Pincers: August 1944- March 1945 20: Genocide: 1941-1945 21: Nemesis, Germany: February-May 1945 22: Japan: 1941-1945 23: Pacific: February 1942-July 1945 24: The Bomb: February-September 1945 25: Reckoning The world at war is one of the best documentaries about world war 2.

The 24 episodes cover the war and what it was like in the countries involved in it. The first episode tells us how the Hitler came to power, and how he was able to build up one of the strongest armies in the world. They also fucus on the military actions taken during the war, and the holocaust. One of the strongest and best documentaries ever made. All of you must watch this. Perfection! 10/10

I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.

With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here.

I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s)

This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.

Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.

This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time... This excellent series, narrated by Laurence Olivier, brilliantly, it should be said, charts the beginning to the end of World War 2. The origins are not entirely examined fully from Germany's fall at the hands of the Versailles treaty which helped propel Hitler's demonic rise, but as one reviewer says, that must be hard to do, in a 26-part series with so much to cram in.

Apart from the expected combat photography/action, there are plenty of personal, emotional and human tragedies that are told giving the viewer an amazing insight, especially if you're not necessarily a World War 2 buff/fan. Episodes showing 'testimonies' and what life was like on the home front of the main allies/adversary, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.A. were quite eye-opening. Showing the extreme savagery of the war on the frontline and of course the sufferings of civilians, the death camps etc., were very well handled and exposed. I'd fully recommend this in any history class for the younger generation (Of which it could be said I am one at 47!).

Certain things are quite strangely left out, like the advent of the new jet era beginning, with Frank Whittle's experimental Gloster jet and the Gloster Meteor's combat debut as well as that of the German Messerschmitt Me 262 - especially as the V-1 was seen making its debut and there was surprisingly smaller mention of the V2. This is probably a small oversight, not referring to the more sensational secret and fantastic weapons which WW2 brought forward from a more barren old science. But a great series that made its mark and has done so ever since when thankfully repeated.

A series to own as a box set in history terms, on DVD for anyone especially who happens to be a military fan. Jeremy Isaacs and Thames TV should be well proud. I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!

Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.

Buy it! I saw this series when I was a kid and loved the detail it went into and never forgot it. I finally purchased the DVD collection and its just how I remembered. This is just how a doco should be, unbiased and factual. The film footage is unbelievable and the interviews are fantastic. The only other series that I have found equal to this is 'Die Deutschen Panzer'.

I only wish Hollywood would sit down and watch this series, then they might make some great war movies.

Note. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers and When Trumpets Fade are some I'd recommend This was by far the best war documentary ever made. From the very beginning of the first episode when Sir Laurence Olivier described the horrific events in Oradour-Sur-Glane 'The day the soldiers came'. To the final days of the war when the mushroom clouds appeared over Japan, I never missed a second of this classic series and I remember it well even though it was screened way back in 1974. Each and every aspect of this tragedy was covered in detail. This whole series should be compulsory viewing for as many of the world's children as possible so that the tragedy of World War Two is not repeated and that bigotry, hatred, greed and intolerance are not confused with patriotism or religious zeal. This is a fantastic series first and foremost. It is very well done and very interesting. As a huge WWII buff, I had learned a lot before seeing this series. One of the best things this has going for it is all the interviews with past individuals back when the war was relatively fresh in their minds, comparatively speaking that is. It is nothing against the men that you see getting interviewed in the programs of today, it is just that most of these men weren't really involved in the upper echelons of what was happening then. One of the best parts is the narrating by Sir Laurence Oliver. I would recommend this to anyone that wants to learn about WWII, but really think only the die-hards (such as myself) will want to buy this or watch it more than once. My only real complaint about this entire series is that some of the facts aren't quite as accurate as we now know. Especially with the information about Soviet Union is exaggerated or just plain inaccurate in places. That information is now different we now know because of the fall of the USSR. Overall a fascinating look at WWII and a must see for any serious WWII historian professional or personal alike. Despite being told from a British perspective this is the best WW II documentary ever produced. Presented in digestible (as digestible as war can be) episodes as the grave voice of Laurence Olivier connects the multitudes of eye witnesses who were forced to live the events of that horrific time. Eagerly awaiting its appearance on DVD in the U.S. The Europeans had their opportunity with a release in DVD earlier this year. 'Five Days' is billed as something special, a crime drama that consists of a series of episodes, each set on one particular day of a police enquiry. But in fact, this element of the story turns out to be rather less significant than might at first be thought, as the fact that the action in each episode is confined to 24 hours is hardly noticeable, and very little distinguishes the program from countless other crime stories. In fact one almost can't help drawing comparisons to the last 'Prime Suspect', as one of the sub-plots focuses on a single, cynical female cop approaching retirement: and it's not just the absence of Helen Mirren that makes the comparisons unfavourable. There's a lot of earnest over-emoting, manipulative music and a set of characters seemingly contrived so that each one is in some sense sympathetic, in another suspicious. And it's possible to guess the guilty party well before the end, not because of the internal dynamic of the story, but rather because of the construction of the drama as a whole: certain things must be true, to justify the way that the series focuses on certain characters at certain times. In spite of these failings, the series grew on me: by the end, I was quite gripped. But it's a sad sign that the BBC, which once made the likes of 'The Singing Detective', boasted of this of "possibly the best drama of the year": for there's little true originality on offer here, and the claim reveals a lack of ambition that is dreadfully disappointing. 'Five Days' is in fact not rubbish; but it is formulaic, and one would hope that the very best the BBC had to offer would be something a little more innovative and fresh. A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff. It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.

As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.

I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! "Five Days" has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it. I totally got drawn into this and couldn't wait for each episode. The acting brought to life how emotional a missing person in the family must be , together with the effects it would have on those closest. The only problem we as a family had was how quickly it was all 'explained' at the end. We couldn't hear clearly what was said and have no idea what Gary's part in the whole thing was? Why did Kyle phone him and why did he go along with it? Having invested in a series for five hours we felt cheated that only five minutes was kept back for the conclusion. I have asked around and none of my friends who watched it were any the wiser either. Very strange but maybe we missed something crucial ???? This is a very engrossing BBC-TV mini-series which is loosely based upon a mysterious disappearance of a young mother, but the series is really more of a study of the assorted characters in the story, which lasts for five hours. It is thus very much an ensemble piece, where the wide variety of brilliant British actors and actresses can show off their talents. The actual characters portrayed are really 'the kind of people one does not normally meet', people so boring and nondescript that it is difficult to admire them. For instance, the lead character is a young husband (the one whose wife disappears) who has no job and no apparent interest in finding any. He lives off handouts from his parents-in-law. He was once in the Army but does not appear to have the slightest flicker of any ambition or any interests in life apart from doting on his small family. He is played by David Oyelowo, who is brilliant at the part, coming across as a totally sympathetic person, although his only activities for five hours are loving and grieving, which he does superbly, so that one wants to comfort him, as he is so obviously a nice guy. The standout performance of the whole series is unquestionably Penelope Wilton, who acts circles round everyone else in the story. She is simply incredible. She portrays a very unsympathetic woman, indeed the only character in the story who is all too familiar to everyone, namely an irrational, hysterical, self-centred, dense, querulous, blindly loving and blindly hating, elderly idiot-woman. Alas, alas, we know them too well. Wilton is one of Britain's finest actresses (see my review of her in 'Half Broken Things'). She takes a character who could have been two-dimensional and makes her four-dimensional. She is wonderfully supported by old pro Patrick Malahide, who plays her exasperated husband, and the pair of them set a high standard indeed for all the younger players. Janet McTeer, a spectacular actress when younger, has become a much less sympathetic type of person now that she is older, has coarsened in some way, and puts one off, but she redeems herself in the latter stages of the story by showing how brilliant an actress she can be when she has a chance by pulling off one of the most convincing and original drunk scenes I have ever seen on film. The big surprise is the enigmatic character Sarah, played with great depth and originality by actress Sarah Smart. She takes a character who could have been insufferably tedious and by sheer acting magic turns her into a deeply mysterious and intriguing person, about whom we wonder tirelessly for the entire five hours. She is so good at it that we end up wondering about Sarah Smart, frankly. I guess that's what happens when you really do your job properly, that people wonder where the character ends and the actress begins, if she knows herself, that is, and many do not. She has some deeply unnerving tricks with her eyes, which wobble and let us know she is unhinged, but we are not sure how or why, though we eventually learn that she had an extremely violent and traumatic childhood. Her mastery of ambiguous facial expressions is extraordinary. Rory Kinnear is amazingly convincing as an apparently hopeless fellow who lives with his mum and isn't up to much, but who turns out to have hidden depths. (I suppose most people have hidden depths, but do we want to plumb them, that is the question.) His mum is played very well indeed by Margot Leicester. A superb performance is given by Lucinda Dryzek, who plays a snotty, revolting teenage girl of the sort we all dread to meet, but who at crucial moments collapses in helpless tears and turns out to be pathetic, with all her arrogance just a pose. Three other children are also very good, Lucinda's friend, and her younger half-brother and half-sister. The younger siblings may be very dim indeed as characters in the story (they seem unable to say anything particularly articulate, being hopeless witnesses to the disappearance), with little to recommend them but their sweet natures, but that is conveyed to wonderful effect by Lee Massey as the boy and Tyler Anthony as the girl. Harriet Walter has a small role, but we do not get to see much of her, which is a shame, as she is such a fine actress that she was wasted here. One could go on, but one must draw a line somewhere. The series manages to be strangely fascinating because of the depth of portrayal of all these essentially uninteresting people caught up in a web of intense anxiety and suspense. One of the finest pieces of television drama of the last decade. Throughout the five hours, ones perceptions and sympathies are constantly challenged as it explores many facets of modern day British society. David Morrisey is, as usual, brilliant. At first coming across as a heavy handed copper in conflict with the heroine, but then proving to be intelligent and caring, as he works with her in uncovering the truth. I have never seen Surrane Jones before. I believe she comes from the world of television soaps. Her performance was magnificent, as she maintains her humour and composure whilst trying to balance the demands of the case and the stress of caring for her mother. I could go on and talk about every member of the cast who contributes to this magnificent drama, but their efforts would mean little without such an absorbing script that constantly challenges your assumptions about any of the characters. It is programmes like this that restore one's faith in television drama, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible to settle for most of the garbage that is increasingly filling the airwaves. An OUR GANG Comedy Short.

The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...

Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama. This is one of the all-time great "Our Gang" shorts. Spanky is at his very cutest and funniest, and the babies that he get's left to babysit are also hilarious. Tiny Spanky is coerced by the gang into watching all their little siblings. The opening shot of them all in baby carriages, being entertained by various things hung by the gang from fishing poles is a beautiful gag.

Spanky's appearance wearing his huge toy knife when asked to babysit by the older fellows is priceless, as is his response --"Hey, where do you get that stuff -- I don't take care of no babies!" The tiny fellow saying "remarkable" throughout the film, all the beautiful sight gags, and Spanky telling the babies "all about Tarzan" add up to make this one of the best "Our Gang"'s you'll ever see. This is a really great short from Hal Roach. This is because of two main reasons: The littlest kids in the short are among the cutest to have ever been on film and the plot has so many funny and well-written elements.

As for the littlest of the Little Rascals, I honestly can't think of a cuter kid than Spanky at about age four. Despite being a rather chubby and unattractive kid in later years, he was just precious here. And, placing the little tiny boy in charge of babysitting the even younger kids was not only funny, but once again high on the cute factor.

After the older kids blackmail Spanky into doing this awful babysitting job, all kinds of funny mayhem breaks loose. The gags are pretty effective and well-done for the time--with an accidental crank call involving a murder and a final scene where Spanky FINALLY gets control of the little ones being the most memorable. I haven't seen these shorts in many decades and I am glad I gave this one a chance. This is a pretty OK film... yes some parts are lame and exceptionally convenient, and the movie doesn't really justify the large star cast (AB, SD, Tanuja). However, the actor that really impressed me here was Kay Kay Menon (not to be confused with the singer KK). In the scene where he first meets Amitabh's character, I thought that a man who can just look at AB, keep staring and not say a word, and still look strong, is definitely a good actor. In fact, he has proved himself worthy again in Sarkar, alongside AB for a second time. This guy should get more roles, he's brilliant.

If you've read any of the other reviews here on IMDb, you already know the plot, and I do agree that Akshaye Khanna's entry into Pakistan was a little too easy. And the little love angle he shared with "what's-her-face" was completely unnecessary. But he is a fairly good actor (as seen in DCH), Sunjay Dutt is cool to watch, always. and AB... what can I say. I don't know if I'm his biggest fan in the world, but I know I can definitely compete for the spot.

An interesting watch, considering it's Bollywood, although a bit inspired by Hollywood oldies like "the Great Escape" and "Bridge on the River Kwai". Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10 I really loved this movie and so did the audience that I saw it with in Los Angeles. After the film, lots of people were crying and saying how much the film had affected them. I can see why it was such a huge hit in its homeland, Sweden. The film is masterfully directed and each character brilliantly drawn so that by the end you really know these people and care about them. The music is very natural and the main song in the film quite heartbreaking but inspiring. Would definitely recommend this film for everyone to see - even people who don't normally go to subtitled films. Definitely deserved the Oscar Nomination because of the profound themes of the film reflected without pretension in a small-town community with everyday people. It is a film that unites us in this divided world and shows us the potential of the human spirit. A MUST SEE! This film, recently voted as an audience favorite at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival, is inspiring and moving. A famous conductor, forced to retire by illness, returns to the small village of his birth to become the leader of the church choir, and finally find fulfillment in his music. Drawing on Sweedish traits of keeping things within oneself and of the insular character of a small Swedish village, this film develops each of its characters well. superbly directed, acted and sung, it brought tears to many eyes, and smiles to all. Hopefully it will find distribution in the United States.

If you can, see it! Wow I loved this movie! It is about normal life in a small village. About hypocrisy and honesty, love and surrender. Great! It is about things everybody encounters in life. You have to do things with passion. But some people will not appreciate your passion and will try to stop you. There are people who find the opinion of others and 'what will the neighbors think' more important than to follow their heart. Don't let anybody's opinion stop you from fulfilling your dreams and passion. I loved the fact that the actors were all really normal people, it could have been my family. No big beauties, but all people you fall in love with during the movie. This is one of those movies that you keep thinking about when you wake up the next morning. It will give you that warm, fuzzy feeling and leave you with a smile on your face.

Sure, we get fed the typical stereotype characters and stories, but it does do the trick: Entertain.

Being from Sweden and living in the US for quite sometime, it is funny how we react. "The deadbeat husband is going to kill him", "She (Gabriella) is going to die and then there will be a heartbreaking larger-than-life ending". We know how these things work, everything comes together at the end. And it did. The characters were somewhat simple, they were so elaborate that you didn't really think twice about it, nothing was really left for your own imagination. The closest would probably be Siv, she makes you ask yourself if she indeed was in love with Daniel, but that's about it.

But the movie is beautiful, set in rural Norrland, the music is absolutely amazing and the characters are lovable. Michael Nyqvist is truly genius, with his crazy unique look and Frida Hallberg is charming and approachable. Maybe a little too nice.

But most of all this movie makes you feel, and that is the most important thing. You cry, you laugh, you hate and you identify. I don't know about you guys, but that does not happen that often. I am not going to spoil the contents to anyone, who has not yet watched this humble masterpiece by Kay Pollak.

A world famous conductor brilliantly played by Michael Nyqvist seeks peace from stress by moving back to his childhood village. The villagers, who has followed the genius in silence, are slowly tempting him to share of his greatness.

Each role in this movie, has a very specific purpose and shows a remarkable potential in each of the actors playing their own chord in short but precise words, a symphony of love.

Not love in the sense of relationship, but in the tone of the spirit deeply buried within each of the characters, each revealing their own present story, their needs, their skeletons, desires and much more.

I shall not forget to mention, the two main parts played by Frida Hallgren and Michael Nyqvist, whose dramas are played in unforgettable harmonies of emotional feedback. They touch each other with a pain connected in their own disability to love themselves.

Michael Nyqvist is really put to the test here in a very difficult setup, in one of those movies that either end up as catastrophic or fantastic. And fantastic it became from start to end, not one second less or more than enough, you are left with a feeling of change and a taste for more.

To this day, definitely one of the best movies I have had the pleasure of watching. First I was caught totally off guard by the film's initial lyricism and then I became totally enchanted with the unfolding story and engrossed with the brilliant directing. The characters were all fully developed, not bigger-than-life but just like the people we live among anywhere we are in the world, in Sweden, in Turkey or in America, all completely believable human beings with foibles and nobility. Hollywood could learn so much from this beautiful film. It shows that there is no need to go into every little detail behind every action to bring out the whole theme clear and bright, and that shows the brilliance of the director! Hearfelt thanks to Kay Pollak and the wonderful cast for this superb treat!! If the screenwriter and director intended to open hearts with the movie as the musician wanted to do with his music, they succeeded with me. Commonplace human situations became original, personal and immediate so that I personally felt touched by each situation. I believe I would credit the power of music combined with the point of view of the person writing the movie. Without spoiling, I can say that I was very moved by the movie's approach to living. Haven't actually cried out of-what- joy? empathy? just deep emotion? in a very long time. I would love to find a way to show it to others. Saw it at Seattle International Film Festival. Back to the roots with "like it is in heaven" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone.

From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.

He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.

Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears! A beautiful film, touching profoundly up the simple, yet divine aspects of humanity.

This movie was almost perfect, and seeing as nothing in this world can be truly perfect, that is pretty good. The only minor thing I subjectively object to, is the pacing at some points in the middle of the story. The acting is also very good, and all the actors easily top actors in high-profile films. The actual directing seems to have been well thought through, and the script must have been amazing. There are some truly breathtaking moments of foreshadowing, and a quite gorgeous continuing circular composition of the story.

The moment in the movie, when the main character achieves that feeling of being in heaven is the perfect ending to a truly brilliant yarn. Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.

Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.

The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).

Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.

Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.

The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical. My expectations were quite high for this film. Everyone I know who saw this film at the cinema told me that everyone there stayed through the credits because they were so touched. My expectations could not have been any higher, anything short of wonderful would have disappointed me.

I was anything but disappointed by this movie. I loved how it dealt with difficult subjects without going through the usual steps a Hollywood film tends to include. In this film characters worked through problems they had had for decades, they worked through prejudicm, they learned to open up. But it did not come easily, and not just by singing a song or two. It was painful, it took arguments, it took confrontations. It felt like real life.

One scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Gabriella sings her song. Helen Sjöholm is one of my favorite singers, her voice is lovely, and you could tell that she was not just lip-syncing to a previous recording during filming (which I often find in other movies), she really sang with her whole body and soul. You could feel what Gabriella was feeling in that scene. Had this movie been made in Hollywood her song would most likely have been sung toward the end, and it would have made her husband open his eyes and see the error of his ways, as well as making the other people in the village realise a thing or two. Instead it came halfway through, and it did not bring any solutions. Her husband did not become overwhelmed and realise what he's putting her through, and it didn't seem to make anyone else in the village more open minded. It was beautiful, it was pure and it was touching but it did not magically solve all her problems. That felt real to me, that's probably what would have happened in real life. The whole movie felt like real life to me, nothing neatly wrapped up but everything with a sense of joy and happiness. You rarely find a movie which feels so realistic.

There were a few things that bothered me, but hey, no movie is perfect. If you haven't already you should go see "As it is in Heaven" and be filled with a joy for life, a sense of hope and the feeling that you've been touched on a level movies rarely reach. You will be sad, pained, happy and a dozen other emotions.

Someone once said that if every person in the world sang in a choir there would be no more wars. Having seen this film I might have to agree. I was drawn to this movie the moment I saw a preview of it on Oscar night. When I read about Kay Pollak, I was hooked. We Americans are suckers for a comeback kid.

I understand this movie was a huge draw in Sweden. As a very provincial American I can only speculate on the reason. Perhaps it is because of the provocative joke that the Lena character makes at the beginning of the movie and other social comment but perhaps it is because of the central message which I believe has the same appeal everywhere in affluent societies.

The message of this movie for me is the same as the movie Titanic. Life is short people and as far as anyone really knows it's all we've got. It can be taken away at any time. So isn't it a pity that we spend so much time hiding behind walls separating us from other people because we're so afraid of being hurt? Tearing down the walls is painful but feeling alive lies on the other side of those wretched walls. Feeling alive is worth taking the risk. Give and you will receive. So start living NOW.

Many people are criticizing this movie for it's lack of characterization and other flaws. I say you are all pseudo-sophisticated. Get a grip folks, it's a parable, a fable for we affluent westerners who are materially rich but whose souls are in abject poverty.

So join a choir or a band or help build housing or distribute food for those less fortunate than you. Spread some joy and make the world a better place as long as you get out and commune with your fellow man. Writing a check is not enough. We are a social species by the way. Even the humblest of your fellow human beings can affect you in ways you never thought possible.

Rugged individualism has its place but it is over-rated. I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this as my #3 film. I had an initial interest in seeing this being of Swedish descent myself with many of my ancestors coming from the Norrland region of Sweden where this was filmed. Also I grew up in an area of rural north woods America where many small towns were much like the setting of this film. It's nice to see more films using rural locations as their settings like Så som i himmelen. This was a very good film and I'm sure a very hard film to pull together with it's large ensemble cast but Director Kay Pollock really pulled this off after a nearly two decade absence from directing. Helen Sjoholm in her motion picture debut as an actress was fantastic and I would look forward to more of her on the big screen. I enjoyed Michael Nyqvist in the lead of this well-rounded cast. I would highly recommend this film and rate it a 9.0 on a scale of 10. The arrival of an world famous conductor sets of unexpected events and feelings in the small village. Some people are threatened by the way he handles the church choir, and how people in it gradually change. This movie is heartwarming and makes you leave the cinema with both a smile on your lips and tears in your eyes. It'a about bringing out the best in people and Kay Pollak has written an excellent script based on the ideas he has become so famous for. The actors are outstanding, Michael Nyqvist we know before but Frida Hallgren was an new, and charming acquaintances to me. She has a most vivid face that leaves no one untouched. Per Moberg does his part as Gabriella's husband almost too well, he is awful too see. One only wish the at he would be casted to play a nice guy one day so we can see if he masters that character as well.

This is a movie that will not leave you untouched. If you haven't already seen it, do it today! The famous international conductor Daniel Daréus (Michael Nyqvist) has a heart attack with his stressed busy professional life and interrupts his successful career with an early retirement. He decides to return to his hometown in the north of Sweden, from where his mother left when he was a seven year-old sensitive boy bullied by Conny and other school mates, to live a low-paced life. He buys an old school and is invited to participate in the church choir by the local Shepherd Stig (Niklas Falk), but the reluctant and shy Daniel refuses in the principle. However, he gets involved with the community and feels attracted by Lena (Frida Hallgren), a local woman with a past with the local doctor. His music opens the hearts of the members of the choir, affecting their daily life: the slow Tore (André Sjöberg) has the chance to participate in the choir; Inger (Ingela Olsson), the wife of Stig, releases her repressed sexuality; Gabriella (Helen Sjöholm) takes an attitude against her abusive and violent husband; the gossiper and frustrated Siv (Ilva Lööf) opens her heart against Lena; the fat Holmfrid (Mikael Rahm) cries enough against the jokes of the businessman Arne (Lennart Jähkel); even Daniel starts loving people and Lena as the love of his life. When they are invited to participate in an important contest in Vienna, Daniel finds his music opening the heart of people making his dream come true.

"Så Som I Himmelen" is a touching and sensitive movie, with a very beautiful story. It is impressive how director Kay Pollak and the screenplay writers have been able to develop a great number of characters in 132 minutes running time. The performances are top-notch, supported by magnificent music score and at least two awesome moments: when Gabrielle sings her song in the concert, and certainly the last concert in Vienna with the audience, jury and everybody participating in the melody, and Daniel making his dream come true. Like in "Teorema", the stranger changes the lives, not of only a family, but of a conservative community. Further, like many European movies, the open conclusion indicates that Daniel actually died, at least in my interpretation, reaching peace with the success of his music. My eyes became wet in these two scenes. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "A Vida no Paraíso" ("The Life In the Paradise") Firstly, I really enjoyed this movie and its message, which is about daring to live life to the fullest. Very poetic, with heartwarming and funny and sad scenes, very lively, it was a pleasure to watch. Here are my "exceptions" though: The movie was way too long and at some point, it kept adding more and more additional conflicts so that it started to lose the main story line. I disagree though with another comment that its unrealistic to have so many people with "strange" problems in such a small village. I think this was absolutely realistic! There are incredible dramas going on everywhere, we just don't know this about people we meet only superficially. I disliked the ending, which was so loaded with symbolism and extremely forced. It left a bad taste as it was just too much. I did not like it that so many big issues were dramatically mentioned in the group (when some accused others in front of everyone else of major things, people would just be more "ashamed" to voice everything so personal in front of everybody, even if those people are a group one is closely working with). And: defending oneself is a human-beings strongest instinct. So why on earth would Daniel let himself be beaten and never fight back, not even to defend himself? I mean he was not weak, he could at least try to defend himself when attacked but it just drove me mad to see him do nothing. It was as if the storyteller tried to forcefully bring across a message like "violence is not needed", but the way he chose to do this was not good. I am also against violence but the character loses credibility when he stays unmoved despite all the attacks. And: Gabriella...why on earth would a woman, who has spent years with a man beating her up, go to that man when he gets arrested and say "I do not wish you any harm. You have just done your best, like all of us". Oh really, this spoiled so much! Was she going to be a saint or what? It would be normal for her to be bitter but not so almost "holy" and therefore not human. Was her work with Daniel and the music so great that it made her forget all of the s**t that happened to her? Oh, please. So, these were the spoiling moments. Nevertheless, I still think this is a delightful movie all in all, which is amazing enough, given my discomfort with quite a few things. Watch it!! ;-)" This is absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen. It takes me on a a roller-coaster of emotions. I laugh and cry and get disgusted and happy and in love! All this in a little over two hours of time!

The actors are all brilliant! I have to mention the leading actor of course, Michael Nyquist. He does a remarkable job!! I also admire the actor who plays Tore, who plays this mentally-challenged young man in such a convincing way! He sort of reminded me of Leonardo di Caprios roll in Gilbert Grape! And then there is the most beautiful song in the world: Gabriella's sång.

I recommend this for everyone to see and enjoy! I was taken to this film by a friend and was sceptical about a Swedish film with subtitles. However, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this beautiful film. The unnecessary cruelty that man is capable of was portrayed confidently without overwhelming images - although animal lovers may have to shield their eyes for a brief couple of seconds somewhere during the first 10 minutes. A traditional story of humility versus brutality and hope versus tragedy was illustrated from a satisfyingly fresh angle using a spectrum of characters with very natural flaws and features. I particularly liked how the film managed to address multiple aspects of hypocritical human behaviour that concern bias, discrimination and sanctimonious pretence. An absolute gem of a film that I will promote to all who will listen. Kay Pollack (the man behind this movie) is a real great man who tries to share his life philosophy in different ways. He has written a bunch of good and well written books about how to control your senses and keep your soul happy. The message in most of his books and this movie, is about that your thoughts in fact is what causes your problems and that the reason of your anger hardly ever is caused of what you think of. The main message is that you can choose to be happy, but hardly ever do that.

To watch this movie and learn something very important on life, you have to keep your mind very open and L I S T E N to all the "hidden messages" (or guidelines to get through life) which most of the parts in this movie contains if you listen and watch. Watch it with your ears.

You won't learn the meaning of life, but you'll learn how to live and get the most out of it...

So, while watching, please keep in mind:

"The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open!" A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.

The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.

At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.

Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.

The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.

Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.

Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty. "Så som in himmelen" was probably one of the 3 most beautiful films I have seen in my life. That it did not win the Oscar, I will not shed a tear. This movie is in a kind of class of its own, that an Oscar win would possibly have detracted from it!!! My dearest friend Anders (Nyberg), you have done true magnificence with your pen here! Kay Pollak, with your creation, and everyone contributing, you all have given a gift of Love to our world. Between the points of entering this world of ours, then exiting it - you really can say that you made it better! A special personal thank you from my soul to all of you, that you brought back some precious memories from the second decade of my life. I grew up in Sweden, and my young mind and present Beingness was formed and shaped by many beautiful Swedish influences, individuals, traditions, music and nature. My blessings with gratitude to you all. With Love and Light, George-Gabriel Berkovits Soulhealer, Johannesburg, South Africa Beyond the excellent direction,production,acting & the predictable drama lies an essential message in the script:

"Listening leads all the way" In order for the voice to flourish,listen.To harmonise with other in voice,listen. In order to approach yourself,listen.To discover the needs of any situation or others,listen. It appears that the script writers are conveying a "life's secret".Listening leads to an awareness of one's Self. It awakens the other senses, especially vision & expands the horizon.One's soul too can be discovered. The artistry of this movie "As it is in Heaven" magnificently displayed the unfolding of life,not only its joy & sadness,but ultimately the hope of life. All this by the leading character's first instruction to the choir;

"Just Listen,it leads all the way" The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of "Brassed Off" the models of "Calendar Girls" and the dancers of "the Full Monty". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable "types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long – Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do. Yesterday I watched this movie for the third time. It was recommended to me by a fried several weeks ago. I never watched or even noticed it before, because it falls (so typically) in the category "Swedish Movie" and those who rose up (like me) with Hollywood productions tend to be sceptical of any foreign movies. Hell what a paradigm shift! The film touches me, because it just keeps up my hope, that mankind can change to a better way. The Swedish village is just a pattern for all areas on earth where people live together - controlled by religion, misunderstandings, lack of courage, predictions, disguised brutality, but also the ability to have fun, to meet, to sing... It takes a trigger from outside to rip off the masks of everyone (who keeps one) and to let them feel that we all are just human beings with the desire to live our own lives. I can never stop to see stories like this, because, that keeps up my hope as described above. The five minutes containing the story of Gabriella's song including her performance is one of my movie-highlights ever! Thank you Kay Pollak just for these 5 minutes, which made me happy! It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.

Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.

Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.

The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.

The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning. As it is in Heaven {SPOILER WARNING)

This was a great human drama that stimulated my emotions and my imagination.

This is a parable revisiting the life and death of Christ. Daniel is a superior gifted musician ,who is physically and mentally exhausted by his career , and has to give it up. When he joins a church choir as its cantor, he brings about a transformation in the lives of the choristers , just as Jesus did to the society in first century Palestine. They laugh, they begin to speak openly and truthfully to each other , their faults are exposed,they accept each other, come to love each other, become a vital community.They include the mentally disabled young man (?Tore), such is their inclusiveness.

The pastor, Stig enjoyed authority through imposing a stifling morality on the congregation, and that is gradually rejected by the choristers . When Stig dismisses Daniel , there is a revolt, and Stig is crushed. Stig represents the Jewish authorities of Jesus' day, whose insistence on obedience to the Jewish law,provided a stark contrast to the new life by "the golden rule" brought by Jesus.

In one dramatic scene, someone declares "the church invented sin". All through the film, there is this contrast between moral-ism and vital living (being).

True to the Christ story, Daniel is killed by Conny , when he beats him up, leaves him to drown in the river. Next scene , we can hardly believe it when Daniel's (resurrected!) body is dragged into his room (the tomb) draped in a white linen sheet (the shroud!), by three women (three women kept vigil at the foot of the cross in the gospel).

Daniel is drawn closely to Lena, a warm beautiful young woman who has been betrayed by a man she loved, and who is now promiscuous (Jesus developed a close relationship with Mary Magdalene- Lena- who was probably a high class courtesan/prostitute). Through Lena, Daniel learns to love , something he has longed for, and now finds fulfillment .

The solo sung by Gabriella , composed by Daniel, is all about living a full life , in contrast to moral correctness that leads to concern about sin , and what's right and wrong.

The final scene shows the choir all singing/humming in harmony , like a mantra, drawing in the large audience, exemplifying the harmony and inter-connectedness that is our true human destiny. I never seem to write a review on IMDb unless I am extremely surprised at how good, or how bad, a movie is. This film falls into the first category. Every year, I try to see all the nominees for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, even those that I know I won't like. "As It Is In Heaven" seems to fit the bill. The plot sounds sugary and sentimental and slow....For my tastes, which run more towards original, dark and/or daring foreign cinema (Michael Haneke, Francois Ozon, A lot of modern Japanese/Korean cinema) "As It Is In Heaven" does not sound particularly interesting....It didn't get released in the USA, so I sat down to watch a VCD I found in Singapore, preparing to "cross it off the list". After a dull beginning, "As It Is In Heaven" becomes that rare film where you really become inspired by what is happening on screen. Weak points: The characters in the film are pure "stock" characters- the Wounded Dreamer, the Town Bully, the Battered Wife, the Loose Woman Yearning for Love, the Repressed Minister....Thankfully, they're largely a likable bunch, as well as being well-written and well-acted. Ingela Olsson, as the minister's wife Inger, would have been nominated for an Oscar had her performance been in English. Strong points: the music is beautiful, and the main song, sung by Gabriella, is truly dramatic and memorable. And keep an eye out for the feisty 87-year old actress playing Olga, who is keeping up with the dancing steps as well as the younger ladies! I won't discuss the ending, but I will say that it makes sense. They're are a lot of emotional things happening in the last hour of the film, and you're not quite sure why they're happening. Although nothing is explained in words, it all makes sense as the movies comes to a fitting crescendo. **** out of *****. Probably the strongest Swedish movie I've ever seen. I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough". " Så som i himmelen " .. as above so below.. that very special point where Divine and Human meet. I ADORE this film ! A gem. YES amazing grace !

I was so deeply moved by its very HUMAN quality. I laughed and cried through a whole register , indeed several octaves of emotions.

Mikael Nyqvist ís BRILLIANT as Daniel , a first rate passionate performance, charismatic and powerful. His inner light and exceptional talent shines through in every scene, every interaction ,in every meeting. I was totally mesmerised, enchanted and caught up the story, which is our collective story, the story of life itself.

The film was also so inclusive of many archetypes, messiah, wounded child ,magical child, artist, teacher, priest, abuser, abused, victim, bully, divine fool - ALL the characters so real and true to life - all awakened great fondness and compassion in me.

It is a real treat to see such a thought provoking yet thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. Oh ..mustn't forget the heavenly choir of angels and breathtakingly beautiful sound.

THANK YOU ALL - This Swedish film will surely captivate people world-wide. BRILLIANT ! A famous conductor decides after a heart attack to go back to the village where he was born to live a quiet life. There, he comes in Dutch with the local church choir, that will change his life.

I had no expectations when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday; I like watching foreign movies that are not English, and I've already seen a couple of Swedish movies in my life, but this one was the best so far.

Where to start? In my opinion, this film is a jewel, thanks to many things, of which one is the outstanding acting. Michael Nyqvist is perfect as the thoughtful, almost shy and devoted conductor Daniel Daréus. Beautiful Frida Hallgren is enchanting with her pretty smile and her subtle acting. The choir members are all well-developed, interesting characters with their own story each.

This movie tells a story, a beautiful story, about music, love, pain, memories, death, about a man who devoted his life to music, and who tries to create a calm existence in the village where he was born, while trying to make peace with the past and with the way his life has been till then. Kay Pollack shows us that the Swedish are outstanding movie creators. Go see Så som i himmelen, it's a movie that makes you think about life and love, and that's also comforting, in some way. Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece. I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.

Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.

This movie helps set the record straight. After watching two of his silent shorts, 'Elena and her Men (1956)' is my first feature-length film from French director Jean Renoir, and I quite enjoyed it. However, I didn't watch the film for Renoir, but for star Ingrid Bergman, who – at age 41 – still radiated unsurpassed beauty, elegance and charm. Throughout the early 1950s, following her scandalous marriage to Italian Roberto Rossellini, Bergman temporarily fell out of public favour. Her next five films, directed by her husband, were unsuccessful in the United States, and I suspect that Renoir's latest release did little to enhance Bergman's popularity with English-speaking audiences {however, she did regain her former success with an Oscar in the same year's 'Anastasia (1956)'}. She stars as Elena Sokorowska, a Polish princess who sees herself as a guardian angel of sorts, bringing success and recognition to promising men everywhere, before promptly abandoning them. While working her lucky charms to aid the political aspirations of the distinguished General Francois Rollan (Jean Marais), she finds herself falling into a love that she won't be able to walk away from. This vaguely-political film works well as either a satire or a romantic comedy, as long as you don't take it too seriously; it's purely lighthearted romantic fluff.

Filmed in vibrant Technicolor, 'Elena and her Men' looks terrific as well, a flurry of bright colours, characters and costumes. Bergman's Polish princess is dreamy and somewhat self-absorbed, not in an unlikable way, but hardly a woman of high principles and convictions. She is persuaded by a team of bumbling government conspirators to convince General Rollan to stage a coup d'état, knowingly exploiting his love for her in order to satisfy her own delusions as a "guardian angel." Perhaps the film's only legitimately virtuous character is Henri de Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer, then Audrey Hepburn's husband), who ignores everybody else's selfish secondary motives and pursues Elena for love, and love alone. This, Renoir proudly suggests, is what the true French do best. 'Elena and her Men' also attempts, with moderate success, to expose the superficiality of upper-class French liaisons, through the clumsy philandering of Eugène (Jacques Jouanneau), who can't make love to his servant mistress without his fiancè walking in on them. For these sequences, Renoir was obviously trying for the madcap sort of humour that you might find in a Marx Brothers film, but the film itself is so relaxed and laid-back that the energy just isn't there. Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress. Thanks to a smart script and a steady hand from Writer/Director Kevin Meyer, "Perfect Alibi" is an entertaining and very likable mystery thriller. The movie starts methodically and builds up steam as the clues begin to reveal that nothing is what it seems to be. Teri Garr and Hector Elizondo are terrific as they team up to unravel the mystery, reminding me of Nick and Nora Charles, from the "Thin Man" movies. Kathleen Quinlan is excellent as Alex McArthur's tormented wife and the character roles, played by veteran actors Charles Martin Smith, Bruce McGill, Anne Ramsey and Estelle Harris are well done and provide plenty of light moments at just the right time. There's even a cameo by Rex Linn. In all, I felt like I was reading a good book by the fire. The visuals and effects are up to par with the the original film and provide a lot of entertainment even if the storyline is essentially the same as the first two films. It also seems a lot more erotically charged than I remember the other films being. If you're a big fan of flying prehensile hair and tongues that can reach all the way down into your stomach, you'll like this film. While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film. If the movies are to be believed, Chinese ghosts are much prettier and more mischievous than their Western counterparts. The storylines of the three 'Chinese Ghost' films are largely identical, but the direction is excellent and the detail and colour is such that it's not a huge problem. As always, humour is an integral part of the film, accompanied, of course, by a great deal of mugging. For those who haven't encountered the 'Chinese GhostStory' trilogy yet, this film offers an interesting departure from the Western horror/ghost genre; for those who have, another enjoyable romp in the Chinese ghost world. It's this sort of movie that you try and imitate. By attempting to realise something... then flying through the air almost immediately. I'd like to do that and I know you would too!

Great stuff! If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah. One of the best "Amitabh comeback" movies I liked. This was the phase when Govinda was going strong with Dhawan. The songs were awesome and totally as we call it "masti" type. An evergreen entertainer with the likes of the multifaceted Anupam Kher chipping in. The story line has a lot of hilarious twists and turns as is known for David Dhawan's potboilers. With a timely appearance by Mrs.Madhuri "Nene" Dixit, it was a total riot towards the end. It was great to see Amit perform with such force and humor after a long exile. Although some may consider it a typical "Bollywood Masala" movie, I would watch it any day. I am giving it an easy 8 out of 10 just for being pure Bollywood. This movie is very funny. Amitabh Bachan and Govinda are absolutely hilarious. Acting is good. Comedy is great. They are up to their usual thing. It would be good to see a sequel to this :)

Watch it. Good time-pass movie As a kid I remember being nine or ten and loving this movie. It was the all round Bollywood action/comedy movie. It is a imitation of Bad Boys obviously! The whole swapping identities but the arrival of two other twins throws everything out of the window and then the arrival of colourful villains who dance and sing! The action scenes in the film aren't revolutionary but still amazing scenes. The film is genuinely very funny and was the great comeback Amitabh Bachan needed. Govinda is a gem like always and this is probably his best work to date, he shines as the side kick nd delivers the best comedy scenes available in Indian cinema.

The songs....The songs are both funny and catchy..............proving laughs when you least expect it...Amitabh Bachan surprisingly is very funny and will make you laugh as 'Bade Miah'....his accent...body language..... Brilliant...

'Assi chutki naab re daal' is the best song..............Hilarious. This movie is an awesome non-stop laugh riot incorporating all the usual ingredients of a Dawid Dhawan comedy - bumbling heroes , buffoonish supporting characters , made-up dolls for heroines , nasty villains , wisecracks , rocking soundtrack + choreography and a little dose of action .

Amitabh Bachchan and Govinda both are in double roles of policemen and conmen . The heroine of Amitabh the cop is Ramya Krishnan and Raveena is opposite Govinda the cop . Heroines are mere rouge-smothered props as usual . The conmen have no heroines . Paresh Rawal carries his villainous act in DAUD forward (He played a similar Don in KHOOBSURAT too) . Asrani shines in a brief role . He does a retake on his famous "Angrezon ke zamaane ke Jailer" act in SHOLAY .

Govinda is impeccable as usual - as a wisecracking , good-humoured policeman Pyaare Mohan and as a conman Chhote Miyaan . He imitates Bihari style of Hindi speaking with hilarious results . Amitabh Bachchan , believe it or not , pales in comparison with him . But still AB is fine . Madhuri Dixit does a cameo as herself in the song "Makhna" . She dances like wind .

Viju Shah's music is awesome . Check out "Kisi Disco Mein Jaayen" , "Makhna" and the title track .

Do not go looking for any LOGIC since it is a comedy and the screenplay is of convenience completely . Just Enjoy Yourself . Military training films are becoming so common that they are becoming a genre unto themselves. Among the more prominent we have, `Officer and a Gentleman', `Top Gun', `GI Jane', and now `Men of Honor'. The fact that this one happened to be true doesn't change the fact that the formula is the same. This film is probably most like `GI Jane' since it focuses on the desegregation angle.

The story is actually quite inspirational and is probably the best human-interest story among those mentioned above. Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) is unquestionably a man of great courage and principle, and his strength of character shines through brightly in this film. Unfortunately, director George Tillman has tunnel vision in presenting the characters and eschews character development of various characters other than Brashear in favor of showing Brashear in a constant state of adversity. Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro) is a central figure, and except for the initial scene, the fistfight and a couple of scenes with his wife, we don't know much about him. For instance, Brashear sees the scars on Sunday's palms and we are to assume that he worked a plow, but there is no follow-up on that point. Mr. Pappy (Hal Holbrook) gets only one short scene by which we can judge him. The rest of his screen time shows him pacing around and ranting. If a director is going to make a human-interest story, he needs to humanize the characters.

Cuba Gooding Jr. gives an outstanding performance as Brashear. This is probably the best I've seen him. This is a role and a character that is far more complete than any part he has played before, and he rises to the occasion. In `Jerry Maguire', Rod Tidwell was a fascinating, but one-dimensional character with the depth of a rain puddle. Brashear is much more complex and grounded, and the issues he faces are life crises, making the part far more challenging. This is an excellent recovery from Gooding's last role in `Chill Factor', a film so dreadful that it was almost an act of professional suicide to take the part.

After a stint trying his hand as a comedian (`Analyze This', `The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle', `Meet The Parents'), Robert DeNiro is back to his dramatic roots with an outstanding performance. DeNiro isn't a bad comedian, he is just such a great dramatic actor that it seems like he shouldn't waste his time doing comedy. DeNiro endows Billy Sunday with a rock hard personality belying a tortured soul. It is a pleasure watching him work.

It seems every film I watch lately has Charlize Theron in it. I saw `The Legend of Bagger Vance', `Men of Honor' and `The Yards' right in a row and I was beginning to wonder if she had a part in every film in 2000 (actually, she only did five). This was a minor role for Theron, but she carried it off well and managed to stay with DeNiro step for step. David Keith, who co-starred with Richard Gere in `Officer and a Gentleman', has a cameo here

The DVD has some interesting special features, including reflections by the real Carl Brashear and some deleted scenes.

I enjoyed this film despite the hackneyed plot and the one-dimensional presentation. I rated it a 7/10. I'm a sucker for underdog stories and I have a fondness for stories where strength of character is the central theme. This film is particularly strong in both areas and brings us two memorable acting performances that compensate for some of the director's shortcomings. "Men of honor" - true story about a proud and persistent black navy diver (fabulous Cuba Gooding Jr.) is definitely a great movie that both touches and entertains and it's part of the absolute cream of the new millennium cinema. Wonderful acting is the main reason to make this movie something truly special and pretty enjoyable, splendid experience. Charismatic Robert De Niro is marvelous as rough, fierce and pitiless chief Billy Sunday - role is practically written for him. This film alongside with fantastic "15 minutes" (2001) are two of the latest proofs that he's still one of the very finest actors of our time. On the other hand "Men of honor" includes a fine performance from Cuba Gooding Jr. who has been one of the most promising young black actors since "Boyz n the hood". "Men of honor" goes straight into the company of "Jerry Maguire", "As good as it gets" and "Instinct". Cuba Gooding Jr. is a skillful and fantastic actor and I'm prepared to get lots of more terrific movies from him. "Men of honor" has also quite an excellent story-line and probably the most exciting diving sequences of the movie history. This is a great, fascinating movie and I can only recommend it. This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time. This film is an excellent military movie. It may not be an excellent Hollywood Movie, but that does not matter. Hollywood has a reputation of sacrificing accuracy for good entertainment, but that is not the case with this movie. Other reviewers have found this movie to be too slow for their taste, but – as a retired Soldier – I appreciate the pace the movie crew deliberately took to tell their story as completely as possible given the two hours and nine minutes allotted. The story itself has been told and retold several times over, but it remains for a professional soldier – and an African American at that – to report on the story as presented by the movie crew, and as it presents the US Navy to the world. The story of Brashear's work to become a Navy Diver, and his life as a Navy Diver beyond his graduation, is not the only story that is presented. There I also the story of how Master Chief Petty Officer Sunday defied the illegal order of his Commanding Officer that Petty Officer 2nd Class Brashear not be passed in his test dive no matter how well he did, and paid the price of a loss of one Stripe and a change of assignment. It also told the true story how Brashear found the third Hydrogen Bombs lost in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Spain in the 1950's, and how he saved the life of another seaman who was in the line of the snapped running line that would have snapped him in two if Brashear had not shoved him out of the way and took the shot himself. This was a complex story that was worth telling, and I will admit that two hours and nine minutes was not enough to tell the full story, and I can tell from the deleted scenes on the DVD that the crew tried their best to tell a story as full as possible. As a professional soldier, I was proud to see such a great story told in such a comprehensive manner, and to see the traditions and honor of the navy preserved in such a natural and full manner. I loved this movie. It is a definite inspirational movie. It fills you with pride. This movie is worth the rental or worth buying. It should be in everyones home. Best movie I have seen in a long time. It will make you mad because everyone is so mean to Carl Brashear, but in the end it gets better. It is a story of romance, drama, action, and plenty of funny lines to keep you tuned in. I love a lot of the quotes. I use them all the time. They help keep me on task of what I want to do. It shows that anyone can achieve their dreams, all they have to do is work for it. It is a long movie, but every time I watch it, I never notice that it is as long as it is. I get so engrossed in it, that it goes so quick. I love this movie. I watch it whenever I can. The inspiring story of Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), a black man who grew up in poverty in Kentucky and then joined the US Navy, aspiring to be the first black Master Diver in Navy history. We are shown the series of struggles from boyhood on that Brashear has to overcome to make his dream come true (and then to keep it alive.) Not the least of the challenges was Master Diver Bill Sunday (Robert DeNiro), the head trainer at the diving school the Navy sends Brashear to, who is not especially sympathetic to Brashear's goals, but who ultimately becomes an unlikely friend and supporter.

This is a good movie; fast paced and with a lot of action, although not an "action" pic in the normal sense of the word. There's a very human story here as well, and an interesting study of racism and the struggle to overcome it; there's also a sense of the struggle that took place in the 1960's between older and younger naval officers (the "old navy" vs the "new navy.") The performances are quite good - particularly Goodings'. I thought DeNiro was perhaps a bit over the top in his portrayal of Sunday (although, who knows, Sunday might well have been this extreme kind of loose cannon) and the portrayal of Sunday's wife Gwen (by Charlize Theron) also made me question whether these parts were "jazzed up" to provide entertainment value.

A good movie, though. I never once wondered if it was worth tuning into.

7/10 Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be.

I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant.

The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?

Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.

TIllman Jr.'s drama about the first African American Navy Master Diver (Gooding Jr.), who defies all odds and achieves his goals despite a strict embittered trainer. The screenplay is not bad, a bit extreme at times, but the direction and acting is first-rate, and this film is inspiring and achieves what its supposed to do. I liked DeNiro in the lead, although its not on par with his masterful works (taxi driver, godfather and all the others) it is as good as his other good performances such as in King of Comedy or Angel Heart. DeNiro is always convincing and believable here, very good performance, Gooding Jr. is not bad, definitely one of his better performances. --- IMDb Rating: 6.6, my rating: 9/10 I was curious to know how critics responded to this rousing, inspiring film, so I went to Rotten Tomatoes and was dismayed to discover that the pompous peanut gallery that is our nation's film critics had given the film an average 43% (or "Rotten") rating.

All I can say is, if this movie doesn't move you, you have no heart. (It's interesting to note that the same film on the same website got a 74% rating from viewers).

Not that the opinion of critics is all THAT important to me. After all, I can't think of a more useless, overpaid profession. Some schmo gets paid to go to the movies (what a tough life) and does the same thing everyone else on the planet does: forms an opinion. But these chumps have a way of coming across like their opinion somehow matters more than yours, and even worse, they love to hate.

I'll grant you that this movie is old fashioned (well, except for the f-bombs), syrupy, and a little predictable... after all, you know right from the beginning that Cuba Gooding Jr., portraying real-life Navy hero Carl Brashear, is going to triumph (eventually) at every turn simply by the way he comes across: determined and plucky; strong-willed and optimistic.

But his performance and that of De Niro (as Billy Sunday, a composite character of several real-life people) are so strong, so inspiring, that you'll be on your feet cheering many of the film's scenes, especially the courtroom climax. You'd have to be a real stick in the mud not to be moved by these scenes. Like our nation's film critics. Michael Rappaport is excellent as well as a sweet-natured, stuttering diving student that befriends Gooding's Brashear. If anyone has seen "Higher Learning", this character totally redeems that character.

Anyway, this confirms what I've always felt: don't listen to critics. See this movie and get inspired. Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in "Men of Honour" have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.

But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.

The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).

On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many "loopholes"? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing "spoilers" and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only "... a couple of minutes late" saving the pilot.

So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated "Men of Honor" from a perfect 10 down to a 7.

Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad! I'm certainly glad that a film was made about Carl Brashear's amazing life story. Coming as it did during the Civil Rights era, Brashear became an inspiration for people of all minority groups not willing to settle for a status expected.

Brashear as played by Cuba Gooding, Jr. leads by example in the conduct of the life he has chosen. Very similar to Jackie Robinson who integrated baseball and made it stick by his character and conduct. As Brashear, Gooding knows that he does not want the sharecropper life that his father Carl Lumbly has and Lumbly makes it real clear to get more out of life than he's gotten.

But while Harry Truman integrated the Armed Services after World War II, the Navy still has its restrictions. A black man can only be a cook or an officer's valet, the real fighting parts are denied him. That's not good enough for Gooding who applies to become a Navy deep sea diver.

Once at the diving school at Bayonne, New Jersey, Gooding gets it all thrown at him, mostly by the Master Chief Petty Officer in charge, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro may have some leftover prejudices, but he's nevertheless a hero and one who can inspire if one can get passed racial divide.

The best thing about Men Of Honor is the chemistry between DeNiro and Gooding. They certainly come from different places, but as they get to know each other, both turn out to be Men Of Honor.

Other good performances to note are Charlize Theron as DeNiro's wife and Hal Holbrook as the head of the diving school, a guy the Navy just wish would retire for reasons you'll see.

Men Of Honor is an inspiring story about people with courage to spare and the ability to change. This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.

Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.

I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure. Guys, you got to watch this awesome movie. At the end of this movie you will have a strong passion and profundity imbued into yourselves. The acting of the two characters, Billy Sunday and Carl Brashear deeply touches the heart from inside. This movie is about principles, dignity, patriotism and HONOR. You will hear Chief Carl Brashear say, the Navy has greatest tradition of all - Honor - practiced thoroughly by these two characters. Mere glances of these characters during the movie fills you with enthusiasm. Dialogue delivery of this movie is perfect. You can't find any flaws in the dialogues. What the Master Chief Billy says roams in and out of your mind for a long time after watching the movie. Please watch this movie. I hadn't heard about Brashear before I watched this. This is the story of him and the man who trained him, helping him to become the first African-American US Navy Diver. A tale of will-power. The plot is well-written, and develops nicely throughout. This is what it seems, the typical underdog thing, and it doesn't hold too many surprises. It's also quite Hollywood, but hey, I don't know the actual man, maybe it's close to how it actually happened. Nevertheless, it gets the job done, with dramatic scenes and adversity along the way, and this is inspirational for anyone who's ever heard the words "no, you can't" be spoken about their life-long dream. The acting performances are all excellent. DeNiro and Gooding Jr. both shine whenever they're on-screen. Rapaport is marvelous, as well. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. This is well-edited, and features good cinematography. The production values are high, and this does a fairly convincing job of transporting us back to the 50's. This is the only film I've seen by this director and the writer, though I may now consider looking into more they're responsible for. There is a moderate amount of strong language, otherwise no offensive material. I recommend this to anyone who finds the subject interesting, and/or fans of those who made it. 7/10 A Classic Hollywood Biopic is the best sense of the genre. Gooding and DeNiro both give spectacularly heartfelt performances in the two leads roles, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with standout performances by Carl Lumbly and Michael Rapoport.

The only "nit" I might pick is that Theron's role was unnecessary & distracting (not her performance which was fine, it's just that the film seemed to add two unnecessary scenes to accommodate her role.)

Aside from that, the characterizations, dynamics, and action of the real-life story are riveting and unforgettable. The evolutions of the main characters and how what they experience evolves their beings are uniquely characterized by the performing artists. Despite the movie's extreme length, the pacing stays intact throughout. The score is also terrific.

Us this a predictable Hollywood film? You bet. So, Mike Leigh addicts should subtract a star, but everyone else should enjoy mightily. I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film. Although I gave a rating of "9", my expectations were higher than what the film delivered. I would have been happier had there been more deep diving since I am a diver myself, but it was supposed to portray the life of Carl Brashear and that's what it was about. This film made me angry in the beginning, but happy in the end. I thought the racism and prejudice against Carl Brashear was grossly overdramatized for Hollywood effect. I do not believe the U. S. Navy was ever that overtly racist. I cannot imagine a full Captain, the Commanding Officer, ever telling his Chief to intentionally flunk anyone. Certainly not at the risk of his life. And there has never been a Chief Petty Officer as unabashedly prejudice against everybody but WASPs as DeNiro's character. No Chief as slovenly and drunken as he was played would have ever risen to Master Chief in the first place. Cuba Gooding saved an otherwise badly done movie. As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint. MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film. I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts. Men of Honor has many great aspects to it. Good action sequences, plenty of "feel good" scenes, a good musical score, but the part that really makes the movie is the great acting. Mostly by Robert Deniro. The story of Men of Honor is focused about Carl Brashear played by Cuba Gooding Jr. who wants to be the first African American deep sea diver in the navy. It chronicles his rough struggle from being a poor farmer to getting into diving school and even further. It is a good story, but it seems like it has been done many times before. A person, against all of the odds, won't give up until they accomplish their goals that they set for some sentimental reason many years ago. It could happen, but a lot of the struggles the Brashear faces in the movie are questionable including the C.O. of the diving school tampering with his final test. However, all of that is made up for the scene when Robert Deniro finally enters the movie. Deniro plays Mater Chief Sunday who is the teacher at the diving school Brashear is attending. As soon as Deniro come in he omits this vibe of extreme arrogance that you can't hate unless you have incredible wilpower. Before the movie ends, Deniro gives off multiple speeches that would have you laughing at how cool he is but you are too stunned at the way he punches them out. In the end you must doubt some of the aspects of the film, but admit it, if it was all the truth, it would have you snoozing it your seat by the first twenty minutes. This film is a great example of fine storytelling. The acting is superb. The story is inspiring without being overly manipulative or fake. There were a couple points where they probably made people a tad more good or bad than they really were, but considering it is a Hollywood movie, they showed amazing restraint. There wasn't a single explosion shown in the movie, even though they had one opportunity to. The film, while having suspenseful parts, was not made into an action movie. The story is thus made to focus on an extraordinary man in unfortunately ordinary times. Well done! It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie. The movie took a new angle to Gandhi's life, which is nice to see and it shows how human he was. His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.

My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie. It could have been better acted by the person who played Gandhi. Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.

The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son. The rest is blurred out and only used to show the time frame and the general setting of the movie.

Overall nice movie if you keep in mind that it is not a complete picture. Keeping all political views aside, Feroz Khan and Anil Kapoor's 'Gandhi, My Father' is a good movie that cleverly explores the confused-towards-family side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the fight of his eldest son Harilal Gandhi with the society, his larger-than-life father, and most importantly demons in his head. One draws parallels to Gandhi the father of the nation and struggles any son could have with their father

The acting is good. Shefali Shetty, Darshan Zariwala and Akshaye Khanna-strictly in that order- add color and pathos to this heart wrenching tale of Harilal who weeps to be hugged just once and also runs away at the faintest touch of the finger.

Feroz Khan's direction and the production canvas is lavish and attractive, however, the screenplay could've been tighter. I had seen the play some years ago on a pirated video type DVD (it was called Mahatama vs Gandhi, I think) and it was certainly more gripping. Though, the movie's background score and the father-son and mother-son moments are just a brilliant treat.

This movie could have been great. It's borderline to that. It has the potential so huge to have been just a story differences between a father and son or just Gandhi or even both. somewhere, the plot is lost and when you expect absolute epitome of emotions, nothing comes to you.

It compares decently to other Gandhi's. Certainly not an overview film like Kingsley's Gandhi,or abstract as Kamal Hassan's Hey Ram. The film just about manages to find its footing; however, one is left wondering "what if..." Worth a watch. 7.5/10 I saw the movie and really could not stop my tears. Its tragedy that India has no such leaders after freedom, who dare to do justice with their own children, when they don't behave properly.. In current generation, politicians bring their children's into politics without measuring their caliber and skills.. I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation.. Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son. All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles. Gandhi, the Great :

Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.

About Gandhi My Father :

Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.

I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.

Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind. I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.

Enjoy!!!! It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)—he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.

The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parenting—where an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring.

The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.

Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinema—a derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).

Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally.

With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.

The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards. I just came back from the Late-night cinema and it was indeed a silent way out as most of the audience pondered though the real-life black & white images of the partition,the freedom movement,etc which was very much reminiscent of the lives' our forefathers faced! Amidst this backdrop,mind you,there was no tel/fax/internet in those times but for the very voice of Truth & Non-violence, the cinematography infused some spirit of stark reality of adversity amidst the strict Raj.

Gandhi shown as a hardworking Attorney in South Africa,who stood for his basic ideologies and gave every degree of conviction to spread awareness of the same with humility and sainthood which to the uttered speech of general Smut was shown as a nice farewell on screen.It had the best drafted speech with a subtle humour & a veiled threat to the British raj in India!There was a nice remark when he said we pray in silence to the British in India now that Gandhi,the politician is set for India(towards sainthood).

The very backdrop of a big family with many kids needs the mention of an obvious divided attention and love which had to cast it's spell on the unfortunate kid's psyche who was left alone to aspire for unrealistic ambitions.Little did Harilal knew about his aptitude and he gets emotionally carried away with small pleasures in life and fails in front of the huge idol of his father.He tries to do away from mentor-ship which is the basis of any success which had to be seen by those fortunate neighbours in the streets of Gandhi's residence when Harilal vents out his frustration in open.This means he becomes mentally weak and gets psychologically deranged to an extent that he is forced into religious conversions and alcoholism ,with debt and dis-obedience fuelling his negative thoughts.He still had shown the sincere love for his mother through touchy scenes and even Gandhi's humble expressions form Harilal to forgive him didn't meet any conclusions in his mind as he always feared the Father,Gandhi.

he couldn't digest the fact that Gandhi couldn't share his love with him as he expected & was driven to rebellion when he couldn't understand the equal-merit based delivery of scholarship money by his father to his cousin where he saw a failed opportunity to study for barrister in england.

This had to take it's toll in him thrown to the streets as a beggar when the whole of India was celebrating the Indepedence!The life of a destitute never changes come what may but the manner in which the sad death of Kasturba & Gandhi himself is shown brings in an emotional silence.Finally the last turbulent thoughts of the dying Harilal is shown as a flashback to keep the audience gripping and wondering where did the father of the nation go wrong? was he clever enough to be mentally strong to lead an-one man army & use his brave soldier-son as a weapon to show to the British & rival forces that when it comes to the interest of the nation,nothing comes in between.Sadly though that to read a Mahatma's heart one has to live outside his family and see which the emotionally naive harilal couldn't see living inside....

A pity that such naive harilal's are still ruining the efforts of many Mahatma-like fathers in many families in todays' life and have taken to drugs,alcoholism and God knows what thoughts!!Here's a message to all those brave sainik(soldier)-sons please respect the father of the nation!Please Obey and happiness shall be bestowed or else it's a disaster in waiting,isn't it? Gandhi my father is like viewing a book, chapter by chapter you read it(with your eyes) and you learn more about Harilal Gandhi and for that matter Kasturba Gandhi. So little is known about both of them and this movie describes them uniquely. The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother. And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.

Such movies are like leap years. They come after only so much time.

Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.

Watch it, if you like quality cinema. mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society. The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. Hirarala arrives in South Africa to help his dad who is a barrister, since gandhi was involved in the freedom struggle, he wanted his wife and children to join in too as a service to the society and as a result hirarlal does not get a chance to complete his education and fails his exams, he gets married to his love gulab (bhoomika Chawla) against his father's wishes. Hiralal has ambitions to travel to england and become a barrister just like his dad but his own dad refuses to grant him a scholarship offered to his family by a businessman and instead gives it away to another person saying that the scholarship should not be limited to his family and should be open to the most deserving student living in colony. This angers hiralal and the rift between father and son increases, hirarlal hates his father for neglecting him and blames him for being uneducated and unemployed. Hiralal struggles to make ends meet and lands up on the streets through failed business attempts and in huge debt, he loses his wife and children. Akshaye Khanna has give a stellar performance as Hiralal gandhi.. all kudos to him, the direction and the script is fantastic, the picturization is excellent. overall an Excellent movie and a must see. I give it a 10/10 An ultra-modern house in an affluent neighborhood appears to be the cause of each of its inhabitants bizarre (and deadly) behavior. Or at least that is what Lara Flynn Boyle's character, Col Kennedy, argues. After a series of deadly occurrences in a gargantuan house next door, Col knows something has got to give. Mark-Paul Gosselaar also stars as the mysterious architect.

My opinion: The House Next Door works because of Lara Flynn Boyle and the locations (beautiful house) and stylish sets. Boyle is a talented and dynamic actress, not to mention absolutely stunning. She brings credibility to her character and makes the film intriguing. Without her, it would have failed. "It's so alive" declares a prospective buyer in reference to the house. Yes, it is alive. But the story itself is not so much.

Barring Boyle's presence, not much is happening here, as an enormous amount of the movie is spent watching or waiting to see how the house will affect its current owners. The results are predictable. But I liked it anyway. The cinematography lends the film a polished look. 8/10 on account of Boyle, the premise of an evil ultra-modern house, the locations and cinematography, and set decoration and wardrobe. After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book "The House Next Door" has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.

With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.

Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.

Be sure to read the great novel. When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well. All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.

In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.

W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the "Black Maria" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.

During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.

The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.

With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.

The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the "fairground barker" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.

And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public. On the 28th of December, 1895, in the Grand Café in Paris, film history was writing itself while Louis Lumière showed his short films, all single shots, to a paying audience. 'La Sortie des Usines Lumière' was the first film to be played and I wish I was there, not only to see the film, but also the reactions of the audience.

We start with closed doors of the Lumière factory. Apparently, since the image seems a photograph, people thought they were just going to see a slide show, not something they were hoping for. But then the doors open and people are streaming out, heading home. First a lot of women, then some men, and one man on a bike with a big dog. When they are all out the doors close again.

Whether this is the first film or not (some say 'L'Arrivée d'un Train à la Ciotat' was the first film Lumière recorded), it is an impressive piece of early cinema. Being bored by this is close to impossible for multiple reasons. One simple reason: it is only fifty seconds long. But also for people who normally only like the special effect films there must be something interesting here; you don't get to see historical things like this every day. This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.

Rating: 8 You're using the IMDb.

You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.

It's something you enjoy doing.

And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.

How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.

The word genius is often overused.

THIS is genius. The appeal of ancient films like this one is that you get to see an actual moving image of life over 100 years ago. Here are a lot of people leaving a factory, all of them dead by now and none of them even remotely aware of the magnitude of the invention that they are walking before. I was shocked to read one reviewer call this film as boring as home videos today, and at least one other mistakenly identified it as the first film ever made (it was the first film made at the rate of 16 frames per second, rather than the then-normal 46 frames per second).

Sure, all you see is a lot of people filing out of a building and passing before the cinematograph on their way home from work, but this is a curiosity piece for dozens of reasons, not the least of which is that it was the first film made by the Lumiére brothers, who probably had a stronger impact on the development of the cinema than any other individual or group of individuals in history. Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.

Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" (literally "Exiting the Lumière Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.

"La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrosé" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10 It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far). What can i say about the first film ever?

You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever!

How can't you rate this movie with 10/10? I admit to say that this movie is not very entertaining but the goal is not to tell you a story but History! This is the first `real' movie of cinema history (`le Prince de Galles' was first but it was not technically perfect enough…) and it has an undoubtedly huge international value. These people that you can see finishing their working day in the movie had the chance to participate to a historic moment, becoming the first persons to be able to see themselves moving! And above all the shot is a beautiful shot! And it's very moving when you think about the first persons to have seen that! What a moment! Historic for science first (because the Lumiere brothers first invented the cinematographe for scientific reasons) and for art later. A movie to venerate! The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.

But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.

worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie. Of course, he did have to INVENT EVERYTHING about cinematography, film directing, etc. before he could make classics like "The Gardner," so I suppose he may be forgiven this initial excursion into mere sociological documentary. Today we call them "home movies," and they are just as boring now as this one is I have no idea how to describe this movie, and also would love to provide others the same opportunity I had - seeing it with no prior knowledge of what to expect. I enjoyed it immensely but can also say I barely understood what was going on, if in fact there was anything to understand in the first place. Fans of David Lynch (tangentially) or especially Guy Maddin films should particularly enjoy this, and any fans of the comic book EIGHTBALL will probably be beside themselves with joy and wonder (it came as close as any film I've seen to the tone and mood Dan Clowes creates so effectively).

One slight note just to warn anyone easily offended - this movie, if rated, would be NC-17 for sure. Fans of male full-frontal nudity, however...hmm, well...yes. This is weird wild stuff. This is an important film. It challenges the viewer and encourages you to pay attention. There's a lot to like here. The director seems interested in taking apart some of the more tired cinematic conventions. Unlike a lot of recent American cinema, this film takes an interest in what it means to make a movie in the first place. The DVD includes a lot of bonus features, and there are two commentaries that explain the movie for the viewers still befuddled after an initial viewing. When the film screened at Sundance, it made more than a few audience members uncomfortable and angry. This is a Sunday morning coffee movie, not a Friday night party movie. For the dedicated viewer, it's a treasure trove. The best Treasure Island ever made. They just don't make films

like this anymore, or ever. No one makes films like this. More

than a novelty, this film is funny, frank and fascinating, yet moody,

mysterious and morose. This is one of my favorite pictures. The

director must have had some idea what it is all about, but he

certainly leaves room for your own impressions and interpretations, while leaving little left to the imagination. Why he

has not made more films like this, I have no idea. While

reminding me of some of the best noir, it is one of a kind. But this

is not for the lazy or simple. I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes. A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow – if you are a fan of any of these then this will be well worth checking out.

French animation project 'Renaissance' took seven years to make on a shoestring budget and tonight I finally got to see it at a private screening for the International Film Festival in Stockholm. My spontaneous reaction is awe; my further reflection is 'huh, neat' and closer analysis regrettably gets a resounding 'meh'. It is a gorgeous science fiction triumph on the surface, but scratch it or even poke it a little and its unnecessarily complex plot becomes glaringly apparent, as do the flat characters.

Nevertheless it is clear that the people at Onyx films have done something spectacular with the aforementioned surface. The visuals are staggering. They have used live action motion capture fitted into key-frame animation, with stark jet black and bright white contrasts and a heavily shadowed rotoscoped background. For those of you who are not down with the 'technical lingo', the film looks like a fully-animated Sin City. Its fluid, transparent, dark and stylized template is complemented by great lurid lightning. It's a vision. Yet much credit is also due to the crisp sound effects that take the form of humming futuristic weapons, suspenseful music, heavy raindrops and glass shards breaking. It's every tech-nerd's wet dream...

The film zooms in on an eerily-lit, bleak, futurescape Paris in which a major corporation called 'Avalon' has begun to interweave in the lives of the citizens with surveillance (think the fluid transparent screens from Minority Report) and genetic engineering. The latter leads to a mysterious kidnapping of young researcher Ilona (voiced by the lovely Romola Garai). Cut to our hard-boiled cop-on-suspension and protagonist Karas (Daniel Craig) – a man who takes the law into his own hands – who is assigned the case of finding and retrieving Ilona. During this case, he is being aided by Illona's sister with whom he also begins a love affair. A very half-assed love affair, if I may say so.

The world of Renaissance is remarkable. Director Christian Volckman takes a fair jab at melting the noir themes and the result is an urban jungle filled with cads, rats, femme fatales and lonely detectives that hide in the shadows of the seedy slum. The problem is that the creators undoubtedly felt the need to have extremely clear and spelled-out archetypes in the story, or the film would have been "too surreal" for mainstream audiences, owing to its lurid animation format. It follows then that we have a multitude of clichéd characters such as evil-laughing villains, sleazy crime bosses and butch tough-chicks who blow smoke every chance they get. It shoves noir in our faces, and it isn't necessary.

What is worse is that the dialogue is a little contrived. It seems as though every line exists for the sole reason of propelling the plot. This is nothing fatal because the plot is so complex once it gets going that it needs some clear direction. Daniel Craig helps here too by bringing a no-nonsense attitude to his hard-edged cop character. At one point in Renaissance, he is seen in a vivid car-chase that surely is one of the most adrenaline-pumping and top notch sequences of the film. Unfortunately, the novelty of the sci-fi visuals have worn off post this car chase and 'Renassaince' could benefit from being slightly shorter. In summary, a very interesting but flawed futuristic comic book experience.

7 out of 10 One reason Pixar has endured so well, and been so successful, is that while their films remain technical marvels and visual mosaics, they have a story to match their style. And often very moving style at that: affecting, charming and cross-generational. That a lot Anime (speaking in broad terms) and a great many other animations fail to match their technical virtuosity with real substance is, I think (and I might be wrong) partly because either the makers aren't bothered with character and plot and focus far too much on sound and image, or the sheer effort that goes into making some animations is so enormous, so enervating that they don't have the energy to create a really engaging story.

That same cannot be said of Renaissance. There are flaws in its plot, but I'll get to that later. Those same flaws, however, are not reflected in the visuals - Renaissance is nowt short of stunning. The ultra-high contrast images (sometimes so high-contrast that is nothing but one face or one beam of light visible) and incredible detail are always impressive, always a joy to behold. The futuristic Paris on display is the grim offspring of Blade Runner and Brave New World; dark, murky, quite affluent and even clean, but shrouded in intrigue, corporate malfeasance, obsessed with beauty (capital of the catwalk, after all) and disguising the squalor and neglect of its labyrinthine passages with a veneer of monumental, sophisticated architecture.

It's a compelling environment, not entirely original, but great all the same. The film's much-touted 'motion-capture' technology and incredible attention to human and design minutiae result in images a black-and-white photographer would die for. Not that the detail prevents entertainment, because Christian Volckman crafts some superb action sequences: a hell-for-leather care chase, a couple of gruesome(ly imaginative) murders, several tussles in the dark and a nasty dust-up in a gloomy apartment. The locations are great, too (I want to visit the nightclub). While the central character of Karas is your regular off-the-shelf maverick cop, the other two female characters (who are sisters) are the real motors of the movie. Coming from war-torn Eastern Europe, products of a war, diaspora and a family spat, they're a compelling metaphor for Europe as a whole.

The film is tremendously atmospheric, its dizzying, swooping faux-camera moves and adult tone making for a very engaging experience. However, the plot... It never becomes more interesting than the initial hook, in which indefatigable plod Karas must find Ilona Tasuiev, a drop-dead gorgeous and pioneering scientist, after she's snatched from the street. The sinister corporation Avalon (is ANY corporation ever not sinister?), which she was working for on 'classified', projects are hell-bent on her retrieval, and soon Karas is up to his neck in official reprimands, dead bodies, cigarette-smoke and narrowly-missed bullets, and falling in love with Ilona's sister Bislane (very sympathetically voiced by Catherine McCormack), as he plumbs the depths of the city's sordid underbelly (and his own past).

Text-book noir, in other words, but while I enjoyed the film a lot more than Sin City (to which it bears a passing visual resemblance), the plot and resolution are dull, the theme of immortality being raised but never examined, and the shenanigans of high-rolling Avalon CEO Paul Dellenbach are also dull , undercutting a lot of the dramatic tension. The basic ideas are familiar sci-fi genre materials, and there's a nagging sense that the visuals and atmosphere are disguising the mundane material.

However, the film as a whole is lucid and perfectly coherent, even if some of the scenarios the characters get into occasionally feel like excuses for displays of technical wizardry. But it's the projection of life in Paris circa 2054, the vision of community and creation of another city from the ground up that makes this film something to behold. I may be taking it too seriously, and if that's the case I can at least say that it's superbly made, extremely entertaining (and pretty mature, too), and with an ambiance like no other. If you've ever seen the trailer for the film "The Recruit" with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino, you'll never have to see that film. Sadly, Renaissance has had similarly revelatory trailer makers.

The story of Renaissance is about a detective investigating the kidnapping of a young woman and medical researcher. The setting is a futuristic Paris, and science fiction elements feature throughout. The special thing about Renaissance, though, is its visual style, and not its story. Renaissance is 3D computer animation, like Final Fantasy, but highly stylised into black and white with ultra sharp contrasts. The result looks stunning (although the problems of 3D animation of human beings are still noticeable from time to tome: slightly robotic movements, slightly wooden facial acting, etc) As a highly stylised, beautiful film noir, Renaissance succeeds at stunning the audience, especially visually. The story and writing, though, are not quite at the same level of quality as the visuals. It's not a bad story (and presumably, if you haven't seen the trailer, it's a lot more exciting than it was for me). But it is a story that isn't highly original, and verges on the corny. A few lines of dialogue were painfully corny, making the writing sound like a beginner's first efforts.

I will definitely recommend Renaissance to friends. It's unlike anything I've seen before, visually, and I believe its originality alone makes it a worthwhile experience. It is also a watchable story, even if it isn't perfect. I highly recommend this film. Set in the Bladerunner-esquire future of 2054 Paris, it is in most respect a classic film noir script: lady in peril, sister trying to find her, honest cop fighting everyone. Luckily, it avoids being stereotypical, and combines a pretty good storyline with interesting, innovative visuals. The film might remind you of Sin City in look, but it has an even sharper, even more graphic novel look that I found really compelling. Each frame, each sequence seems like it could have been pulled from the desk of a skilled graphic designer. In terms of story and artwork, you can find nods going back to the nineteen forties (or even earlier with the classic views of the Eiffel Tower and Sacre Couer) and movies like Casablanca, as well as looking toward a grim future where our destines are ruled by corporations. Make any excuse you need to see this film. First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.

I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.

Definitely worth seeing. I just went to a screening of the film during Expresion en Corto, a short film festival in Guanajuato, Mexico. One of the producers was there and gave a brief introduction. The Film rolled and from the first shot I was amazed: one long continuous shot of a futuristic Paris in glorious black and white.

I shouldn't go on with the details 'cause I think it is a film worth seeing. The sci-fi story might be found average for many... to me was really good. The action is great, the camera is free to fly everywhere and I mean everywhere. Things you would not be able to do or see is accomplished beautifully. The cast performance is good, in my opinion no one hits the wrong note.

Now, the thing that I found awesome is the animation. 3D grafics look 2D. A BW comic book brought to life. The details on the backgrounds gives more texture as if it had been done by hand (I'm sure it was but when the angles change you see the depth).

The producer at the screening talked about the hard work behind the film: 7 years! The director, she said, is brilliant, but perhaps he was quite unexperienced since he only had one short film in his CV. So, many people had true faith in them. They started their own studio from scratch and ever since they faced the challenge they brought upon them.

Don't miss it. I think you won't regret it... maybe Richard Linklater for the final look of this film is superior to his I think. I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w. If the answer to this question is yes, then you should enjoy this excellent movie. I've just seen it a couple of hours ago here in Paris (where the action of the movie takes place)and I can still feel the huge trauma I received in the back of my eyes...What a visual shock ! I've never seen such a beautiful black&white photo and such a drastic change in the way of doing animated movies. I strongly believe there will a before and after "Renaissance", similarly to what we saw with Pixar movies or the Akira and GhostInTheShell experiences. This is a real breakthrough in the small world of animated movies and I hope this french initiative (a small unknown french studio with a few young folks who had a dream named "Renaissance"...) will receive the success and recognition it deserves. Vive la France ! Blade Runner (Deckard is a Replicant!),

City of Lost Children (augmented senses or whatever used and abused and mostly, well, just giving us far less than what we might dream of), and

Dark City:

These really ought to be added.

For a while now, I've been waiting for an animated film that might affect me as much as Miyazaki's stuff has. This one is the 1st.

Hmm, scratch the "animated" part of that.

I have an intense love-hate relationship with film noir and, hey, if you don't leave, it must be mostly love, right? But, there are so many sci-fi and noir themes totally submerged in this film that it's just a wonder to watch.

These people did an incredible job! Picture the classic noir story lines infused with hyper-stylized black and white visuals of Frank Miller's Sin City. Then picture a dystopian, science fiction thriller, such as Steven Spielberg's Minority Report or Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly. An amalgamation of the above would be a suitable way of describing visionary french director Christian Volckman's bleak and atmospheric take on the future in his feature film debut. But although Volckman's work does unquestionably take reference from the aforementioned films and those similar to them, such a simplistic hybrid does not do Renaissance, Volckman's end result, justice - the film itself is a far more complex piece of work than that.

Genre hybridity is usually a hit and miss affair, especially in a contemporary context, with the well of individuality appearing to be increasingly exhausted. As such, Renaissance is laudable as a cinematic experiment at the very least, with its unique interspersing of the gritty nihilism of the neo-noir detective thriller and the fantastic allegorical terror of the dystopian sci-fi drama, which serve to compliment each other's storytelling conventions in a strangely fitting fashion. The screenplay is a clever and intriguing one (although one gets the sense that many of the lines in the script would have been much more effective in their original french than the English translation - the film's title also becomes far more poignant) managing to stay one step ahead of its audience all the way through. Though many elements of the plot will seem quite familiar to those who frequent such science fiction thrillers, the script throws unexpected twists and turns in at exactly the right moment to keep the viewer on their toes, making for a truly compelling work.

Volckman's film truly excels in its visual component, and the stunning black and white animation is easily the film's highlight - superbly moody and stylish, it goes to show what tremendous aesthetic effect the simple use of two shades can have. With tremendous detail paid to the composition and look of each shot, and superb use of very noir shadows and intriguing angles to accentuate the emotional tension of the scene, the film appears straight out of a Frank Miller comic, but with a twist, the end result being consistently visually sumptuous.

The film's English rendition is also given added credence by its very fitting array of voice casting. The gruff voice of Daniel Craig is an absolutely perfect piece of casting for grim, stoic policeman Karas, and Catherine McCormack is a strong presence as the mysterious woman whose sister's disappearance he is investigating. Despite a wavering English accent, Romola Garai does great work as the frantic sister in question, and Jonathan Pryce is suitably menacing as the shady head of ominous mega-corporation Avalon. Ian Holm's reedy voice is also a strong choice as a mysterious scientist, and Holm makes a powerful impression in his brief scenes.

All together, Renaissance boasts a visually stunning, unique and compelling futuristic thriller, just as intelligent as it is entertaining. Though the plot may seem familiar to those who frequent such fare and the occasional weak line may inhibit the film from being the moody masterpiece it set out to be, the superb animation in itself easily carries the film through its occasional qualms. For fans of either of the film's intertwined genres or the gritty graphic novels of Frank Miller, or those willing to appreciate a capably crafted, slightly less conventional take on the futuristic thriller, the film is without question worth a watch.

-8/10 Animation always seems to be fringe. In Japan, this might not be the case, but in Europe and much more so in the USA animation has a big fat "KIDS" tag on it. France is probably one of the more comic-liberal countries, home of classics as Tin-Tin, Asterix, Lucky Luke, Valereon and so on(if you've never read these, it's not too late. There's no upper-age limit on them and they don't carry the nerd-stigma of DC or Marvel) It seems natural a movie like this one pops up in France. It suits my prejudiced image of the French as art-loving, anti-USA-oriented and talented movie-makers. Luckily there's also "A scanner darkly" out there to suppress that view - seems art is pretty much international.

Anyway, as you might have gathered Renaissance is artsy and French. If you're a normal person you will get scared by this. There's no need for that however! Beneath it's cool, sleek cel-shaded appearance there's a good thriller and a good movie overall.

That was one of my fears for this movie. It's so easy turning the spectacular animation to a gimmick, much like Sony & C:o are doing with their Pixar rip-offs. I was expecting a confusing, sometimes boring and not very engaging movie, but luckily I was wrong.

I would have enjoyed it anyway for the neo-noir stuff, but it was good that it was worthwhile on that level as well. NOTE: I've seen the French dub which was OK as far as I could see. English might be more interesting what with Craig and everything.

A final word of praise to the animation. It was awesome. Futuristic, well-crafted, nice camera-work, smart solutions(Eyes for example looked very good, which is hard to do) and so visually stunning I felt like bursting out "This is so damn impressive!". Then again, I really like animation and I appreciate the effort the studio put down, so my verdict is a bit biased.

Good movie anyway, definitely lives beyond it's "gimmick". This is a film i decided to go and see because I'm a huge fan of adult animation. I quite often find that when a film doesn't evolve around a famous actor or actress but rather a story or style, it allows the film to be viewed as a piece of art rather than a showcase of the actors ability to differ his styles.

This film is certainly more about style than story. While i found the story interesting (a thriller that borrows story and atmosphere from films such as Blade Runner and many anime films), it was a bit hard to follow at times, and didn't feel like it all came together as well as it could have. It definitely had a mixed sense of French Animation and Japanese Anime coming together. Whether thats a good thing or not is up to the viewer. Visually this film is a treat for the eyes, and in that sense a work of art.

If you like adult animation, or would like to see a film that is different from most films out at the moment. I would recommend it. All i can say is that i enjoyed the experience of the film but did come away slightly disappointed because it could have been better I am glad being able to say almost only positive things about the movie with Karas and the Tasuiev sisters, RENAISSANCE.

And firstly, that it looks as it ought to look; a boys' adventure, RENAISSANCE is the tale of a cop's investigation in search of a missing young scientist—Ilona Tasuiev, the geneticist and researcher for the Avalon company.

The tale of Karas, Ilona and Bislane is, though much less known than SIN CITY, the better movie, and the one more appreciated by the connoisseurs. To the French comics aficionados it will be even more meaningful (I have enriched my French comics collection last week, though I'm not so up—to—date). The atmosphere, the music, the characters, their lines, the plot are all nice and endearing. A Parisian top cop, Karas, is displayed to find a young woman who was a rising star of medical—genetic research, Ilona Tasuiev—a mildly hot blonde, whose rebel sister Bislane was erotically preferable, I guess.

For me, an oldie aficionado of comics and TV series, RENAISSANCE, a marvelously beautiful cartoon, was like a replay of a WILD WILD WEST episode—here, a mythological past replaced with an equally mythological future—more jaded and blasé but, in a sense, as thrilling. RENAISSANCE is not suspenseful; nor does it look especially well—paced; but it's seducing and hypnotic. Moreover, it achieves sketching, albeit briefly, a world, a true world—and we will think about the Avalon, Nakata, Jonas Mueller, the Tasuiev sisters, and Goran, Farfella, and Karas telling of his distant childhood in Kasbah …. I liked RENAISSANCE's feel, of a certain gentleness and affability and adventurousness, and also the professional, assured look; among these new cartoons, this one and Linklater's Dick adaptation (--the only and first Dick adaptation ever--) stood out for me as works of beauty and genuine excitement.

I thought the futuristic devices were appropriate and, when not conventional, vividly eerie (like the invisibility costumes).

As advisable, the characters have exotic names, like Bislane and Farfella, mostly gathered from the arts and entertainment's world (Goran and Ilona and Naghib …).

None seems to have noticed that RENAISSANCE's poster features a Rourke look-alike—that guy is Marv; which doesn't make it a SIN CITY rip--off, but not a paragon of originality either, and in fact there's more resemblance to the Miller tale—namely, the bleak futuristic look of a decayed society, the brio of the hero (in fact a cross of Willis' character and Rourke's persona in the previous movie …)–on the other hand, this cartoon breathes a more public air, a brim of straight adventurousness, and, in a word, it's like SIN CITY for kids—well, naughtier kids I mean, 'cause there's a bit of nudity on display. To what I have said one might retort that the traits mentioned are characteristic, even as clichés and common places of the futuristic more adult comics' look; true enough, and it was oldie Miller to have brought that things on screen and RENAISSANCE bears some resemblances here and there. Now it's also fair that every RING ought to have its ERAGORN, so to each sin city, its renaissance. I admit being quite partial to these bleak futuristic tales, a rather undemanding specialty. I read that this did not well, that the story is not solid, that Volckman feels he has failed in some way.

I disagree. First, it is well executed. Volckman is doing well to not only to try a new technique, but to have a focus that is worth thinking about: would immortality reduce the value of life? Big question ...

I can see he trying hard to build a feeling, and he is not compromising. This is to be applauded. I am sure it was an interesting exercise to build characters in such a form. I have seen artists reduce a form to bare minimum to build the intensity of a moment. I identify this film with this.

Further, it is much more interesting than Richard Linklater's roto-scoping, and Volckman's story has more meaning than Linklater's later stories of a wasted life on drugs. Old news. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it. Renaissance has more to offer, something new to think about. And there are many more stories out there with loads of holes in them that do far better.

Well done, Volckman. Really nice work. A very unique Sci-Fi animated film, and frankly I love uniqueness no matter which way it tends to be, better or worse. This French film is quite interesting to watch, the technique part is innovatory, like "Waking Life" I recently watched.

It took me quite a long time to get used to the Black-White style, but eventually I love it, the sketchlike images are really fancy! The contracted future world is a symbol of human race's final destination which I adore it very much.

The whole plot is fine for a Sci-Fi, not so intriguing but it's OK, like some Hollywood's products, a giant conspiracy about human's eternity, a little bit cliché and the twisted ending is not so convincing, some development is just too plain and insipid, and the whole movie is too long.

So I think I'm just in love with the style this film shows, others are not so good.

About the eternity of life, I think most people have come to a unanimousness that we don't want eternity because it demolishes the meaning of life, we treasure our lives because they are limited and meaningful, if everyone can live forever, thus the world world will become a disaster and chaos. Leaving someone you love is hard and heartbreaking, but that's also a way to show our lives are genuine and all the emotion fulfills one's life and make the world colorful and lively. Just like Final Fantasy brought CG to a whole new level, this is a rebirth for motion capture. Neither movie nor cartoon, this motion picture looks like a homage to the Film Noir, Akira, Sin City, Blade Runner and the new generation of European cartoonists. You see Paris the way it almost could be, the characters seem as real as you and I. They blink, trip, shiver like real actors in a way never achieved before.

Don't go watch it hoping to find a mind twister. You will most likely figure it out before you're half way from the movie. The scenario is certainly too simplistic compared to famous thrillers, but this definitely is bliss for the eyes. Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.

Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.

I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film. In 2054 Paris, Avalon, a computer generated system, controls the city and when a young woman is kidnapped, detective Karas (Craig) must go against Avalon to find her.

Renaissance is a splendid blend of film making mixed with a conceptual futuristic narrative that lights up the screen in a shocking manor with a noir themed ideology and conceptual montages that should delight many.

Pixar are the animation masters. Their numerous Oscar winning films are endless from the charming Toy Story to the mystifying Wall-E and so any company or director has a real challenge to knock them of their perch. Renaissance isn't a film aimed for the young audience though, and like 2007's Persepolis, brings a strong and mature approach to the genre of animation to make an older and more challenging film to its targeted older generation.

In 2005 Robert Rodriguez released a shockingly brilliant noir Sin City that shook up the whole usage of green screen with a splendid balance of filming in black and white with the odd spurts of colour and a year later, Christian Volckman took up a similar approach with this equally visually masterful stroke of film making.

Volckman's picture however is a full on animation but it doesn't half look realistic for the majority of it's strong 1 hour and 40 minutes of running time. The faces of the character's are well portrayed and in particular, this film has got to be the finest ever for the usage of shadow. The fact we never know if its night or day is irrelevant when simply gazing into the stony faces as the shadows blend across their expressions. It is almost a clever use of pathetic fallacy, and is finely directed also.

For anyone who has seen Persepolis you will have come to the conclusion it is one of the finest directed animations ever screened for the simple but highly conceptual artistic style by Marjane Satrapi

Renaissance is equally on terms with that picture and in many instances rivals it with stronger graphics and a darker tone to reflect the mood. One scene in particular when Karas appears out of darkness is beautifully shot.

The narrative revolves around a stubborn and nosey political government who keeps tabs on every citizen. The running of Paris is down to the mysterious Avalon which we don't see nearly enough to get an essence of its true dominance. Renaissance is controlling the narrative around a tired cop's attempts to rescue the mysterious woman, and then we see Craig's tired and boring cop attempt a rescue whilst battling with other elements. There are many things wrong with the scripting, not to mention the tired exasperated cop routine is now old, but there is plenty of dashing adrenaline and springy banter between characters to keep it alive right till a wonderfully shot shocking last couple of stages. Punctuating the opening credits sequence is a swarthy man having a strange, all-too-real nightmare. Closing in on its dystopic 2054 Paris, the film begins to follow a woman into a grungy club, where she and a Slavic bartender convene outside on the deck. They toss exclamations at each other to the effect that she owes him more money although she believes she's paid it all. Another woman obstructs the budding violence, only to have a bitter fight with the woman herself. The initial woman storms out, and she is kidnapped. Christian Volckman's Renaissance appears to be another one in an assembly line of recent motion-capture-animated sci-fi noir pictures, but in spite of whether or not that is essentially true, it tells a neatly arranged, classically unraveling detective story that keeps us in the dark in its opening minutes, even whilst introducing Karas, the hard-boiled cop we recognize from the beginning as the man awakening from a terrible dream.

The rudiments of classic film noir are all hit upon without any anachronistic changes, for all intents and purposes. It is in the harshness of its monochrome that Volckman's French thriller has followed no example. For the film's animators, unfettered by the challenges of physical lighting that would normally be faced, have been able to begin with a totally black frame, and to affix utter pitch-white according to the action on screen. As they scrupulously imitate the effects of real light sources throughout the frame, the distinction of black and white here is full-blown without even any of the slightest shades of gray to tone with the characters' less starkly definite moral codes, and the outcome is a harsh and judgmental vision of the direction in which commercial civilization is going, sporadically caused to undergo the most blaring and ruthless of illumination. It is the artistic study of film noir taken to their visual boundary of its philosophy, and nothing before has ever shared quite the same execution of this visual concept.

All the characters in this decent cyberpunk film seem as if to have been walk off with purely from a Gothic comic book in black ink, but all together their physical responses, their motions and the nuances of their facial expressions look ashore within a clear humanity. Normally, films that try out new developments in animation allow their technical advances upstage all other facets of production. Sin City, for example, left substance and overall good screen adaptation from its source material to be desired.

It may not be mind-blowing, it may have its narrative conventions and its voice-over cast may simply be adequate, but Renaissance, made for $19 million over six years, not only feels like actual noir instead of a rashly penned appropriation, but also is not secondary to all the visual innovation, which is played as if to be incidental. One leaves thinking not so much about how cool it is when Karas is evading bullets shot through a crowded glass Parisian street, but more about its ponderance of life and death, how life's tragedies, such as death, make life meaningful. There's about 25 years worth of inspiration packed into it. Beginning with existential themes of Blade Runner, as well as the vision of the future - with corporate billboards advertising their products, to the technology of the later Matrix films and Spielberg's A.I., and finally the black and white graphic novel look similar in style of Sin City. The creators have put in a lot of effort in the visual department and the outcome is a well crafted future neo-noir. Add a detective story and you've got an interesting film. I know what it wanted to be, but regardless of the stunning visuals, it wasn't enough to get it to the final destination. I would almost give it 10 out of 10. However, there are some confusing parts as well as sections that are miss-leading which hurt the flow/continuity of the film. The story line is great and well composed; you will definitely want to watch this quietly to fully understand it. The characters are complicated and so is the story line, expect to be given only enough information to stop scratching your head, it's a film where all is explained in the end. The animation is great and the combination of femme fatal and film noir result in a great film that is unlike anything else I've seen in animation. It is a black and white film and its quiet dark in a few scenes so it's worth watching it on a good T.V, or plasma. The character voices do save this film in its English version, but it would have been more convincing if there were some French accents to emphasize that its happening Paris, I enjoyed it more in French with English subtitles. One the whole its well worth buying on DVD or BlueRay if they have it! And personally if you enjoyed this film you might also like; Waking Life & Ghost in a Shell 2 Innocence, this is just a personal suggestion. Time for Hollywood to sit up and take notice! If the actors are acting snooty, all you need to do is get the animators who worked on this little marvel. Renaissance is probably the first animation flick which makes you forget that you are not seeing human beings. Although the voice overs by the cast (Craig, McCormack, Pryce etc.) are some of the best i have ever heard but even then the emotions portrayed by the 'cartoons' are unnerving.

This style of animation is not very new but the use of light and shadows makes the movie a living painting. Ironically, such technical wizardry makes you forget that this is actually a very very nice movie. The pacing and plot development are marvelous and the dialogs crisp.

Plot: Disappearance of a mega corporation's top employee unravels a tale of deceit and corruption with a Cold hearted hero at the helm. Can't say much without giving it all away...except that while the movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, the climax leaves you speechless.

A must watch..even for the 'grown-ups' who smirk at 'cartoons' 2054. Paris is an Escher drawing with people and vehicles scurrying along at multiple levels in an obvious homage to Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Paris is both ultramodern and crumbling into decay. And in the blink between surveillance sweeps, a pretty young medical researcher is kidnapped just after leaving her sister in a seedy nightclub. A tough police captain investigates. Shown in stark black and white, with the gloomy corridors, shadowy alleys and single source lighting characteristic of the most hard-boiled of film noir, comparisons to Sin City are inevitable. But the story owes more to Masamune Shirow and William Gibson than to Frank Miller, as high tech surveillance, near-invisible stealth suits and ruthless super-corporations are as much a part of the landscape as guns and cars. The film never quite generates the doom-laden atmosphere of Gibson's cyberpunk vision, with its tech-heavy marginal characters clashing with industrial types from corporations that all seem to have their own Ministry of Fear, but the viewer definitely gets the sense that future Paris is no Utopia and future science is less than benevolent. And as the police procedural plot line unfolds we are taken into the darker recesses of individual ambition beneath the shiny veneer of Avalon corporation's cultivated PR image. The motion capture process used here produces a look somewhere between B&W comic books and next generation rotoscoping, and is either captivating or intrusive depending on your tastes. Nevertheless, a great visual sense is on display here, and future Paris is filled in down to the tiny details giving the picture a unique look which is in turns both spartan and baroque. Worth a look. 'Renaissance (2006)' was created over a period of six years, co-funded by France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom at a cost of around €14 million. The final result is a staggering accomplishment of comic-book style animation, aesthetically similar to what Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller achieved with 'Sin City (2005),' but this film employed motion capture with live-actors to translate their faces and movements into an entirely animated format. Presented in stark black-and-white, the film looks as though it has been hoisted from the very pages of the graphic novel on which it was based, and the futuristic city of Paris looms ominously above us. Directed by French filmmaker Christian Volckman, in his feature-length debut, 'Renaissance' draws significantly from other films in the science-fiction genre, and the tech-noir storyline isn't something we haven't seen before, but, from a technical standpoint, it is faultless.

The year is 2054. The city of Paris is a crumbling metropolis filled with dark alleys and deserted footpaths, the recent installation of modern technology merely offering a thin mask to the pitiable degradation of the darkened buildings. The city's largest corporation, Avalon, achieved wealth through offering citizens the promise of beauty and youth, and the company's research department is continually striving to invent greater means of eliminating the aging process. Ilona Tasuiev (voiced by Romola Garai in the English-language version, which I watched) , a brilliant young scientist, is mysteriously kidnapped on her return from work, and so it falls to legendary detective Barthélémy Karas (Daniel Craig) to uncover her current whereabouts. Possibly holding the key to the woman's disappearance is Bislane (Catherine McCormack), Ilona's hardened elder sister, whose trustworthiness is in question, and Jonas Muller (Ian Holm), the dedicated medical doctor who adored Ilona as his own daughter.

The eerie, dimly-lit city of Paris is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner (1982),' and some of the technology looks as though it might have been borrowed from Tom Cruise in 'Minority Report (2002)' {which was, coincidentally, also set in the year 2054}. However, despite this familiarity, Volckman has created an exciting world for his characters to inhabit. Blending classic film-noir and science-fiction, the result is an eye-catching collage of harsh lighting and dark shadows, which, I should warn, occasionally becomes difficult on the viewer's eyes. The dialogue is a little banal at times, and the story, though engaging, doesn't offer anything strikingly original {except for the ending, which I thought was a bold twist on the usual formula}, but 'Renaissance' is intended to work best as a visual treat, and that it succeeds in this regard cannot be denied. I have to mention two failures for you to understand that this movie brilliantly succeeded where they failed: "A Scanner Darkly" and "Immortel Ad Vitam". If you were excited by the concepts of these two movies and felt woefully disappointed (like me), you will probably enjoy Renaissance. It immerses you into the world of a future Paris. It is not quite dystopian. They did the animation so well that I thought it was rotoscoped, but from what I can tell, it was not, it was merely motion capture. The facial expressions are amazing! Not since TRON have I seen a fantasy world so well displayed in an animation/live hybrid. The Black and White medium is used to slowly direct your attention to the subject of the scene; my favorite effect was what they did with headlight beams, watch for it. The director plays with your attention and confusion but you are satisfied eventually by finding the thread that he wants you to find. The overall effect is a harsh and gritty urban world filled with small surprises.

The plot is secondary, but it isn't terrible. It is noir-ish. There is a backstory for most of the major characters giving them some depth. There is weather. There are "sets" so you can feel like you are in different places in Paris. There is some action, and even a car chase. I am going to have to see this one again to get everything. I also recommend a very large screen to view it as the "sets" are detailed and the credits are small. Much in the same way Frank Miller and his Sin City comics used black and white to express itself (and its film noir influences), so does Christian Volckman with Renaissance.

It is the year 2054, in Paris. In the tradition of science fiction, the future is a bright, sparkling multi-teared jewel. This is a jewel in a setting of misery, inequity and darkness; bright and beautiful on top with a dark underbelly beneath. One of these "bright" people at the top, a research scientist from a very large and influential global company (Avalon), is kidnapped. The well known and efficient, Captain Karas (voiced by the new James Bond himself - Daniel Craig), is assigned the task to find her.

The plot and layout is not overly original. It is heavily influenced by film noir, Gibson's Neuromancer and other detective stories, along with movies like Blade Runner, Sin City, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Minority Report. There is the main plot, surrounded by other possible sub-plots that all connect at the end. It is not hard to figure it all out.

The movie's strength and originality is in its intense visual presentation. Paris is an intricate array of levels and sub-levels. At its base is the more primitive industrial infrastructure. As the city rises, so does its architectural complexity and luminescence. Yet in this structure, the top does not equate with elevation of human ideals and behavior. Paris has been intricately animated and laid out in brilliant black and white. The movie is closer in spirit with Sin City (the comics) then Sin City the movie was with its source material. This is done all the more easy, because it is still remaining in relatively the same medium; animation. Much in the same way as a Scanner Darkly pushed the visual aspects of story telling, so does this. The light and dark, black and white creates an atmosphere of contrasts, as well as visual ambiguity. Right and wrong, black and white can lose all meaning at the same time it is right in front of us. The movie proves how black and white can be both ambiguous and obvious at the same time.

In keeping with the spirit of the movie, I can be both critic and fan. I can love and loath in the same light. It is definitely an experience I recommend for lovers of the visual arts. So pour another Black and Tan, enter the void and enjoy the ride. This film is absolutely stunning. A new Blade Runner - future noir at it's most gritty. The vision of Paris is superb, both recognisable and visionary, with sweeping vistas, grungy set pieces and futuristic virtual reality.

The story line is quite simple, with few surprises, but that's not what I like most about the film. It is a visual treat.

Done in 3D and rendered in black and white (no greys!) with only one short spot of colour, it is less hard on the eyes than it sounds. There are many "arty" camera shots - closeups and odd viewpoints - but that just adds to the temperament of the film. Overall you get the impression of a graphic novel in footage form.

I was initially under the impression that the film had been rotoscoped, such was the level of animation and high detail in the character's facial expressions. But unlike "A Scanner Darkly" - which suffers from (or indeed is enhanced by) inconsistent character definition (just watch the way some of the hair changes shape!) - Renaissance is consistent and precise throughout. When the character is in close-up, added details and texture can bee seen, but when in mid-shot or further away details are omitted, but not to the detriment of character definition.

For me, the only down side of the film is that in one commentary we are told that this is a one-off project. Such a shame, as I would like to see more of this futuristic film-noir storyline and especially in this cutting-edge graphic style.

Oh, and the English dub is great too.

All in all a great film and highly recommended. I'm going to keep this review short and sweet....

I saw the trailer for this and thought I'd give it a whirl 5 minutes in and my initial thoughts were "what the hell is this?" But after 10 minutes I was hooked and after 20 I was picking my jaw up from off the floor. This film is a great example of how different a movie can be, and furthermore it's french. This film is high art eye candy wrapped up in a tidy futuristic film noir package, the motion capture is very clever and the black and white animation style which has no grey although at first didn't do it for me totally captivated me and by the end of the film and I found myself wishing every film was made like this. I think my opinion was helped by the great dubbing it would have been very easy to ruin it had they not landed so many respected actors as many voice actors give no feeling to the characters (Just watch any Hong Kong legends film in English to see a perfect example)I gave it 9 although I gave it an extra 2 because of how fresh and new the whole thing feels.... In the periphery of São Paulo, the very low middle-class dysfunctional and hypocrite family of Teodoro (Giulio Lopes), Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and the teenager Soninha (Sílvia Lourenço) have deep secrets. The religious Teodoro is indeed a hit-man, hired to kill people in the neighborhood with his friend Waldomiro (Ailton Graça). He has a lover, the very devout woman Terezinha (Martha Meola), and he wants to regenerate, going to the country with her. Cláudia has a young lover, Júlio (Ismael de Araújo), who delivers meats for his father's butcher shop. Soninha is a common sixteen years old teenager of the periphery, having active sexual life, smoking grass and loving heavy metal. When Júlio is killed and castrated in their neighborhood, the lives of the members of the family change.

"Contra Todos" is a great low budget Brazilian movie that pictures the life in the periphery of a big Brazilian city. The story is very real, uses the usual elements of the poor area of the big Brazilian cities (drug dealers, hit men, fanatic religious evangelic people, hopeless teenagers etc.), has many plot points and a surprising end, and the characters have excellent performances, acting very natural and making the story totally believable. The camera follows the characters, giving a great dynamics to the film. In the Extras of the DVD, the director Roberto Moreira explains that his screenplay had no lines, only the description of the situations, and was partially disclosed only one week before the beginning of the shootings. The actors have trainings in workshops and they used lots of improvisation, being the reason for such natural acting. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Contra Todos" ("Against Everybody") I've seen this movie, when I was traveling in Brazil. I found it difficult to really understand Brazilian culture and society, because it has so many regional and class differences. To see this movie in Sao Paulo itself was a revelation. It shows something of the everyday life of many Brazilians. On the other side, it is sometimes a little bit over-dramatized. And that's the only negative comment I have on this film. It's sometimes too much, too much sex, too many murders and too much cynicism for one film. The director could film some things a bit more subtle, it would make the film more effective.

Despite this I liked the movie and the way the story unravels itself. The characters are complex, and very much like real-life people. Not pretty American actors and actresses with a lot of cosmetics, but people who could be ugly and beautiful at the same time. That makes the film realistic, even when the story is not that convincing. We always watch American movies with their particular accents from each region (south, west, etc). We have the same here. All foreign people must to watch this movie and need to have a open mind to accept another culture, besides American and European almost dominate the cinematographic industry.

This movie tell us about a parallel world which it isn't figured even for those who live in a big city like São Paulo. All actors are improvising and they are very realistic. The camera give us an idea of their confuse world, the loneliness of each character and invite us to share their world.

It's a real great movie and worst a rent even have it at home. Brazilian films often get more positive appraisals than they actually deserve. Rather incredibly, Contra Todos (Against Everybody) (original title, which the producers discarded: God Against Everybody) got very low GPA (grade point average) in this website. It seems to be bluntly rejected by female spectators at large. Actually, it is not so brutal. I mean as far as graphical violence is concerned. Its brutality is intrinsic as it portrays would-be lumpens, I mean underdog citizens who in fact possess high-tech equipment, who coldly perform murder orders in exchange of "grana graúda". Is this post-modern man? Is his/her only worry a quick, almost impersonal, ultra permissive lay, amidst over satiating meals ? The picture is probably the best Brazilian film of 2004, so far. Its shining editing style, à la Godard, its curious soundtrack counterpoints, its more than efficient overall cast and, above all, its original narration, with subtle non-chronological hidden points that only come to light in the epilogue, deserve at least an 8 mark. I happened to borrow this movie from a friend knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be an outstanding documentary about a journey on an ancient vessel across vast expanses of the ocean. Thor Heyerdahl had developed a theory that the ancient Incas in Peru managed to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to Polynesia, based on certain relics that are found in both places, certain types of ancient sea-going vessels that we know they had available, analysis of ocean and wind currents, and the knowledge that the Incas did, in fact, travel in some undetermined amount at sea.

In order to test his hypothesis, Heyerdahl and his crew construct a vessel as closely as possible to what the ancient Incas had available, using only balsa wood and other materials available at the time, and set out from Lima, Peru's capital, to try to reach the islands of Polynesia, some 5,000 miles away.

His theory, like so much about ancient history, is impossible to prove with 100% certainty, but the coverage of their journey provides for strong support that he is right. The film is really little more than narration of footage taken during the 100+ day expedition, but it is a very detailed description of what it was like and the trials and tribulations that they faced. I often wish that Academy Award winning documentaries were easier to find, and this one from more than 50 years ago is still as interesting and informative as I am sure it was when it was first released. The tweedy professor-types thought they had it all figured out. Today's peoples who inhabit Polynesia descended from migratory Asians, intrepidly moving from the Far East, island to island, eastward into Tahiti and all the other exotic tropic isles of the South Pacific over thousands of years. But the established thinking just didn't sit well with young Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl. If that explanation were true, how come some folks born and bred in those islands have traditions, artwork, and physical features resembling not those from Asia, but South America? How can the vegetation of Ecuador, Peru and Chile look so much like what you'd find on the island several thousand miles away? Is it just a coincidence that the Islanders point out to sea in the direction of South America and say that is where their ancestors came from, led by Tiki, their equivalent of Adam? Meanwhile, how is it Norwegians speak of Scandanavian forerunners who were chased from the South American continent they had colonized, and, together with some of the native peoples they befriended, set off over the sea -- heading WEST? It's all too much to be a coincidence to Heyerdahl. With an amazing amount of moxie, a handful of crewmen, and the local know-how for traditional raft-building, an expedition begins. It's as much a trip into the human imagination as it is a pseudo-scientific demonstration that such a journey is possible with only the very basics of tools and seamanship. The Oscar-winning documentary may be dated in its tone and Anglo-ethnocentric approach, but it soars with a spirit of adventure besting even the space program that launched a decade later, as men are willing to risk it all to test a theory they think is true. Wonderful. Do yourself a favor and read the book first. It is an amazing page-turner and the perfect setup for the newsreel-style movie. I have watched this film twice now and think its quite good for the limited equipment used to create this film. (filmed in 1947) Dr. Heyerdahl explains his theory about the migration of south American Pre-Colubian Indians to the Polynesia's islands by way raft fell of large balsa trees. This documentary follows Dr. Heyerdahl and crew as they select balsa trees in Equidor and float with them down river to the pacific for assembly in Peru. They launch off on a 101 day sea adventure testing the strength of their primitive raft surviving only by means available to natives of that era. See for yourself, a real adventure! I have NOT seen this movie, but I must. Having read all three of Thor Heyerdahl's books (Kon Tiki, Ra and Aku Aku) I am actively looking for a copy of this movie.

The thesis that Peruvians migrated to Polynesia is alive and well. Considering that this crew had NO GPS, and only an old fashioned valve (tube) radio with a 6-watt output, their voyage was heroic to say the least.

Please reply to this message if you can tell me the location of a copy of this video.

I would be interested in buying it. The Invisible man is a show everybody s gotta love! It reminds me of the old school 80's series(a-team,airwolf,knightrider) The special effects are small but very effective!! but what is most important is the fun they had shooting this series. It really shows! the entire cast fit perfect in there roles and it looks like they can do whatever they want!! especially Paul Ben Victor and Vincent Ventresca. Ventresca really shines in this one! for me its unbelievable that an actor with so much sarcasm is his acting style Doesn't get a shot in a big movie (mr Tarantino this was the show you should have directed! instead of that major boring grave danger(c.s.i)) Get this show if you can. well worth it!!! Intelligent, wry, and thrilling, "The Invisible Man" stood out in 2000 among Sci-Fi's usual lineup, balancing out "Farscape"'s fantastical art direction and sometimes melodramatic script with gritty, cynical plots and modern noir dialogue. The show sat between "Law and Order" and "Doctor Who" on the believability meter, but there was no denying the fact that "I-Man"'s characters went beyond caricature. Even characters that verged on predictability like the Keeper, the Official, and Eberts were given reprieves from the formulaic. Paul Ben-Victor and Vincent Ventresca had a chemistry that evolved and shifted elegantly, made even more remarkable by the revolving door team of writers and directors. The effects are never allowed to overwhelm the plot, and the science only sometimes verged on the totally unbelievable. The show's low points are still entertaining, and I've never seen such taut pilot episodes. Matt Greenberg and Sci-Fi should be commended, and fans have the right to demand a comprehensive DVD edition of the show. Every time I come across a marathon of "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" on Sci-Fi, I roll my eyes and sigh, mourning the excitement and possibility of science fiction television that "Invisible Man" and its ilk represented. I loved this show from it's first airing, and I always looked forward to watching each episode every week. The plot, characters, writing, special affects were outstanding! Then the sci-fi channel screwed up yet again and canceled a very entertaining, well written show. I say bring it back, I know all of the actors would come back. I would suggest buying the DVD's, I am. I hope the sci-fi channels executives get word of these comments, and realize that they need to be more involved with their viewers. I only watch one show on that channel now, (Ghost Hunters), but I am fairly sure that shortly they will cancel that too. After viewing several episodes of this series, I have come to the conclusion that television producers are completely devoid of any form of originality. Here is an old science fiction standby, ingeniously wrapped in the form of a truly original concept - and still they can only -almost - make it work.

The dialog is good! The male actors are reasonably proficient at their professions. Most of the characters are well drawn, with special kudos to the hero and his more than likeable side-kick. And most of the episode plots come across as palatable. So what could be wrong? How about the, the female characters and the cosmeticly perfect actresses who are chosen to portray them.

The producers insist on portraying the female characters in this - almost good - series, in a manner that makes the end product appear to be a misplaced cheerleader. Why, I ask, why?

The episodes all fall flat whenever the female guest star or recurring character comes on screen. These actresses are all totally unbelievable in their roles, and you don't actually have to see them to know they are incapable of their acting assignments. A blind person could tell. Just listen to them talk. They deliver their dialog with all the drama and effect of a 16 year old at the high school prom. Who would believe these women are Phd scientist, senators, corporate executives and medical doctors?

In a nut shell, if the producers have their choice of a Stockard Channing or a Morgan Fairchild, guess who they'll choose - every time? And of course, the series suffers for it. Too bad! The Master Blackmailer, based off of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, "the Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton," is the first feature length Sherlock Holmes story with Jeremy Brett that I have seen. The story is interesting and dark. The film has a somewhat dreary, sad feel to it, but it is quite entertaining (with some especially funny scenes).

*Spoilers* Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson attempt to uncover the identity of an illusive blackmailer who has been ruining some of the most prominent families of England by publishing private letters that will, in one way or another, destroy their lives. They eventually find out that he is Charles Augustus Milverton, an "art dealer," after the few tragic consequences for victims that could not pay up. Our heroes must next help Lady Eva Blackwell, who must pay a sum that is beyond her means or else her upcoming marriage will most definitely be called off. The scene in which Holmes and Watson burglarize Milverton's house are intense. Although the film has an essentially happy ending, the tone is sad and regretful.

Outstanding performances by Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke (as usual), and Robert Hardy as the notorious villain (most audiences probably recognize him today as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter), Serena Gordon as Lady Eva Blackwell, Norma West as Lady Swinstead and Sophie Thomson as Agatha (the scenes involving her and Holmes are a riot). I give it a ***1/2 out *****. My only complaint is that there wasn't enough Inspector Lestrade. (I wish they would have added in the scene at the end of the short story where he gives the description of the two burglars, one of which matches Watson.) Jeremy Brett is simply the best Holmes ever, narrowly edging out the great Basil Rathbone of course, and this is probably the best adaptation of a Conon-Doyle short story.

A length adaptation includes some new plot strands that fit in well to the surrounding drama and heightens the hatred one feels for Milverton.

Excellent performances all round, especially from Robert Hardy, and both Brett and Hardwick fully rounded and comfortable in their roles makes this a superb piece of drama. After seeing Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, no actor should ever display such conceit as to imagine that he could ever come close to Mr. Brett's portrayal of "one of the most interesting characters in literature". Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes and in my opinion there can be no other. The great actor Basil Rathbone is,I must admit, a close second but, is still second. One might make the argument that Mr. Rathbone's screenplays were inferior to the absolutely top notch productions afforded Mr. Brett and to this I would agree. However when all is said and done Jeremy Brett will always and forever be the only actor to truly "become" Sherlock Holmes. The book should be closed on this subject and we,the public,left to enjoy Mr.Brett's unique performances.

Bill Rogers

(sonarman65@yahoo.com) Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a "memoir" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.

It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry.

SPOILER COMING UP:

THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.

The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.

At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.

Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer.

Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.

How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that "Fighting Mac", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have. This long episode packs amount of astounding of surprises, thriller, mystery and concerns about a battle of wits of Sherlock against Charles Augustus Milverton, a master blackmailer. This is an excellent overlong runtime of Jeremy Brett-Holmes series. In the film appear usual Holmes's cannon as Inspector Lestrade and Mrs Hudson, though no Moriarty, however is a greatest villain, Charles Augustus.

It's a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue, thrills, and suspense, including an exciting final twist. This is a particular Sherlock movie but we find to Holmes falling in love with a servant, kissing, crying and even robbing. This time along with the episode ¨Scandal in Boheme¨ with Irene Adler, result to be the only one which Holmes is enamored. Top-notch Brett performance, he alongside Peter Cushing are the best Sherlock TV , while in the cinema is forever Basil Rathbone. Brett performs as a resolutive, headstrong, impetuous sleuth. Here Doctor Watson isn't a comic, botcher, and clumsy pal personified by Nigel Bruce, but is an astute and cunning partner well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke, a perfect counterpoint of Brett. Casting is frankly magnificent, special mention to Robert Hardy as astute nasty. Hardy, today famous by role as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter, is a veteran actor with forty years of career and with several success such as, The 10th kingdom and Winston Churchill. Furthermore appear secondaries actors with terrific performances, Nickolas Grace, Sophie Gordon, Serena Gordon, among others. The movie gets a colorful atmosphere , the London streets and 221 Baker Street's house are well designed. The motion picture is well directed by Peter Hammond, director of various episodes. It's a must see for the Arthur Conan Doyle fans. Okay, so there is a front view of a Checker taxi, probably late 1930s model. It has the great triangular shaped headlights. There also is a DeSoto cab in this black and white, character driven, almost a musical love gone wrong story.

The real pleasure here is the look at 1940s room interiors and fashions and hotel elevators. The hair styles, male and female are gorgeous. If Dolly Parton had Victor Mature's hair she could have made it big. There is an artist loft that would be the envy of every Andy Warhol wannabe.

If you watch this expecting a great Casablanca storyline or Sound of Music oom-pah-pah, you will be disappointed. There is a nice little story beneath the runway model approach in this film.

My copy on DVD with another movie for $1 was very viewable. The title sequence was cute but not up there with Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or The Pink Panther. This was an RKO movie but it did not have the nice airplane logo that RKO used to use.

I liked Victor Mature in One Million, B.C., and Sampson and Delilah and especially in Violent Saturday. See if you can find that one. He was wonderful in the comedy with Peter Sellers called Caccia Alla Volpe or After The Fox.

Richard Carlson went on to do I Led Three Lives on TV in the early 1950s.

Vic Mature was offered the part of Sampson's father in the remake of Sampson and Delilah. He supposedly was asked if he would have any problems playing the part of the father since he was so well known as Sampson. Victor replied, "If the money is right, I'll play Sampson's mother."

Tom Willett Looking for Quo Vadis at my local video store, I found this 1985 version that looked interesting. Wow! It was amazing! Very much a Ken Russell kind of film -quirky, stylized, very artistic, and of course "different." Nero was presented not so much as evil incarnate, but as a wacky, unfulfilled emperor who would rather have had a circus career. He probably wondered why on earth he was put in the position of "leading" an empire -it wasn't much fun, and fun is what he longed for. Klause Maria Bandaur had a tremendous time with this role and played it for all it was worth. Yes, Nero persecuted the Christians with a vengeance; one of many who did so. At one point one of his henchmen murmurs: "No one will ever understand we were simply protecting ourselves." He got that right. Do NOT judge this production by the 2-hour version that was released on VHS in the US, which is a choppy and incomprehensible mess. I had the pleasure of watching the full-length 6-hour version available on DVD from the UK, and was spellbound. The deliberate pace and growing sense of menace are mesmerizing, as is the amazing visual and aural landscape; this is an ancient Rome we have never seen before, and far more authentic than most.

Director Franco Rossi was justly celebrated for his 1968 mini-series of The Odyssey, and this mini-series is equally powerful. Just as Bekim Fehmiu became the screen's best Ulysses, so Klaus Maria Brandauer may be the screen's best Nero. Now, I am hoping someday to see Rossi's version of The Aeneid (Eneide) that was broadcast on Italian TV in 1971.

I am undecided which version of QUO VADIS is more powerful, this one or the Polish mini-series from 2001; each has different virtues, and in many ways they complement one another. Certainly, either one towers over that Hollywood camp-riot starring Peter Ustinov. Methinks the best screen version of Quo Vadis? ever made. Well, yeah, the plot is not so strong and evident as in the book, sometimes meandering and loosing its suspense among aesthetic subtleties. But the film is really and beautifully "strange", has an enigma and style, that other versions - with R.Taylor and the new one from Poland - definitely lack. It has the air of Roman decadence, the beauty of declining paganism and infant Christianity. At least I believe it has). Brandauer, Forrest and Syudov did excellent job in portraying their characters. Forrest's Petronius seems to be the biggest success of the cast (let alone Brandauer who is the one of the greatest actors ever) and accumulates the very essence of this dying world (IMHO). That's it. That is the way it happened, guys... ))) IMHO Ironically for a play unavailable on film or video for so long, ARMS AND THE MAN has remained fairly constantly available on stage over the years since its debut in 1894 - in no small part because it has aged so well as a solid satire on the nature of heroism and the business of war. Whenever the world sinks into strife, ARMS AND THE MAN seems to soar as ever more timely and relevant.

This is the play which Oscar Strauss converted (leaving out most of Shaw's best ideas) into the successful operetta, THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER (when Hollywood got to *that,* they left out the last vestiges of Shaw rather than pay him for the rights - he was, by then, an Oscar winner in his own right). While the best of Shaw has always been his ideas and his dialogue rather than his bare plots, in ARMS AND THE MAN, the plot sparkles as well and the master manages happy endings for all concerned.

Young Raina (Helena Bonham Carter), daughter of an officer and the wealthiest man in her town, is betrothed to a dashing officer in the Bulgarian cavalry and all seems well until a bedraggled Swiss mercenary (Pip Torrens) from the other side climbs up her drainpipe fleeing from the battle where his army has been routed. As usual in a Shaw satire, nothing is as it first appears and societal conventions are stood on their head in the light of simple - and not so simple reason. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys," just people of a variety of classes getting by on the best of their wits - just like life only better - and naturally with Shaw, the wit is finely honed from all concerned.

The early (1932) motion picture version (from Shaw's own screenplay) of this most traditional and traditionally funny of Shaw's stage satires, and one of his first to make a real hit on this side of the Atlantic, has long been among the missing. Shaw didn't sell the screen-rights to his plays - only licensed them for 5 year periods, and it appeared that with rapidly evolving sound technology making 1932 films look primitive only a few years later, Shaw did not renew the license to show it. Consequently, we're immensely in the BBC's debt for finally putting out their 1987 broadcast version in a DVD box with nine other sparkling plays. (Somewhat sadly, PYGMALION, that many view as Shaw's best, comes off least well on this set in a production with Lynn Redgrave and James Villiers.)

Even paired, as it is on its DVD, with the less impressive one act, A MAN OF DESTINY, ARMS AND THE MAN makes for a real treasure.

Helena Bonham Carter went on, after cutting her teeth on televised roles like this, to a major film career that will bring many viewers to this early role. They should not be disappointed, for Ms. Carter gives a performance in line with the layered innocence audiences have come to expect from her, but under James Cellan Jones' somewhat pedestrian direction (and despite the BBC's uniformly beautiful and well observed physical production), the role's mischievous fire (and her outrage at being underestimated in the last act) is banked at only about 80% of it's potential.

Much the same can be said of the real star of the piece, Pip Torrens, as Bluntschli the "Switzer." It's a fine, appealing performance, but doesn't go for the physical comedy implicit in the early scene where the young soldier can barely stay awake despite his mortal peril.

These reservations notwithstanding, this is a solid production of a wonderful play transferred to the small screen with aplomb. It deserves to be seen widely and, ideally, prompt an even livelier big screen remake with the style and zest of the recent remake of Wilde's AN IDEAL HUSBAND. Virtually *any* ARMS AND THE MAN is to be cherished, and with a lot of luck perhaps we'll even eventually get to see the original 1932 version. 'Till one or the other surfaces, this production will please anyone who loves good Shaw. With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional "chocolate soldier" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian "aristocrat" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, "Arms and the Man" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is. Comedies often have the unfortunate reputation of having little real depth. Arms and the Man, proves that notion to be false. Shaw's play is full of comedic drama, combining an entertaining plot with true philosophical depth.

On one level, Arms and the Man is a successful, and somewhat unique, romantic comedy. The young, melodramatic, and superficial Raina comes from a military family deeply involved in a war; her fiancé and her father are both military officers. She is shocked, one night by the arrival of an enemy soldier. She rescues him, knowing that she'll have to keep the incident a secret from her family forever, and the soldier eventually leaves. Of course, once the war is over, that soldier comes back, forcing each of the primary characters to reevaluate their values and their relationships.

It is quite interesting how Shaw layers meaning within the rather standard comedic plot. Shaw manages to comment on class constructs, on the absurdity of war, and even on the nature of love. And, of course, he does this with the Shavian wit and within a satisfying plot. There is so much here to think about that I think a lot can be missed in a single viewing. Arms and the Man is excellent comedic theater and is definitely one of Shaw's best works.

"Arms and the Man" is both an amusing and thought-provoking movie that retains its relevance even today, more than a century after it was first conceived. Shaw mocks at the popular theories on war and love and combines a military satire with a taunt on love and family structure. The play has flashing wit, buoyant humor and bitter sarcasms. A good example of Shaw's dialog is the statement by Captain Bluntschli to Serguis: "I'm a professional soldier: I fight when I have to, and am very glad to get out of it when I haven't to. You're only an amateur; you think fighting is an amusement". Indeed as a Swiss hotel-keeper's son, Bluntschli had no reason to be involved in war and it is in this absurdity that Shaw questions patriotic sentiments. Shaw explores the whole concept of war and the military from both sides of the struggle and in the end shows that the feelings in both camps are not that different.

The dialog and sarcasm used towards the common notions of life are entangled with a gentle assurance of the movement of the story towards a fairytale ending. The end where all characters are rendered happy and lovers change and love shifts is what underlines the essence of this drama as a comedy. This is a movie that sustains its image of possessing a universal appeal and is still appropriate today when the concepts of war and patriotism and love and marriage have changed dramatically. Shaw's "Arms and the Man" should maintain its relevance as long as there is love and war. 'Arms and the Man' is one of Shaw's funniest plays if handled correctly, and this production does a good enough job. Helena Bonham-Carter, pre-film stardom, is Raina, the daughter of a military family, who has a peacock of a fiancé (Patrick Ryecart), and who shelters a soldier from the enemy (Pip Torrens) during a raid on the town.

Full of colour and energy, this production rips along at a good pace, and if Bonham-Carter and Patsy Kensit as the maid are outshone a bit by the rest of the cast, they still hold their ground. Kika Markham and Dinsdale Landen as the parents are delightful, and the whole play is generally a happy one.

Highly recommended. This could be difficult to for some people to get into, being used to Hollywood production styles. The directing is uninspired, apparently simply a filming of the stage set-up, and the audio quality is bad here and there (the rustling of people's clothes occasionally competes with their voices, etc.).

My friends and I started watching without knowing what to expect, and the first scene almost put us off. It seemed very stagy and cheesy. Then we picked up on the tone of the content, and really started to enjoy ourselves.

It is very funny, despite some corniness. Definitely give it a chance if you appreciate great dialog. Also, Helena Bonham Carter is adorable, of course. The movie has very much the feel of a play right from the start - I think it would make a better play than a movie because the set and dramatization make a movie version seem a bit too artificial. But, still, it's carried out fairly well, and the story & especially the dialogue are interesting. They've taken the dialogue pretty much exactly as is from the actual play. Perhaps it's a good introduction to Shaw's plays.

The main character Raina has her head in the clouds & and a flair for the dramatic, and Helena Bonham Carter's acting does a good job here. Her fiancé, Serges, is a bit too cartoonish when he is really supposed to be an extremely handsome dashing figure. Her parents are entertaining enough. One of my favorite films for a number of years was "Last Action Hero"; unfortunately, Arnold Schwarznegger decided to spoil my fun by becoming a corrupt scumbag politician; so now I can't bear any film he may had a hand in.

The Adventures of Jake Speed actually toys with some themes similar to those in Last...Hero; so I was pleased to find it on DVD, so I could watch these themes played out so well.

Despite the "plot-within-the-plot" involving white slavery during an African nation's civil war, this is not an action movie. The plot that the "plot-within-a-plot" is within, is actually about a question that the film has no intention to resolve: Is Jake Speed a real person that is helping the heroine save her sister from the white-slave trader; or is he actually a fictional character (which means that the heroine has somehow entered the universe that really only exists in a series of pulp novels)? I suggest that this is not all that clearly defined in the film, and that Wayne Crawford and Andrew Lane are perfectly aware of this. The film thus becomes a presentation of what audiences may want from such a fictional "adventure-story" universe. That's actually a rich theme, the potential heaviness of which is lightened by the film's amiable and campy sense of humor.

There are weaknesses to the film - primarily it's cinematography, which makes the film look like a TV show. And the pacing does sag on occasion.

But I really like these characters, and I enjoy the adventure they live, however silly. And I just find fascinating the idea that this adventure is actually taking place in a novel.

Holds up under multiple viewings -m good show!

The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film. This film is harmless escapist fun. Something the recent Tomb Raider film lacked. I can't wait to get the DVD. How can people give this a low score and still go and see Titanic without a guilty conscience I do not know. Anything with Karen Kopins in her underwear has got to rate an extra point or two! "Jake Speed" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).

But with all this going against it, "Jake Speed" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.

Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me "Hey, why not try to be a good person."

The story is essentially a "stranger in a strange land" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.

It's because of this that "Jake Speed" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.

Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as "Jake Speed" would get a chance. ("Due South," a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)

Sure, "Jake Speed" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 I enjoyed this movie as a kid when it came out, and to this day still do. A simple story involving the search for a kidnapped girl and an adventurer literally straight out of paperback lore. It has actors that were more recognizable back in the day. This shouldn't keep the viewer from giving it a whirl. Wayne Crawford stars as the main character Jake Speed. Sure, it might bite from certain elements of Romancing the Stone, and Indiana Jones. But this movie is done well enough to keep it out of the cellar. I am surprised not too many people know about it. It must have been overshadowed by other movies in the theaters back in '86. I watched it back then on cable TV. It might be hard to find since it's out of print on both VHS and DVD. I managed to get a DVD from ebay at less than 8 bucks! Cool flick. Most people (36) gave this movie a 10 and those who don't are being too critical or maybe expected something else. This is one of my favorite movies from the 80's, it grows on you, and has it all. I just got it on DVD and 20 years later it still does not disappoint, having plenty of action, drama, romance, and even comedy. Add to that the great car chases, automatic weapon shootouts and lots of stuff blowing up and you have a fun, edge of your seat experience! You will even be humming or whistling the main theme song for days after seeing this.

You can watch this movie with your wife/gf and you will both enjoy it lots. The premise is that of a paperback book hero, like Doc. Savage, really existing and helping people fight evil so he can write the story is almost true to life here. The actor Jake Speed is also a director, producer and writer of many films. In THIS film Jake Speed (the character) is an Indiana Jones adventurer type, he usually uses his head to get out of sticky situations but will sometimes resorts to brute firepower (yay!,and sheer dumb luck too!). Keep an eye out for his one "James Bond" hi-tech equipment, the ultimate road warrior SUV dropping out of the sky.

The heroine is the very beautiful young love interest from the early Jim Carey vampire movie "Once Bitten" and here she is a little older and still a knockout even compared to her teenage blonde little sister.

The bad guys are "real bad" men and are the worst lowlife villainous scum you love to hate. The ending is just perfect and can stand alone or invite a sequel, sadly never made - but you can just imagine what would happen next!

You have to see this movie just because it will entertain and amuse you and that's worth the price of a ticket. Ever wonder where the ideas for romance novels and other paper back released come from? According to 'Jake Speed' they are based on real people, living out the adventures they write about and publish. This movie is quality family entertainment, moderate amounts of violence, and skimpy clothes at the worst. The language is is also not a problem, and the jokes are funny at all levels. This is a 'Austin Powers' look at 'Indian Jones', without the over-the-top antics of Michael Myers. I highly recommend this film for kids in the 10 to 15 range. I know the film snobs are snorting. But if you're looking for a surprisingly fun ride through the B-movie jungle, try "Jake Speed".

A little thin at times, but its one-liners and the location more then make up for this. John Hurt(God love him), seems to be having fun doing his role as the ultra evil white slaver. The nemesis of Crawfords, Jake Speed. He adds a dimension to the film that only a pro like Hurt could provide. Crawford and Dennis Christopher( Jakes sidekick) are a good team,although you do wonder why they both put up with each other.However ,together both Crawford and Christopher portray a team that is just so much fun that, if you can get over yourself for a moment, you may find yourself acting like a kid again at the situations and the inherent suspense they provide.The delicious Karen Kopins does a great job as the damsel in distress that is more concerned about the motives of her rescuer then her tormentor.

I have yet to find a movie that is as much fun without getting preachy,or bogging down the movie by trying too hard. Not every movie has to be the latest "Citizen Kane". And trust me,Wells was an original. So lets remember that sometimes, movies are for fun.Not social commentary or attempting to sway an audience politically. But just for the sheer fun of being alive and living in a time when our hero's live in a celluloid dimension. Jake Speed (1986) was an amusing parody of Indiana Jones and other adventurer films that were popular during the eighties. Wayne Crawford stars as Jake Speed, an adventurer who's always battling evil doers wherever he goes. With his assistant Desmond Floyd (Dennis Christopher) they globe trot looking for some action (and some decent story lines). The duo meet a young woman named Margaret (Karen Kopins) who's sister has been kidnapped by an evil white slaver trader (John Hurt). Can she find and convince Jake and Desmond to help her rescue her sibling?

A sappy and cheesy film that doesn't pretend to be something that it's not. I have to give this one a recommendation. That's if you enjoy movies that like to have fun and for those who don't take everything at face value.

Recommended. Jake Speed is a film that lacks one thing – a charismatic lead. Unfortunately that's something that really taints the entire movie and it's a shame because at heart it is an enjoyable action movie with a witty enough script and an interesting, if derivative, premise. Although it's genesis probably can be traced back to the success of the Indiana Jones trilogy – the film actually plays a little more like 'Romancing the Stone' albeit in reverse. It's not an author of romantic adventure fiction being led on an adventure by a character very much like one of her creations it is an adventure fiction character (who happens to chronicle his own adventures) leading an ordinary woman on one of his adventures.

When a young woman goes missing in Paris, her sister Margaret (played by the appealing Karin Kopins) gets embroiled with pulp hero Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford) and his sidekick Dennis (Dennis Christopher) who both turn out to be real and very flawed individuals in an adventure that takes them into the heart of a civil war torn African state and ultimately into the clutches of two brothers the deliciously evil Sid (John Hurt) and his ridiculously camp sibling Maurice (Roy London). That's the plot – it's not labyrinthine and it's not complicated but the story that it tells doesn't require great depth.

The action sequences are appealing to begin with and it's certainly true that the heroic trio are put through their paces (whether caught in battles between government and rebel forces or being dropped into a pit full of lions) and there are certainly some quite funny lines. However the film does seem to struggle to find an ending and unfortunately the action sequences that are quite appealing to begin with go nowhere and ultimately become a bit bland and irksome. This, however, may not have been such an issue if it was possible to like Jake Speed but due to Wayne Crawford's performance it becomes harder to really care what happens. Now I don't know if he was stretching himself a little thin as he was also the producer and writer of the movie or whether he's simply not a good actor (as I haven't seen him in much else) but he never really convinces as a roguish mixture of Doc Savage, Indiana Jones and Jack Colton.

This is a shame because most of the other characters play their roles well – Karen Kopins is funny and convincing and her character shares some nice banter with Jake (unfortunately it never convinces). Dennis Christopher is perfect as the archetypal sidekick and John Hurt plays the part with camp relish – almost as if he were in a sixties episode of Batman. He strides about his few scenes growling in a ridiculous cockney accent putting in a performance that almost belongs in another film. Sid is no Moriarty (he is presented as Jake's nemesis from a number of his previous adventures / books) but he is always fun to watch.

Jake Speed tries to channel the same fun B movie spirit as 'Night of the Comet' (a film produced by Crawford a few years beforehand) and almost succeeds but misses – which is a shame because Jake would have been good to watch in a few more adventures and may have been served better by a television series.

I would recommend this out of curiosity appeal but ultimately it leaves a bitter taste because most of the elements were there to make something genuinely good. Quite simply the best reality show ever made. The first two seasons (the only ones that matter) are on Hulu. I challenge anyone to watch the first three episodes of season 1 and not like it. I guarantee you will finish watching the season. Then I guarantee that you will watch season 2.

Other quick reasons to watch it: 1. Anderson Cooper is hilarious 2. The locations in Europe are awesome 3. The games are mentally challenging 4. It's very interactive 5. In one episode a player responds to another player's desperate, "I'm trying as hard as I can!" with an equally desperate, "Not necessarily."

Can you figure out...Who Is The Mole? Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!!

Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.

But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!

BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! I think a great many viewers missed entirely the fact that this is obviously a parody of western films.

This is not a bad movie - it is a clever tongue in cheek take on westerns. I don't believe this film was taking itself seriously for a moment.

What makes this film even more unique is the fact it is centered around 4 strong, beautiful women, two of which are black, one Asian, and a Mexican/Hispanic character.

These aren't your usual western women--they're tough--they can draw fast and shoot straight.

They're so tough even the bartender is shaking when he pours their whiskey.

The plot which moves this story along is typical of westerns--in the vein of "you shot my brother--so I'm gonna get you!" Only in this western, a woman's sister has been shot and she's out for vengeance on the gang who did it.

So she goes and rounds up her old cronies from her bank robbing days.

One of them, Maria, is not really all that interested in avenging Rachel's sister, but she is motived by the fact there's gold and jewelry hidden in the town where they're headed.

There are a couple of scenes that don't quite make sense, not that they interfere that much, they can be ignored, but I wondered why they were there. So the film could use a little tightening, but over all, this is a well made film that has failed to find an audience that recognized what it is.

My only disappointment was that the only lesbian in the film is a villain--of the "heroines", one is obviously straight, the others sexual orientations are never disclosed.

7 Stars The Gang of Roses. "Every rose has its thorns."

A mix of old western and hip hop, blended perfectly together. The clothing styles, the scenery, and the plot are all suited to what the director wanted.

Plot - in five years, they robbed twenty-seven banks and then vanished without a trace. Now, a small western town is under siege, and one of the first victims is Rachel's sister. The Rose Gang is ready to ride again. And this time it's personal.

Rachel (Michael Calhoun), Chastity (Lil' Kim), Maria (Lisaraye), Zang Li (Marie Matiko) and Kim (Stacey Dash), five gunslinging women who split up after five years of riding together. When Rachel's sister is killed, she ends up rounding up her friends once again and riding on a trail of vengeance.

A good, muck around version of western. (If you've seen Bad Girls, well this is a little bit better in the ways of the female characters).

I gave it 10/10 because the characters, plot and scenery made it for me. I disagree with previous comment about this movie. I think it was cute and fun and it carried a good message for young girls like my daughter. You don't have to dress like a cheap hooker to be cool. You can be smart and pretty and classy all at once.

I think the cast was good and the story was fine for the target audience. All-in-all my wife, daughter (10) and I each thought it was a good movie. I certainly recommend it. It also has encouraged my daughter to start reading the original Nancy Drew mysteries which I am sure she will love much as I loved the Hardy Boys.

It was a struggle to get her to sleep tonight because she wanted to start reading right away. I can't think of a better outcome for that movie than rekindling interest in that classic series. I'm a 53 year-old college professor. I went with my wife and 12 year old daughter. We all enjoyed the movie. The film is original, witty, fast-paced and totally charming. The plot was easy enough for a 10 year old to follow, but twisty enough to keep an adult interested. I thought Emma Roberts did a superb job and the rest of the cast was just fine. My only criticism is that the Los Angeles sets were not as interesting as they should have been. They were functional, but nothing stood out. On the other hand, make-up, costume, lighting, cinematography, editing and directing were excellent. Altogether, I thought it was a totally enjoyable experience. I am disappointed that the professional critics (almost all adult males) savagely attacked the film. Apparently, they have something against films that portray strong, intelligent and independent young women. Their writings reveal more about their own sexist natures than anything about this wonderful family film. I recommend it strongly to every child and every parent. I really enjoyed this movie. I am a single dad with a 17 year old daughter who is smart, athletic and talented. I WISH my girl applied herself so well to solving crimes and helping others! So for me, perhaps this is PG level Fantasyland. I read many Nancy Drew books in my teen years, long, long ago. Sure THIS character was ably played by Emma Roberts but did NOT resemble the Nancy Drew I recall from the books. That is due to script, not the acting.

Emma is an adorable teen, playing a self-confident, industrious and proud character with good manners and good taste. She is not caught up in the trendy competitiveness around her. There are some weaknesses in the Plot, aside from not resembling the Nancy Drew of the Books, and trying to figure out what decade we're in. (like, what is that CAR, Anyway?)

I read the IMDb overview before seeing the film, as I was researching Rachael Leigh Cook from other movies. This is not one of Her best roles, but I will continue looking for more of her films. Rachael was too old to play this lead, but does a fine job as the grown-up orphan central to the mystery.

I am very disappointed in other reviews written here. Some expect perfect connection with the books, some expect more credible situations or adult action film. I got what I expected! Good entertainment well targeted to young teen girls, And their Fathers who want good kids with high standards of conduct and achievement. This is a Teen PG Movie, not James Bond! Which would YOU Want for a Role Model for YOUR Teenaged Daughter? I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity. OK heres what I say:

The movie was excellent. I am a huge Nancy fan and I have read all 1-56 original books and I went on to read more. I am now on 96. Beware of villains giving this movie a lower grade than it should have. All clues point to a wonderful movie! I loved the whole thing. So what Nancy is in current time. She is still old fashioned like she is in the books! People who haven't read more than 5 books are complaining about the view of Nancy. I have read all of them and I think Emma is perfect and that Nancy was perfect. I found parts of the movie spooky. I loved the exciting car chases and get aways. I loved the clues. I solved the mystery myself! It was really wonderful. I suggest you go see it since people who have been complaining know nothing of A what a good movie is and B about Nancy Drew. Go see it. It may not be Oscar worthy but its really a good movie. It's a refreshing breath of air when a movie actually gives you a story line with a beginning, a middle, and a end, a nice, clever mystery, with an appealing heroine for all ages, who wins us over with her wit and charm. Andrew Fleming's film is indeed a modern marvel, a comeback to the good old reliable storytelling that was the norm in Hollywood. He puts away the over-reliance on special effects that now passes for entertainment and gives us a terrific film, with a very capable young actress, and a talented supporting cast.

The film is based on the old books, but it has been given updated enough to put in this century; however, the props might be different, the heart still is a good mystery, and there is clever one here, one that ties the traditions of the old and the nuances of contemporary youth. Emma Roberts is an old fashioned girl, who believes in good behavior and respect for others; details that are sorely missing from today's films. She is still good enough to get boys' attentions but she also knows how present poise and self respect. She earns her medals by working hard and is not afraid to show a little guile when it is needed to achieve her goals.

While taking a vacation to California, our heroine is drawn into the mystery of a Hollywood actress who was the victim of foul play; suddenly she is "visited" by her ghost and this sets off a series of events that might solve the mystery or result in something dreadful for herself. What makes the movie quite entertaining is the little details, as she discovers that her customary world is nothing compared to the California scene, and this is well presented, without resorting to unnecessary vulgar language or anything graphic or overtly sexual. Eventually, the director has enough control to make it all very palatable to all types of audiences, from the young ones to the adults in the audience. It is a movie that deserves to be seen, appreciated, and enjoyed, a film that is rare and delicate, and it's not afraid to be classified as fun! Five Stars Usually I don't really like Emma Roberts so much, but after watching Nancy Drew it kind of changed my mind. The actors in the movies made the whole thing exciting and funny. Most of the time when you watch a mystery movie you can solve it before the middle of the show, but in this movie it's like you are actually there. The clues have to all fit together until you can finally understand the whole crime. I am still amazed how she found it out. The whole movie was really clever and the people who watched it with me loved the movie too. The clothes were my favorite part of the movie, it was so cute. I don't think there will be another movie like this until the sequel comes out. I give it a nine because the popular girls didn't really seem to have the part just right, but they still make me laugh. It was a really great movie and a great mystery. I definitely recommend watching it. I came to Nancy Drew expecting the worst...because of everyone else's bad reviews. I thought: Even though I don't read the books, that doesn't look anything like the Nancy Drew I've heard of. But I was wrong. Sure, it wasn't a carbon copy of the books, but when you make a movie out of something, you have to modify it to become big-screen entertainment. The plot was enjoyable and thrilling with a lot of actual scares and I thought that Emma Roberts was really believable in her own way of portraying this classic character. There were several funny moments and on the contrary of many statements, at no point in this film does Nancy come off as a ditz. She was intelligent, conservative, polite and genuine. One thing this movie also did well was balance the whole thing out with a mix of comedy, romance, suspense and heartfelt moments. I loved this movie. What a flick, what a flick! And if you are wise and decide to trust me and go see this, be prepared for some SCARY as heck moments because I was, like, freaking out! Go see it or be a bum-bum and just let other people decide what you think of this movie for you...a mistake I almost made. I love it, I wanna own this movie! I love Emma Roberts now, too. She's like a mini-Bree Van De Kamp from DH. Love it, love it. Look, if I were interested in a Nancy Drew book, what I would do is pick up a book and read it. I'm not. Ever since I can remember I read people trashing movies because it wasn't like the book. I'm sorry - in the digital age we can no longer watch movies on flip books, however I'm sure you can still find a few short silent films in book form. When Lord of the Rings came out, people complained. When the third one won an Oscar - "The book was better." When I watched To Kill a Mockingbird, "the book was better." Now a bunch of people are upset, yet again, because Nancy Drew wasn't like the book. I'm not saying Nancy Drew is going to win any Oscars - if anything it'll be one of those Nickelodeon Blimps or Kids Choice Awards. I'm saying give film a break. It's film, not paper. As a movie, I found Nancy Drew quite enjoyable - featuring cameos from Bruce Willis and Adam Goldberg (The Hebrew Hammer) and supporting roles featuring Tate Donovan (Jimmy Cooper on the O.C.) and Rachel Leigh Cook (She's All That). This is the first time I've seen Emma Roberts in a movie and, frankly, I enjoy her work more than most of Julia and of Eric's; her character stays consistent throughout the film and reacts well with conflict. A lighthearted movie in the spirit of Harriet the Spy is nice now and again.

I give it ten stars because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, would love to see it again, and will probably buy it upon DVD release. Taking old collection of stories poses a challenge for the production team, how can this classic character be brought up to date and make it interesting enough to capture a new audience while stirring memories from her former audience. In my opinion, their mission was accomplished. A must see for young children, pre-teens, teens, and their parents. OK there are a couple scary moments that are resolved in short order, but parents with young children should sit tight, the movie moves on to better things. I am going to go with those astute user reviewers who point out that Emma Roberts provides us with a positive role model for young women, not syrupy about it either. Nancy balances her femininity with career minded sleuthing skills. A lot to like in here, laughs, doesn't take itself too seriously, a real mystery to solve (one you can figure out yourself as an added bonus, and likable characters. Nancy Drew even makes a good date movie in my opinion. This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this! I took my 10-year-old daughter to see Nancy Drew over the weekend and found myself thoroughly entertained. First off, it was clean, and I mean by my standards. The majority of kids' movies today are full of crude toilet humor and gross-out jokes to elicit cheap laughter from the pre-teen crowd. Nancy Drew is smarter than that, however, and the humor is subtle and clever.

The title role is played with a refreshing vivaciousness by Emma Roberts, who is perky and polite without ever becoming annoying. Unlike The Brady Bunch Movie, where the anachronistic characters are jeered and ridiculed, Nancy's style is treated with respect and dignity. It's a great moment when the LA "style-conscious" girls with their Paris Hilton streetwalker attire are dismissed by the boutique owner, while Nancy, in her penny loafers and homemade Butterick pattern dress, is embraced. This movie shuns the we-need-to-enlighten-this-wholesome-girl tack so many Hollywood movies take. Nancy remains true to herself and her values throughout.

The mystery is just tense enough at times to be engaging. There were several suspenseful moments where my daughter nervously grabbed my arm, but there were no gratuitous shock scenes. It's all based on tension and mood and is a lot of fun. The supporting cast is good, particularly Marshall Bell as the creepy caretaker. There are some great cameos by Eddie Jemison, Chris Kattan and Bruce Willis and many moments that will make adults smile.

This film deserves better ratings than some have given it. Not only was I glad not to be dragged to yet another computer animated film where talking animals burp and pass gas all over the place, but I was also very entertained. Had I been there without a child, I still would've enjoyed the movie. This is one DVD that will have my daughter's name on it under the Christmas tree. I'm probably one of the biggest Nancy Drew fans out there. I've read every book three times over and I've played a lot of the Nancy drew games. I Loved this movie. It kept you entertained the whole time you watched it. I went with about 10 of my friends and everyone LOVED it. There were three woman sitting behind us who appeared to be in their late 30's to early 40's and I asked them how they liked it, they said they loved it! So you see it will be an entertainment to all ages. You just have to give it a chance. And it teaches a lesson too, just be yourself even if everyone around you is exactly alike. So overall, this move was great. I'm going to see it a second time now! So stop bashing it please. Its a really good movie! I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.

Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel. I really liked this movie! Even though it wasn't anything like any of the books it still the that classic Nancy Drew style. I had been seeing a lot of advertisements for this movie and since I was really into the Nancy Drew books I had really high expectations for this movie and they most definitely met those expectations. Pretty much all of the characters were exactly how I pictured them from reading the books. I am really happy that I saw this movie. All of the actors and actresses really acted like they acted like in the book series. Ever since I saw this movie I have wanted to read every single Nancy Drew book there is out there. All of the actors and actresses really got into their characters and it definitely showed when the aired this movie on the big screen. It definitely seemed like all of the actors and actresses were really in the positions that the characters were in I most definitely give this movie a 10 out of 10. I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!) Although well past the target audience, I've always had a soft spot for YA fiction, so, I was naturally intrigued by the return of Nancy Drew to the screen.

This is not a bad film. The central mystery involving a long dead actress is presented in straightforward simplistic terms with dashes of jeopardy for the young sleuth. Nancy and her friends never take the threats seriously, so young audience members will not be upset.

What I really appreciated from the story was the final results were rather serious and meaningful and Nancy seemed to understand and grow from the experience.

Emma Roberts is great as Nancy Drew and hopefully we'll see her again in another mystery. As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of "Nancy Drew"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).

More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.

Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch....

....and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.

This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated "Candleshoe".

In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades. To be honest, I had to go see this movie backwards, didn't expect that much, but hey, I was not deceived, I had a good time.

I would say this movie is way a fresh breeze, despite some facts that they tried to modernize Nancy Drew, but this made me remember these youth movies of the 60-70s from Europe and Quebec, where they manage to have children getting interacting with adults. In this case, a 16 year-old teenager tries to do justice by trying to solve a mystery concerning the death of an actress who died 25 years ago. Anyway, as her dad had business in Hollywood, why not rent a home with a mystery behind doors ? Well, at least Emma Roberts does a great job here. Kinda like the chubby kid, who at first is naively brought to support his sister's pranks to Nancy, but at the end, found Nancy quite cool enough to stick with her, even with her matters...

Rest of the supporting cast is great, and was happy to see Rachael Leigh Cook in a different role this time: a single mother (she did it in Family Rescue, but this time, she plays a mature woman...) Anyway, don't dump this, it is fun ! If my expectations weren't exceeded, they were certainly met. "Nancy Drew" works both as a mystery and a comedy. It pays homage to the books it was based on and spoofs them at the same time. The movie starts with a close-up on a book shelf and an animated credit sequence resembling illustrations from the books. It then begins lampooning the books immediately. Writer/director Andrew Fleming seems to realize the idea of a teenage girl regularly breaking up crime rings in a small town is ridiculous, so he doesn't treat the idea religiously. He pokes fun at Nancy Drew's ability to do anything, such as ace every class in school, know which baked treat is perfect for converting any enemy to her side, make a bird house with twelve flying buttresses, and even perform an emergency tracheotomy at a party. Nancy'd always be in perfect style, if she were living in the wholesome 1950's instead of present day L.A. And she carries around a "sleuth kit" complete with fingerprinting dust, flashlight, compass, and magnifying glass. Preposterous, of course, but I seem to remember the Hardy Boys' access at any given moment to CSI equipment being a little too convenient as well. And if the perky pipsqueak private eye is a little younger than her literary counterpart, it's just more comedic exaggeration on the movie's part.

The mystery of the movie is handled more seriously. Nancy and her lawyer father move from their small town to Los Angeles, where Nancy digs into a cold case involving the murder of a Hollywood movie star who lived in her new house decades ago. Nancy searches for clues in some pretty practical ways, such as surfing websites like Google and this one and watching old videotapes of the victim's movies. When she does something more out of the ordinary, you have to admire the girl's resourcefulness. Emma Roberts, an undeniably cute kid, plays the pint-sized amateur sleuth beautifully. She makes the too-perfect girl completely lovable, if not completely realistic. Tate Donovan is also great as the too-perfect girl's father, Carson Drew. He's an ideal father figure without being unrealistically perfect, and he shows reasonable concern for his daughter as she gets into danger. Less likable is Max Thierot's take on Ned Nickerson, Nancy's boyfriend. I much preferred George O'Hanlon Jr.'s portrayal in the 1970's TV series starring Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew, in which Ned was a gawky, awkward kid with a little crush on Nancy. The character of Corky (Josh Flitty), a twelve-year old with a crush on Nancy, is much less annoying than Max Thierot's Ned. Amy Bruckner and Kay Panabaker seem appropriately cast as Nancy's gal pals Bess and George, but they only make brief cameos at the beginning of the film.

Speaking of cameos, Chris Kattan (SNL), Eddie Jemison ("Ocean's 13"), and Bruce Willis all make surprise guest appearances, which just proves you never can guess which movie Bruce Willis will pop up in next.

The movie does fail to live up to some potential. It's mentioned early on that the Drews' new house is heavily booby-trapped, but Nancy and her father are done with tripping over booby traps a few minutes after that. Also, Nancy describes the cold case she's about to investigate as a murder taking place at an extravagant party, which should yield plenty of potential murderers, but she only encounter a handful of suspects. And while there's some moments of real suspense during Nancy's adventures, the solution to the case comes out of nowhere, and in the end all possible plot threads are tied up too conveniently and who-cares-who-done-it. Ralph Sall's score adds to the movie's suspense, but the contemporary teenybopper songs woven into the soundtrack are lame. Still, I really enjoyed this film, and while the movie is aimed primarily at tween girls, people of any age and gender can enjoy it. I really enjoyed this movie. It succeeded in doing something that few movies do now; it provided family values while entertaining me. Nancy Drew is a heroine for all generations and a role model for young girls to look up to. The little girls I was with throughly enjoyed the movie and kept talking about Nancy as we walked out of the theater. The movie has relatively few problems for families and I don't think parents will get bored sitting in the theater. No, it won't win an Oscar and it did not showcase magnificent special effects or even provide a horribly spooky mystery, but it entertained me and it stood true to the the spirit of the books. I would definitely recommend this movie to anybody with a young girl (she will love it!) or any fan of the books. You will not be disappointed. The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.

(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.) Let's face it; Nancy Drew was never great literature. It is in the same category as babysitter club, magic tree house, Goosebumps, ABC Mysteries. In fact, it was one of the original formula stories. Nancy is perfect, pretty, thoughtful, "nice", has no internal conflicts ever! and never changes. Ned is pretty much the same. The movie was true to that style and I have to say, I liked it. It will never be a great movie, but it had a that same nostalgic flavor that the books held. It had just the right amount of suspense for my children (8 and 10.) There was almost no offensive language. I liked the push for more conservative dress.

Corky was a bit of an annoyance. He was a little out of place on a high school campus. I never quite got why he was there in the first place. This was a great movie! Even though there was only about 15 people including myself there it was great! My friend and I laughed a lot. My mom even enjoyed it. There was two middle aged women there and a mid 20 year old there and they seemed to enjoy it. I love the part where Corky and Ned are like both liking Nancy and stuff its cute lol. And when she gets her roadster and Ned is there. Yeah This was a great movie even thought people underestimated it lol. Go See it i bet you'll enjoy it!! I really enjoyed it and so did my friend.

People were so tough on this movie and they hadn't even seen it. I bet next time they will give the movie and actresses a chance. They all did a great job in my opinion. But if you have young kids its still appropriate. I will probably take my 7 year old niece to watch it too. I had heard this movie was good from a lot of my friends that saw it, and they all said it was amazing, so I had very high expectations- and Nancy Drew exceeded those high expectations! It had funny parts, it kept me entertained with the action and all the dudes trying to kill her, and Emma Roberts was amazing as Nancy Drew. The rest of the cast was very good, also. I would definitely recommend this movie!!

Nancy: "I wonder why those guys were trying to kill us?!" Corky: "Yeah, I was wondering that too. Actually, it's kinda creeping me out!"

Nancy: "I hate when people try to kill me. It's so rude!"

~Nancy Drew I have to say that this was not very exciting but talk about fashion and weird ways to solve a mystery. A little too simple, Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts) uses IMDb... that's fantastic! I really liked about that part of the movie...

Corky (Josh Flitter) is however extremely hilarious... and Ned Nickerson (Max Thieriot) seemed really hopeless... he should have been more angry with her for how she has treated him...

Alright, this movie is tour and fashion in disguise. Anyhow, I recommend this movie, just for summer fun. Encore Nancy, just for fun. More teen spy movies by Emma Roberts.. Spymate... remember? She's becoming good at this tricky detective work. I think part of the reason this movie was made...and is aimed at us gamers who actually play all the Nancy Drew PC games. There's been a lot of movies lately based on video games, and I think this in one of them.

So this movie does not follow any book. But it does follow parts of the games. I buy and play every Nancy Drew games as soon as it comes out. And the games are from HerInteractive and are for "girls who aren't afraid of a mouse!" And some of these games actually won Parents' Choice Gold Awards. They are not only fun but you can actually learn a thing or two while playing.

I took two of my step children with me to go see it and they loved it! The 10 yr. old had started playing her first Nancy Drew game a day before I took her to see the movie, and she was having so much fun playing the game I thought she would enjoy the movie as well. And I was right...she not only loved this movie but couldn't wait to get home to finish her first game and start another one.

My other step daughter is only 7 and she also loved the movie but she is still a little to young too play the games yet, but she enjoys watching her sister play at times just to see what's going on.

The games are based for children 10 yrs and older. All the games usually get pretty descent reviews and are classified as adventure games. For more information on the games just check out HerInterative Nancy Drew games. So personally I thought the movie was pretty good and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD. I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it! I last read a Nancy Drew book about 20 years ago, so much of my memory of the fictional character is probably faulty. From what I gathered, the books were introduced to me at an era when teenage sleuths were popular to children growing up at the time (for my case, the 80s and early 90s), with Hardy Boys, Famous Five, and of course, "Carolyn Keene"'s Nancy Drew amongst the more famous ones. I still remember those hardcover books with very dated cover illustrations, usually quite heavy (for a kid) to lug around, and the thickness of the book perhaps attributed to the fact that the words are printed in large fonts.

Well, the character has been given some updates along the way, as I recall my sister's subsequent Nancy Drew books becoming less thick, of softcover, with updated and a more chic Nancy illustrated on the cover. I can't remember if those stories were the same as the old hardcover ones, but I guess these books, being ghostwritten, have their fair share of updating itself for the times.

In this Warner Brothers release of Nancy Drew, the character no doubt gets its update to suit the times, but somehow the writers Andrew Fleming and Tiffany Paulsen maintained her 50s- ish small town sensibilities, thereby retaining some charm and flavour that erm, folks like me, would appreciate. Her fashion sense, her prim and properness, even some quirky little behaviour traits that makes her, well, Nancy Drew.

Her family background remains more or less the same, living with her single parent father Carson Drew (Tate Donovan), who is moving his daughter and himself to the big city for a better job opportunity, and to wean his daughter off sleuthing in the town of River Heights. Mom is but a distant memory, and the housemaid makes a cameo. But what made Nancy Drew work, is the casting of Emma Roberts in the lead role. Niece of her famous aunt Julia, she too possess that sprightly demeanour, that unmistakable red hair and that megawatt smile. Her Nancy Drew, while in the beginning does seem to rub you the wrong way, actually will grow on you. And in almost what I thought could be a discarded scene from Pretty Woman, it had the characters walk into a classy shop with almost opposite reactions.

While Dad Carson Drew tries hard to bring Nancy out of her sleuthing environment and to assimilate into normal teenage life, trust Nancy to find themselves living in a house whose owner, a Hollywood type has been, was found murdered under suspicious circumstances. Mystery solving is her comfort food when she finds herself an outcast of the local fraternity, and not before long we're whisked off along with her on her big screen adventure.

There's nothing too Black Dahlia about the crime and mystery, and instead it's a pretty straightforward piece for Nancy to solve, in between befriending Corky (Josh Flitter) a chubby friend from school, and pacifying jealous boyfriend Ned (Max Thieriot), while hiding the truth of her extra curriculum activities from her dad. The story's laced with cheesy fun and an oldie sentimentality which charms, and together, it becomes somewhat scooby-doo like. With minimal violence and no big bag gunfights or explosions, this is seriously a genre which is labelled clearly with "chick flick" alert.

I guess the movie will generate a new generation of fans, rekindle the memories of old ones, and probably, just probably, might spark a new fashion trend of sporting penny loafers. I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script... I saw this Documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, in a small 200-seat Cinema at the top of the main building at the Cannes Film Festival.

I absolutely was into it. I love the mix of awesomely made fictional scenes. It is amazing set-design. The scenes look really like they were filmed in 1920ies or 1930ies.

And the music is so nice.

I rate this experience 9/10.

* spoilers ahead *

The Documentary tells about awesome Blues-men, with black-and-white old-looking scenes of the black man playing the guitar and singing. It is really amazing. But this also mixes in new bands and that is maybe one thing I might dislike in this Documentary. It is the too abundant use of links to modern rock-bands playing those Blues songs in a modern way. I didn't really appreciate their trashed way of playing such awesome Blues songs. This is the same kind of un-perfect musical taste I found when watching Wim Wenders Buena Vista Social Club.

The Documentary was such a standing-ovation at this first screening in the little cinema, that the next day this Documentary was shown for everyone and normal tourists on the beach of the Croisette at the open-air cinema. Though the sand, the quality of the projection and the bad quality of the sound probably made it a difficult experience to enjoy for the thousands of people who were sitting in the sand that night. If you like "Othello," you'll love this flick since half the movie revolves around the stage production of the play.

The film has a great cast with Signe Hasso and Shelley Winters as the women in Colman's life while Edmond O'Brien plays the enterprising press agent.

A couple of the supporting players I particularly liked were Millard Mitchell as the grizzled reporter who finds an angle and Joe Sawyer, the 1940's answer to Drew Carey, who plays the cop on the case.

Great raw moments in this one with noir realism throughout. Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.

I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.

Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.

Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish. When an actor has to play the role of an actor, fictional or factual, the task becomes much more difficult than playing a role. In A Double Life,Ronald Coleman surpassed himself as Anthony John, the tortured double personality. He put into that character all his talent and sincerity. The facial expressions, mannerisms,gait and stance spoke eloquently of what Anthony John was going through while playing Othello on stage. Coleman also did extremely well as a Shakespearean actor in those short scenes as Othello that were part of this gem of a movie. Closups of Coleman's face as Othello tortured by doubts about the fidelity of Desdemona were in themselves scenes worth watching.Add to that, his character's off stage desperation and only someone with Coleman's depth of acting perception can achieve. It was like watching Spenser Tracy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except this double role was much more profound and poignant. Shelly Winters looked so sweet, vulnerable and gorgeous at the same time and added her talent to the movie. It is believed that Ronald Coleman liked his role in this film above all others he played and went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor in 1947. I would see this movie repeatedly and never feel bored. Colman's performance is aided by the brilliantly written script. The gargantuan Hollywood studios in the 30's and 40's were able to copy some of the German expressionistic film elements and incorporate them into Hollywood films. very good use of shadows and light and silhouette. i really liked the scene where colman turns off the light in his dressing room near the beginning of the film, and he starts reciting Othello while his face becomes instantly dark and evil. already the viewer sees the text and the drama of Shakespeare getting a hold of "Tony" and off he goes on his journey of doom. i also enjoyed the dramatic death scene within the play, when he becomes overwrought with emotion and accidentally strangles his costar a little too hard for her to bear. her pleadings "tony stop you're hurting me" are chilling and suspenseful. you just don't know if he is going to go over the top and kill her at any moment. the cat and mouse chase to reveal the killer was nicely added 2/3rds of the way through the film to add some faster pacing and to also add to the narrative element of the film. Masterful work from George Cukor. He's such as skillful director. Excellent film. Too bad they don't make 'em like they used to... George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.

Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell. A fondly-remembered melodrama – thanks chiefly to Ronald Colman's fine Oscar-winning central performance – about an oft-treated theme: the nature of acting and how it can overtake one's perception of reality. In this case, we have a well-known thespian tackling Shakespeare's "Othello", so that the film's last third delves effectively into the thriller genre – with press agent Edmond O'Brien (who happens to really be besotted with Colman's co-star and ex-wife Signe Hasso) 'investigating' the actor's possible involvement in the Desdemona-like strangling of a celebrity-seeking waitress (a very slim Shelley Winters). The theatrical/New York atmosphere of the immediate post-war era is vividly captured by the husband-and-wife screen writing team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon and legendary "actor's director" George Cukor (all of whom were recognized by the Academy with nominations); incidentally, the film nabbed a second Oscar for Miklos Rozsa's eclectic score. Colman, forever the suave leading man blessed besides with a velvety voice, does well enough by Shakespeare – gaining conviction the farther his character slips into obsessive jealousy, a murderous rage and, eventually, paranoia; however, he is not let down by a supporting cast which also includes director Ray Collins, reporter Millard Mitchell, detective Joe Sawyer and coroner Whit Bissell. Though the mid-section is a bit strained, the film makes up for any deficiencies with a remarkably-handled Expressionist denouement. George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments – it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.

Several interesting things about this movie – superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a "union of the soul" in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy "His Girl Friday" springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love. Ronald Colman gives a terrific performance as a stage actor who really gets into his work. When he plays Othello on the stage he takes on the persona with dire results. Good film with a great supporting cast. Well worth watching. This was a very well scripted movie. Great fun if you just want a stupid film. Not great production value (ok, the sound really sucked) but the performance of Danny Masterson more than makes up for it.

Watch this movie and laugh out loud! Excellent writing and wild cast. The tech is poor but it's obviously very low budget. Looks like they didn't cut the negative but had to release on a video output. In any case one of the most inventive comedies I've seen lately. The screenwriter in particular is fine. I Caught This Movie On T.V. Last Night And You Know Danny Masterson Was A Pretty Good Actor In The Film, And Its Great To See Him In Something Other Than That 70s Show. The Film Isnt Rated But In My Opinion I Would Rate It (R) Just Because Of The Nudity And Plenty Of Adult Content. But All In All I Loved It, I Thought That Dirt's Wisecracks were pretty funny. Its Just Basically About A Guy Who Has No Job, Girlfriend, Or Money And Eventually Gets A Job As A Private Investigator (more of a messenger really.)He Gets Framed For The Murder Of A Rock Star And The Rock Stars Girlfriend Is One Of The People That Really Need To Help Him Out. I Give It....*** 3 Stars. Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.

This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful!

This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's "my girl" and I love her work.

I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction. so yes it is quite nostalgic watching the 1st episode because this is the one episode i definitely remembered. i enjoy watching the first season and yes compared to the action packed shows we have now this show seems lame. but frankly i like the "less violent" part of the show and the story line has more substance than the new ones now. I thought it interesting that Belisario's Airwolf and JAG have similar theme - the lead actor (Hawke and Harm) both are looking for an MIA relative (brother, father). wonder if Robert Belisario's personal life mimics these 2 shows' theme.

Question - does anyone have pictures of Hawke's cabin. I love that cabin (kinda like a dream cabin of mine) and that is one of the scenes i remember about Airwolf. Airwolf The Movie, A variation on the original 2 part pilot, Yet the movie although shorter, does contain extra footage Unseen in the 2 hour pilot The pilot is much more of a pilot than the movie Where as a pilot movie is normally the same (2 parter combined) But the movie is actually a different edit with extras here and cuts there.

Worth a look, even if you have the season 1 DVD set, I'd still pick up a copy of the "movie" It's still in some shops like virgin, Woolworths and the likes of mixed media stores, although it generally needs ordering, But it saves needing to buy online (as many of us still don't do or trust online shopping) but if you look around airwolfs in stores

Airwolf was truly 1 of the 80's most under rated shows.

A full size Airwolf is currently being re-built for a Helicopter Museum :) Info and work in progress pictures are over at http://Airwolf.org Also with Airwolf Mods for Flashpoint and Flight Sim Games It seams she's finally here to stay :) I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. One of my favorite shows in the 80's. After the first season, it started going downhill when they decided to add Jean Bruce Scott to the cast. Deborah Pratt was wonderful and it was fun watching her and Ernest Borgnine's character go at it with each other. The last episode she appeared in was one of my favorites for in the second season. Unfortunately during those days, blacks did not last long on television shows. Some of the episodes in the second season where okay but the third season it was more about the human characters than Airwolf and it was not shown until almost at the end of the show. When it went to USA, it was disgusting!!! As a young teenager at the time, Airwolf was compulsory viewing for a generation who wanted their "Cowboys and Indians" to have amazing gadgets and whizz-bang explosions.

In many ways, the show was essentially Knight Rider in the skies: similar comic-book technology, a central character who was essentially a loner, and echoing the concept of one man making a difference.

But in other, important ways, it was thematically very different from Knight Rider, Street Hawk, The A-Team and other action shows of the time. For one thing, the premise of the series is built not on a desire to help those in need, but by Stringfellow Hawke's possession of Airwolf for essentially selfish reasons (as leverage to try to find his MIA brother, St John). And then there is the dark edge provided by basing the series firmly in an 80s Cold War context, complete with Soviet espionage and Central American dictators, not to mention the enemy within. Sure, The A-Team constantly referred back to Vietnam and the team's status as fugitives, but it was generally done with a light touch and was rarely central to the plot itself. With Airwolf, the intrigue was key to the tone and direction of the show - although this was (ill-advisedly) diluted as the series went on.

With hindsight, the Cold War setting clearly dates the series, many of the stories are creaky and contrived, and much of what Airwolf does is clearly implausible even with today's technology. But that's really not the point. Airwolf was rip-roaring fun, it tried to tell interesting stories without relying solely on the big action sequences, and it didn't sugar-coat everything by miraculously ensuring nobody died. Sometimes it failed, but often it succeeded admirably - and on a TV budget to boot.

For UK readers, DMAX (Sky channel 155) have just started (Jan 2008) daily re-runs of Airwolf. Set your Sky+ box for this blast from the past - we may even get the re-tooled, re-cast (and sadly vastly inferior) fourth season, which to my knowledge has never previously been shown in the UK. Perhaps the most gripping and intelligent of crooked cop movies is Otto Preminger's 'Where the Sidewalks Ends,' from a really excellent script by Ben Hecht based on the novel 'Night Cry' by Frank Rosenberg...

Dana Andrews is the honest, tough New York policeman, always in trouble with his superiors because he likes his own strong-arm methods as much as he detests crooks... When he hit someone, his knuckles hurt... And the man he wants to hit is a smooth villain (Gary Merrill) who points up the title. 'Why are you always trying to push me in the gutter?' he asks Andrews. 'I have as much right on the sidewalk as you.'

Dana Andrew's obsession and neurosis are implanted in his hidden, painful discovery that he is the son of a thief... His deep hatred of criminals led him to use their own illegal methods to destroy them, and the pursuit of justice became spoiled in private vendetta...

By a twist of irony unique to the film itself, Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney of 'Laura' are united once more, and Andrews now seems to be playing the same detective a few years later, but no longer the romantic, beaten down by his job, by the cheap crooks... This time, he goes too far, and accidentally kills a suspect... The killing is accidental, the victim worthless, yet it is a crime that he knows can break him or send him to jail...

Using his knowledge of police procedure, he covers up his part in the crime, plants false clues, and tries to implicate a gang leader, but cannot avoid investigating the case himself... The double tension of following the larger case through to its conclusion without implicating himself in the murder, is beautifully maintained and the final solution is both logical, satisfying, and in no way a compromise...

The film is one of the best detective films of the 50's, with curious moral values, also one of Preminger's best...

Preminger uses a powerful storytelling technique, projecting pretentious camera angles and peculiar touches of the bizarre in order to externalize his suspense in realism... We're a long way from LAURA. Once again Otto Preminger directs, Dana Andrews stars as a police detective named Mark, and Gene Tierney is the beautiful woman who haunts him, but nothing else about WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS resembles everyone's favorite sophisticated murder mystery. Instead of deliciously quotable dialogue we get gritty, harrowing realism. While the earlier film took place in the ritzy upper echelons of New York society, here we're in the low-rent district of dark streets, hoodlums, cheap restaurants and crummy flats. Tierney, gorgeous as ever, now works as a department-store mannequin and lives in Washington Heights (the neighborhood of the "doll" who once got a fox fur out of LAURA's Mark McPherson). This time Andrews is Mark Dixon, an older, sadder, more troubled version of the cool cop in a trench coat.

WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS belongs to a sub-genre of noir, movies about police brutality focusing on cops who can't control their violent impulses. Like Kirk Douglas's character in DETECTIVE STORY, Dixon owes his seething contempt for crooks to his father's criminal past. Where Douglas is self-righteous and blind to his own faults, Andrews is burdened by repressed guilt and self-loathing. He accidentally kills a suspect and covers up his actions with an attempt to throw suspicion on a slimy gangster (Gary Merrill) whom he has been vainly pursuing for years. Instead, a kindly cab driver is suspected because he's the father of the dead man's estranged and mistreated wife Morgan (Gene Tierney). Dixon, falling in love with the wife of the man he killed, tries desperately to save her father without giving himself away.

Among noir protagonists, Dana Andrews had this distinction: he was incapable of appearing unintelligent. Even when playing an average Joe, as he usually did, he always comes across as unusually sensitive and perceptive; more than that, his air of being too thoughtful for his own comfort gives him that haunted--and haunting--quality that was his essence as an actor. He played ordinary guys, cops and soldiers, but always with a tragic undercurrent of seeing and knowing too much. His conscientious heroes are marked by exhaustion, guilt, the inability ever to "lighten up." No other actor could have expressed so well the bottled-up anger, the slow-burning pain, the agonized intelligence of Mark Dixon. He also has a muted tenderness, a muffled warmth and even wry humor that make him heartbreaking. This comes out when he takes Morgan to a restaurant where he's a regular, and for the first time we see this cold, brutal man trading mock insults with the waitress, whose sarcasm can't hide her affection and concern for him. When Dixon asks his partner for money to get a lawyer for Morgan's father, he supplies it even though they recently argued and Dixon threw a punch at him. There are no words about loyalty or knowing he's a good guy deep down, but we see it all in the man's anguished silence and his wife's resignation as she hands over some jewelry to pawn. Dixon's goodness comes across through other people's reactions to him as much as through Andrews's deeply moving performance.

Though Dana Andrews was a minor star, he may be the quintessential forties man. He goes through some movies hardly ever taking off his overcoat; with that boxy, mid-century silhouette, further fortified by the fedora, the glass of bourbon, the cigarette he doesn't take out of his mouth when he talks, he looks imprisoned in the masculine ideal of toughness and impassivity. While many noirs romanticize the two-fisted tough guy, WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS offers an unflinching portrait of the reality behind the façade, a gripping and melancholy exploration of the roots and consequences of violence.

Andrews was sadly underrated in his own time (he was the only one of the three protagonists in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES not nominated for an Academy Award, though his low-key performance is far more compelling than Frederic March's hammy, Oscar-winning drunk). Fortunately, Andrews appeared in some films that ensured his immortality, and now at last this little-known film, which contains his best performance, can be seen as part of the marvelous Fox Film Noir set. This series, including a number of never before released titles (such as NIGHTMARE ALLEY and THIEVES' HIGHWAY), suggests that Twentieth-Century-Fox may have had the finest record of all the major studios when it came to film noir. In Where The Sidewalk Ends, Otto Preminger reunites Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney, surely in hopes of recapturing the magic of his Laura. But they're wildly dissimilar films, set in different strata of New York (not to mention at opposite poles of the noir universe). A fine mist of the Gothic hovers over the upscale Manhattan of Laura, with its erotic obsession and faint whiff of necrophilia; Where The Sidewalk Ends is pure urban soot and grit befouling a town of basement apartments, steam rooms and parking garages.

But it's every bit as fine a movie as its revered forerunner, and dyed-in-the-wool noir (Laura, by contrast, one of the clutch of films from 1944 which the French first dubbed `noir,' was still very much a sophisticated murder mystery). Daylight enters only on very temporary sufferance, and director of photography Joseph LaShelle makes the most of the alleys and brownstones, the docks and the El. This is quintessential big-city - specifically Big Apple - noir, like several others from the bumper crop of 1950, like Side Street and Sleeping City and The Tattooed Stranger and Edge of Doom.

As the movie opens, police detective Dana Andrews is on the carpet for his brutal ways, particularly his vendetta towards crime boss Gary Merrill (whom we learn was set up in business by Andrews' ne'er-do-well father). When an out-of-towner is stabbed to death at a floating crap game operated by Merrill, the hair-trigger Andrews roughs up a witness, causing him a fatal crack to the skull (exacerbated by a steel plate installed in the veteran's head). Realizing that his job's already on the line, Andrews dumps the body in the river after making it look like the suspect had taken a powder.

Of course, that's far from an end to it. The corpse is discovered, his estranged wife turns out to be Tierney, and all the evidence starts to turn toward her father (Tom Tully), a hack driver who happened not only to have been cruising the same mean streets the night of the murder but to have ample reason to want his abusive son-in-law dead. But the embittered loner Andrews finds in Tierney a summons to his better nature; he tries to exonerate her father while still keeping his own involvement in the whole sordid business a secret....

Not so epigrammatic as Laura, the script for Where The Sidewalk Ends (by Ben Hecht) shows a pungency of its own (in a second dressing-down, his superior tells Andrews, `Look at you - all bunged up like a barrelhouse fag').

But while Laura spread its attention over half a dozen characters, here Andrews is all but the sole focus (even Tierney's role is far less central than her half-spectral Laura). And Andrews may never have excelled his performance here. It's tight-lipped and taciturn, but never more eloquent than when his face is silently registering the anguish to which his own obstinacy has brought him. He's a pent-up sufferer who can find release only through the safety-valve of violence (he even lashes out against his loyal partner, Bert Freed). To be sure, he finds too swift a road to redemption though the agency of his beautiful co-star. But that was the style of the times, and a sweetened-up ending does little to undermine this New York story of violence, corruption and urban entanglements. Elegance and class are not always the first words that come to mind when folks (at least folks who might do such a thing) sit around and talk about film noir.

Yet some of the best films of the genre, "Out of the Past," "The Killers," "In A Lonely Place," "Night and the City," manage a level of sleek sophistication that elevates them beyond a moody catch phrase and its connotations of foreboding shadows, fedoras, and femme-fatales.

"Where the Sidewalk Ends," a fairly difficult to find film -- the only copy in perhaps the best stocked video store in Manhattan was a rough bootleg from the AMC cable channel -- belongs in a category with these classics.

From the moment the black cloud of opening credits pass, a curtain is drawing around rogue loner detective Marc Dixon's crumbling world, and as the moments pass, it inches ever closer, threatening suffocation.

Sure, he's that familiar "cop with a dark past", but Dana Andrews gives Dixon a bleak stare and troubled intensity that makes you as uncomfortable as he seems. And yeah, he's been smacking around suspects for too long, and the newly promoted chief (Karl Malden, in a typically robust and commanding outing) is warning him "for the last time."

Yet Dixon hates these thugs too much to stop now. And boy didn't they had have it coming?

"Hoods, dusters, mugs, gutter nickel-rats" he spits when that tough nut of a boss demotes him and rolls out all of the complaints the bureau has been receiving about Dixon's right hook. The advice is for him to cool off for his own good. But instead he takes matters into his own hands.

And what a world of trouble he finds when he relies on his instincts, and falls back on a nature that may or may not have been passed down from a generation before.

Right away he's in deep with the cops, the syndicate, his own partner. Dixon's questionable involvement in a murder "investigation" threatens his job, makes him wonder whether he is simply as base as those he has sworn to bring in. Like Bogart in "Lonely Place," can he "escape what he is?"

When he has nowhere else to turn, he discovers that he has virtually doomed his unexpected relationship with a seraphic beauty (the marvelous Gene Tierney) who seems as if she can turn his barren bachelor's existence into something worth coming home to.

The pacing of this superb film is taut and gripping. The group of writers that contributed to the production polished the script to a high gloss -- the dialogue is snappy without disintegrating into dated parody fodder, passionate without becoming melodramatic or sappy.

And all of this top-notch direction and acting isn't too slick or buffed to loosen the film's emotional hold. Gene Tierney's angelic, soft-focus beauty is used to great effect. She shows herself to be an actress of considerable range, and her gentle, kind nature is as boundless here as is her psychosis in "Leave Her to Heaven." The scenes between Tierney and Andrews's Dixon grow more intense and touching the closer he seems to self-destruction.

Near the end of his rope, cut, bruised, and exhausted Dixon summarizes his lot: "Innocent people can get into terrible jams, too,.." he says. "One false move and you're in over your head."

Perhaps what makes this film so totally compelling is the sense that things could go wildly wrong for almost anyone -- especially for someone who is trying so hard to do right -- with one slight shift in the wind, one wrong decision or punch, or, most frighteningly, due to factors you have no control over. Noir has always reflected the darkest fears, brought them to the surface. "Where the Sidewalk Ends" does so in a realistic fashion.

(One nit-pick of an aside: This otherwise sterling film has a glaringly poor dub of a blonde model that wouldn't seem out of place on Mystery Science Theater. How very odd.)

But Noir fans -- heck, ANY movie fans -- who haven't seen this one are in for a terrific treat. At first glance, it would seem natural to compare Where the Sidewalk Ends with Laura. Both have noirish qualities, both were directed by Otto Preminger, and both star Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. But that's where most of the comparisons end. Laura dealt with posh, sophisticated people with means who just happen to find themselves mixed-up in a murder. Where the Sidewalk Ends is set in a completely different strata. These are people with barely two nickels to rub together who are more accustomed to seeing the underbelly of society than going to fancy dress parties. Where the Sidewalk ends is a gritty film filled with desperate people who solve their problems with their fists or some other weapon. Small-time hoods are a dime-a-dozen and cops routinely beat confessions out of the crooks. Getting caught-up in a murder investigation seems as natural as breathing.

While I haven't seen his entire body of work, based on what I have seen, Dana Andrews gives one of his best performances as the beat-down cop, Det. Sgt. Mark Dixon. He's the kind of cop who is used to roughing up the local hoods if it gets him information or a confession. One night, he goes too far and accidentally kills a man. He does his best to cover it up. But things get complicated when he falls for the dead man's wife, Morgan Taylor (Tierney), whose father becomes suspect number one in the murder case. As Morgan's father means the world to her, Dixon's got to do what he can to clear the old man without implicating himself.

Technically, Where the Sidewalk Ends is outstanding. Besides the terrific performance from Andrews, the movie features the always delightful Tierney. She has a quality that can make even the bleakest of moments seem brighter. The rest of the cast is just as solid with Tom Tully as the wrongly accused father being a real standout. Beyond the acting, the direction, sets, lighting, and cinematography are all top-notch. Overall, it's an amazingly well made film.

If I have one complaint (and admittedly it's a very, very minor quibble) it's that Tierney is almost too perfect for the role and her surroundings. It's a little difficult to believe that a woman like that could find herself mixed-up with some of these unsavory characters. It's not really her fault, it's just the way Tierney comes across. She seems a little too beautiful, polished, and delicate for the part. But, her gentle, kind, trusting nature add a sense of needed realism to her portrayal. Otto Preminger's Dana Andrews cycle of films noirs are among the (largely) unsung jewels of the genre. Because they lack paranoia, misogyny or hysteria, they may have seemed out of place at the time, but the clear-eyed imagery, the complex play with identity, masculinity and representation, the subversion of traditional psychological tenets, the austere, geometrical style all seem startlingly modern today, and very similar to Melville. The lucid ironies of this film are so loaded, brutal and ironic that the 'happy' ending is one of the cruellest in Hollywood history. Brilliant on the level of entertaining thriller as well, tense, and packed with double-edged dialogue. I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.

The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all! WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS deserves to be a better known film directed by Otto Preminger, the man who gave the world LAURA. And this time, he's got the same co-stars: DANA ANDREWS and GENE TIERNEY. It must be said that Tierney here is under-used in what amounts to more of a supporting role while the spotlight goes to Andrews.

He plays a tough, hardened cop used to dealing with a bunch of thugs in too vigorous a way until one night he accidentally kills a man in the process of arresting him. When suspicion falls on a cab driver (TOM TULLY), he goes along with the investigation into the murder but starts to feel guilt because he's in love with the cabbie's daughter (GENE TIERNEY). Tierney, by the way, looks a little too elegant for the girl she's playing here and doesn't seem to fit into the squalid background elements of the story.

The story takes a grim turn as the investigation goes deeper and it's discovered that the murdered man had a silver plate in his head from his service as a war hero. By the end, it turns into a morality tale with Andrews developing a conscience over his crime.

It's fascinating as film noir with capable performances from a strong supporting cast. A good entry in the field of noir, forcefully directed by Preminger and nicely played by Andrews and Tierney, despite the slight miscasting of her character. Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Where One Ends, Another Begins

This is a prototypical film noir, and as such, pretty flawless, from both style and content points of view. The photography and night settings are first rate (cinematographer Joseph LaShelle lets the drama ooze in scene after scene), and the close-ups on faces pure expressionism. I can watch this kind of film for the visuals alone, even when the actors struggle and the plot stinks.

But the acting is first rate here, and the plot features what I consider the core of most noir films, the alienated male lead (representing the many men returning home to a changed United States after the war and feeling lost themselves). In fact, not only is Dana Andrews really convincing as the troubled, loner detective, he has a small but important counterpart in the film, the lead female's (first) husband, an decorated ex-GI fallen onto hard times and booze. The fact the one man kills the other might be of monumental significance, overall-- the regular guy struggling through his inner problems to success while the medal-wearing soldier slips into an accidental death with a silver plate in his head. The woman transitions from one to the other--we assume they marry and have children as suggested earlier in the movie. Even if this is pushing an interpretation onto it after the fact, we can still see the path of one man with some psychological baggage careening through a crisis to the highest kind of moral order--turning himself in for a small crime just at the point he has actually gotten away with it.

This movie belongs to Andrews. He plays a far more restrained and moving type than Kirk Douglas plays in a similar role in William Wyler's Detective Story made just one year later, and Andrews certainly is less theatrical. You could easily see both movies side by side for a textbook compare and contrast session. The fact that Andrews as Detective Dixon is morally struggling through it all, and Douglas as Detective McLeod is not, might explain why one man gets his girl and the other doesn't. Gene Tierney pulls off a hugely sympathetic, demurring, and ultimately conventional and "pretty" type of woman--not just a cardboard desirable, but someone you want Dixon to actually marry.

The criminal plot is really secondary to the main drama, but is effective enough in its play with types and clichés. The bit parts are kept snappy, the small details (like the portable craps table) nice touches, far from the character actors or the glamour of gambling in Casablanca. But then, Curtiz's great movie is iconic even in the details--it makes no effort to be subtle and real and penetrating, but instead is sweeping and memorable and inspiring. They come at opposite ends of the war, and represent opposite possibilities for their leading men. Bogart is beginning his active duty, Dixon, and the man Dixon has killed, are all through. Through, thoroughly, but not washed up.

It's no accident that many, possibly most, film noirs have what you would call "happy" endings. The man overcomes his adversaries and transforms his inner self, and the moviegoer, then and now, understands just how beautiful that must feel. Dana Andrews stands "Where the Sidewalk Ends" in this 1950 film that also stars Gene Tierney, Gary Merrill, Karl Malden and Neville Brand. Andrews plays New York City Detective Sgt. Mark Dixon, a cop with a bad temper who has gotten into trouble in the past for beating suspects. When a man is murdered at a gambling club owned by a mobster, Scalise (Merrill), Dixon and his partner go to investigate. Scalise blames the murder on Ken Paine (Stevens), who has now left the club after fighting not only with his wife, Morgan (Tierney) but the victim. Dixon thinks the victim won a lot of money and was killed as a result by the mobster's men. He goes to see Paine and, not realizing he has a plate in his head from the war, knocks him to the floor and inadvertently kills him. Now he must cover up the murder. As a further complication, he falls for Morgan; her father (Ken Tully), who went to Paine's apartment after he saw that Paine had hit his daughter, is arrested for the crime.

This is a really terrific, gritty noir with some good performances. The ruggedly handsome and weathered Andrews is convincing as a tough yet nervous detective who has to stay one step ahead of his colleagues. The movie reunites him with his fabulous "Laura" costar, Gene Tierney, and she looks lovely as a model with bad taste in men who apparently is used to being roughed up. Little does she know, she's got another one on her hands. Ken Tully does a terrific job as her father, who protests his innocence despite some damning evidence. Karl Malden is very tough as Dixon's boss.

My only problem with this well-directed, fast-moving and absorbing film is the ending. Pure Hollywood and, putting myself in Tierney's place, I doubt I would react the same way. A minor criticism for a film written by Ben Hecht and directed by Otto Preminger. I didn't find it as awe-inspiring as "Laura," but few things in this world are. If you like film noir, this is a must-see. Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his "Laura" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - "You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be "Sandy Dixon's kid" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.

One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.

Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.

It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since "Laura" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in "The Iron Curtain" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.

Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.

The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad ("Your father liked me," he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.

A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast. Ah, noir. My favourite genre. Otto Preminger's follow-up to "Laura" is a film noir set in a postwar New York, where corruption and violence run rampant. It stars Dana Andrews as Sergeant Mark Dixon, a detective whose brutal tactics have landed him in hot water with his superiors.

When he accidentally kills a murder suspect, Dixon tries to pin the blame on crime boss Tommy Scalese. Dixon is close to achieving his goal when he becomes involved with the dead man's wife, the beautiful Morgan Taylor. Of course, in typical noir fashion, things quickly go down hill.

While the film does nothing interesting camera or narrative wise, it does have a constant tone of dread and gloom. Like most great noirs, it is also wonderfully paced, sucking the viewer in right from the start.

Still, like most of Preminger's workmanlike films, it's not something I'd watch again. It lacks the verbal wit of Wilder, the visual flamboyance of Hitchcock or the spatial experimentation of Welles. Like Lang's later work, "Sidewalk" feels very much a "clone" of what a noir should be, instead of something really artistically genuine.

Thematically the film is nothing special. It's about a cop who finds himself slowly becoming a criminal. In one scene Dixon explains that his father himself was a small time crook, the film flirting with the notion of predestination, but this one scene is as far as Otto goes, or dares to take his ideas.

The camera work is likewise disappointing. There's no intelligence in Otto's camera. No effort is made to assign the camera to anything. It doesn't play with space or architecture or empahsise the step-by-step police procedural. It's just tripod set ups with the occasional dolly in and out. Meaningless, though most people don't care about these things.

There is, however, one good shot where our hero is trapped in a car full of gangsters (noir cage) which itself enters a vehicle-lift (another cage) and is taken up into the chief gangster's lair. Like Lynch's "Blue Velvet", Otto retopologizes the film, constantly likens "upstairs" to hell. This works well, but the set design fails to reinforce it.

7/10 - Otto seems content to follow the Hawksian mould of what a noir is, rather than toy with the possibilities of where noir can go. Like "Detour", "Night in the City", "Scarlet Street", "In A Lonely Place", "Act of Violence", "Bomberang" and "Johnny Eager", "Where the Sidewalk Ends" is one of those well made second tier film noirs. It's competent and engaging, but lacks that extra special magic. Director Otto Preminger reunites with his Laura stars Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney in this rough and ready to rumble film noir: Where The Sidewalk Ends. This film is complete with a well-written crime story with interesting characters, unexpected turns, and clever dialogue and an eye-pleasing look with great camera movements and dark and gritty film noir lighting. Dana Andrews stars as Detective Mark Dixon, part mobster and part cop, who has a reputation of being too physically tough with criminals. After one case sees Dixon in search of suspects and answers, he gets far more involved than he wanted.

Dana Andrews is terrific in his role - tough and edgy, Andrews' Dixon is ready to knock any and all off their heels if they get on his bad side. He's the perfect film noir anti-hero - he's not very nice all the time, but we still root for him. Gene Tierney does a solid job in her role, as much as it is, being a sweet shoulder for Dixon. There might not be too much to Tierney's role, but she certainly goes above and beyond what others could do with the role, knocking every member of the audience out with her kind smile, gentle manner, and twinkle in her eye. The supporting cast isn't too bad either - Karl Malden being the most memorable, stepping in and giving a good supporting performance as Lieutenant Thomas. Where The Sidewalk Ends is no Laura, but it is a great film noir filled with great characters, story, and picture. Otto Preminger's noir classic works almost as a flip-side of LAURA...while that film was glitzy and features the high fa-luting Clifton Webb, this film is a whole lot seamier. Dana Andrews is a less than good cop who accidentally kills a man only to have it potentially pinned on the father of the girl he loves. Preminger keeps things moving at a brisk clip so that lapses in logic are easily overlooked. Andrews is quite fine (a lot less wooden than he's been in the past) and the stunningly beautiful Gene Tierney is stunningly beautiful! Creepy Craig Stevens plays the unlucky victim. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS is a must see and a terrific companion-piece to Preminger's equally lurid WHIRLPOOL (also starring Tierney). A detective (Dana Andrews) with a reputation for violence accidentally kills a suspect in a murder (Craig Stevens) and then tries to cover it up. The Otto Preminger directed film has plenty of atmosphere but the story gets watered down when the dead man's wife (Gene Tierney) falls for Andrews. He was doing fairly well digging himself into and out of a big hole, but she was just too much light at the end of the tunnel for a noir film. Gary Merrill is great as Scalese, a crime boss that Andrews is obsessed with bringing down, and the tension between them gives the film its energy and drive, especially a scene in a bath house with Merrill, Andrews, and Neville Brand, and the night time rendezvous outside of Bellevue Hospital, that sets up what ought to have been the film's conclusion. High marks for atmosphere, Andrews, Merrill, etc... and the general portrayal of the underworld, though the love angle and the simplistic good cop bad cop elements don't help its cause. Pretty good film from Preminger; labyrinthine at times, as it explores sets and locales from various angles and perspectives as if it were a nature film on the denizens of the modern city and how they live. In this sense it is visually and spatially satisfying, as its hero, a good cop with a bad temper, gets into very hot water when he accidentally kills a guy with a plate in his head.

Dana Andrews plays the lead as if it were Hamlet, and has never been better. The story may be pure melodrama but Andrews gives it weight, and almost raises it to the level of tragedy. As his girl, Gene Tierney is attractive but unremarkable. Gary Merrill makes for a very interesting villain, with his natural warmth providing a nice contrast to Andrews' coolness; his smiling, amiable-seeming bad guy seems to be continually challenging his nemesis by the mere fact of his being emotionally open, as opposed to the tightly wound and moralistic cop who is pursuing him.

There are no major surprises in this film, which seems transitional for all concerned. For director Preminger it is a reunion of sorts with his Laura stars, Andrews and Tierney, who were passing their career peaks at around the time the movie was made. The supporting cast,--Merrill, Karl Malden, Neville Brand--are, understandably, more optimistic, as they were all on their way up. Preminger, as serene an observer as ever, lets the events unfold without expressing a strong point of view, as the morally ambiguous ending is somewhat disappointing, for the cat and mouse game between the two antagonists seems larger and more archetypal than any mere movie could contain, much less resolve.

This is a very well-made film, meticulously directed and with some excellent character acting that at times is deeply moving - for example the scene with the loyal but unsophisticated sidekick cop and his wife. The plot is convincingly worked out and exciting. The gangster character is particularly interesting and plays an almost metaphysical role in the life of the hero. It's made clear that the cops are just as rough and ready as the underworld characters.

A couple of slight reservations: I found the ending slightly one-sided as it celebrates the hero's successful integration into the structure of the police and justice system, which collapses the ambiguity of the police characters which has been maintained up to that point. Also I found the lead female character somewhat weak: little more than a catalyst for the salvation of the hero, all she seems to do is weep and swoon as the tough guys battle it out. The charm of Otto Preminger's grandiose, visionary film noir is that it has ambiguous intentions, betraying the gloomy essence of the central character, who is still vexed by living in the shadow of his criminal father. Dana Andrews' driven, vindictive cop is shown as an outsider, irrational and destructive, who maybe can change because he might've found a good woman to look after him. The troubled man reclaims himself with his own tangled impression of rectitude. The distressing mood permanently circuited into the latter half of the story by screenwriter Ben Hecht reverberates in Andrews' tense performance as Preminger saturates the film in a relevantly prosaic substance of style. We don't just see and hear the city at night; we feel it because Preminger lets us see and hear even the most peripheral and distant factors of it.

Dana Andrews furnishes a complex character unfolded through his streaks of violence and the hatred that always infests him. As the plot develops, he is secretly entangled in situational snares, yet he is renewed by the outward acts that can be seen in the vintage noir protagonist's visceral facial expressions before he executes them.

This reflection of a specific phase in the development of the genre is an engrossing, feral and shady film noir that is set in the double-dealing climate of the underworld, where the hero is so estranged that he is always swelling with rage, and even though he loses his rational resistance, occupational principle, and ethical limits, he's still a good cop. Preminger just winks at telling a social-conscience drama about a corrupted community within the sprawling cityscape, rather keeping the thriller riding on Andrews' shoulders as an existential journey of personal ramifications about a man with an Oedipal fixation who is becoming disconnected though with the ever-shrinking influences of the law on his side and an undying perception of right and wrong.

The production companies in the early 1950s pussed out on the social-problem picture, and rather made "low-budget, low-risk thrillers" such as this, apparently in an attempt to evade the conniptions of conservative critics and social busybodies. But there is an expressionistic matter-of-factness to Preminger's inimitable approach. He injects each scene with a sense of everyday drama as a backdrop for the plot. Each supporting character must pull their own weight by doing something interesting, but none of them are cartoons or depressing comic reliefs. To him, every character thinks they're the star, as per the straight-from-the-shoulder self-assertion of Karl Malden as a missionary police inspector and a veteran waitress at a lunch counter. It is those who are the stars---Andrews and Gene Tierney, both anguished by their futile attempts to subdue their emotional intensity---who don't want to be. New York police detective Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) is a guy who has to deal with his own demons on a daily basis at the same time as coping with the normal ups and downs of everyday life. The strain produced by his internal struggle and his intense hatred of criminals, leads him to make serious errors of judgement and to fail to recognise the need for any code of conduct to be adhered to in his dealings with people on the wrong side of the law. He has a track record of treating suspects and known criminals with gross brutality and this has brought him into conflict with his superior officers who have censured him for the amount of violence he has regularly used. Dixon cannot reconcile these calls for restraint with his own extreme and irrational hatred of all criminals. He is tormented by the fact that his father was a criminal and has been left with a powerful need to live down his father's reputation and to avoid fulfilling the low expectations that many people have of him as a consequence.

When a rich Texan is murdered following an evening's gambling run by gangster Tommy Scalise (Gary Merrill), Dixon is assigned to the case. Scalise tells Dixon's superior officer Detective Lieutenant Thomas (Karl Malden) that the victim had been accompanied by Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) and his wife Morgan (Gene Tierney) and that Paine had committed the murder. Dixon goes to Paine's apartment and questions the suspect who is both inebriated and uncooperative and when Paine punches him, Dixon retaliates and Paine collapses and dies. Dixon goes on to dispose of the body in a nearby river. Paine's wife is questioned and after describing what had happened at Scalise's place, adds that her father had gone to Paine's apartment later that night to take issue with him about the fact that she'd returned home with facial bruising. Paine had previously attacked her on a number of occasions and her father, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), had threatened that if it happened again he would beat Paine up. This information leads to Taylor being arrested and charged with murder. Nobody accepts Dixon's explanation that Scalise had killed the Texan and then had Paine killed to eliminate him as a witness.

Dixon continues to make various attempts to get Scalise convicted but eventually realises that the only way to successfully achieve his goal is to write a confession about his own role in Paine's death and the cover up. He does this and also records that he is going alone to confront Scalise so that the police can arrest the gangster for Dixon's murder. The confrontation with Scalise and the eventual means by which Dixon achieves his own redemption, provide a tense and fitting conclusion to this gritty thriller.

Dana Andrews' strained and preoccupied expressions convey his character's perpetually troubled nature and his anxieties as he deals with a series of misfortunes which include and follow Paine's accidental death. Dixon, however, isn't the only one to experience misfortune as Morgan, a successful model loses her job because of all the trouble surrounding her. Her father, who'd some years earlier been awarded a diploma for assisting the police, unjustly finds himself charged with a crime he did not commit. Ken Paine who'd been a war hero had experienced unemployment and a loss of self esteem which led to alcoholism and wife beating and Scalise who'd been set up in business by Dixon's father also suffers his own misfortunes.

"Where The Sidewalk Ends" is a thoroughly engaging tale involving a group of interesting and diverse characters and a main protagonist who is the absolute personification of moral ambiguity. 'Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)' opens, appropriately, with Dana Andrews' and Gene Tierneys' names inscribed on the sidewalk, as dirty water streams down between the bars of a sewer grate. The sidewalk represents respectability, integrity and morality – only crooks and delinquents walk in the gutter. But even the most honourable of men have a tendency to misstep on occasion, and, when the sidewalk abruptly comes to an end, sometimes it proves impossible to avoid getting one's shoes wet. Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) was born in the gutter, his father a professional criminal, and has spent his entire life clawing his way back onto the sidewalk, perpetually balanced on the edge of the kerb. As a police detective, Dixon wants nothing more than to display the decency and integrity that his father lacked, but he possesses a mean-streak that he can't escape. When his quick temper leaves a murder suspect dead, Dixon finds himself becoming the very father whom he despised, a cheap criminal who'll cheat and lie to cover up his offence.

'Where the Sidewalk Ends' was the only film to reunite Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney and director Otto Preminger after the superb 'Laura (1944),' though the two films, as far as noir goes, couldn't be further apart. Whereas the earlier picture had the strong intimacy of a country-house murder tale, this film is more conventional as a gritty urban police drama. Given her ravishingly memorable performance as Laura Hunt, it's unfortunate that here Tierney is grossly underused, occupying the typical niche of the pretty, helpless romantic interest {much as she did that same year in Jules Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)'}. Andrews, on the other hand, has rarely been better, exhibiting a toughness and unhinged anger that I hadn't expected of him. Gary Merrill is suitably smug as the crime boss Scalise, but he doesn't seem mean enough for the role, and I think that an actor like Richard Conte (who played Mr. Brown in 'The Big Combo (1955)') would have better suited the character; I hadn't realised this, but Conte appeared just one year earlier in Preminger's 'Whirlpool (1949).'

The tension, as Dixon attempts to cover up his accidental crime, is absolutely riveting – certainly among the most suspenseful sequences of its era – though I feel that the situation still wasn't exploited to its full potential. The taxi driver is the only person who could have decisively identified Dixon as the perpetrator, but Preminger hurriedly skims over the moment when he passes Dixon on the stairs. Had the witness been brought in as Dixon was re-enacting his own movements outside the apartment entrance, we could have had some genuine fireworks. And why, for that matter, couldn't the taxi driver's testimony have immediately absolved Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully) from suspicion of murder? Niggling inconsistencies such as these tarnish an otherwise excellent screenplay from Ben Hecht, who infuses his gritty criminal underworld with hard-hitting cops and wise-cracking felons. Andrews' seething and implosive law-enforcer, tormented by rage and remorse, has rarely been done better, at least the equal of Robert Ryan in Nicholas Ray's 'On Dangerous Ground (1952).' This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.

There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be. A Turkish Bath sequence in a film noir located in New York in the 50's, that must be a hint at something ! Something that curiously, in all the previous comments, no one has pointed out , but seems to me essential to the understanding of this movie

the Turkish Baths sequence: a back street at night, the entrance of a sleazy sauna, and Scalise wrapped in a sheet, getting his thighs massaged. Steve, the masseur is of the young rough boxer ( Beefcake!) type , and another guy, a bodyguard? finishes dressing up. Dixon obviously hates what he sees there and gets rough right away. We know he has a reputation for roughing up suspects. Good cop but getting out of control easy. Why is it that he hates them so much ?

Could it be that he hates himself. This part of himself he inherited from his father ? That dark side that could lead him right at the end of the sidewalk, into the gutter ? What if that dark side lurked within a "closet" ? Remember : whenever Dixon meets Scalise ( 3 times), the guy is lying on a bed, and he only has men around him for company ( the irony of the " Girls" poster pinned up on the wall near his bed !).

Scalise acts funny: affected manners, cranking his neck arrogantly, defiant, shoving his inhalator ( poppers ?) into his nostrils each time he talks to Dixon. Dixon, with a vengeance, is bent on pinning down Scalise who seems not to understand : "I never saw a man so full of hate as you. I consider it almost humorous the way you came after me alone. " Four years jumping at me as if I was somebody special! Why? "

Because Scalise is someone special indeed : he is the direct inheritor of Dixon's father : " Your father liked me", "Your father set me up in business". He stands as Dixon's criminal brother, his dark side incarnate. And to top it all, he prefers the company of men. Dixon knows it well :" Who killed him (Paine)? You or one of your playmates?" Playmates ! Notice how each time they meet, Dixon manhandles Scalise: he picks the address-book out of his jacket, slaps his face, punches him. Scalise : "I warn you not to touch me! " . Dixon's homophobia is obvious. Or put it different : his unexpressed homosexuality . Dixon, aka Dixon's kid, is the son of a thief. In reaction to this, he decided to become a cop, a good one, but there is something of the criminal in him, a dark side: he is a violent copper, a murderer, a liar. Besides, he is not married, brings "a dizzy blonde" to his familiar eat-out place every now and then, but nothing else. The waitress scoffing says that he doesn't know how to make love to a woman. Dixon has a deep feeling of guilt and hates himself for those reasons." A hood and a mobster like his old man. Blood will tell". Finally, in order to achieve redemption, Dixon decides to sacrifice himself : if he gets his alter ego Scalise to kill him, he will free himself from the guilt and free the girl and her father too.

The end of the movie brings us back to the opening sequence : Scalise is pushed in the gutter and Dixon deserves the right to walk the sidewalk and wins the love of the dame. He is straight at last.

The unspoken theme of the movie could very well be that of a man who in order to cover his repressed feelings, wants to experience a woman's love ( Jean Douchet)

(These notes owe a lot to the film commentary by Jean Douchet in the French DVD edited by CarlottaI A hot-headed cop accidentally kills a murder suspect and then covers up the crime, but must deal with a guilty conscience while he tries to solve a murder case. Andrews and Tierney are reunited with director Preminger in a film noir that is as effective as "Laura," their earlier collaboration. Andrews is perfectly cast as the earnest cop, a good guy caught up in unfortunate circumstances. The acting is fine all around, including Malden as a tough police captain and Tully as Tierney's protective father. The screenplay by Hecht, a great and prolific screenwriter, is taut and suspenseful, and Preminger creates a great atmosphere. Dana Andrews is one of those actors that I've probably seen in a dozen films, but who has never really registered for me. Often stolid, taciturn, playing the same kinds of roles and looking somewhat like the similarly underrated Glenn Ford, he's an actor that takes some effort to really appreciate; but once you hit the right film....

And this is it. Preminger's moody look at New York's underbelly is as dirty and seedy as just about any 50s noir, and Andrews is in his element as too-tough cop Mark Dixon who just doesn't know how to play the game to get ahead: he hates criminals too much to always play by the rules. Early on in the film, he accidentally kills the witness to a murder involving an illegal crap game set up by a mobster who Dixon hates for personal reasons, and he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up his involvement and bring the mobster to his kind of "justice". Along the way he gets involved with the estranged wife of the man he killed (Gene Tierney) and also has to try to get her father off the hook for the murder.

Stunningly photographed by Joseph LaShelle, with hard and sparkling dialogue by Ben Hecht and a truly powerful ending with elements of tragedy and found grace in just a minute or two of time, this is another noir for the ages and might be my favorite Preminger film thus far -- it's every bit as good as the more-heralded Laura. Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, who were both so memorable in 1944's "Laura, re-teamed for this excellent 1950 film-noir.

An embittered policeman, Andrews as Mark, can't get over the fact that his father was a hoodlum who died in a police shootout while trying to break out of jail. As a result of his bitterness, Mark doesn't know when to stop using his hands. It's this inability that leads to the accidental death of a small-time hood.(Craig Stevens)

In trying to frame gangster Gary Merrill, Mark unintentionally puts the heat on innocent cab-drive, Tom Tully, who is the father of Gene Tierney, who was separated by Stevens.

This is a well-thought out film dealing with the conscience of a basically decent human being.

The ending is not exactly upbeat as Mark will have to face the music. At least, he finally admits to what he has done. The title sequence shows the credits written on a rain-soaked sidewalk as people trod on it; music is provided by someone whistling Alfred Newman's "Street Scene." Then we meet Det. Sgt. Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews), who always wanted to be something his old man wasn't: a guy on the right side of the law. But he's pretty vicious for a good guy. After several complaints over his roughing people up, his boss, Insp. Nicholas Foley (Robert F. Simon), demotes him. Foley tells him he's a good man, but needs to get his head on straight and be more like Det. Lt. Thomas (Karl Malden), who has just gotten a promotion.

Meanwhile, Tommy Scalise (Gary Merrill, in a splendidly slimy performance) has an illegal dice game going and is looking to make a sucker out of the rich Ted Morrison (Harry Von Zell), who was brought in by Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) and his beautiful wife Morgan (Gene Tierney). She figures out too late her husband is using her as a decoy, and Paine strikes her when she refuses to play along. The chivalrous Morrison intervenes but Paine knocks him out cold. That seems to be the worst of it, but later it turns out the guy is dead; and Paine looks guilty.

But this won't be Paine's story. Soon Dixon has fallen in love with Morgan—but not before losing his temper again and committing a terrible deed that he tries to cover up. Morgan's father, a tale-spinning taxi driver (Tom Tully), may take the rap for it. It's up to Dixon to try to pin the blame on Scalise.

Otto Preminger directs a script credited to Ben Hecht and three others from the novel "Night Cry" by William L. Stuart. This is a solid film noir with excellent performances and all the shadowy photography and murky morality we expect from this genre. It holds up until the brightly lit ending, which looks like something the studio had filmed to appease the censors. Of course, the classic noir directed by Preminger and starring Andrews and Tierney is "Laura." You'll enjoy this, but you can't miss that. The fully rounded character of the principal role of this movie, that of the cop torn up by his past and on a path of self-destruction so clear to the viewer, is unique for its time, 1950.

Along with the haunting music and the well written plot, the film is a prime example of film noir at its best. Close-ups of Dana's eyes reveal the anguish within, Karl Malden excels as his boss, who brooks no nonsense but also has compassion for those under his command in the precinct.

Otto Preminger made this type of movie just about his own. If there is any fault it would be with the breath taking beauty of Gene Tierney who seems oddly out of place with the hardened cop. Their scenes in the cafe, however, are wonderful and ring true.

Tom Tully, in the bit part of her father is perfect as is Gary Merrill as the hood. Great lighting and mood setting. The building where the deadly deeds take place highly atmospheric, I love the old woman in the basement.

8 out of 10. "Film noir" is an overused expression when it comes to describing films. Every crime drama seems to be a "noir". But "Where the Sidewalk Ends" really is a good example of what the genre is all about.

Very briefly, an overzealous detective (Andrews) accidentally kills a no-goodnik who works for the mobsters. The killing is blamed on the father (Tom Tully) of a woman Andrews meets and falls for (Tierney). To save Dad from Old Sparky, Andrews captures the rest of the mob and turns himself in.

The morally guilty cop is driven by impulses from the past. His father was a thief who was killed trying to shoot his way out of jail. But that doesn't excuse his actions after he accidentally offs the no-goodnik in self defense. He immediately goes to the phone to report the incident but he hesitates. He's already in hot water with the department and this could finish his career. Then, at just the wrong moment, the phone rings. It's Andrews' partner and Andrews tells him the suspect they're trailing isn't at home. He hides the body and later disposes of it by slugging a watchman and dumping the body in the river.

What motivates a guy to do something so dumb? Okay. His job was at risk. But now he's committed multiple felonies. At least I think they must be multiple. I counted obstruction of justice, assault, disposing of a body without a permit, littering, first-degree mopery, and bearing false witness against his neighbor.

In the end, we don't know whether to root for Andrews or not. The suspect didn't deserve to die, true, but it was after all an accident because Andrews didn't know he was a war hero and "had a silver plate in his head." Maybe it's that kind of ambiguity that made noir what it was, among other things such as characteristic lighting. If noir involved nothing more than black-and-white photography, murder, criminals, mystery, and suspicious women, then we'd have to include all the Charlie Chan movies under that rubric.

Andrews is pretty good. He's a kind of Mark MacPherson (from "Laura") gone bitter. He never laughs, and rarely smiles, even when seated across a restaurant table from Gene Tierney, a situation likely to prompt smiles in many men. He has no sense of humor at all. His few wisecracks are put-downs. When he shoves a stoolie into a cab and the stoolie says, "Careful. I almost hit my head," Andrews' riposte is, "That's okay. The cab's insured." Andrews could seem kind of wooden at times but this is a role that calls for stubborn and humorless determination and he handles it well. His underplaying is perfect for the part. Little twitches or blinks project his thoughts and emotional states. And I guess the director, Otto Preminger, stopped him from pronouncing bullet as "BOO-let" and police as "POE-lice." Never could make up my mind about Gene Tierney. She does alright in the role of Tom Tully's daughter, a model, but she's like Marilyn Monroe in that you can't separate the adopted mannerisms from the real personality traits. Did Tierney actually have such an innocent, almost saintly persona? When she answered the phone at home, did her voice have the same sing-along quality that it has on screen? Poor Tierney went through some bad psychiatric stuff, before there were any effective meds for bipolar disorder. And Andrews too, nice guy though he appears to have been, slipped into alcoholism before finally recovering and making public service announcements.

The DVD commentary by Peter Muller is unpretentious, informed, and sometimes amusing.

Anyway, this is a good film as well as a good example of film noir. The good guys aren't all good, although the bad guys are all bad. Maybe that ambiguity is what makes it an adult picture instead of a popcorn movie. For the kiddies, only one shot is fired on screen and nobody's head explodes. Sorry. Where the Sidewalk Ends is quite a good film-noir crime drama and is shot well in black and white and on location as well.

A copper accidentally kills a bloke who is suspected of murder and to protect himself, he covers this up and blames it on another person he doesn't like who has committed a lot of crimes in the past. But towards the end, he owns up but not before falling in love with a woman he meets who is the lover of the person he killed...

The cast includes Dana Andrews (While the City Sleeps, Curse of the Demon), Gene Tierney (Laura, The Ghost and Mrs Muir), Gary Merrill (Mysterious Island), Karl Malden (The Streets of San Francisco, Beyond the Posidon Adventure) and Craig Stevens (The Deadly Mantis). Good parts from all.

Where the Sidewalk Ends is worth checking out if you get the chance. Excellent.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. The director and two stars of LAURA (1944) were reteamed for this solid policier: Dana Andrews is the son of a criminal who becomes a cop to cut all ties with the past but cannot keep his inherited violent ways in check while interrogating suspects and, one night, he goes too far; Gene Tierney is the estranged wife of his victim, a decorated war hero who has become involved with the town's leading racketeer and Andrews' No. 1 nemesis, Gary Merrill (who had himself been the protégé of Andrews Snr.)! As usual with Preminger, this is a well-crafted movie with a notable opening credits sequence and enlivened by a good cast that also includes Karl Malden (as Andrews' incumbent superior), Tom Tully (as Tierney's motor-mouth taxi driver dad) and Neville Brand (as Merrill's chief thug), with notable support also coming from Craig Stevens (as the slimy, wife-beating victim), Bert Freed (as Andrews' sympathetic partner) and Robert F. Nolan (as Andrews' stern outgoing superior). Having already been warned by the latter to mend his ways or else, Andrews panics and impersonates Stevens for a couple of hours following his murder to put the police on the (in this case) wrong tracks of Merrill; however, after Tully becomes the prime suspect (by which time Andrews and Tierney are romantically involved), the cop goes by himself in Merrill's lair fully intending to get bumped off and 'frame' the racketeer for his own murder! Clearly, the protagonist is a complex character and Andrews rises to the challenge with a first-rate characterization that is typically complemented by the in-house Fox noir style. Riding Giants is a brilliant documentary that dives deep into the world of one of the most under-appreciated sports and brings to the surface a very human and raw emotion that only director Stacy Peralta could capture. Everything from the structure, to the players, to the amazing stock footage, to even the style in which this was filmed only reinforced the beauty and power behind the sport of surfing. Of all the surfing films that I have seen (Endless Summer, Billabong Odyssey, and Step Into Liquid) this was the most consistent and relevant. Beginning with the early ages of surfing (a brief history lesson) lasting all the way till Laird's infamous ride, Riding Giants goes further into the mind, heart, and soul of the sport than any of these other documentaries. How does it do this? By giving us the whole story, from start to finish, without fictionalizing or jig jagging from wave to wave.

To begin this film was structurally sound. In the other films that I have seen about surfing, you sometimes find yourself jumping from new person to new person, wave to wave, event to event, without any knowledge of why or who? In Riding Giants, we have a very small cast of veterans and newbies. This allows you to really go deeper into the mind of each one. Also, instead of just riding waves, we are handed more history and more personal insight to the world than before. This is what really attracted me to this film. I was impressed that instead of showing all these big waves (because it is a big wave movie), we listen to stories and see first hand what these surfers had to overcome to get to those waves. I loved the information about the "beach bums" or father's of surfing. I am still floored by the amazing tales of Greg Noll and his early adventures into the harsh deep blue. Then, to see him in person, talking about what was going on in his mind, only added more fuel to the fire. The straightforward structure that Peralta followed allowed me to follow and walk away with more knowledge of the sport than with any of the earlier films. Peralta shows so much emotion and passion that you cannot help but be amazed by what these brave people have done, and where the sport is going.

Add to a immaculate structure some intense and creative cinematography, and you have darn near perfect film. Using techniques that I last saw in The Kid Stays in the Picture, Riding Giants creates some scenes that almost feel as if they are jumping out of the screen. While it isn't 3D, it is that flat dimensional feeling that you get when you put two pictures on top of each other. In this film, it worked. It created more depth to the scenes, and really added to not just the shock value (man these waves were huge), but also the danger that these guys constantly faced. If it broke differently or they maneuvered wrong, these waves would kill them. Some did die, but it didn't stop the sport. It only created more excitement and more passion to do better. It is this love of the ocean and sport that leads me to my final point.

The human element. So many of my earlier adventures in the world of surfing documentaries left me with beautiful waves, but very little about the people. The films knew that people were watching for the waves, so it would basically go from wave to wave to wave and the maybe a short second about the person. This film was the direct opposite. Peralta created this masterpiece by still giving us the waves, but devoting so much more attention onto the surfers and the immortal question of why they do this everyday. What rushes through their minds, what pushes them to go further, and the bonds that are formed while out there on the wild blue yonder. I felt like after watching this film that I not only knew more about big wave surfing, but also about the emotional side to the sport. This was an element not as developed in the other films and pushed Riding Giants to a whole new personal level.

Overall, this film was brilliant. Never have I witnessed so much passion, devotion, and love wrapped in a structurally sound film. From beginning to end, I was impressed. I would be very happy if this film won the Oscar this year for Best Documentary, and to see a new rebirth in the surfing world and open more doors for films of this nature.

Grade: ***** out of ***** Wow! Stacy Peralta has followed up Dogtown and Z-Boys with an equally stunning documentary about the history of the big-wave surfing culture in America. Piecing together insider archival footage along with interviews from surfing legends, we are transported into the daring and free-spirited life of the early pioneers whose sheer passion for the sport spawned an industry that today touches the lives of millions.

It's getting to know these icons and their stories that gives the film its warmth. You can feel the respect Peralta has for this group as we hear accounts of Greg Noll striding from a pack of awestruck fellow surfers on the beach to singularly challenge 50-foot swells off Hawaii's North Coast. Or Jeff Clark, surfing the outrageously dangerous Maverick off the northern California coast all alone for 15 years before it was discovered and became the surfing destination in California. And the storybook history of Laird Hamilton, today's surfing icon. Hearing Greg Noll reverently refer to Hamilton as the best surfer ever sent chills up my spine.

(As an aside, Noll, Clark and others were at the Sundance screenings. Noll humbly described himself as an old, over-the-hill surfer. He was deeply moved by the audience reception of him and film. Both he and Clark were as likable in person as they were in the film.)

Riding Giants pays homage to these extraordinary athletes while at the same time rewarding us with an insight into the magnitude and terrifying power of the waves they seek to conquer, the gut-wrenching vertical drops required to get into them, and the almost unfathomable combination of adrenaline and fear that the surfers experience each time they take on a monster swell.

All this, and the movie has more. For those of us that didn't live in California in the 60's, we get an insight into the impact of surfing on American pop culture. (And, to my surprise, the impact of the movie Gidget on surfing!) Peralta also weaves in a primer on some of the technical aspects of the sport and the history of innovation in equipment. I'm not a surfer, but like the rest of the Sundance audience, I was absolutely captivated by this film. Peralta is staking his claim as the Big Kahuna of American documentaries. Riding Giants is an incredible documentary detailing the history and stories of three influential big-wave surfers, Gregg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton. Stacy Peralta did an amazing job taking on the role of director and should be congratulated for doing such a brilliant job. The structure of the film is edited brilliantly and works perfectly with the narration, interviews, animation and surfing footage. The music soundtrack just adds to the overall satisfaction of watching this film, making Riding Giants brilliant viewing. Personal highlights include any of Greg Noll's comments, what with his straight-to-the-point frankness, Laird Hamilton's footage at Teahupoo, and the out-takes at the end of the movie. But really this entire film is one big, recommended highlight that comes highly recommended if you have the opportunity to see. It's a shame it isn't more well known, but it is a gem deserving of attention. 10/10 There's been a spate of recent surfing movies that I seem to haphazardly run across without advance warning. I caught this treasure on digital cable this week and what a pleasant surprise it was! The focus is on the pioneers of big wave surfing from the 60's Greg Noll to our current Laird Hamilton, from Waimea Bay to Mavericks to Jaws. Hell, I could watch a movie just about Laird Hamilton - one of this generation's great athletes - so the rest is just gravy. There's loads of good surfing mixed in with interviews of past and present surfing stars, in pleasant, relaxed and unpretentious fashion. Of all the surfing movies I've seen this tells the big-wave story the best, and I think it's my favorite. Enjoy! This was the best documentary I've ever seen!! I just saw Lords of Dogtown and wanted to know more about Stacy Peralta, and was surprised and happy to find out this was one of his films as well. Great Job Stacy! I was kicking back at work last week, bored O*&^%less and this movie came on. Growing up in Orange County in the 80's I surfed up and down the local beaches and so did my dad when he was a teenager. I grew up at the beach, my parents took me every weekend, I body surfed, boogeyboarded then moved up from there. This movie just captivated me. It was way before my time but it was awesome to see what these guys went through..TRUE PIONEERS! This movie is a collectors item. I rate this 10 out of 10. Why?

* It offers insight into something I barely understand - the surfers surf because it's all they want to do; Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing; Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is a great history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. None taught me what this movie did * The movie was very well edited. It flowed well. The interviews were outstanding * It's interesting from start to finish

In summary, it's about as good as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 10/10 I used to write comments at IMDb, but I don't do so anymore. It happens that IMDb has become massive, and consequently subjectiveness has ruined scores. What do I mean? That anyone that is not particularly fond of movies and doesn't have any expertise on the subject, watches some crap (or the opposite), and in case he likes it, delivers a 10, and if he doesn't he goes for a 1. This of course, cannot measure anything correctly. Now for the film. I truly regret ever having delivered any 10s to some very few films, because then I must score this one with 12 or 13, which is not possible. This documentary has something that I don't expect to watch ever again in my whole life in any other film. It is simply mesmerizing, and it's not just a way of saying; it really is. The last 25 minutes have a load of energy, visual rejoice and wisdom -the words spoken by the starring guys-, that really... there's no possible match. I don't keep movies, rarely would I find any sense in doing so, but this one is the kind of film you should buy and keep, and watch from time to time, maybe 10 or 20 times as years go by. I got nothing more to say. This is a genuine, objective 10 for me. If you have seen Dogtown and Z-Boys or have any interest in seeing the real, non-caricature, "Real American" side of America then Riding Giants will hit deeper than anything you've seen before.

This film is "unreal", a facile term if ever there was one, but hugely appropriate if you can derive any form of literal meaning out of it - it is a 100% factual documentary, but with all the drama of an opera, and the completely apparent sense of love, expert and knowing instilled by Stacy Peralta's direction and narration, this film expertly leads you from swell to big wave while keeping you completely enthralled in everything you are being given the privilege of seeing.

This film is a symphony, crafted as well as Beethovens 9th, beginning beautifully with its prelude in Hawaii, tugging deeply on human emotion in Santa Cruz and finishing with uproar, triumph and crescendo in Laird Hamiltons feats, again in Hawaii.

Like classical music; like Beethoven's 9th, Ride of the Valkyries or Barbers Adagio for Strings, this may be the only piece you like, but it's worth it. Trust me. I stumbled upon this movie on cable and was totally hooked. The story of a group of surfers who ride the big waves, waves that are monstrously huge, waves that would make any rational person run away in terror is a one that manages to be spectacular and make you understand why people spend their lives chasing waves. There is nothing special about the film, other than it brings together some very interesting people who are are in love with what they do and lets them talk. Sure there are scenes of them surfing, but what makes this movie so special is the people. Here are a bunch of guys who are so enthusiastic about what they do that it crosses over to the people watching. Half way into this movie you'll want to go off and learn to surf as well. Few documentaries have ever managed to covey the passion that these people have and its the films ability to make us feel it that makes this a great film. See it. I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of "riding giants," but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.

In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is "Never surf/dive/swim by yourself." He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left.

In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world.

This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is! Again Stacy Peralta is true first to the people who lived the story. By letting those involved in the genesis of big wave surfing tell us their stories, how it felt and what they thought, you get the feeling of having been there. The film carries you from the fifties to the near present by focusing on three primary architects contributing to the evolution and development of the sport. Candid "home movie" like videos of themselves and their contemporaries take you further into their world. The layers of music, culture, technical information,a pure view of the participant's athleticism, and fabulous big wave images you get a full scope perspective of this aspect of surfing.

Thoroughly worth watching. Noll's comfortable way of rolling out blunt comments, often with expletives, to describe things that he is more knowledgeable about than most is quite refreshing. There is one other character in the film that constantly tries to verbalize complicated issues, using more language than necessary. This guy should never have been given a Thesaurus. Cut to Noll and you know you're in for a treat!

The way the pioneers of big wave surfing are portrayed is very evocative of a "lost era". Nevermind the fact that no one knows how these guys made a living, much less took care of issues like medical care. The use of old film clips throughout was masterfully done. As a popular sport, surfing was liked by many people. Just after watched the documentary, I realized how dangerous it could be. In fact the surfers also scared of big waves. Even somebody got killed by it. But they still kept on surfing and enjoyed themselves. Only brave people can do it.

According to what the surfers said, we can clearly knew what they felt when the big wave came at them. You have to adjust to your best and avoid direct strike from the big wave. When you win it, that will obviously bring you huge satisfaction.

The amazing cinematography cannot be overlooked. That is absolutely visual enjoyment.

An excellent sports documentary. 8/10 Riding Giants is an amazing movie. It really shows how these people lived back then just to surf. Their lives were basically surfing, living, breathing, and having fun. They didn't care about money, jobs, girls or any thing. To them the waves were their girls. I have never been on a surf board, and it looks so hard, I don't understand how they can stay on them, it makes no sense at all. This is an awesome movie and if you love surfing then you should really see this movie. If you're a surfer and you want to find out who started surfing, how it came into life, who is really famous at it or what ever, then you should really see it. It might be a documentary, but it is really good. -Tara F.- Everyone has already commented on the cinematography (good to great), the personalities (larger than life), the structure (chronological, with many references to surf culture through time). What is missed is a bigger question of sociological importance: chucking mainstream American culture for something more fulfilling and rewarding.

I was a surfer in the 1970s. We used to watch 16mm films at the local high schools in SoCal. I remember the great feeling of surfing all day until my skin radiated heat, putting on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and going to watch the latest surf film at night. Often, the narrator was the filmmaker himself, reading a script off sheets of paper. Sometimes, a surf band or proto-punk band would add music. I was never happier. Except for the hooting and hollering, seeing 'Riding Giants' took me back in time.

IT also reinforced a feeling that living life on the edge, not worrying about the money and the climbing the social and corporate ladder, not keeping up with the Joneses, pushing yourself physically and mentally for a fleeting moment of joy and jubilation - may be the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" At least for those like Greg Noll, Laird Hamilton and the like, they seem to have found something that few of us are bold enough or honest with ourselves enough to pursue: to live life solely on our own terms. Maybe society would fall apart if we all did exactly what we wanted in life, but it is wonderful to see people who actually are living out their dreams.

It was this message that really impressed me. If it were possible to distill the heart and soul of the sport--no, the pure lifestyle--of surfing to its perfect form, this documentary has done it. This documentary shows the life isn't just about the waves, but it's more about the people, the pioneers, and the modern day vanguard that are pushing the envelope of big wave further than it's ever been.

Stacy Peralta--a virtual legend from my early '80s skateboarding days as a SoCal teen--has edited reams of amazing stock and interview footage down to their essence and created what is not just a documentary, but a masterpiece of the genre. When his heart and soul is in the subject matter--and clearly it is here--his genius is fraught with a pure vision that doesn't glamorize, hype, or sentimentalize his subject. He reveres surfers and the surfing/beach lifestyle, but doesn't whitewash it either. There is a gritty reality to the sport as well.

There is so much that could be said about this documentary, about the surfers, the early history of the sport, and the wild big wave surfers it profiles. Greg Noll, the first big wave personality who arguably pioneered the sport; Jeff Carter, an amazing guy who rode virtually alone for 15 years on Northern California's extremely dangerous Maverick's big surf; and, the centerpiece of the documentary, Laird Hamliton, big wave surfing's present day messiah.

There is tremendous heart and warmth among all these guys--and a few girls who show up on camera--and a deep and powerful love for surfing and the ocean that comes through in every word. I found the story of how Hamilton's adopted father met him and how Hamilton as a small 4- or 5-year old boy practically forced him to be his dad especially heartwarming (and, again, stripped of syrupy sentimentality).

If you like surfing--or even if you don't--this is a wonderful documentary that must be watched, if only because you're a student of the form or someone who simply appreciates incredibly well-done works of art. Riding Giants

This documentary traces the history of surfing and follows three other well-made and acclaimed surfer films, Dana Brown's Endless Summer, its follow-up Endless Summer II by Bruce Brown, Dana's son, and Step into Liquid (IMAX). I saw the first, not the others.

While the surfing footage is spectacular, I valued most the film-maker's historic perspective. He takes us back to the sport's origins almost a hundred years ago, and shows how it evolved to its present form. This includes extensive interviews with leading personalities and performers, how surfboard designs changed over time, which beaches in Hawaii and California were most frequented by the world-class surfers, and what an incredible adrenalin rush the sport provided them. The athletes lived for months at a time on beaches, surfed from dawn to dusk, camped on rudimentary bunks, fished for food, and went back out on their boards the next day. What a euphoric way to spend your youthful days.

We see how the media discovered and promoted the sport after a slow start. What was the biggest boost to the sport? Believe it or not, it was the movie Gidget, although I suspect copyright issues may prevent crediting the Beachboys' surfing songs like Surfer Girl and Surfing USA. The Surfing magazine and Encyclopedia of Surfing (who knew there was such a tome) are mentioned for their contributions. We also see commentaries from the pioneers of the sport, their families, and how the current generation benefited from the originators in the 1960s. One such story is how 40-year old Laird Hamilton, considered today's greatest surfer, bonded with an earlier leading surfer, introduced him to his single mom, who he married before becoming his step-dad.

A rousing musical background of contemporary music from all eras accompanies the story. Have I whetted your appetite? Wonderful. Have a great ride. I like this movie because it is a fine work of cinema, made by people who care enough to make it art and not just home movies. It is filled with Super-surfer Greg Noll's home movies, and a boatload of amateur video from others who align themselves with his 50-year passion. Nevertheless, it has been expanded to the degree that it approaches aesthetic glory. It is filled with artistic talent, and athletic talent, however trivial you might think surfing to be athletic. Surfers are not astronauts nor test-pilots. Nor are they surgeons(perhaps) or Ph.d's(again, perhaps). It believes in the quest of the surfer. It believes in the beauty of human goofiness. It believes in the great gift of peace, which comes from the cessation of war. Surfers celebrate the cessation of war on the north beach of an Hawaiian island attacked by Japanese zeroes fifteen years before. It celebrates the down-time of a country which fought a cold war-instead of a hot-war - with the Russian socialists. Surfing is the ultimate narcissism. It is dangerous, but only slightly historical. I suspect Alexander the Great would not be celebrated for his surfing technique. He had to go out and conquer a few dozen countries to get the favorable press he has received. This movie has no military heroes. It has no guns. The only beach-head surfers conquer has a beer-stand and and a surfboard shop. This is not a problem. Peace is not desperate. It is the joy of exhalation. I have this movie on DVD and must have watched it thirty times by now. I must really love it, right? Well, not really.

I was a surfer earlier in my life, and I loved the sport. To this day, I am fascinated by good surfing. Riding Giants has plenty of that, and thus I am a sucker for the thing. But I definitely have some bones to pick with it. (Peralta, you listening?).

First, the movie has too little faith in its subject matter. The cutting and editing of the waves is such that the majority of them are sort of ruined. Very, very few waves are actually shown ridden from start to finish. Peralta seems addicted to a hyper kinetic, cut-and-pace method. It gets especially bad in the middle section on the spot Mavericks in Northern California. Not a single wave is ridden start to finish. Almost the entire section on Mavericks (one third of the movie) is a jarring montage of clips with an equally jarring soundtrack. I can understand the effect Peralta was trying to achieve with Mavericks, as the place is a truly frightening mix of bone crushing waves in frigid open ocean chop, but he goes way too far. Mavericks is not just a bad acid trip. Waves are actually ridden there, even with great performances. It would have been good to see some of them. If Peralta thinks this is a grand sport (and I am sure he does), then why does he insist on messing with the subject matter so much? At times, the editing reduces the movie to the inscrutable. There is one fast clip in the section on Peahi in Hawaii, which I still cannot understand. Even if I run it on slow motion on DVD, the image is too fast to be decipherable. It must be a couple of frames in length at the max.

Second, have the guys who made this thing ever learned about understatement? It is particularly galling to watch the narrated directors' version on DVD. These guys sound like two over-the-top valley girls. The same sentiment shows up in the main production. Every thing is always so goddamn "amazing" etc. One character in particular is just plain obnoxious -- Sam George, the editor of Surfer Magazine, who is practically peeing in his pants every time he has anything to say. He is a super drag on the movie.

There is a tremendous amount of effort that went into this movie. I mean, just to get the old movie shots they have, and also, all of the interviews. The movie is a great story, and I think it is generally captivating entertainment. Thematically it is well laid out, with the three parts centering around Greg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton respectively. There are some uses of still photography that are phenomenal. In the directors' narration, they say it is a new type of 3D technology, and it really works. The three principle characters shine, both in their interviews and in the water. As an athlete, Laird Hamilton is a revelation. He rises to the pinnacle of his sport in a way that I have only seen Michael Jordan do in basketball. And too, the story of his meeting his father is a gem. It really touched me.

It is just that the movie could have been so much more. The very last part of the movie, when the credits roll, gives a hint of what it could have been. There are some beautiful panoramic shots of waves with a magnificent soundtrack. (The soundtrack in the rest of the movie is rubbish, though you may like it if you are fan of the modern, frenetic school of rock.) Anyway there's my two cents... This documentary was very thorough and exposing, and at the same time entertaining, which I thought was rather impressive. I felt as if they did a very good job covering the sport from its' origin until present day, but nonetheless, there is a reason why I do not give such a high score to this film...

I felt as if at times the story focused too much on the 'proper nouns' of the sport, so to speak: too much on individual locations at which to surf, and especially too much on individual surfers. I felt as if the documentary had more to do with the nature of the sport, the ideology of the sport, etc. it would have been better (although this of course was covered, I do not think it got as much time as it warranted).

And for many people who are not absolutely nuts about surfing, at times hearing them go on and on about specific locations and specific surfers could become boring. Although the video clips and the in-depth research is well-respected, it could have been presented in a way that would be better for those who are not avid surfers.

Furthermore, my biggest disappointment was at times they spoke of how utterly amazing and miraculous certain events in surfing history were yet they did not have the actual footage of these events unfolding, and the whole time you are waiting to see on the silver screen this amazing, breath-taking event that these men are talking about as life-changing moments, and in the end all you get is a lot of men talking about it, and not the actual footage. It was far too tantalizing to myself to hear these stories, and then be unable to see them. I understand the difficulty of obtaining footage of everything, but please: do not brag an event up so much, and then not show it.

Overall, a very fresh documentary that I enjoyed watching; not the best documentary due to the above reasons, but being very fresh and having some extremely exciting footage and a good soundtrack, it is a documentary that I would advise everybody to check out. Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.

Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal "We All Need Love" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable "Mechnical Man" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy. I used to love watching "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" Friday nights on ABC's TGIF. I think this was one of the best shows on TGIF. My friends and I used to get together every Friday just to watch this show and we never missed an episode.

My favorite character was Salem. He was adorable and sooo funny. I liked Sabrina's boyfriend Harvey, too. He was HOT. I think Melissa Joan Hart played a good teenage witch, too. My favorite episodes were "Sabrina Through the Looking Glass" and "Hilda and Zelda: the Teenage Years". Those episodes were great.

Overall I really miss this show. I hope one day ABC brings it back with new episodes. I give this show 10/10 stars. Why did I enjoy the show to the last episode? Because of the true talent Melissa Joan Hart and her supporting cast had of demonstrating that whit, comedy, light-hearted humor, and deep thought could actually coexist. What I enjoyed most was the fact that I could come home from a hard day's work, and bust a smile... I was inspired... and why? It was an inspiration to watch as this magical person was so happy while helping others.

Sabrina was a hero in my opinion... even though she was vulnerable in ways that were not so different from our own... to very different; she had powers at her fingertip, wishes, and command that could be used for good or bad which may only exist in many of our imaginations. Most everything we see, have, know about, own, or even desire... can be used for good or bad, and how we choose to define that, defines the person we are.

She traveled the globe and other realms with these constant and unwaivering ideas in mind... to learn, to live, to laugh, and to love. She was always learning how to improve her skills to the benefit of all around her; she made mistakes as she was living life, going through different journey's of growth, as she, her aunts, and Salem (the underrated, yet imperfect hero) did well to demonstrate that even through mistakes, you can still be noble, gifted, and wonderful.

She also demonstrated many selfless, learning, and loving acts as she went along her way. If this isn't reason enough for 10 stars in this war torn world where people are so hostile toward each other, not realizing how differences are the spice of life rather than a reason to kill... then I don't know what is. This show was most certainly a trip to a better world as well as an inspiration to be better ourselves and a gift intended to bust a smile on our chops... I've heard from a doctor before that everything that I've mentioned above leads to a healthy "hart"... and isn't that what we all need? :) I liked this TV show because it was it's own thing a girl who is on her sixteenth birthday finds out that she is a witch and her she lives with her aunties in the house and they are both witches as well. Well this took her about a few weeks of getting used to. When she used her powers for the first time it was so funny because she turned her enemy into a pineapple. She had to turn back time and repeat a day. This series is really cool and it is a typical teenage series but it wore thin when she moved out of her house and to an apartment with her fellow college friends and then it got boring and I stopped watching.I loved her aunties they were so funny and the other one was really ditzy. I loved Valerie and I hated Sabrina's enemy Libby she was ugly. I love Sabrina! Its one of my fave shows!! My favourite episodes are; the one where she turns Libby into a geek, the first episode, the true love episode and most of the rest from the first series. I do think the college episodes were not as good as the high school ones but they were better than the last series which was awful. Valerie was a good character as she was more rounded than Jenny, but Jenny was in some brilliant episodes. Hilda and Zelda were amazing, and there seemed to be no explanation for where they went! Libby was a good character too. I never liked Morgan or Roxy, they just weren't as good as her other friends. Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, "Wild Wild Sabrina" where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important. Sabrina the Teenage Witch was one of my favorite T.V shows of life :D i used to watch back to back episodes everyday when i got home from school. So far i think i've watched every episode at least once and the whole series 3 or 4 times. Melissa Joan Hart plays the perfect teenage girl/witch with normal teenager troubles that we can all relate to. She's funny, smart, outgoing, witty, and a lot more. Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick both fit the part very well as Sabrina's aunts. Zelda, the intelligent scientist, and Hilda the crazy, wacky one make a perfect balance in Sabrina's life. Though i must agree that the college years aren't as good as her high school years, but that doesn't mean they weren't still good. I think the ending was awesome although it was not what i hoped, it made sense and i loved it anyways. :) What I love about this show is that it follows the lives of modern witches and it's a blast to experience their everyday love, humor and adventure. The literature of magic is so diverse, portraying the ideas of classical, medieval and modern wizardry, like Harry Potter and Sabrina. With Sabrina the Teenage Witch, this show is so fun and unique because it lets us experience a lot of that modern wizardry, seven seasons worth! This show has so many great qualities and it's a joy to watch Sabrina live her daily life in the mortal and "other" realm. I would recommend this to any family because the television series is clean, funny and adventurous. Classic! By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though! I know sometimes its really really corny... But the acting is amazing and Melissa Joan Hart is as cute as a button. I love this show a lot, and I'm almost embarrassed that I do b/c the show has a rep. for being really corny, but it makes me feel good. My only problem is that sometimes it can be pretty low budget - sometimes actors change and you just have to deal with it... Like Sabrina's father is 2 different guys throughout the course of the movie... I mean, couldn't they just say he was an uncle or something? Still, I can't help but loving this show. Harvey and Sabrina make a really cute couple and Salem is absolutely hilarious. I definitely recommend it if your looking for some light and funny entertainment... My favorite episode is "Pancake Madness"... a HILARIOUS episode. The best season is probably 3... I'm not really a fan of some of the seventh season twists... Once you get to college, Morgan joins the group and her dialog is painful and very poorly acted... Plus she is ugly, so the jokes about how she is only surviving off her good looks were lost on me... But I think it was set up to have a really good eighth season and I was really sad to see one of my favorite shows canceled! I remember this show as it became a regular viewing on a Saturday evening.

Sabrina is a young girl who moves in with her aunts who as it turns out are witches and she is one to. So Sabrina must learn how to control hr powers and use them effectively. She also must deal with school a vicious rival named Libby, her ditsy best friend and boyfriend Harvey Kinkle...

The show was funny and entertaining. It kept Saturday evenings entertaining for a 10 year old boy..and made him laugh out loud...And flirt with 'Libby'.... And it's not because since her days on "Clarissa Explains It All" that I've had a bit of a crush on Melissa Joan Hart, who at the time this show was popular was already well into her 20s, but was still able to get teenage roles. "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" was Hart's next big leap after her "Clarissa" days. Based on the comic strip, Sabrina Spellman is - you guessed it! - a teenage witch who attempts to balance her witchcraft antics with the demands of everyday teenage life. She is aided in her endeavors by her two aunts and a wise-cracking black cat as she goes from high school, to college, and finally to her career in journalism.

As usual, Hart is the show's heart & soul. "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" is quite moving and very funny, and it's a shame that it took me so long to realize how great it was. I only wish there were some newer episodes that we could all enjoy.

10/10 For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the "straight men," or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical "evil cheerleader" and "totalitarian principal." Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year. My kids recently started watching the reruns of this show - both the early episodes on the N, and the later ones on ABC Family - and they love it. (I wasn't aware the show had even lasted past the first or second season) I'm curious as to what prompted all of the cast changes - I've seen them described as "highly publicized," and yet a half hours searching efforts on the web have revealed nothing but endless comments on how the early episodes were so much better than the later episodes. (Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference - the scripts and themes remain largely the same throughout - but they do lose some great people along the way) My daughter has put the DVDs on her wish list, so perhaps the land of special features and commentary will shed some light on all of this. I also wish they'd done some self-referential humor about the changes - like on "Boy Meets World" where they drop the little sister for an entire season or so, and when a different actor later shows up playing her, they ask her where she's been and she says "upstairs," or when early series token geek "Minkus" shows up for the high school graduation, they ask him where he's been and he says "over there," pointing to the part of the classroom never shown by the camera, before saying "Hey, Mr. Turner, wait up!" and running off screen (Mr. turner being another character who left) Oh well - maybe there will be an E true Hollywood story on this or something? I was just glad to see Aunt Hilda show up for the finale - she was always one of my favorites - it's too bad it couldn't have been a more encompassing cast reunion. (The Zelda candle just didn't cut it for me) Even though there are no new episodes, and it is rarely showed. I used to love the magic of Sabrina and the teenage witch. I never got to see the last episodes, but I do want to know what happened to Miles, or Josh? And why did the aunts have to disappear out of the show for good?I'm sure the ending went to be perfect. But there are a lot of questions unanswered. And I want to see the last episode of S.T.T.W! Because I heard she decides between Erin and Harvey on her wedding day! I really hope that she picks Harvey! And may I say Nate Richart is HOTT!! Too bad hes too old for me though. Melissa Joan Hart has her own sense of cuteness that she adds to the show, but there are many little "stupid" things for the show such as how famous bands come out of nowhere and play songs and all the cast is listening, its kind of stupid. Plus the cat starts to really get lame, as the show continued, the jokes began just to get stupid, and the things that the audio controlled "audience" would laugh at, I would think it was so lame. Don't get me wrong, at some parts it was funny, but I think the show just kind of lost its "magic" so to speak as the show went on. I give kudos to all the cast though for trying, although that Soleil Moon Frye girl had no taste, and she was a horrid actress. I wonder what Melissa or any of the cast is doing now for that matter, now that the show has ended. i really liked the first 2 seasons. because a lot of good characters disappeared later on. like most shows are kinda slow at first then get better in later seasons, but this is the absolute reverse. jenny from the 1st season and Valarie from the 2nd season were Sabrina's friends, i really didn't care for the others, jenny and Valarie were her coolest friends. i think for some reason, the producers wanted us to not like her college friends for some reason, they were so cruel to Sabrina. but my favorite episode from season 1 is cat showdown and my favorite episode from season 2 is witch trash, that is the funniest episode. i also thought it was funny how Libby was popular but she was always jealous of Sabrina, and never seemed to have a real boyfriend but was always wanting to be with Harvey. i just wished they could have made more better ones. i also liked how the first 2 seasons, during the opening credits Sabrina would say a few words while wearing a costume, like in the pilot episode where she's in the witch costume, i liked how she said "this is so not me" and later on she kept trying to change herself to something else is what i think, but this is a really cool show. it is kinda like the andy griffith show in a way because it good at first but once it turned color and barney fife left, it was longer good. but i still like to watch it, but the only reason i watch later seasons is because of sabrina. what i meant about the opening sequence is: the opening titles of seasons 1-3 shows Sabrina in front of a mirror posing with several different costumes and outfits as the cast members' names quickly flash on the bottom of the screen. At the end, Sabrina would say some sort of pun that related to the outfit she is wearing, then disappear. the opening sequence of season four includes the characters in bubbles. the opening credits of seasons 5-7 features Sabrina at various locations around Boston The sitcom revolved around a girl who must learn to be responsible for her own actions. As she had the power of magic, she often used it to try to help her loved ones or herself, frequently resulting in literal puns that are often disastrous and always humorous.

The program began with Sabrina's adventures in high school in the fictional town of Westbridge, located near Boston, Massachusetts (as opposed to Greendale in the comics). In the series' later seasons, Sabrina graduated from high school and enrolled in college, then moved on to her attempts to live on her own and keep a job at the local newspaper. Breaking further from its comic roots, the show ended with Sabrina's wedding, although, in the end, she abandoned the wedding and ran off with Harvey.

Many episodes involve Sabrina getting to meet, through natural or supernatural means, popular real-life musical artists of the time, including Coolio, the Violent Femmes, the Backstreet Boys, Phantom Planet, Davy Jones of The Monkees, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne, Daniel Bedingfield, Hanson, Eden's Crush, Savage Garden, 'N Sync, and Ashanti. Course of Nature, the band of Melissa Joan Hart's then-boyfriend (now husband) Mark Wilkerson, appeared in an episode in 2002. When Sabrina first came onto our screens i was about 12, and therefore spent my teenage years watching the teenage witch get into all kinds of weird predicaments.

It was always one of my favourite programmes, the witchy feeling of sixties sitcom 'Bewitched' but this time the character was cooler. I always liked Sabrina because she was smart. She was also friendly and easy going which made her enjoyable to watch. The characters at the beginning were great; Harvey, Jenny, Libby, the quizmaster, Salem and Mr. Poole (my personal fave, shame he left so early on) Hilda and Zelda her aunts started off OK, but then became irritating.

I liked Mr. Kraft too as he was always that little bit closer to discovering Sabrina's secret. What i loved about the first three series was the original ideas, the discovering of the family secret and learning new spells but as it went on it became more predictable. Too many characters came and left, such as Valerie, Dreama and Brad and then they decided to do Sabrina at college which ruined it for me.

Sabrina became self-absorbed at college, there was less magic, no spell book, no aunts living with her and Roxie, Miles and Morgan were annoying.

The last series was boring, and i only watched to see what happened in the end. Not having Hilda and Zelda seemed wrong somehow and Miles was gone just like that. The last episode made me feel a lot better though (SPOILER)having Sabrina end up with Harvey on her wedding day to dullard Aaron was great! Overall a great programme if you forget the poor last two or three series which reminded me of so many teen shows. Magical. I used to love Sabrina The Teenage Witch and have seen every single episode. I remember when I used to sit at 6pm every night and wait for it to come on Nickelodeon, however when Sabrina left high school the show began to go downhill. The best series has to be when she was friends with Valerie (I'm not sure which one that is). From there the next series (friends with Dreama) was still really good, but when she left high school it just didn't seem right. All the main characters seemed to have left, which meant that it didn't have as much of the old "sparkle", however the first series where Sabrina is in college is still relatively good and watchable, however when her aunt's leave and Sabrina moves into their house it just isn't right. She is no longer a teenager, so therefore the name of the show isn't right and without Hilda and Zelda and Josh the show just doesn't seem right, especially when Sabrina nearly marries someone that isn't Harvey. Thank goodness he came through in the last five minutes of the last episode to take her away. All in all I still love to watch the old episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but I think the writers took it too far and should have left it with Sabrina leaving high school. Because after that the show definitely lost some of it's magic I remember first watching Sabrina when it came to TV in the UK on ITV1 when i was 13/14. I'm now 24 and still love it now as much as i did when i first watched it. I get a little stick from some of my friends for still watching a "kids show" but i don't care! lol Caroline Rhea as "Hilda" is my personal favourite character and Later on Morgan also became another of my favourite characters. I remember spending so much time watching various special events honouring Sabrina on the TV station Nickeleoden UK. I love Mellissa Joan-Hart, she was great in "Clarrissa Explains All" but so much better in this. I was gutted when they decided to finish it! I hope it will soon be released on DVD here in the UK - I'll be first in line! lol x when i first started watching these it became one of my favourite shows. Melissa Joan hart is very funny and talented so were the aunts and the other characters and the star of of the show Salem the cat, he was immensely funny. the first few season in my opinion were the best where Sabrina was a teenager in high school adapting to witch life. they were most funniest, most entertaining and most um... good. i'm not a fan of when they started introducing Brad and Dreamer cause i quite liked Valerie, but they were okay the problem was they were only in it for one season. if you're gonna have new people at least keep them. i didn't like Josh he was a tw*t, i preferred Harvey but then he disappeared. and they got rid of Libby! it would have been awesome if thy had been bickering in theses seven years. and Mr. craft as well, if him and Zelda got married that would have been gold! then Sabrina moves out of her aunts house and into Roxie/Miles/Morgan's house. i didn't like theses people either, it didn't really seem they liked Sabrina. Sabrina seemed to lose her charm and stuff and the aunts seem to be shunned out of her life and into they're own stupid story lines. i kind of stopped watching it for a while and the old re-runs were back and i was like whoo-hoo! LOL. i must say the last few seasons were absolutely terrible.they got rid of the aunts which sucked cause they were a big part of the show. then suddenly she lets those two freeloaders move in to the nice house when they treated he like dirt. and now she's working at some magazine shop so they're putting loads celebrity guest stars into the show, if they're in every episode it kind of ruins it. the programme just really went downhill and lost its luster. i saw the last episode. it had the aunts in it (Zelda was reduced to a candle) and she's about to get married but she runs off with Harvey the end. i would have liked to know what happened after. well thats my review and the only thing i can say is the only thing that stayed it's appealing self through the seven years was Salem the cat. Oh my gosh i live in Kentucky and when Mellisa Joan hart came to Louisville she went right through my neighborhood and waved at me i am filthy rich so she wanted to look at my neighborhood oh and i Love being rich any ways she came for the Derby back to my interest in the show...... that show makes you want to point your finger at something and make it disappear i mean it is just so creative and i love it i would love to be on that show....... that show is just amazing i mean who ever came up with that show i want to just give them a big kiss i mean it makes me feel better when I'm sick and makes me happy when I'm mad i mean if someone tells me they don't like it i will talk some sense in to you OK OK It is finally coming out. The first season will be available March 2007. It is currently airing on ABC Family from 4-5 pm eastern time Monday through Friday. The last episode will air on December 19th at 4:30. I missed it the first 100 times around. I wish I could buy the whole series right now. Who does she pick? I have to write 10 lines in order to reply to the first comment. What am I going to say. La da da de de. La da da de de nope only up to 8 how do I get to 9 almost almost awww 9 now I need 10 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, I missed counted this is only number 8. Punky Brewster is pretty awesome too. Almost to 10 almost awwwwww. Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL! I saw "Mystery Men" on my birthday in 1999 while I was away on vacation. When I came back home, I went to see it again. Keep in mind, I was twelve, but at that time it was the coolest movie ever. I even collected the ultra-rare action figures (I have them all except for the Bowler, which is the hardest to find. They made Mr. Furious, The Shoveler, The Blue Raja, The Spleen and Captain Amazing, in case your wondering. There IS a William H. Macy action figure in existence!). I've watched it many times over the years and it still remains a favorite of mine, due mostly to fond childhood memories. It's not a perfect movie, but it definitely deserves another look and perhaps a cult following.

The story: a bunch of low-level superheroes save the day. This was executed again in the mediocre, direct-to-video "The Specials" as well. But this is the other end of the spectrum: big budget (huge budget, almost $100 Million I think) studio comedy. Yes, the effects are overblown and the huge sets and wonderful production design are a bit much considering the plot. But don't think this as a stupid, special effects-y superhero movie--it's a PARODY. They fight a villain named Cassanova Frankenstein, people. He has a psychofrakulator, whatever that is (it's a doomsday device, he'll take over the world, yada yada.) And resident superhero Captain Amazing (a Zapp Brannigan-esque Greg Kinnear, with commercial-product-logos on his costume, nice touch) is kidnapped. Time for the Mystery Men: Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller, gets mad), The Shoveller (William H. Macy, beats people with shovels), The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria, British, throws forks), The Bowler (Janeane Garafolo, bowls), Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell, guess what he does), The Spleen (the great Paul Reubens, farts), and The Sphinx (Wes Studi, cuts guns in half with his mind, I am not kidding). The rest of the fantastic cast of character actors includes Geoffrey Rush as Cassanova, Lena Olin heavily edited out as Cassanova's bride, and the one and only Tom Waits as a crazy weapons dealer. So...with Macy, Kinnear, Olin, and Rush there are four Oscar-nominees (and one winner) and Tom freakin' Waits! It's not perfect though. It's overlong and there are some gushes of corniness here and there (The Shoveller's full of them).

The dialogue definitely outweighs the physical comedy, which is sometimes lacking (there's a guy who farts for his power, case closed). The dialogue is definitely a highlight, the cyclical ramblings of the Sphinx, the mixed metaphors of Mr. Furious, etc. It's downright a funny movie, (it will almost make you forget that this was the film that let "All Star" by Smashmouth out into the world.)

Unfortunately, the film did not do as well with critics and audiences as it should have. A sequel was originally planned (the film is in fact based on a comic book and characters from "The Flaming Carrot" comics. The Flaming Carrot was planned for the sequel I believe) but this did not do well at the box office. It could have been a hard sell, a superhero comedy with the guy from "There's Something About Mary." It also could have been the fact that it was released on the same day as "The Sixth Sense"--which ended up being the biggest hit for the month of August--as well as "The Thomas Crown Affair." Two other misunderstood classics were released on the same crowded weekend, oddly enough--"Dick" and "The Iron Giant." Critics gave MM passable reviews, but it was quickly forgotten. Sadly enough, on Comedy Central's Roast of Jerry Stiller, comedian Jeffrey Ross commented to Ben Stiller that, "I saw 'Mystery Men' and I fired MY agent." Ben is then seen to mouth the words, "I should have to." Don't listen to him. Give "Mystery Men" a chance. This movie is a lot of fun. What makes it great especially are two things: one is the straightforward way the characters embrace the stereotypes, with discussions of their costumes and superpowers. There's an endearing earnestness to the parody that's very appealing; the second is basic sweetness of the characters and the quality of the chemistry. Claire Forlani deserves particular note as the object of Mr. Furious's desires. There's a boatload of talent here. I realize some with high expectations may have been disappointed, but this movie is a lot of fun, and kind of sweet. Mystery Men is one of those movies that gets funnier over time. There is a naive innocence and "niceness" to the characters. It has become part of our family "culture," and we quote the characters often. It is my favorite film of the last two years. My kids are 13 and 11 and we all three love this film. Great acting and comedy. We love Galaxy Quest and Monty Python flicks too. Okay, we're not talking intellectual here, just Family bonding! As a comic book reader, who still sees myself as a total kid at heart, I admit I might have been a bit biased towards this movie. I mean, there hasn't been a good superhero movie out for quite some time (NOTE: Batman Forever was NOT a good superhero movie). I really wanted this film to be good, and unlike most of my recent trips to the cinema (read Blair Witch Project) I wasn't disappointed.

Mystery Men was definitely not a high-effects, tension-filled action flick, it was a comedy. And on that basis, it was a success. It had everyone in the small theater laughing, and got applause and laughs right through the final scene. Stiller and Garofolo are hilarious together, as always, and Azaria adds just the right touch of craziness. William H. Macy plays a great straight man, while Kel Mitchell and the fart-powered Paul Rubens are added just to keep the kiddies happy.

Though the sets are bizarre (and at times seem like ripoffs from both Batman and Blade Runner), and some of the jokes are obvious, it is still just plain funny. There are some lines that will catch even the most jaded viewer off-guard, and bring tears from the belly-laughers among us.

I definitely recommend this movie. Although not an all-time classic, it is twice as funny as the latest Austin Powers retread. The writing is good, and the cast is GREAT. If you're worried, plan on the matinee and pay less, but either way you'll be pleasantly surprised. I mean, who among us doesn't root for the losers once in a while? In the history of movies based on comic books, "Mystery Men" is one of the most underrated ones. This is no regular comic superhero movie! It follows the exploits of a motley crew of well-meaning wannabes, which include Mr. Furious (played by Ben Stiller), the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo), the Shoveller (William H. Macy), the Blue Rajah (Hank Azariah) and the Spleen (Paul Reubens). "Mystery Men" spoofs several aspects of superhero movies like "Superman" or "Batman," such as the pithy sayings, and the questions about secret identities. Most of the superheroes aren't billionaires like Bruce Wayne, but blue-collar types with menial jobs and neurotic home lives. So it looks as if director Kinka Usher is making the heroes into something the average viewer can relate to. I found "Mystery Men" to be visually stimulating and very funny. Even if it doesn't turn into a franchise, it's still a joy to watch! Though I can't claim to be a comic book fanatic, I have read my share, so I guess I'm part of the audience of this film, and I wasn't disappointed. It does run out of steam near the end, it's almost overflowing with ideas, and it seems like Lena Olin, one of my favorite actresses, was left on the cutting room floor. Also, a little of Hank Azaria's Blue Raja can go a long way. Still, it's easy to forgive all of these faults when you have a film which is this much fun. All the actors seem to be having a blast with their roles, especially William H. Macy as the straight-arrow Shoveler, and Janeane Garofalo as The Bowler. And unlike some, I found the design of the city to make the joke even funnier. I also liked how disco was the music of choice of the bad guys; somehow, it seemed appropriate. This movie was a brilliant concept. It was original, cleverly written and of high appeal to those of us who aren't really 'conformist' movie pickers. Don't get me wrong - there are some great movies that have wide appeal, but when you move into watching a movie based on "everyone else is watching it" - you know you're either a tween or don't really have an opinion. This had a lovely subtle humor - despite most people probably looking only at the obvious. The actors portrayed their characters with aplomb and I thought there was a lot more "personal" personality in this film. Has appeal for kids, as well as adults. Esp. nice to find a good movie that's not filled with sexual references and drug innuendos! A great film, not to be overlooked based on public consumption. This one is a must buy. Director Kinka Usher stays true to his own credo, "Play it straight and they will laugh," and with the help of a superb cast has crafted what should become the #1 cult film of all time, `Mystery Men.' When an evil villain, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) is released from a mental institution, captures the local superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear), and threatens to take over Champion City, three wanna-be superheroes, Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), The Shoveler (William H. Macy) and The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) come to the rescue. Frankenstein has been joined by a myriad assortment of underworld scum, however, and has become a formidable opponent. The trio realize that help is needed, and decide to recruit; what they end up with is nothing less than the most unforgettable team of `superheroes' ever assembled in the history of the cinema. Mr. Furious has his rage; The Shoveler, his shovel; The Blue Raja flings silverware (mainly forks, and the occasional spoon, but never a knife); the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell) can turn invisible as long as no one is watching; the Sphinx (Wes Studi), a heavy hitter from down south, is very mysterious and can break guns in half with his mind. Maybe; the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) can fling a ball with deadly accuracy; and The Spleen (Paul Reubens) wields flatulence that can incapacitate an entire room. This is a brilliant ensemble piece that delivers the laughs without ever becoming condescending or patronizing the audience, while playing it straight at all times. The dialogue is witty, and the performances given by Stiller, Macy, Azaria and Garofalo are exemplary. There is a number of memorable, hilarious scenes, especially the one in which they throw a pool party and barbecue to recruit, and conduct interviews with a stupefying assemblage of applicants; and another, in a bar, when the Bowler has a conversation with her long-dead father, whose skull has been implanted in her bowling ball. The funniest of all, however, has to be when the team actually attempts to rescue Captain Amazing. But these are only examples, for the entire movie is composed of one hilarious scene after another, laced with subtle humor that will keep you laughing and thinking about it for a long time. The real secret of it's success, though, is that Usher keeps it all real; the relationships between the characters are true, and the whole concept of being a `Superhero' is played as being entirely reasonable, which somehow gives a sense of credibility to the entire proceedings. In this world, the aspirations of Mr. Furious and the rest are tenable, and Usher keeps the laughs coming without ever resorting to slapstick or mere sight gags. The solid supporting cast includes Lena Olin (Dr. Annabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Claire Forlani (Monica), Louise Lasser (The Blue Raja's mother), Jenifer Lewis (Lucille) and Pras (Tony C.). `Mystery Men' is a truly inspired movie that can be seen over and over again, with a new chuckle to be had with every viewing, guaranteed. In the immortal words of the Sphinx, `We are number one! All others are number two, or lower.' Is it an Oscar-worthy movie? Hardly; but for a good time and a lot of laughs, treat yourself to this masterwork of comedy; it's the real deal, and you won't regret it. I rate this one 10/10. This is a great movie. I love it more each time i watch. Most comedies can get pretty lame because you know all the gags, but mystery men has so much integrity in the writing and characterization that watching once again -- as Ben Stiller tears at the hood ornament of the limo, or Hank Azaria says good-bye to Louise Lasser, or Geoffrey Rush flashes his fuhrer choreography, or Tom Waits mumbles while he watches the news report, or Janeane Garofalo refuses a kiss from Paul Reubens -- is a pleasure. This is pitch perfect ensemble acting. The story develops directly and consistently, the action sequences are creative and not too dominant, all the set-ups payoff by the end. Seriously, if you've seen it and it's been a while, watch it again, and if you haven't then get started. You can't watch it again until you've seen it the first time. (Wes Studi, William H. Macy, the tryouts scene. Too much good stuff!) Forget depth of meaning, leave your logic at the door, and have a great time with this maniacally funny, totally absurdist, ultra-campy live-action "cartoon". MYSTERY MEN is a send-up of every superhero flick you've ever seen, but its unlikely super-wannabes are so interesting, varied, and well-cast that they are memorable characters in their own right. Dark humor, downright silliness, bona fide action, and even a touching moment or two, combine to make this comic fantasy about lovable losers a true winner. The comedic talents of the actors playing the Mystery Men -- including one Mystery Woman -- are a perfect foil for Wes Studi as what can only be described as a bargain-basement Yoda, and Geoffrey Rush as one of the most off-the-wall (and bizarrely charming) villains ever to walk off the pages of a Dark Horse comic book and onto the big screen. Get ready to laugh, cheer, and say "huh?" more than once.... enjoy! I saw this in theaters and absolutely adored it. Geoffery Rush gave the best performance as a super villain that I have ever seen since Gene Hackman as Lex Luther. Kel Mitchel and Paul Rubens were a match maid in heaven. This film also introduced me to William H. Macy, who is now one of my favorite actors. Hank was great as the Blue Raja, and I especially loved that the character wasn't really British. The scene with him and telling his mom that he was a superhero almost brought tears to my eyes. I loved the fact that The Bowler talked to the ball. Some of the funniest stuff involved Stiller and his character Mr. Furious's false rage, and the fact that his threats and one-liners were all gibberish, and that they never made any sense. I could barely stop myself from applauding when he said "fraculater, Freinken-puss," was said. But one of the things I most enjoyed was that Captain Amazing actually dies in the movie. I HIGHLY recommend this film for any occasion, and I give it my own personal two-thumbs-up. This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the "Geeks" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? "We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster." See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy This was different, that's for sure. Just look at the cast! Talk about oddballs.

William H. Macy and Ben Stiller were the stars, although a bunch of actors almost share the spotlight, in this farce about superhero-wannabees. The most outrageous was played by Paul Reubens of "Pee Wee Herman" fame.

There is lots of humor, garish colors and no lulls. It's a pretty entertaining, lightweight comedy with nothing but goofy characters, all of whom want to be heroes a la Superman, Batman, Spiderman, you name. They have talents in strange areas, however, that the real heroes don't (and don't want to!). It's silly, but you know that going on.

It's also a film you can watch in installments and not really miss any continuity. It's a long movie for one so hectic, so taking a break here and there is okay. The language was tame so kids could enjoy this, too. In fact, I don't recall any swearing in here, except the guy in the theater next to me who kept uttering, "What a dumb, f---ing movie." I thought it was fun two hours but I'd rather watch it on DVD and take a few breaks. I make just one apology for this film: there are far, far, too many wide angle close-ups, and if they irritate you beyond endurance, fair enough. They drove ME barmy for the first ten minutes or so. But after that I made a kind of a truce with the terrible cinematography; and long before the end of the film, I had ceased to care. This is too rich a comedy to be destroyed so easily. It's hilarious, it's witty, the comic delivery of ALL of the cast is flawless, and however much Usher peers at his characters through a cold, fish-eye lens - HE may not care for them much - he manages to present them with warmth. `Mystery Men' is, in fact, not only funnier, not only more clever, but also deeper, than anyone seems to have given it credit for being. The jokes in the Austin Powers movies, for instance, as well as being less funny than the jokes here, are also much more toothless. The satire of `Mystery Men' bites when there's something worth biting and gnaws gently when there isn't. It doesn't mock just any old thing. Which is why, contrary to what some (I must regard them as unobservant) critics have said, it never runs out of ideas.

The `super' heroes are an attractive bunch. Sure, they're second-rate, but they're not merely second rate. The Blue Rajah, for instance, does nothing but throw cutlery at people, and he isn't THAT good at it. On the other hand, neither is he comically bad. He's better in his limited field than most people, and he DOES practise diligently. He's not a buffoon, which makes him a much funnier character than if he was. If Superman is Christ in a cape, the Mystery Men are all the minor demigods from the foothills of Mount Olympus, in capes. Much funnier; also much more endearing. I really didn't expect much from this movie, but it wasn't bad; actually it was quite good. This movie contained a couple of the funniest bits of writing I have ever seen from a motion picture. Now am not saying this is one of the funniest movies of all time, but I laughed pretty hard at some parts. "The police ruled my father's death a suicide. They said he fell down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets". Now this movie is not for everybody, its mostly stupid humor like Zoolander or Dodgeball; so if you hated these movies I would probably recommend you to steer clear. Overall it was an enjoyable movie, about a group of superhero wannabes, who end up becoming real heroes in the end. It's a vastly overrated comedy that many people probably haven't seen yet, because like me before viewing it expected it to be utter garbage. After viewing this film, I finally understand why this movie was able to assemble such a superstar cast which includes Ben Stiller, William H. Macy, Hank Azaria, and even that kid from Good Burger. It's because Mystery Man is full of excellent comedic writing period 7 out of 10. A very big surprise. A film about wannabee's, never-were's and less-than-heroes making it against all odds. Where have we heard that before. But when the unfortunates are the Shoveller, the Blue Raja and Mr.Furious you know this is not your conventional rags to riches story.

A classic performance by Eddie Izzard as Tony P. one of the Disco boys leaders and Geoffrey Rush as Arch Villain shows actual thought went into the casting.

Even Greg Kinnear, at first glance an odd choice for the role of Captain Amazing turns out spot on.

Watch this film if you're sick of comic-gone-film stereotypes. Why couldn't anger be a super power? ******WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************

So who are these "Mystery Men?" Simply put, the Mystery Men are a group of sub-Heroes desperately trying to live out their adolescent fantasy lives while botching both their real identities and their super identities. The Shoveller (Bill Macy) works construction during the day, and at night, leaves his wife and kids at home while he cruises the street looking for crimes to tackle with his extraordinary and unique Shovel-fighting style. The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) sells silverware to newlyweds by day and flings tableware at crackpot villians by night, if his mom isn't keeping him busy with the latest snooping. Mr. Furious works in a junk yard to earn his pay, then takes out his frustration on his friends at night, tossing ill-conceived one-liners at friend and foe alike and threatening to get really angry (leaving everyone to wonder, So What?). Ben Stiller breathes such life into this character, you can't help but love him.

These three spend their nights trying to capture that 'moment of glory' they've dreamed about... becoming real Super Heroes. Obviously, it could happen. Champion City has Captain Amazing, after all... a flying, fighting super-cop with enough corporate logos on his costume to stop an extra bullet or two. Greg Kinnear turns in a stellar performance as a middle-aged sellout trying to recapture his fans attention in the twilight of his career.

To bring back that 'extra magic' that might win the endorsements again, C.A. frees Casanova Frankenstein, a WAAAAAY over-the-top menace played to chilling perfection by Goeffrey Rush. This lunatic genius has created a 'psychofrakulator' to warp Champion City into a reflection of his own insanities... and ends up capturing C.A. within hours of his release from prison. This leaves only the Mystery Men to stop Frankenstein's evil plan, but with such henchmen as the Disco Boys protecting Frankenstein, the trio are going to need a little help.

Recruiting commences, and after a painful recruitment party, the team settles in with The Bowler (Janeane Garofolo), who initially has the only real talent in the team, with her mystic bowling ball seemingly animated by the vengeful spirit of her dead father; the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell), who CLAIMS to turn invisible when ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is looking at him; the Spleen (Paul Reubens), granted mystically powerful flatulence by an angry gypsy; and the much underused Sphinx (Wes Studi), who is shown to be able to cut guns in half with his mind, then spends much of the rest of the movie spouting inane riddles and acting over-wise.

This film really is a cross-genre romp. Anyone wanting to pigeon-hole films into neat little categories is fighting a losing battle. This is a spoof/parody of the superhero genre - from the pseudo-Burton sets recycled endlessly (and occasionally decorated with more spoof material) to the ridiculous costumes, the comic-book genre gets a pretty good send-up. But at the same time, it is a serious superhero flick, as well. Both at once. While not a necessarily unique idea in itself (for example, this movie is in some ways reflective of D.C. Comic's short-lived Inferior Five work), it is fairly innovative for the big screen. It offers the comic-book world that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept anyway, then throws in the inevitable wanna-bes - and we all know, if superheroes were real, so would these guys be real. If the Big Guy with the S were flying around New York City, you'd see a half-dozen news reports about idiots in underwear getting their butts kicked on a regular basis. Sure, the Shoveller fights pretty well, and the Blue Raja hurls forks with great accuracy - all parts of the super-hero world. But does that make them genuine super-heroes? Only in their minds.

This movie is also a comedy, albeit a dark one. Inevitable, when trying to point out the patent ridiculous nature of super-heroics. One-liners fly as the comic geniuses on stage throw out numerous bits to play off of. Particularly marvelous is the dialogue by Janeane Garofalo with her bowling ball/father. Yet, it isn't a comedy in the sense of side-splitting laughter or eternally memorable jokes. It mixes in a dose of drama, of discovery and of romance, but never really ventures fully into any of it.

What really makes Mystery Men a good film, in the end, is that it is very engaging. The weak/lame good guys are eventually justified and, for one shining moment, really become super-heroes; justice is served; and the movie ends with a scene that reeks of realism (as much realism as is possible in a world where bowling balls fly and glasses make the perfect disguise). If the viewer stops trying to label the film, then the film can be a great romp.

Of course, no movie is perfect. Claire Forlani comes off as bored and directionless as Mr. Furious' love interest, in spite of having a pivotal role as his conscience. Tom Waits seems somehow confused by his own lines as the mad inventor Dr. Heller, although his opening scenes picking up retired ladies in the nursing home is worth watching alone. And the villians are never more than gun-toting lackeys (a point of which is made in the film). The cinematography is choppy and disjointed (such as happens in the average comic book, so it is excusable), the music sometimes overpowers the scenery, and the special effects are never quite integrated into the rest very well.

Yet, overall, this film is incredible. You probably have to be a fan of comics and the superhero genre to really appreciate this movie, but it's a fun romp and a good way to kill a couple of hours and let your brain rest.

8/10 in my opinion. The directing behind this film was fantastic for a comedy. Many of the scenes appear to be out of a comic book and much darker (visually -- not story wise) than what I expected. Granted, this may not be the funniest movie ever made, especially if you are into very crude sexist jokes as this has very little of that (compared to others like Something About Mary or American Pie). As you rewatch it, several jokes stand out and get funnier. If you have ever read a comic book or watched a comic book-type movie (Batman, X-Men, etc.) and liked them, you will probably enjoy the subtle humor that continues throughout the movie. If you didn't like them, you may like the respectful ridicule that this film has for those. If you did like this movie, the dvd has some cool extras. (8/10) The first thing I thought after watching "Mystery Men" was how could this movie be so unpopular? I found this movie so adorable and funny that it's status as a bomb defies logic. Well, I hope that in the future it becomes a cult hit, and you can count me amoung it's fans.

Simply put, and without giving too much away, this movie does for comic books what "the Princess Bride" did for fairy tales and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" did for classic cartoons. That should give you a more accurate idea of the tone of the movie then the marketing commitee it was unfortunately signed to (this is one of those cases like "the Iron Giant" where the studio had no clue what it had on it's hands). Rent it the next time you're in the mood for something a little offbeat. You won't listen to the BeeGees in the same light ever again. A lot of the user comments i have seen on the IMDB for this movie don't really do it justice. First of all, let me just say that this movie is not to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be a fun, yet stupid movie, that doesn't require one to think, only to enjoy it. If you watch this movie with the intent to see a masterpiece in either filmmaking or in humour, then you will be sorely disappointed. Yet, if you want to just watch a goofy movie with some talented actors/actresses, and some good catch-phrases, then you will enjoy it. I've seen Mystery Men cop a bit of stick in the press and with the general public ( take the imdb vote for instance), but my overall feeling is that Mystery Men is more fun than most films, definitely wittier than most so-called comedy films and very nearly 'clever'.

The cast is superb; Greg Kinnear is excellent, as are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Waits. Kinnear's limo scene with Ricky Jay is perfect 'spoiled movie star' and he imbues his character with the right balance of comic book quality and realism to make him work.

I will admit the pacing is a little off in places, and visuals are certainly very flash bang, possibly to the detriment of further characterisation, but at the end of the day, this is high concept film making - it's about the little moments "What's Up Tiger Lily?" - and there are so many great ones in this film to make it worth repeated viewing. MYSTERY MEN has got to be THE stupidest film I've ever seen, but what a film! I thought it was fabulous, excellent and impressive. It was funny, well-done and nice to see ridiculous Super Heroes for a change! And being able to pull it off! This was great! I'll definitely watch it again! There are many problems with Mystery Men. First of all there are too many different characters for all of them to be given complex or even interesting personalities. The special effects detract from the story and are not really that special. Paul Reubens is wasted in a pathetic, juvenile role as a character who merely farts and speaks in an inaudible accent.

Now onto the decent parts. William H Macy, three heavenly words, and his performance as the shoveler is pitch perfect. The sphinx is an exceptionally funny character who is only mysterious and merely spouts out the traditional mystical proverbs. Ben Stiller is very amusing as well, showing a weak character trying to make it into the big leagues of superheroes. All of the characters do, and that is an area which I found particuarly ironic. That is because all of the actors are Indie film actors trying to make it into the big leagues of Hollywood.

To be honest, the reason I thought it failed at the box-office is that America doesn't get irony.

All in all I loved the film, but I feel it would have worked better if more effort was put into tweaking the script rather than having unneccesary CGI landscapes and effects. I saw this movie the day it came out last year. Hilarious I thought. Well, now it's on video and I saw it again. I love this movie! The things they do are sometimes dumb but that's what makes it my third favorite movie of all time. The special effects are okay, but the witty dialog will have you rolling. I'm the kind of person that'll say i'm inspired by this movie, so if you like dramas and other stuff, avoid. But for all others, enjoy! The acting is superb. Hank Azaria is hands down the best (he's neither a commie, nor a fruit) followed by Ben Stiller (uh, don't correct me. it sickens me) and then William H. Macy delivering his best performance (outshining fargo) Everybody has praised everyone from macy to garafalo, but I think Kel Mitchell was pretty good as Invisible Boy. Two problems: The most boring part of the film is the subplot of the romance between Stiller and Claire Forlani, and the Casanova parole hearing. Some scenes absolutely advance the story in no way, but they're a blast. Kinka and especially the writers tend to drag on a scene untill all it's hilarity is gone, but bam they switch and you're ready for more. I swear after seeing this, you will be tired from the explosive climax (which I think was pretty cool) The camera is pretty cool also, moving at a furious pace with the actors. Also, Tom Waits delivers an outstanding performance (he has this kinda cool bad hero coolness to him) and like someone else said, the best parts are when the characters show some humanness to them. Captain Amazing is pretty funny, (especially his speech to Casanova about his perfect plan-I was rolling) and rush is pretty cool as Casanova. One beef: the funniest comedian ever (eddie izzard) is almost wasted, but his heart is in the right place. So all in all, a wonderful movie. I give it twenty stars and hope that someday, everyone will see the brilliance in the film's best parody, the Six Million Dollar Man one. Laughing right now as I think about it. 20/10 I've been waiting for a superhero movie like this for a long time. "Mystery Men" takes its place among the classic comic-strip spoofs on TV like "Batman" and "Captain Nice" and cartoons like "Underdog" and "Super Chicken." The same spirit lives in all of them: the comic tongue-in-cheek tone; the courage to aim for the heroic in life at the risk of looking ridiculous; the not-so-sure-footed way that these characters manage to prevail over their adversaries. It's the misfired spark of nobility igniting in the weak and the ordinary, and it's wonderful to see it glow so high and bright here.

"Mystery Men" opens on a party at a nursing home. I wish Kinka Usher had had the sense to give more energy and life to the old people in the scene. As it is, it looks like something George Romero might have devised. We need to get the feeling that these old people are as sharp as everyone else, or it feels patronizing. By the time the Red Eyes crash the festivities, you half expect Tom Waits who plays a weapons inventor with a penchant for ladies in their eighties to stand up and shout: "Just what this party needs--a little excitement!" If writer Neil Cuthbert had any sense, he would have had Waits mixing it up with the intruders and egging on the partiers to do the same. It would have made for a rousing beginning, and a better introduction of the troublesome trio: the Shoveler (William Macy); the Blue Raja (Hank Azaria); and Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), who seem to come out of nowhere to save the day.

There are many other problems to "Mystery Men" than I care to go into; among them that the villain Casanova Frankenstein needs to have as cultivated a sense of the absurd as the rest of the people in this movie, and he doesn't. Geoffrey Rush is the wrong actor for the part; he needs to be way over the top to make the conflict between good and evil a galvanic one. And Rush has never exhibited a talent for the outre. You hope for the ripe theatrics of a John Lithgow in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" or the dry, debonair diffidence of a Paul Freeman in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Instead what we get is pastiche; something half-baked and not fully realized.

There are too many ideas running through "Mystery Men" for anyone to tie them neatly together, and that may be its deepest problem. But whatever kind of a mess it is is the kind of mess I love. Ben Stiller has always seemed to be slumming in the roles he takes. This one is no exception, but he goes at it with such conviction that you come away feeling that he'd learned something about comedy growing up in a household run by Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara. His Roy is related to all the put-upon, overly sensitive, chronically defensive types that Woody Allen made popular. And whether it's wheedling his way into the affections of the waitress at his favorite hangout (the sleek Claire Forslani), or questioning the wisdom of a fellow superhero (Wes Studi as the Sphinx), or giving a new member of their "elite" group (Jeaneane Garofalo in what are possibly her funniest moments on screen) a hard time, he makes it always fun to watch. I couldn't exactly say that about him in "There's Something About Mary."

Jeaneane Garofalo proves with this performance that she should have been the star of "One True Thing," not Renee Zellweger. I don't think I have ever seen funnier exchanges between a daughter and father (okay, so he's dead and his skull is in a bowling ball, so sue me) in the movies. And the funny part about this role is that it feels like a screwball reprise of Emily Watson's spellbinding talks with God in "Breaking the Waves." And in this version, the girl doesn't die, and bells don't ring in your head.

William H. Macy does something very difficult; he makes stolid magnetic. You understand right away what's attracted Jenifer Lewis' Lucille to Eddie. You can also understand her exasperation. The barbecue alone would be enough to drive me over the edge, but when Eddie's adorable, half-breed son looks up at his father and says "I believe in you, Daddy." to which Lucille sighs and exclaims, "Roland, don't encourage your father," you feel like standing and hailing Neil Cuthbert as a first-rate wit.

With Hank Azaria (whose only moment of note in film up to this point was his bare behind in "The Birdcage") and Louise Lasser (Has it been more than two decades since we first took note of her in "Bananas" and "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman?") as son and mother who share a fondness for silverware; Greg Kinnear as Captain Amazing and Ricky Jay as his publicist; Kel Mitchell as "Invisible Boy"; Paul Reubens as "The Spleen;" and Lena Olin who, if she didn't have the few lines in this movie that she has, would seem to be visiting the set. OK. There are people who should not see this movie.

1) Don't see it if you don't like satire or black humour. 2) Don't like it if you got offended by _The Watchmen_. 3) Don't see it if you want a serious superhero movie.

The rest of you, run, don't walk, to see _Mystery Men_. It's funny, it's quirky, it's a delightful sendup of every bad superhero cliche known to man. Occasional forays into junior-high humour don't ruin the tongue-in-cheek low-key fun of Jeanane Garafalo, Ben Stiller, and Hank Azaria, as well as a couple of amusing smaller parts by Geoffrey Rush and Greg Kinnear. (Good to see Louise Lasser getting work, too.) I laughed all the way through. Utterly unserious, somewhat weird, but -good-. I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch.

On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine.

The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.

It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.

(7/10) This is an very good movie. This is one that I would rent over and over again. It is not like your normal superhero movie. This movie blends comedy, action and great special effects. It even has a person in it that does a lot of voices on The Simpsons. William H. Macy is the bomb. I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at. This movie is about a Dysfunctinal Family but Not just any Dysfunctional Family. It is about the Family of the Father of our Nation (India) although, the film focuses mainly on the estranged relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi. It shows how The Mahatma had to kill M.K. Gandhi, how he had to sacrifice his family life in order to achieve our freedom. Every time Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son would try to get close the Mahatma would come between them. This is a beautifully done film. Akshaye Khanna has proved himself to be a Top Actor. He expressed emotions very naturally. Darshan Jariwala who mainly stars in Plays-Gurukant Desai's lawyer in Guru has portrayed Gandhi wonderfully.(as a real Human Being, unlike Ben Kingsley who made him look like a God) Shefali Shah the girl from Monsoon Wedding has also done a really good job of showing how Kasturba Gandhi was torn between father and son. This Movie is touching and so is its soundtrack "Raghupati Raghava" sung in a very unique manner. I saw this movie just 3 hours ago(it released in Dubai a day earlier-on the 2nd) and when the movie was over there was "Pin Drop Silence" and while exiting out of the Theatre not ONE person pushed another( Can you imagine us Indians not pushing ?) NOT ONE ! There was a Sacred Silence... Gandhi My Father is a well made movie. It nicely portrays the life of Gandhiji's Eldest Son Harilal. His character, his differences with his father, his love for his family, his desire to stand on his own, his failure, his ego.. Akshaye Khanna completely justifies the role of Harilal. Just not him, everyone did well in the roles they played. Darshan Jariwala is the best on-screen Gandhiji I've ever seen. But I will cut three points as there were few shortcomings.

First, movie was fifteen-twenty minutes longer than it should have. Second, the movie needed more research into Harilal's character. Somewhere, the character looked incomplete. Also, his relation with his brothers was not shown. There was no mention of any other child of Gandhiji in the whole movie. I believe the character like Harilal should be having at least some differences his brothers as well, considering the egoist nature of Harilal.

Anyways, despite some shortcomings, I liked the movie. Recommended... From very long, we are seeing movies on Gandhi. And mostly, the light is always on portrayal of Gandhi as freedom fighter or man with principles. But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it. Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.

The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife. Latter Akshay (Harilal) joined his father for becoming a barrister but his dream took overturn when his father (Gandhi) pushed (Or motivate) him to become freedom fighter. It showcase that Gandhi believes more on practical study rather then formal education. Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father. He finally defeated his father in terms of pursuing his dream and to left him on his own terms. He written back to India but then start his unsuccessful stories which become bigger and bigger with time. I am leaving reader to see movie to catch further story...

Performance. First Akshay. He has given best performance of his tenure so far and is absolutely convincing in his portrayal as Harilal Gandhi. The scene in which he reach the room where his wife dead body is placed is one where you can see a fine actor which is hidden/developing in Akshay. Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character. He performed well and with quite an ease. Shefali Chaya (Now Shah) as Kasturba is brilliant actress and already proved her metal in TV serials. Bhumika chawla too performed well but actress of her candidature is waste in these kinds of role. Other actor have also justifies their performances.

Technique and Make up is also good and cinematography especially that Duo tone color picturisation was too good. Costume looks and match with context.

Overall, a worth seeing movie which is defiantly slow in progress and impatient people may find it boring but give you an insight of area which is not brought to silver screen till date. Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end. "Gandhi as a husband and father?" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.

Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.

However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.

Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as "must-watch-once". 8/10 It takes guts to make a movie on Gandhi in India ,in which he is not shown as a man who could do no wrong.This movie shows how a Mahatma failed to be a decent father(at least in the eyes of his son).

The performances are terrific ,the cinematography fantastic, the direction fabulous,but the film drags.If the intention was to make this movie without any box-office expectations,which i assume is the case here,then its a brilliant attempt,but if the makers were expecting this to be a commercial success,then the film's fate was doomed the day they chose this subject..

20 yrs from now,this movie will be remembered for the brilliant portrayal of Harilal by Akshaye Khanna.He deserves an Oscar nomination for this one..And honestly,his is not the only performance worth applauding, Shefali Chhaya is terrific too..

Watch the scene where Harilal hears about his father's death.No dialogues,No screaming,but a speechless shot by Khanna.Its one of the finest scenes ever shot in the history of Cinema

Gandhi,My Father is not at all exciting cinema but yes,its excellent cinema and a must watch.Brilliant Attempt.. Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie. Don't get me wrong I am not condemning the movie; it is such a wonderful movie and walked out of the cinema with a lump in my throat. We need to understand Mahatma's spiritual standing, he is a true spiritual leader. Only a fully enlightened man could possibly detach himself from his loved ones. A man with such caliber leads his family and followers by example. According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father. When things went wrong with Harilall, Mahatma could remain calm and accepted that his son is a big tragedy.

Had it been any other parents, they would have compromised their values to assist the son to get on his feet. Mahatma didn't do that, he is true leader who leads by example. Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too. This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..

There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.

But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).

If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie.. While "The Kiss of the Spider Woman" cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.

Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, "Moon Over Parador" does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in "TKOTSW"), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.

I agree: the first lady is hot. Paul was totally ripped off by someone at paramount who made Dave. It's the same story, not as funny though.

Paul related to me this morning about the scene were sammy davis sings the new national anthem of parador. he arrived in brazil after a long flight from vegas, three planes, car ride to the set, etc. he was beat. he could hardly stand, had to use a cane. he was staying in a trailer about the size of my bathroom.

he didn't know he could do it. then he saw the crowd of 6000 extras,paid 7 bucks. he came to life and they shot that scene for two hours. he was magnificent, then nearly collapsed.

paul is a great guy, though very liberal. a real talent. ... and if you're very, very good it will resemble Moon Over Parador.

This film had a slightly silly story, but it was a fantasy after all, and the casting and the acting was spot-on! Dreyfuss was perfect as the actor/impostor, full of all the little neuroses and vanities you imagine actors to have. You get a glimpse of what actors are like behind the scenes.

This was one of Dreyfuss's best roles, just like his character has his best role impersonating the dead dictator! And the parting scene: like something out of Casablanca, indeed!

Raul Julia was superb as the Paradorian Chief of Secret Police. He gets some really funny lines, some of which are homages to other films, like "Round up the usual suspects!"

And Sonia Braga was excellent as the girl friend -- in addition to being a really hot number: "You should get an Oscar for tonight!"

Let us not forget Johnny Winters as the CIA agent and the several guest stars playing themselves: Sammy Davis Jr., Ike Pappas, Dick Cavett -- all perfectly done.

All in all, a memorable romp under the Paradorian moon.

-R. Richard Dreyfuss stars in "Moon Over Parador," a 1988 Paul Mazursky film also starring Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, Jonathan Winters and Charo. Dreyfuss plays a New York actor, Jonathan Nolan, in the Caribbean country of Parador to make a film. When the dictator dies suddenly, the Secret Police Chief (Julia) who is the one actually controlling the dictator and the country, drafts Jonathan to play the dictator, having noticed the resemblance between them. Soon Jonathan is ensconced in the palace as Alphonse Simms, and Simms' prostitute girlfriend Madonna (Braga) who realizes the switch promises to help him in any way she can.

Mazursky, who appears in drag as Simms' mother, gives us a look at how the CIA operates in third world countries. The Winters character, supposedly a salesman, is actually a CIA operative. The film, however, flirts with but doesn't really tread on very serious ground and is more of a send-up, and a funny one at that.

Richard Dreyfuss does a fabulous job as Jonathan the actor and Alphonse the dictator, creating two separate characters and nailing both. The gorgeous Sonia Braga is great as Madonna, and Raul Julia hands in a wickedly funny performance as Strausmann, the man behind the dictator. It's one of those performances where you never quite know what the character is thinking - he can be pleasant or turn psycho at any moment. Charo is on hand as a maid and manages to be funny and unobtrusive at the same time.

A very good film, not a big blockbuster, but very entertaining. This movie is fun to watch. If you liked "Dave" with Kevin Klein, you will get a kick out of this. Think "Dave" gone South American as Dreyfus plays Jack Noah, an actor between jobs, who is hand selected by the head of the island nation of Parador's secret police, to replace the drunken sot of a dictator, Alfonse Simms, after he has had a heart attack and died. Noah bumbles along, aided in his role by the ex-dictator's mistress, as they attempt to thwart the plans of Raul Julia. Jonathan Winters also makes an appearance as a hearty American émigré who turns out to be CIA. ALso starring Polly Holiday and Fernando Rey.

There are a few absurd moments such as the body of the old dictator be kept frozen for a year, and the final scene, where Sonia Braga, who has bee cradling the bloody, bullet riddled body of Dreyfus is seen moments later all in pristine white, with nary a smudge on her. But all in all it is a great romp. I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Casablanca" or even "Moonstruck", but it was an enjoyable film.

Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year. I thought that Mr. Dreyfuss was perfect for his role as the actor and the dictator. His co-star, Mr. Julia, played his role equally as perfect. It was interesting to see how reluctant Richard Dreyfuss was in replacing the dictator against his will. But he became more confident and comfortable with the role as time passed. Since everything happens for a reason in life, I believe he was forced to replace the dictator because he was meant to stay there for over the year that he did. I'm guessing that he stayed because he was supposed to see how good his life was compared to the poverty he witnessed in Parador. I think he took too many things for granted in life and he needed to get a serious reality check by remaining in that country for as long as he did.

But........... anyways........... this is why I gave this film a 7 out of 10. This is one the few movies I can watch over and over. If you've never seen it, give it a shot. Richard Dreyfus and Raoul Julia are wonderful together and although the movie amuses me greatly, it reminds me of Julia's untimely demise. It is a good opportunity to sit back and laugh at the international intrigue that is too much with us in these time of terror and fear. This little-appreciated movie is one of my favorites. I can watch it over and over. Dreyfus and Braga are masterful, but Raul Julia steals the show! A tongue-in-cheek, menacingly humorous Gomez Addams, with just the right tone for this irreverent spoof of this oft-told story.

Generally untrumpeted and unappreciated, Moon Over Parador allows you to check out of reality and join the fun going on up on the screen. Two thumbs up! This is a modest, character driven comedy, filmed in Brazil on a low budget. The premise is familiar, the same as in the 1950's Danny Kaye movie **On the Double**: someone who, as a joke, does an impression of a Famous Person then is dragooned to impersonate the Person for real.

The contrast between the two leads is highly effective. Raul Julia as the German-Paradorian secret policeman, is tall, cool, menacing and Latin. He sports a deliberately obvious blond dye job. Richard Dreyfus, animated, short, New York Jewish, is funny and sympathetic. There are many references and inside jokes about show business.

The setting is clearly modeled on Paraguay. Paraguay was indeed ruled from the early fifties to the late eighties by Gen. Alfredo Stroessner, an unelected military dictator whose father had emigrated from Germany. But writer/director Mazurszky reveals his ignorance of local conditions when he paints Parador/Paraguay as a typical Latin American tyranny, with huge disparities in wealth and an active guerrilla insurgency. Further in this vein, Mazursky casts comic Jonathan Winters as an American retiree who in truth is C.I.A. station chief in Parador and a figure so powerful that he can give the president of the country a profanity-laced chewing out.

In fact the U.S. has little influence in Paraguay, which is largely without the social and racial tensions seen elsewhere in the region. This is due to the country's having fought long and costly wars against much larger neighbors in the 19th and 20th centuries. The male population was nearly wiped out both times but the society that emerged was patriotic, racially homogeneous and strongly united.

On yet another level, there is a bow to feminism in the form of the character Madonna. Played by Brazilian actress Sonia Braga, Madonna is a former nightclub dancer who is the body-stockinged presidential pleasure girl at the film's start but is seen on television as president herself at the end--now politically and cosmetically correct, no makeup, hair demurely pulled back, swept to office by a velvet revolution.

The one time that such an event actually happened in Latin America, the administration of Argentina's Isabel Peron (not the beloved Evita, who never held office) lasted two years after the death of her husband, legendary **supremo** Juan Peron. This is one fine movie, I can watch it any time. Rauol Julia gave an outstanding performance, we lost him too soon. Richard Dryfus is a great talent. Only thing it needed more of was Dana Delany, what a babe! "Fanfan la tulipe" is still Gerard Philippe's most popular part and it began the swashbuckler craze which throve in the French cinema in the 1955-1965 years.It made Gina Lollobrigida a star (Lollobrigida and Philippe would team up again in René Clair"s "Belles de nuit" the same year.

"Fanfan la tulipe" is completely mad,sometimes verging on absurd .Henri Jeanson's witty lines -full of dark irony- were probably influenced by Voltaire and "Candide" .Antimilitarism often comes to the fore:"these draftees radiate joie de vivre -and joie de mourir when necessary (joy of life and joy of death)""It becomes necessary to recruit men when the casualties outnumber the survivors" "You won the battle without the thousands of deaths you had promised me, king Louis XV complains,but no matter ,let's wait for the next time."

A voice over comments the story at the beginning and at the end and history is given a rough ride:height of irony,it's a genuine historian who speaks!

Christian-Jaque directs the movie with gusto and he knows only one tempo :accelerated.

Remake in 2003 with Vincent Perez and Penelope Cruz.I have not seen it but I do not think it had to be made in the first place. The superb star quality of Gerard Philipe, who died way too young, leaps from the screen in this witty, funny, sly swashbuckling comedy with plenty of sword fencing and knockabout antics. Charmingly loopy in its' storytelling, impossible to resist. A sweet romantic comedy with a very young Gina Lollobrigida as the love interest. A movie one will remember with great affection. This is a tongue in cheek movie from the very outset with a voice-over that pokes fun at everything French and then produces a rather naif but very brave hero in Fanfan La Tulipe. Portrayed by the splendid Gerard Philippe, the dashing young man believes utterly in the fate curvaceous Lollobrigida foretells - notably that he will marry King Louis XV's daughter! Problem is, La Lollo soon find outs she too is in love with Fanfan...

Propelled by good sword fights, cavalcades, and other spirited action sequences the film moves at a brisk pace and with many comic moments. The direction is perhaps the weakest aspect but the film is so light and takes itself so un-seriously that I could not give those shortcomings a second thought. Look out for Noel Roquevert, a traditional heavy in French films, trying to steal La Lollo, making himself a nuisance, and feeding the script to the fortune teller that reads La Lollo's hand! And what a gem Marcel Herrand is as the megalomanous and lust-driven King Louis XV! That is not all: So many beautiful women in one film makes me wish I were in France and on the set back in 1952! The film may have come out that year but its verve, cheek, superb narration, immaculate photography and the memorable Gerard Philippe ensure that it remains modern and a pleasure to watch. I would not hesitate to recommend it to my grandchildren let alone to anyone who loves movies in general and swashbucklers in particular! Do see it! It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom. This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).

Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well – in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).

FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original!

FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand – best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945) – is himself something of a lecher.

P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now but, despite programming it three times already (with a tentative fourth one slated for next week), they have yet to show it; even so, I do have three more films of his in my unwatched VHS pile (equally culled from late-night Italian TV screenings): the three-hour epic LA CHARTREUSE DE PARME (1948; also starring Gerard Philippe), THE SECOND TWIN (1967) and THE LEGEND OF FRENCHIE KING (1971; with Brigitte Bardot and Claudia Cardinale). I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat. The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.

On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle? Gerard Phillipe is absolutely perfect in this movie, funny, tender, brave and lover.He gives a superior dimension to a movie which is even a masterpiece, as much by the other actors (Gina Lollobrigida:miaoooou!!) as by the story or the rhythm. Never boring, always creating new emotions: for me, the best french movie of all time. The nearest I ever came to seeing this was a clip shown at a Gerard Philippe exposition in Paris about two years ago. I had no interest in the remake and having just caught up with the original just over half a century after it was made I can only conclude that the inept fencing was intentional, aimed at a long obsolete target. Hollywood had been doing realistic sword fights since the 30s when the greatest of them all, Basil Rathbone, crossed foils with Errol Flynn and others so the technique was available and so that leaves only satire. After a while you don't notice and revel in the Henri Jeanson dialogue reminiscent of the Prisoner Of Zenda, both versions. Gerard Philippe certainly had the presence to bring off a role like this and Gina Lollabrigida was probably a tad better than Martine Carol, the other obvious candidate at the time. The print I saw was particularly bad and at one point broke down completely so maybe a DVD version would enhance it. "Once upon a time there was a charming land called France.... People lived happily then. The women were easy and the men indulged in their favorite pastime: war, the only recreation of kings which the people could enjoy." The war in question was the Seven Year's War, and when it was noticed that there were more corpses of soldiers than soldiers, recruiters were sent out to replenish the ranks.

And so it was that Fanfan (Gerard Philipe), caught tumbling a farmer's daughter in a pile of hay, escapes marriage by enlisting in the Regiment d'Aquitane...but only by first believing his future as foretold by a gypsy, that he will win fame and fortune in His Majesty's uniform and will marry the King's daughter. Alas, Adeline (Gina Lollobrigida) is not a gypsy but the daughter of the regiment's recruiting sergeant.

When Fanfan charges away from the recruits, saber in hand to rescue a carriage under attack, who should be inside but the Marquise du Pompadour and...the King's daughter. He now is convinced he will marry high, despite the extremely low-cut blouses Adeline wears. She, in turn, will soon discover her own love for Fanfan. We're in the middle of an irreverent movie of Fanfan's destiny, the ribald adventures of a sword-fighting scamp and rogue. There are escapes from hangings, swordfights on tile roofs, blundering battles, romantic escapes and more joyous derring do than you can imagine. What Fanfan lacks in polish he makes up for in irreverence and enthusiasm. He's a quick stepping swordsman and a fast-talking lover, but with such naïve belief in his destiny and such an optimistic nature, how can we not like him?

Gerard Philipe was an iconic stage and screen actor (who Francois Truffaut disparaged constantly in the pages of Cahiers du Cinema). He did most of his own stunts. He was handsome, athletic, graceful and charismatic. Men admired him and women dreamed about him. He was dead at 36, seven years after Fanfan, of liver cancer. All of France mourned. Gina Lollobrigida as Adeline holds her own. It's not those low-cut blouses that do her acting. She's sharp, passionate, not quite innocent and no one's fool.

Fanfan la Tulipe just sings along with endless satiric action, pointed situations and good nature. Not to mention amusing, acerbic dialogue. After Adeline has taken steps to save Fanfan from hanging, she meets the king in his private quarters. "Give me your pretty little hand," he says. "But my heart belongs to Fanfan," says Adeline. "Who asks for your heart?" says the king, "All I ask for is a little pleasure." "I'm a proper girl," says Adeline. Says the king, "You owe my esteem to your merits. You love Fanfan? Then thank me. My whims enable you to show the greatest proof of your love, by betraying for his sake the loyalty you have sworn him." Now this is clever, funny stuff.

Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and the rest of the New Wave gang tended to detest popular movies as mere entertainment (and they personalized their attacks). Fanfan la Tulipe and its director, Christian-Jacques, were among their prime targets. They probably missed the point of Fanfan, which is a very funny satire on the pointlessness of armies and war. How much better it must have seemed to make movies of angst which only fellow cineastes could appreciate. Thank goodness some of them, Truffaut and Chabrol, for example, outgrew this childish condescension and came to recognize that a good movie is a good movie, whether the masses like it or just the cognoscenti. A smart person who enjoys movies can appreciate any, if the movies are well made. Those who condescend to a movie based on its degree of popularity are as self-demeaning as those who brag they've never read Harry Potter.

Jean-Luc Godard, eat your heart out. Viva Fanfan! This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.

On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.

It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is... Anyone who doesn't like this film is one who is afraid to explore his or her own demons. This film does make the viewer a little uncomfortable at times, but that is its intention. It asks you to look at your own life and confront the obstacles head on like Lou eventually does. It asks you to overcome the fear of perception and become who you are meant to be. Bret Carr holds up a mirror unlike any filmmaker has. The intention and the message is clear and profound. People's apprehension about this film stems only from their own insecurities. An open-minded viewer takes this inspirational message and runs with it. Sometimes a life- changing realization DOES come in a flash -- a light bulb going on. This story is real and changes the lives if its viewers in a real way. I watch movies for a living, picking out which ones are good enough to distribute... Tossing aside those that don't make the cut. I'm not saying that I know more than anyone else based on this, I'm just leading you to how I came to watch "The Gospel of Lou"... Anyways... So many bad movies land on my desk and I actually sit through all of them. I don't actually "watch" everything, usually I just look over at the TV occasionally while I'm working the scan for production value, performance, and how well the story is being presented. If something catches my eye I'll take the time to watch it. "Lou" drew me in during the first few minutes where I closed my laptop and wheeled my chair over to the TV so I could completely tune in. Needless to say I was enthralled throughout the whole movie. The story is told well, the characters are either endearing or repulsive (depending of course on the actor and directors intention for the character) and all very well played. At times I caught occasional amateur mistakes in the camera work and editing, but the emotional nature of the story make these faults easy to dismiss. I've heard other people's comments say that at times the film brought tears to their eyes, other time extreme elation... I was laughing one minute and crying the next and was incredibly touched by this movie. Sadly I was unable to acquire it because I was - as the saying goes - a week late and a dollar short. That's the way it goes sometimes... but at least I had the pleasure of seeing this one and I can't wait to see what kind of response it gets. Good luck and great fortune to you Bret Carr (if you read this), you are without a doubt a talent to watch for. This is a unique and bold film. It's energetic, with highly developed characters. Very good performances.

I love directors who are not afraid to ask the audience to think...

Bret Carr dares to look inward, ask questions, and dig underneath the surface. By the nature of the film, it practically demands that the viewer look inward as well. It can take some courage to do this. I can see how some close-minded people might find this quite disturbing. However, I found it thought-provoking, much more than just entertainment.

Bret Carr is truly an original filmmaker, with vision. I am curious to see what he will do next.

Watch him. This is unlike any other movie, the closest thing I can compare it to is a Woody Allen film... But where as Woody Allen is constantly fathoming human foibles Bret Carr appears to be trying to figure out a way to get to grips with that one crippling insecurity that tends to define us for better or worse. In the Case of Lou, it is the root cause of his stuttering, which can be traced back to a singular child hood trauma that is revealed through flash backs.

There are so many strangely neurotic people in the world and I believe they all deserve a chance for redemption, although diversity of human character is after all what makes the world such an intriguing place, so maybe we shouldn't fix our neurosis anymore than we should fix our noses or Breasts.

This is an indie film shot on a long shoestring, but the production values are tremendous as is the scope of the film. I feel like its a quirky Gem for the self-help market. I really look forward to seeing what this filmmaker does next, i could imagine a career along the lines of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, although usually when a guy like this breaks through, he goes off and makes " X MEN" and his humble quirky origins are soon forgotten or are they.... X Men is aout a bunch of freaks if i remember correctly :) It came by surprise. . .the impact & resoloution this film had on my automatic way of being reactive to people & situations. Most vividly was the stirring of the emotion anger. Much like the way a spoiled child would be when reacting to not getting their way. . .a temper tantrum if you will. Thinking I was hiding this anger from others was the most ridiculous farce of all. What was this costing me? Soooo much love. . .sooo many blessings. Now I'm present to how incredible humbling myself feels, and having an ongoing attitude of gratitude for life. . .for what is happening in the moment, without my wild expectations for life to be a particular way, the way I think life or people "should" be. This film has contributed to the freedom I now feel to connect with others, without limits & expectations. . .and to connect with genuine love. . .without fear of loss. . .just to love first, and accept what love is given. This miracle of a movie is one of those films that has a lasting, long term effect on you. I've read a review or two from angry people who I guess are either republicans or child beaters, and their extremist remarks speak of the films power to confront people with their own darkest secrets. No such piece of art has ever combined laughter and tears in me before and that is the miracle of the movie. The realism of the movie and it's performance by Bret Carr is not to be missed. The very nature of it's almost interactive effect, will cause people to leave the theater either liberated or questioning their very identity. Bravo on the next level of cinema. On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.

"LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.

As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives! I haven't watched the movie yet, but can't wait to see it! It seems very interesting and inspirational. It was one of the most interesting trailers I've ever seen: the questions it posed really stopped me and made me think, the unique approach to the sport of boxing as a metaphor for the "battle within"... thank god somebody is hitting another angle with the boxing thing. This film looks so fresh and smart. And the actor is really hot. I especially enjoyed the short clip with the actor from the Rocky movies, really clever. I thought that the topic selected-overcoming adversities and childhood traumas-is timeless, and god knows a lot of people need it. Bring it on. How can a movie that features the singing of Curtis Mayfield be bad? It can't! The Groove Tube is a series of scatological black-out sketches that makes fun of anything from 2001 to the olympics. The highs, (Koko the clown, the easy lube recipe) outnumber the lows (an all too long "The Dealers"), but even the lows are funny. Best of all is Ken Shapiro's manic dance down a busy Manhattan sidewalk.(That is Shapiro, not Nat King Cole singing Just You, Just Me). Definitely dated now, but at the time The Groove Tube was irreverent, bold, shameless and hysterically funny. Ken Shapiro made this minor cult hit, then 7 years later made the Christmas day opening bomb, Modern Problems (though I enjoyed it} and since then, unfortunately, nothing.(He could possibly be playing drums in a jazz group) The Groove Tube remains to me an unending burst of positive energy, a movie that 26 years after my initial viewing, still brings me real joy! You know what they say about the 70's..if you can remember them you weren't there. One of the few things I do remember about the 70's was the very first hippie and hip social satire as seen from a totally 'underground'or counter-culture perspective..The Groove Tube. If the humor seems faded or witless now to some viewers it can only be because a lot has happened in the last 30 years and the comedy isn't 'fresh' anymore..but hey! When this movie came out it was a first..and some of these skits were being done for the very first time...at a time when Nixon was in office, the Vietnam war was raging, the sexual revolution was in full swing..and J.Edgar Hoover was still in charge of the FBI. This is a film made before Watergate broke and as such it was one of the first to take a big swipe at the establishment..to make fun of it and the hippies at the same time. And frankly, some skits are still dead funny. If you liked Cheech and Chong's "Up In Smoke"..you will LOVE this film.

If you want to know what the 70's were really like..check out the Groove Tube.. if you liked the Oscar winning "Network" from about the same year and thought it was right on the mark in its savage look at TV, you will dig the Groove Tube..which picks up on the theme but plays from the angle of the viewers...the young viewers who were turning off the TV in favor of other entertainments.... We had been raised on Ozzie & Harriet "Leave It to Beaver", Father Knows Best, My Three Sons..Happy Days...so imagine our glee when those of us who were experimenting with the new life-styles got to see a send up of the box as seen from our perspective! The commercials by the Uranus corporation alone are priceless.."Good things come from Uranus"....and the sudden break from straight film into Fritz the Cat-style animation when the hippies eat the weed is still one of the best segues in and out of sanity i have ever seen on film.

If you liked the Kentucky Fried Movie, you will LOVE this film. And if you ever wondered why your weird uncle Harold still gets a wicked gleam in his eye when thinking back to his college days..this would be the perfect film to watch.

Take it for what it is..a memento of the times...and a sassy little film that will help all of us who did forget the 70's to remember them anew. "The Groove Tube" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany "Modern Problems". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after "Modern Problems" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.

Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus "Tunnelvision" and "Kentucky Fried Movie" (although I might also include "The Truman Show"). Really funny.

I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro. Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong. Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ("with the taste of beef stew" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a "Let Fingers Do It" commercial, or singing "Four Leaf Clover" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in "The Dealers" movie, and on "Channel One Evening News" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. "Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!" Other outrageous bits include "The Koko Show" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the "people over ten" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of "Fanny Hill"! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while "Please Stand By" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on "The Dealers" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the "Four Leaf Clover" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of "Just You, Just Me" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things... "The Groove Tube" was initially shown on video, in the first "video theaters" here in Boston. In one room, there were TV monitors on high stands, with old movie theater seats, in small groups facing the monitors. There were old refrigerators stocked with Pepsi, and baskets of York Peppermint Patties. In a second, smaller room, there were no seats, just large pillows. That was the 'smoking' room, i.e., people got high in there. That act only added to the hilarity of the video.

I was a 'frequent viewer'; the scenes I liked most and remember to this day are: Koko The Clown, The Kramp Family Kitchen (Kramp Easy-Lube Shortening), Safety Sam/ VD PSA, the Chevy Chase hitchhiker w/ nude runs through the woods, the Finger Ballet on what was eventually revealed to be the nude body of a woman. The last item was very reminiscent of the late, incredible Ernie Kovacs. Now, I've lost a lot of readers that are under 48 ("who is Ernie Kovacs??") but trust me, it's funny stuff.

One reason I was a 'frequent viewer' was that I, and my friends, would bring other "Groove Tube" virgins to see it. We would sit and slyly watch the faces of the 'virgins' as the "Safety Sam" PSA would play. As the camera slowly zooms in on "Sam", we would wait for that "OH!" of recognition on the 'virgin's' face. Each time was more hilarious than the last. And then that 'virgin' would then bring a friend to see the show, repeating what we had done. To get this joke, you must watch the video.

Yes, some of it is dated, but most plays, film, television, and now videos are. Just look at any video made in the 1980's.

I did see "The Groove Tube" in a theater as a film, a grainy transfer from the original video. It had been cut, and was missing some of the original high-point scenes.

The first "Saturday Night Live" show, featuring Chevy Chase, elicited instant remarks of, "that's the guy from "The Groove Tube" ", so it was a precursor for Chevy.

I can't look at a can of shortening without hearing the voice-over, "coat your hands with a generous amount of Kramp Easy-Lube shortening..." and thinking of the "Kramp Holiday Loaf" recipe. Always gets me laughing in the Baking Needs aisle in the grocery store.

The early 70's were parlous times; "The Groove Tube" was fresh, new, and really 'got' the humor of the times. It offered a 'hip generation', humor that wasn't available in any other format/medium. MJH When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.

I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy! A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, "The Dealers" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away. best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie. A series of shorts spoofing dumb TV shows, Groove Tube hits and misses a lot. Overall, I do really like this movie. Unfortunately, a couple of the segments are totally boring. A few really great clips make up for this. A predecessor to such classics like Kentucky Fried Movie. We showed this movie at the local Film Society, and the art-house crowd had the time of their cinematic lives. It's tasteless, groovy and very funny in a sixties kind of way. The Kraft Kitchen recipe sketch had them laughing like maniacs. The rest is a mixed bag, but the highs definitely beat the lows. By the way, whatever happened to Ken Shapiro?? From start to finish, I laughed real hard throughout the whole movie. It's amazing that "The Groove Tube" is possibly the granddaddy, yet raunchiest, of all comedic skit movies.This is the way I enjoy watching TV without being bored at flipping channels only to suffer from insomnia! For 73 minutes, the weird, strange humor never stops! Just think of how all this nonsense laughing can help you enjoy life easier! It's way, WAY better than Comedy Central or any prime time show! Do yourself a favor and trash all those soft, lame romantic comedy movies into the wastebasket! Better yet, tell your box office manager you want "The Groove Tube" back on the big screen! This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value. I saw this in Detroit in what must have been its original run. I literally rolled into the aisle of the theater. It was that funny. I haven't seen it since, but would love to. Where do you get a copy? Anybody saying anything about it being dated or overdone are, for my money, just a bunch of poseurs. Each skit is either wickedly, erotically or perversely hilarious. Each one! There is not a weak one included. The opening sequence, for instance, which parodies 2001, features gorilla go-go-dancers with pendulous breasts. Felinni would have filmed it had he the wicked wit... If you come to this film with an open mind and a blithely sneering heart, you'll pencil it right into your very best list. I was born in 1982. Most of my childhood memories are in the extreme late 80's and 90's. I watched the Groove Tube for the first time in 2001, when I was 19.

And I found it hilarious.

So for anybody who thinks that something "dated" can't be quite funny 30 years later....think again! It's funny even if you have no idea what the 70's were like, and the thought of bell-bottom pants make you cringe. Who can argue with a Bozo the Clown type who reads adult literature? There is plenty to laugh at. The scrotal puppet show at the end is the best. **************Possible spoilers********** There is only one reason why I saw this movie and that was because I have a massive crush on Richard Belzer.(I don't know that much about humor) There were some part that were funny Like the Barbie and Ken Spoof and the dealers and the president skit. Mind you this is sometimes raunchy(Dare, I say crude?) It was at times funny, but it could have been better. Probably if they spent more time in the humor and less time getting women undress, the movie would had been funnier. Some skits just make you want to gag, and cringe, others skits make you laugh and oddly enough think. Sadly this movie is dated. If you have a mad crush on Richard Belzer(So worth it) it's worth checking it out and seeing chevy chase. With the current trend of gross out humor, this film is the granddaddy of them all. While some of the humor is dated, every skit will either shock, repulse, or make you laugh out loud. Most memorable is the sex games commentary and, of course, the VD commercial. It doesn't always work, but pays off when it does. I give this a 7. Saw this movie the first time while drunk at a motel in Canada. While flipping through channels came across the Easy Lube part. My friend kept flipping but I told him to go back. Something about the name easy lube just didn't sound right. Watched the rest of the movie it was pretty damn funny. Jotted down a couple of names from the credits and got home to look it up. Turned out to be Chevy Chase's first movie. I didn't remember him in it. Didn't remember much about it, so I rented it and gave it a second veiw. It's pretty funny and quite graphic. It's just like Kentucky Fried Movie except not as funny. Love the fingers, easy lube, and I'm da f**kin' president parts. Dealers skit is pretty cool too. I give it a 6.5 or 7 out of ten A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a "ripoff") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).

The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!).

The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.

There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women. When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart! When you compare what Brian De Palma was doing in the 80's to what passes for entertainment today, his films keep looking better and better. "Dressed To Kill, "Blow Out", "Body Double", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way" are all superb works of a cinematic craftsman at the peak of his powers. The guy had a long run of better than average films. This is pure Hitchcock with an 80's dash of lurid perversion, an affectionately told tale of lust and murder with plenty of twists, huge helpings of style, a stunning Pino Donaggio score, and a trashy, giallo-inspired plot. De Palma's love of complex camera-work and luscious, blood-smudged visuals helps overcome the logical holes while the terrific performances of Dennis Franz, Keith Gordon (a good director in his own right), Nancy Allen (De Palma's wife at the time) and Michael Caine make every scene special. Let the virtuoso take you on a surreal, scary, erotically charged odyssey and you'll enjoy every frame of "Dressed To Kill". Psychotic transsexual Bobbi murders the patient (Angie Dickinson) of a prominent doctor (Michael Caine) and then pursues the high-priced prostitute (Nancy Allen) who caught a glimpse of Bobbi in the elevator. Liz (Allen) comes under suspicion of the crime and teams up with the patient's son (Keith Gordon) to catch the killer.

It can be summed up in a couple of words: it's very sexy (Dickinson and Allen look great), it's very bloody - with the kind of gore usually reserved for splatter movies, and boy is it well crafted. Writer / director De Palma's script is OK but it really takes a backseat to the man's film-making abilities. It is highly successful on a visceral level and I actually get involved / interested with these characters. I can notice the standard De Palma homages to / ripoffs of Hitchcock - at least from one of the Master's pictures.

And to top it all off, it has a professional and believable cast.

This was De Palma's third movie with ex-wife Nancy Allen (after "Carrie" and "Home Movies".)

By the way, dancer-turned-actress Rachel Ticotin was one of the production assistants. There's a bit of trivia for you.

I wouldn't think a thriller could be classy and bloody at the same time but this picture pulls it off.

One of the best things about it is a typically striking Pino Donaggio music score.

8/10 Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.

Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.

But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.

One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.

De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.

The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair. In France, it's considered polite from French critics to genuflect to the apparently cohesive chain of films Brian De Palma left behind him. However, a good proportion of his films are marred by bombastic effects "Carrie" (1976), "the Fury" (1978) "Scarface" (1983) without mentioning his borrowings from Hitchcock. Here, in "Dressed to Kill", it's impossible not to think of "Vertigo" (1958) for the long sequence in the museum while the key moment in the lift makes inevitably think of the shower anthology sequence in "Psycho" (1960). About our involved film, I don't want to revive the old debate: does De Palma rip off Hitchcock? Instead, i would tend to be generous and to classify "Dressed to Kill" in the category of De Palma's winners alongside "Sisters" (1973) and "Obssession" (1976). With however some reservations and they're the ones I previously enumerated which fuel the bickering between De Palma's rabid fans and his detractors.

If there's one sure thing in "Dressed to Kill" which can generate general agreement among film-lovers, it's De Palma's virtuosity in directing. He wields his camera just like a filmmaker expert is supposed to do. His sophisticated camera work brilliantly fuels the suspense which entails a rise of the tension and a discomforting aura. The audience is easily glued in front of the screen. This is helped by the use of several long silent sequences during which everything depends on looks and gestures. By the way, in "Psycho", there were also long silent, suspenseful parts...

But the main drawback in De Palma's 1980 vintage is that the quality of the plot can't be found wanting and appears to be a rehash of many formulaic, corny ingredients pertaining to an incalculable number of murder stories. The prostitute is the sole witness of the crime. Then, she's suspected by the police and has to act on her own (with a little help from the victim's son from the scene in the subway onwards)) to track down the murderer and to prove her innocence. Apart from the fact that De Palma uses a type of character who for once isn't demeaned at all, it's a menu which smells the reheated. And the filmmaker ends his film on a sequence that echoes to the opening one. Yes, it's superbly filmed but when one discovers its real function, one figures: "it's almost gratuitous filler". Perhaps De Palma wanted to stretch his film beyond one hour and a half when at this time the viewer knows (and even before) who the killer is.

The two central mainsprings in De Palma's set of themes articulate hinges on manipulation and voyeurism. The latter theme is well present in "Dressed to Kill" from the first scene onwards which makes the film almost look like a soft porn movie. And the filmmaker isn't afraid to film his main actress and wife Nancy Allen in her underwear. I find his approach about this theme rather doubtful. But maybe the first sequence was conceived to be a mirror of the viewer and De Palma wanted to stir his peeping tom side.

I don't want to demean at all De Palma's work. His prestigious work in directing which entails a communicative treat to film redeems the global weakness of the story and its doubtful aspects. Twenty six years after, the controversy he aroused amid movie-goers isn't ready to subside. "Dressed To Kill", is one of the best thrillers ever made. Its dealings with sex and violence make this a film for adults. Brian De Palma, once again, proves why no other director can match his use of the camera to tell a story. He directs many scenes without dialog, and he tells much of his story, strictly through the use of his visuals, and Pino Donnagio's brilliant score. Filmed in Panavision, the film MUST be seen in widescreen, as De Palma uses the entire width of the film to tell his story. Cropped, on video, "Dressed To Kill", is barely the same movie. Solid performances from its cast, superb direction, and, perhaps, the finest film score ever written, make "Dressed To Kill" a must see. This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palmawith amazing performances all around!. It's extremely suspenseful, and often scary, and the score is fantastic, plus all the characters were awesome. Yes it rips off Psycho a lot, however it's still a brilliantly made horror/thriller, with a fantastic opening and a shocking and unpredictable finale!. This is unquestionably one of the best horror/thrillers i have ever seen, and the elevator scene is one of the most memorable scenes ever, plus Michael Caine is simply amazing in this!. The ending is excellent, and the hospital scene near the end is absolutely terrifying, plus the end twist shocked the hell out of me!. It never failed to creep me out, and the stalk sequences are absolutely brilliant, plus Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon had fantastic chemistry together!. This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palma, with amazing performances all around!. The Direction is Incredible!. Brian De Palma does an incredible job here, with Amazing camera work, incredible angles, fantastic use of colors, awesome zoom in's and zoom out's great POV shots and keeping the film at a very very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood. We get bloody stabbings, knifing's, bloody gunshot wounds,and 2 bloody slit throats.The Acting is amazing!. Michael Caine is AMAZING here, he is amazing in the acting department, creepy, is very likable, was mysterious, and really just did an amazing job overall i Loved him! (Caine Rules!). Angie Dickinson gives a memorable performance here, and was quite beautiful, and had good chemistry with Caine. Nancy Allen is STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS!, and is fantastic here, she is extremely likable as the hooker, had excellent chemistry with Keith Gordon, and put on a tremendous show!. Keith Gordon is very good as the kid, he had excellent chemistry with Nancy Allen, and was very likable!. Dennis Franz is good as the detective. Overall this is unquestionably one of the best horror films ever made, and i say drop what your doing immediately and go see it!. ***** out of 5 "Dressed to Kill" has been more or less forgotten in critical circles in the past 20 years, but it is a true American classic, a film which is much more than just a glossy thriller.

I sincerely hope the DVD release will give more people the chance to hear about it and see it. Intelligent, stylish, and compelling thriller from the great Brian De Palma is a modern classic that firmly ranks among his best films!

When troubled housewife is brutally murdered by a bizarre stranger, the victim's son joins with a prostitute to uncover the killer.

Dressed to Kill left a strong impression upon the audiences of its day and for good reason. De Palma creates a wonderfully dramatic story that begins with an intriguing setup and builds into a harrowing mystery full of strong suspense. The finale and conclusion are especially 'nightmarish'.It's a truly edge of your seat shocker. Even more impressive though is De Palma's elegant direction that gives this film not only tight suspense but a unique and dark atmosphere of its own. Dressed to Kill is also a very erotic film, but mainly in a strangely beautiful way. Pino Donaggio also lends a lovely musical score to the film.

The cast is another strong feature of this film. Michael Cain does a terrific turn as a psychiatrist. Angie Dickenson is wonderful as the ill-fated housewife. Nancy Allen's performance as an involved street-walker is solid. A young Keith Gordon also proves to be a worthy supporter as the investigating son.

Many criticize De Palma's films for having Hitchcockian elements and this film was no exception. But any similarities between Hitchcocks works and De Palmas can only be seen as a good quality, as calling this film a 'rip-off' would be degrading to a fine thriller. Dressed to Kill is a must see for all cinema fans.

**** out of **** Dressed to Kill (1980) is a mystery horror film from Brian De Palma and it really works.The atmosphere is right there.The atmosphere that makes you scared.And isn't that what a horror film is supposed to do.All the actors are in the right places.Michael Caine is perfect as Dr. Robert Elliott, the shrink with a little secret.Angie Dickinson as Kate Miller, the sexually frustrated mature woman is terrific.Keith Gordon as her son Peter is brilliant.Nancy Allen as Liz Blake the call girl is fantastic.Dennis Franz does his typical detective role.His Detective Marino is one of the most colorful in this movie.There are plenty of creepy scenes in this movie.The elevator scene is one of them.There have been made comparisons between this and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).There are some similarities between these two movies.Both of these movies may cause some sleepless nights. Dressed to Kill understandably made a bit of a ruckus when first released in 1980: you had "Police Girl" in a role that was mega-erotic, as Angie Dicknson played a sexually frustrated housewife looking for good times in all the wrong museums (and there into apartment elevators), plus Nancy Allen as a call-girl, Michael Caine as Norman Bates's sophisticated New York cousin, and enough lurid imagery to last two movies of the period. Today it's slightly less incriminating by standards and such, though the unrated version has some of the most "hot" content of any of De Palma's films, at least in his quasi-auteur period of the 70s and early 80s, where he seemed to repeat themes over and over, ideas taken right off the film-reels of Hitchcock classics and given a tawdry uplift. It's a simple tale that one partly already saw in Sisters, and then again to an extent in Body Double, and also in Blow Out. Cutie Allen plays call-girl Liz Blake, who has to clear her name of suspicion of killing Kate (Dickinson, in full blown 'MILF' mode), after being found with a razor, the murder weapon from Dr. Elliott's office (Michael Caine, stone-cold performance most of the way).

From the start, which De Palma seems to do as a way of setting up a dangerous sexual fantasy scene as a way of topping the opening scene of Carrie (which, perhaps, he does just in editing terms), we get a series of technical knock-out turns through the point of view of style itself: the tracking shots in the museum, meant to stir up more of a fascination with the process itself, of following and wanting to be followed, than any kind of tension; the chase through the subway (a precursor to Carlito's Way) is done with a precise level of suspense, meanwhile, with a slightly exploitation bit thrown in with the black gang; the character of Peter, Kate's son (Keith Gordon), who plays what is essentially a younger version of the real life De Palma as a kid (science geek, obsessed with Hitchcock and voyeurism). And it's all entertaining and entrancing as hell as something that comes close to a real synthesis of what makes De Palma's thrillers so unique while being so self-consciously untainted by a fearless attitude of film-making.

On the other hand, that same self-consciousness ended up coming back to bite the director in the butt a few times in recent years, and somehow in Dressed to Kill it starts to become very erratic and disappointing as the story has to wrap itself up. As the Psycho themes come together even more apparently (man who wants a sex-change, doesn't even think he's killing as it is *she* who is doing it), there is an expository scene in the police station that makes the aforementioned Hitch film look like an astonishing psychological revelation. And the final scenes at Peter's house, also calling painfully into recollection a much more accomplished sequence in Carrie, are meant for a manipulation that even for De Palma is asking for it; the final shot especially, albeit a master's class in how to copy yourself. Yet there is a very deranged and, within itself, perfect scene at the mental hospital amid this confused denouement, where the doctor does some work on a nurse, to which all the other inmates act like animals in a zoo, and an over-head shot going up and up over the scene is one of the best shots of sexual/general perversion ever captured on film.

A shame then that the film ends on such a strange and unsettling manner, where up until then it is a remarkable piece of pulp cinema, where class is all around in the technical aspects (soft lighting, intricate camera movements seemingly so simple) amid subject matter that should be found in the mix of paperbacks for 25 cents. It's no masterpiece, but I'd certainly take it over most of the director's recent thrillers any day. De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale.

The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near—-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that "she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter." She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.

Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories… and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill.

The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.

In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time.

...Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; "Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!" Or maybe you don't, but I do.

A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.

Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing.

It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...

Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.

Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.

With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.

Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant. May contain minor spoilers.

Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.

Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.

What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.

Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone. A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.

What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).

The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.

In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works. i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10 The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank! "Dressed to Kill" is surely one of the best horror/thriller movies ever made.It's taut,stylish and extremely suspenseful mixture of sex and violence.The acting is pretty good,the orchestral score by Pino Donaggio is unforgettable and there's plenty of surprises to keep thriller fans intrigued."Dressed to Kill" is a murder mystery that involves a sexually frustrated housewife(Angie Dickinson),her teenage son(Keith Gordon),her psychoanalyst(Michael Caine),and a high price call girl(Nancy Allen).The murderer in the film is a transsexual named Bobbi who is also one of Caine's patients.The film is full of breathtaking moments:the infamous elevator murder scene is extremely stylish and pretty gory as well.Highly recommended. "Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.

Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.

Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense),

Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...

I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.

What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.

DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.

**** out of 4 stars Writer-director Brian De Palma is best known for his string of films that have been called, somewhat unfairly, "Hitchcock imitations." Contrary to popular belief, De Palma doesn't rip-off Hitchcock; he borrows story or character elements that may have been seen in a Hitchcock film and then expands on them in a more violent, modern way. Like Hitchcock, De Palma is known for mixing blood-soaked death with macabre humor.

"Dressed to Kill," made way back in 1980, is, perhaps, De Palma's most well-known Hitchcockian film, and it's probably his best as well. The story involves a cross-dressing serial killer stalking both a burnt-out housewife (played by Angie Dickinson) and a street-wise hooker (played by Nancy Allen).

Yes, it will remind you distinctly of "Psycho," but De Palma's flick is just as technically ingenious and darkly creative. The museum sequence is particularly well-scored and edited; the elevator stab scene is also one of the most uniquely shot murders ever put on film. "Dressed to Kill" may not be a complete original, but I'd say it's definitely worth your time. Rated R. 105 minutes. 9 out of 10. Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement. This is probably one of Brian De Palma's best known movies but it isn't his best. Body Double, The Fury and Carrie are better movies but this movie is better than Blow Out and Obsession. De Palma is very influenced by Hitchcock and this movie is a take off on Psycho. Angie Dickinson is a bored housewife who is thinking of having an affair and after her psychiatrist, played by Michael Caine, turns down an offer, Dickinson meets a man in a art gallery and she winds up sleeping with him. After this point it's best you don't know what happens but there is a murder and Nancy Allen is a call girl who gets a look at the killer. Dennis Franz is the detective on the case who really doesn't trust Allen and she has to find the killer herself. It's a pretty good movie but isn't one of De Palma's best. the fact that the movie is predictable is not a problem. this movie is like a beautiful painting to be enjoyed. the museum scene is like a nice music video. the apres sex scene is an all too familiar scene in all of our adult lives. but the movie would not hold any interest for me without keith gordon. keith gordon is maybe one of the most underrated actors of our time. almost everything i know about acting came from studying mostly his eyes. he had the most compelling face. his character possesses the qualities i look in a guy, sensitivity and dedication. keith gordon is gorgeous. BTW, i kinda wish he'd shave his beard now as his lips, jawline and adam's apple were his prettiest set next to his eyes. In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in "Christine") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz. *** out of ****

Yep! Dressed To Kill is that kind of a movie. It's like Kalifornia, but it's different. Remember? That movie from 1993 which stars Brad Pitt as a serial killer who is "welcomed" by a couple of travelers in a trip to California as a buddy who might be a good company along the way. When I watch a movie, I always like not to know anything at all about the plot, before watching it, because the surprises may get even cooler. That's how it was with Kalifornia. When I watched it last year for the first time, I never realized it was a suspense movie, so when I found out, I was shocked, and when the movie went on and on, it got even better and I was at the edge of my seat, almost kissing my monitor, so close I was to it! So, we're discussing about Dressed To Kill, right? Before I watched this movie (today!), I've only watched 2 others movies from Brian De Palma, so I can say I don't really know that well his works, but can tell from afar that these 2 movies for me were as great as they could be. Carrie (1976) and Mission:Impossible (1996). When I watched Carrie on the TV, I was really that desperate to get a DVD copy and I can tell: this movie is great! Mission:Impossible also. And today, I watched a third movie from DePalma.

Well, Dressed To Kill is a movie like Kalifornia. When the movie goes on, it goes completely different than what you'd expect. I was watching, very curious, the scene of the museum, where Dickinson follows the mysterious man to his cab and they end together in an apartment room. You may guess what may have happened there. But when the movie reached the scene of the elevator, the movie went completely on a different path. I was watching the rest of the movie, and I really liked it. However, there are some low points... Some characters in the movie are completely silent! Take, for example, the mysterious man from the museum scene. I was always hoping that he could say something but he never did! This was totally ridiculous and was with no doubt something that made me change my mind by not accepting this movie as at least almost something as a masterpiece. Even in the cab scene, where Dickinson tries to apologize because of what happened in the museum, the completely silent man grabs her, pulls her inside the cab, and they start kissing each other. You know, it reminded me of the Mexican TV series of the 70's "El Chavo Del 8", where some characters are completely silent. Getting past these low points of the movie, it is actually a great movie, considering the suspense, the characters and the plot. Dennis Franz is cool as detective Marino! Reminded me of him as Capt. Carmine Lorenzo in Die Hard 2 (1990) where he plays almost the same kind of character.

Well, concluding this review, the ending of Dressed To Kill is the same ending as it is in Carrie! I don't know if I really liked that, because I hate imitations! I understand that Carrie is a movie from DePalma, so it's not actually an imitation, because after all it was his idea! But it turned to be a repetitive idea in Dressed To Kill, so DePalma could have done something different instead of showing Nancy Allen waking up from a bad dream the same way it happens to Amy Irving at the ending scene of Carrie. This was, of course, with no doubt, another low point. But if you get past this, you will find that Dressed To Kill is a really good movie, and I assure you that it's not, by any means, a waste of time watching it. Typical De Palma movie made with lot's of style and some scene's that will bring you to the edge of your seat.

Most certainly the thing that makes this movie better as the average thriller, is the style. It has some brilliantly edited scene's and some scene's that are truly nerve wrecking that will bring you to the edge of your seat. The best scene's from the movie; The museum scene and the elevator murder. There are some mild erotic scene's and the movies pace might not be fast enough for the casual viewer to fully appreciate this movie. So this movie might not be suitable for everybody.

The story itself is also quite good but it really is the style that makes the movie work! It might be for the fans only but also casual viewers should appreciate the well build up tension in the movie.

There are some nice character portrayed by a good cast. Michael Caine is an interesting casting choice and Angie Dickinson acts just as well as she is good looking (not bad for a 49-year old!).

The musical score by Pino Donaggio is also typically De Palma like and suits the movie very well, just like his score for the other De Palma movie, "Body Double".

Brilliant nerve wrecking thriller. I love De Palma!

10/10 Yesterday, I went to the monthly Antique Flea Market that comes to town. I really have no interest in such things, but I went for the fellowship of friends who do have such an interest. Looking over the hundreds of vendor, passing many of them quickly, I spotted someone selling VHS tapes and DVDs. Most of the films he had on DVD were rather recent; the oldest one I noticed was the 1940 Cary Grant-Irene Dunne co-starrer MY FAVORITE WIFE. But the VHS tapes, by their nature, were mostly older films. I couldn't resist buying SOMETHING since they were being sold at 3 tapes for $10.00. What a bargain, as Eddie Murphy used to say. I came across one film that I had heard about for years but had never seen: John Cassavettes's OPENING NIGHT (1977). Well, I certainly wanted that being a fan of Gena Rowlands, and I had heard that this film contained one of her finest performances. He also had FACES (1968). I had seen this about 20 years ago, a time when I probably had not had enough life experience to appreciate it thoroughly. And I wanted to take advantage of the bargain, so I grabbed that one too. My other choice was CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970).

When I got home, I decided to put aside the work I had planned to do so that I could watch OPENING NIGHT. I was totally enthralled by this film. It focuses on Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), a famous actress of stage and screen, who, during out-of-town previews, is having personal and professional problems coming to terms with both her character and the play's theme of facing aging. After one rehearsal, an avid fan and autograph hound accosts her with cries (and tears) of "I love you! I love you!" A few minutes later, this fan is hit by a car and killed. This begins Myrtle's descent into herself where she must face her own fears of aging, the future of her career as a mature actress, and the inadequacies she finds in the play itself (written by a much older female dramatist, played by Joan Blondell). Throughout the film, she sees the dead girl, an obvious symbol of her past; drinks almost constantly; and receives insincere support from her director (Ben Gazzara), the producer (Paul Stewart), her costar (John Cassavettes himself), and the dramatist. Actually, they're more concerned about how her behavior will affect them and their careers: flubbing lines on stage, improvising new lines, generally cracking up on stage, and arriving for the Broadway opening totally drunk.

This story functions not only to address the issues of aging but also to promote Cassavettes's displeasure with mainstream movie-making. As I watched the film, I was at times surprised, confused, amused, disparaging, but ultimately involved, entertained, and satisfied. Cassavettes really had a great sense of humor, cared very much that his audience understood what he was implying, and wanted them to be emotionally involved in the story. He makes allusions to ALL ABOUT EVE with the use of the avid theater fan, even dressing the young girl in a slicker and hat similar to the one worn by Anne Baxter at the beginning of that film. This allusion functions most obviously to support his aging theme, the contrast of the older and younger woman. He also obviously uses the contrast as a symbol for Myrtle's confronting her own lost youth. At first, I felt the symbolism was TOO obvious, but then I realized that that was Cassavettes's intention. He doesn't want his audience misunderstanding what he's getting at; if they did, it would interfere with their emotional involvement. This spectre of youth haunts Myrtle, attacks her, and wants to destroy her. Myrtle eventually "kills" her, but before she can really come to terms with herself and the play, she must reach bottom (another figurative death?). So Cassavettes has her get so drunk that she can't walk and must crawl to her dressing room the night the play opens on Broadway. She resurrects herself (helping yourself out of such situations is also important to the film's theme) and makes the play a success by giving a great performance and changing the direction of play for the better by improvising so that it contains some ray of hope for the aging character she's playing. These scenes are funny and interesting. Cassavettes and Rowlands actually did the play in front of live audiences, who did and did not know they were going to be part of a movie. The play they're doing also acts as contrast: it's mainstream and self-serious about the issues it addresses, that is, until Myrtle changes its denouement. In doing so, she also improves the work of her co-stars. The natural evolution of interaction (achieved through improvisation)between and among human beings, subjective realism, and universal truth - these were Cassavettes's concerns in making films.

Gena Rowlands is amazing throughout. Of course, she has that great face, and Cassavettes (notoriously in love with her throughout their marriage) treats us to numerous closeups of it so that we too can feel her emotions and that we know what's going on inside of her. She makes you care so much about this character that you want to see her work her way out of this crisis of the soul. And this is what holds your attention for the 2 hours and 30 minutes running time. The film is deliberately paced at times and requires constant attention, but anyone with interest in good film-making and great acting will be rewarded. Someone else said that this is a movie for people who love movies. All others be forewarned.

Seek out OPENING NIGHT if you've never seen it. Everyone in it is excellent, and it's one of Cassavettes's best films. It was once suggested by Pauline Kael, never a fan, that Cassavetes thought not like a director, but like an actor. What Kael meant was his supposed lack of sophistication as a filmmaker; to take that comparison further, to me, it never feels like Cassavetes is directing himself in a film, it feels like Cassavetes implanting himself inside his own creation, like Orson Welles. Cassavetes is just as much of a genius as Welles, but far more important as a true artist (as opposed to a technician or rhetorician). This is like a cross between Italian passion (though Cassavetes was actually Greek) and Scandinavian introversion. Never before have inner demons been so exposed physically.

It's about the mystery of becoming, performing, and acting. Like a haunted Skip James record, it's got the echoes of ghosts all around. Rowlands' breakdowns, which are stupefying and almost operatic, surprising coming from Cassavetes, are accompanied by a jumpy, unsettling piano. Who is this dead girl? The metaphysical possibilities are endless, and it's amazing to find this kind of thing in a Cassavetes film, just the overt display of intelligence (there is also a brief bit of voice-over at the beginning). But then, he always was intelligent, he just never flapped it around for easy praise. This is not "Adaptation"; here, the blending of reality and fiction and drama is not to show cleverness but to show the inner turmoil and confusion it creates.

There's so much going on. The pure, joyous love when Rowlands greets her doorman; the horror when she beats herself up... The scene where the girl talks about how she devoted her life to art and to music is one of the most effective demonstrations of understanding what it means to be a fan of someone. You can see some roots of this in "A Star Is Born," and Almodovar borrowed from it for "All About My Mother." I think the ending is a little bit of a disappointment because of the laughing fits, but the preparation leading up to it is almost sickening. (You can shoot me, but I think the alcoholism, despite its urgency in many of the scenes, is a relatively small point about the film.)

It's a living, breathing thing, and it feels like a process: it could go any direction at any time. Like "Taste of Cherry," we are reminded that "you must never forget this is only a play." Yet it is dangerous: when Rowlands says that line, is it great drama? How will the audience take it? Is she being reflexive or does she just not care? Her (character's) breakdowns are incorporated into the performances, and ultimately the film, in such a way that it's like witnessing a female James Dean. 10/10 Let's go straight to the point: this is The Movie I would take with me on a desert island (with dvd player). It's just perfect. If a reason for you to see a movie is that you love the actors, you like to see them free to involve in the space and feelings, this movie is for you. See the scene when Myrtle (Rowlands) come on stage drunk and Maurice(Cassavetes) has to improvise because she doesn't follow the script anymore. If you're sensitive to the camera's movements, you'll be fascinated by the way the camera moves on stage, the particular flow, that give you the impression camera follow the actors as if it was lead by the theatrical principle of "private space"... amazing. And the story is just a brilliant mix of tale and realistic drama. Cassavetes is again arguing with Hollywood and the majors' politics, but this time, he do it through Broadway, making one of the most exciting movie about theater. Well, this movie is a bliss. Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10. Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10. I only know of one other movie that could possibly compete with Opening Night and that's Bergman';s Persona. Both movies are simply amazing, they have a richness of ideas hard to grasp at first sight. We have a profound meditation on the relation of art and life as one actress, Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), finds herself more in touch with the character she is playing on stage than she would want to. The accidental death of one of her fans, a young girl that declares her love for Myrtle and she is then hit by a car, leaves a deep mark in the actress. She starts asking herself question related to her aging that starts to affect her until the only solution becomes alcohol. But that doesn't help to much and Myrtle is one step away from complete madness. The scene where she kill the imaginary (or not) spirit of the dead girl is one of the most thrilling scenes I found in a Cassavets film. The movie ends with a display of genius on behalf of the director as he films a theater scene where he himself and Gena Rowlands improvise a scene, since Myrtle comes too drunk to the opening night to perform her part accurately. This scene was filmed spontaneously, with a live audience, the laughter is genuine, the chemistry between Casavates and Rowlands absolutely amazing. If you liked Persona or are interested in a movie that offers substantial ideas alongside great entertainment this movie will suit you just fine. Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.

At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.

Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ("I'm going to bury that bastard," she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.

Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.

Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are. Gena Rowlands plays an actress who loses her grip on reality when she witnesses the death of a fan of hers. She becomes increasingly deluded from reality, and as a result her emotional turmoil intrudes with her work as an actress. In the sense that she breaks all the rules of acting and improvises everything, yet still manages to engage her audience makes the film interesting (if a bit self-important) as a parallel of Cassavettes' own struggles as a filmmaker. There's so many ideas thrown around, and as result it becomes a bit muddled (I'm still pondering the relation between the dead fan and Rowlands, among many other things), but the way they're presented in their rawest form makes it a consistently interesting and thought-provoking film. Would be great on a double bill with Mulholland Drive.

Broadway and film actor-turned-director John Cassavetes (from Rosemary's Baby)creates a masterpiece with this 1977 film. It stars Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes himself, Ben Gazzara, Joan Blondell, Paul Stewart, Zohra Lampert, Laura Johnson and there is a cameo by Peter Falk. The premise of the film: An aging stage and film actress (Gena Rowlands)re-evaluates her life after an obscessed fan dies in a car accident trying to get her autograph. The movie has a slow pace and a dark, moody, frightening quality. It has a 60's cinematic look and it even reminded me of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby without the supernatural horror. The fears here are the ones every successful actress has- she is getting old and she will become useless in her career. Furthermore, she feels she has lived a life that lacks any true spirituality, humanity and merit. She has lived only for her career- she has no children, doesn't do charitable deeds, etc. The gradual disintegration of her personality is the meat of this film. She is falling apart. She's in a crisis. Gena Rowlands really gets into the character's tormented psyche and acts the part quite well. She is a terrific actress and this 70's film is a refreshing contrast to the often violent films of the period and or the disaster movies or adventure thrillers. It's a movie with lots of deep-seated emotion but has a cold, cynical feeling, as if Cassavetes is criticizing the mainstream movies and actors of the 70's generation. Either that or this movie is a product of the 70's which was itself cynical in many aspects- Nixon's deception, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Although the production values are not great, and this film is not well-known, it's a very haunting film with haunting moods. Kudos to the underrated and late director Cassavetes who died in the late 80's. I spent 5 hours drenched in this film. Nothing I have ever seen comes close to the delicious funk this film left me in. Never mind females advanced aging dilemma's, human fear vaults off the screen for your viewing. Personally engaging to the ninth degree, the film invests one with an undeniable shared feeling for our lives'. I enjoyed this dalliance with raw wounded gall deep from within. It empowers a mutually shared vestment in the history of human encounters reaching far deeper into the pain, isolation and skewed views of self and others. The result forgives our tepid forming of a bridge away from the muddy sludge of dead we must encounter. The birth in finding real people is a happy pursuit. The effort for realism intersects with the dark ground of our bankrupt culture. John Cassavetes' "Opening Night" is fantastic and fascinating; fantastic because it plays with the deepest fears we have inside our imagination, fascinating because it never ceases surprising us. With its very long duration of two hours and twenty minutes, anyone who appreciates characters won't be able to take their eyes off the screen.

The story of an unstable actress, Myrtle Gordon, (Gena Rowlands) trying to put herself together for a play, fighting her demons; "Opening Night" is not only about a woman on the verge of a breakdown but also about the complexities of the lives of theater actors and the theatrical world. All of Cassavetes' characters here are experienced people that know about the world of theater; so half of the film takes place on a stage, either where the performers do their job or at backstage, where producers and writers and directors do their job.

Cassavetes is so harsh with his characters that this unkindness turns towards the audience, but the audience in the cinema. Because there is another audience, in the theater of the film, that doesn't know what is really happening and laugh because they think everything is performance. And that's essentially what it is; it's just that the audience in the theater doesn't get to see 'backstage' the way we do. They don't experience Gena Rowlands' exuberance before she goes out to that stage, but most importantly; they don't know the reasons why she acts the way she does.

I always thought that it would be difficult to be friends with an actor. Myrtle (Rowland) says she's an actress and that's the only thing she knows how to do; and I imagine that if I had a friend who was a professional performer, it would be really difficult to tell when he's saying the truth because I would know he's an actor and he can fake anything at any time. A lot of the things that Myrtle does during the awful experiences the film puts her through…We suspect if she's being real; the rest of the characters suspect too.

There is the writer, Sarah (Joan Blondell), who can't understand why Myrtle doesn't understand the character she's written for her. There's the director, Manny (Ben Gazzara), who can't accept the fact that his best actress might be losing it; the producer David (Paul Stewart) who doesn't know where to stand and Myrtle's co-star Maurice (Cassavetes himself), who can't deal with the love they have for each other.

When she witnesses the death of a teenager, a fan; all of this comes together and affects Myrtle, but no one knows if her delusions are for real. They don't say anything because they don't want to upset her, but the movie enters in a state of subconsciousness that only Myrtle accepts. At times, we can tell that everyone has had it. During these moments, Cassavetes' brilliant script depicts a scary brutal honesty in the words the characters say in a discussion backstage; and not only what everyone tells Myrtle but also what she says to them.

Here are people who are not afraid to speak their mind and constantly change what they are thinking, just like Cassavetes' way of making cinema. And in this aspect, the performances are more important here than in "Shadows", because the characters are involved in a bigger picture; a bigger story that steps out of the trivial.

But in another aspect, the actual way of making cinema, this movie is no different from "Shadows". There's a beautiful thing in the way Al Ruban's camera shoots the characters. When someone's talking, the camera doesn't focus on him, it shoots the person who is listening; so we can see how he or she reacts to the things the other one's saying. Sometimes they don't care, sometimes they are happy, sometimes devastated.

Improvisation might still be there, though, among all these wonderful performances. Near the end, there's an unexpected scene where Cassavetes and Rowlands start talking, non-stop. Whether this was improvised or not is not something we have to wonder. We have just got to watch; and watching both of them exchanging life experiences and seeing words come truly alive in a conversation that means a lot more than what it shows…It doesn't get more natural than that. I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.

It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.

This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.

The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie. Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.

Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.

Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.

The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.

One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.

It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean? I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead. "Opening Night" released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The "improvising" in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times. John Cassavetes' 1977 film Opening Night is, what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist, 'overlooked'. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It's not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it's about a half hour too long, and there's a bit too much emphasis on the drunkenness of the lead character Myrtle Gordon, played by Gena Rowlands, the wife of Cassavetes, long after we've gotten the point. But only Woody Allen's masterpiece, Another Woman, which also starred Rowlands, eleven years later, is a better portrait of the internal conflicts of an aging woman. Yet, Rowlands did win the Best Actress Award at the Berlin Film Festival for this portrayal, and it was well deserved. Often this film, written by Cassavetes, is easily compared to his earlier- and inferior- film, A Woman Under The Influence, but it's a spurious comparison. Rowlands' character in that film is severely mentally disturbed from the start, as well as coming from a blue collar background, while her characters in this film and in Allen's film are both artists who are haunted by apparitions. In this film it's the ghost of a dead young woman who can be seen as Myrtle's younger doppelganger, while in Allen's film it's her character's own past…. Many critics have taken this film to be a portrait of an alcoholic, seeing Myrtle surround herself with enablers, such as a stage manager who tells her, during opening night, 'I've seen a lot of drunks in my time, but I've never seen anyone as drunk as you who could stand up. You're great!', but this is wrong, for alcohol isn't her problem- nor is her chain smoking. They are merely diversions from whatever thing is really compelling her to her own destruction, and much to Cassavetes' credit, as a storyteller, he never lets us find out exactly what's wrong with Myrtle, and despite her coming through in the end, there's no reason to expect that she has really resolved anything of consequence. This sort of end without resolution links Cassavetes directly with the more daring European directors of the recent past, who were comfortable in not revealing everything to an audience, and forcing their viewers to cogitate, even if it hurts.

Yet, the film recapitulates perfectly the effect of a drunk or fever lifting out of the fog, and as such the viewer again is subliminally involved in its drama. Whether or not Myrtle Gordon does recover, after the film's universe irises about her is left for each and every viewer to decide, and as we have seen before that lid closes, one's choices do matter. The movie was much better than the other reviewer stated. It's a nice family movie. It has a fun fantasy aspect of some time travel. The story revolves around a 14 year old girl who accidentally finds a way to travel back in time in the old elevator of her apartment building. Of course, no one believes her when she tries to explain her disappearances. She finds and makes friends with a girl about her age and is able to help the girl's family in many ways. She is also able to help her own relationship with her father in the long run. It reminds me of a Hallmark movie so give it a chance and decide for yourself. It seemed to be aimed more towards children about 6-12 years (maybe a bit older) and it's pretty much PG or G rated. I'm an adult who can appreciate a nice "family" movie - I guess the other reviewer isn't. I found 'Time At The Top' an entertaining and stimulating experience. The acting, while not generally brilliant, was perfectly acceptable and sometimes very good. As a film obviously aimed at the younger demographic, it is certainly one of the better works in the genre (Children's Sci-Fi). Normally, I would say that Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia produce the best movies and TV shows for children, and 'Time At The Top' does nothing to discount this theory! I don't think that continuity and great acting are important to younger people. A good plot and an imaginative screenplay are far more important to them. Both are in abundance in this film. The special effects are good, without detracting from the story, or closing the viewers off from their own imaginations. It would have been very easy to inject an over-load of SFX in this film, but it would have totally destroyed its entire 'Raison D'etre'.

The settings and camera work are of a very high standard in this movie, and complement the fine wardrobe and historical accuracy. Overall, this film is highly satisfactory, and I recommend it to all viewers who can see the world through children's eyes, or those that try to, like myself! Now, I really must read the original book, as soon as possible. A fascinating look at the relationship of a single father in 1998 and a single mother in 1881, tied together by a time-traveling teenager. Reminded me of "Somewhere In Time," Richard Matheson's "Bid Time Return," as rendered by Christopher Reeves and Jane Seymour. I love the movie, it was a very interesting fantasy movie b/c of the real meaning of family in it, the history of our country, the fun-filled action displayed in the movie. I watch time @ the top about 4 X's a week and I just love it! I wish that a sequel had of been made to see more of Susan's dad in the past and watching how Susan delt with her new baby sister and having no telephone, computers, gameboys or anything of the 21st century. I hope everyone else enjoyed the movie as much as I did I guess you could say I'm a time at the top fanatic and I don't mind. The lil boy in the movie Robert Lincoln Walker was simply adorible I wonder who he is and how old he is today. Does anyone know if he's played in over movies or TV shows? I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).

The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.

It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).

Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old "Thirty Something," gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.

Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years. Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...

I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood! I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote "reserved" for his "book," which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after "In Cold Blood." Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.

Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.

So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to "do it now" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer "attitude mode" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.

Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.

What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic "interpretation of life and death" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.

The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic "non-fiction novel" do not control these interpretations and performances.

If "In Cold Blood" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss. This two-part TV mini-series isn't as good as the original from 1966 but it's solid. The original benefited from a huge number of things---it was all in black and white, it had a great jazz score and it was filmed at the real locations, including the home of the doomed Clutter family. That was important because in the book and in the original movie the home is very much a character itself.

This remake was filmed in Canada which I guess doubles okay for Kansas. The story tries to be as sympathetic to Perry as it dares to and Eric Roberts plays him as a somewhat fey person, his homosexuality barely hidden. The gentler take by Roberts doesn't quite work in the end though because it's hard to believe that his version of Perry Smith would just finally explode in a spasm of murder. Whereas Robert Blake's take on Smith left you no doubt that his Perry Smith was an extremely dangerous character.

Anthony Edwards was excellent as the bombastic, big-mouthed and ultimately cowardly Dick Hickcock, the brains of the outfit. His performance compares very well to Scott Wilson's role in the original movie.

Since this is a longer movie it allows more time to develop the Clutter family and in this regard I think the 1996 movie has an advantage. The Clutters are just an outstanding, decent family. They've never harmed another soul and it is just inexplicable that such a decent family is ultimately massacred in such a horrifying way. It still boggles my mind that, after the Clutters were locked in the bathroom, that Herb Clutter didn't force out the window so at least his children would have a chance to escape. This movie has the thought occur to him, but too late. From what I read about the real home, which is still standing, the way the bathroom is configured they could've opened the counter drawers and effectively barricaded the door which would've forced the killers to blast their way in. But it might've bought time for some of the Clutters to escape. Why the Clutters didn't try this, I have no idea.

Fans of the book will recognize that this movie takes a lot of liberties with how the crime is committed but not too serious. Still, it's distracting to viewers like me who have read tons about the case. The actors playing the cops, led by Sam Neill and Leo Rossi, are uniformly excellent, much better, I think, as a group, than the actors in the original movie. They know that to secure the noose around the necks of both of them they have to get them to confess. And the officers come to the interview impeccably prepared. They had already discovered the likely alibi the phony story of going to Fort Scott, and had debunked every jot of it. The officers then let Smith & Hickcock just walk into their trap. Hickcock is a b.s. artist who figures he can convince anyone of anything and the officers respectfully let him tell his cover story. But when they lower the boom on him, he shatters very quickly. It's very well filmed and acted and very gratifying to watch because the viewer naturally should loath Hickcock in particular by this point, a cowardly con-man who needs the easily manipulated Smith to do his killing for him. Supposedly Hickcock later stated that the real reason for the crime wasn't to steal money from the Clutters but to rape Nancy Clutter. At least she was spared that degradation.

The actors playing the Clutters are very good, Kevin Tighe as Herb Clutter in particular. The story sensitively deals with Mrs. Clutter's emotional problems, most likely clinical depression, and Mrs. Clutter displays remarkable inner strength when she firmly and strongly demands that the killers leave her daughter alone. From what I've read the Clutters' surviving family was particularly bothered by how Bonnie Clutter was portrayed in the book, claiming it was entirely untrue. But as an aside, both of the killers related to the police how Mr. Clutter asked them to not bother his wife because of her long illness. Capote might make up that fiction to make the character of Bonnie more interesting but certainly the killers had no reason to falsely portray Mrs. Clutter and no doubt much of the conversation in the book (duplicated in the movies) is right off the taped confessions of the killers. So it would've been nonsensical for Herb to have said that and not have it be true. Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.

The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.

The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.

I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves. After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!

Nick Houston This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America. The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar. I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence . Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life.

Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.

The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!

The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.

Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?

I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED! I loved this movie. It was so well done! Great acting and drama and historically accurate. I love Romy Schneider movies. This one rocks, not as great as Sissi but still rocks!

And Scorpiolina,she commented and said french dubbing. Well this is originally a German movie not french. So yea. Second of all there was a plot, maybe your not familiar with history. Oh and her mother played the part of her governess, not her teacher. And the storyline was actually not Cinderella but Queen Victoria, maybe u missed that detail.

But anyway.... yea the history in this movie is great, I love historical movies and Queen Victoria is very fascinating! I love all the historical stuff. Like that guy that was trying to manipulate her mom. And when she ran away and met her future husband and he showed her the "new type of dance" waltzing. When waltzing was new it was considered kinda scandalous because the couples dance so close. Yea her governess was like oh my god!

And also the clothes, I love the clothes. The styles are great, hoop skirts are awesome. And of course Romy always looks very pretty. Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like " My old Kentucky home" , and "Old black Joe". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected In one of her first movies, Romy Schneider shines as young queen Victoria of Britain, as she is suddenly put into the throne at the age of 18, learns to govern despite the machinations of the politicians, and eventually romances and marries Prince Albert of Saxony. Kitschy and campy (though surprisingly faithful to the real events), this romantic piece is irresistible. Seeing this movie about British royals spoken in German adds to its quaint charm. On that front, one wonders why an Austrian movie was made about an English queen; but then one remembers that in 1954, Austria was still under occupation by allied troops, including British ones. Maybe this was one of the reasons for the existence of this film. You better see this episode from the beginning, because if you start to watch it any later, you will be confused as to what is happening to Clark's life.

Yet, that is the twist; Clark is stuck in an alternate reality. Lana is devoted to him. Lex lost most of his legs and is in a wheelchair due to the bridge accident when he swerved to miss Clark in the pilot of the series. Martha is married to Lionel. About the only constant is his most loyal friend Chloe, who still believes in who he is. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have any superpowers. He is in a mental institution for putting himself in a fantasy world where he does have powers, and is ridiculed for believing so. Aside from Chloe, there is one mysterious figure who believes in Clark: a black man who in the alternate reality is also a resident of the institution, who believes he is from Mars.

Clark must stay true to everything he believes is actual reality, and not get brainwashed by the institution's psychiatrist, who is in fact the fourth Phantom Zone escapee.

This episode is utterly mind-blowing and shocking. Plus, it provides a fresh twist from the usual type of "Smallville" episode. While in the barn of Kent Farm with Shelby waiting for Chloe, Clark is attacked and awakes in a mental institution in the middle of a session with Dr. Hudson. The psychologist tells him that for five years he has been delusional, believing that he has come from Krypton and had superpowers. Clark succeeds to escape, and meets Lana, Martha and Lex that confirm the words of Dr. Hudson. Only Chloe believe on his words, but she is also considered insane. Clark fights to find the truth about his own personality and origin.

"Labyrinth" is undoubtedly the most intriguing episode of "Smallville". The writer was very luck and original denying the whole existence of the powerful boy from Krypton. The annoying hum gives the sensation of disturbance and the identity mysterious saver need to be clarified. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Labirinto" ("Labyrinth") Though derivative, "Labyrinth" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.

Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.

As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the "handicapped" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly "off-her-rocker" version.

The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama. This episode is a bit confusing. Some people say that you have to start from the very beginning but I have to say I was a bit confused from the beginning!

Clark gets a blow to the head and wakes up on the floor of Fairview Mental Institution and is made fun of for believing that he's a superhero. Clark is told that the life that he knew was all in his head. Delusional. He also find some things that are unusual: Martha's married to Lionel; Lex is bound to a wheelchair with his limbs cut off after his accident on the bridge; and Lana is devoted to Clark. But he finds one familiarity; someone else who's devoted to Clark: Chloe. He also finds that a mental patient is also from the known world of Smallville. And the doctor is an escapee from the Phantom Zone.

This episode reminds me right back to a Buffy episode called "Normal Again" where Buffy begins to have vivid-daydreams about a mental asylum. The doctor tried to convince her that all that she knew was a figment of her imagination and that she was, in fact, crazy. Her parents were still married, they still lived in LA, her friends didn't exist, Angel was never her boyfriend and she didn't have a sister called Dawn. Demons and vampires also didn't exist. Both episodes are a bit sad because doctors aren't just telling the characters that it's all a figment of her imagination but it tells us what it really is: fiction, and it brings us back to reality. It's nice, though, to have a sense of reality every once in a while, but we watch these shows to escape from reality. It's again nice because the characters have to overcome new challenges. (No spoilers, just plot details) I can't understand such hatred for this episode. You want to watch a bad episode of Smallville? Watch Subterranean - now there's a sack of crap. Tom Welling gives a good performance (I don't say that very often), and Michael Rosenbaum is great, but he is most of the time. The alternate universe scenario seems eerily realistic. The Martian Manhunter, who previously appeared in "Static", returns and tells Clark that the doctor that is the head of the insane asylum where they are being held at is actually a phantom from the phantom zone, and if Clark wants to return to his universe, he must kill him. An overall great episode, with good acting and a decent pace. Some bad reviews here for this and I understand why but treat it as a low budget serial killer film and you might get more from it than most.

I thought that this worked in a way because afterwards I felt dirty and wanted to take a long shower so that is some degree of success isn't it?

I would say there is just the right level of sleaze here to get under your skin although the acting is maybe a bit too uneven. David Hess is only in this brielfy so don not get your hopes up to much if you like Last House.

Other than that - worth a look. Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).

The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.

This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why "wink" "wink".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.

Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans. One of the more intelligent serial killer movies in recent history. ZODIAC KILLER offers an imaginative take on the background and history of one of the most notorious serial killers. The filmmakers create an unexpectedly good insight into the pathology of this mysterious killer, and anyone who remembers Zodiac will be intrigued. Others will want to discover more about this enigmatic criminal. Unlike many serial killers, Zodiac was not insane at all but very methodical and a self-promoter. The director here plays viewer expectations and pulls it off. The film is constructed as a murder mystery, or a "cold case"-style thriller. It is an intelligent investigative/procedural-style horror film that will put-off gore-hounds in search of cheap thrills.

Some people dislike any movie that is shot on video. This attitude is very old-style and provincial. It is an attitude and view of movies that puts technical issues above entertainment value or artistic value. These attitudes are on the way out. ZODIAC KILLER is a low-budget film, no doubt, but discerning viewers will look beyond that and find a carefully-crafted gem. I read thru most of the comments posted here & all I can say it that most of these posters have major problems in life. This show, unlike most game show, was fun. Mr. Shatner, whose brill in ALL that he does, was again the hit of the show. He's genuinely bubbly personality shines like a beacon where ever he goes. He's fun & makes you smile & that's exactly what the show does also. The dancers & questions, the round-about fashion they're presented only add to the shows appeal. And even though there's a Great deal of money at stake it's fun. The pressure (stress) that exists in most game shows does NOT exist here. Several people who posted messages complained how much time is waisted with the dancers & choosing questions, &c, like Millionaire doesn't have similar time wasters. All I can say is most of you have missed the whole concept. The idea here is to have FUN & ENJOY yourself. There's something for everyone. Qustions to test your knowledge, eye candy (the dancers), suspense, Mr. Shatner's wonderful fun-filled personality... well if that doesn't perk-up guys up then I feel bad for you; and if that's not enough, YOU CAN GET RICH! I really miss the show. Out of ALL the games shows that have ever been on, & to be quite frank, I HATE game shows, this is the one I really liked & truly miss. The only other game show I ever liked was Match Game. I absolutely love this game to death. Ever since I was 9 years old (I am now 15). It has great graphics, characters, magic, weapons, additions, and don't forget the ultimately awesome dragoon forms! I am still waiting for a remake, prequel, or a sequel to this spectacular video game.

You play as Dart, a young swordsman who has the potential to be quite the hero. On this adventure you encounter wondrous creatures and boss fights. You also encounter some friends on the way who have their own special element. Such as Fire, Darkness, Water/Ice, Thunder/Lightning, Earth, Light, and Wind. There are also items known as dragoon spirits, which allow you to transform into magical creatures of legend. Dragons, wizards, creatures called winglies and evil creatures you'll have to face on this adventure of action-packed thrills and excitement. One of my all time favorite games, The Legend of Dragoon! I remember this game. It was always sitting on the shelves alone, until one day I decided to try something new for a change, and got this game. I stared in awe at it, since it was the first ever game for the PS1 that I owned that had 4 discs. When I played it, I couldn't put the controller down, seriously.

The storyline of this game is so good and twisted, it's almost as good as the Final Fantasy VII Storyline, and that is hard to accomplish. When you play the game, you get so involved with the characters it's unbelievable that it's only a PS1 game, as It feels like a movie. And I believe it should be made into a movie.

Too bad this game is a very unheard of game and barely no one has played or liked it, as it is one of those games that is sitting on the ends of the shelves, with a 50% off sign sitting on it, trying to sell. Well I am one of those people who always look at those on the ends, and try them out and most of them turn out to be really good. Heck, that is how I got into final Fantasy VII, looking in a catalog, and finding it. But this is different than Final Fantasy.

Legend of Dragoon, is the only game or RPG that is better than most Square Enix games, surprisingly. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made by Square Enix but it's not. Hardly any games I play are better than the Final Fantasy series, or the Dragon Quest series, but this one is. But what really bugs me is why it is very little known and is not praised, which it should be.

Graphics are pretty good for a PS1 game, but what can you expect from it? It's PS1 man, made in 1999. Story I have already mentioned is amazing, almost beats VII. Characters are a amazing, you get involved so much with them, and their actions.

A definite 10 out of 10. Definitely deserved more praise, and a very well done RPG by a company other than Square Enix. I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play. This game is one of the best RPG. Fist, It is actually more amusing than any other because of the battle system (you harm the enemy depending on how you aim the attack, you can transform into dragoon, the special attack, the magic...). The script is very good. Characters are all lovely and you have no long dialogs to support, as happened in several games of Final Fintasy series. I got bored of that dialogs about past, when you just want to go on with the game's story. Ambientation is a jewel on this game, it combines Middle-age fantasy with futuristic science fiction. It's remarkable that animation effects are just incredible, i like them more than other in other modern games (we can't remember that Legend of the Dragoon is 8 years now). Then, Map is huge, there are all kinds of places an enemies. Finally, Music is not the best game muse I have heard, but it's perfect for a game like this. Legend of Dragoon is one of those little-known games that people either love or hate. Some people claim it's far too similar to other games, namely the Final Fantasy series--which is understandable, since it was originally intended to be Sony's equivalent of Final Fantasy. Honestly I can't comment on the similarities beyond that, as I'm not very familiar with the FF games.

I think my favorite aspect of the game is the battle system. Not only do you have the ability to change into a more powerful dragoon form, but every time you attack, you have to pay attention in order to complete the attack by pressing buttons at the correct time. Not only that, sometimes enemies will attack you back right in the middle of a sequence, which means you have to press different buttons in order to avoid taking damage. Even the use of certain attack items requires a bit of button-mashing. If you don't want to attack, you can always guard, which not only cuts any damage taken in half, but raises your hit points without the use of healing potions.

The FMVs are quite well-done, about the same quality as Final Fantasy 8's. However, the graphics during game play aren't quite up to that standard. They're nice, but they could have been--and honestly, should have been--better. The translation as well leaves something to be desired. Not only does it raise interesting character relationship questions, but there are also some grammatical mistakes that simply shouldn't have been allowed to pass.

Another thing I found interesting was that you lose main party characters--one dies, and the other basically becomes useless to the party and leaves. While the death of the one character is often said to have no point, it makes you realize early on that the characters, while heroes, are still just as mortal as the next person. The people who replace the lost characters simply gain all their stats, so the transition game play-wise is fairly smooth. Perhaps my one complaint about the characters is the main character's love interest, Shana. She is the epitome of the helpless female in need of rescuing, pathetic to the point of driving a player to screaming with frustration. While you can use her in your party, she is insanely weak--I don't even know what her dragoon powers are like, as I disliked her so much I never used her. The character Rose, by contrast, is probably my favorite female character in any game ever. She's no wimp, and some of her dragoon magic is extremely useful. Meru is quite strong as well, while sometimes being an annoying talkative brat.

The character designers were, as most are, inclined to make the female characters appear pretty or whatever, and didn't give much thought to the actual usefulness of the outfits. Seriously, no armor and having most of your skin exposed is not helpful when fighting monsters. But I will give them props, as they do have females serving as knights in the various countries.

I can't comment much on the plot, as honestly I didn't pay much attention to it beyond where I needed to go to next. I'm not sure if this says something about the plot itself, or my gaming style.

All in all, it's a very enjoyable game. It has its flaws, but for me it struck just the right balance of having to think and just pressing buttons and killing monsters. The story and the characters were some of the best I've ever seen. the graphics were good for the PS and the cut scenes and voice overs were amazing. I beat the game at least 3 times and loved every second of it. I felt the problems the protagonist faced were believable and realistic and i believe it deserves a sequel. or at least a remake. If they remade it for the ps3 i would buy the system for just that game and maybe mgs4 its amazing also the idea and execution of the dragoon system is enough to warrant a rental and on top of that ad the inventive although sometimes cheating(stupid buster wand) combat addition system and the plot makes this game a definite buy. I stumbled on this late last night n TCM.

Hadn't seen it since it came out originally, but had never forgotten it.

I had completely forgotten how gorgeous and talented Signe Hasso was when she was still young, ditto for Shelly Winters before she balooned out.

Ronald Coleman, though, was the quintessential state actor of his time - I had read Othello in high school English - and HATED it. After seeing "A Double Life" I read it again and finally understood what the play was about.

The Gordon/Kanin writing team was at its peak when this script was done -

A movie well worth remembering and rewatching, Ronald Colman gives an electrifying performance as Tony John, a Broadway actor who can't separate his offstage life from Shakespeare's Othello, the character he plays on stage....Two important scenes illustrate Tony's dilemma. The first one takes place in producer Max Lasker's office. Acting is a matter of talent for the practical-minded Lasker. But Donlan, Tony's friend, disagrees: "No, no. When you do it like Tony does it, it's much more. The way he has of becoming someone else every night...so completely. No, don't tell me his whole system isn't affected by it."....The other scene occurs in waitress Pat Kroll's apartment. Tony tells her his name is Martin. She thanks him. Then he says: "Or Paul. Hamlet. Joe. And maybe Othello."....When Tony begins rehearsing Othello, we learn that though he's trying to keep his real life separated from his stage life, "The part begins to seep into your life, and the battle begins. Reality against imagination." He can't keep the two separated: In his mind Pat is Desdemona and he's Othello, and he wrongly believes she has been unfaithful to him. He murders her....Colman's bravura performance, in a complex and difficult role, earned him 1947's Academy Award for Best Actor. Oscar nominations went to Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin for Best Original Screenplay. Not to be overlooked is Milton Krasner's atomspheric cinematography. A DOUBLE LIFE has developed a mystique among film fans for two reasons: the plot idea of an actor getting so wrapped up into a role (here Othello) as to pick up the great flaw of that character and put it into his life; and that this is the film that won Ronald Colman the Academy Award (as well as the Golden Globe) as best actor. Let's take the second point first.

Is Anthony John Colman's greatest role, or even his signature role? I have my doubts on either level - but it is among his best known roles. Most of his career, Ronald Colman played decent gentlemen, frequently in dangerous or atypical situations. He is Bulldog Drummond (cleaned up in the Goldwyn production not to be an arrogant racist) fighting crime. He is Raffles, the great cricket player and even greater burglar, trying to pull off his best burglary to save a friend's honor. He is Robert Conway, the great imperial political figure, who is kidnapped and brought to that paradise on earth, Shangri-La. He is Dick Heldar, manfully going to his death after he learns his masterpiece has been destroyed and knowing he is now blind and useless as an artist. I can add Sidney Carton and Rudolf Rassendyll to this list. But here he is not heroic. In fact he is unconsciously villainous - he murders one person and nearly kills two others. It does not matter that he is obviously mentally ill - his behavior here is anti-social.

To me Colman should have gotten the Oscar for Heldar, or Carton, or Conway - all more typical of his acting roles. But the Academy has a long tradition of picking atypical roles for awarding it's treasure to it's leading members. Colman's Anthony John is a very good performance, and at one point truly scary. When alone with Signe Hasso in her home, she at the top of a staircase and him at the base, they have an argument. She demands that "Tony" leave, saying she won't see him. He stares at her, his face oddly hardening in a way he never used before, and he says, "Oh, no you won't!" He starts moving upstairs, frightening Hasso, and she runs into her room. He stops himself and leaves. It actually is the real highpoint of his performance - even more than his assaulting of Hasso on stage, or of Edmond O'Brien, or his killing of Shelley Winters. It showed his blind fury. For that moment it was (to me) an Oscar-worthy performance. But it is only that moment. I'm glad he was recognized for the role, but he should have gotten the award for a more consistent performance.

His actual performance in the Shakespearian role of Othello is not great, but bearable. Too frequently he lets the dialog roll off his tongue in a kind of forced singing style (one wonders if that was due to the coaching of Walter Hampden, who probably knew how to handle the role properly, or a reaction to it). Nowadays "Othello" is played by an African American actor more frequently than a white one. Paul Robeson's brilliant performance in the role set that new tradition firmly into place. But the three best known movie performances of the part are those of Colman, Orson Welles in his movie of OTHELLO, and Laurence Olivier in his movie of his play production of OTHELLO. All three white actors did the role in black face. My personal favorite of the three is Welles, who seems the most subtle. But even watching Welles' fine film version makes me angry that Robeson never got to put his performance (with Jose Ferrer as Iago) on film.

Now the first question - can an actor get that wrapped up in a role? I heard different things about this. Some actors have admitted taking a role home with them from the theater or movie set. Others have found a role they have to be stimulating, influencing them on a new cause of action regarding their lives or some aspect of life. But actually I have never heard of anyone who turned homicidal as the result of a role. It seems a melodramatic, hackneyed idea.

As a matter of fact it was not a new idea in 1947 with Cukor, Kanin, and Gordon. In 1944 a "B" feature, THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER, starring John Loder, had used a similar plot about an actor who is playing an infamous "Jack the Ripper" type, and who starts committing those type of killings after an accident affects his mind. There was an earlier movie in the 1930s, in which an actor playing Othello gets jealous of his wife (I think the title was MEN ARE NOT GODS, but I'm not sure). But due to Colman's name and career, and Cukor's directing, it is A DOUBLE LIFE that people think of when they recall this plot idea. It even reached comedy (finally) on an episode of CHEERS, where Diane Chambers is helping an ex-convict who may have acting talent, and they put on OTHELLO at the bar, just after he sees her with Sam Malone kissing. Only Diane is aware of the personality problem of the ex-convict, and can't delay the production long enough (she tries to start a discussion into the history and symbolism of the play).

The cast of A DOUBLE LIFE was first rate, and Cukor's direction was as sure as ever. So the film is definitely worth watching. But despite giving Colman an interestingly different role, it was not his best work on the screen. I like my Ronald Colman dashing and debonair, the fellow you see in such films as If I Were King and Kismet. I like him as the epitome of civilization as in The Lost Horrizon and Random Harvest. A brooding Colman isn't a favorite of mine.

But in A Double Life precisely because his part as actor Anthony John is so offbeat for him, Colman was recognized with a Best Actor Oscar for 1947. It became his best known part.

Colman is an actor who really does take the Method quite seriously. He's just finished a successful run in a comedy of manners and he's quite the jovial fellow. For a change of pace now that that play has concluded its Broadway run, Colman is bringing a revival of Othello to New York. About as opposite a part as you can get.

His leading lady in both is his former wife Signe Hasso who loves him dearly, but can't take his change of moods when he's at work. Colman loves her dearly as well and wants her back. But he's heading for a mental breakdown when he starts confusing himself with the jealous Moor Othello and Hasso with her role as Desdemona.

Unfortunately Shelley Winters as a poor waitress who a depressed Colman picks up gets in the way of his madness and she winds up like poor Desdemona in the play. Killed in the same manner and now it's a matter for homicide cop Joe Sawyer.

Colman's performance is so good that one does kind of wonder is this an occupational hazard with actors? I'd shudder to think so, were there any unsolved homicides in or around Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles then they essayed Othello.

I could never quite buy the story for that reason, but I certainly do applaud Ronald Colman and what he did with the part. I'm sure there was a tinge of regret in him winning the Oscar though because one of the other nominees was his good friend William Powell for Life With Father. Others in the running that year were Gregory Peck for Gentlemen's Agreement, John Garfield for Body and Soul, and Michael Redgrave for Mourning Becomes Electra.

Colman gets able support from the rest of the cast including Edmond O'Brien who finds himself in the unwanted part of Cassio in Colman's jealous fantasy. Still you will find no Iago equivalent in A Double Life, no one prodding the jealousy, it's all in his own mind.

And that from one of the most cultivated and civilized minds of the last century. War Inc. is a funny but strange film. The actors are likable, the film is likable also, but I don't know how to describe the plot. I will go into the plot later on. This is a movie with some weird casting choices. Besides John Cusack as a hit-man, which we saw years ago in Grosse Point blank which I liked.

Here we have Hilary Duff playing a Russian pop star named Yonica Babyya or something like that. Her character is odd. There is a scene where she sticks a scorpion down her pants. And hits on Hauser(Cusack). There is a twist in the end involving the two characters. It makes sense.

That is the only casting choice I am going into. Cause it just plain strange. The whole movie is strange. But at times incredibly funny and I was never bored. Here we have some of the best actors out there. Excluding Miss Duff. She ain't great. But here we have John Cusack, Marisa Tomeii, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley. See what I mean?

This is the story of a hit-man named Hauser(Cusack). He is sent down to some Middle Eastern city to put a hit on an oil man named Omar Sheriif(not the actor). While trying to deal with his own personal problems, he has to help out the wedding of a popstar(played by Hilary Duff). And he falls in love with a news reporter(played by Marisa Tomeii). There is a thing about the popstar though. Hauser is disgusted by her. There is a scene where she is singing a song to him and afterwards he throws up.

The twist in the end of the film reveals kind of why. The thing about the twist is that I did kind of see it coming. But that doesn't matter. This is a strange, funny, and entertaining comedy. I love most of the actors. So really, how could I not recommend it?

War,Inc.:3.5/5 "The first war to be 100% outsourced." Dan Ackroyd's line says it all. This is a hard to describe film; comedy, satire, action, screwball. It reminded once or twice of Dr. Strangelove, especially so in the scenes featuring Ben Kingsley (who did a remarkable job I think). I had no particular expectations of this film, though I am a big John Cusack fan, so I just let the movie wash over me. And as a result I was quite entertained. The political satire is painfully accurate and quite damning of the US military-business complex. The sub-plots were somewhat predictable but the final interweaving of story lines made them all worthwhile. I can understand why this film was not terribly popular in the US, but for the rest of the world, it is a timely tale. This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.

Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.

A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder. Got to be one of the best political satires I have seen to date, with an excellent performance for Cusak, Tomei, and all the supporting actors.

Excellent plot, very well-placed and a very good unexpected twist at the end. The action scenes were well filmed & choreographed. Very funny.

All in all I give this film a big thumbs up. It's extremely critical of US military intervention in the middle-east, and as such, it may receive bad reviews from people who don't share the same political view, or those who are simply too politically ignorant to appreciate the dark and drk humour. Indeed, at places, the comedy was so close to the truth that it was borderline between funny and tragic. Cusack does his best David Niven in this one, although I don't know if anyone besides me noticed it.

When seen with this in mind, its a deliciously over saturated 'wants to be taken more seriously than Austin powers but still be pretty d*mn funny' reworking of an under-appreciated comedy classic.

Hillary Duff does an over sexualized Britney spears lap dance version of Mata Bond. The writers built a little reverse Oedipus twist into the plot - interesting choice.

I never knew how soothing Montel's voice was until this movie... I think he has found a new calling doing nav system voice overs! when you add up all the aspects from the movie---the dancing, singing, acting---the only one who stands out as the best in the cast is Vanessa Williams...her dedication, energy and timeless beauty make Rosie the perfect role for her. Never have i ever seen someone portray Rose with such vibrancy! Vanessa's singing talent shows beautifully with all the songs she performs as Rose and her acting skills never cease to amaze me! Her dancing is so incredible, even if as some people say the choreography was bad---her dancing skills were displayed better than ever before! I'd recommend this version over the '63 just because i find that although lengthy the acting by Vanessa is superb-----not to mention the fact that Jason Alexander and the rest of the cast are very impressive as well (with the exception of Chynna Philips...what in hell were they thinking when they cast her?)

All in all I'd say this version is wonderful and I recommend that everyone see this version! First of all, DO NOT call this a remake of the '63 film. Even though this version is truer to the stage play, it is Extremely long. The casting was good with some exceptions. Chyna Phillips was not a good casting choice. She was almost 30 when she did this film, and it was hard to believe she was a teenager. Jason Alexander was good choice, but after a while he gave me a headache. Tyne Daly overdoes her part as Mae Peterson. George Wendt was funny as Harry McAffee, and showed he could even hold a tune. Like the '63 film, they casted an unknown to play Conrad Birdie. Marc Kudisch had fun with his role as Birdie and it showed. I even have the soundtrack and i love listening to his singing. So what made this a TV ratings flop? It was lengthy for one. They put in new songs and scenes. Even though some of the new songs were good (like "Let's Settle Down"), was it really necessary? Now don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I rather watch the '63 film (see my review). This was just a case of some actors overdoing roles, making some changes, and once again, LENGTH. One more thing I forgot to mention is Vanessa Williams. She does a good job with the role and the music. Give her any lyrics and she could sing them. So here is my advice coming from someone who's done a couple productions of Bye Bye Birdie: If you want to watch an entertaining take on the play, watch the '63 film. If you want to watch a version that is truer to the play, watch the '95 version. Just take it in moderation though. Don't be a hero and try watch it all in one sitting. My school's drama club will be putting this show in the spring of 2002, and I can only hope we're as good as this! I watched this film recently as sort of "research" for my role (Rosie Alvarez), and I'd just like to say, Vanessa Williams is the coolest!

Wow! The casting for this movie was right-on (with one exception). Jason Alexander, oh my gawd, is there anything he can't do? He was the most wonderful Albert Peterson ever - I especially loved all of his funny facial expressions and dancing during "Put on a Happy Face!" He is so great! Vanessa Williams, as I said before, is the coolest. She was a beautiful Rosie, and her transition from secretary to seductress was totally believable. Tyne Daly was hilarious as Albert's obnoxious mother and George Wendt was superb as the annoyed Mr. McAfee (however I LOVED Paul Lynde's performance in the 1963 version!). Brigitta Dau cracked me up as Ursula Merkle; she really hammed it up! And Marc Kudisch was an awesome Conrad Birdie..."Suffer!"

There was only one casting that I didn't understand, and, as you'll see from previous comments, many other people didn't understand. Chynna Phillips as Kim McAfee - what was that? I mean she's really pretty and very talented, but...she looks a bit too old for the role. Eh, maybe I'm delusional.

Okay well anyways, I highly recommend this movie. It'll leave you smiling!

This is a great movie, I did the play a while ago. It had an extra zing-- to it. I loved Vanessa Williams as Rosey, and also Jason Alexander has a good voice. It was great. The setting were also very good. Except the fact that it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, makes it pretty long. Overall I give it 8.5 stars. They also added a few parts, but it was still cool. We taped this when it aired on TV back in 1995 and have waited all these years for its release, for it quickly became one of our family favorites. The kids are now teens and must have seen it a ba-zillion times, yet they still watch it religiously with friends. It's timeless appeal reaches across all ages groups--similar to "Grease."

Vanessa Williams is spectacular. Jason Alexander delightful and wonderfully light on his feet. I've noticed other commentators on this site are pretty rough on him, but our family gives him top ratings. (We loved his 'Giant Step' number.) Marc Kudisch (as Conrad) supplies us with comedic relief and wonderful musical numbers. And Brigitta Dau (as Ursula) just flat steals the show. Probably our favorite character in the entire movie.

The one disappointment was Chynna Philip's performance of Kim. Part of that has to do with the writing. Kim's role is completely one-dimensional. Complicating that, Philip's delivery is flat, unimaginative, unbelievable and just plain awful. The director should have seen that and corrected it. Or never cast her to begin with.

Overall, though, the picture is delightful and I highly recommend it for families of all ages. I would strongly recommend this film for any musical fan whose been dying to see a musical make a faithful transition from stage to screen. Sure it's long, but it's length is a testimony to how true to the original musical script the film is being. The sets and cast really make Sweet Apple, Ohio the place to be. Fosse protege Anne Reinking also does a splendid job with choreography giving the dances a nice small town, period feel.

The casting at a glance may look strange to some but they really are qute marvelous(reading "annonymous"'s comments on Jason Alexander's performance made me sick). In fact, his perforamnce literally steals the show. As Albert, he mixes his own unique blend of manic nervousness with Dick Van Dyke-esque charm to create a new and improved Albert. The fact that he can dance and sing like nobody's business doeesn't hurt either. George Wendt is another stand out, who improves upon Paul Lynde's take on Harry McAffe by making him less manic and more down to Earth and strict. His whole character and body language scream "over my dead body". Marc Kudisch takes the Elvis aspect of Conrad Birdie to new heights with his subtle insertion of a "thank you very much" in "Honestly Sincere". His physicality though harkens back more to young Elvis then the bloated, stubly Conrad of the original film. The fact is that this movie differs so greatly from the original film (which added drawn in happpy faces, turtles on speed and the Russian ballet!!!) what did any of taht have to do with Bye, Bye Birdie, I wonder? The only possible advantage the original version has over this one is Ann Margret. Otherwise the update is better in every possible way. Where the old version cut many songs and increased dance breaks nwhere there was no need for them (and for all intents and purposes ended the movie in the middle of the play), the new version has restored the original music score and has added some great new stuff as well ("A Giant Step" being the standout in that category). We know live in trying times but if you want to get your mind off your troubles and put on a happy face then this is one worth checking out. Saw this as previous viewer by accident, I have watched it twice now. I thoroughly enjoyed it, no silly thought provoking messages just plain good fun entertainment, good songs, good characters and a just a feel good film Highly recommended to those of us that just like to enjoy films and not dissect them Great Fun for all the family here. I didn't realise Rosie Alvarez is played by Vanessa Williams, she is excellent and very sultry. The songs like One Boy and One last Kiss are really enjoyable to listen to and to tap your feet to Jason Alexander is the complete contrast to his character in Pretty Woman ans is very good. Tyne Daley still sticks in my mind from Cagney and Lacey and her voice and accent still had that remembrance in it. Overall I just loved it and will be looking to purchase it if it is available "Bye Bye Birdie" isn't one of the best musicals of all time, but it's great fun, and accessible to many audiences. The original film could have been wonderful, with Dick Van Dyke reprising his signature Broadway role, but instead they tinkered with the plot, so the film is very unsatisfying. This re-make, which aired on ABC in 1995, is far more faithful to the original script, and includes some original songs as well that were used in a national tour which this film took off from which starred Tommy Tune and Ann Reinking (who choreographed this film.)

Jason Alexander is a very different type from Dick Van Dyke, but he is well cast as Albert, (before his "Seinfeld" days, he started in Musical theater.) Vanessa Williams is a perfect fit for Rose. Their is also great work from Tyne Daly as Mae and Mark Kudisch as Conrad Birdie ( a role he played on the national tour).

This film is not without it's problems though. A major liability is Chynna Phillips, who, however appealing, simply looks and seems too old to be teenage Kim. And George Wendt is somewhat bland as her father, somewhat throwing the number "kids" away (a number original cast member Paul Lynde stole the show with.)

But all in all, this is a delightful, well-done film which the material deserved. When I was 17 my high school staged Bye Bye Birdie - which is no great surprise, since it is perfect high school material and reputed to be the most-staged musical in the world.

I was a music student and retained strong memories of the production and its songs, as well as a lingering disregard for the Dick Van Dyke movie version which had (deliberately) obscured the Elvis references and camped it up for a swinging 60s audience.

So, when the 1995 version starring Jason Alexander hit my cable TV screen, I was delighted with what I saw. Alexander turns in an exceptional performance as Albert, a performance in strong contrast to his better-known persona from a certain TV series. The remainder of the cast are entertaining and convincing in their roles (Chynna Phillips is perhaps the only one who does not look her part, supposedly a naive and innocent schoolgirl).

But best of all, the musical numbers familiar from the stage show are all preserved in this movie and performed as stage musical songs should be (allowing for the absence of a stage).

So, if you know the musical (and few do not), then check out this telemovie. It does the stage show justice in a way which can probably not be bettered, which is good enough for me. What is better than rendering a writer's work faithfully and with colour and style? I found this to be a charming adaptation, very lively and full of fun. With the exception of a couple of major errors, the cast is wonderful. I have to echo some of the earlier comments -- Chynna Phillips is horribly miscast as a teenager. At 27, she's just too old (and, yes, it DOES show), and lacks the singing "chops" for Broadway-style music. Vanessa Williams is a decent-enough singer and, for a non-dancer, she's adequate. However, she is NOT Latina, and her character definitely is. She's also very STRIDENT throughout, which gets tiresome.

The girls of Sweet Apple's Conrad Birdie fan club really sparkle -- with special kudos to Brigitta Dau and Chiara Zanni. I also enjoyed Tyne Daly's performance, though I'm not generally a fan of her work. Finally, the dancing Shriners are a riot, especially the dorky three in the bar.

The movie is suitable for the whole family, and I highly recommend it. I just saw this film in Santa Barbara. My friend knew someone who worked on it, so i thought i'd check it out. i thought it was a really beautiful film and cant wait to go look at it again. the actors were really good and i loved all the music! there was not a lot of talking in the film, which at first felt a little strange- but once i got into it, i thought that the story and the acting was really emotional and meaningful and thought that it left a lot to the imagination. i want to see the movie again because there was so much going on in it that i forgot a lot of small things, but know that i left the theater thinking about the film. it was shot beautifully and the whole thing was really unique. I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them.

The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.

Kudos for this achievement. FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for this film to come out for almost a year, and finally saw it at the premiere in SB. I met a few of the actors, who were really nice and who were great in the movie. i watched the trailer so many times that i didn't know what to expect but got totally sucked in. the film was really beautiful to look at it and the music was good too. i recommend it to anyone who's a ryan donowho fan, and dominique swain was good in it too. the other actors were good also great. I hope it comes out on DVD soon!!!!!

i first got into ryan from watching the OC and then saw him in a bunch of good indies like Imaginary Heroes. He is great in this film, and everything that he does that's indie. I also like Dominique but haven't seen her in as much. Hope to see them both in more soon!!! I had the pleasure of attending a screening of The Pacific and Eddy last weekend at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. This film had caught my attention a little while back when I stumbled across an article about it in Jalouse magazine. Seemed interesting at the time, but nothing too exciting. Anyhow, I saw it on the festival program and decided to check it out. All I can say is that I was speechless when the ending credits began to roll. This is one of the most beautiful and refreshing films that I have seen in some time. The photography, art direction, acting, and especially directing, were seamless and impeccable. Nothing is 'spelled out' for you in this film and actually makes you think. Something that a vast majority of films today do the exact opposite. The dialogue is carefully crafted and, although this script is not wall to wall chatter, the characters words are very deliberate and meaningful.

It's definitely one of those films that deserves a second viewing and the more you see it, the more things you notice. It's a very layered and intelligent film. Not sure when or where it's playing again, but a definite must see for film enthusiasts. *I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens.

I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.

About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.

About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.

About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.

It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...

******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).

-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.

-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.

-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will. Seven Pounds, this was the movie where I was just convinced Will Smith is really going for the "I'm going to make you cry" films. One thing I can give him a ton of credit for, the man can cry. My only thing is, as moving as the story is, Will Smith has proved time and time again that he can act, so why is he taking this extremely depressing story? But nevertheless it's still a good movie. I do have to admit it made me cry, but I felt that the stand out performance was Rosario Dawson, I absolutely love this girl, ever since I saw her in 25th Hour with Ed Norton, I knew this girl was going to go far. She's beautiful, charming, funny and talented, can't wait to see how much further her career is going to go. But her and Will Smith, not so sure if they had the great chemistry that the film needed that would've made this into a great film.

Two years ago Tim Thomas was in a car crash, which was caused by him using his mobile phone; seven people died: six strangers and his fiancée. A year after the crash, and having quit his job as an aeronautical engineer, Tim donates a lung lobe to his brother, Ben, an IRS employee. Six months later he donates part of his liver to a child services worker named Holly. After that he begins searching for more candidates to receive donations. He finds George, a junior hockey coach, and donates a kidney to him, and then donates bone marrow to a young boy named Nicholas. Two weeks before he dies he contacts Holly and asks if she knows anyone who deserves help. She suggests Connie Tepos, who lives with an abusive boyfriend. Tim moves out of his house and into a local motel taking with him his pet box jellyfish. One night, after being beaten, Connie contacts Tim and he gives her the keys and deed to his beach house. She takes her two children and moves in to their new home. Having stolen his brother's credentials, and making himself known by his brother's name Ben, he checks out candidates for his two final donations. The first is Ezra Turner, a blind vegetarian meat salesman who plays the piano. Tim calls Ezra Turner and harasses him at work to check if he is quick to anger. Ezra remains calm and Tim decides he is worthy. He then contacts Emily Posa, a self-employed greeting card printer who has a heart condition and a rare blood type. He spends time with her, weeding her garden and fixing her rare Heidelberg printer. He begins to fall in love with her and decides that as her condition has worsened he needs to make his donation.

Seven Pounds is a good film and no doubt worth a look, I would just recommend going for the rental vs. the theater. Will Smith pulls in a good performance, but not his best, just most of the film required him crying in every scene, but the last one with him is a doozy. But I loved the ending, it was beautiful and really made you appreciate life and to not take it for granted. There is still good people in this world and Ben's character reminds you to value life and to give to those who are in desperate need. Although he went a little far, but it was still a beautiful story.

7/10 It all starts with a suicide. Or is it a car crash? I guess it all depends on whether you choose to start at the beginning or the end. Director Gabriele Muccino gives you the ability to enter his new film Seven Pounds whichever way you prefer as he starts at the end and works his way back to the beginning, showing us the course of events that led us to that heartbreaking 911 call. This is one powerful movie; maybe that is because I'm a softy when it comes to dramas of this ilk, dripping with weighty moments and chock full of devastating performances, but either way, a film works best when it truly touches me, when it lingers in the back of my head hours after leaving the theatre. And this is from the team that brought us the overrated, sappy, and not all that redeeming Pursuit of Happiness, so I'll just say my anticipation was closely guarded for a big letdown. With all that, though, I was with Seven Pounds from the opening frame all the way until the credits rolled. Even though you figure out what Will Smith's character is doing, that secret mission he is trying to complete, it is the way in which he fulfills his penance that shines bright and leaves you with a tear-filled smile at the end.

Our entry point is a bit jarring, leaving us off-kilter trying to comprehend what is going on. Smith's Thomas has lists of names, one of people we don't know and one of people it appears he is attempting to follow and audit. Working with the IRS allows him access to these strangers for a glimpse into their lives in order to see whether they are worthy of a gift he has the power to give them—a gift that could completely alter their circumstances. He calls an old childhood friend (Barry Pepper) and reminds him to do what it is he promised, to not second guess his decision because there is no changing his mind. Even in a role as small as Pepper's, you can't help but feel the utter grief held aloft in the background, hanging above everyone's head. It is his character, seen maybe three times, that really encompasses the primal level of emotion being dealt with. His breakdowns, whether tear-streaked and composed or head in hands convulsions, show the bond these two men have is one that stands the test of time and any circumstance to come its way.

After that phone call, begins the journey to meet new people. Thomas is on some sort of mission to help alleviate the monetary troubles of mortally ill folk, trying to stay afloat despite the heavy burden of medical bills and survival. This progression takes many turns, from a "blind, vegan, meat salesman" that he berates to see whether he can get him to explode; to a phase two donor-necessity heart patient, unable to print her line of stationary, or even run with her Great Dane Duke; to an abused and scared Latino mother of two, too afraid to leave her boyfriend; to a dying hockey coach that instills faith in a downtrodden youth community; to a little boy in need of a bone marrow transplant. There are people who live with the pain and inevitable future with a disposition of hope and wanting to cherish each day, and there are those attempting to beat it by cutting corners and spending all their money at the expense of those who need it to go out in style. Why it is up to Thomas to weed through the mix and find those that deserve his "gift" is unknown at first, as is why this man, seen in flashbacks as an aeronautical engineer with a beautiful wife and huge beachfront home, is now living in a motel, driving a beat-up car, going door to door in order to audit for the IRS. As he says, though, "he kind of stumbled into the job".

Smith's quest as Thomas is a long and painful one, tempered with moments of clarity and honest compassion. As a man with the means to help, he takes his job seriously, crossing off people undeserving and testing those he believes are worthy to the nth degree. If that means he must yell and make fun of them, he must do it. At every step, though, you see the suffering in his eyes, the pain eating away at his soul, taking each step towards his fate, one as a saint of redemption, not only for those he wants to help, but for himself as well. It is an award-worthy performance and I only wish Smith would do more dramas like this instead of his blockbuster action summer tentpoles, because, while they are fun, this guy is too good for them. The man better win an Oscar before he is done or it will be a travesty—at least in my mind.

The rest of the cast is stellar across the board. Woody Harrelson as the blind salesman is pitch-perfect handicap with a joy of life. His shy smile and belief in humanity comes across throughout, whether on the phone being yelled at, sitting in a diner eating his pie, or at the piano in the park, playing for all who will listen. Elpidia Carrillo, as the abused mother, is fantastic, showing the hard evolution from prideful to scared to completely overwhelmed by the kindness of a stranger, allowing her family to finally be safe. And Rosario Dawson shines as the "once hot" young woman, beaten and broken by lengthy hospital stays, all but given up on living life to find love and happiness. It is the introduction of Smith's Thomas that opens her eyes again to be a woman, a free-spirited sexual creature that can just live without fear of wondering what day will be her last. You spend most of this two-hour film wondering "what's the story regarding the lead character?"

Will Smith, as a low-key "Ben Thomas" will keep you guessing. The last 20-25 minutes is when you find out, and it's a shocker....but you knew something dramatic was going to be revealed. Until then, Smith, plays it mysterious, almost stalking people. You know he has a good reason for doing it, but it's never really explained, once again, to keep us guessing until the end.

All of it, including a on again/off again but touching romance with Rosario Dawkins ("Emily Posa") might make some viewers frustrated or wanting to quit this film.....but don't because the final long segment puts all the pieces of this puzzle together.

This is a two-hour film and not the typical action-packed macho Will Smith film. In fact, the most shocking aspect might be seeing the drawn, sad face of Smith throughout this story. It almost doesn't even look like him in a number of shots. He looks like he's lost weight and is sick. Smith does a great job portraying a man carrying around a lot of sadness.

Like a good movie will often do, this film will leave you thinking long after the ending credits. Although I can understand the bad things someone has to say about this movie, I still found it to be absolutely amazing. It will touch you, and unless your a critic searching deep into the flaws and mishaps of every movie, or you just simply aren't touched by anything, it is worth seeing. Don't come into the movie expecting anything, just have a box of tissues and an open mind. It is beautiful and the acting is brilliant. I think Will Smith, despite that he's yet again playing another lonely depressed individual, is amazing. I believe a good actor is someone who can truly portray feelings and emotions we all have at our worst/best experiences in such a way that it reaches out to you and makes YOU feel something. And that's exactly what this movie does. Give it a chance. Ben Thomas (Smith) plays an IRS Agent who practically gives the store away to everyone's surprise. What kind of IRS Agent is this?

Most of us have all heard the line by an IRS Agent, "Hello, I'm from the IRS. I'm here to help." Our smile then spreads into a chuckle that says, "Yeah, right."

As you get further and further into this story, you cannot figure this guy out. He goes easy on those who are being audited. What is his motive? Is he from another planet, an angel, a rich guy who wants to do good? He helps so much we want him to be our auditor should we get audited, of course. Hey, IRS, are you listening? (kidding, just kidding)

The pace of the movie is perfect and so much so that clues were ignored that would have told me what was really going on. Intense, repeat intense, focus was on Ben and stays there. The whole movie only works because of Ben as we try to figure him out and I didn't see any clues (what clues you talking about, Willis?). Not reading the box before watching the DVD movie was the better way to go here. By the end of the movie I finally put it all together. Well, it was obvious by then. And, yes, it's over the top, but still a great story, mostly because of Will Smith.

Will Smith should have been nominated for a Best Actor Award. The rest of the cast were very good as well.

Yes, it's over the top and despite the great acting and when you finally get all the answers you must realize that the message of the movie is all wrong. What's the message? Believe me, you will won't need too many clues to figure it out. I didn't.

Violence: No. Sex: Yes, but nothing to get excited about. Bland. Nudity: No. Language: No. Wow...I don't know what to say. I just watched Seven Pounds. No one can make me cry like Will Smith. The man is very in-tune with the vast range of human emotion. This movie was skillfully and beautifully done. Rare to find such intense humanity in Hollywood today. I would compare it to "Pay it Forward" and "Crash" as far as the show of both light and dark in such a raw way. Definitely sticks with you for a long time and gives you a lot to think about. I have a deep love for and passion about movies like this one. Not usually one for a "bad ending" but rather a truth seeker that embraces emotion, raw life and something more than the shallowness that exists in abundance all around. Therefore I do not mind a little pain at the end. It is true to life that there aren't always happy endings. Sometimes its just not the happy ending you think it should be. Many people were able to live happy lives though love and life of one was lost. If you are someone who looks a little deeper than the rest you'll love this movie! Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list. Although a tear jerker it is definitely a "feel good" movie. All the actors were excellent and Will Smith as always, does the job and does it well. I could go on but pick any ten of the "10" ratings and they've said it as well and likely better than I could.

BUT, since I must include at least 10 lines to post a comment I will say that Rosario Dawson was largely unknown to me as a viewer. Her performance was most enjoyable and I look forward to seeing her perform in many films to come.

AND, this film demonstrates that Will Smith has nothing further to prove in terms of his ability as an actor. First, I did like this film. It was well acted by all.

However, I don't understand comments I hear from people about a surprise ending. I knew nothing about this movie going in except a few "gotta-see" recommendations, but I knew where the plot was going in under ten minutes. (I won't mention what clued me in so as not to spoil a good film for others.) Still, despite it seeming obvious, I kept watching. It was nice to see how everything played out, filling in the details and the character motivations in later scenes.

I don't hate it when I guess the ending early in a film. I only hate it when the road to resolution is lined with boring scenery.

Will Smith's screen persona is just likable, even when he's playing such a troubled character. He's energetic and believable in everything that I've seen him do. Seven Pounds is another fine performance.

Rosario Dawson is a solid performer, portraying a quirky, rather upbeat character despite a terminal heart condition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and with Rosario, if you don't find her gorgeous, you should think about replacing your eyes.

It was nice to see Woody Harrelson back on the screen. I haven't seen him much lately, but that could just be me. Woody didn't have a tremendous amount of screen time, but he sold his jolly, piano-playing, blind man character for all it was worth. Excellent.

A cursory bit of research on the box jellyfish tells me that its venom is cardiotoxic, neurotoxic and dermatonecrotic. I would think this makes it a questionable choice for both pet and plot.

Overall, I have to recommend this film not for the plotting, but for some very good performances, and for the fact that it tends to evoke some of the tragic emotions that we generally try to avoid. Before I see on this film, I see a lot of comments, which everyone has a great view of the film good or bad...

What I really want to point out is the acting on Woody Harrelson behalf, he may not be in many parts of the film, but when he appears or even the intro, I was astonished by Will Smith's and Woody Harrelson "message" they tried to create and maybe slip the entire plot until the end to really understand what is going on.

I am not a very sentimental person, I believe that a good deed should not have remorse or pity behind it. But a act to show redemption, there is not many films that in my point of view can show this. This is one of them that can.

I agree with one person that commented about this film showing acts of "suicide" is a downfall, however I do not believe that is the "message" the film is trying to send, but "sacrifice". A bit to the extreme, but that is the message in MY opinion.

This film has potential. The acting it is worth every penny, the script is unbelievable. from a person that doesn't really like watching drama films... if you like drama this is a must go watch. I thought this was a wonderful movie. It touches every fiber of a human being. The love in the film is very intense. I thought it was Will's best performance to date. Great directing. Liked the editing. Music was great. Good use of flashback. This is the kind of movie everyone should go see. I hope people will get something wonderful from this. Overall, excellent movie. I think Hollywood should make more movies with substance. Even action films can have a caring story. I like the fact that Will was very subtle in his acting. He had a purpose and a dedication that is rare to see. I would suggest watching this alone or with someone that you really care about. For me, I found that the world stopped and my only focus was on the film. The outside world was suspended for a moment. It was a nice feeling with all this chaos going on in this world. And with this me generation it was great to see something(someone) that cared about other people more than himself. WOW! What - a - movie !!!!!!!!!!! I'm not at all a fan of contemporary Italian directors. Usually I don't like dramas. I am not a Will Smith super fan even thinking that he is a very good actor......but this movie ! It is such a great movie with a such original script and so good direction and so well acting...wow...it is stunning. This movie captured my attention minute by minute and I even did not like "The pursuit of happiness" (maybe also because i did not like the acting of Will's son who is a very bad actor while children usually seems all natural born actors, I saw him also last night in "The day the earth stood still" and I confirmed my sensation that Jaden can't act). I don't want to write spoilers and so i don't talk about the story but what I can say is that this movie talks about Love, Death and other feelings which i don't like to watch in movies....but THIS MOVIE is such a super great movie. If you have a minimum of heart you'll don't regret watching it From the first scene you are given clues as to what may be going on here. It becomes more and more obvious as the story rolls on. The acting is excellent throughout and these actors touch your soul. Even though I knew what was going to happen I was extremely puzzled by the motive. I'm still puzzled as to why Ben did what he did. We could see in his face "second thoughts", but the ultimate sacrifice seemed to go against his emotion and feelings. It was a very interesting and touching story but it left me confused. Maybe that was the point of the film. I did like the film and Wil Smith can wrack up another good film choice. This guy knows how to entertain an audience! Haunted by a secret, Ben Thomas (Will Smith) looks for redemption by radically transforming the lives of seven people he doesn't know. Once his plan is set, nothing will be able to stop him. At least that's what he thinks. But Ben hadn't planned on falling in love with one of these people and she's the one who will end up transforming him. Will Smith is back again with Director Gabriele Muccino, after the life inspiring movie "The Pursuit of Happiness". "Seven Pounds" is yet another life changing movie experience, which not only does reminds you of their previous collaboration, tearful, but inspires you joyfully in the end. Will Smith, also is the producer again with some of the others. These movies are very realistic, which depicts a common man's life & his struggles through life. Seven Pounds might have took some time to gain it's actual momentum, but just after half an hour of the movie, the movie is all set to rule your heart. Also, this movie has some twists revolving around, which lets the viewers keep guessing. Director Gabriele Muccino once again is the winner all the way, with his emotional yet inspiring message. He makes all the characters of the movie very real, that the people would actually find themselves in somewhere of the movie. Along with the director, Will Smith is yet another winner, with his superb acting skills. Once again, the duo of the director & the actor works as a charm. Also, there are other talented actors in the movie who did their part pretty well. Rosario Dawson, beauty with brains, that's what she can be called. She looks beautiful & does her part extremely well. Barry Pepper, gives a great support to the movie & Woody Harrelson does the same, although Woody did not had much screen timing(would have been good if he had more). You won't forget this movie easily. Watch this movie & change your life. Top class cinema! When its DVD was released i came to market and bought it. And i think my money was on right way as i expected before buying it. Awesome movie what else i can say for Will Smith, He's been an awesome actor like always whether in actions movies or serious. Always he gives a record braking performance. I think this is the movie after August Rush which makes a person cry while watching it. The way the director described the story was really awesome. His previous life and his new life in movie was correctly elaborated to the audience. Even i could not find any fault in the story or the way they shoot it. I think its DVD should be a household because this will be really a nice thing for your collection. It is not the movie which needs pop-corns for enjoyment, this is the movie which let the audience learn a lesson. now what is the lesson you can see that while watching. And i advise those people who are movie critics please watch this if you could find any criticism about this movie then please talk to me. Will Smith is one of the best actors of all time. I don't know how he does it. I read books constantly but if there is a movie with Will Smith I will watch it. He has a rare gift of pulling you into the movie and holding you there. This movie is one of the best movies I have seen yet. I watched it on Saturday and I still cannot get it out of my head. AMAZING and sad all at the same time. Thanks again Will. You must watch this movie from beginning to end to understand every part of the movie. You cannot miss a thing. Make sure you have plenty of Kleenex and your man/woman sitting next to you so you can cuddle. WELL Worth the money that you will pay to watch it.. don't wait for it to come on TV. The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is elegant, subtle, beautiful, and tragic all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he matures into his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray a whole other dimension to Smith, a refinement of talent, the selectivity of scripts, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to fully enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for the fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice. Will Smith delivers yet again in a film about a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders and his crusade to right his wrongs in a way that will touch even the most hardened of hearts!!! Writer Grant Nieporte and Italian Director Gabriele Muccino come together and created a masterpiece that I highly recommend to purchase and keep in your movie collection as you will never grow tired of watching/feeling this film!!! I have the Highest Respects for Will Smith as he is not only a brilliant Actor but one can tell he has a genuine love for people and life which no doubt made him perfect for the character (IRS Agent Ben Thomas) he played in this film. You will find yourself feeling his pain and anger, the frustrations over his love for Emily, played by Rosario Dawson, who by the way was Fantastic as usual. I found myself falling in love with the fact their characters were falling in love. Woody Harrelson also stars in this Top Notch film. I find it very difficult to write this review without giving away key plot points...All I can say is, Watch it and when you do make sure you have nothing to interrupt you, take the phone off the hook, sit back and get ready to start trying to unravel the mysterious life and past of IRS Agent Ben Thomas...I thank you Will Smith for another Great Film!!! I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library. When i first saw the title i was already deducing the theme of the film - it clearly wasn't a reference to British currency, so it had to be Shakespearian and about pounds of flesh - taking them, or giving them. Will Smith's a feelgood actor, so serial killers were out. It could only be about a man giving them, so must be about guilt somehow. I spoilt the whole thing for myself by looking it up and knowing the story before i watched, as the beauty of the build-up is the way parts of the main character's background are drip fed to slowly illuminate the audience as to who he is and why he is doing what he is doing.

Guilt is a very hard subject to do simply because it's deeply uncomfortable and sad, which is not an encouraging premise when you are hoping for a roller-coaster ride - you know its going to be unpleasant. I wouldn't say the movie glorifies suicide; it delves into the most extreme form of self-sacrifice - martyrdom.

It's also brimming with symbolism everywhere, which is a surefire tell-tale sign that the writing is cleverly thought out in great detail and driving at multiple meanings and a deep reflective nature. The most prominent theme that struck me was that he was not only giving his heart to the girl he loves emotionally and metaphorically, but was giving it to her physically as the greatest gift he could. Determined to die, but his plan is thwarted by falling in love - what a 2nd act complication. Absolutely masterful.

Yes it is very slow-paced, but i'm undecided as to whether it would have been better slotted into a smaller timeframe. I didn't feel the strain and his terrible inner turmoil as much as i could have, but maybe that's just me having ruined it for myself beforehand. Saying all that though, it is a deeply moving and original film that is an incredibly powerful and thought-provoking tragedy that deserves the awards it will inevitably get. Seven Pounds stars Will Smith as Ben Thomas, an IRS collection agent who has an ulterior motive for meeting those who have gotten behind on their tax payments. Thomas caused the deaths of seven people whilst driving talking on his phone and the movie follows his attempt to try and atone for his, quite frankly, unforgivable crime.

The story line is as subtle as a brick through a green house window. What you see is exactly what is happening - even the ending of Titanic was more surprising when compared to Seven Pounds. There is absolutely no twist whatsoever, there is never any confusion or doubt as to what is happening.

Normally I only like Will Smith when is in full Bad Boys mode. The guy is at his best when sporting a gun, driving a Ford GT and saying "Aw Hell Nah" as whenever he tries to act serious it only comes across as a pathetic attempt at trying to gain an Oscar which he is so obviously is desperate for. This is probably the main reason why I wasn't looking forward to the movie, although here he is very understated. There are flashes of comedy but they are subtle, in fact it was the most understated Will Smith performance I have ever seen and for that reason alone he was fantastic and ironically should be nominated for a major award.

The supporting cast were all grand too - Rosario Dawson looked pretty much at deaths door the whole film and Woody Harrelson and Barry Pepper were fine as where all the other bit players.

Overall it is a weepy - but it isn't throwing all the usual clichés and sentimental violins to give you no other choice but to cry. There were a few times that even my hardened heart nearly broke. You will be hard pressed not to find one of the situations that does not relate to your own life which makes it seem all the more real.

I would give it 8/10. The Will Smith show moves onto drama without all the desperation of The Pursuit of Happiness and comes of all the better for it. Going into see Seven Pounds i wasn't clearly sure what to think because the previews left to much open to grasp what the movie was really about. So within the first 20 min or so you are completely lost in the plot, have no idea what is going on and you think Tim, who claims to be Ben, is just a big asshole. All of this comes to an end when the "twist",so to speak, is unraveled at the very last minute of the movie. Basically Tim (will smith) was troubled and haunted by a big accident he made causing the end of seven peoples lives. By this he decides to scope out seven new people who are in need of help badly who he in turns gives his life to.

The acting of this film is great, as i feel will smith no matter what part he seems to impress. Rosario Dawson, to me, this is one of her better movies, aside from eagle eye which i think is up there to. She has been in some bad some good but she does deliver in this film. Other actors, such as woody Harrelson, have very small roles and not a big enough role to grasp the character. Although the casting of the film was still good.

This movie was definitely not what i expected and certainly a lot slower pace in which i hoped. The movie, however, was still pretty good. Nothing is revealed until the last 5 min of the movie and everything falls into place. Up until then it just seems like a pointless love story. Final thought seven pounds=seven Stars. One thing is for sure...you should not watch this film if you are having a bad day. The story is based around a sad event and follows a character who has to live with a sin that he cant handle. The story is drip fed to you rather than the usual dumbed down explanation so it keeps you wondering what is going on. Eventually the dots are joined up and the performances make sense. All the characters were OK and Wil Smith did another good day at the office.

There are no doubt a lot of moral questions to be asked but if you just accept and buy into his agony then it is easier to accept what he has chosen to do. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. The journey it takes you on is interesting enough, if not overwhelming.

A good enough film that unfortunately leaves you a little sad at the end. I would recommend this film if you like the sort where you have to think and not just watch explosions and fights. This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way. Rather nasty piece of business featuring Bela Lugosi as a mad scientist (with yes, a Renfield-like assistant and his mother, a dwarf and yes, the scientist's wife (sounds like a Greenaway movie actually lol). Lugosi gives his wife injections from dead brides (why them? Who knows?) so that his wife can keep looking beautiful. He gets the brides after doing a pretty clever trick with some orchids that makes the brides collapse at the altar. After another bride bites the dust, a newspaper reporter just HAPPENS to be around for the scoop, and decides to snoop around for a story. She gets all sorts of clues about the orchids and Lugosi. Heaven knows where the police were. Soon she's off to Bela's lair, when she meets a sort of strange looking doctor who may or may not be eeeevil. It all cumulates in a totally far-fetched plan to have a fake wedding to capture the mad scientist, but it seems that the scientist has x-ray vision, as he foils her plans, Oh no! What will happen? I actually liked this movie as a bit of a guilty pleasure. Lugosi is great here, his hangers-on are all very very strange, the story is actually quite nasty in some places which makes it all most watchable. A fun little view. Bela made 9 pics for Monogram, but it was only at THIS one, the 4TH, that things started to come together. All the rest in the series would use this one as the essential template for production, writing and character development. From here on, better or worse, the series would also deal with one essential theme: a scientist (usually Bela) makes experiments in the basement or the old house (sometimes IN the basement in the old house) that causes things to go blooey. This was also the first time that Art Director Dave Milton got a chance to spread his wings. He came on board for BLACK DRAGONS, the flick before, but THIS one is where he gets to make his craft start to click. Lewis made great atmosphere for next to nothing, and was around for all the rest of the Monograms. Casting is key in these, and it's a pretty good one B movie wise, here. You get Barclay and Harlen (also from BLACK DRAGONS),along with Russell, who would star in Lewtons' CAT PEOPLE movies..and Rosetto, from SPOOKS RUN WILD...a nice slice of Poverty Row talent. If you have limited time and budget, start with this one...it sums up everything they had learned up to this point, and gives you something to compare the rest to. The plot? Bela steals gland juice to keep his nasty wife young. They both like to sleep in coffins. If you can read that and smile, the rest will be easy. This is not Bela Lagosi's best movie, but it's got a good old style approach for some 40's horror entertainment.

Brides are dropping dead at the altar like flies. I think I'd postpone the wedding until after the fiend is caught, but it's a horror movie, so I guess people ignore the danger for some reason. Anyway, Lagosi is a mad doctor, who needs young female blood to keep his aging, sickly wife healthy and happy. He always eludes the Keystone Cops by hiding the bodies in a hearse (who would think of looking for a corpse in a hearse?), and the brides just keep on getting zapped.

No movie like this would be complete without a Lois Lane type female reporter who wants to catch the criminal on her own. Good at solving crime, bad at keeping her mouth shut at all the wrong times, guess who Lagosi picks for his next intended victim. I love the "haunted house" bit where Lois Lane gets stranded by a thunderstorm as a guest at Lagosi's sinister mansion. Hidden passageways, a vampire-like wife, an evil dwarf Igor assistant, and so on. Good stuff.

Fairly well done pacing keeps the film moving, and the story resolves itself in a typical but satisfying manner. If you like old horror movies, this one is worth a watch. I wouldn't say this is a bad movie; in fact it's pretty typical of the type of film that the "poverty row" studios were releasing at the time. Filmed for Monogram, Bela Lugosi is very effective in his role as the somewhat demented doctor-scientist, masquerading as a respected member of the community. In this movie, Bela and his henchmen have the nasty habit of stealing young brides, and, after their demise, injecting Bela's wife with a serum taken from their bodies in order to keep her young. Lugosi is more than up to the task in making this an enjoyable film, however, the movie suffers from the ultra-wooden acting of co stars Luana Walters and Tristram Coffin. Coffin (nice name for a guy in a horror flick) is especially bad in this case. I've seen him in numerous movies and tv shows and he is always the same; stiff, wooden and utterly unconvincing. Miss Walters is only slightly better, but she too lacks the acting talent to make her role believable. Still, the viewer can enjoy the great Lugosi act out yet another dastardly scheme only to be foiled in the end! Despite the poor acting by some, "The Corpse Vanishes" is an enjoyable movie for all to see. This is an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie if you can. Bela Lugosi appeared in several of these low budget chillers for Monogram Studios in the 1940's and The Corpse Vanishes is one of the better ones.

Bela plays a mad scientist who kidnaps young brides and kills them and then extracts fluid from their bodies so he can keep his ageing wife looking young. After a reporter and a doctor stay the night at his home and discover he is responsible for the brides' deaths, the following morning they report these murders to the police and the mad scientist is shot and drops dead shortly afterwards.

You have got almost everything in this movie: the scientist's assistants consist of an old hag, a hunchback and dwarf (her sons), a thunderstorm and spooky passages in Bela's house. Bela and his wife find they sleep better in coffins rather than beds in the movie.

The Corpse Vanishes is worth a look, especially for Bela Lugosi fans. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks. This is one movie that will take time to get out of your head once you have seen it. The dialogs are close to perfect, which was to be expected as it has been adapted from a play. The actors are simply giving their best, the story is simple and attractive. 88 minutes of pure bliss!

Yvan Attal is totally credible in his role, Sandrine Kiberlain is still the beautiful blonde (but not so dumb) providing as much pleasure to the eyes as to the ears, Jean-Paul Rouve is providing an excellent approximation of the total jerk (and proud to be such), and Marina Fois is the dumb friend who is always blundering when you expect it least.

Thumbs up to Bernard Rapp and associates for adapting this excellent play, and all the best for future productions!

I wish there were more of these in nowadays production. If you liked it, you will also probably enjoy: "Un air de famille", and "Cuisine et dependances". Both were written and played by the couple Bacri/Jaoui. Putting the UFO "thing" aside. This was the best documentary I've seen. Factual reporting by Neil and Buzz... a must see. The interviews and reporting are a revelation since most of the information was stamped confidential in 1969 and only released in 2006. No documentary to date has the detail or accuracy for such a brief 47 minutes... The FACTS will blow you away, and you will be left in awe of the risks taken to be the first on the moon... Neil and Buzz are probably the biggest hero's of our time. Ever see a man save his own life? Bet not. Neil saves his life when only mili-seconds separated him from death. Amazing to watch. It is a travesty people have not known all the details assosiated with landing on the moon and the courage those men had when facing certain death, from a failing computer... 10 stars! If you're researching UFO facts, then this video is very important. The 'meat' of the video is the comments made by Buzz Aldrin. He is without a doubt from the best of America. Trained to be objective, honest and factual in his reports. Many Astronauts from America of all eras have reported some kind of contact, or UFO observance and there are videos from some of those missions. At the very least something has happened that requires further objective ongoing investigating. I think this testimony from Buzz Aldrin shows that it is possible that other worlds may be interested in our progress. Like all supposed documentary video, this one may be slanted, but it does contain further information and opinions from an accomplished American hero. Those don't come along every day. So the fact that some people aren't interested in details should not detour your from viewing this video. If nothing else, it is interesting and I recommend you watch with an open mind. I have to say, as a BSG fan I wasn't exactly sure what I'd think of this show. I saw it on the big screen at the Arclight cinema tonight (as part of the Paley Center screenings), and the cast and film makers spoke after-wards. Ron Moore said they 'wanted to make a clean break from Battlestar, and do something different, and that yes they would lose some fans but hopefully they'd gain others".

Even without their talk, I am now a fan of the new show. But here's what I thought of the film.

I loved it. It was really very good. I guess I'm a true sci-fi (or 'syfy' - do I really have to type that?) geek, because I'd totally watch this as a series. It has a strong and rich story, and kept my interest.

It starts with a small group of teenagers plotting something, which to me was the weakest part and a bit confusing. The actor playing "Ben" should have given us more of a glimpse into his intense beliefs. The actress playing "Zoe" seemed a little posy, but she was playing a teenager (and I'm sure I won't be the only one who thought "Zoe" was a cylon at first, perils of being a BSG geek). If they're hoping these will be the new Bamber/Helfer/Park, they may want to rethink it. Surprisingly, it was the adults that captured the audiences attention.

Eric Stoltz gives a stellar performance as Daniel Greystone, a man so haunted by his family tragedy that he jumps at the first chance of getting out of his grief and doesn't let go. He does a chilling and enthralling job of conveying his character's sly knowledge of the inner world of computers and people, especially in a scene in which he spins a web for the young teenage friend of his daughters, traps her, then dismisses and releases her. No sign at all of the 'serial killer' he played on Gray's Anatomy, really impressive acting.

Equally as strong though not in it nearly as much is Paula Malcomson as his wife Amanda Greystone. She is just as smart and well written and beautifully played as Stoltz's part, and I completely believed that they are a couple, and a couple that have been together forever and have a strong relationship, something rarely seen these days. I look forward to seeing what happens with this family, and hope they give her as much to do as Roslin in BSG- she is strong and smart and when she lashes out at her kid, you cringe, it's really great. Not to mention her eyes, which could hold magical powers, that's how intense they are. The scene where she takes on the government agent- very short scene, but beautifully played- really gives you an idea of her power.

The other part of the show that did not work 100% for me were the scenes with Esai Morales, and the mafia type clan of his. He does a good job overall, but I did not believe in this mobs power, nor intimidated by their threats. I found myself wishing that this whole story line was a bit more mysterious and hard to figure out; the way it is presented is almost an homage to the Godfather, they kind of hit you over the head with it a bit. But given time, I can see how this will develop into an interesting 'Upstairs/downstairs' kind of thing, with the poor minorities (Morales et al) versus the rich folk who rule the planet (Stolz et al). And to be honest, I did enjoy it when he spoke to his son about the origin of their name- that was a very well played scene.

Note to BSG fans, the boy playing 'Willy Adama' doesn't really look much like Olmos, but he's just a kid. Whether or not he'll be featured any more than he was in this film, who knows? I sure couldn't tell. But it didn't bother me, because he wasn't as interesting as everything else going on around him.

Polly Walker plays 'Sister Clarice', and she's chilling and odd in every scene she's in. I'm not sure where she'll go or who she'll end up with, but I was very impressed with her acting. In this film she was sort of on the side, but obviously being set up to play a very important part later on. She was nothing like her character in "Rome", something I always find impressive in actors.

One nice surprise- the music is actually better and less obvious than BSG, even though it's the same guy doing it, Bear McCreary. It has a haunting and unusual approach that took me by surprise, I'd buy this score if I had the chance.

As to the 'panel discussion' after the show, it was hosted by Seth Green. Ron Moore was very smart and articulate, David Eick was cracking wise (much like his video diaries), Esai Morales told a long story about how he was cast, and Eric Stoltz was very funny and didn't really answer the questions ( but I've always had a thing for him). Paula Malcomson was tough (she took Seth Green to task for mistakenly saying she was on '24'), and the girls who played Zooey and Lacey were both darling. Grace Park and Tricia Helfer were there as well, answering questions about how they did the scenes acting with themselves on BSG. Overall a very interesting and wonderful evening.

I'm giving the show a 9 out of 10, and very much looking forward to watching it all unfold.

NOTE: I just watched this a second time and really hope they explore what the HOLOBAND was originally made for. I have no idea what that may be, but it holds a great deal of fascination to me. I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.

As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.

Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.

The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.

Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors.

The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series. I loved it, having been a fan of the original series, I have always wondered what the back story would be - it didn't fail to delight me. I also love the fact that apart from Eric Stoltz I didn't recognise one person - this is refreshing, much like BSG. It has introduced me to a whole wealth of new talent - can't wait for the series to start airing. Well done to Ronald D. Moore and team - excellent job. The special effects, dialogue and acting were all spot on, and I felt emotionally tied up in the storyline. I know there are purists out there that will probably disagree with my assessment, but I felt that Caprica was far superior to most of the Sci-Fi stuff produced in the last decade. Good show.

The basic background is that humanity is at a crossroads. There is a set of moral dilemmas that are being faced. Mankind has made a number of technological breakthroughs, but is mankind mature enough to deal with the its new toys? There is moral decadence in a virtual world. There are religious fanatics who are willing to kill to get attention. I predict (based on the BSG background) that there will be an issue with Cylons and slavery. In addition to this, there are all the other problems that we humans bring upon ourselves.

This show is not BSG -- at least not as far as mankind being on the run from a ruthless problem that was ultimately of their own making. There are not a lot of shoot-em-up or space-based special effects either - at least not in the first few episodes I have seen so far.

What it does have are very good stories, characters, and themes. It also has good performances from the actors. They can make a culture which is similar to modern-day society, but alien at the same time be completely believable. Like BSG, this show is about humanity - our strengths, weaknesses, potential, and flaws. It may seem a little odd that a human society on a different set of worlds has neckties, antique cars, and chicken. But those things are really more to create a semi-familiar background than anything else. Anyone who gets stuck on those details is really missing the point. Whether you are from a mafia-style culture or an affluent and high-tech culture, humans and human nature aren't that different 150,000 years ago in a high-tech past than what we see in the world today. Wonder if the writers are trying to tell us something. To all the haters out there: condemning a TV series with one episode is like judging an entire book after reading the first few pages. That being said, I was a huge fan of BSG, thought it was some of the best TV drama (not just sci-fi) on the air. But it was time for it to end and the story to move on. I liked the BSG epilogue "The Plan", but it raised as many new questions as it answered, so I eagerly anticipated "Caprica" and I was not disappointed.

I was hoping it would not try to be another BSG, and I was pleased that "Caprica" is something different, and I personally found the story exciting, in a different way than blazing space battles, explosions and sci-fi special effects (don't get me wrong, I like that stuff too). Eric Stolz and Esai Morales give solid performances, and Alessandra was just wonderful. I can't wait until next week. I must admit, I was one of the skeptics who prematurely judged this show before relatively any information was disseminated about it. I determined that it was going to be a cheap spin-off guided by Ronald D. Moore wielding the retcon-wand.

I was wrong!

The pilot leaves an excellent impression upon the viewers. The accessibility is marvelous! Of course, seasoned BSG veterans will find themselves immersed in the plot, which is focused on the development of the Cylons before the first War. (58 years before the events of the BSG pilot). The pilot also allows for newcomers, clearly presenting its plot and ideas in the first part of the episode.

Don't be mistaken: "Caprica" is not BSG. We are presented with an immersive, cerebral drama dotted by provocative, daring, and controversial ideas.

The casting maintains BSG's standards; Stoltz and Morales are simply astounding. Morales' portrayal of Joseph Adama, inspired by Olmos' portrayal of William, gives a wonderful glimpse of William's heroic father. Stoltz's portrayal of Dr. Graystone provokes a lot of thinking and questions.

If the quality of the pilot is any indication of what's yet to come, RDM and the creative team are set to continue BSG's legacy of first-rate television programming with another masterfully created television masterpiece. This is real character and story driven drama at a level that shames most of what we see on TV at the mo.

I was impressed right from the start. Don't be put off if your not a sci fi nut (like me...) This could be happening on earth, the fact that its in another galaxy just makes the show more interesting. there are no space ships or laser guns (None yet anyway) So far I've seen up to s01 e04 and I'm gripped and wondering whats going to happen next as there are so many possibilities.

The cast play there roles with pasion. Eric stoltz is especially strong.

This show really stands alone well, it doesn't matter if you watched BSG or not, in fact they are quite different. I've read some negative reviews from sci fi geeks who expected less drama and more aliens and ray guns etc but I would say ignore them.

This is a really positive start to a show. Lets hope they don't cann it after 1 or 2 seasons like they normally do with good shows these days. Well I have to say that I have waited for it to come.

I won't try to spoil it and quite a few people have really brilliantly spoken of the pilot. On the other hand I'm not quite sure to understand the detractors who claim themselves to be BSG fans and not like the pilot.

What the frack did they expect?!! The background is setting 50 years before BSG we are there o assist at the birth of the Cylons, see the life of the Adama family (has we already knew some of it from BSG), get a deeper explanation of the Caprican population and its perception of the other colonies, and potentially the origins of the Gods belief of the human and the unique God belief of the Cylons.

I do not expect the same profusion of special effect or space opera as the in the previous series, I make the difference between the two although I know that Caprica will reinforce BSG.

This is 1h30 of promising start, I believe as well that this will put pressure for the scenarios to be as good as BSG. I expect a lot from the following but I have no reasons to doubts that we will learn a lot more.

Watching the DVD's deleted scene also gives more material for your brain to chew on.

Looking forward to January 2010 Im really addicted to Caprica, because it's a really good prequel series to Battlestar Galactica. It really has a slow pace start, but surely to pick up soon after new episodes continue to air.

I have heard great things about future episodes and guest stars for the first season.

This Sci Fi drama is sure to please us fans who love a mix of both genres.

Eric Stoltz does an amazing job, as well as Polly Walker as Clarice Willow!!

Totally worth checking out!!

Catch Caprica On Fridays At 9pm/8pm central on SYFY I haven't seen BSG, I tried to watch it once in the middle of the show but couldn't get into it. However, I saw Caprica Rebirth yesterday I felt a little lost, so I decided to watch the Pilot today and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. I think this is a promising show and the only side effect it had on me is that now I want to watch BSG as well.

But what I really liked is that I didn't have to be a hardcore BSG fan to understand what's going on in Caprica. From what I have read in the net, they were trying to reach the female population since BSG reached way more men, and at least in my case it worked.

However, I suggest that if you are trying to watch the show do it from the beginning starting with the Pilot. If I had just seen the pilot of this show I would have rated it a 10. I was immediately hooked on this gorgeous new world. Subsequent episodes have not completely lived up to the promise, but I will keep watching and hope that it keeps getting better. The production values are incredible and the acting is first-rate. I don't mind that it doesn't seem to align perfectly with BSG because I am so intrigued by the premise and let's face it, they are two different shows. I'm thrilled that both Esai Morales and one of my all-time faves, Eric Stoltz, are back in my life (if only weekly) as I've missed them both. This is a show that requires a bit of thought from its audience and that is always a good thing. You kind of have to wrap your head around certain aspects of the show; things are not always as they seem and certainly there are shades of gray, both literally and figuratively, in plot lines, characters and, of course, the various virtual worlds. We all know how it ends, but the journey is looking to be quite a ride. I recently watched Caprica again and thought I might as well come and write up a review! I first saw this right after I saw the series finale of Battlestar Galactica ( Being a big drooling fan boy of the show left me clinging onto anything I could of the shows universe )so I didn't know what to expect...but I did come out with a smile though I must admit...

The story starts off dramatically on planet of caprica and we are introduced with a variety of interesting characters...I won't give too much away but there is a dramatic event that dictates the course of the story but I suggest you watch this.

Must say...Esai Morales is one hell of an actor he pulled off a young Joseph Adama...(father of the Admiral in Battlestar Galactica)I found his acting spot on and I could believe that he is the father of William Adama from BSG...

Also Eric Stoltz fits his role precisely...! Special note it was good to see Polly Walker outside of Rome! Don't sit down and watch Caprica with the expectation of it being like Battlestar Galactica because the story line is pretty straight forward and anyone can watch it..without having to have see BSG!.

This show is a well written drama for those who like there drama with a bit of a sci-fi kick! BSG is one of my all time favourite TV series. I was lucky enough to start watching it as the series came to it's final season. It was a marathon from start to finish for me and what an incredible ride it was!

As soon as I noticed the pilot on Hulu I knew exactly what I was in for just by the title - Caprica! Although, some things don't add up when you compare both series it is still beautifully executed. There were no mention about the holobands in Battlestar Galactica or the mention of virtual worlds but maybe I haven't got far enough into the series for them to explain why.

I recommend this show to anyone who loves the universe, technology, and alternate fantasies of our world. This show is very interesting and will have you wanting to watch more! The Caprica episode (S01E01) is well done as a pilot. Really, this episode is the exact same content as the DVD pilot release. That having been said, episode 01 gives a very substantive background of the very popular "Battlestar Galactica" series (both the original and the 2007 remake). It significantly applies most to the 2007 series. As is the trending plots of sci-fi of late, this series explores "Virtual" life or environment. On top of this, we are given much background on the Adama family line as well as their relationship with the unrevealed (in the Battlestar Galactica series) creator of the Cylons. To the most part, this first episode revolves around the popular topic of "Virtual" life and (as is expected) early life of the colonies, and the birth of the Cylons.

Over all, I rather enjoyed this episode. Although, it was not new material for myself or anyone that has already seen the DVD release of the Caprica pilot, the series seems very promising. As is the case with many pilots, episode 01 leaves us with a cliff-hanger so to ensure a follow by an audience (sci-fi community). I'm definitely going to keep watching for resolve as well as development.

I give this series 8 stars. Of course the average "Sci-Fi" Battle Star Gallactica fan will hate this. That kind of makes me happy. I don't like those cheesy sci-fi shows especially Battle-star Gallactica and that is why I like this show.

The creators of the show got a lot of heat for making this (the unconventional sci-fi way) and it was worth it. I read on Wiki that they wanted to appeal to everybody including women and not just sci-fi nerds.

This is probably the most promising show since Lost. It has the most interesting, clever, and deepest script of any show in some time and it is truly unique.

What I love most about the show is that it kind of plays out like a great Anime! From young teens running around shooting guns, to and extremely well balanced and complex script, to robots it reminds me of something that came from Japan except a little bit better (most Anime is too confusing). This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of "Deadwood" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be. First off, this is an excellent series, though we have sort of a James Bond effect. What I mean is that while the new Casino Royale takes place in 2006, it is chronologically the first adventure of 007, Dr. No (1962) being the second, while in Golden Eye, the first film with Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench is referred to as the new replacement for the male "M" so how could she have been in place in the beginning before Bond became a double-0, aside from the fact that she is obviously 14 years older? This is more or less a "poetic" license to thrill. We need to turn our heads aside a bit if we wish to be entertained. No, the new Star Trek movie does not have any of the primitive electronics of the original series from nearly half a century ago. In the 1960's communicators were fantasy. (now we call them cell phones) and there were sliding levers instead of buttons. OMG, do you think 400 years from now, they would have perfected Rogaine for Jean-Luc Picard? So, please, let's give the producers some leeway.

But to try and make things a bit consistent, let us just ponder about the Cylons creation just 60 years prior to the end of Battlestar Galactica. If that is the case, where did all the Cylons that populated the original earth come from? We know that the technology exists for spontaneous jumps through space. Well, what happened if one of the Cyclon ships at war with the Caprica fleet was fired upon or there was a sunspot or whatever and one ship, loaded with human-looking Cylons, wound up not only jumping through space, but through time, back a thousand or ten thousand years with a crippled ship near Earth One. They colonized it, found out they could repopulate it and eventually destroyed themselves, but not before they themselves sent out a "ragtag" fleet to search for the legendary Caprica, only to find a habitable but unpopulated planet, which they colonized to become the humans, who eventually invented the Cylons. Time paradox? Of course. Which came first, the chicken or the road? Who cares? It's fraking entertaining! Just as the new BSG wasn't what fans of the original series were expecting, Caprica may not deliver what fans of the new BSG were expecting (for the most part). It is a very interesting, if not somewhat self-involved show, or at least the pilot is.

If you're looking for the big CGI thrills of the (new) BSG, you'll be sorely disappointed. If you liked the drama, you'll probably find something you like and maybe even identify with.

The storyline does examine on how the Cylons were developed, why Adama hates them and the origins of a monotheistic society. The writers also manage to tackle humans 'playing God(s)' and the creation or re-creation of 'human' life. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I found it to plod along in some parts and too preachy in others, but all in all it was promising. A small part of me wishes (or hopes) there might be some minor inklings of BSG in there (aside from the back story I mentioned), but that would probably convolute the storyline too much. Like BSG, I'll have to wait and see if Caprica grows on me, but it's way too early to tell.

It would really easy to chalk this up as a failure if you compare it to the previous series, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Overall, I thought it was interesting enough to make me see how the actual series is before 'throwing in the (proverbial) towel'. A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.

The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.

Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.

For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.

While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.

The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.

Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver Overall I was rather impressed with the pilot. The initial first fifteen minutes were worrying, as it did feel the creators were trying to create a science fiction version of The O.C but this fear is rectified when a terrorist incident occurs and from here the show steps into themes and situations that I very rarely see television tackle.

BSG dealt with themes such as monotheism, existentialism, reality, death and terrorism but they were primarily subtext, there for the viewer to contemplate on or ignore if they so choose. Here on the other hand these subjects are the focus of the show and I personally found myself evoking such works as Ghost In The Shell and The Matrix as reference points while watching and being surprised by how well the themes were being discussed. I think if you are a fan of the two I just mentioned or other films/television shows, which deal with the subjects I referenced, I think you will find at least something here.

In terms of a starting point to explain how the situation we know in BSG came about I believe they handled it in a very interesting way, I especially liked how they explained where the Cylon's belief in one God came from and the creation of Caprica had just enough advanced and contemporary technology thrown in to make it appear in the future but not completely alien to us as viewers.

The only real weak points I noticed were the relationship between the Greystone parents and the actress who plays 'Lacy Rand'. While I like Eric Stoltz and Paula Malcomson individually, together their scenes seemed to lack chemistry, at this point it could simply be down to developing their characters, but this is something I think needs work. I also found Magda Apanowicz to be unconvincing in her role. This again could be down to experience and time needed to develop, but throughout the episode her acting appeared forced and not completely confident.

Based on the pilot I greatly look forward to seeing where 'Caprica' goes in the future and hopefully it will touch the greatness that BSG once did. This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?

Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way.

Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..

It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.

I liked this movie .. On paper this looked like a great concept: Average guy on the rebound dates up tight bookish museum curator, who is really a hot Superhero who saves the world on a regular basis. However, director Ivan Reitman and writer Don Payne (of the "Simpson's") almost fatally miscalculate in having their hero G-Girl (played by striking Uma Thurman) come off as a total nut job as both Superhero and secret identity persona Jenny Johnson. The movie even cops to this in a conversation between Jenny and Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) following his rescue by G-Girl from the Statue of Liberty. Jenny curiously asks Matt what was G-Girl like. Matt replies, "She's kind of nutty…" I think the intent was to have Jenny (Thurman) be this lonely young woman, who has no one in her life, isolated by her great physical powers. Thurman does the best she can, but her Jenny is a terrifying mood swing in dire need of Prozac. Luke Wilson is way too breezy in the role reversal of boyfriend and superhero girl friend.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is also a victim of bad timing, coming on the tail end of "Superman Returns" which plays Superhero straight up, so to speak. With all its quirks and inconsistent writing I still thought "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" was funny and enjoyed the movie. Given that this is an Ivan Reitman movie, this could have been a lot better. Reitman starts with a great premise, and really squanders it. First off, we all love the hero. Here neither Jenny nor G-Girl is really all that likable. This is surprising for Uma Thurman, who is normally a charismatic and powerful presence. In the beginning her Jenny/ G-Girl is just plain weird. Shocking. Because if there is a woman who can play a Superhero, she is Thurman—she looks great. Only toward the end does her Jenny become more sympathetic, instead of caricature. Although "My Super Ex" is not a straight Superhero story, rather a romantic comedy of sorts, it does not provide what every Superhero mythology requires—a great super villain. Here we have Professor Bedlam aka Barry (Eddie Izzard) who really is evil lite. He is no Lex Luthor. No plans for Global domination. Bedlam rather Barry does hold a grudge against G-Girl, and expectedly it has to do with their shared past. What is bizarre you don't know who you would rather spend time with—Bedlam or G-Girl? Luke Wilson's Matt is just "some dude" who happens to hook up with the psycho superhero. One of the annoying things he does is that he confides in his repugnant loser friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson doing a bad whacked out impersonation). Wilson sometimes plays it a little too dense, and this dilutes his likable charm. This does however work, in the comic sex scene with Jenny. Matt while dating Jenny/ G-Girl realizes that he is in love with his co-worker Hannah (perky Anna Faris). So how does Matt break up with G-Girl? Well, it's not pretty and for the most part hilarious.

Dramatic Superhero movies work. Romantic comedies with chemistry work. What may be inherently difficult are Superhero satires disguised as romantic comedies. Everyone loves the hero. However, hero nut job? Maybe not. With all Uma Thurman's talent she is unable to accomplish this convincingly. And she does not get sufficient support from Reitman and Payne. Thurman and Wilson have enough charm and presence to survive their narrative failings. "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is fun and funny. Though given all involved, the movie could have been super. A big surprise, probably because I was expecting it to suck. The reviews were pretty dismissive of it, even though they all seemed to agree that the concept was golden: a man finds out his new girlfriend is a super hero, and finds, when he wants to break up with her, that she's kind of a psycho. I kept expecting it to fall apart, but it never really did. Sure, it doesn't make as much of its awesome premise as it could, and chooses to be short when it might have been better to expand the film's universe. But I can't blame it for that. Uma Thurman is great as the bipolar superhero, G-Girl. And I've discovered, after several years of disliking him, that Luke Wilson can be absolutely perfect when cast as a schlub. He's given two of the best comic performances of 2006 (the other in the pretty much unreleased Idiocracy). I absolutely cracked up at the expressions on his face when he and Thurman first have sex. It's one of the funniest sex scenes ever. My only real complaint is that they make G-Girl a bit too much of a psycho, like almost unbelievably so. Maybe with some background I could have accepted it better. I can forgive its flaws, though, because I had a really good time watching it. Underrated, for sure. My Super Ex Girlfriend turned out to be a pleasant surprise for me, I was really expecting a horrible movie that would probably be stupid and predictable, and you know what? It was! But this movie did have so many wonderful laughs and a fun plot that anyone could get a kick out of. I know that this was a very cheesy movie, but Uma and Anna were just so cool and Steve was such a great addition along with a great cast that looked like they had so much fun and that's what made the movie really work.

Jenny Johnson(scary, that's my best friend's actual name) is not your typical average librarian looking woman, when Matt, your average male, asks her out, he's in for more than he expected, he's asked G-Girl out on a date, the super hero of the world! But when he finds out what a jealous and crazy girl she really is and decides that it may be a good idea that they spend some time apart, but Jenny won't have it since he's fallen for another girl, Hannah, and she will make his life a living hell, I mean, let's face it, he couldn't have chosen a better girl to break up with.

The effect were corny, but you seriously move past them quickly, the story and cast made the story really work and I loved Uma in this movie, it was such a step up from Prime. My Super Ex Girlfriend is a fun movie that you shouldn't really take seriously, it's just a cute romantic comedy that I think if I could get a laugh out of it, anyone could.

7/10 The title got my attention and then I wondered what will come out in the plot, as we have seen so many "super-people" movies these years... and in fact, I really liked it, as there were a number of unusual funny scenes that I didn't expect. Uma Thurman performed as average in G-Girl's role. Surprisingly, I was again able to watch her toes in wide screen (like in the beginning of Kill Bill). Luke Wilson however played very well the idiot everyday guy who meets the big woman, I could really get into his situation. If you want a light touch of fun, you should definitely watch G-Girl's and average Matt's adventures, especially to cheer up your partner. 7/10 in my collection. A guy desperate for action attempts to hit on a gorgeous girl in a bus. She refuses him, but when he runs after someone who tries to steal her purse they get together anyway. And there it starts - a relation that is slightly tainted by the fact that she is a jealous and neurotic superhero. It can't be a secret that things between them are going to be problematic.

In short, a story that could promise to grow out into a cool film. And IMO, it succeeds at being a nice film. It's no masterpiece, but it had me in tears from laughing on more than one occasion - the two lead characters twirl around each other in a crazy love fest that is, even with the superhero thing going, believable.

So. Thin story, but worked out really funny and thus worthy of cinema time.

7 out of 10 broken hearts well, this is an Ivan Reitman film. with the rare exception, Ivan likes to entertain. His films generally aren't "deep", but they are often entertaining enough. My Super Ex-Girlfriend surprised me in that i laughed more than i thought i would. Uma Thurman is just so grand, and i love her portrayals. I like Luke Wilson too, and Rainn Wilson was a straight hoot. Never taking itself seriously, the film is over the top and yet isn't very unique, nor does it go where no one has gone before.... it's a nice rent though and probably an OK date movie, especially if you have a headache and don't want to strain your brain. It's escapist fun and there's nothing wrong with that. When you strip away the "super-girl" stuff, you're left with a story about relationships, and relationships gone bad. It's a boy meets girl, boy leaves girl thing. And in the end, the characters are looking for love. Not all of them take being "dumped" as well as they could....a slice of life with a twist. Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.)

OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick "P*nis or bed?" when she told him she'd "get him a new one" after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.

I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.

Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman. My Super Ex-Girlfriend is an entertaining movie no more no less.

The story is quiet simple. Matt Saunders(Luke Wilson) meets Jenny(Uma Thurman) on the subway and hooks up with her. In the beginning of their relationship everything seems to be OK, but then Matt finds out that she's G-Girl. At first that seems really cool to Matt but it turns out that G-Girl is very jealous and needy. So he decides to break up with her and hook up with his colleague Hannah(Anna Faris). This makes G-Girl very mad and she starts to avenge herself on her former boyfriend.

What I liked most in the movie are the scenes where G-Girl avenges herself on Matt. It was also nice to see Anna Faris in another role then her character from the Scary Movie saga.

I give this movie a 7 out of 10 and recommend it to anybody who likes a nice comedy. I got to say that Uma Thurman is the sexiest woman on the planet. this movie was uber cute and I mean uber cute. It had all the "sex" content that most Ivan Reitman comedies have but with something a lil extra, CHEMISTRY. Uma and Luke both have this awkrawrd but believable chemistry that seem to transcend in each scene . Both seem to create this odd, twisted and interesting relationship with powerful "sexual" tension that you laugh until you can't feel your face anymore. Anna Farris and the rest of the supporting cast seem to play off each other's roles perfectly and even Wanda Sykes' rather small role will keep you laughing. Though these kind of comedies aren't for everybody, but I have to say I went with a person that doesn't usually enjoy these films and he was laughing like crazy. This movie is certainly not for everyone. especially younger children since some moments are little too...well lets say ADULT for younger viewers. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, tough the ending I found was a little weak compared to the rest of the film. (3 1/2* out of 5*) My Super X-Girlfriend is one hell of a roller coaster ride. The special effects were excellent and the costumes Uma Thurman wore were hubba buba. Uma Thurman is an underrated comedic actress but she proved everyone wrong and nailed her role as the lunatic girlfriend. She was just simply FABULOUS!!! Luke Wilson was also good as the average Joe but he was a brave man to work with one of the greatest actresses of all time. The supporting cast was also superb especially Anna Faris who was extremely good (A lot better than in the Scary Movie franchise).

Ivan Rietman did very well in directing this film because if it wasn't for him and Uma Thurman this film wouldn't have done so well. This film is clearly a 10/10 for it's cast (Uma Thurman), it's director, it's screenplay and from it's original plot line. This film is very highly recommended. This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing). This is one of those movies that make better trailers than full-length feature films. The concept was really cool and different, the humor was unique, I just felt there were missed opportunities to put the "punch" into this movie. So many lines and gags were left hanging too long, with no definite ending and really didn't leave me laughing. Wilson, Wilson, Farris & Thurman were great. Wanda Sykes was under-used in this film and needed more exposure, and more opportunities to spin her character into more screen time. 7 out of 10 for me, more of a DVD rental. Also, I was looking for some sort of a feel-good music video during the end credits, something that has become sort of a trade-mark to these romantic comedy films, a la Something About Mary, Meet the Parents but again, I was left feeling a little cheated by fact that this COULD have been a much better film with a little more music and punchier punch lines. It felt like it was RUSHED into theaters. In New York, when the shy and lonely project manager of a design firm Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) meets Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) in the subway, he invites her to date and have dinner with him. Jenny immediately falls in love for him, they have sex and she discloses her true identity to him, telling that she is the powerful superhero G-Girl. After meeting his co-worker and friend Hannah Lewis (Anna Faris), the needy Jenny becomes jealous, controlling and manipulative, and Matt follows the advice of his best friend Vaughn Haige (Rainn Wilson) and dumps her, breaking her heart. Jenny turns Matt's life into hell, while he has a romance with Hannah. However, the archenemy of G-Girl and former high school sweetheart of Jenny, Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), proposes Matt to lure Jenny to strip her superpowers.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is delightfully silly and funny. This romantic comedy-adventure has many hilarious moments and is very entertaining. Luke Wilson is great in the role of an idiot, Anna Farris is extremely sexy as usual, and Uma Thurman is great in the role of a deranged neurotic superhero that recalls Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" or Evelyn Draper in "Play Misty For Me". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Minha Super Ex-Namorada" ("My Super Ex-Girlfriend") I was never a big fan of television until I watched 24 for the first time. I got into the series very late. Season 5 ended before I even saw my very first episode. It was an episode of Series 3 that was on my parents DVR (digital video recorder) box while I was house sitting for the weekend. It took that one episode for me to be hook line and sinker into the world of Jack Bauer. And boy was I hooked!! I watched the next six episodes without blinking an eye. The next day I went to Blockbuster and signed up for an unlimited month pass for twenty something dollars and needless to say it has been the greatest blockbuster money I've ever spent. I watched the first three seasons in three weeks. That's 72 forty minute episodes!!! I will say that finding out what happens next is easier on DVD than waiting an entire week. I can only imagine the anticipation of watching Season 6 week to week!! I find it mildly torturous and cruel but I'm going to give it a try and watch it just like the rest of America!! The DVR is set and you can bet I'll be chomping at the bit!! On the day of the California Presidential Primary, between midnight and 1:00 AM, the spy Victor Rovner sends a message from Kuala Lumpur to USA. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the Federal Agent Jack Bauer has returned to his family and is having trouble at home with his teenage daughter Kimberly, who blames her mother Teri for putting Jack out of the house. Teri and Jack decide to have a serious conversation with Kim, and they discover that the girl has run away home. While trying to solve his domestic problem, Jack is called to his Counter Terrorist Unit by his colleague Nina Myers for a meeting with their chief Richard Walsh, who discloses a menace against the life of Senator David Palmer, who is running for president, and they need to find the shooter. Later, Walsh has a private conversation with Jack and tells that there is a conspiracy in the agency against David Palmer, and assigns Jack to find the conspirators. When an airplane explodes over the Mojave Desert, Jack has one additional issue to worry about.

The first episode of "24" is a promising beginning of a successful series, introducing Jack Bauer. This is the first time that I have watched this show and I confess that I liked what I have seen: a complex and dramatic story, with multiple and realistic characters. Kiefer Sutherland is perfect in the role of a family man and a reliable agent in charge of three difficult missions at the same time: find a killer to protect an important politician; find a traitor in his agency; and find his teenage daughter, who is getting in trouble, while trying to save his marriage. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "12:00" "Addictive" is an adjective I've heard many times when talking of certain TV shows. Most recently, dramas like Lost, Heroes and Prison Break have earned that description. However, as compelling as they may be (and they really are) I can wait a few days before I see the next episode of either series, even Prison Break which some have lazily classified as "the new 24". With all due respect, there can be no such thing, and for a good reason: no other silver-screen thriller is based on a real-time structure. That's what sets 24 apart from any other show, and that's why I practically have to watch an entire season (on DVD) in seven days or less: once the frickin' clock starts ticking, it's impossible to tune out.

An episode whose events unfolded over the course of a single day was a trademark of NYPD Blue (and, more recently, Deadwood); having an entire season of a new series last 24 hours, one per ep (the actual running time is 41 minutes; the remaining 19 are occupied by commercials when the show airs on telly), was the most groundbreaking idea in mainstream television since Hill Street Blues introduced non-linear storytelling (a mandatory element nowadays). And it truly paid off.

Ironically enough, the original plan for the series was to make it revolve around a wedding (fortunately, creators Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran realized the format was more suitable for a conspiracy thriller), which is probably the reason the first glimpse we get of the hero suggests a cheerful atmosphere: looking extremely relaxed, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is enjoying a game of chess with his daughter Kimberly (Elisha Cuthbert) and, minutes later, being tender with Teri (Leslie Hope), the wife with whom he has just reconciled. As in The Sopranos, though, something unexpected and shocking is just behind the corner: not only has Kim snuck out of her room, Jack also receives a phone call urging him to get to work immediately. At midnight? I'm afraid so: Bauer is a CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agent, and his boss has acquired reliable intel about a possible hit on the life of David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), an African-American Presidential candidate who will be in Los Angeles for the whole day (oh, right, I almost forgot: events occur on the day of the California Presidential Primary). No time for napping, then: Jack has to spend the next 24 hours working on the case. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to ignore protocol, and that doesn't sit well with George Mason (Xander Berkeley), a slimy man from Division who has been asked to interfere with the operation.

The plot is very dense, making the show hard to recommend for those with a short attention span, but anyone willing to take a look will be rewarded instantly: the writing is sharp and precise, the attention to detail unsurpassed, and the suspense is consistently sky-high, mainly thanks to the real-time trickery which considerably enhances the adrenaline level.

Another great quality of this pilot is the characterization: most genre shows (sci-fi and thriller) tend to simply introduce the key players and then define them later on (a textbook example is CSI, where character development is minimal, but then again that matches the show's unique style), whereas the series debut of 24 offers a rich array of fully rounded people, among whom Jack (Sutherland's best role - ever!) and Palmer (the real revelation of the show) stand out for being perfectly described after one episode only (the former divided between job and family, reckless but humane, the latter honorable and endowed with great integrity). A couple of supporting parts border on stereotype (Mason and Tony Almeida especially), but two factors ought to be taken into account: a) this is the first episode; b) there's so much going on most viewers won't even complain about a "flaw" or two. After all, how many network programs manage to begin with a conspiracy, a missing teenager AND a huge explosion - and still have equally satisfying material for the rest of the season?

Tick, tock, tick, tock... The first time I saw this episode was like a shock to me, it was actually the first time I saw "24". The speed things are happening is amazing, and it's so surprising, thrilling, and even interesting, it's almost as if you are reading a book; once you start it, it's very hard to stop. From the minute Richard Walsh was talking privately to Jack about the possibility that they have a mole inside CTU, I was sitting 6:40 hours, which means 10 episodes!!! (Sounds funny and crazy, but I'm the kind of guy which when he is interested he just can't stop)This series is one of the best of it's kind. And it's build in a way of having a few different stories that are being connected together. Recommended in every way! 24 is the best television show!!!!! It's an incredible TV series with an incredible suspense, excellent plots and unforgettable characters. And the first episode of all is my best evidence. Because it's only the first episode, only the introduction, and you are hooked because of the plot and the continuous twists and turns.

Jack Bauer is a federal agent who is assigned the protection of the senator David Palmer. He can't trust in anybody because people of the CTU may be involved. And, when this events occurred his daughter: Kimberly escapes from house to a party. But...

At the end of the episode, you want to watch more, and more, and more.

It's only the first of the lot, and it's excellent. 24 has got to be the best spy/adventure series TV had ever aired. The whole idea of telling a story in a 24 hour real time period is dazzling. The style of filming and pacing is what hooks us to watch it. And Jack Bauer is one of the greatest protagonists in a TV series in a long time. I rate this, along with The Simpsons and The X-Files, my three most favorite TV series.

This first episode begins with the conspiracy to assassinate US Senator David Palmer who is also running for president. Bauer is called to his office in order to discover who is behind all this and, at the same time, figure his daughter's path to the unkwown after fleeing from her bedroom. Thus, begins an adventure on the best political style and, what's best of it, is that it always takes place in real time, which makes this TV series a real work of originality in a time where almost every program on TV seems to be showing us the same things over and over and over. My favorite movie genre is the western, it's really the only movie genre that is of American origin. And despite Sergio Leone, no one does them quite like Americans.

Right at the top of my list of ten favorites westerns is Winchester 73. It was the first pairing and only black and white film of the partnership of director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart. It was also a landmark film in which Stewart opted for a percentage of the profits instead of a straight salary from Universal. Many such deals followed for players, making them as rich as the moguls who employed them.

Anthony Mann up to this point had done mostly B pictures, noir type stuff with no real budgets. Just before Winchester 73 Mann had done a fine western with Robert Taylor, Devil's Doorway, that never gets enough praise. I'm sure James Stewart must have seen it and decided Mann was the person he decided to partner with.

In this film Mann also developed a mini stock company the way John Ford was legendary for. Besides Stewart others in the cast like Millard Mitchell, Steve Brodie, Dan Duryea, John McIntire, Jay C. Flippen and Rock Hudson would appear in future Mann films.

It's a simple plot, James Stewart is obsessed with finding a man named Dutch Henry Brown and killing him. Why I won't say, but up to this point we had never seen such cold fury out of James Stewart on screen. Anthony Mann reached into Jimmy Stewart's soul and dragged out some demons all of us are afraid we have.

The hate is aptly demonstrated in a great moment towards the beginning of the film. After Stewart and sidekick Millard Mitchell are disarmed by Wyatt Earp played by Will Geer because guns aren't carried in Earp's Dodge City. There's a shooting contest for a Winchester rifle in Dodge City and the betting favorite is Dutch Henry Brown, played with menace by Stephen McNally. Stewart, Mitchell and Geer go into the saloon and Stewart and McNally spot each other at the same instant and reach to draw for weapons that aren't there. Look at the closeups of Stewart and McNally, they say more than 10 pages of dialog.

Another character Stewart runs into in the film is Waco Johnny Dean played by Dan Duryea who almost steals the film. This may have been Duryea's finest moment on screen. He's a psychopathic outlaw killer who's deadly as a left handed draw even though he sports two six guns.

Another person Stewart meets is Shelley Winters who's fiancé is goaded into a showdown by Duryea and killed. Her best scenes are with Duryea who's taken a fancy to her. She plays for time until she can safely get away from him. Guess who she ultimately winds up with?

There are some wonderful performances in some small roles, there ain't a sour note in the cast. John McIntire as a shifty Indian trader, Jay C. Flippen as the grizzled army sergeant and Rock Hudson got his first real notice as a young Indian chief. Even John Alexander, best known as 'Theodore Roosevelt' in Arsenic and Old Lace has a brief, but impressive role as the owner of a trading post where both McNally and Stewart stop at different times.

Mann and Stewart did eight films together, five of them westerns, and were ready to do a sixth western, Night Passage when they quarreled and Mann walked off the set. The end of a beautiful partnership that produced some quality films. For Anthony Mann the Western was 'legend'- and 'legend' makes the very best cinema! Mann's work was full of intensities and passions, visually dramatic, and the action always excitingly photographed...

Stewart, a docile actor with the ability of displaying anger, neurosis and cruelty, made with Anthony Mann, five remarkable Westerns: "Winchester '73;" " Bend of the River;" "The Naked Spur;" "The Far Country;" and "The Man from Laramie."

In "Winchester '73," Stewart reveals his darker side... He offers all the reserves of anger, inner ambivalence, and emotional complexity in his nature that his audiences had, up till this time, failed to catch...

A carefully chosen cast increases the proceedings in fine style: Shelley Winters is at her saucy best; Dan Duryea perfect as the vicious, sneering psychopathic villain; John McIntire great as the unscrupulous character; Charles Drake so good as the man who attempts to face his tormentor; and a very young Rock Hudson, attempts the role of an Indian Chief...

"Winchester '73" is the story of a perfectly crafted and highly prized, rifle in the Dodge City Kansas of 1876... Stewart and his estranged brother, who bears another name (Stephen McNally), compete fiercely for possession of it, and though Stewart wins, McNally steals it and sets off cross-country with Stewart in pursuit... What gives the pursuit an element of the demonic, is Stewart's determination to revenge his father's death at the hands of that same renegade brother—a revenge fed by long-standing fratricidal hatred...

Photographed in gorgeous Black & White, the film comes on as powerful and arresting, acted with deep feeling and intense concentration, not only by Stewart but by all the supporting characters...

Look fast for a promising newcomer, Tony Curtis, the soldier who finds the rifle after the Indian attack... The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.

The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.

Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.

WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.

As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.

What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.

It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.

This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.

73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.

The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in. In the fifties the age restrictions for films in Brazil were the following: no restriction, 10 years old, 14 years old and 18 years old. Usually the westerns were allowed for ten years old, when they had a bit more of violence they would go to 14, but it was rare to see a western restricted for younger than 18. Winchester 73 was one of those, and I think this explains very well how this film was considered different from average. The hero, James Stewart was fighting against his own brother who had killed their father. He was looking for revenge and seemed quite traumatized, far from the average good guy. Anthony Mann tried variations on this type of character in the next films he did with Stewart. Shelley Winters, the leading lady was far from virtuous, she kept following the man who stayed with the rifle. Dan Duryea as Waco Johnnie Dean is one of those great villains that will always be remembered. The story of the film, which always follows the man who stays with the rifle, is one of the best suited for a western. It was to be made into a Fritz Lang film, which did not come through. When it was offered to Mann he made a point of starting from zero again and not taking anything that was prepared for Lang. With Winchester, Mann created a different conception of western, but still maintaining all its traditions. Winchester still is a great film to see again and again, but nothing will be comparable to the impression it made in those who saw it when it was originally released. Buffs of the adult western that flourished in the 1950s try and trace its origins to the film that kicked off the syndrome. Of course, we can go back to Howard Hawks's Red River (1948) or further still to John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946), but if we want to stick with this single decade, then it has to be one of a couple of films made in that era's initial year. One is "The Gunfighter," an exquisitely grim tale of a famed gunslinger (Ringo) facing his last shootout. Another from that same year is "Winchester '73," and it's worth noting that Millard Mitchell appears in both as grim, mustached, highly realistic range riders. In The Gunfighter, he's the town marshal expected to arrest Ringo but once rode with him in an outlaw gang. In Winchester, he's the sidekick to Jimmy Stewart, a kind of Horatio to Stewart's Hamlet in this epic/tragic tale. The plot is simple enough: Stewart's lonesome cowpoke wins a remarkable Winchester in a shooting match, beating the meanest man in the west (Stephen McNally), who is actually his own brother and caused the death of their father. When the brother steals the gun, Stewart and Mitchell go after him in a cowboy odyssey that takes them all across the frontier, meeting up with both outlaws and Indians. (In one wonderful bit, two future stars - Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis - play an Indian chief and a U.S. cavalry soldier - during a well staged pitched-battle. Dan Duryea steals the whole show as a giggling outlaw leader, while Shelly Winters, just before she began to gain weight, is fine as the shady lady who ties all the plots together. Today, filmmakers would go on for about four hours to bring such an ambitious idea to the screen, but Anthony Mann does so in an extremely economical amount of time, with not a minute wasted. Such western legends as Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp (terrifically played by Will Geer) make brief appearances, adding to the historicity as well as the epic nature. The final battle between good and bad brothers, high atop a series of jutting rock canyons, is now legendary among western buffs. It's also worth noting that Stewart, however much associated he became with western films, does what is actually his first western leading man role here - yes, he was in Destry Rides Again eleven years earlier, but was cast in that comedy spoof because he seemed so WRONG for westerns! In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the "tails" were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on.

The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.

The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle).

The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).

The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle. I was very impressed with this film. I would have to rate it as one of the better classic-era westerns. I say that for the whole thing: the acting, mature dialog, no- nonsense story and excellent cinematography.

Director Anthony Mann, who did several well-photographed film noirs around this same era, also made some westerns such as this one. It has that same film-noir look. Mann and Jimmy Stewart collaborated on several westerns during this period. . If you like this movie, I recommend the Mann-Stewart film "Bend Of The River."

In a nutshell, the story is about a man, "Lin McAdam," (Stewart) who owns this prestigious Winchester 73 rifle, a weapon he won fair-and-square in a contest. It is then stolen and passed on from villain to villain. All of those villains are interesting characters.

Aiding Stewart act out this interesting tale are Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake, Will Greer and J. C. Flippen. All of them are fun to watch. It was a bit of a stretch, however, to see Rock Hudson playing an Indian ("Young Bull"), but you can't have everything. For the viewer who comes upon it long after its making, "Winchester '73" has something in common with "Casablanca." While you watch it, you get this feeling that you're looking at a string of clichés encountered so often in the genre; then you realise that the clichés became clichés only after being copied from this particular film, and that they were so widely copied because this film was so great. In other words, it's a seminal work.

"Winchester '73" is a joy to watch. The broad lines of the plot are somewhat predictable, but mostly because you've seen them copied so many times in later movies, and nevertheless it still contains a number of twists which surprise you. The dialogue, the pacing and Mann's direction are excellent. Stewart shines in particular, and if you're a fan this is a "must-see," but he is not alone in delivering a good performance. Remarkably, many of the most thoughtful and/or witty lines go to minor characters. Because this makes these characters (much) more than cardboard cutouts, it lent additional realism to the film.

This is a remarkably underrated film, and well worth keeping an eye out for. The DVD also contains an interview with Stewart which provides some background on the film. This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles. Winchester 73 gets credit from many critics for bringing back the western after WWII. Director Anthony Mann must get a lot of credit for his excellent direction. Jimmy Stewart does an excellent job, but I think Stephen McNalley and John McIntire steal the movie with their portrayal of two bad guys involved in a high stakes poker game with the treasured Winchester 73 going to the winner. This is a good script with several stories going on at the same time. Look for the first appearance of Rock Hudson as Young Bull. Thank God, with in a few years, we would begin to let Indians play themselves in western films. The film is in black and white and was shot in Tucson Arizona. I would not put Winchester 73 in the category of Stagecoach, High Noon or Shane, but it gets an above average recommendation from me.

. James Stewart stars in a classic western tale of revenge which ties in with the fate of the films other star the Winchester Rifle. Stewart is it goes without saying excellent adding some cold hard obsession to his usual laid back cowboy. The story follows the fate of a Winchester rifle and its owners after being won in a competition by our hero and stolen by the man he is hunting.

We meet a selection of gamblers, gun fighters, Indian traders and bank robers as we follow the rifles path through Indian battles, bank heists etc. The supporting cast are all solid with Dan Durya standing out as Waco Johnny Dean the live-wire gunfighter with an itchy trigger finger. Also as a trivia note a very early appearance from Rock Hudson as an Indian chief.

The end showdown is a classic a tense rifle battle fought at long range in and around a rocky outcrop. Throw in some good old western action, fist fights, shootouts and horseback chases it makes for a rollicking western adventure. 8/10 Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy! A new creative team emerged in 1950 when brilliant actor James Stewart teamed with the equally-brilliant director Anthony Mann to make a series of westerns that helped define that genre for the future. Until that time Stewart was mainly noted for an aw..aw..aw approach to family oriented comedies, dramas, and romances. Not that he wasn't already a multi-talented Hollywood star. One of his best screen performances ever and one of the best for anyone on celluloid was as Macaulay 'Mike' Connor, a sarcastic writer for a scandal rag in "The Philadelphia Story." He had even done westerns before. His portrayal of gun shy yet expert shot Thomas Jefferson Destry Jr. in the comedy western "Destry Rides Again" helped make that film a classic. But to most movie goers he was the all-American boyscout type Mr. Smith or George Bailey. Seldom was there a dark side to any of the characters he played.

Anthony Mann was associated with B flicks in the film noir mode. "Raw Deal," "Side Street," and "T-Men" caught the eye of James Stewart. So the two gifted men combined their resources to produce some of the greatest Hollywood westerns ever made. "Winchester '73" and "The Man from Laramie" were the best but the others were almost as effective. Mann became a successful director of A films as a result going on to direct what some critics believe to be the greatest western of them all Gary Cooper's "Man of the West." Stewart became fabulously wealthy as a result of the partnership because he signed for part of the royalties in return for a fraction of the salary he was usually paid, a wise move indeed followed by many other actors from then on.

Winchester '73 was also one of the first films, maybe the first, to tell a story from the standpoint of a traveling gun. Each owner is part of the tale being told and it all comes together in the exciting showdown at the end of the movie, which also holds a surprise for the viewer. Based on a story by Stuart Lake, the tale centers on revenge and the ownership of the Winchester '73. The year is 1876. Custer and his 7th cavalry have been annihilated by the Sioux and Cheyenne at Little Big Horn. The whites want revenge. The native Americans want their land and their way of life back. This conflict leads to a confrontation between native Americas led by Young Bull (young Rock Hudson showing his potential as an actor) and a small cavalry group pinned down in a canyon and joined by civilians Lin McAdam (Stewart), his partner and life-long pal High Spade ( the underrated actor Millard Mitchell), and a couple trying to find themselves, Steve Miller (Charles Drake) and Lola Manners (Shelley Winters), a soiled dove with a kind heart. Among the horse soldiers are newcomers Tony Curtis and James Best (late of the "Dukes of Hazzard"), whose part is cut short by a bullet.

Wyatt Earp was in Dodge City in 1876. The movie has him as head marshal. The fine actor Will Geer (later of the Waltons) looks like an older Earp. In reality Wyatt was assistant Marshal in Dodge at the time just cutting his teeth on being a lawman. Lin McAdam wins the Winchester in a shooting contest, but has it taken from him not long afterward by outlaw Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) and his henchmen. McAdam and High Spade are after both Dutch Henry and the Winchester for the remainder of the movie. An even more sinister character emerges along the way, Waco Johnnie Dean, played as evil personified by Dan Duryea who threatens to steal the show from the other members of a stellar cast.

The Winchester passes through several hands during the course of the film, each time the transfer is intense. One involves a gunrunner played to perfection by John McIntire. Other swaps are intermingled with the scenario above. All this plus the action keeps the viewer glued to the seat throughout the entire show.

As noted above, the cast is first rate down to the smallest role. Look for other familiar faces in uncredited parts, including the future sheriff of "Bonanza" Ray Teal and B western reliable Panhandle Perkins (Guy Wilkerson). WINCHESTER 73 is the story of a man (Jimmy Stewart) obsessed with getting back his prized possession, a repeating rifle made by Winchester. The rifle keeps changing hands, and Stewart doggedly keeps after it. This 1950 B&W effort by Anthony Mann is more a crime film than a traditional western, and the cowboys often seem more like modern-day gangsters than old-fashioned cowboys. Shelley Winters plays a woman of questionable virtue who is headed for a ranch with a man (Charles Drake) she may marry. She ends up falling for Stewart, but not before she is passed around a bit. Winters is the most complex character in a film filled with unusual characters. Watch for a young Dan Dureyea as a nutty killer and Tony Curtis in a very small role. A woefully miscast Will Geer plays Wyatt Earp. By 1955, five years after this one was released James Stewart and Anthony Mann had completed another six films together, four of them Westerns. Their rapport was obvious from the outset and what was intended as little more than a Universal progrmmer became both a cult and a classic. Buffs of the period will revel in the fact that the first ten names on the credits were all more than well known - and that's not counting Ray Teal or 'Anthony' Curtis, later to become Tony. Perhaps ten years later the 'psychological' western was well entrenched but in 1950 it was rare to throw Ahab into the mix with Cain and Abel, to say nothing of addressing several other issues along the way, and still furnish a conventional western on the surface and full credit to all concerned. One to add to the DVD collection. This is quite an unusual and unique little western, that is made mostly original due to its story that revolves around an unique and superior Winchester 1873 rifle and all of those who get to poses it at one point or another in the movie.

It's mostly a very entertaining movie to watch but not without still being a real western as well. The movie got done in a typical '40's/'50's style of western genre film-making, so the lovers of the genre should not be turned off by its somewhat unusual main premise.

Because the rifle is actually being the main plot device of the movie, it allows the story to follow multiple characters throughout the movie, who are all connected of course and the story makes full circle in the end. Without that this movie would had been a pretty messy one to watch, since the story often jumps from the one hazardous occasion into the other, with constantly different characters involved. Quite amazing how they even managed to put Wyatt Earp in this all. But it's no criticism really. I liked that the movie and its story were being original and how the movie seemed to move from the one event to the other. It gave the movie a bit of a sense of adventure and entertainment.

It's also a really great looking movie. I liked the settings the movie used and it seems quite amazing that this was actually the director Anthony Mann's first western. Luckily he would go on to direct more westerns later on, which also often would star James Stewart in the main lead.

It was a pretty daring casting choice to pick James Stewart as the main lead. He is one of the softest and most polite looking and acting actors, so casting him as a tough gunslinger seems like a bit of an odd pick. But Stewart is surprisingly convincing as a tough guy and it shows how versatile and really capable as an actor he actually was.

It also has some other surprising actors in the movie, that are not often get connected with this genre. Shelley Winters plays the female lead and also later well known actors Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis appear in some small roles.

A real western with also plenty of action and entertainment to it.

8/10 Saw this flick on ENCW last nite for the third or fourth time. Enjoyed it so much I ordered the DVD. This really is a standout and of course the first of the Mann-Stewart pairings. More here than the usual oater, although not quite as powerful as The Searchers. Lots of obvious symbolism about achieving manhood but mainly it's the acting by Stewart, his partner Millard Mitchell, Shelly Winters and the Waco Johnny Dean- Dan Duryea. Steve Miller (not The Joker) is interesting as a handsome would be hero who's interested in Lola but too yellow . Like Stewart in The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance, he's practically reduced to putting on an apron and serving his enemies coffee. Decaf no doubt. Tony Curtis from the Bronx Cavalry and Rock Hudson behaving like no Indian I've seen on screen have interesting cameos.

Special performances by John McIntire as a too lucky card dealing/gun trader who hangs out at a very low grade Western version of Rick's American Cafe. Nobody wants to spend the night there. Jay C. Flippens out over a kiss from Lola (Winters) and has some nice scenes with Stewart before he gets to Bend of the River and Far Country. Will Geer as Wyatt Earp and the Indian Chief who takes Walter Brennan's teeth from him in Red River are pleasant sightings. This is the kind of western that only Stewart, not Wayne nor Scott could have pulled off. Worth the shot, I repeat. :-) The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold. One of the greatest westerns of all time! But this one, unlike many others, does not deal with the nature, horses, shootouts, etc., but instead deals with one rifle, the Winchester '73, and how this one rifle effects others and how they effect it. A rifle is not a living, breathing, human being, right? You may be inclined to believe that it is not. But it seems to have a mind of its own, for two very similar reasons: it gets back to its rightful owner in the end, even though that throughout the rest of the picture, its unthoughtful "owners" do their best to make sure it does not, and it never seems to be content until it gets back to its original owner, so, coincidentally, the unthoughtful "owners" always seem to lose it somehow or get killed trying to protect and keep it, until it gets back to James Stewart, then it is "content". But, not every one of the owners deserves to have it. Stewart does, of course, since he won it. McNally does not, since he had to be a dirty thief and steal it. Drake definitely does not, because he would probably lose it in some poker game, and besides, Drake is too cowardly to fight, so why should he have a one-of-a-kind rifle if he will not even use it? Duryea does not, because he is just a chuckling maniac, and we all know that chuckling maniacs do not deserve guns. This film has a sort of noir edge that only Westerns can have, such as the Ox-Bow Incident. Westerns have their own type of noir, much different than the 30's and 40's Bogart films. It is, hands-down, the best one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns, even though my personal favorite is "Bend of the River". The other four became much different than this one. I do not think it a coincidence to see that the other four were color, and this is black and white. This is because of the noir edge. All five films had the revenge and the dark past on Stewart's part play into the film, to the point where this is not just Stewart's dark side, but also actually a sort of character, not one to be listed in the credits, but one that you can only recognize and know that it is there, always present. However, this one, not just on revenge and the dark past, but also in terms of supreme danger, and characters that were very different than Stewart make it surpass the other four in all aspects. But Stewart never crosses the line. He does, however, walk the line between light and dark. This is why black and white played such an integral part in the film. They could have all been black and white, or they could have all been color. But this one is in black and white, and the other four are in color, and there is a very good reason for that. The narrative affirms the classic image of good versus evil in the form of a struggle of brother against brother. The main character, Lin Macadam, played by James Stewart, represents justice and righteousness. His brother, who operates under the persona of Dutch Henry Brown, played by Stephen McNally, stands for the classic stage-coach robbing western outlaw, chased by his brother for having killed their father. The world the story takes place is the classic dystopian west where the only way to prevent its inhabitants from killing each other is to take away their sidearms as soon as they enter town, and the man responsible for keeping this law and order is the classic western lawman Wyat Earp.

Present as well are such flat characters typical of the western, such as the murderous Indian warrior, the besieged cavalryman, and the bonnet-clad damsel in distress.

Another important archetype in this film, that which gives the film it's name, is a custom made Winchester rifle. The weapon can be viewed as an allegory for the rewards given to those who do things honorably. Once it is stolen from its rightful owner, it brings tragedy to everyone that comes in contact with it. In this sense it resembles other such icons like the holy grail in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the blood stained letter in Saving Private Ryan. This gives the film an element of surrealism which is usually absent from westerns, a genre not known for esoteric themes and symbols.

Being essentially a revenge film, it shares this element with many other examples of the genre, such as Jack Arnold's No Name on the Bullet, and Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven.

There is also a tacit theme of rape in Winchester '73. Waco Johnny Dean, one of the film's villains played very effectively by Dan Duryea, abducts a woman after killing her husband. The volatile cowboy toys with the tenderfoot husband, and dispatches him like a caricature of a cat toying with an insect before biting its head off. Waco Johnny Dean eventually gets what is coming to him after coming in contact with the ominous Winchester rifle.

The main story of Winchester '73 is reminiscent of the mythological tale of Jason and his quest for the golden fleece, as told in Apollonius' Argonautica. Both stories deal with the acquisition of a sacred object that possesses some sort of intangible quality. Like Jason, Stewart's character hops from one adventure to the next in search of a one-of-a- kind prize. Another theme in Winchester '73 that is similar to a mythic tale is the struggle between brothers. Several stories of antiquity deal with this issue, such as the Hebrew Bible's tale of Cain and Abel, and the vulgate tale of Romulus and Remus.

As for the theme of abduction and rape present in Anthony Mann's film, it is present in many mythological works, such as the rape of Europa as told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses.

Winchester '73 is a fine example of the western genre, and acts as the objective correlative for many classic American western and ancient mythological themes. Lin McAdam (James Stewart) wins a rifle, a Winchester in a shooting contest.Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) is a bad loser and steals the gun.Lin takes his horse and goes after Dutch and his men and the rifle with his buddy High Spade (Millard Mitchell).The rifle gets in different hands on the way.Will it get back to the right owner? Anthony Mann and James Stewart worked together for the first time and came up with this masterpiece, Winchester '73 (1950).Stewart is the right man to play the lead.He was always the right man to do anything.The terrific Shelley Winters plays the part of Lola Manners and she's great as always.Dan Duryea is terrific at the part of Waco Johnnie Dean.Charles Drake is brilliant as Lola's cowardly boyfriend Steve Miller.Also Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson are seen in the movie, and they're played by Will Geer and Steve Darrell.The young Rock Hudson plays Young Bull and the young Anthony (Tony) Curtis plays Doan.There are many classic moments in this movie.In one point the group is surrounded by Indians, since this is a western.It's great to watch this survival game where the fastest drawer and the sharpest shooter is the winner.All the true western fans will love this movie. This complicated western was a milestone in the career of JAMES STEWART after his return from war service, wanting to change his image by doing a western, which is largely regarded as the reason for the influx of westerns in the '50s since it's very impressive. Too bad it wasn't photographed in Technicolor.

Stewart wins first prize for "the gun that won the West", but then has to spend the rest of the film trying to recover it when it's stolen. SHELLEY WINTERS is a shady gal with an unsavory reputation and STEPHEN McNALLY is the local bad boy gunman in Dodge City. WILL GEER is Wyatt Earp and DAN DURYEA is Shelley's bad boyfriend. And wouldn't you know that, it being a Universal-International film, TONY CURTIS and ROCK HUDSON (both quite unknown at the time) have bit roles.

An interesting sequence features the first Indian attack, whereby CHARLES DRAKE reveals himself to be a coward who rides off, leaving Shelley alone in the horse-drawn wagon. He later redeems himself, but it's just one of the twists and turns that has the gun passing from one unsavory hand to another--but finally ending up with the rightful owner.

STEPHEN McNALLY and JAMES STEWART have quite a final shootout that is almost as melodramatic (but not quite) as DUEL IN THE SUN's blazing guns finale. McNally makes the perfect villain and DAN DURYEA is equally treacherous in the kind of villainous role he played throughout the '40s as a low-life gunslinger.

Tightly constructed story is extremely well directed by Anthony Mann, and it's fun to see ROCK HUDSON (credited as Young Bull) wearing Indian war paint and TONY CURTIS as a young soldier who casts longing glances at the then slim and attractive Shelley Winters.

Well worth viewing and definitely an above average story. CONTAINS SPOILER With the possible exception of John Wayne, no other actor sat taller in the saddle in Westerns than James Stewart, and this movie proves it. This superb tale of revenge centered around a Winchester rifle,has only one weak spot I can think of: the casting of Will Geer as a very unEarp-like Wyatt Earp. The casting of the villains was good:Stephen McNally, as surly Dutch Henry,Dan Duryea as Waco Johnny Dean, and John McIntire(versatile at playing both good guys and bad guys) as a slick gun runner. The showdown between Stewart and McNally on the cliffs is great! I'd stack this Western against the whole crop of Westerns made today. They wouldn't stand a chance! The picture is developed in 1873 and talks as Lin McAdam(James Stewart) and High Spade(Millard Michell)arrive to Dodge City looking for an enemy called Dutch Henry(Stephen McNally).The sheriff Wyatt Hearp(Will Ger)obligates to leave their guns.Both participate in an shot contest and Stewart earns a Winchester 73,the rifle greatest of the west but is robbed and starting the possession hand to hand(John McIntire,Charles Drake ,Dan Duryea).Meanwhile the starring is going on the vengeance.

First western interpreted by James Stewart directed by Anthony Mann that achieved revive the genre during 50 decade. The film has an extraordinary casting including brief apparition of Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis,both newcomers. The picture is well narrated and directed by the magnificent director Anthony Mann who has made abundant classics western:Bend the river,Far country,man of Laramie,naked spur,tin star. Of course, all the essential elements western are in this film,thus,Red Indians attack,raid by outlaws,final showdown.The breathtaking cinematography by Greta Garbo's favourite photographer Willian Daniels. James Stewart inaugurated a new type of wage,the percentage on the box office that will imitate posteriorly others great Hollywood stars. Although the argument is an adaptation of ¨Big gun¨ novel of Stuart L.Lake and screenwriter is Borden Chase,is also based about real events because 4 July 1876 in Dodge City had a shot competition and the winner was rewarded with a Winchester 73 model 1873 with ability shoot 17 cartridges caliber 44/40 in few seconds. Keep in mind I'm a fan of the genre but have only recently seen this film for the first time. How I've overlooked it all this time is a wonder to me. To me this is a better film then the much lauded "High Noon". It's a great western with excellent acting and a great story. The DVD is in beautifull black and white with outstanding cinematography. If you like westerns or James Stewart this film is not to be missed. A fine western, following the fate of those who possess the prize winning gun, a Winchester '73. It has a great cast who give superb cliche characterisations with help from the usual effective story telling direction from Mann. "Winchester '73" marked the first of a series of westerns involving James Stewart and director Anthony Mann. As in most of them Stewart's hero has an violent edge that threatens to explode at any time.

The title refers to a "one in a thousand" rifle that is up for competition at a rifle shoot held in Dodge City on July 4, 1876. Into town comes Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High Spade (Millard Mitchell) who are on the trail of Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) for a past dastardly deed. They arrive just in time to see Marshal Wyatt Earp (Will Geer) running saloon girl Lola (Shelley Winters) out of town. It turns out that Dutch Henry is also in town for the rifle shoot. Lin and Dutch Henry shoot it out for the coveted prize with Lin winning but Dutch Henry robs Lin of the gun and escapes.

Lin and High Spade trail Dutch Henry across country where they encounter Lola with her cowardly beau Steve Miller (Charles Drake) hold up in a U.S. Cavalry camp awaiting attack by the Indians led by Young Bull (Rock Hudson) who has acquired the prized rifle by murdering wily gun runner John McIntyre. He had got the weapon by cheating Dutch Henry at poker. Young Bull is killed during the attack and the gun passes to Steve.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lola and Steve meet up with notorious gunman Waco Johnny Dean (Dan Duryea) who kills Steve and takes the valued rifle and Lola for himself. When Dean meets up with Dutch Henry, he allows him to take back "his gun" planning to murder him later. In the town of Tuscosa, Lin kills Dean as Dutch Henry's plans of holding up the bank go bad and he escapes into the hills with Lin in pursuit. In one of the best final shoot outs ever, the two meet in the final showdown.

I believe that this movie was the only one of the Stewart/Mann collaborations that was shot in B&W. It is beautifully photographed, especially the scenes in the "wide open spaces" and in particular, the final showdown. Stewart playing against type, plays the hero with a violent revenge motive edge, an emotion that he would carry into future films with Mann.

As in most Universal westerns, this one boasts a cast of seasoned veterans and contract players of the day. In addition to those mentioned above, J.C. Flippen appears as the cavalry sergeant, Steve Brodie, James Millican, John Doucette and Chuck Roberson as various henchmen, Ray Teal as the sheriff pursuing Duryea, Tony Curtis and James Best as rookie soldiers and Edmund Cobb, Chief Yowlachie and John War Eagle in various roles in the Dodge City sequence.

A classic western in every sense of the word. It was responsible for re-generating Stewart's career as an action star. A very enjoyable film that features characters who do bad things and who let emotions like anger and a desire for vengeance bubble over. The cast is very good, there's plenty of action, and Stewart gets the girl and his revenge (with a twist) in the end. I've seen this film several times, and always watch when it's on AMC or cable. Highly recommended... This is a story of the Winchester Rifle Model 1873 "The Gun That Won The West" To cowman, outlaw, peace officer or soldier, the Winchester 73 was a treasured possession. An Indian would sell his soul to own one...

Winchester 73 is the first collaboration between director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart, a duo that would go on to create a run of superior Westerns that added a new, psychological depth to the genre. The story sees Stewart as Lin McAdam pursuing the man who killed his father. Riding into Dodge City with his trusty friend, Johnny Williams {Millard Mitchell}, Lin runs into Dutch Henry Brown {Stephen McNally}, the man he wants. But with Wyatt Earp {Will Geer} having taken all the guns from those entering the town, both men are unable to have the shoot-out that they are ready for. The men instead square up in a competition to win a Winchester 73 rifle, a competition that Lin eventually wins. But before he can leave town with the magnificent prize, Dutch ambushes him, steals the rifle and skips town fast. As Lin sets off in hate filled pursuit of both man and rifle, the rifle will changed hands a number of times, with each time adding another dimension as the day of reckoning for all approaches.

Very much a benchmark for what became known as the so-called "psychological Western", Winchester 73 is basically a story of a decent man driven to borderline insanity by an event in his past. Tho shot in black and white {the only one of the duos Westerns that was} the landscapes are still breathtaking feasts for the eyes. The tone is set with the opening scene as Lin and Johnny on horseback, and in silhouette, amble over a hillside as they make their way to Dodge City. It's just the starting point that would see Mann use his vistas as a way of running concurrent with his characters emotional states.

Stewart gives one of his finest and most intense performances as McAdam, proving once and for all that he was one of Americas finest and most versatile actors. The support cast isn't too bad either. Shelley Winters is excellent as the sole female in amongst the machismo, while Mitchell, McNally, Geer and the always great Dan Duryea add further class to proceedings. There's even bit parts for Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson in here, tho the latter playing an Indian brave is a stretch too far.

Originally the film was a project for Fritz Lang, who even had the script ready to run. But Lang walked away from it, something that proved to be a blessing for Western fans. For as great as a director that Lang was, with Mann directing {and with a new script from Borden Chase & Robert Richards in hands} it set the wheels in motion to alter the course of the genre. Not only with the further efforts that Mann & Stewart produced, but also in who they influenced. The likes of Budd Boetticher, Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller were all taking notes, and gleefully for the Western purists, they followed suit and carried the psychological torch still further.

A big hit at the box office back on release, Winchester 73 is a magnificent film that still packs a punch in the modern age. 9.5/10 Winchester '73 was the film that moved Mann from the b-movies to the big league, rescuing James Stewart's floundering post-war career in the process by casting him as a conflicted hero (although since he inherited the project from Fritz Lang, maybe Lang deserves the credit for that). Both men would go to much darker places - Mann with the remarkably bleak Devil's Doorway, which remained shelved by MGM until the success of Broken Arrow convinced them to release it – but a movie about a man hunting down his own brother as the rifle of the title is handed from person to person along the trail before it ends up in one of the director's beloved mountainside shootouts is still stronger meat than you'd expect from the studio system. Great dialogue, an impressive supporting cast – Dan Duryea, Will Geer, Millard Mitchell, Stephen McNally, Shelley Winters, Charles Drake, Tim McIntire, Jay C. Flippen, Tony Curtis, Rock Hudson among them – and Mann's outstanding visual sense raise the bar with this one. Textbook example of an underestimated movie.

Although one can watch this movie over and over again and laugh every single time and still see something new in it, it's still regarded as just another funny picture. And although the movie has inspired many and added it's quotes and images to the pyche of all it's viewers, Moon Over Parador still hasn't received the acclaim it should. Even the brilliant cast with Academy Award winner Richard Dreyfuss and Raul Julia, to mention one, is not able to change this perception.

But after watching Raul Julia as Roberto Strausmann make Richard Dreyfus an offer he can't refuse in a meatlocker by reading him a good review of a part that he once played one can only come to one conclusion: this stuff is timeless! In fifty years we will have the proof. This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie. As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the "Actor's Craft" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.

A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play "the part of a lifetime" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.

Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.

This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting! Superb comic farce from Paul Mazursky, Richard Dreyfuss, plays Jack Noah a fairly successful actor- who is On location shooting a film in a fictitious Latin American banana republic Parador,Ruled by the Fascist, Alfonse Sims who unfortunately has succumbed of a heart attack after indulging in too many local cocktails! Raul Julia plays the oily chief of police who forces the reluctant Noah To impersonate the Just deceased dictator who Noah bears a remarkable resemblance, Sonia Braga plays the dictator's glamorously lusty mistress, who gives Noah a few lessons in how to 'act' like a dictator, Jonathan Winter's literally rounds off the cast as a CIA man In Parador posing as a hammock salesman. Can Noah win over the people of Parador? and hold off the rebels? And give the performance of a lifetime without losing his in the process? Sammy Davis Jnr,has a cameo as himself who amusingly croons the national anthem of Parador as well as Begin the Beguine, Frog Number one(Fernando Rey pops up as a kindly servant, Charo is also on hand as A busty maid, The score by Maurice Jarre,is excellent. I couldn't keep from commenting after reading the very short "Not bad" commentary. This movie is much better than just not bad. The acting is stellar, even from the children in the cast, who don't play cute or anything else but act just like my son's friends. The movie is smart and expects it's audience to be as well. The double back flash story lines are imaginative and contribute to the story rather than act as time filler. I watched this movie with my kids and then I watched it again by myself a few days later. If you have kids and are sick to death of movies that inspire a diabetic coma with their syrupy sweetness, then check out "Holes." My 6-year-old enjoyed it as much as my 11-year-old, and my husband and I enjoyed it as much as the two of them. How many movies can you say that about? Holes, the novel, was forced on me in an education course. I didn't think I would like a children's novel; plus, the other couple of books I was forced to read for the class were really bad. But, to my surprise, I absolutely loved Holes. It really is one of the most perfectly written novels I've ever read. I think it has the rare quality that makes it appeal to pre-teens, teenagers, and adults. Everyone who reads it, I think, will walk away a better person. While I can't quite say that for the film, I am happy to say that they got it mostly right. I don't think viewers of the film will walk away as enriched, but they will certainly be entertained, without the side effect of being stupider when they sat down. It is an intelligent story, and it's very well told. I think it moves a tad too quickly. The novel takes more time in developing the characters. And the flashbacks come in and out so quickly that they don't have too much time to register. The interracial romance in the past feels more cliché and trite than it does in the novel. And the ending, which ties together all the loose threads, seems very ridiculous. It's exactly the same in the novel, but there's a sense of the absurd that doesn't quite exist in the film. It works a lot better. I also don't like the multitude of pop songs. I wish Disney didn't feel it such a necessity to sell soundtracks. The cast is across-the-board excellent, from the young kids to the old pros. Jon Voight is especially great. Not quite sure why we need Catwoman and the Fonze, though. 9/10. I recorded this ages ago but only got round to watching it today. I have been ill so had run out of stuff to watch! I am so glad I saw it, and which I could erase my memory and watch i again for the first time. This movie is so wonderful! It reminded me very much of Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistlestop Cafe.

The story goes back in time and at the end of the movie we see what the connections are. Some people have said this is a kids movie. I disagree - it may be made by Disney and many characters are children, but I am 23 and I LOVED it! There were moments when my spine tingled. The story is unlike any other film these days, full of adventure. I have just ordered the book from amazon, can't wait! In the area of movies based off of screenplays from some other area (or whatever the title for that Oscar is), "Holes" has credibility. I think it is better to have the author create the screenplay because the author is the creator of the material. If the author can't write a screenplay to save their life, then have the author and someone fluently talented in the area of screenwriting create it. Aside from that, this review is about "Holes".

The reasons start here and a spoiler maybe found within. (1) Louis Sachar is an excellent author and it turns that he can write a screenplay. I watched the movie and then read the book and both didn't reek incoherence or stupidity. Some people just have natural talents that can transcend mediums. (2) The best performance award goes to Shia LaBeouf for his portrayal as the main character. He "dug" himself into the role. I wanted to see his character vindicated before the conclusion. (3) To ratchet up the suspense a bit, Andrew Davis was brought in. This is the man that made Harrison Ford run hard and run fast. He also can make Steven Seagal smash some heads. As for this film, he made Shia and the rest of the boys dig some holes. In other words, he can make an "action-packed" movie and make it well even if "action" isn't the main genre isn't "action". (4) My second favorite performance goes to Jon Voight as Mr. Sir. Sometimes a goofy role brings out the best in a performer. When Voight uttered the line "Once upon a time...", I must have laughed for half a minute because it was so funny. He is capable of comedy and he should investigate a few more roles that let him to exercise that talent. (5) Tim Blake Nelson is very solid whenever he is given a solid script. This is probably the second best role I have seen him in (second only to 'O Brother Where Art Thou?'). (6) I love the choice of settings for the movie. I didn't know California was that dry or that barren. I guess population and land area figures both can be misleading. (7) The overall look of the movie made me want another bottle of water. One could only imagine digging a hole in that barren area for half a day. (8) The rest of the cast should deserve a box of Kudos bars as well. Sigourney Weaver, Henry Winkler, Khleo Thomas, Jake M. Smith and the rest of the bill were tapped because of their talents and it gelled very well. Great cast even though it was anywhere near ensemble. (9) I like a movie that doesn't explain anything right away. When Stanley got clocked in the head with those baseball cleats, it made me want to see how weird the events could get and that is a key ingredient in making a good movie. (10) Disney Pictures (not Touchstone, DISNEY!!) needs to make a few more of these mature juvenile films. It was palatable for me and I am a college student. The last mature juvenile Disney film I saw was "Something Wicked This Way Comes" and "Holes" possibly exceeds it (like the election in 2000, it's still to close to call). Disney can make greatness if they decide to expand on this genre and keeps artistry in mind over milking a cash cow when they see it. Ten reasons give a score of ten!

All in all, "Holes" is one of my favorite Disney films and probably one of the best this year (granted this movie may not be Oscar material but whoever said Oscar material is the best material?). In terms of being a movie from a book I have read, this ranks behind "Fight Club" on my list (which is on top). For being a film I saw in 2003, this is in the top five (somewhere behind "Mystic River"). Compared against "Harry Potter", Stanley Yelnats easily takes a shovel to Harry's head and brings the final death blow with a smelly sneaker to Potter's nose. Everybody should see this movie because it both informs and entertains. Here ends my rant! seriously i loved this film..i had started to read the book and i loved it...the way everything was set up and everything had a purpose...i think this film did so well was because Louis Sachar wrote the screenplay..and of course Andrew Davis directed it...Shia Lebouf gives a great performance for his first film...the storyline is very cool and interesting...there's humor, heart and intensity...it is very similar to the book..i find this film to be not the least bit boring...i absolutely loved it...and i encourage anyone to read the book..all in all this film is very well put together and carefully crafted...two thumbs up for me in every single way This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies. Loved the movie. Loved the two families crossing paths in history. Only question is if Sam gets killed then how does his family's line continue? He is Madame Zeroni's son and Zero is supposed to be related but no mention of any other children? Hmmmmmmmmm. Never mentioned any other children or wife prior to his speaking with and falling in love with the teacher? Maybe she had a child prior to becoming the kissing Kate Bandit? Even with the mistakes in the movie. Just loved it. The acting was great. Not sure where the story was with Mr. Sir being Marion a women at the end but makes his character even funnier. The other "counseler" did seem concerned for the kids but of course maybe not so much. Poor Warden must have had a really stinky childhood to be so mean when she grew up. A Disney movie that dares to do something different should at least be awarded for effort. "Holes" doesn't make the same mistakes as one would expect from a Disney movie about troubled teenagers put in a camp. For the first time events are not explained in details. The flashback scenes really do serve a purpose and present several mature topics that may surprise the viewer. I must admit that at first I was a bit put off by the seriousness of the movie. But soon I realized that we had to endure those moments to see the beauty of the story. Besides the story this movie also does a good job of questioning some methods that are used in correctional facilities. (One example where Caveman is forbidden to teach Zero to read because they have to dig holes in order to build character,like learning to read won't contribute to that). "Holes" is a movie that is smart and beautiful. A must watch! Louis Sachar's compelling children's classic is about as Disney as Freddy Krueger. It's got murder, racism, facial disfigurement and killer lizards.

Tightly plotted, it's a multi-layered, interlinking story that spans history to reveal Stanley's own heritage and the secret behind the holes. It races from Latvia's lush greenness to the pock-marked Camp Green Lake (hint: there's no lake and no green).

Disney's first success is re-creating the novel's environments so convincingly - the set design is superb and without gloss. The other plus is in the casting. Rising star Shia LaBeouf (Charlie's Angels 2, Project Greenlight) might not be the fat boy of the book, but his attitude is right and he's far from the usual clean-cut hero. The rest of the cast is filled out equally well, from Patricia Arquette as the Frontier school marm-turned-bank robber to Henry Winkler as Stanley's dad. The downside is the pop soundtrack - pure marketing department - and having the sentiment turned up to full volume at the end. Holes (2003, Dir Andrew Davis)

When Stanley Yelnats IV is wrongfully convicted of stealing, he is sent to 'Camp Green Lake'. At this camp, the Warden, and her two henchman, Mr. Sir and Dr. Pendanski command the campmates to dig holes after hole after hole. But for what reason? Stanley plans to find out.

I never really had any intention in watching 'Holes', and i must admit, i only really watched the film, because i'm such a fan of Shia LaBeouf, but even if you are not a fan of him, then it doesn't matter. 'Holes' is one of those Disney film that the whole family can enjoy. The story is lovely written and incorporates a wonderful idea of including flashbacks to the past. These are not distracting and really gives a great back story. All the cast are great. The young stars act well and the addition of Jon Voight and Sigourney Weaver are a joy. Shia LaBeouf shows that even at 17, he can act without any flaws. This is one Disney film, you definitely would enjoy as a family.

"I learn from failure." - Stanley Yelnats III (Henry Winkler) This film is an entertaining, fun and quality film. The film very cleverly follows the guidelines if the book, and tries to stick to the exact lines. The actors are all suitable, and you would expect them to be the part. They use some famous actors which give a great effect on the film. The graphics is a bit dodgy in some parts, and there are quite a few mistakes throughout the film. There is no such thing as a Yellow Spotted Lizard, for example. The camp is not as gruesome as explained in the book, and they tend not to show the goings on in the camp as much as the book. All of his group are mentioned a lot in the book, but are not in the film. Overall, a great film for a rainy afternoon Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.

Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this. More than just a "kids' movie", "Holes" looks at how past incidents still affect us today, whether we know about them or not. When teenager Stanley Yelnats III (Shia LeBoeuf) gets sent to a prison camp where he is forced to dig all day long, he discovers a number of things about the camp, and his personal connection to it. Through flashbacks, we learn that a number of things are closer than we realize (you'll understand this better when you see the movie). LeBoeuf does a pretty good job, as do the other cast members: Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Tim Blake Nelson, Henry Winkler, Patricia Arquette, and Eartha Kitt. A very interesting movie. I found about the movie "Holes" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. "Holes" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended! My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.

The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!

The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.

I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.

'Holes' was a GREAT movie. Disney made the right choice. Every person who I have talked to about it said they LOVED it. Everyone casted was fit for the part they had, and Shia Labeouf really has a future with acting. Sigourney Weaver was perfect for The Warden, she was exactly how I imagined her. everyone who hasn't seen it I recommend it and I guarantee you will 'Dig It'. I read Holes in 5th grade so when I heard they were doing a movie I was ecstatic! Of course, being my busy self, I didn't get chance to see the movie in theaters. Holes was at the drive-in just out of town but, alas, We were just too busy. I was surprised to hear that all my friends had seen it and not one of them had invited me! They all said it was good but I've read great books that have made crappy movies so I was definately worried.

Suddenly the perfect opportunity to see it came. It was out that week and my parents were going on a cruise and I was left to babysit. My sister, who is 9, and I watched it and absolutely loved it! I then took it to the other people I was babysitting's house and their kids, 9 and 4, liked it too. Even my parents loved it and they're deffinately movie critics. Overall, I recommend this movie is for anyone who understands family morale and and loves a hilarious cast! This movie should be on your top 5 "to See" list!!!! What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.

This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.

Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.

I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.

This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.

It gets a 9/10 from...

the Fiend :. Holes is a wonderful film to see. It has good messages in in, such as: be a good friend, never give up, etc. I highly recommend it to anyone. I still say the book is better than the movie, but the movie gives the book a run for its money. Also, Khleo Thomas plays Zero. That really adds to it!!!! Lol!!! This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well. I found the storyline in this movie to be very interesting. Best of all it left out the usual sex and violence (they're getting old) inserted in many movies. The movie was well done in its flashbacks to days gone by in that area of the Southwest. The acting was also superb. You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003. This movie had a great ensemble of adult actors along with a cast of youthful actors that are going to be in movies for a long while if there is any justice. The directing and editing was great. I may look up the book that this was adapted from, it must have been great. (I liked it.) Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, and Tim Blake Nelson were a blast to watch! Henry Winkler and Nathan Davis were not seen enough, but were fun when they were onscreen. The kids at the camp couldn't have been better. (as I said, I liked it!) I have seen the movie Holes and say that it has to be the best movie all year long. It brings out the child in everyone. I mean who would come up with the idea of having troublesome boys dig holes as their punishment? Louis Sachar thats who. Although the movie was different from the book it was still very good. For example Caveman/Stanley was supposed to be the biggest one there. Weight wise and height wise but ZigZag/Ricky was taller and Armpit/Theodore was bigger. Also X-Ray/Rex was supposed to be one of the smallest boys but wasn't. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was that the flashbacks were rather persuasive and long. I would have rather seen more of the present than past but thats just my opinion. I especially like the work of the boys though. Like Squid/Alan who was played by Jake M.Smith was supposed to be a moody and tough kid. Jake M.Smith performed just that and did a great job at it as did almost all of the actors in Holes. So I would say if you havent seen Holes yet then you should definatly see it when it comes out again or you'll be missing out on a whole lotta fun. "Holes" is my all-time favorite movie! So far I have seen this movie three times in theaters and am looking forward to purchasing it on DVD this upcoming September. I read the book after seeing the movie and was amazed at how alike the book and movie were. The director of this film did an excellent job of re-creating the book into movie form. Also, all of the actors selected to play the roles did wonderful playing their characters, especially Max Kasch as ZigZag. Props to all those involved in making this movie, it was a real success! 10 out of 10 stars, I definitely recommend it for everyone to see! Holes, originally a novel by Louis Sachar, was successfully transformed into an entertaining and well-made film. Starring Sigourney Weaver as the warden, Shia Labeouf as Stanley, and Khleo Thomas as Zero, the roles were very well casted, and the actors portrayed their roles well.

The film had inter-weaving storylines that all led up to the end. The main storyline is about Stanley Yelnats and his punishment of spending a year and a half at Camp Greenlake. The second storyline is about Sam and Kate Barlow. This plot deals with racism and it is the more deep storyline to the movie. The third is about Elya Yelnats and Madame Zeroni, which explains the 100-year curse on the Yelnats family. In my opinion, these storylines were weaved together very well.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, I think that you do not have to have read the book to understand the movie. The film is reasonably easy to understand.

The acting in the film was well done, especially Shia Labeouf (Stanley), Khleo Thomas (Zero), Sigourney Weaver (the warden), and Jon Voight (Mr. Sir). The other members of D-Tent, Jake Smith (Squid), Max Kasch (Zig-Zag), Miguel Castro (Magnet), Byron Cotton (Armpit), and Brenden Jefferson (X-Ray), enhanced the comic relief of the movie. However, the best parts were with Zero and Stanley, who made a great team together.

Although Holes is a Disney movie, it deals with some serious issues such as racism, shootings, and violence. The film's dramatization at some points is very well done.

I would suggest this movie to people of all ages, whether they have read the book or not. You shouldn't miss it. Since Siskel's death and Ebert's absence the show has been left in the incapable hands of Richard Roeper. Roeper is not a film critic he just criticizes anything he doesn't like personally i.e. films with country music get panned because "I don't like country music!" and children's movies get a standard "Don't see it now, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it for your kids!" Roeper may well be an idiot savant, but in some other field. The weekly guests 'sitting-in' for Ebert fare better, but who wants to pick a daisy in the midst of a cow pat? All that said, it IS the only show in town and that alone makes it worth watching. As for Roger Ebert, if Stephen Hawking can talk, so can you! It's your mind and thoughts we long for. Do whatever is necessary to get that usurper off his self-declared throne. 20 out of 10 This is a truly wonderful story about a wartime evacuee and a curmudgeonly carpenter Tom Oakley. The boy (William Beech) is billeted with Tom and it is immediately apparent that he has serious issues when he wets his bed on the first night. William is illiterate and frightened but somehow the two find solace in each others loneliness. It transpires that William has a talent as an artist and we see Tom's talent as a choirmaster in an amusing rendition of Jerusalem. William is befriended by Zacharias Wrench, a young Jewish lad also from London and along with both Tom and Zacharias, he finally learns to read and write and to feel a part of this small close knit community. Just as he is settling down, William is recalled back to London by his mother, and it is here we see why he is so screwed up. His mother is clearly mentally sick and when Tom doesn't hear from William, he travels to London to look for him. He finally finds him holding his dead baby sister where he has been tied up in a cellar. After a period in hospital, Tom realises he must kidnap him and take him home with him. The climax is a bitter-sweet ending when William is told he is to be adopted by Tom, while at the same time, learning his best friend Zacharias has been killed in an air raid in London. For me, one of the most moving scenes was when Tom was talking to a official from the Home Office.

I love 'im, an' for what it's worth, I think he loves me too'.

It just doesn't get better that that does it? John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.

Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.

This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.

Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.

Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.

In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in "Spanish Gardener". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in "It Started in Naples". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in "Captains Courageous". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in "Man Without a Face".

Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.

Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring "Tom" in the title, "Tom's Midnight Garden", which is based on a classic children's novel. If John Thaw had never played "Morse", "Kavanagh", or starred in "The Sweeney" and other productions, he'd be remembered for this wonderfully unforgettable performance in "Goodnight Mr Tom".

Superbly supported by an equally tremendous performance by his co-star (young Nick Robinson in his first role), and an unobtrusive cast, this adaptation of Michelle Magorian's charming novel is a fitting memorial to his art.

When I read this story of an old widowed Norfolk countryman having to accommodate a young boy from London before and during the Blitz, I found a rather obvious time-line error in it, and credit must go to the makers of this film for rectifying this error. They also must be applauded for not over-sentimentalising the tale, and preventing what could have been turned, quite easily, into a mushy mess.

If you keep a CD or video library then this feel-good made for TV movie is an absolute must inclusion. The plot of GOODNIGHT MR TOM on paper makes it seem we are in for a large dose of maudlin,sickly sentiment.But,talented director Jack Gold is an expert on touching the emotions in the right manner,and it emerges instead as a compelling,deeply moving wartime drama with excellent production and lead performances.One of the best,if not the best TV movies of the 1990's which possibly would've had even greater success if it had been released in the cinemas.

The evacuation of children to countryside towns and villages in World War II was of course a common practice,but in the case of the young boy here was doubly important because of a wretched home life in the UK's capital.The horrors of war on the home front are not drifted over though,and the construction of the film until it's throat-lumping,misty-eyed ending leaves us with a sense of optimism despite what has happened before.It is almost(but not quite)worthy of comparison with the finale to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE(1946).All in all,a modern classic. I saw the movie before I read the Michelle Magorian book and I enjoyed both. The movie, more than the book, made me come close to tears on several occasions. This film touches the deepest points of the human soul and never lets go. I encourage as many people to watch this masterpiece as much and as soon as possible. I give it ten stars. This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the "ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks. John Thaw is a an excellent actor. I have to admit that I was impressed by his range in the role of a crusty old curmudgeon who reluctantly agrees to take in an evacuee from the streets of London (WWII time era).

That being said, the film is also excellent. A very moving story with a satisfying ending. Some of the characters are a little underdeveloped (the school teacher in particular), but none of them are essential to the plot. Basically, the story is about the old man and the boy, and the film needs little else. Absolute masterpiece of a film! Goodnight Mr.Tom has swiftly become one of my favourite films of all time. Nobody should miss out on seeing this film, it's just too good! Mr.Tom is perfectly portrayed by John Thaw as the harsh old man who becomes a soft father-figure when William Beech(Nick Robinson) is sent to him for evacuation, almost like 'The town mouse and the country mouse'. A truly heart wrenching film. The director knew exactly how to turn book into film and he has done so extremely well. The film was so excellently shot that the emotions of the characters and what was happening made the audience feel a range of emotions from love to fear, and these emotions could turn on a six-pence. Set in a time of turmoil during World War Two, this film also shows the difference between the cities and the countryside, they are almost like different countries. An absolute must see, those who don't are missing out on a truly amazing and brilliant film. A heartwarming film. The usual superb acting by John Thaw, who passed over recently. A man who was always so unassuming. He was one of Englands top 10 actors certainly of my time.

He can be remembered for his famous role of Inspector Morse. As Jack Regan in the 1970's hit TV series 'the Sweeney and as a barrister in Kavanah QC. A must see for all the family and a great DVD for my collection. The filming will bring back a few memories for people who remember wartime Britain and certainly those who were evacuated out of London to escape the German bombings. The interaction between the two main characters.Tom and the boy William was really well acted and true to the book by Michelle Magorian. This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good! Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended. This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends. This is arguably John Thaw's finest performance where he successfully shakes off any traits of his Inspector Morse character and brings a perfect adaptation of Tom from the pages of the book to the TV screen. This is a well made production which maintains its family viewing vibe despite some very mature themes like the outbreak of the second world war and the physical abuse suffered by the child.

However it is the relationship between Tom and young Willie that is the heart and soul of this story. It is touching and beautiful to see this bond between the young boy evacuated from London and the grumpy old man he is left with develop - a real grandfather/grandson connection.

It is a pity that this story wasn't made with a bigger budget with a more established director as it belongs on the big screen, not shown once or twice every ten years on a Sunday afternoon. Given the right guidance, John Thaw would be celebrated the world over and bestowed with many awards for his brilliant performance in this movie. A great actor and a great role that should have been honored more than it was at the time. Marvelous film again dealing with the trials and tribulations of World War 11 England. What makes this film so good is the touching of the human element.This film is definitely in the tradition of such British line classics such as "Mrs. Miniver" and "Hope and Glory." As is the case with this film, we see the desperation of people in the time of war.

The performances are outstanding here especially by the embittered John Thaw, who is assigned a child who has been evacuated from the London bombing.

We soon see why this child wets his bed. He comes from a lunatic mother who has abused him terribly.

The old man takes to the child and brings happiness into his sad life. When the child is returned to his mother, the old man goes to London and seeks him out only to find tragedy. He literally kidnaps the boy and is able to convince a higher up that the child is better off with him than being in a boy's home.

The picture is so good because it deals and builds on endearing relationships. This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him. Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox Quite a heartwarming little film and not just for the kids. John Thaw is brilliant as always (without any hint of Inspector Morse about him). The boy playing William did a good job as well though I didn't find him convincing in every scene. I loved the whole feel of the small village and the slower pace of life in those times. I also felt the scenes in London where historically accurate, as far as I could tell.

It strongly reminded me of a Scandinavian film I saw a couple of years ago called Mother of Mine. That film featured a boy being evacuated from Finland to Sweden during WW II. The wife of the family taking him in asked for a girl because (as it turns out)she lost her daughter. Getting a boy instead she completely ignores him. The fact that the boy speaks Finnish complicates matters even further. I highly recommend that film to anyone who enjoyed Goodnight Mr. Tom, it has the same feel to it. Sometimes I watch a movie and am really impressed by it – and still it is not easy to explain why I liked it that much. This is mostly true for the uncommon movies – the ones one can hardly compare with the rest out there. Goodnight Mister Tom is one of these special movies. There is a lot of emotion in that movie – and the acting was so good that while watching the movie, I was crying and laughing as the story went on. The young Nick Robinson – is a young boy (William) evacuated from London because of the air strikes there during the Second World War. Mr. Tom played by John Thaw is an old man leaving in the village the evacuated children were send to.

At first Tom refuses to take any responsibilities - such as taking care for a troubled young lad – but accepts since he is left without a choice. During the stay Mr. Tom discovers how horrible the life has been for the William – alongside his luggage his mom sent a belt and written instructions to the host of her son – not to hesitate to use it. This belt is berried in the field – never to be used in such a brutal manner. Mr. Tom provides a real home for William, and the boy is happy with his new life, he goes to school, makes new friends and discovers hidden talents. All of the sudden a letter William is called home in London with a letter mentioning that she is not feeling well…and it starts all over again – only this time it gets much worse… There are many feelings you can sense in this movie – love, fear, sadness, happiness, pain, hope – and much more. Goodnight Mr. Tom is another masterpiece of the British cinema comparable only with others such as Dear Frankie and Billy Elliot – if one is to compare. I have truly enjoyed watching it and highly recommend it. Before finishing this review I would also like to mention the great performance of Thomas Orange in the role of Zac – reminded me of a friend of mine from my own childhood ( : In the immediate aftermath following World War II, sound minds in Hollywood tried to distance themselves from the mindless flag-waving that is a natural ingredient in a war effort. "Best Years of Our Lives' and even 'Gentleman's Agreement' investigated the way Americans looked at themselves in the wake of the war, but Delmer Daves' "Pride of the Marines" beat them to it.

The film is about Philadelphia smart alec John Garfield who goes to war as a marine and after a nightmarish evening in a foxhole, with Japanese soldiers eerily crying out at him and his buddies "Mariiines, tonight you die!", he is blinded by a hand-grenade, and dumps his girlfriend back home rather than have to depend on her after coming home.

Delmer Daves is uncompromising in his depiction on these men who are brave, as it were, almost by coincidence. They are there, in the foxhole, and when shot at, they react. So much for heroism, but they get the job done. And then comes the self-pity, the dark, gloomy sense of humor. Garfield is in angry denial of his blindness and the film makes no excuses, "There's no free candy for anyone in this world", as his buddy tells him. The same guy, a Jew, played by Dane Clark, reminds him, "In a war somebody gets it, and you're it. Everybody's got problems! When I get back, some guys won't hire me, because my name is Diamond".

Great movies are made with guts like these, and if the first half hour of 'Pride of the Marines' fails to rise to the occasion completely, from then on it evolves into a true work of art. You weep, and you ponder, you ache and you hope against hope. Well, simply: art.

I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story. Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true! My father, Dr. Gordon Warner (ret. Major, US Marine Corps), was in Guadalcanal and lost his leg to the Japanese, and also received the Navy Cross. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my father was the technical adviser of this film and I am hoping that he had an impact on the film in making it resemble how it really was back then, as I read in various comments written by the viewers of this film that it seemed like real-life. My father is a fanatic of facts and figures, and always wanted things to be seen as they were so I would like to believe he had something to do with that.

He currently lives in Okinawa, Japan, married to my mother for over 40 years (ironically, she's Japanese), and a few years ago was awarded one of the highest commendations from the Emperor of Japan for his contribution and activities of bringing back Kendo and Iaido to Japan since McArthur banned them after WWII.

My father was once a marine but I know that once you are a marine, you're always a marine. And that is exactly what he is and I love and respect him very much.

I would love to be able to watch this film if anyone will have a copy of it. And I'd love to give it to my father for his 94th birthday this year! This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets! This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two. No one would argue that this 1945 war film was a masterpiece. (How could any 1945 war film be a masterpiece?) And yet this is an extremely effective telling of a true story, that of Al Schmidt, blinded on Guadalcanal, as played by John Garfield, who spent days wearing a blindfold to capture the nuances of a blind person's actions. Robert Leckie, in "Helmet for My Pillow",denigrates Schmidt's popularity in favor of his foxhole mate, who was killed, writing that "the country must have needed live heroes."

Well, I suppose the country did. And they had one here. There is a single combat scene in the movie, bound to the studio lot, lasting only ten minutes or so, and occurring less than halfway through the film instead of being saved for the climax, but it is the scariest and most realistic depiction of men under fire that I can remember having seen on screen, including those in "Saving Private Ryan". Men yell with fear, scream at each other and at the enemy, and bleed and die, without the aid of color, stereophonic sound, squibs, or gore.

Simply from a technological point of view, the film is outstanding. It isn't just that we learn how complicated a mechanism a .30 caliber, water-cooled Browning machine gun is, or that it must be fired in bursts of only a few rounds, or that it isn't waved around like a fire hose, as in so many other war movies. The technical precision adds to the scene's riveting quality. The need to stick to short bursts is horrifying when dozens of shrieking enemies are pouring across a creek fifty feet away with the sole aim of exterminating you and your two isolated comrades confined to a small gun emplacement.

The performances are solid, if not bravura, including those of the ubiquitous 1940s support, John Ridgeley, and a radiant, youthful Eleanor Parker. The framing love story is spare, but it works, and ultimately is quite moving. A striking dream sequence is included. It's not Bunuel, but for a routine 1945 film, it stands out as original and effective.

Albert Maltz may have overwritten the script, or it may have been altered by someone else. It could have used the kind of pruning that might have introduced some much needed ambiguity. Still, there are odd verbal punctuations that have a surprising impact on the viewer -- "Why don't God strike me dead?" And, "In the eyes, Lee. Get 'em in the eyes!" Depths of anguish in a few corny words. And a surprising amount of bitterness expressed by wounded veterans in a 1945 war film.

Notes that might seem false to a contemporary viewer but perhaps shouldn't: the dated vernacular which it's difficult to believe many of today's kids could think was actually ever spoken -- "private gab," "dope", "drip," "Gee," "you dumb coot," "dame," "a swell guy," and "feeling sorry for yourself." Let us consider the historical context and be kind in our judgments. At the time, some of this goofy lingo was at the cutting edge.

Real weak points? The wounded veterans get together and argue with each other about how much of a collective future they have and the argument is oversimply resolved with a conclusion along the lines of, "Just because you have a silver plate in your head doesn't mean people will think you're a bad person." There are sometimes voice overs and silent prayers that are both unnecessary and downright unimaginative. "Please, God, let him return to me," and that sort of thing.

Well, the film makers were operating within the constraints of their times. Maybe that's why the final fade is on a shot of Independence Hall and the inspiring strains of "America the Beautiful" swell in the back.

None of this can undo the film's virtues, which are considerable, particularly the impact of that horrifying combat scene. It's not on television that often. If you have a chance, by all means catch it. A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend. Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal.

The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.

The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.

And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.

This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card.

In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.

In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.

It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid. Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit "chatty" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film "Bright Victory", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area! A very good wartime movie showing the effects of war on a hometown boy who looses his eyesight on Guadalcanal and must come home and re-adjust himself with the help of family and friends. An excellent cast of actor's helps make this movie very entertaining. Eleanor Parker's role as the girlfriend was worthy of an Oscar nomination. She has such an innocence to her in this movie. Ann Doran role was equally satisfying as was all of her small supporting roles. I especially like the hometown aura of pre-war Phildelphia. The hunting scene is very good. Of course the war scene on Guadalcanal truly showed the horror faced by our soldiers during this epic battle. A well deserving film and one that should not be forgotten ***SPOILERS*** On of the first WWII movies coming out of Hollywood that shows how the war effected those GI's, or in this case US Marines, who fought in it.

21 year old Al Schmid, John Garfield, was just starting to live with a well paying job-earning some $40.00 a week-at the local steel mill and girl Ruth Hartley, Elenore Parker, whom he was about to marry when the Japs spoiled everything for him, and millions of likewise young Americans, by attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Doing his duty as an American citizen Al immediately joined the US Marine Corps hoping to get back at the Japs knowing, correctly as it was to turn out, that the Marines would be the first American combat units to get a crack at them.

Al finally got his chance when his unit, the 1st Marine Division, landed on August 7, 1942 at Guadalcanal in the far flung Solomon Islands to engage the Japanese who were were in control of it. It was during the battle of the Ilu River that Al almost single handed stopped a massive Japanese Banzai attack holding off, with his machine gun, wave after wave of suicide attacks by the determined Japs until help, or reinforcements, finally arrived. It was during the bloody fighting Al was hit in the face by a Jap grenade that ended up blinding him.

Now back in the states convalescing at a naval hospital Al is faced with something far more harder to overcome then battling a battalion size attack of Japanese or German soldiers. He's faced with a future where he'll never see again and having to depend on others to look after, or for, him!

We get to see in the film "Pride of the Marines" Al battle himself far harder then he did the Japanese troops on Guadalcanal in just coming to terms with his disability. Not wanting anyone, especially his girlfriend Ruth, to feel sorry for him Al in fact is the one who feels sorry for himself more then anyone else in the movie. It's with the help of Navy Nurse Virginia Pfeiffer, Rosemary DeCamp, and Ruth together with his US Marine buddy Lee Diamond, Dane Clark, that in the end gives Al the courage to face his blindness with the same strength that he faced wave after wave of Japanese troops on Gudalcanal. A courage Al thought he lost back in that God-forsaken island hell in the South Pacific.

Based on the true story of US Marine Sergeant Albert Schmid "Pride of the Marines" showed what we were to expect from the tens of thousands of wounded US Servicemen coming back from the war. We get to see how it in many ways was far more difficult for those fighting the war to adjust to a peacetime America when they left something, like in the case of Al Schmid, behind on the battlefield. Al's battle with his personal demons was a lot harder then the Japanese that he fought in that they were part of him and thus had to fight himself in order to overcome and eventually defeat them. Despite the help that he got from both Nurse Virginia and his girlfriend Ruth as well as his Navy doctor-who has a striking resemblance to actor Gregory Peck-it still was up to Al to overcome the fears that he faced. Fears which he and only he had to both battle and overcome, like he was told by everyone in the movie, all by himself. John Garfield plays a Marine who is blinded by a grenade while fighting on Guadalcanal and who has to learn to live with his disability. He has all the stereotypical notions about blindness, and is sure he'll be a burden to everyone. The hospital staff and his fellow wounded Marines can't get through to him. Neither can his girl back home played by Eleanor Parker. He's stubborn and blinded by his own fears, self pity, and prejudices. It's a complex role that Garfield carries off memorably in a great performance that keeps one watching in spite of the ever present syrupy melodrama. The best scenes are on Guadalcanal, where he's in a machine gun nest trying to fend off the advancing Japanese soldiers in a hellish looking night time battle, and later a dream sequence in the hospital where he sees himself walking down a train platform with a white cane, dark glasses, and holding out a tin cup, all the while his girlfriend walks backward away from the camera. First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.

Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.

There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.

I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this. You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.

The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.

Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.

I strongly recommend it 9.5/10 You can call it a mystery, perhaps a small thriller, or an intelligent film.

The story takes you through the life of one person who has lost his life and is looking to regain it.

I have to say I was quite surprised that I truly did enjoy this film. It is not usually the genre I care for however the characters quickly became people to me and I wanted to know what they were about and what was going to happen to them.

Just like many french films over English made, we are able to learn much more about the character and the affect of their surroundings on their person. This film is character driven and will not disappoint! Director/writer Andrés Waissbluth worked seven years to complete this two hour film about the crime underground in Santiago, Chile, and perhaps that is one of the reasons the resultant film seems episodic and in need of editing. OR, maybe this is the technique of a director who shows a fine sense of film noir storytelling.

Two brothers - Silvio the elder (Néstor Cantillana) and Victor the younger (Juan Pablo Miranda) - have moved to Santiago from their home in Temuco after their parents' death and Silvio works to support Victor's education. On Victor's seventeenth birthday Silvio takes the virgin out to the clubs where he encourages Victor to lose his virginity with one of the club's stripper/prostitutes. In a tender scene Victor must face his nascent impotency while Silvio is out on the club floor impressing the 'owners' with his potential for hire.

Silvio goes to work for the 'gang' as a bodyguard/henchman and makes good money to support Victor's schooling. But Victor has eyes for one of the dancers at the club named Gracia (Antonella Ríos) and begins to woo her, dropping out of school incurring Silvio's angry disappointment. Gracia just happens to be the squeeze of the club gang's leader Don Pascual (Alejandro Trejo) who is Silvio's boss! Gracia is the glue that holds this tale together as she is the paramour of Victor, Silvio, and Don Pascual and the consequences of this bizarre ménage a trois has deadly results. Through a means of re-telling the story through the eyes of Victor, Silvio, and Gracia we grow to understand the vulnerabilities and the cracks in each character that allow for the downfall that results.

Sound like a Chilean Pulp Fiction? Well, it is and it is filmed in a brutally colorful, dark manner that includes a lot of frontal nudity (both female and male) and provocative sexual encounters. But in the end the sensual aspect of the director's vision is what drives this film, playing on the debutante virginal psyche against the hardcore professional sex worker with success. The cast is fairly strong, especially Antonella Ríos in the demanding role of Gracia. There are enough twists and turns and replays of incidents you think you understood the first viewing but that change dramatically in impact when told through the eyes of a different character. Bordering on two hours, some judicious editing would have helped the impact of the film. In Spanish with English subtitles. Recommended for those who like the edgy film noir style and the art of South American cinema. Grady Harp An intriguingly bold film weaves the seemingly effortless camerawork with some superb casting and an explosive soundtrack to plot the damaging effects of the crime and corruption of the Santiago underworld on 2 naive young brothers from the southern city of Temuco.

Film debutant Daniella Rios is the seductive erotic dancer Gracia, working in the nightclub owned by the face of the new mini-wave in Chilean film production, Alejandro Trejo. The elder brother, played maturely by Nestor Cantillana, is easily convinced to become Trejo's lead henchman, after a night at the stripclub to celebrate younger brother Victor's (Juan Pablo Miranda) seventeenth birthday. From the establishing shot of this opening scene, the film explodes into neo-noir exploration of everything the outside world doesn't usually expect to see in this country so stereotypically conservative and catholic.

Gracia's charms of seduction attract the three men like bees to honey, although the circular narrative of the three-way fantasy romance revolves around the linear portrayal of major international drug deals between Trejo's men and the 'Gringo', Eduardo Barril. Power relations become a vital theme, as society's outsiders merge in a mini-family. The prostitute holds an exotic spell over all the chilean men in the film, emerging from her ambiguous position in the periphery of society, and is seen as holding the key to all three men's futures. The relationships between Trejo and Cantillana become important, as the boys' parents are conspicious by their absence (one assumes they still live in Temuco). Therefore it is Trejo, el padrino, who 'adopts' Cantillana, and effectively 'makes him' as a man in the city. Miranda rapidly becomes the desperate outsider, as his dependency on his 'father figure', Cantillana, becomes increasingly strained by jealousy over the beautiful Gracia. However, Miranda remains trapped by the constraint of still being in school - he is dependent on Cantillana, who is dependent on Trejo, for the money to survive. Trejo, in turn, is under the thumb of the 'Gringo', and his wealth has been accumulated through drug deals and well as his strip clubs. The figure of Gracia acts as a time bomb viewed as a beautiful firework, she wraps a web of beauty inside the patriarchy but the strain can only lead to one climax.

As the tensions of these power relations come to head, Gracia remains ambiguously elusive. The viewer is never sure which male figure she will commit to. The film concludes tragically and explosively in a shoot out which realigns power relations and erases half the major male protanganists. The final shot of Miranda's beaten face speeding down the PanAmericano highway is despairingly powerful. The boy has been sucked in by the lure of the city's underworld, yet has lost his only visible family, and his woman, who is his only friend in the film. He has nothing. The overriding metaphors are bold and brave. This is a gangster film in Chile. The notions of family, no sex before marriage etc, are abolished, and instead the harsh realities of the other side of Santiago's coin are displayed in all their savage glory. Trejo beats Rios brutally, Rios and Miranda make love in a cinema reel room - a whore having sex with a minor she barely knows. The 'gringos' are seen to have a financial hold over this small Latin American nation, but not through the copper mines, through the illegal path of drugs.

Waissbluth's triumph is in his presentation of this dark underworld, which raises so many social questions, more perhaps than the record-breakingly successful Sexo Con Amor, within a slick, smooth firecracker of a film, which place this film firmly alongside Sexo Con Amor, Taxi Para Tres, and El chacotero Sentimental, as cinematic evidence that Chile is well and truly artistically alive and kicking in the post-transition period 15 years after the censorship of the Military Regime. Los Debutantes is the story of two orphaned brothers who have moved to Santiago from the South after their mother dies. The confident and streetwise Silvio, the elder brother, gets a job working for a sleazy strip club's owner after taking the naive Victor there for his 17th birthday.

As Silvio blossoms under his boss's tutelage, both brothers get involved with the owner's sexy and manipulative mistress, Gracia. As the film unfolds, characters are redefined as we begin to see the subtle and overt ways that each one manipulates the next.

The film is well made, with good cinematography and fast pacing. It's also pretty sexy, with a lot of nudity and some fairly explicit sex scenes. It uses the now-popular technique of layering different scenes from different points of view, out of chronological sequence. Many people hate movies like this because they don't understand what's going on - Memento, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and many other good films use this device. The plot itself is really nothing new, there are elements of Body Heat, Pulp Fiction, and many other good film noir.

As the different layers are revealed, our understandings of the characters and their motivations evolve. While the plot may be somewhat cliché, it is also clever and entertaining.

I would call it an enjoyable movie, worth watching, but nothing memorable. I haven't seen many films from Chile, and it's always interesting to see film noir from other countries. Other than that, rent it if it's available but don't lose any sleep if it isn't. I was pretty surprised with this flick. Even though their budjet was obviously lacking still you have to be impressed that this movie took 7 years to make and still turned out good. The acting was pretty impressive and the story really captivated me. My only complaint would be that the ending really was a little too abrupt for my taste. But hey if your audience is left wanting more then this movie has succeeded.

I would really recommend anyone in Hollywood to look up Antonella Ríos who is an excellent Spanish talent (something hard to find now days with all the bad novela over acting). Antonella Ríos truly is a star on the rise. Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.

The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone. Contrary to popular belief, this title , to me at least, is not so very bad. In fact. I regard it as a favoured film of all time. The welding of stories wasn't structured too well when you consider the differences between the series, however despite all this, you can watch it quite happily. For a feature film of its day, the scenes are well proportioned and the characters remain consistently believable.

The sound/audio track is a personal favourite of mine. Nearly everything has a correct sound effect and many of the voices suit the characters much better than their, now badly cast US dub, counterparts. The sync is perfect in every shot. I had a few issues with the casting for the 'alien' voices (please forgive the crude naming, it has been a while since i've seen it). Otherwise however, the cast seemed perfectly balanced. I feel and believe in the characters of this movie. Dubs are often a subject i rarely agree with from so long ago. I loved the OSD's from back then but the castings often let series down.

At this point i would like to add that this was one of the first anime i saw in my life. It has historical value to me, but even after seeing the original Megazone 23 it remained stronger and more watched in my collection.

To my knowledge the title only ever made it to the US in Texas. Personally i think its a big shame. Had the correct audience been subject to it, i think Robotech the Movie would have been accepted and not tarnished over the years. I am involved with anime each day of my life and everyone i have shown this movie thought it was a nicely put together title.

Watching the film after its separate components will allow the viewer to notice the evident plot holes between shows. However, without seeing the originals, a viewer wouldn't really notice. Since the animation is identical in style, there was no reason to question it back in its day. The UK had very limited access to anime. Laser discs were the most productive media. Personally i like the way Carl had the balls to at least push the genre. I mean Harmony wasn't going to put up the cash for the series to get publicised.

Despite the few picky faults people have had with this film, The eighties feel of it keeps me in love. If you watch Megazone 23 now, to its original Japanese audio, or the new dub, i believe you will be greatly disappointed with the OSD. Cast your minds back to the original Bubblegum Crisis Dub soundtrack and imagine new eighties audio to E.V.E.

Saying all this. This film's popularity nowadays is most likely down to its rarity on the open market. Personally, it spawned a collection for me. I'm now scouring the world for merchandise from the three components that made it up and if i ever get to meet Carl Macek, ill shake his hand for the effort, and buy him a pint or a crate for getting me into anime. I saw his movie in Dallas, Texas when it came out in 1986. I remember them giving out prizes for showing up to see the movie. After seeing the movie I can see why. The movie was not bad, nor was it great. The problem with this movie was that it tried to tell a side story. They created a new story, new characters and tried to wrap it around the Masters Saga. My biggest complaint is that the plot is about a second wave of Robotech Masters attacking the Earth. They even used the same scenes from the Master Saga but with different dialogue. As a kid, I loved the movie. But unfortunately I haven't seen it as an adult and can't give a better review. Looking back I was disappointed but now I would love to see the movie and re-evaluate my stance on it. That being said, will someone please release this movie for the whole world to judge? I love Robotech and can't wait for The Shadows Chronicles. Terry Gilliam's fantastic, twisted story of a virus destroying all but a handful of people across the Earth and forcing them to move underground and the man sent back in time to gather information about it is a fantastic, dizzying, and highly stylized film that boasts Bruce Willis' best performance ever.

What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel sci-fi movies is that Bruce Willis character actually deals with what the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actual reality: the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a tautly written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.

Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.

Visually, Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivalling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colorless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness characters.

Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a patented loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false 'religion.'

Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness. Ranking in my top 10 of all time, 12 Monkeys is a darkly lavish spectacle of a film brimming with brilliance.

10 out of 10 "Twelve monkeys"'s got all the elements to become Terry Gilliam's masterpiece. An outstanding screenplay, a sustained rhythm, clever sometimes ironic dialogs. Moreover, he had a good nose about the cast. "Twelve monkeys" is also the first movie where Bruce Willis stands back from the kind of character he used to play in his previous movies. Here, a jaded and hopeless character which you could nickname a prisoner took over from a fearless and invincible hero (as it was the case in "Die hard"). No matter how he tries, he's a prisoner of the time. The movie contains a very thrilling end too. It's got a real dramatic power. But this terrific movie is also a reflection about man, the dangers he dreads (notably, the ones that could cause the end of the world and here, these are virus that can create illnesses). No matter how long it will take, "twelve monkeys" will be estimated at its true value: one of the masterpieces made in the nineties. Just kidding, I rented 12 Monkeys the other day because I am a huge Bruce Willis fan and I heard some things about the film. Some good and some bad, but it was one of those films you had to pay attention to every second, so I was a bit worried. Just because I felt like for a minute if this was going to be one of those films that I had to watch several times to get. But I watched it last night and I was really impressed, this movie had everything in it: action, drama, sci-fi, history, dark humor, and even a little romance. The actors all did a terrific job, I give a lot of credit to Bruce, during his scene in the car with his psychiatrist, he really got to me. But Brad Pitt, I'm just amazed with how much of a great job he did. He didn't over do his character, who was crazy, and just made it work and was extremely believable. The story was just scary, but very good and a wake up call.

James Cole is a man in the future where a virus broke out in the past and killed 5 billion people and only 1% of the population survived including him. Animals are now ruling the ground above while the humans are down below, but scientists send James to the past of 1990(really meaning to send him to '96), to find out about information of the virus. James gets put into a mental institution meeting his new psychiatrist, Dr. Kathryn Raily and another mental patient, Jeffrey Goines. He tells them the future, of course no one believes him, he goes back to the future. But the scientists send him back to the correct year to where the doctor is kidnapped by James, but he tells her more, and believes him. Now they are set on trying to prevent the virus from ever happening.

12 Monkeys was an incredible film. Like I said the story was so scary just because it's not at all hard to believe that we are not far from that happening. But the whole movie was just great, the cast, the sets, just the whole picture was a great one. It had a Terminator type of feel to it where we might loose something precious one day, ourselves if we don't listen to others. What is right and what is wrong? Who knows? But I would highly recommend 12 Monkeys, it's a great movie that if you give it the proper chance, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

9/10 I had the privilege of seeing this film at a preview screening years ago, and outside the theater I was confronted by a camera crew from a local TV station looking for comments on the film. At the time, the only words that escaped my mouth were "Awesome. Just awesome." I like to think I can articulate myself a little better than that, but at the time I was somewhat incapable of doing so.

The story is intriguing and thought provoking, and the acting is first rate from all the principals. This film was the first one that Terry Gilliam directed that he didn't have a hand in the writing credit for. Back with Universal after his long, arduous battle with them over "Brazil", Terry had achieved what he wanted most; the "final cut". Terry is a master craftsman, and each shot is like a beautifully conceived painting that has been constructed carefully with determination and conviction. It is only justice that such an individual should be unfettered in his attempts to convey a concept. Unfortunately, limitations still exist in such arrangements.

The Universal Collector's Edition DVD of this film is simply amazing, although most of the bonus features aren't listed on the box. It contains among other things, a director/producer audio commentary and an informative and extremely interesting 90 minute documentary on the making of the film called "The Hamster Factor and Other Tales of 12 Monkeys". It tells of some of the creative pitfalls in filmmaking, including a test of mettle when preview screenings tested poorly, striking the team with feelings of self-doubt and despair. Fortunately, for all of us, they decided to change very little about the film and released it to an enormous success.

Terry Gilliam's stunning feature-length adaptation of Chris Marker's short film LA JETEE is full of mind-bending surprises, yet still touches your heart thanks to the superb cast. Gilliam's flair for the phantasmagorical works with the script by David and Janet Peoples to play with your head as much as it does with poor James Cole (Willis at his most Steve McQueen-like -- better than McQueen, even!), a time-traveling convict from the future who literally doesn't know whether he's coming or going as a team of scientists keeps sending him back to the wrong eras while trying to prevent a 1995 plague that's deadly to humans but harmless to animals. Willis, the justifiably Oscar-nominated Brad Pitt, and Madeline Stowe as a well-meaning psychiatrist give some of the best performances of their careers. Even Paul Buckmaster's tango-style score is haunting. This one's a don't-miss! Stories about the possibility of a post-apocalyptic future have been around for ages, since the very creation of science-fiction as a genre per se. The fact that today's society is responsible for what may become of the future in the near tomorrow, and that our own abuses and refusals to see what is right before out eyes are at the very center of all of these stories, whether they are good or bad.

Terry Gilliam of course is a natural for this kind of film. He gives the movie a decadent feel throughout, showing a society run ragged by its own excesses and bringing forth the a sense of imminent tragedy despite having moments of comedy. His world, the world in which TWELVE MONKEYS transpires, is a place where the mad run wild, where cities are collapsing in filth and neglect, where everything reeks of foreboding despite the luminosity of the opening sequence, where madness looms at every corner. This is a very dark movie, but his very best, most linear (despite the plot twists which hold up under examination), and one which gets better with repeated viewings.

A tragic event in which a deadly virus was unleashed onto humanity in 1996 and thus led to the extermination of Life On The Planet As We Have Known It leads to scientists of the future to try and make amends to change humanity's fate on the Earth by employing renegade citizens -- the scum of the Earth -- as guinea pigs to go back in time, among them one James Cole (underplayed to great effect by Bruce Willis). Cole could be any person. We don't know anything about him, but in a way, that doesn't matter since he is little more than one of many expendable volunteers and hints of his character sneak in later as he gets closer to fulfilling his mission. What we do know is that he is a man who dreams, and his dreams may have been reality: he may have already been at the scene of the Event of 1996.

It's this constant sense of deja vu that keeps popping up throughout the movie. When taken to a mental ward by mistake in 1990 he meets Jeffrey Goines (spastically played by Brad Pitt, Oscar-nominated here) who frantically spews forth talk about doom and destruction, and later Cole believes he has seen Goines in his recurring dream as a man pushing a boy aside while escaping... what? He doesn't know. Later he meets a psychologist, Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), and one of her first reactions to him is that he's insane, and that she's seen him before. This becomes a running notion throughout her participation in this story from passive/resistant to active and even slightly crazy believer that Something Terrible is coming This Way, especially when she meets him six years later: she has seen Cole before. At the same time, Cole continues talking about a dream he keeps having in which she also plays a part as a blonde woman running down the aisle, screaming for help, after shots have rung out and a particular red-headed man in a ponytail (Jeffrey Goines?) has apparently escaped, not before pushing the little boy who is an innocent bystander. The questions arise: have these events happened? Are they going to happen? Who is really a part of this, or better yet -- is everyone, down to the smallest player, a part of a Greater Plot? Or is this all some trick in the fabric of time in which Time in itself is one huge conveyor belt showing repetitions of fragments of events that slide by over and over again?

These questions are formulated in a masterful sequence which includes key scenes of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece VERTIGO in which Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton mourns her own brief existence ("You took no notice," she says, as Cole and Railly watch from their seats in the movie theatre they are hiding in). Snippets of dialog from VERTIGO form a foil to the dialog between Railly and Cole and later, when Cole awakens from having apparently dozed off in the theatre and goes looking for Railly, he comes face-to-face with her in disguise (looking almost exactly like Eva Maria Saint from NORTH BY NORTHWEST) as the swelling Bernard Herrmann score plays the emergence of Judy Barton, dressed as Madeleine Elster. It's a fascinating sequence, more so because of the most improbable occurrence of the names of the actors in both films: Madeleine Stowe plays Kathryn Railly who dons a blond wig and grey trench-coat and calls herself "Judy Simmons" while helping an "insane" man named James Cole; James Stewart plays a detective who tries to help "insane" Madeleine Elster who will later re-appear not once, but twice, first as brunette Judy Barton, and later, as Madeleine. Action and re-enaction, play and re-play. With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.

The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention. You could ask some questions but since you can't have an answer yourself it is better to agree with the movie.

'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me. There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".

There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.

I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.

Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.

I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.

Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.

It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10. The big problem is where to begin as this movie needs your attention the forthcoming two hours and you better not miss some minutes for getting a coke as there is a danger you can't follow. But good there is also a pause-button. Bruce Willis must travel into a timemachine to find out some antivirus for a virus that made animals rule over the world in 1996. Thanks to some mistakes he first ends up in 1990, then in the First World War and how messed up it all might look like, Terry Gilliam comes up with what must be one of the most intelligent scripts ever. This ex-Monty Phyton man knows exactly how genius SF-stories has to be told like and his choice of cast couldn't have been any better, there is the lunatic Brad Pitt (his performance in the asylum is memorable) and a superb Bruce Willis who proves he is more than some Schwarzenegger-wanna be. It's a movie you can watch over and over again as the script is so weird and complicated (and yet you can follow) that every view gives you other surprises. One of my big favourites. A linear travel within a non-linear structure. It's a fact that time, in 12 monkeys, flows in this come-and-go between present, future and past. However, the movie's linearity can't be avoided: it's the very work of the projector, the unfolding of the narrative.

What we can see underlying the temporal theme is a reflection on the inevitability of our actions. The world of this Terry Gilliam film is a world with little space for free-will.

Right from the beginning we are informed about a schizophrenic's prophecy, according to which a plague would rule the Earth in 1997, forcing the few survivors to live underground - the only place not affected by the virus.

Cole's (Willis) mission is clear: return to the mid 90's to investigate whatever and whoever is related to the release of the virus. There's no way to change the past: all that can be done is gather information that can help the scientists of the present (that, for us viewers, is the future) find the cure. Not to change what happened (the past is inevitable), but make the present better.

In his "returns" in time, Cole gradually comes near a striking dilemma: his life in the past is better than his life in the present.

The latter is dark and dehumanizing, controlled by totalitarian scientists that elect "volunteers" (this word is incisively ironic) to embark on the journeys to the past.

The scientists have not yet reached the highest level of achievements in time travel, and Cole ends up on wrong dates - this will, later in the plot, work as a proof of his sanity for the psychiatrist Kathryn (Stowe).

We can see, through the evolution of the story, that linearity and non-linearity interlace in a circular temporality.

There is more than one moment in which the scene that is the first and ends up being almost the last - and certainly the climactic - appears. It modifies itself, according to the evocation of Cole's memories, that come up in his dreams.

In an airport, a man is shot dead while running, armed, toward someone else. A blonde woman runs after the murdered one.

This is the scene that connects the past (in which Cole is a kid that visits the airport with his parents), the present (the time of the narrative) and the future (adult Cole) Throughout the narrative, Cole has the feeling of having already lived the reality he is experiencing now. His prophetic dreams are the proof that it is impossible to escape or avoid what happened. The agents that shoot him stop him from killing the mad scientist, doctor Peters (Morse), that is the responsible for the dissemination of the disease.

What was can't be changed. And, in Cole's case, what was is what will be. Eternally.

A film not quite well understood for many. To me, nothing less than a masterpiece.

Other good movies with similar theme: The Back to the future trilogy (that has another angle regarding the "mad scientist" character, and although it shares the atmosphere of decay - particularly in the second film -, it is way more optimistic than Gilliam's work, that is an odd Hollywood picture).

In another register, there is "Wild strawberries", one of Bergman's masterpieces, that involves a striking and enlightening travel to the past through dreams and reminiscences.

I've never watched "La Jetée", but only because I can't find it. Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.

Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.

Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.

The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.

RATING: 9 of 10 Terry Gilliam's and David Peoples' teamed up to create one of the most intelligent and creative science fiction movies of the '90's. People's proved a screenplay with bizarre twists and fantastic ideas about the nature of time — I especially love the idea one can't change the past; it's a nice counterpoint to so many time-travelling movies which say otherwise — biological holocausts and the thin line between sanity and madness. Gilliam visualized his ideas with unique quirkiness, perfection and originality.

The story itself is engaging: one man, James Cole (played by Bruce Willis in a heart-warming performance) travels several decades to the past to retrieve information about a virus that's wiped out mankind and left only a few survivors alive living underground: with the information he'll collect, scientists hope to find a cure so everyone in the future can return to the surface. But because their time-travelling technology isn't perfect, he ends up being sent towards different other pasts and complicating things. And from that a brilliant science fiction thriller with shades of film noir ensues as the multiple pieces of a huge jigsaw start fitting together to form a bizarre narrative involving animal right activists, end of the millennium paranoia, biological weapons, the perception of reality, and the definition of sanity. With such a complex movie, it was easy for Gilliam and Peoples to create a mess, but instead Twelve Monkeys is a thought-provoking narrative which will please those who like to be challenged and have patience to appreciate some crazy ideas.

I watched this movie once around 10 years ago. It marked me a lot: I remember still thinking about many days after-wards; for my young mind this seemed quite mind-blowing and it was one of the first movies to make me appreciate cinema as something serious and important. I've re-watched this movie a few days ago on DVD and it's better than I remembered it. Brad Pitt still steals all the scenes he's in, playing Jeffrey Goines — almost a prelude to his Tyler Durden character in Fight Club — a rich kid with some anarchist/non-conformist ideas who's also crazy and, according to Cole, perhaps responsible for the virus. The scenes between Jeffrey and Cole in the madhouse are the best in the movie, Pitt's eyes, voice and quirky mannerisms convince you he's really a crazy guy locked in a warped logic only he understands. Pitt's Oscar nomination was well deserved! Surprising was also Bruce Willis' performance: his I didn't remember very well, but it's beautiful and full of sensibility; he plays a man who spent almost all his life underground, and when he comes to the past you'll share his childish fascination with something as simple as breathing the fresh air of the morning or watching the sun go up. Cole is a rather ambiguous character, Peoples' tried to imbue some darkness in him, and he does other disturbing things to other people and to himself: the scene where he removes his own teeth reveals how far his dementia has gone unchecked. Ironically Cole didn't start as a crazy character, but when he starts warning everyone about the end of the world, he's considered mad and convinced it's all in his mind, until he arrives at a point when he can't distinguish past from future, reality from fiction. Willis spends a lot of time looking confused and insecure, and it works perfectly. One of the fun twists in the narrative is when Cole's shrink, Dr. Kathryn Railly, finds undeniable proof he's really from the future and now has to convince him again of his mission to save the world. The screenplay is full with weird twists like this and it keeps the movie in a fast pace. Their relationship is also well-handed, although perhaps a bit compressed for time's sake. But I enjoyed watching Cole and Railly falling in love and trying to escape the authority of the future to live a peaceful life in the past. But then things end in a tragic/bittersweet climax at an airport, wrapping all the pieces together, which will blow many minds away.

There are two great endings in this movie, a twist in the sense of Se7en or Fight Club, and a more intimate ending where Railly is crouching next to Cole who's just been shot and looking around for a younger James Cole who's witnessing his future self die; the two share a brief look, and she smiles at him. The twist is brilliant, but I prefer this ending for emotional impact. Madeleine Stowe is very good playing Dr. Railly, she drew many different emotions from me in her performance. The movie is filled with a sense of fatalism with the idea the past can't be changed: this movie shows that in a terrifying way. It reminds me of Chinatown in that sense, the way Jake Gittes messes everything up the more he tries to help. Railly's character shares that fatalism, the more she tries to help Cole — first dealing with his 'madness' then helping him in his mission — the more they're sucked into tragedy.

The twist ends with a hopeful note, though, with the feeling Cole's mission hasn't been in vain. Twelve Monkeys is a great movie to watch if one wants to be entertained; it's not supposed to be art, although it's more artists than many artistic movies. It's an unpretentious movie where all elements, from music to editing to costume design, etc., came together beautifully to produce a modern cinema masterpiece. Normally I try to avoid Sci-Fi movies as much as I can, because this just isn't a genre that really appeals to me. Light sabers, UFO's, aliens, time traveling... most of the time it's nothing for me. However, there is one movie in the genre that I'll always give a place in my list of top movies and that's this "Twelve Monkeys" I remember to be completely blown away by it the first time, but even now, after having it seen several times already, I'm still one of its biggest fans. Every time I see it, this movie seems to get better and better.

Somewhere in the distant future all people live underground because an unknown and lethal virus wiped out five billion people in 1996, leaving only 1 percent of the population alive. James Cole is one of them. He's a prisoner who lives in a small cage and who is chosen as a 'volunteer' to be sent back to in time to gather information about the origin of the epidemic. They believe it was spread by a mysterious group called 'The Twelve Monkeys' and need the virus before it mutated, so that scientists can study it. But their time traveling machine doesn't work perfectly yet and he is accidentally sent to 1990, where he meets Dr. Kathryn Railly, a psychiatrist, and Jeffrey Goines, the insane son of a famous scientist and virus expert...

What I like so much about this movie is the fact that it is never clear whether all what you are seeing is real or not. Is this just an illusion, created in the mind of a mentally ill man or is it real? Does he really come from the future and can he really travel through time? Was the population really wiped out by a virus, released by the army of The Twelve Monkeys? Those are all questions that will leave you wondering from the beginning until the end. If the makers of this movie had chosen to make it all more obvious, I'm sure that I would never have liked it as much as I did now. It's just that mysteriousness that keeps me interested time after time. But that's not the only good thing about this movie of course. The acting is amazing too. Normally I'm not too much a fan of Bruce Willis, but what he did in this movie was just astonishing. Together with Madeleine Stowe and Brad Pitt he should have won several awards for it, because together with the amazing story, they made this movie work so incredibly well.

Even after several viewings, I'm still a huge fan of this movie. Except for this movie, I have only seen one other Terry Gilliam movie and that's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", which wasn't bad, but didn't really convince me either. However, it's this movie that really makes me look forward to his other work. I give it a 9/10, maybe even a 9.5/10. NB: Spoilers within. This great movie is "about" so many things, all of them successfully: sci-fi time travel, unstable psychologies, dystopian society, the what-is-real syndrome, gradual undermining of belief systems, worldwide bioterrorism, and a nascent love story.

The ramifications of the story's twisted time line stir up loads of heated debate - witness the discussions within this site; or, as an extreme, check out the dissertation at www.mjyoung.net/time/monkeys.html. Whew! Such temporal emphasis speaks mostly to the brilliant plot, coming from the magnificent work of writers David and Janet Peoples, not to mention the inspiration of Chris Marker's "La Jetee." Without a doubt, this is one of the most successful, fascinating time-travel movies ever conceived. But there are many other levels speaking here.

The movie's real genius is to focus on the nasty side effects of time-travel in the mind of James Cole (Bruce Willis, doing the best work of his career here). His journey progresses from gung-ho vaccine-hunting warrior to gradually unhinged victim – and back again. The other broad sweep of the story increasingly emphasizes the personal tale between James and Dr. Kathryn Railly (the wonderful Madeleine Stowe). I love the simultaneous shifting/opposing viewpoints of these two characters. For me it all comes to a head in the fleabag hotel room scene. By this point, James – once gripped by an unshakable determination – now slumps in utter doubt about his own reality; while Dr. Railly – the cool and rational scientist – has finally become wildly convinced, after absorbing James's proofs, of his horrific predictions. Her desperation to get through to James and hang on to the mission shows how far she's come.

Gilliam makes us care about these characters, especially through the crescendo of tension threading their lives. The balance held between emotional roller-coaster and mounting sci-fi puzzle/thriller is exquisite. And the denouement at the airport is heart-poundingly intense because we see it coming so clearly through James's dreams. It is here, just after James has decided to quit the whole mess – and is fighting his insanity more than ever – that he steps back up to the plate and does what is necessary for mankind. See Jose and the gun… (Just before this, the references to Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and identity switching/confusion are brilliant.) This is a movie to be hashed out between thinking people; it not only holds up under repeated viewings, it demands them. "Twelve Monkeys" is intelligent, provocative, bizarre, funny, and suspenseful stuff.

The supporting cast is excellent, especially Brad Pitt stealing all of his scenes and showing great flexibility as Jeffery Goines, crazed and spoiled, but ever the survivor. And there is David Morse as Dr. Peters (interesting how the movie simply leaves to the viewer his wicked motivation) and Christopher Plummer as Dr. Goines. But the biggest accolades belong to Terry Gilliam, surpassing here - just barely - his outstanding "Brazil." (Lots of parallels, of course, especially the lonely combatant trying to escape his crumbling surroundings: lunacy within, lunacy without.) Every frame of this movie has his unique stamp and tone. The soundtrack is terrific, too.

This is one of the great achievements of the 90s, a true favorite of mine, and sure to hold up for a long time to come. I just bought the DVD and i must say, (after seeing Brazil and Fear an loathing in Las Vegas) Terry does it again. As well of being a fan of the Monty Python movies, Terry Gilliam's genius follows through in this sci fi thriller, whom Bruce Willis plays a wonderful role as James Cole, and as well (perhaps my favorite character) Brad Pitt who played the insanity of Jefferey Goines. A must have for sci fi fans, or movie fan of any type really, because it includes suspense, drama, action, etc.

any way the plot, In the future, 1% of the world's population survives a disease intended to wipe out the human race, which is unleashed in the past by "the army of twelve monkeys". James Cole( Bruce Willis) is sent back to 1996 (which is when the virus was unleashed) to find out about the disease, so scientists in his time can find a cure. Before i go further, James Cole lives in an underground society, and the animals rule the world on the surface due to the disease that will kill the humans. anyway when he is sent back in time he is actually sent back to 1990 where he is sent to a mental institution because of his tellings to people of the virus. During his stay he meets Jefferey Goins( Brad Pitt) who is later mostly responsible for wiping out the human race. He also meets his psychiatrist ((Madelein Stowe) who eventually teams up with Bruce to save the world ( as she sees that he is correct in his tellings), he is sent back and forth from his time to the past and eventually sent to 1996 where he then questions his own sanity but later pulls through to reveal a suspenseful end quarter of the movie and later builds up to the somewhat shocking climax, where he tries to stop the man carrying the virus( not actually Brad Pitt) and is instead shot by the police as the killer gets away. I can't decide whether this is one of my favourite movies. It is a good thriller and has an emotional core but still I can't decide. I definitely liked it. This is the first movie of Terry Gilliam that I have seen. My first impression? I was engaged till the very end and it is not all that complex(to be confusing).

The movie is set in the future. A man James Cole(Bruce Willis) is sent from the future in order to get some information from the past(1996 to be specific). A virus killed 5 billion people. He is sent from the future to get some information about it. Also involved here are a psychiatrist called Kathryn Railly. The love story is portrayed beautifully and you can really feel the longing in this love and longing for a regular life. The loose ends are tied up in a very interesting manner at the end.

One thing I liked about this movie is that unlike other post-apocalyptic movies, the movie didn't prefer to give any boring social commentary and instead focused on this one guy and his longing for a regular life. "You want to see the ocean, be with her" is especially a poignant line in this movie. It chooses to focus on the tension and confusion in the person's mind. Therefore this is not exactly post apocalyptic movie but instead it could be described as a romantic sci fi movie with themes that range from time travel to blurred realities and so on. This is what makes this movie a special movie of the 1990's. The complex plot flows smoothly without adding too many characters.

The performances are quite good. Bruce willis surprised me here as he didn't act the regular tough guy here but he gave a good performance of a confused man who is in love. His desperation in certain sequences is portrayed beautifully. I have to check out his other movies. The gorgeous Madeleine Stowe is quite a treat to watch. EVer since I saw this movie, I have become so obsessed with her. She has given a great performance of a woman who sympathises with her patient and finally falls in love with him. Brad Pitt is the real surprise though with his portrayal of a crazy man named Jeffrey Goines. His Oscar nominated performance is quite surprising considering that he doesn't have many critics who have kind words for him.

The end is quite chilling and that is also another reason to watch the movie. The length or complexity is not as big a problem because this film is quite fast moving and there are enough incidents to keep people interested. And every incident in this movie has a meaning and nothing is there that is unnecessary.

Good thriller 10/10 A great addition to anyone's collection.

12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.

The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.

A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.

The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.

The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.

The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.

This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.

I very much highly recommend it.

10/10 First of all, we know that Bruce Willis is a good actor but if you take the majority of his movies you'll see that the characters have these moments where they are the same. His character in this movie is far beyond every single one so far... and counting. The story begins in the (not so far) future where a man is sent to the past to find the source of a virus that has swept most of humanity from the face of the earth. The story seems to go towards SF but i think its closer to a drama because of the slow rhythm of the story. About that. Movies tend to be faster and slower at some points and develop more towards the end than the beginning but as you see this movie you'll be aware of this constant rhythm of story and revealing facts that does not speed up nor slow down. Its the one and the same speed that flows gently and pretty good. But that doesn't mean that the ending wont pull your nerves, cause its pretty good. As far as the direction goes, it is prefect. Movies as such are easily destroyed by bad directing but this one has become far better. So, if you are getting ready to see a Sci-Fi movie or some action, you'll miss it. B There should be more movies like this. The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, "The Twelve Monkeys did it." Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a "volunteer" to get some samples from above. After he does his "volunteer" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.

Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.

For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece. Terry Gilliam gives a stunning movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt and even the small appearance of Christover Plummer makes the movie absolutely brilliant! This is the only Terry Gilliam film I've seen, and Twelve Monkeys is definitely in my top 10. I think this is one of the four best Bruce Willis movies; and Brad Pitt's best. Brad Pitt delivers a perfect performance. Possibly one of the ten best actor's performance that I've ever seen. He played his role (Geoffrey) very convincingly. Bruce Willis' role (James Cole) was also quite convincing. Both Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt acted extraordinarily well. With the brilliant story to back the great performances; and to back that up, Terry Gilliam's superb directing. I really enjoyed this -- I'm a big fan of movies that mess with your mind and leave you with a lot of questions and ideas to debate, and this was a stellar example. But then, Terry Gilliam is always good at that (well, almost always. Let's just forget about Jabberwocky and The Brothers Grimm, shall we?).

I particularly liked the way it handled the time travel theme and the avoidance of paradoxes -- the way events in the past and future intertwined and fed into each other.

It was also really well done aesthetically -- the art direction was really great, and I wish I'd been able to see it on the big screen. The future scenes had a similar feel to Brazil in a lot of ways, and even the present scenes were often really visually compelling.

But perhaps the most striking thing about it was that it featured two actors I normally don't much like, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, and they both delivered amazing performances here. Pitt especially -- I'd seen one or two films before that made me realize he could in fact actually act (contrary to what I'd originally thought), but this one really outdid them. I actually found myself asking my friends at one point "Are you SURE that's Brad Pitt?" This is probably the most memorable performance of his career (though admittedly that may not be saying too much). "Twelve Monkeys" is odd and disturbing, yet being so clever and intelligent at the same time. It cleverly jumps between future and the past, and the story it tells is about a man named James Cole, a convict, who is sent back to the past to gather information about a man-made virus that wiped out 5 billion of the human population on the planet back in 1996. At first Cole is sent back to the year 1990 by accident and by misfortune he is taken to a mental institution where he tries to explain his purpose and where he meets a psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly who tries to help him and a patient named Jeffrey Goines, the insane son of a famous scientist. Being provocative and somehow so sensible, dealing with and between reason and madness, the movie is a definite masterpiece in the history of science-fiction films.

The story is just fantastic. It's so original and so entertaining. The screenplay itself written by David and Janet Peoples is inspired by a movie named "La Jetée" (1962) which I haven't seen, but I must thank the director and writer of the movie, Chris Marker, for giving such an inspiration for the writers of "Twelve Monkeys". I read a little about "La Jetée", it's not the same story but it has the same idea, so this is not just a copy of it. David and Janet Peoples have transformed this great deal of inspiration to a modernized story, which tells about this urgent need for people to find a solution for maintaining human existence and it does it in a so beautiful and a realistic way that it's a guaranteed thrill ride from the beginning till the end. The music used in the film is odd and somehow so funny and amusing it doesn't really fit until you really get it and when you do you realise that it's so compelling, composed by Paul Buckmaster.

Terry Gilliam, who we remember from Monty Python, as the director of the movie was a real surprise for me, as I really never thought him as a director type of a person. I know he has directed movies before, but I really couldn't believe that he could make something this magnificent. It shouldn't be a surprise though, as he does an amazing job. You can still sense that same weirdness as in the Python's, but for me the directing is pretty much flawless though in its odd way of describing things it also makes some scenes strangely disturbing. Yes, it is indeed odd, weird, bizarre and disturbing, so it also makes the movie a bit heavy too, so the weak minded viewers will probably find it hard to watch the movie all the way through. It's not as heavy as you could imagine, but it just has these certain things which in their own purpose are sometimes pretty severe to watch. Despite that, the movie holds this pure intelligence inside it and through flashbacks, dreams, jumps between the past and the future it mixes up the whole story in a very clever way and it doesn't even make the plot messy in any part, though it does need concentration from the viewer after all.

What comes to acting, well the movie doesn't even go wrong there. The role of James Cole is played by the mighty Bruce Willis, who probably does his best role performance yet to date. Now people may disagree with me, as he did some fine job in for example "The Sixth Sense" as well, but for me the role of James Cole was so ideal for Willis and he performs it incredibly well. The character is very well written too, yet performed even better. Cole starts to question his own existence and he deals with himself, starting to question his actual time of living, trying to survive and find the crucial missing piece of the puzzle. By hardship he starts to loose his faith, questioning if he can even trust or believe himself. Other role performances worth mentioning are the performances of Madeleine Stow and Brad Pitt. Stow plays the role of Kathryn Railly, the psychiatrist of James Cole, who sees something strangely familiar in Cole and decides to help him to deal with his madness. She somehow starts to believe Cole's story but as a believer of science she tries to find solutions through it and tries to deal with reason when it comes to unbelievable things. Brad Pitt is so good in the role of Jeffrey Goines and he also does one of his best role performances yet to date. The insane yet hilarious personality of the character brought Pitt even an Oscar nomination for it, so I guess I'm not praising the honestly fabulous performance for nothing.

All in all, "Twelve Monkeys" is a great science-fiction experience and it will surely be a recommendation for everyone, especially for the sci-fi fans. It includes brilliant characters and superb role performances, especially from Willis and Pitt, and an original and an entertaining story which forms a plot that's so intelligent and clever. Yet being that already mentioned weird and disturbing it definitely captures the viewer's attention by making it interesting and witty. It's also an explosive thriller and it has romance in it too, so it's all that in same package and that makes it one of the best sci-fi motion pictures I've ever seen. Through the odd yet terrific vision of Terry Gilliam it manages to keep itself in balance despite the somewhat bumpy yet somehow stable ride. Hard to explain really, but that's how it is, it's mind blowing. One of the all-time great science fiction works, as visionary and thought-provoking as Blade Runner or even Gilliam's own Brazil. Willis gives his best performance here, but he's outdone by Pitt's incredibly frenetic turn that's unlike anything he's done before or since. Even Stowe isn't out of her league here, though. The story is very layered and offers quite a lot to think about. The climactic scene is beautifully magnificent, and the last lines fit perfectly. The scenes in the mental hospital are creepy and yet so funny in their own way. Lots of dark humour on display here. Fantastic production design and suitably bizarre cinematography. In my top ten. A very strong movie. Bruce is good and Brad also.

As I think there are two cities missed in the receptionist list from the list Bruce remembered.

That means the woman was a real insurance and she did her job.

Well, Novikov property seems to me work in this movie. However, I do believe in Back to the future theory of worlds' multiplicity.

So Bruce could save the world, but not his world.

In the theory of parallel worlds the man can meet himself.

And I do believe there is no problem in that. Here I disagree with Dr. Brown from Back...

But the story pf 12 Monkeys has its own beauty. Inspite of all these theories of one world or many or continuum one can believe that he is really insane and the doctor - his girlfriend was just lost.

A sequence of events which may lead her to believe that he is from the future. The bullet - well it might be some mistake, some falsification.

Well I like this movie - has to buy a DVD.

Best. Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realized. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians Terry Gilliam traveled again to the future (he had already done it in "Brazil") to tell this story about a virus that's destroying the human race.

The script is totally crazy with some easy tricks on it but it's quite entertaining and Gilliam proves that he's got imagination (the futuristic scenes are just great). As for the cast, Bruce Willis and the beautiful Madeleine Stowe (whatever happened to her??) are just OK, but Brad Pitt is so annoying, whenever he plays roles that are out of his hand he results so forced and he's not credible at all. He should just play good-looking successful young men.

*My rate: 7/10 One of the greatest film I have seen this year.Last maybe before sun rise, which is also seen late at night alone in the lab. I like the idea of the film,which suggest free will of man and our weakness against fate.With time past by James and Kathryn are destined to fail and an indescribable sorrow comes. I do like the end. but a big question also comes. The virus shall not be released again, should it?

In the last scene in the airport. Jose is sent back to meet James again by future scientists. When he tell him that scientists had already got his message and know someone else would spread the virus. And they two together meet Kathryn when Kathryn tell James the true man is DR. Goines assistant. So it is clearly Jose also get the true information about the virus,(James keep an eye on him at the time remember?) and he has teeth. So why everything is still happen?? Why future scientists don't do anything after the truth is revealed?? My biggest question after the film... Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.

This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece

10/10 Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realised. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians.

Bonus material on the DVD makes for very interesting viewing. Gilliam was under more than normal pressure to bring the film in under budget, which is no particular surprise after the 'Munchausen' debacle and in light of his later attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. I would rate the 'making of' documentary as one of the more interesting I've seen. It certainly is no whitewash and accurately observes the difficulties and occasional conflict arising between the creative people involved. Gilliam's description of the film as his "7½th" release, on account of the film being written by writers other than himself - and therefore, not really 'his' film' - doesn't do the film itself justice.

Brad Pitt's portrayal of Goines is curiously engaging, although his character is not especially sympathetic. Watch for his slightly wall-eyed look in one of the scenes from the asylum. It's disturbing and distracting.

Probably a coincidence, the Louis Armstrong song 'What a Wonderful World' was used at the end of both '12 Monkeys' and the final episode of the TV series of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Both the film and the TV series also featured British actor Simon Jones.

'12 Monkeys' is a science fiction story that will entertain in the same way that the mental stimulation of a game of chess may entertain. It's not a mindless recreation, that's for sure. One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites. It has been said that Deanna Durbin invented teenagery. This first film was one of the best. The humorous story presented a delightful 14 year old Deanna, a little beauty with a gorgeous voice, as the "Miss Fixit" in a family split by divorce. For plot summary, see other IMDb entries, but quickly Deanna and her two older sisters plan to go to America from Switzerland to prevent their father from remarrying. With an excellent supporting cast especially Barbara Read and Nan Grey as the sisters, good direction and editing, the film succeeds in captivating one even on subsequent viewings. Of Deanna's three songs, only "Il Bacio" is from the classical repertoire, but when she sings it in that police station scene, the film's place in history is assured. At least it was for this viewer who at the age of 15 was smitten for life with both Deanna and classical music. One of the many nice touches that occur throughout THREE SMART GIRLS is the brief glimpse of the drunk stretching his neck for a final glimpse of Deanna as the cops hustle him by! One unfortunate result of the success of this film was that subsequent writers for Durbin vehicles became locked into the "Miss Fixit" theme, which quickly became stale. Deanna herself never did. Her stature as an actress is more questionable than her charisma, which she certainly had. It seems to me that, like many another film personality, she substituted "naturalness" for the histrionic ability that she lacked. The ploy worked well for 21 feature films. I'm surprised at the comments from posters stating that Jane Powell made the same type of films Deanna Durbin did. Although they were both young sopranos whose film images were crafted by Joe Pasternak, if this film is any indication, they were almost polar opposites.

While, in THREE SMART GIRLS, Durbin plays an impulsive "Little Miss Fixit," who, after some setbacks, manages to reunite her divorced parents, in its' semi-remake, THREE DARING DAUGHTERS, Jane Powell almost destroys the marriage between her screen Mom Jeanette MacDonald and new stepfather Jose Iturbi when she refuses to accept him and strong arms her younger siblings into rejecting him, too. From the Durbin and Powell films I've seen, I'd say these disparate qualities permeate the early films of both of these talented young performers.

As for Durbin's performance in THREE SMART GIRLS, I find it completely winning, and most impressive. Although it's clear from her occasionally shrill and over-emphatic line readings in some of the more energetic scenes that this is an early film for Deanna, watching the self-confident, knowing and naturally effervescent manner in which she delivers her lines and performs overall, and the subdued and tender manner she projects the more serious scenes, you'd never guess that this was the FIRST film role of a 14 year-old girl whose prior professional experience consisted almost exclusively of two years of vocal instruction.

Given that this film, and Durbin herself, were much publicized at the time as "Universal's last chance," the production must have been an impossibly stressful situation for a film novice of any age, but you'd never know it from the ease and assurance Durbin displays on screen. Although she's clearly still developing her acting style and demeanor before the camera (this was equally true of the early performances of much more experienced contemporaries like Garland, Rooney, O'Connor and Jane Powell), Durbin projects an extraordinary presence and warmth on camera that is absolutely unique to her, and, even here, in her first film, she manages to remain immensely likable despite the often quick-tempered impulsiveness of her character, and though she's occasionally shrill, she never for a second projects the coy and arch qualities that afflicted many child stars, including Jane Powell and some of the other young sopranos who followed in the wake of her success.

In short, like all great singing stars, Durbin was much more than just a "beautiful voice." On the other hand, while Durbin's pure lyric soprano is a truly remarkable and glorious instrument, the most remarkable thing about it, to me, was the way she is able to project her songs, without the slightest bit of affectation or "grandnes" that afflict the singing of adult opera singers like Lily Pons, Grace Moore and Jeanette MacDonald in films of the period

The film is also delightful, heavily influenced by screwball comedy, it backs Durbin up with a creme-de-la-creme of first-class screwball pros such as Charles Winninger, Binnie Barnes, Alice Brady, Ray Milland and Mischa Auer. The story is light and entertaining. True, it's hardly "realistic," but why would anyone expect it to be? If you want :"realistic" rent THE GRAPES OF WRATH or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. On the other hand, if you're looking for a genuine, sweet, funny and entertaining family comedy with a wonderfully, charismatic and gifted adolescent "lead," and terrific supporting players, this film won't let you down. Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.

THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer This film is so old I never realized how young looking Ray Milland looked in 1936, I remember him playing in a great film, "Lost Weekend". Ray plays the role of Michael Stuart, who is a very rich banker. There are three girls in this picture who are not very happy about their father and mother separating and they find out their father is going to get married to a young blonde who is a gold digger only looking for a rich sugar daddy. They hire a man to pose as a very rich Count, his name is Count Ariszted, (Misha Auer) who is drunk all the time and is penniless and gives plenty of comic laughs throughout the picture. Deanna Durbin, (Penny Craig) surprised everyone when she was booked in a police station and told the chief of police that she was an opera star and then Penny starts singing with the most fantastic soprano voice I have every heard, the entire police department and convicts started applauding, which was a very entertaining and enjoyable scene from this film. This is Deanna Durbin's first film debut and she became an instant success over night and went on to become a great movie star with Universal Studios after leaving MGM. Cute film about three lively sisters from Switzerland (often seen running about in matching outfits) who want to get their parents back together (seems mom is still carrying the torch for dad) - so they sail off to New York to stop the dad from marrying a blonde gold-digger he calls "Precious". Dad hasn't seen his daughters in ten years, they (oddly enough) don't seem to mind and think he's wonderful, and meanwhile Precious seems to lead a life mainly run by her overbearing mother (Alice Brady), a woman who just wants to see to it her daughter marries a rich man. The sisters get the idea of pushing Precious into the path of a drunken Hungarian count, tricking the two gold-digging women into thinking he is one of the richest men in Europe. But a case of mistaken identity makes the girls think the count is good-looking Ray Milland, who goes along with the scheme 'cause he has a crush on sister Kay.

This film is enjoyable, light fare. Barbara Read as Kay comes across as sweet and pretty, Ray Milland looks oh so young and handsome here (though, unfortunately, is given little to do), Alice Brady is quite good as the scheming mother - but it is Deanna Durbin, a real charmer and cute as a button playing youngest sister Penny, who pretty much steals the show. With absolutely beautiful vocals, she sings several songs throughout the film, though I actually would have liked to have seen them feature her even more in this. The plot in this film is a bit silly, but nevertheless, I found the film to be entertaining and fun. Deanna Durbin really did save Universal from bankruptcy and enabled it to remain a big studio. By the mid 30s most of the big directors that had been at Universal eg Milestone, Browning and Wyler had gone. Only James Whale remained but his prestigious horror films were behind him. Deanna and Judy Garland appeared in a short "Every Sunday" and initially Garland was suggested for the role of Penny in "Three Smart Girls". When Garland was unavailable Universal switched to Durbin. Initially she had been definitely a supporting player but her potential was so vivid that the script was rewritten to make her the star. Directed by Henry Koster the film had a European touch.

The film starts with a beautiful panorama of a lake in "Switzerland". The "three smart girls" of the title - three sisters, Joan (Nan Grey), Kay (Barbara Read) and Penny (Deanna Durbin) are sailing with Penny giving her glorious voice to "My Heart is Singing". All is not too well on the home front - their father is planning to remarry a younger woman (Binnie Barnes) so the three girls with the help of their trusty nurse (Lucille Watson) decide to go to New York and reunite him with their mother. Lucille Watson is best remembered for her role as Robert Taylor's stern mother in "Waterloo Bridge" (1941).

Donna is a gold-digger who, along with her scatty mother (Alice Brady), is determined to marry Judson Craig (Charles Winninger). For someone with no film experience Deanna is wonderful as Penny, a typical pesky, over enthusiastic kid sister and she is as pretty as a picture. When she sings "Someone to Care for Me" to her father you will just melt - what a glorious voice she had. She also has one of the funniest lines in the film. When her father consoles her with "I'll take you to the zoo tomorrow", she replies "Oh I can see enough monkeys around here"!!!

With the help of Bill Evans (John King) they decide to hire a "count" (Mischa Auer)to romance Donna. They arrange to meet at a nightclub but due to a mix-up Lord Michael Stuart (Ray Milland) is mistaken for the count and Donna falls for him (she thinks he owns half of Australia!!!) The plan backfires as he falls for Kay and Donna wants to hasten her marriage to Judson.

Penny decides to take matters into her own hands and runs away. She is taken to the local police station where she charms the cops with her rendition of "Il Bacio" (she is trying to convince them she is a young opera singer.) Everything ends happily with their mother (Nella Walker) sailing over to patch things up with their dad and in the meantime Donna makes the acquaintance of the phoney count (Mischa Auer) and sails off to Australia with him.

Highly recommended. Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing.

Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer.

Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon. Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.

This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.

One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.

Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.

Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna. Of course, the original is better, but this isn't as bad as everyone says! Yes, it is made up into 3 stories, but hey, so what?! I thought it was quite good to be honest. I actually liked how Anastasia changed a little when she fell in love, it shows what love can do. The stories were not so bad either.

I liked Cinderella's voice better in this too. I have nothing against her voice in the original, but I just think it sounds better here, more nicer. I liked her personality in this too, she had more of a backbone, yet she was still kind.

So, I'll give Cinderella II:Dreams Come True a 7/10. Many people have commented that this movie was nowhere near as good as the first. Well, maybe it isn't - to you. However, how does your child react to it? Well, mine loved it more than the first.

Disney movies of the past can sometimes be a little harsh for little kids. (For example - Bambi's mother getting shot.) This movie was really great for my sensitive little girl who likes humor and happy endings.

If you want to be snobby about what should be Disney's standards based on the past - skip this movie.

If you have a sweet little girl or soft-hearted little boy you really want to please, buy this movie and treat your small children. This film is great as a bedtime movie for happy dreams instead of nightmares. I'm happy with a movie that pleases my kid & doesn't need to impress the parents all the time. I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I saw on the web, I thought Cinderella 2 (as well as 3) is a very cute and funny sequel for everyone - kids and adults...like me, I am 22 years old.

I also find it and very informative film, it shows lessons on being true to yourself and following your heart. I thought it has great animation, and the voice casting was very good; the songs performed by Brooke Allison too. Since this film has been divided into three flashbacks/stories, my favorite out of the three, is the story of when Jaq the mouse, became a human for a day, thanks to Fairy Godmother and her magic. Just after I saw the movie, the true magic feeling of the Walt Disney movies came up in me and I realized me that it was a long time ago that I saw the 'real' magic in a movie.

The combination of the right music, speeches and magical effects brings the Disney feeling again into your body. Very special things I saw where the not-knowing effects in the movie, started with the disney logo transforming into the Cinderella castle and ended as an old-story telling fairytale with your grandparents.

The magic has returned in me. I rate this movie 8 out of 10. As an adult I really did enjoy this one. I watched it with my 2 granddaughters and the 3 1/2 year old was fascinated and the 15 month old giggled at the mice.

The music is fun and the animation is wonderful. This sequel does what Return to Neverland didn't accomplish. A good follow-up to the Cinderella story; but what becomes of Drusilla? Another sequel? I hope so! The sequel to the ever popular Cinderella story reminded me somewhat of what they did with one of the Beauty & the Beast movies. It's basically three short stories rolled into 1.

OK, the mice are adorable (I love Gus! He's sooo cute!), and Lucifer's awesome (as usual). I liked some of the newer characters as well, (Pom Pom was adorable and I did like Prudence.). Still, the storyline was somewhat limited, but still very cute. So, I vote 7/10. Although Cinderella isn't the obvious choice for a sequel I love Jaq and Gus so I didn't hesitate. The format of the mice writing a book for Cinderella was an inspired one. I enjoy writing stories myself and hope children will be encouraged by this. The three stories are cute & amusing, although the songs were forgettable. Jaq and Gus were my favourite characters but I also enjoyed seeing Lucifer, Bruno, the Mice Chorus and all the rest. Pom Pom proved the perfect companion for Lucifer and I liked the Governess. A sequel done right for a change. My rating 8/10. I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present. Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge. Joshua Seftel's first film - a satire of memorable proportions - is about just as the title suggests: The corporations effect on War.

The film is about a mercenary (John Cusack) traveling to Turaqistan (not a real country, fyi) to help the American government 'get their message across' to Turaqistan's leaders. He meets a reporter (Marisa Tomei) and we all know what will ensue with a lonely man + a hot reporter. Somewhere in the mix, a pop star named Yonica Babyyeah gets thrown in. As Yonica is marrying one of Turaquistan's most important people (a son of the president), a subplot is created where the mercenary must watch over this star, well, somewhat. The film starts off with a lonely Cusack in a bar; no more than fifteen seconds later, the film hooks you. With it's amusing and intriguing insight on terrorism and politics, the film's running time blows by you. The film has a lot more action than I expected, with the occasional scene of war, well choreographed fights and just sporadic scenes of murder. Though the story isn't much deep, the simplicity of it all makes the film perfect for both the common man and movie critics alike.

In the final act of the film, the simplicity of it all turns very hostile and jumbled. I thought it was executed very well, but other may disagree, and I could understand why. Twist after twist is what the ending is all about, and like most films, it is a true hit/miss situation. Regardless, the three writers on the film (Mark Leyner, Jeremy Pikser & John Cusack) did a fantastic job creating a realistic and entertaining satire on today's situation overseas.

Joshua Seftel does an excellent job insuring the film's integrity; not reducing the material to the most redundant of films (which I was afraid would happen). Seftel crafted the film as perfectly as one could: he created a vibrant atmosphere, one that is both examines harsh reality and cartoonish falsities; - contrasting them perfectly - as well as making the film feel as if you were watching it all. Seftel really gets you involved in all of the action and it pays off completely. No missteps here. Hopefully, he takes on more directorial jobs, for he is one director to look out for. Let me start by saying that "War, Inc" is not everyone's cup of tea. It is, however, very enjoyable (and gets you thinking - "Oh, crap"). The comedy involved the film isn't obvious at all - it's quite subtle (Tamerlane tanks, dry-cleaning service etc), and it changes with the twists & turns in the plot.

I may be the only one, but I won't compare this with "Grosse Point Blank", because, it's different. John Cusack - I wouldn't say he was "amazing" or "brilliant" - but he was good. On the other hand, his sister (Joan Cusack) was incredible in her delivery of lines & comedic timing - even though she was hardly in the film (I'd say the same about Ben Kingsley).

Marisa Tomei plays a convincing reporter, and manages to pull it off. Hilary Duff is very commendable for her role as central Asian pop star Yonica Babyyeah. Duff's development as an actress is very noticeable in the film, and she does a very good job (even though her accent is a tad unreal).

Overall, the film is what I would call "entertaining". It doesn't have a particular storyline, and it's quite silly at times, but it does have a subtle message. I'd say it's worth a watch. I don't want to spend to long here rambling about the plot- you've seen the trailer, and if you haven't its online. I don't recommend seeing it though- it was poorly crafted and didn't pack any of the laughs or magic from the film. So those avoiding this film due to its lousy trailer should give this one a chance. It's really funny. I was blown away by the cleverness and originality in this film. The first 40 minutes had me on the floor in hysterics- my only problem was that it unnecessarily evolved into a bad Austin Powers film in the final 20. This however, is one of the few films where the campy ending didn't make me dislike the rest of the film (which is normally the case). Everyone gives a great performance (especially Joan Cusack) and there are some really great moments throughout. I personally plan on seeing it again when it comes out- only to catch all the details which I was laughing over during the first viewing! In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).

Assessing the technical aspects:

- The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.

- Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.

- Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).

- As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.

Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.

7/10. The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them – of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this – This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.

Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character – Hauser, the killer with a heart – exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.

However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character – tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside – and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry – to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.

In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!! this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says. In War, Inc we find the logical extension of the current outsourcing of all war-related activities we are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are familiar with the antics of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root and Blackwater overseas you are already halfway home to fully appreciating the satire of Cusack's latest piece. Cusack plays a corporate hit-man named Brand Hauser who finds himself in Turiquistan organizing a trade show in the newly liberated country as his cover while waiting to get access to his latest target. While there he finds himself intrigued by the anti-establishment reporter played by Marisa Tomei and pursued by the over-sexualized pop star played by Hilary Duff. We are introduced to Hauser's past, which includes a tragedy that has haunted him ever since and the corporate assistant named Marsha Dillon who actually is running the entire operation for him (and played hilariously by Joan Cusack). While some moments are played suitably over the top, they aren't always the moments you expect and the little touches often catch you by surprise. All the principals turn in solid performances. Duff's accent comes and goes but otherwise she does a very nice job and goes a long way to dispel her Disney image. Tomei is funny but understated while the Cusack's own nearly every scene they are in. To be fair, they are given good material. The writers turn in a good script with enough twists and turns and visual gags to keep you giggling throughout all the way to the predictable conclusion. In fact, the predictability of the end is the only thing that keeps me from rating it higher as the story twists and turns it's way to the expected conclusion.

If you like your comedy broad and physical, there is probably not enough here to keep you interested the entire movie. On the other hand, if you like sly comedy and broad satire, this is for you. This film definitely gets a thumbs up from me. It's witty jokes and even it's occasional stereotypical and derogatory views on Eastern European people had me in stitches throughout most of the film. It's plot is clever and 100% original and will have you guessing throughout the entire film. The one person I was most impressed with in this film was Hilary Duff. It's plain and simple to see that she has taken a leap of faith stepped outside of the 'chick-flick' genre she's used to. Her accent is excellent and her acting performance was surprisingly crisp and well-executed. It is the best performance I have ever seen from Hilary, and I have seen most of her films. Her character, Yonica Babyyeah is described as 'The Britney Spears of Eastern Europe' and this is seen in some of her mannerisms and the song, 'I want to blow you... ... ... up'. You also feel sorry for her, as her performance really grasps you, Yonica is a very complex and confused character. Joan Cusack had me laughing throughout the whole film with her sometimes slapstick humour, but also her facial expressions and so on. John Cusack's witty dialogue will probably make you chuckle throughout. I strongly recommend this film. On this 4th of July weekend it's heartening to see the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive and well in the film "War, Inc." Just as our founding fathers gave the back of their collective hand to King George III, this film exposes in hilarious fashion the craven war-profiteering by the current crop of capitalistic creeps who are intent on indecently privatizing the government, to include privatizing war itself.

The cast in this satire absolutely shines. John Cusack is wonderful as a droll, conflicted corporate assassin, and the beautiful Marisa Tomei is superb as his love interest. (My gosh, "George Costanza" was right. Marisa Tomei is so attractive!) But it is John's sister Joan Cusack who really steals the film. Her portrayal of a bossy, yet simultaneously sycophantic, personal assistant is priceless, and more than once I just couldn't stop laughing at the brilliance of her performance. She not only possesses fantastic comic timing, her face is as expressive as one could ever wish for in an actor. Dan Ackroyd, too, has a short, but very effective, cameo in the film as the head of the company which is running the war, the Tamerlane Corporation. Sitting on a "throne" with his pants down around his ankles, Ackroyd even looks like the arse clown who currently occupies one of our real thrones of power. You won't have to think too hard to recognize that person. Much of this movie was filmed in Bulgaria, which is why we are able to see so much real military equipment. (You just know that the US military would never have cooperated in making this satiric expose of war-profiteering.) I especially enjoyed the character of "Omar Sharif" as played by the Bulgarian actor Lyubomir Neikov. In one scene in which he is on the dance floor with Marisa Tomei he has a couple of lines that could summarize our entire foreign policy attitude toward the foreign leaders we install - and uninstall - in power.

Naturally, this film won't appeal to everyone. If you believe that the on-going privatization of our foreign policy, the military, intelligence collection and analysis, prisons and the corrections system, public health, and a myriad of other government services is a good thing you may not find much to like in this film. If you believe, however, that destroying people and countries in order to add to some corporation's bottom line is an abomination I think you'll find much to appreciate in this film. Nothing could be more in keeping with the Spirit of Independence that heaping well-deserved ridicule on corrupt powers that be. Brand Hauser (John Cusack) is an assassin for the CIA. He is ordered to go to the country of Turaquistan, a nation that the United States has "liberated", and kill a businessman named Omar Shariff. This is because the American conglomerate, Tamerlane, that is putting the country "back together" will not stand for Shariff, an oil man from a neighboring state, laying down his own pipeline through war-torn Turquistan. But, once there, Brand runs into difficulties. One, he meets a determined journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei) who wants to tell the American public the "true" story of the region's conflict...and of Tamerlane. But, Brand is aghast to realize that Natalie's pretty face and sharp mind instantly and unconsciously compels him to lose focus on his mission. Also, his cover as a trade show host forces him to meet the country's pop-singing princess, Yonica (Hillary Duff), who will be getting married at the convention center. She is a young diva whose wedding arrangements also turn Brand's attention away from the coming assassination. With other inept underlings and complications, will Brand be able to carry out his mission, for the satisfaction of Tamerlane's BIG boss, the former vice-president (Dan Ackroyd)? Good for you, John Cusack, to make this film, even though it doesn't quite hold together. Shot in Serbia, it is a worthy look at what present-day Iraq must be like, a country turned upside-down. In a stroke a brilliance, the green zone here is called "The Emerald City" and aptly so, for this Oz-like neighborhood attempts to keep out the ravages of war going on elsewhere in the metropolis. The cast is very fine, with Cusack doing a nice job and Tomei, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Ackroyd and others backing him up in style. Duff, especially, does a great turn as the heavily-accented, heavily made-up, potty-mouthed singer. The recreation of war-riddled Baghdad is so real that it hurts while the costumes and other production values are top-notch. As for the script, it isn't always cohesive but it certainly has some tremendous dialogue and scenes. For example, a young Turaqui boy offers to show Brand an enemy hideout, in exchange for money and candy. Brand produces the cash but, because he has no candy, the boy burns his vehicle anyway. Brilliant! Then, also, the direction is not a total success but doesn't lag very often. No, if you have conservative leanings, you probably won't like this film one bit. But, if you have an open mind and want to see a satirical view of the "war on terrorism", this is quite a good show. Therefore, do make an effort to view it, as you will be supporting those filmmakers who choose to make movies far away from those old studio "formulas". first, someone mentioned here that because this was released in "limited" quantity it means that it SHOULD be bad...that is exactly what the "big five" Hollywood studios would like everyone to think so they can "pass" or "ignore" features that are not desirable, without loosing face or imagine by censoring them directly. to the point, this production has been released "limited" because is considered "unpatriotic" by certain individuals.

now i absolutely loved this feature; i find it way better then "Charlie Wilson's War" even if it is a "fictional" account of something that "never" happens but is always so OBVIOUS.this goes to anyone and everyone interested or affected by present American foreign policies, "home" or "aboard". the "turakistan" country and "the emerald city" are definitely trying to resemble Iraq and Baghdad just as much as the corporation "Tamerlane" goes for "haliburton" (with the vice- president Dan Aykroyd playing Dick Cheney, LOL).there are quiet a moments actually where the movie is DEAD SERIOUS, not even sarcastic anymore (main example would be as how John Cusack character deals with his depression, but not only).

i found that ALL the characters can be related to something/someone or specific stereotypes. now word of advise; if YOU are not politically active, especially towards the aspects of "globalization" , you will likely not enjoy this feature much since most of its content and inside "jokes" are targeting certain "personalities" that are not "visibile" to the general public on daily bases...(main exception would be Hilary Duff that plays the well known materialistic pop star, need i say name(S)?). at its CORE the feature is an anti-globalization gig, period. the message is unmistakeably delivered with comic vengeance. Joan has a line at one point that goes like this: "and here we have a book written by you know who, about how i conquered the world and resolved the issues with my dad".PRICELESS)))

the sister and brother Cusacks play good together as always, same as in "Grosse PointeBlank" i would say a bit more "mature".Marisa Tomeihere does not show her butt and breasts to "impress" us (like she did recently in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"), but instead she has a very serious role, and manages to pull it off quiet well.

many critics don't get it (can not do so, or do not want to). this IS NOT a "regular" movie but more of a comic documentary. this feature stands to deliver a message and NOT to get Oscars, or have "visuals" sort of getting the viewer into buying the latest "HDTV experience" TV sets...i have noticed even in my local papers that this movie gets bad re-views because is not "artistic", while PRO Iraq war movies get good thumbs up for being "balanced" apparently and "engaging".makes one wonders how much all the world mainstream media is concentrated in the hands of a bunch of guys...

i bet this feature will prove a hit overseas as much more then it will in north America. as i mentioned before, it is all a satire about American foreign policy and how it has been hijacked by "special interests" groups... having the "regular" American soldier wearing the "Tamerlane" corporate logo on its combat dress is pretty insulting BUT EFFECTIVE in showing reality as it IS, or will be soon the way things go so far.

some PRICELESS shots: upon "liberation", the country gets invaded commercial advertisements; a hilarious scene about how future journalists will likely gather "news"("anything is got to be better then this x-box bullocks"))); soldiers dealing with their "frustration";

overall, i do not recommend this to "conservatives" or "hard core" patriots of some kind or another.this feature is not made to reach to the "minds of souls" of the people(as mainstream propaganda and commercial interests always try to do so).instead it contains a message well defined for realists, and towards some ideological goals apparently "always" short of realizing. WAR, INC. (2008) **1/2 John Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd, Sergej Trifunovic, Lyubomir Neikov, Ned Bellamy, (Voice of: Montel Williams)

A hit-and-miss-21st Century "STRANGELOVE"

John Cusack – who co-wrote the script with Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser – stars as a jaded hit-man named Brand Hauser who is burnt out but decides to follow thru on one final assignment by icing a Middle-Eastern oil minister named Omar Sharif (yes, not THAT Omar Sharif but you get the tone here from this misfire for a laugh) commandeered by the ex-Vice President of The USA (Aykroyd, Cusack's old "Grosse Pointe Blank" co-hort, doing a mean Dick Cheney manqué turn here), enlisting Brand to do the deed under the guise of a Trade Show Producer in mythical Turaqistan (read: Iraq/Afghanistan) for the American private corporation Tamerlane (read: Halliburton).

While being briefed Brand is faced with a moment of clarity when he comes across intrepid journalist Natalie Hegalhuzen (Tomei) and eventually falls in love with her.

Meanwhile Tamerlane is sponsoring the unlikely union of Eastern European teen sensation Yonica Babyyeah (a surprisingly decent Duff aping her own celebrity with tongue- through-cheek) and the idiot son of the country's leader.

What follows is a bold attempt for a 21st Century black comedy a la "DR. STRANGELOVE" but for all intense and purposes there are sadly more misses than hits in this broad try for laughs amidst political message (an unjust war being outsourced by American capitalism, check!)

While Cusack riffs on his Martin Blank from the aforementioned "Pointe" he does add some nice touches of his man in black (he does shots of Tabasco sauce to take the edge off), the rest of the cast plays catch up (except sister Joan who is a riot as the high-strung aide- de-camp for Hauser and has one of the film's funniest laugh-out lines: "My mass communications skills are finally paying off") for the most part.

Cusack visited the Iraq War earlier this year in the 180 degree different "Grace Is Gone" and here he allows his political views wear on his sleeve ; while admirable overall the film's pace and rhythms are off largely no-thanks to first time filmmaker Joshua Seftel making his directorial debut here (and it is noticeable) except for maybe the well-choreographed fight Hauser is involved with Babyyeah's idiotic fiancé's entourage.

A nice attempt yet a misguided failure ; maybe next time Cusack won't try so hard and let the idiocy of war speak for itself instead of doing the heavy lifting by himself. This movie was excellent for the following reasons: 1) It contained great backdrops and sets. 2) It showed the disparity of a war-torn environment alongside a technological one. 3) John Cusack's acting was terrific. He portrayed angst very well. 4) It showed the vulnerabilities of everyone in a war-torn situation. 5) It gave us a picture of what might happen in the future in many respects. I was also impressed with the acting for the most part. Hilary's acting was, I found, the most stilted. The morals and values of everyone in a war-torn situation are up for grabs. The liberal journalist and the conservative business man are capable of doing anything in any situation and are equally unpredictable. Great stuff. PSP I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie After reading several comments, I felt I had to add in my two cents as well. "Sorrow Lost" is one of the most memorable shorts I think I have ever seen. I had gotten the chance to see this at the New York Independent Film Festival. I felt that this movie was incredibly beautiful and emotional. The story was beautifully complex - especially for such a short amount of time. The story is focused on a young girl who is victimized by her abusive father. She is soon given the choice to "stop" him by a demon played by "Witchblade's Eric Etebari." Having watched the show, I was amazingly impressed with how he played such unique and different character. I never knew he could act so well! His character was deeply complex and he was very persuasive. The acting was absolutely superb by him. The girl's was okay and the father's was decent. There is also death in this who follows the girl around until she is able to escape from her future. The effects and cinematography were absolutely mind blowing. I wonder if they had at least a hundred thousand budget for this. It is rare you get to see such a high quality short. The opening was absolutely breathtaking comparable with any major feature film. This isn't to say that it's not without its flaws - I thought it took a little to get going and the intro was a little long. But this stuck in my head days after watching it. There are very few shorts with this level of quality. What do I say about such an absolutely beautiful film? I saw this at the Atlanta, Georgia Dragoncon considering that this is my main town. I am very much a sci-fi aficionado and enjoy action type films. I happened to be up all night and was about ready to call it a day when I noticed this film playing in the morning. This is not a sci-fi nor action film of any sort. Let me just start out by saying that I am not a fan of Witchblade nor of Eric Etebari, having watched a few episodes(his performance in that seemed stale and robotic). But he managed to really win me over in this performance. I mean really win me over. Having seen Cellular, I did not think there was much in the way of acting for this guy. But his performance as Kasadya was simply amazing. He was exceedingly convincing as the evil demon. But there was so much in depth detail to this character it absolutely amazed me. I later looked it up online and found that Eric won the Best Actor award which is well deserved considering its the best of his career and gained my respect. Now I keep reading about the fx of this and production of this project and let me just say that I did not pay attention to them (sorry Brian). They were very nicely done but I was even more impressed with the story - which I think was even more his goal(Seeing films like Godzilla with huge effects just really turned me off). I could not sleep after this film thinking it over and over again in my head. The situation of an abusive family is never an easy one. I showed the trailer to my friend online and she almost cried because it affected her so having lived with abuse. This is one film that I think about constantly and would highly recommend. I got to see this just this last Friday at the Los Angeles film festival at Laemlee's on Beverly. This movie got the most applause of all the films that evening. Considering that two music videos opened first, I didn't know what to expect since they were very fast and attention grabbing, I wasn't sure I was ready for a short immediately. But to my surprise I really enjoyed this. I thought the main actor demon guy was really good. I was so impressed with his performance that I checked out his name. I was surprised to see that this was the Witchblade guy. He's gotten really good especially since then! Either that or he was given lousy roles or had been pushed by the director really hard for this short. The girl did an okay job. I guess its hard since it was her first performance and being so young. The dad did well also. There was a lot of really nice cg work for a short, both for this and the short playing next "Mexican Hat" which was also nice, but I enjoyed this the most because it had the most depth and emotion and I actually cared about the characters. The other was a very simple story. The story was quite illustrative and dark! It dealt with real topics using a more fantasy like approach to keep ADD people like me interested. We won't even talk about the last film in the block which I left. My only complaint is that I only wish I had seen more of the demon character and a little less of getting started, which is why I gave it a 9 out of 10. I also thought the end credits went a little slowly. Otherwise it was beautifully told, directed and edited. The timing was very nice with a complete change from the fast MTV editing done on everything nowadays. There will be more coming from this director in the future as well as the actor. I now will think of him as the Sorrows Lost actor not the Witchblade guy. When you typically watch a short film your always afraid that the person creating the film tries to throw too much into it. That's not the case with this one. A great story about a young girl who's had enough and other worldly forces trying to help make things right.

Eric Etebari does a wonderful job of representing the spirit of twisted justice and helps to convey the complexities of the blurred line of right and wrong.

Both the young girl and the father give great performances in this wonderful short film, but Eric's performance is definitely the show stealer in this story.

I definitely recommend this film for it's complexity, performance, and great over all story. After several extremely well ratings to the point of SUPERB, I was extremely pleased with the film. The film was dark, moving, the anger, the pain, the guilt and a very extremely convincing demon.

I had initially expected to see many special effects, and like a lover's caress, it blew me away with the subtlety and the rightness of it. Brian, I am again blown away with your artistry with the telling of the story and your care of the special effects. You will go a long way, my friend. I will definitely be the president of your fan club.

Eric Etebari, the best actor award, was the number one choice. You made Jr. Lopez look like a child compared to Kasadya. :)

Overall, the acting, story line, the high quality filming and awesome effects, it was fantastic. I just wish it were longer. I am looking forward to The Dreamless with extremely high expectations. This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO) This film is an absolute classic for camp. That is why it was an Elvira and MST3000 classic. Everyone knows the story. Scientist keeps his girlfriend's head alive in a lasagna pan in his basement while he cruises town and tries to find her a body by checking out the local chicks. Finally he finds a real hourglass body with a scar-faced chick's head on top. The severed head makes friends with the failed experiment in the closet and the conehead comes out of the closet and rips off the assistant's remaining "good" arm (his other is not right from a scientist's earlier failure), and the whole place burns down.

The movie scared us so much as kids that my friend wouldn't go into his basement for a year after seeing it. As kids we ranked the scariest movies of all time and this one was number four. Only one of those scary movies was really any good (the Original "The Haunting".)

I had to give this movie a seven rating for the tremendous amount of entertainment value it offers. Its eerie effect because of the crappy production and the weird sexual angle when the scientist looks for the bodies (complete with porno sound track) scares the hell out of innocent children, while the ridiculous aspects make it prime material for watching talking and laughing. I could watch this film tonight and enjoy it while I'd rather go to the Dentist than watch "Chicago" again.

Seven is the most I can give it, because its entertainment value is mere luck. The film , as cinema, is a disaster. THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE was considered so distasteful in 1959 that several cuts and the passage of three years was required before it was released in 1962. Today it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have taken the thing seriously even in 1959; the thing is both lurid and lewd, but it is also incredibly ludicrous in a profoundly bumptious sort of way.

The story, of course, concerns a doctor who is an eager experimenter in transplanting limbs--and when his girl friend is killed in a car crash he rushes her head to his secret lab. With the aid of a few telephone cords, a couple of clamps, and what looks very like a shallow baking pan, he brings her head back to life. But is she grateful? Not hardly. In fact, she seems mightily ticked off about the whole thing, particularly when it transpires that the doctor plans to attach her head to another body.

As it happens, the doctor is picky about this new body: he wants one built for speed, and he takes to cruising disconcerted women on city sidewalks, haunting strip joints, visiting body beautiful contests, and hunting down cheesecake models in search of endowments that will raise his eyebrow. But back at the lab, the head has developed a chemically-induced psychic link with another one of the doctor's experiments, this one so hideous that it is kept locked out of sight in a handy laboratory closet. Can they work together to get rid of the bitter and malicious lab assistance, wreck revenge upon the doctor, and save the woman whose body he hankers for? Could be! Leading man Jason Evers plays the roguish doctor as if he's been given a massive dose of Spanish fly; Virginia Leith, the unhappy head, screeches and cackles in spite of the fact that she has no lungs and maybe not even any vocal chords. Busty babes gyrate to incredibly tawdry music, actors make irrational character changes from line to line, the dialogue is even more nonsensical than the plot, and you'll need a calculator to add up the continuity goofs. On the whole THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE comes off as even more unintentionally funny than an Ed Wood movie.

Director Joseph Green actually manages to keep the whole thing moving at pretty good clip, and looking at the film today it is easy to pick out scenes that influenced later directors, who no doubt saw the thing when they were young and impressionable and never quite got over it. The cuts made before the film went into release are forever lost, but the cuts made for television have been restored in the Alpha release, and while the film and sound quality aren't particularly great it's just as well to recall that they probably weren't all that good to begin with.

Now, this is one of those movies that you'll either find incredibly dull or wildly hilarious, depending on your point of view, so it is very hard to give a recommendation. But I'll say this: if your tastes run to the likes of Ed Wood or Russ Meyers, you need to snap this one up and now! Four stars for its cheesy-bizarreness alone! GFT, Amazon Reviewer I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties. This movie scared heck out of me when I was just a kid. It's no "Citizen Kane" but it has its moments. The arm ripping scene is good. The plot is good even if characters aren't - could have something to do with the acting. Put some top name people in the roles and then see what you get. This was one of those shoot, edit (what little there was) and distribute in a couple of months type of movies. This is classic low budget sci-fi and deserves it just due. I rated it a 9 based other films of this genre and age. When I was young I had seen very few movies. My parents in all their wisdom rented this one. I was very wary of what the movie was about, in fact I wasn't even allowed to watch it. My brother and sister got to of course and this made me very angry. So what did I do? Late at night I trashed the VCR! Kicked the screen of the TV in and called the police and reported vandals. I was arrested of course, I was unable to get my foot out of the TV set before the police arrived. I was only given a stern talking to and sent home. My parents grounded me of course and made me work to repay the debt for the TV and VCR. This tore me apart, slave labour really sucks believe me, but I had to do it. Chores all around the house. What happened in the end? We got a big screen TV, DVD player and a surround sound system for my work. How did I get the money? Easy I made movies of my own and sold them to Disney! Do you remember Finding Neno? Well I wrote that movie and filmed my goldfish in their fish tanks! They rewrote the plot of course and did it in CGI because they couldn't afford to make it a real life action picture like I had done! In the end I never saw the film The Head that didn't die and the rating I gave it is my life rating! It's doing pretty good! I love buying those cheap, lousy DVD's from Alpha Video. One day, I happened to buy this one. It's the perfect silly science fiction film of the 50's, all sexed up. Replete with unscientific EVERYTHING, scantily clad girls and plenty of melodrama, it's an enjoyable film, to those who appreciate this kind of stuff. And if you can 'suspend your disbelief' enough, you can actually get creeped out-- not just by the psychotic head or by the beating of the thing in the closet, but toward the end, with the character of 'the perfect body'. It's so . . . . what's another word for mindf***ing? This was a very good movie and is absolutely unfair to judge it without taking into account the time when it was released. There are some movies which do not get older but this is clearly out of date. However, I saw this film when I was a boy and for more than twenty years both the images as the story were unforgettable for me and most of my friends, until we could appreciate it again on DVD. Actually, I do remember this movie as the topic of several chats and meetings where old boys were talking about things we have in common. Therefore there was a little feeling of disappoint and even sadness when we finally had the DVD. Firstly, there was a theory about how naives our generation was. Secondly, I think there is something more. I would asset that this movie has something which should be interesting for all the modern film makers, specifically those who focus on the decaying horror genre. This is the mutilation, the idea which gives coherence to the film; the fact of a human being mutilated produces a deeper horror than death and torture. I remember how sick the sensation was, when the monster rip Kurt's arm out. And at the end; when the creature bites the doctor's neck to take a piece of his veins. Another remarkable thing is the morbid atmosphere which prevails without decaying in intensity through all the scenes, no matter if the action is on a secret lab, a lonely street where the man in a car is looking for a female body, a striper dressing room, and so on. May be the reasons why it is not longer a good movie are just technical things. For example, in the scene of the accident and the man saving his fiancée's head a more accurate work, made for another and modern second unit director could be interesting. Same thing with all action scenes, including the one of Kurt's arm. Furthermore, something could be done with the monster's make up. Some remakes have been good; I think in this case an attempt would worth while. Nevertheless, the black and white tones should be conserved. I first saw this movie on a local station on the Sunday afternoon horror show back around 1969 or 1970. Uncut. I was just a little kid at the time, but I loved it and wasn't really that scared by it. I thought it had such a cool and highly original storyline. Thinking back, I'm still surprised that it was shown during the day on T.V. uncut in those years. I've sought out this film ever since, seen it over and over again, and always loved it. One would think John Waters would have idolized this film. It's got to be not only a scary film, but one of the sleaziest, trashiest films ever made at that time. And surprisingly, you don't hear about this one as having the cult following that a movie such as "Blood Feast" or "The Hills Have Eyes" have acquired over the years. It has a cult following, but it should have really become a cult classic, in my opinion. As far as I know, this came out a little before Blood Feast came out, making this probably one of the first true "gore" films. In fact, this movie has elements of Hershell Gordon Lewis AND a little Russ Meyer thrown in for good measure.

Anyway, I recommend this for anyone who likes trashy, sleazy, black and white horror films from the early '60's (I think the date at the end of it read 1960). of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'. My grandmother bought me this film when I was 5 (I've always love scary movies) and even then I enjoyed it. The atmosphere is awesome and the story original and entertaining. I especially love the scenes where the RV is under attack in the desert. The rocks are actually convincing for such a low-budget flick. The acting is above average for these kinds of films and the music is eerie. This is definitely an uder-rated gem. I recommend it to anyone who likes these strange films from the late seventies, early eighties such as "Alice, Sweet Alice", "Poor Pretty Eddie", "Nightmare", "Hospital Massacre", and "Return of the Aliens, the Deadly Spawn". Definitely a classic!! Ghosts That Still Walk is one of those films that grabs you and doesn't let go until the end, especially when you see it as a child. Seeing the film as an adult, you have to admit it isn't really all that scary, but the story is very fascinating and contains allot of great mysterious scenes (especially the ones with the creepy mummy)

One of the best scenes in the movie is without a doubt the scene with grandpa and grandma in their new RV; the scene with the rocks is very exciting and pretty scary. Also the scenes where the main character discovers his mother's secret is pretty frightening.

Okay, the acting in the film isn't all that great and the film sometimes seems to get a little bit boring, but overall Ghosts That Still Walk is fun. Too bad only a few people saw this film, this film really deserves better. I just wanna say: Mr. Flocker, you've done a good job! And for all you Hollywood producers out there; If you want to remake a movie, remake this one! This is a weird movie about an archaeologist studying the culture of the ancient Hohokam Indians. She takes a (really fake looking) mummy out of a burial cave and brings it home to study it. Well, pretty soon she starts acting weird and talking to this mummy. And shortly thereafter her son becomes possessed by the spirit of the mummy. Even stranger events take place as the spirit then tries to destroy the woman's family. This is actually REALLY BORING, overall, and it will make you fall asleep the first couple of times you try to watch it. But if you keep at it, you may just make it to the end.

Ahah! What is the secret of the mummy? Is the mummy's spirit angry that it has been removed from the cave? You may not be able to ascertain what the spirit's motivation is, but if you like spooky shenanigans on a low-budget (and 70's hairstyles!) this will have a certain comforting appeal.

The way I have described the story is much clearer than the jumbled, boring way the film lays the story out. Can a boring movie really be fascinating? Well...somehow this one achieves that. Maybe this is a good movie at heart but executed in a rather awkward way. I don't know. What I do know is that I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite its dullness.

Fans of "Spider Baby" will be interested to know that a couple of music cues from that film are used in this one (including an instrumental version of the theme song).

Featuring one frightening and fairly well-done sequence showing possessed boulders and rocks rolling around by themselves and eventually attacking some people in a camper. Other scenes in the movie are merely spooky or quirky; but this one scene is actually pretty scary.

See this! It's weird and it's worth your time. You might even want one on your shelf. When I rented this movie I thought I was going to see a horror-movie. However, there is little horror in this typical seventies mystery-drama directed by strange James T. Flocker. Nice-looking Matt Boston carries the picture with his fine performance and the typical strange atmosphere of Flocker's movies is all-present. No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.

Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.

Carlos is the bomb. No Strings Attached is one of Carlos Mencia's best performances to date. Mencia is known for poking and making fun of racial issues. However, he does more than that in this stand-up performance, which took place in San Francisco. In general, Mencia's material does not only make you laugh but it also makes you think about what is really wrong with society today.

In this hour long performance, Mencia talks about such things as illegal immigration, what women really mean when they ask for equality in the workplace, terrorism, his opinion of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and an argument that he got into with a woman regarding whether or not he is affected by Jesus, and how society should treat those that are physically or mentally handicapped. Mencia even discusses whether or one should have the right to speak out and tell a joke.

Carlos Mencia is not afraid to offend, which at many times gets him trouble with his critics. For example, he does go somewhat far (and he admits it) with a joke regarding Pope John Paul II and what he is most likely doing in heaven right now.

Mencia's main message in all of his performances is that we all have have a voice and that we should use that voice to speak what we feel and not be afraid to offend. He reminds us that we have a right to free speech and that we must use this right as Americans.

If you enjoy this performance, I definitely recommend watching Mind of Mencia, his show on Comedy Central. Carlos Mencia was excellent this is hour special. He was working hard to show everybody he was the real deal. I know people have said he's stolen material in this special, but that is not true. Carlos brings comedy up front the way he wants it, not how anyone else wants it, that is why he is so good. People say he's not funny because he says Dee dee dee too much, and they still haven't realized thats part of his act, and they don't want it that way, but he brings it like that anyway, and succeeds in making people laugh. For all the haters out there, here is a message, Carlos is here to stay, you have no point in trying to bring him down. Before I begin, let me tell you how GREAT this stand-up special sounds when you play Sonic Adventure I DX: Director's Cut at the same time (Red Mountain level in particular). So while watching this stand-up special, I suggest-- no, DEMAND you do it.

Carlos Mencia takes his stand-up to the extreme in San Francisco, California. There, he makes fun of everybody with absolutely NO apologies.

I am pretty much thanking God here that Carlos didn't do his thing in which he uses the same joke over and over and over and over and over again. He does a tremendous job making fun of everyone and at the same time be truthful about it; I know a couple of times I said, after Carlos said a joke, "Damn, this guy makes a good point!" And then the Game Over screen came over my TV because I forgot I was playing Sonic Adventure I DX: Director's Cut. My bad :) So yeah, there's nothing to complain about this stand-up special. If you have TiVo or something like that, please do yourself a favor and record this historic hour. Writer/Director John Hughes covered all bases (as usual) with this bitter-sweet "Sunday Afternoon" family movie. "Curly Sue" is a sweet, precocious orphan, cared for from infancy by "Bill". The pair live off their wits as they travel the great US of A. Fate matches them with a "very pretty" yuppie lawyer, and the rest is predictable.

Kids will love this film, as they can relate to the heroine, played by 9 year old Alisan Poter (who went on to be the "you go girl!" of Pepsi commercials). The character is supposed to be about 6 or 7, as she is urged to think about going to school. Some of her vocabulary suggests that she is every day of 9 or older.

Similar to "Home Alone", there is plenty of slap-stick and little fists punching big fat chins. Again, this is "formula" film making, aimed at a young audience. Entertaining and heartwarming. Don't look for any surprises, but be prepared to shed a tear or two. This movie made me very happy. It's impossible not to love the smart and sweet orphan girl who changes the heart of a selfish lawyer only interested in pursuing success in her career. This is a very optimistic movie and I sincerely believe that we need more films like Curly Sue. It touched my heart. Give this movie a break! Its worth at least a "7"! That little girl is a good actor and she's cute, too. Jim Belushi is a comic genius. You can't help but feel good at the end! I wish there were more wholesome shows like this, that you can enjoy with your kids! With all thats going on in the world sometimes we need an escape. Curly Sue is just that. Not a complicated plot or deep meaning; however it is not devoid of substance. There is more than furious action or heart pounding dramas. There are the charming little shows you can watch with your kids and have enough substance to enjoy with your date. Try it you may like it more than you think. The little girl is really smart and cute. The "Dad" and the girl go thru some slapstick routines. When a jealous boyfriend steps in, trouble brews for Curly and the life shes known may be torn asunder. Fred Thompson and Kelly Lynch play good roles as the upper crust and Alison Porter and James Belushi are a interesting fable like duo portraying street wise homeless drifters. Their worlds collide and comedy ensues. Curly Sue is a 6 year old with an abundance of hair and a life as a drifter. She and her father, Bill (Jim Belushi), try to survive on the streets by being small time con artists. In Chicago, Bill decides to jump in front of a car in a pricey parking garage while Curly will scream about lawsuits and traction to the intended victim. It happens to be a very upscale lawyer named Grey (Kelly Lynch) who is appropriately appalled at what she has done. Not only do the scammers make some cash, they get to spend the night at Grey's plush apartment. Even then, Grey feels she owes them more so the three of them hang together for a spell. Grey only knows the lucrative law business and nothing about life. Who better to teach her than Bill and Curly, those savvy experts on life's realities? But, all good things must come to an end and there is no life for a legal expert and a couple of con men. Or is there? This is a sweet and funny movie about the unexpected. Curly is certainly as entertaining as Shirley Temple but much edgier, of course. Belushi gives a rare touching performance as the down on his luck con and Lynch is luminous as the snooty but soft touch lawyer. John Hughes, as writer and director, shows us his magic touch once again, as the script is lively and unpredictable. Just watch Curly and Bill take Grey out for a night, with no money, and see the humorous results. Do you long for happy endings, long promised and finally delivered, with a few uncertain moments in between? This is your made-to-order movie. I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it. Good story. Good script. Good casting. Good acting. Good directing. Good art direction. Good photography. Good sound. Good editing. Good everything. Put it all together and you end up with good entertainment.

The shame of it is that there aren't nearly enough films of this caliber being made these days. We may count ourselves lucky that writers/directors like John Hughes are occasionally able to make their creative voices heard.

Whenever I notice that I'm watching a film for the third or fourth time and still find it thoroughly satisfying I have to conclude that something about that film is right. I have to agree with Cal-37 it's a great movie, specially for the family, Kelly Linch is beautiful, the little girl is really talented and cute, of course Jim Belushi has earned his strips! But want I really liked was the piano song, if you're a musician or not watch this movie just for that, you'll know which it is.

"You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You" Written by Russ Morgan, Larry Stock, and James Cavanaugh

So have fun watching

See ya,

Nelson Very heart warming and uplifting movie. Outstanding performance by Alisan Porter (Curly Sue). I saw this movie when it was first released and enjoyed it immensely. I just caught it again on the Mplex channel, and Curly Sue touched my heart again. My daughter, her friends and I have watched this movie literally dozens of times. I bought it twice and some little girlfriends absconded with it. Subsequently, I rented it so very many times. It just never gets old!!! Blockbuster doesn't even have it in their listings anymore and I have tried to buy, find, rent it for over 5 years. Without a doubt, this was and is my most favourite movie of my daughter's childhood...it has it all! We laughed, we cried, we discussed real life and how hard some children have it in the world. There was nothing pretend about this movie. We related to every second and every line Bill! Thanks a million for restoring our faith in human nature. Sincerely, Shelleen and Kailin Vandermey. Craven, Saskatchewan. CANADA,eh!!! :-)

August '07 update:

Who are we to judge if a rich woman falls in love with a poor man; or a man who has love chooses to raise a child who is not his own. It may not be my or your life. It is not only believable, it happens every day. Thank God! Keeps my faith in human nature alive!!! celebrate!!!! I strongly disagree with "ctomvelu" regarding Jim Belushi's talent. I happen to like Belushi very much. Admittedly, I was skeptical when he first appeared on the scene, because I was such a HUGE fan of his late brother John. But Jim has an on-screen charm that has gotten him very far -- and he has developed it well over the years.

Curly Sue is one of his earlier films -- his weight is a giveaway (ain't that true for most of us?) -- and I like the film. Yes, it is touching and heartwarming, so if you're into car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex, then you might want to pass on this one -- it is a warm film of three lost soles who find each other. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the three aforementioned keys to a successful film, but I also like a nice, solid tale like this one.

And although Belushi and Kelly Lynch deliver excellent performances, the real star of this film is Alisan Porter -- who is absolutely adorable.

I don't know what happened to her career, but whoever is responsible for dropping the ball (agent? parents? herself?) should be shot. You couldn't ask for a more perfect introduction to fame than this film, and yet nothing of note has been heard from her since.

Another sad Hollywood story ... Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.

Larissa How can the viewer rating for this movie be just 5.4?! Just the lovely young Alisan Porter should automatically start you at 6 when you decide your rating. James Belushi is good in this too, his first good serious role, I hadn't liked him in anything but About Last Night until this. He was pretty good in Gang Related with Tupac also. Kelly Lynch, you gotta love her. Well, I do. I'm only wondering what happened to Miss Porter?

i gave Curly Sue a 7 I was lucky enough to get a DVD copy of this movie recently and have now seen it for the 2nd time. The 1st time was on late night TV in Australia more than 20 years ago but I could never forget this strange and bleak film..

Not many people like this film at all because it is so unconventional - the fact that there is hardly any spoken dialogue in this move - we just hear the thoughts of characters - is only one unconventional aspect of it.

Searching for a copy of this film I found out that the producer was dead, the main actor was dead, it was not kept in any British TV or film archives, that it was never released on video or DVD, that television networks around the world trashed it after their copyright ran out in the 80's. When it was first shown on TV in Australia there were no recordable devices for consumers.

On the second viewing recently, I could see why it was unforgettable. At times it is very tense and unbearably claustrophobic very like a Harold Pinter stage play.

Again, if anyone wants a DVD copy of this please email me and I'm sure we can work something out Regards Adam (whiteflokati@hotmail.com) The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho. I saw the long day's dying when it first came out at the cinema, I thought the film gave a good soldiers point of view, it gave a realistic account, of men at war. The storyline moves at a nice pace, showing a group of men behind enemy lines, and trying to return back to their own lines with an enemy prisoner. The characters are well developed, and believable.

David Hemmings is a good actor and plays the leading role with conviction, as does Alan Dobie (as German Helmut) I was surprised, that i have been unable to find this film on VHS or DVD, and I feel it has become the forgotten film, which is sad , as it is superior to many other war films I have seen. This is not a movie you watch for entertainment, at least most people I know would not.

It's portraits the cruelty to both body and mind that happen in a war pretty well, the characters seem plausible, especially because you "read their minds", something more often found in books and rarely in movies, however done very well in this piece. I would place it next to "All quiet on the western front" and "Die Brücke" in terms of leaving a lasting impression.

I wish I could screen it at school, along with the other two movies - however finding a copy of it showed to be pretty hard - which is a shame.

Superb film with no actual spoken dialogue which enhances the level of suspense. The whole approach gives a completely different twist to a war film.

Well worth watching again if only it could be found. I saw it perhaps 20 or so years ago. - Fantastic! Not sure one can call this an anti-war film, it shows war at an elite level. These are elite troops that know what they are doing and take great pride in it. Even when they are pacifist, they still enjoy the skill level and defeating their foes, even if it does go against being a pacifist. The movies is slow and rather uneventful and in many ways is rather tame as war movies go-more so by todays standards, no body parts flying off as in modern movies. It is brutal in other ways though as you see killing at a personal level. This is more of a thinking man's movie. Once you start to watch you don't want to miss anything. The thoughts of the men in the movie and their interactions, is what the movie is about- not the combat itself or a big exciting storyline. This maybe called a war triller.

If you are into the skill of war, if you are into reading or seeing programs about the SAS and so on, YOU WANT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!

Comparable movies are The Hill (1965) with Sean Connery, 49th Parallel (1941) with an all star cast, The Naked and the Dead (1958) with Cliff Robertson. All are unusual in their way and show war at a personal level. Enjoy! I saw this film prior to joining the British Army. I went through my basic training, at first difficult and then as I progressed much easier. My time was spent during the height of the troubles in NI and the cold war. There was times when I questioned myself on what I had gotten myself into, not for long, as the training would always take over and you would always react instinctively. The voice over used to display what the soldiers are thinking is spot on, though I would have added breathing and heart rate as this seems to pound in your ear drums in given situations. Some years later I was in Canada for a family get together. An Aunty of mine who lives in the USA and is a lecturer at the Columbus Uni Ohio had done a paper on the effects of the British Army in NI. She spent some time out there researching. Although an ex pat she was very anti-British. She made a bee line for me and condemned me for being a British soldier. My only answer was see the film 'A long day's dying'. It's the closest a civilian will get to realise why a soldier does what he does. The answer is right at the end. I have seen this film only the one time about 25 years ago, and to this day I have always told people it is probably the best film I have ever seen. Considering there was no verbal dialogue and only thought dialogue i found the film to be enthralling and I even found myself holding my breath so as not to make any sound. I would highly recomend this film, I wish it was available on DVD. I first read the book, when I was a young teenager, then saw the film late one night. About a year ago I checked it out on IMDb and discovered no copies available. I then hit the web and found a site that offers War Films, soooo glad that I did, ordered a copy and sat back and was able to confirm why I wanted to see it again.

In my opinion to really enjoy the film I suggest you read get a copy of the book and then watch the film. The book is no longer in print but I did track a copy down via E-bay, the Author Alan White was a commando/paratrooper during the 2nd world war taking part in disparate clandestine operations and this was his first book. It is written by someone who knows and this fact I believe gives the book and film authenticity. I have not given the film a ten only because of the nature of the ending of the film, not as good as the book. There are a couple of plot lines that differ from the book also, which is strange as the book is not about the large scale nature of war but about the individual in war. The film illustrates this exceptionally well. I have the copy of the book to let my son read and then the film to let him watch, in that order.

If you can track it down the book and the film then it is definitely worth it and I only wish that it was more readily available for more to read and see, one of my all best war films, ever! It's hard for me to assign the "fair" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliché's. As "entertainment," the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to "entertain." It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more "watchable" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated "The Victors," an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times. When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts. Robert Jannuci,Luca Venantini, Venantino Venantini, Alicia Moro (two stars are from CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD (I wonder what Luca is doing these days, probably a lawyer or something, like Bela Lugosi Jr. or David Hennessey there kid from dark shadows who wants to forget dark shadows existed). Anyway, in the Thorn EMI video there's no music over the opening credits . . . but the music is great once it comes in . . . with the Italian movies the films aren't as good as the music . . . my favorite scene is with the boy with the robot arm following loner-Alien through the desert. Alien says why are you following me. Tommy answers because i feel like it . . . Alien replies which way are you headed Tommy says West then Alien says well, I'm going east. So after a while of walking, the theme playing in the background Alien looks up and sees Tommy sitting on a rock petting a pet hamster . . . tommy looks up and says to Alien, what took you so long . . . I love this movie . . . It touches my heart. The boy with the robot arm needs a daddy and Alien is drafted in to being Tommy's daddy in the desert . . . oh yeah, they need water too . . . not THE ROAD WARRIOR (MAD MAX 2) by any means but a silly western/post nuke movie with a boy with a robot arm and Alien and Trash and a few other good guys with a mean chick with an iron claw and CRAZY BULL who looks like Wez in the Road warrior . . .on Sunday afternoons on channel 57 (philadelphia, PA) after church i'd come home and find this on . . . often . . . too often. Love it. 10/10 This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000! This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living.

Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie.

Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in color. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that.

Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it. This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living.

Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie.

Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in colour. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that.

Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it. A brilliant Russian émigré devises the ‘Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.

What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.

Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.

Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.

Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.

The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed. 1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire. Paul Lukas played a Russian intellectual making his living as a waiter in

"Grand Slam," directed by William Dieterle (1933). It is a surprisingly funny satire of the building up of celebrity. The waiter and the Russian restaurant's hat-check girl played by Loretta Young become America's sweethearts as bridge partners who do no squabble. With the aid of publicist and ghost-writer 'Speed' McCann (the wonderfully deadpan Frank McHugh) they become walking advertisements

for the "Stanislavsky system," a "system" of bidding whatever one feels like

(since bids are not rational, there is no basis for recriminations about their stupidity).

A duel with displaced bridge guru Cedric Van Dorn (sounds close to Goren, no? and I suspect the choice of the character's name "Stanislavsky" was also a slam at another kind of system), a puffed-up charlatan played very well by Ferdinand Gottschalk, is broadcast on radio stations across America like a prize-fight by Roscoe Karns (another great fast-talking deadpan comic actor of the 1930s).

The bridge players are even in a roped-off square, though the audience is

above them, unlike in boxing "rings."

The wide variety of American types prefigures the comedies of Preston Sturges, though for manufacturing celebrity, "Grand Slam" most calls to mind two better movies from the same (pre-Code) era with Lee Tracy playing fast-talking

publicists: "The Half-Naked Truth" and "Bombshell," but "Grand Slam" has its

moments, especially for anyone who has played bridge with serious point

counters.

Loretta Young was already a clothes horse. (To me, her face seems a bit long

and horsey, too. Another era's notion of beauty, I guess...) The movie

unfortunately all but drops Glenda Farrell, who plays McHugh's forgetful

girlfriend. When I found this film in my local videostore I expected it to be another cheesy American vampire film in the same vein of "The Lost Boys"(1987).To my surprise "To Die for" is a really good movie.It's a little bit corny at times,but still there are enough stylish set-pieces and surprises to satisfy vampire enthusiasts.This is a perfect mix of romance and horror and it's surprisingly gory at times.Highly recommended. What a gem of a movie, so good that they made a sequel.

The film starts off really good with a nasty monster who eats a few people and a party where the 2 main characters first set eyes on each other.

Bendan Hughes plays the eccentric Vlad, a bit of an inkling there to who this character is, who has moved into town and uses the services of a particular real estate agent to find him a house.

Hell, we've all seen vampire movies, we know the format.

The movie is watchable, but the actors' performances are very wooden and they seem as they don't want to be in this film, but may be that's just all part of the decadent ambiance.

Didn't like the ending, but there is a sequel, must track it down.

When I watched the film I thought Brendan Hughes didn't really fit the part. Later on, I couldn't stop thinking about him, he sort of exudes an eerie sensuality, so maybe he was right for the part.

BRENDAN HUGHES Last seen in 'Hitler - the rise of evil' as Lt. Guffman.

Where is he now? Small SPOILERS alert !!!

Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the "based on a true story" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.

In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10 To Die For has it all.This film has a great cast. Lots and lots of romance and terror. Not too gory but still enough to appeal to horror fans. There are a lot more vampire love stories. If you are a fan of vampire love stories I strongly recommend this film-10/10. This film is available from David Shepard and Kino on the Before Hollywood There Was Fort Lee, NJ, although that is a shortened version with just the "behind-the-scenes movie sections. I'm not sure if Blackhawk Films only had a film print of these parts, or they edited out the other scenes. The original Blackhawk version was retitled A Movie Romance. The complete feature does survive, but the preprint for this version had some nitrate decomposition, and a couple of sections looked bad, so that may be why Blackhawk's version was edited.

Directed by Maurice Tourneur, the film has Tourneur playing himself, or more likely a caricature of himself. Supposedly, director Emile Chautard and future director Joseph von Sternberg also can be spotted.

Country lass Mary (Doris Kenyon) longs for a romantic man to sweep her off her feet. She dreams of a troubadour that will woo her, but is constantly interrupted by the only available local boy, Johnny Applebloom.

Meanwhile, a film company from New York (actually New Jersey) is filming a western in the countryside. Mary sees an Indian (in full headdress) and raises an alarm -- spoiling a scene that the movie company is filming. She is immediately attracted to the dashing film star Kenneth Driscoll (Robert Warwick). He encourages her to leave her home and try to become an actress in the big city.

When she arrives at the studio, she discovers that everything about the movies is fake. The doors and walls are just flats that are hastily assembled for the set. That lanky walk of the western hero or the happy skip of the heroine are just acting too. The sets are on a big revolving stage, so the angle of the sun can even be manipulated. The black attendant at the studio signs all the movie stars' "autographed" photos. The signs on the wall say "Positively No Smoking", but everybody smokes anyway. Even the titles of the film (which are illustrated nicely) emphasize everything fake about the movie-making life.

Movie star Driscoll is just as disenchanted with the ho-hum of everyday film-making. He makes a temporary split from girlfriend Vivian (June Elvidge) to pursue this "exciting" country girl. His plans are dashed when Mary's screen-test is a stinker. We don't get to see the actual film, but only the audience's pained reactions to it.

Mary is devastated, but she doesn't want to admit to everyone back home that she was a failure, so she continues to see Driscoll and we she has lunch with him in the studio cafeteria along with other extras dressed as policemen, soldiers, cowboys, etc.

Mary decides to stay with Driscoll. At a party with their movie "friends", she agrees to marry him although there is not much love between them. Surprisingly, her mother appears, with a cake especially for Mary's birthday. This causes Mary to re-evaluate her future.

This film has all kinds of fascinating scenes of studios, movie sets, dressing rooms, editing rooms, etc. If you've always wondered what went on behind the scenes when a silent film was being made, this movie peeks behind the curtain. "A Girl's Folly" is a sort of half-comedy, half-mockumentary look at the motion picture business of the mid-1910's. We get a glimpse of life at an early movie studio, where we experience assembly of a set, running through a scene, handling of adoring movie fanatics, even lunch at the commissary. We are also privy to little known cinematic facts - for example, did you know that "Frequently, 'movie' actors do not know the plot of the picture in which they are working"?

The plot of this film in essence is movie star Kenneth Driscoll's discovery and romancing of a budding young starlet whom he discovers while shooting on location in the country. I believe the 30-minute version I watched was abridged, included on the same tape with Cecil B. De Mille's "The Cheat." It is a very credible film - an easy watch with a large cast of extras. As a bonus it includes some of best-illustrated captions I have ever seen accompanying a silent movie. Having previously seen the abridged print presented by David Shepard, I finally got a hold of a complete--or nearer complete version, which was about 56 minutes compared to the 30-minute version more widely distributed. The Shepard print for Image Entertainment is certainly of superior quality, and the best parts are there, but it's nonetheless good to see the rest of the film and fill in some loose story ends.

In the Shepard print, the film ends with Mary stating, "You see, I've changed my mind--I'm never going home." Yet, in the complete version, Mary and Kenneth Driscoll end their relationship soon after that scene – Mary returns home to the country – and Driscoll rekindles his relationship with Vivian. This additional footage develops the character Vivian, who had little relevance in the Shepard version. Moreover, in the complete version, the film begins in the New Jersey countryside with Mary, where she reads and fantasizes about her ideal lover. She's disappointed by the reality of the advances by farm "chore boy" Johnny Applebloom (a character completely absent from the Shepard version), but after her affair with Driscoll, she returns to the country to presumably and eventually become a farmer's wife.

Regardless of the print, 'A Girl's Folly' is a good little film for 1917, made by one of the top directors of the 1910s Maurice Tourneur. In it, Tourneur takes plenty of jabs at his own business, including by playing a caricature of himself--the director of the film-within-the-film. The two leads also give quality performances by early screen-acting standards: Robert Warwick, an actor playing a skirt-chasing star, and Doris Kenyon, as an ingénue aspiring to play an ingénue on the screen.

Self-referential films, which made film-making the focus of the films, were nothing new by now. Mack Sennett had already parodied this type of film three years prior with 'Mabel's Dramatic Career'. Several aspects of this one stand out, though. Frances Marion's intertitles are humorous, including illustrations of the actors on a chessboard with a hand directing them--remarkable for 1917. I especially liked the film's final title cards where two observers remark on the film's happy ending: "Gee but ain't that romantick!" And, the other replies, "Romance, nuthin! – That's movin' pictures!" Fellow female screenwriter Anita Loos made a similar self-referential conclusion to another film from 1917 'Wild and Woolly'. Both writers helped change the role of their professions in the business and art.

Some of the photography by Tourneur and John van den Broek is good, especially concerning the film-making business. The use of mirrors in several scenes is a nice reinforcement of the film's self-reflexivity. Furthermore, the editing is exceptional. The quick crosscutting during the studio scenes is especially salient; it serves to punctuate the hectic pace filmmakers work at, especially back then. I haven't read through all the comments, but at least one poster mentioned that the 30 minute version might possibly be abridged. I'm curious about that myself because the later parts of the film just didn't make much sense to me even when I rewatched them. 30 minutes seems really short for a movie in 1917 also. "Poor Little Rich Girl" which was Tourneur's next film is 65 minutes long and "Pride of the Clan" which was his previous feature was 84 minutes long. So I'm relieved to see that I wasn't crazy, there must be part of this film missing and that's why the resolution didn't make much sense.

It's hard to review or comment on a movie that you're only able to see half of... but I would recommend this film anyway because of the really fascinating view that it provides us of the insides of an East Coast movie studio of the time. It's the earliest film I've personally seen that's based on the movie industry itself. The main character is a movie star played by Robert Warwick, who was later a mainstay Hollywood character actor and appeared in almost all of Preston Sturges' films. He plays a western actor perhaps vaguely modeled on William S. Hart, who Warwick does resemble somewhat. After the really fascinating sequences set in the studio we see them on a location shoot where he discovers a country girl (Doris Kenyon) and convinces her to come to New Jersey for a screen test which goes very poorly. After that point the movie seems to be missing major pieces in the form we have now.

Again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in film history for the documentary value, but in the form we have it doesn't hold up much as a movie and isn't a particularly good example of Maurice Tourneur's work. After the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.

Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.

Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal.

The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints). The usual cat and mouse antics abound until Jerry jumps into a bottle of invisible ink. He gets the bright idea of torturing Tom without him knowing. The cat gets wise and tries to do stuff to make him 'see' jerry even if it's not fool-proof. Of course Jerry gets Butch aka Killer aka Spike the dog into the act (even if it's late in the short, and his contribution is minimal indeed) Brilliant animated short which kind of reminded me of the one with the white mouse who scares Tom so badly. Most of the gags work and all violent as any good tom and jerry short should truly be. This hilarious cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry"

My Grade: B+ "The Invisible Mouse" is a delightful and different Tom & Jerry's cartoon. It features the usual cat/mouse chases and battles, but in a different way this time. Jerry accidentally falls in a bottle of invisible ink and is obviously very glad about this because he realizes that he can prepare lots of "surprises" for Tom, scare him, torment him and confuse him.

As much as it is weird, it's also very cool and funny to see what we can't see: Jerry invisible. It's amusing to see things lifting up in the air without seeing who's doing it (we know who, right?) - it's like those things had a life of their own or even almost like a matter of ghosts. It's equally amusing to see Jerry eating some candies and fruits while he's invisible. I really like that instrumental music which plays when he's not visible.

Some of the best jokes on this short are when Tom sees Jerry's shadow and slams him and even when Tom tries to slam him with a frying pan and Jerry writes "Missed me". I also like when Jerry drinks Tom's chocolate milk, becoming visible again and with a happy look on his face.

Overall, this short has the basic ingredients needed for a classic cartoon: humor, entertainment, fun and some nice artwork too. The cat and mouse are involved in the usual chases when Jerry dives into a bottle of invisible ink and discovers that it makes him vanish. Instead of seizing the opportunity to go spy on a girl mouse changing room or something, he uses his new-found invisibility to torment Tom. And it's pretty funny and quite inventive despite being a somewhat one-joke cartoon. And the action never leaves the interior of the house, which is usually the trait of below average T&J shorts. Still worth a 7/10.

However, I'm not sure how an invisible mouse can cast a shadow on the wall, it defies physics and the very nature of being invisible itself. The undoubted highlight of this movie is Peter O'Toole's performance. In turn wildly comical and terribly terribly tragic. Does anybody do it better than O'Toole? I don't think so. What a great face that man has!

The story is an odd one and quite disturbing and emotionally intense in parts (especially toward the end) but it is also oddly touching and does succeed on many levels. However, I felt the film basically revolved around Peter O'Toole's luminous performance and I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much if he hadn't been in it. Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.

The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances.

Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.

I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name "Brotherly love". "Country dance" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact. After all these years, of Peter O'Tool's brilliant, costly giving of his Soul, film after film, at last, Hollywood tosses him an Oscar recently.

Country Dance showed up one night late, and of course, blew me out of my complainant niche in my alleged "Life". How does he do it?

York again also is brilliant in this kind of play. Both psychological battleships loaded for bear....

Bravo to author, director, cast, and camera crew. No wonder the Nazi's lost to these Irish, Scot, English blends....brutal honesty hurts...back in the 70's, when I personally believed "honesty" was pure and absolutely vital to trust. I have modified my edgy extremes, and will settle for more human, warm flaws within myself and others.

Forgiveness allows humanity to have a reverse gear, and allows us to fix our own bull headed egos and erotic mistakes.... When DEATHTRAP was first released, the poster--reproduced on the cover of this DVD--offered a graphic akin to a Rubik's Cube. It is an appropriate image: originally written for the stage by Ira Levin, who authored such memorable works as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE STEPFORD WIVES, the play was one of Broadway's most famous twisters, and under Sidney Lumet's direction it translates to the screen extremely well.

DEATHTRAP is one of those films that it is very difficult to discuss, for to do so in any detail gives away the very plot for which it is famous. But the opening premise is extremely clever: Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is the famous author of mystery plays, but these days he seems to have lost his touch. After a particularly brutal opening night, an old student named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) sends him a script for a play he has written. It is called "Deathtrap," and Sidney recognizes it as a surefire hit. Just the sort of hit that would revive his career... indeed, a hit to die for. And when Clifford visits to discuss the play, events suddenly begin to twist in the most unexpected manner possible.

Like Anthony Shaffer's equally twisty SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP is really a story more at home on the stage than the screen--to reach full power it needs the immediacy that a live performance offers. Still, under the expert guidance of director Sidney Lumet, it makes a more-than-respectable showing on the screen. Much of this is due to the cast, which is remarkably fine. Michael Caine gives a truly brilliant performance, Dyan Cannon is funny and endearing as Sidney's relentlessly anxious wife, and Christopher Reeve gives what might be the single finest performance in his regrettably short acting career. If you can't see it in a first-rate theatrical production, this will more than do until one comes along.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.

I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.

It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.

Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.

I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a "Michael Caine phase" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible.

As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its "memorable quotes" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).

It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.

Repeat viewings are a must.

And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.

I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: "I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever." Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair.

Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.

My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash. Every time you think you have a handle on Deathtrap, another plot twist comes along. Best to just sit back and enjoy the ride on this one. Most noted for its on screen kiss between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve (which was unfortunately cut from the televised version I saw), this movie has a great deal more to recommend it.

Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is a very unhappy man. Once a successful playwright, his last several plays on Broadway have flopped. And while his wife Myra (Dyan Cannon) is nothing but supportive, in both the monetary and emotional sense, this does little to make Sidney feel any better. To add insult to injury, young playwright, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), has just sent Sidney a play to look at. It's Anderson's first, and Sidney can see that the young man is a gifted writer. He jokes to his wife that he should invite Anderson over, kill him, and submit the play as his own. She laughs with him at first, but when Sidney actually invites Anderson over for dinner, she worries that he may really be putting his scheme into action. And her fears just may be justified...

It's a brilliant script. There are twists and turns all through the plot, and they come faster and more furious as you get closer to the end. It's the kind of film that has you on the edge of your seat from the beginning, and keeps you there the entire time. An absolute masterpiece of suspense and mystery.

The acting is excellent. Caine gives his usual excellent performance, and he does exhibit a knack for playing cultured, refined, and intellectual men. Reeve also gives an excellent rendering of a man who isn't nearly as wide eyed or innocent as he seems. Cannon's franticness works well for Myra. And Irene Worth gives a nice performance as a nosy neighbor who is also a psychic.

This is a film with an ending you'd never expect, and repeated watchings help to pick up on things missed in earlier viewings. An unsung classic that is unfortunately only remembered for a scene which ruffled some sensibilities at the time - and that is a real shame. Nothing's more enjoyable for me than a who-dun-it or suspense tale that keeps you guessing throughout as to how the whole thing will end. And that's precisely what happens in DEATHTRAP, based on a chilling play by Ira Levin ("Rosemary's Baby").

And in it, MICHAEL CAINE and CHRISTOPHER REEVE get to do the kind of stunt that Caine and Laurence Olivier pulled off in SLEUTH--with just about as much skill and as many puzzles as ever existed in that extraordinarily clever play.

But because it's meant to scare you, surprise you, and keep you guessing as to the outcome, it's difficult to write a review about the plot. Let's just say that what we know in the beginning is all you have to know about the film for the present. MICHAEL CAINE is an insanely jealous playwright whose latest play has failed miserably. When a young aspiring writer CHRISTOPHER REEVE sends him the manuscript of his play, Caine realizes that passing it off as his own would solve all his problems and get his reputation back.

From that point on, it's a matter of fun and games for the audience as Ira Levin's story unwinds, managing to trump Agatha Christie for the number of twists.

Caine and Reeve play off each other brilliantly, each bringing a certain dynamic tension to the tale as well as some humorous touches that come from a script that laces drama with humor.

Summing up: Well worth seeing--but not everyone is pleased with the ending. Unlike Tinseltown's version of HELLO, DOLLY!, Jay Presson Allen's screen adaptation of Ira Levin's hit Broadway thriller couldn't wait for it's stage incarnation to shutter before putting it up on the silver screen, so producers wisely decided to make the most of it's lengthy White Way run! The film's opening and closing scenes are shot inside New York's intimate Music Box Theater where DEATHTRAP played for nearly five years. Even the film's final fadeout on the theatre marquee is a version of the stageplay's famous logo. (Although marketeers decided to go with a more fun Rubik's Cube icon for the movie.)

Now on a low-priced DVD release, DEATHTRAP seems just as fresh and inventinve as ever. The cast is just right (better than their stage counterparts) and location scouts should be applauded for finding a suitably spooky house for our "one room, two act thriller" to take place in. Opened up in surprisingly simple and innovative ways, director Sidney Lumet wisely tags any "new" material onto the beginning and end of the film and leaves Levin's wickedly twisty center alone.

The film's last scene is a major Hollywood departure from the boards, and slightly undermines one of Levin's plot points from earlier in the film [Helga (about a dagger): "Will be used by another woman BECAUSE of play."]. Like Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, however, our new finale helps the film fold in on itself once again and blurs the lines between stage, screen, and (could it be?) real life! Deathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit.

Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: "What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?"

Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies.

Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD. Stage adaptations often have a major fault. They often come out looking like a film camera was simply placed on the stage (Such as "Night Mother"). Sidney Lumet's direction keeps the film alive, which is especially difficult since the picture offered him no real challenge. Still, it's nice to look at for what it is. The chemistry between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve is quite brilliant. The dynamics of their relationship are surprising. Caine is fantastic as always, and Reeve gets one of his few chances to really act.

I confess that I've never seen Ira Levin's play, but I hear that Jay Presson Allen's adaptation is faithful. The script is incredibly convoluted, and keeps you guessing. "Deathtrap" is an enormously entertaining film, and is recommended for nearly all fans of stage and screen.

7.4 out of 10 No one better spoil this piece of work! Awesome movie! Written expertly by the likes of Ira Levin and depicted with the best performance of Christopher Reeve's career and one of Caine's very best, this is simply excellent. I wish I could catch a staged version somewhere...maybe someday I will. I hope this grossly underrated, overlooked film has not become too difficult to locate because it a 'must' for any Hitchcockian, Agatha-phile or lover of great film. One of very few movies I couldn't instantly solve or predict and worth a second or even third viewing, "Deathtrap" gets a 9/10 and earns every iota of it. We need and deserve more movies like this! FULL OF SPOILERS.

This is a pretty fast and enjoyable crime thriller based on Ira Levin's play about two gay playwrights (Caine and Reeve) that plot the murder of one's rich wife (Cannon) to get the property and the insurance. The plot succeeds but Christopher Reeve as the younger and less established of the two writers decides to make a play out of the actual murder -- with only slight changes in the details. Reeve allows that Easthampton, Long Island, can become Southampton, Long Island, in the script, for instance. The rest of the play's plot is a dead giveaway and to tell the truth Reeve doesn't mind a little gossip or even an inquiry into Cannon's apparently accidental death. It will boost the revenues and his own Warhol quotient.

Michael Caine is Sidney Bruhl, the megabucks-making playwright whose last four productions bombed and who would like nothing more than to quietly get back to working on a new play, perhaps with Reeve's input, that would redeem his reputation. He cannot permit Reeve's scandalous play-a-clef to be produced. So -- what else? -- he tries to murder him. In the end they wind up killing one another, the manuscript is appropriated by their neighbor, the psychic Helga Tensdoorp, and she makes a million bucks selling it to Broadway.

It's a lot of fun for a number of reasons. One is the production design. That multi-roomed, multi-storied house with the big windmill atop, situated on nine of what must be the most valuable acres on earth (Easthampton!) would be a splendid set of digs anywhere. You wouldn't be able to afford a pup tent in Easthamptom. The house is not overly large or baroque in its decor. It's just magnificently modest, although it's a little tidy for my tastes, the kind of house that's so clean you're afraid to step on the thick carpet for fear of leaving the imprint of a foot.

Next, the acting could hardly be improved upon. Caine, Cannon, and Fred Jones are superb. Dyan Cannon gives a pitch-perfect performance as the anxious wife whose slacks are so tight they look as if they'd been sprayed on, which is okay given her assets. Even Reeve, whose talent was limited, seems to find a comfortable niche in his role of affable but psychopathic murderer. Irene Worth, as the psychic neighbor Helga, was in some way hard to define, a mistake. Granted she -- or someone like her -- was necessary to the plot, but, my God, what an offensive snoop her character is, going around and claiming, "I feel pain in zis woom!" I suppose in order to make her a little more interesting, she's got up in sweats and a goofy looking cap with bicycle reflectors on it. Still, she's a nuisance from beginning to end.

You have to love Ira Levin's bitchy dialog. The distraught Caine begs Reeve to tell him why he wrote the tell-all play. "Because it's THERE, Sidney!" says Reeve, and Caine shouts, "That's MOUNTAINS, not PLAYS! Plays aren't there until some ***hole WRITES them!" Great too is Caine's call to the police after his wife drops dead of fright, as planned. He works himself up into a torrent of sobs, barely able to speak, as he reports the incident and implores that an ambulance be sent immediately. When he hangs up, his face assumes its usual placid expression, he blows his nose into his handkerchief, and walks away, all business again.

The climax, though suitably ironic, is confusing and noisy and full of artifice, lacking in the wicked charm that Levin and Lumet brought to the earlier scenes. The score is mostly made up of light-hearted riffs on the harpsichord, neatly fitting into the film.

You'll probably enjoy it. Ira Levin's Deathtrap is one of those mystery films in the tradition of Sleuth that would be very easy to spoil given any real examination of the plot of the film. Therefore I will be brief in saying it concerns a play, one man who is a famous mystery playwright, another man who is a promising writer, the playwright's wife who is much younger and sexier than the role should have been, and one German psychic along for the ride. Director Sidney Lumet, no stranger to film, is quite good for the most part in creating the tension the film needs to motor on. The dialog is quick, fresh, and witty. Michael Caine excels in roles like these. Christopher Reeve is serviceable and actually grows on you the more you see him act. Irene Worth stands out as the funny psychic. How about Dyan Cannon? Love how Lumet packaged her posterior in those real tight-fitting pants and had her wear possibly the snuggest tops around, but she is terribly miscast in this role - a role which should have been given to an older actress and one certainly less seductive. But why quibble with an obvious attempt to bribe its male viewers when nothing will change it now? Deathtrap is funny, sophisticated, witty, and classy. The mystery has some glaring flaws which do detract somewhat, and I was not wholly satisfied with the ending, but watching Caine and Reeve under Lumet's direction with Levin's elevated verbiage was enough to ensnare my interest and keep it captive the entire length of the film. The trick to creating a good, solid mystery story is as much a matter of timing as its about plot contrivances, colorful characters or surprising twists. Anyone who has ever labored in frustration with an un-finishable Sunday New York Times crossword knows that any puzzle that takes too long to solve ceases to be any fun. The best murder mysteries, be they on film or in print, are slight affairs that get to the point, spell out their clues, line up their suspects and, hopefully, zap us with a few surprises; being complicated without being unduly confusing. And they play fair; on second, third and fourth viewings of the clues and red herrings we should be just as pleased to marvel at how well it all comes together as we were at being surprised in the first place. Indeed, good thrillers should get better on repeated viewings as we anticipate the double and triple crosses.

Sidney Lumet's comedy-thriller DEATHTRAP, as derived from Ira Levin's hit Broadway play, is a great example. It moves along at a tidy clip, skillfully juggling its clues, being (almost) totally honest with us (even when it is lying to us) and yet never revealing where it is going (even when it is telling us where it might go). It is less a murder mystery movie in the traditional vane than it is a movie about murder mysteries, derived from a play about playwriting. Rather than going backward -- a murder and then an investigation to explain why everything happened -- DEATHTRAP leads us through the crime(s) step by step, leaving ample room for the unexpected; as the ads advise it is less a "whodunit" than a "who'lldoit."

DEATHTRAP is often compared (unfavorably, oddly enough) to the play and movie versions of SLEUTH, though in reality it has much more in common with SCREAM, the self-mocking essay on teeny-bopper horror flicks. Like that clever film, DEATHTRAP labels itself (a thriller about thrillers), sets it parameters ("a one-set, five character moneymaker") and then proceeds to deconstruct its genre by revealing itself as "the most outlandish and preposterous set of circumstances entertaining enough to persuade an audience to suspend its disbelief."

DEATHTRAP bravely gives us a mystery with only five major characters, two of which are of minimum importance. Henry Jones as a cagey lawyer is on hand mostly for exposition (and to supply us with his penchant for folksy charm) and Irene Worth is all quirks and comic relief as a psychic-cum-sleuth who acts as the nominal detective. That leaves three main characters to be the killer(s) and/or the victim(s): It is a testament to Michael Caine's abilities that as Sidney Bruhl, a down-on-his-luck author of mystery plays, he creates a character who we intrinsically like and trust, even as we recognize immediately that almost everything he says is a lie. As his adoring, if somewhat ditzy wife, Myra, Dyan Canon flirts with being over the top by giving a roller-coaster ride of a performance with a character that by turns seems to be frail or overbearing, crafty or hysterical, timid or bold and uncompromisingly in love with a less than reciprocating Sidney. The third angle of this unexpected triangle is a fledgling playwright named Clifford Anderson played by Christopher Reeve in such a way that we never quite get a handle on just who his character is: enthusiastic preppie wannabe writer, semi-innocent victim or cunningly charming sociopath. As the various character dance around each other, the cleverly dour script adapted by ace scribe Jay Presson Allen manages to be consistently amusing, even as it builds suspense. And even after the final twist (an improvement over the play's finale), it may not be quite clear just who has manipulated who to do what.

Lumet is by no means a master of comedy, so he lets his able cast have free reign to flesh out the characters and they all give sharp, theatrical, yet subtle work, with Reeve being particularly noteworthy. But what Lumet does so well is to work skillfully in tight quarters. As he did brilliantly in 12 ANGRY MEN, he takes a one-set play, and with a minimum of opening up, manages to make what could have been cramped, stagy and stagnant seem endlessly photogenic and spacious. The setting, a country home converted from an old windmill, is relatively small, but as designed by Tony Walton it manages to be both cozy and charming, as well as spooky and treacherous. It is so truly difficult to tell where the studio set and the real country house cross boundaries that to a degree the set becomes a sixth character. And as the scene of the crime, it is a most inviting deathtrap indeed. I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.

I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose!

I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.

Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's great and the acting is brilliant. In the scene in which Michael Caine calls the police in tears and then stops the waterworks the second he finishes the call really displays Caine's brilliance. The twists are a lot of fun. The film is top-notch. New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called "Deathtrap", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford "Cliff" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's "Deathtrap" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.

"The Trap Is Set… For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It."

Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. "Deathtrap" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling "Hello." The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, "even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.

******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth I've bought certain films on disc even though the second rate presentation wasn't an option. A certain company I won't identify here has put out several pan and scan dvds ("Clean and Sober", "Star 80", and this one, to name just three!) of films I don't think anyone wants to see in this compromised format. Some discs give the viewer a choice of 16x9 or full screen and others are just in their theatrical release 1.66:1 ratio.

That off my chest, I'll say "Deathtrap" was a spooky and oddly enough, amusing picture. My only complaints are the tinny score (what IS that f____g instrument that is usually dragged out for films set in 18th century France?) and Dyan Cannon screaming at regular intervals. Couldn't her character have been an asthmatic who grabbed for an inhaler when she was stressed? Minor complaints, both. The benefits of discs include being able to fast forward to get beyond those things which you don't like.

I never saw a staged version of "Deathtrap", so having these folks in the roles sets a great impression of their careers at the time. Before Broadway tickets cost an arm and a leg, the theatre was more affordable to average people. Now, anyone paying less than a king's ransom to get live entertainment probably isn't going to a hit show on the great hyped way.

Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve were both large, virile specimens in the early 80s and that's integral to how we'll react to their profession and overall image here. They're definitely not bookish men who can't fight or will back down from an obstacle. The two are equally great as their criminal stubbornness becomes their ultimate "deathtrap". Playwright Sidney Bruhl (a wonderfully over-the-top Michael Caine) would kill for a hit play. Enter young wonder kid (a solid Reeve) who's just written such a play. Weave into this Bruhl's overly hysterical wife (superbly played by Cannon) and a German psychic (a very funny Irene Worth) and you've got yourself a wonderfully funny suspense flick.

While not up to "Sleuth" standards, "Deathtrap" is none the less a very capable, twist filled comical suspense ride based on a terrific play by Ira Levin. The performers are obviously having a field day with the material, with Caine in particular delivering top notch lines with gusto.

The film loses a bit of steam midway through and the ending is a lot less satisfying than the hilarious one in the original play but overall "Deathtrap" is solid, well acted and suspenseful fun. I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.

Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better. Excellent plot within a plot within a plot. Shame about two of my film heroes having a good snog. Must be my upbringing:)

Very well acted by all. You never quite know who's going to out-do who. The last little twist at the end allows for all to get their just deserts.

Recommend to all. A harmless, tongue in cheek thriller which if it has any faults is probably Michael Caine's over-use of the word "bloody", but that's his signature, isn't it.

9/10 Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from "exhaling cheeseburgers" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been. If you are looking for a sonic-boom-special-effects monster, click the BACK button on your browser.

Deathtrap was written by Ira Levin (Sliver, The Stepford Wives, Rosemary's Baby). It's a stage play, adapted for the screen. 95% of the movie takes place in the gorgeous home of playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine). He's the author of a fabulously successful Broadway play, but his last 4 efforts have flopped - horribly.

An aspiring playwright, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), who attended a play-writing workshop given by Sydney, has sent him a copy of the play he has written. Sydney tells his wife, Myra (Dyan Cannon) the play is fabulous - a sure-fire hit. But is it good enough to die for? Time will tell.

Clever dialog and numerous twists and turns in the plot keep this movie entertaining from beginning to end. The whole cast seems to have a good time. It's reminiscent of another fun Michael Caine mystery: Sleuth. Worth watching.

This film has very tight and well planned dialogue, acting and choreography.

Recommended film for anyone who wants to see masterful writing and plot.

Question: Does anyone know where the house is actually located? It is one of the most interesting houses, a 19thC windmill. Long before "Brokeback Mountain" (about 23 years before), "Deathtrap" was the first time I ever saw two men passionately kissing on screen, and frankly, I was shocked. I understood it in terms of the plot, and it didn't really upset my sensibilities (not much), but it was the first time I ever saw it, at least, in a "mainstream" movie. I thought it was a gutsy move for its time, and took courage for them to try it, especially Christopher Reeve, in the midst of his time as PG-rated Superman. Male bisexuality on screen may have hit its stride with "Brokeback," but it's interesting to note this much-earlier incarnation. Very good dramatic comedy about a playwright trying to figure out how to keep his head above water after running out of ideas. Can't say much about this film without giving away the story. I can say that little was as it seems as you are watching the picture. Everybody has his or her own agenda. Nice little surprise at the end - after all the other surprises. Well written with good performances by all. Deathtrap gives you a twist at every turn, every single turn, in fact its biggest problem is that there are so many twists that you never really get oriented in the film, and it often doesn't make any sense, although they do usually catch you by surprise. The story is very good, except for the fact that it has so many twists. The screenplay is very good with great dialogue and characters, but you can't catch all the development because of the twists. The performances particularly by Caine are amazing. The direction is very good, Sidney Lumet can direct. The visual effects are fair, but than again most are actually in a play and are fake. Twists way to much, but still works and is worth watching. Playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) has had a series of flop plays after a huge hit. He receives a play written by a student of his, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) which is fantastic. It's so good Sidney says he would kill for it. Will he?

A thinking man's thriller. It was originally a play...and it shows. It's mostly on one set and all talk but I was never bored. It's very well-written with plenty of twists and a good cast working full force. Caine is just great as Bruhl--another one of his great performances. Reeve is, surprisingly, very good. I never thought much of him as an actor, but he's really good in this role. Dyan Cannon does wonders with an underwritten role as Bruhls' wife. Irene Worth is also good (and quite funny) as Helga ten Drop, a psychic. However, her accent did get on my nerves. Director Sidney Lumet does very well with his one set. The camera is always moving and keeps your attention going.

EXTREME SPOILER DEAD AHEAD!!!!! My only complaint is that two gay characters in this movie turn out to be raging sociopaths and it also contains one of the most unromantic kisses I've ever seen--but these are mild complaints.

A very good thriller. Critics hate this movie (for some reason) and it seems to have completely disappeared since it premiered in 1982. That's too bad--it deserves better. This is a really good film and one that I've enjoyed watching several times. Michael Caine's awesome as always. Michael Caine has received kind of a reputation for taking any role in any movie no matter what the quality or lack of same but he does a good turn in playing Sidney. From the start it's so well written. Who would have thought that Ira Levin who wrote such creepy stuff as The Boys from Brazil and Rosemary's Baby could write something this witty. Let's face it - Michael Caine, Chris Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Henry Jones... how are you going to go wrong with a cast this good directed by Sidney Lumet.

I'm really reticent to go on because if anyone were to give away anything about this film it would be a crime. Just watch it and adore it. There have been several films about Zorro, some even made in Europe, e.g. Alain Delon. This role has also been played by outstanding actors, such as Tyrone Power and Anthony Hopkins, but to me the best of all times has always been Reed Hadley. This serial gives you the opportunity to see an interesting western, where you will only discover the real villain, Don del Oro, at its end. The serial also has good performance of various actors of movies B like Ed Cobb, ex- Tarzan Jim Pierce, C. Montague Shaw, eternal villains like John Merton and Charles King, and a very good performance of Hadley as Zorro. He was quick, smart, used well his whip and sword, and his voice was the best for any Zorro. As serials go "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is one of the best action serials of the 1930s. Made in a period when the studios could still field a large cast, this one has wall to wall action throughout its 12 chapters.

In 1824 the President of the newly formed Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez (Carleton Young) is trying to put his new country on a solid financial footing. To that end, he has arranged to have rich gold shipments forwarded to the capitol from the local San Mendolita mine.

Members of the local council plot to steal the shipments on behalf of Don-del-Oro a gold armored god, who with the aid of the local Yaqui tribe, hopes to install himself as the ruler of Mexico. Opposing him is Don Francisco (Guy D'Ennery) who forms a legion of locals to aid Juarez. When Don Franciso is murdered by Don-del-Oro's men, a stranger, the fopish Don Diego (Reed Hadley) arrives in town. Diego aka Zorro takes over the legion with the help of his friends Ramon (William Corson) and Juan (Budd Buster). The token heroine of the piece is Ramon's sister Volita (Sheila D'Arcy).

Both Diego and Ramon hold seats on the local ruling Counsil. It soon becomes apparent that some of the other members of the Council are in league with Don-del-Oro. First there is the Chairman of the Council (Leander de Cordova), the head of the militia Manuel (John Merton), Chief Justice Pablo (C. Montague Shaw) and Gonzolez (Edmund Cobb). Zorro suspects that one of these men is Don-del-Oro, but which one?

What follows are several hair raising escapes by Zorro and his confederates from the followers of Don-del-Oro. We have the ever present collapsing rope bridge, the deep chasm between two cliffs over which only Zorro can jump to safety, and the usual assortment of explosions, fires and coaches and wagons crashing or going over the cliff. Hats off here to Republic's fine team of stunt men lead by the legendary Yakima Canutt and the Yrigoyens, Bill and Joe. Canutt performs his signature stunt jumping on a team of runaway horses and then falling beneath the coach which he repeated in other films including John Ford's "Stagecoach" the same year.

Anyway, Zorro finally unmasks the false god Don-del-Oro and restores peace to the valley before riding off into the sunset in Chapter 12.

Others in the cast include Jim Pierce, Curley Dresden and Charlie King as Don-del-Oro's hence men and if you look closely you may spot bits by future serial star and Lone Ranger Clayton Moore and stuntman Canutt in bits. "Big" Jim Pierce by the way, may be best remembered for playing Tarzan in 1927's "Tarzan and the Golden Liom" (1927) and for his marriage to Joan Burroughs the daughter of Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Thoroughly enjoyable. I loved this exiting republic serial! The story was one of the best I have ever seen! Even tough, the picture quality was not of the best, but OK. The fencing in this serial is also a bit bad, but not terrible. They only should have practised some more. As I said the story is GREAT! You're just sitting there and waiting to find out who Don Del Oro is! The theme music is excellent! It's the same guy who maid the music for Walt Disney's version of Zorro, who maid the Fightin Legion music. Costumes and buildings are very good. Zorro is really cool and so are the legioners! I highly recommend this serial. Buy it!

I love that Reed Hadley plays Zorro! He is funny, smart and brave! Mark: 6. I rank this the best of the Zorro chapterplays.The exciting musical score adds punch to an exciting screen play.There is an excellent supporting cast and mystery villain that will keep you guessing until the final chapter.Reed Hadley does a fine job as Don Diego and his alter ego Zorro.Last,but certainly not least,is the great directing team of Whitney and English. God! Zorro has been the the subject of about as many movies as Tarzan, and probably had about as many actors in the title role.

This Serial is one of my own personal favourites, and as previously stated,it is one of the Top 5 Sound Serials. Oddly enough, this is one production that came out in that water shed year of 1939.* By the time of this production in '39, Zorro was really well known as a (Pulp) literary and movie character. The film opens up with a little foot note about the History of the Mexico's struggle for freedom from rule by a European Monarchy, namely Spain. The story invites comparison with the American Revolutionary War.

The story concentrates its attention to the mythical Province of San Mendelito and its 'Council'. It is being addressed by Benito Juarez**on their gold mine's relation to the new Republic of Mexico. Gold shipments must get thru to Mexico City.

Don Francisco Uncle to Diego Vega, states that he has organized a group of patriots to act as a protective force for the gold convoys.A thug from the Don del Oro mob, stages an 'insult' to himself and challenges Don Francisco to a duel with swords, Don Frasncisco getting run through.

Suddenly the dark clad masked swordsman appears to sword fight and after carving the trademark 'Z' on the face of the bad guy, he dispatches him to the hereafter. Don Francisco declares with his dying breath to his ward Ramon (William Corson) that Zorro is his nephew from the city of Los Angeles. He also attempts to tell of the true identity of Don del Oro, but expires before completing statement.

There is a big reception for Diego at Don Francisco's Hacienda, where Diego disappoints Ramon'sister (also ward of Don Francisco) with his timid act. "A FOP!!", she declares.

Later,Diego and Ramon slip away to join up with a meeting of the volunteers. When they ask, "who will lead us with Don Francisco now dead?", Ramon declares "Zorro, we are Zorro's Fighting Legion!" Well there is a big battle with the Legion, now all clad on gray, with masks and capes, protecting the Gold Train. Then Zorro seems trapped at a man-made avalanche intended for the convoy, when, well, you know cliffhanger end of Chapter One.

Wow! That was a lot of writing for one Chapter, but like most other Serials, the opening one is longer and has a lot of ground to be laid to set up the story line. Let's just let it suffice to say that there are 11 more good, well made, action filled Chapters following.

ZORRO's FIGHTING LEGION has all of the elements that made for top cliffhanger action. We have an unknown evil leader who is fomenting trouble between different groups. There is a number of suspects as to who was really behind of the mask of 'Don del Oro'. We had soldiers, renegade Whites, hostile Indians and the Legion.

In short, it's safe to say that there is everything one could want, and then some, in this Serial. And, incidentally, they wisely choose to not have the actors affect any Mexican accents.

As to just what is there here that makes ZFL stand out from the rest? What makes it different or unique? Well........

First of all, it has a much more elaborate and exciting musical score playing and underlining the drama and action on the screen. The opening theme even appears in a flamenco guitar rendition at the Cantina in Chapter One. This is probably the only time that such a highly specialized innovation appears in serial sound track.

And yet there is one more feature that really sets the Fighting Legion saga out in front from all others. That is, the film not only has a heroic musical theme, but it also sports Lyrics, yes, the Legionairres sing! We hear them singing in the opening credits and in several Chapters! It really works well and adds to the feelings we get from the viewing.

When the Serial was first shown on our local television (circa 1955), all of the gang immediately recognized the voice of Reed Hadley as belonging to 'Captain Braddock from RACKET SQUAD, the TV Series. Mr. Hadley had a very distinctive, deep voice.*** He also handled the role very well. His costume and especially the elongated mask looked very good and was probably very functional.

There is a small slip up. A sort of minor anachronism occurs by having Benito Juarez(Carleton Young)addressing the San Mendelito Council, as Juarez was about 18 years old at this time (1824) and, though he was later perhaps the greatest single figure in Mexico's History, he surely hadn't achieved such prominence yet. His inclusion in story probably was to cash in on the release of Warner Brothers' JUAREZ that year, which starred Paul Muni in the title role.

This is not only my pick as a top 5 sound serial, but also my favourite Zorro film.

* We are reminded of the great crop of top flight movies that year, what with GONE WITH THE WIND, MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, THE CITADEL, JUAREZ, THE WIZARD OF OZ, OF MICE AND MEN, ONE MILLION B.C.,ZENOBIA, WE WANT OUR MUMMY all counted among the output that year.

** Once again, Juarez did not ascend to any national importance until around 1850, about 25 years later. Also, the political sub-divisions are referred to as 'Provinces' in the story. In actuality, they are called 'States'. Just as we are called the United States of America, so too,South of the Border they call their Repubhlic the United States of Mexico.

*** Reed Hadley was prominent in some very 'A' pictures in which his richly toned voice is exploited to good effect. Watch & listen for his narration in THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET (1945) and GUADALCANAL DIARY (1945). If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt.

***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since.

Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers "Z" goods! Reed Hadley makes a better foppish Don Diego than he does a dashing and daring Zorro, but that's almost beside the point because this serial features the bar-none best theme song of any serial, ever -- and the best version of Yakima Canutt's famous stagecoach stunt. There are other good stunts, and lots of action, and plenty of hair-raising cliff-hanger chapter endings, but if for no other reason, you must see this film to watch the stagecoach stunt, then re-watch it in slow motion. It is incredible, and, despite the lower budget for this chapter play, Yak turns in a better take on the stunt here than he did in the far more celebrated film "Stagecoach." Indiana Jones, eat your heart out: This is the real deal! Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended. My very favorite character in films, but in nearly all of them the character of Zorro has a small bit of cloth as a mask and if the villain`s can`t tell who is under that cloth then they are daft.

But in Reed Hadley`s "Zorro`s Fighting Legion" (serial 1939) the mask fills his whole face making it a real mystery as to who Zorro really is.

But anyway Zorro is one of the best character`s in films and to bring it up to date l think Anthony Hopkins in "The Mask of Zorro" (1998) is a delight.

My interest in films is vast, but l have a real liking for the serial`s of the 30s/40s....

Bond2a Along with "King of the Rocket Men", this was still being repeated on BBC TV in the early to mid eighties. If I was loading up a time capsule of this period both these series would definitely go in.

Someone watching it for the first time will think it is silly but this is one of the best examples of the "Serials". Don Del Oro will make you laugh (When I was little my nickname for him was Mr Dustbin head) and it was funny upon being shot at he says "Your bullets can't harm me" then he stumbles back, seemingly less than happy. I also like the way he dispenses with Sebastian in the first episode.

I watched this again because I had good memories of it from years back, there are some good stunts and good music, it has the ingredients you expect including water,rockfalls,runaway carts... Apart from the first episode(with Ralph Faulkner)the swordplay wasn't nearly as good as I remembered it, and yes it features the inevitable "flashback" episode! It gets 8 out of 10 because it still suffers from slow pace, padding and the other tricks. If you are interested in these serials I recommend the book by William Witney, "In a Door, Into a Fight, Out a Door, Into a Chase" although there is only a small entry about this series in it. Serials were short subjects originally shown in theaters in conjunction with a feature film that were related to pulp magazine serialized fiction. Known as "chapter plays," they were extended motion pictures broken into a number of segments called "chapters" or "episodes." Each chapter would be screened at the same theater for one week. The serial would end with a cliffhanger, as the hero and heroine would find themselves in the latest perilous situation from which there could be no escape.

The audience would have to return the next week to find out how the hero and heroine would escape and battle the villain once again. Serials were especially popular with children, and for many children in the first half of the 20th century, a typical Saturday at the movies included a chapter of at least one serial, along with animated cartoons, newsreels, and two feature films.

The golden age for serials was 1936-1945. This was one of the best of the era.

Zorro has been seen in many films, but Reed Hadley ("Racket Squad", The Undying Brain) was excellent in the role.

The action is constant, and we are led chapter by chapter to the ultimate end where we find out the identity of the evildoer.

Zorro triumphs, as he always does. There have been a lot of Zorro films made over the decades, but it's a shame that one of the best is probably one of the least seen.

Zorro's Fighting Legion is a bit different from other Zorro films. First off, it's a Republic serial in 12 chapters. And this time, Zorro is not played by a top studio star like Douglas Fairbanks, Tyrone Power or Antonio Banderas but instead by workman-like actor Reed Hadley. While Hadley does not cast as strong a presence over the proceedings as those other, he does an adequate job, helped by the fact that he is not the sole hero here; as the title implies, he has a fighting legion to call upon.

Another big difference is that the setting isn't California. The story here take place in central Mexico in 1824 where a man posing as a living god incites the indigenous Indian population and a band of outlaws to aid him in his plan to overthrow the newly established Mexican Republic. Something, Zorro, and a handful of followers plan to do anything they can to stop.

Don't get me wrong, there is at least one incredibly cheesy moment per episode, from corny "twang" bow sound effects to ludicrous acting. But overall, this represents one of the best Republic serials of all time, and probably the best Zorro one.

The plot is stronger than most serials and never becomes incomprehensible or meandering., and there's lots of great action - fans of the Indiana Jones movies will notice MANY bits borrowed from this serial. Sitting on the front porch of his Burbank home, Ted Mapes told me that he and Reed Hadley wore the exact same size in every item of clothing except hat.

Ted, one of the greatest of the stunt men, said that every time Zorro put on his mask, he was the one on the screen.

That was a little bit of an exaggeration: There were times that Zorro was obviously Reed Hadley, but in the stunts we can be satisfied it was Ted at work.

And what stunts! "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is, as witness the comments here, one of the greatest of serials. It is exciting and generally very well made.

Reed Hadley was a fine actor, and, as someone else commented, he made a very good fop.

But, admittedly, it is the action that makes this movie so great.

And what else could we expect, with direction by that excellent team, Witney and English, with great music from the amazingly prolific William Lava (the listing here says he was uncredited, but that is incorrect; those other composers listed here were indeed uncredited, and I don't know if they did write any of the music -- it sounds like Lava), and with villainy from, among others, the great Charles King, and with dozens of bit parts?

Also noteworthy was a villain played by the radio Tarzan, Jim Pierce, who was Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law. (I urge you to read his mini-bio.)

There is one chapter that slows things down depressingly, but, heck, it's only a few minutes long (maybe 20) and when you wade through it, well, you're back to the excitement.

Turner Classic Movies deserves a great big THANK YOU for presenting this excellent serial, and we should ask TCM to bring us more.

And we should thank everyone involved that we get to see it as a chapter-play, or serial, and not as a re-cut feature. I absolutely love this show, but I saw the second episode first. After watching the first episode I could see why people were turned off at first. The first episode's humor is not the best, and they struggle to properly start the series. However, I still like the light and humorous attitude of the show. The characters develop much more after the episode and become truly enjoyable characters. As a first episode, it really doesn't accurately represent the rest of the show which is really quite good. The episode is not bad by any means, but as the show progresses it becomes better and better, so watch more episodes before passing any judgement on the quality of the show. This is a perfect series for family viewing. We gather around the TV to watch this on BBC America. It is an up-to-date version of Robin Hood and it appeals to children and adults alike. Our teenager and tween-ager both enjoy sitting with mom and dad and watching Robin's next exploits. We can't wait for the next episode to air each week and are glad for the free "On Demand" viewing.

The wardrobe has a spot of current fashion. There is a moral to each story. It is entertaining. The violence is not over-the-top or needless. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic with a John William's feel to it. It is an old world tale that is brought to life again with a new world flair.

There is so much garbage on television from brain rotting "reality" TV to senseless violence. You should take this for what it is and that is an updated "Robin Hood" not to be compared with the movie exploits of Errol Flynn. This is a gem to be enjoyed by all. Parents that are concerned about their children watching too much violence will enjoy that Robin has lost his taste for war and bloodshed. He is a Robin Hood that would rather attempt to reason his way out of a disagreement than fight. Maid Marian is also an appealing role model for young girls. Rather than stand by and do nothing, she takes her own role in helping the poor by being the "Night Watchman." The Sheriff of Nottingham is deliciously over the top wicked, just as the Sheriff should be and looks like a cross between Billy Joel and Tim Curry. Guy Gisborne is played by an extremely handsome actor, one that makes most women wish he didn't have portray the role of a bad "Guy".

The only question we have is "Where is Friar Tuck?" I thought that for a first episode of a first series it did really well. It was really fun and i thought the actors was brilliant. I think it is a crime for anyone to say that is was bad because it looked the right time. i find it really annoying when people say that it wasn't historically correct because it is supposed to be a Saturday night entertainment show not a boring history documentary so i think the costumes and settings were just right. A brilliant start and i am going to love what will come next!! I have spoken to many people at my school and they love the show! we all think that it is brilliant entertainment and it has great stories to go with it. Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States. Twisted, bizarre, enchanting, and hilarious! I couldn't stop laughing watching this film. Darren Stein presents the movies he made on the family camcorder growing up in Southern California in the 1980's. It's an interesting look at a budding filmmaker and his motivations and ability to manipulate for the camera. Manipulation is a strong word, however don't we all watch movies to be manipulated in some way or another?

From the beginning, I was amused at the fact that the boys in the films seemed to appear shirtless whenever possible. Later, Darren comments about his budding homosexuality, and you can see it from the hints (big hints!) of flamboyance at an early age. Maybe it was just the warm Southern California weather, who knows? As a gay man who also grew up in a nurturing environment, it's great to see that his parents supported and loved him, and that his friends seemed to be entranced with his nascent talent behind the lens.

"Put the Camera On Me" offers a look back to the 80's untouched by commercialism. You'll remember the hair, the music, and the fashions. I'm the same age as Mr. Stein, so the trip back to memory lane was welcome. His solo lip-syncing dance number is priceless, enhanced by the Frankie Goes To Hollywood t-shirt.

The films deal with dark themes at time. Child abuse, the Holocaust, nuclear war, sexual fantasy, and social dysfunction. No childhood is completely carefree, and the way Stein deals with these subjects is interesting to say the least, and hilarious to behold.

Watch at your earliest convenience! it brings to mind the writings of Stephen King and the remembered childhoods filled with terror from stories like IT - as the exact opposite. There is no terror in these childhoods that any of the friends - who are still friends 20 years up the line - remember or seem to suffer from. Up the line all is described as friendly jostling, maybe periodically described as "picking on" one or more of them, but all is forgiven. There is no *angst* embedded as the film and the participants in later life describe the relationships - all we see are young people having grown up to be basically the same persons. More mature, but basically still the same people, and the same power structures.

Totally amazing! Not just for the fact that people can in fact grow up relatively unharmed by social conventions - but also that friendships can in fact last. In this respect this movie is a tiny Pearl - as one assumes this has been the intent of the film: A portrait of unforced emotions binding people together. Which, when seen in opposition to films of later years portraying the dark sides of childhood - the violent inhibitions in Bowling for Combine is what easily springs to mind, but since mid 80'ies along with the growing adoration of children and childhood (accompanied by 1000s of commercials, animations and series directed straight at children) several movies and documentaries have had success with portraying the dark sides of growing up - the abuse, the loneliness, the push to excel - resulting in adults with dark and twisted minds.

And here comes a film, that says: It IS possible to have a happy childhood, look'a'here!

Thank you for that. OR the counterweight illusion ...

8/10 PUT THE CAMERA ON ME is a deceptively cute film. It is actually a complex glimpse at the psychology of children and offers interesting insights into the development of adults and an artist. On the surface this is a nostalgic look at some home movies made in the 80's by a group of upper class neighborhood kids. One of the film's directors, Darren Stein, had access to a video camera and quickly took over as the artistic leader for all of the movies. Sure, these are just some cute kids having fun. But, this is also much more. This is a look into some moments in time as children grapple with a number of confusing issues that all of us face in life --- fear, sexual awakening, unrequited love, loneliness and just trying to make sense of the adult world which seems to explode all around us. As we get older we tend to forget how overwhlelming the realities of life were when we were little.

What makes this film all the more valid is to watch a young Darren Stein turn into a little general of a filmmaker. It is clear that Darren is running this show and these little movies are his vision but they are all informed by his friends, their problems, the interpersonal dynamics and the general confusion regarding the horrors of adult life. A lot of children make home movies, but I've never heard of or seen children create "little" movies about the holocaust, homosexuality, nuclear war and the inability to fit in and make friends. These kids are confronting and dealing with some heavy stuff!

The power of this film is the way Stein and Shell pull various scenes together so tightly with running interviews with the kids --- all now adults and all still friends. This adds a new angle to the film. How many of us have stayed in touch with our childhood friends? These guys have. And, many of the issues with which they were dealing are still running between them two decades later.

Among the conflicts -- a confession of a crush reveals a heart still broken, a very normal childhood sexual experience continues to be a "sticky" subject between two of the men, some ongoing resentments over the dynamics of relationships and there is still a member of this team who remains very much in charge and in center stage! Which makes perfect sense as one watches these home movies progress over the course of a couple of years. Darren Stein is a director. No doubt about it.

Stein and Shell take turns chatting with each other from time to time and one can't help but imagine the awkwardness of allowing us to peek into the young lives of these people. This is particularly true for Stein who has gone on to a great deal of success in the entertainment industry as a film producer, writer and director. From the first moment of PUT THE CAMERA ON ME we can see the emergence of a gay little boy trying to figure it all out. We also see sides of the artistic mind and personality that are not always "nice" or "caring" --- and, this is a bold move for any artist to share with an audience.

There are so many revealing moments, but the most disturbing and complex moments involve a movie in which we see a Jewish concentration camp victim being tortured and killed by a Nazi. We discover thru interviews and narration that the Nazi is played by a Jewish child and the part of the victim is played by a gentile child. It is a painfully disturbing moment that glimpses into the darker side of fear and the way children work thru the horrors of the adult world that are beyond adult understanding much less that of a child.

This is much more than some home movies. This documentary captures the pain, beauty, joy and sadness of growing up. Powerful stuff --- and well worth seeing!

: I was so entertained throughout this insightful documentary, and I waited a good while for this to come through the pipes (my local video chain), and it was worth the wait. I like a good documentary / special interest piece, but this was definitely a heartfelt, honest, and nostalgic, if you will, look back on adolescent life. The imagination of a child is fascinating, and that's where a great story begins. Rent it or buy it if you like a good, humorous, and all around entertaining documentary. Mr. Stein and company have definitely come a long way from neighborhood Video CamCorder productions of bank hold-ups, and gay-rings that turn people gay from one glance. They all seem rather successful in they're respectful fields, and it was good to know that they are all still good friends. The DVD has a few extra trailers for other good documentaries, and it features a number of Darren's most notable productions, including, Crazy News. OK - you want to test somebody on how comfortable they are with their adolescence and the embarrassing and maniacal changes therin - then get their immediate reaction from watching this uproarious doc about kids making socially relevant horror flicks in the suburban 80's. More than any movie I has ever seen, the film deals with burdening sexuality and ego in a way that is completely human, never dull, and flushed in the kind of inherent goodness of youth that is discolored by the fear-frenzied adult world where any quirk in youth is accredited to anything from insanity to perversion. Mini-mogul Darren Stien seems to be reaching for a deeper understanding of his triumphs and misgivings as the patriarch of strict kid's world. What he finds in himself and others isn't always pretty - but shows how one can improve and reconcile with age. What does change mean without reflection. I love this movie. This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous! I drove from Sacramento to San Francisco (and back) to see this movie premiere--and really glad I did. As a big movie fan and a life-long Northern Californian, I was surprised how many Oscar-winning films have been made in the Bay Area. As a fashion designer who really wants to stay in the Bay Area as opposed to going to LA, George Lucas' comments about persistence, community and having a vision really resonated with me.

Hey, if he and all the other filmmakers can make it in SF, so can other artists.

Would recommend this film I just watched the documentary "Fog City Mavericks" on the Starz cable TV network. It is without a doubt, one of my most enjoyable viewing experiences ever! It chronicles the San Francisco Bay area artists and creative talent responsible for the some of the best films ever made. In addition to the well-known artists listed, t also includes segments with Irvin Kershner, Caleb Deschanel and a segment about Pixar Animation Studios. I hope it will be released on DVD-this is a must for any collection about cinema history and brilliant film-making. If you are even remotely interested in movies and the people who create them, you will not be disappointed. Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film.

"Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."

How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.

San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE. Holes is a fable about the past and the way it affects the present lives of at least three people. One of them I will name, the other two are mysteries and will remain so. Holes is a story about Stanley Yelnats IV. He is unlucky in life. Unlucky in fact characterizes the fates of most of the Yelnats men and has been since exploits of Stanley IV's `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' Those particular exploits cursed the family's men to many an ill-fated turn. It is during just such a turn that we meet Stanley IV. He has been accused, falsely, of stealing a pair of baseball shoes, freshly donated to a homeless shelter auction, by a famous baseball player. He is given the option of jail, or he can go to a character building camp. `I've never been to camp before,' says Stanley. With that the Judge enthusiastically sends him off to Camp Green Lake.

Camp Green Lake is an odd place, with an odd philosophy, `If you take a bad boy, make him dig a hole every day in the hot sun, it will turn him into a good boy.' We learn this little pearl of wisdom from Mr. Sir (John Voight) one of the camp's `counselors.' We get the impression right away that he is a dangerous man. He at least wears his attitude honestly; he doesn't think he is nice. The camp's guidance councilor, Mr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) is a different matter entirely. He acts the part of the caring sensitive counselor, but he quick, quicker than anyone else in authority to unleash the most cruel verbal barbs at his charges. The Warden has a decided capacity for meanness, but other than that she is a mystery. These three rule Camp Green Lake, a place that has no lake. It is just a dry dusty desert filled with holes, five feet deep and five feet wide. Its local fauna, seem only to be the vultures, and dangerous poisonous yellow-spotted lizards. Green Lake seems is, in many ways, a haunted place.

Holes works in spite of the strange setting, and the strange story, because it understands people. Specifically because it is honest in the way it deals with the inmates of Camp Green Lake. The movie captures the way boys interact with one another perfectly. It captures the way boys can bully each other, they way they can win admiration, the way they fight with one another, and the way boys ally themselves along the age line. It is this well nuanced core that makes everything else in the film believable. What is also refreshing about this film the good nature of its main character. He does not believe in a family curse, he is not bitter about the infamous exploits of his `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' In fact he loves hearing the story. Stanley IV is not bitter about the past, and determined not let it affect him in the way it has affected his father and grandfather. There is at times a lot of sadness in the film, but not a lot wallowing angsty silliness. And that is refreshing.

Holes is an intelligent, insightful and witty family movie. It entertains, and not in any cheap way. It is not a comedy, though it has its laughs. It dares to be compelling, where many family movies tend to play it safe and conventional. As such it transcends the family movie genera and simply becomes a good film that everyone can enjoy. I give it a 10. HOLES is not your average Disney stuff- it's very, very fun, even for adults who usually cringe at the cutesy, focus-group designed "family entertainment" that Uncle Walt's studio passes off as live-action. Perhaps the secret of this film's success is in its faithfulness to the original book, which is a little bit darker than your average kid stuff. The action begins when Stanley Yelnats is sent to a boys' prison camp, where all the inmates are forced to dig holes under the desert sun as a form of rehibilitation. But as the story progresses, Stanley's tale becomes interwoven with that of a legendary treasure, and this adventure becomes ten times more fun than any Disney movie about an all-boy prison camp has any right to be. Jon Voight is especially nasty and colorful, and Sigourney Weaver is beautiful, as always. Typically, "kids" films have some annoying quality to it that makes it way too sappy and unbearable for someone over 13. But then again, that's before Holes hit the scene. Sure, it has the very same moments that often times give a kids movie its aforementioned quality, but this film does a good job of staying away from such conventions. The acting was decent, and the uneasy dynamics that Stanley had with some of the other campers was more realistic than what most movies seek to portray. What I especially liked about this movie was the fact that this film didn't try to break your heart or make you cry. The emotional power was a little more natural than most would imagine, kind of like The Shawshank Redemption in many ways (which Holes also has a similar, redemptive ending to it). The only down side? The hokey looking lizards. Overall, however, an 8/10. And I'm serious! Truly one of the most fantastic films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. What's so wonderful is that very rarely does a good book turn into a movie that is not only good, but if possible better than the novel it was based on. Perhaps in the case of Lord of the Rings and Trainspotting, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. But I think that the fact that Louis Sachar was involved from the beginning helped masses, so that the film sticks close to the story but takes it even further. This film has many elements that make it what it is:

1. A unique, original story with a good mix of fun and humour, but a mature edge. 2. Brilliant actors. Adults and kids alike, these actors know how to bring the story to life and deliver their lines with enthusiasm and style without going overboard, as sometimes happen with kids movies. 3. Breathtaking scenery. And it doesn't matter if it's real or CGI, the setting in itself is a masterpiece. I especially love the image of the holes from a birds eye view. 4. A talented director who breathes life into the book and turns it into technicolour genius. The transitions in time work well and capture the steady climax from the book, leading up to the twists throughout the film. 5. Louis Sachar! The guy who had me reading a book nonstop from start to finish so that I couldn't put it down. He makes sure that the script sticks to the book, with new bits added in to make it even better. 6. And speaking of the script! The one-liners in this are smart, funny and unpatronising. But there are also parts to make you smile, make you cry, and tug at your heartstrings to make you love this story all the more. 7. Beautiful soundtrack. There's not a song in this film that I haven't fallen for, and that's something considering I'm supposed to be a punk-rocker. The songs link to the story well and add extra jazz to the overall style of the film. If you're going to buy the film, I recommend you buy the soundtrack too, especially for "If Only", which centres around the story and contains the chorus from the book.

I do not work for the people who made Holes, by the way, I'm just a fan, plugging my favourite film and giving it the review it deserves. If you haven't seen it, do it. Now. This very instant. Go! I recently watched the '54 version of this film with Judy, and while i appreciated the story and music, i found that the film failed to hold my attention. I expected the '76 remake to be the same story, except with a Barbra twist. I was pleasantly surprised - it was a much more realistic and modern look at fame, money, love and the price of it all. This version is so much more real than the '54 one, with arguably better music, better acting, a more gripping plot line, and, of course, a deeper love. I do not understand why the previous film is on the American Film Institute's top 100 list, while this gripping remake fails to make a mark on any critic's list. As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.

Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.

The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame "finale" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent.

I saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I grew up in Scottsdale and I went to Arizona State and really enjoyed seeing locations where I spent so much time. I remember at the time thinking that Barbara's venture into more of a rock sound (actually R and B-to my ears) was a successful one. I was never a fan of Kris's singing until his last effort for New West. As a songwriter and an actor, though, he has serious chops, IMHO. I think it is a fine romance. I like it better than the Judy Garland version and never saw Selznick's Janet Gaynor original.

I do believe that they made some changes in this long-awaited DVD release. Among other things, I recall the helicopter shot which reveals a packed Sun Devil Stadium being longer and more dramatic. I wish they had done a better job writing music for Kris or God forbid, put some of his original songs in there.

Along those lines I have some information from a primary source that says that the music was a problem for Kris and Barbara. While doing interviews for my own new music documentary, Rocking the Boat: A Musical Conversation and Journey, I interviewed Stephen Bruton, a fine singer/songwriter/guitarist with close professional and personal ties to Kris, Bonnie Raitt, and Delbert McClinton, among many others. Stephen was in "Speedway," the John Norman character's band. Kris was having a real hard time turning what was essentially a pop score into something that could pass for rock. Stephen was and is Kris's friend and long time band member. There was tension on the set and at one point the band was barking at Kris in Barbara's presence. She remarked to the effect that the band shouldn't talk to him like that. Kris came right back to the effect that they were his friends and they WERE rock and roll! In the end, Barbara came around and decided to use Kris's band's live performances in the movie and specifically sited Stephen's role in making things work. I gained even greater respect for her as an artist upon hearing this story. Much is made of her as a diva. What she is is a pro. And I am not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Although Kris Kristofferson is good in this role, who wouldn't want to see Elvis Pressly instead? With the drug addiction and the fall from supreme fame may have scared away Elvis' agent to be apart of the movie, it was a mistake. This would have been a perfect movie for Elvis. Even though the soundtrack is far from terrific, Paul Williams and Barbra Streisand do a decent job in creating an original soundtrack for this "period" piece / musical. Somewhat of a love story, this is more of a drama about the fall from grace and the gift of redemption. Like is most tragedies, the hero of the story was die. Also, Gary Busey is once again perfect in a not so perfect role. On the basis of the preview I'd seen, I went to "Shower" expecting a sweet little comedy; what I found was a profoundly touching drama of family life told in some of the most lush photographic images I've ever been privileged to see. In addition, later reflection made me appreciate the abrupt cuts to scenes from the past (in the arid countryside of Northern China, and in the high plain of Tibet): isn't this how memory often works? One moment I'm here, the next I'm in a landscape from the past, just like that....

I would not only strongly recommend this film, I would place it among the two or three finest films I've seen in my 60 years.

By the way, a couple of years ago another Asian "comedy" was released in the United States as "Shall We Dance?" (Japanese). Just as with "Shower," the preview gave not the slightest indication of the depth of that film, which turned out to be a subtle psychological study (albeit chock full of funny moments). Is there a fear, on the part of distributors, of making films appear too "important" or "deep" to appeal to U. S. viewers? "Shower" is an story about loyalty, about the unstoppable advance of modern world in the detriment of rather traditional and more human ways of life. A man forced to choose between his successful career in business, his big-city life, his wife, and his retarded young brother. The eternal doubt between what we WANT to do and what we SHOULD do. The modern China versus the ancient one. The public baths with its gatherings, its cricket fights versus the shopping centres and the skyscraper. Lots of old men and women that are no longer needed. China, one country, two systems, as Xiao Ping said ... though one of them is killing the other.

Tender, moving, full of funny moments, and of bitter-sweet ones.The sensitive ones will cry and laugh equally. The actors are enormous, especially the one who performs the role of the retarded boy; and Yang Zhang makes a good job, easy, simple, letting the story just flow by itself.

My rate: 8/10 This beautiful story of an elder son coming home, and learning to love and be a part of all those things that he left home to get away from, is poignant and moving. It shows a society that is perhaps strange to us in the Western world, with a sense of family that we have lost. The story is beautiful, sad, and at times funny and comic. It has a feeling of realism that we don't seem to see any longer in our western movies.

The acting is unusual, in that as the movie progresses, it almost gives the impression that it is not acting, but a documentary of ordinary people. This is brilliant directing and movie making.

Would love to see more movies by this director. This film is moving without being sentimental - meaningful without being pretentious. It tells a simple story of a family in danger of falling apart as the encroachments of technology and an advancing society make the family-run business increasingly untenable.

The acting is wonderful - though none of us in the west are likely to have heard of these actors, we should have long ago - they play their characters with honesty and reverence - these are flawed characters, each with major weaknesses, but with such utter humanity and kindness that it's impossible not to become engaged in the story.

We need more films like this - we need more western filmmakers creating films such as this. How powerful and captivating simple quality filmmaking can be. This film tells it's tale with everyday scenes that manage to revel the poignancy hidden within. It's true as others have stated, how this film really makes it glaringly obvious how lost Hollywood is in it's special effects, overblown emotionalism and over the top climatic endings and have forgotten the essence of a meaningful story told with simple realism. So much of what these characters are going through is implied by the scene rather than spelled out in wordy dialogue. One aspect that I really enjoyed about the film was the contrast of the two brothers, one so very openly expressive in his childlike way and the other completely stoic but both able to evoke deep emotion. The older brother needed to say little, as he usually did, it was all there in that deadpan face of his! Beautiful cinematography, wonderful acting, great direction! Not to be missed! This was a very enjoyable film. A humorous, but poignant look at family, and the obligations that come with it. The story of a man who comes home from his life in the city to his fathers bath house in a small Chinese village. There he learns to appreciate, even cherish the very things he left home to get away from. The film is as visually beautiful as it is emotionally beautiful. Shower keeps within itself in so many ways. Almost all of the movie takes place in an old- time bathhouse, with the denizens supplying the humor, pathos, and emotional touches. The love and friendship between the proprietor and his retarded son is deep and moving. The way the older brother is drawn into this tiny world seems unforced and persuasive. The plot is meandering, full of surprises and ironies, and touched overall by a sense of what I'd have to call neighborliness in the relations and conflicts of the performers. This is a film I pull out when I want to believe in the world again. I LOVE this movie! Beautifully funny and utterly believable characters. Each scene richer and more wonderful than the last. Every aspect of this movie is filled with wit and humour and love and depth. A complex and engrossing story, too. This movie is filled with love, humour, and intelligence. Totally great! The key to the joy and beauty, the pain and sadness of life is our ability to accept that life basically is what it is so we don't constantly struggle against that single compelling truth. In so doing, we find peace. Elegant in its simplicity but so hard for most of us to grasp.

In this film, the director shows us this truth but allows us to discover it in our own way. This is a beautiful yet simple story, more of a fable, which is played very well. Watching the actors is more like being in a room with real people than it is just watching actors.

I struggled with how to write a review of this fine film so others would be motivated to see it. I'm at a loss. The story is about men in a bath house. Sounds like a real turn off, right? But, nothing could be farther from the truth. The American title for this film is The Shower but that is almost an antithesis to a major thematic element in this film, which is the bath. I'm still at a loss. Talking about the story or the characters will not do them justice.

So, I'll just tell you how much I enjoyed watching this movie and how touching and moving the experience was. I was also quite entertained. I cared deeply for the characters and I cared deeply about what happened to them. For any story, that is the highest form of praise.

If you were moved by movies like The King Of Masks or Not One Less, then make sure you see The Shower. Netflix has it and the DVD video and sound quality are excellent. I watched it in the original lanquage with well done and well placed English subs.

I happened on "Shower" in the foreign film section of my local video store and passed it over several times since from its cover it looked like a farce or comedy. I then lucked into a copy to purchase at economical price and am happy for my luck. "Shower" is the story of three(3) men, a father and two(2) adult sons, each coming to terms with life changes as the world around them also continues to change in modern China. As with many "foreign" films, the Chinese culture itself is one of the most interesting facets of this movie.

Beyond the fascinating characteristics of the local, Chinese color giving the setting to this story, is the difficult yet touching relationships between the men and a sole woman involved in the story, all set against the backdrop of a village bathhouse.

The family's story moves from estrangement to understanding and made me glad I came to know these people. Added to the main story are the numerous small characters, bathhouse customers, and their individual conflicts and friendships. "Shower" is a film one walks away from smiling and touched by its warmth and humanity. Expecting to see a "cute little film" from mainland China, I was ill-prepared. Family dynamics, community and the inevitability of change have rarely been explored so expertly on film. Every character is solid and I was completely drawn into the story. The organization is much more complex than American audiences will be accustomed to. Yet, there is no difficulty following the progression, even while reading subtitles. Jiang Wu, as the retarded brother, is a constant shining light. Leave your cynicism in your locker. It will be there when you check out. I had the privilege to see this movie at the Intenational Film Festival of Rotterdam.

'Xizhao' or 'Shower' is a $200.000 lowbudget movie about a father and his 2 sons. The father has a traditional bathhouse somewhere in a traditional Chinese village where local, mostly aged men, come to relax and to go bathing. The father has to sons: a 'retarded' son who lives with him and a son who lives in a big modern city and who comes to visit him. To this son the traditional village, the bathhouse and his 'retarded' brother seem strange and annoying, but this changes along the movie.

Though the story may sound cheesy or cliche, it's not. With really great performances, especially of the father and the 'retarded' son (sorry, I don't know their names) and a great story the movie was touching and funny at the same time.

If you got a chance to see this movie do it. It's a great alternative to mainstream Hollywood cinema.

This movie took me by complete surprise. I watched it 2 or 3 times. I really liked this film. There were many truths this movie brought up. I love all the characters in this film as well. This movie makes a lot of sense because as society "becomes more advance" What does the culture loose? Not to sound preachy. I can really relate to this movie from my child hood and loosing apart of my life that will never come back or ever been the same. This film is on my top 5 movies I have ever watched. There is just such a raw truth that I feel when I watch the movie and its not the kind of truth that you have to dig for its right in front of your face. The creators of this film did a great job and I enjoyed this movie very much. This movie may not be for every one but if you have an open mind I think you will love it. Very different topic treated in this film. A straightforward and simple description of local Chinese customs, by looking at the daily operation of a public bath, run by the old owner and his retarded son, when older son returns home, wrongly believing his father has died. How every man in town makes his daily visit to chat, play games, discuss personal matters and get honest advice, besides the usual spa-like therapies. When old man dies, strong and loyal family ties make older son take charge, so public bath operation is not disrupted. And finally, the arrival of modernization to end this way of spending relaxed hours and getting along. The public bath has to be demolished, making place for a commercial complex to be constructed. This movie is simply wonderful! It's got it all: laughter, sorrow, beauty, poetry, truth. All in a simple yet intense story--like life! You won't get distracted for a second.

10/10

P.S. Somebody tell Hollywood you need a good story to make a good movie, and there are so many good stories out there. Have just seen the Australian premiere of Shower [Xizhao] at the Sydney Film Festival. The program notes said it was - A perfect delight -deftly made, touching, amusing, dramatic and poignantly meaningful. I couldn't agree more. I just hope the rest of the Festival films come up to this standard of entertainment and I look forward to seeing more Chinese films planned to be shown in Sydney in the coming months. Like another reviewer said, this movie is not a heavy melodrama, but it deals with harsh realities. A very very playful movie that does not dwell for a moment. Some very good acting and some wonderful smiles as well. For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell "tearjerker" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it! I found it highly interesting that the film actually managed to bridge the gap between my own american culture and that of the originators, i.e. chinese. It becomes a story about values, and causes the watcher to reevaluate their own choices in life, and loyalties toward institutions. Amazingly enough, it managed to do this in a gentle, mildly humorous manner, which only in retrospect seens threatening to one's status quo. I enjoyed the movie, and would watch it again if I could. This is a great story of family loyalty which, thankfully, doesn't resort to the usual tricks (or at least the ones I'm used to seeing in American and European films) of supersentimentality or high dramatic tension.

It's very watchable and very lovable. It has some beautiful cinematography, but doesn't rely on that alone to entertain. My choice for greatest movie ever used to be Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" which remains superb in my canon. But, it may have been supplanted by "Shower" which is the most artistically Daoist movie I have seen. The way that caring for others is represented by the flowing of water, and the way that water can be made inspiration, and comfort, and cleansing, and etc. is the essence of the Dao. It is possible to argue that the the NOFTH and Shower themes are similar, and that Lillian Gish in the former represents the purest form of Christianity as the operators of the bathhouse represent the purest form of Daoism. I would not in any way argue against such an interpretation. Both movies are visual joys in their integration of idea and image. Yet, Shower presents such an unstylized view of the sacredness of everyday life that I give it the nod. I revere both. Xizao is a rare little movie. It is simple and undemanding, and at the same time so rewarding in emotion and joy. The story is simple, and the theme of old and new clashing is wonderfully introduced in the first scenes. This theme is the essence of the movie, but it would have fallen flat if it wasn't for the magnificent characters and the actors portraying them.

The aging patriarch, Master Liu, is a relic of China's pre-expansion days. He runs a bath house in an old neighbourhood. Every single scene set in the bath house is a source of jelaousy for us stressed out, unhappy people. Not even hardened cynics can find any flaws in this wonderful setting.

Master Liu's mentally handicapped son Er Ming is the second truly powerful character in the movie, coupled with his modern-life brother. The interactions between these three people, and the various visitors to the bath house, are amazingly detailed and heart-felt, with some scenes packing so much emotion it's beyond almost everything seen in movies.

With its regime-critical message, this movie was not only censored, but also given unreasonably small coverage. It could be a coincidence, but when a movie of this caliber is virtually impossible to find, even on the internet(!), you can't help getting suspicious.

So help free speech and the movie world, buy, rent, copy this wonderful movie, and if you happen to own the DVD, if there even is one, then share share share! "Xizao", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.

The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.

The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.

The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.

The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.

Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing "old days were much better" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.

An awesome, and touching film. 8/10 Another outstanding foreign film which thoroughly trounces the never-ending crop of crud emanating from Hollywood! This is a story of life and living. No, definitely not the perfect little life so often depicted in the totally artificial Hollywood movies but rather, the real life complete with real characters each with strengths and weaknesses just like real people in our lives and ourselves.

The dynamics of all of these lives, intertwined within the walls of this bathhouse, and particularly its aged owner, are magnificent, heart touching and highly thought provoking.

Sit back, relax, and be carried away into the simple and beautiful life. There is real wisdom to be learned in this movie if you only open yourself up to it.

You will not be disappointed. Almost the entire film takes place in a public bathhouse in China. There are no fancy sets, explosion or glamorous people--only fine writing, acting and direction (Hollywood, take note!).

An estranged son returns home when he believes his father is dying. He is surprised to see that Dad looks fine and is going about running the family business as usual. In fact, he notices that his father and his retarded brother have really forged a close and caring relationship and it soon becomes obvious that he is out of the loop! Dad is very traditional and this visiting son is from the big city and doesn't really see the value of the old bathhouse. How their relationship changes and where the plot goes from there is exceptional and believable.

I was happy to see that not every Chinese movie is an action picture (such as those starring Jet Li or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), as I don't particularly care for these frenetic films. The Shower as well as Springtime In A Small Town are two wonderful examples of good Chinese films about PEOPLE! This Chinese movie made me feel so many similarities with members of a culture I don't belong and are far from. In an almost Buddhist approach, the film helps one to relate to each character, and to the happiness of doing the simple routine things.

All actors are brilliant, and Xu Hzu exudes kindness and wisdom, yet also vulnerable and mean. Er Min, the retarded brother, shows us that intelligence and wisdom are not equal, and that wisdom comes to and from the most disparate persons in this universe. A different China, this is far from the Chinese realism, yet, it has lots of humanity and realism of a different kind.

Get it. You won't be disappointed. This movie was an impressive one. My first experience with a foreign film, it was neither too long, nor too complex. I myself enjoyed the subtitles; and the plot was surprisingly fresh. The story of an adult son visiting his elderly father and retarded brother after a long separation appeared cliched at first, but it proved to be very touching and realistic. There was also some subtle humor so as not to depress or bore the audience. I like this film a lot. It has a wonderful chemistry between the actors and tells a story that is pretty universal, the story of the prodigal son. The aspect I like the best however was the way that the bath house was more than just a background for the story. As the father told the son the story of his wife's family in the northern deserts of china, the element of water and bathing becomes an almost sacred ritual. Water was so scarce that a simple bath had profound depth and meaning.

Overall the film was very effective. There were moments, however, when it verged on "too" sweet...bordering on cloying during the park recital scene. But overall, I highly recommend this film. This delighted audiences at a number of film festivals, and it is not hard to see why. Director Yang Zhang, with the help of some very nice work by the three principle actors, Xu Zhu as the father, Master Liu; Quanxin Pu as the elder son, Da Ming; and especially Wu Jiang as the irrepressible and lovable younger son, Er Ming, spins a tale that will warm the coldest heart.

The film starts with a man taking a shower in an automated booth in the middle of Beijing. He puts some money in a slot, opens the door, takes off his clothes and puts some of them on a conveyor belt to be cleaned, steps into the shower and gets cleaned with brushes and squirts of water and soap as though he's a car at the car wash. This is the future symbolically speaking, and the old bathhouse we will see in the next scene is the past. Agrarian China is giving way to industrial China.

Pollution? Cultural revolution hang-over? Industrialization blues? No way. What we have here is a celebration of people and their kindness and love for one another, a celebration of goodness in the hearts of men. Yet I wonder how the Chinese government views this film. On the one hand, it clearly presents a pleasant view of China and its people. It is stringently nonpolitical without criticism of the present regime expressed or implied. Yet there is the slightest sense that the good old ways are going to be replaced by something that may not be as good. I think Yang Zhang had the wisdom to just let that be as it may. Tell a story about old men at the bathhouse where they get back rubs and massages, where they tell tall tales and reminisce about the good old days, where they can relax and play Chinese chess and stage cricket fights, where the Master is a spry and wise old guy and his assistant is his son, who may be retarded or autistic, but who does his job with glee and an infectious spirit of fun and good will.

Enter back on the scene the older son, Da Ming, who is polished, well groomed and taciturn. He is uncomfortable with what he sees as the unsophisticated behavior of his father and brother. He represents modern China with his tie and his briefcase, his cell phone and his education. He has only returned because he thought his father was dying. When he sees that this is not true, he packs his bags and is set to return to his wife and his career. But then a crisis ensues and it is during this crisis that Da Ming sees the value of the natural, people-centered life that his father and his brother have been living.

And so Yang Zhang reconciles the old and the new, and does so in such a charming manner that I will not object, especially since his style is so neat and so carefully expressed. One of the nice things he does that I miss in most movies is the way he dovetails the subplots within the larger story so that they are resolved before the picture ends. The bathhouse regular who sings "O sole mio" in the bathhouse as the water showers down upon him, much to the delight of Er Ming, finds that he can't sing in public because of stage fright. Near the end of the film he loses his stage fright and sings thanks to some inspired help from Er Ming. And the bathhouse regular who is losing his wife because...well, he tells a tale to Master Liu before he confesses the real reason. But Liu understands and again before the movie is over, husband and wife are reconciled.

This kind of "happy ending" movie-making is unusual in today artistic and international films, or in almost any film directed at adults. Some happy endings are so contrived as to embarrass not only their contrivers but their audiences. And some are so blatantly condescending that the audience is offended. Here however the audience is delighted.

See this especially for the comedic performance by Wu Jiang whose warm effervescence overcomes any handicap his character may have. My favorite part of this film was the old man's attempt to cure his neighbor's ills by putting the strong medicine in his bath. There is more than a sense of family, there is a sense of community. No awards show can please all the people. Clearly if your favorite movies didn't win, you will say the show wasn't very good. That's understandable.

However, the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be remembered for one magical moment of Hollywood history:

Woody Allen's first appearance ever at the Academy Awards.

Allen has often shunned the awards as being self-aggrandizing and pointless, and has never attended -- even though he has won several of the coveted awards.

When the 74th Academy Awards were held, the nation was still mourning the loss of life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers in New York. When it came time to pay tribute to the city of New York, they decided to show a video of the great movie moments form the city of cities. Then the announcer simply said:

"Ladies and gentleman, Oscar Award winning Director Woody Allen."

The place erupted in an extremely long standing ovation. The entertainment industry finally got to give their applause to the Man from New York who usually avoids the Hollywood scene. As the applause died down, Woody applied some of his legendary wit to the situation.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

"Thank you very much - that makes up for the strip search."

"I thought they wanted their Oscars back," he joked. "I panicked because the pawn shop has been out of business for ages and I had no way of retrieving anything. "

"But that wasn't it. I couldn't work it out because my movie wasn't nominated for anything this year. Then it hit me - maybe they were calling to apologise."

Allen also disclosed why he had overlooked his lifelong Oscar-aversion for this one special night.

"For New York City, I'd do anything. So I got my tux on and came down here," said Allen.

"It's a great, great movie town. It's been a great, moving and exciting backdrop for movies and it remains a great, great city."

The 74th Oscars was a very good one. Whoopi's work as EmCee was very funny, and light. I personally loved her last apperance, which garnered some frigid reviews due to coarse language and salacious jokes, but that's fine. The audience seemed to like it. Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Ron Howard, Woody Allen, and Sidney Poitier made this an Oscar telecast to remember.

The events of the 11th of September 2001 cast its shadow on this Oscar award ceremony with a one minute silence before the in memoriam montage and there was little in the way of the all singing all dancing comedy extravaganza that we`d come to expect of this award show but this was by no means a bad thing . Entertainment was more or less curtailed to a LOTR send up with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson and that was it . The rest of the show was taken up with clips from the nominations and I have to admit this was actually more enjoyable than the overblown song and dance numbers we`ve seen over the years and Whoopi Goldberg was by no means a bad presenter unlike the very esoteric David Letterman from a few years ago and the one minute silence for the victims of 9/11 was haunting and dignified

As for the awards New Zealand was absolutely robbed . FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING went home with four minor awards while A BEAUTIFUL MIND undeservingly picked up most of the major prizes except for best actor which should have gone to a tough guy New Zealander but went to an An all American nice guy instead . The only Oscar awards I agreed with apart from the ones presented to FELLOWSHIP were the awards for best supporting actress and best supporting actor , both correct calls . OK, so the Oscars seem to get hyped just a little more each year. And I was rooting for "Gosford Park" to win (come on, Robert Altman had deserved an Oscar for years!). That said, I guess that it was high time for an African-American to win Best Actress. Contrary to the previous reviewer, Halle Berry's role in "Monster's Ball" was far more original than Nicole Kidman's in "Moulin Rouge"; I never would have thought to nominate the latter for anything, especially in a year that saw "Mulholland Dr.".

Among the things that I had predicted was the stuff about the September 11 attacks; I knew that they were going to say something about freedom. Yeah, yeah. Robert Redford should know better. But contrary again to the previous reviewer, Whoopi Goldberg is not the worst host (among the past hosts was Bob Hope, for whom I have no respect); I really liked her jab at John Ashcroft.

So, although I wouldn't have given "A Beautiful Mind" Best Picture, "The 74th Annual Academy Awards" still pleased me (I have to admit, I enjoy the Oscars more than my own birthday). And the day after, as my parents and I were hiking around the dwellings in Bandalier, New Mexico - it was spring break - I was thinking to myself that when Jim Broadbent won his Oscar, that most people watching were asking "Jim who?!" I wonder whether or not Woody Allen will ever attend the Oscars again. TO all of yall who think 1.This was a boring telecast 2.Halle berry and denzel Washington did not deserve their Oscars

SHUT THE F**k UP!! This was one of the best Academy awards show because 1.It was a moment in history to have a black yes "Black actress" win an academy award for Best actress so many of our black sisters have been ignored by the academy for many years.To be honest I had stop watching the academy awards because of a lack of diversity in either the winners or nominees.To me it was nothing but a bunch of white people patting each other in the back.the academy had many chances to vote black actresses that were brilliant in movies eg Alfre Woodard,Whoopi Goldberg,Diana Ross,Mary jean Babtise, but it did not 2.Halle berry deserved that Oscar no competition the academy was under pressure to vote for her so long have deserving actresses been ignored by the academy the majority of which is comprised of white voters yeah yeah Nicole kidman sang very prettily in muling rouge!but it was time black people were accommodated in these awards shows.As for Mr Washington the academy owed him big time after that unfair loss for MalcomX.To all of you who think race is not an issue"probably white people"in the movie industry,well it is many of the most talented black actresses around have either been reduced to stereo typical made by white people roles of what they think is a black women or are not existence"Angela basset". I do not expect many of the white people to understand any of this because they never had to deal with any of it.Come to think of it they are the one who been inflicting it Whoopi was the only reason I watched the Oscars that year. She is hilarious. Of course there was a major serious side to the show. She was great not only because she's funny, but because she said some things that needed to be said in a public forum. White folks need to be reminded that Hollywood awards' ceremonies, employment, and representation are WAY out of balance racially. There should be no need for "black" awards shows. The white-bread, milquetoast nominators and judges need to bring their heads into the sunshine and see that great material is not limited to "white" directors, producers, actors, etc. Allowing Woody Allen on the air was the depth of poor taste. He had no business being there. The fact of the matter is, this is the first Oscar presentation I've watched since "The Color Purple" was up for awards. That miscarriage of voting soured me on watching the shows until 2002. Which is not to denigrate other presenters. Billy Crystal is a riot. Extremely tense thriller set in the urban chaos of São Paulo, the biggest and ugliest third world nightmare in Brazilian urbania. For the sake of making it easy for anyone who is curious about this intriguing and truly well made film, it has the grit of Mexican feature "Amores Perros" with a character not too far off Max Cady, from both Cape Fears, although this is not, by any means, a film about a psychopath. Two partners (Alexandre Borges and Marco Ricca) in a construction company pay hitman Anisio (Miklos) to off their third partner (and majority share holder) in said construction outfit. The murder is blamed on the city, but things begin to look very grim indeed when witty and charismatic walking nightmare Anisio decides he wants to be around the ever so nervous partners in crime, not only trespassing but, more importantly, deconstructing the strict social codes that make up Brazilian society. Anisio turns poverty into an attitude and he wants in. The look is almost entirely handheld, grainy, the performances outstanding throughout, especially so as first time actor (and member of classic Brazilian pop band 'Titãs'), Paulo Miklos, dazzles and baffles the viewer with his pretty funny social terror.

I saw the film at the Brasília film Fest in November 2001. It has since done very well in Sundance and Berlin. Kleber Mendonça Filho My short comment for this flick is go pick it up. Chances are you are going to be positively surprised by a diversity of elements superbly explored in this criminal thriller. There is no way the character of Miklos, claiming and pushing for room in every way possible, wont push your nerves to the edge...2 thumbs up! IVAN (Marco Ricca) and GILBERTO (Alexandre Borges) are partners in a company together with ESTEVÃO (George Freire), but the first ones contract a professional killer, ANISIO, to murder ESTEVÃO (the plot, at least at the beginning, doesn't explain very well why). The guy does it and after receiving his money he starts blackmailing the two partners, appearing in their company and saying he wants a job there (as supervisor or something…). At the same time he meets MARINA (Mariana Ximenes), daughter of ESTEVÃO, and starts dating with her!

In a story like this, where crime, corruption, betrayal and blackmail go hand in hand, no one is innocent or can be victimized, exception made to MARINA, which is the only person who doesn't know what's going on and didn't betray anyone…

This film portrays with sarcasm the sad and cruel reality which exists in big metropolis like São Paulo, where crime is every day's presence. We can feel irony but also veracity in characters like ANISIO (brilliantly played by Paulo Miklos), which does blackmail to the guys who paid him without any scruples, and even flirts with the daughter of the guy he killed! He really must be a monster to do something like that, but of course I know there're people like him out there, in Brazil or any other place…

It's a very good movie, cruel but truthful, about a sad reality… The acting is great and the soundtrack too. The three main characters are very well portrayed, especially Anisio by rock musician turned into first time actor Paulo Miklos. He is extremely convincing as the lower class trespasser/invader. The film shows very well the snowball effect of getting involved in ever more shady business, the contrast and similarities between the lower and higher classes. How everyone gets carried away by greed and ambition. 9-9,5 out of 10. Here in Brazil is very rare to see a good Brazilian film, and Brant´s new film is exactly one of these jewel. There are some flaws in the film, of course, but they are very minimal. The directing and acting in this film are very good!

Can´t wait to see another Brant´s new film! After watching this film last night on Sundance, I realized that much of Nakata's style was first done in this film. Here we have many of the same elements of the RINGU series, especially the idea of the media being the source of the supernatural. Instead of the cursed videotape, we instead having a haunted studio and strange images appearing on film. In fact, the strange images appearing on film brings immediately the cursed videotape in RINGU to mind. The only thing missing was the obsession to water that runs through Nakata's later films. The final scenes are quite chilling, with a bit of a nod to Murnau, what with the door opening by itself ands the ghost entering the room, reminds me immediatly of

NOSFERATU. A chilling movie that will make think twice about going up to a catwalk. this movie is practically impossible to describe. the alternate title "Don't Look Up" is a lot more descriptive. Like most Japanese cinema, the story is not as linear as American. The story revolves around a director who is filming a story about a ww2 deserter. The set is haunted(?) by an actress who died(?) during the filming of a tv show back in the 60s. the director is the ONLY one who saw this show. if you have seen Ringu (the director Hideo Nakata is the same) and liked it, you'll like ghost actress. i loved ghost actress a lot more than ringu. a truly scary and disturbing movie. a 10! I really enjoyed this debut by Ring director, Hideo Nakata. If you've seen Ring beforehand then you'll be familiar with the style and idea of this flick. It's got a subtle spookiness about it that works better than the constant (and predictable) stingers that infest most mainstream movies of this genre. If you like films that give you the chills, then you will probably like this one. A good, creepy debut by Hideo Nakata. 8/10 Not on the same level as Ring (or Ring 2) but still a good Japanese horror flick nonetheless. I wish North American horror producers would take a page out of the Japanese horror template and put more 'spookiness' and less cheap shocks in their flicks. Lots of good examples in this one, scenes where a whited out face is scene staring behind a young actress, photographs on a wall are suddenly glimpsed smiling, just for a second, and more. Worth checking out if you like the genre. For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind. Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!

Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as "big man" in contrast to Spike's "kid out of control" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.

Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.

While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song "This Is Not A Love Song" and as the title of the film is quite smart.

Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.

I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand.

Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling.

"This Is Not A Love Song" is a brilliant example of the chase genre, which many people think has an underlying meaning. The love between the two main characters may be more than fraternal. I believe that Heaton is in love with Spike, but Spike is too naive to see this.

I really feel this is portrayed with such scenes as the blow back and letter writing sequences. Heaton shows great intimacy towards Spike. With intense facial expressions and how he takes great care in writing Spike's name on the top of his letters.

One thing I've noticed when looking at external reviews, is that when the film has been slated, the reviewer seems to have not fully understood the film, as they haven't even mentioned the possibility of Heaton having sexual feelings for Spike. I also get the feeling that some of the reviewers haven't recognised it, when they use phrases like: "Who is Heaton? What's he doing with a retard like Spike?" This person, however may have hit the nail on the head with their remark. Spike shows noticeable signs of having A.D.D, although I don't think this person has realised this, as he seems to be using the word "retard" as a derogatory term.

I really enjoyed this film. Although it is not for the faint hearted. The film is exceedingly character based, after the shooting until the end there isn't much but dialogue between the two anti-heroes. Unless you are used to watching such deep, gritty films, stay well away. A suspenseful thriller that bears some resemblance to Deliverance as for scenery and setting. There are also some very innovatively shot scenes and good music, although the daftness and sometimes seemingly careless attitude of one of the characters is unfitting to the situation, although this is not a mayor problem. It also poses interesting questions about justness of revenge and limits of friendship.

Some have compared this film to Deliverance. I believe Of Mice and Men is more appropriate. Our leading man, Heaton, definitely loves Spike. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether that is a sexual love. It is the reason Heaton does not leave Spike. He needs him. They need each other. As brothers, as family, as their only connection to humanity. The setting, scenario, minimal cast all add up to a fine film. Frankly, I did not care what happened to the characters. But, I did care about what the film maker did with them. He did well with them. I spent some time wondering how the ending would resemble Of Mice and Men. The soundtrack and cinematography were compelling and intriguing. Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.

I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival. i think the team behind this film did a very good job with the limitations they had. only £300,000 and 7 weeks to write, film and edit the whole thing which i think is an achievement in itself. although this film is not for the masses (as a young innocent teenage girl is killed and there is homo-eroticism involved in the story) i think that this film is a heart wrenching tragedy and the more deeply involved you get in the story, the more sadness you feel. more so towards Heaton because of the love he feels but is not returned.

this is one of my favourite British films that i enjoyed very much and would watch again. i think that it's a shame that is film is not very well heard of at all. I am currently doing film studies at A.S level and "this is not a love song" is a film we watched and in my opinion it is a film with a very simple storyline but a complex back-story. If you scratch the surface you will find a thriller-chase film of two men running through the countryside from farmers, after committing a murder:-"sounds quite exiting".

However you need to dig deeper to uncover the true feeling of the true genre. As it is suggested, it is a love story between two homosexual lovers, filled with trust, deceit and betrayal. We are not told about this "love" directly through the film but the events that happen through out, for example the way Heaton acts towards Spike almost screams this untouched love affair in our faces.

Overall this film is a good example of why British films should not be dismissed as "rubbish" just because they are done on a low budget.

A Good film with an intricate story line, however it is definitely an acquired taste and is possibly not suitable for the average fan of Hollywood blockbusters. This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much "action". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing. I found this very touching as Spike and Heaton stay together all the way through this film not to say there isn't a few betrayals along the way. I thought the chase was put aside the relationship between the two was foreground I think. I had already guessed that there were so gay intentions on the part of Heaton. My favourite scene had to be the bit where Heaton and Spike were stuck in the marsh and Spike runs off I generally thought Spike wasn't coming back. I have to say that if it wasn't for our film studies teacher making us watch this I would have probably never seen it. Overall I thought this film was pretty good and I would recommend it to any person who is a fan of British made films. It isn't always easy to explain what a movie is like, but this time I think I've found it. It reminded me of two movies: Trainspotting (small time criminals scoring some drugs and doing some stupid things in Schotland) and The Blair Witch Project (because of the style of filming).

It's about the loyalty between two friends, one of them is coming out of jail, the other one hasn't been caught yet. With a stolen vehicle they drive through the Scottish countryside but than run out of petrol. As they try to find some fuel, they find a farm in the middle of nowhere. The farmer thinks they want to rob him and points a gun at one of them. Than it all goes wrong. One of the friends accidentally shoots the farmer's daughter and they have to run. What follows is a man hunt through the fields and woods of Schotland. The two friends literally have to run for their lives.

Apparently this movie was shot in only 12 days time. OK, that's not exactly unbelievable because the biggest part of it is always in the same place: the Scottish countryside, but I still find that quite amazing. Especially because this isn't actually a bad movie. It's perhaps not the greatest movie ever, but they still can be proud of what they achieved. I had a nice time watching it and overall I enjoyed the movie. I give it a 7/10. This is Not a Love Song.

My one word summary of this film would be `Excellent'.

It probably won't appeal to the mass movie watching public – it's a

film that forces you to participate. You observe, think, and question.

Comparisons could be made with Deliverance (Topic/Theme) and

perhaps with The Blair Witch Project for overall filming style.

However this film stands unique against both.

The cinematography effects (solarisation, freeze frame, blur etc)

have been seen before but they are used most effectively in this

film to underpin the natural tension of the story.

Acting is raw, menacing and utterly believable.

The real theme of the film is about friendship; the title really gives

the game away. It's probably not the kind of friendship that most of

us have experienced or indeed would want to.

It is a love song. What a fun filled, sexy movie! They certainly don't make them like this anymore. 4 sexy au pairs arrive in London and have all sorts of sexual misadventures. The tone is oddly innocent, as the considerable nudity evolves out of stock farcical situations, rather than any overt sexual desire on the part of the characters. It is only when the actresses accidentally lose their clothes that the male characters become rampant. Richard O' Sullivan literally gets 'Randi'(sic). The film certainly betrays the origins of the softcore feature as lying in the nudie cuties and naturism films of the old school. My special interest in 'Au Pair Girls' is that I am a huge fan of Gabrielle Drake. If any actress has ever looked better naked (she's slim but wonderfully curvy), or clothed, come to that (I've loved her since the original run of UFO - who else could carry off a purple wig!), I'll eat my hat. This film would usually classify as the worst movie production ever. Ever. But in my opinion it is possibly the funniest. The horrifying direction and screenplay makes this film priceless. I bought the movie whilst sifting through the bargain DVD's at my local pound shop. Me and some friends then watched it, admittedly whilst rather drunk. It soon occurred that this wasn't any normal film. Instead a priceless relic of what will probably be James Cahill's last film. At first we were confused and were screaming for the DVD player to be turned off but thankfully in our abnormal state no-one could be bothered. Instead we watched the film right through. At the end we soon realised we had found any wasters dream, something that you can acceptably laugh at for hours, whilst laughing for all the wrong reasons. We soon showed all our other friends and they too agreed, this wasn't a work of abysmal film. This was a film that you can truly wet yourself laughing at. This was a film that anyone can enjoy. This was genius. wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is! where would one start a review of the film Snitch'd? James Cahill, god rest his soul, made one of the most daring insights into the human psyche since Encino Man. his beautiful story unravels around a drug squad cop McClure, which is a name synonymous with a character from the simpsons who also happens to be an actor! said cop delves deep into the underworld that is high school drug taking, and discovers a gang war to rival that of Police Academy 1, and i mean the one where Jones is racially vilified by his new partner, but manages to come out with some of the funniest sounds you will EVER HEAR.

Cahill's grasp of effects, both visual and aural is electrifying, the slight pause between action on screen and from the speakers adds to the drama that is snitch'd, a real gritty like underground thriller. also, kudos to his brilliant use of makeup, such as the supremely convincing burn marks a gang member suffers in his showdown with an indoor barbecue! YUCK! i feel the world of film is much less from James' passing, his memory will linger on and on and on, reborn with every passing mention of his flagship production, Snitch'd. his insightful director's commentary released a coke-hit up the nose of any discerning film goer, truly appropriate with the harsh reality that is life on the streets, captured in all the beauty of a roughneck punk knocking over a rubbish bin in a brawl.

but i ask you, why did the big bosses swimming pool look so cheap? i'll tell you why, because thats life in Santa Ana baby, its not all drive bys and hastily constructed principle's offices, oh no. there are some folk who must infiltrate the soft, tattooed underbelly of street life in LA to kick their way through in moves that would not seem out of place at a School For Special Children's production of Double Dragon: The Play.

the only qualm i have with this film, is that there was never a sequel made. come on Steven Spielberg, come on George Lucas, come on guy that made revenge of the nerds 1 through 23, how hard could it be to step it up a notch and pay tribute to this great man, James Cahill.

he discovered Eva Longoria you know. oh yeah, that he did.

Jonah One of the most provocative films ever with excellent cinematography backed up by Mc Clarens lisp and stunning quote "do you believe in love at first site?".

A trace of expressionism was evident in this picture, further catapulting the films flawless integrity. Gabby (AKA Joey) played by Eva Longoria clearly loved the movie and role she played so much that she couldn't even be bothered giving it mention in her filmography. Lol.

the best part of the movie would have to be without a doubt, the heroic rescue by MC clure as he saved the young 'Handicapped' kid with the speech impediment.. Which i may add was acted to perfection! James Cahiil's use of sound effects is unmatched even to this day. The drug bust he performs early in the film is pain stakingly realistic. When i watched this movie for the first time i was so compelled with the intense lack of respect for the Gang Inthused brothers from the Southside gang and the CTM (Cut Throat Mafia). This was by far one of the most encapsulating crevice Cahill has committed to filming.

Personally this film holds sentimental value to me and i will be downloading it in the near future. Thats if i can find it anywhere, LOL! OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.

I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.

I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!! If you haven't seen Eva Longoria from the TV show "Desperate House Wives" then you are missing out. Eva is going to be one of the biggest Latina stars and you'll be seeing her in the theaters soon. This was Eva's first film and she does a fantastic job acting. She was 24 when she shot it, and looked hot then. As for this low budget film, it's pretty good for the first time director, who has another soon to be released movie "Juarez, Mexico" currently playing at many film festivals across the United States. In fact, it appears that it may have a limited theatrical release from some news. What would be nice to see is a "Snitch'2" with a higher budget. For a low budget project, the Film was a success. The story is interesting, and the actors were convincing. Eva Longoria, who now stars on the TV Show "Dragnet," is sexier than ever. The locations were ideal for the ganster plot, and the director shows his talent by taking on many roles for his project. Of course this low budget film could use better editing transitions and more special effects for the gun scenes, but the music keeps this script moving. Although this film has it's share of problems, such as continuity, I must say that I would rent the director's next movie. If your a film student, you could learn a few things from the director's commentary. I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films. This film could be one of the most underrated film of Bollywood history.This 1994 blockbuster had all of it good performances,music and direction.I remember I was in Allahabad when this movie was running and it was somewhere in March at Holi time , the people there were playing its song "Ooe Amma" at their loudspeakers in highest volume. If someone who likes to watch Some Like It Hot and drools over Marilyn Monroe he should see this movie.Thumbs Up to Govinda.How many of you know that this film was shot in South of India and after Sholay could be one of the very few blockbuter to hit Silver Screen.With films like these Indian comedy could never be dead. This was my first introduction to the world of Bollywood and I'm now hooked! Okay so it requires adoption of a different mindset to watching US films but once you allow yourself the pleasure of enjoying it for what it is you won't be disappointed. The songs are superb, melodic and very catchy. The actors are visually compelling especially Karisma Kapoor who is surely one of the most beautiful actresses anywhere in the film world. Locations, colour are spellbinding. If you want something different and are looking to be uplifted, cheered up and stimulated I recommend you catch this movie. This is one of my favorite Govinda movies of all time and best film of 1994. David Dhawan does a great job in directing this movie, he makes it funny and adds family drama. Govinda is Excellent as Raja Babu and gives a great performance. Karishma Kapoor is an actress i hate, this film she is a little less annoying but still annoys in some scenes. Kader Khan is a maestro in acting and yet gives a superb performance. Aroona Irani is terrific as the mother and gives a outstanding performance. Shakti Kapoor is brilliant as Nandu the sidekick. This film has Comedy, action, family drama and romance a full on entertainer. well i was a teenager when i saw the movie..the songs were a huge hit but the elite class skipped govinda movies back then coz watching govinda and karishma (aka karizma )movies were not the in thing for that 'class' but anyways a lot of people liked it as the series of these movies rocked the 90's through out and most of them were successful..today i was watching it again after a long time and i remembered, there was a long que of people and the riot they created when the a aa e uo uo o song came on screen....the dresses of govinda and karishma were complimentary to each other(the worst dressing duo of that time) well karisma in the late 90's transformed but govinda has still been very faithful to his designer as his dress sense remains the same...but back then it all blended it was all good ..everything worked and slowly the elite class realized what fun it was missing and then .....there was no looking back for this jodi as it went on n on making those Indian carry on series ..hated by a few but loved by the masses.

if you are looking for a good time with nothing to do rent it or watch it on TV i don't think you will regret it...but remember its the worst at its best ..

still i watch those movies when i get time coz i cant stop laughing...so i say go ahead and have a good time as there are times when we all love stupidity and specially when its done by the kings of their times it surely is watchable ...i recommend it to all movie lovers ... Of course if you are reading my review you have seen this film already. 'Raja Babu' is one of my most favorite characters. I just love the concept of a spoiled brat with a 24*7 servant on his motorcycle. Watch movies and emulate characters etc etc. I love the scene when a stone cracks in Kader khans mouth while eating. Also where Shakti Kapoor narrates a corny story of Raja Babu's affairs on a dinner table and Govinda wearing 'dharam-veer' uniform makes sentimental remarks. Thats my favorite scene of the film. 'Achcha Pitaji To Main Chalta Hoon' scene is just chemistry between two great Indian actors doing a comical scene with no dialogs. Its brilliant. It's a cat mouse film. Just watch these actors helping each other and still taking away the scene from each other. Its total entertainment. If you like Govinda and Kader Khan chemistry then its a must. I think RB is 6th in my list by David Dhawan. 'Deewana Mastana', 'Ankhein','Shola or Shabnam', 'Swarg', Coolie no 1' precedes this gem of a film. 7/10. Camp with a capital C. Think of Mask and the Ace Ventura movies -- then multiply by 100. This laugh-a-minute entertainer takes schlock to the level of high art. David Dhawan is a genius and Govinda is beyond description. See it over and over again. I insist. I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape.

Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.)

The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her.

Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds.

As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending!

The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves.

The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK.

Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical "entertainment". 10/10 When I saw this animation for first time (I was 15 maybe) I was really impressed! It has completely different style compared to the japan animation and i kinda like it more. Tho whole impression of the movie is more sinister and dark...The colors are not that ...colorous. The Characters don't talk much, there are no long and boring conversations of this and that (like in Ghost in the Shell).With its dark pictures, views of strange beasts and sense of magic, it looks like one of those ancient Scandinavian stories, full of violence and horrendous creators, enchanted forests and deep caves, dwelled by dragons, throlls, orks...and one mysterious hero to stop evil... Picked up the movie at the flea market for 4 bucks, sure did get my moneys worth!. Could care-less about the hot babes but the animation just blew me away after a steady diet of Simpsons (Sorry Mr. Groening). The best part, facial expressions. Recommend multiple viewings with some cool tunes, good friends and a couple of cold ones! In my opinion, this is a good example of the movie that could have been much better if it had been short 10 years earlier. I doubt it would benefit from modern technologies, but it would have looked much better if it was at least 90 minutes instead of 70.

The artists and animated did a great job. In my opinion, this movie can boast the best background art and one of the best character design. Animation are extremely smooth and realistic. For the duration of the movie you believe in the world you see, so everyone did a great job. It can also boast one of the sexiest female animated characters, if not the sexiest, that beets typical anime girls with ease.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of bad thins about this movie that will make it not so appealing at the moment. First, the plot and execution is comparable to contemporary adventure movies, and is really old-fashioned by modern standards. Second, due to the duration time it would benefit a lot from extra 20 minutes of dialogs. Finally, the setting is not so popular at the moment.

Conclusion: a great alternative to another short story about Conan the Barbarian, but not to a novel. Why this movie has all but disappeared into obscurity is an absolute crime. "Conan" is perhaps the only Sword and Sorcery movie better. The brutal violence, cool character designs, and good pacing, make this one of the best fantasies around. It is certainly the greatest animated movie aimed at a more adult audience that I have ever seen. This is not similar to Bakshi's usual frenetic style. It's quite a departure for Bakshi, and in my opinion his best work. I hope that this film gets the recognition it deserves. I won't claim to be a fan of Ralph Bakshi, because i am not. I have only watched 5 of his animated films so far: Coonskin, Wizards, Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings and finally "Fire and Ice". What i CAN claim, is that i found "Fire and Ice" to be the most enjoyable of the lot. It is a straightforward fantasy tale of swords and sorcery along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but the beautiful artwork, realistic animation and lively film score effectively lends a very classic charm to this movie.

Deserving first mention, is the animation itself. I do not care what people say about rotoscoping but in my opinion Ralph Bakshi used that technique very effectively here. I was amazed at how realistic the movements of the characters were. The style of directing and the photo-realistic character designs made "Fire and Ice" feel more like a big budget fantasy blockbuster than a cartoon. Sadly the level of art detail tends to get a little inconsistent, especially near the end of the movie. Some scenes just look really flat with little to no body contour details or fabric folds and shadows on the characters.

With realistic moving characters, realistic action would naturally follow. Not only was the action well choreographed, but it was really brutal. I would be so bold as to compare the brutality of the action to live action movies like Zack Snyder's 300. I did notice however that though there was blood shed, the blood splatters were kept to a minimum. Again, a great choice by the creative team that only heightens the viewing experience by not taking things too "over the top".

Though i do not recognize any "big names" in the cast, the voice actors manage to deliver a satisfying performance; keeping the delivery of every line realistically subdued and only hamming it up in the case of the bad guys.

Did i say bad guys?? yes i did. Because that is exactly what the story is about, a standard good vs evil tale. Nothing really original about the story which seems to merely be a mix of pre-existing fantasy film clichés that involve scantly clad warriors and maidens. Anyone looking for "depth" would be sorely disappointed. THe characters are not given much development and some of them like Nekron and Darkwolf are one dimensional at best(I did however hear rumor of some deleted scenes that explains Darkwolf's obsession with killing Nekron and his mother. Scenes like that deserved full restoration and should have been included in the final cut to add a level of depth to the show). In fact, i would not be surprised to find out that the whole movie was just a "tech demo" of sorts to showcase the awesome animation and art, with the story cobbled together and thrown in as an afterthought in order to pass it off as a proper "movie".

A true classic of a bygone era, "Fire and Ice" really captures the blazing spirit of adventure and mysticism with its beautiful renderings of fantastic creatures and charming characters. It is a unique vision of a world created by Ralph Bakshi and artist Frank Frazetta with a good measure of action and suspense.

Would it hold up to animated film standards of today? Definitely not. But i urge animation fans in general to "get off your high horse" and give this simple but beautiful film a chance to grow on you. It is Truly a gem of the 80s worth checking out. I enjoy Ralph Bakshi films ("Wizards", "Cool World" and the underrated animated "Lord of the Rings") and am a Frank Frazetta collector and fan. I am also a sword and sorcery fan who loves the worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard.

I missed "Fire and Ice's" theatrical release back in 1983 and have looked forward to seeing it on video or at some revival ever since then. Therefore the 2005 release was a dream come true for me. However, I bought it with some trepidation, because I hoped it would not be only worth watching once and then put on the shelf as a "collectible" gathering dust until the day I died. Fortunately my fears were groundless and I was pleasantly impressed with this movie.

As with Frazetta art this is a gritty film that has a physicality and sexuality that is hard to find in most fantasy/sword and sorcery films without being cheesy or dirty. The art is good and you see glimpses of Frazetta at his best. Even my young boys loved watching it with me and ask to watch it again and again. However, my wife has some objections due to the scantily clad princess (very Frazetta-esquire). I don't mind that because it is believable and there is no sex scene.

There is roto-scoping used, but personally I enjoy roto-scoping. It gives more fluid and realistic movements to the characters that is hard to find in animation.

Despite some continuity problems, I recommend this film to all Bakshi, Frazetta, Conan, and sword and sorcery fans. Enjoy! This animation has a very simple and straightforward good vs. evil plot and is all about action. What sets it apart from other animation is how well the human movements are animated. It was really beautiful seeing the fleeing woman running around on the screen from left to right and look around, her movements were done so well. Why don't they use this rotoscopic technique more these days? It's quite effective.

Fire and Ice, in it's prehistoric setting and scarcely dressed women, was clearly devoted to showing the beautiful damsel in distress in various sexy ways, her voluptuous body serving as pure eyecandy. Some may hate this and regard it as yet another moronic male sexual fantasy, others (including plenty of women) will adore it's esthetic quality. I for sure did not mind! Bakshi just loves animating lushious, voluptuous babes, as can also be seen in Cool World, and I don't think he has to apoligize since it's pretty much animation for adults. But I had also enjoyed this animation as a child and I never forgot it.

This one was just special, so different from the standard Disney or Anime fare, and for that reason alone well worth the watch since it's possibly Bakshi's finest. For those who like animations with lushious women: try Space Adventure Cobra as well.

I give Fire and Ice 8 out of 10. Ever since I heard of the Ralph Bakshi version of "The Lord of the Rings" I wondered: What the hell is 'rotoscope' animation?!!! Well... I finally found out... I saw this movie about three years ago not having any idea who Ralph Bakshi is... And I liked it... a lot... Very good story line... it even has a little character development which is great for a cartoon... See it if you get bored with contemporary animation.... Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's just a nice cartoon... It's a pretty good movie too... Fire And Ice is an animated film set in a fantasy world. The film is about a village that is destroyed by a giant glacier which is the home of the evil ice lord named Nekron. The only survivor of the village is a young man named Larn who sets out to avenge those who were killed by the glacier. The ice glacier moves through the land of fire and the princess of the land named Teegra is kidnapped by evil creatures. Larn sets out to find her and also sets out to find and kill Nekron. Fire And Ice is directed by Ralph Bakshi who is one of my favourite adult animators. He has brought us such animated masterpieces as the film version of Fritz The Cat and some films he has written himself, like the great film Heavy Traffic. I didn't like Fire And Ice nearly as much as I have Ralph Bakshi's other work, but I still found the film to be enjoyable. It had some very nice animation in parts and the story was entertaining enough. The only basic complaints I have is that I wish that there was more of a story to the film because the story it uses is very thin and there is not a lot to it. I also wish the film was a bit longer because it is under 80 minutes in running time. Still it's an entertaining action adventure films that unlike Fritz The Cat or Heavy Traffic is appropriate for kids 8 and older. I only wish that there was a more developed story and it went on a bit longer than it did. Good story and excellent animation. The influence of Frazetta and Bakshi are obvious, and that's a good thing. Anyone that enjoys Conan the Barbarian or the game Dungeons and Dragons should enjoy it. The battle between good and evil is clear cut even though it may appear that at times our hero is neutral. Most often in fantasy movies Elves are usually portrayed as having white skin and blond hair and goblins and orcs have dark skin and hair. Anyone familiar with Frazetta's, Bakshi's, or even Tolkien's work know they are not racist. Anyone that enjoys Fantasy movies should like this movie. It is not for young children due to violence and sexual innuendo. The casting was well done and the scenes and music are first rate. I hope someone puts this gem on DVD soon. I consider myself lucky to have a VHS copy in good condition. This is another fantasy favorite from Ralph Bakshi; after watching it on YouTube that is. Set in the distant past after the Ice Age, it is a prehistoric sword-and-sorcery quest between good and evil. Nekron, Lord of the realm of Ice and his mother Queen Juliana, has set their sights on conquest of the known world. When their glaciers destroy's the village of a man named Larn, he (Larn) vows to avenge his people and kill the Ice Lord. Meanwhile, the sub-human minions of Nekron and Juliana capture Firekeep's King Jarol's sultry daughter Princess Teegra; but she manages to escape, and eventually meets with Larn, who promises to escort her back to Firekeep; if the sub-humans don't find them first.

This movie did very little box office (as did most of Ralph Bakshi's films), but has become a cult classic, partly for the quality of the art, a collaboration between Ralph Bakshi and the famed fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. Also, I have heard that the screenplay was written by Gerry Conway and Roy Thomas, the two men who had done Conan comic book stories, and the background painters included James Gurney, the illustrator of the Dinotopia novels; though admittedly I had never read Conan or Dinotopia. And also the painter Thomas Kinkade, noted for his artwork for figurines, music-boxes for The Bradford Exchange Company besides paintings. And like Bakshi's films The Lord of the Rings and American Pop, this movie was rotoscoped, but the process works better in this film than in the former.

So overall, I think it's one of the best animated fantasy movies ever made, and an awesome collaboration between two great minds - Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta. With plenty of fantasy, sexual innuendo, and thrilling adventure. With Ralph Bakshi most of his films appear to be like two-edged swords. You'll get something awesome out of it but only if you put up with the silly and the unnecessarily cheezy. The Lord of the Rings was a great adaptation of the story which perhaps didn't always shine in the animation department.

Fire and Ice is a great achievement from Bakshi from an animation point of view. The rotoscoping is a lot more detailed and the animation has a vibrant look to it. You still get some of the dull still-cells and slightly blurred background paintings but on the over-all the look has definitely gotten better since Bakshi's last fantasy epic. The animation has almost a realistic-naturalistic style to it, and unlike in LOTR where this style was often at odds with the actual content, here it enhances the film's unique atmosphere.

Unfortunately the film fails to create a meaningful story out of its simple setting and in fact most of the characters' motivations are pretty blurred. Lorn and Tigra are easy cases but even the main villain Necron was difficult to follow not to mention That Guy with Furry Face Mask (also known as just 'That Guy'). Even though most of the voice actor's were appropriate, there are some odd quirks in the audio-department and Tigra especially sounds really terrible whenever she's screaming.

However, I believe the film's inherent entertainment value outweighs its unnecessarily silly execution of the plot-line. The scant clad of the characters is something you'll never get over but it helps you remind yourself that perhaps this film isn't even intended to be taken too seriously. It's still a hella cool and really funny. Watching Fire and Ice for the first time reminded me of my experience seeing 300 last year. It wasn't at all a bad movie, certainly not average, but its plotting and dialog stuck out as being at best conventional and at worst kind of confusing and one-dimensional (which, perhaps as based on Frank Miller's comic book, was the right decision to go with). But its primary strengths drew from the intense action and bloody battles and having that jolt of a 14 year old feeling watching beefcake men fighting in bloody sword-led combat, with the occasional freaky creature or super-hot female to go with the painterly surroundings. While I would probably re-watch Fire and Ice before 300 again, they both aroused that similar feeling - the exception this time being, naturally, that it's Frank Frazetta, the infamous artist and designer of countless paperback books and comics, collaborating with director Ralph Bakshi, in what isn't typical Hollywood fare but something for the die-hard fans.

What this means for audiences today going back to check out the film for the first time (it may now be coveted nostalgia for those who were young and watched it along with their Masters of the Universe VHS tapes back in the day) is the possible cons mentioned before and, maybe, that you will see something somewhat unique. Fire and Ice isn't even the only Bakshi rotoscoped feature, but it's possibly the most fluid- if not quite my personal favorite- of the few he made, and he and his team create a whole striking world that's part pre-historic, part out-of-this-world fantastic, and part medieval, and all touched up with a painters hand with respect to the backgrounds, the skies and grounds. There's a slight drawback for Bakshi fans in this facet of character design; Bakshi went as far as to say it's more Frazetta than him. This may be true, but it doesn't make it any more absorbing to the eye or curious in those moments where we don't see people killed or gutted in quick or slow motion (my favorite was the momentary skeleton-guide- how they rotoscoped that amazes me).

I neglect describing the plot as it would defeat the purpose of really recommending it. If you're already a die-hard into this kind of style and approach of animation the plot will matter depending on what degree two warring factions or a 'damsel' or princess is in danger or a hero has to prove himself or yada yada, so suffice to say it's about, well, Fire against Ice, with characters named Nekron and Darkwolf (the coolest male of the lot and most comic-book in appearance) and Teegra (the typical hottie who's almost *too* perfect for the adolescent male fantasy figure). What the plot does do, as an asset, is allow a series of cliffhangers and suspense bits around the action, the progression of the danger in the oncoming big battle, like when the ogres are hunting after Teegra and have to contend with sudden crazy monsters and creatures popping out of tree trunks and lakes. And per usual for Bakshi, he conjures up some craziness (if not quite his usual inspired lunacy) in the midst of all of this straightforward fantasy material. If you've seen Wizards, you'll understand what I mean to a lesser extent.

So, if you're an animation buff, seek this out right away for some 'old-school' (i.e. 1980s) action and incredible design. For everyone else, it's... good, not great, as I would say without fault about its logical 21st century extension, with some alterations, 300. Thsi is one great movie. probably the best movie i have ever seen. I Watch it over and over again. I must give it 10/10 stars because like i said this is probably the best movie i have ever seen. This Movie +Popcorn+Coke= Best mix you can imagine. If you want to watch some movie then i clearly recommend this one. First i sawed it i liked it so i buy-ed it and now i own it and watch it probably every day. my sons like it and think that this is the best movie ever seen. This movie is about Guy In Fantasy World. i don't want to spoil all the movie so you can enjoy it after you read my text. Lovely Movie Lovely Characters, Lovely Story, And Just great stuff. a must watch movie. hope you enjoyed my comment Cya

Jim Make I had watched snippets from this as a kid but, while I purchased Blue Underground's set immediately due to its being a Limited Edition, only now did I fit it in my viewing schedule - and that's mainly because Bakshi's American POP (1981) just turned up on late-night Italian TV (see my review of that film below)!

Anyway, I found the film to be a quite good sword-and-sorcery animated epic with especially impressive-looking backdrops (the rather awkward rotoscoped characters were, admittedly, less so) with a rousing if derivative score. The plot, again, wasn't exactly original, but proved undeniably engaging on a juvenile level and the leading characters well enough developed - especially interesting is the villainous Ice-lord Nekron and the enigmatic warrior Darkwolf; the hero and heroine, however, are rather bland stereotypes - but one can hardly complain when Bakshi and Frazetta depict the girl as well-endowed (her bra could be torn off any second) and half-naked to boot (her tiny panties are forever disappearing up her ass)! Still, it's clearly an action-oriented piece and it certainly delivers on this front (that involving Darkwolf being particularly savage); the final showdown though brief, is also nicely handled and sees our heroes astride pterodactyls assaulting the villains' lair inside a cave .

In the long run, apart from the afore-mentioned Frazetta backdrops, the main appeal of this movie for me now is its nostalgia factor as it transported me back to my childhood days of watching not just films like CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) and THE BEASTMASTER (1982) but also animated TV series such as BLACKSTAR (1981-82) and HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (1983-85).

As for the accompanying THE MAKING OF "FIRE AND ICE" (TV) (Mark Bakshi, 1982) **1/2:

Vintage featurette on the sword-and-sorcery animated film which is only available via the washed-out VHS print owned by Ralph Bakshi himself! It goes into some detail about the rotoscope technique and also shows several instances of live-action 'performances' (in a studio) of segments from the script - which would then be traced, blended in with the backgrounds and filmed. Still, having watched several such behind-the-scenes featurettes on the art of animation (on the Disney Tins and the Looney Tunes sets, for instance), it's doesn't make for a very compelling piece... In a time of magic, barbarians and demons abound a diabolical tyrant named Nekhron and his mother Queen Juliane who lives in the realm of ice and wants to conquer the region of fire ruled by the King Jerol but when his beautiful daughter Princess Teegra has been kidnapped by Nekhron's goons, a warrior named Larn must protect her and must defeat Nekhron from taking over the world and the kingdom with the help of an avenger named Darkwolf.

A nicely done and excellent underrated animated fantasy epic that combines live actors with animation traced over them ( rotoscoping), it's Ralph Bakshi's second best movie only with "American Pop" being number one and "Heavy Traffic" being third and "Wizards" being fourth. It's certainly better than his "Cool World" or "Lord of the Rings", the artwork is designed by famed artist Frank Farzetta and the animation has good coloring and there's also a hottie for the guys.

I highly recommend this movie to fantasy and animation lovers everywhere especially the new 2-Disc Limited Edition DVD from Blue Underground.

Also recommended: "The Black Cauldron", "The Dark Crystal", "Conan The Barbarian", "The Wizard of Oz", " Rock & Rule", "Wizards", "Heavy Metal", "Starchaser: Legend of Orin", "Fantastic Planet", " Princess Mononoke", " Nausicca: Valley of the Wind", " Conan The Destroyer", " Willow", " The Princess Bride", "Lord of the Rings ( 1978)", " The Sword in The Stone", " Excalibur", " Army of Darkness", " Krull", "Dragonheart", " King Arthur", " The Hobbit", " Return of the King ( 1980)", "Conquest", " American Pop", " Jason and The Argonauts", " Clash of the Titans", " The Last Unicorn", " The Secret of NIMH", "The Flight of Dragons", " Hercules (Disney)", " Legend", " The Chronicles of Narnia", " Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire". This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.

But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.

Definitely recommended! I really enjoyed this movie. The humor was a bit absent at times but I enjoyed how the story moved between dramatic and serious throughout the film. This is the only the second movie where I saw Verdone acting (the other was 'Un sacco bello'), and I can see why Italians find him tiresome, but he think he played his role well as the loving father.

My one drawback with this movie was that I knew it took place in Italy - somewhere in the center or south, I presume, but I felt like there was no representation of a place. This movie could have taken place in New York, Boston, Melbourne, New Dehli...I always think it is important for movies to have a place to give the viewers something to relate to. (Maybe I missed something?) :) If you like Italian films, then I think that you will enjoy this. It's not a Fellini or a Rossellini - it's not realism or neo-realism. It's a comical story with serious moments that could really happen to any of us. i liked this movie a lot.I rented this expecting something not too bad to spend an evening.It turned out a particularly satisfying experience. Some scenes were hilarious and managed to be so in a movie not intended to be just a stupid slapstick comedy but with some meaning and moral values.It manages on both counts.The leads are all good but especially the guy who stars,also wrote and produced the movie.I've never seen any of these actors before, but they were likable and made me care about what happens to them in the end which is saying a lot.The script is clever and involving and has a refreshing feel to it. I think you wont be disappointed to watch this. I have just recently been through a stage where I wanted to see why it is that horror films of the 90's can't hold a candle to 70's and 80's horror films. I have been very public in this forum about the vileness of films like The Haunting and Urban Legend and such. I feel that they (and others like them) don't know what true horror is. And it bothered me to the point where it made me go to my local video store and rent some of the classic horror films. I already own all the Friday's so I rented The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the original Nightmare On Elm Street, Jaws, The Exorcist, Angel Heart, The Exorcist and Halloween. Now the other films are classics in their own right but it is here that I want to tell you about Halloween. Because what Halloween does is perhaps something no other film in the history of horror film can do, and that is it uses subtle techniques, techniques that don't rely on blood and gore, and it uses these to scare the living daylights out of you. I was in a room by myself with the lights off and as silly as I knew it was, I wanted to look behind me to see if Michael Myers was there. No movie that I have seen in the last ten years has done that to me. No movie.

John Carpenter took a low budget film and he scared a generation of movie goers. He showed that you don't need budgets in the 8 or 9 figures to evoke fear on an audience. Because sometimes the best element of fear is not what actually happens, but what is about to happen. What was that shadow? What was that noise upstairs? He knows that these are the ways to scare someone and he uses every element of textbook horror that I think you can use. I even think he made up some of his own ideas and these should be ideas that people use today. But they don't. No one uses lighting and detail to provoke scares, they use special effects and rivers of blood. And it is just not the same. You can't be scared by a giant special effect that makes loud noises and jumps out of a wall. It's the moments when the killer is lurking, somewhere, you just don't know where, that scare you. And Halloween succeeds like no other film in this endeavor.

In 1963 a young Micael Myers kills his sister with a large butcher knife and then spends the next 15 years of his life, silently locked up in an institute. As Loomis ( his doctor) says to Sheriff Brackett, " I spent eight years trying to reach him and then another seven making sure that he never gets out, because what I saw behind those eyes was pure e-vil. " That sets up the manic and relentless idea of a killer that will stop at nothing to get what he wants. And all he wants here is to kill Laurie. No one know why he wants to kill her, but he does.( Halloween II continues the story quite well )

What Carpenter has done here is taken a haunting score, mendacious lighting techniques and wrote and directed a tightly paced masterpiece of horror. There is one scene that has to be described. And that is the scene where Annie is on her way to pick up Paul. She goes to the car and tries to open it. Only then does she realize that she has left her keys in the house. She gets them, comes back out and inadvertently opens the car door without using the keys. The audience picks up on this but she doesn't. She is too busy thinking about Paul. When she sits down, she notices that the windows are fogged up. She is puzzled and starts to wipe away the mist, and then Myers strikes, from the back seat. This is such a great scene because it pays attention to detail. We know what is happening and Annie doesn't. But it's astute observations that Carpenter made that scared the hell out of movie goers in 1978 and beyond.

Halloween uses blurry images of a killer standing in the background, it has shadows ominously gliding across a wall, dark rooms, creepy and haunting music, a sinister story told hauntingly by Donald Pleasance and a menacing, relentless killer. My advice to film makers in our day and age is to study Halloween. It should be the blue print for what scary movies are all about. After all, Carpenter followed in Hitchcock's steps, maybe director's should follow in his.

Halloween personifies everything that scares us. If you are tired of all the mindless horror films that don't know the difference between evil and cuteness, then Halloween is a film that should be seen. It won't let you down. I enjoy being scared, I don't know why, but I do. But nothing has scared me in the 90's, except maybe one film ( Wes Craven's final Nightmare ). If you enjoy beings scared, then Halloween is one that you should see. And if you have already seen it a hundred times, go and watch it again, back to back with a film like Urban Legend. Urban Legend will have you enticed at all the pretty faces in the movie. Halloween will have you frozen with fear, stuck in your seat, not wanting to move. Now tell me, what horror film would you rather watch?

And just to follow up after seeing Zombie's version, it makes you appreciate this that much more. This is a classic by definition. Zombie bastardized his version, but it doesn't take away from the brilliance of this one. Halloween is not only the godfather of all slasher movies but the greatest horror movie ever! John Carpenter and Debra Hill created the most suspenseful, creepy, and terrifying movie of all time with this classic chiller. Michael Myers is such a phenomenal monster in this movie that he inspired scores of imitators, such as Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), The Miner (My Bloody Valentine), and Charlie Puckett (The Night Brings Charlie). Okay, so I got a little obscure there, but it just goes to show you the impact that this movie had on the entire horror genre. No longer did a monster have to come from King Tut's tomb or from Dr. Frankenstein's lab. He could be created in the cozy little neighborhoods of suburbia. And on The Night He Came Home...Haddonfield, Illinois and the viewers would never be the same. There are many aspects of this movie that make it the crowning jewel of horror movies. First is the setting...it takes place in what appears to be a normal suburban neighborhood. Many of us who grew up in an area such as this can easily identify with the characters. This is the type of neighborhood where you feel safe, but if trouble starts to brew, nobody wants to lift a finger to get involved (especially when a heavy-breathing madman is trying to skewer our young heroine.) Along with the setting, the movie takes place on Halloween!! The scariest night of the year! While most people are carving jack-o-lanterns, Michael Myers is looking to carve up some teenie-boppers. Besides the setting, there is some great acting. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job as our heroine, Laurie Strode, a goody-two-shoes high-schooler who can never seem to find a date. However, it is Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Sam Loomis, who really steals the show. His portrayal of the good doctor, who knows just what type of evil hides behind the black eyes of Michael Myers and feels compelled to send him to Hell once and for all, is the stuff of horror legend. However, it is the synthesizer score that really drives this picture as it seems to almost put the viewer into the film. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. I also enjoy the grainy feel to this picture. Nowadays, they seem to sharpen up the image of every movie, giving us every possible detail of the monster we are supposed to be afraid of. In Halloween, John Carpenter never really lets us get a complete look at Michael Myers. He always seems like he is a part of the shadows, and, I think that is what makes him so terrifying. There are many scenes where Michael is partly visible as he spies on the young teens (unbeknownst to them), which adds to his creepiness. If you think about, some wacko could be watching you right now and you wouldn't even know it. Unfortunately for our teenagers (and fortunately for us horror fans), when they find Michael, he's not looking for candy on this Halloween night..he's looking for blood. Finally, Michael Myers, himself, is a key element to this movie's effectiveness. His relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode makes him seem like the killer who will never stop. He is the bogeyman that will haunt you for the rest of your life. So,if you have not seen this movie (if there are still some of you out there who haven't, or even if you have), grab some popcorn, turn off every light, pop this into the old DVD and watch in fright. Trick or Treat! John Carpenter's Halloween is quite frankly a horror masterpiece. It tells the immortal story of escaped mental patient Michael Myers, who returns to his hometown on Halloween night to stalk and kill a group of babysitters.

This was the first and without doubt the best in the Halloween franchise. Carpenter shows great restraint in pacing the story very slowly and building likable characters; unusual for a horror picture.

Even more unusual is the non-existence of blood and gore, and yet it remains the scariest Halloween to date. Get that!

Halloween marked the film debut of Jamie Lee Curtis and a defining point in the late great Donald Pleasance's career. A true classic. My personal favorite horror film. From the lengthy first tracking shot to the final story twist, this is Carpenter's masterpiece.

Halloween night 1963, little Michael Meyers murders his older sister. All-hallows-eve 1978, Michael escapes from Smith's Grove sanitarium. Halloween night, Michael has come home to murder again.

The story is perfectly simple, Michael stalks and kills babysitters. No bells or whistles, just the basics. It's Carpenter's almost over-powering atmosphere of dread that generates the tension. Like any great horror film, events are telegraphed long in advance, yet they still seem to occur at random, never allowing the audience to the chance to second guess the film.

The dark lighting, the long steady-cam shots, and (most importantly) that damn eerie music create the most claustrophobic and uncomfortable scenes I have yet to see in film. There is a body count, but compared to the slew of slashers after this it's fairly small. That and most of the murders are nearly bloodless. The fear is not in death, but in not knowing.

The acting is roundelay good. PJ Soles provides much of the films limited humor (and one of the best deaths), Nancy Loomis turns in a decent performance and then there is the young (at the time) Jamie Leigh-Curtis. Her performance at first seems shy and un-assured, yet you quickly realize that it is perfect for the character, who is herself shy and un-assured and not at all prepared for what she is to face. And of course there is the perfectly cast Donald Pleasence as the determined (perhaps a little unstable) Dr. Sam Loomis. Rest in peace Mr. Pleasence.

If the film has a detrimental flaw, it would be the passage of time. Since the release of this film so many years ago nearly countless clones, copies, rip-offs, and imitators have come along and stolen (usually badly) the films best bits until nearly everything about it has become familiar. Combined with the changes for audience expectations and appetites, one finds much of the films raw power diluted. To truly appreciate it in this day and age, it must be viewed as it once was, as something unique.

Never the less, I have no reservation with highly recommending this film to anyone looking for a good, scary time. Highest Reguards.

10/10 Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in "Halloween" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming "re-imagining".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10 Halloween is one of those movies that gets you skin deep! It is in my opinion, the scariest movie of all time. Michael Myers is the best boogeyman ever! He was just so terrifying! What makes Halloween so special is that there was no special effects where you can tell how computer animated it is, this was on a low budget and had a one note score, yet managed to scare the Hell out of people. 25 years and this movie still has the same effect as it did in '78.

It's about a boy Michael Myers, he kills his sister at the age of 6 and so many years later escapes the mental institution. Dr. Sam Loomis is after him and will do anything to get him back, since he describes Michael as "...pure evil. The blackest eyes, the Devil's eyes". Michael is on a mission though, to kill his other sister, Laurie, played by a new Jamie Lee Curtis. She has to babysit on Halloween, while her friends are out partying and of course, we know the rules, they get it! But Laurie may stand a chance since she's the virgin. ;D

Halloween pays many homages to Psycho, we have another character named Sam Loomis and Jamie Lee Curis, the daughter of Janet Leigh. Halloween is an absolute terrific movie that breaks boundaries and makes you lock the doors, bolt your windows, and turn off the lights! "They're gonna get you! They're gonna get you!". Halloween, the ultimate horror film!

10/10 Halloween is one of the best examples of independent film. It's very well made and has more psychological elements to it than you might realize at first glance. It is a simple movie told very well. The music is perfect and is one of the most haunting scores... If you haven't seen this movie yet, you must check it out. The cast is all terrific. I wish they had never made sequel after sequel. The first one was by far the best and should have ended like it did without having a sequel. It was fun to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie. She hasn't seemed to age (she's just as gorgeous today, without the hairdo and seventies clothes). The scenes through the mask are one of the scariest things ever! I must admit, this is one of my favorite horror films of all time. The unique way that John Carpenter has directed this picture, opening the door to so many mock-genres, it will chill you to the bone whether it is your first time watching it or your fiftieth. The sound, the menacing horror of Michael Meyers and the infamous scream of Jamie Lee Curtis gives this film instant cult status and a great start for the independent era. I love the music, I love the characters, the familiar yet spooky setting, the simplistic nature of the villain, and the random chaos of it all. There is no really rhyme or reason to the killing in this first film, giving us a taste of Michael's true nature. Is he insane, or in some way just a very brilliant beast? That question may never be truly answered, but Carpenter gives us his 100% and more devotion to this amazing masterpiece.

John Carpenter is the master of horror. While lately his films have not been the caliber that they once were (see Ghosts of Mars), Halloween began his powerhouse of a career. This is his ultimate film. While he did release other greats, I will always remember this one as the film that caused me to turn on all the lights, beware when babysitting, and check behind closed doors, because you never knew where the evil would appear next. Carpenter has this amazing ability to bring you into the world in which he weaves. With the power of his camera, he places these images of Meyers in places you least expected while giving you the perception as if the murderer is right next to you. I loved every scene in which we panned back and there was Michael, watching from the distance, without anyone the wiser. That was scary, yet utterly brilliant. I loved the scenes in which Carpenter pulled your fright from nearly thin air. There you would be, minding your own business, when suddenly that horrid mask would appear out of nowhere. Like the characters, you too thought it was just a trick of the eye, but that is where Carpenter gets you, it isn't. Michael isn't a ghost, he is a human being (or at least we think), yet he has a stronger mental ability than most of the main characters. This leads into some really dark themes and unexplored symbolism, but even without that, this is a spooky film.

Then, if you just didn't have enough of Michael just vaporizing in the windows of your house, Carpenter adds that chilling theme music. I still have that tapping of the piano keys in my mind, constantly wondering if Meyers is looking at me through the window. Carpenter has found the perfect combination of visual frights and chilling sounds to foreshadow what may happen to our unsuspecting victims next. It is lethal, and it is done with refreshing originality and more unique thrills than anything released by today's Horror Hollywood could muster. Carpenter's Halloween is a breath of fresh air in the midst of what could be a rough horror year, with actual scares being replaced by Paris Hilton, you know that the quality isn't quite the same.

Finally, I would like to say that even the simplistic nature of the opening murder in this film is terrifying and chilling. The use of the "clown" mask sent shivers up my spine. The way that it was filmed with that elongated one shot using the child's mask as if it were our own eyes is still one of the best horror openings ever! It completely sets the tone for the remainder of that film. You have the babysitter theme, you have the childish behavior which carries with Michael throughout the film, and you have the art talent of Carpenter all rolled into one. I could literally speak for hours upon hours about this film, but instead I would rather go watch it again. It is worth the repeat visit many times!

Overall, I think this is one of the most outstanding films in cinematic history. Skip all those foreign films that think that they are going to chance the face of movies leave it to a budget tight Carpenter and the slasher film genre. This singular movie redefined a whole generation of horror films, and still continues to be an influence on modern-day horror treats. The lethal combination of a genuinely spooky murderer, the powerful cinematography of the events (which normally doesn't amount to much in horror films), and the beauty of Jamie Lee Curtis is exactly what makes Halloween that film above the rest. Sure, Freddy is cool and you feel sympathetic for Jason, but Michael is real, he is troubled, and he is on the loose lusting for the blood of babysitters. What can be better?

Grade: ***** out of ***** Halloween is the story of a boy who was misunderstood as a child. He takes out his problems on his older sister, whom he murders at the beginning of the film. This is just the start of things to come from Michael Myers.

Donald Pleasance plays the doctor who's been studying Myers for years. He knows that something is different about him, something mysteriously evil. This evil will not be contained, and it cannot be stopped.

After an escape from an institution, Myers tracks down his younger sister. If he kills her, there may be an end to the troubles of this misunderstood boy. But he seems to have problems in finishing his sister off as other people get in the way. He manages to take them out while still looking for that one girl he needs.

There have been a lot of those horror movies involving teenagers getting hacked to pieces by a masked or gruesome killer. But this one started it all, sort of. If you think about it, most of those horror movies we all remember are the ones that have Freddy Kruger or Jason chasing around half naked girls. Well, if it wasn't for Halloween, those characters wouldn't have haunted our dreams when we were children.

Halloween's director, John Carpenter, got a lot out of the horror movies of the '50s and combined everything he knew into one film that scared the hell out of a lot of people back in the late '70s. This films solidified him as a director to watch and also jump started the career of Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays the girl being stalked by the masked killer.

This film may seem cliché today, but back then there wasn't much out there like this. It's been copied from and ripped off of, but Halloween will always remain the quintessential teenage horror movie. It still gives you chills listening to Carpenter's thrilling music while we see another victim get chased by that shadowy Michael Myers. John Carpenter's Halloween

Is it the greatest horror film of all time? no .. maybe not to everyone, but to me it is and always will be. The film is sheer genius and will always hold a very special place in my heart.

It's unfortunate I didn't get to see this film until twenty years after it's release, but even twenty years later after so many slasher copy cats had come and gone the film still gave the same impact as it must have done then. My father suggested before I go see Halloween H20 that I whip out and rent Halloween's 1 and 2 to get the full story, and after watching Halloween it was quite clear that it defined and set the Slasher Genre.

The film's plot is simple, In 1963 Michael Audrey Myers killed his sister Judith in cold blood with a large butcher knife. Incarcerated for fifteen years where he was treated by Dr. Sam Loomis, he escapes and returns to his hometown of Haddonfield where he begins stalking three young girls: Laurie Strode an innocent bookworm, Annie Brackett a tough talking sarcastic and Lynda Van Der Klok a beautiful and sexually vigorous young girl. Dr. Loomis tracks Michael here where he enlists the help of the town Sheriff Leigh Brackett whom remains skeptical of his story about the psychotic killer. Michael watches the girls mercilessly and begins killing them off one by one, until only sweet innocent Laurie is left who is the prime target on Michael's list.

The casting of this film was brilliant and all the actors and actresses gave top notch performances, Jamie Lee Curtis was stunning in her first film role as Laurie Strode and Donald Pleasance gave a thrilling performance with his small role as Loomis. Nick Castle who portrays Michael did an outstanding job as the soulless and evil killer, and his walk and body movements were perfect.

One of the great highlights of this film is it's chilling score done by John Carpenter himself who created one of the most recognizable horror themes known today. The Blue Lighting was creepy and effective and one of the great moments in this film is when young Laurie is cowering against a wall after seeing her dead friends, and in the shadows behind her Michael's face materializes before he strikes. Michael's mask was one of the thing's that sent chills down my spine the most, the white emotionless face worked perfectly.

What makes this film so great is that it is not a gory film unlike the cheesy Friday The 13th films, in fact there is little blood in this film at all and works instead on suspense and tension.

It became so clear that Halloween spawned movies like Friday The 13th and characters like Jason Voorhees, whom he is a mere rip off of Michael Myers.

To sum it up, I suggest you see this film at least once in your life as it is a landmark in film making and is without a doubt if not the greatest then one of the greatest horror films of all time. This was a movie that I had heard about all my life growing up, but had never seen it until a few years ago. It's reputation truly proceeded it. I knew of Michael Myers, had seen the mask, saw commercials for all of the crummy sequels that followed. But I was growing up during the decade where Jason and Freddy had a deadly grip on the horror game, and never thought much of the Halloween franchise. Boy, how I was being cheated with cheap knock offs.

Halloween is a genuinely terrifying movie. Now, by today's standards, it isn't as graphic and visceral, but this film delivers on all the other levels most horror movies fail to achieve today. The atmosphere that John Carpenter creates is so creepy, and the fact that it is set in a quaint, mid-west town is a testament to his ability. The lighting effects are down right horrifying, with "The Shape" seemingly appearing and disappearing into the shadows at will. The simple yet brutally effective music score only adds to the suspense.

The performances by all the players are well done, with specific nods to Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance. Ms. Curtis is such a good Laurie Strode because she is so likable and vulnerable. It is all the more frightening when she is being stalked by Michael Myers because the director and viewer have invested so much into her, we want her to survive and get away.

Donald Pleasance plays Dr. Loomis like a man on a mission, and it works well. He adds a sense of urgency to the predicament the town finds itself in because he knows what evil stalks their streets.

Overall, not only is Halloween a great horror movie, but also a great film. It works on many levels and draws the audience in and never lets up. This should be standard viewing for anyone wanting to experience a truly scary movie. And for an even more frightful time, try watching it alone with the lights off. Don't be surprised if you think you see "The Shape" lurking around in the shadows! This film is one of the best of all time, certainly in the horror genre. The claustrophobic atmosphere is outstanding, the music is just as good as the film and the killer is as creepy as can be! Actors are fantastic, RIP Donald Pleasance you were fantastic as Dr Loomis, he made the film even better. Without him the film would be missing a vital ingredient. Jamie Lee Curtis is also superb as our beloved scream queen! Her innocence makes her unaware of the real evil that is after her until she finds her friends grossly murdered in the house, which of course is one of the films best scenes. She gives a tremendous performance. I loved this film since it scared me like hell back when I seen it in the very early 80's and I still watch it to this day as it is a marvellous movie that just brings you in to this world were you could be gutted like a fish at every turn! The fact that it is a simple format of a mad man in a mask whom has escaped from a mental asylum and ready to kill everyone in sight without them having any idea that he is there, is just shockingly terrifying and indulges you even more into the movie as the events though fiction could easily be come true. We all know that unfortunately evil does exist in this world and a mad man with a knife is certainly not uncommon, a very disturbing an deep fear for all of this. Death at any turn. Halloween of course shows this in it's most terrifying way. Horror should be believable, and that is what makes the film enjoyable. It's just a simple story that is made into an excellent and terrifying atmosphere. As well as Psycho's superb storyline, both of which I adore, I believe there formats are the best horror has to offer. To me Halloween and Psycho are the best films I have ever seen and I will watch them all my life and never grow tired of them. Halloween is undoubtedly one of the best movies of all time. Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.

Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.

Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!

The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.

So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!

**** out of **** The first time I saw this movie, I fell in love with it. The atmosphere was what caught my attention first and foremost. I expected a gore fest, but instead got to watch a highly intelligent killer mess with my head to a chilling soundtrack (it's actually my ringer at the moment :P). The fact that I couldn't predict when he'd kill and when he'd disappear was a major plus in my book. Predictable horror movies bore me. Now, I know the storyline had some discrepancies, but, if you're like me, you don't even notice them until long after the movie's over and you're laying in bed mauling over the fact that you just witnessed a masterpiece in motion. Finally, as I mentioned, the soundtrack is timeless. It's one of my all time favorite theatrical scores, so I was very happy to hear that Rob Zombie is leaving it untouched in his remake. Speaking of the remake, I read a very comprehensive article on it and, now that I know that Mr. Zombie reveres John Carpenter, I have high hopes for his take on this classic. This movie is great for any time you have a craving for a spine tingling, but it's the perfect addition, opener, finale, you name it for an All Hallow's Eve movie marathon. :) Some spoilers If you are a big horror movie fan, then you will know that Halloween paved the way for many slasher films. Often imitated, never duplicated, this movie is a true horror classic and is definitely one of the scariest movies ever made, if not THE scariest.

I actually saw this movie after seeing the rest of the series (don't ask me why). I honestly saw the other 7 movies before seeing this one, that's just how it worked out. But I would have to say this one blows all the others away. It is genuinely frightening, and seeing Michael pop out from behind a bush or walk around in the dark sends a chill down your spine. My favorite part of the movie was when Michael stabs a guy, and leans his head to one side. It is one of the eeriest images in movie history.

Later slashers, such as the Friday the 13th films, were more fun and less intense than this movie. I do like the F13 series better than the Halloween series, but this movie alone is better than all the F13 movies. Michael Myers is such a scary villain because he is realistic, you could imagine a crazed guy like him going around killing people. I admit this movie gave me nightmares after watching it for a few nights.

What's great about this movie is that it doesn't rely on gore or humor to entertain the audience. It is just pure terror. It's too bad the later films of the series swayed from this one, because this is as good of an example of a spectacular slasher movie as they come. It took me time to really appreciate John Carpenter's Halloween. As a kid, I remember I really enjoyed the sequels, especially The Return of Michael Myers, which I still think is the best Halloween sequel. But I thought the first one was slow and took way too much time to get to the point­. I watched it a couple of times recently and I know now I was wrong. Today I truly understand this film, the meaning it has, the whole feeling of this horror masterpiece. It's not about blood and gore. It's not about naked chicks and lame jokes. It's about the worst night in Laurie Strode's short life. It's about the night his demented brother comes back home to finish what he started 15 years ago. This movie is meant to be scary and I think it succeeds very well. It's also one of the first slasher movies, a horror sub-genre that I always loved. Halloween has a very dark atmosphere, creepy music and talented young actors, such as Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role. Need I say more? Anyone who's never seen it, horror fan or not, should do his cinematic homework right now. Very highly recommended! Halloween is a film I have to get out and watch every time it's THAT day of the year.I even watch it sometimes when it's not the holiday!!!This film is SO great.Jamie Lee Curtis is an actress I can never stop loving.This movie might be old,but the story line still gets me right there every time,and the acting was absolutely fantastic!!!Although I have not seen the remake,I feel already that it was TOTALLY unnecessary.I think Rob Zombie should have NEVER remade such a classic.What kills me though,is to know that there are some people out there who have seen the remake without even hearing of the original.I am getting furious just thinking about it!!!!!!This movie was great,and it will always be remembered in history as a classic. There is no doubt that Halloween is by far one of the best films ever not only in its genre but also outside.I love the films creepy atmosphere like the whole it could happen here sort of situation makes it scary to think about.Also to imagine if you were ever in this situation what would you do.This is a movie that i enjoy watching highly, especially around Halloween time.John Carpenter is a very professional directer i love a lot of his other films, but there is no doubt that his best known movie is the film Halloween.Oh and if your thinking about watching the Rob Zombie remake don't.It is pure crap and a true Halloween fan would like the 1978 John Carpenter version better.Michael Myers is one of the coolest slasher killers in any film, and is a very well known one.So by all means go see this masterpiece you will really like it. As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.

It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.

Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.

Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit).

Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career. With a simplistic story and an engaging heroine, this was the horror movie that started it all. John Carpenter brings to life a nail-biting nightmare on Halloween night, when Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut, career defining role) and her mischievous friends plan a night of sneaky fun- only to cross paths with a relentless psychopath from hell.

Michael Myers has escaped from a nearby insane aslyum...having slaughtered his sister fifteen years earlier, he is now back in Haddonfield, the sleepy Illinois town where his murder took place. Once he sets his eyes on Laurie after she drops off a package to the abandoned house where he lived, he begins to stalk and terrorize her, turning her night of fun into terror as he picks off anyone in his path to get to her.

Beautiful cinematography and lighting really make this moody horror flick scary... with the long gloomy shots it constantly feels as if you're being stalked by the maniacal serial killer himself. Myers is hidden well until fully revealed at the exciting conclusion.

Although "Halloween" is certainly outdated, it is by no means less chilling. The idea alone is goose bump inducing, and this little shocker is one of the most famous and memorable horror movies ever made to this day... it spawned seven sequels and eventually Rob Zombie's equally scary remake, and it set a new standard for horror that still exists today. It was "The Night HE Came Home," warned the posters for John Carpenter's career-making horror classic. Set in a small American town, Halloween centerers around serial killer Michael Myers' attempts to track down his sister Laurie Strode, and in the process eliminates all her friends in rather brutal ways...leaving poor Laurie to fight against the seemingly indestructible Michael. This plot out-line inspired countless horror knock-offs throughout the 80s, 90s and continues to do so today, as well as a poorly received 2007 remake. The difference between them, and this, is, quite simply, that "Halloween" is the best.

Made on a very modest, tight budget...Halloween changed the face of horror in 1978 and spawned the sub-genre of "sexually promiscuous-teens getting stalked by a knife/axe/chainsaw/ wielding psycho". There are two movie experiences I will always cherish. The first was seeing "Star Wars" for the first time at the age of 10 with my little brother. A close second is sneaking into Halloween at the Tripple Plex with my good friend, Trevor, in late October 1978. Halloween left me breathless, speechless, and downright scared. Everyone knows the story. Young Michael Myers decides to kill his sister on Halloween 1963. He escapes a mental hospital 15 years later to return to Haddofield to wreck havoc once again. He spots Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a shy senior who enjoys babysitting, and begins stalking her. Her partying friends across the street are killed, one-by-one as Michael sets his plot to get her. Ironically, the young boy she tends on Halloween is afraid of the "Boogeman," and can see him outside. During the murder spree, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) works hard to find Michael before he unleashes his fury. He has no proof, no evidence, just a hunch he has to sell to Sheriff Bracket (Charles Cyphers). As the plot unfolds, you have a suspense-driven movie instead of a cheap thrill scare. Alfred Hitchcock once said, "You can have four men at a table playing cards and they don't know there is a bomb and it goes off. That is a cheap thrill. However, put four men at a table who discover a bomb and discuss what to do about it--then it doesn't go off, then you have suspense." Director John Carpenter takes that advice to the hilt in Halloween. The audience will see glimpses of him outside, watching, stalking his victims. We gasp. Will he kill her? When will he kill her? Then, Michael disappears. Carpenter also uses the suspense in lieu of special effects that usually highlight the gore. This movie has little blood, but still provides good scares. One of the best scenes is Michael lifting Bob off the ground. He rears the knife back as it glints off the moonlight, then he drives it. All you hear is a loud thud, then the audience sees Bob's feet drop lifelessly. Carpenter was the first to use a vantage point from the scene of the killer. This also peaks our audience. What will he do? What's going on inside his mind? Finally, Carpenter's hauntingly masterful score adds to the tension. Moreover, the tandem screen writing he did with Debra Hill gives us a story which develops characters we care about. The teens are not "party mad," but merely going through the rebellious angst of teenage wasteland. Finally, there is some decent acting in this "B," low-budget thriller. Nick Castle who plays "the Shape" (Michael) adds something to the mindless killer. It is cold, merciless, and without any pathology. Moreover, the personality does everything the same way. He kills only when trapped, or to set up a trap. He splits the victims apart. He also relies on brute strength. And that mask used (a bleached William Shatner mask) gives an impression of something that has no soul or emotion. While Pleasance is melodramatic in his deadpan monologues, he comes across as someone scared, desperate, and determined. It made me wonder if he represented modernism's fading attempt to explain evil. The crown jewel, though, is Jamie Lee Curtis' debut. She plays the Laurie character as someone scared, but also determined and strong who fights back. The end is one that left me speechless. This was the first concept of an indestructible serial killer who could not be stopped. Movies like Star Wars have the advantage that it can be enjoyed numerous times. Halloween, and other scary movies, though, do not have that advantage. So if we could erase our minds of the first time we see a movie to experience it again as fresh and new, Halloween would be the movie I would choose. In 1978 a phenomenon began. The release of John Carpenter's "Halloween" got people queueing around the block to witness the evil that is Michael Meyers. The critics loved it, the world loved it, it was imitated, and has gone down as one of the greatest movies in cinematic history.

plot: 15 years after a murder took place, four friends (all females) are babysitting(and having it on with their boyfriends) on Halloween night. After escaping from a hospital the night before, Michael myers Returns to his home town to stalk these people. He murders 3 of them silently and subtlety. He does not speak. He walks slowly. He hides....

Only one of the friends escapes, after being saved by Doctor Loomis (Michael's pursuer and doctor)

There is one reason why Halloween works so well. Simplicity. We don't know where Michael is, we don't know why he kills, and he frightens us. They're the only reasons why we are afraid.

John carpenter wrote the movie, and directed. He builds unbearable tension throughout the story, and scares to such a degree, that sometimes we cannot watch. And the climax is truly startling.

As horror, this is essential. It is terrifying and well acted. It is also mysterious. Michael is a force, not a human. A force that cannot be denied.

The sequels focused too much around Michael and his "history". This movie focuses on the fear of the unknown. Perhaps that's why this thing is a masterpiece. Every now and then a movie advertises itself as scary or frightening, though they usually aren't. Most modern horror movies fit into this category.

Then there are those movies that don't simply cause the tension and adrenaline to pump through your veins harder than usual. They actually frighten you to a level that you've never experienced.

"Halloween" is such a film. It takes so many risks that would make most movie producers cringe. But nearly all of them work. "Halloween" is awe-inspiring in its simplicity, and terrifying as a whole.

The story is simple. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is babysitting some kids on Halloween night, while a madman is on the loose after escaping from a mental institution after brutally murdering his older sister 15 years ago. Of course, the madman, later known as Michael Myers, begins killing the local teenage population, and eventually he comes after Laurie.

Sounds familiar, right? Just another brainless slasher filled with dumb teenagers and gobs of gore. Not a chance.

I think James Berardinelli puts it perfectly in his review of "Halloween:" "Because of its title, Halloween has frequently been grouped together with all the other splatter films that populated theaters throughout the late-1970s and early-1980s. However, while Halloween is rightfully considered the father of the modern slasher genre, it is not a member..."

He has a point, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it's downright terrifying, whereas most entries into the teen slasher genre are dumb gore-fests (one could argue that many recent ones are tongue-in-cheek, but most of those fail as well). Second, there is almost no violence (very little of which is bloody). John Carpenter knows that violence does not equal scary, and he relies very little on it (actually, the body count is pretty low). In fact, one can argue that this isn't really a horror movie, at least not by todays standards of having the most deaths that can be crammed into a single movie, each gorier and more sadistic than the last. He relies on ideas for scares, and also skill. Third, while some of the characters may do stupid things (that sometimes seal their fate), they don't do them because they're dumb. The characters are real people, so instead of thinking that the characters die because they're idiots, we're frightened because they're making a mistake.

One of the main reasons why "Halloween" is so scary is because it is so easy to believe that it's real. Nothing is hard to swallow in this film. There's no supernatural, there's no ridiculously creative plot elements, or "inventive" murders, or whatnot. Instead, all the set pieces and camera work (save the opening sequence) are simple. Carpenter just sets the camera in place and says action. What we get is the feeling that we're actually seeing a murder take place right in front of us.

Horror movies are probably the most difficult films to make because in order for something to be scary, everything has to be perfect, and ideas never work twice. It's a hit or miss game, which is why if I were to tell you all the good ideas that Carpenter has (which I'm not), they'd seem primitive (particularly since they have been repeated with lesser effect over and over again through the years).

Acting here is not a plus point because it doesn't need to be. This is a movie about scary ideas, not a movie about dramatic, conflicted characters. The actors act like real people, not characters from a story. Nothing more. The exception to this is whoever plays The Shape, or later known as Michael Myers. It can be scary to have a person say nothing and simply kill, but it's hard to pull off (and even harder to keep people from asking why). But the guy pulls it off, and the result is terrifying.

This is Carpenter's movie through and through. He directed it, co-wrote it, co-produced it, and wrote the chilling score of it. This is a man of brilliance, and his later movie "The Thing" supports this statement, though The Thing is not as scary as "Halloween." Unfortunately his success has dramatically diminished, as it happens when the lure of big money for less freedom is taken advantage of once big time producers "recognize your potential." As good as this film is, it's not without flaws. The famous opening scene is disturbing, but not very scary. And not many of the scares work for the first part of the movie. It's not that it's bad, it's just that there's no good reason to fear "The Shape." Luckily, Carpenter mostly uses this time to set up a relationship between the characters and the audience. While there's no intimacy in this relationship, it fits the purpose. We grow to know the characters, but not so much that it's disheartening when they die. But once the film gets to Halloween night, that's when Carpenter kicks things into high gear and it NEVER stops until you get to the end.

While "Halloween" may be flawed, it is only slightly so. It is an immensely terrifying film, and a must see for anyone who loves scary movies. Be warned though, this movie will scare the living hell out of you! I have only managed to see this classic for the first time a few weeks ago. Being made almost 30 years ago I thought the scary moments would be rather tame. Boy was I wrong. There are some great moments that sent shivers down my spine. Even the acting was great, Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and Donald Pleasance was superb.

On the downside it can be rather slow to start but once it gets going there is no stopping it. It makes all the copycats, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream look very tame. I can't really say it is Carpenter's best because I have not seen many of his, the only one I can remember of his is Starman (I think he made it). Halloween is the crowning achievement of the horror genre. As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically!

Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.

Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out.

Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.

My rating: 5/5 When I heard about "Hammerhead" being released on DVD and finally found it at my local DVD store, I thought "well, just another cheap monster movie from Nu Image". Those guys around Boaz Davidson and Avi Lerner produced cheap but very entertaining B - Pictures in the past few months but also some very disappointing movies. So I didn't expect much, especially after having watched the rather disappointing "Shark Zone" just a few days before. But "Hammerhead" turned out to be an excellent revival of the 1950s monster movies. We have a mad scientist, a group of people in a dangerous situation, screaming women and damsels in distress, man-eating plants and of course we have the creature, a huge mutant mix between a man and a hammerhead shark. Everything you need for an entertaining monster movie. The only thing missing are graphic sex scenes and nudity which you expect in movies of this kind, but since the movie was made for TV it's understandable why these scenes are missing. And it doesn't matter anyway cause "Hammerhead" is action and horror entertainment at it's best. There are two reasons why I gave it seven out of ten points, though: First of all, the monster isn't seen very often and the showdown with the destruction of the creature is too fast and poorly done, and secondly, William Forsythe just isn't the right guy for the "hero" part and for falling in love with gorgeous Hunter Tylo. Other than that, I can highly recommend this movie for any monster movie fan out there. Grab yourselves a cool drink and some popcorn, watch this movie and have fun. Jasper P. Morgan Like the gentle giants that make up the latter half of this film's title, Michael Oblowitz's latest production has grace, but it's also slow and ponderous. The producer's last outing, "Mosquitoman-3D" had the same problem. It's hard to imagine a boring shark movie, but they somehow managed it. The only draw for Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy was it's passable animatronix, which is always fun when dealing with wondrous worlds beneath the ocean's surface. But even that was only passable. Poor focus in some scenes made the production seems amateurish. With Dolphins and Whales, the technology is all but wasted. Cloudy scenes and too many close-ups of the film's giant subjects do nothing to take advantage of IMAX's stunning 3D capabilities. There are far too few scenes of any depth or variety. Close-ups of these awesome creatures just look flat and there is often only one creature in the cameras field, so there is no contrast of depth. Michael Oblowitz is trying to follow in his father's footsteps, but when you've got Shark-Week on cable, his introspective and dull treatment of his subjects is a constant disappointment. Poorly cast, terrible script full of holes, hot blonde gets eaten alive, The evil scientist has a seriously nasty mustache, one man takes on a platoon of trained gunman and comes out victor, terrible special effects, they fix the problem by blowing the head off the monster... Awesome. The only thing missing was an unnecessary graphic sex scene during one of the killings. Haha. Good gored up fun filled with predictable twists and laughable one liners. I highly enjoyed this movie, but before you watch it make sure you're in for a good laugh. I recommend this movie to people who can watch a movie and not take it so serious. I can not, in my right mind, think that this movie was made for people to take it seriously. However, if you can watch it and sit back and just enjoy, I really think you can enjoy this movie in the way it was meant to be enjoyed. Very simply. So get some popcorn and a couple beers and have a fun night with some friends and this movie. It brought some joy into my life. This is about a mad scientist who creates a half shark - half man type critter on an uncharted island, then calls up all his old business and academic buddies to come and see his creation (evil laugh) but actually he wants his sharkman to kill them! Lots of bad GCI, goofy plot elements, and babes sweating in tight T-shirts follow.

These monster movies all follow a similar formula, but this one spices things up with a bit of humor (I guarantee the folks who made this had tongues firmly planted in cheek), not to mention the sexy babes. But let's mention those sexy babes - several hot babes, in tight T-shirts, sweating profusely. One's in her undies at the beginning, another at the end. Thank you, thank you, makers of bad movies! The plot is full of goofy stuff, a guy drives up in a jeep, slams it right into a tree, then offers to fly everyone off the island in a helicopter. Yeah, um, well, how 'bout we think about that for a while; we'll get back to you. The sharkman is hilarious - either awful CGI or an equally comedic guy in a rubber suit. The mad scientist gives a pretty good performance; he's evil, that's his motivation, he makes no apologies.

Overall, if you want a stupid, FUN B-movie, this one should do the job. I truly enjoyed this film. The acting was terrific as was the plot. Jeff Combs has more talent than he is recognized for. The only part of this flick I would change was the ending. The death of the creature was far too gruesome for the Sci Fi Channel.

There were some interesting religious messages in this film. Jeff Combs obviously played a Messiah figure and the creature (or shark if you prefer) represented the anti-Chirst. There were some particularly frightening scenes that had that 'end of the world feel'. I only noticed this after my third viewing of this classic creature feature. I know many people won't get the references to Christianity, but if you watch close you'll get it. There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all... Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.

PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included. Wow. A truly fantastic 'trip' movie that has tons of super-surreal imagery, dark intent and a black, pretty strange sense of how cartoon animals must see the world. It's populated with a very cute off-world bunch of characters that bend and flow with warped backgrounds.As with all cool fantasy, the wandering plot is secondary to the eye-popping visuals and we follow a little cat and his zombie sister as they encounter death, deluge, water elephants, samurai swordsmen and pigs that fish. I'd never heard of it, but now I love it - probably because it reminded me of the surreal pencil-work of American cartoonist; Bill Plympton. It's a demented delight for fans of odd, pretty things and it had me glued to the screen for fear I'd miss something amazing. Simply put, it's 'Hello Kitty' without the 'o'. A young cat tries to steal back his brothers soul from death but only gets half of it and then has to go adventuring to get the other half... or maybe not.

Frankly I'm not sure what happens in this film which is full of very strange, very surreal images some of which parents might find disturbing, (ie.the cats slicing off part of a pig who is traveling with them and the frying it like bacon which all three eat).

This is a very strange film that some have likened to Hello Kitty on acid, I think its more like Hello Kitty as done by Dali. (Certainly this is more alive than Destino which was directly based on his work).

If your up for a very off beat film that will challenge your perceptions of things then see this movie. Just be ready for some very strange images that will be burned into your memory forever.

Short, but long enough, Cat Soup is a very wild trip to watch. One day, I was just searching though my On-demand list through the anime section and came across it, and decided to watch it. I spent the whole time basically sitting with my jaw agape. The whole time I was either vacant of thought, or had a fleeting one which screamed "TURN IT OFF!!!". But I didn't. And actually, I'm glad I did.

The animation is stunning. Very artistic, odd and dark. I personally loved it for the amazing animation, but the seemingly vacant story behind it is equally compelling for myself.

A young boy--well, cat--goes in search of his sister's soul. In the first part she's lying sick in bed, and is soon paid by a visit from a sort of grim reaper. Her soul is split in half. One is regained by the cat boy while the other half is lost.

Then the rest of the film is slightly lost to me, honestly. I expect they go back, and their world is... perhaps slowly falling apart? Maybe her absence of soul is the answer behind this, for the rest of the film contains various stages of which the world's in. First there's a giant flood, and next it dries up into a bleak desert, and then everything freezes (thanks to either what is God or fate, as you will see). Then I believe they find the sister's soul in the form of an orange flower. After that, the whole world disappears. Haha, totally didn't get that, but it sends shivers down my spine each time.

Despite it's seemingly random scenes, I'm sure there's a deeper message behind it if you watch it enough and do some research. Personally, I LOVE trippy stuff like this, and would love to spend time doing that just to understand it. But to some people it's probably not their cup of tea. It comes off as highly disturbing, so if you like your straight forward anime, this is not a film for you. If you have an open mind however, I highly recommend this movie. Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.

Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen. CAT SOUP has two "Hello Kitty"-type kittens embarking on a bizarre trip through the afterlife, where anything can happen, and does. This mind-tripping Asian short uses no dialog, substituting word balloons instead. There is no way of describing this demented cartoon except to tell you to see it for yourself. And make sure no one under 10 is in the room. Dismemberment and cannibalism and cruelty and savagery and sudden death and callous disregard for others are common themes. Honest. Perhaps the most memorable image is that of an elephant composed of water that the kitties swim through and in, and also ride. But like practically everything else in this film, that silly, picaresque interlude soon comes to a horrible end. I really loved it although while reading the reviews it was quite disturbing to me..But as an anime art fan i can totally understand this perfect art work even though some of it was against my cultures and believes..But hey,it's the world of art..!! the beginning of the film is very strong,strange and confusing.it's hard to understand the contents which make me respect the one who made it.only someone who is extremely opened can do such daring film..it's absolutely not for kids..even though the characters are cute and adorable but they go through some disturbing adventures that cannot be erased(sorry if the spelling is wrong)from ones memory.. Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.

There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.

--PolarisDiB this is a visual adaptation of manga with very little dialogue. what dialogue there is appears in word baloons as it would in the manga. the plot of this is existent but only vaguely accounted for. there is an issue of the manga on which this is based available in english in the blast books collection, 'comics underground japan', and it has actual captioned dialogue that explains the plot a bit more than here. i recommend checking that volume out if you liked this, as it explains some of the "plot" of the movie, which is otherwise inexplicable. animation wise this is pretty decent, good unintrusive use of computers and the images are for the most part realized well. it jumps in and out of episodes, as the characters, a cat and his brain-dead older sister cat wander in and out of a series of odd images: a boat, a circus, a desert. for a mere half hour they go through a number of semi-plots and settings, which leads me to believe that the director chose a number of issues of the long-running manga to adapt at random, but primarilly selected visually. knowing what's going on might somewhat increase appreciation. this reminds me mostly of the kind of stuff they used to play on the mtv show, cartoon sushi, in particular a short that features a cat chasing a man's severed butt-cheek around the house. only in this case the cats resemble hello kitty more and their adventure is expanded to include death and reincarnation and a number of other themes [though not all that easy to tell what's going on]. the dvd of this has director's commentary and a "making of" features, but i cant comment on those because i didnt get around to them. i'm giving this a 8/10 for now, here isnt much to compare it to in anime, and i hope for more like this. This movie will not sit well with some, but it is a must view. I am glad someone finally brought up for discussion the realities of HOW African American couples worked to make a name in communities and how many of them felt trying to stay there as "other" African Americans moved in.

(Minor Spoilers)

This little Showtime film is almost like a Spike Lee Joint...you have an African American male (Danny Glover) who worked his way HARD through the traditionally white law profession positions in the 1970's. Like ANY American, he moved his family to be compatable with his upwardly mobile status but forgot, there was still alot of problems going on. The only African Americans in the neighborhood at the time was the maids. One owning a home? Wow.

Then the blending in began. His wife (Whoopi Goldberg) is told to "get involved" so she does what all the other women in her neighborhood do. And just when the man thinks he and his family are "in", right next door comes another African American who got in because they won the "lotto" (Mo'nique), and in his eyes and he wants nothing to do with them for he doesn't want the neighborhood to think they are alike. He, of course is of a better calibre, his new neighbor is "ghetto" not an shouldn't be there! Who's got a problem now?

What this film shows you is the great pains it takes for this family to fit in, and how they lose themselves in the process. It makes you question where does racism begin and end...and with whom. It shows how no matter what colour you are and how much money you have, you can still shut yourself off from the real world and helping those around you. It also shows how these African American children, when "blending in" neighborhoods such as these fall into the trap of changing themselves to suit the culture (complete with blonde hair and blue eyes, mind you!) around them. They laugh along with the jokes, not knowing they ARE the joke and not knowing..why.

But overall, this film is about 'people'. No matter what race you are, this film gets into how terrible you can be towards your neighbor and toward each other...all for the sake of fitting in..all because you feel you have more money than others, so that automatically makes you better -- and you forget the struggles you had and those coming up behind you.

Again, NOT for everyone. But take a look and judge for yourself.

This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.

Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.

Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.

The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.

My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired. I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. I have always been a fan of Whoopi Goldberg and this movie only emphasizes it. She portrays a housewife in an African-American family which is moving up the social chain due to the husband's (Danny Glover) success as an attorney. She moves to an all white neighborhood where the people are friendly, yet a little awkward toward her. The various events that arise during the course of the movie make for SOME laughs but mostly appeal to the other emotions. This movie is not so much a comedy as a drama. I give it a strong 8/10. I highly recommend you catch it on TV or rent it soon. i really in enjoyed watching this movie. like most of the people that watched it. i wasn't sure that i was getting. Whoopi Goldberg is a very funny comedian and she has done a lot of funny movies; i.e. sister act.

however this was not really comedy. it is a drama with comedic moments. so if your looking for a laugh riot then keep looking.

this movie is about a black family moving up from a nice neighborhood in the city to an upper middle class neighborhood. i would say more but it think it would spoil the movie. this movie does not just deal with race relations between whites and blacks, but also about relations with in the black community. i do think that it is worth a chance. if your not really interested in see another movie about race relations then this movie isn't for you Nothing new is this tired serio-comedy that wastes the talents of Danny Glover and Whoopi Goldberg. Considering that this was produced by the stars and Spike Lee, it's pretty tame and tired stuff. And how come the Whoop never changes her hair or glasses over the many years this film covers? Blah! Contrary to what those who hate Christianity, the 700 Club provides real answers as well as inspiration. It also provides reliable news, logical commentary and a different view than what ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS thinks is best. Unlike other programs, which provide social and faith-related commentary, those who are behind the 700 Club provide help for those in need, such as feeding the hungry with Operation Blessing, providing medical help to those living in poverty-stricken communities and giving hope to those who need hope. It's not at all hateful. If the 700 Club offends you, I suggest reaching for the remote control and turning the channel on your TV set. I do the same thing when I find CNN Headline News or for that matter, programs which I find biased or offensive. What I find offensive is the way that the ABC Family inserts the disclaimer that the views of the 700 Club do not reflect those of ABC Family. The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you. The 700 Club gives a great perspective on world events. Some have described it as disingenuous or cheesy. I find the program to be informative and inspirational. It is only natural for many to throw mud on a program that has proved to be so successful. There are very few shows that can point to a 40 year track record of success in the world of television media and The 700 Club is one of them. While Mr. Robertson may have been wrong to say that someone should be assassinated, I find it curious that so many people will literally trip over themselves to hop on the bandwagon of criticism. I have certainly said some foolish things in my life. I would certainly be willing to forgive Mr. Robertson since he puts out a great show. I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review! I loved this series when it was on Kids WB, I didn't believe that there was a Batman spin off seeing as the original show ended in 1995 and this show came in 1997. First of all I loved the idea of Robin leaving Batman to solve crime on his own. It was an interesting perspective to their relationship. I also liked the addition of Tim Drake in the series, and once again like it's predecessor this show had great story lines, great animation (better then the original), fantastic voice work and of course brilliant writing. The only thing that I didn't like was that was when it was in the US it would often run episodes in a 15 minute storyline. I just wish some of the episodes could be longer. My favorite episode of any Batman cartoons comes in this series, and it's called "Over the Edge", in my opinion as good if not better then "Heart of Ice" and "Robin's reckoning." Overall a nice follow up, along with Superman this show made my childhood very happy. The New Batman Adventures (also called Gotham Knights) takes place 5 years after the final episodes of Batman: the Animated Series (B:TAS) and only aired for 24 episodes. This isn't a horrible show, but it just isn't as good as the original Batman Animated Series. I'll start with all the things that I found not to be very good.

First thing's first, the animation itself: long and sweet, Gotham isn't dark anymore, the sky is always bright red and orange, B:TAS did this also, but it was drawn on a dark palate, do the colour of the sky was more ominous, in this show, the colour of the sky is too bright. It all just looks like any other kids show and doesn't seem unique like Batman: TAS did with it's dark, cool art style on Gotham. The art style is OK, but doesn't remind me of Batman anymore. Every character is comprised of straight lines, squares, and triangles making characters look less human-like. In the original series (B:TAS), characters look more like drawn versions of real people. The animation may be more consistent here than in B:TAS, but it definitely isn't as good.

Next: some of the episodes seem too dumbed down and childish, but some of the subject matter is even stronger than in B:TAS.(Two-Face attempting to kill Tim Drake/Robin 2, and some villains get some pretty harsh treatment). This leads me to my next point.

Because this is supposed to take place in the future as well as the final episodes of the Batman Animated Universe, many villains do meet their demise or leave forever. Poison Ivy apparently drowns when a cruise ship explodes; Two-Face nearly kills Penguin, Killer Croc, and himself, so he's moved to Arkham forever; Joker falls into the exhaust tower of an industrial plant (though he will return later on the Justice League Animated Series); Catwoman moves away to France leaving Batman, etc... Just because the series is ending does not mean that they have to get rid of some great characters! The villains' motives are pretty bad, too. There are none! In B:TAS, we learn that these villains are mentally tormented and their lives are ruined, that's why they act the way they do, in this show, the villains are just committing crimes to progress the story. It's like Batman just doesn't even care about saving whatever sanity there is left in the people that he fights, he just beats them senseless. This Batman is a colder and meaner version of the character, but since he's been doing this job for years, I can see why he is so harsh.

Next, the redesigned character models: they're awful. Gordon slimmed down about 100 pounds... is he sick? Many villains look STUPID (Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter, and Killer Croc are among the WORST). Although, I do think that some characters look better (Bane, Scarecrow, Batgirl). Harley is about the same, and Ivy (who is even hotter now) has pale green skin.

With the series having many faults, some episodes are great- Over the Edge, Mad Love, Beware the Creeper, Girls Night Out, Old Wounds, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Never Fear are my favourite ones here, in my opinion. All of the crossovers featuring Batman in the Superman Animated Series were great, also.

The absolute WORST part about this show is how the creators say they love the animation of this series more than the original. On the DVD features of the original Batman Animated Series, they talk about how proud they were with the art style, and how difficult some characters were to animate, but they did eventually succeed with (the difficult animation necessary to animate Clayface, for example). On the DVD features of the New Batman Adventures, the creators basically say "To Hell with B:TAS, this is a fresh, new re-vamp, it looks better and we love how we NEARLY RUINED THE SERIES!" (Alright, that is an exaggeration). When the creators cast away the amazing art style of B:TAS, that really annoyed me!

It's not a bad show, but I still don't like it as much as the original animated series. At least the show doesn't talk down to its audience, so for that reason, I still commend it. Though some of the episodes in this new series are fantastic and worth watching.

Superman: the Animated Series, and Justice League: the Animated Series are great follow-up shows to Batman: the Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, so give them a watch as well. I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D This is so to say a sequel to batman the animated and it is pretty much as good as it to and for all the same reasons it has lots of action in it the storyline to it is good the voice over actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as batman, Mark Hamil as the Joker, etc. The villains are really good such as The Joker, Two-face, Catwoman, Clayface, etc. So i am sure you will not be disappointed with the new adventures of batman because it is really good. So make sure that you watch it on TV or rent or buy the collectors edition because it is really good.

Overall score: ********* out of **********

**** out of ***** Two years passed and mostly everyone looks different, some for good and some for worse. I still enjoyed as much as I did the original though.

Some flaws they had though like changing the Joker he now has no red lips and looks like more blackish hair and black pupils, hes still voiced by Mark Hamill which is a plus I guess. They made Poison Ivy more white hinting that she is becoming more like a plant and Catwomen looks much different and not as "attractive" as she was in the original.

Though costumes like Batman, Batgirl, Killer Croc and Scarecrow look badass, especially Scarecrow.

The show isn't as dark as the original because Batman doesn't work as alone as he used to. Most of the time working with Batgirl and the new Robin, Tim Drake. While NightWing(Dick Grayson) comes to the rescue often. Batman gave up the yellow logo and with the black wing on his suit and seems like he got a bit bigger but still kicking tons of ass.

The show isn't as good as the original mostly because of some of the revamped characters but the stories are as exciting as ever and the dialogue is still elite. "Over the Edge" might be one of the greatest Batman episodes ever so make sure you check that out.

Overall 8-9/10 If this film strikes you (as it did us and, apparently, others departing the theater) as disappointingly thin, it may be because the subject herself is mildly disappointing. The film faithfully presents us Bettie Page as she probably was: a playful almost-innocent from the rural South whose career as "the pinup queen of the universe" was for her just goofy, natural fun. Her eventual moral qualms, religious conversion and sudden departure from nude and bondage modeling are biographically accurate, yet hard to understand given how untroubled she seemed by her livelihood.

There are many reasons to see this film even so, not least of which are the amazing b&w noir cinematography of W. Mott Hopfel III (complete with old fashioned wipes and dissolves), the 1950's-faithful acting of the cast under the direction of Mary Harron, pitch-perfect performances by some of our most underrated supporting actors (including Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, Austin Pendleton, Dallas Roberts and Victor Slezak), not to mention the Oscar-worthy and technically difficult lead performance of Gretchen Mol.

Ms. Mol does several scenes fully naked and most others in amazing period lingerie and "specialty" costumes (gloriously assembled by costume designer John A. Dunn), yet she astonishingly maintains Bettie Page's unstudied pleasure in her lush body. To watch Ms. Mol as Ms. Page, an aspiring actress, progressing through degrees of progressively less "bad" auditions and student acting scenes is to see a truly fine actress in complete control of her craft.

The script does effectively bring us into 1950's America, where childhood sexual abuse, lawless abduction and rape, and the legal suppression of brands of pornography which today seem laughably tame, is a reality. 50's New York is evoked with seamlessly-inter cut news reel footage. 50's Miami comes alive in super-saturated, 16mm-style color. The real Bettie Page seems to scamper, smile and pose before us, and yet the effect is curiously lightweight, barely lewd and not at all dangerous.

How odd that bondage's greatest icon should be so lacking in venom, and that this technically excellent biopic should have so little sting. More a snapshot of the most popular pinup of all time than your typical dragged out biopic, this fun and fabulous film has the look and feel of the era with an excellent soundtrack and everything you would want in an indie-type film. I think the tendency would be to portray Bettie Page as some sort of sex vixen, like a Jayne Mansfield. But if you've truly looked carefully at Bettie's poses, she always looked happy. Not a "you wish you could get with me" haughty look, nor the "I'm just doing this because my acting career didn't work out" look of a porn star. And so, the ladies involved with this film (three female producers, a female writer/ director, female co-writer and the lovely Gretchen Mol, who I'm sure helped shape this role with her own sugary influence) really captured the idea of a sweet, somewhat naive, southern girl who really enjoyed having her photo taken and hoped that good ol' JC wouldn't be too upset with her.

Gretchen Mol turns out a career high performance (she may just have the most perfect breasts ever), which I am happy about, because she did have the curse. Several years ago, she made the cover of Vanity Fair when no one really knew who she was, touting her as the next It-girl. And let's be frank, that was a bit presumptuous. I mean unfortunately she has never made it to Gwyneth status, though not for lack of talent. Making a few poor film choices when you are a pretty blonde in fickle Hollywood renders you forgettable I'm afraid. If this doesn't put her back on the A-list, well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Intensely private, Bettie herself has not seen the film yet. Bettie left the pinup party on a high note and fell in love with her old flame, Jesus. Whatever floats your boat honey. You were one helluva woman. I hope you're happy wherever you are.

Congratulations Mary Harron, you've done our cult idol justice. Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With "The Notorious Bettie Page" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own "enlightened" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever. Bettie Page was a icon of the repressed 1950s, when she represented the sexual freedom that was still a decade away, but high in the hopes and dreams of many teenagers and young adults. Gretchen Mol does a superb job of portraying the scandalous Bettie, who was a small town girl with acting ambitions and a great body. Her acting career went nowhere, but her body brought her to the peak of fame in an admittedly fringe field. Photogrsphed in black and white with color interludes when she gets out of the world of exploitation in New York, this made-for-TV (HBO) film has good production values and a very believable supporting cast. The problem is, it's emotionally rather flat. It's difficult to form an attachment to the character, since Bettie is portrayed as someone quite shallow and naive given the business she was in. The self-serving government investigations are given a lot of screen time, which slows down the film towards the end. But it's definitely worth watching for the history of the time, and to see the heavy-handed government repression that was a characteristic of the fifties. 7/10 For a film that's ostensibly about sex and leather, it doesn't have any right to be as oddly sweet as it is. The story of Bettie Page, a good Christian girl from the South who's momma wouldn't let her date until she married, who moved to New York and ended up becoming the most successful pin-up of her age, is driven by an outstanding performance from Gretchen Moll. Her Page can't quite reconcile the pictures that she takes (nobody's allowed to touch, it's all fun and respectful) with the pornography trials and supposed ill-effects that her images have on the world around her.

Page has been an inspiration to every burlesque artist since, not just because she had a figure to die for, but because she invested every picture with an innocent sense of fun that was uniquely sexy and simple at the same time. Rather like this film, in fact. Filmde in both black and white and glorious technicolour, it's a lovely way to spend a couple of hours. I saw this movie at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and it is a movie and not a film since it apparently was shot by HBO to be shown on their cable network sometime this year. This movie presents Page as a bondage and discipline fetish pinup and B&D stag film actress who had enough talent to become a real actress. Page was a little more than that and the film touches on some of her other roles in modeling but not enough to balance out the career of the 50's pinup icon. This film is supposedly based on the book "The Real Bettie Page" by Richard Foster. It's shot in black and white for that 1950's nostalgia feel. I have the book called "Bettie Page The Life of a Pinup Legend" that has a lot of great photos chronicling the career of Page and I must say that this movie reproduces on film, with Gretchen Mol as Page, many of those famous photo's very accurately. Mol herself with the Bettie Page black wig and brown contact lenses is Bettie Page. Not only does she have the Bettie Page look but she has the smile and characteristics of her personality that came through the camera down perfect. And her body is as close to a replica of Page's as possible. Terrific casting. The story is kind of thin and tabloidesque and certainly could have been a lot better. But this is a pretty good TV movie. I would rate it a 7.0 of a scale of 10 and recommend it's viewing when it comes on TV. "The Notorious Bettie Page" is about a woman who always wanted to be an actress but instead became one of the most famous pin up girls in the history of America. Bettie Page played by Gretchen Mol was one of the first sex icons in America. The type of modeling Bettie Page took part in included nudity and bondage which lead to a U.S Senate investigation in the 1950s.

Walking out of the film, all I could think about was how far we have come in terms of pornography since the 1950s. You can go on the internet now and find some of most disturbing and shocking images ever shot, that the footage questioned in "The Notorious Bettie Page" seems almost childlike and innocent. Most of the footage including the bondage did not feature nudity when Bettie Page was involved yet today we have sick images where we can see women having sex with animals. I find that maybe the envelope has been pushed a little too far since the 1950s because looking at this movie in terms of today's pornography, it was very tastefully done.

To be honest, I was pretty impressed with "The Notorious Bettie Page," I found the film to be very well done and interesting. The movie is exactly what the trailer leads you to believe it will be and is a very interesting look at one of the first female sex icons in America. Gretchen Mol looks just like Bettie Page and gives a very fine performance. I also thought that since the movie was shot in black and white it made the film seem realistic because it made the audience believe they were watching a film created in the late 1950s.

My only complaint about the film was the running time, there seemed to be a few scenes that were cut and seemed to be a little shorter than they should have been. I looked this up and it seems that 10 minutes was cut from the film since its original showing at the Toronto Film Festival. Also the ending was pretty tame and I was expecting a little more from it or maybe some paragraphs to come on the screen to tell the audience more about Bettie Page's life where the film left off. Those are my only two complaints about the film other than that the directing was solid, the acting was great especially Gretchen, and the writing was good.

Mary Harron, who directed "American Psycho", which is one of my favorite films, is the director and writer of "The Notorious Bettie Page." I feel that Mary is a very talented director who knows how to create a setting and create great movies based on characters because like "Psycho", Bettie Page is a character study and a fine one at that. Harron captures the 40s and 50s with ease as well as all the characters. She is a very talented director who I hope will be around for many years to come.

Bottom Line: "The Notorious Bettie Page" is definitely worth a look. It's a very interesting story that shows how far America, as well as the world, has come in terms of pornography. The film also provides a fine performance by Gretchen Mol who literally nails the role of Bettie Page on the head. And top it off with a talented director who was able to capture the look and feel of a previous era and you have a good movie on your hands. Sadly, this film is probably going to flop since not many besides people who grew up in this era will show interest in the film but I think it's worth checking out.

MovieManMenzel's final rating for "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a 8/10. It's an interesting character study about one of the most famous pin up girls and sex icons in American history. I had a vague idea of who Bettie Page was, partly due to her appearance in the very wee days of Playboy (apparently, when she got her photo taken of her and her Santa hat, just that, she didn't know what the mag was). The movie, co-written and directed by American Psycho's Mary Harron, fleshes out the key parts of her life well enough. A southern belle of a church goer has some bad experiences and leaves them behind to seek better times in New York City, where she gets into modeling, and from there a lot more. Soon, she becomes the underground pin-up sensation, with bondage the obvious (and "notorious" of the title) trait attributed to her. The actress Gretchen Moll portrays her, and gets down the spirit of this woman about as well as she could, which is really a lot of the success of the film. She's not a simplistic character, even if at times her ideas of morality are questionable ("well, Adam and Eve were naked, weren't they?" she comments a couple of times). Apparently, the filmmakers leave out the later years of Page's life and leave off with her in a kind of redemptive period, leaving behind the photo shoots for Jesus.

In all, the Notrious Bettie Page is not much more than a kind of usual bio-pic presented by HBO films, albeit this time with the stamina for a feature-film release. The best scenes that Harron captures are Page in her "questionable" positions, getting photos of her in over-the-top poses and starring in ridiculous films of whips and chains and leather uniforms. This adds a much needed comic relief to the film's otherwise usual nature. It's not that the story behind it is uninteresting, which involves the government's investigation into the 'smut' that came out of such photos and underground magazines. But there isn't much time given to explore more of what is merely hinted at, with Page and her complexities or her relationships or to sex and the fifties. It's all given a really neat black and white look and sometimes it seemed as if Harron was progressing some of the black and white photos to be tinted more as it went along. It's a watchable view if you're not too knowledgeable of Bette Page, and probably for fans too. First, let me say that Notorious is an absolutely charming film, very lovingly rendered of its time and subject(s). Gretchen Mol is utterly, painfully convincing, the very soul of the contradictions smoothly reified by Ms. Page herself. Irving and Paula Klaw are richly drawn as the working-class stiffs they were (having met Paula at Movie Star News in 1990 I can say that Lili Taylor's performance is unimpeachable), and Jared Harris as John Willie (Coutts) is an adoringly debauched genius. Anyone with an interest in the recorded history of American attitudes toward sexuality must see this movie, in a theater preferably, where votes made with dollars count more.

Second, I will allow that I am a producer of material similar to that for which the Klaws would become famous, which is no way affects my estimation of Ms. Harron's work as the splendid piece that it is, but does condition my view of Notorious as an act of political resistance of the first order. Ms. Harron has crafted a work of subtle subversion. Along with V for Vendetta, it is a movie about another time for our times.

Few readers of this site will be aware that the government they will see enacted in Notorious (through transcription of the very words uttered in closed Senate committee hearings) is a very close approximation of the one they live under right now. While Ms. Harron expressly disallows that she has a political agenda appended to this film, her faithfulness to the facts, and the respectful and unsensational way in which she renders them, synchronizes Notorious with the present day. The very acts that Notorious portrays in loving and accurate detail are defined as obscene by the Communications Decency Act, recently brought to the Supreme Court as a First Amendment case and turned back there at the behest of the Bush administration. In other words, the delicate and ineffectual bondage depicted in Notorious is indictable today by Federal prosecutors in whatever (hostile) jurisdiction they choose. Of course, there were no hearings in the Senate or elsewhere on this matter when the CDA was passed. Of course you know nothing about it, because you don't want people in Peoria telling you what you can and cannot look at (likewise, people in Peoria probably don't want me telling them what they're allowed to view). Of course Notorious will never be indicted. It's Hollywood. It's lawyered up. Countless Klaws will, however, continue to be steamrolled by a puritanical bureaucracy that has not advanced its aesthetic, moral or biological composition much in 50+ years.

In addition, Notorious posts no 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, which is mandated by the unnoticed "earmark" recently voted into law. If any media contains images of "sadomasochistic restraint" it is required to make available (ex warrant) records of age and circumstance of all performers. Notorious fails in this regard also.

In addition to being a splendid piece of entertainment and an (nearly) accurate historical document, Notorious will be the litmus against which the Bush Justice Department is itself judged with respect to the 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment and on perhaps several other Constitutional grounds. In this regard alone, a debt of gratitude is owed Mary Harron. You'll be grateful in any case, Constitutional or otherwise, if you see this film. THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE (2006) ***1/2 Gretchen Mol, Lilli Taylor, Chris Bauer, Jared Harris, Sarah Paulson, David Strathairn, Austin Pendleton, Norman Reedus, Dallas Roberts.

Mol shines as legendary pin-up queen Bettie Page in a fine biopic.

Gretchen Mol is probably best known for being tauted as The Next-It-Girl a few years ago when no one knew who she was despite an infamous cover story by Vanity Fair among other media dubbings but despite a few co-starring roles here and there her predicted stardom seemed to twinkle less brightly until now. Here as the famous pin-up queen Bettie Page, Gretchen Mol is indeed a shining star on the rise.

Bettie Page was Tennessee born raised as a God-fearing and family oriented proper girl who seemed to find herself the unwarranted object of lust and affection, as she grew older. A gang-rape that is flashbacked is wisely not graphically depicted nor is the subtle showing of her own father having less- than-decent designs for his own kin which is important to understand how Page managed to escape the possible nightmarish life for a career as an actress by heading to New York City in the 1950s when in fact that was the time and place to be to catch lighting in a bottle. What Page didn't realize is that in fact she would be just that when she arrived.

A beautiful raven haired sweetheart with a divine figure, Page is spotted on Coney Island one summer day by a black policeman asking to take her photograph which leads to her posing in his basement and eventually to the studios of Irving Klaw (Bauer) and his sister Paula (Taylor) who cater their kitschy but considered pornographic stills to a unique clientele: fetish types.

Although Page is rather naïve she is undeniably smart and knows that her body is not a sin and can see the forest for the trees in the sense that she is in control - or at least abides in what is offered her as work in that it is not indecent and she is having fun in her increasingly less-clothed portraits - until a Congressional witch-hunt seeks out a few scapegoats to make pornographic images a crime.

Talented filmmaker Mary Harron and her screen writing partner Guinevere Turner ("An American Psycho" and "I Shot Andy Warhol") streamline the biopic trappings rather neatly and maybe a bit too hasty in getting at who really was Bettie Page although they do justice in depicting an era of uptightness at its zenith. Large thanks to gifted cinematographer Mott Hopfel for his languorously gorgeous black and white images and also the sprinkled color segments that recall Douglas Sirk films of the era for its melodramatic kindlings. Part feminist treaty and part American dream fulfilled the story chugs along nicely with fine performances by its ensemble including the comical Bauer and Taylor as siblings in smut and Harris having a field day as a fellow fotog with a taste for wine and chatter. It's amusing to see Strathairn in a bit of stunt casting as a senator on a campaign for righteousness after portraying news bulldog Edward R. Murrow in his last outing, "Good Night, and Good Luck" as an opposite the table role.

But hats off to the truly fine talents of Mol as the uninhibited yet deeply morale and most importantly intelligent Bettie Page who lets her child-like innocence beam through her bold nudity and now-considered-tame-and-quaint-borderline- kitschy poses that caught the male fancy for decades and is still a bookmark for human sexuality in this country and perhaps the world overall. Mol is perfect and uncannily resembles her portrait's subject down to her knowing-teasing smile. The real Bettie Page was reportedly not involved with the project but apparently gave her blessing and continues to live a somewhat secluded life that is alluded to in the final moments as to having found Jesus and shirking her 'notorious' image once and for all. A shame since this film oddly embraces the resounding decency imbued within its subject, radiating for all to see in its naked splendor. Beautifully made with a wonderful performance from Gretchen Moll capturing such a stainless plain happiness in her work, and the recreations of the little movies and the photographs are perfectly made and often hilarious. According to Harron they used film stock that is no longer produced and fifties style studio lighting even for the outside locations to give the colour portions its distinctive look. Bettie Page saw the movie at Hugh Heffner's house (she is now eighty-three) with the producers there, but not the director, in case it got awkward if she didn't like it. She apparently did like it up until the official inquiry, which she found unsettling. Some great costumes too. The idea for the movie started in 1993, but this was worth the wait. The portrait of her never seems to ring false in reference to all those images and snippets of (dreadful) movies that many of us will have already seen. It would make an interesting companion piece with Goodnight and Goodluck, but much more pleasant viewing! Although The Notorious Bettie Page is well acted and shot, is is, at best, a Cliffs Notes version of Bettie's biography. The film mainly centers on her work with Irving and Paula Klaw, the brother and sister team who produced the bulk of her most famous photos. It does not detail her life after posing, aside from her religious rebirth. It cites "The Real Bettie Page", by Richard Foster as a source, but it ignores Bettie's later years of mental illness and incarceration in a mental hospital. The narrow focus of the biography can be debated, but the majority of Bettie's fans and the "civilians" would probably be more interested in her modeling career, which is what they get.

The film is well acted, with Gretchen Mol faithfully reproducing the look of Bettie, as well as conveying the sweetness that her photos exuded. The character is played as rather naive, a probable byproduct of interviews given by Bettie in recent years. It is more likely that Bettie was aware of the nature of her photos but rationalized it as acting and costumes.

The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Chris Bauer and Lili Taylor playing Irving and Paula Klaw, and David Strathairn as Estes Kefauver. The film errs with the character of John Willie, played by Jared Harris. John Willie never met Bettie Page and was not involved in photo shoots with the Klaws. Harris plays Willie a bit like Peter O'Toole, in his more debauched state.

Despite the quality of acting, the film is a bit of a disappointment in terms of depth. The story is rather cursory and we never feel that we truly get to know Bettie. Much like her photos, it's just an image. It does tend to exaggerate Bettie's notoriety. Her photos were mainly seen in and around New York, in a very narrow market of underground and cultish publications. Her real fame came after her photos were reprinted in the late 70's and 80's, and the Cult of Betty Page (as her name was usually spelled) grew. Bettie's greatest exposure (pardon the pun) was in Playboy, appearing in the January 1955 issue (the Christmas photo, which is staged in reverse in the film).

The film is well done, if rather shallow. It is able to sustain interest until the end and showcases many fine performances. It hits the high points of Bettie's life, but ignores many details which would have given it far greater depth. The ending is rather a let down. It feels rather abrupt. Still, the movie is definitely worth viewing by anyone interested in Bettie, or even the time period. The soundtrack is great, really pulling the viewer into the 1950's. If nothing else, the film stands as a showcase for America's burgeoning sexuality and the clash with its Puritan past. It's also a peek at an icon for both men and women. The first two-thirds of this biopic of fetish model Betty Page are very interesting. Betty, as portrayed with enormous sincerity by Gretchen Mol, comes across as a pleasant, girl-next-door type, who saw nothing wrong with what she did (and there certainly wasn't anything "wrong" with it). Director Mary Harron, who also made "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho", recreates Betty's America by mixing old black and white stock footage with new, degraded, black and white footage. Once Betty lands in Florida and starts working with Bunny Yeager, color is introduced. Betty's notoriety was mostly the result of her work with Paula and Irving Klaw (Lili Taylor, in a great performance, and Chris Bauer), as well as John Willie (Jared Harris). The scenes where Harron recreates Betty's bondage photography sessions are fascinating and adroitly executed. The early purveyors of fetish material are not portrayed too condescendingly and we get a sense that these folks were part of a tight "community". Betty never had too much of a problem with her notoriety, although we get the impression that her reputation prevented her from gaining legitimacy in the straight acting world. Because the film's third act is virtually non-existent, we are left with the impression that we have been watching a feature length documentary on Betty Page rather than a structured drama. Flaws aside, it's a film well worth catching and represents yet another fine feather in the cap of producer Christine Vachon. I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The "Bettie Page" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.

Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager – all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.

I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in "silly outfits" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand "what all the fuss was about" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.

This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't "get it" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.

The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.

This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see. She's not Michael Jordan

Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.

I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.

I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".

By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.

Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.

In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!

Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating. "The Notorious Bettie Page" (2005)

Directed By: Mary Harron

Starring: Gretchen Mol, Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, & David Strathairn

MPAA Rating: "R" (for nudity, sexual content and some language)

It seems as though every celebrity nowadays is getting a biopic made about his or her life. From Ray Charles to Johnny Cash, biopics are very posh right now. "The Notorious Bettie Page" is the latest of these to be released on DVD. It features Gretchen Mol as the world's most famous pin-up model, Bettie Page and was filmed mostly in black and white with certain excerpts in color. Unlike "Ray", "Walk the Line", and "Finding Neverland", however, this movie is not going to be one to watch out for at the Oscars this year. This movie lacks the emotional resonance displayed in other biopics and most of the more dramatic moments in Bettie Page's life are either completely ignored or only merely suggested. This does not mean, however, that it is a bad movie. In fact, "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a thoroughly entertaining and fulfilling movie--a solid work of cinema. This film focuses more on Page's exciting career and the thin line between sexuality and pornography. It is filmed with fervor and care and Mary Harron's direction captures the look and feel of the time period as most filmmakers only dream about.

Everyone knows Bettie Page (played by Mol). Whether you know her as an icon…or a simple porn star…you know her. She is a woman who had a very profound impact on American culture only by revealing more skin than deemed appropriate at that particular time. Now, most people know her as one of America's first sex symbols--a legend to many models, especially those of Playboy and other adult-oriented magazines. She lived in a time when showing just an inch of flesh below the waste could have someone arrested and Page's bondage-style photos were just the thing to push the American public into an uproar. In fact, the photos launched a full-fledged senate investigation about common decency and the difference between harmless films and porn.

The performances in "The Notorious Bettie Page" are absolutely wonderful with Gretchen Mol standing out. Her performance as Bettie Page is simply brilliant. I understand that, when she was announced for the role, many people were skeptical. Her name is not one that immediately leaps to my mind when I think of great performances. Now, it will. She completely aced the role and drew me in with her vulnerable and yet deeply engaging performance. David Strathairn is fresh off of last year's "Good Night, and Good Luck", in which he gave one of 2005's best performances. Here, he gives yet another fine performance…even though he is slightly underused. I was shocked at how very limited his screen time was…but quality over quantity is always the most important aspect of any good movie. The only performance I have seen from Lili Taylor was that in "The Haunting" (1999). While most people ignored the movie, I found it to be an enjoyable, if not completely shallow, horror movie and I also have always thought that Taylor was perfectly credible as the emotionally-distraught Nell. Here, Taylor gives yet another credible performance. She gives a very subdued performance and delivers the perfect performance to compliment that of Gretchen Mol.

After everything was said and done, I realized that "The Notorious Bettie Page" cannot be compared to other biopics, such as "Finding Neverland" and "Walk the Line". It is incomparable to these because it tells a story of a woman and her career, from the beginning to the end. Her personal life is briefly implied, but it is really her impact on the world that becomes the high point. We watch the film knowing that Page will eventually bare all and we know the impact that her decisions will have…but we are rarely shown the impact that they will have on her personal life. She is a woman that never looked back and could constantly reinvent herself. After all, she was an adult model turned Christian missionary. This movie does not over dramatize anything. It could have included fictitious moments of Page sobbing hysterically and begging God to forgive her. It could have shown Page running and screaming through the rain, trying to escape the ghosts of her past…and yet it does not. "The Notorious Bettie Page" tells a simple story and that is something rare by today's standards. Fortunately, it is quite refreshing.

Final Thought: "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a relaxing movie with absolutely amazing cinematography.

Overall Rating: 9/10 (A) Firstly, I have heard great things about this film, not least among the retro/vintage scene and the stockings lovers who absolutely love Bettie Page and it did not disappoint. Shot in very clean black and white with colour added for key scenes, the film gives a documentary feel to the early life and career of Bettie Page.

There are many things I did not know about Page. Firstly, there was the gang rape, later on, there is her early attempts at developing an acting career and then glamour pictures, firstly with a camera club peopled with men who can't get enough of her and later with the Klaws, Paula and Irving, who despite their taking of bondage and fetish photos, come across as extremely pleasant and friendly people. If only modern pornography producers were like that, perhaps better porn would be a consequence! For the most part, the film is neither a diatribe against the evils of pornography but an attempt to show the kind of environment that existed in the 1950s for those producing fetish and nude pictures of women. This environment was extremely repressive, perhaps in a good way because it meant that there was none of the 'saturation' effect that we have today, when it comes to pornography. It also appeared to be much less harsh. Page comes across as someone who enjoys her work and doesn't appear to be degraded by it. In many of her photos she is seen tied up and gagged (and trying to hold a conversation), brandishing a whip with a flourish, thus exciting the photographers taking her pictures and seen in 'initiation style' girlie bondage movies which look quite tame compared with the hardcore stuff we have now.

Page never became an actress and instead deserted pinup when she was in her thirties for 'Jesus Christ'. Her belief in God and Jesus never goes away, even when bound and gagged she still insists that she has been given a 'gift' by God to do 'this thing'. Seeing this film, I am more knowledgeable about Page and in awe at her modesty, beliefs and demeanour. She is one of a kind, compared with the identi-kit clone blondes we have today and someone who can actually say 'There is life after porn'. Film can be a looking glass to see the world in a new light. Good Night and Good Luck, for instance, offered parallels to modern judgement-without-evidence and encroachments on freedom. It is easier to examine a moral problem when it is not too close to home: by putting it in a fictional or historic context removed from our immediate situation. With pornography, we consider ourselves 'enlightened' and our forefathers to be hidebound by quaint ideas - usually involving fire and brimstone, but the definition of what is obscene can easily fall prey to ignorance and unscientific interpretation instead of evidence. Bettie Page was a cult icon of an era which included not just McCarthyism but the banning of comics (such as Tales from the Crypt) on the basis that they would turn youths into half-mad juvenile delinquents. This film, developed from key questions raised in her life, poses dilemmas that are as relevant today as back in 1950.

Our film opens with two key scenes. In the first, we see well-dressed, respectable looking men in a seedy bookshop. One of them asks for pictures of women in kinky boots and being restrained - then turns out to be an undercover cop conducting a sting. The second scene shows Bettie Page, waiting to be called as a witness, looking quite demure, as if she had just come out of church.

The first 50mins are in black & white. Old fashioned film effects such as wipes and fades add to the sense that we are watching a film from bygone years, as do the mannerisms of the cast, skilfully recreated 1950s scenes, contemporaneous slang phrases and the terse dialogue associated with film-making of the period. Archive footage is frequently intercut - which will delight many and irritate others. In keeping with its theme, the movie is almost a collection of different types of photography-in-motion, and the older clips of fabulous beaches and landmarks juxtapose well against Bettie's classic poses hearken back to an age of 'health & nature' magazines . . . although I admit that if you are not captivated by the story you may find the effect a bit choppy.

Very soon, we go into flashback. Bettie escapes a Depression Years downtrodden life in Nashville, enlivened only with church singing and soul-saving, and goes alone to make her own way. After her initial success, her modelling work splits into two strands: the mainstream glamour work focussing on her over-the-rainbow smile, and the 'specialist interest' photos involving dressing up in high-heeled boots and light bondage gear. In an earlier audition (reminiscent of a scene with Naomi Watts' character in Mulholland Drive - who was also called Betty), she gives a performance that is full of emotion, contrasting with her normal animated, cheerful (but ultimately bland) day-to-day expression. Is part of her still unfulfilled? Bettie is frequently rejected in auditions once they realise she is the well-known pin-up girl. But we have never been asked to feel sorry for Bettie Page: her abusive childhood is quickly referenced and skipped over; when she is raped by four hometown lads, we see only the threat and then Bettie recovering and surviving, picking herself up in deserted woodland, and putting on the brave face of someone who refuses to lie down and die.

Although no nudity is involved, it's Bettie's special interest photos that eventually arouse trouble. When we go back to the court, the opinions of a clergyman on the corrupting influence of such photos are taken as evidence. A psychologist authoritatively says how the photos lead to 'suicide, murder and psychosis' in youngsters who are exposed to them (presumably not in that order). Eventually a star witness explains how his son's life came to an end as a result of such photos - 'being 'trussed up like that'. It is not made clear how being 'trussed up' causes death). The text accompanying a series of Bettie's photographs in a magazine tell how she was forced to endure 'terrible agonies' with the fetish restraints (the audience knows that she actually found them quite hilarious and that the wordings, like the photos themselves, were pure dramatisations). After a 12hr wait, Bettie is told her evidence - she is the one person who could state definitively that she was not photographed in agony - will 'not be required'. The 'horrors' of the photos have been proved.

If this all sounds like the dark ages which we have left, consider a recent (2003) incident in which an Ann Summers advert was banned. It said, "for fashion and passion whip along to your local store," with a photograph of a woman's back. She's wearing a bra and thong and her hands are handcuffed behind her back. The lingerie and sex toys company, that targets female consumers (and also supports charities fighting domestic violence) said its adverts aimed, "to give women sexual confidence and always showed women in control of their sexuality." One might conclude that the prejudice and ignorance of the Betty Page investigations still holds currency.

Bettie's religious views are integral to the story, just as the concept of sin is integral to Christianity and contributes to the 'forbidden' nature of sexual enjoyment frequently prevalent in the UK and US - as opposed to the more factual approach found in continental Europe. It could be argued the formulae of sin and redemption, and "being saved", are even reflected in mating patterns that perpetuate traditional male dominance. A policeman making a friendly (but sexually motivated) approach to Bettie outside the courtroom offers to 'save' her from loneliness. The knight-in-shining-armour might be chivalrous, but it also assumes a woman in need of rescue.

Love it or hate it, The Notorious Bettie Page is an unusual and extraordinary film, and a moral wake-up call for those that heed it. There is excellent ensemble acting, and Gretchen Mol, as Bettie, is remarkable as the whole film succeeds or falls on her powerful performance. ...but the general moviegoer's mileage may vary in Mary "American Psycho" Harron's stylized look at the American sexual psyche as seen through the lens of the immortal Queen of Curves, Bettie Page.

I'll not bore anyone with a recitation of the iconic status of Ms. Page, a prim and proper valedictorian from Nashville, Tennessee, who moved to New York in hopes of being an actress and ended up becoming the Bondage Queen of the Universe. Nor will I run through the sketchy bio-pic plot of "The Notorious Bettie Page," though I offer high kudos to the technical aspects of the film (a sequence of animated magazine covers springs instantly to mind), improper use of a period camera notwithstanding. Finally, I won't belabor the timely applicability of the film's themes of innocence and perversion, freedom and control, the sacred and the secular; they're there for the viewer to absorb, if they wish. The more things change, the more they stay the same, as the saying goes.

What I will ramble on about for a moment is the splendid performance of Gretchen Mol as Bettie Page. Truth is, Mol's face looks almost nothing like Bettie's, nor is she particularly built like Bettie (although only a fool would deny those beautiful breasts, and no fool, I!). She doesn't even sport the thick, dark bush that concealed Ms. Page's most intimate charms, but the fact remains that Mol thoroughly embodies the spirit of Bettie Page in every way, shape, and form. It is a bravura "comeback" from an undeserved semi-obscurity. I've never met Ms. Page (and sadly, never will, most likely), but I've devoured the photos and videos, and read all the bios and interviews available, bought the trading cards and other odds and ends, and to be honest, lusted for Ms. Page ever since I first discovered her in my adolescence between the covers of dusty tease magazines at the barber shop and the five and dime. Mol perfectly captures the essence of the woman as I have come to conceive her, no pun intended, in what I consider to be an Oscar-worthy performance. Liv Tyler could never have matched Mol's shining intensity of characterization in a million years, and I, for one, am grateful she left the project. Not that I'd mind seeing her totally naked, I hasten to add, but I can't imagine that her brand of sensuality would have translated into the innocent exhuberance of Bettie Page.

"The Notorious Bettie Page" is not for everyone, any more than bondage and discipline are. I suspect it will do much better on disc than in the theaters; legions of devoted Page fans and the curious will see to that. I can only hope that the DVD will be chock full of enough Bettie extras to show the uninitiated just how good a job Mol has done.

Beyond that, a tip of the hat to a fine supporting cast, especially Lili Taylor and Chris Bauer as Paula and Irving Klaw, whose celebrity photo business was Bettie's doorway to immortality.

A final note to the young scribe who opined that Ms. Page had no effect on his generation: take a good look at Madonna's cone brassiere and get back to us. Bettie Page is, whether you know it or not, the true Godmother of fetishwear. Without her, Madonna and the rest of her kin could never have existed. THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE Written by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner Directed by Mary Harron

How do you define a person who has always been between two worlds, one of presumed sin and one of supposed redemption? Especially when that person eventually succumbed to a split personality disorder in her latter years as if to demonstrate her own point. If you're director Mary Harron, you don't shy away from showing the push/pull nature of THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE. You allow the character to drift back and forth between the healing forgiveness of the power of God and the church and the seductive illusion of control and dominance afforded to Page during her years as a pinup model. By doing so, audiences are offered a complex character that is propelled forward by a desire to leave her difficult past with a naive enjoyment in others' lust for her and a struggle to reconcile her image in the eyes of God. Come the right time, it will no longer matter how many eyes are on her because there is only one pair that counts.

Shot mostly in black and white (with some unnecessary bursts of color), THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE is at times a light, humorous comedy, making the film an enjoyable experience and also one that pokes fun at how seriously people believe in the corruption of pornography. But the delicate hand of the director is more palpably felt during Page's times of despair. Harron is a sensitive, considerate director who does not throw Page's numerous and devastating blows of abuse in the face of her viewer. Instead, she allows the surprisingly effective Gretchen Moll, who plays the title role, the chance to hammer the pain of her character into the viewer with fear in her eyes, exhaustion is her cries and shame on her skin. Whereas most directors, perhaps most male directors, would find it essential to show the heroine in painful positions in order to draw a link between the kinds of atrocities that were put upon her and where her life took her, Harron has too much compassion for her character, her actress and her audience. From fragility, Page learns to trust people again and as more and more photographers fall in love with her image, the more she falls in love with their admiration and the control she has over the gaze. By the time her poses cross over into the realm of soft-core S&M, she has found a way to combine her need to be respected with the objectification she has been accustomed to her whole life.

Mary Harron's Bettie Page is a woman who yearns for control over her life and destiny, yet ultimately is always being told where to stand, how to smile and what to wear. When she finally realizes that none of her choices have been her own, she chooses to embrace God and preach his word to those who will listen. The true sadness behind this most important decision is that she is still letting someone else guide her blindly; she just has more faith that this direction will be better for her soul. Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of "American Psycho," and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10. Greetings again from the darkness. Mary Heron is amassing quite the list of films which provide a glimpse into their specific era. Her previous "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho" were at their best when commenting on the quirkiness of society during that period. Although "The Notorious Bettie Page" is obviously about Ms. Page, it is every bit as much a peak behind the curtain at the world of kinky photo shoots in the 50's.

The film is fun to watch both from the perspective of the story and the technical aspect of the way it was filmed and put together. The grainy B&W film and photos capture the time and the introduction of color in Miami Beach through the photos of Bunny Yeager is very well done.

The supporting cast is strong with David Strathairn (fresh off his Edward R. Murrow role), Chris Bauer (as Irving Klaw) and Lili Taylor. The star of the film is the wonderfully talented and underrated and underworked Gretchen Mol. Ms. Mol always brings an edge and spirit to her roles. She was absolutely mesmerizing in the little seen, Jason Alexander directed "Just Looking" in 2000. Here she is the notorious Bettie Page. Her smile is captivating and her body is flawless. She really seems to enjoy this role and helps us understand how the girl next door from Tennessee could become the underworld Pin-up queen.

As one would expect, the soundtrack from the era is terrific. Patsy Cline and Peggy Lee are just two of the featured performers. Although the film hints at providing a history into this industry, the final third kinda falls flat preventing pure movie magic. But the magic of Gretchen Mol and Bettie Page make this a fun movie to watch and one that will yield endless showings on HBO in the near future. Now will someone please turn Ms. Mol into the star she should be? I am not going to lie. Despite looking interesting, I watched The Notorious Bettie Page because I had heard (and it was fairly obvious just by looking at a synopsis or anything about the film), that Gretchen Mol got naked in it. I have never been a fan of Mol, but I cannot resist seeing an attractive woman taking off her clothes. Yes, that may be perverted, but its a theme and ideal central to the very core of the movie, and helps to make the film a lot stronger than it probably should be.

The film chronicles Bettie Page's (Mol) life from her physical and sexually abused days as a kid in high school in the South, and onto her new life in New York. She wants to be an actress, but she has to pay bills too. After taking a few seemingly innocent shots on a local beach, Page slowly becomes a modeling sensation, and quickly jumps from suggestive photos to sexually provocative pin-up photographs.

I feel the briefness of the film (just over ninety minutes) is both a curse and blessing for it. On one hand, the film never overstays its welcome. You get to know Page within a few short minutes, and then it gets right into her modeling career and does not look back. But it curses the film as well, because we never really get a chance to grasp everything that is going on. She just kind of jumps around between modeling shoots and the controversies that they create before jumping right into the major senate investigation that takes up much of the final act of the film. You just sit there, and attempt to absorb it all, and more just comes right at you. It feels like the filmmakers wanted to summarize too much material in too short a film. It begs for longer sequences, and begs more for even longer explanations. It does not feel rushed; it just does not feel all there.

Another bit of a fumble, although a bit more of a curiosity, is the use of colour throughout the film. The majority is in black and white, but frequently, splashes and sequences of colour do emerge. But while this may have been done as a symbolic gesture early on, it becomes a bit of a distraction as it continually pops up later on before cutting back to black and white. It gets confusing, and becomes more of a tedious interference than anything else as the film goes on.

While it may fumble a bit with the actions, the film stays dead-on with its themes. Page, who I know little to nothing about, is played off innocently, and her world is exactly the same. Save for a few shady characters during her teenage years, everyone she encounters is an innocent, and everything she does has an innocence to it. I never thought I would look at full frontal nudity as being something that was anything other than vulgar and depraved, but here, it truly is something to marvel at. All at once, it is beautiful and innocent. Even the most sexually perverted moments in the film (albeit tame compared to today's standards) have an innocent and angelic feeling to them. There is just something about the way Mol's nude body is portrayed that it just strikes at such a different chord than nude bodies in other films. It just feels so natural and so wondrous, that if there were any reason to watch the film, it would be to see the spectacular depictions of Mol's body as she plays Bettie Page.

The other reason is Mol herself. As Page, she exemplifies that 1950's Southern belle everyone knows (or can at least imagine). Despite her profession, she is still a normal person, and still looks at herself as being religious. Mol plays her exactly to the right amount of squeaky-cleanliness needed to make this character feel authentically from the 1950's. She plays her with such matter-of-factness that you would be hard-set not to think that Mol was actually Bettie Page herself.

Unfortunately, the supporting cast have very little moments to shine, and are totally overshadowed by Mol's wonderful performance. None of them do anything particularly pleasing, and none of them really have that same strength in their role as Mol does. This is not really the fault of the actors, but more of the fact that they do not have much to work with. Many of them are totally recognizable, such as Oscar-nominee David Strathairn (in a role a little too close to one of his better performances), Sarah Paulson (recent Golden Globe nominee for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip), and character actor Lili Taylor, but you would be hard set to really place their performance in being anything other than okay. None of these characters are really developed, and they really just stand as character cut-outs who Mol runs loops around as she picks up steam in her brilliant performance.

Really, this film is worthwhile for its portrayal of nudity, and for Gretchen Mol's excellent performance of Bettie Page. Everything else is a bit too muddled and awkward than it should be. Had more work been done to develop supporting characters and not just blast right through the story, this film would have been a much better biographical film. As it stands, it is just a vehicle for Mol to really rise into the stratosphere of popularity as an actress.

7/10. If there's one genre that I've never been a fan of, it's the biopic. Always misleading, filled with false information, over-dramatized scenes, and trickery all around, biopics are almost never done right. Even in the hands of the truly talented directors like Martin Scorsese (The Aviator) and Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind), they often do a great disservice to the people they are trying to capture on screen. Skeptiscism takes the place of hype with the majority of biopics that make their way to the big screen and the Notorious Bettie Page was no different. Some critics and moviegoers objected to Gretchen Mol given the role of Bettie Page, saying she was no longer a celebrity and didn't have the chops for the part. I never doubted Mol could handle the part since, but I never expected to as blown as away by her performance as I was upon just viewing the film hours ago. Mol delivers a knockout Oscar worthy performance as the iconic 1950's pin-up girl, who, after an early life of abuse (depicted subtlety and tastefully done, something few directors would probably do) inadvertently becomes one of the most talked about models of all time. The picture covers a lot of ground in its 90 minute running time yet despite no less than three subplots, there is still a feeling that there may be a small portion missing from the story. Director/co-writer Marry Harron and Guinevere Turner's fantastic script is only marred by a too abrupt and not as clear as it should be ending. Still, credit must be given to the two ladies for creating a nearly flawless biopic that manages to pay tribute to both its subject and the decade it emulates masterfully. Come Oscar time, Mol, Turner, and Harron should be receiving nominations. Doubt it will happen, though there certainly are no three women more deserving of them. 9/10 Hey guys I'm actually in this movie! I didn't even know it was on this site until i looked a few years ago and i was so surprised! I played Pete, the main characters son. It was a great experience and i loved every minute of it. While filming they needed me to be in two places at once, so they used my twin sister as a body double! The finger that pushes the radio button in the car is hers not mine. I still act and do some TV, but not as much. Oh and if you want proof my name is the first one at the top of the scroll.

Review: I thought the movie was okay but if i wasn't in it, it wouldn't be one of my favorites. I thought the acting was really good, but the story line was only so-so. The film was okay, quite entertaining. The cast was pretty good, and I'll second what the comment before me mentioned - Glenn Quinn was outstanding and he alone is reason enough to watch this movie. He played the selfish "evil" friend and manager of the band brilliantly!

There are a lot of songs performed by "Beyond Gravity" in this film, but this doesn't really come as a surprise considering the film is a VH1 production. However, if the soft rock/ pop music isn't to someone's liking one might as well flash forward those scenes.

The plot of a band trying to make it to the top in L.A. but having to overcome many obstacles on the way isn't too original, but quite entertaining, with some surprising plot turns here and there. Though I really didn't feel anything for Lance's character, and felt his wife could have done much better with anyone else. It could have been a much stronger movie if they had spent more time on character development, perhaps with Lance- I would have liked it better.

However, I have to completely agree with DoyleLuver, when they said "And to quote Glenn Quinn's character Ben: 'I'm the star here in it, that's right I'm the talented one!'" If you watch the movie, just watch him, even when he's in the background... just his facial expressions, all in the eyes, you KNOW for sure what motivates Ben, exactly how he feels about comments, even if it's a quick look behind a character's back. Great acting in a fair film. When I started to watch this movie on VH-1 I cringed. The MTV movies were all bad so I wasnt expecting much. But this movie was really good. I liked it a lot. And it even had a twist at the end. See this movie because it shows that Made For TV movies that are good exist. If you think "Weird Al" Yankovic is hilarious, you won't be disappointed by THE COMPLEAT AL. Not only does this rare mockumentary feature many of Yankovic's more memorable videos ("Like A Surgeon" and "I Love Rocky Road" among them), but they are inter-spliced with funny vignettes supposedly highlighting the parodist's rise to fame. Yankovic is not for all tastes, but his humor is harmless and imaginative enough that even non-fans will at least be lightly amused. Die-hard fans will love it not only for its content, but also for its relatively early look into Yankovic's now nearly three decade career. Suitable for all ages, kiddies will no doubt love the funny visuals. But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.

Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie. This is a bizzare look at Al's "life", back when he still a hyper 20-something. The (real) home videos of Al as a kid are great, and the commentary from his (real life) parents gives a nice glimpse of just how Weird Al wound up as screwed up as he is. This video is a must own for any devoted Al-coholic. I will never forget when I saw this title in the video store way back when. I was always a big Weird Al fan and when I saw this video I rented and watched it. I was too young to appreciate all of Al's subtle humor and satire at the time but I remember it much later when I was old enough to understand what I was watching. If you are an "Al" fan, especially of his earlier work, you will thoroughly enjoy this film. It is done in the MTV-esque "Rockumentary" style and tells a true (but sometimes exaggerated) tale of how Al got to be where he was in 1985. You will love it if you like his brand of humor and, more importantly, his music.

I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly "supernatural" explanation ("vampires"), but turns out to be a very mundance one.

Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's "Before Dawn" and the (more famous) "Mark of the Vampire".

The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very "spooky atmosphere", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a "corpse" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!

If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!

Norm Vogel Dwight Frye steals the show in this one as a foolish young man(who seems to be mentally handicapped) who gets himself blamed for vampire-like murders especially after he reveals his love for bats which he likes to stroke and give to unsuspecting friends as 'gifts'!. Besides all of that, there's an entertaining mystery tale involving the above mentioned murders. Underrated. Mysterious murders in a European village seem the result of THE VAMPIRE BAT horde plaguing the terrified community.

This surprisingly effective little thriller was created by Majestic Pictures, one of Hollywood's Poverty Row studios. The sparse production values and rough editing actually add to its eerie atmosphere and lend it an almost expressionistic quality. Overall, it leaves the viewer the feeling of being caught up in a bad dream, which is appropriate for a thriller of this sort.

Even though the eventual explanation for the hideous crimes is quite ludicrous and is not given proper plot development, the film can boast of a good cast. Grave Lionel Atwill gives another one of his typically fine performances, this time as a doctor doing scientific research in an old castle. Beautiful Fay Wray plays his assistant in a role which requires her to do little more than look lovely & alarmed. Dour Melvyn Douglas appears as the perplexed police inspector who also happens to be, conveniently, Miss Wray's boyfriend.

Maude Eburne, who could be extremely funny given the right situation, steals most of her scenes as Miss Wray's hypochondriac aunt. Elderly Lionel Belmore plays the village's terrified burgermeister. And little Dwight Frye, who will always be remembered for his weird roles in the FRANKENSTEIN and Dracula films, here is most effective as a bat-loving lunatic. In an attempt to cash in on the success of Universal's horror films Majestic Pictures hired several popular actors from the current genre and put them in this effort that (realistically speaking) is nowhere near as good. With that, this is still worth everyone's time and it's a heck of a lot of fun to view and in my opinion it's better than most of what is supposed to pass nowadays as horror! Story takes place in the small German town of Klineschloss where the bodies have been piling up completely drained of blood and with suspicious puncture marks. Burgermister Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) shouts "It's Vampires" but the local police chief Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) thinks it's a madman who's responsible and he vows to catch him.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** The Burgermeister and most of the towns folk think that the local kook Herman Glieb (Dwight Frye) who loves bats and frequently talks to them is the one they are looking for and they chase him until he falls to his death in a cave. The one who is responsible for the killings is Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who has created a new form of tissue mass that feeds on blood and he accomplishes this by having some sort of mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazer) who goes out at night to collect the blood. Dr. Otto has a pretty assistant named Ruth Bertin (Fay Wray) and an annoying aunt named Gussie (Maude Eburne) but they have no clue what he's up to but Karl eventually become suspicious when one of the murders takes place after Herman's death.

Frank R. Strayer was never confused with being James Whale but he was a pretty competent director who ended up directing most of the "Blondie" films in that series and with this film he uses the same sets from "The Old Dark House" which was also filmed at Universal. I'm the first to admit that this film is downright clumsy at times but it's practically impossible to resist a film that has a cast like this including Frye who is pretty much doing his Renfield role only this time he befriends bats and strokes them and keeps them in his pocket for safe keeping! One thing that just doesn't make sense is the mind control that Dr. Otto has over Emil as the film never explains this and I had a strong sense that this was some sort of nod to "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" but on the other hand it's probably just the weakest part of the script. There are a few other tidbits that I noticed including the chase of Frye to the big caves which is obviously an early shot of the infamous Bronson Canyon where numerous other films have been made and also Wray's brown hair which is her true color. True horror film fans will appreciate this more than others but I think this is a fun film to view for everyone and with a cast as attractive as this it's well worth a look. Though not a horror film in the traditional sense, this creepy little film delivers the goods. It seems a vampire is loose in a small German town draining its victims of their blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschneider, Melvyn Douglas in one of his early roles, is skeptical believing a crazed killer not a vampire is running amok. The only one who believes him is Ruth Bertin (Faye Wray) the inspector's girlfriend and lab assistant to Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who though apparently an eminent scientist goes along with the vampire theory. The townspeople suspect the weirdo Herman Gleib, played with his usual frenzy by Dwight Frye who seems to be having a lot of fun with his role. The film contains quite a bit of humor which helps relieve some of the intensity involved with all the murders being committed. One funny part has Gussie Schnappmann (Maude Eburne), Ruth Bertin's aunt, thinking weird Herman has turned not into a bat but into a dog. Maude Eburne and Dwight Frye make a good comedy team.

This budget movie brings in elements from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" with Dr. Niemann using the power of suggestion to make a somnambulist carry out his orders, from "Frankenstein" by using the human blood to help create life in the laboratory, and "Dracula" since the murders are believed by everyone except the inspector and his girl to be the work of a bloodsucker. Thses elements are mixed well by director Frank R. Strayer with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. The concoction works. The restored version I viewed used tinting to increase the spooky atmosphere. So try to see the this version if possible. Years ago, I found a "bargain bin" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the "poverty row" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.

The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some "red herrings" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the "screaming lady" and provides little new in each film.

Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able. Until today I had never seen this film. Its was filmed on the sets of the Old Dark House and Frankenstein and concerns a small Bavarian village where supposedly giant bats are sucking the blood of the villagers.

Frankly its a damn good movie that has atmosphere to spare and a cast that won't quit, Lionel Atwill, Dwight Frye, Faye Wray and Melvin Douglas playing a character named Brettschnieder which is of interest to me since that was my great grandmother's maiden name.

This is a carefully modulated film that has suspense and witty one liners that slowly builds for its brief running time, only going astray when about ten minutes before the end they realized they had limited time to wrap everything up. From that point to the end its a straight run to the finish with very little of the fun that preceded it.

Leonard Maltin and IMDb list a running time of 71 minutes and warn of shorter prints. The trouble is that IMDb and Maltin can be wrong, and in this case I think they are since a source I trust more says the full running time is 67 minutes (The Overlook Film Encyclopedia) Quibbling about this I know is insane but since most prints that are available tend to run around 60-63 minutes the amount of missing material is considerably less if its only 67 minutes long. Personally I think it won't matter that much since its at most five minutes and I doubt very much it will make or break the film.

What ever the running time , if you like creaky old films, do, by all means do, watch this movie, its a great dark and stormy night film. This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an "Igor"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.

But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in "Kleinschloss" ("little castle"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.

It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures. Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after "Doctor X" & "The Mystery of the Wax Museum")who is Niemann's assistant.

Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.

Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders. I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as "Glory" or "Gettysburg," provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.

Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!

Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George "Fanny" or "Autie" Custer; Alonzo "Lon" Cushing; James "Beauty" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.

I say this film is "Santa Fe Trail" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).

"Fanny" Custer plays a role in "Class of '61," though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.

Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America. I for one really like this movie for some reasons I'll go into late but I want to touch on why I think people don't like it. First off, there are people out there who just like to hate Tom Cruise. I don't understand it really. Second, Cameron Crowe I think successfully p***es off two groups of movie-goers with this film. The casual, relaxed, "not looking to think too hard" group of movie-goers are left confused when the plot takes a complete 180 at the end of the movie. And the deep, philosophical, mystery-fans are devastated when Crowe has one of his characters completely explain the mystery.

This is a good movie. And Tom Cruise does a very good job in it. I think it's probably his best performance from what I've seen all though I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them probably. The supporting cast is good as well. Penelope Cruz gives a solid performance and Jason Lee was enjoyable.

I like the story, and I think that's what Vanilla Sky is more than anything. It's a mystery, an adventure, and a romantic comedy, but it's mostly just a good story. And it has a lot of philosophical undertones to it, and many similar ideas and stories like this occur in historical philosophy. David Aames (Cruise) is the man that had everything he wanted, more or less lost it, was given a second chance with a catch to regain it all back, and in the end facing his demons and the full scope of what is happening, chooses reality, simplicity, and normality to see if he can finally find the one thing he could never get a grip on: happiness.

Many people were disappointed that Crowe laid out the complete mystery at the end. I think it's necessary. The audience then knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that David is aware of his circumstances and it makes the choice at the end all the more powerful.

And the music in the movie is great. It's probably what makes the movie as enjoyable as it is. Particularly, "Njosnavelin" by Sigur Ros, which is an amazing song.

All in all, I'd give it 3 out 4 stars. It's a movie with some substance for those who like to think things through, and a great story for those looking to relax. That "moderate" approach is probably why people dislike it so much because it isn't a full blown mystery, or a full blown love story. It mixes and matches different elements and genres. I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it. How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.

Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.

Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.

As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.

Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.

He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.

The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.

Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made. "Vanilla Sky" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, "Abre Los Ojos" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever. I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.

Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).

The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).

More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.

The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.

This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).

Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own. This film is one of Tom Cruise's finest films. He captures the audiences imaginations with his role of David Aames. His character can relate to us all in some way.The story line is very clever and keeps the audience on edge throughout the whole film. I never really watched Cruise movies that much before but after seeing this it shows me his true talent. My favourite part in the movie is the end where it all comes to a big conclusion and he find out the truth. If you have not seen this yet you definitely should give it a try. It's one of those films that once you've started watching it you just got to see it until the end or it will keep you thinking and you will regret it. My opinion is you should just go buy it and take a risk thats what I did and it became one of my favourite films of all time. It's A* 10/10 I promise once you watch it, it will stick with you and you will like it forever. "The sweet is never as sweet without the sour." This quote was essentially the theme for the movie in my opinion. Tom Cruise plays a young man who was handed everything in his life. He takes things for granted and it comes around full swing in this great movie with a superb twist. This film will keep you engaged in the plot and unable to pause it to take a bathroom break.

Its a movie that really makes you step back and look at your life and how you live it. You cannot really appreciate the better things in life (the sweet), like love, until you have experienced the bad (the sour). The theme will really get you to "open your eyes".

Only complaint is that the movie gets very twisted at points and is hard to really understand. I think the end is perfect though. I recommend you watch it and see for yourself. I'm from Romania i'll try to speak in English. All i want to say about this movie is that it is and will be my all time number one. Seen it above 30 times at least and will see it for many years now. It has all the little things i like in a movie , it's very touching makes me cry . Shows a whole lot of twisted love things and questions about love and reality , and the true things that matter for different people. It so happens that for me this matters the most , the love , the soul of a man , he's inner being, and this i see in this movie. Perhaps for me it's much more than a motion picture , it's a proof in my mind that it could really exist and that you most make the best out of every moment you live with your soul mate. It's a long way from reality to sci-fi , but .. what if. What if all the capitalism disappeared and economy would go down , would fall? We would all be concerned about other issues and my thought is that , on your death bed , the bigger thing you remember , is not the wealth , not the adventure , not the countries you visited and the people that remember you. But the true friends and your true love and the hope that after you die , all will be god damn perfect and people would be good and care more. WATCH THIS MOVIE and probably it will guide you through your life like it did to me :) Hail from Romania This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever! I really can say I felt the movie in its right essence where the mind games from dreamy reality enter into the surreal aspect of future faced by Tom Cruise. I didn't cared much about Tom Cruise's acting prowess but I must say that he seems to impress at every point in the movie...not simply due to an engaging storyline but also due to his self being imparted to the lead character....they merge and then speak and its beautiful. However I must say this movie doesn't come under the "average flick of weekend" which you pick at random and watch gleefully; It carries strong sentiments and characters so don't wash this one down with your beer and pop-corns. It certainly needs more than that. After reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.

Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.

Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.

You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation. This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.

The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.

I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.

If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see.

9/10 Strangely, this version of OPEN YOUR EYES is more mature and more nuanced. Aided by hindsight, Crowe's screenplay is a lot tighter and more fleshed out than Amenabar's original. The Spanish filmmaker should get credit for thinking of the story first, but there's no doubt that Crowe has improved on it -- if just slightly. Notice that you have no idea what the lead did in OPEN YOUR EYES, but you know almost everything about the lead in VANILLA SKY. That's what i mean by more "fleshed out." I really liked this movie. I've read a few of the other comments, and although I pity those who did not understand it, I do agree with some of the criticisms. Which, in a strange way, makes me like this movie all the more. I accept that they have got a pretty cast to remake an intelligent movie for the general public, yet it has so many levels and is still great to watch. I also love the movies, such as this one, which provoke so many debates, theories, possible endings and hidden subtext. Congratulations Mr.Crowe, definitely in my Top Ten.

P.S. Saw this when it first came out whilst I was backpacking in Mexico, it was late at night and I had to get back to my hotel and I had a major paranoia trip! Where does the dream end and the real begin? Despite excellent trailers for Vanilla Sky, I was expecting to be disappointed by the film because I'd heard that it did not get great reviews. However, I left the cinema completely in awe of how good Vanilla Sky is.

There was no bad acting at all in the whole film, every single character is believable. The romantic moments between Cruise's character, David Aames and Cruz's character, Sophia are tear-jerkingly realistic and intimate (probably due to the fact that they were a soon-to-be real-life couple).

The plot of Vanilla Sky will confuse you in the last third of the film and there's very little chance of you guessing the ending. However, ends are tied up towards the end, leaving you with a strange mixture of feelings consisting of sadness, shock and empathy for David Aames.

The film is intellectual and you have to pay attention throughout. This isn't that hard because chances are that you'll be completely drawn in to the film and won't take your eyes off the screen for one second.

I usually leave cinemas forgetting all about the film I just watch. But Vanilla Sky is still lingering in my mind days after watching it. I recommend it to anyone who wants a change from simple, shallow films. I went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.

I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......

As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.

I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!

Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film. This film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar. As the one-line summary says, two movies have left such a remark on me when I walked out of the theater. The one was "Stir of Echoes" with Kevin Bacon, and the second was "Vanilla Sky".

Its one of those movies that you sit deep in the theater seat and stop thinking about anyone around you, stop wondering what the end of the movie will be and just leave the movie swift you where it wants... Walking out of the cinema was a bit weird, like that feeling you get when you are sick and cant think of anything. One of those movies that you become one with the guy, and feel that nothing else moves around you than the things in the movie.

One thing is certain. The actors are awesome, the sound track is excellent, and everything in the movie is 9+.

Surely one of the best movies I ever saw, and the movie that made the best and most shocking awaking about my life and my purpose in this world. David Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.

Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.

Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of "Are they dead, if not who is dead" movies recently. this movie is another on the list that i did not want to see. i was talked into it and dragged into the theater, but boy am i glad for that. i thought it was going to be just another love story, but it turns out to be SOOO much more than that. definatly an intellectual flick, one of those movies you have to pay attention to. Warning: Does contain spoilers.

Open Your Eyes

If you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.

If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.

I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds.

I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable.

He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.

"What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?"

What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.

Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.

Open your Eyes.

Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them.

Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth.

Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is " the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter." He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.

At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.

That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.

Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called "Best Pictures of the year" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it.

This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.

10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed.

And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.

Open Your Eyes Made me think about it for days after seeing it. That to me is the mark of a great movie. Eyes Wide Shut had the same effect on me. I am tired of these people requiring these happy Hollywood cookie-cutter endings. I am planning on going to see it again tonight to understand the plot a little better - but regardless, the emotional messages of the movie were totally felt. It does seem like this film is polarizing us. You either love it or hate it. I loved it.

I agree with the comment(s) that said, you just gotta "feel" this one.

Also, early in the film, Tom Cruise shows his girlfriend a painting done by Monet--an impressionist painter. Monet's style is to paint in little dabs so up close the painting looks like a mess, but from a distance, you can tell what the subject is. Cruise mentions that the painting has a "vanilla sky". I believe this is a hint to the moviegoer. This movie is like that impressionist painting. It's impressionist filmmaking! And it's no coincidence that the title of the movie refers to that painting.

This is not your typical linear plot. It requires more thought. There is symbolism and there are scenes that jump around and no, you're not always going to be sure what's going on. But at the end, all is explained.

You will need to concentrate on this movie but I think people are making the mistake of concentrating way too hard on it. After it ends is when you should think about it. If you try to figure it out as it's unfolding, you will overwhelm yourself. Just let it happen..."go" with it...keep an open mind. Remember what you see and save the analysis for later.

I found all the performances top notch and thought it to be tremendously unique, wildly creative, and spellbinding.

But I will not critize the intelligence of those of you who didn't enjoy it. It appeals to a certain taste. If you like existential, psychedelic, philosophical, thought-provoking, challenging, spiritual movies, then see it. If you prefer something a little lighter, then skip it.

But if you DO like what I described, then you will surely enjoy it. Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.

Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.

Considering the following:

Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?

Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.

It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.

In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?

If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.

Comparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now) I think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called "weirdness" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to "open [their] eyes" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the "feel" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly "right" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+ I am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.

As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.

Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky. This game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.

I give this a 10/10 This is one of the best bond games i have ever played because:

The missions are very very fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be really hard sometimes that makes it even more fun the weapons that you use are really good. The cars in this game are really good the driving missions are fun to do. This James bond game has a good story to it. The voice over actors in this game are really good and it is cool that pierce brosnan is in this game and the way the characters look is really good because they look like what they look like in real life which is really cool. Also the graphics in this game pretty good.

Overall score ********* out of ********** Don't get me wrong. "GoldenEye" was revolutionary and is definitely the best FPS game to be based on the 007 franchise. But the series had fallen into a FPS rut. Enter "Everything or Nothing", which puts Bond in third-person. When I wrote my earlier review for "From Russia With Love", I had finished FRWL and just started EON and judged EON a bit harshly. Even though FRWL definitely has the edge in nostalgia and capturing the essence of the movie franchise, EON definitely is superior in terms of in-depth controls and gameplay variety. Missions range from standard running-and-gunning to driving an SUV, driving an Aston Martin, driving a limousine that is wired to explode, commandeering two different types of tanks a la "GoldenEye", riding a motorcycle, flying a helicopter, repelling down a shaft guarded by laser tripwires, and free falling after a plummeting damsel. Sure, vehicle controls are a little clumsy, but the issue here is the variety.

As movie adaptations, "GoldenEye" and FRWL were all that I could have hoped for. But EON's original storyline adds to the feeling of controlling a James Bond adventure. This is helped by the impressive cast list of Willem DeFoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, and Misaki Ito. Judi Dench and John Cleese reprise their movie roles of M and Q, respectively, and Pierce Brosnan, while no Sean Connery, adds credibility to the game's proceedings. All characters resemble the stars, with the disappointing exception of Heidi Klum, who's in-game model doesn't do the real-life model justice. Mya's theme song is on par with at least some of the big screen Bond title tunes.

The game also plays tribute to some of the older Bond movies. Willem DeFoe's character is a former colleague of Christopher Walken's baddie from "A View to a Kill". Richard Kiel appears as Jaws, the hulking henchman from "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" in three fight scenes, the first and best of which proceeds in the same fashion a fight in the movies would have.

Single-player gameplay mainly consists of standard on-foot missions as Bond. Like Bond, you will be able to choose whether to use stealth or go out with guns blazing. The game provides plenty of opportunities to utilize stealth, with plenty of wall and object cover. Unfortunately, unlike FRWL, only one button in EON controls both crouching and wall clinging, so Bond may end up crouching low when he's supposed to be peeking around a corner, and vice-versa. The game also allows players to go into "Bond reflex" mode. While you browse your inventory, everything around you will go into super slo-mo, allowing you to analyze objects around you that can be interacted with. While this takes some getting used to, eventually this mode will allow you to perform many spectacular "Bond moments", such as shooting down a chandelier to take out four goons underneath, and greatly add to the Bond movie feeling.

There are 3 available difficulty levels: Operative, Agent, and Double Oh. On Operative, you can breeze through in a few hours. On Agent, a few weeks. On Double Oh, a few months. The difficulty level can be changed for each individual mission. Garnering high scores on missions will unlock gold and platinum awards and effect features such as vehicle upgrades and the skimpy outfits the Bond girls wear. Some missions can be extremely frustrating due to a scarcity of checkpoints, but when all is said and done, no mission is any longer than a single action scene in a Bond movie.

Multi-player, unfortunately, is not as thrilling. "GoldenEye" still has the best multi-player mode of any Bond game. EON's main multi-player is a co-op campaign mode that puts players in charge of lesser MI6 agents on a less important mission than Bond's. A more standard third-person death match can be unlocked from this mode. But the single-player mode is the most complete Bond experience to date. The ending, as with most Bond games, is anticlimactic. While the final mission is one of the most aggravating of the game, the final confrontation with the villain is disappointing. Also, levels that require Bond to be speedy become largely a matter of trial and error. Still, for any serious Bond fan, not playing this game is tantamount to missing one of the Bond films. Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out! ** Warning - this post may contain spoilers **

I only got a Gamecube in September 2005, and the first two games I bought were James Bond games, the decent Agent Under Fire and the dull Goldeneye Rogue Agent. The next game I planned to get was Everything or Nothing, because my friend told me that it was better than the two games I already had. I have to say, he was right.

I bought this for a tenner in HMV, and when I got home, I slammed it in to my Cube and played it for hours on end. It was much better than my other two games, and there was a much better and more interesting storyline. Graphics were some of the best I have seen (but now that the XBOX 360 has come out, Farcry Instincts Predator has some of the best graphics known to man). The storyline was clever; mad man (Willem Dafoe, named as Nikolai Diavolo) and beautiful henchwoman (Heidi Klum, named as Katya Nadanova), try to destroy the world with tiny nanobots, which at the start of the game, you, James Bond, have to destroy on a train. The bad thing is that one of them is hidden in Katya's boobs. You then have to thwart their plans and save the world.

The great thing about this game is that it actually has actors voicing the characters, such as Cleese voicing Q. There are 27 levels, some of them short and some of them pretty long and tricky.

Gameplay - 10/10 Graphics - 9/10 Sound - 9/10 Replay value - 7/10 Multiplayer - 8/10

I give this game a grand total of 90% I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: "Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond," "If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is." He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: "Grow up 007!" I am a big fan a Faerie Tale Theatre and I've seen them all and this is one of the best! It's funny, romantic, and a classic. I recommend this for all ages. It's great for little kids because it's well, Cinderella and great for adults and teen because it's funny and not over the top. I watched it when I was little and I still watch it now. It has great lines that my family and I quote all the time. The acting is great and it never gets old. If you like fairy tales and romances you will love this. I've watched many a Cinderella movie in my time and this is the best of them all. (Sorry Disney) I highly recommend this movie and all the Faerie Tale Theatre shows. They all appeal to all ages and are all unique and very entertaining. Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. "Cinderella" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from "Flashdance"--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one! This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.

As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much. This show is awesome! and I've seen it about 6 times.

Granted it may be lacking in educational content as some people like those sort of movies, but I think it's great, very funny and excellently written! I haven't laughed that much in a long time - although the movie has some sad moments too, especially when it changes from hyper-funny to honest and serious. The characters are very realistic most of the times, sappy sometimes, but quite believable. I am not a fan of the Jerry Springer show - I feel sorry for the participating people. This film instead is a satire, and it is doing great.

Too bad that all expletives were *beeped* out while this movie aired on public tv, that takes a lot of fun out of it. I will go rent this movie to fully enjoy it.

The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few "heart-wrenching" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world? I can't agree with any of the comments. First time I saw the film on a UK TV channel, it was presented as an indie film and if you take the film under this angle I think it's an all different matter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and got hooked instantly. The plot may be as bad as a JS's show (ie there is no plot) but the acting is wicked, it's hilarious and it's all in all an incredible trash movie.

It says as much about America than a Bully or a Ken Park without the drama perspective but it gives a glimpse on the US society, and more precisely on what afternoon TV viewers in America (and I believe there are plenty of them !) are interested in. After all it's the neighbours we're talking about, don't we ?

100% fun ! It's highly stylized, but this movie shows that real people appear on these shows and what seems like good fun and a chance to appear on television can have serious consequences.

Yes, i's mostly comedy, but there are some sad moments. I thought the movie was extremely funny and actually very interesting. It was raw and honest and felt as if I was really watching the "real people" not actors. It's great entertainment, it also painted the people as human on our level not below us. It is a very good film. An old saying goes "If you think you have problems, visit a hospital." That has been updated in recent years to "If you think you have problems, watch a TV talk show...especially Jerry Springer's!" This movie is one of those that is so bad, it's good! That's why I gave it a seven-it's all right, but not great. It's a great way to waste 95 minutes, just as the daily talk show is advertised as "an hour of your life you'll never get back!" All the familiar themes are here...unfaithful husbands/boyfriends, the wildest audience on television, women flashing Jerry, etc. The shocker was watching Molly Hagan, who normally plays sweet characters ("Seinfeld" and "Herman's Head") playing a trailer-trash mom and Jaime Pressly ("My Name Is Earl") as her equally trashy daughter, performing sexual favors for virtually every man with whom they came in contact. The men (including the staff producer) were presented as quintessential lunkheads who deserved what they got. I don't want to spoil or reveal everything but the movie plays like the daily show. Here in Phoenix, it's shown back-to-back for two hours every morning and, after that, everything else seems to pale. Again, I give this movie a seven...it's good but not great. Jerry Springer is best taken in small one hour doses. I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.

At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film. Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found "Ringmaster" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer "guests" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value. Just saw the movie, and the scary thing was, the people talking during the movie sounded just like the actors. The movie had its moments, but also lagged and was rather sick. It was all meant to be a farce, but once you see the pathetic lives of the people in the movie, you think to yourself "People like this are all around us" All attempts at getting the audience's sympathy are dashed as the actors do one stupid thing after another. On the plus side, there are some great (and funny) insults. I think I would wait for video- but it was a good laugh. WARNING- Jerry takes his shirt off during the movie!! (not a pretty sight!) The Ancient Mariner is a truly classic piece of work, as the original poem was/is. The context/setting with the old mariner himself is fine, clear, and without pretense. The artistic work that accompanies the reading of the poem fits perfectly the time/period of the setting and of the work itself, carrying the audience into the period with a still, yet moving accompaniment, using excellent still-movement strategies only well conquered by the pre-MTV era producers and much less apparent in more current works. (MTV brought to television and video a static movement that races through, often irrelevant cuts, from theme to theme without forward movement and without clear relationships to theme or storyline.) The voice, intonation and vitality of Redgrave's reading brings this touching poem to life with all its fear, strife and pain. In addition, the smooth movement of the video emphasizes the cadence and occasional monotone (in this case a positive mood under the theme of the story itself)of the author's rendition of the ancient mariner's sad and spooky tale. This is a must for any love of classic poetry, the sea, a tall tale, that almost rings true, and a story that has left a lasting impact on our world and culture. Who does not understand the meaning of an "albatross"? or the concept of "water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink?" A truly fine experience. Thank you Mr. DaSilva for bringing this to life for us, never to be forgotten. The blend of biography with poetry and live action with animation makes this a true work of art. The narration by Sir Michael Redgrave is moving. The length of the work makes it easily accessible for class room exposure or TV/Video time slots. Recently, a friend and I were discussing educational and ethical influences when we were growing up in the 1950's versus today. She mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who, in 1798, wrote The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Both of us had been required to recite parts of the epic poem in high school and in English Literature courses in college. My friend said, "Its messages even might be called metaphysical within today's context."

We tried reciting it and only remembered bits and pieces. (I have problems remembering Dr. Seuss.) I said I'd get two copies of the poem so each could read it. That was easy enough, but I was extremely surprised to find it had been made into a film. We looked forward to watching the film to see how it had been interpreted. After all, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't exactly light reading. After each had read the poem, we watched the film together.

We considered the film a remarkable achievement, especially considering it was made in the 1970's, before computers, before the so-called "Ken Burns effect," and before special effects too often began compensating for a lack of substance. Particularly noteworthy are the 19th and 20th century illustrations culled from "lesser known artists," such as Willy Pogany, the early Hollywood designer.

The film is narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, whom had taught the poem when he was a schoolmaster, adding a tone of authority and credibility in remaining true to the poem.

Its mastery is in the layers of subtle messages, conveyed without "instructing," or becoming an oppressive and obvious morality tale. We found it such a refreshing change from today's 'in your face' and 'clobber them over the head' mentality. Most of today's morality messages in film are two-dimensional: extreme violence, murder and mayhem mark the bad. The bad are really, really, bad, and good are super heroes. It is as if human character lacked any nuance. The Rime of The Ancient Mariner is a celebration of the individual, of character, of an appreciation for celebrating all the richness life has to offer, within the larger context of humanity, i.e., man's capacity to give to others.

Proud of ourselves for having found this "unknown" gem, we then learned it had won the top award in its category five out of six times at "name" international film festivals. Another surprise was learning the film's director, Raul daSilva, is a recognized authority on early animation, and authored six award winning books about film.

This film's message is just as relevant today, if not more so, than when Coleridge penned the original epic poem and when Raul daSilva translated it to film. If I still was teaching high school, which I did for five years, I'd grab this one and show it to all my students. There's a level of richness here that naturally leads to discussion about the big and important issues all of us face, whether in 1798, 1978, or today--in fact, as long as humanity has a spiritual component.

Highly recommended. This filmed presentation of "the Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is a most beautiful and interesting rendition of Coleridge's haunting poem. The striking cinematography, combined with a collection of two centuries of efforts to illustrate the epic poem of 1798 by world famous artists, and Michael Redgrave's superb narration, are very well worth the time to view this excellent visual work.

In the age of television, such work as this is an invaluable tool to induce young students, as well as adults, to explore and to learn the value of great poetry. To the best of my knowledge,this kind of work is indeed rare; that is regrettable. As a student of world literature and as a former college professor and academic counselor, I feel that more great epic poems like Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" should be so "translated." Although not a movie critic, but as an avid reader of classic literature, I am glad to recommend this fine production without any reservations whatsoever. I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts. Thirty years after its initial release, the third version of "A Star Is Born" finally comes to DVD in a package that should please the most devoted fans of Barbra Streisand. That would include me since I just saw her in concert singing among other numbers, the feminist anthem "Woman in the Moon" from this 1976 film. Easy to dismiss, the movie's career-polarizing story is such a sturdy pile of Hollywood-style clichés that variations of it exist in other films including Streisand's own "Funny Girl". This time reset to the then-contemporary music scene, the timeworn plot follows self-destructive rock star John Norman Howard on his deep-dive career descent just as he meets club singer Esther Hoffman who is awaiting her big break.

Troubles dog their courtship from the outset, as John Norman (both names please) responds to grasping fans and bloodless DJs with random acts of violence (from which he inexplicably escapes prosecution). To John Norman, Esther represents his last shot at happiness, and in turn, she is drawn to the innately decent, creative musician underneath the façade. In the movie's most pivotal scene, he gives Esther her big break at a benefit concert, and her career takes off. Inevitably, he can't handle the failure of his career in light of her meteoric success, and if you are familiar with any version of this story, you know the rest. Directed by Frank Pierson (although Streisand's budding directorial talents are obviously on display), the film still manages to draw me in, even though I know it is shamelessly contrived and manipulative. It still has a certain emotional resonance despite its numerous flaws.

Although Streisand in her prime seems like the ideal choice to play a rising singing star, her screen persona is simply too strong and predefined to play Esther credibly. The same can be said for her performing style since the script seems to make allowances for her softer Adult Contemporary-oriented material to be accepted within the otherwise hardened world of arena rock. From the moment she pops her head up as the middle of the Oreos, she can't help but come across as an established star. I can forgive the lapse simply because she is an unparalleled vocal talent, but what becomes less forgiving is how she makes Esther more strident than poignant when John Norman's woes become overwhelming. This creates an oddly discomfiting dynamic in the last part of the film when it becomes less about what caused the climactic event than Esther's response to it. This is capped off by an uninterrupted eight-minute close-up of her memorial performance - great except when she regrettably mimics John Norman's style toward the end.

Kristofferson, on the other hand, gives a superb performance throughout, managing a level of honesty that grounds the film and makes palpable his concurrent feelings of love, pride and resentment toward Esther. He makes his vodka-soaked onstage growling work within this context. Otherwise, what always strikes me as strange about this version is how all the supporting characters are relegated to the background as if they didn't exist unless they were interacting with the two principals. The only ones who register are Paul Mazursky as John Norman's level-headed manager Brian and Gary Busey as his cynical band manager Bobbie. Veteran cameraman Robert Surtees provides a nice burnish to the cinematography though a level of graininess persists in the print. A big seller in its day, the soundtrack is a hodgepodge of different styles from the 1970's - some songs still quite good ("Everything", "Woman in the Moon", "Watch Closely Now"), some that have moved to kitsch ("Queen Bee", Kenny Loggins' "I Believe in Love") and of course, the inescapable "Evergreen".

The print transfer on the 2006 DVD is clean and the sound gratefully crisp thanks to digital remastering. Streisand's participation is the chief lure of the extras beginning with her feature-length commentary. She gives insightful information about the genesis of the film, the casting and the reportedly troubled production. She is also refreshingly candid about the megalomania of Jon Peters, her hairdresser boyfriend who became the movie's producer, and her dissatisfaction with Pierson as a director. I just wish she could have provided more scene-specific comments that directly relate to what is on screen. She also tends to repeat the same anecdotes when the mood strikes her, e.g., it gets tiring to hear for the third time how the person playing the chauffeur was a friend of Peters. I think having a second commentator could have drawn out other nuggets from her.

There is a wardrobe test reel that shows some amusing 1970's clothes, especially Kristofferson's mixed-fabric poncho and orange polyester shirt. There are also twelve deleted scenes included with Streisand's optional commentary. One is a comic bread-baking scene which reminded me how much I like Streisand in farcical comedies. Another is an extended scene in which she plays "Evergreen" on the guitar in front of an awestruck Kristofferson who then falls asleep. The most interesting is an alternate take on the musical finale incorporating fast cuts, which I agree with Streisand should have been used. Fittingly, the theatrical trailers for all three versions of "A Star Is Born" are also included. My mom took me to see this movie when it came out around Christmas of 1976. I loved it then and I love it now. I know everyone makes fun of Barbra's hair in this one, but I think she looks and sounds great! ...And I seem to remember a number of women who copied that permed look at the time! Also, the bath tub scene between Streisand and Kristoferson is just so sexy! The music is great as well. This is the groovy 70's Babs at her best! A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.

The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.

The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.

The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.

Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism. I am and was very entertained by the movie. It was my all time favorite movie of 1976. Being raised in the 70's , I was so in love with Kris Kristoffersons look and demeanor,of course I am no movie critic,but for the time era,I think it was very good. I very much like the combo of Streisand and Kristofferson. I thought they worked very well together. I have seen the movie many times and still love the two of them as Esther and John Norman. I am a very huge fan of Kris and see him in concert when I can. What a talented singer song writer,not to mention,actor. I have seen him in many movies,but still think back to A star is Born. Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.

The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are.

That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a "co-director"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you! She is such an extraordinary singer, who cares about anything else!!!! That final scene is one of the best moments in all of show biz - bar none!! I'm glad she kept the camera on herself for ten minutes - she deserves that iconic status - such is the power of the voice.

I first saw this film when I was five and it had a huge impact on me. I see it today, and yes, I can see some of the flaws (like Esther wanting to leave the Grammy's right as her award is being announced).

But some of the other user comments are just plain false - I mean, where is the gratuitous nudity - maybe we saw different films???

Streisand's singing ability is monumental, and if she has a big ego - fine!

She's earned it. I swear when I first saw this movie,I cried my eyes out! A STAR IS BORN is the movie that lets you know what love is really like despite the obstacles John Norman (Kris Kristofferson) and Esther (Streisand) face. You also experience what it's like to lose a love like that by the end of the movie. Streisand and Kristofferson have such great chemistry together and the music is fantastic! When Streisand sings With one more look at you/Watch closely now, it's just pure magic! This movie made the song Evergreen one of my favorites,and Queen Bee is such a fun song. Also I love the fashion of the '70s (except Streisand's afro. Besides that,she's a beauty.). A Star is Born is my number one favorite movie. This movie is a pleasure to watch and is a heart-breaker at the end. I saw the trailer for this movie in the 70's when I was barely 16 while viewing another film. Oh!!!! how excited me and my best friend were. we couldn't wait for the month or so until it would come on. I saw this movie 17 times that year at the theatre. I love,love,love it. Kris is so perfect for the film. He is brash and kinda trashy but also shy and uncertain with Babs and it is so endearing to watch it again. When they sing evergreen at the studio and he chimes in with his raspy voice so very different from the perfect notes coming from her but I always thought this was one of the best scenes in the movie. The way he looks at her and he is so proud.I could watch this movie every day. We tried to dress like est-her I even have the long sweater and cap that was so like the one she wore. this came on TV on time and I got my daughters to watch it they were teens and they loved it to. Maybe its just that I was so caught up into it at an age when everything was extreme don't know. The ending always has me in tears even today. Considering 'A Star is Born' had been made twice already by the time the 1976 film came into production, the latest remake has a freshness about it that can be attributed to the fantastic chemistry between the entire acting ensemble. A viewer could be forgiven for believing that Kris Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand were a couple off screen as well as on, with their incredible displays of pure affection towards one another.

The film has been described in the past as a 'Barbara Streisand concert on film, set to a soap opera storyline' however for anyone that enjoys watching a film that takes you beyond the living room into a world where the characters seem truly alive - A Star is Born is well worth the hiring price.

With its incredible soundtrack, flawless acting and touching reality in regards to human emotions and the true frailty of life; A Star is Born is a film that draws you into the world of Esther Hoffman & the love of her life John Norman Howard.

A film for anyone that sees the beauty in real love - the kind that keeps you devoted to a person even as they break your heart... Barbra Streisand is a tour de force in this Hollywood story. Her performances and the songs are one-of-a-kind and are special in the halls of great movies. The scene where she is introduced to the unexpecting audience by Kristopherson, against the crowds' wishes and hers, only to turn them around with her magnificent performance of "Woman In the Moon" is one of the best examples on film of how well a great performer can win over an audience. It's real. The scene where she records Evergreen ranks with the best in the business.. all live, no lip-sync, very special. Streisand is often criticized for being a Diva, but she delivers on this one. She is majestic singing "With One More Look At You. She deserved the Oscar she and Paul Williams got for Evergreen. Kristopherson had his moments too, far above most of his movie appearances. This version of the "Born" franchise ranks with the first one of 1937 (Janet Gaynor, Frederic March)although I will always enjoy Judy Garland and James Mason musical remake of 1954. I haven't seen the DVD yet and don't know about its quality. I was 16 when I first saw the movie, and it has always been a HUGE favorite of mine. Of course, you can't deny the appeal of Kristofferson in the movie - HOW FINE IS THAT MAN???????????? Sheesh. He still is. He's the bad boy every woman secretly wants. His acting is flawless. He played a drunk/druggie only the way someone who really had gone through it could - and he had - in '76 he finally got on the wagon, so it was all very real.

The music is GREAT and even though in later years I thought Streisand was somewhat not the right person for him in a physical beauty sense, I think it's more a problem for male viewers than female. Us gals are just looking at Kris - and naturally the guys are looking at the female interest - my husband cannot watch the movie b/c of her - he doesn't like her looks. But I did make him sit through just the red Ferrari scene on the road towards the end just so he could see how well done it was - the camera work was so perfect and you were totally in the car with him with the music blasting - you should have seen it on my 50" plasma - WOW!!!! And lastly, the transfer quality was GREAT - anamorphic widescreen and really clear with great color and very low noise except for dark areas which is normal for all film.

Brought back some great memories of my mom and I loving this movie together, I bought a copy for her for Christmas. Would have loved to watch it together with her last night.

I have tried to sit through the original with Judy Garland, but I guess seeing this one first, I just can't get into the earlier era. Watching all the concert footage in the '76 version was so much like what I was living at the time.

I am working my way through the commentary by Streisand, but she seems to only talk about herself and the songs, so far she has barely even mentioned Kris or details about scenes in the movie. Her voice sounds EXACTLY the same now as then.

Check it out, if you grew up in the same era as me (born in 1960) you will love it.

Wendy For my humanities quarter project for school, i chose to do human trafficking. After some research on the internet, i found this DVD and ordered it. I just finished watching it and I am still thinking about it. All I can say is "Wow". It is such a compelling story of a 12 year old Vietnamese girl named Holly and an American man named Patric who tries to save her. The ending leaves you breathless, and although it's not a happily-ever-after ending, it is very realistic. It is amazing and I recommend it to anyone! You really connect with Holly and Patric and your heart breaks for her and because of what happens to her. I loved it so much and now I want to know what happens next! I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water.

Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on.

Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend.

I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation.

I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter. Wow, this film had a huge impact on me, it moved me,. It is an amazing story about a girl in Cambodia who is sold into the sex trade. I can not stop thinking about the fate of the little girl named Holly. The setting of the film is realistic, The film was an eye opener, I can not imagine anyone walking away from it with out wanting to help make a change with this horrifying problem that exsists.

The content of the film was very very moving. It was one of the best films that I have seen this year. The

girl who plays Holly does a fantastic job with her character. Ron Livinston gives a fantastic performance. The film moved me to tears, It tells an important message that needs to be heard worldwide. Everyone should go see this film. I think this film will make a difference, I loved it! Brilliant! My wife and I joined the sprawling line to see Holly at the Edinburgh Film Festival. After seeing the film, I can understand why there was such a long line. Holly is a touching story about an impossible connection between two people. She is a young girl, he is a worn out westerner. The film grasped every bone in our body. There aren't any graphic scenes or anything that is hard to watch - its the surrealism of normality that really kicks you in the gut. The film is beautifully shot. Among others, we loved the scene where Patrick teaches Holly to ride a small motorcycle. Thuy Ngoyen's rawness (cant believe this is her first acting job)and Ron Livingston's performance stayed with me for a couple of days. Highly recommended. After seeing the movie last night I was left with a sense of the hopelessness faced by organisations trying to tackle the problem the film portrays. The scale of the prostitution seems so large that it's hard to see how it can be defeated without major governmental changes in Cambodia.

Anyway, on with the review.

Although it is a sombre movie with an uncomfortable central relationship this is a very compelling film, and I'd even go so far as to say it was enjoyable. The film was well edited for the running time and the performance by Thuy Nguyen was excellent. I also felt Ron Livingston played a very difficult role well.

It would have been nice to have a little more insight into why Patrick feels he has to help Holly, but maybe the reason is a simple as he explains to Chris Penn's character. I won't explain it here - go see the movie.

This is a good, thought-provoking film with obviously good intentions. I hope it gets a wide enough release to reach a decent sized audience and gain more support for the K-11 Project. I had the privilege of watching "Holly" at the Edinburgh Film Festival last week. What a powerful and moving story! Holly is a 12 yr old Vietnamese girl who is sold into prostitution by her own family and living in a brothel in Cambodia. Patrick (an American) comes into Holly's life and decides he wants to help her. When Holly is sold again, Patrick desperately searches for her. We follow they're difficult journey through Cambodia and hope for their reunion.

Holly is one of millions of children who are sold and trafficked every day. The movie portrays this difficult issue without crossing the line. I walked away wanting to know more about the issue of child trafficking and asking how can I help? This movie should be seen by everyone because it is a beautiful story and it exposes an issue that we should no longer ignore. The movie "Holly" is the story of a young girl who has been sold by her poor family and smuggled across the border to Cambodia to work as a prostitute in the infamous "K11" red light village. In the movie, Holly is waiting to be sold at a premium for her virginity when she meets Patrick who is losing money and friends through gambling and bar fights. Patrick and Holly have an immediate bond over their "stubbornness", but this is all disrupted when Holly is sold to a child trafficker and disappears. As movie goers, we are then thrust into Patrick's pursuit to find Holly again. Holly then shows her willingness to leave this lifestyle but her confusion on what is right and wrong. "Holly" carries us through the beautiful and harsh Cambodia while discovering that HOLLY is not just one girl. She is the voice of millions of children who are exploited and violated every year with no rights or protection.

Holly is less extreme than its subject matter might suggest, such as documentaries that involve 4-year olds and sexual trafficking, but does manage to shed considerable light on Cambodian / Vietnamese trafficking of children into prostitution. It is a moving story that helps to shed light on the horrible situation in which many children face and their struggles to trust and realize what is right and wrong.

Patrick, the antagonist of the film is an American dealer of stolen artifacts who is also losing money and friends while playing cards and getting into bar fights. While on a journey, his motorbike runs out of fuel, and he is forced to rent a room at a brothel. During his stay he comes across Holly, a twelve year old girl who has been sold by her parents and is being abducted into slavery and prostitution. Holly and Patrick begin a friendship of trust and understanding. He discovers a clever, stubborn girl beneath the traumatized exterior and becomes determined to save her -- though their strictly platonic relationship is misinterpreted by almost everyone they meet. When she suddenly disappears, he starts a journey to track her down, without having thought if he can really help her.

Holly is able to escape on her way to another brothel, when she jumps from the truck and runs into a field filled with mines. A mine is set off by a cow and the truck driver believes she is dead, so Holly is then left on her own. During Patrick's journey to find holly he meets a social worker who tries to talk some sense into him and shares the facts with him that haunts the Cambodian region. The idea of paying for her freedom simply fuels the demand, she explains: 30,000 children in prostitution in Cambodia - next year it could be 60,000. "I'm not trying to save 60,000," he tells her, "I'm trying to save one." Patrick discovers that the idea of whisking her to safety is quickly put to rest when the social worker tells him that the US will not let him adopt and, although it takes five minutes to 'save' a child, it takes five years to reintegrate her into society. Patrick is not affected by the information and he continues his quest to find Holly.

The audience is then shown that Holly makes it to a small town and is foraging for food with other homeless children. She is then befriended by a local policemen who seem little better than criminals with a badge, when they sell her to another brothel and then make a deal to a Vietnamese businessman who then takes her virginity. Holly then seems to think that this is her destiny and when Patrick finally find her, she is willing to "yum yum" and "boom boom" her distant friend. Patrick is utterly confused by this change in behavior, but he is not deterred in his plan to take her away from this world. In the end, he steals her away and brings her to a safe-land in the comfort of the social worker. Holly is given fresh clothes, if feed and brought to a dance class, but she is forbidden to see Patrick. This intense yearning to be in the comfort of Patrick's friendship, she runs away from the safe house and back onto the streets in Cambodia.

Meanwhile, Patrick is dealing with the decision to leave the country and flee back to the United States or to stay in Cambodia. His thoughts continue to revert back to Holly and during a visit to a bar; an older male sees the picture he is holding and comments on his sexual appetite when he had sex with her. This enrages Patrick and he hits the man and runs out of the bar. Eventually, Patrick is caught by the police in the eyes of Holly, who is hiding behind a pole.

The movie "Holly" may make the audience want to donate money towards organizations that improve the life for these poor youngsters, and even campaign to reduce the amount of brothels in the region, but the film's dramatic weaknesses may reduce its chances of being seen by enough people to make a difference. Overall, I think the concept is better as a documentary and it was not as touching as a movie. The actors did a great job of showing their raw emotion and the true confusion of the youngsters who are affected by this lifestyle, but in the end, the harsh lifestyle of the region and the desperate notions of the parents who sell their children to uphold their own starvation, does nothing to help the children's situations. I have to admit that Holly was not on my watch list for the Edinburgh Film Festival. However, after the Artistic Director of the Festival specifically recommended this film to an audience of over 200 people prior to the screening of another film, I decided to go to see it. Wow!

This film is dealing with the very difficult issue of child prostitution and does so without any compromise. I have found myself crying a number of times during the movie and laughing at others. Speaking about an emotional roller coaster.

The lead actor (Thuy Nguyen) is a Vietnamese newcomer (who was only 14 at the time of filming) and had to tackle this incredibly complex and difficult role. She reminded me of Keisha Castle-Hughes from Whale Rider but the role here is much more demanding as she has to play a child prostitute. Chances are that she will win numerous awards.

The main story is about a girl who was sold to prostitution by her family and held as a sex-slave in a brothel in Cambodia. She meets an American (played by Ron Livingston in a strong dramatic role that we are not used to see from him), who after spending some time with her decides to help her. By that time however, she is sold again and he is going on a search for her around Cambodia. The story turns and twists and the audience can never predict what will happen next.

The acting was strong across the board with a very interesting international cast. Udo Kier (very convincing as a sex tourist), Virgine Ledoyen (touching as a social worker) and Chris Penn (one of his last movies). The Asian cast was also superb.

Although the film deals with this difficult subject matter it focuses successfully on telling a compelling, powerful story. It was shot in Cambodia (some scenes in real operating brothels) which adds to the feeling that you are almost watching a documentary. It seems that the DP used a lot of hand held camera and close-ups and overall it made you feel like you are right there as part of the story.

After the screening, I was listening to other members of the audience as they left and it seemed that they were all stunned. This is not an easy film to watch and I salute the filmmakers for not making a "Hollywood Film."

It is by far the best film I have seen in the Edinburgh Film Festival. Opinion shared by my husband and a couple of other friends. Dr. Mordrid, what can I say? Jeffrey Combs has done it again!

Anton Mordrid has been on Earth for 100 years waiting for Kabal, an evil sorcerer, to come so he can kill him. Mordrid and Kabal used to train together as kids, so Mordrid knows all Kabal's tricks.

The film as a little bit confusing at begin with, but soon you feel a part of the action. I won't give away the ending, so go and watch Doctor Mordrid!

I found the film to be very enjoyable because it doesn't have a lot of violence in, nor sexual scenes. The film focused on the plot and that's what I like! I find the best films are the ones where times seems to fly by. This is because you are so engrossed in the film. Doctor Mordrid is a fantasticly engrossing movie! I give it a 20 out of 10. Worth seeing!

I really enjoyed "Doctor Mordrid". This is a low-budget film, which may be off-putting to some, but I have no problem with it. I admire it even more for that, considering it's WAY more entertaining than the drivel that Hollywood churns out every year. Too bad this didn't get a theatrical release; I don't know about anyone else, but I would have went to see it in theatres. `Doctor Mordrid' is a very entertaining science fiction film that just about anyone can enjoy, especially if they're into sci-fi like I am. I don't see why this is a R-rated film; only one f-word is said, and there are no gruesome death scenes, nor is there any blood at all. The timeless rivalry between sorcerers Anton and Kabal (Anton wanted the use his powers to save the human race, while Kabal wanted to enslave them), gave the story a sense of enchantment, while the mythical plotline added charm to the story itself. Basically, this a film that's just plain fun to watch. There is one unintentionally funny thing in this movie, though: seeing Jeffrey Combs keeping a straight face while wearing that silly blue cape and suit. That makes me laugh every time I see it. But I digress... Anyway, the acting is great; the main protagonists (Anton, and his lady friend, Samantha), are very likable; Anton is sympathetic, and hospitable, and Samantha is friendly. Plus, the settings were wonderful. The floating island in the other dimension was very cool setting; we're only given a glimpse of it twice, though; it would have been great to see more scenes take place here. The main setting was also very neat; Anton's apartment is very roomy, and he has some cool devices, especially the monitoring system he uses to keep track of the world's occurrences. He even has a pet raven that he keeps in his apartment named Edgar. Overall, this a great film; it was fun to watch, and the main actors put a lot of feeling into their roles. If you can find anywhere that rents `Doctor Mordrid', you should rent it (or, in my case, buy it. It was definitely money well-spent)!

My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.

Doctor Mordrid is one of those rare films that is completely under the radar, but is totally worthwhile. It really reminds me of the old serials from the 30s and 40s. Which is why I'd have loved to see follow-up movies... but judging by the rest of Full Moon's output there simply weren't enough tits to satisfy the typical audience. Unfortunately, thanks to a completely superfluous sacrifice scene there two too many for a family audience - which is unfortunate, because without em' this could have been a Harry Potter-style magicfest that kids would have eaten up. Both Jeffrey Combs and Yvette Nipar are great - I wasn't sure if Ms. Nipar hadn't wandered off an A-list picture onto this film, she was very believable. No, seriously! Anyway - it's a shame they didn't have the bucks to license Dr. Strange, because I think this could have been a total kiddie phenom. I loved this movie for two reasons: 1) Jeff Combs is absolutely wonderful in it. Plays the role of the modern wizard to the hilt. (And is absolutely adorable.) 2) The movie helped to inspire a role-playing game I thoroughly enjoy, Mage: The Awakening. I've shown it at various LARP after-parties, and it's always a big hit.

D&D love and Jeff-squeeing aside, it's not exactly a masterpiece, but it's well-done and thoroughly enjoyable. The plot is fast-moving and engaging in its simplicity, the special effects are pretty good for such a low budget, and the script, while nothing stellar, was not too badly done, and cheesy in all the right places. A good way to spend an evening. New York City houses one man above all others, the possibly immortal Dr. Anton Mordrid. Mordrid is the sworn protector of humanity, using his magical powers to keep his brother and rival, Kabal, chained up so that he may not enslave the human race. Well, wouldn't you know it? A prophesy comes true and Kabal breaks free, and begins collecting elements (including platinum and uranium) for his alchemy experiments. With the help of a police woman named Sam, can Mordrid defeat his evil brother? "Dr. Mordrid" comes to me courtesy of Charles Band in the Full Moon Archive Collection. I had not heard of it, which is a bit odd given that I'm a big fan of Jeffrey Combs (Mordrid) and the film isn't that old. But now it's mine and I can enjoy it again and again. The film certainly is fun in the classic Full Moon style. Richard Band provides the music (which doesn't differ much from all his other scores) and Brian Thompson plays the evil Kabal. We even have animated dinosaur bones! What more do you want? Of course, the cheese factor is high. I felt much of the film was a rip-off of the Dr. Strange comics. And the blue pantsuit was silly. And plot holes are everywhere (I could list at least five, but why bother). And why does the ancient symbol of Mordrid and Kabal look suspiciously like a hammer and sickle? Combs has never been a strong actor, so he fits right in with the cheese. These aren't complaints. Full Moon fans have come to expect these things and devour them like crack-laced Grape Nuts. I'm guilty... I loved this film.

If you're not a Full Moon fan, or a Jeffrey Combs fan... you may want to look elsewhere. But if you like the early 1990s style of movie-making and haircuts, you'll eat this up. Stallone and Schwarzenegger fans might like seeing Brian Thompson as a villain, looking as goony as ever and not being able to enunciate English beyond a third grade level. I did. I wish there was a "Mordrid II", but the company that makes a sequel to practically everything (is "Gingerdead Man 3" really necessary?) passed on this one. Two sorcerers battle in the fourth dimension,one(Brian Thompson as a Kabal)trying to destroy the Earth,the other(Jeffrey Combs as a Anton Mordrid)trying to save it."Doctor Mordrid" is an enjoyable fantasy fare which offers plenty of cheese.The plot is pretty silly and the gore is completely absent,but the film is very short and entertaining.So if you have enough time to kill give this one a look.My rating:7 out of 10. This film surprised me a little. I watch a lot of horror/sci-fi films and this is a straight-to-video release that caught me off guard a little. I believe this is Full Moon's best movie thus far and one of Jeffrey Combs best performances. Good movie. Possibly the best movie ever created in the history of Jeffrey Combs career, and one that should be looked upon by all talent in Hollywood for his versatility, charisma, and uniqueness he brings through his characters and his knowledge of acting. As a rule, a Full Moon production logo is a warning sign to avoid a film. But because I've enjoyed Jeffrey Combs in other films, I gave it a shot.

It's not bad. Not great, but that's something else. The film involves a struggle with a mystic (evil) "brother" who wants to dominate the worlds, and the title character. Dr. Mordrid also has to deal with people, and authorities in the mundane world, which he does successfully.

Possible spoilers follow.

Dr. Mordrid can travel between "dimensions," and does so to find a companion guarding a fortress; however, the guard has been blinded. His eyes are ruined pits. So the wizard passes his hands across the other's eyes, and hey, presto! His eyes have been restored! This sort of healing apparently only works with eyes.

Later, Mordred and his "brother" animate a couple of animal skeletons in a museum to fight. Guess which one wins.

However, side from that, the picture isn't at all bad, though much like a comic book. Dr. Mordred's more "human" adventures are okay, and Combs plays the role convincingly.

I've seen lots worse. As B movies go, it was well above average (I warn the reader now that I may reveal certain key elements of the plot or other parts of the movie, although I am trying to minimise any such tendency). As sequels usually go, it was utterly fantastic(despite a "cookie cutter" approach to trying to copy certain elements from the original movie verbatum. Despite this sometimes tedious tendency, it seemed to work in this particular film, so long as the viewer could divorce his attention from comparisons to the original "Scanners").

The movie was similar in ways to the "Superman" series, in terms of the main character's description of his early childhood and relationship with his parents (who seemed modelled along the same lines as the Kents in the "Superman" stories) and the theme of a morally pure hero possessed of extraordinary powers from an early age, etc. The depiction of profound feelings of alienation of prodigious or otherwise non-conforming children, adolescents and/or adults was a theme which reminded me of films such as "Real Genius", and (to a more superficial degree) "Doctor Mordrid" and struck a particularly strong chord.

The film had a positive message, and was fun to watch. I found some of the insights and accuracy (in terms of depiction of certain aspects of paranormal experiences) fascinating, and even profoundly touching at times. These moments occasionally appeared from among all of the great formula-driven schlock and gratuitous sex(uality, in this case, as the sexual elements were tastefully done) and violence that makes B movies (or Shakespearian plays, for that matter!) so much fun to watch!

This is a must watch for all comic book, Sci-fi, "remote viewing" enthusiasts, and horror fans! With the right exposure in the right circles, the film could develop quite a cult following, along with the original "Scanners". Scanners II: The New Order is just as good as David Cronenberg's classic Scanners, Scanners was made in 1980 and Scanners II in 1991 so their's an eleven year gap between the two movies. The film captures the style of Scanners which is a good thing, it wouldn't be Scanners without a head explosion so Scanners II has a head explosion scene that's just has gruesome as the first. Scanners II: The New Order has some other imaginative gory scenes that are done well. The plot to Scanners II: The New Order is a new take on the series since it has the Scanners being used as a vigilante force for a police chief and a group of scientists until a young Scanner named David Kellum discovers he's being used and decides to get revenge.

Scanners II: The New Order is a great sequel to David Cronenberg's sci-fi classic Scanners and should be seen. Check this out. 10/10 This movie is nothing short of a dark, gritty masterpiece. I may be bias, as the Apartheid era is an area I've always felt for. But I'd say it ranks right up with Cry Freedom and Cry the Beloved Country. Sadly up until a few days ago I'd never even heard of this movie. Inside is one of the most underrated films of all time, probably because it was a small film company, I'd never even heard of it before. Eric Stoltz, one of my favorite actors anyway, is believable and dramatic, Nigel Hawthorne plays his dastardly role well. Do not look for humor in this film, there is none. It is real, savage and gritty to the last, and to the sensitive I'd say bring a box of tissues. But movies as great as this make you wonder, why is it that the greatest films are often never heard of? Have just finished watching this film, which upset me greatly. Have also been to South Africa twice, around the time this film is set.

It is certainly hard-hitting, and the opening scenes tend to 'set the scene'. The slow but steady increase of pace hardly allows a break, and there are certainly few light moments.

Will never be able to view Nigel Hawthorne the same again. He came across as a very twisted individual, and I found myself disliking him more each time he appeared.

Totally agree with Steve-thomp's articulate and well thought-out comments.

I have seen this movie many times. At least a Dozen. But unfortunatly not recently. However, Etched in my memory never to leave me is a scene in which Mickey Rooney, -"Killer Mears" knows that he is to be executed and it's getting close to the moment of truth, He dances, and cries, and laughs, he vacillates from hesteria to euphoria and runs the gambit of ever emotion. Never have I seen such a brilliant performance by any actor living or dead, past or present. It was then I know for sure that Mickey Rooney, yes, "Andy Hardy" was and is a actor of great genius. However I kept it, my opinion to myself for years thinking, surely I must be alone in this viewpoint. About 15 years or so after I saw this film for the last time on television, I chanced to read the old Q & A section of the Los Angeles Times. The question was posed to Lawrence Olivier, and the question was: "Mr. Olivier You are considered one of the greatest actors of all time, whom then do YOU consider to be among the greatest actors?" His answer was, "Peter Finch and Mickey Rooney" I was stunned, but not surprised. I immediatly flashed back to his "Killer Mears" And I felt very good for having seen this great ability in him, and now having my view supported by another whos work I admired.. Later of course there was "Bill" and many other great moments with Mikey Rooney. This film, "The Last Mile" should be seen by all acting students. I Frankly cannot remember a great deal about the film after all these years but Mr. Rooney in it, will never leave me. If anyone out there remembers this film the same as I do? I would be interested in hearing from you. For this picture etched in my heart alone I gave it a 10 just on the face of his performance. This is a very grim, hard hitting, even brutal film about a death row break that goes awry. It's black and white photography keeps it from being dated. Mickey Rooney is excellent as the twisted, yet strangely sympathetic lead. One of the first movies to portray the psychological desolation of death row. It is also quite poignant. Saw this movie when it came out in 1959, left a lasting impression. Great group of actors. A little short timewise but a great movie all the same. Have only seen once since then and that was some time ago. Hopefully they'll put it out on DVD if they haven't already. Having not seen this film in about 20 years I am still impressed with it 's hard -hitting impact and stellar acting. Of course, one Mr. Mickey Rooney is indeed, INCREDIBLE in his role as the ring-leading "Killer".(In reference to another review here-none other than Orson Welles evoked Mickey Rooney's name as the greatest movie actor,also.) I also recall the jazzy-brassy score and the bare black and white photography. I love the Mick's last line before he goes out for his dose of lead poisoning.(I think the Stranglers lifted it for a line in one of their songs-Get a Grip on Yourself.)This is a great film and unjustly buried film. Let's get it out ! Side note-a recent Film Review magazine gave a big write up on Don Segal's "Babyface Nelson" ,made a couple years before "Last Mile" and also starring Mickey Rooney. Another rave of the Mick's intense and sympathetic performance.Perhaps it's the start of a groundswell of a appreciation for some truly superior cinematic performances. While the original 1932 version, with Preston Foster, was good, there's no remake more worthy than this 1959 one, or more impossible to find anywhere, just as I strongly suspect Mickey Rooney to have had something to do with that. Never could a mere performance have ever been so masterfully brilliant, or a script more thought-provoking, as well as an improvement upon the original. Many years after the last of my several viewings of this film, in 1970, I read an article in which Mickey Rooney was recounting a visit he'd made to death row, and which had apparently very drastically eliminated whatever sense of personal identification he'd felt with people in similar circumstances. The article was about as short as the main character here, and didn't cover much, other than the extent to which his extreme disillusionment with the quality of the inmates themselves had been emphasized, even in language I would not care to explicitly quote here. . . . . One of my main problems with capital punishment is that, of course, it is not evenly, impartially applied, just as many innocent people are far-too-carelessly, thus unnecessarily sent to meet this particular fate. Another problem I have with it is that it is not applied swiftly enough, or, for that matter, even publicly enough! The bible makes a special point, in such cases, about one of the more important purposes of such, as a deterrent, being ineffectually obscured, minus, not only a public viewing, but also the direct participation of all! As for those who claim to prove, statistically, that such is not an effective deterrent? In addition to having a problem about the reliability of their data, I have little if any objectively disprovable doubt many are behind bars now due to the extent that such a deterrent is lacking. However, I do have a problem about the fact that Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, had been punished at all, for his particular "crime," or that the only hope of leniency for one such as he would have to be based on a "temporary insanity" defense, as though that would serve as the only acceptable excuse in his kind of case. . . . In addition to various other questions concerning the motives of Mickey Rooney for that particular visit he'd recounted, and about the answers to which I can only try to speculate, I suspect the main one had been of a decidedly religious nature. I don't know exactly when he'd become the professing Christian he now makes it a special point, whenever possible, to emphasize that he is; but, as anybody should be well-aware, this particular category of people tends to be the most vehemently out for blood, when it comes to extracting an eye for an eye. However, I have no particular bone of contention concerning that, per se, just as there's no doubt, scripturally speaking, that not all, and perhaps not even most, shall be spared the same ultimate fate, at the hands of the Lord Himself, as a result of His sacrifice on the cross. However, there is a problem, for me, about the spirit or attitude with which most professing Christians emphasize their enthusiasm for capital punishment; for, contrary to the Lord Himself, who would love to see everybody saved (Ezekiel 18:32) (II Peter 3:9), they seem to go vindictively out of their way to find reasons to condemn! . . . What most people, on either side of this superlatively ever-burning issue, cannot appear to sufficiently appreciate, is that the Lord is as dynamically and elusively soft in nature as He is hard. The two sides of His nature appear to be so inherently incompatible as to render Him mentally deranged, at least by any strictly human reckoning. Yet, regardless of how harrowingly ungraspable this miraculously dynamic blending of the water and oil in His nature surely is, there can be no doubt that anything short of it, or anything fanatically and characteristically on either one side or the other of this equation, falls inadequately and unacceptably short of the entire judicial truth. Indeed, I've seen the most blood-curdling thirst for the same come out, self-contradictorily enough, on far-too-many occasions, whenever the categorically anti-death penalty advocates are confronted, even in the most rationally well-balanced ways, with the fact that, although the Lord died for everybody, not all are thereby going to be saved. After-all, in order to receive absolution, one must, to repeat the same term, reach out and receive it, that is, repent (Luke 13:3-5). Could anything make more sense? . . . But, then, what about the Lord's command to forgive, even in the case of one's enemies, of those who despise and persecute you without a just cause or provocation? One of the far-too-prevailing difficulties with this kind of sentimentality, as popularly misinterpreted, is the way it obscuringly over-simplifies the real meaning of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness does not, in itself, mean the same thing as unconditionally excusing the one being forgiven. When one takes a clearly sober, rationally well-balanced view here, from the perspective of God's own attitude, all it actually amounts to is a fervent wish that the one forgiven will ultimately succeed at finding his way, seeing the light, and being granted mercy. This attitude is, of course, the very opposite of, say, that of Jonah, who actually resented it when God told him that his preaching to the people of Nineveh would result in their repentance. Jonah didn't want them to repent, but vindictively desired that they be destroyed. How self-righteously, cold-bloodedly like unto most professing Christians he was, save that even his reasons were undoubtedly better than most! I envy Jonah almost as much as he would me! However, minus the repentance of the one being forgiven, any forgiveness he may receive from a genuine Christian is not going to do him any good. In such a case, the only one to benefit is the real Christian himself! Shot in the Heart is wonderful. It brilliantly illustrates the plight of Gary Gimore, a convicted murder who requested death. Shot in the Heart shows the ordeal that Gilmore's family, torn up by hatred, went through. This movie is an incredible psychological study, and is wonderfully depressing and uplifting. 10/10 The acting- fantastic. The story- amazing. The script- wonderful.

Just a few ways to describe this movie. Yes, it's slow and it has mostly talking, but the whole story of all of their lives and how it's told with the flashbacks thrown in and out makes you want to listen to every little thing to learn more about this haunting and tragic story. I, myself, am reading the book that the movie is based off of and it has shown me even more light into this story and answers some questions that were left unanswered in the movie. I'm also to read the Exectioner's Song, which is the 'other' half of the Gilmore story. This movie made me think so much about the phrase "piering into the other side of the looking glass". You hear a song in the movie called Gary Gilmore's Eyes, which is by a punk band that wrote a song about what it'd be like to have Gary Gilmore's eyes(which is one of the things Gary gave as a transplant when he died) and as you listen to it, which is after the last time Mikal ever sees Gary, you look at the whole situation a little differently if you were to only here the song itself. This movie opened my eyes in that way and in many others. I recommend this movie(and the book) very very much. An interesting TV movie based on true fact, betrayed by the description of one of the leading characters, that of a prisoner. Giovanni Ribisi plays his younger brother, who has the delicate mission of deciding if he will appeal to the courts for his brother's death penalty. But when he goes to visit him and enters Elias Koteas, the problem starts. It has nothing to do with Koteas' acting ability. He just looks like the version of a prisoner of proletarian roots according to "G.Q." magazine, with a language too sophisticated for someone who has spent most of his life behind bars. This realization came to me after meeting again an old friend, whom I had not seen for almost 15 years, which he spent in several Panamanian jails. The young man I used to know is gone, not only because he is older, but due to his exposure for a prolonged time to the penal system. There are jails and there are jails, one must say, but this one prisoner in "Shot In the Heart" is definitely out of this world. Wow, I loved this film. It may not have had the funding and advertising that the latest hollywood blockbusters get but it packs twice the emotional punch. The tale revolves around this one family from Utah and it's the connections between the people in the family that provide the film with its punch. The main lead (Giovanni Ribisi) plays his part very well, at no time does he leave you to believe that he's acting all his feelings. It's his brother (Elias Koteas) who stole the show for me though. When the two were in scenes together they bounded their lines off of each other, giving fantastic performances. Great cast, great film. Entertaining Jim Belushi vehicle, a modern cockeyed version of It's A Wonderful Life. Michael Caine plays a sort-of angel who lets Belush see what life would have been like if he had "made it big". Jim is at his best with a good story and supporting cast; seems like real chemistry between him and Hamilton. Not an Oscar contender but good warm-hearted fun. I admit I have a weakness for alternate history stories, from ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE to GROUNDHOG DAY to 12:01. Among those greats is this little gem. It's pretty difficult to get through MR. DESTINY without giving a nod of appreciation to each and every cast member, from the goodhearted James Belushi to the murderous Courtney Cox. This movie lacks the gravitas and scale to make it a great film, but it's a fine cheer-up on a rainy afternoon. It's also a great rental for an inexpensive date. Ok, so it borrows a little from "It's a Wonderful Life", but that was 44 years prior to this film, so why not a new attempt. Belushi is having a rotten 35th birthday. He didn't get his Wheaties, his coffee, and has lost his job. The capper is when his self described "big blue piece of sh**" car breaks down at the end of the day. He heads into an empty bar to call for a tow. While waiting, he's recognized by the bartender (Caine) as the kid who lost the town's championship baseball game 20 years earlier. This gets him to thinking how life would've been if he had won the game. He finds out when, unbeknownst to him, Caine serves up a motion potion in a glass that gives him a mansion, the prom queen (Russo) as his wife, and makes him president of the sporting goods company he's been canned from. Caine later reveals himself as the one who's responsible for this change, but Belushi is not entirely on board. He never fully adjusts, and in a plot development that doesn't kill the movie but is still odd, he tries to court his wife (Hamilton) from his real life, who is now married to someone else. The good move is that they don't spend too much time on it, as basically they rip of "Ghost", with Belushi constantly telling Hamilton things only she could know. It also brings in a hokey dramatic element, as two of his lovers kevetch in the shadows, new wife Russo, and his unbalanced lover Cox. But the keys to the film are the somewhat lengthy beginning, and cheery end. Also good work from the big and recognizable cast, as Belushi is very likable, VERY attractive ladies chosen, and Caine is perfectly easy going as the title guy. Strange that this was Belushi's second film of 1990 dealing with him getting an alternative lifestyle of riches, which was found in "Taking Care of Business". Though similar, both films are on the same level of laughs provided. So check this out for a fun exploration of "what if?" This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the " Multiple Universe " theory.

The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.

Belushi at his most ingratiating and Courtney Cox before Friends has a small role. I often think Belushi is under-used in Hollywood and this film role is one of his best. For those of you who watch his TV show, this is a very different and likable character. The movie itself is not earth shattering, nor is the message new but rather it is sweet and endearing. The supporting cast of familiar faces and unfamiliar names is a perfect balance although Lovitz's whining can get tiresome, and Michael Caine's charming spiritual guide has a slightly sinister if not well-meaning edge. Hamilton, as Belushi's wife is unfortunately two-dimensional and one wonders why he married her. In addition, Renee Russo is wasted and not terribly convincing at the "prom queen" who got away. Nevertheless, a nice way to spend two hours. Jim Belushi is terrific as the "Average Joe" who gets his 15 minutes in "The Twilight Zone". Michael Cane is the mysterious bar tender who not only listens to Belushi's "story", but has a "cure" for all of Belushi's middle class problems: A magic potion to bring about an avalanche of changes in Belushi's life.

Flashbacks show a 15 year old horribly ashamed of causing his High School Baseball Team's Championship defeat. Belushi goes on with his "pitiful life", seemingly happy, but always wondering "what if..." For what seems to be several days, Belushi experiences a "different" life, one of enormous success, admired and hated by others in equal measure.

This is not quite "It's A Wonderful Life", but some elements are similar, and very endearing. The "ending" is predictable, but still satisfying. Watch for a very young Cortney Cox in a bit part as "fatal attraction" -like other woman. A very pleasant film! Spoiler!!! This movie is based on the concept of What If? Of course Mr Destiny will be able to answer this question. The main character goes through a bad day, like many of us, and asks this question. Chaos Theory states a butterfly in China could have an effect on someone over here from a chain reaction. The focus of this movie is based on one event during a baseball game. This event sets into motion one's Destiny; Just like Ashton in "The Butterfly effect" except Mr. Destiny uses comedy over drama. The results make a fresh, somewhat original movie. If one's philosophical are in tune with "The Butterfly Effect" one will likely enjoy Mr. Destiny. I give it a 7 out of 10. Amazing for I have seen the first half of this movie 3 times, and finally watched the ending on TBS. Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprised

with this movie. James "I did some things to Farrah Fawcett" Orr

co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guy

named Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have been

incredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball game

when he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartender

Mike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new life

isn't exactly as he hoped it would be.

I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have given

it mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting and

pulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enough

funny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it really

good. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. Jon

Lovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine in

their roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It's

just a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, I

highly recommend you check Everyone plays their part pretty well in this "little nice movie". Belushi gets the chance to live part of his life differently, but ends up realizing that what he had was going to be just as good or maybe even better. The movie shows us that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities we have, not the ones we do not or cannot have. If U can get this movie on video for around $10, it´d be an investment! Mr. Destiny - 3.5/5 Stars

"Mr. Destiny's" theme is recycled from many films spanning many different years. Its theme ranges from recent spoofs on such plots (see "Scrooged"), to the same, more serious and dramatic notion that worked in "It's a Wonderful Life," and a century earlier in the story of Scrooge as told by Charles Dickens in "A Christmas Carol." "It involves an ungrateful man being taken on a guided tour of his life, and witnessing how his life could have been (or would have been) first-hand.

In most of these types of movies the guardian angel rescues a man from ungratefulness and shows him his life in retrospect, or how it could have been. Should have been. Would have been. In this case we are shown a businessman named Larry (James Belushi). He hates his life. He lives with an unexciting wife (Linda Hamilton) and yearns for a bigger life with bigger meaning. If only he had hit the ball at the state championship in high school years ago. He is convinced his life would have been better. I guess he remembers this seemingly small moment of his life because it made a big impact on his subconscious side, but I doubt a grown man would yearn for one single act from high school. Still, it works in the movie.

Anyway, Larry is driving home from work one night, where he is a penpusher along with Jon Lovitz, when his car breaks down. He wanders into a bar looking for a pay phone, and reluctantly decides to tell the bartender (Michael Caine) about the way his life is turning out. This is where we first see him remembering his childhood baseball strike-out.

The bartender listens and nods, apparently not worrying about any other customers. This is probably due to the fact that the bar, though old and tattered, seems to have never been occupied by any living humans save these two men. In fact, Larry even makes a comment about never seeing the bar before. This is most likely for a certain reason that the audience is expecting before Larry.

So the bartender, who may as well be an angel of God incarnate, just like Clarence, fixes Larry a special drink of his, which ends up putting Larry's life on reverse, showing him what his life would have been like if he had hit the home run all those years before. But Larry has no idea of any change at first, just like Jimmy Stewart didn't realize that Clarence had erased his life until he went into the bar and got kicked out Larry continues to be oblivious to any change until he goes to his home to find the lawn different outside, and a large, wrestler-type man occupying his home.

Larry soon finds out his life would indeed have been very different had he hit the home run. Instead of marrying Linda Hamilton he married Rene Russo and moved into a large mansion with children. He finds out that Jon Lovitz is no longer his friend but an employee of his. And the most surprising fact of all is that with his new life, that Larry has always wanted...he finds himself lusting after his old wife, Linda Hamilton; proof that sometimes money and a great-looking yet shallow wife don't make up everything in a man's life, like an intelligent wife and love and true happiness. Just like "It's a Wonderful Life" showed the audience a man's life is what he makes it, and that every person has an impact on people, "Mr. Destiny" shows us that material wealth is not the same as spiritual wealth, a lesson taught us over and over again, but never quite so fluffy, forgettable and truly sweet as it is shown us in "Mr. Destiny."

"Mr. Destiny" is never exceedingly hilarious, but it is a sweet, good-natured comedy that never takes itself too seriously. The problem with all the "It's a Wonderful Life" retreads out there, like "The Family Man," is that they try to be as influential and memorable as "It's a Wonderful Life" was. But there are only so many times you can single-handedly rip off a famous film, and "Mr. Destiny" knows this, and plays right to the fact. It doesn't try to be anything it isn't; rather, it is something it didn't try to be, and this is obvious to the audience.

It's not a big film. The acting is not amazing (some sub charterers are even played badly), The film is not beautiful in any sense. Nothing really inventive or new. If you like big films, this one is not for you. yet it has a big - REALLY BIG plus on the story. Larry's story works, because we know this story from our own lives. The girl we didn't ask to a date, the test we've failed, the friend we let down, are all in our history. This movie works, because it touch it, It's a great story because it's a small one. It's the life we all have, with regrets we all have, and yet the message hits: every life we could have lived would have had their downside. The first time I watched it, I was 15. It was shown in a party at my school. 16 years later, I keep reflecting on it every once in a while, and every time I see it, it puts a smile on my face. Watch it. It will do you good. You'll be happier with what you have. Larry Burrows has the distinct feeling he's missing out on something. Ever since he missed a crucial baseball shot at school that cost the championship, he's been convinced his life would have turned out better had he made that shot. Then one night his car breaks down again. Walking into the nearest bar to wait for the tow truck, Larry happens upon barman Mike, who unbeknown to Larry is about to change his life for ever.......

The alternate life premise in cinema is hardly a new thing, stretching back to the likes of It's A Wonderful Life and showing no signs of abating with the quite recent Sandler vehicle that was Click. It's a genre that has produced very mixed results. Back in 1990 was this James Belushi led production, rarely mentioned when the said topic arises, it appears that it has largely been forgotten. Which is a shame since it oozes charm and is not short in the humour department. We know that we are being led to its ultimate message come the end, but it's a fun and enjoyable path to be led down. The film also serves notice to what a fine comedy actor James Belushi was. I mean if his style of smart quipping and larking exasperation isn't your thing,? then chances are you would avoid this film anyway. But for those engaged by the likes of Red Heat, K-9 and Taking Care of Business, well Mr. Destiny is right up your street. Along for the ride are Linda Hamilton, Michael Caine, Jon Lovitz, Hart Bochner, Jay O. Sanders, Rene Russo and Courteney Cox.

Mr. Destiny, pure escapist fun with a kicker of a message at its heart. 7/10 I actually like this movie even though I don't fancy James Belushi very much. In this movie, you can actually see several big names on the rise, Linda Hamilton and Courteney Cox namely; Caine's was already big of course. The plot in this movie is simple; its just like that Sliding Door movie. It however was told in a light-hearted manner and I like the comedy moments in it. It made me trying to relive my own important moments in live, eg what if I've taken that girl out for a movie, and not the other etc. It tells us that people around us could have taken different roles in our lives if some minute details were to change. It also reminds us to be careful what we wish for. Life is not always as good on the other side as we think; maybe, what we have now is the best for us, all things considered. It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a "therapy" for me with a personal experience of my own.

A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he "missed the ball" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, "if only I'd hit that ball" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.

It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were "all that." I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.

Through the years, even now sometimes, I think "If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights." Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!! I have seen this movie plenty of times and I gotta tell ya, I've enjoyed it every single time. This is Belushi's pinnacle movie in my opinion. Belushi and Lovitz are so likable and identifiable with the common man that you can't help but get involved once you start watching. The movie has a wonderful cast of stars, some already were big, and others were just getting started. It's billed as a feel good movie, and that's exactly what it is. This movie teaches you that life isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes you've just gotta look at stuff in a different perspective to fully appreciate what you already have. When you're done watching, you'll appreciate the things you have a lot more and you'll also be smiling. You can't ask for much more from a movie in my opinion, not to mention it's a hilarious movie and you'll never lose interest. Very Very underrated movie here folks.

Rating from me: 10 I am out!!!

Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on "It's a wonderful life". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it. Reading the various external reviews of Roger Ebert and other well-known film critics makes me hesitate to admit how much I love this movie, even though I only have a dubbed-into-Japanese video version of it.

Apparently, many critics seem to take it as a minus that the story premise has been used before, most famously in the very great "It's a Wonderful Life." To me, a great premise is a great premise no matter how many times it's used, and I'd be happy to see more movies using this particular premise--the discontented man who gets a chance to gain a fresh perspective on his own life through a bit of "divine magic."

I suppose folks and critics of a more intellectual bent are not as pulled into the story, but I don't go to movies to critique them with notebook in hand--I go to movies to throw myself into them and let them take me where they will.

If you are sentimental sort like myself, you'll be well rewarded by seeing this picture. The performances are excellent throughout, and the movie was very well cast. Wonderful choice of music, too. Michael Caine is superb as the sympathetic bartender. Jim Belushi does a great job as an "average Joe" kind of guy who wonders if his life hasn't gone as it should. Linda Hamilton, always excellent, is again right on target here as the loving wife. Jon Lovitz entertains as usual, and even has some surprisingly moving moments in "Mr. Destiny."

No, "Mr. Destiny" is not "It's a Wonderful Life," but who says it has to be? Taken on its own terms, "Mr. Destiny" is an enjoyable, well-made, funny, and moving film. I've seen my Japanese-dubbed video of it numerous times, and I'm sure I'll see it several more times. If that somehow makes me a "lowbrow," so be it! I'm just glad that I hadn't read any reviews of "Mr. Destiny" before seeing it.

I suppose I should have the courage of my convictions and give the movie nine or ten stars, but I couldn't help but doubt myself after reading all the critical reviews! getting to work on this film when it was made back in the summer of 1990. Shot partly in the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC and the remaining parts in Winston-Salem. The massive offices of the RJ Reynolds were used in several office scenes and places in around the beautiful city that is know as the tulip capital of the world Winston-Salem! I enjoyed my work although it was exceedingly hard work building all the sets like the Golf of Mexico where Renee Russo and Jim Belushi went on their date. I also had a big hand in decorating the bar where Larry encounters the magical bartender Mr. Destiny. I tacked all those pics on the wall of sports heroes and decorated that phone booth where larry makes a phone call for a cab. I even put my mothers photo at eye level so i could freeze frame it and show it to her when we watched it. I remember dyeing the grass at his old house with green dye because it first had to be sodded(it was a new house in a new development and I guess they leased it for the movie)..then I had to cut that newly laid sod to make it look nice..man that was hard! As far as the movie, when we made it we had no idea what it would be like but after seeing it i fell in love with it because really tells the story of "what if" as good as I ever had seen it, including the great It's a Wonderful Life. I cried so many times

i can't count. I got to meet the wonderful actor Michael Caine while shooting scenes at an old minor league ballpark where Larry's boyhood scenes were played and replayed. I remember after he had done a take an was heading back to his trailer, I ran him down and asked him for a picture and he was quite amiable and said "why not!" He is a good guy and a really natural and forceful actor. I can't say the same for Jim Belushi..he was so full of himself, smoking big cuban cigars and talking loudly so

everyone in earshot could hear his every word. His career never did take off but he has had a decent TV career recently. I would say watch this movie if you ever get the chance. It's wonderful and really heartfelt and real. You can feel Larry's pain after he enters into the new world Mr. Destiny gives him after hitting the homer, and as he wants so badly for people to believe he is not this bad guy everyone thinks he is. They all think he belongs in a nuthouse! But eventually he wins people over but by then he wants his real life back so badly, especially his wonderful wife, played so beautifully by Linda Hamilton..and he wants his dog back! So see it. Kurt Russell's chameleon-like performance, coupled with John Carpenter's flawless filmmaking, makes this one, without a doubt, one of the finest boob-tube bios ever aired. It holds up, too: the emotional foundation is strong enough that it'll never age; Carpenter has preserved for posterity the power and ultimate poignancy of the life of the one and only King of Rock and Roll. (I'd been a borderline Elvis fan most of my life, but it wasn't until I saw this mind-blowingly moving movie that I looked BEYOND the image at the man himself. It was quite a revelation.) ELVIS remains one of the top ten made-for-tv movies of all time. Kurt Russell, whose career started when he kicked the REAL Elvis in It Happened At the World's Fair, will probably never top his performance as the King in this biopic helmed by slash and shock meister Carpenter. There are times you feel that you're watching Elvis until something snaps you back to reality...perhaps memories of a hapless Don Johnson in Elvis and the Beauty Queen? All the performances here are excellent: Season Hubley as Priscilla, Pat Hingle as the Colonel, even Shelley Winters brings the right level of nerves and hysteria to her rendering of Momma Presley.

Kurt's dad Bing is here playing Elvis' father Vernon, and there's a fine understated performance from Robert Gray as Elvis' buddy and bodyguard Red West.

A must see for rock n roll fans. Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.

The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.

One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.

This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.

Long live the King! This movie is one of those "WOW!" movies. Not because it's the greatest movie of all time, but because it surprised me. Not only was it a T.V. movie, but it was on Elvis. I can safely say as many impersonators as there are there was only one Elvis, but I can also safely say that Kurt Russel came extremely close to being the real thing. It was one of the greatest impersonations that I have ever seen. He had me believing that it was really him. I learned a lot about Elvis' life from watching this movie. And don't led the television part of it let you stray-it's actually a really fantastic film! And Kurt Russel could've been Elvis' twin :) I remember watching this film a while ago and after seeing 3000 miles to Graceland, it all came flooding back. Why this hasn't had a Video or DVD release yet? It's sacrilegious that this majesty of movie making has never been released while other rubbish has been. In fact this is the one John Carpenter film that hasn't been released. In fact i haven't seen it on the TV either since the day i watched it. Kurt Russell was the perfect choice for the role of Elvis. This is definitely a role he was born to play. John carpenter's break from horror brought this gem that i'd love the TV to play again. It is well acted and well performed as far as the singing goes. Belting out most of Elvis's greatest hits with gusto. I think this also was the film that formed the partnership with Russell and Carpenter which made them go on to make a number of great movies (Escape from New York, The Thing, Big trouble in little china, and Escape from L.A. Someone has got to release this before someone does a remake or their own version of his life, which i feel would not only tarnish the king but also ruin the magic that this one has. If this doesn't get released then we are gonna be in Heartbreak Hotel. I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended. Although Kurt Russell was and is probably the closest person to look like Elvis in show-business, so many things were false in this film. First of all, the makers claimed Elvis opened his famous live shows in '69 after a 9 year hault for films by wearing a white jump-suit made in 1972. Also they claimed he sang 'burning love' which he first sung in 1972 and 'the wonder of you' which he first recorded in 1970. They also claim that he got his first guitar for christmas when all Elvis fans know he got it for his birthday. I know all movies based on past have something false but these things are so obvious to people who like Elvis. A pretty memorable movie of the animals-killing-people variety, specifically similar to "Willard" in that it stars an aging character actor (in this case, a step down a bit to the level of Les Tremayne, who puts in the only distinguished performance I've seen him give) in a role as a man whose life is unbalanced and who subsequently decides to use his animal friends to exact revenge on those who have wronged him. Yes, this is one of those movies where pretty much everybody is despicable, so that you will cheer when they die, and really the selection of actors, locations, etc. couldn't be better at giving the film an atmosphere of shabby decadence.

Tremayne's character is "Snakey Bender", and he is certainly the most interesting thing about the movie: an aged snake collector who is obsessed with John Philip Souza's music. When the local preacher clamps down on his practice of collecting small animals from the local schoolchildren as bait for his snakes, and his friend gets married to a stripper (thus upsetting his ritual Wednesday night band concert) he goes on the rampage, in the process creating a memorable pile-up of clunkers beneath the cliff where he dumps the wrecks after disposing of their unfortunate owners. One amusing game you can play while watching "Snakes" is to place bets on which cars will land the farthest down the cliff.

All in all, very cheap and exploitative, but will really be a lot of fun for fans of these kinds of movies. While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching "Lost", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1—the one with the polar-bear—and it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster.

"Lost" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchingly—what drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But "Lost" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.

While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of "Lost" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) – these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot.

About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) – well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.

But assuming the writers do pull this off, "Lost" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.

9/10 I love this show! It's like watching a mini movie each week!!! The first episode was so gripping and terrifying...so was part 2 of the pilot... I'm definitely gonna keep tuning into this show! This is the real Survivor! I've looked at a few of the other comments and I can see that already after just one or two episodes the morons here are already crying wolf... Sorry if it's not another reality show, kiddies! There was once a time where there were...now brace yourself! Actual TV shows! And this one is actually good unlike most of the crappy sitcoms today or the ump-teenth carbon copy of a Law & Order or NYPD Blue or CSI series they're dishing out... Watch this yourself to form your own opinion, don't take one from the boneheads here! Lost, probably the best t.v series ever made. the storyline is clever and when all your questions are answered watching one episode, 100 more are raised. if lost can carry on it's magnificent ways and not get too carried away then it will be stapled the best show ever. The survivors of a plane crash are forced to live with each other on a remote island, a dangerous new world that poses unique threats of its own. after reading this your thinking how on earth can that be interesting? and heres your answer, every season SO FAR has always been full of surprises, your always questioning your self why did that just happened and what's gonna happen next each time, very unexpected thing's happen and the story goes on wonderfully SO FAR! The series just sucks you in, it's chilling and very addictive, everything from the wonderful creators and directing to the magnificent performances by the cast creates a very believable story. Lost is simply unbelievable, amazing, highly entertaining, top notch, t.v at it's best.How ever you want to put it.

Lost beat's all other show's by a landslide. And if your hating or criticising Lost you don't know how to watch t.v or watch drama. Lost simply doesn't disappoint, you would think a series carrying on for so long can't keep getting better. But it does! It just keep's on flowing it's unlike anything you would ever think off. "Every thing happens for a reason." And that is truly shown in the series. Eventually you will reach a point were all the clues and everything that's happened or being done adds up. You will feel and realise how the characters have changed and how and why everything is going on.

The 10 minutes of excitement: You see something you didn't see coming, something major has happened to character or on the island. There's hope somewhere. You see a major twist that can or will change everything. You hear your thought's churn, you wonder what's gonna happen next. Your heart beating. The 30 minutes of brilliance: You see a flawless scenes, tension building, you hear wonderful music by Michael Giacchino. You see great flash backs, impressive acting. You see wittiness, chilling atmosphere, which then get's converted back into tension.

Everyone has there show that they are addicted too, that they can't get enough of, that they admire every minute and can't wait for the next episode, That they talk about 24/7. Too me and many others it's this series. Lost. Once you start watching, you won't get enough. The creators did a flawless job. Lost is completely unique and original, you won't see anything like it. The clever idea of "flashbacks and flashforwards" and something major and different in every season sucks your thoughts. Would they ever make a series like "LOST"? Something so interesting and something you will always remember. It simply has stunned the world when it hit t.v. A new generation of dramatic/sci-fi. A instant classic before it reached out to the viewers.

I'm sure you all heard of lost and it's 5 star reviews, and your annoying friend that won't stop telling you about it, so what's stopping you from watching?

Every episode leads to something new and it just doesn't stop getting better and better, you get more interested as it goes along, you learn things that are on the island that you wouldn't even think off. The characters start to become very likable, and if your the critic type you would love to see Lost in further detail, things like how the relationship between characters develop and how they learn the ways to under look and take on challenges from the Island. All together it's a great drama and a flawless series. I guess we just all hope that lost will not have a downfall in the episodes to come and go to far.....so if you don't watch lost, read the comment from the top again and you should change your mind. Seeing is believing, so until you start watching you will never know .I strongly recommend this masterpiece of series: LOST!! start watching!!! You have not seen nothing until you watch LOST!!! Lost is the best TV series there is.First of all,it has GREAT actors and wonderful directing.The writing is a very controversial issue because in the first two seasons the writing was extraordinary but after season 3 the writing became highly complex.For instance,who is Jacob?Why are there polar bears on the island?What's the fog?How did the island disappear?Who is Richard Alpert?A lot of people think that the writers are lost and that they have raised a lot of questions and mysteries that they can't explain.I believe these people are wrong.I have confidence in the writers.I think that if the mysteries are revealed from now all the charm of the series will be gone.Anyway,lost is undeniably the greatest TV series and it will continue to be for a long time. Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.

From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.

Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.

The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the "smoke monster", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.

As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.

Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.

I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.

See this show. Hi:

I heard about lost from a co-worker that had obvious differences of opinion on entertainment, he loved it. Well I watched an episode or 2 in the early seasons and was bored, so I tuned it out. After a few years I stumbled upon lost; bored with the current sci-fi fare. Wow was I surprised. Can you say gravity well, damn I got sucked in. The pace and scripting are very good, some of the flash forward/backs are so so with the lamer characters, but over all good. My favorite characters are Ben, Locke, Jacob, Richard Alpert, Sayid Jarrah, Sawyer, Hurley, Daniel Faraday, Jin & Wife, Walt, Charlie, Desmond, and Jack's dad. Jack and Michael definitely are immature asshats, very spoiled and immature. Kate 1 step above them, Juliet was way more classy than Kate. Mr. Eko way under-rated and on the level of Charlie if not more, too bad they both died. The guy dressed in black talking to Jacob (way back) is a genuine curiosity. As a whole great, very layered series: looking for more.

regards A very addictive series.I had not seen an exact combination among drama, action, suspense and Sci-fi never before. I am impressed every chapter. The screenplay is very intelligent, i don't know how the creators invent all this amazing stories, every character have a strange past, troubles, stormy relationships, it gives to the show the human sense needed for creating intimate characters.

The most incredible is the fact that all the characters are related among them: The numbers, they have met before without knowing it, and so on. The others, enigmatic security system and the Darma initiative are elements that don't let us lose a chapter.

Mr. JJ Abrams, what did you think to create this amazing story? Here is an innovative television drama; which so easily blends a compelling story, brilliantly drawn out character development, humour, romance, and drama into each episode. Here is a show that sings to it's own tune, whether it's audience chooses to follow or not. How many other shows on television these days so boldly change in tone from one season to the next? Where most of the other top shows on this site have found a formula that works, that brings in the viewers and the dollars and have stuck like glue to that formula (Prison Break, 24, and Desperate Housewives come to mind) - LOST takes a different route where even after achieving that plateau and that winning formula, the team of executive producers are brave enough to completely reinvent the show in order to service their higher goal of compelling storytelling. This is where LOST differentiates itself from normal television. This is how it's so defiant of conventional TV. And this is why LOST is one of the most cutting edge and innovative creations of modern television. Forget the naysayers - LOST is, has been, and always will be, there to appease it's cult following first and the general public next. But it's a testament to it's inventiveness that it's garnered a fan base which consists of the best of both audiences. This show is without a doubt one of the greatest shows ever to be on television. I mean the acting is great, the suspense, the drama, the comedy, it has everything, and with such a simple story: A plane crashed on an island. The characters are great and Evangeline Lilly is HOT!!!!!! Matthew Fox once again shows us what a great actor he is, Josh Holloway is so great, Jorge Garcia is Hilarious, I could go on and on. Also, the unexpected plot twists, the back stories of the characters, the music that is at the end of every episode. J.J. Abrahms has once again proved what an excellent writer and producer he is. I mean this is better than ALIAS, and I loved ALIAS. Whoever isn't watching this show, should definitely consider getting the DVD's and watching it, because they are missing something great. This show could possibly be the best show in television history!! I am obsessed! The story is amazing and the show is highly addictive, but I love it. I am on Season 2, disc 5, and I tell you that I am too attached to the characters now. For anything bad to happen to them would seriously affect my vote for the show. And, Michael is on my list now. Kidding... I am so happy to see there is a Season 3, because I was too afraid to go onto disc 6 thinking that it would be ending. I can't wait to see the rest now. Thanks to the directors/producers/and actors of Lost...I enjoy watching TV again. Before Lost I surfed through every channel going to bed sad because of my disappointment in television, but I have to say that Lost is my kind of entertainment! /The first episode I saw of Lost made me think, i thought what is this some people who crashed and get chased by a giant monster. But it's not like that, it's far more than that,because their is no monster at all and every episode that you see of Lost , well it's getting better every time. a deserted island with an underground bunker and especially the connection between the people who crossed paths with each other before they crashed. That's the real secret.

This series rules and I can't wait to know what's really going on there I hope that they don't air the last 2 episodes in the theaters,this series deserves a 9 out of 10 OK I'll be honest, when I first saw the trailer for the programme, I thought it was an advert for some sun-screen product. With all the people walking around on the beach. Despite this I decided to watch it, thinking it would be some new show I could laugh at. But I was seriously amazed.

From the first 10 seconds of the program I was hooked, why is he lying in the trees, why did the plane crash etc etc.

It's not everyday that a show comes along which combines intelligence, humour, action and suspense. But 'Lost' manages all of this. With a great cast and crew, beautiful locations, and pretty decent special effects, 'Lost' will catch anyone who tunes in, and is a must see for anyone who's sick of cheesy sitcoms and crappy reality TV.

Lost is on Tuesdays at 10 on channel 4 (UK) 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 =O "I have looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful," proclaims one of the main characters in ABC's award winning television show "Lost". The series could be summarized as a drama story about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an unknown island, but that would be doing the show a disservice. "Lost" follows a large group of characters who come into conflict with the island, each other, and ultimately themselves as they struggle with their new way of life and their dependency on each other. The situation becomes more complicated when it becomes clear this isn't an ordinary island, either - and that they may not be alone.

My initial fear after hearing the concept of this series was the lack of new stories they could tell us after a certain period, but this proved to be unfounded. The narrative flows naturally, the dialogue is witty, the characters are memorable and the execution is superb. The island is a character all on its own, and to understand this comment you'd have to see the series for yourself, which only goes to show its originality and greatness.

At the time of writing this review, only the first two seasons have aired, and they're filled with strong episodes. My only mild criticism is that the second season seems to slow down a bit halfway, but then fortunately comes back in admirable shape for the final episodes.

If I can recommend one television series you should be following right now, it would certainly be this one. If you like excitement, adventure, character driven stories, an extremely strong cast and crew, beautiful locations, and an island that seems more spiritual than natural, "Lost" is for you. Just be sure you start at the beginning. Only seen season 1 so far but this is just great!! A wide variety of people stuck on a island. Nobody are who they seem to be and everybody seems to have loads of skeletons in their closets .... it sounds like Melrose Place meets the Crusoe family and why is that so great ? It probably is not but then ad a spoon full of X Files, a dose of "what" ?? and a big "hey" and a island that is everything You ever dreamed of - in Your freakiest nightmares and You'll be Lost to. The story got so many twists and turns it is unbelievable. Great set up, solid acting with a liberating acceptance that at the end of the everybody is human (well almost everybody ... I think ...)with good and bad sides. But weird oh so weird ... An absolutely brilliant show. The second season began where the first ended, with much mystery. Suspense in most, if not all episodes and mystery everywhere. One that made me think and think again. It's truly amazing how the writer can come out with all the connections and link all the characters together and combine all these elements to make the lives of the characters in the show so meaningful. Never fail to excites and I am looking forward to the new season. Hopefully more secrets will be reveal and at the same time, more mystery to be solved. Good selection of cast too for this show, fit the characters perfectly. Really can't wait to finally discover the secret. Hopefully all the hype won't spoil the ending. I watched the first series avidly, but wondered whether I'd go back again after a lengthy break from it. However, I tuned into episode one of Series 2 and was hooked all over again. This really is excellent telly; ground-breaking stuff like Mission:Impossible back in the 1960s. The characters are well rounded, and expand as the series goes on, they change as they adapt - some more readily than others - to their new surroundings, but they cleverly remain strictly in character, and yet it is more than possible to have sympathy for someone whom you wouldn't have thought you could ever feel sorry for, when something really crushing happens to them. I hope there will be many years of 'Lost' to look forward to - and I don't actually mind all that much if I never get answers to all the mysteries! It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect. The first series of Lost kicked off with a bang... literally and slowly decreased in pace. This may have put some viewers off and people who started to watch halfway through would either be bored or just plain confused.

I would advise people new to the world of Lost to simply watch from the beginning and don't get pt off by the slower episodes. The acting throughout is excellent but why have 5 series' planned... WHY??? All this means is that there will be no answers for at least 4 years, oh well, i'll keep watching if it keeps the tension up and dialogue flowing. Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next. SERIES 1

As the UK eagerly awaits the launch of series two of 'Lost', series one (which just finished showing here) did not disappoint.

A group of over forty passengers struggle to cope after their plane crash-landed into a deserted island. They pray for rescue. However, as the days turn into weeks and the survivors explore the rainforest that surrounds them, they begin to wonder whether they are alone.

Admittedly, the series has a hard time keeping up the pace after the explosive pilot episodes, which hurls at the group a polar bear, a giant beastie and the possibility of others on the island. Nevertheless, the series manages to pick itself up after a few episodes and is outstanding by the final episode. Possibly the greatest thing about 'Lost' is the fact that we visit each character's life before the crash in a series of flashbacks. This gives us more insight and, hence more suspense and excitement as the events unfold in the present.

Ultimately, this show is a superb combination of drama, suspense and the supernatural; it is, quite simply, unmissable.

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 1 FOLLOW

SERIES 2

After the cliffhanger that was the end of Series 1 of 'Lost', Series 2 begins with our protagonists delving deep into the heart of the phenomenon that is the Hatch. They discover a mysterious man who has a job to do. Meanwhile, Michael and Sawyer struggle to cope with the aftermath of what happened on the raft.

As the series progresses, the viewers will be unable to bring themselves to turn off their television set, as every episode of the series contains more twists than a Curly-Wurly chocolate bar, one of which introduces a whole host of new characters. With every mystery solved with 'Lost', five brand new ones seem to come out of the woodworks. After the 974th plot twist of the series, it finally dawns on the viewer that it doesn't actually matter whether the plane-crash survivors make it off the island. However, the stunning series finale answers just over half of those questions, despite its anti-climatic ending. Lost is largely considered one of the most beautiful TV series that have never done ... and so is ... if you lovers of mysteries, intrigue and adventure this is the series for you ...In the first season ... since the first episode starts to go increasingly to move forward until you get to the second season ... in the second you lose a little its cocktail of mystery and expectation and pushes very on and reveal the various mysteries that the island hides ... the third season is perhaps the second most beautiful because resumed suffered since the first episode with the pace and tenacity of the first season ... the fourth also not let pass unnoticed and tends to reveal a little mysteries ... but not as the second season but at a somewhat different ... For the fifth season expects ... The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.

Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. ("Tricia Tanak Is Dead" is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new "rescuers" such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left. Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere. After becoming completely addicted to Six Feet Under, I didn't think there would ever be another show that would come close to being as good as this show. Well, I was wrong! Lost is spellbinding!! I absolutely love this show and cannot turn it off. The richness of the characters, the intricacies of the plot, the beautiful setting are all amazing. I am totally and completely hooked. I don't know how the creators do it, but each character touches me very deeply. I feel their joy, their pain, everything, right down to my core!!! I don't have cable so I've been renting the series on Netflix. When I put it on I watch all the episodes at once and feel sad when it is over. I can't wait for the next disc to arrive at my house. This is probably the best TV show I have ever seen!!! Before Lost everything shown on TV was predictable . You could predict who was gonna die or who will find something, but in Lost you could predict NOTHING. Every thing was so surprisingly stunning and it really was a mystery not because it has so many secrets but because there was nothing like it before everything was so great. I literally became addicted to it. LOST is a classic work of art. It gives you something to look forward to every week. It is genius. The surrounding is brilliant it is calm and warm at the beach and so scary in the jungle. The characters are a work of genius every one of them especially the ones already on the island. The castaways are so dramatic yet we can never predict their deaths because they have so much more to do and so much more to say and they have secrets affecting the other castaways that die with them. "Lost", "24", "Carnivale", "Desperate Housewifes"...the list goes on and on. These, and a bunch of other high-quality, shows proves that we're in the middle of a golden age in television history. "Lost" is pure genius. Incredible layers of personal, and psychologically viable, stories, underscored by sublime cinematography (incredible to use this word, when describing a TV-show), a killer score, great performances and editing. Anyone who isn't hooked on this, are missing one of the most important creative expressions in television ever. It may have its problems, when watching only one episode a week, but the DVD format is actually an incredible way to watch this. Hope they keep it up (as I'm sure they do). Lost holds something interesting for everyone. You can say an awfully lot about this series, and an awfully lot has been said, so I won't be the one to spell it all out for you again. Just read the persons who loved it, and you'll know why you want to watch it. The nice thing about this series is that its totally new. There are not much movies -and even fewer- series based on the theme of only suspense, but Lost lives up to the theme with pride. Its all about the unexplained and if you combine that with an exotic location, nice plot twists, an excellent cast and a good format (present and past combined in single episodes) you'll have a series in which every episode is a story on its own but part of a greater telling. You want to have all the insights of the characters, you want to see the overall picture and you'll want to know where the writers are taking you. The result of that is that its a series which does not let you go. On a more sceptic note, the series went under a bit in season 2, probably due to its own success. It is well known that Lost was only written for one season originally and when the overwhelming success followed, the writers were overwhelmed too. In my opinion they made the mistake to add even more mysteries and in a higher pace in season 2, then to solve the ones (or partially at least) the ones of season 1. At the end of season 2 you ended with a big blurr of secrets, plot twists and unexplained phenomena, but there is only so much a viewer can take. The difference between season 2 and 3 however was huge. Season 3 handed out a lot of insights, to partially replace them with new questions. And that's exactly how they should write; you want to thumble from one plot twist to the next, not get a tsunami of secrets spread all over you and then pick up a few to explain to the viewers. They got that in season 3 and brings us a promising series future for season 4. Its good to see that such a different format of a series, can be so hugely popular. The first episode immediately gave a good impression what to expect from the series! Mysteries waiting to be solved and a lot of good drama! I love the fact that they gradually reveal the stories concerning the characters! Explaining just enough to stay excited! Of course this show has some flaws! In the first two series there are some characters who for some reason don't show up in the third season! Many of the characters have a decent sent off but some of them just aren't there! Like Rose and her husband! Where the hell are they? What happened to them? Maybe they will return in later episodes! But it is a little inconsistent! That being said "Lost" manages to be thrilling every episode(especially the first two seasons)! That is a very hard thing to do! I do notice that in the third season the focus is more on character development than the mystery aspects of the show! This is not a bad thing! It even saves some episodes from getting boring! One of the elements that can be considered the strength of this show are the wonderful characters! You will grow to love these characters! Good or bad! But eventually I will want to see some mysteries to be solved and get closure! The danger of "Lost" getting canceled due to declining ratings is near! And that would be devastating! Lost isn't the greatest TV show in history, but it's not far off. It doesn't have the plot or characterisation of The West Wing or possibly even early ER, however, it is arguably the most continuously gripping show I have every come across. I love the way I can't guess what's going to happen. I love the re-telling of the characters' back stories which often give rise to new dimensions for us to see them in. In some ways I want the show to last forever, but I think they can get 6-7 seasons out of it before they have to end it on a glorious high. The combination of the characters and their nationalities coupled with the show's fluidity for moving backwards and forwards thus extending dead characters "life spans" all adds to the overwhelming sense that this show is something very different from what we are used to. It's captivating, surprising and (here's a little suggestion for all of you conspiracy theorists) more than a little interactive- keep those internet discussions going- you're only adding to the plot... I don't know the stars, or modern Chinese teenage music - but I do know a thoroughly entertaining movie when I see one.

Kung Fu Dunk is pure Hollywood in its values - it's played for laughs, for love, and is a great blend of Kung Fu and basketball.

Everybody looks like they had a lot of fun making this - the production values are excellent - and modern China looks glossier than Los Angeles here.

The plot of the abandoned orphan who grows up in a kung fu school only to be kicked out and then discover superstardom as a basketball play (and love and more etc;) is great - this is fresh, fun, and immensely entertaining.

With great action and good dialogue this is one simply to enjoy - for all ages - and for our money was one of the best family movies we're seen in a long time.

Please ignore the negative reviews and give Dunk a chance - we were really glad we did - a GOOD sports comedy movie. The movie is absolutely silly.

But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.

I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.

Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.

Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema. Just finished watching the movie and wanted to give my own opinion(and justice) to the movie.

First of all, to get things straight, this movie is not pretending to be anything other than a solid action comedy movie. It doesn't aim to revolutionize the movie industry and garner critical acclaims nor does it want to be regarded as one. If you really want to enjoy this movie to the fullest, I suggest you discard your critical-mindedness and your longing for a good plot because you won't find any in here. With that established, let us further into the movie.

I had low expectations for this movie simply because it didn't have a strong plot(Yes, moviegoers, I underrated this movie as well), but I never expected myself to enjoy this movie that much. I even enjoyed this more than the Stephen Chow flicks(which I find Kung Fu Hustle to be his best effort and would've rated it a 9 as well). Action is tight and epic while comedy chokes on to the right places.

SPOILERS alert, I think The action might be unreal, but why would I want to watch a serious basketball movie anyways? There are a lot other sports movies(drama) that already did it well, why create another? SPOILERS end

I'm not even sure why you're reading this. Go ahead and watch it. Just remember, no thinking - just watch, enjoy, smile, laugh, and

Every once in a while they(the movie industry) creates masterpieces such as Pulp Fiction or The Godfather movies, and sometimes they create movies which are better off in the pile of dump. I'm not saying Kung Fu Dunk deserves the recognition that the previous examples have, then again, if we're talking about Stephen Chow-ish comedy, this one's a top ten.

Highly recommended if you love: -no brainer movies with really good action -Kung Fu -Death Trance -Kung Fu and comedy -what the heck, watch this. you'll have a great time.

9/10 for you the cast of Kung Fu Dunk. ^_^ A mess of genres but it's mainly based on Stephen Chow's genre mash-ups for it's inspiration. There's magic kung-fu, college romance, sports, gangster action and some weepy melodrama for a topping. The production is excellent and the pacing is fast so it's easy to get past the many flaws in this film.

A baby is abandoned next to a basketball court. A homeless man brings him to a Shaolin monastery that's in the middle of a city along with a special kung fu manual that the homeless man somehow has but can't read. The old monk teaches the boy but expires when he tries to master the special technique in the manual. The school is taken over by a phony kung fu master who is assisted by four wacky monks. The new master gets mad at the now 20+ year old boy for not pretending to be hurt by the master's weak punches and throws him out for the night. The boy is found throwing garbage into a basket from an incredible distance by a man who bring him to a gangster's club to play darts. This leads to a big fight, the boy's expulsion from the monastery and the man's decision to turn the boy into a college basketball sensation.

Al this happens in the first 20 minutes with most of it happening in the first 10 minutes. Aside from the extreme shorthand storytelling the first problem is how little we get to know the main character until way into the movie. The man who uses the boy is more sharply defined by the time the first third is over. The plot follows no new ground except for the insane action climax of the film. I'm sure you can easily imagine how the wacky monks will show up towards the end. The effects, photography and stunt work are all top- notch and make up for the uninspired plot.

Stephen Chow has a much better command of plot and comedy writing and this film will live in his shadow but that's not a good reason to ignore it. It's quite entertaining even with a scatter-shot ending. Recommended. i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :) Jay Chou plays an orphan raised in a kung fu school, but kicked out by the corrupt headmaster after fighting with a bunch of thugs in the employ of a nefarious villain. He happens upon down-on-his-luck trickster Eric Tsang, who immediately sees cash potential in the youngster's skills. Basketball is the chosen avenue for riches, and Tsang bids to get him a spot on a University team and to promote him in the media. General success leads to a basketball championship and a really nasty rival team managed by the same nefarious villain of before.

It's all a bit Shaolin Soccer I guess, but not so quirky or ridiculous - the plot sticks pretty close to sports movie conventions, and delivers all the elements the crowd expects from the set-up. You've seen it all before, but it's the kind of stuff it never hurts to see again when it's done well. Luckily it really is done well here (some might say 'surprisingly' with Chu Yen-Ping in the director's chair... I expect he had good 'assistants') - the script delivers and the presentation is slick and stylish. Jay Chou remains pretty much expressionless throughout, but such is his style, and when he does let an emotion flicker across it can be to quite good comic effect. Eric Tsang compensates with a larger-than-life character that he's played many times before (in real life, for instance) who gets many of the films most emotional moments.

Since the film revolves around basketball, it's good that the scenes of basketball matches are suitably rousing. The cast show some real skill, including Chou, and some well done wirework and CGI add that element of hyper-real kung fu skill that make the scenes even more entertaining (assuming you like that sort of thing) and justify the movie's plot/existence.

There's only one significant fight scene in the movie, but it's a doozy in the "one against many" style. Jay Chou appears to do a lot of his own moves, and is quite impressive - he's clearly pretty strong and fast for real, and Ching Siu-Tung's choreography makes him look like a real martial artist. I wish there'd been more, but at least it's a lengthy fight.

Very much the kind of Chinese New Year blockbuster I hoped it would be from the trailer, and recommended viewing! This project was originally conceived as the movie version of popular Japanese manga SlamDunk! and that's not something new to Jay Chou, who made his movie debut playing a character from another wildly popular manga Initial D. Along the way, it was decided to incorporate some kung fu into the movie, so hence the title, even if the idea wasn't very original, with Stephen Chow's Shaolin Soccer coming to mind with martial arts and ball games combined.

However, and thankfully, those scenes where kung fu actually influenced the games were kept to a bare minimum, and in Kung Fu Dunk, really quite unnecessary, because they don't add much to the plot nor drum up much excitement, and at most offered some cheap laughs and reminisced about the time when Stephen Chow used kung fu in football games. Jay Chou is comfortable in his role as a martial artist Fang Shi-jie since it's not the first time he fought using martial arts (Curse of the Golden Flower anyone?), and under the stunt direction of Ching Siu-Tung, he was made to look really believable as he trashes countless of gangsters in a bar as seen in the trailer, just to let you know who's boss.

That was almost why his character is made a kung fu practitioner, and for the fact of giving him an excuse for being a top shot, able to shoot the hoops from practically any angle. And with Eric Tsang as a small time hustler Chen-Li who sees his potential and becomes his agent, he joins a university to play varsity basketball, but not without the initial objection of team captain Ting-wei (Chen Bo-Lin) and team star Xiao-lan (Baron Chen, in his big-screen debut). But you know with team members on the same side, it's not before long they combine their strengths to take on adversaries on the basketball court.

And I will stick my neck out to say that this movie is to basketball just as how Goal was to football. It made the sport look good because of its charismatic characters, despite them dripping so much coolness and aloofness on the courts. Here, special effects and wire-work were employed to make the actors seem like professionals who can take out a top side in the NBA league, and in all honesty, really looked stunning, especially when they mimic various dunking moves, and performing combo-moves thanks to technology and stunt work. So in actuality, the kung fu elements don't really have to be in the movie. The stunt work itself will be able to justify most of the moves as they're quite grounded to reality, only having you to suspend belief that boys of average height have springs in their feet to leap that height for a professional dunk.

Pity too that the number of games were only a handful, with the time spent on plenty of subplots, but each were loosely developed and flitted in and out of the story as and when they please. Things like the abandoned Shi-jie's quest to use the basketball games to get his parents to one day attend them, that of gangsterism penetrating and influencing games, and his love life with Charlene Choi in yet another flower vase role just to look good and do nothing else. Everyone's acting a little too cool, leaving little room for main characters to add depth. One of the key themes here is the realization of the importance of teamwork rather than on individual talent and ability, and it could have been brought out much stronger if the players themselves interacted a lot more off the court, than only on it, and during competitive games, apart from the high-fives and friendly passes.

With the US$10 million budget, it is easy to see where the money went to - the effects, in particular, a massive fantasy sequence at a crucial point in the movie. It's quite flawless, nice to look at and probably justifiable on its quality alone, but again I like to emphasize, that even without those elements, the basketball stunts itself would still make this a decent movie with nifty basketball moves. And having Jay Chou playing for your team is a big boost to any hopes of a box office success. I must say I was impressed the cinematography was amazing, the frames close to perfection and the way he built up the tension around a subject that sound more like a dreadful bore is beyond be.

The film is about two narrators, one seen, one unseen. They are both trying to explain the significant of a series of painting that caused a scandal a long time back. The film is all about theories and explanations of views but the conclusion is quite shocking I must say. Definitely a film that deserves more than it's 171 votes.

With only 66 minutes to play out it's plot the film still felt like a complete work. Fantastic direction! I must say far better than Blood of the Poet which it for some strange reason remind me a bit of.

I suppose you can call it by the slang word "artsy". It's pretty much just a lot of professional talk about various theories and stunning visual effects but the crew and Ruiz did pull it off. At least for me. An amazing film. L'Hypothèse du tableau volé/The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979) begins in the courtyard of an old, three-story Parisian apartment building. Inside, we meet The Collector, an elderly man who has apparently devoted his life to the study of the six known existing paints of an obscure Impressionist-era painter, Tonnerre. A narrator recites various epigrams about art and painting, and then engages in a dialogue with The Collector, who describes the paintings to us, shows them to us, tells us a little bit about the painter and the scandal that brought him down, and then tells us he's going to show us something....

As he walks through a doorway, we enter another world, or worlds, or perhaps to stretch to the limits, other possible worlds. The Collector shows us through his apparently limitless house, including a large yard full of trees with a hill; within these confines are the 6 paintings come to life, or half-way to life as he walks us through various tableaux and describes to us the possible meanings of each painting, of the work as a whole, of a whole secret history behind the paintings, the scandal, the people in the paintings, the novel that may have inspired the paintings. And so on, and so on. Every room, every description, leads us deeper into a labyrinth, and all the while The Collector and The Narrator engage in their separate monologues, very occasionally verging into dialogue, but mostly staying separate and different.

I watched this a second time, so bizarre and powerful and indescribable it was, and so challenging to think or write about. If I have a guess as to what it all adds up to, it would be a sly satire of the whole nature of artistic interpretation. An indicator might be found in two of the most amusing and inexplicable scenes are those in which The Collector poses some sexless plastic figurines -- in the second of them, he also looks at photos taken of the figurines that mirror the poses in the paintings -- then he strides through his collection, which is now partially composed of life-size versions of the figures. If we think too much about it and don't just enjoy it, it all becomes just faceless plastic....

Whether I've come to any definite conclusions about "L'Hypothèse du tableau volé", or not, I can say definitely that outside of the early (and contemporaneous) works of Peter Greenaway like "A Walk Through H", I've rarely been so enthralled by something so deep, so serious, so dense....and at heart, so mischievous and fun. This is a strange, cerebral, surreal, esoteric film. If there is such a thing as "intellectual horror" cinema, this film is it. I started to get scared and wish there was someone else watching it with me, and it barely has a plot! I'm going to have to see this film again multiple times before I feel I really understand it. If you're the kind of person who likes "My Dinner With Andre" and films by Godard, or if you do a lot of mind-altering drugs, you will probably enjoy this film. Wow. This PM Entertainment production is laced with enough bullets to make John Woo say, "Enough already!" Of course, it isn't nearly as beautiful as Woo can deliver but it gets the exploitive job done in 90 minutes. Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is an undercover cop in the near future. When his wife is framed for murdering the Governor by a team using a look-a-like cyborg, it is up to Eric to clear her name. Wilson gets to pull Van Damme duty as he plays the heroic lead and his evil cyborg doppelganger. Why the Academy failed to take notice is beyond me. Being a PM production, there are tons of car chases, exploding cars (4 in the first 5 minutes!) and shoot outs. I particularly liked the van that flips in midair before it even comes close to touching an exploding truck. My other favorite bit involved a neighborhood girl coming over to perfect her karate in Don's simulator. It is merely a chance to show off some cheapo LAWNMOWER MAN effects circa 1995. The final chapter in the Hanzo the Razor trilogy provides fitting closure for this entertaining series of samuraisploitation. Inoue replaces Yasuzu Masumura (Blind Beast, Red Angel, Manji) in the director's chair, but the style is pretty much the same, perhaps due to Shintaro Katsu serving as the producer, apart from the titular antihero.

Hanzo uncovers a female ghost who is guarding treasure hidden in the bottom of the lake. Of course, Hanzo being Hanzo, he's not put off by the fact she's a ghost, so he proceeds to rape... ahem, interrogate her, using the now familiar revolving net device. The plot takes through a series of blind monks who also doubletime as loansharks, corrupt officials, promiscuous wives and the necessary hack and slash. Hanzo's superior officer, Onishi, and his two servants, provide the typical comedic notes, and generally, it's business as usual.

Significantly less convoluted and easier to follow than the first (which is all over the place and a bit of a mess), less stylish, dramatic and bloody than the second (arguably the finest in the Hanzo series), but still entertaining and worthwhile on its own merits. Complete with trademark training sequences, the obligatory rape, swordfights, and a mystery Hanzo is called upon to investigate, this will ultimately satisfy the fans. Shintarô Katsu, best known for the Zatôichi films, again stars in this third and final movie in the Kenji Misumi (mostly known for "Lone Wolf and Cub), directed saga of Hanzo 'The Razor' Itami feature the big dicked one battling ninjas, rapeing 'ghosts', and uncovering shady goings on at the Shogunate treasury. The Hanzo 'plot' was kinda getting stale and repetitive. What was once novel in the first film, was not any longer. Fortunately, this one was better then the second thanks to having more humor. I'm just glad that they choose to stop at the one trilogy (I'm looking at YOU Lucas)

My Grade: B

DVD Extras: Merely Trailers for all 3 Hanzo the Razor films

Eye Candy: Aoi Nakajima unleashes both tits, Mako Midori just her left one Following the brilliant "Goyôkiba" (aka. "Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel "Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme" (aka. "Razor 2: The Snare", 1973), this "Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban" aka. "Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, "Sword Of Justice" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third "Hanzo" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. "Who's Got The Gold" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in "Who's Got The Gold", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels! As much as I have enjoyed the Hanzo the Razor movies, three is definitely enough: 'Who's Got The Gold?', the final adventure for the Japanese lawman with the impressive package, is a fairly enjoyable piece of Pinku cinema, but offers little new in terms of ideas whilst taking a big step backwards as far as outrageousness is concerned.

The film opens with the appearance of a female ghost, and looks as though it is going to explore supernatural territory, something which might have taken the series in an interesting new direction; unfortunately, after the spook turns out to be nothing but a Scooby Doo-style ruse (cooked up by a corrupt treasury official keen to keep people away from the lake where he is hiding stolen gold), director Yoshio Inoue is content to recycle familiar elements from the first two films, the result being a rather stale affair.

Once again, Hanzo heads an investigation that requires him to interrogate women through the use of his mighty penis, slice up his enemies, and abuse his superiors. On the way, we get wild orgies, good-natured rape (Hanzo forces himself on women who wind up appreciating his willfulness), and bloody sword-fights.

If you've already seen and appreciated the first two films, you might as well watch this instalment to complete the set, but be warned, this is probably the least satisfying one of them all.

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb. After the glories of The Snare, it was unlikely that a further outing for Hanzo would be able to do any better, and this doesn't breach that expectation, but it is a fine film and sits neatly in between the fun but messy first chapter and the terrific second in terms of quality and general entertainment. The screenplay comes from Yasuzo Masumura and has some parallels with The Snare, as well as the expected hi-jinks of a Hanzo film, but the film rings nice little changes on the formula by amping up the character driven humour as well as giving the film a quieter, reflective edge. The film opens with Hanzos assistants scared by a ghost, and typically he decides straight away that he needs to have carnal knowledge of this ghost. It turns out that the ghost is serving as a guard for a stash of stolen coins and from this set-up unfolds a story of theft, corruption and usury, with expected violent and sleazy results. Shintaro Katsu is terrific as expected as Hanzo, coming across effortlessly as a deadly fighter and sexual force of nature, he is equally good in the moments of knowing humour and likable, almost an ordinary gentleman in moments of drama, it is a beautifully rounded performance filled with social conscience and a touching edge of personal feeling. The expected comedy comes off fine as well, his moments with "Snake" Magobei are perhaps the most amusing of the series whilst his interactions with his servants are kookily entertaining as ever. Though neatly laden throughout with nice moments, a fair amount of action and a little sleaze, the film does lose a little from a relatively restrained approach. There are shades of both prior films, the plotting, pace and smarts recall The Snare and when the film aims for sleaze it does very well, with a potently handled and impactful early interrogation sequence. Equally though, director Yoshio Inoue presents potentially sleazy scenes in a more experimental way as per Kenji Misumi's less well handled work in Sword Of Justice, with consequences sometimes very nice, as with a man playing a tune on the koto, with close ups of his fingers plucking at the strings as unbeknownest to him Hanzo ploughs his wife, and sometimes a bit weak, as with an orgy that is reduced to a nudity free psychedelic whirl of limbs in motion that just looks confusing. The nudity and bloodshed is generally downplayed which is a pity, though there is a little of both a stronger approach would have worked better, it is definitely the sort of film where trashy and unrestrained nudity and violence are most appropriate. But even with less in the way of exploitative goods this is still thoroughly entertaining stuff, the predictable moments are wrought with aplomb and there is more than enough intrigue and excitement, even some effective surprises to go around. Its a film for the fans really, playing off the work laid down in the previous instalments and working sweetly if not spectacularly with it. Altogether a near wholly pleasurable if mildly flawed end to a delightful trilogy, the second best of them and well worth a watch for enthusiasts of such things. Shintarô Katsu, who played the blind swordsman "Zatoichi" in a total of 27 movies, ends the Hanzo trilogy with this excellent film in which he gets to make love to a ghost, Mako Midori (Blind Beast).

The big stick, used often in the pursuit of justice, is retired forever.

Katsu was his usual impudent self as he pursued those who would steal from the treasury to lend at usurious amounts to those who could not afford to pay.

The usual amazing swordplay and skill of the big guy was present, along with the blood.

I'm going to miss him. WHO'S GOT THE GOLD? is (unfortunately) the last of the HANZO THE RAZOR films, starring Shintaro Katsu as the title character - the multi-weapon proficient, authority-bucking samurai officer with the "unique" technique of raping confessions out of unwilling female informants until they "spill the beans" and beg for more...

This entry starts with Hanzo "uncovering" a woman who poses as a ghost to guard a lake that's filled with bamboo trunks filled with gold stolen from the Treasury. This leads to Hanzo discovering a loan-sharking scheme and an orgy ring run by a blind monk. The requisite swordplay and rape/interrogation ensue - finalizing in a decent ending for this strange trilogy of films.

Not quite as strong and enjoyable as THE SNARE (part 2 of the series...), but still great for fans of samurai sleaze and Japanese pinky-style films. 8/10 The third, and final installment of "Hanzo the Razor" is the most concrete of them all. The "training" even gets completed within the first five minutes of the film. Not for everyone, this film details Hanzo's investigation of loan sharking being performed by an order of blind monks. It also makes a historical comment on the prideful refusal of old Japan to incorporate Western technology. Where the first Hanzo film was just a funny and gory ride with little connection to it's plot, "Hanzo 3: Who's Got the Gold" manages to connect everything, and brings it all home in the end. Definitely the perfect finale. Oh yeah, Hanzo still has a lot of sex, and there's a lot of needless blood and violence (it *is* Hanzo the Razor after all). Resident Evil:code veronica is a great well made video game,it has great graphics,very comfortable controls,a great storyline and high fun factor.The storyline to this is Claire Redfield gets taken to an island for trespassing on Umbrella grounds,and reaking havoc at they're main lab while looking for her brother.Code veronica's graphics are very good,the fire and rain effects are great looking.The controls are comfy,but the button pattern doesnt fit the Dreamcast control,makeing it hard to get used to.Its still fun going around some wierd disturbing place,shooting the guts out of zombies.Code:veronica also has a little bit of "Romance" between the two main characters.You also get to play as Chris Redfield,from Resident Evil 1.The sound in this game is better than ever,for example,even though I hate the new feature,When the giant spiders crawl,they're feet make a disturbing scampering sound,and the guns sound alot more realistic.Great graphics,outstanding story,comfy controls,and realistic sound makes Resident Evil Code:Veronica a definite loved. I give it a 10 out of 10. This is one of the best of the series, ranking up there with Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (Or Biohazard: Last Escape) The game has a very good storyline in which you play as Claire Redfield in the search for her brother,Chris Redfield (Whom you probably know from the original Resident Evil) It is as scary as the other Resident Evil, and contains alot more cutscenes.

My Rating: **** out of ***** Stars (Rating based on comparison to other videogames) One of the most frightening game experiences ever that will make you keep the lights on next to your bed. Great storyline with a romantic, horrific, and ironic plot. Fans of the original Resident Evil will be in for a surprise of a returning character! Not to mention that the voice-acting have drastically improved over the previous of the series. Don't miss out on the best of the series. I just can't believe that these games can get so much better, but they do. Unfortunately I had to rent a Dreamcast to play it, but even though I did beat it I can't wait to buy it for PS2. This is the only series of games that I must own all of them even if I have beaten them many times over. I hope they never stop making this type of game even if the series must come to an end.

This game ranks above all so far. I had the honor of playing mine on PS2 so the graphics were really good. The voice acting was above standard. The difficulty level is just right. Wesker has to be the best characters in the RE series in my opinion. The story amazed me and took many different twist that I wasn't expecting. The only rating this game deserves is great. I recently purchassed the very underrated Dreamcast and went off into town to find some games to use them on. I bought Soul Calibur (A classic) and then i stepped across the domain of Resident Evil Code Veronica. I have Resident Evil 1 & 2, and have played Res Evil 3 numerous occasions, and i have been impressed with all of them, especially no.1 which has to go down in history has a classic.

But none of them 3 come anywhere near to the dreamcast attempt of Brilliant Gory Gameplay. If its just for the sake of buying a dreamcast for this game it is worth every moment of your time and effort, ive never been so enthralled over a computer game in the way this has enthralled me.

Anyway, the story carrys on from the 2nd story in which Claire Redfield searches for her Brother (Chris - from the 1st story), who is presumed missing under the conspiracy of the dreaded umbrella corporation. Little is known about this corporation except the fact that you though you destroyed them 3 times in the previous storys.

So aiding Claire, with the assistant of super brat Steve, u must unlock the truth of the real location of your brother. The 2nd CD enables you to control Chris, thats if you manage to get that far without running out of the room in fear.

The control are very slick and the movement of the characters are magnificently realistic, when the character notices danger, he/she faces the direction it is coming from. PURE GENIUS!!

Overall i gave this game 10/10 because it is simply the game of the year, game of the decade and the best game in the world full stop!!. Please purchase this game as soon as possible. At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, "Apart From That" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, "Apart From That" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.

This movie must be seen. Saw this my last day at the festival, and was glad I stuck around that extra couple of days. Poetic, moving, and most surprisingly, funny, in it's own strange way. It's so rare to see directors working in this style who are able to find true strangeness and humor in a hyper-realistic world, without seeming precious, or upsetting the balance. Manages to seem both improvised, yet completely controlled. It I hesitate to make comparisons, because these filmmakers have really digested their influences (Cassavetes, Malick, Loach, Altman...the usual suspects) and found their own unique style, but if you like modern directors in this tradition (Lynne Ramsay, David Gordon Greene), you're in for a real treat. This is a wonderful film, and I hope more people get to see it. If this film plays in a festival in your city, go! go! go! An excellent film depicting the cross currents in the lives of a multi-ethnic mix of not so ordinary people in the rural Pacific Northwest. Solid directing and writing along with fine acting, especially the performances by Kwami Taha and Dan Stowe. Interestingly, this film was made in the same year as the highly successful "Crash," written and directed by Paul Haggis. The pace of the action may not be as frantic as that in urban Los Angeles, and the characters may seem to be better acquainted with each other in "Apart From That," but the personal relationships of the characters are as flawed and troubled and their stories as resonant as any of those in "Crash." For those viewers who appreciated "Crash" this is a must see film. Also, fans of Jim Jarmusch and John Cassavetes will like this movie. The young lady's name is Bonnie (Polay). She's attractive, is apparently living a pretty decent life, but all of a sudden is inexplicably snatched from her home and life by Evil Dude and the Various and Sundry Evil Henchmen. Now she has no idea what the hell is going on, only that a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth people apparently want her dead...and she's going to die not even knowing why.

God, I hear the whining all the time. Now that content is so cheap to produce and people can create their own movies/books/comics/internal organs, there's going to be nobody to ensure that there's a standard of quality! We're going to be drowning in crap! The only people who actually think this are people who haven't watched any movies or read any books recently-- because we're already doing a dead man's float in crap. It's folks like Ferrari and Rodriguez who put the lie to these ignorant so-and-sos by throwing $8K on the table and making...well, what I would say is a better action flick than anything you've seen in cinemas this year...but you haven't seen any action flicks in the cinema this year. I've seen the box office. You're staying away in droves. You would do better to snag a copy of this, spend twenty minutes being entertained, and get on with your lives.

It's sheer entertainment. You enter, like Bonnie, with a lot of questions and where the whole thing ends up is nebulous. The whole conceit has been done before in multiple ways but not in such a compressed amount of time and not without such concentrated tasty gunplay. You're there for the atmosphere, the mystery, and the guns. That's it--that's all the filmmakers promise, and they deliver.

It warms the black pits of my heart to think this was made on such a budget. We get passed a goodly number of indie films around here, but seldom do we see anything as polished as this short is, and we've never seen one done in the action genre that looked this good. Hell, you could hand these two guys MI: 3 and it might draw me into watch it. The Bond franchise. Hell, anything. No, in fact, better yet: I'd like to see these guys make a feature on their own and stay the hell away from Hollywood. Whatever's out there killing the movie industry is no doubt infectious.

Best indie we've seen in a while and the most effective indie calling card we've ever seen. The DVD's $20 and has bonus features out the ass. Go take your movie ticket budget and put it towards this instead. As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.

With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.

The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilizes the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.

As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.

Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package. In my line of work, I occasionally get contacted by independent filmmakers who are trying to publicize their film. When I can, I take a look at these low-budget films and often they make me think that the future of Hollywood is going to the dogs. Once in a while, though, there is a film that is born of pure passion and desire, as if created for the purpose of reminding the film industry that good movies are still possible. The short film B R O K E N, directed by Alex Ferrari, is a genuine surprise and worth a second look.

Clocking in at a scant 20 minutes, B R O K E N tries to tell a compelling (but surreal) story with almost no back story. The audience is plopped down in the middle of the action with no clue as to what is happening. A young woman (Samantha Jane Polay) awakens from a dream to hear a gunshot and is subsequently abducted from her home. When she awakes, she is surrounded by a group of mercenary thugs that look like they would be at home in a comic book. These nasty guys and girls are larger than life. They are all guns and knives. There is no way out.

The kicker here is that, despite being a low budget film it doesn't play like one. From the very beginning, the feeling is that B R O K E N has been shot, edited, and produced by professionals. It looks like something Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off when he was jamming with the Wachowski brothers. The film is sharp and cool, it looks good and it feels like something big.

The acting is much better than I usually see in these smaller films. Polay and Paul Gordon (who plays the head killer, Duncan) were well chosen. As two of the few speaking roles in the film, it is up to them to carry the film. No special effects, no matter how good, would have saved this film from bad acting. Thankfully, Polay manages to convey true fear and Gordon manages to come off as a real psycho. Some of the more limited roles seem to be filled by lesser talent, but it hardly shows.

The downside to B R O K E N is that it's only 20 minutes long. The story ends with a Twilight Zone twist that seems a bit contrived and is hardly subtle. Watching it, I felt like I was supposed to have some epiphany, but there was only a feeling that it was much more mundane than I had hoped it would be. The film tries hard to be one of those puzzles that leaves audiences talking for hours at the local coffee shop, but it comes off as unsatisfying. I keep thinking that this is the first 20 minutes of a longer film.

MY RATING: 8 out of 10. An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.

Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.

Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.

Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.

Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.

Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.

The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.

It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.

The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.

Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get. As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.

With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.

The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilises the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.

As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.

Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package. The version I saw of this film was the Blockbuster rental with a similar title, but a swear word in it.

This film was funny as hell. It was also true to the bone. If you have ever spent time in Hollywood or the area around it, you will understand the humor. If not, you may not 'get it' at all.

The story of two people in the business struggling to make it until they finally reach a breaking point, it is a rare gem. It states it is a drama, but it is a drama as much as Deer Hunter is a comedy.

Loren Dean is wonderful, as always, as a supporting actor. Jamie Kennedy was able to hold his own well. His performance is especically impressive during the poodle scene. The only downside was Carmen Electra but we can't have everything. Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick. This movie is just so good! Despite Carmen Electra, this has to be one of the better films I have seen in awhile. Jamie Kennedy is just amazing, and Loren Dean plays an insane spoiled movie star very well. The plot is great as well. It's all very real which is scary. It says here that it's a drama, but this is one of the damn funniest dramas I have ever seen. Go check it out. This episode from the first season slightly edges towards controversy with the whole gender bending angle.I imagine there would have been a significant amount of editing before this was finished to appease censors.

The story itself is original and well written and the directing is complemented by the fine acting.(Nicholas Lea makes his X-Files debut though not as Agent Krycek but as a victim called Michael) I especially enjoyed the built up to and the ending itself.

Its different but enjoyable.Ignore any bad reviews you may hear.Watch it for yourself and make judgement then Gender Bender the Limerick:

A man or a woman? Who knows?

It turns out that 'it' is both.

Sleeping in clay

Then they all went away

In one of their UFOs.

Gender Bender is another great Season 1 episode. I enjoy this one because the story is the kind where you are never really sure what's gonna happen next. It is entirely original. The teaser is very fun with the close up of the eye and the reflection of the disco lights. I really need to learn my that thumb trick the genderbender heshe does. I really like the atmosphere at the Kindred's little village and Mulder and Scully sneaking around in the middle of the night. Its very exciting. This is one of my favorite Season 1 episodes in fact. I think the thing I like about it so much is how they turn out to be aliens in the end and left crop circles. Many people see this as a non-mythology related alien episode kind of like "The Unnatural" or "Space" but I think this could easily be seen as mythology related. Maybe the genderbender was just like the alien bounty hunter and could appear to look like anyone. Huh? Anyway I give the episode a 9 out of 10. Okay, that was a pretty damn good episode. Much better than the credit it receives.

The camera work is splendid. Best yet. I love that final shot. The atmosphere is fantastic, the costumes are great and the guest cast (minus the helpless victims) is strong.

What I don't like about this episode is that many things that are left unexplained. why does it change sex? what's the purpose? and they're aliens? what kind? why were they never shown again in the later mythology?

I'm giving this episode a high THREE stars. One of my favorites yet, but the plot holes bother me. Still... not gonna let it ruin my entertainment. Gender Bender sexes things up a bit for the x-files. This episode has an interesting premise, a good story, but an ending that is wanting. Gender Bender is also the x-files debut for actor Nicholas Lea, better known as Alex Krycek. In this episode he plays Michael, a man attacked by one of "The Kindred". You need to see this episode just to see Nic Lea's less than spectacular beginning. An interesting thing about the Kindred's "power of seduction". When Marty does it to his victims, they become turned onto him/her. However, when Andrew seduces Scully, she only because disoriented and groggy, and does not become attracted to Andrew. Maybe it's because Marty has more experience at it than Andrew. This episode reminds me of why it would sometimes be miserable to film up in British Columbia. Throughout the episode it is so wet, soggy, and muddy, it could not have been that much fun. Despite the disappointing ending, Gender Bender is still a decent episode to view. First of all, this movie is 34 minutes long, which means you could watch it three times in a row and still have spent less time than you would have watching most other movies. Second of all--you need to do this. This sensational short film explores the potential of animation through a world of playful or horrifying but always powerful images. Cats riding in and drinking out of a water elephant, a circus featuring a bird that has consumed the sky, and pigs eating their own fried flesh--that's only the beginning. The scenes and images, extraordinary on their own, flow together without obvious causal links in a way that demands re-watching. Furthermore, the DVD includes an amazing director's commentary, which, given the extremely spare dialog, only enhances the viewing. The commentary gives a few interpretations of scenes, but also provides priceless quotes on the crafting of Cat Soup, along the lines of: "well, the artists were asking what we should do in this scene, but I didn't know myself, so its hard to say why it turned out as it did" (that's a bad paraphrase by the way). Also, the sound throughout the film is very high quality, very precise, and very moody. In all, the absolute minimum viewing experience should go as follows:

First viewing: Watch the DVD without the commentary. Second viewing: Watch the DVD WITH the commentary. Third viewing: Rewatch without the commentary.

Once you've watched it three times, however, you're not going to stop there... When I saw this movie a few days ago, my eyes were completely fixed to the screen. Its greatness held my attention to such an extent that I focused all of my attention on it for its entire duration. I would recommend seeing it not just to fans of anime, but to anyone who likes great movies period (or who likes really weird stuff). The style of art is beautiful, the sound is perfect, and the symbolism within it is breathtaking. I've heard complaints about the weird insertion of English text in the movie, but I think the way its done is complementary to the strange style of the movie. The self-attributed description of "Hello Kitty on acid" doesn't do justice to this film of absolutely epic proportions. I'd like to find more works by whoever made this, and see them. CAT SOUP is a short anime based on the legendary manga Nekojiru. It won the award "Best Short Film" at The 6th Fantasia Film Festival and also won the "Excellence Prize" at Japan's Media Arts Festival.

When little kitten Nyaako's soul is stolen by Death, she and her brother Nyatta embark on a bizarre journey to get it back. In the surreal dreamscape of the Other Side, they encounter many fantastic characters and remarkable, often disturbing adventures.

CAT SOUP is an anime like nothing you've ever seen. It's Hello Kitty on acid! It is very original, stunningly beautiful and possess a great sense of strangeness and lyricism. CAT SOUP is very surrealistic (there are no dialogue) and sometimes cruel and gory. So it is more an anime for adults than children (they may not understand at all!). A great journey for those who get the chance to see this absolute masterpiece. An must-see! The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the "knowledgeable" personnel (insider) of the film. "Cry Freedom" is not just a movie. It is a historical account, heroic story, and insight into the cultural background of a major event in history. Not only does Denzel Washington do a terrific job of impersonating a motivating, determined hero, Steve Biko, but he delivers a message to the public about the horrors of South Arfrican Apartheid. The story of Biko, an influential leader, and his main "influencee", Donald Woods, is a heartbreaking one. But, the ultimate success of his life can go beyond the atrocities committed in South Africa. "Cry Freedom" manages to communicate to its audience the optimistic aspect of the seemingly disturbing plot. It is because of great films like this one, that the public can become educated on terrible events in history, great leaders who sought to end them, and how we can never allow them to happen in the future. Because of this importance, "Cry Freedom" is an amazing film that should be seen by all. I first watched this movie on its release in 1987 and was greatly affected emotionally, through a combination of guilt at what my fellow white human beings could do to innocent people and the reluctance of the outside world to really investigate these atrocities against man.

Particularly moving was the Funeral of Steve Biko, made even more vivid and hard-hitting by the South African Anthem played at the time. I have long believed that this movie achieved what nobody else had managed - to open the eyes of the world to what was really happening in South Africa. I consider myself to be a normal right thinking person and I can attest to how this film changed my whole way of thinking about not just South Africa, but how we as white people perceive black people. I have never seen any difference between people of any colour or creed, but after viewing this film I physically changed my life and have spent the last 17 years living in a predominantly black country and helping many people rise above their present standard of living and achieve that which they would not have thought possible. The greatest reward I can honestly say I have received - to be able to say that in my own small way I have contributed and redressed the balance a little. But if more people thought like me and actually DID something to help black people without seeking reward then the entire black population of this planet would be a little better off.

I challenge any right thinking person to watch Cry Freedom from beginning to end and not feel that emotion tugging at your heartstrings as you witness the 700 schoolchildren brutally shot dead in Sharpville for refusing to learn Afrikaans, the senseless murder of Steve Biko, such a champion for his own people's rights, and then, ultimately, to understand that all this is not merely a film, albeit a magnificent one, but that it all actually happened and less than 30 years ago.

Yes, my friends, watch this movie and then see if you can go out afterwards and party hard. I couldn't. I was too upset at knowing the truth. That is the hallmark of a great film. It was obviously the intention of Sir Richard Attenborough to get this message over about South Africa. Of course he has achieved it. Unless you happen to support apartheid. God help you. I keep watching this movie over and over and over. I have to watch it at least once a week. I am from Africa and looking at that movie taught me some things that I didn't even know about Africa. Denzel's movies are all full of lessons for people of walks of life. I wish he was my own brother. I have also seen and love your Masala Mississipi. What a thrilling situation. When Denzel was trying to hook his brother up on the job, reminds me of my teen ages when my brother was always mad with me about getting myself busy all the time. My brother was always caring for my old father and he wants to see me the same way too. By the way where did Denzel get that African accent from in the Cry Freedom movie? I have first seen that movie in Africa and I didn't know then that Denzel was American till I moved down here. i have just finished watching this film in my GCSE history class. it was thrilling and was a brilliant insight to what actually happened to Steve Biko during the time of the Apartheid law. How anybody can say that this film was the most boring or dull 2 and a half hours of their lives i don't know because it had me hooked from start to finish. it was great how Denzel Washington portrayed him and showed how he was fighting against the Apartheid law and to get equal rights for black people. In one part Steve Biko says to a policeman we are just as weak and human as you are, this is to show them that he and all of the other black people in south Africa were no different to the whites. Donald Woods inspired me because he fort for what he believed in and did not believe totally in apartheid. He and Steve Biko formed a very strong friendship that shook south Africa and went on to awaken the world. i very much enjoyed this film and strongly recommend this to people. it helped me see that racism is not right and that everybody is equal, their fate should not be determined by the colour of somebody's skin. n I was electrified when I first saw this in 1983 or 1984. Steven Biko is gone half way through the film but the resonance of his courage and wisdom is not forgotten. I didn't when finally in South Africa in 1993. It is also largely a story about friendship and loyalty. When I was in South Africa and heard the audience at a dance recital in Natal sing Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika, my hair stood on its ends. There is a lot to learn from this story for all peoples. This movie is using cinematography fantastically, the depth of the camera catches each character. Denzel Washington and Kevin Kline put on awesome performances though Washingtons accent does die in certain scenes. How is this movie laying forgotten? unable to rent nor hire in recent times it threatens to be lost forever. a worrying idea. Attenborough at his best since Ghandi, this master piece stands for what it should in movies such as these, no worrying about gaining audiences rather a cry for freedom in the SOuth African Apartheid.Though critised for the biased nature, the movie is faithful to the book by Donald Woods and faithful to the message intended to express to the world. ta and peace I first saw this film when i was about 13. It blew me away then and in many respects it still does now. But i am less inclined to see it as an accurate historical piece now. There is precious little effort made to examine and interact with the racism - and thus fails to recognise that the most potent anti racism weapon is to understand it at its very core in those who commit it. What we get instead is a dichotomy - on the one side, beko and woods in 3D panoramic rainbow vision - on the other, two dimensional characters are portrayed as unapologetic unthinking evil.

This all makes for a great film story, but it worries me that people see the portrayal as 'accurate'. Very slow-paced, but intricately structured and ultimately very touching. A nice, very true-to-life look at a small Florida beach town in the dead of winter -- I've been there, and this is absolutely accurate.

It's also the debut feature of actress Ashley Judd, and she makes a big impression here. It's hard to believe this film is 12 years old -- I remember seeing it in theaters, and I recently rented "Ruby" again. Except for the 80's looking clothes, it has held up very nicely. Ashely is so radiant and touching here, that it's hard to think of her subsequent career without wincing. Boy, talk about failing to fulfill your early promise! Anyone seeing Ashley here in "Ruby In Paradise" would assume this elegant, natural beauty went on to all kinds of interesting art films and serious acting -- instead she has become the "go to" girl for dumb action films and slasher movies! Very disappointing, but at least we have this lovely performance preserved to showcase her early promise.

As some other commenter's say, this is not for everyone as it's very slow paced. This is not an action film, nor is it really a romance. The director (Victor Nunez, "Ulees Gold", another excellent character study) treats this ordinary young woman's life with deep respect, allowing her story to build slowly and with a lot of detail. In that way, I think this is one of the most moving and respectful coming-of-age stories about young women that I can recall -- it's not about Ruby's sexual awakening or "how she lost her virginity", but about her life choices and her growing maturity.

A lovely film, if you take the time to watch it...I think it would be a really excellent film to show teens and young girls (or boys for that matter) and give them a chance to think about and discuss it.

Particular kudos to director Nunez, who also wrote the script, which is so realistic and nicely detailed that I assumed all through the movie that it was based on a female-written novel or memoir, but in fact it's Mr. Nunez's original work. Rated 8 out of 10. I cannot begin to describe how amazing this movie is. Suffice it to say, anytime I'm depressed about how unfair or futile things seem, this is the movie I go rent to put me in the right frame of mind. The background music makes you realize the easiness of existence and how simplicity provides for the greatest happiness. The Indian girl that sings is but one example of a character in this film who does not try hard, and is happy as a result. Persifina, the laundry co-worker of Ruby's (Ashley Judd) is another=-her eyes and smile could make the hardest person's day. I watch this movie and I dream of better days to come or of a good conversation with friends, and I realize that being alone--Ruby is alone quite often--isn't the same as being lonely. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a thoughtful lull of a movie. "Ruby in Paradise" is a beautiful, coming-of-age story about a young woman, Ruby Lee Gissing, escaping her stifling roots to become herself. Although the title character is played artfully by the gorgeous Ashley Judd -- in likely her first movie role, albeit one to be quite proud of -- the emphasis is not upon becoming "somebody," a la the next Madonna (whether Jesus' mother or the lurid, attention-hungry singer).

It instead emphasizes following ones' instincts and being somewhat introspective about them, to grow into one's ideal, adult self. NOTE: This isn't an action movie!!! It uses an occasional voice-over narration (by Ms. Judd) while writing in her journal -- and oh, I see I've just lost the male half of the readers out there. But be patient with this beautiful movie, where we learn that one's bliss can be discovered in -- oh, I dunno, carrying water and chopping wood.

Actor/director/writer Todd Field, who played Nick Nightingale in "Eyes Wide Shut," co-stars as Ruby Lee's noble love interest, one who helps her heal her idea of relationships implanted from youth.

But not even his character is the answer for Ruby Lee: There's no external hero imposed upon her. The ultimate message is that we are responsible for ourselves. Writer/director Victor Nunez, who also wrote/directed "Ulee's Gold," did an amazing job showing a young woman growing into herself -- confronting age-old challenges of good v. evil along the way.

The supporting cast is also stellar, and the music used, particularly the cuts by chanteuse Sam Phillips (whom I hear is the wife of T. Bone Burnett), is right on -- most especially "Trying to Hold on to the Earth." Now, when I hear the first few chords of that song, tears spring to my eyes, Pavlovian and unbidden -- not sure if it's the music, or the indelible connection to the movie's quiet, charming message of empowerment.

This movie is highly recommended for any young person trying to find his/her way. For any woman of any age, it is a must see! The downside: It is NOT on DVD, except in Spanish. (We learned, however, that it is legal to make one copy of a VHS version, which can be readily found online. My beloved husband found someone with a VHS copy and got a DVD copy made for me.) Although this treasure of a movie occasionally pops up on-air – on an indie channel, usually – you can't count on that when you might need it most as a tonic to soothe the pressures of the world. So buy a copy for yourself.

This movie should have a major re-release, and it would, if I were Queen of Hollywood.

-- Figgy Jones This was the first movie I ever saw Ashley Judd in and the first film of Victor Nunez' that I ever say, and boy am I glad I did. Its' quiet tone, its' relaxed pace, its' realistic depiction of a young woman just starting out in life, its' fine depiction of the struggles she has to go through to make her mark in life, the decisions she makes based on real things, the people she meets - there is nothing wrong with this movie. It is as close to movie magic as I have ever seen outside of the " Star Wars " movies, and, given what those films are like, that means this film deserves a high rating indeed. Ashley Judds' acting, Mr. Nunez'writing, and its' great simple worthwhile story make this a fine coming-of-age story and a wonderful movie. This will be a different kind of review. I've seen this movie twice on TV and would like to have a copy because it talks about Panama City and the beach in the winter time which is my favorite time to be there. It was the first movie I'd seen by Ashley Judd and she was great and I've enjoyed every other thing I've seen her in. Sundance's reaction made an impression on me too, as did the director, Victor Nunez, who has directed and written several movies about Florida. This movie speaks to me and I've seen nothing with which to compare it. The plot speaks less to me than the surroundings. Well, I told you it would be a different kind of review. Victor Nunez imbues this unsentimental tale of a young woman's emotional journey with a sense of poetry seldom seen in cinema. By poetry I mean the sense in which the literary and the cinematic come into play. There is something very literary about the film, almost as if a novel has been adapted page by page to screen. In this sense, the film achieves depths many cannot; but it is also rather slow at other times, undercutting the depths it once achieved in favor of ennui. The film's star Ashley Judd has not yet made a better film than her debut here. She fits the role of lead Ruby like a glove, almost as if she didn't have to act. She has true movie star presence in the film, and hasn't really managed to convey the same allure in her later films, although she was impressive in Normal Life. My brother brought this movie home from the rental store and I remember expecting it to be such a bore. I think the title especially put me off. I can't ever remember starting a movie with such low expectations and being so completely won over. I watched the movie twice before I let my brother take it back to the store. It is very infrequent that a movie speaks to me the way this one did. I was completely caught up in Ruby's situation as she tries to make her way through her life. The bad thing about this movie is that it seems to end so quickly. I could have kept watching for hours. Another downside is that I have been unsatisfied with everything Ashley Judd has done since. She is so perfect in this movie. This film is easily in my top ten favorites of all time. In the sea of crap that Hollywood (and others) continue to put out, this is one of those diamonds in the rough. A small, simple movie that is very entertaining and leaves you with the feeling that you didn't just waste an hour and a half of your life.

Ashley Judd is really quite amazing in this movie. I had never really been a fan or had noticed her before but going back and seeing this early performance of hers convinced me she's extremely talented.

Watching this film was an assignment in a college course for me so I was skeptical I would even care. I thought, "Oh boy, some dumb chic flick or feminist male-bashing indie crap..." I was pleasantly surprised. Without analyzing the many relevant themes, I'll just say, if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and check it out. Sometimes the down-to-earth, slice-of-life movies are the best, and this is a great one. Another one of those films you hear about from friends (...or read about on IMDb). Not many false notes in this one. I could see just about everything here actually happening to a young girl fleeing from a dead-end home town in Tennessee to Florida, with all her worldly possessions in an old beaten-up car.

The heroine, Ruby, makes some false starts, but learns from them. I found myself wondering why, why didn't she lean a bit more on Mike's shoulder, but...she has her reasons, as it turns out.

Just a fine film. The only thing I don't much like about it, I think, is the title. This is an intimate movie of a sincere girl in the real world out of Hollywood's cheap fantasy is a very good piece of its class, and Ashley Judd fills the role impeccably. It may appear slow for thrill seekers though. Cool movie for a calm night.

Allison Dean's performance is what stands out in my mind watching this film. She balances out the melancholy tone of the film with an iridescent energy. I would like to see more of her. I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby

in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies

also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.

This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the "red-neck riviera" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of "Ulee's Gold" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez. This movie was directed by Victor Nunez who also wrote the screenplay (Ulee's Gold). Nice and straightforward writing, that was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award, looking at Ruby's day to day life. What we see is a slice in the life of the young woman Ruby. Ashley Judd (Sisters) won the Independent Spirit Award Best Female Lead for this role. Ruby is starting to live on her own and establishing her own identity. She explores jobs, friendships, boy friends, sex, a typical young adult search. The movie won Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. As an independent film enthusiast I picked the movie because of Sundance. I appreciate this type of movie, because it does not carry the Hollywood baggage.

Although the stories are completely different this reminded me of Nobody's Fool, staring Paul Newman. The later movie is a slice of the daily life of a common man. I like that. The story is very nicely told, and all we had to do was sit and enjoy the story. The only thing I am not sure about is the title. I am sure that there are not that many bugs, and flies in paradise as there are in Florida. As I am allergic to mosquitos, Florida is no paradise to me, I itch all over thinking about Florida. I turn into a complete red boil. I recommend this movie! Favorite scenes: Ruby and her friend Rochelle Bridges, played by Allison Dean walking at the beach of Panama City, Florida. Indeed the sand is very white. I have been there. Favorite Quotes: "Necessity has always been a good excuse." "All that fuss over finding a man is not at all different now, who is going to be and when and why."

I've just watch 2 films of Pang brothers, The Eye and One take only. When I watched The Eye, I was kind of disappointed about this two guys, who I had heard good words about them before. That film (The Eye) has a really bad script, especially the ending (childish,cliche and too coincident in my opinion) , but its still good in photography and experimental images. So I decided to see One take only and I didn't disappointed again. Still great photography, stunning image, MTV-style editing, cool music and this time,the story has a lot of indie spirit,logical and beautiful, you'll see some tiny plot holes, but it doesn't cause any trouble with the storyline. The only problem about this film is I get a bad DVD. It was fabulous! The photography, editing, cinematography, music combined to transport us to the dangerous side of a tourist destination. It was the enjoyment of "slumming," without going through the danger. We were there! The dream sequences and flashback-sequence-ending were fresh. It spoke to me. Keep up the good work! Another of that genre is City of God. Also - don't laugh! - the comedy, Desperately Seeking Susan. Nice ensemble types, with great performances by all. Sorry, I think Training Day fits that genre as well, with fantastic performances by an ensemble cast. I had to switch the channel on some of the gritty sequences, but all-in-all, a great film! A young girl surviving as a prostitute.

A cheap hustler who wants to get the big score.

They meet each other in Thailand. You may think by the opening titles it's going to be a violent movie but it is also a story of love with two persons in their own struggle to get the money for a better way of life. This film feels like an essay sometimes because of its changes of images, but still refreshing. This story is also about Eros and Thanatos. "It's not an original joke but it is well told" says a character and that also applies to this one: We've seen the story but this way we see it. Thailand appears in hot tones, the photograph going from one colored to a multicolored place. And it captures the city as the cage of this imperfect persons. There is also a good use of the music to dot the actions. the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.

It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense... At the Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 1957, Dorothy Malone won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her torrid, over-the-top portrayal of a spoiled heiress of a Texas oil tycoon in WRITTEN ON THE WIND. The 1956 potboiler, adapted from Robert Wilder's novel , was a veritable three-ring-circus showcasing alcoholism, greed, impotence and nymphomania.

Malone's performance as Marylee Hadley , a lonely rich girl who picks up men to assuage the pain of rejection from a former childhood sweetheart, was representative of the movie as a whole. Mesmerizing to watch even as it resorts to the "lowest -common- denominator" melodrama, WRITTEN ON THE WIND is ultimately the work of one man, the incredibly gifted director Douglas Sirk, an émigré from pre -World War 2 Weimar Germany who left his European theater heritage behind to pursue a career in Hollywood.

An extremely erudite man, Sirk made a name for himself in the 1950's as Universal Studios' reliable director of lavish soap operas, most notably with Ross Hunter's productions of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION , ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS and IMITATION OF LIFE . Independent producer Albert Zugsmith offered Sirk the opportunity to work outside the limiting constraints of Universal's demure entertainments and create a more adult , "sensational" product , hence the sultry WIND and its follow-up, 1957's TARNISHED ANGELS, both released under the Universal International banner. It's anyone's guess why Sirk didn't pursue loftier themes, but apparently directing these exaggerated dramas appealed more to his artistic sensibilities. WRITTEN ON THE WIND could be considered Sirk's epic soap opera ; indeed, it is so rife with human vulnerability and neurosis as depicted among the very rich that it is as compelling to watch as any real life domestic squabble among the rich and famous, perhaps more so. Robert Stack (not an actor typically known for over -emoting) nearly matches Malone in intensity with his offering of the weak- willed brother Kyle Hadley, a mere shadow of his patriarchal father. When he finds out that he is unable to impregnate his new bride ( a beautifully leonine Lauren Bacall ) , Hadley goes off the deep end, escalating an already serious drinking problem with a "secret " gun fetish that threatens to make him a human time bomb. Both brother and sister, as venal and unlikeable as they are, are presented as victims of their past, giving them a human quality that makes them seem less monstrous ( and far more interesting than the 'good" side of the family, mainly Bacall and the impossibly handsome Rock Hudson , young Hadley's old boyhood friend and business associate, a surrogate son to the old man and Malone' s unattainable object of desire. ) Despite all the domestic co-dependency on display , it's not so much the story that is memorable here as the way it is filmed. With a real panache for pictorial composition and editing, director Sirk draws his audience into this picture with the most heightened Technicolor cinematography imaginable : every single shot in this film is an eye-filling canvas of saturated colors, from the sight of a tank-like pink Cadillac pulling up to an enormous mansion's front doors to the garish decor of a luxury Miami hotel , a spectrum of hues almost blinding in their diversity. Action and dramatic scenes feature Sirk's adept use of tilted camera angles , shadowy lighting and cross-cut editing , shown to greatest effect in the scene where a rebellious , drunken Malone dances uninhibitedly in her upstairs bedroom to the loud blaring of a record player while her stricken father precariously ascends the huge staircase ; the scene is so riveting that you swear you are experiencing a great oedipal drama unfold. What you're really watching is trash of an enormously entertaining kind, gussied up in lurid Technicolor and polished to perfection by a visual genius. Robert Stack never really got over losing a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Kyle in "Written on the Wind" to Anthony Quinn's 12-minute performance in "Lust for Life." Stack plays the deeply disturbed, alcoholic son of an oil tycoon. He has lived his life in the shadow of the friend with whom he was raised, Mitch, played by Rock Hudson. They both love the same woman, Lucy, (Lauren Bacall), who becomes Kyle's wife. Kyle's sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone), is a drunken slut who's in love with Mitch. Their story plays out in glorious color under the able direction of Douglas Sirk, who really dominated the melodrama field with some incredible films, including "Imitation of Life," "All that Heaven Allows," "Magnificent Obsession," and many others.

Make no mistake - this is a potboiler, and Stack and Dorothy Malone make the most of their roles, Malone winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. There's one amazing scene, mentioned in other comments, where she wildly dances to loud music as her father collapses and dies on the staircase. We're led to believe that Marylee sleeps with everyone, including the guy that pumps the gas, because she's in love with Mitch. Mitch wants nothing to do with her. He's so in love with Lucy that, out of loyalty to Kyle, he wants to go to work in Iran to avoid temptation. I doubt he'd be so anxious to get there today no matter how much in love he was.

Hudson and Bacall have the less exciting roles here - Hudson's Mitch is the good guy who's been cleaning up Kyle's messes for his entire life, and Bacall is Mitch's wife who finds herself in a nightmare when her husband starts drinking again after a year of sobriety. Sirk focuses on the more volatile supporting players.

In Sirk's hands, "Written on the Wind" is an effective film, and the big scene toward the end in the mansion is particularly exciting. The director had a gift for this type of movie, and though he had many imitators, he never had an equal. It is ironic that during the '50s, when Douglas Sirk was at his most successful in terms of audience appeal, he was virtually ignored by the critics… He is now seen, however, as a director of formidable intellect who achieved his best work in melodrama…

"Written on the Wind" is about the downfall of a Texan oil dynasty surrounded by worthless reputation, alcoholism, and nymphomania… It is about the twisted, fatal connections between sex, power, and money...

Stack draws a compelling portrait of a tormented drunken destroyed by frustration, arrogance, jealousy, insanity, and some deep insecurities…

Dorothy Malone succeeds as an attractive woman with an excessive sexual appetites, degrading herself for Hudson and to other fellows in town… Her best line: "I'm filthy." In one frantic scene, we see her shaking, quivering and sweating to a provocative mambo… In another weeping alone over a model oil-derrick at her father's desk—symbol of excessive wealth and masculine tyranny…

The frenetic atmosphere is both made palatable and intensified by Sirk's magnificent use of colors, lights, and careful use of mirrors… Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.

Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.

Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.

Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.

`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.

Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.

The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.

Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.

In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.

It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.

Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end. Rich, alcoholic Robert Stack falls in love with secretary Lauren Bacall. He marries her and is so happy he stops drinking. However, Bacall is secretly loved by Stacks' best friend, Rock Hudson. And Stacks' nymphomaniac sister, Dorothy Malone, lusts after Rock. Throw in a few complications and the movie goes spinning out of control (in a good way).

Very glossy movie in beautiful Technicolor with jaw-dropping fashions and furnishings (check out Bacall's hotel room at the beginning). Everybody looks perfect and dresses in beautiful, form-fitting clothes. Basically this is a soap opera with grade A production values. The story itself is lots of fun and some of the dialogue at the beginning is hilariously over the top. The acting by Hudson, Stack and Bacall isn't that good, but seeing them so young and glamorous is great...especially Stack...when he smiled my knees went weak! Dorothy Malone, on the other hand, is fantastic--she deservedly won Best Supporting Actress for her role. She's sexy, violent, vicious and sympathetic...all convincingly.

Fun, glossy trash. Don't miss it! Does any one know what the 2 sports cars were? I think Robert Stack's might have been a Masseratti.Rock Hudson's character told his father he was taking a job in Iraq ,isn't that timely? I have had Dorthy Malone in my spank bank most of my life ,maybe this was the film that impressed me.Loren Bacall sure did have some chops in this film and probably out-acted Malone but Malones's part made a more sensational impact so she got the Oscar for best supporting role.Was Loren's part considered a leading role?Old man Hadley character was was probably a pretty common picture of tycoons of his era in that he was a regular guy who made it big in an emerging industry but in building a whole town he had forgotten his children to have his wife bring them up.In time,being widowed he realized that they were all he really had and they were spoiled rotten,looking for attention,so rather than try to relate to his children he blew his head off.An ancient morality tale.But seriously,what were those sports cars? Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet still qualifies as good clean, sometimes over-the-top fun. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their peak as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them. Malone won an Oscar and Stack was nominated in the supporting categories, both honors being eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat bland leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called bad actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, but that's more of a personal bias than anything else. But that doesn't take away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerable and this movie is extremely watchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say watch it. It's well worth it. "Written on the Wind" was an enormously successful Universal picture. It could only be done by Douglas Sirk, a man who saw the possibilities in the material he was given. Based on a popular novel by Robert Wilder and an adaptation by George Zuckerman, it had all the elements that make an excellent melodrama: nymphomania, a large oil fortune, alcoholism, incest and a mild touch of homosexuality. Mr. Sirk laid the path for what would follow later on in the soap operas genre, mainly, "Dallas" and "Dynasty", just to mention two.

The fact is this movie was shot entirely inside a studio. Most of the decor is phony. Like a lot of those 1950s pictures, "Written on the Wind" was shot entirely in a studio lot. Just look at the scenes that are supposed to take place in Manhattan, or Miami, or even the lake are, one can see how the scenery is a painted backdrop. Mr. Sirk couldn't care less about realism as long as he could tell the story his own way.

We recently caught a screening, part of a revival of Mr. Sirk's work, where people were laughing at some of the most dramatic moments, especially during the scenes where Rock Hudson, who plays the good Mitch Wayne, appears. There is also something graphic in the way that both Robert Keith, who plays the patriarch Jasper Hadley, and later on his own daughter, the evil Marylee, caress the oil derrick that adorns the elder man's desk, a sort of phallic object d'art.

Douglas Sirk probably wanted his cast to give over the top performances, which makes sense in the way Dorothy Malone portrays the nymphomaniac Marylee, and to a certain degree, Robert Stack, who overacts as Kyle, the tormented heir of the story. That would probably be the easy explanation of what comes across the screen. The only one that seems normal is Lauren Bacall, who wasn't asked to make her Lucy Moore character appear to be anything but a grounded person caught hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Together with his other Hollywood movies, "Written on the Wind" shows the genius of a talented director who gave the public just what they wanted to see: stories bigger than life that could only be seen on the big screen Fabulous film! Rented the DVD recently and was floored by this stunning piece of work. Douglas Sirk was a filmmaking genius and he gets performances out of Rock Hudson, Dorothy Malone (Oscar winner), Robert Stack (Oscar nominated), and Lauren Bacall that words cannot describe. Paul Verhoeven brilliantly payed homage to this film by having Dorothy Malone play Sharon Stone's murdering inspirational guru in his Basic Instinct. What a great joke!

By turns the film is hilarious, riveting, campy, biting, trashy, compelling, and eye rolling! It's definately the grandaddy of every tawdry big-and-little screen soap opera but none have had the dazzling style like you'll see here: the camera work is smooth and polished, the use of color is breathtaking, the opening montage set to the title song is beyond memorable, the one dimensional characters are unforgettable, and the final image will have you scratching your head as to how the censors back then let it make the final cut!

While most older, highly regarded films can sometimes be a boring chore to sit through, Written on the Wind contains so much and goes by so fast that it's actually a shame when it ends. Thank you to Mr. Sirk for crafting -and Todd Haynes for drawing attention to- what has now become one of my favorite films of all time! SEE THIS MOVIE!!! On 24 October 1955, the hard-work geologist of the Hadley Oil Company Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) meets the executive secretary Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall) in the office of her boss Bill Ryan in New York and invites her to go to a conference with the alcoholic playboy and son of a tycoon Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). On the way of the meeting, he confesses that they had traveled from Houston to New York to satisfy the wish of the reckless Kyle, who is his best friend since their childhood, of eating a sandwich from club 21 and the meeting was just a pretext to Kyle's father Jasper Hadley (Robert Keith). Mitch and Kyle immediately fall in love for Lucy, and Kyle unsuccessfully uses his money to impress Lucy; then he opens his heart and proposes Lucy. They get married and travel to Acapulco and the insecure Kyle stops drinking. Meanwhile, Kyle's sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone) is an easy woman and has a non- corresponded crush on Mitch that sees her as a sister. One year later, Kyle discovers that he has a problem and might be sterile and starts drinking again. The jealous Marylee poisons Kyle telling that his wife and Mitch are having a love affair. When Lucy finds that she is pregnant, Kyle believes that the baby belongs to Mitch and his mistrust leads to a tragedy.

"Written on the Wind" is an overrated melodramatic soap opera, with artificial characters and situations. There are at least two great movies with characters with drinking problem: "The Lost Weekend" (1945) with stunning performance of Ray Milland and "Days of Wine and Roses" (1962) with awesome performance of Jack Lemmon. Robert Stack has a reasonable performance and his character's motives for drinking are shallow and clichés. In the end, the forgettable "Written on the Wind" is entertaining only and never a feature to be nominated to the Oscar. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Palavras ao Vento" ("Words in the Wind") The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.

The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better. "Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .

The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are:

A rigid patriarch

his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father)

his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)

Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle

Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch.

Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .

What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera". Lauren Bacall was living through husband Humprey Bogarts illness & death when she did this film. Rock Hudson was near the top of his 1950's stardom. Dorothy Malone is in excellent form, and wins an Oscar for support. Robert Stack is nominated & falls just short for his role.

The story is a little soapy from another time but just as worthwhile as most dramas. Amazing how well drunks can drive in this film & also how quickly Stack sobers up in a couple of the films early sequences.

You can see why the cast is so good & actually production wise this film is very good. You can tell Bacall is distracted during this film as while her acting is fine, she looks emotionally drained in some sequences.

The sexual references in this film are so mild, that many of today's young viewers would not realize what they are. Film does a good job telling a story & actually leaves a sequel to be made at the end though none ever was made- though Written Beyond THe Wind would be a good title. This gloriously turgid melodrama represents Douglas Sirk at his most high strung. It eschews the soft wistfulness of "All That Heaven Allows" and the weepy sentimentality of "Imitation of Life" and instead goes for feverish angst and overheated tension. And of course, it's all captured in vibrant Technicolor.

The cornball story has something to do with a friendship between Rock Hudson and Robert Stack that becomes a rivalry when Hudson snags the affections of Lauren Bacall, but who's really paying attention to the story? Dorothy Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her splendidly over-the-top performance as Stack's sister, who takes the family business into her own hands when no one else will. A highlight of the film comes when this high-spirited wild child breaks into a frantic dance in her bedroom, unable to bear the restraints placed upon her by middle-class propriety. As so frequently happens in Sirk movies, the scene is both unintentionally hilarious in its absurdity and yet strangely moving in its effectiveness.

Sirk came closer than anyone else to turning pure camp into high art, satisfying the philistines and the high brows at the same time within the same films. His was a unique talent and I don't know that there's ever been another film maker quite like him since.

Grade: A- Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character.

Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.

The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!

However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as "Mildred Pierce" or "Imitation of Life"). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter. After playing a nymphomaniac in WRITTEN ON THE WIND, Dorothy Malone finally said good-bye to her sweet sister/wife roles and demonstrated an ability to play mantraps with the best of them. She and Gloria Grahame played the same sort of tramps--and for her efforts here in a very manipulative role, Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

The film she's in is not quite up to Oscar standards, but it is a strong enough melodrama under Douglas Sirk's capable hands. There's an almost noirish look to the explosive opening scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the sudsy fireworks in a story that has ROCK HUDSON, LAUREN BACALL, ROBERT STACK and DOROTHY MALONE as its headliners.

Domestic squabbles among the inhabitants of a wealthy family with an oil background are the primary focus of the drama, with the accent on the strong supporting players, Stack and Malone. Both of them seize the opportunity with both hands and Stack, too, should have been awarded for his sterling job as the weak, alcoholic brother driven to desperation by his own wild motives.

The nominal stars have less impressive work to do, but do it with their usual skill and conviction--Hudson and Bacall. They play their more sympathetic roles with quiet authority and understanding.

The use of color is particularly striking (as it usually is in a Sirk film) and yet it doesn't preclude me from thinking of the film as a Technicolor film noir in the vein of LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN.

Well worth watching with some interesting performances from the entire cast. Douglas Sirk directs this over-acted drama about the unhappy affluent. Kyle Hadley(Robert Stack)and Mitch Wayne(Rock Hudson) are boyhood friends with different looks on life. Kyle is the womanizing son of an oil tycoon; Mitch works for the Hadley Oil Company. Both fall in love with the same woman, Lucy Moore; but it is Kyle that has the means to wow her off her feet and marry her. Sister Marylee(Dorothy Malone)seems to be the town's nymphomaniac and carrying a torch for Mitch, who always seems to be the one to clean up the Hadley's messes. Ambitious with pretension; a little over the top, but the stars make it a movie to see. I was most impressed with Malone. Rounding out the cast: Robert Keith, Edward Platt, John Lurch and Robert J. Wilke. Another classic study of the effects of wealth on a southern family is masterfully depicted in Written on the Wind.

Kyle Hadley has it all. Wealth, a plane, you name it. Kyle's best friend, Mitch, has always gotten him out of difficulty. Mitch finished college, Kyle got thrown out. Mitch is not from a wealthy home. Kyle's family, with Hadley Oil, controls most of everything in the town.

While in N.Y., Kyle meets the girl of his dreams, nicely played by Lauren Bacall. After a whirlwind romance, he marries her and brings her home. There she meets her father-in-law who warns her how difficult Kyle can be. Kyle sleeps with a gun under his pillow. The Bacall character meets Kyle's sister, Mary Lee, a tramp if ever there were, played to the fullest by Dorothy Malone, who was voted best supporting actress.

Rock Hudson plays Mitch, the faithful friend.

A year of wedded bliss for Kyle and his bride ends when Kyle is told by the doctor that he can't have children. It is when his wife reveals to him that she is indeed pregnant, Kyle, thinking that the child is Mitch's, goes on a drunken frenzy and is accidentally shot dead in a memorable scene.

Mary Lee, who has always loved Mitch, tries but is unsuccessful in blaming Mitch for Kyle's death. In a memorable courtroom scene, Malone pulled out all the stops in finally admitting that Kyle's death was an unfortunate accident. Her Oscar was well deserved.

Surprisingly, Robert Stack, brilliant as Kyle Hadley, was nominated for best supporting actor and lost in an upset victory by Anthony Quinn, as Paul Gauguin, in Lust for Life.

Douglas Sirk was the master of soap opera films of the 1950s. Written on the Wind is no exception. ***1/2. One thing about Hollywood, someone has a success and it's always rushed to be copied. And another thing is that players give some of their best performances away from their home studio.

Rock Hudson got such accolades for his performance in the Texas based film Giant that Universal executives must have thought, let's quick get him into another modern Texas setting.

Similarly Robert Stack got great reviews for The High and the Mighty as the pilot who was cracking under the strain of flying a damaged aircraft that it was natural to give him another crack up role.

Both of these ends were achieved in Written on the Wind. Before Hudson was the big ranch owner, now he's the son of a hunting companion of Robert Stack's father who took Hudson under his wing. In other words the James Dean part without the James Dean racism from Giant.

Lauren Bacall is the executive secretary of an advertising agency that Stack's Hadley Oil Company uses. Hudson likes her, but she's dazzled by Stack's millions and when he woos a girl he's got the means to really pursue a campaign. She marries Stack.

And last but not least in the mix we have Dorothy Malone who's Stack's amoral sister who has a yen for Rock, but Rock ain't about to get tangled up with this wild child.

Dorothy Malone spent over 10 years in a whole bunch of colorless film heroine roles before landing this gem. She got a Best Supporting Actress Award for her part as Marilee Hadley and it was well deserved.

If you like splashy technicolor Fifties soap opera than this is the film for you. In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled "weepies for women",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed "written on the wind" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:"tarnished Angels","A time to love and a time to die",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally" Imitation of life"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in "imitation of life",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Released in 1956,and considered quite racy at the time, Douglas Sirk's over the top candy colored melodrama is still a wonderful thing. The plot concerns the goings on in an oil rich dysfunctional Texas family that includes big brother Kyle, who is insecure, weak, wounded & very alcoholic, played by Robert Stack in a very touching & vulneable performance and his sluty sister Marylee played in an extreme manner by Dorothy Malone. Ms. Malone's performance is telegraphed to us via her eyes, which she uses to show us her emotions, which mostly consist of lust (for Rock Hudson) and jealousy (for Lauren Bacall). Malone is the only actress I've ever seen in movies who enters a room eyes first. Now don't get me wrong, her performance to say the least is an absolute hoot, and is one of the supreme camp acting jobs of the 1950's. But it is also terrible, because as likeable and attractive as Malone is,she's not a very good actress, and she's not capable of subtly or shading. Her performace is of one note. She does get to do a wicked Mambo,and in a great montage, as unloving daddy played by the always good Robert Keith falls to his death climbing a staircase, Sirk mixes it up with an almost mad Malone doing a orgasmic dance as she undresses. Stack,(who should have won an Oscar) & Malone, (who won the award, but shouldn't have) are the real stars of the film, the ones who set all the hysteria, both sexual & otherwise in motion, while the "real stars" of the film, Hudson & Bacall fade to grey & brown,which are the colors that they are mainly costumed in. Hudson who was a better actor then given credit for plays the childhood & best friend of Stack's, and the stalked love interest of Malone's who moans & groans over Rock through most of the film. But Hudson wants no part of her,and instead is in love with Bacall who is married to Stack. No one is very happy & no one is happy for very long. The Stack-Bacall marriage falls apart big time after a year, and Stack pretty much drinks himself into oblivion because he thinks he is sterile, and can't give Bacall a baby to prove that he's a man. Sirk who was a very intelligent man, and had a long & fascinating career both in films and theatre in Germany, ended his Hollywood career at Universal in the mid 1950's with a series of intense vividly colored "women's movies" or melodramas. Although they were mainly adapted from medicore or trashy source material,in Sirk's hands they became masterpieces of the genre. Sirk had a wonderful sense of color & design which he brought to play in these films filling his wide screen spaces with characters who played out their emotional lives among weird color combinations & lighting, make believe shadows, and lots of mirroed reflections. In "Written" the characters are always peeking out of windows, listening at doors or sneaking around. So in the end, after much violence, an accidental murder, a miscarriage & more Sirk ends the movie with a final & startling scene of a "reborn" and reformed Malone in a man-tailored suit, sitting at a desk foundling a miniature oilwell. Director Douglas Sirk scores again with this, the grandaddy of all dysfunctional family films. This lush, trashy saga is a masterpiece, beautifully combining all of the elements of Sirk's soapers and strategically placing them all into one movie. "Written on the Wind" very obviously influenced the 1980s TV series "Dallas" and "Dynasty", as this is basically a feature-length version of those later nighttime soaps.

Lauren Bacall, wonderfully and subtly, plays Lucy Moore, a New York City secretary who marries oil baron, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). Unbeknownst to both of them, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is also in love with the quiet, but sexy secretary. They all go back to Kyle's family's mansion in Texas where we meet his white trash slut-of-a-sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone in an Oscar-winning turn). Yipee! The sparks begin to fly - from the romances to the catfights, this is a campy trip. Not only does Mitch have to fight the feelings he has for his best friend's wife, but Marylee tries to sleep with everybody since she can't have her one true love who is Mitch. Topping it all off, Kyle learns he's impotent, but somehow Lucy ends up pregnant.

This is pure soap and pure melodramatic entertainment. How can you not love it? This film signals one of Universal's most popular films and one of director Sirk's best works. Some of the dialogue is absolutely sizzling and visual metaphors are thrown in every which way - the theme of wind throughout is great. The cast is great, although Bacall is completely underused despite receiving top-billing behind Hudson. Stack's Oscar loss reportedly devastated him. He considered this his finest performance and apparently was none too pleased to lose out. And he did turn out a fabulous performance as the whimpering alcoholic. What a stunning movie! This film proves what I've been thinking for ages - Sirk is the master of classic melodrama. Where's his Oscar?

On the surface, "Written on the Wind" is a lurid, glossy soap opera about the sexual dysfunctions of a Texas oil family. But underneath it all is a deep, social commentary on 1950's life. Director Douglas Sirk scores again with another Univeral sudser. Robert Stack falls in love with Lauren Bacall. The problem is that Stack's best pal, Rock Hudson, loves her too. When Stack finds out he's sterile and Bacall ends up pregnant, the fireworks fly. And, the all-too-good Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for her portrayl of Texas' biggest nympho who is shunned by Hudson. Good epic soap opera. An overblown melodrama typical of its period (mid-1950s) and appropriate matinée food. Rock Hudson, the hulk everyone always falls in love with, plays his usual stereotype role, but whereas in Giant, made the same year, when his material and co-stars (Taylor & Dean) were above average, in this movie he is just not good enough to raise the calibre beyond a mushy tale of how difficult it is to be both rich and happy. The self-destructive brother and sister (Robert Stack, reeling his way through the film in a drunken stupor, and Dorothy Malone, playing a vampish poor little rich girl totally over the top) end up the losers and Hudson gets Bacall - who is rather wooden in this part which does not have enough character or wit to get her going. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the good end happily and the bad unhappily, that is the meaning of fiction. However, I was interested to read that the film is based on a true story which vindicated the plot. Like other films of the period, homosexuality is disguised in heterosexual terms. Maybe the film could be remade: Stack's character would ring truer if he was hiding homosexual feelings for Mitch by marrying. Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven greatly improved on All That Heaven Allows , also directed by Sirk. Perhaps Haynes could remake Written on the Wind and give us a truly memorable film. WRITTEN ON THE WIND, directed by Douglas Sirk and released in 1956, is like all of Sirk's mid 50's films- pure melodrama. Yet it is engrossing, richly developed melodrama, and Sirk's trademark lurid colour expressionism, throbbing, barely repressed emotions, symbolism and juxtaposition of the classes make this a film to crave.

The film opens brilliantly, with the four central characters and the plot being introduced as the credits are still rolling. Sirk uses a clever flashback structure to take us into his world...

Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are magnificent as the two Hadley "kids", Kyle and Marylee. He drinks and sleeps around with women. She drinks and sleeps around with men. They both are worth millions, thanks to the Hadley oil business. Hunky, yet poor, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is Kyle's lifelong friend, and Marylee's dream lover. Enter into this sordid mess Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall), a slim, attractive young woman who falls under Kyle's charms after he picks up a phone and flies her across the countryside one evening. Mitch loves her too, but Kyle wins her. They quickly marry, and Kyle stops drinking. But fate seems to be written on the wind, and it is not long before a conniving Marylee (who will "have Mitch", marriage or no marriage), a secretly smitten Mitch, the confused Lucy and the sad drunk Kyle come to blows....

Malone is just wonderful as Marylee Hadley, thoroughly deserving her Best Supporting Actress Oscar. She steals every scene she is in. Stack is almost just as good, amping up the melodrama, while still maintaining subtly and quiet desperation. Hudson and Bacall are a lot more restrained than those two, yet it is in keeping with the characters they play.

So, what's all this melodrama really about it? Well, a lot of things. Stack's powerful portrait of male inadequacy and fear, for one thing. Sirk surrounds Stack with phallic symbols throughout the film- note his tiny little gun, the oil derricks and the ultimate phallic symbol, Kyle's seeming inability to conceive children. Stack seems to be suffering from a massive male superiority complex, made worse by his father's preference for Hudson, his sister's desire for Hudson, and his suspicion that his wife is carrying on with Hudson. With all this wealth Kyle Hadley still ends up at the wrong end of town, buying cheap corn liquor like a "bum".

It's about impossible dreams, and having to let go of them. The river where Kyle, Marylee and Mitch used to play when they were kids is constantly referenced throughout the film, symbolising Kyle and (especially) Marylee's wish for the innocence and simplicity of youth. In an excellent melodramatic scene, perfectly pulled off by Malone, Marylee's stands by the river and imagines herself again as a child, with voice-over of Mitch telling Marylee that she will always be his girl. This is where Sirk strikes a huge emotional chord with the viewer. Who hasn't dreamed about going back to that special place in childhood? Who hasn't, at some point, lived on a treasured memory? Who hasn't wanted something they couldn't have? And Hudson's last line of the film (yes, he gets no dialogue in the last 10 or so minutes, only close-ups) recollects on how "far we've come from the river, Marylee". Amazing. I'm not sure if this is some kind of masterpiece or just sleazy fluff elevated by the performances and visuals. Whatever the case, I'm sure I loved it. From the wonderfully twisted, lurid, intertwining stories, to the deliciously sinister performances from Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone, to the vivid, gaudy colour with which it's all captured, this is high-class trash and it's great fun. Not to mention the amusingly sly and thinly veiled sexual subtexts which permeate the entire film, always threatening to escape from the image into the dialogue but never doing so. I'd be lying if I said that the film's sheer entertainment value didn't contribute to my love for it, but there's some sort of bizarre artistry behind the unintentional (or was it?) comedy and I really, really dug that. I could really get into this melodrama stuff. "Written on the Wind" is an irresistible, wonderfully kinky film, as only director Sirk could have done it. The movie is submerged in a bucket full of Freudian symbols, weird melodramatics and colorful contrasts. The connection between financial success and moral decay is the film's main theme. Sirk seems to suggest that sexual dysfunction is one of the side effects of capitalism. However, I prefer to see the movie as a prime example of what Sirk could do with kitschy material. The palette of colors is particularly impressive. The acting in the film is great too. Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall are terribly glamorous and give the film an aura of elegance, but the movie belongs to Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone (she deservedly won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar), who manage to keep the film at a boiling point. Kudos to Frank Skinner's pulsating score, Russell Metty's brilliant camera work (every single shot is a masterpiece in itself), and the production design department. Also, the title tune is a beauty. It's an unforgettable movie. Any Way the Wind Blows is Tom Barmans (who is also know as front man of the rock formation 'dEUS') debut movie. Entirely shot in Antwerp (Belgium), the movie starts on a sunny friday morning and skips rather superficially between the events that fill the day of a dozen of main characters. When the movie ends, you have a lot of stuff to think about, because most of the different story-lines are left wide open.

The movie has a (purely instrumental) sound track that will rock your socks off. In most scenes, the music truly enhances the general atmosphere and feel, really making the movie hallucinating to watch at certain points of time. The main scene in the film, the party, is very well shot.

The director didn't hesitate to use video clip techniques, having his main characters dancing on one of the best sound tracks I've heard lately.

The screenplay is great stuff. Camera angles and colors are very well chosen. The 'costumes' are very hot and very 'seventies' too. And I loved (most of the) acting.

The thing I liked most about the movie, are the subtle touches of absurd, surreal, very dry or even cynical humor that interleave.

Without claiming to be a comedy (this movie certainly is not a comedy but rather an alternative piece of art), it still manages to have its audience giggling and even burst into laughter at some times.

This is one more directors' debut that shouldn't be an ending. I hope to see more Tom Barman movies in the future because I had a good time. Cheers. This Belgian film, directed by Tom Barman, singer of the well-known group dEUS, will not be favoured by everyone. For the simple reason that there isn't a clear story or even a plot. This movie just shows 24 hours in "a city" (here Antwerp) and allows you to watch and truly enjoy the dialogues, the directing, the humorous (Dario!, the osteopath Bruno!, ...) and tragic (Windman, Paul Garcin, ...) characters.

There are several memorable scenes: the Windman on the beach, the dance party at the end, the KISS-fan, Windman visits the osteopath,...

Clearly some other viewers didn't understand what's so beautiful and interesting in this movie. They complain that this movie has no story, etc. But it's the atmosphere that keeps you watching and that will drag you into it.

If you didn't watch it yet, be sure to listen carefully to the music. The soundtrack is extraordinary just like Tom Barman and his group dEUS.

And "ssst, mondje dicht hé." (don't tell anyone) Barman just wanted to make a movie because he wanted to. Just as simple as that, and he succeeded. Not only in his goal, but also in making a wonderful movie, especially visually. He knows how to use pans, slow-motion sequences, tracking shots, crane shots, etc. in a beautiful, smooth way. This gives the movie a very relaxing feel to it.

The story is about the lives of 8 very different characters who have nothing in common except one thing: a party that they all attend to, which also is the turnpoint of this movie. The beauty of this picture lies not in the question how the characters have effect on eachother (in comparance with a similar, of course better movie like Magnolia). I simply don't think that that was Barman's idea. The beauty lies in the different details of experiences that people go through which makes or breaks their lives. Barman is very successful in telling those little stories that describe little experiences. He knows people..... and Antwerp.

The soundtrack of the movie is also excellent, but not a surprise as we know that Barman is also a very succesful songwriter and musician with his band dEUS. The music is sometimes hot and at the same time relaxing which contributes to the sunny, smooth feel of the movie. Other times we hear funky pop/rock-melodies which give some scenes the strength that they need.

There's only one flaw, and that's the last half an hour. Was it the runtime, which was breaking me up? Or weren't the last scenes that fresh and accurate than the scenes until then? I can't figure it out...

All in all a beautiful sunny movie which lifts the Belgian cinema up.

8 out of 10!

(It's the breeze that flows through a girl's hair on a sunny afternoon making her even more beautiful; it's the fresh breeze that makes you relax when it passes you at a crowded party when someone opens the door; it's the breeze that carries the perfume from that beautiful girl sitting next to you in the park who you just met a week ago; it's the breeze.....)

I really liked Tom Barman's AWTWB. You just have to let it come over you and enjoy it while it lasts, and don't expect anything. It's like sitting on a café-terrace with a beer, in the summer sun, and watching the people go by. It definitely won't keep you pondering afterwards, that's true, but that's not a prerequisite for a good film. It's just the experience during the movie that's great.

I felt there were a few strands that could have been worked out a little more, but being a Lynch fan I don't care that much anymore :)

And I *loved* the style, or flair of this movie. It's slick, but fresh, and the soundtrack is a beauty. Any music-lover will get his kicks out of AWTWB, I can assure you.

I'll give it 8 out 10.

(music-wise 10 out of 10) Barman directed Any Way the Wind Blows as he would sing a dEUS song. Anarchy rules over a logical and common strain of thoughts. The story behind this movie just goes any which way the wind blows. And that can truly be refreshing to watch, if you are prepared and willing that is. Viewers who state that there is nothing to keep the story-lines together are right. Who the hell is that Windman anyway? Still, I really enjoyed this movie. Antwerp is a beautiful, bustling, happening place and Any Way captures that feeling. It also captures the silliness, the racism, the bureaucracy, the addictions and the violence that survives undetected in a seemingly friendly city. The movie is entertaining, funny and a little shallow. Barman's screen debut will not make as heavy an impact as his music debut. In that light some might be disappointed. But then again, 'Worst Case Scenario' would be a subtle subtitle for Any Way the Wind Blows. This movie blows you off your feet. This debut movie from Tom Barman (known from the Belgian rock band dEUS) introduces you to 8 intriguing people, building blocks of a compelling movie mosaic. They each survive one day and one night in the metropole of Antwerp. Barman paints his characters with great deal of verve and competently interweaves their individual stories, a tour the force that reminds of the best work of Robert Altman and Paul Thomas Anderson. The patchwork of anecdotes surprises, moves, amuses; the dialogues are so natural, they seem to be improvised. Some great performances by Matthias Schoenaerts, Natali Broods and the extremely funny duo from Ghent, Jonas Boel and Titus De Voogdt. Sam Louwyck is the memorable "Windman", a bizarre guy dancing throughout the movie. Sam is also responsible for the stunning choreography, and of course Tom Barman himself took care of the ultra cool Sound Track. We were seriously impressed: Any Way The Wind Blows is a movie that blows you off your feet. tom had a wish to make film for a long time and he did. it is as if he has visualized a dirty and worn out notebook full of great little ideas he has been filling up and carrying around for 10 years. no grant character transformations, no Hollywood ingredients just life and a little bit of magic. the balance, in speed, in weirdness in comedy vs drama is perfectly weighed. this film takes you on a journey that is over before you realize how nice it was. the music is great and your eyes will be equally satisfied. the fact that this film is about nothing, merely a sequence of sketches of people that are mainly linked trough a party of one of the characters, makes it very pleasant and surprisingly entertaining, it is brilliant because it is empty. in between the lines it is happening. to see or not to see, that's the ? I think "Anyway..." is a kick-ass movie. Really. Tom Barman spent like years making it, and it shows: every scene is polished, has a meaning,... I guess most agree on that. One thing many people tend to criticize is the "lack" of story. I'm afraid that that's an effect of us being overwhelmed with "traditional" storytelling, all the time. I mean: what you can achieve with a book, you can't achieve with a movie, what you can achieve with a movie, you cannot achieve it by just telling it to a buddy. The problem is that we're so used to movies, series,... to be just a filmed version of a story; a visual recording of events -just like when you watch the news- that we expect every movie to have this epic characteristics: a strong storyline with a lot of unusual events. And I stress the idea of "unusual events": most people see on TV in the news, in movies, series,... very unusual things, once-in-a-lifetime situations. And here, in "Anyway...", there are unusual events, but not in the same "hollywood big explosion" kind of way: guy gets fired, couple back together, car gets stolen... and of course very usual things. And that's strong: just being able to appreciate all of that, that universe, that's art. And I agree that especially what can only be achieved in movies, that atmosphere created by the score and the photography is put central. But not like in traditional visual movies (visual blockbusters such as the Matrix); it serves the characters and remains deeply human. I mean, in every shot you feel the love that Tom Barman has for Antwerp and urban lifestyle. And he has no point with this movie, like to "learn" us something; and he has no big story to tell with incredible scenario twists. He just shows everyday people with everyday lives, he shows a city, all with their good and bad sides and says: this is us, that's our city, that's life, let's enjoy it. So basically, "Anyway..." is not only that super groovy movie, it also has a much stronger "message" (it's not explicit, maybe even not intended) than most movies how really intend to pass a message. One drawback: now, we'll have to wait five years to see the next Barman pic, and everyone will expect so much of it... Those of you who know the group dEUS, know the lead singer Tom Barman. He directed this movie a bit like he creates music, it's a mix of everything. This is a comedy, though mostly absurd and cynical, a drama, none of the main characters have a happy life to say the least, and it does not really have a goal.

The movie starts on a friday morning in Antwerp, Belgium, with scenes of several persons, some of them have nothing in common but they will come in contact with each other during the day and night. There are several main characters: a teacher who writes books nobody reads, a young researcher with a morbid taste of death and his sister, a gallery owner, two young men constantly in touch with the law, a man who works in a movie theater and two young women. Throughout the movie there walks a man who has something to do with wind. All characters have their troubles, with their family or friends or just with life itself.

The movie is set in Antwerp and shows several beautiful shots of the city and the port. The events of the day are not easily explained, I advise to simply watch the movie, there is simply too much to tell. But I can say this, Barman has an excellent use of the camera and uses a lot of music (mostly dance music, not really rock) to set a mood, especially the party is filled with excellent music.

This movie is an experience on itself, it will not leave you any wiser about life, perhaps only that you have to live it and not waste it, or have any false moral truths.

In short, see it, it is definitely worth it! "Life hits us in the face........we must try to stay beautiful"

Debut movie from one of Belgian's best artists (he sings songs), Tom Barman. A long awaited movie and---happy happy joy joy for Flemish filmmaking---really worth watching, and a promising piece of work! It takes us into the lifes of 8 main characters that live through a Friday- and night. The title says a lot about the way we spend time with them: we float as they do into Friday night's party where they kinda' meet.

It's rhytmic style is very 'thought off'. Superb use of music. It sometimes takes the upperhand to the images and then you feel its power. Gainsbourg! QOTSA! The party scene (20minutes???) is a thrilling visual experience cause of the way that it's shot. It keeps you really with it while it's set in a small place with a lot of people having a big party.....so hard to shoot.

Thank you menijèr Barman for making this daring movie in these, already some years going, poor times of Flemish filmmaking. You made my day! A must see film with great dialogues, great music, great acting and a superb atmosphere.

In the film you will follow 8 people for one day in the city of antwerp, they are all individuals and sometimes plain weird (that's how I love them!).

I'm not going to say anything else, just go see and enjoy it. I went to see it 2 times this movie, a friend of mine went to see it at the release party, and he was telling me it was so great, that I was expecting very much about the movie, to mutch, I couldn't enjoy it because I was not watching it in nuteral position. The second time I knew what to expect and I enjoyed it more than the first time. After The second time I felt so in the mood to have a party. I LOVED the music it's just great.

If Tom Barman improves his directing talent he will be a director where everyone will be talking about. If you can delivere this movie as your first you must be talented.

The acting is done by some great belgian stars (Dirk roofthooft) and a bunch of upcomming talents like Titus De Voogdt.

Intense actors like Bruce Dern, Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward combine to make this modern-day film noir a winner. Of the three, I don't know who was most interesting as all offer good performances and intriguing characters.

Patric does the narration in this noir, playing an ex-boxer and mental patient. Wow, that alone makes for an interesting guy! He looks dumb, but he isn't. Ward is the slinky, attractive, cynical, intelligent and compassionate co- conspirator of a kidnapping plan that goes bad. Bruce Dern also is in the mix and Dern never fails to fascinate in about any film.

The movie could be considered kind of downer to the average viewer, but I found it fascinating....and I don't like depressing movies normally. What I found was a kind of quirky crime film. Take a look and see if you agree. This is pretty unknown film that shouldn't have that status because it's simply a good story and well-done. The first of two Jim Thompson adaptations released in 1990 (the other being the more well-known GRIFTERS), AFTER DARK has all of Thompson's hallmarks: dangerous women, the confidence game, and characters that are either not as dim as others suspect them of being, or not as harmless.

Jason Patric is superb as a former boxer disqualified from the sport for life due to an incident in the ring (director James Foley uses RAGING BULL-esquire sequences to flesh out the back story) and the too-little-seen Rachel Ward also delivers a great performance. But Bruce Dern is the film's secret weapon: his sweet-talking grifter Uncle Bud subtly commands each of his scenes.

there's almost no comic relief in this film, so watch it prepared to be sucked into the void. It is rare that one comes across a movie as flawless as this. It's truly one of the best acted, most tightly structured films I've ever seen. Every line of dialogue can be interpreted in several ways, relating to each of the three main characters differently. The film weaves an intrinsic web of motivations and double crosses that snare you and refuse to let go. Add to this that the slow-burning romance between Kevin and Faye is as moving as anything that's ever been committed to celluloid and you have the ingredients for a perfect film. It exposes the romance of movies such as "Titanic" as the trite cliches they are. If you're looking for a movie to watch while you fold laundry, this isn't it. You have to commit yourself to this film. You can't have a conversation while running in and out of the room. This movie demands your attention. Treat it with the respect you deserve and you'll get a lot out of it. Unless you think "Titanic" is the greatest film ever. Ever read Jim Thompson? He's hard-boiled noir with the most extreme fatalism and misanthropy I've ever encountered. There are rarely private detectives in his work - just losers, psychotics and small-time con artists. This film has Thompson nailed - "If God made any real mistakes in this world, it was in giving us a will to live when we've got no excuse for it." Every character in the film balances on a razor's edge between surreal and creepy realism. There's sleazy, conniving Uncle Bud, played by Bruce Dern and spookily well-intentioned Doc Goldman played by George Dickerson. Jason Patric gives a wonderful, often heart-wrenching performance as Kid Collins, a none-too-bright, shy ex-fighter who's more scared of himself than of anyone else. Rachel Ward is Fay, the sexy femme fatale who we can't quite figure out...It's not your standard film noir, nor is it intended to be. After Dark My Sweet, along with The Grifters, are two excellent adaptations of novels by one of my favorite writers, Jim Thompson. After Dark, My Sweet is a great, modern noir, filled with seedy characters, dirt roads, and, of course, sweaty characters. It seems that most of the truly great noirs of the last two or three decades have taken place in the South, where the men glisten and the ladies, um, glisten too. Why? Because it's hooooottttttttttt. And because everyone looks better wet (at least the men do - sweaty women leave me clammy).

Anyway - there might be some spoilers in here.

This film is a wonderful example of everything a noir should be - steady pacing (though some with attention disorders refer to it as 'slow'), clearly and broadly drawn (though not simple) characters, and tons of atmosphere. Noir, if anything, is about moods and attitudes. That's why the great ones are not marked by your traditional definitions of 'great' acting (look at Bogart, Mitchum, Hurt, and Nicholson - they (and their characters) were anything but real - but they had style and sass and in a crime movie that's exactly what you want). or quickly paced adventures (again all great noirs seem to be on slow burn like a cigarette). Great noirs create an environment and you just inhabit it with the characters for a couple hours.

After Dark My Sweet let's you do that - and it let's you enjoy the company of some very interesting and complex characters. Uncle Bud and Collie are intriguing - never allowing the audience to know what really makes them tick - and Patric and Dern (I love Bruce Dern, by the way) are pitch perfect, Dern especially (see previous comment). They take the basic outlines of a character and give them depth and elicit our sympathies.

The story itself is also interesting. There're better plots in the world of noir (hardly any mystery here - mostly it's suspense), but this one is solid. If anything, the simply 'okay' plot has more to do with Jim Thompson's writing than anything else. With Thompson, plots are almost secondary; he eschewed the labyrinthine tales of Hammett and Chandler for simpler stories with stronger, more confusing characters. Look at a novel like The Killer Inside Me and and you'll see right away (from the title) what it's all about. When it comes to Thompson, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it (to quote Roger Ebert). So, really, the relatively simple plot of a kidnapping is not the point and, if you don't like it, well the jokes on you.

Why this is an 8star movie rather than a 10star one is because of the female lead. She's not bad, per se, but she's not Angelica Huston or Anette benning (see the adaptation of Jim Thompson's The Grifters if you don't know what I'm talking about - besides it's a better movie and you should start there for contemporary noir - it's the best of the 1990s and challenges Blood Simple for the title of best since Chinatown). She simply doesn't have the chops (or the looks for that matter) and though she and Patric have some chemistry, I don't have it with her. So there. If you're as huge of a fan of an author as I am of Jim Thompson, it can be pretty dodgy when their works are converted to film. This is not the case with Scott Foley's rendition of AFTER DARK MY SWEET. A suspenseful, sexually charged noir classic that closely follows and does great justice to the original text. Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward give possibly the best performances of their careers. And the always phenomenal Bruce Dern might have even toped him self with this one. Like Thompson's book this movie creates a dark and surreal world where passion overcomes logic and the double cross is never far at hand. A must see for all fans of great noir film. ****!!! I didn't expect much when I rented this movie and it blew me away. If you like good drama, good character development that draws you into a character and makes you care about them, you'll love this movie.

Engrossing! An excellent interpretation of Jim Thompson's novel, this neo-noir thriller has all the requisite elements--deranged ex-boxer turned drifter, alcoholic widow with sinister desires, ex-cop turned small-time crook, and a kidnap plot destined for doom. Yet, the film never crosses into cliche country, but remains fresh and intriguing. The performances are all superb, particularly Bruce Dern's role as the wicked sleazeball, Uncle Bud. There is a tense uncertainty to the film's movement which, intentional or not, adds to the grim proceedings. Highly recommended. I saw this film a few years ago and I got to say that I really love it.Jason Patric was perfect for this weird role that he played.The director?I don't too many things about him...and I don't care.The screenplay is good,that's for sure.In just a few words I have to say about this movie that is weird,strange,even dark,but it's a good one.I saw it a few years ago and never saw it since then.I want to see it again and again.I know that I'm not gonna get sick of watching it.The scenes,the atmosphere,the actors,the story...everything is good.The movie should have lasted longer.I think 120 minutes should have been perfect.I was hoping for a part 2 for this movie.Too bad it din't happened.Jason Patric:you're the man ! very good movie. the end. :-) Foley's noir quality in this saturated and intense pulp film is seemingly "perfectly" fit together. Shot by shot, edit by edit, the film unfolds itself around a disturbed boxer discovering his own purpose (or lack thereof). The other comments around perhaps indicate a lack of pulp interest, but I personally think this is a superbly put together cinematic piece! The performances in this movie were fantastic. The dialogue was great. Jason Patric delivered a fantastic performance as "Kid" Collins in this wonderful adaptation of the Jim Thompson novel. Far superior to "The Grifters", which was a good movie, this film really stayed true to the pulp fiction/film noir roots from which the story came. I recommend this movie to all film noir fans.

"After dark, my sweet" is a strange mix of sensuality and dullness. The film runs slow, very slow, but takes a rythm to tell a story about murder and passion. Jason Patric never ever was so sexy and powerful (the man gives a true performance), and Rachel Ward is all but sexy.

The sexual tension, the pshycological heat, the footsteps of the past... the flashback scenes, the weirdness of the Patric´s Character, all becomes a sexy mystery. I recommend this one cause is the more sexy dull movie that i ever seen. Check the love making scene, it´s particulary sexy. If in the 90's you're adapting a book written in the 50's, set the bloody thing in the 50's and not the '90's. See, 40 year old mores and values tend not to play as well, or ring as true, that far down the road. It's a simple rule that Hollywood habitually keeps violating. And that's the problem with this film. It should have been set in the era it was written in. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but nooo. I'd elaborate, but bmacv's comment spells it out quite well. I'll limit my commentary to Rachel Ward. She looks like she dieted her ass completely out of existence for this role. As a result, she looks like a crack ho' on chemotherapy, and is about as sexy as a gay leather couch in drag. I found her "I could die at any moment" look quite disconcerting, and it greatly detracted from her supposed "hotness" and the "sexual tension" the film intended to create. Other than that, the film was quite good; a 7+ out of 10. THE JIST: See something else.

This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy "noir" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.

This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge. THE JIST: See something else.

This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy "noir" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.

This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge. FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ?

You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere

I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films . I am always so frustrated that the majority of science fiction movies are really intergalactic westerns or war dramas. Even Star Wars which is visually brilliant, has one of its central images, a futuristic "gang that couldn't shoot straight." Imagine your coming upon about 600 people with conventional weapons, most of them having an open shot, and they miss.

I have read much science fiction, and wish there were more movies for the thinking person. Forbidden Planet, one of the earliest of the genre, is still one of the very best. The story is based on a long extinct civilization, the Krell, who created machines which could boost the intelligence of any being by quantum leaps. Unfortunately, what they hadn't bargained for, is that the brain is a center for other thoughts than intellectual. The primitive aspect of the brain, the Id, as Freud called it, is allowed to go unchecked. It is released in sleep, a bad dream come to corporeal existence. Walter Pigeon, Dr. Morbius, is the one who has jacked his brain to this level, and with it has built machines and defenses that keep him barely one step ahead of the horrors of the recesses of his own mind. His thoughts are creating horrors that he soon will not be able to defend. The Krell, a much superior species, could not stop it; it destroyed them. The landing party has never been of great interest to me. The rest of the actors are pretty interchangeable. Ann Francis is beautiful and naive, and certainly would have produced quite a reaction in the fifties adolescent male. Her father's ire is exacerbated by her innocence and the wolfy fifties' astronauts (for they are more like construction workers on the make than real astronauts). They are always trying to figure out "dames." The cook is a great character, with his obsession for hooch. Robbie the Robot has much more personality than most of the crew, and one wonders if Mr. Spock may not be a soulmate to the literal thinking of this artificial creature. The whole movie is very satisfying because the situation is the star. Morbius can't turn back and so he is destined to destroy himself and everything with him. There are few science fiction films that are worth seeing more than once; this is one that can coast right into the 21st century. I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.

BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.

THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The "seed" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.

I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.

What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie "forbidden knowledge" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.

I learned in graduate school that "knowledge is power" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is "potential" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]

The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.

Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....

Rating: 10 out 10 stars Sure Star Wars (a movie I have seen at least fifty times) beats all the others in special effects, but this film has every thing else!

It has horror(non-graphical), romance, robots, witty repartee, intelligence, (surprisingly good) special effects, and drama.

I saw this film a couple of years ago in a revival with a newly struck print, and I was amazed at how well it held up today. I thought the old 40's style electronics would look hokey, but they somehow looked futuristic and moderne.

Ann Francis in here (mostly) short skirts and bare feet with a girlish innocence that is hard to beat still gets a rise out of me.

The Krell monster appearing in the ray beams still scares the bejebees out of me.

Of course we all know that the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" probably modeled much of "Star Trek" from this movie.

No one has yet to beat Robby, the Robot, in terms of personality

(sorry, R2D2 and C3PO).

This movie, overall, is the standard that all other Science Fiction films will have to measure up to!

Honorable mention for the haunting electronic score which kept us all on pins and needles. A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny. This is a film that has it all, the dashing hero, the beautiful damsel in distress, the noble figure with the tragic flaw, and a truly wonderful robot. Forbidden Planet has maintained that special magic over the years and doesn't lose its flavor with repeated viewings (although the sex appeal of the youthful Anne Francis helps considerably on that score).

Movie fans will recognize the youngish Leslie Nielsen portraying the handsome and heroic Commander Adams, although those of us who have grown fond of him in comedic roles will perhaps be a bit taken aback by his appearance in a serious role. The distinguished and noble-looking Walter Pidgeon is also a featured player as the scientist with a secret (Id). Other supporting cast deserve a nod, especially Warren Stevens as the brainy and resourceful "Doc", and of course the charms of Miss Francis, as noted above.

This film was an early pioneer in the use of electronic music, in the 1950s, no less. The credits call them "tonalities", but those of us who tried to tinker together early versions of the "Theremin" device will recognize the eerie and spooky whines and screeches sometimes used in the sound track. Still, it lends to the image of the exotic and alien landscape of the mysterious and forbidding world of the Krell.

The special effects are also quite arresting. I recall my fear as a youngster waiting for the next manifestation of the invisible "Id" monster, and when it is finally visualized in the one battle scene it literally shook me to my toes in wonder and awe. The magic of matte art is fully exploited in the dizzying scenes of the Krell scientific complex as the characters make their way through the various labyrinths and passageways, guided by the enigmatic Dr. Morbius.

I recall feeling some measure of jealously that Dr. Morbius would have such a cool toy in the form of Robby the Robot. The persona of Robby is quite charming and in some ways he seems more human than some of the other characters. Viewers of follow-on shows like Twilight Zone and Lost In Space will recognize the recycled Robby prop in some of those episodes, although I recall he never had the "personality" of the original Robby.

I must admit to not fully understanding the complexities of the plot until I was old enough to understand the various references to Freudian psychology and the danger of unleashing the hidden and normally contained fears and rage we carry within but have trained ourselves, through force of will, to submerge and control through adherence to societal codes. Although the key to the story seems obvious once revealed, it remains unknown (or perhaps deliberately overlooked) by Dr. Morbius until pointed out by the clear-thinking Commander Adams, who forces Dr. Morbius to confront the evil within himself. It still gives me goose bumps when Commander Adams pushes Dr. Morbius down before the Krell machine that endowed him with superior intellect, which opened the flood gates of his subconscious to the power of the Krell machine: "Here. Here is where your mind was artificially enlarged. Consciously it still lacked the power to operate the Great Machine. But your subconscious had been made strong enough." Zowee!

Forbidden Planet remains probably my favorite sci-fi film ever, and remains timeless and classic for its carefully crafted story and wonderful visualization and realization on the screen. A flying saucer manned (literally) by a crew of about 20 male space explorers travels hundreds of millions of light years from earth to check in on a colony founded some 25 years ago on a 'forbidden planet.' What they find is a robot more advanced than anything imaginable on earth, a beautiful and totally socially inept young woman, and her father, a hermit philologist haunted by more than the demons of the ancient civilization he has immersed himself in.

On the surface, this story is a pulp scifi murder mystery. Some compare it to Shakespeare's Tempest, but this is a stretch, and, in some ways, an insult to the scifi genre. Stripped of what makes it a scifi film, sure, its The Tempest, but how many hundreds of films can you say something similar about?

Underneath, this is a cautionary tale about progress and technology and the social evolution necessary for its appropriate and safe use. Yet the film still proceeds with all the hopefulness for our future that we have come to expect from shows like Star Trek.

Anne Francis is not the only reason why this film is best described as beautiful. The special effects, and even the aesthetics of the backdrops are powerful enough to make the uninspired directing and uneven acting almost unnoticeable. If it were not for the goofy retro-art-deco-ness of 1950s sci-fi props, you might think you were watching a 1960s piece.

This is a classic of that very special sub-genre of sci fi I like to call 1950s sci-fi, and, though not, in my opinion, the best it is certainly a must see for anybody interested in sci-fi film and special effects. The clever plot, now rendered trite by its reuse in six or seven episodes of Star Trek, Lost in Space, and even Farscape, is worth paying attention to, and will sustain the interest of most scifi fans. Trekkers will be particularly interested in the various aspects of the film which seem to have inspired themes of Star Trek's original series aired about 12 years later, though they may find themselves disappointed by the (relatively mild) 1950s sexism and the lack of any kind of racial integration. While I do not mean to nitpick, the lack of social progress manifest in this film was the one major problem I had with it.

Some will probably see this film simply to catch a glimpse of young, good-looking Leslie Nielsen in one of his first starring roles. Unfortunately, Nielsen's performance is only average, and at times down-right poor (especially at the climax of the film). Walter Pigeon, though quite excellent in other films, over-acts his role as well. Ms Francis, Earl Holliman, and the amazing Robby the Robot are the stand-out actors in this crowd, though on the whole the character actors filling in the ensemble do a good job. The problems with the featured performances, I think, are as much the fault of the director and the editor, as anything. Though they certainly got most of the film quite right. The only thing I knew about this film prior to seeing it was Robby The Robot. My preconception was that it was another in a long line of cheesy sci-fi flicks that the 1950's was noted for. How wrong I was. Big studio, big budget and big production values make this a strong contender, at least visually, for the best sci-fi film coming out of the era. I qualify with the word visually, because "War Of The Worlds" is a lot darker and scarier than "Forbidden Planet", and probably fits the mold better as a foray into alien territory.

What impressed me immediately was the color rendition of the cinematography, followed by the intricacy and scope of detail involved in Dr. Morbius' (Walter Pidgeon) home and laboratory. But that was only the prelude to the icing on the cake, the labyrinthine underground that served as the Krell stronghold. It appeared that Krell technology was even more advanced than say, that of "Star Wars". Which made me consider, audiences for this movie back when it was released probably sat in the same kind of awe that theater goers experienced in 1977 with SW, or in 1986 with "Aliens". Watching it on a large screen TV in my living room offered me the same effect, and I'm fairly resistant to hyperbole.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine "Forbidden Planet" as a direct antecedent of the 'Star Trek' TV series; Gene Roddenberry himself stated that the movie had a great impact on his vision for the show. Followers of that short lived series will readily recognize plot elements used here that turned up in 'Star Trek'. I had to do a double take when the men of United Planets Cruiser C57-V headed for a transporter room, while the conundrum presented to Robby that created an impossibility to respond was an element used at least two or three times in the ST series.

Where the movie definitely took a cerebral turn had to do with the whole idea of 'monsters from the Id'. That Morbius himself was using his subconscious mind to defend Altaire IV was certainly a unique concept for 1956, when every other sci-fi flick of the time was dealing with Martians or other grotesque space creatures. The film worked it's subtle magic on this viewer by helping me understand that Morbius was the protector of Altaire IV some time before Commander Adams (Leslie Nielsen) explained it.

You know, looking at the calendar, the year 2200 isn't that far off. This movie may be the one that actually gets it right relative to exploring and living on other planets. I think though, that they'll have to come up with a sleeker looking version of Robby. If you like Star Wars/Trek, come see where they got all their ideas and cinematic devices. It's my top 2 favorite movies of all times, other-worldly-futuristic and psycho-thriller. The intensity of the root material (Shakespeare's "The Tempest") is not overshadowed by whizbang gimmickry (a la later Lucas). And just because it was made in 1956, don't assume you can 'see the strings' holding the flying saucer up. This was the first movie where you COULDN'T. Miracle it was made at "A-movie" scale, economics and tastes at the time were stacked heavily against it. And director Wilcox's previous 'hit' was "Lassie Come Home". Until I looked him up, I assumed 'Fred Wilcox' was a pseudonym for a director who was already or later became famous, but at the time didn't want to be associated with sci-fi, which was strictly a "B" genre back then. This was either a very VERY visionary production, or a very fortuitous 'mistake' on the part of the folks who bankroll Hollywood.

There are the massive-scale mattes with live action almost microscopically inserted that Lucas used extensively. There are intelligent machines that transcend the stereotypical 'user interface'; "computers", as they've come to be portrayed much less futuristically in later works. Star Trek's 'transporter' is there, visually, almost unaltered by Roddenberry 10 years later. And if the Trek/Wars technobabble turns you off, FP's scientific references are not overdone and are all accurate, even today. The "ship" set is comprehensive, sparklingly realistic, as good as anything you've seen since, and more convincing than anything 'Trek' has done, for TV or film. We didn't get to spend as much time there as I would have liked.

If you ever wondered how movies got into space so competently, watching FP will explain all that. It's definitely not 'Wagontrain to the Stars'. Forbidden Planet rates as landmark in science fiction, carefully staying within "hard" aspects of the genre (science -- not fantasy, ergo nerds will love it) while still playing with imagery and ideas of contemporary 1950s values. Morbius's isolated house is a model of modern design with open spaces that step out into sculpted gardens, a swimming pool, and the ultimate home appliance: Robby the Robot. "A housewife's dream!" exclaims the Captain after lunch and a demonstration of the robot's abilities to synthesize food and disintegrate waste.

Also revealing to the 1950s: Fruedian psychology rears its head in the Id explanation, although Morbius dismisses it as an outdated concept. There is a touch of the Pacific war drama in the battle with the invisible monster and life aboard the saucer. Perhaps most timely is the post-atomic fear that Science is the enemy, and arrogant scientists will unwittingly bring down destruction in their blind quest for knowledge.

Yet the suburban drama presented by Forbidden Planet seems uniquely fresh in the sci-fi genre. They aren't swashbucklers or heroes, but ordinary sailors crossing the galaxy with a serviceman's crudeness and honesty. The good guys drive the flying saucer, and the aliens are so long gone we don't even know what they looked like -- although their music er-"atmospheric tonalities" by Bebe and Louis Barron are remarkably futuristic today. The views from Morbius' house are truly alien with jagged cliffs and pink bonsais. The interior of the saucer is just this side of Buck Rogers. There's a lot visually to like. Although we get fantastic monsters and robots for the kiddies, Forbidden Planet is a cerebral movie, slow paced and talky. It is working on many levels at once: hard sci-fi against space adventure, philosophical against domestic.

There are many suburban touches. In spite of all their space-talk, the soldiers are dressed for the golf course. Morbius' fatal discovery is a humble educational facility, a schoolhouse. The most interesting character is Morbius' daughter Altaira. Having never seen a man she is unashamedly forward to the crew. She's a post-Madonna teen who designs her own space-age clothes and takes every opportunity to change outfits -- imagine Christina Aguilera with a household replicator. Men watching the film might see her as a naive girl in a minidress, but every woman knows there is no such thing as a naive girl in a minidress. Anne Francis deserves better recognition for humiliating the Leut with kisses. Alas we'll never know if she was "working" him as he suspects, since the Captain interrupts and becomes a more interesting target for her attention. She is the character who makes the important change in the film. Shocked that her father compares the dead Doc to the other "embeciles" in his landing party, she turns away from her father, her home, to leave with the sailors for Earth. It's this act of defiance, of maturity, that sends Morbius' Id creature over the edge, allegorically destroying its creator just as it did thousands of centuries earlier to the Krell.

Maybe the Krell had teenage daughters too...? I have loved this movie all of my life. It's such an intelligent story also, with plenty of classical allusions. eg. The ship that went missing decades earlier was called the Bellerophon. Well, in classical mythology this was the man who slew the Chimera, a legendary beast composed of two or more other creatures. In FP, Walter Pidgeon is clearly the chimera- himself and his Id monster.

I like movies where the writers have clearly credited their audiences with a modicum of intelligence, unlike most modern blockbusters which spend $150m on special effects, but about $1.50 on a screenplay.

Cheers There's a good reason that Walter Pidgeon is warning off Leslie Nielson and his crew from the relief ship, stuff he dare not dream about.

As Doctor Edward Morbius, Pidgeon is the last survivor of an expedition that came to this planet 20 years earlier. Since that time he married another member of the expedition and had a daughter, Anne Francis. They are the only humans left on this planet which was once the home world of an ancient civilization known as the Krell.

The records as deciphered by Pidgeon indicate the Krell came to a cataclysmic ending of unknown origin. The machinery they left behind is still functioning.

Maybe functioning too well as members of the relief party start dying and in a particular gruesome fashion.

I see all kinds of speculation about a remake and this is one film not to remake because it's as fresh as it was in 1956. The terms would change, we would now say warp speed instead of hyper drive, courtesy of the enduring popularity of Star Trek.

We might not see the men in the relief expedition in a flying saucer like space ship. It might look a lot more like the Starship Enterprise or the Ship from 2001 A Space Odyssey. It's interesting to look at science fiction films from different generations and see how are conceptions of the future do change.

The story behind Forbidden Planet is a timeless one, about mortal beings trying to play God.

You can't write about Forbidden Planet without commenting on Robby the Robot. This mechanical marvel, put together by Pidgeon with the knowledge he gained from studying the Krell was quite the hit back in the day. He got a new lease on life in the sixties with the character of the Robot from Lost In Space. His scenes with Earl Holliman who plays the cook on the space ship and his complying with Earl's request for some home spirits are very funny.

Robby and the other special effects were nominated for an Oscar, but lost to The Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea. Forbidden Planet's bad luck to run up against a Hollywood founder like Cecil B. DeMille.

Classicists among you will recognize Forbidden Planet as a futuristic reworking of The Tempest which when you think about it could have been Shakespeare's one venture into science fiction.

My favorite among the cast is Warren Stevens who's sacrifice enables Leslie Nielsen to learn exactly what he's dealing with.

Never miss this one whenever it's broadcast. First off, consider that this film is nearly fifty years old! Yet, it still stands up as one of the great films of all time. I wonder how many of todays throwaway celluloid productions will still be talked about in 2050?

The story is simple, yet solid enough and the effects are nothing short of phenomenal for the day. I can still recall the first time I watched this, as a kid, when the monster enters the force-field protecting the ship and you got to see its outline for the first (and only) time. Had me shivering in fear, I can tell you. Looks dated today, but still more than effective enough.

The scenes with the tiger show their age now. You can see the outline where the tiger was matted into the shots with Altaira, but they are only just visible.

Likewise, the effect whereby the creature melts its way through the Krell doors are wonderfully done.

It's also amazing to see Leslie Nielsen (better remembered for the Airplane and Naked Gun movies) as a young, but still mature man. He was 30 when this film came out! Nearly 80 now!

All in all a good movie that is sure to continue being a favourite for years to come. Timeless. There were a lot of 50's sci-fi movies. They were big draws for the Drive-in theaters. A lot of them were crappy even back then. This movie and 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' stand out, and both have aged well in their own way. From the very beginning with its eerie theremin musical score (which still sounds weird since theremins are hardly ever used) Forbidden Planet takes you where no man has gone before. Speaking of Star Trek there's so much material in this film that got into Star Trek TOS its like a pilot for the series; from the interactive captain/first mate/doctor, the mad scientist, alien beings, babe in short skirt, computer intelligence; it is all de rigeur now but this was the first of its kind. Besides, it has good acting and well-done artwork which even today evokes a certain awe at the imagery. Consider how the huge Krell machine is successfully depicted with some real depth. I saw this as a kid (at a drive-in :0)when it was a new movie and it scared me. Of course every movie that was even vaguely scary did back then but I remember being real worried about the invisible monster. Forbidden Planet is a movie a sci-fi fan can watch several times and find something new with each viewing. Today's sci-fi thrillers are more like Rambo in outer-space with monster special effects (frequently ludicrous such as sounds of explosions in the vacuum of space). Though tame by today's standards, the special effects of "Forbidden Planet" were quite striking for their time. Even today, they still hold plausibility. Yet, the best part of the movie is perhaps the reason that radio thrillers still have appeal. Much of what was going on was left up to the imaginations of the audience. (What did the Krell creatures look like?) By having much of the framework of the story never divulged or only divulged in the end, the tension and suspense held throughout the movie. The ending was also very thought-provoking and satisfying. In my mind, this is still one of the best (if not the best) sci-fi films ever made. Level One, Horror.

When I saw this film for the first time at 10, I knew it would give me nightmares. It did. Surprisingly, as I recall, it was the sound as much as the sight of the monster that caused them.

Level Two, Psychoanalytic Theory.

Later as an adult, I saw the story for what it was: What if the savage, unrestrained instincts we all repress became manifest.

Level Three, Pure Science Fiction.

The best way plausibly to realize the plot's "What if" is through the science fiction genre. This is pure science fiction, not the "cowboys in space" that passes for the genre today.

After 43 years, Forbidden Planet remains the greatest of all science fiction films. If planning a remake, SKG or Lucas, Watch Out! Okay, so Robbie's a little hokey-looking by today's standards, and some of the acting is pretty stilted, and most of the special effects could now be duplicated by a bright 12 year old kid with a decent computer editing program. And don't get me started about the poster.

This is STILL a great movie, 40 years after it was released. I grew up watching "science fiction" on the local TV station's "Science Fiction/Adventure Theater" on Sunday afternoons, so I've seen quite a few SF movies from the '50s. At a time when most movies were content to slap a rubber costume on somebody and have him demolish a miniature model of a city, Forbidden Planet forever raised the bar and showed that it was possible to make a science fiction movie which actually had a plot.

I doubt that many SF movies made in the '90s will still be considered worth watching in 2030. When one thinks of 1950s science fiction films one thinks of the sort of schlocky black and white B films that were parodied on the old Mystery Science Theater 3000 television show. Yet, while there were far more films like Plan 9 From Outer Space and Robot Monster than good films, the 1950s did have some very good, if not great, science fiction films like The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, War Of The Worlds, and The Thing From Another World. Yet, the best of the bunch, for its literacy and production values, was undoubtedly MGM's first big foray into A level science fiction, Forbidden Planet, released in 1956. It was a 98 minute color film, directed by Fred M. Wilcox, that featured then state of the art special effects, and was endowed with a very good screenplay by Cyril Hume, from a screen treatment called Fatal Planet, by Irving Block and Allen Adler, who adapted aspects of William Shakespeare's The Tempest into it.

The film drew raves when it was released, for its Oscar nominated special effects, its all electronic music score, by Louis and Bebe Barron (although credited as Electronic Tonalities, to avoid music guild fees), vivid matte paintings- inspired by Chesley Bonestell, and the famed Monster Of The Id (MOTI), which was animated by an animator, Joshua Meador, on loan from the Walt Disney studio. Even more famous was the appearance of Robby The Robot, in his first role in either film or television. Later he would appear in the film The Invisible Boy- included in this DVD as a bonus, as well as several appearances in the 1960s sci fi TV shows The Twilight Zone, Night Gallery, and Lost In Space- with whose own robot he is often confused, and a cameo appearance in the 1984 film Gremlins.

The tale is simple, but elegantly constructed, and filled with humorous asides that leaven the forced 'love story' aspect in the film. In the 23rd Century, the United Planets Cruiser C-57D- a flying saucer, led by Commander J.J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen- yes he was once a leading man type before his Police Squad days), is en route to the planet Altair IV, to investigate what happened to the crew of the Bellerophon, sent to the planet twenty years earlier. After a year's journey, there they encounter the lone survivor of the party, Doctor Edward Morbius (Walter Pidgeon), the Prospero stand-in- a philologist, his gorgeous blond daughter Altaira (Anne Francis)- the Miranda character in a pre 1960s miniskirt, and Robby the Robot, the domestic servant who is the Calibanian counterpart. Morbius warns the crew of a mysterious force that killed the Bellerophon party in their first year, yet he was immune to it…. All in all, it's a technically good film- especially with some rear projections and matte paintings, and the absurdity of the adult reactions to Timmy's and Robby's exploits borders an Dalian surreal absurdity. Yet, it's manifest that the filmmakers had no sense of the sublime absurdity the film conjures, for it's played straight, thus making it even funnier. As for the main feature? Forbidden Planet deserves all its kudos. It's not a perfect film, but it's a great way to spend a couple of hours, and far better than Star Wars, which although made twenty years later seems much more outdated, and juvenile. Only such films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Alien and Aliens, and the first two Terminator films, have really equaled or surpassed this classic in depth and effects.

It's worth knowing that, despite Forbidden Planet's 'happy ending', there is the possibility that the MOTI is still dormant within Alta, as well. After all, she is her father's daughter, and had an even more vivid nightmare than her father when the MOTI attacked the ship a second time. Also, the film wisely only 'shows' the MOTI once, and never shows the Krel, for the imagination can always conjure greater scares than the best special effects. The film also makes good use of narrative ellipses to condense the tale, something that far more realistic art films often fail to do. Forbidden Planet is one of those rare films that both defines yet transcends its era- unlike other sci fi films which were rather obvious Cold War allegories. Watch it, and you will agree, as well as sleep a little less easy. But, even if you don't, there's still the scene of Anne Francis skinnydipping. That alone is timeless. I know I should like this film, and I do for the most part, but as other's have mentioned, it is a bit long in the tooth. I to also found the raging hormones of the all male crew to be a bit annoying. It's a wonder they didn't start panting and howling at the moons as well. I also have to say that overall, the movie leaves me cold. It's a very sterile atmosphere that permeates the film. On the plus side the effects are great (besides the cartoon monster), as are the effects, props, costumes and of course Robbie. If the robot was not in this film, I don't think it would have been as popular as it was/is. The second half of the movie picks up steam once we start to investigate the forgotten gadgets of the "Krell." As many times as I've seen this movie, the Krell still leaves me scratching my head as to exactly who or what they were. Based on what was being produced at that time, besides "This Island Earth," Forbidden Planet is miles above the average Sci-Fi movies of the time. Being filmed in color also adds to its enjoyment. Certainly a classic in its own right, flaws and all, and deservedly so. Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is a model for this exceptional science fiction film. We look for differences. Prospero and his daughter, Miranda, are stranded on a Mediterranean island." Morbius and Altaira are marooned on the 4th planet circling the star Altair. Ariel is a spirit. Robby the Robot is a man-made servant. Caliban's evil hardly approaches that of Monsters of the Id. Shakespeare spares Prospero. Morbius dies when Altair 4 blows up. "The Tempest" is a comedy. "Forbidden Planet" is a tragedy. We wonder if mankind must suffer the fate of the Krell in some future time. Anne Francis is Altaira. Jack Kelly is Lieutentant Farman. Kelly starred with James Garner in the comedy/western TV series, "Maverick." As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem. I should say at the outset there are many, many things I love about 'Forbidden Planet' and yes, I certainly consider it a 'classic' science-fiction film for many reasons. But the adulation it has received over the years goes a bit over the top in my opinion. No less an authority than Leonard Maltin says 'Forbidden Planet' "...is one of the most ambitious and intelligent movies of its genre." Ambitious? Without a doubt. Intelligent? Depends on what part of the film you're talking about. It certainly was the most prestigious and highly-budgeted science-fiction flick to that point. At a cost of nearly $2 million (this was 1956, remember), MGM pulled out all the stops to produce a dazzling, eye-popping outer space adventure unlike anything seen on the big screen before, even employing artists from the Disney studio for some of the more elaborate special effects. 'Charming' is not usually a word used to describe special effects in sci-fi movies, yet that is the one that seems most appropriate here. Even the dreaded 'Monster from the Id' is only a well-rendered cartoon figure by the Disney people, unlikely to frighten anyone over the age of 8. When I see the various sets and take note of the art design, models, costumes, etc., I am reminded of nothing so much as 'The Wizard of Oz,' with its gorgeously saturated colors and elaborate if not always convincing effects. So much work has gone into these films that one is inclined to smile in admiration at the effort regardless. 'Forbidden Planet' is wonderful to look at. The scenes take place on obvious stage sets that are fabulously decorated, matte paintings of planets and space in the background, and intricately designed miniature sand dunes and so forth to give the illusion of depth. It's a bit like watching the most elaborately-produced stage play you'd ever see. The most believable and convincing scenes are probably the ones inside the massive Krell complex, where shots showing the vast depth and width of this inner space are well-done and credible. But then we get to the actors, darn it. The performances are almost uniformly awful, though in fairness one has to say the dialogue hardly ever transcends the level of adolescent locker-room humor, except for some passages of barely adequate scientific technobabble. Even the great actor Walter Pidgeon is reduced to giving such a hammy performance, it's lugubrious at times. A very young Leslie Nielsen stars as the spaceship commander J.J. Adams, and doesn't convey an ounce of believability or conviction in the entire film. He seems to instinctively know, thirty years ahead of time, that his true forte' lay in comedy, as there are times he seems barely able to keep a straight face reciting his lines. Every forced reaction, whether it is anger or passion or solemn meditation, looks right out of a high school play. Anne Francis, also very young, fares a little better as the supposedly innocent Alta, whom we are to believe has never seen a human male other than her father until the crew of the spaceship shows up. (Alta Morbius, now there's a name for you.) Unfortunately, even at this early age, Anne Francis seems about as virginal and naive as Elizabeth Taylor in 'Butterfield 8.' There is a good story here, buried somewhere beneath the crew-mates' leering comments about Alta and yet another juvenile subplot concerning Earl Holliman's 'Cookie,' ship's cook. (Holliman turns in a horrendous performance too. I'm guessing all these actors went straight from this movie to acting school.) Based on Shakespeare's 'The Tempest,' the story of a dead race, the Krell, and the fantastic world of machines they left behind is what most people tend to remember about 'Forbidden Planet,' and for good reason. For a few minutes here and there, you can forget about the rest of the movie and be dazzled by the Disney artists' conception of the Krell underground complex. Is it enough to make up for the rest of the film's shortcomings? You'll have to decide that on your own. Oh, and of course there's Robby the Robot, every 1950's ten-year-old's idea of what a robot should look and talk like. He's funny. In places. So, 'Forbidden Planet' to me is a very, VERY mixed bag. It deserves credit for being the inspiration for a whole wave of sci-fi films and TV shows that followed, not least of which was 'Star Trek.' But I would suggest that anyone who thinks it's more than well-staged comic book sci-fi go back and watch it again. I've now seen this one about 10 times, so there must be something about it I like!

50's US sci-fi movies were pretty much a mixed bunch: they were either intelligently made and/or thought provoking or cheap and laughable cheese. Forbidden Planet is a bit of both, but in that rarity for the genre, colour.

It also had a head start with the script - although Shakespeare might not have recognised it, it was based on his timeless play and thus guaranteed a certain amount of longevity itself if made well.

It's the story of one mans murderous id artificially magnified infinitely by machines a dead race left switched on 200,000 years before. Along the way the plot bristles with 50's stereotypes and corn so pure you wonder sometimes why you're watching it, but always do. That love triangle thing...yuk! Disney's cartoonery still holds up well, and the cartoon backgrounds straight off the covers of Galaxy magazine etc look good even after 50 years. Robbie driving the car over the desert in the far distance is a hoot though!

All in all, with all faults, the best of its kind and we should be grateful that such a pristine print survives. Certain elements of this film are dated, of course. An all white male crew, for instance. And like most Pre-Star Wars Science Fiction, it tends to take too long admiring itself.

But, still, no movie has ever capture the flavor of Golden Age Science Fiction as this one did, even down to the use of the "electronic tonalities" to provide the musical score. Robbie the Robot epitomized the Asimov robots, and was the inspiration for all that followed, from C3PO to Data.

The plot line, of course, is Shakespeare's "The Tempest". Morbius is Prospero, and exiled wizard who finds his kingdom invaded by interlopers... It was a movie that treated Science Fiction as an adult genre, perhaps the first. I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man Forbidden Planet represents the kind of science fiction that is precious in cinema, especially from the 1950s. There was The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds, but lest not forget this gem which took some of its story from Shakespeare's The Tempest to tell a tale of astronauts on a planet that has a doctor on it who has made a remarkable breakthrough. It's the kind of breakthrough that is not so much incredible to look at (though for 1956 it does look quite amazing to look at some of those sets and that gigantic machine the doctor creates), but with its emphasis on the characters and its themes of technology taken too far by the more primitive side of human nature even when we don't know we're channeling it.

On the surface- that is in the first ten minutes- it looks standard, if a little more professionally acted and directed with better skill than the B-movies of the period. A ship of astronauts are on a mission to the planet Altair-4 to bring back an expedition that went missing decades before. But the only one left is Dr. Morbis (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter, who somehow were immune to an attack that left everyone else dead. Morbius appears to be a cordial and highly intelligent man, and his technology looks to be so impressive that the only thing the astronauts, led by the Skipper (Leslie Nielsen), can think to do is to report it back to their superiors on Earth.

But there's a catch - something is killing off members of the crew of the ship, one by one, every night, even when the others keep an eye out and then put up an invisible electric fence, which the invisible something goes through easily. Meanwhile, there's some romance possibly between the Skipper and Alraira, and there's a more pushy vibe from the doctor: you shouldn't have come to the planet to start, and now you need to go. What happens from this is even more fascinating, just on a purely intellectual level, but Forbidden Planet never forgets that its audience should also be entertained by this story while getting some useful ideas. While everyone may remember Robbie the Robot, and for good reason, perhaps the most unforgettable image for me is the monster realized on screen with the crew firing to no avail, animated with red electricity and looking so beastly that it looks out of Fantasia.

The acting from Pidgeon is subtle: you wouldn't expect him to be a villain, though something is there in the character and in the performance that speaks to this, and by the end it makes the character far more complex than one would expect. And the other performances are workmanlike but also excellent, from Nielsen as a born leader to Holliman providing some great comic relief as the Cook (who, I should add, helps with one of the funniest scenes in the film with those gallons of bourbon Robbie provides). And the effects for its time are extraordinary (sophisticated in a nostalgic pulp way for today too), and the music, done by electronics, is beautiful in its "tones". But ultimately it's the screenplay and careful direction from Hilcox that puts this a notch above the rest of the B-movie lot. When it's meant to be funny, it's intentionally so and it works. When it's dramatic it connects quite well even in its stiff moments with the actors. And when we are made to think about a horrible situation, it comes on gradually, with nuance, not shoved in our faces or injected with mega-action.

An inspiration for many other sci-fi films, and a fine marker of thoughtful science fiction stories and books from time-old, it's a classy and entertaining classic. This has always been one of my favourite movies, and will always be. Over the last few years I have become a 50's / 60's Sci-fi freak, trying to collect all of the better ones that were made back then. I love lots of things about them from how corny they could be to how technically correct some of them were. The great colours and the sets get me going too. It's a pity when they re-make some of these good old movies; they nearly always stuff it up, - just look at the recent re-do of The day the Earth stood still, it's utter garbage!! Forbidden Planet is one of the benchmark space films of all time, and now they're trying to re-make it too, and I shudder to think what the new one will be like! To my mind, some things, such as fantastic classic movies, should just be left alone to be what they are, classic examples of great attempts at telling simple stories, and giving people a thrill in the process. Once they add all the techno-crap that we have available now, the film just seems to be more dog-meat from the Hollywood sausage factory, - nothing special at all. By the way, I notice that the astronauts' uniforms in Forbidden Planet were also used for "Queen of Outer Space"! That just tells you that the budgets were a bit lower back then, doesn't it? Hey, less money and better films, hmmm....

Great performances in this movie from Leslie Nielsen, in a serious role, and Anne Francis, Walter Pidgeon (who has always been one of my favourite actors), Earl Holiman, and of course Robby the Robot!

The special effects are fantastic, and the storyline is not too far-fetched. This is a great sci-fi experience! this was one of those $.50 cent deals of yore---and far more complex than most realize---and it was in color! not only are the effects extraordinary, vs. crap like 'earth vs. the flying saucers'---the real 'killer' is the 'universality of plot'---everything hinges on two principles---the ancient concept of a hidden incestuous-thinking father's desire for his daughter, and the idea of what would happen should a world's tech reach the point where all citizen's desires become manifest.

needless to say if everyone we wished dead gets dead, not many, if any left---and that became the fate of the 'forbidden' planet's populace---rather modern, actually. unfortunately the 'gear' of 'The Krell'---wasted by ignorance, remains, and 'Morpheus', the incestuous father, knows how to access such tech---and does so, to prevent losing his daughter to another. ancient plot, beautifully rendered.

and considering its age, it remains a stunning suspense, action, human-emotion classic---and visually very modern---don't pass this one up---it presages all modern sci-fi---and its pscychological content elevates it, beyond any genre---a timeless work---

and the soundtract! you will see/hear no pure 'synth' and perfectly syched Moog background---a 'not miss'--- FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and "monsters from the Id" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant "must see" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic. But this is a great martial arts film. Liu Chia Liang ranks second to none as a fight choreographer, only Sammo Hung at his best compares. This is immediately clear from his proud exhibition of technique -rather than flashy camera angles etc. - during fights. The direction is tightly controlled to not only excite the viewer by the speed and movement but to awe her with the precise skill displayed. This film benefits also from Liu's participation in front of the camera. Liu's performance at the banquet scene with which the film opens is one of the high points in kung fu movie history. Liu is supported by the beautiful and talented Hui Ying Hung (of My Young Auntie fame) and 'Hsiao Hou' whose acrobatics are breathtaking, and preferable to any amount of wirework As for the plot , this film follows the not uncommon theme of revenge, but with character and moral development along the way, and a most fitting resolution. The humour in this is also of the best. If you only watch one kung fu film ever, this would be a good choice- it has it all. This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a "Triple bill of Classics" at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW! When "Good Times" premiered in 1974, it was one the first black family sitcoms. It centered on the poor Chicago-based Evans family and their struggles to make ends. Most of the early episodes focused on the parents, James and Florida Evans, and their struggle to provide for the family. John Amos and Esther Rolle were the best part of the show. They were terrific actors and had great chemistry as James and Florida Evans. They had three kids: J.J., Thelma, and Michael. J.J. was the skirt-chasing but well-meaning teenage son who made up for his lack of subtletly with artistic talent. Thelma was an attractive, bright girl who was constantly trading insults with J.J. Michael was a near child prodigy who was well-educated on social issues and was destined to become a lawyer.

In 1976, the producers made a huge mistake by firing John Amos, literally killing off his character. This really changed the focus, and not for the good I might add. The shows began to focus more on J.J. and his buffoon-like behavior which angered black viewers as well as series star Esther Rolle, who left after the next season. Instead of a show that focused on key African-American issues that existed in society at the time, viewers got shows that were overloaded with skirt chasing and fat jokes.

Once Esther Rolle left, the quality of the show suffered even more. Although it was still watchable, it was no longer the great ground-breaking show that it once was.

Although Esther Rolle came back for the 1978 season, it became obvious that the show was on its last legs. All loose ends were tied up during that season and the show quietly faded off the air.

First three season: A. Last three seasons: C+. Good Times was a groundbreaking comedy about the first nuclear black family living in the Chicago projects. Whether or not, you live in the inner cities, ghettos, suburbs, or rural countryside, this show is still a treasure to watch and observe a family being just a family rather than a show about a poor black family. But they don't dwell on it. They find humor and have strong family values and morals. Despite the story behind the scenes, this show was worth keeping on the air except I didn't like them killing off the father which I agreed with Esther Rolle who fought hard to keep the family together. But despite all the fights behind the scenes, Good Times was a show about a family. We all loved JJ's dynamite and his antics. We watched Janet Jackson's Penny grow up a little. This show was groundbreaking to show despair in drugs, gangs, and alcoholism. Without being to preachy, The Evans always tried to do the right thing rather than do something wrong to get out of the ghetto. I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!! "GOOD TIMES," in my opinion, is a must-see CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it. It's hard to say which one is my favorite. Also, I really love the theme song. If you ask me, even though I like everyone, it would have been nice if everyone had stayed on the show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen on TV Land now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. First,I'll give my rating for the series overall; ******* 7 out of ten stars. I've taken away three for the downhill slide this series suffered after John Amos departed. Don't get me wrong there were hard hitting episodes later but only after Esther Rolle left for a season and returned.

In February of 1974,a really great sit-com (with dramatic overtones)premiered on CBS. It was a TV first,a show about an African-American family living in the Chicago Projects in the 1970s. Created by Norman Lear as a spin-off of "Maude",he once again struck the right chord with viewers.

Not since this show have I seen a situation comedy directly talk about the struggles of inner-city families. (Well,there was Fox's "South Central" in '94 but was not renewed.)

John Amos as James Evans Sr. was the ultimate father figure for this family and acted as any father should to keep his family together and his kids from going down the wrong paths in life.

Esther Rolle was a wonderful no non-sense mother figure who was on the same page as her husband when it came to their kids upbringing.

Ralph Carter as Michael a young but very bright young man for his age but stuck in a school system that doesn't meet his academic needs. His character's name is the same as the show's founder Mike Evans who was Lionel Jefferson on "The Jeffersons". (Mike Evans passed away Dec. 2006).

Thelma is a young girl of 16 or 17 and has to deal with the dangers of being a young woman in the streets of the ghetto. Jimmie Walker as J.J. Evans Jr. is the typical young wise-cracking,jiving kind of young man who does not take life seriously enough.

Simply put,all my favorite episodes are with John Amos,with the exception of the Penny Gordon/Janet Jackson story lines.

After the demise of the James Evans character,the show lost it's stability and viewers departed. Esther Rolle left for an entire year,not wanting to play second fiddle to JJ's smart-aleck "Dyno-mite's"!

She returned the next season,after securing a guarantee that the writer's would even things out. Florida's neighbor Wilona Woods was a divorced woman who ended up adopting an abused little girl Penny Gordon (played by a then 10 year old Janet Jackson). Penny's abusive mother was played by Totie Fields,Kim Fields' Mother.

In August of 1979 the show came to an end,with all leaving the projects for a better life. JJ the artist had sold an idea to a comic-book company,Michael went off to live on campus at college.

Wilona & Penny,Thelma & football player husband Keith + Florida all moved into the same building in uptown Chicago. Not the most realistic ending but by that time it didn't matter. This show was a landmark in American comedy as it was the first sitcom to star an all Afro-American cast. Sadly though it was never broad-casted on British TV.

The Evans family are a poor Afro-American family living in a tower block. The Dad is called James, he tries to run the house, but his wife Florida always gets the better of him. The three children are the artistic JJ, the moody Thelma and the young intellectual child Michael. Always coming into the house is Florida's gossipy friend Willona.

I watched two episodes of this show on youtube (Black Jesus and Sex and the Evans Family- the only two on the site). You may be thinking why has an English viewer watched a series that has never been shown or hardly heard of in his country. The answer is this. In 1976, Britains first all black sitcom came out called "The Fosters" Only two series were made and it now seems forgotten. But I watched an episode and was really impressed. Then I learnt that the scripts were identical to "Good Times". They were exactly the same characters but with different names- Sam Foster was the Dad, his wife was Pearl Foster and the three children were Sonny (a young Lenny Henry), Shirley and Benjamin. Pearl's gossipy friend was Vilma. (To read about The Fosters, I have wrote a review about that). Whilst watching "Good Times" only two things annoyed me. First off was the opening theme tune (awful) and secondly was the audience laughter. I like audience laughter, but in this somebody would say a slightly funny line and the audience would go mad and start clapping. Apart from that it was a very funny show. Let's hope more episodes turn up on youtube and lets hope that someone will release "The Fosters" on DVD in England.

Best Episode: Sex and the Evans family- Series 1 episode 6. The Foster's episode of it was called Sex in the Black Community. The other episode I saw, Black Jesus was a title of one episode of "The Fosters" When people think of downtown Chicago they think of Walter Payton, Ditka and "Da Bears", Ryne Sandberg, The White Sox breaking the curse in 2005 or the immortal Michael Jordan and his six championships (and Finals MVP's) with the Chicago Bulls. Rarely in this generation do people think of the struggling side of Chicago, the ghettos, the drug infested streets and life in the urban housing projects during the 1970's.

One of television's most formidable shows ever and a groundbreaking sitcom was "Good Times", which I remember vaguely as a small child on CBS, and I enjoy regularly now on TV Land.

"Good Times" was another Norman Lear classic, the producer that gave us "The Jeffersons", the best African American sitcom of all time and "All in the Family" the greatest show of all time. "Good Times" brought out the hardships of the ghetto and the urban housing projects, and did so with charm, well written and thoughtful plots, and some wonderful acting especially by the matriarch and patriarch of this struggling ghetto family played by Esther Rolle and John Amos. The children in the supporting cast were also pretty good especially the ever popular Janet Jackson in her early years and Ralph Carter as Florida and James Evans youngest son whose character at a young age realizes that life is unfair, and he has to learn to stand on his own two feet.

The eldest of the children J.J. played by Jimmy Walker is somewhat out of place on this show and is there mainly for comic relief. His emotional age is about 11 or 12 even though he looks like a guy in his early twenties. J.J. gets annoying, and it is a credit to the often nasty James Evans (Amos) that he never tells J.J. to get his own life, get a job and get out of the house. J.J. is an aspiring painter but unlike his younger brother is never serious about getting a college degree, or more important to the family getting a job to help support a household that is just above welfare status.

Two classic episodes of Good Times was the one where the Janet Jackson character is running a fever of 104, and Florida Evans is desperately seeking good medical help for her can't afford anything but a clinic doctor who is very professional yet doesn't want to give a family from the projects any more attention than she legally has to. The other episode is the one where James Evans can't afford the rent a paltry low $104 a month. The Evans are about to get the largest of family setbacks, being thrown out of the projects with no where to go. Florida Evans goes downtown to the board of social services to try to get either a loan or a grant to help her family. But the government doesn't consider her family poor because they have over $4,200 in assets for a family of five which is unfairly but unfortunately legally over the poverty line. James and the kids want to hustle for the money, but Florida is a person of great moral character and doesn't want to do anything dishonest no matter how dire their predicament is. In the end the family does find a solution to keep their heads above water.

"Good Times" a classic show from the 1970's is about keeping you're head above water in a cruel world. James and Florida Evans both work hard in menial jobs to try to bring their children up right and avoid the social stigma of welfare. I was too young to understand the message of the sitcom as a toddler in the 70s in its first airing on CBS, but I really enjoy the reruns on TV Land in 2006. "Good Times" is one of the classic sitcoms from back in the day. This was what black society was like before the crack epidemics, gangsta rap, and AIDS that beset the ghettos in the eighties. Decent, hardworking families that struggled to get by and all the traumas and tribulations they faced. Black America was a different group of people in the seventies. Still full of hope and flying high on the civil rights movements of the sixties, times were hard but still worth fighting for. Keepin' your head above water, making a wave when you can, this show showed how black society struggled to work together as people and families, before they started to prey on each other and everyone else in order to survive the horrors of the ghettos. It is heart-breaking to see what the black ghettos were like then and what they have become now. Back in 74 Eric Monte made the classic T.V show Good Times. JJ has always been my favorite and I love watching the Reruns on T.V Land. Jimmie Walker always seemed to be the star and not Esther Rolle. John Amos most of the time felt a little jealous of Jimmie Walker's popularity winning millions of fans time to sit and watch Good Times. The show would have been dead if JJ would't have been there to save it with his always Kool Aid attitude. Drinking KOOL AID was like his favorite thing on the show. I was 3 when it came out and 8 when it ended. Instead of 1974-1979 it should have went longer like in the 1980's when I was just growing up. Like The Jeffersons, Good Times was one of the those classic American sitcoms which was never aired in the UK, not to mention it came out in the 1970s- a decade where of which I wasn't born yet.

But like most fans of the show, I watched a few episodes on You Tube- and afterwards, I loved it.

The Evans family are headed by James and Florida- two parents trying to make ends meet, and who despite their lack of qualifications, encourage their children, who have their own aspirations in life to fulfil them and to take their chances. James was the strict but loving dad, who didn't dare hesitate in disciplining J.J, Michael and Thelma- should they over-step the line. Whilst Florida, in contrast was a fair, kind- hearted and considerate mother and loving wife, although she was in many ways similar to James, with regards to their attitudes to parenthood and family values from an Afro- American perspective.

The kids were just as lively and entertaining as the parents themselves: J.J was an aspiring artist with a goofy personality and crazy sense of humour, who would often wear multi-coloured outfits, and whose 'DY-NO-MITE' catchphrase is as infectious and familiar as Arnold Jackson's 'Whatchoo talking' 'bout Willis?' from Diff'rent Strokes. Michael was the smart-alec, who dreams of becoming a lawyer, whilst sister Thelma had her own dreams and hopes. Her verbal taunts with J.J were mostly hilarious, as was the love/hate relationship between brother and sister, which was played out extremely well by both Mike Evans and Bernadette Stanis.

Over the seasons, there were a few cameo appearances made, most notably from Janet Jackson, Debbie Allen and a young Gary Coleman as himself! I actually prefer Good Times over say, The Cosby Show, which was an 80s show because a) I preferred the Evans family over the Huxtables, both in terms of a) characterisation and b)as I felt it tackled serious and difficult social issues, in a way that resonated with many viewers. It was a comedy but it was also a social commentary which aimed to highlight the lives of working class, Afro- Americans in 1970s America. The Cosby Show attempted to cater to the mainstream audience in a 'candy coated' way, as the Huxtables were portrayed as Blacks who easily assimilated themselves into an upper-class U.S culture we would associate Whites with, whereas Good Times in contrast was much more 'edgier' and it was not afraid to address themes such as drug and child abuse in a realistic way. I actually found that whilst The Cosby Show can be fun to watch at times, it lacked that bit of 'sassiness' which Good Times has and of which made it trendier and cooler.

The show did jump the shark during the latter seasons, as it continued after John Amos's character, James died in a freak accident (in reality, it was known at the time that John had quit Good Times for good. And so, his character's death was written as it is on the show). Without John, the show suffered and alas, it lost a lot of its charm.

Still, for a sitcom, Good Times ticked all the right boxes. If only they had shown this in the UK during the 80s. As it certainly is, as JJ would put it, 'DY-NO-MITE!!'

My rating: 8 and a half After enjoying this show for years, I use to dream of being able to see them all again and share them with my grandchildren. I am so happy to pay a small amount for the memories that I have found recorded on DVD. Florida was a caring mother with a loving hard working husband, one spoiled beautiful daughter and two sons as different as day and night. Michael, the baby son is a freedom walker and JJ is a clown. I know many Afro-Americans disliked this show, but I know many can relate and should have accepted it as it was. My heart was sad when I learned that Ester Rolle had passed. Tyler Perry is now the leading writer actor of today and I support his work, but not as much since he made such cruel mocking of Rolle in one of his plays. No one should have to hear ugly things about physical appearance. The show started getting less interesting when Daddy James died. It picked up a bit when Florida remarried, but slumped when she took an absence from the show. In all, the show was great and again I am pleased to own copies of part of my past. I do try to keep up with the work of the former stars of Good Times, and I must say, they are one group who has not been wiped up and down with rumors. I think children of today will enjoy this show and I have no problem sitting and watching with children. Congrats to the writer, crew, and stars for years of renewed memories of a time that I can once again enjoy without having to skip scenes.

OK so I watch the shows over and over. Lately I have noticed thing that has made me rethink the series, but not dislike them. I think Florida was a bit harsh when it came to money that the children made. Not that the children did not need supervision, but it was done in a way that makes Florida's mothering different. The scenes where Florida had to speak about how other people were not very good looking bothers me now. When James was alive, the show made a big thing out of James wanting his own Fix-it shop, but never lived to see his family out of the projects, but Florida marries someone who owns a fix-it shop. A bit of a slap in the face to an actor who should have ended his time on Good Times showing that he accomplished all he strove for. Lastly, As I watch the shows, I see the series going in to overtime and being renamed "JJ". To be truthful, after James left everything mostly centered around JJ. Not a bad thing, just a noticeable thing. I would not trade my DVD's for any amount of money, but time, maturity and experience began to guide your eyes after a while. Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.

With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.

The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life. Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him "job well done". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home. I LOVED GOOD TIMES with the rest of many of you. I love reading INTELLIGENT and INSIGHTFUL commentary. The writers on THIS show were fantastic and the Actors were beyond TALENTED. To answer Strawberry22 (the neatest commentary to the other superior and positive commentary)...What happened was that James was killed in an accident (I believe I remember that it was a trucking accident or car accident) and it was the saddest episode (when it first aired and I was a tiny thing...it was so sad to me..).

Florida and the Children actually get out of the projects and EVEN become neighbors with Willona (Wilnona) and that is how the very last show ended.

ALL of the children achieved their dreams and found opportunity in each of their dreams. It was a wonderful ending and I cried because I was happy for them and the show seemed so realistic that I actually believed in their fate. I hope that this kind of ending rings true in actually for many.

A great show and many other great shows followed including Benson and The Jeffersons. This was an awesome period for African-American television and the best writers were awesome at that time. TV LAND is Awesome for the memories and I just LOVE it because I cannot STAND the junk that we are watching today. SOMEBODY...bring back the 1970s and 1980s quickly...your intelligent viewers are a dying breed out here and we need better material.

Love, a TV LAND original sitcom junkie of the 70s and 80s (as they sing in "ALL in the Family"...those were the days...... Holly addresses the issue of child sexploitation that is rampant all over the world (some 2 million children are trafficked every year) and does so sensitively and without manipulation--a tall order that the team at Priority Films does with great success. American actor Ron Livington stars in the film alongside newcomer Thuy Nguyen, a Vietnamese actress who plays Holly, and together they bring to screen what is commonplace to the people at the notorious k11 redlight district in Cambodia. Although it tackles a heavy topic, the film holds on to moments of laughter and hope as we get to know the characters up close, keeping the two-hour film from being one that is too difficult to watch. I am glad a film like this is bringing the world's attention to the problem. Child prostitution needs to be stopped and this is a very good first step. It's GREAT and a film EVERYONE must see. Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide.

I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking.

For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'. "Holly" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made. Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on "...of the living dead" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch.

We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together.

Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined "Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film." Jordan replied, "No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result." Oh.)

A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit.

Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation!

Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises.

Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan.

Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course! According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain olé' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out. Good times working with the Quiroz Brothers, and the entire cast on this project as the "Guy on the Bench." I was amazed how well they accomplished capturing all the identifiable traits of a true "B" horror film. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to work with Pumpkin Patch Pictures team again in the future. I moved to Detroit shortly after completion and have been recognized in public on several occasions since the release. One time was actually in the video store and the girl damn near lost her mind. It was pretty funny and that was my 1st real autograph moment as I signed her receipt. One day I asked the girl at Blockbuster if the movie is rented often, and she confirmed by looking it up in the computer. At the time it was renting more than Ring2 which was also a new release at the time... The title really captures immediate interest in the more urban markets. She also noticed on many occasions the movie had not been returned by the customer leading me to believe the movie is just so good people don't want to give it back.... Watch out for ZoMbIeS when in the hood cause they will get ya! Jaysun Barr (Guy on the Bench-2005) When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers! Man, if anyone was expecting a great zombie movie after reading that title, then you are a retard and you deserve to be disappointed. As for myself, I was expecting a low-budgeted cheeseball zombie flick- and that's exactly what I got. I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a cool little movie. The zombies were exactly as they should be, because all of the zombies had JUST been turned, so they are freshly-undead zombies. Obviously they did that because it would've been pretty costly if they had done full-on rotted zombie FX. I understood the whole thing, I have no idea how anyone could seriously nitpick this movie. It's called "HOOD OF THE LIVING DEAD" for the love of God! Would you watch "Redneck Zombies" and ANY Uwe Boll movie and actually EXPECT it to be great? Of course not! So why there are some morons on IMDb whining like school girls about this movie, I'll never understand. Oh and YES, there ARE worse movies out there, so stop saying that this was the worst you've ever seen, 'cause you know you're full of it! You ever watch "ZOMBIEZ"???? Or "Feardotcom"????? Or "House Of The Dead"???? THOSE are some of the worst I've ever seen. If you can't see that it's just a low- budgeted zombie movie obviously made by zombie movie fans, then something's wrong with you. I just had fun with it. Thumbs up from me and I'd also like to see a sequel. I'll be honest. I got this movie so I could make fun of it. I mean, come on, "Hood of the Living Dead"? What other reaction could I have? The thing is, though, the movie (and its makers) decided that it wasn't going to be made fun of. Instead, it was going to try its best to be a good movie.

And you know what? It came awfully close. A little less cheese in the incidental music, a little more professionalism in the photography, the acting, the incidentals (like the props--love the Best Buy bag)...well, it's not a classic of the zombie movie genre, but it's still a pretty neat little movie on its own. And the acting, writing and pacing are all surprisingly better than I would have expected. There's even some decent humor, as two of our leads debate how to decide if a dead zombie is really dead.

If you can overlook the low budget (which leaves its fingerprints in everything, alas) and the almost constant profanity, this can be a pretty fun time at the movies. No, it ain't great. Yes, it could have been better. But the makers, the actors, the crew, they all tried to make a good film (instead of a camp classic) and that counts for a lot. The line of campy zombie films is a mile long, and thank you, guys, for not adding to it.

Kudos to the Quiroz brothers. I'd love to see what they do next. And hey, somebody, give them a budget! There have been "race" pictures almost from the beginnings of the movie business. Films starring almost entirely black casts have been made by segregated Poverty Row studios (more often than not owned by Caucasians) for ghetto theaters. With the growing urban blight during the 1970s, this idea was revived with a wave of "blaxploitation" pictures made for urban grind houses which overlaid black actors and funky atmosphere over traditional B- movie plots. This trend even spread into horror features, with titles like Blacula, Blackenstein and Sugar Hill serving up blaxploitation versions of monster standards. And it didn't die with the closing of most urban theaters – it just slowly eased into the video age, and continues with low budget direct-to-DVD releases like this one. Ed and Jose Quiroz's Hood of the Living Dead, adopts the recent popularity of horror movies for the hip-hop audience. Ricky (Carl Washington) is a young scientist in Oakland trying to keep his younger brother Jermaine (Brandon Daniels) out of trouble after the death of their parents. After Jermaine is shot by drug dealers in a drive-by, Ricky decides to use the experimental cell regenerating formula he's been working on in an attempt to save the teen's life. Apparently his efforts are for naught, and Jermaine's body is taken away. However, the body never makes it to the morgue – Jermaine re-animates in the coroner's van as a flesh-hungry zombie. He kills the drivers, then goes after the gang that killed him, spreading the zombie infection wherever he goes. Having heard from Jermaine's friends Kevin (Derek Taylor II) and Marco (Raul Martinez) about the attack on the gangsters, Ricky feels that the only thing to do is to capture Jermaine and try to cover up the whole matter before he and his accomplice Scott (Chris Angelo) get arrested for the mayhem they've caused. However, they soon find that the contagion is spreading too fast for them to control it. By keeping things simple, the Quiroz team manages to produce an entertaining little horror feature without overextending themselves to the point where things start to look shoddy. Along the way, they also add in a few interesting bits of business. When first confronted with a zombie, Scott tells Ricky, "Shoot him in the head like in the movies!" – an effective as any way to discover how to kill zombies. An extra twist is added when the first head shot doesn't kill the brain, adding to viewer unease. Another good point is that the soundtrack makes only limited use of sub-Eminem style rap, laying in standard "creepy" music throughout. Let's get some things straight first: Zombies don't exist so the filmmaker can have them WALK, RUN, hell even FLY if he wants to. That's what makes this original Zombie movie so good. Everything they did was so damn original. I hate it when filmmakers do everything like Romero or when fan boys expect everything like Romero. Some idiots think that zombies should only growl like a typical Romero movie, once again zombies don't exist so a filmmaker can make zombies whistle if he wants. The zombies in this movie all look very good but OBVIOUSLY they are not decaying corpses since they JUST freaking died! They are pretty messed up though and full of chopped faces and blood. One of the coolest scenes was a half eaten cat. It looked so damn real my daughter cried when she saw it. This movie got really good reviews in Fangoria and Rue Morgue so that made me want to go see it. I'm glad I listened. They are always right when it comes to real horror fan's tastes. 10 out of 10! Go rent it! Welcome to Oakland, where the dead come out to play and even the boys in DA hood can't stop them. This low-budget, direct-to-video production seems timed to coincide with the release of Land of the Dead, the latest installment of George A. Romero's famed zombie series. The ghetto setting and hip-hop soundtrack may provide additional appeal for inner- city gore hounds. Ricky (Carl Washington) works at a medical research facility while raising his kid brother, Jermaine (Brandon Daniels). But the teenager, bored by macaroni-and-cheese dinners in their tract house, would rather spend his time hanging with street friends Marco and Kev. Apparently there is not a lot for African-American high-school dropouts to do on this side of the bay except deal drugs and scuffle with the homeys, including rival Latino gang bangers. Ricky plans to sell their late parents' house and move inland to the Castro Valley, a more middle-class and presumably safer environment. Unfortunately, before this can happen, a drive-by shooting leaves Jermaine dead on the porch. Grief-stricken Ricky tries a last desperate ploy. He tells Scotty, his lab assistant, to steal some of the experimental cell regeneration formula they have been testing on rats. When a double dose fails to revive Jermaine, there is no choice except to call 911. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue. The boy is reanimated as a sputtering, growling zombie, chews the ambulance drivers and staggers off into the night, bent on revenge and hungry for fresh meat. The feeding frenzy infects more victims, and before the night is over the East Bay is a battleground between the living and the blood-spattered undead. The horror genre has seen more than its share of cheap movie makers, from Ed Wood to Herschel Gordon Lewis to Charles Band. But low budgets do not necessarily mean bad films. Consider Val Lewton's programmers (Cat People, The Leopard Man, Isle of the Dead), Roger Corman's Poe quickies, Romero's Night of the Living Dead and John Carpenter's Halloween. The difference between memorable and awful has more to do with talent and ambition than money. Hood Of The Living Dead is more fun than several hundred million dollars' worth of recent high-priced horrors. Cheapness has its charms. In truly cheap films actors wear their own clothes amid real settings. Here the tract houses have freshly painted walls in neutral matte tones, lending a bleakness as oppressive as Douglas Sirk's bourgeois melodramas of the '50s. Lines seem more improvised than scripted. "So what the hell are we gonna do now?" "Just keep your eyes open for any F N' thing that looks out of the ordinary." Ricky and Scotty call their boss, who calls an ex-military man named Romero. "I have a huge bitch of a problem that we have to take care of fast." "Not a problem," says the merc, closing his phone and grabbing his guns. Everybody has guns, and even when fighting zombies they're on their cell phones, as who isn't nowadays? Information is exchanged with naturalistic understatement. "What happened?" "We got into it with some crazy motherfockers." "Deja F N' vu. It's that park zombie again. ..." Ricky even has to blow his twitching girlfriend away, saying only, "She's gotten out of hand." Unlike most zombie movies, this one provides a motive for mayhem. Jermaine takes revenge on the gang bangers who shot him, who in turn continue the rumble. This is urban film-making that implies its own social commentary, a near-guerrilla production suggesting a future for low-budget horror that reflects real life instead of supernatural clichés. The brothers Quiroz, who have trademarked their name as if in anticipation of a new movement, may inspire others to tell stories arising from personal experience rather than imitating tired Hollywood product. Considering their limited resources, Jose and Eduardo Quiroz have made a cheap but technically acceptable feature about people they know. Photographer Rocky Robinson gets the job done, music by Eduardo Quiroz is no simpler than Carpenter's haunting Halloween theme, and hip-hop songs by The Darkroom Familia and others add atmosphere. The result is promising if not exactly exhilarating. They are learning their craft and, unlike Lewis and Wood, who never got any better, their next may be one to watch. I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'! Silly movie is really, really funny. Yes, it's got its dead moments, it can be a bit too obvious, it declines a bit in the second half and the story is an incoherent mess, but it's laugh out loud funny all the way. And it's worth seeing just for Ed McMahon as a right wing kook. This movie is in the same class as Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, another incredibly funny, underappreciated film. I'm not kidding about that summary and vote! The video distributors have packaged this as just another typical '80s werewolf movie, but it is in fact the greatest parody of the horror genre that you can imagine, having done for the horror movie what "Blazing Saddles" did for the western. I have seen plenty of comedies - good, bad, stupid, weird, etc. (usually walking away unimpressed), and I think that comedy must be the most difficult genre for filmmakers and actors to work in - it takes just the right kind of touch to make things successful, and part of that is having good ideas. "Full Moon High" is bulging with good ideas - so many, in fact, that it can easily put the Zucker/Abrams team of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" to shame. One of the best of these is the very presence of Ed McMahon in a starring role as a John Birch-style right-wing crackpot. The jokes, non-sequiturs, wisecracks and word-play are literally non-stop and everything, including the kitchen sink, has been thrown in. The ironic tone is very similar to that of "Back to the Future."

Some people (i.e. almost every reviewer here) must have been turned off by the spirit of anarchy here, but I almost died of laughter, and this is one of those movies in which you never know what kind of insane situation will transpire next. Since B-movie extraordinaire Larry Cohen had not made a straight comedy before this, one gets the sense that he was making up for lost time by including any joke he or his collaborators could think of. If Mel Brooks had made this, the critics would have labelled it a comic masterpiece, but because it was made by Cohen, it has been dismissed as schlock. Critical reviews have called this movie too "silly." SILLY? What is a comedy supposed to be - serious?! Anyway, I laughed out loud more for this movie than any other I can think of. Cohen makes fun of everyone - himself included, with plenty of references to his usual brand of low-rent film-making; he and the actors must have had a complete blast making this.

The humor is very Mel Brooks-ish, and anyone who loves Jewish humor or watches a lot of B-movies (especially horror) will love this. Trust me: the movie isn't too hard to find, and as long as you accept it for what it is - a roller-coaster of belly laughs with no pretense of social value whatsoever - then you'll truly enjoy it!!

One sidenote: this movie should somehow go down in history as the one thing Bob Saget ever starred in (albeit briefly) that was actually funny. While visiting Romania with his CIA dad, Tony(Adam Arkin), quite a talented high school quarterback seen as the savior to lead his team finally to a victory over rival Simpson, is told by a would-be palm-reader(..in Romania, the people are not allowed many books, so she took up palm reading)that he would be bitten by a werewolf("When the moon is full, don't make any appointments..you will be busy."). Well, who would have thunk it..Tony is in fact bitten and his life would be forever changed. After his father unfortunately dies in a mishap within his bomb shelter(!)under odd circumstances(firing at his werewolf son inside a metallic bomb shelter isn't a very good idea, especially if the bullet doesn't leave the room and bounces around like a pinball gone berserk), Tony travels the land through endless years, until he's tired of packing, and returns decades(..and many US Presidents)later to hopefully lead his football team to a win over Simpson..a task he abandoned long ago. What was once a very white, clean-cut high school has indeed changed into a ghetto of drug use, violence, and perversion. To get an idea of what the early 80's Full Moon High school's prom party resembles, think Studio 54 with teenagers..

Larry Cohen's parody of werewolf flicks, among others things, is crammed full of gags, homages, and in-jokes. My favorite sequences contain one in the sex-ed classroom where Tony reveals to the 80's class his werewolf transformation and the introductory scene to Dr. Brand(Alan Arkin, who steals the film when Kenneth Mars isn't on screen), quite possibly the worst psychiatrist on Earth. His task to talk down a jumper leads to two men falling off a balcony..the jumper and a fireman (trying, at first, to talk him out of it), both fuming mad at Brand! Brand even tries to get Tony to sign a waver for his body's being donated to science so he can get his wife a fur coat! Kenneth Mars had me rolling in the floor as a homosexual football coach(..and later in the 80's as the Principal)who likes to pat his players on the behind..his scene where Tony's unloading the truth to the sex-ed class is classic. The film is loaded with inspired casting choices..just littered with funny characters and the cast interpretations..such as Ed McMahon as a very conservative military blowhard who actually looks identical to Joseph McCathy standing next to his photo in the bomb shelter(..always talking about commies), Joanne Nail as bulging eyed Ricky in present day who falls for the werewolf, Elizabeth Hartman(A Patch of Blue)as a mousy, nerdy sexually molested(..and molester)teacher who finds an attraction towards Tony, James Dixon as a deputy(..his great scene has him stealing a line from his police chief reciting it to Dr. Brand who begins mouthing the words to himself for memorization), Roz Kelly as Jane, an undyingly devoted female desiring Tony for only herself constantly demanding he ravish her, and Bill Kirchenbauer as Flynn, Tony's long-time pal and now the police chief who only got Jane after his friend left town. Can not forget JM J Bullock as Flynn's closeted gay son trying to fit in at the school hoping to find a dame with hilarious results.

I like how the film pays homage to the werewolf genre such as when he's on the prowl..he's often referred to in the papers as Jack the Nipper because he likes to bite his victims on the cheek..and I'm not talking face. He's seen more as an annoyance than danger. The homages to Carrie and Psycho are nice, and the violin shtick is also amusing. Cohen tosses so many zingers at the viewer, eventually one has to stick. Obviously in a comedy such as this, not every joke hits it's mark, but many do. The cast makes this worthwhile. The film looks cheap on the typical Larry Cohen budget. Notice the 50's scenes where the obvious old cast members that would show up down the road wear glaring wigs. Loved Adam in the lead..he is the perfect foil for the gags that follow him and the zingers he lets fly from Cohen's script. The film moves quickly, rarely catching a breath. I liked this horror comedy more than most it seems. In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.

I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.

While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously. It' just funny, watch it!!!

OK they want 10 lines so there: This is a spoof of 50s/70s werewolf movies. Lots of satire, some political. Feels like an early Clouseau movie (probably due to Alan Arkin), but with less slap stick. If you like the Naked Guns movies you'll like this too (once again less slapstick in this one).

Actually, the humor ranges from light sexual innuendo (unavoidable in a teen comedy), to really poignant socio-political satire. The transformation of the Moon High School from 50s to 70s is really funny. The sequence with the changing presidential portraits is brilliant! OK maybe not brilliant but still hilarious. There are tons of (histarical) cracks starting from the 50s cold war paranoia and the late 70s inflation.

Anyway, just watch the movie if you get a chance! Full Moon High (1981) 3 of 5 Dir: Larry Cohen Stars: Adam Arkin, Ed McMahon, Roz Kelly

Tony (Arkin) is your average ordinary high school guy. Prepping for the big homecoming game, girlfriend trouble and growing hair in strange places…you know the usual. But the hair in strange places part gets a wee bit out of control when a trip to Transylvania with his father (YES! McMahon) leaves him with a wicked case of the furballs. Now doomed to walk the world forever young as a werewolf how will Adam get any girls?

'Full Moon High' is not often talked about but it is a silly and entertaining horror spoof. Larry Cohen (Q the Winged Serpent, The Stuff) incorporates as many gags as he can possibly come up with as writer / director. Arkin (H20: Halloween, 20 Years Later) shows nice timing in the lead role. If you happen to be a fan of spoofs like 'Airplane' and 'Student Bodies' I think you'll have fun with this chuckle-fest. No doubt intended as a totally campy joke, "Full Moon High" portrays 1950s teenager Tony Walker (Adam Arkin) accompanying his father (Ed McMahon) on a trip to Romania. Sure enough, Tony gets bitten, and grows fur and fangs whenever there's a full moon. A particularly interesting aspect in this movie is that he can't age as long as he has the werewolf curse, and that he has to fulfill a destiny - even if it takes twenty years.

But otherwise, the movie's just plain funny once it gets going. Ed McMahon's character is an over-patriotic right-wing yahoo (he thinks that everyone should have listened to Joe McCarthy), Kenneth Mars's coach/principal is a tense dweeb, and then there's more. One of the most eye-opening cast members is Demond Wilson - best remembered as Lamont on "Sanford and Son" - as a bus driver who gets a big surprise. But probably the funniest scene is the changing of the presidents; then gag with Gerald Ford really summed him up! Anyway, it's a real treat. Considering that Alan Arkin - who plays a zany psychiatrist - just won an Oscar on Sunday night and thanked his sons, I wonder whether or not he remembers co-starring with two of them in this movie (aside from Adam, his son Anthony also has a small role). Quite funny. Also starring Elizabeth Hartman.

PS: director Larry Cohen is probably best known for the killer baby flick "It's Alive". I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander Leesville, Louisiana I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander

Leesville, Louisiana After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.

Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.

What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'

I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.

As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.

As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.

In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.

Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic. Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents. This is an "odysessy through time" via computer animation, supposedly th work of over 300 artists. Made in the late '80s and released in 1990, this was cutting edge stuff for the day. I thought it was good and quite interesting in spots.

Most of the short scenes made no sense, just forms evolving into other forms, but that was fun to watch. This is all about visuals, not really about any kind of a story. There were some strange sequences in which odd-looking men- creatures would dance around with birds overheard. All of it is computer animated which was new back then. Even the term "computer animated" was not well-known.

It's simply a chance to show off this new technology in short bits of cartoon-like happenings with beautiful colors and imaginative scenes. No words, just pictures with electronic music. Stoners must have really loved this.

It's a nice, intriguing 40 minutes of "eye candy" and "head candy." By today's CG effects this may have lost impact, but I think you'd still be entertained by this. I probably saw this movie first in about 1995. Since then I've returned to it many times. It's great! I especially like the first and second clips, "Creation" and "Civilization Rising." Wow! This was so cool back in the glory days of CG animation. CG is way older than I am, as I know the film "Tron" was made 7 years before my time. But this film was a landmark in the early '90s. It was probably the first collaboration of different CG experiments set to music. I like it so much, I think I'll go watch it now. Bye This has to be the all time best computer animation classic. Even though most of the animations where experiments. They have an artistic quality that has stood the test of time. Twelve years after it's release, I have gone back to watch this video and found some inspiration for new types of computer graphics. Some of the techniques used in this video have never been full explored. These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.

If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make "10 lines if text" as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did. As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE.

I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =) When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found 'The Mind's Eye' again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended! When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found "The Mind's Eye" again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended!

This is what it is:

"The Mind's Eye" is a spectacular odyssey through time. Your journey begins at the dawn of creation and moves through the rise of man and technology. Travel in the world of abstraction and on into the future with breathtaking computer animation imagery.

"The Mind's Eye" joins the imaginations of over 300 of the world's most talented computer animation artists with a powerful, original music soundtrack. This unique collaboration takes you on an incredible voyage into "The Mind's Eye." I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:

Stanley and Stella in "Breaking the Ice". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately. I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor. Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.

However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work.

It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.

I suggest reading the book! I feel very sorry for people who go to movies with a pad and pencil to write down flaws and keep notes on how bad a movie is. I feel equally contempt for people who go to movies and CAN'T suspend reality and/or let themselves enjoy 90 minutes aways from their boring or busy lives! Get a GRIP people. ECGTB is a very ENTERTAINING movie. If you take movies seriously, this is NOT for you. If you are expecting the movie to resemble the book in ANY way, this is not for you. But if you enjoyed the utter hilarity of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, or the "what the hell am I watching" of Moulin Rouge. Or the gross out comedy of "The Sweetest Thing" Then let yourself escape to Cowgirls. It has some really funny parts. Hilarious actually. It also has some really good music;kudos to kd.lang. Also did I mention it has 90 minutes of Uma Thurman.....need I say more? If you have ever read and enjoyed a novel by Tom Robbins you will appreciate this movie as a whole-hearted attempt to translate his outrageously unconventional writing style into a workable piece of big screen art. The actors and the direction of this film are both good.

The only trouble with the film, as I can see it, is that Robbins can relate ideas and sentiments with his words that were still beyond Hollywood's capabilities at the time this film was shot.

Given both the irreverence of today's movies, as well as the willingness and abilityof today's audiences to delve into the bizarre, I think "Even Cowgirls... would receive a better reception today than it did when it was originally released. i saw this movie the first seconds the voice of T.R. took me on to the journey - well i disliked the big glued thumbs in the beginning, but the absurd humor it and the gordious looks of both sissy actors - i do not know who played the young her - but she was great and so was uma!!! -

the two other people who where in the cinema went out after about half an hour, i was with a friend - and it is always a test to watch a movie i like good with one of my friends - and, we both enjoyed it too the maximum - hilarious laughs - sadness about the "realistic police- normalos" . both of us fans of T.Robbins books...i found it well done - thought, that Robbins would also approve, though i do not have an idea if he likes the film or not...

i would love to see the cut out stuff - i heard that gus v. sand had to take out lots of scenes because of the first-time viewers (or the producers???) well still it is an artistic movie. much too short though... it is one of my all time favorites - and i am aware of it that the majority of people can't stand that kind of movie and assume that people who enjoy that films are whatever they think .......what a pity. hopefully there will come the day that there will be a DVD with the full material - hoping to see more of crispian, keanu - expecting to see her baby and all

if you have the chance to see it, think twice, and enjoy it if you made the choice to watch ... m The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?). Worst movie of all time? Wow, whoa now. You cannot be serious.

Maybe it's all about what you expect a movie to do to you. I live in Oregon, so I got to enjoy the beautifully-filmed shots of familiar yet still amazingly beautiful Smith Rocks and other areas in Central Oregon (as well as the sweet cameo of our own Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs looking down on baby Sissy's cradle at the beginning of the movie). Those alone were enough to spur me to give the movie a better than "average" score.

Or .... Maybe it's all about what expectations you have. Having read the book AGES ago, and thinking to myself "goodness, no one could ever make a movie out of this interesting, quirky, weird book ... especially 20 years later, when mores (MORAYS -- can't put in the accent mark online) have changed" -- I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I first watched the movie when it came out in 1994 and even liked it more today watching it again.

Sissy was exquisitely cast, and I don't care what you all say, I was also pleasantly surprised at Rain Phoenix's and John Hurt's performances. I am not a lesbian nor bi nor trans, but have met many folks who are similar to the folks they were supposed to portray -- and those "real" folks kinda acted the same way as these actors acted. Stilted a bit, stage-ey -- always a bit "on." Gus Van Sant is one weird native Oregonian but by garsh he done a good job adapting this crazy book, IMHO. I admit, the first time I watched Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I didn't think it was very memorable in any regard. But now after viewing it the 7th time, I admit that it has very much grown on me. The characters of Sissy, Ms. Jellybean, and the Countess have become very endearing. And the romance between Sissy and Jellybean seems very sweet. Though the plot is very weak, I think the satirical humor more than makes up for it. Then there's the kick-ass soundtrack which features the tremendously talented K.D. Lang (who reminds me a little of Patsy Cline) at her best. I can't think of any movie that has "grown on me" after an inauspicious first impression, as much as Cowgirls has. This was an excellent film. I don't understand why so many people don't like it. There was so much in it to connect with, so many beautiful images, and so much compassion in the things that weren't said. I was thoroughly entertained, and was left with a feeling of joyous exuberance, just as I am when I finish most any Tom Robbins story. Now I haven't read this particular book of Robbin's, so I don't now how this matched up, but I can't imagine this movie could have been a very bad interpretation. The movie left a lot for you to define yourself, which is the best part of any Tom Robbins novel, dreaming up the details.

To all of you who said this was the worst movie ever, I pity what little must be left of the dimming light in your hearts. Far from the worst ever this movie was glorious. Long live the whooping crane. This film got terrible reviews but because it was offbeat and because critics don't usually "get" offbeat films, I thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately they were largely right in this instance.

The film just has an awkward feel too it that is most off putting. The sort of feel that is impossible to describe, but it's not a good one. To further confound things, the script is a dull aimless thing that is only vaguely interesting.

The immensely talented Thurman just drifts through this mess creating barely an impact. Hurt and Bracco try in vain to add something to the film with enthusiastic performance but there is nothing in the script. It may have been less embarrassing for them if they had merely chosen to drift and get it over with like Thurman.

One thing the "esteemed" film critics did fail to mention however is that the film is actually quite funny. Whether it be moments of accurate satire or some outrageously weird moments like when the cowgirls in question chase Hurt off their ranch with the smell of their unwashed...ahem...front bottoms.

Because of the chortles acheived throughout, while I wouldn't recommend this film, there is entertainment to be had and watching Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is worthwhile for something different. At first sight this movie doesn't look like a particular great one. After all a Bette Davis movies with only 166 votes on IMDb and a rating of 6,5 must be a rather bad one. But the movie turned out to be a delightful and original surprise.

You would at first expect that this is a normal average typical '30's movie with a formulaic love-story but the movie is surprisingly well constructed and has an unusual and original story, which also helps to make this movie a very pleasant one to watch.

The story is carried by its two main characters played by Bette Davis and George Brent. Their helped by a cast of mostly amusing characters but the movie mainly involves just around them two. Their character are involved in a most unusual and clever written love-story that work humorous as well. It makes this movie a delightful little comedy to watch, that is perfectly entertaining.

The movie is quite short (just over an hour long), which means that the story doesn't waste any time on needless plot lines, development and characters. It makes the movie also rather fast paced, which helps to make this movie a perfectly watchable one by todays standards as well. It does perhaps makes the movie a bit of a simple one at times but this never goes at the expense of its entertainment or fun.

A delightful pleasant simple romantic-comedy that deserves to be seen by more!

8/10 This is an EXCELLENT example of early Bette Davis talent. The production is above average for 1936 timeframe. I cannot understand why the owners of the rights to this film have not put it on DVD. Owners, PLEASE PLEASE release it. I would buy it immediately. I have not seen it in more than thirty years, on television, but remember it well. In the opening scenes of this movie a man shot arrows through his hotel room into another man's bathroom and blew out all the lights. This must have been very hep for 1936, but rather way way out and had nothing to do with the film, Robin Hood did not make an appearance as far as I could see. However, Bette Davis(Daisey Appleby),"The Whales of August",'87 was very young and attractive and performed one of her best roles in a long career in Hollywood. Daisey never stopped teasing or being very sexy with her nightgowns and so called swim suit on her yacht with George Brent(Johnny Jones),"The Spiral Staircase",'46. Daisey even proposed marriage to Johnny in a Ferris Wheel upside down and even got a black eye. Davis and Brent made a great couple, one suppose to be very rich and the other a very poor reporter. Off stage, Davis and Brent were having a real torrid love affair, which is good reason why there was sparks when these two appeared in this film. If you liked Bette Davis and George Brent, this is the film for you! This is a great show, and will make you cry, this group people really loved each other in real life and it shows time and time again. Email me and let's chat. I have been to Australia and they real do talk like this.

I want you to enjoy Five Mile Creek and pass on these great stories of right and wrong, and friendship to your kids. I have all 40 Episodes on DVD-R that I have collected over the last 5 years. See my Five Mile Creek tribute at www.mikeandvicki.com and hear the extended theme music. Let's talk about them.

These people are so cool! I guess I'm part of the silent minority who enjoyed this film. Is it one of the best of the "Nightmare" series? Maybe not, but I had lots of fun with it. Freddy Krueger reaches his evil, wisecracking potential. Since parts 4 and 5 kind of lagged the series down, I felt this so-called final installment ("New Nightmare" is the real finale) brought the series out of its slump. There are some great nightmare sequences, including one where Breckin Meyer plays a stoner who gets trashed, falls asleep and gets stuck in a video game to which Freddy controls. This is both a highly original and hilarious sequence, especially when we see him out of the dreamscape, hopping around like Super Mario. And Freddy belts out the funny one-liner, "Great graphics." And since the movie was made about 10 years ago, it brought back memories when Freddy started controlling the game with the Powerglove. Anyone who remembers the first 8-bit Nintendo remembers the Powerglove.

The cast is superb. Lisa Zane is perfectly cast in the lead. I haven't seen Yaphet Kotto since "The Running Man," and I think the last time I saw that film was about 5 years ago. He's another great, underappreciated actor who possesses a powerful screen presence. And who can forget the cameos? The best one is by Johnny Depp (from the first "Nightmare") playing a spokesman for an anti-drug commercial.

The 3D sequence at the end is really awesome! So for those who are looking to check this film out--please rent or buy it on DVD! Hopefully all the editions come with the 3D glasses, but I'm sure the video edition has the 3D element removed.

I personally didn't see many things wrong with the film. It even elaborated on Freddy's backstory. The film is a great mix of humor and scares, and the gross-out effects are terrific. Could this have given better justice to the franchise? Of course it could have. But Rachel Talalay did a fine job. And finding the perfect conclusion is easier said than done.

And in closing, I loved the montage over the opening credits. Fans of the series will be delighted, and will look at it as a tribute to beloved Freddy.

My score: 7 (out of 10) FREDDY has gone from scary to funny,in this 6th installment in the Nightmare series.

It's been 2 years,well actually 11 since this film takes place in 2001.And FREDDY has killed every last kid on Elm street except one,John Doe(Jacobb from part 5,even doe the film gives on hint who he is),in which he uses to bring more children to come to Elm street.Not only does FREDDY gets his wishes,but he also gets his daughter back to Elm street.When she finds out what is happening,she and other kids decide to kill FREDDY once and for all.We also get to see some of FREDDY's eerie backgrounds.

Rachel Talalay,who has been contected to the nightmare series for a long time by now.Many people hate this film,but I liked it.It tried to bring out what FREDDY was doing with his wisecrackes...COMDEY and makes the series more funny than scary.So this film is really a comdey sore to speak.It is not the wrost in the series,part 2 still holds it.

Now all the kids and teenagers of Springwood, Ohio are all dead expect for one teenager (Shon Greenblatt) is still alive. Freddy (Robert Englund) is letting him go and the teenager doesn't have much of a memory, when he's arriving in a new town. When a tough female psychologist (Lisa Zane) tries to break though the new patient. She's finds out, where he's from. She brings him along to Springwood to spark some memories but three teens (Lezlie Deane, Breckin Meyer and Ricky Dean Logan), who unexpected came for the ride. Once they arrived in Springwood, the psychologist has some memory that she did lived in that town before as a child. While Freddy knows the true secret of her true identity.

Directed by Rachel Talalay (Ghost in the Machine, Tank Girl) made a grim but somewhat oddly different sequel with some visual style and funny moments for this horror/fantasy/thriller. Yaphet Kotto (Alien) has a supporting role as a Psychologist expert on dreams. This has some ingenious visual effects (Not everyone will love the climax, especially in 3-D) and some good style in its storytelling. This one did out gross some of the film's series at the box office.

DVD has an strong anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the original theatrical trailer, Jump to a Nightmare opinion and Cast & Crew information. The "Elm Street" Series Box Set, the eighth disc has interviews with the the cast & crew of this sixth film. The sixth film is also in 3-D for the film climax but you could watch it at 2-D also. This is the last of the "Elm Street" films until Wes Craven resurrected Freddy into a different, darker style in "New Nightmare" and the silly but surprisingly enjoyable spin-off horror film "Freddy Vs Jason". Watch for Robert Shaye (Co-Owner and Co-CEO of "New Line Cinema"), Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold, Johnny Depp and Alice Cooper in amusing cameos. Written by Michael De Luca (John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness). From a story by the director. (*** ½/*****). Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) was the last film to feature Freddy Krueger as a solo act (not as an entity or a co-star). The years of killing have taken a toll upon the town of Springwood. It has gotten to the point that the little city has become a virtual ghost town. The parents who killed Freddy Krueger so many years ago have all paid the ultimate price. Only the mad inhabit the town and the survivors are scattered everywhere. But that doesn't stop Freddy from seeking out his final revenge. No matter how they try to stop him, he always comes back for more. But this time he finds out a little more about his old life. Can the kids finally stop Freddy for good? What is this secret that is buried in Freddy's twisted mind? to find out you'll have to watch Freddy's Dead. the end was originally filmed in 3-D.

A fitting way to end the franchise. Freddy learns something about himself and his perverted life and he gets to go out in a bang! Lisa Zane, Yaphet Kotto and Freddy Krueger star in this final installment. Rosanne, Tom Arnold and Johnny Depp make special appearances. A whole lot better than the last one but it's filled with a few dated jokes. If you enjoy the series then you don't want to miss out on this one.

I have to recommend this movie for Freddy fans. The Movie Freddy's dead the final nightmare is just as horrific and disturbing as every other Nightmare on Elm Street , yes it has Comedy essence about it , so has all the other films, but how can anyone possibly say that you wouldn't find Freddy Krueger scary , if you were to come across this man in your dreams you wouldn't find him even more scary with a comic essence about him because his comedy shows that he doesn't care at all about killing you that he finds it extremely funny, and Freddy also plays comic mind games with them, which in its own way is very disturbing , by using his comic ways i think that makes the horror movies Nightmare on elm street what they are today, The writers are extremely clever making Krueger comic and scary as oppose to Jason Vorhees , who doesn't say anything and hasn't got the wit to truly frighten his victims, This Movie is about as good as Freddy's wit gets and i would recommend it to anyone with a sense of humour and by the way " Don't Fall Asleep!". Freddy Krueger the dream stalker from elm street returns,the great character actor Robert englund is back in this sequel of nightmare 5, dream child.i hope i got the number correctly.there's been so many,and this one is one of the best,especially for the cameos by;Rosanne Barr (then Arnold)tom Arnold,johnny depp,(who did the very first nightmare in 84)alice cooper(singer)you will see Freddy as a tormented child,a teenager who loves pain,and as a family guy(creepy)the effects are very funny and creative,the cast also includes Lisa Zane(Billy's sister) breckin Meyer(road trip)yaphet kotto(alien,live and let die)and Amanda Donahue(father knows best)i was one of the people 3who saw this in 3d,well the ending.i love 3d movies.i missed the first 3d wave in 1953(i wasn't even born yet)the second wave was in 1983.i like all the Freddy movies.this one stands out as one of the better ones not counting the first which was absolutely brilliant,Freddy became the new monster of the 80s and 90s,along with Jason voorhees,chucky,Micheal myers,and leather face.can you imagine a film with all of them?i recommend this to all Freddy fans and horror fans alike.that Freddy is such a cut up.8 out of 10. If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.

The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.

I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws:

1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10)

2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10)

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10)

4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10)

5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10)

6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10)

I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.

(7/10) Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.

And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.

I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.

By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First of all, I have to start this comment by saying I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan. I think it's the greatest horror series ever. For me, Freddy is the boogeyman! Of course, Freddy's Dead, which tried to be the last chapter back then, is a weird movie. It doesn't have the same atmosphere than the previous films. Freddy has a lot of screen time. Some think it makes him less scary, which I do agree. And that's, in my opinion, exactly the point. This movie exists so we can know Freddy a little better, who he is, who he were, how he became the man haunting our dreams. For some people, it's a bad thing, it's better if we never know because it's scarier not to know why evil is evil. Obviously those people won't like Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. To truly enjoy this one, you have to see things differently. It's not about a strange guy hiding in the bush of your dreamland waiting to scare the hell out of you. This was the first one, and it was awesome. As the years passed by, Freddy killed more and more people, and nobody could ever get rid of him for good. Now it's time to learn about the nature of this evil, the psychological aspects of Freddy's realm of terror. Beside the story of Freddy's past, I also really liked the atmosphere of the movie. No more kids in Springwood, only crazy grown-ups. The nightmare scenes are all great. The soundtrack is awesome, especially the opening song called ''I'm Awake Now'' performed by Goo Goo Dolls. In my opinion, The Final Nightmare is a horror masterpiece and I can't believe it's so underrated. Maybe it is misunderstood, or I have different tastes! Anyway, all Freddy fans should watch it. It has a lot of scary moments as well as funny moments too, and a lot of cameos! Get yourself ready for something different and you might not be disappointed. WARNING!!! TONS OF DEAD GIVEAWAYS!!! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SERIES! OR YOU CAN, WHATEVER.

They're are few words to describe a movie that claims to be the last and comes out with another; Liars, Cheats, maybe even some words that can't be uttered. But When Elm Street 6: Freddy's Dead shows everyone who thought the series got old, and wanted to stop seeing him, or people who wanted their hero (or Villian) just stops for his final breath, This film was it.

This film starts with a parody of Wizard of Oz, Then you see a kid who is named only as John Doe, Who is the last child in Springwood, Ohio, leaves and gets out of Freddy territory. A woman who resides at a hospital/ place to get kids off their feet kind of place meets this boy, and at the same time, has a dream about a man, a water tower, and a promise of a secret floating in her mind, goes back to Springwood to figure out this frightening vision, and soon finds out that she is Freddy's child, And we soon find out that Freddy can only leave Springwood if his daughter can be a sort of host for him. And beyond that, fright ensues. This film seems to hit the nail on the head of everything you wanted to know.

This film has tons of humor, and cameo appearences, like Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold, Alice Cooper, Johnny Depp, and a very young Breckin Meyer playing a teenage stoner who sees psychadelic vision of flowers and Iron Butterfly's "In-a-gadda-da-vida", then gets stuck in a super Mario parody of sorts. This film will either make you hate this movie, or like Krueger even more. The best of the best. I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B- "Ship Ahoy" was probably made in order to showcase MGM talent. The film is a fun trip on an ocean liner on its way to San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the time in which the country was involved in WWII. This was typical fare for the studios, which gave the movie going public light weight entertainment as a distraction during those difficult times the country was living.

The beautiful Eleanor Powell is seen at her best in some musical numbers where she clearly shows us she was a dancer to be reckoned with. Red Skelton is also seen in a straight part with not too much clowning, as he pursues the beautiful Ms. Powell on the ship that is bringing them to Puerto Rico. The irresistible Bert Lahr has good opportunities in the film to show he was a funny man. Also Virginia Grey is seen as a fun girl who is not fooled by anyone.

There are good musical numbers featuring Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, in which one sees, among others, the amazing Buddy Rich, who has a few solos with Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Powell. A young Frank Sinatra appears also as the lead singer of the band, backed by the Pied Pipers.

This is a nostalgic trip that should be savored by fans of this genre, which MGM totally controlled. What fun! Bucketfuls of good humor, terrific cast chemistry (Skelton/Powell/Lahr/O'Brien), dynamite Dorsey-driven soundtrack! Miss Powell's dance numbers have exceptional individual character and pizzazz. Her most winning film appearance. The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate. As with most of Eleanor Powell's films, this one plays out along the flimsiest of plots. For some reason -- oh it is explained! -- she's selected to transport a magnetic mine to Cuba. Good guys and bad guys compete for the mine and who is who gets confusing. But, as always, Powell's dancing is superb and worth the price of admission. And in this one Lahr plays his cowardly lion, evoking warm memories of that Technicolor film of 1939. A fringe benefit is hearing a young Frank, with that wonderful voice and skinny vulnerability that he abandoned for his wise-guy persona later on. In addition, the great drummer, Buddy Rich, has a wonderful time displaying his virtuosity. Watch particularly for his unique duet with Dorsey's trumpet man, Ziggy Elman. I say "unique" perhaps in ignorance, but I know of no other drum/trumpet sequence like this one on film or records. This film is fun. Even Skelton's goofy persona is relatively restrained. Powell shows again that she is the greatest film dancer ever. As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.

I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank The Write Word

What you see is what you get. Not really! What Madhur Bhandarkar's brave and brilliant 'Page 3' does is destroy the myth attached to the glam and glitterati that colour the pages of our newspapers and whose lives(read party habits) we follow with such maniacal fervour which only our intrinsic voyeuristic streak can explain.

The page 3 phenomenon is as deplorable as it is enigmatic. How exactly did it gain such control over the printed word and when did it start to encroach into the front page is subject for another debate. Bhandarkar cleverly avoids that. He is concerned only with the mechanisms of this grotesque existence. And in doing that, he pieces together the various elements of this way of life. Like Robert Altman(although I'm not comparing Bhandarkar to Altman's genius), Bhandarkar uses myriad characters to further his motive. Whether it is a page 3 wannabe NRI, the gate-crashers, the newly-rich, an upcoming model, a socialite politician or an erotic novella authoress; all the characters are introduced with an objective and each of them has a separate character-sketch, even if their parts may be miniscule. And therein lays the film's appeal.

Konkona Sen Sharma plays Madhavi Sharma, a young and talented journalist who covers page 3 for Nation Today. Initially content with her job, she soon begins to see the ugliness of this underbelly that is covered by its fake and cosmetic profligacy. But Bhandarkar resists the temptation to make this subject into a moral-policing movie and avoids concentrating on one character alone. Hence the movie is not only about Madhavi, but also equally about Deepak Suri(Boman Irani)- Madhavi's editor who passively accepts his role as a cog of a larger machinery, Anjali Thapar(Soni Razdan)- a socialite suffocating from the social pollution, Abhijeet(Rehan Engineer)- a homosexual make-up artist and Madhavi's roommates Pearl(Sandhya Mridul)- the sassy airhostess and Gayatri(Tara Sharma)-an aspiring actress. It seems like an impossible task to assimilate so many characters(and more) in one story, but full credit to Nina Arora and Manoj Tyagi for penning a tight screenplay. The dialogues by Sanjeev Datta and Bhandarkar have been written with great attention to detail.

Any narrative, no matter how good, can fall flat with the lack of genuine performances. Thankfully, 'Page 3' brims with actors and not stars. Konkona goes through her author-backed role with effortless ease. Ditto Boman. Sandhya Mridul gets the best written part, but almost overdoes it. Atul Kulkarni is wasted though with an underwritten character. At times, the director seems too keen to incorporate as much as possible(paedophilia, homosexuality, etc.). But the contexts in which they are used do not make them look rushed.

Ultimately, Bhandarkar's attempt is to satiate our voyeurism, but he takes it a step further. He takes us inside the photographs and exposes us to the gruesome realities of this sect of humanity that strangely seems to be living in a different and remote world. These are the same people that indulged in new-year's revelry while a few hundred kilometers away their fellow countrymen had been ravaged by nature's ferocity! Clever writing, skillfully incorporated songs, able performances and a genuine feeling of sincerity are what make this film worthy in spite of its lack of finesse and poor production values. 'Page 3' is an optimum way to enter a new year of cinema.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Rating- ****

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

29th January, 2005 I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.

I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.

But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.

The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.

The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.

Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here. Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as "Page 3" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.

The film's music is average. The only passable songs are "Kitne Ajeeb" and "Huzoor-E-Ala", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is "Filmy Very Filmy". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous. Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.

Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a "I need you, you need me" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess – the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police "encounter" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.

The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role – a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch. Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development! The first review I saw of Page 3 said "what is madhur bhandarkar finally wants to say?". Should he say something so decisive.

The most beautiful thing about Page 3 is it doesn't take sides. No propaganda whatsoever. This is the film that captures so many angles of an issue(I don't know what do I call as an "issue" here) and yet like any mediocre movie doesn't come up with an solution. I was so intrigued when I realized that the movie ended almost in the same scenario just like it started.

The movie defines so many characters who are completely with completely different priorities and different ideologies and yet they are all a part of the system which is all the more apathetic. I wish i can say more but there would be more spoilers ahead. So watch Page 3 if you wanna see one of the most mature films of the recent times. Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.

Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society! The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it. Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.

Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.

The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.

Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood. Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.

Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.

A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.

Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.

Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money. Madhur from CHANDNI BAR started making realistic films, which some people called dry

He made SATTA which was another realistic though filmy film but a great film

AAN men at work was a formula film by him which flopped

He returns with his superlative PAGE 3

A film which dwelves into the lives of journalists and it's a brilliant film

The film is well narrated though the half baked romantic portions of Konkana could be avoided but that is forgiven

The entire Upendra Limaye track is superb too

while the Atul Kulkarni track is great too

The dial between Manoj Joshi and his friends are funny at first but repetitive at times

The subplot of Bikram- Tara is brilliant and so is the entire hospital scene and also the final child abuse which shocks you

The film has a open ended ending which is nicely handled

Madhur does a great job Music is okay

Konkana excels as Madhavi, using her expressions to the best Tara Sharma is decent except her voice Sandhya Mridul is good as usual Upendra Limaye excels in his part as the cop, one of the talented actors Sadly he isn't used well nowdays Atul Kulkarni too is good in his small part Boman Irani is restrained and does a great job rest are okay PAGE 3 **** out of 4 Stars

Madhvi (Konkona Sen) enters her boyfriend's house and its empty. She looks here and there and then goes in his bedroom and you get the picture - 'Ah! another girl … that two-timing baddie and yes indeed he his two timing her but it's a GUY this time around. And i say 'Brilliant!'

END OF SPOILERS (The above scene is not a spoiler really ... but for me it was so i didn't want to take a chance)

When asked upon as how was this film, my friend answered 'oh, it just an exposé of the P3 people' which made me believe that ill be watching a stupid movie if nothing more. When I went to the theater, I thought to myself '' I better get a pen and a paper to jot down the bad things about this film'' but I was proved entirely wrong… and then some because I could muster only the goods. This film was great. Great, not because it is offbeat and noncommercial cinema like storyline but because of the cleverness in the screenplay and how this movie tells you how to handle a movie brilliantly which could have been a dumb and senseless movie if given in the wrong hands.

Konkona Sen Sharma is grace. She is so damn beautiful who has nailed her role perfectly as if she was born to play this part. One of the most charming actresses I've ever seen. But this is not the only performance which is good in the film, there's Sandhya Mridul, Boman Irani and Atul Kulkarni. Particularly Sandhya Mridul who just fires up the screen. (And guess what even the unusually accented Tara Sharma speaks normally)

The movies stars off with some silly old parties of the hush-hush celebrities of the film industry et al and you get the idea of what this movie will be about. And for about half hour through the film you feel just about the same. But then the movie picks up the pace grabs onto a good storyline and never lets go of it. Even Boman Irani agrees to that statement – 'It was a good story, Madhvi'. (Thank you). The great thing is that it tackles the issue of how silly these people are with style and does not make it over done and also tackles the social issues and does not make them boring. In the end its all a roller-coaster ride and Madhvi informs us that by just smiling at all these people. Just the reason why I love watching films. Ecstatic film-making. The screenplay is beautiful, clever and witty. Page 3 is a great movie. The story is so refreshing and interesting. Not once throughout the movie did i find myself staring off into space. Konkana Sen did a good job in the movie, although i think someone with more glamour or enthusiasm would have been better, but she did do a great job. All the supporting actors were also very good and helped the movie along. Boman Irani did a great job. There is one thing that stands out in this movie THE STORY it is great, and very realistic, it doesn't beat around the bush it is very straight forward in sending out its message. I think more movie like this should be made, i am sick of watching the same candy floss movies over and over, they are getting hard to digest now. Everyone should watch Page 3, it is a great film. -Just my 2 cents :) This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.

Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.

Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.

In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.

This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.

What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!

Can raise your BP level by 10%

All actors played their role very well.

Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.

This movie is quite adult in nature.

Not a movie that can be seen with family.

Casting is great!!! Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').

Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.

Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam – Wants You!

Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended. Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.

Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.

In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.

This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.

A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.

A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film. I had never seen a silent movie until July 24, 2005. I had never seen a movie with Mary Pickford in it. I've seen thousands of movies. Very few are hypnotic to me. I found Last of the Mohicans and Unforgettable (Ray Liotta) to be hypnotic, so consider the source as you read this. I started watching Tess of the Storm Country on TCM just to see who this Mary Pickford was, who has been credited by many for launching Hollywood. I had no idea what I was in for. Two hours later, I snapped out of it, and realized I'd watched one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen, playing a role perfectly suited to her. Imagine a movie fan in 1922, having never seen anyone that gorgeous and that expressive before. You would have to see her again and again. The setting was perfect for a girl that expressive. She was a poor squatter, couldn't speak the King's English, but you had to admire her. What a movie... time to start my Mary Pickford movie collection! Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.

The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.

The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.

By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography. TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's. This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.

True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented.

"Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost!

To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.

In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values. Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.

Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.

One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing – although everything is more or less explained in the end.

About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films. This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago. For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.

THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!

It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.

Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE. Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended. The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment. An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's "Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora" ("The Cameraman's Revenge", or "The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.

Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the "Gay Dragonfly" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a "business trip" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.

There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: "Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie." He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.

In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that "the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future…" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles – it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?! This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or "normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended. This is one of the best animated movies I've ever seen in my life. This isn't just a fun movie, or a well-made movie. This is a landmark in the art of animation and even if it weren't, just the technical skill that went into making it, would grant it a place in the history of animation.

Wladyslaw Starewicz created a stop-motion movie about the secret life of beetles. He imagined a coherent world of insects, with jobs, houses, nightclubs, movie houses, even little props like posters and bicycles and paintings.

In this movie he tells a simple tale of hypocrisy and revenge. Mr. Beetle has an affair with a dancing dragonfly, much to the chagrin of a grasshopper; but he's a cameraman and decides to shoot the fling. Mr. Beetle returns home and finds Mrs. Beetle having her own affair. Mr. Beetle chases the lover away but forgives his wife. The two make up and go out to the movies. And the movie they watch is Mr. Beetle and the Dragonfly. Described thus it sounds banal, but once seen it becomes a gripping work of cinema. Along with Emile Cohl and Jiri Trnka, Wladyslaw Starewicz pretty much invented everything that future animators would use in their work. For that reason he must not remain forgotten. Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later!

The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.

Weird but also very amazing and watchable. I'm usually not too into a specific show (save for The O.C. & Desperate Housewives...hey, I am 20!), but, no kidding, after one episode of Reunion I was hooked.

I can't even say how bummed I was that it's time-slot conflicted with Bush's speech last night because I was really looking forward to the 1987 episode, which will now air next Thursday. Again, that conflict was disadvantageous because, being a new show, it needs to build up a following and having the second episode pushed back a week kills some momentum.

That said, TV doesn't always have to be Emmy worthy to be enjoyable. I don't expect Reunion to take home any prizes, but I do expect it will be able to capture my attention all season. Ever watch the first few episodes of a beloved show years later? Sometimes you wonder how you ever got hooked. Character building takes some time.

The one episode for each year idea is wonderful, in my opinion. The only other show I can recall doing something similar is 24, with each episode being an hour...and having an eventful year is more realistic than a day that eventful! Please give this show a shot. Relax about art form...it's just TV! So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...

How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.

Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... I really love this show, it's like reading a book and each chapter leaves you wanting more. It gets you thinking about what is going to happen in the next episode, and the struggle of trying to maintain their friendship throughout the years. After each episode ends it leaves a sweet bitter taste in your mouth knowing that: One - The show was good, you can't wait for the next episode and it really gets you thinking about what actually happens to the friends throughout the twenty years. And two - the fact that the show has been put "on hiatus" and we will not see the show finish in it's entirety. Fox obviously do not know what they have done, they claim that they are losing viewers in the 18 - 49 category they clearly do not know what people want to see if they got rid of a good show such as "Reunion". I have one query though that I would like to raise. If they were to bring the show back and it went on for another season how would it work since each episode is done in the period of a year and the story is based on what happens in the span of twenty years? Your answers are most welcome. Bring back Reunion! Bring back Reunion! I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!! so halfway through the season, i got so caught up in school and my activities that i didn't realize that the show had been canceled halfway through, which is crap.

i think the followers of this show should write fox and ask them to at least finish filming so that a the season can be released on DVD later. maybe then they'll see how many people were disappointed that the show didn't survive its first season.

i loved the show and looked forward to it every thursday after the OC. can you imagine my disappointment when i came back to try and watch the show only to discover that it had disappeared? needless to say, i'm not very happy with fox right now. even more so after discovering that NO ENDING WAS FILMED. i mean, if you're going to work on a project, at least finish it to see what happens. a half filmed show is like a half made car, it's pretty much useless. fox, film the damn ending and give some of the show's fans some peace. this is indeed a treat for every Bolan fan, some might think that it's a little over the top, and that it is only about Ringo and Marc's egos, but i think it's similar to any other concert video, except for the fact that this is Marc bolan, not just any guy! i especially liked the music video for children of the revolution, with Elton John and Ringo Starr. this clip alone is worth all the money, i can't believe they did'not release this version as the single. The movie is really superb, especially for us danes. Now, I wasn't alive during the 70's. but danes in general was totally shot out from what was happening around them. the media didn't play or show any of the popular music back then, including Marc Bolan and T.Rex, they only played a little with The Doors, only the really popular songs though. so, i know from my dad, that seeing this, gives him back a part of his youth, he never got to experience.

i wont make this too long, so... If you're the least bit fan of Marc Bolan, you need to see this. you might find it boring or as said before, a little over the top. But at least you've seen one of the best musicians ever, in action!

Only thing that disappoints me a little, is that Ride A White Swan isn't on the tape. but i forgive it, since Jeepster and Get It On are so wonderfully played. BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun. Panned by critics at the time but loved by the fans, this film has now become a classic. Mixing supposedly 'surreal' footage shot at John Lennon's home among other places with live footage of Marc Bolan & T.Rex at their very best, this film is not just a must for everyone who's liked Marc Bolan but gives a fascinating insight into the era.

These were the times when Marc was hobnobbing with the likes of Ringo Starr of the Beatles [who directed it] and you can even find a brief spot from one Reg Dwight [Elton John to you] bashing the ivories in an amazing [and never officially released] version of Tutti Frutti and rocking and ballad versions of Children Of The Revolution.

There's also wonderful scenes featuring Chelita Secunda [said to have 'created glam rock' with her use of glitter etc], Mickey Finn and even the actor from Catweazle!!

The best scene for me is in the garden when Marc leaves the dining table, sits down cross-legged in front of a string section and knocks out acoustic versions of classics such as Get It On and The Slider.

Highly, highly recommended!! FIVE stars [out of five].

Rory If you're a T-Rex/Marc Bolan fan, I recommend you check this out. It shows a whimsical side of Marc Bolan as well as Ringo Starr, apparently having a pretty good time shooting some of the scenes that aren't part of the concert, but fun to watch, leaving you with a sense of getting to know them as just people, and when the concert is shown a talented musician, both playful and professional that rocks and seems to impress the screaming girls. Watching him in concert, you would never know that being a rock star is a job, but just having a great time playing some great songs with some good friends, like Elton John and Ringo Starr appearing in some of the live performances. True, there are a few songs missing that I would like to have seen on there, but like any album it can't have everything. I just bought this in 2006, but if I would have know it came out in 1972, I would have definitely bought it years ago. Sad and strange that a man with so many songs about his love for cars, would never learn to drive and would die in a car crash! After repeated listenings to the CD soundtrack, I knew I wanted this film, got it for Christmas and I was amazed. Marc Bolan had such charisma, i can't describe it. I'd heard about him in that way, but didn't understand what people were talking about until I was in the company of this footage. He was incredible. Clips from the Wembley concert are interspersed with surrealistic sketches such as nuns gorging themselves at a garden party as Marc Bolan performs some acoustic versions of Get It On, etc. (I'm still learning the song titles). George Claydon, the diminutive photographer from Magical Mystery Tour, plays a chauffeur who jumps out of a car and eats one of the side mirrors. Nothing I can say to describe it would spoil it, even though I put the spoilers disclaimer on this review, so you would just need to see this for yourselves. It evades description.

Yes, I love the Beatles and was curious about Ringo directing a rock documentary - that was 35 years ago - now, I finally find out it's been on DVD for 2 years, but it's finally in my home. It's an amazing viewing experience - even enthralling.

Now the DVD comes with hidden extras and the following is a copy and paste from another user:

There's two hidden extras on the Born To boogie double DVD release.

1.From the menu on disc one,select the bonus material and goto the extra scenes 2.On the extra scenes page goto Scene 42 take 1 and keep pressing left 3.when the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+1972" logo appears 4.Press Enter

5.From the main menu on disc two,select the sound options 6.On the sound options page goto the 90/25 (I think thats right) option and keep pressing left 7.When the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+Home video" logo appears 8.Press Enter Canto 1: How Kriemhild Mourned Over Siegfried and How King Attila Woos her Through his Ambassador Rüdiger von Bechlarn: Kriemhild (Margarete Schön) insists on having the head of the killer of her beloved husband, Hagen Tronje (Hans Adalbert Schlettow), but her brother, King Gunther (Theodor Loos), refuses her request. When King Attila of the Huns woos Kriemhild through his ambassador Rüdiger von Bechlar, she makes him promise through oath in the name of his king that no man would ever offend her. Hagen Tronje hides the Nibelungen treasure in the bottom of a lake.

Canto 2: How Kriemhild Takes Leave from her Homeland and How She Was Received by King Attila: Kriemhild brings some earth from where Siegfried died, and travels to the court of the Huns, where she is welcomed by Attila himself, who also promises through oath to defend her.

Canto 3: How King Attila Besieged Rome and How Kriemhild Summoned her Brothers: When Kriemhild delivers a baby boy, Attila returns to his realm and asks Kriemhild what she would like most to please her. She asks him to invite her brothers to come to his kingdom.

Canto 4: How Kriemhild Receives her Brothers: Kriemhild insists on having the head of Hagen Tronje, but her brothers keep loyalty to their friend and again do not accept her request.

Canto 5: How the Huns Celebrated the Summer Solstice With the Nibelungen: Kriemhild asks Attila to kill Hagen Tronje, but he refuses since in accordance with the laws of the desert, a guest is considered sacred. Kriemhild offers gold to the Hums for the head of Hagen Tronje. There is a fight, and Hagen Tronje kills Attila's son.

Canto 6: The Nibelungen's Distress: The Huns lose the battle against the Nibelungen, but keep them under siege inside Attila's castle. Kriemhild promises to spare their lives provided they deliver Hagen Tronje, but her brother Gunther tells that German people are loyal with their friends.

Canto 7: The Nibelungen's End: After the death of Rüdiger von Bechlarn, Giselher and Gernot, Hagen Tronje and Guhther are finally captured. Kriemhild kills Hagen Tronje, ending her revenge with the destruction of the Nibelungen.

The conclusion of the poetic saga of Siegfried through "Kriemhild's Revenge" is also told through seven dramatic cantos. The nature of the first part is a magnificent tale of fantasy, adventure, romance and betrayal; the second part is a dramatic story of hate, revenge and loyalty. The solid screenplay with a perfect development of the characters, the excellent performances of the cast and the awesome direction of Fritz Lang produced another epic ahead of time. Margarete Schön is impressive with a total different woman, obsessed and inflexible in her revenge wish. The costumes that Kriemhild wears are also very impressive, and her acting is based on her face and look. I was a little disappointed with the reaction of Attila after the death of his only son, since I found it too passive. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Nibelungos – Parte II: A Vingança de Kriemshild" ("The Nibelungen Part II: Kriemhild's Revenge") I saw this film last night at a special movie theater showing in Nürnberg, and it was superb. I do have to admit that the original music composition of the cello player and percussion/xylophone player influenced the mood of the film, but the film itself also had force in its portrayal of the tragic Nibelungen saga.

If you are interested in silent films or in the Nibelungenlied, I highly recommend this film. The costumes were fantastic and creative, the sets were opulent and exotic, and the acting was dramatic and breathtaking (as is typical of silent film "tragedies") Unfortunately, I have not seen the first part of this film duo that concerns Siegfried. The story of this second film begins after Siegfried's death, when Kremhild (Gudrun in the Norse versions of the story) begins to plan her revenge against her brothers.

Also, I watched this film in German; I am a native English speaker and have a basic German knowledge. It was difficult to read the ?subtitles (what do you call that in silent films?) at first because of the old style German script, so I advise that if you watch it in German that you make sure you can differentiate your "k's", "f's", and "s's" in the old script. :) Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along. In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting. I finally got my wish to see this one in a cinema. I'd seen Fritz Lang's film on video some years ago. I'd been hoping that ideal screening conditions would work their magic.

Conditions were ideal at Cinematheque Ontario. Pristine full-length print. Intertitles in the original Gothic-script German with simultaneous English translation, accurate without being too literal. Live piano accompaniment. Ideal.

The film's magic sputtered for a little while but ultimately failed to catch, at least for me.

This film bears no real relation to Wagner's Ring cycle as I already knew but some may not. Wagner had adapted the 13th c. Niebelungenlied to his own purposes. Part I of Fritz Lang's epic -- "Siegfried" -- has much that will be familiar to listeners of Wagner however.

"Kriemhild's Revenge" is the story of Siegfried's wife Kriemhild, her marriage to King Etzel (Attila) the Hun, and her desire for revenge against Hagen and Gunther, the rechristened Nibelungs, for the murder of Siegfried. The spectacular conflagration in this film presumably evolved and expanded in the Wagnerian mythos into his Götterdämmerung, his Twilight of the Gods, and the end of Valhalla. This film remains earthbound.

Most of the film is spectacular. The massive sets rival those of "Cabiria" (1914), which inspired Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916). Their decoration sets a new benchmark in barbaric splendour. There's a huge cast of scarred, mangy Huns and Art Deco Burgundians. And battles. Battles that never seem to end in fact.

Kriemhild is very successful in her plan of revenge. She manages to destroy all around her. Her loyalty to her martyred Siegfried seems not to stem so much from love, or devotion, but from something closer to psychosis. Lady Macbeth cried out, "Unsex me here." She knew she was emotionally unprepared for what she needed to do. But Kriemhild displays no normal human emotions, and certainly nothing one equates with the feminine principle. She is already "top full of direst cruelty", to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, from the outset. Margarethe Schön and her director convey this with a glower. I don't want to exaggerate, but that glower is virtually the only expression ever to "animate" Kriemhild's face. It's the ultimate in one-note performances. It's clearly intentional however, not simply a case of poor acting.

What we have then on offer is a one-dimensional sketch of an avenging Fury. Some might see Kriemhild as an empowered heroine. I just see the film as misogynistic. Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones. In "Die Nibelungen: Siegfried", Siegfried was betrayed. Now, Kriemhild seeks revenge. She marries Hagen, and through a series of events, finally engages in a very drastic (but fitting) action at the end.

One of the things about watching this movie nowadays is that we can look at certain portrayals. Attila the Hun (called Etzel in the movie) is shown as the strange person from the east, possibly an allusion to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it was not Fritz Lang's fault that Hitler used "The Nibelungenlied" for German national pride in the Third Reich, but one can see what the Fuhrer liked about the story. Nonetheless, this is an absolutely formidable movie. Great battle finale and nice sets help keep this often-slow movie enjoyable. At times it had me checking my watch, although there were enough memorable moments to make the film stand out in my mind days after watching it. The ending should surprise even those familiar with the Nibelungen story line. I show this film to university students in speech and media law because its lessons are timeless: Why speaking out against injustice is important and can bring about the changes sought by the oppressed. Why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are essential to democracy. This is a must-see story of how apartheid was brought to the attention of the world through the activism of Steven Biko and the journalism of Donald Woods. It also gives an important lesson of free speech: "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher." (From Biko by Peter Gabriel, on Shaking the Tree). This film is, quite simply, brilliant. The cinematography is good, the acting superb and the story absolutely breathtaking. This is the story of Donald Woods, a white South African who thought himself a liberal until he found out the reality of apartheid. Kevin Kline is completely convincing - so much so that when Donald Woods himself appeared on TV some years later, I recognised him from Kline's portrayal. Denzel Washington also turns in a masterful performance, as ever.

I urge you to watch this. It is long, but it is worth your patience because it tells such an incredible story. Remember, folks, this really happened. Billed as the story of Steve Biko -- played excellently by Denzel Washington, as you'd expect -- this was actually more the story of Donald Woods, played by Kevin Kline.

This was undoubtedly the making of Kline as a serious actor, and he was surprisingly good in the role.

Attenborough gave this the sort of direction you'd expect, and the often spectacular scenes of the masses were those of the sort that only he can get across.

The remainder of the cast was competent enough and did a good job, in what ends up as an ultimately sad tale of a South Africa that is still nowhere near the distant past. CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction. As anyone old enough knows, South Africa long suffered under the vile, racist oppression of apartheid, which completely subjugated the black population. One of the most famous anti-apartheid activists was Steve Biko, who was murdered in jail. Following the murder, reporter Donald Woods sought to get Biko's message out to the world.

In "Cry Freedom", Woods (Kevin Kline) befriends Biko (Denzel Washington) before the latter is arrested on trumped up charges. When Woods attempts to spread Biko's word, he and his family begin living under threat of attack, and they are finally forced to flee the country. The last scene gut-wrenchingly shows police firing on protesters.

As one of two movies (along with "A World Apart") that helped galvanize the anti-apartheid movement, "Cry Freedom" stands out as possibly the best ever work for all involved. An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________ It's sad to view this film now that we know how the ANC got shafted by international capitalism. Biko died for nothing much. Woods achieved little. Yes, outright apartheid was abolished, but all the apparatus of power was reserved by the minority whites, leaving the ANC government more or less impotent. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine, in the talks between the black and white leaderships "the deKlerk government had a twofold strategy. First drawing on the ascendant Washington Consensus that there was no only one way to run an economy, it portrayed key sectors of economic decision making --- such as trade policy and the central bank --- as "technical" or "adminsitrative". Then it used a wide range of new policy tools --- international trade agreements, innovations in constitutional law and structural adjustment programs --- to hand control of those power centres to supposedly impartial experts, economists and officials from the IMF, the World Bank, the GATT and the National Party --- anyone except the liberation fighters from the ANC." The statistical results are horrifying, with not much change accomplished, and AIDS flourishing. Viewing Cry Freedom in this light is deeply ironic --- actually tragic. The ANC has transformed itself from being the solution to being the primary problem. Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10. "The True Story Of The Friendship That Shook South Africa And Awakened The World."

Richard Attenborough, who directed "A Bridge Too Far" and "Gandhi", wanted to bring the story of Steve Biko to life, and the journey and trouble that journalist Donald Woods went through in order to get his story told. The films uses Wood's two books for it's information and basis - "Biko" and "Asking for Trouble".

The film takes place in the late 1970's, in South Africa. South Africa is in the grip of the terrible apartheid, which keeps the blacks separated from the whites and classifies the whites as the superior race. The blacks are forced to live in shantytowns on the outskirts of the cities and towns, and they come under frequent harassment by the police and the army. We are shown a dawn raid on a shantytown, as bulldozers and armed police force their way through the camp beating and even killing the inhabitants. Then we are introduced to Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), who is the editor of a popular newspaper. After publishing a negative story about black activist Steve Biko (Denzel Washington), Woods goes to meet with him. The two are wary of each other at first, but they soon become good friends and Biko shows the horrors of the apartheid system from a black persons point of view to Woods. This encourages Woods to speak out against what's happening around him, and makes him desperate to bring Steve Biko's story out of the clutches of the white man's South Africa and to the world. Soon, Steve Biko is arrested and is killed in prison. Now Woods and his family are daring to escape from South Africa to England, where Woods can publish his book about Steve Biko and the apartheid.

When I first heard of "Cry Freedom", I was under the impression that it was a movie completely dedicated to the life of Steve Biko. I had never actually heard of Steve Biko before I seen this film, as the events in this film were really before my time. But it's more about the story of Donald Woods and his journey across the border into Lesotho as he tried to elude the South African officials. Woods was put on a five year type house arrest after Steve Biko was killed. So in order to publish his manuscript on Steve Biko, he had to escape. Because the manuscript would be considered treason in South Africa and that could have resulted in Woods meeting a fate similar to that of Biko's. The real Donald Woods and his wife acted as consultants to this film.

Denzel Washington is only in the film for the first hour, and I was disappointed with that as I was expecting to see him for the entire movie. But he was amazing as Steve Biko, and captured his personality from what I've read really well and his accent sounded perfect. His performance earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Kevin Kline delivers a excellent and thought-evoking performance as Donald Woods, and Penelope Wilton is excellent as his wife Wendy.

Filming took place in Zimbabwe, as needless to say problems arose when they tried to film it in South Africa. While in South Africa, the South African gestapo followed the film crew everywhere, so they got the bad vibes and they pulled out and went to neighbouring Zimbabwe instead. Despite everything, and the fact that the apartheid didn't end 'til seven years later, "Cry Freedom" wasn't banned in South Africa. But cinemas showing the movie received bomb threats.

Richard Attenborough brings the horrors of the apartheid to the screen with extreme force and determination. He doesn't hold back at the end of the movie when showing what was supposed to be a peaceful protest by students in a shantytown, turns into a massacre when police open fire on them. The film ends with the names of all the anti-apartheid movers who died in prison, and the explanations for their deaths. Many had "No Explanation". Quite a few were "Epilepsy", which is hard to believe, and many more either fell from the top of the stairs or were "Suicide from Hanging". No one will ever know what really happened to them, but I think it's fair to say that none of these men died at their own hands, but at the hands of others; or to be more precise, at the hands of the police.

"Cry Freedom" is a must-see movie for it's portrayal and story of Steve Biko. It's also a searing and devastating portrayal of a beautiful land divided and in the hellish grips of racial segregation and violence. What a movie! I never imagined Richard Attenborough could have such a movie in him. Gandhi has always left me indifferent, apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, and I never considered Attenborough a particularly good filmmaker. But Cry Freedom held my interest like few movies have in recent times. It's an exciting, mesmerizing political movie with great performances by Kevin Kline and a young Denzel Washington.

Kline plays Donald Woods, a South Africa newspaper editor who befriends the civil rights activist Steve Biko. It starts as a difficult friendship, for Woods sees Biko as a black supremacist preaching hatred against whites. But Biko, with his kind words, upbeat attitude and complete transparency, wins over Woods and introduces him to a reality about Apartheid that Woods knew nothing about.

Biko is a decent, law-abiding citizen who altruistically stands up against all prejudice and the system that keeps down his people. One night, coming from an illegal meeting, he's arrested and beaten to death. The authorities try to hush up the matter because Biko has become a huge personality in South Africa. But through the efforts of Woods the truth comes out. But what should be a triumph only becomes a nightmare as Woods and his family become targets for the secret police.

This movie has an interesting structure. It has in fact two narratives: first it narrates the life and death of Biko. It's an amazing first half, completely dominated by the charisma of Washington in what may be his greatest performance yet.

The second half, no less interesting, narrates Woods attempt to escape from South Africa to publish a book about Biko. Woods has become an enemy of state, a banned person, which means he can't meet people or leave his country. Plus he's constantly spied by the police. Kevin Kline gives a great performance in this second half too.

Although the first half is quite straightforward, the second does interesting things with editing, by giving flashbacks of Biko and of events that show the repression against the black South Africans. Some may argue this is to make it more interesting, but for me the second half just as captivating, as Woods and his family devise a bold plan to escape South Africa.

The last minutes were so heartbreaking I was in tears. George Fenton and Jonas Gwangwa's score certainly had something to do with it. Although I've never been much of a fan of Fenton (cannot stand his Gandhi score), I do think the score for Cry Freedom is one of the most beautiful ever composed for cinema. The movie, thanks to the music married to the powerful images, at times reached incredible peaks of emotion.

Cry Freedom is definitely not a movie just to watch because of Denzel Washington. This is a movie to be cherished in its entirety. Acting, writing, music, editing, cinematography come together in a perfect synthesis to create an ode to the power of the human spirit. This movie deserve a place alongside movies like The Pianist, Life Is beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption. I think the context of the story has been covered by other posters so I would just like to write about the impact this film had on me.

I first saw this film the year of it's release around 1987. My school organised a trip to the cinema to see it, for an RE project I think. We all went along of course excited because we were on a school trip to the cinema! Little did we know what we were about to experience. To this day I still remember the feelings it invoked in me and i remembered crying a lot as were most of my friends. I think at the age we were we found it shocking and quiet rightly outraged in our own youthful way .It had such an impact on me that I joined the Anti Apartheid Movement the same year.

I think it served it's purpose in my case. What a brilliant film. I will admit it is very ambitious, with the subject matter. At a little over two and a half hours, it is a very long film too. But neither of these pointers are flaws in any way. Cry Freedom, despite the minor flaws it may have, is a powerful, moving and compelling film about the story of the black activist Steve Biko in his struggles to awaken South Africa to the horrors of the apartheid. It is true, that the first half is stronger than the second in terms of emotional impact. People have also complained that the film suffers from too much Woods not enough Biko. I may be wrong, but although it is Biko's story, it is told in the perspective of Woods, so Woods is an important character in conveying Biko's story to the world.

Cry Freedom visually looks amazing. With the show-stopping cinematography and the stunning South African scenery it was a visual feast. The opening scenes especially were brilliantly shot. George Fenton's music brought real dramatic weight to most scenes. It was subtle in scenes in the second half, but stirring and dramatic in the crowd scenes. The script was of exceptional quality, the courtroom scenes with Biko were enough to really make you think wow this is real quality stuff. The first half with Biko as the main focus constantly had something to feel emotional about, whether it was the police's attack of the South African citizens or Biko's death. The second half entirely about Donald Woods carries less of an emotional punch, but is compensated by how it is shot, performed and written. And there are parts that are genuinely suspenseful as well.

The performances were exceptional from the entire cast, from the most minor character to the two leads, there wasn't a single bad performance. Regardless of the accents that is, but it is forgiven so easily by how much the performances draw you in. Denzel Washington in one of his more understated performances, gives a truly compelling performance as Biko, and Kevin Kline shows that he can be as good at drama as he is at comedy, for he gave a suitably subtle performance to match that of Washington's. And the two men's chemistry is believable and never strikes a false note. Penelope Wilton is lovely as Donald's wife Wendy, and she is a great actress anyway. Out the supporting performances, and there may be some bias, two stood out for me. One was Timothy West, who relishes his role as Captain DeWet. The other was the ever exceptional John Thaw in a brilliantly chilling cameo-role as Kruger. Lord Richard Attenborough's direction is focused and constantly sensitive as usual.

Overall, a truly wonderful film. Ambitious and long it is, but never ceases to be compelling, powerful and achingly moving. A definite winner from Lord Richard Attenborough, and worthy of a lot more praise. 10/10 Bethany Cox Richard Attenborough is a director whose name is synonymous with the Academy Award winning 'Gandhi', back in '83. I didn't know of any other work of his till i recently came across 'Cry Freedom', released back in 1987. While it may not have been as popular as his Gandhi, it is every bit as gripping, if not more, and was released when South Africa still had not got rid of the shackles of apartheid. While most movies on social issues come out after the event had happened, i guess this one released during the time.

The story is based on real life characters and events. The book on which the movie was based, was written by Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), a journalist who used to work in South Africa until the end of the seventies. It traces the origins of Woods friendship with the charismatic black leader Steve Biko, who is wonderfully portrayed by Denzel Washington. I cannot imagine a better choice for the role. Washington exudes a natural charm and screen presence, which Biko's character required.

While initially, Woods was against what he felt was black racism being spread by Biko, after meeting the man, he could not help being drawn into his struggles and ideas. The bond between them grows stronger, and Woods and his family realise and become more sensitive to the plight of the people Biko represents.

However, finally, tragedy strikes, and Woods must now concentrate on escaping from South Africa, with his book, so that he can get it published and let the outside world know what is going on. The second half of the movie is a gripping tale of his escape from South Africa, along with his family, and will keep you on tenterhooks.

There are some deliciously humorous dialogues too. The scene between Biko and the lawyer in the courtroom is an example.

Lawyer: Do you advocate violence? Biko: I advocate a confrontation. Lawyer: Well, isn't that violence, Mr. Biko? Biko: Not necessarily. You and I are having a confrontation now, but i don't see any violence.

However, there are moments that bring you back to the horrors that pervaded the country before better sense prevailed. The scene where the army opens fire on a protest by school children is gut wrenching and heartbreaking.

This is definitely a must watch. I would suggest those not familiar with Attenborough's work, do take time out for this. There are movies which make a lot of money. And there are movies which make lives. I would any day prefer the latter. 'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.

The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.

Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting. This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen. It's a shame that this piece of work wasn't acknowledged as a piece of work. It has everything a historical film must have: a serious historical research, outstanding performances of every actor involved and a discrete but great direction.

When I saw the movie I knew it should be a prototype for every biographical movie. A long film about a very important character from South Africa, Stephen Biko. He is one of these Blacks who did not survive apartheid, who actually died a long time before their normal time. The already old film though does not show how important Biko was, what he really represented. His life and his teaching is reduced to little, at best a few witty remarks. The film being from 1987, the objective was to push South Africa over the brink that would lead her to liberation. So the film aims at showing how irrational the South African supporters of apartheid are, in 1987. To show this the film has to look beyond Biko's death, hence to center its discourse not on Biko but on a white liberal journalist and his escaping the absurd system in which he is living. His escape is made necessary because of the victimization he is the victim of, along with his family, and because he wants to publish the first book on Biko, after his death, and that can only happen in England. The film shows a way to escape South Africa, while apartheid is still standing and killing. So do not expect this way to be realistic and true. It could not be. But the film has tremendously aged because it does not show South Africa with any historical distantiation, the very distantiation that has taken place under Nelson Mandela's presidency and that is called forgiveness provided those who want to be forgiven speak up and out. The film is strong and emotional but that very historical limit makes it rather weak today, especially since the film does not mention the third racial community, the Indians. Panegyric books or films all have that defect: they are looking at the person they are supposed to portrait from only one point of view. That explains why the film has aged so much, seems to be coming from so long ago, as if nothing had changed at all. A remake is necessary.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID Steve Biko was a black activist who tried to resist the white minority governed South Africa in much the same way as Gandhi tried to resist the British empire's colonialism in India. Richard Attenborough's film Cry Freedom is not about Biko or Apartheid as much as it is about Donald Woods, the white liberal newspaper editor who risked his life trying to tell Biko's story. The film has a jarring point of view switch after Biko dies in prison from tortuous behavior at the hands of South African "police". Woods, played by Kevin Kline, must choose whether to do the right thing and flee the country to publish books about Biko or allow his wife, played by Penelope Wilton, to pressure him into forgetting about the books. In that case, Biko dies in vain. What begins as a life-changing friendship between Biko and Woods degenerates into a standard by the numbers escape over the border yarn after Biko's death. Oscar-nominated Denzel Washington is good in only his fourth film as Biko, but something is wrong in a film that tries to depict the struggles of Apartheid by focusing more on the trials of a white family for more than half the film. Attenborough would have served his topic better by focusing on Biko's rise to prominence instead of beginning where Biko befriended Woods. Perhaps a black actor in a leading role in a 2 1/2 hour film wasn't exactly conducive to big box office, but the film was a tremendous box office flop anyway. Film politics aside, the film still entertains and sends a message or two, albeit, in PG-sanitized fashion. *** of 4 stars. What is "Cry Freedom" like? It is simply great and unique experience about making of South Africa and how black people in that country were repressed by white people. Main character of the story is Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), chief editor of the newspaper Daily Dispatch in South Africa. Woods writes several articles, where he speaks critically about views of Steve Biko (Denzel Washington). Soon Woods meets Biko and he changes his views about him and he also begins to understand what authorities are doing to black people in South Africa (right from the top, even from the chief of police). When Biko dies in police custody, Woods decides that he have to write book about him and that no matter what he has to publish it. But Woods must escape from his country to get that book published and he must also put his family on second place, so world can find out the truth.

Attenborough managed to make a good movie about people, with main message that black and white are the same, cause we are all people. Story leads us to South Africa and this (movie) is great way for the whole world to learn what happened in that land and I'm disappointed that only 3200 people rated this movie. This is movie from which we all can learn something. Although it is a bit long, this story couldn't be presented in any shorter way because director wanted to show us how hard was for Woods to get that book published after death of Biko.

Also relationship between Woods and Biko was shown great, just like families of those two people and all the problems they are going through. But sometimes sacrifices must be made (Biko's death) so the truth could be reveled (Woods book). This film moved me beyond comprehension, it is and will remain my favourite film of all time, mainly because it has almost every emotion all rolled into its 157 minutes. What is the hardest part for me to take is that whenever i want to hear the amazing music and songs from the film, I have to put it into my DVD player, so I was wondering if anyone anywhere knows who sings the songs in the film and where they can be found, as I have looked everywhere I can think sporadically over the past 5 years. My favourite quote from the film is when in court the advocate says "But your own words ask for direct confrontation, isn't that a direct call for violence?" Biko replies "Well you and I are in confrontation now, but I see no violence!!"

CRAIG ROBERTSON Fife, Scotland This is a film that everyone should watch. Quite apart from raising hugely important points (while South Africa is on the road to recovery there are still many countries in similar situations now), it is superbly directed while Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best performance in his career so far. Kline also gives a good performance, although perhaps not as stunning as Washington's. John Thaw also puts in a good turn as the Chief of Police.

There are so many possible areas where a film on apartheid could fall down, but all of these have been avoided. It would be easy to simply portray white people as the bad guys and black people as the good guys, but Attenborough has not done this. Sure, there were some white characters who seemed inherently evil, such as the Captain at the Soweto uprising, but to add extra dimensions to all the characters would make the film unbearably long. Some people complain about the length of the film as it is, but I think it needs the whole two and a half hours to tell the whole story, for it really is an incredible one.

The best scene in the film is that of Steve Biko's funeral. When the whole crowd begins to sing the South African national anthem, it is probably one of, if not the most moving scenes I have seen.

If you haven't seen this film already: watch it. It may not be comfortable viewing, but it's certainly worth it. This amazing Oscar winner (4 in total) and John Ford's first Academy Award winner, is simply spellbinding with a pounding score by Max Steiner. Called an Art film, because Ford had very little money to make this great story about guilt and retribution, and greed and stupidity. But what makes this movie such a classic, is the direction and astounding photography and use of fog and lighting, that was so different from the usual American film, and more in the tradition of German expressionism. And the Oscar winning performance by Victor McLaglen as the drunken Gypo is simply unbelievable. Basically the movie takes place in Ireland, and Gypo turns in a friend in the rebel movement to the English to collect 20 pounds to give to his girlfriend. But having all that money, he starts blowing it on an all night drunk and giving it away, while the leaders of the movement are trying to track down the informer. The whole movie is one night in a dark and foggy Ireland, and a cast of characters that are memorable but all along, the whole world of Gypo is closing in on him, both psychologically. If I had to pick maybe three directors to have ALL their movies on a deserted island forever, and nobody elses, John Ford would certainly be one of them. What a truly remarkable movie... Yet again, early morning television proves an invaluable resource for films that I otherwise would never have been able to track down. At four o'clock in the morning, I stumbled out of bed to begin recording 'The Informer (1935),' my fourth film from prolific American director John Ford, and an excellent one at that. Set during the Irish Civil War in 1922, the screenplay was adapted by Dudley Nichols from the novel of the same name by Liam O'Flaherty. Though he was born in the United States, and is most renowned for his "Americana" pictures, both of Ford's parents were Irish, which explains the director's decision to direct the film. Victor McLaglen plays Gypo Nolan, a brutish but well-meaning ruffian who informs on an old friend, Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), in order to claim the £20 reward for his girlfriend, Katie (Margot Grahame). When Frankie is killed during his attempted arrest, the Irish Republican Army, of which both Frankie and Gypo were members, begins to investigate the traitor behind the incident, every clue bringing them closer and closer to the real culprit.

Meanwhile, Gypo is plagued with guilt for his friend's untimely death, and descends into a bout of heavy-drinking that rivals Don Birnam in 'The Lost Weekend (1945)' in its excessiveness. As Gypo drowns his sorrows in copious volumes of alcohol, trapped in a vicious little circle of depression, his extravagant spending captures the attention of the investigating IRA members. For the one time in his life, Gypo finds himself surrounded by admirers (including an amusing J.M. Kerrigan), who enthusiastically clap him on the back and christen him "King Gypo" for his physical might. However, it's obvious that these people feel no affection for the man, and are simple showing him attention to exploit him for money. The additional £20 brought by Frankie's death could never buy Gypo an assembly of friends – indeed, in a bitter twist of irony, the money was only made possible by the betrayal and loss of one of his only good companions. A relatively simple fellow, Gypo could not possibly have fully considered the consequences of his actions, and is eventually offered forgiveness on account of his "not knowing what he was doing," but his foolishness must not go unpunished.

Criticism is occasionally levelled at Ford's film for its allegedly propagandistic support of a "terrorist" organisation. Though this stance obviously depends on one's personal views {I certainly don't know enough Irish history to pass judgement}, there's no doubt that the film portrays the Irish Republican Army as selfless, dedicated and impartial, a proud piece of Irish patriotism if I ever saw it. However, the main theme of the story is that of betrayal; driven by intense poverty, one ordinary man betrays the confidence of his good friend, and comes to deeply regret his actions. The tormented Gypo is played mainly for pity, and Victor McLaglen gives a powerful performance that betrays a lifetime of unsatisfying existence, culminating in one terrible decision that condemns him to an uneasy death. 'The Informer' was John Ford's first major Oscar success, winning a total of four awards (from six nominations), including Best Actor for McLaglen {who snatched the statue from the three-way favourites of 'Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)'}, Best Director and Best Screenplay for Dudley Nichols {who declined the award due to Union disagreements}. Victor McLaglen's performance is one of the finest in film history.

I think we can all feel for "Gypo" because we've all struggled with what is right and what isn't and been wrong. This was one of the first art-house pictures to be released by a major American movie studio (RKO Radio Pictures).

Joseph H. August's cinematography is at its very best here. However, August's stunning portion was mostly overlooked; he didn't receive the Oscar nomination he rightly deserved.

This is a psychological drama, with thought, philosophy, sadness, all conveyed with as little words as possible. ****SPOILERS**** Powerhouse movie that shows how men in desperate situations can go so far as sacrifice their best friends and family members and not realize what monsters that they are by doing it. Until like in the case of bull-like Gypo Noland, Victor Mclaglen, it's too much too late.

It's 1922 and the hight of the Black & Tan Irish revolt against the mighty British Empire with the Tans, British occupying troops, on the lookout for wanted Irish Republican rebel Frankie McPhillip, Wallace Ford, wanted for the killing of a Briish soldier. Gypo a good, really the best, friend of the fugitive McPhillip is down on his luck not having a job with his girlfriend Katie, Margot Grahame, forced to turn tricks in the Dublin red-light district in order to pay her rent.

After an outraged Gypo worked over a potential John who want's to spend a few hours with Katie, for a shilling or two, an angry Katie tells the not so bright Gyro that he's preventing her for supporting herself with the only bankable asset she has , her body. Katie also tells Gypo that he should wake up to reality and realize what a desperate situation that she's in. Telling the mind-numbed Gypo that it would only cost ten pound sterling for her to go to America, and get out of the poverty of Ireland, Gypo suddenly remembers a poster of his good friend Frankie McPhillip that he just saw announcing a reward of 20 pound sterling. Thats enough money for both him and Kaite to travel to America.

Gypo going to a local Dublin flop house and soup kitchen to get a free meal is startled to run into his friend Frankie McPhillip. Frankie tells him that he snuck into Dublin to see both his mother Mrs. McPhillip and sister Mary, Una O'Connor & Heather Angel, and if he can make sure that everything is safe for him to go home and later leave for his Irish Republican unit outside the city.

All Gypo can see in Frankie's face is the 20 pound sterling reward for him being turned into the police! Without as much of a second thought, after he assured Frankie that everything is all right, Gypo secretly goes to the police and informs on his friend who's later shot and killed in a police and Tan shootout in his moms house.

With the deed done the chief of police hands over the 20 pound sterling, much like thirty pieces of silver, to an almost emotionless Gypo who takes it and sneaks out the back door of the police station so that one one can see him. You can see in the police chief's face and actions that he has nothing but utter contempt for Gypo's betrayal of his friend Frankie McPhillip. Even though he was wanted for murder and an enemy of the British Empire. That's how low traitors or informers are held even by those whom they secretly work for.

Gypo turns out to be his own worst enemy after his betrayal of Frankie as his conscience takes control of his mind. Gypo sees and hears everyone, including his unsuspecting girlfriend Katie, pointing a finger and implicating him in Frankie's betrayal and death at the hands of the British authorities. Gypo's guilty mind has him getting himself royally and gloriously drunk, on the reward money, that by the time he's forced to to admit his crime to his Irish Republican Army colleagues, who had the almost dead drunk and slobbering Gypo on trial, the money was just about gone in his partying drinking and whoring.

Whatever good feelings, if that's possible, that you had for the weak minded and strong shouldered Gypo was completely demolished when in an act of total desperation, in order to keep from getting shot, he falsely implicate an innocent man Mulligan, Donald Meek, in his crime of informing on his friend Frankie McPhillip. Which is quickly exposed as a total fabrication by non other then the guilt-ridden Gypo himself. The dye is then cast as straws are drawn for who would be the one to put a bullet in Gypo's head for the final gut spilling chapter of this heart wrenching and unforgettable Crime & Punishment classic. I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies last night and was blown away by Victor McLaglen's performance:In every sense of the word a "tour de force". The atmosphere of 1922 Dublin evoked through the cinematography and production design really foreshadowed techniques used in the best film noirs of the 40's and early 50's.Very nice attention to detail also;during Frankie McPhillip's (Wallace Ford's) wake, the mourners are all praying in Gaelic. Max Steiner's score is unforgettable. As in later films such as 1939's GWTW, he appropriated folk ballads to lend local color and a sense of place and time. John Ford: already a film giant in 1935! Like many people here, I started out finding my patience being tried by this film. By the end, I actually shed a few tears.

It seems to be in the nature of most old films to drag for 7/8th length and then catch fire right at the end. Older film-goers learned to bide their time patiently through the slow parts, calm in the knowledge that the big payoff is on the way. But that isn't quite accurate. You see, to earlier audiences, what are to us the "slow parts" were the main body of the story. They watched and found anecdotal and thematic interest there. Modern audiences, post-Spielberg, are in a constant state of waiting to be hit with a small climax every two minutes when they see older films. It's the inflation problem of modern movies. Well, that isn't going to happen. It is not necessary to apologize for these films; it is simply that you have to adjust your expectations and personal rhythm when you watch them. At this point, the difference between Avatar and The Informer is like the difference between Euripides and a traveling production of Rent. Think about it for a minute or two. Not to strain at the obvious, but Euripides still deserves a hearing.

The "exciting part", for most modern viewers, begins with the IRA tribunal scene and escalates to the final couple of minutes, which, if you are at all on board or even paying attention by that time, will tear your heart out. It's not some high-tone universal abstract plea for forgiveness; it's a plea from one dimwit, and those who feel sorry for the big lummox, for a little mercy. It's that personal, and that embarrassingly naked an appeal. For after being mad at Gypo, irritated at him, thinking this is the dumbest character of all time, you finally find yourself won over by the scene of Gypo's erstwhile girlfriend pleading to another woman to talk her man into going easy him.

The film may be sentimental, but the sentimentality is not cheap as some here have charged. There's a matter of life and death that plays out here, and as long as you take the proposition of one life to a customer seriously, it's sentimentality wrung out of the most serious stuff.

8 of 10. And the fault for it not being 10 of 10 is my own and in some measure yours, if you are reading this. We have all asked for more, ever more, faster, ever faster until we cannot put ourselves in 1935 -- just yesterday, really -- as easily as we should be able. In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.

This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.

Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.

Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.

RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world. This picture in 1935 walked away with all kinds of Ocars for Best Director, John Ford, Actor Victor McLaglen and music by Max Seiner. Victor McLaglen,(Gypo Nolan), "Call Out the Marines",'42, gave an outstanding performance as an Irish rebel who belonged to a rough and tough crowd who were all fighting for a cause and at the same time getting poorer and poorer with plenty of drinking. Gypo Nolan made a bad mistake when he decided to become an informer for his best friend in order to take a trip with his gal to America and a new way of living. Preston Foster, (Don Gallagher),"Guadalcanal Diary",'43, gave a great supporting role as the leader of the Irish rebellion and was anxious to capture the informer of his group. Gypo Nolan becomes haunted by his betrayal of his friend and begins to feel just like a Judas. Great film for 1935 and wonderful acting by McLaglen, but rather depressing in every aspect of the film. Sometimes realism can work against the effectiveness of a film. That's no problem here. The sets are cheesy, inside and out. The fog is ubiquitous, half disguising the shabbiness of the production. If there's a bar, the name painted on the front window says simply, "Wine And Spirits." The result is a claustrophobic set of scenes. Not a single shot of a city or even a fake skyline. That's the kind of Dublin this story is about, just as Jack the Ripper movies are about seedy, foggy, cobblestoned Whitechapel. Who would want it any other way? How could it have been any other way with no bankable stars, a minuscule budget, and a four-week shooting schedule? The acting follows suit -- outrageously hammy on everyone's part. Sometimes, my God, it's positively excruciating. Mrs. McPhillips moaning after Frankie is shot dead outside the house. Victor McLaglin however delivers exactly the right kind of overdone performance. Wardrobe has stuffed him into a too-small jacket so that he seems to be bursting out of it like Frankenstein's monster. His every movement seems to go a little farther than it was intended to. When he slaps his cap on his head, he bops himself on the temple. A big, blustering, blubbering baby, he seems constantly drunk. He betrays his best friend for the reward money which will take him and his would-be girl to America, not a good guy in the ordinary sense. Yet we wince as he begins to spend the 20 pounds, more and more of it during a wild, alcoholic night, because every expensive and grandiose gesture takes him farther from his dream. I wouldn't argue it, but I can understand why he won an Oscar.

As for Max Steiner's score, wow. Every movement, already overdone, is not only underlined by the Mickey Mouse music but highlighted in glossy yellow. It shouldn't have happened -- the heavenly choirs, the endearing young charms, the minstrel boy, the gurgling tune while McLaglen drinks from the bottle. It would have been better off with no score at all.

Well, how is it as a whole? Dated -- by any measure, but not a product of its times. That's why I admire it. Yes, the symbolism is clumsy at times. McLaglen, a real dummy, bumping his head against a hanging sign. The fog. The blind man. But what impresses me is how little of this was being tried at the time. What strikes us as overly arty today was in 1936 something quite different from what was seen in most of the programmers being ground out at the time. If it falls short at times, it doesn't matter. The movie was an act of courage, politically and morally as well as poetically. (The legion of decency condemned it because of a scene in a brothel.) A director's goal should exceed his grasp, or what's a script for? Watching it now, however, in 2006, the story is more disturbing than ever. John Ford obviously sympathized with the Irish rebels. They kill, but only out of what they see as necessity. ("He knows too much to live. What if he goes to the Tans? Oh, it's not me-self I'm thinking of but all of us, of Ireland herself.") The Irish are sentimentalized and sympathetic. I wonder if the Jihadists in the Middle East don't use a similar logic to justify their acts of violence. "Enter the Fat Dragon" is one of the funniest martial art movies I had the opportunity to see. Sammo Hung portrays a Chinese farm boy that comes to visit a city friend. Just like Tang Lung of "Way of the Dragon." Wherever Sammo goes, trouble starts, therefore he has to rely on his martial art skills to solve the differences. Luckily, Sammo's character learns martial arts by imitating and mimicking his idol, Bruce Lee. He even strokes his nose with his thumb exactly the way Bruce Lee does and also releases his screeching yell. He also uses nunchucks in a scene. It was like watching a fat Bruce Lee. There's a great showdown near the end of the movie which consists of foreign fighters. Sammo has to encounter each opponent one by one. Sort of like "The Game of Death", where each fighter possesses a different martial art discipline from one another.

This is one of the films I really enjoyed watching and also the very first Sammo Hung movies I've seen. Excellent fight scenes and a lot of laughs. A rare classic Sammo Hung film I highly recommend for all you martial art fans out there. 8.5/10! This is of of Sammo's great early comedy films. This isn't a parody of enter the dragon, the main character (Sammo) is obsessed with Bruce Lee and emulates him freakishly well for a man of his size. Nominal story about how his fighting keeps causing his loved ones trouble - then fighting. Oh, the fighting. Good, fast-paced scenes with high impact (the white guy who plays a boxer looks like he really gets hurt by one of Sammo's kicks).

The funniest bit of this movie was purely unintentional. There is a Jim Kelly looking guy (one of three experts hired to take out Sammo), but he was a Chinese guy in blackface with an afro-wig. Come on, didn't they have any real black people in Hong Kong in 1978? Well, I guess I've seen enough white fake-as-hell "Chinese people" in old American movies too.

This is one is for any Sammo or Bruce Lee fan. This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.

Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.

At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.

In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.

Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.

Unfortunately, that world only exists on film.

"Ah, but what if...?" - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best. "One of Hung's better early efforts. The humor is dead-on in parts as Hung tries to imitate Lee's moves and facial expressions, and also in a bit where Hung pokes fun at Jackie Chan's Drunken Master. The action is also pretty good, especially when Hung takes on a trio on martial arts experts at the end. It's not the greatest film, but pretty good for '70's kung fu, especially if you're a fan of Hung and/or Lee. Be warned, though: most video versions of the movie have pretty shoddy quality. There is also a character in blackface which some people might find offensive.

Sammo Hung is a rural swine-herder who moves to Hong Kong to fight off some bad guys. Sammo turns on his dead-on Bruce Lee impersonation when fighting!

This film is often billed as a parody of Bruce Lee's "Enter The Dragon", but it's not exactly that... Sammo is a rural swine herder--obsessed with Bruce Lee--who moves to Hong Kong to help his relatives run a small open-air restaurant. Once situated at the new job, he is forced to defend the eatery from local gangsters looking for protection money. When Sammo switches into fighting mode, he switches on his Bruce Lee impersonation, which must be seen to be believed! This film is pretty sloppy, in many of the fight scenes Sammo battles against people who are obviously actors rather than martial artists, and there's one character who's supposed to be black who is played by an Asian man in heavy (and preposterous) makeup. But what this film lacks in budget and accuracy, it more than makes up for in atmosphere and energy. Highly recommended for a good mood." The most agile fat guy in martial arts does it again. An early Sammo film that has him imitating his character's hero, Bruce Lee, Sammo is amazingly Lee like in his actions and fighting. The way he slips into Bruce's style and then back to his own, more familiar kung fu is a joy to watch and shows how accomplished and adaptable he is at his art. Throw in a bit of slapstick humour so beloved of this type of flick and this a movie that has it all - comedy (some unintentional, like the fake black guy), action and some incredible fight scenes.

A great beer and buddies movie that is worth an hour and a half of anyone's time. Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars. COME ON!!! They did that on purpose!! Two of my current faves on TV (Meloni from "Oz" and "L and O-SVU" and Janel from "West Wing") hook up for a nice little sleeper/character study. Plot's nothing fancy, but the acting is right on the mark. Tim Busfield shows up for some neat bits. Worth a look. I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable. Who knew they could be so funny?? Christopher Meloni and Janel Moloney are known more for their outstanding work in some of television's hottest dramas. ("Law & Order: SVU" and "The West Wing") Put them together on the big screen and what you get is an engaging romantic comedy with plenty of laughs.

The actors develop the story's ongoing relationship with impressive skill, leaving the audience bound to fall in love with Barry Singer (Meloni), despite the fact he's a standup comic who also happens to be a mean-spirited, sexist jerk.

You'll be rooting for him even as he takes all his insecurities with the opposite sex and chases Thea (Moloney) halfway around the country in hopes of winning her heart. They have so little in common...but when Barry finally opens his heart, you'll wonder why Thea keeps running away.

The Souler Opposite is a wonderful movie with an incredible cast and a gifted writer. Well worth your time.

I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.

This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.

The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.

It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the "flashbacks" could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today. Firstly, this is simply the funniest movie I have ever seen. It incorporates perfectly-timed slapstick, sexual humour, and cleverly-thought-up stand-up. But it goes deeper than that. The Souler Opposite is an original love story (something we don't see that often) that gave me hope that there is love out there;that two people who love each other can work through their adversity; and that such a comedic take on life (something I believe we all should have) can be accepted by the people that really matter. Chris Meloni gives a such a convincing performance as Barry Singer that he should have won an oscar. The film is brilliantly written and I hope we will be seeing more films from everyone involved in the future. I've heard people who say this movie is dull dull dull. I don't think they were watching the right movie. This isn't the prototypical action movie, thank God.

This is a psychological drama about the rookie and his mentor that just happens to be about killing people. In this way it works extremely well, with terrific performances from Berenger and Zane (who doesn't sleepwalk through the movie like he has in other roles - he actually looks like he's acting).

I was disappointed with the action towards the end - a lot of it didn't make much sense and was unsatisfying given the buildup from the rest of the movie. But watch Zane's face as he panics, alone, while Berenger does the dirty work. ****SPOILERS**** The film "Sniper" is undoubtedly based on the exploits of legendary US Marine sniper Carlos "Gunny" Hathcock. The unassuming soft-spoken Mister Rogers look-alike who ran up a score of as much as 300 confirmed and unconfirmed Vietcong and North Vietnamese military kills during his two tours in "Nam".Which shows just how deadly and effective a trained military sniper really is.

Tom Berenger is cool clam and deadly as Sgt.Thomas Beckett who's at the end of his career as a top US Marine sniper but who later in the movie realizes that a life as a civilian will be pointless. Since there's nothing outside for him to do with his skills that he learned in the US Marines unless he decides to become a mob hit-man. Backett reluctantly accepts his fate as a lifetime professional killer for his country.

The story of the film "Sniper" is focused on Sgt.Beckett with the assistance of former sharp shooting silver medalist and US government agent Richard Miller, Billy Zane, being sent deep inside the Panamanian jungle. The two snipers are to take out rebel General Miguel Alveraze, Frederick Miraglittoa, and Colombian drug king-pin Raul Ochoa, Carlos Alveraze, who's supporting him in a planned a military take-over of the country.

We see earlier in the movie Sgt. Beckett scope and take out a rebel leader which I feel was the best scene in "Sniper". For it shows step by step how Sgt. Beckett with the help of his spotter Cpt. Papich, Aden Young, does his job. There's also a sub-plot that was later aborted in the movie about a rebel sniper DeSilva, Eward Wiley, who was stalking Beckett and who later killed Papich as they were both waiting to be lifted out of the jungle by a military helicopter. You would have thought that a deadly cat and mouse was being played out between the two that would culminate when the movie ended but Sgt. Beckett had no trouble at all in dispatching DeSilva early in the film by using an unsuspecting Miller as bait.

What hurt the movie the most was ironically the last fifteen or so minutes when the story went from a one shot one kill sniper movie to a Rambo-like ending with Sgt. Beckett and Agent Miller fighting off an entire battalion of rebels with bullets flying as thick as a London fog.

"Sniper" is still well worth watching for the fact that it tells the story about a person who until now has not really been glamorized in war movies: A solitary killer who kills with the precision and skill of a master diamond cutter or accomplished neurosurgeon and who does it in total secrecy. Despite some negative comments this film has garnered in the IMDb pages, it's still worth a look as this is a story about survival and camaraderie between two different men with different mentalities while in a difficult mission in the Panamanian jungle.

Peruvian director Luis Llosa takes us along to watch this thriller set in Panama. The film has some good moments as Beckett, the veteran marine, takes a newly arrived man, recently sent to try to eliminate a notorious drug cartel head and the corrupt army general who might be the next president of the country. The only problem, Miller, has no experience in what he has been entrusted to achieve.

Miller, the arrogant newly arrived man to the jungle and to the guerrilla warfare between the military and drug lords against the infiltrated American intelligence men, learns a valuable lesson from Beckett. What looks good in theory, is irrelevant in the jungle.

Tom Berenger, is an actor who doesn't register much, as he proves in this movie, but in the context of the movie, he is right as a man of a few words. Billy Zane playing Miller does what he can with a role that doesn't afford him any glory until the crucial end.

For lovers of action film, "Sniper" offers an 112 minutes of action that with a bit of trimming would have made a more satisfying movie. This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!

Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. "Sniper" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill. Two snipers travel deep in the jungles in search for their targets; a slimy South American drug-lord and a prominent general.

Moderately successful at building a brooding atmosphere, Sniper is by most accounts a very solid thriller, taking it's time, establishing it's characters and their plight and climaxing in some good action sequences. Director Llosa isn't always successful at maintaining the sombre mood and could have tightened the story somewhat; some detours here don't add up to much. But this film is far better than his Stallone/Stone travesty The Specialist.

Billy Zane, usually incredibly tiresome, does surprisingly well as the inexperienced Sniper teamed up with veteran Berenger. As for Berenger this film proved to be his last good big budget Hollywood venture. He can do these kind of roles in his sleep and he's very convincing here, reprising the role twice more in direct to DVD sequels. "One shot, one kill, no exceptions." A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans. Some guys think that sniper is not good because of the action part of it was not good enough. Well, if you regard it as an action movie, this view point could be quite true as the action part of this movive is not actually exciting. However, I think this is a psychological drama rather than an action one.

The movie mainly told us about the inside of two snipers who definitely had different personalities and different experiences. Tomas Beccket , who was a veteran and had 74 confirmed kills, looked as if he was cold-hearted. However, after Beccket showed his day dream of Montana, we can clearly see his softness inside. It was the cruel war and his partners' sacrifice that made Beccket become so called cold-hearted.

Millar, on the contrary, was a new comer, a green hand, and was even not qualified as a sniper. Billy Zane did quite well to show millar's hesitation and fear when he first tried to "put a bullet through one's heart"(as what Beccket said). What he thought about the actuall suicide mission was that it could be easily accomplished and then he could safely get back and receive the award.

These two guys were quite different in their personalities and I think that the movie had successfully showed the difference and the impact they had to each other due to the difference in their personalities. These two snipers quarreled, suspected each other and finally come to an understanding by the communication and by what they had done to help even to save the other.

Sniper isn't a good action movie but a good psychological one. Sunday would not be Sunday without an action movie, and when you want intense combat, you turn to Tom Berenger (Platoon).

Here he plays a sniper in the jungle going after rebels and drug lords. Life's a bitch, so he gets a green office type (Billy Zane) to help on the mission.

The film is in the hands of Luis Llosa, who stunk up Anaconda. he doesn't do much better here, but Berenger makes the movie worthwhile.

Sure, it may be a little long - who wants to see a lot of walking through the jungle, but is is good, tense action when the time is right. There are few movies that appear to provide enterntainment as well as realism. If you've ever wondered about the role of snipers in modern war, take a look at this one.

I just loved the scene where hundred soldiers get shooting at the jungle, no-one quite sure where that shot came?

And, they nicked one scene to Saving Private Ryan, so it has to have some merit in the scene.

Zane and Beringer will keep you on the edge of your seats. I don't typically go for military/war movies, but this was worth my time.

It was serious, but it was also humorous. Beringer's character proved to be heroic and honest. No matter what, you know that he's got your back.

Zane's character developed throughout the film. He wasn't just a suit, he definitely proved that he could be a hero and handle a gun.

The ending through me a little though. It didn't really go with the action throughout the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, nonetheless.

It's worth checking out. Just as Tom Berenger put you into the soul of Sgt. Barnes, he has done it again with Thomas Beckett. If I thought his world was folding in on him in the first scenes, it was nothing compared to how much more I felt during the last scenes. Great movie, even for a girl. This is one military drama I like a lot! Tom Berenger playing military assassin Thomas Beckett. This Marine is no-nonsense, in your face, and no questions asked kind of person who gets the job done. There you have Billy Zane("The Phantom" and others) who plays Richard Miller, a former SWAT form D.C., works for the government and takes orders only from them. Who needs a bureaucrat? I don't! When these two are paired, sparks should be flying. And how. However, Beckett teaches the young bureaucrat on how it works. When the other sniper hits, it's wits vs. wits, cat vs. mouse, gunman vs. gunman. And when the seasoned sniper is caught, it's up to Miller to put politics aside and save him. Who needs politics when you a pro like Beckett, he took orders from no one but himself, plays by the rules and not the book, and mutual respect is brought out despite the politics. The movie was a direct hit. Watch it. Rating 4 out of 5 stars. This was another great Tom Berenger movie.. But some people are right it was like another SGT BARNES character but it was still awsome.. Tom Berenger played a great sniper in the jungles Of Panama! Billy Zane was a wuss at first just like Cpl Upham from Saving Private Ryan but then he got a little more aggresive in the end! Sniper was awsome and action buffs should watch it.. I remind you it wouldnt have as much action as a reg action flick.. i got this one on DVD too and it is excellent! I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.

As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great. This is the best movie I`ve ever seen !!! Thomas Beckett & Richard Miller -two mankinds who want to survive in the "jungle" of violence and madnes, one shot - one killed !!? You must kill, if you getting doubt about something, YOU MUST SURVIVE !!

P.P.- I appologise of my bad / worst/ English !!! When I saw it for the first time I was really impressed.The director made such a mysterious atmosphere, especially in the end. Through all the story spectators can expect that Richard will really kill Thomas or he will do it first.But..the main point was not conflict but..FRIENDSHIP!Older and mature one prayed himself to save the younger who has the whole life to life.It is amazing. Every time I watch it I enjoy!Of course it is pretty violent like every action movie but I think it is acceptable. Thanks a lot Louis Liosa and Tom Berenger! Amazing film!I advice everyone to see it.I am sure people wont regret and will really have a good time. Throughout this film, you might think this film is just for kids. Well, it is mainly pointed towards them, but it's also well-rounded enough with the jokes pointed also at the adults in the audience. This time around, the Muppet gang try to get on Broadway, with the dire straits keeping them from getting it produced, leading them to splitting up. But Kermit won't stop, and his determination keeps things moving along until after getting the deal together he gets hit by a car and sent into amnesia!

It's a send-up, in part, of those old starring vehicles from the 40s with musicals actually as the topic of a musical, only here there's the usual lot of zaniness and wonderful moments thrown into a pot of hysterically funny moments (Lou Zealand's boomerang fish; Gonzo's water-stunt display, the whisper campaign, among many others), but also with a lot of heart too. The Muppet writers aren't shy of the conventions, on the contrary, they embrace them to the point where it's almost refreshing to see such a 'lets put on a show' story where through thick and think the characters will meet their dream.

While not as totally original in scope as the Muppet Movie, it's got many catchy and memorable songs, excellent locations all over Manhattan, and even some intonations of inter-species dating (and marriage)! Cameos include Liza Minneli ("a frog?"), Elliot Gould (as the cop), Brooke Shields (propositioned by a rat), Edward I. Koch, Gregory Hines and Joan Rivers. So get ready to sing-along, or just have a lot of big laughs and romantic (yes romantic) times with one of the best Muppet movies. i love this film. the songs and story lines are great fun. and the song "saying goodbye" always moves me. what a brilliant thing to do to bring puppets to life, in a way that you actually care about these things made of cloth and fabric and whatever. great voices and great talent. why were all the other muppet films that came after this one so much less interesting, moving and funny? is it that mr. henson is just so very missed? When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the "Sesame Street/Muppets" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.

This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone "I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says "I think we're engaged now"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway "wink wink" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on "kid-level cheesy" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw "10"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q This was the third Muppet movie and the last one Jim Henson was around to take part in the making of before his premature death in 1990. The first three films starring the famous characters were all made and released into theatres before I was born. I originally saw the first and second installments in the original trilogy, "The Muppet Movie" and "The Great Muppet Caper", around the mid-nineties, as a kid, but didn't see this third one, "The Muppets Take Manhattan", until April 2007. This was shortly after I had seen its two predecessors and 1996's "Muppet Treasure Island" for the first time in many years. This third Muppet movie definitely didn't disappoint me the first time I saw it, and my second viewing nearly three years later may not have impressed me as much, but if not, it certainly didn't go too far downhill.

The Muppets' stage musical, "Manhattan Melodies", turns out to be a big hit on their college campus. They are graduating from college, so they will soon be leaving, but decide they will all stay together and go to Manhattan to try and get their show on Broadway. After their arrival, they begin searching for a producer, but after many rejections, they finally decide to part and go find jobs. Most of them leave town, but Kermit stays, and is still determined to find the right producer and reunite the Muppet gang. He gets a job at a New York restaurant owned by a man named Pete. The frog quickly befriends Pete's daughter, Jenny, an aspiring fashion designer who currently works at her father's restaurant as a waitress. As Kermit continues his attempts to reach stardom, now with the help of Jenny, he doesn't know that Miss Piggy has secretly stayed in New York and is now spying on him. She begins to see Kermit and Jenny together, and to her it looks like they're getting close, which leads to jealousy!

When I saw this movie for the second time, it looked disappointing at first. It seemed a little rushed, unfocused, and maybe even forgettable around the beginning. There are some funny bits during this part of the film, such as Animal chasing a woman through the audience on the college campus, but for a little while, the film seemed bland to me compared to its two predecessors. Fortunately, it wasn't long before that changed. The film is entertaining for the most part, with "Saying Goodbye", the poignant song the Muppets sing as they part, and a lot that happens after that. The two funniest parts MIGHT be Miss Piggy's tantrums after she sees Kermit and Jenny hugging, but there were definitely many other times when I laughed, such as poor Fozzie trying to hibernate with other bears. The Muppets still have their charm and comical antics, which obviously also helps carry the movie for the most part, as does the plot, a simple but intriguing one for all ages. There are some weaker moments, such as the Muppet babies sequence, and Juliana Donald's performance as Jenny is lacklustre, but neither of these problems are too significant, and are far from enough to ruin the entire experience.

I would say "The Muppet Movie", the film that started the franchise in 1979, is the best of the original trilogy, and that seems to be the most popular opinion. This third film is probably the weakest of the three, but all of them are good. Unlike "Muppets From Space", the third of the theatrical films in the franchise made after Henson's sad passing, at least "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is still the Muppets! I won't go into details about what I think of the Muppets' 1999 film, released twenty years after their first one, since I've already explained in my review of it why I found it so disappointing, and even though it does have some appeal, I'm clearly not alone. However, every theatrical movie starring the lovable Muppets that was made during Henson's life is good entertainment for the whole family, even if the second and third installment each showed a slight decline in quality after the one that directly preceded it. Jim Henson's Muppets were a favorite of mine since childhood. This film makes me feel like a kid again. Okay, the Muppets are back with Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog and their friends. The premise is that they are trying to get on Broadway in a musical show in where else but New York City. You will see cameos by the then New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Anyway, the film turns 25 this year and I hope the kids of today will learn to appreciate the lightheartedness of the Muppets Gang. The problem with the show is Kermit goes missing and the gang has to find him in New York City. It's worth watching for kids and even sentimental adults like myself. The third Muppet movie is perhaps the most relaxed and pleasing, with the gang taking their modest college musical to the bright (yet volatile) lights of Broadway filled with typically naïve optimism. Of course, their first attempt fails and Kermit (leader of the group and author of the show) blows his top; so, the others all go their separate ways so that he won't have to feel responsible for them. Kermit himself befriends a young wannabe fashion designer making ends meet by serving food at her father's diner (the old man, then, has a line in particularly tortuous non-sequiturs!). We get the usual cameo appearances by a variety of stars: Art Carney (as a producer), James Coco (as an overzealous dog owner), Dabney Coleman (as a confidence trickster), Elliott Gould (who was also in THE MUPPET MOVIE [1979]), Gregory Hines, Liza Minnelli (as herself – having her portrait at a classy restaurant replaced by Kermit's, sporting fake moustache, as an ostensibly celebrated entrepreneur in a ruse to attract publicity to the Muppets' show), Brooke Shields, and even director John Landis (in possibly the film's funniest scene as a Broadway producer before whom Kermit appears acting streetwise and chummy and hilariously donning shades and an Afro wig!). The other Muppets more or less go through their typical paces, with (regrettably) less space given to Gonzo this time around; while Miss Piggy is something of an acquired taste with me, the scenes in which the latter spies on what she takes to be Kermit's romance with the waitress – and especially her violent reaction to this – are undeniably funny. What disappoints, however, is the climactic show itself (after a fairly redundant midsection wherein Kermit gets amnesia and eventually picks up advertising on Madison Avenue) which, rather than the expected splashy routines, procures nothing more original than the wedding ceremony of Kermit and his eternal flame Miss Piggy! I found this to be the most enjoyable Muppets movie, because I felt it was the most light-hearted and had the best comic delivery on most of its lines. The Muppets try to go on Broadway to sell an original musical they've written, but along the way, they run into the usual problems, including Kermit's memory loss here. While there aren't as many great cameos here as in the original "Muppets Movie," there are some including Joan Rivers and Dabney Coleman. Simply the timing and delivery of so many of the lines is great, and the situations the Muppets find themselves in are hilarious. The original songs are also good here, and the ending is satisfying. There is not much else to say about the film, but Muppet fans should see it for sure. It is the funniest Muppet movie and is sure to be enjoyed by all.

***1/2 out of **** "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is different in a lot of ways to every other Muppet Movie made so far. For one, it remains the only Muppet film not owned by Disney. As of 2008, the film still belongs to 20th Century Fox (CBS Fox at the time of its release) even though Disney owns the rights to the Muppets. Also, this film has a story line that's very non-linear, and events that are otherwise unpredictable.

Of course, it's very hard to beat the original "Muppet Movie" from 1979, especially since that movie had more memorable songs than "Manhattan" does. However, one way in which "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is better than "The Muppet Movie" is perhaps the surprisingly realistic scenarios. In the first movie, all the Muppets really have to do is go to Hollywood, walk into an agent's office, and they are immediately given a "Rich & Famous" contract. In this movie, the Muppets learn that they actually have to work for their desired success, and it's a lot harder to do that, especially in the entertainment business, than they initially thought. That's an important and often times overlooked message, provided one is willing to suspend the disbelief that the Muppets, being small and made of cloth, don't necessarily have to live in a spacious place or even eat respectively. Above all, their struggle to make it after graduating college creates a very good story. Another note: The celebrity cameos in the movie were cool, and they surprisingly managed not to take away the spotlight from the Muppets. That ability right there is a testament to Henson, and how appealing the Muppet characters were even to adults.

Where "Manhattan" falls flat, and this is where I'm sure people will disagree with me, is with some of the key songs, especially in the end. I thought the wedding song "He'll Make Me Happy" was too somber for such a happy occasion as a wedding. It sounded more like a song that's played at a funeral. Every time I watch this movie, hearing that song makes me unusually depressed, especially when the film begins on such an upbeat number as "Together Again" and ends happily for that matter. "Saying Goodbye" was a sad number too, but it fit better into the movie because the Muppets were disbanding and weren't sure they were going to see each other again. That last song was such a let down, and perhaps even added to younger viewers' misery of seeing their favorite Muppets leave the big screen.

"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is overall a good film, and one that marches to the beat of a different drum than the other Muppet films, including the newer ones made after the deaths of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt. Fortunately, the film marches in the same direction as well. I just wished the film ended on a better song that wasn't quite so melancholy. Plus, Disney should have gotten its hands on this film's copyright and given it a proper DVD release. Maybe it will someday. We'll see. In this Muppet movie, Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, Rowlf, Scooter, Camillia, Dr. Teeth, Floyd, Animal, Janice, and Zoot are college graduates who decide to bring their successful college musical, Manhattan Melodies, to Broadway. Unfortunately, no producer will even meet with the Muppets. After being denied by too many producers, Scooter suggests that the Muppets decide to move on on their own. However, Kermit still believes that he can get his show on Broadway, but after he finally does and let's everybody know that he sold the show, Kermit get's amnesia and the others don't know where he is.

This features many great scenes, including a live action sequence that introduced the Muppet Babies, a wedding sequence filled with Muppets, including the Sesame Street cast and Traveling Matt (from Fraggle Rock), Scooter as a movie theatre usher, and a scene where Rizzo and the other rats cook breakfast.

My only complaint is that more characters weren't included more. Sure, many of them appear at the wedding, but there should have been some significant roles for Bunsen, Beaker, Beauregard, and Sweetums, and Lips should have been part of The Electric Mayhem in this movie like he was in The Muppet Show's last season and The Great Muppet Caper, and Miss Piggys dog Foo Foo should have been with her as well (after all, Rizzo The Rat, also performed by Steve Whitmire, had a big part in this movie, and he wasn't very well-known at the time). stars: Julianna Donald, Lonny Price and Louis Zorich. cameos: Art Carney, Brooke Sheilds, Liza Minelli, James Coco, Joan Rivers, Dabney Coleman, Linda Lavin, Gregory Hines and others.

Muppeteers: Jim Henson as Kermit, Rowlf, Dr.Teeth, Swedish Chef, Waldorf, Ernie and others.

Richard Hunt as Scooter, Janice, Statler and Beaker.

Frank Oz as Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Bert, Cookie Monster and Sam the Eagle.

Jerry Nelson as Camilla the chicken, Floyd Pepper, Lew Zealand, Crazy Harry and Pops.

Dave Goelz as Gonzo, Zoot, Beuregard and Bunsen Hunnydew.

Steve Whittemire as Rizzo the rat and others.

Another great Muppet flick. This time, Kermit, Fozzie, Miss Piggy, Scooter, Rowlf, The Electric Mayhem, Gonzo and Camilla the chicken are out of college and starring in a musical that they're trying to get on Broadway. After miserably failing at getting it produced, they all split up and go their separate ways. I love the characters and cameos. The songs in the film are "Together Again", "Look at Me, Here I am", "Saying Goodbye", "And I'm Going to Always Love You", "Rat Jazz" and "He'll Make Me Happy". Frank Oz directs this movie excellently and all the actors do a great job acting like the Muppets are real. See it! 91 minutes. Rated G. My rating: A. Don't think of this movies as just another kids movie - the whole family can enjoy it. Its a strange mix of a movie, as its seems to have a movie within it, but at least it does make sense at the end (unlike modern films!) It does give you all the elements of a film (decent plot, good characters - well it does star the Muppets, a list of lesser celebs* which films would clamour for) What is surprising, is the fact that it can be a roller coaster of emotions, some sad, some heartwarming, some funny and some serious - it all makes an enjoyable family film that everyone can watch together.

* The celebs in the film are actually top stars of the day but there is only one true star of the film and no one dare outshine Miss Piggy!!!! I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 8 years old and it still cracks me up. The Muppets are so cool and they approach show business in a refreshingly naive way. My favorite scene is when the rats start a whispering campaign on behalf of Kermit at a fancy restaurant. This is one smart and funny movie for kids and parents alike. Long live Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of the gang. But if you like the muppets I defy you to dislike this one. Basically the same plot regurgitated (this time New York, not LA) it features a lot of fun cameos and muppet hi-jinx. A lot of the muppets leave the film pretty early on as it centers around Kermy and Miss Piggy. I happened to have enjoyed it greatly. Fun to watch with your kids. Yes, it's another great magical Muppet's movie and I adore them all; the characters, the movies, the TV show episodes (it's the best comedy or musical TV show ever) and all the artists behind it. But here they did such a rare fatal mistake and I'm surely talking about the weird ending !!

I think it's very dangerous to involve that much, in American drama, and end a love affair by marriage !! We, as all the poor viewers, feel so free or maybe happy for the absence of its annoyance, peevishness and misery ! So we all enjoy these stories which gather 2 cute heroes as couple in love without the legitimate bond like Mickey Mouse and Minnie, Superman and Lois Lane, Dick Tracy and Tess, etc. So with all of the previous couples and their likes I bet that you feel safe, serenity and peace. Therefore when you look at what the makers of this movie had already done you'll be as mad as me !

They made the weak miserable creature (Kermit) marry his daily nightmare, the most vexatious female ever (Miss Piggy) ! This is a historical change by the measures of the American entertainment's industry ! And it was pretty normal to have a negative impact upon the audience whom just refused to bless or believe or being satisfied with that sudden marriage (even the pathetic frog didn't have the time or the proper opportunity to think or to decide anything !). Therefore no wonder at all when you know that this movie is the most failure one in their cinematic serious, grossing only 25 millions vis-à-vis 65 millions earned by the first one (The Muppet Movie – 1979) five years earlier !!

Simply in this movie they took Manhattan, and my rest too ! As far as the Muppet line goes, however, this is not the best, nor the second best. This was marketed towards the kiddies, but has some dark, and emotionally upsetting adult moments, to which parents may not wish to expose their children. One of which showcases Miss Piggy going "postal" in a jealous rage, which lasts basically throughout the duration of this work.

Beyond that, however, the story is progressive, and highly entertaining. One scene in which Joan Rivers and Miss PIggy go berserk in a department store is simply hilarious! And there are other parts of this work which contain the same level of levity and fun.

I like this very much, and enjoy it still today.

It rates a 7.6/10 from...

the Fiend :. This was the best Muppet movie I've seen ever! I happen to know that Miss Piggy's fantasy of meeting as infants was the cause of Muppet Babies. The songs will remain in my head forever. Only saying so because that stupid Nickelodeon show Hey Dude song still remains in my head. Sorry, a little off the topic there. But anyway what I like is Animal after the credits saying "Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Bye Bye! Hasta Luego!" That made me laugh so hard. My absolute favorite is the play at the end. I was surprised that the Sesame Street characters popped in at the wedding. I'm just glad this movie was very entertaining. I borrowed it from the library, and now I have bought it because I can't keep the library's copy forever. In conclusion, I proclaim this is the best movie I've ever seen! In my case, it's even better than Austin Powers in Goldmember, which was my favorite movie! I previously thought that this film was the lamest of the Muppet films. I would like now to retract that statement. In my opinion now, the lamest MUppet film was the TV movie IT'S A VERY MERRY MUPPET Christmas, am IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE rip off that was truly dreadful. MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN is nothing special, but miles more enjoyable than MERRY MUPPET Christmas.

The best songs are that 'You Can't Take No For An Answer' song, the one the Muppet Babies sing and the songs for the big finale itself. As I loved the Muppet Babies TV show, I loved the Muppet Babies sequence here (I'm told that it was what inspired the Muppet Babies show)

The MANHATTAN MELODIES show itself was the real showstopper, with Muppets from Sesame Street even appearing for the wedding. As Kermit puts it in his final line 'What better way could anything end?'. But I wish that what was between the beginning and end was a bit more entertaining. There are cute cameos from Brooke Shields and Gregory Hines and a great dance sequence from Rizzo and the Rats (choreographed by the late, great Jim Henson himself) and the film certainly entertains. I must state though that MUPPET MOVIE, GREAT MUPPET CAPER and MUPPET Christmas CAROL are the three defininitive MUppet movies. Ah, true memories. I lived in Holland at the time and looked eagerly forward to it every Sunday evening and later Tuesdays. I saw it during my 14-16s. Very good for my (at the time school-)English, as Dutch TV provides subtitles for other languages, except for kiddies shows nowadays. So you would hear the original voices and language. - The best series were the first three ones and then after the third series, the great character, Nazi Von Gelb, who was such a formidable enemy, disappeared from the series (I don't think they ever really caught him, he always escaped, leaving room to have him appear again in a next story) because evidently the series also was distributed to Germany, and a Nazi enemy wouldn't go over very well! Too bad, because Geoffrey Toone did such a wonderful convincing job of portraying the intelligent Nazi aristocrat, who had this ongoing obsession to take revenge on England. It was a true delight to see this kind of high quality performance in a youth series, but Ronald Leigh-Hunt was a good counterpart and the youngsters were so normal. They were very believable to me at the time and as a kid I could just imagine to be part of these youngsters, who at the time were about four years older than me. It was a very exciting series to me, standing out in my memory of those times as a special show with "the Prisoner" as well. I hope they will publish a good quality DVD of the series, that would be wonderful. Even the bad copies around are still enjoyable to watch. The later series were not as good, watered down and just not as much fun as the first three. Hopefully they also find the other series with Von Gelb to be put on DVD. Greetings from Canada. As far as I know, this show was never repeated on UK television after its original run in the late '60s / early '70s, and most episodes are now sadly "missing presumed wiped".

Series 6 from 1971 however still exists in its entirety, and I recently got the chance to watch it all, the best part of 4 decades on.

After rushing home from school, Freewheelers was essential viewing for me and many of my contemporaries back in those halcyon days of flared trousers, Slade and Chicory Tip. And watching it again brought a nostalgic lump to the throat.

Never mind the bad / hammy acting, the unintentionally amusing fight scenes, plot holes wide enough to pilot a large ocean-going yacht through and the "frightfully, frightfully" RADA accents of the lead players.

No - forget all that. Because Freewheelers harks back to a bygone (dare I say "golden") age of kids' TV drama, when the shows were simply about rip-roaring fun and didn't take themselves so seriously. Before they became obsessed with all the angst-laden "ishoos" that today's screenwriters have their young protagonists fret over, such as relationships, pregnancy, drugs, STIs etc.

No doubt if it were "remade for a modern audience" in these days of all-pervasive political correctness, the boss figure would be a black female, one of the young male heroes would be a Muslim, the other would be a white lad confused about his sexuality and the girl would be an all-action go-getter with an IQ off the scale, who'd be forever getting the lads out of scrapes and making them look foolish - in other words a million miles removed from Wendy Padbury's deferential, ankle-spraining washer-upper.

It's a show that's very much "of its time". But is that a bad thing? I for one don't think so. This game is very addictive, I kept playing it for hours straight until late at night but also the fact that you can't save a game when you are in space contributed to this, at times I just HAD to play on in order not to loose any game data.

So yes, "Freelancer" is addictive but also quite flawed. Also for instance, something that extremely bothered me was that you couldn't skip any of the cut scene's with as a result that at times you had to watch the same few minute cut scene time after time. A great opportunity for me to multitask to check my e-mail or have a chat with my friends and more things like that, while I had to wait for the cut scene to be over.

The story starts of promising but the further you get the more ridiculous it all gets. Also the game also ends quite abrupt, at least it did so for me. It is quite obvious that they are hinting at a upcoming sequel. I don't know if a sequel is in the works at the moment but I am sure that most likely I will pick one up once it will be released.

The gameplay is very easy! Even for those who are not familiar with flight games. To put it boldly, every fool can play this game. Yes, some levels are quite hard and require lots of effort. It took me about 1-2 weeks for me to finish this game which might be a bit too short. But thank God for the multi-player option! It allows you to keep playing short missions, just like the single player game once you have completed it by the way.

Even though lot's of mission are the same, it just simply stays cool to be in the middle of the at times massive dogfights.

The graphics are good but just not anything revolutionary or anything.

Addictive game but beware of its flaws.

7/10 This is a great game! Okay perhaps it didn't have some of the features it was meant to have but Digital Anvil have still come up with a good game. There is a certain similarity to Elite(you can trade, pick up weapons and cargo off destroyed ships, go on missions)however this game features a heavily scripted mission. It is a great mission. The control system is different it uses the mouse! You basically fly you spaceship around a system and work your way up! The game features some pretty good graphics even through it was made in 2003. It should run well on even a modestly specified PC. The story features some great voice acting from John Rhys Davies, George Takei, Jennifer Hale(she appears in every computer game). Stick with the story it gets better and better as it goes on. There is even a race section, where you and an opponent have to race your spaceships around a course(it involves you going through rings). This section took me a while to beat. It adds variety to the game. Some sections are a little tough here and there but overall you can beat this game. The game has an active mod scene on the Net. Pick up some mods to extend the game. I haven't played any of the mods yet.

Sadly a sequel to this was cancelled, a shame! I bought this game on eBay having heard that it was a similar game to Elite. The gameplay is indeed very similar, and is very addictive. Once I'd played it a couple of times, I immediately went back on eBay and bought copies for all my kids so they could join in the fun too.... I have played this game right through and the storyline makes it feel as if you are actually in a movie, it's brilliant. If you have trouble feeling free to explore because of the restrictive nature of the storyline in the single-player game, simply set up a Freelancer server on your own PC (easy to do and the software is included) and play to your heart's content. There are still a huge number of Freelancer servers on the Internet, so multiplayer is no problem and is not all that threatening, because you don't often meant other players unless you want to. So go get a copy of this game, learn it by playing the single-player campaign, then set up an online presence and enjoy yourself. The depth of this game is staggering, with huge systems to explore and wrecks to find, as well as all sorts of other things to discover - hidden planets, wormholes, secret bases, the list is nearly endless. Fantastic game and especially as you can get it for a couple of quid on eBay. Get one with the full written manual if you can (blue box, not Xplosiv red box), it's loads better! Maslin Beach is a real nudist/naturist beach south of Adelaide, on the Fleurieu Peninsula, in South Australia. It is also the name of an Australian film that used the beach as a location.

Maslin Beach is labelled a romantic comedy. This could be slightly misleading, as it is not a 'hilarious' film, nor is it really romantic in the traditional sense, but it does have light-hearted moments. Much as life itself, there are also moments of sadness too. It is also entirely shot at the nudist beach mentioned above, and nudity runs throughout the length of film. The viewer quickly learns to accept this as normal, and concentrate on the plot, not the copious amount of flesh.

Simon and Marcie (Michael Allen and Eliza Lovell) arrive by car at a beach-side car park. They take their belongings to the beach, and while they are walking, a voice-over from Simon talks about his confusion about what real love is. The rest of the film is an exploration of this, framed by one complete day at the beach. The basic story is of what happens to Simon's love life, but there are also many other characters highlighted in several separate vignettes.

When they arrive at the beach, both Simon and Marcie appear bored with each other. Marcie sees them as a 'Romeo and Juliet' romantic couple. Simon is just bored with it all. Next, we are introduced to Gail (Bonnie-Jaye Lawrence), Paula (Zara Collins) and Jenny (Jennifer Ross). They are walking down the beach together discussing Gail's chances of finding the 'perfect' man, aided by the 'powers' of a necklace that brought good luck to her Grandmother. However, there are many more interesting people on the beach, not all of them 'attractive' and young (part of the realism of this film).

To service the beach's patrons there is a flatulent, short-sighted ice-cream salesperson with a van. This is Ben (Gary Waddell), who is a friend of Simon, and is also his unofficial counsellor. I would think that this character is the main comic element. It is hard to say though, as there is nothing about Ben that would make you laugh aloud, unless you were intoxicated, male and very young! Maslin Beach does have a major redeeming feature though, and that is that it does not dwell too long on any one subject. As the quality of acting is variable, the script is suspect and everything about Maslin Beach is cheap, the lack of continuity is a positive boon. In fact, there is something about this film (not the nudity) that I find appealing. It is hard to define what it is, but it could be something to do with its bluntness, and downright 'Aussie' attitude to carnal matters.

The camera work in Maslin Beach deserves a mention. Sometimes it is very good, with some stunning static shots and 'pans' of the beach, cliffs and a sunset. As nudity is a major factor in this film, framing is an important aspect of the camera work. There is no sense of gratuity in the framing, meaning that the framing is done so that the camera does not dwell on 'private' body parts. This helps to ease any sense of viewer discomfort from being within the subject's 'personal space', and makes the film more tasteful. Not an easy task, given the location for filming.

Maslin Beach is neither a 'skin flick' for post-pubescent, testosterone charged males, nor a 'Mills and Boon' romance for under-appreciated women. Maslin Beach does not seem to fit anywhere in genre. The actors are not 'attractive' in the Baywatch sense, and are just 'normal' people that you would see on the beach anywhere. It does not have a message to put across and it would not even act as a tourism advertisement, other than perhaps to Naturists. Apart from the Australian accent, the filming could have been in any sunny country. What makes this film distinctly Australian is the fact that it is pointless (cinema verite?), and only Australian Cinema, and other medium sized National Cinemas, could consider such a rash option. At the same time, these medium sized cinemas have room for experimentation in the quest for identity, and a 'flop' is not going to damage their reputation too much. It is always possible, given that Maslin Beach is now a collector's item, that the film might become internationally popular, but it is very unlikely.

During this critique, I have been sounding highly negative, at times, about Maslin Beach. This is not the real position, as I found the film very easy to watch. I enjoyed it as a reflection of near reality and real people (and problems). The problems confronted in the film are those of the everyday, and a little low on spectacle. This does it no harm in my view, and I wish that more films dealt with the everyday like this. There is a connection here with the cinemas of Europe, and with French film in particular. They rarely deal with major disasters or catastrophes, but with the everyday. Hollywood is in direct opposition to this, and rides the crest of the hyper-real action/drama/angst wave. The pace too, is much faster in Hollywood, but it is not reality. Maslin Beach is not exactly 'Jacques Tati' either, but it is on the right track, even if it does ignore issues of multi culturalism, equality, gender orientation and so on, that are of such importance in current cinema. I am sure that you will either love or hate this film, with little room for a middle ground.

This movie is great entertainment to watch with the wife or girlfriend. There are laughs galore and some very interesting little nudist stories going on here. The actresses are all very interesting and definitely worth watching in their natural beauty. Maslin beach life is full of diverse nudists and personality types. The Australian coast scenery is, simply, splendid to see. What a place to visit, to say the least, and one day it may become my hideaway. I really enjoy this movie and every time I watch it I enjoy it more. I would love to see more of these characters and I always wonder what became of them. Although the plot is somewhat soft, this movie is, of course, a great excuse to just sit back on the couch and enjoy the wonderful and famous Maslin beach with these wonderful nudists and their own personal stories. I have seen Maslin Beach a couple of times - both on free to air TV in Brisbane. I won't go into whether it is good, bad or otherwise as others have well and truly covered this.

I will say that it is so Australian. Only in Australia can we have a film about relationships among people spending the day as naked as the day they were born, and to view it on free commercial television.

I have a friend from the US who is constantly amazed at what we put on our free TV compared to her home country. Sex and the CIty and Huff are just too examples.

Despite our Government trying to turn us into the 51st US State, it is good to know at least some things remain truly Aussie Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended! ...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually "fabulous" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it This has to be one of the best, if not the best film i have seen for a very, very long time. Had enough action to satisfy an fan, and yet the plot was very good. I really enjoyed the film,and had me hooked from start to finish.

Added blood and gore in there, but brought the realistic nature of what happens to the front of the film, and even had a tear jerker ending for many people i should think.

It is a must watch for anyone. Seen many reviews, slating the film, but to be fair, most the films that get bad reviews, turn out to be some of the best. this proves it once again.

Rent this film, buy this film, just go out and watch this film. You will not be disappointed. I loved this movie. I'm a Mexican and was in the least offended by it. In fact, I think this movie should be shown at police headquarters all over Mexico. It's a sad truth that our police system is as rotten as a 3 month old corpse. It angers me to read in the news how killers, kidnappers and other slime go free by paying a laughable fine or live like kings inside prison cells. We should have someone like Creasy, Denzel Washington's character. A bodyguard turned vengeful vigilante. Kidnapping is flourishing industry down here (at least in the big cities). I actually wish real life kidnappers could suffer the same fate as the one's Creasy did his fine job upon. That would be so marvelous (Sorry, I am THAT resentful!). MAN ON FIRE is a gripping film that you can't miss. It might be hard on some of you, if you aren't used to reading subtitles (Mexicans do that ALL the time while watching American movies) but the effort will be well worth it. Some of the editing is a bit fuzzy...kind of like TRAFFIC, remember? (another brilliant take on how corrupt Mexico is). The movie starts out a bit slow but the pace picks up frantically by the second half. I swear you'll be cheering as you watch Denzel Washington dispatch the wrong doers. His performance is nothing short of Excellent. The ending (no spoilers, OK!!!) is a bit sad, but I'm sure you'll like it anyway. MAN ON FIRE is one of the year's best movies. A "must own" for a DVD collection! 9* out of 10 This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light. Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie. Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.

The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.

This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.

Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.

The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works. i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.

in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is "right". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.

denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone. There are many reasons to watch this movie: to see the reality that whips Latin America with regard to the kidnappings thing, the police corruption at continental level, among so many realities that we live the Latins.

The performance of Denzel Wahington was brilliant, this guy continues being an excellent actor and that it continues this way. Dakota Fanning just by 10 years, an excellent actress has become and I congratulate her. The rest of the movie was of marvel, I have it in my collection.

I hope that they are happened to those producing of Hollywood to make a movie completely in Venezuela, where they show our reality better with regard to the delinquency, the traffic of drugs or the political problems. They have been few the movies that they play Venezuelan land (for example: Aracnophobia, Jungle 2 Jungle, Dragonfly) they should make more, as well as they make in Mexico.

The song "Una Mirada" I hope that it leaves in the soundtrack, it is excellent. My vote is 10/10 Although released among a flock of revenge-minded action flicks (KILL BILL VOL. 2; THE PUNISHER; WALKING TALL), MAN ON FIRE works as well as it does thanks in large part to the always-watchable Denzel Washington, one of the best actors around today.

In MAN ON FIRE, based on A.J. Quinnell's 1980 novel (first filmed in 1987, with Scott Glenn), Washington plays a down-on-his-luck ex-mercenary who has now stooped to drinking from a flash of Jack Daniels, until his old partner (Christopher Walken) offers him a chance at redemption. He is hired on as a bodyguard to the 10 year-old daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a Mexican businessman (Marc Antony) and his American-born wife (Radha Mitchell). While he and Fanning work like oil and water first (not mixing very well), he really gets to form a bond with her, encouraging her to do better at swimming, while he at the same time attempts to deal with the demons of the past. It is that very bond that will force Washington back into his old line of work when Fanning is kidnapped and held for a $10 million ransom, and he is nearly killed. With almost any other stock action hero (Schwarzenneger; Segal, etc.), the subsequent bloodbath would be the same repetitive schlock we've seen a million times before. But Washington's character, though he's killing for a reason, does not particularly enjoy doing what he does. Still, he gets help from a very intrepid Mexican newspaper reporter (Rachel Ticotin) out to expose "La Hermanidad" (The Brotherhood), the kidnap gang responsible for Fanning's abduction.

MAN ON FIRE is flawed to some extent because of the hyper camera work, nearly headache-inducing montage editing, and various film stocks that are par for the course of its director Tony Scott (TOP GUN; CRIMSON TIDE), but which are not necessarily unique to him (witness Oliver Stone's use of montage in JFK or Sam Peckinpah's in his classic 60s and 70s films). Still, Scott gets a very good performance from Washington, as well as Fanning, who comes across as far more than a typical movie-brat kid. Harry Gregson-Williams' south-of-the-border Spanish guitar score is enhanced by soundtrack splashes of Chopin, Debussy, and even Linda Ronstadt's classic 1977 country-rock version of "Blue Bayou." Although the film overall is quite violent, it is no worse than most action films of the last ten years, and overall it is much better than most. You know you're in for something different when a movie has Christopher Walken playing the part of a professional hit man - and he isn't even one of the bad guys! Although it could do with some judicious trimming here and there, "Man on Fire" is a generally effective crime drama that ranges in tone from the openly sentimental to the downright brutal - and just about every tone imaginable in between.

Denzel Washington stars as Creasy, a former CIA assassin who has recently quit the business and is seeking some sort of redemption for the sins he's committed. So far, he's been looking for answers in a bottle and the Bible and not doing all that well with either. As the movie opens, Mexico City has been ravaged by a series of kidnappings aimed at the powerful and well-to-do, possibly perpetrated by the very police force assigned to keep law and order in the community. Creasy accepts the position as bodyguard to the daughter of a wealthy business owner who rightly fears for her safety. The first third of the film is devoted to the growing friendship between Creasy and his charge, Pita, a sweet little girl who, slowly but surely, works her way into Creasy's initially hardened heart and affections. The last two-thirds of the film turns into an Avenging Angel melodrama, as Creasy systematically seeks out and eliminates all those responsible for a tragedy that occurs early on in the story.

Based on the novel by A.J Quinnell, "Man on Fire," astutely written by Brian Helgeland and flashily directed by Tony Scott, is a coolly efficient action picture that never shies away from the raw brutality of its subject matter. It takes a risk in asking us to identify with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, achieving his redemption by torturing and murdering (admittedly disreputable) people. These scenes of carnage and violence are both intense and suspenseful, even if they do at times border on the exploitative. Even better are the quiet, intimate moments between Creasy and Pita in the early parts of the movie. Washington and the wonderful Dakota Fanning establish an natural, easygoing rapport that helps to set the stage for the chaos and turmoil to follow.

Washington carries the movie with his quality of stoic righteousness, making us understand his character on an emotional level even if what he is doing eludes us intellectually. In addition to the two leads, there are solid performances from Walken, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini. But it is Washington and the delightful Ms. Fanning who steal the show.

"Man on Fire" would have been better with about a half hour taken out its running time, but this is still a better-than-average crime thriller. -Kidnappings in Mexico are as common as honeys giving me their phone numbers so if you're rich then you'll need a good bodyguard to keep you and your kids safe. A couple hires a washed up bodyguard called Creasy to protect their adorable kid Pita. At first, their relationship is a tad buggy but after a while, Creasy eases up to the girl and the two develop a father/daughter relationship. One day Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is badly injured in the process. When he wakes up he finds out that the girl has been killed due to a ransom negotiations that went wrong and this sets Creasy on a path find the men responsible for her death and make sure they are brought to his brand of justice.

-Keep some Tylenol next to you while watching this movie because you will need to take some after watching it. I really love the story here of going to the extreme to obtain revenge because most movies usually just want revenge but really never go too far where as this movie they show how far a man can go to do what he feels is right. The only problem is the annoying visual style, which will either make you hate the movie or hate Tony Scott. I really feel sorry for the cinematographer because I'm sure he came into this movie thinking he was going to be filming an action movie and probably got all excited but instead he got stuck being the DP for a filmmaker that feels that the whole movie should look like it's been possessed by demons. I wouldn't have mind if the crappy visuals were restricted to a few action scenes but when it's spread through out the whole movie then that's when we have some problems. The same annoying style was recently used on "Domino" and much like with this movie the style did hurt that otherwise great movie.

-Another person I feel sorry on this movie was the soon to be great Harry Gregson Williams who had the impossible task of trying to compose music out of the jagged images. Somehow, Williams wrote some decent music for the movie but I'm sure if the movie had been more stable then the music would have turned out a lot better. The sound is wrongfully used throughout the movie and instead of enhancing the movie experience, it rather makes you feel like you're being punished. The overuse of the subwoofer is irritating as every 5 seconds or so you can hear an ungodly low end sound coming out of it. I don't know why Scott thought the audience needed to be bombarded by the subwoofer but it really takes you away from the movie.

-The acting in the movie is a beast despite the visuals. Little Fanning does yet another great job here and the scene at the end of the movie just breaks my heart. If the end of the movie doesn't make anyone cry then they're dead on the inside. Denzel Washington breaks his rule of not making any action movies with this movie and luckily, for him he gets to play a great character. The whole idea of a man that's lost in life and all of a sudden due to a tragedy finds a purpose in his life is nothing new but Washington brings some heart and emotion to the otherwise flat character. I love how we witness him from being a loner to actually learning to have emotion and after the kidnapping becoming a cold instrument of revenge. Radha Mitchell plays Marc Anthony's wife and she along with Fanning are the two reasons why I can't hate the movie too much. J.Lo's husband comes and goes in the movie but he doesn't really stand out much. Mickey Rourke and Chris Walken all have minimal roles in the movie but they do make an impact.

-One thing that makes me laugh is how the filmmakers try to makeup for the crappy way they portray Mexico by calling it a fine city at the end of the movie. A little too late for that if you ask me. Let's hope that Tony Scott is done with this phase of intentionally trying to ruin his career because a filmmaker as talented as him CAN and must do better than this. When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that "A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece." He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of "The Voice," leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner. I get teased all the time by family and friends for my tears over movies, and they were not disappointed when I watched this one. I cried numerous times but believe me it was not over sappiness. I ached for the family and I ached for this man as he tried to redeem himself the only way he knew how. Denzel was fabulous as always, and so was Chris Walkin. Mickey Rourke, I did not even recognized though; the years have not been kind to him. My husband is not one to re-watch movies unless they are historically accurate war movies(snore!!!!) He has watched this movie 5 times now and I am going to have to get the DVD to watch it again because he has worn out the tape and it jumped the whole time I was watching. Man on Fire was hot. I love a classic tale of good ol' revenge, and what better cause for revenge than the kidnapping of an innocent little girl.

The writers did an excellent job in this movie of building the relationship between Creasy (Denzel Washington) and Pita (Dakota Fanning) so that the viewer would understand and actually feel the drive Creasy had to rescue Pita. It was also good that Creasy wasn't a choir boy type trying to rescue Pita through the "proper" channels, but instead used torture tactics and street smarts. Some may say, "Torture is wrong regardless," and you may be right, but when you see the pain Creasy goes through due to the loss of Pita and the sheer passion he has for getting her back, you can't help but side with Creasy and pull for him to be even more merciless. There would be no progress if Creasy used diplomacy to deal with the different nefarious gangsters and criminals and he knew that.

Creasy's quest ended with the return of Pita to her mother and Creasy dying in the vehicle of the bad guys. But Creasy's death did not diminish the effectiveness of the movie, it in fact enhanced it by showing that Creasy was willing to die to get Pita back. His death was noble in fact.

Denzel does an excellent job as do the writers. This movie deserves good marks because it definitely was a good movie. This is an excellent, heartbreaking movie. It is by far the best I've seen that depicts the current reality in Latin America...kidnappings, corruption, ruthless and greedy police officials and heartless mayhem towards innocent victims. Denzel Washinton gives the most moving performance in his career, in my opinion. Dakota Fanning is an amazing young actress. The relationship between Washington and Fanning is wonderfully written and portrayed, I believed every minute. The cast is brilliant, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke are great as always. Walken lights up the screen for me like no other actor. I would have loved to see more of both of them. The authentic locations are remarkable. The camera work is interesting and different. There are many famous Latin actors in the cast, making it all the more interesting for people familiar with Latin American cinema. I highly recommend this movie. This comment does contain spoilers!!

There are few actors that have an intangible to them. That innate quality which is an amalgamation of charisma, panache and swagger. It's the quality that can separate good actors from the truly great. I think George Clooney has it and so does Jack Nicholson. You can look at Clooney's subtle touches in scenes like his one word good-bye to Andy Garcia in Ocean's 11 when they just utter each other's name disdainfully. "Terry." "Danny." You can pick any number of Jack's performances dating as far back as Five Easy Pieces in the diner to A Few Good Men and his court room interrogation scene. These guys just have it. You can add Denzel Washington to the small and exclusive list of actors who exudes that terrific trait in everything he does. If you look at some of his explosive borderline diatribes in The Siege to his impressive tribute to Malcolm X in Spike Lee's film of the same name, you can see that there is no finer an actor working today. I don't mention all of this to insinuate that Man On Fire is perfect just because of Denzel's work, but he is definitely the cog of the production. I was literally mesmerized with some of his scenes that are raw, emotional and incendiary all at the same time.

Washington plays Creasy a former spy or CIA agent or one of those covert government operatives. He has pretty much hit rock bottom as he has become disillusioned with the life that he has led. He has killed and perhaps done things that are best left unsaid and this has made him a hardened and bitter man. His friend and perhaps mentor, played very reservedly by Christopher Walken, is living in Mexico making a very comfortable living by providing body guard services for the rich. Apparently the kidnapping business in Mexico is so vibrant that these paid former S.E.A.L.s and such can do very well while providing a needed service. Creasey needs the work and accepts a job with a well to do family who seems to be in some financial difficulty. Marc Anthony is fine as Samuel, Radha Mitchell is tantalizingly sexy as his wife Lisa and Dakota Fanning is just unbelievably and precociously brilliant as Pita. I don't know how a child of her age can have such range to play the characters that she does but her interpretation of Pita is nothing short of Oscar worthy. The film's entire first half is dependent on the relationship between Pita and Creasy and if there was a weaker actress in the role, perhaps that emotional synergy would not have come across so succinctly. But Fanning is nothing short of remarkable in the role.

It is the relationship between Pita and Creasy that drives this film to the apex of cinema. Together they are perfect and there is a real bond developed between them. Tony Scott directs with a frenetic urgency and his eye for visual flare has never been better. I am interested to see how his next film, Domino, turns out. I think Scott is one of today's under rated directors and with more films like this one, his name will surely be elevated to icon status.

The story has Creasy really taking to Pita, and vis-ca versa. There is a definite connection between the two of them and perhaps it stems from the fact that although Pita loves her dad, he is not around much. He is a philanthropist and obviously has little time to spend with his family. Soon, Creasy is taking Pita to her swimming competition. He is reading her bedtime stories and she is naming her teddy bear "Creasy". It's not just a friendship between them, it is more of a kinship, and a deep parental love seems to be present.

The film changes gears when Pita does get kidnapped and held for ransom and Creasy is is almost fatally injured trying to protect her. This is where the story becomes thick with innuendo and ripe with deceit as the plot pieces get unraveled like an onion. And this is where Denzel becomes a tour de force. Like I said earlier, I have seen Denzel give some outstanding performances in films like Crimson Tide and Training Day, but never have I seen him like this. He is a man possessed and with the possibility of Pita being dead, he becomes a literal man on fire. It rages in him as he hunts down and dishes out his brand of comeuppance. Denzel's anger and acerbity are ubiquitous and not easily quelled as he hunts down each person responsible for Pita's violation. This all vigilante justice as the Mexican authorities always seem to be one step behind.

Also what is paramount to this film's audacious brilliance is that there are few films that actually give the criminals their due comeuppance. I have often been frustrated to watch films where the bad guys get let off easily. They inflict all kinds of torment for the entire film and then they take a bullet and die. But not in this film. Writer Brian Helgeland sees to it that retribution here is unequivocal and it is painful. The perpetrators here feel Creasy's wrath and they experience the torment that he unleashes. There is nothing gimmicky about his brand of justice. He needs information and someone loses a finger. He wants answers and a homemade bomb is placed in places that are meant for other things. There is no punches pulled here and this is one of the true strengths of the film.

Man on Fire is one the five best films of 2004. Now that it is out on DVD, my recommendation is to get the SE. It is loaded with bonus features that include about 6 hours of documentaries and different commentary tracks. 10/10 Man on fire, is definitely one of the best drama/crime thrillers I have ever seen. Despite having a slow beginning the story is so amazingly complex and sensitive that it sticks together rather well. This is Denzel Washington's perfect role, in which he plays a body guard, called Creasy that is tormented by his past and is an alcoholic but never gives up on his duty to save his latest protégée, Pita. Dakota Fanning plays Pita, the very smart, enthusiastic little girl that loves so many things, and acts in a very convincing manner, she has a great future ahead of her. As I said the story is somewhat complicated, in order to fully understand it, you must watch it a couple of times.

This film is made in two parts, there's the first hour, where everyone is happy, nothing's wrong, everyone's just living their lives happily until the kidnapping of Pita occurs and where Creasy is almost killed. And then there's the second part, the rest of the film, where suddenly everything becomes complicated and somewhat gruesome and disturbing, when Creasy's recovered from his severe injury and starts chasing and killing the numerous criminals and "La Hermamdad" that were responsible for the planning and execution of the kidnapping of Pita.

Denzel Washington shows us his most up to date acting talents alongside many other talented actors which have a great future ahead of them. It is a real shame that this film hasn't been acknowledged enough, Washington really deserved another Oscar for his performance, and so did Fanning and the director. And even maybe the visual effects which were of very high quality.

If you like excellent, slightly deranged, suspenseful thrillers, this is the one to see. The most amazing thing is that elements of this film are actually based on a real story and real characters! 10/10 It's hard to top this movie in several ways. Everything works really well here; the casting, acting, script, and cinematography are all first-rate. For the moviegoer, it's a moving, violent story of love and human redemption. For the film critic, there's plenty of sharp technique and technical merit. There are some tactical blunders, and as has been discussed on the boards, the ending lacks realism if one is rigorously formal with the CIA agent training angle. However, I took the ending as being more moving due to the fact that rather than pursue the CIA agent's pragmatic approach, Creasy basically commends his soul to the Ultimate without considering the consequences. Like Jesus Himself, Creasy becomes superhuman through his sacrifice, whether it actually makes pragmatic sense or not. In any case, I appreciated the fact that Creasy dispenses with conventional bourgeois morality and just caps the bad guys one by one in his methodical quest for justice, which actually results in redemption both for himself and the innocent.

In any case, this film is very much worth watching if you're at all attracted to the genre. An excellent soundtrack, great writing, flawless casting, and solid performances across the board make this a top-100 (or better) film. I am amazed that movies like this can still be made. I watch all kinds of movies all the time with my friends and i can say that this is one of the best i ever seen. Never thinked that a movie of 146 minutes can make me think about it on and on.

Washington, charismatic and intense as ever, plays Creasy, a washed-up ex-counter-terrorist agent who's taken to the bottle. Once he's assigned to protect young Pita (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City, his emotional and redemptive arc is jump-started in the way only an adorable little girl can provide. Inevitably, Pita is kidnapped by thugs, and Creasy decides that most of Mexico City must pay the price for daring to take away his character's teddy-bear-clutching catalyst. Yes, he has become...a Man on Fire.

You must see this movie. In Mexico City, the former CIA assassin and presently an alcoholic decadent man John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is hired by the industrialist Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony), with the recommendation of his old friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken), to be the bodyguard of his young daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning) and his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell). Pita changes the behavior of the cold Creasy, making him live and smile again, and he feels a great affection for her. When the girl is kidnapped and Creasy is informed that she was murdered by the criminals, he swears to kill each one responsible for the abduction.

"Man on Fire" is almost a masterpiece, and will become certainly a classic in the future. The story is excellent, never corny and although having 146 minutes running time, the viewer does not feel time passing. The cast is composed by excellent actors and actresses, their performances are outstanding, highlighting Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning and Radha Mitchell. The cinematography has wonderful moments, and the screenplay has stunning lines. I personally loved when the character of Christopher Walken explains to Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini) that Creasey's specialty is death, and he is preparing his masterpiece. I agree with the user that commented that "Man on Fire" is one of the best, if not the best, film of the year in this genre. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Chamas da Vingança" ("Flames of the Revenge") Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...

And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.

That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.

That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.

But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.

First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...

Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.

The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.

This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once! Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.

What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.

The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen. This film contains the one ingredient that all revenge movies should have and that is true emotion. Sorrow, love, laughter , anger. There are so many emotions thrown into this film. From start to finish this film is immensely captivating. The plot on paper sounds like the usually rubbish that is mostly thrown In the faces of the audiences but don't be mistaken, this film is powerful. Washington as always puts on a great performance.

The plot in a nutshell: man suffers from depression, a young girl brings life into him, kids gets kidnap, man wants revenge. Doesn't sound like anything special but it far superior than any other similar film out there. For instant, TAKEN is a similar film but when you compare them both, MAN ON FIRE wins hands down. The characters are engaging and everyone puts in a great performance and the directing is great. Mexico City feels alive , it looks like Mexico city, it smells like Mexico city. Everything is portrayed brilliantly . the style of direction was something I enjoyed and brought the best out of Mexico City

This is one of those films you'll bring out once a year to watch again or a film that you'll beg your family and friends to watch. From start to finish you are rooting for the main protagonist, making it a roller-coaster journey. There enough action to keep you happy, there enough character development to please you and then there's Washington to bring a smile to your face . Watch this film, you won't be disappointed Basically, the movie might be one of the most mesmerizing titles made by either of the two Scotts(Ridley and Tony). Let's make it straight, the movie deserved its hype as one of the most stylish actioner/thriller ever made.

When it comes to disgruntled tragic heroes, Denzel Washington and Tony Scotts really make a perfect duo. Both this movie and Deja Vu are better thrillers you can expect. Washington really got very comfortable in the shaky cameras and every executing scenes in the movie. One would easily be related to his character's emotions therefore enjoyed all the killings on the road. It's a success that they created a super-dark Mexico city with a lot of shits happening. One would be easily convinced by the extent of corruption depicted in Man On Fire. I don't know what would the Mexicans think when they watch this......

Well, let's face it again. It's among the best of the Death Wish genre, but it also suffered from extensive amount of violence. It's a bit annoying that they justify the actions of a vigilante by making the movie very realistic and let Denzel Washington play the "missing sheep" type of tragic hero. In the end, they even had the kidnapper shot in his own swimming pool like a documentary. I was checking on IMDb if the movie was based on real events for that...... So that's for your consideration if you also finds the movie's theme is a little bit phony.

At the end, I hope one would not take this movie for real.

8/10 for art direction/editing/cinematographic/Denzel Washington. Revenge is the theme of this Denzel Washington thriller that offers its share of action, mayhem, murder and grisly bloodletting. The essentials are a bodyguard's search and destroy mission as his charge, young Dakota Fanning, is kidnapped from school, which is exactly what Washington was hired to prevent. The Mexico City locations are as chaotic as the storyline moves towards its predictable, violent conclusion, with plot twists along the way. Washington, a former CIA operative with a drinking problem, gets a good reference from a former fellow agent which sets in motion the plot's outline. Washington and Fanning have a great chemistry between them and after a troublesome beginning, the bodyguard and his charge become the best of friends. Christopher Walken, Rachel Ticotin, Radha Mitchell, Giancarlo Giannini and Mickey Rourke comprise the good cast in support of the two stars. I just love Malle's documentaries. They are so effortless and simple but still so fascinating. I have no idea why this documentary works. It is about Glencoe, Minnesota. 5000 people live there and nothing happens, really. But still Malle manages to make it fascinating and interesting. His love for humanity, even racist or homophobic people, is so overwhelming that you just can't help but also to fall in love with them too.

Malle filmed most of it in 1979. He came back 6 years later to see what had changed. This would have been a good film without the material 6 years later but this small addition makes it great. It may sound like Malle was just doing what has been done in the Up series but in fact it is not. The Up series are about people. Malle's emphasis is not so much on what happened to each person but what has happened to this community. And the change is great. 1985 is the Reagan era and the farmers are suffering. Once a proud community, now no one sees much future at all and parents hope their children will educate them self and do something else than farming.

This documentary is quite relevant today. Our financial crises today started because of what was happening then. Just take a look to these final words in the film, spoken by an older lawyer from the town (in 1985):

"Well I have high hopes for this country because the things that are going on right now can only be characterized in my mind as an obsession with greed. And a nation doesn't live long with that obsession. And particularly a democracy that... There's good - there's good - a lot of good in this country and a lot of good people and they aren't gonna - they aren't gonna subscribe to this philosophy of greed that's going on now. It's horrible."

Unfortunately it took more than 20 years and a hell of a headache before that happened. I found this film to be the usual French slap in America's face. The camera, all too often, focuses on fat people, on sloppy homes and on tacky rural areas. While the narration seems to sympathize with and admire the small town folks who are introduced to the viewer, the cinematography exploits and demeans them. There were, undoubtedly, thin people to be seen in Glencoe and neat, organized homes, but Malle chose to show us the worst of what was there to be seen.

I can only hope that some American filmmakers will go to France to reveal to the American public its worst elements. I can assure you, as a frequent visitor to France, that all is not well there. Foreign immigrants are not readily assimilated, thus creating severe social inequities. But Americans are not eager to unmask the French for their prejudice toward their own compatriots and their envy toward the U.S., so we're not likely to see films on the subject. Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are! I watch this movie all the time. I've watched it with family ages 3 to 87, and everyone in between; They all loved it. It really shows the true scenes a dog has, and the love and loyalty you get from a pet. Just beautiful.

It's great for thoes who love comedy movies, the tear-jerker movies, or even just pets.

The music is wonderful, the animals spectacular, the scenes truly thought out, and the characters perfect. What I liked about the characters is the true and nicely mixed personalities: Shadow (The oldest, a Golden Retriever) He's the wise one, filled with the wisdom and mindset of any dog, Chance (the American Bulldog puppy) is basically a puppy with a witty side, the comical character; And Sassy (The Hymilayan cat) She's the real cat who shows what a real cat will do for their owner, the real girly one. This is a great movie for all ages. Its the story about three animals how have to find their way home. There is a bit of a twist at the end and mainly throughout the whole movie. You never know what is going to happen next. This movie makes you cry and makes you laugh. You just don't know what going to happen next. The trek home is all beautiful with all the wonderful wildlife scenes. They producers also spent a lot of money for this movie and it shows too. The animals in this movie were well trained and are great actors/actress themselves. Everything about this movie is great! 10 out of 10 the whole way! Rent or buy it today I can guarantee you will love it the whole family will! This movie is definitely on the list of my top 10 favorites. The voices for the animals are wonderful. Sally Field and Michael J. Fox are both brilliant as the sassy feline and the young inexperienced pooch, but the real standout is Don Ameche as the old, faithful golden retriever. This movie is a great family movie because it can be appreciated and loved by children as well as adults. Humorous and suspenseful, and guaranteed to make every animal lover cry! (happy tears!) Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.

A good film overall, 10/10! I first saw this film when i was around 6 or 7 years old and didn't really think it was anything particularly special. AS time went on i watched it a few more times and it started to grow on me as i started to understand the morals of the film, which i will come to later. For a while i left this film alone and didn't watch it for a while. When looking for an old classic film to watch a few weeks ago (now being 15), I dug out the VHS of homeward bound. After watching this i was left on a natural high that i couldn't really explain. The film gives an overwhelming sense of joy that you never really expect. The films nature of three completely different animals collaborating together to find their way home really sends a message home that no matter how different you are you can always find common ground, something that you all need. The way the personalities of the characters is chosen is truly fantastic. In that you have an old knowledgeable wise golden retriever, looking after or guiding 'chance' the fun loving if slightly clumsy young American bulldog, with sassy the clever, vulnerable but confident cat. The film follows these three friends or companions on a journey that is so realistically impossible it creates magic in that you start to believe that this journey can happen.

I don't want to sound like a soft tissue grabber when it comes to films i assure you i am quite the opposite, but the most uplifting part of this film is without a doubt shadows return, when shadow desperately tries to escape and chance and sassy, painfully are told by him to leave. When both animals return to their beloved owners there is a silence until shadow limps over the horizon to the awe of all. There is a fine line between heartwarming and corny rubbish but this film is pure magic even at the age of 15. This film may not be Lord of the rings but for Disney to produce such a fantastic film using animals and for it to uplift myself in the way it does even at this age it deserves 10/10. This is definitely one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It's a real pleaser to anyone. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and it'll put you into suspense.

Basically, what Homeward Bound is about is three household pets who are sent to live on a farm while their owners go on vacation. They don't know what is going on, and desperately wanting to go home, they escape from the farm and try to find their way home through the wilderness.

This is one of the last movies that Don Ameche starred in. He provided the voice of Shadow, the old, wise and friendly golden retriever. Also starring in this movie was Sally Field providing the voice of Sassy, the Himalayan cat. But seriously, what this movie is all about is Chance! Voiced by Michael J. Fox (my all-time favorite actor), Chance is basically all you'd expect from a dog, lovable, playful, energetic and goofy, and every time I crack up when watching this movie, it's because of Chance; it's like the comedy never ends!

This movie is also very sad at times. It sometimes reminds people of the times they've been alone or when they lose their pets.

One scene that always puts me in suspense is the scene where the trio is trying to escape from the pound; I especially feel shocked at the part where Chance gets his collar caught in the fence and almost doesn't make it. The movie had other suspenseful moments, but none to me seem more suspenseful than that one.

Overall, it's a wonderful family movie. If you enjoyed this movie, you'll probably enjoy the sequel too. I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10! As a kid I thought this movie was great. It had animals, it had beautiful music, and it had my favorite actor: Michael J. Fox. Now, I still love this movie, for different reasons. It has well trained animals that are put through various stunts and scenes that look excellent on camera. It has beautiful, well-written musical that fits the scenes perfectly, with rousing fast-paced melodies and the heart wrenching main theme, that still makes me cry. Even when people hum it. And it has my favorite actor, Michael J. Fox.

Based on a book, this is the story of three house pets, an intelligent, overly-trusting and considerably paternal lab by the name of Shadow, a witty and vain - but still smart - cat with a fear of water named Sassy and a street-smart ridiculously curious and slightly neurotic bulldog, Chance. The three are taken to a friend's farm when their family goes away. Dismayed and worried, the pets break out and plan a trip across the Sierra mountains for the trip of their lives. A truly incredible journey. So what, maybe home IS just over that mountain. But what if it isn't?

I suggest Homeward Bound for people that like the three amazing actors providing the voices for the lead animal characters, and for anyone else that ... yeah, everyone go watch it. This movie was awesome...it made me laugh, it make a bawl, and most of all it has talking animals in it!! this movie should be seen by all kinds of people! it is one of my favorite movies, and i just love it so much that i just had to comment on it!!!it rox! it is so heart felt and a wonderful storyline that makes up a great and heartfelt movie!my favorite character is shadow. this is because i think that he is the most interesting and charming. i used to have a golden retriever just like shadow, i miss him so much!!! he was my best friend and i knew that when he died, he would be in a happier place, but i miss him with all of my heart!! this movie is the best i love it and everyone should! Love your pets no matter what they do, cherish them forever!!! It surprises me how much I love this movie despite the fact that I don't really like dogs. Fox, Field, and Ameche do a wonderful job with the voices of Chance, Sassy and Shadow, and the acting by the animals themselves is just amazing.

I have seen this movie 72 times already (I know that sounds scary, but it's true!), and every time the ending scenes still get me. I highly recommend it to people of all ages and especially to animal lovers. It is indeed my all-time favorite movie! I've seen this about 2 or 3 times and haven't regretted it. Homeward bound is not just a typical animal movie. Its unique, fun and bursting with adventure. The things that make it a fun movie are the animals (obvious)who are wonderfully trained. A very good effort.

8.5/10! Very few so called "remakes" can be as good as the originals. This one crosses that border with flying colors. Just a remake, I don't think so! I saw it theatrically at the age of nine, and was completely entranced and enraptured by the film.

The film certainly invites comparisons to its 1963 counterpart. The earlier film is also a enjoyable and entertaining movie, but admittedly it tends to feel more like a nature documentary than a film. This update is more epic and cinematic. Still, I thoroughly recommend both films.

This film is certainly a must-see for an animal lover. We have the wise old Golden Retriever, Shadow; the sharp, sarcastic Himalayan cat, Sassy; and the young, fun-loving American Bulldog, Chance. The animals are brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche, Sally Field, and Michael J. Fox, respectively.

There is virtually nothing offensive in the film. There is a bit of scatological humor, but nothing extreme. No hard violence, save a few tense scenes involving a pounding waterfall, an angry porcupine, and a dark railroad shaft.

Hilarious, scary, moving, and above all real, it surprised me to see that this film didn't win any awards, not one. Nevertheless, I will have to say this is just as good as some of the Best Picture nominees nowadays. "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like "Old Yeller", "Napoleon", "Fluke" and "Air Bud". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.

Can this possibly be just a "remake"? It is too good to be a "remake"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).

It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.

This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama.

The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in "Old Yeller"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.

When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.

Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great "actors" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.

It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.

This should definitely be on Top 250. There have been countless talking-animal films in the past, the majority of which either feature animals' mouths digitally animated to nearly match the voice acting, or are ridiculously amateur. 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey' is neither.

This film doesn't need the infant-pleasing addition of moving canine lips, or gesturing feline limbs. It has the ability to make you believe that the animals are authentically talking to one another, and you can get rather emotionally attached to them at heart (as all great boy-and-and-his-dog films should).

Homeward Bound is the epitome of all family-friendly animal romps to me, and boasts some beautiful cinematography, an inspiring soundtrack (from the genius of Bruce Broughton), and an impressive cast...

Michael J. Fox ... Chance

Sally Field ... Sassy

Don Ameche ... Shadow

Frank Welker (Voice God) ... Various

It is a modernised version of the children's classic work of fiction 'The Incredible Journey', which was made into a semi-documentary film by Disney long long ago in 1963. The sequel (Lost in San Fransisco) isn't nearly as good a film, but extends the adventure of my favourite furry-footed friends, and is a fun urban-twist on the grand-outdoor-adventure theme. Want to entertain your children with a witty, pretty, heart-warming mini-epic, without the idiotic and often utterly ridiculous comedy of modern children's cinema? Parents, buy all three films for your children - now! Thank you, Disney, for bringing a tear to my eyes with each time I watch this early-90s classic! This is a really cool movie! I remember first seeing it when I was really young and I used to watch it all the time like once a week...Shadow was my favorite character in the movie. Homeward Bound is really funny and its really cool how they train the animals to do all those things. Parts of the movie are sad though (such as when Sassy, the cat, falls down the waterfall, and when Shadow falls in the hole at the end.) I have seen the second Homeward Bound but I gotta say its not as good as the first. Shadow is the smart one, Sassy is, well, Sassy, and Chance is the funny idiot. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedies, or talking animals. This is one of my top ten favorite movies! i really liked the film.at ending i was in tears.this film is incredible.go watch the movie. you will enjoy it.i could have given it ranking more than 10.i liked the teasing between chance and sassy.i like the leadership of shadow.overall this movie was perfect.

its sequel is good but not good as this movie.i think there should be a third sequel to it.not only this film attracts children but also adults.my whole family enjoyed this film.Chance was full of humor.sassy is an intelligent cat.

again i say THIS MOVIE IS A MUST WATCH.the more u see this movie the more you are attached with this movie.this movie is a classic. Hey guys,

i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.

Sally This is simply a classic film where the human voices coming from the animals are really what they're thoughts are. I don't know whether my video copy has a scene missing but it never shows how the dogs got out of the pit. It also shows an animals survival instinct and tracking abilities.Put humans in the same position ant the helicopters would be out. For once an original film is improved by a remake as the voice-over for the first has been removed. Only the use of animals can work in a film of this kind because using people would have had to spice out the story by turning it into murder,proving that,after all,animals are more interesting than people This is one of the greatest child-pet movies ever created. I cry every time I see Shadow yelling "Wait, wait for me Peter!" as the family car is pulling away. This is a must see if you love animals! Best Movie Ever! The lines in the movie are sometimes stupid. Like when Sassy says to Chance; "Cat's Rule and dogs drool!" Lines like this I could do without, but when I was six I bet I loved that line. The storyline may seem hooky to some, but I like it. Shadow as the older dog who's preparing Chance to take over for him when he's gone is really moving when you think about it. It reminded me of my childhood dog. I think everyone can find a piece of themselves in "Homeward Bound." Great voices, lots of adventure and clever dialogue make this a very good movie. The addition of "character" to the three lead animals gives the story a lot more depth and meaning, particularly the relationship between the older fellow, Shadow, and the young hellraiser, Chance. The earlier versions of this film were unable to give the animals any real personality or motive, which is done perfectly here. Sally Field is lovable in anything, but really shines in this film as the proud feline, Sassy. Great contrast between cat and dog perspectives on life, and just the right amount of spirit and warm fuzzies to make the plot and resolution excellent. There's even an uplifting score and beautiful mountain scenery. Definitely perfect for an evening alone or with the kids. Hats off to Disney. This is a story of two dogs and a cat looking for their way back home.Old and wise Golden Retriever Shadow, young American Bulldog Chance and Himalayan cat Sassy flee from the ranch and go into the wilderness to be reunited with their family.Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) is a family adventure directed by Duwayne Dunham.It's a remake of a 1963 film.This movie got a sequel three years later.Michael J. Fox is the perfect man to do the voice-over for Chance.Fox has some youthful energy he brings to the role.Sally Field does great voice work as Sassy.Don Ameche is fantastic as Shadow.This was this veteran actor's second last movie.Also the visible actors are great.Kim Greist plays Laura Burnford-Seaver.Robert Hays is Bob Seaver.Benji Thall plays Peter Burnford.Veronica Lauren is Hope Burnford.Kevin Chevalia is Jamie Seaver.Jean Smart portrays Kate.It's quite amazing to watch these pets trying to survive in the wilderness.We see Sassy taken by the river and she seems like a goner.The bear scene is exiting and funny.Chance has no chance with that big, hungry bear.And his meeting with the porcupine looks painful.This is some great fun for the whole family. This is one of my favorite family movies. Loved it when I was little and it still holds up with me now that I'm older. I still laugh at all the same old jokes and might even shed a tear a times. I never have much cared for animals talking, or at least UN-animated ones but this one I'll stand up for. It's a pretty old movie but it will always hold a place in my heart.

There aren't any other live animal movies that I can think of at the moment that I even could compare with, let alone like as much as this one. I might be giving too much praise to this movie but I don't think show. I really holds that great message that" Home is where the heart is." Or at least that's the message I gained from it. Definitely recommended for a good old family movie night. This is a really nice and sweet movie that the entire family can enjoy. It's about two dogs and a cat who are taken away to live with someone else for a little while but the animals don't understand and they escape and go to find the family on their own. The cat is named Sassy and she lives up to her name. Chance is the younger dog who knows a lot about life on the inside of the pound. Shadow is the older and wiser dog who senses things. Put those three together on an adventure and it makes for a happy and fun filled time. There are no special effects of the mouths moving so it isn't cheesy at all. It's the best talking animal movie that I've seen so far. It's a really good movie for families. First of all, I loved Bruce Broughton's music score, very lyrical, and this alone added to the film's charm. The best aspect of the movie were the three animals, superlatively voiced by Michael J.Fox, Sally Field and the late Don Ameche. Whereas Fox has the funniest lines, Ameche plays a rather brooding otherwise engaging character(the voice of reason), and Field adds wit into a character that is always seen telling Chance off. The humans weren't as engaging, and sometimes the film dragged, but that is my only complaint. This is one beautiful-looking film, with beautiful close up shots of Canada, I believe. Although the film itself is quite long, there is never a seriously dull moment, and this is advantaged by the voice work and a well-written script. All in all, a charming and perhaps underrated film, with a 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox. SPOILERS ALERT

Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey is an important film from my life because it's the first film I remember seeing in the cinema of my home town as a 4-year old scamp. The story is based on the Sheila Burnford novel, and is a reason why it's not possible to write this one off as a brainless Lassie clone.

The basic story: Two dogs and a cat happily live in the Seaver family when the new husband to the mother of the three children, gets a job in the city and they have to temporarily move into inner San Francisco while the animals are sent to a ranch to live for a couple of months. The bonds between the animals and the children they watch out for are especially strong, and Shadow the golden retriever and Sassy the Himalayan cat are heartbroken as the children are, though the young and happy-go-lucky American Bulldog known as Chance is a little less concerned and somewhat cynical (due in part to his voice-over explaining his being abandoned as a pup, picked up to an animal shelter, and being bought by the family), though his growth as a character during the story provides much of the important storytelling.

The three pets escape the ranch and head off into the wide and dangerous wilderness (fantastic wilderness settings by the way), driven on by Shadow's instincts of direction. They meet several perils along the way, hoping to make it home, while the family and the ranch hosts are suddenly concerned about the animal disappearance. There are funny moments all the way through, great dialogue between the three animals and hilarious lines (see - memorable quotes), and a touching comradeship that grows between the main characters during the course of the storytelling, punctuated by moments of sadness (such as when Sassy's arrogance of trying to cross a river without getting wet causes her to fall in the river and get washed down a waterfall, leaves a moment of loss that is felt deeply by the viewers).

Somehow though, I fail to see what the inclusion of saving the girl lost in the wilderness adds to the story and the journey they take. Somehow, it seems a little unnecessary as part of the story.

The ending cranks the stakes higher when shadow falls into a pit in a trainyard and having hurt his leg, finds it hard to get out and gives up, exhausted, followed by Chance climbing in with him to persuade him to climb out, telling him how important he is to him and how he's pushed them this far so he shouldn't throw it all away so easily.

The way that this scene (brilliantly done) isn't concluded leaves an ambiguity that carries on into the final scene when Chance and Sassy return home, but Shadow is nowhere to be seen. Then just as all seems lost, he slowly appears, and is reunited with the family. Chance's conclusion at the end speaks of the comradeship that has developed between he and his fellows on the journey, and the realisation to what home really is from his long journey to get there, leaves a fine epilogue to demonstrate how much his character has grown, but also how the other two have as well. Hang on a second, I think I'm going to cry...

Anyway, I haven't read Sheila Burnford's book, so I don't pretend to know where the differences between book and film lie. But this is a film that all the family can watch, and while the tots will love the talking animals, older viewers will understand the plot line better (as I found when I watched the film again after several years without seeing it). This film is a masterpiece in cinema, and I suggest that if you haven't seen it you go out and get it!

And please avoid the sequel (see my review for Homeward Bound II!) I haven't seen the original "Incredible Journey" since I was a child, so I can't really compare the two versions. This version tells the story of three animals, two dogs and a cat, whose owners leave them with friends in the countryside when the father of the family has to take a new job in San Francisco. The pets, believing that they have been abandoned, escape and set out on a long homeward journey through wilderness.

This story might have been most easily filmed as a cartoon, but both versions are in fact live-action films made using real animals. One major difference is that in the later version the animals speak in human voices, giving each its own distinct personality, something that was not done in the original film. (A similar device of talking animals has been used in other recent children's films such as "Racing Stripes"). Some critics have been rather sniffy about the use of this device, but my own view is that giving the animals distinctive personalities of their own helps to strengthen the film rather than weaken it. The animals were voiced by big-name stars, Don Ameche, Michael J. Fox and Sally Fields.

Both dogs are male, and their relationship parallels that between many humans in "buddy-buddy" movies. Shadow, a golden retriever, is the wise, experienced older dog; Chance the younger one is brash, cocky and impulsive. To British eyes Chance looks like a boxer, but is actually an American Bulldog, which is apparently a different breed to its British cousin. Sassy the cat is female with a rather prim and proper personality. She is very proud of her status as a cat, which in her eyes makes her vastly superior to any mere dog. ("Cats rule, dogs drool!").

From an adult viewpoint the film has a number of faults; it can be sentimental, some of the incidents (such as the one in which the animals manage to catapult a mountain lion into the river) are quite incredible, and the human characters are all completely forgettable. This, however, is a film which is mainly aimed at children, and I suspect they will enjoy it immensely. Certainly, any animal-loving child will do so. (Comments by some professional critics such as James Berardinelli, who complained that the animals' voices lessened the film's "grandeur", only serve to strengthen my view that professional critics are not always the best guides to children's movies. I doubt if many playground conversations about "Homeward Bound" concentrated on its supposed grandeur).

One thing adults will appreciate is the photography of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. They may also appreciate the film's blend of humour and excitement as the runaway pets encounter perils such as bears, mountain lions and porcupines in the wilderness. This is a very enjoyable family film. 7/10 I watched this film so many times through my child hood that even to this day i can pretty much re-sight all of the dialogue. And when I watch it now it just makes me happy and surprisingly still laugh. I think it's amazing how they managed to train animals especially the cat to the extent that they are able to play the main role of a feature film. However watching it now I can also unfortunately notice that it isn't the masterpiece i once thought it was. But i prefer to remember how i felt about it when i was younger watching it on VHS on my fist TV that would cloud the image in yellow. And and bearing in mind it is a children's film, that is why i would still definitely give it 10/10. This movie is a true masterpiece, it really is. It's rare you come across such a heartwarming flick, full of fun, laughter, heartbreak, and with a little drama to keep you on your toes.

A true family film, Homeward Bound tells the story of three brave pets, who set out to cross the Rocky Mountains in an attempt to find their owners, following the changes they go through and the obstacles they encounter along the way. One of the truly stunning things about this movie is its ability to give animals human personalities - the voice acting is that good. Shadow is a wonderful character, old, wise and brave, and watching him trying to save Sassy in the river was a very powerfully moving moment. Chance - who wouldn't love a dog like Chance? He's got to be the most mischievous and lovable pup ever shown on the big screen. And Sassy is very witty for a cat - she had me in stitches when she was mocking the keeper; 'Here kitty kitty kitty... not on your life, chubby.'

There were also lots of well made emotional scenes, such as Sassy going over the waterfall (I was truly scared for her), Shadow falling in the ditch (almost in tears) and then the fantastic ending, when all three pets return home... including good old Shadow!

A favourite for all time - anyone who doesn't like this film must just not like animals. Rent it or buy it now, and it'll leave you with happy memories that'll last a lifetime. I am a fan of animal movies. If you can take a plot and put animals as the main actors you will usually win me over. Homeward Bound did just this. They took a plot that has been as old as time and put a new spin to it. It was a complete success. It is very much an archetypal movie. You have the obi-wan of the group(shadow) who is wise and logical, you have the lovable but impetuous and untrusting Chance, and the prissy princess who thinks that she should be pampered and praised. These three personalities bounce off of each other very well. I also like how they made Chance and Sassy such dynamic characters, and they did not overdue it. Most people say that it cannot be good because it is too much of a kids film. What they are forgetting, however, is that it is supposed to be a kids film, and this still does not take away from the acual movie. This is a good movie to watch when you are bored and you just want to watch a movie. It is a Disney movie without the cartoons, an air bud movie with a better plot. I would, without a doubt, advise you to watch it. Have you ever, or do you have, a pet who's been with you through thick and thin, who you'd be lost without, and who you love no matter what? Betcha never thought they feel the same way about you!

Wonderful, wonderful family film. If you have a soft spot for animals, this is guaranteed to make you cry no matter your age. I used to watch this movie all the time when I was a little kid, and I find that now, at age sixteen, I love it as much as I did then. I could never decide on a favorite character then, and I still don't think I can! I love all three of the animals. The dialogue seems very real and comfortable, like a loving, but feuding family. I do love Chance, and how at the end he says that he has a family at last. Cheesy, yes, but one must remember that this is meant to be a family film, and it fulfills that role perfectly. Sassy has just the perfect dose of "sassiness" and Shadow is the perfect leader/role model to the young, adventurous Chance.

The animals way outshine the humans, but of course most of the teary moments are to be had during an interaction with them (ie. rescuing Molly, and the end). Not to mention the incredible soundtrack that gives each moment even more emotion, and an accompanying heart-swelling feeling. I give this 9/10. To be compared to (and even rated better than) Cats and Dogs and Babe. i love this TV series so much. it contains animation that is interesting and beautiful. i cant believe that they cut it off TV, and also that i never found out whether cybersix and data7 die or not, apparently they survive, but I'm not sure. Cybersix was by far the BEST TV show ever. i know its to late to hope they will start the series over again so I'm really glad i got to watch it. I LUVED IT SO MUCH <3

its about a women by the name of cybersix, she is not human. She goes by adrian sieldman, a man teacher at a highschool. Now cybersix is actually a women, she is just disguised as a man in the day. By night cybersix patrols the city.

A guy by the name of Von reichter is the one who created cybersix, and once he finds put she is alive he uses everything he can to capture her.

IF u have never watched it before u should totally download it. It was the best TV show in the world. Why did they cut it off???? some people have issues. but I'm glad i got to watch the 13 episodes. Giallo fans, seek out this rare film. It is well written, and full of all sorts of the usual low lifes that populate these films. I don't want to give anything away, so I wont even say anything about the plot. The whole movie creates a very bizarre atmosphere, and you don't know what to expect or who to suspect. Recommended! The only place I've seen to get this film in english is from European Trash Cinema, for $15. This little seen movie is a languid and laid-back giallo. It veers away from some of the cliché's of the genre and adopts a looser approach. It's about a woman searching for her missing lover; a psychiatrist who has suddenly vanished for no apparent reason. Her search leads her to a villa populated by a group of eccentric individuals. In true giallo style, murder is never far away.

The cast is really rather good. We have Aldofo Celi (Thunderball), Alida Valli (Suspiria), Horst Frank (Cat o' Nine Tails) and a very young Sybil Danning (80's scream queen). The lead actress is Rosemary Dexter, and while I am not familiar with her, she does a good job in leading the picture.

One of the defining features of Eye in the Labyrinth is its music. Atypically for a giallo it features a jazz-rock fusion soundtrack. This score, composed by Roberto Nicolosi, is reminiscent of Miles Davis, especially his work on In A Silent Way. It's an excellent soundtrack and really gives this movie a different feel than most gialli. The fusion groove accentuates the languid atmosphere and compliments the sunny, sea-front scenery that the film is mostly made up of.

This is a giallo so we really need to talk about the murder set-pieces. Well, this film falls a little short in this regard. It's certainly not devoid of them but they are few and far between. The opening dream-murder being probably the best on offer as well as a memorable burning car sequence. But this really isn't a particularly violent film. Still, I don't think it should disappoint too many seasoned fans of the genre. The mystery is fairly compelling and it has enough eccentric characters (the idiot boy Saro and THAT unsettlingly inappropriate dubbed accent?) and moments of the bizarre to satisfy; while the sleaze-factor is upheld with a smattering of nudity throughout.

Eye in the Labyrinth plays like a giallo version of an Agatha Christie mystery, as it features a group of unsympathetic characters in a villa, all under suspicion of murder; we have the obligatory flashbacks detailing their connections with the final hours of the (highly unsympathetic) murder victim. While this isn't a grade-A example of the genre, it's certainly an appealingly different one, as it doesn't borrow too heavily from other films of the sub-genre. For giallo enthusiasts I give this a thumbs up and hope one day it's given a nice DVD transfer. It certainly deserves the treatment. Eye in the Labyrinth is not your average Giallo...and to be honest, I'm not really sure that it really is a Giallo; but Giallo or not, despite some problems, this is certainly a very interesting little film. I'm hesitant to call it a Giallo because the film doesn't feature most of the things that make these films what they are; but many genre entries break the mould, and this would seem to be one of them. The film doesn't feature any brutal murders as many Giallo's do, but this is made up for with a surreal atmosphere and a plot just about confusing enough to remain interesting for the duration. The plot seems simple enough in that it focuses on a doctor who is murdered by Julie, his patient who, for some reason, she sees him as her lover and father and is offended when he walks out on her. We then relocate to a big house lived in by a number of people, but nothing is really what it seems as there are a number of secrets surrounding various events that happened before Julie's arrival...

The film seems to be professing something about how the mind is like a labyrinth. This never really comes off, and I preferred to just sit back and enjoy what was going on rather than worrying about what point (if any) the film is trying to make. Eye in the Labyrinth is directed by Mario Caiano, the director behind the excellent Night of the Doomed some years earlier. He doesn't create the atmosphere as well in this film as he did in the earlier one; but the surreal aspects of the story come off well, and the mystery is always kept up which stops the film from becoming boring. The film stars Rosemary Dexter, who provides eye candy throughout and also delivers a good performance. Most of the rest of the cast aren't really worth mentioning, with the exceptions of Adolfo Celi, who is good as the villain of the piece and Alida Valli, whom cult fans will remember from a whole host of excellent cult flicks. The film does explain itself at the end; which is lucky as I'm sure I'm not the only viewer who was more than a little confused by then! Overall, this may not be classic stuff; but its good enough and worth seeing. How nice to have a movie the entire family can watch together. Josie Bissett and Rob Estes (who are married in real life) play a couple who marry in Las Vegas on a whim and then not only have to break the news to their kids but then have to try to meld their respective households (each has two boys and two girls)into a cohesive family unit. What transpires when the group, which includes four teenagers, two preteens and two younger children, makes one wonder at first if there can ever be true happiness for Carrie and Jim. The fights between the kids (and one little love affair between two of them) make one wonder if everyone will ever be able to get along. More interesting than the Brady Bunch, what this is a totally enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. Recommended as a feel good movie for all ages. Rob Estes, Josie Bisset and a crap load of kids that look nothing like either of them.

Basically, Rob and Josie have a shotgun wedding on a drunken night during a Vegas vacation. They each come home to find that their respective children already know of the nuptials due to tabloid-like not-so-fodder. They, Rob and Josie, move both of them and their eight kids into one or the other's house.

Rob builds furniture, I think, which is close enough to Frank Lambert's (Patrick Duffy) construction job on the much similar Step by Step to warrant eternal mockage.

Josie is some sort of cookie-making queen, though it doesn't look like she makes any of the cookies. Not close enough to Carol Foster's (Suzanne Somers)hairdressing job to warrant likeness mockage, but hilariously preposterous enough to warrant atrocity mockage.

Unlike Step by Step, they were a couple before the vacation and actually knew one another's last names, or so one assumes if their serious enough about a relationship to take a trip together.

Anyhow, there are eight kids; Moira, Sandy, Jeff, Lily, Daisy, Nathan, Andrew L. and Andrew B. I, personally, think they should've just called the younger Andrew 'Andy'.

There's a lot of product placement, particularly for Soup at Hand (Which is disgusting) and Listerine Pocket Packs. There are also some stupid, senseless moments. It's also not a great film to promote happy families.

But, hey! Rob Estes! This concludes my review of 'Step By Step... on some really bad drugs.' Watch it for Rob Estes and his pretty!eyes. There are some great pretty!eyes shots. I thought the movie "I Do They Don't" was fantastic. In the past I've watched Rob Estes on "Suddenly Susan" & "Melrose Place" and also Josie Bissett on "Melrose Place" and loved seeing them together again in "I Do They Don't". They have great chemistry together (I guess being married in real life helps that!) - in the movie they are both widowed with children and careers and they fall in love and try blend their already busy chaotic families together without dropping the ball. Of course they stumble, but they keep it together which is what working and raising a family is all about. So many people have been talking about this movie - all good! - and the movie left us wanting more. This would make a great series - appealing to many ages! - it would be so nice to see a real life, down to earth, family show like this that portrays the reality of so many of our lives today - instead of the so called "Reality TV" that all the stations are overwhelming us with these days. Someone tell the people at ABC Family they have the start of a new series here! most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit". The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane. This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no "Who" fan can afford to miss.

Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in "The Impossible Planet", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...

Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast? This was an excellent 2-part episode, although I had never been seen the older ones, I never thought the doctor would go up against anything that is paranormal, extra terrestial of course but not paranormal.

This episode brings the things that we most fear and how would we humans, in a futuristic time, would fight and defeat real live evil when most odds say that would be impossible.

Being that it's a family film I am surprised that they brought some stuff in like fear and faith, especially if its also going to entertain American audiences. But who care about what Yanks say, we rock! Doctor Who has shown potential ever since from episode one from the new series in 2005, first being so harmless to scary, from fun to serious, from light to darkness. I hope many old fans will one day soon say "The old Doctor Who has returned".

10 out of 10 I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of this two parter, The Impossible Planet, and was slightly worried that the second part wouldn't hold up quite so well as has been true in the past of the two parters of the past 2 Who series. But thankfully my fears were unfounded as I found myself enjoying this episode as much as the previous one. Anyway we start off with the surviving crew members on the run from the Ood, whom have become the Devil's pawn. There is also a bit of philosophizing on the Doctor's part in the episode that I quite enjoyed. Needless to say it was a good solid Doctor Who story. Might be a tad too intense for the younger viewers though.

My Grade: B+ Anyone find it interesting that the Ood look strangely similar to the 'Great Cthulhu' of H P Lovecraft vintage? hmmm?

Great pair of episodes (not referring to Billie Piper as most seem to do!) in The impossible Planet and The Satan Pit.

Also the link to 'Legion' I think also used in Who before and also referring to Satan in various novels post Exorcist era...

Great suspense episodes utilising fear and faith elements. The new team for these 'who's are working great magic for TV.

This certainly creates new fears and 'hide behind the sofa' feelings not seen for many, many years in this continuation of a superb BBC series (pity it is confirmed by the BBC that Billie Piper is quitting - perhaps not permanently - after end of series 2) :O((( I love the Satan Pit!!! David Tennant is such a great actor and so is Billie Piper!!! Who else loves Will Thorp to pieces??? He is so cute, isn't he? I hated the bits where he got possessed by the devil and where he got told to "go to hell", as Rose so bluntly put it. Mind you, he was quite funny when he said, "Rose, do us a favour, will you? Shut up!". Mr Jefferson was so brave, wasn't he? Dying to save the others. I felt really sorry for Toby (Will Thorp) when he came out of the possession for the 2nd time because he was so scared. I was like "Oh my god if I was Rose I'd be so scared for him". And when she hugged him I was like "grrrrrr, he's mine! hands off!" but I thought that was really sweet. And the doctor....well, I thought he was gonna say to Ida "tell Rose I love her" but he didn't. Oh well. This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs. After witnessing his wife (Linda Hoffman) engaging in sexual acts with the pool boy, the already somewhat unstable dentist Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) completely snaps which means deep trouble for his patients.

This delightful semi-original and entertaining horror flick from director Brian Yuzna was a welcome change of pace from the usual horror twaddle that was passed out in the late Nineties. Although ‘The Dentist' is intended to be a cheesy, fun little film, Yuzna ensures that the movie delivers the shocks and thrills that many more serious movies attempt to dispense. Despite suffering somewhat from the lack of background on the central characters, and thus allowing events that should have been built up to take place over a couple of days, the movie is intriguing, generally well scripted and well paced which allows the viewer to maintain interest, even during the more ludicrous of moments. ‘The Dentist' suffers, on occasion, from dragging but unlike the much inferior 1998 sequel, there are only sporadic uninteresting moments, and in general the movie follows itself nicely.

Corbin Bernsen was very convincing in the role of the sadistic, deranged and perfectionist Dr. Alan Feinstone. The way Bernsen is able to credibly recite his lines, especially with regards to the foulness and immorality of sex (particularly fellatio), is something short of marvellous. While many actors may have trouble portraying a cleanliness obsessed psycho without it coming off as too cheesy or ridiculous, Bernsen seems to truly fit the personality of the character he attempts to portray and thus makes the film all that more enjoyable. Had ‘The Dentist' not been intended to be a fun, almost comical, horror movie, Bernsen's performance would probably have been much more powerful. Sadly, the rest of the cast (including a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo) failed to put in very good performances and although the movie was not really damaged by this, stronger performances could have added more credibility to the flick.

‘The Dentist' is not a horror film that is meant to be taken seriously but is certainly enjoyable, particularly (I would presume) for fans of cheesy horror. Those who became annoyed at the number of ‘Scream' (1996) clones from the late Nineties may very well find this a refreshing change, as I did. A seldom dull and generally well paced script as well as some proficient direction helps to make ‘The Dentist' one of the more pleasurable cheesy horrors from the 1990's. On top of this we are presented with some particularly grizly and (on the whole) realistic scenes of dental torture, which should keep most gorehounds happy. Far from perfect but far from bad as well, ‘The Dentist' is a flick that is easily worth watching at least once. My rating for ‘The Dentist' – 6.5/10. I remember this movie in particular when I was a teenager, my best friend was telling me all about this movie and how it freaked her out as a kid. Of course being the blood thirsty gal that I am, I had to go out and find this movie. Now I don't know how to put this without loosing credibility, so I'm just going to say it, I actually had fun watching this movie! I know that it's stupid, not the best story and beyond bloody and gruesome, but that's what I was looking for and The Dentist delivers in the scares, blood, sex, and crazy psychopaths. Sometimes I just need a fun movie like this to just let loose and get grossed out by.

Dr. Alan Feinstone is obsessed with order and cleanliness. On the day of his wedding anniversary, he spies his wife Brooke having sex with their filthy pool man, Matt. At his dental practice, Feinstone's first patient of the day is young Jody Saunders, there for his very first dental appointment. Feinstone begins to clean Jody's teeth. Everything goes smoothly at first, until he imagines that Jody's teeth are brown and rotten. His dental pick slips, stabbing Jody in the gums. Jody's mother picks up her crying, bleeding child and leaves angrily. Feinstone sees his second patient, beauty queen April Reign. Alone with April, Feinstone sedates her with nitrous oxide so that he can fill a cavity in one of her molars. As she drifts off into unconsciousness, Feinstone imagines that she has transformed into his wife. He begins kissing and fondling her on the dental chair, then begins to choke her. April starts to cough and half-wakes up from the gas. Feinstone snaps out of his trance and quickly re-buttons April's blouse. Feinstone decides to end the day early and sends his staff and patients home. Later that night, Brooke meets Feinstone at his practice. He reveals his new Italian opera-themed patient room. He encourages Brooke to try out the room's dental chair. When she does, Feinstone binds her to the chair and sedates her with nitrous oxide. With operatic music blaring in the background, he begins to pull out Brooke's teeth. Feinstone has gone off the deep end and is definitely not going to let anybody stand in his way of cleanliness.

Honestly, as silly as this movie sounds, I did have a lot of fun watching The Dentist. The best scene without a doubt is when he teaches that nasty IRS agent a lesson in hygiene that I'm sure he'll never forget. Man, I don't think I've brushed my teeth so much after I watched The Dentist. Yeah, I am going to warn you, this movie is in no way for the faint of heart, it's very bloody. There's stabbing, gun shots and just these brutal dental torture scenes that will make your stomach turn. Yet somehow I just enjoyed this movie, if I ever want just a good gore movie that was made for true horror fans, I slip it in my DVD player, and that's the "tooth" LOL! I am so funny! Um, yeah, I try, give me a little credit.

7/10 Director Brian Yuzna has had an uneven career in the horror genre, creating masterpieces such as "Return of the Living Dead 3" or "Bride of Re-Animator", but at the same time he has done awful movies such as "Faust: Love for the Damned" or the mediocre "Progeny". He is obviously better in the seat of Producer where his work producing Stuart Gordon's films has been superb.

"The Dentist", is one of his lesser works as director, but the low profile it has benefits the film and its lack of pretensions makes it a very enjoyable experience. It tells the story of Dr. Alan Feinstone (played superbly by Corbin Bernsen), a successful dentist who one day discovers that his perfect life is not really as perfect as he thought when he discovers that his beautiful wife (Linda Hoffman)has an affair with the pool boy. This event disturbs his mind and puts him in a killing spree as he takes revenge on the world for being so "filthy".

The premise is very well handled by Yuzna, as he takes us on a ride following Feinstone's day of revenge. What makes this movie different from most slashers is that we are not in the victim's perspective, we follow Feinstone because he is the main character. We witness how he goes from respected professional to psycho murder in a day. Yuzna manages to give the movie the exact amount of suspense but adds a good dose of dark humor that really helps the movie.

Most of the success of the premise is in Bernsen's performance as Feinstone. He can make you feel sympathy and hate towards him at the same time, and the subtle humor his character has is another aspect that aids the film. The rest of the cast is not as good, and I think that their sub par acting hurts the film more than it should. A notable exception is Ken Foree, as the detective trying to catch Feinstone. While his part is quite small, he makes a great job with it.

With a dentist as killer, gory scenes are expected, and Brian Yuzna delivers great SFX in the correct amount. It's good to see that he does not go over-the-top with it as he usually do, and I dare to say that this is a highlight of the film. It has the exact amount of gore that is expected, nothing less and nothing more. Yuzna restrained himself of his common excesses and the result is great.

While this is not among Yuzna's most well-known films, I would say that it is one of his best. Sure, it is not classic material as his masterpieces, but it is a movie that entertains and never gets tiresome or boring. It is a low-budget simple film, but for what it is, I think it rocked. 7/10 Doctor Feinstone is a dentist.He has a beautiful wife and a huge house with a pool.Suddenly he discovers that his wife is making out with the pool attendant-he realises that behind everything clean,there is decay.He starts to torture his patients...Corbin Bernsen is brilliant as the deranged dentist-he is completely believable.There is surprisingly little gore but the scenes of dental torture are quite nasty and grotesque.Highly recommended."The Dentist 2" is also worth checking out! this is an entertaining movie. actually might make you uncomfortable since it isn't some undead psychopath or sociopath, its your everyday doctor. how scary is that. got some good actors and actresses in this movie, though some where unappreciated like Virginya Keehne as Sarah. Ken Foree who you might recognize from rob zombie's devils rejects and Halloween(2007) co-stars as our detective on schizoid Dr. Alan Feinstone's(Corbin Benson)trail. Short little summary is this: Dr. Alan Feinstone, a guy who has a sexy wife, nice house, and is a great dentist everyone loves. Until he catches his wife cheating on him with the pool cleaner. Then he starts having hallucinations that his patients' teeth are all rotted and that the female patients are his wife as he starts going nuts in this thriller. But before that, nice guy. This would have been so much fun to see in a theater, back in 1996. There is a guilty pleasure corner of my movie taste which really appreciates really well done shocker movies.

"The Dentist" is panned sometimes probably because people usually have strong feelings over dental matters. Maybe the ADA launched a campaign against it, since dentists report they have to apologize for this movie and for "The Marathon Man" (which only has one scene comparable to the many in "The Dentist").

It's amazing to note that according to the trivia page, the movie was shot in 21 days. Of course, post production can take longer than movie shooting sometimes and the editing for "The Dentist" is picture perfect. The quick cuts heighten the tension so much that in the scene where the Dentist "takes care" of his wife there's only two quick cuts showing what is happening. The rest is left to our very fertile imaginations! Corbin Bernsen was a good choice for the role since he has lots of experience playing psychologically "off" characters and he completely sold the obsessive compulsive aspects of the dentist.

For me the pacing of the movie was just right. The film makers reveal the wife's naughtiness in just the right way. All of the characters in the dental office look like they are actual people working in a real office. There's lots of tension while they are dealing with impatient people awaiting the dentist's arrival. Meanwhile the dentist is off on the cusp of a huge psychotic breakdown! Unlike so many movies of this genre, the script is very very tight. All the victims fall into the dentist's trap in very calculated ways. Two law enforcement types even get involved in a little subplot that ends up creating a shocker of a showdown near the end.

Definitely not for the faint of heart or the dental-phobic but a real roller coaster ride and heavily recommended for fans of intelligent gorefests. Not that many films have truly exploited the fear of going to the dentist that many people have. Those in the profession have some genuinely intimidating looking instruments. Give writers Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon, and Charles Finch for deriving maximum make-you- squirm-in-your-seat shock value from their premise.

Corbin Bernsen, in a nicely nuanced performance, is Alan Feinstone, dedicated dentist whose train jumps off the tracks early on. An unbalanced obsessive-compulsive, he starts dwelling on thoughts of decay, even imagining it where there isn't any, and also equating decay with corruption of society in general. Having witnessed his unfaithful wife Brooke (Linda Hoffman) getting it on with their pool boy, he determines to punish her. At the same time, he's under pressure from a smarmy I.R.S. agent (Earl Boen, best known as Dr. Silberman from the "Terminator" franchise) to do a favor in exchange for the agent keeping his mouth shut about Feinstone's financial affairs. Feinstone starts to perceive everybody around him as decayed in one way or another, and he goes on a murder spree as police detective Gibbs (the always welcome Ken Foree) picks up his trail.

Director Brian Yuzna clearly has great fun with the script. It allows for some genuinely nasty and remarkably entertaining gore scenes that do just as well as creating sympathy for the victims as thrilling the audience. The script gives the Feinstone character some fine lines of dialog and is overall quite sly and amusing, with large doses of pitch-black humor (such as Feinstone ordering a victim to "get their tongue out of the way!"). Brooke and the I.R.S. agent figure in particularly effective torture scenes. The makeup effects are for the most part quite good. And the film does a fine job of maintaining its forward momentum, as Feinstone, with his relentless drive for perfection, switches from respected professional to unhinged killer in record time.

Foree, always cool and fun to watch, is rather wasted in a standard-issue detective role, but there's some enjoyment in watching Boen play his slimeball part to the hilt. Hoffman and Christa Sauls provide very appealing eye candy. And a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo can be seen in a small supporting role. But this is all very much Bernsen's show as he sinks his teeth (pardon me for using that expression) into his plum leading part with total conviction.

"The Dentist" ranks as one of the more original and interesting horror films to come out of the 1990's.

8/10 I'm surprised no-one has thought of doing a movie like this before. Horror is often most effective when it uses real life unpleasantness as a theme. And nobody (except for Steve Martin in The Little Shop of Horrors) likes going to the dentist. Tooth torture has been done before (see The Marathan Man for example), but this brings the terror into suburbia.

The plot revolves around a dentist, Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen), who descends into madness. Now our dear doctor wasn't playing with a full deck to begin with, but driven by jealousy and an obsessive-compulsive disorder he begins to reek havoc on those around him. The doctors spiraling mental condition is kinda close to what we see in Micheal Douglas's character in Falling Down, but with a horror edge.

Written and directed by horror stalwarts Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna, its witty and has a great flow. Also featured playing a cop, is the ever welcome Ken Foree.

Now I believe this movie would not work without the absolutely fantastic performance from Corbin Bernsen. Having really only seen him in LA Law before, I was blown away by his acting.

The sequel The Dentist 2 is also worth watching, but slightly under par compared to the original.

TTKK's Bottomline - A fun movie with some scenes that will make you cringe, capped (pun intended) by a great performance from Bernsen The Dentist is a really good thriller. And pretty disturbing. I think we can all agree that the chances of running into a psycho dentist are much bigger than running into monsters, vampires or zombies. That's exactly why this movie is so scary. During this film, you'll probably think about your own dentist a few times. Whether he's capable of doing such things...You better pray his wife doesn't cheat on him. That's what the story is all about. A respected dentist in LA snaps when he finds out his wife is cheating on him with the pool-boy. ( That must be the greatest profession in the world, by the way. Poolboys always take advantage of the housewives when the husband is at his work) From then on our dentist, Dr. Feinstone, can only thing about taking revenge. He can't concentrate on his patients anymore and a couple of them get hurt. Things aren't made easier for our dentist when he's chased by an annoying tax-controller, a curious cop and a suspicious staff member of his. At one point, Dr. Feinstone can't take it anymore. Now he's not only after his wife but after everyone who comes near him.. The dentist is written and directed by Brian Yuzna and co-written by Stuart Gordon. You can take that as a recommendation to itself. These 2 persons already gave us a few great horror movies ( and personal favorites of mine ) like Re-Animator, From Beyond and Society. With the Dentist, they succeed once more to bring an entertaining and very chilling thriller. This film came right on time actually. The decade hadn't brought us many great horror films so far. I'm not at all saying this IS a masterpiece, but it's a nice change. Corbin Bensen is great as the dentist obsessed by hygiene. I remember him mostly as a comedy or drama actor, but he can sure handle a psychotic character. The rest of the cast does good work too. The woman who plays Feinstone's wife is really attractive. Also, it was great to see Ken Foree acting again. The actor from my all time favorite movie Dawn of the Dead plays the cop in this film. Yuzna casted him in From Beyond too, 15 years ago and I thank him for that. I don't recommend this movie to everyone (if you have a weak stomach, I'll advise you to skip it) but if you do watch it, you'll enjoy it very much. You'll be disgusted...but that's an extra reason, I think. It's been a while since I was really freaked out by watching a film. It's a great topic to handle in the genre and Yuzna does it in a great way. Too bad this film was followed by a completely unnecessary sequel. My humble opinion on the Dentist ... 8/10 Before we begin, I have a fear of dentists. This movie gives me the creeps and even makes me cringe. That is what I love about this film. The movie is kind of boring. For that, I take 3 stars off!

*Spoiler Alert*

The movie revolves around Dr. Alan Feinstone who has just found out his wife has been cheating on him. Soon, he begins to have hallucinations and begins torturing his patients, killing co-workers, and he has even tortured his wife to death and killed the man he was having an affair with.

*End Spoiler*

The movie is very bloody and gory. I would recommend it if you are into gore.

I give this film 7 stars out of 10. Dr. Alan Feinstein Is Not Your Normal Everyday Dentist! I love this movie. As a kid, this was one of the first movies I saw that made me flinch. Sure, it is mild now, but back in the day, it was awesome. Dentists are one thing so many people fear, so why not do a movie about a killer dentist? It's cheesy, it's fun, sometimes it's scary, but it is awesome. And I have always had a love for medical horror. And Corbin Bernsen plays Dr. Feinstone perfectly, no one could have done it better. And for a low budget horror film, the effects and such are quite good. And I also love the theme music, it goes well with the film. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) is also in this one playing a nosy cop, and does a fine job. There is a fair amount of blood, and some really cool torture/death scenes. Check this one out! The brilliance of this movie is that even a competent dentist is pretty scary. It's one of man's primal fears. This movie is the nightmarish image every kid has to go through in the waiting room. Corbin Bernsen gives a surprisingly non-lackluster performance as a crazed dentist who I guess tries to kill people but he only works on their teeth so it's not really working out. In a particularly gory scene we find so-so actor Earl Boen having his teeth completely destroyed with drills and whatnot, which I guess is the absolute worst you can do when you're a killer dentist. It's a typical Brian Yuzna situation, not well written but there's gore. The plot is shoddy and at times seems to be made up on the spot but hey, it's a killer dentist movie, we've all thought of it but they did it first. I remember being terrified of movie blood when I was younger, and gradually getting less so, until getting jaded enough, as I'm sure many other viewers have become, so that the barrage of gory films produced in last few years have entertained me but not scared me or made me squirm. "The Dentist" turned that around.

The setup seems simple: a mentally unstable dentist wreaks havoc on the insides of mouths, and perhaps bodies as well. A clever twist, though, is that the dentist is the film's protagonist, so instead of being some one-dimensional bad guy with no clear motivation, his development is the most extensive of any character and he is very human and believable. The viewer thus feels sympathy for him as well as his victims, and instead of hoping for justice to come to him, I found myself hoping he would somehow find a way to cover up his tracks and return to a normal life.

What really "makes" a horror movie is the violence. And "The Dentist" does it better than any other film I can think of. First off, the film has tons of tension, which is something that modern gore films tend to lack. In one scene (), the dentist is emotionally distraught and has to see a young child patient for the first time. As he reaches into the child's mouth, you hope that, for the dentist's and the child's sake, the encounter ends without injury. I won't spoil what happens. Second, when the gore does come, it hits all the worst, squirmy nerves. Once again, I won't give anything away.

Of course, being a movie that you've never heard of, it does have flaws. Most importantly, it's exclusively for horror fans. Also, as another reviewer mentioned, by taking place over a span of just a few days, we don't really get any background on the characters. And the tension drops a little bit during the very end. But really, the fact that we would even want to know background about the characters is evidence to how good it is, and the bulk of the film is solid enough that any small lapses in tension can be forgiven.

It's strange, after years of being accustomed to movie gore, to suddenly want to cover my eyes at the sight of blood. "The Dentist" made me scared and thoroughly uncomfortable, and for this it earns my full approval. i realize this review will get me bashed by the expert film critics patrolling this site, but i will defend this film.

The Dentist is actually a really good film. The acting isn't always top notch, but the thrills are good and the story's good. Plus you see Linda Hoffman's boobies. Not that I'm an expert in this field, but the direction seems good and the plot makes sense. Corbin makes a great creepy dentist. It does to dentists what Jaws does to sharks...ish. It obviously had a fairly limited budget, but they did well with it what they could, and developed the characters well (those that count).

the end. As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his "slut" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. "The Dentist" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out! This is a gory mess and pretty convincing. Corbin Bernson is very much in command of this movie with his slick portrayal of the loony control freak eponymous practitioner. Linda Hoffman plays his cheating wife and she is very easy on the eye - unfortunately for her, the little "tryst" with the pool guy brings severe punishment in a way the good doctor knows best - shame about that pretty smile! The last half hour of the movie is devoted to Bernson's character losing it completely and the spotlight falls on a young actress called Virginya Keehne. An extremely talented performer, she hogs the limelight from the moment the braces come off. Nice legs, too! The Dentist starts on the morning of Dr. Alan Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) & his wife Brooke's (Linda Hoffman) wedding anniversary. On the surface Mr. & Mrs. Feinstone seem to have a nice life, a beautiful home in Los Angeles & he has a successful career with responsibility but beneath things are very wrong. Alan discovers that Brooke is having an affair with Matt (Michael Stadvec) the swimming pool cleaner, to add to his humiliation Alan then discovers that Matt is also having sex with Paula Roberts (Lise Simms) one of his next door neighbours & to top it all off he owes the IRS, who are breathing down his neck, a shed load of money. Alan starts to lose his mind, he convinces himself that everything is decayed & rotten, just like his patient's teeth, & it's up to him to fix it. That morning at work he begins to take his frustrations & anger out on his patients, first he injures a young boy named Jody (Brian McLaughlin), he sexual assault's a patient named April Reign (Christa Sauls) after he hallucinates that she is his wife & deliberately performs an unnecessary & painful procedure on another. Alan also begins to take drugs as he completely loses it & goes homicidal starting with his adulterous wife & pool cleaner...

Directed by Brian Yuzna I thought The Dentist was a good film & tried something a bit different. The script by Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon & Charles Finch is more of a psycho thriller than straight slasher which came as a surprise to me as I was expecting the latter, it would have been easy to make a teenage slasher film like Friday the 13th (1980) with a high body count & a wise cracking dentist villain but what The Dentist actually turned out to be is very different. The Dentist is at heart a character study of one mans descent into madness & it does a fine job although having said that I'm not sure what he goes through is enough justification for his subsequent murderous actions. It moves along at a nice pace, has a nice narrative in which I liked the constant connection Alan makes between the decay he sees in his patients & the decay he sees in the world around him & is an entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes. It goes without saying that anyone with a phobia about the dentist probably should give this one a miss or you'll never go again! I liked the ending too where the tables are turned, I'll say no more...

Director Yuzna does his usual fine job here, in fact I don't think I've seen a Yuzna film that I didn't enjoy to some extent, he obviously & predictably takes the opportunity to play on our fear of the dentist with some nice dental torture set pieces including pulling people's teeth out, sexually molesting them, performing operations on drugs & torturing people with the dreaded dentist's drill. There are some other gore scenes as well, a dead dog, someone gorily slashed with a knife & cut out tongues. Yuzna gives the film a certain style on what was probably a low budget, he likes to tilt his camera which make for some nice angles & I liked the shot where the camera is above someone being knifed & huge sprays of blood splatter on the floor in a nice wide overhead angle.

Technically The Dentist is fine, decent cinematography, music & production values although some of the special make-up effects look a little unconvincing. The acting is pretty strong from everyone involved with Corbin putting in a good crackpot performance. The ever cool & genre favourite Ken Foree turns up as Detective Gibbs one of Los Angeles finest.

The Dentist didn't turn out like I had expected & all the better for it, if your a horror fan & perhaps want something a bit different then this is well worth checking out. I liked it & think it's definitely worth a watch. First it was Jack The Ripper, now it is Alan Feinstone. The crazy dentist tortures people in horrific ways. Quite realistic at times but some of the acting is abysmal and comical. Especially from Corbin Bernson. In some scenes there is dental torture that will really make you cringe. This movie is very great! The acting is fine, with excellent casting of Corbin Bernsen as the perfectionistic dentist who freaks out and tortures his patients. In the beginning he sees his wife with the poolman, and then he goes crazy. He also takes revenge on his wife and the poolman, beside the patients he tortures. The most special effects are also beautiful, although some are really fake (like a drilled-out tongue, that has laid for 1 night outside, and is still red in the morning). But the torture scenes are absolutely well-done. Though this movie has the weak point that it is very slow; between the heavy parts are sometimes just extremiously boring parts. But for the real horror/thriller-fan this is a must-watch! The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.

The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great "white house", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner "cleaning" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.

Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.

Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. This movie was very enjoyable, though you'll only like it if: - you hate going to the dentist but aren't afraid of a movie where one of them goes beserk - you love horror movies

I particularly liked the fact that some care was given to explaining the brute actions of the main character. The fact that he's totally obsessed by cleanliness (especially in the mouth) and then catches his wives providing some oral pleasure to the mud-covered pool-man is a pretty believable reason to go overboard.

Liked it. I give it an 8. Corbin Bernsen gives a terrifically intense and riveting performance as Dr. Alan Feinstone, a wealthy and successful Beverly Hills dentist who's obsessed with perfection. When he discovers that his lovely blonde babe trophy wife has been cheating on him and the IRS start hounding him about tax problems, Feinstone cracks under the pressure and goes violently around the bend. Director Brian Yuzna, working from a suitably dark, witty and demented script by Stuart Gordon, Dennis Paoli, and Charles Finch, exposes the seething neurosis and psychosis bubbling underneath the squeaky clean well-manicured surface of respectable affluent rich America with deliciously malicious glee. Moreover, Yuzna further spices up the grisly goings on with a wickedly twisted sense of pitch black gallows humor. Bernsen positively shines as Dr. Feinstone; he expertly projects a truly unnerving underlying creepiness that's right beneath Feinstone's deceptively calm and assured veneer. The supporting cast are likewise excellent: Linda Hoffman as Feinstone's bitchy, unfaithful wife Brooke, Earl Boen as smarmy, meddlesome IRS agent Marvin Goldblum, Molly Hagan as feisty assistant Jessica, Patty Toy as perky assistant Karen, Jan Hoag as jolly office manager Candy, Virginya Keehne as sweet, gawky teenager Sarah, Ken Foree as thorough, no-nonsense Detective Gibbs, Tony Noakes as Gibbs' equally shrewd partner Detective Sunshine, Michael Stadvec as womanizing stud muffin pool cleaner Matt, and Mark Ruffalo as on the make sleazeball Steve Landers. The first-rate make-up f/x are every bit as gory, gross and upsetting as they ought to be. The polished cinematography by Levie Isaaks boasts lots of great crazy tilted camera angles and a few tasty zoom-in close-ups. Alan Howarth's spirited shuddery score also hits the flesh-crawling spot. An enjoyably warped treat. As Dr. Alan Feinstone, Corbin Bernsen turns a marvelously deranged performance in "The Dentist".

With his already obsessive compulsive tendencies in high gear, the IRS hounding him, and a very suspicious acting wife; Dr. Alan Feinstone is losing his sanity more and more each day.

When the Doc indeed does realize that his wife is having an affair with the local pool boy, it sets off a string of events that lead to torture, murder, ant total mayhem! "The Dentist" is a solid film! Bernsen makes the character of Dr. Feinstone relatable and hateable at the same time. Even though he is completely out of his gourd, the audience will still feel sympathy towards him. That my friends.....is damn good acting.

A nice solid cast of supporting actors round out this gem of a film. Excellent direction, good killings and gore, and effective pacing will keep you entertained throughout the movies run.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! When I saw the Dentist, I thought it was very cool. But this movie is not for everyone, especially people who do not like gory scenes as the Dentist has lots of gory scenes. That's why it has it's R18 rating. It's about a beverly hills dentist Dr Alan Feinstone, who finds his wife Brooke cheating on him with the poolman. It's best to go to your dentist "before" you watch this. But if you don't like going to the dentist already, then it's best not to watch this as you may be put off going for life. the Dentist has the best bloody revenge in it that I've ever seen. Who has ever seen a movie that has a dentist (Spoiler) pull out all his cheating wife's teeth and cut out her tongue with no anesthetic? Overall awesome flick, but not for everyone. Brian Yuzna is often frowned upon as a director for his trashy gore-fests, but the truth is that his films actually aren't bad at all. The Re-Animator sequels aren't as great as the original, but are still worthy as far as horror sequels are concerned. Return of the Living Dead 3 is the best of the series; and Society isn't a world away from being a surrealist horror masterpiece. This thriller certainly isn't a masterpiece; but it shows Yuzna's eye for horror excellently, and the plot moves in a way that is always thrilling and engaging. I'm really surprised that a horror movie about dentistry didn't turn up until 1996, as going to the dentist is almost a primal fear - it's running away from a tiger for the modern world. Dentistry doesn't frighten me, but surprisingly; I would appear to be in the minority. The plot follows perfectionist dentist Dr Feinstone. He has a nice house, a successful career and a beautiful wife - pretty much everything most people want. However, his life takes a turn for the worse when he discovers his wife's affair with the pool cleaner. And his life isn't the only one; as it's his patients who feel the full brunt of his anger...

When it comes to scaring the audience, this movie really makes itself. However, credit has to go to the director for extracting the full quota of scares from the central theme. The fact that he does a good job is summed up by the fact that I'm not squeamish about going to the dentist - yet one particular scene actually made me cover my eyes! The film follows the standard man going insane plot outline, only with The Dentist you always get the impression that there's more to the film than what we're seeing. It isn't very often that a gore film can impress on a substance level - and while this won't be winning any awards, the parody on the upper class is nicely tied into the plot. The acting, while B-class, is actually quite impressive; with Corbin Bernsen taking the lead role and doing a good job of convincing the audience that he really is a man on the edge. I should thank Brian Yuzna for casting Ken Foree in the movie. The Dawn of the Dead star doesn't get enough work, and I really love seeing him in films. The rest of the cast doesn't massively impress, but all do their jobs well enough. Overall, The Dentist offers a refreshing change for nineties slasher movies. The gore scenes are sure to please horror fans, and I don't hesitate to recommend this film. Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III "Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier. Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14A

Fear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.

Runtime:88min

10/10 After a big tip of the hat to Spinal Tap, this movie is hilarious. Anyone who grew up watching MTV will love it and if you didn't, rent it anyway,the "My Peanuts" and "A Gangster's life" videos are worth the three bucks alone. I'm too old to know (or care) exactly what the difference between rap and hip-hop is. And, being Canadian, it's likely that I've never actually seen MTV, but I'm not certain.

But I thought this film was very funny when I saw it, a bright little satire. Hip-hop culture is so pervasive these days that it's difficult not to keep hearing about it over and over. (If only we could say the same about bagpipe music.) I got most of the jokes (at least I think I did). Sure, it's derived from Spinal Tap, but there are lots of targets that could stand a Tap treatment. Just not the Carpenters, they're sacred. Okay, my title is kinda lame, and almost sells this flick short. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert in '94 talking about this movie, and then playing a clip or two. Not being a rap-conscious guy (although I could identify Snoop Dogg, Vanilla Ice, and MC Hammer music), I wasn't much interested when they started talking about the film. But then, S&E showed the scene where the band explains how they picked their name (using some "shady" logic and a bunch of "made up" facts), and then another scene where the band, and their rival band, both visit a school to promote getting involved (and, of course, NWH comes up with some "info" about how the rival band leader is a loser because he got good grades in school and was on the yearbook committee). So I filed it away that I should see this movie.

A couple of years later, this thing shows up on HBO and I recorded it, only to laugh my butt off for hours. Yes, it has a "Spinal Tap" kind of rhythm to it...even the documentarist takes essentially the same "tone" in setting up the clips, and the band follows a similar path (what I now call the "Behind the Music" phenomenon - smalltime band has good chemistry, gets famous, too much money too fast, squabbling, drugs, some type of death, band breaks up, then reconciles, finishing with a hope for more albums in the future, and fade to black). The one thing that is true is that in Spinal Tap, you catch the band perhaps with a little more success in their past. But Tap drags at some points, and in my mind is reduced to laughs that are set up by specific scenes. Oh, this is his rant about the backstage food, this is spot where he wants the amp to go to "ELEVEN", this is the spot where the guy makes the pint-sized stonehenge, etc...

Contrasting to FoaBH, which seems to have more "unexpected" humor. You can see some of it coming, but there isn't a big setup for every joke. Sometimes, the jokes just kinda flow. Cundieff and the other actors in the band had a real chemistry that worked. Also, the direct references to Vanilla Ice, Hammer, and a bunch of other caricature-type rappers really worked well. This strikes me as a film you watch once to get the main story and laughs, and then go back and watch to catch the subtle jokes. And the songs. Is "My Peanuts" better than "Big Bottom" (from Spinal Tap)? I don't know - but they're both damn funny. Tone Def's awful video during his "awakening" phase is so bizarre, yet so funny.

I could go on awhile, but save your time and don't waste it on CB4. I watched the first half hour, and got bored. You don't get bored on FoaBH. There are slightly less funny moments, but you can never tell when something good is about to happen. Perhaps my favorite scene is when Ice Cold and Tastey Taste (name ripoffs if I've ever heard any) discover they've been sharing the same girl....at one point, you've got those two pointing guns at each other, and the next thing you know, the manager, the photographer, the girl, and I think even Tone Def are in the room pointing guns at each other, switching targets back and forth. And, of course, someone does get shot.

I did find it odd that NWH's managers suffered similar fates to Spinal Tap's drummers (although none spontaneously combusted, I don't think). There were enough similarities that I cannot ignore the likelihood that Cundieff saw "Spinal Tap" prior to writing this film, although this is clearly much more the Spinal Tap of hip-hop. While some similarities exist, the humor is different, and the movie seems more like a real documentary (maybe because we don't recognize a single actor in this thing, even the guy who played "Lamar" from "Revenge of the Nerds"). All in all, this movie has, in my opinion, "street cred". Kinda like NWH. This is a really funny film, especially the second, third and fourth time you watch it. It's a pretty short film, and i definitely recommend watching it more than once, you will 'get it' more the second time.

It's like spinal tap but the rap version. It has a lot of attitude in it which can be a negative thing in rap influenced films, but it's just a total p**s take and isn't a problem because of the irony it creates.

Plenty of stand-out bits, one of those types of films which you will find yourself quoting lines with your mates, and it WILL raise laughter.

My personal favourite part is the 'guerrillas in the midst' section. Great video, superb! i've just read the most recent remarks about this movie and i would like to respond. you're probably not familiar with the original story of rap group N.W.A. which dates back to the beginning in 1988, in 1989 ice cube left the band to go solo and ultimately in 1991, the band breaking up when Dr.dre left. which led to a lot of beef starting with the departure of ice cube and dr.dre in 1991. this story was somewhat based on that.

further more this movie was a 90 minute laughing spree, the way they explained the bootie juice song to be a political statement was hilarious. not to mention the "love song" tasty was hooking up. and when vanilla sherbert got his ass kicked, just like the record company executive is also hilarious and having they're managers getting shot every time too.

people who didn't enjoy this movie probably didn't get it or were complete idiots, my opinion I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be "laughting at Blacks", while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites.

I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.

This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including "A Mighty Wind" My, Kasi Lemmings certainly is a fair looking woman. This film is a lost gem, a dead-on satire "mockumentary" of the early 90's Hip Hop scene, when MC Hammer had just began to fade away into that good night. We follow the three members of the NWH as they embark upon their picaresque journey of would-be riches and fame. And like Nickolas Nickleby, at the end, they finish their journey not far from where they started, but at least a little wiser and lot less naive. This is one of the best films that no one has ever heard of, but it's the kind of film you either love or hate, a lot like "Company Man" in this regard. I regard this movie like the 1000 islands of upstate New York: it's a wonderful little secret you want to keep to yourself. I first saw this movie when it came out in 1994 and just watched it recently and it is STILL funny. I don't know if you have to understand hiphop in the 90's, but it helps if you do. In the 90's when NWA and Public Enemy were at the top, there were internal strife within the groups and members when their separated ways (Ice Cube, Easy E, etc). Also there were the wanna b's, accessible rappers that start making the scene (Vanilla Ice, Freedom Williams from C&C Music Factory, etc). This movie makes fun of all of that in a way that seems like it's an actually documentary. Kasi Lemmons plays an interviewer that spends a year in the life of a fictitious rap group name N.W.H. The members of the group are Ice Code (Rusty Condieff/director), Tasty Taste (Larry B Scott/Revenge of the Nerds, and Tone Def (Mark Christopher Lawrence). They are an up and coming rap group whose politics makes them controversial. Whats good about this film is that it is so thourough in its portrayal of the hiphop industry of the 80s and they way it pokes fun at it. But, if you know 80's/90's rap, you know how much of this stuff is true. Still, on it's own, without hip hop knowledge, it is still a funny funny movie. And for all of those who ask, yes Spinal Tap came first, but Spinal Tap is not the first spoof movie either. This, in my opinion is equally as funny and in some ways, better than Spinal Tap. As Spinal Tap is to heavy metal, Fear of A Black Planet is to Rap. And the songs are off the hook also. The DVD is chalk full of extras to include music videos of NWH as a group and as solo artists. Brilliant performances by Rusty Condieff and Larry B Scott. I have zero interest rap and in ghetto culture, i'm white and like classic rock, however, that did not stop me from appreciating this fantastic comedy. Its pretty much a sequel of This Is Spinal Tap in the sense that it is the same movie, just about rap instead or rock. Yet it's hilarious. There are many funny jokes but not without a few jokes that just fall flat. The characters are all very funny and believable. I watched just because it made me laugh at 3 a.m., and any movie that can do that warrants at least a test screening. One of the reasons why this movies was so funny was that it makes fun of rap from a different. Rap today is concerned with the wrong things and get by with studio noise and little talent. This movie comes from a time where rappers deserved more credit. Overall, it's a funny movie with many jokes about racism, sex and music culture among the more obvious themes of humor. This is highly recommend for any fan of This is Spinal Tap. They are essentially the same movie, just about different worlds, and yes, the same jokes work in both movies. Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic! I cannot stop saying how much I loved this movie. This movie is one of the least known and one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. The movie follows the exploits of a rap group, NWH (Ni#$%rs with Hats) It goes from the beginning of the group to the end of the group, after it's tragic break up. Following the group is documentary maker Nina Blackburn.

The movie is on a shoestring budget, but it does not seem to matter, this is a very well made, well produced film and the performances by all of these actors and actresses are excellent. The main strength of this movie is the writing, there are so many brilliant lines and takeoffs on rap in this movie, it is unreal.

SPOILER

There are takeoffs on actual rappers, like MC Slammer, Vanilla Sherbert, Ice Cold, Tone Def, Tastey-Taste, and songs (Booty Juice, Grab Your Dick, Etc.) Rusty Condieff has made an excellent film. In the movie he plays rapper Ice Cold. The movie does not quit, it is funny from the beginning to the end.

The movie works so well because it becomes outlandish on occasion, but it strikes that line where it is funny without going too far out there. Listening to the three leads try to talk some kind of philosophy was one of the best parts of the movie, like Tone Def telling a record producer, ‘when you take the bus, you get there', and the producer responding, ‘that's deep!'

The group portraying N.W.H. has some sort of natural chemistry to them. They work so well together, and they manage to pull this movie of to where there is not a week moment in the film. What really makes this movie so good is how true to some of the rap groups of the time this movie is. Many rap groups had problems with violence, with censors, and like NWA, the group only became popular when the establishment began to make a big deal out of the controversial lyrics.

I like this movie because it is offensive. There is something here to offend everyone in a good natured way. The movie has a takeoff on a good number of people too outside of rap, the funniest being of Spike Lee. Where they came up with this dialogue I cannot imagine. The movie has line after line that will have you rolling on the floor. As I said before the writing is just excellent.

I am not surprised that this movie met such limited release. It is an intelligent, controversial, and even thought provoking film. This is too much for mainstream, despite the fact it is hilarious, and nearly flawless in it's production. There are no major stars, but a lot of familiar faces, including Marc Lawrence, who plays Tone Def. Watch this movie, at the very least you will definitely have an opinion of it. I first saw this movie about 4 years ago and i was expecting something funny, similar to CB4. I was blown away. I was on the floor laughing my butt off this movie is so great. Way better than CB4, the characters, the songs, the plot, everything. Top notch independent film that was given "Two Thumbs UP" by Siskel and Egbert (and if two old white guys can understand the humour in this flick, you know it's good). Having seen both "Fear of a Black Hat" and "This is Spinal Tap", I can honestly state that while similar, both movies are truly must see. There will be many times in "Fear" that will have you in hysterics. It is no wonder why both movies have such a huge cult following. "Fear" will soon be available on DVD. Rent it if you must, but the only way to fully enjoy this movie is to have it for yourself. its too bad that no one knows anything about this movie, and it gets old telling people it's rap's version of spinal tap. and you know, im sorry i dont have any better comments, but damnit, go get the movie and watch it, and then make all your friends watch it too, just like im gonna. Chances are, you'll think this movie is incredibly stupid the first time you watch it. But if, by chance, you watch it a second and third and fourth and fifth time (I'm well into the hundreds by now), you will find yourself spitting a line from it here and there and cracking yourself up! My friends and I have actually thrown Fear of a Black Hat Parties to get more of our friends, "as they say, down with the riots". I picked up the movie with no cover and not even knowing what it was, but when I watched it I laughed so hard. It is now one of my favorite movies of all time. Rusty and the guys created a masterpiece I would highly recommend this movie to any one with a sense of humor. Thank You Rusty for giving us something to laugh at. I first saw this movie on some movie channel (HBO?) some time ago. I was a fan of Public Enemy, NWA and other early rap and had seen CB4 in theaters. Anyway, the promo for it caught my eye, and I wanted to see what it was all about. Well, right off the bat I knew it was going to be good (WARNING!) and I was right. The parody songs alone make this movie worth watching over and over (My Peanuts), but the overall flow and delivery of the movie was great. You've got to love the satire of rap groups (obviously NWA), certain rappers (Eazy E, Flava Flav, Ice Cube), and the humor of the three members of NWH. Who can forget Tone Deaf scratching with his ass? It's too bad this movie didn't get the credit it deserved, as it was overshadowed by CB4 during their releases, but in my opinion is a much better film. If you know and like 90's 'gangster' rap, you'll be watching and laughing with this movie for a long time. If you aren't into or don't like 'rap', you'll enjoy the jokes at the expense of the genre. "Fear of a Black Hat" is a superbly crafted film. I was laughing almost continuously from start to finish. If you have the means, I highly recommend viewing this movie It is, by far, the funniest movie I have had the pleasure to experience. Grab your stuff! CB4 was awful, but it may have given Cundieff the idea to it better. More like Spinal Tap than anything else, the film is clever from the start. Surprising anyone who saw it back in the mid nineties. The performances are played for laughs but not so much so that they are cartoon characters, more like Marx brothers. These guys are real and slightly diverse. They react to situations like any of us might. Well, we may not throw a tantrum when our performance hats are late to the gig, or pull guns and beat down a record company exec, but you get the picture. N(n***as) W(with) H(hats) takes itself seriously enough to reel you in, then you're hooked. rent or get this at all costs, even if you're not really into rap music, this will still leave you gassing out loud. Comparing this to CB4 is like comparing George Lucas' Star Wars to Gil Gerards'Buck Rogers' I think you see my point If you like CB4, you have no idea what you're missing if you haven't seen this film yet. This movie is crazy hilarious, and incorporates a lot more about the hip hop industry than any other parody movie... It is unfortunate that this movie has not been released on dvd because it is one movie that everybody I've ever watched it with has loved and wanted a copy. If you really want a good laugh and you like hip hop and are a little familiar with some old-school performers, definitley rent this movie. There aren't that many video rental places that have copies of it, but if you happen to come across one you will not be disappointed. This movie is a great mocumentary. It follows the rap group, NWH, made up of Ice Cold, Tasty Taste and Tone Def through their unique path to gangster rap highs, lows and back to highs. Through trouble with women, egos, cops and whitey, this group gets to the top of the gangster rap world, as this movie goes to the top of mocumentaries. I know everybodies favorite mocumentary is This is Spinal Tap, for very good reason, however I think that if in the right mood, this movie is simply better. The laughs never end, even for someone not into the rap culture.

I'm a white guy, that has no interest in rap music, culture or anything else associated with it, however I love this movie. Rusty Cundeif, who wrote the screenplay, songs and starred in it showed great potential and it is a shame that I haven't seen him since Fear of a Black Hat. However, I have seen him one more time than you have, and is that, that I recommend Fear of a Black Hat to you for quick laughs.

Remember, "Don't shoot to you see the whites!....of their eyes? No don't shoot to you see the whites."

FYM and enjoy the movie. I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed that the 428 of you IMDB users who voted before me have not given this film a rating of higher than 7. 7?!?? - that's a C!. If I could give FOBH a 20, I'd gladly do it. This film ranks high atop the pantheon of modern comedy, alongside Half Baked and Mallrats, as one of the most hilarious films of all time. If you know _anything_ about rap music - YOU MUST SEE THIS!! If you know nothing about rap music - learn something!, and then see this! Comparisons to 'Spinal Tap' fail to appreciate the inspired genius of this unique film. If you liked Bob Roberts, you'll love this. Watch it and vote it a 10! . . . is just as good as the original. Very nearly achieves greatness because of Cundieff's remarkable ear for music and dialogue. Skewers the self-important swagger of the hip-hop poseurs. The group "Niggaz with Hats" (NWH) are every rap group you ever heard and utterly self-parodic. Wardrobe is unbelievable. Buy the OOP soundtrack if you can. Well I don't personally like rap, but I still found Fear of a Black Hat hilarious. I'm sure I didn't get some inside jokes, but some I knew, and it was funny enough to make me laugh just after I'd stopped laughing. I'm a big fan of Spinal tap, so naturally I had to check this out. It was deriviative from This Is Spinal Tap, sometimes blatantly, but this film still stood on it's own as an original, intelligent, and funny satire. My personal favorite: "Back in the time of slaves, they didn't have hats to protect them from the sun, so at the end of the day they were too tired to revolt. Now we have hats." I don't remember when I first heard about this movie, but I rented it about six years ago, and it still remains one of my favorite comedies. I will admit, you probably will despise this movie if you know nothing about rap music. But if you are a rap fan, even a casual one, you will love the inside jokes and references. One of the best lines in the movie is about the difference between a b**** and a h**; I still use this line today and get lots of laughs with it. One of the best performances comes from Larry Scott, who played nerd Lamar in `Revenge of the Nerds'. It is unfortunate that this movie will likely never get a DVD release.

If you like rap or hip-hop, watch this movie, although it's funny if you don't get the references, as a straight comedy.

Haven't seen much of the much hyped CB4, but what I did see didn't have the heart that this little stormer has.

Haven't heard from the people involved since, which is a surprise. The film is very similar to Spinal Tap, which is no bad thing, and I think a lot of the dialogue, while priceless in Tap is funnier here, probably because I'm more into rap than rock theses days, so my own judgment does cloud that point.

The rap songs are funny as hell, and it's basically spot the reference for most of the film, not all of them are in-your-face, which means the physical comedy and the one-liners get priority over the take-offs.

Great fun, one to watch twice if there ever was a movie. Just a note to add to the above comment. Fear of a Black Hat doesn't have the criminal who's image has been ripped off by the band, that's in CB4. Easily confused as the two films are so similar, but Black Hat is vastly the superior of the two..... yeah. This early sci-fi masterwork by Herbert George Wells with music by Arthur Bliss is a powerful piece of film-making. Adapted from Wells' somewhat different work by the author, it presents a look at the human future with the subject of periods of war as versus periods of 'peace'. The structure is that after a contrasted-pair of episodes of normalcy and gathering clouds of war, the script allows the war to happen. Two families, the Cabells and the Passworthys disagree about what may happen; Passworthy takes a hopeful view of civilization's "automatic" progress; Cabell is the thinker, the doubter. Their city Everytown--obviously London-- becomes wrecked by a war featuring tanks, a magnificent war march by Bliss, and the end of civilization. The second portion finds people living in the wreckage of what had been the city under a "Boss", played with bravura by Ralph Richardson, whose woman, lovely Margaretta Scott, is as fascinating a dreamer as he is a concrete-bound dictator type. He is trying to rebuild old WWI airplanes so he can attack a nearby hill tribe to complete his petty kingdom; a young scientist complains about having his work continually interrupted demands for planes--etc.--everlastingly; this is Wells' comment on war versus progress. The survivors are subject to a plague called "The Wandering Sickness" also. Enter a modern flying machine piloted by the Cabell of the first section of the film, now part of Wings Over the World, an International Scientists' Coalition, who are planning to end warfare forever. This flight-suited modernist has fascinating conversations with the Boss and his woman, their attraction being evident; then Boss sends up his aircraft against them, the Scientists come with huge numbers of planes and drop the "Gas of Peace" onto the ruins of Everytown. Only the Boss dies, fighting too hard against the pacifying. The film then shows ore being mined and by slow steps being made into the girders of a magnificent new futuristic city of towers. In section three, a future Cabell argues with a future Passworthy over the morality of human science. Passworthy wonders if they have a right to send men to the Moon; Cabell champions man's right to advancement and the need to expand his horizons. The son of Passworthy and Cabell's daughter, are the astronauts being sent. Theotocopulos, a religious-minded Luddite, makes a fiery speech on a huge screen in the city's Forum and leads an attack on the 'space gun' that is to fire the new rocket free of Earth's gravity. The climax of the plot is the firing of the space gun successfully; the denouement and ending is a speech by Cabell praising worth and science that is universally considered to be the most profound defense of the mind ever penned. "It is all the universe--or nothing!" Cabell tells Passworthy. "Which shall it be?" As Cabell, Raymond Massey gives perhaps his greatest screen performance; he is thoughtful, compassionate, and reasonable, a true scientist. As the rabble-rouser who wants to end the Age of Science, Cedric Hardwicke is perfect and powerful. Edward Chapman playing Passworthy does admirably impersonating the voice of convention and fear. The storyline is logical, frequently beautiful and always interesting. Given the near-extinction of mankind, the idea of a civilization run by rebuilder scientists is rendered plausible and credible to the viewer. This is a triumph for the director, William Cameron Menzies, for Bliss and for all concerned. Listen to the dialogue with someone you love; within its constructed limits, this is a thinking man's drama debating two possible human futures--progress or its reactionary opposite. I first saw this as a child living in East London. The scars of Hitlers Luftwaffe were all too evident and the landscape of the movie was reminiscent of our street. I remember having nightmares after seeing it. The odd thing is, it really hasn't dated if viewed as a piece of social history in Cinema fiction.

Apart from a globally destructive war, the scale of the machines was badly awry, more Nano-Technology now, but overall, an excellent and well-crafted work. It was interesting to see how space travel was perceived back then. I would think that firing a spacecraft from a gigantic gun would almost certainly kill the astronauts. However, much was right. Mans desire for war, mans inhumanity to man. The means of war as a catalyst for development.

While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre. I must admit a slight disappointment with this film; I had read a lot about how spectacular it was, yet the actual futuristic sequences, the Age of Science, take up a very small amount of the film. The sets and are excellent when we get to them, and there are some startling images, but this final sequence is lacking in too many other regards...

Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the "Boss" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.

Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are!

Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the "super gun" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist "we don't believe in independent nation states"-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.

Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.

I would say that "Things to Come" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous.

Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate.

"Things to Come", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a "Metropolis"... 'Tis much as "silly", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it. Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.

Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film. Aside from the great movie METROPOLIS, this is about the oldest pure sci-fi movie. While at times the film is a bit preachy and the acting can be a bit broad, it is a great film for two reasons. First, it is extremely original in both style and content. Even in the 21st century, there are no films I can think of that are anything like it. Second, for its time, the special effects were absolutely incredible--using matte paintings, models and huge casts to create amazing scenes of both a post-apocalyptic world and a vast city of tomorrow. Sure, you could sit back and knock the film because, by today's standards, the effects are only so-so. But, you must appreciate that this was state of the art when the film came out in 1936 and it must have really amazed audiences. In many ways, the sets look highly reminiscent of the "modern cities" featured at the 1939 WORLD'S FAIR.

I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question "are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!

A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this! "THINGS TO COME" Movie Review by kWRice

Here is another wonder filled science fiction film from a different time and place. It is a film I've only seen in truncated parts, but Art should be taken as a whole. I experienced this film as it was designed, in a darkened theatre, on a silver screen, with whirling reels of film and an audience to share it with. That audience and myself were effected by this film! One woman who lived through WW II was choked up by the remembered ravages of war and replenished by the positive, albeit corny, ending.

The things that caught my attention from the beginning were the initial credits. The first thing we see is "H.G. Wells" in bold angular block copy much like the "Superman" of yore. It is not the film title, but the creator's title, and then before any other humans, such as actors or production, are listed, the director William Cameron Menzies is up there! Who? You've probably seen his work before, "Around the World in 80 Days," "Pride of the Yankees," and "Gone With the Wind." He did not direct after this Sci-Fi epic opera he and Mr. Wells created, but his film imagery, sets, and design are very recognizable.

That imagery is very effecting. I recognized images from many other films, that have paid homage to this classic. The recent "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is obvious, along with Bugs Bunny, "Fantasia," "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow," "Night of the Living Dead" and more that I know of, but which titles escape me. This is real special effects here, scenes now done with CGI are done with actors, big sets, and detailed models. This film was made in 1936, and it's obvious it meant something to the other auteurs. Wells and Menzies also worked with Bliss, doing the music, and Korda, the producer, to create a masterpiece with message, warning, and sermon.

The lines the Shakespearean actors Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Richardson and Raymond Massey speak, sometimes sound preachy, but I also heard lines I still hear now. "These toys children have nowadays are nothing like I had when I was child," "It'll help develop their coordination," "What do we need books for, what do we need to read for?", "We don't need cars, there's nowhere to go, we have all we need right here," "There will be no war." But war there is! The naive citizens of "Everytown" refuse to see the literal writing on the wall. The never-ending war explodes Christmas eve. The little boy wanting to be a good soldier like his daddy is an image that will likely always stay with me. This is the world of 1936 that wore blinders to Hitler's appeasement. This war does not end. The poison gas of the aerial wars segues into the second act.

It is another dark age. No government, no services, and people carried along and cheering the war that no one remembers anything about. Plague, warlords and bullying to get the planes flying for fuel that no longer exists. Loved ones are shot in the street, before they can carry the plague to another. Midway there is a marvelous vignette about the Rolls Royce, that is a much needed respite mid-way. Into this lands a futuristic plane that heralds the future.

That future is the third act. The world has rebuilt itself with the help of that "puny animal, man." Helicopters fly in this film, before they were even invented. The Plumber's Helper has other uses than the Dalek's or Glenn Miller's. Wide screen plasma screens beguiling the masses, and orators inciting the people to tear it all down. "Beware the concussion, you have been warned!", the city father warns the riotous populace. So be warned, this film might hit you like it hit me. There are some cute miscues and miscalculations, but the thought provoking idealism is what is really worth pondering again, and I do want to see this artful film again. Others criticize Mr. Wells vision. It is very easy to work with 20/20 hindsight regarding things, costumes and foley miscues. I believe Mr. Wells' "Things to Come" is not about things, but is actually about concepts, social trends, and philosophical ideals. Besides, we are now just beginning the new millennium and are not in the time still to come. This is not cheap cardboard British Science Fiction, but worthwhile Epic Filmed Opera, sans singing, that as a whole concept overcomes some minor dated shortcomings. I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.

There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.

I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers. The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years.

"Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.

The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969.

"Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control. Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.

This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.

Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once. I think the opening 20 minutes of this film is perhaps one of the most exciting filmed, with the brilliant music score working to build tension to a shattering climax. What cinema goers made of this in the 30s, I can only imagine. The 'Times' said at the time, 'A miracle has come to the screen.' Watch it and marvel. Saw it first in 1975 on some German TV channel and was hooked immediately, afterwards I saw this movie around 12 times in cinemas and nowadays I have a videotape which I watch at least once a year - this movie is excellent in every aspect (direction, acting, cut, musical score...). The sets are outstanding and very impressive, the idea of a devastating world war starting in the late thirties seems like prophecy for a 1936 film, the dictator of "Everytown" is pure Mussolini and Raymond Massey is just charming, believable and ideally cast as "the hero". The positive tone towards technology and progress is quite refreshing by todays usually pessimistic standards - especially the finishing scene which always brings a tear or two to my eyes, even after watching the film so many times.

This movie is good on TV but it was made for the big screen, so if you have an opportunity to see it in some cinema. please do, it's overwhelming. I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. (" no private airplanes". The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill. H.G. Wells in 1936 was past his prime and the books of his that will survive were long gone by. He was coming to the end of his life and he was confronted to his dream gone sour. At the very beginning of the 20th century he defended the idea that the world was doomed because the evolution of species, natural biology, on one side, and Marxism, market economy on the other side, were necessarily leading to the victory of the weaker over the stronger due to the simple criterion of number. The weaker were the mass of humanity and the stronger were the minority elite. He defended then a strict eugenic policy with the elimination of all those who were in a way or another weakening the human race. First of all the non-Caucasian, with the only exception of the Jews who would disappear thanks to mixed marriages. Then, within the Caucasian community all those who were not healthy, the alcoholics, the mentally disabled, all those who were genetically disabled, etc. That was not Hitler. That was H.G. Wells and that was not after the first world war. That was more than ten years before. And twenty years before the first world war he had published The Time Machine that defended the idea that the human "race", left to its own means and due to the vaster cosmological evolution of life on earth, would see the differentiation of the human "race" into two "species": the working class would become a subterranean laborious species and the bourgeoisie would become an idle surface species. The point was in the novel that the surface sophisticated and weak idle species was the prey of the other species who were the predators. Wells was convinced humanity was in danger and politicians were supposed to stop this evolution by imposing a strict eugenic policy. The first countries to follow this injunction were the Scandinavian countries who were also the last to drop it only very recently for some of them. The film here proposes a vision of 2036 with a world government that is absolutely dictatorial in the fact that there is no election, no parliament, no really democratic institution, only peace imposed by military conquest, and the government is dominated by one man or at the most one man and his few councilors. And in that future world all, absolutely all human beings are Caucasians. Wells was able to imagine humanity being completely white by 2036. Amazing. Wells envisaged some kind of a rebellion but that would be short lived and lead to nothing at all. The last sentences are the vision of this white civilization conquering the whole universe when contemplating the sky and its stars and planets. Frightening. And that was produced in 1936. All the more frightening since nowhere the slightest mention of Hitlerism, fascism, Japanese imperialism or Stalinism can be found. But it is essential to have that film in a good restored edition because it is crucial to have a full vision of H.G. Wells. We are obviously very far away from the Brave New World of absolute "democratic" social selection, or the Animal Farm of the dictatorship of the porcine proletariat, or the 1984 of the abstract mediatic dictatorship of Big Brother. This vision is at least just as much frightening as the three others. And I only want to compare Wells with the British science fiction writers of his days. It would be unfair to go beyond. This reveals that in England in these first three decades of the 20th century there was a tremendous fear among intellectuals: the fear that the future would only be somber, bleak and in the form of an impasse of some kind.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines The first 2 parts seek to reduce to absurdity the rise of wasteful wars and rule by nationalist barbarians. The 3rd part speculates that progress and exploration toward the moon and beyond is the key to ensuring a meaningful use of human talents and resources. It has speeches that some viewers dismiss as naive or bombastic but that make others tingle with excitement. It depicts a space gun/launcher and a helicopter, along with inventive mass communication devices, elevators, flat screen panels, and wireless intercoms. It's probably incorrect about windowless buildings in the future. But it portrays a child-like vision of boundless scientific/technological investigation.

To me, it seems like a movie about a group of rational minded thinkers guided by a Spinozean-like morality in their quest to immortalize themselves and live ethically through scientific advancement and a unified world government. The pro-progress characters (such as the two Cabals) believe humanity could 'live forever' by preserving our experiments and progress for future generations, always standing on our humanity as if on the shoulders of giants.

Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001: A Space Odyssey) suggested this film to Stanley Kubrick as an example of an excellent SF movie. Kubrick hated it and said he would never watch another movie based on Clarke's suggestions (source: Clarke's special millennial introduction to his 2001 novel). Though the late Clarke kept suggesting it at the top of his list whenever someone asked him about the best SF movies. It has a beautiful Menzies art design, but mediocre special effects (esp. the toy tanks).

I personally loved it and think it excellently captures the zeitgeist of modernity. It is a bit naive about the plausibility of creating a society without crime for an extended period of time. It also seems implausible about the inevitability of progress. It seems to me we could just as easily go right back to the dark ages or at least become so stagnant in science that we kill ourselves off through overpopulation or through our inability to escape the next major natural disaster. But it nicely portrays the importance of taking risks against public and nanny outrage for potential threats of space accidents and deaths. It challenges us to choose the side of progress over petty desires for safety or comfort or happiness:

CABAL: "Too much {rest} and too soon, and we call it death. But for MAN no rest and no ending. He must go on--conquest beyond conquest. This little planet and its winds and ways, and all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him, and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time--still he will be beginning."

CABAL: "If we are no more than animals--we must snatch at our little scraps of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more--than all the other animals do--or have done." {He points out at the stars.} "It is that--or this? All the universe--or nothingness..." (quotes from screenplay).

If this sounds like a rationalization for devoting all of society to progress, then the council members (of the world government) will seem like technocrats. But actually those "technocrats" allow their citizens to become artisans or pursue other passions freely, and they would have to be suppressed by government bans, laws against science and experiment, and other mandates and restrictive uses of power that would turn their critics into tyrants.

In fact a huge group of rebels in the plot feel belittled by all the council's developments of science and technology, so they try to put a stop to progress and an end the council's freedom to experiment. The progress oriented council will not suppress the free speech of the rebels though, only preparing its 'peace gas' in times of emergency and merely wanting the freedom and space to pursue its progress.

So it's also a story about the freedom to do science, just as much as it's about the wonders of progress. Many people in our society would actually agree with some of these basic premises, except in cases of social bias (many want to ban cloning, for example) or naturalism (some don't want us to progress freely, and would rather we just become extinct in due time while enslaved to the earth) or fear/reason (some believe we aren't ready for advanced science/technology since we might destroy ourselves). But Cabal (the president of the council) has an answer to the problem of danger: "Our {scientific} revolution did not abolish death or danger. It simply made death and danger worth while" (screenplay). If scientists behaved in a way that H.G. Wells was confident they would in the future, history wouldn't quite have turned out the way it did in Things To Come. Were almost 80 years past the point that Wells wrote The Shape Of Things To Come on which this film is based and no closer to the world he describes than before, in some ways farther away.

Though such well known players as Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke are in the cast, they're more caricatures than real characters. It's the main weakness with the film, it's devoted to Wells's philosophy of science will solve all problems and the rest of us are backward fools.

Massey's characters, two generations of the same family holds that supremely optimistic view. Cedric Hardwicke is a skeptic who feels man is rushing too far forward. And Ralph Richardson is a warlord arisen from the destruction of another Thirty Years War fought with modern weapons. By the way as the atomic bomb had not been invented, poison gas was deemed to be weapon that almost destroys mankind.

According to Wells, science and conquest can never mix. Scientists as a group are far too above the world of politics to engage in such things. In Wells's lifetime scientists certainly fled the rightwing fascistic governments of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same folks however in order to defeat them, subordinated themselves to the Allies and fashioned the atomic weapons that ushered in the modern age. If they behaved as Wells would have liked them to, someone like Albert Einstein would have headed a junta of scientists who would have established a new order after World War II.

Wells got it wrong both in time and in development. He apparently never envisioned the computer as well as atomic power. Computer programmers are far more likely to be our rulers in a brave new world than scientists at the moment. Still Things To Come, aided by the direction of William Cameron Menzies and the sets created offer an interesting glimpse into the mind of H.G. Wells, certainly a respected thinker of his time though he didn't quite get right the shape of Things To Come. This sci-fi masterpiece has too many flaws after the editors had butchered it after its opening in 1936. Visually it is a wonder to behold, but the script allows too many intellectual speeches about war and progress.This gets very corny when the actors are given to recite a lot of high minded messages at all times.Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke,both great actors,come off as quite a pair of fanatics. Ralph Richardson is very good as the "The Boss" a megalomaniac warlord. The prediction of World War II was very eerie considering that the world was on the brink of the most devastating conflict in human history at the time. I'm sure glad that war didn't turn out as it did in the movie. There are some visually stunning montage sequences bridging the leaps of time between the movie's different episodes. Although its not as entertaining as I hoped it would be,this movie sticks in your mind long after you've seen it. Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).

Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.

9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal. Things to Come is indeed a classic work of speculative fiction; both an essay on the destructive nature of war and the terrors of progress. It makes some surprising accurate depictions of the war that was to follow a few years later, but is woefully naive in it's Utopian ideals.

Raymond Massey, Cedric Hardwicke, and Ralph Richardson make up a fine cast, although the drama is played more as a stage piece, than a work of cinema. There are grandiose, if somewhat stilted speeches, often delivered as if the actor is trying to reach the back of the theater. However, there are some profound words there. Is technology the savior of mankind, or the instrument of its destruction? The film is a visual feast, if one can detach oneself from the age of the effects. Sure, Hollywood is more sophisticated today, but rarely as inventive. For the imaginative, the third act is a treat: a world with underground cities, massive deco bombers, space cannons, gyro copters, and secret organizations of scientist saviors. It has all of the makings of a sci-fi pulp adventure, but instead uses the trappings for a philosophical exercise.

Things to Come and Metropolis were the hallmarks of neolithic Hollywood science fiction cinema. They are operatic in scope, and visually inspiring. Technology has long left them behind, but their ideas still burst forth. There is an artistry there, one with more heart and emotion than the computer generated mass-produced cinema of today. These films are the products of artisans, not industrialists. Amazing effects for a movie of this time. A primer of the uselessness of war and how war becomes a nurturer of itself.

A wonderful thing about this movie is it is now public domain and available at archive.org. No charge, no sign up necessary. Watch it in one sitting and you will be propelled.

I plan to share this flick with as many people as possible as I had never heard of it before and I am a hard core sci fi fan.

I would like to see how others react to this movie.

Watch it.

Rate it.

Tell us what you think. H.G. Wells story the shape of things to come was made into a movie in 1935.very well made science fiction tale about a war that lasts for decades.great cast includes;Raymond Massey(arsenic and old lace) Sir Cedric Hardwick(ghost of Frankenstein)Ralph Richardson(time bandits) and Margaretta Scott.early glimpses of helicopters,holograms,a rocket ship,and futuristic cities.this film was ahead of its time.directed by William Cameron Menzies(invaders from mars)its very enjoyable much like the earlier movie metropolis(1927)but avoid the so called sequel the shape of things to come,that was made in 1979. this movie has nothing to do with the original.h.g. wells like Jules Verne had a vision for the future with his stories.a classic science fiction movie.10 out of 10 I have, "Things to Come," on D.V.D. and it's very clear compared to my VHS version. The audio is fair, but can be hard to understand at times.

I liked the movie so much that I searched for a copy of the book and found it.It gave details of why some things happened. The best things about the movie are the small things that I didn't notice at first. Such as, John Cabal playing with a toy airplane at a Christmass party, like it was a dive bomber, out dateing sea power by naming a battleship,"Dinosuar." Ships sunk by air-power, an undeclared enemy sneak attack by airplanes. Swept flying wing planes. Strong rolls for the women through the entire movie.

There are more, see the movie to enjoy them. With such actors as Ralph Richardson, Raymond Massey, Cedrick Hardwicke, and Margaretta Scott, how can you go wrong. Very unusual scenics, especially the modern ones. The realization of the modern machinery is very effective. Here you have ray-gun blasts from building vehicles that help clear the area, so new structures can be made. Although she's much younger in this film, It's not very hard to figure out who the future Mrs. Pumphrey from the BBC series, All Creatures Great and Small is going to be! Really effective "reappearance" of both Raymond Massey and Ralph Richardson. The musical score is by the renowned Swiss composer, Artur Honegger and it is also unusual. For the time (1936) it looks like they used really, large sets or the effects make it seem that way. Lastly, it's a really good story. This movie is difficult to watch in our fast-paced culture of the 21st century, but it is worth it for the messages that it conveys, chiefly the consequences and ramifications of technology upon society, specifically when that technology is used for warfare.

This movie presents a full circle cycle of dehumanization and rehumanization as influenced by the advent of technology and the subsequent deconstruction of civilization and therefore serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of technology, but as the circle completes itself, familiar themes and sentiments pop up again to present self-serving rather than self-destructive ways that humanity may utilize technology.

Brilliant for it's time, the picture and sound quality may pose a challenge for some, but as a landmark in the history, development, and evolution of the sci-fi genre, it is a must. In the end, free will and free choice are once again posed to humanity as a means for controlling our own destiny rather than having it served to us by someone else or indeed, the state of

society itself, as shaped by world events.

Those who are downtrodden by what life throws their way sometimes tend to remain so, but yet there is always a glimmer of hope and continuity that remains, as this film posits.

As far as qualifying as sci-fi, one of the biggest common demoninators of that genre is it's speculative nature. It asks us the questions, what if these events happened this way, and what effect would it have on society or the individuals within it? How would we react?

As far as influence, this film projects those speculative sciences that make sci-fi as unique as it is and keeps us asking those important questions. SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.

PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.

One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.

The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.

The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.

Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.

This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark. This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but "1930s" American) make it difficult.

Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called "Everytown". It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.

The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.

Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.

If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period. this was the most costly film, when produced. Sir Alexander Korda and H.G. Wells were both distressed by its poor ratings---for good reason. it was and remains far ahead of its time. aside from the seemingly poor direction, probably editing, at the very beginning, the work moves along to a stunning conclusion.

whether its Sir Ralph Richardson's 'Boss' role, or even better, his wife's, Sir Cedric's, as adversary to space-faring, Raymond Massey's 'John Cabal' center role---all deliver mind-boggling performances.

the scene with mr. Korda's incomparable set, of the small girl-child, running out to an absolutely 'never-to-be-matched' scene, commenting 'Life just keeps getting lovelier and lovelier'? that swiftly brings tears to any parent/grandparent. this is not a film for the young--unless 'experienced' and rather those who have seen 'the horror' it opposes.

sure, the 'phony-parachuting', looks hokey---while using a 'magnetic-cannon', now termed 'mass-driver' may be viewed as ridiculous, vs. rockets---give Sir Korda a break--Mr. Wells made that choice. and at +/- $8 million, this film went way beyond 'over-budget'---so he concentrated on what he could manage.

the true power of this Greatest of cinema rests in 'John Cabal's' final statement of human destiny---his friend 'Passworthy' doubts the wisdom of space-faring, saying, 'We're such little animals.' John Cabal's proper response is,(paraphrased) 'Yes, little animals, and if that is all we are, we must live and die as such.' they are standing under a large astronomical telescope. he sweeps his hand over the night sky. 'Yet we may have all the Universe, or nothing.'---then the final chorus breaks in---'Which shall it be?'---this is not 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner'---anything you may consider 'Great'---this is the Real Thing.

i remind all of Steven Hawking's most recent address, upon his latest 'Medal of Honor'---'Humanity must leave Earth, or die.'---the very core of this work---i love 'standard entertainment'---yet this 'relic', for the wise viewer, offers far more. 'Which Shall It Be?' be in the proper 'mood'---whatever that takes---this will take your breath away---i 'guarontee'---overall, for humanity? the most significant of cinema.

since posting, i note many have commented on the poor 'media-quality' of 'surviving' examples. in the 80's i developed a 'proprietary' 'colorization' process which required a 'clean' original. this led me to Michael Korda, who sadly noted all were gone---so we must relish what remains---'sad but true?' Things to Come is an historic film. Along with Metropolis (1927), it stands as one of the first great science fiction spectacles. It is also one of the first doomsday movies. It is remarkable how the filmmakers predict the start of the Second World War within a year, and even, in a subtle way, the year it would end in the real world. But then the film departs from reality, depicting a world ravaged by war (only substitute poison gas for nuclear weapons which of course did not exist in 1936).

The last half hour of the film is an incredible sight, making groundbreaking use of models and matte paintings -- later to become staples of the science fiction genre. It is sad that, after Things to Come, Sci-fi would become identified with cheaply made b-movies, a stereotype that wouldn't be broken until 2001:A Space Odyssey more than 30 years later. If they'd stuck with the quality of the effects in this film, things would have been very different in Hollywood.

Raymond Massey and some of his co-stars play multiple roles in this film, to good effect. Massey plays a great "Doctor Who"-like role as a pilot from an advanced (for 1970) civilization who tries to win over the populace of a devastated country ruled by a simple-minded warlord (a very effective performance by Ralph Richardson). Ultimately, the storyline covers 100 years. But that's a big problem with this film -- there really isn't a cohesive storyline.

Perhaps in such an episodic film -- somewhat reminiscent of Intolerance, actually -- it's hard to have a conventional plot, but I felt more could have been made of the material, and although the visuals in the final third of the picture are indeed stunning and worth the price of admission ... the plot is nonexistent and the movie itself suddenly ends just as it is getting interesting. Maybe the producers were thinking of another future sci-fi innovation: a sequel?

Things to Come is a film every serious sci-fi buff should see at least once. Unlike Metropolis, however, it might not bear repeated viewings. There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .

THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later

That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.

What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.

Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not "cheating" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as "The Lord of the Rings". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.

Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).

Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.

The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.

The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he "saw". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.

One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.

The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.

Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.

David More than twenty years before Peter Jackson's visionary adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, there was this 1978 animated effort from director Ralph Bakshi. An ambitious and reasonably faithful version of the story, this has sadly been rather over-shadowed by the Jackson trilogy. Indeed, many reviewers here on the IMDb (mainly those who saw the newer version first) seem to be fiercely unkind to this version.... but if one applies a little common sense, and takes into consideration the time when it was made and the technical possibilities that existed at that time, then they will realise that this is a pretty good film. Indeed, it was shortly after seeing this animated movie back in the early '80s that I sought out Tolkien's book and immediately became a lifelong fan of these richly detailed Middle Earth adventures. So, in some respects, I owe this film a degree of acknowledgement as the film which shaped my literary tastes forever.

Sauron, the Dark Lord of Middle Earth, forges an all-powerful ring that gives him incredible power. Following a great battle during which Sauron is defeated, the ring falls into possession of a king named Isildur…. but instead of destroying it he foolishly chooses to keep it. For centuries the ring passes from hand to hand, eventually coming into the possession of a hobbit named Frodo Baggins who lives in a peace-loving community known as The Shire. Frodo learns from a wizard named Gandalf that his ring is in fact The One Ring, the very same that was forged by Sauron all those centuries ago, and that its master is once again searching for it in order to restore his dark power over the entire land. Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to protect the ring with three other hobbit companions, but every step of the way they are hunted by Sauron's ring-wraiths, the Black Riders. There follow many adventures, during which a company of nine adventurers is formed to guide the ring to the only place where it can be "unmade" – Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The film concludes with Frodo and his best friend Sam on the borders of Mordor, closing ever nearer to their horrifying destination. Meanwhile Gandalf and the other members of the company fight off a huge army of orcs at the legendary fortress of Helm's Deep.

This version covers just over half of the original book. A second instalment was planned to bring the story to an end, but was sadly never completed. While the ending feels abrupt, it does at least end at a sensible point in the story. One has to feel a little frustration and regret that no sequel exists in which we might follow these animated heroes to their eventual goal. The animation is passable, with a nice variety of locales and characters presented in interesting detail. The music by Leonard Rosenman is suitably stirring and fits in appropriately with the epic narrative. The voice-overs are decent, too, especially John Hurt as Aragorn and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum. On the other hand, Michael Scholes - who provides the voice for Sam - is rather campy and goofy, which is not well suited to the character. The Lord Of The Rings is a commendable attempt to visualise the staggering book on which it is based. As an animated film from 1978, this is pretty good--generally well above the standard of the days when Disney hadn't done anything good in years (and Tolkien cared little for Disney anyway). It gets major points for innovative and careful camera work, applying cinematic techniques with relative success. The much-maligned rotoscoping actually works pretty well, especially with the Ringwraiths, and the opening narration. However, it is so drastically overused--possibly as a money-saving technique--that it detracts from the overall effect. The same technique that makes wraiths spooky and otherworldly doesn't fare so well in the Prancing Pony.

As for the adaptation of the story, it's actually quite good. We lose little bits here and there, minor details such as the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the Gaffer and the Sackville-Bagginses. We compress a few characters, such as revising Legolas as one of Elrond's household and an old friend of Aragorn's, but that's a rather wise decision for film. In books you have room to include the references to the larger world of the Elves and Middle-Earth's vast history. In film, you trade that for visuals and sound that convey the same elements in a different way. Nothing critical is truly lost here, and although I have minor quibbles about some of the changes, I'm generally pretty happy with it.

If only the dratted writers had managed to remember Saruman's name--he's frequently referred to as Aruman, a decision probably made to make him more distinct from similarly-named Sauron; it took me a second viewing before I was certain I hadn't misheard it. It's also annoying that Boromir is a bloody stage viking, and irritable from the start. However, Gandalf is excellent, and most of the rest of the voicework is excellent. If only John Hurt weren't too old to play Aragorn; I love his voice.

Of course, with the film ending at the midpoint of the story, there's a vast disappointment built in. What makes it far, far worse is the altogether miserable job done by the Rankin & Bass crew on the sequel. That they were permitted to do Return of the King after butchering The Hobbit remains a huge mystery; they seem more interested in bad songs than in proper storytelling. For all its faults, this film's heart is solidly in place and it tries very hard to accomplish a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that the upcoming series of films keeps as true to its vision... Godard once said a way to criticize a movie is to just make one, and probably the strongest kind that could be made about Ralph Bakshi's take on Tolkien's magnum opus the Lord of the Rings, has actually been made by Peter Jackson. The recent trilogy, to me, aren't even total masterpieces, but they are given enough room with each book to breath in all the post-modern techniques crossed with classical storytelling to make them very good, sweeping entertainments.

But as one who has not read the books, I end up now looking upon the two versions, live-action (albeit partly animated in its big visual effects way) and animated (albeit partly done with actual live action as the framework) in relation to just the basic story, not even complete faithfulness to the books. And with Bakshi's version, it's almost not fair in a way, as what we do see is really not the complete vision, not what Jackson really had (probably final cut). Robbed of Return of the King's big climactic rush of the story, and with the other two parts becoming rushed, I ended up liking it more for what it did within its limitations, though as such those same limitations make it disappointing.

What's interesting too, after seeing the Jackson films first- which I also slightly regret being that I might've reacted to this differently when I was younger and prior to five years ago- is that the basic elements of the story never get messed up with. Everything that is really needed to tell the Fellowship of the Ring story is actually pretty much intact, and if anything what was probably even more gigantic and epic in Tolkien's book is given some clarity in this section. The actors playing the parts of the hobbits and the other heroes, are more or less adequate for the parts, with a few parts standing out (John Hurt as Aragorn and William Squire as Gandalf).

The lack of extra characterization does end up making things seem a little face-value for those who've not even seen the other films or read the books and can't put them into context. But there is some level of interest always with the characters, and here there's a more old-fashioned sensibility amid the large aura of it being more. This is not a garden variety Disney adaptation- warts and all, this is a Bakshi film, with his underground animation roots colliding with the mythical world of Middle Earth.

And what Bakshi and his animation team bring to the film is one that ends up giving what is on screen, in all its abbreviated form, its hit or miss appeal. Along with being not totally complete as a film, or as stories, the form of the film is an experiment, to see if something can be entirely rotoscoped. The results end up bringing what seems now to be retro, but at the time of course was something that was a rough, crazy inspiration on the part of the filmmakers. Might it have been better with more traditional drawn animation? In some parts, yeah; it does become a little noticeable, as was also the case in Bakshi's American Pop, that the main characters move in such ways that are a little shaky, like some kind of comic-book form done in a different way. Still, there's much I admired in what was done.

The orcs, for example, I found to be really amazing in they're surreal surroundings. They're maybe the best part of the combination of the animation on top of the live-action, especially during parts where there isn't battle footage (that's really the real hit-or-miss section, as there isn't continuity from the good and bad rotoscoping), and the chiaroscuro comes through with big shapes on top of horseback. It's creepy in a good way. And the backgrounds, while also very rough and sometimes too sketchy, are beautiful with the mixtures and blasts of colors together. It's almost something for art-film buffs as much as for the ring-nuts.

So, how would I recommend this animated take on the Lord of the Rings? I don't know, to tell the truth. It's certainly a good notch above the other Tolkien animated film I've seen, the Hobbit (and I've yet to see the animated ROTK), and there is some real artistry going on. There's also some stilted dialog, an all-too-rushed Two Towers segment with the most intriguing character Gollum being reduced to maybe two scenes in all. And seeing something as fragmented like this ends up only reinforcing the completeness of the more recent films.

If you're a fan of the books contemplating checking this out, I would say it's worth a chance, even if it's one of those chances where you watch for forty minutes and then decide whether to stop it or not. As for it fitting into Bakshi's other films I've seen it's an impressive ambitious and spotty achievement, where as with Lynch's Dune it's bound to draw a dark, mordor-like line in the sand between those who hate it passionately and those who don't. I don't. First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.

Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort). I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.

In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.

Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.

The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype. First of all no adaptation is ever as good as the book, especially when you're dealing with master writer like Tolkien. This ADAPTATION wonderfully synthesizes Tolkien's universe with 1970s psychedelia, aesthetics, and liberal culture. Yes - the animation and background painting is sometimes a little "rough" in its technical execution but it's beautiful none the less, and very evocative in terms of giving a unique "sense of place" to each of the scenes. Beyond the absolute uniqueness in imagery is the absolutely outstanding voice acting - acting that's FAR superior to the acting in the new live action movies. And while the cell animation might not be the most "technically proficient" animation it superbly captures the expressive bodily and facial gestures of the acting while at once not forgetting to be subtle and nuanced. The background paintings vary from traditional "fantasy" motif to outright abstraction, but the transition to abstracted settings is always motivated by the narrative and contributes greatly to the themes of the film. If you're a person who has to have extensive computer rendering in a film so that everything is visualized for you then I can see how you might not like this movie but if you enjoy superior acting, transcendental imagery, and JRR Tolkien then this film is a must see. My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.

Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy. I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does. Peter Jacksons version(s) are better films overall from objective point of view. That being said, they are not my favorite screen versions of Lord Of The Rings, and let me explain why.

Firstly, the acting of the on-screen characters is just too ordinary and uninspiring with Jackson's LOTR. The whole cast is too run of the mill. "Are you claiming that those silly cartoon characters of Ralph Bakshi version are better actors than real people?" one could ask. Well, they are not really silly(save for Hobbits, later about them) and they certainly pack more personality than Jackson's party - even with much more limited dialogue time. And that is because of superior _voice_ acting of the Bakshi's LOTR. Take Aragorn for example. In this version his voice is deep and charismatic with full of authority(Aragorn the lord)and with a seasoned rasp(Aragorn the ranger). This is due to John Hurt's brilliant voice acting. Compare that to Viggo Mortensen's rather high pitched sound with no soul and the duel gets quickly uneven: Hurt beats Mortensen hands down.

And then there is Gandalf. Probably the most dominating(and the most popular) character in the whole saga. In this Bakshi version Gandalf(William Squire) is a real wizard. And by that I don't mean he shoots bolts from his fingertips(he does not), but his presence is just captivating. He is a mystical, powerful and can switch from gentle old man to a scary person with ease. Add to that his looks: Tall, old as the ancient oak, beard long as his body, sharp eyes, wizardy hook nose and of course, the classical wizard hat. A Perfect Gandalf, just like in the books. Ian McKellen's Gandalf in the other hand, is simply just too boring. He looks too human, sounds too human, acts too human and wears no hat or wields no sword. Yes a sword. In this Bakshi version Gandalf scores couple of bloody orc kills with his sword(as he did in the books). And those are stylish slow motion kills. Gandalf is not a power to be messed with. And it must be noted, that while I'm sad to say this, the great Christopher Lee didn't bring Saruman alive. Fraser Kerr in this movie did, even with a very limited screen time and lines.

Before I move completely to visual aspects of the movie, it must be mentioned that the voice acting and the general presenation of the Orcs are also superior to Jackson's pretendeous bad guys. Bakshi's orcs taunt their enemies(or each other) constantly with growls, screams and nasty language. They are more believable as monsters and are more faithful to the book in my opinion. And finally, the Black Riders - or the Nazgul. Those ultimate bad guys are scary ghosts in this one - not just some riders wearing black. And they speak with haunting voice, which mesmerizes their victim. My favorite scene in the film is when the Nazgul are chasing Frodo near the river. While Peter Jackson couldn't do anything but show the riders simply chasing the party, Bakshi throws in a nightmarish dream with some cool slow motion scenes and thundering sky.

But as much I like this film more than Jackson's, the latter are, if only technically, still better. And that is because of some key visuals. As you know Bakshi LOTR features a mixture of animated characters(all hobbits and the main cast) and real actors covered with paint. I don't really have a problem using real people in animation this way, but they just don't fit very well with traditional cartoon figures. This is especially true with humans(Riders of Rohan, tavern people etc.) Orcs are different matter, since they are meant to look very distinctive from other characters. Orcs, while played by humans with animation mix, look far superior to Jacksons version. They have brownish-green skin, shiny red eyes, flat face and pointed teeth.

Biggest screw up in this films visuals, howerver, are the Hobbits. While I prefer almost every character in Bakshi version compared to Jackson, the latter has clearly superior Hobbits, in fact they are perfect. With Bakshi you get some irritating and rather poorly drawn humanoid Disney bambies. And you are forced to spend a lot of movie time with them, so be warned. Again, the voice acting is OK with them too, but the actors mouths cannot save the "immersion damage" made by these little weasels. Well, I never really liked those halflings anyway.

General failures in the Bakshi script are well known. Limited playing time(with limited budget) and a lot of missing scenes. So while this film covers nearly half of the story, it doesn't do it in extensive detail compared to Jackson's version.

In a summary the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR has a superior:

-overall atmosphere (it feels more like Middle-Earth) -overall voice acting -music (I really dig the fantasy score by Kont & Rosenman) -Gandalf -Aragorn (One of the John Hurt's finest roles) -King Theoden -Orcs -Black Riders -Elrond (He's not some fairy hippie in this one!)

While Jackson version is better:

-because it covers the whole story -overall visuals and special effects -Gollum/Smeagol -Balrog -Hobbits

Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, even with it's well known shortcomings, is one of the best animation films ever made and it captures the atmosphere of Tolkien's fantasy world very well, if not perfectly. I'll give it a score of 8½ out of 10. When a small hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a magic ring from his uncle, the wizard Gandalf investigates and discovers that the ring is an ancient creation of an evil dark lord. Should the ring end up back in his hands, he will regain his power and destroy Middle Earth. Frodo and his loyal friends set out on a a quest to destroy the ring with a band of warriors. This is an underrated adaption of the classic novels as it only covers the first half of the story. Regardless, this is an epic and wonderfully animated film.

The animation is superbly done with rotoscope, which is tracing over live action footage. Ralph Bakshi worked well with the low budget he was given. The film also boasts a grand music score by Leonard Rosenman that fits every scene. There are a few plot holes with the script, but that has to be excused, considering the original deal was to make the book trilogy into two films, much had to crammed in the first one. My biggest gripe is some of the character design, Samwise was a bit too goofy, while the other hobbits act completely normal. The other characters are actually well written for the screen, and the voice actors do a great job, I was pleased that Legolas is actually a bit more helpful to the plot. The rotoscoped orcs are more comical than frightening, while the ringwraiths are eerie and nightmarish.

Another problem is that the evil wizard Saruman is called Aruman, thanks to the writers. Overall, I think a little more money and better writers would have done this a lot of justice, but there is something charming about it. Ralph Bakshi made a valiant effort of making screen adaption of these classic stories. The film suffers terribly from being overshadowed by the live action films, but it's still a great movie for animation lovers of all ages. With the release of Peter Jackson's famed "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.

The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.

This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.

The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as "Aruman".

In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of "The Fellowship of the Ring" to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers". The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.

Ralph Bakshi's version of "The Lord of the Rings" isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this "first great tale" of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel. I remember watching this late at night on black and white TV, long before a live-action version was so much as a twinkle in Peter Jackson's eye... and being very impressed. Finally getting my hands this week on a VHS copy that was being thrown away (and isn't that just par for the course..?) I had the chance to revisit this film, and found that it still stands up quite well, although it's not quite the success that memory had painted.

I have to confess to a certain bias here. Some reviewers announce themselves as confirmed Jackson-lovers, others as Jackson-haters; I'm not exactly either. I was a devotee of the BBC Radio adaptation by Brian Sibley originally broadcast in 1981, and instantly recognised the voice of Gollum here -- Peter Woodthorpe would reprise this performance almost note-perfect for the radio three years later.

I must say, however, that where I found Jackson's films an increasingly indulgent disappointment, the Bakshi version, for all that it has been cut to the bone, is actually more accurate. Yes, there are the usual, understandable changes (here it is Legolas rather than Arwen who is substituted for Glorfindel as the Elf sent from Rivendell to meet the party) and there is a great deal of telescoping of the action. (The only exception to the latter, as others have remarked, is the oddly extended sequence at the ford of Rivendell, where the Ringwraiths, having demonstrated a chilling ability to freeze and draw back Frodo in mid-flight -- which they deploy again when he defies them after crossing the river -- then for some unexplained reason simply chase after him in a prolonged straight gallop, which is initially nightmarish but pointless, plot-wise, and definitely goes on too long.) I would also agree that the Balrog is unsatisfactory, due partly to bad animation, and that Gandalf windmills his arms too much.

But having watched both approaches to the film, I feel more than ever that the animated route is the one to take. In a tale that is half-myth (oddly enough, one thing that is included is a snippet of Aragorn's story of Beren and Luthien) the extreme literalism required by live-action filming, where everything from monsters to mail-shirts has to be created in detail to appear on camera, is counter-productive: latex-faced (or CGI) monsters are less monstrous than sketchily-drawn shapes, heroic costumes tend to look rather silly worn on real bodies, and hobbits or dwarfs with non-human body proportions are easy to animate but hard to film convincingly. Many reviewers have cited the sniffing Ringwraith in the woods, with its crippled, half-human movements, as one of the scariest moments in the film -- it certainly frightened me silly when I saw it for the first time alone in the dark!

The extreme stylisation of the introduction (plus a voice-over done with great skill and economy to sum up the back-story in a few sentences) works very well to depict an almost mythical era, and the change to the comic-book rusticism of the Shire -- I particularly like the Proudfeet -- corresponds effectively to the similar change in tone of Tolkien's prose. I did feel that there were some missed opportunities where the potential of animation could have been used to great effect: Gandalf threatening Bilbo with his true power in the opening scenes, Bilbo seeming to become a Gollum-like creature under the influence of Ring-lust at Rivendell, and Galadriel's famous temptation speech all were drawn more or less straight, where it would have been trivial to distort the scene to reflect the hobbits' changed perceptions. But generally speaking the changes in detail and palette -- firelight hues at Bree, bright colours re-emerging at Rivendell and in the Fangorn clearing, dirty greys and browns for Moria and the desolate lands -- work well to reflect the mood of the various episodes, where a live-action approach simply doesn't allow you to blur the background or sketch in a stylised setting.

As a fan I didn't care for either Jackson's or Bakshi's depiction of Lothlorien -- again, I feel that the radio soundscape was the best evocation I've come across of a beautiful, slightly uncanny woodland paradise caught out of time -- and I feel that Bakshi got the elven singing at this point pretty badly wrong, but I do like the little montage at this point showing the various members of the Company relaxing together after their travails in Moria. Aragorn giving a hobbit-fencing-lesson here is as charming (and equally uncanonical) a spectacle as Boromir engaging with the hobbits in Hollin in the Jackson version.

The depiction of Aragorn as convincingly weatherworn Ranger is good throughout this film (Viggo Mortensen's scruffy Jesus look really didn't work for me), although it would have been interesting to see how they planned to 'clean up' the character in the second half for Gondor's benefit. John Hurt, unsurprisingly, gives a sterling vocal performance, as does a resonant William Squire in the part of Gandalf. The hobbits are, I suspect, intended to reflect contemporary youth as audience-identification figures: I find the animated style (their proportions are much more 'cartoonish' than those of the human characters) works well to differentiate them, and the whole 'hairy feet' thing as drawn here comes across as much more plausible than in more literal depictions, including much fan art.

Personally I have less objection to Boromir as Viking -- he was always a fairly bludgeoning type -- than to beardy-Aragorn (illogical: they were both Numenorians, after all), although I am clearly in a minority here!

The big flaw in this picture is always going to be the fact that it was an unfinished project, with a bizarre tacked-on voice-over ending attempting to resolve matters. A pity; it would have been interesting, not to mention less frustrating, to see what Bakshi planned to make of Shelob and Minas Tirith, never mind the Dead... There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.

(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life) I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!

I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards.

Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!

A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings. One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those "nothing to do days". i will see the new one and i hope it is better!

I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time the other night. I've been a fan of Tolkien's work for about 4 years now, ever since I got out of high school. I didn't grow up on this movie...perhaps my mother kept me away from it. It's definitely not for children. Not that it's bad in a graphic sense, but that the themes would go right over most 10 year olds heads. Overall, the animation was excellent considering this was made in 1978/1979. I thought the story followed the book fairly well in a loose sense. But I am bothered that Bashki didn't just add another 40 minutes or so and tack on the Return of the King parts. That would've made it the ultimate movie. I was bothered by it's abrupt end, and then when I heard Return of the King sucked, I was bothered even more. Too bad it wasn't one great animation film. It might have garnered a higher vote from me. I give it a 7. I can only hope Peter Jackson will do the books justice with the new live action LOTR. If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.

Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.

It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !! It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.

Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors. Brilliant movie. The drawings were just amazing. Too bad it ended before it begun. I´ve waited 21 years for a sequel, but nooooo!!! Well, I get used after awhile to read comments about these movies that don't reflect my experience at all. To me, Amitabh was a better villain here than in some of his most famous movies. He was a die-hard villain, a no-apologies villain. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see him in a role where his villainy isn't sort of undercut in some way.

The kid who played Aryan was probably over his head with this cast. There I think maybe the director could have done better. But, to be honest, the very best part of this movie was Shernaz Patel. She is an unsung heroine, a true veteran thespian who is overqualified for every role she is offered. But I must say I appreciated her contribution greatly as she played Virendra Sahi's wife. She may be given little to do, but she does everything with total conviction. I'm sure she sailed right over the heads of most of the audience.

So if you are in a habit for settling for Bollywood average, you won't get much out of this movie. But if you constantly search for something more, then this might give you some of what you've been missing. Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.

DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.

RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.

AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.

Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.

Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.

Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.

Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.

Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.

Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future. Even though this was a disaster in the box office, It is my favorite film. It gives a powerful message of family. It has a lot of violence and has one song with a bunch of girls in bikinis. Compared to other bollywood films, the action scenes in this movie are more realistic. It is an incredible combination of Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. If you want to see the Indian Godfather, Amitabh portrays that in this film. Don't read reviews by critic, they're just ignorant. This movie has good mix of comedy, romance, drama, and especially action. So if you want to see action more realistic than Main Hoon Na(still good movie), this is the movie. A movie made for contemporary audience. The masses get to see what they want to see. Action, comedy, drama and of course sensuous scenes as well. This is not exactly a movie that one would feel comfortable watching with entire family. It isn't for eyes of children. I had to fast forward quite a number of scenes.

If it is just entertainment you are looking for, then this movie has it all. The songs are catchy. A lavish production, I must add.

However, the message of the movie is not universal. It emphasizes on the idea of karma. That is, if you do good, you will get good. And if you do evil, you will get evil. The fruit of good deeds is good, while the fruit of evil is evil.

In real life, this is not always true. It is well-known that most people do not get justice in this world. While it is true that some evil people do meet with an evil end, there are many who escape. And then, there are many people who do good, and yet in return they meet with a sorry end.

If you don't care about the message, and all you want is an escape from worldly reality, this movie is an entertainer alright. Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.

Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.

The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.

There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover? I have decided to not believe what famous movie critics say. Even though this movie did not get the best comments, this movie made my day. It got me thinking. What a false world this is.

What do you do when your most loved ones deceive you. It's said that no matter how often you feed milk to a snake, it can never be loyal and will bite when given a chance. Same way some people are such that they are never grateful. This movie is about how selfish people can be and how everyone is ultimately just thinking about oneself and working for oneself.

A brother dies inadvertently at the hands of a gangster. The surviving brother decides to take revenge. Through this process, we learn about the futility of this world. Nothing is real and no one is loyal to anyone.

Amitabh gave the performance of his life. The new actor Aryan gave a good performance. The actress who played the wife of Amitabh stole the show. Her role was small but she portrayed her role so diligently that one is moved by her performance. Chawla had really great face expressions but her role was very limited and was not given a chance to fully express herself.

A great movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi. His movies always give some message to the audience. His movies are like novels of Nanak Singh (a Punjabi novelist who's novels always had a purpose and targeted a social evil) because they have a real message for the audience. They are entertaining as well as lesson-giving. Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10. A brilliant portrait of a traitor (Victor McLaglen in Oscar winning performance) who is hounded by his own conscience. McLaglen plays an IRA rouge who betrays his leader to collect a reward during Ireland's Sinn Fein Rebellion. The scenes showing fights and mob actions are very realistic, focusing on the desperation within individuals. The lack of hope for a better future seems to be a fate worse than death.

Director John Ford superbly creates an murky and tense atmosphere, enhanced by the foggy and grimy depiction of the Irish landscape. Max Steiner's dramatic music score adds to the cinematic delight. Oscar Winner also for Best Screenplay, nominated for Best Picture. This is one of Hollywood's Classic. Magnificent and unforgettable, stunningly atmospheric, and brilliantly acted by all.

I really cannot understand what sort of people are panning this masterpiece and giving the preponderance of votes as 8 (and nine ones!)

This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's greatest movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.

Rating: 10. It deserves a 12. This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended. I don't doubt that Victor McLaglen won his Best Actor Oscar for this film by dint of a three way split among the Mutiny on the Bounty leads of Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone who were all in the same race. But The Informer is still a fine film because John Ford wouldn't have gotten his first Best Director Oscar if it wasn't. No split involved in his award.

The movie and the story by Liam O'Flaherty that it is based on involves a poor simpleton of a man named Gypo Nolan who was once a member of the Irish Republican Army. He was cashiered out of it for some imbecilic stunt he pulled and wants back in. He's down to his last pence and if he can't get back in, wants enough for passage to America. There's a twenty pound reward for information leading to the arrest of a former comrade named Frankie McPhillip played by Wallace Ford. In a moment of weakness he goes to the Black and Tan constabulary and informs on McPhillip.

The IRA is pretty anxious to find out who ratted McPhillip out and they're pretty certain it was McLaglen. He hasn't the wit to really cover his own tracks. He does make a feeble effort to implicate another man named Peter Mulligan played by Donald Meek. He also picks up a hanger-on played by J.M. Kerrigan.

The whole action of The Informer takes place in 1922 in Dublin from about six in the evening to early the following morning. Of a necessity it is shot in darkness and shadows, making it possibly the first noir thriller. Had it been done post World War II The Informer would have ranked as a great noir classic, like Odd Man Out or the The Third Man which it bares a lot of resemblance to.

John Ford knew this world very well. He took some time off during the Rebellion and was in Ireland at the time and had a brother who was in the IRA. His real name before having it anglicized was Sean O'Fiernan.

Preston Foster plays the IRA commandant Dan Gallagher. In the book Gallagher is a harder and meaner man than Foster has him here. My guess is that John Ford wanted him as a sympathetic character to give movie fans some rooting interest. He makes it clear that Foster has to eliminate the informer because the Black and Tans will grab him and get quite a bit more out of him and put the whole organization in peril.

The IRA trial scene is the highlight of the film. When Foster asks Donald Meek whether he recognizes the authority of their court, Meek ain't in a position to say no. The King's justice and writ does not run here. It graphically illustrates at that point despite occupation by army troops and constabulary, the British are indeed losing their grip on the population.

Of course The Informer a rather grim story has its John Ford touches, but rather fewer than you would expect. Even as McLaglen is spending his money on a drunken spree, the IRA is constantly in the shadows watching him and counting every farthing.

The Informer is a tale well told about Ireland in a grim and dismal time. Victor McLaglen, the title character of John Ford's THE INFORMER, reminded me of the circus man from Fellini's LA STRADA. Anthony Quinn played the brutish man, who may have even been influenced by the pug-faced, Oscar-winning performance given by McLaglen. Poverty-stricken Dublin is the true-life, atmospheric setting of the picture, which takes place in 1922. Dense fog and a long damp night are the main elements of a story about deep Irish patriotism and the fight of the Irish Republican Army. The conflict of individuality and the cause is what makes THE INFORMER tick. McLaglen's large, simple character just wants to go to America and we're reminded by signs of the price for a ticket frequently. Two different signs become the psychological centerpiece for the drunken Irishman. One is the previous, the other a WANTED sign. Should he do it and get the money to go?

John Ford once famously said, "My name is Ford. I make Westerns." After seeing this film, he obviously could do a heck of a lot more. The serious social issues dealt with here are heartfelt and ones you will find yourself thinking about. And the look of the piece is amazing, consisting of long dark shadows cutting into a miserable Ireland night. Ford was always known for his luminescent, gorgeous cinematography that helped to foresee the conflicts within his characters. This is hard in color, but he did it in pictures like THE SEARCHERS, painting John Wayne in a sometimes vicious manner. Victor McLaglen's performance not only benefits from the lighting, but by the sheer simplicity of his acting. He shoves a lot. He knocks people out. He is a brute who knows no better. He should, however, know whether or not to cross the IRA.

See the film to find out the gritty details. See it also for McLaglen and Ford's patriotic portrayal of the IRA. Max Steiner's score is innovative in how it matches gestures of the characters, placing more emphasis on them. This was usually only seen in silent films, especially Chaplin. The topic of naming names or "informing" is obviously still important. Just look at how the media covered this year's Oscars, giving much attention to the Elia Kazan scandal. To watch this film from start to finish without bursting into laughter at some point requires almost an act of faith, as one has to keep saying to oneself, "it's old", "it's a classic", "be kind", not because the movie is so bad, but because at its best it's so good. This is one dated movie. It's also a classic, if a tarnished one. I'm not inclined to laugh at people anyway, on principle, and I get more than a little irritated when others do so. To make fun of The Informer to my mind is a little like giggling at an idiot savant when he dribbles his orange juice all over the tablecloth. Yes, one says to oneself, he is an idiot, and yet when he's on top of his game he is also a true savant. The same is true for The Informer, which is on occasion very dreadful indeed, and yet it boasts splendid photography, some fine acting, a wonderful score and a good, decent simple story. In the end, which I won't give away, politics, religion and psychology come together, in a church, in such a way as to make the scene seem corny and over the top, and yet so is life sometimes. Uneducated people of simple faith behave differently from us (presumably brilliant) modern folks, and the scene isn't so much unbelievable (I buy it, but I know the Irish) as embarrassing. Yet people do behave that way, they do say things like that. Not everyone is hip, and it may not even be desirable for everyone to be hip. Are people today so much superior to those of seventy or eighty years ago? And in what way? I don't think so. We're just different. Now go watch the movie. Today if someone mentions the name Victor McLaglen the response most likely will be "Who?" or perhaps "Why?" Well, believe it or not, Victor McLaglen won the Academy Award for Best Actor in this film, which is about a poor, desperate man who is willing to sell out his best friend for "carfare" to the United States. It's an interesting movie which shows how low even the most well-meaning shnooks will go just for a few bucks. The movie takes place in British-dominated Ireland and while all the other characters are either directly or indirectly fighting for the political independence of Ireland, all Mr. McLaglen's character is concerned about is getting money and getting drunk. The movie makes one wonder whether political activism is worth all the trouble because while the activist is struggling to make a point, many others not only do not care, they don't even know what the fuss is all about. The morale of this movie is: look out for the friend, he may sell you out for a dime. One of John Ford's best films 'The Informer' doesn't feature any grand scenery of the American West. Instead the intense drama Ford was known for plays out on the no less rugged terrain of British character actor Victor McLaglen's face. The former prizefighter, who once faced Joe Louis in the ring, delivers an Academy Award-winning portrayal of disgraced IRA soldier Gypo Nolan on the worst night of his life.

The plot is gracefully simple: In 1922 Dublin, a starving and humiliated man who's been thrown out of the IRA for being unable to kill an informant in cold blood, himself becomes an informant. For £20 he betrays a friend to "the Tans" and for the rest of the night he drinks and gives away his blood money in rapidly alternating spasms of guilt, denial, self-pity, and a desperate desire to escape the consequences of his actions.

It is the remarkable complexity given to the character of the seemingly simple Gypo that is the film's most impressive achievement. In most movies a burly lout of Gypo's type would be cast as the heavy, he'd have at best two or three lines and be disposed of quickly so the hero and the villain could have their showdown. In 'The Informer' Gypo himself is both hero and villain, while the showdown is in his inner turmoil, every bit of which is explicitly shared with the audience.

Because Liam O'Flaherty's novel had previously been filmed in 1929, RKO gave Ford a very modest budget. The director and his associates, particularly cinematographer Joseph H. August, turned this to their advantage in creating a claustrophobic masterpiece about a man at war with himself. In addition to McLaglen's Oscar 'The Informer' also won John Ford his first along with wins for Best Screenplay and Best Score. Maybe it's because I looked up the history of the Irish troubles in the 1920s and then the sad Civil War that engulfed the Free State after the signing of the treaty before watching this movie. Anyway, the sudden turn at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Victor McLaglen isn't as famous today as he was back then, and he should be better remembered. In this film, I think he's playing himself as he would have been without his innate talent and brains. For example, the scenes where his buddy in the crowd is challenging men to fight with him is probably quite reminiscent of what McLaglen actually did in earlier years, when he was a world-class bare-knuckles boxer. John Ford is partly responsible for that; the IMDb trivia section shows how he tricked McLaglen into getting a really bad hangover for the trial scene. This director also could bring out a lot in his actors, even without such tricks. Mostly, though, McLaglen is firmly in control, especially when his character is almost totally blotto (which is difficult for an actor to do believably), and he also plays Gypo Nolan with a depth and emotional power that is surprising for someone who has only seen McLaglen later in his career, in "The Quiet Man." I especially like the contrast between this role as an IRA man and the much more obviously controlled performance he gave as the IRA man Denis Hogan in "Hangman's House."

In "The Quiet Man," of course, McLaglen is a country squire at odds with the local IRA. Victor McLaglen was big and bully, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but he was a good actor, too, and capable of wide range and fine nuances of performance that we just wouldn't expect of a such a man today. It's a rather sad comment on our own set of expectations and prejudices.

Ford, as usual, packs a lot into a little bit of film. All the characters are excellent (though the Commandant's mostly American accent is distracting) -- NOTE: There be spoilers ahead! -- Knowing that Gypo once drew the short straw and was ordered to kill a man but let him talk his way out of it instead, we really empathize with the man who draws the short straw for executing Gypo, and the humanity he shows, most notably when they go to take Gypo in Mary's room.

John Ford really shows his genius here, taking what could have been a gruesome and yet expected outcome to the whole story and instead using it to set up a totally unexpected and yet very satisfying ending that makes us think not just of Gypo and the other characters, but of poor Ireland during that tortured time. John Ford is one of the most influential and best remembered American filmmakers in the history of film, his name usually associated with the western film genre. However, John Ford's arguably best film is not a western at all but a seedy drama set in the Irish fight for independence in the early 1920s: 1935's The Informer.

Times are tough on many in Ireland and the burnt out Gypo Nolan is caught in a web of poverty and desperation - and the walls are closing in. Gypo is big but he is not the brightest bulb on the tree, has a warm heart but a short fuse, and never seems to really think things all the way through but he is not a criminal or a self-centered pig. Walking the streets starving with no where to live, the hulking Gypo Nolan finds the prime lady in his life, Katie Madden, on the streets soliciting herself because of her own desperate situation and starts to dream about taking her to the United States if he only had the 20 Pounds to pay for it. As luck would have it, his friend Frankie is back in town with a 20 Pound price over his head and Gypo is desperate enough to inform the police of Frankie's whereabouts. Gypo, with the new 20 Pounds of blood money earned, finds this foggy night particularly foggier as guilt swells all over him and the IRA invests all their resources to find Frankie's informer.

Victor McLaglen portrays the fallen Gypo Nolan and definitely deserved the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded for this film. His brutish, stupid, and tender turns give the character dimension and McLaglen is only second to Dudley Moore's character Arthur Bach from the 1981 film Arthur as the most entertaining cinematic drunk. Margot Grahame's performance as Katie Madden is also excellent but she and McLaglen are the only members of the cast who truly impress. Preston Foster is especially miscast as an IRA head, mainly because he is most obviously not Irish, and J. M. Kerrigan borders on irritating throughout his role in the film but this disappointing supporting cast is the film's only poor point.

Often overshadowed by some of Ford's better known westerns like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Informer is easily one of John Ford's best films - if not his very best. Beginning what would be a long career of Oscar nominations and wins for John Ford, The Informer won four Oscars including one for him for best director in 1936. Ford and company's use of shadows and light in the film is particularly engaging and vital to telling the story. Gypo's walk through the streets is narrated by the gloomy state of the town and the glaring accusations of the street lamps, each shadow constantly reminding him of his dark deed. Ford's command of this technique was amazing to watch; if The Informer was made 10 years later (thus making the genre requirements) it would probably be considered one of the best films noir of all time but that does not hinder it from being remembered as an excellent classic film. I was 5 years old when I saw this musical movie while on vacation with my family in St. Thomas in 1977 and immediately fell in love with it. 27 years later, it is still an original inspiration for achieveing my goals that I have set to accomplish since that time!

This tragic story of a hard-core "behind the scenes" of the entertainment industry during the late 50's, "Sparkle" successfully portrays the struggle of three young sisters looking for their place in the sun. This story could simply become the biographical story of many young aspiring artists about what could materialize when things seem to happen too fast and role models are not available to lend a helping hand.

The phenomenal music written and composed by Aretha Franklin and Curtis Mayfield, the soundtrack carries the plot with every song. From being subjected to situations that almost leave no choice for strong long-term decision-making, to making the ultimate sacrifice in order to get ahead, all three young girls, Sparkle, Sister, and Delores, represent the different routes that one could take when you set out to achieve your ideal opportunity as your contribution to society.

This movie could have possibly spawned the ideas of creating "Dreamgirls" on Broadway, and Mariah Carey's "Glitter," 25 years later. As an original audience member of both productions, I have seen a lot of similarities in both stories to "Sparkle," as well as in "Saturday Night Fever," "Fame," "Flashdance," and the off-Broadway smash hit "Mama, I Want To Sing." An excellent movie. Superb acting by Mary Alice, Phillip M. Thomas, and a young Irene Cara. Tony King was very realistic in his role of Satin. This movie was one of the last predominately "all black" movies of the 70's and unlike the "blaxploitation" movies of that era, this movie actually had a plot, and was very well done. The movie soundtrack, sung by Aretha Franklin, was popular on the R&B charts at the time. A remarkable example of cinematic alchemy at work, with a trite'n'turgid lump of lead script (penned by numbingly mediocre Hollywood hack nonpareil Jole Schumacher, no less) being magically converted into a choice chunk of exquisitely gleaming 24-carat musical drama gold thanks to brisk direction, fresh, engaging performances, spot-on production values, a flavorsome recreation of 50's era New York, an infectiously effervescent roll-with-the-punches tone, and a truly wondrous rhythm and blues score by the great Curtis Mayfield.

The story, loosely based on the real life exploits of the Supremes, prosaically documents the arduous rags-to-riches climb of three bright-eyed, impoverished black teenage girl singers who desperately yearn to escape their ratty, unrewarding ghetto plight and make it big in the razzle-dazzle world of commercial R&B music. All the obvious pratfalls of instant wealth and success -- egos run destructively amok, drugs, corruption, fighting to retain your integrity, and so on -- are predictably paraded forth, but luckily the uniformly excellent work evident in the film's other departments almost completely cancels out Schumacher's flat, uninspired plotting. The first-rate acting helps out a lot. Irene Cara, Lonette McKee, and Dwan Smith are sensationally sexy, vibrant and appealing leads -- and great singers to boot. Comparably fine performances are also turned in by a charmingly boyish pre-"Miami Vice" Philip Michael Thomas as the group's patient, gentlemanly manager, Dorian Harewood as McKee's venal, aggressively amorous hound dog boyfriend, and perennial blaxploitation baddie Tony ("Hell Up in Harlem," "Bucktown") King as a dangerously seductive, smooth operating, stone cold nasty gangster. The tone dips and dovetails from funny and poignant to melancholy and blithesome without ever skipping a beat, deftly evolving into a glowing, uplifting ode to the human spirit's extraordinary ability to effectively surmount extremely difficult and intimidating odds.

Veteran editor Sam O'Stern acquits himself superbly in his directorial debut. Bruce Surtees' luminescent cinematography and Gordon Scott's expert editing are both flawless. O'Stern's firm grasp of period atmosphere, keen eye for tiny, but telling little details, and unerring sense of busy, unbroken pace are just as impressive. No fooling about Curtis Mayfield's impeccable soundtrack contributions, either. "Jump," "What Can I Do With This Feeling," "Givin' Up," "Take My Hand Precious Lord," "Lovin' You Baby," and "Look Into Your Heart" are all terrifically tuneful, soulful, almost unbelievably fantastic songs, with the sweetly sultry love jones number "Something He Can Feel," which was later covered by both Aretha Franklin and En Vogue, clearly copping top musical honors as the best-ever song in the entire movie. The net result of all these above cited outstanding attributes persuasively illustrates that sometimes it's not the screenplay so much as what's done with said script which in turn determines a film's overall sterling quality. I watched this movie every chance I got, back in the Seventies when it came out on cable. It was my introduction to Harlem, which has fascinated me (and Bill Clinton) ever since. I was still very young, and the movie made a big impression on me. It was great to see a movie about other young girls growing up, trying to decide whom they wanted to be, and making some bad choices as well as good ones. I was dazzled by Lonette McKee's beauty, the great dresses they eventually got to wear, and the snappy dialogue. As someone being raised by a single mother as well, I could really identify with these girls and their lives. It's funny, these characters seem almost more real to me than Beyonce Knowles! Standard rise to fame tale that has a few high points. Number one, Lonette McKee as Sister who gives a stunning, star making performance. The fact that she never became a huge sensation after this is beyond me. Sadly, she is a supporting character and we are forced to focus on Irena Carter's bland character, Sparkle, whose rise to fame is easy, boring, and unconvincing. However, whenever the girls go on stage and perform, the movie comes back to life. The original music by Curis Mayfield must be praised. The copy I saw was a very old VHS tape. The picture quality was pretty low, as well as the production values I'm guessing. All in all, its worth a gander. The movie was actually a romantic drama based on three sisters who had desires to become a famous girl group. In their endeavors, the oldest sister meets a drug dealer and street hustler called Satin, whom Sister goes after because she believes he is the "big time" who will give her everything she ever thought she wanted out of life. Though he could be accused of killing her, he really kills only her spirit and will to live, after which she becomes a drug addict and ultimately dies from an overdose. The story isn't about the street life or the Italian mobster who tries to buy Stix off, then threatens him, it's about how love can overcome even the worst tragedies in life as portrayed in song and style and the character that was the life in the times for young women trying to be "discovered" back then. First of all, I think the below comment is unworthy for a site like this. Obviously you have no taste and you don't respect the taste of others. Not to give you a history lesson but I think it needs to be done. Black actors out there are just, if not more, successful as others. If you are not a part of the "Black" race you cannot understand the quality, creativeness, and vibrant of old movies such as "Sparkle" and "Mahogany" and "Cooley High." Since unfortunately you are not Black, you do not have the pleasure of feeling what we feel when we watch these classics, so therefore you need to keep your freaking mouth shut and just stick to your non-dancing race. Thanks. The Life and Time of Little Richard, as told by Little Richard, as produced and directed by Little Richard, was about as one sided as one of his songs. This is not a biography or even a docudrama, but does have good writing, great energy and an outstanding leading actor playing Richard. All the music is by Little Richard, so it rocks a tight lipsync on every song.

The movie covers his early childhood, carrys thru the formative years in music, the wild success and Richard's throwing it all away to praise the Lord. Its all tied together well and the obvious comeback in 1962 manages to stay away from the idea that Little Richard discovered the Beatles, whom opened for him.

My main objection is that his outrageous, counter cultural behavior is underplayed and you get no feel for how his audience experienced him at that time. Some of his energy, which he still has, does not come across full force. He seemed tame, compared to what I remember of him at the time.

The best scenes are Richard getting jilted by Lucille and writing a song about it and the strip to bikini shorts while performing, to make the point about not having a decent place to change.

If they had gotten into the "Bronze Liberace" as Richard use to refer to himself in interviews, then there's a story. Trust me I just saw him perform a couple of months ago and he still flirts with the pretty white boys, giving the one particularly good dancer in the audience, his headband. Nearly 68 and still going strong I recommend this movie and any concert or T.V. appearance you can find. Little Richard is always on I really liked this movie, it was good, and the actors were brilliant! Leon Robinson, who played Richard, and many other classic singers, is very good at his job, when you see him in a musical movie, you know that it is going to be good! I would suggest that people watch this heart warming, sad, and special movie, if they want to know more about Richard! Outstanding! Fresh! Leon was fantastic as always, this time playing Little Richard in his early years. The movie showed a fully fleshed out Little Richard without neglecting to fill the show with lots of great music. My only complaint is that the ending was a little abrupt - I was hoping for a 2-parter! It is always a nice suprise when a film made for TV turns out to be entertaining such as Little Richard. This is a very watchable film about the story of Rock and Roller ,Little Richard played by an actor called Leon who i have never seen before but does an very good job. As most TV films , this is a little tamer than if made for Cinema which is a shame because i am sure there is lot we could have seen about Little Richard that was controversial. Instead we see a lot religous rubbish which is the only thing that spoils the film and eventually spoilt a very promising career. All in all this film is good and the acting is above average fot a TV film. 7 out of 10. It is fitting on a musical Sunday to get your heart a pumping, and no one can do that better than Little Richard. The man could sing the drawers off the ladies and defined rock and roll.

Look to Leon to provide a definitive characterization, as he has done so with David Ruffin in The Temptations and Jackie Wilson in Mr. Rock 'n' Roll: The Alan Freed Story.

This was a fascinating biopic as we saw Little Richard struggle with his father, with his church and with himself over just who he was. He won the battle and there is no one else that has his voice or his style. Tressa's vocal performance was Outstanding!! Tressa played the female singer role, while Richard was in the club. When she first step out on stage, and started to riff and strut her stuff, it made my soul shake. Her voice is platinum. She needs to make a CD. She has more fans then she realizes. I loved her show stopping performance in the five heart beats, which she also starred with Leon when she was younger. How can a little girl have a voice so big. She is truly amazing.Good voice Good Good Good Good voice voice voice voice excellent voice fantastic voice , back shaking , tear crying , uplifting, take you back in the days voice. Tressa if you read this commit, please take my advice and start recording a CD. If not just for the love of singing, but for your fans. I believe you can truly make it. Look at these other one hit single studio singers, lol. Actually they could not have chosen a better diversified actor to portray Little Richard than Leon. He captures Little Richard to a most believable essence. The outfits where wonderful and any person watching this movie will definitely keep a smile on their face through the entire movie. Although the movie is a little long, it keeps your attention with the personality and outfits of Little Richard in mind. The ending should have taken a direction of moving Little Richard more into the present where you could see him as he has aged into this new millennium. He will always be the King of Rock-N-Roll as far as I am concerned regardless of what the other media says. I truly enjoyed the movie, however, I did not realize that Little Richard had so many things going on in his life. First of all I was not aware of Lucille. There is very little (hardly any) mention of females being intimately involved with Little Richard. Even in his life today there is no mention of any involvement of females in a romantic way. I wonder why this part of his life was not mentioned. Overall the movie was great. I also did not like Leon playing the part of Little Richard, he is a good actor but I feel that the part of should have went to a different actor. Visually he did not remind me of Little Richard. I also was totally unaware of the promiscuity that Little Richard was a part of. From the movie he was pictured as a sexual addict. In todays time he would be referred to counseling for his sexual addition. He was a voyeur. I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen the movie however there were several things about the movie that I feel should not have been a part of the final cut. I caught this film late on a sat night/ Sunday morning with my brother. We had been drinking. This is one of the best films for ripping apart I have ever seen. From the 'luxury' ocean liner actually being a 'roll on, roll off' ferry, complete with cast iron everything to the doors with adhesive stickers saying staff, then seeing the same door being used for something else in another scene - this film rocks!! The continuity is so poor you cant help but notice it, it slaps you in the face with the holes. In the final scene he jumps off a life boat with the ferry in the distance. Cut to his son and new girlfriend (The ships PR director who knows kung-fu and used to be in the police but was dismissed for doing things her way - true)on the ferry going very fast away from the explosion. ......Then the dad is there hugging them. HoW???? Who cares, its magic. There is not one redeeming feature to this film. The casino is the size of a large bedroom with one casino table. when being chased by the villains there is only One place to hide, you've guessed it. Enter the villains who, instead of checking under the One table, proceed to shoot up four fruit machines and a little corner bar (a corner bar in the casino - fantastic). They walk straight past the only hiding place thus allowing our Casper to get around them and 'take them out'.

Get some mates over, get a few drinks in, put this film on and howl. This film quite literally has every single action movie cliche and all of them work to its advantage. Straight from Lethal Weapon Gary Busey wisecracks, shoots and chuckles through this film with such reckless abandonment it can't help but amuse and entertain. There are tanks, helicopters, machine gun battles, grenades and ice cream vans and if they aren't good enough reasons to watch this film then how about the best one...Danny Trejo. And if you don't know who Danny Trejo is then you probably won't like this film. Guns blasting, buildings exploding, cars crashing, and that's just the first ten minutes.

This action-packed film involving a rogue ex-CIA mercenary who can't seem to die no matter how many times he's shot (hence the title) is pretty decent.

Tough and toothy Gary Busey, usually cast as a villain in these kinda flicks, has his usual crazy charm but is a bit more subdued: after all he's carrying the entire show. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of terrific supporting roles including William Smith, Luke Askew, Mills Watson, R.G. Armstrong, Henry Silva, Lincoln Kirkpatrick, Thalmus Rasulala, and several other "forgotten" character-actors.

There's enough smaller action sequences to hold up the entire story: Busey has to free a group of "kidnapped" American military elites and return a high-tech "supertank" (a normal tank with a cheesy add-on pasted to the top) back to the States.

But does America deserve this killing machine any more than the bad guys? This question is asked, of course, like in any film centering on the CIA... but without getting preachy. Gary Busey is the title character, Frank "Bulletproof" McBain, your standard-issue reckless maverick cop who's earned his nickname because no matter how many bullets he takes (38 and counting), he never stops going after the bad guys.

When a cutting-edge U.S. tank dubbed "Thunderblast" is driven across the border into Mexico, it's nabbed by revolutionaries / terrorists led by General Brogado (Rene Enriquez) and Libyan Colonel Kartiff (Henry Silva), who's aligned himself with Russian villains. The Army personnel involved are kept as prisoners, chief among them Devon Shepard (Darlanne Fluegel), who happens to be McBain's ex-girlfriend. McBain is then recruited by the Army for a rescue mission.

Busey may not have the physical presence of say, someone like Schwarzenegger, who would have been another appropriate lead for a film of this type, but he's a blast as a self- confident dude who's quick with the wisecracks. Fluegel is a great female lead; she not only looks incredibly sexy but makes for a fine butt-kicking action babe. Enriquez, Silva, Juan Fernandez, and the always welcome William Smith (as a Russian major) are loathsome scum in the classic action movie tradition. The supporting cast is quite full of familiar and reliable character actors: L.Q. Jones, R.G. Armstrong, Thalmus Rasulala, Lincoln Kilpatrick, Mills Watson, Luke Askew, Danny Trejo, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa.

T.L. Lankford and B.J. Goldman supply the script, based on a story by Lankford and veteran B director Fred Olen Ray. It's the kind of script where you just know the writers have their tongues in their cheeks: they know their material is absurd and cheesy, and just have fun throwing credibility out the window. Veteran action director Steve Carver keeps it moving and delivers a respectable amount of gunfire, explosions, and general all-out mayhem.

"Bulletproof" is good fun for the action fan who doesn't mind switching off their brain now and then and just enjoying a generous assortment of violence and humor.

7/10 Its no surprise that Busey later developed a tumor in his sinus cavity, this film is also a poor decision, but one I enjoyed fully. The first 5 minutes is the most uninspiring 5 minutes in any film; boring, bad dialouge, and then, with a Spiderman stance, Busey yells the best-worst line in any film ever created..."your worst nightmare butthorn!" I coughed up some of my egg nog laughing so hard. That line resonates so well, it even tops Clooney's infamous "hi Freeze, I'm Batman" line. Other classic moments is Busey constantly getting upset for people reminding him that he got his ex-CIA partner killed...which he did by accidentally shooting him in the chest (all made possible by a super slow-motion flashback sequence that makes watching paint dry seem exciting). There's an ashtray to the nads, punches to the face, and a "that wasn't my fault and you know it!" Well, the footage shows him missing the bad guy and hitting his buddy, so... Other scream out-loud moments has to be his ex girl-friend dropping a grenade to the ground to enable his escape--a plan that defies all logic, physics, and absurdity. And lastly, when McBain jumps out of the Thunderblast during intense guerrilla warfare and starts to run and hurdles a small object, I almost wet myself. Some of Busey's best work by far, rent or buy it today "butthorn!" My vote is a perfect 10 (on the poo meter that is). When the scientist and family man Matt Winslow (Robert Urich) finally accepts the invitation to work the Micro-Digitech Corporation in a space suit project, he moves with his beloved wife Patricia (Joanna Cassidy) and their son Robbie (Barret Oliver) and daughter Chrissy (Soleil Moon Frye) to a huge modern house in the corporation compound. They meet their friend Tom Peterson (Joe Regalbuto) and his family completely adapted to the new lifestyle, and Tom invites the Winslow family to join the Steaming Springs Country Club. Tom tries to seduce Matt telling him that every member of the club has a meteoric professional ascension in Micro-Digitech, but Matt is not tempted with the offer. Later he is introduced to the director of the club, Jessica Jones (Susan Lucci) that befriends Patricia and convinces her to join the club with her children. Matt feels the changing in the behavior of his family and decides to investigate the club, finding an evil secret about Jessica and the members.

In the 80's, when I saw "Invitation to Hell", I liked this movie that partially recalls "The Stepford Wives", with people changing the behavior in a suburban compound. I have just seen it today, and I found a great metaphoric message against the big corporations, when people literally sell their souls to the devil to climb positions and earn higher salaries. I am not sure whether the author intended to give this interpretation to the story, but I believe it fits perfectly. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Convite Para o Inferno" ("Invitation to Hell") Better than the typical made-for-tv movie, INVITATION TO HELL is blessed with excellent casting (Urich, Lucci, Cassidy, McCarthy, pre-Murphy Brown Joe Regalbuto, Soleil Moon-Frye) and a high concept update to the familiar Faustian plot. Urich is likable as always and Lucci is particularly fetching and devilishly over the top in the mother of all femme fatale roles. Kind of a hybrid version of STEPFORD WIVES and THEY LIVE, the movie commits early to its apocalyptic Miltonesque vision and horror fans will likely not have many complaints until the soppy, maudlin denoument. 7/10 A classy film pulled in 2 directions. To its advantage it is directed by Wes Craven. On the downside the TV film budget shows what could have been so much more with a larger budget. It moves along as Susan Lucci draws Robert Urichfamily into her clutches and trying to persuade him into the secret of her health club. His latest invention, a spacesuit which can analyse people or things becomes unexpectedly useful in his new neighbourhood. Anyone seeing this should pay attention to Susan Lucci. Her looks and performance had an unexpected repercussions a few years later. The actor, scientist and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae is a fan of this film and wrote a review of this film. Lucci became subject of a portrait by him followed as the basis for works of a sitter called Catherine. Lucci and Barbara Steele's portrait in 'Black Sunday' were used as references for the Catherine portraits which were immediately withdrawn by Armourae. Probably due to a personal nature between the artist and Catherine. So by seeing both films we can get an insight into another story and the appearance of unknown woman that would make an interesting film. Everything is idyllic in Suburbia when the little family moves in, as the father have got a new job in a computer company there. But no paradise would be complete without its snake. Strange things happens as the family joins the local country club without the husband, as it certainly holds secrets. The father is not a joiner, but pressure is on him to join, as everyone who is anything in the neighborhood and at work are members. Robert Urich's good guy part is a bit tepid, but Joanna Cassidy as good natured housewife turning nasty sizzles. Suspenseful and well-made chiller with a bitchy Susan Lucci as club chairperson. Look out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a bit part as a valet. The movie captures the sense of paranoia and the special effects final is worth waiting for. I have seen this movie quite a few times. Robert Urich was a fine actor, and he makes this TV movie believable. I remember watching this film when I was 15, and when seeing it a second time my opinion stays the same. People lose who they were when enter this exclusive club, in a computer rich Californian town. Urich try's to figure out what is wrong with his family, and I love the Halloween space suit idea, brilliant. This film is about the battle of one's sprit. TV quality, that exceeds, the big budget, Gangs of New York. I wonder if Robert Urich was the compassionate man he portrayed in many of his movie? I hope so! 6 or 7 out of 10. This Movie has great fight scenes. Now its true that the acting is a little rough. But If I wanted to see a movie based on acting skills I would watch a Cheesy movie Like American Beauty. But If you want to see a movie with true martial arts in it and with Amazing stunts WITHOUT the use of wires and flying threw the air like so many movies around now which are over killing the matrix. Then Watch this. Now it's true the two main stars in the show where in the kid show the power rangers and another cast member of that show has a bit part in this movie. But hey the fight scenes are enough to make Jet Li p**s his pants. And the stunts are worthy enough for Jackie Chan to sit threw and admire. As a 90 minute experience, it is not up to the standard of `Drive', as the actors clearly learnt their trade at the `Who Am I?' academy, while the action sequences are generally no better than those in the superb Mark Dacascos beat 'em-up. However, those who enjoyed `Drive', (and I thought it was wonderful!), will undoubtedly enjoy this too. You certainly won't rewind back to the start and watch it all again, but you will definitely flick back to some of the action scenes for a long time to come.

It is refreshing to see that the art of quality fight choreography is still being practiced, even if not in Hong Kong, and I would love to see what these guys could do with the budgets, time and respect afforded to the likes of Yuen Woo-ping and Corey Yuen Kuei. If you sit through the first half hour and aren't sent crazy by the atrocious dialogue then you are in for a treat. Bosch is magnificent, and can really bust a move with some magnificent acrobatics, kicks and simple acts of bravery.

If you are fortunate enough to be within 500 miles of a copy, then track it down and watch it. It's not Shakespeare. In fact, it's less articulate than Coolio in `China Strike Force', but you will be impressed with both the moves on display and the pain felt by the stunt team - (I'm pretty sure there's no safe way to land directly on your head, or be forced to head butt a wooden roof by a speeding car!?).

A delightful if somewhat predictable TV movie, though I admit a little bias -- as far as I'm concered, the more Gene Wilder in this world the better. I'd love to see numerous additional movies detailing the adventures of Larry "Cash" Carter! "The Lady in Question (1999)" starring Gene Wilder is a well-acted mystery drama that reminds me of the old black-and-white Raymond Burr Perry Mason series. Both Perry and "Cash" kept me guessing right up to the end. There were many suspects with a motive for the murder, but I had no idea which character it would be.

Gene Wilder has a special charming wit about him, even in his facial expressions and vocal inflections which make him perfect for the part. The portions of the movie which portrayed actors acting was done very well. I'm sure this is an additional challenge for the cast to pull off. I am not surprised to see that he did some of the writing for the movie. Even his singing was a delight. I like him in this role more than his former "sillier" roles like "The Young Frankenstein" and "Willy Wonka." I am hoping A & E will continue this series. They ought to call it something like "The A & E Gene Wilder Mysteries."

The music fit the period. I enjoyed the cool live combo and the swing tunes. I was a little unclear at the beginning whether we were seeing a flashback or whether the action was taking place in that time period. And I do not agree that the inclusion of profanity is necessary to the flow of the script. To me, that always distracts.

Overall, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this second in a well-crafted start in what we hope will be many others -- just like one of our other favorites: Raymond Burr's Perry Mason. This is just one more example of the absolute genius of Gene Wilder. He wrote and starred in this terrific mystery. No one could have done it better. The suspense was palpable throughout. I wish Mr. Wilder would grace us with another of these. I have enjoyed everything I have ever seen Mr. Wilder in but I had no idea how truly talented he was until I saw "Murder in a Small Town," and this follow-on. He truly has a firm grasp on what audiences want and how to deliver it in his writing and, of course, in his brilliant acting. His subtle wit comes through in spades. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes mysteries and/or Gene Wilder's film work. His star just gets brighter and brighter. Pleasant, diverting and charming. The best part is the swing numbers, especially the rendition of My Buddy, partial though it may have been. The acting was a bit over the top in areas but the mood set by Wilder is so pleasant it is hard not to enjoy this film. Good sequel to Murder in a Small Town. In this one Cash and his police Lt. buddy unravel a sticky plot involving a Nazi criminal, a philanthropic witch, and a family of screw-ups and their wierdo helpers. As in the original, the viewer is treated to a nice little mystery with distinctive sights and sounds of pre-war America. Go see it. Kim (Patricia Clarkson), George (Jake Weber) and son Miles (Erik Per Sullivan) are headed to the country for winter weekend relief from Manhattan's bustling metropolis. On the way, they hit a buck and end up stuck in the snow. A group of hunters who were tracking the buck come along. Rather than helping, at least one of the hunters, Otis (John Speredakos), is mad because the accident cracked the buck's antlers. George, Kim and Miles are disturbed by Otis, and even worse, we quickly learn that Otis has learned where they're staying. Meanwhile, Miles is given a wendigo (a kind of Indian shape-shifting spirit/monster) token by an Indian whom only he has seen. Is Otis a psycho out to get our heroes? Are there wendigos in the woods?

I can see where Wendigo would have a number of problems appealing to viewers. It is a fairly low budget film, with technical limitations frequently showing through. Much of the film, and maybe all of it, is not really about the titular creature. And perhaps the fatal blow for many people, it has a very ambiguous ending, with a number of questions left unanswered. If you are discouraged by such endings, and you do not like films that have an aim of making you think about and discuss what everything meant, do yourself a favor and avoid Wendigo.

Personally, I like films like that. I usually prefer some ambiguity. The marketing of Wendigo is geared towards those who want a quick, scary creature flick, where they'd expect a grand battle with some supernatural monster who is defeated in the end, and everything is tied up neatly except for an opening for Wendigo 2: The Monster Returns, but that's not what this film is. Wendigo is much more thoughtful and poetic than the surface of such a creature flick would suggest to most people. Heck, writer/director Larry Fessenden even has a character, George, reciting Robert Frost. The Frost poem, and George's comment that Frost can evoke complex imagery and atmosphere out of seemingly simple things, is the key to the film.

One of the best things about the film is its complexity. In a way, there are four different films occurring at the same time, a thread from each character. In George's thread, he isn't exactly the happiest or most pleasant guy in the world, and he has some parenting problems. For him, the film is a realistic, horrific descent of his life going from bad to worse. In Patricia's thread, she's looking for rejuvenation of her life and family. She's a psychologist mostly denying the problems around her, hoping that they'll go away and get better. In Otis' thread, he's even more down on his luck than George, and George's arrival into his life symbolizes the final "crack" in his psychological armor. And in Miles' thread, which is probably the most important of the film, life is like a grand poem due to his youthful innocence and interpretation of the world. But this is a horror story, after all, albeit one with a glimmer of hope, and the events in the film give Miles' poetic interpretations a dark turn. Still, when everything is said and done, he seems to be the only one retaining his composure, due to the poetic outlook.

Even though the film is low budget, there are a lot of well-executed higher budget ambitions. Fessenden and director of photography Terry Stacey find some great shots in beautiful locations, and created some interesting slide show like montages (such as the cards, or the Indian wendigo images from the book). There are also interesting more traditional montages, such as Miles' nightmare. Wendigo is better shot and edited than many big budget films.

Other technical aspects are good for the budget. The "Wendigo" appearance at the end worked for me and was appropriately ambiguous. The lighting was usually good--there were a few times that dark scenes weren't as clear as they could have been, but it seemed to be more of a problem with the film stock (it could have been digital instead) or transfer. I thought the performances were good and far more realistic (if you value that) than the majority of films. Although I didn't really notice the score, it must have been okay, or I would have noticed it with a negative judgment.

Overall, Wendigo is a very good film that deserves to be watched without preconceptions, as long as you don't mind having to think about the movies you watch. Larry Fessenden has been thrashed by most of the comments on this forum. Well, the worst mistake, evidently, is the marketing of the movie and the way the DVD might have been targeted. Obviously, this is not a true horror movie, at least, not for people expecting anything that will be gory and instantly satisfying.

"Wendigo" is basically a film that seems to be told from the mind of the young Miles. Things that are not readily understood by children tend to stay in their young minds and ultimately dominate their fears and the menacing world they can't comprehend. It is obvious that Kim, the mother, is a psychologist, but she has no clue to what is going on in the mind of her son. This is also a story of alienation. It's clear that the father, George, is a distant figure, perhaps a workaholic, who seems to be living in a different world.

Miles' fears reach a point of crisis during the week end in the country. That part of New York state, with its winter landscape, barren trees, play havoc on the little boy's imagination. It doesn't help that he encounters a strange figure in town, it creates even more doubts in his young mind. Ultimately, Miles' world comes crashing down on him and he can't do anything, even evoking the Wendigo spirit.

The film is well paced and acted. Patricia Clarkson is excellent, no matter where movie she is in. Jake Weber is perfect as the distant father who has an opportunity to come closer to a son he doesn't understand. Erik Per Sullivan, as Miles, conveys the inner turmoil within him. I thought he was extremely effective since the whole movie is Miles own take on what's going on around him. Finally, John Spredakos is perfect as the menacing Otis, a man who resents the world for the way he has turned out.

Instead of putting this movie down, future viewers should approach it with a open mind. If you like horror movies with lots of blood and gore, tons of jump-scare moments and unrelenting, escalating scenes of excruciating death, then look elsewhere. If you like quiet, moody, thoughtful horror which casts blood aside in favor of a genuine feeling of dread, then Wendigo is for you.

Thoughtful, stressed out George, his psychoanalyst wife Kim and their young son Miles are heading out to the snowy countryside for a long weekend vacation away from the city. On the way up, George hits a stag with his car. The hunters who had been pursuing the deer are not thrilled when they find that George has ended their chase. In particular, deranged hunter Otis takes it personally. He follows the family to their vacation home, making sure they see him. He spies on George and Kim as they have sex. He fires through their windows with his rifle when they aren't home, letting them discover the ominous holes in their windows and walls when they return. When Kim takes Miles to the drugstore in town, Miles is attracted to a small sculpture in a display case, carved to resemble a man with the head of a stag. A Native American man tells Miles that this is the Wendigo, a spirit of the woods who has a taste for flesh and is always hungry. Miles takes the figure home with him, already haunted by the death of the deer the day before. That afternoon, when he and his father go sledding, George is shot and Miles pursued through the woods by a creature barely glimpsed...or is he just in shock, and imagining the whole thing? Hours later, George is rushed to the hospital and Miles, still clutching his statue, either faints, dreams or goes on a vision quest, in which the Wendigo returns. This time the angry, flesh eating god - part tree, part stag and part man - is hunting for Otis, who has finally gone over the edge.

Wendigo is a beautifully made film, almost totally silent but for the wind howling through the snow covered trees. Okay, so the monster itself is kind of fakey-looking, but it's a small flaw, more than made up for by the genuine feeling of tension and dread that creeps through every frame of the film, and the eerie backdrop of the silent, snowy countryside. The performances are great, particularly by Jake Weber as the moody and thoughtful George and Patricia Clarkson as his sweet but no-nonsense wife. They are a happy couple with their share of common problems, and it is the strength of their relationship and their love for each other that makes this film powerful. Watching this film is often like watching someone's home videos, so realistic are the performances.

This movie is not for everyone. A lot of people may find themselves totally bored, waiting for the hideous Lovecraftian Beast and bloody revenge that never come. We can never really be sure if the Wendigo even exists, seen as it is through the eyes of a sensitive child and also, later, through the eyes of a madman. This is more a psychological drama than a horror film, but it has more than enough creepy elements in it to satisfy fans of subtle horror. This is one of those unique horror films that requires a much more mature understanding of the word 'horror' in order for it to be appreciated. The main thing people may fail to realize that this story is told through the point of view a little boy and, as with most younger children, he gets frightened easily. Mainly because he simply doesn't understand things, like why his father is hardly ever there for him. From watching the film you can see the husband arguing with his wife the balance between work time and family time and you can easily understand it, but the little boy doesn't. Also one can imagine the boy being afraid of the woods, as it is established early on in the film, that the family is from the city. Also, in the beginning as the family is traveling to the house they hit a deer, then get held up, then they argue with the locals about it, and the little boy surely didn't find this introduction to the woods pleasant at all.

The "Wendigo" is ultimately what his young, innocent mind fabricates to explain all of this. There is the American Indian legend, but when looking at the scene where the young boy hears about about it, it is explained to him like bluntly and simplistically. Not because that's what the Wendigo actually is, but because that is how he understands it. When you look at the film from this point of view you can really begin to appreciate it. Obviously it was low-budget and shot cheaply, but the jumping montages, use of light, and general eeriness more than make up for it. And the final question the film asks is: is it all in your head, or is it really out there? 8/10

Rated R: profanity, violence, and a sex scene A solid B movie.

I like Jake Weber. His understated delivery is refreshing in a time of over the top performances. I liked the relationship between the father and son. I liked the family dynamics. The Wendigo looks silly, but it is a representation of the kid's toy and the dead deer. It's an amalgamation like, see? This is a psychological story, not a Freddy slash em up instant gratification flick. Watch it and reflect on your inner child and what the movie might have to say to you and you'll be fine.

Nice work. **POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

The biggest part of the movie that doesn't work IS the Wendigo, and when your title character fails, your movie usually isn't far behind it. The filmmakers' interpretation of the Wendigo's form is interesting, and can be properly menacing when filmed correctly - when the fleeing killer sees the Wendigo in a flash in his rear view mirror, for instance - and the tree-form was actually very good. However, as a monster character it never really comes to life. We don't get much of an explanation for its behavior, and what we DO see from it doesn't jibe with either the story told in the movie itself, or any Wendigo lore I've ever read.

I think one of the main reasons that the monster fails is that it isn't given enough to do, in the movie. When you boil this film down to its bones, what you have is a suspense thriller with a little bit of a supernatural element, instead of a movie about a monster.

The cinematography is good, though a little cheesy; the filmmakers use scenery, lighting, and time of day to convey atmosphere and mood rather well. The character of Otis comes across as truly dangerous and unpredictable, making him the real monster in the film. It might have been more effective to explain his behavior as him being possessed by the hungry spirit of the Wendigo, which would also be a more accurate representation of the real legend.

I have heard unconfirmed reports (from a newsgroup) that the reason the Wendigo doesn't do much is that, when the monster suit was built, it wound up so heavy and and uncomfortable (in order to mimic the stance of it standing on cloven hooves, the performer had to walk on his toes) that it was nearly impossible to run, walk, or otherwise perform in it. Thus the many flashes of the creature standing still, and the obvious sped-up footage of it running. I stress that these reports are uncomfirmed. From the first scene, I was really excited. "I can tell this is going to be awesome!" I thought. The acting was so good, I felt as though I was eaves-dropping on these peoples' lives. The music too was exquisitely unsettling. The plot started with a sudden event and then drifted forward (one could sense) toward some irrevocable fate. The build was slow, but I personally love that kind of thing, as long as the quiet tension stays on track and doesn't get derailed before it's ready to pay off.

So everything's going fine, and then the fireworks begin, and before you know it, the credits are rolling. "WHAT?!!!" was all I and my movie-night companion could say. If you understand the director's intentions, the blunt ending does make sense (for those of you who have seen the movie already, check out the very fascinating and hilarious interview with Larry Fessenden at filmcritic.com), but I can't help saying it was not pulled off quite right.

This probably could have been resolved with as little as ten more minutes of material before the climax. In any case, it's too bad. Those ten minutes could have made all the difference in the world. (But for those of you who don't write or make films, you should know that crafting a story arc with the proper timing is a HUGE pain in the butt, and I am certainly not making this critique from any kind of pedestal!)

Wendigo feels to me like a masterpiece that was given up on before it was finished. But hay, I'd take a blunted masterpiece any day over an over-produced piece of dog-poo over-compensated with too many digital effects (like most horror movies these days).

One other comment. Some of the monster scenes left me confused as to whether I should be scared or laughing. I don't know how to explain it, but there was a distinctively Monty Python feel about this monster in his more blatent "monster" forms. Although this may sound like a terrible criticism for a horror movie--I don't know, it still worked for me in some crooked way. I will never look at deer antlers in the same way again! :) George and Kim are traveling with their young son Miles to a remote cabin in upstate New York when their car hits a deer and swerves into a ditch.But what seems to be a mere occurrence of misfortune marks the beginning of a terrifying journey,where myth becomes reality and a flesh-eating spirit,half animal and half man Wendigo,haunts a small town..."Wendigo" by Larry Fessenden is a thought-provoking horror film that often tenderfoot's into a somber family drama.The acting is great,the characters are well-developed and there are some bone-chilling moments.The subtle glimpses of Wendigo are handled effectively and it's never clear what is real and what is imagined,or even if the story is taking place entirely in Miles' head.Overall,"Wendigo" is my first contact with Larry Fessenden's work and surely won't be the last.Give this film a chance,if you don't mind watching something unconventional.8 out of 10. This film is more about how children make sense of the world around them, and how they (and we) use myth to make sense of it all. I think it's been misperceived, everyone going in expecting a stalkfest won't enjoy it but if you want a deeper story, it's here....... If you want Scream or anything like the big-studio horror product that we get forced on us these days don't bother. This well-written film kept me up thinking about all it had to say. Importance of myth in our lives to make it make sense, how children interpret the world (and the violence in it), our ransacking of the environment and ignorance of its history and legends.. all here, but not flatly on the surface. You could technically call it a "monster movie" even though the Wendigo does not take physical form until the end, and then it's even up to you and your beliefs as to what's happening with the legendary spirit/beast. Some standard thriller elements for those looking just for the basics and the film never bores, though in fact the less you see of the creature, the better. Fessenden successfully continues George Romero's tradition of using the genre as parable and as a discussion forum while still keeping us creeped out. A haunting piece that the discerning horror film fan will fall upon with gratitude. Keep your Freddys and your Jasons -- this film is in the same company as "The Haunting" (the original). Lyrical and truthful, it stays with you long into the night, much like those terrifying CBS Radio Mystery Theatre shows. A smart rent. Now this is what I'm talking about. Finally, a low-budget horror outing that uses its limitations to its advantage. WENDIGO, while occasionally flawed, is a triumph of the imagination. Granted, it leans heavy on EVIL DEAD style camera moves for its moodiness, but it's still a damn sight better than 99% of direct to video dross.

The story is pretty simple: a family takes a vacation at a remote cabin and are menaced by one particularly unhinged hunter. But director Larry Fessenden really knows how to build suspense and add layers of unsettling creepiness through the use of the mythical Wendigo. Is it real? Is it all in the boy's imagination? Is it an externalization of the child's emotional state?

Some have quibbled that the film is unsatisfying because it's left to you to decide. Don't be put off by such petty nonsense. A film that makes you think is not one to avoid. It's one to rejoice in. Wendigo is a pretty good psychological thriller, the film has some great drama between the characters and some good creepy scenes. The acting is good, the characters act like a normal family. The Wendigo effects are good, the Deer Form reminded me a little of the Rabbit in Donnie Darko.

The film sees a family going to stay at a house for a while but accidental hit a deer, a group of hunters arrives and one of the hunters named Otis starts to argue with the Dad George, after the car is lifted they drive off to the house. The Son Miles is a little shook up about the Deer but his Parents try to tell him that it's natural for things like that to happen. That night while he's in bed he starts to see weird things in bedroom, the next day they go into to town and Miles meets a man at the counter who gives him a little statue of the Wendigo, when Miles shows Kim the statue and tells her that a man at the counter gave it him the owner says the she only works there. Once returning home George takes his son sledding and while there sledding he's knocked off the board and Miles is chases by the wind, after gaining conciseness they go looking for George, they find him outside the house where he tells them he was shot, in the Hospital Kim tells the Sheriff that Otis may have shot him, the Shrieff goes to Otis's place where he's bashed over the head with a hammer, as Otis drives down the road he finds that the Wendigo is after him.

Wendigo is a pretty good thriller that has some chilling moments. Check this out. 10/10 This movie is excellent. I found it very interesting. I thought the Wendigo legend was pretty cool. The acting was also great, as well as the costumes, production, photography, directing and script.

A very happy family, on vacation gets stranded in the middle of nowhere after they hit a deer. A huntsman then appears and is very angry and outraged over the fact that one of the deer's antler's is broken. He then starts to stalk the family and weird things start to happen to them.

See this movie. It's worth it. Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two Thumbs Way Up! If you want Scream or anything like the big-studio horror product that we get forced on us these days don't bother. This well-written film kept me up thinking about all it had to say. Importance of myth in our lives to make it make sense, how children interpret the world (and the violence in it), our ransacking of the environment and ignorance of its history and legends.. all here, but not flatly on the surface. You could technically call it a "monster movie" even though the Wendigo does not take physical form until the end, and then it's even up to you and your beliefs as to what's happening with the legendary spirit/beast. Some standard thriller elements for those looking just for the basics and the film never bores, though in fact the less you see of the creature, the better. Fessenden successfully continues George Romero's tradition of using the genre as parable and as a discussion forum while still keeping us creeped out. A family (mother-Patricia Clarkson, father-Jake Weber, son-Erik Per Sullivan) go out for a family get together in some remote house in the middle of winter. They accidentally hit a deer while driving there. This angers some of the locals--especially Otis (John Speredakos) and things slowly (VERY slowly) go wrong.

I was expecting the worst when I started watching this. The bulk of the reviews for this, on this site, are extremely negative. Well...I disagree. First off it's NOT a horror film. The horror doesn't even begin until the closing 30 minutes. It plays more like a family drama with horror elements thrown in. On that level, it's pretty damn good.

First--the bad stuff: The pace is WAY too slow; Jake Weber is a horrible actor; WAY too many false dream sequence scares; the wendigo barely figures into the film and the clear view we get of the wendigo at the end is laughable.

The good stuff: Pretty good dramatic script; Clarkson is excellent as the mother; some great direction with eerie sound effects which are a little scary; a pretty explicit hot sex sequence between Clarkson and Weber (which actually is necessary for the integrity of the plot!); pretty good acting by Sullivan (only 10 at the time!) and Speredakos and a completely unexpected tragic ending.

I think many people are annoyed with this film because it's being pushed as a horror film--which it isn't. So, if you can ignore that, I think you might like it. I'm giving it a 7. One of the biggest hits of 1926, Brown of Harvard is a exciting comedy/drama featuring regatta and football scenes that gave William Haines the role he needed to become a major star. It's patented Haines all the way: brash smart aleck who takes nothing serious until he is rejected by everyone wises up and becomes a man/hero and wins the girl. No one worked this formula like Haines. A terrific comic actor (Little Annie Rooney with Mary Pickford, Show People with Marion Davies), Haines could swing from comedy to tragedy with a change in facial expression. He is a total joy in this film as he was in Tell It to the Marines (with Lon Chaney) and West Point (with Joan Crawford), where he repeats the formula. Mary Brian is good as the girl, Jack Pickford is very good as the sickly roommate, Ralph Bushman is the rival. Edward Connelly, Mary Alden, David Torrence, Guinn Williams, and Grady Sutton co-star. This film is noted now for its homoerotic relationship between Haines and Pickford and for being John Wayne's film debut as a Yale football player (but I never spotted him). Haines was a top-five box office star starting with this picture through 1932. It's a shame he has been largely forgotten and that most of his films appear to be lost. He was one of the most appealing and talented actors of his time. This is an extraordinary film, that tricks you constantly. It seems to be heading toward cliche at several points, and then something astonishing will happen that genuinely startles. It would give away too much to say much more, but stick with this film and you will be richly rewarded. William Haines is absolutely delightful - he is certainly a star that deserves to be re-discovered. The gay subtext in his relationship with Jack Pickford is amazing - there is even a scene where Haines rubs Pickford's chest (Pickford has a cold). Both actors play this sub-text subtlely and with great depth of emotion, so that there are moments that are very moving. And I never thought I could get so involved in a football match as I did in this movie - and I don't even understand the rules! Also excellent is Francis X. Bushman's son Ralph as Haines' rival for the girl (yes, it's not completely a gay movie). Wonderful silent classic - a great example of Twenties commercial cinema with an edge. I've been intrigued by this film for a while, in part because of the extremely high score here on IMDb -- a 9.0 average with over 300 votes gives it the highest rating of any accessible silent film! How had I not heard of this film before this website? Well, you can't always trust the ratings. This is actually a very good film, preserved quite well if the fine VHS transfer I rented is any indication -- excellent acting by the principals, especially William Haines as Brown, and good location work at Cambridge with some fine action footage in the climactic Harvard/Yale football game -- but the story must have seemed a hoary chestnut even in 1926. Obnoxious, self-centered and charismatic guy goes to school and gets put in his place, becoming in the process a caring, self-sacrificing friend; I doubt people in 1926 found much that was really exciting in the last few reels, the predictability factor is high. Still, it starts out very well, and is certainly deserving of being remembered, if not praised to the heavens. Maybe the previous 350 voters are mostly Harvard men...

EDIT Now 600+ voters and the score has actually climbed to 9.2! Seriously, folks, there is ballot-stuffing going on here - I defy anybody to explain why this is a better film than "Metropolis" or "The General"! This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is "Tom Brown" and his main rival, "Bob" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.

In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.

4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess. Brown of Harvard is a hard movie to pin down. We expect a lot more from our movies these days, so it helps to remember that audiences in the 20's were a bit more innocent. William Haines is charming as the rogue who has to stumble through pain and humiliation to find success and, even, glory. All of the relationships in the movie feel very stilted EXCEPT for the homoerotic tie between Billy and Jack Pickford, the town nerd. The movie has everything, romance, tears, love, death, and even sports... It's a great education in how society has changed in the 20th century. This, the finest achievement from Georg Wilhelm Pabst's Social Realism period is based upon a tragedy in early 1906 that claimed the lives of nearly 1100 French miners as a coal dust explosion deep in mines at Courrieres in northern France took place after a fire had smouldered for three weeks, eventually releasing deadly pit gas that brought about the fatalities. Estimable designer Erno Metzner creates stark sets that simulate the tragedy, providing a perception of reality, augmented by matchless sound editing, with the only music being produced by integral orchestras during the beginning and ending portions of a work for which aural effects possess equal importance with the eminent director's fascinating visual compositions. Pabst's manner of "invisible editing" that segues action from shot to shot through movements of players proves to be smoothly integrated within this landmark film that also showcases sublime cinematography utilizing cameras mounted upon vehicles, enabling the director to shift amid scenes without having a necessity of cutting. Although the work's cardinal theme relates to Socialist dogma, the unforgettable power of this film is held in its details, born of Pabst's nonpareil skill at weaving numerous plot lines into a cinema tapestry that stirs one to admiration for German rescue squads of whom their Fatherland is greatly proud while no less despairing of disastrous losses to the families of French victims; certainly, a seminal triumph fully as stimulating today to a cineaste as it was at the time of its first release. The name of this film alone made me want to see just what it was all about, so I taped this film during the early hours of the AM. If you ever wanted to see what miners had to go through during the early days and actually see a dramatic scene when the mine crumbles in on the men. This film clearly wants to show that Germany and France can work together and be friends after WW I and how the Germans came to the aid of the French miners much to the unbelief of the French townsfolk. The actors were all outstanding, with unusual scenes in the mine with a horse and a small young boy who worked in the mine. There is an old old retired miner who manges to go down the mine by ladder when the elevator breaks down. If you are a real film buff, this is a film you will not want to miss. Based on an actual mining disaster, this early German talkie (with English subtitles) still remains one of the most effective docu-dramas ever filmed. Featuring many non-professional actors, "Kameradschaft" gives a chilling view of the friendship that binds the mine workers, regardless of which side of the French/German border they may be from. A deadly accident brings out the very best in everyone, nullifying any superiors' orders. A fellow miner in need will receive the help of his comrades, even at threat of great loss, including life.

This film reminds of the self-sacrificing heroism shown by the NYFD following the 9/11 attacks. Putting aside any formal rules and regulations, these men and women in uniform knew only one cause: to save lives, and to find their fellow-fire fighters. -- More than 70 years later, "Kameradschaft" still has the strong and timeless message: A friend in need is a friend in deed. This film, along with WESTFRONT 1918, are my favorite Pabst-directed films and I enjoyed them more than his much more famous films which starred Louise Brooks (such as PANDORA'S BOX). It's probably because both are very similar to the Neo-Realist films that the Italians perfected in the 1940s and 50s. This style film called for using non-actors (just typical folks) in everyday settings in order to create intensely involving and realistic films.

In this case, the film is about French and German coal miners, so appropriately, the people in the roles seem like miners--not actors. The central conflict as the film begins is that there is a huge mine located on the Franco-German border. Instead of one big mine, it is divided at the border and German workers are not welcome in the French mine, despite there being greater unemployment in Germany. This, language differences (illustrated wonderfully in a dance hall scene) and WWI conspire to create a huge rift between the factions--resulting in a WE vs. THEY mentality. Later, an explosion causes a huge collapse in the French and the Germans refuse to sit back and do nothing. Risking their own lives, they prove that there is true comradeship between miners and men in general.

The film is a strong criticism of xenophobia and tried, in vain, to get the German audiences to see the futility of war and hatred. It was a gorgeously moving film with some of the scariest and claustrophobic images I have ever seen. Considering history, though, the film's impact was minimal at best. It's a real shame, as like this one, WESTFRONT 1918, JÁACCUSE (Gance) and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Milestone) had great messages of peace and harmony but ultimately were failures in positively swaying public opinion. So, from a historical point of view, it's an amazing and sad relic that is well worth seeing. Valliant effort to use a mining catastrophe as a vehicle to pronounce this director's distaste for war. The audience not only learns a great deal about early mining rescue procedures but, we learn that Europeans at the interval between WWI and WWII, had concerning pacifists(for lack of a better term). The speeches given by both representatives of each country at the end of the film, are inspiring given the time. Although the revised edition, through the transfer technology of early foreign films, "cuts-off characters heads" at times, this film holds it's own in many different aspects. Character analysis, lighting techniques, historical content and a scenario that has tested and inspired many a writer and filmmaker.

Pabst went on to Direct and put to screen Weil & Brecht's "Three Penny Opera", starring the original star, Lotte Lenya. Sentimental and naive but undeniably affecting, emotional man-helping-man plea, in this case personified as German and French miners forced to be closed off from each other after the Great War thanks to a new border, leading to disillusionment on the German side, as the French are the bosses. But when a fire begins on the French side, the common decency of the German men lead to assistance, safety and even friendship. This was a plea that would fall on deaf ears within the decade, as a certain man from Pabst's own side would break that piece and turn the Great War into merely a prelude. But it is obvious to me that Pabst really believes or at least wants to hope for this kind of fundamental humanism, as this film radiates with this optimism whereas his more flippant, cynical adaptation of The Threepenny Opera lacked the bite needed to make that work work. Also furthering his honest belief are the fact that the characters here are not simplistic mouthpieces for positions, but real people, with real families whose home lives we are privy to as well. These are ordinary, working-class men who just happen to believe in the worth of caring and treating right your fellow man, and in this day of individualist opportunism, I'll take a little thinning in my plot to get a positive message that represents a point of view that I think we can all aspire to.

(Note: Apparently the ending is cut on most prints, where the French rebuild the mining gate, closing off the men once again. This is a brutal turn of events, and may have made the film a better overall film, but I would have lamented it souring the positives vibes of the final sequence, so in short, I'm glad it was clipped.) {Grade: 8/10 (B) / #7 (of 11) of 1931} Those French and those Germans sure have a long history of not liking each other. It is interesting to note that Kamerdaschaft or Comradeship in translation takes place in 1931. Only a few years later, Hitler would siege Germany and begin his plans to take over the world, France being a casualty of his ambitions. But these are times of sereneness compared to the future. A group of miners at the border try to cross over to France to get work. They are spurned back and later at a nightclub by their French neighbors. Then a disaster happens in the mines of the French and a well-crafted and written scene, a troupe of German miners decide to come to the rescue. A simple story is it not? Pabst was a poet of silent cinema and I am not sure if this is his first sound movie or not, but his poetry is there to be discovered. He isn't fussy but brings a rugged realism to the ordeal. Ther is even a flashback to a WWII event that beckons the point of this story. Supposedly based on a real event, the movie does the events proudly with directness and terseness. Smetimes, that's what a movie needs to be. I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...

Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.

Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.

If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes. At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.

In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps?

The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.

It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...

So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you. Just saw the World Preem of Fido at the Toronto International Film Festival and thoroughly enjoyed it. Here we have a welcome reworking of a genre widely thought to have been pioneered (certainly 'fleshed out' extensively and successfully) by George Romero. But this is a Canadian film by a Canadian Director and it's a Comedy! And, YES, I actually think it is better than 'Shawn of the Dead'. Thoroughly believable and, perhaps even more importantly, enjoyable performances by Dylan Baker, Carrie-Anne Moss and young actor K'Sun Ray, whom I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of in future features. However, I must confess that I most enjoyed the delicious turn by Tim Blake Nelson as neighbour Mr. Theopolis, essentially playing a willing animated version of Victor Van Dort from the Corpse Bride (or, for those who've seen the film, wouldn't that read even better here as the Corpse Pride?) and, of course, Scotch actor Billy Connolly in his least animated, yet somehow deeply moving role as the titular character. Just think, he would not have gotten this role had it not been for Peter Stormare's commitments to Prison Break (as was revealed in the Q&A following Thursday night's screening). I can't help but speculate that the Screenwriters must have drawn a lot of inspiration from Day Of The Dead's Zombie 'Bub'.I am not keen on ever revealing plot details during a Comment and I won't start now. Suffice it to say that Fido is NOT one of those dour, graphically gory Zombie films you can rely on from Romero. Rather it is a film that will have you constantly chuckling and, although (and I did have to think back carefully to be sure) there is a fair dose of blood-letting and violence, the delectable humour, so well enhanced by the surreal milieu created by Director Currie and his co-screenwriters, goes a long way towards making this seem like a feature that ought to be rated PG-13. I urge you to go see this little Canuck gem. I'll certainly be buying the DVD once it emerges hopefully by next Summer. Saw this movie at the Vancouver Film Festival and thought it was deadly smart, stylish, and FUNNY.

The cast was ROCK SOLID. Great work by Carrie Anne Moss, Dylan Baker, Tim Blake Nelson, Billy Connelly and up and comer, Alexia Fast.

Weirdly, I found myself thinking about the movie for days after seeing it.

Writers, Dennis Heaton, Robert Chomiak and Andrew Currie layered in a lot of political subtext - but didn't whack you over the head with it.

The world they created had depth, and made sense. There is a giddy carnivorous spirit to this movie.

FIDO is guaranteed to cure grumpiness.

Loved it!!! Fido is a cute comedy that deserves wider recognition, especially considering the mainstream crap that is supposed to entertain us these days.

As has already been pointed out, this is hardly a real zombie film, but rather a sweet satire that employs the undead to point fingers. While there are necessarily some bloody scenes, there is almost no gore and the way this movie is presented (feel-good 50s style), I can't imagine anyone being actually scared or turned off by Fido & his fellow sufferers.

While the cast is generally good, I felt that Moss and Nelson stood out. The humor is not in-your-face, but rather subdued; there's a lot of attention to detail and I caught myself smiling benignly several throughout the movie. This is certainly no masterpiece of cinema, but it doesn't strive to be - instead, Currie succeeds in delivering a heart-warming black comedy. Set in a middle class neighborhood in the imaginary town of Willard in the 1950s, this dark comedy with a light touch toys with such American obsessions as gun mania and violence, materialism and keeping up with the Joneses, fear of others, slavery, golf, and the disposing of the dead. Yes, it all sounds a bit heavy, but trust me on this, it's nearly as light as a feather.

Zombies are featured prominently among the characters. Crucial questions arise, such as: who will become a zombie (90% of the Willard folks choose this final path, while only 10% prefer a traditional funeral)? Who owns how many Zombies to do their bidding like robots (they've become a mark of social status)? And, what is the range of possible relationships that can be worked out between the living and the sort of reincarnated dead?

Somehow, director Andrew Currie, who also co-wrote the lively screenplay (with Robert Chomiak and Dennis Heaton), keeps this improbable material percolating along for an hour and a half without once faltering for want of a good laugh. A super cast helps: Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker, Henry Czerny, Tim Blake Nelson, Mary Black and Sonja Bennett are the principals, aided by young K'Sun Ray as Timmy, the innocent kid with a good heart who acts as fair witness to all the lunacy of the grownups. (Having seen her only in "Memento" and "The Matrix," I had no idea that Ms. Moss had such fine comedienne chops.)

The production design and music are exquisitely 50s, to a tee. Maybe this one isn't for everybody. It surely will be a hard film to beat for my annual Bizarro Award. But intelligent comedies that stay funny from start to finish are among the hardest won achievements in movie-making. For me anyway, "Fido" is a hoot! My grades: 8.5/10 (A-) (Seen on 01/30/07) This is the first must see film I've seen in the last year! It's wickedly funny, incredibly original, unbelievably great looking (they went for this super cool wide-screen Technicolor look that's awesome to behold,) and it actually has depth in character and in what it says about society. It's really smart satire that nails everything from Homeland Security to race issues, while at the same time leaving you laughing and realizing how much are world lives in fear. Carrie Anne Moss turns in a comedic performance I never imagined would come from her! She's sweet, funny and sexy! Billy Connolly is great as Fido who can only grunt and moan! And Dylan Baker as the Dad is priceless. In fact the whole cast is perfect. Henry Czerny as the bad guy, Tim Blake Nelson as the neighbor with the hot sexy zombie girlfriend (getting the idea now?) Funny, though-provoking and just all round amazing! Go and see this movie! It's like nothing you've ever seen before. A year or so ago, I was watching the TV news when a story was broadcast about a zombie movie being filmed in my area. Since then I have paid particular attention to this movie called 'Fido' as it finished production and began playing at festivals. Two weeks ago Fido began playing in my local theater. And, just yesterday, I read a newspaper article which stated Fido is not attracting audiences in it's limited release, with the exception of our local theater. In fact, here it is outdrawing all other shows at The Paramount Theater, including 300. Of course, this makes sense as many locals want to see their city on screen or spot themselves roaming around in zombie make-up. And for any other locals who haven't seen Fido yet but are considering it, I can say there are many images on screen, from the school to city park to the forbidden zone, that you will recognize. In fact, they make the Okanagan Valley look beautiful. That's right beautiful scenery in a zombie movie! However, Fido itself is a very good movie. Yes, despite its flaws, it is better then most of the 20 other movies playing in my local market. Fido is best described as an episode of Lassie in which the collie has been replaced by a member of the undead. This is a clever premise. And the movie even goes further by taking advantage of the 1950's emphasize on conformity and playing up the cold-war paranoia which led to McCarthyism. Furthermore, it builds on the notion that zombies can be tamed or trained which George Romero first introduced in Day Of The Dead.

K'Sun Ray plays a small town boy who's mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) longs for a zombie servant so she can be like all the other house wives on her block. However, his dad (Dylan Baker) is against the idea as he once had to kill his own 'zombie father'. Eventually, the family does acquire a zombie named 'Fido' (played by Billy Connolly), and adjusts to life with the undead. Billy Connolly was inspired casting. He is able to convey Fido's confusion, longing, hatred, and loyalty through only his eyes, lumbering body, and grunts. Connolly shows that he can play understated characters better than his outrageously comedic ones. This is his best role since Mrs. Brown.

Fido follows in the footsteps of other recent zomcoms such as Shawn Of The Dead and Zombie Honeymoon. Being someone who appreciates Bruce Campbell and Misty Mundae movies more than Eli Roth and Jigsaw ones, I prefer humor over gore in my horror. However, I understand the criticism of those horror fans who feel there is not enough 'undead carnage' in Fido. Yet, I am sure patient viewers will be rewarded by the films gentle humor.

The movie does break down in it's third act. It's as if the writers were so wrapped up in the cute premise of domesticated zombies in the 1950s, they forgot about the story arc. However, given my interest in horror comedies and my appreciation for seeing the neighborhood on screen, I rate Fido 9 out of 10. And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the "Dawn of the Dead" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.)

Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie! This film takes place in the 1950s. According to this the dead (called zombies) have arisen to eat the living. However a company has developed a collar that, when put around the zombies neck, makes them docile and perfect servants. The Robinsons mom Helen (Carrie-Anne Moss), dad Bill (Dylan Baker) and son Timmy (K'Sun Ray) hire a zombie because everyone on their block already has one. Tim names the zombie Fido (Billy Connolly) and becomes friends with him. But his dad hates him and Timmy looses control of Fido and things go wrong.

As you can see this is--among many other things--a takeoff on the "Lassie" series with Fido being a stand in for Lassie. Timmy was named that for a reason! Every single of the famous Lassie episodes are spun here. My favorite is when Timmy sends Fido off to get help before the zombies eat him! Also it's a satire of those 1950s Douglas Sirk films where everything is bright and colorful--but dark secrets are tearing people apart. The characters wear VERY bright 1950s clothes (Moss is always in a dress)--the furnishings, settings and cars especially are all 1950s in hyper bright colors. Even when the script becomes repetitious there's always something to look at. The script is good--but there are only so many Lassie jokes you can make. The melodramatics are kind of silly but the cast pulls it off. Everyone here is excellent and right on target. Even Connolly as an emotionless zombie does a good job. Moss is the best--playing each line for all its worth---but never going overboard.

This isn't for everybody (of course). The satire may be lost on most people and the gore is pretty tame. The gore is done so casually and with happy music playing over it it's hard to take it seriously. So, for some people, this will really work. I give it an 8. My goodness. This movie really really shows the talents of actors. Billy Connelly flexes his acting muscle. Truly an amazing man, if you look at him in Absolution as a rebel, Boondock Saints as a madman/killer, and then finally in Fido as a zombie! His character in Fido looks from cute to frightening, absolutely fabulous! Cariie Ann Moss is no hack either! Jumping in career from Matrix and Momento as a darker character, to a heart warming conservative 1950's housewife! Rare these days to see actors being able to not be so type-casted.

Now onto the storyline (No Spoilers, don't worry). This movie would make Max Brooks (Author of Zombie Survival Guide & World War Z) happy with joy! Finally a well done twist of zombies and comedy.

If you like zombies, if you don't like zombies, if you are just bored, or if you are too busy, go see this movie! When you see the cover of the DVD you're convinced this is some Class B cheesy cheapie, a film made for $1,000 in somebody's backyard.

Wrong!

This is quality material and really good. It's a comedy and a clever one at that. It also is very touching in spots, with a nice spot of kindness. The production values are very good (this looks excellent), the actors are known, the film's direction and sets are great. It's amazing. Who would have thought?

Carrie-Ann Moss, playing against-type, is terrific, as"Helen Robinson," the June Cleaver-like wife; Billy Connolly is great as the grunting good-hearted zombie "Fido;" Tim Blake Nelson ("Mr. Theopolis") is a hoot is the neighbor with the sexy zombie girlfriend "Tammy," and Henry Czerny and Dylan Baker as dads (check) are excellent, too K'Sun Ray as young "Timmy Robinson," shouldn't be overlooked, either. In fact, he probably has more lines in the movie than anyone.

If I explain the story it will sound so stupid that few of you would watch it. You'll just have to take the word of the people here who liked it and found it to be a very, very pleasant surprise. You need a dark sense of humor, though; an appreciation of the absurd. As soon as I heard about this film I knew I had to check it out. Well, I heard about it, then I found the trailer. After that, that's when I knew I had to see it. And I am so glad I did. You want to see classic television mixed with zombies? No? Then get lost.

FIDO is a movie unlike anything I've ever seen. Well, actually, it kind of is. It's kind of like a Lassie episode and a Zombie film. Though when combined, it feels completely new and original. FIDO is about a little boy named Timmy and his new pet Fido. Well this new pet ain't no squawking parakeet or some potty-trained puppy. It's a re-animated dead guy...a zombie. A large radiation cloud engulfed Earth which led to all of the dead rising, which ensued the Zombie Wars. Though through the genius of Reinhold Giger, lead scientist of ZomCon, he discovered that if you destroy the brain, the zombie will perish, thus giving us the edge and the win in the Zombie War. Though due to lingering radiation, whoever dies becomes a zombie. Which can be a problem especially with the elderly. Though Zomcom steps up again with more breakthroughs, especially with the Domestication Collar. The collar stops the zombie's need for human flesh and thus making it harmless as a household pet. But not all is perfect in this Zombie Utopia, collars break, old people die and....well I'll just let you watch this incredibly unique flick.

FIDO is a fantastic idea brought to fruition. With an all-star cast, and great writing FIDO rises above most in the comedy/horror genre. There are plenty of funny and original situations that really had me entertained. Though after seeing the film, I personally think the movie would have been better in black and white. At less than 90 minutes, the movie doesn't go on for too long and moves from scene to scene at a good rate. It'll probably end up being a cult-classic of sorts, since it's not really a laugh out loud comedy or even a horror movie. It's a comedy/family/zombie film immersed in the 1950 vibe. If you thought anything I said here was interesting by all means check this film out. But if you're still on the fence, swing your leg back over and stay there. 8.5 outta 10 OK, I didn't know what to expect when I saw the cover to Fido, honestly when I came across it in the video store I was tempted to rent this movie, but nothing about it really grabbed my attention. But when I was looking around in Netflix, they were advertising this like crazy if I liked "goofy" scary movies, so I figured to just give it a shot. I'm so glad that I did watch it, this was just a great movie, it was absolutely hilarious and so charming to watch. Like I said, it's Pleasantville meets Night of the Living Dead, it's just a great concept, what does happen after a mega zombie attack? As we see in another zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead, they have fun by making the zombies left over as "handy" citizens. This is a very overlooked horror/comedy movie, I think a lot of people were just so blown away with Shaun of the Dead that this got the boot. But it's a great story and the cast was perfect and made this into just a really funny movie.

In a 1950s alternate universe where radiation from space has turned the dead into zombies. This radiation still plagues humanity, as all those who die after the original contamination turn into the undead. In order to continue living normal lives, communities are fenced with the help of a governing corporation named Zomcon. Zomcon provides collars with accompanying remote controls to control the zombies' hunger for flesh so as to use them as slaves or servants. In the town of Willard, a housewife ,Helen, buys a zombie in spite of her husband Bill's zombie phobia. Their son, Timmy, befriends the zombie, naming him "Fido". One day Fido's collar malfunctions and he kills their next door neighbor, who turns into a zombie. Timmy "kills" the zombified neighbor. When a pair of local bullies are blamed for the missing neighbor, they capture Fido and Timmy. Helen comes and rescues Timmy and Fido from the bullies and they try to forget about the whole thing. Several days later, the neighbor's body is found and the murder is traced back to Fido, who is taken away to Zomcon where the public is told he will be destroyed. Timmy learns through a friend that Fido is simply working in a factory at Zomcon. Timmy sets out to rescue him with the help from his neighbor with a zombie girlfriend in hopes to get Fido back.

I really do highly recommend this movie if you get the chance to see it, it's so silly but a lot of fun. Billy Connelly did a great job as Fido and really brought, no pun intended, a lot of life into the character. I think the scene that made me laugh the most was when Timmy has to burry the old lady that Fido attacked and killed, his last words to her were so funny, "you weren't really nice, but you liked flowers, so…" and he buries her in the garden. Not to mention the neighbor with the zombie girlfriend, sick, disturbing, wrong, but classic laughs. I still love how even though this is like the Leave It To Beaver-esquire type of world, there still is a lot of gore in the movie. So if you do have a chance to see Fido, take it, I promise some good laughs.

9/10 Even without speaking a word, Billy Connely is wonderful as a zombie... Carrie Ann Moss as "Mom"?, even better. Zombie girlfriends?

"...My father thied to eat me... I never tried to eat Timmy."

And I thought Dawn of the Dead was good. It's kinda like Airplane meets (meats?) Night of the Living Dead, sponsored by Zomcom..

And don't forget my head coffin

And Fido in an Aloha shirt is just way cool!

And yes, the social comment is just too much to even begin to comment on.

Sufice it to say, it all really works! Loved it! What's not to like?--you got your suburbia, you got your zombies, you got your family issues, you got your social dilemmas, you got yourself one Fine Retro-1950's-style Flesh Eating Under Class Held At Bay By An Uneasy Worried About Whether They're The Next Meal Upper Crust. You couldn't ask for more.

Cast is superb. Carrie Ann Moss is absolute perfection as a debutante social climbing housewife. She's both wanton, and criminally conspiratorial. Every fellow's dream. K'sun is really great as the son just trying to be as normal as possible in this nightmare existence, and somehow succeeding. He's a genuine screen presence. Very photogenic, and natural. Without naming them all, the rest of the cast is wonderful. Henry Czerny plays a suspicious policeman with honed instincts and little squeamishness as if it's his everyday persona. Billy Connolly is delightful as Fido. A fine actor: I wish that he had played the title role in "Braveheart," with Gibson directing. My sense is that his William Wallace would have been closer to the actual character. His Fido is contained, yet accessible. A nice touch.

In short, a great and marvelous satiric poke at morals, values, social pinnings, feelings, growth, coping in uncertain times, and compensatory adjustments to impossible conditions. A true reality show. In an alternate 1950s, where an outbreak of the undead (caused by a mysterious 'space-dust') has been contained through the use of special electronic collars, a young loner, Timmy, finds a friend in Fido (Billy Connelly), his family's recently acquired domesticated zombie.

Fido quickly becomes a surrogate father to Timmy, whose real dad is unable to adequately express his love for his son (or for his hot-to-trot wife, played by the gorgeous Carrie-Anne Moss) having been psychologically scarred as a child (when he was forced to shoot his own father, who tried to eat him!).

Timmy runs into a spot of bother, however, when his putrid pal's collar goes on the blink, and he attacks and kills an elderly neighbour. With the authorities on Fido's trail, trouble brewing with a pair of local bullies, and his mother forming a bond with their undead house-help, will Timmy be able to hold on to his new found friend?

A refreshing take on the whole zombie schtick, Fido is a thoroughly entertaining, deliciously dark comedy that should appeal to anyone with a slightly twisted sense of humour. Taking the Romero zombie-verse and transplanting it into 1950s small town America is a stroke of genius, and the result is simply one of the most original films to tackle the whole 'reanimated dead' theme that I have seen.

Connelly's Fido is a cinematic zombie worthy of inclusion in the Undead Movie Hall of Fame, along with Day Of The Dead's Bub, and Return Of The Living Dead's Tarman; it is not often I feel empathy for a walking corpse, but The Big Yin's performance is so fine that I actually found myself rooting for the big blue bag of pus! The rest of the cast also give commendable performances, with young K'Sun Ray (as Timmy) and Ms.Moss deserving special mentions—Ray, because, for one so young, he puts in a particularly assured turn, and Moss because she is so bloody yummy!

This is the third zombie film that I have watched this week (the others being the somewhat disappointing Planet Terror and the rather fun Flight Of The Living Dead), and, to my surprise, it is also the best. Director Andrew Currie has given fans of the genre something truly original to treasure and is a talent to be watched in the future.

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb. I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.

Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.

It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless. Fidois a very odd film. And in many ways, a very good one.

My first thought after viewing, was how the hell are they going to market this thing? If Shaun of the Dead is a romantic comedy with zombies, Fido is a boy and his dog story blended with fifties nostalgia comedy with zombies. Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.

Fido has little of Shaun's carnage, gore & belly laughs. It is a different beast altogether (forgive the pun).

Fido kicks off with a black & white information film that explains the back story - humans have won a war against zombies by developing a control collar that subdues the flesh-eaters into dumb servants.

At first I thought we we were in for a fifties cold war paranoia parody a la Matinée, but we are soon hurled into a world of bright primary colours and fifties middle-class nostalgia.

Young Timmy Robinon is a lonely kid who doesn't fit in at school. His mom is would-be social climber,and his dad is nervy and detached.

Seeking to keep up with the Joneses, mom (Carry-Anne Moss) has acquired a zombie. Jimmy is disinterested at first, but 'Fido' (Billy Conelley) soon proves a great buddy for Jimmy. Until his collar goes on the blink...

Fido is NOT a horror film, but my problem with the movie is figuring out exactly what it IS.

Much of the humour is of the light family variety, and sometimes the plot line is too heavily reliant on the boy and his dog/family moments.

Yet the film is shot through with wonderfully dark, truly funny moments, which while welcome, will ensure an R rating for what is, for extended periods, a family comedy.

The film looks gorgeous, and is wonderfully performed by all involved.

Despite its difficult tonal problems, I hope this movie finds a niche, as it's quite a little gem in this year's deluge of cinematic crap. I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.

And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. In the immortal "Shaun of the Dead", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. "Fido" presents us with an epilogue to "Shaun" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original "what-if...?" movie.

The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.

The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic "boy-and-his-dog" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his "pet" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.

A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including "The Matrix"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), "Fido" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.

"Fido" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible "Shaun of the Dead". I really enjoyed this movie. The acting by the adult actors was great, although I did find the main kid a little stiff. But he carried himself very well for being a new talent. The humor is very sublime and not in your face like most Hollywood comedy junk. I.e. The Nutty Professor. If you have a short attention span and are used to the typical Hollywood stuff you probably wouldn't like this as it is a bit slower paced. I picked it up on Blu-ray and I have to say the image quality is top notch. Probably one of the better looking Blu-rays I've seen so far. The extras were cool too. They deleted quite a bit, but that's probably a good thing as most of the deleted scenes didn't really add anything. For the life of me, why did this film receive an R rating?! While it IS about flesh-eating zombies, believe it or not, it's actually a pretty good family-friendly film--at least if your kids are age 10 and older. Unlike the traditional zombie films, this one has an excellent sense of humor as well as a traditional values--albeit a bit twisted! The language isn't a serious problem, there is no nudity and the film style is definitely geared towards kids (much like the old TV show "Eerie, Indiana")--yet some knucklehead slapped an R rating one it! Believe me, most kids have seen worse violence than this and it just seems silly to make audiences think this is an adults only film.

The story is set in a parallel-type world. While the fashions, cars and mores appear circa 1953, in this bizarro world there has been a fierce recent zombie plague that resulted in the "zombie war" and massive changes in everyday life. At school, kids are trained in armed combat and there's a cute scene late in the film where the father gives his son a handgun and tells him to keep it in his backpack "just in case"! As for life outside of school, it's pretty weird as well, as people now have learned that zombies AREN'T such a bad thing! Heck, using shock collars and training, they can be made into slaves who can do your housework, clean streets, deliver milk or, in the case of a really sick guy, be your "special friend".

This film deals with one particular family that finally buys their first zombie slave (played by Billy Connally). Mom is thrilled and her son slowly becomes the zombie's friend. Dad, on the other hand, isn't convinced--as he was forced years early to kill his own zombie father and he hasn't yet gotten over this!! Funny, irreverent and unique--this film needs to be seen by a much wider audience. Due to the invention of a "The Domestication Collar", flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in "The Wild Zone". In the town of "Willard", pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).

Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's "Domestication Collar" is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's "Timmy and Lassie") and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling "Zomcom" authorities.

"Fido" doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing "Wild Zone"; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.

******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker Who says zombies can't be converted into useful members of the community? Certainly not the makers of "Fido," who take us to a never-never-land version of the 1950's where the undead have been turned into butlers and servants for the burgeoning middle class. Timmy Robinson is the all-American boy who becomes emotionally attached to the family's new full-time domestic - a recently resurrected zombie whom Timmy has affectionately dubbed Fido. All of this has been made possible by Zomcom, a big-brother-type organization that has found a way to render the zombies (who were originally brought to "life" by radiation from outer space) manageable and docile - at least most of the time.

This twisted, modern-day spin on the TV series "Lassie" - it might easily have been entitled "A Boy and His Zombie" - takes slyly satirical swipes at such pre-'60s concerns as obsessive social conformity (here keeping-up-with-the-Joneses means having more zombie servants than the folks next door), the sterility of suburban life, the corporate control of civic affairs, small town corruption and nuclear family values - all played out in a beautifully designed setting of parti-colored houses and immaculately manicured lawns. The movie doesn't hit the audience over the head with its message nor does it engage in endless hyperbole to generate laughs. Instead, this is a low-keyed, subtle little satire that elicits appreciative chuckles rather than full-bellied guffaws. Much of the humor derives from the incongruity between the placidness of the setting and the cavalier attitude towards death demonstrated by the fine citizens of the community (Life Magazine has been replaced with a periodical entitled Death Magazine). Despite some playfully graphic violence, the movie stays true to the spirit of innocence we generally associate with both the 1950's itself and the cheesy, low-budget horror movies that were so much a part of the pop culture scene of that decade.

K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Ann Moss and Dylan Baker are amiable and appealing as the wide-eyed Timmy and his Cleaver-esquire parents (with slightly sinister undertones), while Billy Connolly accomplishes the well nigh impossible task of bringing a great deal of humanity and depth to the role of a resurrected corpse.

This is what "Lassie" might have been had Timmy's best friend been afflicted rabies. "Fido" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, "Eisenhower era" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss "Fido" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to "Tank Girl", but the two movies are vastly different. "Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK Fido is a story about more well mannered zombies who have been trained to serve the human race. All falls apart though, when young Timmy's zombie Fido eats the family neighbor. From then on, disaster (well, maybe not disaster, but to some extent, chaos) occurs. Most of the people treat their zombies with fairness, and one such character sleeps with his zombie (very funny part of the movie, if not also very disturbing too). And we find the loving Fido whatever he may do. This is a very funny and unique film, especially for the zombie genre. It is also probably one of the least violent of zombie movies (no negativity in this statement). I very much recommend it to people who are looking for something funny and different. I rate this 8/10. Rated R for zombie related violence Along with "Aparadektoi, the best Greek Comedy series ever ! Lefteris Papapetrou writes and Antonis Aggelopoulos directs in a magnificent way Soso, Alekos, Flora, Achilleas, Grandpa Aristides, Machi, Johnnie, Corrina and Michalis ! In a few words, Alekos, a butcher living in a district around the center of Athens is married to Soso. One day he meets Flora, an old date of his, who now is married to Achilleas and lives along with her father-in-law and his caretaker, Machi. Machi also has a son named Johnny who appears at the end of the first period and the entire second one. the rest main characters are Michalis, Alekos's assistant at the butcher's and bi-sexual and Corrina, Achilleas's lost sister who has turned up to be the best prostitute in the entire Athens. The main story of the series is Soso's attempts to kill Alekos, because he is cheating on her, but everything else happening in that are not of lower importance. Brilliant screenplay, with an excellent plot, poisonous quotes, awesome performances and a great directing. Original idea and especially the shootings were something that was done at the Greek television, for a series of the Greek television, for the first time, e.g. scenes shot under water ! Surely a serial you will never stop enjoying ! Add pure humor + quick and unique sentences + sex + unfaith sex! + love + lies + dark deadly thoughts + secret plans + fun + black humor + sex!.. again! + black dresses! (needed for the unlimited funerals!) = Eglimata!!! Or in English, Crimes!! Our Heroes are two married couples, their relatives, their friends and neighbors. There is Soso and Alekos and Flora and Achilleas, two married couples who have everything but not real love! Flora is the mistress of Alekos, and when Soso finds what's going on, she is planning with her best friend Pepi to kill Alekos and look like an accident! Many plans were made but everyone else dies except Alekos! Achilleas find's out that he has a sister who is a Hooker and tries to put her in the right road..Korina is a temptation to mens but her tries to get married all goes wrong, since when they learn her past, freaks and leave and she ends up marrying a rich farm man. As for the other roles they are like they are from Cartoons! Grandpa Aristidis which fakes that he is paralyzed, Machi is his nurse who is secretly marry to Aristidis for his fortune, Johny, son of Machi, who has it OK with everybody to have all the benefits, Michalakis who has only one purpose in life.. to suicide, but he is unable to do it so he is desperate! Every time, I see the replays and every time when it finishes I miss it.. One of my favorite All time classics... Eglimata (= Crimes) is a story about little crimes everyday people commit that in a crazy scenario could lead to the absolute disaster.One of the smartest Greek series ever!Actors like Ketty Konstadinou and Maria Kavogianni showed a whole new dimension of themselves and talent and gave us moments of incredible 'guilty' laughing.Every viewer seemed to recognise the bad side of their self in one of the characters or at least a side of their self they wish they had. Actors of every age that played bigger and smaller parts gained an equally big space in Greek audience's heart.My personal favourites (apart the first two i mentioned)are Vassilis Haralambopoulos, Athinodoros Prousalis and Stavros Nikolaidis but so many amazing actors passed by some episodes from time to time. Whoever around the world understands Greek should find a way to watch this series,even though it's been more than 5 years that it was on TV.In Greece they keep repeating the series (ANT1) in every chance there is like summertime or early afternoon zones.We'll never forget Eglimata or any of the casting crew! This is a quite slow paced movie, slowly building the story of an ex stripper who begins a new family life with a complete stranger. The viewer slowly feels that there's something wrong here ...

I really loved this movie even though it leaves a slight bitter taste in the end. It is clever, well paced and very well acted. Both Philippe Toretton and Emmannuelle Seigner are deeply into their characters.

The little son "pierrot" is also very touching.

A thriller which does not seem like one. A very unconventional movie, very particular atmosphere throughout the whole movie though you might feel awkward a few times with a couple of scenes.

i'll give it a 8/10 !! it's hard to tell you more about this film without spoiling it. I enjoyed it because I wasn't expecting what I was seeing, but an ordinary sex-drama so.... It's a pscyho-sexual thriller, in which nothing is what it seems. It features Emmanuelle Seigner, no stranger to the genre (and to nudity) in which her husband, Polanski, had directed her. And a creepy performance (did I say creepy/yes CREEPY) from Toreton (Bernard Tavernier's actor). It looks like a Pascal Bruckner meets Roman Polanski (better than Bitter Moon), like a Chabrol gone astray or Clouzot thriller (I have seen someone mentioning Les Diaboliques), but closer to Georges Franju's Les Yeux sans Visage (Eyes without a face, the godfather of Dr. Phibes and more). A gem ! I am just afraid they will blow this into a Hollywood remake like they did with Nighwatch and The Vanishing. An interesting thriller that has Paul Winfield as a detective on the case of a murder. Paul Winfield was an underrated actor who pulled off all his roles with such ease, it was hard to tell the man was even acting. Maybe most known by younger viewers as the voice/narrator of "City Confidential", Winfield ends his career with a so-so movie; but as always, Winfield shines. A treat to watch.

Erika Eliniak is well, Erika Eliniak, nice to look at but leaves a lot to be desired in the acting department. Though, to be fair, this is one of her better efforts.

Bottom line: a watchable thriller that shouldn't be missed by any Paul Winfield fan. A decent telefilm to help send Paul Winfield off to celluloid heaven. What an actor. He will be missed. We're talking about a low budget film, and it's understandable that there are some weaknesses (no spoilers: one sudden explosives expert and one meaningless alcoholic); but in general the story keeps you interested, most of the characters are likable and there are some original situations.

I really like films that surprise you with some people that are not who they want you to believe and then twist and turn the plot ... I applaud this one on that.

If you know what I mean, try to see also "Nueve Reinas" (Nine Queens) a film from Argentina. Strange enough, all the previous comments merely described the beginning and left the details over. I feel a necessity to confirm that this is a family work, since Marina Vlady was also Robert Hossein's wife, and the - excellent - jazz music was written by te director's father, André. Under these circumstances, no wonder it was a really good thriller, seen when issued and immediately identified with the music. The suspense was flawless, and maintained throughout until the end. Robert Hossein, at the time one of the best European players, managed to impose himself also as a top screen and stage director. He's still putting up great stage shows, with a preference for religious subjects.harry carasso, Paris, France "Toi le Venin" is Robert Hossein's masterpiece,and one of the great thrillers of the fifties.Based on a Frederic Dard novel,a writer the director often worked with (see also "le Monte-Charge" which Hossein did not direct but in which he was the lead too),the screenplay grabs you from the first pictures on a desert road by night where a beautiful blonde might be the fieriest of the criminals to the mysterious house where he finds his femme fatale ..and her sister.Then begins a cat and mouse play .One of the sisters is in a wheelchair .But is she really disabled?Which one is the criminal who tried to kill the hero on that night?

The two actresses,Marina Vlady and the late Odile Versois were sisters.

Turn off all the lights before watching.Highly suspenseful. WHEN I first saw this film, in London, in 1958, I was bowled over. I had never seen a film like this before. It had a strange, hypnotic effect, quite unlike the films that I had seen previously and it left a lasting impact.

I believe that Odile Versios & Marina Vlady are sisters, if not twins. Certainly the interaction is amazing in its power to influence the viewer.

If this has been converted to DVD - in Region 2 format - and in the original French language, I would love to hear about it & where it can be purchased. The vigilante has long held a fascination for audiences, inasmuch as it evokes a sense of swift, sure justice; good triumphs over evil and the bad guy gets his deserts. It is, in fact, one of the things that has made the character of Dirty Harry Callahan (as played by Clint Eastwood) so popular. He carries a badge and works within the law, but at heart, Harry is a vigilante, meting out justice `his' way, which often puts him in conflict with his own superiors, as well as the criminals he's pursuing. But it's what draws the audience; anyone who's ever been bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense of one kind or another, delights in seeing someone cut through the red tape and get on with it-- even if it's only on the screen. And that satisfaction derived from seeing justice done-- and quickly-- is one of the elements that makes `Sudden Impact,' directed by and starring Eastwood, so successful. In this one, the fourth of the series, while working a homicide, Harry encounters a bona fide vigilante at work-- an individual whose brand of justice parallels his own, with one exception: Whoever it is, he's definitely not carrying a badge.

In his own inimitable way, Inspector Callahan has once again ended up on the bad side of the department and is ordered to take some vacation time. So he does; as only `Dirty Harry' can. In a small town north of San Francisco, Harry finds himself smack dab in the middle of a homicide case, which he quickly links to a recent murder in San Francisco because of the unique M.O. employed by the perpetrator. Unaccountably, Harry encounters resistance from the local Police Chief, Jannings (Pat Hingle), who advises him to take his big city tactics and methods elsewhere. Not one to be deterred, however, Harry continues his investigation, which ultimately involves a beautiful and talented young artist, Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke). Gradually, Harry discovers a link between the victims; the burning question, though, is where does Jennifer Spencer fit into the picture?

Eastwood is in top form here, both in front of and behind the camera, and it is arguably the second best of the five-film series, right behind the original `Dirty Harry.' It had been seven years since the last `Harry' offering (`The Enforcer,' 1976), but Eastwood steps right back into the character with facility and renewed vigor. And this one definitely benefits from having him in the director's chair, as he is able to recapture the essence of, not only his own character, but that `spirit' that made these films so successful, and he does it by knowing the territory and establishing a continuity that all but erases that seven year gap between #s 3 and 4. As with all the films he directs, Eastwood sets a deliberate pace that works perfectly for this material and creates just enough tension to keep it interesting and involving from beginning to end.

The screenplay, by Joseph Stinson, is well written and formulated to that distinctive `Dirty Harry' style; the dialogue is snappy and the story itself (conceived by Charles B. Pierce and Earl E. Smith) is the most engaging since the original `Dirty Harry,' as it successfully endeavors to play upon the very personal aspects of the drama, rather than entirely upon the action. The characters are well drawn and convincing, and, of course, this is the film that gave us one of Harry's best catch-phrases: `Go, ahead-- make my day...'

As Harry, Clint Eastwood perfectly embodies all of the elements that make this character so popular: He lives by a personal moral code, a true individual made of the kind of stuff we envision as that of the pioneers who settled this country and made America what it is today. Harry personifies that sense of freedom and justice we all strive for and hold so dear, possibly more so today than ever before. No matter who we are or where we come from, there's undeniably a part of us that wants to be Harry, or at least have him around. `Dirty Harry' is an icon of the cinema, and it's impossible to envision anyone but Eastwood portraying him; for better or worse, Eastwood `is' Dirty Harry, without question, just as Sean Connery is James Bond and Basil Rathbone, Sherlock Holmes.

Sondra Locke is entirely effective here in the role of Jennifer Spencer, a young woman wronged and out for vengeance, or as she sees it, `justice.' She manages to bring a hard-edged determination laced with vulnerability to her character, with a convincing, introspective approach that is far beyond what is typical of the `action' genre. Even amid the violence, Locke keeps her focus on Jennifer and the traumatic events that have brought her to this stage of her life. Her portrayal makes a perfect complement to Eastwood's Harry, and becomes, in philosophy and deed, something of his counterpart.

In supporting roles, two performances stand out: Paul Drake, as Mick, creates the best `psycho' since Andy Robinson's dynamic portrayal of the serial killer in the original `Dirty Harry.' With actually very limited screen time, Drake establishes a genuinely disconcerting presence that is believable and convincing, which adds much to the purely visceral response of the audience. This is the guy you can't wait to see Harry take care of in the end. Also effective is Audrie J. Neenan, who makes her character, Ray Parkins, the epitome of the proverbial `low life,' who can be found in any bar in any city. It's a performance that evokes a gut-level response, and it adds greatly to the credibility of the film, in that it helps provide that necessary sense of realism.

The supporting cast includes Albert Popwell (Horace), Mark Kevloun (Bennett) and Nancy Parsons (Mrs. Kruger). With a perfect blend of drama and action, `Sudden Impact' dispenses justice that is a fulfilling respite from reality; the perfect justice of a not-so-perfect world, that makes for a satisfying cinematic experience. 9/10. Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series. The fourth in the "Dirty Harry" series, this film features one of the most despicable, ugliest, unlikable, profane, disgusting females I have ever seen on film: "Ray Perkins," played by Audrie Neenan. She is the modern nasty low-life version of the 1945 "Detour" character, "Ann Savage."

Her foul mouth and gutter attitude turned me off so much I never watched this film again until I acquired a profanity filter which shut her up....and least some of her! Then I could enjoy the rest of the movie.

Everywhere "Harry Callahan" (Clint Eastwood) goes, violence immediately follows.....within minutes! It happens so often it's almost laughable but it makes for a fast-moving, entertaining film with a satisfying ending as all the scumbag villains are eliminated one-by-one.

This is a very sophomoric film that appeals to our base instincts.....and connects, sad to say. Most of us like to see these dirtballs get it in the end, and who does it better than Dirty Harry? The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.

Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.

7.2 out of 10 With Harry Callahan getting up in years, the inevitable `old man with a chip on his shoulder' story had to come into play eventually. Callahan, looking fragile sometimes and out of place, his demeanor still was unwavering. Thankfully, this film took some time off to develop a different type of story, one that might reinvent the Dirty Harry and the whole genre. While the film fell short in doing so, it was still an excellent addition to the series, even if it was getting a little out of place during a time of silly fashion trends and New Wave music. With this movie being the only Dirty Harry movie which Clint Eastwood not only stars, but produces and directs as well, you know it's got to be good. Although some say that The Enforcer is the best out of the series, I completely disagree. In my opinion, apart from the original Dirty Harry, Sudden Impact and Magnum Force are the only two worthy of being in the series. Although The Enforcer is an alright film with a couple of good action sequences, it doesn't get the dirty and gritty impact that the other three films do. This film captures all the excitement that makes a Clint Eastwood film good, and it's got the quotes that make a Dirty Harry film good. In Diry Harry it's "..Well do ya, punk?"; in Magnum Force "A man's got to know his limitations" ; and in this it's "Go ahead. Make my day." Also in this film it's nice to see a change of scenery, as you get a bit tired of seeing the same old San Fransisco streets in the other films in the series. With great acting by Clint Eastwood and co-star Sandra Locke, and good directing by Clint, this is in my opinion the best Dirty Harry sequel ever. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** After two so-so outings ("Magnum Force" and "The Enforcer"), Dirty Harry seems to have regained his stride in "Sudden Impact," a gripping thriller that wisely plays to its strengths: the charisma of Clint Eastwood, who also directed, and a story that spends just enough time on exposition and reserves its energy for the big scenes.

For once, the case takes Harry outside his native San Francisco (where he's again in trouble with his superiors for his "shoot first, ask questions later" tactics), to the hamlet of San Paulo. There, (WARNING: Potential spoiler) a group of lowlifes is being gruesomely murdered, one at a time, by a woman whom they gang-raped years earlier, and whose sister has been in a state of catatonia ever since the attack.

The killer is portrayed by Sondra Locke, and she makes the character of Jennifer Spencer an interesting mix of compassion and cold-bloodedness. Locke's cold eyes and frosty voice, when either trying to comfort her hospitalized sister or dispensing vengeance toward the rapists, are very effective in painting a portrait of a woman wronged whose years of suffering and rage are now beginning to bear deadly fruit.

The rapists are a despicable lot, especially the leader, who has "psycho nutjob" practically stamped on his forehead, and a lesbian who seems almost one of the guys, despite her anatomical inability to participate. The flashback scenes, while not graphically explicit, are nightmarish enough, and clearly intended to make the audience cheer for Jennifer as she kills her assailants.

Some will dismiss "Sudden Impact" as trash: a mindless, manipulative revenge tale. On a certain level this is true, but it's well-done trash. What works to the movie's advantage is the strength of the Sondra Locke performance, giving us a complex character whose wounds are more visible in her paintings than in her gestures or speech. What we have here is an action movie with a point of view.

You can take or leave the idea that some wrongs deserve to be punished by any means necessary, but as the mystery behind the slayings becomes clear to Harry (a realization that, wisely, is not spelled out with dialogue), he is presented with a choice -- what to do about a killer whose motivations he can sympathize with but whose conduct he is bound by law to not tolerate. This makes the story more interesting than the usual Dirty Harry fare.

The movie's other redeeming quality is Eastwood's direction. This is, after all, a Dirty Harry movie, and Eastwood knows the character better than anyone else. The movie is directed with style and wit, and edited to give the action scenes a big payoff. Some of the best "Harry moments" in the entire series are here, including Harry's best-known line, "Go ahead -- make my day."

"Sudden Impact" is a movie that has the courage of its convictions in presenting a tale about a despicable crime and the brutal consequences that follow. It is also a riveting detective story, well made and well told. And it is certainly never dull. On those criteria, it succeeds tremendously. It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.

Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.

It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44. Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan once again angers his superiors with his maverick approach to police work. Refusing to take a vacation he is given a simple case which takes him outside of San Francisco. However, he soon discovers a link between a recent murder in the city and a murder outside of the city, which leads him to the trail of a revenge killer.

As an entry in the Dirty Harry franchise the film starts with some very promising moments, including the legendary "Go ahead, make my day" line that Eastwood delivers wonderfully through clenched teeth before single handedly foiling a robbery. Very badass and it just what fans can expect from him. However, the film soon shifts gears and focuses on the mysterious revenge killer. The problem is that this killer isn't all that mysterious as she is characterized as much as Harry is. This really detracts from the presence of the main character who ruled all of his previous film appearances with, pardon the pun, Magnum Force.

On the bright side this new storyline does draw several parallels to Harry's own unorthodox methods and gives his character dramatic depth that was not there before, but fans that were looking for another badass Harry outing will more than likely be somewhat disappointed. However, a tense climax ends the film on an exciting note so if you don't mind something a little different, it is a good movie for fans. --- 7/10

Rated R for violence and a rape scene Anyone witness to our justice system - or lack thereof will find this film truly satisfying. There weren't too many shades of gray with regard to characters or plot. Virtually every character in this film epitomized what is best and worst about our society. The popularity of this film is probably due to the fact that most of us at one time or another have had to deal with scumbags along with the namby-pamby, lily-livered, melee-mouthed bureaucrats that empower them in the name of "political correctness".

The performances across the board were compelling. I sympathized with the rape victim - while at the same, found it gratifying to see her wipe the smug, vicious arrogance off the faces of her former attackers. In particular, I found the dyke one of the ugliest characters in all of the films I've seen, so it was nice to see her former victim shut her mouth for good. The lead rapist and psychopath was equally ugly, so it was only fitting that Dirty Harry himself offed him in a loud grotesque fashion in the end. This was the only sequel in the dirty Harry saga that equaled the first. Director/star Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" is an intriguing addition to the "Dirty Harry" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up "Make my day" scene recalls the "Do you feel lucky" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.

Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This "incompatibility" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, "What about the victim's rights?" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable "Magnum Force") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.

Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that "Sudden Impact" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the "Dirty Harry" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock "The Dead Pool" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).

This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted "Go ahead, make my day." Having never seen the original Dirty Harry, I judged this movie on a clean slate. And I must say, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, some of the acting by Sondre Locke made me a little squeemish - but hey, it was the 80's. But even if you can't get past her (and I almost couldn't) or her revenge killings (which seemed a little.. overdone ;P), it's worth it just for Dirty Harry. Or at the very least, the bull dog he affectionately names 'MeatHead' :P

7/10. Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment. Clint Eastwood would star again as the battle-weary Detective Harry Callahan, but would also direct the fourth entry in the 'Dirty Harry' series. 'Sudden Impact' again like the other additions, brings its own distinguishable style and tone, but if anything it's probably the most similar to the original in it's darker and seedy moments (and bestowing a classic line "Go ahead. Make my day")… but some of its humor has to been seen to believe. A bulldog… named meathead that pisses and farts. Oh yeah. However an interesting fact this entry was only one in series to not have it set entirely in San Francisco.

The story follows that of detective Callahan trying to put the pieces together of a murder where the victim was shot in the groin and then between the eyes. After getting in some trouble with office superiors and causing a stir which has some crime lord thugs after his blood. He's ordered to take leave, but it falls into a working one where he heads to a coastal town San Paulo, where a murder has occurred similar in vein (bullet to groin and between eyes) to his case. There he begins to dig up dirt, which leads to the idea of someone looking for revenge.

To be honest, I wasn't all that crash hot on Eastwood's take, but after many repeat viewings it virtually has grown on me to the point of probably being on par with the first sequel 'Magnum Force'. This well-assembled plot actually gives Eastwood another angle to work upon (even though it feels more like a sophisticated take on the vigilante features running rampant at that time), quite literal with something punishing but luridly damaging. It's like he's experimenting with noir-thriller touches with character-driven traits to help develop the emotionally bubbling and eventual morality framework. His use of images is lasting, due to its slickly foreboding atmospherics. Dark tones, brooding lighting… like the scene towards the end akin to some western showdown of a silhouette figure (Harry with his new .44 automag handgun) moving its way towards the stunned prey on the fishing docks. It's a striking sight that builds fear! Mixing the hauntingly cold with plain brutality and dash of humor. It seemed to come off. A major plus with these films are the dialogues, while I wouldn't call 'Sudden Impact' first-rate, it provides ample biting exchanges and memorably creditable lines… "You're a legend in your own mind". Don't you just love hearing Harry sparking an amusing quip, before pulling out his piece. The beating action when it occurs is excitingly jarring and intense… the only way to go and the pacing flies by with little in the way of flat passages. Lalo Schfrin would return as composer (after 'The Enforcer" had Jerry Fielding scoring) bringing a methodical funky kick, which still breathed those gloomy cues to a texturally breezy score that clicked from the get-go. Bruce Surtees (an Eastwood regular) gets the job behind the camera (where he did a piecing job with 'Dirty Harry') and gives the film plenty of scope by wonderfully framing the backdrops in some impeccable tracking scenes, but also instrument edgy angles within those dramatic moments.

Eastwood as the dinosaur Callahan still packs a punch, going beyond just that steely glare to get the job done and probably showing a little more heart than one would expect from a younger Callahan. This going by the sudden shift in a plot turn of Harry's quest for justice… by the badge even though he doesn't always agree with it. I just found it odd… a real change of heart. Across from him is a stupendous performance by his beau at the time Sondra Locke. Her turn of traumatic torment (being senselessly raped along with her younger sister), is hidden by a glassily quiet intensity. When the anger is released, it's tactically accurate in its outcome. Paul Drake is perfectly menacing and filthy as one of the targeted thugs and Audrie J. Neenan nails down a repellently scummy and big-mouthed performance. These people are truly an ugly bunch of saps. Pat Hingle is sturdy as the Chief of the small coastal town. In smaller parts are Bradford Dillman and the agreeably potent Albert Popwell (a regular in the series 1-4, but under different characters). How can you forget him in 'Dirty Harry'… yes he is bank robber that's at the end of the trademark quote "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" I liked nearly all the movies in the Dirty Harry series with the exception of the one I think is titled "Enforcer". "Deadpool" was a bit weak in areas too, but I still enjoyed it. This one is one of my favorites of the series, if nothing else for the great line of "Go ahead, make my day". This one also features an interesting albeit familiar plot of someone killing those that have done her wrong. Just think "Magnum Force" with less mystery about who is behind the killings and you have your plot. Granted there is a bit more than that as this one does feature a very nice final showdown at an amusement park. It also features Dirty Harry getting a bulldog as a gift and it tripping up Sandra Locke in a rather humorous scene. The only question that remains is why Clint Eastwood had to have the rather mediocre actress Sandra Locke in so many of his movies. She brings the score down a point every time even when overall the movie is enjoyable to me. Granted she is not to bad here, but her character could have been so much better by someone else. Another problem with this movie and other Dirty Harry movies, at times they almost seem to be advertisements for guns. I like guns as much as the next person, but do we really need scenes of him explaining all the different strengths of his newest weapon and how many bullets it holds? Still, very nice entry into the Dirty Harry series of movies. Sudden Impact is a two pronged story. Harry is targeted by the mob who want to kill him and Harry is very glad to return the favour and show them how it's done. This little war puts Harry on suspension which he doesn't care about but he goes away on a little vacation. Now the second part of the story. Someone is killing some punks and Harry gets dragged into this situation where he meets Jennifer spencer a woman with a secret that the little tourist town wants to keep quiet. The police Chief is not a subtle man and he warns Harry to not get involved or cause any trouble. This is Harry Callahan Trouble follows him. The mob tracks him to this town and hell opens up as Harry goes to war. Meanwhile the vigilante strikes again and the gang having figured it out is ready for her. Jennifer Spencer is caught and Harry comes to her rescue during the film's climax. Sudden Impact is not the greatest Dirty Harry but at the time it gives us a Harry that is very much an anti hero ready to go to war just to pursue Justice. Again not the best not the worst but the one with the most remembered line. Go Ahead Make your day. Clint Eastwood returns as Dirty Harry Calahan in the 4th movie of the Dirty Harry series. Clint is older but he's still got it, Harry was told to have a vacation after some trouble that happened because of a robbery (where the memorable "Make My Day" catchphrase comes from!) But the city he took a vacation was worse, a woman turned vigilante after a rape attack in a funfair and starts getting the punks one by one. The last movie to see Sandra Locke in a Clint Eastwood movie! An improvement after The Enforcer which was a bit more of a comedy and less serious. Clint Eastwood's sunglasses were Gargoyles which are best known for the sunglasses that are worn by Arnold Shwartzeneger in The Terminator. Worth a watch if you like Clint Eastwood, the Dirty Harry films or like action crime thrillers. In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, "Magnum Force", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, "The Enforcer" was grittier again, and was promoted as "the dirtiest Harry of them all". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own "Sudden Impact", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.

***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... "Sudden Impact" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the "Man With No Name" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. "Sudden Impact" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western "Hang 'Em High" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous "Do You Feel Lucky?" scene in "Dirty Harry" and the black militant leader in "The Enforcer" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall "Sudden Impact" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all "Dirty Harry" films, (though "The Dead Pool" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10 Sudden Impact was overall better than The Enforcer in my opinion. It was building up to be a great movie, but then I saw the villain(s) and was disappointed.

Sudden Impact was different than the previous installments. The plot went a different direction in this movie, as Dirty Harry doesn't take as much of a police approach this time around. We also don't see the villain(s) until later, which means less screen time for them, which is better for us all.

Clint Eastwood once again steals the show as Dirty Harry, enough said. Pat Hingle was enjoyable as Chief Jannings, Harry's new assigned boss. Bradford Dillman seemed to change his name to Captain Briggs here, either way, he wasn't any different. Michael Currie is decent as Lt. Donnelly, Harry's annoying superior. I personally enjoyed Kevyn Major Howard as Hawkins, the young punk who has a vendetta against Harry. Albert Popwell was excellent as Horace, Harry's buddy. Audrie J. Neenan was good as Ray Parkins, a famous lesbian around town. Jack Thibeau was well cast as Kruger, a pervert. Now for the really bad part. Sandra Locke, Eastwood's long-time lover was horribly miscast as Jennifer Spencer, Harry's love interest. And Paul Drake was just horrible as Mick.

The movie would have been so much better if not for better writing and acting on some parts.

8/10. When this film was originally released it was promoted with the notably unimaginative tagline "Dirty Harry is at it again". Whatever this pitch lacks in originality is more than compensated for by it's complete and total accuracy. "Sudden Impact" retains all the aspects that made the previous three Dirty Harry movies so successful- tight pacing, a compelling plot, strong supporting characters, endless gunplay, and bone-dry humor. Some of these elements are not only retained but amplified- this is easily the darkest, bloodiest, and most overtly right-wing installment of the franchise.

The plot is somewhat intriguing: after killing a ridiculous number of hoodlums, Inspector Callahan is sent on a forced "vacation" by his superiors to the sleepy coastal town of San Paolo. He is tasked to investigate the background of a recent homicide victim who was shot in the genitals before being put out of his (no doubt considerable) misery by a second shot to the head. Early on in the film, the audience is made aware of the identity of the killer- an artist named Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke) who is hunting down the thugs who gang-raped her and her sister at a fun fair some ten years earlier. This incident is shown in a very disturbing flashback, snippets of which recur before each new murder. As more bodies start to appear with the same M.O, it becomes clear to Harry that both the local police chief and his new love interest (guess who?) know more than they are telling. To make matters even more complicated, the one-time rapists realize who is hunting them and start to hit back hard.

"Sudden Impact" offers relentless action from beginning to end. Clint Eastwood directed this film himself and expertly handles a series of set pieces that culminate in an exhilarating climax. Sondra Locke's performance effectively conveys the blend of ruthlessness and fragility that define her character. That having been said, it is fair to wonder if another actress (who was not Eastwood's off-screen companion at the time) could have brought more charisma and dramatic weight to the role- Theresa Russell and Cybill Shepherd jump to mind as possible candidates. Members of the supporting cast that punch significantly above their weight include Albert Popwell as Harry's partner Horace, Paul Drake as the psychopathic Mick, and the truly scene-stealing Audrie J. Neenan who portrays the vicious Ray Parkins.

However the film has some notable problems- some of the subplots (the animosity between Harry and a gang of twentysomething hoodlums, a Mob vendetta against him) take up too much screen time and don't really have any bearing to the larger story. Their only real use is to raise the body-count to absurd levels. In the first half of the film it sometimes appears that Dirty Harry shoots people more often than he has to use the restroom. However the film moves into top gear as it progresses and the triangulated cat-and-mouse game between Callahan, Spencer, and her former tormentors assumes prominence. This second hour makes it clear that a more stripped-down and slightly refocused screenplay would have given "Sudden Impact" the potential to be a first-class, neo noir-style thriller that could have taken the series to new levels but still have contained more than enough .44 magnum heroics to satisfy the Harry loyalists. Instead we get the film that Eastwood and Warner Bros. clearly wanted to make- a superbly executed but prototypical Eighties action flick that mostly declines to particularly challenge the intelligence of it's intended audience.

This was by far the biggest grossing of the series at the box-office and it is not hard to see why. Though not the film that it could have been, this is still big, trigger-happy fun. Even after repeated viewings, it's going to make your day. This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it. Sudden Impact tends to be treated as Eastwood's artistic failure at a point in his career when he had established a good reputation as a director. The reason is actually not the film itself but the attitude it takes towards vigilantism which it seems to support. In some places it actually owes more to Death Wish than the original Dirty Harry film. One might argue if that is so- at the end of the day it's a film about guilt, justice and retribution. For me, at the end of the day it's more empathy than sympathy. However, in view of all these arguments it is easily overlooked that sudden impact is an awfully well made film. Forget the "Go ahead punk, make my day scene", that's iconic but not original. But look at the views of San Fransisco taken from the air, zooming in on the city. The first 15 or 20 minutes are quite spectacular. Or have a look at the brilliantly made scene where Sondra Locke's character visits her mentally ill sister in hospital. Eastwood makes great use of the juxtaposition of faces. So all in all Sudden Impact is a very visual film that really shows how mature Eastwood is as a director. And if I remember correctly it was actually the first time Eastwood put that on screen albeit in an action film of debatable ideology. Also, I think this is the first well paced film Eastwood directed. Although Eastwood has enormous talent as a director, dramaturgy has always been his weak point (see Play Misty for me, Breezy etc.) Thepace of the narrative leads to the visual elements being well integrated into the film and not distracting from the story. The only thing that is really annoying is the farting dog. Clint Eastwood has definitely produced better movies than this, but this one does not embarrass him. Dirty Harry catches everyone's attention and unless one wants to watch romance, there is no reason why you won't like him. He is cool because he is dirty, is great because he kills without much thinking, is perfect because he gets the bullet right through your heart and a hero because he doesn't care.

From what I have seen in movies in which Eastwood acts, the character of the lead role always captivates the audience. In White Hunter Black heart, he is the crazy director, in "in the Line of Fire" he is the "Old 'un" while here is the "almost" jobless with his job, that is to say he makes work for himself, doesn't care one damn about his superiors who practically send him out for a vacation.

Based on a rape victim, this movie is promising for all the "no non-sense" movie watchers. The movie has nothing that goes away from he central plot. However, what makes it slightly inferior to the better movies of Eastwood is that though the character of the lead role is captivating the plot is not, as it is far too obvious from the beginning. It is not a movie that is going to make you sit at a place without moving. Also, there are too many people far dirtier than Dirty harry. After what was considered to be the official Dirty Harry trilogy with The Enforcer(1976) to be the final chapter in the series. Dirty Harry is back, older, more dirtier and grittier than ever since the original 1971 classic.

Dirty Harry in the past has killed a psychopath killer, vigilante cops, and Vietnam veteran terrorists. But now he's after a new killer, a killer who wants payback, by gunning down her attackers.

Sudden Impact brings a new meaning and more darker tone to Dirty Harry. Callahan is on a new murder case that is circling back to a woman(played by Sondra Locke), who was brutally raped, along with her sister, who is left traumitized. Ten years after, she's out for revenge by gunning down her attackers. At the same though Callahan is on a heat of trouble by his superiors after he provokes a mob boss to a heart attack, of which the mob are hunting him as well. So in order to let the heat die down within the city, Harry is on order to take a vacation on a seaside town, but at the same time the raped victim is in town as well, while hunting her attackers one by one. Harry is on the investigation and finds the killings very similar, as he homes in on the killer's trails.

Sudden Impact in my opinion, has to be one of my top 10 revenge films, as well as being the second best Dirty Harry movie yet, far better than both The Enforcer and The Dead Pool combined. Sudden Impact has what the original Dirty Harry had, a dark tone with entertaining value.

So do you feel lucky, punk? Dirty Harry has to track down a rape victim who extracts revenge by shooting her assailants in the goolies before killing them. Probably a more apt punishment would be to let them live after the initial shot and let them suffer forever like she and her sister has...Anyway..... an action-packed story set again in San Francisco and Santa Cruz. The chief rapist, played by Andy Drake is suitably vile and gets his punishment at the end (of course!). Not a classic movie but better than the others except for the original Dirty Harry. ****Excellent

***Good

**Fair

*Poor

`Go Ahead, make my Day!'

The fourth picture in the series is directed by Eastwood himself (Who was rumored of directing most of Magnum Force) and he brings back the violent society from the first two films. However, the film still lacks impact and believability. This film was released in the early `80s, the time of Regan and the young republicans. The premise of a raped woman taking vengeance on her rapist doesn't appeal to this time frame. This plot would have been better for the Enforcer, which actually would have made it a good movie. What Sudden Impact needed was a plot like in Wall Street but with Dirty Harry in the middle.

RATING: 3 STARS I dont know why people think this is such a bad movie. Its got a pretty good plot, some good action, and the change of location for Harry does not hurt either. Sure some of its offensive and gratuitous but this is not the only movie like that. Eastwood is in good form as Dirty Harry, and I liked Pat Hingle in this movie as the small town cop. If you liked DIRTY HARRY, then you should see this one, its a lot better than THE DEAD POOL. 4/5 Sudden Impact is the best of the five Dirty Harry movies. They don't come any leaner and meaner than this as Harry romps through a series of violent clashes, with the bad guys getting their just desserts. Which is just the way I like it. Great story too and ably directed by Clint himself. Excellent entertainment. Despite the other comments listed here, this is probably the best Dirty Harry movie made; a film that reflects -- for better or worse -- the country's socio-political feelings during the Reagan glory years of the early '80's. It's also a kickass action movie.

Opening with a liberal, female judge overturning a murder case due to lack of tangible evidence and then going straight into the coffee shop encounter with several unfortunate hoodlums (the scene which prompts the famous, "Go ahead, make my day" line), "Sudden Impact" is one non-stop roller coaster of an action film. The first time you get to catch your breath is when the troublesome Inspector Callahan is sent away to a nearby city to investigate the background of a murdered hood. It gets only better from there with an over-the-top group of grotesque thugs for Callahan to deal with along with a sherriff with a mysterious past. Superb direction and photography and a at-times hilarious script help make this film one of the best of the '80's. Main theme in this Dirty Harry is that revenge is a dish best served cold. Sandra Locke is as cold in this film as she is beautiful. Locke is an "8" normally, but, with a deadly pistol in her purse, "cocked" for the bad guys, she climbs all the way up the scale to a "10". Having been gang-raped, along with her younger sister, some years ago, Locke, as Jennifer Spencer, has tried to block out the attack from her life, as best she can. Her sister, tho, is almost comatose as a result of the trauma, so the memory is never far from her mind. One day, Jennifer sees one of her attackers on the street in S.F.; she buys a pistol, follows him to a bar, lets him pick her up, then when they're alone in his Cadillac, beginning to make love, she shoots him....once in the genitals, once in the brain - - this in the opening scene!! Ya gotta love this spunky lady. She's got her priorities straight. Plus, Jennifer is a professional artist, putting all her anger on canvas UNTIL NOW. After executing her first perp, Jennifer curiously watches Det. Insp. Harry Callahan process the fresh crime scene after the body is found in the Caddy. Then, she insults some creepy teenage bucks who are hassling women on the street, visits her sister in a nursing home, then goes a'hunting in San Paolo, CA "up the coast" where the rape event took place years ago. With more bullets in her suitcase and more resolve in her mind, our heroine relives the rape inside her head with vivid recall, as she comes closer to executing each subsequent rapist. Not uncommon to us right- wingers, when it comes to sentencing or executing a violent criminal, don't be sorrowful for his own wretched humanity, we REMEMBER the CRIME and the SUFFERING he inflicted. Such recalled events steels Jennifer to pull the trigger on each of her attackers - once in the genitals, once in the brain. Throughout the movie, scenes of Jennifer's revenge are interspersed with good, IL' Dirty Harry blowing away some gangstas in a coffee shop, remember "Go ahead. MAKE my day."? Later on, he threatens to step on a punk kid (who'd just insulted Callahan) in a courthouse elevator like he'd step on dog- s**t....leaving a young female govt employee staring after Clint as if to say "I want to have your baby." My favorite scene is only about 30 minutes into the action, when Harry threatens and frightens a murderous Mafia boss named Threlkis into a fatal coronary during his granddaughter's wedding reception at the Mark Hopkins hotel. Michael Grazzo (Pantangeli in Godfather II) does a wonderful job as the sinful Mafia Don, even if he's only in one scene, dying in a most-convincing manner. However, Harry's troubles aren't over with yet! The elevator punk's gang AND Threlkis' henchmen each attempt to assassinate Harry in two close-ordered scenes, and most of them bad guys end up dying horribly. Yup, some of the gun-play comes off as uninspired screen violence....looking like Clint the Director may have been tired that day of shooting this movie. But, there's only so many ways you can dispatch a man with bullets. The punk kids die much more creatively, though, as they both burn to death and drown in S.F. Bay. Warms my heart. With so much violent intent directed at Insp. Callahan, his bosses send him to San Paolo to try to get some background on the "22 caliber vasectomy killing" as Jennifer Spencer's crime is now known, but not before Harry delivers one of his famous sermons-to-the- chowder-headed-liberals. Love that Harry. While our hero' up annoying the local cops and citizens in San Paolo, two more murders happen, same M.O., on a sleazy, lazy fisherman and on an equally-creepy hardware entrepreneur. Then Harry meets Jennifer! They find they both agree on subjects such as Law and Order, Making the Guilty Pay, etc. Could a hot, love scene be in the offing soon? We're led to believe just that. Characters abound in this Real-Man meets Real-Woman crime drama, and we get to meet a brassy bull-dyke named Raye Parkins who's both irritating and entertaining. Raye set up Jennifer's rape for her "boyfriend" years before, and she'll get hers eventually. The San Paolo Police Chief, played by reliable Eastwood co-star Pat Hingle (the Hanging Judge in 'Hang Em High'), is strangely at odds with Callahan's detective work related to the 22-cal vasectomies, until we find out that his own adolescent son was one of the gang of rapists. Much like Jennifer's sister, Chief Janning's son is now a comatose adult, but driven mad by guilt. It can't end here, though. The dyke's rapist boyfriend, Mick, now a kinky-sex jerk of a criminal, drives in from Vegas becuz Raye's dropped a dime on Jennifer, summoning him up to San Paolo to prevent more executions. Mick sleeps at Raye's house, but his timing is all wrong, and he's arrested before he can spend more time with Raye, mostly due to the fact that she's since been sent to the Island of the Eternal Lesboes by a shot from Jennifer's revolver. Psycho Mick makes bail at long last, with Jennifer gunning for him. A desperate chase ensues, as Harry tries to keep these two from killing each other. It all turns out well in the end, with the good gal and the good guy walking off into the sunset together to a beautiful Roberta Flack blues song. This two-parter was excellent - the best since the series returned. Sure bits of the story were pinched from previous films, but what TV shows don't do that these days. What we got here was a cracking good sci-fi story. A great big (really scary) monster imprisoned at the base of a deep pit, some superb aliens in The Ood - the best "new" aliens the revived series has come up with, a set of basically sympathetic and believable human characters (complete with a couple of unnamed "expendable" security people in true Star Trek fashion), some large-scale philosophical themes (love, loyalty, faith, etc.), and some top-drawer special effects.

I loved every minute of this. In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD... What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go... Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City. Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers.

It was almost as if the series with the full title of "HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET" (1993-99) was a sort of "Mr. In-Between" of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over.

During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.

When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for "HOMICIDE"; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie.

Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.

OUR STORY………. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has "pulled the pin", Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'

While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital.

News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.

The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as "classified".

In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading "THE HOMICIDE MOVIE", we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode. My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film. The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot. For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV. This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing. For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order. HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get! ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied. Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!

Looking at the "Top 250" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.

I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again! Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.

"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.

** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. ** I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie. The acting in this movie was superb, but mixed with the truth about the condition of many Africans in South Africa made it heart wrenching. It was good that the writer isolated Boesman and Lena from others run from their homes, so we could share fully in their triumphs and defeats; the conflicts they shared as they grew together and apart. Worth seeing when you put the movie in it's proper context. I did not read anything about the film before I watched it, by chance, last Saturday evening. And then, as I was watching it, I felt the misery of Lena and Boesman into my bones. I was so captivated by the acting and the tone and the filming that I listened only partially to the dialogues. My husband fell asleep soon after we went to bed and I was sleepless, under the impact of the film. I wanted to wake him up just to say:"if I would ever vote for an Oscar nomination, it would be for these two actors." I decided to wait until the next day. Then I read more about the film on IMDb, and was sad to learn that Mr. Berry died before the release of the film and that he had probably never seen the last version of his brilliant masterpiece. I still want to tell him that to me his film was a true independent film, in its concept and spirit. The actors are to be praised not only for their brilliant performance but for accepting a part with no shine, no showing off, well to the contrary, displaying the true image of human depression. Sad but poignant. ] Haven't seen this film? Haven't even heard of this film? It wouldn't surprise me. One of the few truly "independent" films produced in the last ten years, no studio had faith in the picture and it was never picked up for major distribution. The independent company Kino Films, gave BOESMAN AND LENA a very limited run with virtually no promotion, and the majority of major film critics didn't even bother reviewing it. I guess a movie based on a one act, one set play about the apartheid and its affect on two individuals never really had a chance in today's market - and it's the intelligent film-lover's loss.

For the record, both Angela Bassett and Danny Glover deserved Ocsar nominations (as did the cinematographer) but the film received such little fanfare that I can't even blame the academy on that one. This is a film that is challenging, thought-provoking, and heartbreaking, and it actually requires the audience to meet it on it's own terms. Taking that into consideration, it is definitely not a movie for mindless entertainment. Director John Berry wisely does not attempt to dress-up Athol Fugard's play. Sure, we're given a few fractured flashbacks and some breathtaking scenic shots, but the film version of BOESMAN AND LENA remains, on the whole, a story of two people living in inhumane conditions.

Stripped of their basic human rights, Boesman (Glover) and Lena (Bassett) have no one left to attack but each other. A third character joins them for awhile (Willie Jonah, amazing in a largely silent role), but the film's focus never strays from the title characters and what they've become. Bassett and Glover give brave performances as the broken couple, performances that simply could not be improved upon. Vigorously and brutally stimulating, both intellectually and emotionally, BOESMAN AND LENA deserves to be rediscovered of home video. Hands down, the best film of the year 2000. It's always nice to see Angela Bassett getting to do a role that she can really sink her teeth into. She is at times intense, funny and even sexy in her role as Lena, a "colored" woman forced to make a home on a desolate mudbank just outside of Cape Town, South Africa. Danny Glover is also good in a not entirely sympathetic role as her partner, Boesman. Willie Jonah gives a finely nuanced performance as the stranger that discovers Boesman and Lena's new living area. It's not often that you get a chance to see an intelligent film dealing with mature themes. Although it is based on a play, the late director John Berry (who also directed Claudine) opens the material up by having the film shot in the widescreen Cinemascope format. He also keeps things visually interesting through the creative blocking of actors and by showing us things only mentioned in the play. Just like Diahann Carroll in Claudine, John Berry may have directed Angela Bassett into an Academy Award nomination. This is definitely a film worth searching for. An absorbing (although repetitive and rather didactic) analysis of exploitation and despair in a situation where there is no way forward or up, where the attempts to make yourself feel better by violating and putting down whoever is below you seems to be the only option. But even here, in this desolate wasteland of lost dreams and no future, that does not work, and reaching out to something or someone to comfort and share with, a simple act of charity, gives some reward, even if it just makes the present bearable by reviving memories of the past.

Although there is little actual on screen violence, this is a harsh and brutal film about the small mindedness of oppression (politically and personally) that does not make for easy entertainment. Clearly based on a play, with a small cast, a broader more expansive relation to the general social and political environment would possibly have helped the film to reach a wider audience. If this had been done earlier in the Zatoichi series it could have been one of the best. It is good enough, as most of them are, but the plot and the characters seem too complicated for the series at this point. The situation is unusually intriguing: the farmers in the province have two champions, a benevolent boss (for once) and a philosopher-samurai who starts a sort of Grange; both run afoul of the usual local gangsters, who want the crops to fail because it increases their gambling revenues and their chances to snap up some land; their chief or powerful ally is a seeming puritan who is death on drinking and gambling but secretly indulges his own perverse appetites. (He also resembles Dracula, as the villains in the later Zatoichi movies tend increasingly to do.) These characters have enough meaning so that they deserved to be set against Zatoichi as he was drawn originally, but by now he has lost many of his nuances, and the changes in some of the characters, such as the good boss and the angry sister of a man Zatoichi has killed, need more time then the movie has to give, so that the story seems choppy, as if some scenes were missing. Other than that, the movie shows the virtues of most of the others in the series: good acting, sometimes lyrical photography, the creation of a vivid, believable, and uniquely recognizable landscape (the absence of which is obvious in the occasional episode where the director just misses it), and a technical quality that of its nature disguises itself: the imaginatively varied use of limited sets so their limitations seem not to exist. And of course there is the keynote actor, whose presence, as much as his performance, makes it all work. This must be one of the best-sustained series in movie history. This is one of the oddest films of the Zatôichi series due to its very unusual pacing and the role that Ichi plays in the film. Interestingly enough, this was the first Zatôichi film made by Shintaro Katsu's new production company. Now, instead of just playing the blind swordsman, Katsu is in charge of making the films. This could easily explain why this film seems so different in style to the previous 15 films. As far as Ichi's role, the film is very different because he isn't in the film as much as usual. He's also easy to fool and actually, for a while, does a lot to harm people instead of helping!

"Zatôichi Rôyaburi" begins with Ichi talking with an old lady who tries to take advantage of his blindness. Oddly, in this scene, Ichi says that he's been blind since a toddler, though in an earlier film he says his blindness set in when he was 8. This is a minor mistake, and only a crazed fan like myself would have noticed.

This film takes place over a period of at least six months and is more likely to have taken a year--so you can see what I said about odd pacing. Most films in the series take place over a few days or weeks. Ichi comes to a town where there is a boss (Asagoro) who tries very hard to be nice to Ichi because he knows of the blind man's reputation. The boss is quite charming and surprisingly Ichi is totally taken in by the evil man. At the same time, he meets another boss (Shushui)--a sort of guru to the poor. Shushui admonishes the people to forsake all violence and even Ichi falls under his teaching--giving up his blade for many months. Shushui's teachings are very similar to Daoist teachings from China--non-violence and acceptance of life as it is (for good or for bad).

Months after leaving this town and thinking all was well, Ichi learns that as soon as he left, Asagoro showed his true colors--enslaving women, oppressing the poor and being an all-around jerk. In a way, Ichi is responsible for this, as he helped Asagoro and counted him as a friend. Now, Asagoro has captured Shushui and several innocent people have killed themselves due to the evil boss' actions.

When Ichi returns, he doesn't accept automatically that Asagoro is good or evil but tests him cleverly. This bit with a scarecrow is inspired and leads to a finale where, what else, Ichi kills the baddies and frees Shushui. This finale was very good and occurred in the rain. Then final scene with Asagoro and the rocks is great, though the beheading is a tad cheesy by today's special effects standards.

Pluses for the film are that although poorly paced, it is different and cannot be mistaken for the previous 15 (which often seem very similar). Additionally, it does end very well. Minuses (aside from pacing) are that some might dislike seeing Ichi so fallible and the scenes with Ichi and the other blind men that are included for comic relief fall flat...very, very, very flat. They are tacky and unfunny...that's the sort of flat that it is. Zatoichi The Outlaw was the first film made by its hero's (Shintaro Katsu) own production company, this is perhaps why this is a slightly lesser entry in the series, though it is by no means weak overall. It tells of our hero coming across two towns, rival bosses and a mysterious ronin helping the poor and from this set up spins a tale encompassing tragedy, violence and no little interest, all served up with lashings of the unshowy but inspired swordplay that is one of the series trademarks. It is a fairly predictable plot and it mounts in unsurprising fashion, but it zips along with style and is interesting stuff. The helpful ronin for example is a nobly inscrutable revolutionary character, upsetting the established order without being painted as a truly likable or heroic figure, Zatoichi himself makes one or two mistakes and causes harm by his actions, whilst the ruling system fuels the exploitation of the poor. Its a harsh world, with one or two more visceral than expected moments in the fighting, though things aren't as rousing as they could be. Shintaro Katsu turns in a typical bravura performance as Zatoichi, mixing wisdom, deadly skill and worldliness with a subtly sad sense of vulnerability, while solid work comes also from Rentarô Mikuni and an effectively baleful Kô Nishimura (later to appear as Katsu's superior "Snake" Magobei in the Hanzo trilogy) as the two main bosses in the film. There is also a good emotional turn from Yuko Hamada as a wronged woman. The film loses out through shaky pacing and a not so well constructed sequence of events, there is at least one slightly jarring time jump and the power of the plot becomes a little lost, meaning that when things heat up towards the end the film isn't as exciting as it could be, emotional impact is lost also. The action or scenes of Zatoichi using his ingenious skills are well handled by director Satsuo Yamamoto, though some of the gambling is less interesting and the film builds up in a workmanlike rather than really inspired way, without the lively characters or strong verve of some other installments. Still, I enjoyed this one, it has its flaws and isn't one of the best of the series but it still packs a sweetly satisfying dose of entertainment, a good story and decent doses of Zatoichi's trademark ingenious and quirky cool. Recommended for fans of the series, and a reasonable entry point, classy stuff though not a true great. I finally watched these episodes in 2008 and I had to continually go back and verify when they were actually produced. They are absolutely scary in that they made spot on fun of what would be the future. Either Parker and Stone lived in Texas and witnessed the idiocy of Gov Bush or they are those weird, eerie people that pay attention to things. Boo, scary! Bush's frat bros invading the White House dressed as Arabs wielding rifles? Bush 'accidentally' executing someone? (No, wait. He did sort of do that as gov.) This may have seemed a failure as a sitcom at the time, but must now be considered as brilliant, if spooky, prescience. That's My Bush is a live action project made by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.The show was cancelled after one season, not because of bad reviews(it actually got good reviews), but because it was very expensive.That's my bush is a pretty funny spoof of an average network TV sitcom.It is also a political satire.Now, this is nowhere near as good as South Park, but it is a very funny spoof of a sitcom and also a pretty good political satire.The guy who plays in that's my bush looks a lot like him! If you can find the show, check it out.There are plenty of laughs to be had!

9/10 Thats My Bush is first of all a very entertaining show by Parker and Stone, I thought. Its often very very funny, and its quite subversive and crazy. South Park fans would surely get something here.

Another surprise is the production value here. A lot of money must have been put into this, and it shows. A lot of expensive little details. Its not a little show. And Comedy Central is not an extremely rich channel, but they put a lot into this show obviously. In a way I understand that was the death of the show as well though, too costy. It surely could have been done cheaper and went on the will was there.

The critics liked it, and it had its little fanbase, but it failed gaining a big audience. As we know, the show stopped after 8 episodes, which I guess is almost 1 season.

As I really liked the show it has its faults. The problem of the show is kind of that it doesn't know what it wants to be really. Its like it tries to be a sitcom AND a parody of a sitcom at the same time. The actors do a good job, and some of them are well casted, but in my opinion they seem to not always get 100% the bizarre humor they're supposed to present.

I personally think that the show needed some characters that were more down to earth for the show to work. In South Park you have Kyle and Stan, that are kind of a realistic touch in the more looney universe. I think thats kind of what makes South Park work. You need some sane characters that you can relate to in a realistic way, and that makes the insane stuff so much more interesting too because that forces you to take them seriously at some level. If everything is archetypes and stereotypes its difficult to get emotionally included in the show, which really is Thats My Bush biggest problem. Kyle and Stan is characters in South Park that makes sense of the insanity in the show. We have nothing like that here, and this show suffers from it.

Another anchorpoint is Parker and Stones flirting with republicans. Its the only thing about them I don't really get what they're trying to do. Not portraying Bush as nothing else than a dumb Homer Simpsons lovable kind of character IS kind of subversive in a world where a lot of people that can't stand him and think he's the worst president since Nixon, and a parallel comedy world of Letterman and so on that only satirizes his every move... but its difficult to understand if Parker and Stone actually means anything by it. Its like the joke is on us, but somehow it doesn't hit the mark. It seems awkward, because it doesn't remind you of the real Bush at all.

Besides that I actually thought the show was very enjoyable. Some of the jokes in here are hilarious. The pro-life supporter who was a surviving aborted fetus is probably one of my favorite jokes by them in any show. And the show is packed with great material, and is sometimes insanely funny if you use your head a little while watching it. An extra is called upon to play a general in a movie about the Russian Revolution. However, he is not any ordinary extra. He is Serguis Alexander, former commanding general of the Russia armies who is now being forced to relive the same scene, which he suffered professional and personal tragedy in, to satisfy the director who was once a revolutionist in Russia and was humiliated by Alexander. It can now be the time for this broken man to finally "win" his penultimate battle. This is one powerful movie with meticulous direction by Von Sternberg, providing the greatest irony in Alexander's character in every way he can. Jannings deserved his Oscar for the role with a very moving performance playing the general at his peak and at his deepest valley. Powell lends a sinister support as the revenge minded director and Brent is perfect in her role with her face and movements showing so much expression as Jannings' love. All around brilliance. Rating, 10. Josef Von Sternberg directs this magnificent silent film about silent Hollywood and the former Imperial General to the Czar of Russia who has found himself there. Emil Jannings won a well-deserved Oscar, in part, for his role as the general who ironically is cast in a bit part in a silent picture as a Russian general. The movie flashes back to his days in Russia leading up to the country's fall to revolutionaries. William Powell makes his big screen debut as the Hollywood director who casts Jannings in his film. The film serves as an interesting look at the fall of Russia and at an imitation of behind-the-scenes Tinseltown in the early days. Von Sternberg delivers yet another classic, and one that is filled with the great elements of romance, intrigue, and tragedy. 1927, and Hollywood had been on the map as the centre of the cinematic world for a little over a decade. Now that it had become the site of a multi-million dollar industry and the vertically integrated studio system had been established, some of those in the calmer quarters of this film-making factory were taking the time for a little self-reflection. The Last Command, while its heart may be the classic story of a once prestigious man fallen on hard times, frames that tale within a bleak look at how cinema unceremoniously recreates reality, and how its production process could be mercilessly impersonal. It was written by Lajos Biro, who had been on the scene long enough to know.

Taking centre stage is a man who was at the time among Hollywood's most celebrated immigrants – Emil Jannings. Before coming to the States Jannings had worked mainly in comedy, being a master of the hammy yet hilariously well-timed performance, often as pompous authority figures or doddering old has-beens. He makes his entrance in The Last Command as the latter, and at first it looks as if this is to be another of Jannings's scenery-chomping caricatures. However, as the story progresses the actor gets to demonstrate his range, showing by turns delicate frailty, serene dignity and eventually awesome power and presence in the finale. He never quite stops being a blustering exaggeration (the German acting tradition knowing nothing of subtlety), but he constantly holds our attention with absolute control over every facet of his performance.

The director was another immigrant, albeit one who had been around Hollywood a bit longer and had no background in the European film industry. Nevertheless Joseph von Sternberg cultivated for himself the image of the artistic and imperious Teutonic Kino Meister (the "von" was made up, by the way), and took a very distinctive approach to the craft. Of note in this picture is his handling of pace and tone, a great example being the first of the Russian flashback scenes. We open with a carefully-constructed chaos with movement in converging directions, which we the audience become part of as the camera pulls back and extras dash across the screen. Then, when Jannings arrives, everything settles down. Jannings's performance is incredibly sedate and measured, and when the players around him begin to mirror this the effect is as if his mere presence has restored order.

Sternberg appears to show a distaste for violence, allowing the grimmest moments to take place off screen, and yet implying that they have happened with a flow of images that is almost poetic. In fact, he really seems to have an all-round lack of interest in action. In the scene of the prisoners' revolt Sternberg takes an aloof and objective stance, his camera eventually retreating to a fly-on-the-wall position. Compare this to the following scenes between Jannings and Evelyn Brent, which are a complex medley of point-of-view shots and intense close-ups, thrusting us right into the midst of their interaction.

As a personality on set, it would seem that Sternberg was much like the cold and callous director played on the screen by William Powell, and in fact Powell's portrayal is probably something of a deliberate parody that even Sternberg himself would have been in on. Unfortunately this harsh attitude did not make him an easy man to work with, and coupled with his focus on his technical resources over his human ones, the smaller performances in his pictures leave a little to be desired. While Jannings displays classic hamming in the Charles Laughton mode that works dramatically, it appears no-one told his co-stars they were not in a comedy. Evelyn Brent is fairly good, giving us some good emoting, but overplaying it here and there. The only performance that comes close to Jannings is that of Powell himself. It's a little odd to see the normally amiable star of The Thin Man and The Great Ziegfeld playing a figure so stern and humourless, like a male Ninotchka, but he does a good job, revealing a smouldering emotional intensity beneath the hard-hearted exterior.

The Last Command could easily have ruffled a few feathers in studio offices, as tends to happen with any disparaging commentary on the film-making process, even a relatively tame example like this. At the very least, I believe many studio heads would have been displeased by the "behind-the-scenes" view, as it threatened the mystique of movie-making which was still very much alive at this point. As it turned out, such was the impact of the picture that Jannings won the first ever Academy Award for Best Actor, as well as a Best Writing nomination for Lajos Biro and (according to some sources, although the issue is a little vague) a nomination for Best Picture. This is significant, since the Academy was a tiny institution at this time and the first awards were more than ever a bit of self-indulgent back-slapping by the Hollywood elite. But elite or not, they recognised good material when they saw it, and were willing to reward it. The Last Command (1928) is a silent film directed by Josef von Sternberg.It shows us Czarist General, Grand Duke Sergius Alexander (Emil Jannings) in his days of glory.In 1917 he had all the power but after the revolution and the collapse of Imperial Russia he has nothing.He also had the love of a woman, Natalie Dabrova (Evelyn Brent).About ten years later he applies for a small part in a film about the revolution.His old enemy Lev Andreyev (William Powell) is the director who gets to choose whether to hire him as a film extra or not.The Last Command is very good silent drama.Emil Jannings does memorable role work in the lead.Evelyn Brent is wonderful playing the woman lead.William Powell is great as always.There are plenty of scenes to remember in this movie.Like many scenes with Jannings and Brent.And then there is the ending with Powell and Jannings.This is a movie that touches in many parts. Russian emigrant director in Hollywood in 1928 (William Powell) is casting his epic about the Russian revolution, and hires an old ex-general from the Czarist regime (Emil Jannings) to play the general of the film, and the two relive the drama and the memory of the woman they shared (Evelyn Brent), of 11 years before.

Try as I might, I feel it hard to warm to 'The Last Command' for all its virtues. 'The Docks of New York' was indubitably a great film, and 'Underworld' is a film I have always been craving to see, but 'The Last Command' is rather heavy-going. The premise is fascinating, but the treatment does really make the script come to life, except in the sequences set in Hollywood, depicting the breadline of employable extras and the machinations of a big movie production with state-of-the-art technology.

Emil Jannings is, predictably, a marvelous Russian general, distinguishing wonderfully between the traumatized and decrepit old ex-general, transfixed in his misery, and the vigorous, hearty officer of yore.

The ending is great and worth the wait, but in order to get there you must prepared to be slightly bored at times. While this movie's style isn't as understated and realistic as a sound version probably would have been, this is still a very good film. In fact, it was seen as an excellent film in its day, as it was nominated for the first Best Picture Oscar (losing to WINGS). I still consider WINGS to be a superior film, but this one is excellent despite a little bit of overacting by the lead, Emil Jannings.

Jannings is a general from Czarist Russia who is living out his final days making a few bucks in the 1920s by being a Hollywood extra. His luck appears to have changed as he gets a casting call--to play an Imperial Russian general fighting against the Communists during the revolution. Naturally this isn't much of a stretch acting-wise, but it also gets the old man to thinking about the old days and the revolution.

Exactly what happens next I'll leave to you, but it's a pretty good film--particularly at the end. By the way, look for William Powell as the Russian director. Despite being made in 1928, with the makeup he doesn't look much younger than he did in many of his later films. One of the most important artistic movements in the history of cinema was without a doubt German expressionism, the highly atmospheric style of film-making developed during the 20s in Berlin. Classic movies like "Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari." (1920) and "Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens" (1922) were the most famous direct results of this movement, and while the movement didn't have a long life, its enormous influence over cinema can still be felt today, specially in the horror genre. One of the key figures of this style would be director Paul Wegener, director of 1920's "Der Golem, Wie Er in die Welt Kam", as in his debut as a filmmaker, seven years before the making of that classic, he was already making experiments with expressionism in film. That early prototype of German expressionism was incidentally, another horror film: "Der Student Von Prag".

"Der Student Von Prag" ("The Student of Prague"), is the story of Balduin (Paul Wegener), a student with the reputation of being the best fencer in Prague, but who always find himself with financial troubles. One day, Balduin rescues the beautiful countess Margit (Grete Berger) from drowning in a lake after her horse drop her by accident. Balduin falls immediately in love with her and tries to see her again, but soon he discovers that he'll have to compete with her rich cousin, Graf Von Schwarzenberg (Lothar Körner), who also wants to marry her. Knowing that he can't offer her much, Balduin wishes to be wealthy, and this is where a sorcerer named Scapinelli (John Gottowt) enters the scene. Scapinelli offers Balduin infinite wealth in exchange of whatever he finds in his room. Balduin accepts the proposal, only to discover in horror that what Scapinelli wants is his reflection in the mirror.

Loosely inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story "William Wilson" and the classic legend of "Faust", the story of "Der Student Von Prag" was conceived by German writer Hanns Heinz Ewers, a master of horror literature and one of the first writers to consider scriptwriting as valid as any other form of literature. Written at a time where cinema in Germany was still being developed as an art form, "Der Student Von Prag" shows a real willingness to actually use cinema to tell a fully developed story beyond a camera trick or a series of scenes. Like most of the scriptwriters of his time, Ewers screenplay is still very influenced by theater, although "Der Student Von Prag" begins to move away from that style. While a bit poor on its character development (specially on the supporting characters), Ewers manages to create an interesting and complex protagonist in the person of Balduin.

While "Der Student Von Prag" was Paul Wegener's directorial debut and Stellan Rye's second film as a filmmaker, it's very clear that these two pioneers had a very good idea of what cinema could do when done properly. Giving great use to Guido Seeber's cinematography, the two young filmmakers create a powerful Gothic atmosphere that forecasts what the German filmmakers of the following decade would do. Wegener would learn many of the techniques he would employ in his "Golem" series from Seeber and Rye. Despite having very limited resources, Rye and Wegener manage to create an amazing and very convincing (for its time) visual effect for the scenes with Balduin's reflection (played by Wegener too). Already an experienced stage actor at the time of making this film, Wegener directs the cast with great talent and also attempts to move away from the stagy style of previous filmmakers.

As Balduin, Paul Wegener is very effective and probably the best in the movie. It certainly helps that his character is the only one fully developed by the writer, but one can't deny that Wegener was very good in his role as the poor student who loses more than his mirror reflection in that contract. John Gottowt plays the sinister Scapinelli with mysterious aura that suits the character like a glove. Few is said about Scapinelli in the film, but Gottowt makes sure to let us know that he is a force to be feared. The rest of the main cast is less lucky, with Grete Berger being pretty much average as countess Margit, and Lothar Körner making a poor Graf Von Schwarzenberg. However, it must be said that Lyda Salmonova was pretty good in her expressive character and Fritz Weidemann made an excellent Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg, showing the dignity that Lörner's character should have had.

Considering the movies that were being done in those years in other countries and the fact that its remake (made 13 years after this film) is superior in every possible way, it's not difficult to understand why "Der Student Von Prag" hasn't stood the test of time as well as other early films. The movie's main problem is definitely its extremely low budget, as it resulted in the film being considerably shorter than what Ewers' story needed to be fully developed. This makes the plot feel a bit too vague at times, or even incomplete, as if there was something missing in the narrative (of course, there's also the possibility that the existing print is really incomplete). However, "Der Student Von Prag" is a very interesting early attempt at a complex tale of horror and suspense in film that, while inferior to what other filmmakers were doing at the time, left a powerful impression in history.

As the direct predecessor of the German expressionist movement, it's hard to deny the enormous importance that "Der Student Von Prag" has in the history of German cinema, probably in the history of cinema in general. It may look dated even for its time, but considering the limited resources its director had, it's truly better than most films from that era. As the movie that started Paul Wegener's career, and with that German expressionism, "Der Student Von Prag" is a must see for everyone interested in this slice of film history. 7/10 If "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is the father of all horror films (and of German expressionist cinema), this pre-WWI film is the grandfather. The titular student, starving in an empty garret, makes a deal with the Devil-- the Devil gives him a bottomless sack of gold, in exchange for "anything in this room." The Devil chooses the student's reflection in his mirror. He walks off with the student's doppelganger, who commits crimes for which the student is blamed.

The film is marred by some limitations arising out of the technically primitive state of 1913 filmmaking; the plot cries out for chiaroschuro effects, but the film is, of necessity, virtually all shot in shadowless daylight. But the scene where the reflection walks out of the mirror still packs a wallop.

More interesting for the trends it fortells than for its own sake, The Student of Prague is still worthwhile. 'The Student of Prague' is an early feature-length horror drama or, rather, it is an "autorenfilm" (i.e. an author's film). This film is a member of a movement of many movements that tried to lend respectability to cinéma, or just make a profit, by adapting literature or theatre onto the screen. Fortunately, the story of this book with moving pictures is good. Using Alfred de Musset's poem and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, it centres on the doppelgänger theme.

Unfortunately, the most cinematic this film gets is the double exposure effects to make Paul Wegener appear twice within scenes. Guido Seeber was a special effects wizard for his day, but he's not very good at positioning the camera or moving it. Film scholar Leon Hunt (printed in "Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative"), however, has made an interesting analysis on this film using framing to amplify the doubles theme: characters being split by left/right, near/far and frontal/diagonal framing of characters and shots. Regardless, the film mostly consists of extended long shots from a fixed position, which is noticeably primitive. Worse is the lack of editing; there's very little scene dissection and scenes linger. None of this is unusual for 1913, but there were more advanced films in this respect around the same time, including the better parts of 'Atlantis' (August Blom, 1913), 'Twilight of a Woman's Soul' (Yevgeni Bauer, 1913) and the short films of D.W. Griffith.

An expanded universal film vocabulary by 1926 would allow for a vastly superior remake. Furthermore, the remake has a reason for the Lyduschka character, other than being an occasional troublemaker and spectator surrogate. Here, the obtrusively acted gypsy lurks around, seemingly, with a cloak of invisibility. I know their world is silent to me, but I assume, with their lips moving and such, that their world would not be silent to them, so how can Lyduschka leer over others' shoulders and not be noticed?

Nevertheless, this is one of the most interesting early films conceptually. Wegener, who seems to have been the primary mind behind this film, in addition to playing the lead, would later play the title role and co-direct 'The Golem' in 1920--helping to further inaugurate the supernatural thread in German silent cinéma.

(Note: The first version I viewed was about an hour long (surely not quite complete) and was in poor condition, with faces bleached at times and such. I'm not sure who was the distributor. I've also since seen the Alpha DVD, which, at 41 minutes, is missing footage present in the aforementioned print and also has fewer and very different title cards, but is visually not as bad. The repetitive score is best muted, though.) A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.

If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 "full-length" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known. Those engaging the movie camera so early in the century must have figured out some of its potential very early on. This is a good story of a playboy type who needs money and inadvertently sells his soul to Satan for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the soul is his double and he must confront him frequently, tearing his life apart. There are some wonderful scenes with people fading out and, of course, the scenes when the two are on the stage at the same time. The middle part is a bit dull, but the Faustian story is always in the minds of the viewer. One thing I have to mention is the general unattractiveness of the people in the movie. Also, they pretty much shied away from much action which would have at least given some life to the thing. I first was made aware of this movie about 25 years ago and have finally been able to see it. I was not disappointed. This early version of the tale 'The Student of Prague' was made in Germany in 1913, starring Paul Wegener (who was also in 'The Golem' a few years later). In this film he plays a dual role (technically impressive for a 95 year old film to see them in the same shot) after meeting a mysterious old man who makes a pact with him for gold - the gold he needs to woo a countess he's previously saved from drowning.

Moving at a fast pace (the film runs just over an hour) and fairly well written and characterised, 'The Student of Prague' has echoes of the Faust legend as well as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, starting as it does with a pact with a mysterious figure of potential evil, and developing into good and evil sides of the same person. In this truly fascinating, dark film, a young impoverished student sells his soul to the devil for a lot of money, in return the devil takes his mirror image (this is done brilliantly in the movie and eerily presaged when Balduin, the student is earlier practicing swordsmanship in front of the mirror), a visual metaphor for a "man at war with himself" which portents his immediate future. The student enjoys his money, but the woman he loves is unattainable (he has made a pact with the devil, he is cut off forever from love and other riches of the soul) you can have love or you can exchange your soul for money, you cannot have both. Balduin is haunted by his double (the intertitles express this beautifully as does the action. Some of the scenes are incredible, the sense of doom when the Devil disappears with Balduin's mirror image is amazing, as is the sense that his pact has forever cut him off from human society (the scene where he runs away from his double and ends up in the 'wasteland' at the edge of the town, no longer entirely human (he has lost his soul) he is like a hunted animal outside of human society. There are so many other things to say about this incredible film. Paul Wegener was an amazing actor and director, a cultural hero of mine. It helps if you know a bit about German history at the time this film was made and about German doppelganger tradition (don't google it, get a proper book)Just remember, it's a very early film, it's a little clumsy at times, but considering what it has to say and it's tragic finale, it's one of the best ever (yes it Is!) A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.

The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better! "It wasn't me! It was, er, my twin brother Rupert!" Bobby says to Dugan when confronted about being over at Sally's place. I have used this line dozens of times over the years (no one has yet to believe it, though).

This movie is one of the all-time best for sheer fun and nonbelieveability. Steven Oliver was perfect for the part of Dugan, so much so that he was in 1978's "Malibu Beach" as the same character (not nearly as much screen time, though).

"Nobody calls Dugan a turd!" is another line for the ages. This classic film was definitely worth the price of admission. ...this is, above all else, the typical Crown International Pictures drive-in (read "passion pit") programmer. The 1975 Sammy Johns hit record "Chevy Van" is heard repeatedly on the soundtrack (this movie has even been reissued with the title CHEVY VAN), despite the film's title vehicle being a Dodge. Danny DeVito makes only six minutes of on-screen appearance, but countless VHS reissues falsely credit him as the star of the flick. The movie is a comparatively sexist morality tale -- will Bobby find sexual satisfaction through the one-night-stand his customised van facilitates, or must he wait until Tina, the girl of his dreams, gives him the time of day? Still, it is representative of the prevailing carnal dream of male American high schoolers of the time, and on that basis alone THE VAN has, almost in spite of itself, become an artifact of the period that must be referenced in any honest retrospective of the period's popular American cinema... In 1979, I was a boy of 12 years old, My parents had just got the home box office which was pretty new to our neighborhood. As a 12 year old boy, this was the first time I saw boobs on television. I will never forget the joy of those times. Racing vans, the total ass-wipe with the baddest van, the water bed, the smoking of herbs, the hot 70's chicks, the 'makin love in my Chevy van song, it was all so new to me. A complete movie with all of the memories you could hope for. I own it and enjoy it about once a year. When I watch this movie, it makes me want to get my skates, with 4 wheels, not in a strait line, go to the park and hunt down some babes with feathered hair. truly great memories of young adolescence! I am proud to say I own an uncut copy of this choice chunk of 70's Crown International drive-in sexploitation comedy cheese on DVD. It's a really goofy and enjoyably inconsequential flick with a nicely breezy'n'easy 70's vibe to it. It does attempt to make a sincere point about true love and friendship being more important in life than a cool set of wheels and a quick piece of tail. Sure, it's essentially a blatant adolescent male fantasy pic -- the main teen goofus character Bobby Hamilton gets the girls, the respect of his friends, and a chance to show-up a local van-racing bully -- but it's way too dopey and good-natured to hate. Stuart Getz as our gawky protagonist makes for an endearingly dorky lead, Deborah White as the main object of Getz's affection is a definite cutie, Connie Lisa Marie is likewise quite luscious as a beauteous blonde babe, and sneering beefcake Neanderthal Stephan Oliver (a 60's biker movie perennial) is wonderfully hateful as the brutish Dugan Hicks. A pre-stardom Danny DeVito in particular is an absolute riot as Getz's cranky carwash owner boss Andy, a lovably cantankerous ne'er-do-well slob who wears very ugly loud Hawaiian shirts and suffers from a severe gambling habit. I especially love the scene where two thugs brutally beat Danny up -- one holds his arms behind his back while the other guy works over Danny's torso! And Sammy Johns' insidiously catchy fluke hit theme song will be bouncing around your skull for at least a week. In short, it's great groovy retro-70's fun! Simple-minded but good-natured drive-in movie about a simple-minded but good-natured high school graduate who has dreams of owning the coolest custom van in the world to use as his "ballroom".

Bobby, our hero, spends his entire savings to acquire the vehicle of his dreams. Joint sharing and love making quickly commence with girls Bobby has picked up at the local pizza parlor, but he finds out much responsibility, danger and heartache come with being the owner of such a mechanical marvel.

The Van is a guilty pleasure of mine. It captures the laid back mid 70's mood and has enough unintentional humor to put it into the "so bad it's good" category. i found it highly intellectual and artistic in every way! i felt that the script was conveying all the things i feel physically and emotionally when i got home from work and watched, it. this is a tribute to cinema in the highest form and format.

holy guacamole! how i wish those days would come again. i tried putting a bubble window on the side of my car (honda civic 1984), but the vacuum formed muffin trays didn't quite cut it. also in my civic, sexual positions are limited and are not supported by water bed as is brilliantly depicted in 'the van'.

'the van' is of the utmost side splitting hilarity and can even substitute for porn if you watch some scenes privately.

i highly anticipate that Sam Grossman (the director) has achieved his opus.

Ratings john: ****1/2 Sam: ***** THE VAN is a simple teensploitation picture made especially for the drive in that goes out of it's way to make you feel comfortable, providing many opportunities to laugh and cry with your friends. Danny Devito has a small yet plentiful role as the manager of a car wash and almost steals the show! All the leads are well acted, the characters complex and the directing quite competent for this type of picture. A Crown International Release. Love trap is a "must see" independent film. When I sat down to watch the movie, I came in with low expectations, but left with a blessing. The story is poetic, substantive, and creative. The writer pulls you in further and further which each scene, allowing you to relate to the realistic characters that every one can identify with. The movie allowed me to reflect on my life and what I consider love to be. The movie displayed what love really is, action not emotion. I was also impressed with the quality of the cinematography and the soundtrack of the movie. The entire presentation surpassed my expectations. I give the movie two big thumbs up and recommend it to everyone of all ages and all backgrounds. I picked this film up at my local library. Having met the director at a film festival late last year, I was curious to "check out" his work. I was pleasantly surprised.

The film takes a fresh look at familiar subjects, love, infidelity, friendships, jealousy. It can be a bit 'talky' at times but never so much as to completely sink the film. I enjoyed watching a love story with characters that CLEARLY belong together and watching them make conscious decisions rather than haphazardly "falling" into something as important as love.

The contrast between this film and the average low-budget shoot-em' up black film is quite distinct. Check it out. If you're lucky, your copy will come with a copy of the soundtrack like mine did. Good stuff! Love Trap is not a short, it's quite obviously a full length feature film with a running time of 105 minutes.

While I'm writing this, I might as well talk a bit more about Love Trap. I'm frequently asked what makes Love Trap different... this is how I respond to that question: 1) It introduces characters - one in particular - that have never been seen before in film, period.

2) It reveals more truth about love, and delves more deeply into the very concept of love, than any other U.S. film ever made, in my humble opinion.

3) Structurally, as in the way the story is told, it is unlike any love story you've ever seen.

4) It offers extremely timely insights on various cultural issues, both within and outside the Black community.

Over time, people will come to see Love Trap as about as wholly an original work as possible in this era, delightfully refreshing, authentic and honest. It is a rare morality play full of food for thought.

Please visit www.lovetrapmovie.com for complete and accurate info about this film. A realistic depiction of young love for the college set but also appealing to an older viewer like me. It has ups and downs and twists and turns and made me shed a tear or two. We rarely see movies with black urban characters that could appeal to older, non black audiences and show a more real life depiction of young black adults.

This movie takes place on a college campus and town where two people meet and fall in love. In the background are various friends acquaintances and situations that impact them for better or worse. Typical plot some may say, but this really was unexpected.

I found myself rooting for the survival of the couple's relationship, seeing my own past in their story. Moments of deep thought and revelation came pouring out of the actors performances.

It's a bright film that I would endorse for those young at heart and in love or have ever been in love. Great movie. I'll be looking for a copy to add to my movie collection. This movie earned every one of the ten votes I gave it! Thank you guys for making a movie worth watching. You showed the world,you can still write, direct, produce and star in a black movie without the negative stereotypes. The poetry was awesome as well, hats off to the poets and musicians.

I watched it last night, as I fell in love with my darling all over again. I will be adding it to my movie collection today, and recommending it to my friends and family.

Please continue to produce quality, don't worry about the quantity....

Thank you again, and best wishes and blesses to you! Sensual and tough Maria Braun. (Hanna Schygula) marries a soldier in the middle of World War II and spends a half of day and the whole night with him. That's how long her marriage lasts before she loses him to the war and then to prison. She carries on with her life, becomes a successful businesswoman being not only sensual but intelligent, ambitious, and willing to use sex whenever or wherever necessary: "I don't know a thing about business, but I do know what German women want. You might even say I'm an expert on it". While climbing up to the success she always remembers her husband, Hermann (her man) and convinces herself that whatever she does – is for him, for their future happy life together. "Maria Braun"'s style reminds much of melodramas by Fassbinder's favorite Hollywood director, Douglas Sirk and offers a glimpse of the loss and survival in postwar Germany. Hanna Schygula literally shines in every scene of the movie and she is fantastic.

8.5/10 ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This is without a doubt the best film Rainer Werner Fassbinder ever made and even with the marvelous script the film is enhanced by a great performance by Hanna Schygulla. Film starts out with Maria (Schygulla) and Hermann Braun (Klaus Lowitsch) just getting married as the bombs continue to fall and Hermann is shipped out towards the waning days of the war and now Maria and her mother and sister must scrape by to survive. Maria decides to get a job as a dancer/prostitute in a club that caters to American GI's and she meets a black Army soldier named Bill (Greg Eagles) and they start to see one another on a steady basis. Maria hears that her husband Hermann has died in the war so she gets very serious with Bill. But one day while getting intimate with Bill they see Hermann at the door. He hasn't died and when he enters the room a scuffle occurs and Maria breaks a bottle over Bill's head and he dies. Hermann takes the blame and he is sentenced to a long term in jail so Maria tells him that she will succeed at something and get him out. The war has ended and Germany must rebuild and one day on a train Maria meets Karl Oswald (Ivan Desny) who is a successful businessman in textiles and she uses her charms to get a job. Maria is determined to do well and climbs the corporate ladder and becomes Karl's mistress. She tells him that she will never marry him but he is in love with her. Hermann gets out of jail but goes to Canada to try and get over everything that Maria has done since he has been locked up.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

One day Karl dies and leaves Maria just about everything in his will and Maria buys her own house. Then Hermann finally comes home to his wife and they are both ready to start they're marriage even though they have been married for some time now. But Maria leaves the gas on the stove and the house explodes with both of them still in it.

There are so many interesting things in this film that its one of those movies that can be studied and talked about to great lengths. Like in all Fassbinder films the use of color is used in a very interesting way. As the film begins the tones are brown and gray to represent war torn Germany but as Maria starts to become successful they change to bright rich colors like red and white. The rebuilding of Germany with all the sounds of construction are used as only backdrop and the film stays focused on the exploits of Maria. Fassbinder did want the sounds of rebuilding to remind us of what was going on in Germany at that time. Hanna Schygulla was never better and her performance is the key to the success of this film. With a lesser actress this would have been just another interesting film but Schygulla is so strong that her performance elevates this film to an elite status. Schygulla shows Maria as very determined and smart but at the same time she uses her beauty and femininity to get what she wants. She's not embarrassed nor does she feel guilty about this and Fassbinder wanted to show Maria as a woman who practically sells her soul to survive. Schygulla wasn't nominated for an Academy Award but she gave a great performance that will stand the test of time. Fassbinder himself appears in the film as a peddler and his own mother Lilo Pempeit plays Frau Ehmke. I have heard many things about the ending of the film and it has to do with whether Maria purposely left the gas on. Later in the bathroom she is running water over her wrist and she appears to be sad. This is only speculation and if you think I'm wrong please e-mail me. I think she was overly excited by Hermann being home and left it on by accident (Remember her putting on a dress for no reason?). Then when the will is being read to her its at that point that she learns that Hermann and Karl had become friendly without her knowledge and I think she felt that everything she had done was for nothing. Thats the reason for the bathroom scene. So when the house explodes its by accident. But I think the reason for Fassbinder having an ending like that is to show that anyone who would sell their soul has no business living. Fassbinder was fascinated by survivors but he was also incredibly passionate. In his view Maria can't have it both ways. A fascinating film. Maria Braun got married right in the middle of combat all around her and her husband Hermann. An explosion ripped through the building, to begin with, and she and Hermann had to sign the papers on a pile of rubble on the street. Perhaps this may strike some as a heavy-handed metaphor for what's about to come: marriage on the rocks, so to speak. It's a betrothal where the husband goes off to war and is held in a Russian prison camp, unbenownst to the helpless but hopeful and proud Maria, who keeps standing by the depressing rubble of the train station as some come home, others don't, with a sign awaiting Hermann.

Trouble arises, as happens in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's melodramas, and as its one of his best and most provocative, we see as Maria (uncommonly gorgeous Hanna Schygulla in this role) will do a two-face: she'll stand by her man, even if it means working at a bar for American GI's and, even still after she hears from a fellow soldier that Hermann has died will still stand by him as she sleeps with a black GI and comes close to bearing his child (that is, naturally, until he reappears and a murder occurs and he takes the rap so she can be safe), or working for a German businessman (effectively sympathetic Ivan Desny) and becoming his sometimes mistress and rising star in the company. Maria will do whatever it takes to be successful, but she'll always be married.

It's hard to say there's anything about Maria that isn't fascinating. Money, sex, power, all of these become interchangeable for Maria. She's like the feminist that has her cake and eats it with a sultry smile: she gets to have a husband, more or less (actually a lot less until the last ten minutes of the film) while obtaining things- a man who dotes on her whenever he can, a new and expensive house with servants, a secretary, money- that others around her aren't getting due to already being with a man or too weak in a position to rise anywhere (such as the secretary, played interestingly enough by Fassbinder's own mother).

Maria is sexy, confident, and all alone, with an idealized life going against a life that should be made in the shade. She says of the two men- the American soldier and poor old and sick Oswald- that she's fond of them, and at the same time will stick by those roses the confused and soul-searching husband Hermann sends from Canada, after being released from prison. She's casts a profile that a feminist would love to trounce, but understand where she's coming from and going all the way.

Fassbinder employs this inherent contradiction, and moments with Maria appear to go against the conventions of a melodrama (for example, Hermann walking in on the jubilant and half-naked Maria and GI is just about a masterpiece of a scene, with Maria's reaction not of surprise or guilt but pure happiness to see that he's there let alone alive), while sticking to his guns as a director of such high-minded technique with a storyline that should be predictable. But it isn't really. It's like one big metaphor for a country that, after the war, couldn't really move on to normalcy. A few times Fassbinder puts sound of the radio on in the background, and we see Maria walking around her family house, hustle and bustle going on around her, and the radio speaks of a divided Germany, of things still very unsettled, of a disarray. Maybe the only way to cope is excess, or maybe that's just my interpretation of it.

It's hard to tell, really, under Schygulla's stare face and eyes, anyway. It's such an incredible performance, really, one of those showstoppers that captures the glamor and allure of an old-time Hollywood female star while with the down-and-dirty ethic of a girl of the streets. Most telling are the opposing costumes one sees in one scene when she finally is with her husband, where she stars in one of those super-lustful black lingerie pieces and high heels, and then moves on to a dress without even thinking about it. That's almost the essence of what Maria is, and Schygulla wonderfully gets it down, a headstrong but somehow loving figure who is adored and perplexed by the men around her, sometimes in a single sentence. This is what Fassbinder captures in his wonderful first part of his "trilogy"; while I might overall prefer Veronika Voss as a masterpiece, Maria Braun is perhaps just as good as a character study, of what makes a woman tick and tock with (almost) nothing to lose. The Marriage of Maria Braun (MMB) is about a German girl (Maria) getting married to a German soldier (Herman Braun) just at the ending of the war. After being married for half a day and a night, Herman is send to the front again. To make ends meet, Maria starts working at a bar for mainly American soldiers and get to know a black soldier. She got word that Herman died at the front, and things develop between her and the American soldier. Herman walks in on them, in bed, and after a confrontation between him and the American, Maria killed the American. Herman admits to the murder, ends up in jail and Maria vows to wait for him. The country is in shambles; one sees people leaving everything that they are busy with for a cigarette. There are food shortages. It is in short, a time of survival of the fittest.

Basically this film projects Maria's attitudes - those attitudes she permits herself under the mentioned circumstances, as a metaphor for Germany's loss of soul after they lost the war, and how it proceeds to rebuild itself. For example, Maria has the following conversation with a peddler (played by Fassbinder himself); the peddler tries to sell her an excellent copy of Kleist and she remarks that "Kleist burns out to quickly, it does not provide enough heat for the cold". The peddler answers "That's another way to look at it. Right now, it's probably the correct way".

Maria meets a French/German business man, Karl Oswald after she bargains her way into the first class train compartment. She decides to get involve with Karl, "You're not having an affair with me; I'm having an affair with you". She also takes responsibility in the company, and after a while has the complete trust of the firm. When Karl says "I suppose we'll just have to wait for a miracle" she replies "I prefer making miracles – then wait for them". In her own words, she has become the "Mata Hari of the economic miracle".

In a lot of Fassbinder's films he tried to expose the psychological processes which lie behind social mechanisms (see Freud); in other words, he liked pointing his camera at the bullsh*t, the false social mechanisms, the pretending. The direct approach Maria takes in this film is successful to convey this ideology. For example, she phones Karl and when he picks up the phone her request is straight to the point "I need someone to sleep with". As Fassbinder said "the emotions people felt did not exist at all and were only a kind of sentimentality which we thought we needed to be properly functioning members of society". He also remarked that his films are anti emotional.

I particularly liked the scene when Karl and Maria meet in the Munich restaurant (apparently, frequently visited by Hitler himself). Maria appears in control and Karl a bit on the down side, as if Maria's 'brutal honesty' wears him out, as if he is not completely up to the situation anymore. Karl says "I have to tell myself over and over that I love life". Maria replies "That's life isn't it. As if we signed a contract to enjoy life. And then we go out to eat and talk about food". I guess this is also about Fassbinder attitudes on relationships, to never submit completely to anyone. And why would you, if the central matter of most of his films is about "What love becomes in this society – a commodity, an instrument of power, a weapon."

It was remarked that it is typical Fassbinder to have the scenes with Maria and Betti walking in expensive dresses in the ruins after the war - with these clothing essentially the wrong period. What I think he wanted to portray here were those attitudes, when you feel bad, that "you can always put on your make up and face the day looking great". But, Fassbinder was not interested in perfection. Any mistakes made in a film could just be corrected in the next project. Since he completed films (approximately 4 a year) the way other people rolled cigarettes, it is not peculiar that this film has some very bad scenes. Peter Marthesheimer, who wrote most of the script, mentioned that Fassbinder likely dreamed up the whole scene with Maria and the American in the park, overnight.

Hanna Schygulla is brilliant as Maria. Mostly, she just stares bluntly into the camera. In Maria's own words "It is a bad time for emotions. But, I like it like that".

There are different opinions about the end. After Karl died of a hart attack, Herman finally shows up. (Herman left for Australia after he got out of prison, to "become human again".) After the testament is delivered (made out to her and Herman in half), Maria forgets to close the gas on the stove when she lights her cigarette, and blow her and Herman up. For me it is obvious that she just did that by accident. At the same time, she must have been rattled when her dreams finally seem about to come true. She must have felt as if she was not herself anymore. She felt as if she had outlived herself. This film exhibits artful cinematic techniques wherein instead of landscape capturing the attention of the camera it is small details in how someone appears, how the woman may be wearing a cocktail hat and wrapped in a sheet. How the husband may be wearing a hat and socks and shoes and his underwear and both seem so completely at ease and comfortable. How provocative the woman is posed is another feature of the tableau that the director chooses to let us know she is a free spirit sexually and aims to get the pleasure she seeks without flirting directly or with any particular sensitivity to what the man may be feeling. The relationship between the wife and husband is unique. It is an open one wherein she holds nothing back, feels no particular shame for how she has behaved and wants to share these facts with him because her primary focus always is on the fact of their marriage. Nothing and no one can come between the two of them. Only the chances of fate can intervene---his imprisonment during the war and what follows after his return at long last. A very intriguing film which is totally absorbing. Fassbinder's most lavish production sacrifices little of his talent for identifying and deconstructing a locus of suffering in long, mobile takes that somehow also act as social encapsulations; here, it's much more overt, since the story takes place in war-torn Germany at the end of WWII, and the central character is a woman (Hanna Schygulla as Maria) who capitalizes on vulnerabilities (both economic and gender-related) to catapult herself up the ladder of a prominent textile corp. that makes coveted goods like lederhosen available to indigent workers (as she once was). Married amidst allied air raids, Maria and her new husband Herrmann are allowed a brief honeymoon before he's shipped out to the Russian front. In his absence, her despair is great: she spends most days at the train station, waiting for him to return. When he is reported dead, she abruptly stops grieving and takes a job as a barmaid/prostitute at a brothel catering to American GI's.

When he returns, things get plenty messy, as circumstances (and his sense of noble self-sacrifice) conspire to keep them apart. The message is Fassbinder's M.O. writ large: 'Love is colder than death,' but not only is Maria contending with her own sanity and a husband largely incapable of loving her, but a country in deep flux with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. Fassbinder is making some kind of statement on post-war Germany selling out to the highest bidder, but as with all his films, I tend to block those elements out and focus on the unbearable passions on display: Fassbinder's as evoked through his characters; his actors' as filtered through their real-life connections with Fassbinder. Taken together, his films can be either unbearable or indescribably mesmeric, often at once; this falls somewhere in-between, although definitely closer to the latter. While I didn't like it quite as much as The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Katzelmacher, Maria Braun certainly has a greater scope and what's more, I could feel its passion and authentic detail to human emotions. My first Fassbinder was a wonderful experience. Film and alternative cinema (small hall, with uncomfortable seats; public had to wait while filmrolls were changed ) were perfect match.

There were many cliches used in the film, but Fassbinder presented them so cleverly that I found them really amusing. Sound was also brilliant (sometimes back being louder than dialogue).

Everything seemed to be in right place. And I loved the way how after-war-time was presented. Real fun!

This is the best of the 43 films that Rainer Werner Fassbinder made; his most successful at least. He was one of the leading directors in the New Germany after WWII.

Hanna Schygulla was magnificent as the cold, calculating Maria Bruan, who lost her husband to the War, found him after she took an American soldier as a lover, lost him again after he went to jail for her, and found him agin at the end. Her day and a half marriage before he disappeared was longer than their time together at the end.

Such is life. Things come and go, and you do the best you can. You can give up or adjust you way of thinking to survive. Even though Maria adjusted her thinking and did what she had to do, she never stopped loving Hermann, which makes the end such a tragedy.

Excellent drama. Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off. This first part of the BRD Trilogy has more passion and plot density than Lola, but less of the magic of Veronica Voss. The political musings have point to them: we see the shortages after the war, how the blackmarketers were able to control so much of the day-to-day life (delicious moment when Fassbinder, playing a grifter, tries to sell a complete set of Kleist to Schygulla, who remarks that burning books don't provide much warmth: she really wants firewood).

There's some clumsiness in the first hour. The scene in Maria's room with the black soldier, interrupted by Hermann's appearance should go quicker. The train scene when Maria meets Karl Oswald falls flat when she insults the GI--I cringed, it was so bad. But as the story develops and the years go by, I was drawn more and more into this glossy, cold world. So one person says, "This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II." And the other says, "Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?" And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. "I can't explain. Just see it." This film seems to get bad critiscism for some reason. Probably just by the mass populace. Anyhow, this is actually a very interesting movie. The film is an under-budget sci-fi movie which actually works, due to an interesting storyline and well done scenes.

This movie may not be for everyone though. If there are any Sci-Fi fans reading this, I truly recommend this movie if you like good ole science fiction. The film has crazy ideas. The setting includes nations going to war with GIGANTIC machines which the entire countries invest all it's money in! The world has been divied up into territories. Anyone can challenge anyone else to a war, or rather, a 'robot-duel'. The method of warfare is cleaner than nuclear war, since now everyone is wearing those breath masks. Definetly a movie that makes you think. Intelligent, well written, and good effects for the measly budget.

I tend to like movies which have small budgets and actually work. I read somewhere (in a fairly panning review) that this is something of a live-action mecha anime, and I think they're on the right lines. I first watched this movie when I was very young and I've been dying to see it again, and when I finally did just recently all the memories came flooding back. I don't think this is to be taken too seriously - it's just a bit of good old 80's almost-a-TV-movie fun (it is set against the backdrop of a fairly dark future, although this point isn't stressed too much). What I admired most about this movie was that the dialogue didn't sound generic - no clichés, no predictable lines - all in all just good fun! Maybe time hasn't been kind to this little movie, but still I can find appreciation for it in me. It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and doesn't try to be anything other than that. Let the nerds and comic-store-guys worry about technicalities - who cares? See it for yourself and make your own decision. No-one else's opinion matters. Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel "The Forever War." It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and John Steakley's "Armor." And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.

Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's "Iliad." A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.

The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to "Terminator 2" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.

Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts. If you like mech war games it's pretty good. Some of it is cheap but the robot fights is worth seeing. I've enjoyed the mech war field for some time and this is pretty much the only movie I've ever seen that come close to that feeling of what it would be like to pilot one of those huge mechs. If you like the genera then games you like are Mech Warrior Three and four and if you have an Xbox and $350 to spare Steel Battalion. The movie is worth seeing at least once. There really needs to be some more movies on the same theme out there. Less remakes and more original works.

Enjoy This movie i've loved since i was young! Its excellent. Although, it may be a bit much for the average movie watcher if one can't interpret certain subtleties in the film (for example, our hero's name is Achilles, and in the final battle between him and Alexander he's shot in the heel with a rocket, just as Achilles in mythology was shot in his heel). That's a just a little fact that is kind of amusing! Anyway, great movie, good story, it'd be neat to see it redone with today's special effects! Oddly enough, Gary Graham had average success, starring in the T.V. show Alien Nation. This movie is a fun watch and should be more appreciated! Now I've always been a fan of Full Moon's puppet work. But I have to say that Robot Jox is one of there better projects. Yes, you heard me. The story works wonderful, the atmosphere really works and the actors do a first rate job. Gary Graham who really makes his mark on TV in shows like ALIEN NATION THE SERIES and STAR TREK ENTERPRISE shows that he can be an action star who kicks ass and takes name. The stop motion effects could have been a tiny bit better. The color was wrong, they look plastic to me instead of the metal they were suppose to be. But that is a minor complaint compared to the whole that is the Robot Jox, if you like Gary Graham or other Full Moon movies, then you will like this movie. 9 STARS OUT OF 10. I remember this movie from when i was 12, it was amazing.. i remember it to the day not like most thing i watched back then, i have even tried to buy it but its like rocking horse sh*t! Anyway, the acting is a bit chewy but the story is amazing considering it was a real B movie with a low budget and event the fighting scenes were amazing to watch, i must have watched it about 20 times. It was a very well made movie and i loved the idea of fighting giant man controlled robots, pity they had to spoil it by making a crappy spin off "Crash and Burn", don't watch that movie by the way it is total pants! If your a real Sci-Fi movie fan then watch this, if it was re-made today it would be a winner.. i really would love to see a remake or even release the DVD of it. What a great film it is. The notion of nations sending people fighting each other with giant robots is tacky. The ending is not just a fitting one, it's more inspirational.

But I am intrigued by the characters. It is a pity we never see the relationship of Achilles and Athena more developed beyond just a couple of kisses and Athena's fear for Achilles's safety. Their romance is very enjoyable.

My girlfriend and I have a thing for Robots. So I try to seek out movies that have robots. And this movie has robots. Big ones. They beat the clang and bang out of each other, with the fate of nations hanging in the balance. It's really cool. You have to forgive this movie its many shortcomings and just try to appreciate what the director and his crew of technicians were able to put on the screen while working with what was obviously a tight budget. It is very hard to dislike this movie. Because of those big robots. They looked like Transformers and they fought like pro wrestlers! It made my girlfriend smile. And that is good enough for me. And special mention must be made of veteran character actor Paul Koslo: as the maniacal Russian Villain, whether he is ruthlessly stomping on his helpless opponents after they've already surrendered or complaining that their close proximity to him in a bar has caused his vodka to taste "like blood" (a line he delivers with a deliciously campy sub-Bela Lugosi accent) he is clearly having a ball and the film benefits enormously whenever he is on-screen. This is a nifty little flick that deserves its cult reputation. One of the best movies out there. Yeah maybe the cinematography wasn't the greatest, but an excellent plot and concept. Great for the time and brilliant and creative ideas. Something different from the usual movies and great fun. One of my favorites and would recommend to anyone who likes creative and imaginative movies. Post World War 3 and fighting in gigantic robots, the actors gave a great performance and made it all worth while. The sets are not amazing, but simple and worked for the overall look of the film. This movie is very hard to find on DVD, but also on VHS. Check it out cause I have loved it since it came out. Not a mainstream flick and not like anything you've ever seen. Take a look and think like a child. It's a great view and very fun.

Robot jox is a great little film ok some of the sets are bad and the acting is not that great but the special effects are very good for a film of this size and age. You have to remember that this film is over 10 years old now and was made very cheaply in the 1st place so you cant moan to much about the bad parts. So just sit back and watch a cool film with great big robots in it. OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox. Note to previous reviewer: This movie is "science-fiction adaptation of the Iliad" according to the screenwriter. So whether the references are painful or not, no apologies, it is the basis for the film. They admit they stole...though adapted is the P.C. term.

Great flick but too short. Probably didn't come out as well as the author, director, or studio wanted, but pretty damn fun. The fact that the studio itself imploded during the making only helps add to its legacy.

A big-budget remake wouldn't be as fun, and probably wouldn't do the screenplay any more justice. But it's fun to dream about the potential there. A DVD release with some meager extras is apparently available but I don't think it would play on NTSC players. I'm no expert and thus still trying to figure this out. For now, I live with the VHS incarnation. What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.

The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.

The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.

EXCELLENT 10/10 The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending.

However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other. The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending.

However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other. Hrm-I think that line was from the old movie posters.

This is a dumb movie that seems to have been translated from some language that was totally unfamiliar to the translator. Here's a tip: Any movie that starts with a black screen and text reading "In the future..." is going to be fun. This means that the premise is so implausible that they have to explain it to you.

In this case, "In the future..." means that, instead of fighting wars, nations have guys climb into giant robots and duke it out to determine, well, that's never terribly clear, but it's probably something really important. There are good guys (obviously capitalists, i.e. "us") and bad guys (Commies!) and there are big stop-motion robots.

Sadly, the effects budget was pretty slim, so we don't get to see a lot of the big robots. There are plenty of cheap looking interior scenes, and then a big space fight near the end. The space fight is especially nice, as it serves precisely no purpose other than the blow the remainder of the effects budget.

With said money now spent, the climactic fight degenerates into (and I'm not making this up) two guys hitting each other with sticks. I can always get a laugh in a bar by re-enacting the final scene, complete with a last line guaranteed to leave any audience scratching their heads.

Like I said-it's dumb. That's why I bought the tape. The one of the most remarkable sci-fi movies of the millennium. Not only a movie but an incredible future vision, this movie establishes a new standard of s/f movies. hail and kill! after seeing this excellent film over 100 times, i still find new things that blow me away with this movie, great special effects, incredible acting, and a plot full of ingenious twists makes this movie an excellent depiction of capitalism versus communism, and in this ending everyone is happy and all is well. best movie ever!!! From the start I knew I would be in for the best movie watching experience of my life. The idea of two giant robots, manned by brilliant humans, fighting each other for control of the world was the most intense and well thought of plot I have ever experienced. I can't even begin to describe the brilliant acting and well written script. Let's just just say it compares to both Lord of Rings pictures , combined. The Academy had a grave oversight in not celebrating the joy that is.....ROBOT JOX. Yep, you read that right, kids. Michael Bay should've studied this film before making either of his over hyped, overlong, overly pointless "Transformers" movies. "Robot Jox" is better than both of them and it probably cost less than the "Transformers" crew spent on Megan Fox's personal trainer.

Thankfully, this little robotic gem, initially known mainly for being the film that bankrupted Charles and Albert Band's Empire Pictures studio, seems to have developed a cult following over the years. I fondly remember watching it on VHS during its initial video release in the early 90s and though some of the Cold War-era politics/stereotypes were already out of date by that time (just the Bands' luck that Communism would fall while the film was sitting on a shelf waiting to be released, eh?), it's still a pretty damn cool little B-Movie. They really don't make'em like this anymore, or if they do, they go the Bay route and CGI things to unbearable proportions.

For those who are unfamiliar, here's the Robo-scoop: We're somewhere in the future and after a nuclear holocaust, large scale "wars" have been outlawed. Disputes between nations are now settled mano-a-mano (or perhaps that should be machine-o-machine-o) by one representative from each side battling each other in giant sized Shogun Warrior style robots. Whichever 'bot walks away from the fight wins for "his" side. Gary Graham (who would later go on to play Detective Sykes in the "Alien Nation" TV series), plays "Achilles," the greatest Robot Jock in Marketplace (a.k.a. the good guys) history. Achilles has been undefeated in his previous nine Robot bouts (ten being the maximum number of battles before a "Jock" is retired) and at the beginning of the film he faces off against his counterpart from the "Confederation" (i.e. The Russkies!), the psychotic Alexander (who is the most over the top "evil Russian" stereotype bad guy since Dolph Lundgren's infamous turn as Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV"). The match is called a draw when Alexander violates the rules with an illegal Robot Move at the last minute and ends up not only embarrassing Achilles, but killing a whole bunch of spectators in the bargain. A rematch is scheduled to complete the bout, but Achilles simply wants to bow out, hang up his helmet and move on with his life. Rather than violate the Spoiler Rules by revealing much more, I will simply say that there are a great deal of twists and turns, behind the scenes skullduggery, and other difficulties for Achilles and his fellow "Jox" before the two robotic titans clash finally once again in the finale.

I hope I'm not making this movie out to be some sort of masterpiece of science fiction, because it isn't. "Robot Jox" is just plain fun. I'll grant that it is a bit higher-concept than your average B-grade sci-fi movie, and though the budgetary constraints do occasionally make themselves known (especially in the scenes involving some painfully obvious green-screen trickery), it is still the best looking movie ever to come out of the Empire/Full Moon Pictures factory. The robot fight scenes are very well done using old school stop motion/model techniques, and the sets and costumes don't look half-assed in the slightest. Empire Pictures and director Stuart ("Re-Animator") Gordon were definitely shooting for the stars with this picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out for them (or the studio) but at least we got one heckuva cool little movie out of the deal. Bottom line: if you want to be aurally and visually assaulted for 2+ hours, feel free to rent a "Transformers" movie. By the end you're likely to feel like you've spent all that time watching someone else play a video game. If you want to have a rock'em, sock'em robot good time, pick up Robot Jox instead. Robot Jox doesn't suffer from story or bad effects. I mean, this was 1990 if you know what I'm talking about. RoboCop 2 still used the stop animation as most of the movies did throughout the '80s. If you look at your biggest blockbusters during this period, most of them did what they could with the special effects shots that was available to them at the time. It wasn't until Terminator 2: Judgment Day was released the following year that a breakthrough in technology was realized, and story boarders began to use that motive. But you'll have fond memories of Transformers, Gundam Wing, even Power Rangers, if you watch this film. The enemy robot is very menacing. It makes you not want to face the man without a really good back-up plan. And there are some great moments within this film. A traitor/spy is working within their midsts. Who you think is on your side, backing you up all the way, could be the person you didn't expect him/her to be. And that's very troublesome to think so, don't you agree? This is one of the better classic Edgar Wallace movies from the German series - it features all basics for a highly enjoyable Wallace crime flic movie way back from the 60ies: Although his majesty, Mr. Kinski, is missing you still have young Joachim 'Blacky' Fuchsberger, starring once again as the typical clever American 'womanizer', you have young Eddi Arendt in his best (and just as well typical) role ever - the cool, sophisticated British butler - and you have (not so young anymore) Lowitz as the melancholic yet very 'dry' ironic (and thus: highly entertaining) police investigator. Furthermore you'll get offered a freakish and very campy 'evil guy' behind a frog mask (hence the movie's title!), you'll get a crazed-out swinging soundtrack, classic b-movie action scenes, partly filmed out off the wildest perspectives (please remind the time of its origin!), yelling scream queens, and on and on... All those ingredients get shaken well up in a sweet tastin' cocktail of pure German Edgar Wallace campyness - highly recommended!! Updated version of a story that had been turned into the film in 1938 England(Return of the Frog) concerning the pursuit by the police of a master criminal known as the Frog because of the frog like get up (bulging eyes etc) he wears.

One of the good Wallace films from the 1960's it's a solid little entertainment. Clearly influenced by ( or did this influence) the restart of the Dr Mabuse films, the Frog seems to be more a super villain than a master thief. While not the best of the Wallace films, it is worth a look. It would make an interesting double feature with the excellent earlier film.

Between 6 and 7 out of 10. I had mixed feelings for "Les Valseuses" (1974) written and directed by Bertrand Blier when I started watching it but I ended up liking it. I would not call it vulgar ("Dumb and Dumber" is vulgar, "The Sweetest Thing" is both vulgar and unforgivably stupid); I would call it shocking and offensive. I can understand why many viewers, especially, the females would not like or even hate it. It is the epitome of misogyny (or so it seems), and the way two antiheroes treat every woman they'd meet seems unspeakable. But the more I think of it the more I realize that it somehow comes off as a delightful little gem. I am fascinated how Blier was able to get away with it. The movie is very entertaining and highly enjoyable: it is well written, the acting by all is first - class, and the music is sweet and melancholic. Actually, when I think of it, two buddies had done something good to the women they came across to: they prepared a woman in the train (the lovely, docile blonde Brigitte Fossey who started her movie career with one of the most impressive debuts in René Clément's "Forbidden Games"(1952) at age 6) for the meeting with her husband whom she had not seen for two months; they found a man who was finally able to get a frigid Marie-Ange (Miou-Miou) exited and satisfied; they enlightened and educated young and very willing Isabelle Huppert (in one of her early screen appearances.) Their encounter with Jeanne Moreau elevates this comedy to the tragic level. In short, I am not sure I'd like to meet Gérard Depardieu's Jean-Claude and Patrick Dewaere's Pierrot in real life and invite them over for dinner but I had a good time watching the movie and two hours almost flew - it was never boring. This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as "Serie Noire", "Buffet Froid", "Beau Pere", all realized by Blier.

However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are "going places", but the title in French could be literally translated by "the waltz dancers", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles... Bertrand Blier is indeed l'enfant terrible of French cinema and in the seventies he always could shock the public. Filmed with his fave duo (Depardieu and Dewaere) and the usual dose of sex (Miou-Miou plays her typical role, at least the one from the seventies as little could we know that a decade later she would be the best French actress ever). In first "Les Valseuses" is also one of the first roadmovies as the viewer is just taken to some journeys of two little criminals. Those who only are satisfied with family life, or simply know nothing more, the movie would be quite a shocker but this movie is more than just that, it just let you think of all the usual things in life (working for the car, being bounded at work etc.). It's a sort of critic towards the hypocrite society we're living in. Great job and it just makes you wish two things : Dewaere died just too young as he was a topactor and of course Depardieu, he'd better should have stuck with French movies as he proves here that no one can beat him. Timeless classic and 20 years later it will still shock some... Not so many people like the movies of Bertrand blier simply because they don't understand them. Simply because they are different kinds of people.

If you have not been living under a deep desperation intertwined with great personal hope it may be hard for you to enjoy the humor blier shown here.

And also the film of blier cannot be classified easily as black-comedy or cult etc. like those of pulp fiction etc. Because there is this delicacy which the audience of north-america frequently fail to appreciate.

When I looked at these two `hooligans' dining with Jeanne moreau in the seaside restaurant, I felt they were more gentil than any gentleman can have been.

The urge to make love wildly like these is the normal reaction we feel under the unbearable pressure of meaningless being-symbolized by the camion suddenly emerges at the Carrefour.

SO, les valseuses is much better a name than going places. To dance a valse you need to be elegant, but going places you don't. A wonderful, free flowing, often lyrical film that whisks you along, ever smiling, even if there are truly shocking incidents along the way. One gasps at the way the women are treated and yet ultimately they seem to come through very well and it is much credit to all concerned that so many potentially disastrous scenes all work so very well. This is possibly Depardieu's best performance, certainly his most natural. Jeanne Moreau performs outstandingly in what must have been a very difficult role to play and including vigorous sex scenes with a couple of guys at least half her age. Miou-Miou is lovely throughout and again has very difficult scenes to play. Initially this seems a down and dirty misogynist rant/romp but as the tale and characters unfold a much more tender and honest picture emerges. In the end this uncompromising and daring film demands respect. Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not, so beware:

Just a small but crucial thing to watch for, an intriguing possibility: the boys steal a green Citroen at one point, for a joy ride, and return it to the owner having done purposeful and vengeful hidden damage to the car, hoping that the owner will crash. Is it the very same car they steal much later from the picnicking family? We know the original owner sold it. They drive off at the end on a dangerous road, one which I understand has been closed to all but pedestrians for the last ten years. A whole new slant to the end of the film.

On another matter, this film could have been called "Scent of a Woman". I don't recall another film, certainly not American, that treats the scent of a woman in such a frank and open manner, much like the "nose" of a fine Bordeaux. The movie has a distinct (albeit brutish and rough) humanity for all its borderline depravity - the zippy/lyrical score points up the comic side of their misadventures, and even when they're at their most thuggish (like terrorizing the woman on the train), a semi-pitiful vulnerability lurks never far away (Dewaere sucks on her breasts like a baby). Blier cuts away from the scene where Depardieu may be about to rape Dewaere, so we're never sure how explicitly to read the manifestly homoerotic aspect of their relationship - either way, that incident is the start of their relative humanization (so the movie could certainly be read as pro-gay, although it could likely be read as pro-anything you want). The movie has many objectionable scenes and points of sexual politics and is probably best taken as a general cartoon on the foibles of both sexes, making a mockery of the whole notion of sensitivity and honesty, and hitting numerous points of possible profundity on the basis that if you fire off enough shots, some of them are bound to hit. I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief. I can remember seeing this movie as a kid in 1977 or 1978. HBO would show it late at night back when they were they one and only movie pay channel in existence. Back then it was UNRATED and was the only movie of its kind ever shown on pay television...especially back then. I would love to see it now as an adult where I would be more apt to understand the adult theme of it. It was probably the closest thing I had ever seen to pornography at the young age of 7 or 8. Luckily I had stupid babysitters and party-going parents on the weekends. Most of my memory of this movie was the completely erratic sexual behavior of these two guys. Breaking into houses to sniff underwear, feeding on a stranger's breast milk on a public bus, and fornicating in a cab at the request of one of their female subjects were just a few of the whacked escapades these guys were pulling off. A very racy film for the early '70s. Until I checked IMDb, I had no idea this movie had such a following. Most people I talk to have never heard of it. This film is a stunning piece that will convince even the most skeptical viewer that Gerard Depardieu is one of the finest film actors of the last 50 years. His performance shocks, entertains, disgusts and charms you while leaving you breathless. This film was shot in the very early days of his film career and is very raw, but still is able to convey the mastery of Depardieu. A must-see for any Depardieu fan and by far his best early work. I remember hitch hiking to Spain at 25, getting a lift from, what turned out to be, two fleeing Italian small crooks. They were doing a lot outside the law, but from the other side carrying a little portrait of Jesus in the pocket for their protection...Just and unjust, good and bad, criminal and correct where here in a new combination, outside of the categories I used to know. 'Les Valseuses' gives me, although a film and not real life, a picture close to my own experiences: the intenseness of each moment as soon as you leave 'all behind' and go for the momentous, whatever comes your way, it's another state of mind and also 'dangerous' form of life, because, as we all know, there are people who are not ready for this and willing to persecute you for 'stealing' and so on...This film touches 'values', it's a story about 'what's right and wrong': morals. It's resurrection of the individual fighting him/ herself free against the 'false morals' and conformism...There's danger all the way, because, how far can you go with your own 'freedom' and crossing your own moral borders and that of other people? What to do with people who are willing to hurt you, put you in jail or even shoot at you for the things that you do, like "stealing" some petrol from a multinational oil company for you fifth hand car? Les Valseuses re-awakens these questions in me, because morality, in contradiction to the usual 'media message', is quite complex... As with that film we follow the implausible if always engaging adventures of the 2 lead characters. But whilst C + J eschew sex for a girly trip back into childhood, this pair revel in their carnality even to the point of exploring homoeroticism. Most of the sex they acquire from grudging or unwilling partners and yet, despite their deeply un-PC behaviour, everyone emerges smiling. Like C + G, through it all they remain innocents at heart, rebels against the quotidien, the bourgeois, the restrictive. As someone else has commented, I wouldn't want to know these 2 and it's a minor miracle that their trip brings scenes of mostly comedy and very little tragedy (and what there is of that cannot be laid at their door) and thus for that reason, it left me beguiled but with a sweet taste in the mouth. Dare I say that only the French can get away with films like this. And that is part of their genius. Depardieu's most notorious film is this (1974)groundbreaker from Bertrand Blier. It features many highly sexual scenes verging on an X-rating, including one of Jeanne Moreau doing a hot 1970s version of her Jules and Jim menage a trois with the two hairy French hippies (Depardieu and Deware). There is no such thing as a sacred territory in this film; everything is fair game.

It's very odd that Americans tend to not like this film very much while many French people I've met consider it a classic. Something about it goes against what Americans have been programmed to 'like.'

Gerard and the late Patrick Deware are two bitch-slapping, hippy drifters with many sexual insecurities, going around molesting women and committing petty crimes. They're out for kicks and anti-capitalist, Euro-commie, slacker 'freedom.' Blier satirizes the hell out of these two guys while at the same time making bourgeois society itself look ultimately much more ridiculous. Best of all though, is the way the wonderful Stephane Grappelli score conveys the restless soul of the drifters, the deeper subconscious awareness or 'higher ideal' that motivates all the follies they engage in. About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it!

Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself.

It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?

The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?

I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?

There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.

Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie! Maybe I'm being too generous with the rating...but I just love this movie! I've seen it so many times, but every time I see it I fall in love with it all over again. It's just a simple romantic comedy, with nothing huge or monumentous that happens. But I'm a big romantic and this movie *is* romantic. I love Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins, and Walter Mathau is so funny. The scientists make me laugh so much...I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it. It's such a clean, good movie - and those are so rare now! My 20-year-old brother likes this movie, too, so it's not just a chick-flick. ;-) I recommend it if you need to laugh, or if you're just lonely and need to *watch* a romance, if you yourself can't participate in one. It's a good 'un! I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with "Einstein" playing "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is "only a grease monkey" is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.

I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.

I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy! I recently saw I.Q. and even though I'm not a romantic comedy type of gal, I think that it was just a nice and sweet movie to watch. So many movies in my opinion lack honesty. You know that feeling when you're watching a movie and you just feel robbed because it's taking something from the story and it was like the director just threw it together like it was trash? The story between the scientists is a sweet and funny one. How they stuck together and they tried to help Tim Robbins character become smart. I liked the love story between Tim and Meg because it was simple and brought up a good point when it comes to love, "nothing is what it seems". I would recommend this for a Sunday morning.

7/10 This is one of my all time favorites. It is so simple and sweet - definitely a chick flick romantic comedy. I really like a film full of good quotes and this has it... one of my favorites is when Albert Einstein says to Ed Walters "Are you thinking what I'm thinking" and Ed says "Now what are the odds of that happening!" In my opinion, a film is fabulous if you can watch it again and again and get the same amount of enjoyment out of it, and with this one, you can!! I also really enjoyed Walter M.s way of portraying Einstein. I think all the characters fit together really well and the story flows nicely. There are so many times that I find myself smiling right along with the film and quoting my favorite lines as I watch it! I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a heart and enjoys a feel-good romantic comedy now and then! Australian Fred Schepisi (A Cry in the Dark) directs this comedy/ romance that is fun, relaxing, and set in the spring. You will laugh while watching this movie. Tim Robbins (Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking) is an auto mechanic, Ed Walters, with a high IQ, which gets higher with the help of Albert Einstein, Walter Matthau (Grumpy Old Men) and his academic friends Nathan, Kurt and Boris. You can tell them by their preppie shoes. Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail) is Catherine Boyd, Einstein's niece who is a competent, but not so confident mathematician. Perhaps it is because she is surrounded by all that genius. She thinks that if she marries someone with a high I.Q. her kids will have a high I.Q. as well, but she does not knows what she wants. Between Tim Robbins cute smile and Meg's cuteness this is a refreshing movie. I love sweet stories. People all ages should enjoy this movie. Catherine is engaged to the jerk James Moreland, who works in animal behavior, but is very stuffy. This is a love a first sight type situation, between the mechanic and the mathematician. Witty lines and subliminal lines! The cinematography is nice. Princeton, New Jersey is beautiful in the Spring. With much help from all those brilliant men Catherine falls for Ed, without knowing that he is an automobile mechanic.

Favorite Scenes: Ed taking a multiple choice test in front of a crowd with the help of Einstein, Nathan, Kurt, and Boris. Ed and Einstein riding on the motorcycle. Nathan, Kurt and Boris letting all the research animals free!

Favorite Quotes: Albert Einstein: "Don't let your brain interfere with your heart". Ed Walters: "When was the last time he said "Wahoo""? Catherine Boyd: "Well I'm sure I don't know". This is a refreshing movie, I recommend it. I have the tape and every once and awhile I will watch it again. Fairly good romantic comedy in which I don't think I've ever seen Meg looking any cuter. All the players did a good job at keeping this a lively romp. Of course, in the real world no genius mathematician would even glance at some grease monkey, but that is why I love romantic comedies....one can just totally forget reality and have a good time. Nice film. Damn, Meg is a babe, eh? Bottom line - best romantic comedy ever. This movie accomplishes what all great movies strive for: the creation of a world and time that we want to re-visit and makes us glad to be part of the human race. When I am blue, this movie lifts my spirit and makes me laugh (and that is still true after many viewings - always fresh).

All of the actors are in top form. The characterizations are so dead on and the characters mesh so well together that you forget the actor (usually difficult to do with Matthau, Robbins and Ryan). The supporting cast is consistently brilliant: Fry ("agae", "a total pygmy package"!), Jacoby & Saks & Maher (the three theoretical physicists as "Greek chorus" - "but time doesn't exist"), Durning ("something we can launch from NJ"), Shalhoub & Whaley (Robbins' boss and co-worker at the service station), and Curits (Eisenhower - how many comedies have Eisenhower??).

Don't miss this overlooked treasure. This is a really fun, breezy, light hearted romantic comedy. You cannot go wrong with Meg Ryan's cute perkiness combined with Albert Einstein's genius. Normally, I'm not a fan of completely fabricated fictional tales about actual people, now deceased and not able to defend themselves, but I think the late Einstein might himself have gotten a chuckle out of this one.

It's the 1950's...Princeton, New Jersey in the spring. The story revolves around a pretty, young, scatter brained mathematician, Catherine (Meg Ryan), who is all set to marry a stuffy jerk, a behavioral researcher named James, merely because he has the brains she's looking for in the father of her future children. However, it's love at first sight when her car breaks and she meets an auto mechanic named Ed (Tim Robbins). As she doesn't think Ed is intelligent enough, her uncle, none other than Albert Einstein, plays match maker, assisted in his endeavors by three mischievous cronies, all theoretical physicists. Uncle Albert must make Ed appear suitably smart, so concocts a charade portraying him as a physicist...naturally with amusing results.

Walter Matthau is his usual hilarious self, and pulls off the character of Einstein quite effectively. With his three professorial buddies, Kurt, Nathan, and Boris, a lot of laughs ensue. The real Einstein had a genuine human side and this film just takes it one (outrageous) step further. If you suspend all logic, you can almost imagine this silly story happening!

It might not be rocket science (despite its main character) but it is a wonderful sweet, refreshing movie. One of the best of the comedy romance genre. I.Q., in my opinion, is a sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you. If you ask me, James (Stephen Fry) really was a dull guy. To me, Ed (Tim Robbins) was more suited for Catherine (Meg Ryan) than James was. Anyway, everyone involved in this film did an absolutely outstanding job. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you to any Tim Robbins or Meg Ryan fan who hasn't seen it. You're in for lots of laughter, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. This movie is so great. Its set back in probably the 40's and Meg Ryan's character struggles to be known as 'smart.' Plus Tim Robbins is so cute in this movie. And everything about it has a magical feeling towards it. Everytime I watch it I feel happy. It's definitely a girl movie, and I'm a girl, so I like it. I also love the music. The violin is awesome. but besides that I think it's a cute story and everyone should watch it. Being a big fan of the romantic comedy genre, and therefore having seen a large number of these films, it is rare that one strikes me as totally unique. For that matter, it is equally rare that I am gasping for breath through the laughter during several scenes. The love story is a little thin on the ground, but I'd say that's probably for the best, as this romantic comedy has the emphasis firmly on "comedy", and in any case it stretches the bounds of credibility just a little more than I like most rom com's to do. The four scientists provided some of the funniest moments not just in this film, but in any film I've seen in a long while. I hesitated for the briefest of moments before finally choosing a "10" over a "9" as a rating, as I believe that far too many people use it indiscriminately, and therefore the maximum rating loses some of its impact. I'm also a big Meg Ryan fan, which helps, but this is one of the few films I've seen in which I'd say she is comprehensively overshadowed. She and Tim Robbins are cast as the leads, but for me play second fiddle to the antics of the bumbling intellectuals. A genuine laugh-out-loud type film. This film tells the story of a romance between Albert Einstien niece and a gas station attendant. In order to get the two together, Einstien agrees to help Ed(Hudsucker Proxy's Tim Robbins) learn to act more intelligent. This impresses Catherine (Meg Ryan). Unfortunately Einstien goes too far and Ed is considered to be a genius. Hilarity ensues. Not to be missed. Filmed in Mercer county New Jersey at Princeton University, Lawrenceville Prep School (doubling for Princeton University) as well as a beautiful vintage gas station in Hopewell. While the sparkling chemistry between Ryan and Robbins alone is reason enough to see this movie, the supporting cast (including Matthau, Fry, Shalub, Durning and the hilarious trio of Jacobi, Saks and Maher) is an additional plus. Matthau shines as Einstein, Fry is perfect as Ryan's clinical fiancé, and Shalub's line about Einstein's gonads is, as has been noted, one of the highlights of the film. The speech that Robbins delivers at his first appearance in public is sheer poetry. Kudos to the writers for handling this froth with wit and levity. I also thought that Keene Curtis was wonderful as Eisenhower. This might be considered something of a chick movie, but I think everyone will get a kick out of it. Eight very solid points. It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a "deus ex ma-china") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.

(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)

The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.

He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).

The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).

It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued. IQ is a wonderfully original romantic comedy that pits the greatest and deepest-thinking scientific minds of the 20th century as Cupid's helpers. The juxtaposition of heart and mind is the central theme of this light-hearted yet thoughtful movie. You don't quite know how to react because part of the time you are seeing great scientists do silly things to nurture budding love, but at other times, you hear them discuss some of the deepest puzzles of space/time of our age. The end result is a fun movie with surprises throughout. Walter Matthau is a perfect Einstein, Meg Ryan creates a quirky, scatter-brained mathematician, and Tim Robbins brings to life the contradictions of a poorly educated working man who is fascinated by science. All together, they create a farcical trip through love and science, mind and heart. The part where Meg visits the mechanic and he says - "Is the piston firing short?" (implying poor sexual energy on the part of her fiancée) was hilarious. I love Meg Ryan and she is as sweet as ever in this wonderful movie. Very lovable and very intelligent too. Her innocent indignant expressions have you wishing she was yours. The hero handles the garage mechanic to physicist transformation well. Einstein had a romantic side to his psyche? The puzzle round in front of the press and audience was done well. It's awfully underrated and deserves accolades and attempts at a revival. It loses out one vote for including the highly improbable far fetched theory being bought by the US Govt. I don't see why it doesn't figure in the top 20 romantic comedies of the century. Great Movie, it has the presidential seal of approval on it! this movie is a very relaxed, romantic-comedy, which is thoroughly enjoyable. Meg Ryan does a very good job as the genius niece of Albert Einstein, though she does believe in her own skills. Tim Robbins does an equally good job as the mechanic who falls in love with her when she comes into his shop with her fiancé after her car stuffs up. I loved Walter Matthau as the one and only Albert Einstein. This movie just has a very relaxing feel to it, while still keeping some sort of seriousness to it (if that is actually possible, it happens here).

I personally found this movie extremely entertaining, especially the old scientists - i thought they were fab and hilarious! This movie seems to have been underestimated beyond comprehension. If you have a cheeky sense of humour, this is the movie for you! What a delightful romp – a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable – better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks – as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.

You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.

Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is – such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry – who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?

And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe. A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie. This movie had me smiling from beginning to end, partly at the humor, partly at Meg Ryan (this is the perfect character for her), and always because it's just one of the best feel-good movies I've seen. Hopefully the DVD will be out soon. This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8! While Fred Schepisi's "I.Q." doesn't really have any important qualities, it's still worth seeing. Walter Matthau plays Albert Einstein, trying to help mechanic Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) fall in love with Princeton mathematics doctoral candidate Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan). Probably the funniest scene is when Dr. Frizzyhead and friends (Lou Jacobi, Gene Saks and Joseph Maher) try to make Ed look like a scientist: he ends up looking like a French impressionist.

Obviously little of the movie is historically accurate, but that's not the point. It's not intended as anything except a light comedy, quite the opposite of Robbins's most famous movie from 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption). A movie about Einstein's whole life would have to focus not only on his scientific achievements, but also his political activism, namely how he wrote a letter on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine and came out against nuclear weapons (it got to the point where the FBI kept a file on him).

So anyway, this one is acceptable. Also starring Stephen Fry, Tony Shalhoub, Frank Whaley, Charles Durning and Keene Curtis. I loved the idea of this film from the moment I first saw a trailer for it. Einstein has always been one of my heroes and the image of him as the kindly, playful, slightly mad genius was enough to get me to see the film. The added spice of Matthau as Einstein made it even better.

The story is pure fantasy, but a delightful one. An auto mechanic falls in love with a beautiful woman, who happens to be Einstein's niece. With the help of four Fairy Godfathers of Physics, Ed embarks on a quest to win Catherine's heart. Throw a jealous fiancé (who exemplifies the worst of experimental psychology) and Eisenhower into the mix, and you have pure fun.

The film is filled with great character actors and delightfully sweet and daffy performances. Walter Matthau play Einstein as a mischievous imp; cupid with a slide rule. Tim Robbins is wonderfully endearing as Ed and Meg Ryan plays a step above her normal rom-com level. Stephen fry is a joy as the "RRRatman" and Ryan's fiancé; who lacks a single romantic bone in his body.

The film fell below most radars, but is a delightful treasure that does not grow stale with repeated viewings. It features first-rate writing and performances and is a gentle treat in a less than gentle world. This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played wonderfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is augmented by a terrific supporting cast of well recognized character actors. This movie is cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Hearty recommendations. "A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men."

If you are too smart to watch this movie, then you are too smart to be alive.

Wonderful romp, wonderful premise, period piece done with acute eye for detail.

Walter Matthau, Meg Ryan, Tim Robbins - et al - just wonderful!

Rent it, sit down, relax, take it in, smile a little. Enjoy yourself.

Then, thank me. IQ is a cute romantic comedy featuring two great actors that seem to click well on screen. Plot is a typical guy wrong for girl, guy gets girl format, but makes the solid point that one must love with the heart and not the the mind. Addition of Albert Einstein and his band of geniuses provides excellent comic relief. Overall, a good movie. Not great, but good This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon). Farrah Fawcett has spent the better part of her post-Angel's career confounding us, with an occasional noteworthy acting performance sandwiched in between her Playboy frolics and Letterman escapades. But when it comes down to it, there's no denying that this girl can act. Far from a story of epic proportions, this well-done TV-movie is gentle, quiet and occasionally moving. Fawcett plays the wayward black sheep daughter come home only to find that she missed the last days of her mom's life as well as the funeral, much to the chagrin of her more stable and presumably more sensible sister. Brad Johnson plays the love interest, and a story unfolds with all the typical elements of telefilm drama- but then there's always that confounding Farrah to watch, and she does, indeed, remain eminently watchable. (And, yes, I admit it, I did have that Farrah poster on my wall way back when). Silk Hope gets three and a half stars (out of five) on the Corkymeter. Bosley would be proud. This is a movie that i can watch over and over and never ever get tired of it, it has lot's of laughs, guns, action, crime,, good one liners, and a decent plot, with an over the top, Donald Sutherland in a rather comedic role as an Assasain. Tia Carerra looks as hot as she ever did and can act too, Thomas Ian Griffin is great in this as the lead character "Max" a DEA agent Diane is the FBI agent, played by Carerra, and John Lithgow from Frazier on TV, plays the bad guy,, "Livingston". The plot centers around Max and Diane trying to capture Livingston while they fight and argue with each other about who gets the money for the respective agencies, throw into the mix the Assassain Sutherland, who pretty much has all the good one liners, this is the perfect crime caper, there is the usual love story,, but played very differently than you would think by Carerra and Griffith. You also have the Russian mafia, Italian Mafia, and Chineese Mafia here thrown into the mix,, the film is shot in Boston,, where you have some great shots , and locals,, great photography and music in this film, this movie is just the epitome of a crime comedy,, it has everything that one could ever want. Check out Sutherland's toilet in a particular scene,, very unusual. this film is a riot and will make you laugh real hard 10 plus for me. Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.

Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.

After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur – even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.

But it wouldn't be a ‘Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.

Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was ‘Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.

Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen – and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.

Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman – he was also ‘Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.

Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing – it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.

Animation holds a special place in my heart – but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family. In 1996's "101 Dalmatians," Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the "tin can." Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!

So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed "102 Dalmatians." In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!

I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the "Atomic Dog" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!

"102 Dalmatians" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A "103 DALMATIANS?????" LOL

10 stars The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox Arguably this is a very good "sequel", better than the first live action film 101 Dalmatians. It has good dogs, good actors, good jokes and all right slapstick!

Cruella DeVil, who has had some rather major therapy, is now a lover of dogs and very kind to them. Many, including Chloe Simon, owner of one of the dogs that Cruella once tried to kill, do not believe this. Others, like Kevin Shepherd (owner of 2nd Chance Dog Shelter) believe that she has changed.

Meanwhile, Dipstick, with his mate, have given birth to three cute dalmatian puppies! Little Dipper, Domino and Oddball...

Starring Eric Idle as Waddlesworth (the hilarious macaw), Glenn Close as Cruella herself and Gerard Depardieu as Le Pelt (another baddie, the name should give a clue), this is a good family film with excitement and lots more!! One downfall of this film is that is has a lot of painful slapstick, but not quite as excessive as the last film. This is also funnier than the last film.

Enjoy "102 Dalmatians"! :-) I noticed at once that this movie really wasn't based on Dodie Smith's novel. In any case, it was a nice idea that Pongo and Perdita's son now had his own puppies. The cutest of the Dalmatians was, of course, little Snowball who was completely spotless till the very end of the film.

To be honest, I didn't know what to think when Cruella de Vil seemed to have changed completely kind. In fact I have often thought about the possibility that she could become friendly, but now that she so quickly changed into "herself" again and announced that she was Cruella once more, I almost began to be really worried about Chloe's Dalmatians.

Actually, the scene in which the puppies watched Lady and the Tramp while Chloe and Kevin had their dinner, was much better than I had expected. I also was fond of the parrot who played to be a dog, and it was incredible that the dogs had learned so many tricks for this movie.

Of course I was content that at the end the Dalmatians were saved again, but I would have liked to know what was going to happen to Cruella after she had lost her whole property. And what on earth could the dogs' home do with such a huge sum of money?

Finally, it was quite touching that Snowball also had spots at the very end of the film. This is just as good as the original 101 if not better. Of course, Cruella steals the show with her outrageous behaviour and outfits, and the movie was probably made because the public wanted to see more of Cruella. We see a lot more of her this time round. I also like Ioan Gruffudd as Kevin, the rather bumbling male lead. To use Paris as the climax of the movie was a clever idea. The movie is well worth watching whatever your age, provided you like animals. While this was a better movie than 101 Dalmations (live action, not animated version), I think it still fell a little short of what Disney could do. It was well-filmed, the music was more suited to the action, and the effects were better done (compared to 101). The acting was perhaps better, but then the human characters were given far more appropriate roles in this sequel, and Glenn Close is really not to be missed, as in the first movie. She makes it shine. Her poor lackey and the overzealous furrier sidekicks are wonderful characters to play off of, and they add to the spectacle Disney has given us. This is a great family film, with little or no objectionable material, and yet it remains fun and interesting for adults and children alike. It's bound to be a classic, as so many Disney films are. Here's to hoping the third will be even better still- because you know they probably want to make one. ;) I enjoyed the film and would suggest to anyone just out for a good time. Don't take the film all too seriously because remember it's Disney and it's rated G. It's good clean fun although some parts may be recognised by adults but children would never notice, particularly the "triangle" between Cruella, Le Pelt, and Cruella's faithful valet Alonso. Glenn Close is fantastic and really has made Cruella her own and is believably terrifying even when she is "cured" of her fur loving ways, she can instill fear in the audience with her shrills that literally shake the theater. (I even found myself jumping in my seat when she catches you by surprise with her 'bipolarity' as the dog loving Ella.) All in all I will go see it again in theaters, I found myself enjoying it so much. I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future. If you like animal movies, this movie will please. My wife likes animals and animal movies, she especially like the parrot in this film. It is geared towards kids, but I laughed at most of the humor. The French fashion character made me laugh, and adds balance to the script. It is a Disney film, with its sappy, happily, family apeal, but I like leaving the theater with a positive fealing. I do not expect this film to be well understood by viewers out of Romania. This tells something certainly about the value, or maybe about the lack of universality of the film, but also tells something about how different history and even life of common people was in Romania compared to other countries, even in Eastern Europe.

The film is an adaptation of a novel by Marin Preda, a controversial novelist who died during the Communist rule soon after the book was published. It tells the story of an intellectual, professor of philosophy whose life is crushed after he is imprisoned on false accusations at the end of the Stalinist era. Basically the first part of the film tells the story of his fight for survival in prison, the second describes his tentative to regain his life after being released. His release is actually only apparent, Romania of the 60s asks from him different types of compromises and crimes, but yet his fight for survival is as tough morally as in prison.

The film is splendidly acted by some of the best Romanian actors. Stefan Iordache who has the lead role would be in another time and another place a mega-star, we can get here a good glimpse of his fabulous acting art. Although suffering from a hesitant story-telling and falling sometimes in non-essential details or character comics, the film is still an important landmark for the Romanian cinema, as well as for the process of recovering the moral and historic values in the Romanian society. The movie follows the events of the novel "Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni"( could be translated as "The most beloved among humans" ), written by Marin Preda ( a very controversial book and movie), a novel which became something like The Bible or the story of Hamlet, very popular and hard to get, due to its satiric contents over the Communist regime. It represents the drama of the intellectual man, the humanist, in a "red" world. A movie filled with passion, fear, sexuality, all the great ingredients for a great movie recipe.One of the greatest Romanian movies,despite its psychological charge(after all, it is an European movie). I liked it! The plot was weird, Drew Barrymore and DC making out was awkward for both of them. Drews acting was dodgy in places but this could be down to her life at the time. Dennis Christopher as the shrink was pretty cool, and as always he does his best - i'm a major Dennis fan anyway, that's why i bought the DVD.

I didn't get the ending! that weird animatronic red skeleton thing looked just like it was out of filmschool, which is OK i guess but it could have been more.

....and the whole thing with the knife- if it was that uncomfortable why didn't they just get rid of it?

It was very confusing as to when it was the Doppelganger weird thing or when it was DC-or was it Dennis all the time? Because the Doppelganger made out with Dennis and Patrick. In the scenes with Patrick if it was Dennis as the Doppelganger then I think Patrick would notice.

The music was OK but obtrusive in places, the whole orchestral score seemed to be revolving around a theme but this theme was overdone.

A big mix of lots of blood and gratuitus shots of Drew nude.

All in all a bit of a GPM-Guilty Pleasure Movie. Don't read too much into it, don't look for secret messages and a fantastic script because you wont find it. There are some diamond moments and goofs galore- WATCH IT AND JUST HAVE A BIT OF FUN WITH IT! When two writers make a screenplay of a horror version of Breakfast At Tiffany's, you know something is going to go right. Drew Barrymore, Patrick Highsmith, Leslie Hope, and Sally Kellerman are excellent actors. The FBI agent was a terrible actor. The scenes where Patrick looked Holly up and down like some sort of objectifier, those was just weird. Drew Barrymore is very hot. Intimate Strangers, where Sally Kellerman worked, was a great part. The weird gummy worm was just weird. Nathan was a very handsome cat. But what was that scene where Patrick followed Holly into a cesspool and Mr. Gooding attacked him? And the scene with Dr. Wallace? What was he doing fumbling around in there? And not every male has a female, as Sally Kellerman stated. And when Patrick and Elizabeth saw Drew outside of Victor's, that was weird. Drew Barrymore was excellent in this film. This role is the type of role you don't normally see Drew play. Her typical role is as a woman looking for love. The storyline is also great.

When Holly is implicated in her mother's murder she moves to L.A. She moves in with a guy who becomes her lover. But her brother who is in a mental prison hospital for what they believe is murder is almost killed she is wrongfully accused. It is then revealed to her lover that she has Multiple Personality Disorder. After that another woman becomes paranoid when she's around her. In the end though, they find out the truth. There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.

Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.

I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience). Always enjoy the great acting of Drew Barrymore and her great performance in this film, where she plays a very very complicated young gal,(Holly Gooding),"Skipped Parts",2000, who leaves New York and travels to California and shares an apartment with a up and coming writer, George Newbern,(Patrick Highsmith),"Far Harbor",'96. Many strange things start to happen to Holly and she seeks to find her brother in a mental institution after he killed her father. If you look close enough you will actually see the mother of Drew Barrymore in real life appear as her mother in this picture. If it was not for the good acting of Drew Barrymore and George Newbern, this film should be seen only on Halloween Night! However, it sure has it's surprises in the END!!!! I have to hand it to the creative team behind these "American Pie" movies. "Direct To DVD" typically is synonymous with cheap, incompetent film-making. Yet last year I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself thoroughly enjoying the DVD sequel "The Naked Mile". The filmmakers took advantage of the opportunity to deliver a raunchy, yet funny little film. This year they offer up the followup, "Beta House". This is the honest truth, "Beta House" makes the first few "American Pie" movies look like "The Little Mermaid".

This is no holds barred, tasteless, laugh-out loud fun. Sure, the story is a bit thin, but that's the beauty of the whole thing. Within the first 10 minutes we're introduced to the all the main characters, the new supporting characters, get a handful of raunchy gags, meet the villains, and establish the general plot-line. With all that out of the way, the movie becomes a no-limits ride. The gags are a plenty, and they DID NOT hold back in this one. I'm talking male semen, urine, dildos, chicks-with-dicks, sex with sheep, female orgazim sprays, and plenty more. Not to mention the fact that not a minute goes by without boobs or a sex scene.

Returning from "The Naked Mile" are John White, Jake Siegel, Steve Talley, and Eugene Levy (in a similar supporting role as the last few films). The entire cast does fine work. Steve Talley (Dwight Stifler), in particular, has a great energy and screen presence. I predict good things for him. The film is also loaded with great movie references for those who keep their eyes open. By far the biggest laugh of the film for me was "The Deerhunter" parody. Classic.

The bottom line is, if you're a fan of the series, you'll feel right at home with "Beta House". It really pushes the limits of good taste, but in the end is pretty damn funny. This movie is plain fun.I has nothing to do with the original America Pie, but it is fun to watch.

Another try, but better than Band camp and The naked mile, at least funnier.

Just after first five minutes i was laughing my ass out, so I decided to call my friend and we would watch it together.We had a few beers and we had fun.

You will not find any deep message in this movie, but it's worth watching.

So, lay back and just enjoy. * Firstly, although many say it is the worst of the series, i don't think that it is true,considering this one ideally reflects the 21 century teen mentality .it brings perfect opportunities to make you laugh and remind you of the good teenager times when you would have liked to have same fun as the characters do.

* I Agree with the fact that it is a teenager movie but comedy movies nowadays aren't supposed to be for teenagers?i mean... cinemas are mostly the place for teenagers to hang out; plus ,seeing such a movie during a sleepover or something like that is very good for having a very good time.

* Many comment about the amount of nudity in this movie. Well...let's get real...doesn't that reflect the thoughts of teen guys like those from the movie? what would you like to see...smart books,romantic stuff? that is not at all what would be in those teenagers' minds ...

* To conclude, i think that if you are a teenager, you must absolutely see the movie, and even if you are a real grown up man or a woman, you should see it if you still have a teen mind or you often think about how it was being a teenager,or things like that. Thanks for reading! Wow, this was another good spin off of the original American pie, not as good as band camp, but definitely a lot better the naked mile. Dwight and Erik stifler lead the comedy in this one, but I actually preferred the dialogue in this one to the naked mile. The script was written a lot better and the comedy flowed more smoothly, however most of the comedy came from sex, but that's okay because that's why we watch these movies anyway right?

The midget Rock also had a really good cameo, considering the intense effort given by him in the naked mile, his scene with stifler was awesome and had me laughing my ass off when i saw it.

The movie was a definite improvement in my opinion compared to the naked mile, if you liked any previous American Pie films, you should like beta house, unless you view all of the American pie spin-offs a waste of money. i just watched the movie i was afraid it's gonna disappoint me. i was rather surprised at the end though. The American pie franchise is still in my favorite franchise movies of all times. yes, it won't be true if i say that i enjoyed it as mush as i enjoyed the original ones. beta house along with the previous two pies definitely lost something that the first two pies had.it is not gonna become a classic as the first two already did. but what the hell-it is still funny with a lot of good moments and i think it should be the first movie to pick if you wanna have fun and relax after a hard day at work or school. beta house deserves 6/10 but i gave it 7/10 just for being another slice of PIE. This is by far one of my favorite of the American Pie Spin offs mainly because in most of the others the main character (one of the young Stiflers) always seems unrealistic in nature.

For example AP: The Naked Mile. You have a teenage guy surrounded by naked college chicks , and has one in particular hot on his trail to rid him of his virginity "problem" and he ends up stopping mid-deed and rides a horse back to sleep with his girlfriend, who keep in mind gave him a "guilt free pass" for the weekend. I can appreciate the romantic aspect of the whole thing but let's be realistic; most people who are watching these movies aren't particularly searching for a romantic story.

Whereas the most recent installment finally seems to realize who the audience is and good old Erik Stifler seems to wake up and smell the roses and as always Mr. Levenstein lends his "perfectly natural" eyebrow humor to the equation and scored a touchdown with this new movie. Ti%s and As*, lots of boobies. Some great characters, fun filled pranks and well put together teen action in this spin off of the Amercan Pie franchise. This feels like really OLD SCHOOL. It feels a bit like Porkys for the 2000's. Some great funny characters combined with some very humorous situations make this one a real surprise for me.

Whilst the original cast is all but gone except for one, this movie I found really entertaining. Lets not get too excited, you have to take it for the booby teen comedy that it is, but for what it is, it excels. The characters are likable and funny, the girls are hotter than hell. The fun and games are hilarious, with some stuff I've never seen before in comedies, they make me cringe but laugh at the same time.

So ignore the haters and give this a run and see what you think. Don't expect the classic American Pie, but expect something that should make you laugh and spark your attention for an hour or so. Now I love American Pie 1 and 2 while 3 was great just for Seann William Scott's performance as Stifler but after that the quality has dropped. Band Camp kept the standard reasonably high with characters you actually cared about but Naked Mile was the same joke and plot- lines recycled (Erik Stifler's sex problem is like Jim's). It had some amusing moments like the Football game against the midgets and the 'punishment' of Coozeman but on the whole it lacked originality and the 'Mile' was just stupid and moronic. Not to mention the irritating girlfriend who doesn't want to have sex.

Anyway enough about the Naked Mile. I watched Beta House with apprehension as I thought it could take the series to a new low but I was pleasantly surprised. To be honest there is no real plot but it's filled with hot girls (Ashley is incredible) and sex jokes aplenty. Yes it is formulaic and the jokes are old but Dwight Stifler (Steve Talley) raises the bar with an exuberant performance. The Greek Olympiad is entertaining especially the penultimate and final events while Christopher McDonald's cameo is hilarious. There are weak points though. Coozeman is as irritating as he was in the first, I'm still baffled to as how he ever got a part.

While Coozeman is bad Erik Stifler is worse. John White made Naked Mile a pain to watch but in Beta House he takes his performance to a whole new low. First and foremost he lacks charisma, a Stifler prerequisite. You really can't care less about him. The only reason I was bothered about his relationship was so Ashley could be on screen! She shines above him as does the rest of the cast. Seriously John White is the ultimate in bad acting and has about as much charisma as a dead fish.

Saying that the film does entertain and Coozeman's fear that his girl is not exactly a girl is brilliantly funny.

Overall this film is worth renting, get a few of your mates in and have a laugh at the vomit-fest event and vent your anger at Erik 'loser' Stifler. OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies. Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...

so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!

All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.

Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!

You've got to see it!!!

And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice A lot of people hated this movie, but that I blame on two facts - 1 - They want it to be too much like the first couple of American Pie movies. and 2 - they are trying to take it too seriously.

This one I found was the best one out of all six, and I absolutely love Dwight. The plot is predictable, I'll say that, but then what teen comedy ISN'T? Road Trip, Dirty Deeds etc etc, they are all incredibly predictable, but still goddamn funny! I say this is worth watching, I love it, I find it hilarious. Just don't watch it while comparing it to the first ones because it's nothing alike.

After watching Naked Mile and this one, it became obvious that all the American Pie movies were about, and only about, the Stiflers. Which is FINE by me.

Watch. Enjoy. Love. xD This is one of the funniest and most excellent movies ever made! Although I've only seen forty minuets of it and I must say this is a good movie. The plot if funny and because there's sex around pretty much every corner of this movie. It's really funny and I don't see how anyone could NOT like this film. I really really really want to watch the rest of the movie. It has one slightly sick scene in it (trust me, it's not very pleasant) but apart from that this is a great movie. I rate this movie an 7/8 for comedy, 10/10 for sexual content and 10/10 for the plot. PLease if your a fan of American Pie and you want to watch a movie where there's pretty much all sex in it the buy this movie. It WILL please you.

10/10 Overall I found this movie quite amusing and fun to watch, with plenty of laugh out loud moments.

But, this movie is not for everyone. That is why I created this quick question-ere, if you answer yes to any of the following questions than I recommend watching this flick

(1)Do you enjoy crude sexual humor? (2)Do you enjoy alcohol related humor? (2)Do you enjoy amazingly hot girls? (3)Do you enjoy viewing boobs? (4)Do you enjoy viewing multiple boobs? (5)Did I mention all the nice boobies in this film?

If you noticed the spoiler alert, that is referring the mass amount of nudity you can expect in the movie, I myself have no idea what the plot was about. Not that it matters. This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.

Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.

The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."

The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves. This was one of those films I probably never would have picked off the shelf , but it came on IFC one day and I said - Eric Stolz, William Forsythe...why not? If I'd changed the channel, I would have really missed a treasure.

The subject is depressing - young author paralyzed in climbing accident convalesces in lower-class rehabilitation center. It would have been so easy and tempting to make this a manipulative tear-jerker. But, that doesn't happen because it was written by Neal Jimenez, after he himself was accidently paralyzed. No Hollywood happiness here. All of the patients in the ward come from wildly different backgrounds, but they share a feeling of helplessness, of being at the mercy of others. Stolz is very good as a "lone wolf" type, forced into embarrassing dependence on his girlfriend (Helen Hunt); Wesley Snipes is fine as a former ladies' man whose family is falling apart; but William Forsythe takes the cake as a tough guy determined to make someone pay for taking away his independence.

See this film. _Waterdance_ explores a wide variety of aspects of the life of the spinally injured artfully. From the petty torments of faulty fluorescent lights flashing overhead to sexuality, masculinity and depression, the experience of disability is laid open.

The diversity of the central characters themselves underscores the complexity of the material examined - Joel, the writer, Raymond, the black man with a murky past, and Bloss, the racist biker. At first, these men are united by nothing other than the nature of their injuries, but retain their competitive spirit. Over time, shared experience, both good and bad, brings them together as friends to support one another.

Most obvious of the transformations is that experienced by Joel, who initially distances himself from his fellow patients with sunglasses, headphones and curtains. As he comes to accept the changes that disablement has made to his life, Joel discards these props and begins to involve himself in the struggles of the men with whom he shares the ward.

The dance referred to in the title is a reference to this daily struggle to keep one's head above water; to give up the dance is to reject life. _Waterdance_ is a moving and powerful film on many levels, and I do not hesitate to recommend it. I know, that's not what you expect from a film with this sort of

lineage- it's a direct descendant of The Best Years of Our Lives

and The Men... films dealing with men who are in the hospital

dealing with tragic circumstances. But this film is full of wonderful

surprises and performances. It features stellar performances from

Eric Stoltz and Helen Hunt (including a rather risque nude scene)

and Wesley Snipes and William Forsythe. As Emanuel Levy wrote

in his book Cinema of Outsiders (about the Independent film

movement) "The Waterdance is coherant, attentive to detail, and

unsentimental with a wicked down to earth humor- it' s at once

funny and sad, and the entire cast is impressive." I was

extraordinarily moved by this film, it's hard hitting yes, but also has

very tender moments and laugh out loud moments. A rare gem. It's funny how your life can change in a second... To attend ''The Waterdance'' for the first time it was an unforgettable experience, the way you need to get used to a new way of life it can seem frightening, and to notice that there are other people going by a similar situation it can help you to go on.

Eric Stoltz's performances and mainly of Helen Hunt (oh man!, Helen is the purest and graceful woman in earth...) are wonderful, Wesley Snipes also surprises in one of your last serious roles. A film simple and at the same time deep that doesn't get to leave us indifferent to the message that is transmitted: enjoy each moment of your life...

Really to a film as that the any hour is not attended!!! (sorry, it's a Brazilian expression...). Touching and sad movie. Portrays the trials and tribulations of a writer trying to come to terms with paralysis caused by a cycling accident. The film centers on his relationship with his married lover, whom he is often very hostile towards, and his interactions with other accident victims, particularly a black down-and-out and a white-supremacist biker. The film is often humorous, often sad, and always believable. Get out the box of kleenex and watch this on a cosy Sunday afternoon with your partner. This film lingered and lingered at a small movie theater in town, and the word-of-mouth buzz got me to see it. A comedy about disabled people - the subject matter keeps lots of people away from a funny and heart-warming film. I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". I recently got the chance to view "The Waterdance", and quite liked it. I don't really understand why its called that as there isn't really any dancing going on there, except maybe for the dancing at the strip club near the end. We are introduced to the main characters throughout the movie, invalids in a hospital. The story shows a love affair between a physically sisabled guy and a healthy woman, which is a very sweet story.Unfortunately, you don't get to see movies like that today. Im not "stuck in a time warp", im not saying that everything during the 80s and early 90s was better than today, but I really think the movie industry is deteriorating and there's much we can learn from old movies-by old movies i mean anything from 1920-1998. This work is a bold look into the mindset of men who find themselves in wheelchairs. This film never tries to tone it down, cotton candy-ize, or soft soap the angst, confusion, and pain of what these guys live with. That is its strength, I think.

But more so, the performances are fantastic, with well conceived and delivered dialog, which draws you in and makes you feel a part of the experience. The characters never attempt to block out the audience from knowing what's on their mind-what's in their hearts.

I found it plodding, but enjoyable.

It rates a 6.6/10 from...

the Fiend :. Eric Stoltz delivers an extraordinary performance as Joel Garcia, a successful young novelist who winds up paralyzed and in a special hospital for the recently disabled after breaking his neck in a hiking accident. While learning to cope and adjust with the gravity of his new limited physical condition Joel befriends slick, fast-talking, charming womanizer Raymond (an amazing Wesley Snipes) and boorish, surly, racist biker Bloss (a terrific William Forsythe), who feels threatened by the diverse multi-ethnic array of fellow patients he's forced to share a room with. Joel also receives substantial support from his loyal and loving, but married girlfriend Anna (radiantly played by Helen Hunt). But he still must come to terms with being disabled on his own.

This remarkable movie's key triumph is its laudably stubborn refusal to neither sanitize nor sentimentalize the severity of what these men are going through. Directors Neil Jimenez (who also wrote the thoughtful and insightful script) and Micheal Steinberg relate the story with exceptional taste, wit and warmth, specifically addressing with disarming candor and matter-of-factness how being handicapped irrevocably alters one's lifestyle, including and especially your sex life (this point is most powerfully made in a striking sequence when Joel and Anna try and fail to make love in a motel room). Besides the expected poignancy, the film further provides a surprising surplus of wickedly funny raw, earthy humor that's highlighted by the uproarious sequence with Joel and Bloss making a secret nocturnal expedition to a strip club. The uniformly superb acting qualifies as another significant plus: Stoltz, Snipes, Forsythe and Hunt are all outstanding, with stand-out supporting turns by Grace Zabriskie as Bloss' doting, amiable mother and Elisabeth Pena and William Allen Young as compassionate hospital nurses. Despite the grim subject matter, the film ultimately proves to be a very moving, positive and uplifting cinematic testament to the astonishing strength and durability of the human spirit. A simply wonderful little gem of a drama. This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.

The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.

A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies. Lupin sets off for Morocco, looking for a legendary treasure. His only clue is an interesting jewel that an old man gave him. It's a nice different location for Lupin, with the desert and that hot exotic feel.

One interesting thing about this movie is that Jigen has a much smaller role than usual, generally being in a different place than Lupin. On one hand their classic dynamic together is missed, but it is a change of pace. Plus, this way, Lupin can focus on the ladies...

Fujiko rules in this. Throughout the entire feature she is seducing Lupin, and us viewers. Then there's Lara, the damsel of this particular tale, and she's quite likable. This one has more nudity than any other Lupin anime, which is a fun distinction to have.

There's a very entertaining effeminate ninja guy who's the best villain in this, and naturally he has some great fighting with Goemon, as well as some fun scenes with Fujiko. Inspector Zenigata of course is also on a warpath here, in fine form.

Pretty much, this is a smooth ride with Lupin. The plot is average and there are some slow spots, but all in all this movie is a real pleasure. Enjoy. Although the plot was a bit sappy at times, and VERY rushed at the end, as if the director had run out of his alloted time and needed to hurry up and finish the story, overall it was pretty good for the Made-For-Backwoods-Cable-TV genre.

However, the actress who played the babysitter, Mariana Klaveno, was very good! I hope to see more of her around in movie-land. The music was also well done, getting every possible chill out of the dah-DUH-dah-DUH (think "JAWS") type music-based tension build-ups.

I don't think I'd want to watch "While the Children Sleep" again, but if I did, it would be to focus on the performance of the talented Klaveno. Not sure why it doesn't play in Peoria, apparently, but this is a very funny, clever British comedy. It's set at the end of the "swinging sixties". Peter Sellars is fantastic as the rich, forty-something serial womaniser. The perfectly delectable Goldie Hawn, playing a 19 year American girl in London, is, initially, Sellars' "catch of the day". But the urbane TV food critic can't stop himself from falling for the dizzy American blond.

Humour, pathos, great script, strong performances from the leads and supporting caste.

It's a great film, and the best gag is the very last line.

Try it, you'll like it. I ran across this movie on the tv and could not turn it off. Peter Sellers plays an unlikable fellow who falls for an extremely warm and cute Goldie Hawn (who wouldn't?). The way that Goldie's character holds herself from the beginning of the movie to the end is untraditional even today. This movie gave me a different angle into human relations and also I found it very funny. Peter Sellers role was a difficult sell, but I think he pulls it off well. I like Peter Sellers, most of the time. I had never seen him portray an upper-class Brit until this movie. He pulls it off pretty well, although you see bits of Inspector Clouseau in the mix. It doesn't get interesting until Goldie Hawn arrives.

I never expected the youthful Hawn to deliver such a solid performance. Her timing was great and her expressions were priceless. The way she alternately shoots Sellers lecherous character down and seduces him is beautiful to watch. Verbal sparring like I've seldom seen from a movie of that era.

The last thirty minutes of the movie DOES fall flat. It is worth the let down just to see the first sixty. Hawn is nude for a few glorious seconds early on. Enjoy it... Allow me to just get to the bottom line here: I've got 3 kids, ages 5 to 10. I consider a trip to the theater a success when there are no talking animals. I've seen most of the children's videos in our collection at least 72 times. I can tell you when the film gets reversed in The Wizard of Oz, the over-18 sexual joke in El Dorado and the tragic flaw with the ending of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I could probably storyboard Nemo from memory alone.

What makes me support the one child of mine (it varies) who suggests this title for the family movie of an evening? In a word: Showerman.

Moment of silence...

*sigh* I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone! In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one. The kids, aged 7 to 14, got such a huge kick out of this film that we gave a copy to all of the other kids on our birthday list this year. They all loved it! Kids from 2 to 7 watch it repeatedly and frequently, and we get a kick out of watching it with them.

It's rare that a film entertains the kids for so long, and offers laughs for the adults, too. Most enjoy it more than the first.

Top-quality production and an excellent cast, led by Christopher Showerman as a superior George--athletic, energetic, and wholly credible, with a lovable innocence and a particular knack of taking a tree in the face--well supported by the inimitable Christina Pickles as the evil mother-in-law, Thomas Haden Church as the evil jerk rival, and everybody else. This is fun. I was a fan of the book ever since third grade, so of course I had watched the movie, read the sequel, and then watched the television show. It was a good show in itself, and now as an adult I still enjoy the show. My only real problem with it was that it didn't follow the book. The first time I saw it, I was so disappointed that I turned it off. But that's coming from a girl who owns a first addition of the book. But after time I decided to give it a try again and ignored the book (kind of like what you have to do with the Harry Potter movies). I found the series wonderful! It was clean cut and something that everyone could enjoy, just the right amount comedy to keep everyone going. It is truly enjoyable! Clean and wonderful! I found this show really late at night, and gave it a try. It's a refreshing change from the other kinds of things shown late at night, if you catch my drift. Its simplicity of values and sweetness of hearts helps remind me of the way friendships were as children. It's something I indulge in whenever I find it on (which is rare, maybe I should actually check the listings! haha)..... and the tension between Joe and Nick is so cute. Like any good chick flick, you really get emotionally involved in the characters. Good ol' Louisa May Alcott still inspiring good stories :) So apparently I must complete 10 lines of text in order for my opinion to be valid, so I guess I'll tell you a bit more. The kids are played by talented actors and actresses, and the settings are lovely and nature-filled -- another thing you don't see much on television. I hope everyone gives it a shot. I recognize and am fully aware that it's sappy, but it's good heart. Like I said before, it's refreshing. I absolutely loved this show. I watched it from the time it first aired in the late 90's to the very last episode. In my honest opinion it was a wonderful family drama that is so rare these days. Definitely a show you could watch with a friend or your children. Yes things have changed a bit with Jo since we last saw her in the books, but it's still compelling with great stories and good lessons. The actress that portrays Jo Bhaer (Michelle Burke) does a wonderful job as does as the actor who plays Nick Riley (Spencer Rochfort) Throughout the series we get to see the developing romance between Jo and Nick as well as the daily stories and lessons the kids and students learn. I recommend this show to anyone. I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK. Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.

That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.

Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.

I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.

There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.

According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.

But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.

So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind. I ran across this movie at the local video store during their yearly sidewalk sale. While scanning thousands of videos, hoping to find a few cartoon movies for sale, I came across this movie. I read the back of the movie and knew it was God's hand at work for me to purchase this movie. You see, I have a sibling group of three foster (and soon to be adopted) children living with my family. Immediately my foster children made a connection with the three children starring in the movie. The movie helped them better understand their own circumstances. For the first time, also, the oldest of the sibling group (7 year old/female) decided to open up to me a little bit about her past and the trauma she had experienced. She has been fighting the entire trust issue. This is also the first time I had seen her cry. After watching the film, I asked her what it meant for a child to be adopted. She replied, "It means to be happy." A must see for families who are fostering children and are considering adoption. It certainly opened the lines of communication with us. Russ and Valerie are having discussions about starting a family. The couple live in a posh apartment and run an auction business that deals with valuable collectibles. At the same time, a dedicated adoption agency owner takes a mini vacation and leaves the orphanage in the charge of his father (Leslie Nielsen). Father Harry is in the rental business and he gets the brilliant idea to "rent" some of the children of the orphanage to couples like Russ and Valerie. Harry, who becomes aware of the couple'e dilemma, offers a family of siblings for a 10 day rental period! Brandon, Kyle, and Molly move into the apartment with their temporary parents, with amusing consequences, as the new caretakers are inexperienced with kids. But, where is the possibility of a happy ending? This is a darling family film. The actors, including Nielsen as the wheeler-dealer and Christopher Lloyd as the kind apartment doorman, are all wonderful. The script is snappy and fun and the overall production values quite high. Yes, if only life could be this way! Orphaned children everywhere deserve a chance to prove that they are lovable and can give so much joy to the parents who are considering adoption. If you want to show a film to your family that is rooted in good values but is also highly entertaining, find this movie. It is guaranteed to have everyone laughing, even as their hearts are melting. This movie is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.

This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.

The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie!

Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy. The cast was good, and I thought it was a good performance from Christopher Lloyd, whom I like from previous movies. The movie was a great family movie, nothing that would make you worry to show it to younger kids, a good story line, lots of laughs, lighthearted and enjoyable. If you want to entertain children without being bored to tears this fits the bill. Kid pleasing, and not difficult for a parent to watch, either. When an orphanage manager goes on vacation, his father takes over the details of the center and winds up renting the kids. When a well off, got it made couple with a nice apartment and great life get the notion to adopt this idea was tailor made for them. Why would they want to spoil their elegant existence with a trio of hairbrained carpet creepers? No way would people like these two need kids to make life wonderful. This movie makes it look like the real world works this way, but I am the picture of dubiety. I have always had the philosophy that every single human being has different tastes, i found this movie to be awesome and i think every college student out there might agree with me. Notwithstanding this is not a "movie with a plot", its about real guys and some of the "problems" that they face. I found the movie hilarious(especially the parts that they played the practical jokes on each other). Simply put, if you are in the same "wave-length" as these people, you will find this movie amazing. I don't think that this is going win any Golden Globes or Oscars, or that the people in this movie will become future Hollywood stars, but its a kind of "cult-classic" among young people who could relate to their experience. For me the guy that stands out the most is Hans: the Scandinavian guy,who ,according to him "isnt a looker", but gets all(or some) of the chicks. The "little-people" also play a big part in the movie, especially when they are drunk. If i keep going, i might provide a spoiler and i don't want to do that, just go and get the movie and you will not regret. I give it a 8/10 I can tell you just how bad this movie is. I was in the movie and I haven't seen it yet, but I cringe at the thought of anyone actually paying to see me drunk. Especially considering what we did that year. The thing is that they probably over edited it. Especially the scene where my roommate was snorting coke of the tits of a Mexican prostitute (they probably should have followed him around). We made a few come and go appearances but aside from that I can't really remember anything. I was the MC in a few scenes (from what I'm told. What I can tell you is that everyone avoided the camera crew since who wants to be remembered as the guy who threw up or the girl who showed her tits to the world (or the girl that loser lost his virginity to). Overall the trip itself was crazy but people act different once the camera is on them. This film reinvents the term "Spring Breakumentary." Hans, the fat one of the group, displays his talents as this generations Chris Farley. Johnny Kansas, "the King of the $1 bet," shows he's not in Kansas anymore by consistently upping the stakes. Kyle's laugh is truly infecting, and offers a little eye-candy for the ladies as well (as does Matt). The dwarfs, while having their moments, did not do justice to the Mexican hat dance like it deserves. And last, we have our protagonist, Ed. He gives hope to all of us bumbling, stumbling, gangly, pale folk who are still searching for that special someone. And that hope, is a little place called Cabo San Lucas. While this blockbuster just missed the theaters, this is a must rent, as we can all relate to one of these Spring Breakumentarions. This was the eighth and final Columbia Whistler film and the only one without Richard Dix who had retired from movies and was to die the following year. It's still a competent thriller, the machine carried on without him perfectly, but – something was missing: Dix! The stories in the Whistler series were always interesting, sometimes brilliant, the screenplays often noir always atmospheric, but it wasn't only the Whistler himself that hung it all together on screen, Dix did too.

Young couple stepping out for a whole fortnight get the urge to marry in the pouring rain but are thwarted when the potential bride first disappears then is discovered to already be married before she apparently goes mad. Is the potential groom put off, even when the private dick he's hired to find her suddenly slugs him and lams, or is love blind? Who's twisting who is the question. Michael Duane in his penultimate film is OK if a bit of a wimp, lovely Lenore Aubert's finest moments came next film in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, and Richard Lane was wonderful as ever on loan from Boston Blackie. Also the only outing where the Whistler himself must have got wet from slouching about in the rain, unless he got sprayed with sea foam in Voice.

A lot happened in this last hour, well worth watching over and over again as usual to fans of the genre like me. The Whistler radio series begun in 1942 carried on until 1955 clocking up nearly 700 half hour shows, nearly all of which are available on mp3 and based upon what I've heard so far nearly all of which are well worth listening to as well. I hate reading reviews that say something like, 'Don't waste your time, this film stinks on ice.' It does to that reviewer yet for me, it may have some sort of naïve charm. If you like the other 'Whistler' series films, this one will be watchable. If you like 40s noirish films, this one will be watchable.

This film is not as good, in my opinion, as any of the earlier series entries which starred Richard Dix as the protagonist. It's much slower, and the plot is trite. You've seen this same narrative device used in many other films, and usually better.

But the acting is good, and so is the lighting, and the dialog. It's just lacking in energy and you'll likely figure out exactly what's going on and how it's all going to come out in the end not more than a quarter of the way through.

The 'Whistler' series is semi-noir, and there character, mood, lighting, camera movement and angles are more important than the story itself. But this film is not noir. It's too light weight and Hollywood innocent for that. Neither Richard Dix's character nor those of any of his ladies in the previous films had to come to a good end. You just never knew until the end.

But still, I'll recommend this one for at least a single viewing. I've watched it at least twice myself, and got a reasonable amount of enjoyment out of it both times. Richard Dix decided to retire and so Michael Duane took his place playing the role as Ted Nichols who meets up with a young French girl named Alice Dupres Barkley, (Lenore Aubert). This couple only knew each other for two days and they decided to get married by a Justice of the Peace (Judge) and it is pouring rain when they pull up to the Judge's home and find out he is not home and will not return until the next day. As the couple are inside the house you see some one lift up the hood of their car and takes an automobile part from the engine. Once you see this event happening you realize this couple is in for a big surprise and the story beings to reveal a very mysterious event which surrounds Alice Barkley and so poor Ted Nichols starts out with plenty of trouble and no marriage. Good mystery, but I missed Richard Dix. Enjoy. Well you take O.J. Simpson as a all american soldier turned all american bus driver who decides to rescue his passengers on his own just incase no one else is going to and Arte Johnson in an absolutely straight role as the tour guide who doesn't know what to do but doesn't want to admit they are in trouble and combine it with Lorenzo Lamas as one of three baby faced bad boys who intend to kidnap an heiress and leave a busload of people to die on the dessert and you have got to have action, plot twists and a lot of drama. Everyone was good but seeing Lamas as the baddest of the bad boys really blew my mind. He was much too believable as the overbearing bad guy who not only wanted to kidnap the heiress but rape the women and humiliate the guy who tried to stop him. This was evidently long before he cultivated his good guy image. And believe me a 20 year old Lorenzo in tight jeans you really don't want to miss! . . .but it was on a UHF channel and the reception was very fuzzy. I'd really like to own the movie since the reason I watched it in the first place is because I am a bus driver and at the time I saw this movie, I was driving that model bus. It was only (during his murder trial some 15 years later) that I remember vaguely that OJ was one of the stars in it. I only recall that he was the driver and of the bus' being shot up and driven wildly. I've been looking all over for this movie to no avail, since viewing it in the mid-80s. I liked the movie, I don't usually watch thrillers, but after reading the summary in the TV guide, and viewing its beginning (although fuzzy) I stayed for the whole thing. Many neglect that this isn't just a classic due to the fact that it's the first 3D game, or even the first shoot-'em-up. It's also one of the first stealth games, one of the only(and definitely the first) truly claustrophobic games, and just a pretty well-rounded gaming experience in general. With graphics that are terribly dated today, the game thrusts you into the role of B.J.(don't even *think* I'm going to attempt spelling his last name!), an American P.O.W. caught in an underground bunker. You fight and search your way through tunnels in order to achieve different objectives for the six episodes(but, let's face it, most of them are just an excuse to hand you a weapon, surround you with Nazis and send you out to waste one of the Nazi leaders). The graphics are, as I mentioned before, quite dated and very simple. The least detailed of basically any 3D game released by a professional team of creators. If you can get over that, however(and some would suggest that this simplicity only adds to the effect the game has on you), then you've got one heck of a good shooter/sneaking game. The game play consists of searching for keys, health and ammo, blasting enemies(aforementioned Nazis, and a "boss enemy" per chapter) of varying difficulty(which, of course, grows as you move further in the game), unlocking doors and looking for secret rooms. There is a bonus count after each level is beaten... it goes by how fast you were(basically, if you beat the 'par time', which is the time it took a tester to go through the same level; this can be quite fun to try and beat, and with how difficult the levels are to find your way in, they are even challenging after many play-throughs), how much Nazi gold(treasure) you collected and how many bad guys you killed. Basically, if you got 100% of any of aforementioned, you get a bonus, helping you reach the coveted high score placings. The game (mostly, but not always) allows for two contrastingly different methods of playing... stealthily or gunning down anything and everything you see. You can either run or walk, and amongst your weapons is also a knife... running is heard instantly the moment you enter the same room as the guard, as is gunshots. Many guards are found standing with their backs turned to you, meaning that you can walk up behind them and stab them... nearly silently. In your inventory, you can get no less than four weapons and two keys... more about the weapons later. The keys unlock certain doors. Most doors in the game aren't locked... only two kinds need keys, and these keys are only introduced in later levels(you restart in levels, resetting weaponry, health, score and lives in each chapter). Much of the later game is spent looking for them. Now, as I just alluded to, this game, like many of the period(late 80's, early 90's), is based on collecting extra lives... personally, I think it's completely and utterly useless(it was mercifully dropped from here on end... I think(?), from the next 3D shooter and onwards), since you can save anytime you want and 'using a life' resets weaponry, health and ammo, like starting on a new chapter(which is a real pain in later levels, where you *need* heavier artillery). Now, I shall beat around the bush no longer... moving on to the guns! You start with aforementioned knife(which is silent but only effective up close) and a pistol... nothing special, but good for conserving ammo, unlike the next two bad boys. Your third weapon is a German SMG... a sub-machine-gun. It's faster and automatic, and some later enemies use it. And the last one... is nothing short of a Gatling gun! Oh yeah! Think T2. Think Predator. Think about unloading massive amounts of lead into Nazi fiends with such a gun. It's every bit as entertaining as it sounds. Most of the boss enemies use this, though, so be prepared. I won't reveal the identities of these boss enemies, however... that's for each player to discover for him(or her)self. The sound is excellent... very crisp and realistic. As you hear the tear of a machine-gun firing, the deafening metallic clank of a door slamming shut behind you or a Nazi yelling surprised or a warning in German, you truly feel like you are there, trapped in these dark and depressing bunker systems. That segues me nicely into the level design... as you run through seemingly countless, nearly identical hallways towards the next elevator leading you further, you are grasped by the claustrophobic mood. I almost got motion sickness more than once(though that might also have something to do with little sleep, lots of humidity and unusual warmth...) from playing. Though the level of detail isn't terribly high, what there is is great. Remains of victims, guards' quarters and countless Nazi symbols... the list goes on. The game also features quite a bit of gore... for it's limited graphics engine, John Romero and crew certainly put in all the blood and guts that they could for the game. What is there left to say... the first of its kind, and it's no wonder this spawned countless others 3D shooters. Sure, weapon bobbing and different height levels(stairs and such) didn't come around until the next entry into the genre... Doom... and it was Duke Nukem 3D that introduced the feature of switching your view(so it goes beyond simply left and right, adding vertical dimensions to it), and jumping didn't come around until a third, later title(the first Quake, possibly? Fellow gamers, help me out here)... but all of those games, as well as the rest of the genre, owe their existence to this one. So load up the Luger, open the door to enter the bunker and step into B.J.'s shoes... he deserves the recognition, even(or maybe even especially?) nearly fifteen years after he first appeared. I recommended this to all fans of 3D games. 8/10 You play as B.J. Blazkowicz, a US secret agent soldier tough guy who is sent to uncover Nazi secret and turn the tide of World War II. That means everything from breaking out of a Nazi dungeon to thwarting Hitler's war machine and even the Fuhrer himself.

This is quite possibly the most influential game of its time. That's because it literally inspired obsession. Many games existed at the time and even more do today, but every so often you get a real grabber. This is one of them. Just like Tetris before it and more recently GTA III in 2002. Yes, Doom is better in almost every respect, but the shots heard around the world which led to one of gaming's biggest tidal waves were fired by B.J. Blazkowicz. The Space Marine, Duke Nukem, Max Payne, Serious Sam, John Mullins, JC Denton, Agent 47, Gordon Freeman and legions of others owe their existence to the guys at ID. Whether directly or, in most cases, indirectly, but they still do.

Even with its old look, very aged graphics, super simple gameplay (this is really a game, games now border on the "experience level") and highly rectangular levels, the scope of all six episodes provides lots of fun. Especially discovering those secrets with treasure and a chaingun in them.

Also: "Halt!" *bang! bang! bang!* "AARRRGH!!!" never grows old. --- 8/10

Voluntarily rated PC-13 for "profound carnage." However, it's exceptionally tame when compared to what games have today. Sherman, set the wayback machine for... 1986. The United States was just climbing out of its worst postwar recession, while Japan was enjoying an unprecedented industrial boom. Manufacturing industries were still a significant part of the US economy, and factory workers were a good example of the "average American". The word "downsizing" hadn't entered the general vocabulary yet, but everyone knew the phenomenon. Bruce could be heard on the radio singing, "Foreman says these jobs are going, boy, and they ain't coming back to your hometown." Chrysler had just been bailed out by Uncle Sam. Bumper stickers could be seen saying "Buy American -- the job you save may be your own."

"Gung Ho" does a better job of capturing the mood of the American industrial workforce than just about any other popular movie made during that period. Certainly the movie has its flaws -- some loose plot threads and mediocre acting jobs by everyone except Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe. But the story really is about the meeting of East and West: Keaton's Hunt Stevenson personifies America, brash and confident on the outside yet insecure underneath. Watanabe's Kazuhiro personifies Japan, on top of the heap with a successful system, but wondering if there is more to be learned from their Western rivals. The movie's plot, flawed as it is, simply provides a framework for the conflict, and eventually synthesis, of their two personalities.

Keaton's acting overshadows everyone else's, and practically makes the movie by itself. I've always admired Keaton for his ability to deliver lines that feel improvised, no matter what script he's following. His character, Hunt Stevenson, is a likable, affable everyman, a natural leader with a wise-ass streak. But he has a fatal flaw common to many of us: he doesn't want to disappoint anyone. He'll distract the crowd with inspirational anecdotes, and even lie, rather than point out the ugly truth.

Kazuhiro is the mirror image of Stevenson: shy and introspective, but also, because of his Japanese upbringing, reluctant to be the bearer of bad news. The scene in which Stevenson first comes to Kazuhiro with the employees' grievances captures perfectly the Japanese approach to workplace conflict. Kazuhiro replies to Stevenson's complaints with "I understand what you are saying," but won't refuse his requests out loud. Stevenson misinterprets this as agreement, and goes away saying, "Okay, we've got that settled." (This is still a problem in Japanese-American business relations in the 21st century!)

Ultimately, Kazuhiro and Stevenson have the same problem: get the factory working smoothly, meet production goals, and fulfill their responsibility to the workers under them. In working towards this goal, they each have to take a page from the others' book. Kazuhiro's family becoming more "Americanized" is an obvious example. Also note that Stevenson thinks it's odd when Kazuhiro explains how he had to make a public apology to his workers for failing them -- and yet, later in the movie, Stevenson does exactly that himself.

The plot and its resolution are a little cornball, but hey, this is a comedy. If you can overlook the movie's flaws, there is a great story about self-realization and open-mindedness here. Gung Ho is one of those movies that you will want to see over and over again. Michael Keaton is put in charge of wooing a Japanese car company to come to his town thus creating jobs for the residents of Hadleyville. What happens after that is one hilarious moment after another. The two cultures clash and it is up to Keaton to hold things together. Look for great performances from Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, George Wendt, Mimi Rogers, John Turturro, Soh Yamamura and Sab Shimomo. All are perfectly cast. Don't be fooled by the low number rating. This is a 7.5 in my book. It is interesting to note that the town name of Hadleyville was also used in High Noon. Yes, there is a real Hadleyville but in Oregon. I think it great example of the differences between two cultures. It would be a great movie to show in a sociology class. I thought it was pretty funny and I must say that i am a sucker for that "lets band together and get the job done" plot device. It seems most people don't realize that this movie is not just a comedy. It has a few dramatic elements in it as well and I think they blend in nicely. Overall, I give it a solid 8. Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.

Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.

"Gung Ho" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.

You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way. A very funny east-meets-west film influenced by the closure of GM's Flint, Michigan plant in the eighties and the rise and integration of Japanese automakers in the US. Set in western Pennsylvania, it features great performances by Michael Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, and George Wendt. Music by blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan. This is a wonderful movie with a fun, clever story and the dynamics of culture differences and the running theme of what's important in life make this a very under-appreciated movie. Don't let the cynics of the world deter you from seeing this. Keaton has wonderful moments and I wonder at the fact that comedy is never appreciated, because actors like Keaton make going from humor to serious bits look tremendously easy. Great movie all around! This comedy is bound to be good from the get-go. East meets west and east doesn't want to lose...west doesn't know what losing is like. It starts a little slow but it grabs you very soon and it doesn't let go. This is definitely worth seeing. Wow, it's been years since I last saw this movie. Watching it in 2008 is certainly different than watching it in 1986. Initially I didn't' think I would make it through the movie. Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton) was so obnoxious, arrogant and disrespectful that I found it hard to watch him. He embodied every negative stereotype of Americans. If that wasn't bad enough, once the small American town's finest workers were shown the image only got worse. On the opposite spectrum the Japanese were presented as emotionless, robotic workaholics. The movie wasn't even all that funny, I only hung in there because of the nostalgic value of it. And I'm glad I continued the watch.

Just like boxing, judges are swayed by how you finish the round. This movie went from about a three up to the seven I rated it because of the ending. The end was excellent. You always want a harmonious ending and this was just that. It was great that the town got to keep there jobs and keep the factory, but what was most special was the marriage between the Japanese customs and values and the American customs and values. It was a mediocre movie that ended on a high note. Way, way back in the 1980s, long before NAFTA was drafted and corporations began to shed their national identities, the United States and Japan were at each other's throat in the world manufacturing race. Remember sayings like 'Union Yes!,' 'the Japanese are taking this country over,' and 'Americans are lazy?'

As the Reagan era winded down and corporations edged towards a global marketplace, director Ron Howard made one of several trips into the comedy genre with his 1986 smash 'Gung Ho,' which drew over $36 million in U.S. box office receipts. While in many ways dated, Howard's tongue-in-cheek story of colliding cultures in the workplace still offers hard truth for industrial life today.

'Gung Ho' focuses on Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton), the automakers union rep from Hadleyville, a small, depressed town in the foothills of Pennsylvania. Stevenson has been asked to visit the Assan Motor Company in Tokyo (similar to real-life Toyota), which is considering a U.S. operation at the town's empty plant. With hundreds of residents out of work and the town verging on collapse, Assan decides to move in and Stevenson is hired as a liaison between company officials and workers on the assembly line.

The 112 minutes of 'Gung Ho' is a humorous look at these two sides, with their strengths and weaknesses equally considered: on one hand, an American workforce that values its traditions but is often caught in the frenzy of pride and trade unionism; on the other hand, Japanese workers who are extremely devoted to their job yet lacking in personal satisfaction and feelings of self-worth. In Stevenson, we find an American working class figure of average intelligence with the skills to chat people through misunderstandings. With the survival of his workers' jobs and most of Hadleyville on the line, Stevenson proves a likable guy who wants nothing more than a fair chance, although his cleverness will sink him into a great deal of trouble. Besides answering to the heads of Assan, we witness a delicate balancing act between Stevenson and his fellow union members, many of whom he grew up with. This includes Buster (George Wendt), Willie (John Turturro), and Paul (Clint Howard, Ron's brother).

The Japanese cast is headed by Gedde Watanabe, also known for 'Sixteen Candles' and 'Volunteers.' Watanabe plays Kazihiro, the plant manager who is down on his luck and begins to feel a sympathy for American life. He is constantly shadowed by Saito (Sab Shimono), the nephew of Assan's CEO who is desperate to take his spot in the pecking order. While given a light touch, these characters fare very well in conveying ideas of the Japanese working culture.

With Hunt Stevenson dominating the script, Michael Keaton has to give a solid performance for this film to work. 'Gung Ho' is indeed a slam-dunk success for Keaton, who also teamed with Ron Howard in 1994's 'The Paper.' He made this film during a string of lighter roles that included 'Mr. Mom,' 'Beetle Juice,' and 'The Dream Team' before venturing into 'Batman,' 'One Good Cop,' and 'My Life.' It's also hard not to like Gedde Watanabe's performance as the odd man out, who first wears Japanese ribbons of shame before teaming up with Stevenson to make the auto plant a cohesive unit.

The supporting cast is top-notch, including Wendt, Turturro, Shimono, and Soh Yamamura as Assan CEO Sakamoto. Mimi Rogers supplies a romantic interest as Audrey, Hunt's girlfriend. Edwin Blum, Lowell Ganz, and Babaloo Mandel teamed up for Gung Ho's solid writing. The incidental music, which received a BMI Film Music Award, was composed by Thomas Newman. Gung Ho's soundtrack songs are wall-to-wall 80s, including 'Don't Get Me Wrong,' 'Tuff Enuff,' and 'Working Class Man.'

The success of 'Gung Ho' actually led to a short-lived TV series on ABC. While more impressive as a social commentary twenty years ago, Ron Howard's film still has its comic value. It is available on DVD as part of the Paramount Widescreen Collection and is a tad short-changed. Audio options are provided in English 5.1 surround, English Dolby surround, and French 'dubbing,' but subtitles are in English only. There are no extras, not even the theatrical trailer. On the plus side, Paramount's digital transfer is quite good, with little grain after the opening credits and high quality sound. While a few extras would have been helpful - especially that 'Gung Ho' was a box office success - there's little to complain about the film presentation itself.

*** out of 4 I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.

I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.

Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.

Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".

Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also. this is a great film!!!

I first saw this film when it came out. I just recently saw this film again and it still holds up to my memory of it. A lot of films we watched when we were younger don't seem to hold up when we watch them later in life. The film is actually a great 80's example of the type of films made then. Keaton is at his best, all the actors actually did a very good job and Ron Howard was very good at letting the story push the movie along instead forcing it. The pace of the film is fast with few slow spots and seeing the cars from the 80's is too funny. Being from the 80's I loved seeing the ugly pacer again. The film is a great film for any comedy lovers and 80's film lovers. Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow:

Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.

Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!

I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well. I saw this movie when it was new. Later I rented it in Japan after having been here three years, afraid that I would cringe when I viewed it in the harsh light of my expanded international experience. The movie pleasantly surprised me with how accurately it portrays the culture clash between Japan and Pennsylvania (where I'm from). Not all the stuff is factually spot on, but the tone is perfect.

I'm still in Japan many years later, and I continue to enjoy this film for its even-handed treatment of the two sides in the story. Interestingly, although the Japanese-American actors spoke Japanese in the original, the dialog is redubbed in the Japan version to cover up obvious second-language delivery problems.

I noticed one reviewer uses this in a Japanese class. I think you can learn more about what to expect from an encounter with Japan by watching this film than by reading any of the "serious" books on the matter (most of which were written in the 80s and financed by propagandizing Japanese companies).

Don't be fooled by drag on the average rating caused by one-star reviewers who, among other things, found it implausible that the Japanese would want to build cars in the US. (Of course, the Japanese operate many factories there to be close to the customers and to avoid trade friction.) This is a very warm and funny movie that I would rate higher were it not for a few 80s clichés, like the dancing around to cheesy electronic disco music. Michael Keaton has never been funnier. I recently saw this movie in my International Business class. I was not expecting anything other then another boring documentary (not to say I don't love documentary I've just hard bad luck with movies in that class) Imagine my surprise when this movie, that's actually a movie, came up.

This film is a tell all of cultural differences in the work place and how they need to cooperate to get anywhere. The culture clash shows just how different the world is and just how differently we perceive ourselves until someone comes along and gives us a wake up call. I would highly recommend this film to anyone in business or who just wants a laugh, because yes it is funny.

Well, that's about it! Cheers I teach Japanese for an online high school and I include cultural activities so that the students can learn about the country as well as the language. And watching "Gung Ho" is one of the requirements. The students can either buy or rent the movie. Stereotypes or not, this helps the students to see that other people view the world and their lives differently than we do. Many of my students have told me that they enjoyed the movie so much, they are going to get a copy for themselves. It is really interesting to see what we value in this culture and what they value in their culture. I just wish I could get a cleaned-up TV version. I'm not really into the crude language the auto workers use all the time. I just have to throw my two cents in. Relax, it's a comedy. Yes for the most part the characters are broadly written and acted. I can't think of many comedies where they aren't. This isn't a new release, it's out on video and airs on cable almost every week. Would I see it in a theater? Sure, I did, when it first came out. It's funny...that should be enough.

Even if I didn't like it at all I'd still watch it on cable for Michael Keaton. He's an underrated and under-appreciated actor. I can't think of another who is so capable in every genre. Nor can I think of one who's as successful. A comedic actor who's also an action star(short lived but still), who's also a romantic lead, who's also a dramatic actor; a villain and a hero. I can't think of any, at least not in Hollywood. Certainly none who have been successful at all those genres. I mean there's Tom Cruise but to me he's better at being Tom Cruise than becoming a character. However this isn't about Michael Keaton vs. Tom Cruise so I'll move on.

Gung Ho is worth renting, heck it's worth buying since you can probably find it for $10.00 or less at stores like Wal-Mart. It's worth watching on cable(if you have cable or satellite). It's one of those fun to watch movies. You can put your brain on pause, and just relax, and chuckle away.

To ask for more, in my honest opinion, is asking too much. I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.

Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.

I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too. I really enjoyed this movie. Typically Ron Howard who seems to like being associated with Michael Keaton. Love the scene when Hunt travels to Japan with his sales pitch. Whoa, how did that get in there ! Cheap laughs but great value Gung Ho tries to express many ideas and entertain us with a wiseguy comedy at the same time. The result is uneven, but generally entertaining. Keaton balances all three aspects of his lead character quite well. Wantabedde is even better. One warning: George Wendt is very poor in his supporting role. Otherwise, this is quite enjoyable time capsule. This is hardly a movie at all, but rather a real vaudeville show, filmed for the most part "in proscenium", and starring some of the greatest stage stars of the day. "Singing in the Bathtub" is an absolutely amazing production number that must be seen-- be sure to wear your shower cap! It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for "film buffs" especially interested in the silent to sound transition This is a deliriously colossal vulgar silly all star extravaganza revue of all the early talkie stars that Warner Bros could afford. ...and like most other rarely seen films actually made during the late 20s, an unforgettable opportunity to see and hear the genuine roaring twenties' exuberance and youthfulness put to song and dance. THE SHOW OF SHOWS is pretty gigantic. Vaudeville act after soliloquy after tap dance after acrobat after comedian after fan-dance after ukulele lunacy after Rin Tin Tin who introduces 'an oriental number'...(!)... and on and on it lumbers, grinning and squeaking away in fabulous gramophone quality Vitaphone sound. It is far too long, but among it's delirious delights are the awesome "Singin in the Bathtub" number created on a scale of which The QE2 architects would be proud...Beatrice Lillie lounging by a grand piano with some happiness boys amusingly warbling a witty ditty, Nick Lucas, and the never-ending grand finale in two color color...which is all set to the song LADY LUCK. . So keen are the tubby chorus line and leaping teenagers to en-ter-tain us that they almost kick themselves repeatedly in their own faces with glee and effort. Row after row of "Doll" characters hop past and some even emerge from the floor. I kid you not, there are even girls strapped to the crystal chandeliers, mummified with shiny gauze and chained up with pearl ropes, unable to move (for days, I imagine, during production) whilst this katzenjammer of toy-box athleticism twitch and spasm below to the Ukulele orchestra. Of course I loved it and had to watch this color finale over and over and then invite friends and family to the screen for weeks on end just to horrify and terrify them each separately and to roll about on the lounge in shrieking in delight at each and every exclamation of their startled reactions. And so should you...and rejoice that there was an era when this was created simply to entertain and thrill. It is all so demented. It is very hard to rate this film. As entertainment value for 21st century viewers, it fails miserably. However, for the student of early sound films and history, it is a jewel. "Show of Shows" was a revue filmed to compete with MGM's successful "Hollywood Revue of 1929", which still survives intact complete with its Technicolor scenes.

The purpose of the all-star revue was to showcase a particular studio's silent stars in speaking roles, and show that they could make the transition. However, Warner Bros. seems to have forgotten this and employs many acts and stars that they didn't even have under long-term contract such as Ben Turpin, Lloyd Hamilton, Beatrice Lillie, and even a marching band. Meanwhile, their biggest talent - Al Jolson - is noticeably absent. Even at a high salary he could not be compelled to join in. Almost every act is overly long and the film plays like a dozen or so Vitaphone shorts strung together with no continuity. The finale is also overly long, but it is really enjoyable with all of its dance numbers.

The highlights of the film are two numbers from Winnie Lightner - "Pingo Pongo" and "Singin in the Bathtub", a couple of numbers with Nick Lucas, John Barrymore performing Shakespeare, and the Chinese Fantasy "Li Po Li" with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy. This last number is the only part of the film that survives in Technicolor, and it really is quite attractive. Reasonably enough, the players in these good acts were long-term Warner Bros. stars so perhaps the director knew how to play to their strengths since he was familiar with them.

This film acts as a snapshot at an odd point in film history - the year 1929, which was the bridge year between two eras - the silent and sound eras, and the roaring 20's and the Great Depression. Just two years later this same film would have had an entirely different cast, as Warner Bros. would abandon its silent era stars and the stars they hired just to produce the early musicals in favor of those stars that gave Warner Bros. its distinctive urban look and feel - James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Edward G. Robinson, and others. Thanks to Warner Archive, I can once again see this mammoth variety show which throws in everything but the kitchen sink. (The bathtub, however is present.) This film gives screen time to every person who was under contract to Warners at the time. If some of the artists seem unfamiliar to some, it is because they were big in the silent days, and most faded with the popularity of the talkies. There are some truly remarkable artists from the vaudeville era as well. You will be most impressed with Winnie Lightner, who performs two numbers. Also there is that French star, Irene Bordoni who croons a love song in a sexy manner. Perhaps one of the biggest highlights is the two-strip Technicolor "Chinese Fantasy," which has been restored for this version. It is truly beautiful and it stars Myrna Loy and Nick Lucas. Finally, there is the massive "Lady Luck" finale which goes on for nearly a quarter of an hour. This is truly an epic of the early-talkie era. Any old-movie buff will love this. Watching this several times as a child was quite the experience 15 years ago, and now that I've found it again it still has a film experience like few others. If risky, it's a great display of morals and life lessons recommended for family viewing with young kids. While it still holds up as an adult, I was fortunate to have learned from it many times over years ago. Trying to find it today is hard enough . . . but believe me it is well worth it no matter what the age. Anime fans especially will find this a great entry to Masami Hata's filmography. With impressive art work and unique designs, "Chirin No Suzu" represents a worthwhile experience. While some of the lyrical songs are not so hot when recorded in English, the musical score is nevertheless captivating. But even the voice acting is far better than much released today. Unfortunately is went out of print in the mid-1980s from RCA Columbia Home Video, and has not received any new format release to my knowledge, at least in the US. Look hard for it and you will be quite satisfied! It's an artful, intense, enjoyable, and important landmark in Japanese animation. I saw this movie as a child and it broke my heart! No other story had such a unfinished ending... I grew up on many great anime movies and this was one of my favourites, because it was so unusual - a story about unfairness, and cruelty, and loneliness, and life, and choices that can't be undone, and the need for others. Chirin is made alone when the Wolf kills his mother, but the Wolf is alone, too, when Chirin follows him into the mountain. The Wolf doesn't kill the lamb, even though each night he says "maybe I'll eat you tomorrow." The tape of it I have is broken and degraded from age and use. I will repair it and watch the movie again someday and cry just as hard as I did as a child. Stories like this, with this depth and feeling, and this intricacy of meaning, are very rare. It is a sad story, but I've never encountered any catharsis more beautifully made. I am glad I have seen this movie, and I'm glad I saw it as a child. in a not so conventional sense of the word.

This movie was one of my favorites as a young child, and I just recently remembered it, and thought to look it up. While many of the details are no longer clear in my mind, the overall feeling that the movie gave me has stuck with me over the years.

If parents feel that their children can handle mature and sometimes violent themes, then I highly recommend this movie. It taught me a lot about life and death, and brought forth in me a lot of emotion. To this day, it remains one of my favorite films. *** Spoilers*

My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.

The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.

All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.

This is a fantasy movie for kids based on the Boggy Creek Legend although I don't know why they called it Return to Boggy Creek as if it's a sequel.This movie has nothing to do with the documentary and its fantasy kiddie fare. Dawn Wells stars as the mother of 3 children who get lost in the swamp around Boggy Creek with 2 other men and the monster comes to their aid. Yes it's very silly and the plot is corny but this kind of movie is perfect for the 8-12 y/o group which it targeted. It's harmless G-rated kiddie fare and at least you don't have to worry about leaving your kids alone while they watch it. Strictly for the 8-12 y/o set ,older kids will get bored and think it lame. i saw this movie when i was 13 and i really liked dana plato who later starred in different strokes as kimberly drummond . i don't think it's garbage .it was not meant to be a sequel to the documentary either . its just a cute kids movie about 3 children who go after men trying to find the boggy creek monster . the men get hurt and the kids rescue them with the help of the creature .haunting shots of the arkansas swamp and scenery were neat . this is a good movie for kids ,no real violence a few mild scares but good fun for the young kids. This charmingly pleasant and tenderhearted sequel to the hugely successful "The Legend of Boggy Creek" is a follow-up in name only. Stories abound in a sleepy, self-contained fishing community of a supposedly vicious Bigfoot creature called "Big Bay Ty" that resides deep in the uninviting swamplands of Boggy Creek. Two bratty brothers and their older, more sensible tomboy sister (a sweetly feisty performance by cute, pigtailed future "Different Strokes" sitcom star Dana Plato) go venturing into the treacherous marsh to check out if the creature of local legend may be in fact a real live being. The trio get hopelessly lost in a fierce storm and the furry, bear-like, humongous, but very gentle and benevolent Sasquatch comes to the kids' rescue.

Tom Moore's casual, no-frills direction relates this simple story at a leisurely pace, astutely capturing the workaday minutiae of the rural town in compellingly exact detail, drawing the assorted country characters with great warmth and affection, and thankfully developing the sentiment in an organic, restrained, unforced manner that never degenerates into sticky-sappy mush. The adorable Dawn Wells (Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island") gives an engagingly plucky portrayal of the kids' loving working class single mom while Jim Wilson and John Hofeus offer enjoyably irascible support as a couple of squabbling ol' hayseed curmudgeonly coots. Robert Bethard's capable, sunny cinematography displays the woodsy setting in all its sumptuously tranquil, achingly pure and fragile untouched by civilization splendor. Darrell Deck's score adeptly blends flesh-crawling synthesizer shudders and jubilant banjo-pluckin' country bluegrass into a tuneful sonic brew. In addition, this picture warrants special praise for the way it uncannily predicts the 90's kiddie feature Bigfoot vogue by a good 15-odd years in advance. i totally disagree.i thought that this was a great movie for kids.dawn wells from gilligans island,and promise shown of a barely then known dana plato.it was disneylike and for that it can hardly be disregarded as meaningless fluff.no it wasn't scary and wasn't meant to be.i wont ruin the ending.but it was unusual the way that it was done.i mean the kids characters were great and i didn't know what to expect in the end.the basic plot also had a lot more to do with these kids than you say the fact that these kids were expert fishermen is very central to the plot especially initially.it also helps them out of a jam towards the end.it also has the plus of not being overly long.i think it clocks in at under 95 minutes This is one of my favorite Mr. Motos, and I have seen them all. As usual Lorre is his charming self as the debonair Mr. Moto. Lionel Atwill plays a delightfully zany museum curator, the usual comic relief is quite funny here, and there are lots of suspects on whom to cast an eye. It's fast paced and fun.

The archaeologist doesn't have quite the same flair as Thomas Beck, the usual second lead in these programmers, but he's adequate. Stepin Fetchit is on board, and while he speaks in a stereotypical manner his lines are funny, not demeaning to his intelligence, and he actually saves the day in his brief time on screen. A team of archaeologists uncover a real treasure – the Crown of the Queen of Sheeba. From Egypt, the crown is to be transferred via steamship to San Francisco. But it won't be an easy journey. There are plenty of would-be thieves who would love to get their hands on the priceless jewels contained in the crown. Fortunately for all involved, Mr. Moto is on hand to guard the crown on its journey. However, that doesn't mean someone won't try to get their hands on the treasure.

After the disappointment of Mr. Moto's Gamble, I went into Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation hoping for the best, but, admittedly, fearing the worst. But within the first 10 seconds of the film, I knew I would find it more enjoyable. I'm a sucker for a 1930s style mystery that features anything to do with archaeological digs in Egypt. And seeing Moto disguised as a German archaeologist (Imagine that, Peter Lorre playing a German?), the beginning scenes really drew me in. While the movie may have quickly shifted to the less exotic San Francisco, it remained just as enjoyable. Dark, sinister characters lurking in the rainy night; gunshots fired from open windows that narrowly miss the hero's head; sophisticated and supposed foolproof alarm systems just begging for someone to test them; and master criminals believed to be dead – these are the kind of elements found in a lot of the really good 1930s mysteries that I love. And Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation's got 'em all. A couple other bonuses for me included the always enjoyable Lionel Atwill in a nice little role, comic relief from G.P. Huntley that's actually funny, and a return to form for Mr. Moto. I've already mentioned his disguise in the movie's opening scenes, well the athletic Moto comes out near the film's finale. Moto is a like a Whirling Dervish of activity as he goes after his prey. All this and I haven't even mentioned the wonderful performance turned in by Lorre. Any way you look at it, Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation is a winner.

As much as I hate that the Mr. Moto series had to end after this installment, it's understandable when you think about it. WWII was just around the corner. And after Pearl Harbor, a movie with a Japanese hero wouldn't have gone over very well. At least the Mr. Moto series ended on a very positive note. I generally love these 1930 mystery/police Charlie Chan type of movies, and this is no exception. However, something seems bad with this movie. A late attempt to switch from cerebral Moto movies centered around the plot contrivances to a salad bar spoilt by comedy relief that is as relieving as sore feet. A typecast buffoon appears from nowhere impersonating a clumsy Englishman who plays the detective, and even other characters seem entangled into providing comedy relief. The plot may seem odd or a bare excuse to us today, but back then the possibility of epochal archaeological discoveries was not only real, but a commonplace occurrence. A surprisingly interesting meditation on the nature of regret in terms of the way it relates to paranoia. There's a lot going on in this for having a run time of only 74 minutes, but it works. The scares are very subtle, not the jump-cut scares that seem to populate most recent Asian horror films. The way the "scares" are set up is similar to the disturbing moments in "The Uninvited" (aka 4 Inyong shiktak, directed by Su-Leon Lee), but this isn't nearly to the same caliber. The film does a nice job of balancing a classic ghost story with something more unusual and psychological. It's not perfect, but it does what it's supposed to do. I would recommend checking it out if you get a chance. I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).

The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.

While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.

I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.

While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag. Like TALK RADIO, THE BOOTH is actually kinda predictable (TALK RADIO because we know the truth of what happened going in, THE BOOTH because of- let's face it- the genre and the basic set-up). That's not necessarily a bad thing, in this case. It means, in essence, that the filmmakers don't punk out in the end the way they might've in, say, an American version of this story. THE BOOTH moves inexorably toward its (foregone) conclusion, but is so beautifully crafted on every level that one can enjoy the ride the way one might a familiar cruise along a well-travelled stretch of (very scenic) road. It reminds me of Harlan Ellison's spooky short story, FLOP SWEAT. The claustrophobia is, at times, almost palpable. Worth a nice long look. The Booth puts a whole new twist on your typical J-horror movie. This movie puts you in the shoes of the protagonist of the story. The director wants you to see what the protagonist sees and thinks.

The story is about perception of the people who works, lives, and loves of our protagonist, and how he perceives the people who surrounds him in an antiquated radio station DJ booth. The story peels back the layers of the main character like an onion in flash-backs as the movie runs its course, and from it we learned that things are not always the way it seems. The movie mostly took place in a small, out-dated radio station's studio with a very bad history, where the main character was forced to broadcast his talk show due to the radio station was in the process of re-locating. It is from this confined space that this movie thrives and makes you feel very claustrophobic and very paranoid. At time our protagonist can not determined the strange happenings in the old studio were caused by ghost or some conspiracy by his co-workers or it was all in his mind. What I like about this film is that the film-makers makes you see through the eyes of the main character and makes you just as paranoid as protagonist did. This movie is a very smart, abide rather short 76 minutes film. Dear Readers,

With High Expectations, Human Beings leave Earth to begin a new life in Space Colonies. However, The Allied Forces of the United Earth Sphere Alliance gain great military control over the colonies and soon seize one colony after another in the name of Justice and Peace...

The year is After Colony 195. Operation Meteor. In a move to counter the Alliance's tyranny, Rebel Forces from several colonies send new arsenals to Earth disguised as Shooting Stars...

However...The Alliance forces catch on...

Gundam Wing is the most popular and most successful of the entire Gundam Series. With cutting-edge Anime animation, stunning action, amazing Mobile Suits, Breathtaking scripts, and some of the most unforgettable characters in Anime History.

I'll try to explain the plot of Gundam Wing as best as possible. Earth has now colonized space, but the UESA forces have forcibly occupied them along with the help of the mysterious Elite Force OZ and their shadowy leaders, Treize Kushrenada and the Romefeller Foundation. Five pilots are sent to Earth piloting Mobile Suits with extraordinary power known as the Gundams. Pursued by the Mysterious Lieutenant Zechs Merquise, Treize's second-in-command, a young teenager named Relena, and the Alliance military, the Gundam pilots unleash hell upon Earth for the Freedom of the Colonies while all the while, a plot most sinister architected by Treize begins to start.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector Mobile Suit Gundam Wing is the Fourth series in the continuing Gundam chronicles. Unlike the previous entries which focused on massive wars, this one is a little different; instead of having an army-vs.-army situation, this one is led by five teenage boys (due to their ability to blend in more readily than normal adults) and their machines called "Gundams" because of the metal alloy used in their construction. Which leads to problems, since gundams are supposed to be destroyed, replaced by "Mobile Suits", which are piloted less-destructive weapon platforms and "Dolls" which are ran on A.I. and are used as grunt infantry.

The whole point of the series is a metaphysical question that gives Gundam Wing an edge over a greater portion of the Anime that makes it's way here. Especially since most anime is adapted from popular magazines, such as Naruto, DragonBall, One Piece, DragonBall Z and InuYasha which are all from Shonen Jump, which is now available in America.

Mobile Suit Gundam Wing sets itself apart from most anime in the fact that instead of over-the-top battles between mortals who more resemble gods, Gundam is very humanistic and seems to revel in the fact that it is dramatic instead of melodramatic and events seem to unfold across the series gracefully. Normally in anime there are more than few series that think that the best way to go about having a "small" battle is to have it take a half-hour - something that would never happen in real life. Gundam tops this by making sure that everyone knows that characters will die, machines will be destroyed and rebuilt, battles will be lost and won, and it never seems as though it makes the actions themselves satirical.

But the magic of Gundam Wing is in the details, and what this series has that more anime would be grateful for having. Emotion. Instead of mythic prophecies, magic, or overblown martial arts, Gundam Wing is hard-line science fiction from a country that hates hard-line science fiction. (NOTE: The author would like to state that Neon Genesis Evangelion is not hard-line-plausible-in-real-life science fiction due to the religious subject matter that is the core of its series) they love Star Wars, but hate A.I. (the movie). Henceforth why Gundam Wing was and Gundam SeeD is now in production for both Japanese and U.S. releases at the same time with two voice teams. American audiences only have to wait two or three weeks after the end of the Japanese season to catch the dubbed or subtitled versions or even the edited SeeD episodes that air on Cartoon Network.

The emotion is that these two sides that are fighting a war are technically backwards. The heroes are those who defend the rights of the more wealthy and aristocratic citizens of Earth from the band of terrorists bent on victory at any and all costs that make up the protagonists of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. This is not war, this is "total war". Every person, every building, every street is a target for attack, both on Earth and off.

My only complaint, and the reason it didn't get the score of ten, is that at about three-fourths of the way through, it just kind of goes dead for a few episodes, and no one really seems to change. Kind of like a present-time flashback, which is fine due to what it reveals about the characters, but at the same time it drags down what should be the brewing between Project: Meteor and OZ. But the final two episodes and the overplayed-on-Cartoon-Network (back in 2001-2003) Mobile Suit Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz movie more than make up for the slack. I have just recently purchased collection one of this awesome series and even after just watching three episodes, I still am mesmerized by sleek styling of the animation and the slow, yet thoughtful actions of the story-telling. I am still a fan.....with some minor pains.

Though this installment into the Gundam saga is very cool and has what the previous series had-a stylish satiric way of telling about the wrongs of war and not letting go of the need to have control or power over everything(sound familiar?), I have to say that this one gets a bit too mellow-dramatic on continuing to explain the lives of the main characters and their incessant need to belly-ache about every thing that happens and what they need to do to stop the OZ group from succeeding in their plans(especially the character called Wufei...I mean he whines more than an American character on a soap opera. Get a counselor,will ya?)

Besides for the over-exaggerated drama(I think that mostly comes from the dubbing of the English voice actors), this series is still very exciting and will still captivate me once again. I mean it can always be worse. It could be like the recent installment, SEED......eeeewwww, talk about mellow-dramatic....I'll chat about that one later. Since the title is in English and IMDb lists this show's primary language as English, i shall concentrate on reviewing the English version of Gundam Wing(2000) as presented in the Bandai released DVD set. My actual review for the whole series is under IMDb's entry of ""Shin kidô senki Gundam W"(1995).

Very little is changed in respect to plot, script and characterization its adaptation to English and it really depends on your own taste to choose which language to watch this show in. Purists can stick to Japanese all they want, but for a more "realistic" experience i recommend the English track since all the characters, except Heero Yuy, are not Japanese.(most of them are Caucasian in fact with a couple of non-Japanese Asians.) For one thing, the characters' personalities come across more "directly" than in the Japanese version. The contrast between the characters is stronger thanks to some give-or-take performances but a very well cast group of actors.

Wing Gundam's pilot Heero Yuy is a highly trained soldier who suppresses his emotions but slowly learns the value of his humanity. Voiced by Mark Hildreth who's deadpan delivery can be criticized as "bad acting" but it matches Heero's personality very well.

Deathscythe Gundam's Duo Maxwell, ever cheerful in the face of death is given a crash course in the cherishing the value of life and friends. He is possibly the best acted character in the whole show, masterfully played by Scott McNeil. He may sound a little too old for his age, but Duo's English voice easily out ranks his irritatingly nasal Japanese one.

Trowa, the pilot of Heavyarms, is a lost lonely soul who's only purpose so far has been combat; despite his inner desire to form connections with the people around him, he only knows how to kill, not to befriend. Kirby Morrow gives a somber but realistic performance as Trowa Barton.

Quatre Rebarba Winner is voiced by Brad Swaile who has no trouble brining out the caring nature of the character and the shattering of his innocence as he experiences horrors of war and death first hand. A huge plus point is that Quatre no longer sounds like a girl(and yes he is voiced by a female actress in the Japanese version) but a bona fide typical 15 year old guy.

The impulsive but determined Wufei Chang voiced by Ted Cole may seem a little over-the-top but it plays out in stark contrast to the more subdued roles of Heero and Trowa.

Relena Darlian sounds older in English, voiced by Lisa Ann Bailey. This might not sit well with her youthful personification early in the series but as her character matures later into the story, her voice follows suit and ends up fitting in very well with the character development.

Zechs Merquise would be one of the more drastically changed voices when compared to the Japanese version. Both voices bring out different sides to the same character. His Japanese voice is haughty, authoritative and commands respect , keeping in line with his high ranking status and charismatic nature. His English voice by Brian Drummond is more subdued, sounding more devious and "snake-like", highlighting Zechs' secretive nature regarding his hidden agendas and staunch beliefs in his ideals.

The members of OZ are a mixed bag really. Treize Kushrenada voiced by David Kaye is given a more realistic and down-to-earth performance compared to his larger-than-life Japanese style of speaking. However, Lady Une does not convey her split personality as contrastingly as in the Japanese version and Lucrencia Noin just sounds.........bored most of the time. The cannon fodder pilots and military leaders are nothing to speak of either.

I would have appreciated if they took the time to give different characters different accents to reflect their ethnic backgrounds. The Maganac Corp's voices were generally uninspired but could have been more interesting if they were given middle eastern accents. The members of the Romerfeller Foundation would have also sounded better with some classy European accent that reflects their status of nobility.

Despite underwhelming acting from the side characters, the main cast manage to carry the show and it results in an overall less over-the-top and more realistic rendition of Gundam Wing's script. Very faithful to the original Japanese script, keeping all the underlying thought provoking ideas and themes about politics, war and human nature. Sadly, it also retains the flaws of the original Japanese script. Gundam Wing is a fun show. I appreciate it for getting me into Gundam and anime in general. However, after watching its predecessors, such as Mobile Suit Gundam, Zeta Gundam, and even G Gundam, I find Wing to be Gundam Lite.

Characters: An aspect long held by Gundam is to have their characters thrust into difficulties and grow into maturity. This does not happen in Wing. Heero is top dog at the beginning, and he's top dog at the end. Personalities do not change, growth is never achieved. The best character is Zechs, who is for all intents and purposes a hero throughout most of the series. But suddenly the series betrays him and turns him into a villain for no apparent reason.

Mecha: Wing has great suit designs. The Gundams are super cool, with the Epyon being my favorite. I even consider a few of the OZ suit designs to be on par with some of the classic Zeon suits. But sweet suit designs doesn't quite save the series from boring characters.

Conclusion: In the end, Wing has cool fight scenes, though riddled with recycled animation, but shallow plot and character development. Enjoyable, but not moving like previous Gundam outings. I'm not a big fan of most anime, but Gundam Wing is truly something else. Gundam wing lacks all of that stereotypical melodrama that you might think of when you think of anime, since the number of jokes made over the 17 hours would only be in the double digits, Gundam Wing gets right down to business.

Gundam Wing is as much of a political thriller as it is an action series. Large parts focus on the diplomatic dealings of a war, not only the battles. Though battle animation lacks extreme detail in cases where it would just be a pain to animate, individual duels between gundams are almost pieces of art considering the animated use of complex mechanics and rapid movements.

To my knowledge, this 49 episode plus one movie series was picked up by cartoon network in 2000, and then professionally dubbed by them too. the dubbing is simply flawless. not only does every word said match up, but the voices use truly make the characters much more believable. many believe that it is best to watch anime with subs in English, but i simply don't have the determination to do that.

Not only are the voices good, but the score used over the series is quite impressive. I'll just say it left me scouring the net in vain to find a soundtrack.

The plot of this series is what will truly hook viewers, and no, not hook you like some prime time drama like Lost which was only made for the purpose of hooking you. explaining the plot deeply would lead to many spoilers, since many of the characters do not even have names until quite a few episodes into the series. The rough idea of the series is that earth and its now independent space colonies are having difficulty maintaining peace. Thus a war is started, leading to military coups and elaborate diplomatic situations. I feel that any more detail would begin to give away information, which is crucial to the plot.

I'll end here saying that this series is great for anyone that likes anime, anyone that thinks ALL anime is stupid (they have good reason to think so), and anyone looking to get into anime with a serious tone to it. Gundam Wing is an amazing show from start to finish, every single episode is a joy to watch. The story is typical Gundam fare, in the future Earth's populations grows to the extent where we create space colonies in order to expand. The story though is set in an entirely different reality than any other Gundam show. It is the year After Colony 195 and the corrupt Earth government, known as the Earth Sphere Alliance, is violently taking over the free colonies. To combat the Alliance control and the even greater threat that is to come (an evil militaristic organization hiding within the Alliance known as OZ, which later takes control of Earth and the colonies), select members of the colonies send 5 super powerful mechs to Earth to try and save the colonies from the threat that is to soon come. These mechs, known as Gundams, fight OZ and try to regain peace in the colonies as OZ takes the front-stage, completely eliminating the Alliance and taking control of Earth and its colonies.

Gundam Wing as I previously stated, is probably the most enjoyable Gundam series to watch in my opinion. A large part of this reason is the difference between this series and any other Gundam series before it, but also the stories are far more deep and intricate than majority of the other Gundam series. Gundam Wing has more depth and emotion to it than any other Gundam show I have ever seen thus far. This particular series seemed to focus more on character and the relationships amongst those characters than epic space battle. Now don't get me wrong, this show still has many epic battles within it, and the show still maintains the epic atmosphere that other Gundam series have, but it achieves this by having the story follow an ensemble cast of 6 or 7 characters as opposed to following just 1.

No matter how you look at it this is truly one of the most unique and enjoyable Gundam series out there, and I strongly recommend it to any fan of anime, or sci-fi in general. The show sports some amazing animation and superb action, but the depth and intricacy of the story is what keeps you coming back for more. The characters are so well drawn out by the end of the show that you end up loving each and every one of them. This show is definitely one that shouldn't be missed.

A perfect 10/10! Gundam Wing to me happens to be a good anime. A bit slow moving (especially around the middle of the series), but over all enjoyable. Now before anyone jumps on my case and calls me a "winger", I will admit that I have watched all of the original Gundam, Gundam 0080 and 0083, The 08th MS Team, and Gundam SEED.

I will admit that there were a few problems with the story telling and a few characters may seem to be "rip-offs" (i.e. Zechs Marquise to the original Gundam's Char), but this is an alternate universe show based on the original series, as is SEED.

If you wish to view this series make sure that you watch the original Gundam first, and then know that you are watching an AU series. I've watched almost all of the Gundam/Mech anime that have showed in the US and this by far has the best story. The way its plot twists and turns has u riveted. Gundam Wing is a series that mainly focuses on politics and war. The series follows a group of five 15 year old boys who have been trained to pilot state of the art mobile suits known as Gundams. The Gundam pilots were trained to battle a powerful insurgency known as Oz. As things begin to heat up between OZ and the Gundam pilots, new political groups will form and old ones will dissipate. Old conflicts will end and new ones will arise. To obtain peace the Gundam pilots must come to grips with the events taking place in their world and put an end to all the fighting. But, how far are people willing to go to obtain their goal. I recommend this anime to anyone who is looking for a show that has a deep plot. While being an impressionable youth when first experiencing the Gundam Wing series, upon re-watching the series, I have reconfirmed my belief that this series is not only beautifully animated, but the plot, the gundam design, character design, and character depth are masterfully executed. While at first appearing like a boy band of sorts, the stylish attractiveness of the characters can partly be credited to just great art, with individual personalities creating clear and endearing distinctions among the characters. Consequently, it is extremely easy to become to drawn to any particular character. Personally, I liked Heero because of his stoic personality. While I may be biased with a sentimental attachment of this show to my childhood, I can objectively say that Gundam Wing addresses the deeper questions of war and life in general (how can we obtain peace?) while providing action packed battles in large robot suits, which, to say the least, is excellent. The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes.

The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame.

One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.

Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: "Killer of his own men." Char isn't given this label.

The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old.

The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year.

But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television. I could write a big enough comment on any one of the characters in Gundam Wing, they could each lead the series with their internal conflicts. Instead we get 8 great leads that take us through 49 golden episodes of Anime bliss.

It contains dialogue that you can roll around in your head for months... years, and then go back to and derive new meaning from, a masterpiece in script writing (even though it has the typical Anime trait of there being a disparity between subtitles and English dub). It has an abundance of concepts and philosophies that make you think about your own views.

The relationships between the cold unfeeling males and loving female characters is a stand alone aspect of this series. The relationship between Heero and Relena, and Milliardo and Noin are joys to watch. The apparent rejection of the male is underpinned with an inner turmoil that makes the love (a word never mentioned in the series) of the women necessary for them in their harsh soldier environment. The women are chasing aspects of the men that we rarely, if at all see, which makes the leading men all the more enigmatic. It takes Heero all of the 49 episodes to show some caring, but he gets there, and when he does, its a big pay off.

And then there's the giant robot fighting. Fun to watch awesome sequences as good as any Hollywood epic fight scene. Any less clued up person would see giant robot fighting as a silly cartoon function for kids, as has become clear when I'm trying to recommend this series to my friends, but they're wrong. Many of the giant robot fights in Gundam Wing contain a hefty dose of pathos, usually concerning young rebels fighting for what they believe in against an oppressive society making their beliefs obsolete.

The constant shifts in tone and emphasis through each episode makes Gundam Wing impossible to be boring, it is a captivating, thought provoking study on the potential of the human mind and body. Over-powered mobile suits that can annihilate entire armies - Check! Weapons that hardly need to be aimed and still annihilate everything - Check! Mobile suits based on angels - Check!

OK - its a Gundam series. This one, Gundam Wing, has good character development, real-world complexity, interesting ideas and some pretty eye-candy.

With characters, the initially weak Relena Dorlan (later Peacecraft, then back to Dorlan) gets stronger and more independent (although is still absolutely besotted with Heero Yuy, the series main character). The aforementioned Heero, initially a cold, hard butcherer, becomes more and more human, while still remaining in-character. And seeing the lost Millardo Peacecraft (whos nomm de guerre is Zechs Marquise) float between OZ, freelance, and command of White Fang shows how some people can really lose themselves in their own creations.

The complexity of the political and military situation is also quite good - reflecting how the real world works. However, in 49 half-hour episodes, it does become a bit of a liability in that this complexity isn't used to its full potential.

The ideas at the core of the series - the necessity of fighting, the desire for peace, etc - are ones that resonate even today. In retrospect, the series was ahead of its time, what with the "War on Terrorism" and all. But its exploration of these ideas, the monologues, especially those of Treize Kushrenada, is an incredible dramatic piece, forming some of the best writing in the series.

But that sometimes good writing is also sometimes extremely poor, which dramatically causes it to lose some of its edge.

In terms of eye-candy, which is what this one has in bucketloads, everything from the mobile suits to the battleship Libra (No not the tampons you idiot!) is wells designed, and explodes in big balls of orange (which is bad, because better animation would've had better explosions). But who cares?! Stuff explodes, and thats all that matters.

In short though, the sheer complexity of the series means that if you miss out on a few episodes, you've missed out on a lot. The poor writing can leave you cringing, and sometimes the animation makes you go "WTF?!?!" But this is made up for in its classic animation style, its scale, sparks of incredible dialogue, and its more mature exploration that one expects of such Japenese animations. How I got into it: When I started watching this series on Cartoon Network,I have to say that I've never seen anything like this,and it was the best. But when I started collecting the series on VHS,and years later on DVD part of Bandai's Anime Legends collections. It was amazing,and truly worth watching. It had a lot of exploding action that will blow you out of your seat. And of course,the theme songs "Just Communication",and Rhythm Emotions" were the best.

Characters,and Gundams: My favorite characters in the show were:Heero,Duo,Relena,Treize,Lady Und,Noin,and Zechs. My favorite Gundams in the show that I liked the most are the Wing Zero,and Epyon,and of course the Altron,and Deathscythe I,and II.

Meaning of the show: What this series also tells us that in real life,wars are very hard and we can sometimes win,or lose. But peace can also be hard to obtain,and I do believe the Gundam pilots are doing the right thing,and are trying to obtain world peace.

But however,this show is truly the best of the best. So in closing to this review,after you watch this show,see the Movie Endless Waltz. Was'nt really bad for Raw's first PPV of 006. But the ending was really really shocking to everyone in attendance & the ones who were watching at home.

FIRST MATCH- RIC FLAIR VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad opener, these two can seriously put on a great match if they had more time to put on a wrestling match. Flair wins by DQ after Edge slams him with his MITB briefcase. 3/10 SECOND MATCH- TRISH STRATUS VS. MICKIE JAMES FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not bad noticing the fact that this is the first time these Divas faced off in the ring together. Mickie goes for a modified Chick Kick, but Trish ducks & nails her own Chick Kick for the win to retain her title. 3/10 THIRD MATCH- TRIPLE H VS. BIG SHOW Seriously good this match was, really. The whole match HHH focuses on Big Show's injured arm but Big Show still fights back. Later HHH is able to topple down Big Show & nails a Pedigree for the win. 5/10 FOURTH MATCH- SHELTON BENJAMIN W/ MAMA VS. VISCERA {This was a bonus match} Not that bad, it was alright. After Viscera was down, behind the referee, Benjamin's mama got a purse {Which had bricks in it} & slammed Viscera on the head with it three times. Viscera got up only to get caught with a spinning heel kick by Benjamin for the win against the big man. 4/10

FIFTH MATCH- JERRY 'THE KING' LAWLER VS. GREGORY HELMS Boring, slow & sloppy. Both men didn't really put a very good effort. Jerry Lawler wins after a Fist Drop for the win. 2/10

SIXTH MATCH- TORRIE Wilson VS. VICTORIA VS. ASHLEY VS. MARIA VS. CANDICE MICHELLE IN A FIRST EVER WOMEN'S GAUNTLET MATCH It was pretty entertaining to me. Ashley {I think} eliminates Candice last to win the first ever Women's Gauntlet match. 5/10 SEVENTH MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. CHRIS MASTERS VS. CARLITO VS. SHAWN MICHAELS VS. KANE VS. KURT ANGLE W/ DAIVARI IN AN ELIMINATION CHAMBER MATCH FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP It was a cool Elimination chamber match. But nothing will top last year's Elimination Chamber which was the best. The last three are Masters, Cena & Carlito. Carlito turns his back on Masters & gets a roll-up on him to eliminate him. Seconds later Cena gets a roll-up on Carlito for the three count to win the Elimination Chamber & retain his WWE Title. But his night was not over yet. 7/10 After the match, Vince McMahon comes out & congratulates Cena for his victory. Vince McMahon states that his night is not over yet, & says that Edge cashes in his Money In The Bank opportunity to challenge Cena for the title. Edge comes out with Lita, gives the briefcase to Vince & heads off in the ring as Cena has one more match to go here tonight.

EIGHT MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP {Cena who is busted open during the Chamber match} gets pounded straight away by Edge, Edge then nails a Spear on Cena, goes for the cover & to his shock Cena breaks out. Edge nails another Spear & covers for the shocking three count as he has beat Cena & has won the WWE Championship for the first time in his career. 1/10 So last year's New Years Revolution was better than this year's, but it was still alright. The EC match was also good & the shocking of Edge cashing in his MITB opportunity is definitely the most shockingest on the PPV show.

Overall: I'll give it 7/10 & a C I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface.

Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.

Vote: 9 I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show. I went into this movie after having read it was a drama about a man with a supernatural gift, who was made into a monster by society. Suffice to say I was expecting something entirely different from what I got. But it was a happy surprise. My friend and I both thought the movie was very romantic (the fact that the male lead isn't bad to look at surely helped), and there was enough plot development, action and even humor (the fact that it takes them until the 3rd part of the movie to now each other's name had the whole movietheatre laughing) to keep you entertained and invested in the story. So in short: Not what I expected, but a very good surprise indeed. I'll definitely buy this movie when it comes out on DVD. A woman borough a boy to this world and was alone. They both were alone because a boy had a gift and a curse in one package - he was capable of withdrawing sword from his arm. There was always a wound on his wrist in the cause of this "gift" - the wound of the deadliest weapon inside of his body. First he kills his constantly drunk stepfather who hurts his mom every time. Then he grows up and decides to find his real father. Just as simple as all the time for a superhero - he reaches the justice....but the society decides this justice is not necessary and dangerous which is indeed right 'cause it is not like in Hollywood movies that the character does not try to kill anyone - Sasha (he is the main hero acted by Artem Tkachenko) kills if the person who in his opinion deserves to die but gets blames from authorities and runs. In such a runaway from authorities and Mafia he meets a girl (acted by Chulpan Hamatova) and falls in love with her. Everything else is to be watched...not told. Be aware that this film is more about feelings and emotions but not about actions. This film is full of pain of the main character full of him and his vision of life. For everyone who expects a traditional superhero-movie it might be an unpleasant surprise. It is definitely more of a drama rather than an action movie. It focuses mainly on emotions and it's a bit like a Greek tragedy - whatever the main character does it always goes wrong somehow.

That's because Sasha, like each superhero, takes the law into his own hands and the society doesn't appreciate it. Sasha becomes an outlaw. While on the run, he meets a beautiful girl and falls in love so things get even more complicated for him.

As you can see, the plot itself is really dramatic but the movie lacks in dynamics. It reminds me slightly of the narration in the recent movies by Ram Gopal Varma. Everything happens very slowly. However, when there's an action scene it gets so immensely dynamic that before you realize what's going on, it's all over. But the director does not want to impress us with flashy and showy action. What is more important here is the outcome of Sasha's actions, which are mostly very drastic. The score is very scarce, which also makes it more difficult to concentrate on the film. So basically you need to be very patient in order to watch it.

Is the film worth it? That is a question really difficult to answer. I don't think that this experience enriched me so very much, but somehow I keep on thinking about this movie and feel like watching it again. Mostly due to the atmosphere, which is really dense, but not suffocating because all the time Sasha and Katya have hope. After all they're young people, who have all their lives to live. So no matter how hard it gets there's always a slight joyous tune when they are together. This movie has great style, fantastic visuals and hot sex scenes with a beautiful woman. It falters at the end as the story twists get a little bit extreme.. but all in all, I would recommend this movie just because it has that good old Russian feel to it.. big, impressive, powerful, bleak and brutal and at the same time beautiful in the old tradition of tragic beauty.

PLOT: A guy who can make a blade shoot out of his hand at will (not a spoiler since they show it in the trailer) when he is REALLY mad at you tries to have a girlfriend.. he discovers that after you kill one person with your sword hand, it's kind of hard to keep a stable relationship....

Sword boy is on the planet for a reason.. he just doesn't know what it is.. YET.

Lots of dark street fights with guys unexpectedly getting filleted creatively.

RUSSAIN w ENG subtitles.. slick worth a watch.. This movie is outrageous, funny, ribald, sophisticated & hits the bullseye where 99 % of Hollywood movies don't even make the target. Paul Bartel should be recognized as one of the great directors of this or any era. He's the American Renoir & Bunuel _ combined!!! Glad I have the videodisc. Saw this movie on its release and have treasured it since. What a wonderful group of actors (I always find the casting one of the most interesting aspects of a film). Really enjoyed seeing dramatic actress Jacqueline Bisset in this role and Wallace Shawn is always a hoot. The script is smart, sly and tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at almost everything "Beverley Hills". Loved Paul Bartel's "doctor" and Ray Sharkey's manservant. This was raunchy and crude, but thank god! Unless you're a prude, I heartily recommend this movie. FYI for anyone who likes to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Mary Woronov & Paul Bartel were in "Rock & Roll High School". Mary Woronov and Robert Beltran were in "Night of the Comet" together. They were all three in "Eating Raoul". Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend!

Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long "missionary trip" to Africa.

Hilarious fun. One of the unsung gems of the 1980's, Scenes... features razor-sharp satire and outstanding performances from Arnetia Walker (how did she not get a ton of roles after this?)and Wallace Shawn. It's a delicious send-up of class warfare and the people in those classes. The writing is hilarious and the characters, while not subtle, are nuanced. And, sorry, but the Asian gangs (if you can call one Japanese guy extorting one of the other characters a "gang") were not put in for "sociological value" as another review implies they should been. The value here lies in what the movie is making fun of and in the sparklingly wicked way it does it. I found it creative, funny, and idiosyncratic. A long time ago, I watched this movie from the middle on cable. I then had a crush on Mary Moronov. I saw her again in Eating Raoul. I was convinced that she's the hottest woman on screen.

I maybe biased about this movie. 9 out of 10.

This's the only movie I own on original tape. It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!

It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all.

Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere? I was pretty young when this came out in the US, but I recorded it from TV and watched it over and over again until I had the whole thing memorized. To this day I still catch myself quoting it. The show itself was hilarious and had many famous characters, from Frank Sinatra, to Sylvester Stallone, to Mr. T. The voices were great, and sounded just like the characters they were portraying. The puppets were also well done, although a little creepy. I was surprised to find out just recently that it was written by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor of Red Dwarf, a show that I also enjoy very much. Like another person had written in a comment earlier, I too was robbed of this great show by a "friend" who borrowed it and never returned it. I sure wish there was enough demand for this show to warrant a DVD release, but I don't think enough people have heard of it. Oh well, maybe I'll try e-bay... I used to love watching this. I had no idea it was part of a larger series. I must have been 6 or so at the time it was on TV. I just thought it was funny and for some reason I had a deep fascination for something that was clear that was in the president's pile of bathtub toys. My parents had taped this off of TV when it originally aired on NBC. The tape even had the old Sanka coffee commercial along with a few others. I'm planning on returning home sometime soon and will try to record the tape onto my computer so that those who want a copy can do so. If anyone of you would like to contact me, I think you can do that through the IMDb site feel free. I will keep you updated and let you know when I have the show in a digital format. Master cinéaste Alain Resnais likes to work with those actors who are a part of his family.In this film too we see Resnais' family members like Pierre Arditi, Sabine Azema, André Dussolier and Fanny Ardant dealing with serious themes like death,religion,suicide,love and their overall implications on our daily lives.The formal nature of relationship shared by these people is evident as even friends, they address each other using a formal you.In 1984,while making L'amour à mort,Resnais dealt with time,memory and space to unravel the mysteries of a fundamental question of human existence :Is love stronger than death ? It was 16 years ago in 1968 that Resnais made a somewhat similar film Je t'aime Je t'aime which was also about love and memories.Message of this film is loud and clear :true and deep love can even put science to shame as dead lovers regain their lost lives leaving doctors to care for their reputation.L'amour à mort is like a game which is not at all didactic.It is a film in which the musical score is in perfect tandem with its images.This is one of the reasons why this film can easily be grasped. Alain Resnais films are uncanny in the way that they aren't really edited for continuity, but instead the shot seems to finish right where a memory has edited. Love unto Death is at times a quiet existential drama and a roundly creative magical realist movie, and either way treats the audience to a whole new aspect of the Eros/Thanatos relationship... or perhaps creates a new relationship, that of Agape/Thanatos.

The beginning is like a bizarre surrealist horror movie. A woman desperately runs around the house while a man lays dying in his bed--did she kill him, or what happened? Soon that tension is dissolved as a doctor arrives and pronounces him dead, but from there a newer, stranger drama begins: the man wakes up, and after being dead the woman and man fall in love to actually quite tragic consequences. Meanwhile, their friends, who are both priests, watch on and submit their own debate into the nature of love, faith, and devotion.

Resnais always seems to have some device to make these sorts of narratives work, and what's so amazing about his films is that those devices always work. In this case, Resnais intercuts the scenes with shots of snow falling to an arousing orchestral score, which fades off and bleeds into the subsequent shots that continue the story. Trapped in this elegiac aside periodically, the film develops a rhythm not too unlike an epic poem, and I got strange flashbacks to Dante's Divine Comedy from this one, despite the lack of direct reference within the movie. Resnais is known as a very poetic filmmaker but this extends past just the cinepoem structure to something that forces a degree of introspection in the viewer, which has the possibility to bring to surface some odd recollections. Memory-narrative, Resnais creates.

--PolarisDiB Perfect cast for a few-person drama. Simon is dead but somehow resurrects from outside. What he had seen there is displayed in form of blank spots orchestrated to a magnificent score by German avant-garde composer Werner Henze. Simon is haunted by his death, comforted by support of death people he'd seen on the other side. His girlfriend tries to hold him to life but failing to, decides to follow him after his finally occurring death. Very touchy and moving, deeply psychological, but a bit slow and somewhere even boring. A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after "Murder By The Book").

Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....

A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.

Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since "Murder By the Book" was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.

Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story. This was the second entry in the regular Columbo series, and it holds up well today. As I am able to look at it closely now on DVD and see how it is constructed, I am very impressed with the direction of Bernard L. Kowalski (who directed the fine MACHO CALLAHAN as well as countless TV episodes)--watch how the post-murder actions of the killer are shown on a split-screen effect on his two eyeglasses, watch how the murder itself is shown in montage fashion, watch the point-of-view shot from the perspective of the corpse. Also, the wild but impressive avant-garde musical score from noted jazzman Gil Melle was incredible and helped so much to create atmosphere. And the supporting performance of Brett Halsey as the golf pro was wonderful--such subtlety and complexity in a role that nine out of ten times would be a one-dimensional cutout. The "formula" had not yet been set when this episode was filmed, so there are still some surprises in Columbo's methods. Of course, Falk, Robert Culp, and Ray Milland are the highest-quality actors and it's a pleasure to see them work--all men are familiar from many other roles yet lose themselves in their characters here. In all, this entry in the Columbo series--and MANY of the others--are as well-crafted as a very good feature film. The second official episode of the "Columbo" series ("Murder by the Book," filmed later, hit the airwaves first). Robert Culp, who would match wits with Peter Falk's detective in several future installments, is terrific as the short-tempered head of a sophisticated private detective agency who murders a client's wife when she refuses to cave-in to his blackmail schemes. The two stars are well-matched in this clever cat and mouse exercise that is one of the best in the series. This was the first regular filmed Columbo movie episode but yet it aired as the second, after Steven Spielberg's "Columbo: Murder by the Book". It's also at the same time among one of the better ones!

Bernard L. Kowalski was one great creative director! No wonder that they later asked him to direct three more Columbo movies. The movie has some real creative and innovative shot sequences and the movie as a whole is also clearly made with style, passion and eye for detail. Every shot connects and is a reason why this movie is better and also better looking just any other average made for TV movie. It's definitely one of the better directed Columbo movies.

It's a quit original Columbo entry for a couple of reasons. The murder is more or less an accident and was an impulsive act. So the killer this time doesn't have any time to plan out the 'perfect murder' in advance and his to clean up any of the traces afterward and has to dispose the body. The killer in this movie is not only being handled as the man who committed the crime but more as the man who helps out Lieutenant Columbo to solve the murder. It makes the character a more interesting and layered one as well and also helps to make the way Columbo solves the whole crime seem way more interesting as well because of that. Of course Columbo starts to suspect him pretty early on and as always he comes to solution by making himself vulnerable and look more stupid than he of course truly is and by gaining the killer's trust. This is obviously no spoiler since this is the way every Columbo movie gets set-up. I liked the story of the movie and how it progressed.

It also helps the movie that it has such a fine cast. At the time of this movie Peter Falk had really made the Columbo character his own and the character at this was already fully developed. Robert Culp is truly great as the short tempered Brimmer. Funny thing is that he would later star in three different Columbo movies again and one "Mrs. Columbo" episode, only in totally different roles. He even played the murderer in a couple of those movies as well again. He by the way was not the only actor that did this in other later Columbo movies. Also the great Ray Milland makes an appearance in this movie, as the husband of the victim.

All in all, a real great early Columbo movie and among the better ones out of the long running series of movies.

9/10 This is one of the first and best Columbos, starring Robert Culp and Ray Milland. Robert Culp appeared on another Columbo, as did several other villains, including Patrick McGoohan, William Shatner, and Jack Cassidy. Ray Milland also made a later appearance.

In this one, Ray Milland is convinced his beautiful wife, played by Patricia Crowley, is having an affair, so he hires Culp to investigate. Culp has a blackmailing business on the side, so he gives Milland a fake report and threatens Crowley with the real one if she doesn't pay up. They get into a huge fight in Culp's home, and she winds up murdered. Enter Columbo.

Culp does everything he can to get Columbo off the case, including offering him a job, but Columbo is on to him from the beginning.

Excellent episode. "Death Lends A Hand" is one of the pivotal early episodes of "Columbo" that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.

In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.

There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the "lifeline going over the mound of the moon", or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.

Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.

And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).

I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved...

A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like "Double Exposure" too, also featuring Robert Culp. I am sad to say that I disagree with other people on this Columbo episode. Death Lends a Hand is frankly kind of a boring Columbo to me. After a few times, I get bored and changed the channel. I still love Robert Culp and Patricia Crowley and Ray Milland in their roles but the story was weaker in this episode than in the others. First, Robert Culp plays an investigator for Ray Milland's character. He hires him to investigate his young pretty wife played by Patricia Crowley to see if she is having an affair. In return, Culp's character blackmails the cheating wife who plans to expose his scheme to her husband ruining his career. Out of anger, Culp kills her by striking her in the face and setting the up the body elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe I just didn't care for this one at all. Of course, Columbo gets him in the end. It's just the question of how. This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers:

This short has a "story" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.

My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.

The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.

This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is a very lost player in the short cartoon market. This market is essentially dominated by the Looney Tunes and the Merry Melodies shorts, coming from Warner Bros. But MGM is also able of releasing hidden gems, like "To Spring", an astonishing story about the most beautiful season of the year.

In the environment depicted here, spring isn't caused by natural cycles, but is fabricated. And by who? By little male elves who live below ground. Each spring, when the snow begins to melt, they start working. They begin by felling rainbow rock columns, then reducing them to rubble and using this rubble to turn it into color fluids, which will be moved up to the ground and bearing grass, flowers... In other words, spring! The first half of the cartoon depicts spring's fabrication, but the second part is a little bit different. Old Man Winter comes back and he tries to extend winter by destroying the elves' work. So from this point, we assist to a battle between the elves and Old Man Winter.

The music heard here is deliciously wonderful. The melodic parts stick in the head like an ink spot on a paper sheet. The second part melodies are thrilling and they perfectly fit with the action. This is just fantastico, Giorgio! The animation sequences are also a delight. The colors are well mixed and every little detail is shown into a massive, epic environment. The concept itself is brilliant. The elves are attracting characters, so is Old Man Winter, who effectively portrays the cold and ruthless feelings of the white season.

There's also a strong message included here. The battle seems lost for the elves at the end, until a single late arriving elf jump into the action and it leads to the elves' victory over winter. So the point is: only one single person can make the difference.

In conclusion, "To Spring" is a remarkable lost classic from short cartoon era. What is even more remarkable is that this cartoon's director made his debut here. And who is "To Spring"'s director? It's a certain William Hanna... If you are a fan, then you will probably enjoy this. If you don't know who Misty Mundae, Darian Caine, Ruby LaRocca, or Seduction Cinema are, this is not the movie to start out with. It's very cute, silly, the girls are hot, and it's fun to watch. There's no sex whatsoever until the very end of the 45 minute film, but the score is cheesy-trippy and the plot's not a total bore. Misty Mundae's makeup is bad in this movie and her hair is in awkward braids, so she's not as hot in this as she has been in others. But her panties in this are quite cute (you'll just have to see the movie for that to not sound really weird). If you do like this one, you will probably enjoy "That 70's Girl", "Vampire Vixens", or "Erotic Survivor" (which is a bit more sexually graphic). If you prefer watching Misty or Esmerelda in less sexual, more horror/exploitation-based (but lower budget) movies, check out the Factory 2000 website. Butch the peacemaker? Evidently. After the violent beginning with Spike, Tom and Jerry all swinging away at each other, Butch calls a halt and wants to know why. It's a good question.

"Cats can get along with dogs, can't they?" he asks Tom, who nods his head in agreement. "Mice can get along with cats, right?" Jerry nods "no," and then sees that isn't the right answer.

They go inside and Butch draws up a "Peace Treaty" (complete with professional artwork!). Most of the rest, and the bulk of the cartoon, is the three of them being extremely nice to one another What a refreshing change-of-pace. I found it fun to watch. I can a million of these cartoons in which every beats each other over the head.

Anyway, you knew the peace wasn't going to last. A big piece of steak spells the death of the "peace treaty" but en route it was nice change and still had some of usual Tom & Jerry clever humor. This film seems to be well remembered as the time Tom & Jerry signed a peace treaty. Things are idyllic for a time but, predictably, it goes sour. Probably the most memorable moment was the endless fight involving a pipe, a frying pan, and a baseball bat that the two plus Butch the dog engage in at the beginning and end of the short. I enjoyed one a bunch and you should try to catch it on Cartoon Network. Tom the cat, Jerry the mouse, and Spike the Dog (here called Butch, his third name, his second being 'Killer') decide to sign a peace treaty to all love each other. It's weird and a bit unnatural seeing them all buddy buddy like this and their friend's seem to think so too. But by the end thanks to a disagreement over a steak, everything is back to normal and all is how it should be. This short is the second one of three on the new Spotlight DVD to be edited and I have no clue why this one was. This cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry"

My Grade: B Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.

It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed "Butch" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.

Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.

But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.

Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from "The Wizard of Oz" are played here in instrumental versions: "We're off to see the Wizard" and "Somewhere over the rainbow". Tis is a farly typical Tom and Jerry short-a situation is designed, conflict arises and mayhem ensues. The characters behave in appropriate ways, the natural tensions between various characters leads to general chaos. The best (and funniest) part is when the peace treaty is in force and respected-all sorts of strange wonders appear before your eyes. A word of warning-it is most unwise to allow Tom to help you perform your morning cleansing routine! Highly recommended. WWE has produced some of the worst pay-per-views in its history over the past few months. Cyber Sunday, Survivor Series and December to Dismember were appalling to say the least and so it was relying on its B brand show, Smackdown! to attempt to end the year on a high note. Armageddon had two major gimmick matches in the Last Ride and Inferno matches, three Championships were on the line and an interesting main event in the shape of a tag team war featuring Batista and John Cena against King Booker and Finlay. However, it was an amendment to one of those Championship matches that brought us not only the match of the night but also now a match of the year candidate when Teddy Long gave us fans an early Christmas present. T-Lo changed the WWE Tag Team Championship match from Champions, London and Kendrick against to Regal and Taylor to a four team Ladder match including MNM and The Hardy Boyz.

I am not going to dwell on this match too much as nothing I can say would be able to do it justice. This has to be seen to be believed. There were many high spots and many more brutal bumps and awkward landings. The one move I have to talk about however was the one that took Joey Mercury straight to the emergency room midway through the contest. Jeff Hardy jumped onto a ladder that was set up in the see saw position with Matt Hardy holding both members of MNM over the opposite end of it to take the full force. Unfortunately for Mercury he didn't get his hands up to protect his face and took the ladder full force in the nose and left eye. This was vicious. His face was instantly a mess for all to see and not surprisingly this ended Mercury's night early. We found out later he suffered a broken nose and cuts under his left eye. Be warned. This is not for the faint of heart. The ending to this roller-coaster of a match came after Paul London managed to grab both Championship belts for the victory. I have been watching wrestling for almost 15 years and it doesn't get any better than this match. Unbelievable.

The night opened with only the 4th ever Inferno match. Kane took on MVP in a good match but it was all about the visual and not really about the action. There were a few close calls with the flames for both competitors but in the end it was Kane who forced MVP onto the flames after they both ended up outside the ring. MVP ran around the ring whilst his butt was on fire and there was a sick part of me that laughed watching this. May I suggest to Michael Hayes that MVP comes out next week on Smackdown! to Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire.

The other gimmick match of the night, and the second match of a triple main event was an all out war Last Ride match between Mr Kennedy and The Undertaker. This was a stiff match from start to finish and was the best of the series Undertaker and Kennedy have had yet. The used poles, chairs and one scene had The Undertaker thrown 15 feet from the Armageddon set onto what was suppose to be the concrete floor. Unfortunately it was plain to see that this was nothing but a crash mat and crowd didn't pop for this. The ending came after a chokeslam by The Dead Man to Kennedy on top of the hearse followed quickly by a match-winning tombstone.

In other notable happening from the card. Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero by submission in another stiff match. This was a very good bout with Benoit hitting 8 German suplexes on Chavo at one time. Benoit was also considering whether to put Vikki Guerrero in the sharpshooter or not. Luckily he came to his senses and let her go. This led to Chavo attempting the roll up only for it to be countered into the sharpshooter for the submission.

Another cracking match on the card was the Cruiserweight Championship contest between the longest reigning Champion in WWE, Gregory Helms and Jimmy Wang Yang. Featuring a lot of high flying and dangerous spots, some of which took place outside the ring, this was a match much more deserving of the crowd response than what it got. JBL put it best when he berated the fans in Richmond, Virginia for sitting on their hands during this one and at one point even started a boring chant. Helms picked up the duke after a jawbreaker type manoeuvre with his knees to Smackdowns! resident redneck.

The Boogeyman pinned The Miz in a worthless match. I hate The Boogeyman with a passion. Only worth listening too for JBL's ranting about Miz. JBL is comedy gold.

The last match of the night was main event number 3. World Heavyweight Champion, Batista and WWE Champion, John Cena teamed up to take on Finlay and the Champion of Champions, King Booker. There was no way the match could top the Tag Team Championship match from earlier on but it entertained none the less. The match would have been more memorable had it been given an extra five to ten minutes but how many times have I said that about WWE matches this year already. It was King Booker who was pinned at the end of the match after a big Batistabomb.

So 2006 is over for the WWE in regards to it's pay-per-view schedule. It started the year on a terrible note with New Year's Revolution but ended on a high one with Armageddon. This Ladder match will long be remembered as one of the greatest ladder matches of all time. My hat is off to all eight competitors who but their bodies on the line to give the fans one hell of a match. WWE's last PPV of 2006, proved to be a hit with the fans, but for one reason only, the ladder match which was only scheduled to be Paul London and Brian Kendrick against William Regal and Dave Taylor. But with the recent crap PPV being December to Dismember, WWE knew that it had to do something to get the fans talking again, this proved useful when it introduced MNM and The Hardy Boyz to the mix and announced that the match was going to be a ladder match.

The match was brutal and one of the best ladder matches I have ever seen, but Joey Mercury's face was a total mess. Johnny Nitro didn't even check on his partner, they just carried on like nothing happened, and Taylor and Regal did nothing during the match except hit people with a few ladder shots. In the end London and Kendrick retained the titles.

Elsewhere on the show Kane defeated MVP in a decent inferno match when he set MVP's stupid costume on fire. Chris Benoit downed Chavo Guerrero in a decent match, Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the WWE Cruiserweight Title in a solid effort.

But the main event was a total mess, King Booker teamed with Finlay to take on John Cena and Batista. The action was shoddy and no one cared who Batista picked for his partner.

Overall Results: Kane defeated MVP in an inferno match.

Paul London and Brian Kendrick retained the WWE Tag team titles against The Hardy Boyz, MNM and David Taylor and William Regal in a ladder match.

Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero to retain the US title in a decent match.

Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the Cruiserweight Championship.

The Boogeyman beat The Miz in a terrible match.

The Undertaker defeated Mr Kennedy in a last ride match.

John Cena and Batista defeated King Booker and Finlay in an abysmal match.

Overall Grade - B Armageddon PPV

The last PPV of 2006

Smackdown brand.

Match Results Ahead********

We are starting the show with The Inferno match. Kane v. MVP. This was an okay match. Nothing about wrestling here. This was about the visuals. Overall, this was not bad. There were a few close spots here with Kane getting too close to the fire, but in the end, Kane won with ramming MVP into the fire back first.

Nice opener. Let's continue.

Teddy Long announces a new match for the tag team titles: London and Kendrick will defend against: Regal and Taylor, The Hardyz, and MNM IN A LADDER MATCH!!!! Let's get moving!

Match two: Fatal four way ladder match. This was total carnage. Judging by three out of the four teams here, you would expect chaos. The spots were amazing. A total spot-fest. One point Jeff went for Poetry in Motion and London moved and Jeff hit the ladder! Shortly afterword, Jeff is set on the top rope with two ladders nearby as MNM were going to kill Jeff, Matt makes the save and Jeff hits the "see-saw" shot to Joey Mercury! Mercury is hurt. His eye is shut quickly and is busted open hard way. Mercury is taken out of the match and Nitro is still there. He is going to fight alone for the titles! Regal and Taylor then grab London and suplex him face-first into the ladder! Jeff climbs the ladder and Nitro in a killer spot, dropkicks through the ladder to nail Jeff! Awesome! In the end, London and Kendrick retain the tag team titles. What a match!!!

This was insane. I can't figure out why WWE did not announce this till now. The Buyrate would increase huge. I'm sure the replay value will be good though.

Mercury has suffered a shattered nose and lacerations to the eye. He is at the hospital now. Get well kid.

No way anything else here will top that.

Next up: The Miz v. Boogeyman.(Ugh) This was a nothing match. Will the Boogeyman ever wrestle? The Miz sucks too. After a insane crowd, this kills them dead. DUD.

Chris Benoit v. Chavo. This was a strong match. I enjoyed it. Chavo hit a killer superplex at one point! Benoit hit EIGHT German suplexes too! Benoit wins with the sharpshooter. Good stuff.

Helms v. Yang-Cruiserweight title championship match. This was a good match. Unfortunately, the stupid fans did not care for this. WHY? Helms and Yang are very talented and wrestled well. I agree with JBL. He ranted to the crowd. JBL is 100% correct. Learn to appreciate this or get out.

Mr. Kennedy v. The Undertaker-Last Ride match. Not too much here. This was a slug fest, with a few exceptions. Kennedy at one point tossed Taker off the top of the stage to the floor. The spot was fine. Reaction was disappointing. The end spot was Taker tomb-stoned Kennedy on the hearse and won the match. Unreal. Kennedy needed this win. They both worker hard. Still, Kennedy needed this win. Undertaker should have lost. Creative screwed up again.

A stupid diva thing is next. I like women. Not this. At least Torrie was not here. That's refreshing. Judging from the crowd, Layla should have won. The WWE wanted Ashley. Consider this your bathroom break. Next.

Main Event: Cena & Batista v. Finlay & Booker T. This was also a nothing match. The focus was Cena v. Finlay and Batista v. Booker. Batista and Booker can't work well together. Finlay tries to make Cena look good. The finish was botched. Finlay hit Batista's knee with a chair shot and Batista no-sold the shot and finished the match. Lame. Not main event caliber at all.

Overall, Armageddon would have scored less, but the ladder match WAS the main event here. That was enough money's worth right there. A few others were solid.

The Last Word: A good PPV with the ladder match being the savior. Smackdown is not a bad show just is not compelling enough. Smackdown needs to stop letting Cena tag along. Let Smackdown stand on their own two legs. This show proves that Smackdown can. WWE Armageddon, December 17, 2006 -- Live from Richmond Coliseum, Richmond, VA

Kane vs. MVP in an Inferno match: So this is the fourth ever inferno match in the WWE and it is Kane vs. MVP (wonder why was it the first match on the card). I only viewed the ending parts where Kane sets MVP's ass on fire as they're on the apron and then MVP is running around the arena while yelling – eventually the refs put out the fire with a fire extinguisher as MVP sprawls around the entrance ramp. Funny and visually quite entertaining ending. 7/10

WWE Tag Team Championship: This was originally supposed to be William Regal & Dave Taylor vs. Brian Kendrick & Paul London (c) in a regular tag team match. However, GM Teddy Long comes to the ring and announces that it's going to be a Fatal 4-way tag team ladder match. MNM and The Hardys are thrown in and it's all chaos. One word to describe this eye-opener – wow. Man, I really can't remember how many sick spots there were in this match and words can't really do it justice. There was one particularly notable spot where The Hardys set up a ladder in a see-saw position and Jeff jumped off the top rope while Matt held MNM for the kill, and then WHAM! Nitro blew away while Mercury apparently botched it and was bleeding like hell with lacerations over his face. He had to be taken away and Nitro continued the match alone. Another spot was when Jeff powerbombed London while FLIPPING off the ladder. There were other high-flying breathtaking spots too many to remember. London finally unbuckles the belts to win this rave show-stealer. 8.5/10

The Boogeyman vs. The Miz: The two men get thrown in and around the ring until Boogeyman explodes a sit-out powerbomb for the victory and then and drools worms over The Miz's mouth as usual. 5.5/10 for this three-minute incognito.

United States championship: Chris Benoit (c) faces off Chavo Guerrero in yet another typical Guerrero match. Some good spots included a superplex off the top rope by Chavo and an unusually long chain of German suplexes by Benoit. Vicki Guerrero comes in the ring with the belt to nail Benoit but Benoit scares her off and takes a long time deciding whether to put her in a Sharpshooter or not. This allows Chavo to go for a roll-up but Benoit rolls it up once more and Chavo is locked in the Sharpshooter. Game over. Nice hard-fought battle albeit slow at times. 7/10

WWE Cruiserweight championship: Gregory Helms (c) vs. Jimmy Wang Yang for this one, in a fairly moderate-paced match. The match had some good high-flying spots – most notably Helms' moves off the top rope – but the crowd didn't seem to be into it after witnessing the ladder match, and Yang needs to get more airborne. Helms won the match after blowing Yang away with a facebuster on the knee. 7.5/10

The Undertaker vs. Mr. Kennedy in a Last Ride match: After a series of matches between these two, this time it is a Last Ride match, the second ever of its kind and the winner has to escort his opponent out of the arena in a hearse. Pretty good indeed for what these two could offer. Kennedy manhandled a good deal of Taker and even broke free of a chokeslam to throw Taker off the Armageddon set about 15 feet below; and thank God for Kennedy, otherwise it would've been brutal. Kennedy almost got the win until Taker got back up inside the hearse (I liked the camera view inside the hearse). Taker then missed a steel pipe hurl on Kennedy and broke the hearse's window instead, but then later busted Kennedy open with a chair, and followed with a consecutive chokeslam and Tombstone on the hearse's roof. Kennedy was unconscious and Taker drove him out of the arena to win. I actually found myself really interested into these guys' willingness to take/give real sick shots. 7.5/10

Santa comes into the ring, I go "what the hell?" like many of the kids in the crowd, and then the word "lingerie contest" gets in my ear. Break time.

Batista & John Cena vs. Finlay & King Booker: talk about charisma vs. technicality. This match was actually a quite good main event with the momentum rationally shifting from one team to the other and retaining good suspense. Even Finlay got some legitimate good shots on his opponents this time (I kind of doubted his strength against the champs), and him and Booker mainly didn't succeed in trying to cheat — except at one point where Booker rammed his scepter into Cena's throat. Batista hits the Bomb on Booker for the win, didn't get to see the F-U; Cena performed the 5 Knuckle Shuffle anyhow and I think he also did the STFU. This was probably the best technical match of the night and the participants did superbly indeed for what they could without a ladder 7.5/10.

Being an on-and-off WWE fan, I have to agree that Armageddon was laced up with numerous eye-catchers throughout, and the ladder match ultimately swallowed half of the show; the Last Ride match featured some fairly nerve-wrenching spots, and the main event also did very well for its category. All other matches also lived up to their billing except perhaps the Boogeyman vs. The Miz bout and the ever-useless lingerie contest. Overall Armageddon was a highly enjoyable pay-per-view and despite some big setbacks earlier in the PPV chronology, Armageddon wishes this year's goodbye respectably. PPV rating: 8/10. If, unlike some of the commenters here, you are not staging a class war and don't mind seeing the lives of other people who are fairly successful, extroverted, bohemian (gasp) and not being terribly English at a party and getting into all sorts of trouble as a result this is not a bad film, closer to Euro cinema rather than an imitation of the usual slick American crap... I believe the minimal sound design and cheap camera is a conscious decision rather than bad film making, I'd defend this, the film isn't any worse as a result, and it puts the spotlight on the cast, some of whom are really good (Kate Hardie- think that's her name, as the sarcastic drunk is spot-on) the one exception being David Baddiel, who should never be allowed to appear in serious stuff!! It's light, and we don't go for this kind of anatomising-of-relationship crap in this country, but if you don't have any real friends to go to a party with than you could do worse than to sit in and watch this. I had never heard of Leos Carax until his Merde segment in last years Tokyo, and his was easily the stand-out the film's three stories. It wasn't my favorite of the shorts, but it was the most unique, and the most iconic. "The Lovers on the Bridge" was the first of his full length features I've seen, a virtuoso romantic film that uses image and music to communicate an exuberant young love that overflows into the poetic. Though he's classified as a neo-nouvelle vogue, his films owe as much to silent cinema as the 60's experimental narratives. His movies are closer to Jean Vigo in "L'atlante", Jean Cocteau, and Guy Maddin, than Godard and Truffaut.

In Boy Meets Girl Carax's 1984 debut he uses black and white and the heavy reliance on visual representation to display emotional states. He combines the exaggerated worlds of Maddin, but based in a reality that never seems quite stable like Cocteau, but by virtue of its expressions it becomes more accessible, emotional, and engaging like Vigo's movies.

The story of Boy Meets Girl is simple, and similar to Carax's two following films which comprise this "Young lovers" trilogy. A boy named Alex played by Denis Lavant (who plays a character named Alex in Carax's next two movies), has just been dumped by his girlfriend who has fallen in love with his best friend. In the first scene he nearly kills his friend on a boardwalk but stops short of murder. He walks around reminded of her by sounds of his neighbors having sex, and daydreams of his girlfriend and best friend getting intimate. He steals records for her and leaves them at his friend's apartment, but avoids contacting either of them directly. He wanders around and finds his way to a party, where he meets a suicidal young woman, and the film becomes part "Breathless" and part "Limelight".

Later he is advised by an old man with sign language to "speak up for yourself...young people today It's like they forgot how to talk." The old man gives an anecdote about working in the days of silent film, and how an actor timid off stage became a confident "lion" when in front of the camera. Heres where the movie tips its hand, but the overt reference to silent film is a crucial scene, since it overlaps the style of the film (silent and expressionist), with the content (a lovelorn young man trying to work up the courage to say and do the things he really wants to). Though Alex is pensive at first and a torrent of romantic words tumbling out of him by the end, he is the shy actor who becomes a lion thanks to the films magnification of his inward feelings which aren't easy to nail down from moment to moment, aside from a desire to fall in love.

There is a scene in the film where Alex retreats from the party into a room where the guests have stashed their children and babies, all crying in a chorus that fills that room, until he turns on a tape of a children's show making them fall silent. Unexpectedly due a glitch the TV ends up playing a secret bathroom camera which reveals the hostess sobbing to herself into her wig about someone she misses. Even as Carax is self-reflexive and self deprecating of the very kind of angst ridden coming of age tale he is trying to tell (the room full of whining infants), he's mature enough to see through the initial irony to the lovelorn in everything the film crosses. Even the rich old, bell of the ball has a brother she misses. In another scene an ex astronaut stares at the moon he once walked on in his youth while sipping a cocktail in silence.

Though indebted to films before talkies, Carax is a master of music, knowing when to pipe in the Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia", or an early David Bowie song, the sounds of a man playing piano, or of a girl softly humming.

In Boy Meets Girl, when someone gets their heart broken we see blood pour from their shirt, when a couple kiss on the sidewalk they spin 360 degrees as if attached to a carousel, when Alex enters a party an feels out of place, its because the most interesting people in the world really are in attendance; like the famous author who can't speak because of a bullet lodged in his brain, or the miss universe of 1950 standing just across from the astronaut. This film is the missing link between Jean Piere Jenuet, Michel Gondry, and Wes Anderson, whose stylistic flourishes and quirky tales of whimsy, all have a parallel with different visuals, musical, and emotional cues in these Carax movies.

Every line of dialog, every piece of music and every effect and edit in this movie resonated with me on some emotional level, some I lack words to articulate. There are many tales of a boy meeting a girl, but rather than just explore the banal details of any particular event this movie captures the ecstatic truth of adolescent passion and disappointment. The other movies you want to watch can wait. See this first. If I were to make films, I would want them to be like this, in fact I wish all films were like this, where the ephemeral becomes larger than life, and life itself becomes a dream. Although I'm grateful this obscure gem of 70's Italian exploitation cinema features in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience" box set, and although it's also available on disc under the misleading and stupid alternate title "Escape from Death Row", I honestly think it deserves a proper and luxurious DVD edition, completely in its originally spoken languages with subtitle options (the dubbing is truly horrible), restored picture quality and a truckload of special bonus features! Heck, I don't even need the restored picture quality and bonus features if only we could watch the film in its original language. "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony" is a cheerfully fast-paced mafia/crime flick with a lot of violence, comedy (which, admittedly, doesn't always work), feminine beauty and two witty main characters. Tony Lo Bianco is terrific as the small thug pretending to be the city's biggest Don. When the real crime lord Frankie Dio (Lee Van Cleef) arrives in town, he sees an opportunity to climb up the ladder by offering his services. Frankie initially ignores the little crook, but they do eventually form an unlikely team when Frankie's entire criminal empire turns against him and a new French criminal mastermind even assassinates Frankie's innocent brother. Tony helps Frankie to escape from prison and together they head for Marseille to extract Frankie's revenge. The script of this sadly neglected crime gem funnily alters gritty action & suspense with light-headed bits of comedy, like the grotesque car chase through the narrow French mountain roads for example. The build up towards the typical mafia execution sequences (guided by an excellent Riz Ortolani score) are extremely tense and the actual killings are sadistic and merciless, which is probably why the film is considered to be somewhat of a grindhouse classic. The film lacks a strong female lead, as the lovely and amazingly voluptuous beauty Edwige Fenech sadly just appears in a couple of scenes, and then still in the background. On of the men behind the camera, responsible for the superb cinematography, was no less then Joe D'Amato. Great film, highly recommended to fans of Italian exploitation, and I hope to watch it again soon in its original version. Frankie Dio (Lee VanCleef) is a high-ranking mobster who turns himself in to the police or illegal gambling (for reasons that seem unclear to me). Tony (Tony Lo Bianco) is a low-level thug who frequents a pool hall and spends his free time envying Frankie. By being in the right place at the right time, Tony gets arrested with Frankie and is sent to jail... where they form a bond that may not quite be friendship, but it will do for now.

This film came to me under the title of "Frank and Tony", which is disappointing because I see an alternate name is "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony", which would have helped sell the film more effectively. I presume that's an homage to "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" but what do I know? I watched it shortly after another Italian crime film, "Violent Professionals", and I must say the two complement each other very well.

Italians have always lagged behind Americans in their budgets and production values, which is a real shame with this film. It is considered a "grindhouse" film, which unfairly demotes it to a b-movie (or worse). With a cleaner sound and picture, this could have been a Hollywood hit, I suspect. I found the story very interesting, the characters (and actors) better than average and unlike "Violent Professionals" the plot is fairly clear -- not too many secondary characters.

If you like Mafia movies or crime films you should give this one a try. A film about the mob that's actually from Italy (how much more authentic do you want?) is as much as you can ask. Sure, it's not "The Godfather", but it's not supposed to be. This isn't a drama, it's a light comedy, heavy action buddy film... like "Die Hard With a Vengeance" from the point of view of the bad guys. Well, okay, not really.

If nothing else, this film made me want to check out other films from the director and the principle cast. Films besides "Escape From New York" (where VanCleef plays "Hauk") and the usual cult movies. What's more fun than discovering a lost classic? I scooped up this title by accident with the Grindhouse Vol. 1 collection of pure Euro-trash movies. But this movie has a nice stamp of approval and should deserve a better transfer than what is out there. Stupednous it is not... satisfying it is! Watching this movie I couldn't help to wonder... how come Sergio Martino didn't make this flick? This has his signature all over it and punctuated by Edwedge Fenech (alas not as well known as she should be but she did get a nice cameo in Hostel II). Double-crosses and triple-crosses underly and cement this film from beginning to end with Lee Van Cleef oozing coolness under pressure from the 1st second. Did this guy have to go to Italy to finally reach his potential or did the studio system let this guy slip through? Besides Lee's more recognizable films, film-goers should try this on for size and see how if Sergio Leone would've lowered his epic scale down on Once Upon a Time in America to half the running time (and 1/4 of the budget) this is what it would've turned out to be like. So refreshing, it should be taken in during the day at home and make it for an couch matinée Steely, powerful gangster supreme Frankie Diomede (the always terrific Lee Van Cleef in fine rugged form) has himself arrested and sent to prison so he can rub out a traitorous partner sans detection. Fawning goofball small-time hood and wiseguy wannabe Tony Breda (an amiable portrayal by Tony Lo Bianco) gets busted as well. Frank and Tony form an unlikely friendship behind bars. Tony helps Frank break out of the joint and assists him on his quest to exact revenge on a rival group of mobsters lead by the ruthless Louis Annunziata (smoothly played by Jean Rochefort). Director Michele Lupo, working from an absorbing script by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, relates the neat story at a constant brisk pace, sustains a suitably gritty, but occasionally lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the rousing action set pieces with considerable rip-snorting brio (a rough'n'tumble jailhouse shower brawl and a protracted mondo destructo car chase rate as the definite thrilling highlights). Van Cleef and Lo Bianco display a nice, loose and engaging on-screen chemistry; the relationship between their characters is alternately funny and touching. The ravishing Edwige Fenech alas isn't given much to do as Tony's whiny girlfriend Orchidea, but at least gets to bare her insanely gorgeous and voluptuous body in a much-appreciated gratuitous nude shower scene. Riz Ortolani's groovy, pulsating, syncopated funk/jazz score certainly hits the soulfully swingin' spot. The polished cinematography by Joe D'Amato and Aldo Tonti is likewise impressive. A really nifty and entertaining little winner. "Rich in Love" is a slice-of-life film which takes the viewer into the goings on of a somewhat quirky Charleston, SC family. Highly romanticized, beautifully shot, well written and acted, "RIL" washes over you like a summer breeze as its plotless meandering breathes life into the characters such that at film's end you'll feel like an old friend of the family.

A wonderfully crafted character-driven film from the director of "Driving Miss Daisy", "RIL" is a somewhat obscure little "sleeper" which will appeal most to mature audiences. I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.

I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take.

I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.

One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick. I have enjoyed Criminal Intent series of Law and Order for a long time. Kathryn Erbe, Det. Alexandra Eames, the female detective is rather hard and seems a bit bitter in the Criminal Intent Series. See her other side in this movie.

This movie shows the marvelous soft side of this talented actresses and if you are a Criminal Intent fan this movie is a revelry in her acting and you get a pretty darn good yarn of family hardships in the South.

I did not like Albert Finneys role in this movie because he did such a convincing acting job of the older Southern fellow that is hard headed and intolerant and unaccepting of change. He reminds me of so many men from my youth and the portrayal is divine, but you will likely find him hard to like in this movie.

Katryn Erbe is easy to like in this movie and why I recommend it as a 10 star for Criminal Intent, law and order fans. This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being "people of color" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction. In a way, this film reminded me of "Jumping Jack Flash". Remember Whoopi Goldberg at the shredding machine? Whoopi zonked out tranquilizers? Whoopi as Blind Lemon and imitating Mick Jagger? Great moments captured on film for sure but the movie still kind of sucks, right? That's how I feel about "Rich In Love". A man hears his wife sing for the first time. Post-coital teenagers talk about the nature of love. Albert Finney eats ice cream out of bucket and, in another scene, has a lovely waking moment regarding his absent wife. Alfre Woodard adds another colorful character to her acting wardrobe. But there's only the whisper of a plot here and you can't wait for it to Get Moving. Only when ex-Go-Gos' Charlotte Caffey's The Graces revs up a great pop song does the picture wake up...and then it's over!

This picture is the equivalent of a lazy summer's day in the deep American South. It's a road movie, with a killer on-board. Brian Kessler (David Duchovny), a sophisticated, urbane writer, wants to conduct field research on American serial killers. But, neither he, nor his girlfriend, Carrie (Michelle Forbes), has the money for a cross-country tour of murder sites, so they advertise for someone to share travel expenses. Who they end up with is a young couple, Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his girlfriend, Adele (Juliette Lewis), two better examples of "poor white trash" you will never find in all of cinema.

Indeed, Early and Adele are what make this film so entertaining, as they babble, cackle, confide, muse, speculate, drool, and otherwise behave in ways I haven't seen since reruns of "The Beverly Hillbillies". Early's idea of California: "People think faster out there, on account of all that warm weather; cold weather makes people stupid". That's enough to convince Adele: "I guess that explains why there are so many stupid people around here". To which Early responds proudly: "It sure does". Early continues to instruct Adele about California: "You never have to buy no fruit, on account it's all on the trees ... and they ain't got no speed limits, and I hear your first month's rent is free, state law".

But poor Early has some, well, mental problems, which become ever more obvious to Brian and Carrie as the four travelers proceed west across the U.S. As they enter the desert Southwest, with its beautifully stark landscape, "Kalifornia" starts to look more and more like "The Hitcher" (1986), and Early starts to act more and more like John Ryder, everyone's maniacal hitchhiker, whose terror seemed so unstoppable.

In "Kalifornia", the acting is uneven. Duchovny's performance is flat. Brad Pitt is surprisingly effective, despite his overacting at times. Michelle Forbes is great as the avant-garde, photographic artist. But my choice for best performance goes to Juliette Lewis. With her nasal voice and heavy-duty Southern accent, she is stunning, as the naive, highly animated, child-like Adele.

Toward the end, the film takes on a Twilight Zone feel to it, as our travelers enter a Nevada nuclear test site with a dilapidated old house full of test mannequins. The plot dissolves rather messily into unnecessary and preposterous violence, an ending that was somewhat disappointing.

Overall, however, "Kalifornia" is an entertaining film, thanks to a clever concept, great scenery, especially in the second half, good cinematography, great dialogue, and that wonderful performance by Juliette Lewis. it's amazing that so many people that i know haven't seen this little gem. everybody i have turned on to it have come back with the same reaction: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!

i've never much cared for Brad Pitt (though his turns in 12 monkeys and Fight Club show improvement) but his performance in this film as a psycho is unnerving, dark and right on target.

everyone else in the film gives excellent performances and the movie's slow and deliberate pacing greatly enhance the proceedings. the sense of dread for the characters keeps increasing as they come to realize what has been really happening.

the only thing that keeps this from a 10 in my book, is that compared to what came before it, the ending is a bit too long and overblown. but that's the only flaw i could find in this cult classic.

if you check this film out, try to get the letterboxed unrated director's cut for the best viewing option.

rating:9 In the same vein as Natural Born Killers, another movie that was not so popular with critics because of its excessive violence but that I also loved, Kalifornia is a movie that clearly glamorizes violence, but I like to think that it turns that around in the final act. Kind of like how The Basketball Diaries glamorizes drugs at first, but shows the bad side by the end of the movie, which is far worse than the good side is good. David Duchovny plays Brian Kessler, an artistic yuppie with an even more artistically yuppie girlfriend, who is into that violent sexy black and white photography generally reserved for, I don't know where, places where nudity passes for art. Maybe it really does and I just don't understand it. At any rate, Brian and Carrie (Duchovny and Michelle Forbes, who fits the role flawlessly), make the perfect couple to go on a documentary tour of famous murder sites. Brian, the writer, will write the book, Carrie can take the pictures.

Being artistic types, Brian and Carrie are not quite financially prepared for such a trip, so they put out an ad for someone to share gas and travel expenses, and are contacted by Early Grace and Adele Corners (Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis). Early is on parole and assigned to janitorial work at the local university by his parole officer, sees the ad on a bulletin board, and decides to leave the state for a while, violating his parole but also leaving the scene of his landlord's murder so he won't have to deal with a pesky murder investigation. Two birds with one stone, you know.

The movie has a curious ability to portray two stereotypes, the artsy yuppies and the greasy trailer trash, without resorting to clichés or even ending up with caricatures of either type. Brian and Carrie are artsy liberals, but while Carrie catches on to Early and Adele, Brian is fascinated with Early's status as an outlaw, as seen in the scene where Brian shoots Early's gun. Never having fired a gun before, he's as fascinated as a little kid. While Adele and Carrie are back at a hotel and Adele reveals such things in her childlike way as the fact that Early "broke her" of smoking and that she's not allowed to drink (Early doesn't think women should), Early and Brian are out at the local bar. Brian reacts nervously to a drunk trying to start a fight with him, and Early first gives advice to Brian on what to do and then steps in and dishes out a quick lesson for the guy. "Hit him, Bri, it's comin'." This is one of my favorite scenes in the movie, partly because it's so funny what Early gleefully says as the guy's friends drag him away, bloodied and battered, but also because as it is intercut with the girls back at the hotel, we learn so much all at once about the two couples, their differences, and the conflicts that are likely to come up because of them. And besides that, because Brian benefited from Early's actions and Carrie is appalled by what she hears from Adele, it also illustrates the different way that Carrie and Brian react to Early and Adele.

Clearly, by now, you can tell that this is not your typical odd couple type of thriller, where the city folk run into the country folk and all sorts of stereotypical mayhem ensues. On one hand it seems a little too convenient that Brian and Carrie go on a tour of murder sites and just happen to be accompanied by a real life murderer, but on the other hand it's a great way to counteract the glorifying of murder that is inherent within a cross-country trip designed to bring fame to murderers and their crimes. While studying the actions of past murderers, Brian and Carrie ultimately find themselves face to face with the very material that they are studying, and realize that murder is not as pretty or morbidly fascinating when it's in your face as it is through disconnected studies of murders past.

I am constantly amazed at Brad Pitt's versatility as an actor. Consider, for example, his roles in movies like Kalifornia, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club, and Ocean's 11 and 12. Pitt is like Tom Hanks in that he can change his appearance drastically or just enough to fit a given character, and is completely believable. Incidentally, I tried in vain to be Early Grace for Halloween this year, but just couldn't get the hair and beard right. I even got the hat right, which initially I thought would be the hardest part.

It's easy to understand why a lot of people disliked Kalifornia or why they think that it glorifies violence and murder, but I think that whatever glorifying it does is done with the intention of clarifying the audience's understanding of its subject matter. A film that didn't glorify violence, at least initially, could never be as effective as Kalifornia, but the movie structures it perfectly. The glorification is all embodied in Brian's and Carrie's fascination with the idea of murder and the auras of the places in which is happened, but their realization, and ours, is embodied in the real thing, which they encounter with Early and Adele. The movie's very purpose is to describe that difference between idealizing violence and seeing the horror of it up close and for real. "Kalifornia" is one of my all-time favourite movies, and it easily could be labeled as one of the best psychological thrillers of the 90`s. The film has a very stylish surface to it, but behind that are a lot of disturbing and honest depictions of homicidal maniacs and the terrifyng violence they inflict upon others. One of the film`s strongest aspects is it`s performances, Brad Pitt is startlingly great as a trailer-trash psycho named Early. Pitt potrays his frightening character almost flawlessly. Juliette Lewis is equally as good playing his naive girlfriend, her innocence is almost heart-breaking. "Kalifornia" has a very simple plot to it, that goes steadily and slowly forward for about an hour, but it suddenly plunges into a harrowing spree of murder, as Pitt unleashes his psychotic personality. There are alot of shocking scenes, and it all mounts to a power-house climax that will haunt you for days. "Kalifonia" is a film that should really be watched for it`s intense look at how monstrous a human being can be, and not only for it`s violence and gore. it's amazing that so many people that i know haven't seen this little gem. everybody i have turned on to it have come back with the same reaction: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!

i've never much cared for Brad Pitt (though his turns in 12 monkeys and Fight Club show improvement) but his performance in this film as a psycho is unnerving, dark and right on target.

everyone else in the film gives excellent performances and the movie's slow and deliberate pacing greatly enhance the proceedings. the sense of dread for the characters keeps increasing as they come to realize what has been really happening.

the only thing that keeps this from a 10 in my book, is that compared to what came before it, the ending is a bit too long and overblown. but that's the only flaw i could find in this cult classic.

if you check this film out, try to get the letterboxed unrated director's cut for the best viewing option.

rating:9 I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven". I had seen 'Kalifornia' before (must be about 10 years ago) and I still remember to be very impressed by it. That's why I wanted to see it again and all I can say is that it still hasn't lost its power, even though I'm used to a lot more when it comes to movies than that I was ten years ago.

'Kalifornia' tells the tale of the writer Brian Kessler and his girlfriend Carrie Laughlin, a photographer, who want to move to California. But instead of stepping on a plain and flying right to the state where they say it never rains, they choose to make a trip by car. He wants to write a book about America's most famous serial killers and she will make the matching pictures. But because their car uses an enormous amount of petrol, they decide to take another couple with them, so they can spread the costs of the trip. Only one couple has answered the add, so they will automatically be the lucky ones. But they haven't met each other yet and when seeing the other couple for the first time, when their trip has already started, Carrie is shocked. Without wanting to be prejudiced, she can only conclude that Early Grayce and Adele Corners are poor white trailer park trash. She definitely doesn't want them in her car, but Brian doesn't really mind to take them with them and decides to stop and pick them up anyway. At first the couple doesn't seem to be that bad after all, but gradually Early Grayce changes from a trashy hillbilly into a remorseless murderer...

Not only is the story very impressive, so is the acting from our four leads. Brad Pitt is incredible as Early Grayce. His performance in this movie may well be his best ever. The same for Juliette Lewis. She plays the childish and naive girlfriend that doesn't want to hear a bad word about her Early and does that really very well. But David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes are a surprise as well. They both did a very good job and I really wonder why we never heard anything from Forbes again since this movie, because she really proves to have a lot of talent.

Overall this is a very good and impressive psychological thriller with a very powerful story, but because of the graphic violence, I can imagine that it may not be to everybody's taste (although I don't really see another way how to portray a serial killer in a believable way). Personally I really liked this movie a lot and the violence never bothered me (it's a part of the story that's too important to be left out). I reward this movie with an 8/10. Kalifornia came out in 1993, just as 3 of the 4 lead characters were up and coming to the levels of fame they now possess in 2006. This is a nice psycho-thriller that should appeal to all David Duchovny fans because of his dry and intelligent narratives that find their ways into his work, like with most of his episodes of the X-Files, Playing God, and Red Shoe Diaries.

People who were put off by the heavy southern accent from Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis' characters obviously have never spent much time in the south. For every "Brian and Carrie" in the south, there is an "Adele and Early" and in 2006, that's the real horror of this flick.

Aside from that, I think the film was written with a cult film intention - like with Carrie's photography, it's not suitable for mass consumption. But if you have a copy of this in your personal library, I think it says something positive about your tastes for freaky movies. Kalifornia is the story of a writer and his girlfriend photographer who are looking for someone to help pay gas money and take turns at the wheel for a cross country road trip to famous murder sights. Ironically a serial killer and his girlfriend answer the post. Kalifornia is a diamond in the rough and a very intriguing journey with a serial killer. Great performances all around by the leads with Pitt in particular being exceptional. Check it out!! I bought this a while ago but somehow neglected to watch it until last night. I do like Juliette Lewis although I'm indifferent to Brad Pitt. After this viewing I have to admit he's a perfectly fine actor - his character was entirely believable, and I didn't think "Brad Pitt" at all.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for David Duchovny. I'm an X-Files fan and I had to look twice to confirm the date of this movie, as I'd thought it was made a few years later. I like Duchovny but found his character a little two-dimensional here, except where he's doing voice-overs. That part was strong, seemed in character, good intonation, etc. Otherwise I kept thinking "Agent Mulder", which is a pity.

Michelle Forbes was a treat. Why haven't I noticed her before? (I'll be looking up to see what other roles she's done and seeing those asap) I am slightly concerned about stereotyping re Lewis, this film, and "Natural Born Killers" (a firm favourite). Interesting though to see a contrast of characters - in NBK she's a willing accomplice, whereas here she abhors the violence and tries very hard not to acknowledge Early's dark side until it's thrust in her face.

I enjoyed this film almost unreservedly. Apart from Duchovny's character not seeming fully-formed (and perhaps being "washed out" somewhat by Pitt's), it was perfect. I was also pleased with the ending - glad that the innocent heroes did not die, yet they had to suffer first. It was realistic, tense, disturbing.

If you like NBK you may well like this movie, and vice-versa. Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with! If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.

A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.

Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again. In 1990 Brad Pitt and Juiliette Lewis did a TV Too Young To Die where both played the almost the same kind of parts that they do in Kalifornia. I have no doubt that is what led to their casting in this big screen film.

Kalifornia finds aspiring writer David Duchovny and his girl friend, art photographer Michelle Forbes on a rocky relationship of sorts due to Duchovny's obsession with writing a book and getting in the minds and souls of serial killers. In fact he's got a most unusual odyssey planned, he wants to go cross country and visit the sites of several famous serial killers. But he and Forbes are flat broke.

Fate intervenes in more ways than financial with the arrival of Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis a pair of strange southern types who agree to split the cost of gas on this cross country trip. It turns out Pitt is a serial killer himself and he decides to do a little research on his own, delving into the mind of someone who is fascinated with amorality.

Kalifornia is not the type of film I usually go for, but in fact the acting ability and charisma of Brad Pitt make it work to a large degree. Pitt is the walking definition of an inbred Gothic refugee from Deliverance. But better than he is is Juliette Lewis who once again is playing these low self esteem types which she seems to do well. Watch her scene with Forbes as she does her hair and Lewis describes her sad and pathetic life. Lewis's dialog and Forbes's reactions ought to be shown in acting classes around the country.

For those who like their slasher flicks, they don't come better than Kalifornia. I had seen this film many years ago and it had made a lasting impression on me. Alas, I have hardened to many films over the years and did not expect to be impressed by 'Kalifornia' upon watching again recently. I am pleased to say that it is every bit as unnerving and watchable as it was ten or so years ago.

There are two things which really give this movie its power. The first is its cast. We have a staggeringly disturbing turn by a young Brad Pitt as Early Grace. Knowing Pitt, as we all do, as one of the most enduring heart-throbs Hollywood has ever had, it is refreshing to see him play such a vile, unattractive character. Pitt pulls the show off without resorting to white-trash cliché or parody, and manages to remain genuinely terrifying throughout the movie.

Juliette Lewis is equally impressive as Grace's tragic girlfriend, playing the character like a ten year old girl with a forty year old's life experience. Lewis manages to evoke pity (for her character's station in life) as well as contempt (for her naivety), but she underpins her performance with the kind of subtlety rarely seen by an actor so young. Personally, I think it's a tragedy that neither Pitt nor Lewis were nominated for any awards for their performances here.

David Duchovony and Michelle Forbes are both perfectly cast as the yuppy couple who unwittingly end up travelling across the US with Pitt and Lewis. Duchovony is aptly geeky and naive, and Forbes seems emphatically cynical and shut-off, but both actors manage to convincingly portray their characters' changes as they are equally intrigued, repulsed and strangely attracted to Pitt.

The fine casting and uniformly brilliant acting aside, this film really grabs us by the proverbial balls through its flawless pacing. At the time 'Kalifornia' was released, Hollywood was releasing a slew of nice-character-turns-out-to-be-psychotic movies ('Single White Female', 'Pacific Heights', 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle', 'Deceived', 'Sleeping With The Enemy' etc). Most of these movies followed the same formula, the only variation being the nature of the relationship between good guy and bad guy. 'Kalifornia' doesn't really stray too far from this territory, but its first two acts are the perfect example of the slow-boil thriller, and we are kept on the very edge of our seats waiting for the tide to turn.

When the penny does drop, and Pitt is let loose to play the maniacal bad guy, the film shifts gears completely and the last twenty minutes don't quite live up to rest of the movie. That said, the action is thick and fast and the resolution is suitable cold. The fight is over, but the scars will always be there.

Much of the narration (provided by a somewhat whiny, pre X-files Duchovony) is a tad contrived. Of course, it's meant to be from the book the Duchovony's journalist character has written, so one could argue that the self-conscious narration is meant to be a nod to the kind of sensationalised style in which most journalists write.

The film is largely a success and is certainly a cut above 90% of the thrillers of the past twenty years. Highly recommended, but not for the weak of stomach or mind. This film is disturbing on more than one level. But then, it's meant to be. **** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten

***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see

*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece

**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws

** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)

*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments

BOMB = Not of a viewable quality

- Kalifornia = ***

- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)

I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.

Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless "white trash" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.

The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.

I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.

I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving "KALIFORNIA" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do. This Was One Scary Movie.

Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.

A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California.

On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car. A surprisingly effective thriller, this.

David Duchovny and Michelle 'Ensign Ro' Forbes are a successful, professional couple, he a writer, she a photographer. Forbes is desperate to move to California and, in an act of compromise, Mulder agrees to the move on the condition that, along the way, they visit sites of historical interest concerning famous serial killers. His idea: he writes the words, she takes the pictures, with the end result a bestselling coffee table book that will set them up for life. To help finance the trip, they decide to car share and advertise the fact. As their bad luck would have it Brad Pitt sees the advert and, shortly after killing his landlord, he and his girlfriend, Juliette Lewis, meet the writer couple and begin their cross country trek. Inevitably, mischief ensues.

Pitt is outstanding as the genuinely chill inspiring Early Grayce and is capably backed up by Lewis playing her customary white trash character that seems to be her default setting. Duchovny and Forbes make for a convincing double act too and, as events spiral out of control, you as the viewer are sucked into their plight and can feel the tension ratcheting.

Intelligent, sinister and beautifully shot, this deserves recognition beyond its current status. A top movie. I can't say too much about Kalifornia as sadly I have yet to actually see the whole thing (I've only managed to see it in bits and pieces on Fuse.) But what I have seen is absolutely awesome! I am a fan of Brad Pitt but I admit not all his earlier movies are well good. But this role, I just, his acting is great, his character Early seems so normal well okay creepy, dark weird but you know normal for a hillbilly of that type I guess. And Juliette Lewis's performance although I can see how some may be annoyed by it I think it's amazing. Sadly I have yet to see the end, but from reading other reviews on here it sounds good, but disappointing. I have to admit that I wish David Duchovany's (sorry if the spelling on that is incorrect) was a bit flat but for him it was okay. His wife's character was better, and I thought her performance while not the best in the movie was pretty good, a portrait of the avant-Gard/older sister type. Particularly the scene where Early and Brian go to play pool, and Adele and Carrie are having their one on one time together. I've watched that scene at least twice now and I still think the acting in it is just wonderful. One because of the emotion that Adele portrays after talking about being raped by the three guys and how she feels about Early and Carrie's reaction to it. Everything about that I think is just so perfect. I mean, maybe it's because I can relate a bit, I'm not sure.

As for Brad Pitt who plays the serial killer that we actually get to see for once; I thought he was great. Some movies with Pitt that I've seen were just average or not worth seeing. I don't think I've ever seen a terrible Pitt movie or if I have it's not because of his acting it's other factors. This movie was not one of them. He turned out a great performance in Kalifornia. I swear I'm not just some random I do like him for his acting not just because he's good looking, I mean his character in this movie isn't exactly handsome or cute by any means! Pitt is dark, brooding and downright scary at times. Yet he's also cheerful, funny, nice, and even loving towards Adele. Granted there are some spots that made me want to reach through the TV and strangle him but that's probably just me (and the character Pitt played in the movie.) But it also shows how good Pitt's acting was in this movie it made me forget that he was playing a character, that is what good acting is supposed to do.

At any rate I wish I could say more, but that's all I can really say without having seen the ending, I have seen most of the movie through what I've caught on Fuse and as I'm writing this I'm taping it on DVR so hopefully I can write a more complete review later. I just wanted to share my thoughts on a movie that I thought was something really cool and something that seems to have gotten overlooked (it shouldn't have!) This movie is great! Brad Pitt will never be able to out act the performance he gave in this movie. Duchovny was top notch, as was Forbes and Lewis. The 4 main characters embark on a scenic road tour of historic murder sites, in one of the coolest cars ever made, 1960's model Lincoln Continental. Early Grace is a simpleton with a taste for dry toothbrushes and carnage. He likes his women to not curse or smoke, and wear PWT dresses. Duchovny and Forbes are a pair of artists from the city, while Early and Lewis are Trailer parkers from the rural outskirts. Even though the majority tone in the film is dark, there are plenty of funny scenes to be had. The writing, directing, and acting are brilliant. If you like road movies, murder, humor, and narration, watch this film. Everyone delivers, and you will want more when the credits roll. One of my all time favorites. "hey...shave that dog n teach it to hunt!" I have to start off by apologizing because I thought the first 75-80% of this film was hilarious. It's mostly because of Brad Pitt's performance. Spot on.

The acting by all involved was quite good but Brad stole the movie. The atmosphere was perfect in all respects. I'm not a giant Pitt fan but this has got to be one of his best roles ever.

Brutal,Honest,Gritty. All good words to describe this movie.

I was reading a previous review and the person said that the reasoning behind Early's violence isn't explained. It is explained but they thankfully don't have to go into graphic detail to get their point across.

Overall I gave this a 9 because every scene bar 1 or 2 was effective. I think the humor in the first half or so is perfect for this movie. Underrated. David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes play a young journalist couple who want to go to California, but can't really afford to, so they 'ride share" with another young couple (Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis) to save on expenses. The idea is for them to stop at various murder sites along the way, sites where serial killers did their thing, since Brian (Duchovny) is a writer and Carrie (Forbes) is his photographer. What they don't know is that Pitt (Earley) and Lewis are serial killer and girlfriend who just goes along with whatever HE says. I don't care for Pitt as a rule but he does justice to psycho roles. The scary thing is that he does them so well; I've actually KNOWN people like him before, no, not killers, but with pretty much the same mindset. Anyway, as the road trip goes along, Carrie guesses that the others are about out of money, but Earley seems to always come up with the cash somehow....never mind that he leaves someone dead here and there to do it though. Lewis does her role well, one that she excels at, a not-too-bright waif that has a good heart but doesn't understand that she doesn't have to put up with being beaten up by Earley when she does something he doesn't like. As things begin to get more unacceptable Carrie insists that the other couple be put out at a gas station, and unfortunately it's at that point where she's inside that she sees a news bulletin that tells her exactly who they've been ride-sharing with, after which things go downhill for them at a rapid clip. This is not the greatest flick in the world, but it's not bad...I watched what was supposed to be the 'unrated' version but I wonder how much was cut out of the rated version, because this seemed fairly tame to me, really...not that this makes it family fare or anything, unless it's maybe the Manson Family. 7 out of 10. "Kalifornia"is a great film that makes us look at ourselves.The film has a great cast,Brad Pitt(Johnny Suede,A River Runs Through It,and The Legends Of The Fall)as Early Grayce,David Duchovny(The X Files)as Brian Kessler,Michelle Forbes(Star Trek:The Next Generation,Homicide:Life On The Street,and Escape From L.A.)as Carrie Loughlin,Brian's girlfriend,and Juliette Lewis(Natural Born Killers,Cape Fear,and What's Eating Gilbert Grape)as Adele Corners,Early's girlfriend.

Brian Kessler is a writer who is a Liberal,is getting ready to write a book about serial killers.Brian and his girlfriend,Carrie decide they want to move to California,so Brian places an ad at the college for some who wants to go to California,to share expenses on the trip.

Early Grayce is an ex con and sociopath on parole,who recently lost his job at the mirror factory in town,is in debt,owes his landlord money.Early's parole officer stops to visit him and tells him about a job.Early goes to the college and sees the ad,he later tells Adele,his girlfriend about leaving to go to California.Early and Adele meet Brian and Carrie at the bus stop and leave town.Brian and Carrie do not know that he is a killer who just killed his landlord.For a little while Brian and Carrie thought of Early and Adele different but got to know them and become sort of friends,Carrie and Adele become real good friends.

Their journey is a very learning one.Though Brain and Carrie not knowing early is a killer till later on in the movie.The question Brian asks in this film about the difference between killers and us is a very good question.Early Grayce is a sociopath who doesn't see the error of his ways,goes down hill later on and pays the price.

This film is a great movie,I give it 10/10 stars and 2 thumbs up.I love the songs in the movie,especially at the end of the film,the song"Look Up To The Sky"by The Indians. So-so thriller starring Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis, who join David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes on a road trip out west. The latter couple are researching notorious murder sites for an upcoming book; Pitt's a serial killer on the lam (unbeknownst to Dave) and Juliette is his poor, not-all-there companion. This is a good cast and the story moves along, but Pitt isn't belivably scary as a serial killer, although it is one of his better earlier roles. The best thing is here is Michelle Forbes, who always manages to shine, whether in her roles on `Homicide: Life on the Street' or in the brief series `Wonderland.'

Vote: 6 "Kalifornia" is a good Hollywoodish odyssey of suspense and terror which tells of two couples who drive cross-country to California to share the cost of gas: A pair of losers (Lewis & Pitt) and two wannabee artists, a photographer and a writer (Duchovny & Forbes). Pitt "nails" his character which is the focus of this somewhat predictable thriller. A good watch for those into psycho-killer flix. LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film "Le Mouton Enrage" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this "lost" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the "Special Features" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.) Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.

If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.

Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look. This is a comedy of morals, so occasionally a gentle touch of bitterness occurs, but a lightness soften all sarcasm and irony flows till all of a sudden one moment will halt your heart and changes everything.

This film, marvelously written and directed, is a gem that shines perfectly, with beautiful acting by all. Jean-Louis Trintignant is exquisite as usual, and Romy Schneider is a pearl, perfect and glowing, that is not to be missed. A truly wonderful film !! "Like the first touch of pleasure and guilt, like a spontaneous youthful flirt of fascination and fear, like a climax of contrary emotions" said one of the movie buffs after viewing LOVE AT THE TOP, the misinterpreted title version of stylish director Michel Deville's LE MOUTON ENRAGE.

Vincent Canby in New York Times, however, just after the 1974 premiere of the movie stated: "LOVE AT THE TOP which opened yesterday at the 68th Street Playhouse, is a 1973 French comedy that dimly recalls a number of nineteen-fifties English comedies about the rise and rise of cynical young men possessing—and possessed by—ambition." Yet, the significant difference that he mentioned was the fact that LOVE AT THE TOP is not concerned with the English class system...(January 27, 1975)

Having left the evaluations up to single individuals, of course, the test of time has done its just job. What may be said with certainty after more than 30 years is that we can hardly find such movies like LE MOUTON ENRAGE where decadence appears innocent, where liaisons appear youthfully enthusiastic, where feelings occur so manipulative.

For Romy Schneider's fans, it seems useless to point out that this film is a must see, not only because she gives a unique performance (as she did in all of her roles) at the heyday of her career (9 years before her sudden death) but because she is particularly attractive here. It is not TRIO INFERNAL where the, so to say, 'forced escape' from and the mockery of Romy's sweet image haunted for years by saccharine Sissi meets its most discouraging manifestation, but a film where the brilliant actress is given a fair role. She plays Roberte, a woman who becomes the object of lust for the story's lead, playboy Nicolas Mallet (Jean Louis Trintignant). It is him who takes financial profits from lustful liaisons. This movie can boast truly memorable and unique shots of Romy and she is given some of her very best scenes. Romy's sex appeal is unforgettable here.

Another strong point of the film is its execution of the content with a development of individual perception. Immoral as it may seem, the director makes a perfect use of contrast: conventions vs pleasures, innocence vs decadence, genuine lust vs instrumental affair. Nicola owns most of the features that viewers may like or detest, may find attractive or disgusting; yet, his are the features the viewers must treat seriously, more to say, they are the ones we all must accept. That is why, one is led to a peculiar, gently wild, erotically unique world of the main character. Although he sleeps with lots of women, there are two women that represent a sort of contrary worlds for Nicola: Roberte Groult (Romy Schneider) and Marie-Paul (Jane Birkin). He manipulates them, makes love to them, cannot refrain from both desire for their bodies and desire for money; yet, he perceives them differently. Yet, despite all of this 'adult maturity,' he is emotionally like a little boy who plays with a toy-car on the table - a sort of 'detailed insight into male mind...' in a comedy-like way, of course.

Finally, there are very good performances, which makes LE MOUTON ENRAGE slightly underrated. Not only the aforementioned Romy Schneider does a brilliant job supplying the viewers with an extraordinary insight into her role, but young Jane Birkin appears to be convincing in the role of young, inexperienced streetwalker Marie Paul, Jean Louis Trintignant makes it possible to see Nicola in the right way. This artistic merit lying in performances goes with terrific music by Camille Saint-Saëns, the tune that will ring in your ears for long. Therefore, apart from some flaws of the movie like dated colors, slow action (sometimes), possible clichés (noticed by some viewers), the merits should be found significant.

LE MOUTON ENRAGE, in sum, is a clear manifestation of contrary manipulative tools in life. It is worth seeing as a moment in Romy's career, a prelude to strong eroticism, a chain of contrary emotions, of love and hatred, appreciation and disgust compared to the first orgasm and the first angasm... But aren't we, humans, 'viewers,' movie buffs built upon such contrasts? The author of "Nekromantik", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, "Der Todesking" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called "The Brotherhood of the 7th Day", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely "normal" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.

The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.

Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, "art film" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.

Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.

This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.

The main theme of the movie, "Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III" was released in a limited 666-piece 8" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting "The Nekromantik" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended! I read a small ad in some horror magazine in the early nineties about Liebe des Totes (the love of the dead) or something similar. This of course awoke my curiosity so I ordered Nekromantik 1 & 2 and Der Todesking (The Death King). The Nekromantik movies are Ok, even kind of interesting and unique in their approach to the subject Necrophilia (even if they obviously are horror-opera entries rather than intended to invoke fear in the viewers mind, they are actually quite funny.)

TODESKING, on the other hand is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It consist of a series of scenes depicting the many facets of death. Death as an enemy; Death as a reliever, Death as the very fysical decomposition of the body. The film is a metaphor over life. It shows how fragile life is and how short our lives are. It reduces its viewers to the childs they (we) actually are. The fact that we cannot really understand the nature of Death, and hence neither the process of dying, is the core message of the film. This is a most realistic film. Never does Buttgereit try to hide death behind white roses or whatever. No matter what moral standards you set up, death is unevitable, and will sooner or later be not a fiction but YOUR reality. This applies to YOU, Dear Reader, like it applies to the viewers of the film. Some juvenile reviewers seem not to grasp this, which is fully excused, since they of course will live forever...

This is no exploitation movie. Why? Because death does not exploit us humans. It harvests us. We grow for seven days, then we are brought back to the schopenhauerian state of pre-birth, that is Death. Buttgereit gives us his version of the oldest of tales. Whether you choose to regard it as "optimistic" or "pessimistic" is up to you. At first glance it may seem very dark. Consider though, that in order for something to live, something else must die. "Who wants to live forever?"

I believe that when Buttgereit shows a body, that are being consumed by maggots, he shows not only decomposition, but GENERATION of new life. Is it not better to die and give life to maggots and then birds and eventually become soil, than to remain the living dead zombie that is one of the the favorite pets of the genre?

When you realize this, you see Der Todesking it its right context.

Sieben Tage hat die Woche, siebenmal letzte Stunden. Seven are the days of week (weak, mortal !), seven times the last hour.

Dont fear the Reaper, Buttgereit tells us, because the Reaper takes only what is ripe. And apples that are not plucked for food will rot!

Have a good life, fellow IMDB'ers !

(And watch this film, that compares only to Ingemar Bergmans "The Seventh Seal" in terms of depth and universality) "Der Todesking"-Jorg Buttgereit's second full-length feature film(the first one was notorious "Nekromantik")has no central character or characters,but instead thematic continuity in the act of suicide.Divided into days of the week,it comprises of a series of set-pieces,each of which featuring the self-destruction of a complete stranger.Yes,the production values are low and it's disturbing,but in many ways "Der Todesking" is extremely effective.It makes you think which is sometimes more important than pure entertainment.Unlike the other Buttgereit's works it isn't very gory,but there are some unpleasant images like castration scene in the Tuesday episode,a decomposing corpse and various acts of suicide.The last(Sunday)episode is so depressing and full of pain!-just amazing if you want my opinion.10 out of 10-check out this post-modernism shocker!Disturbing art in the purest form! My god ! Buttgereit's masterpiece is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Closer to Peter Greenaway and Jean-Luc Godard's movies, this one is really disturbing but not gruesome as the Nekromantiks. All the little stories have a deep philosophic interest and the directing is totally inventive, in spite of the lack of money (see the "bridge" sketch). Highly highly recommended ! "Der Todesking" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry… Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous "Nekromantik", exists of seven short episodes – one for each day of the week – revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, "Der Todesking" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, "Der Todesking" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful – but also indispensable – aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too! Jörg Buttgereit goes a bit too far with his movies and themes at times, even for my taste but his movies are always something special and hard to classify. They are artistically made, with also often deeper meaning to its themes. This movie is a perfect example of his work.

It's also really hard to label this movie. It's not really a movie with a story to it, in a sense of having a beginning, middle and end in it. It also doesn't have a main character but instead focuses on 7 different suicides and killings, on 7 different days.

All different stories are being told with lots of class, though some of them are of course more 'interesting' and realistic than the others. They are not necessarily connected but yet together they still tell a story. The movie doesn't feel disjointed at all. All different stories have a different feel to it and Buttgereit tells the story without hardly using any words (also typical for his style) but instead lets the images and obvious sensible emotions of the characters tell the entire story. It helps to make this movie an effective one to watch.

Again, the production values all aren't too high and this might be something that might scare off some people. It however helps for this particular movie to set the right tone and atmosphere for the entire movie and its dark, disturbing and depressing themes.

A Buttgereit movie that I 'enjoyed' watching.

7/10 What's the best way to start a review of a movie like Der Todesking? Let me start by saying I've just come direct from viewing this movie, and the images are still burned deep into my brain - and I don't think they'll be moving any time soon.

It's probably fair to say that if you're on this page you have a good idea what sort of film this is even if you haven't seen it. If not, let me forewarn you that this is not a moderate-budget gem that's been lost for a few years a la "Near Dark", nor is it a low budget, schlocky, "fun" B-movie. What it is it low-budget art, put forward in a simple yet poignant way. The idea is a simple one - seven stories revolving around, and ending in, suicides interspersed with footage of a decomposing corpse. Sounds simple right, even boring? It isn't. Words can't really describe how powerful this film becomes by the time you are halfway through; it virtually draws you into it whether you want to go or not.

I could go on a ramble here about the technical pros and cons of the direction; maybe point out that the scenes are obviously shot on super-8 cameras and are at sometimes shaky. I could point out that some of the sound effects are out-of-sync in a way to rival any Fulci movie, but at the end of the day this all seems to pale into insignificance.

As far as extreme movies go, I've seen the hardest of them, and yet Der Todesking moved me in a way that few others have managed, despite not being particularly gory and having very few scenes that I would consider "gratuitous". In fact, the most disturbing scene I found was the last tale. I won't ruin it, just to say that the character's emotional agony virtually drips from the screen and makes you sympathise, if not yearn for his end.

Sure, it's not the best movie ever made, and in a lot of places is seems crude and maybe a little amateurish, but in spite of these flaws Der Todesking is an experience I would recommend to anyone who likes challenging cinema. If you're someone who likes comfortable viewing or "nice" movies, or simply wants to gross out on something brutal and pointless, this is not what you're looking for.

Whether you enjoy it or not, It's one you won't forget in a hurry. DER TODESKING is not one of my favorite Jorg Buttgereit film - but still is an interesting film dealing with suicide and it's reasons and ramifications. Those looking for a gore-fest, or exploitation in the style of the NEKROMANTIK films or SCHRAMM will probably be disappointed. DER TODESKING is definitely an "art-house" style film, so those that need linear, explainable narratives need not apply...

The basic concept of DER TODESKING is that there is an "episode" for each day of the week that revolves around a strange chain letter that apparently causes people to commit suicide, interspersed with scenes of a slowly decomposing corpse...

There are some very well done and thought provoking scenes, including the man talking about the "problems" with his wife, and the concert massacre (which unfortunately lost some of it's "power" on me, because I was too busy laughing at the SCORPIONS look-alike band on stage...). But seriously - this is a sometimes beautiful (the scene that shows different angles of that huge bridge is particularly effective - especially if you understand the significance of the scene, and that the names shown are of people that actually committed suicide from jumping from the bridge...), sometimes confusing, sometimes silly (the SHE WOLF OF THE SS rip-off is pretty amusing), sometimes harrowing (I found the scene of the guy talking to the girl in the park about his wife particularly effective) film that is more of an "experience" then just entertainment, as many of these "art" films are meant to be. Still, I didn't find DER TODESKING to be as strong as NEKROMANTIK or SCHRAMM, and would probably put it on relatively even footing with NEKROMANTIK 2 in terms of my personally "enjoyment level". Definitely worth a look to any Buttgereit or "art" film fan. If you dig this type of film - check out SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY - in my opinion the BEST art-house/horror film that I've seen. 7/10 for DER TODESKING I just can't agree with the above comment - there's lots of interesting and indeed amazing filmic imagery in this one, it has an unusual structure and moves well toward a frightening climactic sequence that is notable for it's effective use of silence. What's more, it explores the odd impulse of suicide in a very frank way, not pulling any punches in what it shows, yet not dwelling and over-sensationalising the subject matter. it has hints of documentary about it as well as horror and art-house cinema, and deserves a place amongst the canon of 'different' horror films like The Blair Witch Project and the original Ring (both of which it predates and could well be an unacknowledged influence on). It's definitely worth seeing if you're interested in the edges of horror cinema. Excellent episode movie ala Pulp Fiction. 7 days - 7 suicides. It doesnt get more depressing than this. Movie rating: 8/10 Music rating: 10/10 I just finished watching the 139 min version (widescreen) with some friends and we were blown away. I won't bother repeating what others have said. What the filmmakers do with the concept is unexpected and fun. The huge battle is exhausting. Afterwards we were stunned to find there was still nearly 30 minutes left to go but that didn't keep us from being completely involved and entertained.

There is one thing that nearly ruined it and that was the horrific music/songs. Blues, Country/Folk and Rock Ballads do not belong here and every time they are used we all broke out in laughter. It's hideous. You have been warned but the story and storytelling keeps you grounded.

There are several outstanding moments that make you appreciate the talent behind the camera. There are many uses of silence as well as slow-motion photography that work beautifully. I really wish I could erase the music but alas.

Seek this out. It's fun, it's different and it takes you to places you wouldn't expect and that's very refreshing. I would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ).

There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ).

For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.

For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.

I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.

In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique. Pop quiz: you're a part of the modern armed forces in peacetime on routine manoeuvres and you find yourself thrown back in time with a chance to change history. What do you do? Well, if you're a Hollywood studio, you change the Japanese G.I.s in G.I. Samurai (aka Timeslip) to the crew of an American aircraft carrier, have them debate stopping the attack on Pearl Harbour for 90 minutes and then go home and hope that no-one reminds you that Japan did it first and with more balls in 1979 with this Sonny Chiba movie. But unlike its Hollywood counterpart The Final Countdown, this sees its premise through: thrown back 400 years into the Japanese feudal wars, its peacetime soldiers decide that their best hope of getting back lies in provoking history by trying to change it by joining with a warlord to conquer the country – cue lots of tank and helicopter vs. samurai action, including a very impressive unrelenting 25 minute battle sequence featuring a cast of thousands inflicting serious damage on each other. And yes, there are decapitations.

Of course, things don't go as planned, and even superior firepower doesn't stand up as well as hoped to thousands of soldiers. Even before that, the soldiers are falling out with each other into those who want to go home, those who want to go to war and those who want to rape and pillage for the Hell of it. Impressively directed and surprisingly well thought through, the soft rock and country and western songs are sometimes a distraction, especially when they feature English lyrics sung by Japanese singers who audibly can't pronounce the words let alone speak the language, but it's a forgivable flaw in a surprisingly good sci-fi actioner.

Optimum's UK DVD is a good transfer of the uncut 138-minute version. "GI Samurai" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.

The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics ("what is this flying metal box?" etc etc), "aren't we better off here" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.

Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking "weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action. What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.

Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.

The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.

The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.

This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.

The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.

It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many "song" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a "war is hell" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.

The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. I waited for this movie to come out for a while in Canada, and when it finally did, I was very excited to see it. I really enjoyed it. Of course, in the beginning, it is a very sad movie (and it was New Years Day - making it even sadder) - however, it sticks with you. The next day I was thinking about it again, because although it revolves around something so emotionally draining, you realize after a few days that it is such a beautiful story. How one person can be seen as the link to so many people, but sometimes you can be blinded so many things. And how Diane Keaton's character kind of saves the rest of them by just being there. And how they save her in the process as well. It was such an excellent movie, and Chris Pine (one of my favourite actors) provides the perfect comic relief. It is definitely a movie that will need a box of tissues, but will really stay with you for a long time. The movie held my interest, mainly because Dianne Keaton is my favorite actress. I disagree with some of the other posts on the grounds that the plot was not convoluted. I had no trouble following it (maybe some people had too much eggnog the night before). The movie was very sad and touching as well. What more do you want? Alexa Davalos is a fine new talent (beautiful too), and Tom Everett Scott does an excellent job with his part as well. The relationship of the mother and daughter may have been a bit unrealistic, but the behavior of the young people in the movie was not. It was tragically sad but enlightening. It sure beat the other shows that were on TV New Years Day evening Charles McDougall's resume includes directing episodes on 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', Queer as Folk', 'Big Love', 'The Office', etc. so he comes with all the credentials to make the TV film version of Meg Wolitzer's novel SURRENDER, DOROTHY a success. And for the most part he manages to keep this potentially sappy story about sudden death of a loved one and than manner in which the people in her life react afloat.

Sara (Alexa Davalos) a beautiful unmarried young woman is accompanying her best friends - gay playwright Adam (Tom Everett Scott), Adam's current squeeze Shawn (Chris Pine), and married couple Maddy (Lauren German) and Peter (Josh Hopkins) with their infant son - to a house in the Hamptons for a summer vacation. The group seems jolly until a trip to the local ice creamery by Adam and Sara) results in an auto accident which kills Sara. Meanwhile Sara's mother Natalie Swedlow (Diane Keaton) who has an active social life but intrusively calls here daughter constantly with the mutual greeting 'Surrender, Dorothy', is playing it up elsewhere: when she receives the phone call that Sara is dead she immediately comes to the Hamptons where her overbearing personality and grief create friction among Sara's friends. Slowly but surely Natalie uncovers secrets about each of them, thriving on talking about Sara as though doing so would bring her to life. Natalie's thirst for truth at any cost results in major changes among the group and it is only through the binding love of the departed Sara that they all eventually come together.

Diane Keaton is at her best in these roles that walk the thread between drama and comedy and her presence holds the story together. The screenplay has its moments for good lines, but it also has a lot of filler that becomes a bit heavy and morose making the actors obviously uncomfortable with the lines they are given. Yes, this story has been told many times - the impact of sudden death on the lives of those whose privacy is altered by disclosures - but the film moves along with a cast pace and has enough genuine entertainment to make it worth watching. Grady Harp I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film. I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait. Diane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),"The Family Stone",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, "Surrender Dorothy", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors. I thought this was one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. It was a great story line and showed that people are so intricate in all kinds of different ways. Have recommended it to all my friends!! I always enjoy a good story line and this movie had one of the best I've seen in a long time. I could see myself having a daughter and doing the same things that Natalie did to find out more about her life and loves. It showed how we not only have lives with our families ; but also have parts of our lives that we don't share with them - as it may not be in their best interest to know all the details of things we don't do that we are so proud of.

I look forward to another such movie, and will keep my eye out. This was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star.

My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around.

One of the other commentators said the movie had a "political agenda". That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie. Have never understood why the MacDonald-Eddy swan song has always been panned so mercilessly--not just by their detractors but by virtually everyone. To me, "I Married an Angel" is more lively and imaginative than any of the duo's more celebrated outings. The sets and costumes are as lavish as any to be found in an MGM musical, the script is by the reliable Anita Loos ("San Francisco," "The Women," "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," etc.), the Rodgers and Hart tunes (albeit altered a bit by MacDonald-Eddy regulars Bob Wright and Chet Forrest) are given celestial treatment by Herbert Stothart (Oscar-winner for scoring "The Wizard of Oz"), and best of all, the "singing sweethearts" look great in their contemporary clothes and seem to be having fun with the bizarre proceedings. Try to show "Rose Marie" or "Sweethearts" to the uninitiated today and they may very well have a hard time sitting still, but this offbeat, fast-paced fantasy is bound to entertain. It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.

Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then "Aloha Oe" on the beach!

It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove. Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this "modern" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the "Twinkle in Your Eye" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.

Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all. I know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one! The movie is a fantasy. The story line is thin but serves as the structure upon which some wonderful songs are sung and sung beautifully. (I still cannot believe that such handsome and attractive people could sing this well.) Some of the dialog is wonderfully clever. The costumes made me feel as though I was watching a haute couture fashion show from 1942.

Movies are designed to serve various purposes. This one is designed to entertain and it certainly does. If I have one negative comment it would be that Nelson Eddy was a little too old to be the handsome dashing Count. Some of the closeups made me uncomfortable. But he could still sing and sing magnificently. However, Jeanette MacDonald was just as dazzling as ever. She makes a spectacular angel.

This genre is well before my time, and I an new to the Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy films and related conversation. The music in this movie is beautiful. As much as I love the classic rock music which fills most modern movies, there is no question in my mind that this music is simply and clearly more memorable, more delightful, better constructed. The stars in this movie are more talented than the stars I see in the movie theaters today. And Jeanette MacDonald, without the benefit of Beverly Hills plastic surgeons, was more beautiful than the stars I see today. I am unclear as to why so many other posters are apologetic about liking this movie and more generally this group of movies. They say it is dated and try to explain why it is the way it is. And those that do not like it say that it is not very good but compared to what? I think this movie will doubtless still be entertaining people when so many other movie are long forgotten. There is just too much quality in every way in this movie for it not to be remembered and enjoyed. I recommend this movie without reservation to anyone who appreciates great talent, great beauty and great music. One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one.

It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent… Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen.

Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.

In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream. My observations: vamp outfit at end is ravishing and wonderful, exotic and fantastic. Jeanette wore it well, and got even with naive Nelson. Boat crashing into his balcony served him right. Costume outfits of his female mafia were designed surprisingly well, especially by today's standards. 1942 costume designer did great job. Main song theme just lovely.

Caution to negative posters: 1942 was time of WW II; Pearl Harbor happened year before. U.S. just coming out of Great Depression; needed to get out and spend that hard earned money on diversion of singing, dance and yes, fantastic fantasy. Despotic dictators were trying to rule out there in RL, snuffing out freedoms. Thank goodness the public had these fantastic plot line movies to attend. Movie going was a privileged treat, in those depressing times. When you, negative posters, become actors or even movie stars, then YOU have room to talk and criticize. Jeanette's and Nelson's movies stand the test of time.

Angel wings wonderful, on the real angel. RL wings at costume party not so hot, but great on Jeanette considering the SL.

Beautiful singing by Jeanette and Nelson, as always. Jeanette dancing was a pure delight.

15/10 There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.

When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.

There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.

Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k. It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop. At first glance, this film looks like the Keifer Sutherland series 24 for the big screen. With the focus on a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, a race against time, and plenty of Secret Service agents, the agency under the spotlight in The Sentinel.

But wait, the protagonist turns out to be Michael Douglas' character Pete Garrison instead, a veteran Secret Service agent famed for taking the bullet for Reagan in 1981. The SS agents are specially trained to "take the bullet", which is what makes them special - who in the right mind will put themselves in the line of a bullet and a target? But Garrison gets implicated in the assassination plot, and has to run for his life while at the same time doing his bit of investigations into the plot. All this because of his failure in a polygraph test, due to his adulterous banging of the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Tsk.

There are shades of Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire. Both featured aging actors, and aging veteran has-been heroes with a bit of a historical reference, who took the bullet in their respective tours of duty. While Eastwood's movie has a more enigmatic villain in John Malkovich, The Sentinel suffered from its lack of a central strong villain, preferring to share the assassination responsibility amongst many forgettable ex-KGB villains, and the mole within the Presidential Detail. With Douglas on the run from the law, he becomes similar to Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive, hunting the proverbial one-armed man while at the same time, relying on his smarts to outwit fellow agents, which turned out to be quite interesting to watch - despite slick processes, it still boils down to the performance and gullibility of individual agents.

Keifer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, top TV stars of today from 24 and Desperate Housewives, get relegated into support roles as the Secret Service investigators who are looking into Garrison's probable involvement in the assassination plot, and at times seem to have lept off the pages of CSI with their forensics skills. The beautiful couple had chemistry that could have resembled X-Files' Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but alas these two had very little to do here. We know the reason why they're in the movie, and that is to get their fans into the theatres. Also, Longoria's role seemed unable to shake off her sexy-mama Gabrielle, and here, has her in fairly low cut blouses (Sutherland actually tells her to cover up) and tight pants (ogle-fest for fellow agents).

Nonetheless, it's still a pretty interesting look into the lives of probably the most highly charged and tense protection detail in the world, and the typical threats that they face daily, including the following up on every nutcase's threat on the life of the most powerful man in the world. It's a decent suspense and investigative thriller, with enough subplots to keep you entertained. But one thing though, like most ending action sequences, this one has a big enough loophole for you to fly a jumbo jet through. I enjoyed this film. I thought it was an excellent political thriller about something that's never happened before - a Secret Service agent going bad and involved in an assassination plot. Unfortunately, for Michael Douglas' character, "Pete Garrison," they think HE's the mole but he isn't.

He's just a morally-flawed agent having an affair with the First Lady! Since he's doing that, he's unable to give an acceptable polygraph exam and that makes him suspect number one when it's revealed there is a plot to kill the President.

"Garrison" is forced to go on the lam but at the same time he's still trying to do the right thing by protecting the President. Douglas does a fine job in this role. I don't always care the people he plays but he's an excellent actor. Keifer Sutherland ("David Breckinridge") is equally as good (at least in here) as the fellow SS boss who hunts down Douglas until convinced he has been telling the truth. When he does the two of them work together in the finale to discover and then stop, if they can, the plot. The crooks are interesting, too, by the way. Also, I have never - and never will, unfortunately - see a First Lady who looks as good as Kim Basinger

This is simply a slick action flick that entertains start-to-finish. Are there holes in it? Of course; probably a number of them, and a reason you see so many critical comments. However, it is unfairly bashed here. It just isn't intelligent enough for the geniuses here on this website. My advice: chill, just go along for the ride and enjoy all the action and intrigue. Yes, it gets a little Rambo-ish at the end but otherwise it gets high marks for entertainment.....which is what movies are all about. I thought that The sentinel was going to be a mediocre movie.When I finally saw it,I took a good surprise.The movie isn't great thing but it's very fun and the action scenes are very well done.This movie reminded me TV series like 24 or Alias.It's very similar to that series and it reminded me too,to the Wolfgang Petersen's thriller In the line of fire.If you're going to expect one of the most original and and one of the greatest thrillers in the history of movies,you will be disappointed.But if you go with little expectations,you will enjoy The sentinel.

Rating:7 I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel. The Sentinel i was hoping would be a good film and boy i was right.A great story first of all from a novel and i thought this was an original story but i guess it wasn't and it was a very smart story. Michael Douglas in this film is very good and Keither Sutherland is too,but however it is very hard to shrug him off his role as Jack Bauer in 24 but eventually you do and he is very different in The Sentinel than he is in 24.also another person trying to shrug off their TV role but failed.Eva Longeria.She wasn't that good in the film and had a back seat in the entire thing.After i saw the film i had constant dreams about The Sentinel and couldn't sleep.Overall Sentinel is a good film and i would recommend it. The Sentinel features a sort of run of the mill and clichéd suspense/mystery but is lifted with some good acting and taut pacing. These stories have already for the most part gone through as many permutations as we can bear, so what we're left with is how good is the acting, how smart are the setups and bad guys, how well crafted is the main plot etc etc.....so the Sentinel does a solid job given it's content. Michael Douglass and Kiefer Sutherland both maintain some good screen bravado and attitudes. Eva Longoria (first time I've seen her on screen) brings some satisfactory support. The whole affair side of the story is utterly implausible knocking it down a bit, but it deserves slack. Worth a viewing if you like the genre. Good for an evening's entertainment - but the plot was unconvincing. Garrison's affair with the First Lady was unreal and passionless; the President was a cardboard cut-out. And who were the real villains anyway? Nothing was developed or explained sufficiently. I still don't know why they wanted to kill the President or how the mole got involved. The villains were nameless and undeveloped, so you never felt involved in their plot. Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland did their best to inject some reality into the story - the chase and confrontation were good. But Kim Basinger and Eva Longoria were both unbelievable in their roles, Basinger totally lacked character and no way could Longoria have been a Secret Service agent. This could have been a very good film but somehow it missed the way, with too many unanswered questions. Disappointing on the whole despite some very good scenes. And did they use the 'West Wing' set for the White House scenes? - I kept expecting CJ or Charlie to appear! This was a pretty decent movie. This movie is good to just sit down and watch and be entertained. Just a typical Hollywood film. This movie will never win an Oscar or anything and definitely doesn't deserve one, but I thought it was pretty good. It's kind of like the show 24 but set into movie format. If you like the whole we've got to stop the terrorist from killing the president kind of movie then you will enjoy this flick. I personally think that storyline has been done WAY too much, but The Sentinel does add a little twist with the mole in the Secret Service. All in all, this movie won't leave your jaw to the floor or change your life, but who says every single movie has to be like that to be good? Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.

The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.

It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse. I'll be honest,I finally checked this movie not because of the stars--though they were reasonably watchable and compelling,particularly the three leads--or even the compelling story of a breach in the Presidential Secret Service(something,I've been informed through the DVD extras of this show,has yet to ever happen.Assuming that's true,that's remarkable!). I got it because it was directed and has a choice cameo by none other than Detective Meldrick Lewis!! Well,okay,Clark Johnson,one of my faves from "Homicide:Life on the Street" and a veteran (mostly) TV director. I'd say that he does about as good as he can with a project that is watchable but pretty average,despite the possibilities.

Veteran and ace Secret agent Pete Garrison(Michael Douglass)has to find out both who is blackmailing him AND who killed his friend,targeted and blew up an Air Force One chopper and is gunning for the Prez.(David Rasche. Anyone remember "Sledgehammer"?). His affair with the first lady(Kim Basinger,clearly one of the HOTTER first ladies we've ever had,fictional or real)is certainly not helping his standing. He's got to both ferret out the real mole in the service and avoid the hound dog like hunting of his former best friend and fellow agent and chief(Kiefer Sutherland,almost still completely in "24" mode). Throw in some other pivotal Service agents(Martin Donovan and the foxy,somewhat hard to buy as the gig Eva Longorria) and shady foreign characters and you have a fairly standard political thriller that doesn't aim as high as it purports and reaches the desired,if underwhelming,results.

The summary line is about the best way to describe how this show plays out without giving spoilers. The DVD extras to me seemed more insightful and interesting than the movie,though the film itself was entertaining enough to keep most (myself included) interested. It might not be the best movie of 2006 but it was a just a movie to excite and to think about.The Sentinel is a good political thriller movie which seems similar to or even borrows some elements from other political thriller movies such as In the Line of Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. The basic plot of this movie is similar to other movies like this: A plot to kill the President of the United States. Michael Douglas stars as Secret Service Agent Pete Garrison who spearheads the operation only to find out later that he has been framed.Kiefer Sutherland co-stars as a sort of rival by the name of David Breckinridge and Eva Longoria as Jill Marin who is a rookie agent going under the guidance of Agent Breckinridge and Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine. One improvement for this movie could have been more action as it is by some sources considered just as much an Action film as is a Thriller film but a good thing about this movie is instead of just an assassination plot to kill the US President,it also concerns a mole(traitor) in the Secret Service who is leading the President in the wrong direction. My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement.

The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.

Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.

The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as "should have been a TV movie", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.

All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5. Welcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs up. Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.

In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, "Sergeant Ryker" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.

This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many "name" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.

Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.

However, despite its apparent obscurity, "Sergeant Ryker" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended. Sergeant Ryker is accused of being a traitor during the Korean War, a hanging offense. A long drawn out court-marshal ensues during which time the Sgt. must remain in a military jail. After much investigation the defense attorney attempts to exonerate the doomed non-com with an eleventh hour ploy. Very good picture. The Korean War has been dubbed Americas's forgotten war. So many unanswered questions were buried along with the 50 thousand men who died there. Occasionally, we are treated to a play or movie which deals with that far-off, ghostly frozen graveyard. Here is perhaps one of the finest. It's called " Sergeant Ryker. " The story is of an American soldier named Sgt. Paul Ryker (Lee Marvin) who is selected for a top secret mission by his commanding officer. His task is to defect to the North Koreans and offer his services against United Nations forces. So successful is his cover, he proves invaluable to the enemy and given the rank of Major. However, he is thereafter captured by the Americans, put on trial as a traitor and spy. Stating he was ordered to defect, he sadly learns his commanding officer has been killed and has no evidence or proof of his innocence. He is convicted and sentenced to hang. However, his conviction is doubted by Capt. Young (Bradford Dillman), his prosecutor. Convincing commanding Gen. Amos Baily, (Lloyd Nolan) of his doubts, he is granted a new trial and if found guilty will be executed. The courtroom drama is top notch as is the cast which includes Peter Graves, Murray Hamilton and Norman Fell as Sgt. Max Winkler. Korea was a far off place but the possibility of convicting a Communist and hanging him hit very close to home in the 1950's. Due to its superior script and powerful message, this drama has become a courtroom Classic. Excellent viewing and recommended to all. **** Love the characters and the story line. Very funny with plenty of action. Thomas Ian Griffith and Tia Carrer give great performances. I enjoyed the dynamic and comical interaction of Griffith and Career. Donald Southerland plays a very likable, and surprisingly sympathetic, burnt out hit man. All three actors are among my favorites and having them in this movie made for a special treat. A nice addition to my extensive DVD collection. I highly recommend this movie. If you like... Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Replacement Killers, L.A. Confidential, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Abyss and, The Whole Nine Yards... you will love this movie. This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and "ficticious" action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like "They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars." The only thing serious about this movie is the humor. Well worth the rental price. I'll bet you watch it twice. It's obvious that Sutherland enjoyed his role. The plot: A crime lord is uniting 3 different mafias in an entreprise to buy an island, that would then serve as money-laundering facility for organized crime. To thwart that, the FBI tries to bust one of the mafia lords. The thing goes wrong, and by some unlikely plot twists and turns, we are presented with another "cop buddies who don't like each other" movie... one being a female FBI agent, and the other a male ex-DEA agent.

So far, so stupid. But the strength of this movie does not lie in its story - a poor joke, at best. It is funny. (At least the synchronized German version is). The action is good, too, with a memorable scene involving a shot gun and a rocket launcher. But the focus is squarely on the humour. Not intelligent satire, not quite slapstick, but somewhere in between, you get a lot of funny jokes.

However, this film is the opposite of political correctness. Legal drug abuse is featured prominently, without criticism, and even displaying it as cool. That's the bit of the movie that seriously annoyed me, and renders it unsuitable for kids, in my opinion.

All in all, for a nice evening watching come acceptable action with some funny jokes, this movie is perfect. Just remember: In this genre, it is common to leave your brain at the door when you enter the cinema / TV room. Then you'll have a good time. 8/10 This film is one of the finest American B-movies of the 90s. If you're looking for a serious film, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for some action, a lot of laughs, and a tongue in cheek variation on cops fighting gangsters, this is well worth watching. Everyone chews the scenery a bit, but that's really what the film is all about, and everyone is quite funny. Donald Sutherland and John Lithgow have great chemistry and need to do another film together. I think Hollow Point is a funny film with some good moments I have never seen before in action movies. Well,both Tia Carrere and Thomas Ian Griffith aren't so good in acting, but Tia Carrere is nice and good looking girl, isn't it? But Donald Sutherland is superb in his role so-so mad gangster. Hollow Point, though clumsy in places, manages to be an extremely endearing and amusing action movie.

The primary entertainment value here is humor - everyone turns in clever performances that provide the film with a great deal of energy.

Oh, by the way, advocates of gun safety will be horrified by the conduct of the characters in this movie... Re: Pro Jury

Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.

One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.

"EASILY GIVE AWAY VIRGINITY"? WHAT A SHREWD REMARK ABOUT THIS FILM. TRULY.

One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.

YOU JUST AREN'T AT ALL ABLE TO SEE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THROUGH YOUR OWN EYES? THAT'S SAD.

One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.

AND ANOTHER "EXPERT" OPINION DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE. DANDY.

One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.

NOW BE A GOOD SPORT AND TELL US AT WHICH INSTITUTION YOU GREW UP.

One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.

OF COURSE THERE'S PROBABLY AN EXPLANATION. GOOD JOB FIGURING THAT OUT! NOW I'LL BE GENEROUS AND WILL HELP YOU OUT OF YOUR MISERY: ALTHOUGH IT WAS TRANSLATED AS A GENERAL "FOURSOME", THE WORD "čETVORKA" HAS ANOTHER MEANING: IT'S A SPORTS TERM USED TO DESIGNATE A 4M OR 4W SETUP - A ROWING CREW CONSISTING OF 5 PERSONS: 4 ROWERS AND A COXSWAIN.

This movie did not ring true for me.

WE SHOULD ALL HEED TO YOUR COMPETENT AND PRAISEWORTHY OPINION. DUDE. This is a masterpiece footage in B/W 35mm film. The film makes you see a strange way to begin the day at 7:35 am in a bar and how much things can happen there in 8 minutes.

The short amazingly, gets you in a complex story using very little elements, and step to step makes you realize that something isn't totally right. It expresses a lot, makes your adrenalin go high with subtle details, and is incredibly understandable by anyone, not just the cinema critics experts.

But I know how it sounds : European short, black and white and low budgeted. Don't let that scare you. Is really worth to see by anyone, not just experts in the genre.

Isn't really much more to tell, since the film just lasts 8 minutes (exactly), and I don't want to spoil it. But I just watched it online and I couldn't understand why no one spent a few minutes to post a comment about it.

Really worth watching it. 10/10. More directors like Nacho Vigalondo need a greater outlet for their talents. 7:35 De la mañana is absolute genius. What Nacho is able to convey in 8 minutes takes some Hollywood directors hours of film to achieve. I watched this smiling, but feeling a little dirty and not in the sexual way. You sit and wonder how you should feel after watching this 8 min. nugget. I was entertained, but was disturbed at the same time. Not many people can do that in just 8 minutes. It starts off simple enough. A young women comes in for breakfast at her usual place. She sits down and someone starts singing. From there, the film takes you through so many different emotions all at once it is hard to describe. It is in black & white, but this helps with the feeling the film gives you.This film makes you want to know more about the characters, how they interacted previously and how the ending impacted their lives afterward. I guess it like the old saying,"Leave them wanting more", Nacho Vigalondo is able to do that. Watch this when you can. Show it to your friends and wonder how 8 minutes can be so much fun without taking off your clothes. I was so glad I came across this short film. I'm always so disappointed that short films are hard to come across, so when I saw this and saw that it was nominated for the Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards, I was so pleased that I actually had a film that I was rooting for.

The plot is pretty simple, the director, writer, and star Nacho Vigalondo tried coming up with a reason people would suddenly break out into a song and dance number like they do in movie musicals. The result is extremely entertaining and the song is actually really catchy.

It's a well made short film, well edited and the actors all do a great job. And the last shot of the film is perfect.

I highly recommend this film. With a minimal budget, a running time of eight minutes and a great amount of imagination, Nacho Vigalondo has achieved one of the most moving shorts I've ever seen. The subtlety of the screenplay is really remarkable, since it doesn't give the ending away until the very last moment.

Don't let anybody tell you what the short is about, since you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more. Nacho Vigalondo is the discovery of the year for his one-man show: directing, writing and acting in this formidable short is the most remarkable effort I've seen in years. Also pay attention to the performance of Marta Belenguer, her reaction shots are incredible.

Overall rating: 8/10 If you're amused by straight-faced goings-on that are logical within a given illogical situation, you'll enjoy this whimsical 8-minute Spanish film.

A woman enters a small café. The scene looks ordinary, but the counterman, customers, and two musicians seem somehow oddly subdued.

Suddenly, the musicians play and one man begins to sing the title song , dancing across table tops with musical-comedy gestures. The customers, at first immobile, at intervals chime in (badly but gamely) with phrases from the song, read from slips of paper in their palms. On and off they jump up and dance (awkwardly but earnestly) in choreographed motions, like backup singers.

But why??? the woman wonders. The answer is revealed as the soloist's jacket opens and she sees what's strapped across his chest -- just before the explosive climax...

Even if you don't catch the song's (probably ironical) lyrics, the situation-perfect performances should give you a grin and a chuckle... I'd love to see it again! This 2004 Oscar nominee is a very short b/w film in Spanish. A young woman goes into a café, gets a coffee, and notices a couple of musicians standing silently with their instruments. All the patrons are motionless, like mannequins. One guy, however, is quite jolly and breaks into a song about what goes on at 7:35 in the morning. There is one surprising moment after another until the end which is quite, well, surprising. The people, the place, everything looks quite ordinary. And like the musical piece "Bolero", the thing keeps building until the climax. With its structure, theme,movement and wit,it is an 8 minute masterpiece. A woman, Mujar (Marta Belengur) enters a restaurant one morning at &:35 unaware that a terrorist has kidnapped the people in said restaurant & is making them act out a musical number in this strange yet fascinating short film, which I only saw by finding it on the DVD of the director/writer's equally fascinating "Timecrimes". It had a fairly catchy song & it somehow brought a smile to my face despite the somber overall plot to the short. I'm glad that I stumbled across it (wasn't aware it would be an extra when I rented the DVD) and wouldn't hesitate at all to recommend it to all of my friends.

My Grade: A- Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee? Splendid film that in just eight minutes displays an unusual genre mix: mystery, thriller, musical. Briefly, we are allowed to tell about the story: a girl comes into a European Cafeteria and then... Soft transit from nonsense mystery to narrative logic. In a no time, no place way Vigalondo managed a delight in B/W by means of imagination and despite (thanks to) the tightest of budgets.

Because of the unity of time-space the film reaches the intensity of a short poem (almost a haiku). Spain, land of quick poetry in B/W (¿remember the early Buñuel?).

A must see for reassuring our belief in young cinema outside the States. The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.

Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends. I watched the movie while recovering from major surgery. While I knew it was only a "B" film, a space western, I loved it. It may have lacked the flash of high dollar productions it non-the-less held my imagination and provided great escapism. Sadly our society has so much available, discounting small attempts is too easy. In the same way that I can enjoy a even a grade school performance of Shakespeare, I can appreciate many levels of achievement for the art sake. I am a cop and found affinity with the retired LAPD. Dreams like his haunt me that I will be unable in the moment of crisis be able to respond to save another's life (or my own). while it was a romantic ending where Farnsworth did take out the bad guy (predictable) I needed a little happy romance where good can triumph. My world is really too cynical. This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had.

If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!

It was clear right from the beginning that 9/11 would inspire about as many films as World War II and Vietnam combined; however, there is certainly a big danger that most of these films to come are about as good (or rather: bad) as Pearl Harbor. It is a great luck that the first international release about 9/11 is not a cheesy love story starring a bunch of pretty faces, but a collective work of 11 directors from the entire world.

I'm not intending to say that all 11 episodes are great (Youssef Chahine's, for example, has a needless prologue with too many cuts and Shohei Imamura's has a really bizarre ending) or that the segments are in the right order (Imamura's, being the only one not referring directly to the Twin Towers, should open the film, not end it, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's should be the last one instead, as it's the most impressive one). But it is an impressing effort and an interesting portrayal of the way other parts of the world react to the collapse of the twin towers.

Consider Samira Makhmalbaf's opening segment, in which an Afghan teachers tries to explain to her pupils what happened in New York and unsuccessfully suggests a one-minute silence. Or Idrissa Ouedraogo's part (which features a bin Laden-double so much resembling the real one that you'll be shocked when you see him, I promise), in which 5 boys muse about good things that can be done with the reward put out on Laden.

There's a surprisingly good (and extremely angry) segment by Ken Loach about a man from Chile talking about what he calls "our Tuesday September 11" - that September 11 in 1973 when their elected president Allende was killed and Pinochet installed his dictatorship - with the generous help from Henry Kissinger and the CIA. This could have become a terrible effort in Anti-Americanism, but it did become a sad tale and shares my recognition for the best segment with Inarritu's (mainly sound impressions and phone calls from the hijacked planes to a black screen, sometimes a few pictures of people falling down the WTC and finally a collapsing tower, ending with the screen brightening up and one question appearing) and Amos Gitai's about a hysterical reporter trying desperatly to get on air after a car bomb exploded in Tel Aviv (hard to recognize, but this one is a masterpiece of choreography).

All these different segments (I haven't mentioned yet Claude Lelouch's about a deaf girl, Danis Tanovic's about a demonstration of the Women of Srebrenica, Mira Nair's - strange, but it takes an Indian director to make the part that is probably most appealing to Western tastes - about a Muslim family whose son is under a terrible suspicion after 9/11 and Sean Penn's with Ernest Borgnine (yes, Ernest Borgnine) as a widower leading the most depressive life one can imagine) add up to a unique film not easy to watch and hard to forget. I am sure this film will be a classic known to everyone thirty years from now. I hope it will be remembered for starting a long tradition of world cinema movies. But, alas, it's far more probable it will be remembered as a one-film-only effort. And as the one of the few 9/11 movies made by then that don't reduce this terrible event to a love story with a happy end just to please the audience. French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.

The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese "holy war" against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).

Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.

There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds.

Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.

It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of "Amores Perros") who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: "Does God's light guide us or blind us?" (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites. Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from. This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.

Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.

The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.

Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.

The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.

The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.

The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.

My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "11 de Setembro" ("September 11") As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it. Though the pieces are uneven this collection of 11 short films is truly a moving and human experience. There were some who, in the wake of the emotion on the anniversary of the bombings, took this to be anti-American. I don't think thats the case, even though some parts might be taken that way if you don't look behind the obvious. Ultimately the film is nothing except an attempt by people to express their confusion, sympathy and feelings about what happened. These are stories of people who's worlds have been shaken up by what happened on a Tuesday in September.

As I said this film will move you, probably to tears. Its not always easy to watch, for example the film from Mexico is little more than a black screen with sound, but its effect is such as to lay even the strongest of people low. If you can be strong you really should see this film. It will comfort you and enlighten you and affect you... I saw this series when it world premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. I liked the idea behind the film, where two men got together and told a director from each country to direct a movie about 911. These directors never met before until the project was complete, and they saw how it looked all together. WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the pieces were very powerful, and some were controversial. If you are an American, then you may not like this as some of the pieces may be found anti-american. However, i know a few Americans who enjoyed these series. The piece that i found the best was the one from India. It was about how a muslim family, living in the States, had 2 sons, and one of them was missing. The Americans gave them the cold shoulder and automatically assumed that he was linked with the terrorist bombing. It captures the mom's despair and humiliation of these accusations so well, that it brought tears to my eyes. In the end we see that her son had died while trying to save the many victims from the crash of the towers. This was a true story, and that was what made it so real. There were a lot of emotional and powerful pieces, and the African piece was one of the best. It was humourous yet just as powerful as the others. A must see for everyone, and hopefully America will unban this, and let it play in their country. Eleven different Film Makers from different parts of the world are assembled in this film to present their views and ideas about the WTC attack. This is one of the best effort you will see in any Film. Films like this are rarely made and appreciated. This film tries to touch every possible core of WTC. Here are some of the most important stories from the film that makes this film so unique.

There is the story from Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) where somewhere in Iran people are preparing for the attacks from America. There a teacher is trying to educate her students by informing them about Innocent People being killed in WTC massacre. Then comes a story from Youssef Chahine (Egypt) where a Film Maker comes across face-to-face conversation with a Dead Soldier in the WTC attack and a Dead Hard Core Terrorist who was involved in WTC attack. Then we see a story from Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) where a group of Five Innocent children's sees Osama Bin Laden and plans to kidnap him and win the reward money from America. Then we see the story from Alejandro Gozalez Inarritu (Mexico) where you see a Black Screen and slowly you see the real footage of WTC buildings coming down. And the people who are stuck in the building are jumping out of it to save their lives. The other most important story is from Mira Nair (India) where a mother is struggling to get respect for her Dead Son whose name is falsely trapped in WTC massacre! After September 11 attack, Our heart beat automatically starts pumping if we hear two names anywhere in the world.. First is World Trade Centre and the second is Osama! This film totally changes our perception and makes a strong point by claiming something more to it.

I will definitely recommend this movie to everyone who loves to have such kinds of Home DVD Collection. Definitely worth every penny you spend. But please don't expect anything more apart from Films in this DVD. There is of course Filmographies of the Film Makers but No Extra Features. I first saw this film when it aired on the now defunct Trio Channel a few years ago, and recently watched it again--sans commercials--on Sundance. I was impressed the first time, and found it even more engaging on second viewing. Yes, some of the segments are far from perfect--Amos Gitai's hysterical commentary stands out like a sore thumb--but taken collectively, 11 09 01 is a total success. Best of show: Shohei Imamura's amazing final segment, which contemporary critics such as the thick-witted Mick LaSalle somehow misinterpreted as an attack on 'the terrorists', but now stands revealed as a masterful anti-war polemic; Samira Makhmalbaf's opening piece that manages to blend deep empathy for the victims of 9/11 with a prescient concern for the children of Afghanistan; and Idrissa Ouedraogo's amusing children's crusade for Osama Bin Laden--a hunt almost as serious and successful an undertaking as the one for the REAL Osama. Youssef Chahine's segment is a noble if failed experiment which at least has the guts to remind the audience that Bin Laden and al'Qaeda are basically creations of American foreign policy and the CIA, and though Sean Penn's character study seems out of place, it's still an effectively bittersweet piece of film-making. All in all, essential viewing, and a darn sight better than Oliver Stone's reactionary World Trade Center. This document truly opened my eyes to what people outside of the United States thought about the September 11th attacks. This film was expertly put together and presents this disaster as more than an attack on U.S. soil. The aftermath of this disaster is previewed from many different countries and perspectives. I believe that this film should be more widely distributed for this point. It also helps in the the healing process to finally see something other than news reports on the terrorist attacks. And some of the pieces are actually funny, but not abusively so. This film came highly recommended to me, and I pass on the same feeling. First of all I've got to give it to the people that got this thing together. 9/11 is such a sensitive issue that making a movie that dares to be controversial about it takes a great deal of guts. It's a shame, although not surprising, that the movie was banned in the US.

That being said I think that the movie is superb with a couple of weak moments. The movie starts up with the Iranian segment which turns out to be somewhat reminiscent of Majid Majidi's work (the absolutely beautiful "heaven's children" and "the color of paradise"). Much like those 2 films the clip shows what happened through the innocent eyes of a class of Afgan refugees in Iran. Absolutely beautiful clip. Same goes for Sean Penn's clip which is superb as well. But just as some of the clips are beutiful others are absolutely brutal. Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu does the mexican clip and just like his gut-wrenching "Amores perros" he does it as brutal as he can. Most of the clip is a black screen with several sounds playing in the background. Those sounds are of the reporters and their shock as the second plane crashes, those who called home from the burning towers and left messages for their families, those who were angry....and he combines this with flashes of people jumping from the towers. A very hard clip to watch and one that you won't forget.

Some clips could turn out to be very hard to watch for Americans as some of the clips could be interpreted as "you're not the only ones that are suffering". In particular the Egyptian and British clips that not only say that but turn the tables and say how much suffering the US has caused to other people.

I will also make a special mention to the clips from Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, India and Japan (although this last one may seem terribly out of place it actually isn't).

However, not all the clips are great and I make a special mention on the clip from Israel which, in my opinion, is extremely weak. While the idea was good (a reporter is at the scene of a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv but his story gets bumped because of what happened in New York is something that a lot of us who live in countries at war can relate to) the realization is terrible. The clip ends up as just some entertainment reporter trying to get some air-time at all costs, a guy saying he's a witness and hoping that he can go on TV, and soldiers and paramedics shouting just "because". The clip fails to capture any of the drama of such a situation.

If you happen to have the chance to see it then you should, that is, unless you're a conservative in which case you'd better stay out as you might get offended. But if you're not then you might learn how many of us outside the US lived through 9/11. This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.

This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).

Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment). i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.

there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.

pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window. A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans "we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers", sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day "problems" are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy. Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.

Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it. I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.

From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.

The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.

The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.

The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.

The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.

The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.

The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.

The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.

There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.

10/10 This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today – he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution. This is the greatest film I saw in 2002, whereas I'm used to mainstream movies. It is rich and makes a beautiful artistic act from these 11 short films. From the technical info (the chosen directors), I feared it would have an anti-American basis, but ... it's a kind of (11 times) personal tribute.

The weakest point comes from Y. Chahine : he does not manage to "swallow his pride" and considers this event as a well-merited punishment ... It is really the weakest part of the movie, but this testifies of a real freedom of speech for the whole piece. The weirdest comes from the Mexican nearly conceptual-art film ... I am still not sure what A. Gonzalez Inarritu meant. The 9 others are perfect (K. Loach, S. Penn, S. Makhmalbaf, ...) or nearly perfect (C. Lelouch) and made me either smile, or cry or even left me stunned. I still don't know if S. Imamura's fable is really related or not to the September 11th catastrophe, but it is so pretty that its finale place deeply 'makes it'. First of all, I don't understand why some people find this movie so anti-american. Sure, there are moments when the U.S. are accused directly, like at the segments of Youssef Chahine, Ken Loach and, to a certain extent, Mira Nair. But come on, they aren't naive accusations; instead, they are based on real and documented facts, and all the documents that the CIA released about Chile confirms this, for example.

But returning to the film itself, what I enjoyed most on it is the variety of moods we find in it. We find children being educated for the respect of the all the people who died in the event; we find a unhappy couple that will be changed by the tragedy of that day; we find common people that have their feelings downgraded on the shadow of the events of September 11 and react differently to this, with dignity or frustration; we even find someone in the movie for who the fall of the towers grounds for a moment of real happiness.

All these visions and others - as powerful as these or even more - make a consistent blend and help the spectator to have a glimpse about how different people spread across the world reacted to the events of September 11th. Thus, what we see is a panorama that is much more complex than whites and blacks, and this may make some people infuriated; but this is the world where we live, and in it there is no place for manicheistic ideologies, regardless of what presidents or priests may say us.

Finally, I think it's a shame that there isn't even a release date for this movie in the United States of America. It's a shame because most of the american people is asking why this catastrophe happened, and this movie could give some clues to them. This film puts very clearly - differently of what some people of this forum think - that everything we do today will determine our future, and that the errors of the past will affect how we live today. the movie is great, like every other international project that includes strong impressions. three of them (israel, bosnia and egypt) should've been cut out. especially bosnian clip, which is pathetic beyond all reason, and doesn't contain a single original thought or element on it's own. everything else is really great, unrecognizable for most of americans, known for the rest of the world. unfortunately, clips speak about misery of the people all over the world. and, as i see it, there are so many of those who won't give a damn about it...

top 5: 1. loach 2. penn 3. inarritu 4. lalouche 5. imamura First than anything, I'm not going to praise Iñarritu's short film, even I'm Mexican and proud of his success in mainstream Hollywood.

In another hand, I see most of the reviews focuses on their favorite (and not so) short films; but we are forgetting that there is a subtle bottom line that circles the whole compilation, and maybe it will not be so pleasant for American people. (Even if that was not the main purpose of the producers)

What i'm talking about is that most of the short films does not show the suffering that WASP people went through because the terrorist attack on September 11th, but the suffering of the Other people.

Do you need proofs about what i'm saying? Look, in the Bosnia short film, the message is: "You cry because of the people who died in the Towers, but we (The Others = East Europeans) are crying long ago for the crimes committed against our women and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Even though the Burkina Fasso story is more in comedy, there is a the same thought: "You are angry because Osama Bin Laden punched you in an evil way, but we (The Others = Africans) should be more angry, because our people is dying of hunger, poverty and AIDS long time ago, and nobody pay attention to us like the whole world has done to you".

Look now at the Sean Penn short: The fall of the Twin Towers makes happy to a lonely (and alienated) man. So the message is that the Power and the Greed (symbolized by the Towers) must fall for letting the people see the sun rise and the flowers blossom? It is remarkable that this terrible bottom line has been proposed by an American. There is so much irony in this short film that it is close to be subversive.

Well, the Ken Loach (very know because his anti-capitalism ideology) is much more clearly and shameless in going straight to the point: "You are angry because your country has been attacked by evil forces, but we (The Others = Latin Americans) suffered at a similar date something worst, and nobody remembers our grief as the whole world has done to you".

It is like if the creative of this project wanted to say to Americans: "You see now, America? You are not the only that have become victim of the world violence, you are not alone in your pain and by the way, we (the Others = the Non Americans) have been suffering a lot more than you from long time ago; so, we are in solidarity with you in your pain... and by the way, we are sorry because you have had some taste of your own medicine" Only the Mexican and the French short films showed some compassion and sympathy for American people; the others are like a slap on the face for the American State, that is not equal to American People. A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10

Everything is relative seems to be the main theme from the outset by this set of eleven pieces by eleven directors. That is to say that what might be number one priority for people like Bush, Blair and Company, may not be so for a great many other people, ordinary people. From the opening scene in which an Iranian teacher is trying to impress on her little students the most important thing that has happened, with the result the children are not impressed, as the death of a neighbour and things like that evidently affect them much more closely than anything which may have happened in New York, USA, wherever that is, this series of almost documentary styled pieces establishes that not all things are as equal unto all men as some world leaders would try to prophess.

Whereas, obviously, the attack on the WTC was a dastardly event by any yardstick, one does get the impression that both politicians and TV cameramen tend to blow up things out of all proportion - wonderfully manifested in one of these pieces. Would the same reaction at international level have occurred if the attack had been made on Lagos, say, or Djakarta, say, or even on Rio de Janeiro, say? I rather think not. News seems to suffer distortion depending on where things happen: much more TV time is given to an earthquake in Italy, say, than one ten times more destructive in Outer Mongolia, say. Greater distances seem to decrease the magnitude of the disaster.

This series of eleven pieces helps to put things in better perspective - or, perhaps I should say, some of the pieces do, as each director with complete freedom has made up his own story, his own translated perspective, such that it is not possible to judge the whole merits, but individually for each eleven-minute segment.

In no way should one deduce that this is an anti-American film: that would be a too simple reading of the diverse messages manifested through the segments. However, it is not pro-American either. The eleven segments adopt varied attitudes and the common link - if there is one - is that the disaster of the WTC attack has to be seen in perspective from different view-points. Only then will such people as George Bush even begin to comprehend the planet he is living on.

Clearly stated in one segment is a belief of mine I have been harbouring for two years now: America has not learnt the lesson. And the lesson is that the USA has to share this planet with the rest of humanity - not dominate it by ruthless economical persuasion or just plain force. Instead of learning that the USA cannot continue just stamping all over everybody and everywhere, its political leaders, aided and abetted by Blair (and even Aznar) have become even more arrogant and even more intolerant, which is not doing any good to anyone in Afghanistan or Irak at present, let alone much elsewhere. The White House mentality is totally rejectable: the US and UK invaded Irak and caused all the chaos, and so should clear up the mess they caused - not insist on the UN and other nations to delve in with a helping hand and thus find an easy way out of the turmoil.

Radical stances adopted by the US (or even Israel) is only going to be met by radical stances from Islamic people, who for years have been gearing up fanatical fundamentalism, if only to cover up their own macho uselessness, i.e., stoning women to death or simply shrouding them from the tops of their heads to the dusty ground.

The world is in a terrible mess, fueled by the greed of a few rich countries who seem bent on not seeing or understanding anything from more multilateral perspectives. This film in eleven separate pieces accurately portrays this dismal and dumb posture. The idea's which are shown in this film are with a lot of care and detail and depict what a lot of people from around the world think of the American Policies, not neccessarily the United States itself. It shows what most of the people around the world think about America and what the Americans dont know about themselves. 11 directors showing 11 amazing minutes each of something which will give US viewers a lot to think about when they go home after watching the movie. Chang Cheh's "Shaolin Temple" might very well be the highwater mark of the Shaw Brothers martial arts film cycle. This rousing kung fu epic boasts an amazing cast - a veritable who's who of the Shaw stable. Though the plot is fairly standard and the fight choreography is superb as usual, it is Cheh's handling of the subject matter that makes this film remarkable and enjoyable. The sense of reverence displayed for the history and traditions of the Shaolin Temple is palpable in every frame. Not unlike William Keighley's paean to the fabled Fighting 69th in that same self titled film or John Ford's salute to West Point in "The Long Gray Line," Cheh's "Shaolin Temple" is a lovingly crafted ode in that same style.

The cultural correlation I am tempted to make, is to compare the Shaolin Temple to the Alamo. Watching this film will give the same admiring and nostalgic feelings that you experienced many years ago in grade school history when you learned of the courage and sacrifice of those doomed heroes of the Alamo. At the end of the film, you too might be tempted to call out, Remember the Shaolin Temple! The Only Kung Fu Epic worth watching. The best training ever. The main character spending a hundred day's on his knees outside the shaolin temple show how desperate he is to learn kung fu to fight the manchu dogs who have taken over china. An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.

But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.

Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.

Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits. This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. If you know the Real World and the people from those shows, this movie will be top notch, if you have never seen the real world you will still think it is an extremely funny movie but you won't get some of the inside jokes about the actors and the tv show. Hilarious film. I saw this film at the 2002 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival, and laughed from start to finish. The acting was subtle but very funny. I'm not entirely certain about "The Real World" influence, we don't get that here, but the film holds up without the understanding of that show. Heather B steals every scene she appears in, most notably when acting with her seldom talkative red co-star. Highly recommended. I'd love to see this released on Video/DVD some time in the future. If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.

Great Camp!!! Well, I am delighted to hear a rumor that this may finally be issued on DVD. When that will happen, I don't know, but I will grab it when it's released.

In my humble opinion, this is Errol Flynn's most entertaining film, especially when "Gentleman Jim" Corbett's ring career begins in the film. Then it goes from a good film to a great one.

Few people could play arrogant men and still come off as a likable good guy as well as Flynn could and this film is a perfect example of that. Reportedly, this was Flynn's favorite role and I believe that. You can just sense how much fun he was having here. Ward Bond also looks like he was really enjoying his role playing the famous John L. Sullivan. Bond, too, was never better.

There is just the right amount of action boxing scenes in here and they are pretty well done, too. Corbett's family is fun to watch, too, as they carry on in the stands during Jim's matches. Out of the arena, Corbett's family's constant arguments and yelling can get a little too loud and annoying but they set the stage for a fitting conclusion.

And speaking of the conclusion, Sullivan's speech to Corbett after the big fight is very touching and the highlight of the film. Some mean-spirited critics (Variety, for example) didn't like that ending nor the fact that much of the film is fictionalized but - duh - most films are fictionalized, like it or not. And, in this case, it made for a nice story and nice ending. (In real life, Corbett was a very soft-spoken true gentleman, not anything like Flynn's portrayal, but Flynn still make him a good guy.)

This is one of the more entertaining classic films I have ever watched and I eagerly wait for the DVD. This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.

The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it. James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" was the starting point of this lively and well-remembered fictionalized biography. The author was heavyweight champion of the world, succeeding John L. Sullivan, before the turn of the century. The events of the narrative depict Corbett as a brash but likable and intelligent young man whose conquest of the world of boxing and social prejudice in his time, when he was considered merely the son of Irish immigrants, a lowly bank teller and a nobody surprised everyone. It took him several hours of exciting and often amusing screen-time to prove his compeers were wrong. He is an bank teller when the film opens, but he somehow wangles an invitation to a sporting club for the well-to-do. He falls in love with a beautiful but snobbish girl, with whom he always seems to be quarreling, and he lives at home with a brawling clan of Corbetts who seem to fight with one another as often as with others. When he defeats the club's best and a professional fighter borough in to embarrass him, he finally decides to become famous by fighting. he sets out on the road with his friend, who acts as manager and trainer, and despite a few near setbacks, he wins all his bouts and attracts attention. Coming home to pursue his girl again, he contrives to annoy the Boston Strongboy, mighty John L. Sullivan, who enters bars and claims he can "lick any man in the world". Few believe he can win a bout against Sullivan, but Corbett, dubbed "Gentleman Jim" for his gracious manners and patrician appearance surprises everyone by moving, dancing out of range, and negating the furious Sullivan's power. The film's finest scene perhaps comes when a beaten Sullivan comes to congratulate Corbett. The new champion rises to the moment, tells Sullivan a few years before it might have been different, and shows him nothing but admiration and respect. He gets his girl as a result of his two performances, but by the end of the film, as they visit his s parents, his manager is able to tell the world, "The Corbetts are at it again". The films is attractive and has a consistent style without being flashy. The script was written by veteran Horace McCoy and Vincent Lawrence from the Corbett novel. Sidney Hickox did the cinematography, with period set decorations by Clarence Steensen and art direction by Ted Smith. Heinz Roemheld did the music and Milo Anderson the gowns. The film was ably directed by action-film specialist Raoul Walsh. Flynn also liked working with Walsh but did not care for the other director he worked for most often, Michael Curtiz. Among the cast,were Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, in one of his best performances lovely Alexis Smith a bit spotty but intelligent as the girl Corbett loves and a very able Errol Flynn as Corbett, a young man he seemed to relish playing--he later said it was his favorite role from the period...Jack Carson was his manager, Alan Hale his charismatic father, John Loder a rich foe, with William Frawley, Minor Watson, Madeleine LeBeau, Rhys Williams, Arthur Shields, Dorothy Vaughn and Mike Mazurki along for the enjoyable proceedings. It is hard to say enough about the logic and light-hearted fun this movie's makers have generated; it is one of the best-liked of all sports biography films, and by my standards one of the most enjoyable as well. Some saying about 'The Play is the Most Important Thing', or something like that, is attributed to that old Bard of Avon, himself, William Shakewspeare. if it wasn't old Will, it may well have been our own, super-veteran film Director, Mr. Raoul Walsh. There are a large number of his films that would support this hypothesis. None are more appropriate than GENTLEMAN JIM(Warner Brothers, 1942).

The Film also racks up another award, being named as Errol Flynn's favourite of his own starring vehicles. It clearly gives on screen evidence that would easily lead viewers sitting in the darkened theatre, or viewing it on their home TV or DVD, to conclude same.

To be sure, the story is a semi-serious Biopic, which takes a portion of factual material and blends it with a liberal dose of the old imagination to bring us a very satisfying, albeit somewhat fictionalized(what Biopic isn't?)occurrences.

The casting is excellent, as it makes good use of the natural athleticism of our lead, Mr. Errol Flynn. Though not a Swashbuckler, a Western or a War Picture, this GENTLEMAN JIM is perhaps the starring role that was the best fit for the rugged Australian.

Errol was a member of the Australian Olympic Boxing Team in either 1928 or 1932. His training and skills in the 'sweet science'are clearly in evidence throughout the film and especially in the "Big Fight" for the World's Heavyweight Boxing Championship with the great John L.Sullivan,Himself.(played in expert fashion by Ward Bond) The cast reads like a duty roster of Warner Brothers' resident supporting players. It features Alan Hale as Jim Corbet's father, a Livery Wagon operator*. His two brothers are Harry and George (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin), the two 'blue collar' men of the family, their occupations being stated as being 'Longshormen'.

The great Jack Carson does his usual masterful serio-comic performance in support as Jim Corbett's friend and fellow bank teller. The rest of those we can both recognize and remember are:John Loder, William Frawley,Madeleine LeBeau, Minor Watson, Rhys Williams,Arthur Shields,Dorothy Vaughn to name but a few.

Director Walsh also used a number of Pro Wrestlers in roles of various Boxers. Hence we have Ed "Strangler" Lewis and an unknown Grappler* are featured as the 2 waterfront pugs in the opening scenes. Others were Sammy Stein, Mike Mazurki(ever hear of him?)and "Wee Willie" Davis. These guys had a powerful,yet unpolished look about them that the old Pier 9 brawlers would have possessed.

We haven't forgotten Leading Lady, Alexis Smith. She is powerful in her characterization of an "independent" woman, yet maintains enough true ability as a comic player in many of the scenes. She displays quite a range in her part as poor little rich girl, Victoria Lodge.

With all these ingredients at hand, the trick is how to mix the elements in proper proportions to give it the 'just right' blend. Well, Director Walsh does so with a reckless abandon. Because he is looking for, above all, a great film. His treatment shows all of the skills he had honed to a fine tuning starting with his days as a player with D.W. Griffith. Mr. Walsh seems to have a special fondness for that period, the 1890's.*** Mr. Walsh's direction moves through the script at a fairly fast clip, breaking up the exposition scenes with a humorous punch-line, "the Corbetts are at it again!" Hence, he is able to maintain a light, even humorous touch to a story which could become too drab and serious.

Furthermore, in an almost unnoticed element, Brother Walsh gives us an authentic look of a San Francisco of the 1890's. And as a further example of his fondness for that period, he creates wide, dynamic images of the historic Prize Fights. There is a vibrant, joyful mood conveyed in those Boxing scenes. As a crowning glory to this great, perhaps underrated film, Director Walsh gave the image a look as if it were an illustration from The Police Gazette, which covered such events in those "Old Days".

But there's just one thing to remember before viewing. If it is for the first time, or if your seeing it once more:

"THE CORBETS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!"

* In my humble opinion as a historian of both Film and Pro Wrestling, it looks like Tor Johnson, who years later was a favourite of Director Ed Wood's.

** A 'Livery' is a somewhat archaic term for a vehicle for hire for local city transportation.

*** It's true. Mr. Raoul Walsh was a Griffith Veteran Player. He was the actor to portray John Wilkes Booth in THE BIRTH OF A NATION(1915).

**** Being born in 1887, Raoul Walsh was old enough to have his own memories of the 1890's and of the Sullivan-Corbett Championship Bout and what it meant to the Sporting Life in the America of those days. Flynn, known mostly for his swashbuckling roles (and his bedroom antics!) takes a different tack with this film and it works beautifully. Playing real-life boxing champ Jim Corbett, Flynn turns on the charm full blast as he makes his way from a stifled San Francisco bank teller to a celebrated pugilist, all the while setting one eye on society deb Smith. He and best pal Carson attend an illegal bare-knuckle fight and are arrested along with scores of other men (and a dog!) including a prominent judge. The next day, he gets a chance, via Smith, to gain entrance to the judge's private club. He uses this opportunity to weasel his way into the good graces of its exclusive members and land a spot as the club's resident boxer. His unusually adept skill in the sport soon has him taking on all comers, up to and including the world champion John L. Sullivan (Bond.) Flynn is downright magical here. He is the epitome of charm, charisma and appeal in this role. He looks terrific (especially in a hangover scene with his hair mussed and wearing a white union suit) and does virtually all of his own stuntwork (impressively!) His line delivery is delicious and he is credible and sympathetic and at the same time duplicitous and rascally. Smith exudes class and taste from every pore and is a good match for Flynn. At this stage, he needed a female costar who could stand up to his advances and reputation (he was undergoing statutory rape charges at the time) and she does so admirably. She is repulsed by his freshness and cavalier attitude, yet can hardly help but fall under his enchanting spell. Bond is incredibly burly, brawny and towering, yet tender when the script calls for it. Amusing support is provided by a young and ebullient Carson. Frawley is his dependably cantankerous self as Flynn's manager. The rest of the cast is excellent as well including Flynn's rambunctious family and an assortment of stuffy Nob Hill types. The whole thing is beautifully appointed and securely directed. A few of the sets are amazingly presented. Some of Smith's gowns border on the garish, but she suits the upswept hairstyles very well. It's a terrific glimpse into the earliest days of championship boxing, but it's also so much more. Some of it (like the character traits shown by Flynn) is enhanced or exaggerated for entertainment purposes, but a lot of it is authentic (like the methods and costumes shown in the fight scenes.) One line is particularly memorable: "I believe you like me more than I like you, but it's entirely possible that I love you more than you love me." It's classic romantic dialogue (and there are more than a few zingers sprinkled throughout the script as well.) Gentleman Jim not really a boxing film. It is a vehicle for Errol Flynn as Jim Corbett. But having said that, the boxing scenes are a real eye-opener to the modern viewer. There are no 12 round, points decisions here.

Errol Flynn plays the Irish bank clerk who gets a shot at the heavyweight world title. Flynn is well suited to the role of suave but unpredictable Corbett. His opponent John Sullivan is still better however, a bruiser of the old school played by Ward Bond.

The theme of the film is a man pushing for his big chance. Corbett leaves his mundane life behind and builds a new persona as Gentleman Jim. Jim is a chancer who can adapt to any social environment. He is a liar and an egotist. Sullivan the heavyweight boxing champion is portrayed as a simple brute but his honesty and sportsmanship gives a certain contrast to the main character.

There is action and excitement aplenty and a wonderful ending with the requisite redemption for all. And Errol Flynn gets the girl. Loosely based on the James J Corbett biography "The Roar Of The Crowd", Gentleman Jim is a wonderfully breezy picture that perfectly encapsulates not only the rise of the pugilistic prancer that was Corbett, but also the wind of change as regards the sport of boxing circa the 1890s.

The story follows Corbett {a perfectly casted Errol Flynn} from his humble beginnings as a bank teller in San Fransico, thru to a chance fight with an ex boxing champion that eventually leads to him fighting the fearsome heavyweight champion of the world, John L Sullivan {beefcake personified delightfully by Ward Bond}. Not all the fights are in the ring tho, and it's all the spin off vignettes in Corbett's life that makes this a grand entertaining picture. There are class issues to overcome here {perfectly played out as fellow club members pay to have him knocked down a peg or two}, and Corbett has to not only fight to get respect from his so called peers, but he must also overcome his ego as it grows as briskly as his reputation does. Along with the quite wonderful Corbett family, and all their stoic humorous support, Corbett's journey is as enthralling as it is joyous, yet as brash and as bold as he is, he is a very likable character, and it's a character that befits the tagged moniker he got of Gentleman Jim.

The film never sags for one moment, and it's a testament to director Raoul Walsh that although we are eagerly awaiting the final fight, the outer ring goings on are keeping us firmly entertained, not even the love interest sub plot hurts this picture {thank you Alexis Smith}. The fight sequences stand up really well, and they perfectly show just how Corbett became the champ he was, his brand of dancing rings round slugger fighters is now firmly placed in boxing history. As the final reel rolls we all come down to earth as an after fight meeting between Sullivan and Corbett puts all the brutality into context, and it's here where humility and humbleness becomes the outright winner, and as far as this viewer goes..............it will do for me to be sure to be sure, 9/10 for a truly wonderful picture. I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.

The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability.

"Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).

At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun. This is one of the greatest sports movies ever made by Hollywood. What a wonderful story about one of the great sports figures of American history. What makes the story of James J. Corbett especially interesting is that Mr. Corbett introduced the style of boxing that continues to this day. In that respect James J. Corbett was truly innovated. But getting back to the movie, all the performances were excellent. Alexis Smith was beautiful. Indeed, she looked like Nicole Kidman. And although it's a period piece, the story withstands the test of time; it has not gone stale. Ward Bond's portrayal of John L. Sullivan has to be one of the great portrayals of an actual sports figure in the history of movies and the boxing scenes are realistic, well-staged and highly effective. That coupled with a great script makes this movie a must. If you are looking for a definitive biography of the life of boxer James Corbett, then this is probably not the film for you. The famed boxer receives a 1940s "Hollywood-ization" of his life--making the story far more entertaining and engaging than real life. However, because the performances were so good (particularly by Errol Flynn) and the script so likable, the film's embellishments can be forgiven.

Errol Flynn plays Gay Nineties-era boxer James "Gentleman Jim" Corbett--a man who became world boxing champ in 1892. The film goes from his rather humble beginnings and follows his through his career through him winning the title match against John L. Sullivan. However, while it could have focused mostly on the matches, most are rather brief in the film (except for the final title match) and the emphasis is on Corbett's brash personality as well as his relationship with the lady played by Alexis Smith. Throughout the film, there is excellent supporting work done by a cast of wonderful supporting actors (such as the perennial supporting actor in Flynn films, Alan Hale) and the writing really helped bring these people alive.

What is particularly nice about the film is seeing the athleticism of Flynn as a boxer. While a few of the shots are of doubles, almost all the boxing scenes are of Flynn and he did a convincing job as a pugilist. This was a nice departure for Flynn, who generally played "pretty boy" roles or swashbucklers and this shows just how tough a character he was. To find out more about this, try reading a biography of him--he was quite the rough and tumble character before coming to Hollywood.

Now as for the REAL James Corbett, read on if you aren't afraid of finding out how the movie isn't accurate. First, Corbett was NOT a poor guy coming from a poor family, but was college educated and bright. Second, while he DID get Alexis Smith at the end of the film, they also divorced a few years later. Third, the wonderfully touching final scene of the film between Sullivan and Corbett was probably the best part of the film, Sullivan was a jerk and this never could have happened--in reality, Sullivan was more the egomaniac and Corbett was not the fat-headed guy they portrayed in the film--though it made for a lovely film. James J. Corbett, heavyweight champion of the world from 1892 to 1897, turned out to be Errol Flynn's favorite role. Possibly because he didn't have to wield a sword or be in a western. He grew tired of the swashbucklers and he said in his autobiography that he felt he was miscast in westerns and couldn't understand why people liked him in them. It is an enjoyable film, but hardly does tell the real story of James J. Corbett.

As portrayed Corbett was the first scientific boxer to win in the heavyweight division, a man who used brains and speed more than brute strength to win. He defeated John L. Sullivan and lost to Bob Fitzsimmons the heavyweight crown. He was also a compulsive womanizer and in that was a lot like the man portraying him. Of course that was not shown on the screen. The character that Alexis Smith plays, the banker's daughter who falls for him, has no basis in reality. Corbett was in fact married twice and was flagrantly unfaithful with both of his wives.

Also though after he lost his title and after the events of this film are concluded he suffered a great personal tragedy. His father in a moment of depression, probably over finances because he lost heavily betting on his son to beat Bob Fitzsimmons, shot his mother and then turned the gun on himself. The murder/suicide hardly squares with the happy clan that Alan Hale presided over.

One thing though that I did like about Gentleman Jim. Ward Bond got the career role of his life in playing John L. Sullivan. Director Raoul Walsh got a great performance out of Bond as the blustering, but lovable Sullivan. Even given some of Sullivan's bad points that don't make it to the screen like rabid racism, Bond's portrayal is the quintessential John L. and the best thing about Gentleman Jim.

Speaking of racism, one thing that should have been told was the fact that Sullivan while champion refused on grounds of race to meet Peter Jackson who was black and from Australia and probably the best heavyweight of his time. I say probably because as a challenger Corbett met him and fought him for 61 rounds to a draw. That fight more than any other created a demand for a Sullivan-Corbett title match. Of course when Corbett was champion he refused to give Jackson a title shot. Maybe he didn't want another 61 round marathon with someone who may have been better on that particular day.

Gentleman Jim is not Jim Corbett's story, it is a movie of Errol Flynn playing at being James J. Corbett. But Corbett had he been alive in 1942 no doubt would have loved the movie and loved Flynn's portrayal of his life. It's as he would have liked to have been remembered. Errol Flynn's greatest movie, not just a sports movie with a wonder last 5 minutes where Ward Bond shines. Don't miss it just because you think its an old movie. Its a classic that could be easily missed. Do yourself a favour and don't. Just to mention one more thing about Gentleman Jim. I agree with all the assessments that make this among Errol Flynn's greatest outings in a career of great outings. I would think this role playing boxer Jim Corbett is more like his real personality than the swashbucklers he was typecast as. Flynn seemed like a party animal from his memoirs and was one guy whose real life was more exciting than his screen life. The extra thing I wanted to point out is notice the great montages, transitions, and still inserts that punctuate the film. Although the director was Raoul Walsh, a frequent collaborator with Flynn, with cinematographer Sid Hickox, the montages were made up by an up and coming editor named Don Siegel. I never knew Siegel went that far back but he's listed right in the credits. He would go on to a great career as action director himself. Excellent Warner Bros effort starring Errol Flynn in one of his best screen performances. It's often cited as his best, and I can't really judge fully until I have seen his "Dawn Patrol". However, his work in "They Died With Their Boots On" takes some beating. I'm a big Flynn fan (he's my favourite actor after James Mason--it also helps that he's an Aussie) and I think he's just marvellous, a great screen presence and also a great actor. He is the centrepiece of "Gentleman Jim" as the legendary boxer with the fancy footwork, but he is also backed up by a literate, warm and funny script, and Raoul Walsh's direction. Every Walsh film I have seen never loses a beat of it's pace, he truly was a born film-maker. Walsh directs the ring scenes beautifully, as he does with the lighter moments and that poignant, great final scene between Ward Bord and Flynn. Add to that great production values (the "Gay Nineties" never looked better!) and a lovely supporting cast and it's pretty much perfect entertainment. Alan Hale usually played Flynn's sidekick, but here is his father, and it still all works. Alexis Smith is Flynn's love interest. The pair are head over heels in love with fighting with each other. In late 1800s San Francisco, poor well-dressed Errol Flynn (as James J. Corbett) works at a bank, and enjoys attending local "fights" (boxing) with co-worker and drinking buddy Jack Carson (as Walter Lowrie). One day, pretty Alexis Smith (as Victoria Ware) walks into the "Comstock Bank", where Mr. Flynn works. Flynn is so taken with Ms. Smith's elegant beauty, he offers to carry her withdrawal purse. Smith is secretly taken with the handsome Flynn, but is put off by his brashness.

Flynn's good deed (actually, pick-up attempt) gets him a complimentary membership in the snooty "Olympic Club", which conveniently includes a gymnasium (with boxing equipment). However, Flynn's presumptuous manner, and practical joking (he tickles men on the parallel bars) irritates "Club" members. When an English boxing champ visits the club, members endeavor to get Flynn to fight the man. They are hopeful Flynn will resign, humiliated by his defeat - but, Flynn wins!

First time producer Robert Buckner puts together a nice package for Warner Brothers, and director Raoul Walsh. Mr. Buckner was, certainly, basking in the success of his contribution (screenplay) to the studio's brilliant "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Unfortunately, this story is positively ludicrous. There was a "Gentleman Jim" - this story is supposedly the filming of the real James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" - but, this movie must be significantly fictionalized.

Flynn is a very appealing leading man; he maneuvers the script lightly, and should have been recognized, by the early 1940s, as an excellent actor. Many of Flynn's characterizations were (are?) overlooked as great performances, and this is one of them. Smith does well as his feminine interest, deftly transmitting her emotions for the viewer. Director Walsh makes the silliness look smooth and extravagant. The supporting cast is a treasure trove, from boisterous Alan Hale (as Pat Corbett) to walk-on Lon McCallister ("Paging Mr. Corbett").

******** Gentleman Jim (1942) Raoul Walsh ~ Errol Flynn, Alexis Smith, Alan Hale Errol Flynn is "Gentleman Jim" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a "shanty Irishman" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.

This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.

The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.

Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar. Director Raoul Walsh was like the Michael Bay of the '40's and years before that. And I mean that in a positive way, since I'm definitely ain't no Bay-hater. His movies are just simple high quality entertainment, just like the Raoul Walsh movies were in his days.

"Gentleman Jim" is fine quality entertainment. Besides a first class director, it also features a first grade cast, with Raoul Walsh's regular leading man Errol Flynn in the main part.

What surprised me was how well the boxing matches were brought to the screen. They used some very dynamic camera-work, which also really made the boxing matches uplifting and exciting to watch, with the end championship fight against John L. Sullivan as the ultimate highlight.

Biopics of the '40's and earlier on were obviously still very much different from biographies being made this present day. Modern biographies often glorify its main subject and show his/her life from basically birth till death and everything, mostly emotional aspects, in between. 'Old' biopics were just made the same as movies that weren't based on actual real life persons, which also means that the film-makers would often use a use amount of creative liberty with the main character's personality and events that happened in his/her life. This movie is also not just a biography about a boxing legend but also forms a nice portrayal from the period when illegal bare knuckle fighting entered the modern era of boxing.

Errol Flynn does a great job portraying the real life famous boxer James J. Corbett aka Gentleman Jim. Not too many people known it but Flynn did some real good acting jobs in the '40's, of which this movie is one. Fysicaly he also looks in top-shape. He also looks quite different by the way without his trademark small mustache in this movie. The movie also features some fine supporting actors and some fine acting throughout.

A great and entertaining movie that also still truly holds up real well today.

8/10 ERROL FLYNN had one of his favorite roles as the brash braggart from a fighting Irish family who went on to become the heavyweight champion of the world at a time when John L. Sullivan (WARD BOND) went around claiming that he "could beat any man alive." Both Flynn and Ward Bond give what is probably among the best performances they ever gave on screen.

Raoul Walsh has directed the colorful tale with robust style, capturing the family life as well with scenes that are warm-hearted and full of good humor. All the Warner contract players make up the fine cast--including the always reliable ALAN HALE as Flynn's rambunctious father, proud of his son's fighting abilities, and ALEXIS SMITH who makes the most of her role as a feisty society girl who enjoys taking Flynn down a peg with saucy one-liners dealing with his conceited manners.

All of the 1880s atmosphere is captured in glorious B&W, although it's too bad Warners didn't have more faith in Flynn to do the film in color. He was entering a rocky phase of his film career at the time, engaged in a widely publicized rape trial that had all of the tabloids busy sorting things out.

The fighting scenes are among the best ever choreographed for the screen, with Flynn obviously in fine form and making very little use of doubles for most of the action. And the scene where Bond turns over his award plaque to Flynn at a social gathering is one of Ward's finest moments in a long career as a character actor.

Summing up: Maintains interest all the way through, whether you're a sports fan or not. I meant that in a GOOD way, believe me. True to life, it ain't. The whole Oirish thing gets kinda thick, but you DO enjoy the cast here-Flynn, Smith, Bond, Watson, Frawley, etc. All good. I also liked seeing Mike Mazurki-of Course he played a boxer, what else? Typical forties flick teeming w/ familiar faces and fast paced scenes, one after the other.

Flynn is fine as Gentleman Jim, you never get past a 1 dimensional look at him or the rest here, I suppose, but it's okay, it's a cartoon and meant to please, that's all. The boxing scenes were pretty good, Ward Bond's vaudeville logging act a riot, and you hadda like seeing all those billyclub wielding bobbies come racing into the scene a couple of times.

Really alotta fun, Flynn was on a roll at that time and it's clear to see why audiences loved him.

*** outta **** Gentleman Jim is another case of print the legend, with Errol Flynn playing the legendary boxer as a brash but charismatic social climber in a rollicking entertainment that barely stops for breath. It's as pointless looking for historical accuracy here as it is in Flynn's The Charge of the Light Brigade - this is sheer hokum with all the stops pulled out, filmed on a surprisingly lavish scale and given a real sense of energy by Raoul Walsh's vivid direction. Flynn is still at the height of his powers (you'd never guess he suffered a mild heart attack during the production), with Alexis Smith a beautiful romantic sparring partner and perpetual sidekick Alan Hale along for good measure, this time as Flynn's father (Jack Carson takes sidekick duties this time). Indeed, even the pirate galleon from Flynn's earlier movies makes a somewhat out-of-place cameo in a dockside bout! The 103 minutes just breeze by. I saw this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought "What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).

So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.

Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.

I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.

Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.

P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film. I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.

Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you! I saw this movie a million years (5 years to be exact) ago for the first the time. In the light of recent events with the Australian woman Schapelle Corby being imprisoned in Indonesia for so called smuggling pot, I decided to watch this movie again. I excepted to cry my heart out, 'cause I'm sucker for hot girls in need (just read my review of 'the stalking of Laurie Show'). Some moist escaped my eyes, but it were hardly buckets filled with tears. Why? Not because the two heroines weren't utterly adoring and helpless, not because the movie wasn't heartbreaking at the sight of these two kids in the prime of their live locked up in almost inhuman conditions. Why then? Why did I not cry? I wanted to cry! When I rent a movie like this, I except to be moved, to sob like there's no tomorrow, to feel miserable and like it. This movie was simply too short to do this. It was just like the script was reduced to the main plot elements, and while doing this the psychological aspect was thrown aside. Clare Danes and Kate Beckinsale did an excellent job portraying the emotions of the two friends, but this movie just screamed for more footage of these girls in their depressing (and oppressing) surroundings. The mental journey is missing here for some reason. You only get to see the key moments of it (which are very touching, I admit), probably because of bad editing. Sometimes I felt these girls were walking around in a postcard. The relationship with the family members could also have used a bit more attention. What's up with the relationships between the girls and the parents (especially between Alice and her dad)? You catch a glimpse of it, but the film doesn't quite offer the whole picture, sadly enough.

Nonetheless this was a great movie, and at the end I even had to bite my lip a bit. But I guess this has more to do with the acting skills (and the looks) of the actresses (and the music) then with the merit of the director. To be honest, I hardly knew who Kate Beckinsale was before I watched this movie (again). Now, I am a fan! Great movie, as long as you don't expect it to be classic cinema. Brokedown Palace is truly a one of a kind. It's an amazing story, showing two girl's plight for freedom against the Thailand justice system. They soon find themselves placing faith into a system they know nothing about.

Alice Morano (Claire Danes) and Darlene Davis (Kate Beckinsale), are two best friends, strait out of high school. They suddenly change their vacation plans from Hawaii to Thailand, and are immediately captivated by a young man, Nick Parks. He flirts with them both, and suggests that the three of them go to Hong Kong for the weekend.

When the two arrive at the airport, they are immediately searched for drugs. Someone tipped off customs, and in an instant, their life is changed forever. In the mix of the confusion of settling into their new life, they learn about a highly respected lawyer, named Hank Green (Bill Pullman).

An American who knows the Thai justice system, he fights for the girl to be free. But they soon find out, when they leave or go is all up to them.

If you're looking for a great movie that'll stay with you for years - Brokedown Palace is definitely the way to go. Alice(Claire Danes) and Darlene(Kate Beckinsale) have been best friends since forever and after they graduate they decide to take a trip to Thailand. Due to a incident, they meet a young attractive mysterious stranger who invites them to go with him Hong Kong for the weekend. But at the airport, Alice and Darlene are mistaken for drug smuggling heroine and they are sent to prison. Now it's time for ultimate survival and true friendship. This was a pretty good movie, i've seen it a couple of times and after a while you notice that they are a few holes in the plot but the movie still keeps you entertained. Claire Danes did a great job as usual, she is a great actress. I would give Brokedown Palace 8/10 This movie is cold, bare truth. Often we think "oh no, that won't happen to me." But it can. Drug smuggling is big money and often people are unknowingly (or tricked) into doing things for smugglers. The story of these two girls is the story of many young people who like them, only wanted a exotic holiday - which turned into a nightmare. People need to know that these sort of events aren't improbable or exaggerated - this IS a major problem in today's society.

I would recommend this movie to mature viewers because of the understanding needed to truly appreciate this movie. It is very emotional and raw. Well worth watching and certainly stays in your memory. "What would you do?" is a question that will stick in your mind for weeks after watching the emotional Brokedown Palace. You will also be left wondering if Alice (Danes) was telling the truth or not - a issue that is left unresolved, and rightly so. This is a particularly well acted and beautifully shot film. Although it is slow at times, its pace is reflective of the story line - but a lot of the film will have you on the edge of your seat; wanting to know what happens next. The ending will also leave you imagining yourself in the shoes of the lead characters, which are brilliantly played by Kate Beckinsale and Claire Danes. Bill Pullman's performance is commendable, too. I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only "10" rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched. It's refreshing to see a movie that you think will end happily just like almost every other American movie, and then be surprised when that doesn't happen. I like a happy ending as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's better to portray things in a more realistic manner, and I thought Brokedown Palace did this very well.

The ending, with one friend basically sacrificing herself for the other, thus redeeming her earlier poor behavior which got them into the situation in the first place, was very moving. I almost rather would have done without the last line, which proved that she didn't actually do the deed she confessed to, because that would have made the movie more about the friendship between the two girls, and less about the crime. Whether she did it or not wasn't that important.

The story itself bordered on the cliché, but the actresses kept my attention with their excellent performances. Very realistic, very captivating.

7 out of 10. We all have friends. Some of us have more than others but there really are only one or two people that you feel really close with, people that you can say are like your brother or sister. Alice ( Danes )and Darlene ( Beckinsale ) are like that. You can see that from the beginning. They graduated together, they go to parties together and they decide to go to Bangkok together when they were supposed to be going to Hawaii. They also get busted for attempting to smuggle drugs into a third world country and that spells disaster. The rest of the film is about survival and not giving up hope. It also has a strong message about the power of friendship and what it can mean to someone.

Brokedown Palace is a very good film, it is not excellent and that is due to a few issues that I want to talk about. But first I want to say what is good about the film. And for starters the acting is top notch, and you can look no further than the two leads. Danes and Beckinsale are perfect in the roles that they have. Alice is always fiery and seems a little rough around the edges, but she seems more fun than Darlene. But sometimes that fun can get her into trouble. Darlene is always a little on the conservative side and although that can get irritating sometimes, it would have served the two girls better if her way was adhered to instead of Alice's. Bill Pullman is adequate as the American lawyer living in Thailand. The film is photographed very well also. The inside of the prison while not the same as Shawshank or Natural Born Killers or Return To Paradice, but it does show the necessary ( but underdone) hopelessness of the situation that they are in. Johnathin Kaplan's direction is quite good as well. We see the two girls struggling to make it through each day but you can see their spirit is being put out a little more each day. Brokedown Palace is excellent when it talks about friendship and it shows how they have to rely on each other to survive. The other thing that I had to comment on is the soundtrack for the film. It heightens and compliments the mood of the film to perfection. The song that you hear in the trailer is also played in the film and when it plays you feel the plight of the women in this prison. You can feel how alone they must feel and how desperate they are to get out and get back to the simple things in life. And it also makes you look at yourself and realize how lucky we are to live in the society that we do. We have it easy compared to some country's and believe it or not the music is a perfect catalyst for reflection on this subject. Some of the music is done by a group called Delirium ( I think ) but it is Sara McLaughlin( wrong spelling, but how do you spell her last name? ) that does the lyrics and her voice is beautiful and haunting and it adds so much to the film.

What I didn't enjoy about the film was some of the stupidity that the girls exhibit. I won't say what it is that they do but when you see it for yourself you'll know what I am talking about. Also I didn't really feel that the prison they were in was all that bad. It looked more like a minimum security prison and that may be because when there are similar circumstances in other films that invlove men doing time in a foreign country, the prison scenes are always brutal and sadistic. But I didn't get that here.

Overall this is a great film and it really does make you ask the question, " How far would you go for a friend? " That is a tough question and maybe one that none of us could honestly answer until put into the same situation. Let's just hope that it never comes down to that. In the film "Brokedown Palace," directed by Jonathan Kaplan, two best friends, Alice (Claire Danes) and Darlene (Kate Beckinsale) decide to celebrate high school graduation by taking a trip to Hawaii, but hear that Bangkok, Thailand, is much more fun. They switched plans and decided to go to Thailand without telling their parents the change of plans. While they were in Thailand, Alice and Darlene met a really handsome guy named Nick Parks (Daniel Lapaine). He tells them that he would trade in his first class ticket to Hong Kong for three economy tickets so that they could spend the weekend in Hong Kong. They accepted his offer and upon entering the airport the two were arrested for smuggling drugs. They were convicted and sentenced to thirty three years in prison.

I think Kaplan was trying to show the audience that it is wise to make good decisions because in one instance one bad decision can change the direction of a life forever. Also, a friendly face may not be as friendly as we think once we find out the real intentions of that friendly face. Those girls made a decision not to tell their parents that they had switched their plans and it changed their lives forever. Things have a funny way of happening showing us what decision we have made verses the decision that we should have made. Sometimes life is not fair, that is why it is important to think long and hard about the choices that we make because we can never go back and change the choices that we have made.

This movie has a great setting; it was filmed mostly in Bangkok Thailand. This film also has great music; a few of my favorite songs are 'Silence' by Delerium, 'Damaged' by Plumb, 'Deliver me' by Sarah Bightman and 'Party's just begun' by Nelly Furtado. I went out and bought the soundtrack after watching this film. These girls where young and naive and failed to think their plans out thoroughly, a mistake that anyone could make, therefore this film is good for any audience. It makes no difference young or old -- we all are human and subject to mistakes. Even though, I did not like the way this film ended leaving me in question of --who really smuggled the drugs? -- I would definitely give this film two thumbs up. I like films that don't provide the typical "happy ending," and that's my main reason for my liking of this movie. Alice Marano (Danes) and her best friend Darlene (Beckinsale) are arrested in Thailand for narcotics smuggling after a tip anonymously phoned in to the Thai authorities. The film does a solid job of keeping viewers guessing as to whether (or which) of the girls was involved, and Bill Pullman is perfect as their sleazy lawyer. Jacqueline Kim turns in a terrific performance as his more kind, magnanimous wife, Yon, who is also an attorney. I wish the girls had been abused more in the prison, as another commenter has suggested, as I've heard that Thai prisons can be quite brutal. Where this film grabs me, however, is its ending. Alice subjects herself to a sentence of 96 years in total so that Darlene can be pardoned, and we (the viewers) realize that they are both innocent. Any film that defies my expectation of the ending wins extra points with me, and this well-acted drama is certainly deserving. I caught this movie by accident on cable in the middle of it and had to rent it to see it's entirety and I'm glad I did. I was immediately drawn by the storyline and cared about the girls involved. Naive high school graduates, best friends since childhood, take a high school trip and are taken in by a con man named Nick who get them into serious trouble. They are used as sacrificial mules in a heroin smuggling ring. Taken in to custody the girls learn to cope with their incarceration while trying to find a way out of their trouble. Everything that they try to help themselves falls short when the Thai criminal justice system shows shortcomings and the girls end up in more trouble and lose the trust of their American lawyer "Yankee Hank". Hank gives up trying to defend them after he feels betrayed by Alice(Claire Dane). However, the Thai native wife of Hank smells a rat in the case and does some further foot work of investigation and finds out the girls really were victimized. The end of the movie when Alice does a selfless act to save Darlene (Beckinsale) had me in tears. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it. While I do not think this was a perfect 10, I do agree it was way above a 6 which is what it's rated here. No, Brokedown Palace was not perfect and yes it's plot has been done many times before. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again if it is done well and I think this movie had some strong moments. The acting of Claire Danes, as already mentioned many times, was flawless as was Kate Beckinsell and I Think Bill Pullman was absolutely terrific as was the supporting performances(Pullman's wife, the crooked cop, skip or trip or whatever his name is). The cinematography was also beautifully filmed, there was a lot that's good to this movie even if there were some negatives(three major ones that I found) as well.

Here is what I didn't like about it-the friendship between the girls-In fact, the girls' own individual personalities-were not developed in depth until the late middle of the pic. It would not have been improbable to lose interest before then, because, despite the positives, more character development should have been done earlier on and certain scenes like when the girls were originally arrested, were almost glossed over so there was a bit to much Jumping around without the character and scene development I think would have been appropriate for this type of film. That, however, is not my major problem. And WARNING-SPOILER ALERT.

The ending as mentioned dozens of times already, was AWFUL. It was awful in two respects. Firstly, even though it would have been predictable and very Hollywood, I wanted a happy ending! Yes, it was an emotional and powerful ending but in a movie such as this, there is a Sense that justice will be served and I did sit through it to see that. I was Genuinely shocked at the ending and It was performed with excellence by all involved but I feel both girls should have got out or, barring that, at least the cop should have got what was coming to him. I mean nothing happens To the bad guys, they all get away with it. Very disturbing.

Also, I do not understand the ambiguity of the ending. I understand endings that are inspired to make one think, but this was not a mystery or "Clue" type movie we were watching, and I would have liked to know something about what actually happened,who was guilty etc, with this ending we were left to decide that ourselves but since I somehow doubt there will be a sequel, I did not want to be kept guessing.

Still, there was a lot to like about this movie, and the acting is definitely at the top of the list,I would rate this a 7.5 and say it is definitely worth a look. I watched this movie 11 years ago in company with my best female friend. I got my judgment teeth pulled out so I didn't feel very good.

I ended up liking it big time. It's a hard watch if you take in account that it deals with friendship, unwanted betrayal, power, money, drug traffic, and the extreme hard situation that deals with living in a foreign jail.

The acting is on it's prime level. Two of the women that I lust the most star and that's a good thing. Claire Danes is as cute and charming as always while Kate Beckinsale is extremely hot and delivers a fine performance. Bill Pullman is also great and demonstrates his histrionic qualities.

There are many plot twists to dig from and make it an interesting visual experience. Plus it shows the difficult times at Thailand.

This is an underrated movie. Not many films like this one have come up in recent history. It should make you reflex about many things... I saw this movie in the theater, and was thoroughly impressed by it. Then again, that was when Claire Danes was a good actress, not the foolish, arrogant, Hollywood-ized bitch she is today. Anyway, this film really struck me as one of the more raw, realistic, beautiful friendship films. How far would you really go for your best friend? I was moved to tears at the end, and still tear up when I watch it now (I own it). I remember as soon as I left the theater, I called my best friend and sobbed to her how much I loved her. This is a great film to watch with your best girlfriend. However be prepared for the almost certain conversation afterward where she turns to you and asks if you'd do something like that for her.... I have been waiting for such an original picture such as this for quite some time now. Brokedown Palace has that `hard to believe' aspect, however with the ingenious directing, and screenplay, ‘Palace scores big.

I've really never enjoyed watching Claire Danes in any of her movies, but I'll tell you what, she really changed my mind with this one. Kate Beckinsale joins Danes on a vacation to Thailand where they meet up with a young man who convinces them to take a trip to Hong Kong with him. However, he neglected to inform them that they would be carrying an obscene amount of narcotics for him. Well, ultimately they get caught, and end up in a Thailand prison. I know, I know, how could you not know that you have 18 pounds of drugs? Well if you can get by that one tiny miscue, you will find a very well written, and acted out story. Lately I have found myself getting drawn into the storylines of the movies I watch, and developing a personal feeling for the characters that I watch. This movie is no different. By the end of the movie I found myself caring more for her than any of the other characters in the film.

Bill Pullman plays Hank Green, an attorney who lives in Thailand and specializes in international relations. As always Pullman delivers with an excellent performance and ties the movie together beautifully.

There are a few twists and turns that will, by the end of the movie, have you in tears. This is one of those movies that you have most likely passed by when searching for that movie to watch at home. It is my opinion that the next time out at the video store, do not pass by this one again. Two adventurous teenagers, best friends, take a trip to Thailand for one last experience before separating and going off to college. It seems like a fun time of touring an exotic land, until they meet an attractive stranger who seduces them into taking a trip to Hong Kong and puts drugs in their luggage. They get nabbed by the local police and find that justice in Asia is very different from justice in the U.S.

This is the main story line for "Brokedown Palace" and it was a good one. The film does a decent job of portraying the arbitrary and corrupt justice systems of third world nations. Actually, the portrayal was rather mild, as the prison conditions are often far worse than depicted. It serves as a reminder that no matter how bad we think our justice system is, it is pristine by comparison to much of the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, there were too many contrived situations in the film that hampered the story. The whole escape attempt was bogus fantasy. To think that friends would be able to smuggle money for a bribe into the prison in a padded bra, and not be discovered by the guards who were systematically checking everything brought in from visitors, assumes that either the guards or the viewers are utter blockheads.

The story also fails to bring closure to the nagging question of how the drugs got in Alice's (Claire Danes) backpack. Did she actually agree to transport the drugs? We are left to guess. It was intriguing to be kept guessing about the girls' innocence throughout the film, but we finish the movie never really knowing if one or both of the girls might be guilty. Except for this considerable flaw, the ending was excellent and the results unexpected.

The acting by Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale was very solid and well done. Danes, who has been oversold and over hyped, actually arrived as an actor in this film. Though her portrayal was frequently immature (as was her character), she improved as the film progressed and the circumstances became more dire. Beckinsale, in contrast has been flying under the radar her whole brief career and shines as the goody-two-shoes who suddenly finds herself in prison. Her's was the best performance in the film.

Bill Pullman was miscast as the lawyer. His wry and diffident style is an asset in films like "While You Were Sleeping", but as a lawyer in a third world country on a crusade to free two innocent girls from injustice, he had the wrong personality.

The tourist's look at Thailand was interesting, but it didn't make me want to go there.

Overall, an entertaining film made implausible in parts by the insertion of some ridiculous scenes. I gave it a 7/10. Brokedown Palace is the story of two best friends, Alice and Darlene, who go on a spontaneous trip to Thailand and wind up in prison after being caught with planted drugs in their luggage. In this way, the movie had the potential to turn into a serious and moving film, such as "Return to Paradise", but instead, the movie chose to focus little on the girls' situation and more on their friendship.

Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both turn in excellent performances, and the movie is much more about the interplay between them - the suspicion, the jealousy, the questioning and testing of their friendship and ultimately the sacrifices made in the name of friendship. This movie chooses not to delve too deeply into politics or even into the harshness of prison life (which is a bit glossed over), and focuses more on these friendship issues.

There were some plot holes here, and some parts that just didn't seem believable or realistic. We didn't feel the real fear or hopelessness of their situation as well as we might have. And we get very little feeling of life outside the prison walls, with Bill Pullman playing the supposedly sleazy lawyer who actually turns out to have a heart of gold. In short, this should, by all rights, have been a much darker movie than it was.

But overall, I enjoyed it. The acting was good, the soundtrack was perfect, and the storyline had enough twists and turns to stay interesting. Worth seeing. I loved the movie, but like everyone said, there were some bits that weren't developed enough. I thought personally that the girls were very vapid before they landed in prison; sure, they were supposed to be innocent American girls but still...I felt like they lacked that bond that best friends are supposed to have. For example, in the montage where they're sight-seeing, the way they held each other for the photograph was very awkward-looking.

Then, there are some parts that were very ambiguous. I think it's pretty much understood that Danes' character didn't do it, but I can see how that could be confusing. Also, why did the camera dwell on Manat bearing a very grim expression after he put the bags in their taxi trunk? I thought it was suggesting something, but it turned out to be nothing.

Apart from that, the movie was great. I cried when Claire Danes took the blame; she's a GREAT actress.

Also, I wanted to see that bitchy Thai inmate get her ass kicked. Talk about lack of closure... I think this is what this movie wants us to say at the end of the movie! or Damn Australian? I still don't know, but what I know is that I really liked this movie but that couldn't be my favorite movie!

Great story with great actors but with a terrible end... To make you cry and say 'Oh, she's so good'... Still, who made it? What really happened? Who's that guy? No answer to these questions...

Mysterious movie with a good mark overall... I give it a 8/10, going on the 8.5! *Possible Spoilers* Although done before (and better) in 'Midnight Express' and 'Return To Paradise', Brokedown Palace still strikes a chord with me.

Here we have the tale of two young girls who travel through Thailand, and get arrested on charges of trafficking drugs. Was it Clare Danes' Alice? Was it Kate Beckinsale's Darlene? Was it the handsome stranger whom they met on their journey? None of that really matters, for this is a tale of friendship and trust and the limits they can be stretched to. Throw in Bill Pullman as an unenthusiastic lawyer and Jacqueline Kim as his Thai bride (and better lawyer than he is) and we have a nice little story that holds the audience's attention.

Brokedown Palace is nothing extraordinary, or notorious for any reason - it is not an original concept, it doesn't show sensationalised violence that leads to the wannabe-avant-garde crowd talking about it's "gritty realism" or "hard hitting truths" - it is merely a good story with some fine performances. Bill Pullman is weakest with his lazy drawl and gravelly way of talking - I was quite bored with the character.

Kate Beckinsale, while decent, is nothing spectacular. She acts well, but it's not exactly a memorable performance.

Jacqueline Kim however, is in fine form, crafting a likable and defined character where, really, there is not much to work with.

But make no mistake - this is Clare Danes' movie. I've long been a fan of her work, and this is no change. She captivates in every scene she appears, and were it not for her, the film would probably stoop into boring fare. I particularly applaud her performance in the scene between her and Darlene's father.

The film also has a brilliant soundtrack.

7 out of 10 Good exciting movie, although it looks to me that it's not been recorded on location in Thailand, it still looks realistic. Nice story about some girls having 'fun' in one of the most beautiful countries on the world. In real the Thai people are very kind. After high-school graduation, best friends Alice and Darlene, decide to take a trip to Thailand. Whilst they are there, they meet a charming Australian guy named Nick. After spending some time with Nick, he asks them if they want to take a weekend trip to Hong Kong with him. They agree. At the airport though, they are get busted for smuggling drugs and then get convicted for 33 years in a Thai prison for something they say they haven't done. Not really knowing what to do they end contacting Yankee Hank, an American lawyer who lives in Thailand with his wife. Word has it that if you have the money he can help you. Things start of well, but they still can't get out.

The movie is really good because it doesn't let on what's going to happen and it's interesting all the time. I couldn't believe the ending though. It was one of those endings where you don't know the 100% truth, but you still kind of know what really happened with Nick and the drug smuggling because of the 'owning up' etc.

Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both give quite good performances here. Beckinsales performance was a little weak though. Both Danes and Beckinsales characters friendship is good but could of seemed stronger. Paul Walker even has a small uncredited role here. ;)

Anyway, I thought Brokedown Palace was a good movie and I give it a 7/10. This is a low budget film with a cast of unknowns and a minimum of on location shoots. The Philippines substitute for Thailand and nobody actually goes to Hong Kong. The stock shot of a Cathay Pacific jumbo jet landing at the old airport makes the transition perfectly. This film proves that you need neither mega budgets nor a headliner star to produce an excellent movie. It contains neither the gaffes nor the excesses that young filmakers often stumble into. Solid workmanship from people who know all the aspects of movie making and who understand the compromises between art and box office. An excellent piece of work! A good film with strong performances (especially the two leads). The film is about two American girls who are caught with 6 kilo's heroin on an airport in Thailand. They're both thrown in prison and one of them signs a confession. Bill Pullman plays the lawyer who tries to get them out. All they have to do is find a Nick Parks who put the narcotics in the bag of one of the two girls. So far for the story which isn't that original (it has many resemblances with the better Return to Paradise).

The acting and Newton Thomas Sigel's beautiful photography make this film worth to watch. A 7 out of 10. (originally a response to a movie reviewer who said A Bug's Life was too much, too fast--he was "dazed and exhausted" by the visuals, and seemed to ignore the story completely)

Okay, first off, I'm 26 years old, have a job, go to school, and have a fiance'. So maybe I'm nuts and just really good at hiding it...but not only did I NOT come away from A Bug's Life exhausted or dazed, it wasn't until I saw it the second time that I could even begin to truly appreciate the artistry and humour of the spectacular visuals--because the first time I went to see this movie, I got so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I FORGOT that I was supposed to be sitting there being "wowed" by each frame visually. How can you not empathize with Flik and his road-to-heck-paved-with-good-intentions life? "Heck" indeed, I found myself identifying with that little ant (not to mention some of the other bugs) in a lot more ways than one...and that, in itself, says more to me about what an incredible movie this is than a whole book on its beautiful eye candy. Of course, it's beautiful (every blade of grass, the tree, the rain...). Of course, what they can do with technology is amazing (you can read their lips! try it!). But this movie is not just a masterpiece of art and tech, not just an dazzling explosion of movement and color. No, A Bug's Life would be static if it were all that and no story. But, I'm glad to say, it's not! A Bug's Life has real heart. Yes, there's a lot going on, storyline-wise as well as visually, but that's because the story and characters actually have some depth to them! Just because it's a kids' movie doesn't mean you should have to turn off your brain at the theatre door--kids are smarter than you think! Besides that, I think that the PIXAR crew made this for themselves, even before their kids...and it shows, in the amount of heart in has. This movie is moving, touching, funny, intriguing, and generally engrossing. The character development in such an ensemble cast is amazing, there's a major amount of character growth, and not just of the main character--so rare in animation and often in movies in general. It doesn't hit you over the head with its points once it's made them--every scene, every frame has a reason in the storyline for being there, and there are no gratuitous shots. Not always stating explicitly in words exactly what is going on means subtlety, to me, folks; it means not "dumbing down" your movie and assuming the audience is stupid, which it mostly is not. All I can think is, if you can see A Bug's Life and not feel anything at all, then you must have never made a big mistake, hurt your friends, had a crush, fallen in love, been frustrated that no one would listen to you, lied to someone you care about, felt like a social misfit, gotten excited over a new idea, come up with a great idea, had what you thought was a great idea backfire, been awkward one moment and confident the next, felt the pressure of responsibility, stood up for yourself and your loved ones, stood alone against the crowd, felt like a failure, felt like a big success, felt the need to make a difference with your life in the lives of others...well, you get the point. Final words: A+ rating from me; please, if you're going to see it try to see it in the theatre (pan and scan video is NOT going to work for this movie); if you loved Toy Story you'll most likely love this (PIXAR knows how to make movies with heart); if you do love it see it multiple times or you STILL won't know what you're missing (the amount of detail and subtlety here is considerable); and whenever you're feeling really low, just pretend it's a seed, okay? "A Bug's Life" is like a favorite candy bar -- it's chock-full of great little bits that add up to something really tasty.

The story couldn't have been better; it's clever, has "heart" (emotion), and every character has a nice "arc" (a growth or change). By comparison, the only characters in "Toy Story" to have an "arc" are Buzz, who learns to love being a toy, and Woody, who overcomes his resentment of Buzz. There are tons of laughs and cute moments in "A Bug's Life". All of the actors turn in great voice work, and the animation, both the motion and detail, is superb.

This serious movie buff doesn't throw around "10"s lightly, but this movie certainly deserves the "10" I gave it. There is great detail in A Bug's Life. Everything is covered. The film looks great and the animation is sometimes jaw-dropping. The film isn't too terribly orignal, it's basically a modern take on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, only with bugs. I enjoyed the character interaction however and the bad guys in this film actually seemed bad. It seems that Disney usually makes their bad guys carbon copy cut-outs. The grasshoppers are menacing and Hopper, the lead bad guy, was a brillant creation. Check this one out. This is a FUNNY film. It has all the usual Disney components (music, great range of characters, story, appeal), entwined with superb animation and the excellent voice talents of less well known actors as those in say "Antz" and "Price of Egypt".

The characters work really well, and have a strong appeal, and the humour is aimed at a wide level which overcomes generational barriers. The movie is also presented in superb cinemascope format, which adds to the cinema experience.

Call me crazy, but I have seen the film three times, and I intend on taking more friends to see it this weekend. Many skeptics have seen this film on my recommendation and not been disappointed. I work in a multiplex, and I can honestly say that no-one has ever walked out of this movie without a sense of satisfaction.

See it, and don't be put off because it is animated. You are sure to enjoy this movie, and make sure you stay for the end credits! The bloopers and out-takes at the end are the funniest part of the film, which is packed with laughs throughout. A Bugs Life is a great film that is not just for kids but for adults too. The story is set around a colony of ants and their struggle against the evil Grasshoppers who come back every year and steal their food ( A Mirror of the Magnifiscent seven). There is some wonderfull computer animation and the voices are great too. You will love it!! 8 out of 10 Critically, people say that Antz is better. Antz is a good film, but I enjoyed Bug's Life a bit more. I can't remember a Pixar animation, other than the two Toy Story films, that I was laughing so hard. The animation is clean, the story is original and doesn't preach. The voice overs are what make this movie. Dave Foley is an earnest ant that gets himself into trouble a lot. Hopper is a superb characterisation by the always wonderful Kevin Spacey, as is Haydn Panettiere as Dot . There is also sterling support from Dennis Leary, David Hyde Pierce and Madeline Kahn, and I could go on and on. The script is fantastic, so funny and sometimes even touching. It lacks the social messages of Antz, but what we have is rock-solid entertainment. 9/10. Bethany Cox You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.

Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.

This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.

Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though. Such a joyous world has been created for us in Pixar's A Bug's Life; we're immersed in a universe which could only be documented this enjoyably on film, but more precisely a universe which could only be documented through the world of animation. For those who have forgotten what a plentiful and exuberant world animation can offer – when it's in the right hands that is – A Bug's Life is a warm reminder. We walk out of the film with an equally-warm feeling, and a sense of satisfaction derivative of only high-calibre film productions.

It is only Pixar's second animated feature. The sub-group of Disney made their spectacular debut and perhaps entirely inadvertent mark on the film world three years prior in 1995, with their landmark movie Toy Story. It was a movie which defied convention, re-invented and breathed new life into animation and defined a whole new level of excellence. Now, they return with their sophomore effort which, to be honest, draws a creeping sense of cynicism in us all prior to seeing the film.

After all, it's a film about ants. Well, all walks of the insect and bug world are covered in A Bug's Life, but it is the ant which is the focal point in this film, as humans are the focal point in dramas, romances and so on. How can such an insignificant species of animal such as an ant act as the protagonist of a movie, let alone provide the entire premise of a feature film? Surely they jest. However, we forget that in Toy Story, a bunch of toy-box items were able to become the grandest, most inspiring and lovable bunch of animated heroes and villains ever concocted. The guys at Pixar manage to pull off the same feat, and manage to turn a bunch of dirty and miniscule bugs into the most endearing and pleasant gang of vermin you'll probably ever encounter.

Not only are they all entirely amiable and likable – there isn't an unpleasant character in sight; even the villains are riveting characters – but they're colourful, they're eclectic, and they're idiosyncratic. And the array of characters is also gargantuan for lack of a better term, only adding the rich layers of distinctiveness already plastered onto A Bug's Life from the beginning. We shall start with our main character, and our hero. His name is Flik (David Foley), and his character is rather generic to say the least. Out of the thousands of faithful and obedient worker ants residing on the lush, beautiful Ant Island, he is the one considered the 'black sheep' of the clan, as seen in the opening moments of the movie when he inadvertently destroys the season's harvest with his antics.

The problem arises in the fact that the ants' harvest is for a bunch of greedy grasshoppers led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey), who are eager to continue to assert their wrath and autocracy amongst the puny little ants; when they show up to Ant Island for their annual banquet and see that their offering is gone, they go insane, for lack of a better term. Hopper offers a proposition to save the ants from total extinction at his pack's hands; however, it's a negotiation which is simply impossible to fulfil. The cogs and clockwork in Flik's mind run at full steam now despite his guilt and shame, and he offers to leave Ant Island in search of some mighty bug warriors who can come to the colony's rescue and fight off Hopper and the grasshoppers.

If you think about it, A Bug's Life bears some heavy resemblance to the plot line's of Akira Kurosawa's classic Seven Samurai, or the American remake The Magnificent Seven, in which a village of hapless but good-hearted folk are threatened by malevolent and wicked enemies – one lone village-dweller goes in search for help in the big city, finds it and returns to the colony to drive off evil. In A Bug's Life, the help comes in the form of a down-and-out circus troupe who is mistakenly perceived by Flik as warriors in a bar-room brawl.

Much amusement comes out of these scenes, and much amusement comes out of these circus troupe bugs. Among them are an erudite stick insect (David Hyde Pierce), a side-splitting obese German caterpillar by the name of Heimlich and a quasi-femme fatale ladybug who's in fact a gritty and masculine ladybug (Dennis Hopper). It's exceedingly enjoyable watching these bugs on-screen, as it is watching the bugs and the insects interact on-screen, as is the entire movie collectively.

As I've said, much amusement and mirth comes out of their characters and joyous interactions with one another, which give way to a bevy of hilarious lines, wonderfully suspenseful and riveting situations and overall a dazzling movie. What makes A Bug's Life even better is that the film isn't restricted simply to children as many may perceive it to be, although children would indeed find more entertainment out of this film – the clichéd kid-friendly situations are a bit more abundant than we'd like. However, it's easy to ignore this fault, and it's incredulously easy to enjoy this film.

Although A Bug's Life may not reach the dizzying and landmark standards set by its predecessor, this is still a superb movie, and the start of something promising here. Pixar have proved that they're not just a one-hit wonder, but instead a much-gifted and talented group of film artists in Hollywood. They raise the bar endlessly, and when someone always manages to top their standards, it's only always by themselves. What more is there to say about A Bug's Life other than: see it; it's not quite the best which we've seen from the folks at Emeryville, California, but this beats out the lot of its year – and I'll be damned if this isn't the best animated feature of 1998.

8.5/10 The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of "A Bug's Life". When I bought my Toy Story tape when it came out to Video after being released in theaters I saw a trailer for this that said from the creators of Toy Story. As soon as I saw that I knew this was gonna be a good feature! I was right! A Bug's Life like Toy Story is great story, great characters and great animation. My favorite characters are Dim the rhino Beetle voiced by Brad Garrett and Hemlich the Caterpillar voiced by the late Pixar Storyman Joe Ranft. My favorite scene is when Slim the walking stick (David Hyde Pierce) lifts up Hemlich trying to distract the Bird and Hemlich's like You hoo Mr. Early Bird. How about a nice tasting worm on a stick and Slim's like I'm going to snap! I'm going to snap! I just died laughing at that scene. Being a big fan of insects I think A Bug's Life is my favorite Pixar even though I know a lot of people consider it the worst Pixar film ever! I don't know how you could hate a Pixar film! I think they're all pretty good films! Good job PIXAR! Lately I have been watching a lot of Tom Hanks films and old Chaplin films and even some of Rowan Atkinson's early Bean performances, and it seems that all of them have their own unique charm that permeates throughout their work, something that allows them to identify with audience members of all ages, in a way that just makes you feel good. A Bug's Life has that same charm, it has a connection with real life that allows us to easily suspend disbelief and accept a lot of talking insects, because even though they talk, they still ACT just like real bugs. It's like the team that made the movie found a way to bring us into the mind of a child and allow us to think like them, to imagine bugs the way a young mind does.

Honey, I Shrunk The Kids was one of my favorite films when I was younger, and to me, A Bug's Life is like a more realistic version of that movie, if only because the animation is so breathtaking and this style of story-telling just opens up so many more narrative possibilities. I try not to compare it to something like Toy Story (which I still maintain is the best computer animated film ever made), because the story of A Bug's Life is not quite as good as Toy Story's, but then again, almost nothing is. The important thing is that it is still wonderful fun.

The story concerns a colony of hard working bugs who have an impressively developed society, mostly geared around building a harvest of food, most of which will go to the tyrannical grasshoppers, vastly superior in strength and general meanness, and hopefully still leave enough left over for the bugs to make it through the winter. We are treated to some visits from the grasshoppers, who make it clear that if the bugs provide an unsatisfactory quantity of food, the consequences will be dire. And incidentally, the similarities between this crippling level of food extraction is strikingly similar to Mao Tse-tung's vicious forcing of food from his own people during the "Great Leap Forward…"

The fun and excitement begins when Flik, the main character, sets off on a quest to find a gang of appropriate warrior bugs to come back and help defend the colony against the grasshoppers. You see, he spilled all of the amassed food and placed everyone in great danger, so he feels it's his responsibility, but he inadvertently ends up hiring a struggling group of insect circus performers. Great for the audience, not so great for the safety of the clan.

The movie was released back in the late 90s, when so many films seemed to have been coming out in twos, like Armageddon and Deep Impact, Independence Day and The Arrival, A Bug's Life and Antz, etc. Comparisons between A Bug's Life and Antz are inevitable, although it seems clear to me that A Bug's Life is by far the superior film, and not only because it doesn't star Woody Allen stuttering and whining through the lead role. This is great family fun! When watching A Bug's Life for the first time in a long while, I couldn't help but see the comparisons with last year's Happy Feet. As far as the main storyline goes, they are very similar, an outcast doing what he can to fit in while also attempting to be special. It just goes to show you how much better that film could have been without its liberal diatribe conclusion. A lot of people disagree with me when I say that I really like Pixar's sophomore effort. Sure it doesn't manage to capture the splendor of Toy Story, nor is the animation out of this world. However, the story is top-notch and the characters are wonderful to spend time with. With plenty of laughs and a moral center to boot, I could watch this one just as much as the studio's other classics.

There is a lot about finding strength from within to conquer all odds here. Between our lead Flick needing to keep his self-esteem up to save his colony, the colony needing to open their eyes onto a new way of living for the future, and the circus bugs finding that they are more than just untalented sideshow freaks, everyone evolves into a better bug by the end of the story. Even the villain Hopper is fully fleshed and menacing for the right reasons. He is not doing it to be mean, but instead understands the fact that the ants outnumber him 100 to 1. He needs them to fear him in order to not have to worry about them finding out the truth. It is very much a circle of life, but not one that can't evolve with the ages.

When thinking about the animation, it is actually quite good. Compared to Antz, the rival film of the time, this is much more realistic and less cartoony. The water is rendered nicely, as is the foliage. You don't have to look much further than the ants' eyes to see how much detail went into the production. The reflections and moistness, despite the smooth exterior, shows the realism. All the bugs are finely crafted too. The flies in the city and the crazy mix of creatures recruited to save the ants are never skimped on, whether for a small role or a more expanded one. It is also in the city that we see the workmanship on the environments. While Ant Island is nice, it is just the outdoors. Bug City contains plenty of garbage doubling as buildings and clubs. It is a great showing of humor and inventiveness to see what the animators used for everything. From the ice cube trays as circus stands, the animal crackers box as circus wagon—complete with full nutrition guide on the side—and crazy compilation of boxes to create a Times Square of billboards and facades, everything is done right.

As far as much of the humor, you have to credit the acting talent for wonderful delivery and inspired role choices. No one could do a male ladybug better than Dennis Leary with his acerbic wit. I dare you to think of someone better. Our leads are great too with Dave Foley as Flick and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta, as well as the always-fantastic Kevin Spacey as Hopper. Spacey not only steals many scenes from the movie, but also takes center stage in the bloopers during the credits. Yes, A Bug's Life was the originator of animated outtakes from Pixar, a tradition that has continued on. With many tongue-in-cheek bug jokes laced throughout, you also have to give props to the huge supporting cast. Full of "those guy actors," it is people like Richard Kind, Brad Garrett, and the late Joe Ranft as Heimlich the worm who bring the biggest laughs.

Overall, it may be the simplest story brought to screen by Pixar, one that has been told in one form or the other numerous times over the years, but it is inspired enough and fresh enough to deliver an enjoyable experience. There are joyous moments, sad times, and even action packed scenes of suspense with birds coming in to join the fun. Complete with a couple of my favorite Pixar characters, Tuck and Roll, there isn't too much bad that I can think of saying about it. Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat. A Bug's Life is a very good animated feature. This movie is for younger children, but it is also a great movie for people my age. The story is about an ant named Flik. He brought havoc onto his colony when he destroyed the food that were for the superior grasshoppers. He gets banished and he must find bigger bugs to fix the mess. This movie is a classic because it is a good movie and it is a Pixar movie. The animation is brilliant especially for the late 90's. The story is good, but a little more detail would be suffice. The voice acting is good as with most animation movies. The music is nice to listen to. Nothing special, but it earned an nomination for one of the music categories. Overall, this movie struck me as awestruck. This is a good movie for all families. I rate this movie 10/10. Pixar has had massive success over the years with the full-length CGI animated movies they have made. "A Bug's Life" was the second of a whole bunch of features they have made so far, preceded by the company's feature-length debut, the groundbreaking "Toy Story", which was the first ever feature-length CGI movie. I remember when this follow-up was heavily advertised around the time of its release in the late 1990's, but I never actually saw it until November 2006. I watched it twice that month, and over three years later, I have seen it a third time. It has never impressed me as much as probably any other Pixar film I've ever seen, but after three viewings, I still think it's better than some of the films I've seen from DreamWorks Animation.

Ant Island is the home of a colony of ants. These ants are forced to gather food for a gang of grasshoppers who come and take it every year. One member of this colony is Flik, an inventor with a bad reputation for causing trouble with his inventions, even though he doesn't mean to. One year, when the colony has just finished preparing the annual offering, Flik accidentally knocks it into a stream just before the grasshoppers arrive to get it! The grasshopper leader, Hopper, decides to give them a second chance to gather food and have it ready by the end of the season, but they will have to double their offering! Flik suggests to the colony's royal council that he goes and finds "warrior bugs" to fight off the grasshoppers when they come back. Princess Atta, the future Queen, lets him go on this mission just so he won't be around to cause trouble while the colony tries to gather food for another offering. The inventor finds a group of bugs which he thinks are warriors, but after he takes them back to Ant Island and introduces them, he learns that they are actually not warriors, but circus bugs!

The main reason why this second Pixar feature has never absolutely astounded me might be the characters. To me, none of them have ever really stood out as much as they could have, and generally seem a bit bland. Fortunately, however, it's not like "Shark Tale", a film with a very idiotic and unlikable lead character. "A Bug's Life" does have a likable enough main character, one which viewers can root for. The story also seems somewhat bland at times, but for the most part, it's good enough to keep the film at least moderately entertaining, and sometimes has some good suspense, especially later on. The humour, like certain other aspects of the film, isn't as good as it could have been, but there are definitely funny moments, some of them involving Francis, a male ladybug who is sometimes mistaken for a female. You can always expect great animation from Pixar, and the animation in this particular effort of theirs is no exception. With all this movie has to offer, it may be slightly disappointing when it comes to Pixar standards, but it is reasonable family entertainment. Bugs life is a good film. But to me, it doesn't really compare to movies like Toy story and stuff. Don't get me wrong, I liked this movie, but it wasn't as good as Toy story. The film has the visuals, the laughs, and others that Toy story had. But the film didn't feel quite as... I don't know, but I thought it was still a pretty good film.

A bugs life... I don't want to say this, is a film that I don't remember. I saw it years ago. Of course, I haven't seen Toy story in years, but I still remember it. I shouldn't have reviewed this film, but I am. I am giving it a thumbs up, though it's not exactly the best work Pixar has done.

A bug's life:***/**** Now this is what a family movie should be! There are few films of recent years that have been targeted at families or children that really are worthy of their viewing public; but this IS one of them. My whole family came away from the film, awed, entertained, dazzled, and happy. We're still quoting little anecdotes from it here and there. The children LOVED it and so did we (hubbie and I are 36 and 32, respectively)!

Apart from its beautiful and striking animation, the characters (small as they may be, and imaginary as they are) are very well developed. There isn't one of them that you cannot empathize with. The personalities bringing these little creatures to life are well casted voice talents, combined with the skill and artistry of some of Disney's best animators. This is a film worthy of Walt Disney, himself. I think Mr. Disney would heartily approve of this new film... Flick, Dot and their fellow band of tiny heroes may become as popular as Mickey and Minnie in our time.

This is one the family leaves the theatre wanting to see again.. and buy to own on video or DVD. I'm eager to see it again.. to pick up what I might have missed the first time. (Never have I seen my children so quickly and vividly identify with and embrace characters before... my daughter is still talking about little "Dot".)

This film is funny, heartwarming, clever and great fun for the whole family! I liked Antz, but loved "A Bug's Life". The animation that was put into this paid off. I will definitely be getting this on DVD. By the way, Disney should make a widescreen version of this movie on tape. (I heard talk of squishing all of the characters into the screen on the standard video format). Most will have to agree that the ending credits were the funniest! I only saw one of the two sets, but I can't wat to see the other one! A must see by all - if you have to borrow your neighbors kid to see this one. Easily one of the best animation/cartoons released in a long-time. It took the the movies Antz to a whole new level. Do not mistake the two as being the same movie - although in principle the movies plot is similiar. Just go and enjoy. The animation was fab and the film funny. The two circus bugs, Tuck/Roll were very funny. If you waited till the credits at the end, you saw a very funny sequence of film, where they showed the bugs pretending to do things wrong like in other movies, that was clever as it made the characters more human and beliveable. For starters, it's a very funny movie with a few crazy characters running around that are bound to make laugh (check out the two Russian bugs).

A Bug's Life has a classical Disney storyline, but that's one of the good things about the movie. Family values are praised and the main characters of the film undergo some evolution in order to stand up against the grasshoppers in the end. And it also has a couple of great voice-overs by Dave Foley, Julia-Louise Dreyfus, Kevin Spacey (of course),... But actually, the most amazing thing about this movie is the animation. It's just wonderful. All the details, great colors, every ant looks different, beautiful backgrounds... And the guys and girls at Pixar made it all look so realistic. All in all, a very nice piece of work. This is the best animation by Disney since Aladdin. Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer. All of you who despaired looking at the emptiness and weaknesses of Disney Studios' last productions, here comes something that should heal your wounds... Once and for all, A Bug's life brings the proof that purely synthetic pictures conducting a good scenario provides more interest than fake "hand-made-old-Disneys-like" drawings (see the Lion King, Pocahontas, and all the latest productions where you sadly regret that Bambi's magical background and atmosphere are gone forever).

A bug's life (1001 Pattes for my fellow french cinemaniaks !) succeeds in avoiding all the imperfections that make you awaken in the middle of the movie and say "Hey, this thing is computer generated !". No weak parts, a tremendous effort showing its efficiency in the backgrounds and the general look of the sets, an astonishing 3D bird (close to perfection in its imitation of reality)... and that's only to mention the technical aspects.

The scenario, my friends, the real backbone of a motion picture, has some thickness ! Curiously, and obviously thanks to Lasseter's team, there is practically no musical sequence in A bug's life. Which means the story is long and rich enough to free itself from these 3 or 4 minutes that some kids appreciate, but most others dislike (same thing for the parents or the anime fans, like me). This movie reminded me of a really old movie featuring Steve Martin and Chevy Chase : the 3 Amigos ; it had basically the same background story (a whole mexican village living in the fear of a few bad guys hires gunmen (who finally turn to be actors) to protect them, etc...). Simple, but efficient, and brilliantly adapted to a colony of frightened ants facing the wrath of vicious insects.

Since Microcosmos, many movies tell tales of insects, their lives, fears and hopes, but I do think that A bug's life is the funniest and best directed of all. The humanisation process has been perfectly well achieved... And the whole audience was captivated by Flik's (aka Tilt in France) adventures.

A big thank you for Lasseter's team, especially for the last 30 seconds... it's so strange and great at the same time to see a whole theater caught in laughter while the bugs/actors forget their lines or hit the camera...

And finally, especially for those of you who have seen the french version, other congratulations go to the dubbing actors who made a great synchro work on this movie. A bug's life is a really good piece of entertainment, and I think it will soon become part of my collection of videos (a privilege granted to extremely few movies, and that's not a problem of storage room :). Go and see it, that's an order. I was amazed at the improvements made in an animated film. If you sit close to the screen, you will see the detail in the grass and surface structures. The detail, colors, and shading are at least an order of magnitude better than Toy Story. How they were able to pull off the shading, I will never know. I do hope that PIXAR will provide a documentary on how the film was produced so I can find out how all this was accomplished. Based on this film, I think animated films of the future will be judged on the basis of this film. This movie blew me away. If you can see only one of the animated bug movies this year see this one instead of Antz. the plot, characters, and jokes are better in A Bugs life. Also when you go stay in your seat until the end of the credits. it's the best part of the movie. Rating 9 I have to admit right off the top, I'm not a big fan of "family" films these days. Most of them, IMHO, are sentimental crap. But this one, like TOY STORY, the previous film from Pixar, is a lot of fun. The two lead characters were perhaps a bit too bland(especially compared to the two leads in ANTZ, but otherwise this film is better), but the rest of the film more than made up for it. The animation looked great, the humor, though broad, was consistently good(I especially liked Hopper's line "If I hadn't promised Mother on her deathbed that I wouldn't kill you, I would kill you!"), and the actors doing the voices, except the two leads, were all terrific(Denis Leary doing an animated movie; what a concept). And like everyone else, I loved the outtakes! I hope the video has the new ones. I thought this was a quiet good movie. It was fun to watch it. What I liked best where the 'Outtakes' at the end of the movie. They were GREAT. This movie is by far the cutest I have seen in a long time! Wonderful animation and adorable characters (even the bad guys were cute!) made this one a total winner in my book, and also in the books of those I saw it with. I still want to see it again, but haven't had time. Better than Toy Story, which was good too, but not THIS good . To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow.

This movie is full of references. Like "Mad Max II", "The wild one" and many others. The ladybug´s face it´s a clear reference (or tribute) to Peter Lorre. This movie is a masterpiece. We´ll talk much more about in the future. OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?

But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).

When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».

When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.

The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.

But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi. It's beyond my comprehension that so much rubbish from Norway has been remastered for DVD release, and still gems like this don't get a shot at recapturing their past glory. I give this a 7, not because it is very good, but because it is one of the few SciFi films made for Norwegian television. This film is nothing less than a film-historic gem that in so many ways foreshadows the first Alien film. And, my word, Blindpassasjer was first! Did Ridley Scott or anyone in the crew see the mini-series? However unlikely, the fact remains that the scenes are extremely similar. Okay, the budget is _much_ lower in the Norwegian film, but given that, it's a really well-done piece of work from the desolate age of Norwegian movie-making, which incidentally lasted until the 90s. I remember this show from Swedish television. I was only 7 years of age and it scared me beyond belief.

I would love to revisit this series and see if it was just as excellent as remember though i suspect my taste and demands have changed.

Although this was released before alien and a plethora of other space-thrillers i suspect that it has its root in scary movies from the 50:s and the political climate of the 70:s. When i think of it, this was a real sci-fi, a movie trying to discuss scientific and political questions about who we are and what we are. The term sci-fi has since then become bleak and come to be the term for any movie that has space-ships in them. I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.

What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.

This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching. I watched it subtitled as it was in Russian, but really enjoyed it. The main character Sasha was born cursed, with a deadly weapon as an extension of his body. He lived his whole life unhappy because he was different and because anger caused him to do deadly things.

When Sasha finally found love in a young woman named Katya everyone tried to take her away from him ending in a deadly battle. There was a fair amount of gore, but not too much for the weak stomached.

Not for people who like the regular old Hollywood movie, but for those who enjoy independent films. Kinda got the feeling of an Asian fantasy film. "Mechenosets" is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as "the sword-bearer". The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again. What happens when the average joe finds out he has supernatural powers? The premise may sound familiar. The Watchmen? Unbreakable? However, the Russian sci-fi action flick, The Sword Bearer, is far from the standard stock.

The story revolves around a man named Sasha who as a boy was shunned from society, his peers and family due to a supernatural power that he possess. When he wishes or his anger allows, a sword extends from his arm piercing his own skin. Very wolverinish? Maybe... but that's not the interesting part of this film. Shunned all his life and driven by anger (and a temper he does have) our "hero" returns to his home town to turn his life around or find a reason to. The only thing he encounters here is trouble when an encounter with an old flame's new boyfriend leaves him bloodied on the ground. This is where the vengeance and anger comes into play. This is a man you do not want to cross and from this point the mafia and the police are on his tail. He meets a girl and falls in love instantly as does she and this is really what the movie is about.

The film is highly impressionistic with bold colors and noir overtones spliced with short yet extreme action sequences. This is art house at it's core, beautifully filmed with such attention to details in every scene over gruesome sci-fi action. It's this odd mash that interests me so much in this film. The directors approach for this genre is refreshing focusing on the emotional journey of Sasha and not a straight action film. Don't worry though, the action is there and plenty of it. However, much of these sequences show only implied violence with pictures of the horrific aftermath. This is not to say that action is not shown. These scenes are here and are fantastic (especially the ending where we see Sasha's full powers unleashed in desperation). The director chooses to imply the violence of many scenes to keep the focus on the character's emotional struggle at hand. This is a tragic love story and a refreshing entry into the genre. Despite the title, The Sword Bearer, and the DVD cover (action/herioc poses of The Sword Bearer) this is not a super hero film.

(Minor Spoilers) It follows the tale of Sasha, The Sword Bearer, who is cursed with having a retractable sword in his forearm. Cool you say, but no, this is real life. If you had this power as a child could you control it when, say, faced by a mad man, or when your mum's boyfriend is beating her. And if you don't control it, how do you cope with being a two time killer at the age of 12.

This essentially is where Sasha is when we meet him. Wandering aimlessly after another killing (much like A Bout de Soufflé). He then meet Katya, and the pair fall instantly in love, providing Sasha with a real reason to live and try and changes his ways. However, his past is still chasing him, in the form of two police officers.

That is essentially the story, and there is virtually no action on screen, though a lot if suggested.

I really like this movie. Unlike many Hollywood 'super hero' films, we get very little back story, there is no bad guy (unless you count The Sword Bearer himself) abut there is a lot of heart and good character development.

Worth checking out if you can find it. There is a lot of crap coming out of Hollywood lately.

A friend, sends me movies now and again, as a surprise, it's awesome.

I turned it on and couldn't stop watching, it is a drama, but with a odd twist. Imagine if Romeo, as in Shakepeare, had a super power. It is sad and poetic at the same time. Hollywood should take notice of the new Russian cinema, they are telling stories that are not about big explosions and cgi. It takes a simple basic premise and tells a story, without a spectacle. This is a lot like an Asian film with a dark Russian twist. Granted it's not perfect, but nothing ever is. You know what the power is but it is never explained, nor totally realized until the end. It becomes secondary to the emotion of the story. I don't want to see a remake, it is too cool as is, the Hollywood system would, as usual, mess it up. Acting is top notch all around. Directing and Camera work are far above most of the crap that is out there. Kudos to all involved,and I will turn a lot of people on to this independent epic. A+++++

If you can find i, watch it. Although I agree that it's a good but not great movie, for many of the reasons other posters have mentioned, I still enjoy it. One reason is the music: I'd call attention to the very cool appearance by the Candoli brothers -- Conte and Pete -- in a well-staged scene in the nightclub. These guys were two of the best jazz trumpeters of their day, and they manage to convincingly boggle the mind of Jimmy Stewart by playing an hysterical trumpet duet, one trumpet in each of Stewart's ears. The Candolis really did play that well, too, though I suspect the actual music for that scene was dubbed later by the two of them. I don't know much about George Duning, who gets the credit for the music (other than that he seems to have worked with the Three Stooges on more than one occasion), but the casting of the Candoli brothers as jazz-playing warlocks was a real nice touch. After you see Vertigo, then watch Bell, Book and Candle, made within months of each other.

My second favorite Kim Novak film, with Picnic, coming in as third.

All three performances are great, Vertigo, being the best, of all.

They came to my nowhere Kansas Prairie town, near by, at Salina, Kansas in the 50s, to film, Picnic.

Bell, Book and Candle's musical score, I believe is one of Alex North's. Perfect for this bit of comedy.

After Vertigo, Stewart and Novak, did this comedy, how amusing to note the dramatic contrast.

Worth your time, if you like Kim Novak. The Greta Garbo of my youth. Have not seen this 1958 film in a very long time and greatly enjoyed Kim Novak playing the role as Gil Holroyd who is an actual witch and has an aunt named Queenie Holroyd who is also a witch and Gillian also has a brother warlock named Nick played by Jack Lemmon. When Gillian sets her eyes on Shep Henderson,(James Stewart) who is engaged to a girl he is going to marry; Gillian performers some magic spells with a cat and changes his mind about his intended bride and then becomes very lust full and falls in love with Gillian. The story tells that a real witch cannot fall in love, blush or cry and this begins to prove a big problem between Shep and Gillian, so Nick and Aunt Queenie decided they have to do something about this situation. Great film to view over and over again and a great classic film from 1958. I watched this movie after watching Practical Magic, and the older film was far superior. I liked the way the lighting, makeup, and costumes changed as Gillian changed in the story. Jimmy Stewart's mannerisms didn't do a lot for me in this film, but I suppose they did serve to highlight the reserve of Gillian's character. I was also struck by Nicky's and Gillian's mannerisms--it was as if the director wanted him to appear effeminate and Gillian to appear masculine. The gestures Nicky makes when he's showing Redlich his powers especially struck me. I've never thought of warlocks as being effeminate, so it was an interesting way of contrasting those characters. "Bell Book and Candle" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen it for a while, we decided to take another look at this comedy. Based on the James Van Druten's Broadway hit, which was a vehicle for Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer in the early fifties, the film was adapted for the screen by Daniel Taradash. The film was directed by Richard Quine, who turned the play into a delightful comedy.

Evidently, judging by some of the comments submitted by IMDb, the big issue seems to be the pairing of the two stars, who had collaborated on "Vertigo", released the same year. Movie audiences didn't think anything about the age difference when this film was released. In fact, most of the aging male stars of that period were always involved with much younger women.

The film set in Manhattan during Christmas is a delightful comedy that has enchanted viewers. Kim Novak was at the height of her beauty as it's clear the camera adored her no matter what was she playing. As the witch that becomes human, her Gillian is charming. James Stewart, who plays the publisher Shep' Henderson, is also seen at his best. Mr. Stewart was an excellent comedy actor who shows in here why he was at the top.

In supporting roles the wonderful Elsa Lanchester, playing Queenie, is a welcome addition to any movie, as she proves here. Jack Lemmon's Nicky Holroyd, the brother of Gillian, is also good. Ernie Kovacs is also seen as the writer Sidney Radlitch.

This is an excellent way to spend a winter night at home watching "Bell Book and Candle". John Van Druten's "Bell, Book and Candle" is a delightful and unexpected fantasy about a coven of modern-day witches living in New York City; it was obviously an attractive movie property. It had a stellar part for Gillian Holroyd, for her erstwhile book publisher enforced-sweetheart, Shepherd Henderson and her madcap family and circle, including Shep's bewildered fiancée, the hateful Merle Kittredge, against whose chances with Shep Gillian begins her magical spell-casting. It even had Pyewacket, a Siamese cat-familiar with well-timed miaows, Sidney Redlitch, a fake witch expert with atrocious pretensions and bad manners. In short, it seemed to its producer, perhaps, box-office magic. And so it proved to be. So many things were right about its production, it only had one element not perfect; but I found the rest to be amusing, charming and very consistently-entertaining. To begin with, the screenplay by Daniel Taradash kept the best qualities of the fine theatrical play but opened out its scenes to include Greenwich Village and other areas of New York's scene. The technical production was beautiful, with cinematography by the legendary James Wong Howe, a fine score by George Duning, more-than-clever sets by Louis Diage and gowns by Jean Louis. In the attractive cast were Wolfe Barzell, Howard McNear, Janice Rule as Merle, Ernie Kovacs as Redlitch, Jack Lemmon as Gillia's mischievous brother, wonderful comediennes Elsa Lanchester and Hermione Gingold as fellow witches and lovely Kim Novak in one of her most touching parts as Gillian. Jimmy Stewart was the imperfect element in my judgment; he did well with the comedic portions of his part, but he was never convincing as a New York book publisher, and a bit too-old for the part of Henderson anyhow. But director Richard Quine used subtle lighting, pace changes, and unusually-composed shots to indicate the oddness of the witch portions of the film, keeping the other portions very luminous but straightforward in their presentation. The plot's main crisis in the film comes to pass when in reality Gillian falls for Henderson, who does not believe in witches at all. She started out merely to alienate him from his fiancée, her stuck-up college rival. Later, when Henderson tries to walk out, he keeps coming back to her--and realizes he is under a spell, as she has apologetically tried to explain to him. ..Meanwhile, Sidney Redlich has been summoned by witching spell to come to New York to sell his book to Henderson. Of course he knows nothing at all of magic, but is quite puzzled and interested to find out why he had come anywhere at all; but Gillian's brother enlightens him. All comes out right in the end in this romantic satire as Gillian proves her love to Henderson by losing her powers--which is what happens to witches when they truly love a mortal. Of course, he never really wanted to resist her anyhow. The film has sprightly dialogue, charm, and a little "magic" of its own in the fey charm of the witches and the torments Gillian must undergo in her battle with herself, and to win the man she loves. A lovely ending to this beautifully-photographed and unusual romance makes its amazing realism, though a fantasy, just about complete in my view. Memorably delightful. I can watch B,B&C and feel all the emotions I felt when I first saw it at aged 18 well,maybe all but one.Certainly Miss K.Novak has lost none of her silky allure in nearly half a century.She was a thinking youth's Diana Dors.All those thinking youths now collecting their pensions can briefly regain the heart - clutching,collar - tightening,blood - pulsing ardour they felt when she gazed directly into their eyes back in the days when they were being told that they had never had it so good. Now,huddled up against the cold and fearful of being mugged by a Hoodie,they scuttle home as fast as their arthritic knees can carry them from the Video Shop,relatively happy in the certain knowledge that within the triple - locked comparative safety of their fourth - floor tower block flat they can regain just a small fragment of their lost youth and perhaps reflect that love truly is eternal. This movie is Miss Novak's Golden Moment.She seized it avidly and gave a performance of awesome voluptuousness combined with a hypnotic awareness of her own sex - appeal and,despite all this,she convinces us that her character possesses a strange and beguiling innocence. She completely dominates the amiable Mr J.Stewart who seems resigned to handing her the movie.Misses E.Lanchester and H.Gingold offer comic relief along with Mr E. Kovacs whose peculiar talents are strictly proscribed.Mr J.Lemmon plays Miss Novak's brother.He is a beatnik,a species that disappeared as soon as it realised that its existence was being acknowledged by the mainstream.Some of the more hardcore beats reinvented themselves as hippies a few years later.Certainly they had become figures of fun by 1958 and Mr Lemmon does not appear overly concerned with restraint in portraying one. But all else is mere frippery,Miss Novak - bathed in a particularly beautiful spectrum of Technicolor - is the sole raison - d'etre for "Bell,Book and Candle".It survives,its reputation enhanced,as the ultimate showcase for one of Hollywood's most beautiful women. Loved by moviegoers,ignored by critics,Miss Novak will continue to captivate with that enigmatic smile all the time thinking old men have the strength to push the "Play" buttons on their DVDs.One day,probably after we are all gone,she will be discovered by a new generation who will - belatedly - realise that it is quite possible for a woman to be fully - dressed and sexually attractive at the same time. Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was "tricked" into falling in love with Gillian?

As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable. It's a gentle, easy-going 1950s comedy. Kim Novak belongs to a coven of witches in Manhattan. She puts a spell on neighbor Jimmy Stewart out of boredom but eventually falls in love with him, losing her powers. See, witches are permitted to have "hot blood" but not love. Elsa Lanchester is Novak's aunt, also a witch. Jack Lemmon is her brother, ditto. Hermione Gingold is the chief witch, and Ernie Kovacks is Sidney Redlich, an author who specializes in writing about witches.

I described it as a 1950s comedy because it could hardly be mistaken for anything else. Everything is so smooth and polished, from the set decoration, through wardrobe and plot, to the performances and direction. Take the character of Ernie Kovacks. He's referred to as "a drunk and a nut." And here's how the movie demonstrates these traits. He asks for a second drink, and, though he always wears a jacket and tie like the other gentlemen, his hair is a bit long and tousled. That's a strictly 1950s version of a drunk and a nut. Nothing is out of place; everything is tidy and free of dust. The soles of Jimmy Stewart's shoes are barely scuffed.

And the Zodiac Club, where the witches hang out. It's called "a low dive." Yet it's a clean, dark place with polite waiters, a quintet of musicians, neatly dressed clientèle, and potted plants against bare brick walls. That is not my idea or yours of a "low dive" -- not even for Greenwich Village in 1958. My idea of a dive in Greenwich Village is Julius's or The White Horse Tavern or The San Remo or The Swing Rendezvous, a now defunct lesbian hangout. The Zodiac Club is a high dive compared to these.

The kookiness we always hear about is muted by today's standards. I mean, Kim Novak is odd because she runs around her apartment in her bare feet. And she wears a lot of black clothes like the Beatniks of the period did.

But never mind all that. It's an enjoyable romantic comedy. Kim Novak is effective as Gillian, who runs a primitive art shop for the uptrodden. She has a strange beauty, bulky and ethereal at the same time. She glides rather than walks, a wispy presence. Her eyebrows seem drawn with a set of plastic French curves. And Jimmy Stewart is quite good as the bewildered and bewitched victim. In the 1930s he usually played in light roles. In the postwar years and for much of the 1950s he was the tortured protagonist, but here he puts his early experience in comedy to good use. Who could resist laughing when Hermione Gingold forces him to wear a shawl and drink a hideous concoction of putrid fluid in order to cure him of Novak's spell? It's good to see him as a stooge instead of the angry and indignant man of principle he was in danger of becoming. Richard Quine directs the movie quietly, without fireworks or special effects, and does some interesting things that the play couldn't have had. Note the scene in which Novak casts the spell over Stewart, when the Siamese cat's face and ears seem to merge with Novak's startling eyes.

Ernie Kovacks in the 1950s was a well-known television personality. There was never anything quite like The Ernie Kovacks Show before -- or after. It brings the word "surrealism" to mind. He could stage five minutes worth of wordless and indescribable tricks in an unpopulated room with only Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra as background. And he did an unimpeachable sketch using the character of Percy Dovetail, an effete poet. The credits kind of skip over The Condoli Brothers but that's rather casual because these two guys -- Pete and Conte -- were virtuoso trumpeters with independent careers in jazz ensembles. Conte was later a member of Doc Severison's band on Johnny Carson's Late Show.

The third act kind of bogs down a little and becomes more "romantic" than "comedy". But it's never dull. The whole film rolls along as neatly as Van Druten's play and the kids will probably get a kick out of it too. For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his "lesser" films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.

Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!!

The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!

Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close. Vertigo co-stars Stewart (in his last turn as a romantic lead) and Novak elevate this, Stewart's other "Christmas movie," movie to above mid-level entertainment. The chemistry between the two stars makes for a fairly moving experience and further revelation can be gleaned from the movie if witchcraft is seen as a metaphor for the private pain that hampers many people's relationships. All in all, a nice diversion with legendary stars, 7/10. This is the kind of film that, if it were made today, it would probably star Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant; actually, now that I think about it, this one is quite liable to be remade one day. It's pleasant, but with no depth whatsoever. It suffers from the almost fatal miscasting of James Stewart in a role he is about 20 years too old for, and as a result there is no chemistry between him and the beautiful Kim Novak. Ernie Kovacs, in the small supporting role of an aspiring writer, is the only actor in the film whose performance approaches what you might call "wit". (**1/2) Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958. This impossible tale is of a female witch pursuing a mortal man, in a mortal world. Her "community" is open among it's members, but she conceals her witchcraft from the mortals. Hmmmm...this is starting to sound familiar. LOL. It's not your typical movie. Very "campy" performances by Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs keep things from getting dull. Kim Novak is always a pleasure on screen, but I found her pairing with James Stewart unusual (but not fatal to the story).

With re-newed interest in all things witchy and dark, this film deserves to be discovered and re-discovered by old and new audiences...... IT'S STILL A HOOT ! this is an honest attempt to make a bewitchingly sweet love story. the obvious inspiration behind the successful TV series "Bewitched," this lovely sweet rom-com is a timeless treasure. the comparisons are obvious. jimmy stewart plays a hapless but stolid "straight." kim novac plays a voluptuous blond witch who captures him through the use of a love spell. but when that spell is broken by a stronger witch, she contents herself with the duties of running her own shop and takes comfort in the fact that her beloved pyewacket (her feline familiar) is being cared for by her beloved aunt. you'll recognize the aunt from "Murder by Death." this movie is fun and touchingly sweet, bearing some spectacular wit and a nice witchy feel. worth a look. Bell Book and Candle was released in December 1958 and features James Stewart, Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon. and Ernie Kovaks. This film had James Stewart and Kim Novak in their second on-screen pairing (after the Alfred Hitchcock classic Vertigo, released earlier the same year). This was Stewart's last film as a romantic lead as he was deemed too old at age 50 to play that sort of part anymore. The movie is about a witch played by Kim Novak who is attracted to a mortal played by James Stewart. She puts a spell on him and he falls head over heels in love with her. I enjoyed the movie and its cast. This movie at the time was a moderate success which was nominated for a Golden Globe for best Movie Comedy. GimmeClassics The 1960's TV series Bewitched owes it's idea from this movie. This is the movie that Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak made right after they were cast together in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. This one is not as obsessive as that one but Novak is just as captivating.

This was Jack Lemmons 10th movie and he is good in support here as well as Ernie Kovacs. The movie has a lot of good things about it. Hermine Gingold is very good in this movie, almost as good in support here as she was in The Music Man. The cast is very solid.

This movie has a late 1950's New York City feel & a cat that is as hexing as any feline in any movie. It is well worth watching as it is a love story with all the emotion of any, & a little magic too boot.

It is not Vertigo but I think because it followed that movie, viewers then did not rate it as good as it deserved - sure am glad that William Asher saw it, so that the 1960's series got created. I am not so glad about what Will Ferrell did to it on the big screen, this movie is much better than that. A number of contributors have mentioned the age difference between Stewart and Novak. She was 25 and he was 50 when this movie was released. I think that the difference didn't matter for a suspense drama like Vertigo, but it does matter for a romantic comedy. We can easily understand, that is, why his character would be attracted to hers, but it's less clear why hers would be attracted to his.

Still, the movie works as a light romantic fantasy. The scene where she stares at him across the cat's head, with her dark painted-on eyebrows flaring and the sounds of her humming and the cat purring, is true magic. It's a little jarring, therefore, when the scene shifts to the top of the Flatiron Building, and we see the age difference very sharply. As he embraces her, she reaches up to run her fingers through his hair, but stops that motion and just brushes her fingertips lightly against his toupee. I really enjoyed watching this movie about the Delany sisters. I knew of them, but that was all. This movie opened my eyes to their bravado and courage. What a pair. What sacrifices they made to live life on their own terms. This is not only a movie for African Americans, but for all Americans. It is sort of a history lesson and a documentary rolled into one and combined with an entertaining movie biography. The acting was superior by all included and we really do get a glimpse of the hardships these two sisters went through for many years. Both sisters are quite different from each other. They came from a very loving and very strict family with high, maybe even impossible standards of perfection. It is sad to see how Sadie's father refused to allow his daughter to continue to see her boyfriend due to a possible misunderstanding. I thoroughly recommend this movie and I am glad I caught it on television the other day. The autobiography on which this movie is based remains one of the most heart-rending books I have ever read. It tells the amazing stories of two sisters, both who earned devotion and respect working well into their 70's as a teacher and a dentist, then lived another 30 years with dignity. Ruby Dee steals the film with her perfectly nuanced performance as the rebellious "blacker" Bessie, the dentist. She not only expresses her anger, angst, and wisdom well; she lets you know exactly where they've come from using an economy of words. Diahnn Carroll has the feel of the older sister, the teacher, down perfectly, but I'm afraid she never makes me believe that she's over 100. No matter -- the stories are well worth telling. Amy Madigan is a bit too extreme and intrusive in acting overwhelmed and insecure in the first half of the movie as the Caucasian NY Times reporter. This, too, is only a minor distraction. The stories, all true, are the attraction and although two or three get slightly damaged in the translation, most of them make it through just fine.

I recommend the book as essential reading to all people I recommend any books to. I cannot quite but this TV-movie in that rarefied air, but it certainly captures enough of the flavor to be highly worthwhile in its own right. A powerful adaptation of the best-selling book and the smash Broadway play about the lives of Bessie and Sadie Delany, two "colored" sisters who lived past the age of 100. Wonderfully played in their old age by Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll, respectively, they tell their story in flashbacks to Amy Hill Hearth (played by Amy Madigan), a white New York Times reporter. The flashback and present-day scenes don't have as much inspirational value in them as in the book, but really are powerful. However, certain aspects of the sisters' lives, such as the inter-racial background of their mother and the reasons behind their father's stern personality are not presented clearly. You need to read the book to fully understand these things. Which is just as well, because the book's just as great! Aside from those flaws, it's wonderfully done and performed, especially by Dee and Carroll, and a very powerful and educational movie. A wonderful film version of the best-selling book and smash Broadway play about the lives of Sadie and Bessie Delany, two African-American sisters who both lived over the age of 100 and told their story of witnessing a century of American history. Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll give very good performances as Bessie and Sadie, respectively. Amy Madigan also is good as Amy Hill Hearth, the white New York Times reporter whose article about the sisters launched the book, etc. Many of the flashback scenes and even many of the present-day ones are very powerful, if not quite as inspirational as in the book. That is the only real drawback, combined with the fact that certain aspects of the story are not presented clearly, such as the inter-racial background of the sisters' mother and why their father was so stern. But other than that, a very well-done, excellently performed, powerful movie. This was a fine example of how an interesting film can be made without using big stars and big effects. Just tell a true story about the struggles of two African American women over a turbulent century.

This movie challenges us all to look at our own personal prejudices and see that people are people, not white, black, etc.

Good movie with a good message. After "Beau travail", everybody was waiting for Claire Denis to make a follow-up masterpiece that never arrived. Now it has. Denis makes a quantum leap in this film, an orgy of gorgeous cinematography, elliptical editing and willfully obscure narrative events that feels strange and acts even stranger. There's a nominal plot (derived partly from the Jean-Luc Nancy book of the same name) about a mature man in need of a heart transplant and who seeks a Tahitian son he abandoned long ago; but mostly it's an exploration of the idea of intrusions personal and cultural. It takes a couple of viewings to fully comprehend, and has pacing problems close to the end, but it's still more advanced and gripping than anything else I've seen this year. Miss it at your peril. "The Intruder (L'Intrus)" is a visual pilgrimage through a mysterious life.

Grizzled Michel Subor plays "Louis Trebor" like Jason Bourne as an old man with a hidden past, living simply in an isolated hut in the woods for justifiably paranoid reasons (but attracting pretty young women who can be useful to him). We learn more about him through dreams, flashbacks and a journey that may unfold chronologically or not, as well as through his brusque interactions with family, lovers, business associates and a striking nemesis. Like "The Limey," the film resonates with parent/child regrets and a suspicious past revealed through clips from an old film with the same actor as a young man (here Paul Gégauff's 1965 adventure film "Le Reflux").

In a complete contrast of moods, we meet his son Sidney (Grégoire Colin) who has to be the sexiest house husband in the world, as he sweetly and seductively does household repairs and cares for a baby, a toddler and every need of his working wife. Surely director/co-writer Claire Denis must have created him as a woman's fantasy if ever there was one and a lesson to other filmmakers on filming foreplay. There's an additional extended scene where he seeks his father in the woods while carefully carrying his angelic baby in a pouch. He is everything his father is not and has every relationship his father is incapable of sustaining; no wonder he thinks his father is "a lunatic." I spent the rest of the film in dread that something bad would happen to him as the true nature of the heart of his alienated father is very gradually played out before our eyes.

The film is a puzzle, but Subor is ruthlessly fascinating as we watch him traverse countries and negotiate nefarious deals, and the voice-over narration for Denis's "Beau Travail" was annoying anyway. We have to figure out from skylines and incidental signage that he is traveling to Geneva, Korea and the South Pacific. Time passing is indicated by the seasons changing and scars being created and healing. There are lots of images of water for cleansing and for distancing.

Continuing her fascination with the morphing of colonialism into globalization, as well as playing a bit on stereotypes of the Mysterious Orient and Russian criminals, Denis has incorporated elements from Robert Louis Stevenson, Paul Gauguin and Marlon Brando's Tahiti idylls and a 40-page memoir by French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy, the last for the title and heart-transplant plot used for an ironic theme of limited immortality which does have consequences.

While "Louis" thinks he's succeeded in being above boundaries, rules and morals, there is some amusement in the last act as the locals don't quite know what to do with him and try to help him solve his quixotic odyssey, even as he again lies in isolation.

Several people in the audience left in frustration at the elliptical, but strikingly beautiful, story telling method. The unconventional narrative does raise a lot of plot questions on details. Two things haunt you throughout L'intrus (The Intruder): who's the intruder and is it a movie or a dream you're watching? The ending is so shocking that for a while you're at a loss for an answer to either of those questions. The intruder pops up as different characters, different men in different circumstances who don't belong in the scene, so they're expelled from it, kindly or brutally, but often without emotional involvement. The main character, Louis, is a contemptible man. He's got rough ways, some mean job and no heart. He needs one and goes after it. He has a heart transplanted and afterwards decides to start a new life. Can this man succeed in his quest for redemption? A guy like that could cut your throat at the drop of a hat. You know it but Claire Denis doesn't encourage you to judge him. Occasionally, there's a young Russian woman -a beautiful girl who seems to inhabit someplace between heaven and earth - who does judge him. She may even punish him. But not Denis. There's the character played by Beatrice Dalle who wants no business with him: don't touch me, she says. But Denis lets this man be himself, films him in his self-absorbed quest. I don't know if what she films is the heart or the mind but it isn't the traditional plot basics. Whatever she films, you get it in the end. You know who's "the" intruder, you know why, more or less, and some scenes come back to your mind with their full meaning. But was it a movie or a dream? Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.

Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.

What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.

In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp The film is not visually stunning in the conventional sense. It doesn't present a series of pretty pictures. Instead it is a visually interesting film. It forces the viewer to constantly process or perhaps imagine the context of the various shots. This sort of thing is easy to try but hard to succeed at. The film refuses to use the crutch of a genre to help the less than fully engaged viewer get what's going on. Instead the film touches on and moves through a number of different genres. The trick to loving the film is being able to enjoy this playfulness. I suspect 99% of North American viewers will just not get it. If you try to pin down the narrative of this film, or the philosophical message, or the symbolist structure, etc. you will waste your time. There are none of these. The film only feints towards these genres and others at times. The only unifying force in the film is Claire Denis's own sense of what fits together. There are so few feature length films that come close to satisfying Kant's description of what art is, namely the enjoyment of the power of judgment itself instead of simply subsuming experiences under concepts. Film usually takes the easy way out and opts for the simpler pleasure of understanding what's happening. Most film is not art. Most film doesn't come close to art. When a film does, as this one does, and is still enjoyable by a large range of viewers, it's something of a miracle. My on negative comment is that at times I find the film too simplistically buying in to the various narrative threads that run through it. The Tahiti father-son narrative, even though it's not exactly conventional, ends up making things a little to clear and simple. It dominates too much. The Intruder (L'Intrus), a film directed by French director Clair Denis, is the liberation of film. It follows its own spirit across time, space, and character. There may be a plot, but what I understood of that I picked up from the description on the Netflix DVD sleeve. Honestly, it's probably better to know nothing about the film before watching it, because then the viewer can set aside any and all expectations. The film demands that the viewer think, but also taunts the fact that he or she will not gain full understanding.

The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.

The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.

Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom. My take on this, at our local festival where people would see me so often they thought me a better source than I may actually have been, began with a head shake: "Well, I can't summarize the plot, but it's a really superb character study of an extremely scary man." Then, slight embarrassment, I ran into someone who actually knew what had gone down, that is, from whom Trebor unwittingly gets his new heart. It'd been my last film in a long, long day halfway through the festival. Maybe I'd dozed. The better a film is the more likely it triggers daydreams that send me really dreaming. Don't know. Did know there was an O'Henry twist achingly just beyond my ken as things finished. And knew it had to do with the heart, hence the quietly hilarious talent search. My plot-loss remark had more to do with intricacies of Trebor's connections in France, his relation to the dog woman and so on, stuff I'd been wide awake for. Denis barely glances at details that might have anchored another director's treatment.

But I write these things too often from memory, especially festival films, films whose DVD I don't have at hand (Le Lait de la tendresse humaine is one of many examples.), and plot kinks fade much more quickly than broader impressions. Still, or already, L'Inrus in my memory is beyond all else a character study of a sort of dark-side superman, a super fiend not ensconced in genre or historical trappings but active and plausible, relatively soft-spoken, driven but patient, right among us. The scar, once he attains it, makes him, just visually I mean, in image, a sort of hybrid Frankenstein monster, mad doctor and creation all in one. The actual doctors are his tools. If he doesn't extract and install the heart himself, it's only because it's not possible. He's the force, always, the parasite consuming everyone he touches and finally himself. What else is he? To suggest that he's us, the First World versus the Third, seems too simple since he feeds no less on his fellow First Worlders, on all of us.

Denis's camera's eye - when it looks at things I know - goes usually where mine would, so I tend to trust her when she looks at things I don't know. Snow trekking, too-fast bicycling, and forest darkness I've known in small ways, but the South Seas not at all, so I made better entry into L'Intrus, both France and the crystalline isles of its finish, than into Beau Travail. L'Intrus is, for me, a very comfortable discomforting film. It's a sequence of places portrayed familiarly, with a intimacy that allows us to know them whether we've seen the reality or not. A single image, Trebor cycling, his massive weight on the thin racing frame, the sounds of violated air and shrieking tires, the asphalt ribbon, the dark-in-bright-sun evergreens, cued me that the film would be linear, a road trip, a single will-driven thrust.

Despite Trebor's personal power, he's a human failure. No matter who he's with, he's alone, though apparently he hasn't always been. His body aborts life twice, first to need the new heart, then despite it. L'Intrus is tragedy. Trebor is hubris.

I'm navigating perilously the thread of what I remember. Let's leave it at that. First of all, I liked very much the central idea of locating the '' intruders'', Others in the fragile Self, on various levels - mainly subconscious but sometimes more allegorical. In fact the intruders are omnipresent throughout the film : in the Swiss-French border where the pretagonist leads secluded life; in the his recurring daydream and nightmare; inside his ailing body after heart transplantation.... In the last half of the film, he becomes intruder himself, returning in ancient french colony in the hope of atoning for the past.

The overall tone is bitter rather than pathetic, full of regrets and guilts, sense of failure being more or less dominant. This is a quite grim picture of an old age, ostensibly self-dependent but hopelessly void and lonely inside. The directer composes the images more to convey passing sensations of anxiety and desire than any explicit meanings. Some of them are mesmerizing, not devoid of humor though, kind of absurdist play only somnambulist can visualize. Films such as Chocolat, Beau Travail, and others have propelled French director Claire Denis into the top echelon of the world's most unique and accomplished filmmakers and her 2004 film The Intruder (L'Intrus) adds to the depth of her portfolio. A cinematic poem that conveys a mood of abiding loneliness and loss, the film provides a glimpse into the psyche of a man who is deteriorating physically and mentally and who travels to various parts of the globe seeking redemption and peace but finds it hard to come by. Loosely based on Jean-Luc Nancy's memoir of a heart transplant, The Intruder is a film of such unrelenting opaqueness that even after two viewings it is difficult to describe it in other than subjective, impressionistic terms.

Louis Trebor (Michael Subor) is a man in his seventies who is likely dying of a heart condition and who, like the professor in Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries, attempts to come to terms with the mistakes of his life while he has time. It is clear that he is physically rugged and very wealthy but seems emotionally drained and the look on his face is one of quiet resignation. Though we see only one episode of violence, where he gets out of bed in the middle of night to kill an intruder, there is a sinister sense about him. He might be an intelligence officer, a foreign agent, or a hit man.

Whatever the case, he apparently is under some kind of surveillance and acts like a man that has been involved in criminal wrongdoing and is only now able to see the consequences. Facial close-ups throughout the movie create a strong sense of isolation. He lives with his dogs in a cabin in the Jura Mountains near the French-Swiss border and has an estranged son Sidney (Gregoire Collin) whom he has long neglected. Sidney lives nearby with his wife Antoinette (Florence Loiret-Caille) and their two children. In one telling scene, he meets up with his father on the street and calls him a lunatic, but that does not prevent him from taking his money.

When the film opens, we meet Antoinette, a Swiss border guard, who boards a van with a trained dog to sniff out some contraband. When she comes home, she is greeted by her husband who asks her with tongue-in-cheek if she has "anything to declare?" Other than these three individuals, the people and circumstances we see during the rest of the film may exist only in Louis' imagination. Louis has three women in his life and we meet them all in the film's first half hour: a pharmacist (Bambou) who prepares his medication, a neighbor (Béatrice Dalle) who is a dog breeder who refuses to care for his dogs when he goes away on a trip telling him that they are as crazy as he is, and a young Russian organ dealer (Katia Golubeva) who he tells he wants a "young man's heart".

Relentlessly, she stalks him throughout the film but it is apparently only in his mind. In the last section of the film, Louis travels to South Korea in search of a heart transplant and to Tahiti to deliver a gift to a different son, one whom he has not seen for many years or perhaps has never seen. His heart transplant, however, appears to be a metaphor for a man without a heart, a man whose life has been fascinating but ultimately directionless, intruding into other people's lives with little real empathy. The Intruder contains a haunting guitar soundtrack by Stuart Staples of the band Tindersticks, reminiscent of the guitar riff in Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man, and gorgeous cinematography by Denis regular Agnes Godard.

Godard creates memorable images that convey a mood of longing and regret: a heart beating alone in the snow, an infant in a sling looking up at his father for a good two minutes, the baby's expression gradually turning from morose to a half smile, colored streamers blowing from a newly christened ship, a massage in a dark room by a mysterious Korean masseuse, and the vast expanse of ocean seen from a bobbing ship deck. While The Intruder can be frustrating because of its elliptical nature, Denis forces us to respond out of our own experience, to understand the images on the screen on a very personal level. If there is any theme, a hint might be found in the opening that tells us what is revealed piecemeal in the film - "your worst enemies are hiding, in the shadow, in your heart." Clair Denis again revisits her theme of estranged fathers, men who follow their own bliss in determined fashion, heedless of the emotion toll on their family but while Nénette and Boni from the earlier film live in a narrow world of Marseilles, our examination of Louis Trebor in The Intruder takes us from a remote location along the French-Swiss border to half way around the world, to Korea and Tahiti. Again the film begins in mid stream, with Louis, in his sixties, coping with an ailing heart while attempting to maintain a high level of fitness. We learn that Louis is no stranger to violence as his cabin is the location for smuggling and gunfire a regular occurrence. Louis sleeps with a large knife under his pillow with rifles nearby. Denis is in no hurry to move the action along, and we must patiently build our understanding of Louis from his daily activities and the few people he deals with along the frontier including a son, Sidney (Grégoire Colin, almost unrecognizable with long hair and a wisp of a mustache) who rejects him as a "lunatic":, shown as a dedicated father of two. There are many brief scenes which, while seemingly unrelated, build up an impression of Louis and his milieu. Ms Godard's camera work is exhilarating here. The controlling metaphor is Louis's heart transplant for which he goes to Korea and then to Tahiti to search for another son, not found, and where Louis's new heart rejects him just as Sidney rejected the old. We are accustomed to brief scenes in Denis's film which are inexplicable: Nénette astride Boni feeding with a spoon; a drive by shooting of Boni's father and then the briefest of images of Boni with a gunshot wound in the head; a scene of Louis in a morgue with a cadaver with the scar of a transplant but the body of Sidney. The implication, of the last two, is a rejection, real or imagined, by a father, kills something indefinable in a son. I don't think anyone besides Terrence Malick and maybe Tran Anh Hung makes cinema on a purer level than Claire Denis. That said, I don't love this, her newest film, quite as much as her 2001 masterpiece "Trouble Every Day" (although it comes very close), which itself is one of my absolute favorite films. It it only because the narrative here is possibly slightly too elliptical for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, the fact that this film barely has a plot at all is really one of the best things about it, but I think Denis took it about one degree farther than it needed to go and consequently the film does flirt with incomprehensibility, and a few key plot points should have been clarified somehow (like that the main character goes to South Korea to get his heart transplant, instead of just showing him there all of a sudden without any explanation of where he is or why he is there). Also some of the other characters seemed unnecessary and as if they were just excuses for Denis to use actors she likes yet again (Beatrice Dalle's character in particular is a little distracting because you keep expecting that she is going to have some significance). Still, the film is incredibly absorbing and the cinematography is beyond amazing. It is definitely very much a masterpiece in it's own way. At least as good as Denis' more highly-acclaimed "Beau travail", if not better. Claire Denis has to be my favorite French director at this point, better than Leos Carax even. Also I have to admit that the South Korean sequence really does do "Lost in Translation" better than that film itself does (and I, unlike some, am a huge fan of that film as well). This movie is of almost generation-defining importance to some of us born in the early post-war years in that (and especially if you were born between 1946 and 1953 and loved spending Saturday afternoons at your neighborhood movie house) you almost certainly saw it. And the memory of seeing it has probably stayed with you. It's style is the stuff of a brief and somehow gloriously exciting moment in our growing up days.

It had a modern, space-age storyboard for the audiences of it's time. The set was any town with a supermarket and a movie theater that would be packed for a Friday midnight show. It has hot rods and rebellious youth, but in the 'why can't they let us have fun' way rather than the disturbed, histrionic rebel-without-a-cause way. All characters were identifiable to us - teens, parents, the old man, the doctor, the nurse, the mechanic, the boy, the puppy, even the cops - were sympathetic to us. We could relate to them all

It had a singularly horrifying monster. It's first victim is heard moaning 'it hurts.....it hurts' and we were convinced and frightened. The menace grows continually throughout the story. There are intense periods of suspense, colourful effects, a fabulous lead in McQueen, and moments of humour, both intended and not. It even had an almost over-the-top sad part to make the more sensitive of us feel like crying.

I saw it in summer, age 9 or so, double billed with 'I Married A Monster From Outer Space', and was so thrilled by the experience of this particular double feature that I went back a couple more times before it left. Everyone I knew saw it. Everyone I knew loved it. This movie is wonderful. What separates it from other 50's sci-fi is the fact that the alien has no features, no face, eyes, anything, yet it can't be killed. I especially like the idea that this film doesn't take place over a few days, it takes place in one night, lasting supposedly past midnight.It's also scary that once the blob gets on you, you can't get it off. you're stuck in it, as it dissolves your flesh and slowly devours your body. My all time favorite 50's sci-fi film, and what is sometimes considered the quintessential one. I can see why this rocketed Steve McQueen to stardom. All this and a catchy theme song! How can you go wrong? The Blob is a classic 1950s B-movie sci-fi flick. You probably know the story: two teens (Steve McQueen & Aneta Corsaut) see a meteorite hit the ground, and when they go to look for it, they run into an old man with some weird...blob attached to his arm. They take him to the doctor's office, and then go to find out what happened. From there, the blob spreads, eating everyone in its path. The special effects are cheesy fun, as is the story. There are a lot of great touches, like the cop who plays chess over the radio with a cop in another district. It's no masterpiece, but it has a special place in its genre. Steve McQueen is very good. 8/10. The only notable thing about this film is that it was Steve McQueen's first big starring role.

McQueen's talent is undeveloped and raw but refreshingly honest in this campy little sci-fi horror piece. Steve shows himself as the anti-establishment, hot rod car loving actor who would become a polished icon of the film industry just five years hence.

Later on, McQueen would say he hated this film and that "he was the blob". But everyone has to start somewhere and The Blob is cute, fresh and innocent. Would that we all had stayed that way.

The plot is fast paced and although predictable, still an entertaining hour or so. And it's really fun to see Steve McQueen before he became The King of Kool (and Anita Corsaut before she became Andy Taylor's girlfriend). A close friend sent me the DVD a while back and it's a treasured addition to my Steve McQueen film collection. I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:

This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.

You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended. I wasn't aware of Steve McQueen in 1958. I only knew that I was extremely frightened about going to see this film. (I'd been devastated by the movie "Trantula" at age seven . . . but I was ten now). The 1st scene where the Blob crawls up the farmer's probing stick and engulfs his hand was enough to make me want to leave the theater. But I stayed and suffered through each of our monster's attacks. I felt such horror when Steve and his girl barely made it out of the doctor's office (poor doc), and even more when The Blob entered a movie theater and devoured a large portion of the audience . . . so many in fact that IT oooooozzzzzzed out of the front doors, too huge now to fit through just one. It seemed indestructible and unlimited in growth potential, and when it trapped poor Steve in a sieve-like diner, he seemed like a sure dinner to be.

To say that the Blob was cold would be a modern day description, but in the end, better icy than scaring and mentally rupturing little kids.

I remember walking home that evening with my uncle Nick, trying to act brave. He knew I was in trouble, and when I got into bed that night I could not only feel the Blob in the room, but when I summoned up the courage to look down at the floor, there the red pulsating, heart-like hungry dude sat, waiting for me to try and get up and go to the bathroom. It took months to recover.

I'm 57 years old now . . . I've made it.

Of course The Blob wasn't destroyed. Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!

The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer No hidden agenda. Pure scifi. All fun.

I saw the original on TV and was scared pretty bad. I was a kid :)

The original one can be appreciated more when compared to the new one which I saw and have forgotten. The original one, starring the great movie star Steve McQueen (BULLET), is by far the better and only version anyone should see.

The movie production is dated, but the fx used to make the Blob stands up the test of time. I was convinced that that thing was moving on its own accord. 10/10

-Zafoid A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.

"The Blob" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Bolha" ("The Blob") Absolutely the very first film that scared me to death. I happened catch it when my older brother(r.i.p.) was watching it. It was on a black and white TV and not really a good picture but it got me interested. Shortly after, my folks bought a color set and, as luck would have it, The Million Dollar Movie was showing it one Sunday.

I had forgotten most of the plot, but it did not take long to catch up...and I got so scared I had a hard time sleeping that night! I mean sure it was just a movie but it involved a creature that not only came from space, but you could not hear it, or see it...and once it got hold of you it was too late. Even now, after all this time it still sends a shiver up my spine. A true classic, and even better a classic that I have seen scare the pants off a new generation!

Long live The Blob! THE BLOB is a great horror movie, not merely because of the vividly horrific images of its nearly unstoppable, flesh-dissolving title character, but because it features a real societal message. It is, in many ways, a "feel-good horror film." The clever storyline is helped immeasurably by solid performances from the entire cast. The two romantic leads, Steve McQueen and Aneta Corsaut, bring surprising depth and sentimentality to the proceedings. They are misunderstood but very well-meaning young people, and it's very easy to root for them.

This is a pro-society movie, and its juvenile delinquent characters cause trouble mainly out of boredom, not out of some malevolent character flaw. Steve McQueen's drag-racing rival almost appears to be an enemy early on in the proceedings, but quickly joins in McQueen's campaign to save the town from the oozing invader once he sees McQueen's seriousness. In this way, a character situation that at first appears to be cartoonish suddenly develops depth and human realism.

The authorities' initial skepticism of the kids' wild claims is proved wrong--and once the threat is acknowledged by all, all conflict within the society disappears. This unification of purpose, and the validation of the "troublemaking" teens, becomes official when Aneta Corsaut's father breaks into the school to obtain the fire extinguishers needed to freeze the Blob. On any other day, breaking into the school would be considered an act of vandalism typical of a juvenile delinquent--on this particular day, it is a necessary action performed by an adult authority figure. At this turning point, it is clear that there are no lines of division between the young and the old.

This is an unusual film in that it acknowledges the perception of a "generation gap" but suggests that it is more imaginary than real, and that given a real crisis, people will naturally band together to restore order. "The Blob" is a perfect tonic for the kind of depression that generally comes with a viewing of "Night of the Living Dead" (1968).

Much has been made of the film's cheap but innovative (and effective!) visual effects. They are undeniably clever. A lot of the gravity-defying tricks we see the Blob perform were achieved with miniature sets designed to be rotated. The camera was typically attached to the sets in a very firmly "locked down" position (the lights had to be similarly attached so that the lighting remained steady as the room was turned this way and that). These scenes were often photographed one frame at a time as the room was slowly turned--the silicone blob oozed very slowly and its action needed to be sped up. In a way, this was similar to stop motion photography, but utilizing a blob of silicone rather than an articulated puppet. Even today, the effects are startling and bizarre.

A very good film with an exploitative-sounding title, THE BLOB is a must-see. I grew up in Royersford, Pa. The town where Jerry's market was. I remember my whole family going out to watch the filming. I remember a guy showing the "Blob" to me and my brothers in a bucket. I also would like to share that my mother was in the movie. Her hair style was the same as Aneta Corsaut's and she was ill one evening and they saw my mom and asked her to sit in the car with Steve Mcqueen for some shots from behind. They payed her $25.00 and gave her a story to tell until she passed away this past August. My mom was not a teenager and she was a few months from giving birth to my little sister. This is my favorite classic. It was filmed a little west of Philadelphia, PA when I was 13, in 1957, and released the next year. Then in 1970, I found myself working the very same county as a rookie PA state trooper. I have always enjoyed checking out the different places where scenes were filmed. I knew the owner of the Downingtown Diner well, and he had a road sign out front which told all passing motorists that this was the "home of the blob". The theater scene was in Phoenixville, near Valley Forge Park and it is still showing films today! I have read many comments on this site criticizing The Blob for being cheesy and or campy. The movie has been faulted for amateurish acting and weak special effects. What would you expect from a group of folks whose only experience has been in the production of low budget, locally produced (Valley Forge PA) Christian Shorts. Let me tell those overly critical reviewers that this film never took itself all that serious. That fact should be evident from the mismatched theme music complete with silly lyrics played over the opening credits. For what it was meant to be, this film is excellent. I have seen a few of the recent ultra low budget attempts, Blair Witch Project was one of them, that have absolutely no entertainment value or intelligent thought behind their plot. BWP was pure excrement. The Blob, on the other hand, was well thought out, well scripted, and thoroughly entertaining. The scene where the old man comes across the meteorite and pokes the mass contained within with a stick was excellently done and genuinely creepy. The scene in the doctor's office with the Blob slowly moving under the blanket on the gurney while it consumed the old man was a cinematic horror masterpiece. Bottom line is, I love this movie. I challenge anyone out there to take $120,000.00, inflated for today's dollar value, and make a film anywhere near as entertaining and or as successful as the Blob. It just can't be done. PERIOD!

Thank you for taking time to read this review. I've seen The Blob several times and is one of the better low budget alien invasion movies from the 1950's.

A strange meteor lands just outside a small town and an elderly man goes to investigate this. A strange jelly like substance then attaches itself to one of his arms and a young couple who saw the meteor land arrive in time and take him to the local doctor's, where the old man then gets completely absorbed by the mass. The doctor and his nurse are the next victims and the mass is getting bigger. When these incidents are reported to the police, they don't believe the young couple and accuse them of making all this up. They finally believe them when the mass, now huge turns up in the town's cinema and everybody runs into the streets screaming. It then attaches itself on a diner with the young couple and some others inside. The Blob is stopped by spraying a load of fire extinguishers at it and it freezes, which is its weakness. It is then transported by plane to the frozen wastes of the Arctic and disposed of there. But it is only frozen, not dead...

This movie has a typical setting for its period: teenagers and a small town. The Blob has a good rock and roll style theme song at the beginning and the movie is atmospheric throughout.

The sequel, Beware! The Blob followed in 1972 and a remake came in 1988 but this is the best of The Blob movies.

The cast is lead by Steve McQueen (The Great Escape)and is the movie that made him a star and Aneta Corsaut plays his girlfriend. I'm not familiar with any of the other stars.

The Blob is a must see for all sci-fi fans. Fantastic.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5. Most of the Atomic Age monster movies I saw on television as a kid- and some of them, THE BLOB included, scared the daylights outta me. Movies like INVADERS FROM MARS made it all too clear to us "small fry" that kids just weren't to be trusted when it came to things like things invading the Homeworld; THE BLOB just reiterated that fact. I recall, fondly, late evenings spent stretched on the floor watching as Body Snatchers and Martian Invaders and Blobs seeped into an unsuspecting society. There was a summer, in the early 1980s, when a local science museum (in Richmond, Virginia) ran an Atomic Age classic every weekend. These were 16mm films, and most were black and white (and the projector was noisy), and the "color" print of THE BLOB had faded to a faint pink- but, man, was it fun. I dragged my mother along, and she enjoyed it as much as I did. It was there, at that science museum, that I truly fell in love with THE BLOB. The filmmaker's intent was, of course, to make money- but it was the sincerity of all involved, from the filmmakers to the "talent" (the players), that made me fall in love with this movie. Corny? You bet. Cheesy? They don't get any cheesier. But, man, what a movie! This is a pretty well known one so i won't get too deep into it. The basic story is about two teens who find out about a slimy alien blob of goo that arrives to earth via meteor. Human contact with this slime ball burns through flesh like acid. It also absorbs human bodies making it grow bigger. Nobody believes the teens (Steeve McQueen and his girlfriend) and when they finally do it seems that the blob can't be stopped. It's really well done for it's age and unlike a lot of other 50's flicks the pace is pretty fast. The story is very unique making it and a must see for any fan of old sci-fi and monster movies. If you can dig the gooey gore of 80s horror be sure to check out the remake from '88 as well. First off, I hadn't seen "The Blob" since I was 7 or 8 and viewing it as an adult was an incredible experience. Pages could be written on its influence on horror films even today. And even more could be written on its social subtext with the 50s "fear of teenagers". But this simple little tale of interplanetary horror is still a damn fine scary movie if you let it be.

Sure, it looks cheesy as all get out in our modern world. But "The Blob" packs in some genuinely frightening moments as a band of kids track the unstoppable creature when then adults don't believe them. In fact, there are even some pretty bleak moments in its candy-colored world. And Steve McQueen gives so much more than the story deserved on paper that we the viewers really get caught in the moment and believe in him.

To sum up, if you can take off your postmodern irony filter, there's a lot more to love here than meets the eye. I saw this movie at midnight on On Demand the other night, not knowing what to expect. I had heard of this movie, but never really any opinions on it.

I have to say, I was impressed with what I saw. I was genuinely freaked out in some parts and I definitely recall jumping up in my seat a few times.

The Blob was scary looking. Now, I look in a jar of jelly and wonder if it'll latch itself onto my hand.

Steve McQueen was really good as Steve Andrews, the protagonist of the film. I also liked the old man in the beginning.

For a 50's horror movie, this was very well done even by today's standards.

8/10. Some of those guys that watch films and complain about them for a living are forgetting something: DVD menu system. I tell you the people, I watched the main screen repeat in this one about 35 times. It was awesome. A cinematic tapestry of cascading brilliance that had me from where it was, which was the very beginning. Many times the sum and Bam! I was hooked. Over and over and over. And over.

"Doot de doot, de doo de dodedo." And that's just the soundtrack!

I is laid aside in the bed, curled up with my Vaio. The rain is in the flat roof and tonight soft is again soft. The cat is comfortable and my ankle which crosses in me, is already rested. I popped in the DVD. I was mesmerized. Through the night. "doot de doot, de doo de dodedo."

The Blob. See it. Steve Queen, two cops, and one girl in a dress. Two thumbs way up! Old horror movies are interesting, plenty of screams, plenty of shouts, and plenty of humor to go along with it. "The Blob" is a classic in it's own work. Steve McQueen(1930-80) plays a teen who tries to be a hero in his town. Going out on a date with his girl is rather typical for all teens. But when the old man discovers the same falling object form the sky, he ends up being the victim, and Steve helps him out the best he can. When its up to teen power, this movie really provides it. I know most teens have had their hardships when they act up, when danger comes around, they must learn to forget the past and start doing something good to save humanity. When the adults in town ended up learn the hard way about "The Blob" running amok, they must learn to trust teenagers and not let their behavior get the better of them. The oozing juggernaut was rather cute in the day, and in my opinion I think it was JELL-O! When everyone pitches in to stop the menace, the town is once again safe, thanks to good old cooperation. I still eat Jello and watch this movie all the time, if you don't like Jello, TOUGH! RATING 5 STARS I had first watched this several years ago on a now-defunct Sicilian TV channel; amazingly, the film emerged as a heftily-priced DVD from Criterion: not being sure what I had made of it initially (despite having attained cult status over the years, the achievement proper is clearly viewed with modesty even by genre buffs), I opted not to make the purchase – as I did with the similar and, to me, unfamiliar FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958). Recently, however, I managed to acquire THE BLOB via a copy of the Spanish DVD which, interestingly, ported over the two Audio Commentary tracks from the Criterion "Special Edition"…but, regrettably, I could not switch off the Spanish subtitles during playback of the main feature! Anyway, looking at the film anew, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it (despite many a narrative flaw, which I will get to later) – as a pure example of 'B-movie' schlockiness (atypically shot in pleasant color) and a time-capsule illustrating late 1950s social attitudes. The male lead was an early role for Steve(n) McQueen and, though the actor may have subsequently looked at it with disdain, his sole contribution to the genre proves fairly engaging: not averse to juvenile kicks but still essentially a decent (and, more importantly, altruistic) kid. The special effects depicting the slimy and expanding creature are not too bad of its kind and period; the film itself rises to a good climax – beginning with the monster's invasion of a cinema (showing DAUGHTER OF HORROR [1953/7] as I mentioned recently in that film's review but being curiously screened 'flipped' and which sequence, incidentally, would be featured at the opening of a satirical Italian program actually called "Blob"!). As to the admittedly minor quibbles I have with the film: the monster is not shown traveling – it just turns up at a variety of places, never being seen by anyone!; there is a baffling over-emphasis (tantamount to padding) on the kids' scrapes with Police; it is silly to have the town doctor shoot at The Blob – as if fluid, whatever its proportion, can be destroyed by bullets!; equally nonsensical is having the teenagers alert the townsfolk of the danger by making door-to-door visits (especially when considering that, at that stage, only McQueen had actually seen the monster in action)! An inferior sequel emerged in 1972 called BEWARE THE BLOB!; the original was then remade in 1988 – I watched this not too long ago but it seems not to have made a lasting impression on me (though I know Micheal Elliott loves it). For the record, I will be following this viewing with two more collaborations between director Yeaworth and producer Jack H. Harris, namely 4D MAN (1959) and DINOSAURUS! (1960). Sure, it's a 50's drive-in special, but don't let that fool you. In my little book, there are a number of intelligent touches with unexpected dollops of humor. Catch the redoubtable Mrs. Porter who's supposed to keep an eye on the doc's place. She not only steals the scene, but darn near the whole movie. And where did those indie producers come up with the bucks to film in color, a wise decision, since the blob would not show up well in b&w. Yes, the result is ragged around the edges as the number of goofs illustrate. But except for several of the teens, the non-Hollywood cast performs well. Then too, the byplay among hot-rodders and cops comes across as lively and entertaining. Pretty darn good for a couple of directors more at home in a pulpit than on a sound stage. Apparently, they wanted to portray teens in a positive light at a time when the screen was filled with "juvenile delinquents". Then again, the 27-year old McQueen hardly qualifies in the age department, but manages the hot-rodder attitude anyway. The movie was a hit at the time, helped along, no doubt, by the catchy title tune that got a lot of radio play. And except for the unfortunate final effects, the movie is still a lot of fun, drive-in or no drive-in. Meanwhile, I'm awaiting the blob's return now that the polar icecap is turning into, shall we say, refrigerator water. I would imagine that if Steve McQueen knew he would go on to become an icon and start "Wanted: Dead of Alive" the same year this film came out, or be in The Magnificent Seven two years later, he would not have done it. But he did, and we are the richer for it.

Sure it's a camp classic. Horror the way it was meant to be for the drive-in theater. It's fun and nostalgic.

It is interesting that the last lines of the film were:

Lieutenant Dave: At least we've got it stopped. Steve Andrews: Yeah, as long as the Arctic stays cold.

They never would have imagined 52 years ago that the Arctic would be thawing. The Blob will soon return. "The Blob" qualifies as a cult sci-fi film not only because it launched 27-year old Steve McQueen on a trajectory to superstardom, but also because it exploited the popular themes both of alien invasion and teenage delinquency that were inseparable in the 1950s. Interestingly, nobody in the Kay Linaker & Theodore Simonson screenplay ever refers to the amorphous, scarlet-red protoplasm that plummeted to Earth in a meteor and menaced everybody in the small town of Downingtown Pennsylvania on a Friday night as "The Blob." Steve McQueen won the role of Josh Randall, the old West bounty hunter in "Wanted: Dead or Alive," after producer Dick Powell saw this Paramount Pictures' release. Meanwhile McQueen's attractive girlfriend Aneta Corsaut went on to star opposite Andy Griffith in "The Andy Griffith Show" as Sheriff Taylor's school teacher girlfriend Helen Crump. Of course, neither McQueen nor Corsaut were teenagers, but then rarely did actual teenagers play actual teenagers. Director Irvin S. Yeaworth, Jr., made his directorial debut with "The Blob." Linaker & Simonson's screenplay synthesized four genres: first, the alien invasion; second, teenage delinquency; third, a murder mystery, and fourth; a horror chiller. Moreover, while the gelatinous substance assumes various shapes, it remains largely anonymous. In other words, the eponymous Jell-O neither talks nor communicates by telepathy. Instead, it kills without a qualm and discriminates against nobody. The tone of "The Blob" is fairly serious in spite of its somewhat campy nature.

As the filmmakers point out on the Criterion DVD release of "The Blob," the movie opens uncharacteristically for a sci-fi horror thriller with our hero and heroine in a remote rural locale making out and kissing. Jane (Anita Corsaut) and Steve (Steve McQueen) see a large meteor fall to the earth and drive off to find it. Meanwhile, an old man finds the meteor and prods it with a stick. The meteor cracks open and a slimy bunch of goop clings to the stick. When the old timer (Olin Howland of "The Paleface") gets a closer look at it, the goop attaches itself to his hand. The old guy runs screaming from the crater and Steve nearly hits him with his jalopy. Steve and Jane pick the guy up and take him to see Dr. Hallen in town.

Hallen is poised to leave town for a medical conference when Steve and Jane bring the old guy to his office. Hallen phones his nurse to return since he may need to perform an amputation. Of course, Hallen has never seen anything like the substance on the man's forearm. Hallen sends Steve and Jane to find out what happened. Our heroes run into another group of teenagers that ridicule Steve's fast driving. Steve fools him into a reverse drive race, but the local police chief Dave (Earl Rowe) lets him off the hook. Steve and the teenagers visit the site of the meteor crater and find the warm remains of the meteor. After they visit the old man's house and rescue a dog, the teenagers split for a spooky late night movie while Steve and Jane return to Dr. Hallen's office. During the interim, the blob has entirely absorbed the old geezer, killed Hallen's nurse and attacked the doctor. Neither acid thrown on the protoplasm nor Hallen's shotgun have any effect on the blob. Steve catches a glimpse of the blob absorbing Hallen. When Steve and Jane go to the police department to report the incident, Dave is frankly incredulous, while Sergeant Bert (John Benson) believes that it is a prank. Bert has an axe to grind with teenagers because his wife died when one struck her car.

Steve and Jane take them to Hallen's office, but they can find neither hide nor hair of anybody, but Dave admits that the office has been vandalized. Against Sgt. Bert's advice, Dave turns the teens over to their respective parents. No sooner have Steve and Jane fooled their folks into believing that they are snugly asleep in bed than they venture out again. They drive into town and spot the old man's dog that got away from them in front of a supermarket. When they go to retrieve the mutt, Steve steps in front of the electric eye door of the grocery store and it opens. They find nobody inside, but they encounter the blob. Steve and Jane take refuge in a freezer and the blob doesn't attack them. Later, after they escape, Steve persuades the teenagers that challenged him in a street race to alert the authorities because he is supposed to be home in bed. Police Chief Dave and the fire department arrive at the supermarket. Steve tries to convince Dave that the blob is in the store. About that time, the blob kills the theater projectionist and attacks the moviegoers. Suddenly, a horde of people exit the theater and Dave believes Steve. Steve and Jane wind up at a lunch counter that the blob attacks. The proprietor and our heroes hole up in the cellar and Steve discovers that a fire extinguisher with its freezing contents forces the blob to back off.

The authorities collect every fire extinguisher in town and manage to freeze the blob. The Pentagon sends down a team to transport the blob to the North Pole. As the remains of the blob drift down to the polar ice pack, the end credit appears with a ghostly giant question mark. Producer James B. Harris obtained stock military footage of a Globe master military transport plane depositing the parachute and its cargo.

"The Blob" proved to be a drive-in hit and Steve McQueen's surge to stardom gave the film added momentum. Unless you are a juvenile, this little horror movie isn't scary at all, but Yeaworth and his scenarists create a sufficient amount of paranoia and sympathy for our heroes. They never show the blob actually assimilating its victims and leave this to your imagination, so "The Blob" isn't without a modicum of subtlety. This is an awesome classic monster flick from the 50's! I just love the look of the 50's in general like the cars and the music. Anyway, I love the way the blob looks. I love when the everyone is at the late night horror flick at the theater and the blob comes in and crashes the party. Another thing I love about it is that it takes place all in one night, just like Halloween II.

When Steve and Jane are making out, they see a meteor fall from space. Inside the meteor is the blob. Whenever the blob consumes a person, it grows bigger and bigger. They try to convince the people of the town about the blobby monster, but no one believes them until later. Can anything stop this blobby creature? I highly recommend THE BLOB!!! What the movie The 60s really represents (to those of us who growled around in the belly of America in those times) is the turbulence and diversity of the decade. Despite the exaggerated, stereotyped characters, the genuineness of the issues remains clear.

Not only were those radical times of change, but also very confusing times. Two basic things changed our world then: the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the overwhelming influence of the media. Those two new freedoms began social changes that soon became institutionalized.

From chaos came sensitivity, from disorder came values. Bear in mind however, that the bulk of Americans were not involved in this... they worked, they played, they watched the news... and slowly they became effected by the efforts and struggles of the minorities... the Civil Rights workers, the Political Activists, the Anti-War efforts, the War on Poverty....

The representation of the power of the press and TV in particular, was well reflected, although the conflict between the general public's attitude and those seeking to change things was at best ignored... and at worst, misrepresented.. Middle class Americans weren't all standing around angrily holding baseball bats, or disowning their wayward daughters. They were confused too. Let us not forget how Folk Singers suddenly became Protest Singers, and how The Beatles began an onslaught that killed the Folk-Protest Movement. There are no Beatle songs in the movie, or even any mention of them.

I think if you didn't live the decade, you might not have a sense of what the movie is about, the overall picture is a bit dim. At one point I held down a steady job while my sister lived at the Hog Farm Commune and went to Woodstock. At another point I was in Haight Asbury and in the Detroit Riots while she worked and played the housewife in Maine and Connecticut. Roles were constantly changing.

The movie depicts three siblings of a middle class family. They represent the hippie child, the political activist, and the active military personnel. Dad represents the typical attitudes, and mom represents the voice of reason, tolerance, and sometimes compromise... for the sake of peace.

The Black family comprises a minister and his son... disproportionately, I think. I assume the producers knew all the variables and had to settle on limitations, or else the film would have become a long, boring, documentary. Dad's message was that anger produces bitterness, and bitterness produces chaos. It was clearly a message directed to today's youth.

We are looking at a unique solution to social problems, and also how issues divide us... The 60s were unusual in that way, and only the Roaring 20s compare. In other words, this movie has a moral after all. In the end, it is our Collective Individualism that survives. Put that in your oxymoron list.

Everyone was a God, a Guru, or a free-spirited genius in the 60s. It was a time of magic and madness. No one will ever nail the 60s down right... it was too diverse (this movie is close). At least we can say we are not ashamed of it, that we learned and grew from it, and that for once, a generation shaped and changed America... for the better. The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.

The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a "Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!).

The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy"Woodstock Speaker"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!

In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10 Me and my sister rented this movie because we were in the mood for something trashy and not so demanding to watch. However the movie greatly exceeded my very low expectations.

It is so much more than just a representation of a century. It has very real portrayals of the characters within it and most of the actors do an amazing job. The different stories are baked together with actual footage from the time that gives it a very unique touch. While watching it I really felt that I CARED about what happened to the characters.

I would also like to give endless amounts of praise to Julia Stiles in her portrayal of Katie, she was great in a way that stood out!

I would recommend this movie to anyone.. Can any one help find out the title and artist of the song, that was played at least halfway through the movie. I can't remember what scene was playing. The words in the song are of a ballad. Some of the lyrics go like " It's natures way of telling you somethings wrong." It's natures way of telling it in a song." "It's natures way of forgiving you." Please Help me with this question. Thanks so much! I have been searching the internet for days, I can't get this song out of my mind. So now this will challenge me to find some one out there who may be able to help mer with this matter. I wish I would of been paying attention to the scene, when it was playing. I accidently felt on this movie on TV, and I wasn't able to leave it.... It's really an excellent movie which makes people learning about american's history with the Vietnam war, the flower power's time, the racism's fight.... It illustrates the conflict of generation, of political opinion, of race which took place in the 60's....I'm born in 1980 so I didn't know all that stuff before...In france, USA's history is not a priority and that movie really learned me a lot of facts ! By the way, I think all the actors are great; especially Jordana Brewster, Josh Hamilton and Jerry O'Connell. Now I can see this film more then 1 time each day !! It's really great.... what a shame it only appeared on TV not in cinemas...

I love the movie. It brought me back to the best time of my life.

We need that time again, now more than ever. For me it was a time of freedom, learning, and finding myself. I will always miss it. There will never be another time like the 60's, unfortunately. The 60´s is a well balanced mini series between historical facts and a good plot. In four deliveries, we follow a north American family, with 3 members. But we don't only see them. We also follow the story of several characters as a black reverend, an extremist student leader, and a soldier in Vietnam. The filmography is just extraordinary. In the first chapters, we see some shots of the Vietnam war, in between the scenes. The next chapter, doesn't start where the last one finished, it starts some time after, giving us a little mystery on what happened. In general, The 60´s mini series, is a must see, not only for hippies fanatics, but for everyone with little curiosity about the topic. Great, great, great! That is all I can say about that movie, but imdb want at least four lines of text so I'll elaborate. The cast was great (Jerry O'connel is soooo cute!), the music was great (The sixties had the best music ever, imho), the historical material was interesting, and so was the way they made the actors of the '90s seem like they were actually there in the '60s. And most of all - the stories of the main characters brought tears to my eyes, and that is the greatness of any drama. BUT IN ONE WORD: GREAT! I can agree with other comments that there wasn't an enormous amount of history discussed in the movie but it wasn't a documentary! It was meant to entertain and I think it did a very good job at it.

I agree with the black family. The scenes with them seemed out of place. Like all of a sudden it would be thrown in but I did catch on to the story and the connection between the families later on and found it pretty good.

Despite it wasn't a re-enactment of the 60s it did bring into the light very big and important landmark periods of the decade. I found it very entertaining and worth my while to watch. Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in "The '60s" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!! I lived during those times and I think the program caught the heart of the era. I do think it should have dealt with more of the Afro American issue but I think it cover a lot in the program. It was scary to sit and watch the riots on T V hoping that they would not go as far as your families home and that it would not get burnt down. I thought Jerry O'Connell did a great job portraying a vet coming back from the war. I went to school with guys who came back. Some had changed more than others and some not so much. It bothers me when someone comments that an issue was not covered enough or it was not entertaining enough. Live through it and then make comments. I thought the movie was great and that everyone in it did a remarkable job. Thank you for a trip (sad and good) down memory lane. This movie started slowly, then gained momentum towards the middle. However, the fact that the movie ran over two nights broke that momentum at its peak. The second part really got interesting, but then gave way to a simply pathetic ending. Playing football in the yard? Really, could it get any more sappy and maudlin? Now I hear plans for a similar movie based on the '70s. I won't make any great efforts to tune into that one if it's anything like "The '60s." As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion. I wasn't alive in the 60's, so I can't guarantee that this movie was a completely accurate representation of the period, but it is certainly a moving and fulfilling experience. There are some excellent performances, most notably by Josh Hamilton (of With Honors), Jerry O'Connell (Sliders), who play brothers divided by the war. Bill Smitrovich, a character actor who has been long ignored by many, gives a heart-filled performance as their strict father, who is forced to question his own beliefs and values as one of his sons makes him proud by going to Vietnam but returns empty inside, while the other is exactly the opposite. All in all, this is a powerful and heartwarming film that I hope everyone gets a chance to experience. Sometimes you have to look back to go forward. The 60's did just that. We need to remember the past. The past is part of the future.

Great mix Gary J. Coppola. I see a great future. You deserve to be nominated and win, The 60's best mixer of the year.

Best mini-series of all times.

Thanks Ursula

I really enjoyed The 60's. Not being of that generation (I'm waiting for "The 80's") it was interesting to see a unique four hour capsule for that era.

One major problem in the movie, however, was how unbalanced the film was in the portrayal of the families. According to promos I saw for the movie on NBC, the story was basically about two families struggling with issues in 1960's America. Now, I may have missed something, but I think we learned more about the white family than the African American family.

I really think that The 60's uses music to describe the scenes better than any dialogue that could come out of the mouths of the actors (all of which are very talented.) This is very visible at the end of the first part (about two hours in) of the mini-series.

Very good movie! The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself.

I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.

Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find "Higher Learning" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10 John Singleton's finest film, before blockbuster wannabees like the Shaft remake, this is a thought-provoking movie with overall great acting and superb balance between the stories 3 main characters, each with identifiable youngster problems.

What I liked about it most is that it also covers the problem of selfpity among young blacks, a problem mostly ignored by the media and other films who mostly focus on social-economical problems and racism by whites. This movie shows that blacks can be equally ignorant and racist.

The masterful thing about this film is that it deals with so many topics without getting shallow. It's not just about racism, but about how hard it can be to adopt to a new world (college), date rape, discovering sexuality and isolation. Omar Epps, Michael Rapaport and Kristy Swanson each deliver fine performances, and the supporting cast is equally interesting with Jennifer Connelly as a lez (yay) and with Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes as college bums causing little riots.

The only negative is the caricature of a professor by Laurence Fishburne ("Peppermint?"). Surely, plenty of professors are nutty. But they're not as flat. The skinheads are also a bit of a caricature, but I guess they are like that too in real life.

Overall a great underrated piece of filmwork, if you liked American History X you'll love this one.

8,5 out of 10 First one has to take into account the time period this film was made in. 1995. Rappers were in it, and that added to the flair of it.

Remy was a socially awkward teen trying to find his way and couldn't, until he met and was befriended by Nazis. They took him in. Nazi's aren't all this awkward, but like most gangs, they fill a void that is missing be it economic, social, emotional, whatever. Michael Rappaport played the part perfectly.

Omar Epps was the hot shot track star, with a questionable work ethic and a chip on his shoulder. He kept trying to feel sorry for himself and his plight, and had his girlfriend and professor to straighten him out on it.

Kristen was a young white girl trying to find herself and trying to fit in, until she was date raped. She then found her self experiment with her sexuality, and getting involved politically.

This film deals with racism and like most things that deal with racism, people's own perspectives come into play.

I read so many comments about how there were no 'evil' black characters but there were evil white one (Nazis). So what? Remy wasn't portrayed as evil at all, he was trying to find his way, and kept failing until some skinheads accepted him. He was scared, it was sad to see him devolve how he did. He even says right before he kills himself, I didn't mean it, I wanted to be an engineer.

Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes were angry black men, Ice Cube was somewhat of an intellectual, and Busta Rhymes was just portrayed as a dumb thug. They both showed no consideration at all for their roommates, and generally appear to not like white people very much. They were angry like the Nazis but not on the level of Nazis in terms of overall badness. Sorry if this makes it seem unfair, but are there really black groups like the Nazis? No.

People say it shows white=-bad black=good. Not true, the only bad white characters were the Nazis and the police, which is more or less true in real life. Kristen was a good girl, her boyfriend (omar epps roommate) was a good guy, and even Remy was a good guy, he was just misguided.

Omar Epps, Ice Cube and Busta were seriously flawed characters, angry and inconsiderate. Although their constant harassment by police seemed to justify some of their anger. Remy's inability to fit in seemed to justify his anger as well.

Good movie, well done. Like all movies that deal with racism, its a great piece to get a discussion going.

I don't think Cube and Busta coulda beat those Nazis though. Of life in (some) colleges. Of course there were artistic licenses taken, but some of what you saw in this film go on in some colleges.

I went to colleges in Southern California where the races pretty much hang around with their own. It's funny because these are schools that want racial unity, equality etc. and I can honestly say, that it's there. But the thing is when class lets out, or when they're just hanging out waiting for class, they (students) seem to just hang around with people of their own race or ethnicity. Is that bad? Not really. Everyone needs a feeling of belonging. But like the school paper of one of the schools I attended once wrote about that, "we should all try to hang around with students of other ethnicities and try to know them." Otherwise you're creating your own segregation.

Racism certainly existed in one of those schools I attended. One time someone put leaflets around campus talking about the glories of the Aryan Race and had the symbols of some of those racist organizations. Fortunately, nothing happened like the incident in the movie where the young Caucasian man went off and started shooting at a multiculturalism gathering.

I can only hope and pray that nothing like that ever will happen.

So is "Higher Learning" overly dramatic? Exaggerated? Maybe. Is it way "off mark?" It depends on where you went to or go to school. The race thing where the ethnicities just hang around with their own DOES happen. Minus the Hollywood exaggerations, the race thing hit pretty close to home for me. *** SPOILERS ***

this movie always seems very exaggerated, until i remember that my college campus had a former-student-turned-Nazi-racist-killer-who-then-committed-suicide, too: his name was Benjamin Nathaniel Smith.

look him up in the wikipedia- i added a few photos to their article about him.

it's hard to believe, but this stuff really does happen.

i'm not a big fan of Omar Epps or Ice Cube, but Larry Fishburne, Kristy Swanson, Jennifer Connelly & Mike Rappaport were good. This movie had lots of great actors and actresses in it and it addressed some very noble issues. It's full of emotion and the direction is done well. The storyline progresses very quickly, but I guess that's better than having to watch a 3 hour movie. This is an easy movie to watch again and again and enjoy. This story was probably one of the most powerful I have ever taken in. John Singleton certainly went above and beyond when putting together this educational masterpiece. Brilliant performances by the whole cast, but Epps and Rapaport turned in the best and most convincing of either young star's career.

However, as a college student myself, many of the issues that Singleton touched on were taken to the extreme. In a sense that, while they are issues faced on many college campuses, they aren't presented as big or out in the open as this movie would make one believe. In some instances, it almost seemed ridiculous to think that something of this nature could actually occur. However, aside from the fact that it was a little over dramatic, the film was brilliant and left me stunned, unable to talk, just think. One of the things from this picture I will remember forever, was a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character, "Knowledge is power, without knowledge, you cannot see your power." Brilliant, just brilliant. Omar Epps is an outstanding actor. I really think he gets into his character alot. When deja gets shot he shows true emotion. He also shows true emotion when remmi puts the gun to him in the room. Omar is a very talented actor!! I enjoyed this movie very much. Kristy Swanson Omar epps, and Ice Cube were all great in it. The movie dealt with many issues, and I didn't know if I was going to like it, but Singelton did a terrific job of creating characters that you really cared about. higher learning is a slap in the face for those of us that have been in the closet too long regardless of ethnic background. it's a subject most of us would like to ignore but we cannot afford to if there is to be a real progressive change in the way we HAVE TO be able embrace and understand diversity.some have criticized this film as hateful or dumb but the fact of the matter is, ignorance reigns supreme in the world and several continue to help it dominate our society.everyone involved in this film has done a good deed in showing what steps must continue to be done in order to not have to make anymore films like higher learning.sure it sounds like a pipe dream but we have to start somewhere and this helps. This movie came and went in the theaters. Due to the nature of it you can see why it wasn't well received. It was unfairly panned because of its subject matter more than the actual film itself. Higher Learning is not spectacular but it was good film that tried to talk about a feared subject in America: racism.

Plot/Story: Higher Learning is mostly centered around Malik(played by Omar Epps), a naive track star who is has to deal with not being fast enough, and a stern professor(played by Laurence Fishburne). He befriends Fudge(Ice Cube) as well as a gorgeous lady named Deja(Tyra Banks). Later on they end up having to deal with some skinheads on campus. Remy(play by Michael Rapaport) is confused kid who ends up befriending some local skinheads on campus. Once they impose their views on him, he becomes as racist as they are.

Opinion: Higher Learning is not without its flaws: Character development is scarce, okay performances by Omar Epps, Tyra Banks and the leader of the skinheads(whose name I forgot), Busta Rhymes doesn't fit in this movie at all. Plus women turning gay after being abused by men was cliché' before this film so you know I didn't like that part of the film with Kristy Swanson. Other than that, this movie wasn't half bad. Laurence Fishburne was good as Professor Phipps(even though I could do without the accent), Fudge was Ice Cube's best performance and Michael Rapaport was good as the confused Remy. All in all it was one of John Singleton's best movies and is one is one of the reasons I frown on the rubbish he puts out now. Cinema needs more movies like Higher Learning, Mississippi Burning and American History X and less movies like Baby Boy, 2 Fast 2 Furious and a very pointless remake of Shaft. This is the first movie i've seen of John Singleton and he is a pretty good director. The movie starts out with a bunch of incoming freshman and it shows what happens to several of them. Omar Epps plays a track star with a partial scholarship and having a hard time keeping up with his work. He is friends with Ice Cube and beings dating Tyra Banks. Kristy Swanson is a rich girl who is date raped and becomes friends with Jennifer Connelly, who is a lesbian, and isn't sure about which way to go. Michael Rapaport is a kid from Idaho who falls in with a group of Neo-Nazis and their leader is Cole Hauser. Those are the three main characters and Laurence Fishburne is a political science professor who tries to help them. It's a great film and it's unfortunate that the studio had to make several cuts to the movie. This was a great movie that had a lot of under lying issues. It dealt with issues of rascism and class. But, it also had a message of knowing yourself and taking responsibility for yourself. This movie was very deep it gave the message of that you and only you can control your destiny. It also showed that knowing yourself and being comfortable with who you are is the only way you will ever fit into society. What others think of you is not important. I believe this movie did a wonderful job of showing it. The actors I think were able to convey each character wonderfully. I just thought it was amazing how deep this movie really was. At a just glancing look you wouldn't see how deep the movie is, but on further look you see the underlining meaning of the movie. When John Singleton is on, he's *on*!! And this is one of his better films. Not quite as tight as Boyz-n-the-Hood, but close to it (and with much of the same stellar cast). This film was very well written, very well put together, and very well shot. There's very little to criticize, and most of my complaints are superficial (eg: where did Fudge get the money for 6 years of college and a lot of expensive stuff? No mention of a rich background... And why doesn't Professor Phibbs have an office? A professor of his stature *should* have one... And while we're at it, for an engineering student, hick or not, Remy's a pretty dumb character - I'd think that he'd have a bit more in the way of basic intelligence - he talks and acts like a total buffoon).

But that aside, the film was very sharp. A good array of characters and points of view; and Singleton doesn't take sides in the story - many of the characters are unsympathetic, and he does a good job of interspersing the Panthers and Supremacist scenes together to show the folly on both sides.

Much of the cinematography was excellent; I especially loved the scene where Kirsty Swanson gets intimate with Taryn and Wayne each scene spliced together really well. Also the Malik/Deja scenes were really well shot as well.

The dialogue was a bit much at times; this film had a tendency to get *really* preachy at times, and it also tends to hammer the points it was making over your head when the points would be just as clear with out the bluntness (we really didn't need the US flag with 'UNLEARN' typed onto it, give some credit, we're not morons...). And to top it off, although *most* of the time Singleton uses melodrama quite well, sometimes it gets *way* too cheezy (like Deja's death, which is fine until she screams out 'WHY!!!' which simply ruined the entire effect and scene).

But the acting, in general, was top of the line. Fabulous performances by Omar Epps (perhaps the best I've ever seen), Kirsty Swanson (who knew Buffy could act??), Michael Rapaport (surprised the hell out of me...after True Romance and Beautiful Girls I though he was a one-role actor), and of course Ice Cube and Laurence Fishburne are *always* outstanding.

Downside? Jennifer Connelly was flat; though it's not completely her fault: her role was stereotypical and one-dimensional. Generic to the highest degree. And Tyra Banks, who had the role, was nothing short of horrid. She whined and whined and whined. Yet another in the long line of models-turned-actresses who failed miserably (though there are a few who prove the exception to this rule).

Finally, the soundtrack! Wow! An amazing soundtrack (which is definitely worth buying!) which fits the film like a glove. Each scene has a twin song (although the Tori Amos songs started to *really* annoy me by the end...not her best work). Liz Phair, Rage Against the Machine, Ice Cube...how can one go wrong??

All in all: a really good watch, a really strong cast, great script, great film. 8/10. In this little film we have some great characters but a very shallow plot. It is actually nice to watch because Singleton does a great job at presenting the esoteric conflicts and the interpersonal relationships. This makes the viewer forget the nonexistent realism that this movie supposedly is for. In fact what we have here is all the possible cliches and stereotypes put on celluloid in a rate higher than that of a soap. Definitely not a deep movie (even if it wants to be), but better than an average college movie. I have to say that Higher Learning is one of the top 3 movies I have ever watched. It has a brilliant cast, and an equally brilliant director. Singleton shows how life in University can be. There are 3 main story lines, the skinheads, the African-Americans, and the homosexuals. I was intrigued by all of the stories, but the one that got to me the most was the storyline about Kristen, battling her feelings towards another girl. The end was great. After seeing the movie 25 times plus, I still cry. I would have given this movie an 11, but I have to settlefor 10/10. I sincerely hope that at least the first season of Cosby is released on DVD someday. The episode with Hilton's eccentric genius brother, George (played by the late Roscoe Lee Browne), is classic hilarity. It reflects the classic sibling rivalry and love between brothers whose lives took different paths but both ended up happy.

Mr. Cosby and Ms. Rashad brilliantly recaptured the chemistry that they shared on The Cosby Show for many years and to put them in a more middle-class role shows the dimensions they can take as artists.

The roster of comedic dynamite...Madeline Kahn, Phylicia Rashad, and Mr. Cosby ...classic genius! "COSBY," in my opinion, is a must-see CBS hit! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which one is my favorite. Also, I really loved the theme song. If you ask me, even though I liked everyone, it would have been nice if Madeline Kahn hadn't passed away during the show's run. Since that happened, I've always wondered what the show would have been like. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen on TBS now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good Two dysfunctional brothers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) get tired of competing for who is the bigger f***-up and who Daddy (Albert Finney) loves more, so they hatch a hair-brained scheme to rob Mommy and Daddy's jewelry store so that they can clear their debts and start fresh. Sounds like a great plan except that this is a suspenseful 1970's style melodrama about a heist gone wrong, and boy, do things really go wrong here for our hapless duo and everyone involved. Lasciviously concocted by screenwriter Kelly Masterson and classically executed by director Sidney Lumet, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" uses the heist as its McGuffin to delve deep into family drama.

Contrary to popular belief, Sidney Lumet is not dead. At age 83, he has apparently made a deal with the Devil to deliver one last great film. Lumet was at his zenith in the 1970's with films like "Dog Day Afternoon," "Serpico," and one of my favorite films of all time, "Network". He has somehow managed to make a film that bears all the hallmarks of his classics while intertwining some more modern elements (graphic sexuality, violence, and playing with time-frames and POV's) into a crackling, vibrant, lean, mean, and provocative melodrama. One can only hope that some of the modern greats (like Scorsese or Spielberg) who emerged during the same decade Lumet was at the top of his game will have this much chutzpah left when they reach that age.

Lumet is a master at directing people walking through spaces to create tension and develop characters. As the cast waltzes through finely appointed Manhattan offices and apartments his slowly moving camera creates a palpable sense of anxiety as we never know who might be around the next corner or what this person might do in the next room. Also amazing is how Lumet utilizes the multiple POV and shifting time-frame approach. The coherent and classical presentation he uses makes the similarly structured films of wunderkinds Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu seem like amateur hour.

Of course, what Lumet is best at is directing amazing ensemble casts and tricking them into acting within an inch of their lives. Philip Seymour Hoffman has never been, and most likely never will be, better than he is here. Albert Finney's quietly searing portrayal of a father betrayed and at the end of his rope is a masterpiece to watch unfold. Ethan Hawke, normally a nondescript pretty boy, is perfect as the emotionally crippled younger brother who has skated by far too long on his charms and looks. The coup-de-grace, however, is the series of scenes between Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, eerily on point as his flighty trophy wife. Lumet runs them through the gamut of emotions that culminate in a scene that is the best of its kind since William Holden taunted Beatrice Straight right into a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in "Network."

The Devil of any great film is in the details, from Albert Finney's tap of his car's trunk that won't close due to a fender bender, to the look Amy Ryan (fresh off her amazing turn in "Gone Baby Gone") gives her ex-husband Ethan Hawke at his mawkish promise to his little girl all three of them knows he won't keep, to the systematic unraveling of a family on the skids, to the dialog begging for cultists to quote it (my favorite line being the hilariously threatening "Do you mind if I call you Chico?") to the excellent Carter Burwell score. "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is the film of the year. If something emerges to best it, then we know a few other deals must've been brokered with Old Scratch. What an extraordinary crime thriller!! My wife and I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival last week and it was far and away the best movie in an exceptionally strong festival. It's already my second favourite film of all-time after DR. STRANGELOVE and I was definitely on an emotional high as I walked home and discussed the film with my wife.

I don't want to spoil the plot because thrillers of this calibre are best enjoyed without preconceptions. A synopsis that I'd feel comfortable sharing is that two brothers, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, are planning to rob a jewellery store in Westchester, New York. The film bounces back and forth in time over approximately a two week period of time (before, during and after the robbery), and one key scene is repeated at least three times. Ordinarily, that could disrupt the momentum of a film but that never happens during this masterpiece. The excitement, the tension, and even the quality of the acting only seemed to get better as the film progressed. By the end, I was on the edge of my seat breathlessly waiting to see how it would all wrap up. I know that I've used a few clichés in this post, but I literally was on the edge of my seat. I should mention that the non-linear storyline is quite easy to follow. This isn't the sort of movie where you'll overhear audience members asking their friend to explain the plot during the movie.

The acting is absolutely brilliant all-around, and I doubt I would have the same admiration for the film if the casting hadn't been so perfect. A tiny complaint is that Hoffman and Hawke don't look like brothers, but that's a minor quibble that I can easily overlook. Hoffman was at his very best and some of his scenes with Hawke were positively electric. Marisa Tomei (as Hoffman's wife) and Albert Finney (as the father of Hoffman & Hawke) are also very good in supporting roles. Even some cameo performances were so impressive that I can still remember every remark, gesture and facial expression by Brian O'Byrne and Michael Shannon – absolute perfection. The robbery scene felt more authentic than any other cinematic robbery scene I've ever watched, and I had the same feeling of authenticity in most scenes, especially the ones with Hoffman. The music helped to build up the tension throughout the movie, often the same notes played over very effectively. I had the music playing in my head the following day, even as I sat through other films. In addition to my minor complaint at the beginning of this paragraph, there was one plot twist that felt a bit unbelievable (major spoiler, so I can't describe the scene). Otherwise, this film is pretty darn close to perfect.

There were about a dozen great films at the festival that I would enjoy watching a second time but BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD stands in a league of its own. As an aside, the director Sidney Lumet spoke before the film and he introduced Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke onto the stage. Tomei didn't speak and she acted a bit shy so Lumet asked "Can you believe that someone so beautiful could be so camera-shy?" That comment is quite ironic considering the graphic opening scene!! After a cold sex scene, between Andy and Gina, in South America, we know that Andy is a payroll manager who finds himself in a hard economic situation where he badly needs some extra money… We also discover that he has been stealing from his job and using the money to his drug habits… He's also attempting to keep up with his wife, who just might be having an affair…

To solve all their problems, he persuades his brother—a likable loser—to join him in a plan to steal their own parent's small store… Their parents are happily married and proprietors of a jewelry store situated in New York's Westchester County… Sixty thousand dollars is all they'll need to get their life out of desperation…

Three main characters are important in this movie…

First the two brothers… Each of them is a complex individual, threatened with multiple motivations, and sunk into doubts and disappointments… The two are desperate characters, financially and emotionally…

Andy is selfish… He feels that he has never had the love of his father… He is the corrupting influence, turning his brother into an assailant, and his beautiful woman into an adulteress…

Hank is a puppet too weak to resist his brother's wishes… His ex-wife is one of the reasons he needs money as he owes her hundreds in child support…. He longs to regain the confidence he once had with his father…

The third character is their weary and deplorable father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney), especially in the haunting climactic scenes…

Telling you more about the details could lessen the impact of the film, and therefore the entertainment...

Tomei's performance conveys great depth and emotion even with her look, her touch, her particular move…

Lumet's direction is firm, fresh and brutal. Sydney Lumet hasn't had a box office hit in 20 years and yet at 83 has managed to churn out a tight, well-cast, suspenseful thriller set in his old stamping ground, New York City. (How he got insurance, let alone the budget after all those flops, is a mystery also). The story is a pretty grim one and the characters are not particularly likable but it held me on the edge of my seat till the final scene.

Two brothers with pressing financial problems conspire to rob a suburban jewelry store owned by their elderly parents. The only victim is going to be the insurance company. The robbery goes awry and two people die. Most of the film is concerned with the aftermath. The action is non-linear and seen from the main character's differing points of view, but it is not difficult to follow. What is not so easy to work out is the back story – how did the brothers get into such a mess? There are clues – the younger brother being the baby of the family is his fathers' favorite while the older brother seems to be carrying a lot of baggage about his relationship with his father, and vice versa, but that hardly accounts for him becoming a heroin-using murdering embezzler.

As the scheming older brother, a corpulent Philip Seymour Hoffman dominates the film, but he is well supported by Ethan Hawke as his bullied, inadequate younger brother. Albert Finney as their father seems to be in a constant state of rage but then the script calls for that. Marisa Tomei as the older brother's cheating wife at the age of 42 puts in the sexiest performance I've seen in many a year. The film literally starts with a bang, but we are out of that comfort zone pretty quickly.

I don't know the origins of this story by first time scriptwriter Kelly Masterton but I suspect that like Lumet's great 70's film "Dog Day Afternoon" it is based on fact – it's too silly to be untrue. Lumet is just about the last of those immensely versatile old-time craftsman studio directors who with immense speed were able to direct just about anything that was put in front of them. Some great films were produced that way as well as some classic turkeys. This isn't a classic of either sort – it's a well-crafted piece of downbeat entertainment. It will probably leave you feeling that you were lucky not be a member of a family as dysfunctional as this one, but still wondering as to how they got that way. We do know the parents were happy but we see so little of the mother and hear so little about her it is impossible pick up on her relationship with the boys. (There is also a daughter whose presence seems redundant). Well, like Tolstoy, we have to conclude that "each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way". Says Andy: "Nobody gets hurt, everybody wins." Before he says it, we know the opposite is true: Everybody gets hurt, nobody wins. This is a new strand in American movies, or perhaps an old strand brought back at long last. Think "Eastern Promises", "There Will Be Blood", "No Country for Old Men". These movies are dark, serious, extremely well made, and don't care about happy endings. I love them. "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" fits the general description, but creates an atmosphere all its own. Kelly Masterson's debut script is as close as a Hollywood movie will ever get to a Greek tragedy. Paying tribute to fellow veteran director Stanley Donen, Sidney Lumet expertly and soberly turns the sombre story into an outstanding, old school character drama. The opening shots, although of an obese accountant doggy-styling his trophy wife, have the look and feel of a Dutch master's painting. By contrast, the drug dealer's condo looks more like a string of Mondrians. Great performances all around. Only Albert Finney's character Charles feels a little over-acted, eyes wide and mouth agape almost all the time. But then he is in trouble deep, deeper than any of the troubles most of us will ever know. For compensation, Marisa Tomei is super hot. But of course you don't need me to tell you that. Why her character Gina would want to be with a guy like Andy, we're never told, but that's okay. Action is character, after all. The unique and magic touch of Carter Burwell's music makes this fine movie a masterpiece. Don't miss it. I am beginning to see a very consistent pattern form in the identity of 2007's films. If 2004 was the year of the biographies and 2005 was the year of the political films, 2007 can be identified as a year featuring a wide plethora of morality tales, films that portray, test, challenge and question human morality and the motives that drive us to do certain things. Although this identification is rather broad, I think that there are a handful of films released this year, such as 3:10 To Yuma, Eastern Promises, American Gangster, No Country for Old Men and others that specifically question and study human morals and the motives that drive us to acts such as violence or treachery. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a deviously stylish morality tale, and quite a dark, bleak and depressing one at that. And even better is the fact that it comes from one of the greatest classic directorial forces of our time, the legendary Sidney Lumet, who many have said has passed his prime but returns in full force with this viciously rich crime thriller.

It's one of those films whose plots are so thick, that one is very reluctant to go into details. It is a movie that is best enjoyed if entered without any prior knowledge to the events about to unfold, as there are twists and turns. But the thick and richly wrought plot is not at all at the center of this film; the true focus is, as I mentioned, the morality tale; the motives that drive these two men to the actions they do in the film. In a plot structured like a combination between the filmographies of both The Coen Brothers (namely Blood Simple and Fargo) and Quentin Tarantino, we see two men driven under various shady circumstances to pull off a fairly simple crime that goes incredibly, ridiculously wrong, and reciprocates with full force and inevitable tragedy. And to make it all the more interesting, the film is told in a fragmented chronology that keeps back tracking and showing a series of events following a different character every time and always ending up where it left off the last time. Sizzling, sharp, thick and precariously depressing, Kelly Masterson's screenplay is surprisingly poignant and well rounded, in particular because it is a debut screenplay.

But the film has much more going for it than just it's delectably sinister and quite depressing plot. First and foremost, the picture looks and feels outstandingly well. Sidney Lumet has, throughout his career, consistently employed an interesting style of cinematography and lighting: naturalistic and yet stylish at the same time. The film carries with it a distinctive air of style and class, with wonderful natural lighting that just looks really great. Editing is top-notch; combining the sizzling drama-thriller aspect with great long takes that really take their time to portray the action accordingly. And vivid, dynamic camera angles and movements further add to the style. The film is also backed by a fantastically succulent musical score by Carter Burwell.

The screenplay does its part, and of course Lumet does his part, but at the film's dramatic center are three masterful actors who deliver incredibly good performances. First and foremost, there are the two leads. Leading the pack is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has always been an excellent actor but has stumbled upon newfound leading-man status after his unnaturally fantastic Oscar-winning performance in Capote. His turn in this film is fascinating: severely flawed, broken, manic. Hoffman has some truly intense scenes in the film that really allow his full dramatic fury to come out, and not just his subtlety and wit. At his side is Ethan Hawke, who has delivered some fantastic performances in many films that are almost always overshadowed by greater, grander actors. Here, he bounces off Hoffman and complements him so incredibly well; in all, the dynamic acting between the two of them is just so utterly fantastic and convincing, the audience very quickly loses itself in the characters and forgets that it's watching actors. And then there's Albert Finney. Such a supple, opulent supporting role like the one he has requires a veteran professional and here Finney delivers his finest performance in many years as the tragically obsessed father to the two brothers who get caught up in the crime. I love how the dynamics between the three of them play out. I love how Hoffman is clearly the dominant brother and shamelessly picks on his younger brother even now that they're middle-aged men; and yet despite this, it is clear how Finney's father favours Hawke's younger, weaker brother. Also on the topic of the cast, the two supporting female characters – wives of the brothers – also feature fantastic performances from Amy Ryan and Marisa Tomei, whose looks just get better and better as the years go by.

This film isn't revolutionary. These themes and this style have already been explored by the likes of The Coen Brothers, and it's very easy to imagine them directing this film. But for a film that treads familiar ground, it simply excels. Lumet employs his own immense directorial talent and employs his unique and very subtle sense of irony and style to Masterson's brilliantly vivid, intense, and morbidly depressing first-time screenplay. The lead performances are incredibly intense and the film features absolutely fantastic turns from Hoffman, Hawke and Finney; but the truly greatest wonder of the film is that three years after he won a Lifetime Achievement Oscar, much revered as the ultimate sign of retirement in the film business, Sidney Lumet proves that he still has the immense talent to deliver a truly wonderful, resonant, intense piece of cinema reminiscent of his golden years. The full title of this film is 'May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead', a rewording of the old Irish toast 'May you have food and raiment, a soft pillow for your head; may you be 40 years in heaven, before the devil knows you're dead.' First time screenwriter Kelly Masterson (with some modifications by director Sidney Lumet) has concocted a melodrama that explores just how fragmented a family can become when external forces drive the members to unthinkable extremes. In this film the viewer is allowed to witness the gradual but nearly complete implosion of a family by a much used but, here, very sensible manipulation of the flashback/flash forward technique of storytelling. By repeatedly offering the differing vantages of each of the characters about the central incidents that drive this rather harrowing tale, we see all the motivations of the players in this case of a robbery gone very wrong.

Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a wealthy executive, married to an emotionally needy Gina (Marisa Tomei), and addicted to an expensive drug habit. His life is beginning to crumble and he needs money. Andy's ne're-do well younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) is a life in ruins - he is divorced from his shrewish wife Martha (Amy Ryan), is behind in alimony and child support, and has borrowed all he can from his friends, and he needs money. Andy proposes a low-key robbery of a small Mall mom-and-pop jewelry store that promises safe, quick cash for both. The glitch is that the jewelry story belongs to the men's parents - Charles (Albert Finney) and Nanette (Rosemary Harris). Andy advances Hank some cash and wrangles an agreement that Hank will do the actual robbery, but though Hank agrees to the 'fail-safe' plan, he hires a friend to take on the actual job while Hank plans to be the driver of the getaway car. The robbery is horribly botched when Nanette, filing in for the regular clerk, shoots the robber and is herself shot in the mess. The disaster unveils many secrets about the fragile relationships of the family and when Nanette dies, Charles and Andy and Hank (and their respective partners) are driven to disastrous ends with surprises at every turn.

Each of the actors in this strong but emotionally acrid film gives superb performances, and while we have come to expect that from Hoffman, Hawke, Tomei, Finney, Ryan, and Harris, it is the wise hand of direction from Sidney Lumet that make this film so unforgettably powerful. It is not an easy film to watch, but it is a film that allows some bravura performances that demand our respect, a film that reminds us how fragile many families can be. Grady Harp I must admit that this is the type of film that I would normally eschew, but I rented it basically because of the stars. I certainly was not sorry. In fact, as you see, I rated it five stars. This film is the perfect combination of sharp directing and superior acting.

Andy and Hank Hanson are brothers who decide to commit the uncouth crime of robbing their parents' jewelry store. The crime goes terribly wrong - thus beginning an examination of the three men in the Hanson family. Through a series of flashbacks, we get to know Charles Hanson and come to an understanding of the strained relationship between father and sons.

Younger brother, Hank is basically a screw-up. He has always had trouble holding a job and pretty much goes in the direction of the wind. Hank is insecure, cowardly, and very much under the influence of his big brother. Ethan Hawke has the character of Hank "nailed to a T" and gives what is probably his best performance thus far. He shows us a man who is basically good-hearted but so influenced by outside forces that he is unable to follow through with any important task.

Andy - on the surface - appears to be a successful businessman, but we soon discover that he is addicted to drugs and has been embezzling from his company to pay for his habit. It is Andy who concocts the scheme to rob his parents' store, and he gets weak-willed Hank to commit the act. Philip Seymour Hoffman - surely one of the finest actors of our time - plays Andy. Hoffman is an actor who has the ability to portray a man who, on the surface, is a charming businessman liked by his acquaintances but a real slime ball underneath. He is absolutely perfect for the part of Andy or it might be said that he, through his superior acting skills, made Andy the perfect part.

Albert Finney plays a father common to his generation. Charles Hanson is not a bad or unfeeling man, but he has a lousy relationship with his sons because he never really understood what was necessary in nurturing a positive bond between his sons and himself. He has always been too quick to criticize and admonish. He always made it clear that he favored his younger son over his older thus causing a wide emotional rift between himself and Andy. As we get to know Charles and Andy, the thought of Andy forming a plan to rob from his father becomes less unbelievable.

On a personal note, I cannot believe how much Charles Hanson reminded me of my own father, and how much Andy and Hank reminded me of my own brother and myself. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons that I enjoyed the film so much as this story of a distant, critical father, a more successful older brother, and a less successful younger brother hit so close to home. Fortunately, my brother and I never came to the state of committing a crime against my parents- guess we were made of sterner and more moral stuff.

This complex of personalities and actions has been expertly put together by director, Sidney Lumet. At eighty-three, he still has the chops to give the audience engrossing characters and edge-of-seat action that hypnotizes. 12 Angry Men was his first film made fifty years prior to Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but he hasn't lost any bit of his magic touch in showing us characters that will be long remembered.

The events and characters in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead are harsh and unattractive, and this is definitely not a feel-good movie. However, it is two hours of ultimate entertainment which I thoroughly recommend. Director Sidney Lumet has made some masterpieces,like Network,Dog Day Afternoon or Serpico.But,he was not having too much luck on his most recent works.Gloria (1999) was pathetic and Find Me Guilty was an interesting,but failed experiment.Now,Lumet brings his best film in decades and,by my point of view,a true masterpiece:Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.I think this film is like a rebirth for Lumet.This movie has an excellent story which,deeply,has many layers.Also,I think the ending of the movie is perfect.The performances are brilliant.Philip Seymour Hoffman brings,as usual,a magnificent performance and he's,no doubt,one of the best actors of our days.Ethan Hawke is also an excellent actor but he's underrated by my point of view.His performance in here is great.The rest of the cast is also excellent(specially,the great Albert Finney) but these two actors bring monumental performances which were sadly ignored by the pathetic Oscars.The film has a good level of intensity,in part thanks to the performances and,in part,thanks to the brilliant screenplay.Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a real masterpiece with perfect direction,a great screenplay and excellent performances.We need more movies like this. BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD starts off promisingly, setting up a simple heist that goes awry, told from varying perspectives (in RASHOMON style). At around the hour mark, Sidney Lumet transforms this film into something that is so much more than the sum of its parts; it eventually morphs into a multi-faceted family drama, exploring the full realm of human emotions/relations, as the story comes to its chilling climax.

As is the case with Lumet, he manages to coax exceptional performances out of his star-studded cast, without any notion of over-acting or hyperbole. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in one of his best roles, is a complex, mysterious, and interesting character, and oftentimes dwarfs Ethan Hawke, who plays his brother, Hank. That's not to say that Hawke is not bad; in fact he is quite above adequate, in a troubled role that suits his style. Marisa Tomei is excellent for her relatively short appearance (the fact that she bares her flesh adds to this). Albert Finney's character (Andy and Hank's father) is the most intriguing, and in my opinion, he deserved a bit more screen-time. Amy Ryan also performs her job adequately.

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is not an exceptional movie, but it proves that Lumet is still near the top of his game at the (apparent) twilight of an illustrious career. Many of his characteristics and trademarks appear here, not least of which involves the use of his characters. Infused with a killer script (no pun intended), smart dialogue and pacing, and a decent score, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD is a must-see. A truly underrated gem. 8/10. 3 stars (out of 4). Should just enter my Top 250 at 248. Highly recommended. Sydney Lumet, although one of the oldest active directors, still got game! A few years ago he shot "Find me guilty", a proof to everyone that Vin Diesel can actually act, if he gets the opportunity and the right director. If he had retired after this movie (a true masterpiece in my eyes), no one could have blamed him. But he's still going strong, his next movie already announced for 2009.

But let's stay with this movie right here. The cast list is incredible, their performance top notch. The little nuances in their performances, the "real" dialogue and/or situations that evolve throughout the movie are just amazing. The (time) structure of the movie, that keeps your toes the whole time, blending time-lines so seamlessly, that the editing seems natural/flawless. The story is heightened by that, although even in a "normal" time structure, it would've been at least a good movie (Drama/Thriller). I can only highly recommend it, the rest is up to you! :o) The Bible teaches us that the love of money is the root of all evil. The love of money leads to greed which can lead to pride and eventually to destruction. Two brothers, Andy and Hank, will discover how far the love of money will cost them and those they love the most.

Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) couldn't be more different. Andy is seemingly enjoying the success of working in New York's real estate market and is married to his beautiful wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) who is the idea of a trophy wife if one ever existed. Hank, however, is divorcée who finds himself at the mercy of his ex-wife, his daughter's expensive school bills, and endless amount of child support payments. A man who means well and has good intentions, Hank none the less cannot escape the water that his slowly raising above his head no matter how hard he swims to stay above it.

However, Andy has his own problems with the only difference between him and his brother being that he hides them better. He has committed fraud against his company and is heavily involved in drug use in order to escape his fears. The pressure of his life, and the lies he needs to keep his appearances up, have now caused him to think about fleeing the country with Gina in order to start over again. Of course, like Hank, he needs money to do this and believes he knows how to get it. How? By robbing the jewelery store that their parents own and run. This act of betrayal is where the Hanson brothers, their families, and several other lives, will be destroyed because of greed, pride, and fear.

The uniqueness of Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is the manner in which the story is told. After the robbery goes wrong, and Nanette Hanson (Rosemary Harris) who is the mother of both Andy and Hank is killed, the story is told from a variety of different points of view from various days before and after the robbery attempt. We learn more about the motivations of not only Andy and Hank but also the reaction to their father Charles (Albert Finney) to the death of his wife. The relationship between Charles and his two sons, especially to Andy, is also explored and another possible motivation of sorts is discovered after it is revealed that there is little love between the two men. Nanette may have been dearly loved by her sons but their father is a different story.

Philip Seymour Hoffman proves once more why he is one of the most impressive actors in Hollywood today by portraying Andy as not only a greedy criminal with lack of morality but also, in contradictory way, as a man we can sympathize with. Ethan Hawke also brings Hank alive not just as a loser but really as a man just desperate to hang on to what little he has left. Andy and Hank are thus brought to life in such a realistic way that it is easy to think of them as not just characters but the very real images of lost and confused men who now find themselves facing the consequence of their actions.

Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is a moral tale about how our actions lead to consequences that we otherwise might not expect to face. More than that, our choices also can affect those around us in ways we never expected. In what should have been best picture of the year, we see how lives are easily broken when the love of money becomes the ultimate pursuit in order to ease our troubled lives. In other words, there are no easy fixes or answers to our problems and trying to find them can only make things worse.

10/10 In New York, Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an addicted executive of a real estate office that has embezzled a large amount for his addiction and expensive way of life with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei). When an audit is scheduled in his department, he becomes desperate for money. His baby brother Hank Hanson (Ethan Hawke) is a complete loser that owes three months of child support to his daughter, and is having a love affair with Gina every Thursday afternoon. Andy plots a heist of the jewelry of their parent in a Saturday morning without the use of guns, expecting to find an old employee working and without financial damage to his parents, since the insurance company would reimburse the loss. On Monday morning, we would raise the necessary money he needs to cover his embezzlement. He invites Hank to participate, since he is very well known in the mall where the jewelry is located and could be recognized. However, Hank yellows and invites the thief Bobby Lasorda (Brian F. O'Byrne) to steal the store, but things go wrong when their mother Nanette (Rosemary Harris) comes to work as the substitute for the clerk and Bobby brings a hidden gun. Nanette reacts and kills Bobby but she is also lethally shot. After the death of Nanette, their father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney) decides to investigate the robbery with tragic consequences.

"Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is a comedy of errors, disclosing a good story. The originality and the difference are in the screenplay, with a non-linear narrative à la "Pulp Fiction". The eighty-three year-old Sidney Lumet has another great work and it is impressive the longevity of this director. Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome in the role of a dysfunctional man with traumatic relationship with his father that feels the world falling apart mostly because of his insecure and clumsy brother. Marisa Tomei is still impressively gorgeous and sexy, showing a magnificent body. The violent conclusion shows that the world is indeed an evil place. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Antes Que o Diabo Saiba Que Você Está Morto" ("Before the Devil Knows You're Dead") Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that "tragedy is like another character" in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.

Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.

In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).

Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since. While the title "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" comes from an Irish proverb the film plays out like a Greek tragedy. It all starts with a botched robbery and continues to spiral out of control as two brothers attempt to escape the mess they've gotten themselves into.

The cast is well-assembled with Philip Seymour Hoffman & Ethan Hawke playing the aforementioned brothers. Notable support includes Albert Finney as their father and Marisa Tomei as the wife of one brother and lover of the other. Beyond these principals the acting is unremarkable.

The story is compelling and is told with a certain degree of verve. The narrative structure keeps things interesting by providing different points of view and frequent time shifts. That being said, the film's unpredictability is somewhat muted since it becomes apparent early on that this story is a tragedy, through and through. All in all, a pretty impressive debut for first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson.

Sidney Lumet's direction is well handled but I'm more impressed by the fact that he's still directing at over eighty years old. I was less impressed by the score by Carter Burwell but it isn't a major distraction.

In the end, the film proves to be compelling viewing and while the story & presentation may have superficial similarities to other films this one remains a unique experience. Legendary director Sidney Lumet gives us one of his finest films in his historic career in this very tense, and ultimately shocking story about a family that includes dysfunctional as one of the children. With an A-list cast headed by Philip Seymour Hoffman (an Oscar-worthy performance here), Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney, Lumet has captured not just elements of botched crime stories such as Reservoir Dogs, but also family stories such as Ordinary People.

Many viewers might be confused and feel underwhelmed at the construction of the plot Lumet has gone with here. Instead of showing it in a linear manner, he has gone the Tarantino route and shows the central scene of a robbery gone wrong from different points of view all out of order. I personally found this to be very satisfying and left me constantly guessing what was going to happen next. The script is very strong with some excellent scenes between husband and wife Hoffman and Tomei, as well as between father and son Finney and Hoffman. All the actors are totally engaging to watch and Lumet is obviously having fun in directing a style he usually doesn't delve in. Plenty of action and suspense to hold the audience for the two hour running time, this is a rare movie that doesn't disappoint for one moment. The Hanson brothers - Andy (apparently has his act together) and Hank (clearly doesn't have his act together) need money. Andy comes up with a scheme to get some dough that will have consequences for the whole Hanson family.

This film delivers. This is a layered, full-blooded roller coaster ride that knows exactly what it is doing. As a crime drama / thriller I would happily compare it to 'No Country For Old Men.' While both films have have an ample supply of character drama and thrills, 'Devil' is more on the thriller side because of its fast pace. 'No Country' is a colder and bleaker film that you can really admire, while 'Devil' is a bit more enjoyable. There is definitely less violence in 'Devil' than 'No Country.' The acting delivers as well. Ethan Hawke, sometimes wooden in the past, brings the jitters, sweating and the deer-in-the-headlights-look to the besieged Hank. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Andy, has the film's hardest scenes and is fast becoming the actor, who you believe can do anything.

There's really not much wrong with this film. It jumps back and forth without being confusing. Events spiral out of control, but the film never does - the writing (from first timer Kelly Masterson), directing (veteran Sidney Lumet) and the editing stay as tight as a drum. In many categories, this is award caliber stuff, though maybe films like 'The Departed' and 'No Country' squeezed this one out of the limelight. If you liked those, you'll like this. I watched this film in a very strange way -- I had put it on my Netflix list and couldn't remember why (other than that I knew Philip Seymour Hoffman was in it). Since the film has no opening credits, I couldn't even remember who had directed it.

As my wife and I watched it, I turned to her about 45 minutes in and said, "You know, I keep wanting to decide that I hate this film, but something about it just won't let me stop watching it." Then there's a stretch of about half a dozen scenes in the middle of the movie that are truly electrifying in the actors' performances.

It was only as the end credits rolled that I realized it was a Sidney Lumet film. And I thought -- wow. I'm surprised that Lumet took on what was really a dirty, petty little story about really mean, broken people. But it's a testament to his talent that I was so taken in when I didn't even realize it was him.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is really, really good in this movie. Like scary good. Put this up against Capote and I would argue the Oscar should have been for this film instead.

I also highly recommend the narrative special feature with Lumet, Hawke and Hoffman talking about making the movie -- it's entertaining and educational, with Hawke playing the student eager to learn at the master's feet. Lumet definitely teaches you the first rule of working with actors -- kiss their asses constantly!!

There are a lot of violent, melodramatic movies out there that are empty ciphers when all is said and done. And there is an element of that in this film -- that the actors fill the air with sulphurous blasts of emotion, and when the smoke clears there's nothing left. Nothing resonates on a deeper level.

But Lumet has given us Network and Twelve Angry Men -- films that, each in their own ways, have been elevated into the highest echelons of cinema.

This movie isn't at that level. But there's something about it that lingers. And maybe that's enough.

My final comment is about the comments -- if you look at the number of comments about this little movie here on IMDb -- and the depth and intelligence of the comments, pro and con -- it's a pretty good indication that something special is going on with this film. If I watch a movie and don't once look at my watch or clock to see how much longer it will be running or when I hope that the last scene wasn't the end of the movie, it's got to be pretty good. I'm not an movie internalist or cinema dissectionist. I watch movies and if they keep me interested till the end, then they are pretty good because some of the most critically acclaimed films bore me to death (The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Atonement, Crash. This movie kept me interested and absorbed beginning to end. Acting is great, story is absolutely original, flash-back technique very affective. There was a bit of Citizen Kane thrown in tho when Hoffman trashes his apartment after Tomei leaves him, but I forgive that cause I see it as a homage to, rather than a rip-off of, Orson. I really enjoyed this drama from Sidney Lumet. The best word I could come up to describe it with is insane. It throws the viewer around for an hour and fifty minutes and doesn't let you breathe until the credits start to roll at the very end. Trust me, this movie will keep you guessing the entire way through.

The story is very well crafted and almost brilliant. It's almost like a more complicated Tarantino type story. The acting is all amazing from all of the leads and even the small parts, excellent cast. I also loved the cinematography, it gave it the real feeling as if it were an independent film. It was all great.

This movie is excited, exhausting and heartbreaking. It's almost hard to watch but you'll be glad that you did. The beginning of this film is a little clunky and also confusing , but sit tight, because you are in for the ride of your life. The concept is compelling, with interesting devices utilized to tell the overall story. There are fine performances all around, with Phillip Seymour Hoffman's being the best of the cast-no surprise there. Ethan Hawke also deserves credit for a very strong performance as well. The Direction by Mr. Lumet is outstanding. The film has a Seventies feel in the respect that risks are taken in the telling of this story, but unlike the majority of trite films that populate the landscape today, this is a thriller that is sincerely based upon relationships rather than special effects or product plugs. You will be greatly rewarded for the time invested in this film. This is a thoroughly diabolical tale of just how bad things can go wrong. A simple robbery. Pick up some serious change. Get our finances together and everything will be hunky-dory. But—mom and pop's jewelry store? No problem. Insurance pays for it all. No guns. Nobody gets hurt. Easy money.

Older, more successful (it would appear) brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has a few minor problems. Heroin addiction, cocaine habituation. A wife (Marisa Tomei) that…well, he can't seem to perform for. His flat belly days long gone. Younger, sweet, slightly dim-witted younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) with a few dinero problems of his own. Behind in child support payments for his daughter, in debt to friends and relatives, not exactly wowing them in the work of work, etc.

Sydney Lumet, in this performance at the age of 82 (!), directs and gets it 99.99 percent right, which is hard to do in a thriller. I have seen more thrillers than I can remember and most of the time the director gets the movie printed and lives with the plot holes, the improbabilities, the cheesy scenes, and the hurry-up ending. Here Lumet makes a thriller like it's a work of art. Every detail is perfect. The acting is superb. The plot has no holes. The story rings true and clear and represents a tale about human frailty that would honor the greatest filmmakers and even the Bard himself.

Hoffman of course is excellent. When you don't have marquee, leading man presence, you have to get by on talent, workmanship and pure concentration. Ethan Hawke, who is no stranger to the sweet, little guy role, adds a layer of desperation and all too human incompetence to the part so that we don't know whether to pity him or trash him. Albert Finney plays the father of the wayward sons with a kind of steely intensity that belies his age. And Marisa Tomei, who has magical qualities of sexiness to go along with her unique creativity, manages to be both vulnerable and hard as nails as Andy's two timing wife. (But who could blame her?) It's almost a movie reviewer's sacrilege to give a commercial thriller five or ten stars, but if you study this film, as all aspiring film makers would be well advised to do, you will notice the kind of excessive (according to most Hollywood producers) attention to detail that makes for real art--the sort of thing that only great artists can do, and indeed cannot help but do. (By the way, I think there were twenty producers on this film—well, maybe a dozen; check the credits.) All I can say in summation is, Way to go Sydney Lumet, author of a slew of excellent films, and to show such fidelity to your craft and your art at such an advanced age—kudos. May we all do half so well.

Okay, the 00.01 percent. It was unlikely that the father (Albert Finney) could have followed the cabs that Andy took around New York without somehow losing the tail. This is minor, and I wish all thrillers could have so small a blip. Also one wonders why Lumet decided not to tell us about the fate of Hank at the end. We can guess and guess. Perhaps his fate fell onto the cutting room floor. Perhaps Lumet was not satisfied with what was filmed and time ran out, and he just said, "Leave it like that. It really doesn't matter." And I think it doesn't. What happens to Hank is not going to be good. He isn't the kind of guy who manages to run off to Mexico and is able to start a new life. He is the kind of guy who gets a "light" sentence of 10 to 20 and serves it and comes out a kind of shrunken human being who knows he wasn't really a man when he should have been.

See this for Sidney Lumet, one of Hollywood's best, director of The Pawnbroker (1964), The Group (1966), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976), and many more. The humor implicit in the complete title proverb derives from the Sunday School dictum that one would be better advised to prepare before you're dead for the Devil's scrutiny, i.e. so the Devil doesn't care when you're dead. There's no percentage in trying to Beat the Devil. The characters apparently didn't pay attention at Sunday School, and find themselves forced into crisis management, having eschewed crisis avoidance. But even a seasoned CEO would have difficulty managing these crises. Throwing dice is far more unpredictable than flipping a coin; when people are involved, the list of possible outcomes becomes even longer than the long list of unforgettable Sidney Lumet films. Until now, Hawke may not have been an unforgettable actor but here perhaps had an eye toward earning billing among other Lumet All Stars like Steiger and Pacino. This intensely involving 2007 character-driven suspense drama is like a big, juicy piece of Shakespearean-level steak from a master filmmaker who knows how to draw out uncommonly ferocious, to-the-edge performances from his actors. Consider for starters - Henry Fonda's lone dissenting juror in "Twelve Angry Men", Katharine Hepburn's delusional Mary Tyrone in "Long Day's Journey Into Night", Rod Steiger's conflicted concentration camp survivor in "The Pawnbroker", William Holden's wintry lion in "Network", and Paul Newman's alcoholic lawyer in "The Verdict". The list encompasses some of the finest screen work of the past half-century, and you can safely add Philip Seymour Hoffman's desperately controlling Andy Hanson to the ranks. At 83, director Sidney Lumet shows no signs of octogenarian fatigue, and in fact, he revels in the melodramatic turns of first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson's thickly plotted script.

The scale of the story is deceptively small as it focuses on the moral compromises that unravel in a family where two brothers have become desperate for immediate cash. Woody Allen followed a similar fraternal dynamic in his last film, the oddly pinched "Cassandra's Dream", but Lumet is neither pinched nor cautious in his fierce approach to this inescapable tale of ambiguity and deception. The plot revolves around a crime that was meant to be victimless. Embezzling funds from his real estate company's payroll to keep his neglected wife Gina happy and to satisfy an expensive drug habit, smooth-talking Andy is about to be exposed in an IRS audit. Meanwhile, his younger brother Hank is a mass of post-divorce, codependent insecurities falling way behind in his alimony and child support payments.

Andy concocts a supposedly foolproof plan to rob their parents' suburban jewelry store while neither of them is supposed to be there. The goal was for the brothers to collect the haul, and the parents to claim the insurance. Murphy's Law intervenes in every possible way starting with Andy pressuring Hank to do the job himself. After some brotherly cajoling, Hank agrees to it, but too scared to do it alone, he recruits a reckless, gun-toting busboy to handle the robbery. By fate, the heist occurs on the one day that Andy and Hank's mother is opening the shop, and things quickly spiral out of control from there. Although the back-and-forth storytelling technique is not new (for example, Alejandro González Iñárritu's "21 Grams"), Masterson's approach works effectively in delineating certain events from multiple perspectives so that you understand how each character is led to the repercussions of the unfortunate event.

The acting is pitch-perfect starting with Hoffman's riveting performance as Andy, a Machiavellian reptile whose cool exterior and innate amorality mask layers of resentment toward his family. I thought he was great in Tamara Jenkins' "The Savages", but he is even better here. Lumet even draws a solid performance from the usually insufferable Ethan Hawke as Hank, imbuing him with the emasculated weakness that informs his every ill-planned move. As their embattled father, Albert Finney acts with his typical late-career bluster, but he provides the necessary foundation for the Oedipal-level complexities. Marisa Tomei is a smart choice to play Gina, as the actress economically keys in on the responsive, watchful nature of a small but pivotal role. The estimable theater veteran Rosemary Harris (now better known as Peter Parker's aunt in the "Spider-Man" trilogy) has precious little time as the mother, as does Amy Ryan as Hank's bitter ex-wife.

There are scenes that border on excessive, especially as the situation becomes increasingly desperate for the brothers, but the principals inject such energetic brio to them that the flourishes become forgivable. After the disappointment of the cartoonish "Find Me Guilty", it is refreshing to see Lumet in peak form here. The 2008 DVD offers terrifically informative commentary from Lumet, Hoffman and Hawke, all of whom converse with ease and insight throughout. Along with the original theatrical trailer, there is also a better-than-average 24-minute featurette, "Directed by Sidney Lumet: How the Devil Was Made", which features on-set footage and snippets of interviews with Lumet, two of the producers and the principal actors. 'Before the devil knows you're dead' is one of the best movies I've seen in a

long time. The acting from

the excellent ensemble cast is incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman putting in an outstanding performance and is electrifying every time he's on screen. Ethan Hawke matches him scene for scene and Albert Finney simply chews up the screen. Marisa Tomei is, however,

criminally underused, but looks amazing for her 42 years. The script is excellent, the story-line non-linear but easy enough to follow. Sidney Lumet, although not known for his blockbusters, has turned out a gem with this one! Watching Before The Devil counts as one of my all time best experiences at the cinema. I have been intrigued my the mixed response to the film - and for me, the extremes of opinion indicate the film touched on something either embraced or disavowed by the general audience. It is one of those films that has stayed with me, and I continue to ponder and think about it.

Surely the DVD would illuminate some more of the themes and the film-making elements? Which include: Sidney Lumet's comeback movie, the time-shifting technique deployed in the storytelling, the superb combination of Lumet and Masterson and why it works so well, the masterly direction, the relatively rare focus Hollywood movies give to male characters and their largely doomed struggle to become an open cheque book for their women, the under-presented, but nevertheless resonant Marisa Tomei's performance, and, of course, the superb Hoffman with that central monologue about the sum of his parts - for me the heart of the movie.

Phew! Surely a masterful film. So imagine my disappointment watching the eagerly anticipated DVD - only to find no commentary, no behind-the-scenes, no interviews, no extras.

Hey - distributors - sort it out! Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.

The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.

The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: "Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution. Finally a movie where the audience is kept guessing until the end what will happen. Well, we all kind of know that the lives of the brothers, Andy (played by Hoffman) and Hank (played by Hawke) will spiral downward towards destruction since where else is there to go but down, but we do not know how or when until near the end of the movie. Hoffman is superb, as usual, and even Hawke was decent as the younger brother who basically does what he is told since he really cannot think for himself. Hawke might have been a little out of his element, but he played the part well enough. Add into this mix Andy's wife, played perfectly by Marisa Tomei, cheating with Hank; Andy's embezzlement of company funds to pay for his drug and sex addictions; and a father who finally discovers exactly what happened the day of the robbery. This movie will get you thinking. My personal feeling is that you cannot divorce this movie from its political/historical underpinnings like so many (American) reviewers tend to do. This is not about growing up on Main Street, USA. It is about growing up in Yugoslavia at a time when it was torn between the East and the West. Just like the guys are torn between Esther and everybody else, and Esther is torn between the "Tovarish Joe" and the guys. There is shame in certain situations that is lost on an audience that has never lived under Tito. I feel the movie is under-rated and it is too bad we have lost the director. Movies like this make freedom feel more important. It is not just "another Eastern European coming of age film"...it is a sensitive portrayal of teenagers walking a fine line that might eventually lead them to real freedom. One of the most beautiful movies ever made in ex Yu.Story is very familiar to people in ex Yul because generation after war used to live in the same way.People in the west cant imagine how political situation in our country affect people.The plot is in the 50",When Josip Broz Tito said no to the SSSR and politbiro and because of that our borders becomes open for western influence.But,in a country were people didn't had much money jeans was only ideal and friendship was everything.The friendship between for young people an a girl was so strong that after 40 years of their emigration from Yu is still alive.They get together after all this years on Ester"s funeral and they start to remember of their childhood,before their went to the emigration and become successful people. A sharp political comment posturing as a coming of age story is what this movie is. The annoying thing is that it works effectively on both levels. It isn't supposed to but it does. This tale of four boys and a girl growing up in 1953 Communist Belgrade is a heart warmer. It is what gentlemen refer to as classic cinema. Obviously, 1953 Belgrade is not as harsh a dictatorial and fascist environment as the Communist society is often portrayed. One can listen to rock and roll music, one of the songs played is the song "Hey Babu Riba" ala the title of the movie. But jeans cannot be bought nor certain drugs which are illegal to possess. Unlike a heavy-handed criticism of a communist society this movie does it by showing how it affects the lives of the five protagonists who refer to themselves as we four. The girl who has a father in exile in Italy and is awaiting a passport for her mother and she to travel out to join him, the piano that is taken away from communion use from one of the boys, the sudden giving of your home and quarters to your new comrades because they need it. The boys spend a lot of time listening to music and it is made clear they despise the fascism that communism has created as they engage in tiffs with a fascist charlatan who has Stalin tattooed on his hands. These all leads to the actions they take later on and the remembrance of a time fading away, as this movie was released in 1986 in the twilight of the Soviet Empire. A great movie worth seeing again and again. "Repentance is not your enemy but yet it is also nobody's friend." A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended. I was intrigued by the title, so during a small bout of insomnia (fueled by my curiosity...), I stayed up and watched it. I then checked my TV listings and watched it again! There is one very obvious realization that occurred to me when I saw this film- in spite of politics, traditions, culture, etc., teenagers everywhere are virtually the same. The characters of the kids from Belgrade could have been transported to, let's say, somewhere in the American Midwest during the same time period, and language differences aside, would be impossible to tell apart from any of the local teens of that era. They certainly displayed the same growing pains and preoccupations, politics aside: Music, sex, movie idols, music, drinking, sports, music... As a matter of fact, much the same things that occupied my time growing up in 1970's Southern California.

This was a bittersweet story, but the joy of youth made it very enjoyable. The characters, especially the young actors, were completely believable also. I won't say this was the Yugoslav "American Graffiti", but I will say that it fits in nicely with other 50's-themed movies. "Hey Babu Riba" is a film about a young woman, Mariana (nicknamed "Esther" after a famous American movie star), and four young men, Glenn, Sacha, Kicha, and Pop, all perhaps 15-17 years old in 1953 Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The five are committed friends and crazy about jazz, blue jeans, or anything American it seems.

The very close relationship of the teenagers is poignant, and ultimately a sacrifice is willingly made to try to help one of the group who has fallen on unexpected difficulties. In the wake of changing communist politics, they go their separate ways and reunite in 1985 (the year before the film was made).

I enjoyed the film with some reservations. The subtitles for one thing were difficult. Especially in the beginning, there were a number of dialogues which had no subtitles at all. Perhaps the conversational pace required it, but I couldn't always both read the text and absorb the scene, which caused me to not always understand which character was involved. I watched the movie (a video from our public library) with a friend, and neither of us really understood part of the story about acquiring streptomycin for a sick relative.

This Yugoslavian coming of age film effectively conveyed the teenagers' sense of invulnerability, idealism, and strong and loyal bonds to each other. There is a main flashforward, and it was intriguing, keeping me guessing until the end as to who these characters were vis-a-vis the 1953 cast, and what had actually happened.

I would rate it 7 out of 10, and would like to see other films by the director, Jovan Acin (1941-1991). Saxophonist Ronnie Bowers (Dick Powell) wins a studio contract and goes to Hollywood. He stays at Hollywwod Hotel (of course). At the same time big egotistical star Mona Marshall (Lola Lane) has a tantrum and refuses to attend the premiere of her new picture. In a panic the studio hires lookalike Virginia (Rosemary Lane) to impersonate her and have Bowers take her to the premiere NOT telling him it's not Marshall. Naturally they fall in love. You can pretty much figure out the rest of the plot yourself.

The plot is old (to put it nicely) but Powell and Rosemary Lane make a very likable pair and have beautiful singing voices. The score is good (highlighted by "Hooray for Hollywood") and director Busby Berkeley shows off his unique visuals in a really fun drive-in musical sequence (with Edgar Kennedy doing his patented slow burn). Also Glenda Farrell has a few funny bits as Monas sister Jonesie.

Still the movie isn't that good. The rest of the cast mugs ferociously and most of the humor is just not funny. Lola Lane especially is just lousy trying to play Mona for comedy. Also there is racism--a stereotypical black maid is played for laughs and there's some truly appalling racist "humor" at one point. That's probably what keeps this off TV most of the time. I realize it was accepted at the time but it comes across as revolting today.

All in all a so-so movie with some serious problems helped by a good cast and some great songs. I give it a 7. If you are under 13 or above 13 and pretty intoxicated, you'll enjoy D-war. If you are a seriously dedicated fan of all kinds of brainless action films, you'll enjoy D-war. Otherwise, don't bother! I saw the movie today with my nephews and 3 of their friends. They really loved it and that made me feel good. After the movie was over, all the kids(my nephews and their friends)could not stop thanking me for taking them to the theater.

The CG is good. Acting and directing are horrible. Storyline is extremely simple. But, since the half of the audience was kids, they were screaming, shouting and cheering every time the dragons appeared on the screen. This made the viewing experience far more exciting than it should have been.

It's a good movie to take your kids to, but except for the final battle sequence, D-War is disappointing. I give this film 7 out of 10 mainly because the kids loved it so much. I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for. Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.

But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.

The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.

Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...

overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well. I enjoyed this movie and I had very low expectation due to all the negative reviews I read before going. I went because I was curious as to what all this fuss was about because some of the postings were so angry with this movie and with the Koreans. Oh and it's from Korea which has put out some of my favorite movies. I liked Host but not my absolute favorite. Some of my favorite sci-fi /fantasy movies so you can have a sense of my taste: Mirrormask, Stardust, Serenity, Gattaca, Willow, Matrix, Resident Evil series, LOTR, Stargate, Dark City.

It wasn't confusing like everyone said and the monsters looked good and the battles great. There are some holes in the story but didn't really matter. I sort of tune out stuff like that and stopped asking why long time ago when I see summer blockbusters. The Korean legend was interesting, the reincarnation stuff was different, and I thought the main characters suspiciously dressed like Korean actors in other shows. Ethan's(Behr)hair looked so Asian.

Yes, it could be better and I hope in the future that Korea, with its unusual quirky sense of life, intense emotions, and unexpected humor, can bring some diversity to the blockbuster genre. Maybe a combination of Host and Dragon Wars in the future? I have never seen such a movie before. I was on the edge of my seat and constantly laughing throughout the entire movie. I never thought such horrible acting existed it was all just too funny. The story behind the movie is decent but the movies scenes fail to portray them. I have never seen such a stupid movie in my life which is why it I think its worth watching. I give this movie 10 out of 10 for being the most pathetic movie ever created, this movie seems like it was solely created to become trash. I mean the scenes seem so fake and the actors act like "the camera is in front of them". You will get a kick just watching how lame this movie is, me and my friend could not stop making jokes during the movie, the darthvader guy who tries to get the girl got ran over not once but twice and the second time he got ran over it sounded like he said sh!# although he doesn't speak English lol. If you watch this movie you will think to yourself that all those other movies you didn't like you took for granted they are way better than this. This movie should be seen out of curiosity as well as what kind of movie DEFINES lame. The evil serpent encountered the girl so many times it was ridiculous, the evil serpent just roared and roared and let her get away every time. The evil serpent had so many chances it was like god was trying to say hurry up and eat the girl how many miracles do you want. The transition between scenes leaves you wondering did I miss something? So many plot holes from scene to scene. I was laughing like crazy when they decided to "Escape To Mexico" to get away from the serpent. Hmmmm hopping the border will save you from a serpent from Korea? interesting... very interesting.... I guess hopping the border solves all problems. Another scene that completely stupified me.. they met for the first time and had a romantic scene at the beach they kissed and didn't even know each other... the scene was so clichéd and the was no substance at least in other movies it might seem logical afterwhile but i mean they JUST MET even though they are reincarnations there feelings were like they instantly loved each other instead of it rather developing. Anyways this movie is worth watching for the sake of opening your eyes and seeing the light. Bad Hollywood movies will seem like heaven when compared to this. In the end its worth watching you wont get bored you will be occupied criticizing every moment, every scene in your head. If you like Sci-Fi, Monsters, and Ancient Legends, then you will love this movie!!

The Special Effects are by far the best I have seen since Juarassic Park hit the big screen years ago. While the acting may have been a little less than desirable, the story line and effects adequately compensated for it.

I wish now I had seen this at the movies on a theater screen instead of our 42 inch big screen TV.

If you like non-stop action, awesome visuals, and taste for myth and lore....you have to see this movie!! maybe i need to have my head examined,but i thought this was a pretty good movie.the CG is not too bad.i have seen worse.the look of the creatures(and by creatures i mean the good and the bad snake)was pretty cool.the action scenes involving the snakes was really good,i thought.there are some lapses in logic at times,and the story doesn't always make sense.but for a creature feature,there are a lot worse.a lot of the other creatures seemed lifted from other movies,so it's not wholly original.i think the gist of the story is original though.there is a bit of similarity to Godzilla(the Big budget American version)which liked a lot.i didn't like this movie as much,but i still say it was pretty good.i also liked the music.all in all,i think Dragon Wars is about a 7/10 This show will succeed because it appeals to all adults no matter where they are in their relationship. As a man married for 26 years, I empathize with Patrick Warburton's character: he loves his wife, but he assumes she knows that. I also enjoy his monotone delivery; never gets too excited or too low. A nice ensemble of characters. This will be a nice addition to the Monday night line-up.

I don't know how David Spade will be in his role. He is best enjoyed in small doses. He also seems a little old to still be trolling for women.

I enjoyed the pilot and I look forward to seeing how the series develops. Generally speaking, the plot was much better than I was expecting. The laugh track was a bit annoying at times and did tend to get in the way; however, there were enough real chuckles in this episode to make up for it. My biggest surprise was finding some of the best lines and situations were not shown in the trailers. Spade, in particular, was not presented in the best light in the earlier promotions, but his character comes across quite well in the pilot. There is is enough eye-candy to please almost anyone and all the regular characters seem up to the task ahead of them. Now, if the writers can just live up to what they have begun. I really enjoyed the pilot, it was as amazing as I hoped it would be, if not better. Patrick Warburton was a riot, although at first i thought that I wouldn't be able to stand his character. Him and Megyn Price Had little chemistry at all, but hopefully as the season goes on they'll get more comfortable around each other. It must have been weird for Megyn to go from being the star on her last show ["Grounded For Life"] to being a co-star.

Bianca Kajlich and Oliver Hudson seem really new to the whole Sitcom scene, but I think in time they'll get better. David Spade's character, to my surprise, wasn't the whole focus of this pilot. The way he delivers his lines is so different from anyone else i've ever seen on TV, but I think that it is just his style. It works for him.

I think that couples, or even singles, will be able to relate to all the doubts and fights and being unsure about your decisions, that this show is about. All the situations that the characters are put in just feel like real life, not sugar-coated like most shows.

I hope for all the actors sakes that CBS gives them a chance. This show has the potential to be one of the best series, if just given the chance and time. This would have to be one of the funniest TV sitcoms to come out of the States since the demise of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Warburton is always hilarious, and in this complements the rest of the ensemble cast to perfection. David Spade continues to tickle my funny bone enormously with his quite unique delivery of his lines. After having raved over the British series, "Coupling" I can see from just where the creators of "Rules of Engagement" got their original idea, but this is not intended as being a "brickbat" - the absolutely brilliant dialogue and the way in which it is conveyed set this particular series completely apart. But it takes more than a competent cast to bring success to a new series, particularly in the very difficult field of comedy. Having been a part of a professional TV comedy writing team for the best part of 7 years in Australia, I can appreciate particularly, the role of director and the perceptional and creative talent of the camera crew. One of the few grievances I have with the series is the very obviously "canned" laughter. Surely a live audience could have been used in the shooting of the series. I missed almost all of the first season, but when the other shows went to reruns, I started watching. I ended up buying the entire first season off iTunes. This is now one of my favorite comedy shows. Patrick Warburton is the key. His dry sense of humor has me rolling all the time. David Spade is funny, but sometimes a little Russell goes a long way. I enjoy the other cast members more (but not saying he doesn't add to the show).

Do yourself a favor. If you haven't checked this one out, give it a try. If you can catch the episode where "Jeff" goes to the sperm bank, you will see how good this show is.

I hope this series has a long run. The show is really funny. Nice theme. Jokes and one liners are really good. With little extra tuning it can become a very popular show. But the only major negative point of this show is the cast. David Spade does a great job as Russell, Megyn Price does a good job. But who the hell did cast Patrick Warburton, Oliver Hudson and Bianca Kajlich.

Technically Russell and Jeff are the main characters of the show, which make viewers wanna watch the show. Russell is a playboy and Jeff is a kind of frustrated family man, The relationship wiz... with an experience of all the problems a married couple face in a relationship.

Patrick Warburton - does a horrible job as Jeff, he is not at all suited for the role. He is like a robot, literally there is no punch in his dialog delivery.

Cast is really very important for viewers to like it. The bad acting certainly will take the show downhill... My wife and I took our 13 year old son to see this film and were absolutely delighted with the winsome fun of the film. It has extra appeal to boys and men who remember their childhood, but even women enjoy the film and especially Hallie Kate Eisenberg's refrain, "Boys are so weird." It's refreshing to see a film that unapologetically shows that boys and girls are indeed different in their emotional and social makeup. Boys really do these kinds of strange things and usually survive to tell the story and scare their mothers silly! We enjoyed the film so much that my son and an 11 year old friend, myself and my daughters 23 year old boyfriend went to see the movie the next day for a guys day out. We had even more fun the second time around and everyone raved about it. It's clean and delightfully acted by a pre-adolescent cast reminiscent of the TV Classic "Freaks and Geeks". We all feel it will become a sleeper hit not unlike the "Freaks & Geeks" which didn't survive its first season but sold-out its DVD release. Do see it especially if you have boys and you'll find it stimulates conversation about fun and safety! Girls will love it because of the opportunity it affords to say, "Boys are so weird!" Don't miss it... I remembered this as being one of my favorite books as a child and had been wanting to read it to my 5 year old daughter for a while now. I knew the movie was coming out soon so we went to the library to get the book and they gave us preview passes for the next day! We rushed home and spent the afternoon reading the book so we could compare. Wasn't necessary. The only thing in common between the book and the movie is the main characters' first name, the fact that there is a bet, and a whole lot of worm eating. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the kid who cooks most of the worms likes to present his masterpieces with a french accent. How the kids know each other, the number of kids involved, how the bet came about, the number of worms that must be eaten, the time frame in which he has to eat the worms, how they are cooked, progression of friendships, climax scenes, etc., NOTHING is the same. But somehow, it did not ruin the movie for me. The characters are all enjoyable, and the film did not leave me disappointed. Word of caution for parents, there was one moment when you could hear the adults in the room collectively draw their breath and that was when Billy's little brother referred to his penis as a "dilly dick". The embarrassing part came when my daughter proceeded to ask those sitting around us, "Does anybody know what a dilly dick is?" lol. That and an occasional "shut up" is as foul mouthed as this film gets. My daughter thought she might get sick around worm 3 and 4 (and was holding the empty nacho container just in case) but was fine by worm 6. She and I both really enjoyed the film and had a wonderful time sharing the experience. Pre-adolescent humor is present in large quantities. The acting and story are wonderful if you can stomach the concept. Those with weak constitutions will have some difficulty since the "worms" are realistic enough to cause churning of more than a few in the audience.

Tom Cavanagh and Hallie Kate Eisenberg stole the spotlight, but the young Ty Panitz could get some serious time on screen over the next few years.

Miss Eisenberg has developed from a cute face into a strong young actress with charm and wonderful comic delivery.

The story does a spectacular job in dealing with bullying, friendship, and fairness. It creates an opportunity to discuss these topics in an open and frank manner while recalling some "gross" scene from the film. It started out slow after an excellent animated intro, as the director had a bunch of characters and school setting to develop. Once the bet is on, though, the movie picks up the pace as it's a race against time to see if a certain number of worms can be eaten by 7 pm. We had a good opportunity on the way home to discuss some things with our son: bullies, helping others, mind over matter when you don't want to do something.

Of special note is the girl who played Erica (Erk): Hallie Kate Eisenberg. The director kinda sneaks her in unexpectedly, and when she is on-screen she is captivating. She's one of those "Hey, she looks familiar" faces, and then I remembered that she was the little girl that Pepsi featured about 8 years ago. She was also in "Paulie", that movie about the parrot who tries to find his way home.

Ms. Eisenberg made many TV and movie appearances in '99-00, but then was not seen much for the next few years. She's now 14 and is growing up to be a beautiful woman. Her smile really warms up the screen. If she can get some more good roles she could have as good a career (or better?) than Haley Joel Osment, another three named kid actor, but hopefully without some of the problems that Osment has been in lately.

Anywhozitz, according to my 8 y.o. son, who just finished reading the story, the film did not seem to follow the book all that well, but was entertaining none the less. The ending of the film seemed like a big setup for some sequels (How to Eat Boiled Slugs? Escargot Kid's Style?), which might not be such a bad thing. It was nice to take the family to a movie and not have to worry about language, violence or sex scenes.

One other good aspect of the movie was the respect/fear engendered by the principal Mr. Burdock (Boilerplate). Movies nowadays tend to show adult authority figures as buffoons. While he has one particular goofy scene, he ruled the school with a firm hand. It was also nice to see Andrea Martin getting some work. If you like films about school bullies, brave children, hilarious toddlers and worm eating, then How to Eat Fried Worms will appeal to you.

The film is about a boy named Billy, who when arriving on his first day at a new school, discovers that some of his classmates have played a prank on him by putting worms into his lunch. The school bully, Joe and his "team" of friends start teasing Billy and calling him "worm boy".

Billy decides to play along by saying that "he eats worms all the time". Joe and his friends don't believe him but Billy assures them and bets Joe that he can eat ten worms in one day otherwise he will come to school with worms in his pants.

The boys take Billy up on his bet, leaving the weak stomached child with a mission to gain respect from his classmates by eating worms cooked, fried, or alive.

The film may sound gross but there are a lot of messages in it. For one, it portrays true friendship and how to accept people for who they are. It also shows you why some bullies resort to bullying other children.

The film's protagonist, Billy is a strong minded and brave person who all of us can relate to. It is easy to empathize with him as we silently cheer for him to reach his goal, even though we might not always agree with what he's doing or the choices he makes.

The children in the film are portrayed exactly how children are in real life and the film deserves a lot of credit for that. The child actors are the stars of this show, showing true emotion and feeling than most other children's movies portray.

Some adults may not enjoy this film but kids will, perhaps even teenagers.

There are hardly any other good movies on circuit at the moment, so if you're not in the mood to see snakes on a plane, try worms on a plate in How to Eat Fried Worms. It is a feel good fun film and not just Fear Factor for kids. I thought the kids in the movie were great. I deal with kids in that age group, and I thought their behaviors were very believable. I did have a problem with the reference to the private parts made by the 5-year old. I didn't think the comment was necessary and actually slightly lowered my opinion of the movie.

I think Luke Benward is up and coming star. I would like to see more of him on the big screen. I enjoyed his reactions to the situations that he found himself in. Often kids in this age group do things without thinking through the consequences. Almost all of the actors did this throughout the movie.

I also think the message of bullying needs to be examined more in movies with this age group. It is a major problem in schools today.

The ending was quite unexpected. Billy's thoughts on whether he won or didn't win the bet were very surprising. How he handled that situation was excellent. Too often today kids are not willing to compromise. The actors in this movie showed that compromise is an important part of life. After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun! ~~I was able to see this movie yesterday morning on a early viewing pass~~

I am a mom of 2 children, who range from 11 down to 6. So I'm sure plenty of parents can relate to having to see many many "kids" movies. This was refreshing for me. I haven't read this particular book, so I don't know if it stayed true to the book or not. But it sure took the grossness factor to a high level. This is the story of the "new" kid in town and it just so happens that there are a group of boys who have formed a club of sorts and love to pick on kids ....sound familiar? Haven't we all suffered this one time or another. He has the little brother who he cant stand and parents that he is embarrassed about. What I enjoyed most of all was seeing how each character was totally different from another they all stood out. The bully (why do they always make the bully a red head? My daughter has red hair! and she is no bully!..lol) is well a great bully, who finds himself being yelled at by his own big brother. It took twists and turns and well you fall in love with all of them and really find yourself routing for all the characters! Even the parents, great connection between father and son. All around enjoyable, sweet,funny, gross etc......Take your kids!!! You will enjoy it as much as they do! Watching the commercials for this movie, I was fairly convinced that I was going to loathe it. For one thing, it was one of those "loosely based on the novel" movies, which usually means that the book author saw the script, hated it, and refused to be associated with the film. Worse, the trailer showed only the most mundane slapstick imaginable (ex: kid gets squirted in the face with a garden hose...and falls over). So when my little brother got it into his mind that this was the "must see" film of the season (of course, he thought the same thing about "Cars", "Over the Hedge", "The Ant Bully", "Monster House", etc, etc), I was admittedly less than thrilled.

But once at the theater, the film won me over for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the writers capture 'kid dialogue' better than just about any other children's film I've ever seen. A prime example of this comes directly after the boys' principal accidentally eats a worm stuck in an egg omelet. The boys do a lame, over-exaggerated impression of the principal lecturing them, which makes it realistic since all little kids think (mistakenly) that they do great mocking expressions of their adult tormentors. Then one of the boys asks, "Why did he say, 'alley oop'?" Another boy responds, "Maybe he's crazy!" and the entire group laughs uproariously. Not an overly witty rejoinder, but exactly the kind of thing a young kid would come up with on the spot and exactly the type of remark other kids his age would find hilarious. As if to confirm it, my kid brother laughed right on cue when they were spoken on-screen; I could practically hear his voice spouting the same exact lines if he was placed in a similar situation.

Another reason the movie works is that the writers manage to work in issues like bullying, sibling relationships, the new kid in school, and peer pressure/conformity without making any of them seem as though they were subplots for some after school special. For example, the bully (Joe) isn't stereotypical; he's definitely bad but not pure evil, and just enough of his home-life is revealed that the audience feels sympathy for him and understands his bullying origins. There's also no "cue the dramatic music" moment where Billy ('Worm Boy') realizes what a complete tool he's being to his younger brother Woody, and yet, by the end of the movie, some type of minor transformation has been made. There's some realism here in the way the characters resolve situations and in the way they relate to each other, and very little of it comes across as corny.

The only drawback to the movie comes in the form of an absolutely laughable dance scene that even the creators of the infamous McDonald's dance party in "Mac and Me" would scoff at. Why oh why was it put into the movie?? Did Austin Rogers (Adam) pull a Macaulay Culkin and refuse to take the role unless he was given a vehicle to showcase his oh so impressive dancing skills? The entire sequence definitely did not need to be there and had slightly less comedic value than any given show on "The History Channel".

Overall, though, this movie was excellent, and the length (about an hour and twenty minutes) was just about perfect. One of the best, most realistic live action kid films you'll ever see if you're ever around children or just remember what being a kid was actually like. I sat with my children as we watched this film. We all found it to be a very entertaining movie.

When Billy goes to a new school, a fifth grade bully starts stuff with him and this is what leads to the eating of worms.

A bet is made and Billy has only so much time to eat 10 worms or else. From this point the bully and his friends try to come up with nasty ways to cook, fry or bake the worms to try and get Billy sick so that he will lose the bet.

Billy stays strong and eats his way into becoming liked more and more by everyone, even the bullies friends.

I wont tell you if he wins the bet or not...you will just need to watch it to find out but I will think that if you like good family movies you will like this one.

P.S. Let me add that this movie is not just for boys, I have all daughters and they really liked it a lot. It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.

Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.

Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.

Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the "Radioactive Slime Delight," in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.

If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his "dilly dick" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.

Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.

Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.

If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.

At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, "That was a great movie." Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases. it's a weekend i've been watched this funny film. and i really like it. all the kids are cute, who remind me of my own childhood with those stupid thinking. it's a real entertaining movie for a group of families at weekend night, which could make lots of memories and laughters. Kid's humor always work. nice acting as well. simple story but cool shooting. nice job for directer to find the kid's way. when it comes to the kid movie, i think of "12 and holding". another one this year but differed aspect to the kid's world, which is real and cruel. awesome work. H2EFW focuses on the happy side of childhood, which every kid and family need. p.s. Twitch, i think, is the voice of Nemo from "Finding Nemo". I really liked the movie. I remember reading it several times as a kid and was glad to see a movie had been made about the book.

I was kid-sitting for a boy and a girl, ages 11 and 8 and had to talk the girl in to seeing the movie. But happily, at the end, she was glad she saw it and even said that she wanted to buy it on DVD as soon as it came out.

There were some great laugh-out-loud moments and the movie was not as "gross" as I expected it would be ... tho it did rank pretty high up there on the gross-o-meter ...

The only thing I cannot figure out is why they had to have the "dilly" line in there that was done by Woody in reference to his private part ... that to me was the only shocker moment (and you could hear the adults in the audience audibly gasp at that moment in the movie) ... I have no clue why that was put in the movie; it added nothing to the actual movie except for that shock/gasp factor ... other than that, a pretty good movie. Nice to see the "Pepsi" girl all grown up. Saw this today with my 8 year old. I thought it was cute. I agree with the other poster that it wasn't anything like the book that I can remember, but we still enjoyed it. All of the kids are pretty good and all in all pretty entertaining. Billy is the new kid who accepts a dare by the school bully to eat 10 worms in a day. If he loses he has to walk down the hall at school with worms in his pants. The beginning of the movie is set up to show that Billy has a VERY weak stomach and pukes at almost anything. Hilarity ensues with a bunch of different way to cook the worms. Good message about standing up to bullies and of course, a sappy happy ending. This is a good movie, a good family movie to watch if you have nothing else to do. If you are expecting this movie to be word to word from the book, you will be very very disappointed. I was somewhat disappointed because I read the book a few times when I was in elementary school.

This is about a new kid in town named Billy. He makes a bet with the school bully and the bet is not like most bets. Billy has to eat 10 worms in one day or the bully wins.

The acting is OK, probably the worst part of the movie. The kid actors over exaggerate on many things. They think it's apocalypse if Billy does not eat the worms. Hallie Eisenberg did a magnificent job, though.

The plot line is good as a movie, but it sucks as a book adaptation. I was able to watch this movie without looking at the time....sometimes.

Overall, this was a good family movie with some weak points. I rate this movie 7/10. I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences:

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy. Let's keep it simple: My two kids were glued to this movie. It has its flaws from an adult perspective, but buy some jelly-worms and just enjoy it.

And the Pepsi girl was excellent!

And Kimberly Williams was pretty gosh-darned hot, although she's not in the film very much, so don't get too excited there.

Not that's it's really a bad thing, but it is the kind of movie you watch just once. Don't buy the DVD.

Enjoy!

Did I mention Kimberly Williams? (That was for the dads.) So we compromised. This was a fairly charming film, I liked the art direction (it felt far more "real" than most kids movies), and the costumes weren't too cutesy. The child actors were not bad to watch (the adult performances trended toward cheesy). It was great that they showed how a bullied kid bullies others as well as kids standing up to bullying.

I don't know how many grown ups would want to see this for themselves, but it's a great film to take a kid to. And since "Barnyard" was apparently attended by 100+ kids at the same time, I'm REALLY glad we picked the sparsely attended showing of "worms" instead. This is an amazing movie and all of the actors and actresses and very good! Even though some of the actors and actresses weren't very popular in show business it seemed like they have been acting since they were 1 one year old! It was funny, gross and just all out a very good movie. In most parts I just didn't know what was going to happen next! I was like I think this is going to happen, wait I think this is going to happen. All age groups will love this movie! In some parts I couldn't stop laughing, it was so funny, but in some parts I was totally grossed out and I couldn't believe what I was seeing! I am definitely going to see this movie again! It is one of those movies where it can't get boring. Every time you see it is so suspenseful. I definitely recommend seeing this movie!! "October Sky" is a film that will steal your heart, fill your mind with vivid imagery, and lift your spirit. The tale of Homer Hickham and his dream of creating a rocket seem so simple at first, especially when the film is set in a mining town, where the future is as clear cut as the lumps of coal in the mine. But Homer cannot follow in his father's footsteps. With the encouragement of Miss Riley,(a friendly teacher), members of his father's staff, and his friends, Homer attempts to make his dream a reality.

Yet as in any true to life story, there are many stops along the way. Director Joe Johnston lowers us into the coal mines, where we witness the chilling plight of miners stooped beneath a ceiling of rock. With lit helmets and bent posture, they resembled alien insectoids more than humans in the darkness. The hacking coughs of the miners and the blackened faces were a constant reminder of the danger the miners faced in their work.

Contrasting the mine shaft's lugubrious load are the images of Homer and his friend's rocket launches. Underneath the blue bowl of sky, rockets are placed upon a pad and launched into the stratosphere...And nothing can match the scene when Homer sees Sputnik for the first time.

Yet what makes the film so endearing is the relationship between the characters. Homer's father is a classic hardened man...but he has a soft side as well. We see that he does love his son, despite their many arguments. The love and support of Miss Riley is evident as well. Best of all, the film is uncomfortable. It doesn't tie everything up in a nice bow. It tears at you, lifts you up. It keeps an air of reality, which is important in a film like this.

This film can be considered a complete work. At first, I was disappointed that the film did not continue with Homer's life. I didn't want it to end. Then I realized...that's what a good film does to a person. If it has done its job, you won't want it to end. And "October Sky" accomplishes just that. 1.) This movie was amazing! I watched it while I was in the town next to the one where he grew up! I went and saw the buildings that the story took place in. Overall, I loved this movie, One of Jake Gyllenhaal's best!! Also- my favorite parts were the science fair, and all the times with his father. They were so sad, it seemed. Homer wanted to follow his dream and his dad didn't seem to care one way or another. That tag line is true. "Sometimes One Dream is bright enough to light up the sky." 2.) The way this movie was shot was impeccable, it was all so believable that it could have been recorded during the 1950's. Dress was accurate and they had their slang down too. Definitely recommend this movie! This is a fine drama and a nice change of pace from today's more hectic and loud films. It is another solid based-on-a-true store, which still means much of it could be made up for dramatic purposes. Frankly, I don't know but I liked the story.

The story is about a young man back in the Fifties who gets interested in rocketry and wants to enter that field instead of working in the coal mines as everyone else, including his father, does in this West Virginia town. The big problem is the conflict it causes between the boy and his father, which I think was overdone. I would like to have a little less tension between the two.

The young man, still a boy, is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, one of his first staring assignments, I think. He's likable, as are his school buddies in here. It's nice to see nice kids in a modern-day film. The two other key actors in the movie are Chris Cooper (the dad) and Laura Dern (the kid's teacher who encourages him all the time.)

The cinematography is decent the 1950s soundtrack is fun to hear. Once again: I wish there more of these kind of films made today. I was watching this when my wife called to inquire from the other room as to my choice of fare. My comment? "I am watching my Life!"

Though younger, but only by 5 years or so, than the "Rocket Boys" I remember the absolute urgency with which Sputnick was greeted by our administrators of education and how the whole Science Fair thing gained momentum and took me and others into the competitive whirlwind. My own tornado landed me in my own State's Science Fair, in Physics by '62, though our group was less successful in gaining the support of, for example, firefighters we approached for guidance and counsel until after a tragic event, our city went so far as to allow us to tour the Nike missile site on Chicago's lakeshore.

This movie brought it all back for me and I will bet that it brought it all back for a bunch of us "UberNerds" of the late '50s and early 60's.

We are in a similar science brain drainage period now and really need this movie as a country. See It! This is a gem, a real piece of Americana for all that this implies. If you are self programed to resist "life-afirming" stories, just stay away and leave the pleasure to the rest of us who still believe. And what makes the frosting on the cake truly delectable is that it is fact based on a real rags to riches story, no need to nit-pick what details were changed to make a compact story. Chris Cooper is one of the greatest living actors, and the complex, self-conflicted, bottom-line good at the core father he portrayed could only be pulled off successfully by someone with his skill and insight. The simple minded comments, refusing to accept a father who tries to lay down the law all the while sensing that he may possibly be off-track, expose the limitation of the commentator, not the writers or the acting. This is not for the cynical, or the simple minded. There is an old saying that relates to the rousing new film by Joe Johnston that goes something like this: "The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right." That is a highly presumptuous statement referring to self motivating and belief in an individual, which, in this movie, stand true even after road blocks and family trouble stand in the way.

"October Sky" is about a young man who believes in himself named Homer Hickam, growing up in a strict, traditional family in the 1950's. Homer loves in a small coal mining town where nearly every man grows up to be a miner. All of his friends, Quentin, Roy, and O'Dell all think that their life after high school will be like everyone else's. Homer is not exited about that future.

One night, while everyone stares at the sky, a Russian space craft called Sputnik passes overhead. This is something new for Homer, and he finds it spectacular and overwhelming. From this point on, his look at life will never be the same.

First, he tells everyone that he wants to work in the rocket scientist area for an occupation. Flabbergasted at what he says, his family passes that idea over their heads and continues with life as usual His friends, however, think that this idea may have some potential. After all, Quentin is a very smart individual when it comes to this kind of thing.

When the four friends start to test model rockets, and blow a white picket fence to smithereens, then what seems to be a forest fire is scared by them, they're forced to end their progresses.

The performances in this movie are absolutely riveting from start to finish. All of the actors give performances as if this is the real mumbo jumbo here. Standing out in all of the glory: Laura Dern as Miss Riley. This very well may be Academy award material if the judges can remember back to the beginning of the year when this film is released.

The characters are also extremely well developed. Not only to the filmmakers give clear, apparent reason why Homer is interested in the subject, but they also explain to the audience how they are succeeding in their studding of rocketry. We clearly understand all of the characters' motives and beliefs, especially the father, who is bent over on everlasting tradition.

The film, unfortunately, loses some of its momentum at mid-point because of a silly, recycled romantic sub-plot involving Homer's love interest and how his brother stole her from him. This type of this is becoming so awfully common in high-school movies, not that this film is aimed at high-schoolers. The actors stare at each other mindlessly, like the are in a trance. I put up with it without complaining in 1997's "Inventing the Abbots," but I have had just about enough this.

But that is just a minor complaint. With an authentic looking time period, cinematography worth an Oscar and clips of the real life Homer and friends at the end, whom all hit it big with their dreams, especially Homer, this is the first great film of 1999.

I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. "October Sky" feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn.

Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ("What do you call it? You call it a miracle."), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.

Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. "Myrtle Beach" says it all.

A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.

A simple and effective film about what life is all about, responding to challenges. It took a lot of gall for Homer and his friends to be able to grow into manhood without falling in the trap of a prefabricated future that runs from father to son, to be a miner in the local mine and never get out of that fate. It took also three different challenges for Homer and his friends to conquer a personal and free future. The challenge of the first ever man-made artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, a Soviet satellite, a milestone in human history, a turning point that Homer and his friends could not miss, did not want to miss. Then the challenge of science and applied mechanics to calculate and to devise a rocket from scratch or rather from what they could gather in books and order in their minds. Finally the challenge of a world that resists and refuses and tries to force you back into the pack, even with an untimely accident that forces you to get back into the pack for plain survival necessity, and even then Homer proved he had the guts to accept the challenge that was blocking for a while his own plans and dreams. But there is another side of the story that the film does not emphasize enough. Homer is the carrier of the project but he is also the carrier of the inspiration he and his friends need. If he is the one who is going to get the university scholarship, because his friends gave him precedence, his friends will also be able to get on their own roads and tracks and step out of the mining fate, thanks to the energy his inspiring example sets in front of their eyes. It is hard at times not to follow the example of the one who is like a beacon on a difficult road. But the film is also effective to show how the father resisted this dream because for him science was not the fabric of a true man, like mining or football. The working class fate that was so present in those 1950s and 1960s and still is present in some areas is too often enforced by the traditional thinking of the father. If the mother does not have the courage to speak up one day, the working class fate I am speaking of becomes a tremendous trap. Here too the film is effective and it should make some parents think. This might have been the fourth challenge Homer had to face: the challenge of taking a road that was not the one pointed at and programmed by his own father.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne I first saw Jake Gyllenhaal in Jarhead (2005) a little while back and, since then, I've been watching every one of his movies that arrives on my radar screen. Like Clive Owen, he has an intensity (and he even resembles Owen somewhat) that just oozes from the screen. I feel sure that, if he lands some meaty roles, he'll crack an Oscar one day...

That's not to denigrate this film at all.

It's a fine story, with very believable people (well, it's based upon the author's early shenanigans with rocketry), a great cast – Chris Cooper is always good, and Laura Dern is always on my watch list – with the appropriate mix of humor, pathos, excitement...and the great sound track with so many rock n roll oldies to get the feet tapping.

But, this film had a very special significance for me: in 1957, I was the same age as Homer Hickham; like him, I looked up at the night stars to watch Sputnik as it scudded across the blackness; like Homer also, I experimented with rocketry in my backyard and used even the exact same chemicals for fuel; and like Homer, I also had most of my attempts end in explosive disaster! What fun it was...

I didn't achieve his great (metaphorical and physical) heights though. But, that's what you find out when you see this movie.

Sure, it's a basic family movie, but that's a dying breed these days, it seems. Take the time to see it, with the kids: you'll all have a lot of good laughs. There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.

He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.

Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.

The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.

This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.

This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more. I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did! I just accidentally stumbled over this film on TV one day. It was aired in the middle of the day on a channel not exactly famous for airing good movies. This one, however, was nothing less then good.

October Sky tells the true story of Homer Hickam, a boy inspired by the Sputnick launch to become a rocket scientist. He and his friends begin to build rockets. His father is not to happy about his sons new found hobby and would rather see him become a coal-miner as himself or go to college on a football-scholarship like his brother.

The story is well written. A bit too predictable maybe, but that's OK cause it doesn't focus too much on those parts of the story. It's important part, but where this is obvious the inner action, the action between the characters is focused on. The story is good. It has some clichés, but that's OK. It's based on actual event's so you kind of can't just drop out these clichés. The characters are really good. Where the story is on a downhill the characters are brought out and manage to keep the action and the quality of the movie high. You get to know these characters and you get sympathy for them. They are well written and believable.

This is a good looking movie. The sets and the 50's style is thorough and the pictures are well composed and well lit. This all sets the mood of the film very good.

The acting is really good. Jake Gyllenhaal delivers a great performance as Homer Hickam and Chris Cooper is good as John Hickam. As for the rest of the cast they are good too. All together this makes out a pretty strong cast.

All in all I'm glad I caught this movie. It was first after seeing it I learned that it was based on actual events. If I had known that when seeing it, it would probably just be even more interesting. October Sky is a good and interesting movie. It's a movie I believe everyone can enjoy. It's kind of a feel-good movie. Not bad at all! I think I read this someplace: Joe Johnston (director of the film and also one of the guys who founded Industrial Light and Magic for work on the first Star Wars film) and one of his producers or something were racking their brains for a title for the movie, "Rocket Boys" (I guess) was lacking something.

One day they were messing with a PC program that forms words from other words (ie: you type in a word or series of words and it mixes the letters up and forms other words) I think the technical term is an "anagram"

Anyway, they typed in "Rocket Boys" and sure enough what comes back is "October Sky". They were shocked to say the least. The title summed up everything in the movie since the movie revolves around Sputnik. At first Homer Jr did not like the idea, but he warmed up to it after the "movie poster paperback novel" came out and took off. Based on fact, this is the story of a teenager named Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), growing up in a coal town in West Virginia where a boy's usual destiny was to "end up in the mines." But Homer had his eye on the sky and a love for flying rockets, to the dismay of his mine-foreman father, and the consternation of the townsfolk generally. A misfit for sure, he and three of his equally outcast buddies begin making rockets, which they fly from a patch of barren land eight miles out of town, so as to no longer terrorize the community with their oft-times errant rockets. Unfortunately, most of the town and especially Homer's father (Chris Cooper) thinks that they are wasting their time. However, the people become intrigued and soon start coming out in droves to watch the 'Rocketboys' send off their homemade missiles. Only one teacher (Laura Dern) in the high school understands their efforts and lets them know that they could become contenders in the national science fair with college scholarships being the prize. Now the gang must learn to perfect their craft and overcome the many problems facing them as they shoot for the stars. Director Joe Johnston has always been a famous name for his movies such as Jumanji & Jurassic Park 3 & "October Sky" surely stands above all of his other films. Without any doubts, "October Sky" is his best effort & obviously his best film. It's not only a true story filmed extremely well, but even as a movie, it has every single thing, which is required for a top level cinema. And along with Johnston's extra-ordinary direction, are some exceptional performances. Jake Gyllenhaal was around 19, when this movie was released & he gives a beautiful & natural performance. He is a perfect actor. Chris Cooper as his father, also gives a very fine performance. The same goes for Laura Dern & also she looks beautiful. Even the rest of the performances are extremely well. The background score was fine. Highly inspiring movie, which lifts up your spirit sky high. One of those movies which definitely inspires you for all of your life. An amazing inspiring movie along with loads of entertainment. Not to be missed. A true wholesome American story about teenagers who are interested in launching their own rocket in a rural West Virginia coal mining town, after the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

Through trial, tribulations and perseverance beyond belief, they are ultimately able to achieve their goals.

Jake Gyllenhaal, as the leader of the group, is excellent in the title role. As his motivating science teacher, Laura Linney is quite good but her southern accent is over the top.

There is a standout supporting performance by Chris Cooper, a head miner, who wants his son to follow in his footsteps, but gradually comes around at film's end.

What makes this film so unusual for our times is that there are no bed-hopping scenes and no profanity whatsoever. It is the epitome of an American story that is well done.

Besides the science angle, we have the father-son disagreement, football scholarships as a way to escape coal mining, and the loving spirit of family.

Why aren't pictures like this recognized more at award times? I grew up in Southern West Virginia; I'm about the same age as (or maybe a year older than) Homer Hickam, author of "The Rocket Boys," the book forming the true-story basis of this heart-warming film.

And so I relate closely to the West Virginia coal-mining theme, and to the stunning effect Sputnik had at that time (October 4, 1957) on all of us. The Rocket Boys went on to make great lives for themselves. I went on to get my degrees in Physics and Computer Engineering. All because Sputnik woke up a lot of young people to the "Science Gap" the U.S.S.R. had on the U.S. in those Cold War days...

This is a wonderful film for everyone, of all ages. But if you grew up in West Virginia in the late 1950's, it'll touch the core of your being.

Everyone: Get it; watch it; recommend it to your friends... who'll thank you many times. I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself. October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you. My wife did not realize what a gem this movie was when she picked it up. It is a story that shows real world success through hard work and determination.

That is so refreshing in a world of violent movies not that I dis-like them), but you have to love a movie that succeeds without it. The acting in this movie was superb. As an amateur rocketeer, I found very few mistakes. As a human being, it touched my heart and soul. To watch the actors, you would think that they are the actual characters. Laura Dern, a favorite actress of mine, left nothing out of her performance. The young actors playing the Rocket Boys showed talent beyond their years, especially young Homer. Homer's father inspired that eternal love/hate relationship between a father and son so that it felt real. If you don't get a lump in your throat or shed a tear when that first successful rocket goes up or when father and son come to terms, then get your pulse checked (you may be dead). This film was absolutely BRILLIANT!! Every performance in this film is excellent, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper. It looks like Mr Gyllenhaal will have a HUGE film career if this is anything to go by. I thought that Joe Johnston was an odd choice as director as he is usually associated woth big budget blockbusters(Jumanji, Honey I shrunk the kids). He pulls of every scene with sheer class. My favourite scene was where Homer is going down the mineshaft and looking at the sky, going down, as all of his dreams were, it was beautiful. Joe Johnston should direct more of these brilliant, acting driven films as well as his Big budget blockbuster faire, which is also excellent. KUDOS!! to all involved in this masterpiece! I watched this film without knowing anything about it whatsoever and found it similar thematically to Billy Elliott (2000). Both films are based around a troubled father/son relationship. In both films, the son does not want to follow his father down the mines and dreams of a better life away from their home town. Both sons face derision by their classmates and both have a strong female role model who teaches them.

The major difference that I found between the films was that October Sky was an infinitely more interesting and touching film. Laura Dern puts in a moving performance and Chris Cooper plays the disapproving father very well as he went on to do in American Beauty (1999). Joe Johnston surprised me with his subtle directing, very different from his other directorial features such as Jumanji (1995) and Jurassic Park III (2001).

Maybe not the most original way of telling a story, we've seen all this before in many movies.. but.. I liked it October Sky alot anyways. It got something, Great directing and good acting by all parts, especially Laura Dern(the teacher) and Chris Cooper(the father). I wanna be a rocket-engineer!:)

I'm sure things didn't exactly go the same way in the real life of Homer Hickam as they did in the film adaptation of his book, Rocket Boys, but the movie "October Sky" (an anagram of the book's title) is good enough to stand alone. I have not read Hickam's memoirs, but I am still able to enjoy and understand their film adaptation. The film, directed by Joe Johnston and written by Lewis Colick, records the story of teenager Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), beginning in October of 1957. It opens with the sound of a radio broadcast, bringing news of the Russian satellite Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in orbit. We see a images of a blue-gray town and its people: mostly miners working for the Olga Coal Company. One of the miners listens to the news on a hand-held radio as he enters the elevator shaft, but the signal is lost as he disappears into the darkness, losing sight of the starry sky above him. A melancholy violin tune fades with this image. We then get a jolt of Elvis on a car radio as words on the screen inform us of the setting: October 5, 1957, Coalwood, West Virginia. Homer and his buddies, Roy Lee Cook (William Lee Scott) and Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg), are talking about football tryouts. Football scholarships are the only way out of the town, and working in the mines, for these boys. "Why are the jocks the only ones who get to go to college," questions Homer. Roy Lee replies, "They're also the only ones who get the girls." Homer doesn't make it in football like his older brother, so he is destined for the mines, and to follow in his father's footsteps as mine foreman. Until he sees the dot of light streaking across the October sky. Then he wants to build a rocket. "I want to go into space," says Homer. After a disastrous attempt involving a primitive rocket and his mother's (Natalie Canerday) fence, Homer enlists the help of the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen). Quentin asks Homer, "What do you want to know about rockets?" Homer quickly anwers, "Everything." His science teacher at Big Creek High School, Miss Frieda Riley (Laura Dern) greatly supports Homer, and the four boys work on building rockets in Homer's basement. His father, however, whose life is the mine, does not support him. John Hickam (Chris Cooper) believes that Homer shouldn't waste his time on the rockets, that the coal mines are all that matter. The coal from the mines is used to make steel, and without steel, the country would be nothing. The difficult relationship between Homer and his dad is one of the most poignant relationships I have ever seen in a film. Miss Riley introduces Homer to the idea of entering the local science fair, with a chance to go the nationals and win a college scholarship. "You can't just dream your way out of Coalwood," she tells Homer. Homer and his friends act upon their dreams by working constantly on the rockets, improving the models with each attempt. Despite the many attempts, the boys do not lose their determination. "What are the chances of us winning that science fair," O'Dell asks Homer in one of their more despairing moments. "A million to one," answers Homer. "That good?" O'Dell replies, "Well, why didn't you say so?" The music, composed by Mark Isham, conveys sadness and hope at the same time, especially sad at a point when Homer descends into the mine shaft and loses sight of the sky and his dreams of getting out of Coalwood. Rollicking 1950s' rock and roll, including songs by The Coasters and Buddy Holly, occasionally pushes the instrumental pieces aside to create a light-hearted mood that contrasts the teenagers' lives with the lives of the miners. The film, photographed by Fred Murphy, also uses colors to set moods and symbolize. The town of Coalwood, actually filmed in Tennessee, is washed with blues, grays, and browns. It's as if the grime from the coal sticks to everything- faces, clothes, houses, and roads. When a couple in a gleaming red convertible stops to ask for directions from the boys, it is obvious that they are from the world outside of Coalwood and the Olga Coal Company. The book on guided missile design that Miss Riley gives Homer is red. The red stands out enough against the blue-gray world of Coalwood to symbolize "getting out", but it is still subtle. The reds are fleeting hints of a world that Homer only dreams of. Jake Gyllenhaal expresses such zeal, hope, and pertinacity as Homer Hickam that it is hard to believe he isn't the real Homer we see in actual footage at the end of the film. Chris Cooper is also extraordinarily believable as Homer's stubborn father, who doesn't recognize, or just doesn't want to admit, that the mine is not producing enough to keep the town alive. Homer, and everyone who encourages him in his rocket-building, is aware that the town is dying. With the community disintegrating, the only way they stay together is by gathering for the rocket boys' demonstrations. Again, I'm sure things didn't happen exactly as the movie portrayed them, but what would a movie be without a bit of idealism? "October Sky" has just enough of that to make it a great motion picture and enough rawness to keep it real. This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.

Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.

The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already. I saw that movie few days ago. This movie is so great that it makes me feel that if you want something really bad that you have always dreamed about it - you can have it. This shows a big wish come true trought happiness and sadness, hopeless and failure. But if you are strong enough and your heart really belongs to something that you love you can make things different and be happy. This movie will kick your ass! Powerful acting in a story that pushes all of us to live out our dreams. Jake Gyllenhaal will go places from here, and the supporting cast was superb. Why would would anyone want to stay in Coalville and develop black lung anyway? Above-average film and acting partly spoiled by its completely predictable story line. Even the music is chosen so that the words fit the action every time. A scent of "Pleasantville" camp hangs around this flick. As a period piece, it's more accurate than not. Its depiction of the tragedy of company towns and lack of upward mobility is sketchy but moving. Chris Cooper turns in a first-class performance as Howard's coal-miner daddy. In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film. The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.

Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say "The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration."

The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.

Five years on from the Tenko survivors returning home, and from Marion's double-edged "Well that's that".

It's now 1950: reunion time. The gang's all here: Marion, Bea, Ulrica, Kate, Dorothy, Christina, Dominica, and latecomers Maggie and Alice. The story that unfolds is a beaut: as perfectly written and acted, and as thought-provoking and moving, as the original series.

All the questions left hanging at the end of the series are neatly answered here. From Marion's family to Joss's health centre, everything has changed in five years, and not everything has changed for the best.

A trip to Dominica's plantation brings plenty of shocks and some truly edge-of-the-seat tension. There's a real sense of tragedy and disaster as, once again, fate takes over and the women struggle for their lives. Dominica finally shows her true colours, and there are some shout-at-the-telly moments of drama.

Lush location filming in Singapore, and an opportunity to catch up with a group of women who feel like they have become friends. It's such a shame that this really is the end. I could watch it all over again. Perfection. A very gritty, gutsy portrayal of a part of world war 2 history, that most of us in the U.S. had/have no idea ever occurred. I would love to have this on video. It only was shown on t.v. one time as far as I know, back in 89or 90. I have asked around for this movie, and most video stores don't even know about it. Great actresses all around, Wish that I could see it again. Top notch series. Well, Tenko is without doubt the best British television show ever, the performances, the directing, the casting, the suspense, the drama..... everything is fantastic about it.

Although the show fell a little later in its final season, this ending movie picked up the threads nicely and wove a superb story for fans of the show and newbies. I cannot recommend this movie more, find it and watch it. But I do advise watching the series first, as the first 2 seasons are even better than this fantastic movie.

An obvious (10/10) myself and 2 sisters watched all 3 series of Tenko and agree this is by far one of the BBC better series.The whole cast were very convincing in the parts they portrayed and although the 3rd series was somewhat slower it was compelling viewing and my evenings wont be the same without it.No doubt we will be watching it again as it is a series which I would never get sick of watching.Excellent viewing and full marks to the BBC for such a brilliant series and the casting.First rate in all departments and would recommend this series to anyone although some age limits must be considered because of some adult material.So grateful to the BBC for releasing this series on DVD and Video. The Theory Of Flight is an engaging character study of an artist (Branagh) yearning to break free of boredom and mediocrity, and a terminally ill patient (Bonham-Carter) in the last stages of ASL, confined to a wheelchair, who desires to make love to a man before dying.

Helena Bonham-Carter exudes wit, defiance, and independence as an ASL patient who is virtually dependent upon people around her to take care of her.

Kenneth Branagh, sentenced through community service to take part in caring for her, complements Helena's charm with woeful melancholy, creating a sentimental, compelling love story in which two people try to help each other find the road to happiness, before time runs out. Not wishing to give *anything* away here, I would just say this technically excellent, flawlessly acted and uplifting little flic will reward the viewer with an excellent hour and a half's entertainment: It will amuse, surprise, possibly embarrass occasionally and almost certainly tug at the heartstrings from time to time, as it approaches the inevitable, but not obvious, ending without becoming clichéd or predictable in any way. Most definitely recommended.

A previous User's Comment gives 8 out of 10 for the film and 10 out of 10 for both Branagh and Bonham-Carter's outstanding performances - I agree entirely.... Despite its low-key release in this country, and its apparent disregard in other countries (the 'R' rating in the States can't have helped - honestly, just because HBC uses the C-word!), this is actually a fine piece of work. The sentimentality does occasionally threaten to choke it, but it's overcome by the playing of the two leads.

It's easy to win plaudits just because you're playing a physical or mental cripple (Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), and Helena Bonham-Carter may not quite capture the physical degradation of MND, but her vocal stretching and ruthless emotional drive compensate entirely. In fact, almost all her performance is conducted through her eyes (and what eyes!). This is an intelligent turn from an actress who is rapidly undoing her English Rose reputation, and emerging as a figure of some stature. Awards must surely follow, though not, alas, for this fine performance.

Branagh, one feels, has never quite given his best on film (except possibly 'Hamlet', and there his playing was diluted by the large cast). Here, though, he tops his other appearances, playing to the hilt a self-loathing, unstable, ultimately lovable guy with a subtlety he hasn't always displayed, and exhibiting both intelligence and depth. In short, we believe him, just as much as we could NOT believe him as Frankenstein, as the priest in 'The Proposition', as the lawyer in 'The Gingerbread Man', even as Andrew in 'Peter's Friends'. This is surely his finest performance yet - so why could he not produce the goods much earlier?

As a film, it looks more like a television offering, and without its stars it probably wouldn't amount to very much. But it's been a pleasure to see this pair perform their socks off like this, and I eagerly await more from them (though not 'Love's Labour's Lost'...). 8 out of 10, but Branagh and HBC get 10 out of 10. This film does a superb job of depicting the plight of an ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease)sufferer. The subject is done with compassion as well as humor. Helena Bonham Carter is so convincing as a person with ALS that I found it hard to believe that she was only acting. Kenneth Branagh, a superb actor, lives up to expectations as the quirky artist who misbehaves and is forced to provide companionship to Helena's character as part of his "community service", an alternative to prison time. Watching the development of the relationship between these two is a treat from beginning to end. Tha fact that it is a fairy tale does not detract from the fabulous performances. One comes to care deeply for the two of them. Loved this film. Real people, great acting, humour, unpredictable. The characters were believable and you really connected with them. If you're looking for a film about slightly offbeat characters outside the mainstream of society and how they help each other, this would be a good choice. At the start, this one is from England, so, of course, I had 98 % chances that it will be intelligent and very good cinema. I never heard of this film before. From the minute I saw Helena Bonham-Carter, I said to myself : Oh! Here's comes the feminine version of My Left Foot. I was right, but I was also wrong. Wrong because the two movies are very differents. My Left Foot was a John Ford alike movie and this one is a Chaplin alike movie (not because this is funny, but Chaplin at that great sense of melodrama that brings tears to your eyes.) I was right because in 1990 handsome Daniel Day-Lewis turn a little bit ugly by playing an crippled person and he did it with a great sense of reality. Here, very beautiful Bonham-Carter did exactly the same thing, but with very feminine emotions. The story is well written and it's very intelligent. For me, miss Bonham-Carter gives one of the greatest woman's part of the 1990's, with Emily Lloyd in Breaking The Waves. Gee! And look at her eyes! She had the most beautiful eyes of cinema since Jobyna Ralston, Louise Brooks, Michele Morgan and Ava Gardner! She's also a true talent, as seen on many other movies. See this one, you won't regret it! And a very fine job by Branagh too! Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.

I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.

Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.

I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion. Although this movie has some weaknesses, it is worth seeing. I chose it because of the cast, and applaud Bonham Carter and Branagh for choosing roles different from those they have taken in the past. Both portray very troubled people, complete with warts, but make them likeable because of their humanity. The story is touching, but it is the performances that soar. Bonham Carter's "Jane" is a remarkable achievement, whose quest for romance opened my eyes to aspects of being disabled that I had not thought of before, but was interesting as well for other reasons. I felt the movie ended too abruptly, but better that than a drawn out emotionally manipulative ending (see "Stepmom.") The very real English setting added to my enjoyment - it was England in the 90's, both urban and rural, without being depressing. Imagine the plight of Richard, a painter, whose real passion is flying. When we first meet him, he is seen atop a building in London wearing his home made wings. He has ripped his canvases and other works, at the height of his despair, and fashions a flying device for his jump. When he falls into the protective police contraption, he doesn't suffer a scratch, but it lands him in front of a judge who orders him to do community service. Richard, whose relationship with Anne apparently ended badly, decides to relocate to a rural area where he finds a place in the country with a large barn he plans to use to construct his own plane.

Richard ends up trying to help Jane Harchard reluctantly. She is a young woman suffering from A.L.S., or Lou Gehrig's disease and is confined to a motorized wheel chair. Jane is extremely intelligent, but has a dark side and a salty vocabulary. She uses a hand held device to speak sometimes, as her speech is not clear. What Jane loves to do is to lose her virginity, at any cost. Jane and Richard clash as they meet, but a mutual tolerance soon makes them comfortable with one another.

Jane, who watches porn on her computer, has a notion for finding someone like Richard Gere in "American Gigolo", who will, for a fee, have sex with her. When Richard takes her to London, they find the right man for the job. His fee is exorbitant, but they agree. Since they have no money, Richard decides to rob a big bank. Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan when Jane realizes that she can't go through with what she had wanted. At the end, Richard takes Jane for a ride in his crudely built plane for the thrill of her life, something that brings them closer, as they find an affinity with one another.

Peter Greengrass directed this quirky film which presents an unusual situation. Jane is clearly not the romantic heroine in mainstream films, and yet, she has such a sweet aura about her that is hard not to feel for her and what she is trying to accomplish. Mr. Greengrass shows an affinity Richar Hawkins' material he wrote for the film. The movie doesn't try to be cute or give a rosy picture of a young woman afflicted with an incurable disease.

Helena Bonham Carter is the main reason for watching the film. She makes a wonderful Jane. On the other hand, Kenneth Branagh doesn't seem too well suited for this type of comedy. Somehow, he has problems of his own in the way he interprets Richard. Gemma Jones has some good moments as Anne, Richard's former love.

"The Theory of Flight" shows a good director. No doubt Peter Greengrass will go to bigger and better things. I found this movie quite by accident, but am happy that I did. Kenneth Branagh's performance came close to stealing this movie from Helena Bonham Carter, but their strong chemistry together made for a much more enjoyable movie. This movie brought to mind the excellent movies that Branagh made with Emma Thompson. Carter's star turn here as a disabled young women seeking to complete herself was as good a performance as I have seen from a female lead in a long time. Portraying a disabled person is hard to pull off, but with basically only her eyes to show her pain about her situation in life, she made it so believable. If this movie had come out after the current wave of movies with beautiful women "uglying" themselves up for roles (Charlize Theron, Halle Berry), I fell sure Carter would have had strong consideration for an Oscar. If you run across this movie on cable late at night as I did, trust me, it is worth the lost sleep. A bit quirky and bordering bad taste; but intelligent enough to be worthy of watching. A wheelchair-bound young woman Jane Hatchard(Helena Bonham Carter)is teamed with a reluctant caregiver, Richard(Kenneth Branagh). Richard is an artist that daydreams of human flight. He builds an airplane in his garage and intends to fly it. He wants to resurrect his own troubled life by taking care of the independent, dying Jane, who suffers from an neurological disease that has all but left her speechless and very little motor skills. Wheelchair-bound and full of spirit, her last dying wish is to loose her virginity. She offers herself to Richard, who won't help her directly; but is willing to rob a bank in order to pay a gigolo to do the deed. I found this flick ambitious and humorous. Even in this role, Carter has a certain charisma and likability. This movie truly captures the feeling of freedom.......and what the freedom of your own integrity is worth....in the most delightful, light-hearted way. Not a serious, but hilarious adventure.

The story mirrors life. We don't always get what we want right away but we find out we get what we need to to understand why we didn't get what we wanted....which results in us getting more than we thought we would get! You will get this once you see the movie.

And this movie is truly about finding love and knowing one has found it and that it totally changed one's life.

It is one of my all time favorites......not easy to find but worth the hunt.........I guarantee you will watch it more than once! I saw this film without to know what about were... I'm a fan of Branagh, even more his Shakespeare' films, and, in the beginning, I saw it only for this... and I finished with tears in my eyes, because the great, great serenity, values, affect and brave philosophy about Life of Helena's girl. Recommended to people who are bored with TV programming (in Spain, at least). This is the best movie I've seen since White and the best romantic comedy I've seen since The Hairdresser's Husband. An emotive, beautiful masterwork from Kenneth Branagh and Helena Bonham Carter. It is a tragedy this movie hasn't gotten more recognition. Helena Bonham Carter is the center of this movie. She plays her role almost immobile in a wheelchair but still brings across her traditional intensity. Kenneth Branagh was tolerable. The movie itself was good not exceptional. If you are a Helena Bonham Carter fan it is worth seeing. This was one of those times when I had nothing to do with 27 premium movie channels available to me. The Theory of Flight grabbed me and held my interest. I found it both touching and amusing, a nice combination of feelings. I recommend it! I had my doubts about another love story wherein disabled individuals find meaning and redemption through honest communication. And it's still not at the top of my list. But the performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Kenneth Branagh and exemplary, almost stunning, and rescue this from being just another tear-jerker. Carter's depiction of an ALS victim is strong, perhaps even overdone at times (sometimes her dialog dissolves into undistinguishable mutterings). But the overall effect is commendable and rewarding. Branagh may be the perfect compliment to her performance.



I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie.

The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie.

The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end.

A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off. i thought this movie was really really great! Helena did an amazing job in it! I thought she played her character very well! she's an AWESOME actress!! :)

the movie was also really funny too! The jokes were great! i couldnt stop laughing! :)

i think everyone should see it... :)

A quite good film version of the novel, though at the beginning a little bit lengthy. Fortunately there are a few funny scenes from time to time. This movie is surely not for the main stream audience - but for fans of Italian (or Portuguese) cinema, a must-see also for Mastroianni-fans. I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD! This films makes no pretentious efforts to hide its true genre -- a campy B movie. It will flat out tell you in the beginning the definition of campy. It should have also given the adjective meaning of cheese. But the two come together in this film in ways that make you go, "Hmmmmm... that's so stupid!" and then have you laughing. For example, there is a scene back in "16th Century Japan", which shows a couple of samurai walking in the foreground of a temple. In the background of the temple, there are several tourists looking off in the distance in slippers and shorts. Hmmmm... hahahah! I could not stop laughing. And the acting goes from decent, to bearable, to oh my Lord, but that's what makes it funny. You'll see some decent actors and then find others really terrible. I have to digress somewhat though because I have seen Stephanie Sanchez in several plays and she is awesome. Her air time in the film was pretty short though. I have also seen Bryan Yamasaki in several plays in the islands during my visits and he's also better in theatre than in this movie. Anyhow, it's an entertaining film, if you've got nothing to do on a weekday evening. This movie for what it is, may be one of the most amazing indie films of recent day. Made on a super small budget, the film has special effects that blow away alot of the current films! IF you have a chance watch it! I've seen this movie on several different occasions. I find one of the funniest things to do is to just watch the reactions of the different types of people who go to see it.

Type 1: OLD PEOPLE. A lot of old Japanese men and women go to this movie because they think it will be a honest-to-goodness samurai movie with lots of swordplay and medieval Japanese dialogue. As soon the two protagonists begin debating horror movies while inserting expletives almost randomly throughout their sentences, the old people walk out, usually disgusted.

Type 2: FILM SNOBS. These people think that just because a movie bears the label of "Independent" that it will automatically be a load of hard-to-follow, overemotional crap that may or may not be in English. Yet they see it anyway just to sing praises about it later so that people will think they are intelligent and cultured. They are really in for a surprise when they see this film. As soon as the blood begins to squirt exaggeratedly from anime-inspired sword battles or the over-the-top villain nonchalantly pegs a dog with his crossbow during a phone conversation, these people will be so dismayed, they will walk out. A few will stay just to see "how bad it will get" and later they'll rave about what a horrible film it was to their friends.

Type 3: PEOPLE EXPECTING TO SEE LIVE-ACTION ANIME OR MATRIX-LIKE SPECIAL EFFECTS. Sorry folks, the martial arts are pretty solid in the film, but director Yamasato really doesn't have the budget for that kind of thing.

Type 4: PEOPLE WITH NO EXPECTATIONS. These are the people who really enjoy the film. Whether they had only heard of Blood of the Samurai, picked it at random, or stumbled into the wrong theater in an alcoholic haze, these are the people who will laugh at all the jokes and appreciate the movie for what it ultimately is: ENTERTAINMENT. This movie was not made to enlighten or to provoke deep spiritual thought, it was meant (if I may borrow a line of dialogue from the film) to "really kick some ass." And that's what it does.

So depending on what type of person you are, you may or may not enjoy this film; however, if you appreciate the movie for what it is and can enjoy an excess of blood and acting, then go see this movie and make sure to bring your friends. A documentary about two rocks bands, spanning a number of years. Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. What makes it special is the examination of the complex contrasting personalities and the ironies of success and failure.

Anton Newcombe, the main man of Brian Jonestown Massacre, is widely recognised as a musical genius not only by his colleagues, his friends and rivals the Dandy Warhols, but also by record producers and most people who have worked with him. Sadly he and his band members are also incapable of integrating with the real world. Newcombe picks fights with band members on stage or with members of the audience (getting arrested at one point for literally kicking in the head of a fan). Newcombe knows no limits – he plays between 40 and 100 different instruments, writes and produces all BJM's music, can produce enough songs to fill a whole album in a single day, has a prophet-like obsessiveness with his own musical genius, but is also a heavy drugs user, flies into rages at the slightest compromise of his own artistic integrity, orders his band members about as if they are lower forms of life, and can blow deals as fast as he makes them. BJM go through a large number of record labels in fast succession – they sign them up as soon as they realise Newcombe's talents and let them go as soon as they realise he is totally uncontrollable.

The Warhols acknowledge their debt to Newcombe's creativity and don't even put themselves in the same exalted sphere of greatness – but the Warhols have something that BJM don't – the ability to integrate their talents with common sense, the real world, and their market – as a mixing pot of talent (even if much of it is distilled from guru Newcombe) and accessibility, they are the very definition of 'cool.' DiG! follows the parallel careers of the two bands with increasing poignancy. At one point, Newcombe pulls stunts designed to generate publicity by sending apparent death threats and hate messages to the Warhols (in a box containing live ammunition and insults like a bar of soap 'to clean up their act') – only he forgets to tell them it's a stunt and they get so paranoid they take out a restraining order against Newcombe. By the time the Dandy Warhols take off in Europe with hits like 'Every Day Should Be A Holiday' and 'Bohemian Like You', Newcombe is becoming increasingly isolated. BJM are stopped and the band breaks up when they are arrested for possession of marijuana – the Warhols get busted for drugs around the same time, let off with a warning, and even allowed to keep the grass.

The wider appeal of DiG! is that the lessons of genius versus accessibility go way beyond two bands or even rock music. The downside is that it is still a documentary, however intimate, and it will mostly only appeal to dedicated film fans or people who are already interested in the music of one or both of the featured bands. Newcombe may well be a largely unrecognised genius, and there are feint glimpses of this in the film, but to the unattuned ear there is little more than the assertions of the people interviewed to attest to this. In the words of one of the band members: "In every spiritual tradition, you burn in hell for pretending to be God and not being able to back it up." Newcombe isn't pretending – but numerically there are maybe still insufficient people to appreciate him in his own lifetime, and DiG! has an uphill struggle to rectify the balance in favour of a tortured but largely unrecognised genius. I couldn't find anyone to watch DiG! with me because no one I knew was a fan of either of the bands. Naturally everyone assumed you can only enjoy this film if you like the music of either The Dandy Warhols or the Brian Jonestown Massacre, but this is so far from the truth. The only requirement is that you have an interest in music and/or pop culture in general. The way in which the careers of the two groups are paralleled is a perfect representation of the paths a band can take, and watching the public eat up and spit out the Dandy Warhols is fascinating. I agree with other reviews that mention it would be nice to get a final word from Anton himself, since he's clearly depicted as his own worst enemy and the bulwark to the band's ability to just remain.

Most interesting to me is the Dandys' respect for the BJM (despite their lack or reciprocation) and for Anton (despite his erratic behavior). The Dandy Warhols respect the art the group produces even if the group hates everything the Dandy Warhols now stand for (although that's disputable). The best line is when the drummer for the Dandy's says "I won't have them anywhere new me again" and the guitarist unconsciously blurts out "I'll still buy their records though." To me, this just shows how powerful good music can be.

Definitely see this movie, even if you know nothing of either band. It's more about the themes of rock music and how they develop that makes this film so interesting. It's rare to follow a group so closely for so long. Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended. Rock n' roll is a messy business and DiG! demonstrates this masterfully. A project of serious ambition, and perhaps foolhardiness, the filmmaker is able to mend together seven tumultuous years of following around two unwieldy rock groups. With that said, the abundance of quality material ensures the film's ability to captivate the audience. If you've ever been interested in any realm of the music industry, this movie will undoubtedly be an arresting viewing. the music in the film, although it suffers minimally from requisite cutting and pasting, is worth the price of admission alone. the morning after i saw DiG! i went straight to the record store to pick up a Brian Jonestown Massacre album (i was already initiated to the Dandy Warhols' sounds). Primarily defined by its exploration of rock music, the film succeeds at other profound levels. DiG! is a sincere, and sufficiently objective, glance into the destructive and volatile nature of the creative process and the people that try to wrangle those forces. A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind.

The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy. DIG! is funny, fun, amusing, interesting, stylish, and very well done. Knowing that it was made on such a shoestring budget over 7 years it is amazing that such a story can be told, especially with such style and substance. If you are a music fan or documentary fan this is a must see.

Focusing on The Brian Jonestown Masssacre and The Dandy Warhols over the years is a brilliant way to show the contrast between a decent band who meets with moderate success through perseverance and the ability to compromise and a genius megalomaniacal lead singer backed up by a varied cast of characters who sabotage their own success through drugs, alcohol, and insanity. If I did not know that this is footage of real people, I would swear it was an incredibly well written and imaginative scripted piece. The story is compelling, concise, and simply amazing. The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.

Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad.

No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.

Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."

Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.

The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."

The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.

The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.

I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set. Anton Newcombe and Courtney Taylor are friends, they both are the leads in their own respective bands; Anton with The Brian Jonestown Massacre and Courtney with The Dandy Warhols. What's interesting about their friendship is that they are rivals; its a love hate relationship. At times you both hear them praising one another, but the next second they are complaining at how stupid and self absorbed they are. While the Dandy Warhols went on the reach commercial success, BJM still was stuck in the underground scene; and for good reason why.

The focus of Dig! is more towards Anton and the BJM, as they have a lot more substance. They are the most dysfunctional band. During gigs they will fight and bash each other. Anton will hit other members if he feels they aren't performing correctly. With the amount of drugs an alcohol they consume, fight was always waiting to happen. You know how people go to car races just to see if a huge car crash happens; that's why people would go to their gigs, for the fights.

Anton is very unstable. Always thinking himself as a music messiah, he wants to change music and create a revolution, but he could never get out of the underground. He is a very talented musician, its amazing how many instruments he can play and with such skill. But his draw back is he cant escape the world he created; a prolific musician stuck in a black hole drugs, alcohol and depression. On the other side, the Dandy Warhols were having their own troubles. They didn't find much success with their first album and were constantly fighting with their record label. But they found huge success in Europe. But Courtney keeps being sucked back into the world of Anton. Its interesting that both Anton and Courtney both had what the other needed. Courtney always wanted to be musically talented as Anton, though Anton wouldn't say it, he needed the commercial success that the Dandy's had, to make his revolution.

Over the seven year course the film crew followed these two bands, there is a lot of footage. There is never a dull moment in Dig!. It is constantly moving along as it doesn't have time to slow down as it has to much to say, seven years of story telling in the 1h 45mins is a hard job. Ondi Timoner has done a great job of piecing together one of the best music documentaries that makes you always wanting more. Even if you don't like the bands it still deserves viewing; it transcends the music to reveal a great story of a successful failure.

You wont be disappointed. To suggest Anton Newcombe of the Brian Jonestown Massacre could also use some therapy is putting it mildly. In Dig! which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, we watch him and his band self-sabotage over seven years, while ex-friends and contemporaries The Dandy Warhols rise to comparative greatness (a mobile phone advert, anyway).

What elevates Dig! above its contemporaries is the immense, near-biblical comic-tragedy being played out: a depressingly honest treatise on art versus commerce and compromise. For all his "look at me, I'm a bloody genius" posturing, Newcombe is in fact revealed to be a singularly gifted, if immensely troubled, musician - far more talented than his rival, the Dandy's Courtney Taylor who narrates the picture. If Newcombe is Dennis Hopper, Taylor's Peter Fonda.

Even sadder, Taylor appears to realise this, evinced by his weary, self-loathing voice-over: he knows his band won the battle - but at what cost? In truth, they sold out, made Indie-Lite records, kept their teeth nice and clean, and probably brushed their hair twice before bedtime - thus winning record contracts and a large tour bus. And jettisoning all credibility in the process. Newcombe, on the other hand, lives in filth, is continually busted, beats up fellow band members on stage, kicks hecklers in the head - and is last glimpsed in Dig! being ferried away by police, having lost the right to see his child.

Two of the best films about rock's subculture have been directed by women: Penelope Spheeris's The Decline Of Western Civilization and this one – an instant classic the moment it was released. I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing "Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:

One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.

I also loved how the "story" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.

I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. Anton Newcombe makes the film and he is the main subject. Watching him knock up a song if not a whole album quickly showed the guy to be a real talent. He thinks he is god but is so prollific and interesting. The DW are not really that interesting in comparison musicly or otherwise. "Hey, do you haver a drivers license?" ,Anton says to the cameraman, "Well lets go pawn this guitar!". Great use of archive/ home video material. Great to see rock docs still being made. A cool doc about the creative process. If you like this go see Nirvana Live! Tonight! Sold Out! on DVD. A good experience Anton is this film. 8 out of 10 Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.

That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.

Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands. I first saw this film when I was flipping through the movie channels on my parents DirecTV. It was on the Sundance channel and was just starting. I love music, especially late 60s and this is what the BJM sounded like (The Dandys are alright). Everything about the Brian Jonestown Massacre intrigued me from the music, to Anton and Joel's personalities, to the illicit drug use. It was funny because as I was watching the first party scene when everyone is doing lines my parents walked by and decided to watch (The look on their faces were priceless). Anyways this is definitely one of my favorite movies because it introduced me to The Brian Jonestown Massacre who is now my favorite band of all time.

just watch it... seriously Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be. Damn, was that a lot to take in. I was pretty much mesmerised throughout. It was pretty perfect, though I would say the editing had a lot to do with that. I can't believe this guy stayed on good terms with the lot of them (Anton especially) to get all of this footage without any serious... beef. The Dandy's did come off well-together, middle-class kids who took advantage of their situation (and rightly so!). I felt bad for Jonestown and especially for Anton, which maybe wasn't what a lot of other people felt. Great piece of film-making and great choice of subject(s). I recommend this to any music/film fan. You'll probably learn something about film-making. Dig! I would say to anyone even if you don't like Metallica to see 'some kind of monster' it is a spinal tap type documentary about one of the biggest bands in the world acting like mental kids during a breakdown of sorts. It's fun and fascinating. Along the same lines comes dig! A film about 'the Dandy Warhol's' and 'the Brian Jonestown massacre' two Portland bands who start off a kind of music scene in there home town only for one of the bands to become huge and one to fall by the wayside into the musical history books. Right from the start the two bands pull in opposite directions just on their ability to make decisions whether good or bad. Filmed over seven years and at times painful to watch we see the dandy's meteoric rise to fame (thanks to that vodaphone ad!) and the Jonestown seminal fall from scene instigators to bickering wannabes. As the bands become more disjointed the friendships are stretched tension tight and at several points snap into arguments and even on stage fights. All of this is half funny and half tragic and believe it or not is perversely watch able. Like I said at the beginning you can watch the Metallica film even if you have no interest in the band. Dig! on the other hand is slightly different and is more enjoyable and a whole lot easier to watch if you have a passing interest in either band. Still a good film and more a testament to not be in a band than encouraging that as a career path. Dig! Is a mad ride on rock and roll's coat tails and a fine example of the pitfalls and pleasures of being or wanting to be famous. I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.

The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.

Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.

First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.

First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.

Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.

Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.

Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know... I loved this film, at first the slick graphics seemed odd with the grainy footage but I quickly got into it. There must have been thousands of hours of footage shot and I really admire the work done in cutting it down. If you're easily shocked by drugs or violence it might not be the film for you but there are some great characters here, (and some real tossers). Technically I liked it a lot too, they must have used a new de-interlacing algorithm or maybe it was just that the footage looked so dark anyway but I wasn't annoyed by the usual artifacts seen in video to film transfers. (Open Water drove me nuts, mostly because there are cheap, progressive cameras available now and I see no excuse in not shelling for one if you intend to screen in the cinema). Sorry that's my own little rant. I definitely recommend this film if you've ever been involved with the music scene, it has some tragic moments but most of it is hilarious, I might be accused of laughing at others misfortune but it's a classic piece. At first I didn't like the movie cause of it being a Nazi swastika drama.But after buying it and seeing it, it wasn't that bad. I heard so many complaints about the numbers being short and Ilse Werner not singing. Now I understand. The radio show was a super propaganda radio program. Ilse , Johanne and Zara plus Rudy Shruki and band like Kurt Widman and his Orchestra and Fud Cantics ex cetera never appeared in the radio show cause the singers and the bands were of the pop jazz and swing categories. The Club Foot had that regulated that for touring occupied areas for the soldiers to short wave radios for the soldiers also night clubs and hotels,in Berlin and Hamburg, and record sales only. This is why Ilse wasn't allowed to sing in this picture. This would be made up by medium budget musical ,Were making music, 1942, in which she would demonstrate her whistling.But this is an excellent example propaganda.Inge and her aunt Eichhorn,played by Ida Wust, goes to the 1936 Olympics. The aunt forgets her tickets so Inge has to wait till her aunt comes back with the tickets. She meets Carle Radditz, who plays Herbert, who has an extra ticket. She goes with him and it's love at first sight. they plan to marry but the Spanish war get in the way so he has to go on an assignment against the right side.Carl Raddatz as so many people complained about him was really handsome and not plain. When he did Opfergang and they put a mustache on him plus his own suntan that made him plain looking.You see the Nazi soldiers acting normal,like a scene in which a ex butcher and his troops are in France and they steal pigs from a farm and they are about to make lunch until their leader suggest to save the pigs. This reflect Adolphs animal rights extremism. The character was a butcher now soldier . This was a subtle put down against meat eating.Late on in world war 11, Herbert is flying in a German airplane. We shoot one of the pilots so Herbert takes over. We shoot his plane. They crash. Unfortunately for us they survive.Another seen the Nazis soldiers go in a bomb Catholic church ,now it's putting the catholics down, and Hubert's best friend Helmet,played by Joachim Brennecke starts to play the organ, Beethtoven, .More bombs come in from us. The church is bomb more the soldier continues to stay and play the organ he's being told to leave. We end up injuring him. Propaganda message? The catholic church organ cause him to become addicted to it.It injured him. See? By this time Inge is with her either mother or grandma, played Hedwig Bleibteu, the same German Grandame actress who played Maria Holst's Aunt in Weiner Blut.Well ,later it comes to the short view of the radio show. This was not intended to be a musical revue, such as Kora Terry released that same year were as well As Rosen in Tirol, The music as well as their side of the war was so supposed to be only the back drop. It was mainly a war romantic movie.It's easy to take a pot shot at those soldier in the movie but in real life many of those soldiers were being forced to fight the Nazi cause, cause of the job and the monthly pay that they would receive. After the war many of them who survive would regret it. This is a good swastika classic. The only problem is that today you have Neo Nazi and Nazi skin heads, who watched the same movies to reflect their Hitler worship and their. They have disturbing websites who exploit these film classics to raise money for their insanity . Be careful most of the time it's the direct hate only classics. If their scenario looks like they are glorifying it ,then its a Nazi website skip it .Go to IHF or German wartime films dot com, Amazon dot Dee or German video dot net. They are legitimate. 01/23/10 Mada a mistake it wasn't Herbert's friend that got killed at the church . It was Malte Yager's character's friend Schartzscop. As a movie this barely rates a 4 but for movie fans of the 1940s period, it's almost a must-see and rates a 9 as a variety show! I was drawn to watch this by the presence of Richard (Captain Midnight) Webb who plays the Colonel in charge of the event. What surprised me was the stunning performance of Doris Day. Outside of 'Calamity Jane', I've never seen her put over a song better than she does here. Randolph Scott is memorable as well, even if he doesn't see much screen time. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I was almost sure Humphrey Bogart put in an appearance. With so many familiar faces, it's hard to keep track. If it ever turns up on a TV station near you, be sure to catch the Doris Day sequence, if nothing else!

Starlift is a pleasant and interesting throwback to those all star musical pictures that every studio was putting out during the World War II years. When you've got such stars as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Randolph Scott, etc., in the film and with such people as the Gershwin Brothers, Cole Porter, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn supplying the music, it's an easy to take film. And the plot isn't even in the way.

What plot there is involves two Air Force enlisted men, Dick Wesson and Ron Hagerthy, trying to meet Warner Brothers starlet Janice Rule using as a gimmick the fact that both come from Youngstown, Ohio and Hagerthy's father was Rule's dentist as well as half of the town's. The scheme works too well as Louella Parsons is soon putting them as an item in her column. Yes, Louella's in the film as well. She must have liked Warner Brothers or Jack Warner catered to her more than the other studio bosses because she also used this studio to publicize her Hollywood Hotel radio program back in the day.

But the rest of the plot also touched on the real life efforts of Ruth Roman also playing herself to get her studio and others to do shows at the Air Force bases for the servicemen and women going to Korea. Some of the names I've mentioned and others sing and perform in a show at Travis Air Force Base where a lot of this film was shot.

One specialty number was shot for the talents of Phil Harris who sing/narrates a ballad Look Out Stranger, I'm A Texas Ranger aided and assisted by Virginia Gibson, Frank Lovejoy and Gary Cooper. Yup, Cooper looked like he was having a great old time kidding his image.

This is the oldest of clichés when you say they don't make them like this any more, but they really don't because you don't have a studio system that has all this talent under contract. That's one thing about the demise of the old studio system we can mourn. An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.

In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.

The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.

Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang! Jiøí Trnka made his last animated short an indictment of totalitarism, which caused him trouble in his native Czechoslovakia. The elements are few, the symbolisms simple, and his trademark ornaments almost absent here, allowing the viewer to concentrate on the fable. A man in his room dedicates to pottery and to take care of his only plant. But suddenly a huge hand enters the room and orders him to make a statue of itself. The man refuses and he's persecuted by the ominous gloved hand. In these days, where the impression of reality factor seems to be erased from most animations that try to replace the real world, it is refreshing to watch a film, which makes its technique part of the enjoyment. I saw this film when I was a young child on television (thank-you Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and had nightmares about it for years afterwards.

Trnka was one of the mentors for Bratislav Pojar, one of Canada's National Film Board's best animators. Pojar was, in turn a mentor and collaborator for the great Drouin. If you like Trnka you should see "Night Angel".

The symbolism is obvious, but deftly used. The oppositions of beauty and life (the plant) are placed in opposition with the anonymity of the gloved hand. The poor puppet hero is condemned despite a lack of political agenda.

What I most remembered was the feeling of oppression in the decor. The small room where the action takes place is the character's entire world. The invasion by the hand is a complete violation of that world.

Beautiful and haunting film. I found a copy of this and other wonderful shorts by Trnka at the public library and showed it to my own kids. A must see. My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.

A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.

In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.

This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.

The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right. Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.

The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral!

As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called "Velvet Revolution". I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . . Stewart is a distinguished bachelor and a successful executive who is about to marry his fiancée Janice Rule but instead gets involved with a capricious, sensual art dealer (Kim Novak) who turns out to be a Greenwich Village witch… Novak desires earnestly and intensely to love, but is unable to feel it...

Stewart slowly falls in love with her, and looks for a way to free her from her witch-spell... Novak resents his well-intentioned concern, as does her Siamese cat, Pyewacket... Still, Stewart continues in his attempts to change her into a loving, feeling woman as he aspires to marry her...

Also blocking his way are such talented supporting actors as Novak's brother (Jack Lemmon), a silly, charming sorcerer who can walk nonchalantly through walls; a terrible author who is writing a book about witchcraft; and the Head of the Association of Manhattan Witches, none other than the incredible Hermione Gingold...

Novak's Aunt Queenie (Elsa Lanchester), unlike her other relatives, is a tender witch who accepts that nothing should prevent the course of true love... She aids and stimulates them in turning Novak into the woman of Stewart's dreams, for a happy ending...

If you like to see a lightweight comedy about magic, fantasy and love; beautiful cinematography; stunning use of color; and with an exceptional cast; don't miss this enjoyable and amusing movie… This movie was like any Jimmy Stewart film,witty,charming and very enjoyable.Kim Novak's performance as Gillian,the beautiful witch who longs to be human,is splendid,her subtle facial expressions,her every move and gesture all create Gillian's unique and somewhat haunting character,she left us hanging on her every word.I should not fail to mention Ernie Kovacs' and Elsa Lanchester's highly commendable performances as the scotch loving writer obsessed with the world of magic(Kovacs) and the latter as the lovable aunt who can't seem to stop using magic even when forbidden to.The romantic scenes between Stewart and Novak are beautifully done and the chemistry between them is great,but then again when is the chemistry between Jimmy Stewart and any leading lady bad! The play Bell, Book, and Candle was a favorite of mature actresses to do in summer stock and take on the road. One famous story, told by director Harold J. Kennedy, has Ginger Rogers insisting that her then husband, William Marshall, who was not an actor, costar with her. Marshall wore a toupee, and when he walked through a doorway, his toupee caught on a nail and stayed behind, dangling in the doorway as he walked on stage.

The play was adapted successfully into a beautiful color film starring Kim Novak, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, Elsa Lanchester, Hermoine Gingold, Ernie Kovacs, and Janice Rule. It's light entertainment, about a normal-appearing family of witches (Novak, Lemmon, and Lanchester) and the publisher (Stewart) who lives in their building. The most expert of them is the sultry, soft-voiced Gillian, who would love to be normal. One night, with Stewart in her apartment, she puts a spell on him using her Siamese cat, Pyewacket, and he falls in love with her.

"Bell Book and Candle" was filmed on a charming set that replicates New York. The movie is loads of fun. Jack Lemmon is very funny in a supporting role as Gillian's brother, a musician in the witch and warlock-laden Zodiac Club. He uses his powers to turn streetlights on and off and to turn on the occasional woman. Janice Rule is perfect as the snobby ex-college rival of Gillian, now dating Stewart, and Ernie Kovacs has a great turn as an eccentric who is writing the definitive book on witches. Lanchester and Gingold, of course, are always wonderful, Lanchester Gillian's daft aunt and Gingold as a sort of queen of witchcraft.

Kim Novak is a good fit for Gillian, giving the character a detachment befitting a witch, showing emotion when it becomes appropriate, and with that voice, fabulous face, and magnificent wardrobe, she certainly is magical. Stewart, in his last foray as a romantic lead, costars with Novak as he did in Vertigo, and they make an effective team. He supplies the warmth, she supplies the coolness, and somehow, together they spark. In this, of course, he's much more elegant than in "Vertigo." A charming film, good for a Sunday afternoon, good around Christmas (as part of it takes place at Christmastime), and great if you feel like smiling. this is a wonderful film, makes the 1950'S look beautifully stylish. Kim Novak is intriguing and compelling as a modern-day witch with one foot in Manhattan and another in infinity. All the supporting performances are terrific, from Jack Lemmon as her bother Nicky to Ernie Kovacs as the author of Magic in Mexico who is working on Magic in Manghattan, to Elsa Lanchester as the slightly batty as well as witchy Aunt Queenie. And then there is the cat- I have no idea how many witches (besides me) have named a cat Pyewacket but suggest a zillion. Jmes Stewart looks out of place, but only just as much as his character is out of p;ace in this weird sub-world of magic and witchcraft. Perfect. And it has the perfect romantic happy ending, which we believe in because movies of this vintage do have those happy endings. Gillian and Shep certainly have as much chance to be happy ever after as Rose and Charlie Allnut in The African Queen (another great film) Made in the same year as "Vertigo," this is an equally bewitching movie, though in a much lighter vein. It's set in an enchanted New York during the winter: Kim Novak is a witch who casts a spell over James Stewart, but gets caught in it instead. The interesting sidelight is that Novak's rival is played by Janice Rule, who originated the part of Madge in "Picnic" on Broadway (the part that Novak would make famous on film). By some happy coincidence the same year that Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak made Alfred Hitchcock's haunting masterpiece "Vertigo", they also made this light comedy. Perhaps the two actors needed to do it after undergoing the heaviness of the Hitchcock film . At any rate this a great companion piece to "Vertigo" as it again explores a very un-likely but powerful romance. In fact the film can be seen as the flip side of "Vertigo" with it's happy ending. Here again Novak undergoes a transformation, in Vertigo she essentially plays two women and here she 'transforms' from witch to mortal. Stewart is again bewitched and for awhile tormented by his love for her. Unlike Vertigo the two come together in "Bell Book and Candle" , a perfect antidote for the Hitcock movie. Again the dynamics of love and attraction are examined but in an altogether different vein. The cast is terrific. Lemmon hilarious as Novak's warlock brother and Elsa Lancaster giving a classic performance as the Aunt. Ernie Kovacs as the alcoholic cult writer and of course Hermoine Gingold playing Novak's competitor are all great. The scene with Stewart drinking the potion is comedy at it's best. Anyone who has seen Vertigo or even if you haven't should see this memorable light comedy. The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.

The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can. As a Pagan, I must say this movie has little if any Magickal significance. It's a "fun" witchcraft movie and not meant to teach us anything except that love is the strongest Magick of all, and never to use it in a controlling or vengeful way. That's a lesson everyone needs to learn, not just Pagans.

That having been said, this movie is wonderfully written and sweetly executed by Kim Novak and the venerable Jimmy Stewart.

Hermione Gingold delivers a stellar performance as Bianca, Elsa Lanchester (with too many movie credits to mention except as Ms. Jane Marbles of "Murder By Death") was wonderful as Ms. Novak's absent-minded-yet-capable upstairs neighbor Queenie. Also starring Jack Lemmon (wonderful performance) and Jim Kovacs (brilliantly witty).

"Witches can't cry. Why, they can't shed a single tear because their heart is full of Magick. They don't have time for silly things such as love." Queenie.

Gillian Holroyd (Novak) and her brother Nicky (Jack Lemmon) are Manhattan witches. Cloaked deeply within the secret underworld of those of the Craft, they live among other New Yorkers as one of them, without so much as causing a raised eyebrow.

But then, along comes Shepherd "Shep" Henderson (Stewart), a steadfast, no-nonsense, dedicated businessman who is engaged to be married to Gillian's old college rival.

By a quirky mishap of chance, he finds himself moving into Gillian's building and is instantly "bewitched" by her charm and grace. By the use of Magick, with a little help from Pyewacket (Gillian's familiar, trained by Robert E. Blair) and Queenie, Gillian begins to work on this handsome new dream man to get back at her old enemy.

But Magick should never be used to control, nor to hurt, and Gillian learns that the hard way in the most bittersweet way. Not only does she have to face what she's done, but she has to face Shep in her guilt.

From the critical perspective; however, the movie takes a serious turn: The effects are very dated to the point of being pure camp. Some of the scenery was seemingly shot in the basement of someone's small home, but at least the characters were quirky and fun.

On a personal note, Pyewacket steals the show. Great cat! Great training by Robert E. Blair.

As a Note of Trivia, this is the roots for the beloved Bewitched television sitcom. This introduces the original Samantha and Darrin. All the characters of note are present and accounted for. You have but to look, to see it for yourself.

This is one of my favorites, and I watch it often.

This movie gets a 9.1/10 from...

the Fiend :. Bell, Book and Candle was one of the great pop culture phenomena of the mid-twentieth century, very similar to the phenoms we see today (back in the 70's - more than ten years later - there were still endless references to this film). It made Novak a huge star, put a nice item on Jack Lemon's resume, cast new light on Jimmy Stewart, and gave Lancaster and Gingold new avenues to explore in their careers (both went on to continue to play witches and other curious "old bats", in film and television).

Along with the 40s movie I Married a Witch (which helped to make Veronica Lake an icon), Bell, Book and Candle inspired the grand film and TV fascination with all things witchy that began with Bewitched and has continued through Practical Magic, Worst Witch and Harry Potter.

What I rarely see noted is that the movie is also a rather interesting alternative Xmas movie. The story takes place over the Christmas holidays, and, despite the fact that it is superficially about witchcraft, actually embodies a great deal of Xmas spirit (giving, love, family, self-sacrifice, etc).

I will always watch this movie (have seen it several times since my first viewing in the early 90's) particularly if it is shown around or just after the holiday season. It has style, substance, a great cast, and terrific production values. And like Adam's Rib, it casually expresses ideas that were rather radical for its time, are radical even now (in both movies the female character is guileless and powerful), and so always seems ahead of the times. this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...

this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.

I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.

I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the "special effects" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world. What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.

Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.

Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in "Killer Tongue," if you have not seen that yet.

The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.

So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with "Crocodile" after this is rather sad. "Night Terrors" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.

In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. "It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: "if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. " Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as "70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime" and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a "sadistic" sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the "accident" with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase "must be screwed over," and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better. Gómez Pereira is the responsible for some of the most despicable comedies of latest Spanish cinema (just take a look at his curriculum vitae), so I didn't expect that much of "Cosas Que Hacen..."... In fact I don't know why in the world did I decide to watch it. Anyway, I just did... And what a surprise. It looks that Gómez Pereira has finally matured and now he's capable of making a good movie. He's last work deals with the midlife crisis, the disappointing, and the seeking for a second chance after you've ruined it all. The last half hour of the movie (the more dramatic) is the best part, and it just makes worth watching the film. Also we have Eduard Fernandez playing the main role, and I keep on thinking he's the best actor of his generation (by far).

*My rate: 7/10 Yesterday, I went alone to the cinema, because here in Mexico, most of the times movies from other countries are part of the so called "camára alternativa" (alternative camera). But after I saw this movie, I realized that not all the foreign movies are alternative. Afortunately, this is a good a example. But I have to said that I enjoyed so much this movie.. that at the end I was happy.. this movie is a little spoon of hope in these days. And the main lesson for me.. is that at the end of the day...the love is main force behind us. This is a good option to see a good movie in Spanish...and I have to mention the good music.. specially the main song of the movie.. Cosas que hacen que la vida valga la pena.... Excellent song!!! Action, horror, sci-fi, exploitation director Fred Olen Ray shows he has some talent as a director. Character actor William Smith is one of the best tough/bad guys in the industry. He treats the viewer with the best acting performance of his career. As for Randy Travis he gives his best Lee Van Cleef impression. He's not bad in the film. Smith and Travis make the movie. As for the rest of the cast none of them really stand out. Ray did a great job directing this flick, Smith and Travis were good, I'd give this B western on a scale of one to ten(ten being the best) a seven. I feel this is one of the best movies I've seen,I'm an older male and love most westerns. I love movies based in part at least on facts,If I am not mistaken this is such a movie. I also like revenge type movies,This qualifies there as well in my opinion.Some of my favorite parts of the movie were the opening scene with the whipping and the barn shooting scene. I felt the corral beating scene was a little overkill but did not affect how I feel about the complete movie. I saw what I think is a continuation of this movie in a gun smoke episode. I also enjoyed that.I recommend taking the time to watch this movie ,I will watch it again. I also felt the romance parts of this movie were well played. I thought it was so out of character for Randy Travis to play a villain type ,but I always enjoy his acting. STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Mike Atherton (Dudikoff) is peacefully making his way in the Wild West when he spots a group of men mistreating a lady. Being a gentleman, he naturally steps in and puts a stop to this and in doing so kills the son of a nasty enforcer. This is just the beginning of a all guns blazing battle to the finish from which there will be only one winner.

M Dudikoff is an action star who's never truly managed to take off with me. Maybe I discovered him too late and after the other film I saw with him in it last Monday, The Human Shield, it was just another Dud (ha ha) added to the list. But I have a thing for westerns, being films that just sort of transport me to a different time and place and provide real escapist entertainment and with this Dudikoff has picked one of his better scripts, as his films go anyway.

The film hits a few low points in the shape of a naff central villain, sounding like a blank Marlon Brando and some generally ropey acting from some of the cast, along with the obligatory cheap looking sets. But if, for some strange reason, your life ever depended on watching a Dudikoff film, this would be one of your best choices. *** "The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.

The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery. Hare Rama Hare Krishna was the biggest hit movie of 1971. Filmed almost entirely in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, the movie depicts not only with the theme of a broken family, but also a relationship between a brother and a sister, as well as drugs and the hippie movement, which made many people think that it involved the ISKON - the movement for Krishna consciousness.

The movie begins with scenes of drugs and being informed that the woman dancing in front is the narrator's sister. Going back to the past the brother and sister are happily playing around the house only to hear their parents arguing. This soon leads to a split in the family. The brother goes with the mother and the sister with the father.

As years pass, the brother goes in search of his sister and is informed that she no longer lives with the father and that she has moved to Nepal. Here, Prashant, the brother not only finds love, but he also finds his sister, Janice. But he finds out that she is not only in the wrong company of friends but is also on drugs as she wants to block all memory of her past. With help of Shanti, his love, the brother tries to get his sister away from all this but has to overcome many obstacles, including people who stoop to all sorts of levels to stop him This is a multi cast movie and is led by the director and producer himself, Dev Anand and also stars Zeenat Aman (her first movie), Mumtaz, Rajendranath, Prem Chopra, Jnr Mehmood, A.K. Hangal and Achala Sachdev. The music is superbly provided by the late R.D. Burman, whose last score was "1942 - A Love Story." During the filming, Dev Anand asked Panchamda (R.D. Burman) to compose something special for this film. Days later Panchamda came back with the composition of "Dum Maro Dum." The song was an instant hit. We do not come across movies on brother-sister relationship in Indian cinema, or any other language or medium. This relationship has several aspects which have not been exploited in movies or novels. Typically, a sister is depicted as a pile-on who can be used for ransom in the climax. This movie treats the subject in an entirely different light.

It is inspired by George Eliot's novel "The Mill on the Floss". The brother is very prosaic, all-good, the blue-eyed boy who is a conventionally good son and a favorite with his mother. The sister is romantic, wild and defiant of the unwritten rules of the society. In spite of this, the love of the brother-sister is the winner.

This movie is about the love of the two siblings who are separated in childhood and revival of the same feeling when they meet years later. It is also the quest of the subdued brother to reunite with his sister who has chosen to be wild to defy the world.

Although the movie and the novel are set about 3 centuries apart in two distant countries, yet the sentiments are the same and still hold true. This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.

Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.

A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.

(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)

~Virginia The story for Hare Rama Hare Krishna actually came to Dev Anand's mind when he saw hippies and their fallen values in Kathmandu where he was on a visit after the protests against his previous Prem Pujari in Calcutta. He was low in spirits because his film had been opposed and some had burnt Prem Pujari's posters. But the life of hippies re ignited a story in Dev's mind to be made into a film.

This was Dev Anand's perhaps best directorial effort. The film was a blockbuster super hit at the box office and Zeenat Aman as Dev's sister made a tremendous impact.

This film was Dev Anand's call to the nation to keep up their moral values.

It is about a Montereal based Indian family and the brother's role is a very affectionate one for his sister. But the parents quarrel and separate leaving Prashant(Dev) with mother and Jasbir(Zeenat) with father. She is repeatedly told that her mother and brother are dead and she eventually believes that she will never see Prashant again.

She is ill treated by her step mother and she runs away from home. Dev grows up to be a pilot and he learns that Jasbir is in Kathmandu with certain hippies.

To reunite with his sister, Dev travels to Kathmandu and meets Shanti(Mumtaz) who was to later marry him and also Janice who in reality is Jasbir with a new name and new identity. She has forgotten her childhood and Dev too.

Dev has to get his sister back amongst all other happenings which include his being suspected as a thief in Kathmandu and the people are after his life.

This was a story well directed and acted-both by Dev Anand. We see more of Zeenat Aman than of Mumtaz. But the music by Rahul Dev Burman was well composed. Dev had first offered the music to be composed by Sachin Dev Burman but Burman Da did not want Dev to do the film. He was very close to Dev and his earlier film Prem Pujari, though was good, but had been opposed in Calcutta. Burman Da wanted Dev to try a lighter subject as he thought hippie cultist film might reignite people's anger against Dev. But Dev continued with the film reassuring Burman Da and the film was indeed a success.

R D Burman had Asha Bhosle sing the award winning Dum Maro Dum. Kanchi re Kanchi re was another good number.

Overall it is a good film. This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's. One must admit, that Dev has an eye for beauty and talent. He gave a break to Zeenat Aman, a successful model, and also former winner of beauty pageant's title, by casting her in a role, which was tailor-made for her debut. Her bespectacled , stoned look, and her swaying at the hypnotizing music, made her an instant darling of the viewers. This movie is a treat to the eyes, with it's scenic locales, ethnic people, those Buddha temples, and chirpy, naughty Mumtaz, who looks quite attractive, in her ethnic wear, and dancing skills. Dev is of course, adorable, and this is one of his commercially successful performance. Hare Rama manages to keep the interest going, with it's carefully written script, editing, and captivating music. Like Des Pardes, his another movie, Anand has handled the topic of youngsters falling in the habit of drug addiction, and the theory of them coming from disturbed families, and troubled childhood, is quite plausible. A good entertainer, this movie retains it's freshness till date ! Dev Anand (or Prashant) and Zeenat Aman ( Jasbir/Janice) are siblings brought up in single parent families. Jasbir (the sister) grows up in an affluent environment but this is not enough to lead her to reject her life and ultimately join a hippie movement that eventually leads her to drugs. Prashant (the brother) on the other hand grows up in a less affluent environment but grows up to be a matured gentleman. The story marks Prashant making efforts to save his little sister (who is perpetually in a trance) from a hostile hippie environment. This movie stands the test of time, commenting that cults and hippie groups are a place for those who give up on their lives when they should instead stand up and be counted in the face of adversity. Great music compositions in this movie that mean different things in different situations and to different people, and the director brings forth an eerie feeling to it. I've read countless of posts about this game being so similar to Max Payne, when i played it the first time i thought it was a bit weird arcade-like game with a desire to rip-off the Max Payne style (not just bullet-time). So when i played it for a couple of hours i realized how much fun it is! and how different from "Max Payne", yeah the bullet time is a bit similar but i think it fits differently to the game-style. This game is non-stop action - a mix between a shoot'em up and a fight'em up, so much fun, as a big fan of Max Payne i must say that the storyline of DTR is not near to the greatness of Max Payne, the graphics are a bit average and some of the levels look the same, but if you want a bit more of that "bullet-time" you should definitely own this game. Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.

Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.

Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.

Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.

Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.

Family fun for everyone. B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.

The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good. This is actually a groovy-neat little flick, made on absolutely no discernible budget with shot on video crinkliness . It takes a little while to warm up to it. The acting is so bad that it soon acquires a zen-like charm. After a few scenes, you stop noticing the awkward lines or rehearsed sound of some deliveries. The characters all develop a quirky charm, especially "Richard". Forget Anthony Hopkins, Maidens is the guy I'd hire to play a raving psychopath. He just seems to enjoy it so very much! Mixed in with the scenes of mad-slasher gore and zombie infestation are some truly visually effective shots of the title character, "The Midnight Skater" zooming through the campus in a black hoodie, looking for all the world like a cross between the Grim Reaper and, say, The Silver Surfer. These shots make the sometimes ludicrous things the characters say about the Skater seem almost ominous. The soundtrack features some very fun Garage-Punk tunes and the raspy, raucous meanness of it meshes well with the film's mood. Thumbs upish, I say. Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet. I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states – we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it. I first encountered this show when I was staying in Japan for six months last year. I found it in the internet when I was looking for sub-titled dramas to help me with my Japanese. My host mother warned me to stay away from it because she thought it was weird, but I found it delightful! Koyuki showed such conflicting character traits and Matsujun's spirit made my day every time I tuned in! I first saw him on "Hana Yori Dango", but I liked him much better in this!

Although the characters are interesting and well-developed, I was disappointed to find that they didn't change very much throughout the show. Their relationship grew, but they didn't really. Still, a fun time had by all (Even for Fukushima!). It holds very true to the original manga of the same name, aka (Tramps Like Us in the U.S) but it can still be enjoyed even if you haven't read the manga. It's a different kind of tail, showing a strong and independent woman who hurts just like everyone else. However, because of her outward strength, she fears showing her inner feelings and thus let's those around her hurt her with their blunt comments. The only one who truly figures her out and who she can be at ease with is her new pet...human...Momo. If you want something different than the normal boring stuff with some wonderful J-Dorama (Japanese Drama) actors/resses then this is definitely the series to watch...and read! Let's start this review out on a positive note -- I am very glad they didn't decide to wimp out with Tony being shot and do a retrospective season like some people were rumoring. Actually, creator and writer of this episode David Chase did quite the opposite. We don't actually know if Tony will live or die. He's in a coma and his chances of recovering are very slim to none. This episode seemed to move very slow, and the coma induced dream Tony was in involving mistaken identity and robed Asian monks slapping the sh*t out of him was absolutely, flat-out weird. After 45-minutes I got a little sick of everyone grieving, but that shouldn' t be a reason to slam this episode. It was a weird and unpredictable episode, but it was still well-written and intense. Edie Falco gave an astounding career-defining performance in this episode as the conflicted wife having to face with her husband's could-be demise. I also found it interesting AJ dropped out of school and swore a vendetta against Junior, which AJ most likely won't have the balls to pull off. Silvio is now acting-boss which opens numerous doors to problems in later episodes. There were a lot of great quips in this episode, also, and I think Vito 'Pole-Smoker' Spadafore may meet his demise if he keeps being a greedy S.O.B.

This wasn't a great episode and disappointed only because even though Tony kills people, we as an audience adore him and feel he is our hero of the show. This was a necessary episode for the series, even though it was a little snore inducing towards the conclusion. Kudos to Edie Falco's performance, and David Chase and the writers for creating this wholly original and unpredictable plot twist. This is the only season of 'The Sopranos' where I haven't a f*cking clue where it is going to go. I can't wait for next week's episode. My Rating: 7.5/10

Best Line of the Episode: (Paulie to AJ): "Let's go, Van Helsing!" Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...

A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.)

On to the allegedly "random" monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking "hey maybe these guys can help me?" which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to "salvation". Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here.

Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the "conference entrance", he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because "he's Kevin Finnerty". He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.

After reading all the theories on "inFinnerty", though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out. With the badly injured Tony in an induced coma, two things happen: Tony imagines himself leading the life of a salesman attending a business convention, while his family and friends go through hell trying to cope with the possible loss of the big man. The dream sequences are right out of an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, as Tony finds himself transformed into an Average Joe trying to deal with a missing wallet and mixed-up identities while on a cross-country business trip. His intonation as a blazer- and khaki-wearing schnook is more mid-American and less that of an Italian thug from Noo Joisey. A nice touch. The shockingly long-haired, hippy-dippy AJ (whom Paulie calls "Van Helsing" at one point) has a nice scene with his comatose old man. The best moment has the big boys trying to talk about life without Tony, which immediately breaks down into a territorial dispute. Vito gets off a line about the new-dead Gene possibly having been a closet case, which is interesting in light of what we are about to learn about Vito. Let me start off by saying that after watching this episode for the first time on DVD at 10 o'clock P.M. one night, I could not fall asleep until about 3:00 A.M.

This brief review may contain spoilers.

I'm a long-time fan of The Sopranos and I can safely say this is the best episode I've seen. I'm not saying everyone should feel this way, but I do. This episode is identical to the weekend I spent with my family, watching over my own father, comatose in the ICU before he passed.

The episode begins with Tony in an alternate reality: he is a salesman who's identity has been mistaken for that of a man named Kevin Finnerty.

By the time ten minutes had gone by, I knew either Tony was dreaming, or I was watching some other show. It wasn't like the normal Sopranos and I loved it.

Option 1 is confirmed when Anthony (or "Kevin") looks into the sky at a "helicopter spotlight" and we see prodding through it, a doctor with a flashlight. We see this only for a moment and the sequence plays out until we go back to real life in a situation similar to the one I just stated.

Tony has come out of the coma for only a moment. His boys take A.J. home and Carmella, overcome by stress, breaks down in the hallway: a signature moment in the episode.

For the remainder of the episode, we cut in between the real world: the family dealing with the potential negative outcome of this coma, and Tony's alternate reality, which parallels what's going on both in his mind and in the real world around him.

Then comes the stellar point in the episode: after A.J. finishes telling his mother he's flunked school, she walks in to see Meadow sitting at Anthony's side.

She approaches Tony, and utters the best line of the episode: "Anthony, can you hear us?" In Tony's world, he enters a dark hotel room and turns on a light. He takes off his shoes and goes to the phone. He tries to dial, but he cannot--as if he were trying to say something back to Carmella, but couldn't physically bring himself to do so. Not yet.

He sits down and looks out his window. A shimmering light that has reoccurred throughout the episode now seems to call to him from the other side of the city.

"When It's Cold I'd Like To Die" by Moby marries perfectly with these last images and helps in creating an emotional roller-coaster of an episode.

10 out of 10.

P.S.: Watch the next episode. You find out what the light is. It's wonderful. Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.

But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)

This episode is split in 2 parts.

first part is Tony's "Dream" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.

now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains "his life". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die.

If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.

Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb.

Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.

anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.

10/10 no doubt. To call this episode brilliant feels like too little. To say it keeps up the excellent work of the season premiere is reductive too, 'cause there's never been a far-from-great Sopranos episode so far. In fact, the title might be a smug invitation for those who aren't real fans yet: Join the Club...

Picking up where Junior left off (putting a bullet in his nephew's gut after mistaking him for a crook he killed in the first season), the story begins with Tony being absolutely fine. With no recollection whatsoever of what happened to him, he's attending some kind of convention. Only he's not speaking with his normal accent, and there seems to be something wrong with his papers: apparently, he is not Tony Soprano but Kevin Finnerty, or at least that's what a group of people think, and until the mess is sorted out he can't leave his hotel.

Naturally, in pure Sopranos tradition, that turns out to be nothing but a dream: Tony is actually in a coma, with the doctors uncertain regarding his fate, his family and friends worried sick and Junior refusing to believe the whole thing actually happened. Unfortunately it did, and Anthony Jr. looks willing to avenge the attempt on his father's life.

Dreams have popped up rather frequently in the series, often as some kind of spiritual trial for the protagonists (most notably in the Season Five show The Test Dream). Join the Club, however, takes the metaphysical qualities of the program, already hinted at by the previous episode's use of a William S. Burroughs poem, and pushes the envelope in the most audacious way: Tony hallucinating about his dead friends (the first occurrence of the sort was caused by food poisoning, four seasons ago) is one thing, him actually being in what would appear to be Purgatory is radically different. The "heavenly" section of the story is crammed with allegorical significances, not least the name Tony is given (as one character points out, spelling it in a certain way will give you the word "infinity"), and none of it comes off as overblown or far-fetched: David Chase has created a piece of work that is far too intelligent to use weird set-ups just for their own sake; it all helps the narrative. Talking about "help from above" in the case of Tony Soprano might be stretching it a tad, though. Troubled men's magazine photographer Adrien Wilde (well played with considerable intensity by Michael Callan) has horrific nightmares in which he brutally murders his models. When the lovely ladies start turning up dead for real, Adrien worries that he might be the killer. Writer/director William Byron Hillman relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, builds a reasonable amount of tension, delivers a few gruesomely effective moments of savage misogynistic violence (one woman who has a plastic garbage bag with a rattlesnake in it placed over her head rates as the definite squirm-inducing highlight), puts a refreshing emphasis on the nicely drawn and engaging true-to-life characters, further grounds everything in a plausible everyday world, and tops things off with a nice smattering of tasty female nudity. The fine acting from an excellent cast helps matters a whole lot: Joanna Pettet as sunny, charming love interest Mindy Jordache, James Stacy as Adrien's macho double amputee brother B.J., Seymour Cassel as Adrien's concerned psychiatrist Dr. Frank Curtis, Don Potter as Adrien's feisty gay assistant Louis, Pamela Hensley as gutsy homicide detective Sergeant Fountain, Cleavon Little as a hard-nosed police chief, and Misty Rowe as sweet, bubbly model Bambi. R. Michael Stringer's polished cinematography makes impressive occasional use of breathtaking panoramic aerial shots. Jack Goga's ominous rattling score likewise does the trick. Popping up in cool bit parts are Robert Tessier as a gruff bartender, Sally Kirkland as a saucy hooker, Kathy Shower as a fierce female wrestler B.J. grapples with in the ring, and Frances Bay in one of her standard old woman roles. A solid and enjoyable picture. DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.

Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.

This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind. Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!

Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)

When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and "passionate nature" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.

The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.

The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!

Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful! This wonderful 1983 BBC television production (not a movie, as others have written here) of the classic love story "Jane Eyre", starring Timothy Dalton as Rochester, and Zelah Clarke as Jane, is the finest version that has been made to date, since it is the most faithful to the novel by Charlotte Bronte in both concept and dialogue.

A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons; when film producers start to meddle with a classic's very lifeblood then that classic is destroyed. Thankfully the producers of THIS "Jane Eyre" approached the story with respect and faithfulness towards the original, which results in a spectacularly addictive concoction that is worth viewing multiple times, to enjoy its multi-layers of sweetness and delight and suspense. The performances are delightful, the music is just right, even the Gothic design of the house and outdoor shots are beautiful, and set the right tone for the production.

My only criticism, though slight, is that this version, like every other version ever made of Jane Eyre, ignores the Christian influences that built Jane's character and influenced her moral choices. In today's modern world a woman in Jane's situation wouldn't think twice but to stay with Rochester after finding out he had an insane wife and was still married to her. "Oh, just get a divorce", she would say to her man, or she would live in sin with him. But Jane Eyre knew she couldn't settle for this course in life and respect herself. Why? This decision was based on the foundations of the Christian faith she had been taught since childhood, not from the brutal Calvinist Lowood Institution, but from the Christian example of a true friend, Helen Burns, who was martyred rather than not turn the other cheek. Someday I would like to see some version depict these influences a little more fully in an adaptation. A classic novel that ends with the heroine writing "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" should not have the foundations of that faith stripped out of it. Those who love the book Jane Eyre as I do (it's my all time favorite, and I re read it at least once a year) will love this version. Timothy Dalton is just a tad too good looking to be Mr. Rochester, but other than that, he does a marvelous job portraying the brooding master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke may have been just a little too old to play the 18 year old Jane, but when I watch this movie, I don't think about the ages of the characters. The dialog from the film is taken almost verbatim from the book, which was very smart. Sure, this film might seem a little long, but it's the only version I've seen that includes part 3 of the story.

I wish the people who made this film had been involved in the newer Zeferelli version, as it would have helped that mess of a film.

I also realized the last time I watched this video that Judy Cornwell plays "Aunt Reed"! She is so versatile that I didn't recognize her. She plays Daisy in Keeping up Appearances, and also played Mrs. Musgrove in 1995's Persuasion (another wonderful adaption).

UPDATE: Got the DVD this week, and it's marvelous to see the original unedited version. There's lots more at the beginning (Young Jane at Gateshead and at Lowood.) And at the end, they've restored lots of things, (I always wondered why St. John had a slip of paper when he reveals that he knows who Jane is-- because the part where he tears it from her painting was edited out of the US VHS version!). Rosamund Oliver is in it...she was completely cut out of the VHS. As far as I could tell, they hadn't edited out any of Timothy Dalton's parts, so nothing new there, but it is great to see the whole miniseries in its entirety after all these years of enjoying the VHS. Thanks, BBC (PS...I would have paid more for a special edition DVD...with maybe some interviews with the stars...or a making of show) I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.

Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.

I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre. I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline.

So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.

I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.

And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.

And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.

And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.

And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.

This "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.

The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.

Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.

As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.

But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.

Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.

Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.

And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.

No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.

Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.

Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.

Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.

I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.

In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.

Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.

In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.

Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.

This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is. This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this. I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10. I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel "Jane Eyre". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-) This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series.

The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.

I give it 10/10 rating. There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.

There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.

The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.

All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.

Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.

As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.

The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.

With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre". There have been many film and TV productions of Jane Eyre each with aspects to recommend them, but I suspect this is the one that people will still be discovering and falling in love with decades from now. It's just a classic (and offers much more of the story than others do). Timothy Dalton is utterly in his element as Rochester, rarely missing the mark; his performance is astonishingly nimble and many-colored, while never straying too far from the dark complexities of the character. Zelah Clarke's Jane is more cerebral than otherworldly, but she makes a perfect foil for Dalton (who, appropriately, towers over her!) The nuances of her performance come through better on a second viewing (once you've absorbed the shock of Dalton's charisma). There are some technical faults and a couple of moments where the production values could have been better; though this pretty much was a top-of-the-line production by the BBC's standards of that time. But, it's the performances that are the real pleasure. Don't miss this one! I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it! I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring.

As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story.

I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story. I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.

On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans. *SPOILER ALERT: I wish I could discuss this without revealing specific plot points, but I can't. Sorry.*

I was looking for an IMDb review of the George C. Scott movie when I stumbled across the summary and reviews for this version. It had so many positive reviews that I decided to order it even though: (a)while truncated and rushed, I thought George C. Scott embodied the tortured nature (and physical appearance) of the book's Rochester to a T; and (b)even while looking at the DVD's cover, I was thinking "Isn't Timothy Dalton too good-looking for the role?" The latter concern was reinforced by the fact that I decided to re-read the book while the DVD was on backorder. That said, the minute I started watching this, I was captivated. At first it was disconcerting to hear 1840's dialog spoken as written--with little or no attempts at modernization--but Dalton and Clarke threw themselves into it so thoroughly, that I actually enjoyed the fact that the adapters trusted the audience to follow archaic speech. To have so much of the book up on the screen was an extra bonus. I know someone who won't watch any versions of Jane Eyre because "who wants to see a film about a man who keeps a poor crazy woman in the attic?" Frankly, if someone who hadn't read the book stumbled across the hour and a half or two hour versions, they would think that's pretty much all the story entails--Rochester's secret and its affect on everyone around him. Luckily, this version is actually about Jane Eyre's whole life.

Some people have criticized the casting. Dalton is too dashing; Clarke is too reserved. I can't argue against the first point, but he is so "in the moment" that I believe he IS Rochester. To me, Clarke's performance is on the mark. Jane Eyre is quiet, guarded. If one remembers the book, so much of the adult Jane's fieriness and passion occurs during her private struggles. Some of the criticisms baffle me. Reviewers say Clarke is too short or isn't pretty enough. The book goes on ad infinitum about how small and plain Jane is. Ms. Clarke shouldn't be tall and the filmmakers toned down her looks to make Jane's declarations of her lack of beauty credible. She can scarcely help it if Dalton is tall. Some say there is no chemistry between the leads. What?!! The scene when Jane finally comes out of her room after the wedding fiasco fairly vibrates with passion and longing and sadness and regret--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.

I do agree with some of the other criticisms. I too missed more scenes with Helen Burns and the Rivers siblings. Some of the dialog was oddly truncated. When Rochester declares, "Jane, you misjudge me. I do not hate her because she is mad," I waited for the rest of the exchange when Rochester explains how if Jane were to go mad, he would still love and care for her. It's a powerful moment in the book, and I wish it had been included. I think it was a mistake to bring a scene with Rochester into the part of the story where Jane is on her own. It might have been done for clarity's sake, but I found it jarring. I wanted the sly humor of the scene where Jane opines that Rochester's ardor will cool and he'll become gruff again, but he may "like" her again by and by. Dalton's performance is so good that the rare misstep is glaring--when Rochester weeps in the library, I saw him as an actor doing a crying scene, not as Rochester. As for the sets, if anyone has ever caught an episode of the 1960's show "Dark Shadows," one knows what to expect--very stark and sometimes rickety looking interiors. Others have commented thoroughly and succinctly about the make-up job Rochester sports at the end. Yikes! It IS bad. The conclusion is too abrupt. After all that anguish and suspense, I wanted a more rounded off ending. And, on my copy of the DVD, having credits at the beginning and end of all eleven 25-30 minute episodes gets to be a bit much. That said, I am so glad I have this film and will watch it again and again. I liked Timothy Dalton very much even though he was a bit young and too handsome for Mr R. but I thought Zelah Clarke too plump and short. This version however was very true to the novel and very well filmed. I have seen 4 versions, Orson Welles is still my favorite Mr R , though George C Scott did very well and it's a toss up between Joan Fontaine and Sussanah York, although they were both a bit too old for the role. I recently saw a brilliant TV version of Rebecca with Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. I would love to see those two do Jane Eyre.By the time I got to watching the Ciarin Hinds version, I think I was Jane Eyred out, but I will never tire of those first few minutes of hearing Joan Fontaine's voice narrate the opening of the first version I ever saw. I always want to go back and read the book again. this was a fabulous adaptation of Jane Eyre. the only problem i had with it was that i didn't like Zelah Clarke. i thought she was too old and made Jane seem much to timid. in the book Jane seemed like a much stronger character. i was really annoyed by this portrayal of her. the part where it's the morning after Rochester asks her to marry him and she runs up to him and hugs him always makes me laugh. i think they made a bad choice in casting her. but Dalton was absolutely wonderful as Rochester. he makes this version of Jane Eyre worth seeing. another thing that made this version not quite 100% was the quality of film. i know it was made in the eighties for TV. if it had been a feature film, and better quality, it would have been perfect. my main complaint however, is that Zelah Clarke was definitely too old. This is, in my opinion, much better than either of the 2 1990's versions, but is still not all that good. It feels dated, probably because it is, but it does stand up well compared to other BBC 1980's period pieces such as Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey.

The length of this adaptation allows for a much better adaptation of the book than either of the 2 90's versions, and St John Rivers is at least covered, although not very well. Timothy Dalton is very good as Rochester, but the actress playing Jane is much too old. There is definitely scope for a TV adaptation of this length that has more than a tenner spent on it. If a more masterful adaptation than this one even existed, you need not look for it; you will find all and more in this near-perfect presentation of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

Rarely have I seen a film that would urge me to read the novel on which it was based, but I admit to that here. Although I have not read Jane Eyre, I am convinced that I have missed very little in the way of dialogue and plot or of intensity and emotion. I only wish to explore the novel due to the immense curiosity and emotion that this masterpiece has stirred within me.

I need not divulge anything in the way of plot here. Let me just say this: if you are perhaps unsure as to whether you should watch or read the beautiful story that is Jane Eyre, I implore you to doubt no more! Every atom of might and magic that has reared Jane Eyre as a popular classic of English literature has successfully been captured in this film.

What Brontë did not bring herself, Clarke and Dalton managed to translate in the limelight with stupendous intensity. The movie's success is, no doubt, due in no small part to their acting prowess.

Love Jane Eyre or hate her, but appreciate the richness, the vitality, the truth of the story; love the characters; love the actors; all just as you would love what is great in cinema. This has to be the best adaptation I have seen it's my favourite and I think it stays very close to the book.What really makes this a must see though is the casting of the two lead actors.The wonderful Timothy Dalton is the best Rochester I have seen on screen brooding and tragic,while Zelah Clarke is the perfect combination of strength,courage,shyness and gentleness as Jane. The story(as i'm sure most people know)is this,the young and plain Jane Eyre is a teacher at a charity school for girls in the 1800's who advertises her services as a governess in the newspapers.She is offered the post of governess at the big mansion Thornfield Hall to tutor Adele the young ward of the halls mysterious and respected owner Mr Rochester. As the months go on he falls in love with Jane and puts into effect a few situations to try and see if Jane is as madly in love with him as he is with her.However there is a secret still waiting to be discovered at Thornfield Hall and when it is it's effects are devastating.This is a moving and well acted drama with nice locations and gorgeous costumes plus as I said earlier excellent acting especially from Zelah and Timothy. I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly.

All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.

The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).

Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection! When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.

I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.

I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as "wooden" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.

Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully.

This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever. Though I did not begin to read the "Classics" in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC. The 1983 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This "Jane Eyre" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in "Scarlet", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this "Jane Eyre" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough "kissing scenes". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some "Hollywood movie" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include "crazy, madly in love" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as "boring and old-fashioned". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton! In all the comments praising or damning Dalton's performance, I thought he was excellent. He does not play Rochester as a spoiled pretty rich boy, but as a roguish, powerful man. I liked this version, although the shot on video aspect was sometimes distracting, and the scenes with Jane and St. John never quite gelled. I give this an 8. Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers – not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version – with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton – stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.

The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane – "poor, plain and little" – grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him – but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.

It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors – Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.

Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out – you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again. Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.

Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film. Jane Eyre has always been my favorite novel! When I stumbled upon this movie version in the late 90's I was ecstatic! This is the best and most complete version of the book on film! This version is a little long to sit through in one sitting but well worth it. Timothy Dalton is amazing as Rochester. I was glad that they cast a normal looking actress (Zelah Clark) as Jane and not a glamorous person. I love the sets and the location. For anyone who is a true Jane Eyre fan, this is the version to watch!!! For those of you who are interested, I just found this version on DVD. I have watched my VHS copy almost to breaking so I was thrilled to find it on DVD. I think this movie had to be fun to make it, for us it was fun to watch it. The actors look like they have a fun time. My girlfriends like the boy actors and my boyfriends like the girl actors. Not very much do we get to have crazy fun with a movie that is horror make. I see a lot of scary movies and i would watch this one all together once more, or more because we laugh together. If this actors make other scary movies i will watch them. The grander mad man thats chase to kill the actors is very much a good bad man. He make us laugh together the most. i would give this movie a high score if you ask me.

I don't know if the market has any more of the movies with the actors, but the main boy is cute. the actor with the grand chest has to be not real. they doesn't look to real. Who ever came up with story is one sick person. I rented it for our slumber party sleepover and all six of us got freaked out cause we're all in an acting class together, and we know a couple of the actors from class. Besides everybody screaming the whole freaky night, I had freaky nightmares. I kept thinking oh my God, if I get up to go to the bathroom to pee I'm going to be stabbed in the middle of wiping or something. I couldn't even go to the bathroom because we watched this gruesome horror movie. I also thought why are all the girls topless in this movie but we don't any of the boys units? You should make a horror film where the killer is a girl and chopping off units. I would watch that over and over. Call it hard or soft or something stupid like that. I'm only giving this movie a 9 because you FREAKED ME OUT FREAKS. Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.

The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending.

I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever.

This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good. I finally got around to seeing this after hearing great things about it. It actually exceeded my expectations. Considering the budget involved this was a surprisingly competent and well-made film. The lack of finances actually helped this film in several ways, especially given the plot. Just like The Blair Witch Project, this film was all the better for being shot on video instead of film. Another bonus: Whereas most low-budget horror films (even the best of the best) suffer from mediocre-to-unintentionally hysterical acting, this film actually had a talented cast (save one or two characters), particularly the two leads. The only thing missing from the film was an original storyline. It borrows heavily from better-known films like "Deliverance" and "Wrong Turn" but if you're like me, films of this nature never cease to be terrifying. Plus, the director keeps things interesting throughout. I'd be very interested to see what the director would do with a bigger budget and I have a feeling it will only be a matter of time before we find out... This is a good film for 99% of the duration. I feel that the ending has occluded this film from higher acclaim.

It is shot in a rather naive fashion. This is clearly done to create a more chilling feel to the film - a feeling of isolation becomes apparent very soon on due to this filming technique.

The gruesome characters are very well acted and presented especially the 'nutcase' called Joe. However, the wholesome (normal) characters are a little too pathetic for my liking - granted, they are supposed to come across as pathetic but this is done a little OTT.

The film starts slowly (and the naive camera work smacks of 'B' movie to start with) and very normally but you soon get a feel of the impending brutality that is about to occur. This is one of the most 'twisted' movies with respect to cold-hearted violence.

After the abrupt and unbelievably lazy ending I was left feeling disappointed. I would have given the film a 9 if the ending was in keeping with the rest of the film but as it is it gets only a 7 on the strength of the 'eeriness' and nail-biting scenes earlier on in the film.

Give it a watch and excuse the ending! Savage Island's raw savagery will scare the hell out of you! Trust me.

When the boy of the estranged Savage Family is run over by some city slicker tourists, Pa Savage wants revenge, and he'll stop at nothing until he gets it.

This is a real horror film with some truly wonderful horror moments.

Also, the negative review clearly comes from someone who lacks proper knowledge of film. The filmmakers chose the lighting and camera-work in order to reflect the dark, murky, and egdy mood of the story; in other words, to obtain a certain aesthetic.

In fact, the film has won SEVERAL horror film festival awards. What great locations. A visual challenge to all those who put their eye behind the lens.This little jewel is an amazing account of what you can shoot in just 16 days. Good going folks!. I can not wait to see what your next feature will be. I'll be with you all the way. I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad! A much undervalued film that tells the story of a young musician caught in an ever-declining spiral of domestic violence.

At times difficult to watch, while Morris Day is portrayed as the misogynist, Prince as the knight on (motorcycle) steed, he is still called upon to twice beat a woman as part of the screenplay. That he can do this and still emerge as a flawed but vindicated hero is credit to the writing. Prince is so free of ego in this film that not only does he portray himself as a narcissistic megalomaniac who beats women, but his most famous song is fictionalised as being written by his father and Wendy & Lisa. Even further, two of his compositions - Computer Blue (admittedly the album's weakest track) and Darling Nikki - are shown as being songs that kill off an audience. Perhaps the only concession to the Princely ego is a card that lists the (slightly shorter than Prince) Apollonia as 5'6.

The nearly complete-amateur cast are mainly band members playing themselves (and reviewers who slate the actors on the terms that they've never appeared in other movies are completely missing the point), and do perfectly well under the direction. Morris Day gets most of the plaudits for his likable ham, though Jerome Benton must also get credit for bouncing off him well, particularly their stage act, which is hilarious. Day and Benton even go so far as to make an Abbott and Costello routine funny, which takes some doing.

Lastly, there's Prince. While I admit to bias, I do actually think he's a pretty good actor in terms of being able to portray a low-key version of himself. Acting ISN'T his profession, this was a film made for entertainment, so anyone pointing out that the guy in the lead role isn't Robert DeNiro and thinking they're making a point is sadly deluded. I don't want this review to be a derisory attack of other people's comments, but I've even this film slated as having a low budget and being darkly lit. How would a film about domestic violence be shot, then? With full overhead spotlights and a CGI dinosaur walking into frame?

The film acts almost as a perfect snapshot of the neon light and skinny tie era… until you remember that it was actually made in a world of curly perms and tinny synths, and this isn't some retro-recreation. Prince's best film with Oscar-winning music, it sees him at his zenith, and it's saddening to realise that, even though he would make some fine albums, he would never again capture this high. As a big-time Prince fan of the last three to four years, I really can't believe I've only just got round to watching "Purple Rain". The brand new 2-disc anniversary Special Edition led me to buy it. Wow, I was really looking forward to watching it, but I wasn't prepared for just how electric it actually is. Prince's musical performances throughout the movie are nothing short of astounding - he REALLY has the moves in this one. I am very familiar (from repeated listens) with the classic "Purple Rain" album and all its songs, but to see them in the context of the movie completely alters your perception of the tunes and lyrics - like COMPUTER BLUE, THE BEAUTIFUL ONES, WHEN DOVES CRY and PURPLE RAIN itself. There is something indescribably hypnotising about the scenes where Prince and The Revolution perform. The closing songs BABY I'M A STAR and I WOULD DIE FOR U show how much energy and sheer talent Prince was brimming with in his mid-20s (he's overflowing!), it blew me away. It even makes Michael Jackson seem inanimate even in his peak years.

Prince shows you how to win the girl of your dreams - drive her to a lake, make her jump in, then drive off - absolutely hilarious stuff in hindsight.

Some of the scenes are very 1980s and unintentionally hilarious but this adds to the film's overall charm. Morris Day is the coolest cat on the block (and hilarious), and when his group The Time perform THE BIRD you get to see Morris Day and Jerome Benton light up the stage Minneapolis funk style - I love their dancing in this bit, and how Benton provides Morris with a mirror mid-performance.

I already can't wait to watch it again, I really can't! Extras are terrific - particularly seeing a young Eddie Murphy pre-Beverly Hills Cop admit he is a "Prince groupie". This electrifying musical has more than a whiff of egotism from it's star, the musical genius that is Prince. The film is 90 or so minutes of posing but in truth it is easy to see why it is such a cult classic.

Much like other films that centre around the struggling young musician trying to be big, this has a hint of drama in it to add a dimension to the musical numbers. While this film isn't as good as 8 mile as a recent example, this is entertaining none the less and the soundtrack is much better. On the dramatic side of things the story centres around the Kid (Prince) a young artist and regular spot at a club. The owner of the club is frustrated with the Kid's arrogance and little does the Kid know that he could soon be fired and replaced by a rival. One the side the Kid's parents are having trouble, with his dad abusing her violently. During the course of the film the Kid learns a few lessons in life, and learns to appreciate his friends more. It's all stuff we have seen in coming of age dramas of course, but this is combined as a musical, a very stylised musical.

The cast are good. Prince is actually quite good on the drama side, when he's not striking a pose. He seems human and relatable. Clarence Williams is very good as the abusive father as well. Appollonia Kotero makes a good debut as Princes sexy love interest.

The main strength of the movie however is the superb soundtrack. The musical numbers are well staged and electrifying. Prince is no doubt a musical maestro, albeit very eccentric. When he is inspired he is great but on the flip side he will often do songs that are solely for his own taste, and occasionally his experimentation can miss-fire, but that is the same for many musical geniuses. The soundtrack for this film is excellent though, with only Sexshooter being a weak point. The show-stopping performance of Purple Rain is the standout though. It is one of my all time favourite songs. ***

Prince stars as 'the Kid' in this semi-autobiographical film of a talented, but narcissistic young musician who has a less then stellar home life. True the acting leaves a tad to be desired (barring Morris Day and especially Clarence Williams who are both pitch perfect), but the movie is still great and among the best to come out of the 1980s. It has the best soundtrack of ANY movie of the last 50 years at least, highly quotable lines, and the dumpster scene is HILARIOUS!! Plus Apollonia is just simply STUNNING. On an unrelated not, when I saw Prince in concert in 2004 he blew down the stadium. He is an expert showman and it was one of the best concerts that I've experienced.

My Grade: A

DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with Director Albert Magnoli, Producer Robert Cavallo, & Director of Photography Donald Thorin; Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Grafitti Bridge" Disc 2) A 12 minute featurette on the First Avenue Club; "Purple Rain: Bachstage Pass (a half hour featurette on the movie which i'll review later on it's page); "Riffs, Raffs, and Revolution: the Impact and Influence of Purple Rain" 10 minute featurette; 30 minutes of MTV's Premiere Footage (when MTV didn't suck donkey balls); 5 Prince music videos (Let's Go Crazy, Take Me With You, When Doves Cry, I Would Die 4 U/ Baby I'm a Star, and Purple Rain); 2 Videos by The Time (Jungle Love and The Bird); and a music video for "Sex Shooter" by Apollonia 6

Eye Candy: Apollonia shows her fine ass titties Ok, so it may not be the award-winning "movie of the year" type-film (apart from the brilliant soundtrack that I think won a few awards), but it is a really great film about 'The Kid' (Prince / O( take your pick) and the happenings around him living in Minneapolis, playing his music. The music is absolutely superb, in my opinion you HAVE to own this soundtrack, it is truly a classic and sums up the eighties sounds and feel in a wonderful fashion. And the movie itself plays out a nice plot, it's worth seeing over and over again, espeically if you like Prince / O (which I do) of course. It seemed as though the year 1984 was anything but the Orwellian nightmare it was calculated to be with George Orwell's science fiction novel!! 1984 turned out to be one of the happiest times in American history!! The upsurge in the economy, and a reemergence in basic American values, cultivated an idealistic aura of resumed innocence which was viewed by the American people with a very auspicious disposition!! There have been many ersatz renditions of classic movies in the past, but, the originals are almost always considered superior!! "Purple Rain" is such a movie in this category!! Made in 1984, "Purple Rain" provided a doggerel of eighties, happy-go-lucky quality music, which they incorporated into the making of this excellent film!! Certain artifacts indicative of the eighties are indeed classics!! Screwball comedies, neon accented clothing, and of course, the music!! Eighties music is considered by experts to be the best decade for music in American history!! Set in Minneapolis, "Purple Rain" accommodated the use of naive entertainment with the changing times of the city. When I was a little kid, I lived in Minneapolis for about eight months, back then, the non-white population was under 3%!! By 1984, African Americans had made some in roads into Minneapolis, and, thus, they established a firmly embedded culture of their own as well!! The movie "Purple Rain" evokes an eighties style clothing, and music ensemble, which effortlessly captivated the movie audience!! I loved the music to "Purple Rain", and, the innovative approach this film takes to confrontational success, is indeed, brilliant!! See this movie if you have not seen it already!! Prince became an eighties icon with this masterpiece!! For a short time, he dated Kim Bassinger, he must be doing something right!! "Purple Rain" put Prince on the map!! This film gets my emphatically assertive verdict of THUMBS UP!!!! Purple Rain... what else can i say, the title speaks for itself. But i think all the actors were well picked. The movie had a great story. I loved it! Ever since i watched that movie, i've been stuck in the eighties, and I'm only 13! My favorite part of the movie was when his father died and he was picking up all of his music compositions, and the Apollonia was sitting on the stairwell with his earing in her hand. Critics say that its a drama but i think its more of a romance. Murphy Brown also did a great job in the movie, he actually acted like himself. I'm so glad I've seen this movie. The song Purple Rain, beautifully sung, was so heartfelt. I cried more than once. You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic.

Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor "Little Nikki" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every "Air Band" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson.

We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers.

It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight. I love this movie!!! Purple Rain came out the year I was born and it has had my heart since I can remember. Prince is so tight in this movie. I went to a special showing of Purple Rain last night and it was like a concert i was glad to see some true fans cause this movie is so undervalued, it is really one of the greatest movies of all time. The music is untouchable. The movie is about "The Kid", played by Prince, his family is dysfunctional, his band is the hottest act in town, and he has his eyes on the Apollonia, an aspiring singer. There is no question why purple is my favorite color I can thank "The Kid" for that. So if you have not seen this then you are need to asap. This is a classic - 4ever! The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them! I own this movie and have watched it several times throughout the years since it was released. Prince doesn't stun us with his phenomenal acting style or anything, he's a musician and I feel like that is what he displayed here, he's just the best one to tell this story through influence. Most of this movie is straightforward and teenish but that is the directors/writers fault, still it is a great movie with even better music. The principals and moral convictions in Purple Rain are quite strong and if more movies would rely on the basics we are taught as young children we would have a better all around environment seeing that art reflects life which reflects art. This is the only movie I've seen Prince in but it don't matter. And I thought he was only great at singing boy was I wrong. This is probably his best performance. The music is great. Thats why it won the Oscar in 1984 for best music to a movie (or something like that). Now he has an Oscar and Grammies under his belt. Although the cursing gets in the way with the film (just make sure no little kids or in the room). There isn't to much to say without revealing the plot. You should really go out and get this movie your collection isn't complete unless you got this movie in it. What else could I possibly say except for go and get this movie now! This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is "good" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction"). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all. I don't care how many bad reviews purple rain gets, this movie rocks! Excellent movie, has it all, great music(Prince of coarse!), romance, and drama.

This is really a very sad movie, very moving. I don't want to say TO much more, I;m not into giving away the plot, but I will say this-the film is VERY realistic, there are so many romantic relationships that go through these problems, so many familys similiar to the one depicted in the film. I see this as being very realistic and being so real, makes the movie that much more moving. My generation loved this movie growing up, so many of us loved Prince and there is alot to relate to for any teenager who has gone through similiar problems.

That said, it's definetly NOT just a movie for teens, Id recomend it to all age groups. And it's not all so dark, the movie has some great music, band performance scenes, and sexy fun scenes between Prince and Appelonia. "Purple Rain" has never been a critic's darling but it is a cult classic - and deserves to be. If you are a Prince fan this is for you.

The main plot is Prince seeing his abusive parents in himself and him falling in love with a girl. Believe it or not this movie isn't just singing and dancing. There are many intense scenes and it is heartwarming. Sometimes it comes off has funny but when it works it really works. Very hit and miss.

No one can really act in the film. Everyone is from one of Prince's side acts like "The Time" and "Vanity 6". Still, it adds charm to the movie. When ever Prince is on screen he lights it up and it fun to see him at his commercial peak.

In conclusion, go and see this if you love Prince like me. If you aren't a fan it'll make you one. I was to young to ever know much about prince but in the past few years I've seen a lot of Purple Rain Novelty Tee's and i thought they were cool but i didn't want to buy a shirt i knew nothing about. So one Saturday it came on fuse and i decided to watch it. I didn't know what the movie was going to be about before i watched it but it was great once i found out. In the movie prince wasn't known as prince but as "the kid". All the performances where great to me but my favorite were Purple Rain, Darling Nicki, and I would die for you. All the songs tied into what was going on through out the movie when his mother and father were always fighting the song when doves cried described what he was feeling. I also like how clever prince was with the way he flirted with Apallonia. I liked when Prince and Appallonia first met in the club and he stood behind her standing and then once she turned around he disappeared! great movie and now i cant even find one of those tee shirts :( I'll start by relating my first encounter with Prince's music. It was in a bar, on my 39th birthday and a girl was dancing bare breasted to "1999" playing on the speakers. I asked people, who is this singer? I was told it was Prince. It was so good that it distracted me from a beautiful, topless dancer. Later I started hearing other Prince songs and really "digging" them. When Purple Rain came out I still knew very little about this fellow Minnesotan. The movie blew me away. I instantly became Prince's No. 1 fan of the "War Baby" generation. Later I found out one of my cousins was his secretary, and she got me, and my nephew into a V.I.P. Prince concert where we sat next to his mother...how cool is that! Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree with Siskel & Ebert who called Purple Rain an instant classic. I have seen it over 17 times and absolutely love it. I thought Prince's acting was fine, Apollonia struggled a bit, but all in all the acting was fine. John Gielgud was not available to play 'The Kid' so Prince took the role. The film is visually stunning, brilliantly paced (it never gets slow), and terrifically directed. I rank it among the Best Movie Musicals of all time. The last time I watched it was after about a 7 year gap and it still delivered. I am so proud of fellow Minnesotan Prince Rogers Nelson and would love to tell him personally. He walked right in front of me during the above mentioned concert and said, "Hi", to my nephew but not me. He was chatting with his mom. I was a bit crushed but he's still No. 1 with me. 'I only wanted to see you laughing in the Purple Rain.' This is an excell film. It should have been re-rated to PG-13. But anyways, Prince's first film and greatest. The follow-up sucked. But I haven't seen for years so here's what I can remember about it. The Kid (Prince) has to juggle with winning over the love of his life, Apollonia (herself), keeping his band together (The Revolution as themselves) and the tension in his family. But his rival band (The Time as themselves) is ruining his life. Like Morris (himself) is trying to steal Apollonia from The Kid. Just like Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance and 8 Mile. Really good. Rent it, laugh and cry and if you luv it, buy it. I've recently went back and watched this movie again from not seeing it in years. When I first seen the movie I was too young to understand what the movie was about. Now that I've seen it again I couldn't believe what I've missed all these years. For me being able to see movies for what they are, I think that this movie was great. Most people feel as though the music are the best part, but I don't think that's true. Most people don't realize how good the story is because it's judge by the acting. The truth of the matter is that no one in the movie were really trying to act rather they were just being themselves. The entire main cast were just playing themselves. They weren't trying to be anyone else, but themselves.

I've actually watched and analyzed the work and effort put into the movie. Now from my perspective, the situations shown in the movie are pretty much based on what actually went on musically in Minneapolis at the time and it's most of the things that happen are actually true events that happened in Prince's career and who can tell it better than him? The music that was coming from the city at the time was starting to be recognized and be revolutionary. It was interesting to see how the music was very influential mainly at the club "First Avenue & 7th St Entry" where in fact Prince, among other musicians, got their career started. It's also a known fact that Prince and Morris Day always had a competition with each other in real life, but it was a friendly competition. They were always friends. So the story basically plays off of that competition aspect of their rivalry rather than their friendship which shows the true competitive side of what occurred at club "First Avenue" for it's time.

Another reason why this movie is good is due to the fact that some of the situations that occur in the movie are actually based on events that Prince has gone through in his life with the music aspect and the personal. To me, this made the movie more realistic as far as the emotion because he's telling his trials and tribulations pre-superstardom. Plus, his dedication he puts into his performances is phenomenal. Prince made sure that every moment in the movie was done perfectly. Anytime you hear a song play in the movie it's in perfect sync with the situation at hand.

Prince is in all a musical genius and he has proved it on many occasions. This movie is what really put Prince on the map officially and he hasn't slowed down since. Anyone who has watched this movie or still (unbelieveably) hasn't watched it yet, when you sit down and view this film you have have to watch it with intellect or you will miss the whole aspect of the movie. If you really love music this is definitely the movie to watch. Above what anyone else says I think it's a great movie to watch and own. When this movie first came out back in 1984, Prince was one of the hottest acts around. Everyone wanted to see this movie, which was not much more than a extended music video. The acting was pretty bad, but what can you expect from musicians acting on the big screen for the first time? Despite that, it was still a very entertaining film! Morris Day and Jerome Benton provide some all time classic comedy, especially their rendition of "The Password", which will make you think of Abbott & Costello doing their "who's on first" baseball routine.

Appolina (who went by a single name then) provided some beautiful breasts, so you had the brief nudity covered. Plus, she is very attractive. And of course, the soundtrack of the album is one of the best Prince ever recorded. Prince later on had a fallout with Warner Bros. and changed his name, but at this particular time in his career, he was at the top of his game.

This movie doesn't rank in the all time great category, but it is pretty entertaining. I have to admit that Purple Rain is one of my deepest guilty pleasures. Purple Rain not only broke boundaries, it set a decade, the costumes, the music, the behavior, and the dancing! To this day, my friends and I still jam to the Purple Rain soundtrack and pretend to be Prince and the Revolution.

Now the movie itself, I just meant what I said in the title, because for the most part, this movie itself is made by the music. The acting? Please don't let me judge on that since this is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, because I know that it was not Oscar worthy by any means. But I think the duo that took this movie was Morris and Jarome, their speech about passwords was just beyond hilarious. I just want to rate this movie on the concert sequences because I felt that it was what made the movie.

Prince is a musical genius and created beautiful music. While the movie and acting is pretty bad, this movie is still a fun one to watch at night and even dance too. This movie defined the 80's, so just have fun with it. Prince would want it that way, just to party on down! Oh, boy, that sounded lame.

9/10 Our imp of the perverse did good his first time out, thats for sure. The music is the best you may ever hear by any human, but you already know that, unless you have no taste or have a brain that is too small to understand greatness. A poor script that doesn't flesh out much of a story, but at least it has its moments. the breathtaking concert stuff is worth seeing it. He deserved an Oscar for this s**t, even though he was at times an ego driven twit, with his towering bodyguard Chick Huntsbery always in front. A movie that made non-fans fans, Take it or leave it. Prince does need to stay clear of acting in the future though. He takes himself way to serious. He is a genius musician, but pleaseee..Just enjoy the ride, my purple maestro..Peace. This film is outstanding and wonderfully scored. Prince's Oscar for music was richly deserved (many people don't know he won one). I think this is one of the best films to watch as a couple late at night on DVD. A great surprise: Prince does a fine job acting, and is pretty good at conveying pain on camera. Morris Day, Wendy, and Lisa are good in their supporting roles. Very cool landmark film. And I really mean that. I caught it last night on Vh1, and I was not expecting it to be so good. This is now one of my favorites. I must add that it has a killer soundtrack. Bar some of the questionable acting (there musicians at the end of the day), this in the words of Quentin Tarrinno is "The best rock movie ever made...period"

Think 8 Mile, but without the rapping - a young musician, trying to prove himself to the local community, whilst struggling to cope with a broken home and a rival band. Throw in the sex interest and the truly exceptional performances, this is the real 8 mile.

Prince provides a solid performance, as does Morris Day and Jerome Benton. Decent script, good direction, great plot, and spectacular performances. Not forgetting the some of the best rock/pop/funk music you will ever hear. Purple Rain is so cool for the dad. We Are Tracking 921 callers from Minneapolis. Hudson Horstachio prepares to ride a motorcycle , take a ride with Franklin Fizzlybear in the caddy. Let's go back to 1984 , it was a movie released and Prince tripped into stardom. You would think Hudson Horstachio will be a superstar for his new movie in 20th Century Fox Movie called "VP : Purple Rain" , starring Hudson Horstachio (voiced by Dan Green , who played Max's Dad , the Pokemon gym leader). 9 Tracks. Tina Turner's Private Dancer and Billy Ocean's Suddenly was headed for the album as Prince held more concerts. It is time we've pulled the plug on the 1984 movies. Our 20th Century Fox Fans are not watching anymore. The Kid yells out "Look Out For The Deer!" is such a danger in mind , Ralph Schuckett will be composing and conducting the new movie called "VP : Purple Rain" released on video. Tom Cruise jumps into his motorcycle , Brad Pitt jumps into his motorcycle and Hudson Horstachio jumps into his motorcycle. Thanks to Bette Midler from Beaches and the keyboardists. You Are Beholding The Heroic Horstachio , Hudson! Bart is writing "I shall not watch Purple Rain" on the chalkboard , Go On The Bloomington Ferry Bridge and enjoy The Kid's festivities. Hudson Horstachio is watching you! Purple Rain is a great film if you are a 40-something music lover who partied to Prince music in the 1980s. The story is a much-used formula: Rising musical talent must overcome personal and professional hurdles to find his audience and self-respect. Prince is a bad actor, but his performance, especially of Purple Rain/I Would Die 4 U make it worth sitting through the film. He is himself and as a showman, as powerful on stage as Mick Jagger or Michael Jackson, circa Thriller. Apollonia Kotero, a former Prince protégé, is beautiful and shows some acting talent and chemistry with Prince, but her script doesn't let her far. Morris Day and other supporting actors provide comedic elements. SPOILERS CONTAINED IN ORDER TO MAKE A OBSERVATION.

Twenty years on from 1984, this film speaks loads about Prince's future in the music industry.

There is a scene that sums up Prince's musical output of the last 10 years perfectly, which is if you took the best two songs off his last 10 albums you would have one fantastic album!

The scene plays like this. Prince runs off to his dressing room after playing one song and the owner of the club enters the dressing room to give Prince an earful about his fall from grace during the 90's and putting out albums that only the most hardcore fans would be able to tolerate and support his artistry.

Club owner- "You're not packing them like you used to. The only person that digs your music is yourself!"

Spooky huh! How about the musical underscore which makes Prince even more evil when he smacks Apollonia to the ground in two separate scenes! It gave me chills that that was not the only scene women where mistreated in this film.

I'm all for the comedy sparring's between Morris Day and Jerome Benton as these two stole every scene they were in. But what was funny about throwing a woman into a trash can? That was plain nasty! The other nasty bit was the chalk outline of Prince's father on the floor thoughtfully provided by the Minnieapolis police, which causes Prince to go even more loony!! FANTASTIC!!

Purple Rain is an entertaining film overall, as it is the soundtrack of Prince songs that boosts it's value by 110%. But then again the film gives us another theory on Prince and his music, as the film tells us that Prince's biggest song of the film is written by Wendy, lisa and Princes wife beating musical father!

Are Prince and the filmmakers trying to tell us that Prince stole all his best songs from his father after finding his fathers music sheets of written songs? Maybe that is why Prince started to run out of steam during the 90's because he ran out of his fathers ideas???...........Hmmmm..... This film speaks a universal language; one can relate it to the self, community, society or the wider world. It has a way of not only opening up several questions but also setting one in pursuit of discovering and asking the right questions in order to get to that point of self conviction / ownership. The portrayal of the stereotypes within the film addresses the archetypes around us which must be recognised as being the repeating cycle of destruction, the opposing force of innovation, creativity and growth. The factors which disturb the natural flow of things must be made apparent and tackled. The Idea, is definitely a film to be experienced and not just viewed as it taps into one's internal voice / conscience through the looking, it makes one feel as opposed to just watch. Interesting way of looking at how we as humans so often behave we are sometimes blinded by our desire to achieve perfection that we some times destroy the foundation of what we are trying to achieve. It also addresses the issue how we tend to ignore those among us who are not as outspoken and by doing this may miss out on a great opportunity. The injection of comedy also makes watching the film an enjoyable experience..A must see for anyone who is interested in a reflective yet comical look at life. I am eagerly looking forward to your next product.Hope that you will continue to provide us with quality entertainment. Excellent work ......Joanne I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem. This film provides us with an interesting reminder of how easy it is for so many to get caught up in the busy occupation of doing nothing. We as a people of African descent owe it to ourselves to make a change to this cycle of "all talk and no action" and start to realise in order to make a change, there needs to be less talk and more action. It is a powerful statement of the divisions of our people over small issues, and our failings to recognise the bigger picture and the need to unite in order to make a difference... Despite its reference to the black community, all viewers can learn something from the message this film seeks to portray. The idea is a very smart title the film has a serious tongue in cheek feel to it. But it is so subtle you don't know how to read it! Are these guys doing a full blown comedy or is there something else going on. The little dialogue the film has isn't very delicate and this adds to the power of the film. If all the sound was switched off from the film it actually wouldn't take anything away from the film. The physical actions or the art of showing is so strong that it on its own carries the entirety of the story.

I is a blessing and with the blessing the emotion is followed by shame. I first say this film as part of a "black" film festival. After watching the film i was so impressed by the work. But then i asked myself what next? Where can someone else see this work? The common association of art without purpose isn't to be found here. You can see the intention in the design from the start to the finish. The usage of African music the style the casting everything seems planned and for a reason. The character development is amazing. The casting i think is the strongest aspect of the film; the characters are easily defined within 2 minutes of the 6 minutes of actual film.

We need to see more of these kinds of films, there really needs to be greater support for the development of short films across the board. The idea ia a very short film with a lot of information. Interesting, entertaining and leaves the viewer wanting more. The producer has produced a short film of excellent quality that cannot be compared to any other short film that I have seen. I have rated this film at the highest possible rating. I also recommend that it is shown to office managers and business people in any establishment. What comes out of it is the fact that people with ideas are never listened to, their voice is never heard. It is a lesson to be learned by any office that wants to go forward. I hope that the produced will produce a second part to this 'idea'. I look forward to viewing the sequence. Once again congrats to Halaqah media in producing a film of excellence and quality with a lesson in mind. Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.

And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problem—brilliant stuff! Probably the first Portuguese film I have seen in my life, and I enjoyed it. The plot is related of how the young army officers took the power in Portugal in 1974, to finally defeat the fascist government of Caetano and to also finalize the wars in the colonies, i.e. Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea (Bissau)- Cape Vert. Most of the events shown in the film reflect with exactitude the behavior of the army officers and soldiers to conduct the coup, of the oppressed people, who were very happy with this new development and the liberty, the resistance of Caetano's men, and also in a subtle way of most conservative officials, including Spinola, who took over as the new president. The Portuguese revolution can be remembered because of the action of several young officers, but for me the most interesting part of the film was when the young captain expressed that Portugal should develop itself democratically, and this is what the country achieved some years after this coup or revolution. The film also shows that the army officers and soldiers never wanted to kill anyone; even the most serious enemies were respected at the end. Being half-portuguese doesn't render me half-blind (nor half-prejudiced) when discussing portuguese films. Not that I get to do that very often anyway. But this film was such a rush of adrenaline! Yes, that's right - it was mostly accurate as far as history went/goes - but it pulled no punches on venturing beyond usual portuguese-film territory: things like using real locations in the middle of traffic-congested Lisbon and recruiting a real crowd to stand in for the real crowd of almost 30 years ago. And by God did they get it right! OK, to sum it up: very emotional if you've lived through it, but you'll spot minor improvements that could have been made as well as plot necessities that were. If you're just watching it randomly, you're in for a good historical romp, only of the very recent History kind and a bit more thought-proving than usual. Even by European standards, yes. "Capitães de Abril" is a very good. The story isn't a documentary about the 1974 revolution in Portugal. But it gives us an idea of how it was like. The fiction of the story isn't of great interest, but it doesn't spoil the movie. The heroic actions of Captain Salgueiro Maia aren't exaggerations and the film is also a tribute for his deeds. Captain Salgueiro Maia remains one of the greatest heroes of the 25th of April Revolution.

All the actors are very good and even the smallest roles are played wonderfully. Lisbon looks beautiful as ever. Don't miss it! I liked this film very much. You know? Our spirit is based on that revolution, it's asleep... I can explain, I think!! Well... Until that happen on 25th April 1974, our freedom was limited, we didn't had liberty of speech, but when we got it at the revolution, it seems that Portuguese People lost his opinion, we don't use our liberty of speech! That's all a consequence of the revolution! I think that's clear!... About the movie... I think that it has a few mistakes on some character's acting, but by the way I use to watch on Portuguese movies it's quite good!! I like it very much! Principally it is the story of two men who were part of the Portuguese revolution. It was easy to understand the contest, but usually directors starts from a historical fact to speak about something else, or they shows also the period before or after this fact, here everything happen during that couple of days when the revolution acts. It could also be seen as a kind of documentary. The movie focalize to these two people, showing as normal they were, not like common heroes, because the revolution come from people. Although it was made from military army from the title you can understand that they were just "capitaes" as the main characters. Nice colors and lights during the whole movie, excellent work for the director being her first movie, she doesn't fall to the banal way. Well shown emotions and passion of people and crowd. The character of Maia (main one)is well-made and there is also a good interpretation for Stefano Accorsi, able to show Maia's limits, this not-being an hero. A true story about a true revolution, 25 of April ; a revolution against a repressive regime of 41 years, that was imposing a colonial war on it's military's, for maintaining an empire (Angola, Mozambique, Guine-Bissau, Cabo Verde, S. Tomé e Principe; the first and the last of the great colonial empire's of Europe) of 600 years, since it's beginning in the conquest of Ceuta in 1415; a revolution by the army for the people, and for a democratic Portugal; the most's surprising fact in this revolution is that it were no people killed in it (except those that died in the hand's of PIDE, the political police of the State, during a brutal gunfire against an unarmed crowd protesting in front of it's headquarters in the day of the revolution, in 25 of April 1974, has it show's on the film).And has all revolutions it has it's heroes, one them of was Captain Salgueiro Maia, a returned soldier from the war, whose convictions along with the rest of the army, was that they were fighting (since 1961) a hopeless war, and that sometimes a soldier has to disobey it's country. Several story lines are interwoven here around different women characters. The shoes they wear serve as an indication of their troubled lives. All are transformed at the end of the movie. Adela (Antonia San Juan) leads a brothel; Her daughter Anita (Monica Cervera) is retarded and has a restricted life. Leire (Najwa Nimri) is a shoe designer with problems and loses her boyfriend; Maricarmen (Vicky Peña) has lost her husband and now raises the children from his deceased former wife. Isabel (Ángela Molina) is a bored rich lady.

Other characters are used to connect the five main women characters. In storytelling not everything is given away in the beginning: Some connections are established surprisingly late in the movie and that adds to the experience. The shoe-theme is driven to extremes: For example when Leire as a shoe-designer and working in a shoe store where she steals her shoes faints, she breaks one of her heels.

In editing small connections are made between the scenes. A telephone rings, a cigarette is lit, a song, etc. are used to make the connection and fast cuts. Frequent change of storyline keeps it from being boring or reaching TV-levels. It is strongly music-driven to set tone and atmosphere. The cities of Madrid and Lisbon serve as the backdrop for the stories, and shots of those cities are used to extend the story beyond the characters. One of the more moving shots is when Anita, who makes the same walk every day, widens her walk and restricted life from the relative calm of her street to the busy main road: How the restriction of space is visually translated is well done. As with most Spanish movies a lot of storytelling is done visually, using the soap-like stories as the simple backdrop. There is a poetic ending that is somewhat romantic and sentimental but is still beautiful.

As Ramón Salazar is too much in love with his own material it is overlong. Some scenes are kitsch and on the soap level, including the acting (Adela's love life, Isabel's doctor). The shoe-theme is exaggerated and is a weak metaphor.

This is often compared to Magnolia because the structure is the same. But they are different. Magnolia is more technically competent, but somewhat mechanical. This has more the ability to translate emotion and atmosphere visually. After seeing this, you are inclined to immediately move to the new movie-city: Madrid. Since I watched it for the first time, "Piedras" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director.

Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.

"Piedras" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it. Women have never looked so attractive and pathetic as in Salazar's film Piedras. Although editor's cut here and there might help the film, it is exciting and enjoyable with an intense mark from Pedro Almodovar's latest films. 5 different women are coping with their male partners and families. Beginning with several different stories bound to meet as the plot goes on, Salazar portraits his women characters in the same neurotic and border-line behaviour familiar to Almodovar. A kleptomaniac high society lady with a fattish to smaller shoes, a burlesque house madam taking care of her disabled daughter, a drug addict dancer obsessed with her former boyfriend and a taxi-driver taking care of her late husband's disturbed kids, all roaming the streets of Madrid in well designed scenes. Using some of Almodovar's familiar actresses, the director succeeds in it's first film to give depth to all the characters sharing the film, and to create genuine sympathy with each of them. The women controls the plot line, and the men are bound to be left with each other, eventually... Surprisingly good for a first film, and worth the time in any standard. It is noticeable that Salazar hesitated in some needed guidelines to the actresses, but an impressible act is shown anyway on the screen, especially by Monica Cervera, which played in his former short film.

A must to all Almodovar's fans, and enjoyable to all. Well i do disagreed with the other comment posted. Piedras is much much better them Magnolia or any of the other films that were mentioned.

specially about non real characters, i think that someone just wrote that only because he never lived in the Spanish society like i did (and i'm not Spanish), is a very real film with real characters, very well done by one of the best Spanish actress Antonia San Juan.

about be a European film in contrast with an American film, well we different societies, personally i dislike American modern films a lot (i like the classics and some of the Andy American films but they are very few).

Is a film about the continuous Constitution of a person, liked or not we all make mistakes but some can learn about the mistakes. In life, we first organize stones (Piedras in Spanish) such as a career, family, friendship, and love. In this way, we shall find space between these to fit smaller stones, our small necessities. If you act in an inverse way, you will not have enough room for larger stones. The five protagonists in this film are women who have not been able to organize the large "stones" in their lives. Ramon Salazar, a Spanish motion picture director defines his first feature Stones in this way. The film tells the parallel, conflicting trajectory of five women: Anita (Monica Cervera, 1975-), Isabel (Angela Molina, 1955-), Adela (Antonia San Juan, 1961-), Leire (Najwa Nimri, 1972-), and Maricarmen (Vicky Pena, 1954-).All are endeavoring to remove the stones that insistently appear in their path or, worst, that are in their shoes. They are five Cinderellas in search of Prince Charming and a new chance in life. The best story of these five Cinderellas is that of Anita (Monica Cervera) who also stars in "20 Centimeters," "Busco," "Crimen Ferpecto," "Entre Vivir y Sonar," "Hongos," and "Octavia." Sarge Booker of Tujunga, California I saw this movie at the 18th Haifa film festival, and it is one of the best I've seen this year. Seeing it on a big screen (and I mean BIG, not one of those TV screens most cinemas have) with an excellent sound system always enhance the cinematic experience, as the movie takes over your eyes and ears and sucks you into the story, into the picture.

The movie presents a set of characters, which are loosely inter-connected. Their stories cross at certain points, and the multiplicity of story lines reminded me very much of the great Robert Altman and his exquisite films. But the true hero of the movie is obviously the city of Madrid, which provides the backdrop for the entire movie. It houses the characters, contains the pavements and roads on which they walk, and sets the background atmosphere for all the events, all in beautifully filmed scenes.

The movie returns again and again to certain themes (shoes, for instance), and in essence Salazar makes his metaphores more and more understandable to the viewer as the movie progresses. He combines the views of the city with the shots of the characters, and elegantly matches the feeling of the scene to the background. A set of talented actors helps him portrait a wide variety of characters. One excellent example is the scene in which Juaquin takes Anita across the street for the first time. It might not work on a small screen, but it gave me goose bumps easily on a big screen.

The message of the movie is very positive, and accordingly the movie is light and funny at times. The music along the movie is usually pop, with a few instrumental pieces (I hope to put my hand on the soundtrack one day, although I seriously doubt I will).

All together, I came out of this movie with a sensational feeling, and I'm not easily impressed (you'll have to take my word for it). For this and more I give this movie a solid 8/10. The movie begins a with mentally-challenged girl with bright yellow sneakers looking skyward on a Madrid street corner and being spellbound by a passing plane. The movie examines the life of five women—Adela, Leire, Maricarmen, Anita & Isabel—who have completely different lives and choices of shoes. Their shoes is the first superficial, yet affixed with some glancing meaning, clue we get at their fragile identities. In a theatrically embroidered and embellished way, a podiatrist tries to esoterically reveal the deepest secrets of a woman's souls by the sole of her feet. The premise is risky and slightly contrived, but the tone and depth of the movie takes a daring plunge for the good.

What may have been light-hearted and superficial, quickly switches gear with the a superb dysfunctional couple scene that leaves the viewer riveted for minutes, seeing the love or lack thereof, the pain, the confusion, the hope, the needs and escape mechanisms develop through minutes different rooms of the house and down to the street and eventually below... What a scene (!) , but there will be others as effective to follow and strengthen the strong characterization and directing displayed in this slice of life affair.

Moving along, a woman has lost the husband she loved and inherited his kids and his taxi, while another has completely lost her husband emotionally, sexually, intellectually, but not physically. A ghost, a pending divorce… reproach, regret & remorse. A new love? Can you love a mirage? Can you love the person in the mirror? Can you love someone you can't love? Or think you can't love? Can you love and live life even though it will always be somewhat hopeless? Yet isn't it exactly these hopes and dreams that keep us here grounded and in a spectrum of relative happiness? A lot of deep themes emerge and the final act brings people and ideas together to coalesce in an existential crisis with no clear cut solution, definitive decision or effective healing. Maybe a elusive thought, a fleeting feeling, but a lasting appreciation of life and of the artistry and intellect of the film. Live. Live again. Rewind the reel. Unveil the real, the important; the big stones (piedras) of life. The rest is just details. Spanish films are into a, if not Golden, definitely a Silver Age. Piédras is another example of a movie that takes people and their conflicts seriously. Although the feelings are strong or nearly at life or death-level, they still aren't really melodramatic. This could happen.

There are different stories here, which become connected. One is about the retarded girl, who doesn't dare to pass the street to the next block. One is about the middle-aged woman who finds the lover of her life in a foot fetischist. Another is about the girl with drug problems who's lover leaves her. Still another one is about the madame of a brothel who (almost) finds true love.

Definitely worth seeing. It's in Spain the moviemakers take women seriously. a pure reality bytes film. Fragile, beautiful and amazing first film of the director. Represented Spain on the Berlinale 2002. Some people has compared the grammar of the film with Almodovar's films...Well, that shouldn't be a problem... Domestic Import was a great movie. I laughed the whole time. It was funny on so many levels from the crazy outfits to the hilarious situations. The acting was great. Alla Korot, Larry Dorf, Howard Hesseman, and all the others did an awesome job. Because it is an independent film written by a first-time writer, it doesn't have the clichés that are expected of other comedies, which was such a relief. It was a unique and interesting and you fall in love with the characters and the heart-warming story. I heard it was based on a true story? If so, then that is hilarious (and amazing!). I highly recommend this movie. I gave this movie such a high mark because it was really cute, really funny, all while being unpretentious. I went to see this film when it was playing in the Philly area, and it was the centerpiece of a great night out with friends. The film is well written and well acted, and though it does feel a bit like a sitcom rather then a movie, that doesn't take away from the film. You just don't find comedies like this anymore, where you don't have to shock people to be funny. The film centers around a Ukranian housekeeper that finds herself working for a young couple in need of help. Though at first she helps, soon she adds more craziness to their lives then the couple bargained for. Things get further and further out of control until....you'll have to see! The banter had me laughing, even after leaving the theater. This film just put me in a good mood. I can't wait until it is released on DVD because I want this movie in my collection. Adorable! I saw Domestic Import in Philly in October with my kids. We all liked it so much that we saw it a second time with my parents. I haven't heard them laugh like that in years! It was the first time that I can remember seeing a movie that my parents and my kids could enjoy. It's really cute and we can't wait for it to come out on DVD. They need to make more movies like Domestic Import. It is refreshing to go to a movie that three different generations can enjoy (and not be embarrassed). I have not seen a movie this cute since My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I loved Mindy Sterling as the mother. She was also in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is in this too and he is hilarious. I remember him from WKRP. A charming, funny film that gets a solid grade all around. I saw a screener of this film recently at work. It was so nice to see this film in contrast with all the crappy horror movies I see every day. So much so, that I figured I'd write in. Not sure if this film is going to theaters, but I hope it does. Its a nice film to see with friends, its a charmer, and has some funny jokes. The acting was terrific (especially Howard Hessman and Larry Dorf. The directing was pretty good (not a film that needed to be over-directed). What really makes this film stand out I think is the writing. It was like Neil Simon, Seinfeldish, and the banter between characters is smart and has a nice rhythm. As an aspiring screenwriter, I notice those things! (I'm a dork). Anyway, a really cute film that I recommend. I saw this independent film when it was in Philadelphia and it was a pleasant surprise. I left the theater with a smile on my face. One of the things that made it so funny was that it was based on a true story -hilarious! It has some great character actors in it too. Mindy Sterling is in it and is very good. I loved her in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is also terrific. I remember him from Head of the Class. I am tired of all the dark edgy movies that keep getting made. This is fun and light, and I can watch it with my family and not be embarrassed. I keep checking to see when it will come out on DVD. I will definitely buy it. I am the parent of a special needs child and I enjoyed the the movie very much! It was loving, warm and fun. I learned a long time ago to see the humor in things. I especially thought it was sweet how all the other characters worried about Frankie and who would take care of him after his grandmother died. I attended a focus screening of the film with other parents and siblings of special needs children before the film was edited. Everyone enjoyed the film and it actually inspired wonderful discussions. We talked about how our kids make us laugh and we also talked about how we worry about them. The screenwriter talked about how she work with autistic children and other special needs children as a volunteer for several years. She based the character on a real person. Our family is blessed with a sense of humor that has gotten us through some very stressful times. I give the movie two thumbs up!!! I think that this film adds to diversity and is very accurate in terms of historic reconstruction. The way it shows the various communities leaving together in Thailand is very interesting...The Portuguese, the Japanese, and the various communities being managed by the king. The plots around the court are as usual a struggle for power with a lot of treason. The wardrobe is fine. The film is also done locally in Thailand in a reasonable production. The scene with the elefant as executors is very interesting. It is fun and I think that is also usable in schools for its historic accuracy because it shows that the European in Asia were subjects of the local kings in way very different from the traditional Hollywood perspective. A fabulous film. With everything you could want in a film. Huge battle scenes and lots of other action. Suspense, and a romantic love story.

Kind of like an old swashbuckler film. Totally entertaining from start to finish.

The editing was fast and you are never bored for a second. The story is like a classic story of trouble in the Royal Household. The actors are beautiful and the sets magnificent. The costumes are spectacular and the stunt work is imaginative. The special effects are amazing too.

Gary Stretch is really impressive as an actor and gorgeous to look at. He looks like a sure bet for Super Stardom.

John Rhys-Davies is wonderful as he usually is. He is one of the great actors of our time.

And Cindy Burbridge, Ex Miss Thailand is excellent and perfect for the leading lady, even doing an English accent with remarkable success.

I found out that the film has won numerous awards, and i can see why.

All in all this is an amazing Independent film. See it for sure.

I highly recommend it. And give it a TEN +!!! "Hollywood Hotel" is a fast-moving, exuberant, wonderfully entertaining musical comedy from Warners which is sadly overlooked. It should be remembered if only for providing the official theme song of Tinseltown -- "Hooray for Hollywood." The score by Richard Whiting and Johnny Mercer has a number of other gems, however, including the charming "I'm Like a Fish Out of Water," and "Silhouetted in the Moonlight." The best musical number is "Let That Be a Lesson to You," in which Dick Powell and company detail the misadventures of people who found themselves "behind the eight-ball," a fate which literally befalls slow-burning Edgar Kennedy at the number's end. The picture celebrates Hollywood glamour and punctures it all at once, as it gets a lot of comic mileage out of pompous and ego-maniacal actors and duplicitous studio executives. The cast includes a gaggle of great character comedians--Allyn Joslyn as a crafty press agent, Ted Healy as Dick Powell's would-be manager, Fritz Feld as an excitable restaurant patron, Glenda Farrell as Mona Marshall's sarcastic Gal Friday, Edgar Kennedy as a put-upon drive-in manager, Mabel Todd as Mona's goofy sister, and Hugh Herbert as her even goofier dad. The "racist" element mentioned in another review here is a ten-second bit where Herbert appears in black-face during a pseudo-"Gone With the Wind" sequence. It's in questionable taste, but it shouldn't prevent you from seeing the other delights in this film, notably the Benny Goodman Quartet (including Teddy Wilson and Lionel Hampton!) in what I believe is the only footage available on this incredible jazz combo. The "Dark Eyes" sequence goes on a bit too long and comes in too late, but otherwise "Hollywood Hotel" is a gem, well worth your time and certainly a film which should be considered for DVD release. "Hollywood Hotel" has relationships to many films like "Ella Cinders" and "Merton of the Movies" about someone winning a contest including a contract to make films in Hollywood, only to find the road to stardom either paved with pitfalls or non-existent. In fact, as I was watching it tonight, on Turner Classic Movies, I was considering whether or not the authors of the later musical classic "Singing In The Rain" may have taken some of their ideas from "Hollywood Hotel", most notably a temperamental leading lady star in a movie studio and a conclusion concerning one person singing a film score while another person got the credit by mouthing along on screen.

"Hollywood Hotel" is a fascinating example of movie making in the 1930s. Among the supporting players is Louella Parsons, playing herself (and, despite some negative comments I've seen, she has a very ingratiating personality on screen and a natural command of her lines). She is not the only real person in the script. Make-up specialist Perc Westmore briefly appears as himself to try to make one character resemble another.

This film also was one of the first in the career of young Mr. Ronald Reagan, playing a radio interviewer at a movie premiere. Reagan actually does quite nicely in his brief scenes - particularly when he realizes that nobody Dick Powell is about to take over the microphone when it should be used with more important people.

Dick Powell has won a Hollywood contract in a contest, and is leaving his job as a saxophonist in Benny Goodman's band. The beginning of this film, by the way, is quite impressive, as the band drives in a parade of trucks to give a proper goodbye to Powell. They end up singing "Hooray For Hollywood". The interesting thing about this wonderful number is that a lyric has been left out on purpose. Throughout the Johnny Mercer lyrics are references to such Hollywood as Max Factor the make-up king, Rin tin tin, and even a hint of Tarzan. But the original song lyric referred to looking like Tyrone Power. Obviously Jack Warner and his brothers were not going to advertise the leading man of 20th Century Fox, and the name Donald Duck was substituted. In any event the number showed the singers and instrumentalists of Goodman's orchestra at their best. So did a later five minute section of the film, where the band is rehearsing.

Powell leaves the band and his girl friend (Frances Langford) and goes to Hollywood, only to find he is a contract player (most likely for musicals involving saxophonists). He is met by Allen Joslyn, the publicist of the studio (the owner is Grant Mitchell). Joslyn is not a bad fellow, but he is busy and he tends to slough off people unless it is necessary to speak to them. He parks Powell at a room at the Hollywood Hotel, which is also where the studio's temperamental star (Lola Lane) lives with her father (Hugh Herbert), her sister (Mabel Todd), and her sensible if cynical assistant (Glenda Farrell). Lane is like Jean Hagen in "Singing In The Rain", except her speaking voice is good. Her version of "Dan Lockwood" is one "Alexander Dupre" (Alan Mowbray, scene stealing with ease several times). The only difference is that Mowbray is not a nice guy like Gene Kelly was, and Lane (when not wrapped up in her ego) is fully aware of it. Having a fit on being by-passed for an out-of-the ordinary role she wanted, she refuses to attend the premiere of her latest film. Joslyn finds a double for her (Lola's real life sister Rosemary Lane), and Rosemary is made up to play the star at the premiere and the follow-up party. But she attends with Powell (Joslyn wanting someone who doesn't know the real Lola). This leads to Powell knocking down Mowbray when the latter makes a pest of himself. But otherwise the evening is a success, and when the two are together they start finding each other attractive.

The complications deal with Lola coming back and slapping Powell in the face, after Mowbray complains he was attacked by Powell ("and his gang of hoodlums"). Powell's contract is bought out. Working with photographer turned agent Ted Healey (actually not too bad in this film - he even tries to do a Jolson imitation at one point), the two try to find work, ending up as employees at a hamburger stand run by bad tempered Edgar Kennedy (the number of broken dishes and singing customers in the restaurant give Edgar plenty of time to do his slow burns with gusto). Eventually Powell gets a "break" by being hired to be Dupre's singing voice in a rip-off of "Gone With The Wind". This leads to the final section of the film, when Rosemary Lane, Herbert, and Healey help give Powell his chance to show it's his voice, not Mowbrays.

It's quite a cute and appealing film even now. The worst aspects are due to it's time. Several jokes concerning African-Americans are no longer tolerable (while trying to photograph Powell as he arrives in Hollywood, Healey accidentally photographs a porter, and mentions to Joslyn to watch out, Powell photographs too darkly - get the point?). Also a bit with Curt Bois as a fashion designer for Lola Lane, who is (shall we say) too high strung is not very tolerable either. Herbert's "hoo-hoo"ing is a bit much (too much of the time) but it was really popular in 1937. And an incident where Healey nearly gets into a brawl at the premiere (this was one of his last films) reminds people of the tragic, still mysterious end of the comedian in December 1937. But most of the film is quite good, and won't disappoint the viewer in 2008. When we talk Hollywood Hotel we could be talking about one of three things, the actual hotel, the radio program, and this film which was partially inspired by the first two. Dick Powell was the host of the Hollywood Hotel program on CBS radio network in which Louella Parsons dished out the weekly scoop on the stars.

Powell and Parsons debuted the Hollywood Hotel program in 1934 so by 1937 it had its fair share of the radio audience. Powell hosted, sang, and kibitzed with Louella and her movie star guests. With the power she had with her column, she was able to get the various stars to go on and plug their latest films for nothing.

Then the American Federation of Radio Artists stepped in and demanded she pay wages accordingly and they won the case. That ended the Hollywood Hotel program in 1938. Of course both Powell and Louella went on to other radio venues. The whole story is covered in the Tony Thomas book, The Films Of Dick Powell.

But before the plug was pulled this film came out from Powell's home studio of Warner Brothers inspired by the radio program. Powell plays a singer/saxophonist with the Benny Goodman band who gets signed to a Hollywood contract. But when he gets out to Hollywood he gets himself tangled up with an egotistical film star Lola Lane, her lookalike double real life sister Rosemary Lane, and a ham actor in Alan Mowbray.

When Mowbray is called upon to sing in a Civil War epic he's making with Lola Lane, it's Powell's voice they use. Then Mowbray develops a Lina Lamont problem when he's asked to go on the Hollywood Hotel radio program, broadcast from the Hollywood Hotel. That's got the studio in a tizzy. Let's say the problem isn't solved the way it is Singing In The Rain, but Powell's manager Ted Healy proves to be resourceful.

Richard Whiting and Johnny Mercer provide a really nice score for the film. The big hit song comes right at the beginning as the Benny Goodman band with scat singing Johnnie Davis sing Hollywood's anthem, Hooray for Hollywood. My favorite however is Powell and Rosemary Lane singing, I'm Like A Fish Out Of Water. Just listening to Johnny Mercer's lyrics about Ginger Rogers running the Brooklyn Dodgers or Sally Rand without her fan, it's a compendium of American popular culture in the Thirties.

Busby Berkeley does the choreography here and while the film doesn't have the soaring imaginary stuff that his earlier work with Warner Brothers has, the numbers are well staged. Berkeley's big moment is in a drive-in eatery where Powell and Healy have been forced to take jobs. The number starts with Benny Goodman broadcasting from the Hollywood Hotel doing Let That Be A Lesson To You and then at the drive-in Powell, Lane and the entire place start joining in song to the exasperation of owner Edgar Kennedy. And you know what you can expect from Edgar Kennedy exasperation.

Benny Goodman gets to show why he was named the King Of Swing when the band with drummer Gene Krupa and xylophonist Lionel Hampton as part of his ensemble. That together with Frances Langford singing as well. And possibly the last surviving cast member of the group was a fellow who had a small bit as a radio announcer. He died in 2004, but not before he became the 40th President of the United States. Ronald Reagan always credited Dick Powell and Pat O'Brien as being the two guys on Warner Brothers who were the most helpful to an eager young player looking to make his mark.

Hollywood Hotel is one delightful and entertaining motion picture, dated, but charmingly so. I'm not a fan of Adam Sandler. In fact, I don't think I've ever liked him in anything I've seen him in. The opening scene of this movie confirmed my worst fears. There was Adam Sandler, playing a somewhat ridiculous looking character riding around New York City on a motor scooter, looking pitiful and lost. Typical Sandler-type loser character again, I thought. I almost gave up then and there. But then, as I stuck with this, I actually discovered something I never knew before: Adam Sandler can act! He is truly outstanding in this movie as Charlie, a lost and lonely figure, whose entire family (including the dog) was killed in one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 and who has apparently lost all touch with reality as a result. Don Cheadle plays his former college roommate who unexpectedly reconnects with Charlie and takes it on as his mission to help him get better. Of course, Cheadle's Alan Johnson has his own problems and sources of unhappiness, and somehow these two men manage to help each other through their difficulties. The two of them made a completely believable team, and Sandler in particular made Charlie real, working through his emotions and feelings. This is not a Sandler comedy. If your looking for that go to some of his other, sillier, stuff. This is a pretty heavy movie - sometimes sad, sometimes hopeful and always engrossing. There are some funny parts in it. I loved the scene in which Charlie convinces Alan to confront his partners by reminding him of how tough he was in college, and then the conversation the two of them have afterward.

I personally didn't think that Saffron Burrows added much to the movie as Donna, an obviously needy patient of Johnson's. The only reason for the character seemed (based on one flashback) to be that she looked eerily like Charlie's late wife, but that was never really developed, and I just didn't care that much for the character. Do look for the part of the judge, however, played by Donald Sutherland, who I thought nailed the part bang-on. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is Sandler's movie, and kudos to him for a great performance. Definitely his best in my opinion. 8/10 A powerfully wonderful movie. You are held in a death-grip once you let yourself get involved with the story. A successful dentist, Alan Johnson(Don Cheadle), is torn in a life crisis of balancing his career with his family. He notices his former college roommate Charlie Fineman(Adam Sandler)and wants to touch base. He finds that Charlie, who lost his wife and family in the 9-11 attack on America, is no longer in touch with reality...choosing to involve his mind with his favorite music from the past and video games. The former roommates rekindle their friendship and strengthen their former bond. Johnson has his friend Angela Oakhurts(Liv Tyler), a psychiatrist, to try and bring Charlie out of his grief...but it is Alan that accomplishes in getting his friend to emerge from his deep darkness. Jada Pinkett Smith plays Johnson's wife. Writer and director Mike Binder plays the role of Charlie's attorney/guardian. Also in the cast: Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Adell Modell and Robert Klein. Outstanding soundtrack featuring the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Graham Nash, Pear Jam and The Pretenders.

NOTE: I have never been a Sandler fan; but I found him outstanding in this role. In some of the scenes, I thought out loud...why has he never been approached to play singer/songwriter Bob Dylan in a biopic. Sandler is amazing again... I have already become a Sandler fan. This movie is the saddest Sandler story. Its expression is fantastic. I cried more watching Click but there are some similar points. To consider the value of the family before losing it and to be able to say 'I love you' are a few of the most impressive truths in life... It is tough, it is real... and actually there is a real owner of this success, Binder. I don't think another director could give these emotions in such a way.

Cheadle and Burrows are also amazing... Cheadle is one of my favorites since Crash. Don't expect laughing or much positive atmosphere... If you are ready to face the realities of life, don't miss this movie. **Possible Spoiler*** Adam Sandler is usually typecast in Comedy,but in "Reign",gives a deeply moving performance.While there are people who showed Courage facing post September 11,2001,Sandler plays Fineman,a widower who is lonely and "lost in his own world".Johnson(Cheadle),a practicing dentist,encounters his old College buddy(Sandler)and wants to catch up on "Old times".We see,as in Rain Man(Dustin Hoffman),Fineman also gets emotional and withdrawn in stressful situations.Oldies music,appears to be a comfort and "Psychological" crutch for him to lean on.

Johnson looks for,in Fineman,that certain pleasure and ease missing in his Family.He also feels unhappy and unsatisfied in his Job.In the same instance,He also wants to make sure his friend does not fall through the social "cracks".I came away from this movie,with a different outlook and more sympathetic Compassion for grieving families. For those of you that don't that reference, clubberin was 4 fists hitting one body...

Anyways, onto the review.

I miss WCW Saturday Night. Some of my favorite wrestling moments took place on this stage. I remember watching Stunning Steve Austin, Rick Rude, Brian Pillman, Cactus Jack, Dustin Rhodes, Johnny B. Badd, DDP in his jobber days, Lord Steven Regal, Harlem Heat, Ricky Steamboat, STING...I'd be here a while listing everyone. Point is WCW had an awesome roster in the pre Hogan days and they were producing entertaining television. Dusty Rhodes on commentary in it's later years gave me a whole new reason to watch when I started smoking pot as a teenager...I really wish Vince would put him on the mic for a show or two, maybe at the next Great American Bash? They CLUBBERIN! Here comes DA PLUNDA! He was great.

-DirrTy True, the idea for this TV series may have sprung from the immense success which Ally McBeal is enjoying worldwide, even here in Germany. However, this said, Edel & Starck is very different from Ally McBeal in many ways.

The two main characters work beautifully together. Felix Edel (Felix Noble), played by well-known German actor, Christoph M. Ohrt and Sandra Starck (Sandra Strong - Noble & Strong, get it ???), played by charming Rebecca Immanuel, exchange quick romantic repartees and continually spy on each other while engaging in sitcom-like criminal cases in Berlin and surroundings. Further, they are aided by a magnificent cast of co-stars, most notably their secretary, played by Isabel Tuengerthal, who is a rare gem with GREAT comic potential. Also the shady wheeler-dealer, Otto, and the noble childhood pal of Felix, Frank, work very well, not to forget Sandra's best friend and room-mate, Patricia, played by the beautiful Barbara Demmer.

All-in-all a joy to watch on Monday nites: no wonder that the series and its stars have received several prizes. Will Felix get Sandra ?

I hope that we will have to wait for many more episodes to find out...... This series it's "something different". Sometimes European series are less accurate than the USA ones, but this time authors have hit the right target creating a mix that works in a smoothly way. Edel & Starck is great, it has all: great plot, smart, witty, always well delivered lines, an amazing theatrical timing showed by all the stars and beautiful shots of Berlin, one of the most interesting city in the world. It's entertaining to see how things works in the justice field in other countries than the USA and for once "feel" the old Europe way of dealing with life. Kudos to all the cast and crew for a well done comedy that is going to be a must to see in the years to come.Watching the series in German is super. German private TV is ill-renowned for copying Dutch and – naturally – US formats. Well, in the case of Edel & Starck, the xeroxing only went as far as the basics: Screwball.

You can't stand screwball comedy? Don't watch Edel & Starck. Seriously. If you expect yet another lawyers' drama thingy similar to Law&Order or something, well, go somewhere else. (Or watch Law&Order as it's quite brilliant at what it does, but I digress.) E&S is funny, often addresses thought-provoking themes, is funny, romantic, funny, funny, and witty, too.

Frankly, I am quite dismayed the writers didn't get better deals after the serial's final. And my cynical nature needs to readjust itself re: private German television productions. German residents will understand what I'm talking about.

In short: Watch it. I don't have the foggiest what the English synchronisation is like, but hey, it's worth learning German just to watch them four seasons. Pseudo-happy end included. Anna (Ursula Andress) is brought in as an official R.N. by ex-lover Benito Varotto (Duilio Del Prete), ostensibly to nurse an aging widower, Count Leonida Bottacin (Mario Piso), back to health after a heart attack. But Benito is actually leading a group of heirs and businessmen, including American entrepreneur Mr. Kitch (Jack Palance), with ulterior motives, reflected by what Anna hopefully will actually accomplish with the Count. He has a history of, well, liking women, and would be actually a bit more "vulnerable" as he is cured. The bad guys get derailed as Anna does not go along and grows closer to the Count. The ending might be said to be ironic, but it is probably better described as predictable.

But so much for plot--this film is totally an erotic comedy, from start to finish, and oh how good. There are many nude scenes, including ones of Anna and Jole, one of the malevolent heiresses, played by Luciana Paluzzi. Both Ursula and Luciana are noteworthy continental ex-Bond women, and thus fulfill the fantasies of male viewers. As she did in Thunderball (remember Fiona Volpe), Luciana plays a femme fatale, sort of, although less elegantly.

Perhaps the best scene is Anna's (slow) complete strip and jump in bed with the young Adone, the "other patient" (who incredibly is resisting), in an attempt to find out what he knows about the plot. But even at this point she is already two-faced (for the better), for she has decided not to go along. However, Benito is more than a two-timer with women, having had lengthy flings in the past with both Anna and Jole, and the rival best erotic scene follows an invective-filled (to put it mildly) argument between him and Jole. This is a standing-up encounter in which Luciana is down to black panties only. Another nice one is Ursula swimming fully naked in the estate's pool. The Count is free, as the client, to put his hands wherever he wants to on Ursula, and he takes advantage. Hey, somehow I've gone back to the actresses' names in my descriptions. Erotic scenes involving other women include an amusing naked wine cellar chase. "The Sensuous Nurse" is compact, 77 minutes, but it doesn't need to be--it is enjoyable without interruption, start to finish. Definitely recommended.

The Sensuous Nurse (1975) was a Italian sexual comedy that starred the one time Bond girl Ursula Andress. Man was she hot in this movie.. She was stacked and built like a *@#% brick house. Ursula was smoking hot in this movie. I have never seen a nurse's outfit that filled out before.

Ms. Andress stars as a nurse who is hired to take care of a rich elderly man. Even one in the house seems to be knocking the boots. One night, the nurse decides to take the grandson's temperature and give some needed T.L.C. to her ancient client. The old man takes to his nurse and this angers the rest of the family. What kind of job did the family hire her out to do? Will the geezer fall for her car giver? How can she deal with the octogenarian crone and the rest of the family? To find out you need to find a copy of the SENSUOUS NURSE!! Italian but badly dubbed into English.

Highly recommended. Having lived in Ontario my whole life, in the same town that Marlene Moore grew up in, I've heard stories of her from my parents, grandparents and family members. So when I found out that they would be filming a movie about her, and that the beginning would be shot on my street, and her house quite close to mine I was excited.

If you read the book Rock a Bye Baby, which is about Marlene Moore you get quite the different image of her as a person, she was considered awkwardly beautiful by people who really had the chance to know her with the exception of her own family who frequently abused her as a child, with the exception of one of her brothers. Also, if you live in my area and are intelligent enough to listen to those around you who knew her from school you'd find out that she was truly wounded before she even set foot in an institution, she was always defensive and what would seem like an unwillingness to learn in a school environment was actually embarrassment over the fact that she was unable to.

Marlene did not deserve the life she was given, with the lack of help she desperately needed to receive. It was the government and the people around her that aided further in her death by not attempting to understand her needs and why she did what she did. I still find myself angered that she was put in jail for self-defense from a man who tried to rape her. As her brother once said, "They didn't know what to do with her so they locked her away and it killed her." I believe in that with all my heart.

Rest in peace Marlene, you deserve it so much. This is a great film. Touching and strong. The direction is without question breathless. Good work to the team. I feel so sorry for Marlene, By the grace of God go you or I This film was on last week and although at that time of the day (around 6pm) the quality of the movies is almost never good (at least here on Mexican TV), I couldn't switch the TV off. The story about Madelene Moore really touches you. She doesn't come across as a very sympathetic character at first, but seeing the whole film, you just want her so succeed. This film really leaves you thinking. And i think that basically due to the great acting of Brooke Johnson. I had never heard of her before nor knowingly seen her in another film, but this was great great acting. Compliments to Brooke. I hope to see her in another film soon. "Dangerous Offender" is the story of a seemingly anti-social girl, and how she got that way. It's based on a true story, and though I was irritated by the one-note depiction i.e. ever scowling, of the title character, and the hard-to-believe dedication of her lawyer, I'm forced to accept that life does imitate art, and that there are people out there like that.

The movie succeeds, for me, because, although there's little softening of the title character's demeanour until almost the end, one is gradually moved to sympathy for her, as the movie shows how she got to her present state - which proves to be self-destructive, rather than anti-social.

Truly a moving movie, which will bring a lump to your throat, when you think on it - which will be often.

Despite its many flaws,(including that it's hard to watch, sometimes, because of bodily functions, and suicide attempts)this is another production that I'm proud to call Canadian. I have seen The Perfect Son about three times. I fail to see how this film is a gay film, I am not even gay, but I don't see it as a gay film. It is a film with a gay character, I can't see why every film with a gay character should be strictly a film about being gay. I find the film to be sympathetic to the study of death, the death of someone who is your kin. I think Theo turns his life around fairly quickly after rehab because he wants to and watching his brother dying in front of him makes him reassess his life. I found the dialog in the scene when Theo tells Ryan he is going to be a father to be very moving, Ryan states that he doesn't want to know about the things he is never going to see or share with anyone. Isn't that horrific and sad? I highly recommend the film. The Perfect Son is a story about two 30-something brothers, one who is seemingly "perfect" and the other who is basically a screw-up, frequently landing himself in drug rehab centers. After the death of their father, the two are brought together after a long absence and the usual sibling rivalry resurfaces. It isn't until the "perfect" brother makes the startling revelation that he has AIDS that the irresponsible younger brother finally makes a move to get his life in order, and take some responsibility.

The movie does a nice job of chronicling the younger brother's "comeback", though it may seem a bit far-fetched at times (beating drug addiction is never so easy). What makes the film more tender is the treatment of AIDS, a topic that has become somewhat passe in cinema over the last 5-10 years. And also the development of an almost sweet relationship between the two formerly feuding brothers is very believable and well-done. The two main actors were both very competent, if not terribly charismatic.

A solid first feature effort from director and writer Leonard Farlinger whose own brother died of AIDS. The ending is nicely done as well.

I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.

When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future! I have to be honest and say I bought this movie, not because of the content, but because David Cubitt is in it; I know ... shallow, or what? - but, come on, Mr Cubitt is a fantastic actor to put it mildly.

I really didn't know what to expect from watching this movie, I'd read the other write up, and those on other sites but I have to say I was drawn into the world of the brothers almost from the get go. David Cubitt as Theo, and Colm Feore as Ryan are so believable as the two estranged brothers, the film moves through their relationship as they start to try getting to know each other again after their fathers death. The scene where Theo finds out Ryan is gay was played brilliantly, he literally walks in on a scene and tries to leave without Ryan noticing - which of course he has.

The film has been very well researched and is therefore incredibly sad, moving, uplifting and a celebration of life in parts. I came away from this feeling sad at what Ryan went through but also with the knowledge that he was given hope and unconditional love by the ex drug addict brother Theo. I agree with the other reviewer who finds the scene where Theo says he will be a father moving, and I'd go a little further to say I actually vocalised my thoughts at Ryan when he cruelly says to Theo 'What makes you think you can be a father' and Theo says simply 'You.' Theo walks away then, but that small exchange of dialogue speaks volumes to the almost self pitying aspect of Ryan who is brought up sharply by the simple retort.

A brilliantly conceived movie on all counts, the acting, directing, writing etc are all so well done. I can't really find anything else to say about this movie, except to say that it is very hard dealing with the death of a loved one but this is done superbly, to the infinite degree. The respect for the subject matter and the outpouring of love (without being contrite and mawkish) speaks volumes in this rather selfish world we live in today. Well done to all concerned.

Not many movies bring me to tears and give me pause to think about life in general, and also to be glad for all the things I have and not be sad for the things I don't, but this movie did, it was unbelievably uplifting considering the subject matter. I have found this movie available for streaming on Netflix and thought I'd give it a try.

The plot revolves around Ryan and Theo Taylor (Colm Feore and David Cubitt) who have finally seen each other after their father has passed away. Ryan and Theo at first argue about who did what. But later, Theo finds out that his brother Ryan is not only gay but he is dying of a terminal illness. So, Ryan and Theo spend their time patching up their differences.

This is such an incredible film. I have only seen Colm Feore in Season 7 of 24 but he was phenomenal in this. David Cubitt, an actor I have NEVER heard of before did a phenomenal job as well.

I would recommend this to those who are interested in the Gay and Lesbian genre. This is one movie you don't want to miss.

I give this film 10 stars out of 10. Excellent film! I've read a few of the reviews and I'm kinda sad that a lot of the Story seems glossed over. Its easy to do because its not a Book, its a movie and there's only so much that can be done in a movie- US Or Canadian- or anywhere.

Colm Feore does, at least for a recovering "F@g-Hag" like myself, a great job of not only playing the 'friendly neighborhood' gay man- but playing sick. I mean, the man really can't get much more pale! Though, you might never know it from the strip down near the... um, end.

If you need decrepit, there are a few SKing movies you might like.

Being the daughter of a Recovering Alchoholic, the druggie brother {David Cubitt} was the trick for me. I'm going to give him cred, he grew up quick- and believe me that's good. And, as an Aspiring writer, moimeme, I can dig a lot of his insights and overviews. But I'm more prosy than poetic.

I may be easy to please, but I enjoyed it. A nice story pretty well put together- by Canadians, quelle surprise. Just toed the line of the 'Movie of the week,' missing it by not being as drawn out, GREATLY Appreciated. And it was rather cleverly portrayed. For me this movie was powerful. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I had a friend years ago; we were like brothers. This movie brought back some vivid memories.

For some reason, I couldn't place my vote for this movie which would have been a 10. I kept getting a message like "No votes have been placed...." And yet I saw in the stats that there were. Will try again tomorrow (Monday).

Minor flaws I overlooked. It was the relationships between the characters that got me. Beautifully acted and real situations. I've been in a couple of them.

A small gem of a movie. Just like "Spring Forward" is another overlooked gem. I'm very glad movies like these are still being made; about relationships between people, well written, sensitively unfolded with first-class acting and direction. After all, isn't that what it's all about? I´m glad that someone has made a movie about how hard it is to risk your heart for a second time. Or third. This movie is exactly what it promises to be - lovely, amusing and it gives you this good feeling around your heart when it ends. The plot might be not very inventive, but there are millions of ways to tell the story and they have not been all used yet. The cast is perfectly selected although Scott Wolf does not look like a father of an eight year old not even when he is wearing a suit. So, the sparks are on all the right places, supporting cast is lovably supporting and although you could probably predict the whole movie you would not want to switch the channel. It is just the right sort of entertainment for a Sunday evening. As romantic comedies go, this was a cute and winning one. I thought that the writing could have been stronger to build up the final connection a bit better, but that is not a huge tripping point. But, Amanda Detmer and Scott Wolf give nice performances and are as charming as ever. These are two of my favorite actors, and I was just glad to see them cast as romantic leads. I hope to see them cast in more projects soon.

Overall, this movie won't change your life, but is is sweet, warm and winning. Not a bad thing to be at all. An MGM MINIATURE Short Subject.

The editor of the Cole County Clarion must decide what is the real IMPORTANT NEWS for his readers: an impending frost which may spell disaster to their crops, or the sensational shooting-down of a notorious gangster on their small town main street.

This is an enjoyable little one-reeler, featuring a good performance by comic Charles `Chic' Sale. Today's viewers will perhaps be more interested in the appearance of uncredited James Stewart, as Sale's nephew/assistant. Slow talking & somewhat goofy, Stewart shows many of the attributes which would make him a huge star in a very short time.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something like writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. .......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.

He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.

Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.

Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.

His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.

He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.

Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide. I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved. Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in "The Unknown Man," a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.

"The Unknown Man" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.

Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinée idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.

Very good movie with good performances. Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the "unknown man" who heads the syndicate, and murders him.

The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another "unknown man" -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years. Only saw this show a few times, but will live in my memory.

It is very frustrating that it is so difficult to find this anywhere to purchase and yet there seem to be endless repeats of stuff like Friends! Especially even more difficult to obtain being in England I guess..?

They say it was low ratings or was it a complaint from the Bakersfield PD themselves? Maybe it was just too clever for certain people?

Anyhow, just about the one comedy I would love to see again but is almost impossible to find. I hear it is being or has been repeated on another network? But alas not over here!!

Summary: Ingenious. I liked this show a lot - we got the first and only, it would appear, series in the UK on channel 4. The characterisation was right on the money - a bit like the Simpsons in that all the different facets of small town populace were represented.

There was no laughter track - I hadn't seen this on an American TV comedy at the time except for on Larry Sanders and it really worked well here, heightening the suggestion that these wacky cops were really like that, and not just hamming it up for the cameras.

All in all, a quirky little number that tickled me just right: I can't help but think that maybe it missed it's mark with certain audiences. I think it would have been a cult hit in the UK had it been shown at an acceptable hour.

I'll round this off with my standard comment: Where the hell can I get hold of this to watch it again? Any ideas? I love to watch this movie a lot because of all the scary scenes about the raptors. I like raptors because they are scary. My favorite parts are the ones where the raptor looks behind the pillar because it reminds me of a scene from the Friday the 13th movie with the girl who eats the banana.

I really love to watch a lot of this movie because the computer graphics seem a little fake but it's okay because once you get into the movie you hardly even notice what is going on and I think it's got a good ending even though I didn't really understand what was going on on my first couple viewings I figured it out over time and that's the important part. The other important part is how scary the dinosaurs can be if you're watching it the first time.

THIS IS BEST MOVIE. This was the worst movie I've ever seen, yet it was also the best movie. Sci Fi original movie's are supposed to be bad, that's what makes them fun! The line, "I like my dinosaur meat well done!" is probably the best quote ever! Also, the plot sounds like something out of a pot induced dream. I can imagine it now, the writers waking up after a long night of getting high and playing dance dance revolution, then putting ideas together for this: Space marines got to alien planet, which is infested with dinosaurs and has medieval houses in it, to protect a science team studying the planet. Best idea ever! In fact, in fits the complete Sci Fi original movie checklist: guns dinosaurs medieval times space travel terrible acting

So go watch this movie, but don't buy it. wow, how can I even discuss this movie without tears coming to my eyes? It was surely the highlight of my year--nay--my life. As if the raptor graphics weren't amazing enough, the award-winning editors continued to use the exact same shot throughout the entire movie, even when the background didn't actually match up with the setting of the scene. Wow, what genius. And while the movie is full of plot-holes (for instance, a few clips of a t-Rex type animal where a raptor should be and one key moment where Pappy finds a torture chamber, screams "Colin's a girl!" and runs out) I will never forget the brilliance that is Raptor Planet. Thank you Sci-Fi for another classic. dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking "no way he has plenty better" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER. If you are used to seeing Gabriel Byrne in serious roles such as Tom in Millers Crossing or Keaton in The Usual Suspects I recommend you take a look at this film. Even if you are not a fan of Gabriel Byrne in particular, all the actors in this film give really great performances. If you've got about eleven bucks (that is close to nine quid) I say order it online, or rent it from you favorite movie rental place. Guaranteed to make you laugh, whether or not you normally like gangster type movies. Mad Dog Time/Trigger Happy is one of those movies you never forget, and find yourself watching over and over. You will talk about it so much your friends will be begging to borrow it. Not a movie for everyone, but this movie is in my top 10. I am a lover of black comedy. With a cast including Richard Dreyfus (Vic), Jeff Goldblum (Mick), Larry Bishop (Nick) and Gabriel Byrne (Ben 'Brass Balls' London) in the leads, the lines can't help but be dry. The supporting cast is nearly dead center. Counting the minor flaws in the movie: Ellen Barkin's make-up gave her face has a washed out look; there were a couple of gimme cameos by Joey Bishop and Richard Pryor that served no purpose, and Michael J. Pollard's screen time was too short. Over all, the cast was just incredible without egos to wreck a fine script. If you have seen Larry Bishop's (writer, director) film, Underworld (a dark crime flick), you will enjoy this one. His next outing (writer, director, actor) is Hell Ride with Michael Madsen and Quentin Tarantino. The world is a terrible place. But this movie is farce and it's fun. And if you don't like it... you don't get it... and if you don't get... it doesn't matter. It's up to you if you want to play along. Every actor in this one had fun. It's only a joke. And that's good enough for me. Gabriel Byrne is priceless. Byrne and Paul Anka doing MY WAY is, as "Vic" puts it, "...the best version ever". Okay... it's no masterpiece, but it's not bad. I was warned against seeing it, but I'm sure glad I did... This a superb self-contained work that is unconnected with anything before or after. Brat Pack crooning and club exclusivity are not my biscuits of choice, but in this law-free world they make an alluring ambiance. The film is packed with Our Guys, distinctive actors who add distinction to this work with winning performances. The dialogue is a joy. In fact it's a new vernacular. One of the few films that can be watched repeatedly with deepening appreciation.

Highpoints include Billy Idol's British loutishness, Ben London's vulturine brassware, Kyle's squirmishness, and the survey of ad hoc philosophies. This movie is great. Simply. It is rare that you find a comedy with levels, and this is a bloody good example of such. When I saw this movie first, as the credit rolled, a friend and I looked to one another and asked... 'did you just catch that?' For those doubters, look at the levels. See the comparisons between Vick and the people in the club, the DNA! See the diverse characters, each jostling for position, and if you see nothing else, see the connection between the cure of Vick and the path through the film. IT'S ALL IN VICK'S HEAD! The opening line about Vick's world. The closing scene with the camera going into Vick's head, and inside, a whole universe! Thoroughly quotable, wonderful cartoon gangsters, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! When seeing this movie you should take notice to that it´s not a normal movie. It has no real story just characters, a bunch of gangster characters who come together in a perfect harmony. The dialogue is wonderful, you can just lay back and listen. The movie stands out thats why it´s hard to find a right way of describing it.

Thats why the user comments on this movie is so mixed.

I for one love the movie and recommend it to all who love one-liners and things that differ from the "normal". You can´t really put the finger on what´s so wonderful about it it´s just a comical world where gangsters rule. A place of love and danger. A movie that you can see more than one time. Most of the comments have been positive but I would like to add that viewers should also focus on the sets. The set designer used a lot of beautiful art deco treatments along with beautiful buildings, stairs, doors, furniture and so forth. It is worth paying attention to. The movie is driven by characterization and symbolism which is very rich. All the gangster actors were cast - it was like seeing old friends and it was a treat. The dialog was amusing at times but stilted at times and I suppose it was meant to be that way. This is a film buff's film. It was made by people, for people who love the medium. Don't miss this one. I originally saw this very dark comedy around 2000 or so on cable TV. What a surprise and delight! Everyone is covertly armed in this movie! Dreyfuss plays the "mental" don (remember the New York don who was supposed to be schizophrenic? Art imitates life or vice-versa?). Diane Lane and Ellen Barkin are at their most beautiful and NOT to be toyed with! Thus proving that beauty and toughness DO go together! Then there is the great "bullshit" scene between Barkin and Jeff Goldblum (Rita and Mickey) where they verbally play off the world "bullshit." This film is both subtle and bald. For all the shooting, it can be a very quiet film. And, you have the opportunity to see several actors in their final or near final roles. Joey Bishop. Richard Pryor. Henry Silva. It is not a film for everyone. But, if you like a film that has a lot of word play and keeps moving without blowing up everything in sight, this is the film for you. Roger Ebert dumps on this film. He's flat wrong. THIS is a fine, fine film! Maybe just not one for Ebert. I consider it as a 10 because of how well it is done and how funny the script can be, while not really being a straight comedy kind of film. I like it so well that I bought it on DVD because it just doesn't get shown very much on cable TV. Now, it's all mine! I don't know much about the Rat Pack, and Frank Sinatra always seemed a bit too self-consciously full of himself to me. So when I call this one of my all-time faves, it's nothing to do with a tribute-band mentality. As another reviewer says, Mad Dog Time is about symbolism, not realism. It's kafkaesque (a pity Kyle MacLachlan is probably the weakest of a very strong crowd, when he was so good as Josef K), it's stylish, knowing, sardonic and slick. Jeff Goldblum is navigating his way around a variety of characters, trying not to get shot and acting deftly rather than dorkily, trying to stay abreast of what he knows and others don't, whom he can outshoot and whom he can't. Gabriel Byrne and Richard Dreyfuss (his best performance) have a ball, and the supporting cast look spot-on. The symbolism, the settings (the one outdoor motion shot with Jeff Goldblum walking down the steps seems really weird after so much lounge lizardry), the dialogue (style, not practicality, is the order of the day), it's all about characters interacting, not really gangsterism. Fun to watch, must've been fun to do. What the critics were up to is really a mystery... Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman "Brass Balls" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival "Wacky" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on "My Way" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio. Simply, one of the funiest movies i've ever seen. It's a parody of crime-life, parody of everything that represents the Chicago 1930.- There is no realy need to underestimate this movie because rating is under 5. Its a opinion of a mass, and mass is hypnotized. Who decide to watch it - it will regret, Who decide not to watch it - will regret more. This has to be one of my favourite movies of all time. The dialogue, with the constant use of puns is very tight, the cast are superb, and the plot is highly original.

Don't take my word for it - watch this movie and enjoy it for yourself. I love this movie. It's wacky, funny, violent, surreal, played out in a madman's head, and definitely not your usual comedy.

If you don't find the film amusing then I guess it's just not for your tastes, so this is a tough one to write a review for.

For reference, some other comedies I love are The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, and Zoolander (that one only got me the second time around). There are others, but my taste is definitely for the unusual, and I am willing to accept that most people just don't tend to like that kind of thing. I make no apologies for having an unusual sense of humour - at least I have one.

The scenes and characters of this particular movie are well put together, the verbal humour is hilarious, the situations are intriguing, the acting is very good (as you would expect of the cast), though the acting demands made of the cast by the script are not particularly high. The overall package makes for fun, funny, watchable yet violent entertainment. It was hard for me to believe all of the negative comments regarding this all-star flick. I laughed through the entire picture, as did my entire family. The movie clearly defined itself as an old time gangster comedy--the players were hysterical--I'll bet they had a good old time while making it. Of course Goldblum and Dreyfuss were great--and how about those Everly sisters, each of the two Falco's, and the divine music throughout. Rob Reiner made a great laughing limo driver, and Gabriel Byrne a laughable neurotic. Not to mention Gregory Hines, Burt Reynolds, the Sleepy Joe character and the whole mortuary and grave digger references. Paul Anka was his usual entertaining self, with the added attraction of running scared after Byrne decided to make a duet of his "My Way" welcome home to Vick performance.

I am of the opinion that this movie was a comical tribute to Frank Sinatra and friends; Dreyfuss imitated him well. I am also of the opinion that no one, of any age, would even think of imitating the actions which occurred in this movie--it's a joke--not a terrifying "gangsta" film. The cars and clothing were impressive, as was the decorative, "Vic's Place."

Truly, I think of "Mad Dog Time" as a musical comedy, less harmful than many cartoons, TV crime dramas, and talk shows. I would recommend the video for an evening of family entertainment. Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...

Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.

For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too. Hint number one - read the title as "the Time of the Mad Dog," or perhaps dogs. This is a pretty good ensemble piece (look at the cast and rent it - you know you're curious already), and first-time director Bishop gives them their chance, taking his time, letting the characters interact and chew the scenery as they wait - not enthusiastically - for the return of "the big boss" and whatever revenge ensues.

For some of us, the highlight is seeing Christopher Jones after his self-imposed exile from films; he remains a commanding film presence. And yes, with Christopher Jones, Larry Bishop and Richard Pryor involved, this IS the "Wild in the Streets" reunion party! If you like film, don't miss this one. If you prefer action, or horror, or romance, then you'll wonder what's happening. Everyone here is stuck in a gangster film. And what happens is transcendental murder.

There are few similar films. No doubt it will see limited release, and be hard to find. But the search will be worth it. If you want to study a mileu as a potential symbol, then this is indeed a film to study.

You can't watch it once. If you do you'll never see what's happening. Dark City is better. Joe Vrs. The Volcano is more fun. But Mad Dog Time could convert the gangsta crowd to symbolism. . .or at least to think twice before shooting again. An interesting look at Japan prior to opening to the West. John Wayne as America's first consul to Japan arrives in accordance with agreements resulting from Perry's gunboat diplomacy. He is not welcome. Wayne eventually wins his meeting with the Shogun after bring a cholera epidemic, introduced by an American ship, under control. There follows a colorful procession to the capital bearing gifts for the Shogun, including a bottle of Old Tanglefoot. The meeting with the Shogun, the debates among the Japanese nobles and an assassination during an archery exhibit present an interesting look at the politics of the period. Altogether a rather enjoyable movie and besides how often do you get to see the Duke lose a fight to a guy half his size. This is very much not the sort of movie for which John Wayne is known. He plays a diplomat, a man who gets things done through words and persuasion rather than physical action. The film moves with a quiet realism through its superficially unexciting story.

For the open-minded, the patient and the thoughtful, this movie is a rich depiction of an intriguing part of history.

There are two intertwining stories. The big story is of internalised, isolationist Japan and externalised, expansionist America clashing when their interests conflict. The small, human, story is of an outsider barbarian (Wayne) and a civilised Geisha's initial hostility and dislike turning to mutual respect and love. The human story is a reflection of the greater story of the two nations.

The movie is very well done and all actors play their roles well. The two lead roles are performed to perfection. John Wayne is excellent as Townsend Harris, striking exactly the right blend of force and negotiation in his dealings with the Japanese. Eiko Ando is likewise excellent as the Geisha of the title, charming and delightful. The interaction between her character and John Wayne's is particularly well portrayed. This is exactly how these two individuals (as they are depicted in the film) would have behaved.

The script is very well written. It lacks all pomposity. and is a realistic depiction of the manner in which the depicted events may have occurred. The characters are real people, not self-consciously "great" figures from history. Furthermore, the clash of cultures and interests is portrayed with great skill and subtlety. Indeed, the clash of a traditionalist, and traditionally powerful, isolationist Japan and a rising, newly powerful nation from across the ocean is summarised very well in one exchange between John Wayne and the local Japanese baron. Wayne complains that shipwrecked sailors are beheaded if they land in Japan, and that passing ships cannot even put into port for water. The Baron responds that Japan just wants to be left alone. Wayne's character replies that Japan is at an increasingly important crossroads of international shipping, and that if things continue as before the nation will be regarded as nothing more than a band of brigands infesting an important roadway. A very real summary of the way in which the two countries each saw themselves as being in the right, and saw the other as being in the wrong. The resultant clash between two self-righteous peoples with conflicting interests has its reflections throughout history, a continuing theme that echoes into the present and on into the future.

Cinematography and the depiction of mid-nineteenth century Japan, before the accelerated growth towards industrialisation that was to follow later in the century, is excellent. A visual treat, and an enlightening insight into Japan's ancient civilisation.

I highly recommend anyone, whether a John Wayne fan or not, to watch this film if you get the chance. Just be aware that it isn't an action film. It is a representation of an interesting place and time in history, and a slow-boiling love story which (much to their surprise) comes to dominate the personal lives of the two main characters. Watch this film on its merits, without preconceptions, allow yourself to be immersed in its story, and you will thoroughly enjoy it.

All in all, an excellent film. In THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, John Wayne plays Townsend Harris, a real envoy from the United States who was responsible for truly opening up Japan to International relations in the late 1850s. Before him, Commodore Perry basically pushed into Japan with gunboats and forced a treaty upon the Japanese in 1853. Harris, who arrived just a bit later, worked through the details and helped ensure compliance--as many of the Japanese felt no particular inclination to honor the first treaty. All this is true and shown in the film. According to some other sources I found, the romance between Harris and a Japanese Geisha is mostly fiction and this romance is much of the focus of this film (hence, the title).

My first reaction the first time I saw this movie was one of surprise. John Wayne as a diplomat?! When he's being diplomatic in most films, he says please and thank you as he pummels people!!!! So seeing him playing a man who is NOT a man of action and is able to play the diplomatic game seemed very odd indeed. In fact, I can't think of too many actors in 1958 who would have been more unusual for this role. By the way, I've seen photos of Harris and Wayne has practically no resemblance to him at all.

However, despite the story taking a lot of liberties with the truth and the strange casting, the film is still very watchable. The color cinematography is nice, the film shows some nice insights into Japanese customs and culture and the acting isn't bad. All in all, a likable and watchable film despite it's odd casting.

PS--Read through the trivia for this film. You find out a bit more about the real life characters as well as a supposed fight between Wayne and the director (John Huston) where Wayne apparently knocked him out!! Based on what I've read about Huston and the way he got along with actors, this is an incident I tend to believe. And, it's also a nice example of John Wayne "diplomacy". I found this to be a surprisingly light-handed touch at a 1950's culture-clash movie. John Wayne would hardly be one's first choice as a cultural attache, being about as diplomatic with his good intentions as a bull-run in Harrods. But this time he was left to play a part that was far more passive than his usual bluff persona, and he accomplished his task with style. The Duke was a guy who really could act well. His facial expressions and body language could be extremely subtle.

Despite his considerable presence both as an actor and in terms of screen time, he failed to dominate this movie. Many of his good intentions came a cropper. He had authority over nobody, and the intermittent narrative was provided by the titular geisha to whom he was the barbarian.

The story of American attempts to curry favour with an isolationist Japan was one of political intrigue rather than swashbuckling or hell-for-leather battles. I cannot comment on the accuracy of its research but the strangeness of the Oriental culture to western sensibilities was demonstrated well. There was a great deal of minutely-choreographed ceremony entailing what looked to this observer like authentic costume and props. The set pieces were complex and detailed. A lot of money and thought had been applied to it.

The fractured romance between Wayne and his geisha added a little extra element, and stopped the movie becoming just a political or flag-waving effort. Script was good without being too wordy. There was a great deal of Japanese dialogue, but the lengthy periods of translation didn't interfere with the narrative. It was nice to see plenty of genuine orientals on the set. Whether or not they were Japanese, I couldn't say. But anyway they looked the part. At least the leads were not played by cross-dressing Caucasians, unlike other efforts such as 'Blood Alley' (yes, I know they were Chinese) 'The Inn Of The Sixth Happiness' or even 'The King And I'.

Frankly, I enjoyed this more than any of those other movies. The script was better for a start. I never liked the songs in 'The King And I', and wasn't impressed by the heavy-laden anti-communist subtext of 'Blood Alley'. I confess to never having seen this work before and found it compared very favourably to many of The Duke's more popular outings.

Recommended. Several young Iranian women dress as boys and try to get into a World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain. When they're caught, they're penned in an area where the match remains within earshot, but out of sight. The prisoners plead to be let go, but rules are rules.

Given the pedigree of its director, Jafar Panahi, it was disarming to discover that Offside is a comedy, and a frequently hilarious one. In 1997's The Mirror, Panahi presents two versions of Iranian girlhood and leaves the audience to wonder which one is "real". In 2000's The Circle, several Iranian women step outside the system; their transgressions are different, but they all end up in the same tragic place.

However, thinking now about Offside, it's hard to imagine it as anything other than a comedy, because the situation it presents is so obviously ridiculous. As the women demand to know why they can't watch the soccer match and their captors struggle to answer, the only possible outcome is comedy.

What makes Offside most affecting is that the young women are not portrayed as activists attacking the system. They are simply soccer fans and patriots, and despite the fact that they are clearly being treated unfairly, they never lose their focus on the match and the historic victory that is within their nation's grasp. I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Filmed during an actual qualifying match for the 2006 World Cup, Offside works brilliantly as both a comedy and a tragedy. The film follows the fortunes of a group of young women who are caught trying to sneak into a football match at Tehran's Azadi Stadium. The country's Islamic religious leaders have decreed that women may not sit with men at sporting events, lest they be exposed to cursing and other morally questionable behaviour. This hasn't stopped the country's young female fans, who continue to sneak in using various tricks. But Panahi focuses on a small group who have been caught and are being detained agonizingly close to the action. They beg the bored soldiers guarding them to let them go or at least to let them watch the match. The soldiers tell them they shouldn't have tried to get in, that they could have watched the game at home on TV. They banter back and forth in almost real-time as the game continues, just off- camera.

There is one very funny sequence where a young soldier accompanies one of the girls to the restroom. Since there are no female restrooms at stadiums, he has to clear the room of any men before he can allow her to go in. Plus, he makes her cover her face so no one can see she's a woman. This is accomplished using a poster of Iranian soccer star Ali Daei as a mask, with eye holes punched out.

You get a real sense that even the soldiers are baffled by the prohibition, and are only carrying out their orders so as to hasten the end of their compulsory military service. One soldier complains that he was supposed to be on leave so he could take care of his family's cattle in the countryside. Little by little, the girls and the soldiers talk to each other, and there are numerous small acts of kindness on both sides to show that these are basically good people living in terrible circumstances. However, the soldiers' constant reminder that "the chief" is on his way lends a sense of menace, since we don't know what sort of punishment the women will face.

Unlike most Iranian films, which are known for their strong visuals, Offside is filmed in a realist style with no artifice. In fact, the film was made during the actual qualifying match against Bahrain that took place on June 5, 2005. The "plot" in many ways was determined by the result on the pitch. If Iran won the match, they would qualify. If they lost, they would not. Since the World Cup has come and gone, I don't think it is a spoiler to say that Iran won the match. The scenes of celebration at the end of the film were real and spontaneous, which gave the film a real authenticity. Seeing how much this meant to the people of Iran was deeply touching.

As well, one of the young women makes reference at the end of the film to seven fans who died during the Iran-Japan match on March 25, just a few weeks before. They were trampled to death after police began to spray the crowd with water to move them in a certain direction. Knowing that this was a real-life tragedy added another level of poignancy to the celebrations.

I don't want to go off on a long political tangent, but this film gave me real hope that there are those in Iran who are hoping for change and working at it. Iran is a nation of young people, and it is only a matter of time before they take the place of their elders in the political sphere. Films like this one show the proud spirit of the Iranian people in spite of their present difficulties, and it's my sincere hope that there is a brighter future for them. Finally! An Iranian film that is not made by Majidi, Kiarostami or the Makhmalbafs. This is a non-documentary, an entertaining black comedy with subversive young girls subtly kicking the 'system' in its ass. It's all about football and its funny, its really funny. The director says "The places are real, the event is real, and so are the characters and the extras. This is why I purposely chose not to use professional actors, as their presence would have introduced a notion of falseness." The non-actors will have you rooting for them straightaway unless a. your heart is made of stone b. you are blind. Excellently scripted, the film challenges patriarchal authority with an almost absurd freshness. It has won the Jury Grand Prize, Berlin, 2006. Dear reader, it's near-perfect. WHERE, where can I get hold of it? This film is being described as a comedy, but it wasn't a comedy at all. Like any Panahi film, it was a very realistic drama depicting the common thread of social inequity and hypocrisy. But it was very funny; much lighter than the director's dark and serious The Circle (my favourite Iranian film). The resourcefulness of the girls and the banter between them and the soldiers was both completely believable (as if it were a documentary) and completely hilarious.

The filming the actual match and aftermath was astonishing. It added a realism much like Australia's Kenny, of course a very different film.

The performances from all the non-professional actors – soldiers and girls – were very credible. It was very moving to see the passion, disappointment and excitement of these girls. Anyone in this country who thinks Muslim girls wearing a chador are any different to their own daughters should go see this film – it will be a real eye-opener.

To me, the soldiers represented the current paradigm. They started out with stock-standard official policy responses to all the pleas of the girls. As the film progressed, they found it more and more difficult to maintain this stance. When what seems like all of Teheran breaks out into wild celebration, everyone is caught up in it, and the ridiculousness of the current policies is obvious to one and all.

It was a very moving and unexpected ending, and gave the film a really nice blend of emotions, frivolity, drama and social commentary. Though it's adult cinema, I think mature-minded children from about seven onwards would really appreciate this film (as long as they can read subtitles).

It is remarkable that a repressive country like Iran is able to produce films of such quality by the likes of Panahi and Kiarostami. Perhaps the constraints there force directors to be extremely resourceful. Australian (and other) film makers could take a leaf out of their book. In Iran women are prohibited from attending live sporting events because of the fear that they will be "corrupted" by bad language, close proximity to thousands of men, and the fact that there are no toilet facilities for women in the antiquated stadiums. Based on an actual incident involving the daughter of the director, Jafar Panahi's Offside follows six girls, disguised as men, who are refused entry into the soccer match in 2005 between Iran and Bahrain, a match that will decide whether or not Iran goes to the World Cup. In a departure from the bleak, minimalist films we have been accustomed to from Iran over the last ten years, Offside is an exuberant comedy that has a patriotic fervor and a universal appeal but contains enough subversive social commentary to warrant its prohibition from screenings in Iran.

Shot with a digital camera using non-professional actors who are more than up to the task, the girls try to sneak into Azadi Stadium in Tehran but are arrested and placed in a holding area outside of the stadium. They are guarded by three young army conscripts (Safdar Samandar, Mohammed Kheir-abadi, and Masoud Kheymeh-kaboud) who express ambivalence about their task but are pledged to follow the rules. The women are soccer enthusiasts, not political activists and cheer for Iran's victory but this does not deter the soldiers from detaining them while they wait for the girls to be transported to the Vice Squad and an uncertain future.

Outspoken rather than acting like victims, they continually question the soldiers about the rationale behind the restrictions, making their absurdity quite obvious. Although they can hear the crowd noise, the women cannot see the action but achieve a minor victory when they persuade one of the soldiers to provide a running commentary on the game. One of the funniest sequences takes place when a female "prisoner" is escorted to the men's room by a soldier. The young recruit then must cope with a near riot when he has to prevent anyone else from using the facilities while the girl is still inside.

Little by little, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, that which unites them turns out to be greater than that which divides them and the unlikely antagonists rally behind their country and root for the victory that will send Iran to the World Cup. Although the point is made early and often and the film sags a bit in the middle, Offside makes a telling point about a society where a political elite with a medieval social mentality has to contend with an growing group of educated and politically astute citizens. One can only hope that world pressure and the awakening of its own people will force the Ayatollahs to come to terms with the 21st century. In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.

Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.

Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy. I don't know how and where do the Iranian directors get their inspiration in coming up with a plot like this. In fact, it's a very simple plot that many directors could come up with --- but may not be able to project it onto a movie the way Jafar Panahi did.

The film is like 2 worlds revolving at the same time, one connected to the other - the football match and the battle between sexes that's going on behind the walls of the stadium.

It makes you feel like you are in the movie and you're one of the characters, and while watching the movie, as if you also would like to have a glimpse of the football match. You will feel exactly the same excitement and sentiments as those female actors in the movie. It's gripping in a way that you wanted to see the ending, you will want to find out the verdict, you'll be dying to see what will happen to the girls.

I like the intermittent conversations between the smoking girl and one of the military trainee. It's like venus VS mars, it really shows the difference in the thinking of men and women and the struggle of women to get equal rights and opportunity especially in a very patriarchal society like Iran.

This is the second movie of Jafar Panahi that I have seen (the first being Crimson Gold) and am looking forward to watching some more.

Am already hooked with Iranian movies and this one is a must-see! In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.

Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from "The White Balloon", "The Mirror" and "The Circle", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available Jafar Panahi's comedy-drama "Offside" portrays some women trying to enter a Tehran sports arena from which women are banned. The official reason: lots of foul language, and the soccer players have their legs showing. But of course, it's really a case of sexism. So, most of the movie consists of mild comic relief as the women try to ask the men serious questions about why women are banned from the stadium, and one woman even comes up with her own scheme to defy the men.

As I understand, all of Jafar Panahi's movies (this one included) are banned in Iran. The real tragedy is that the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the prime minister and subsequent backing of the brutal shah gave Ayatollah Khomeini an excuse to use his narrow interpretation of the Koran to establish a chauvinistic society, and that George W. Bush's current policy towards Iran gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to act the cowboy and tighten censorship.

Above all, this is a neat look at people coming up with ways to challenge the system. Not a great movie, but worth seeing. Considering that all Jafar Panahi's movies are banned, I wonder how he's able to even make them. In The White Balloon and Crimson Gold, the two other films by Jafar Panahi that I've seen, the director mines surprising amounts of depth in subjects that seem, on the surface, slight. In Offside, Panahi's seriocomic tribute to Iranian women standing up for their rights, I don't think he's as successful. Not that what he's saying isn't important, of course (and it's too bad that, like pretty much every other Panahi film, Iranians can't see it). But, after a while, the film feels a tad flat, and it feels long even at 90 minutes. Not saying I didn't like it, though. The actors are all fantastic, and the celebration at the end of the film is infectious. But it's not an important work, in my opinion. "Cinema is dead, long live the cinema!" said Peter Greenaway, one of the most innovative and productive contemporary directors, at the last year's Romanian film festival Anonimul, which got to the third edition and takes place in the Danube Delta. This year the direction prize went to Jafar Panahi's "Offside". I got to see it this evening in Bucharest at the festival's retrospective. Cinema is dead but still very lively. Panahi's film tells in a compelling manner how Iranian society looks. Digitally filmed, "Offside" is a story inspired by a real-life event happened to Panahi's daughter: the trouble and risk took when decided to attend a football match. This is forbidden in Iran as we are informed. What Panahi manages to do is to render with few means, but with, probably, a lot of work, intelligence and humor the cultural patterns in a society that places women at a distinct level. The absurdity of the laws becomes comical. The film has a happy end, after all because Iran's team goes to the World Cup. What I appreciated most was the concept, the idea behind this film. I would be very interested to see Panahi's other films that were forbidden in Iran as well. I guess that he can be thought as an activist director. The US State Dept. would not like us to see this movie, because they have a beef with the Iranian govt. However, it shows us just how civilized Iran really is, despite the content of the film, which centers on the struggle of women there for equal rights in the simplest of terms: the ability to watch a soccer game at the stadium, which is strictly limited to male audiences alone. The film is hilariously funny, and in and of itself is proof of freedom of speech and expression in Iran. I enjoyed this movie intensely. Five girls try to penetrate the police border at the ticket gates to a soccer match between Iran and Bahrain. The ensuing comedy is too funny to describe, from the bus trip to the stadium, to the interceding of the police and subsequent detention of the girls, to the resulting end. Don't miss this classic film. Its a MUST see. One of the best foreign films I've seen in years. Panahi, whose previous films such as The Circle and Crimson Gold have seemed to range from dour to grim, has produced in his new Offside a funny, obstreperous, joyously chaotic ensemble piece that ends on a note of liberation and heartfelt fun – yet the movie deals with material quite as challenging and relevant as anything else he's done. By focusing on a group of ardent girl soccer fans caught sneaking into the pre-World Cup Bahrain-Iran match in Tehran stadium, Panahi brings up issues of national spirit and independent-mindedness, and the contradictions – and sheer absurdity – of the regime's religious gender apartheid in a world of modern competition with a majority youth population and urban girls who increasingly think for themselves.

As the film opens we breathlessly join one of the girls in a bus, with a father pursing a lost daughter. This one has a disguise and has national colors as warpaint, but we cringe with her in the knowledge of what's going to happen: she's still easily spotted. The thing is, most of the men around don't really care. Still, rules are rules, and once they try to make it through the various checkpoints on the way into the big stadium the would-be soccer girls, or some of them anyway, get rounded up and held in a little compound upstairs in the stadium by some mostly young, green, and rustic soldier-cops who have no idea how to deal with these big city girls' independent ideas and would rather be watching the game – whose roar we constantly hear in the background – themselves. Each girl is different – represents a different set of reasons for wanting to break the rules and different ways of doing it. One wore a soldier's uniform and got into the officers' section. One is tough and masculine and mocking and provocative (she could pass for a pretty boy, and teasingly hints at that: "Are you a girl or a boy?" "Which would you like me to be?"). One doesn't care very much about soccer but went to honor a dead comrade. One (Aida Sadeghi) is an ardent soccer player herself – and so on. These Tehrani girls are stubborn and smart and they walk all over the uptight rural lieutenant in charge of them (Safar Samandar). One of the rural cops (Mohamad Kheirabadi) takes the girl soccer player to the men's restroom (of course there's no ladies'), forcing her to wear a poster of an Italian football star as a mask. A comedy of errors and chaos follows in which the girl escapes.

Later a spiffy looking van comes with an officer who directs the cops to take the girls to the Vice Department – violating sexual segregation rules qualifies as vice. A male gets mixed in with them – a kid who's chronically guilty of smuggling fireworks into the games. The van turns out not to be so spiffy: the radio aerial is broken. But one cop holds it in place so they can listen to the increasingly heart-stopping reportage. Cops and prisoners are all joined in a common excitement now. There's no score, the game goes to penalty kicks, and the winner will go to Germany.

In the background through all this is a real game, a real stadium, and real masses of young men crazy about the outcome of this event. The excitement is tremendous, and the streets are jammed with cars and flags and a milling mob of supporters praying for an Iranian win and united in their excitement.

What makes this film so good, as may be clear by now, is that it's shot during the evening of an actual game with a real finale that turns everything around. This, in contrast to Panahi's previous highly calculated narrative trajectories, is spontaneous vérité film-making that improvises in rhythm with a captured background of actual events and sweeps you into its excitement in ways that are quite thrilling.

The essence of Offside is the disconnect between modern world soccer madness and retro-Islamic social prohibitions repressing women – the latter existing at a time when young Iranian women are becoming part of a global world in which females participate in sport and share in the ardor of national team spirit. How exactly do you reconcile the country's ambition to become a modern global power with social attitudes that are medieval? A lot of Offisde is astonishingly real, including the way everybody tries to talk their way out of everything. The director's decision to inject young actors into an actual sports mega-event leads to a stunningly effective blend of documentary, polemic, and fiction that is too energetic to seem to have a bone to pick, and that ends in a way that's brilliant and moving.

I've had reservations about Panahi's films before, but this one kicks ass. Panahi does something remarkable here. He critiques his society, presents an unusual drama, and touches our hearts with a sense of a nation's aspirations. Another fantastic film from a country, where due to decades of oppression from fundamentalist regimes, has no problems in creating passionate subject matter. Panahi takes a different approach this time around with a blend of ironic comedy and an endearing, non-professional cast. While still getting across his message of what he sees as being inherently wrong with his country, he does so without the need of a heavy storyline. It is a positive take on a country, in particular its people, that the Iranian population desperately need. The greatest pity is it won't be released domestically. The insular, paranoid Iranian government assert that this fine film maker is only successful overseas because he is part of a global conspiracy to embarrass them. After growing up amid revolution and watching the academics, artists and educated 'disappear' over the last 25 years he shows great bravery in continuing to put his work out there. The realism achieved by shooting at the actual world cup qualifier really transports you to the event. The fact he shot it on 35mm is amazing as most would only attempt this project using a digital format. It looks fantastic. His insistence in only using non-professional actors also really works in this film. Fine performances all round. After watching many films showing the problems Iran has and also the news media reporting the facts we can tend to demonise the people as well as the government. This film does the opposite. It shows us they still love the same things and that by laughing at themselves and the absurd rules of sharia law that maybe a change for the better isn't too far away. Some call Panahi a feminist film maker but I think he just fights for the most oppressed demographic in Iran. Young, independent women. In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.

A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.

Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people. This was the first of Panahi's films that I have seen, I saw it at Melbourne film festival. I was totally absorbed by the different characters that he creates and how differently they react and behave compared to Aussie kids and yet on other levels how similarly. I think perhaps if more people could see movies like this, they could see people as individuals and avoid racism that can often be fueled by the fear of the unknown. There are the obvious large political differences between Oz culture and Iranian culture, but I found the more subtle differences between the characters, that this film fleshes out so successfully on screen, extremely fascinating. There are idiosyncrasies in the characters that seem to me, so unique. I found it made the characters compelling viewing. That's what one of the girls said at the end.

Is the soccer game a metaphor for a qualifying game between the girls (or more broadly, a free-thinking group) and the authority? "To Germany" means to a future that's of hope?

It's one of the most unforgettable cinematic experience I've ever had -- despite the crude cinematography and plot, and mild over-acting (though I like the cast -- they're lovable and well above the expectation for amateurs). The ridiculous situation is well captured. I can feel the deep frustration being denied to a game (being female and a soccer fan) and I cannot stop thinking how to make a convincing disguise. I wonder why there's no women's section in which protection from dirty language and bad behavior can be provided -- defeating the flawed reasons for the deny.

The movie is very cleverly made -- the amazing title, the filming during the actual game, the spontaneity, and various methods to put the viewers into the shoes of the characters -- the game that's so important but inaccessible (not shown), the luring light and cheering sound from the stadium, the confinement of the van, and the uselessness of it when those inside connect with the celebrating crowds outside. I can feel the comfort coming from the radio, the drinks and the food, and of course, the kindness and consideration from each character to others. During the end credits, I am amused that no character has a name -- he's just any "soldier" and she's just any "girl" or "sister". I have to point out, before you read this review, that in no way, is this a statement against Iranian people ... if you really want to read something into it, than hopefully you see, that I'm against politicians in general ... but if you're looking to be offended ... I can't help you!

Not in Iran as this movie is banned there (see IMDb trivia for this movie). Which is a shame, because the movie is great. Would it not be for "Grbavica", this movie would have won at the International Film Festival in Berlin.

Rightfully so (it was the runner-up, or second place if you will). Why? Because it is a movie about oppression. It's not even that this is a complete women issue. It is about the government trying to keep the people down. An analogy so clear that the government felt the need to ban the movie. But by banning it nothing is resolved and/or can they make this movie disappear!

Another reviewer had a great summary line: "Comedy about a tragedy", that sums it up pretty well! I probably doubled my knowledge of Iran when I saw Secret Ballot (2001). Now I know about four times as much (I doubt I learned a whole heck of a lot from Not Without My Daughter (1991)).

Offside is a splendid budget Iranian comedy about a group a girls (working individually) to attend a decisive soccer match for their country's place in the World Cup. Women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so the nation's armed forces have been mobilized to save any women who try to enter from themselves. Some (teen?) girls try to crash the party by dressing as boys, but are caught. The movie is mostly set at this holding pen where the girls are detained by soldiers, awaiting some unspecified punishment (although, the girl who dressed as a soldier claims that she was one insignia away from being executed!)

The movie explores the absurdity of the situation. The thinking that bars women from football matches comes down to it being too raunchy an experience for the fairer sex–a philosophy not unknown in the west less than 100 years ago. This farce comes to a head when a girl needs to go to the bathroom, so a soldier escorting her demands that she cover her eyes so she can't see the graffiti. The conflict is not entirely about the battle of the sexes: at one point some friction arises between a solider who is rural and the girls who are urban.

Fortunately, this movie was not too culturally esoteric that the comedy was lost on this neighbour and cultural cousin of the Great Satan. You have to be in the mood for it, but no one should avoid this movie because they think that they won't get it. On the face of it a film about women wanting to see a football match wouldn't appeal much to somebody with little interest in football such as myself however this isn't about football it is about discrimination and the women's enthusiasm for the sport they love.

The film opens on the day of a crucial World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain, a girl is trying to get in to Tehran's Azadi Stadium by dressing like a boy, it looks like she will get in until a soldier tries to search her. Once caught she is taken to a small enclosure high up on the outside of the stadium where there are a handful of women who had already been caught, here they are guarded by a small group of conscript soldiers who's leader would rather be back home tending his livestock. We never learn the character's names but we get to know them as people as the girls plead with the guards to let them watch though a nearby gap in the wall and when refused try to get them to at least provide a commentary.

As well as making an important point about the rigid gender segregation in much of present day Iran the film contains many hilarious moments such as the "disguise" one of the girls is made to wear when going to the toilet and the girl who disguised herself as a soldier and was only caught because she chose to watch the match from a seat reserved for a senior officer. The girls enthusiasm for the game is such that by the end the viewer is likely to be on the edge of their seat hoping that Iran will win and thus get to go to the finals in Germany. The soldiers aren't shown as fundamentalists, they are just conscripts who are there because they have to be and when explaining to the girls why woman can't watch men's sports don't seem that convinced by their own arguments.

It is a shame that this film can't be seen in Iran itself but it is good that the wider world can see it and thus see that ordinary Iranians aren't a bunch of fanatics desperate to wage war on the west but normal people with the same passions and concerns as people everywhere. The cast did a great job in making their characters seem like real people rather than mere caricatures. Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.

The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later. Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).

This is easily my second favourite football movie after "Mike Bassett: England Manager", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round).

It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance...

Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).

Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go "Yup."

I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.

Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery Different film directors from different countries have contributed to the film medium a lot by their thoughts. As a result, we have experienced different genres when the medium is concerned. Jafar Panahi, unlike J.L. Godard or F. Truffault, believes in simple story telling; Schematic Narratives is one of the main traits of his directorial job. He has trust upon the automatic as well as critical intelligence of the viewer; he does not feel any necessity to go for Alienation or such things to reach to the viewers. He is equally effective despite being conventional. Offside (2006), is another schematic creation from him, where Gender Subordination of Middle-East Asia gets gradually clear to everybody as the simple but catchy tale of the movie progresses. Now-a-days, when all of us are shouting on the issue of Rights of Women, this movie very calmly creeps into our mind and ultimately becomes a hump for our critical intelligence by conveying the message that the Egality of Human Rights is nothing but an illusive good, an utopia. Paternity will never let the women to be empowered. An important soccer match where the nation is participating, a teenage girl who understands the game well, loves her nation does not have the rights to enter into the stadium to cheer for her country. She is merely permitted to listen to the live commentary. Her alias could not work for her. As a result, she had to undergo several humiliating situations. From the very beginning her worried father ran here and there for her daughter. At the end of the day, celebration came as the nation won the match which the girl could not see as she was detained in the outer side of the stadium during the match time. But the celebration cannot suppress the question of Rights of Women which remain in every corner of the world in different format. Jafar Panahi has most successfully pointed to this issue of Gender Abuse from with in the frame of conventional film making and patriarchy as well. A Global Tragedy has been dealt with ease and some times with humour which, in turn, teases our being constantly. In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to "protect" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). "Offside" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).

"Offside" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films ("The Shop on Main Street," "Loves of a Blonde," "Closely Watched Trains" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the "Prague Miracle" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, "Offside" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.

Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a "point." They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.

It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in "real time." Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.

It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. "Offside" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, "Offside" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007. This is a totally delightful and unexpected film. You start by following a young person who hopes to get into the qualifying football game between Bahrain and Iran. If Iran win they will get into the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The problem is the young person is a girl and girls (or women for that matter) are not allowed into football matches to "sit with men". What follows is a wonderful comedy, played with consummate skill by a small ensemble cast. The film explores the absurdity of restrictions on the freedom of women (and for that matter the young soldiers who have to corral them). There are some excellent set pieces, not least when one of the girls must go to the toilet and, of course, the stadium has no toilets for women. The camera work is of the simplest and in some ways this story could have been told as a stage play. Yet it is the small scale that gives the film its bite. Great cinema? No, probably not; great entertainment - for sure. Offside is the story of teenage-girls who tried to sneak in the stadium to watch final world cup qualifying soccer match in Tehran that may lead Iran to the 2006 world cup in Germany. Females are forbidden to go to stadium by law in Iran, although many of them dress like boys and sneak in. Stadium guards search every one at the entrance to make sure no one carries fireworks and of course; no girl gets in.

Like most of Panahi's work, his armature cast's performance was superb. You actually think that you are watching a documentary. The dialogs between the girls and the privates were executed delicately and astonishingly believable. The film depicts the interactions between captives and the drafted guards who themselves are serving mandartory away from their family and friends in a funny sort of way. At the end, the audience realizes that there is not such a difference between the girls and the guards who were just following orders. Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.

I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.

Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran – Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.

When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.

A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together – it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.

But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.

I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government. There are enough sad stories about women and their oppression by religious, political and societal means. Not to diminish the films and stories about genital mutilation and reproductive rights, as well as wage inequality, and marginalization in society, all in the name of Allah or God or some other ridiculous justification, but sometimes it is helpful to just take another approach and shed some light on the subject.

The setting is the 2006 match between Iran and Bahrain to qualify for the World Cup. Passions are high and several women try to disguise themselves as men to get into the match.

The women who were caught (Played by Sima Mobarak-Shahi, Shayesteh Irani, Ayda Sadeqi, Golnaz Farmani, and Mahnaz Zabihi) and detained for prosecution provided a funny and illuminating glimpse into the customs of this country and, most likely, all Muslim countries. Their interaction with the Iranian soldiers who were guarding and transporting them, both city and villagers, and the father who was looking for his daughter provided some hilarious moments as we thought about why they have such unwritten rules.

It is mainly about a paternalistic society that feels it has to save it's women from the crude behavior of it's men. Rather than educating the male population, they deny privilege and rights to the women.

Seeing the changes in the soldiers responsible and the reflection of Iranian society, it is nos surprise this film will not get any play in Iran. But Jafar Panahi has a winner on his hands for those able to see it. It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a "documentary" side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same! I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.

Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.

Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.

Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved. Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.

I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.

This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.

There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids. My wife and I have watched this movie twice. Both of us used to be in the Military. Besides being funny as hell, it offers a very realistic view of life in the Navy from the perspective of A Navy enlisted man, and tells it "like it really is". We're adding this movie to our permanent collection ! If you want a fun romp with loads of subtle humor, then you will enjoy this flick.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy this one. Take it for what it is: a vehicle for Dennis Hopper to mess with your head and make you laugh. It ain't Shakespeare, but it is well done. Ericka Eleniak is absolutely beautiful and holds her own in this one - Better than any episode of Baywatch - and shows a knack for subtle humor. Too bad she hasn't had many opportunities to expand on that.

Tom Berenger fits his role of "real Navy" perfectly and William McNamara does a solid job as a hustler.

Throw in a walk-on by Hopper in the middle of the chase for "the Cherry on this Sundae" and you've got a movie that kept my attention and kept me laughing. I bought this one as soon as it was available.

Brain-candy. no movie with dennis hopper, gary busey, erika eleniak, tom berenger, dean stockwell, marilu henner deserves a rating under 5 on here. This is a poor mans version of movies like 16 blocks or the timeless Midnight run except the prisoner being transported here is the very easy on the eye Ms.Eleniak. Tom Berenger plays another gruff, maverick military type well and William Mcnamara plays his rookie-about to be discharged foil well. The plot on the face of it is absurd because I lost count of the times Eleniak should have and could have escaped but this is an entertaining feel-good movie and there are good cameos from all of the above actors that keep the movie rolling. This isn't really a family movie as there is some swearing and a rare nude scene with eleniak but this is a lot better than some of the other guff that came out around this time. Well, the movie isn't exactly "funny."

Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, "Okay, don't go anywhere."

See, humorous, but not funny.

The plot and acting are pretty good.

But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.

There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.

Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak. I have seen this film on countless occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. This is mostly due to the lovely Erika Eleniak- a great actress with incredible looks. Plus, any film starring Tom Berenger and Dennis Hopper is bound to be entertaining. what can i say?, ms Erika Eleniak is my favorite blonde girl ever, and like a Italian American, fan number one of female beauty i can't forget this movie.

you know i really don't remember a lot about the plot, or the situations or the other actors . i only can remember about drop dead gorgeous Erika and that in this film she looks better than ever, i really don't care if it was a bad movie or a good movie, i only care the nice moments i had been a teenager in Brooklyn just contemplating Erika's beauty.

Well just to conclude if you are an Erika Eleniak's beauty fan like me definitely this film is for you. Clark Gable plays a con man who busts into the life of hard-boiled dame Jean Harlow. He tries to sucker her while she brushes him off with her tough-gal attitude. Despite their cynicism and cons they fall in love. When Gable accidentally kills a man during a sting he runs out leaving loyal Harlow to women's prison where she discovers she's pregnant. Anita Loos' and Howard Emmett Rogers' writing is excellent throughout with many well-drawn and surprising characters (including a Jewish socialist woman inmate and a black woman inmate and her preacher father played with hardly a trace of stereotype). Gable and Harlow show their mettle as actors adding telling nuances and quirks to their characters that send them beyond the typical Gable and Harlow roles. And the direction is much better than you'd expect from Sam Wood. One beautiful shot has Harlow being inducted into the prison, then led out into a surprisingly snowy courtyard as the camera tracks after her. This is one of the best of both the "criminals in love" and "women's prison" genres and has some of the best hard-boiled dialogue ever written. This movie is witty, watchable and utterly touching. And now often do you get to see Jean Harlow (or any actress of this era, for that matter) give another woman a swift punch in the jaw? (Twice!)

After Harlow's Ruby is sent to a reformatory after getting mixed up with Gable's Edward Hall (he of that cheesy yet endearing crooked smile), her predicament becomes all the more complicated when she discovers that she is pregnant, and she's convinced that this rake has abandoned her, but in fact, her love has reformed him and he comes to see her, despite the fact that he will be arrested, and from the help of a minister, are married.

The wonderful relationship that Harlow shares with her fellow inmates is second only to her electric chemistry with Gable, who was her most frequent leading man. Her cynical character is a perfect match for Gable's smooth-talking crook. What's not to like?

"You know, you wouldn't be a bad looking dame - if it wasn't for your face!" Ruby cuttingly remarks to Gypsy, her rival. "If you're going to get that close to me, I'll have to open the other window!"

Priceless!!! Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.

The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.

Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.

The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.

Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well.

Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.

Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it. I expected this film to be a run-of-the-mill 1930's romance. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy loses girl, boy wins her back in the end. It wasn't like that at all. Clark Gable plays con artist Eddie with all his usual charisma and mischievous eyebrow raising. He is hiding out from the cops when he bursts into Ruby (Jean Harlow)'s apartment, to find her covered in bubbles in the bathtub, no less. Instant chemistry.She plays hard to get for a while, but a girl can only resist that grin for so long. The heat between them is evident, and there are some scenes that are definitely pre-production code! When a blackmail job goes bad and Ruby ends up in a boarding house for "troubled girls", she is miserable and, thanks to the ragging her roommate gives her, begins to believe that Eddie will never come for her. Harlow plays the hard-nosed, fast talking Ruby perfectly. She never lets Gable get all the good lines! There is an especially moving scene with her playing "their song" on the piano that is acted perfectly. The last fifteen minutes have me crying every time. A truly sweet romance. One of the great mysteries of life, suffered from daily, is why nice girls so often are more interested in the jerks and heels than in the nice guys.

Worse, when the nice guys even want to marry those girls, the girls STILL prefer the jerks and heels, even after the jerks and heels have shown their contempt, have shown they're just interested in using the girls.

Stu Erwin is the nice guy, who continues to be nice after being lied to and cheated and even after losing the girl completely.

Clark Gable is the jerk, and he is perfect in the role, rather a sad note to his fans.

Jean Harlow comes across as a more slender Mae West, even sounding like La West in some of her cynical throwaway lines.

Somewhat puzzling is that so many of the other characters, intended to be bad guys -- I mean, heck, they're locked up, so they must be -- are so obviously nice people.

In fact, there are lots of nice people here, people who, in a lesser film or story, would be snarling and back-stabbing but here go out of their way to help someone else.

So, maybe the story is rather clichéd, at least by modern standards, but ultimately the viewer will be glad to have watched.

The biggest complaint I have is that so many really good actors are not given credit. Once again, we can say a fervent "Thank You" to IMDb.com. Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.

Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.

The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.

The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.

This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem. If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema. Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets!

Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.

Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....)

Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre. It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?

I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.

I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.

In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.

So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours! Hey people, what's up. It's me man, the one and only Mike "Sonny Sakura KIller" Kelly. You know........ you can't really write a review on the script of Sakura, cause there we didn't have one. As far as I know, the story was just made up as we went along. I had the best time of my life making that film, and got so much stank that I ran out of Jism...........fun times. So glad that you all enjoyed the film. I really didn't get to do the fights that I had envisioned. Every time I set up some moves, the fight director kept changing them. Still, I had a blast and met some really great people. Especially the purple female Ninja who has seem to fall of the film-making scene. Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out! As I said in my comment about the first part: These two movies are better than most Science Fiction Fans confess.

The scenario in the second movie is not that moving as we don't see the destruction of human civilization, but the aftermath, thousands of refugees fleeing in tiny space cans, protected by only one powerful spaceship.

But when Battlestar Pegasus appears, the story heats up, carrying the battle back to the Cylon Planets. Okay, it has a little bit of Mad Max because all they fight for is fuel for their spaceships to travel on to find the distant Earth, but it works for me. It is thrilling Science Fiction entertainment featuring fine actors and decent special effects (even though those tend to repeat themselves, to say the least :-) ).

I would have loved a continuation with Starbuck and Apollo on board. Instead, we got a second sequel with no name characters who proved that the story had worked before especially because the feature characters were so well-chosen...

So thumbs down for the productions of 1980, but thumbs up for the two movies from 1978. Although others have commented that this video is just an edited version of the two shows: "Fire in Space" and "Living Legend", if you watch the original shows you'll find that dialogue from this video edition was edited out. I found this video version much better because scenes and lines were added to it. I would say if you want to see the show in its original version, see the video versions on VHS. They have more to offer the fan than the original episodes being offered on DVD now. Another good video is Conquest for the Earth, which had more scenes from Galactica 1980 than did the actual broadcasts themselves. Overall, I rate this as a 10 because it gives you more to enjoy than what the networks wanted to show in the time slot they gave the producers. This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put "The Living Legend,part1 and 2",and "Fire in space" together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer. Let's think people , quit bad-mouthing the original , for it's time the original Battlestar series was a masterpiece , even still with all the stars , story lines and art . Lorne Greene was great as Adama and Richard Hatch was perfect as Apollo and Dirk Benedict was funny as Starbuck , but I dare say , not as pretty as Katee as Starbuck .

I loved the episode with the Pegasus and Greetings from Earth was good John Calicos was great as Baltar , War of the Gods , the best was Experiment in Terra , I thought that was a tribute in a way to Heaven Can Wait , then you had the women of Battlestar , not to compare them to let's say Tricia who is outstandingly beautiful as Number Six , but Jane Seymour's beauty could not be compared to . Let alone Loerrta Spang as Cassiopea was fantastic .She had beauty that a rainbow would be embarrassed by . I loved the original as much as the new .

Can you imagine if John Calicos had a number six ? :)

Thankyou for listening . Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and – surprise – pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.

Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like "Flavia, the Heretic" have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister! Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world. Flavia(Florinda Bolkan of "Don't Torture a Duckling" fame)is locked away in a convent of carnal desires by her father.Tired of all of the sadism she sees around her(rape of a young woman in a pigsty,sexual cravings,horse castration)Flavia decides to run from the convent with her Jewish friend from the outside,Abraham.The two don't get very far before they are captured and then brought back to be tortured and forced to repent.After punishment she joins up with a band of Muslims called the Tarantulas,who had invaded the convent prior and leads a crusade that turns into nothing short of a bloody battle behind the convent walls."Flavia the Heretic" is a well-directed and fairly notorious piece of Italian nunsploitation.The film is slightly gruesome and sleazy at times.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.Overall,"Flavia the Heretic" is a genuinely moving and intelligent movie with plenty of nudity and gore.You can't go wrong with it.8 out of 10. Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.

Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.

With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation. FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and "history" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.

We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated "rules" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another "non-believing" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get "busy" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...

This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10 There is so much that can be said about this film. It is not your typical nunsploitation. Of course, there is nudity and sex with nuns, but that is almost incidental to the story.

It is set in 15th Century Italy, at the time of the martyrdom of 800 Christians at Otranto. The battle between the Muslims and the Christians takes up a good part of the film. It was interesting when everyone was running from the Muslim hoards, that the mother superior would ask, "Why do you fear the Muslims,; they will not do anything that the Christians have done to you?" Certainly, there was enough torture on both sides.

Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) is sent to a convent for defying her father. In the process, she witnesses and endures many things: the gelding of a stallion, the rape of a local woman by a new Duke, the torture of a nun who was overcome during a visit by the Tarantula Sect, and a whipping herself when she ran off with a Jew. The torture was particularly gruesome with hot wax being poured on the nun, and her nipples cut off.

Sister Flavia is bound to continue to get into trouble as she questions the male-dominated society in which she lives. She even asks Jesus, why the father, son and holy ghost are all men.

Eventually, she joins the leader of the Muslims as his lover and they sack the convent. Here is where you see more flesh than you can possible enjoy at one time. But, tragedy is to come. She manages to exact sweet revenge on all, including the Duke and her father, but finds that the Muslim lover treats her exactly the same. She is a woman and that is all there is to it.

I won't describe what the holy men of the church did to this heretic at the end, but it predates the torture of Saw or Hostel by decades.

Nunsploitation fans will be satisfied with the treats, but movie lovers will find plenty of meat to digest. "Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.

Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...

One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10 Expecting to see another Nunsploitation movie with a mean Mother Superior abusing and torturing her charges, Flavia turned out to be MUCH more than I had anticipated.

It actually has a feminist storyline, though I don't think such a term existed in the era in which the movie is set. It certainly wasn't practiced. Women (and the Jews and the poor) are very downtrodden and locked into menial spots in society. Throughout the story, Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) witnesses the tyranny of her time until she just can't sit there any longer and actually does something about it, albeit with disastrous results.

The pre-credit sequence has Flavia as a young adolescent near a battlefield. She sees an injured "evil" Muslim soldier (one of the few still alive) and tries to assist him. Before she can, her hate-filled father beheads the soldier and waves his head in her face (great family dynamics, huh?). After this, her father forces her to join a convent where she witnesses even more injustice. Though scenes do involve violence, rape and nuns, I would consider this more of a historical drama than Nunsploitation.

Indeed, many of the ingredients for a trashy exploitation piece are there, but the acting, camera-work, storyline and music are too good to keep it down in that level. Most "nun" films I've seen usually have the basic premise of: A good girl somehow winds up in a convent, where the Mother Superior is a supreme bitch that likes to whip people and/or make their lives a living hell.

Flavia spends much of the first part of he movie passively questioning all of the atrocities happening around her. Much of her passivity is forgotten when she becomes acquainted with the strong-spirited (but slightly loony- she likes to pee outside like me, but it's a lot easier for guys) Sister Agatha. When a group of Muslims attack their abbey, Flavia and Agatha do not cower in fear like the other nuns. Their attackers actually function as their liberators (of the cruelty and near-slavery of the abbey). In fact, it is a Christian, not a Muslim invader, that impales dear Sister Agatha.

It is Agatha's death that sends Flavia on her violent crusade against those who have oppressed her... Her father treats her like dirt. Her Muslim lover deserts her at a very inopportune time. I don't want to give out too much of the rest of the story, but be prepared to be shocked, devastated and saddened at the conclusion. This is a great film, so don't be put off by its (undeserved) reputation as a trash epic. Plus, how on Earth could a movie featuring Florinda Bolkan and Claudio Cassinelli go wrong? I am not familiar with María Casares' other works, but Sister Agatha is a hell of a character.

I have read many great reviews of the Synapse (US) release, but I love my German X-Rated Kult DVD copy. It isn't anamorphic/16:9, but actually has a little more picture information on all of the edges than Synapse's release.

And there are also many great, wise or funny lines of dialogue (many from Sister Agatha)

"Why is God male? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit… They're all male!" -Flavia

"These men are afraid- look at them, Sister- Afraid their power will be taken away from them!" -Sr. Agatha (regarding Christians fleeing after the Muslims arrive)

"Woman, where are you going? The Moslems can do nothing to you that the Christians haven't done! Ha Ha Ha!" -Sr. Agatha (to a group of fleeing Christian women)

"Lord bless these Moslems- For putting fear into these pompous Christians." -Flavia

"Does it take the mere sight of a Moslem to make you $h!t your underclothing?" -Sr. Agatha

Closing message: "Flavia Gaetani, not yet a Muslim - no longer a Christian - was punished as a runaway nun. The idea for the film came from events which occurred during the Musalman invasions of Italy culminating in what even today is remembered as THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 800 AT OTRANTO" Post-feminist depiction of cruelty and sadism.

Spoiler alert!

This underrated gem of a film tells the story of Flavia, a Fifteenth Century girl of Noble birth walled up in a convent after defining her father and indeed the whole of Medieval Christian society by viewing a fallen Islamic warrior as a human rather than demonic figure.

Unable to accept the patriarchal rule of the convent (explicitly stated in a scene where the Bishop arrives flanked by soldiers and monks) Flavia begins to explicitly question the society in which she finds herself and, through butting up against a whole system of subjugation, repression and violence, inevitably brings a tragic end not only to herself but all those around her.

Billed as a piece of nunsploitation this is far from the truth. This is a film depiction the consequences of violence, the effects of patriarchal dominance, the nature of rebellion and the corruption of the human spirit.

I described it in the title of this piece as 'post-feminist' and in the end Flavia's triumphs must always be corrupted, compromised and perverted by men. Even Flavia's gruesome end is perpetrated by men for men (the women turn away and only the monks look on without horror.

As to the much discussed violence: this is a depiction of the effects of violence and the horrors of a world driven mad by religious excess. To have shied away from the violence would have limited the film's impact, would have cheapened the film and allowed it to be assimilated within the Patriarchal discourse it is exposing. In addition it is a realistic portrait of medieval society.

Beautifully filmed, brilliantly acted (notably by Florinda Bolkin and Maria Casares), containing a wonderful score by piovani and still challenging after all these years Flavia is a classic of European Cinema. I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.

It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.

Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.

Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.

The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.

Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.

Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...

This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the "nunsploitation" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it. Bo Derek's beauty and John Derek's revolutionary direction make this film worthwhile.

Bo, looking more gorgeous than ever, is a recently widowed woman who is experiencing visitations from her 'dead' husband (Anthony Quinn). He has a plan. Bo must procure the body of a young man so that her ghost of a husband can make his transformation from spectre back to corporeal life. Can she find a fitting candidate? How will she do him in so Tony can do his thing?

With Bo's attributes, John's unique direction, Quinn's film presence, and, thanks to John, a very pretty exotic look to the entire film, this movie is pleasant viewing. This movie is visually stunning. Who cares if she can act or not. Each scene is a work of art composed and captured by John Derek. The locations, set designs, and costumes function perfectly to convey what is found in a love story comprised of beauty, youth and wealth. In some ways I would like to see this movie as a tribute to John and Bo Derek's story. And...this commentary would not be complete without mentioning Anthony Quinn's role as father, mentor, lover, and his portrayal of a man, of men, lost to a bygone era when men were men. There are some of us who find value in strength and direction wrapped in a confidence that contributes to a sense of confidence, containment, and security. Yes, they do not make men like that anymore! But, then how often do you find women who are made like Bo Derek. Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.

David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.

Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.

Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.

Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on "Carry On Follow that Camel" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.

Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.

One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with "conventional" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.

We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.

In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.

Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.

By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.

Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is "trouble", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.

At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered "wunderbar" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.

David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.

Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.

The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting. Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.

The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.

For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like "Sixteen Candles" where the "f" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.

I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.

"The Dream Machine" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.

My score: 7 (out of 10) A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud. The movie itself made me want to go and call someone so they could enjoy it too. It was extremely funny. Angelena Jolie was wonderful as Juliet. The parents are hilarious.They are caterers as well as enemies.The kids play the parts of Romeo and Juliet in the church play.They fall in love and their parents try to keep them apart.(Spoiler Ahead. I think) They sneak off after a party and do it. Surprisingly they still want to get married in the end of the movie. If you don't like stereotypes and the defilement of classic literature don't watch. If you don't mind those you will have a blast watching this one. First off, let me say I have wanted to see this movie for about a year now because I knew Angelina Jolie was in it and I love her. But my love for her has nothing to do with my opinion of the movie. Anyhow, no video stores carried it but low and behold the local library did. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Yes there were Italian stereotypes but it was done well and funny. It was not degrading in any way.

Every actor and actress did a superb job. I laughed very hard at the sexual humor. Overall, I think this movie is well worth seeing if you can find it. It is adorable and just plain fun to watch. I rarely rank movies as a 10 but I give this one a 10!!!

Go find it and watch it! This truly funny movie has a zany cast of characters, just about every voluptuous middle-aged female in Hollywood, and a touching, funny love story. The Capomezza's and the Malacici's are rival caterers in an Italian neighborhood in New York. They are also at opposite--extreme--ends of the taste scale. Their children are cast in the lead roles of a church production of Romeo and Juliet. Naturally, they fall in love. On stage! The mayhem and confusion that this causes, as the parents feud with each other and their kids, is played out for us against the backdrop of the Capomezza's magnificently tasteless home, and their magnificently tasteless catered weddings.

Besides the four over-the-top parents and the charming young lovers, the characters include a vaguely wise priest, a plain-speaking grandma, a lady who waves a wand and passes on spiritual advice she receives from a medium called The Blessed Roscoe, a motel with beds shaped like the back seat of a car, and two doves. There is not a sight gag or a punch line that doesn't click in this fast paced movie.

Even the family names of the two families are part of the fun. "Capomezza" could be interpreted as "low-brows," and "Malacici" could mean "stuck-up snobs."

If you are sensitive about Italian stereotypes, you may not like this movie. If Bette Midler embarrasses you, you may not like it, because all of the women in this movie make Bette Midler look like Martha Stewart. The rest of us should love it! Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. I think that Angelina Jolie is probably one of the most talented actress' today, but a movie like this isn't just worth her time. She deserves better, and so does everyone else in this movie. Talent is just wasted. Sorry, but i don't feel like writing a review for this.

I give it NO stars out of *****. Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.

What's a man to do?

I rather liked "Dan In Real Life", but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, "Get Smart" will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.

"Dan In Real Life" starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but "Dan In Real Life" is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.

I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again. I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see There is a scene in Dan in Real Life where the family is competing to see which sex can finish the crossword puzzle first. The answer to one of the clues is Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is exactly the case for Dan Burns (Steve Carell, the Office) a columnist for the local newspaper. Dan is an expert at giving advice for everyday life, yet he comes to realize that things aren't so picture perfect in his own. Dan in Real Life is amazing at capturing these ironies of everyday life and is successful at embracing the comedy, tragedy, and beauty of them all. Besides that this movie is pretty damn hilarious.

The death of his wife forces Dan to raise his three daughters all on his own... each daughter in their own pivotal stages in life: the first one anxious to try out her drivers license, the middle one well into her teenage angst phase, and the youngest one drifting away from early childhood. Things take a turn for Dan when he goes to Rhode Island for a family reunion and stumbles across an intriguing woman in a bookstore.

Her name is Marie (Juliette Binoche, Chocolat) and she is looking for a book to help her avoid awkward situations... which is precisely whats in store when they get thrown into the Burns Family household.

If you've seen Steve Carell in The Office or Little Miss Sunshine, you'd know that he is incomparable with comedic timing and a tremendously dynamic actor as well. Steve Carell is awesome at capturing all the emotions that come with family life: the frustration and sincere compassion. The family as well as the house itself provides a warm environment for the movie that contrasts the inner turmoil that builds throughout the movie and finally bursts out in a pretty suspenseful climax. The movie only falls short in some of the predictable outcomes, yet at the same time life is made up of both irony and predictability: which is an irony within itself.

Dan in Real Life is definitely worth seeing, for the sole enjoyment of watching all the funny subtleties we often miss in everyday life, and I'll most likely enjoy it a second time, or even a third. Just "put it on my tab." I saw a special advance screening of this today. I have to let you know, I'm not a huge fan of either Dane Cook or Steve Carell, so I really had no expectations going into this. I ended up enjoying it quite a bit.

Dan in Real Life is the story of a widower with 3 daughters who goes to spend a weekend with his family. While at a bookstore, he meets the woman of his dreams, only to find out that she happens to be his brother's girlfriend.

This movie is pretty well made- the soundtrack, cinematography, and acting are all top-notch, especially Steve Carell. My problem with it was mostly that there seemed to be a lack of character development, mostly with Dane Cook's character. We never really get a close look at the relationship between Dane and Steve's characters, and I felt that it could have helped a bit in showing what Dan's inner conflict about being in love with Dane's girlfriend was like. Other than this though, Dan in Real Life is definitely a solid, sweet film- definitely a nice break from all the horror and action movies we've been getting this year. I was drawn to DAN IN REAL LIFE from the excellent reviews and the thirst for a Dramedy that was well written-thank you Peter Hedges-and because when Steve Carell stars in the film, you know an audience is going to find like in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, a performance that is very entertaining and rewarding. DAN IN REAL LIFE delivered that promise.

The film is so real to many families world wide that have lost a member and yet have gone on with their lives in search of something that will give them the magic back before their loss. With Steve Carell and the wondrous Juliette Binoche, their relationship was so beautifully done and written that their scenes were so real to their characters and to their journeys. The cast, sets and story made DAN IN REAL LIFE one to remember as we head into the holidays ahead. Dan, the widowed father of three girls, has his own advice column that will probably go into syndication. After his wife's death, he has taken time to raise his daughters. Having known no romance in quite some time, nothing prepares him for the encounter with the radiant Marie, at a local book store in a Rhode Island small town on the ocean, where he has gone to celebrate Thanksgiving with the rest of his big family. After liking Marie at first sight, little prepares him when the gorgeous woman appears at the family compound. After all, she is the date of Dan's brother, Mitch.

It is clear from the outset that Dan and Marie are made for one another, and although we sense what the outcome will be, we go for the fun ride that Peter Hedges, the director wants to give us. Mr. Hedges, an author and screenplay writer on his own, has given us two excellent novels, "What's Eating Gilber Grapes", and "An Ocean in Iowa", and the delightful indie, "Pieces of April, which he also directed. It's just a coincidence that both movies deal with families during Thanksgiving reunions.

The best thing in the film was the natural chemistry between the two stars, Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche. Mr. Carell, in fact, keeps getting better all the time. In many ways, he remind us of Jack Lemmon, in his take of comedy and serious material. What can one say about Ms. Binoche, an intelligent actress, and a bright presence in any film. She proves she is right up to doing comedy, convincing us about her Marie.

The only sad note is the waste of talent in the picture. John Mahoney, Diane Wiest, Norbert Leo Butz, Jessica Hecht, Emily Blunt, Allison Pill, Amy Ryan, have nothing to do. They just serve as incidental music for decoration. Dane Cook, who is seen as brother Mitch, fares better because he gets to recite more lines than the others.

"Dan in Real Life" is a delightful film that will please everyone. Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie. The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.

"Dan in Real Life" is a great surprise and a delightful movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is awesome and it is very easy to know why everybody loves Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston is fantastic and their characters are responsible for some of the best moments of this story. The screenplay is wonderful and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are stunning, with a realistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend") I loved "Dan in Real Life". A wonderful journey-to-love story like You've Got Mail or While You Were Sleeping, but not ridiculously full of sight gags and crude jokes, and not so romantic it makes you wanna throw up.

Dan Burns (Steven Carrell) is a popular advice columnist who can't seem to get things in his own life straightened out. Until one day, on a family gathering/trip, he meets and instantly connects with Marie (the always beautiful Juliette Binoche)a radiant specimen of a woman who seems to be framed in a hazy filter hearkening back to the starlets of classic cinema. Chemistry happens over a cup of tea and muffin, but Marie must be off for a previous engagement, and they must part ways.

Later we are treated to Dan's tight-knit, fun-loving relatives who not only have big breakfasts together but also enjoy using the intelligent and sweetly dorky Dan as the butt of many bachelor jokes. What I liked so much was that although the family's characteristics could be seen as obnoxious to some, I thought it was a great portrayal of a big family that doesn't venture into parody or crude exaggeration. The Burns family is simply a close, loving group of people who are truly interested in the best for Dan. There are wonderfully awkward family moments that aren't unrealistic. The family is nosey, but never mean-spirited or gossipy; quirky, but never outlandish.

And then Dan falls in love with his brother's girlfriend he's brought to the family gathering. And thus begins a roller-coaster of restrained longing and funny love-budding.

I could go on but I just thought this movie was simply awesome. It's not particularly "hip" or "clever", never too wordy and obsessed with dry humor or biting wit as many comedies are in modern cinema. There is a nice balance of storytelling visuals and funny-but-real dialogue. in fact, early in the movie, the initial spark of love begins with whimsical discussion in a classic Hollywood-style conversation where the characters say what they're thinking out loud.

So I've probably rambled and repeated myself, but I highly recommend "Dan in Real Life". It's a great date movie, trust me, you'll laugh, and only if you're a geek like me you'll get a bit teary-eyed. Filled with fun and magical love, "Dan in Real Life" won't disappoint.

=================== 3.5 out of 4 stars Grade: A Clean family oriented movie. I laughed, I cried...I loved it. I was worried I wouldn't be able to see Steve Carrell as anything but goofy Michael from The Office. Boy, was I wrong. He should win an Oscar for his performance. I will definitely buy this on DVD when it comes out. My husband enjoyed it and he isn't into movies of this "type". I saw it with 2 other couples in the 30 year old range and we all agreed it was the best movie we had seen in a LONG time and certainly the cleanest. Only 1 cuss word! Not even sure why it was PG13. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedy, drama, romance and more! Steve Carell stars as a person who you can relate to(sort of) in Dan in real life, a film which I expected not to like but ended up liking it. Not that the movie is laugh out loud funny it's just that it has a big heart. We all like Steve Carell, this isn't what fans of The Office would expect to see from him, but you know what, I liked this movie.

Carell stars as Dan Burns, a widowed father who's daughters don't really like him. One weekend, him and his daughters travel down to see his family. While there, he goes to a bookstore and falls for a woman. When he gets back to his house, he finds out that his brother Mitch(Played by Dane Cook) is dating this woman(Played by Juliette Binoche).

Dan in real life, at times, I found a bit unbelievable. Are the Burns family really the kind of people who do exercises together and play board games together and do a bunch of other family things? I would highly doubt that. I don't know any family who is like that. Is that stopping me from giving it a thumbs up? No.

Dan in real life:***/**** I loved the story. Somewhere, a poster said there are no families like the one portrayed in this film. Well maybe there ought to be. I thought everybody seemed really human and believable. What a top notch cast. What great music on the soundtrack. What a nice this, and what a nice that, but most of all, I will say two words to recommend this film.

Steve Carell.

He really showed a nice, subtle depth that touched me. He was truly commanding as a widower who had dedicated himself maybe a little too much to being a good dad first, at the cost of denying his own needs.

Did he act like a petulant ass? Why, yes he did.

And you see, that's what was perfect about this film. The actor who played this character made me believe he was FEELING something, and not simply ACTING like he was feeling something, and he conveyed to me perfectly what it was that he was feeling, and what he was feeling was denied.

Denied happiness.

Denied fulfillment.

Denied love.

Losing your love is painful beyond belief, and many who do so will never feel something like that again.

Beautiful film.

I gave it an eight out of ten. I watch romantic comedies with some hesitation, for romantic comedies feature age old clichés which make a movie uninteresting. Typically in a Romantic Comedy, there is a girl and there is a guy, both fall in love, then have troubles, and then win over the troubles to marry or whatever. But, this movie is a different story, it is really very different from the Romantic Comedies I have seen of lately.

There is a widowed guy(Dan), there is a girl(Marie). Dan meets Marie in a bookshop and talk for sometime, after sometime Marie has to leave. Dan develops something for her, and when this something starts to turn meaningful, we get a twist. Marie is the girlfriend of his brother. Unheeded of the circumstances, Dan flirts with Marie and realizes that he loves her, and even Marie loves him, but their love would not just be possible. How it is made possible forms the rest of the story.

Steve Carell performs well, Juliette Binoche is good as Marie. And every other stuff is done well. It is a good movie, watch it. This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.

However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects.

'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.

There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.

I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see! How can you sum up just exactly how feelgood and right and touching this film is?? For several weeks this DVD leaped off the shelf at me every time I went in the store - having seen Steve Carrell in a couple of films previously, I didn't want to smear my thought process of him - so I resisted and resisted, until finally I grabbed it up with a 'What the hell!' attitude! And how surprised was I! I just wish I had purchased it earlier. Having watched it three times in two days I am still smiling at how the portrayal of a widower struggling with three daughters, yearning for that which is missing since the passing of his beloved wife, who thus meets an intriguing woman, charming her in such a profound and interesting (dare I say bookish?) way, throws a whole different light onto life that makes him realize she is what he has been searching for.

The snag of that woman being his brothers girl complicates matters - which portray Dan comically shy and with a heartfelt chagrin, seeing his "someone special" bringing such fun and enjoyment into the family home as well as his brothers life. You just really begin to feel for him.

Then when the blind date occurs with Ruthie Draper - that is the turning point in Marie's estimation of Dan!! The look she gives him when he repeats her comment, about not liking Ruthie - sheer Green-Eyed Monster! Triggering an absolutely hilarious scene as the two couples compete on the dance floor! This sequence is one of the most well-crafted as Dan starts to loosen up with regard to Marie.

Other gut-wrenching scenes - Dan returns from the Book and Tackle Shop, confronted by his brothers, begins to describe what has just occurred....when Dan's face drops it brings a sharp intake of breath!!

His youngest daughter Lilly making the present celebrating their love for Suzanne, his late wife, brings a little heartfelt warmth and a little gulp as Dan realizes just what he has lost in life.

When Dan plays guitar and sings at the Talent Show....his voice cracking slightly as he reprises the song....absolute gem!

The acceptance of what occurs late in the film by his daughters...they all three love their father and want to see him happy, will not let him deny his love for Marie; the desperateness of Dan not to fail his daughters because he is their rock, their stronghold...and tell him so much more than that with just a few words.

I could go on and on but I will leave it for now - maybe return and add more comments here in the near future....but I will end by saying....

....if you want to watch a film that is just so damn good, with twists of comedy to lighten up the drama, that never feels forced or crass, that comes over as a genuine portrayal of a man discovering new life - not just with a woman but also with his extended family, then look no further.

DAN IN REAL LIFE - 9 out of 10 for such a well-rendered cinematic experience with a score by Sondre Lerche, that intimately takes you there throughout whilst never being intrusive, with fine performances by the ensemble cast. I cannot wait to re-watch this again!! Unlike many other films, which are disturbing either by dint of their naked unpleasantness (Man Bites Dog) or their sheer violence (most Peckinpah films), Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real. The movie's plausibility is greatly aided by the playing of the leads, particularly Ned Beatty and Jon Voight as the victim and reluctant hero respectively. Burt Reynolds, too, has never been better. The film's cultural influence is demonstrable by the number of people who will understand a reference to 'banjo territory' - perhaps only Get Carter has done such an effective hatchet-job on a region's tourist industry. I can think of only a handful of movies which put me into such a serious depression after they had finished - the oppressive atmosphere of Se7en is the best comparison I can think of. Although so much of it is excellent of itself, Deliverance is a classic above all because there are no adequate points of comparison with it - it is unique. 'Deliverance' is a brilliant condensed epic of a group of thoroughly modern men who embark on a canoe trip to briefly commune with nature, and instead have to fight for their sanity, their lives, and perhaps even their souls. The film has aged well. Despite being made in the early Seventies, it certainly doesn't look particularly dated. It still possesses a visceral punch and iconic status as a dramatic post-'Death of the Sixties' philosophical-and-cultural shock vehicle. There are very few films with similar conceits that can compare favourably to it, although the legendary Sam Peckinpah's stuff would have to be up there. Yes, there has been considerable debate and discussion about the film's most confronting scene (which I won't expand upon here) - and undoubtedly one of the most confronting scenes in the entire history of the cinematic medium - but what surprises about this film is how achingly beautiful it is at times. This seems to be generally overlooked (yet in retrospect quite understandably so). The cinematography that captures the essence of the vanishing, fragile river wilderness is often absolutely stunning, and it counterbalances the film as, in a moment of brief madness, we the viewers - along with the characters themselves - are plunged into unrelenting nightmare. 'Deliverance's narrative is fittingly lean and sinewy, and it is surprising how quickly events unfold from point of establishment, through to crisis, and aftermath. It all takes place very quickly, which lends a sense of very real urgency to the film. The setting is established effectively through the opening credits. The characters are all well-drawn despite limited time spent on back story. We know just enough about them to know them for the kind of man they are, like them and ultimately fear for them when all goes to hell. The conflict and violence within the movie seems to erupt out of nowhere, with a frightening lack of logic. This is author James Dickey's theme - that any prevailing romanticism about the nature of Man's perceived inherent 'goodness' can only wilt and die when his barely suppressed animal instincts come to the fore. There are no demons or bogeymen here. The predatory hillbillies - as the film's central villains - are merely crude, terrifyingly amoral cousins of our protagonists. They shock because their evil is petty and tangible. The film has no peripheral characters. All reflect something about the weaknesses and uncertainties of urbanised Homo Sapiens in the latter 20th century, and all are very real and recognisable. Burt Reynolds is wonderful in this movie as the gung-ho and almost fatally over-confident Survivalist, Lewis, and it is a shame to think that he really couldn't recapture his brief moment of dramatic glory throughout the rest of his still sputtering up-and-down career ('Boogie Nights' excluded, perhaps). Trust me, if your are not a Reynolds fan, you WILL be impressed with his performance here. John Voight is his usual effortlessly accomplished self, and Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox both make significant contributions. This is simply a great quartet of actors. To conclude, I must speculate as to if and when 'Deliverance' author James Dickey's 'To the White Sea' will be made. For those that enjoyed (?) this film, TTWS is a similarly harrowing tale of an American Air Force pilot's struggle for survival after being shot down over the Japanese mainland during WW2. It's more of the typically bleak existentialism and primordial savagery that is Dickey's trademark, but it has all the makings of a truly spectacular, poetic cinematic experience. There was the suggestion a few years ago that the Coen brothers might be producing it, but that eventually came to nothing. Being an avid Coen-o-phile it disappoints me to think what might have been had they gotten the green light on TTWS, rather than their last couple of relatively undistinguished efforts. Returning to 'Deliverance', it's impossible to imagine a movie of such honest, unnerving brutality being made in these times, and that is pretty shameful. We, the cinema-going public, are all the poorer for this. In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.

The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.

Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.

"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.

At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.

Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.

Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. Deliverance is the fascinating, haunting and sometimes even disturbing tale by James Dickey, turned into a brilliant movie by John Boorman. It's about four businessmen, driven by manhood and macho-behavior, who're spending a canoeing weekend high up in the mountains. Up there, they're faced with every darkest side of man and every worst form of human misery...poverty, buggery and even physical harassment! These four men intended to travel down the river for adventure and excitement but their trip soon changes into an odyssey through a violent and lurking mountain-land, completely estranged from all forms of civilisation. All these elements actually make Deliverance one of the most nightmarish films I've ever seen. Just about everything that happens to these men, you pray that you'll never find yourself to be in a similar situation. Pure talking cinema, Deliverance is a very important movie as well. John Boorman's best (closely followed by Zardoz and Excalibur) was - and still is - a very influential film and it contains several memorable scenes that already featured in numberless other movies. Just think about the terrific "Duelling banjos" musical score and, of course, the unforgettable homosexual "squeal like a pig" rape scene. All the actors deliver (haha) perfect acting performances. Especially Jon Voight. A must see motion picture!! After having seen Deliverance, movies like Pulp Fiction don't seem so extreme. Maybe by today's blood and bullets standards it doesn't seem so edgy, but if you think that this was 1972 and that the movie has a truly sinister core then it makes you think differently.

When I started watching this movie nothing really seemed unusual until I got to the "Dueling Banjos" scene. In that scene the brutality and edge of this film is truly visible. As I watched Drew(Ronny Cox,Robocop)go head to head with a seemingly retarted young boy it really shows how edgy this movies can get. When you think that the kid has a small banjo, which he could of probably made by hand, compared to Drew's nice expensive guitar, you really figure out just how out of their territory the four men are.

As the plot goes it's very believable and never stretches past its limits. But what really distinguishes this film, about four business men who get more than they bargained for on a canoe trip, is that director John Boorman(Excalibur) breaks all the characters away from plain caricatures or stereotypes. So as the movie goes into full horror and suspense I really cared about all four men and what would happen to them.

The acting is universally excellent. With Jon Voight(Midnight Cowboy, Enemy of the State) and Burt Reynolds(Boogie Nights, Striptease) leading the great cast. Jon Voight does probably the hardest thing of all in this film and that is making his transformation from family man to warrior very believable. Unlike Reynolds whose character is a warrior from the start, Voight's character transforms over the course of the movie. Ned Beatty(Life) is also good in an extremely hard role, come on getting raped by a hillbilly, while Ronny Cox turns in a believable performance.

One thing that really made this movies powerful for me is that the villains were as terrifying as any I had ever seen. Bill Mckinney and Herbert "Cowboy" Coward were excellent and extremely frightening as the hillbilly's.

Overall Deliverance was excellent and I suggest it to anyone, except for people with weak stomachs and kids. 10/10. See this movie. John Boorman's "Deliverance" concerns four suburban Atlanta dwellers who take a ride down the swift waters of the Cahulawassee… The river is about to disappear for a dam construction and the flooding of the last untamed stretches of land…

The four friends emphasize different characters: a virile sports enthusiast who has never been insured in his life since there is no specific risk in it (Burt Reynolds); a passionate family man and a guitar player (Ronny Cox); an overweight bachelor insurance salesman (Ned Beatty); and a quiet, thoughtful married man with a son who loves to smoke his pipe (Jon Voight).

What follows is the men's nightmarish explorations against the hostile violence of nature…It is also an ideal code of moral principle about civilized men falling prey to the dark laws of the wilderness…

Superbly shot, this thrilling adult adventure certainly contains some genuinely gripping scenes… As Peckinpah did with STRAW DOGS, and Kubrick with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, director John Boorman delivers an effective film about Man's violent side in DELIVERANCE, arguably a definitive horror film of the 1970s. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox portray four Atlanta businessmen who decide to take a canoe trip down the wild Cahulawassee River in northern Georgia before it is dammed up into what Reynolds calls "one big, dead lake."

But the local mountain folk take a painfully obvious dim view of these "city boys" carousing through their woods. And the following day, continuing on down the river, Beatty and Voight are accosted and sexually assaulted (the film's infamous "SQUEAL!" sequence) by two vicious mountain men (Bill McKinney, Herbert "Cowboy" Coward). Thus, what started out as nothing more than a lark through the Appalachians has now turned into a nightmare in which our four protagonists come to see the thin line that exists between what we think of as civilization and what we think of as barbarism.

James Dickey adapted the screenplay from his own best-selling book, and the result is an often gripping and disturbing shocker. Often known for its "SQUEAL!" and "Dueling Banjos" sequences, DELIVERANCE is also quite a pulse-pounding ordeal, with the four leading men superb in their roles, and McKinney and Coward making for two of the most frightening villains of all times. A must-see film for those willing to take a chance. I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the "duel", the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the "duel", the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.

Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a "1", I gave it a "10". This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating. This was, undoubtedly, the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. The first part of the movie, though strange, has a light and amusing quality to it. The journey begins on such a peaceful note, detailing and emphasizing the beauty of the hills of Appalachia. But that is misleading beyond belief. The obvious social problems (inbreeding) and the deformities of the countryside's inhabitants are only the first disturbing aspects of the movie. I can still hear Bobby moaning in pain, and I shudder at the thought. Lewis's leg made me wince. Yet, while the movie was, on the whole, very disturbing and distressing, it posed some interesting questions. When is it moral, or right to take another individual's life? What can morality drive us to do, or not do, in some cases? And are dignity and moral integrity more important than life itself? Whatever conclusions one may draw from the film, it is an achievement in its own right (despite certain aspects that were chillingly real and gruesome). Engrossing drama of four men on a canoing weekend down a remote river. They are pacifist Ed (Jon Voight), adventurous, violent Lewis (Burt Reynolds), obnoxious Bobby (Ned Beatty) and nice guy Drew (Ronny Cox). The first 40 minute are great--there's the incredible dueling banjos sequence, interesting interplay among the characters and just stunning widescreen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Then two hillbillies attack Ed and Bobby. One of them rapes Bobby...and the trip becomes a nightmare.

Just unbelievable. The scenery is incredibly beautiful yet this horrific violence is taking place. To be truthful, Beatty's rape has never bothered me--I'm very aware it's being faked despite the good acting. This movie also shows how the characters change--Ed has his pacifism tested, Lewis becomes weak, Bobby is violated by one of the people he mocked earlier on and Drew tries to keep himself sane. Direction by John Boorman is also very assured and the sounds of the forest and the river help the mood immensely.

The acting is mostly good. Voight is just OK in the lead--he's been better. Beatty is also just OK--but it is his debut film and he has guts for taking such a risky role. Cox is very good especially when things start falling apart. And Reynolds is just superb--one of his best acting jobs EVER! How this wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award escapes me. Also Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward are way too believable as the hillbillies.

A powerful film--NOT for children. Try to see an uncut version--the TV version is butchered. Also letter-boxed viewing is essential to capture the breathtaking images. James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads "Deliverance", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were "Patton", "Papillon", and "All the President's Men"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. This is without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen. The first time I saw it I was about 9 or 10 years old. I began looking sometime before the rape scene. And when I saw it I was really shocked thinking "What kinda sick movie is this?". Today I've seen it from the beginning and really understood how great this movie really is. It's exciting, frightening, shocking and in it's own unique way disturbing. But the best thing about it is the ending where the audience is shown that this experience will haunt the characters for the rest of their lifes. It'll torture their conscience and they will worry for the rest of their lifes about the bodies being found in that river. And there is nothing they can do about it, it's something they have to live with. This ending is one of the most unhappy endings in movie history and very smart, brilliant and horrifying

And the acting is also great, especially Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds. Magnificent acting in this movie. All in all, John Boorman has created one of the best movies throughout movie history based on Dick Chaney's novel. A must see for all the movie lovers ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Packed with memorable moments (such as the quote above, immortalized by Primus), Deliverance tells the story of four guys who take a trip to the wild woods to go white water rafting and get away from the big city for a while only to find that their fun soon takes a bad turn. This is not a Hollywood film. There are virtually no special effects whatsoever, the setting is extremely realistic, and nothing at all is sugarcoated or made pretty. The city boys look like city boys, and even the tough guy Louis, portrayed with precision by Burt Reynolds, is clearly at the mercy of the wild on this trip. This is a perfect example of a what-if film. What if a few friends went river rafting in an area of the woods that none of them were familiar with, and ended up desperately trying to avoid being tried and convicted for murders that they were forced to commit to save their own lives?

There is clearly a very strong element of the film that deals with societal and class structure and the relationship (or lack thereof) between rural and urban peoples. When the four guys arrive in the woods early in the film, they clearly do not quite know how to interact with the people who live out there, and they speak to them as though they are unsure whether they will understand or be able to communicate. This communication block is most memorably illustrated in the dueling banjoes scene, in which they are trying to gas up the car and truck and get someone to drive the vehicles downriver for them. While Drew and the obviously inbred and probably mentally deficient boy on the porch are dueling with their guitar and banjo (one of the best scenes in the film), Louis is having some difficulty buying the gas, and Bobby makes a comment about genetic deficiencies and how pathetic it all is. When the boy turns away from Drew, who had offered to shake his hand after their stupendous jam session, Bobby tells him to give the kid a couple bucks, knowing that none of them are quite sure how to react.

This is the kind of thing that we see in Deliverance that sets up so much of the tension that is to follow. This great scene where a lot of fun was had (including the funniest 'redneck dancing' scene until O Brother, Where Art Thou?) ended with everyone awkwardly unsure what to do around each other. These people are apples and oranges, and they live by completely different rules of life. The people that Louis, Bobby, Drew and Ed encounter in the hills grew up separated from modern society and modern laws, and live by the rules of nature, which do not include thou shalt not kill. Confused by their awkward behavior, the four friends set out on the river, hoping for the weirdness to end and for the adventure to begin.

(spoilers) When they are briefly separated from each other and Ed and Bobby run into the hillbillies beside the river who quickly turn unpleasant, the uncertainty about the way that these people live - which was established by the scene above - comes into play to create the most tension during the scene. I think that a good sign of a quality thriller like this is that the tragic element of the film, namely the assaults and actual murders, takes up a very small amount of screen time but remain some of the most memorable parts of the film. There is no gratuitous violence here, it's all there for an obvious purpose and it achieves a startlingly powerful effect.

The move is about the violent clash of two very different kinds of people, and what can happen when they inadvertently find themselves at war with each other. The trip down the rest of the river after the assault, which takes up the majority of the film, delivers some spectacularly effective tension, and keeps you on the edge of your seat while not bombarding you with so much happening that you become numb. It is surprisingly effective when we find out that Ed may very well have killed the wrong man up there on the cliff, and the tension in the film doesn't even let up when the three surviving members of the team reach the bottom of the river, because they deliver a questionable explanation to the police about what happened up there on the river and why the deputy's brother-in-law is missing.

This is a very disturbing film, which is a testament to its success, because it's pretty obvious that a film like this is meant to shake people up a little bit. The hillbillies are the human (i.e. more realistic) version of the sub-human rednecks seen in childish but fairly similar films like Gator Bait and Gator Bait 2, neither of which could possibly ever be compared to a timeless film like Deliverance. When we follow these four men through their fateful weekend in the woods, the natural element is so real and we get to know the men so well and in such a subtle fashion that it's almost like we, as individuals of the audience, are really a fifth member of the team. It's not often that a film is able to come across that way. It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.

The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them.

The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that. Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.

Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.

Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest. The makers of this fine film did a terrific job of getting you involved with the characters,as they suffered through this horrible ordeal.The horrific scene in the woods was done so superbly that you forget that these men were just actors,playing parts.I have never gotten so immersed in a film as I have this one.Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight were never better on screen,as well as fine performances by Ned Beatty,Ronny Cox,Bill McKinney,and though he appeared only briefly,James Dickey,the man who authored the book upon which the film is based,as the sheriff of Aintry.It is somewhat disturbing,and kids,of course,should be shielded from it,but this is great,dramatic cinema. "Deliverance" is one of the best exploitation films to come out of that wonderful 1970's decade from whence so many other exploitation films came.

A group of friends sets out on a canoe trip down a river in the south and they become victimized by a bunch of toothless hillbillies who pretty much try to ruin their lives. It's awesome.

We are treated to anal rape, vicious beatings, bow and arrow killings, shootings, broken bones, etc... A lot like 1974's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," to say that "Deliverance" is believable would be immature. This would never and could never happen, even in the dark ages of 1972.

"Deliverance" is a very entertaining ride and packed full of action. It is one in a huge pile of exploitation films to come from the early 70's and it (arguably) sits on top of that pile with it's great acting, superb cinematography and excellent writing.

8 out of 10, kids. Before watching this film I had heard a lot about it and certain scenes in the film, but listening wasn't doing it for me so I planned on watching it and wow! Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds make for an interesting group of individuals who are hell bent on canoing down the Cahulawassee river and the unfortunate series of events that transpires upon them all. The character development takes some time in enveloping the viewer with a better understanding of each person, but eventually you know these guys like they were your friend. The acting, dialogue is very very real, as close to reality as you can get for Hollywood acting. Reynolds character "Lewis" was interesting as a guy who comes off very tough but underneath the manly veneer lies a very soft and broken man (I was impressed with his performance!) Jon Voight seems to be the character thats on the spotlight the most, the unfortunate circumstances that seem to find him at every corner really mold and caste him into a different man at the end (his character transition was excellent). Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox really seem like the silly lunkheads that just like to joke around and don't seem to get too awful serious unless they have too, and they did... I really was amazed at Director Boorman's vision of Dickey's novel, very impressed. You cannot go your whole life without watching this film. I give it eight out of ten stars, extremely impressed. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's an all-time classic. The character played by Ned Beatty undergoes one of the greatest on screen transformations ever portrayed. He is a shallow, almost useless, overweight insurance salesman. He is proud of his ignorance, and yet judges the "backwards hicks" to be the ignorant ones. When he compliments the old man on his hat, and the old man responds, "you don't know nothing'," the tone is set. It's true. He really doesn't "know nothing'." But one backwoods anal rape later, the man is practically a warrior. His shallow fake bravery is toned down into serious resolve. The old self is forever dead, left in some far off woods, soon to be under hundreds of feet of water. And what of Lewis, our intrepid guide? Lewis is a philosopher/hunter/warrior, and he's just about nuts. Burt Reynolds proved himself as an actor way back in 1972 in this film, completely giving himself in to this wonderful role. Who wouldn't want to have a friend like Lewis if one was to venture into the dangers of a forgotten/soon to be left behind world like the one our hapless travelers find themselves in. This film speaks to us on so many levels. The story feels real. It works as a complete action/adventure, with wonderful cinematography, and deliberate, grinding pacing. It works as a bit of a horror film, with the danger and almost surrealism of the encounter with the vile rednecks who objectify their "sow" Ned Beatty. But it also works as an art film, using incredible amounts of symbolism to convey truths that go to our very core. I have seen this film at least fifty times, and every time it comes on, I find I have to watch it. You have to watch it quite a few times to even begin to comprehend it. This is one deep movie. This is one well-acted movie. And this is one hell of a story. I gave it a 10 out of 10, and put it in my 10 all time greatest films ever made, along with Schindler's List, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, and Sling Blade, among others. Movies that make you think. Movies that take you beyond having to think. Movies that use a STORY to make their point, without trying to preach to you. If you think you know Deliverance, you might, but again, you might not. It really is that good. When a movie shocks you with it's disturbing, brooding atmosphere, and grabs you by the throat with it's stunning cinematography, you just know that you have stumbled upon a treat, masterpiece of a film. Although with most modern movies, extremely enjoyable as some are, those that really shock you into focus are the strongest, and are the ones that are most critically acclaimed and mostly, stick with you for a life time. I say, proudly, that I am a fan of movies that disturb, not just horror movies, but those that send a vibe laden with foreboding. Movies like Breakdown and The Missing, that send a chill down your spine, making you think "holy crap, that could happen to me", and visually entice you, are up there with some of my favorite aspects in a movie. Because I am only 21, I did not grow up with actors like Burt Renyolds, Jon Voight and Ned Beatty, albeit I am familiar with them, I didn't watch them grow and proceed as actors, as opposed to actors now like Shia LaBouf and Justin Long. I must say, after the long hype and witnessing Deliverance for the first time, I was so admired by these veteran actors in a movie made more than 30 years ago, and still lives it's terror up in competition to modern movies. Burt Renyolds plays Lewis, the macho self appointed leader of a group of four friends on a canoe trip down a fictitious river before a dam is made, filling the whole wilderness in water. Renyolds' character is an experienced adventurer, sort of no nonsense, and filled with machismo. Witnessing him portray the tough guy, made me think differently about him as an actor, as i have only seen him as a seedy old guy or an angry politician. The dialog the director provides for his character gives him enough malice to be proved as a strong and even intimidating leader. Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty play as the novice adventurers, Drew and Bob respectively, joining in for the fun of a canoe trip. The actor that i thoroughly enjoyed watching was Jon Voight, once again I have only seen him as an older actor, however, unlike Renyolds, I have quite liked Voight's acting (and i don't regard Anaconda when I say that), for example the national treasure movies. Voight plays Ed, whom, like Lewis, is experienced in adventuring but is seen as a more reserved character, a reluctant hero/ leader and definitely lacks Lewis' machismo. The film basically opens up with the four driving into a small town while asking to find someone to drive their cars to the bottom of the river whilst they canoe the rapids and camp along the riverside. You immediately get a creepy vibe from the hillbilly characters we are introduced to, like the imbred kid who plays the infamous "Duelling Banjo's" at the start of the film with Ronny Cox's character Drew; and more so the two mountain men in the films pivotal and disturbing rape scene. As with all atmospheric movies, from this moment on, dread and confusion fills the characters as well as the audience and it is here we see the characters take shape and change form. The canoe trip that follows is expertly shot and it is from here the men fight against both human and nature's odds for survival. The film's cinematics do not let up, and I back that comment up with the scene in which Ed fights one of the rapist mountain men with a composite bow. As Ed falls on to one of his arrows and notices his enemy approaching him, cocks his rifle, only to shoot the floor as he falls with an arrow in his neck; was possible the greatest piece of cinematic shooting I have seen in a film. In wrapping up, Deliverance is one film, who's dread and atmosphere carry the mood across and to this date, remains one of the best films in cinematic history. "It's all up to you, Ed?" "Now you get to play the game." The day my father left my mother, he took me to see this film with his new girlfriend, on opening day at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. I was but fourteen years old. I wasn't even entirely sure what I was seeing, but I will never forgot it, especially the scene with Ned Beatty.

Watching it today, thirty-six years later, it still gives me quivers.

My father was a huge Burt Reynolds fan, hence the reason for standing in line for almost an hour in to watch what was supposed to be an 'action movie.' I had seen two films at the Dome prior to this: "Grand Prix" and "The Song of Norway." Well this wasn't exactly Mario Andretti or The Brady Bunch. After leaving the theater, I was shell-shocked.

But even at that tender age, I appreciated the artistry...and after seeing again today, am I surprised I was still standing after witnessing this highly disturbing, yet extremely well-crafted film.

Suffice it to say it was a traumatic experience for a fourteen year-old that had yet to kiss his first girlfriend. I don't blame my father for taking me, but it was a bit much for a child to witness.

As an adult, I still find it quite disturbing, yet I am still very impressed with the quality of the film-making.

Burt Reynolds as an absolute wonder, as are all the principles...from Billy Redden as the inbred guitar wonder, to Ronny Cox as the terrified insurance salesman...everyone does an admirable job. The sound quality is second to none, from the chirping birds to the ticking clocks. The photography, cinematography...all the technical aspects of this remarkable film are first rate.

The moral questions raised, from murdering the sexual assaulters to the aftermath of dealing with killing a human being, remain as profound today as they did when this groundbreaking film was released. And the classic sequences of attempting to survive in the wilderness after dealing with such unforeseen brutality are life-altering. These four men, city men, suddenly confronted with a situation with never imagined, raise the bar from action to horror.

It's a classic to be sure. And the phrase "you have a pretty mouth" has been quoted endlessly, from Saturday Night Live to off-the-cuff comments around water-cooler at work, this movie is without a doubt a huge part of our societal pop culture...as much as "Make my day" or "I'll be back" ever were.

So what would YOU do if you found your friends being sexually assaulted at gunpoint by mountain men far away from your life in the city, cozy bed, wife and kids? And if you took the measures Burt Reynolds did (and I would have done the same) would you bury the body beneath the soon-to-be-lake, or stand trial and take your chances? The bottom line is: Deliverance delivers. You can take that to the bank. If this movie doesn't get under your skin, then you are not human.

Even if you have seen this before, rent it again and ask yourself the above question.

My favorite part of the film remains the same: Ed failing to kill the deer...then changing. Life and it's unpredictable circumstance can change a man. And I suppose that's what this film is all about Jon Voight, in particular, as Ed, gives the best performance here. And he remains one of the more gifted actors in Hollywood history, from Midnight Cowboy to his highly underrated performance as Franklin D. Roosevelt in Pearl Harbor, his acting lifts the movie to another level. Climbing the rocks at dusk, terrified and determined to make it right It needs to be seen to be believed. I guarantee your heart rate will elevated to a new level.

Briskly paced, tense, taut and tightly drawn as a as a banjo string, this is a morality play that asks questions that remain today. Times have changes, but our choices as human beings have not.

Ten out of ten stars. Deliverance is John Boorman's 1972 horror/thriller movie about a group of four Atlanta businessmen (Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and Ronnie Cox), that undertake a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River before the river is dammed. Along the way, a raft (no pun intended) of unpleasant things happen to the men. Despite the nasty happenings in this picture, Boorman captures the natural beauty of the river nicely. The location was really chosen well. Indeed, this would still be a very nice film to watch, had the canoe trip gone smoothly. The lush forests and gentle landscape only make the horror more horrible. Not only is the location scenic, but also beautifully shot thanks to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond. It has been said that Burt Reynolds' performance as the outdoorsman, Lewis, is the star acting role in this film. I reckon however, that Jon Voight steals the show with his role as the suburban family man, Ed, who is rapidly forced to change his demeanour in order to survive. In fact, the scene in which climbs the cliff was not a stuntman. It was Voight himself. To cut costs the filming wasn't insured and the actors did their own stunts. The soundtrack is particularly noteworthy. Eric Weissberg's and Steve Mendel's performance on guitar and banjo as part of the Duelling Banjos sequence remains one of the most awesome pieces of soundtrack in the history of cinema for the sheer intensity of its performance. At a couple of other points in the movie, we are treated to more, softer, banjo music which provides a very pleasant accompaniment to the trip down the river For all the good points of this film, I did find it a little lacking in purpose. It doesn't build suspense very well and it isn't really as gruesome as we have been led to believe. The plot itself is somewhat poor and it doesn't really go anywhere. Nevertheless, this movie has enough good points to get my recommendation. I did like it but for fans of gore, there isn't really much of it. None really, in fact. It isn't so much a horror film as an adventure film that turns a little bit sour. Think of it like Rambo: First Blood meets Three Men In A Boat. Look out for a very young Charley Boorman as Ed's son. I did like this movie, the soundtrack, cinematography and acting earns it a well deserved 7 out of 10. I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring!

A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.

Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic. Impactful film of four city slickers in crisis in Appalachia has become synonymous with rural depravity. Each of four businessmen face their darkest fears when they tackle a challenging whitewater trip, on a river about to be replaced by a dam. When locals along the way decide to "have their way" with the interlopers it leads to several deaths and loads of trauma for the survivors. Each of the travelers is outstanding, although Voight gives the lead and strongest performance. The rural scenery and culture is well-captured, including the breathtaking dueling banjos sequence. I saw this on a date when it came out, not exactly the perfect date movie (although we both enjoyed it). I sort of remember this as a break-out dramatic performance for Burt, Voight was already established. Not the sort of movie you could watch every week but it has a strong punch and is beautifully filmed. *SPOILERS* Four men, Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty), decide to go on a rafting trip on the Cahulawassee river, before it is flooded.

They wanted to have fun, to have a nice weekend in the nature.

But when two mountain men cross their path and rape one of them (Bobby), everything begins to go to Hell in a Handbasket, and this 'nice weekend' will even cost one of the four's life...

'Deliverance', which in Italian is stupidly titled 'Un Tranquillo Weekend Di Paura' ('A Calm Weekend Of Fear'), is the Grandad of movies like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'Wrong Turn', 'Last House On The Left' and all the other 'Evil Nature/Revenge' subgenre films, and one of the scariest, right next to 'The Hills Have Eyes'.

Based on a book by James Dickey (who appears in the movie as Sheriff Bullard), it's a chilling story on how someone can go into a situation thinking he knows everything, when he doesn't.

And the image of the dead man's hand raising from under the water, or the hands holding the rifle from the one-sheet are haunting images that will never leave your mind.

Deliverance: 9/10. and this IS a very disturbing film. I may be wrong, but this is the last film where I considered Burt Reynolds an actual actor, who transformed the role, and delivered a message.

Jon Voight and Ned Beatty are also excellent. They are unassuming and unaware; businessmen wanting to enjoy the country. Little did they know what would happen next.

The photography and sets are realistic and natural. This was before the days of Wes Craven.

What is most disturbing about this film is the fact that places like this still exist. In America, country folk still detest city people; it is almost a century and a half since the Civil War.

You will enjoy this film. It was filmed in the rural sections of South Georgia, which still exist. Just don't drive past that to Mobile, Alabama; That area still has not been repaired since Hurricane Katrina. 10/10. I am a member of a canoeing club and I can tell you the truth that Deliverance is synonomous with the peacefulness and tranquility of the experience. As we put our boats into the water, banjoes echo in the back of the conscious mind. This movie is timeless because it waxes philosophical of human's place in nature and technology's effect upon man's relationship with nature. We see it in the bow fishing. We see it in the home made tent. There is also city man's disdain and feeling of superiority to the rural woodsman "cracker". The fact that the Banker from Atlanta (Ned Beatty) has "bad teeth" is meant to put him on the same level with the woodsmen who also have bad teeth. Ultimately, the struggle of life and death supersedes "civilized man's" suppositives about "The Law". This canoe trip ends too soon for the viewer, but alas Not Soon Enough for the characters. This movie is a classic in every sense of the word. It is very entertaining and also very disturbing. The acting in this movie is well done. The story itself is believable, suspenseful, and well thought out. Character development is also done well, the audience can clearly see how each of the characters is emotionally tested through this film. The villains in this movie are very threatening, from the first moment the audience sees them they can tell that they are up to something. This movie shows how a human being, when taken from civilization and put in the middle of the woods, facing a life or death situation can slowly become almost as wild and feral as the animals that inhabit it. Not everyone is going to like this film, there is a lot of disturbing content that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It is definitely worth watching. This movie is a masterpiece. One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake. "Deliverance" is a dead-on example of what wonderful movies came out of the '70s. While your jaw is dropped during a "Terminator" movie, are you really sacred? I don't think so, because you are there to see what new CGIs have been strung together - plot matters not.

So many daily situations can become terrifying for no reason at all, because there are so many people involved in daily living - like a trip to the market.....or a walk down a dimly-lighted street. "Deliverance" is SO frightening, because those innocent actions can turn deadly in a heart-beat. Venturing into the backwoods is a frolic in fun? Anyone who has that notion does not read the papers, watch the daily news, nor has not seen some of the other movies that depict the seriousness of "trespassing" into territories where outsiders are not welcome. It is almost unbelievable that the advance dish on "Deliverance" didn't inform almost everyone going to view it this was no picnic, and "squeal like a pig" wasn't a part of "Deulling Banjos".

I hate the term "hillbillies", because - as some "users" wrote - that demeans entire regions of people who are very content to live as they know how - without the interference of modern life. Much is made of "inbred" - that is not sexuality peculiar to the backwoods. "Chinatown" should teach us that lesson. However, city-slickers are extremely dumb to enter a closed society and give them attitude. I know lots of "hillbillies" - they are moral people, when left to themselves. Their "justice" can be brutal when they feel threatened or humiliated, just like the "justice" in city streets. They don't need any part of the city - the city should take its canoe-ing and camping to legal sites.

"Deliverance" was the last film I found Jon Voight to do any real acting - I hope I'm wrong. He was extremely underpaid for "Midnight Cowboy", because he was unknown, but demonstrated that he could do that role at the drop of a hat. His acting in "Deliverance" was superb. It gave us a clear demonstration ordinary people can move mountains, if it's necessary - but who wants to be thought-of as "ordinary" today? His stifled sob at the dinner was brilliant. Wow! for Burt Reynolds !!! One must ask what led him into those other tacky films? His manliness, although misguided, in this film set the pace for the endurance necessary to make it out of the wilderness - not only in the backwoods, but the wilderness of everyday-life. Ned Beatty was stellar - his underwear may not have had "Versace" stitched on it, but his shell-shocked performance was perfect. As noted, he became stronger than any of the group by the end of the movie. Ronny Cox played the moral guy to the hilt - every man should have his determination to do what is right. Several "users" have theorized he was shot, or lost his balance when he pitched-into the river - my theory is that he was so disgusted with the whole journey, he committed suicide. No gunshot was heard during the scene and Voight and Beatty did not find a wound.

James Dicey certainly knows how to weave a suspenseful tale, and was great as the sheriff - it is said he was so terrified of acting he came to the set drunk every day. His character could see the three canoe-rs were guilty of surviving, but also knew they didn't stand a chance against a jury of the local people, no matter how kindly they were treated in "Aintry". He was also aware that the meaner of the locals could be cruel. Justice ? - "don't come back up here again". Not many "users" knew "hillbillies" were used in the film where ever it was possible - what actors could portray them better? The "mountain-men" WERE actually mountain-men.......

Every detail of this movie was perfect - no doubt it was dangerous to play in. Play in? Better "fight-for-your-life" in. I've experienced some near-dangerous incidents, and am content to live outside of the fray - you guys who feel your manhood raging can have my part.

That we have absolutely killed - and continue to do so - irreplaceable areas of this country in undeniable. To be able to view its grandeur on any media is enthralling, but it leaves a bitter taste to realize some do not care about it. Los Angeles, where I live, is a perfect example: it's built-up right into the territories for wild animals, and steadfastly believes humans come before animals. Those are their rightful habitats - we should leave them be just that. Any wonder why coyotes and bears and wolves wander into neighborhoods? They're theirs.

In some less threatening way, we all need to experience the lessons to be learned from "Deliverance" - to understand our advancement technologically does not lead to supremacy. I thank all those city-slickers who went out into the wilderness to produce this modern classic, so that it can scare the heck out of me when I watch it. You can have the thrill of danger - I'll stick to the TV. 30-out-of-10. This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please.

I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!

Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!

Thanks for reading. A super comedy series from the 1990s (Two series were made in total) that suffered in the UK ratings due to poor scheduling. When you are up against established comedies like 'Minder', even the best new comedies are going to struggle to get noticed.

Luckily, I caught the series from episode one and followed it avidly. I mentioned it to friends and family at the time, but everyone seemed to have been watching something else. Very, very frustrating.

Anyway, I loved both series and never forgot it.

Then I looked it up on the internet and found that an ultra-fan was trying to get both series released 'on his own'.

Well, both series are now available on DVD.

http://www.replaydvd.co.uk/joking_apart_S1.htm For me this is Ealing Studio's most perfect film - as fresh and relevant half a century later as it was the day it was released.

As a satire on economic notions of 'growth' and the commercial need for in-built obsolescence, it could scarcely be more up-to-the-minute. And of what other film can it be said that the hero literally wears the plot?

Oddly, there are parallels with Jurassic Park, in which messing with the environment will literally turn round and bite you. But Spielberg shied away from the book's brilliant central conceit to tack on some nonsense about 'children'. Hmmm.

In The Man In The White Suit, Alec Guiness plays an idealistic young scientist who comes up with a cloth that never gets dirty and never wears out. Suddenly workers and capital at the northern English mill where he is working are united as never before in protection of their livelihoods.

Of course, being Ealing, it's a comedy, but it needn't have been. The complex interplay of vested (should that be suited?) interests plays out beautifully, as one by one all parties realize that 'progress' is a threat, and that disposability and waste are what keep the looms turning.

But, yes, this is a comedy - albeit a pointed one - and amid the political ironies are delicious performances, and some good old-fashioned knock-about laughs.

Nonetheless, it's the biting satire that endures - dazzling and white. I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word "Daddy", makes the entire movie worth seeing).

"Knudsen!!!!!!!" When I learned of Sir Alec Guinness' death, this was the first of his many films I thought of re-seeing. What a wonderful droll commentary the film provides even after all these years. And Guinness helps to weave the charm into every frame. His eyes and face are as luminous as that white suit he wears. Both he and the film have to be considered lifetime favorites. Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.

Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:

"That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?"

The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that "it didn't work." He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,

"But Sidney, we want to stop it too."

Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.

Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.

Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:

"Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you."

I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got "a shot in the arm of hope." (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says "it's more than I'd hoped for..."

The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, "Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?"

Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.

The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies. This Alec Guinness starrer is a very good fun political satire of corporate industry, and a light eccentric character study as well.

The pacing is a bit slow for a comedy, and none of it is really rolling-on-the-floor type funny, except perhaps the sound effects for the experiments. But it does have its amusing moments, and it is very deft in its execution. The big explosions segment is probably the most farcical element.

The union procedures are quite droll, very reminiscent of I'M ALL RIGHT JACK; especially the feminine socialist with a light romantic crush on Guinness' character. The political machinations actually carry the story. Ernest Thesigner is very notable as a heavy.

I don't think this one works quite as well as THE LADYKILLERS, or KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS; but even light Ealing comedy is better than nothing. I've had this movie on tape for years and started watching it again this morning (while waiting for my laundry --- how ironic!) mostly because I wanted to hear Benjamin Frankel's title music again. I ended up sitting through about the first half hour, entranced by how wonderfully assured the direction, writing, and performances are. The movie is like a who's who of 50s British character stars: Cecil Parker, Michael Gough, Miles Malleson, Duncan Lamont, and particularly Ernest Thesiger, great as the dessicated old giant of the textile mills. Not to mention Alec Guinness and Joan Greenwood, not character players as such but charming, charismatic leads. This is science fiction in its purest form and droll comedy as well. An all-time classic, and I hope no one ever tries to remake it! An unassuming, subtle and lean film, "The Man in the White Suit" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.

The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired "Kind Hearts and Coronets" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...

The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.

Rating:- **** 1/2/***** THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.

Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.

Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.

In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.

It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile?

Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention One of the things that makes this Ealing comedy so outrageously funny is the clever editing. Shots that would be considered absolutely essential to most modern comedies are deliberately left out. (This is what was known as British understatement.)

Three instances: A comic fight is edited like this. Alec Guiness has invented a new cloth that will ruin the industry. Half a dozen businessmen invite him to their office to try to get him to sign a contract relinquishing his control of the cloth so that production can be suppressed. When he catches on to this, Guiness stands up and turns to walk to the door. Two men block his way. "Excuse me," he says quietly, taking a step forward. The two men move between Guiness and the camera. Cut. A secretary is sitting outside at her desk. There is silence until the buzzer begins signaling her frantically. She takes up her notebook and opens the door to the inner office where a full-fledged noisy Donnybrook is in progress and the room is half wrecked. Guiness dashes out the open door.

The following example would be unthinkable today. During the research phase of his invention Guiness sets up an elaborate chemical apparatus but instead of converting the experimental liquid into the new cloth, the device explodes. Again and again it explodes. The laboratory is cleared of all other work. The blasts continue. Ceilings fall down. Windows are blown out. The director of research is seated at his desk in a tiny office cluttered with debris, a bandage on his head. When the door behind him opens he jumps a foot in the air. "Sit down," he tells his visitor, "there's another one due at any moment." It is excruciatingly amusing -- and there is not a single shot of any explosions. This would be unimaginable now without a fireball, and maybe a building collapsing in slow motion.

Last example, consisting of a series of quick, relentless cuts, put together precisely. Guiness is being pursued and is cornered in the lobby of an office building by people who want him to sign the contract. Faced with two men about to grapple with him, Guiness backs up with a determined expression. He bumps against a pedestal with an iron bust on it. The bust topples backward and bumps against the wall. There is a shot lasting about one second of the bust hitting the wall. Another brief shot of a metal shield hung above the bust being jarred loose and falling down. Quick cut to Guiness's head rising into the frame. Cut to the two men staring into the camera while horrible brass banging and thudding sounds are heard off screen. Cut to Guiness flat on his back. Nobody today would have the cojones to NOT show Guiness being crowned by that shield.

I won't go on with this. It's a comedy alright but a pretty bitter one underneath all the hilarity. In solving one set of problems, Guiness has created dozens of others. He is opposed both by management and labor, neither of which is shown to much advantage. And of course the economic implications have to do with more than cloth. "What about that car that runs on water with a pinch of something or other in it?" one of the workers asks. "Vested interests," comments another worker, as Thorstein Veblen nods in his grave. What WOULD happen if our problems with energy were solved overnight? If I owned shares of Exxon -- and I think I do -- I'd shudder at the thought. Where would the oil industry be if there were no more need for oil? For that matter, where would the police force and the FBI be if crime were to suddenly disappear? This is a thoughtful and very amusing movie, superbly directed and edited. The roster of performers is peerless. Joanne Greenwood with that husky voice. The blithering Cecil Parker. The wheezing mummified Ernest Thesiger.

A first-rate job all around. Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.

This being said, this was the film that sparked my interest in these movies. It's plot was so odd and cute that it is very unlikely the film would have been made anywhere--except for Ealing Studios--which had a particular fondness for "little" films like this one.

Guinness is a nerdy little scientist that works for a textile company. He wants to experiment in order to create a synthetic fabric that is indestructible, though he is not working for the company as a researcher but for janitorial work! So, he tends to sneak into labs (either during the day if no one suspects or at night) and try his hand at inventing. Repeatedly, he is caught (such as after he blew up the lab) and given the boot until one day he actually succeeds! Then, despite the importance of the discovery, he sets off a completely unanticipated chain of events--and then the fun begins.

The film is a wonderful satire that pokes fun at industry, unions, the government and people in general. In my mind the best of the Ealing comedies and one of my favourite films of all time. The theme of workers v. management (with lots of talk of unions and rights) perhaps dates the film a bit now as it's no longer a subject discussed all that much but that doesn't stop "White Suit" from being a show stopping classic.

The plot, about a man trying to create a revolutionary new fabric which ends up putting the textiles industry into turmoil, doesn't sound exciting when written down but the film retains that essential spark of fantasy mixed with reality that marks it out as a true Ealing comedy. The fabric repels dirt and can never wear out! The titular white suit that Alec Guinness wears throughout the second half becomes the centrepiece for several iconic images and sequences, such as Guinness being able to use his indestructible thread to scale a sheer wall! The script itself is full of dry wit - "Is he all right?" "Yes." "Pity." - and characterisation is first rate. I'm always astonished by the wonderful direction in these films as well. Comedies of later eras would adopt a "point the camera at the actors and let it roll" mentality but the Ealing films always attempted interesting lighting and angles and innovations. This film is no exception.

Of course, it's the cast that lifts the material to dizzying heights. Alec Guinness gives a fantastically understated performance, with eyes that convey wonder, joy and crushing defeat whenever the story demands it. Stratton is a man oblivious to everything except his work. Such an insular character could quickly have become boring or irritating but Guinness effortlessly makes him likable, so much so that the closing stages of the film generate a real sense of urgency as Stratton tries to come out on top in a world that wants to bury everything he's ever worked for. Joan Greenwood plays another of her strong female roles and is an absolute delight to watch as usual, as are befuddled Cecil Parker and slimy Michael Gough; everybody gets laughs without even trying to. It's comical British understatement at its finest.

"The Man in the White Suit" is 81 minutes of sheer brilliance, with a great plot, great cast, sparkling wit and healthy dollops of cynicism. Absolutely top notch. When I saw this film in the 1950s, I wanted to be a scientist too. There was something magical and useful in Science. I took a girl - friend along to see it a second time. I don't think she was as impressed as I was! This film was comical yet serious, at a time when synthetic fibres were rather new. Lessons from this film could be applied to issues relating to GM experimentation of today. Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8. I enjoyed this film. But I was surprised to see people referring to it as a comedy. It was amusing at times, but really, it wasn't very funny at all. If I'd been expecting it to be a comedy, I might have been disappointed with the film, but, going in with no expectations, I found it to be enjoyable and engaging. Maybe it was because, as an engineer, I identified with the protagonist. I was less concerned with satire of capital or labor, and more into the basic story of a man fighting for his invention. A man who's less interested in monetary gain from his invention than he is in seeing it come to fruition and be put into production. He's absolutely heroic when he refuses to take the big money and the hot woman in return for suppressing his invention. So I find it interesting that people here have compared it to Jurassic Park; me, I compare it to The Fountainhead. A chemist develops a fabric that never gets dirty or wears out, but it is seen as a threat to the survival of various industries. In this delightful Ealing Studios comedy, Guinness is marvelous as the mild-mannered but persistent chemist. Greenwood, with her sensual voice, plays the love interest; Parker is her harried father. Thesiger is amusing as a patriarch of the fabric industry. While telling an engaging story, the film also raises some intriguing questions about science, the economy, and politics. It is adeptly directed by Mackendrick, who would go on to make "The Ladykillers" and the sublime "Sweet Smell of Success" later in the 1950s. Often tagged as a comedy, The Man In The White Suit is laying out far more than a chuckle here and there.

Sidney Stratton is an eccentric inventor who isn't getting the chances to flourish his inventions on the world because nobody pays him notice, he merely is the odd ball odd job man about the place as it were. After bluffing his way into Birnley's textile mill, he uses their laboratory to achieve his goal of inventing a fabric that not only never wears out, but also never needs to be cleaned!. He is at first proclaimed a genius and those who ignored him at first suddenly want a big piece of him, but then the doom portents of an industry going bust rears its head and acclaim quickly turns to something far more scary.

Yes the film is very funny, in fact some scenes are dam hilarious, but it's the satirical edge to the film that lifts it way above the ordinary to me. The contradictions about the advent of technology is a crucial theme here, do we want inventions that save us fortunes whilst closing down industries ?, you only have to see what happened to the coal industry in Britain to know what I'm on about. The decade the film was made is a crucial point to note, the making of nuclear weapons became more than just hearsay, science was advancing to frighteningly new proportions. You watch this film and see the quick turnaround of events for the main protagonist Stanley, from hero to enemy in one foul swoop, a victim of his own pursuit to better mankind !, it's so dark the film should of been called The Man In The Black Suit.

I honestly can't find anything wrong in this film, the script from Roger MacDougall, John Dighton, and director Alex Mackendrick could be filmed today and it wouldn't be out of place such is the sharpness and thought of mind it has. The sound and setting is tremendous, the direction is seamless, with the tonal shift adroitly handled by Mackendrick. Some of the scenes are just wonderful, one in particular tugs on the heart strings and brings one to think of a certain scene in David Lynch's Elephant Man some 29 years later, and yet after such a downturn of events the film still manages to take a wink as the genius that is Alec Guinness gets to close out the film to keep the viewers pondering not only the future of Stanley, but also the rest of us in this rapidly advancing world.

A timeless masterpiece, thematically and as a piece of art, 10/10. Ealing Studios, a television and film production company based in West London, claims to be the oldest film studio in the world. Though it has been consistently churning out films and television programmes since the 1930s, its golden age was most certainly between 1948 and 1955, when it produced a string of comedy masterpieces, many starring the great Alec Guinness. Such well-known titles include 'Whisky Galore! (1949),' 'Passport to Pimlico (1949),' 'Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949),' 'The Lavender Hill Mob (1951),' 'The Titfield Thunderbolt (1953)' and 'The Ladykillers (1955).' One of Ealing Studio's most beloved films, 'The Man in the White Suit,' was released in 1951, and starred Alec Guiness as Sidney Stratton, a brilliant inventor who engineers a remarkable fabric, an invention that unexpectedly makes him more enemies than friends.

Sidney Stratton is poor and unappreciated, but he has scientific talent in great abundance. Due to his under-qualification, the only jobs he is able to get are as a janitor or labourer at any of the large textile factories, where he secretly undertakes his own experiments using the company's own money and equipment. After being found out and ejected countless times, Sidney is convinced that he is only weeks away from a momentous scientific discovery that will revolutionise the textiles industry. Encouraged by his daughter Daphne (Joan Greenwood), textile mill owner Alan Birnley (Cecil Parker) takes a keen interest in Sidney's exploits and agrees to finance any further work. After numerous failed attempts and quite a few earth-shattering explosions, Sidney eventually unveils his amazing creation: an almost-luminous white fabric that never gets dirty and never wears out.

If Sidney thought that his invention would make him a hero, then he was sorely disappointed. The all-powerful bosses of textiles industry, headed by the frail Sir John Kierlaw (Ernest Thesiger), unite to ensure that the revolutionary invention, which could completely cripple their businesses, never goes into full-scale production. Likewise, the humble labourers in the workers' union hear of Sidney's creation and also set out to erase it from existence, fearing for their jobs. The inventor, however, is convinced that the ever-lasting fabric will bring relief and happiness to many, and refuses to give in to the demand of others, despite being threatened with violence and offered ₤250,000 in compensation. Throughout all his troubles to announce his invention to the media, only one person offers Sidney her complete sympathy and support, Birnley's daughter Daphne, who is engaged to be married to somebody else but falls in love with Sidney's plight anyway.

'The Man in the White Suit' is a clever and hilarious comedy, made great by a witty script (written by John Dighton, Roger MacDougall and director Alexander Mackendrick) and a quirky and charismatic performance from an inimitable Alec Guinness. There are also a few good-natured swipes at capitalism, and of how big industries can hold back progress for the sake of their own monetary situations, though we can certainly see the arguments for either side of the debate. Other commentators have detailed the plot and the social parables and commentary as well (or better) that I could, but I would like to join in my admiration for this little jewel of a film. It holds up very well indeed more that 50 years later in every category - screenplay, acting, photography, set design, sound design...it really is a classic of sorts. This was my first exposure to the "young" Alec Guinness, and it's obvious from the first frames what made him so special as to eventually receive a knighthood.

I only rate it an "8" because it's essentially a rather lightweight parable that examines human nature but doesn't really skewer it; and because the plot takes the easy way out at the end, rather than actually resolving conflict between the inventor and the mill workers and industrialists who are chasing him all over town. Also, a couple minutes of thought reveals the basic flaw in the logic of the screenplay - wear and tear is hardly ever the determining factor in buying new clothes (especially dress clothes); children grow up, people change sizes, gain and lose weight, and go with the latest fashions all the time, and have as long as looms have woven cloth. And if nothing else, the manufacturer would make a fortune providing indestructible material for military uniforms (especially BDUs).

Still, this is a great film. If you get a chance to see it on a classic movie channel, you should. While Hollywood got sort of stagnant during the few years after WWII, England developed a very prolific film industry. In "The Man in the White Suit", inventor Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) creates a suit that never gets dirty. Unfortunately, this means that certain other businesses are now likely to go out of business! How can Sidney deal with this and maintain his dignity? This is an example of one of the great movies in which Alec Guinness starred before he became Obi Wan Kenobi. It's a good look at the overall absurdity of the business world. If you're planning to start any kind of business, you might want to consider watching this movie. "They were always trying to get me killed," Alec Guinness once wrote of The Man In the White Suit's technicians. "They thought actors got in the way of things." He went on to describe how he'd been given a wire rope to climb down and, assured it was safe, narrowly avoided serious injury when it suddenly snapped mid-descent.

"People get in the way of things" might be a maxim tailor-made for White Suit inventor Sidney Stratton (fittingly played blank slate-fashion by Alec Guinness) in Alexander Mackendrick's definitive Ealing film of 1951. Certainly, he cares only about his work, its realisation - and sod the consequences. And similarly, with the exception of a couple of peripheral characters, there's almost nobody to root for in this chilly satire on capital and labour.

Told in flashback, the film concerns Stratton's invention of a dirt-resistant, everlasting fibre (fashioned into the white suit of the title), and subsequent attempts by the clothing industry and its unions to suppress it.

While the industry fears the bottom will drop out of the market, the shop floor stewards worry about finding themselves out of a job. Abduction and bribery attempts follow, with both money and an industry chief's daughter on offer (Daphne, the delectable, 4-packs-a-day-voiced Joan Greenwood), to the tragi-comic end.

"What's to become of my bit of washing when there's no washing to do?" bemoans Stratton's landlady near the close. A notion Stratton hadn't even considered - and has disregarded again by the movie's ambiguous coda.

A superior, if decidedly downbeat comedy, expertly performed - and pretty much answering the oft-raised question of whatever happened to the everlasting light bulb and the car that ran on water... "The Man in the White Suit" is another feather in the cap of expert Scottish director Alexander Mackendrick (Whisky Galore!, Sweet Smell of Success). The star of the film is Alec Guinness (whose comedies include Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Lavender Hill Mob). Guiness brings his usual class to the film, and makes it much more than a typical comedy.

In fact, the comedy isn't entirely overt. By the end of the picture, it's nearly become a complete drama. It's the sort of Ealing studio comedy that is calculated not to produce laughter, but a sense of general amusement, like the best British comedy of the time.

The whole idea of the suit isn't very original, but the way it is executed is. The film is highly original, and recommended to any fan of Guiness or Britsh comedy.

7.6 out of 10 I saw this movie only after hearing raves about it for years. Needless to say, the actual experience proved a bit anticlimactic. But still, Alec Guiness energetically leads a wonderful cast in a jolly, if formulaic, romp through industrial post-WWII England.

This is the familiar tale of the woes of inventing the perfect everyday product. Remember the car that runs on water? Remember the promise of nuclear energy? In this case, it's a fabric that doesn't wear out, wrinkle, or even get dirty! Of course, fabric manufacturers and their workers are horrified at the prospect of being put out of business, and so the plot gets a bit thick.

Guiness makes the whole enterprise worthwhile, and watching him blow up a factory research lab over and over again is quite a blast! (Those Brits ... always the stiff upper lip when under fire.) The film might chug along exactly like Guiness's goofy invention, but it's a good ride all the same. What a wonderful movie, eligible for so many labels it never gets: Science fiction, film-noir, with a script and dialog of high intelligence which assumes an educated, cultured audience.....the kind of English language movie only done in pre-1960 England (and shown only in USA art movie houses when it first arrived), and never, ever done in the USA.

Main characters in The Man In The White Suit(1951) starring Sir Alec Guiness and Joan Greenwood routinely use polysyllabic, science reference words like "polymer" and discuss and explain concepts of chemistry like "long chain molecules" and then communicate the importance of these to the average man and the benefits science provides him.

The Man In The White Suit (1951) is the opposite of the video-game explosion movies which now (2009) dominate world cinema, and certainly dominate major USA cinema.......it's a carefully acted, intelligently told story delivered by gifted and believable educated English actors (who play educated, accomplished people), and it's all done with comedy, charm, pathos, and sense of irony which ancient Greek dramatists would have approved of.

Everybody should see this movie, and someday, somehow, some worthy filmmaker and his supporters should make another like it.

It's wonderful. If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?

This is one of the best of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the best that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's so perfectly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor can agree.

Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment.

He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist.

It's the mark of a great comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned can be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.

Other than Guinness the best performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK>

Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever? This is a film I saw when it first came out, and which I have seen a few more times over the years. It's always enjoyable.

One thing is that the comedy does not take sides: it skewers labor and capitalists equally. Only Sid seems outside the classic struggle, even though he's responsible for it.

Spoiler warning: do not read further if you haven't seen the film

This is a fantasy, though presented fairly plausibly. Ask yourself: could someone support most of his or her weight in a single strand of fabric? It would cut through almost any support.

Also, when cornered in an alley, Sid uses a garbage can cover like a knight's shield. Cute symbolism.

Someday, I'll get this on DVD. This is an excellent modern-day film noir...."excellent" in that it's interesting, start-to-finish. There are some holes in here and some goofy parts that make you shake your head in disbelief.....but I haven't found anyone who didn't get caught up in this story. The movie has the right amount of action, suspense, plot twists and interesting characters. In addition, it sports some nice colors and cinematography plus a good guitar-based soundtrack.

I labeled this crime movie a "film noir" because it's gritty and the all the characters are no good. Even the only supposed-good guy, played by Nicholas Cage, gets himself in trouble by lying and has a quick affair he should't have. He also does something at the end which isn't right, but I'm not going the spoil it by saying. Suffice to say, however, that the rest of the characters are so bad they make Cage look good!

Speaking of "bad guys," does anyone do it better than Dennis Hopper? Not many. At least in the "deranged" category, he's tough to beat. Lara Flynn Boyle is fun to watch for a bunch of reasons. J.T. Walsh gives another great supporting performance, too.

This is one of those films that never got much publicity, but it should have. You'll have fun watching this. By the way, try saying the name of this movie out loud three times fast without messing it up! Vaguely reminiscent of great 1940's westerns, like "The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre" (1948), "Red Rock West" is a story about conscience, greed, and betrayal. Michael (Nicolas Cage) is a down and out, but honest, young man from Texas who goes west in search of work and money. He finds both, but not in the way he had expected.

The film's screenplay contains plenty of surprises and plot twists. Excellent cinematography, adroit film editing, and moody western music add tension and suspense. The expansiveness of the big sky country provides a wonderful setting. And the acting ranges from good to excellent, with great performances from Dennis Hopper and J.T. Walsh. Dwight Yoakam's specially recorded country/western song provides the film with a strong finale.

Correctly labeled as neo-noir, "Red Rock West" strikes me as being something else, as well. The plot is full of amazing coincidences and improbable timing, so much so that others may regard the screenplay as flawed. Ordinarily, I would agree. In this case, however, when combined with the moody atmosphere, and the fact that the small town of Red Rock seems almost empty of normal daily life, the coincidences and unlikely timing suggest a story that, beyond "noirish", is ... surreal. It's almost as if fate deliberately intervenes with improbable events so as to force Michael to come to grips with himself. From this point of view, the coincidences are not script flaws at all. They are necessary plot points in a nightmarish story of a young man who must confront his own demons ... disguised as other characters.

All we need here is Rod Serling, in a postscript, explaining, in his always clearly enunciated voice, that ... a young man, searching for himself, stops in a small, almost deserted town a thousand miles from nowhere. It's his final layover in a journey to ... the twilight zone. In any number of films, you can find Nicholas Cage as a strong, silent hero, Dennis Hopper as a homicidal maniac, Lara Flynn Boyle as a vamp/tramp, and the late, lamented J.T. Walsh as the heavy. These are the types of roles these four can play in their sleep, and they have done so often enough that to see them playing them again borders on cliche. What a relief, therefore, that John Dahl, a master at getting a lot of mood out of a little action, directed this nuanced noirish thriller. Hopper manages to keep from going over the top, Cage shows a little more depth than his usually-superficial action heroes, Boyle is by turns sultry, innocent, and scheming, and one gets a sense of the hard iron of the soul that is central to his character, Wayne. Dahl's direction gives a sense of the emptiness of the Big Sky country where the story takes place while also being intimate enough to show how a wrinkled brow can indicate a radical change of plot in store. The plot twists are top-notch, and one of the other great twists in this movie is that some of the supporting characters actually act as if they have brains. It isn't often that minor characters like deputy sheriffs have more brains than their headlining superiors. But with a director as smart as Dahl, you shouldn't be surprised by the intelligence of anything connected with this film. An excellent movie. If you like plot turns, this is your movie. It is impossible at any moment to predict what will happen next. Nothing is as it appears or ends as you think it will. The characters are all gritty and engaging. Cage is at his best. Dennis Hopper again shows his delightfully sinister side. JT Walsh is perfect in his last performance. Laura Boyle sizzles. Dwight Yoakum makes a film debut superbly in a cameo. I categorize this movie as "I am having a really, really, really bad day" film. Not a slow minute in this film. A real sleeper. This movie is underrated and, sadly, overlooked. "Red Rock West" was far and away one of the best suspense thrillers of the 90's with a superb script (by John and Rick Dahl) that kept you guessing throughout and on the edge of your seat for most of the film. It was brilliantly directed by John Dahl and featured a marvellous cast including Nicolas Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle and especially J. T. Walsh (in a memorable performance) making this a riveting and captivating thriller not to be missed. The film never had much publicity on release (in fact I first caught up with it on TV) and is therefore one of those special little gems that you have to seek out but this unique film is now slowly gaining a cult following.

Nicolas Cage is Michael Williams who is broke and out of work when he finds himself in the small town of Red Rock. Mistaken for a contract killer named Lyle from Dallas he is shocked to be offered $10,000 to murder the wife of bar owner Wayne Brown (the excellent J. T. Walsh). He plays along with the plan and decides he should go and warn Brown's wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle) but then the plot thickens and there are so many twists, turns and surprises - and double dealings - that Cage is thrown from one crisis to another and finds himself trapped in a terrible situation he can't drag himself out of! Then just to complicate matters even further the real Lyle turns up to carry out the contract killing (played by everyone's favourite heavy Dennis Hopper). When Hopper discovers what has happened he goes after Cage but no one could forsee the surprising events that follow.

Some favourite lines from the film:

Nicolas Cage (to Lara Flynn Boyle): "I hate to see an innocent woman get hurt but it's an awful lot of money".

J. T. Walsh (to Cage): "Michael Williams. Well, Michael, you're going to be spending some time with us till we get to the bottom of this".

Boyle (to Cage): "You're not a killer?". Cage: "That's right, no. But the guy I'm supposed to be just rode into town so you gotta get out of here".

Boyle (to Cage): "O.K. How you're going to explain impersonating a hired killer and taking $10,000 from my husband?".

An extraordinarily entertaining little thriller (just 98 minutes) with a storyline that never lets up and powerful acting by all the principals. Any film featuring J. T. Walsh is O.K. in my book and "Red Rock West" was one of his best. How sad it was that this exceptional actor's career was cut tragically short by a heart attack in 1998. The most prolific period for "film noir" was without any doubt the forties but "Red Rock West" is a good modern example of the genre and has jumped right into my "Top Ten" list of all time favourite films. I look forward to more like this from director John Dahl. 10/10. Clive Roberts.

Some movies you just know you're going to love from the first few seconds. This is one of those movies. Tracing it's roots back to "Double Indemnity," and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" in the 40's - this was a great example of Modern Film Noir in the 90's. Nick Cage plays the "down on his luck" main character who gets entangled in a husband-wife murder plot - and his luck goes from bad to worse to even worse as he tries and tries to get away from the people, town, violence and threat of Red Rock West. Lots of twists and turns, great performances by Cage, Hopper and Walsh, an hypnotic slide-guitar musical backdrop, and seamless directing make this a real joy. Favorite Line: When Cage looks at the empty gas gauge in the get-away car, shakes his head and says: "F***in' story of my life." I came home late one night and turned on the TV, to see Siskel and Ebert summarizing their picks of the week. I didn't hear anything about "Red Rock West", except two thumbs up and see it before it went away. It wouldn't stay in theaters very long because of the distributor's money problems and lack of promotion, but they said it deserved better.

The next afternoon, I followed their advice. They were right, it was some of the most fun I have ever had at the movies. As some readers point out, there are a few plot holes and the last 10 minutes don't ever seem to end. But it's well worth it, for the fine craftwork that went into the first hour. It's the best role that I have ever seen for Nicholas Cage, but almost everybody seems perfectly cast. Dennis Hopper goes almost over the top, which gets silly but reinforces how well everything else works. The sets and the music contribute a great deal to almost every scene.

When I rented it later for my family, it didn't work as well. The long scenes that built the tension in the theater were difficult to appreciate, with the distractions at home. It deserves your full attention; turn off the phone, make sure you won't be disturbed, watch and listen to every scene, especially in the beginning. Dennis Hopper and JT Walsh steal the show here. Cage and Boyle are fine, but what gives this neo-noir its juice is Hopper's creepy, violent character and JT Walsh's sneakiness.

A drifter gets mistaken for a hit-man, and tries to make a little dough out of it, but gets in over his head.

I found a strange parallel in the opening scene of this movie, when Cage walks into a trailer in Wyoming to get drilling work, with the help of his buddy...and the opening scene in Brokeback Mountain, when the character does the same thing! But that's another story.

Dennis Hopper is at his best here...cocky, one-step-ahead villainous, seething and explosively violent. JT Walsh (RIP) is also great as the man with a dark past, trying to live legitimately (well, almost).

There are only 4 real characters of note here, with the exception of the hard-working deputy in the town of Red Rock, Wyoming. The first twist hits early on, and from there it's a nice neo-noir adventure in some sleepy little town. Satisfying. 8 pts. This movie started me on a Nick Cage kick. It is a story full of twists and turns- a movie of motives and moves. Of, course, Dennis Hopper was a ham, but J.T. Walsh and Laura Flyyn Boyle are the perfect pair to catch the unsuspecting man who has fallen into their web. Everything about this movie is good - cinematography, story pace and most of all the end. Cage excels at what he does best- it's not to be an action hero but to be an everyman caught in the snares of life. Red Rock West (1993)

Nicolas Cage gets embroiled in a deadly crime without at first knowing it, and the dominos lead to increasing peril, adventure and misadventure in the wild forlorn American West of the 1990s. Red Rock West is often brutal and sometimes hilarious, and Cage pulls off the mixture with his usual sardonic wit and wary ease.

Is the plot over the top? Yes. Is Dennis Hopper perfect as a crazed, almost likable killer? Yes. Does Cage stand a chance? Well, you have to watch and see. It never lets up, and it took me by surprise the first time I saw it. On second viewing yesterday, I was surprised at how well it held up, how well constructed it was, and how macabre and funny it was at the same time.

Director Ron Dahl (who also helped write) is known more for his TV work, but with Rounders and this film he shows a deft hand with sensational plots. It's saved by its humor by the way, and by the caricatures. The bar is sleazy, the cops questionable. And don't miss a really inspired cameo by Dwight Yoakam as a truck driver. Much to your presumable happiness fair readers, Cage and Hopper did meet and fortunately not in a Lynch movie—because RED ROCK WEST is way better than any Lynch movie …. Nicolas Cage is a third—rate actor, the porcelain babe is a surrogate femme fatal, only daddy Hopper is as mean as ever …. RED ROCK WEST is, despite the trite cast, one of my favorite American thrillers; in a word, a thriller with some twists.

One notices mainly the gusto, the awesome pace, the thrills, the nice suspense, Lara Flynn Boyle's cute tight small ass, Cage's enviable physical shape (though undeniably ugly, with sharp, bird features, thick eyebrows and thin, rare hair, Cage displayed a fine overall shape …), Hopper's consummate routine, some moderately but truly funny moments, Cage's play with his intended persona, Hopper's rigid, psychopathic allure, Lara's meanness, Cage seems a roamer, the archetypal gloomy roamer of the noir cinema, hungry, tough if needed, naive, dirty, tired. Lara Flynn Boyle performs as the cold mean seductress, Walsh as her heartless husband, and Hopper as the Lynchian hit-man he's already done before.

Cage looks indeed rather groggy or dizzy or very confused and having a severe hangover. But this might be his regular look. As others have commented, I checked this out after Siskel and Ebert listed this as one of their top 10 movies of the year. What a gift. I then went out to buy it, just so that I could loan it out.

Best quote? Dwight Yoakum stops his truck when he realizes that someone (Cage) is on top of his cab. When Cage peers down, he apologizes. "I'm sorry if I scared you." Yoakum thrusts his pistol in Cage's face with "Does THIS look like I'm scared?" Great bit of humor after an exciting (and temporary) escape.

There really was a sense of fun to this. The constant sighting of the "Welcome to Red Rock" sign elicits a groan and a smiling head shake. The music created a hunting, eerie quality to the film reminiscent of "Twin Peaks". Unlike "Twin Peaks", though, it doesn't spoil things by going too far into the outlandish, needing to "top" itself.

I admit watching the credits 15-20 times. You see, they had Yoakum's "Thousand Miles from Nowhere" (perfectly chosen) playing as a freight train curved around down to the desert floor . . with snow-capped mountains in the distance. This was incredible, fluid framing. Further, I've never seen a better unification of sight and sound on film. Also, it totally fit the story. What we have here is a damn good little nineties thriller that, while perhaps lacking in substance, still provides great entertainment throughout it's running time and overall does everything you could possibly want a film of this nature to do. I saw this film principally because it was directed by John Dahl - a highly underrated director behind great thrillers such as The Last Seduction, Rounders and Roadkill. I figured that if this film was up to standard of what I've already seen from the director, it would be well worth watching - and Red Rock West is certainly a film that Dahl can be proud of. The plot focuses on the overly moral Michael; a man travelling across America looking for work. He ends up finding it one day when he stumbles upon a bar in Red Rock County - only catch is that the job is to murder a man's wife. He's been mistaken for a killer named Lyle, but instead of doing the job; he plays both sides against each other and eventually plans to make a getaway. However, his attempts to escape are unsuccessful and he finds himself in a bad situation when the real Lyle turns up...

John Dahl appears to enjoy setting thrillers on the road; he did it three years earlier with Kill Me Again, and again almost a decade on from this film with Roadkill. It's not hard to see why Dahl chooses this sort of location, as it provides a fabulous atmosphere for a thriller the likes of this one. Dahl also provides his film with a 'film noir' like atmosphere, as the plot mainly focuses on the central character and the word he is plunged into is full of dark and mysterious characters. The acting is largely very good, with Nicholas Cage doing an excellent job in the lead role, and getting A-class support from Lara Flynn Boyle, J.T. Walsh and, of course, Dennis Hopper; who once again commands the screen with his over the top performance. It has to be said that the second half of the film isn't as gripping as the first, but Red Rock West certainly is never boring and the way that Dahl orchestrates the grand finale is excellent in that all the central characters get to be a part of it. Overall, Red Rock West is a film that you're unlikely to regret watching. It's thrilling throughout, and you can't ask for much more than that! Red Rock West is a perfect example of how good a film can be with practically no budget. All you need is a smart script, good actors and loads of atmosphere. RRW delivers all these and more.

Nic Cage plays an ex-marine, injured in Lebanon, who is down to his last 5 dollars after being refused a job on an oilfield because of his bad knee. He roles into Red Rock and is mistaken by bartender Wayne (JT Walsh, not quite as his most menacing-but still evil) for a hit-man from Texas.

He pays him to kill his wife and make it look like burglary. Only when he gets there, just to check her out. She offers him double to kill Wayne. Cage just wants to get the hell out of town with his free money and leave the sparring lovers be. But a series of mishaps and setbacks results in him yo-yoing in and out of Red Rock, back and forth. Eventually this leads to a run-in with Lyle from Dallas (a cheeky and somehow sympathetic Dennis Hopper), the REAL hit-man from Texas who offers to help without knowing he's making the plot more complicated.

RRW never had a big release, thus most of it's audience discovered it on video or on cable TV showings. Viewing it in such a way might make it seem like a TV movie but it's bigger than that. The slick, slowly-timed direction, moody score and howling desert wind would have all made for a great movie in theatres but the best you can do these days is watch the DVD on a big HDTV.

The only weak point of the movie I can think of is Lara Flynn Boyle's boring femme fatale with the nasty dyke-ish hairdo. I certainly wouldn't fall for her but if you assume that Nic Cage's character is in to militant lesbians then you'll accept it nonetheless. An excellent example of "cowboy noir", as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, "Lyle from Dallas" (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before.

"Red Rock West" gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly "logical or credible", the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.

Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.

It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.

8/10 From the director of movies 'Last Seduction' and 'Kill me again', comes another movie in the noir style. John Dahl created a niche for himself by making movies on the themes of adultery, blackmailing in the early 90s. Though I did not have much of an opinion in regards to last seduction. But nowadays Mr Dahl has resorted to directing television shows.Its a shame since the man had talent.

***SPOILERS** This is quite an impressive movie which revolves around a drifter Cage) that comes in to the town of Wyoming for a job. However he does not prove lucky and becomes mistaken for a hit-man from Texas by bar owner J.T Walsh. He is given the task to kill his wife (Boyle). But Cage decides to split after taking the upfront payment without doing it. On the way out of town he accidentally hits a guy on the road, who he then takes back to the local hospital. At that point Cage coincidently meets Walsh again, who also appears to be the local sheriff. After that Cage escapes from his clutches but meets in to the real hit-man that happens to be Dennis Hopper.

John Dahl has co-written and directed this movie. Therefore it goes to show that a project can turn out decent when a director puts his thoughts on screen. The direction is of good standard, however while watching the movie I got a made for TV movie feeling. There were too many close up frames. However this does not deter the movie from being an enjoyable experience. The movie had good pace and the structure was perfect. Dahl written the script with good duration of lenght.

Cage portrayed the role as a drifter realistically, though to me his performance seemed somewhat restrained. His facial expressions were on the mark. Lara Flynn Boyle was hot and handled her part perfectly as the femme fatale. Her hairstyle was far out and can make any guy go on his knees. Hopper played his part well. But I feel he was miscast for this role. He did not convince me that he had the qualities of a hit-man. The role was not written keeping his personality in mind.

While viewing one will get deja vu of previous movies like 'The Hot Spot' and 'A Perfect Murder'. Due to the fact that some sub plots are similar. Overall if you are a fan of noir movies, then this one is for you. Worth recommending. 7/10 Red Rock West is one of those tight noir thrillers we rarely see anymore. It's well paced, well acted and doesn't leave us with loose ends or unanswered questions so typical in this genre.

Nicolas Cage stars as Michael, an unemployed Texas roughneck, desperate enough for a job to drive all the way to Wyoming for potential employment. He is honest to a fault, but always on the dark side of fate.

After failing to obtain gainful employment, Michael stumbles into the Red Rock bar where the owner Wayne (J.T.Walsh) mistakes him for a contract killer he summoned from Dallas, hired to do in his lovely but lethal wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle).

Wayne gives Michael the necessary details and a down payment for the hit on the adulterous Suzie. With no intent on following through, Michael accepts the money and then sets out to warn Suzanne of her impending demise. He also mails a letter to the local sheriff exposing the plot and splits.

As fate would dictate, Michael is not going to be rid of the situation that easy. While leaving in a violent rainstorm, he runs down Suzannes lover. Of course Michael being Michael, he takes him to the local hospital where it's discovered that he's also been shot.

The sheriff is summoned and as luck would have it, Wayne is also the local law. Michael manages to escape while being taken on that last ride and is subsequently picked up by the real "Lyle from Dallas" played with murderous glee by the quirky Dennis Hopper. After discovering that they're fellow marines, Lyle insists that Michael join him for a drink at, where else, the Red Rock bar. There Wayne realizes his mistake and soon he and Lyle are in hot pursuit of Michael who falls willingly into Suzannes waiting arms.

As the pace picks up we learn that Wayne and Suzanne are really wanted armed robbers, on the lam for a multi million dollar theft. Getting the money now becomes the films central focus with a series of betrayals, double crosses and murders.

The film was very well cast. Nicolas Cage was typically low key, Dennis Hopper and Lara Flynn Bolye assumed their respective roles with more than ample ability. The best performance was by the late J.T. Walsh who was menacing without appearing to be. Walsh was a great character actor who left us much too soon.

Marc Reshoskys photography utilized many unique angles which added to the suspense and plot development. The film was further enhanced by John Dahl's tight directorial style and Morris Chestnut's rapid fire editing. A drifter looking for a job is mistaken for a hit man in a small Wyoming town, leading to all kinds of complications. Cage is perfectly cast as the unlucky schmuck hoping to make a quick buck and get out of town but finding he can't escape the title town. Hopper does what he does best, playing a psycho known as "Lyle from Dallas," the real hit man. Walsh as a crooked sheriff and Boyle as a femme fatale round out the fine cast. The script by brothers John and Rick Dahl contains delicious twists and turns, and John's direction creates a terrific "neo noir" atmosphere. Witty and very entertaining, it sucks the viewer in from the start and never lets up. A lovely old - fashioned thriller coming on like a cross between Alfred Hitchcock and David Lynch,"Red Rock West" follows the misadventures of injured veteran unemployed oil worker Mr N.Cage as his luck turns from bad to worse after he ends up with an empty gas tank and barely enough money for a cup of coffee in a one ute town in the back of beyond. It has been established right from the start that Mr Cage might be down but he is not out,and he might be broke but he will not steal,not even in his present dire circumstances.Consequently when he is mistaken by Mr J.T. Walsh for the man he has commissioned to murder his wife,Mr Cage calls on the wife to warn her of her husband's intentions.In turn she,in the person of Miss L.F.Boyle, offers him even more money to murder Mr Walsh.Mr Cage decides to leave whilst he is still in front but as he is driving out of town he hits a man in the road.Tempted as he might be to drive on,he takes the man to hospital,where it turns out he has been shot.Mr Cage is detained by the Deputies who call the sheriff who turns out to be Mr J.T.Walsh. Events take a further complicated turn when,escaping from custody,Mr.Cage narrowly avoids being run over by the real hit-man on his way to fulfill his commission.About now you might be forgiven for thinking "enough already",but as it happens on the screen it seems a completely logical turn of events,the narrative flow of the movie at this point seeming unstoppable. Mr D.Hopper is comfortably cast as the hired killer,like Mr Cage a USMC veteran.This little piece of serendipity keeps Mr Cage alive long enough out-think the murderous trio and survive,a little more battered but still unbowed. It is a tribute to everybody involved that what sounds on paper remarkably like a piece of nonsense is in fact a tense exceptionally well made picture with fine performances all round. "Red Rock West" is a movie - lover's movie.Within five minutes you know you are going somewhere you've been before on plenty of occasions,but you'll be very happy during the trip. The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.

Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2 Dahl seems to have been under the influence of Wenders' The American Friend. Innocent Nick Cage gets recruited for a hit. Dennis Hopper plays a real Hit Man. Lara Flynn Boyle is dangerous. The Hero gets more entangled the more he tries to extricate hisself. And small town America does not seem all that safer than the Big City. Like it's predecessor mentioned above, this movie has lots of plot twists and turns that seem improbable, but all lead to the cathartic self discovery. A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film. This is a 'sleeper'. It defines Nicholas Cage. The plot is intricate and totally absorbing. The ending will blow you away.

See it whenever you have the opportunity. Before Nicholas Cage was a big action star, he was a great actor. This lesser-known movie is where Cage gives one of his best performances. "Red Rock West" was a low-budget, almost un-known film, but is one of my favorite movies of all time. I discovered it walking down the video store aisle, and wanted to see Cage and Hopper (Who also is great in the movie) appear together. Go get this one, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed. This modern film noir with its off beat humour and dizzying succession of plot twists delivers a story full of surprises, dangerous characters and excellent entertainment from start to finish. It's impossible not to empathise with the honest, unassuming hero or to be gripped by the ways in which he tries to navigate his way out of the terrible predicaments that he finds himself in, so all you can do is fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.

The story of an ordinary guy who makes a poor decision and then finds that the repercussions propel him into an uncontrollable sequence of events from which he is unable to extricate himself is pure film noir. The same is true of the themes of murder, deceit, corruption and duplicity which are pervasive throughout. Many of the familiar noir visual motifs are also present, such as the way in which cigarette smoke is lit, the rain soaked roads at night, the heavily shadowed interiors and the lines of shadow (created by louvred doors) across people's faces.

Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage), an injured war veteran without money or a job, stops off at a bar in Red Rock, Wyoming and is mistaken by the proprietor Wayne Brown (J T Walsh) for a hit man that he's arranged to employ to murder his wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). Michael, a naturally reticent person, does nothing to disabuse Wayne of his misapprehension, especially as he could use a job and at first doesn't realise what he'd be expected to do. After having been told what his mission is and been given a $5,000 advance, he goes to see Suzanne and warns her about Wayne's plan. She doesn't seem overly concerned about the danger she's in and offers Michael double the fee Wayne had offered, for him to eliminate her husband.

Michael decides to take the money he'd received from both parties and leave town. His plan fails however, when he accidentally drives into a man who is standing in the middle of the road and decides to take him to hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. At the hospital, things get more complicated when it emerges that the patient is Suzanne's lover and he has two bullets in his stomach. This leads to the local law enforcement officers getting involved and the revelation that Wayne is the Sheriff!! From this point on, things get even more complicated and also decidedly more dangerous especially when the real hit man, Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper) arrives on the scene.

"Red Rock West" has some great moments of suspense, (an example of this is the scene in which Michael makes his escape from Wayne's bar) and also some great performances from its very strong cast. Nicolas Cage's expressions are extremely natural and convincing as he reacts to a variety of situations with anxiety, surprise or uncertainty and J T Walsh is also particularly good as a deceptive character who's always concealing more than he's actually saying. Dennis Hopper is intensely threatening as the vicious contract killer (a role he plays with great gusto) and Lara Flynn Boyle looks suitably cold and calculating as the femme fatale. Dwight Yoakam also provides some good support and moments of humour in his cameo role as a no nonsense truck driver.

Incredibly, "Red Rock West" was originally destined to be denied a general cinema release but has justifiably emerged from its modest beginnings to eventually be recognised as the great movie that it really is. Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past. Red Rock West is one of those rare films that keeps you guessing the entire time as to what will happen next. Nicolas Cage is mistaken for a contract killer as he enters a small town trying to find work. Dennis Hopper is the bad guy and no one plays them better. Look for a brief appearance by country singing star Dwight Yoakam. This is a serious drama most of the time but there are some lighter moments. What matters is that you will enjoy this low budget but high quality effort! One thing I always liked about Robert Ludlum thrillers is just when you think you have it figured out, it goes in a completely different direction. There are so many twists and turns in this film that I have a sore neck from watching.

One thing I also like about director John Dahl (Kill Me Again, Rounders, Unforgettable) is that he can be depended upon to direct and, in this case, write (with his brother Rick) a good story.

Now, add Nick Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, and J.T. Walsh to the cast and you have a story that will keep your interest even if they are playing characters that all of them have perfected. Dahl seems to bring out the best in folks, and this will keep you interested, and guessing, until the very end. I had never heard of this film prior to seeing it, I wondered if it was an independent film, and I was correct, but with a good cast I decided to chance it. Basically drifter Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage) is in the town Red Rock, Wyoming, looking for a job, and meeting bar owner Wayne Brown (Pleasantville's J.T. Walsh) he is given a large sum of money, mistaken for a hit-man he has hired to kill his unfaithful wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). He does not correct him, takes the money, and goes to warn Suzanne, and after she makes him a counteroffer, he decides he needs to leave. When Wayne knows his real identity, he chases Michael shooting a big gun, until he gets in a car with Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper). But things get complicated when Michael realises Lyle is the hit-man he was mistaken for, and he makes a quick retreat. He goes back to Suzanne, and knowing they are both in danger, they plan to leave town together, and add another complication by falling for each other. Before they leave however, Suzanne insists they go and steal a big amount money in the safe. Of course things aren't going to go smoothly, and Wayne and Lyle catch up to them, and Lyle forces them and now tied-up Wayne to go and get the buried money. In the end, Lyle and Wayne both get what they deserve, Michael and Suzanne do get on a moving train together, but it is obvious she cares more about the money, and she gets what she deserves too. Also starring Craig Reay as Jim, Vance Johnson as Mr. Johnson, Timothy Carhart as Deputy Matt Greytack, Dwight Yoakam as Truck Driver and Robert Apel as Howard. The performances, apart from maybe a lame Boyle, are all fine and dandy, and it has got quite a good film noir feel for a black comedy thriller. Very good! This movie is proof that film noire is an enduring style, and extremely worthy of stay alive. For me, it is he best example of film noire since Chinatown.

It will, unfortunately, never get the recognition it deserves. It was never promoted properly when it was first released and has had to build its cadre of fans through venues like Vanguard Cinema and word of mouth rental referrals.

I highly recommend that people looking for something more than mindless entertainment rent this movie and delved into its highly convoluted plot. I just got back from a screening a couple of hours ago, and I was very happy with the movie when I left it. It's very intense, and the closest I've come to crying in a movie in quite some time. That is a credit to Adam Sandler, who delivers a magnificent performance on many levels, and who probably deserves an Oscar nom for it, were it not coming out so early in the year. Don Cheadle gives his usual superb performance playing the straight man to Adam's disturbed.

There is some humor, but most of it is really only funny in comparison to the tearjerking moments, as Adam deals with his loss and Don struggles to help him. Adam plays two levels very well... when he is mentally stable he is funny and likable, but when he is, well, less stable he's powerful and dark.

I recommend it for anyone who likes intense mental dramas about difficult friendship and loss. It's not very often a movie can literally make the entire audience laugh, and five minutes later fill their eyes with tears. Many movies try to do this, but few can deliver the emotional impact that this film did. Adam Sandler practically drags you in with his heated and often violent outbursts, but also makes you laugh when the shadow of his past isn't pulling him down. I'm not going to ruin anything, but there is one scene in particular that should have your eyes watering and lip quivering. Even the most macho of men would have to be heartless bastards to not feel something while watching this movie. Don Cheadle gives another great performance, but is out-shined by Sandler. Liv Tyler and Jada Pinkett Smith give solid performances, but nothing in the line of the two leading roles. Sandler's humor is still present, which actually saved this film from being border-line depressing. There are several laughs to be had, but don't think you will stay there long, because it gets serious again without much warning.

I could go on and on about how well this movie hit on just about every emotion the human body contains, but I will cut this one short. I feel there is no need to tell you anything more. Do yourself a favor and take the time to see this movie. Even if you have to wait until it comes out on DVD, it's 100% worth the time. A deeply moving film sure to put tears in your eyes and a smile on your face...unless of course...you are a heartless soul. This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)

This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.

Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.

Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.

Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me. I saw this at a screening last night too. I was totally blown away at how much better this movie was than what I expected. Not many movies can combine dark comedy and current event drama and not have it fall apart in the conclusion.

I won't bother rehashing the plot too much because I think the less you know about this movie going into it makes it that much better. But I will say that Adam Sandler's performance was really refreshing and real. He was funny, and much funnier than most of his most recent comedies. Don Cheadle was believable as always.

This movie isn't funny like Borat or Billy Madison but it has a good pace about it. I'd say 90% of the audience laughed for most of the film. Midway through the movie slows down to address the drama end of things and does a really nice job of tying it all together.

I also thought it was really cool how instead of playing up the whole black friend/white friend thing they chose to just ignore it and focus on the relationships themselves. Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.

This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around him—a man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.

Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.

The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.

Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope. This Movie was amazing, it is the kind of movie where you watch it and rather than look at other movies by actor you look at other movies by director/ writer. Sandler did a good job working a character outside of his comfort zone and the always good Cheadle did a great job too. This movie is great for a mature intelligent audience. The acting was fantastic and can only be surpassed by the Writing and directing of the film. This film focuses on the real Americans, the past generation, no stereotypes or Racism just people who have come together and realized the true meaning of life. This film is about loss and coping. Instead of picking on Psychiatry, it defines it, not as someone who heals you magically, but rather through the necessity of talking out your feeling to an impartial someone you can trust will not judge you, but rather will guide you though your thoughts. This movie is all round amazing! Greetings again from the darkness. How rare it is for a film to examine the lost soul of men in pain. Adam Sandler stars as Charlie, a man who lost his family in the 9/11 tragedy, and has since lost his career, his reason to live and arguably, his sanity. Don Cheadle co-stars as Sandler's former Dental School roommate who appears to have the perfect life (that Sandler apparently had prior to 9/11).

Of course the parallels in these men's lives are obvious, but it is actually refreshing to see men's feelings on display in a movie ... feelings other than lust and revenge, that is. Watching how they actually help each other by just being there is painful and heartfelt. Writer/Director Mike Binder ("The Upside of Anger", and Sandler's accountant in this film) really brings a different look and feel to the film. Some of the scenes don't work as well as others, but overall it is well written and solidly directed.

Sandler and Cheadle are both excellent. Sandler's character reminds a bit of his fine performance in "Punch Drunk Love", but here he brings much more depth. Cheadle is always fine and does a nice job of expressing the burden he carries ... just by watching him work a jigsaw puzzle.

Support work is excellent by Jada Pinkett Smith (as Cheadle's wife), Liv Tyler (as a very patient psychiatrist), Saffron Burrows (in an oddly appealing role), Donald Sutherland as an irritated judge and Melinda Dillon and Robert Klein as Sandler's in-laws.

The film really touches on how the tragic events of that day affected one man so deeply that he is basically ruined. In addition to the interesting story and some great shots of NYC, you have to love any film that features vocals from Chrissy Hynde, Bruce Springsteen and Roger Daltrey ... as well as Eddie Vedder impersonating Daltrey. Not exactly a chipper upbeat film, but it is a quality film with an unusual story. Reign Over Me (titled after the who song) is a movie that is sure to bring a tear to almost everyone's eye. It was a moving story of a guy (sandler) that lost his family in the 9-11 world trade center attacks. Years later, he runs into an old college roommate (cheadle) that he doesn't even recognize due to the post-dramatic stress ensued by the loss of his family. The two rekindle their old friendship and Cheadle's character, Johnson, realizes that he must get Sandler's character, Fineman, some help before it's too late.

This was the first movie that has made me cry in a long time. It's completely worth watching and after seeing it, I'm positive the viewer will appreciate his or her family much more. Let me start by saying at the young age of 34 I was suddenly widowed. I was devastated as he was NOT sick--- he died unexpectedly basically of a coronary--- his carotids blew out-- he died behind our house. There was a lot of speculation from police, cause he fell on something and it bashed his head in. I was a suspect for murder until the autopsy came back.

My children were as traumatized as I was, so in love with a good father figure as he. I had three small children, no education, no financial support. I took it very, very hard.

Within two years my in-laws attacked me verbally, physically, emotionally and spiritually demanding I grieve not in front of the children, and put on masks and showed people what they wanted to see, not show them my pain during holidays... Nobody stood up for me and my choice to sit out one holiday, except of course, the grief therapist I was seeing that had advised me to follow my heart and soul. My in-laws didn't get it! It changed FOREVER my relationship with them, and I have never been back for a holiday. This is only one example of how my grief was disrespected! My own (new) husband has seen me fall apart talking about the trauma when I shared from my soul. I collapse, can not breathe, hyperventilate, and generally am defunct for a few days if I even try to convey the hidden pain.

Now about this movie...

Today, my soul was stirred, my heart broken. My fears and pain re-surfaced from the real demons this movie presents; how one grieves compared to how others expect us too and the demons within. Adam Sandler portrayed perfectly the horrendous agony you face, overcome and most of all, work through on your own time! This movie dredged up all the pain that I have tried over the years to deal with. You see, when something harms your soul so profoundly, so deep that utterances are all that come from your mouth in moments of thinking, you can not deal with it without wishing you were dead and walking through life, in a dead state.

The bible has a scripture, Romans 8:26 that I have clung to, that when my mouth and soul know not what to pray for, that God's Holy Spirit carries that agony to the feet of God-- I need not speak. Sandler portrayed that to perfection!

There is a scene where he has been hauled into a court hearing, for mental health commitment purposes, and he goes back in to face his in-laws--- (familiar to me)--- and he tells them the stunning truths that he has been possessed by, per Se, that he can't get over. It's a profoundly strong, and mighty performance. I started bawling and had a hard time after wards getting up to walk out from the theater feeling my legs too weak to do so. My son was with me and saw it first hand, my precise motions while trying to hold it all together; a lesson for him, my youngest who barely remembers his daddy. It's been 13 years for me but this movie brought me back to the moment of losing my in-laws forever when they demanded a mask on my emotions and my surrendering to their desires, instead of respect to my own.

I write this, so that if you are a griever, you are prepared for this movie, but recommend it highly in the 1000 star performance Sandler gave.

If you are not yet a griever, please take a lesson from his movie and just listen and accept people's choices in their grief, letting them find peace in their own time! Sometimes, the soul can not utter the words to convey our pain.

Go see this movie with tissues and not without preparing to take it in... to your soul! The feel of this movie was amazing. Adam Sandler's performance was very inspiring. As he played a very rattled and fragile character, he took his ability to the very edge and really worked the role. His character was really interesting. I can see myself reading the script for this movie and not being half as interested in the part as Sandler made me. For someone who plays primarily comedy roles, he pulled off a serious role with what seemed to be his own quirks and input. I especially loved the scene in which Adam and Don's characters rode the motorized scooter around the city. I familiarized with the moment, because it seemed like Don was witnessing one thing Adam does to get away from it all. With his video games, music, and many other things he does to keep him from thinking about the past, riding his scooter with his headphones on seemed like an escape from his thoughts. This movie is definitely worth the watch. Reign Over Me is a success due to the powerful work by Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. While comedic actors going dramatic has been seen as somewhat of a distraction, Sandler is no stranger to playing more serious roles. Most of the characters he portrays have an unstable temperament and a vulnerability that can burst at any moment. He might even be typecast for characters with such hidden anger problems. However, this performance has some considerable dramatic weight, unlike his roles in less comedic fare like Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish.

In the film, Alan Johnson (Cheadle) runs into his old college roommate, Charlie Finerman (Sandler), whom he hasn't seen in several years. Five years before, Charlie suffered the overwhelming loss of his wife and three daughters in a plane crash. Charlie barely even recognizes Cheadle's character due to the repression of his memories and consequent reclusive childish lifestyle since the accident. It isn't until Alan persists in engaging him in conversation that Charlie remembers who he is. Their renewed relationship that follows will allow Finerman to have a friend who doesn't speak about his loss, eventually enabling him to confront the thoughts and feelings he has suppressed on his own terms.

Though writer-director Mike Binder doesn't show much sense of an individual style and some of his shots and transitions are a bit awkward, he does have a knack of getting decent to great performances from his actors while being a talented and funny writer. He shot this film with a digital camera, as more and more filmmakers are doing today, enabling the crew to shoot the night scenes with limited lighting. This kept the colorful backgrounds of New York City in focus, but resulted in creating frequent digital grain, which resembles blue specks scattered and moving on the screen.

Almost every main character in Reign Over Me gives a great performance. Jada-Pinkett Smith and especially Liv Tyler are memorable in their respective roles as a frustrated wife to Cheadle's character and a psychiatrist. However, it is Sandler and Cheadle that give some of their finest work to date. They completely owned this movie. Sandler actually plays a character that doesn't outwardly resemble or act like himself at all, partially credited to his Bob Dylan-esquire wig. Though Cheadle's character has more screen time than Sandler, they both should be considered to be leading roles, as they equally support and help each other throughout the film.

Music also plays a great part in this film, especially the title song "Reign Over Me," or "Love, Reign O'er Me" by The Who, and later covered by Pearl Jam. In one of the most powerful moments of the film, Binder shows Sandler using music to shut out his feelings and memories, but this particular song provokes such intense emotion that rather than diminishing his anger, it incites his emotions. All an all, Reign Over Me is an enjoyable, sad, yet many times funny film, driven by its amazing leading performances. In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.

"Reign Over Me" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Reine Sobre Mim" ("Reign Over Me") There may be spoilers!

Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), who lost his family in a tragedy, (the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11), still grieves over their deaths. He runs into his former college roommate, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), and the two rekindle their friendship. Alan vows to help his old friend come to terms with the terrible loss. This is a simplification of the basic story of Reign Over Me.

This movie is, however, a story of how fate intercedes in our lives when we ourselves may be powerless do any thing about our own states of being. Alan is stuck in a life that he knows is no longer fulfilling. He feels friendless and out of touch with his own reality. He is unable to communicate with his wife and his associates at work. He can't express his feelings and as a result feels lost and distant from his own world. He chances upon Charlie on the streets of Manhattan while driving from his job. Eventually he meets and discovers that Charlie, (who originally does not remember Alan), is living in a false reality of his own. Charlie has gone back to a time in his life when he had no family. He lives as if he were still a student playing in a rock band, collecting vinyl records of the 60s and 70s bands, and playing video games. He has escaped to a better and safer time in his life where there are no bad guys and he has a lot less to lose. Everyone in this movie is affected in some way by the tragedy that has affected Charlie and his remission to a formerly different and better (?) place. His landlady is his protector and great enabler. His in-laws are subtracted from his life because they would take him back to the reality that his family is now gone from his life. And Alan is most affected by him because Alan wants to, (in at first a selfish desire to escape from his own reality) to be with Charlie as a means to subtract himself from his own stifled reality and then he wants to find a way to help Charlie begin to recover from his self-induced guilt and denial of loss. It is through this relationship that not only is Charlie able to begin to heal himself but that Alan, in fact, learns to communicate and sate his true desires with his associates at work and, eventually, is able to admit to his wife he has not been able to communicate his real feelings to her but that he strongly wants to because he does love her. It is in fact a poignant moment in the film when the stuff has hit the fan and Charlie is being confronted with the reality of being put away that he and Alan are talking about the situation together over "Chinese" that Charlie states that he is in fact worried about Alan and not himself.

This movie will, if you let it, take you through a river of emotions and leave you thinking. It will have you laughing at how Charlie uses his words, like people really do in everyday life, to make a comical statement of fact about a real situation. It will leave you on the verge of tears, (in my case actual tears), when Charlie confronts his grief and begins to come to grips with his tremendous loss. And that in fact the tragic reality is his guilt and loss has really never left him and he dealt with it in the only way he knew: denial. It will make you curse at the cold, unthinking actions of a young prosecutor trying to win his "case", (as I actually did at Charlie's hearing!) And it will make you smile at the commonsense of a old and wise, stern judge, (Donald Sutherland who is great at his short distinct role and gives the best performance of a wise, stern person in the legal profession since Wilford Brimley played an Assistant Attorney General in Absence of Malice.)

This movie was also amazing to me for a few other reasons: (1) I never looked at my watch once during the showing of the film. Which means it had me from the beginning to the end, (2) Although the cast was interracial, this fact was not important to the playing out of the roles of the characters in the film. Race was a non-factor to the performance of the roles in this movie. Amazing people can actually interact with out this fact being brought out! and (3) the only real reference to 9/11 is when Charlie's financial attorney refers to the tragedy of Charlie's loss as "…what Charlie had become on 9/12". Time will be the true test of how this movie will stand out in the future but if the purpose of a movie is not to just entertain but to make one think and have that movie stay with you long after you leave the theatre then Reign Over Me succeeded phenomenally as far as I am concerned. I have not yet forgotten this wonderful thought provoking film and I will wait impatiently for the day I can purchase it as a DVD. Time and time again, it seems that the comedic actors of Hollywood are surprising me with their talents as dramatic performers: first it was Robin Williams {'One Hour Photo (2002)'}, then it was Jim Carrey {'Eternal Sunshine… (2004)' being one example}, then Will Ferrell {'Stranger than Fiction (2006)'} and now Adam Sandler. Yes, that's absolutely right: the guy who has based an entire career on making brainless, goofball comedies {I'm not complaining; I've always been a fan} has finally given me a performance of which he can be proud. Of course, some readers may be wondering whatever happened to 'Punch-Drunk Love (2002),' but I can only assure you that it's a film I'm currently taking measures to see as soon as possible, since I've heard it's terrific. My first film from director Mike Binder, 'Reign Over Me,' is an intelligent and respectful exploration of grief and friendship. Though it does occasionally stray into all-too-familiar territory, the somewhat predictable storyline proves surprisingly deep and moving, with both Sandler and Don Cheadle giving memorable performances.

Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a successful dentist with a good family, though he finds himself unable to communicate adequately with his wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) and so his marriage is a little shaky. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) is Alan's ex-college roommate, a man who lost his entire family in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and who is still confronting his overwhelming feelings of grief. A disheveled figure with messy hair and downcast eyes {often likened in appearance to Bob Dylan}, Charlie has abandoned his career in dentistry, and spends his time in solitude: listening to music with headphones that cut out all sound from the outside world, driving around Manhattan in his motorised scooter, immersing himself in fantastical video games and repeatedly redecorating his apartment kitchen in accordance with his deceased wife's final wishes. When Alan and Charlie meet for the first time in years, the latter doesn't even recognise an old friend, having completely abandoned any memories prior to his life-crippling experience. Indeed, at first he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of his family, and abruptly loses his temper whenever anybody suggests that he seek counselling.

Initially, it may seem a bit exploitative for the filmmakers to be using the September 11 attacks as a storytelling device. Afterall, wouldn't it be just as devastating if Charlie's family had died in an ordinary, everyday car accident? However, if you consider that the director's intention was to demonstrate the enormous pain caused to ordinary citizens by the tragedy, then 'Reign Over Me' does a very good job. It's easy to get so caught up in meaningless statistics that you neglect the emotional costs of the terrorist attacks; this is the first 9/11-orientated film I've seen that truly dealt with the suffering of those who weren't even involved, whose only anguish was caused through losing those whom they loved. Adam Sandler shows surprising range in a difficult role, one which would have crumbled to pieces had he not been up to the task. Snapping instantly between cheerfulness, anger and depression, Charlie Fineman is a man with whom we can deeply sympathise, a hollow soul who, thanks to the companionship of an old friend, can finally glimpse light at the end of a dark, bleak tunnel. As someone who has never condescended Adam Sandler in terms of talent, as is done to him and many comic actors like him, I walked in to Reign Over Me expecting a great film, not simply because of his presence in the movie but because I thought that it looked very good overall. Even someone who already thought that Sandler could deliver an effective dramatic performance is writing here that I was surprised at how fantastic he is in it. He will make you weep, especially in his purposefully sudden and unexpected monologue. What's amazing about his role is that it's a character it's hard to say we've seen before. We've seen many emotionally scarred characters, many mentally retarded people, many loners, many passionate self-centered artists, but Sandler's Charlie Fineman is none of these. He may have a taste of each of them in some ways, but his character is truly unpredictable and completely individual. It's a joy for the audience to be drawn in emotionally by him and be tugged every which way by someone whose problems, mindset, and provocations are completely different from most characters like him.

Don Cheadle delivers an interesting performance on a completely different level. He is every man. He is the most normal possible person in the world, so much so that you will hardly find many characters like his either, or at least any that are played the way he plays Alan Johnson, whose name is even found on the assembly line. Cheadle is brilliant in that he is funny, jolting, smart, and stupid the way so many normal people are.

The rest of the cast is populated by actors and actresses who've hardly done anything in awhile in smaller but quite colorful roles. Jada Pinkett-Smith is the overly refined upper middle class wife, Donald Sutherland is the impatient but surprising judge, Robert Klein is Sandler's desensitized father-in-law.

Mike Binder's script is quite brilliant because it says something quite profound about the wonders of communication in all of its guises. It's much more subtle than, say, Babel, and has a much more close-to-home ideal.

The camera is only interested in the reality of its images as opposed to the mere style. This film struck me as sort of a sendback to the kitchen-sink style of the 1970s. Cinematography was grainy and unfastened, but that was its charm. It wasn't about attracting us to the camera itself and the gloss that would've diluted its stories with such.

The music, which plays a major role in the film, and its title, is very powerful. Near the beginning, you feel like you're in for another About Schmidt or Little Miss Sunshine sort of soundtrack, but you soon realize you're in for more than that. In fact, the film is packed with lots of music that stimulates a lot of the most emotional scenes.

Reign Over Me is a major statement not only for society but also for film itself. It goes to show that even the director of Blankman is capable of wonders. REIGN OVER ME (2007) *** Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, Mike Binder, Jonathan Banks, Rae Allen, Paula Newsome. At times affecting and at times middling dramedy about a thoroughly depressed man who lost his family on 9/11 (Sandler in his best role since "Punch-Drunk Love") who winds up re-united with his old college roommate and friend (Cheadle continuing to do impressive work with every role to date), a well-to-do dentist who seems to have it all – family, wealth, happiness – but really sees an ally in freedom with his troubled friend's own personal life offerings. Written and directed by Binder (who co-stars as Sandler's former-best friend and acting accountant) with equal parts humor and genuine heartache the film works best when the two stars share the screen until the last act falls into an almost movie-of-the-week treacle with to tidy a solution to the matters at hand. Most people, especially young people, may not understand this film. It looks like a story of loss, when it is actually a story about being alone. Some people may never feel loneliness at this level.

Cheadles character Johnson reflected the total opposite of Sandlers character Fineman. Where Johnson felt trapped by his blessings, Fineman was trying to forget his life in the same perspective. Jada is a wonderful additive to the cast and Sandler pulls tears. Cheadle had the comic role and was a great supporter for Sandler.

I see Oscars somewhere here. A very fine film. If you have ever lost and felt alone, this film will assure you that you're not alone.

Jerry On September 11th, 2001, millions were killed; but 2,819 lives ended in an especially gruesome manner. They were the victim of a plane hijacking by extremists whose sole mission was to destroy buildings, but more importantly, people. This film takes an in-depth look at four people whose lives were cut short by this disastrous event and one man whose life was shattered by the loss of their lives.

Charlie Fineman (played by Adam Sandler), a former dentist living in New York, loses his wife and three children on September 11th as they were on their way to Los Angeles. Emotionally annihilated by the events, he eventually loses touch with everyone who reminds him of his former life; including his in-laws and his best friend (played, respectively, by Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, and Mike Bender). He goes into completely denial and does his best to forget about his former life. This continues until he runs into his old college friend Alan Johnson (played by Don Cheadle) who Fineman doesn't seem to remember. The two begin to catch up, but Fineman believes Johnson was sent by people from his former life to persuade him into finding help. Slowly, but surely, Fineman regains his trust for Johnson.

While all this is happening, Alan Johnson's life is going down the wrong path. He is a self man (dentist) who helps start a dental practice. One day, a patient of his named Donna Remar (played by Saffron Burrows) attempts to make a move on him, telling him that she would like to perform oral sex for him. This is an unwelcome surprise to Dr. Johnson since he is a married man with two children. As he is coming home from work on a particular workday, he sees his old friend (Fineman) and tries to flag him down. He is unsuccessful, but he gets another opportunity and persuades Fineman to get a come of coffee with him to catch up, despite the fact that Fineman doesn't know who he is.

One of the most interesting things about this movie is its use of music as a motif. One of Fineman's physiological crutches is music, particularly Springsteen and other classic rock artists. When Fineman is asked to open up about his past or to talk about things he finds unpleasant, he puts on his earphones and drowns out the world with things his music.

When the film was over, I had me thinking: how would I cope with the loss of my family? How would I deal with such a tragic events. It's something we don't really think about too often. We always think they'll be there and we often take them for granted, whether we intend to or not. We usually realize how important they are when it's too late; and a blow like that can destroy someone physically, emotionally, and physiologically. I really don't know how I would be able to deal with something like that. Would I face the problem head on, cope, and move on with my life or would I just put my headphones on and block the world? let me say that i love Adam Sandler, watching reign over me i was paying close attention to his acting

when he raises his voice, i cant help but think of happy gilmore yelling at a golf ball, then i snap back as Adam Sandler sucks me in

Reign over Me is a great film, a film that comes off slow at first with you expecting emotion in every scene

Don Cheadle always does a great job and is no exception here with some truly great lines and is worthy of an Oscar in any movie he does

adam sandler was amazing in so many ways not only was this his most dramatic/best acted film of his career. but i can recall laughing out loud at many parts of this film

The supporting cast was great also with Saffron Burroughs and Jada Pinkett Smith

I would highly recommend this movie its got tremendous acting beautiful shots of NYC great comedy great drama And a new found respect for Adam sandler if you ever doubted him or a reassurance at how great Don Cheadle is I didn't really go into "Reign Over Me" knowing exactly what to expect either from the director or the story. The plot was easy enough to understand, I suppose. This guy's whole family died in 9/11, and he shuts the world out of his life. Alright. I didn't know if it was going to use the attachment of terrorism as a platform to speak on that or other issues relating to it, and it really doesn't on a very obvious level, so if you're scared to be surrounded by political opinions that may be different from yours, I wouldn't worry about it. I think the writing even made a point never to explicitly mention "September the eleventh".

Overall, I was impressed. It was a very moving picture. The movie has a sense of humor, and it is very sharp, but it is definitely a drama where it counts. I typically don't like to think that comedic actors are incapable of actually acting, but sometimes, let's be honest, they are. Adam Sandler is definitely capable of it (and though I think so, you may disagree, Jim Carrey is also very well-rounded.. sometimes). Sandler's portrayal of Charlie Fineman took a character that on the surface seems completely unreal and makes it become absolutely believable. I read many reviews that criticized the writing of Alan Johnson's (Don Cheadle in another excellent role, if not one that seems similar to a few of his more recent pictures)wife, who is played well by Jada Pinkett Smith, calling her static and dull, but that is completely untrue.

She has depth, but some of it gets hidden behind the main story, which does drift in and out of focus occasionally. (Which also brings to mind some very unusual transitions done early in the movie, with a weird "Make everything out of focus" fadeout. After about the first 40 minutes, they aren't used anymore. Maybe it's significant for the characters outlook, artistically, or maybe they just realized how irritating it was.) The film gradually begins to reveal to us the point (one of several, but definitely the most explicit) of the story, which is that sometimes people have to deal with grief in their own way. Maybe it seems unorthodox to us, maybe it seems downright unhealthy, but maybe what some people want more than anything is just to forget. To just exist. The films soundtrack was excellent, and it used music to pursue and amplify moods, rather than establish them, which gives credit to the actors and the writers.

The movie takes it's name from the song "Love, Reign O'er Me", off of The Who's rock opera, Quadrophenia. The song itself is fairly insignificant to the actual story, but it is used powerfully in the movie over the course of the climax, and at the very end. The movie is paced well, and does not feel like it's dragging anywhere in it's length, which is a little over 2 hours. If you can accept Adam Sandler's portrayal of this deeply heartbroken and broken down man, you will enjoy the movie. You will become entangled in the story, and you will genuinely feel for the characters in every minute of it. It is not the best movie of the year, and there's nothing groundbreaking or positively amazing in it, but it's a very enjoyable, watchable movie, all in all. What we've got here is a Situation. A man is found to be in distress and people want to help him -- in contrasting ways. At the end they are forced to let it go. You can't fix people. And though in various aspects Reign Over Me is conventionally Hollywood, that message isn't.

This story is not about Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife and three daughters in a 9/11 plane who's gone into a nearly psychotic state of PTSS since. It's about what meeting Charlie does to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a dentist in New York who was his roommate in dental school and, knowing about his tragedy, spots him on the street and reconnects. Charlie is riding around on a little toy motorized scooter -- a pretty fanciful contraption for negotiating Manhattan traffic -- with big headphones on over a mass of unruly hair. The hair is Sandler's chief prop to show he's deranged. And the use of music as an escape must hit home to every iPod-wielding subway rider.

Charlie is a disaster, but paradoxically Alan, stuck with a controlling wife (Jada Pinkett Smith), soon begins to envy him. Charlie is living like an nutty adolescent boy with a huge trust fund (insurance money from the tragedy), and starts dragging Alan off to "hang out," "eat Chinese," buy records, or watch a Mel Brooks marathon at a rep house. Charlie lives in a nice big apartment protected by a mean landlady, redoing the kitchen over and over, collecting old vinyl of Springsteen, the Who, etc., and playing a video game called Shadow of the Collosus on a giant screen in a big empty living room.

Charlie's in-laws are deeply concerned about him, but also somehow resentful, as we learn later. Alan has a new patient who is propositioning him. Charlie's desperation makes us see Alan's. Trying to help Charlie partly permits Alan to escape from his own stifling realities but partly just makes him more acutely aware of them.

Cheadle and Sandler make an odd couple, but that doesn't matter, because it's convincing that they might both need each other. Charlie is desperate for the companionship of a friend who never knew his family, because to escape his loss, he is pretending he never had one. And so what if as a roommate Charlie slept naked and sleep walked and had terrible musical taste (no Motown)? Alan wants an escape from his tidy, emasculating life. He's under the thumb not just of his wife but of his dental partners, who lord it over him though it's he who set up the practice. They're white, by the way, and he's black.

There's also the lascivious patient from hell, who seriously disrupts things at the dental offices, but starts looking different when Charlie comes by and notices she's a babe. His libido seems to be lurking ready to revive at any minute. He's also drawn to the breasts of Liv Tyler, a psychotherapist in the same building as the dentists who starts trying to treat Charlie when he admits he might need help.

Sandler's mad scenes are a little too theatrical, as are a lot of the plot devices (in fact this movie feels like a play at more than one point), but he has several monologues where he expresses his sorrow in ways that are deeply touching.

Charlie's not just delusional and sad, but dangerous and violent, and all these efforts to help him start to backfire. The movie is admirable in the way it conveys a sense that people can't be made right. This is an interesting movie -- sometimes a touching one -- and it's the first time 9/11 has been dealt with in terms of survivor suffering. But there is an element of comedy that seems tasteless at times, many of the people are too broadly drawn, and the overly grand Hollywood interiors have dreadful décor; only the Manhattan streets look real. There's a courtroom scene that is preposterous, and Donald Sutherland is a judge who's too good to be true. Alan's family problem is resolved too easily with a phone call. And yet this is worth watching for the acting -- the control and subtlety of Cheadle, and Sandler in a serious role almost as good as the one he had in P.T. Anderson's 2002 Punch-Drunk Love, though that's clearly a better movie, in fact a much better one. Most who go to this movie will have an idea what it is about; A man loses his entire family and even his dog in a flight from Boston that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. What you probably won't know before seeing this film is this: How that would feel; What do you do with that; and how would that affect you and the way you relate to every waking day? The story unfolds painfully slow from the gate and then warms up nicely as it gains a little speed while the recently renewed relationship between dentist Alan Johnson, (Don Cheadle) and ex-college roommate Charlie Fineman, (Adam Sandler) solidifies and begins to take shape. Characters appear in this film whose presence initially seem obligatory and not well developed but in fact, stay with this story, and you find that the simplicity of each character is what makes this story believable - and accurate. Real people inhabit a real situation whereby they can do little but stand aside while one amongst them disintegrates. The pain inside Charlie's soul is subtly evident from first introduction and grows as we learn more about his character –brilliantly revealed by Sandler, as layers of an onion – one layer at a time with lightness and weight combined. It's so subtle a performance that he sneaks up on you and gets inside your head while you are watching him on screen. Cheadle's Alan Johnson is equally subtle and very Don Cheadle. Always watchable, the ease that's apparent when Cheadle's on screen speaks to his consummate acting skills. Alan's relationship with Charlie Fineman is delicate in texture, just as the situation would demand. Fineman doesn't want friendship, nor anybody intruding into his cloistered life and yet, the likable quality that Alan owns is simple and honest enough to intrigue even a recluse like Charlie. It is Alan who has the task of gingerly opening up Charlie's carefully sealed life. There is inherent danger in the process. The more Alan nudges Charlie to open up, going so far as engaging the services of friend and psychologist Angela Oakhurst, (Liv Tyler) the nearer the danger of pushing Charlie over the edge. It's an abyss that Charlie teeters on each and every waking moment and one he has learned to navigate through sheer dint of denial. He has denied everything that priorly existed for him in order to exist with his loss. Unfortunately, his grief is one thing he cannot deny. Sandler withdraws so deeply into his character's pain during the story's unfolding that, by the time he meets his demons head-on, the viewer shares his pain almost equally. Alan stands beside Charlie throughout this exacting process at the risk of lousing up his own perfect home-life - run with admirable grace and efficiency by wife Janeane. (Jada Pinkett Smith) While tending to Charlie's recovery, Alan looks inward and recognizes his own silent screams at the death of the independence he once owned and the boy he has lost becoming a man. His reward for helping Charlie is helping himself reconnect with what he has lost. The theme is much like The Fisher King; another story of a man who isolates himself to the point of madness from sorrow and loss. Like The Fisher King, the story concludes with the traditional, there is someone for everyone theme. Reign Over Me's Lidia Sinclair, (played by the wonderful Amanda Plummer in The Fisher King) is Donna Remar, (Saffron Burrows) a woman on the verge of breakdown and sketchy patient of Johnson's, who turns out to be the just unstable enough to complement Charlie's borderline insanity. It's a good ending to the story, but the one element probably least likely to ring true. Then again, maybe there really is someone for everyone. Devorah Macdonald Vancouver, BC If you didn't enjoy this movie, either your dead, or you hate Adam Sandler or Don Cheadle.

An Excellent cast, all of who gave good performances. This movie proved that Adam Sandler is good actor, despite what critics say. Adam Sandler is becoming a very well respected actor. It all started with his performance in Big Daddy, then he did a couple bad movies, then he broke through with terrific performance in 50 First Dates, The Longest Yard, then Click, and now Reign Over Me.

Back to the movie. Adam Sandler plays a man who has lost everything. The closest thing to family he has are a mother-in-law and father-in-law. After his old college roommate (Cheadle) ran into him, he seems to turn his life around. I will say no more, because I do not want to ruin the movie, but I strongly recommend this movie. One of the best movies of 2007. Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) is a successful dentist, who shares his practice with other business partners. Alan also has an loving wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) and he has two daughter (Camille LaChe Smith & Imani Hakim). He also let his parents stay in his huge apartment in New York City. But somehow, he feels that his life is somewhat empty. One ordinary day in the city, he sees his old college roommate Charlie Fireman (Adam Sandler). Which Alan hasn't seen Charlie in years. When Alan tries to befriends with Charlie again. Charlie is a lonely depressed man, who hides his true feelings from people who cares for him. Since Charlie unexpectedly loses his family in a plane crash, they were on one of the planes of September 11, 2001. When Alan nearly feels comfortable with Charlie. When Alan mentions things of his past, Charlie turns violent towards Alan or anyone who mentions his deceased family. Now Alan tries to help Charlie and tries to make his life a little easier for himself. But Alan finds out making Charlie talking about his true feelings is more difficult than expected.

Written and Directed by Mike Bender (Blankman, Indian Summer, The Upside of Anger) made an wonderfully touching human drama that moments of sadness, truth and comedy as well. Sandler offers an impressive dramatic performance, which Sandler offers more in his dramatic role than he did on Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love. Cheadle is excellent as usual. Pinkett Smith is fine as Alan's supportive wife, Liv Tyler is also good as the young psychiatrist and Saffron Burrows is quite good as the beautiful odd lonely woman, who has a wild crush on Alan. This film was sadly an box office disappointment, despite it had some great reviews. The cast are first-rate here, the writing & director is wonderful and Russ T. Alsobrook's terrific Widescreen Cinematography. The movie has great NYC locations, which the film makes New York a beautiful city to look at in the picture.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD also an jam session with Sandler & Cheadle, an featurette, photo montage and previews. I was expecting more for the DVD features like an audio commentary track by the director and deleted scenes. "Reign Over Me" is certainly one of the best films that came out this year. I am sure, this movie looked great in the big screen. Which sadly, i haven't had a chance to see it in a theater. But it is also the kind of movie that plays well on DVD. The film has an good soundtrack as well and it has plenty of familiar faces in supporting roles and bit-parts. Even the director has a bit-part as Byran Sugarman, who's an actor himself. "Reign Over Me" is one of the most underrated pictures of this year. It is also the best Sandler film in my taste since "The Wedding Singer". Don't miss it. HD Widescreen. (**** 1/2 out of *****). I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.

First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.

However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.

Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.

In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.

You catch my thrift? I saw this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and there was not a dry eye in the house. It is incredible to see not only what a great person Darius is, but how admirable the rest of the team is too and at such a young age.

It also made me think how disgusting MTV was, and how on being given an opportunity to involve and inspire in a positive way, they declined. Shows you whether they really care about the youth and their viewers at all.

It's a wonderful and heart warming true story...take your tissues but it's great to see how caring and inspiring youth of today can be. I tracked the trip two years ago on the internet - now I've seen the film!! What a ride! And what a trip to finally get to know Darius Weems! Such a courageous, wise, funny and talented spirit! And what a Crew! To listen to Darius laughing from being in the water at Panama City, to see his trepidation of being too close to alligators in Louisiana, the wonder in his eyes as he rode in a hot air balloon, the excitement of rafting through some rapids, the bet to eat a spoonful of wasabi, and the phone calls home, and as always - boys will be boys. This film needs to be seen by everyone - young and old alike. Darius and his mother are models of strength and courage. And the Crew members are testaments to the heart of the younger generation. They got Darius a new wheelchair; they documented accessibility problems; they took Darius on the trip of his life; and they touched many, many lives. By raising awareness of DMD and encouraging funding for research, this film will help accomplish the final goal of Darius Goes West - a cure for DMD. This is a must-see documentary movie for anyone who fears that modern youth has lost its taste for real-life adventure and its sense of morality. Darius Goes West is an amazing roller-coaster of a story. We live the lives of Darius and the crew as they embark on the journey of a lifetime. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a disease which affects all the muscles in his body. He is confined to a wheelchair, and needs round-the-clock attention. So how could this crew of young friends possibly manage to take him on a 6,000 mile round-trip to the West Coast and back? Watch the movie and experience the ups and downs of this great adventure - laugh and cry with the crew as they cope with unimaginable challenges along the way, and enjoy the final triumph when they arrive back three weeks later in their home town to a rapturous reception and some great surprises! This movie documents a transformative experience for a group of young men, and the experience of watching it is in itself transformative for the viewer. Few movies even aspire to this level of transcendence, and I can think of no other movie -- documentary or drama -- that achieves it. There is no other movie in which I have both laughed so much and cried so much. Yes, it is about DMD and accessible travel; on those issues alone, it is a worthwhile venture, but it is more. It is about friendship. It is about life itself, about living every day that you're alive. And it's a great, fun, adventurous narrative. This is why God created the cinema! See this movie!!! In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. "You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined," he is told. "Paris is Burning" is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.

The miracle of "Paris is Burning" is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;

This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise "Paris is Burning" isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.

I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. "Paris is Burning" is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen. While many unfortunately passed on, the ballroom scene is still very much alive and carrying on their legacy. Some are still very much alive and quite well, Octavia is more radiant and beautiful than ever, Willi Ninja is very accomplished and gives a great deal of support to the gay community as a whole, Pepper Labeija just passed on last year of natural cause, may she rest in peace. After Anji's passing Carmen became the mother of the house of Xtravaganza (she was in the beach scene) and she is looking more and more lovely as well. Some balls have categories dedicated to those who have passed, may they all rest in peace. There is currently another project underway known as "How Do I Look?", you can check out the website at www.howdoilooknyc.org. First of all I am a butch, straight white male. But even with that handicap I love this movie. It's about real people. A real time and place. And of course New York City in the 80's. I had many gay friends growing up in New York in the eighties and the one thing about them i always admired was their courage to live their lives the way they wanted to live them. No matter what the consequences. That's courageous. You have to admire that. This is a great film, watch it and take in what it was like to be a flamboyant African American or Hispanic Gay man in the New York of the eighties. It's real life. Bottom line it's real life. This film came out 12 years years ago, and was a revelation even for people who knew something of the drag scene in New York. The textbooks on drag performance say nothing of these vogueing houses. Anthony Slide's 'Great Pretenders' says nothing. Julian Fleisher's "The Drag Queens of New York: An Illustrated Field Guide" with its flow chart of influence that pulls together Julian Eltinge, Minette, the Warhol queens, and the 90s club scene - and postdates the film - ignores the houses completely. Even Laurence Senelick's "The Changing Room" - the closest thing that we have to a definitive book on drag performance rushes quickly past the film and does not give the background information that one would have expected from it.

I understand from the film itself,and various articles I found on the web that this house system goes back decades. The major film performance by a house member prior to 1990 seems to be Chrystal La Beija in "The Queen", 1968. The historical context is the biggest missing part of "Paris is Burning".

The film is valuable because it focuses on a scene otherwise being ignored. It is a valuable snapshot of life in 1989. The unfortunate fact that Venus Xtravaganza was murdered during filming provides a very dramatic ending, but this is not the only film about transsexuals to include a real-life murder. As we now know, Dorian Corey had a mummified corpse in her literal closet, but this did not come out until three years later.

Of historical importance, but we still need someone to do either a book or a documentary film that provides more context. An excellent documentry. I personally remember this growing up in NYC in the early 80's. This movie is for anyone that wasn't around during that time period.This shows the one thing the African American Gay Underclass felt was solely theirs and the love and camadrie you see is real. The people are real and sadly few are still alive as this is being written. The balls are still held but not to the extent that they were in the the nineteen eighties. That time is gone forever. This is a good pre "homo thug" movie. When Queens were really proud to be extroverts. Goodbye to Storyville this is another era gone but greatly documented all hail film! Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some).

Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.

When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together.

Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown?

Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD??? Growing up in NYC in the late 80's/early 90's club-scene, I can personally say this is one of the most important documentaries made in covering that place in this time period. No Madonna did not come up with the idea of Voguing but this is where she got it from! Instead of taking out violence on each other or in bitchy cat fights, voguing allowed people to "fight" within the confines of everything short of touching each other (which would warrant an automatic disqualification). Seeing these kind of extraordinarily talented/well orchestrated "throw-downs" in the clubs was nothing short of spectacular and all the big names from back in the day are here...Pepper La Beija, Paris Duprée,Xtragavaganza, etc...all commemorated in the likes of such period-pieces as Malcom McLaren's song "Deep in Vogue"...it didn't matter who you were, or where you were from because when you walked through those doors into this "magic kingdom" of sorts, you became part of something bigger than yourself/you were important/and most importantly the creation of your own moves and imagination...and anybody from anywhere could become King (or Queen) as the case may have been. The words and wit were just as sharp as the moves on the floor. All of the tension, excitement, and magic of that very urban NYC energy is captured in this film. BRILLIANT!!! PLEASE RELEASE ON DVD for the world to see!!! Thank You! When Paris is Burning came out, I totally dismissed it. I was not into the whole Madonna and vogueing phenomenon. I thought it was going to be campy and silly. How wrong I was about this movie. I watched it after the movie had been out for ten years and I ran out and bought it. It took me back to a time and place of fun and excitement. I felt as though I knew all of the characters personally. The 80s were spectacular and the movie captured the essence of the gay culture. What a terrific job! I went on the internet and found out what some of the original casts members were doing now but I have not been able to locate all of them. If any one has any information on any of the casts members please let me know.

I hope they make another documentary. I LOVED IT Fifteen years later and Paris Is Burning is still aflame. This is a classic in black gay films, right up there with the other honorary black gay films, The Color Purple and Mahoganoy. This seminal work captures underground and underclass (i.e."underserved) black and Latin gay culture and community like no other work before or since, including all the sentimental Harlem Rennaissance gay retrospectives and renderings. They're good, but this is the best (dare I say the only "real") film you'll find on the subject. It's Relentlessy Cunty (the classic house music invention)comes to Hollywood, non-stop, hilarious camp (like only we do it) and dead-on social critique. All this by a white female director (who obviously must have been a Sister Gurl or Mizz Thing in a former life.) I could go on, but I think you get the point by now: I love this movie! The film really challenges your notions of identity and the society we live in. It is well made and very powerful. The persons in the film are honest and revealing about the world that exists outside of the normative ideological perspective. I believe it give great insight into a sub-culture who shakes the very ideas that the viewer has of society. It is shocking at times and more powerful because of it. Some parts were difficult to watch, as most reality is, but it is not over done. Its good the first time you watch it, but it becomes even better the second or third time around; because you have had the chance to wrap your mind around the very topics they discuss and challenge. Wonderfully put together..I wish there was a follow up to this documentary to follow up with the lives of some and celebrate the lives of others lost...there should be a part two..a real one. It was great..the film wasn't long enough..I would like to know why the creator of the film did not follow up!! this is so important to the community period..well if your are reading this please consider doing another documentary of this sort...I am really tired of hearing from naive writers how AIDS and Men go together when they don't; actually its the hetero's that we need to look into..this film didn't even bother to mention HIV or AIDS and I was so glad for that..I really appreciated the break downs and definitions too. Thank you s much for allowing this film to exist. Yeah this films is tops. Cant recommend it more. Gay or strait its a great doco for anyone who likes film. Very funny, sad and interesting. Never dull. Great access. A film made with passion and interest in the subject matter. Some of the performances and just amazing. If you only find this film on VHS it is still very worth watching. Great. 10 out of 10. I got to see part of this doco years about ten years ago and did not understand what I was watching. The interviews are very revealing about egos of the performers who are like heavy- weight boxers trying to punch their way out of the ghetto. The filmmaker was apparently a first timer so what an achievement. Cool. Track it down. I waited a while to post a review of this documentary because when I first saw it over 10 years ago, I wanted to think carefully about what I wanted to write.

I found from a documentary standpoint that this is a darned good documentary. It did what it set out to do, show me something I had no idea about and kept me interested in this world it explored. I knew nothing of the Drag world and finding out about them and the "Balls" was just spectacular to me. These folks were just so talented with what they do and how they do it, for competition. The catty folks, the complainers (even I was angry when someone told the judge that the coat the Drag Queen was wearing wasn't a man's coat!), the jealous, it's all there like in every other competition. LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPETITION like it. Which I felt was a point.

You had the older drag queen talking about how the Balls "used" to be compared to the newer drag queens who have changed the Balls and made more competition categories -- and even those who looked on knowing that the future of Balls would change even more when they were ready to walk the runway. It was interesting to hear that some of the contestants were living out on the street two minutes before the ball but came to compete, it was that important to them! Then there was sad stories, stories of who's "house" and "house mother" brought out the best and the brightest in competition. It was interesting.

Now to add after 10 years of seeing this film, I lived through the so called 'Madonna' craze. I spotted a few familiar faces from this documentary who ended up with Madonna during her "Vogue" phase and rightfully so. If not for those individuals, Madonna wouldn't have HAD a "Vogue" phase, I know that now. Credit should be given where credit is DUE. Makes me wonder, if anyone else from mainstream America would watch this documentary, they'll learn they're not as "mainstream" as they think. After growing up in the gritty streets of Detroit, MI, and having friends who traveled to New York balls, I fell into the lifestyle of being a House member. I joined the House of Theieves. We adapted the same rules as most houses, but we were professional crooks that would boost and commit credit card fraud to obtain the fabulous jewels and clothes we desired. I even learned how to profess the making of checks and driver's license and cash them in over seventeen states, until a jealous queen called the Secret Service on me and I went to Federal prison. But, I learned a lot from these queens in this movie and I highly recommend you watch it yourself. You can even read about how I grew up in the houses here in Detroit and the criminal activity we indulged in. My book, Identity Schemes is available on sale at Amazon dot com or at Identity Schemes dot com. But trust me, It is a lot better than Paris is Burning, because its a 2005 make. This movie documents the Harlem ball circuit of the mid eighties. Much more fun than than Palazzo Volpi, though just as diseased, this movie is a true gem of squalor. One cannot help but sympathize with the characters because of their freakness . The sole purpose of middle class intellectuals is to document the phenomenons of the trash and the glitz. Here the most genius of trash is extremely well documented and duly glamorized. The characters' penchant for idolatry of all that is glamorous inspires even more adoration of the characters themselves on part of the viewer, creating a "phenomenon of a phenomenon" effect which makes this movie a piece of art. I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.

The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.

It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label. Most reviews say that this is the weakest point in Hamilton's short movie career. This movie is a bit different from the rest, and considering it the best or the worst depends on what you expect from a movie, and what you expect from Hamilton.

Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.

Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for. As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love. Finally we have before us a Category III movie for the summer 2006 season. Made of equal parts cruelty, crime and passion, Dog Bite Dog benefits not merely from an apt title, but also flexible direction, superb cinematography and respectable performances from most involved. Of course there has to be a catch, manifested here in the form of several glaring inconsistencies, yet all told DBD represents the mature spirit we'd love to see more of in the HK mainstream.

It also marks the heralded return of Edison Chen, long absent since the Initial D debacle of a year ago. Chen's reserved machismo does wonders for the movie, yet would have had it rough without opposite Sam Lee, whose knack for alternating between physical comedy (Crazy 'N' the City, No Problem 2) and lunatic menace has culminated in the strongest role we've seen from him since Made in Hong Kong.

Together, the duo makes Dog Bite Dog, and hopefully Edison's going to get an easier break from now on as a consequence: his touch transformed projects from Princess D to the Infernal Affairs saga, and still he remains a rare occurrence.

Mostly upon commencing, DBD showcases some mesmerizing imagery, playing gorgeous tricks with light, shadow and perspective. The soundtrack boosts this atmospheric effect, adding to the overall unreal mood the film purveys. Much of the resultant combination probably has to do with writer Matt Chow, previously engaged in likewise gruesome Three Extremes. Dog Bite Dog retains numerous traits recalled from that horror project, namely rundown urbanscapes and a pervasive air of something eerie lurking round the corner.

Rest assured, though, this isn't a horror movie, instead following a path trodden before by classic One Nite in Mongkok, albeit from a miles more perverse angle. Replacing Daniel Wu's reluctant mainland assassin character we have Edison, playing a nameless killing machine hailing from Cambodia's underworld. Sent Hong Kong-way to execute a single target, the nearly silent assassin takes care of business immediately upon arrival, a process chillingly depicted courtesy of the film's brilliant visuals.

Although weaned from childhood to become a professional killer, Edison's eponymous wild dog still has human weaknesses and leaves a trail, picked up on by a CID team sent to investigate. This assembly features a nice cameo by mob-movie stalwart Lam Suet, and good support from TV star Wayne Lai. However, Sam Lee's renegade officer Wai leads the charge, revealing himself to be a highly disturbed individual but excellent cop nonetheless. We gradually learn Wai's inner-conflict stems from his father's police corruption background, evoking demons handy in the relentless pursuit that ensues.

A minor body count transpires, as Edison seems to consider taking prisoners a no-no. There's quite the violence quotient in store, even though gore per se feels toned down in places, and adult language only makes a token appearance. Once more, no nudity, leading one to conclude Cat III's are being handed these days a bit hastily. Still, DBD's a relatively mature theatrical release, and we applaud its arrival.

In between the fighting, stabbing , hacking and shooting, even a career murderer needs some romance, and just like Daniel Wu had Cecilia Cheung in One Nite, so does intrepid Mr. Chen get a sweetheart, done beautifully by new comer Pei Pei. Her unnamed character (lots of anonymity in this one) meets Edison's at a strangely deserted landfill, abused by her father to the point of repulsive madness and yearning for escape. When the killer ditches HK, he agrees to take her with him, and they go on the run together, love blooming en route. While the movie doesn't linger on lovey-dovey stuff, our hearts go out to Pei Pei's tragic character and her endless suffering. She renders the timid but valiant protagonist amazingly well, establishing that there aren't any good or bad guys here, evinced by the highly sobering finale.

Director Cheang Soi's portfolio includes recent suspense thriller Home Sweet Home and Love Battlefield with Eason Chan, two numbers likely surpassed in most accounts by Dog Bite Dog's sinister demeanor. Cheang manages to keep DBD flowing throughout, and considering the many parts in play here, stands up to critical standards erected by people like Johnny To in his watershed nocturnal epic The Mission. A couple of glitches do come about, to wit Edison miraculously shrugging off a shot to the chest, but these are highly forgivable.

Marking triumphant returns for two young, talented performers of the kind Hong Kong needs if we want the city's movie heyday to come back, Dog Bite Dog doesn't stand out for story. Its forte lies in strong portrayals and style, buoyed along on the strength of thespian muscle and a keen eye for visual and auditory finesse.

HK has a long, time-honored tradition of stories to do with the city's nighttime alter-ego, something Dog Bite Dog upholds lovingly, amounting to a solid run if not an outright masterpiece.

Rating: * * * * One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, "Dog bite Dog" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism. It's remarkable and quite praiseworthy how writers and directors continue to make great movies out of one of the oldest and most (over)used story lines in cinema! "Dog Bite Dog" is basically not much more than just the simple story of an lone copper obsessively chasing a brilliant criminal, only Pou-Soi Cheang distinguishes his film from the rest by being extremely violent & relentless. This is unquestionably one of the grittiest and most uncompromising movies I've ever seen, with an atmosphere of constant nihilism and characters that seem to come walking straight out of hell! Not even the installments in Chan-Wook Park's trilogy of vengeance (with the exception of "Oldboy", perhaps) or any other infamous Cat-III film ever released were as sadistic and brutal as some of the events depicted in "Dog Bite Dog". Pang is a young and ruthless Cambodian assassin who lands in the crowded streets of Hong Kong to eliminate the wife of an eminent judge in a restaurant. When the police arrives at the place, young officer Wai sees how Pang hastily flees from the scene of the crime and follow him. The first actual confrontation between the two rabid dogs results in a gigantic blood bath, as Pang mercilessly kills several hostages and even Wai's long time friend and colleague. From then on begins a thrilling and action-packed cat and mouse game between the frustrated cop and the professional killer. The latter also saves a young girl from the constant sexual abuse of her father and stays with her at her shed in the local garbage dump. What makes this routine action/thriller so fascinating (apart from the explicit violence) are the main characters' backgrounds! Pang, the hit-man, is a Cambodian orphan and has been trained to fight & kill for money ever since he was a child. He knows no restrictions, has no mercy and barely speaks a word. Wai, the cop, became particularly ruthless and unorthodox ever since his role-model father (also a cop) lies in a coma after a drug-related incident. Lai doesn't question suspects and witnesses; he yells at them and he's prepared to sacrifice everything in order to stop his brand new nemesis. People with a weak stomach or tangled nerves are advised to stay away from this film, because the cruelty and shocks featuring in "Dog Bite Dog" can easily cause nausea. It's not the type of violence where bloodied heads and chopped off limbs fly through the air, but more like the intense and utterly disturbing type where people attempt to crush their opponents mentally as well as physically. The filming locations are effectively dark and eerie and the extremely sober music makes the already harrowing tone of the movie even more petrifying. The performances are terrific! I wouldn't be surprised if Edison Chen and Sam Lee treated each other like enemies on the film set as well, because their on screen hatred and disgust feels a little too legitimate. "Dog Bite Dog" is a powerful and unforgettable film, highly recommended if you can stomach it. If you fear you can't, just wait a few years for the inevitable American remake which will unquestionably soften the premise a little. This has to be one of the best movies to come out of HK in a long time, i was eagerly waiting to get my hands on this movie just looking at the title. Loads of fantastic actors in this show and i was particularly impressed with Sam Lee's impossibly believable insane behavior and Edison's portrayal of a killer machine, which totally reversed his normal idol image. i would definitely recommend to those looking for a stylish and action packed movie. However, i must warn you, this is also an equally depressing movie, as every character in the movie is in some kind of dead end and trouble of their own, and struggling to breathe. Makes you think about what is life about really. WOW. If you think that a film can't fatigue in some way, then you haven't seen Dog Bite Dog. This film pulls no punches, and it doesn't shy away from showing very disturbing images at all. Much like Salo, this one shows us the dehumanization of the human spirit. It is gritty, dark, depressing and hopeless, but it is also one of the best films to ever come out of Hong Kong.

The script is much more of the same, but don't go on thinking it is incredibly clichéd. It basically is about a troubling and obsessive detective in a cat and mouse game, against a professional and emotionless hit-man. While the script offers nothing new on the surface, it does provide a lot of questions about the dark side of humanity. Is violence really that necessary? Do we become more or less human when we abuse a 5 year old child, without pity, without remorse? In turn, we humans act no less than rabid dogs when we are blinded by anger, this is a sad truth. It is a topic that the director brilliantly explores, without limiting himself at all. Besides the cat and mouse chase, the script also develops two separate story lines for the main characters. One is about love, and the other is about redemption. Even if the script isn't that new, it is still wonderfully written and it keeps you glued to the seat at all times.

The acting is really, really good. Edison Chen as the Hit-man is incredible; he proves that he isn't just any pretty face. He is ruthless, vile and beyond likable. Sam Lee as the obsessed cop is also outstanding. The supporting cast, in short, is excellent. The music is also worth mentioning. Very somber score by Ben Cheung, with some effective light hearted songs played at key dark moments in the film. The cinematography by Yuen Man is also really good.

Overall, this CATIII film is highly recommended. Very well paced, incredibly acted, marvelously scored and just really good at the end of it all. However, as many have pointed out, this is not a movie for everyone. If you dislike strong violence then you should stay away from this one. If you don't like seeing heavy negativity in film then this isn't for you too. In the end, a powerhouse film, 8/10. Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact. I gotta be straight-up - I haven't seen a film as solid as DOG BITE DOG in quite a while. I'm a big fan of the "old-school" late 80s to mid 90s era CATIII films, and I had been hearing that that "style" of films is making a bit of a come-back with films such as this, and Herman Yau's GONG TAU (which as of this writing I have not yet seen...), so I was very interested to give some of these newer-wave CATIII films a shot. Did this film live up to my expectations? Absolutely - but not quite in the fashion that I imagined.

The story follows a young, animalistic, resourceful and virtually unstoppable Thai hit-man with a somewhat vague history who comes to Hong Kong to complete a "mission". Due to some bad-luck, he is quickly identified by a roguish copy (who exudes many of the same qualities as our hit-man), and is quickly apprehended and captured. This state of affairs doesn't last long though, as the un-named assassin escapes from his captors and quickly shows the local police that he is not to be taken lightly. The hunt is on, and a cat-and-mouse game between the police and the "mad dog" (as the police refer to him) ensues. Along the way, Mad Dog is inadvertently befriended by a slow-witted young woman, and a bond forms between the two when she helps him out of a sticky situation. The ante keeps getting upped as Mad Dog's only objective is to get out of Hong Kong and back to Thailand by any means necessary, and the cops keep trying to reel him in alive...

I could probably write ten paragraphs about this complex and thoroughly layered film, but I don't want to give too much away. I watched DOG BITE DOG knowing nothing about the premise, and I think it's the type of film that is definitely better appreciated that way. As to comparisons to the older-style CATIII films...there are some similarities. DOG BITE DOG has some hyper-violent moments reminiscent of the "good ol' days", but is never quite as sleazy or grimy as old-school classicks like THE UNTOLD STORY or RED TO KILL. Where many of the older CATIII films' main intention was to "shock" - DOG BITE DOG is a far more thought-out and well-rounded production (though that's not to take ANYTHING away from those CATIII films that I hold so dear...). This film is far more "emotional" than it is exploitative, and as we learn more about the characters and their backgrounds, the audience begins to bond and identify with both sides. There really are no clear-cut "good" and "bad" guys, as Mad Dog shows moments of extreme compassion, and the cops stoop to extremely unorthodox methods to try to flesh out the killer. There's also no nudity/sex in this film, which is a typical characteristic of the older CATIII films. Personally, I would compare DOG BITE DOG more to Park's SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE or perhaps the Pang brother's BANGKOK DANGEROUS, as both of those films mixed extremely emotional overtones with strong and unflinching action and violence. Again - there's pretty much nothing that I didn't like about this film. The acting is dead-on, the cinematography is sharp and well done, and the whole film skillfully blends several different elements successfully in a way that isn't seen very often. Is this film (and others like it...) the "rebirth" of the CATIII film - not exactly - but it IS a very solid film that's absolutely worth checking out...9/10 Despite being quite far removed from my expectations, I was thoroughly impressed by Dog Bite Dog. I rented it not knowing much about it, but I essentially expected it to be a martial arts/action film in the standard Hong Kong action tradition, of which I am a devoted fan. I ended up getting something entirely different, which is not at all a bad thing. While the film could be classified as such, and there is definitely some good action and hand to hand combat scenes in the film, it is definitely not the primary focus. Its characters are infinitely more important to the film than its fights, a rather uncommon thing in many Hong Kong action movies.

I was really quite surprised by the intricacy of the characters and character relationships in the film. The lead character, played by Edison Chen (who is really very good), becomes infinitely more complex by the end of the film than I ever thought he would be after watching the first thirty minutes. The police characters also defied my expectations thoroughly. In fact, the stark and honest portrayal of the seldom seen dark side of the police force was quite possible my favorite aspect of the film. I don't know that I would say Dog Bite Dog entirely subverts typical notions of bad criminal, good cop, but it certainly distorts them in ways not often seen in film (unfortunately). So many films, especially Hong Kong action films I find, portray police in what is frankly a VERY ignorantly idealized light. This is one of my least favorite things about the genre. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Dog Bite Dog actually had some very unique, and really quite courageous, ideas to present about the police force. There are negotiation scenes in this film that I have never seen the likes of before, and doubt I will ever see again, and am sure I will remember for quite a while. Also, the criminal characters are shown from an interesting perspective as well, there is some documentary footage in the film of Cambodian boys no older than ten being made to fight each other to the death with their bare hands, which I thought was one of the film's most powerful and moving moments. It says a lot about the reason these guys are the way they are, rather than simply condemning them. Also, the relationship between Chen's character and the girl he meets in the junk yard reveals a lot about his character. It wasn't until this element entered the film that I really started to see the film as an emotional experience rather than only a visceral one. There is something about most on screen relationships that doesn't quite get through to me, but for some reason this one really did. The actress does an incredible job with this role which I imagine was not easy to play.

Dog Bite Dog also features some really breathtaking cinematography, all though it is unfortunately rather uneven. There were some moments that I found really striking, particularly in the last segment of the film, but there was also a good deal of camera work that was just OK. Another slight problem I had was with the pacing, which I also felt was uneven. I found a lot of the "looking for a boat" scenes to be a little alienating, all though it quickly picks up after that. The action scenes are short and not too plentiful, but are truly powerful and effecting, particularly towards the end. The fight choreography is honestly not all that impressive for the most part, all though to its credit it is solid and fairly realistic, but the true strength is the emotional content behind the fights. The final scene, while not a marvel of martial artistry or fight choreography, is one of the most powerful final fights I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few martial arts films.

I suppose the biggest determining factor of whether or not one will get much out of Dog Bite Dog is whether or not you can connect with the characters. All of them are certainly some of the more flawed characters one is likely to see in a film of any kind, but there was something very human about all of them that I couldn't help but be drawn to and really feel for them, particularly Chen's girlfriend. I should say that I doubt most people will like the film as much as I did simply because I imagine that most people will not like or care about the characters in the same way, but I still recommend it highly all the same. It is truly a deeply moving and effecting film if you give it a chance. As I understand it, after the Chinese took over Hong Kong, the infamous Cat. 3 Hong Kong movies kind of disappeared. At least until now, and what an amazing movie this one is. I knew it was a rough crime drama going in, but being the first Cat. 3 I've purchased that's been made recently, I wasn't sure what to expect.

A Cambodian hit-man goes to Hong Kong to knock off the wife of a judge, who is also a lawyer. Turns out, the Judge made the arrangements for the hit-man, because she was divorcing the judge, and threatening to take all his money. This is all known within the first ten minutes, so nothing is being given away. After the hit, the cops locate the hit-man pretty fast, but in trying to arrest him, several police officers and civilians are killed. He eludes the police and now the race is on to catch the guy, before he escapes back to Cambodia. This is a movie that never stops, and hardly gives the viewer a chance to catch their breath. Yes, it is very violent and intense, many cops are killed, as the hit-man proves very very hard to track, and take down when they do locate him. Along the way, the hit-man in trying to hide in a dump, finds a women being raped and mistreated by some man. He helps her, and saves her from the guy, and she persuades the hit-man to take her along with him in his escape. I loved this movie, it's like a roller-coaster that just keeps moving and moving at high speed, as one incident leads to another, and the police at times are just as bad or worse as the hit-man. The acting is exceptionally good, and the location filming and photography is at time breathtaking. There's no let up in this movie, not even with the very very incredible ending. The ending is pretty much unbelievable, and also a fitting end to all the action and violence. Yes, the violence is brutal at times, but this is a very no nonsense crime drama, that will knock your socks off. "Dog Eat Dog" definitely needs a more widespread release, including an R1 release for sure. Great movie, highly recommended. Some comments here on IMDb have likened Dog Bite Dog to the classic Cat III films of the 90s, but although it is undoubtedly brutal, violent and very downbeat, this film from Pou-Soi Cheang isn't really sleazy, lurid or sensationalist enough to earn that comparison. However, it still packs a punch that makes it worth a watch, particularly if gritty, hard-edged action is your thing.

Edison Chen plays Pang, a Cambodian hit-man who travels to Hong Kong to assassinate the wife of a judge; Sam Lee is Wai, the ruthless cop who is determined to track him down, whatever the cost. With Wai closing in on his target, Pang will stop at nothing to ensure his escape—until he meets Yue, a pretty illegal immigrant who needs his help to escape her life of abuse.

A relentlessly harsh drama with great cinematography, amazing sound design, a haunting score, and solid performances from Chen and Lee (as well as newcomer Pei Pei as Pang's love interest), Dog Bite Dog is one for fans of hard-hitting Asian hyper-violence (think along the lines of Chan-wook Park's Vengeance trilogy). Stabbings, shootings, merciless beatings: all happen regularly in this film and are caught unflinchingly by director Cheang.

Of course, this is the kind of tale that is destined to have an unhappy ending for all involved, and sure enough, pretty much everyone in this film dies (rather nasty deaths). Unfortunately, there is a fine line between tragedy and (unintentional) comedy, and in its final moments, Dog Bite Dog crosses it: in a laughably over-dramatic final scene, Pang and Wai are locked in battle as a pregnant Yue looks on. Eventually, after all three have suffered severe stab wounds during the fracas, a wounded Pang performs a DIY Ceasarean on (a now dead) Yue, delivering their baby moments before he himself dies.

Whilst this film might not be a 'classic' slice of Hong Kong excess, with its deliriously OTT action and stylish visuals, it's still worth seeking out. I watched the DVD of this movie which also comes with an excellent commentary track (in English). It seems in Cambodia (the subtitles in English say the character is speaking Thai but the movie says Cambodia)a very violent evil man is raising boys to be killers using starvation and training them to fight and kill. He sends Pang to kill some people in China and during the killings a cop's partner is killed. The cop Wai is a loose cannon who is worried about his father who is also a cop who was shot and is in a coma. Wai's chief is his dad's friend and is worried about Wai's erratic behavior. He doesn't know Wai was the one who caught his dad in dealing with drug dealers and shot him and put him into the coma. Pang escapes and hides in a squalid landfill shack where he meets a woman who came here to find her mother and keeps repeating her father won't let her leave (Pang doesn't speak Chinese and doesn't understand this but saves her from her father who appears to be having sex with her maybe this is the reason for Cat III). Wai becomes more and more obsessed with getting Pang but Pang is almost unstoppable. Even after Pang steals a boat and takes the woman to his home where they are married and she becomes pregnant Wai follows and joins the evil man (who's training the boys)making a deal to fight and train so he can get Pang. There is a big showdown between Wai and Pang with the terribly abused woman the major victim and leaving Wai dead and Pang cutting out his child from the dead mother only to die and leave him as the possible next boy to be raised as a killer. This film is beautifully photographed with an excellent soundtrack. There are many very brutal violent scenes. The woman having a long nail pulled out of her foot. Knives to the neck and torso. Guns fired directly to the head. And several very intense beatings. It maybe grim intense and downbeat but it is definitely worth seeing. Ultra-grim crime drama from Pou-Soi Cheang, the director of "Home Sweet Home". Tonally, it reminded me of Billy Tang's "Run and Kill", although it's not as polished as that. Nevertheless, it's an engaging, flawed bit of mayhem about a Cambodian loner, Pang (Edison Chen), who arrives in Hong Kong to kill a lawyer. While fleeing the scene, he kills the partner of cop Sam Wai, who, to add insult to injury, is in the midst of dealing with his dying father, so Sam begins an insane, obsessive manhunt for Pang that results in close to a dozen dead bodies and relentless violence. There must be something in the air lately because I've never seen so many humans beating the pulp out of each other as I have lately. This is grim, nasty stuff, which is why I'm so partial to it, and I applaud its downbeat vibe. It's visually arresting and the sound design is very unique. Dramatically, everything spirals downwards until every character finds him- or herself in a world of screaming pain. A subplot involving Pang's attachment to a sexually abused girl adds depth to the story and spawns a surprise fourth act which boasts a fine act of grotesque surgery. Dog Bite Dog isn't going to be for everyone, but I really enjoyed it. Full of slapping, stabbing and shooting (but don't worry – the lead's a terrible shot), it can best be described as a violent romp through Hong Kong and Cambodia. Edison Cheng plays Pang, a Cambodian assassin in town to kill a barrister. Despite being filthy from his journey, he's almost immediately seated at a huge table in the middle of an obviously expensive restaurant. If this sounds wildly implausible to you, you should probably avoid this film. It acted as my cue to suspend disbelief, and I had a lot more fun for it.

Chasing Pang down is Wai (Sam Lee), a young, edgy cop who likes to smack people around almost as much as he likes to smoke. Wai walks a fine line that has Internal Affairs investigating him, and his father, a legendary Good Cop, is in a coma following a drug deal that went south (the implication is that Wai is letting his father take the rap for his own corrupt dealings).

There are a car crashes, lots of killings, and a strange and awkward love story on offer here, all played out in almost comic-book style. I suspect the humour was deliberate (nobody uses gargantuan concrete bludgeons without an eye for the extravagantly absurd), though the over-the-top nature lost a number of my fellow audience members. There are at least three points where the film might have ended, and at 109 mins it may have benefited from more ruthless editing, or the deletion of one of the narrative threads (the light-hearted stuff worked well, so I would have left out the interactions with the three fathers).

I'm inclined to give it a (high) pass, however, if only because of the ending – I've rarely heard so many people laugh so loudly at what should have been a poignant moment. This is one to see with a group of friends who love the ridiculous This has got to be the best movie I've ever seen.

Combine breathtaking cinematography with stunning acting and a gripping plot, and you have a masterpiece.

Dog Bite Dog had me gripping the edge of my seat during some scenes, recoiling in horror during others, and left me drowning in my own tears after the tragic ending.

The film left a deep impression on me. It's shockingly violent scenes contrasted sharply with the poignant and tender 'love' scenes. The film is undeserving of it's Cat III (nudity) rating; there are no nude scenes whatsoever, and the 'love' scenes do not even involve kissing or 'making out'.

The message which this film presented to me? All human beings, no matter how violent or cruel they may seem, have a tender side. Edison Chen does a superb job playing the part of the murderous Pang.

I rate this film 10/10. It's a must-watch. First of all that I would like to say is that Edison Chen is extremely hot and that Sam Lee is looking much better than before XD! This is probably one of the most original movies I have seen so far; shows a poverty lifestyle background of a Cambodian. The Cambodian(Edison aka Pang) goes around killing people to survive himself; has done it throughout his entire life. Sam Lee's(Wai) duty is to capture the Cambodian for good. There are tons of violent actions but has a good story to it. The movie shows the struggles between those two characters; they both beat each other like angry dogs. GO AND WATCH PPL...STRONGLY SUGGESSTED!!! (GO HK FILMS) First things first, Edison Chen did a fantastic, believable job as a Cambodian hit-man, born and bred in the dumps and a gladiatorial ring, where he honed his craft of savage battery in order to survive, living on the mantra of kill or be killed. In a role that had little dialogue, or at least a few lines in Cambodian/Thai, his performance is compelling, probably what should have been in the Jet Li vehicle Danny the Dog, where a man is bred for the sole purpose of fighting, and on someone else's leash.

Like Danny the Dog, the much talked about bare knuckle fight sequences are not choreographed stylistically, but rather designed as normal, brutal fisticuffs, where everything goes. This probably brought a sense of realism and grit when you see the characters slug it out at each other's throats, in defending their own lives while taking it away from others. It's a grim, gritty and dark movie both literally and figuratively, and this sets it apart from the usual run off the mill cop thriller production.

Edison plays a hired gun from Cambodia, who becomes a fugitive in Hong Kong, on the run from the cops as his pickup had gone awry. Leading the chase is the team led by Cheung Siu-Fai, who has to contend with maverick member Inspector Ti (Sam Lee), who's inclusion and acceptance in the team had to do with the sins of his father. So begins a cat and mouse game in the dark shades and shadows of the seedier looking side of Hong Kong.

The story itself works on multiple levels, especially in the character studies of the hit-man, and the cop. On opposite sides of the law, we see within each character not the black and white, but the shades of grey. With the hit-man, we see his caring side when he got hooked up and developed feelings of love for a girl (Pei Pei), bringing about a sense of maturity, tenderness, and revealing a heart of gold. The cop, with questionable tactics and attitudes, makes you wonder how one would buckle when willing to do anything it takes to get the job done. There are many interesting moments of moral questioning, on how anti-hero, despicable strategies are adopted. You'll ask, what makes a man, and what makes a beast, and if we have the tendency to switch sides depending on circumstances - do we have that dark inner streak in all of us, transforming from man to dog, and dog to man? Dog Bite Dog grips you from the start and never lets go until the end, though there are points mid way through that seemed to drag, especially on its tender moments, and it suffered too from not knowing when to end. If I should pick a favourite scene, then it must be the one in the market food centre - extremely well controlled and delivered, a suspenseful edge of your seat moment. Listen out for the musical score too, and you're not dreaming if you hear growls of dogs.

Highly recommended, especially if you think that you've seen about almost everything from the cop thriller genre. ''Ranma ½" is my favorite anime by Rumiko Takahashi. The woman really knows how to entertain us with a good story, that is not only a comedy, but also an action anime. The main character of the story is Ranma Saotome, a teenager boy who is also an expert in martial arts. Ranma is engaged to Akane because of an arrangement of both fathers, who are great friends and trained together during many years.

Akane is the younger and most violent sister of the Tendo's: Kasumi is the oldest and is very sweet and Nabiki is the middle and loves to win money no matter what.

Ranma and Akane fight all the time,specially because both have a very bad temper, and when they discover that Ranma becomes a girl when splashed with cold water as well as his father becomes a panda,many new characters and situations starts to happen. They also discover the reason of the transformation: while fighting, Ranma and his father fell in a cursed river. But not only them had this kind of fate...

If you watched ''Ranma 1/2'' and liked, I would recommend you ''Inuyasha'' and ''Maison Ikkoku", two other good creations from Rumiko's hands. admittedly, I first picked up Ranma 1/2 when I was around twelve. I was in the library and searched desperately for something good to read. Then, I went to the Comic/Manga section and spotted this book. At my first few reads through the chapters I didn't really know what was going on, but I knew that I LOVED it. I even took it home for a few more reads over. Frankly, I wasn't getting anywhere. And then, about five months (I'm 16 now) ago my friend was watching some anime series and I remembered about this Manga. I couldn't remember what it was called, but recalled that the author was Rumiko Takahashi, creator of Inu Yasha. I Googled it, and then made a rash decision to watch all 161 episodes. At first I was a little thrown off by the 1990 graphics, but it didn't really matter in the end. No anime has ever made me laugh so hard and rewind, watch again. I once watched 45 consecutive episodes within a day. I don't know how I did it... but I couldn't stop. Eventually, after about two days, I grew obsessed. I even dreamt--as crazy as this sounds--about watching Ranma. Never have I found a series so enjoyable, so funny, and so heartwarming to watch. To this day 161 episodes are not enough to keep me satisfied. Of course the cliffhanger ending was enough to make me go bonkers, but the series alone was enough to make me continue reading.

Ranma 1/2 is about a boy named Ranma Saotome and his dad Genma Saotome. INTENSE martial artists. They are so intense, that they went to the ancient training grounds in China and became 'cursed'. The grounds were full of different pools of springs, and if you land in one, you take the shape of whatever drowned there when doused in cold water. For Genma, that was a PANDA, and for Ranma that was a... girl! It's a very crafty fun loving story. On top of that, Genma promises his friend that Ranma will marry one of his daughters to keep the Tendo dojo alive. 'Course the one he gets matched up with hates his guts and the feelings mutual. Obviously they start to like one another, but both way to stubborn to admit it. But.. Genma has a history of doing this. He promised Ranma to many girls.

Trust me. It's worth watching. It's humorous, heartwarming and all around amazing. Wow... I mean WOW this has got to be one of the best story's I've ever had the chance to read/watch. We all know this famous story. Two martial artist, a man and his son, go to train in the forbidden Cursed Springs and while ignoring their warnings they both fall in a spring each. The dad, Genma, the spring of drowned Panda. And 16 year old Ranma, the spring of drowned girl. Now with every splash of cold water they turn into the very being titled to the spring they landed in. Crazy enough yet? No, thats just the beginning. As if being one of the strongest teenagers to ever exist who turns into a female wasn't enough, Ranma has to deal with crazed martial arts teachers and hundreds of insane art styles, an insane high school principle, opponents right and left who have a score to settle with Ranma wither it be for messing up their life early on somehow or for "stealling" their loved ones. And speaking of loved ones, I've lost track of how many times a boy or a girl has fallen in love with Ranma. And not once has it been his fiancée, Akane. And thats just from the first few chapters/episodes of the series.

The story itself is amazing. I have never come across something so crazy, so bizarre, so... so... out of this world and yet its so down to Earth and believable... I can't even describe it to its fullest. Its just a charming story thats so easy to get into. What I like about it is the humor. Not once have I laughed out loud this much from a manga, and it doesn't have to try any of the stunts you would catch in Simpson's or something of the sort. I could read any part of the comic and I would be laughing from beginning to end. Another thing is the characters. Ranma, you would think making him too strong would be a set back but nooo... with every little problem the story throws at him he's doing his best just to survive half the time and his personality is that of a foolish young boy it would seem but when worst comes to worst he can be a calculating genius. And to think, of the hundreds of perverts in the show, Ranma who hates the idea of perverts all together is considered by everyone in his town, more so by Akane, the worst pervert to ever live. His father Genma, you would think the father character would blend in to the background right? Correct! But whenever he does have some spotlight... he just gives you more reasons to hate him yet at the same love him! You think you know the worst dad ever from an anime? You haven't met Genma. Ryoga, probably one of Ranma's greatest rivals and my favorite character (next to Ranma)... and probably one of the only people he can actually stand. Most likely the strongest character in the series but has two faults, one is his curse that turns him into a baby pig but his worst fault... is his lack of sense in direction! Then we have... you know, I could spend hours at the computer explaining all the characters, the story's, everything positive about it but that would be just pointless.

Check out the series if you haven't, NOW! You WILL NOT regret it! Though I would advise checking the comic out first. I like the anime, but I've had some trouble getting the series at a good price. And a small nitpick, the humor doesn't seem to translate to the anime as well as the manga. I think partly because the comic seems more cartoonish to me. But either way, its a win win! 10 out of 10! So i consider myself pretty big into the anime scene, with very few shows i simply WILL NOT WATCH.

this show, however, i would recommend to anyone.

Quite possibly the most Original series to date, it;s got just about everything i could ask for. A side story, so to speak, about an unconditional love that will NOT be admitted to, a very blatant comedy, and a very well put together voice acting cast (both Japanese and American translation).

If not for the terribly funny aspect to it, it would be, just another anime.

More or less, as i have noticed, a 'love it or hate it', very few people i have seen introduced to this series will end up with a distaste for it.

Original to the core, with everything you could ask for in an afternoon, bet the house on this series. I'm ready to ASSURE you that you will enjoy it. I love this anime! I was laughing my head off with all of the jokes and the violence (mostly from Akane Ranma's reluctant but short tempered "fiancee")is so slapstick however Ranma does deserve it but he does try his best to make amends...clumsily. The main character Ranma goes to China to train only to fall into the cursed Jusenkkyo Spring and turns into a girl when splashed by cold water. From then on it's pure chaos one after another. Among the stand outs are the deranged brother and sister duo of Kuno and Kodachi, the sexy Shampoo, the pervert Happosai all causing trouble for our hero/heroine. However it is Ranma's selfish father Genma who winds up being the culprit for the mess most of the time. If anyone want an anime that's funny, this is the one. It's cuter and better with the Japanese dub. When our local TV station first launched, it filled a lot of its schedule with old British programming. "Lock Up Your Daughters!" was duly aired, and I -- swayed by the opening few seconds of the film -- popped in a blank tape. Best thing I ever did.

The actors are beautifully suited to their characters and bring them to delightful life, complete with appropriate accents (Christopher Plummer's Foppington will leave you in stitches, as will Hoyden and her family). Double entendres abound, plot-line wheels within wheels mix and match the characters, hilarious sight gags lurk in every scene, and risqué comments are made on a regular basis.

I showed the film to friends a few years ago and they called the piece "a lost treasure," as much for the cast as for the story. To this day I can crack up just thinking about the dialog. Should this gem ever find its way to a DVD release, I'll be at the front of the line. I saw this film 12 years ago on TNT. It was Susanah York's Birthday and they were showing this film as a double feature with Tom Jones (1963). I have not seen this film on TV since. I took interest in seeing this film because one of the stars is the very funny and talented Jim Dale, as Lusty the sailor. I believe that Dale now does the narration of the Harry Potter books on Casette, but anyway he is quite funny. This is a fast paced comedy. It is not on VHS or DVD. Columbia Pictures should go through their film collection, and consider restoring and releasing this film to DVD. Christopher Plummer is hilarious as Lord Fopington, Ian Bannen is also quite humorous as Ramble the sailor. This is a bawdy comedy, the kind of film one no longer sees, with great production values. ***1/2 stars out of **** Lock Up Your Daughters is one of the best high-spirited comedies I have ever seen.

It is misunderstood since it lacks the "social commentary" values that many films of the day (1969) required to be successful.

The characters are over-the-top satires of everyday people and played to that purpose by all of the actors.

Christopher Plummer shines especially bright as Lord Foppington, a noble with hair too big to fit in the door.

The plot involves the usual 18th century stuff; mistaken identities, thwarted romances, corrupt government officials, and jokes at every turn.

It answers the questions: What happens when 4 rambunctious, eager to party sailors are on leave in a small British coastal town? And, who do they get involved with and how does it all turn out?

Despite doing poorly at the box office, it has great costumes, excellent music(based on the Mermaid Theatre musical of the same name), great,lively acting and sets that are obviously authentic.

That it has never been released on either VHS or DVD is truly a shame, since so many bad movies are released every day. I agree with the other comments. I saw this movie years ago. Christopher Plummer is hilarious as a dandy. The ribaldry is unsurpassed. If this comes out on video, I will definitely buy it. A real classic. A shipload of sailors trying to get to the towns daughters while their fathers go to extremes to deter the sailors attempts. A maidens cry for aid results in the dispatch of the "Rape Squad". A cult film waiting to happen! I must say, I was surprised with the quality of the movie. It was far better than I expected. Scenario and acting is quite good. The director made a good job as well. Although some scenes look a bit clumsy, it is a decent movie overall. The idea was definitely brilliant and the truth did not reveal itself till the very end. The mental hospital atmosphere was given quite good. The plot was clear, consistent and well thought. Some people may find it a bit boring though since the story line is very focused and they take their time for character and story development. Moral of the story, it is a decent movie for its genre and it is astonishingly good. Despite of the success in comedy or drama, the Turkish directors are failure in horror-thriller. "Okul-D@bbe" are good examples for the awful horror Turkish films.

But if you watch "Gen" you will understand that it is a strike. The atmosphere of the movie is impressive and dark. Also the special features are colorful and not cheap. The soundtracks fit the movie, but the script is not totally perfect and the theme of the movie is ordinary.

As a result "Gen" does not add any difference to horror movies, but it does not disappoint thriller fans. In this respect it is a success for Yesilcam and Turkey. (7/10) A young ( only 21 ) director with great talent, a powerful scenario, young and ambitious cast with all theatrical background...

One of the first tries of a thriller in Turkish cinema, which seems in the future we'll have some more based on the success...

Shot on high definition video, the movie is perhaps effected on world thrillers, especially the American thrillers. The technical and cinematographic character is quite well done, the scenes are all well worked on. Not too much blood but sufficient enough to make you think you're in a blood bath too...

The scenario is quite wise but with certain clues, a clever audience can easily predict what's going on and at the end when everything settles down you're getting somehow weird to conclude the result.

Well done Tiglon, one of the biggest DVD distributors in Turkey, it is not easy to decide for such a movie in their first try as a production company... It is an excellent thriller from Turkey which can make sense.Great job from Gokbakar brothers.

First of all,i want to point on screen play.Generally screen play in most films from Turkey is not enough,but GEN has the best shots to be said "perfect".And also transition parts are really excellent.

On the other hand,"Gen" has a great topic that influence everyone.Especially,a woman ,who wants to be a psyciatrist in a sanitarium ,has a mother that is a habitual insanity.Principal causes and psychological consequences are given in Gen.The only thing you have to do is to combine all the hints.

There is an impressive aggression part Doga Rutkay and Sahan Gokbakar played.This performance may be more realistic than " Irréversible(Monica Bellucci) ".

The last thing i want to say is "Watch this movie,you'll get confused" This movie is the first time movie experience for several people in the cast. All of them are experienced actors and have played in several TV series and plays. Sahan Gokbakar is a well known comedian in Turkey. It's kind of strange to see him in a thriller, while he is at the peak of his comedy career in Turkey. This movie is Togan Gokbakar's first long shot and pretty much the first experience as a director. But they all did a good job. We are happy to see such enthusiastic young cast. They seem very promising for the future of the Turkish film Industry. Doga Rutkay being long time sweetheart of Sahan Gokbakar, is also a talented actress, who is known for her recent play in "number 27" theatrical play and several TV series. Directed by the duo Yudai Yamaguchi (Battlefield Baseball) and Jun'ichi Yamamoto "Meatball Machine" is apparently a remake of Yamamoto's 1999 movie with the same name. I doubt I'll ever get a chance to see the original so I'll just stick commenting on this one. First of what is "Meatball Machine" ? A simple in noway pretentious low budget industrial splatter flick packed with great make up effects and gore. It's not something you'll end up writing books about but it's nevertheless entertaining if you dig this type of cinema.

"Meatball Machine" follows the well known plot. Boy loves girl but is too afraid to ask her on a date. Boy finally meets girl. Girl gets infected by a parasitic alien creature that turns her into a homicidal cyborg. Boy, in turn does also transform into said thing, and goes on a quest to save his love. Will he succeed? Who gives a damn, as long as there is carnage and death I'm satisfied.

The plot is simple, relatively clichéd but it does it's job well enough setting the movie's course straight forward into a bloody confrontation between the two leading characters. There is a subplot focusing on how the parasite that infected the girl came into to their lives. And yes it too luckily shows more violence. I'm happy. Acting is what you would expect from a no budget splatter film. It's not exactly painful for the ears but it's not exactly good either.

The movie's main attraction besides the violence and gore (like I haven't mentioned that enough already) are the cyborg designs. Done by Keita Amemiya who's work in creating outlandish creatures and costumes for both movies and video-games is well known. The necroborgs as they are called in "Meatball Machine" look stunningly detailed. Without the usage of CGI Amemiya's designs are a breathtaking fusion of flesh and metal, painfully awesome in their appearance. Able to transforms various parts of the body into cool weaponry such as saws, rocket launchers, blood-firing shotguns and so on and so on. Though you can easily recognize the cheapness of the film, necroborgs are A-movie class.

"Meatball Machine" is "Tetsuo The Iron Man" mixed up with "Alien" all done in low budget and extra ketchup mode. It's an immensely entertaining film that disregards modern special effects and proves that the splatter genre is still alive and kicking. I don't know whether to recommend this movie to the fans of " Tetsuo " or not . Why " Tetsuo " ? Because you can easily label some things about this movie as a very obvious " Tetsuo " rip - off . The concept is similar , editing is equally frantic and fast - which is good because , aside from making the movie more dynamic , it obscures some flaws caused by low budget and other factors .

There is lot more gore , less eroticism and , in the case of " Meatball machine " , the transformation of human being into a creature that's partially a machine( sounds familiar ? ) called " Necroborg " ( very original ) is caused by slimy little aliens .

These slimy little scums from outer space actually use human beings as vessels for their gladiator games that they play with each other . They infest the body , somehow manage to put an insane amount of mechanical parts in it pulling them seemingly out of nowhere and turn it into a killing machine that targets other Necroborgs . Their aim is to defeat another alien who is in another Necroborg , rip it out of the corpse and eat it .

All in all , the plot sounds somewhat silly and I didn't expect much , but at the end I actually enjoyed this film .

As I said before , this is a low budget flick , but it's still relatively decent . Don't expect much from actors , they're mostly not very good , but it can be tolerated . I liked the atmosphere and gore , certain bizarre situations and the way the movie is directed and edited . Although the story is not too original , it possesses certain charm - to me at least .

7 out of 10 . Meatball Machine is an amazing splatter film, it has an original plot with young love, buckets of blood, and weird alien creatures that mutate people into freakish robotic war machines.

Now the film isn't for everyone, people who love splatter films or the movie Tetsuo: the Iron Man will applaud it.

The special effects can be cheesy at some points of the film, but your not exactly suppose to take the film very seriously.

Yet, all in all it's a lot of fun, well if you find budding romantics infested with slimy tumor like gobbles who seek to destroy each other in bloody alien oozing battles. The Japanese cyber-punk films have never really done a whole lot for me, but of the handful that I've seen, most have been at least visually interesting and at least mostly entertaining. MEATBALL MACHINE is no exception.

The storyline is about a species of parasites that take over human hosts, takes control of their bodies, turns them into "necroborgs", and causes them to fight each other with the sole purpose of eating each other - apparently as a "game" for the enjoyment of said parasites. The film mainly revolves around a shy guy and gal who fall for each other, but whose love-affair is cut short by both being infected with the parasites, and are forced to fight each other. It becomes a test of human-will vs. the parasite's control over their physical bodies...

MEATBALL MACHINE will invariably be compared to TETSUO (as most cyber-punk films are), and for good reason. There are definitely some thematic parallels, though the films are definitely different. There's plenty of fun, splattery moments in MEATBALL MACHINE, and the creature/borg FX are definitely the high-point - a mixture of TETSUO-meets-GWAR that are both elaborate and inventive. Depending on your taste for these types of films, MEATBALL MACHINE may or may not be your thing. If you enjoy hyper-kinetic cyber-punk films with a healthy dose of splatter - this one's for you...7/10 Don't be fooled by the silly title folks, this is one sweet ride! A true successor to Tetsuo the Iron Man and Ichi the Killer, this gem starts with a bang and lays the gore on thick until the credits roll. It seems that aliens are taking over people's bodies and modifying them into war-machines, which are then used to fight each other in a twisted game for the amusement of their species. The winner of the battle eats the loser alive. That's mostly it for plot, but who cares when the gore is this good? I have no idea how many buckets of slime were used, but it's disgusting to behold. There is interesting and effective use of stop-motion when the takeovers are in progress, and loving care is lavished on all of the creature and make-up effects. The CGI is a bit limited, but that actually doesn't detract from the overall quality one bit, at least for me. This was truly a fun and stomach-turning film that deserves much praise, and has truly earned its place in the stack of Cult Classics. Find it and watch, you won't be disappointed! Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it. Most of the feedback I've heard concerning Meatball Machine has been pretty mixed. A couple even saying that they think "it sucked". Well, to those people I say, get some f@ckin imagination and go f@ck yourself. This was a very entertaining flick.

The story starts with this mechanical bug which attacks and somehow transforms its hosts into these Gwar-costume looking, deathbots called Necroborgs. Eventually you learn that these mechanical bugs also attach a little parasite onto you, which then is able to control your actions due to hot-wiring your nervous system. Unfortunately for two love-seeking lonely young adults, they happen to cross paths with the mechanical bug, and before you know it transformations are taking place and blood is being splattered. Is there a way to stop the transformation? Maybe a way to stop this mechanical bug threat? Why do the Necroborgs fight one another? Do the two desperate singles get to express their feelings for one another and do the nasty? Only one way to find out.

Going into Meatball Machine I was kinda wary due to the mixed reactions, but it turned out being a great surprise. A few unanswered questions, some average acting at times and a slightly confusing ending are the only weak points I can think of. From the anime feel to it, to the parasites becoming little characters themselves and even to the low budget feel, this movie hits the right mark much more than it misses. With a ever-developing story that's interesting enough to keep oneself asking questions throughout mixed with the cool make-up effects and blood splatter, this is one flick fans of bizarro/horror/Tetsuo/splatter fans should check out. 8 outta 10 For fans of Troma or the Cyberpunk genre mixed with a little blood shed then this film for you! There is a good amount of blood shed within the confines of this film, also the effects can be impressionable and awesome. The plot is ridiculous and refreshing, not being chained down to what we as audiences are expectant of from films these days.

Also notable are the little aliens, who I found cute. All in all, it's a good film for fans of the genre. Also recommended are films such as Tetsuo:The Iron Man and Versus for that weird Japanese film approach, filled with wonderful obscurity and bloodshed. Of course, seeing this film you should already have knowledge of the two. Why aren't more films (especially American) more like Meatball Machine?

This is my first official on-line review and I am charged with "electrical ecstasy" after having chosen "Meatball Machine" as my first endeavor. This is a review, so I'll try to stick to mere reflection and gut emotion.

I mean, this is one creative piece of work even though it is clearly inspired by the now classic TETSUO! So what if it's not all original? I own both of these films and though Tetsuo is one strange son of a bitch, Meatball Machine is far superior and can be sat through without the strong desire to indulge in a dose of mind altering drugs to clarify film significance. Meatball Machine is as elaborate in it's story as it is in its high influx of blood and gore. Thank you Jesus for Japanese Cinema!

Simply put, the last time my dreams were overrun by visions of horror happened after watching Nightmare on Elm Street when I was 7 or so. I could picture in my dreams a tongue coming out of a telephone for weeks on end. This time (at 31) my dreams were pleasantly awe inspiring.

In this film human bodies are host to Aliens whose sole purpose is to try and fulfill their never ending quench for human flesh and blood. Humans become flesh eating cyborgs!!! There's more!!! Fight scenes!! Great Music!! Great point-of-view shots! Decent acting by the woman Cyborg (at least better than her male counterpart). The fight seen in the end is worth watching ten or twenty times.

Oh, and did I forget to mention it's a Love story! Wow, I hate love stories but this takes the cake!

I can't wait to have friends over to watch this film once more just to see the reaction on their faces. Sadly, I took time to write this review because I'm afraid most friends and family wont understand Meatball Machine. The truth is America as a whole is not prepared for Meatball Machine.

Lastly, My wife walked in while I was watching the climactic fight scene at the end and she was speechless. Normally she says something like "why are you watching that junk?" This time she had nothing to say. I was glad!

This is not junk. This isn't just SPLATTER (splatter for the sake of splatter is also great). This is Art my friends. Art.

CHACHO Some may feel that the rating i have just given is a bit generous, but for what this film is i think the directors have done a good job with that they had available to them, this is also a film a film of an acquired taste!

my immediate thought was the direct connection to the classic cult film 'The Thing' i.e the parasitical aliens from outta space, infesting human host to then reek havoc wherever possible!

You can see how this film pays homage to such a film and others of the horror/gore genre, however cleverly maintains its own originality, well these things fight each other for one and then continue to eat then fallen rival! Only killing and picking a human when it needs a new host! To then pick another fight with another infected host! And this film even throws in a love story but i wont say no more otherwise it gives too much away.

GREAT! But like i said of an acquired taste, so don't be surprised if you don't like the film. It is low budget and yes it is blood thirsty, with the creatures/aliens/things morphing their limbs into crude looking weapons, i.e saws, drills, blades and even the odd gun to all but decimate there opponent. I found myself cringing at what i was being shown but at the same time glued to the screen wondering what was going to happen next!

So if you like gore, you like aliens, you like fighting and even maybe a little bit of love thrown in somewhere, then i must recommend this film as a must see. I just wish i came across this earlier then i did! Deranged and graphically gory Japanese film about little beings taking people over and turning them into necroborg-zombie like machines- which beat and hack each other apart so that the winner can eat the loser. In the middle of this a pair of lovers become infected.

Technically superb horror comedy(?) is only for those with strong stomachs as blood and body parts go flying. Good taste prevents me from describing what happens here, but lets just say its pretty gruesome. If you like this sort of thing with form several steps above slender content by all means see this film. Personally I'm not normally one to enjoy films like this on anything but the how sick and twisted do they go level. Here I was intrigued enough that I can suggest it to people I know who like really gory movies.. Its also a film with enough going on in the details that I want to see it again since now that I know what was going on-as revealed in the end-I want to go back and see what it was I didn't catch on to. There is an internal logic rare in these films.

7ish out of 10 for those who like blood and severed limbs, its a zero or more precisely a run and hide alert for everyone else. Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.

It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

My grade 10 out of 10 Acting This film is a very well acted film. I will say that the performances are slightly weak at times; but for the most part, the acting is very good. The only actor that blew me away with his performance was Jude Law as Harlen Maguire. He was incredible! Tom Hanks seemed alittle unsure at at a few points throughout the film but he too was incredible. Paul Newman, good as always. Cinematography This is what made the movie a masterpiece (and I rarely use that word). Conrad Hall is a true genius. If at any point in the movie you were to pause it, you will see the delicately crafted work of this man. He sets up every shot so that nothing is left out. When the camera is still, there is a postcard like quality to the screen. When the camera is moving, every shot is planned to understated perfection. But it doesn't stop there. Conrads choice of colors and contrast between light and dark settings is a work of art. The way he lights the set is some of the most amazing lighting work I've seen. His work on this movie made it what it is. This movie is at the top of the list for best Cinematography with LOTR, Black Hawk Down, Hero, CTHD, Moulin Rouge, and Vertigo. Story People will say this movie is a 1930s gangster flick but, I believe they missed the point of the movie. It is a love story about a hit-man who fails in trying to protect his son from the life he chose. It is a brilliantly crafted story that unfolds into a beautiful bond between two people who have nothing but each other. The screen Writing is worthy of an Oscar. Music Thomas Newman conducts a sad but hopeful score to intensify this sad but hopeful story. The music is some of the most beautiful and moving scores I've herd. Direction Sam Mendes is a new director with a feel of an experienced director. The symbols he uses and the performances he gets from his actors is a rarity in todays film-making world. I will be on the lookout for the next Sam Mendes Film. 10/10 one of the most moving and beautiful movies I've ever seen. This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.

This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.

With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.

But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.

With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).

The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement. I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.) I f you thought Sam Mendes' first film, the much heralded American BEAUTY was a movie with style to spare, wait until you see his highly anticipated second effort, the unrelentingly grim 30's gangster melodrama ROAD TO PERDITION. Some critics have hailed this new movie as a worthy successor to THE GODFATHER, a rash judgment made by several reviewers taken with Mr. Mendes' extraordinary technical prowess. If the mechanics of movie making are what make a picture great, then yes, ROAD TO PERDITION is a distant cousin to THE GODFATHER in terms of what it achieves in cinematography, editing, music scoring and sound. What it doesn't have is a resonance that all great stories and some very rare movies have that stay with the viewer long after the experience of reading or seeing it is over. As with American BEAUTY, there is a cold, distancing feel to this movie, despite some very tense scenes involving paternal love, loyalty and betrayal.

This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.

That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.

If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic "man you love to hate", the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION. Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.

Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.

None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?

As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome. This is one of the best made movies from 2002. Maybe it is not the best movie, but it looks the best, has great acting and is directed perfectly by Sam Mendes, who debuted with 'American Beauty'.

It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).

In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.

Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas. Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.

The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.

The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.

Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.

For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.

I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.

The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.

The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.

I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film. This is the best mob film ever made. It deserved more then what it got at the Oscars. Nominated for things like its score, art direction, supporting role (Newman), this film could have easily been nominated for Best Picture, Director (Mendes), Actor (Hanks), Supporting Actor (Newman and Law) and won!! Hanks gives one of his best performances, and the kid who played Michel Jr. was so good that I'm surprised i don't see him in more movies today. Critics themselves didn't give this film enough credit. But besides the incredible performances, another real star of this film is the incredible music. This was by far the best score of the year. It was nominated but didn't win. This is a great film that should be seen by everyone. My Grade-A+ Having been driven out of the house and into the theater by the sweltering heat, I could not have been more pleased. The Road to Perdition, directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty), is destined to become one of the greatest movies of all time. Perhaps I'm just getting old; perhaps I've just seen the same themes recycled time and again. But this movie is indeed different.

The story opens with young Michael Sullivan Jr. facing out to the sea, contemplating the duality of his father's legacy -- one of the best men to ever live, one of the most evil. This duality snakes its way throughout the movie. The story revolves around crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) and Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), the young man Rooney once took in and who now serves as his personal "Angel of Death." Rooney is tied by blood to his own son, but tied by love and loyalty to Michael. Young Michael Jr., intrigued by the stories he reads, steals away in his father's car one night while Dad goes off to "work" with Connor Rooney, heir to the family "business." Connor lets the situation get out of hand, and what was meant only to be a warning turns into murder -- witnessed by Michael Jr. Upon the discovery that young Michael has seen what he should not have seen, the plot is set in motion as conflicting loyalties collide. Soon, Michael Sr. is on the run with his young son, pursued by contract killer Harlen "The Reporter" Maguire (Jude Law).

I will disclose no further details in order to avoid any potential spoilers. However, I strongly encourage viewers to examine the many dualities that present themselves in the movie: Problems between sons and fathers (Michael Sr & Jr., John Rooney & son Connor), between the world at home and the world at "work", between good and evil, between those who pretend to be men of god and those who really are, between "clean" money and "dirty", between the town of Perdition and Perdition as hell. And along the way, savor the visual brilliance of cinematographer Conrad L. Hall (9 nominations, 2 oscars for best cinematography): rain pouring off fedoras, shots through mirrors (especially on swinging doors), tommy-gun flashes from out of the shadows, absent any sound. Not only has 75-year-old Hall given us perhaps the best cinematic product of his career, but 77-year-old Paul Newman offers one of his best performances ever.

Yes ... I may be getting old. But I've seen a lot ... and this is fresh and invigorating. The Road to Perdition presents a lasting and loving tribute to the gangster genre, to films of the 40s, to dark comic-book figures lurking in the darkness, to villains and heroes, to American film in general. Go see it! ROAD TO PERDITION can be summed up by Thomas Newman's score . It's haunting and beautiful but you're aware that this music is similar to Newman's other work and while listening to the soundtrack you're reminded of SCENT OF A WOMAN , MEETING JOE BLACK and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION you're reminded of other films as the story unfolds on screen . As the Sullivans drive round America trying to escape from a psychotic hit man you think of THE GETAWAY , Irish gangsters is MILLER'S CROSSING whilst the subtext of guilt and redemption can be summed up by Coppola and Leone's gangster epics. Despite having a seen it all before feel this shouldn't be taken as a heavy criticism of Sam Mendes film which I repeat is haunting and beautiful and the only flaws that work against it is a very slow opening twenty minutes and I was slightly confused as the events that caused Michael Sullivan to be betrayed . But if you stop to consider how much of a sentimental mess Spielberg might have made with the story that revolves around a father and his twelve year old son running for their lives you can't help thinking what a superb director Mendes is

ROAD TO PERDITION is a film where the entire cast give flawless performances . I've never been all that keen on Tom Hanks but he's every bit as good here as he has been in any starring role , probably better . Paul Newman plays a character with an Irish accent but at no point did I believe I was watching an American screen legend putting on a false accent - Newman's performance works due to the subtle body language , his character is torn up by guilt but Newman never milks it or goes over the top . While never upstaging Newman who gives the best performance in the movie the two Brit supporting actors Craig and Law are also very memorable as American gangsters and while Law will still have a long career as a leading actor one wonders how Daniel Craig might have progressed as a character actor if he hadn't decided to become James Bond , a role which heralds the end of an actors career After gorging myself on a variety of seemingly immature movies purchased on ex-rental DVDs, I figured that the time was right for a little serious drama and who better to provide it than Sam Mendes? For a number of reasons, "American Beauty" doesn't appeal to me as much as this film which is easily the darkest thing that Tom Hanks has ever done and probably one of the most underrated films of the last decade. For this is not a simple gangster tale lifted from its graphic novel origins, and is simply wonderful to watch because of it. And despite my usual allergy to any film with Tom Hanks' name on it (still can't watch "Big" without wanting a cat to kick), I'm glad I gave this a try because this is one of those movies that you'll kick yourself for if you miss it.

Normally squeaky-clean Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a devoted family man and father of two sons growing up during Prohibition in the early 1930's. He is also a professional hit-man to mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) but has managed to keep his job a secret from his sons. But after his eldest (Tyler Hoechlin) witnesses his dad involved in a mob killing, the pair are forced to go on the run as John seeks to tidy the matter up. Soon, father and son are pursued to Chicago where a fellow hit-man (a menacing Jude Law) is waiting for them.

On the face of it, it reads like a pretty standard gangster film but as I've said, this isn't really about gangsters at all. It's about the relationship between a father and son thrown together in the most tragic of circumstances. Hanks is (*grits teeth*) superb as the tortured man who finds out that everything has its price and little Hoechlin is also good as Sullivan's son. In all honesty, there is not a single performance that I could single out as weaker than the others - the cast is pretty much faultless. As is the cinematography and costumes (and it's not often I praise costumes!) which recreates the 30's with stunning effect. There has been so much effort to get everything right and it pays off in spades. This could easily have looked rubbish - they admit that the early 30's look was difficult to put down - but it doesn't and that deserves every bit of credit. Chicago especially looks fantastic, lined with hundreds of rickety cars from the era and filled with people in monochrome suits and hats. True time-travel, even if a little CGI is needed.

The story is also a winner, offering a human face to what is often seen as a stereotypical genre of movie villain. Law is surprisingly menacing as the almost mechanical killer Maguire and proves that you don't have to be Cagney or De Niro or Brando to play a gangster. The film is decidedly noir-ish, driving rain and ill-lit warehouses predominate but at least violence and killing are (finally) seen to have an emotional and psychological impact on those who perpetrate and those who merely witness such acts. The whole thing is evocative of a previous age and previous movies but it sweeps away the old and refreshes with a modern tale of redemption amid the Tommy-Gun shootouts and extortion rackets. It can feel a little slow in places, especially if you're used to masses of gun-play in movies like most modern audiences (like yours truly) but sometimes, words can speak louder than actions. Mendes has delivered a fine follow-up to his Oscar-winning debut, a film which is as intelligent as it is beautiful to watch. "Road To Perdition" may not be to everyone's tastes but this is one DVD I shall not be exchanging anytime soon. I loved this film! I'm a true Tom Hanks fan, and I have always been impressed with all of his work. From his most dramatic roles like Cast Away, The Green Mile, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 & Philadelphia. To his hilarious roles like A League of Their Own, Turner and Hooch, Catch Me If You Can, The Lady Killers, Big & of course Toy Story. But in this film Hanks isn't the only great actor who lights up the screen. Tyler Hoechlin, an up and coming star who shows great promise in Hollywood co stars as Hanks son and delivers nothing short of a great performance. He is certainly someone to watch out for over his career, I believe he will do great things. Paul Newman as always delivers a brilliant performance on screen. He is truly a legend. We can't forget the people who didn't have such big roles in the film, but still helped make it great. The beautiful & very talented Jennifer Jason Leigh, who's performance in Bastard Out of Carolina & Single White Female I will never forget, brings her grace to the screen as Hank's wife in the film and does a superb job. Liam Aiken is another found treasure in film. He does such a great job with such a small role, and like his roles in Lemony Snickets, and Sweet November, and I Dreamed Of Africa he gives a great performance. This is the first Tom Hanks movie I have gotten the privilege of seeing in the theater, although he is my favorite. When I heard he was going to play a hit-man, I was a little stunned thinking "can Mr. Hanks pull this one off"? And he did in high fashion. This 1930's depression era film is a about loyalty, redemption, and one path that you don't want your children stumbling down. Tom Hanks leads a stellar cast as Michael Sullivan. Being the family man, and the secret life of the contract killer for the Oscar nominated Paul Newman. This movie Tom Hanks relies more on reaction and gaze rather than dialogue, which he delivers a knockout performance.

On one night of one of his jobs, Michael's son Michael Jr., played by newcomer Tyler Hoechlin, witnesses the hit. And Michael Sr.'s partner in crime, fellow stage actor Daniel Craig can't have that information out. So he wacks out the son and wife of Michael Sr., except Michael Jr. So the two head for Chicago to get Conner Rooney(son of Paul Newman's Mr. Rooney).

The drama and intense plot really thickens from their as father trys to set things right, even though son is along for the ride. While on this deadly journey, someone has hired a hit for Michael Sr. The assassin would be the photographer of the deceased Harlen Maguire, played by a stain-teethed Jude Law.

The movie will have you feeling the old days. And with Thomas Newman's beautiful and haunting Oscar nominated score to go along with it, you can't help but appreciate this film from Oscar winning director Sam Mendes. So sit back, and enjoy the wild ride. i think that this film is brilliant.there are many reasons why but these are some of them 1)the good acting by Tom and Tyler 2) brilliant machine gun scene that was a piece of brilliance 3) i thought that the ending was a good twist because i never expected that at the end all credit to Sam Mendes.as well as a these 3 points the film form of the film is good as well. i am a film student at college and we studied this film in great detail and it was one of the best films i have seen in many years. i'd just like to say a big thank you to all of the people involved in making this film. lastly i would like to say the best scene in the film is the machine gun scene where John Rooney gets kill it is just pure brilliance in shooting the scene in silence until John Rooney says " i'm glad it's you" it is a lot better like that i think because the viewer creates there own sound and that sound is totally different for every viewer just brilliant.

thank you for reading this comment written by Ross Kirk aged 16 This is a beautiful film. The true tale of bond between father and son. This is by far, Tom Hanks at his finest. Tom Hanks is really out of the box in this movie. He usually has the nice guy roles. Yet in this film,he comes off in this film as a bit gritty, but still emerges smelling like a rose, even until the very last scene, the assassination of his character. The cast of this movie was well put together. I also love the part when there is total silence when Tom Hanks' character shoots and kills all of the men in Mr. Rooney's group. There is something chilling and yet profound about no sound in that scene, just simply emotion. I love the look on John Rooney, Paul Newman's character's face when he realizes even before seeing him, that it is Tom Hanks's character getting revenge, and he knows his fate has come. The first time I saw this movie I was blown away and knew I had to go out and get the video and I since have, adding it to my collection of my all time favorite movies.

Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, so this film has a special place in me. Tom Hanks has been in such hit movies as Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and The Green Mile. For the most part, his roles have been good guys that we cheer for. In Road to Perdition, his character Michael Sullivanis a little bit different.

In Sam Mendes' film Road to Perdition based on the graphic novel by Max Allan Collins, he shows the story of a man and his son on the road during the Great Depression in Chicago. What is different about this little road trip is that Sullivan is a hit-man who is now being hunted by his former partner. His boss or ex-boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) loves him almost more than his own son, Sullivan's partner Connor (Daniel Craig).

After a job done the wrong way because of Connor, the only witness to his mistake are Sullivan and his son who wasn't supposed to be there. So Connor tries to take out Sullivan and his family, but only gets the wife and other son Peter. Sullivan outsmarts the hit and rushes home to find Michael Jr. sitting at the table...just sitting. With his wife and child dead, Sullivan takes to the road to find answers.

The story follows the two as Sullivan tries to make things right in memory of his wife and kid, and for Michael who feels like he is to blame for all this. He feels his curiosity killed his mother and brother. Tyler Hoechlin does a terrific job as Michael Jr. He brings maturity and also a sense of still being juvenile. His loss of innocence is well acted out as he travels from town to town, leaving nothing behind him.

Mendes' previous hit film was American Beauty which received five Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. This film didn't do nearly as well at the Oscars only winning one award for best cinematography but receiving five other nominations for music, sound, and a Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Paul Newman. This picture is a great story that takes you on a ride through the Midwest and into the legend of Mike Sullivan: husband, hit-man, and devoted father. This movie is a sleeper film that should be watched for years to come. An excellent depiction of one of the more unwholesome aspects of that era. I loved the visuals--very fitting for a story connected to a graphic novel.

I thought Tom Hanks was really great in this, he came across very well as someone who has been hardened by his work (which he didn't fully choose for himself) but still wants to have a normal life for his family. He does the best he can to see that happen. DOn't want to spoil the plot--but YOU HAVE TO SEE this movie if you are a person who wants more from a movie than the usual shoot 'em up action/gangster format. (It is violent though.) This is an excellent film!Tom Hanks and Paul Newman performed great!I was really surprised when Newman was beating on his son!That was a great scene and the shooting scenes were staged good.I was very surprised about the end.Rent this film today as it is one of Tom Hanks' best! Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars! One of my favorite movies, with a very nostalgic ending. The movie is about the Sullivan family, obviously Michael Sullivan (the father) is one of the main members of the mafia, the killer to say it this way, and an expert one. One of the kids wants to know the work of his father (a terrible mistake), so he hides on his father's car and well, he sees Tom Hanks in action to say it this way.

Mafia doesn't rules, in Mafia nobody wins, when they want you out, they take you out. Of course you can see anyone who works at the mafia with a giant house, the best car in the world, whatever you like, but make a wrong work, or make something your "boss" doesn't want, and you're fired, and killed.

You can see what I mean in the movie, Sullivan Jr. sees something he didn't had to see, and well, almost all his family gets killed for that "wrong thing" his son did. The movie is really entertaining, you see how the Sullivan's live after being chased by the mafia, or kinda of that.

This movie is kinda of sad, shows us about revenge, those dirty works people do, almost everything you like. Hopefully the guy is reading this comment doesn't works for the mafia, and if you work at the mafia make yourself a favor and get the hell out of the country before you get killed by your boss and their workers.

This movie receives: 10/10 This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. It has very good acting by Hanks, Newman, and everyone else. Definitely Jude Law's best performance. The cinematography is excellent, the editing is about as good, and includes a great original score that really fits in with the mood of the movie. The production design is also a factor in what makes this movie special. To me, it takes a lot to beat Godfather, but the fantastic cinematography displayed wins this contest. Definitely a Best Picture nominee in my book. A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10. This is a film that can make you want to see it again. I especially, liked the way it ended. I did not see the end coming, but when Laws was not blown away the first time, one suspects he will be back again.

The story is gripping and could have been more psychological, but I understand the story needed to capture the viewer and the action was necessary for that.

Hard to believe Michael Jr. could be so apparently unmoved as his younger brother and mother as blown away. But, I can appreciate the scene play couldn't really take our attention there because it had a greater story to tell.

Some have complained about Hanks as a gangster. I believe that isn't justified. If his character had been any harder, he would not have cared if his son pulled a trigger or not.

Eight Stars for this one. Although it was released in 2002, I just saw it for the first time yesterday on DVD. A bloody gangster story which takes place in the years of Great Depression. It tells us about another notorious hit-man, Michael (Mike) Salliwan. Somehow, this time the story turns the other way round: Mike fights to save his life and his only remaining son, because the rest of his family was killed due to dirty game of his own boss. He succeeds in his revenge and secures honorable future to his son, but gets killed in the end. Such stories never have happy end after all.

The role of Mike Salliwan senior was wonderfully played by Tom Hanks, and the part of Mr. Rooney (the Mafia boss) was performed by Paul Newman. The film makes a great impression, and we hear the well-known phrase "we rob banks". This film is still worth watching although you could have expected something bigger from Sam Mendes after his American Beauty. In the winter of 1931, supposedly 12-year-old Tyler Hoechlin (as Michael Sullivan Jr.) wonders what his mobster father Tom Hanks (Michael "Mike" Sullivan) does for a living. Young Hoechlin follows Mr. Hanks to "work" one evening, and witnesses him blasting away some rival gangsters. This leads - in a VERY roundabout way - to "Godfather"-type Paul Newman (as John Rooney) hiring independent hit-man Jude Law (as Harlen Maguire) to track down Hoechlin and Hanks, who are off to cool their heels in Chicago. Hanks thinks they will be safe with a relative, which is puzzling when you consider the characters' line of work.

Looking uncannily like Paul Peterson ("The Donna Reed Show"), Hoechlin does a terrific job for director Sam Mendes; and, getting to work with this cast makes him the luckiest young actor of 2002. But, the most striking thing about "Road to Perdition" is the stunning cinematography of Conrad L. Hall, which deservedly won a career capping "Academy Award" for the late photographer. Mr. Hall's work is truly superlative. This helps make up for the overall impression of a measured, contrived staginess to both the narrative and visuals. The deviating end is abruptly uplifting (the unrelated dog is an example of the aforementioned staginess).

******** Road to Perdition (7/12/02) Sam Mendes ~ Tom Hanks, Tyler Hoechlin, Paul Newman, Jude Law Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were. In a poor village in Mexico, the Colonel (Fernando Luján) lives with his asthmatic wife Lola (Marisa Paredes) in an old house. Lola still grieves the death of their son Augustin some time ago. The colonel has been expecting for his pension of fighter in a war against Catholic church for almost twenty-seven years. However, for political reasons, the present government wants to forget this old fight. Without having any possession or money, but a valuable gamecock, they struggle to survival with the expectation of the acknowledgement letter from the government, recognizing the law and paying for the delayed pension. This slow and touching movie reflects the social and financial situation of most of the elder retired persons in third world countries. In Brazil, most of the retired persons has to survive with about US$ 80,00 per month. The debts of the colonel in the story were made to pay for a graveyard for his son, otherwise he would be buried as an indigent. Outstanding performance of the cast, in a very sad story that is reality in the poor countries. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): (`Não se Escreve ao Coronel') (Do not Write to the Colonel)

the government that he fought to establish to recognize his loyalty with a promised and much needed pension. Ripstein's lyrical work is a sweet ode to all those who, like the Colonel, suffer under the abuses of a cynical and hardened society that strengthens itself by denying its citizens the means to live with dignity and purpose. Unlike the absurdity of WAITING FOR GODOT, the Colonel's wait for the arrival of his pension gives hope and significance to his otherwise miserable life. Two things in the film drive the Colonel who is masterfully played by Fernando Lujan; the hope that his military pension will one day arrive and the knowledge that his son, Agustin, died for a noble cause, a reason other than a drunken fracas at a rigged cockfight. Unable to realize the former, and forced to prove to the world the latter, the Colonel does the only thing he can do, set about training his son's fighting cock. The cock is now the warrior who can bring fortune and justice to the Colonel and his asthmatic wife, but his fighting ring is that of the killer of his former owner, Agustin. In a tense scene of confrontation between the Colonel and Nogales, his son's killer, the Colonel is offered by Nogales, a paid government agent, money enough to equal the Colonel's full pension. But, this is blood money; hush money designed to hide the fact that those in power have turned their backs on one who fought for their political ideals, and to conceal to the world that the warrior colonel's son was assassinated because he wrote for an underground paper that favored the rights of labor unions and the common man. With maximum dignity, the Colonel rejects Nogales' offer, picks up his fighting rooster and walks away as nobly as his old legs can carry him. Once he is at home, Dona Lola, his scolding wife, wants to know why the Colonel refused the money when both of them are starving. In response to her continued question, "What are we going to eat until November (when the cockfighting season begins)", the Colonel responds, "Shit." Excrement is what the poor and disenfranchised have been eating all of their lives, and excrement is a meal that the Colonel willingly chooses to eat with dignity, knowing that he could never sell his soul to those who oppress him. The Colonel waits as the only man of honor and valor in a world without principles. A sober, reflexive piece, a little miniature which blossoms into a magnificent humane pictorial sequence which goes beyond a mere dramatization for the screen. This quiet little story will hold you enthralled - if you do not have too many problems with the various Spanish accents ranging from Mexican to Peruvian, and Marisa Paredes' more authentic Iberian Peninsular usage! Garcíadiego has accomplished a perfect adaptation from the novel: even the grand maestro García Márquez should be proud of her superb work. And hats off to Arturo Ripstein who has so ably concerted the whole effort into a gem, a ruby, and so refined, so elegant, so sensitive, so touchingly.....

El Coronel - Fernando Luján - is waiting to get his pension, while he continues to live in his ramshackle timber dwelling deep in the Colombian jungle (however, filmed elsewhere, NOT in Colombia) with his fighting cock and his wife (in that order?). And that is all there is to it.

But, oh, so much more.... This film is a rhapsody.

I must see this poetic little piece again as soon as possible. Worth the high side of 8 out of 10, which is very high on my scale.

This is not light commercial Hollywood stuff. This is a truly magnificent and heartwrenching film!!!! Ripstein's locations are spectacular, extremely detailed and well lit, the dialogue is extraordinarily García Márquez, no doubt about it. Fernando Luján and Marisa Paredes give us outstanding performances as the colonel and his wife.

You must see it!!! As many people know, Mexican cinema was very poor after the so-called Golden Age of the Mexican Cinema, fortunately, during the late 90's, and early 21st century, great movies like La Ley de Herodes, Bajo California, Amores Perros, Y Tu Mamá También and, of course, El Coronel No Tiene Quien le Escriba, appeared. El Coronel..., is a wonderful movie, that retells the classic story by Gabriel García Márquez, by eliminating the magic realism elements, and replacing them with the crude reality lived in Mexico, not only by people like the Colonel, who wait for their pensions, but by more than the half of the Mexican population, who live in complete poverty. The film's characters, satirically represent classic characters found in Mexican society, such as the nationalist Colonel, the cold and even ambitious priest, the hypocrite, but at the same time loyal compadre, the tolerant and patient wife, the hidden homosexual, etc. This movie, is a must-see if you want to know more about Mexican society, and specially, if you want to watch a gorgeous movie, by one of Mexico's finest directors a bit slow and boring, the tale of an old man and his wife living a delapidated building and interacting with a fixed cast of characters like the mailman, the brothers sitting on the porch, the wealthy cigar smoking man. The photography of the river is marvelous, as is the interior period decoration. If you like decoration of Banana Republic stores, this is a must. I liked this movie very much. Although this movie doesn't boast of big (or even known) names, its very charming. Its one of those feel good types where you know that everythings gonna be just fine in the end. My favorite scene is with the baby elephant part. I rate this movie at 7.5 I had seen this movie when it got released, and when I was 12 years old :) And I still vividly recollect the wonderful scenes of how the hero/heroine escape every time when faced with danger :) And the best feature of the movie was the portrayal of the villain! I think many so-called action movies copied a lot many "escape scenes" from this movie!! And not only does it never impress me when I see such copying, it always increases my appreciation for this masterpiece! :) The lead actors have acted wonderfully. The slow and realistic development of the chemistry b/w the hero and heroine was extremely natural and wonderfully portrayed. As children, we felt that the love that developed b/w them was very natural :) The way they face and overcome all their trials and tribulations together was something that can make even kids realize the value of true love, sacrifice and caring. I recommend that every person see this movie when given a chance!! --Vijay. I saw this film on television and fascinated by the beauty of Jennifer Mccomb. It was a neat film and you can watch it for the beauty of Africa and of course Mccomb. At that time I was thrilled watching this movie and from then onwards I am trying for VCD of this film but I am unable to find it. Huge African lions makes appearance int his film and we will be spell bounded simply by the size of those animals and grace of them. All section of audience can watch this movie particularly children will enjoy this film. But some scenes involving Mccomb forces parental guidance for this film. It is a enjoyable holiday movie for one and all. A boy and a girl is chased by a local warrior because the boy killed (by accident) the warriors father (or whoever he was). And they travel through the nature of Africa's most ruff areas.

The acting in this movie isn't that good (except for that elephant kid). But it's a very good adventure and it's not very censored, there is some blood, flesh and nudity (which lighten up the movie a bit).

I give this movie a 7 because of it's picture of the African nature and it's action. "Painting is seeing, then remembering better than you saw." So says Dick Heldar (Ronald Colman), the painter in The Light That Failed.The movie is in the grand old Hollywood style, starring Ronald Colman and a bravura supporting cast that includes Ida Lupino in her first important role, dependable character actor Dudley Digges (who also co-starred with Colman in Condemned.),and a solid performance by the wonderful actor Walter Huston.

The title and opening sequences of the film pretty much give away the fact that Dick will lose his sight. He's blinded by gun powder discharge as he and childhood sweetheart Maisie (Muriel Angelus) are playing with a pistol. Later a wound while fighting in the Sudan is the catalyst for his blindness. He becomes a famous painter, but he's already blinded by ambition, and doesn't really reach his full potential until the point that his sight is leaving him. Enter bad girl Bessie (Ida Lupino), and his self destruction is set in motion. Lupino is very powerful in this role and plays off Colman very well. Her evil tart reminds me of Bette Davis in Of Human Bondage.

Well acted and well directed, this is one of my favorite Colman melodramas. Absolutely fantastic trash....this one has it all: nudity, good fight scenes, gore, action, explosions etc. It also stars the wonderful Belinda Mayne as Ingrid - not Olga as the other reviewer pointed out - although Olga turns into Ingrid later on in the film (you'll have to watch it to see what I mean).

I won't bother to go into the story as it's far too long winded and not very interesting. The relationship between Ingrid and her brother Bo (Robert Ginty) is interesting - watch the towel stealing scene to see what I mean.

The fight scenes were at once quite good and then spoilt by some really shoddy gore effects that looked like they were done by the team who did City of the Walking Dead (i.e. strange coloured blood gushing out of neck wounds).

I'd advise fans of low budget trash to check it out if they can track down a copy - its pretty rare though and I couldn't ever see anyone bothering to re-release it so it'll become all the rarer in a few years.

Anyway I'd recommend it solely for Belinda Mayne's great nude scenes! That lady's a fox! What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.

Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre "HALT!", and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.

So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as "you know its a shame you're my sister" he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.

So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred "the hammer" Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not. Superbly trashy and wondrously unpretentious 80's exploitation, hooray! The pre-credits opening sequences somewhat give the false impression that we're dealing with a serious and harrowing drama, but you need not fear because barely ten minutes later we're up until our necks in nonsensical chainsaw battles, rough fist-fights, lurid dialogs and gratuitous nudity! Bo and Ingrid are two orphaned siblings with an unusually close and even slightly perverted relationship. Can you imagine playfully ripping off the towel that covers your sister's naked body and then stare at her unshaven genitals for several whole minutes? Well, Bo does that to his sister and, judging by her dubbed laughter, she doesn't mind at all. Sick, dude! Anyway, as kids they fled from Russia with their parents, but nasty soldiers brutally slaughtered mommy and daddy. A friendly smuggler took custody over them, however, and even raised and trained Bo and Ingrid into expert smugglers. When the actual plot lifts off, 20 years later, they're facing their ultimate quest as the mythical and incredibly valuable White Fire diamond is coincidentally found in a mine. Very few things in life ever made as little sense as the plot and narrative structure of "White Fire", but it sure is a lot of fun to watch. Most of the time you have no clue who's beating up who or for what cause (and I bet the actors understood even less) but whatever! The violence is magnificently grotesque and every single plot twist is pleasingly retarded. The script goes totally bonkers beyond repair when suddenly – and I won't reveal for what reason – Bo needs a replacement for Ingrid and Fred Williamson enters the scene with a big cigar in his mouth and his sleazy black fingers all over the local prostitutes. Bo's principal opponent is an Italian chick with big breasts but a hideous accent, the preposterous but catchy theme song plays at least a dozen times throughout the film, there's the obligatory "we're-falling-in-love" montage and loads of other attractions! My God, what a brilliant experience. The original French title translates itself as "Life to Survive", which is uniquely appropriate because it makes just as much sense as the rest of the movie: None! WHITE FIRE was recommended to me by a guy who owns it on two separate DVD releases and on VHS. He claimed it's one of the funniest and coolest low budget actioners ever made. I generally don't watch movies knowing that they're going to be bad, but I made an exception for this one... and I was very glad that I did.

It's filled to the brim with action (much of it surprisingly, graphically gory), sleaze (isolated to nudity with a key female character, but there's so much of it in one scene that it becomes hilarious) and outrageously awkward dialogue, all of which adds to the laughter-inducing tone of the film.

Ginty, the unusual looking star of THE EXTERMINATOR (and countless other low budget action turds) is amusing in the lead, giving the best performance he could muster. Williamson is better than usual, clearly hamming it up with unparalleled glee (and he doesn't come in until midway through). The rest of the cast is also fun to watch, particularly the villains, one of whom is a sadistic sexpot who speaks with an accent that appears to be a mish-mash of Spanish and Italian. She's priceless.

Again, I can't stress enough how gory it was. It's not so bloody that it's nauseating, but it's uncommonly violent in parts with some meaty squibs going off in the shootouts and it has a grueling torture sequence that no man will soon forget. Also, when Ginty is being swarmed by a pack of bad guys, he conveniently gets a hold of a chainsaw and the splatter moments that follow will have any and all action fans cheering and spilling their beers.

Don't miss WHITE FIRE. It's a rollicking - if mind-numbingly stupid - action classic. White Fire has so much going for it. With Larry Bird look-alike Robert Ginty leading the charge blazing away with his fabulous hair and super macho mustache, the movie soars above other low-budget actioners. The charisma he has in this makes Tom Selleck look like a putz. With Ginty beating up everyone, the movie only rises in awesomeness when a story of diamond intrigue enters into play. Then add in Fred Williamson, some frontal bush, chainsaw attacks and some awesome incest themes....this flick ends up delivering on all cylinders. If you're looking for some awesome B-Action, this is where it's at. Now, if I can just get my hands on that soundtrack. This film was enjoyable but for the wrong reasons. The co-ordination of the action sequences are laughable and make the film have some funny slap stick moments. Robert Ginty and Fred Williamson have a memorable scene together near the end, where Williamson says to Ginty, "you sure do get around buddy boy!". I did enjoy this film only for Ginty and Williamson, but not for the storyline that must have been written on the back of a napkin in four lines and the rest ad-libbed most likely. A film with over 30 parts only has a credit list for 10 or so. It seems odd that no one else has a credit in the film, maybe they had some insight into how the finished product would look. The one thing this film does have going for it is that it is quite violent, so that tripled with Fred Williamson and Robert Ginty make for a film worth seeing. Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10. First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.

A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...

Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema.

"I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.

I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.

The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie. Highly memorable, intelligent and suspenseful movie from one of French movies' true geniuses, the formidably able Henri Verneuil. The plot is an exact parallel of the JFK assassination, and takes place in a non-descript, fictional country. The film, visually as well as plot-wise, is razor-sharp. Shot with meticulous precision, it follows Henry Volnay, the Procuror who takes on himself to unravel the coup. In many ways, it's a very disturbing movie, not the least for the cold and analytical precision of its comment on a so-called modern state's inner workings. The atmosphere and characters are all utterly believable, and Verneuil left nothing to chance in its tight plotting. On another level, this relatively little-known movie just had a 15 years head-start on Oliver Stone, who was acclaimed for the "JFK" movie, a inferior film in many areas, the least of which not being credibility...

It's a masterpiece, any cinema lover should see it, preferably in its original French version with subs. The first time I saw this film, I was in shock for days afterwards. Its painstaking and absorbing treatment of the subject holds the attention, helped by good acting and some really intriguing music. The ending, quite simply, had me gasping. First rate! Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.

Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic "Hollywood end" which can easily be predicted. I saw this film for the very first time several years ago - and was hooked up in an instant. It is great and much better than J. F. K. cause you always have to think 'Can it happen to me? Can I become a murderer?' You cannot turn of the TV or your VCR without thinking about the plot and the end, which you should'nt miss under any circumstances. this movie I saw some 10 years ago (maybe more), I took it in a rental and never found it to buy even in French sites. The end is very surprising and intelligent. I would like very much to watch it again because I think it's as surpring as the Sixth Sense althogh a completely different kind of movie. This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.

The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled. Henri Verneuil represented the commercial cinema in France from 1960-1980. Always strong at the box-office, and usually telling dramatic and suspenseful tales of casino robberies, mafia score-settling and World War II battles, Verneuil could be counted on to give us two solid hours of entertainment on Saturday night. He worked with the cream of the male actors of his day: Gabin, Belmondo, Fernandel, Delon, Sharif, Anthony Quinn. I... comme Icare is the only time he directed Yves Montand. It's an oddly static film, taking place mainly in offices and conference rooms, containing not one chase scene and hardly any violence.

Montand gives a good performance, if somewhat dry, and he is well supported by the other actors. I couldn't help wondering what Costa-Gavras could have done with this story, on the basis of Z (the Lambrakis assassination) and L'aveu (the torture of Artur London in Czechoslovakia by Stalinists). Xiao Chen Zhi Chun is a great movie, not only in the year it was shot but also now. It's an art movie which is not outdated even in 21st century. The director maintained a good narrative skill and thus made the story so smooth!

The movie reminds me of the later French new wave movie: Francois Truffaut's "Femme d'a cote" which is of the similar topic. mature intelligent and highly charged melodrama unbelivebly filmed in China in 1948. wei wei's stunning performance as the catylast in a love triangle is simply stunning if you have the oppurunity to see this magnificent film take it Tian's remake is no good at all. I only click on his remake documentary to see Wei Wei, the original actress back in the classic 1948 film say a few words to the crew. We are going to meet Wei Wei this Sunday (28/3/2010) after the showing of Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun in the Hong Kong Film Archiev. Wei Wei is almost 90 years old in silver hair, her cameo appearance in Hong Kong films is always a surprise to her fans. In this year's Hong Kong Film Festival, a special program is dedicated to Fei Mu, director of this epic movie and Wei Wei's still shot from the movie is being seen all around in Hong Kong. My son, who turns 21 this year, is surprised Wei Wei was so beautiful then. This is a nice little movie with a nice story, that plays the most important role in the entire movie.

It's a quite intriguing dramatic story, with also romance present in it. The story is being told slowly but this works out all too well for its build up. The characters are nice and portrayed nicely by its actors. Normally I'm not a too big fan of the Asian acting style but the acting in this movie was simply good.

Of course the movie is quite different in its approach and style from other genre movies, produced in the west. In a way this movie is more advanced already with its approach than the western movies made during the same era.

I only wished the movie its visual style would had been a bit better. For a movie that is considered a kind of an art-house movie this movie is certainly lacking in some well looking sequences. This was obviously a quite cheap movie to make and it got made quite generically. Not that this is a bad thing, it just prevent this movie from truly distinct itself and raising itself above the genre.

But oh well, this movie is all about its well constructed story and characters that are in it. In that regard this movie most certainly does not disappoint.

8/10 This is a film about deep and unspoken human relationships.

Eventually they do become spoken, but is there a chance to change anything about the situation.

Originally made in Shanghai 1948 and quite free of propaganda the film introduces us to the Dai Family. There is still some weight about the history that surrounds the family. History usually has weight in Chinese literature and serious film.

A young married couple - Liyan, an invalid, and his wife Yuwen live in a once great family compound that is partially ruined.

A bright contrast is Liyan's young sister who cannot really remember the past of the family but accepts everything in quite a natural way. Her spirit is as bright as the other two are reserved.

Into this apparently stable world comes an unexpected visitor...

I ended up feeling quite sad - but definitely a superior film. For Romance's sake, as a married man. The following two films are recommended.

1. Brief Encounter by David Lean (1945), UK

Well, when a woman goes to a railway station, something may happen. And it happened! How she longed to be there, in a little tavern waiting for the man of her dreams. But she was married... the man was a stranger to the fantasizing woman

2. Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun by Fei Mu (1948), China

Well, when a woman goes to the market to buy fish, grocery and medicine, passing through the ruins of an ancient wall in a small town, there is much to think about, about the melancholy of her life, her sick husband in self-pity and lack of future...Just when a jubilant young doctor arrived, something happened... the doctor was a high school honey of the fantasizing woman

In both movies, from great directors of UK and China, the passion vs restraint was so intense, yet in the end the intimate feelings had not developed into any physical contacts. That leaves you with a great after-taste, sniffing it intensely without biting it. The most satisfying element about "Dan in Real Life" is that the relationship between Dan (Steve Carell) and Marie (Juliette Binoche) makes sense and is beautifully realistic. The casting of Oscar-winner Juliette Binoche as Dan's love interest was a superb decision; she is exceptionally talented, intelligent, naturally attractive and, thank goodness, appropriately aged for the part! Had this movie been made with Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson, it would have been a disaster.

Another wonderful aspect about "Dan in Real Life" is that it is a perfect film for adults who are interested in a mature comedy that leaves out the three pillars of the "frat pack" formula: dumb chicks, chauvinistic guys, and sleazy jokes. "Dan in Real Life" is witty and has fun, intelligent laughs throughout. Whereas other comedies incorporate or are almost entirely based on jokes that shock the audience into laughing, the jokes from "Dan in Real Life" are more natural and clever, and involve some thinking on the part of the audience.

My only problem with "Dan in Real Life" is that the rebellious, middle daughter is played too outrageously by actress Brittany Robertson. It's difficult to say if this was a personal choice on her part or a choice by the director. Either way, her character is unrealistic and annoying. But, this is only a minor flaw in the film, and does not take away from the story as a whole.

All in all, "Dan in Real Life" is a great film, a fantastic escape from the redundancy of offensive and dumbed-down comedies. The quality of the writing, directing, acting, and (especially) cinematography is excellent. It is simply a beautiful, light-hearted comedy. I got to see this film at a preview and was dazzled by it. It's not the typical romantic comedy. I can't remember laughing so hard at a film and yet being moved by it. The laughs aren't gags here--they're observations, laughs of recognition, little shocks of "Oh, my God, I thought I was the only one who felt that way!" I won't give away the plot, which is more than just "Guy falls in love with his brother's girlfriend." The whole family plays a part in the relationship here. Probably the best blend of laughter and warmth since "While You Were Sleeping."

Steve Carell goes much deeper than he's gone before, and for the first time I really liked him. The cast is amazing, a list of veteran theater actors whom I've loved in other roles, but they blend to make a convincing family. Dianne Wiest is lovely as the mother, Juliette Binoche is luminous and hilarious (who knew she was funny?), and even the reviled Dane Cook gives a warm, quiet, touching performance. The Sondre Lerche soundtrack is a wonderful addition, and I'll buy the CD the second it's available.

Don't miss this one. I was lucky enough to see this at a pre-screening last night (Oct. 20) and I was incredibly surprised by the wonderful plot and genuinely heart felt acting.

While the plot is not particularly complicated or exceptionally new, the story unfolds in a way that feels fresh, unique, and distinctly "indy" in style. It isn't something that can easily be compared to films of the past, it's a unique take on a sort of classic middle-aged depressed love story.

I was particularly struck by the casting of the film. Down to every last extra in the family, it was a beautiful and talented cast. The three daughters did a wonderful job, the talent was evenly dispersed between them and none of them "out-shone" the other two.

It was truly a delightful film, appropriate for all ages and laugh out loud funny while also being truly touching and heart warming. It was a wonderful break from the sex jokes and nudity of recent films. Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.

If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life – a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.

The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.

With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.

I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche – I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen. Simon Pegg plays a rude crude and often out of control celebrity journalist who is brought from England to work for a big American magazine. Of course his winning ways create all sorts of complications. Amusing fact based comedy that co stars Kristen Dunst (looking rather grown up), Danny Huston, and Jeff Bridges. It works primarily because we like Simon Pegg despite his bad behavior. We completely understand why Kristen Dunst continues to talk to him despite his frequent screw ups. I liked the film. Its not the be all and end all but it was a nice way to cap off an evening of sitting on the couch watching movies.

7 out of 10 Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the "sex symbol" of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine. "How To Lose Friends & Alienate People" is not based on Tiger Woods' infidelities. It is a mediocre romantic comedy based on Toby Young's book on his experiences working as a journalist covering celebrities. The film stars Simon Pegg as Sidney Young, a zany British journalist who takes a job in an illustrious celebrity magazine in New York. Young is restless in getting caught up all type of shenanigans to alienate all around him, hence movie title. He is uproarious, daring, and moronic. But nevertheless for some very bizarre reason, he is a somewhat likable character. Sidney befriends a fellow journalist, the composed Alison Olsen, played quite admirably by Kirsten Dunst. However, Sidney is primarily longing for the sexpot actress Sophie Maes played by the Fantastic Ms. Megan Fox. This foxtrot is short on acting proficiency but high on "eye candy" material. Sidney gets in all kinds of tomfoolery in order to move up the journalist ladder in the magazine co. Those are the peak comedic moments of the film. However, I think that Director Robert Weide and Screenwriter Peter Straughan might lose some viewers and alienated authentic rom-com material by developing an implausible romantic plot line between Sidney & Alison; even though Team Weidstraughan did formulate an entertaining narrative otherwise. Pegg did peg his character down to the wire with his hilarious performance as Sidney Young. Jeff Bridges was again building "The Dude" bridges with his enigmatic supporting work as Clayton Harding, the magazine's suave prez. But the rest of the film's acting was not worthy enough to feature here. "How To Lose Friends & Alienate People" should not be alienated entirely, but you might lose some movie friends if you publicize it as a superlative romantic comedy. *** Average I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film.

The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story.

The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons. I really, really enjoyed watching this movie! At first, seeing its poster I thought it was just another easy romantic comedy ... but it is simply more than this! I personally believe that this idea (that I'm sure a good part of the viewers had just before they saw the movie) it's yet another important part of the big concept of this movie itself (or even of its marketing strategy)! What I mean is: Nowadays we are slaves to images! To impressions! I went to the cinema to view this film having the wrong impression, the wrong expectations, and at the end I felt how superficial I could be! To exemplify it comes to my mind the sequence near the end in which Sidney buys the plane ticket to go back to New York and as he is asked to 'give an autograph', meaning to sign for the ticket, he believes that just because he got on TV thanks to the scandal at the awards he is now some kind of celebrity. And this is just, I believe, the climax of this main theme around which the movies revolves. Above this, I believe the movie also offers us a solution to get along with this, illustrated throughout the movie by Sidney's attitude: don't become too serious about yourself or about anybody else ... "even saints were people in the beginning" ... as Sophie once says in the movie. The saints of the moment are the stars. We attribute them an 'aura' of perfection, of eternal happiness, but the reality is much less than that. Even the saints of any religion are images, ideal models of how to behave and how to live your life. Even they were not for real ... they became 'for real' after they died and we looked back at them. And that's the catch: we need our saints! we need our stars! We strive for them as if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have anything to strive for. And television and all other media are means to create and capture our strivings. We desperately need benchmarks in regard to which to measure ourselves. And that's how we got in the cinema to watch this movie in the first place: to see if we can fit the benchmark, or if the benchmark is to small for us. This time it was larger than we expected. Simon Pegg plays the part of Sidney Young, a young entertainment writer who has begun the beginnings of a career writing for a grassroots magazine that specializes in badmouthing the shallowness and superficiality of the rich and famous. He is making a career out of lampooning celebrities, although he has a desperate wish to be a celebrity himself. The movie is based on the very bizarre career of Toby Young, who also ran a small magazine in Britain called the Modern Review, which offered scathing criticism of pretty much everything imaginable, until he closed the magazine in a hail of verbal bullets with his co-editor, and then went on to a spectacularly failed career as a writer for Vanity Fair, which is pretty much the part of his life told in this movie.

He is at first thrilled to go work for a major publication (called Sharp's Magazine in the movie), and despite active nerves he is positively beaming on his first day. He meets the chief editor, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges), who is hard as nails but who is also exactly the kind of editor he needs to be for a goof-off like Young to keep his job at the magazine. He offers little in the form of immediate acceptance of Young, but he also has what can only be described as a liberal tolerance of Young's off-the-wall antics and inappropriate behavior.

Much of the comedy in the movie is derived from Young's misunderstanding of or indifference to the generally accepted code of public behavior and the peculiar etiquette involved in dealing with the rich and famous. But Sidney's reasons for acting in such a weird way and for giving outwardly offensive interviews is because he believes that he loathes the entire celebrity culture and, it would seem, he believes in that age-old saying – 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em…and THEN beat 'em."

Complicating matters are two very different women. There is a charming, regular girl at the magazine named Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst) who at first is appalled by Sidney's obvious arrogance and womanizing ways, and a stunning model named Sophie (Megan Fox), who represents the celebrity culture. Needless to say, Sidney's endless attack of superficiality and stardom is a superficial lust for Sophie, the one with the look of a star.

Sophie is stunningly beautiful, it's true, but also comes across as having not a single thought rattling around in her head. Alison is a regular girl, not very interesting or attractive, but Dunst's performance makes her a real person. A relationship with her would have all the reality of a Britney Spears marriage, and yet the movie retains some level of believability because, despite how obvious this is, we also feel Sidney's pain in not pursuing her (I felt it, anyway).

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People has a pretty interesting premise and is full of honest, satisfactory performances, and although it turns into a bit of your standard romantic comedy by the third act, it has a variety of well-developed and interesting characters. Danny Huston, for example, gives us a great performance as Alison's other love interest, who pays homage to The Big Lebowski (also starring Bridges) with his ever-present White Russian, one of my personal favorite drinks. Buying Absolute and Kahlua here in China costs the equivalent of about $350, but my kitchen is never without them.

I am looking forward to the day when Simon Pegg will branch out a little bit, because I love his films but I am completely unsure about his range. He played a serious character in Hot Fuzz, but only serious in relation to the lunacy surrounding him, and ultimately went back to being himself again, which he has pretty much been in Shaun of the Dead, Run, Fat Boy, Run, and now How To Lose Friends. He's a rising star, it will be interesting to see what else he can do. How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.

It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.

I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it. 'How To Lose Friends & Alienate People' is a superb film. A hilarious film from start to end. A lovely entertainer. Enjoyed it. Thumps Up!

Performances: Jason is fantastic. He's a treat to watch him from start to end. Jeff Bridges is excellent as the boss. He's a Legend. Megan Fox looks amazingly hot, and deliver a good performance. but dude, She's so hot man! Anderson is delightful. She doesn't look old at all, still hot indeed. Kristan Dunst looks lovely and does a pretty good job. Others are also pretty good.

'How To Lose Friends & Alienate People' is a excellent entertainer. Don't miss this flick! Going into this movie, I had heard good things about it. Coming out of it, I wasn't really amazed nor disappointed. Simon Pegg plays a rather childish character much like his other movies. There were a couple of laughs here and there-- nothing too funny. Probably my favorite parts of the movie is when he dances in the club scene. I totally gotta try that out next time I find myself in a club. A couple of stars here and there including: Megan Fox, Kirsten Dunst, that chick from X-Files, and Jeff Bridges. I found it quite amusing to see a cameo appearance of Thandie Newton in a scene. She of course being in a previous movie with Simon Pegg, Run Fatboy Run. I see it as a toss up, you'll either enjoy it to an extent or find it a little dull. I might add, Kirsten Dunst is adorable in this movie. :3 POSSIBLE SPOILER - In some way "How to Alienate Friends...." is the "loser learns to adjust, becomes successful and finds out that something else matter more" type of story, situated in the celebrity business. - END OF SPOILER

I don't know the original book but this comedy delivers several good moments. Though I do think the ending is flawed. It felt too fast and too abrupt, as if something was missing. Besides I'd say the movie isn't able to keep a high level. Apart from this you'll find a sweet selection of actors and actresses with sometimes controversial acting qualities. Until now I've never seen Pegg any different. Still he is a very unique type though on the screen he sometimes might seem a little more tedious than necessary. Fox proved she is capable to play a hot starlet with her head in the clouds. Don't know whether it was a hard thing to do, but her performance was hot and way better than during "Transformers" (okay... probably that's no tough match). Kirsten Dunst is very much Kirsten Dunst (again) and you may like it (as I do) or find it annoying. On the other hand you'll see Anderson who proved her acting skills and Jeff Bridges (who is fine but perhaps he could have acted a little more powerful). They all fit their character well enough.

Conclusion: I think it's a nice celeb comedy with some more and some less funny passages, a sweet cast but an all too sudden ending. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is in all honesty one of the best comedies I've seen this year along with Pineapple Express and Step Brothers. Its not one of those "gross out" comedies that heavily relies on fart jokes and toilet humor but instead moves at an affable pace and you will be easily attached to the unfolding narrative. Simon Pegg nails it in the coffin with his hilarious portrayal of a fish-out-of-water character and is quickly detaching himself from the tripod he once belonged to back in England (the other two would be Nick Frost and Edgar Wright). Getting yourself in the top of the Hollywood food chain is a hard thing to do as we can clearly see with Pegg, his first jab at the lead role was David Schwimmer's comedy Run Fatboy Run but it received lukewarm reviews from critics and audiences alike. His second try is this movie, got fairly positive reviews from the majority but was a flop in the box office. I, for one still haven't lost faith in him and I'll still be there whenever he wants to take that third shot for glory.

Other characters were well cast from Jeff Bridges to Danny Huston and Gillian Anderson. Surprisingly, Kirsten Dunst in my opinion fared well in this movie as the love angle to Pegg's character however, the spark that I saw in Interview with the Vampire is still lost. She needs to find it, fast or she might suffer the consequences of being lost in the land of "rom-coms" forever. To like this movie at most you must be a)strongly in love (without a marriage) b) acknowledge English humor which is about admiring gallant and witty life situations and not just running gags c) be fairly very intelligent, because authors gave an opportunity to laugh and cry over every single minute of this movie, and only if you meet "b" and "c" requirements, you can recognize and enjoy author's input. d) to fully enjoy the movie you must love women like Kirsted Dunst, who is so natural, sweet and irresistible. e)you must admire creative, a little melancholic people with great and remarkable personalities

if you meet all these requirements you'll be likely to rate this movie near 10 points.

I never laughed half(!) as much as from watching this masterpiece. And i even managed to cry while laughing in some moments (i always get sensitive, whenever good things happen to Kirsten Dunst) Here's the skinny, it seems that this is much older then I thought it was. But it's still cool. The bike mechs are cool and the story works for the most part. There are some character issues that I hope work themselves out by part 2 and my biggest complaint of all that it seems to be a MACROSS knock off. Not just the animation style but several character designs. For example all the girls in this movie look like LYN MINMAY of MACROSS. The mechs look similar to MACROSS as well as the other characters. This is really not made for little kids, it has graphic violence, nudity and graphic sexual content. So to make a long story short I give this cool MACROSS knock-off 7 STARS. What do you get if you cross The Matrix with The Truman Show?

I'm sure you've all seen The Matrix by now. The creators of The Matrix say that it is 'anime inspired'. Just from watching the trailer to this classic, you can see where they took the plot from.

The film is sort of set in 1980s Japan, and it really shows. The costumes, music and words(in the recent English Language version by AD Vision) are all like they've been directly lifted from the era. I believe it was made in that time also, but due to certain plot points, this doesn't date the film!

As you probably guessed by my referencing to The Matrix, the world isn't real. It's not really the 1980's. In fact, it's something more like the 2480's. After a nuclear war, the Earth(or "Biosphere Prime")'s ecosystem was destroyed. The survivors we're forced to escape into space, where the conflict continued. Once the planets(or "Biospheres") were all abandoned, people began to live in MegaZones - cities inside of spaceships, where, via hypnotism techniques and Truman Show-esque illusion, they were made to believe they we're back on earth, in the most peaceful time in recent memory... The 1980s. When young Shogo obtains a mysterious advanced looking motorcycle, it leads him to find out more than he's supposed to know... The Garland(a bike which becomes a mech), a weapon from the 2400's, aids Shogo in his escape from the pursuing military. As more and more is discovered about the MegaZone, the war comes closer to home, and due to conflicts between the military and the computer, the war comes to the MegaZone too... I apologise if those points are seen as spoilers, but the plot is outlined basically that way on the synopsis.

Emotions run high in this movie, moreso than The Matrix. You really do believe the war is going on, and Shogo really does become quite scarred by what he's discovering. What starts off as an uber-happy cool 80's flick becomes a tragic tale of war and unreality. These characters are real people, not the cardboard cutouts we saw flipping around in bullet-time in The Matrix. There really is the sense of the suffering people can go through after being caught up in such a conspiracy, and a war. It may just choke you up towards the end... I know it did me.

Animation is pretty impressive for it's day, and the picture quality on the ADVision DVD is unbelievable for it's age. The artwork style is beautiful and reminiscent of traditional anime, very cultural. Be prepared for quite a lot of violence and blood, there's also an erotic sex scene.

The ending can be seen as a 'there can be no ending', similar to the Matrix, or, supposedly can be followed by the sequel, which I haven't yet had the pleasure of watching.

I have to say that this is one of the best animes I've seen, in fact, one of the best movies I've seen, and considered by many to be one of the greatest animes of all time.

I must recommend the ADVision DVD, as their take on the English Language is incredible, and does the movie justice, and can be purchased with an artbox for holding the two sequels when they are released, which will have the same vocal cast.

All in all, MegaZone 23 is an incredible movie, and deserves to be held highly, and should be an essential in any anime fan's collection. Heck, even my mother enjoyed it. This series premiered on the cable TV station "Comedy Central" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see "The League of Gentlemen" in order, complete and uncut.

"The League of Gentlemen" troupe is right up there with England's "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and Canada's "The Kids in the Hall". But..a warning.

"The League of Gentlemen" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY.

These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is "dark humor". Bravo! Another review likened this troupe to a cross between Monty Python and Twin Peaks, also aptly. Yet another review expounded on the differences between the comedy we enjoy non-critically and black comedy, also well worth consideration.

Watch the whole thing, all three series. At the end, all the characters are tied up and the puzzle pieces fall into place just as well as a Douglas Adams novel. The detail and intricacies are staggering. Thoroughly post-modern. Wickedly funny, and startlingly tragic. Not for kids. Not for those with thin skins or who lack objectivity. Thought-provoking. At once literal, figurative, and surreal in disturbing ways. The blackest comedy I can recall.

And very possibly the most wonderful thing I will ever see. Well, I just discovered that there is a show more disgusting and shocking than "Little Britain" and I like it! "The League of Gentlemen" is a sick British comedy that is about the most awful, insane and disgusting small town in all the UK. This place makes Dibley and Craggy Island (from "The Vicar of Dibley" and "Father Ted") seem pretty normal!! The format of the show is a lot like LITTLE Britain except that all of it centers around the townspeople of this one hellish town. Both shows feature the same skits again and again every episode and some obviously inspired "Little Britain" (particularly the job seeking class skit). But the show differs because although it is crude like "Little Britain" (hence not a show for kids), the show has a sick and sadistic quality that sets it apart from all these shows. In particular, animal cruelty and serial killing are recurring themes throughout the show.

Now if you haven't guessed, this is NOT a show for kids, the easily offended or normal people and that's probably why I liked it. However, you really do need very thick skin and a love of the awful to enjoy this to the max. Funny and incredibly irreverent beyond belief--you have to see it to believe it. This is what makes me proud to be British. This is by far the funniest thing on TV. The league consists of Jeremy dyson, Steve pemberton, mark gatiss and the lovely Reece shearsmith. Totally underrated, this horror-comedy is perfection. The characters are iconic and the catchphrases bizarre, "Hello Dave". It is a comedy that everyone simply must watch.

The best thing about the league of gentlemen is that it is always fresh, and always pushing the boundaries. It does not need to rely on catchphrases(unlike little Britain) for it to be funny. the fact that the league are willing to kill off arguably their most famous and iconic characters, shows us that they've got balls of steel. I first flicked onto the LoG accidentally one night while waching television: since then, I have never missed an episode.

It's humour is very weird, like a cross between Brass Eye's social commentary, the Fast Show's excellent one-liners, and an amazing plot that seems to develop each week without ever going anywhere. The best example of this was Hillary Briss's special stuff - what was that all about?

The humour will not appeal to all. Some will say it's just too sick, and it's easy to see where they're coming from. Nonetheless, give it a try. If you don't like it, don't watch it, but if you do like it you'll be very glad you took my advice. I never really watched this program before although it came highly recommended by members of my family. Funnily enough, my girlfriend lives in Hadfield (the filming location) and she pointed out a few landmarks when I first visited.

This got my interest going so I bought the 1st series on video and sat down to watch. Besides recognising some of the locations, I found myself not in the least bit surprised. Once again the BBC were responsible for producing another example of the finest comedy in the world. TLOG easily ranks up there with Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers and Monty Python as probably the best.

Suffice to say I am hooked on the program now. The characters are superb and show unusual depth while retaining a scarily realistic edge. The look and feel of the program is perfect and reflects the sometimes bleak feeling of the North (no disrespect to Hadfield which I have found a very welcoming and warm place).

I only hope that it continues its originality throughout its run (which based upon the 2nd series which concluded its rerun in the UK last night, it certainly is).

Well done the BBC!! About a year ago I finally gave up on American television. I thought of giving up television completely until a friend who had lived in England showed me some programs that included The Office, Extras, Blackadder, and The League of Gentlemen. It was then that I decided to switch to British television. Among all the shows listed above, The League of Gentlemen is easily the most dark and twisted of them all, providing guilty laughs and material not found in any other comedy I've seen yet. Characters included are the most unhappily married couple, a butcher that puts ingredients in the meat that go unsaid (probably for the best), a deranged couple that look over a local shop that only caters to local people, and the worst veterinarian ever. This program is one of the best I've seen. The League of Gentlemen is one of the funniest, strangest, darkest and most unforgettable comedies of our time. So much so, it paved the way for more comedies of its ilk, many of which have copied the style, but have never succeeded.

Unlike every other sketch show around, the characters of The League of Gentlemen are all loosely connected. Firstly they all live in the fictional town of Royston Vasey, in the back of beyond of Northern England.

The first characters to greet newcomers are Tubbs and Edwrad, the pig-faced owners of a supposedly local shop situated so far away most of the residents probably don't know of its existence. Other oddities include: the Denton family, with an obsession with hygiene, chastity and toads; Hillary Briss who sells a special yet thankfully unknown brand of meat; Pauline, a restart officer with a sharp tongue and even sharper pens; Mr. Chinnery, kind-hearted vet and menace to all things four-legged; Geoff Tipps, a plastics salesman with a vicious sense of humour, often involving guns, electric tubes and . . . . . . . PLUMS!!!!!

Despite being a comedy at heart, The League of Gentlemen often transcends genres whilst never appearing to be spoofing or ripping off other people's material. There are several horror references such as the disappearance of a hiker, a pair of silent twins, an obsessive circus owner, and a sudden outbreak of nosebleeds. Even more striking are moments when the series takes on a more sobre tone and aforementioned characters such as Pauline and Geoff are shown in a more sympathetic, vulnerable light. The film adaptation is the best demonstration of this, but some fans may decide they belong local.

The equally underrated third series also takes a different route, instead of sketches each episode focuses on an individual character with each storyline leading to one conclusion involving a plastic bag and a runaway theatre company van. Although many fans may not enjoy the structure of the film or the third series as much as the first two, they're certainly signs to how inventive The League of Gentlemen can be, and how unafraid to explore new areas.

In short, The League of Gentlemen is definitely worth a look, as like the welcome signs says: YOU'LL NEVER LEAVE! This is probably the best television show I've ever seen. I first saw it on Comedy Central several years ago. At the time I was unaware that it had been dramatically edited and was shown out of order, and having just watched all three series in order and unedited (thank you internet and your wondrous "series of tubes") I am SO GLAD I rediscovered it! I think Comedy Central sort of picked and chose their way through series one and two to make a "season"......and I tried to get friends and family to watch it, but nobody really seemed to like it (I need new friends). So, on my own, I made the best out of it that I could. Even when I felt like it was waning a bit, I still felt compelled to continue watching. Years after when I discovered Little Britain, I immediately recognized Pauline from LoG as having influenced Marjorie in Fat Fighters. Also, I love the idea of writers who act the entire show....(not new, but done impeccably here). LB has nothing on LoG! (No offense, Matt & David....Love you)! This is indeed a darkly comedic piece of genius. Serial murder, implied cannibalism.....you name it and it's probably found in this wonderful, unique piece of TV art. The location shots from the very first scene themselves are chilling and seem to beckon you to the town of Royston Vasey.....You'll Never Leave! I think my favorite character would have to be Tubbs, but each character as portrayed has it's own "charm". My least favorite was Papa Lazarous, that was until he re-surfaced in series three (clever and wholly unexpected)! It's best to watch several episodes in a row as it drives the continuity and as I said before, becomes so compelling (while repulsing) that you really CAN'T stop watching. This is not for those with weak stomachs, kids, conservatives or Grandma (unless you've got one saucy granny)! I have always loved British TV, particularly comedies, from Monty Python to Benny Hill, Red Dwarf to Keeping Up Appearances, Absolutely Fabulous and the British originals Coupling and The Office (but not their US counterparts....sorry). This is unlike any of those in that it completely redraws the line between what's funny and what's just sick and twisted. Nothing, NOTHING on US TV has ever come close to this level of entertainment. US broadcast TV is so sad and lame, I can barely stand to watch ANY of it. It's kind of sad that even our cable channels don't have the guts to show unedited versions of this gem (your loss, Comedy Central). Thankfully there are shows like this one that come from the "across the pond" that redeem the entire medium every decade or so. Basic cable here in the US has been making tiny steps the last few years in confidently "crossing lines" with more graphic sexual content, drug use and adult language, but they are still years away from just deciding to be Adults about showing real life, adult behavior (instead of just murder obsession and blowing things up, sheesh, it's like the same basic show format for the past 35 years)! Don't even get me started on US sitcoms! Waste of time and lots of wasted money......did you know that "According to Jim" has been on the air for 10 years??? 10 YEARS?? Anyway... Watch this show, get it on DVD, do what you must and then make your friends watch it as well! You've never seen anything like it. There are three specials that I have not watched yet....I'm saving them to spring on my best friend next time he visits. He'll watch them, even if I have to chain him up and paint him with Excrement! Lines and lines and lines and lines! Note that series three departs from one and two....the greater town seems to fall away to concentrate on newer characters, the laugh track is gone (thank bloody hell), the theme is more band and less orchestra and a bit of the story takes place outside of Royston Vasey. Don't be thrown by any of that as by the end, the series has preserved the quiet perversity first demonstrated in series one and two. I think these four guys have created something sort of undefinable. Brilliant, confident and absolutely demented. You will want to re-watch it again and again. It's amazing that in 5 seconds of screen time they can go from cheap sight-gag to horrifying blasphemy then end with a single actors close-up facial expression. If ever I were to meet any of the writer/performers, I'd implore them not to recreate it or try to top it.....I'd just say "Can I help you at all?" (Then they'd probably slap me, so I'd ask them to sign the slap-mark)! 10 out of 10 I can't believe it's been ten years since this show first aired on TV and delighted viewers with its unique mixture of comedy and horror. This is the show that gave birth to a good part of modern British humor: Dr. Terrible's House of Horrible; Garth Marenghi's Darkplace; The Mighty Boosh; Snuff Box. Many have imitated this show's style, and I don't deny some have surpassed its quality. But Jermy Dyson deserves being remembered for having started the trend, with actors Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, and Reece Shearsmith.

Together they created Royston Vasey, a sinister small town in England's idyllic countryside, where unsuspecting tourists and passers-by come across an obsessive couple that wants to keep the town local and free of strangers; where the unemployed are abused and insulted at the job center; where a farmer uses real people as scarecrows; where a vet kills all the animals he tries to cure; where a gypsy circus kidnaps people; and where the butcher adds something secret but irresistible to the food to hook people on.

This is just a whiff of what the viewer can find in The League of Gentlemen. By themselves, the three actors give birth to dozens and dozens of unique characters. The make up and prosthetics are so good I actually thought I watching a lot more actors on the show than there were. But it's also great acting: the way they change their voices and their body movement, the really become other people.

Most of the jokes start with something ordinary, from real life, and then blows up into something unsettling, sometimes gut-wrenching. Sometimes it's pure horror without a set up, like in Papa Lazarou's character. Just imagine a creepy circus owner on make-up barging into someone's house and kidnapping women to be his wives. No explanation given. It's that creepy. Then there are the numerous references to horror movies: Se7en, The Silence of the Lambs, Nosferatu, The Exorcist, etc.

Fans of horror will love it, fans of comedy will love it. As any traveler entering knows, there's a sign there that says 'Welcome to Royston Vasey: You'll Never Leave.' Any viewer who gives this show a chance will agree. Once you discover The League of Gentlemen, you'll never want anything else, you'll never forget it. One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats "dole scum" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it! A fantastic show and an unrealized classic; The League of Gentlemen remains as one of the greatest modern comedies of recent times.

With a dark and bizarre style of humor that towers over the tired, formulaic approach of it's inferior, yet unfortunately far more acknowledged successor, Little Britain, The League of Gentlemen was truly something special during a rather quiet era in British comedy.

Up until it's arrival on the scene, there had never really been anything like The League of Gentlemen before. On the surface, a seemingly simplistic sketch show, the show soon unfolds as a vivid, sinister but incredibly hilarious universe populated with all manner of brilliant comedic creations. What really sets the show apart from it's rivals, is it's approach to telling us it's story. Rather than serve us re-hashed sketches, barely distinguishable from the next, here we see each individual or group of characters go through their various journeys and story lines. No visit to them is the same, and each time they offer us up with a surprise.

Gradually, over three series' and a Christmas special, the fictional town of Royston Vasey is heaving with a grotesque yet hilarious populace. And that's probably the main reason why the show is such a joy to watch (and also the reason why the show would easily merit more series') Unlike other current shows like The Catherine Tate Show or more importantly Little Britain, the League both know when a character has run it's course, and have the opportunity to deal with that. Several fan favorite's, who could have easily been kept on to entertain further, bowed out before the series came to a close, giving room for fellow characters to grow more, or allow for the introduction of newer residents of Royston Vasey to make their mark.

Another thing that sets this show above others is that the writing team approach the script process with care and intelligence. As mentioned before, all four members of the League have a sound mind when it comes to judging the longevity of their creations, and when it's time to call it quits in respect to certain characters. This awareness has also meant The League of Gentlemen undergoes a bold evolution, not usually seen in a show of this nature. The narrative driven, and far darker third series is a brave step away from the more sketch based first two series' and this bold move by the League really pays off. With the third series, there's less of an urgency for them to please an audience, and like the Christmas special, they pursue individual stories with a clear narrative, unlike the more sketch-based previous series' that (succesfully) binded together various sets of sketches into a series' long story arc.

The third series is both a refreshing change of pace of style, as well as a real treat for fans who've already seen the first two. Despite some polarized opinion on the third series, any real fan of the League will appreciate what the third series has to offer, as well as really enjoy the more character based episodes, that only delve deeper into fan favorite's, but pair up and inter-wine characters that might not have crossed paths previously.

It might take a little trying to get into the change in style, but it's definitely worth it, and in my opinion, the third series is the best and also provides a firm conclusion to the series.

The show's not without it's drawbacks, and very occasionally certain characters and set pieces appear somewhat out of place, but for the most part, the genius writing, dark nature of the show and the host of brilliant characters (that are often all too close to real life) make for a real treat and prove what comedy should be about and puts much of the more recent, catch phrase driven and often desperate attempts at comedy to shame Somehow, this movie manages to be invigorating, bittersweet, and heartwarming at the same time. Stars like Tony Shalhoub (from Providence) bring the tale to life. The story itself is inspiring. We see a desperate, up-and-down life through the most innocent eyes imaginable: a bird's.

Paulie begins his life as a baby parrot given to a little girl (played by Hallie Eisenberg, also known as the Pepsi girl) with a speech impediment. While she learns to speak correctly, so does Paulie. However, unlike most birds, he can speak and understand everything being said. The military father doesn't like the bird, so he is sent to a pawn shop and bought by an aging artist, Ivy. She teaches him manners, etc., while traveling across the country to find Paulie's owner. The movie continues with several twists of fate, until Paulie ends up at a laboratory where he is eventually hidden away in a basement, and found by a Russian custodian, who is touched by the bird's story. the plot is in keeping with the simple, metaphorical theme that language is a gift, and a curse. I would like to say that the soundtrack is astounding. A beautiful mixture of flute, digital base, and horns enhance the movie to the point of pure ecstasy. The sweeping camera angles and breathtaking scenery beautify the story even more. And, as a final remark, the puppetry is entirely believable. (Unlike in star wars, where Yoda resembles a Muppet) This film is one of my favorite movies, with the added remark that my wonderful parakeet of four years died recently. Overall, I give this movie **** out of four stars, two thumbs up, and a big hug. Something about "Paulie" touched my heart as few movies do. It is a witty, funny yet emotional movie. I'm a late comer in becoming a fan of this movie. I didn't see "Paulie" until May, 2004 and have since ordered the Widescreen DVD from a seller at eBay.

The special effects of showing Paulie talking are superb. My son asked me how the bird knew so many phrases.Probably my favorite part of the movie is when Paulie is in Gena Rowlands (Ivy's) company followed by Cheech Marin (Ignacio). Tony Shalhoub (Misha) plays an excellent part as the good hearted human. You root for him all the way through the movie.

You can't go wrong renting or buying this movie!! I have seen this film numerous times and for the life of me, I cannot understand why some people compare this to BABE. This film is not about the secret life of ALL animals who secretly can talk. Instead, it is about a Parrot who learns to talk to help his owner, a little girl with a serious stammer, overcome her speech impediment only to be separated from her in a heart-wrenching scene early on. Then the great journey begins. Paulie the Parrot sets out to try and find his one great friend, Marie.

Along the way, he meets several wonderful people and numerous nasty people. He falls in love with a girl parrot and loses her. He gets conned into a life of crime and then captured by a bad scientist who wants to exploit him.

He recounts his tale to a sympathetic Janitor in the Lab who agrees to help him escape and find his beloved Marie.

Tony Shaloub shines as the kindly Janitor who has an open mind and big heart and who determines to help little Paulie despite the risks. Jay Mohr plays the voice of the Parrot AND one of the seedy characters he comes across.

There is a little suggestive language but this film is appropriate for most kids and even more so if the parents join in on the fun and watch too. It is a witty, clever, epic animal-adventure story and ultimately a great love story about a Bird and his little girl. He search for Marie ends with a quite an unexpected surprise for most people who don;t know much about Parrots.

Kids who have seen the wild Green Parrot Tribes in Los Angeles and Pasadena will especially benefit from seeing this film and understanding that Birds, especially Parrots are not disposable pets. All children everywhere, will see that Pets form deep attachments themselves and that the love and loyalty of a dog or parrot is a gift to be treasured.

so no BABE here, more of an incredible journey with a twist.

Enjoy and try no to tear up during the sad parts. This is a really heart-warming family movie. It has absolutely brilliant animal training and "acting" (if you can call it like that) as well (just think about the dog in "How the Grinch stole Christmas"... it was plain bad training). The Paulie story is extremely well done, well reproduced and in general the characters are really elaborated too. Not more to say except that this is a GREAT MOVIE!

My ratings: story 8.5/10, acting 7.5/10, animals+fx 8.5/10, cinematography 8/10.

My overall rating: 8/10 - BIG FAMILY MOVIE AND VERY WORTH WATCHING! I'm no fan of newer movies, but this one was a real pleasure to watch. Adults and children could watch it together - how unusual! My aunt liked it, too. It had laughter, tears, love, adventure, special effects, good actors - and a talking parrot. It reminded me of a favourite, The Wizard of Oz. The hero, Paulie, an intelligent parrot, is separated from his home and family and goes through many adventures, temptations and disappointments, always keeping in mind his resolution to find his friend, Marie. Highly recommended. Some people might call "Paulie" a kids' movie, but I wish to assert that it's more than that. Probably more than anything else, this movie successfully goes to great lengths to show the plight of immigrants in the United States - topical given the recent debates. Portraying a parrot telling a Russian immigrant janitor (Tony Shalhoub) of how he searched America for his original owners, the movie tells several stories. There's the elderly woman (Gena Rowlands) whom he befriends, then a Mexican immigrant (Cheech Marin), and others.

All in all, it's a very well done movie. I usually don't expect much from these sorts of movies, but this one is a treat. I certainly recommend it. Also starring Jay Mohr, Buddy Hackett, Bruce Davison, Hallie Eisenberg and Trini Alvarado. I was entranced by this touching and hilarious film, not to mention surprised. I was also surprised to find that the voice of Paulie was performed by Jay Mohr. The performance was so finely nuanced, neither wavering into schmaltz nor becoming too hard under the New Jersey swagger, that I thought that this must be some unsung old pro, not the baby-faced Mr. Mohr. A very impressive performance, indeed, and it's gratifying to see his talents being taken seriously in a string of quirky, indie films. I was very surprised with this film. I was touched with the lives that paulie touched along his way to find his "marie" the little girl he was separated from. The humor was also very good and it did not hurt the story as i thought it would probably do. Actually i was expecting "paulie wants a cracker" jokes to hurt this film but even that was done in a very humorous scene that turns very touching when paulie is in the research lab press room conference. So if you wish to see a good "animal that talks" film check this one out, much better than Dr. DOLITTLE in my opinion. PAULIE also has a surprised twist in the end that is done very nicely as well. I don't know who could find fault with a simply human and funny film like this with lots of delights for your heart. I enjoyed each minute of it and guessed the ending half way through the movie -- but that did not disappoint me at all. It will not only touch your heart but it's such a good family friendly film--we need many more like these! This is absolutely the best none-animated family film I've seen in quite a while, back to the first Homeward Bound. Paulie is a humerous movie about life through a parrot's POV. It's a really touching movie and ranks high among family films, up to Disney status, IMHO. Paulie was cute, cool, enjoyable and quite fulfilling. I went to this movie expecting to view a typical "family" movie, one that within moments would find me unconscious and drooling on the floor. My mindframe immediately changed when I was quickly captivated by the movie's wholesomeness. It is rare that you find a family movie that is thorough and can be coined "wholesome". Most are cheaply made, written and produced purely to attract young family members, who'll then drag the unfortunate elders to a mind numbing 65 minutes of overused sight gags and plots.

Oh yes, Paulie had a plot. It told the story of a young girl(Marie) and her best friend Paulie the parrot, who unbelievably could talk and quite frequently held conversations with her. Marie's dorky jerk father found this unbelievable, and thought Paulie to be damaging to his 4-year old daughter's mental health, and quickly tore them apart. We follow Paulie's adventures (and misadventures) as he attempts to reunite with his beloved owner, meeting many memorable characters along the way. Oh yeah, Paulie really could (smart)talk and had a swift New Jersey accent. Cool. The plot held thick and entertaining throughout, keeping me attracted. Paulie is the best family movie I have found and wholeheartedly enjoyed. Ever. Seriously. Pick up a copy and sit back and enjoy a true family movie, with the whole family. No sleeping. I promise. So you think a talking parrot is not your cup of tea huh? Well, think again. Paulie is a wonderful film filled with touching moments.The characters are all lovable especially Paulie as he enters the lives of many people on his journey.It is journey worth experiencing. Don't miss it! It is available on home video. I approach films about talking animals with care. For every wonderful one like Babe, you get an equally poor one like the dreadful remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. Or in the case of Cats & Dogs, you have a great idea for a film not living up to its potential. When I heard about Paulie, the premise of a wisecracking parrot didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But I found the film a pleasant surprise. And it manages to sneak its way into your heart without you realising.

A Russian janitor, Misha Vilyenkov (Tony Shaloub) gets a job in a research laboratory. One day, he hears singing coming from the basement. And when he investigates, he finds a parrot in its cage singing its little heart out. Misha becomes fascinated with the bird, especially when it turns out the parrot can not only sing, it can talk. And not a few phrases either. Its a parrot you can actually make conversation with.

The parrot is called Paulie (voiced by Jay Mohr), and recognises a fellow castaway in Misha. Wondering how this world to the wise bird ended up in a dusty basement, Misha convinces Paulie to tell him his life story. Which all began when he was a baby, and in the care of Marie, a five year old girl with a stutter. The two of them became birds of a feather (OK, bad pun!).

When Marie's parents became concerned about her close friendship with a bird, they considered sending him away. And they finally did after Marie nearly injured herself in a fall after teaching Paulie to fly. Desperate to be reunited with her, Paulie begins a long journey across America, which includes a diverse number of new owners, flying great distances, and even ending up behind bars. Of a cage that is!

Paulie was one of a number of talking animal films released by DreamWorks in the late 90s. And although it wasn't afforded the same recognition or box-office success of Babe, Paulie succeeds on quite a few levels, and is an occasional work of striking intelligence.

Jay Mohr's stand-up style of acting is well suited to the part of Paulie. He never plays the part as too smug, even if he is a bit of a smart Aleck. Paulie's worldly, but he is also naive in his way.

Because he's lived a rather sheltered life with Marie, when he's taken away, he has to fend for himself for the first time. And when he falls into the hands of different owners, they make promises to Paulie to reunite him with Marie, which he believes. Only for those promises to be broken time and again.

Paulie is admittedly a little episodic. It follows the eclectic people Paulie ends up with, and how he slowly gets brought closer and closer to Marie. He first winds up in a pawn shop, where he is adopted by Ivy (Gena Rowlands), a kindly woman who teaches him the meaning of manners. She sympathises with Paulie's situation, and drives an RV across America to find Marie.

Paulie is an occasionally very touching film. His scenes with Ivy are some of the best. Wonderful moments of Paulie perched on her shoulder singing Tom Jones numbers. The way she instills in him the need for hope is great, and some of the dialogue is quite well written and even thought-provoking:

"There are things in life you put off, because you think you're gonna do them later. But the real thing Ivy taught me is you gotta live like there may not be a later."

The scene where Ivy passes away en route leaving Paulie all alone is a very heart-rending moment. And the sequence where he plucks up the courage to fly for the first time across the Grand Canyon, soaring majestically is such a beautifully composed scene it stays with you for hours after the film's over.

Despite the occasional sad moment, there are plenty of laughs to be had. Paulie falls in with a group of performing parrots at a Spanish outdoor restaurant. The animatronic effects here are really excellent as four birds do a perfectly choreographed dance number. And Paulie even gets to have a romance. Which is dashed when he falls in with a petty thief (played by Mohr as well). That may be the only complaint I have. As soon as you get comfortable with one situation, the film then moves Paulie on to another.

The scene where Paulie is taught to steal money from ATM machines is funny, but a little disturbing too. I'm amazed DreamWorks were granted the chance to include such a scene in a kids film. And Paulie's diamond robbery is very Mission Impossible. He's caught in the act, and shipped off to the lab for animal testing, where he's remained ever since.

The story finally comes full circle at the lab, where Misha vows to help Paulie. Of course they do find Marie. But the final revelation is a scene of such shocking intensity, I was left numb for several minutes. Paulie may never get the longevity Babe has, but I believe its an equally brilliant film. The same laughs. The same flawless effects. And the same surprising intelligence.

A minor gem. A talking parrot isn't a hugely imaginative idea for a new film, but Paulie turns a simple idea into a brilliant, heartwarming film that will delight the whole family. It manages to bridge the gap between sentimental trash and cruel harshness during Marie and Paulie's separation, and all the events in the film lead to a hugely satisfying emotional conclusion. The animal training is well-done - everyone will be affected when Paulie spreads his wings and flies for the first time. Paulie is a great character and should have received way more success, though this film wasn't a highlight of 1998, unlike Saving Private Ryan. This hour and a half will surely be an enjoyable one and one that you will remember. Paulie's story is a moving, sad, happy and interesting one - from the moment he is first seen to the moment he is united with his original owner, you will enjoy following him and watching him learning about friendship and the grim realities of life along the way. Not one to be missed if you have any kind of heart or emotion. 9/10 A sentimental story with a sentimental sound track. It's about a little girl ( with a voice impediment ) who treasures her green parrot Paulie. The parrot thinks and talks like a human being and gives help and advice to his constant companion.

The parrot is definitely the star of the film. At times mischievous and at times in fits of depression the bird captures the mood in a most remarkable and expressive way. The synchronised voice too is very well done and within a minute or two you can actually believe that this intelligent little bird exists.

Early in the film her father gives the bird to a pawnbroker and the subsequent scenes tell the story of Paulie's constant struggle over many years to be re-united with his mistress. One of the many memorable scenes is when he falls into bad company and is encouraged to spy on people using the automatic teller machines. Paulie it seems has a phenomenal memory.

The ending is predictable, but who would want it otherwise. Children will love this film and anybody who keeps a bird as a pet will delight in Paulie's antics. A very refreshing story, the life of a parrot with an intellect higher than an average human's. Shows humans from a bird's point of view. Especially liked the portrayal of different types of characters that the bird spends time with. Not all birds are bird-brained... This movie brought tears to my eyes; John Roberts really knew how to get to viewers' hearts, directing this wonderful picture where life is viewed through the mind and heart of Paulie. We discover from time to time, with the help of sensitive and talented directors like John, that even small creatures like Paulie have a heart. I just couldn't stop my tears, even though the film has a happy end. This is great, after thousands of films I saw through my life, "Paulie" really touched me deeply. This is, after the "Ugly Duckling", the second picture that really turned me upside down. Spoiler This is a great film about a conure. He goes through quite the ordeal trying to get back to his little girl owner. He learns a lot through his journey and meets up with a lot of other beautiful birds. If you love birds like my wife does, this film is for you. This film also has some sad parts that make the tears run. In the end it all works out for Paulie and his Russian friend. Rent this for the whole family, everyone will enjoy this. I absolutely LOVED this movie! It was SO good! This movie is told by the parrot, Paulie's point of view. Paulie is given to the little girl Marie, as a present. Paulie helps Marie learn to talk and they become best friends. But when Paulie tells Marie to fly, she falls and the bird is sent away. That's when the adventure begins. Paulie goes through so much to find his way back to Marie. This movie is so sweet, funny, touching, sad, and more. When I first watched this movie, it made me cry. The birds courage and urge to go find his Marie for all that time, was so touching. I must say that the ending is so sweet and sad, but you'll have to watch it to find out how it goes. At the end, the janitor tries to help him, after hearing his story. Will he find his long lost Marie or not? Find out when you watch this sweet, heart warming movie. It'll touch your heart. Rating:10 Add Paulie the parrot to beloved movie animal characters. This movie is a love story - bird and Gena Rowlands, Bird and beloved Marie, Michael and Marie. A Russian janitor helps a talking and thinking parrot find his rightful owner many years after Marie's parents sell him to a pawn shop. Before the heart warming ending we learn all the misadventures of Paulie. Cheech Marin and his dancing parrots are marvelous. Beautiful photography throughout. Great little movie, word of mouth will make it a cult favorite. This is such a great movie to watch with young children. I'm always looking for an excuse to watch it over & over. Gena was good, Cheech was fun,the Russian was good, Maria was adorable & of course Paulie was the best! I have to tell you, this is a great movie. It surprises me sometimes how good a movie with no pretenses can be. This one is just fabulous. It could be that it isn't TRYING too hard to send any kind of message; it just tells a whimsical, fun story. I gave it a 10 out of 10. Made me wish my own happy birds could talk. Tisk tisk on the reviewer who dissed the movie. A sweet story that people of all ages will enjoy. Paulie is a lovable little treasure. He has quite a few clever lines that truly made me laugh. I especially loved the dance sequences during his showbiz stint. You can forgive the obvious clichés as you cheer him on in his quest to be reunited with Marie. A charming movie featuring two strong characters who genuinely befriend the little parrot separated from his young owner. Would have liked to have seen more of the woman who becomes blind and must abandon their mutual journey. I liked her artistic and poetic inspirations, a shame she could not share Paulie's reunion. Bless Paulie in his new home, at last with Marie, perhaps joined by the nice young man who helped him defeat the antagonists to complete his journey. This movie seems on the surface to be a run of mill kids movie that parents can regretfully watch with their mostly entertained little kids. The movie seems and is mostly geared towards children yet it does not stop on this level. I watched this movie first as a young child and found it to be funny, entertaining,and heartwarming and did not see it again for several years. I watched it again recently at age 18 and found it to be almost as funny but just as heartwarming and entertaining. This movie is highly underrated and contains many messages of real life. This movie is an inspirational quest story that is made for kids yet epic in its own right. I recommend this movie to anyone of any age. The movie was very sweet and heartwarming! I cry almost every time I watch the movie. I would recommend this movie for every one. The movie was so inspiring to me. The actors did a great job of acting, and the movie was very well played and done. The movie was about a little girl who owned a parrot of whom she named Paulie. Paulie had gotten separated from her by her parents because they thought it would be best for her.

After Paulie had experienced so many people he ended up in a cage by himself in a basement. Finally this Russian man who had gotten a job at a place as a janitor. Had found Paulie in the basement and Paulie began to talk to him telling him the story of his life. In the end the man helped Paulie reunite with Marie (the little girl who raised Paulie). Love overcame all the obstacles. Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,"Paulie".

I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into "Born In East L.A." When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.

Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves.

While Cheech Marin's character "is" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.

Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.

Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion.

8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END) I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like "Citizen Kane" and "Seven Samaurai." However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and "Paulie" doesn't qualify for that.

The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.

Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. ("I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.

Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.

If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, "Paulie" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of "Paulie." I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, "let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning." So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.

It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching. Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.

In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.

So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages. I know, I know: it's childish. But I just love this type of movie. A bird that suffered a lot of "mishaps" and still hasn't lost his faith in humanity and his sense of humor. What's special about this film is the fact that the main character is Paulie -the parrot- and he's not used as a boost to some hotshot human actor. Furthermore I like the storyline: Paulie tells his lifestory to a cleaner at the point he hit rock bottom. (By the way: Jay Mohr's voice almost sounds like Joe Pesci's!). And Cheech Marin of course, the man IS humor to me. Ever since I saw "Up in Smoke" I have appreciated his naive way of performing, making a simple situation a hilarious one.. can't help myself. Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.

Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.

The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.

Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.

The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.

Great family film! One of the best movies I ever saw was an Irish movie titled Philadelphia,Here I Come. I read the play before I saw the movie and loved them both. It's the story of a young man preparing to leave Ireland to go to America because he can't earn a living in Ireland. It is told both from the perspective of the young man(whom the other characters in the film can see) and another young man representing his uncensored thoughts and feelings., but who cannot be seen by the other characters in the film. It is a very sad movie, but deeply touching, and I would recommend this film to anyone who wants something to think about. I love any Irish movie, or almost any movie about Ireland, and any film that has the late Irish actor Donal McCann in it gets my vote.I would watch that man chew gum for 2 hours on screen, and unfortunately,I have.Terrible shame to have lost him so young. After reading the original play I thought it would have been much more difficult to adapt to screen than it turned out to be. Donal McCann puts in a once-off great performance as Public Gar, the repressed antagonist who is manifested openly on screen by his extroverted (but unseen to others) alterego- Private Gar. Eamonn Kelly also plays an excellent "screwballs" whose inability to communicate his feelings is matched only by Gar.

Definitely worth renting out if you can find it. (Probably unavailable outside Ireland & UK) This is a small film , few characters ,theatrical.And yet it says something about Ireland that you won't find elsewhere.This film IS IRELAND. In all it's grubiness, it's sadness,it's self-delusion.The Boys , Master Doyle , SP O'Donell, The Cannon , Senator Doogan's daughter , Gar and above all Madge.I know them.I'm in the pub with them or kneeling to pray with them. They are our sad history and they are our present. Story of Ireland in the 70/s. This film is a beautiful reconstruction of small time Ireland in the 1970/s. All the gang are there see below. Master Boyle , The Boys , The Cannon , SP O'Donnell , Senator Doogan's Daugter , Rose , Agnes , Maura and Una. See this film.Feel Ireland as it was.

Bette Midler is again Divine! Raunchily humorous. In love with Burlesque. Capable of bringing you down to tears either with old jokes with new dresses or merely with old songs with more power & punch than ever. All in All Singing new ballads, power-singing the good old/perennial ones such as "The Rose"; "Stay With Me" and yes, even "Wind Beneath My Wings". The best way to appreciate the Divine Miss M has always been libe - since this is the next best thing to it, I strongly recommended to all with a mixture of adult wide-eyed enchantment and appreciation and a child's mischievous wish for pushing all boundaries! Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more "vocally correct" version of "Stay With Me" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time. Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in "Diva Las Vegas". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing "Stay With Me" from her 1979 movie "The Rose". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums. Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now! A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around. After losing the Emmy for her performance as Mama Rose in the television version of GYPSY, Bette won an Emmy the following year for BETTE MIDLER: DIVA LAS VEGAS, a live concert special filmed for HBO from Las Vegas. Midler, who has been performing live on stage since the 1970's, proves that she is still one of the most electrifying live performers in the business. From her opening number, her classic "Friends", where she descends from the wings atop a beautiful prop cloud, Bette commands the stage with style and charisma from a rap-styled number called "I Look Good" she then proves that she has a way with a joke like few other performers in this business as she segues her way through a variety of musical selections. The section of the show where she salutes burlesque goes on a little too long but she does manage to incorporate her old Sophie Tucker jokes here to good advantage (even though she actually forgets one joke in the middle of telling it, but her ad-libbing until she remembers it is hysterical). Bette also treats us to "Rose's Turn" from GYPSY and the title tune from her smash film THE ROSE as well as a shameless plug for her hit movie THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. She brings the house down near the end with "Stay with Me, Baby" from THE ROSE and her only #1 hit record, "Wind Beneath My Wings" from BEACHES. It's a dazzling evening of musical comedy entertainment and for Midler fans, it's a must. Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. "Presque rien," on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.

In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.

The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites. 'Presque Rien' is a beautifully observed portrait of the experiences of a young French homosexual. Eschewing both stereotypes and preaching, it's a wonderfully naturalistic film, superbly acted, shot with a feel for the seaside town where the action takes place, never melodramatic but often painfully real. If anything it's almost too realistic, as there's little in the way of conventional plot, just scenes from a life. But the absence of conventional dramatic tension counts for less than it might in a world so subtly drawn. 'Presque Rien' might not be the most exciting film ever made; but its simple humanism serves it well compared with the pre-conceived celebratory or bigoted viewpoints that often mar treatments of this theme. Worth a watch. "Come Undone" appears to elicit a lot of opinions among the contributors to this forum. Granted, it's a film that promises a take on gay life, as most viewers expect and somehow, it gets away from that promise into an introspective view at a young man's soul. The film has a way of staying with us even when it has ended. It is a character study about how a young man gets involved into a love affair with someone so much different than him that, in the end, will leave Mathieu confused, hurt and depressed when things don't go according to what he hoped the relationship would be.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.

Sebastien Lifshitz, the director of the film, has told his story from Mathieu's viewpoint. Most viewers appear to be disoriented by the different times within the film, but there are hints that are not obvious, as one can see, in retrospect. The story is told in flashbacks that might add to the way some people will view the film. This is a story about the doomed the love Mathieu felt for Cedric and the ultimate breakdown of their life together.

First of all, Cedric, the handsome young local, pursues Mathieu until he succeeds in convincing him he likes him. Mathieu feels the attraction for Cedric too. We realize how different both young men are by the way Cedric tells Mathieu's family how he feels school is not for him. On the other hand, Mathieu, who wants to be an architect, finds beauty in the abandoned place where Cedric has taken him. We watch as Mathieu, reading from the guide book, wants Cedric's attention.

When Mathieu comes out to his mother, she wisely tells him about the importance of continuing his career. She also points out about what future both of them would have together, which proves to be true. Mathieu appears to have learned his lesson, the hard way. He goes on to an uncertain life with Cedric and attempts to take his own life. We watch him in the hospital speaking to a psychiatrist that has treated his wounded soul.

The ending might be confusing for most viewers, but there is a moment in the film when Mathieu goes to work in a bar where we see him washing glasses and looking intently to Pierre, the young man who frequents the bar. That is why when Mathieu goes looking for Pierre at his house, appears to be hard to imagine. Yet, we have seen the way Mathieu is obviously interested in Pierre. The last scene at the beach, when Pierre and Mathieu are seen strolling in the sand, has a hopeful sign that things will be better between them as they watch a young boy, apparently lost, but then realizing the father is nearby.

Jeremie Elkaim makes Mathieu one of the most complex characters in recent films. This is a young man who is hard to understand on a simple level. Mathieu has suffered a lot, first with the separation of his parents, then with his depressed mother and with losing Cedric. Stephan Rideau, who has been seen on other important French films, is equally good, as the shallow Cedric.

While "Come Undone" will divide opinions, the film deserves a viewing because of the complexity and the care Sebastien Lifshitz gives to the story. 'Presque Rien' ('Come Undone') is an earlier work by the inordinately gifted writer/ director Sébastien Lifshitz (with the collaboration of writer Stéphane Bouquet - the team that gave us the later 'Wild Side'). As we come to understand Lifshitz's manner of storytelling each of his works becomes more treasureable. By allowing his tender and sensitive love stories to unfold in the same random fashion found in the minds of confused and insecure youths - time now, time passed, time reflective, time imagined, time alone - Lifshitz makes his tales more personal, involving the viewer with every aspect of the characters' responses. It takes a bit of work to key into his method, but going with his technique draws us deeply into the film.

Mathieu (handsome and gifted Jérémie Elkaïm) is visiting the seaside for a holiday, a time to allow his mother (Dominique Reymond) to struggle with her undefined illness, cared for by the worldly and wise Annick (Marie Matheron) and accompanied by his sister Sarah (Laetitia Legrix): their distant father has remained at home for business reasons. Weaving in and out of the first moments of the film are images of Mathieu alone, looking depressed, riding trains, speaking to someone in a little recorder. We are left to wonder whether the unfolding action is all memory or contemporary action.

While sunning at the beach Mathieu notices a handsome youth his age starring at him, and we can feel Mathieu's emotions quivering with confusion. The youth Cédric (Stéphane Rideau) follows Mathieu and his sister home, continuing the mystery of attraction. Soon Cédric approaches Mathieu and a gentle introduction leads to a kiss that begins a passionate love obsession. Mathieu is terrified of the direction he is taking, rebuffs Cédric's public approaches, but continues to seek him out for consignations. The two young men are fully in the throes of being in love and the enactment of the physical aspect of this relationship, so very necessary to understanding this story, is shared with the audience in some very erotic and sensual scenes. Yet as the summer wears on Mathieu, a committed student, realizes that Cédric is a drifter working in a condiment stand at a carnival. It becomes apparent that Cédric is the Dionysian partner while Mathieu is the Apollonian one: in a telling time in architectural ruin Mathieu is excited by the beauty of the history and space while Cédric is only interested in the place as a new hideaway for lovemaking.

Mathieu is a complex person, coping with his familial ties strained by critical illness and a non-present father, a fear of his burgeoning sexuality, and his nascent passion for Cédric. Their moments of joy are disrupted by Cédric's admission of infidelity and Mathieu's inability to cope with that issue and eventually they part ways. Time passes, family changes are made, and Mathieu drifts into depression including a suicide attempt. The manner in which Mathieu copes with all of these challenges and finds solace, strangely enough, in one of Cédric's past lovers Pierre (Nils Ohlund) brings the film to an ambiguous yet wholly successful climax.

After viewing the film the feeling of identification with these characters is so strong that the desire to start the film from the beginning now with the knowledge of the complete story is powerful. Lifshitz has given us a film of meditation with passion, conflicts with passion's powers found in love, and a quiet film of silences and reveries that are incomparably beautiful. The entire cast is superb and the direction is gentle and provocative. Lifshitz is most assuredly one of the bright lights of film-making. In French with English subtitles. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of "les roseaux savages" (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude. Maybe "Presque Rien" is not the best movie ever made... But it is better than many of you have said. I still haven't seen a homo-themed movie better than this one.

You Americans are accustomed to watch very narrative movies, with a clear beginning, development and outcome. But European movies are less narrative, but makes you think much and feel.

Many of you didn't understand the sense of the movie.. The purpose of this one is not show us a simple "summer loving movie", with commercial characters who "fall in love and live happy forever". Summer Holidays and beach are only a background, and this movie is directed to every young boy who may feel identified with those boys.

Maybe some of you didn't understand well this movie, because of its 3 parts, showed as flashbacks. These 3 moments are: - Summertime in Pornichet, when they meet and love. - After a year and half living together in Nantes, Mathieu doesn't go to a psychiatric himself. He tries to suicide taking something, and Cedric brings him to hospital. Later, he appears talking with a psychiatrist to find the reason about he done that. - The last part, is when Mathieu come back to Pornichet, in winter, alone.. to think about how his life have changed, how his life become to be, and trying to find himself.

It's possible that some people couldn't understand all this well, because all the scenes are mixed among them. But anyway, as I said before... this is not a funny movie. If what someone want to see is meat, for that, we have Belami movies.

Presque Rien, what want to show us, is how cruel can be the life, for a young boy who is not sure about his feelings and not sure about what to do in life. Mathieu only wants to go away from home, and try to live the kind of life that he thought could bring him the happiness.. But what seemed perfect at the beginning.. later is not as good as he thought, and he become troubled, and feel that he has lost the way of his life. He is lost and doesn't know what he really wants to do, or what makes him happy. He finally become depressed and tries to commit suicide.

So, funny? Is not a funny movie. Very hot scenes? only a few.. but this is not a movie for entertainment. Is all about feelings... friendship, love, happiness, unhappiness, pain, depression, loneliness... I, as many others, feel identified with life and problems of Mathieu, and that is what director wanted to do.. a movie who show us the cruel reality of a boy's life.

For me, the best homo-themed movie ever. Stephane Rideau was already a star for his tour de force in "Wild Reeds," and he is one of France's biggest indie stars. In this film, he plays Cedric, a local boy who meets vacationing Mathieu (newcomer Jamie Elkaim, in a stunning, nuanced, ethereal performance) at the beach. Mathieu has a complex relationship with his ill mother, demanding aunt and sister (with whom he has a competitive relationship). Soon, the two are falling in love.

The film's fractured narrative -- which is comprised of lengthy flash-backs, bits and pieces of the present, and real-time forward-movement into the future -- is a little daunting. Director Sebastien Lifshitz doesn't signal which time-period we are in, and the story line can be difficult to follow. But stick it out: The film's final 45 minutes are so engrossing that you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. By turns heart-breaking and uplifting, this film ranks with "Beautiful Thing" as must-see cinema. First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.

Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.

The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.

If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.

The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.

Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.

The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning… The film's title "Presque rien" (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him… "Non… enfin, oui… une fois, mais ce n'était rien" (No… well, yes… once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu – he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves – but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.

Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it… I agree that the movie is a little slow at spots having many scenes of mundane everyday life and no dialog. And I wasn't impressed right after I watched it. However, after a few days, I realized that the movie stays with me and it evokes a melancholy mood which lingers in my mind. My appreciation of this movie increases. It certainly merits a higher consideration than those movies that are instantly forgettable.

As many have commented, the movie is non-linear and that's a hallmark of European film-making as opposed to the linear narrative form that Hollywood favors. I don't really know whether it's true or not. Many also dislike its confusing structure and lack of clear explanations. To those viewers, I don't think there is much I can say to change their opinions. However, for others who have yet to see the film, DO expect to be challenged and DON'T expect the film to supply all the answers and you might come away enjoying it more than you would otherwise.

The movie skips around a bit but really chronicles just 3 time periods. Pay attention to the hair style and you can easily separate out 2 of the 3 periods. It is also not as confusing as suggested; just enjoy and it'll all be clear at the end.

Yes, lots of things are left unsaid or not shown, and lots of situations are left unexplored. But isn't that what life is like? A lot of time you're not sure of the motives of your friends/loved ones unless you confront them and even then, you can never be 100% sure if they told you the whole truth. This type of movies forces us to interpret the reasons behind the actions. The movie does, however, leave enough hints for you to make some reasonable assumptions. For example, Mathieu is manic depressive, to the point of suicidal. Why? I don't know, maybe his life is not turning out exactly as he expects it; maybe he misses his family but hasn't forgiven his father for abandoning his sick mother at her hours of need; maybe after all he sacrifices for Cedric, rearranging and indeed, shattering his life to be with him, he realizes that it is all "coming undone". I think the director meant to show us that he has always been a little off, mentality fragile by that scene w/ the dead bird. Maybe he has a very sensitive psyche and all these stresses are taking a toll on him. But we're also shown that he is not some animal torturing psycho by his loving interaction w/ the stray cat. Also, there is one conversation between the doctor and Cedric that sheds light on the reason behind the breakup and maybe the suicide attempt. The doctor asks him if everything is okay, and Cedric thinks so even though he cheated on Mathieu once, but that's nothing, according to Cedric. Is that the only reason, we don't know, there are probably others, all mixed up together. Is it paramount that we know exactly what they are? I don't think so, for this movie. Another telltale sign that they are ultimately not compatible is the historical ruins scene. Mathieu is interested in studying the ruins, Cedric is not. He is the one w/ the raging hormone who focuses only on the physical side without an intellectual side that Mathieu obviously needs.

Finally, the ending is really rather hopeful and sweet. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn of events after the bleak tone that edges toward the end.

I have two complaints for the DVD. One is the sound. It's very soft. I had to crank up the volume to hear the dialog and then when it switched to a bar or outdoor crowd scene, it became too loud. The other is that the subtitles can't be turn off; they stay on the screen. Most foreign movie DVDs not released by a major studio are shoddy this way unfortunately. What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.

Spoiler of sorts follows.

Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.

On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is "presque rien." I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten. I found this film the first time when I was searching for some works in witch Stéphane Rideau had participate, still in an extraordinary ravishment caused by the astonishingly beautiful «Les roseaux sauvages» (in Portuguese, Juncos Silvestres), by André Téchiné. I was searching for similar movies, in the come of age line. I found then «Presque Rien», a movie where the director Sébastien Lifshitz deliciously amazes us, earning a nomination by the Cannes festival in 2000. The story is about two guys, the kind «boy next door», Mathieu (Jérémie Elkaïm) and Cédric (Stéphane Rideau), who meet during the summer vacations. In a land far from where he lives, Mathieu spends is days at the beach with his sister. There he meets Cédric, a local, with whom he starts this estival and revealing relationship, much by means of the sensual and seducer personality that Stéphane Rideau gives his characters, (in «Les roseaux sauvages», 6 years younger, he still preserves the innocence of the sweet seducer, witch matures here in experience). Exemplar in directing, in the amorous sequence, in the intimate and confessing description that is made about a boys first facing his (still ambiguous) sexuality and great love. The first love, in its terrible progression ecstasy-despair. The best of the film is the best of France: the fervent passion, the hot and excited rationalism, the brownish beauty, the simple and natural acceptance made by the families, although not without surprise and first anger. Still, there is the beach, the luminosity, the lightness e simplicity of summer, the freshness of breeze, the surge’s melody, and the expressive eyes of an introverted Elkaïm (hesitant, hurt, puzzled, passionate). The sex is not avoided nor exploited, it is treated as it is, with no exhibitionist intention. In virtue of pure talent, this is a work of drama of uncommon quality, without cheap sentimentalism, showing an inevitably real image of two homosexual in their prime youth as any ordinary person, although with a social fear of rejection and shame. It is well worthy being seen, especially by those who adore French movies (although the DVD front cover is very lame, with the two actors in between tens of stars, greased with brilliantine). A movie witch, in my opinion, deserves an 8-9! Screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival under the title ' Come Undone', April 25, 26, & 27, 2001. The cinematographer uses techniques that add to the storytelling. Even with fall/winter backgrounds for the 'present' and spring summer for the 'flashbacks' there can be some difficulty following the continuity.

Whether either lead is gay, the actors well-portray the budding relationship in real life terms; from physical violence toward each other to their passionate lovemaking. The story pulls you into the characters a bit slowly in the beginning. But as the end approaches, you really care about where these guys will be next summer! You, too, will want a sequel to find out. I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the "dating" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-) Deeply emotional. It can't leave you neutral.

Yes it's a love story between 2 18 years old boys. But it's only the body of this movie. And it's been removed. You only feel what happened with these boys. You feel the soul of the movie. With of course some action, some sex, but this is no pornography, too many feelings.

It was only a summer "story", and it became, from love to hate, almost to death, the most important time of their lives. I loved it, you will too, whatever your feelings are. There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying. 'Presque rien' is a story of two young boys falling in love during summer stay by the seaside. I don't want to tell the plot, because it's not what's most important about this film (but you can be sure that it's interesting and original). The best part of this movie is the cinematography. The visual side of 'Presque rien' is so amazing it deserves highest note. It leaves you charmed with its beauty.

As for the plot, it is shown in uneven, rather complicated way. There is no simple chronology nor there are answers to all the questions the film brings. But this is what makes 'Presque rien' even more interesting. I recommend this movie to all the people for whom the artistic side of films is very important and they will not be disappointed. i'm gonna give it to ya straight...this movie is amazing. foreign gay films are so fast surpassing American gay films in production quality acting and story. while so many American indie gay films are grainy, bad sound, amateur acting, trite story lines, and a surprising lack of any nudity or erotica, top-quality foreign gay films have been popping up like this one from France. the cinematography is beautiful, thought out, meaningful. the story is adult and complex (but not difficult for anyone to follow), the acting is intense and professional. both leads are fantastic, as well as the entire cast. the boys are more than just good-looking and there's plenty of full frontal nudity. you follow the entire year of these boys, from their meeting to the end. all the little nuances of a relationship's, the details of falling in, and out, of love are there beautifully performed. it left me wanting more. check it out! This movie has everything. Emotion, power, affection, Stephane Rideau's adorable naked beach dance... It exposes the need for real inner communion and outer communication in any relationship. Just because Cedric and Mathieu are a couple who happen to be gay doesn't mean there isn't quite useful insight for anybody in it. I would probably classify it as a gay movie, but one that can be appreciated and loved by heterosexual people as well as homosexual and bisexual people. Mathieu's incapacity to handle his emotions divulges the way our society doesn't encourage us to act any differently, and that is what engenders the discord between him and Cedric. This is definitely a must-see!!!! The movie is very realistic. Absolutely, it does not belong to the Hollywood Cinema genre where every line must be pronounced in a perfect manner and where every move is precise. The actors playing the roles of the lovers do a GREAT job representing the characters' feelings and thoughts - their everyday life adventures. Overall, the movie climaxes the viewer to a depressed state. This is where the realism of the whole story is apparent. Not everything happens the way we think it should happen. I can say though that the movie does not end on a bad note. We watch, we learn, we experience ourselves. That is probably the moral of this story. The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart. Most Hollywood movies fail to capture the full range of experience of teenagers. This film demonstrates exactly how to do it right. It combines elements of humour, suffering, rebellion, etc. in a way that is comlex & sympathetic. The ending could be a bit clearer, but the fact that the director doesn't spell everything out for you in advance before coming to the conclusion means that this film assumes a more intelligent viewer. A very close and sharp discription of the bubbling and dynamic emotional world of specialy one 18year old guy, that makes his first experiences in his gay love to an other boy, during an vacation with a part of his family.

I liked this film because of his extremly clear and surrogated storytelling , with all this "Sound-close-ups" and quiet moments wich had been full of intensive moods.

This movie was more of a passage into manhood for one gay man, and how he must deal with everyone. His mother is depressed, his younger sister is a pain, his older sister is somewhat accepting. The relationship looks good with his boyfriend/exhooker and he leaves his family to try life with this first guy. Unfortunately, the new guy screws around on him and says it really didn't mean anything. Our young gay man goes bonkers and ends up in the looney bin and eventually leaves, dumping his new lover and starting over. We are left with him starting over and viewing, not participating, in happiness. So maybe things will go better for him in the future. The ending was kind of a downer but the whole movie was entirely realistic and so I will let this real ending slip bye with a high rating. This movie has a special way of telling the story, at first i found it rather odd as it jumped through time and I had no idea whats happening.

Anyway the story line was although simple, but still very real and touching. You met someone the first time, you fell in love completely, but broke up at last and promoted a deadly agony. Who hasn't go through this? but we will never forget this kind of pain in our life.

I would say i am rather touched as two actor has shown great performance in showing the love between the characters. I just wish that the story could be a happy ending. A lonely depressed French boy Mathieu (Jeremie Elkaim) on vacation in the summer, meets and falls in love with Cedric (the gorgeous Stephane Rideau). Quiet and slow this is a very frustrating movie. On one hand, I was absorbed by it and really felt for the two boys. On the other I was getting annoyed--the film constantly keeps flashing around from the past to the present with no rhyme or reason. It's very confusing and pointless.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Also there are tons of plot holes--Mathieu, at one point, does something that ends him up in the hospital. What is it--we're never told! Then he breaks up with Cedric and tells everybody else he's living with him. Why? We're not told. Then he hooks up inexplicably with another guy at the end. Why? No explanation. It's clear Cedric loves Mathieu and Mathieu is living in the same town so... However it is a tribute to the film that you really care about the characters so much. If only things were explained!

Elkaim as Mathieu is not good. He's tall, handsome and has a nice body--but he can't act. His idea of acting is sitting around with a blank look on his face--all the time. Rideau, on the other hand, is great. He's VERY handsome, has a very nice body and is one hell of an actor. Also he has an incredible sexual magnetism about him. There is full frontal male nudity, lots of kissing and a fairly explicit sex scene in the movie which is great--most movies shy away from showing male-male love scenes. This one doesn't and it helps to see how the characters care and feel for each other.

So, a frustrating film but somewhat worth seeing--especially for Rideau's nude scenes--that is, if you like good-looking nude young men!

The romance of the movie, which is also its main theme, is good and nicely presented. However, the surrounding of the love story is too lyric, graphical and unrealistic. Even worse, the psychology of the main character is weird and incomprehensible, exactly like the end of the movie. Don't hesitate to watch this movie, if it attracted your interest, but don't expect too much of it either. This is an unusual Laurel & Hardy comedy with something of a split personality: at times it feels like two movies made in different styles spliced into a single short. Happily, each portion is funny in its own right, and the boys' seemingly effortless clowning carries the day and synthesizes the film's disparate elements into an entertaining whole. While I've never heard a fan cite DIRTY WORK as his or her favorite Laurel & Hardy comedy, it's nonetheless one that everybody seems to like.

Our story is set in the home of Professor Noodle, who represents one key element of the story-line: a wildly over-the-top parody of Mad Scientist scenarios. This marks a rare venture into sci-fi territory for L&H; Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges tangled with mad doctors far more often than Stan & Ollie. In any event, the professor is obsessed with creating a rejuvenating serum that can make people younger, while his sarcastic butler, Jessup, expresses the viewer's skepticism with rolled eyes and the occasional dry quip. Meanwhile, Stan & Ollie are chimney sweeps who show up at the Professor's home the very day he perfects his solution. "Their" portion of the film consists of characteristic (but first-rate) slapstick involving the chimney, the roof, shovels, and a number of unfortunate mishaps. If you don't enjoy watching these guys screw up a task then you probably won't like DIRTY WORK, but for fans of the team this movie is a feast. The highlight comes when Ollie plummets through the chimney, lands in the fireplace, and is then pummeled with bricks that fall onto his head with maddening rhythmic precision, one by one. I also like the shot of Ollie tumbling off the roof into a greenhouse; the process work is so slapdash I suspect it was something of an inside joke, the way W.C. Fields' movies would feature the world's worst rear-projection screens.

The slapstick stuff is great fun, but it's the mad scientist motif that makes this film offbeat, and two supporting players deserve a tip of the bowler hat: prolific character actor Lucien Littlefield is terrific as the professor, delivering his overripe lines with relish and cackling with hammy glee, while Sam Adams is a stitch in the less showy role of Jessup the butler. As great as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were in their prime, it's always worth noting that their supporting casts at the Hal Roach Studio gave their films an enormous boost. So too, usually, did the background music of Le Roy Shield, but DIRTY WORK marks a rare occasion from this period that a Roach comedy has no musical accompaniment at all after the opening credits. Mood music might have enhanced the proceedings, but no matter; this is a highly enjoyable comedy anyhow, and a prime example of what made Laurel & Hardy so popular in their day. In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .

But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with " HEY YOU " and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being " I have nothing to say " . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniest

DIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie

Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.

The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.

The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.

The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make "Dirty Work" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.

8/10 A LAUREL & HARDY Comedy Short. The Boys arrive to sweep the chimneys at the home of Professor Noodle, a mad scientist who's just perfected his rejuvenation serum. Stan & Ollie proceed with their DIRTY WORK, spreading destruction inside the house and on the roof. Then the Professor wants to try out his new potion...

A very funny little film. The ending is a bit abrupt, but much of the slapstick leading up to it is terrific. Especially good is Stan & Ollie's contest of wills at opposite ends of the chimney. That's Lucien Littlefield as the Professor. I have seen Dirty Work several times and is probably my favourite Stan and Ollie short.

In this one, Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and get the job to clean the chimney at the home of Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield). While Noodle is doing mad experiments in his lab, Stan and Ollie cause much chaos trying to clean the chimney and make a mess of the living room. The end is where Ollie falls into a tank of special formula that Noodle uses for his experiments and this turns him into a chimp! The best part is where Ollie falls down the chimney and loads of bricks land on his head, but he doesn't seem to suffer much pain from this.

Dirty Work is Stan and Ollie at their funniest. Great fun.

Rating: 5 stars out of 5. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield) is nearing the completion of his rejuvenation formula, with the ability to reverse ageing, after twenty years. Ollie and Stan are the chimney sweeps that arrive to do their job, and very quickly Ollie wants to get away from Stan making mistakes. Ollie goes to the roof to help with the other end of the brush at the top of the chimney, but Stan in the living room ends up pushing the him back in the attic. After breaking an extension, Stan gets a replacement, a loaded gun, from off the wall, and of course it fires the brush off. Stan goes up to have a look, and Ollie, standing on the attic door of the roof, falls into the greenhouse. Stan asks if he was hurt, and Ollie only answers with "I have nothing to say." Ollie gets back on the roof, and he and Stan end up in a tug and pull squabble which ends up in Ollie falling down and destroying the chimney. Ollie, hatless, in the fireplace is hit on the head by many bricks coming down, and the butler Jessup (Sam Adams) is covered in chimney ash smoke, oh, and Ollie still has nothing to say to Stan. The boys decide to clean up the mess, and when Stan tears the carpet with the shovel, Ollie asks "Can't you do anything right", and Stan replies "I have nothing to say", getting the shovel bashed on his head. As Ollie holds a bag for Stan to shovel in the ashes, they get distracted by a painting on the wall, and the ashes end up down Ollie's trousers, so Stan gets another shovel bashed on the head. Professor Noodle finishes his formula, and does a final test on a duck, with a drop in a tank of water, changing it into a duckling. He also shows the boys his success, turning the duckling into an egg, and he next proposes to use a human subject, i.e. his butler. While he's gone, the boys decide to test the formula for themselves, but Ollie ends up being knocked by Stan into the water tank with all the formula. In the end, what was once Ollie comes out, an ape, and when Stan asks him to speak, all Ollie ape says is "I have nothing to say", and Stan whimpers. Filled with wonderful slapstick and all classic comedy you could want from a black and white film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Very good! Some of my favorite Laurel and Hardy films have very, very little plot. Instead, they give them a rather mundane situation and just let them be hilarious! Films such as HELP MATES and BUSY BODIES are among the funniest as you see the boys working or cleaning house. Here in DIRTY WORK, most of the film is akin to these other two films--Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and spend most of the film trying (quite unsuccessfully) to clean a crazy professor's chimney. Seeing Ollie fall through the chimney, the boys making the house a total mess and the insane behaviors of Stanley all work together to make a very pleasing film.

However, in an odd twist, there is also a really weird subplot that begins and ends the movie. It seems that the professor is truly a mad scientist and he is working on a formula to make things younger. Late in the film, you see him make a duck into a duckling and even a duckling into an egg! Given that he then leaves the boys alone in the room, is it any surprise what happens next? While this subplot was unnecessary, it worked well enough. What worked exceptionally well was the middle portion. Give the boys nothing exciting to do and you'll be amazed at the hilarious results. One of the team's better films and it almost earns a 9. This is by far the funniest short made by the two comic geniuses. From the time they walk in, to the time Hardy just falls off the roof, this keeps me laughing hysterically. I highly suggest that every fan of Laurel and Hardy should see this short. I also recommend all of the Ghost Series. If you are looking for laughs, see this movie and you will be happy. Warning! Spoilers ahead!

SPOILERS

I've seen movie in German, so it might be, that I missed some clues.

Despite some weakness in the plot, it's a movie that came through to me. I liked especially Lexa Doig's acting. Sometimes I got impression, that she *is* Camille. But I can't stop wondering, what happened at the end with Bob, Cassie and baby. I belive, she, after initially being set on Bob, eventually ended up loving him and regretting what happened with his brother and being forced to lie to him. Otherwise it's a bit strange, that she would carry his baby and love it. It's up to viewer to decide - and I don't like such endings. Dean Cain was as good as ever, Eric Roberts .. well, I've seen him better but also worse.

I believe that the film is more an analysis of human relations and reacting in unexpected situations than a crime story.

Bottom line is, I liked it very much. On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide The Movie I thought was excellent it was suppose to be about romance with a little suspense in between.

Rob Stewart is a wonderful actor I don't know why people keep giving him a bad rap. As for Mel Harris she is a great actress and for those who thinks she looks too old for Rob it's only by five years.

Rob had a lead role in his own TV series as well as one on the Scifi channel. I'm sure you remember Topical Heat aka Sweating Bullets and PainKiller Jane.

He also starred in a number of TV movies and is now making a TV Mini series.

They need to give him more leading roles that is what he is best at. Hmmmm, want a little romance with your mystery? This has it. I think if the romance was ditched this would have made for a better movie. But how could the romance be ditched when the story's borrowed from something called a Harlequin Romance novel, whatever the heck that is. Had the romance been ditched, the story might have been a little too weak. The mystery here wasn't too bad, quite interesting but nothing on the level of Mission Impossible international espionage. Oh well. I thought Mel Harris was pretty good; her short skirts, i think, added some sex appeal... but this Rob Stewart guy probably could have been better cast, maybe with a more well known TV movie actor. The directing was decent and the writing could have been improved on - both could have been a little edgier, a little darker, more adventurous. One thing that was great about this was the use of real European locations. That could easily have been changed so this could have been filmed in Canada but they really were in magnificently beautiful places like Budapest. Possibly a drawback was the director and/or cinematographer's choice to frame certain shots picture postcard perfect. Not good. Had this been a more dramatic motion picture shot for the big screen, picture postcard perfect scenes really need to take a backseat and just be a nice part of the background. This was just a tv-movie, though, so they had to add some Ummmph to the picture and some of that Ummmph came from the scenery. Overall, twasn't really a bad movie. I'll tell you what, this was absolutely the best Canadian-Hungarian production I have ever seen! (and the only that i know of.) I hereby proclaim this to be a mediocre made-for-tv movie, giving it a grade of C- I just watched this movie on Showtime. Quite by accident actually. If I wouldn't have only had 6 hrs of sleep for the past two days then I wouldn't have came home early from work. If I hadn't came home early from work I wouldn't have seen this movie. I wouldn't have known what I was missing, but I would've missed a lot.

That's the way this movie is. It's almost playing on the Kevin Bacon effect. That and causality (hence my verbiage above). Ever character is intertwined in some way or another. Action, reaction, interaction, non-interaction. This movie is just wonderful. I'm going to have to find a copy to buy. I Last night I had the pleasure of seeing the movie BUG at the Florida Film Festival and let me say it was a real treat. The Directors were there and they did a Q&A afterwards. The movie begins with a young boy smashing a roach beneath his foot, a man who is nearby parking his car sees the young boy smash it and runs to ask the kid `why? why? did he have to kill that living creature?' in his rush to counsel the youth in the error of his ways, the man neglects to pay his parking meter, which starts off a whole chain of events involving people not at all related to him, some funny, some sad, and some ridiculous. This movie has a lot of laughs, Lots! and there are many actors which you will recognize. The main actors who stood out in the film for me were: Jamie Kennedy (from his comedy show the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, playing a fortune cookie writer; John Carroll Lynch (who plays Drew's cross dressing brother on the Drew Carey show) playing the animal loving guy who just can't get it right; Brian Cox (The original Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter) playing the germaphobic owner of a Donut and Chinese Food Take Out joint. There is one line where Cox tells his chef to wash off some pigs blood that is on the sidewalk by saying "clean up that death" which is quite funny mostly because of Cox's "obsessed with germs" delivery. The funniest moment in the movie comes when a young boy imitates his father, whom he heard earlier in the day yell out `MotherF*****', while in the classroom. Another extremely funny and surreal scene is when Trudie Styler (Mrs. Sting herself) and another actor perform a scene on a cable access show, from the film the boy in the plastic bubble. The actor who hosts the cable access show is just amazing he is so serious and deadpan and his performance as both the doctor and the boy in the plastic bubble is enthralling. There are many other fine and funny actors and actresses in this film and having shot it in less than a month with a budget of just about $1 million, the directors Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (who are screenwriters by trade, having written crazy/beautiful and the upcoming Tuxedo starring Jackie Chan) have achieved a film that is great, funny and endearing. There are so many "Hollywood" movies made now that are not only torture to watch, but also have no bearing on anyone's life, whatsoever. Granted, movies don't always have to have deep meaning, but it's nice to know that there are still film-makers out there who care about telling "human" stories. I won't give away the premise of this brilliant film, however, the screenplay is surely one of the more complex and memorable ones I have ever seen in my life, and I'm a 32-year-old film buff too! Bug ranks top ten on my list of favorites, which includes: On the Waterfront, Sunset Boulevard, and Black Narcissus, to name just a few. This "moving" movie should become one of your favorites also- that is, if you have a heart! OK so a 10 for a 2 1/2 star movie you ask?...well see this one and maybe it will make more sense.. Hitchcock never blended scenes together better....The film weaves scenes together flawlessly from the start and yet you don't get that scattered feeling you sometimes get when a movie runs you through the many characters it attempts to develop. You sense that the characters will show you something unusual about themselves and then they don't disappoint you when they do. Screenwriter/Producer Phil Hay's surreal tale of life, blended with an absolutely superb soundtrack makes you think more about the 6 degrees of separation in life than the movie by the same title...I will be looking for more good things from this producer in the future. I recently bought this movie and I do not regret having it at all as a matter of fact I am very please have this movie to add to my collection. Matt Manfredi and Phil Hay, movie directors, took less than one month to film and spent about 1 million EUR to produce this great movie. This proves that not only big productions make great movies.

The title of this movie fits in perfectly. In computer language BUG means program error which causes reactions in computer function. Our reactions can cause these negative side effects, but also great moments of beauty. The vertiginous happenings in this movie start with the death of a BUG. A man witnesses the "crime" on the other side of the road...From there onwards everything gets complicated...

I point out John Carrol Lynch ("Fargo"), Wallece, the man who cannot make everything right at all. This was a very entertaining movie and I really enjoyed it, I don't normally rent movies like these (ie. indie flicks) however, I was attracted to the film because it had an incredible cast which included Jamie Kennedy, whom I have loved since the Scream trilogy. The movie director took a risk (and it is a risky risk) in telling the lives of many (and I mean MANY) different people and having the intertwine at various intervals. Taking that risk was a good idea because it's end result is an exceedingly good film.

The film has a few MAIN characters; Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) - a disgruntled fortune cookie writer whose relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks because of an argument. Wallace Gregory (John Carroll Lynch) - an airplane loader/technician who has a love for all living things (except, perhaps meter maids) and who despite his good heart has an increasing amount of bad luck. Cyr (Brian Cox) - the owner of a Chinese restaurant/donut shop who is a germaphobe and because of is his fear of germs places his assistant/cook Sung -(Alexis Cruz) under pressure to keep up with his phobia. Ernie - (Christopher Bauer) is married to Olive - (Christina Kirk) who he is convinced is trying to; stop him have fun, look ridiculous, go insane, and not live a normal life. They begin to have petty and almost crazy arguments and Olive seriously begins to have doubts about Ernie. Gordon - (Grant Heslov) is a man whose life isn't going very well, as bad things begin to add up in his life he decides to take it in hand. Mitchel - (Jon Huertas) is convinced that Gwen - (Alexandra Westcourt) is the girl of his dreams and that they are destined for each other, though she is more skeptical. He attempts to woo her every chance he gets and he certainly makes attempts! Johnston - (Michael Hitchcock) has just been fired from his job and has doubts about his role as provider, he takes another job that he just isn't suited for. His wife Annelle - (Arabella Field) is comforting through out his job loss experience until she learns that Johnston wasn't quite the loving husband she thought he was.

All in all I definitely suggest this movie!

-Erica Worth watching twice because of the rapid-paced causal shifts among several compelling stories, "Bug" emerges as a wholly satisfying work of art that plays ever-optimistic love against myriad examples of frustrating reality.

My favorite characters are Wallace (John Carroll Lynch)whose overriding concern for life--from that of a cockroach to the airline passengers for whom he is partially responsible--frames the film; Olive (Christina Kirk), who spends considerable time creating surreal but tasty meals for her impossible husband Ernie (Chris Bauer); and Mitchell, a cable TV technician with unbounded trust in fortune cookie messages: "You will meet the girl of your dreams."

Against such optimism are the forces of quirky reality, all generated by actions of the characters: parking tickets, a clogged drain in a Chinese food/donut shop, TV disruption, a crushed auto fender, an obliterated dinner reservation that eventually results in cancellation of a Hawaiian vacation.

The film is funny: Olive getting drunk at a Chippendale performance, Johnston (Michael Hitchcock)as a customer service rep attempting to deal with an irate customer, the germ-obsessive Cyr (Brian Cox) facing a restaurant inspector, Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) reacting to his girlfriend's refusal to have children by writing hostile Chinese cookie fortunes: "Your girlfriend is lying to you" and the guy who falls asleep while manning a jackhammer because he spent the night looking for his girlfriend's missing cat.

A minor story with public cable access host (Darryl Theirse) and a local acting teacher reading from "The Boy in the Bubble" expresses the major theme: love comes from the heart.

"Bug" entertains on much the same level as "trains, planes and automobiles" but on a lower budget and with a fresher eye. This is a great movie! Most of us have seen Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory is summarized by telling about a butterfly's wings, causing a tornado on the other side of the planet. Well, Bug is all about that (or at least something, don't worry this is no spoiler) I'm definitely not a religious type and don't believe in pre-destined stuff, fate, etc, but this movie surely makes you wonder if coincidence really exists...

further more, the acting and camera are excellent too, another prove that it's still possible to make a good movie without a zillion bucks As a producer of indie movies and a harsh critic of such, I have to say I loved this movie. It is funny and intelligent, well directed and entertaining. Hats off to the producers and directors for making a good one! I'll be watching for the next one. I gave it a 10. It is hard to describe Bug in words, it is one of those films that truly has to be seen to be understood. It follows a narrative that is more fluid and interesting than anything I have seen lately in a Hollywood release. As its characters react to the chain of events in different ways, and as the events dictate different paths for the characters to follow, the audience is merely an observer. The almost Proustian narrative flow of thought to thought, the very spontaneity in the script will have you glued to the screen, waiting anxiously to see how it all works out in the end. And as far as the thematic elements...there is a particular sequence in the film that goes from melancholy, to bright and beautiful, and then to tragic, all within the span of about a minute. And it works.

This movie is pure magic. It reminds one why independent film is perhaps the brightest star the film industry currently has. Perhaps with more movies of Bug's quality, people will start to take notice. The Good Thing about this movie: The concept is interesting and there are some funny scenes. It also makes you think of those little things in life that could greatly affect the life of someone else without you ever knowing. Its a small world and this little movie shows us.

The Bad Thing:There are too many characters and its hard to tell who the main character is but its still a great movie.

Its a great movie and many people compare it to Magnolia which I haven't seen.

8/10

Not Rated---I would rate it PG-13 for brief violence,some language and sexual situations. This was surprisingly intelligent for a TV movie, and quite true to my own experience of bulimia. It was actually well-researched, and I can only assume it was written by someone who's gone through a similar experience, because it had all the little details. The characters were quite well-drawn, and the performances by Mare Winningham and Alison Lohman were great. I think what I like most was that they made them specific and smart, and there was no dumbing down of the reasons for Beth's bulimia (it wasn't some "diet gone out of control, caused by the pressures placed on girls by the media, pressures we're not actually going to address..."). Her mother wasn't completely clueless - too often on television they'll take an issue that EVERYONE has some awareness of and try to tell us that their protagonists are the last remaining people on earth who don't ("Diabetes? What's that? Oh, my world is all askew, doctor, please explain it all to me as if I'm a small child", etc). It was brilliant that her mother was a psychologist and even she didn't see the signs. And the scenes where Beth was throwing up weren't OVERLY melodramatic and sensationalist, and concentrated more on bulimics' need for secrecy, and their out-of-controlness. The scene where Beth tells her mother she's bulimic would've made me cry if there hadn't been other people in the room.

Okay, so I liked those bits. What didn't work for me so well was the ending, which headed back to the TV movie territory we know and don't particularly love, but I guess they had to wrap it up. "You, too, can cure your child's eating disorder, if you have lots and lots of money and live in America..."

And can I just say again that I really like Mare Winningham. She's great. I cried my heart out, watching this movie. I have never suffered from any eating disorder, but I think this must be a very true picture.

Alison Lohman is excellent! She expresses these feelings amazingly well. My teenage years came back to me so vividly. Anyone who has gone through difficult times as a child or teenager will be able to relate to this movie. I recommend you all to see it!

The music is great too - I've now discovered Diana Lorden.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Alison Lohman in White Oléander, because I am positive she is perfectly suited for the role as Agnes. This was a pretty good movie, I liked it. I thought it was a pretty accurate look at bulimia and how it's not about dieting, it's about having a pain so deep that they have to find a way to deal with it and they choose this. Beth was a very accurately drawn character and in the scene where she confronts her mom about the eating disorder you can see the pain inside her and hear it in her voice and you know how deep the pain is that she is feeling. I also think one of the best lines in the movie is where Beth yells the words, "It's not about you." to her mother. Those words were so true and added so much to that scene in the movie. I think that that scene was definitely the most important scene in that movie. If you havn't seen this movie I highly recommend you do.It's an excellent true story.I love Alison Lohman she is so talented side note: I also loved her in 7th heaven.The whole story line is amazing and the way they chose there characters waz awesome. The acting in this film is

very awesome. This is a film which should be seen by anybody interested in, effected by, or suffering from an eating disorder. It is an amazingly accurate and sensitive portrayal of bulimia in a teenage girl, its causes and its symptoms. The girl is played by one of the most brilliant young actresses working in cinema today, Alison Lohman, who was later so spectacular in 'Where the Truth Lies'. I would recommend that this film be shown in all schools, as you will never see a better on this subject. Alison Lohman is absolutely outstanding, and one marvels at her ability to convey the anguish of a girl suffering from this compulsive disorder. If barometers tell us the air pressure, Alison Lohman tells us the emotional pressure with the same degree of accuracy. Her emotional range is so precise, each scene could be measured microscopically for its gradations of trauma, on a scale of rising hysteria and desperation which reaches unbearable intensity. Mare Winningham is the perfect choice to play her mother, and does so with immense sympathy and a range of emotions just as finely tuned as Lohman's. Together, they make a pair of sensitive emotional oscillators vibrating in resonance with one another. This film is really an astonishing achievement, and director Katt Shea should be proud of it. The only reason for not seeing it is if you are not interested in people. But even if you like nature films best, this is after all animal behaviour at the sharp edge. Bulimia is an extreme version of how a tormented soul can destroy her own body in a frenzy of despair. And if we don't sympathise with people suffering from the depths of despair, then we are dead inside. This was the best movie I've ever seen about Bulimia. It hit the exact spot of what Bulimia is really about and how it's not always about being skinny and dieting. It showed how people with Bulimia tend to think about things such as their outlook on life, friends and themselves. The best line and the part that really shows what the problem with Bulimia is, is when Beth says,"It's not about you!" That line really showed a lot about the character and others with the same problem. It showed that people with Bulimia don't have this problem because of anything that has to do with anyone else. It has to do with them and them only. It shows that it's time to talk about the person with the problem instead of putting the attention all on themselves. It showed that Beth needed to call out for attention at that moment and she needed her mom's attention at that time the most. well i wasn't sure what the film was going to be like as i had only seen a little clip but i was thinking its going to be good and i was right i watched it twice on the day i got it and well it is my favourite film.

i think Alison Lohan played the part of beth really well she is such a grate actress and the writer must have gone into a lot of research to find out about bulimia although the ending when beth is in the hospital an has 2 Horus observation after meals because iv been told like 1 house is OK and also that hospitals doesn't help bulimics as iv been told which is probably why I'm still at home even tho my sister and mum would like to have me hospitalised as i to have bulimia but this is a grate film i recommend it to any one with or with out an eating disorder or for people who know some one with eating disorders as it can let them in to the lives of a bulimic person and see the world how they do a bit over all a grate film and i recommend it to any one and any type of person "Darius Goes West" is the touching story of a brave teen coping with Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy and his personal quest to see the Pacific Ocean. He receives help and encouragement from a group of young men who love and care for him while going on this quest.

The story has a natural drama and honest portrayal of the commitment of young people to help one of their own stricken with this incurable disease.

Anyone who thinks young people are self-centered and narcissistic will find this movie to turn that stereotype on its head. It is the power of the young people and their engagement with Darius' plight that is very compelling in this documentary. I have one word to someup this movie, WOW! I saw "Darius Goes West" at the Tribeca Film Festival. People in the theater were sobbing. This movie shows the hardships that Darius sufferes with Muscular Dystrophy. The movie was very well done and really made you part of the movie, I WAS SO emotionally moved by the movie because it made us remember that we are very fortunate to be perfectly healthy, some people in this world are less fortuate then us. And sometimes we should give them a had and help them, to the very end. I would give them ten stars, they gave Darius a had when they weren't asked to, they did't do it for the money they did it for a friend in need, Darius, the world should know, Darius went west. Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney. Darius Goes West is an amazing documentary about a teenager (Weems) with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and his 11 friends who take him on a cross-country trip to see if "Pimp My Ride" will pimp out his wheelchair.

I recently watched this movie at the Sunscreen Film Festival. It played twice over the course of the festival. This movie is an amazing story about the human spirit, and the spirit of Weem's friends. I do not say this often about movies, but after watching this movie, I feel moved to do something towards the cause. Every festival this movie has taken part in, this movie has won an award of some kind. It is in the Tribeca Film Festival, and it is going to London and Athens, Greece. I would not be surprised if this movie went all the way to the Academy Awards. It is snowballing out of control. If anyone has a chance to see this movie, wherever it is playing, go! Take as many people as possible, and go! It is heading to New Orleans for a film festival, then on to Atlanta and Palm Beach, FL. Darius is from Georgia, so I expect the tickets for the Atlanta showing will be sold out quickly, if they are not already. Please, go see this movie! DGW (talk about it)

-Kish This movie is a touching story about an adventure taken by 15-year-old Darius Weems. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a still un-curable disease that took the life of his brother at age nineteen and is the number one killer of babies in the United States. Him and a few close friends travel across the country to Los Angeles with the goal of getting his wheelchair customized on MTV's, Pimp My Ride, one of his favorite shows. The journey begins in Georgia, where Darius grew up and has never left. The gang head west for a trip that all its participants will never forget. Darius gets to ride in a boat for the first time, ride in a hot air balloon, swim in the ocean and visit sights he's always wanted to see like the Grand Canyon and New Orleans. The filmmakers here clearly have an emotional connection to the material. They make no money from sales of the $20 dvds. $17 goes toward researching the disease and $3 goes toward making more copies. The film has won over 25 awards at festivals and I agree with the quote given to the film by Variety, "Certain to stir hearts". This is my first CG animated film that I've ever seen. Usually, the look of other animated films made me reticent to see them. Not Ice Age. I wanted to see it the moment I saw the trailer with Scrat, the hilarious sabertooth squirrel.

Ice Age was sporadically funny and overall fun film to watch. The story is basically an animated version of Three Men and a Baby, set 20,000 years in the past. The visuals were great. Simply beautiful. It's one thing to create convincing aninmation, it's another thing altogether to create visually arresting stuff and Ice Age is great to look at with its stylized visuals. Blue Sky Studios is a company to look out for in the future. I can't stand it when people go see a movie when they know they won't like it. My mom likes violent movies, so why did she see it? She rated it just to bring down the rating. So I know that's why it didn't have a higher rating. I give it a 6/10 The movie itself was ok for the kids. But I gotta tell ya that Scratch, the little squirrel, was the funniest character I've ever seen. He makes the movie all by himself. He's the reason I've just love this movie. Congradulations to the crew, it made me laugh out loud and always will! No day passes without a new released computer animated movie, so we now really have chances to see more than some nice effects. After watching Ice Age I felt that's it was not that big impact on me than some other films of this genre.

But it's because I am a Big Guy now, and I am pretty sure that this is a very enjoyable movie for children (maybe up to 14). The story is quite simple, and the "actors" are funny in a cute way, without any crude or complex humour. Even the "evil" is lovely, fluffy big cat with those funny teeth. And the story has a happy end, which was a small disappointment for me (knowing that most of the main characters are doomed to extinction in a sad way) but a great thing for children. And apart from some fights nobody dies (not even when he gets stomped on by a mammoth, several times), which made a cartoony feeling.

The computer animation part is nice but nothing special, apart from some really nice cartoony feeling scenes, when you feel like walking in a nice painting or pages of a comics. [Which means lots of work nevertheless!]

There were some gags which made me smile - I accept, the creators tried to satisfy those grownups - but they are hard to spot and (in my opinion) better left unnoticed, since it does not feel to fit into the story.

Overall it's a nice movie, but it's rather in the ideal-world-and-fluffy-animals-for-children disney cliche. If you don't hate cute animals making funny things, watch it at least once. Shrek, anyone? Well, imagine Shrek in the ice age. Remember the ending of Shrek? Of cause you do. Now, imagine, that Shrek turns into a human, and so does the princess. Get it? Nice animation, actually, much more of an art work than Pixar and Disney pictures, which are trying to get as close to reality as possible in their drawings. Strong one-liners, some social comments that kids won't understand, the good guys win. One thing more: Scrat. By the way, how does everybody know his name is Scrat? 7/10 An interesting animation about the fate of a giant tiger, a sloth, and a mammoth, who saved a baby, who was close to be killed by a group of tigers during the ice age. The morale of the film shows that good behavior with the others may bring benefits at the end. One of the tigers in the group got an order to finally capture the baby, who was hardly saved by his mother when the tigers attacked her community. The baby was then rescued by the sloth and the mammoth, but the tiger joined them with the objective of finally taken away the baby. They went through very troublesome paths with plenty of danger, and at once the tiger was to fall down and saved by the mammoth. At the end the group of tigers tried to capture the baby but the mammoth helped incredibly by his tiger colleague was able to overcome this attack and to give the baby back to his father and the community to which he belongs. When I saw the trailers I just HAD to see the film. And when I had, I kinda had a feeling that felt like unsatisfied. It was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but I think the great parts where already in the trailers, if you catch my drift. It went very fast and it rolled on, so I was never bored, and I enjoyed watching it. The humor was absolutely great. My first contact with a sloth (..or something like it). I looked at this movie with my child eyes, and I wasn't disappointed. The story is well-known, some abandoned orphan has to be brought to his parents by an improbable trio (mamooth - sabertooth tiger and a lazy animal)... And I don't want to forget to mention the incredible small fury animal with his hazenut. This one really made me laugh a lot during the whole picture.

Briefly : it works, it is funny and it is a "must-see" with your children (they'll like it). Had fun watching this film.. despite the feeling I got a lot of the time, that this film was almost copying Monsters Inc. There're quite a few things that are extremely similar between the two, the relationship between an animal/monster and a small child, other animals trying to break that relationship, etc. It felt like that pretty much throughout the film, to me.

One of the redeeming features though, is Scrat :) Very very funny character, even if he serves no purpose :) Ok, at the beginning it looked like "Shrek" - the loner that is persistently followed by the comic relief. Then it evolves into something really compelling, as the gauntlet is set. And the result is an enjoyable movie, which has moments that I agree that are a little too dramatic for kids to watch (Manny's past, for example). The premise has been obviously worked for a long time, so that they can suceed in making a movie set with almost no different sets (only ice caps and rocks), and three characters. It's a good thing to know that they succeed in doing something emotional out of it. As I said, it can be tear-jerking at some times, so, kids, be warned. The real letdown is the animation. This wasn't so souped up like the toy story movies or shrek, and it shows. The humans are unrealistic, and we have seen better examples of CGI before. But don't let this stain the record: as a solo effort, "Ice Age" is commendable. And it will gather many fans, I have no doubt. Oh and yes, the moments with that small mouse are priceless, and show-stealing. I am not going to lie, this is a great movie. I saw it about 4 months ago at my local theatre. I saw it a second time, and I was somewhat bored in the slow scenes. Sid (the sloth) is not all that flattering, but Diego (a mountain lion, I think) is really good in the movie. The animation is outstanding, and the story has a touching ending. It is worth taking kids 10 and under to, but teens would probably find it a tad bit boring. Also, the uniqueness in the characters is so interesting. Like I said, it is a pretty good movie, but I would rate "Toy Story 2" or "Shrek" higher. 8/10 There are very few movies that are so funny as this one. I was lucky enough to watch this movie at a theater "reserved" for movie buffs like me, so it was not so embarrassing sitting there laughing till my jaw was completely sore and my shirt sleeves were all wet from drying my eyes...

At times the story was a bit "slow", but that is perhaps for the best - a bit of rest in-between the rolling amongst the aisles (I nearly fell out of the seat...) was most welcome. *May contain spoilers* *May contain spoilers*

In the age of Shrek(the movie) & Pixar(the studio), this is a much more traditional animation film. It put together some characters that normally wouldn't be seen together(not to mentioned, try to save a human baby and bring it back to his father). They begin as enemies and end as best friend. If this sound like a Disney film, it is(only made through 20th Century Fox). The trailer to the movie was one of the best I've seen in ages, but the movie doesn't live to the expectation the trailer set. The problem lie with the fact that the makers of the film didn't made up their mind who is the target audience of the film. Yes, there are some jokes in the film that only adults will understand but the film is mostly aimed at children. The parents will enjoy the fact that for 90 min. their children's attention is focused on something else than them. The backgrounds are excellent and the voice are good but this is nothing more the a nice film. Children will love this film, adults will only like it. A glacier slide inside a cavernous ice mountain sends its three characters whoosh down a never-ending wet-slide tube that has enough kick to dazzle kids the same way mature audience may be dazzled by the star gate sequence that closes 2001: A Space Odyssey. Miles apart in vision, but it is a scene of great rush and excitement nonetheless. A magnificent opening sequence also takes place where a furry squirrel-like critter attempts to hide his precious acorn. You've probably seen this scene in the trailer, but as it takes place he starts a domino effect when the mountain starts cracking and, results, an avalanche. The horror just keeps going as the critter tries to outrun the impossible.

The movie traces two characters, a mammoth named Manfred (Ray Romano) and a buck-toothed sloth (John Leguizamo) as they try to migrate south. They find a human baby they adopt and then decide to track the parent figures down to return to them. They are joined by a saber tiger named Diego (Denis Leary) whose predatory intentions is to bring the baby to his tiger clan, by leading the mammoth and the sloth into a trap. Diego's meat-eating family wants the mammoth most of all, but Diego's learned values of friendship make easy what choice to ultimately make at the end.

There are fatalistic natural dangers of the world along the trip, including an erupted volcano and a glacier bridge that threatens to melt momentarily that is reminiscent of the castle escape in Shrek. Characters contemplate on why they're in the Ice Age, while they could have called it The Big Chill or the Nippy Era. Some characters wish for a forthcoming global warming. Another great line about the mating issues between girlfriends: `All the great guys are never around. The sensitive ones get eaten.' Throwaway lines galore, whimsical comedy and light-fingered adventure makes this one pretty easy to watch. Also, food is so scarce for the nice vegetarians that they consider dandelions and pine cones as `good eating.'

The vocal talents of Romano, Leguizamo and Leary make good on their personas, while the children will delight in their antics, the adults will fancy their riffs on their own talents. There is some mild violence and intense content, but kids will be jazzed by the excitement and will get one of their early introductions of the age-old battle of good versus evil, and family tradition and friendship are strong thematic ties. The animators also make majestic use of background landscapes that are coolly fantastic.

I love cartoons. They can show things that films with 'real' actors and scenery cannot - though computer effects are changing that more and more. They can push the boundaries of satire ('The Simpsons'), good taste ('South Park'), spectacle ('Aladdin'), or reality ('Toy Story'). There are some good examples of this in 'Ice Age', such as when we see a motley herd of now-extinct mammals migrating across countryside, chatting like old friends. Such scenes are a pleasure to watch, as we get the feeling of both the familiar and the strange at the same time, usually in a way that makes us laugh. While Ice Age is not as good as the top animated movies of all time, it's a really fun film. Sit back, enjoy the deliberate anachronisms, the lovely backgrounds and the belly-laughs.

The story follows Manfred the grumpy mammoth, Sid, an idiotic sloth, and Diego, a sabretooth tiger, as they take a human baby back to his tribe - for very different reasons. On the way, naturally, they have a whole lot of problems. Also popping up throughout the journey is Scrat, history's unluckiest rodent, who is desperately trying to bury an acorn for the winter: in glaciers, on top of dead trees, in ice-caves. His opening scene is a classic.

It's a simple story with a very predictable end and a middle that is just a series of funny incidents with some character-building moments thrown in, but some of the scenes, such as the nappy-changing or the dodos, are hilarious, the animals are likeable and it looks good. There is one quite touching moment too, when cave paintings of mammoths come to life in front of Manfred's eyes.

Not a must-see, but good for a fun hour or so.

7/10 Born Again the Limerick:

If a man could come back from the dead

And live in a little girl's head

Revenge he would get

For the murder he met

By the guy that's now in his wife's bed.

For me Born Again is a highly under-rated, classic episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely creeped out by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I couldn't sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the creepiness factor that I have since grown to enjoy. Its enough to let me look past some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really cool Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But even with its little flaws, in my mind this is a classic episode and has little to no reason for me to not like it. 10 out of 10. Hmmm, yeah this episode is extremely underrated.

Even though there is a LOT of bad writing and acting at parts. I think the good over wins the bad.

I love the origami parts and the big 'twist' at the end. I absolutely love that scene when Michelle confronts Tony. It's actually one of my favorite scenes of Season 1.

For some reason, people have always hated the Reincarnation episodes, yet I have always liked them. They're not the best, in terms of writing. but the theme really does interest me,

I'm gonna give it a THREE star, but if the writing were a little more consistent i'd give it FOUR. Born Again is a okay episode of Season 1. The reincarnation bit, in my opinion, is cool. The more I watch it, the more I like it, yet it will never rise above 'Very Good' for me. Even though it is not very memorable, i'll always remember it as the reincarnation episode. Anyway, now I will say what is good and bad about this episode,

The Good: Oragami. Oh Yeah!

That Fish tank was nice. =]

Thrown out of a window. Very classy. x]

The Bad: Marry your Best Friend's wife!? O_O

What a random pick to reincarnate.

Why didn't the guy who died by having his scarf tangled up, try to take his scarf off instead?

Conclusion: Okay episode, not very memorable. 7/10 Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.

Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet.

Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.

Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, "When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help." This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.

The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways…1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.

Favorite Quote – When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, "Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, "Now you're talking science fiction." He also continues to mention the "Science Fiction" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.

Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.

Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.

Rating: 7/10

Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook Although it's not as creepy as it's cult classic predecessor (ZOMBI 2) I actually like this one better. This is because of it's faster pace, better settings, and cool 80's soundtrack. It's loaded with action and has sweet gore effects by Lucio Fulci. The zombies don't quite look as nasty as in ZOMBI 2 but they still look good. It was made pretty well but it definitely has it's share of cheesiness; for instance some zombies move really slow while others are as quick as ninjas. some are braindead while others say funny lines, but who expects consistency when it comes to Italian horror? There's even a flying zombie head! How rad is that? Definitely a must see for gorehounds and zombie fans. it'd probably satisfy most fans of action movies as well. Also check out Zombi 4. Off the blocks let me just say that I am a huge zombie fan so I don't make statements like the above lightly. Secondly let me say that this is an Italian zombie film and Fulci only directed 15 minutes of it before handing over to Bruno (Rats, Night Of Terror) Mattei. This is no Dawn of the Dead folks.

That said this is easily one of the most entertaining zombie films I have ever seen.

The script is wonderfully horrible. Just check out the two scientists trying to find an antidote ("Let's try putting these two molecules together").

The zombies come in all varieties. From moaning shufflers, to machete wielding maniacs, to birds!

The gore is plentiful. Legs are bitten off, arms amputated, stomachs burst open.

The pace is fast, flying from one zombie attack to the next.

Then there's the head in the fridge. Oh the head in the fridge! One of the greatest moments in horror since Ash got his hand possessed in Evil Dead 2.

You should know already whether you're the sort of person who's going to like this sort of film. Get some mates and some beer and you'll be in for a fun night.

Did I mention the head in the fridge?!?!? Yeah sure it's cheesy, it's not Zombie, but it's not that bad either. It has Beatrice Ring which is a huge bonus, and it's entertaining. I had the good fortune to meet Fulci later in his career and he remained philosophical about the experience, as he was never completely satisfied with it. It is well worth a search out, especially for genre and Fulci fans. It is a film that is far too often dismissed out of hand. A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and "cleanse" the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.

Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment. Wow this was a great Italian "ZOMBIE" movie by two great director's Luci Fulci ("ZOMBIE") and Bruno Mattie ("HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD") Lucio started this movie and was ill so the great Bruno took over and it turned out surprisingly better than I expected it to turn out so if you have seen "HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD" directed by Bruno Mattie and if you saw "ZOMBIE" directed by Lucio Fulci and liked both or one of theme then this is a movie you must watch it has great "ZOMBIE" make-up witch equals great looking "ZOMBIES" has a funny "ZOMBIE" flying head!And "ZOMBIE" birds that spit acid at you and turns you into a "ZOMBIE" (That Only Happed To Two People) but they are mainly just the great toxic "ZOMBIES" like in Bruno Matties "HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD".So if you like Italian "ZOMBIE" movies or just "ZOMBIE" movie's in general than check this one out its a great Italian "ZOMBIE" movie! We have high expectations with this one . . . because its Zombi 3 the official sequel to Zombi 2 and directed by Lucio Fulci . . . however . . . its co-directed by Bruno Mattei (from Night of the Zombies) and not written by Dardino Sachetti but by Claudio Fagrasso (Night of the Zombies) and its shot in the Phillimines like Night of the Zombies and resembles Night of the Zombies (Hell of the Living Dead) a lot. as a result its more like a companion to Hell of the Living Dead than Zombi 2. Fabrazio DeAngelis who produced Zombi 2 and its editor Tomassi (?) and efx gianetto De Rossi gave Zombi 2 its magic . . . Zombi 3 is not magical . . . its like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter. But over the years, I've grown to accept Zombi 3. I could swear I saw a version where a soldier was bitten on the arm and went to the hotel room . . . there was a senseless Fulci-cut and the Mattei/Fulci-cut is the one on DVD. Nobody truly understands the logic behind the numbering of Italian zombie-flicks, but – honestly – why would we bother? Every single film in the Zombi-"series" delivers great fun, nasty gore and gratuitous shocks and "Zombi 3" is no exception to this, despite all the production difficulties that occurred whilst shooting. This film began as an interesting Lucio Fulci project, who had to elaborate further on his "Zombi 2" success, but it ended up being a typical Bruno Mattei product with more flaws and stolen ideas from previous films. The screenplay is hopelessly inept and ignores all forms of continuity, every ingenious idea from George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" and "The Crazies" is shamelessly repeated here and the acting performances are truly miserable and painful to look at. Yet all this didn't upset me for one moment because the sublime over-the-top gore compensates for everything! On a secret army base at the Phillipines, scientists completed the bacterial warfare virus "Death One" and prepare it for transport. After a failing attempt to steal the virus, the infected corpse of a terrorist is cremated and the zombie-ashes contaminate the entire population of a nearby tourist village. The last group of survivors has to battle hyperactive and inhumanly strong zombies as well as soldiers in white overalls that received instructions to kill everything that moves in the contaminated area. This movie is comparable to Umberto Lenzi's "Nightmare City". Truly Bad...but incredibly entertaining with fast-paced action sequences and several very creative zombie-madness situations. The undead birds were original, for example, and the whole zombie birth sequence at the deserted hospital was pretty cool as well. The infamous flying head scene is not nearly as awful as it's made up to be and it belongs perfectly in this cheesy and thoroughly pleasant Italian zombie flick. Recommended to the fans; don't mind the negative reviews. This movie is awesome on so many levels... and none of them are the level that it was intended to be awesome on.

Just remember this: When you're watching Shaun of the Dead and other recent zombie movies... be they good or bad... THIS is the formula that they are using. THIS is what makes zombie movies so great.

And what makes it BETTER than great is the story behind the movie. A simple web search will provide you with everything you need to know.

All in all, it doesn't linger. There's never a point where you think to yourself "c'mon, get on with it"... it moves quick and corners nicely. This is the sporty, little Italian number of zombie flicks.

So awful, it's wonderful! If your tongue spends an ample amount of time in your cheek... rent it, buy it, love it.

As a great trivia note: If you're watching it on DVD, you'll notice that there is sound effects during the menu screen, underneath the musical score... Well... that's because that music was lifted straight from the trailer... which is probably the only working print of that music that still exists which is long enough to loop. I'll be honest with you...I liked this movie. It's a great zombie flick that is packed with action, original ideas, good acting, but is also packed with bad Zombie effects. Part IV, entitled "After Death" is also good. I would recommend this movie to horror fans everywhere.

10 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Slumber Party Massacre, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section. A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part. This low-budget erotic thriller that has some good points, but a lot more bad one. The plot revolves around a female lawyer trying to clear her lover who is accused of murdering his wife. Being a soft-core film, that entails her going undercover at a strip club and having sex with possible suspects. As plots go for this type of genre, not to bad. The script is okay, and the story makes enough sense for someone up at 2 AM watching this not to notice too many plot holes. But everything else in the film seems cheap. The lead actors aren't that bad, but pretty much all the supporting ones are unbelievably bad (one girl seems like she is drunk and/or high). The cinematography is badly lit, with everything looking grainy and ugly. The sound is so terrible that you can barely hear what people are saying. The worst thing in this movie is the reason you're watching it-the sex. The reason people watch these things is for hot sex scenes featuring really hot girls in Red Shoe Diary situations. The sex scenes aren't hot they're sleazy, shot in that porno style where everything is just a master shot of two people going at it. The woman also look like they are refuges from a porn shoot. I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but they all have that breast implants and a burned out/weathered look. Even the title, "Deviant Obsession", sounds like a Hardcore flick. Not that I don't have anything against porn - in fact I love it. But I want my soft-core and my hard-core separate. What ever happened to actresses like Shannon Tweed, Jacqueline Lovell, Shannon Whirry and Kim Dawson? Women that could act and who would totally arouse you? And what happened to B erotic thrillers like Body Chemistry, Nighteyes and even Stripped to Kill. Sure, none of these where masterpieces, but at least they felt like movies. Plus, they were pushing the envelope, going beyond Hollywood's relatively prude stance on sex, sexual obsessions and perversions. Now they just make hard-core films without the hard-core sex. Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. This flick is sterling example of the state of erotic B-movies: bad porn movies without the hardcore sex. The plot in this one isn't so bad as these things go; it involves a female lawyer trying to prove her lover is innocent of killing his wife. The rest of the movie, however, leaves something to be desired. Bad acting, bad direction, bad looking woman, bad sets, bad cinematography, bad sound and bad sex scenes. The filmmakers should learn the difference between raunchy and erotic. They don't even have the common sense to have Gabriella Hall naked or in a love scene.

How dumb is that? I really thought this wasn't that bad. Not a great work of art but Dermot M was the stronger performer by far. Patricia Arquette was overacting much of the time. He was actually playing cello which was very impressive, and his lines were never forced. Besides, he is an incredibly Beautiful Man. Really sexy. Add that to the talent, and most anything he's been in is a lot more tolerable. He always gives his all even if some of the projects he's been involved in didn't quite hit the highest mark.. Not the fault of the actor in most cases. He's unfortunately been in some strange films that just didn't resonate at the box office. Always with A-list actors but just not always a "hit". But he is "worth every penny" of any DVD rented or purchased. See The Wedding Date with Debra Messing - one of his best overall films. WORTH EVERY PENNY! ; ) (if you haven't seen it yet, do, then you'll understand that quote!) I first saw this movie when I was a freshman in high school, and the film has stuck with me through the years. It's not about the soundtrack, or cinematography, or even the dialogue and somewhat bad acting, it's about the educational purpose, and the message behind that is the most important. It's not a sin to have a child when you're a teenager and still in high school, and it's not really a bad thing, either, but it is a problem. Tons of girls I knew are all having children now, and I guess they never watched this great movie, and if they did, they clearly didn't get the message behind it all. It's about not taking chances when you're in a sexual relationship. Any girl can get pregnant the first time. It's not a myth. You don't necessarily lose out on your dreams, but they do have to take a backseat in your future because you have a child to think about first.

This movie has a clear message behind it: JUST SAY NO! I saw this film on True Movies (which automatically made me sceptical) but actually - it was good. Why? Not because of the amazing plot twists or breathtaking dialogue (of which there is little) but because actually, despite what people say I thought the film was accurate in it's depiction of teenagers dealing with pregnancy.

It's NOT Dawson's Creek, they're not graceful, cool witty characters who breeze through sexuality with effortless knowledge. They're kids and they act like kids would.

They're blunt, awkward and annoyingly confused about everything. Yes, this could be by accident and they could just be bad actors but I don't think so. Dermot Mulroney gives (when not trying to be cool) a very believable performance and I loved him for it. Patricia Arquette IS whiny and annoying, but she was pregnant and a teenagers? The combination of the two isn't exactly lavender on your pillow. The plot was VERY predictable and but so what? I believed them, his stress and inability to cope - her brave, yet slightly misguided attempts to bring them closer together. I think the characters, acted by anyone else, WOULD indeed have been annoying and unbelievable but they weren't. It reflects the surreality of the situation they're in, that he's sitting in class and she walks on campus with the baby. I felt angry at her for that, I felt angry at him for being such a child and for blaming her. I felt it all.

In the end, I loved it and would recommend it.

Watch out for the scene where Dermot Mulroney runs from the disastrous counselling session - career performance. This is a very good, made for TV film. It depicts trouble in suburbia circa 1970's and the sort of neighbors one certainly does not want to have around. The worst & most upsetting part of the film was when the punk teenagers killed the family dog. The teens do everything to annoy and harass this poor family. But boy!, does the lead character take vengeance on those punk teenagers in the end. The father/homeowner surely does not take all of the aggravation from the punk teens lightly and is quick to retaliate after lack of help from the police that is. He stands up to them and protects his home and his family. A very good actor..I might add.

I watched this on TV when I was like 8 or 9. I have never seen it again on TV and would like to. Definitely a good one! It's the sort of movie one may catch on a weekday night very late at night and can't stop watching or an afternoon film on a weekend. It's the kind they just don't show anymore.

It is definitely worth seeing! This is a great movie from the lost age of reactionary made-for-television drama. My all-time favourite actor, Robert Culp skillfully plots a trajectory through uptight liberal fairmindedness and faith in the system, kneejerk conservativism and fear of crime, and homicidal psychosis. The teens are a collection of pure sneering evil stereotypes, and the eventual message of this film makes episodes of Dragnet look evenhanded by comparison. But what really shines in this is the great pace of the movie, building the fear and paranoia by degrees, as well as the feel of the whole California setting. The cars are really great as well, as I recall. I give this film a 10, and I defy anyone to watch this film and not enjoy every minute. Remember, just because it's made-for-television doesn't mean it isn't great art. Robert Culp (they call his character "doctor"...I think he's a vet or something) and family move to an affluent, low-tax, zero-law-enforcement suburb. Lantern-jawed Culp and his dog are nearly killed when some local idiot neighbor kids get drunk and "go cruising" through his front yard at 60mph. He presses charges, which arouses the kids' ire, and suddenly him and his family are the victims of a violent and disturbing prank campaign.

Marilyn Manson, er, Marlyn Mason rather, plays his fretful, boiled-celery wife, who urges him not to use violence against his sneering nemeses, and who really just wants to move somewhere with decent public services. But The System is getting Culp nowhere, and he's not about to leave his house because of some punk kids and their crazy rock and roll music. And we all know what movie people do when The System fails...(but this is based on a true story, which makes it even better).

It should be noted that while the villainous hooligans do have convenient '70s funk-o-matic "teenage" theme music that warns us when they're up to no good, this film actually ends up treating the age brackets even-handedly (really!). It doesn't make a big generational thing out of it. Kudos for that.

Anyway, if you like dogs (or at least believe in protecting their civil rights, like me), and you like justice, and you like fire, and you like justice for dogs by way of fire, and you think people who skitter nervously out of troubled communities are "too damn soft," then this flick's ethos is up your alley. No, it's not really "good," at least not in any widely recognized sense of the word. There's nothing subtle or understated or clever about it, it's just sort of a feature-length PSA for vigilantism. It does, however, capture the feeling of some memorable scenes in other, beloved works. Remember in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns when Batman leads the Mutants on horseback to reclaim Gotham City? Remember that scene in A Christmas Story where the kid pounds the bully's face in? Remember how cool that was? Or do you just really hate being looked at funny by your neighbors? Yeah, mon.

Unfortunately, this was a 1973 made-for-TV movie that I just happened to catch at 4am on my local WB affiliate, and it's probably not destined for DVD release. But after being inspired by this film, do you think I'm gonna just sit here and take it!?! I remember this movie. Quite intense for an 11 year old. Good editing, I felt terrible for the St. Bernard. I'd watch it again if it were rebroadcast, but the signal is passing Pluto as I write this. Robert Culp. A highlight of his career. I am just glad I didn't live in THAT neighborhood. Oh those 70's. What a decade. If they remade it I bet it would be very violent and bloody. So what are they waiting for? An excellent movie for pre-pubescent suburban boys. It was very intense. I think it was filmed in Los Angeles. Certainly not made in Lodi NJ. The shot with the St Bernard was the best and obviously the most haunting image from the film...and then they left the carcass on the stoop. Rotten kids. Outrage is pretty good movie! Robert Culp was very good in the movie and was perfect for the part! Its hard to believe that this is a true story but what can you do? When I watched this I thought why do they have to do all of those things. It isn't right but they learned their lesson when they picked on the wrong man! Anyway if you ever see this movie on TV watch it because its a good one! Being the first feature film with Robert De Niro (although not released for years later), this is worth the watch. De Niro's role isn't huge, yet amusing as one of two friends who first try to prevent another friends marriage only to later chase him down to force him into it. Any die hard De Niro fan will get a kick out of an early performance by arguably the best actor today. This Peabody Award winning episode is one of the highlights of the 1st Season where a holodeck malfunction traps Captain Picard, Beverly, Data, and a Starfleet historian named Waylan within a 1930's San Francisco setting. This episode is an homage to Raymond Chandler's "Maltese Falcon" where Patrick Stewart assumes the Humphrey Bogart role - complete with fedora and trenchcoat. The office itself is almost an exact replica of the one featured in Bogey's "Maltese Falcon."

This episode also briefly introduces us to a mysterious insect race called the Jarada that communicate with mostly a high-pitched buzzing sound. Communication with this alien race is difficult, and it is up to Picard to communicate with this race in their native tongue so that negotiations and diplomacy can finally begin. The best part of this episode, though, is the appearance of the famous Hollywood B-actor Lawrence Tierney in the role of the gangster Cyrus Redblock. He was such a handsome man back in the 1940's. Oh, well... This episode introduced the Holodeck to the TNG world. The Jarada have to be contacted and a precise greeting must be delivered or it would greatly insult them. A tired Picard decides to take a trip into the Holodeck and a wonderful adventure begins. The settings are superb and almost movie like. Alas, the Jarada probe sent shortly thereafter damages the holodeck and all it's safety devices stop working. Picard and now guests must outwit the mobsters of gangland 40s America and return to the Jarada rendezvous. Picard greets the Jarada correctly and a new day dawns between Humanity and the Jarada. This gem of a first season episode set the holodeck for many interesting and unusual adventures to be had there "The big goodbye" introduces us to the first holodeck adventure, in this case Captain Picard posing as private investigator Dixon Hill. This episodes creates some sort of standard pattern, repeated several times on TNG as well as DS 9 and Voyager. After entering the holodeck something goes wrong and the characters have to deal with the program under different circumstances beyond playing a game (represented by the failure of the holodeck's safety program).

This concept is used to expand Star Trek's possibility and enabling a kind of genre-mix. Picard's Dixon Hill stories are examples of 1940s crime fiction and their representation on the screen are referred to as Film Noir often having the stereotype antihero in the lead (see for example Chandler's Marlowe stories or Polanski's all time classic "Chinatown"). Star Trek never focuses on the story (mostly it's a simple "how-do-we-get-out-of-here" scenario) but enables the actors to take a different approach to their characters. Those Holodeck "games" are commonly used for recreation and reflect the private interests of the crew members. Therefore the technical aspect is always neglected and from that point of view the stories are never sound (but did Star Trek ever had a technical, scientific point to it, I mean besides some utopic concepts?).

"The big goodbye" shows a relaxed Patrick Stewart, a McFadden that hardly ever looked better in a Star Trek episode (at least the early ones) and Data has some great scenes, too (although I find it hard to believe that pulling the lamp's plug out of the wall would have really surprised him, for the fact that he'd done research on that period and its customs). Wesley continues turning peaceful Trekkies into potential murderers (why didn't they take him to the holodeck and let the gangsters finish him off?) but all in all this one's fun... According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.

Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.

George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket.

Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.

Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.

Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.

Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.

Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.

Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market. Albuquerque is a film that has all the elements of a class A western, except one: the story, that really belongs to a class B or C. That was acceptable at the time the film was made, when people were so thrilled to see a western in color, but nowadays it just looks very primitive. Nonetheless for people who enjoy old westerns, it is entertaining, the original color and sound are very well kept on the DVD that recently came out. Gabby Hayes is a good sidekick, Lon Chaney is mean as always, and Randolph Scott a bit more cheerful than usual. In a film named Albuquerque you would expect to see something that would remind you of the city, but the town that is shown here could be just anywhere. Randolph Scott is heading into Albuquerque to take a job with his uncle. However, on the way there, the stage is held up--even though they are not carrying a strongbox. However, a nice lady on board is concealing $10,000 for her and her brother's business...and the robbers seem to know this.

Once in town, Scott goes to this uncle about the job. However, he soon learns that this uncle is a jerk--the typical bad guy from Westerns. You know, the rich guy who only wants to become richer by cheating and stealing and threatening until he owns everything. And, it just so happens that this jerk was behind the robbery. Scott demands that the uncle returns the money and then Scott goes into business with the nice lady and her brother.

Not surprisingly, this is NOT the end of the problems---just the beginning. Again and again, intrigues of various types occur to try to crush the uncle's opposition. One trick is to bring in a pretty lady to befriend Scott and his partners. She's a crack shot and it looks bad for Scott--until he figures out why she's come to town.

Unlike most later Randolph Scott films, this one shows Scott as a bit more headstrong man. All too often in his films he's the last one to suggest violence, but in this film he's quick to suggest a lynching (screw the law, let's have a hangin') and later he's quick to threaten the uncle. What a surprise to see him as such a hot-head--though in most other ways, he's the same old Scott you'd expect.

As far as the film goes, there's nothing particularly unusual about it. Gabby Hayes plays the usual character, Scott is a hero, the baddie cannot be reasoned with and ultimately is destroyed and Scott gets the girl. Despite this very typical plot, it's all handled very well and as a result is well worth your time.

By the way, there are two weird scenes in the film. First, late in the movie, there is a fist fight between Scott and the uncle's #1 henchman, Lon Chaney, Jr.. In it, Chaney smokes as he fights--something I never saw before and I did admire how he could puff away as he got his butt kicked. Second, get a load of that runaway cart scene with the whip--now THAT was one impossible feat! It begins with several of the principles on a stage run to Albuquerque. Gabby Hayes(Juke, sounds like Duke) is the driver and begins his usual tirade against women in general, with his girlfriend Pearl being an exception. He then relates a garbled version of the biblical story of Samson to justify his retention of long whiskers against the wishes of Pearl, who is the town barber, no less, and who claims if everyone followed his example, she would be out of business. This point will return to dominate the last scene in the film. Gabby seems an irritation to some reviewers, but is a definite plus to this one. It's too bad he wasn't in more of the better Randoph Scott westerns to help lighten up Randy's usual iron-jawed demeanor. Also on this stage are Randy(Cole Armin), his future wife(Cathrine Craig , as Celia Wallace), whom he is getting acquainted with, and a little girl(Myrtle), to whom he soon becomes a hero when he rescues her from the runaway stage after it is held up by henchman of Randy's wheelchair-bound uncle John Armin(George Cleveland), who essentially runs the town.

Randy soon learns that his uncle, and by extension, himself, is not exactly popular among the town folk. He does, however, quickly form a useful friendship with Gabby. After he learns that uncle John was responsible for the stage holdup of his business competitor, Celia Wallace, and the associated murder, he demands that uncle John return the money and decides to work for Celia and her brother Ted(Russell Hayden), instead of for uncle John.

As his rival's prospects rise, uncle John decides to plant an informant(Barbara Britton, as Letty Tyler) in the Wallace office, to keep him informed as to when they are delivering ore from the mines to town so that he can sabotage their run. When this doesn't work, he resorts to the draconian tactic of staging an arson of his own office, for which Randy is blamed. Unfortunately, when the fire was discovered, Randy was in Letty's apartment confronting her with suggestive evidence that she was tipping off uncle John. Myrtle and Letty testify that he was in the apartment when the fire was discovered. This puts him and Letty in the dog house with Celia(his apparent beau) and Ted(who hopes to woo Letty). This news also ends Uncle John's trust in Letty as an informant, and he suggests she leave town. Instead, she switches sides and tells the Wallaces why Randy was in her apartment. Uncle John tries once again to sabotage their ore run, and when that fails, there is a general shootout in town. You can guess the results.

The plot is well constructed and executed, with complicated relationships between the principles, and with a variety of obstacles for Randy to overcome, with the sometimes aid of his associates. At least, Randy was spared the necessity of bringing his uncle to justice. Uncle John had a choice to avoid assassination, but arrogantly trusted that a woman wouldn't have the guts to carry out her threat. The presence of Hayes and two beautiful wholesome single women, as well as little Myrtle, much helped to lighten the otherwise tense atmosphere in this battle for survival, as uncle John put it.

It seems odd that Barbara Britton, the "bad" girl, gets top female billing over Catherine Craig, Randy's love interest. Barbara's on camera time was much more limited.

Those who grew up on the Lassie TV series featuring George Cleveland as "Gramps" will be surprised to find him playing such a mean controlling villain. We may wonder if his wheelchair-bound status has a bearing on this persona. This leaves him with few options for making a living in the wild West. Without apparent family to help support him(except Randy), he can't afford to have some upstart beat him out of the most profitable business in town. On the other hand, from his conversations, he probably achieved his status as the town "boss" before becoming wheelchair-bound. I remember this series so well. It was excellent - such strong and compelling characters, stylish and sexy ... and so different to everything else on offer at the time - and now ... I am sure that it inspired the also excellent Canadian drama "Traders".

Both season 1 and season 2 are available on DVD region 2 in the UK. Its a treat to watch the series again.

Season 1 is 13 episodes and season 2 seems to be 10 episodes.

Unfortunately, it seems to have ended after 2 seasons.

This series was a lot of fun.

Sometimes you can get it on special at Amazon.co.uk I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America. 'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.

Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away! "Batman: The Mystery of the Batwoman" is about as entertaining as animated Batman movies get.

While still true to the feeling of the comic books, the animation is done with a lighter spirit than in the animated series. Bruce Wayne looks much like he has before, but now he appears somewhat less imposing. The Dick Grayson Robin has been replaced by the less edgy, more youthful Tim Drake Robin.

Kevin Conroy, as usual, invokes the voice of Batman better than most live action actors.

Kelly Ripa did a much more decent voice-acting job than I was expecting.

As in the live action Batman films, the movie lives or dies based on the quality of the villains. My all-time favorite, the Penguin, is here. His design is sleeker than it has appeared before, hearkening more to the Burgess Meredith portrayal of the '60's than the Danny DeVito portrayal of "Batman Returns." David Ogden Stiers is the perfect choice for the Penguin's voice. The Penguin is finally portrayed as a cunning sophisticate, just as he most commonly appears in the comics. Hector Elizondo's voice creates a Bane who's much more memorable than the forgettable version in "Batman & Robin." And finally, Batman has a descent mystery to solve, putting the "Detective" back in "Detective Comics" (that is what "DC" stands for, after all.) The revolution to the mystery is a delightfully sneaky twist.

The score adds to the mysterious ambiance of the movie. It sounds like a mix between the score from "Poirot" and the score from "Mission: Impossible." All in all, it's more entertaining than your average cartoon. This Batman movie isn't quite as good as Batman mask of The Phantasm and Batman and Mr. Freeze subzero But it is still a good installment to the Batman cartoons I say it is equally good as Batman Beyond The Movie. This movie is good for all the same reasons The storyline is good not quite as good as the other one's but still pretty good it has lots of action in it The Cartoon effects are good The voice of actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as Batman/ Bruce Wayne, Tara Strong as Barbra Gordon, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Eli Marienthal as Robin. The villains are good such as Kyra Sedgwick as Batwoman, David Ogden Stiers as The Pequin, Hector Elizondo as Bane. So I am sure you will not be disappointed with batman Mystery of The Batwomen. So make sure that you rent or buy batman Mystery of The Batwoman the movie because it is really good.

Overall score: ******* out of **********

*** out of ***** For starters I have always been a fan of the Batman cartoons because the theme is so universal, 'that everyone alive has an alter-ego'. This is true in the Mystery of Batwoman. While the overall story is good I'm disappointed that they haven't really done much for the franchise with this.

Throughout the movie, you are trying to find out who the identity of Batwoman is, unfortunately you can find out by easily looking at the cast of credits posted on this website (so if you haven't seen it already don't go there). I was sort of disappointed that they didn't make the movie longer. 75 minutes is way too short for any movie. The secret identity of batwoman also comes far too early in the movie, sort of midway, and becomes anti-climatic afterward because you know the good guys will always win and that the new character known as Batwoman will disappear after the movie is over.

I'm also not too sure about the new animation style used in this movie. I love the sleek new characters but there should be some more detail where detail is called for. Some parts of the animation look so awkward and rigid that it grabs your attention right away diverting your attention away from the storyline. I also didn't really like the bright atmosphere used in most of the scenes, it sort of loses its dark and gothic feel which is Batman. Similarly we should've gotten to know more about batwoman's personality so that we can build the same deep compassionate feeling that we do with Bruce Wayne. Also I think the fight with Bane should have been done better. In typical children's fashion the bad guy meets his demise too easily either by tripping, falling, getting electricuted or doing something dumb that works against them. Come to think of it there wasn't even one drop of blood spilled in this movie either.

Bottom line, its a good entertaining flick and I recommend anyone who's a Batman fan to watch it. It has good storyline, universal appeal and even great acting to top it off. I just wish that they could have delivered more permanent change to the story by making Batwoman stay to make things more interesting. Not just introduce her and then kick her off once she's done. I'd also like to see someone else figure out the mystery for a change finally. To have some other than Batman solve the mystery and fill him in later with the details.

I hope there are more animated movies to come and look forward to the time when we will actually be able to see the breakup between Bruce Wayne and Barbra Gordan. He's been stringing her along forever and doesn't even like her and I can't believe that she was dumb enough to fall in love with someone 20 years older. I also want to see the time when Tim Drake leaves because he is getting sick of the old man. In short I want to see all of the things that led the characters to where they will be in Batman Beyond. Otherwise the same repeated formula will just end it faster than if they just decided to move on with the story.

The original animated Dark Knight returns in this ace adventure movie that rivals Mask of Phantasm in its coolness. There's a lot of style and intelligence in Mystery of the Batwoman, so much more than Batman Forever or Batman and Robin.

There's a new crime-fighter on the streets of Gotham. She dresses like a bat but she's not a grown-up Batgirl. And Batman is denying any affiliation with her. Meanwhile Bruce Wayne has to deal with the usual romances and detective work. But the Penguin, Bain and the local Mob makes things little more complicated.

I didn't have high hopes for this 'un since being strongly let down but the weak Batman: Sub Zero (Robin isn't featured so much here!)but I was delighted with the imaginative and exciting set pieces, the clever plot and a cheeky sense of humor. This is definitely a movie no fan of Batman should be without. Keep your ears open for a really catchy song called 'Betcha Neva' which is featured prominently through-out.

It's a shame the DVD isn't so great. Don't get me wrong there are some great features (the short 'Chase Me' is awesome) and a very cool Dolby 5.1 soundtrack but... the movie is presented in Pan and Scan. Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman was drawn and shot in 1.85:1 but this DVD is presented in 1.33:1 an in comparison to the widescreen clips shown on the features there IS picture cut off on both sides. I find this extremely annoying considering Mask of Phantasm was presented in anamorphic widescreen. Warner have had to re-release literally dozens of movies on DVD because people have complained about the lack of Original Aspect Ratio available on some titles. Why they chose to make that same mistake here again is beyond me.

I would give this DVD 5/5 but the lack of OAR brings the overall score down to 4/5. It's a shame because widescreen would have completed a great DVD package. THIS POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS :

Although it was 5 years after the series ended and WB was currently working on Justice League, this animated movie is a welcome addition to the video library. Why? Well, if Mask of the Phantasm compliments the first 70 episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and SubZero compliments the 15 episodes of the Adventures of Batman and Robin, then Mystery of the Batwoman compliments the final 24 episodes of the Gotham Knights version of Batman. Kevin Conroy once again delivers a voice over performance that is nothing short of excellence and perfection. I admit I was a bit leery when I heard about Batwoman and all I could think about were the old 50's comics of Batman. But I was blown away by the Batwoman character, her look, her costume (which I assumed inspired Bruce Wayne to create the costume on Batman Beyond)and the fact that this movie keeps you guessing who Batwoman is all the way through. If you want to know who Batwoman is, then buy or rent the DVD. Barbara Gordon makes a cameo appearance and I think the writers were trying to hint that Bruce and Barbara had something going on between them like they did in Batman Beyond. Tim Drake appears as Robin, but his role is a small one and sadly, there is no sign of or mention of Dick Grayson alias Nightwing, which leads me to believe he has established himself in Bludhaven (his city in the comics).

Of the three suspects for Batwoman, my favorite is Kathy Duquesne, who looks an awful lot like Halle Berry. Kelly Ripa did a great job as one of the other suspects. When it comes to the villains, I'm glad the Penguin was one of them, but I did not like the fact that they replaced Paul Williams with David Ogden Stiers. Pengy just didn't sound right. Same thing goes for Robin. The new guy did okay, but just as I was starting to get used to Matt Valencia, they replaced him. It's interesting to note that Kevin Michael Richardson, who voices Carlton Duquesne is now the voice of the Joker in "The Batman" series. And we finally see what Rupert Thorne looks like revamped since he didn't show up in the Gotham Knights episodes. The late John Vernon will be missed. Although I enjoyed Henry Silva as the voice of Bane, if he had to be replaced, they got the right man in the form of Hector Elizondo. I only wish they could have used Two Face, Riddler, or the scary new version of the Scarecrow.

The musical score and especially the soft sounding intro were superb. I wish that was on a soundtrack and I especially enjoyed the beautiful and talented Cherie in the Iceberg Lounge along with her song, Betcha Neva. While some feel that this movie is weaker than the Mask of the Phantasm and Subzero, I find it just as strong and enjoyable as the rest, plus like I said earlier, it's a full length movie based off the Gotham Knights version of Batman, which I think gives a good balance. I would at least recommend renting this DVD first before buying it for those who might be leery of this movie, but personally, it's well worth the purchase. I give Mystery of the Batwoman a 9. An enjoyable Batman animated film. Not on par with "Return of the Joker" or "Mask of the Phantasm", but solid nonetheless. I liked how the movie kept you guessing as to who Batwoman was. There was nice twist. Nice action sequences. I've always been of the opinion that the Batman cartoons are better then any of the pitiful Batman live action film sequels. The trend continues here.

7.5 out of 10 It aired on TV yesterday, so I decided to check it out. This was one of the last Bruce Timm/Paul Dini DTV projects related to their old 1992 Batman the Animated Series, after that Jeff Matsuda came along and re-imagined Batman with his new The Batman series, but anyway, the story of this new Batman movie centers around the appearance of a new vigilante known as Batwoman, however Batman feels the need to stop her because of her extreme methods, and also in the meantime take down The Pengiun and Ruphert Thorn who both are secretly working with Carlton Duquesne(who's having family troubles) and another villain(which is later revealed in the movie) on a weapons smuggling operation,they also put a bounty on the Batwoman. The question is: who is this mysterious Batwoman and is it possible that they could be more then one? It's up to Batman to solve this mystery and stop Penguin's latest operation. For an animated movie, it has a fairly complex plot and a serious tone, which is good. Another plus was the complete redesign of the Penguin who looks much more like the sophisticated Mob Boss we're used to seeing in the comics, unlike his previous designs that borrowed elements from Tim Burton vision of Pengium(sewer rat and circus freak). Even though the movie contains a love subplot it's never carried that far and doesn't derail the movie like say, Batman Forever. The voice acting is standard quality for these direct-to-video projects(if only Batman: Mask of Phantasm took this route), Kevin Conroy still shines as Batman/Bruce Wayne. And like I said despite running for some very short 80 minutes, it manages to make a pretty good(and complex) storyline complete with a few minor twists and bucket loads of action. There are a few downsides, however, Nightwing is nowhere to be seen, and I'm sure Barbara Gordon and Bruce Wayne don't click as a couple, even though is just referenced, Tim Drake(aka Robin) does very little in the movie and to be quite frank, I was never a big fan of Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman character design(especially in their Batman shows post-BTAS), this The New Adventures of Batman and Robin, well, it kinda makes Batman look fat then rather a well-built bulked up individual(kinda like the Jeff Matsuda character model from The Batman). Bruce Wayne seems a bit awkward, those blue eyes make him look more like Clark Kent then Bruce(though it's true they do look very much alike). Another downside is Rupert Throne(no explanation as to why he is in this deal, but it's safe to say he's has goons and what's a cut of the deal) which does very little more then hang out with the Penguim or get himself hurt every time he points a gun at someone(count how many times this happens in the movie and you'll be surprised. Overall, a good Batman animated movie, worth at least a rental. Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is the latest animated Batman straight to video/DVD movie to be released. (Minor Spoilers Ahead) The plot revolves around a new crimefighter, the Batwoman, who seems to be personally involved, for whatever reason, in stopping a major arms shipment.

Although the movie is interesting enough, it's not as good as 'Mask of the Phantasm,' 'Sub-Zero,' or 'Return of the Joker.' The main reason being is that it doesn't give off the emotional appeal the other movies did. At the end of this movie, we don't really feel sorry for anyone as we did in the others, especially, 'Sub-Zero.' There is no real tragedy that made the other animated movies special for us. Even the Batwoman is not really a 'tragic' character (as Mr. Freeze or Phantasm were). Not only that, but Batwoman's alter ego seems so incredibly 'stiff' and dull that the viewer doesn't really care what happened to her that caused her to put on the mask or what happens to her at the end and therein lies the main reason we don't get this special emotional appeal.

Don't get me wrong, I did find the movie enjoyable. It does have its moments, such as, when the audience finds out who Batwoman really is and seeing an old villain return who was last seen in the original 'Batman: The Animated Series.' The action is also very enjoyable with some very suspenseful moments.

If the Batwoman's background was more interesting, this movie would have been better than 'Return of the Joker' in my book, but as it is now, it's in 4th (out of 4).

As for the animation, it's the same as The New Batman Adventures' cartoon from the mid to late 1990's. The score is not as memorable as the previous 3 animated Batman films, but it's still good nonetheless.

I do recommend buying this DVD because, despite its flaws, it is enjoyable. But just remember, it's not as good as the other Batman animated movies.

7/10 In 1993, with the success of the first season of Batman: The Animated Series, Warner Brothers commissioned the team responsible for the hit-show with producing a feature-length movie, originally slated for Direct-To-Video, but bumped up to theatrical status. It would become known as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Ten years after Phantasm, we have had an additional three feature-films released from the boys at the WB, Sub-Zero, Return of the Joker, and now, Mystery of the Batwoman joins the family.

The plot is basic and in many ways similar to Mask of the Phantasm: A new female vigilante modeling herself after Batman has begun targeting operations run by Gotham mob boss Rupert Thorne and Oswald Cobblepot AKA The Penguin. Now, Batman must attempt to unravel the mystery of the Batwoman before she crosses the line.

The animation is the sleeker, futuristic style that was utilized for Batman: The Animated Series' fifth and sixth seasons (AKA The New Batman Adventures). , it's quite nicely done, and just as sleek as Return of the Joker's animation. There is also some use of CGI, but it's minor compared to the overabundance of it in Sub-Zero. The music was alright. Different and exotic and similar to the Justice League score, although the points in the score when the old animated Batman theme comes up will be sure to send waves of nostalgia through the older fans' rodent-shaped hearts.

Kevin Conroy, as always, does a wonderful job as Bruce Wayne and Batman. It's also great to have the old Batman: The Animated Series alumni back; that includes Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), Robert Costanzo (Detective Bullock), Tara Strong (Barbara Gordon/Batgirl; her cameo hints at the romantic-relationship between her and Bruce that was mentioned in Batman Beyond), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.(Alfred).

Villains were also great - especially given that Rupert Thorne, the old mob boss from the original series, appears for the first time since the fourth season.

Overall, while not quite reaching the standard set by Mask of the Phantasm ten years ago, MOTB carries on the torch quite nicely for the animated Batman films. And if you have the DVD and are a hardcore fan, you will love the five-minute short Chase Me. I always said that the animated Batman movies were much better than the live action films.

I've seen all of the animated films, but out of the bunch, this is the poorest, and it's rather disappointing.

"Mask of the Phantasm" would rank as the best, then "World's Finest", then "Sub Zero", then "Return of the Joker", and finally this ranks last.

In this newest animated movie, there's a mysterious new batgirl in Gotham and Batman is intent on discovering whether she's friend or foe as she sets out on a quest for vengeance.

But as Bruce gets involved with three young women, he begins investigating them and discovers who is the new batgirl.

The tone in this film is unusually light considering most of the films are grim and bleak, which was rather disappointing. Bruce acts strangely out of character most of the time, the villains are re-used from the last films, and while the action scenes are exciting, they're really nothing new. It also lacks the dramatic impact the other films have, especially that of "Sub-Zero" which was heavy in drama and character development.

Everything in the film feels pretty recycled and the supporting characters are charming but no one is actually worth rooting for.

All the while, I really enjoyed this, I had a blast, and the identity of the new batgirl is surprising, but this wasn't as exciting as I'd hoped.

(**half out of ****) I thought the film could be a bit more complex,in a psychological sense perhaps, but the action and voice acting were top notch. The animation was heavy CG in many scenes, but very good ones at that. This is one of the Batman Returns/Forever type films, which include romances and the conflicts of Wayne and motives for dating. 007 fans would love this, and so would the females, great theme song! Wayne was portrayed very well in this film, and the Penquin was back to his true form, no mutant genes in him this time! I liked the fact Robin wasn't used too much, Tim Drake was just a good computer nerd, somewhat of an Indigo child or mind of the future.

The supporting cast was made up of some soap opera stars, decent talents and the characters were drawn to look like the voice actors too. Kelly Ripa was hilarious in this film.

I rate this below Phantasm, Return of the Joker, and Batman vs. Dracula, but liked the smarter script better than I enjoyed Subzero. 7/10 I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting "guess who" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it. Once a year "comes" a movie like that and makes things easy for you. You don't have make an effort to think it is good, it's just is. You enjoy it while you watch it, and you take it home with you. I can't say it is totally flawless, but it's near. Acting - great, story -interesting and with elements of suspense. It's a small family story, pretty much predictable, but it's not the secret itself that matters. it is the way the it takes the blind girl to reach it. I was impressed by the way the director portrayed their deep relationship (the blind girl and her cousin). The only thing I didn't like that much is the actress that played the mother, she was too tough and without necessity. Keren I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is expertly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is excellent. Israeli film has definitely come of age and is now fully competitive with other foreign films, though few have found a large audience in the U.S. Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.

Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.

Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the "normal" people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.

Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.

Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled. The story is being told fluidly. There are no interruptions. The flash backs are woven into the present seamlessly. Casting was superb. Young Ya'ara looked very much like Ya'ara would have looked at that age. Her portrayal of a blind person was done convincingly. Director Daniel Syrkin have done a superb job in getting the various actors to work together in this story. The Cinematography is very good. You feel like you are with Ya'ara and Talia walking toward the ocean to the edge of the cliff. The English subtitles follow the Hebrew script very closely. It is interesting to note that even though "Out of sight" is not a direct translation of "Lemarit Ayin" Both names are very appropriate to the story. I was at the same screenwriters conference and saw the movie. I thought the writer - Sue Smith - very clearly summarised what the film was about. However, the movie really didn't need explanation. I thought the themes were abundantly clear, and inspiring. A movie which deals with the the ability to dare, to face fear - especially fear passed down from parental figures - and overcome it and, in doing so, embrace life's possibilities, is a film to be treasured and savoured. I enjoyed it much more than the much-hyped 'Somersault.' I also think Mandy62 was a bit unkind to Hugo Weaving. As a bloke about his vintage, I should look so good! I agree that many Australian films have been lacklustre recently, but 'Peaches' delivers the goods. I'm glad I saw it. This story is beautifully acted. It is both sad and heartwarming about a young girl's journey to discover where she has come from and where she is going. Stephanie was adopted by her mother's best friend after her mother and father were killed in a car crash, and ever since she has been labeled the 'miracle baby', she is dyslexic and is finding life a bit tough. Her findings along the way affect those closest around her. Her relationship with her guardian and her guardian's ex boyfriend are handled very delicately and sensitively, and the whole of the supporting cast are genuine, 3 dimensional and believable. Set around a peach canning factory in small town Australia, this is a warm gentle, erotic film, and leaves you with a pleasant feeling when the credits close. After reading some of the other rather shallow comments about Hugo Weaving, I would like to add that I think he was brilliantly cast, and was extremely sexy. No, he is not Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean that he isn't attractive. I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good. Let me be the first non Australian to comment on this :) I got the movie for Hugo Weaving and I watched it to the end. It's one of those "drama of life" films, as my mother used to call a movie that depicts a real life story with no extraordinary events and that is mostly descriptive.

I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.

The "smart" American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.

In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.

I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie. Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win. How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience. Peaches is truly a marvelous film. I write this to refute a review from someone called 'Auscrit', that has appeared on this site. First of all the idea that either Monahans first film 'The Interview' is somehow TV is an extraordinary statement. Here is a film that has been significantly praised around the world as is simply one of the best Australian Films ever made. It fully deserved to win best picture. Peaches is a brave, bold and courageous departure. For me it works on every level and I have now seen it twice. Monahan is a filmmaker who is demonstrating great skill and incredible sensitivity. For 'Auscrit' to make the comment that it is another TV movie etc and that Hugo Weaving is no good simply does not 'get' the film. Or more particularly does not want to get it. Frankly it is the sort of comment that one expects from either another filmmaker who is jealous or bitter or both. Or someone from inside the industry either distribution, exhibition or bureaucracy. Your average punter, I have found just does not write comments like that. I have noticed other comments on the site and reference to the film Sommersault. One has to wonder what people think they are looking at. Unfortunately in Australia at the time SS was released the push was, if you did not like it then there was something wrong with you not the film. This manipulation of the media is pretty common down under. The reality is the only similarity between the two films are that they are rights of passage films. Unfortunately for me SS is a film about nothing, that could have been told in 15 minutes. I see it as a one dimensional film about anxiety. Peaches in comparison is a master piece. Personally I cannot wait to what Monahan does next as he is clearly way ahead of any of his contemporaries when it comes to cinema. In conclusion if the film does not win all at this years AFI's and IF awards, then it is a rigged game. As for Auscrit, please find something more constructive do with your time I had initially heard of TEARS OF KALI a while back and it sounded like something I'd be into, but with all the films I have coming in on a regular basis, it kinda fell off my radar. While roaming around the local WonderBook...I spotted the box for this one and grabbed it up. I have to say I'm pretty glad I did. TEARS OF KALI is a strange, gory, sometimes downright creepy film which is somewhat constrained by it's obviously low budget - but is still an entertaining and worthwhile watch.

TEARS OF KALI centers around the fictional India-based Taylor-Erikkson cult group, that practices meditation and other rituals in the pursuit of facing and banishing the individual's "inner demons" - but apparently these techniques work either all too well or not well enough (depending on your viewpoint...) as dark forces are not only exorcised, but also unleashed upon hapless victims.

The film is told "anthology-style", with a short but memorable and "eye-opening" intro sequence, and then proceeding into the three stories that make up the bulk of the film.

The first (SHAKTI) is about a journalist who visits one of the cult-members who is being held at a mental hospital. The journalist goes in under cover of wanting to research the Taylor-Erikkson cult, but we find that her true motives may hit a little closer to home. When the interview takes a violent turn, the journalist finds that she may have gotten in over her head...

The second part (Devi) concerns a violent young man who is sentenced to psychological rehab in lieu of a prison sentence for beating a young man into a coma. We find that the treating doctor in question is actually a Taylor-Erikkson "alumni", and his rehabilitation methods are far from the norm...

The closing story (KALI) revolves around a quack "faith-healer" and his assistant who perform "miracles" for a fee. When the healer unwittingly helps one of his clients and actually expels a force which had been possessing her, the demon is now free to roam and looking for a new host...

I gotta say I really enjoyed TEARS OF KALI. There are some faults with the film that keep it from being truly excellent - but it is an original and ambitious film for what it is. My biggest gripe with the production is the poor and uninspired over-dubbed dialogue. The dubbing is sub-par and I would have much preferred to have a subtitled option with the original language track. Some reviewers have said the acting is poor, which I don't necessarily agree with. I think that the dubbing is so lack-luster that it makes the performances seem stunted, which isn't really the case. In fact, a few of the performances are pretty damn chilling (the "doctor" in the second segment, and the "client" in the third readily come to mind...) and notable. The gore FX are very well done for a low-budget film, with some graphic scenes of eyelid-removal-via-cuticle-scissors, a pencil-in-the-throat-suicide, some decent (but irritatingly "shaky") self-flaying, and a few other goodies thrown in for good measure. Not as rough as some of the more "extreme" gore films out there, but definitely stronger than your average horror fare. I also found the story concerning the cult-group to be intriguing and a welcome change to the typical horror-story nonsense. There are plenty of scenes of genuine atmosphere and tension, the likes of which I haven't come across in a while. Although flawed in some fundamental ways, I still think TEARS OF KALI will appeal to most "underground" horror viewers - some scenes may prove too much for the more mainstream viewer. Definitely Recommended - 8.5/10 I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!! Three horror stories based on members of a transgressive Hindu cult that return home but changed in some way. In the first story our former cult member is now in an insane asylum and is visited by a reported who wants to find out about what went on at the cult. Somewhat slow going as story is told in flashbacks while the two sit on chairs and face each other. Reporter is particularly interested in what lead to the death of the participants. What seemed rather boring suddenly turns very exciting with a surprising twist in the story. Things get quite bloody.

Second story has a violent young criminal visiting a psychiatrist for mandatory therapy. The patient seems to have some type of agenda but the psychiatrist is up to the task. Again, things slow down a bit and get weird. Then there's a strange twist in the story that is very well written and surprising.

Final story deals with spiritual healer who claims to be able to remove the persons illness from them with his hands. One of the patients is a former cult member, so the successful healing gets more complicated. Again, we are surprised by a twist. Has a pretty gory scene in there.

There some nice female full frontal nudity as well as male full frontal nudity for some reason. I found the stories to be very well written and the director succeeds entirely in setting up each story with its surprising twist and the gory aftermath.

Note: review of the German DVD. This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10. one of the best low budget movies from Germany! is this is the dark side of new age? if you believe in esoteric, please don't watch this movie! it blows all your positive fantasies away. this movie shows that beyond the peaceful façade of spiritual soul searching lies a world of extreme transgressions and terror. i hope there will be a 35 mm copy soon! Andreas Marschall's first film is just the beginning of a new area, making movies with a few euros! i'm waiting for the second hit! Its taken a few viewings for me to really wrap myself around this one, but for me Tears of Kali is one of the horror highlights of the 00's and as far as independent horror goes a veritable masterpiece. An anthology horror, it takes on the story of the fictional Taylor-Eriksson Group, a cult of sorts based in India whose members set out in search of ultimate self knowledge and healing of the psyche, with unpleasant results that echo down the years. With bookend segments set in India the film is made chiefly of three stories set in Germany, illustrating the aftermath of the work of the Taylor-Eriksson Group, with some pretty nasty gore at times. Its an interesting set up as these things go, but what sets this film apart is the way the imagery is so carefully set up to develop the films horror. Bad things have been unleashed and the general course of the film is a look at how the quest for self knowledge and ultimate therapy brings horror to patients, healers and others and the film is loaded with smart visual clues to the power of the dark forces with which it deals, dark forces unbound by time, place or even personality. Good examples of this are found in the first story especially, dealing with a journalist interviewing a lady in a mental hospital. Previous to this story we have seen Lars Eriksson and notably his wonky (lazy?) eye, we also see him healing or at least comforting a patient. The lady mental patient of the first story is seen in the same stance as Eriksson healing a fellow patient, also as she wraps up the canvases from the art class that she runs among her fellow patients one of their pictures is seen, a face with lazy eye like Erikssons. There are also references to folk in minuscule roles, extras and walk ons having extra sensory perceptions of what is going on in the film, showing the badness that has been unleashed spreading and able to almost infect others. There is more to the film philosophically than just evil within, it is a film about death, suffering and possible redemption too all bound in a structure derived from Hindu beliefs in a fashion that seems like it might just be exploitation but has more relation to actual beliefs than one might expect (at least from the research that I did on wikipedia). Writer/director Andreas Marschall definitely deserves some significant credit for his skill in constructing the film. As well as being thoughtful, the film is pretty chilling too, the soundtrack of Bharti India and Panama John has a great eerie piano jingle and there are a couple of notable performances, Michael Balaun as a sinister doctor and Cora Chilcot as a freaky patient especially good. The third story also has a fine turn from veteran Mathieu Carrière as a faith healer. The biggest problem of the film is that it is not that involving a lot of the time so potential for fear is lost but these and a couple of other performances achieve involvement pretty well. So, the film isn't quite as gripping as it might be, the acting occasionally off and the pacing too, but mostly I thought it was pretty great, if a shade short of its possible brilliance. Well worth a look for adventurous horror fans I think. Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be "healed" through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.

The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.

I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10. This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...

What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....

What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.

So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans.... The plot is real horrific, the atmosphere really depressive, unusual for a low-budget production like that, and at least, for a German production. A little bit of Indian spirituality, mystic thriller and slasher movie mixed together. The development of plot and characters are great, the sets very close to reality, without any studio-atmosphere. It could be perfect, but at unfortunately some things were a little bit disappointing, what don't inevitably have to be typically for low-budget movies:

1.) The cast sometimes is not more than average. Almost every actor look like a layman. Some of them do a good, or a very good job, but some are acting like the actors of crappy German court-shows! But I was very, very disappointed of the acting of Mathieu Carrière! His acting ( in a lots of of his older movies his acting was fine ) here was below-average! But that could be the reason, why he today takes part in crappy German soaps or TV-series on private channels.

2.) The dialogs are sometimes on soap-opera-level.

3.) The bad sound made it sometimes very hard to understand, what the characters are saying. I saw it on DVD and was glad to could rewind and to listen it again. It caused by the set ( big halls as in the hospital or with the esoterically group ) and sometimes the strange dialects of the actors!

But all in all, it is an interesting movie, worth to watch it, far beyond the commercially movies, which are often more terrible. Theodore Rex is possibly the greatest cinematic experience of all time, and is certainly a milestone in human culture, civilization and artistic expression!! In this compelling intellectual masterpiece, Jonathan R. Betuel aligns himself with the great film makers of the 20th century, such as Francis Ford Copola, Martin Scorcese, Orson Welles and Roman Polanski. The special effects are nothing less than breathtaking, and make any work by Spielberg look trite and elementary. At the time of it's release, Theodore Rex was such a revolutionary gem that it raised the bar of film-making to levels never anticipated by film makers. The concept of making not just a motion picture featuring a dinosaur, but adapting an action packed, thrilling detective novel, co-staring a "talking" dinosaur with a post-modern name such as "Theodore", and an existential female police officer changed humanity as we know it. The world could never be the same after experiencing such magnificent beauty. Watching Theodore Rex is much akin to looking into the face of God and hearing Him say "you are my most beloved creation." This is one of the few films that is simply TO DIE FOR!!! Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic "Citizen Kane". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In "Citizen Kane" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately! This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.

A good blend of comedy (although not as great as "Mr Magoo"-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :). I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as "good" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron. This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage. Oh, boy, God bless the 1970's, we got some of the most horrific movies that came out of that decade: The Exorcist, Jaws, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and now, Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure. This movie must be used to torture captured terrorists into telling us about their evil plans to destroy the world, I mean seriously, this movie scared the heck out of me. My sister had this movie in her VHS collection and I was kind of curious what kind of movie they would make out of a doll that came out of the great depression for kids with very little pocket money. What the heck? It's kinda funny how this movie is the 1970's version of Toy Story, pretty much down to a key, only this was a thousand times scarier, Disney had Alice in Wonderland to get into the drug trips for the children.

Whenever Marcella leaves the room, Raggedy Ann, along with her brother Raggedy Andy and a whole nursery full of colorful toys come to life. On Marcella's birthday, a new doll, Babette, arrives from Paris, France to the United States of America. Babette is a spoiled creature who is unaware she is a doll, but the friendly Raggedy Ann does everything she can to make Babette feel at home. However, the pirate Captain Contagious kidnaps her. Raggedy Ann and Andy set off to try to rescue her before Marcella discovers Babette is gone. Out in the world outside the nursery, the two meet the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees, a blue toy camel who has been cast off by past owners and is now heartbroken and lonely. After Raggedy Ann and Andy hitch a ride on the Camel, he begins to follow his hallucinations and without looking, runs over the edge of a cliff, into a deep pit. In this pit they encounter the Greedy, who is a giant gluttonous blob of taffy who eats constantly and is never full. The Raggedys and the Camel narrowly escape being consumed by the Greedy and continue their journey to find Babette… and believe me, it just gets weirder from this point on.

While this movie was certainly disturbing and I just wanted to cry and cover my eyes during a lot of the movie, this was actually pretty creative. Back in the day when we had hand drawn animation that made films more personal and that the writers and animators put their heart into it, you can tell that they did that with Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure. This certainly wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, I just don't know who to recommend it too. As scared as I was, I have to admit I'm glad I watched it, sometimes you need a "WTF?!" movie to spice up your selection, believe me when I say that Raggedy Ann had no problem in doing just that with me. It's official, that doll is just plain creepy, let's just put it this way, there's a giant caramel river that is eating everything, a king who's head keeps getting bigger as he laughs, a bizarre thing that humiliates Raggedy Ann and her brother, a strange almost incest between Ann and Andy and a couple of naked dolls that will forever haunt my dreams with their songs. Yikes.

7/10 Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy THE MOVIE is about dolls that come to life when the humans aren't around. In this adventure they must rescue a kidnapped french doll named Babette from the captain of pirates. On their way they journey though Deep Dark Woods, Taffy Pit, and even Looney Land. Will the aide of their new friend The Camel With Wrinkled Knees help them or just slow them down with his hallucinations of his friends leaving him? How will they escape the Kookoo king and his henchmen!? What will their owner Marcella say when she sees her 7th birthday present doll gone along with her other toys? Delightful surprises await the two adventurers.

All scores are out of a possible 10: Story: 8 - Very cute. Dolls that come to life when the master isn't around. Not just that because they go out into many many different places, but they are in an imaginary world so anything can happen. Meeting new characters, going to different places finding new friends, its great. The characters all work so well in this too and who doesn't love pirates?! Acting: 8 - Every character suits their voice so well. Specifically the Marlon Brando taffy pit enemy, The Greed. The french doll has a very uptight french accent, the evil Hitler-esquire king Kookoo (whos got hair that resembles Simpson's Sideshow Bob) plays his role very well, and the sorrow old black man voice for Camel works perfectly. Why is it that old dubbed animation was soo much better than new ones? Music: 10 - Nothing short of perfection here. The songs have been in my head for years, and re-watching it nearly 20 years later, i can still remember each and every one of them and will now be able to know exactly where these tunes come from. Joe Raposo of "Sesame Street" fame did an excellent job with the songs for this and everyone sings real well.

Editing: 6 - Heh, this is where it'll get confusing. I mean how far did the Raggedy's walk anyway? A lot of events just seem to occur one after another and there's no telling WHO the other dolls and toys were as you never see them in the real world of the movie, but it does follow some sort of path and you know they'll eventually get to where they need to go, its just pretty hard to follow at times.

Uniqueness: 8 - Between this and Unico i'd have to say there's parts in both movies i will never forget no matter how hard i try to. Mainly the scary parts. I've probably mentioned already how older movies were Much creepier than animation of today but this takes the cake in the scary factor. Outside of the South Park movie and some Disney films there's almost no animated musicals, or good ones of that coming out so its very unique.

Worth: 8- Its classic. Worth the hunt to get a good copy thats for sure, but the VHS copies are probably all stretched out by now. The DVD version is sold on Ebay all the time and it'll definitely be something you'll watch more than once. If anything get it for the nostalgia purposes.

Overall Score (Not an average): 8 - Its a wonderful timeless musical made in the late 70s and can still be enjoyed today. Its characters are all unique and the songs are great. So great you might find yourself humming them time and time again. Give your favorite stuffed animal a hug today! Reviewer's Insight (Including bias): This isn't like the Raggedy Ann TV series made a decade later. This was way more darker and real world. The effects in this seem like a lot of other acid-trip cartoons from the 70's, in particular, Yellow Submarine. Still, its given me memories I'll never forget, and might still influence things today. It wasn't easy to find but it'll remain a treasure to keep in my collection of DVDs and videos forever. I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little "girlish".

The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing.

When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit "old". I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.

It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)

09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo! I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version.

My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it.

I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.

I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it.

The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.

Hope this helps. Raggedy Ann & Andy is the first movie I ever saw in the theaters. My dad took my sister and I, and the funny thing is - when we got home, dad asked us "what do you want to do now?" and we said we want to watch Raggedy Ann & Andy again! lol, and my dad actually took us back to the theatre to watch it again -- at least that's how I remember it. I was five years old at the time.

This movie was pretty scary for a five year old. The scene with the giant ocean of sweets, and the hypnotic camel scene.. i don't remember a lot from this film, naturally, the beginning was magical, and a few scenes -- I wish I could find it again, and will likely seek it out now.

I remember I loved Raggedy Ann & Andy. This is a very strange film by director/animator Richard Williams. All who know of William's work know it's a bit off-kilter (if not ingenious) but this one takes the cake.

It features two hapless ragdolls who have to save their owner's new French doll from a lustful pirate toy and find themselves at the mercy of several bizarre characters along the way. The strength in this movie lies primarily in its aesthetic quality; its strange character designs, its powerful animation, and its stark contrast of the sweet and scary. Williams' brilliant animation portrayed Raggedy Ann and Andy as real rag dolls, floppy and darned, rather than simple cartoon versions of the dolls, which made it more believable (at least in a visual sense). The animation shines on the bring us the Camel-with-the-Wrinkled-Knees, whose body walks with two different personalities controlling each end, the silent-movie chase with Sir Leonard Looney and, of course, the Greedy.

The Greedy animation, on its own, is possibly the most exquisite psychedelic animation I've ever seen. There's something about this animation that just makes your jaw drop--and every second it's something new. Living in what was deemed "the Taffy Pit," the Greedy is a massive blob man that lives in and mercilessly eats sweets. He sings a song that I can't help but feel hold some sexual undertones, then tries to kill Raggedy Ann for her candy heart.

The only complaint I have about this film is that there are too many songs. It continuously bogs down the movie's pace because there are SIXTEEN of them. There are about six good songs (which should have been the only ones) including "I Look, And What Do I See?", "No Girl's Toy", "Blue" (though they didn't need to make him sing it twice), "I Never Get Enough", "Because I Love You" and maybe "I'm Home." The others just seem unnecessary and frankly aren't too amazing to listen to.

This is a weird film with strange undertones, but if that's what you're looking for, you won't find better. Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is "Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers" (I will always remember that sweet song forever).

I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years). I have very fond memories of this film, as I saw it with my two younger sisters when it first shown theatrically in 1977 and I was eight years old. Apparently it was deemed a failure - and is now practically forgotten (the pan-and scan videocassette - which never did justice to the picture or it's ambitious Panavision compositions is now out-of -print.) The film is very stylized (shades of YELLOW SUBMARINE) and admittedly uneven. Some of the characters and sequences are exquisite while others are somewhat juvenile and undistinguished. The sad discarded blue camel (shades of Eeyore) and his blue song are truly heartwarming. Joe Raposo's songs are for the most part simply beautiful. Definitely a worthwhile curiousity that will probably (sadly) fall into total obscurity. I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body! Personally, this is one of my favorites of all time! no, i'm not 10.. i'm 30! i own an old, original VHS of this that i bought from a rental store. i've watched it countless times..

while it's an amusing movie for kids, it's an intriguing movie for adults. i once saw this movie whiile i was.. not sober. my eyes were opened to things i had never noticed before. i saw morals being strongly encouraged, both overtly and somewhat subliminally.. i wish i could remember all the things i noticed in particular, but it's been a very long time since then. rest assured, there are TONS of things that are alluded to throughout the movie. if you get the chance to view it.. not sober.. do so, you won't be disappointed.. as a matter of fact, you will probably feel rather happy and warm.

unique and wonderful! Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' "Greedy"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation. Never when I was a child did I love any movie more then this one. I would love to own it. I watched it every Sunday they played it on the Family Film Festival. It is an enjoyable film suitable for the whole family and the songs are wonderful. The last time I saw the movie I was around seven years, so my opinions might be jaded over time. At the time I enjoyed the filming that switched between cartoon and live action. At the time I felt sad for the blue camel and his sad life. Also I felt glee when after Captain Contagious kidnapped the heroine (a princess or toy shepherdess) the tables the were turned on him. Unfortunately the producers never decided to transfer this movie to VHS, so all I have are twenty year old memories. I am sure that if I saw the movie again I would consider it corny and sappy, but I really enjoyed it the movie at the time. This Raggedy Ann and Andy Movie is so adorable. We love watching Ann and Andy sing and dance, along with the camel with the wrinkled knees. This movie is what made the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees so popular, singing his song, "I'm nobodies I Love You". If you love Raggedy Ann and Andy Watch the movie and you will see why it's a movie the kids love, and adults! ...in our household. Like everyone else who has commented on this movie, my brothers (7 & 4 years old at the time) and I (10) would watch this movie over and over again. We all loved Star Wars, but we always went back to this one because of the great songs and the adventure. We all loved the Camel and would sing at the top of our lungs with him during his song. There are some slow moments (the time spent with King Koo-Koo in his court) and we generally got bored after The Knight's song ("The reason that I {sound effect} is because I loooooove you"), but we loved the journey to rescue Babbette and the ending and were all a little freaked out by the picture of King Koo-Koo floating there dominating the entire horizon, laughing maniacally at the end. I still to this day sing "Hooray for me! Babbette of gay Paris!" around my friends (I'm 33 now) who just look at me as if I've lost my mind; however, when I'm singing it I'm 10 years old again remembering the wonderful year of Star Wars. I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got "Cult Status" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great. ONCE UPON A TIME, there were different types of movies. These different movies coexisted even though each one had something different to offer....

This seems obvious at first, but I thought I'd point it out during this review because it seems a few people may have forgotten. This is just a fun movie for Pavarotti fans. That's all it is. It doesn't claim to be anything else or anything grander. People who deride it as something that fell short of a promise aren't seeing the whole picture- literally. After all, Hollywood makes movies all the time that are shameless vehicles for people (Bodyguard or The Preacher's Wife w/Whitney Houston are 2 examples that spring to mind.)

First I'd like to address the movie as a vehicle for Pavarotti. There are worse things in this world-- and worse movies. The singing is fabulous and the selection of arias is fun. The movie starts with Schubert's Ave Maria and then Leoncavallo's Matinatta. Pav sings arias from La Gioconda, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot but also sings popular music such as "I left my heart in San Francisco" and the song that was nominated for an Oscar & Golden Globe, "If we were in Love" w/music by John Williams & lyrics by Alan & Marilyn Bergman- all 3 previous Oscar winners.

The story isn't that bad. It was built for Pavarotti so of course it's not going to be something that's profound or universally applicable to the average movie viewer. It's a story of a famous opera singer who was traumatized by a bad night at the opera years ago. When asked to sing again at the same place, the "MET" in NYC, he loses his voice from fear. Doctor Pamela (or Pah-MAY-lah in Italian:)) played by Kathryn Harrold- gives him a shot to cure his psychosomatic reaction. He offers her the chance to have a fling with him and she reluctantly accepts.

They embark on an affair, she knowing he's married & promising not to fall in love with him and him thinking she will be just another woman. Despite all that, they fall in love (thus the song, "IF we were in love") and with her help, he overcomes his fear & goes back to the MET where he triumphs. I won't tell how it ends, but it's fairly predictable. Which isn't always a bad thing.

The performances in this aren't that bad. Pavarotti (who plays Giorgio Fini) isn't an actor, so if you're expecting a Spencer Tracy or Tom Hanks performance, YOU are deluded, not Pavarotti. He knows he's not a thespian. What he is is cute, charming & charismatic. He is having fun himself, and if you can just let yourself have fun too, it's not so bad. One funny line is when he tells Pamela (Harrold) that she's a "thirsty plant, Fini can water you!" and of course, she says, "I don't want to be watered on by Fini!" Kathryn Harrold is very sweet and does a nice job as a semi-uptight woman who learns from this extravagant man to live a little. One of my favorite lines in the movie is: "Life never has to be life size." And there's Eddie Albert who does his usual good job as Fini's manager. There are several "themselves" cameos by real conductors, singers, etc. and it is filmed on location at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center.

If you like opera, if you like Pavarotti, or if you can just let yourself go & enjoy a "little fling" just like he proposes in the movie- then you can enjoy this movie for what it is. I know I do- EVERY time. :)

Yes, Giorgio, is a feel good movie. A little romance, great music, beautiful scenery, comedy, (a great food fight), and a little taste of bittersweet are the ingredients of Yes, Giorgio. Any movie buff would enjoy this film. Those who require massive special effects, should look elsewhere. Most of us need a little escape now and then, and how better to do this, than with a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart? A must see! I watched this movie with my mother when I was in high school many years ago. I definitely was not the least bit interested in opera at the time, but he changed my views. I enjoyed this movie very much and have truly enjoyed opera ever since. I even bought several of his CD's. Who cares what his acting abilities were, he basically just played himself, which was adorable. He was so charming, so charismatic; I honestly just wanted to hug him. I feel very sad that so many are criticizing him so harshly. It was so straight, did not accept people pushing him around or judging him for his actions. He deserves to be respected and admired for his talent. He will definitely be missed!!! I saw this movie when it came out when I was 17 years old and into classic rock (still am)...

I never liked opera before because I hate soprano voices, but he changed all that. He was adorable in the movie and had such an amazing voice.

I heard on CNN that he died tonight at home of pancreatic cancer, he will be missed, and he definitely left his mark on this world.

I hope to buy this movie if I can find it, watch and enjoy. *smile* Maybe I should head over to Amazon.com and have a look before it's sold out. I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.

I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today! Okay, let's face it. this is a god-awful movie. The plot (such as it is) is horrible, the acting worse. But the movie was made for one reason and one reason only, like all of those awful Mario Lanza movies...just to hear the voice of the star, in this case Pavarotti in his prime. Okay, so maybe the Lanza movies were also an excuse for him to hit on women, but this movie is about hearing Luciano. That alone is worth watching the movie. A big opera star stuck on himself faces his fears, finds humility and love along the way, and belts out a lot of hit numbers, too.

I must admit I'm prejudiced on a number of levels. I'm Italian. I'm a big Pavarotti fan (is there anything about Pavarotti that isn't big, including his fan base?). And when I first saw this movie I was going out on my own, seeing the height and depth of Life's possibilities and in love for the first time. So as awful as this movie is, the beautiful voice and memories are enough to make me breathe deep of life and love again.

Yes, it's corny and awful. But the voice is immortal and timeless, and the voice is what it's all about. So I give this movie a high rating in hopes that someone who has never heard Pavarotti before will listen and watch and enjoy a new level of music and love, especially since he is now gone. Like Italian food that you've never tried before, try it! You may be pleasantly surprised, as a Luciano lover or prospective Pavarotti peep. As someone else commented, this is a feel-good movie. It's got glorious scenery and the wonder-filled voice of Luciano! I've seen this movie many times and just saw it again this afternoon. I'd forgotten how much I miss Pavarotti's singing of Nessun Dorma and I need to get out the CD! It's a great movie to just while away the afternoon engrossed in fun and reverie. Eddie Albert is grand as the agent and a bit over the top, but all agents are just that anyway. The Italian countryside is gorgeous but nothing tops the balloon ride for the perfect view. If you need acting of Olivier proportion, this movie isn't for you. If you just want a flight of fancy and some wonderful music, watch this film. Just enjoy! "Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there. We first watched this film as part of a festival of new Argentine films in 2000 at the Walter Reade. Although we liked it, we didn't think it was extraordinary. Watching it for a second time, we found a different meaning in this look at life in Buenos Aires.

The film takes place in one of the darkest days of Argentina, as the DeLaRua administration was ending. The country was in turmoil after the economy, which had flourished earlier in the 1990s, under the artificially climate President Menen created. It was a time when bank accounts in dollars were frozen and people got themselves living a nightmare.

The story begins just as Santamarina, a bank employee, is fired because the collapse of the economy. Instead of receiving sympathy from his wife, she locks him out of the apartment and he, for all practical purposes, becomes a homeless man. He takes to the streets trying to make ends meet.

The other story introduces us to Ariel, a young Jew, interviewing for a job in a Spanish company. It's almost a miracle he gets the job. His father, Simon, owns a small restaurant in the Jewish quarter of "El Once" in the center of the city. Things go from bad to worse, when Ariel's mother dies suddenly. Only Estela, the young woman who is in love with Ariel, comes to help father and son.

Santamarina, who is a clean man, has to resort to take showers wherever he can. He chooses a ladies' room in one of the subway stations. When the attendant, Elsa, finds him naked, she becomes furious, but she comes to her senses when she realizes the unhappy circumstances of this man who has seen better times. They become romantically involved, and Santamarina in one of his trips through the street garbage, finds an infant. Elsa, while surprised, wants to do the right thing. But Santamarina convinces her of the meaning of an innocent life in their lives will cement their love.

Ariel, who has met the gorgeous Laura at work, begins a turbulent and heavy sexual affair with his beautiful co-worker, who unknown to him, is involved in a lesbian affair. Ariel who free lances by photographing weddings and other occasions, feels a passion for Laura, but he realizes what Estela has sacrificed in order to help his father and still loves him.

Daniel Burman, whose "El Abrazo Partido" we thought was excellent, did wonders with this film. Things are put in its proper perspective after a second viewing recently and we must apologize for not having perceived it the first time around. If anything, this second time, the nuances of the screen play Mr. Burman and Emiliano Torres wrote, make more sense because they reflect the turmoil of what the country was living during those dark days.

Daniel Hendler, who plays Ariel, has collaborated with Mr. Burman before to surprising results. He is not 'movie star pretty', yet, he is handsome. This actor projects a tremendous sincerity in his work. Enrique Pineyro is another magnificent surprise. His Santamarina is disarming. In spite of all the bad things that have fallen on him, he keeps a rosy attitude toward everyone he meets. Stefania Sandrelli, the interesting Italian actress, makes a great contribution to the film with her Elsa. Hector Alterio, one of the best Argentine actors plays the small part of Simon. The gorgeous Chiara Coselli is seen as Laura and Melina Petrielli appears as the noble Estela.

"Esperando al mesias" proves Daniel Burman is a voice to be reckoned with in the Argentine cinema. This outstanding Argentine independent film is one of the very best of the year 2000 from all South America, including Argentina, which is producing an astonishing number of quality films since 1999. In 2000 alone, Argentina released many quality films, which broke Argentine B.O. records. A half dozen were internationally acclaimed, like this one, at important world film festivals. After viewing this film, one can see how home grown Argentinian films were able last year to recapture 20% of its national movie market.

Directed by one of Argentina's best directors, Daniel Burman, this film examines effects of globalisation worldwide, but emphasizes its impact on Argentina, and particularly the Jewish community of Buenos Aires. Daniel Hendler is wonderful as the nice Jewish boy, trying to survive and even succeed in today's business climate. Hector Alterio, one of the great actors of Hispanic Cinema worldwide, is perfect as Simon, the Jewish father, as is the rest of the cast, which includes Spanish and Italian stars.

So many current themes in urban Western societies are explored, I don't have enough space to go into detail. Daniel Burman cleverly weaves them into the plot with different characters personifying diverse dilemmas. If this film plays at a festival near you, or on video, don't miss it! I was pleasantly surprised to find that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was nowhere near as 'gross-out' a comedy as the trailer had led me to expect. I rapidly became absorbed in the unfolding of the narrative and remained engrossed throughout. Pacing of the more visual humorous content was, I thought, spot on. (I mean I got the impression I was witnessing Pegg's attempts at restoring lost control very much 'in real time', so to speak.) At other moments there was time allowed to share the main protagonists' (i.e. Pegg's and Dunst's) reflection on how events were affecting them and what had led them to where they now found themselves. All the characters were well cast, to some extent interesting in and of themselves, and generally quite likable. (Any apparent ruthless ambition displayed tended to be tempered by a corresponding good natured resilience.) An entertaining, intelligently scripted, brilliantly directed and superbly acted film that I would thoroughly recommend. I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 I had fun watching this movie, mainly due to Simon Pegg, who has quickly become a solid box office draw for comedy films.

He is hired from his dead end London publishing job by big shot NYC media mogul Jeff Bridges, as a writer, for one of his celebrity rags.

After paying his dues, he makes it into the higher echelons of celebrity writing hackdom (the "seventh room"), where he gets to be a minor celebrity himself. The storyline is very funny, and Gillian Anderson puts in an impressive supporting role as a cutthroat publicity agent.

Along the way to success, he finds the true meaning of love, etc.

The formulaic plot aside, the movie was very funny, mainly due to Simon Pegg, Jeff Bridges, and Gillian Anderson. Kirsten Dunst was good as the love interest. The rest of the supporting cast did its job well.

This was a good comedy & well worth checking out at the theaters. Oh dear we don't like it when our super-hero love interest develops a brain do we?

Something has happened to people, they have lost the ability to enjoy, a simple feel-good, love story/comedy? Kirsten Dunst is a revelation - funny, sexy and real. I laughed out loud ooh at least five times and I'm not ashamed to say had a tear in my eye a couple of times too. The cast, acting and script is great, I watch a lot of films right across the board and I haven't seen one in this genre that has been as successful. Those who disagree please tell me where I can find some! I'm sure the book is good too but I think you have to judge it on its own merits. Amazing performance from Simon Pegg who just gets better and better with every role. As usual he plays the part of a very cringy character who makes you want to hide behind your cushion in embarrassment for him sometimes, but thats what Pegg is all about.

The laughs were regular and eye watering and everyone of them aimed at Penn. The movie was very cleverly put together where every character plays a very sophisticated and serious part with Penn being the only humour involved which is a huge credit to the Director Robert Weide.

And I cant let this one go without a quick round of applause to Gilliam Anderson who shone throughout. Highly recommended to all. Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with "Shaun Of The Dead" in 2004, movie on to "Hot Fuzz 2007", early 2008 he came out with "Run Fat Boy Run" and now comes this, "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.

The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.

This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy "Paul". I Rate this film 81%. Romantic comedy is not the correct way to describe "How to lose friends & alienate people". The underlying romance in the plot is, for the most part, displaced by a far more interesting "rags to riches" tale. Although the central line of the story is somewhat rushed passed, in several screen shots, it does have a sense of; getting the "nitty gritty" out of the way, focusing on those key relationships which make "office politics" and using those almost irrelevant scenes, used purely for comic effect. Yet it works so well, especially with Pegg in the front seat. The film is ultimately very clever, playing well on the trans-Atlantic relationship Pegg shares with his co-stars and merging the cross between the high and low -life society quite well and quite refreshingly in a storyline that despite predictability is somewhat of a unique journey. The different characters in the film are presented well and casting is definitely a plus point on the film. Both the "trading places" relationship between Pegg and Huston and the "love, hate" relationship between Pegg and Dunst do work so well in a story that is, for want of a better word, charming. Even Fox, whose main asset is of course sex appeal, shocks with what turns out to be quite a dark character and acts that "bimbo" role all to well. Its one of these films where every little detail does pay tribute to a great piece of work. From transsexual strippers to an amazing soundtrack it all meshes nicely into what can only be described as clever comedy. Well here comes another,well,romantic comedy...but unlike all others movies of this genre,this is by far the best I have seen in a long while..

I'll admit,at first I wanted to watch this movie because of Megan Fox,and a little because of Simon Pegg...

First of all,if you have watched a decent amount of movies,you will know that Sidney and Alison would be together at the and of the movie,one way or another...but from the beginning to the end of the movie you won't know how...

Okay,now this movie is just made for Simon Pegg.I can't see any other actor in the role of Sidney,and I'm sure this would be a very weaker movie if not for Pegg's great performance.

There is a number of great gags and jokes in this movie that kept me laughing really hard,courtesy of Simon Pegg's character Sidney...but I think everyone in this movie is good.For example,Kirsten Dunst is really solid in this movie( I usually don't think of her as any more than an average actress,but she was really good in this one ),then there's Jeff Bridges,there's Gillian Anderson,and of course Megan Fox who plays spoiled bitchy star Sophie Maes...great role for her...

All in all,while I usually don't agree with ratings her on IMDb,this time I would completely agree with them...

Go and see this movie,it is really light-hearted and positive,and I recommend it deeply... My rating 7 out of 10...well 7.5 actually... 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier. How to lose friends and Alienate people came out in 2008. It bombed at U.S. Box offices. It's an absolutely hilarious film with a great cast. Simon Pegg is great playing Sidney Young, who wrote the book "How to lose friends and Alienate people. I know it's not a true story. The only way I know that is because Sidney wants to go out with an actress named Sophie Maes. Sophie Maes doesn't exist, but other than that, the film could be real. How to lose friends and Alienate people is probably the funniest film of 2008, and I think you definitely should see it. As I said earlier, the film has a fantastic cast including: Kirsten Dunst(Spider-Man, The Virgin Suicides) Danny Huston(The Number 23, 30 days of night) Gillian Anderson(The X-Files) Megan Fox(Transformers, Confessions of a teenage drama Queen) Jeff Bridges(The Big Lebowski, The Vanishing) Overall, How to lose friends and Alienate people is hilarious. I think Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst do work well together, and I think you should see it. Though there is some odd nudity including Trans-sexuals, it's a hilarious and awesome comedy. One of Simon Pegg's best.

The Plot:Sidney Young, a journalist from England, travels down to New York to work at Sharp magazines. While there, he meets an actress named Sophie Maes and tries to sleep with her before his boss does. Sidney Young (Pegg) moves from England to New York to work for the popular magazine Sharpe's in a hope to live his dream lifestyle but struggles to make a lasting impression.

Based on Toby Young's book about survival in American business, this comedy drama received mixed views from critiques. Labelled as inconsistently funny but with charm by the actors, how to lose friends seemed as a run of the mill fish out of the pond make fun at another culture comedy, but it isn't.

This 2008 picture works on account of its actors and the simple yet sharp story. We start off in the past, then in the present and are working our way forwards to see how Young made his mark at one of America's top magazines.

Pegg (Hot Fuzz) is too likable for words. Whether it's hitting zombies with a cricket bat or showing his sidekick the nature of the law the English actor brings a charm and light heartedness to every scene. Here, when the scripting is good but far from his own standards, he brings a great deal of energy to the picture and he alone is worth watching for. His antics with "Babe 3" are unforgivable, simply breathtaking stuff as is his over exuberant dancing, but he pulls it off splendidly.

Bridges and Anderson do well at portraying the stereotypical magazine bosses where Dunst fits in nicely to the confused love interest. Megan Fox, who stole Transformers, reminds everyone she can act here with a funny hyperbole of a stereotype film star. The fact that her character Sophie Myles is starring in a picture about Mother Teresa is as laughable as her character's antics in the pool. To emphasize the point there is a dog, and Pegg rounds that off in true Brit style comedy, with a great little twist.

Though a British film there is an adaptation of American lifestyle for Young as he tries to fit in and we can see the different approaches to story telling. Young wants the down right dirty contrasted with the American professionalism. The inclusion of modern day tabloid stars will soon make this film dated but the concept of exploitation of film star's gives this edge.

Weide's first picture is not perfect. There are lapses in concentration as the plot becomes too soapy with an awkward obvious twist and there are too many characters to be necessary. The physical comedy can also be overdone. As a side note, the bloopers on the DVD are some of the finest you will ever see, which are almost half an hour long.

This comedy drama has Simon Pegg on shining form again and with the collective approach to story telling and sharp comedy, it is worth watching. UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is "based". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.

Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.

Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.

There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.

There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny. Weak start, solid middle, fantastic finish. That's my impression of this film, anyway. I liked Simon Pegg in the two films I've seen him in--- Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead. His role here, though, took a completely different turn. Shows his range as an actor, but nonetheless I really disliked th character as he was portrayed at the beginning.

There's a kind of humour I call "frustration comedy." Its supposed "jokes" and wit are really nothing more than painful and awkward moments. Much like the Bean character Rowan Atkinmson plays. There are a number of other comedic actors who portray similar characters too. I don't mean to bash them here, so will not.

But do be warned that if you are like me, and you dislike smarmy and maddeningly bungling idiots, Pegg shows just such characteristics for the first third of this film. It DOES get better, however.

I read somewhere that this is based on a true story. Hmmm. Maybe. The film's story stopped being annoying, and became kind of a triumph of the "little guy" in the final third. I don't need all films to be sugar and light--- but coincidentally, as this film got better, it also started to be more and more of a happy ending.

It was also a pleasure to see an old favourite, Jeff Bridges, play a role so masterfully. I liked "Iron Man," but was saddened by the fact that Bridges' character was a villain. Purely personal taste, of course, as his acting in that was superb. Nonetheless, he was a marvel here as the Bigger Than Life man of vision, the publisher of Sharps. It was nice to see him in a role that I could actually enjoy.

Overall then, I liked it! I just wish I had come in 40 minutes late, and missed the beginning. I am a huge fan of Simon Pegg and have watched plenty of his movies until now and none of them have ceased to make me laugh. Neither did How to lose friends and Alienate People.

This movie is essentially about a man good as pissing people off. However, he has an innate set of ethics that prevents him from doing things that might just make him famous. But in the end he ends up doing them, the culture of life.

The movie is well toned with humor, romance, good acting and also a bit of a lap dance. Its one of those movies where you could just be happy when it ends. This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon. I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection! In Canadian director Kari Skogland's film adaptation of the Margaret Laurence novel The Stone Angel Ellen Burstyn is Hagar Shipley, a proud and cantankerous woman approaching her nineties who wishes to remain independent until the very end, stubbornly refusing to be placed in a nursing home by her well-meaning son Marvin. Filmed in Manitoba, Canada and set in the fictional town of Manawaka, The Stone Angel is a straightforward and conventional interpretation of the book that has been required reading in Canadian high school English classes for almost half a century.

The title of the film comes from the stone statue erected on Hagar's mother's grave which serves as a metaphor for Hagar's inability to express emotion during her tumultuous lifetime. Burstyn brings vulnerability and humor to the role but is a bit too likable to fully realize the ego-driven, self-defeating character who managed to alienate her wealthy father, her well-meaning but alcoholic husband, and both of her sons. As she nears the end of her days, she reflects that "pride was my wilderness and the demon that led me there was fear. I was alone, never anything else, and never free, for I carried my chains within me, and they spread out from me and shackled all I touched".

Confronting having to spend her last days in a nursing home, Hagar looks back at her life and looks at her failed relationships, her recollections shown in flashbacks without voice-over narration. The story begins with a dance that she attended as a young girl. Chaperoned by her Aunt Dolly, she meets her future husband, the previously married Bram Shipley (Cole/Wings Hauser), a poor farmer whose reputation in the town is sullied because of his association with the Native American population. The young Hagar is played by Christine Horne who is exceptional in her first feature role. Despite Hagar's pleading, her relationship with Bram is rejected by her cold and rigid father whose refusal to attend the wedding starts the marriage off on the wrong foot. This is exacerbated by his leaving all of his money to the town of Manawaka, condemning the young couple to a life of poverty.

Going through the motions of her marriage to Bram, Hagar withdraws from social activities to prevent being rejected by the town's upper classes. When she produces two sons, Marvin (Dylan Baker) and John (Kevin Zegers), she is unable to give them the love that they need. "Every joy I might have held in my man or any child of mine or even the plain light of morning", she reflects, "all were forced to a standstill by some break of proper appearances…When did I ever speak the heart's truth?" Like the biblical Hagar who fled to the desert because she could not tolerate further affronts to her pride, Hagar leaves Manawaka to live in Ontario but eventually returns to the Shipley farm.

As the scene shifts back to the present, Hagar runs away to an abandoned house near the ocean that she remembers from her childhood to escape from being placed in a nursing home by Marvin and his wife Doris (Sheila McCarthy), Here she meets a young man named Leo (Luke Kirby) who takes an interest in her and compels her to look at and take responsibility for the mistakes she made in her life. The Stone Angel pulls out all the emotional stops but never fully develops its characters to the point where I felt any stake in the story's outcome, although the spirited performance by Ellen Page as John's devoted but naive girlfriend and the moving final scenes bring a new energy to the film's second half. Any movie that shows federal PIGs (Persons In Government) to be the power-mad threats they are in real life has a lot to recommend it to me.

Alas, the script supervision and editing and even, at times, the directing are flawed so there will be people who will disparage the whole movie and ignore the good moments.

I saw the original way back when it was new and hated it, despised it, loathed it. Thought it was a terrible, irrational piece of junk.

Now, though, I don't remember why.

I believe the two should not be compared or even connected.

Consider them as two different movies.

Rate them as two different movies.

This "Vanishing Point" provides a rallying place, a banner for people who want to encourage individualism, who believe in human rights, who recognize the threat to freedom government can be and is, especially the federal government.

"The Voice" wears a cap bearing the state motto of New Hampshire: "Live Free or Die." At one time it would have been the motto of most Americans.

Despite its obvious flaws, "Vanishing Point" is a film to cheer. To start off with, since this movie is a remake of a classic, the rating has to be lowered already. Since this version stars Viggo Mortensen in the lead role of Kowalski, it helps.

Isn't this just like the United States government though, to terrorize one of its own citizens. Sounds like Jason Priestley's character from the movie! But it is the truth, the government would do anything possible to destroy a man's life for trying to get home to his wife. A wife, who is in labor no less, and may not make it.

"There was a time in this country that the police would escort a man to his pregnant wife." The words of the Disc Jockey.

There were some great shots of scenery in this film, and great car chases and a lot of spirituality. After much consideration, I gave this film a 7. I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.

As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic. SPOILERS THROUGH:

I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.

Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.

There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.

Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.

I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.

And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.

So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.

People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10. Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film. its not as good as the first movie,but its a good solid movie its has good car chase scenes,on the remake of this movie there a story for are hero to drive fast as his trying to rush to the side of his ailing wife,the ending is great just a good fair movie to watch in my opinion,

Sure this was a remake of a 70's film, but it had the suspense and action of a current film, say Breakdown. He's running, desperate to be with his hospitalized wife, the police are the least concern. The chases were very good, the part with him being

cornered at a rest stop was well done, the end of the movie was a great cliffhanger. This is better than Bullitt, a boring movie with what, a muscle car chase that was filmed badly? Vigo's character knew what he had to do to escape Johnny Law, few movies had the effects-night vision, CB radio-okay I forgot the name of the movie, guy has 76'Caddy souped up, toys with guy he upset. The ending is great, you can't tell if he fakes his suicide or not, a very good did-he-make-it-or-not. I really liked this version of 'Vanishing Point' as opposed to the 1971 version. I found the 1971 version quite boring. If I can get up in the middle of a movie a few times(as I did with the 1971 version) than to me, it is not all that great. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I was only nine at the time the 1971 version was brought out. However, I have seen many remakes, where I have liked the original and older one better. I found that the plot of the 1997 version was more understandable and had basically kept true to the original without undermining the meaning of the 1971 version. In my opinion, I felt the 1997 version had more excitement and wasn't so "blase".(Boring) This is definitely an appropriate update for the original, except that "party on the left is now party on the right." Like the original, this movie rails against a federal government which oversteps its bounds with regards to personal liberty. It is a warning of how tenuous our political liberties are in an era of an over-zealous, and over-powerful federal government. Kowalski serves as a metaphor for Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the US government, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, threw around words like "white supremacist" and "right wing extremists as well as trumped-up drug charges to abridge the most fundamental of its' citizens rights, with the willing acquiescence of the general populace. That message is so non-PC, I am stunned that this film could be made - at least not without bringing the Federal government via the IRS down on the makers like they did to Juanita Broderick, Katherine Prudhomme, the Western Journalism Center, and countless others who dared to speak out. "Live Free or Die" is the motto on Jason Priestly's hat as he brilliantly portrays "the voice," and that sums up the dangerous (to some) message of this film.

This film was Excellent, I thought that the original one was quiet mediocre. This one however got all the ingredients, a factory 1970 Hemi Challenger with 4 speed transmission that really shows that Mother Mopar knew how to build the best muscle cars! I was in Chrysler heaven every time Kowalski floored that big block Hemi, and he sure did that a lot :) Brilliant use of overstated technicolor illustrates the optimistic extremes of present day Christmas ceremonies. The voyeuristic element during the scenes (Santa & Pedro summarize society's behavior peering through a telescope) is unique (and obviously Jean-Luc Godard, although he was subtle, stole this theme in his film "Pierrot le-fou"). Highly recommended! Shawshank, Godfather, Pulp Fiction... all good films. Great films. But nothing, and I mean nothing lives up to the greatest Christmas movie of all, Santa Claus.

The film is so great and has so many messages, I cried while watching it. Seriously, this is one of those movies you need to watch 10 times. When we see Pitch get told he will have to eat ice cream, we see the sadness in his eyes, and we feel the deep sorrow, and then we wonder... what is so bad about this ice cream? Is it implying that we as humans are treating ice cream as good when all it does is make us evil? Think movie makes you think.

This movie has the best rendition of Santa Claus ever. Unlike other Santas, he is a normal person. We see him imprisoning children and spying on kids dreams, and we wonder; is the Santa we believe in really that good? Also, this Santa actually mentions Christ, the whole meaning behind Christmas.

You owe yourself to watch this cinematic masterpiece. We should just stop making movies and air nothing but this epic 24/7. Whether it's Christmas or not, this movie gets a 500/10. Whoever says this movie is bad is an ignorant fool. My mother took me to see this film as a child and I long to see it every year as I do all of my other Christmas favorites. What I remember most was the silly Devil and Santa looking through his telescope. I waited and looked through the T.V. Guide each year after that to see when it would be shown. I would usually find it playing on a Saturday afternoon. I only found the movie in English which took something special away from the film and have longed to find a copy of it in Spanish. I hold this film dear to my heart and have never suffered from nightmares as others might suggest. Yes, it is a different film about Santa Claus and that is what makes it special and unique. I can't wait to get a copy of this film and watch it with my children as I explain to them my favorite parts and memories!! There are some things I will never understand; why underwear comes in packs of threes when clearly thats not enough is an example. Similarly, I will never understand this film, and that is brilliant. If you approach this film expecting an actual movie, you might as well be approaching Satan expecting a hug; although that may well be possible if you greet this film's Satanic figures. Take Pitch for instance; the most ineffectual, camp, unhellish portrayal of a devil since Freddy Mercury and Wayne Sleep joined forces to create a ten foot Satan costume from red body paint and horns covered with condoms. However, it does create some of the most hilarious moments of any film ever. Seriously, this is no understatement. The same can be applied to every other character, bar the little girl who acts so sickly innocent she's probably overcompensating for some serious crime she's part of. Then again, if Santa's inter-space recon station is real, there is no chance she could have avoided him this long. Put simply, if you haven't seen this movie, you cannot consider yourself a serious buff. The achingly funny characterisation, acting, concept, and almost-under-the-radar racism makes this a must see above any film to date (if you're after pure laughter that is). I saw this movie when Mystery Science Theater ran it in 1993. It is the worst thing I've ever seen. So bad in fact, that by sheer freakiness, this movie must get a ten rating because it has to be seen to be believed.

Whoever wrote this script with children in mind should be beaten. I mean, really, the Devil vs. Santa? Visions of Hell? Creepy laughing wind-up reindeer? Forced Child labor with racial stereotypes? It ain't Sesame Street, that's for sure.As Crow exclaims during the MST3K showing, "This is good ol' fashioned nightmare fuel!"

There's plenty of weird innuendo and screwed up theology. Merlin (presumably the Arthurian Merlin) hangs out with Santa in his crazy castle in the clouds (i.e. Heaven). Santa talks about baby Jesus and sends letters to "Mr. Stork" for children who ask for siblings. There are symbols around the castle that either look like pentagrams or RAF stars.

My best friend and I have watch it every year since 1993 and we subject anybody we can hold down for 2 hours to watch it with us. Perfect for families with small children who are looking for lighthearted films that contain no violence and are enthralling for the child and amusing, albeit, completely corny, to adults. Not a bad film for a low-budget job. Children will be amazed with Santa's workshop and the "magic" that enables him to enter homes through chimneys that appear too small, or homes that have no chimneys at all!

Kids will thrill over the Santa's success at thwarting the nasty devil named Pitch (complete in classic red outfit with horns and tail!). They will sympathize with the poor little girl who's greatest wish is to have a little doll to love. And the poor little rich boy who only wishes to spend time with his forever absent parents. And what child does not know someone at school who are just like the nasty boys that are enlisted by Pitch to help capture Santa and ruin Christmas? In the end, everyone, including the nasty boys, get just what they deserve for Christmas!

The film will endear children to both Santa and the message of love he delivers to people throughout the world.

Just get it. The DVD is cheap and easy to come by, the length is now standard and you've gone long enough without it. (When home video started, there were at LEAST three versions with parts missing..) Everything you've read is true. There is no defending it, and no living without it. The color is lush and wonderful to look at, and the production values are pretty good for a Saturday afternoon kiddie epic. But no question..the whole Santa Vs. Satan angle is so jaw dropping STRANGE it made the movie a hit at the time and a cult fave once home video really got underway. How good/bad/strange/ is it? I only saw the TRAILER as a kid,and remembered IT for nearly 30 years..including Murray's over the top voice over..I told my older sister, and she called me a liar and could not believe it was POSSIBLE for ANYONE to make a movie where Santa vs.Satan.. Add to it stuff like Santa asking for the Virgin Mary's blessing before setting off on Christmas eve, kids wanting to capture him and make him their SLAVE..and an international kiddie sweat shop..and it probably comes close to a lot of nightmares kids had in the 60's.. Like others here, I watch the thing every holiday season now. (My version of choice is The Mystery Science Theatre 3000 edition). But any old way you choose it, the movie is a demented masterpiece and a total must (along with Brianiac, by the way..).It never fails to make me laugh. Better, I think, then SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS. Parts of it can still make you cringe or just creep you out.(How many parents do YOU know go out for cocktails on Christmas Eve? "If you get bored, just go downstairs and play the piano." DANG..) Freaky, boring, disturbing, funny, childish, strange..hey, what more can you want? I saw this movie when I was a little girl. And I have enjoyed it every time. Sure the graphics are a little cheesy, compared to now, but back in the 70's it was great. I saw it in the original Spanish version only and thought it was wonderful. That was how I remember my Christmases were with my family - magical. Santa Claus was amazing and I couldn't wait for him to come back each year.

If you have a child/children and speak Spanish, bring them up watching this old fashioned version of "Santa Claus". It's a different version than we are used to today, but who says there is one way?

It's a fun movie to watch. It teaches children good vs. bad. I don't know how the English subtitled version is or if there is an English one of this, but the Spanish is the best. Enjoy and Happy Holidays! Feliz Navidad! I was a bit scared to watch this movie due to its rates. But living in Italy titles like this never ever come across and I love step so much that I decided to give it try. And how surprised I was! The story is different from any other dance-movie I've seen lately, with a deeper meaning than just "winning". It's touching and well written and well directed. Raya is such a strong character, I love the fact that she never doubts herself, she's so mature and focused and AWARE of her TALENT (and what talent Rutina Wesley has, my jaw dropped in the final dance scene). The way she pursues her dream and refuses to let anything stop her is, honestly, inspiring. Also, the fact that she's not the typical super-hot chick (see Jessica Alba, Briana Evigan, Jenna Dewan, Zoe Seldana...) makes her really appealing and real. Seriously, why is this movie rated so low? You can understand between the first 5 minutes that it's a good work. Really good actually. I even cried at the end of the movie. And the dancing routines are just sick. I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.

From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.)

I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers! I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another "You Got Served" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinée showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.

edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1. Well, if you are open-minded enough to have liked Barber Shop, then you will like this Canadian film.

If your mind is as closed-minded as Fort Knox, then you will give it the current score that it has : 2.5.

This is a film for anybody prepared to watch films from outside of their own racial grounds. It is engaging, it is true to life, on two or three occasions you lose the connections between the scenes, but many times, especially towards the end, you find yourself having a tear or two in your eyes and this simply because it so often mirrors what life can be like.

I like it and recommend it to anyone open minded beyond the traditional American film. I watch them all.

It's not better than the amazing ones (_Strictly Ballroom_, _Shall we dance?_ (Japanese version), but it's completely respectable and pleasingly different in parts.

I am an English teacher and I find some of the ignorance about language in some of these reviews rather upsetting. For example: the "name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar?"

There is nothing inherently incorrect about Caribbean English grammar. It's just not Canadian standard English grammar. Comments about the dialogue seem off to me. I put on the subtitles because I'm a Canadian standard English speaker, so I just AUTOMATICALLY assumed that I would have trouble understanding all of it. It wasn't all that difficult and it gave a distinctly different flavour as the other step movies I have seen were so American.

I loved that this movie was set in Toronto and, in fact, wish it was even more clearly set there. I loved that the heroine was so atypically cast. I enjoyed the stepping routines. I liked the driven Mum character. I felt that many of the issues in the movie were addressed more subtly than is characteristic of dance movies.

In summary, if you tend to like dance movies, then this is a decent one. If you have superiority issues about the grammar of the English standard you grew up speaking, your narrow mind may have difficulty enjoying this movie. This film is shockingly underrated on IMDb. Like so many films, this isn't Shawshank. But it's a reasonably good, if predictable, dance competition / personal growth film. If you want to spend an hour and a half watching a sort of 8 Mile for a female step dancer, than I think you'll like it.

Judging from the IMDb ratings, my guess is that this movie was approaching the top 250, and was "vote bombed" with many 1s, as happens to so many films that aren't about the mob, don't have special effects, or include non-white or non-straight characters.

It's an American film, but it's not a US film. Set mostly in Toronto the cues are subtle, and some audiences may think it's set entirely in the US just because the final competition is in the border city of Detroit.

I liked the music. I liked the dance (but not convinced it's worth $50,000 ... but what do I know). The characters were easy on the eyes.

I do agree the title sucks. I don't remember anyone in the film saying those words, and it should have an "s". (No, it's not a foreign language).

There's not a lot to hate about this film (and let's be honest, a vote of 1 means you hated it) so I can only assume that it's an expression of hate for the kind of people in it, and that's sad. Beforehand Notification: I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of playing the race card here, but when I saw the preview for this movie, I was thinking "Finally!" I have yet to see one movie about popular African-influenced dance (be it popular hip hop moves, breaking, or stepping) where the main character was a Black woman. I've seen an excessive amount of movies where a non-Black woman who knew nothing about hip hop comes fresh to the hood and does a mediocre job of it (Breakin, Breakin 2, Save the Last Dance, Step Up), but the Black women in the film are almost nonexistent. That always bothered me considering so much of hip hop, African-influenced dance, and breaking was with Blacks and Latinos in massive amounts in these particular sets and it wasn't always men who performed it, so I felt this movie has been a long time coming. However, the race does not make the film, so I also wanted it to carry a believable plot; the dancing be entertaining; and interesting to watch.

Pros: I really enjoyed this film bringing Jamaican culture. I can't recall ever seeing a popular, mainstream film where all the main characters were Jamaican; had believable accents; and weren't stereotypical with the beanies. The steppers, family, friends, and even the "thugs" were all really intelligent, realistic people who were trying to love, live, and survive in the neighborhood they lived in by doing something positive. Even when the audience was made aware that the main character's sister chose an alternate lifestyle, it still didn't make the plot stereotypical. I was satisfied with the way it was portrayed. I LOVED the stepping; the romantic flirty relationship going on between two steppers; the trials that the main character's parents were going through; and how she dealt with coming back to her old neighborhood and dealing with Crabs in a Barrel. I respected that she was so intelligent and active at the same time, and so many other sistas in the film were handling themselves in the step world. They were all just as excellent as the fellas. I don't see that in too many movies nowadays, at least not those that would be considered Black films.

Cons: I'm not quite sure why the directors or whoever put the movie together did this, but I question whether they've been to real step shows. Whenever the steppers got ready to perform, some hip hop song would play in place of the steppers' hand/feet beats. At a real step show, there is zero need for music, other than to maybe entertain the crowds in between groups. And then when hip hop songs were played, sometimes the beat to the song was off to the beat of the steppers' hands and feet. It was awkward. I was more impressed with the stepping in this movie versus "Stomp the Yard" (another great stepping movie) because the women got to represent as fierce as the guys (in "Stomp the Yard," Meagan Good got all of a few seconds of some prissy twirl and hair flip and the (Deltas?) let out a chant and a few steps and were cut immediately). Even when there were very small scenes, the ladies tore it up, especially in the auto shop, and it was without all that music to drown out their physical music. I know soundtracks have to be sold, but the movie folks could've played the music in other parts of the film.

I'm not a Keyshia Cole fan, so every time I saw her, all I kept thinking was "Is it written in the script for her to constantly put her hand on her hip when she talks?" She looked uncomfortable on screen to me. I thought they should've used a host like Free or Rocsi instead. Deray Davis was funny as usual though. Also, I groaned when I found out that the movie was supposed to be in the ghetto, like stepping couldn't possibly happen anywhere else. Hollywood, as usual. However, only a couple of people were portrayed as excessively ignorant due to their neighborhood and losers, which mainstream movies tend to do.

I would've given this movie five stars, but the music playing killed it for me. I definitely plan to buy it when it comes out and hopefully the bonus scenes will include the actual step shows without all the songs. Saw this movie twice at community screenings and really loved it. I work in the Jane Finch community and feel the film really captured some of the essence and flavour of the community - grit, determination, exuberance, creativity, in your faceness with a dose of desperation. The writing, dialogue and acting is solid and I really found myself drawn into the story of the young woman Raya as she struggles to pursue her goals and not lose herself in the process. Great dance sequences and it is not only the bodies that move smoothly and with electricity but the camera moves with great fluidity and intelligence as well. All the characters are multi dimensional - none wholly good or bad and the women characters are admirably strong. This is a film that has a strong beating heart and celebrates the irrepressible spirit of youth, hip hop and communities like Jane Finch. This is a more interesting than usual porn movie, because it is a fantasy adventure.The production values are high and the acting is(believe it or not) pretty good,especially Jenna Jameson.It`s also in widescreen which helps,it gives a feeling of a real motion picture and NOT a porn movie.But,of course it is a porn and a really good one with nice costumes,fine atmosphere and scenery.And by the way,the sex IS hot.

Watch out for this one... this is really films outside (not in a motel room). With real costumes (not only strings and swimsuits). You have to see this movie. it's the only porn movie I know that is worth watching between the sex scenes.

Bon Cinema

Laurent Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.

Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies. If you've ever wondered why they don't make porn with a plot, watch Dream Quest. On the one hand, you have to give the Armstrong credit both for making the effort to capitalize on this idea and for using such a strong adult cast to put some name power behind it. On the other hand, it also quickly becomes apparent why most porns never have more than 15 or 20 seconds of dialog connecting sex scenes together. These people simply cannot act (and the story is, unfortunately, lame to a ridiculous degree).

Still, I gave it a 7 because it was a nice try and there didn't seem to be much of an effort to cut corners. Also, I'd like to see more attempts like this one. Maybe someday I will see the perfect combination of porn and plot. Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her! This one is quite a nice surprise. Cute little story of the heroine's quest, very surprising metamorphosis of the four-eye prissy soon-to-be-spinster type into a raunchy DD-cup sex queen.

Visually a sight for sore eyes, not only for two quite stunning actresses but also for (most of) the costumes and make-up of the actors. An unnecessary bit of cheapness came in some ridiculous castle imitation.

Back to the positives: The movie is spiced with some unusually explicit camera-shots which you would not expect in a soft core. Loved that scene with the icicles, absolute classics potential. A slight minus only for (very) few odd scenes where bad acting by minor casts shortly suspended the suspension of disbelief.

9/10 including an extra credit for the serious drooling effect. Oh yeah! Jenna Jameson did it again! Yeah Baby! This movie rocks. It was one of the 1st movies i saw of her. And i have to say i feel in love with her, she was great in this move.

Her performance was outstanding and what i liked the most was the scenery and the wardrobe it was amazing you can tell that they put a lot into the movie the girls cloth were amazing.

I hope this comment helps and u can buy the movie, the storyline is awesome is very unique and i'm sure u are going to like it. Jenna amazed us once more and no wonder the movie won so many awards. Her make-up and wardrobe is very very sexy and the girls on girls scene is amazing. specially the one where she looks like an angel. It's a must see and i hope u share my interests Dreamquest is by far, the best porn movie I've ever viewed. This is a must see!!! And if you're skeptical about your little ones watching it, just skip over the naughty scenes. Of course, this shortens the movie to a length of about 15 minutes. But even then it's enjoyable. This movie is quite excellent and beats out almost any movie...even Shawshank Redemption. Dream Quest was a surprisingly good movie. There were some noticeable goofs, but that can be expected in a movie like this that was made in such a short time. I did not feel any urge to fast forward during the movie and I found it pretty entertaining. It gets kind of silly at times, but overall I recommend it. They probably used up all the glitter in the nearby stores, and some of the costume designs were pretty good. First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie! Sure, the plot isn't Oldboy. It seems the only "great" movies these days are amazingly shocking or high-budget/hyped in some way.

Spin Kick is a drama/comedy about a group of people who decide to pour their hearts into tae kwon do. Regardless of what you expect from this film, you're guaranteed to feel moved by the work, pain, and expectations that the characters force themselves to experience. Though comedic at times, many moments and characters are rendered beautifully: there's the old guard character who takes things too seriously, the hoodlum turned good-guy who just wants a second chance at life, the meek team-substitute who would die happy if he just won once in his life, and many other well-rounded characters with their own problems-- but most importantly, their own their hopes and dreams. While the plot and the goals of the movie are simple, these aspects of the movie merely highlight the development of the characters as they overcome their personal and inter-personal struggles.

In short, this film will leave you feeling fresh, determined, and satisfied. The movie never claims to be something spectacular like many films do. The films props itself as a fun and entertaining time. And that's exactly what it was. It is the Korean version of a male Bring It On.

From the get go you can feel for the rest of the film and how it will end but the enjoyment is not in the surprise twists nor is it the way the film is a carbon copy of another. Instead, the enjoyment is held in the journey of how the 2 remaining "thugs" came to be men in their own right. Therefore, the film is fun and entertaining.

The camera work, specially the dolly moves were very well executed. The script, being a tad weak, was overly enjoyable in the fact that the characters were not 2 dimensional but they were full of life and desire. This film will not win any Oscars, nor any DVD blockbuster sales, but a fun watch and a fun experience. A good Korean film about not just Taekwondo but what its takes to be good, like a thugs way of fighting cannot beat a taekwondo guy in his sport because there are rules, just as there are to life and school and this film has undertones of this notion.

The martial arts in the film isn't that good but it is passable and enjoyable. Friends who go on to achieve something they once would mock become stronger through the mind and heart. This film isn't meant to be taken too seriously as it does have slapstick, but it also carries a message.

A good film again from Korea. You know the story - a group of plucky no-hopers enter a competition they seemingly have no chance of winning - it's a tale that has been done to death by Hollywood (Bring It On, The Karate Kid, Escape to Victory, Best of the Best etc). Now Korea gives it a go with a Taekwondo team struggling for glory – and guess what – the result is predictable but ultimately satisfying.

The fact that this movie doesn't fall flat on its face is down to the talented young cast who really make you care about the characters, and this in turn keeps you watching to the end.

Fans of your typical martial arts movie may be disappointed – Taekwondo does not deliver the usual flurry of moves and acrobatics seen in most Kung Fu films; the action is limited to (albeit impressive) kicking and the occasional punch. This doesn't matter though, since it is the interaction of the characters and their fight to make something of themselves which makes this movie a success. This animation TV series is simply the best way for children to learn how the human body works. Yes, this is biology but they will never tell it is.

I truly think this is the best part of this stream of "educational cartoons". I do remember you can find little books and a plastic body in several parts: skin, skeleton, and of course: organs.

In the same stream, you'll find: "Il était une fois l'homme" which relate the human History from the big bang to the 20th century. There is: "Il était une fois l'espace" as well (about the space and its exploration) but that one is more a fiction than a description of the reality since it takes place in the future. This is a cartoon series where most of the action takes place in the human body where the actors are vitamins, viruses, blood cells etc. I will not try to explain it in more details, you will simply have to see it for yourself: You will not be disappointed.

I remember watching this as a kid in the 80s (with Swedish voices). I have talked with a few people who were also children in the 80s and they loved it also! I must admit that the education-part of the episodes didn't get through to me at a conscious level but the whole idea of educating children while they have fun is wonderful. I have recently seen a few episodes; there is a humour and heart in it that is hard to find in other children programs nowadays.

5/5 We bought the DVD set of "Es war einmal das Leben" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Life" (English) for our bilingual kids because everyone loved the "Es war einmal der Mensch" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Man" (English) series (us parents had seen it as kids) and it has exceeded even high expectations! The series is very well made, does not show its age, and our kids at various ages really like to watch it. At the same time, they learn things us parents didn't know until way, way later. The series covers everything to do with the human body from organs, all senses, blood, infection, antibodies, and much more in animated 20-25 min episodes. Topics some people may find "sensible", such as digestion and reproduction are covered in a tasteful, discreet and child-friendly manner (the reproduction episode starts coverage mainly where the baby starts growing), while still (as typical) informative and fun.

Children are usually fascinated with how their bodies work and through the episodes gain an understanding of this in the context of their environment. The format of the episodes switches between the outside world (a family with 2 children) and the inside of the body. For example, in the episode covering infections, the boy cuts himself accidentally and the wound gets infected and the episode covers how the body reacts to this. Similarly, the episodes on the senses, e.g. hearing, seeing, link what happens inside the body to the context of the outside world and the episode on respiration and circulation of oxygen in the blood covers the complete lifecycle including (briefly) where the oxygen comes from (plants).

This is one of the best ever children's programs - I would say it's a must see for every family with kids! This TV-series was one of the ones I loved when I was a kid. Even though I see it now through the pink-shaded glasses of nostalgia, I can still tell it was a quality show, very educational but still funny. I have not seen the original French version, only the Swedish. I have no idea how good the dubbing was, it was too long ago to remember.

The premise of the show was to show you how the body works. I swear, school still hasn't taught me half of what I know from this show. It also tied in other things, like what happens if you eat unhealthy food and don't exercise, with nice examples within the body. Who wants to have another bar of chocolate when you know miniature virus tanks can invade you? :D The cartoon looked nice, very kids friendly of course, but done with care. Cells, viruses, electric signals in the brain, antibodies and everything else are represented by smiling cartoon figures, looking pretty much how you'd expect what they should look like in the animated body.

This, and the series about history(especially the environmentally scary finale) were key parts of my childhood. I'm so happy I found them here. This was one of my favorite series when I was a kid. The Swedish broadcasting company decided to broadcast it once again a couple of summers ago when I had just finished my first semester of medical school. I was surprised to see the depth in which the organs was explained. Sure, some things are simplified but most of it was correct (even though it was made 22 years ago!) and quite understandable. I would suggest that all soon-to-be medical student should watch it. It is a very good way to learn some of the basic medical words for example. Now I'm in my 7th semester and I think I'll watch the series once again as soon as I've bought the DVD-box :-) My name is Domino Harvery. {EDIT *dizzying* CHOP} My--my--my name is Domino Harvey. {CUT, CHOP} My name is Domino Harvey. {EDIT. CUT. Playback}

Never have I seen a director take so much flack for his style before. By now it is evident that most people do not appreciate Tony Scott's choppy, flashy, dizzying editing technique. If I have to choose between loving it and hating it, I'd say I love it. It was borderline distracting at times, but the end result was pretty good and it's nice to see a director with a creative edge to his style and some originality (even if it borrows heavily from MTV videos).

This stylistic edge manifests itself as Keira Knightley plays the role of cocky badass bounty hunter Domino Harvey and even her dialogue seems strangely choppy. Otherwise she plays her poorly because I pretty much hated her character and did not sympathize one bit with her, no matter how much she suffered. We follow Domino through her life as she joins up with fellow bounty hunters Mickey Rourke, Rizwan Abbasi and Edgar Ramirez. The crew become tangled up in the FBI and suddenly has a reality show contract under Christopher Walken's TV production company (what is Christopher Walken doing in every film, by the way?). I guess that is a clever film technique, because now Tony Scott is free to use as much flashy MTV/Reality Show editing footage as he likes. It becomes a pastiche of MTV culture at this point.

It followes then that the story is told at an amazingly rapid-fire pace, with lots of raunchy strong language and gun violence. There are some funny jokes; it's all very modern and surreal at the same time. It's a mess, but it's a rather enjoyable mess. It is ultimately flawed in so many ways (the actors try too hard to make their characters "cool", for one) but it works. I give it a weak 7/10 which may seem generous when compared to the general consensus of movie-goers who graded this film — but I feel it had some good ideas and executed them well.

7 out of 10 " Domino " has been widely condemned on this site for its frenetic editing style and " sickening " photography. It's detractors cite its superficiality and criticize its deployment of " style over substance" I couldn't disagree more. I believe that " Domino " represents the absolute height of Tony Scott's film-making career.

After having created the dominant Hollywood action movie style throughout the late eighties and early nineties Tony Scott has moved progressively closer to a more subjective style of cinema. As early as "Crimson Tide" Scott used his stylistic talent to portray the inner worlds of his characters- the claustrophobia and drama inherent in the conflict on board a nuclear submarine was embodied in the excellent use of long lenses combined with dutched-angle framing. This was then carried through to " Enemy Of The State" and "Spy Game" which visually represented the worlds of surveillance and espionage respectively.

" Man On Fire" was an extreme departure , a move into an expressionist more painterly aesthetic. Here Scott used an antiquated hand cranked camera and flash frames to express his character's explosive rage . Although not entirely successful it introduced the techniques which were to find their full expression in " Domino"

Couched in the framing device of an FBI interrogation " Domino" presents the life of the infamous bounty hunter via her narrated disjointed fragments of memory. She grasps at memories as we all do- in fragments, flashes and brief snatches. As Domino relays her story verbally Scott relays it visually illustrating not only the events which she describes but also the point of view which guides them. She does have " traces of mescaline" in her system but her individual vision is anyway Unusual -that of an woman who eschewed the life of luxury for bounty hunting.

It is when Domino begins to relate the events which lead to her captivity that Scott really lets rip. Together with Cinematographer Dan Mindel and composer Harry-Gregson Williams Scott orchestrates a postmodern canvas of contemporary Americana. Gradually we begin to realize that unusual though she may be Domino is no more disjointed than the "90210" culture she has rejected. As she wades through this cultural melange Scott makes his viewer more aware of the innocence which it destroys through the underprivileged children which the narrative introduces. Ultimately Scott portrays their salvation as the only escape we have from this surreal trip.

To criticize this movie for being overly stylized is akin to criticizing a Picasso or a Pollock for not representing that which is recognizably human. Like any great painting the meaning in " Domino" is in the surface and the surface is everything.

I am not in any way associated with Scott Free but have always been and will continue to be a huge admirer of Tony Scott's work If you find yourself in need of an escape, something that will hold your attention for two hours and allow you to be lost in another world, Domino will satisfy that need. This is entertainment, after all! The plot keeps your brain in motion - one of those movies (like Usual Suspects) where you want to see it a second time to figure it all out. I wondered about Domino Harvey herself, how her life became of interest to Hollywood. As for the acting, lots of celebrity appearances not shown in the trailers. And any actor that makes me forget who they are has done their job well. Not once did I think of Kiera in a soccer uniform or pirate costume. And granted, Mickey Rourke plays Mickey Rourke well and often, but here, despite the violence, he shows signs of being capable of caring for other people. If you go to this movie expecting something it isn't, you will be disappointed, as with any movie. This movie contains what Hemmingway described as the "iceberg effect". On the surface, its simply a cache of random movie clips smashed together to make a movie. If this would be written in a book, it would be a short story, because the action in the movie is very fast paced, and unless you actually try to catch it, the reasoning behind the plot (along with some subtle foreshadowing) can very well pass you by. Definitely a movie you will have to see twice in order to fully appreciate. Experimental Cinematography barely describes this movie. The camera-work and post production add much to the overall flavour of the film, making it quite artistic at some points and open to interpretation at others (something to be desired in American movies as of late). Although, at some parts it may get a little raunchy, gruesome and too heavy for some audiences, the movie never becomes completely unrealistic. The only aspect of the movie that I would write off as "needs improvement" is the soundtrack selection. No movie is ever good without a fitting soundtrack, and although the soundtrack is quite fitting, the opening is a little too long, and the other rap songs in the film really could have been replaced with something more appropriate (heavy, grungy rock or psychedelic electronica would have made this film a real trip). The flooding of imagery and dynamic... color palettes adds another "artistic" aspect to it, also combined with the events that happen throughout the film, this is not a movie you can miss any part of and still understand. However, that also makes it much more of a desirable film to watch, and not one you'll quickly get bored of. 8.5/10 I rented domino on a whim, not even knowing it was inspired by a true story, and even though it's the least likely and true biopic you'll probably see. i found it to be rather awesome.

With Richard Kelly writing he crams together a mass of plots and narratives into 2 hours of pure entertainment. And once you've seen it more than once you get it and appreciate it.

Domino is a model turned bounty hunter who leaves the perfect Hollywood life to pursue a not so subtle or perfect career. It has an edgy acid trip style provided by director Tony Scott. And with fast paced music and editing, it provides the visual flare to keep your attention, with slick performances and unexpected comedy, the movie is well made and enjoyable and should have reached a wider audience.

I suggest it to anyone who wants to think and be entertained at the same time for 2 hours. I'm totally surprised by some of the comments on this forum, and many of the reviews. I think Tony Scott made a good movie here. Yes, it is highly stylized, flashy and over the top, but it is very entertaining. I'm glad at least Ebert and Roeper agrees with me :)

This movie may not be for anyone, but if you like over-the-top, dark humor, cool action and dialog, you should see it.

I've previously seen Scott's Man on Fire, Crimson Tide and Enemy of the State - all good movies, but I like this one more. It's like a roller-coaster ride, with great soundtrack selections, visual styles and in a time when all movies seem to be pg13, it is nice to see that someone isn't afraid of showing nudity, gory violence, and have explicit dialog.

It doesn't hurt that Keira is super-hot, and even shows nipples in this one, either... I doubt much of this film is based on a true story. At the beginning it says based on a true story, sort of. I bet the only truth to it was there was an ex-model turned bounty hunter possibly named Domino.

Anyways, it begins with Domino talking to Lucy Liu, who works for the FBI. Domino is being interrogated about what she knows about a theft of 10 million dollars. Through flashbacks, we see Domino as a child, then as a model, and how she became interested in being a bounty hunter. She basically tells 2 other bounty hunters off, Ed and Choco. They let her join the group. She's tough, can use any kind of weapon, and will use her good looks if needed.

They get involved with a scam that Clarmont, a bailsman, has going. Along the way, the group starts a reality TV show, and that's where Ian Zering and Brian Austin Green become involved. They are sort of like hosts and must have been really desperate to appear in this.

I thought the story was entertaining and it had some laughs. The editing didn't bother me. There's also a lot of violence, mainly using guns, and blood. It could have been a little shorter.

FINAL VERDICT: Good enough to watch. As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said "I have to watch this movie". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her "job", as the "no action" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.

Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is "disgustingly" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is "trash; no offense", he answers "I don't take it like an offense". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter "not so bounty", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), "the correctional institutes he's been", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born "without the shirt"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is "inspired by true story . . . more or less", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been "added" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be "edulcorated".

The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only "con", in a movie with a lot of "pros".

All in all: This isn't "SWAT". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just "Gamble" and "Street"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet. Domino is a great movie. It's about a young woman names Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) who becomes a bounty-hunter because of her boredom with her lifestyle. She joins with two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke & Edgar Ramirez) and the adventures begin. The script is good. Very down-to-earth and realistic with the tone of the film. The only problem I had with this movie is that it concentrates on the different things that they do, instead of the character of Domino.

Even with that, Kiera Knightley gives a fierce performance. She shows the right amount of anger and dedication in this performance. Mickey Rourke follows up his Oscar-Worthy performance in 'Sin City' with another tough-guy performance. Edgar Ramirez really doesn't do anything except speak Spanish every once in a while and stare at Kiera. Delroy Lindoi gives a good supporting performance. Mo'Nique was herself, although she did surprise me on one particular scene. Lucy Liu has great chemistry with Kiera Knightley in her scenes with her.

The best thing about the movie though, is the direction. Tony Scott's fast-paced style really brings the movie to life. The cinematography is some of the best, I've ever seen. It takes a regular movie and puts on acid. All the blacks are blacker, the whites are brighter, and it has a sort of green glow to it. The action scenes are exhilarating.

OVERALL: If you liked Sin City & Man on Fire, you'll like Domino. Kiera Nightly moved straight from the P&P set to this action movie... she could hardly have chosen to remake her image more dramatically. A great success in Love Actually and as Lizie in Jane Austen's classic, she is, once again, "having a go". Just as her bikini clad warrier woman in King Arthur was more skin than muscle, it is difficult to imagine this delicate frame standing up to a bounty hunters life... but then this is exactly what Domino Harvey (the real one) did, and I (being one of Nightly's biggest fans) believe she carries if off.

Stuff....

* 90210 (for the non American world) is the post code of Beverly hills in LA, where all the film stars live. * Domino Harvey father's mostfamous film was Manchurian Candidate (which appears in the film). * Domino Harvey died of a drug overdose in her bath before the film came out in June 2005, after having been arrested for drug dealing. She had just completed the negotiation for some of her music to be inlcuded in the film. * Kiera Knightly alludes to Domino Harvey's sexuality in her interview with Lucy Liu.

If you find this film a bit far fetched, then check out Domino Harvey, as the facts are more amazing than the fiction. When I rented Domino I was expected it to be very dumb. I hate films that have really flashy editing and cinematography and Domino also just got very bad reviews. The only reason I watched it is because I like have liked Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Walken, and Tony Scott on other occasions. I also just enjoy based on fact adventure stories. Yes the editing and cinematography were frantic, the story was weak, and the acting was mediocre, but I still loved this film for some bizarre reason. Domino was very, very entertaining and often very funny. It was horribly underrated when it was released I think because everyone wanted more of an emotional journey like Scotts last film Man on Fire and instead just got wonderful entertainment. I actually understand why everybody hated Domino so much, even though I loved it and recommend it. Ah, Domino is actually a breath of fresh air, something new to the cinema world. I enjoyed the movie a lot because of the intricate plot, the varied characters, and the intense camera effects. I've seen some complain about the camera work and, in fact, according to the creators themselves, the flashy and wild shots were all the culmination of mistakes made through time. All of what you see was the desired effect. Perhaps some complain because something quite like this has never been done before, although that's what sets it apart. In a deeper aspect, what you are seeing is just how Domino sees things through her eyes, think about it.

When it comes to the story, I don't see anything quite bad about it. Despite it's "messy" nature, according to some, it is in fact just a rapid form of storytelling. The plot really isn't all that hard to follow, if you actually focus on what's going on. Maybe it's just me because I see movies from many different aspects such as the acting, the plot, etc. I'm no "interpreter" or anything who picks movies apart, it just comes to me. With that said, I believe this is quite an excellent movie indeed, despite it's future as a cult-classic, blockbuster, or whatever.

And the characters, well there's no doubting how varied the cast is. I believe the cast is excellent as they all do fine jobs portraying their characters effectively, that's what makes a movie ladies and gentlemen. The characters are all very unique and a plus is that you get to witness a small piece of each one of their lives, setting them apart even further. Basically, I personally loved the cast and characters.

All those who bash and burn this film perhaps just don't see it as I do, or it just doesn't appeal to them. No matter, this is a great film in it's own right, no, it's a great film period. I read several mixed reviews and several of them downright trashed the movie. I originally became interested in this project because it was being directed by Tony Scott and I have become very interested in his work after Man On Fire had such a profound impact on me. Before I start my review, let me first say this...it's wonderful to see that this movie could have been told in a boring and ordinary manner, yet the writers and Scott chose a different approach.

Plot:

Simply stated, it's not boring. Most Hollywood movies give 'tried and true' plots that they know will connect with people, often ensuring the audiences acceptance of the film and creating a higher probability of profit. This plot was one of the more interesting ones I had seen in a while. Just for reference, I recently watched 'The Weather Man' and 'Lord of War' and while I will say that these movies are excellent, and I enjoyed them both tremendously, both the plots in these movies are boring and they are told exactly how you would expect them to be told. They don't take any chances whatsoever, and they are extremely predictable after you've watched a fair amount of American films. Domino's plot is both interesting and told in a manner that keeps you thinking, "oh man, they're screwed now". And I feel that has been lacking in a lot of recent films. It has a lot of depth to it, in my opinion, and gives you plenty of things to question while watching it. Overall, this is what kept me so interested in the movie.

Characters:

I felt that the characters were accurate. Knightley did a wonderful job of portraying a beautiful woman, who was anything but on the inside and wanted to be viewed as what she was. It was obvious that she wanted to prove herself and she took whatever means she had to accomplish that.

Choco was also very believable, his use of Spanish in inappropriate situations, his reactions to Domino's lack of affection, as well as his jealousy issues within the team...they all rang true to me, which made me feel that his character was that much more realistic.

Rourke's character was the least interesting to me, but it still rang true to me. He seemed like an ordinary guy, trying to make ends meet. I hope that's what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with him because that's what I got out of it. He did a very good job of showing Ed in an Average Joe kind of way that has made his mistakes, yet is still trying to live.

Claremont/Ladies: I believe that they provided much needed 'heart' to the story. They weren't just people who are out getting money to buy a Bentley, these were real people who had a real problem and they sought others mean to accomplish that goal. You could empathize with them because, to them, this child's illness was a problem with no other solution. These characters were supposed to show real people who are less fortunate who got into this mess because they needed help.

The mobsters: They made the story seem sinister in a way that only the mob can. And I really liked that part. They also padded the story with small intricacies that made the plot that much more interesting.

Christopher Walken/90210 guys:

They provided the comic relief in an otherwise very serious movie. From Walken's awkward statements to the ceaseless references to the 90210 guys being has-beens. Their involvement in the movie only made it that much more enjoyable.

Cinematography....yes....the cinematography. This is where this movie seems to have lost a lot of potential fans. But in my opinion I thought it was genius, the use of the camera to translate the mood of the current situation was extremely effective in my opinion. I considered it a method that was properly realized but could always use improvement, just like anything else. I both applaud and congratulate Scott, the editor, the cinematographer and the director of photography on taking some real chances with this movie. Not only did they go far and above with its presentation, they went that much further. The use of colors, both extremely light and extremely dark provided the 'look' of the film with a sinister and grungy look that accurately depicts the life of the mob, bounty hunters and the less fortunate in a manner that show that their life isn't as peachy or 'clean' as everyone else. If you notice, in times of less stress or conflict, there were very few camera tricks if any at all. This shows that Scott and his crew were trying to achieve something with this look and weren't just doing it for the heck of it. I realize that most people who watched this movie weren't expecting it and it cause many of them to be turned off to this film but I think it was great that Scott took this approach. Hollywood films have grown predictable and bland. Most of them are shot in the same manner with the same twists and turns. And I'm glad that Scott tried to make something different.

Granted, this movie isn't for everyone, but to say it's trash and has nothing to offer is completely missing the point. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I'm glad that I spent the money for it. I would recommend this to all, but I'm sure it will only hit a chord with few. I must agree with an earlier poster when he said that many of those who refuse to see outside the 'sphere of MTV' won't appreciate this movie, but I think many people will. We should all try to enjoy it for the fact that Scott and co. took some chances and tried to deliver something that was different and unique. And with that in mind, I think he succeeded tremendously. This is the most recent addition to a new wave of educational documentaries like "The Corporation" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." Its commentary is clear and unwavering as is the breathtaking cinematic style of this well crafted feature. The film manages to impose a powerful sense of how unsteady our world is as we rush toward an environmentally unsustainable future at lightning speed - while showing us the terrifying beauty in our pursuit of progress.

Truly a remarkable accomplishment which must be seen by all who care about the world we leave to our children. Bravo!

NB - this is also the only film (of 8) at Varsity theaters (Toronto) boasting a stick-on tag which reads... "To arrange group viewings please contact...." ... a further testament to the popularity and importance of this gem.

My bet... an academy award nomination for best documentary.

OB101 I have been an admirer of Edward Burtynsky's work for years, and it was such a pleasure to be able to see the man at work, thanks to Jennifer Baichwal's documentary. The severe beauty of the ship-breaking yard in Bangladesh, the stone quarry in Vermont, the enormous assembly plant in China, the beleaguered old neighbourhoods in Shanghai that are just waiting to be torn down: these landscapes are captured so well by the photographer and the filmmaker.

At times I thought of old TV documentaries on abandoned coal mines and plastic-mold factories; the sort of stuff I grew up watching. Burtynsky's work has the great value of pointing out how the industrial activity has only shifted to Asia, it has not stopped. The strangest scene for me was the computer scrap-yard somewhere in China--the waste had a threatening air about it, while the workers were very jovial. This is a documentary that came out of the splendid work of a Canadian landscape photographer whose interest has long been in the ravages left on earth by the excavations or buildings of man. It begins with a vast factory complex crammed with people making a great variety of little things, parts of high-tech equipment presumably; it isn't really made very clear. The emphasis is on how big the place is and how many people are there and how they're herded around outside in little yellow jackets. The film also shows the photographer working on a tall structure to do a still of the array of these people outside the factory, and talking with his crew as he does so. This is a world of relentless industrialization. It's a relief at least to know these soulless images aren't going to be presented without a human voice, as is the case in Nikolaus Geyrhalter's gleefully cold documentary about the food industry, 'Our Daily Bread.' 'Manufactured Landscapes' contains images of people scavenging e-waste and a town (many towns, really) being wiped out by the biggest dam ever, with a single plangent trademark shot of a little girl in the rubble of her own neighborhood eating out of a bowl using a pair of chopsticks almost bigger than she is. Some of these scenes, the ones with miserably underpaid workers slaving in dangerous and toxic places, might have been shot memorably by the premier engagé photographer Sebastião Salgado. But this photographer isn't as interested in seeing people up close. His orientation places him somewhere in between Salgado and the cold, neutral modern landscape photographs of Lewis Baltz.

All this happens in China, of course, though there is earlier footage in black and white of the photographer working around a large shipbuilding site in Bangladesh. It is backed up by music in a New Age industrial style that is alternately soothing and oppressive. There are a good many stills of the photographer's work--or were some of them made by the film crew? It isn't made clear.

Edward Burtynsky is the name of the photographer. We see people wandering through exhibitions of his beautiful work-- big dramatic prints of carefully composed view camera color images with a handsome glow. The irony is that Burtynsky makes such unique and glorious pictures of places that are essentially blighted, and to the ordinary eye are dispiriting and boring. He admits himself that he takes no political stand. When we are able to compare his images with those caught by the roaming eye of the film's cinematographer Peter Mettler, Burtynsky's work almost amounts to a kind of glorification, and hence falsification. But he is showing us places that, if we look closely, reveal their full dark story of ravage and neglect no matter how finely crafted the photographs of them may be.

Logically, but not entirely fortunately, it is Burtynsky whose voice-overs narrate most of the film as it ranges over various sites. Burtynsky's "epiphanies" may have inspired his decades of fine work, but they amount to nothing but truisms about how we're changing the planet irreparably; are dependent on oil, which will run out; that China has come into the game of massive industrialization late, and so may burn out early with the depletion of fossil fuel. The interest of 'Manufactured Landscapes' would be much greater if there were perceptive new ideas to accompany it. The reasons for watching it are two: to see glimpses of Burtynsky's work and the raw materials, the spaces he visits and chronicles so beautifully; and to observe scenes from the vast, awesome, daunting, and rather horrifying industrialization of modern China.

Because of the limitations of the narration, the idea of the title 'Manufactured Landscapes' feels insufficiently developed. It even seems a misnomer. New landscapes they are, but they are the byproduct of manufacturing rather than "manufactured." 'Landscapes of Waste' or 'Wasted Landscapes' might be better titles. There is much room left by this documentary for more intellectually searching work on film about this intriguing subject; and those who want to know more about Edward Burtynsky might do better to peruse his books or exhibitions. Mesmerizing, breathtaking and horrifying, this hauntingly beautiful film is the "Apocalypse Now" without fiction. Slow in pace, quiet in mood, it gives good glimpses of the poisoned patches of Earth that may well be signs of an inevitable doom.

There is no doubt in my mind -- the nature is plagued and we are the disease. Greed, the very essence of humanity that drives evolution and progress, has turned us into something like cancer, on its way to consume the host and die with it...

Manufactured Landscapes is quite an unforgettable viewing experience - at least I'll never regard my toaster and iron the same way again. I had heard this film was a study of a landscape photographer's art by presenting the beauty in man's deconstructing the natural landscape. It certainly showed the laborious activities to find locations, setup shots, and capture stark images whose final destinations were art studios worldwide. Put together in moving pictures it is truly a horror show.

This film oozes by you supplanting the shock of ghastly images with gentle waves of a wonderful industrial soundtrack that guides you like on slow moving river. Each sequence stands on its own, but in combination you get deeper and deeper into the feeling of overwhelming inevitability. There are few words, this allowing the grandeur in what is shown to preach in its own way. An awful, massive factory filled with human automata who live in hopelessly lifeless dormitories. Individuals dying early while rummaging for recyclable scraps in mountains of our E-waste. The birthing of gigantic ships and their destruction by hand in giant graveyards. The construction of the Three Gorges Dam, the largest industrial project in human history and likely for all time. The time lapse as a city dies and is simultaneously reborn into a replica of modernity that purposefully destroys all relics of the culture that was.

The most terrifying image for me was a dam engineer explaining that the most important function of the dam was flood control. The shot shifts to the orchard behind the spokesperson where you witness the level of the last flood by the toxic water having eaten the bark from the trees, demonstrating that nothing but the most hideous vermin could be living in the waters.

The obvious not being stated is far more powerful than your normal preachy Save the Earth documentaries. The artist Edward Burtynsky explains the method wonderfully. 'By not saying what you should see … many people today sit in an uncomfortable spot where you don't necessarily want to give up what we have but we realize what we're doing is creating problems that run deep. It is not a simple right or wrong. It needs a whole new way of thinking'. The subtlety of this descends into an either/or proposition, but the film images scream that the decision has very much been made in favor of the dark side.

Though never stated directly in any way, as the waves of what you witness wash away from your awareness and you contemplate, there is only one conclusion possible … we are doomed. The progress of mankind that is inexorable from our natures leaves behind carnage that this artist finds terrifying beauty in. What he is actually capturing are the tracks of we the lemmings rushing unconsciously toward our own demise. Unlike most films with environmental themes, this one ends with no call to arms. It argues basically what's the point, but makes certain you place the blame properly on all of us equally. This is the most confronting documentary I have ever seen. It was a simple and breathtaking view of a beautiful idea. Based on photographs of the hidden industrial landscapes centred around the modern industrial growth of China, Edward Burtynsky brings to life confronting issues that we so easily chose to ignore.

Taking no political sides, this movie is a neutral moving picture of realities that our western societies chooses not to educate us about - the by-products of economical growth, the externalities paid by citizens of the lesser-developed communities, the source of our comforts and the wastes of our consumer lifestyles.

Amazing, heart-breaking, impossible to ignore. This is a challenging journey but one worth taking - please stop staying ignorant and at least see these photographs of truth without feeling any pressure to take a standing to these issues. 10/10 definitely! Edward Burtynsky is a Canadian photographer who makes art out of the least "artful" objects imaginable. Everyday items such as crates, boxes, metal containers, etc. - items which most of us perceive as utilitarian at best and dismiss as being utterly without aesthetic merit - are instead converted into glorious objects d'art by Burtynsky's camera. He achieves this result by focusing on the recurring colors and geometric patterns that are apparently ever present in the industrialized world - for those perceptive enough to spot them, that is. Even heaps of compacted trash can become objects of beauty when seen through Burtynsky's lens (but didn't we already know that from "Wall-E"?). He is particularly interested in photographing areas like mines and shipyards where Man has already made incursions into nature - which may explain why at times even the people in his pictures (i.e. the workers in those places), with their uniform clothing and robotic movements, become part of the industrial landscape.

"Manufactured Landscapes," a documentary about Burtynsky's work, has much of the feel of a "Koyaanisqatsi" about it as it dazzles us with its richly variegated kaleidoscope of images and patterns. Indeed, director Jennifer Baichwal and cinematographer Peter Mettler capture the essence of the original photos in purely cinematic terms, as their own camera records Burtynsky and his assistant running photo shoots at a factory in China, a dockyard in Bangladesh, and the construction site at the massive Three Rivers Gorge Dam project in China. With their fluid camera-work, the filmmakers match point-for-point the beauty of Burtynsky's images. In fact, the movie opens with a stunning eight-minute-long tracking shot of a Chinese factory in which hundreds of similarly dressed workers toil away in perfectly symmetrical and color-coordinated rows.

The movie does less well when Burtynsky gets around to articulating the "themes" of his work, which, quite frankly, come out sounding confused, contradictory and decidedly half-baked at best. But it is as a purely aesthetic experience, highlighting image and form, that "Manufactured Landscapes" resonates most. In the case of Burtynsky, perhaps, a picture really IS worth a thousand words. I had nowhere to go. I was on a flight to Vancouver. I would probably have missed this film if I hadn't chosen Air Canada. Watched on a small screen in the back of the seat in front, I found this captivating and mesmerising. I did drift in a couple of places and had to skip back but I had to watch to it's end. Now I'm looking forward to the DVD release in Europe though whether I'll be quite as transfixed when I can walk out the door, is yet to be discovered!

The photographic composition is stunning and the film gives so much insight and 'fills out' the story the photographs tell.

Recommended (if you have time on your hands). Reviewed at the World Premiere screening Sept. 9, 2006 at the Isabel Bader Theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

This had an interesting premise but seemed to go on too long with too many shots of piles of eWaste (recycled computers, keyboards, cables etc. shipped over to China by the ton and then sorted and remade into new products to sell back) and other desolation.

The filmmakers tried to get more people interviews to boost the human element but were frequently prevented from doing so due to Chinese censorship. Still, what was there was interesting. The bits of a Shanghai high end real estate agent preening and strutting around showing off her luxurious mansion and gardens, intercut with the scenes of others living in medieval conditions were especially striking. The opening tracking shot of a 480m factory floor was quite something as well. Scenes of the activity at the Three Gorges Dam project were also a complement to the Jia Khang-je films at TIFF (the feature Still Life/Sanxia Haoren & the documentary Dong) which were also built around that subject.

Director Jennifer Baichwal, Producer Nick de Pencier, Cinematographer Peter Mettler and subject Edward Burtynsky were all there on stage for a Q&A after the world premiere. Producer Noah Weinzweig was introduced from the audience and was thanked as the most key person that assisted in the on the ground access in China itself. In addition to being an extremely fun movie, may I add that the costumes and scenery were wonderful. This kind, fun loving woman had a great deal of money. Unfortunately, she also had two greedy daughters who were anxious to get their hands on her money. This woman was lonely since the death of her husband. He had proposed to her in a theater that was going to be torn down. To prevent that, she bought it. Her daughters were afraid she was throwing away "their" money and decided to take action. The character actors in this film were a great plus also. I would give almost anything to have a copy of this film in my video library, but as of yet, it's never been released. Sad. Absolutely wonderful drama and Ros is top notch...I highly recommend this movie. Her performance, in my opinion, was Academy Award material! The only real sad fact here is that Universal hasn't seen to it that this movie was ever available on any video format, whether it be tape or DVD. They are ignoring a VERY good movie. But Universal has little regard for its library on DVD, which is sad. If you get the chance to see this somewhere (not sure why it is rarely even run on cable), see it! I won't go into the story because I think most people would rather have an opinion on the film, and too many "reviewers" spend hours writing about the story, which is available anywhere.

a 10! Rosalind Russell executes a power-house performance as Rosie Lord, a very wealthy woman with greedy heirs. With an Auntie Mame-type character, this actress can never go wrong. Her very-real terror at being in an insane assylum is a wonderful piece of acting. Everyone should watch this. As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed. A serious comedy. Ross Hunter-produced movie version of the French play "Les Joies de la famille" (later Americanized as "A Very Rich Woman") is plush, well cast, occasionally funny...and unfortunately timeless. A wealthy California widow, who appears to be frittering away her money, is railroaded by her two grown, greedy daughters, both of whom are afraid Mama Rosie is carelessly spending their inheritance. The whole issue of a vital--but aged--woman sent to a rest home against her will, and later having to prove herself sane in a court hearing, is touchy material for a comedy (and to his credit, director David Lowell Rich doesn't overload the picture with crass gags or obvious sentiment). Some of the humor is a little broad and doesn't work, yet Rosalind Russell understands the gravity inherent in this scenario and never hits a false note. Sandra Dee is also good as Rosalind's granddaughter, and James Farentino is very charming as a young lawyer. The movie has so much to say about the importance of our elderly, and the ways in which they choose to spend their remaining time, that the seriousness of "Rosie!"'s theme almost gets lost in the rush to a happy ending. The picture leaves you smiling--and at the same time wondering how many older ladies there are who were never quite so lucky. *** from **** God Bless 80's slasher films. This is a fun, fun movie. This is what slasher films are all about. Now I'm not saying horror movies, just slasher films. It goes like this: A high school nerd is picked on by all these stupid jocks and cheerleaders, and then one of their pranks goes horribly wrong. Disfigured and back for revenge, sporting a Joker/Jester mask (pretty creepy looking, might i add), Marty begins to kill off those teens one by one many years later, after he manages to make them believe that their old abandoned high school is having a reunion. That is basically the plot? What's wrong with that? That's the beauty of 80's slasher films, most of them i would say. A lot of things could be so ridiculous, but they keep drawing you more in an' in as they go by. Especially this film.

It features some outrageous killings, and some are quite creative as well. (poisoning of a beer can, acid bath, i can't remember a javelin ever being used before in any other slasher film either)It really is a fun, fun movie. That's all it is. Nevermind the fact that the characters are complete idiots, never mind their stupidity, and never mind the outrageous, random things that occur in this film. Such as lights being able to be controlled by the killer (when he's not even switching any buttons, you'll see) and toilets being able to cough up blood, baths being able to have acid come out of them, just use that as part of your entertainment! Because thats what really makes it entertaining.

Movies like this represent 80's slashers. Never again could movies like this get made, know why? It isn't the 80's anymore. That is why you should just cherish them for what they are, good fun! I highly recommend this film if you're a hardcore fan of Slahsers such as Friday the 13th.

One last note this movie also had a kick ass villain as well, Marty Rantzen. A disfigured, nerd, who kills all his old foes in a creepy Jester mask. A good villain makes a good slasher. Simon Scuddamore, who played Marty apparently committed suicide shortly after Slaughter High was released. That alone adds something creepy to the film, and sticks with it and it even makes you feel more sorry for the Marty character, i guess. All in all, great 80's slashers fun! It's a shame it will never be the same again... "Slaughter High" is, perhaps, the most underrated slasher flick of the 1980s. It is one of the few films in the genre that is enthralling throughout. That being said, it also relies heavily on the standard slasher formula: A group of young men and women get killed one by one gruesomely until the final showdown.

The reason why "Slaughter High" stands above most movies in its genre is that it goes more over-the-top. Marty, the killer, has good reason to hold a grudge against his former classmates. They electrocuted him as he stood naked in a girl's locker room shower, jabbed at his crotch with a javelin, and, to top it off, rigged his science lab experiment so it could disfigure him.

So, the victims in this movie are about as unlikeable as you get. When they reunite years later -- at a high school reunion put on by Marty himself -- you realize they haven't matured all that much. They're a bunch of sociopaths.

It is mind-boggling why they would not wonder why they were the only ones to show up to the reunion, which, by the way, is held at a school that has since fell into disrepair. And who would think it's a good idea to drink beer and liquor found in the abandoned building in a room that happens to have their old lockers -- as well as Marty's -- on display? There are many leaps of faith the viewer needs to take to enjoy this film. The ending makes little or no sense. And the screenwriters have a strange understanding of how April Fool's Day works: The movie claims that pranks are no longer allowed after noon.

In all, the movie is one of the best examples of the slasher genre, despite all of its flaws. It is hard to understand why it hasn't yet found its way to DVD, when so many other run-of-the-mill slasher flicks are graced with special editions. YES, the plot is hardly plausible and very thin. YES, the acting does range from average to laughable. YES, it has been done so many times before. However what we are dealing with is a film that does not shy away from these facts and pretends to be nothing more than it is. There are indeed some original death scenes and the tension does increase throughout the movie. In addition you are never more than a few minutes away from a gory killing. I urge everyone to watch this film with an unprejudiced eye and see it for what it set out to be; a scary, funny slasher flick with a theme tune second to none. I have lost count of how many reviews I've written on Slaughter High. I've read a lot of bad ones and I will say right now this is a fantastic movie. Simon Scuddamore made his fame in a short time for his well known suicide, and even though this was his only film, he is what made the movie so great. At first I did not know anything about Simon until I read a review about his suicide. Then I found out due to the current webpage at www.IMDb.com he was born in 1957, in Dayton, Ohio. Simon may have played the most pathetic character known to man, but his real life self certainly had their strenghths and weaknesses. He did a good acting job, who can disagree? I always wondered how he felt showing himself naked in a movie. Must have been pretty embarrassing to say the least. I first saw this movie when I was 12 in the sixth grade. I agree with some pointers like the girl would not take a bath after somebody was murdered, and that high schools do NOT have bath tubs! I think Caroline Munro who was 36 at the time was the only other star that had any dignified acting talent, and unfortunately for Simon's death he made no future films. The reason(s) for his suicide are a mystery, and hopefully will be discovered in the near future. Doing the math on his webpage it tells you he was 29 years old when he made Slaughter High. He looked like a teenager. I give this film two thumbs up, the best horror film made. Probably because of their horrible acting the others didn't make fame in the movie business. -Jacob Young Slaughter High is about a boy named Marty. He was harassed, and picked on in high school. A group of kids played several pranks on him, and these pranks were REALLY bad. The last prank ended tragically.

cue to 5 years later. The gang of kids meet up again for a reunion. One of them set it up at the old high school. The school is now abandoned, and they have to break in. For some reason, the Janitor is still there, but he tells them to go ahead and have fun because they give him a beer.

They start partying ,and looking at their old lockers, and they see something of Marty's. One girl feels sorry for Marty but another guy calms her down.

Once the kills begin, it is great. Every kills is creative and gory. We see a figure in a jester mask, hunting them one by one throughout the school. It appears Marty is back to exact revenge. After the first person is killed, they find out they are locked in the school. They begin looking for a way out.

Now, there are a number of illogical things in this movie. First of all, I don't know anyone who has a 5 year reunion. Second of all, after the first kid dies, a girl gets blood all over her. They all run away in a panic, yet she runs to the bathroom, and finds a bathtub. Hrr friend has just been killed, and she decides to take a bath!? More importantly, why is there a bathtub in a school bathroom. Anyways, the bathtub doesn't seem to really work....and she dies a horrible death this is an 80s movie. it is a horror slasher. WHO CARES if it has some illogical parts. I for one don't. This movie has really great deaths. The ending.... there is a twist. Having recently seen Haute Tension, I can compare the two. The only way they are similar is that there is a twist, which kind of left me disappointed.....THEN right after the twist, comes a great, if not the best kill, in the movie.

After the last kill, the killer looks at the screen and also does something crazy, and it was the perfect way to end the movie. It has me going "wow..." Wow, praise IMDb and Google, for I have been trying to remember the name of this f'ing awesome movie for over 15 years now. Slaughter High, man! Hells yeah!

I'm not going to bore you with a plot summary, and actors, and yadda yadda yadda, 'cause you all know what's up. That's why you're here anyway. What I will do, however, is explain the fond memory I have of this quintessential 80's D-Movie slasher joint.

In 1987, when I was around the age of 7, my father used to rent all these horror movies. Would he care that his kids were watching them with him? No. So, at that young age i saw Slaughter High. What I saw in that movie stuck with me big time. I haven't seen it since, but I remember to this day most of the ridiculous kills in the movie. For example, the post-sex scene (why is there a metal bed in a school?) gets electrocuted. Or, the guy being drowned in a cess pool. Come on! My personal favorite, though...the exploding stomach from the tainted beer. Amazing! How can you honestly hate on a movie where one of the characters finds a beer in an abandoned school, like, 10 or 15 years later and thinks it would be a good idea to drink it? Then his stomach explodes? What!? And that great line: Let's take my car...it always starts. Classic crap all the way.

I mean, I look back now, almost 20 years later, and laugh at it. But when I was 7, I was scared sh!tless. That jester hat (or was it a mask?) that the killer rocks throughout freaked me the f*ck out!

All in all, yes, a crappy movie. But for nostalgia purposes and for humor factor this movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me. Either stay up every night real late and hope to catch this on same Late Late Late Movie show, or hunt down a VHS copy and dust off your VCR. Slaughter High starts like any other day at Doddsville County High School where little minx Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) has tricked resident nerd Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) into the girls locker rooms where she tells him to get undressed in the shower, while doing so Carol's gang of friends come in & give the now naked Marty a big surprise as they film him as they stick his head down the girls toilet in an April fool's day joke. The school's sports coach (Marc Smith) saves Marty & punishes the gang who rather harshly blame Marty, they decide to play another trick on him only this time things get out of hand & Marty is caught in an explosion & has nitric acid splashed over his face. Years later & the whole gang are invited to a class reunion at the now closed down school, they all arrive to discover they are the only ones there. They all venture inside where they quickly learn they aren't the only ones there as Marty is back & has revenge on his mind...

Originally shot under the title April Fool's Day which they changed probably because of another slasher film named April Fool's Day (1986) made the same year this American English co-production is unusual in that it has three credited writers & directors, George Dugdale, Mark Ezra & Peter Litten (after never seeing a film with three credited director's I've now seen two in a week the other being the Jean-Claude Van Damme flick Kickboxer (1989)) & I have to say I really rather liked Slaughter High even though it seems to have a pretty bad reputation. One of the things I like about the script is that it is a pure unashamed slasher flick, it doesn't try to be anything else & it just accepts the genres rules, short comings & trappings & plays up to them. Basically it delivers what it promises, a homicidal killer, blood, boobs & babes. I thought the character's were alright, the story was OK even though it's just an excuse to get a load of teens inside an isolated location so some killer can bump them off one at a time & I actually liked the twist ending as well which is also something for which Slaughter High gets a lot of flak for. The first half starts off a little slow but the second half moves along at a rate of knots as there is one gory killing after another. Some of the situations & character reactions make little sense but the same can be said of just about any film ever made so who's complaining?

Despite three credited director's Slaughter High turned out pretty good, I liked the look of the film a lot. The isolated rundown school made for a really atmospheric location & looked good, the makers throw in a good thunderstorm as well & there's some nice photography especially at the end where there are numerous impressive uninterrupted long lasting stedicam tracking shots which follow Carol through various corridors of the rundown school. While not particularly stylish it certainly looks nice enough & is professionally made. There is some good gore here including burnt bodies, people melted with acid, impalings, stomach explosions, axes in faces & death by lawnmower as well as someone who gets drowned in fecal matter down a drain! The special effects are also better than one would expect & I was both impressed & pleased with the higher than expected body count.

Technically the film is better than I had expected & beats most low budget horror crap that gets released today, I would have thought it was relatively low budget itself though. Supposedly set in America this was very obviously shot in England. Harry Manfredini composes another score which sounds exactly like all of his other musical scores & is basically the same as the theme from Friday the 13th (1980) & it's sequels. Anyone living here in the UK will probably recognise Billy Hartman who played Frank as a regular in Emmerdale Farm (one of our nations top rated soap operas) in which he plays Terry Woods! While most horror fans will recognise the sexy Caroline Munro in a rare staring role. Legendary exploitation producer Dick Randall did the deed on Slaughter High & actually appears in the film as a porno movie producer... talk about typecasting! You can also see a poster for the misunderstood brilliance that was Pieces (1982) which he also produced behind him in his office.

Slaughter High is a slasher film that I liked a lot, did you see that? I didn't say it was great I actually said I liked it on a personal level & I'm sure the predictable plot & lack of story will probably put many off so I can't recommend it but I can say I liked it, make of that what you want. Make sure you you watch the uncut version if you ever decide you want to check it out. If your not a fan of the slasher flick genre then Slaughter High won't change your mind but if your looking for a simple & effective slasher then you could do a lot worse than this. This movie looked like a classic in the cheesy 80s slasher genre, which is my favorite genre of them all, so when I saw it was Free on Demand, I had to watch it! It stars Caroline Munro, from both Dr. Phibes films (she was his wife that died!), Dracula A.D. 1972, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter, The Spy Who Loved Me, Maniac, and Faceless.

Brought to you by the people behind Don't Open Til Christmas and Pieces, Heres my thoughts on this...

It opens on April Fools Day, where a bunch of kids play an elaborate prank on the school nerd- promising him sex in the shower, and giving him public humiliation and a face in the toilet (all while hes naked!). The coach puts a stop to it, but both parties swear revenge. But, the cool kids end up burning the nerd alive.

Cut to the future, and its th High School reunion, or so they think (bwahahha?). The only ones with invitations were the gang who burned the kid, and its April Fools Day (or really, the day before April Fools, but the fun starts at midnight), yet they fail to see the coincidence and hang out in front of the school until nightfall. Then they finally break into the school and it starts storming.

Inside they find food/drink and a little shrine for each of them, each of their lockers and belongings, along with Marty's (the nerds) locker and yearbook. They also find the old black janitor/caretaker who spends his time saying "Oooh yesser! Yesser! I don't want no trouble, sir!" and then is killed instantly. Pretty pointless character, but hes still my favorite.

The movie takes a page out of Alien's book, in a deliciously gory way that you just have to see! Thats when everyone realizes that they're there to die, and they start freaking out, except for Shirley, who decides it would be best to take a bath in the old school showers at a time like this. Of course, it pours out blood and acid and her face melts off (very cool, mind you) The rest of the night goes as usual, sex, drugs, and Marty killing everyone whilst wearing a jester mask.. Whats their plan? "All we have to do is stay awake and wait till noon. Marty wont kill us during mid-day!". Seriously, thats what he said. Apparently you can only kill at nighttime. But will they survive through the night? Who will live and who will die? And why are all the bodies disappearing? Rent, buy, or steal this great movie to find out! The movie is actually very good, filled with clichés (car wont start, DAMMIT!) and just plain slasher fun. Not to mention they all have names like Carol and Nany and Frank and Joe and Susan. I recommend it to all of you! And, not to mention, it has a Spin Off! 1989's Cutting Class is a spin-off from this slasher gem, and that movie starts the career of Brad Pitt and Roddy McDowell.

Favorite scene: 2 people having sex, the guy wants to finish but the girl doesn't. "Talk dirty to me, Frank!!" she screams "Uh... tits!" "DIRTIER!" "Uh... tits. F*ck. tits. Boobs. F*ck.". It seems to work for her and at her climax, the killer electrocutes them both! it's movies like these that make you wish that you never picked on the nerd growing up in school. If you liked this movie, then I would suggest you watch Valentine. I just found out today that the guy who played Marty(Simon) killed himself a little after the movie was released which is a shame since he did a good job. I wonder if it's because of the part he played in the movie. It starts out when Carol tricks him into going into the girls restroom to act like they were about to do it. When he was changing in the showers, Carols popular friends snuck into the bathroom and got everything ready, camera, electric shock, pole. When Marty open the curtain butt naked he realized that he was tricked. He tries to cover the shower up but the kids open it, grab Marty and starts being mean to him while the camera is rolling. They picked him up, dunked his head in the toliet while it was being flushed, and they electricuted him(slightly). When the kids are in detention, given by the coach, 2 of the boys give Marty a joint that will make him throw up. Skip breaks one of the glass windows in the gym using a brick to get the teacher to excuse him. While Marty is puking in the bathroom Skip sneaks into the Science Lab and mixes some stuff that looks like cocaine but not sure what it was. The lab blows up disfiguring him badly. 5 years later the kids who tormented him that day got invitations for a 5 year school reunion at the old school which was burn that day it exploded. One by one the people get killed off. I don't understand how the girl who drowned really drowned. she could have gotten back up after Marty left. She almost got out the first time. I have seen Slaughter High several times over the years, and always found it was an enjoyable slasher flick with an odd sense of humor, but I never knew that it was filmed in the UK, and I never knew that the actor that plays Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) committed suicide after the film was released. I guess I did notice while watching it last night that the actors phrasing seems rather odd for Americans, and a few of them aren't very good at hiding their English accents.

All that aside though, this is the tale of the class nerd, Marty, who is the butt of jokes from his classmates, and on one particular day, April Fools Day, he's lured into the girl's locker room by one Caroline Munro (yes, playing a teenager) and humiliated big time on film. Of course, the coach catches the gang at work & they're all given a vigorous workout to punish them, but not before a couple of the guys slip Marty a joint, which he tries to smoke in the chemistry lab, but it's full of something that makes him sick & when he runs to the restroom, one of his classmates slips in and puts a chemical that reacts with something Marty is mixing, which results in a fire and the spill of a bottle of nitric acid, which leaves poor Marty burned & horribly scarred.

Ten years later, this same gang is headed for their class reunion at good old Doddsville High, which seems oddly boarded up and inaccessible, but thanks to ingenuity they manage to get in and find the place seemingly derelict...except there's a room where a banquet and liquor is laid out and so of course, they eat, drink, and be merry. For soon, they will die, of course.

The gang is stalked one-by-one by a figure in a jester's mask, but could it be Marty? They don't know, they figure he's either in a loony bin or working for IBM, they're not sure which. But whoever it is, he's making quick work of them. Particularly nasty is the girl that takes a bath to wash blood off her from one of her classmates whose innards popped all over her when he drank poisoned beer. She is victim to an acid bath which I believe may have been one of the parts originally cut in the tape version, because it seemed extra nasty when I watched it this time. I could be wrong but I believe that wasn't on the tape.

At any rate, there's somewhat of a twist ending, and that also contains footage not on the tape, I believe. There's also a bit of frontal nudity early on that was also excised, but apart from that I didn't really notice if there were other bits on this uncut version, probably so but it's been a while since I've last seen it.

At any rate, if you're a fan of 80's slasher flicks then snap up the new release DVD, because it's a fun little slasher with a good atmosphere & feel to it. 7 out of 10. My 10/10 rating is merely for the fun factor and assumes that you decided that you liked "Slaughter High" even before watching it. Yes, it's the typical revenge-several-years-after-a-dirty-prank story, but how can you not like some of the stuff that they pull here?! I couldn't have predicted that bathtub scene in a million years.

OK, so maybe we could be cynical and say that this movie offers nothing new. Well, it doesn't pretend to. It's the sort of flick that the characters in "Scream" probably watched, and it contributed to their rules about how to survive a horror movie. After all, who doesn't like to watch people suffer for doing these things? Obviously, it's got sort of a reactionary undertone, as people get punished for doing what the '60s championed. But still, you gotta love this stuff! So, with apologies to Don McLean, this jester didn't sing for the king and queen! Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.

Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.

So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!

The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.

I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!

~*~CupidGrl~*~ I have been meaning to see this flick for the past few months. I was actually surprised at how good it was.

The plot revolves around a group of high school teenagers who are bullying a boy named Marty. They constantly bully him until one of them makes a horrific mistake which leaves Marty horribly burned.

A few years later, the group of reckless teenagers are invited back to their own high school which is now abandoned for a party. Though, not one of the reckless teenagers has organized this party.

Later through the film, the teenagers start dying in the most gruesome of ways possible. I can certainly tell you that they are gory as well.

At the end of the film, you find out it was all a dream and none of it happened. But, Marty is in the hospital with severe burns. Although the murders didn't happen, the burns and the pranks apparently did happen.

The acting is terrible but that is fine.

I love the story. I really sympathize with Marty. It's like Tamara (2005). The bullies get what's coming to them in the end and you end up feeling satisfied for the victim getting their sweet revenge.

I would strongly recommend anyone pick this up if you are looking for 80s slashers.

I give this movie 8 stars out of 10. Good cheesy slasher! A bunch of popular high school students play a cruel joke on nerdy Marty (a sympathetic performance by Simon Scuddamore) which leaves him hideously disfigured. Five years later the gang returns to the now crumbling and abandoned high school for a reunion. Of course, an angry and vindictive Marty shows up dressed in a jester's costume to exact a grisly revenge on his tormentors. Writers/directors Mark Ezra, Peter Litten and George Dugdale trot out all the endearingly corny clichés which make these 80's slice'n'dice body count flicks so much cheesy fun: fake jump scares, prowling Steadican shots, a fierce storm, an insanely groovy hard rock soundtrack, a nice smattering of gratuitous female nudity, a totally ridiculous "what the hell?" supernatural climax, tacky make-up f/x, and one of those lovably lame "it was all just a terrible dream" fake-out non-endings. Moreover, the elaborate murder set pieces deliver the gruesome goods: Gory highlights include a man's stomach exploding after he drinks poisoned beer, a lady taking an acid bath, a guy being crushed under a huge tractor, and two people getting electrocuted while in the middle of having wild passionate sex. Thirtyish British cult horror siren Caroline Munro is hilariously miscast as an American teenager in the first third of the flick. The cast all give solid performances, with especially stand-out work from Carmine Iannaccone as smartaleck ringleader Skip Pollack, Billy Hartman as faded macho meathead Frank, and Donna Yeager as foul-mouthed slut Stella. Co-producer Dick Randall has an amusing cameo as Munro's sleazy agent Manny. Harry Manfredini's moody, rattling music shamelessly recycles cues from his "Friday the 13th" scores. Alan Pudney's slick cinematography does the trick. Good, trashy fun. "Slaughter High" is a totally ridiculous slasher flick about a high school nerd Marty,who gets pick on all the time by some pranksters.The prank goes wrong and he ends up getting savagely burned.Five years later his tormentors all attend a reunion-just the ten of them of course,and low and behold Marty murders them one after another.British actress Caroline Munro("Maniac")leads the cast as the heroine(who dies anyway!).The acting is completely awful,there's also no suspense at all.Plenty of grotesque death scenes to satisfy the gore-freaks:a guy's stomach explodes,another female victim literally gets an acid bath,a couple having sex in bed get electrocuted,a guy is crushed by a tractor,one girl is drowned,and a doctor gets a hyperdermic needle in the eye.The killer wears a decent and rather creepy jester's mask and the setting(a beautiful old English castle)is really nice.However the dream finale is utterly pathetic.All in all it's true that "Slaughter High" is a piece of garbage,but I enjoyed it.Only for fans of truly bad slasher flicks. Poor geeky Marty (Simon Scuddamore) gets horribly burned due to a cruel April Fool's day stunt gone very wrong. Flash forward a decade and those involved (including Caroline Monroe, known to horror fans for her turns in Maniac, Faceless & the Last Horror Film) in the prank are psyched for the upcoming 10 year high school reunion not aware that a court jester-masked killer is hiding out in the (now closed down) school and out for revenge.

Chaulk this one up to being a guilty pleasure, I knew it's a bad film. It has all the characteristics of one. Yet there's just something about it that makes me feel compelled to watch it from time to time (preferably with beer in hand). I'm even willing to overlook the absolutely horrid ending (which, I do have to say, I hate) I guess I like it because it has a fun atmosphere about it and some pretty cool kills.

Eye Candy (for the men): Josephine Scandi & Donna Yeager both get topless

Eye Candy (for the ladies): a gratuitous cock shot of Simon Scuddamore at the start of the film

My Grade: B-

Lionsgate DVD Extras: Optional trivia track; trailer for this film; and trailers for My Bloody Valentine (1981), Monster Squad, Dirty Dancing This movie is such cheesy goodness.

A bunch of people trapped in an abandoned school. They start getting killed off, they know they are being stalked, so what do they do? One girl decides to take a bath, another decides to cheat on her husband (who is also there) with an old boyfriend so they somehow find a bed (in an old abandoned school?) and go at it.

And it comes through with the gore and the T&A.

And it's also interesting from a historical/sociological point of view. Where the usual 80's slasher is a reflection of how we view ourselves, or how adults view young people, or as Hollywood views the rest of the country this has a unique perspective. This is a Brit film made to be an American slasher. It's hilarious to see how often the British actors who are trying to speak "American" unintentionally slip back in to their UK accents.

If you like cheesy 80's slashers (like Pieces) then you will like this one. I first rented this film many years ago, and was completely enthralled by it. Just recently, feeling a strange need to revisit some of the way-too-few films that I've immensely enjoyed in my lifetime, I decided to give "Erendira" another look. And I'm glad I did, as I soon discovered that even the passage of time has not in the least dulled the shine of this film.

The story is about a teenaged girl (Erendira, played remarkably by Claudia O'hana - in some respects she resembles Winona Ryder!) who accidentally burns down her grandmother's mansion after which the grandmother, played downright hypnotically by Irene Papas, forces the girl into a life of prostitution on the road to repay the damages.

The viewing is at once fascinating and compelling - though, inspite of the basic premise, which deals with prostitution, is tastefully void of gratuitous steamy sexual content. The story revolves more around the interactions between the girl and her grandmother, and the various other colorful characters with whom they come into contact on their sojourn - which, by the way, is in the rough and tumble part of rural Mexico.

The film is very atmospheric, arrestingly enigmatic with a decided dreamlike quality. It sometimes borders on the bizarre, but not to the point of, say, a David Lynch film. It's also worth mentioning that the film is very allegorical in nature, read the comments from previous viewers below...

Often in the background you hear the sounds of a lone accordion, quiet and melancholy, adding just the right musical accents to highlight the Mexican setting. The cinematography of the rural places, many of which are in the desert, is quite superb.

The film moves at a nice pace, neither too fast nor too slow, and after every scene I felt I had to rewind the tape and play it over again, just because it makes you want to do that. For me anyway, it really is that compelling.

Hopefully you will see the film in its Spanish language version, with subtitles. I studied Spanish in high school as well as in college, and I was happy to be able to understand much of the dialogue. Por ejemplo: "El mundo no es tan grande como pensaba." ("The world's not as big as I thought" - i.e., It's a small world.)

This film somehow reminds me of stumbling upon a dusty old bottle of vintage wine, which, upon drinking, is immensely satisfying, however, you are left with some sadness upon realizing that there aren't more bottles just like this one. Unfortunately, this movie never made it to DVD. I saw it when it was first released to the theaters in 1983, and then again when the VHS was released in 1992. When I recently saw a VHS copy at a flea market, I immediately bought it. I was not disappointed. First, the obvious: Claudia Ohana is beautiful and a joy to behold. But then, the film takes you into an unreal world where you have to reflect on your values and decide what is really important to you. The movie is about a lot of things. It is about how the World Bank and large corporations exploit and enslave developing countries with their capitalist schemes to force them into a debt that they can never repay. It is about how our economic system exploits us by forcing us into debt with credit cards, mortgage, and car payment. It is about trying to save an innocence that maybe we have never really had and maybe we cannot really save. It is about good and evil and about how hard it is sometimes to tell one from the other. It raises a lot of questions but does not give answers. I think sometimes this is good. For this reason, this is a film really worth saving and seeing. Read Eric's review again. He perfectly described my own feeling for this film so more eloquently than I ever could. I'm only writing here to further encourage you to look for and see it.

I saw it many years ago on TV, the IFC I think. It is such a unique film I hesitate to make comparisons. It was filmed in northern Mexico, somewhere in the relentless badlands of Coahuila/Zacatecas/San Luis Potosi. This isn't the Sedona-like Durango,Mexico (of the John Wayne films) but a truly stark and wild place. I have to find the novel now to check on the original location of the story. Like the location, this movie is strange and wild and wonderful and weird and absolutely not for everyone. It is the kind of production that almost motivates me to study film.

I hadn't actually forgotten this movie, it is indelible. Yet, over the years, I had forgotten of its existence. I know nobody who has seen it, had never read of it, nor seen any reference to it. Erendira is such an unusual name, I'd even forgotten the title. Well, I'll be looking to buy a copy now.

**I have since the above posting become a huge fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and so regret not having read him before.

Relative to MsMyth's comment below; the movie was filmed in Mexico but the author is Colombian and was not commenting on Mexico or Mexican history in any way, although Marquez now lives in Mexico for "political" reasons. This story is universal.

I am still trying desperately to find a copy of this film for my library. Liked the movie? You have to read the story and then everything else Garcia Marquz wrote. And, by the way, the original location in the story was Colombia. Although this lovely work of art does use some of the cinematic vocabulary of surrealism, it is in fact nothing of the sort. It is a political and cultural allegory of Mexico's post-Columbian odyssey, as even a passing glance at Mexico's history will attest.

In contrast to "Like Water for Chocolate," "Erendira" expects the viewer to meet it at least half way so that understanding it takes a little work. (A good starting point is to see the grandmother character as Spain: proud, aloof, sorrowful and, above all else, weighed-down-with-history.)

The ultimate actions of the heroine are obscure because the "outcome" of history (i.e. the present) is always obscure, since we are too close to it for honest evaluation. Refusal to neatly tie up loose ends is the only real choice available to the director, given the ambitions of the film.

"Erendira" is gorgeous. A big-screen experience would be ideal, if you can catch it at a local art house or university screening. But if not, VHS is better than never seeing it at all. "Erendira" is a film from Mexico that is rarely talked about. The film only exists in a low quality VHS format. It's a shame this film hasn't been given a DVD release. "Erendira" is stunning and gorgeous with its magic-realist images. "Erendira" is based on a short story from the novel "100 Years of Solitude". Erendira is constantly daydreaming and accidentally burns down her grandma's house. Her evil grandma, played by Irene Papas, forces her into prostitution to pay for the damages. The whole town gets a piece of Erendira, so to speak. Although the subject matter sounds harsh, the film doesn't exploit sexuality. It's done in a mature artistic manner. The film also has some amazing costumes. Some of the more surreal aspects of the film that stand out the most, are the origami birds that morph into real birds, and a golden orange with a diamond in the center. Erendira is an amazing film, that even manages to throw in humor. This is definitely a film that deserves a special DVD release. As they'd say in espanol, "Es muy muy bien !!! Excellente! This is a gorgeous movie visually. The images of the Mexican desert, the old mansion, the characters in their picturesque costumes...all amount to a real work of art.

The story seems a bit loose, but that's because it's not meant to be realistic. It is taken from a book called One Hundred Years of Solitude, and it is supposed to be an evocation of the isolated, otherworldly atmosphere of Latin America "so far from God, and so close to the United States". The tremendous debt that Erendira owes to her grandmother is symbolic of Latin America's international debt burden, although there many layers of meaning.

If you can appreciate a slow-moving, richly-textured movie, this one is for you. Young Erendira and her tyrranical Grandmother provide for a great fantasy from the new world. This interpretation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez'"La incréible y triste historia da la cándida Eréndira,..." may not rub Marquez purists the right way eventhough The story stays intact and still carries the full force of the work. The strength of this film is in its acting especially Papas as the Grandmother. Marquez fans and Marquez novices alike will enjoy this movie for its real gritty brand of witt. Rawhide was a wonderful TV western series. Focusing on a band of trail drovers lead by the trail boss Gil Favor. Most episodes - especially from the first 3 seasons were really character studies of Favor and his men. Guest stars came and went but unlike Wagon Train they seldom dominated the episodes they appeared in. Rawhide was a true, gritty western and Gil Favor stood out as a memorable character never to be forgotten. Thanks to Eric Fleming's performance the show became a massive hit. Of course he was ably supported by a wonderful cast of good actors - Clint Eastwood, Sheb Wooley, Paul Brinegar, Steve Raines, James Murdoch, Rocky Shahan, Robert Cabal. All of these actors left their mark in a piece of television history. Rawhide captured the flavour of that time of the west that no other series has for me, as yet anyhow, managed to do so. Later seasons tended to split the leads and give them individual story lines. For me some of the time this didn't work - the cattle drive and the regulars provided the best stories. However there were still some classic stories and Rawhide remained top drawer affair. The black and white photography added to a bleak, realistic feel that other western series seldom managed to capture. Rustlers, Indians,Commancheroes, beautiful damsels in distress, serial killers, they all showed up to give our heroes problems. The end came for the series quietly when the final season was axed less than half way through. The reason - Eric Fleming had departed and Rawhide was now a head without a body - the gritty realism was gone, Gil Favor commanded respect and exuded authority - he was never infallible and this made him all the more interesting. We shall not see his like again. Watch an episode whenever you can, they seldom disappoint. It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun.

I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision. Currently on METOO's new schedule at 4 pm on weekdays, right after "Maverick" and right before "Wild, Wild West" (followed by "Star Trek").

Don't know if I ever actually saw an episode of it when it was originally on, but I'm really captivated by it. Offbeat, unusual, surreal stories set in a mythical West. Kind of the "Naked City" of Westerns.

And the guest stars are there: Dan Duryea, Lyle Bettger, Brian Donlevy, MacDonald Carey, Rick Jason (as a treacherous Mexican), a young Dick Van Patten, Jack Lord, Noah Berry, Jr. (as a colorful Mexican), Martha Hyer, Marguerite Chapman, even Ann Robinson ("War of the Worlds"), Gloria Talbott ("I Married a Monster from Outer Space")

It ran for EIGHT SEASONS, over 200 episodes, from January, 1959, to December, 1965.

Eric Fleming is quite remarkable as trail boss Gil Favor, the most stolid man that's ever lived, with the code of honor of a Samurai, and just the right balance between toughness and open-handedness. I would vote for him for President any day. (P.S. He had a very interesting biography: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281661/ )

And a young Clint Eastwood is quite striking as his impulsive right hand, "Rowdy" Yates. Also, veteran Western actor and country music figure (the immortal "One-eyed, One-horned, Flying Purple People Eater") Sheb Wooley is there as seasoned scout Pete Nolan. And Paul Brinegar makes the most cantankerous character of a cook you could ask for as "Wishbone".

And then there's that great theme song, performed by the immortal Frankie Laine. (Between that and the "Maverick" theme, I've got Western theme songs running through my head all day.)

I look forward to every episode; I'm collecting the whole set. A good time (not to mention a moo-ving experience) is always guaranteed, as one waits to see if the boys will get their difficulties straightened out before the commercial.

"Rollin', rollin', rollin' . . . " In the Hollywood west those trail hands were a rough bunch who when they came to town, partied pretty hardy. After all trail driving was a lonely business back in the day before railroads got to all parts of the USA.

The drovers who worked for trail boss Gil Favor as played by Eric Fleming were no different. But Fleming was a man of all business, he had a job to do and hired a top crew to do it.

With the long run of Rawhide and the fact that the regulars stayed with it for the most part, we got to know all the drovers at some point. A some point story lines were focused around all of them, though the bulk were with Fleming and Clint Eastwood's character Rowdy Yates, the number 2 guy with the herd.

Clint Eastwood's western image was molded by Rawhide, it's a shame that these are not shown more often. Probably because they were done in black and white. Had this been an NBC show, this would have been done in color like Bonanza and be running as often as those shows are. We'd get to see a lot more of a man who became a move legend.

Ironically enough it was Eric Fleming who left the show before it closed to do films. He did a few them and was hoping the show would give him a bankable movie name. Sadly he was killed on a movie location doing an action film, drowned in a river. Had he lived he might have become a name like Eastwood's.

Clint took over as trail boss in the last season and then the show completed its run. And he of course became the icon he is today and not just in the western genre.

Rawhide was a tough western who had some tough guys in it. No frills in this one, these were working cowboys just doing a job and battling the elements and whatever situations they were thrown into every year.

They really don't make television series like these any more. What a pity. This film was made in 1943 when i think Judy was at her peak (looks wise). In her previous film For Me and My Gal people often say that she looks emaciated. Well in this film she looks perfect. She is beautiful and shows that she has a flair for comedy.

I think this film is hilarious, especially at the beginning when she is trying to arrange an audition with John Thornway. One of the funniest scene's in my opinion is Judy's rendition of Lady Macbeth and when John is looking for her at the party to give her a spanking (Lol).

One criticism i do have is that there is a hole in the plot when John and Lily fall in love. I mean one minute he despises her and the next they are going out on a date then the next time they meet after that date they are in love.

Another point i didn't like was on opening night. If i were Lily i would be furious with John but she isn't...it just doesn't make sense.

But all in all i would have to give this film a 10 because it is just wonderful and almost perfect. Presenting Lily Mars may have provided Judy Garland with one of the easier roles she had while at MGM because Lily Mars is definitely a character she could identify with. A young girl with talent enough for ten, she knows she has what it takes to make it in the theater no matter how much producer Van Heflin from her home town discourages her.

I really liked Judy in this one as the girl determined to make it in the theater. Because it is Judy Garland with the talent of Judy Garland you in the audience know she has the right stuff even if it takes Van Heflin nearly the whole movie to be convinced.

Both Judy and Heflin hail from the same small town, Heflin's dad was the town doctor who delivered her and Heflin while he may have moved away and become a big producer on Broadway, their respective moms, Fay Bainter and Spring Byington have kept in touch. That's her entrée, but Heflin's constantly barraged with stagestruck kids, but never anyone quite like Lily Mars.

No real big song hits came out of Presenting Lily Mars for Garland, though she sings all her numbers. The best in the film is a revival of that gaslight era chestnut, Every Little Movement Has A Meaning All Its Own. Judy sings it with Connie Gilchrist playing the cleaning lady in a Broadway theater where Heflin's show is being produced. Gilchrist was a star back in the days of the FloraDora Girls and she and Judy deliver the song in grand style with Connie. It's the best scene in the film as Gilchrist encourages Judy to keep at it. Composer Karl Hoschna had died a long time ago, but lyricist Otto Harbach was still alive and I'm betting he liked what he heard.

European musical star Marta Eggerth is in Presenting Lily Mars as the show's star who's at first bemused, then angry and finally, understanding of Garland and Heflin. She did a couple of films with MGM and then went back to Europe for more work on the continent. I'm betting MGM didn't quite know what to do with her and her thick Hungarian accent, though Louis B. Mayer never met a soprano he didn't like.

Van Heflin does well as the patient producer who puts up with a lot from Garland and Eggerth. Heflin was just coming off his Oscar for Johnny Eager the previous year and he and Garland wouldn't appear to be an ideal screen team, but they're not bad together.

Presenting Lily Mars is a fine showcase for the talents of Judy Garland. And she didn't have to share the screen in another backstage film with Mickey Rooney. almost every review of this movie I'd seen was pretty bad. It's not pretty bad, it's actually pretty good, though not great. The Judy Garland character could have gotten annoying, but she didn't allow it to. Somewhere along the line, i've become a fan of brooding, overbearing, overacting Van Heflin, at least in the early 40's. Judy's singing is great, but the film missed a great chance by not showing more of their relationship. I gave it a 7.

Presenting Lily Mars is one of a genre of film that sadly seems to have disappeared with the studio system. Ok now that you know my bias, here are some reasons I think this movie does stand out.

1. Although the basic plot - Lily Mars (Judy Garland) goes to New York, becomes a star, and wins the heart of her director (Van Heflin) is a pretty stock Hollywood story of the period, the writers do vary the theme her a bit more than usual. Although Lily gets her big break when the star quits, she isn't successful and has to swallow her pride and go back to playing a minor role in the show.

2. Judy Garland (enough said!)

3. The supporting cast includes some really great performances. Spring Byington as Lily's mother is truely wonderful, as is Fay Bainter (the mother of the director - John Thornway (Van Heflin)). The standout supporting performance though goes to character actress Connie Gilchrist as Frankie, a one time actress turned theater custodian.

Worth a watch for sure. One of those movies that are designed to make you feel better about the world and your dreams. Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role! Presenting Lily Mars (MGM, 1943) is a cute film, but in my opinion it could have been better. Judy Garland is great as always, but some scenes in the film seem out of place and the romance between her and Van Heflin develops all too quickly.

I mean, one minute he's ready to beat her butt, but the next minute he falls in love with her. I believe that this production, the film editing, and the script ( even though the photography was great, the scenery was nice and the costumes were nice as well) could have been a little better. It feels as though the production was too rushed.

The supporting cast was good as well, especially little Janet Chapman as the second youngest daughter daughter Rosie. She at the age of 11, looks really cute and it's a shame that she didn't develop into a teenage comic actress. She's much better in this film than in her previous films as Warner Brothers in the late 1930's (except for Broadway Musketeers 1938, she's really good in that), when they tried to make her into a Shirley Temple/Sybil Jason hybrid. Overall, this film could better, but in the end, Judy gave it her all. In this 1943 film, Judy Garland is deemed not to be ready for the big-time yet by the man who loves her-Van Heflin. This film was certainly a big change for Mr. Heflin, especially after his supporting Oscar win the year before in "Johnny Eager."

Wasn't Spring Byington too old to be the widowed mother of 5 children, with four of them appearing to look like her grandchildren?

The singing and dancing are just marvelously staged but the way that the blossoming romance between Heflin and Garland was depicted left a lot to be desired. It was a Gigi-like one where a young girl is eventually swept off her feet by a charmer. Lily Mars, a smalltown girl living in Indiana, dreams of making it big on Broadway and her aspirations are given a lift when successful Broadway producer John Thornway returns to his hometown for a visit. Lily tries everything she can to get Thornway to notice her, but he just gets annoyed with her antics. When Thornway goes back to New York to stage his show, Lily follows (unknown to John of course) and Thornway eventually gives her a small role in his next show, only as a favor to her family, however Thornway starts to fall for this young girl and a romance blossoms, which makes the show's leading lady, Isabel Rekay, jealous. When Isabel gets fed up with the John-Lily romance causing friction with the show, she leaves, and John decides to make Lily the star. Isabel returns later, and Thornway is forced to tell Lily that she is back to her small bit role in the play, which also may jeopardize the romance. Very charming film, and a refreshing change to see Garland put the comedic touches into her role (her reading of Lady MacBeth, while supposed to be humorous, never threatened her singing career) I enjoyed Heflin's character (Thornway) more when he was annoyed with Lily rather than be the romantic. The film got to be somewhat predictable and the scenes weren't assembled that well together, but a very enjoyable film. Rating, 7. Once again the two bickering professors must join together to save the lost world. The five members of the first expedition return (see The Lost World, 1992, for a list of actors). A man seeking oil brings a drilling crew to the plateau. Instead of striking oil they tap an underground volcano which threatens all life in the Lost World. The oil crew clash with the native people and the scientific expedition. Although the situation looks hopeless.... (I'm not going to tell you the ending). Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. With a relatively small budget for an animated film of only $60 million the people at Fox Animation and Blue Sky Studios have done an incredible job.

They have combined state-of-the-art digital animation, the perfectly cast voice talents of Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Dennis Leary (among many others) to create a highly entertaining, family film with a strong message about cooperation, friendship and caring for your fellow herd members. And how sometimes it takes many different creatures to make up a herd.

While watching this film I got a strong political message about getting along with the people that share your space -- maybe it should be required viewing for all world leaders!

David Newman -- yet another member of the Newman family of Hollywood composers -- provides a superb score that is not intrusive yet serves to move the action along and, at times, is positively toe tapping.

The overall look of the film is incredible; an intensely coloured, strangely believable fantasyland of snow, geysers, mud, rocks and ice. The individual characters were delightfully believable too, with the facial expressions of Ray Romano's ‘Manfred' being a particular treat.

The entire sequence with the DoDos will leave no doubt as to where the expression `Dumb as a DoDo comes from.'

This is a good family film that keeps the things that could alarm or frighten children pretty much sanitized -- but real nonetheless.

It would be a great movie to see in the theater and to buy for home. I'd have to say this is one of the best animated films I've ever seen. I liked it the first time but really appreciated it on the second viewing, just a few weeks ago. I can see why sequel is doing such great business at the box office. Apparently, a lot of people liked this movie.

A gorgeous color palette (man, this looks good) and a lot of good adult (but clean) humor make this a big winner. The opening 3-4-minute scene with "Scat," is excellent as are subsequent interludes with him. "Sid" the sloth (voiced by John Leguizano), however, provides the main humor in the movie. He usually has something funny to say throughout the movie.

Ray Romano is the voice of the mammoth, the big character of the film, literally, while Denis Leary is the ferocious bad-guy-turned-good sabertooth tiger

This isn't just humor and pretty colors but a nice, sentimental story of how a little baby softens up a couple of tough characters. This isn't interrupted with a lot of songs, either: one only brief one and there is nothing offensive, language-wise.

If more animated movies were this good, I'd own more. This is obviously aimed at the same market as Monsters Inc and Shrek, but is different in its less cartoony feel (despite the deliberately cartoony characteristics of the lead creatures). The story is not one that had a massive in your face moral at the end (its more like its tugging at your shirt sleeves) but chooses just to tell a story about relationships between different "animals." You know the outcome, but you can't help being drawn in.

The characters themselves are far more than their voices (the advantage of less famous actors doing the voices), unlike most Disney movies. They are well rounded and completely believable, strangely. The group dynamics are brilliantly well presented and the character revelations and quirks are subtle and enjoyable. You will find yourself rooting for them far sooner than you would like to think.

The animation is brilliant, as you would expect, and you will be praying for the opportunity to go on the ice slide in the movie. You will fall in love with the characters, especially the comic relief of the prehistoric squirrel and its desperate attempts to bury its nuts. I came out wanting the obligatory merchandise, especially the sloth toy, only to be disappointed the next day when I couldn't find anything vaguely related.

Which, strangely, makes the movie all the more pure.

Better than Monsters Inc or Shrek. I first saw Ice Age in the Subiaco Cinemas when it came out, back in '02. I was only 13 at the time, but even then I liked it. It had some sort of warmth.

We've had it on video for a number of years now and no matter how many times you watch it, it never gets boring. This is because of the one element which makes it different from all of the other 3D animations made at the time - The characters have no particular 'home' which they leave. They are nomads, and that's really refreshing and uplifting to watch.

Also, each individual character on the surface, appear to be just putting up with each other, but they're really all good friends. As well, all of the characters have their own charms (even the bad guys). Sid the sloth is charming in his annoying, over-affectionate and naive sort of way. Manny is adorable in his depressed, reclusive character, and so on and so forth.

Another great point about the movie is the beauty of the animation. All the environments and characters were modeled originally by clay, giving the film an artistic edge.

Another aspect that adds to the feel of the movie, is that gender means very little. There are hardly any female characters, but you don't really realize that until after you watch it a few times and even then it has little effect on the way you view the film. Due to this, there's also no mention of a nuclear family which would really be pathetic in a setting like the ice age.

All in all, Ice Age is a great movie and is proof on how much effort was put into 3d animations before Shrek 2 and The Incredibles came out. Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.

More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.

Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.

Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny. I saw the movie with two grown children. Although it was not as clever as Shrek, I thought it was rather good. In a movie theatre surrounded by children who were on spring break, there was not a sound so I know the children all liked it. There parents also seemed engaged. The death and apparent death of characters brought about the appropriate gasps and comments. Hopefully people realize this movie was made for kids. As such, it was successful although I liked it too. Personally I liked the Scrat!! I watched 'Ice Age'in the movie theater and I liked the movie. Spite of the fact that 'Ice Age'has many flaws and scientific errors,like humans,sabers,dinosaurs and mammoths living at the same period, and even the location of where the story passes(looks North America,but has some characteristics from Iceland for example) we can have fun even so.(unless you are very severe!)

The planet is entering an ICE AGE, and many animals are immigrating to the south where is warmer. Sid is a stupid Sloth that is left behind by his own family, that can't stand him any longer.Walking in his way, he meets Manfred,or how he calls '' Manny'' a moody mammoth who does not care about extinction or immigration and is going to the north. Worried that he can easily be captured, Sid decides to follow Manfred, and in the middle of their journey, they found a human mother with her baby. The mother dies but Manfred and Sid decides to take him and return the baby for the humans. Diego, one of the sabers, decides to follow and help them to go to a shortcut to the human's camp. What Manfred and Sid does not know, is that Diego is from a saber clan who hates humans and wants to kill the baby, and also pretend to betray they both to make they become saber's food. What will happen, will depend of Diego's behavior and conscience...

aka "A Era do Gelo" - Brazil I thought that Ice Age was an excellent movie! As a woman of 30, with no children, I still seem to really enjoy these humorous, witty animated movies. Sid is the best character I have seen in some time, better than Bartok in Anastasia (although he was really humorous, and I did not think that his character could be matched or even beaten) and even more humorous than Melman in Madagascar. I have seen the movie at least 15 times (I own it obviously) and I quote the movie at work (on many occasions...yes,still). My favourite scene is the part where Sid says "Oh, oh, oh, I love this game!" and Sid and Manny continue to figure out what the squirrel is trying to tell them about the "tigers"..."Pack of wolves, pack of bears, pack of fleas, pack of whiskers, pack of noses, pack a derm?, pack of lies, pack of troubles, pack a wallop, pack of birds, pack of flying fish..." or however that part goes! That is THE funniest part about the whole movie, although I also really enjoyed the humour behind "putting sloths on the map" and many other parts as well. The only animated movie that can remotely compare to Ice Age is "Brother Bear". Finally I got to see the infamous "Ice Age". Apart from maybe not being as dead funny as I'd hoped for after seeing the brilliant teaser there is not a bad word I can say about it. Sure, it's not as glamorous as a Disney production(besides, it is Fox's 1st attempt at a full length CG movie) but it's got immense heart and on some occasions(like the look in Manfred's eyes after we see the sad glimpse of his past) I found myself on the verge of tears. But when they reunited the baby with its father I just couldn't hold them in anymore. A movie that has no trouble walking on the thin line of sappy and cliché and manages to bring more than the best out of it; the end result being one of the most touching animated creations I have ever seen. Great funny looking characters that quickly grow on you(and great voice talents as well) and many funny memorable scenes, especially from Scrat's behalf make the movie more than enough reason to give it a go. Plus the Dodo scene, which is my personal favorite funny scene of 2002.

I honestly don't get it, but for some reason it really looks like CG animation will be taking the upper hand in the future. But if it just means that there will be more movies like this one (and who can forget Pixar's creations) then I don't really mind, at least for now. 9/10 "Ice Age" is one of the cartoon movies ever produced by Blue Sky Studios and released in 2002 as the company's first. We are introduced to the main characters: a squirrel named Scrat (voiced by Chris Wedge, AND PLEASE NOTE: the sound of Scrat's screams is the sound of Tom's screams from the "Tom and Jerry" cartoons), a woolly mammoth named Manny (voiced by Ray Romano of "Everybody Loves Raymond"), a sloth named Sid (voiced by John Leguizamo of "Titan A. E."), and a saber toothed tiger named Diego (voiced by Denis Leary of Pixar's "A Bug's Life").

The movie opens with Scrat trying to bury an acorn and right after that, he caused an avalanche. We then see a herd going south for the coming Ice Age (except for Manny, who is going the other way looking for other mammoths that looked like him). Sid comes out of his cave yawning, and saw that his family abandoned him. He then pays toll with some aardvarks. Unfortunately, he gets pursued by Sylvia (voiced by Kirsten Johnston of "3rd Rock from the Sun"), a female orange sloth, who wants Sid to go migrating with her. Sid eventually teams up with Manny, and they became friends.

Meanwhile, nearby a human tribe, Soto (voiced by Goran Visnjic), an evil saber toothed tiger, wants revenge against the tribe's leader for wiping out half of his pack just by stealing his infant son, Roshan, away from him. In the morning, he, Diego, and Soto's henchmen, Lenny (voiced by Alan Tudyk), Oscar (voiced by Diedrich Bader), and Zeke (voiced by Jack Black) attacked the tribe, but the leader's wife escaped with Roshan and gave him to Manny and Sid to look after. Eventually, Diego joins them, and went on a journey to return Roshan back to his tribe, who are also looking for him as well. Relax and watch the rest of the movie and find out, okay? Besides Manny, Sid, Diego, Scrat, Sylvia, and Roshan, the supporting characters in there including a pack of wolves that Roshan's tribe are using, and not to mention a fat female purple sloth named Jennifer (voiced by Jane Krakowski), and a skinny female yellow sloth named Rachel (voiced by Lorri Bagley), to whom Sid shows them Roshan as they relax in a tar pit. Incidentally, the two rhinos, Carl (voiced by Cedric The Entertainer of PDI's "Madagascar"), and Frank (voiced by Stephen Root of Pixar's "Finding Nemo"), who go after Sid for ruining their meal and confront Manny on a cliff, are simple minor characters. Same went for the dodos, who are using melons as their food supply.

The gags in this movie are very funny. For instance, Manny talks through his trunk saying, "I'M NOT GOING!" When Jennifer and Rachel are out of the tar pit, Sid asks Jennifer "What do you say if we jump into the gene pool and see what happens?" Jennifer then responds to him, "What do you say if you go jump into the TAR PIT!?" Rachel also then kicks Sid in the waist. Sylvia sees Diego holding Sid by the neck with his teeth, then she asks Sid if he's holding his breath, tells Diego to eat him, and promptly walks off.

Since "Ice Age" is not only a success, but it has 2 sequels: the first one was "Ice Age: The Meltdown", which was released in 2006, and the other was "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs", which is going to be releasing next year. I can hardly die waiting to see what "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" will be like. This movie had no parts that were hilarious, mostly just average funny units, but it did not have any parts that were really bad either. The worst part was the voice of Sid. His slothy slur was just too much for me. By about 5 minutes in I was sick of hearing him talk. Aside from the annoying sloth voice the movie was good. There were numerous side jokes which if you catch them make the movie much better. This is a good movie for kids. It has enough in it to keep adults content and enough in it to entertain kids. This one is definitely worth renting if you have kids and want to watch a movie with them. Ice Age is not only Animation of the Year (in my eyes) it's also the best animated feature I've ever seen!

The teaser excited me last year and I've spent many happy hours on the website. Scrat is cool! And so are the rest of the Sub Zero Heroes.

The animation is superb. Your heart really goes out to the characters in this film. They have good lines of dialogue and are well developed. It's hard to say which one really steals the picture.

I experienced their journey with laughter, tears and amazement. Nothing was forced or over done. The emotion was genuine, especially in the dramatic second half. The last film to affect me this deeply was Anastasia in 1997, also a Fox Production. And before that it was The Land Before Time 1988. All possess real charm and seek to entertain all the audience, not just the cynics. 10/10

I wouldn't go so far as to not recommend this movie, since the only problems I have with it are due to an overexposure to the plot devices used in the movie - the sort of things common to every kids movie ever made it seems. That doesn't make it bad, just not something I'd go far.

It is a little saccharine, so I might say that for the most part anyone looking for something with a little more wit could be disappointed in an obviously for-kids movie like this.

However, all of that goes out the window when that squirrel (the one in all the trailers) comes on-screen. His time is limited, but it seems apparent that the decision makers had the wisdom to tell these guys 'hey, could you stick in a little more squirrel?' every time it's getting intolerably dull. That doesn't save the movie, but you can leave saying 'at least there was one aspect where I couldn't stop laughing.'

And of course, visually it won't disappoint, but that's almost a given with Pixar flicks. Of all of their stuff, I'd put this at the bottom...but that isn't in itself bad. While I loved this movie, the trailers that circulated the internet the year before it hit theaters set my expectations a bit high.

I own the DVD, so don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't watch it or even buy it! It's just that I still think the first scene was the best, and nothing throughout the entire movie ever topped it. (spoilers??)

I wasn't sure what to think of the movie. Not too much of a kids film. Definately should be watched with a parent because it includes death and dying. But I was surprised that I was a bit entertained by it.

I was a bit disappointed by the 81 minutes of time we had. (even less without the credits) And the trailer gets you to think the rodent is a main creature. But alas, they torture him. Right until the end of the movie. Those two gripes docked the movie 2 stars. But I do recommend the movie. Even for a sequel.

8/10

Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable:7/10 The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart. Any story comprises a premise, characters and conflict. Characters plotting their own play promises triumph, and a militant character readily lends oneself to this. Ardh Satya's premise is summarized by the poem of the same name scripted by Dilip Chitre. The line goes - "ek palde mein napunsaktha, doosre palde mein paurush, aur teek tarazu ke kaante par, ardh satya ?". A rough translation - "The delicate balance of right & wrong ( commonly seen on the busts of blind justice in the courts ) has powerlessness on one plate and prowess on another. Is the needle on the center a half-truth ? "

The poem is recited midway in the film by Smita Patil to Om Puri at a resturant. It makes a deep impact on the protagonist & lays the foundation for much of the later events that follow. At the end of the film, Om Puri ends up in exactly the same situation described so aptly in the poem.

The film tries mighty hard to do a one-up on the poem. However, Chitre's words are too powerful, and at best, the film matches up to the poem in every aspect.

Govind Nihalani's directorial venture of Vijay Tendulkar's novel is brilliant. Om Puri plays an inspector Velankar who is forced to protect underworld don rama shetty, played brilliantly by sadahiv amrapurkar. This is Govind Nihlan's Most talked about movie. This is a very good and a classic film. Smita Patil plays the female lead opposite Om Puri. Naseeruddin Shah is brilliant in a cameo role. Although Sadashiv Amrapurkar has only 4 scenes in the movie he dominates the movie. This was Sadashiv Amrapurkars acting debut.Om Puri won a national award for this film for the best actor. Filmfare award winner for Best Film,Story,Supporting Actor(Sadashiv Amrapurkar). An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.

Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.

This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !!

After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade.

This movie was a moderate box office hit.

A must-see for discerning movie fans. "Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.

The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.

Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.

The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.

The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.

The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.

Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly. After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.

SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.

There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.

In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film "Drohkaal". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence. Directed by Govind Nihalani, this is definite cop film of Indian cinema. May be the first one which portrayed the stark reality of corruption in the police force & politics with no holds barred & how it effects on a young cop. A man forced to join a career of a cop by his cop father. Agreed that we grew up watching lot of good cop/bad cop Hindi films but this is different. Today's generation, which grown up watching dark & realistic films like- 'Satya', 'Company' may be consider it inferior product in comparison but look at the time of its making. The film was made absolutely off beat tone in the time when people didn't pay much attention to such kind of cinema & yet it becomes a most sought after cop film in class & mass audience when it released. For Om Puri its first breakthrough in mainstream Hindi cinema & he delivered a class performance as Inspector Velankar. Its more than cop character, he internalized a lot which is something original in acting. Watch his scenes with his father whom he hates & Smita whom he loves. Smita Patil maintained the dignity of her character to the expected level. My God what a natural expressions she carried!!! Shafi Inamdar was truly a discovery for me & he's a brilliant character actor if given a chance & here in some of the scenes he outsmarted even Om. The movie is also a debut of a promising villain on Indian screen- Sadashiv Amrapurkar as 'Rama Shetty'. It's another story that he didn't get such a meaty role & almost forgotten today as one of the loud villain of Dharmendra's B grade action films. Watch the scene where Om 1st time becomes a rebel for his father (played by Amrish Puri) & next both are sharing wine together. How inner truth started revealing for both the character with confronting feelings of love & hate for each other. Two faces of Indian Police Force- Masculinity & Impotency and in between lies- half truth (ardh satya)…Kudos to Nihalani's touch. The film won 2 National Awards as Best Hindi Feature Film & Best Actor- Om Puri & 3 Filmfare Awards in Best Film, Best Director & Best Supporting Actor Categories.

Recommended to all who are interested in nostalgia of serious Hindi films.

Ratings- 8/10 The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great.

I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie.

Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot.

And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.

The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya.

A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema. I've spent years looking for a copy of this film(16mm,dvd,vhs), so I could show it to my kids. The movie is funny, and Spike and the members of his band show why they were the best musicians in the business. They had to be that good to play that demented. I like it and recommend it for movie lovers of all ages.

The movie is about a turn of the century firehouse, with a crew of misfits that are firemen and the department band (when not fighting the fires). There's the usual running gags, plus the mayhem of Spike Jones and his Orchestra. Also, comedy relief provided by comedian Buddy Hackett and straight-man Hugh O'Brien. I have to start saying it has been a long time since I have seen it, but have seen it 5 or more times; a wonderful little romp that was clearly inspired by the musical/comedy pairings of new or fading stars with musical groups of prominence. Kay Kyser's mysteries would be a good example.

Having Spike Jones unleashed is the best part of the show, as he and his band play many tunes and are a part of the action, doing a fine job of support. Hugh O'Brien plays the face, Buddy Hackett the part rumor has it that was offered to Lou Costello and thus, Abbott and Costello replacing the leads. Don't know if that was true.

all in all, a pleasant movie, but important to have that much Spike Jones and his band on film for history. Wish that it was released, as I haven't seen or heard of it now in two decades. Hope it is not lost Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime. I stumbled across this (Act-I) by pure dumb luck and this was more than a decade ago. This was'nt even what the cover label on the tape mentioned. It amazed me. It intimidated me. It shocked me. I eventually forgot about and almost a decade later, I happened to think about it again. Then went and bought both acts. They were even better than I had experienced at first.

My only complaint is that while the Tank Police keep on going on and on about being at war with crime, warranting tanks and heavy artillery, it would seem as though they are really having a hard time with criminals. That is either never shown or is simply a lie as they appear to be taking it easy most of the time. If that bit about being in a state of war was really propaganda, it certainly has not been shown as such.

I don't think the original Japanese version could have been any where as good as the Americanized version of this. But regarding the story, there has certainly been some proper explanations lost in translation but it can be excused. The anime that got me hooked on anime...

Set in the year 2010 (hey, that's not too far away now!) the Earth is now poison gas wasteland of pollution and violence. Seeing as how crimes are happening ever 30 seconds are so and committed by thieves who have the fire power of third world terrorists, the government of the fictional New Port City form the Tank Police to deal with the problem - cops with tanks! Oh the insanity!

The "heroes" of this series include the new recruit Leona Ozaki, a red haired Japanese woman (yeah I know, they never match their distinctly Japanese names with a Japanese appearance) who has just been drafted into the Tank Police and is quickly partnered with blond, blue eyed nice guy Al. Leona is new at using tanks and unfortunately she destroys the favorite tank of Tank Police Commander Charles Britain (also known as "Brenten"), a big guy who looks like Tom Selleck on steroids and sporting a pair of nifty sunglasses, a big revolver and a bad temper. Britain didn't like having Leona join the Tank Police in the first place and her wrecking his Tiger Special (a giant green monster tank) doesn't exactly endear her to him, nor is he fond of her taking the remains of his giant tank and using it to build a mini-tank that she nicknames Bonaparte and he is soon pushing to have her transferred to child welfare "where the boys are more your size" as he puts it. There's also Specs, the bifocal genius, Bible quoting/God fearing Chaplain, purple MO-hawked Mohican, and the pot bellied Chief, who's right on the edge thanks to the Mayor always yelling at him about the Tank Police antics. Seeing as how the tank cops often destroy half the city while chasing the bad guys and use extreme violence to capture them, they're not very well liked by the people.

The "villains" are a cyborg named Buaku who's got a mysterious past that's connected with a project known as "Green Peace", his gang and his two sexy cat cyborg sidekicks Anna & Uni Puma. In the first installment these guys are being paid to steal urine samples from a hospital treating people who haven't been infected by the poison gas clouds and in the 2nd they're hired to steal a painting that is of a naked Buaku. The story, however, was uncompleted in the anime and was finished up in a cult comic ("Manga") book that's very hard to find.

All sorts of chaos and mayhem ensue in this black comic venture that examines how far people want their police to go in order to catch criminals and what happens when the fine line between good guys and bad guys starts to get blurred. This is the kind of thing that if you were going to make a movie of it, you'd better go get Quentin Tarantino. Uneven in places but still a lot of fun.

Followed by "New Dominion: Tank Police". Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules. One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.

The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".

Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.

The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.

The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...

Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended. Robert Standish's novel is about a triangular romantic situation on a Ceylonese tea plantation... So the events of the Ceylon backgrounds and pictorial beauty are rewarding points to William Dieterle's film...

The story is about a rich powerful planter (Peter Finch), who brings a charming and tender beauty (Elizabeth Taylor), into the jungle as his bride... The plantation, of course, is endangered by some kind of wild life... For this reason Taylor — elegant as never in dazzling costumes — finds herself in a strange atmosphere... The echo determination of a ghost, the bad temper of a husband obsessed by the memory of his autocratic father, a highly dangerous disease, and the fury of wild animals...

In her confusion, boredom and annoyance Elizabeth Taylor looks to a friendly face, a pretentious foreman (Dana Andrews), who admires her beauty but tries to conquer her love...

With echoes of "Jane Eyre," the mysterious Yorkshire mansion with a brooding master, and "Rebecca," the innocent young second wife hunted by the image of the glamorous first wife, "Elephant Walk" is a menace melodrama with a wide view of a huge tropical bungalow, exotic dances with rage excessively colorful, stampeding big bull elephants, amazing mansion set on fire, all in the company of an exquisite creature with an unquestioned beauty and talent...

The movie gave Liz a change of scenery, and allowed her more creative energy and self-respect than most of her other willful debutante-rebels… The wife here has a sharp tongue and a strong will, and so Taylor plays her movie star heroine with more spirit than she was given credit for… My parents took me to this movie when I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it. I had never before seen anything as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. (She was twenty-two when she made Elephant Walk) Remember, I'm nine, so the feelings aren't sexual, I just couldn't see anything else on the screen. I just wanted to sit at her feet like a puppy and stare up at her. She has begun to show her age, (She's almost seventy-four) but I still believe her to be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking women to ever have lived.

I have seen the movie several times since, and it is a sappy melodrama. What saves it is, of course, Miss Taylor's beauty, magnificent scenery, the very impressive elephant stampede, and a well-made point on human arrogance in the face of nature.

All in all, a well-spent couple of hours watching the movie channel or a rented video. ELEPHANT WALK may not be the acme of literature or of film, but it is great entertainment in the quasi-melodramatic mode. It is the story of love, both genuine and illicit, as well as overweening ambition, devotion, and the arrogance of personal tyranny. A previous reviewer, John Mankin, questions why the central focus of the film, the mansion called Elephant Walk, should have been built by the former owner, the "governor" the late Tom Wiley, right across the elephants' traditional path to the major source of water, the river. To miss this point is to essentially miss the point of the whole center of the film: the hubris of man. That his son, played by Peter Finch, should become enthralled by the super image and enigma of his revered father, is not unexpected, since the son was without a mother growing up in a foreign jungle with only his father and his father's rowdy 'boys' club' as his role models. The point of the father was that he was a self-made man who would tame nature to his liking, and that liking was not just a tea plantation upon the lands the elephants once dominated, but also that he would dominate even the large bull elephant that led the herd, and thus he would dominate his son and all around him, and so we join the tale after the elephants have been denied the crucial dry season access to their pathway to water. Who could know that this dry season would last so long and what the elephants would do in desperation to get water? This is the nexus of the film: what will animals do to get water; what will humans do to get power or love? Ceylon, today's Sri Lanka, is the huge island off the coast of India where the plantation is located and one quickly learns that it is the real scenery of the story, not just the expenses of Miss Taylor. Were it not for this exotic location (much of the film was shot in Ceylon), and the magnificent "bungalow" this would have been just another potboiler. One must recognize the atmosphere created here as integral to the time and place, as it illuminates the latter day wealth and power attained by the English immigrant 'conquerors' that were part and parcel of the British raj. It is only such wealth gained by the use of virtual slave labor that one could build so magnificent a residence of ebony, teak, and marble. Not to be overlooked are the wonderfully carved Jalees (grille work window and doorway borders) evidently specified by art directors J. McMillan Johnson and Hal Pereira and obviously made by the cheaper labor on the island. Such craftsmanship reveals the careful attention to detail that these men sought.

For those immune to the blandishments of time, place, and architecture, there is always the allure of Miss Taylor, as she marries a man she doesn't really know and is tacitly wooed by a another man, against the background described, and under the overarching tyranny of the legacy of a man deceased. As I said, it is not great literature nor even great film, but it is great spectacle long before that term was debased by the special effects extravaganzas of today.

This is one of those films made to be seen on the giant screen of an outdoor drive-in, not on the home TV, so arrange the largest screen to see it on to fully appreciate its fine camera-work and scope. A beautiful shopgirl in London is swept off her feet by a millionaire tea plantation owner and soon finds herself married and living with him at his villa in British Ceylon. Although based upon the book by Robert Standish, this initial set-up is highly reminiscent of Hitchock's "Rebecca", with leading lady Elizabeth Taylor clashing with the imposing chief of staff at the mansion and (almost immediately) her own husband, who is still under the thumb of his deceased-but-dominant father. Taylor, a last-minute substitute for an ailing Vivien Leigh, looks creamy-smooth in her high fashion wardrobe, and her performance is quite strong; however, once husband Peter Finch starts drinking heavily and barking orders at her, one might think her dedication to him rather masochistic (this feeling hampers the ending as well). Still, the film offers a heady lot for soap buffs: romantic drama, a bit of travelogue, interpretive dance, an elephant stampede, and a perfectly-timed outbreak of cholera! *** from **** The scintillating Elizabeth Taylor stars in this lesser-known classic as a young girl from London who falls in love with a tea plantation owner from British Ceylon (current day Sri Lanka). Upon arrival she instantly feels out of place and is forced to adapt to the new culture as well as be in constant awareness of the angry elephant herd. William Dieterle, who also directed The Life Of Emile Zola and Portrait Of Jennie , does a masterful job of bringing a somewhat dark, and almost eerie, undertone to this romance and the setting is one of the most beautiful I've seen with the black and white themed mansion and the gorgeous island scenery. I watched "Elephant Walk" for the first time in about 30 years and was struck by how similar the story line is to the greatly superior "Rebecca." As others have said, you have the sweet young thing swept off her feet by the alternately charming and brooding lord of the manor, only to find her marriage threatened by the inescapable memory of a larger-than-life yet deeply flawed relative. You have the stern and disapproving servant, a crisis that will either bind the couple together or tear them irreparably apart, climaxed by the fiery destruction of the lavish homestead.

Meanwhile, "Elephant Walk" also owes some of its creepy jungle atmosphere to "The Letter," the Bette Davis love triangle set on a Singapore rubber plantation rather than a Sri Lankan tea plantation.

Maltin gives "Elephant Walk" just two stars, and IMDb readers aren't much kinder, but I enjoyed it despite its predictability. Elizabeth Taylor never looked lovelier, and Peter Finch does a credible job as the basically good man unable to shake off the influence of his overbearing father. Dana Andrews -- a favorite in "Laura" and "The Best Year of Our Lives" -- is wasted as Elizabeth's frustrated admirer. The real star is the bungalow, one of the most beautiful interior sets in movie history. I was prepared for a turgid talky soap opera cum travelogue, but was pleased to find a fast-paced script, an underlying moral, excellent portrayals from all the actors, especially Peter Finch, amazing special effects, suspense, and beautiful cinematography--there's even a shot of the majestic stone Buddhas recently destroyed by the Taliban. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor at her most gloriously beautiful and sympathetic, before she gave in to the gaspy hysterics that marred her later work. All the supporting players round it out, and I do wonder who trained all those elephants.

Speaking of the stone-Buddha sequence, you really can discern that it's Vivien Leigh in the long shots. Her shape and the way she moves is distinct from Taylor's. The only thing marring that sequence are the poorly done process shots, where the background moves by much too fast for horses at a walk.

If you want a thought-provoking film that is beautiful to watch and never boring, spend a few hours with Elephant Walk. . . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. Elephant Walk (1954) Starring an early Peter Finch as lord of the manor in some God-forsaken plantation where there is always the danger of elephants or mad Englishmen, staying out in the midday sun and going berserk. Well eventually they do, after the typhoid or cholera outbreak, of course, and much mayhem ensues. Taylor replaced an ailing Vivien Leigh in this pot boiler/adventure flick. When the elephants storm the house and trap Liz on the grand staircase I still get goose bumps. Thank goodness Dana Andrews is around to save the day. One of my favorite guilty pleasures. In color too! Fabulous costumes by Edith Head who painted them on Liz Taylor at her finest!

The SFX are very good for a movie of its age, and the stunt doubles actually looked like the actors, even down to body type, a rarity in movies of this vintage.

A cozy movie, with splendid panoramas -- even when chopped down to pan and scan. This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning. I just saw this movie today with my children (son, 10 and daughter, 4.5) at the 3rd Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. After the film the children in the audience were allowed to ask questions to the Director, Tian-Ming Wu. He (through a translator) told several stories about his life and the making of the film.

All tangents aside, both of my children really enjoyed this movie. Of course, I had to paraphrase many of the subtitles for my daughter, but much of the film is visually self-explanatory.

I won't give anything away, but the bottom line is that this film is SO MUCH better than 95% of the Hollywood crap (especially children's films) out there.

Cheers.

p.s. There is a "real"/original King of Masks who can/could do 12 masks at once. The actor in the movie trained and learned to do up to 4 masks at a time (then they would cut and change to 4 new masks). This spectacular film is one of the most amazing movies I have ever seen. It shows a China I had never seen or imagined, and I believe it shows 1930's China in the most REAL light ever seen in a movie. It is absolutely heart-breaking in so many situations, seeing how hard life was for the characters, and yet the story and the ending are incredibly joyful. You truly see the depths and heigths of human existence in this film. The actors are all perfect, such that you feel like you have really entered a different world.

I simply can not recommend this movie highly enough. It may just change you forever once you have seen it. The fact that this film was put out on DVD still formatted-to TV and with a fuzzy picture really annoyed a lot of film purists......and rightly so. This deserves a lot better treatment.

The story is about a street performer who needs a son to pass on his craft (the rules of the day) and winds up with a little girl instead (not the conventional way) ....and the problems that ensue afterward. The old man had bought the kid at a slave auction and soon discovers the kid is not a boy, which he obviously thought was the case.

The old man "Bianlian Wang (Xu Zhu)is kind of funny-looking with a missing front tooth and an infectious grin. The little girl "Doggie" (Zhou Renying) is a cutie. The rest of the story is how the two manage after that. I usually like a nice sentimental ending but this gets a bit carried away in the final 15 minutes.

Overall, it's involving story complete with drama, suspense, humor and sadness. Just don't expect a good quality picture for the money you are spending on the DVD. Until it comes out on widescreen, rent it. The movie is truly poignant, unique and uplifting. The story is universal in that it's a battle between good, evil and the world between. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is that its rating is wrong, misleading, and a travesty. Blockbuster has it rated as though it were an X rated movie. The truth is is that it is closer to G than PG and should be seen by children who can read the clear and simple sub-titles. This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.

The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.

The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.

Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small. In the rapid economic development of 1990's in China, there is a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture, partially due to the rise of nationalism accompanied by the increase in wealth, and more importantly, due to the sense of spiritual belonging after the collapse of the old socialist ideology in the post Cultural-Revolutionary era.

However, the resurgence of Chinese traditional culture, namely, the Confucianism, was not without disasters, because Chinese are adopted the entire tradition without eliminating the bad part, and the discrimination against girls demonstrated in this film is an excellent example.

Moreover, not only the part that should be discarded were inherited, the good part that was supposed to be inherited, such as the traditional opera, and its technique, such as changing face, was ignored in the resurgence, and facing extinction.

The director used this film to criticize the problem of re-embracing tradition by contemporary China and this is the deeper meaning behind the movie. I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed. It's a tale that could have taken place anywhere really, given the right circumstances. Street entertainer catching the attention of famous opera star and friendship ensuing. The aging entertainer finds/buys a male child to pass his art to. From there, we follow them through the rigors of their challenging, but free life along the river. Traveling town to town, he performs and has some degree of notoriety. Despite the times and the influences, the man is kind and good.

Overall, the performances are first rate, especially Xu Zhu, who portrays the street performer. The child (Renying Zhou) is beautiful, and downright strong, and withstands the overt prejudices well. The two protagonists, along with supporting help from the kind opera singer, Master Liang (an interestingly androgynous Zhao Zhigang), paint a very interesting tale of forgiveness, sadness and love. Some have mentioned this film's remote similarities to BA WANG BIE JI (FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE); yet this film can't stand easily on its own, any resemblance is remote at best.

My only qualm with the KING OF MASKS, is the ending. It was weak, cliche and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The audience was already wrapped up in the story, what was the needless manipulation for? What a shame. To bring a fine motion picture that far, only to surrender to emotional (and corny) pathos like that. It frankly made this film good, instead of the classic, it should've been. That aside, the KING OF MASKS is still very well worth your time. I was happy to see the Shaw Brothers are still producing good films. Highly recommended. This is probably my favorite movie of all time. It is perfection in its storytelling. It will break your heart not because it's over sentimental but because you will truly feel every emotion these characters go through. You feel for Doggie because of the hopeless situation that existed for young girls in China at that time. Beautiful and touching movie. Rich colors, great settings, good acting and one of the most charming movies I have seen in a while. I never saw such an interesting setting when I was in China. My wife liked it so much she asked me to log on and rate it so other would enjoy too. "Masks" is a moving film that works on many levels. At its simplest, it is the haunting story of a street performer who bonds with a young child while trying to pass along his creative art (masks) to the next generation. Although, at times the story makes the old man into a Job, it is so well crafted (written, acted, directed, wonderful production values), it is easy to move beyond his plight. And, if you hang with it, the film is ultimately very sweet and uplifting. Kudos all around. This is a wonderful film for children as well as adults. The trick is how to get Americans who may not like foreign language films to see it! quote by Nicolas Martin (nicmart) from Houston, TX: "Fine film, but DVD "reformatted for TV", 8 April 2002 - This is a charming and emotive film. On the other hand, the DVD I purchased has been "reformatted to fit your TV" by the clods at Columbia Tristar. There is no excuse for not providing the film in widescreen format, except that Hollywood treats all films like the moronic, disposable trash that it is so used to producing. What a shame."

What a (criminal!) shame indeed. However, there is another version out though. See here for details http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/kingofmasks.htm

Wonderful performances by the two main actors (The King and Doggie) BTW. One of the great things about many of the superb Chinese movies you can find, if you are lucky, in the video stores, is they are very accurate retellings of actual, true stories. Farewell, my Concubine, The Emperor and the Assassin and this movie are perfect examples. The film makers take a true story and work hard to accurately create a movie without compromising the facts for dramatic or commercial convenience -- the hallmark of much Hollywood, and especially Disney films.

In this story we follow the later years of an famous local street performer dubbed the King of Masks for his mastery of Sichuan Change Art. Along an having lost his only son many years earlier, he searches to find a male heir to carry on his rare and dying art in a society that forbids females to have such work. Master Wang is sold a son by a slave trader. All is well as he joyfully prepares to pass down his art. But the son eventually is found out to be a girl. From there, the story get very interesting, with a good performance by Master Liang of the Sichuan Opera -- a regional operatic style related to Peking Opera. Fans of Farewell My Concubine should look carefully at Master Liang's portrayal of a male playing the female role in Chinese Opera. It may help them come to understand that the players of these female roles were probably not homosexuals or castrati, but people who have be so psychologically conditioned as to be totally unaware of their own sexuality. An unexpected pleasure as I had heard nothing about this film.

Shameful since it warrants having a wider audience.

A wonderfully humane story with a social message gently told, although admittedly predictable in its resolution. Solidly acted by the principals. Beautifully photographed with muted colors floating against grey that captures the nostalgic tone of the film.

My recent foray into Chinese film (Shower, The Road Home, Not One Less) has been an exciting one that I hope to continue exploring. China and its people is an amazing canvas for film-makers. "The King of Masks" can be highly recommended as a starting point for anyone similarly interested in recent Chinese film.

When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.

His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.

He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.

His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.

There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.

The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars. As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.

It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale. This movie is worth seeing for the visual beauty and moving acting alone, but there also is an interesting cultural subtext of alienation. Women and performers (both brought together in a supporting role of a transvestite opera star) are both doomed to be relegated to subserviant roles in China. This makes the unlikely bonding between an aged street performer and a young girl even stronger as a triumph over the native culture.

The only problem I had with this movie was the tendency of the soundtrack to swell up with emotion rendered unnecessary by the actors' performance.

A welcome alternative to unsatisfying summer action movies. This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film. This is how movies are supposed to be made: a fascinating setting; characters about whom you come to care deeply; writing and editing that move the plot efficiently and build suspense. This is a wonderful film -- deeply moving without being sentimental. Highly recommended. King of Masks (Bian Lian in China) is a shockingly beautiful and profoundly touching film. Winner of 16 awards from around the world, this film based on a true story centers on Wang Bianlian, a street performer in 1930s China who is growing older but has no heir to pass on his art of face-change opera. He has a unique talent of quickly changing masks in performance, and no one knows how he does it. He has a longing desire to have a grandson, as his art is a family heirloom that can only be passed on to a male heir. We then go to the streets, and see that people are selling their children because they can't afford to take care of them: some are even begging to take their daughters for free, because daughters are not worth much in this society. Wang Bianlian's story goes on from there.

The film was so astonishingly good, the acting was amazing, and the issues were so weighty and well-addressed. There is the gender inequality and the depressing fact that in this time and place, no one wants a little girl. Also interesting to note is that the famed opera actor who always plays a woman and is known as the Living Bodhisattva is a man who dresses as a woman, and while he is famous and well-respected, he regards himself as something low, a half woman. As we go further into the film, the face the issues of human slave trade and its demand and thus the lack of a possible solution for it, the brutality and corruption of the military and police, and the helplessness and lack of power any individual can face due to unfortunate events or even good intentions.

This is definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life, and Xu Zhu, the actor who plays Wang Bianlian, presents yet another beautiful performance. This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.

But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.

Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.

But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.

But don't get me started on that... The King of Masks is a beautifully told story that pits the familial gender preference towards males against human preference for love and companionship. Set in 1930s China during a time of floods, we meet Wang, an elderly street performer whose talents are magical and capture the awe of all who witness him. When a famous operatic performer sees and then befriends Wang, he invites Wang to join their troupe. However, we learn that Wang's family tradition allows him only to pass his secrets to a son. Learning that Wang is childless, Wang is encouraged to find an heir before the magic is lost forever. Taking the advice to heart, Wang purchases an 8 year old to fulfill his legacy; he would teach his new son, Doggie, the ancient art of silk masks. Soon, Wang discovers a fact about Doggie that threatens the rare and dying art.

Together, Wang and Doggie create a bond and experience the range of emotions that invariably accompany it. The story is absorbing. The setting is serene and the costuming simple. Summarily, it is an International Award winning art film which can't help but to move and inspire. The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression. Wow. What a wonderful film. The script is nearly perfect it appears this is the only film written by Minglun Wei,I hope he has more stories in him.

The acting is sublime. Renying Zhou as Doggie was amazing -- very natural talent, and Xu Zhu was a delight - very believable as the jaded old traditionalist.

The soundtrack was very effective, guiding without being overwhelming.

If only more movies like this were made whether in Hollywood or Hong Kong- a family friendly, well acted, well written, well directed, near perfect gem. One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.

The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).

(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.

Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.

This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version. Wang Bianlian is an old street performer who is known as a 'King of masks' for his mastery of Sichuan change art. Liang is a famous opera performer of Sichuan art and respects Wang as an artist and as a person. Liang is worried that a precious art shouldn't die with Wang and so he sows the seed of an heir in to Wang's mind. The film is about prejudices, male domination, state of art, values and most importantly warmth.

I can't recommend this film enough. The whole film is in loops. Everything has a significance. Its a long story which has been edited so well that the length of the film is just 91 minutes. A total satisfaction. For five minutes it is an artistic film, next five minutes its a sad film, next five minutes its a thriller. It just keeps changing its mood like its protagonist changes his face. Last scene on the rope is phenomenal. Story and script is flawless. Actors are brilliant. Both the protagonists are artists you can tell the way they have performed. Very impressive. It was not even nominated for Oscars. That year 'English patient' got the best film Oscar and in the foreign film category 'Kolya' won. 'Kolya' was just OK and about 'English patient' the lesser said the better. Watch it 9/10. This movie is the best film ever. I can't remember the last time a movie has drawn tears out of me. with a tear in my eye, I admire this movie. It has all the elements that a good movie must have: Excellent Dialogues, Music, Acting, Story/Plot. A story of friendship, courage, kindliness and loyalty between a Street performing who famous to The King of Masks and a little girl that sold as a boy in serf bazaar. Little girl liked to be his granddaughter and King of Masks liked a grandson. They were not conventional in real. Every scene they were together was priceless. The camera work is flawless and grips you. The acting is inspired. Xu Zhu was Excellent as The King of Masks. Renying Zhou "Doggie" looks pretty and played her character very well. Zhigang Zhao as Liang Sao Lang was great. He played his helpful and kindhearted character extremely well. If you have't this movie, try it once, Do watch it. I admit to being somewhat jaded about the movie genre of a young child softening the heart of his/her reluctant guardian. I've seen enough of them — Baby Boom, Kolya, About a Boy, Mostly Martha, and to some extent, Whale Rider — to expect to be bored by the formula. What held my attention in The King of Masks was the grimness of the setting: small-town China in the 1930's. Extreme poverty was the norm, and girl children were considered so worthless to poor parents that they killed them at birth or gave them to whomever would take them on the black market. When Wang discovers his purchased grandson, whom he's nicknamed "Doggie," is a granddaughter, he initially casts her out, even though she's showed great promise as street-performing heir. Even after he reluctantly takes her back, he's not too upset when she's kidnapped. The film is gritty then, showing the lengths to which a young, street-smart girl had to go to survive in that society.

The two lead performances are believable and beguiling in their societal context. In a Western society, one would expect at least a hint of resentment from Wang at not having achieved more material success. Wang so thoroughly accepts his station as a celebrated artist with low societal status, though, that I did, too. While Doggie exhibits a level of precociousness and cunning that would be suspect in a modern, suburban child, it's completely believable in the context of a kid constantly in survival mode in a society that treats poor girls like garbage. And after learning that her previous seven owners have physically and mentally abused her, her fierce attachment to Wang makes perfect sense.

The peek at small-town life in a foreign country, the naturalness of the two lead actors, the surprising plot twists, and of course, the heartwarming resolution all contribute to a very watchable film. I was going to bed with my gf last night, and while she was brushing her teeth, I flipped channels until I came across this Chinese movie called the King of Masks. At first I thought it was going to be a Kung Fu movie, so I started watching it, and then it immediately captured me in, and I had to finish it.

The little girl in the movie was absolutely adorble. She was such a great actor for being so little. Maybe the fact it was in Chinese, so the English was dubbed made it harder for me to tell...but she really seemed to be in character perfectly. I felt so bad for the girl as she kept trying to please her "boss" but everything just turned out rotten. lol. Even when she brings him another grandson, just so he can pass on his art...it turns out that kid was kidnapped, so he gets arrested and has 5 days to live. lol...whatever she touches in an effort to be nice to her grandpa, just backfires.

In the end, he sees how much love is in her and teaches her the art of masks...which is just so heartwarming after all the mishaps in the movie.

Definitely a gem, and totally original.

Scott We watched this in my Women's Health Issues class to point out how women are treated inferior to men in many societies, and I absolutely loved this movie. I plan on trying to get a copy of it myself to watch. The story is very touching and I would recommend it to anyone. I am a fan of different cultures and this movie was just what I needed. This is a movie for the whole family despite its rating. This is a movie I will show to my children. The professor of our class meant for the movie to primarily be a too to educate about women, but this movie was more than that. It is one of those movies that will forever stick out in my mind and will be a favorite. It was a serious attempt to show the developing sexuality of two schoolgirls and did not try to exploit its fact… Even by today's standards, the film is interesting and provocative…

Therese and Isabelle are both attending the same girl's school… Therese is energetic, intelligent, and becomes a mentor for the innocent, naive, sweet Isabelle… She guides her through a number of exotic experiences, including a trip through an exclusive brothel, into her first lesbian liaison, and indirectly into her first heterosexual experience…

The film does not exploit any sex, nor is there an abundance of nudity... The imagery is effective, but sometimes the camera lingers too long, and the story goes slowly…

The director, Radley Metzger, went on to make a number of explicit erotic films under the name of Henry Paris… He always has extremely detailed stories, good acting, and very high standards of cinematography...

Artistically, however, this is perhaps his most complete… His later attempts supplied for entertainment, whereas "Therese and Isabelle" was a study into the nature of youthful eroticism... This is a film.., not porn.

This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!

If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!

It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.

Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.

Highly recommended for all film lovers. I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.

Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.

I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.

I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed. It's heart-warming to see a movie that doesn't bash males. In this one the wife/mother leaves her family to "get in touch" with herself - or pursue her libido. The father stays with and nurtures the kids, letting neither his work nor his love life interfere with his love of and responsibility to them. Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families. Daniell Steel's Daddy, what a refreshing story. This movie glorified the importance of the family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children. How rare is that? In these times of "Heather has two Mommies" (or what ever, you fill in the blanks) it is easy to see why this theme is not for everyone. With the father's roles being prominent I was hoping this would be another Daniell Steel Saga. How disappointing to have it end. Every character was important and did a fabulous job carrying their role. I would have loved to see each character develop over the years. I loved this movie, it is one I will defiantly watch every time it's on. Good story, good acting, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, but no obtrusive sex or bad language. Yes it touched my heart. Warning, get the Kleenex ready. What I find sad is that this side of family life is rarely depicted today in our entertainment, be it Television or. Movie's. Daniell if your listening, You Go Girl, give us more. I am not a parent, neither am I a male. But I was able to identify with every character's heartaches and pains.

This is a movie teenagers should watch. Maybe that way they will start appreciating the value of family again. I'm sorry for those that don't understand the value of love, family and friendship.

It was very interesting to watch Patrick Duffy in a different role than that of Bobby Ewing. And it is great to see a 19 year old Ben Affleck giving his best in a moving and sincere performance. He showed at an early age, that he is capable of heartfelt drama. He should be offered more serious roles. Note Hollywoodland... his first serious role in years and he went out and won Best Actor at the Venice Festival in 2006.

This movie can be appreciated by people of all ages. Maybe shouldn't be watched by children under 10 because they might get scared that the same may happen to their families, but I recommend it to the entire family.

I bought this movie on DVD and have watched it with friends many times. Because it portrays the values that are important in life. Every once in a while the conversation will turn to "favorite movies." I'll mention Titanic, and at least a couple people will snicker. I pay them no mind because I know that five years ago, these same people were moved to tears by that very movie. And they're too embarrassed now to admit it.

I just rewatched Titanic for the first time in a long time. Expecting to simply enjoy the story again, I was surprised to find that the movie has lost none of its power over these five years. I cried again.... in all the same places. It brought me back to 1997 when I can remember how a movie that no one thought would break even became the most popular movie of all time. A movie that burst into the public consciousness like no other movie I can recall (yes, even more than Star Wars). And today, many people won't even admit they enjoyed it. Folks, let's get something straight -- you don't look cool when you badmouth this film. You look like an out of touch cynic.

No movie is perfect and this one has a few faults. Some of the dialogue falls flat, and some of the plot surrounding the two lovers comes together a little too neatly. However, none of this is so distracting that it ruins the film.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are wonderful. Leo is one of the fine actors of his generation. Wait 'til you see him in Gangs of New York before you call him nothing more than a pretty boy. Kate Winslet was so strong in this film. The movie really was hers, and she held it together beautifully.

James Cameron managed what many believed was impossible by recreating a completely believable Titanic. The sinking scenes were horrific, just as they were that night. How anyone can say the effects were bad is beyond me. I was utterly transfixed.

This film is one memorable scene after another. Titanic leaving port in Southampton. Rose and Jack at the bow, "flying". "Iceberg, right ahead!" The screws hanging unbelievably out of the ocean. The screams of the doomed after she went down. And that ending that brought even the burliest man in the theater to tears.

The music, which has also been a victim of the film's success, was a key ingredient. James Horner's score was simply perfect. And the love theme was beautiful and tragic. Too bad Celine Dion's pop song version had to destroy this great bit of music for so many.

I confess, I am a Titanic buff. As such, I relished the opportunity to see the ship as we never got to see it -- in all its beauty. Perhaps watching it sink affected me more than some because I've had such an interest in the ship all my life. However, I doubt many of those I saw crying were Titanic buffs. I applaud Cameron for bringing this story to the masses in a way that never demeaned the tragedy. The film was made with such humanity.

Another reviewer said it better than I ever could: Open up your hearts to Titanic, and you will not be disappointed. To all the miserable people who have done everything from complain about the dialogue, the budget, the this and the that....who wants to hear it? IF you missed the point of this beyond-beautiful movie, that's your loss. The rest of us who deeply love this movie do not care what you think. I am a thirthysomething guy who has seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one stands in its own entity, in my book. It was not supposed to be a documentary, or a completely factual account of what happened that night. It is the most amazing love story ever attempted. I know that it is the cynical 90's and the millennium has everyone in a tizzy, but come on. Someone on this comments board complained that it made too much money! How lame is that? It made bundles of money in every civilized country on the planet, and is the top grossing film in the planet. I will gladly side with the majority this time around. Okay, cynics, time to crawl back under your rock, I am done. I avoided watching this film for the longest time. Long before it was even released I had dismissed it as an over-hyped, over-blown, overly romanticized piece of Hollywood schmaltz, and I wanted nothing to do with it. I never watched it in the theatre. I shook my head in disbelief at the 11 Academy Awards - even though I had never seen it. Then I was asked to be a judge at a high school public speaking contest. One of the girls spoke about this movie. "It was so great," she said. "You really felt like you were on the ship." "Nonsense," I thought. I shared my feelings with my fellow judges. One looked at me and said, "you might be right, but if she liked the movie that much maybe she'll want to learn more about the real Titanic. The movie must have done something right to get her so interested." "Well, maybe," thought I. Then it finally appeared on Pay TV. "OK," I thought, "I'll give it a look see." I didn't want to like it - and I didn't. I loved it! What a great movie.

Where to start? First - the directing. My high school public speaking contestant was right. James Cameron does a superb job of creating an almost "you are there" type of atmosphere. The gaiety of life aboard the most elegant ship in the world. The nonchalance as news of the iceberg first spreads; then the rising sense of panic. You don't just watch it; you really do feel it. Then - the performances. The lead performances from Kate Winslet (as Rose) and Leonardo DiCaprio (as Jack) are excellent - Winslet's being the superior, I thought, but both were good. They had their rich girl/poor boy characters down to a perfect "t" I thought. In my opinion, though, stealing the show was Frances Fisher as Rose's mother. She was perfect as the snobby aristocrat, and you could feel the fear and loathing she felt every time she looked at Jack. Then - the details. I'm no expert on the sinking of the Titanic, but I have a reasonable general knowledge, and this film does a super job of recreating the historical details accurately and then weaving them seamlessly around the fictional romance. Very impressive, indeed. Then - the song. Who can watch this movie and not be taken with Celine Dion's performance of "My Heart Goes On."

Problems. Well, the romance was perhaps too contrived, in the sense that I just don't accept that Jack could have moved so effortlessly from steerage to first class. (I know he was invited the first time; but he seems to keep getting into first class without being stopped until he's been there for a while.) The realities of the separation of the social classes were much more realistically portrayed, I thought, when the steerage passengers were going to be left locked down there after the ship hit the iceberg while the first class folks got to enjoy half empty lifeboats.

A minor quibble, though. This is truly an excellent movie. My only regret is not seeing it in the theatre, where I think it would have been so much more impressive.

9/10 I find it so amazing that even after all these years, we are STILL talking about this movie! Obviously this movie wasn't THAT bad or else people wouldn't even BOTHER to talk about it. I personally enjoyed this film immensly, and still do! I guess this film isn't for everyone, but it certainly did touch the hearts of many.

As for those that think that this film is "overrated" or "over-hyped"...well, we only have the movie-going public to thank for that! lol* You see, it's not CRITICS/article writers that make a film "HUGE" or a "HIT" with the general movie-going public. PEOPLE make the film a huge success. With Titanic, everyone was in awe. Let's face it, a film like this had never been made before. At least not with the type of special effects needed to really capture the essence of the ship actually sinking. This film is so accurate that even James Cameron timed the actual sinking of the ship in the film with the REAL sinking that fateful day in April 1912. Even the silverware for goodness sakes matched!

Give this movie a break you guys! The critics thought this movie would sink BIG time! When this movie actually came out and people started hearing by WORD OF MOUTH (which is the BEST form of advertisement mind you) that this was a good/decent/movie worth seeing, then everyone started flocking to the theaters in droves to see this movie...not once, not twice, but maybe 3 times and more! So, I really wouldn't say that this movie was "overhyped"...at least not like the buildup for the MATRIX reloaded or the HULK is being "overhyped". ha! Critics didn't even think that Titanic would make enough money to cover Cameron's gigantic film budget that it took to make this mammoth of a film. However, the films money took care of that 200 million budget and MUCH more!

Personally, I LOVE this film. However, this film might not be for everyone. DOn't say that this film sucks just because of romance though! THat is the most sexist thing I've ever heard! Disliking a movie just because it has romance in it! The story was sweet. The dialogue could have been better, but let's face it...the REAL star of the movie wasn't Leo or Kate...it was that GIGANTIC Ship! I think all of the actors including DiCaprio and Winslet did a fine job. It's not thier best work (I've seen much BETTER work from both of them) but it wasn't the WORST I've seen on screen before. Give them a break!

Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.

The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.

Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.

A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.

Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.

Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.

This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages. James Cameron's 'Titanic' is essentially a romantic adventure with visual grandeur and magnificence, a timeless tragic love story set against the background of this major historical event... It's an astonishing movie that exemplifies hope, love and humanity...

Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific on screen with big charisma... Conveying passion, trust, insouciance and ingenuity, he's a free-spirited wanderer with artistic pretensions, and a zest for life...

Kate Winslet is absolutely lovely as the confused upper-class teen engaged to a nasty rich guy who finds herself, one night, plunged to the depths of despair...

Billy Zane is an arrogant racist, abusive and ultra rich who would lie, cheat, steal, bribe with money or even use an innocent young child to escape defeat... He keeps a 56 carat blue diamond worn by Louis XVI...

Kathy Bates is the legendary unsinkable Molly Brown, the richest woman in Denver, who is a lot less uptight than the other rich folk on the ship...

Frances Fisheris is the impecunious cold snobbish mother who, deathly afraid of losing her social stature, forces her daughter to become engaged to marry a rich, supercilious snob...

Victor Garber is the master shipbuilder, the real-life character who attempts to fix time, to measure it, in a sense, to make it into history...

Jonathan Hyde is the White Star Chairman who wants the Titanic to break the Trans-Atlantic speed record, in spite of warnings that icebergs may have floated into the hazardous northern crossing...

Bill Paxton is the opportunistic undersea explorer in search for a very rare diamond called the "Heart of the Ocean."

Gloria Stuart is the 101-year old woman who reveals a never-before told love story... The nightmare, the horror and the shock are imprinted upon her deeply lined face...

'Titanic' is loaded with luminous photography and sweeping visuals as the footage of the shipwrecked Ocean liner lying motionless on the ocean floor; the incredible transformation of the bow of the sunken 'Titanic' that takes the viewer back to 1912, revealing the meticulously re-created interiors; the first sight of the Titanic steamed steadily toward her date with destiny; the Titanic, leaving the Southampton dock, and some dolphins appear jumping, racing along in front of the luxurious ship; DeCaprio and Winslet flying at the ship's front rail in a gorgeous magic moment; the intertwining of past and present as Jack was drawing Rose on his paper, the camera zooms closely on young Rose's eye, only to transform its shape into Gloria Stuart's aged eye...

Chilling scenes: Titanic's inevitable collision with destiny; James Cameron—in one of the most terrifying sequences ever put on film— takes us down with the Titanic, finally leaving us floundering in the icy water, screaming for help that never comes...

Winner of 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, James Cameron's "Titanic" is a gigantic epic where you don't just watch the film, you experience it! The visual effects are amazing, like no other film's... The decor is overwhelming... James Horner's music intensifies the emotions... The whole movie is hunting and involving, filled with a wide range of deep feelings...

It's truly a moving tribute to those who lost their lives on that unfortunate ship... Back in 1997, do I remember that year: Clinton bans cloning research, the unfortunate death of Princess Diana, the Marlins won the world series and a woman gave birth to septuplets. This was also the big year in the release of Titanic, one of the biggest films of all time: a tale about the ship of dreams, about a boy and a girl who fall in love but are torn apart by their social class and at the height of their emotional commitment the ship meets with disaster. I don't think anybody could have expected Titanic to be as HUGE as it was, the movie was bigger than life and had millions of fans, 85% of them being teenage girls, I was 12 years old at the time, and of course saw the movie multiple times. It was the film that made me believe that the love that Jack and Rose shared was so real and beautiful. At the time I felt that Titanic could do no wrong, of course I grew up and didn't watch the film since I was 14, a couple years ago I saw the film on DVD for 5.99 and figured that it was a good price and to see what I thought about the movie now. Was it worth the hype? Was it really the best movie of all time? Was that Leonardo's real nose? OK, I know that's silly to say, but I did re-watch the film. Being completely honest here, Titanic is a great movie, best movie of all time, no, just depends on your idea of a good movie, but Titanic delivered in romance, humor, disaster, emotions and never let us go on this maiden voyage.

The film starts with Brock Lovett and his team exploring the wreck of the RMS Titanic, searching for a necklace set with a valuable blue diamond called the Heart of the Ocean. Unsuccessful, they instead discover a drawing of a young woman reclining nude, wearing the Heart of the Ocean, dated the day the Titanic sank. 101-year-old Rose Dawson Calvert learns of the drawing, and contacts Lovett to inform him she is the woman in the drawing. She and her granddaughter Elizabeth "Lizzy" Calvert visit Lovett and his skeptical team on his salvage ship. When asked if she knew the whereabouts of the necklace, Rose Calvert recalls her memories aboard the Titanic, revealing for the first time that she was Rose DeWitt Bukater. In 1912, the upper-class 17-year-old Rose boards the ship with her fiancé, Cal Hockley and her mother, Ruth DeWitt Bukater, both of whom stress the importance of Rose's engagement to Cal since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts: while they have the outward appearance of the upper-class, Rose and her mother are financially broke. Distraught and frustrated by her engagement to the controlling Cal and the pressure her mother is putting on her to go through with the marriage, Rose attempts suicide by jumping from the stern. Before she leaps, a drifter and artist named Jack Dawson intervenes. Jack and Rose strike up a tentative friendship as she thanks him for saving her life, and he shares stories of his adventures traveling and sketching; their bond deepens when they leave a stuffy first-class formal dinner of the rapport-building wealthy for a much livelier gathering of Irish dance, music and beer in third-class. But after Cal's servant informs him of Rose's whereabouts', Rose is forbidden from seeing Jack again. However, after witnessing a woman encouraging her seven-year-old daughter to behave like a "proper lady" at tea, Rose defies him and her mother, asking Jack to sketch her nude and wearing only the Heart of the Ocean, an engagement present from Cal. After a beautiful moment together in the very first backseat fun time, they go to the deck of the ship.

They then witness the ship's fatal collision with an iceberg. After overhearing the ship's lookouts discussing how serious the collision is, Rose tells Jack they should warn her mother and Cal. Meanwhile, Cal discovers Rose's nude drawing and her taunting note in his safe, so he frames Jack for stealing the Heart of the Ocean by having Lovejoy plant it in Jack's pocket. Upon learning Cal intends to leave Jack to die below deck, Rose runs away from him and her mother to rescue him. Jack and Rose return to the top deck. Cal and Jack, though enemies, both want Rose safe, so they persuade her to board a lifeboat. But after realizing that she cannot leave Jack, Rose jumps back on the ship and reunites with Jack in the ship's first class staircase. Jack and Rose return to the top deck, the lifeboats have gone, and the ship finally goes down into the freezing Atlantic taking Jack and Rose down.

So does Titanic live up to it's hype? I still say that this is a great movie to watch, I think that there were and still are quite a few haters that for some reason just want to trash the movie because it had won a ton of awards and everyone was in love with the movie. But it has great acting, amazing effects, a well-written story and still looks flawless. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this movie didn't get a lot of hype just because of Leo's baby face or Kate's amazing ability to cry on sight, this film is something special. It will always hold a special place in my heart, it has too seeing that I saw this film 8 times in the theater when it was released. But all that aside, I do recommend this movie, it's a great one and sure to go down in the classics one day.

10/10 For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one. Titanic is a classic. I was really surprised that this movie didn't have a solid ten, overall in the IMDb user rankings. Maybe, it's just cool to not give Titanic credit nowadays, but when it was first made it was really something. When the movie came out people flocked to the theaters. When it came out on video my sister and i would watch it twice a day for a month. It was safe to say we were obsessed and for good reason. Some of the disaster scenes were hard to forgot, like the frozen baby, or the guy who committed suicide after killing someone in the unruly crowd. Many people died on that ship, and to convey that on film with the immediacy and emotion it needed is a hard challenge that James Cameron stepped up to. And let's not forget the amazing romance between Jack and Rose. Whether or not their relationship was a figment of someone's imagination it was lovely. They barely knew each other, but they would die for each other. They trusted each other. They sure as hell are giving Romeo and Juliet a run for their money. "I'll never let go, Jack." Titanic is a great film down to it's very core. It is a powerful story told through brilliant acting, excellent cinematography, beautiful music, and a crew full of hard and dedicated workers. It really blows my mind when someone says they hate this movie. Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.

When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.

And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.

Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.

I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.

I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.

I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events. The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.

Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.

The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!! Titanic is a long but well made tragic adventure love story that takes place during the ill-fated voyage on the unsinkable ship. Writer/Director James Cameron has done a great job of making this movie about a fictional love story between two very different people and combining that with the real event of the Titanic that sunk after hitting an iceberg on April 15, 1912 claiming thousands of lives who perished in the icy freeing waters of the North Atlantic. The two leads in the film are great in their roles including Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. They make for a good on-screen couple. DiCpario and Winslet also had genuine chemistry together which made the romance that eventually blossoms between them that much more believable. They both showed real talent when this one came out and both of them have continued to show just that in their most recently films as well. The rest of the supporting cast including Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher, Jonathan Hyde, and Bill Paxton in a small role are equally impressive as their characters who help bring them to life in this film. The love story, the action, suspense, and the special effects are magnificent done especially for that time. The horror of the situation the characters were in felt so real because it really happened making you want most of them to survive this life and death situation. The pacing was a little slow at times and it was a little long but the rest of the movie made up for it's few flaws. Titanic makes for a great date movie which is sure to make some girls cry almost every time they watch it. The fact that this really happened definitely added to the movie making you feel sorry for all the lives lost when the Titanic sunk into the Atlantic after hitting an iceberg. Overall Titanic is a tragic heartbreaking story about two people who fall in love while on the ill-fated ship thats brought to life by the exceptional performances from the cast especially DiCaprio and Winslet who definitely make this movie worth the time to watch. I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.

So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox. The movie Titanic makes it much more then just a "night to remember." It re writes a tragic history event that will always be talked about and will never been forgotten. Why so criticised? I have no idea. Could/will they ever make a movie like Titanic that is so moving and touching every time you watch it. Could they ever replace such an epic masterpiece. It will be almost impossible.

The director no doubt had the major impact on the film. A simple disaster film (boring to watch) converted to an unbelievable romance. Yes I'm not the Romance type either, but that should not bother you, because you will never see a romance like this. Guaranteed! Everything to the amazing effects, to the music, to the sublime acting.

The movie creates an amazing visual and a wonderful feeling. Everything looks very real and live. The legend herself "TITANIC" is shown brilliantly in all classes, too looks, too accommodation. The acting was the real effect. Dicaprio and Winslet are simply the best at playing there roles. No one could have done better. They are partly the reason why the film is so great.

I guess it's not too much to talk about. The plot is simple, The acting is brilliant, based on a true story, Probably more then half of the consumers that watch the film will share tears, thanks to un imaginable ending which can never be forgotten. Well if you haven't seen this film your missing out on something Hesterical, and a film to idolise for Hollywood. Could it get better? No. Not at all. The most moving film of all time, don't listen to people, see for yourself then you will understand. A landmark. (don't be surprised if you cry too) I loved this movie since I was 7 and I saw it on the opening day. It was so touching and beautiful. I strongly recommend seeing for all. It's a movie to watch with your family by far.

My MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, prolonged scenes of disastor, nudity/sexuality and some language. Previously, I wrote that I loved "Titanic", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.

Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0.

In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in "Titanic". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for "Titanic", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)

Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of "Titanic" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical "bombs" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). "Heaven's Gate" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). "Big Top Pee-wee" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). "Cat People" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). "Blind Date" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH "TITANIC"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN "TITANIC", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, "Titanic" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.

Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?

What's inexplicable? Firstly, the hatred towards this movie. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but gimme a break, it got 11 oscars for a reason, it made EIGHTEEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for a reason. It's a damn good movie. Which brings to the other inexplicable aspect of it. I have no idea whatsoever why this movie left such an impression on me when I saw it in theaters. I've rewatched it on TV and video, and it had none of the impact it had when I saw it on the big screen (twice, or maybe three times, actually). But that might be it, the appeal of it. It's a Movie, yes, capital M there, it's an Epic, it's a spectacle in the order of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur. Now, Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind seem kinda hokey to me, with the hammy acting and excessive melodrama. Not that Titanic has none of that. Well, the acting was actually very good. The melodrama was quite heavy-handed at times.

But the reason Titanic works is that it's such an emotional ride. I usually enjoy movies that stimulate the mind, or give me a visual thrill. This movie isn't exactly dumb, but it's not cerebral at all. The visual thrills are simply means to an end, to fuel the emotions of the audience. I didn't cry when Bambi's mom died, I don't react to tearjerkers. But this is a tearjerker to the power of ten million, an emotional rollercoaster that, if it were a regular one, would make Buzz Aldrin scream like a little girl. And I'm sure that if you see it on video and have decided that you hate it, and have a ready supply of cynicism, then you can thoroughly dislike this movie. But if you let that disbelief suspend just a bit, if you give this epic melodrama the benefit of the doubt, you'll enjoy it completely. And look at the top ten grossing films of all time. Is a single one of them bad? Is a single one of them worth a score of 1 out of 10? No, not even The Phantom Menace. And this movie made 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. It can't be bad. Not possible. 10/10.

p.s. how can anyone even consider comparing this to spiderman? spiderman was a fun movie, but it was a total 9/11 kneejerk that caused it to gross as much as it did. it simply wasn't anything all that special. no one will remember it in 50 years. but i'm pretty sure Titanic will be remembered. Why do people bitch about this movie and not about awful movies like The Godfather. Titanic is the greatest movie of the 21st Century.With great acting,directing,effects,music and generally everything. This movie is always dumped by all because one day some one said they didn't like it any more so most of the world decided to agree. There is nothing wrong with this movie. All I can say is that this movie, not only being the most heavily Oscar Awarded movie of all time, the most money ever made ever and sadly one of the most underrated movies I've ever seen. Apart from that it is truly the best movie of all time. The only movies that come close to being like all the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything by the masters Hitchcock or Spielberg or Tim Burton. These are all good movies and directors but none match up to James Cameron's Masterpiece TITANIC. When I saw this movie I was stunned by what a great movie it was. This is the only movie I think I would ever give a 10 star rating. I am sure this movie will always be in my top 5.

The acting is superb. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett are at their best. I don't think anyone could have a better job than Kate.

If it is a rainy day and you can't decide what to rent, well, this is the one. You will love all the acting, special effects, and much much more.

If you have not seen this movie go rent or buy it now!!! You won't regret it.

Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%. Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost. This has got to be a unique twists of two genres of ever seen. The giant monster movie genre with the living mummy movie genre. This unique blend makes for a unique and compelling story. The casts is outstanding, including TOM BOSLEY who as far as I know never has been in a horror movie before, ever. The effects are impressive and the idea of a giant mummy filled with smaller mummies is a cool one. My one complaint, I just wish we saw more of the giant mummy, but other then that I think they did a great job. The dialog, the characters and the story was perfect. The acting was wonderful. This has got to be the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. You heard me, the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. I give THE FALLEN ONES 9 OUT OF 10. There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.

For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).

I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy. After seeing several movies of Villaronga, I had a pretty clear opinion about him -- he concentrates too much on the personal aspect of the characters, forgetting about a rhythm of the movie. That is why, though having good critics, his movies never caught the broad audience attention. In ARo he follows the same line, but really improved on the rhythm, especially in the end of the movie. Frankly speaking, I slept through the first part, cause though the first part gives necessary information, it is really slow. Nevertheless the second part is absolutely marvelous and makes the whole movie the best movie ever made by Villaronga.

Recommended. Aro Tolbukhin burnt alive seven people in a Mission in Guatemala in the 70's. Also he declared that he had murdered another 16 people (he used to kill pregnant women, and then he set them on fire).

This movie is a documentary that portraits the personality of Aro through several interviews with people that got to know him and through some scenes played by actors based on real facts.

"Aro Tolbukhin" is a serious work, so analytical, it's not morbid at all. Such a horrifying testimony about how some childhood trauma can turn a man into a monster.

*My rate: 7/10 This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "Dance of Death" (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, "The Cat and the Canary", "The Old Dark House", "Night of Terror" and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.

Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.

Dan Basinger 8/10 The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of "Tintorera" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot. When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.

If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).

So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).

2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.

3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).

Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of "tension and release" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.

4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.

In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben This Night Listener is better than people are generally saying. It has weaknesses, and it seems to be having a genre identity crisis, no doubt, but I think its creepy atmosphere and intriguing performances make up for this. The whole thing feels like one of those fireside "this happened to a friend of a friend of mine" ghost stories. One big complaint about the movie is the pacing: but the slow and sometimes awkward pacing is deliberate. Everything that unfolds in this movie is kept well within the realm of possibility, and real life just sort of plods along—no? So there are no flashy endings or earth-shattering revelations, no "showdown" scenes. Thank Heaven. You have to get into the zone when watching this movie, forget your reservations and your expectations of what makes a (conventionally)good movie. Williams isn't terrific, but he easily meets the needs of the story, plus his character is supposed to be somewhat generic ("No One") as he is the Everyman, the avatar by which we ourselves enter the story. Toni Collette's performance should be nominated for an Oscar (even if she maybe shouldn't win it). Give it a shot. For quality and content alone, The Night Listener is surely in the top twenty percent of movies coming out these days. I absolutely LOVED this film! I do not at all relate to all the other comments I have read about it. I was COMPLETELY enthralled through every second!

I found the story gripping, the acting intense, and the direction spot-on. I would literally jump every time the phone would ring close to the end of the movie. Even though there was nothing "scary" about the story itself, I was soundly on edge through the whole movie - and for the rest of my evening.

I found that there were so many perfect choices made...the casting, the script, the little bits of humor sprinkled in it. There were so many points where the film could've gone for the cheap thrill, but it never did, and that for me put this movie above so many of the mediocre thrillers that have come out lately...and for the last number of years. If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.

Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.

One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort. Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself.

He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.

Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with. The Night Listener held my attention, with Robin Williams shining as a New York City radio host who becomes enamored with his friendship with a 14 year old boy (Rory Culkin) who is very ill. Williams has never met the boy in person, as they have only been in contact by talking on the telephone. However, Williams' ex-boyfriend (nice job from Bobby Cannavale) raises doubt about the boy, which prompts Williams to arrange a meeting with him in person. What follows makes a permanent impact on Williams in a way he does not expect. I will leave it at that. Toni Collette also stars.

I enjoyed this film, with Toni Collette giving a memorable portrayal of Culkin's adoptive mother. Sandra Oh also starred as Williams' friend. The Night Listener is inspired by actual events, and it has a somber, almost creepy silence throughout. At times it is predictable, no thanks to some of the reviews I read before seeing the movie and just due to logic, but I liked it anyway. I enjoy Williams in roles like this, more so than his comedic characters so that was an added bonus for me. Recommended. 8/10 Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the "reality" of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems. The Night Listener is probably not one of William's best roles, but he makes a very interesting character in a somewhat odd but very different movie. I can guarantee you that you have never seen this kind of movie before. Some people maybe won't like the slow pacing of this movie, but I think it's the great plus of the movie. It is definitely one of the top movies that have come out the year 2006. It has a intriguing performance in a movie with a great content, dramatic feeling. This is no americanized movie. Neither is it a predictable movie. You just feel that it is a movie that has secrets which you have a hard time to determine what the outcome of it may be. This is no excellent movie that has everything, but hell, it's a damn good and very original movie. I enjoyed The Night Listener very much. It's one of the better movies of the summer.

Robin Williams gives one of his best performances. In fact, the entire cast was very good. All played just the right notes for their characters - not too much and not too little. Sandra Oh adds a wonderful comic touch. Toni Collette is great as the Mom, and never goes over the top. Everyone is very believable.

It's a short movie, just under an hour and a half. I noticed the general release version is nine minutes shorter than the Sundance version. I wonder if some of the more disturbing images were cut from the movie.

The director told a story and did it in straightforward fashion, which is a refreshing change from many directors these days who seem to think their job is to impress the audience rather than tell a story and tell it well.

Do not be sucker punched by the previews and ads. It is not a Hitchcockian thriller. See The Night Listener because you want to see a good story told well. If you go expecting Hitchcock you will be disappointed.

My only complaint with the movie was the ending. The director could have left a little more to the audience's imagination, but this is a minor quibble. There are many illnesses born in the mind of man which have been given life in modern times. Constant vigilance or accrued information in the realm of Pyschosis, have kept psychologists, counselors and psychiatrists busy with enough work to last them decades. Occasionally, some of these mental phenomenon are discover by those with no knowledge of their remedy or even of their existence. That is the premise of the film entitled " The Night Listner." It tells the story of a popular radio host called Gabriel Noon (Robin Williams) who spends his evenings enthralling his audiences with vivid stories about Gay lifestyles. Perhaps its because his show is losing it's authentic veneer which causes Noon to admit he is no longer himself. Feeling abandoned by both his lover Jess (Bobby Cannavale) and his and best friend (Joe Morton), he seeks shelter in his deepening despair and isolation. It is here, a mysterious voice in the night asks him for help. Noon needs to feel useful and reaches out to the desperate voice which belongs to a 14 year old boy called Peter (Rory Culkin). In reading the boy's harrowing manuscript which depicts the early life and sexual abuse at the hands of his brutal parents, Noon is captivated and wants to help. However, things are not what they seem and Noon soon finds himself en-wrapped in an elusive and bizarre tale torn right out of a medical nightmare. This movie is pure Robin Williams and were it not for Toni Collette who plays Donna D. Logand, Sandra Oh as Anna and John Cullum as pop, this might be comical. Instead, this may prove to be one of William's more serious performances. *** When I first read Armistead Maupins story I was taken in by the human drama displayed by Gabriel No one and those he cares about and loves. That being said, we have now been given the film version of an excellent story and are expected to see past the gloss of Hollywood...

Writer Armistead Maupin and director Patrick Stettner have truly succeeded!

With just the right amount of restraint Robin Williams captures the fragile essence of Gabriel and lets us see his struggle with issues of trust both in his personnel life(Jess) and the world around him(Donna).

As we are introduced to the players in this drama we are reminded that nothing is ever as it seems and that the smallest event can change our lives irrevocably. The request to review a book written by a young man turns into a life changing event that helps Gabriel find the strength within himself to carry on and move forward.

It's to bad that most people will avoid this film. I only say that because the average American will probably think "Robin Williams in a serious role? That didn't work before!" PLEASE GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE! Robin Williams touches the darkness we all must find and go through in ourselves to be better people. Like his movie One Hour Photo he has stepped up as an actor and made another quality piece of art.

Oh and before I forget, I believe Bobby Cannavale as Jess steals every scene he is in. He has the 1940's leading man looks and screen presence. It's this hacks opinion he could carry his own movie right now!!

S~ You know, Robin Williams, God bless him, is constantly shooting himself in the foot lately with all these dumb comedies he has done this decade (with perhaps the exception of "Death To Smoochy", which bombed when it came out but is now a cult classic). The dramas he has made lately have been fantastic, especially "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo". "The Night Listener", despite mediocre reviews and a quick DVD release, is among his best work, period.

This is a very chilling story, even though it doesn't include a serial killer or anyone that physically dangerous for that matter. The concept of the film is based on an actual case of fraud that still has yet to be officially confirmed. In high school, I read an autobiography by a child named Anthony Godby Johnson, who suffered horrific abuse and eventually contracted AIDS as a result. I was moved by the story until I read reports online that Johnson may not actually exist. When I saw this movie, the confused feelings that Robin Williams so brilliantly portrayed resurfaced in my mind.

Toni Collette probably gives her best dramatic performance too as the ultimately sociopathic "caretaker". Her role was a far cry from those she had in movies like "Little Miss Sunshine". There were even times she looked into the camera where I thought she was staring right at me. It takes a good actress to play that sort of role, and it's this understated (yet well reviewed) role that makes Toni Collette probably one of the best actresses of this generation not to have even been nominated for an Academy Award (as of 2008). It's incredible that there is at least one woman in this world who is like this, and it's scary too.

This is a good, dark film that I highly recommend. Be prepared to be unsettled, though, because this movie leaves you with a strange feeling at the end. THE NIGHT LISTENER (2006) **1/2 Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Bobby Cannavale, Rory Culkin, Joe Morton, Sandra Oh, John Cullum, Lisa Emery, Becky Ann Baker. (Dir: Patrick Stettner)

Hitchcockian suspenser gives Williams a stand-out low-key performance.

What is it about celebrities and fans? What is the near paranoia one associates with the other and why is it almost the norm?

In the latest derange fan scenario, based on true events no less, Williams stars as a talk-radio personality named Gabriel No one, who reads stories he's penned over the airwaves and has accumulated an interesting fan in the form of a young boy named Pete Logand (Culkin) who has submitted a manuscript about the travails of his troubled youth to No one's editor Ashe (Morton) who gives it to No one to read for himself.

No one is naturally disturbed but ultimately intrigued about the nightmarish existence of Pete being abducted and sexually abused for years until he was finally rescued by a nurse named Donna (Collette giving an excellent performance) who has adopted the boy but her correspondence with No one reveals that Pete is dying from AIDS. Naturally No one wants to meet the fans but is suddenly in doubt to their possibly devious ulterior motives when the seed is planted by his estranged lover Jess (Cannavale) whose sudden departure from their New York City apartment has No one in an emotional tailspin that has only now grown into a tempest in a teacup when he decides to do some investigating into Donna and Pete's backgrounds discovering some truths that he didn't anticipate.

Written by Armistead Maupin (who co-wrote the screenplay with his former lover Terry Anderson and the film's novice director Stettner) and based on a true story about a fan's hoax found out has some Hitchcockian moments that run on full tilt like any good old fashioned pot-boiler does. It helps that Williams gives a stand-out, low-key performance as the conflicted good-hearted personality who genuinely wants to believe that his number one fan is in fact real and does love him (the one thing that has escaped his own reality) and has some unsettling dreadful moments with the creepy Collette whose one physical trait I will leave unmentioned but underlines the desperation of her character that can rattle you to the core.

However the film runs out of gas and eventually becomes a bit repetitive and predictable despite a finely directed piece of hoodwink and mystery by Stettner, it pays to listen to your own inner voice: be careful of what you hope for. In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret…" according to film's official synopsis.

You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...

The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"?

Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.

Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.

Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.

******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin Yes its an art... to successfully make a slow paced thriller.

The story unfolds in nice volumes while you don't even notice it happening.

Fine performance by Robin Williams. The sexuality angles in the film can seem unnecessary and can probably affect how much you enjoy the film. However, the core plot is very engaging. The movie doesn't rush onto you and still grips you enough to keep you wondering. The direction is good. Use of lights to achieve desired affects of suspense and unexpectedness is good.

Very nice 1 time watch if you are looking to lay back and hear a thrilling short story! This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.

Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.

I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.

All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.

It rates a 7.7/10 from...

the Fiend :. This is not the typical Mel Brooks film. It was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable. Leslie Ann Warren made the movie, she is such a fantastic, under-rated actress. There were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more, and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so, but all in all, this is worth the price to rent and see it. The acting was good overall, Brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience. Again, Warren was the best actor in the movie, but "Fume" and "Sailor" both played their parts well. This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead). Brilliant over-acting by Lesley Ann Warren. Best dramatic hobo lady I have ever seen, and love scenes in clothes warehouse are second to none. The corn on face is a classic, as good as anything in Blazing Saddles. The take on lawyers is also superb. After being accused of being a turncoat, selling out his boss, and being dishonest the lawyer of Pepto Bolt shrugs indifferently "I'm a lawyer" he says. Three funny words. Jeffrey Tambor, a favorite from the later Larry Sanders show, is fantastic here too as a mad millionaire who wants to crush the ghetto. His character is more malevolent than usual. The hospital scene, and the scene where the homeless invade a demolition site, are all-time classics. Look for the legs scene and the two big diggers fighting (one bleeds). This movie gets better each time I see it (which is quite often). Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.

But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.

Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.

While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found "Life Stinks" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.

Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others. The plot had some wretched, unbelievable twists. However, the chemistry between Mel Brooks and Leslie Ann Warren was excellent. The insight that she comes to, "There are just moments," provides a philosophical handle by which anyone could pick up, and embrace, life.

That was one of several moments that were wonderfully memorable. Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.

But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.

There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.

Very recommended. Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his "friends". Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his "stay" in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!

This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.

Recommended for Mel Brooks fans. I have not read the other comments on the film, but judging from the average rating I can see that they are unlikely to be very complementary.

I watched it for the second time with my children. They absolutely loved it. True, it did not have the adults rolling around the floor, but the sound of the children's enjoyment made it seem so.

It is a true Mel Brooks farce, with plenty of moral content - how sad it is to be loved for our money, not for whom we are, and how fickle are our friends and associates. There are many other films on a similar subject matter, no doubt, many of which will have a greater comic or emotional impact on adults. It's hard for me to imagine such an impact on the junior members of the family, however.

Hence, for the children, a 9/10 from me. This is the kind of film you want to see with a glass of wine, the fire on, and with your feet up. It doesn't require that much brain-power to follow, so is very good after a long day. I would say it is very unrealistic - if you expecting anything serious, then don't bother, but it is very funny. Just the thought that a businessman would go so far as to agree to live in a slum for a while, and then actually get to enjoy it... I would definitely recommend it. "Life stinks" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.

There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.

If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.

This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich.

The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.

Yes indeed, Life Stinks. The most hillarious and funny Brooks movie I ever seen. I can watch and re-watch the tape 100 times. I laugh my a** off and I cry on some moments. It is really good and funny movie, and if you like Brooks - this is a must! In short - Brooks (billionare) gets to the streets as homeless for 30 days in order to win the entire poor district from his competitor. The reality bites, but in the end - it is about warm relations between humans... Hightly recommend! ...this is a classic with so many great dialogs and scenes nobody should miss. Nice story, funny riches-to-rags situations, Mel Brooks is not a bad lead, maybe not perfect but he is funny ;D Don't pay attention to the rating, it's BS. Watch it, then watch something like final destination (2009) and tell me that Life Stinks deserves about the same rating. If you do, I don't think we can be friends XD At this point I recommend the fourth season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" to every Brooks fan ;) Vote 10 against the ignorant opinions of inchworms! I've to make 10 lines here to post a comment? I don't wanna write a book here :P I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.. I have seen other movies of his and they were also funny but this one really stick out in my mind because of the humor.. His I just can't say enough about this movie. I look for it to be on periodically but it never on enough for me. The people playing the homeless people were by comparison up to the funniest standards also. Please put this movie on more often. I can't see it enough..Leslie Ann Warren also was another favorite of mine, ever since Cinderella. I always thought that she wasn't really funny but loved her acting. In this movie she was very funny..and her and Mel did a great job together. They should put more of his movies on TV. I saw the movie recently and really liked it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible authenticity. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a masterful job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.

The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.

Throughout the course of the movie, we get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a brilliant actor. Kudos. Kudos. Kudos. What a scene!

This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...

Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel. I had a chance to see a screening of this movie recently. I believe that it will be in theaters in Canada some time around Mother's Day. If it is in a theater near you... GO! It's not a funny feel-good movie - it's more along the lines of a feel and think movie.

The director does an excellent job of character development - letting you into the heart, mind and hurts of Hagar little by little. At first, her attitudes and behaviors don't make much sense. As her story unfolds, she becomes someone you can understand. As in life... understanding brings empathy. I found her likable by the end of the movie - particularly when she opens up her heart to the young man in the shack by the lake.

Hagar's relationship with her two sons is painful - and reflective of so many of our own experiences in this world. Her youngest son, John, who is full of life and adventure takes the viewer to the very edge of their seat - and into the kind of raw emotion that is so authentic and rare.

It's fun to see Ellen Page acting in this movie. She is so very different than the young woman that she plays in Juno. It gives me an even broader appreciation for her acting ability. If you loved her in Juno, you'll love her in The Stone Angel.

Of course, there is Ellen Burnstyn as Hagar. There is likely no way of expressing the power of acting as strongly as the ability for the actor to make you forget every other character they have ever played. Never once in the course of this movie did I ever think of Ellen Burnstyn - I always and only thought of Hagar. She swept me into her character - hook, line and sinker.

Kari Skogland's capacity to capture on film this renowned book by one of Canada's most cherished authors is impressive. She brilliantly brings to the screen both the stoney and angelic parts of this complex woman, Hagar - the stone angel. What I loved about the on-screen adaptation of The Stone Angel is that it stayed so true to the novel! Great film! As an avid reader, I find the worst thing about film adaptations is that the book somehow gets lost in translation. You can tell the Stone Angel team was careful not to let this happen with this film.

Ellen Burstyn was an excellent casting choice for the role of Hagar and she is definitely a movie superstar. However, I think the Canadian actress (Christine Horne) chosen to play Hagar in her younger years also did an incredible job that warrants great praise. I haven't seen any of Horne's previous work but I will definitely seek it out after seeing her Stone Angel performance.

I heard the Canadian theatrical release of The Stone Angel is going to happen in Spring or Summer 2008. I can't wait to see it on the big screen again! I was very moved by the story and because I am going through something similar with my own parents, I really connected. It is so easy to forget that someone whose body is failing was once vibrant and passionate. And then there's the mistakes they made and have to live with. I loved Ellen Burstyn's performance and who is Christine Horne? She's fantastic! A real find. There is probably the most erotic scene I've ever seen in a film, yet nothing was shown - it was just so beautifully done. Overall the look and feel of the film was stunning, a real emotional journey. Cole Hauser is very very good in this picture, he humanizes a man spiraling downwards. I liked the way the filmmaker approached this woman's life, never sentimental, never too much - just enough to hook us in, but not enough to bog down. As perhaps one of the few Canadians who did not read the book in high school, I thought I would add my comments. Seeing the movie without knowing the story beforehand in no way detracted from the film. The characters have so many complexities, everyone can relate to them in their own way. The brilliance of the adaptation is that everyone is allowed to project their own perceptions onto the lives of the characters, rather than being spoon-fed an opinion. You can love them or dislike them, and still feel the emotional impact of the movie. Wonderful performances by Ellen Burstyn and Christine Horne really bring the characters to life. I'd highly recommend it. I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically. I was surprised at just how much I enjoyed this most thoughtfully delivered drama, which owing to its rather unimpressive 6.6 rating, I nearly missed; as I rarely give the time of day to any movie rated below 7/10. Having said that, I'm so glad I gave Stone Angel the viewing it so very much deserved. And so should you, if you are one of the increasingly rare sensitive, soulful and thoughtful sorts of person left on this earth in living form.

I must say that in many ways (though not all), viz. its themes, execution, style, production etc., Stone Angel very much reminded me of the much praised "The Notebook". I am so surprised that other commentators didn't pick up on the many similarities which repeatedly struck me throughout this movie, so I can only assume that those who've written comments have yet to see the Notebook. They may not share any Alzheimer's theme, yet I can confidently say that if you very much enjoyed "The Notebook" you will certainly find much to engage your time most fruitfully with "The Stone Angel". But even If you've not seen The Notebook, nor read the book on which this move is based, (which, incidentally, I haven't either) you should definitely find much to hold your attention firmly - as long as your favourite genres don't include fast paced action thrillers. This is a movie for thinkers and those who like to reminisce about time's passing, how life changes as the years pass, and what might have happened in one's life as one gazes back through the years.

This bizarrely underrated yet great movie really deserves a rating of approximately 8/10. I can only blame its current lowish rating of 6.6/10 on the 11% of idiots who gave it 1/10. After all it has attracted less than 300 votes at the time of my writing this comment. Nonetheless, if those 11% who gave it the lowest ranking possible were really expecting car chases and explosions why didn't they look... for even a few seconds at the movie's premise and promotional lines? Oh dear... Whatever the world is coming to, don't miss this most underrated gem of a movie - but only *if* you have a brain (i.e., your top ten doesn't include Transformers, Fight Club nor The Terminator). I disagree with Anyone who done't like this movie.

I used to LOVE this movie when I was little and I still do. It's sweet, funny and warms your heart. And It proves that love and friendship can never be destroyed.

And even though it didn't have much of a story, it was still excellent I give it a 10 and two thumbs up.

Oh yeah and it proves that your deepest wish's and dreams can come true. (Tear, tear)

I love this movie, personally if anyone says it sucked than I will say "Shame on you." Because it was a delightful little movie and I'm glad that at least SOME people liked it. People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years. This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's "ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain". Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. "Burning Paradise" put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.

It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.

When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from "Paradise Lost": "Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!" And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.

That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.

Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all. Hello Dave Burning Paradise is a film for anyone who likes Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones. The films main protagonist is most definitely the bastard son of these two strange fathers. As for the other characters well they are familiar transformations of similar action film stereotypes. Where this film is original is in the blending of the traditional Hong Kong movie style with the Hollywood action adventure. Sadly this has not been true of the films he has made in Hollywood. An unusual film from Ringo Lam and one that's strangely under-appreciated. The mix of fantasy kung-fu with a more realistic depiction of swords and spears being driven thru bodies is startling especially during the first ten minutes. A horseback rider get chopped in two and his waist and legs keep riding the horse. Several horses get chopped up. It's very unexpected.

The story is very simple, Fong and his Shaolin brothers are captured by a crazed maniac general and imprisoned in the Red Lotus temple which seems to be more of a torture chamber then a temple. The General has a similarity to Kurtz in Apocalypse Now as he spouts warped philosophy and makes frightening paintings with human blood.

The production is very impressive and the setting is bleak. Blood is everywhere. The action is very well done and mostly coherent unlike many HK action scenes from the time. Sometimes the movie veers into absurdity or the effects are cheesy but it's never bad enough to ruin the film.

Find this one, it's one of the best HK kung fu films from the early nineties. Just remember it's not child friendly.

"Burning Paradise" is a combination of neo-Shaw Brothers action and Ringo Lam's urban cynicism. When one watches the film, they might feel the fight scenes are only mediocre in nature but that doesn't matter, it's attitude and atmosphere that counts. This great film has both!! Always trying to be different than his contemporaries, Lam gives us to traditional heroes(Fong Sai-Yuk and Hung Shi-Kwan)and puts them in a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" setting. However, these are not the light-hearted comedic incarnations that you might see in a Jet Li movie. Instead these guys fight to the death with brutal results. What makes the film even better is that anyone could die at anytime, there is no holding back. Too bad, they don't make films like this more often. I have always been keen on watching Hong Kong movies, but all of them failed to meet my expectations...until now! BURNING PARADISE doesn't contain the flat humor most HK movies have, nor a second rate story line that has been dragged into the film. The story is not complex, but there are never scenes that are just there to fill some "intelligent" space (the only truely intelligent martial arts film I have seen is CROUCHING TIGER, but since Hollywood is involved it is no true HK movie for me). There are some incredible fight scenes in this movie, from the first one(which is one of the coolest I have ever seen, yet so short) to the last main scenes! But mind, there's also a lot of blood that flows (people cut in half, decapitated, etc). The production is pretty good and the special effects show that the fantasy of the writer can be fulfilled even though some shots must be pretty technical (notice: the sheet of paper that he throws and got pinned into a wall!). Yep, it's not Tsui Hark or John Woo that made my favorite Hong Kong film, it's Ringo Lam! And I'm sure as hell going to check out more from this director! Ace. Having seen most of Ringo Lam's films, I can say that this is his best film to date, and the most unusual. It's a ancient china period piece cranked full of kick-ass martial arts, where the location of an underground lair full of traps and dungeons plays as big a part as any of the characters. The action is fantastic, the story is tense and entertaining, and the set design is truely memorable. Sadly, Burning Paradise has not been made available on DVD and vhs is next-to-impossible to get your mitts on, even if you near the second biggest china-town in North America (like I do). If you can find it, don't pass it up. Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).

The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.

It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED.

He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.

10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face. People forget that there have been several King Kong ripoffs- Congo, King Kong Vs. Godzilla, King Kong (1976), they all ripoff one another, but YETI stands on its own. It only borrows one element from King Kong and that is the animal's attraction with one female.

The YETI myth is based on Bigfoot (not like King Kong)and archeologists have been fascinated it, at one time they did exist,but there is no scientific data to prove it.

This movie is hard to find ,but its worth watching it. The first time I watched it was on "Elvira's Mistress of the Dark Shows" in the early 1980's. It sent chills down my spine as a kid, especially when the YETI got mad. I saw it again, around 1:00am on ABC about 2 to 3yrs ago. Seeing it again made me appreciate it more, it has some overall good effects (for its time) and the story involves a mute boy and his dog, and an evil businessman person who wants to kill the YETI for his own purposes. Also the music is pretty cool,its very YETI like. :-)

Gianfranco Parolini and the Yetians creates a great monster like atmosphere.

Vote 7 and half out of 10. YETI deserves the 8 star rating because it is the one of the greatest bad movies ever made. I saw it at a midnight screening in L.A. and people were roaring and cheering at the insanity - this movie is one of those cinematic trainwrecks where you think it cant get any stranger and THEN IT DOES! The millionaire who funds the project to thaw the Yeti looks like Chris Penn and John Goodman both poured into an ill-fitting suit - the guy playing the scientist is one of the worst actors to ever appear on screen - and yes, there is a mute boy (who sorta kinda looks like a girl) and he's mute ever since he survived a plane crash that killed both his parents (hmmm- maybe therapy for the kid??). Then this hottie Italian girl is seen by Yeti (once he thaws - which takes FOREVER) -- and he is instantly in love with her - what is one of the most hysterical things about the movie is that this giant Yeti makes "bedroom eyes" at her - it's like a large Barry White trying to seduce a groupie. In fact, once the large Yeti picks up the hottie and has her against his chest - she accidentally touches the Yeti's nipple and yes, the film takes the time to show his large grey nipple GET HARD!!!! Yikes of all YIKES! Plus there's a collie dog in it because the Italian producer must have heard that American audiences like dogs and he sorta kinda tried to get a Lassie - there's also this insane scene where the Yeti eats a giant fish - keeps the large fishbone and uses it to comb the Italian girl's hair "Gee, thanks Yeti - now my hair is smooth and smells like dead trout. You're the best." This film is more bizarre than something Ed Wood could have ever dreamt up. If you are a fan of classic cinema crap - seek this baby out. Being a giant monster fan, me seeing "Yeti" was an absolute must, especially after hearing so much about it. Thanks to the good 'ol bootleg market I was able to find a copy pretty easily, and was happily surprised upon watching that this flick was actually, dare I say, decent.

Decent for what it is, actually, namely a cheesy giant-monster flick. It kicks in pretty quickly as Yeti is found pretty much immediately, and we get introduced to various characters. They consist of some sleazy ones, some good ones, and a girl who is pretty much one of the most downright strikingly beautiful girls in any cheesy sci-fi film, by far.

Yeti looks like a long-haired guy straight out of the original Woodstock concert, and really, he's not that bad of a dude, especially after being introduced to the world in some kind of funky cage-like thing. Godzilla he is not - despite his rude awakening, he doesn't even rampage (actually he rarely destroys anything in the whole picture), but kinda just looks puzzled while trying to figure things out. Yeti seems to understand English pretty nicely (my copy was dubbed in English) and he knows who the good guys and bad guys are.

However, we want to see the giant Yeti do his thing, and he's pretty much in the whole movie, and in typical low-budget fashion, he seems to change size a lot depending on the scene and there's even a bunch of the "fake legs" shots of him just standing there.

Yes, the special effects aren't the greatest, but there are definitely some good ones here. A scene where Yeti smashes through a warehouse is done very well, and in another, he uses the windows of a building as "ladder steps" to climb down from the top of it - shattering each window with his foot and often shocking the occupants inside - in one sequence that really looks much, much better than it should in such a "bad" movie.

"Yeti" never stoops as low as say, "A.P.E." does. Actually the only time it even comes close to genuine silliness is when the beautiful girl causes Yeti's nipple to become erect and he lifts his eyebrow in an "oh yeah baby" manner. But even this isn't that bad, and kinda even gets a laugh out of the viewer.

The movie is pretty long for this kind of thing, but surprisingly enough it doesn't get boring - the story is actually good, and just watching this utterly gorgeous actress on screen will make any male viewer happy.

"Yeti" may not be in the upper echelon of giant monster flicks, but it is definitely better than other King Kong '76 rip-offs like "A.P.E." and "Queen Kong" by very far. Most yeti pictures are fatally undermined by a grave paucity of energy and enthusiasm. Not so this gloriously bent, batty and berserk over-the-top Italian-made shot-in-Canada kitsch gut-buster: It's a wildly ripe and vigorously moronic ghastly marvel which reaches a stunning apotheosis of righteously over-baked "what the hell's going on?" crackpot excess and inanity.

A freighter ship crew discovers the body of a 30-foot yeti that resembles a hirsute 70's disco stud (complete with jumbo wavy afro) perfectly preserved in a large chunk of ice. They dethaw the beast, jolt him back to life with electric charges, grossly mistreat him, and keep the poor hairy Goliath in an enormous glass booth. Before you can say "Hey, the filmmakers are obviously ripping off 'King Kong'," our titanic abominable snowdude breaks free of his cage, grabs the first luscious nubile blonde Euro vixen (the gorgeous Pheonix Grant) he lays lustful eyes on, and storms away with his new lady love. The yeti gets recaptured and flown to Toronto to be showed off to a gawking audience. Of course, he breaks free again, nabs the vixen, and goes on the expected stomping around the city rampage.

The sublimely stupid dialogue (sample line: "Philosophy has no place in science, professor"), cheesy (far from) special effects (the horrendous transparent blue screen work and cruddy Tonka toy miniatures are especially uproarious in their very jaw-dropping awfulness), clunky (mis)direction, and a heavy-handed script that even attempts a clumsily sincere "Is the yeti a man or a beast?" ethical debate all combine together to create one of the single most delightfully ridiculous giant monster flicks to ever roar its absurd way across the big screen. Better still, we also have a few funky offbeat touches to add extra shoddy spice to the already succulently schlocky cinematic brew: the vixen accidentally brushes against one of the yeti's nipples, which causes it to harden and elicits a big, leering grin of approval from the lecherous behemoth (!); the vixen nurses the yeti's wounded hand while he makes goo-goo eyes at her, the yeti smashes windows with his feet while climbing a towering office building, and the furry fellow even breaks a man's neck with his toes (!!). Overall, this singularly screwball and shamefully unheralded should-be camp classic stands tall as a remarkable monolith of infectiously asinine celluloid lunacy that's eminently worthy of a substantial hardcore underground cult following. I was around 7 when I saw this movie first. It wasn't so special then,but a few years later I saw it again and that time it made fun,a lot:)

I think the best parts of the film are: Yeti's body language and the 'special effects ' also.

If you wanna watch this movie ,don't wait for a Hollywood made blockbuster,even this film was made from approx. 1000 dollars :)

I've a copy of it.Movie and video version as well(But I don't think it had been ever shown in cinemas)

Watch it,enjoy it!!!Yeti for ever!!! I got a good laugh reading all the idiotic comments for this film,

as it's obvious that those people who criticized the movie never seen it, or were stupid enough to pay to see it.

The best reason to watch was on the Elvira show a few years back. Elvira delivered the movie with as many laughs as one can.

It's an ok monster flick, compared to the hundreds of horrendous American flicks made. Way better!!!! ... and I DO mean it. If not literally (after all, I have not seen every movie ever created!), at least, obviously, among the ones, the many I know.

5.3 ??? The rule of thumb with IMDb is this: sometimes movies rated very highly (for example, the piece of Kannes-Kompetition-Krowned-Korean-Kraap called "Oldboy") can be truly bad. But rarely a movie worth watching is actually rated under 6. This movie, very much worth watching, is. A disgrace.

True, I give it a 10 in protest. The movie is not perfect. Its true rating should be an 8 or a 9. It has some acting flaws (Belafonte especially), the script wanders around, sometimes. However, what we have here is one of the greatest directors of all times, the Czech Jan Kadar, directing two of the greatest actors of all time, the beloved, larger-than-life Zero Mostel and the sublime Ida Kaminska in an acting/poetic/moral tour de force. A pair made in Heaven! It's true that this movie, little flaws apart, does not pander to the average audiences, but those interested in watching an excellent (while, again, not beyond criticism) movie of the incomparable director who gave us "The Shop on the Main Street" (the best movie ever about Holocaust) should not miss this just because some silly IMDb rating system decides that "American Beauty" is better than "The Angel Levine".

It isn't. *some spoilers*

I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.

The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic. The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.

Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.

Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.

Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.

This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.

The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast. Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..

Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..

Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..

This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors.. That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.

All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.

This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.

The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.

There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.

The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.

But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.

It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too. When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...

This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!

THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.

B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer). We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.

This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.

I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement. The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement. The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains. Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.

Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.

What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think "damn I really lucked out finding this movie". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.

I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone. To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected. This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD! Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all. This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots. "Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001) Seldom do we see such short comments written by IMDb filmgoers. Perhaps it's because this lightweight dark comedy entertains and pleases without depth, or are we missing something? I'd watch it again if I had some incentive.

So what's a happenstance? To the French it is "Le Battement d'Ailes du Papillon" Serendipity? Fate? Perhaps it's an event that is the culmination of a series of random happenings. We've all had these (it's called life) but when looked at in this way, you begin to get the feeling that "random" might be more like "fated."

A 'happenstance' in this film might be an occurrence as minor as knocking a few leaves of lettuce off the back of a truck or as major as basing a major life decision on the accuracy of a stranger tossing of a pebble. All these incidents cause other events that ... well you get the picture? Dominoes. Multiply those by 30 characters and an average of 6 each and you have to really stretch your imagination to accept the remote chance that this scenario could happen. And I think that there's a diagnosis for those who believe that life is like this. But then this is the magic world of cinema.

We admit that it is fun to watch the way the writer/director weaves together these unrelated events into a story which enmeshes the lives of these French citizens. If you have a couple of hours and are looking for a whimsical escape, here's the place to do it. Or if you're recovering from surgery and aren't going anywhere anyway, this will engage you while your stitches are healing.

"Happenstance" will not go down as an award winner but it should develop a cult following. Stranger things have happened.

Soren Kierkegaard is attributed with the following: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward." If you looked at the detail in many of your own life experiences (meeting your first love, finding the perfect gift, your last auto accident) you would find a series of seemingly random events leading up to it.

That's the answer! I forgot to bring along an existentialist to explain "Happenstance" to me. This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie. In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.

I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.

Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me.

Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well. REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere........... Although not the best Anime I have ever seen but I enjoyed Lady Death.

I have never read the comic book and just saw this at the video store and decided to give it a chance.

The animation was OK, I got the sense of the 80's anime from it which is what set it off for me. Why everyone else hates that is beyond me.

Character development was fine. I like how they brought the transition from Hope to Lady Death around. for you who don't like it, obviously wasn't paying attention. Lucifer tells you how it happens, and she used his words.

Creamtor was a nice mentor/soldier for her. his dark bruiting style was perfect for this kind of movie.

I think everyone here who has bashed this needs to take another look at it and reconsider. cause everything people have bashed this can be said about everyones favorite anime Vampire Hunter D I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes. I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie. It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.

The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.

Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.

I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death! All i hear about is how poorly the animation is done. It may not be up to par with what everyone expects, but look at it this way. Would you expect perfection in hell? It is my belief that the animation was made dry and gritty on purpose. It was great to see her character transformation in this movie, considering it will probably be as close to live action as we will ever get. I hope for a sequel very soon. If we want live action, i think we may be better off with Chastity or Purgatori. I don't think Lady Death would transfer well to film. But be that as it may, It is my own personal belief that all the naysayers about this movie are DEAD wrong. No pun intended. As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B- I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. "Panaghoy" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the "period" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, "Panaghoy" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's "Oro, Plata, Mata", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's "The Color Purple" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of "Noli Me Tangere". Well it's been a long year and I'm down to reviewing the final film for 2004. Panaghoy Sa Suba (Call of The River) placed second in the recent Metro Manila Film Festival. As expected, it didn't do so well at the box office as it was too artsy for the common moviegoers especially since MMFF is the season where a lot of families go out to see movies.

It was quite intriguing to see a movie that was not in Filipino or English play out in the screen. I thought Cesar Montano did a good job both as a star and director. His great vision and creativity really helped this film. He was also very effective as the lead star and was able to express a wide range of emotions that was required for the film. Also performing well was young actress Rebecca Lusterio. She did a great job portraying Bikay, the younger sister of Duroy. I hope to see her in many more film projects in the future perhaps venturing into other genres. I think that the fact that this film was in her local dialect really helped her.

Some of the camera shots in the film were done very well. The scenery was made breathtaking even though I feel that if a lesser effort would have looked completely different.

In terms of the story I feel that the writers could have delved further into the lives of the lesser characters in the film. I certainly won't be raving about the story of this film. Kudos to Cesar Montano for reviving the Cebuano movie! Panaghoy sa Suba is very good -- it has the drama, the action, the romance, and scene that will make you laugh.

While the story is not that original (a love triangle -- or make a four-cornered-love, Japanese occupation, rebellion, American as lord), its presentation is something cool, especially it uses it original language -- bisaya for the Filipino, nipongo for the Japanese and English for the American.

This movie will go as one of this year's best Pinoy movies.

Go watch this! Joe Don Baker is one of a handful of actors who is often better than his material, and almost always under appreciated. He's been in a ton of films either as a heavy or a hero, and has the type of strong, solid presence that Wallace Beery did half a century before him. Baker can delivery material that would sound ridiculous coming out of another actor, and that's what's so great about him. He really seems to mean what he's saying, regardless of how cliché, obvious or silly, which puts him in a league with Tommy Lee Jones, Oliver Reed and Don Stroud. It's what made the WALKING TALL Trilogy work so well, and that same magic is here in FINAL JUSTICE. This was a substantial hit in theaters and on video in the 80s, and it has aged a lot better than many of the perhaps better known action flicks of the era. By moving the action from Texas to Europe, there's a real timeless quality that doesn't jar you away from the action on screen. To be honest, I've always enjoyed the films of Greydon Clark, who is a no-nonsense director in the same vein as 1970s Clint Eastwood, and this is one of his best. FINAL JUSTICE is one of the lost gems of the late 80s, similar to MAN ON FIRE in its true grit and violence. I suppose if they remake this with The Rock, a whole new audience will come to love it as much as I do. This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however. This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.

The Original Drum and Bass.

There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.

This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.

We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.

At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".

John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.

The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.

To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.

The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details…" on that, okay.

The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!

I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.

Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith. This is the Who at their most powerful. Although before the masterwork Who's Next, which would provide anthems like Baba O'reily and Wont Get Fooled Again. This film shows the group in transition from mod rockers to one of the biggest live bands of the 70's.

Daltrey shows what being a front-man is all about, Entwistle steady as ever.

Moon is great, check out the ongoing conversation with the drum tech, and see him playing "side saddle" whilst having a bass drum head replaced!

Townsend even looks like he's enjoying himself occasionally!

Considering they took to the stage at 2am no one in the crowd was asleep!

There are not many bands these days could produce a set as tight as this and it is difficult to imagine any of the bands of today producing a concert that in 36 years time will be be enjoyed as much as this one. What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing. Uneven Bollywood drama. Karisma Kapoor is excellent as an Indian woman in Canada who marries a friend (Sanjay Kapoor), has a child, and then visits his family in India only to find they are terrorist warlords. Drama and tragedy ensue, and the film becomes a kind of NOT WITHOUT MY BABY styled thriller. Film is compelling, its few song/dance numbers are uninteresting and needless, the gaity of Bollywood song and dance is really out of character for the intensity of this film's drama, at least once we've left the comforting confines of their Canadian love nest – although one number involving a cameo by the stunning Aishwarya Rai is enjoyably provocative, if ultimately misplaced as well. Likewise, the inclusion of Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky drifter who helps Kapoor in her escape from the clutches of the warlord turns what had been a very serious drama into a silly farce, and it only gets back on his feet when his character – and his fantasies about Rai that generate her cameo dance – are dispensed with. His throw-away comic-book dialog and the silliness of his fight scenes detract from the film's primary gripping drama. The cast is nicely supported by Nana Patekar as the warlord, and the elegant Deepti Naval who is outstanding as his long-suffering wife who finally choses to stand up against him in one of the film's best scenes; Ritu Shivpuri and Rajshree Solanki are also very good as Sanjay's sisters in India, and very pleasing eye candy. But Sanjay himself overacts terribly, especially during obvious ad-libs. The directorial style of writer/director Krishna Wamsi is sloppy, rampant with rough transitions and abrupt cuts, although his camera movement is good. The musical underscore is also quite effective, moody, featuring wordless female voice over a small orchestral ensemble (too bad little if any of that made it onto SHAKTI's soundtrack cd, but Bollywood hasn't yet discovered the value of including score along with songs on their soundtrack albums, at least not in most cases). But SHAKTI is Karisma Kapoor's film, all the way, though, and the intensity of her performance once the film switches to India contrasts nicely with the gentle romance with which she engaged with Sanjay in the initial Canadian scenes. Despite the unevenness of much of the picture, Karisma's performance completely sells the film and solidifies its otherwise inconsistent measures. In a strange way, also, I found the story to be another take on the ostentation of royalty I'd noticed in CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER and MARIE ANTOINETTE, both of which I'd seen just prior, although SHAKTI of course is an entirely different kind of film; but the focus on a dysfunctional royal family – here living in the austerity of terrorism-controlled poverty in India rather than the elegance of Versailles or the massive megalomania of feudal China's Tang Dynasty – whose self-serving seeking of power brings ruin upon many others and forces an uprising of one kind or another provides the film with a notable subtext. If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.

I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role.

One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see. The beauty of this film is evidenced in the great portrayal of the power of a mother's love, the exceptional performances, the steady execution and the quite innovative script. The film tells the story of an Indian woman, Nandini, who lives in Canada with her husband Shekhar and little kid Raja. All of a sudden her husband informs her that his family in India (of whom she had not even known) is in troubles and the couple rush to India. When they get into the village, Nanadini is shocked and terrified to witness a very wild rural culture; Shekhar's family, ruled by his cruel, highly cynical and merciless father Narasimha, lives a poor and highly violent lifestyle which is full of murder and terror and where women are subservient and helpless. Nandini starts nagging Shekhar to return home, but he is soon killed by his father's enemies. When she wants to leave, Narasimha refuses to let her take Raja back to India. Here starts the intense struggle which can be called "Nandini vs. Narasimha".

India is not presented in a particularly positive light in this film, but it only shows a very tiny minority of its rural areas, so it may be even correct. The portrayal is in my view fair and not one-sided because the positive side is also presented to an extent. Such a horrifying sight could be shown in a film about any country in the world. The locations are amazing, the music is wonderful, and Krishna Vamshi's direction is aided by very effective cinematography and good editing. One thing that must be noted is the very ear-pleasing background score by Ismail Darbar, it is beautiful. The characters are very well defined though we do get to see both their bright and dark sides in different portions of the film. Portrayed realistically throughout, the film flows well and is an interesting and fairly entertaining watch. Its dialogues are superb and intelligently written, and although the shocking proceedings can be very disturbing at some points, a great deal of positive moments manage to relieve the tension.

The film's biggest strength is the performances. Karisma Kapoor is breathtaking and very believable as Nandini. Her ability to strike a balance between vulnerability and unrestrained emotion is simply incredible. She displays so much intensity, impulsiveness, anguish and determination as the mother who wants to get her son back that this little kid seems to be her own son. Her outbreaks while facing off Nana Patekar which are like volcanic eruptions show us how the simplest of women can become a tigress when it comes to her child. After Fiza, this is her most powerful performance. One of the greatest actors Indian cinema has seen, Nana Patekar is indescribable as Narasimha. He manages to be hateful as Narasimha yet admirable as the actor who plays him. Patekar displays cruelty, wittiness and even humanity with total conviction. He is outstanding. Another great performance comes unsurprisingly from India's most underrated actress, Deepti Naval, who sensitises her character to perfection. Sanjay Kapoor is just adequate and Shahrukh Khan provides great comic relief. Anyway, do watch Shakti - it could have been better, but it is definitely a must-watch. Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of "not without my Daughter"(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most "inspired" movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch. Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done. Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world! A strong woman oriented subject after long, director Krishna Vamsi's Shakti- The Power, the Desi version of the Hollywood hit Not Without My Daughter is actress Sridevi's first home-production. A story about a woman's fight against harsh injustice.

The story of the film revolves around Nandini (Karisma Kapoor) who lives in Canada with her two uncles (Tiku Talsania, Jaspal Bhatti). There she meets Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), falls in love with him and they soon marry. Their family is complete when Nandini has a boy, Raja (Master Jai Gidwani). But their happiness is short lived, as the news of Shekhar's ailing mother (Deepti Naval)makes them leave their perfect life in Canada and come to India. And that's when the problems start. From the moment they reach

India, both are shocked to see the pollution and the vast throngs of people everywhere. They take a crowded train to reach Shekhar's village and when they finally reach the station, they have to catch a long bus drive to his village. The filthy sweaty bus combined with the uncertain terrain makes it a never-ending drive. And unfortunately for them, a frenzied mob that beat Shekhar out of shape for no fault of his attacks their bus. Fortunately, they get shot dead just in time before they can further harm him. After that, they drive to the handing Havel where Shekhar''s father, Narsimha (Nana Patekar) lives with his wife (Deepti Naval). Nandani realized that her father-in-law is in command as soon as she enters the place, but her only solace is her mother-in-law's warm welcome.

Living there, Nandini learns of her father-in-laws tyrannical behavior and realizes that ruthless killing is a way of life for him. The day she sees her father-in-law teach her son to throw a bomb, she loses it and lashes out against him, insisting to Shekhar that they move back to Canada. But terror strikes again when Shekhar is murdered one day, leaving a broken down Nandini alone with her son in this strange land where she is harrowed by a cruel father-in-law. Her fight against this man to save her son is what makes up the climax of this emotional heart-wrenching film.

What sets apart Shakti from most films being made off late is also the rural setting of the movie. The only drawback is Ismail Darbar''s music, which fails to rise above the script. The only saving grace is the sexy item number Ishq Kameena, which has been composed by Anu Malik. Another pat for the director comes because he has extracted some splendid performances from his cast. Karisma Kapoor is the life of the film and has given a moving performance as a helpless mother. She is sure to win awards for this heated portrayal. Second is actor Nana Patekar who is back with a bang with this film. His uncouth mannerisms suit him to the hilt and he's shown his versatility once again with this role. Sanjay Kapoor is the surprise packet of the film with a sincere and effective portrayal that stands up against both the other actors. Deepti Naval too is in top form and her Pr-climax showdown with Nana is praiseworthy. Shahrukh's cameo provides the lighter moments and surely he's been pulled in to get the required star value. Though his role was not really required, he's done it well. Overall, Shakti is a far superior film than most churned out these days and the Pr-release hype is sure to get it a good opening. Shakti is sure to get the critics and audience thumps up. So what if the film needs to be desperately trimmed by at least 2 reels to better the impact. Shakti still has the power to go on without a hitch! This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up! good movie, good music, good background and an acceptable plot. but the main point again as his movies tend to be, the man is the best actor in idia and can turn dust into gold. nana patekar. this may be his second best performance after parinda( others may disagree). although other movies are not far behind. one man that will never ever disappoint you.

good movie although i think shahrukh was a luxury this movie could have done without. you can see in his movies, others try very hard to reach his heights and act out of their skins. but this man is really something elase.

the movie is cool, the music and direction is excellent plot a bit thin but the screen play and dialog again very good. a must watch. I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as "Love's a bitch!") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it. Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like "Laggan" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. "Devdas", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit "Bollywood" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words "defending his Village" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for "Bollywood". All said and done this is one good Movie. De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation). Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... 'De Grot' is a terrific Dutch thriller, based on the book written by Tim Krabbé. Another of his books, 'Het Gouden Ei' was made into the great Dutch mystery thriller called 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing') in 1988. This one is not as good as that thriller (although much better than the American remake also called 'The Vanishing') but there are times it comes close.

Especially the opening moments are terrific. We see a man, later we learn his name is Egon Wagter (Fedja van Huêt), coming from a plane in Thailand. When he picks up his bags it is pretty clear that he is smuggling something across the border. These scenes are perfectly directed, photographed and acted. A kind of suspense is created that you would normally not have in an opening scene like this. Later we see how Egon makes his deal in Thailand with a woman, both stating that they have never done anything like this.

From this point the movie is constantly flashback and flash-forward. We see how Egon, still as a child (here played by Erik van der Horst), befriends a guy named Axel (as a kid played by Benja Bruijning). We learn how they grew up as friends, sort of, and how Axel (as an adult played by Marcel Hensema) became a criminal. Egon in the meanwhile goes to college and settles with a woman. Around this time he sometimes meets Axel but does not really want anything to do with him.

The movie is chronological in a way. It shows Egon and Axel as kids, than as students, young adults, and in their mid-thirties. But from time to time, like I said, the movie goes back to when they were kids and jumps forward again. Every time we see them as kids it explains something that happens when they are adults.

Minor spoilers herein.

The title means 'The Cave', and it is the cave that gives the movie its happy ending, although it is in fact not that happy. Like the beginning, the ending is terrific. The middle part of the movie is entertaining and in a way it distracts our attention of the first scenes, only to come back at that point in the end. It is the editing that gives the movie its happy ending, although we can say the dramatic ending is happy in a way as well. Tim Krabbe is the praised author of 'Het Gouden Ei', a novel that was put on the screen twice ('Spoorloos' and 'The Vanishing'). One of the Dutch writer's more recent works is 'De Grot', a psychological thriller about two totally different men, Egon and Axel, who meet at a youth camp and, surprising enough, become friends for dear life. Egon is a quiet, somewhat dull person, who spends his time studying and writing geography books. Axel, on the other hand, is a charismatic 'party-animal', a heavy drinking criminal whose everyday's concern is to get a woman into his bedroom. From the moment they meet, Axel has a strong influence on Egon, while the latter envies him because he has a good life without really doing anything (such as reading thick books like Egon); ultimately, Egon is even dragged by Egon into illegal practices himself, which leads to a fatal drug transport in a distant Asian country.

After having read the book last year, I was surprised the critics were quite positive about it. In my opinion, the book suffers especially from the complex structure. While Krabbe presents the story as an absorbing portrait of an uncommon relationship between two people, the plot becomes more of a puzzle: the many episodes are not presented chronologically, so that two successive scenes are seldom in the same episode. Because of this, the story feels surprisingly remote: you often need to know a character's background to really care for him or her. Another complaint was the fact that the main characters, Egon and Axel, are a little stereotypical. Egon IS 'the' dull intellectual, while Axel IS his exact opposite. In real life, such one-dimensional people rarely exist; in books and films, they always seem to be there, taking away a lot of credibility.

Despite all this, the film was a pleasant surprise, being much better than the book. The adaptation excels in its beautiful cinematography, humour and acting: Fedja van Huet (Egon) is one of the few Dutch actors who can make you forget he IS acting (which is, in my opinion, the highest an actor can achieve). The drawbacks of the film, however, are the same as the book's: mainly because the characters are one-dimensional, they are so predictable that it becomes annoying. Guess who wrote the script? Indeed, Krabbe himself. It is obvious that this talented director (that's what the movie makes clear anyway) is hampered by a deficient screenplay. Perhaps Koolhoven should just have chosen a better book.

7/10 Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.

As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.

This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever. Friz Freleng's 'Rumours' is an excellent Private Snafu cartoon that warns against spreading panic-inducing rumours during wartime. Produced, as were all the Snafu shorts, to be shown to military audiences as entertaining instructional films, 'Rumours' is extremely imaginative and crams tons of ideas into its very brief lifespan. When Snafu starts a rumour about a bombing, it escalates into an eventual rumour that America has lost the war. This is illustrated brilliantly by way of a long, rubbery piece of baloney and several strange, fictional creatures who come back to haunt Snafu with ever more terrible news about his country's military. 'Rumours' is inventive, fast paced and funny, all of which help to overshadow the rather laboured, "don't badmouth the military" message. It stands up as one of the best of the Private Snafu shorts. Once when I was in college and we had an international fair, the Russian section had a Soviet-era poster saying "Ne boltay!", meaning "Don't gossip!". I "translated" it for the "generation" of TV watchers as "Don't be Gladys Kravitz!" (in reference to the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched").

However, when you see the result of gossip in the Pvt. Snafu short "Rumors", you see that it's not quite a laughing matter. In this case, the perpetually witless soldier overhears something about bombing and immediately assumes that the Axis Powers have attacked the United States. So, he tells it to someone, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and it continues. As in "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming", the story gets blown more and more out of proportion each time, so that when it gets back to Snafu...well, you know what I mean! Yes, it's mostly WWII propaganda - complete with a derogatory term for the Japanese - but I have to say that the Pvt. Snafu shorts were actually quite funny. Of course, since they had Dr. Seuss writing and Mel Blanc providing the voices, it's no surprise that these came out rather cool. Worth seeing. In complete contrast to the opinions of the other review, this film actually was surprisingly good! I reluctantly went to see it and expected to be bored by clichés, obvious jokes and overacting, all of which the trailer had promised.

However, after 5 minutes in I found myself genuinely laughing and enjoying the refreshing acting. With only one 'toilet humour' gag, Over Her Dead Body manages to actually come up with realistically funny scenarios and, without spoiling anything too much, some of the moments involving animals are hilarious.

The staple ingredients of a good film are all there; script, director and actors and compared some other recent attempts at romantic comedy, this film stands tall.

Sure, you aren't going to learn anything or have a spiritual awakening, but if you go with an open mind you will more than likely have a good time! Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it. Look it's Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd in a movie about a dead girlfriend haunting the new girlfriend. It's Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives and the guy who wore "sex Panther cologne" in Anchorman. If you are expecting a Golden Globe nominated movie then you need to rethink how you look at movies. However, if you are willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and want to watch a funny movie then you've come to the right place. The characters are all funny. They work together very well. The real match up is Paul Rudd and Lake Bell. He's as funny as he was on Friends and she was funny and good looking all at the same time. I went with my wife, she enjoyed it and so did I. i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.

overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.

overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it. I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").

The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.

In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call. Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good. This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this. This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.

I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.

Jason Bigg's character was the best though.

Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.

This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.

This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.

Good job in writing. Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs. I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting.

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this.

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence. I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well.

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out. There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that

1/Jesus was blond,

2/the last supper was a huge meal,

3/ he liked playing with the children,

4/His death was for all people and for all time.

The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons. Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.

But....

1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.

I'd love to buy the CD.

Tom Paine Texas, USA This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all. This great movie has failed to register a higher rating than 5!Why not!It is a great portrayal of the life of Christ without the ruthless sensationalism of The Passion of The Christ.Johnny Cash did great things for God which amazingly are shunned and neglected in areas where they should matter most,like our churches.The film itself took less than a month to film as Johnny felt the strong presence of God guiding him through it.Great credit to everyone involved in this overwhelmingly sincere movie which will always be cherished by its fans.At least the Billy Graham crusade rated it highly enough to use it as a prime source of education for new Christians.Thanks Fox for producing it.As Walk the Line proved that it was freakish that this man survived yet alone produced such an underrated masterpiece.Movies are not canonized through popular vote as this production proves! In summary I believe that this film is one of the worlds great documentaries as it is forthright, honestly portrayed and a great witness to the Christian faith! I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.

There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...

Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.

(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...) This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good. I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw "You've got mail" I thought "It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.

It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend! I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.

Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.

Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.

Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.

God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.

This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too. A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch. Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.

Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.

It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.

I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it. A sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths as they prepare for their weddings. The ex-cop writer and the public school teacher fall for each other in this great new york setting, even though they are marrying other people. Maybe a little trite in that the "partners" are both type A personalities, while our protagonists are much more relaxed. Not anything heavy, but it made me smile. And hey for the guys - sell the Natasha Henstridge angle, and the gals - sell them the sappy romance, everyone wins! I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.

But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.

Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders."

The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).

Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.

I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well. Does anyone know the exact quote about "time and love" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul!

I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship.

Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years.

He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.

This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.

I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.

Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE.

Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks! As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you. This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know. But the fun is in the journey.

I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.

The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.

Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry... This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure. Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding. I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.

The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.

I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.

Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future. Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.

Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.

Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.)

But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.

And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)

Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply. A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.

This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.

The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".

Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.

While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3! Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever. I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.

The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons. This is one of the best episode from the second season of MOH, I think Mick Garris has a problem with women... He kill'em all, they are often the victims (Screwfly solution, Pro-life, Valerie on the stairs, I don't remember the Argento's episode in season 1, etc., obviously Imprint). I think he enjoys to watch women been burn, torture, mutilated and I don't know. Never least "Right to die" is one of the best, with good turns and graphic scenes and suspense (specially with the photos from the cell scene, wonderful). The acting is like the entire series, regular I could be worst like "Pro-life" or "We scream for Ice cream". Also I think the plot it could be made for a movie and not just for an episode. The ideology of the series is horrible, killing and terminating women, mutilating animals and on and on... the first season it was better than the second one with episodes like "Cigarrette burns" (The best of all), "Homecoming" (The most funny), "Imprint" (really shocking). What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.

Spoilers here:

Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.

End of Spoiler.

As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour. Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...

This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.

Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...

Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.

Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach. Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.

It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.

I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre.

6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par ! In this first episode of Friends, we are introduced to the 6 main characters of the series: Monica Geller,Phoebe Buffay,Chandler Bing,Ross Geller, Joey Tribbiani and eventually Rachel Green .

We discover that Rachel, a rich girl that is Monica's friend from high school times, left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar, since she discovered she didn't love him. She also decides to live with Monica and become independent from her father,getting a new job as a waitress in Central Perk.

Ross, for the other hand,discovered his wife is a lesbian and lost her for Susan, her partner. (We see him moving to a new apartment during the episode)

Monica, in this episode, makes out (and eventually sleeps) with Paul "the wine guy", who gave her the excuse of being impotent since he divorced his wife. But in reality, he was just deceiving her.

Ps: I just loooove Joey's and Chandler's haircuts in this first season! =) In the very first episode of Friends, which aired 22 Sept 1994 "The One Where Monica Gets A Roommate" there is a song playing as Rachel sits in the window towards the end of the show, the line that plays is: "If you ever need holding".... does anyone know the artist singing or the title of the song? It is seems as if it is a great song....I would love to get a copy of it. Thanks for the assistance. I am looking for the album/cd it is on so I can purchase it.

I have the shows which are available for purchase and enjoy this show over and over again. It just seemed to be believable...thanks for the hours of entertainment you have provided over the years. The pilot is extremely well done. It lays out how the characters bond in future episodes. I don't think anyone could have created a better pilot for this show. It displays remarkable creativity on the writers part. Although not everything was straightened out because it was the very first episode, a lot of events that happen in future seasons were demonstrated in the pilot. An example would be Ross and Rachels future relationship. Even though the nervousness of a first episode appeared, it was overcome by an amazing plot and outstanding cast choice.

Bravo.

A great start to an unbeatable comedy! And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS! Here it is.. the first EVER episode of Friends, Where we get introduced to Control Freak Monica Gellar (Courtney Cox), Newly divorced Ross Gellar (David Schimmer), Hippy Pheobe Buffay (Lisa Kudrow), unknown actor and ladies man (Matt Le Blanc and very sarcastic Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry). This is how the scene starts off until we introduced to the 6th and final friend Spoilt kid Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston).

The Episode is better than most people give credit for, like any new sitcom the first episode isn't always fantastic. The acting in this episode isn't great because the cast cannot identify and arnt really believable in their new characters (apart from Kudrow and Perry- who shine).

Matt Le Blanc- Man, his acting was down right dreadful because until later, he gets more confident, but i think he tries to be funny but at most fails.

David Schimmer- Why does he over pronounce EVERY word? he cannot speak normally! but he became one of the funniest characters in later seasons, but he isn't confident. and i cannot sympathise with him Jennifer Aniston- Looks hot, and does a good job as Rachel Green, but we only see the real Rachel later in the 1st season, Courtney Cox- Looks quite anorexic in this episode, its worrying, she looks totally different now, (more healthily), she acting is a little sketchy but everyones is in this 20 minute pilot! Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry- I'm doing these two together because their comic timing and acting quality was superb, and for Lisa this was one of her first roles and she is so natural as Pheobe (Pheebs) and Matthew Perry is just Matthew Perry playing himself basically! The episode quality does improve later,,, such as the Sets, they looks dark and creepy in this episode and makes them seem unfriendly, the acting is OK, the characters gain confidence with each new scene and i am proud this is the pilot! I hope we see the Friends reunite! cause they will always be there for us! This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!! A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film.

As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past.

I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out. This movie is the first of Miikes triad society trilogy, and the trilogy kicks of to a great start. The movies in the trilogy are only connected thematically, and these themes are actually apparent in all his films, if you look close enough. Shinjuku Triad Society is about a cop trying to prevent his kid brother from getting too involved with a rather extreme gang of outsiders, struggling their way to the top of Tokyos yakuza. The kid brother is a lawyer, and the triad gang is becoming increasingly in need of one, as the movie progresses. The movie takes place in a very harsh environment, and is therefore pretty violent and tough. Miike has done worse, but since this is a serious movie it hits you very hard. As usual there is also a lot of perverted sex, mostly homosexual in this one. The movie is in many ways a typical gangster movie, but with a great drive and true grittiness. If you've only seen Miikes far-out movies (Ichi the killer, Fudoh etc.) this is worth checking out since it is sort of a compromise between his aggressive over-the-top style displayed in those movies and his more serious side, as seen in the other films of the trilogy. And as always with Miike, there are at least two scenes in this that you'll NEVER forget (see it and figure out which ones for yourself).

8/10 Shinjuku Triad Society, albeit from perfect, is a fiercely compelling film for what it tries to depict in its uber-conventional realm. It's a yakuza/triad picture, involving cops versus Japanese &/or Chinese gangsters (mostly Chinese, as the title suggests), but already even in his first technical 'debut', Takashi Miike is already establishing many aspects to films that he would make from here-on in. Social issues like black market trading of precious goods, in this case human organs usually from children; nostalgia for childhood and one's roots, which was especially prevalent in Dead or Alive 2; thumbing-of-the-nose at taboos like gay sex and (satirical) rape/violence towards women; blood-curdling violence. It's certainly not as surreal as some of Miike's most recent films, but this is expected as he's trying out things that he's just starting to learn, following a track record of straight to video programmers. It's got all of those qualities, and it's also, like the films that would follow from it, equally savage and heartfelt, crazy (in spots) and sardonic in its drama, and solid for genre fans.

The story concerns two brothers, one a Chinese orphan raised in Japan, Tatsuhito Kiriya (Kippei Shiina, pretty decent as a Eastwood-esquire anti-hero/hero), who's become a detective, and another, who's become a gangster, or a would-be one. The main arch likely takeover gang comes from Wang (a definite pun on what the gang represents during its spare-time, played by Tomorowo Taguchi as a typical wacko with real terror in his eyes), and his partner Karino (Takeshi Caesar, who's threatening even when just repeating a commandment over and over to a woman who's just had her eye plugged out following a sour deal), who are the ruthless kind to pop up almost organically in a Miike movie. There's some intrigue involving the organ-trading scheme with the gangsters, which Kiriya almost becomes a victim of, and the gang's penchant for gay sex- at least with one little puppet of sorts who does whatever the main gangsters want. It all leads up to vengeance and redemption, qualities that Miike and his writer are trying to emulate from Shakespeare (hence the Macbeth bit with Wang washing his bloody hangs over and over after some gay sex saying "it won't come off").

If it doesn't add up to the same emotional level of impact that a great Shakespeare play would have, it's par for the course of a film like this. Miike's goals are met, though just met, in his low-scale ambitions: a gangster picture with some added levels of harsh familial trouble (the main tension between the brothers comes out of profession and duty to parents), notes on the crueler aspects of underworld crime, and what the realm of unrepentant sex, with both sexes, brings out psychologically in the characters. At the same time, Shinjuku Triad Society also contains more than a few moments of classic biting black-comedy from the Miike oeuvre. Some of it just has to be taken with a grain of salt for what the director does in his outrageousness, like the bit at the beginning with the chair smashing over the face, or the randomness of the "interrogation" as it goes into a very twisted area. There's even a laugh-out-loud line from the young sex-slave after finishing an act on one of the bosses: "Thank you, Mr. Weeny-Burger." Miike and his writer don't have enough here to make the film a full-on dark comedy like Ichi or, of course, Visitor Q, but there's enough to bring some appropriate levity to the darker aspects to the story and characters.

As the first entry of the "Black Society" trilogy, as it's called, I was quite impressed, and it's a fine quasi-calling card from one of the craziest new artists in contemporary cinema. Shinjuku Triad Society: Chinese Mafia Wars is unlikely to get distribution in the West outside film festivals. Why? Could your censors stomach a film where policemen anally rape male and female suspects to get them to talk (and the victims enjoy it) or see an old lady have her eye torn out of her skull? These are just a few of the shocks in store for viewers of this ultraviolent cops and gangsters story. It makes Clockwork Orange which was banned for years in the UK look like a Disney cartoon.

Should you see this film? YES It is fantastic and essential viewing for fans of Asian cinema. The shocking moments are there to illustrate what goers on in the world of these characters. If you like this make sure you catch Dead or Alive which is very similar (barring the insane ending in DOA of course). Great for Japan that they have a talent like Miike working at the same time as Takeshi Kitano. The best chance of seeing this film outside a Takashi Miike retrospective at a film festival is on DVD. If I haven't put you off try hunting for a Hong Kong version on the web as I'm sure it will come out in that country. I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one. While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama.

The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.

A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.

7 or 8 out of 10. The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.

An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.

What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.

--PolarisDiB Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list... I really like Miikes movies about Yakuza, this one I saw about 2 years ago and it really fu**ed my head. Never before seen such a sick and twisted thing. The Story is good and the actors do their thing very well. I haven't seen the UK or Japan version, but I have to say that I believe that the German DVD is a bit censored. If you haven't seen the movie already and live in Germany maybe you better look out for a DVD from the Nederlands or Austria. The I-ON DVD contains a lot of very hard and nasty scenes, but at the showdown I felt that something was missing, about one or two very short scenes.

All in all a good perverted movie with crazy characters and a high level of violence, that's what I like Miike for!! The story of a drifter, his sheep ranch boss, and the boss's daughter is not for all tastes, but it's still very intriguing. It takes place in the beautiful country of New Zealand, amongst the scenery we've come to know so well through other films from this region.

This movie was the first time I had ever seen the excellent Mary Regan, and I've been a fan of hers ever since. The cast also contains Bruno Lawrence, who is probably best remembered by American audiences from the film "Smash Palace". Terence Cooper takes a turn as the ranch owner who pays a little too much of the wrong sort of attention to his daughter (Regan).

Sharply acted, with unforgettably shattering performances from all of its leads. I first saw this movie in extremely edited form on late night television here in America, but believe you me, the unexpurgated version is not to be missed. An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.

Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film! This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.

Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is. "The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr." is the definitive documentary on the life of the man who brought us such movies as "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster", and, of course, "Plan 9 from Outer Space". This exquisite film far exceeds where other documentaries, such as "Look Back in Angora" and "The Plan 9 Companion", failed. It rounds up his surviving entourage, many of whom have passed away since filming, and gives an honest examination of Ed Wood and his work. Nostalgic in the fact that it looks back at the darker corner of yesteryear Hollywood, sentimental in its treatment of the director (down to the haunting music), this documentary is an absolute must-see for anyone who loves the director who so failed in his day. The entire two hours of the film lovingly and retrospectively pieces together Ed's life and untimely death for the viewer. Best watched at 3 am while wearing an angora sweater. I loved this film. Not being a swooning Ed Wood Jr. fan, I prefer to appreciate his "boundless enthusiasm" and acknowledge his shortcomings. His movies are fun, but his personal story is one racked with pain. I hoped, and was delighted to find, that this film would be about understanding his turbulent life, rather than simply heaping him with posthumous praise. From beginning to end, this film evolves from a documentary into a mythology, leaving the cast and the viewer unexpectedly connected to each other and to Ed Wood Jr.

What we get are people who knew Ed Wood the best talking about him from all perspectives, positive and negative, and showing us their character as much as Ed's. We get insight into Ed's personal and professional life: from his romances, to his drinking, to his sexuality, to his friends, to his enemies, and even to his film making.

The film itself is shot in a low-budget way that seems done out of respect for Ed, as if using the techniques of most theatrically released movies from 1996 would be disrespectful (sort of like wearing a nicer suit than the President). The set designer uses a sense of humor and also a great deal of insight when matching each cast member with their background.

Fans will be excited to hear personal testimony regarding Ed Wood controversies, and new comers will be amazed that this man was real. The DVD is full of impossible to find gems ("Crossroads of Lorado" and photo galleries), but the real treasure of this film is the surprisingly engaging and interconnected story.

Ed Wood had a habit of defining people through their association with him (for better or worse), to the point where one woman will go down in history as "Swimming Pool Owner" for once letting him and his friends be baptized in her pool. This ability to define a person's legacy comes through universally, as the most amazing effect of the film is to not only give a well rounded idea of the man that was Ed Wood Jr., but also to give a comprehensive view of the community that he created. Somehow, without ever having more that one cast member being interviewed on screen at a time, the connection that Ed Wood created amongst the various people in his life becomes clear, and the viewer is left with great sense of involvement.

Even the title hints at the B-list horror genre, but by the end, we see that even this is a kindness. What begins as unrelated stories by random people ends with the conclusion that all of the cast will be forever weaved into an unpredictably cohesive fabric that history will bring into haunting unity with Wood's legend.

In many ways a living contradiction, Ed Wood Jr. could not be condensed to a single viewpoint. This collaborative effort is the closest to knowing him that we can ever get. Being itself a juxtaposition of themes, it is at once respectful, provocative, thoughtful, gripping, fun, sad, kind, and fulfilling. I originally caught this back in 1996 in its one week run at a movie theatre. I was under impressed by it and my feelings haven't much changed.

Documentary about the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. covering his life and movies. There are interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. They include: Vampira, Dolores Fuller, Bela Lugosi Jr., Loretta King, Gregory Walcott and Paul Marco. Interviews are mixed with clips from the movies or some bizarre recreations. It is interesting (somewhat) but was this really needed? I've seen all of Wood's films and they're just terrible. Wood had ambitions but not a bit of talent to carry them out. I wouldn't say he was the worst director ever but he's down there. Do we really need a docu on a very mediocre film maker? I do like the fact that they didn't try to make Wood out to be some sort of saint. More than a few of those interviewed (especially Lugosi Jr.) pretty much hated the man and it comes through loud and clear. Also they totally ignore his films in the adult film industry in the 1960s and 70s. Still it's of interest if you're a Wood fan. The best interviews are with Vampira (who tears Wood apart) and Dolores Fuller (a long time girlfriend). When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever. An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld." This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.

The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.

I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.

8/10 Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media. Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released. Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.

Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.

This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public. Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10 This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.

One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.

The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.

(Spoiler warning!)

I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.

I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well. Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.

Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast. I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.

When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.

The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.

Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.

She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...

Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.

This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public. In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.

Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.

Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.

Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.

The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.

Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.

For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."

Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video

Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.

Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.

Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.

Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.

Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.

Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging. A CRY IN THE DARK

A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.

Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.

The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.

While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.

The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.

The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.

The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.

In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.

More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.

... A ... This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.

The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.

'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real.

Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them. Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.

A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.

Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.

This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.

Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.

You will remember this movie for many years.

See it! When the Chamberlain family is camping near Ayers Rock, Australia, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) sees her baby being dragged out of their tent by a dingo and then begins an ordeal that no one should have to experience. For it seems like the dingo story is not believed by the public or the press, and the whole thing turns into a circus. Lindy doesn't help matters either because she won't play to the jury or courtroom, she's only herself, and she's a tough nut to crack, so of course everyone thinks she's guilty because there's a piece of evidence that hasn't come to light. Sam Neill is excellent as Michael Chamberlain, a Seventh-Day adventist pastor, who has doubts about his faith and perhaps about his wife. It's good (or bad) to see that people are just as prejudiced and stupid elsewhere as they are in the States too, because the Australian public doesn't believe the story and the media only fans the flames. Eventually, Lindy is found guilty and sent to prison for a life of hard labor, but years later, a missing piece of evidence shows up and she's freed, but not until after the family's life is basically ruined. A heart-breaking story, very well done, a bit long but well worth seeing. 8 out of 10. I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this. This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking. This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role. Delightful minor film, juggling comedy and detective, romance and drama genres as nimbly as Lt Kenny Williams (Melvyn Douglas) balances his devotion to his girl Maxine Carroll (Joan Blondell) and his duty to the force as an ace detective.

This hodge-podge may not appeal to all viewers today, but in its day, it had something to offer every member of the movie-going family, and the resolution to the rather tired feeling-versus-duty plot is original and refreshing, and well worth the wait.

"The Amazing Mr. Williams" contains what must be among the most outrageous blind dates in film history, and its bright comic repartee sparkles. Ludicrously frocked, Melvyn Douglas delivers some of the best lines: "I'd walk down Main Street in a Turkish towel before I'd let any woman control my life!" And the effervescent Joan Blondell lets her barbs fly with typical aplomb: "Good grief! You look like my Aunt Nellie!'

The crime-solving here is standard fare, although a fine cast of character actors helps bring the material to life.

From today's vantage point, "The Amazing Mr. Williams" is perhaps most interesting for its insightful commentary on gender as a socially defined construct, all the more malleable for its seemingly rigid boundaries. While much of the gender commentary takes place in a superficial battle of the sexes, at times it is both subtle and penetrating, playing out not only in some of the finer details of the film, but in the battle of genres that reaches its culmination in the final scene. What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.

It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.

Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.

The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best. The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed. Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.

Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.

Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.

As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.

Entertaining if a little on the long side.

One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk. The "Amazing Mr. Williams" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point. Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this. A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today. Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended. I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.

So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream…" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.

Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls.

So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.

His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all!

RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.

Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.

So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.

There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-—and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.

Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.

------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above. Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good.

What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.

But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable.

But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie! This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back . This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended. The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.

Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.

If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film. Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly. This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger! Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....

The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.

Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished. Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching. This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!

The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.

The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!

Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively. Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking. The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too. Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar). We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)

This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.

It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold. I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10. Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10 This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more. Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.

In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'. ***Possible spoilers***

I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.

Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here! Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!) It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.

Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.

The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.

The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.

One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.

He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.

The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.

The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.

When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.

The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.

From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.

I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.

Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.

And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.

And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE. You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all. Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion. This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew. This one and "Her Pilgrim Soul" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie "Il Mare" (later remade into "The Lake House". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film. China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.

China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?

If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?

Recommended. As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs! Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.

Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.

Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.

One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.

Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.

Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.

Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.

The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.

Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one. Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.

Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.

Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.

Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.

Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.

Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.

Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.

Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.

So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.

Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two) Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.

If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.

Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.

This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.

On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey). Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best. I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.). As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few. If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds! "Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.

*** out of **** Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10 This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10. Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.

My rating: 8/10 A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see. I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film. I for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.

Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.

I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.

I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.

I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.

A funny film. Well not actually. This movie is very entertaining though. Went and saw it with the girlfriend last night and had to use the "I think there might be something in my eye" routine. The movie is a great combination of comedy and typical romance. Jim Carey is superb as a down on his luck reporter who is given the power to change himself and the city in which he resides. In fact all the characters are great. The movie is not overly funny or sappy, good flick to go see with the wife.

All in All 8/10....note * I am not an easy grader. Thats all from BigV over and out! Fairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as "God") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth. Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars. `Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.

On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy. After a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on "THE DAILY SHOW!"

I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.

My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.

My Grade:

7 out of 10 Bruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent "Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the "awarded films" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.

Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the "hey mom - look how funny I am" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.

I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.

The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.

Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!! WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10. I absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :) This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied. This movie is amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, "Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?" and my humble addition, "May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out." David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10. `The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10 House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all. If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards. Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

*** House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.

I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.

Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.

There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....

House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.

In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie. Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of **** "House Of Games" is definitely not without its flaws- plot holes, stiff acting, final scenes- but they do little to detract from the fun of watching a thriller that so methodically messes with your head. "House Of Games" does almost everything a good thriller is supposed to do. Of course, this is not a huge feat given the fact that we're dealing with the the world of confidence men and the cons they perpetrate. So it stands to reason that we never really know what's going on, even though we think that we do. But that's what makes the film worthwhile for those who are game; a film for which repeated viewings are indulgences instead if necessities.

It has a definite Hitchcock slant to it. The film draws on some similar themes found his 1964 effort "Marnie", considered a misfire when released but now regarded as one of the Master's more thought-provoking works. One could easily consider the idea of Lindsay Crouse's character being the same as Tippi Hedrin's...ten year later perhaps. Both are strong-willed loners, both with compulsive behaviors which compel them to walk too close to the shark pool. As Crouse's repressed, up-tight character says, "What's life without adventure?" Put your Reality Check on a low setting and enjoy swimming with the sharks! This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful. Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited. Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance. SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end. I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride. Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.

When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.

The patient was in on the con from the beginning.

Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.

There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience. This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended! A film destined to be on late-night TV long after the present instant "money-makers" have long been forgotten. Perhaps a little too subtle for today's youngsters, but in time they'll grow into an appreciation of this movie. In the spirit of the classic "The Sting", this movie hits where it truly hurts... in the heart! A prim, proper female psychiatrist, hungry for adventure, meets up with the dirtiest and rottenest of scoundrals. The vulnerable doctor falls for the career badman, and begs to be involved in his operation. While the movie moves kind of "slow", it's climax and ending are stunning! You'll especially enjoy how the doctor "forgives herself"! This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!

The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie! Plenty has been written about Mamet's "The House of Games"; most of it good. I decided to revisit the flick to see how it held up after 17 years and was surprised at how much I enjoyed viewing it again. The film's success and durability probably has much to do with two principal ingredients which are always fun on film; a good story and a good scam. Mamet manages to bring his signature moodiness and obvious histrionics to the film while scamming us, the audience, and the mark simultaneously. Then he explains the art of conning only to do it again, etc. all the while building the story. "The House of Games", now a freebie on cable, is worth a look for first timers and an okay rerun for Mamet fans. (B+) House of games has a strong story where obsession and illusion play a big part. A psychologist offers to help a patient with his gambling debts and gets caught at the game.

Have you ever felt fascination for something that was both dangerous and wrong? Watch what happens if you pursue this urge and go all the way. Sit on the edge of your chair as tricksters are being tricked and victims turn into perpetrators. You're never sure of who is exactly who in this movie.

This is both a quality and a drawback of the script. As the movie ends you feel that the story lacks a bit of consistency. But all this is largely compensated by the excellent psychological development.

This is definitely one of the best movies about gambling. Unique movie about confused woman (Lindsay Crouse) who gets involved with sharp con men. Joe Mantegna gives an Oscar-caliber performance as the slickest of the group. Absolutely enchanting first hour, as Mantegna shows Crouse "the ropes" of his con games. Story line unravels a bit later on, but still stands as a unique portrayal of an innocent caught up in a dark world. Definitely worth a shot. Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.

Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!! "House of Games" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.

The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see. Just the ultimate masterpiece in my opinion. Every line, every phrase, every picture is exactly in place and Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna are just THE cool shrink and the sleazy con-man, so well cast. 10 out of 10! First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions).

I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured) The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans! A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.

Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an "extreme" torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.

The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.

The actress who plays the victim of the "experiment" is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.

If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment. Wow, alot of reviews for the Devils Experiment are here. Wonderful. My name is Steve and I run Unearthed Films. We just started releasing the Guinea Pig films on DVD for North America. Now before you ask why am I writing a review? Instead ask why some people bash it. I'm writing this review because I love the Guinea Pig films. Why do I love em, it's because they go for the throat and they don't let go. I've seen it all. Almost every horror film known to man, Argento, Fulci, Bava, Buttgereit. from every underground cult sensation to every Hollywood blockbuster. I've seen it all and the films that have stuck in my head over the years was definitely the Guinea Pig films. Why because it doesn't try to hide the reason why we watch horror movies in the 1st place. This review is for the Devils Experiment. I find it devoid of story which is fine by me. Why do I watch horror films? So I can see blood and gore and the torture of people. The Devils Experiment not only delivers but that's all it is. Pure unadulterated violence. Yeah I like a story but sometimes I just want the gore and the Devils Experiment delivers ten fold. Why do people bash it. Cause they like a story, so that the torture and death of a person can be hidden behind a story. It make em feel better about themselves. We all want blood and gore. It's just really hard to justify it if it's not wrapped around a story. The Guinea Pig films have a historical meaning to them and they have created a definitive splash whenever they have been released.

I'm thrilled to be able to release one of the most famous horror series in the world. Maybe I shouldn't have written this review but then again maybe I should. My view is biased cause were releasing them but then again it's not. I've always told people to find them and to watch them way before I started Unearthed Films. Sure it's exploitive and over the top but isn't that why we watch horror films in the 1st place. The Devils Experiment is NOT for everybody. It's for thrill seekers and gorehounds only. If you think Jason movies and Freddy Krueger movies are awesome then stick to those. But if your on the next level and have seen it all then the Devils Experiment is for you. There is a reason why they haven't been released for over 17 years. They are wrong, disgusting and down right freaky and not something to watch with your mom, unless she is totally cool. Good luck, enjoy and never stop living your life. what can i say about this film that hasnt already been said? well to tell the truth alot of it looks very fake like some of the slaps and the kicks. how charlie sheen though this was real i dont know. im sure they would be hitting and kicking her alot harder if it was. however the scenes with the pinching and the hot oil look very real. and the final needle in the eye scene is amazingly done and is probibly the only thing on film that has ever shocked me. The first installment of this notorious horror series is presented as if it were a snuff film discovered by the producers and set up like an amateur camcorder tape, complete with a digital timer at the bottom of the frame. It presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her. The hapless victim is beaten savagely and pelted with raw meat before having her fingernails pulled out with pliers, her hand smashed with a hammer, her eye punctured with a needle, and so forth.

In the most nauseating scene, the woman's captors burn her with hot water and drop live maggots into the burns. The series received a great deal of publicity when American actor Charlie Sheen, believing the series to contain actual murder, attempted to ban its distribution in the United States. An FBI investigation revealed that the films were only what they appeared to be to most viewers -- sick re-creations using nasty, but obvious special effects. Gruesomely staged by acclaimed Japanese comic-book artist Hideshi Hino, who also directed the third and fourth episodes, this film is a sure way to clear all but the most tolerant of rooms. But, gorehounds probably won't find anything special. This movie is the first of the six infamous Guinea Pig Movies and is one of the best. At the same time, it looks realistic and unrealistic, just knowing that the movie is fake. The story is about a woman who got captured and is tortured in a lot of different ways. A man in the beginning of the story receives a letter without a return address, and it includes a manga video, showing the torture. The men who capture her are testing the limits of a human before they die. Some scenes are shocking, such as the eyeball scene and others are not shocking like the girl being punched 100 times, because you see punches in nearly every movie. This movie has a lot of gore so I would recommend this to people 17 or older.

9/10 I have seen the short movie a few years ago. After that I watch all sequels. The first one is really not the best - but it's the most popular one. I've already watch the making of Guinea Pig 1. It's really great what these guys did. Also the sequels are excellent in the special effects. Take your chance to watch it! This movie has no story. It's only about a bunch of guys who tortures an innocent young girl to death.

!!!SPOILERS!!!

This is what they do: They beat her, put her in a net and let her hang inside like birdfood, spin her around on a chair until she pukes, expose her to loud noise, pour boiling oil on her, put worms in her sores, crush her hand with a sledge-hammer and finally pokes a needle through her eye.

This movie was so realistic that if I didn't know it was fake I would have thought it was a snuff-movie. Although I was disgusted by this movie i really liked it. It scared me. I guess it fills some kind of purpose. I give it a 10/10. After having watched "Guinea Pig", two questions come in mind ( besides 'Am I really a psychopath to watch that ?' ) : 'Is it a snuff ?' The answer is no ; although it's the closest thing to a snuff movie I've ever seen. And then : 'Where the hell have they found that girl ?'. Because she gets tortured for '45 min, without any reasons given ( in fact, there is nothing else in this movie !) : Fingernails teared off, beaten with hands, feet, tools, infested by maggots, ... and many more until the final scene ( I'm still not sure how they did that ). Because it belongs to the 'japonese underground scene', it's obvious she didn't get a lot of money. So what were her ( their ) motivations ?

I saw it in japonese without subtitles, but it's not a problem ( no real dialogues, the boys are just insulting her in a few scenes ). I haven't seen yet all the serial, but the first "Guinea Pig" is not known for being the best one. Still I've rated 8, because if the purpose was making people believe this a snuff, the issue is quite good ( ask Charlie Sheen, the actor ). But I think they could have gone further, which they did in the following ones.

Another movie I'm hiding from my parents.

8/10 I am surprised than many viewers hold more respect for the sequel to this brilliant movie... I have seen all the guinea pigs and this one is easily the best.

Even though ive seen the "making of", i still have doubts when watching those 35mins of pure torture : its that powerful.

A 10 out of 10 because this movie achieved perfectly what it set out to do : be the best fake snuff film ever made. Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment is without a doubt ***** stars on first view, its a raw realistic creepy and disturbing look into the dark side of human nature. This movie gets right to the point, you may be thinking what point? The point is to satisfy fan's of just extreme violence and gore. This movie has some gore, more or less just torturing a women violently. There are really only 3 scene's that could be considered gore. I'll tell you one thing though Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment makes Hostile look like Sesame Street. If you thought Hostile was a crazy brutal disturbing torture flick then you ain't seen the half of it until you've seen Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment.

Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10

Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment (Uncut) ***** (7) This is the first out of the Guinea Pig series, and is one of the more infamous films out of the collection.

It took me a long time to finally man up and get my hands on a copy of this notorious group of films. I bought the Guinea Pig Box Set and decided to watch the collection in order by release date. So I popped this sucker in and sat down.

From what I had read on the internet, and realizing the content involved in this film, I was expecting to test my nerves in full force. This ended up not being the case.

The film focuses on a group of men who kidnap a woman and begin torturing her with the hopes of discovering the human breaking point, and how long a human can tolerate pain.

Sounds like one sick flick right? Wrong. The film fails to shock. This may be because I have become desensitized over the years do to my obsession with horror, but I think it is safe to say that any true gorehound could sit through this with ease.

On the other hand an individual who does not have a well knowledge of this type of film will most likely be overwhelmed and disgusted by the images they see on the screen. Though it failed to shock me the film contains some pretty mean spirited and graphic scenes of violence. Including the ripping out of fingernails, intestines thrown at an unconscious woman, and a needle through the eye.

Overall I think for majority of the gorehounds on this board that you should just get your hands on a copy of this film for the novelty of it, but I suggest that for any new comers to these type of films that you should work your way up to this one. I first heard of this movie after purchasing the 1976 flick "Snuff". I was told that Devil's Experiment was much better so naturally I went ahead and ordered the Guinea Pig box set. I was really interested to hear that Charlie Sheen had come out trying to ban either this movie or the second one, so my interest was peaked.

Devil's Experiment is a short film with no story, no character development. Just 3 men torturing a woman for about 45 minutes. They torture her in various ways like beating her, spinning her in circles over and over again then forcing her to drink alcohol, forcing her to listen to hi-pitched noise for 24 hours, smash her hand with a mallet, burning and putting maggots on the burns, throwing guts at her, and ultimately shoving a sharp needle through her eye.

I must say that a lot of this movie was fake, like the beating scenes. But then, some of it was actually well done as far as grossing you out. The scenes in which the woman is being spun around in circles was making me dizzy watching it. Or the scene in which she is forced to listen to sharp noise for 24 hours is painful to think about. The worst is the eye scene. I didn't shutter when watching it but simply thought "Damn, that looks pretty good for such a low budget movie". I did enjoy the flick but I don't know if I can really recommend this unless you have seen most of what the horror genre has to offer. 7/10 This movie is banned in just about every foreign country I can think of. The Japanese people (?) who star in this must have been really desperate for a job, or we're just friends. Here's the scoop:

Three thugs torture the hell out of a helpless woman, they use all kinds of things to eventually kill her, they burn her, kick her, spin here around in a chair (over 200 times!), they use sound torture (by forcing her to listen to a static sound for over 20 hours! It don't sound that bad at all, but it CAN make you go nuts). They throw guts (probably from an animal) at her while shes knocked out, and she freaks when she wakes up. And who can forget the grande finale the GREATEST EYEBALL TORTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN!

If you have not heard of these films, and watch one without knowing that it is a simulated snuff film, you will think it is! (just ask Charlie Sheen) This is guaranteed to freak people out and make some sick! Like I said pure underground. Check it out if you are a fan of underground horror, or foreign gore. If your not I highly recommend you read-up on the series before watching! From the gore, shock, and creativity aspect it gets a 10, but from the storyline and all that stuff it is a 1. An underground classic...

My final rating is a 8/10

This movie has to be my favorite of all time. Its not supposed to have a plot, because its makers wanted people (Charlie Sheen, I think)to believe it was a real snuff film. This was an exercise in visual effects, and doesn't cut away when the action happens like every other film does. Movies these days are now all about sound effects, leaving the visuals to be made by computers cause its easier to deal with CGI blood. There still are movie makers who still can't get fake blood to look like the real thing. There is no rape scene because that wasn't the point of making the film. Have you seen the hills have eyes 2? The rape scene was funny instead of shocking. Although i'm sure there are some GONZO porn film makers that have tried to marry porn with horror. But since they probably suck at making films, they probably wouldn't be able to pull it off. The movie "Baise Moi" has a disturbing rape scene because the actresses are actually porn stars and they show everything even though the movie overall sucks.

Its too bad that a movie can't be made without thinking of the money aspect of it all, especially when talking about an AO or NC-17 rating. I'm sure Eli Roth has the ability/talent to make his Hostel film series much much better, but he has too tame it down to get an R rating...or at least I hope that his movies sucked because of these limitations.

Watch Traces of Death or More than Smashed Pumpkins if you want no frills real footage (accident & crime scenes/footage). Don't forget that this movie was made in 1985. The fact that this film can still stand up against most crap made these days says a lot about this film. That would be like someone saying the 8bit Super Mario Brothers sucks because the PS3 has better graphics. this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child! I wouldn't call "We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story" simply a kiddie version of "Jurassic Park". I found it more interesting than that. Like the former, it calls into question the security of bringing beings from one era into ours. But it really opens my eyes when I see who provided the voices: John Goodman, Rhea Perlman, Jay Leno, Walter Cronkite, Julia Child, Kenneth Mars, Yeardley Smith, Martin Short and Larry King. To paraphrase that: a given actor, the "Cheers" woman, the "Tonight Show" host, the Most Trusted Name In News, a famous chef, the "Young Frankenstein" police chief, Lisa Simpson, one of the Three Amigos and the CNN guy.

But I guess that I shouldn't focus only on the cast. I thought that this movie had something for both children (purely fun) and adults (natural history). True, it's escapism, but the perceptive kind. I would actually say that John Goodman doing Rex's voice here is sort of a precursor to his voice work in "Monsters Inc". Worth seeing. its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.

These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.

Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.

Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think. I do try not to take IMDb ratings to heart, but I was flabbergasted when I saw the 5.4 rating to one of my childhood favourites. It doesn't wow me as much at 17, but as a family film this is a sweet and well meaning movie. Kids will definitely love it and won't mind the flaws, and the adults can guess the actor behind each character and admire the subliminal messaging of the film. None of the film was preachy in any way, in fact it has a great message that added to its sweetness. I will admit though that the story is on the thin side, and some scenes like Screweyes's death(which still freaks me out) may be a tad on the scary side. But the animation is well above average with nice colours and good character animation. The music by James Horner is very beautiful, and the song featured is memorable, catchy and amusing. I really liked the characters, Louie is probably the most in-depth of them all, but the dinosaurs were at least engaging. Martin Short's clown was both hilarious and emphatic, the part when he tells Screweyes "I quit!" had me in stitches. My favourite is Screweyes though, an effective villain who is crafty and I suppose intelligent. If anything though, I wish the film kept in the part when he explains how he lost his eye and why he is scared of crows because that way he could've been more developed in terms of depth. The script, while not Oscar-worthy, has its funny and heart-warming parts, and should keep kids and adults entertained. The voice acting for me was what made the movie. John Goodman, Martin Short, Rhea Perlman, Felicity Kendall and Yeardley Smith all gave solid performances, but special mention has to go to Kenneth Mars for he was absolutely superb as Screweyes and almost unrecognisable. All in all, this is a good movie. I don't get the rating, honestly I don't. Sure this film isn't perfect, and it is not as good as a dinosaur movie such as Land Before Time, but it is good fun. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?

Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?

What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some "brain grain cereal" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans…

My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)

Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem… Enjoy! :-) Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale. Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special "business", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.

I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.

Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it. This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic. I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie! A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed. Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.

Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure. This light hearted comedy should be enjoyed for entertainment value. It gets quite hysterically funny at times, but if you haven't spent any time on 'that' side of the tracks you will miss the comedy when it erupts.

The cast of characters meld well together and are quite believable in their roles. How Grace handles meeting her dead husbands girlfriend was well played. She's a true lady. And, my favorite is Grace's white pimp suit that she wears.

I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to laugh out loud, who cheers for the underdog or just wishes to watch something different. After her Oscar-nominated turn in "Secrets & Lies", Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great "Saving Grace". And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.

After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.

Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that! Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable. "Saving Grace" is never riotously funny, but it delivers quite a few good laughs and I enjoyed it to a significant degree. Brenda Blethyn is a fine actress, and does a good job at portraying widower Grace, who resorts to growing marijuana to pay off her massive debts. The supporting cast also does a fine job. French actor Tchecky Karyo has a funny little role. The premise alone is appealing. The idea of an over-the-hill woman growing and smoking pot sounds funny enough. And the film plays around with the premise wisely every now and then. Of course, there are flat moments, like one where two elderly women mistaken Grace's marijuana leaves for tea leaves and they start pulling childish antics at the store where they work. That was a mindless gag that didn't quite take off. The film's tone is downbeat and occasionally dull, but I got enough laughs to give this English import a recommendation.

My score: 7 (out of 10) I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted.

It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.

I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their "tea"!!

Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story! Charming doesn't even begin to describe "Saving Grace;" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).

Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.

The most notable quality about "Saving Grace" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.

The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.

Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for "Saving Grace." It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that "Saving Grace" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.

If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.

See "Saving Grace," especially when you're having a bad day. Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing. I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.

The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.

The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.

It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!) A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, "Saving Grace" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.

Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage.

Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in "Saturday Night Fever" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.

Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in "La Femme Nikita", is memorable.

Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10. This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve. This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10

This is definitely a 'must see' for those who occasionally smoke a reefer in their secret hide-out, trying to avoid being caught by parents, teachers, the police, etc... The protagonist is a lady in her forties, living in her mansion, breeding orchids, and absolutely unaware of the fact that her so-called rich and truthful husband is actually broke and cheating on her. When he all of the sudden dies, she is confronted with the truth. The bailiff comes by to tell her that she is in a huge debt. She doesn't know what to do, until her gardener tells her about the recent success of marijuana in Britain. She decides after some long thinking to get rid of her flowers and start breeding pot instead... The story is quite original, the performances outstanding! I can think of only a few movies that made me laugh more than this one. Still, the melodramatic touch is present. The film is typical British: the jokes aren't vulgar, there is no violence involved. It shouldn't be mentioned that it is recommended to have taken a few draughts before watching 'Saving grace'. It will be so much more fun! Especially the scene with the 2 old ladies in their tea shop is hilarious. I thought my jawbones would burst. 9/10 Walking the tightrope between comedy and drama is one of the toughest acts in cinema. How do you get laughs out of other people's misery and not start feeling bad when it goes on too long?

Well, this surprising little gem of a movie will deliver great big laughs, beautiful scenery, and quite a good buzz as well. I particularly like the concept that a trick of history made alcohol legal since white Europeans liked it, and marijuana illegal, since 'those other races' used it...undoubtedly true and exposes a racial side to the marijuana laws so openly flaunted by populations all over the world.

An extraordinary "DVD Extra" commentary...two of them in fact...run thru the whole movie with both the actors, and then again with the writers. I kept seeing things I was sure were not in the first movie, but then realizing how easy it is to miss much of the subtle comedy on the first take. What a hoot! Don't miss it! 9/10 stars My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.

I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.

I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.

Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world. A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.

This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.

In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy. I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst.

Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.

Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.

These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together. I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television. I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE! I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.

Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.

Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.

In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :) I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"! Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.

Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.

I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of "The Swarm" ? q:)

Long live Monstervision! But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In! That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.

A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.

The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.

If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film. Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.

Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun. For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Rånarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliché as the first two thirds of the film.

What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.

One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.

All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10 When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema.

First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.

Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.

Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.

Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?

Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...

A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do

Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live? I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching! A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!

Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.

You don't want to miss this! This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes I wasn't expecting to be so impacted by this film portraying a family just like the one you'd expect to be living next door. They are ordinary flesh-and-blood people, not like the typical Hollywood fare. They face an all too common problem--debilitating illness. But the story-line grips the heart with a powerful lesson. Casting, script, direction, and acting flow together with a surge that draws the viewer deep into the story. Give this film your full attention and its message will truly inspire. This movie deals with one of the most feared geriatric diseases among the aging today. As one who has encountered a number of families who are facing the potential of Alzheimer's or who are in the formative stages, I would suggest that every health care giver recommend this movie to any family facing the trauma of this disease. The movie is designed primarily to speak to the family of the patient and reaches into the very heart of the struggle. Casting is excellent and the dramatic portrayal is outstanding with a very commanding plot line. Forget the campy 'religious' movies that have monopolized the television/film market... this movie has a real feel to it. While it may be deemed as a movie that has cheap emotional draws, it also has that message of forgiveness, and overall good morals. However, I did not like the lighting in this movie... for a movie dealing with such subject matter, it was too bright. I felt it took away from the overall appeal of the movie, which is almost an unforgivable sin, but the recognizable cast, and their performances counteract this oversight.

Definitely worth seeing... buy the DVD. This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!! This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that. Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...

Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.

In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.

Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance. While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

"Before Sunrise" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose "Before Sunrise" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Antes do Amanhecer" ("Before Sunrise") I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France "Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion. It was by accident that I was scanning the TV channels and found this wonderful film about two beautiful human beings who become attracted to each other in a very innocent and virgin like approach to each other. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) "Tape" '01 and Julie Delpy (Celine) "ER" 94 TV Series (Nicole). This gal and guy, will warm your very heart and soul and make you think deeply into your past relationships and how you really wish you had followed your hearts strings with a guy or gal you deep down loved and lost track of over the years. Jesse and Celine have great conversation, and deep eye contact with a great magnetic explosion between the two of them. I am looking forward to the SEQUEL to this film in 2004 and if you have viewed this film, you will feel the same way. I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT! If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you. There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives. i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie. First let me say that Before Sunrise, like all movies, is NOT a movie for all tastes. It appears some folks are less smart to acknowledge this fact, but it is remarkable to contemplate the kind of outright dislike this small harmless movie generates from some people. For me, like most folks here, Before Sunrise struck a deep chord in me, I was truly stunned, moved, inspired by it. This is a movie that ultimately benefits from more than one viewing. It creates some of the most awesomely unforgettable feelings and emotions you can possibly imagine. It is impossible to imagine this world without ever thinking about the kind of inspirational feelings I got from it.

The movie works as a communion of two fragile souls that are starting to get to know each other. It is very intelligent and inspiring, not so much in how one conversation necessarily ties into the next or the significance of the topics of Jesse and Celine's discussions, but rather the little nuances, the perfectly articulate responses they provoke from each other. It captures an honest, romantic, yet fleeting human emotion that is starting to blossom in the awesomely sublime Viennese milieu; it convinces us that their evanescent relationship might be the greatest compliment in the world. And what happens after that night is open for debate, but I never doubt that they won't each other again.

The facile comments by RockytheBear and the below user are hopeless examples of a doctrinaire dissenter unwilling to accept and respect those who love this movie.

See it and it may change your way of life. Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman. Richard Linklater's beautifully directed mixture of youthful romance and Paris travelogue is one of the 90's best thinking person's romantic movies. Julie Delpy turns in one of the decade's most engaging performances as the Parisian lass who spends a day with stranger-on-a-train Ethan Hawke. The dialogue (and there is oodles of it) is sometimes meandering and overly precious, but this portrait of two young wannabe-lovers making a romantic, intellectual, and spiritual connection to one another is full of wonderfully amusing, touching and insightful moments. This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than "Before Sunset", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is "love" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes "Before Sunrise" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch "Before Sunrise" before watching "Before Sunset". If like me, you watched "Sunset" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best. Before Sunrise has many remarkable things going on, almost too many to fit into one review like this, but it's suffice to say that it's one of the most observant character studies of the nineties, maybe even in all of contemporary cinema, to be observant not about love, per-say, so much as it's about a human connection. How does one fall in love at first sight? No one does, at least that's deep down the consensus that Linklater wants to show with his film. And *yet* there is the possibility of as intense a connection, of a bond that can form in those that are young and with many ideas that can be expressed articulately and with a breadth of cynicism and is somehow very tender and true at the same time. Linklater here gives us the story of Celine and Jessie, a French girl and an American boy who get off the same train heading to Vienna, and on the way there start to talking about things, at first arbitrary, then personal (Jessie seeing death for the first time in his great grandfather). Jessie persuades Celine to go along with him on a night out on the 'town', in Vienna, until his plane the next morning.

Before Sunrise gives Jessie and Celine, in the midst of the gorgeous Vienna scenery and locales to go on and on about subjects that have a lot of importance, and in a sense is about the act of having conversations, of what it's like to watch people having one leading into another and another. Here it's often about relationships and commitments, as Jessie and Celine tell stories sometimes somewhat inconsequential, or seemingly so, and another that may tell a lot about their essential qualities. We hear confessions of desires for other loves, or what weren't really loves, of being part of a family or part of an upbringing that may or may not inform how you'll love your life, of what it means to believe or not believe in some religious form, or just to have some connection to any faith and the soul (I loved the bit about the quakers in the church), and sometimes laced with cynicism or skepticism. Jessie may be more responsible for that last part, but what's fascinating about the film is that it's never exactly cynical itself, just commenting upon cynicism that lays in the concerns of men and women at that age of their lives.

Meanwhile, it's always great to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in these roles, where they're not incessantly annoying in that 90s Generation-X mode, but are the kinds of people where if not in the central conceit of the film, which isn't a bad one at all but a necessary one, one might think to find walking along the streets of a city somewhere. The conceit is that of an old romantic picture ala Brief Encounter, only here intimacy is expressed in the central characters either between each other, where sweet asides are actually acceptable ("I have to tell you a secret", Jessie says, and then leans in for a kiss, ho-ho), or in the little moments that pop up with other people along the way. I loved the scene with the poet, where it's very cinematic a thing to suddenly find a random romantic bit player in the midst of a romantic picture with such beautiful words at his disposal, or with the palm reader and how the reactions from Jessie and Celine are that we might share, but really are seeing them do it first-hand. All the while Hawke and Delpy embody the roles interestingly- we can see how neuroses are being formed already for their adult lives- as it may lead off into the future...

Featuring splendid cinematography and a script with an ear for natural wit and a true sense of what it means to have a moment of happiness, however self-contained, as it may lead into something more. Who's to say you can't suddenly be attached to someone, if only for less than 24 hours, and be that much more attached than a married couple? This is perhaps Linklater's thesis, but there's more to it than just that. It's a very dense film, and one that will have me calling back to it repeatedly. One scene especially, which is both cheesy and brilliant is when the two of them are talking 'on the phone' in front of each other mimicking their expositions might go to the other's friend. A+ This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.

The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.

The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.

This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s! When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!! After a chance encounter on the train, a young couple spends a single night strolling the streets of Vienna, discussing life and love. The primary reason to see "Before Sunrise," is to watch a young Julie Delpy deliver her lines. As "Celine," this sexy, brainy, soulful brown-eyed blond is sort of a cross between Brigitte Bardot and Joni Mitchell as they were in their mid-twenties. Risking overstatement, Celine is practically the ideal woman, unusually beautiful and very feminine while being natural, unpretentious, introspective, and selflessly loving. We can easily forgive that she is a bit eccentric and talks a blue streak, for her sincere, intelligent remarks are occasionally penetrating. Further, her varied expressions are nothing short of captivating and she speaks English with a French accent that is very endearing.

If there is a fly in the ointment of this good movie, it would have to be her unkempt and disheveled costar. Ethan Hawke as "Jessie" comes off like a vaguely appealing slob, sort of a Maynard G. Krebs of the nineties. Attempting to appear detached and nonchalant, he sort of drags himself through certain shots. His pants fit poorly, his tee shirt is coming untucked, his wavy dark hair (his most attractive feature) needs a good washing, and someone really should have showed him how to properly trim his youthful goatee. Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent an unwashed youth on a two-week train ride around Europe, so the look he has cultivated is probably pretty genuine. His oft-cynical observations and wry sense of humor seem to impress the unapologetically romantic Celine, although she is occasionally disturbed by the extent of his alienation. When he finally admits to her that he is utterly sick of himself and likes being near her because he feels like a different person in her presence, we know he is getting somewhere.

After blowing their collective funds on a series of cafes, bars, and silly diversions, they agree that because they may never see one another again, they should make the most of it. Jesse bums a bottle of red wine off a sentimental bartender so that he and his newfound lady love may repair to a local park in the middle of the night to lie on the grass, looking up at the moon and the stars and watching the sun come up.

Given his boundless luck in the romance department, it is especially irksome when Jessie, as the very definition of a naive jerk, foolishly allows this wonderful young lady to slip from his grasp. He contents himself with a half-baked plan, quickly devised at the railroad station when he bids her adieu, to reunite at the same spot in half a year. When the appointed time comes, you just know this beautiful and unusual girl will be involved with another, perhaps even married and pregnant. For whatever reason, she probably won't show, while Jesse, who ends up working at Target or (if he's lucky) the local library, will go back to Vienna, desperate to see her again, only to wind up alone.

Despite what for me was a very discouraging conclusion, "Before Sunrise" is a beautiful movie. I highly recommend both it and the sequel, "Before Sunset." This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding. I managed to catch a late night double feature last night of "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004), and saw both films in a row, without really having the chance to catch my breath in between or ponder on the meaning of each film separately. After sleeping it over, I have to say that I largely prefer the former over the latter, and I shall explain why.

Before Sunrise introduces us with then young actors, Ethan Hawke (Reality Bites, Dead Poets Society), only 25 at the time of the film's release; and Julie Delpy (the Three Colors trilogy), then 26 (although looking much younger). He is a promiscuous American writer, touring Europe after breaking up with his girlfriend; She is a young French student, on her way home to Paris. They meet on the Budapest-Vienna train and spontaneously decide to get off the train together. The two deeply spiritual and intellectual individuals than spend a whole night together walking the beautifully captured streets of Vienna, exchanging ideals and thoughts and gradually falling on love.

The film has 1990's written all over it: back then, technology was leaping rapidly, the new millennium with all it's hopes and dreams was waiting just around the corner, and young adults like the ones depicted in the film were filled with love of life and passion for the future. The characters of Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy), with all their flaws and inconsistencies (Celine's accent, if by mistake or on purpose, was half American-half French, and it swinged from one spectrum to the other, breaking the character's credibility), were a mirror of the time. Watching the naive couple swallow life with such meaning and excitement, acting all clichéd and romantic yet managing to have the audience fall for them as well, is what really made this movie work for me. The fact that the director doesn't let you know if their relationship continues after the film or not makes it all even more worth while.

All in all, Sunrise is a dreamy stroll through the urban landscapes of Vienna, a well told classical romantic rendezvous, and a film I will definitely return to for further insight sometime in the future. My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.

I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...

On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..

I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful! the most amazing combination of love and psyche of two young people.presented in the most sublime manner and definitely touches your heart.a rare combination where the sequel surpasses the prequel in both storytelling and intensity of emotions.the movie re affirms your faith in love and pain of separation. the joy of seeing your most beloved is unparalleled and anything can be sacrificed. Ethan and Julie have essayed eternal characters with such simplicity that gives the movie a sheer joy and love to watch. A must see movie for all the people who believe in true love. by far the most romantic(at least one of them) movie of all times. American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.

At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.

Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.

Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.

One of the best romance movies. 9/10 I must admit that at the beginning, I was sort of reticent about watching this movie. I thought it was this stupid, little, romantic film about a French woman who meets in the train an American and decides to visit Vienna with him. I was not actually enchanted about this kind of script, since it continued to make me believe that it is just a movie. Still, I watched it! And I was amazed..."Before Sunrise" is one of the few films who dare to talk in a rather philosophical way, wondering about the fact that in the moment of our birth, we are sentenced to death, or that it is a middling idea that fact that a couple should rest together for eternity, or that, we, humans, can afford sometimes to live in fairy-tales.

The ending was wonderfully chosen (we do not know if they will meet again in six months, at six o'clock, in Vienna's station) -in our optimism, we sincerely hope so. The actors acted in a very good manner, so, that, I began to believe that I, myself could live a love-story just like this. i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa "like dancing about architecture". it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.

10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................ I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it. I'm not usually a fan of strictly romantic movies but heard this was good. I was stunned. Easily the most romantic thing I've ever seen in my life. Stunning. Brilliant, sweet, funny and full of heart. The chemistry is flawless as is the writing and directing.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are so natural and sweet together you really think they're a couple.

The movies grabs you right away and doesn't let go. You can't look away nor can you stop listening to them. Even the little moments just melt your heart.

This has jumped into the ranks of one of my favourite ever. A masterpiece. Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart. Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, "Before Sunrise" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans. I like it because of my recent personal experience. Especially the ideas that everyone is free and that everything is finite. The characters in the firm did not really enjoy their "real" lives, but they did enjoy themselves, i.e. what they were. The movie did a good job making this simple day a good memory. A good memory includes not only romantic feelings about a beautiful stranger and a beautiful European city, but definitely about the deeper discussion about their values of life. Many movies are like this in terms of discussion of the definitions of life or love or relationships or current problems in life or some sort of those. Before Sunrise dealt with it in a nice way, which makes the viewer pause and think and adjust her breath and go on watching the film. Before Sunrise did not try to instill a specific thought into your head. It just encouraged you to think about some issues in daily life and gave you some alternative possibilities. This made the conversations between the characters interesting, not just typical whining complaints or flowing dumb ideas. You would be still thinking about those issues for yourself and curious about the next line of the story. The end was not quite important after all. You could got something out of it and feel something good or positive about yourself after the movie. Movies are supposed to be enjoyable. This is an enjoyable movie and worth of your time to watch it. I am on a journey too. The movie somehow represented some part of me and answered some of my questions. THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie. Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso.

But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.

And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth.

To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film.

His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.

When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.

What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.

Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.

Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.

If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso. Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful! Mario Lanza, of course, is "The Great Caruso" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.

The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from "Lucia" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.

In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in "Girl of the Golden West," There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.

Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during "L'Elisir d'amore" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen "suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband," that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.

Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film "Match Point" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in "The Great Caruso" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.

Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same. This is a most handsome film. The color photography is beautiful as it shows the lavishness of the Metropolitan Opera House in brilliant color. Other indoor scenes at various mansions, etc are equally brilliant. As for the music, what more can be said other than that Lanza's voice was at its' peak as he sang so many of the worlds' best known and beloved arias. The marvelous Dorothy Kirsten is also a joy as her soprano voice blends with that of Lanza in delightful harmony. Of course, Hollywood took their customary liberties with the life story of Caruso. There is precious little in the story line that relates to actual events. For example, the facts relating to his death are totally fabricated and bear no relationship to the truth. There are some very good web sites that tell the true story of Caruso and contain several pictures of him. These web sites can be located by using any good search engine. There are also several books available concerning his life history. But, the fictional story line does nothing to mar this beautiful film. The voices of Lanza, Kirsten, and the chorus members are the real stars of this movie. Enjoy, I know that I sure did. The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano. I have to agree with MR. Caruso Jr Lanza,s was the finest voice god had to offer if only he could have found the courage to go for broke leave Hollywood and head for the opera he could have been the American Caruso everyone says he could have been but in any case he is a fantastic introduction to the art form no bones about it and if thats the way its gonna be so be it. see the film you'll see why Mr Lanza still come up in discussion even in my house. Someone says Pavarotti i say MARIO LANZA.As for the film itself when will it be on DVD they must have it restored and VHS isn't good enough but this should also be the only Lanza film put on DVD the others are down right bad and boring . The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.

No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.

Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.

Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)

Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."

This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.

"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.

9/10. "The Thief of Bagdad" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale! Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way. Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie. I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as "The Wonder Show of the Century!" Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only "Extras" are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD. I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle! The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it. An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time. The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.

..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making! -The movie tells the tale of a prince whose life is wonderful, but after an evil wizard tells him to go into town disguised as a beggar the wizard then locks up the prince and soon becomes the shadow ruler of Baghdad. the jailed prince meets a thief called Abu who helps him escape the jail and head to a town called Basra where he meets a princess who he falls madly in love with, but unbeknown to him the evil wizard Jafa is also in love with the princess and tries to convince her father to allow him to marry her. Jafa soon learns that the prince is trying to win the girls heart so he makes him blind and turns Abu into a dog. This leads to the prince and Abu going off on an adventure to find a way to defeat Jafa, restore peace to Baghdad and marry the princess. during their journey they encounter everything from sarcastic Genies that takes Abu on a flight through the clouds, a giant spider that's really hungry, and a flying horse that probably gives birth to one of the most beautiful sequence these old eyes of mine have ever seen.

-This is a pure fantasy movie from start to finish it has flying horses, genies, flying carpets, and wizards that can actually do magic instead of just hit people with their staffs. It doesn't have any cheesy moments and the love story isn't a waste of time. The production designs are just stunning in this movie. From the palaces to the different dangerous traps that the heroes encounter. Even though this movie is over 40 years old, the production design is far better than most of the crap that gets tacked on in today's cinema. The music and songs are also well done. Anyone who sees it will no doubt hail, "I want to be a sailor sailing on the seas" as one of the great musical moments in movies. I'm usually not a huge fan of singing in movies since I find them about as enjoyable as doing my taxes but I'll be more than happy to make an exception for this movie.

-What sells the movie for me is the sheer fact that you get to see things you don't see in everyday life which is also the same reason why I love stuff like "Two Towers" and "Silent Hill". Way before today's modern fantasy movie came along with their realistic CGI to blow our minds there was this movie which blew your mind without having green screen scattered all over the place. One of my favorite shots in "Two Towers" is the one where we see the trolls opening the Black Gates, the main appeal of that shot for me was seeing these great fantasy beings doing what is essentially manual labor, and that's what I love about the Genie and other creatures in the movie. They're just there trying to make a living just like everyone else which gives them a real feel even though they're all just fantasy beings.

-It's literally impossible to watch this movie and not notice where the makers of "Aladdin" got their inspiration. The characters from this movie are pretty much the same characters in that movie from the talkative Genie right down to the flying carpet. It's not an entirely bad thing in my eyes since it's nice to know that I'm not the only one on the planet that has a deep passionate love for this amazing movie. I first saw this as a kid in the motherland and thought it was the greatest thing in the world and upon watching it again last week I still think it's amazing. That's a true testament that a great movie can withstand the test of time. Sure, the effects look a wee bit outdated and cheesy but it was made way back in the 40's so give it a break. Not everything looks outdated though since most of the stuff can still hold its own today when scrutinized under today's standard.

-If you ever wanted to see a live action version of "Aladdin" then you should get your wish with this but the angry cynical bunch will probably do good in avoiding this since this won't be their cup of tea. I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".

It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.

10/10 The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over. Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.

As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.

Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.

The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.

Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.

The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.

*************************

Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age. This film, was one of my childhood favorites and I must say that, unlike some other films I liked in that period The Thief of Bagdad has held on to it's quality while I grew up. This is not merely a film to be enjoyed by children, it can be watched and enjoyed by adults as well. The only drawback there is, is that one can not see past the ‘bad' effects (compared to the effects nowadays) like one could when one was a child. I remembered nothing of those effects, of course it had been about ten years since I'd seen this film, when I was about eleven years old. Who then watches effects? One only seeks good stories and entertainment and this is exactly what this film provides. In my mind this film is one of the first great adventure films of the 20th century. Coming to think of it I feel like the Indiana Jones films are quite a like this film. There is comedy, romance and adventure all in one, which creates a wonderful mixture that will capture you from the beginning until the end and although the film is old and the music and style of the films is clearly not modern, it succeeds in not being dusty and old. All of that is mainly due to the great story, the good directing and the good acting performances of the actors. In that department Sabu (as Abu) and Conrad Veidt (as Jaffar) stand out, providing the comedic and the chilling elements of the film for the most part. Great film and although an 'oldie', definitely a ‘goldie'. I hope someone has the brain and guts to release this one on DVD someday.

8 out of 10 Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.

It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.

Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people. This is an Oriental fantasy about ¨thousand and one Arabian nights¨ plenty of incredible adventures, fantasy witchery and wizardly. The malignant vizier Jaffar (magnificently played by Conrad Veidt)with powerful magic faculties imprisons the prince Ahamad of Bagdad(attractive John Justin)who loses his throne, then he escapes thanks a little thief named Abu(sympathetic Sabu). They arrive Basora where Ahamad and the princess(gorgeous June Duprez) fall in love. But prince and thief are haunted by Jaffar , Ahamd is turned blind and Abu is become a dog. The story accumulates several fantastic ingredients such as transformation of the starring, a flying mechanic horse, magic bow, flying carpet and of course the colossal genie(overacting performed by Rex Ingram) who gives three wishes to Sabu , the magic eye, the figure of goddess Kali with several hands, among others.

This remarkable picture ranks as one of the finest fantastic films of all time. Produced by London Fim's Alexander Korda and directed by the definitively credited Ludwing Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelan with a stunning screenplay by Lajos Biro and Miles Malleson also dialogs writer and actor as Sultan fond to mechanic games. The WWII outbreak caused the paralyzing shooting, then the three Korda brothers and collaborators traveled USA continuing there the filming in especial on Grand Cannon Colorado.The splendid visual and glimmer Technicolor cinematography , setting and FX provoked the achieving three Oscars : Production design by William Cameron Menzies and Vincent Korda ,Cinematography by George Perinal and Special effects by Osmond Borradaile though today are dated and is urgent a necessary remastering because the colors are worn-out. Furthermore one nomination for the evocative and oriental musical score by Miklos Rozsa. This vivid tale with immense doses of imagination will like to fantasy fans and cinema classic buffs I first saw Thief as a child which makes me almost as old as the Jinn I guess. As any kid would be, I was delighted with the imagination, inventiveness and energy of the film. Several years later, I realized how much of the satire and wit of the script I had missed on that first viewing. I have never passed up an opportunity to watch it throughout the intervening years. In addition to the script, the production transcends the fantasy genre. This is Korda, the storyteller at his very best. When you see Thief as a child you know that you`ve had a great time. When you see Thief as an adult you know that you`ve seen a masterpiece. It`s as timeless as the story it treats. An amazing work.

Thomas McCarthy Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old. Probably the finest fantasy film ever made. Sumptuous colour, spectacular sets, incredible, spot-on Miklos Rosza musical score that is perfect for each scene and mood. Acting is superb as well in what could have been stiff and pretentious in lesser hands, but here the poetic dialog is deftly, sensitively spoken (the humour is subtle and delightful as well).

Doubtless Spielberg and Lucas were enthralled by this one. Along with "The Four Feathers" (1939), one of the two finest motion pictures released by Alexander Korda and London Films---and one of the finest motion pictures ever made.

A true, compelling classic! This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. "Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?" Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.

I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys.

It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, "Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it." The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking "some fun, and adventure at last!" Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.

If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.

I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.

Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie. The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.

According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.

Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.

The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.

The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser.

Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.

The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it. This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.

For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.

The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.

The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!

John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15–year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.

Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable. A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10. A magical journey concocted by Alexander Korda and Michael Powell. These two TITANS of the British cinema have mixed some fabulous ingredients to produce a movie masterpiece! Some of the most ravishing early Technicolor, a SUBLIME and shimmering Miklos Rozsa musical score along with the youthful exuberance of Sabu, the theatrical and malevolent villainy of Conrad Veidt and the exquisite beauty and voice of June Duprez as the princess all work wonderfully well. Miles Malleson who plays Duprez father, the Sultan of Basra, also wrote the perfect screenplay which is appropriately grandiose. DON'T MISS THIS ONE! Since posting the above comments, I have obtained the recently released DVD and can honestly say I'd never seen the picture properly until viewing this DVD version-The clarity and resolution is so precise and the colors are so vivid that I was stunned-This amazing classic can be watched time an again and never fails to charm and delight the viewer. Again, A MUST SEE! Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!) This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true. It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library! Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.

Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).

In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.

Stars: **** (excellent) I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA! I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.

It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.

And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.

While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.

And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?

Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie! Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind. what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is. It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!! Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy. I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it.

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video? As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.

Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD. in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy... Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10 This film is an hour or so of good entertainment and has some genuinely funny moments. I loved the character of Matt, and also Tiny. They seemed the most engaging and funny characters, and certainly the most interesting. Matt is very good (as is his no good cousin), and the police woman and the blonde biker woman provide some welcome eye candy. I must say I saw striking similarities between Matt and another Aussie actor, Eric Bana. My personal favourite part was the brothel scene, loved that. Overall, I liked the film and it'll get about an 8 rating. The penalty however, I was disappointed in. It was a side foot curl, rather than the appropriate laces blast.

I am of course kidding. :) A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.

Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.

Highly recommended. I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10 A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour. I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.

Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world.

I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.

Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.

One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.

This Rocks 'n' Rolls Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.

But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.

Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.

Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster. ROLL is a wonderful little film. Toby Malone plays an 18 year old kid (very well acted, by the way) who is into soccer. Malone's cousin takes him out the night before his big game on an adventure with many twists and turns involving two gym bags, a drug lord, some tough bikers, some cops, and some prostitutes ... and the movie keeps us guessing as to which characters are on which side of the law, what the contents of either gym bag is, and even what gender a key biker is. Parts of it reminded me of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING Barrels.

For me, ROLL reinforced three opinions that I already held before seeing ROLL. Those opinions are: 1. I really want to visit Australia one day. The country and cities are beautiful and it looks like such a cool place for a vacation.

2. Some of the best filmmakers in the are Australian. The cinematography in ROLL was especially impressive. I loved the stylized colors and lighting in many of the scenes.

3. Australian women are HOT! This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally. Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).

The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.

Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).

Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.

Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible. "A Cry in the Dark" is a masterful piece of cinema, haunting, and incredibly though provoking. The true story of Lindy Chamberland, who, in 1980, witnessed a horrific sight, seeing her 3-month-old baby being brutally taken from their family's tent, while camping on the Austrailian outback. Azaria (the baby) was never seen again, and the result of her horrendous disappearance caused a true life frenzy all around the world. Meryl Streep does immaculate justice to the role of Lindy, as she always does. But the one thing that helps "A Cry in the Dark" never fall flat is the brilliant direction. A truly inspired and accurate outlook on this baffeling case, tears are brought to the eyes. The concept is nothing less then terrifying, and afterwards you are left haunted, but also inspired. Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep. Michael Kallio gives a strong and convincing performance as Eric Seaver, a troubled young man who was horribly mistreated as a little boy by his monstrous, abusive, alcoholic stepfather Barry (a genuinely frightening portrayal by Gunnar Hansen). Eric has a compassionate fiancé (sweetly played by the lovely Tracee Newberry) and a job transcribing autopsy reports at a local morgue. Haunted by his bleak past, egged on by the bald, beaming Jack the demon (a truly creepy Michael Robert Brandon), and sent over the edge by the recent death of his mother, Eric goes off the deep end and embarks on a brutal killing spree. Capably directed by Kallio (who also wrote the tight, astute script), with uniformly fine acting by a sound no-name cast (Jeff Steiger is especially good as Eric's wannabe helpful guardian angel Michael), rather rough, but overall polished cinematography by George Lieber, believable true-to-life characters, jolting outbursts of raw, shocking and unflinchingly ferocious violence, a moody, spooky score by Dan Kolton, an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, grungy Detroit, Michigan locations, a grimly serious tone, and a taut, gripping narrative that stays on a steady track throughout, this extremely potent and gritty psychological horror thriller makes for often absorbing and disturbing viewing. A real sleeper. "Hatred of a Minute" is a hauntingly beautiful film. A psychological thriller that takes you on a journey through the nightmare that is the life of a serial killer, Eric Seaver. Strong performances and excellent cinematography make this film a "must see" for any film student or horror fan. The realness of the story and the human side of Eric separate this film from other psycho killer movies. Some shout outs to the film's producer, Bruce Campbell as well as to the film "The Evil Dead" add some humor for anyone that knows the genre. Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies! Upon the first viewing, I found this tale to be at least less annoying than other Cannon Movie Tales. After many more, I think it's one of the best. Some of the songs are pretty bad, especially the love song, but two things stand out that make the movie, even the singing, worthwhile. One is the art direction. Like the other Cannon Movie Tales, this is a beautifully decorated period piece; every piece of cloth and jewel (both of which have major parts in this movie's plot) look fresh and new, and contrast with the plain clothes of the peasants. Even during the love song I find myself studying the dress and hair of the princess, wonderfully done. The other thing is the comic timing. A lot of the movie is cheesy, but the emperor's vanity (and his making fun of himself in the end), the suspicious guard, the guard chasing Nicholas, and the stupid prince, were all quite funny and seem to be ridiculous quite on purpose. And the sequence during the song Weave-O makes up for the songs that weren't so good. Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of "The Spy Who Loved Me" fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in "Animal House"), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out. Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by … "The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway … Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it – where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which … under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor … The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille … attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.

I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection. Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10 It's true that Danny Steinmann's "The Unseen" is a simplistic horror thriller with a very predictable plot, no particular attempts for twists or surprises whatsoever and featuring literally every single cliché the genre has brought forward over the decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. On the contrary, my friends and I were pleasantly surprised by this obscure but nevertheless intense little 80's shock- feature that mainly benefices from a handful of brutal images and a downright brilliant casting. The beautiful and ambitious reporter Jennifer Fast and two of her equally attractive friends travel to a little Californian town to shoot a documentary on the anniversary festival, but their hotel forgot to register their booking. In their search for a place to stay, the trio runs into the exaggeratedly friendly but suspicious museum curator Ernest Keller who invites the girls to stay at his remote countryside mansion. One by one the girls experience that Keller and his extremely introvert and submissive sister Victoria hide a dark and murderous secret inside their house. "The Unseen" can easily be described as a cheap and ultimately perverse amalgamation of the horror classics "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The plot is a series of familiar themes that became notorious and endlessly imitated due to these two films, like twisted family secrets in the cellar, voyeurism, crazed inbred killers and a very unappetizing treatment of chickens. Still, I don't consider these to be negative remarks, as "The Unseen" is a completely unpretentious and modestly unsettling thriller that clearly never intended to be the greatest horror classic of the decade. Although the denouement of the plot is pretty clear quite fast, director Steinmann attempts to maintain the mystery by keeping the evil present in the house "unseen" like the title promised. The casting choices and acting performances are truly what lift this sleeper above the level of mediocre. Sydney Lassick, immortalized since his role as the overly anxious psychiatric patient Charley Cheswick in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is truly the ideal choice for the role of Ernest Keller. His persistent friendliness and almost naturally perverted appearance are exactly what the character needed. Also Stephen Furst, who eventually turns from the unseen into the seen, gives away a tremendous performance as "Junior". He looks and acts like an authentic handicapped man and his attempts to get close to Jennifer in the basement are genuinely unnerving. "The Unseen" is a slow and predictable but nevertheless potent early 80's film that will certainly appeal to fans of 70's exploitation and generally weird stuff. The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10. Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles. This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ("Carrie" and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining! It's cheesy, it's creepy, it's gross, but that's what makes it so much fun. It's got over the top melodramatic moments that are just plain laughable. This movie is great to make fun of. Rent it for a good laugh.

The film centers around three women newscasters, during a time way before cellphones. They go to a small town to cover a festival, but they can't get a room to stay the night. And that's when they meet Ernest Keller. He's creepy in a Psycho kind of way. And he offers to let them stay at his home. But he doesn't tell them the truth about who lives there.

Stephen Furst's performance is so amazing as "The Unseen", that he really carries this film. Most of the movie is kind of dull, although finding out the truth of Ernest's family is kind of interesting.

Just seeing this cast in these scenes makes it worth a look. Barbara Bach and Doug Barr make nice eye candy.

I consider the movie an old gem, hard to find and worth a look. What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental. A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing. I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of "A Good Baby."

Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.

This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly. This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look. Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself. I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching. This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film. Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies? I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).

So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.

And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer. I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.

The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.

Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.

Welcome to Burgundy! This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well. SPOILERS Many different comedy series nowadays have at one point or another experimented with the idea of obscure independence. In an early episode of cartoon "Family Guy" the Griffin family find their home is an independent nation to the United States of America and the story progresses from there. Way back in 1949 however, the Ealing Studios produced a wonderful little film along the same idea.

After a child's prank, the residents of Pimlico discover a small fortune in treasure. At the inquest it becomes clear that the small area is a small outcrop of the long lost state of Burgundy. Withdrawing from London and the rest of Great Britain, the residents of the small street experience the joys and the problems with being an independent state.

Based at a time when rationing was still in operation, this story is brilliantly told and equally inspiring. Featuring performances by Stanley Holloway, Betty Warren, Philip Stainton and a young Charles Hawtrey, the film is well stocked with some of the finest actors of their generation. These actors are well aided as well by a superb little script with some cracking lines. Feeling remarkably fresh, despite being over 50 years old, the story never feels awkward and always keeps the audience entertained.

Ealing Studios was one of the finest exporters of British film ever in existence. With films like "Passport to Pimlico" it's not difficult to see why. Amusing from start to finish, the story is always fun and always worth watching. Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10. I commend pictures that try something different. Many films just seem like re-treads of old ideas, so that is the big reason I so strongly recommend Passport to Pimlico.

The movie is set just after WW2 and the post-war shortages and rationing seem to be driving Londoners "barmy". The film centers on a tiny neighborhood in London called Pimlico. They, too, are sick of not being able to buy what they want but can see no way out of it. That is until they accidentally stumble upon a hidden treasure and a charter which officially named this neighborhood as a sovereign nation many hundreds of years ago! With this document, they reason, they can bypass all the rationing and coupons and live life just as they want, since it turns out they really AREN'T British subjects! Where the movie goes from there and how the crisis is ultimately resolved is something you'll need to see for yourselves. Leave it up the brilliant minds of Ealing Studios to come up with this gem! Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.

Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.

But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before. My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called "Thatcher's Britain", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to "The Ladykillers" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially "Passport to Pimlico".

Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico "declaring itself independent" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.

Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the "Burgundians", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.

Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in "The Man in the White Suit" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", or as part of a larger community as happens in "Whisky Galore" or "The Titfield Thunderbolt". The central theme of "Passport" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the "spivs" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a "rules for rules' sake" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.

I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is "We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.

Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.

There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10 Passport to Pimlico is a real treat for all fans of British cinema. Not only is it an enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining comedy, but it is a cinematic flashback to a bygone age, with attitudes and scenarios sadly now only a memory in British life.

Stanley Holloway plays Pimlico resident Arthur Pemberton, who after the accidental detonation of an unexploded bomb, discovers a wealth of medieval treasure belonging to the 14th Century Duke of Burgundy that has been buried deep underneath their little suburban street these last 600 years.

Accompanying the treasure is an ancient legal decree signed by King Edward IV of England (which has never been officially rescinded) to state that that particular London street had been declared Burgandian soil, which means that in the eyes of international law, Pemberton and the other local residents are no longer British subjects but natives of Burgundy and their tiny street an independent country in it's own right and a law unto itself.

This sets the war-battered and impoverished residents up in good stead as they believe themselves to be outside of English law and jurisdiction, so in an act of drunken defiance they burn their ration books, destroy and ignore their clothing coupons, flagrantly disregard British licencing laws etc, declaring themselves fully independent from Britain.

However, what then happens is ever spiv, black marketeer and dishonest crook follows suit and crosses the 'border' into Burgundy as a refuge from the law and post-war restrictions to sell their dodgy goods, and half of London's consumers follow them in order to dodge the ration, making their quiet happy little haven, a den of thieves and a rather crowded one at that.

Appealing to Whitehall for assistance, they are told that due to developments this is "now a matter of foreign policy, which His Majesty's Government is reluctant to become involved" which leaves the residents high and dry. They do however declare the area a legal frontier and as such set up a fully equipped customs office at the end of the road, mainly to monitor smuggling than to ensure any safety for the residents of Pimlico.

Eventually the border is closed altogether starting a major siege, with the Bugundian residents slowly running out of water and food, but never the less fighting on in true British style. As one Bugundian resident quotes, "we're English and we always were English, and it's just because we are English, we are fighting so hard to be Bugundians"

A sentiment that is soon echoed throughout the capital as when the rest of London learn of the poor Bugundians plight they all feel compelled to chip in and help them, by throwing food and supplies over the barbed wire blockades.

Will Whitehall, who has fought off so may invaders throughout the centuries finally be brought to it's knees by this new batch of foreigners, especially as these ones are English!!!!

Great tale, and great fun throughout. Not to be missed. My cable TV has what's called the Arts channel, which is a "catch-as-catch-can" situation sometimes, sometimes films, sometimes short clips of films or ballets, and I came into this just as the bar scene came on, where they tear up their coupons. Excellent, exquisite, Ealing wins again, my wartime-Glasgow-raised mother would love this, should I ever find a copy of it. Some of Britain's best artists, from Mr Holloway to Wayne and Radford and the delicious Miss Rutherford, having a wonderful time gently sticking it to the Home Office. Loved the last scene, where as soon as they are "back in England!" the temperature plummets and it rains... Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.

The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!

Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!

Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD! I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.

I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.

Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV. Starting off, here's a synopsis: Porno queen Alta Lee (Lynn Lowry) is murdered by her pornographer lover Max (George Shannon) in a game of sexual Russian roulette. Alta's other lover, icy lesbian casting agent Camila Stone (Mary Woronov), provides an alibi for Max. But Camila has an agenda of her own, and a plan involving the seduction of innocent actress Julie (Lynn again) in a web of sexual mind games. When the lookalikes' identities are sufficiently blurred, the stage is set for vengeance as passionate as the most heated carnal encounter.

Though this movie is quite obscure and never got much attention, I find it to be a sexy, suspenseful gem. Cult goddess Woronov has one of her best-ever roles, and she and sexy-innocent Lowry play off each other well. The unsettling music provided by Gershon Kingsley, plus two original songs ("All-American Boy," "You Say You've Never Let Me Down") and the Jaynetts' "Sally, Go 'Round the Roses" compose a memorable soundtrack. Theodore Gershuny's direction is sharp, with everything photographed in muted earth tones that perfectly suggest unsavory business bubbling under society's upper crust. With tons of great New York atmosphere, Ondine (Woronov's friend and fellow Warholite) giving a great performance in a small role, and exotic Monique Van Vooren as Max's ex-wife in a comic sub-plot. This sub-plot, though amusing, looks like it belongs in another movie altogether. However, I'm not complaining, as the film is smooth even as it changes gears and is a hell of a lot more interesting that the erotic-thriller garbage currently being cranked out.

Trivia: Sugar Cookies was originally rated X (soft-core) and released by General Film Corporation in 1973. I am the proud owner of an original one-sheet poster--lucky me! In 1977, the movie was cut for an R and re-released by Troma Team, which now offers it uncut on videotape. Mary Woronov was the wife of Theodore Gershuny at the time, and was reportedly uncomfortable performing the graphic lesbian simulated sex scenes with him leering behind the camera. She can also be seen in two of his earlier productions, Kemek (1970) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972). This movie is not schlock, despite the lo fi production and its link to Troma productions. A dark fable for adults. Exploitation is a theme of Sugar Cookies, and one wonders if the cast has not fallen prey to said theme. A weird movie with enticing visuals: shadows and contrast are prominent. Definitely worth a look, especially from fans of Warhol and stylish decadence. Through all the cruelty and wickedness, a moral, albeit twisted, can be gleamed. A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended. Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.

Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.

Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.

The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.

Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp. "Footlight Parade" is fascinating on so many levels. There is no way the supposedly staged "theater prologues" could have been produced in any theater on earth, of course. Think of the huge pools and three-story tall fountains for "By A Waterfall," for instance. (Berkeley directed John Garfield in "They Made Me a Criminal" six years later and had the Dead End Kids singing "By a Waterfall" as they took their showers.)

"Shanghai Lil" is the best production number in the picture. It's a catalog of '30s Warner Bros. sensibilities. Note the African guys mixed into the scene with white and Asian prostitutes. You would never see blacks integrated into a social scene in other films of the period unless they were porters on a train or maids in a big house. Here the black guys are sitting at the bar and singing with the others. I also get a thrill when the military dancers do a "card section" presentation of Roosevelt's image. There's also the NRA eagle--the logo of the controversial National Recovery Administration of the New Deal. FDR was the new president and hopes were so high that he'd pull the nation out of the Depression. You'd never see something so working class oriented coming out of MGM, of course. Warner Bros. wholeheartedly supported the uplift dictated by the F.D.R. administration.

Dear little Miss Ruby Keeler was never better than she is playing the Chinese hooker, "Lil." She hardly even watches her feet as she dances, which was one of her signature flaws.

The Pre-Code stuff is fun. The "By a Waterfall" number is wonderful in that regard. The girls change into their bathing suits on the crowded bus speeding through Times Square with all its lights on. The spread-eagle girls swimming over the camera provide the kind of crotch shots that would not be seen for 35 years. In a few months the Production Code would eliminate such naughty pleasures. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.

In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.

Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.

Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch.

Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil.

Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.

Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.

Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best. It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In "Yankee Doodle Dandy" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially "Shanghai Lil." And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch. An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.

The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be.

In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."

Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.

Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color.

Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen. This fabulous movie must be viewed knowing that millions scraped together 10 cents to see it and forget the gloomy day-to-day economic conditions during the 30's. Remember, 10 cents bought a loaf of bread back then, so this was a minor luxury for many people. It's testimony to how Hollywood did its best to make the USA feel a little better about itself. You'll note that with the studio system in Hollywood at the time many of the actors and actresses were type-cast in similar movies, e.g. James Cagney, William Powell, Ruby Keeler, Frank McHugh, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee . Then too, branches of the U.S. military were always respected with enthusiasm and patriotism as in the use of military precision marching by the great choreographer, Busby Berkeley, at the end. The energetic young producer of theatrical prologues (those staged performances, usually musical, that often proceeded the movie in the larger cinemas in bygone days) must deal with crooked competition, fraudulent partners, unfaithful lovers & amateur talent to realize his dream of making his mark on the FOOTLIGHT PARADE.

While closely resembling other Warner's musical spectaculars, notably the GOLDDIGGER films, this movie had a special attraction none of the others had: Jimmy Cagney. He is a wonder, loose-jointed and lithe, as agile as any tomcat - a creature he actually mimics a few times during the movie. Cagney grabs the viewers attention & never lets go, powering the rapid-fire dialogue and corny plot with his charisma & buoyant charm.

The rest of the cast gives their best, as well. Joan Blondell is perfect as the smart-mouthed, big-hearted blonde secretary, infatuated with Cagney (major quibble - why wasn't she given a musical number?). Dick Powell & Ruby Keeler once again play lovers onstage & off; the fact that her singing & acting abilities are a bit on the lean side are compensated for by her dancing ; Powell still exudes boyish enthusiasm in his unaccustomed position as second male lead.

Guy Kibbee & Hugh Herbert are lots of fun as brothers-in-law, both scheming to cheat Cagney in different ways. Ruth Donnelly scores as Kibbee's wealthy wife, a woman devoted to her handsome protégés. Frank McHugh's harried choreographer is an apt foil for Cagney's wit. Herman Bing is hilarious in his one tiny scene as a music arranger. Mavens will spot little Billy Barty, Jimmy Conlin & maybe even John Garfield during the musical numbers.

Finally, there's Busby Berkeley, choreographer nonpareil. His terpsichorean confections, sprinkled throughout the decade of the 1930's, were a supreme example of the cinematic escapism that Depression audiences wanted to enjoy. The big joke about Berkeley's creations, of course, was that they were meant, as part of the plot, to be stage productions. But no theater could ever hold these products of the master's imagination. They are perfect illustrations of the type of entertainment only made possible by the movie camera.

Berkeley's musical offerings generally took one of two different approaches, either a story (often rather bizarre) told with song & dance; or else stunning geometrically designed numbers, eye candy, featuring plentiful chorus girls, overhead camerawork & a romantic tune. In a spasm of outré extravagance, FOOTLIGHT PARADE climaxes with three Berkeley masterworks: `Honeymoon Hotel' and its pre-Production Code telling of a couple's wedding night; `By A Waterfall' - dozens of unclad females, splashing, floating & diving in perfect patterns & designs (peer closely & you'll see how the synchronous effects were achieved); and finally, `Shanghai Lil' - a fitting tribute to the talents of both Cagney & Berkeley. "Footlight Parade" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. "42nd Street" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.

While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.

While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.

It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.

7 out of 10 Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.

The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.

I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and... When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s. Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride! This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is. An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!! I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene. James Cagney is best known for his tough characters- and gangster roles but he has also played quite a lot 'soft' characters in his career. This musical is one of them and it was the first but not the last musical movie Cagney would star in.

Cagney is even doing a bit of singing in this one and also quite an amount of dancing. And it needs to be said that he was not bad at it. He plays the role with a lot of confidence. He apparently had some dancing jobs in his early life before his acting career started to take off big time, so it actually isn't a weird thing that he also took on some musical acting roles in his career. He obviously also feels at ease in this totally different genre than most people are accustomed to seeing him in.

The movie is directed by Lloyd Bacon, who was perhaps among the best and most successful director within the genre. His earliest '30's musicals pretty much defined the musical genre and he also was responsible for genre movies such as "42nd Street". His musicals were always light and fun to watch and more comedy like than anything else really. '30's musicals never were really about its singing, this was something that more featured in '40's and later made musicals, mainly from the MGM studios.

As usual it has a light and simple story, set in the musical world, that of course is also predictable and progresses in a formulaic way. It nevertheless is a fun and simple story that also simply makes this an entertaining movies to watch. So do the characters and actors that are portraying them. Sort of weird though that that the total plot line of the movie gets sort of abandoned toward the end of the movie, when the movie only starts to consists out of musical number routines.

The musical moments toward the ending of the movie are also amusing and well done, even though I'm not a too big fan of the genre itself. Once again the musical numbers also feature a young Billy Barty. he often played little boys/babies/mice and whatever more early on in his career, including the movie musical "Gold Diggers of 1933", of one year earlier.

A recommendable early genre movie.

8/10 It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line.

And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done.

Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty.

And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not.

First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs.

Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious.

And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes.

That's entertainment, folks. It's great!

Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much. Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.

The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.

This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be. I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.

I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.

Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.

Thanks so much. A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated. Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy. In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.

All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.

Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it. The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see. Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache. Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one. 089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number "Shanghai Lil," which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway…this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the "Shanghai Lil" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933). Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10 I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!

Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.

Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame! I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did. The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...

Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.

The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.

Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.

Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.

Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.

One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...

However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.

Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?

"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.

Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.

What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.

Final rating: 7.5 / 10 NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.) ... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow... Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. **** Sitting, Typing… Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything… disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing. I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing.... I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.) Director Vincenzo Natali first showed his penchant for character-based sci-fi flicks with his 1997 short film "Elevated", wherein 3 people remain trapped in an elevator while unseen monsters roam the building. His follow-up feature project "Cube", released later that year, had a very similar premise, this time with 6 people and instead of an elevator it was a vast expansion of interlocking cubic deathtraps. Both were admirable attempts to take the sci-fi genre a step further, by deliberately declining to show almost any visual stimulation, choosing instead to spend as much time as possible focusing on the human element, how the characters act, react and interact under incomprehensible and dangerous conditions. After his exploration into the mainstream with 2002's "Cypher", Natali has come back to his bizarre character-film trend to bring us "Nothing", his latest, and by far most optimistic and comedic take on the wide cinematic world of "What If?"

Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) are life-long friends, brought together by a mutual detachment from society and a lack of any one else to be with. Dave, who has always been hindered by a selfish and somewhat dimwitted nature, lives rent-free with Andrew at his ill-located and ill-constructed house, where he often takes advantage of Andrew's neurotic and antisocial mentality. Despite all this, the two misfits are happy together, until one day their deep character flaws, coupled with some astronomically bad luck, land them in the middle of some pretty serious, jail-sentence-worthy trouble. On top of this, they discover that their house has been deemed unfit for existence and is scheduled to be demolished before sunset, so in the hazy, nightmarish panic of everything going wrong for them, they wish that the whole world would just disappear. And it does.

Going any further with the synopsis would compromise a lot of the film's slow (occasionally too slow) reveal about what's happened to Dave and Andrew, and how they deal with their new reality. Natali's fascination with studying human behavior under duress (ala The Birds) is here in spades, but simply by making the main characters friends rather than strangers, he's able to break away from the thriller-horror element of this premise to open it up to a more comfortable and optimistic level. It's almost as if he's made the aphoristic opposite of "Cube".

Of course, the film is not 85 minutes of laughter and sunshine. In keeping with fundamental realism, our two anti-heroes' dynamic often becomes antagonistic, sometimes with rather nasty results. Like the "Desert Island" game, the film looks at how even best friends, when left alone together, can fall apart, but at the same time it shows that friends are vital to the quality of existence. In a very twisted, sci-fi way, this is a feel-good flick, with good heart and good intentions.

However, there are a few qualms to be had with "Nothing". While the two lead actors, Hewlett and Miller, do well with their parts, their characters are not nearly as interesting as they should have been, considering it is completely up to them to entertain us for the better part of an hour. There is some development in the relationship and personalities of Dave and Andrew, some background is given, but ultimately not enough. A generous viewer will sit through the less-engaging portions of the film to see it through to the end, but cynics will probably give up pretty fast.

Acting, as mentioned, is adequate, and considering the amount of 'green-screen' work that would've been needed, reasonably convincing. David Hewlett and Andrew Miller, who both wrote co-wrote the screenplay, have been long-time friends of Vincenzo Natali: Hewlett has in fact featured in every film Natali has made. Perhaps it was their creative input that steered this film in a more positive direction. Nonetheless, the story could have been a lot more involving. Granted, it is relatively entertaining considering that (no pun intended) nothing really happens, but you get the impression that, in more experienced hands, a lot more could've been done with this premise.

In all fairness, "Nothing" is an impressive piece of work in many ways. The concept is interesting, the direction is inventive, the script works on a human level and, most of all, it shows a progression in Natali's creative mentality. For fans of his work, this will be a delight, and for others it will be a nice way to pass a little unwanted time. It's just a shame that the director's fixation on human drama prevented it from being the great, fun film it could have been. I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it. I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed. Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.

It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.

If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.

However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.

Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself! Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube". A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades. Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film. I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10! I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do. This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie. I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour. This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.

Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.

All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this! Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing". the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography… The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali. I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch. Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen. I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy? What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it! By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite. This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten! Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.



I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma). Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!

Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).

Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!

Highly recommended. Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level. Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie. I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one! Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment. Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results. "Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers………).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10 A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well. Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching. If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious. First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!

"Emma Woodhouse" Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Duets) has nothing to do with herself but painting, going with her friends on her chariot up and down, saying hello to people in town, and trying to match make everybody she knows. I guess there were no movies, no television in those days, and the girls had nothing to do but gossip. I wish she had read a little more. I like Gwyneth, and think that she is a lovely young woman. She is talented, and in "Emma" one has the privilege to hear Gwyneth sing. I am looking forward to seeing "Duets", where she is suppose to sing. She is brave to speak British English with all those native Britons, including Emma Thompson's sister, "Miss Bates" Sophie Thompson (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dancing at Lughnasa). "Mrs. Elton" Juliet Stevenson (Truly, Madly Deeply) was considered one of the most promising actors in 1991. Gwyneth is part of the American movie royalty, being none other than the daughter of director Bruce Paltrow (St. Elsewhere) and Tony Award Winner Blythe Danner (The Myth of Fingerprints). She will hopefully be around for a real long time. Lucky us! I liked Emma and also recommend it. It is one of those old stories that are still accurate those days. Favorite scenes: Emma singing and playing the piano. I specially like it when she sings a duet. Favorite Quotes: Mr. Knightley": Emma, you didn't ask me to contribute a riddle." Emma: "Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified." Miss Bates: "It left us speechless, quite speechless I tell you, and we have not stopped talking of it since." This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more. I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10 Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10. This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best! Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10 Yes, that's right, it is. I firmly believe that the N64 and the weird looking controller were both designed just so this game could be made. It was amazing the first time I saw it, with its huge environments and colorful characters, and its amazing now. The play control is perfect, the graphics are beautiful, and it has that Nintendo charm that is always so intangible but undeniably there. A must have for any N64 owner, and a reason to get an N64 for everyone else. Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME! one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine! Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.

The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.

I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game. Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64. Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games. It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times. I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10. Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time. To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced "Nau-day") want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a "newbie" from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the "Probies" at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.

Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about "Probies." It is that they are either "White Clouds" or "Black Clouds," meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the "Probie." The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a "White Cloud." After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....

September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives.

Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse.

What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this "Probie" has proven himself.

Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom.

Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.

Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.

Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.

After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again. I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11! I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help. Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.

Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.

Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.

The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis.

Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date. I live in Missouri, so the direct effects of terrorism are largely unknown to me, this brought it home. That two men would put themselves on the line in the way that those members of FDNY and NYPD did, just to document the horror that unfolded on that day. This film is a testament to those who lost their lives and the true evil that terror brings. Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.

That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.

Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way. The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot. I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and

I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.

Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.

And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties.

So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened. Difficult film to comment on, how do you say it's bad? Well it isn't, but then it's equally difficult to say it is good. What it is, is compelling viewing, it is as close as you will get to utter devastation without being there. It is the photographs of the tsunami approaching the coast of Thailand brought to life, you know you want to turn away but you have to watch.

The Naudet brothers handle the commentary very well, even in the most tragic of circumstances, there view on something which is happening in another country neither panders nor insults. The facts are on the cellulose and little is needed for the viewer to understand or comprehend what is going on.

You can't change history, and you should not want, this film stands as a testament to humanity in its darkest hour. The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral. Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen. Amazing documentary. Saw it on original airdate and on DVD a few times in the last few years. I was shocked that it wasn't even nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar for 2002, the year it was released. No other documentary even comes close.

It was on TV recently for the 5th anniversary, but I missed the added "where are they now" segment at the end, except I did catch that tony now works for the hazmat unit.

I've seen criticism on documentary film-making from a few on this list. I can't see how this could have been done any different. They had less than 6 months to assemble this and get it on the air. The DVD contains more material and background.

I'm also surprised that according to IMDb.com, the brother have had no projects in the four years since. What have they been doing? SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10 If I didn't know any better, it almost seems like it was staged, but it wasn't. It was set up perfectly, and how they got all of that footage is amazing! The unfortunate events of September 11, 2001 are put together well in this documentary and the classic footage that they got made this an unfortunate classic. Just the history in the footage alone should make it a MUST see for any american or person touched by the tragedy of September 11. These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.

The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City. When this first came out 6 months after the tragedy, I didn't want to see it. I didn't want to open old wounds. I regretted it. Now I have seen the movie. Thank God I did. It shows you the bravery of all the FDNY and NYPD. I salute you. It offered me closure. I can now move on with my life. WOW!

This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.

Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE.

It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One.

In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.

Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.

We must never forget.

Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot "Jinx"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...

-Thanks for reading I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows? I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch.

They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.

Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.

I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.

Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.

The DVD I have watched feels edited for television. Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.

While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.

I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.

All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me. A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.

First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.

It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.

The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.

Overall, it is a good family movie.

The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.

Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around

excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable.

It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy. To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think). Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.

This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.

The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.

This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen. This is one of those feel good, Saturday afternoon movies. It's right up there with other retro flicks like Flight of the Navigator. Just a cute movie with some subtle comedy to lighten things up. And it's fun to see how 20 years has changed the stars like Kelly Preston and Lea Thompson. Not to mention Joquin Phoenix.

I personally really like movies like this from time to time. Nothing too deep or too scary. Just a nice story line. And I would have never known Mr. Phoenix had I not recently read the credits. He was just a baby really when he made this movie.

Kelly Preston was quite the young budding actress then too. She and Lea did a wonderful job in this movie. I agree it's not an Oscar caliber movie. But very much worth watching. Especially if you have kids in the , let's say, 8 to 11 year old range. Or ones that are interested in the space program. I've been reading through some of the other user comments and decided to put one in too. Some of the users are stuck in a 'realist' type of mentality. This film was meant to be a 'fantasy'....a 'what if' fun film. It was never meant to be 'real' or serious. It was thoroughly enjoyable for everyone I knew when it came out - even though it shadowed the tragedy of the Challenger explosion...I was 30 at the time and totally enjoyed this one - my young son loved it too! Later, I shared it with my daughter and she, too, loved it. SpaceCamp is a fun family film that should be enjoyed for just that - fun. All the 'realists' in the world should lighten up or stick to watching documentaries or docudramas and avoid any other type of film. So sorry for those young folks who watched this movie first and then were able to go to the real SpaceCamp (one in Alabama and one at Vandenberg AFB in California) - they must have gone expecting to find the same type of environment that was portrayed in the movie and then felt 'letdown'...I guess their parents didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Oh well. If you love fantasy-fun films and haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it! Enjoy! Spacecamp is one of the movies that kids just love, and mom and dad can have fun watching as well. Growing up in the 80's I enjoyed this movie, it's plot and all the actors. I recently purchased this movie on DVD so when I have kids of my own, they will be able to have as much fun watching this movie as I did. The plot is fun, A group of kids, embark on a journey they never expected, when they were rocketed into space by a overachieving robot. They were in auh at first but when they realized they didn't have enough oxygen to make it back panic sunk in. Once they recovered enough oxygen from the space station they returned to earth as even better friends and a new found respect for life. This is one of the most guilty pleasure movies ever!

I am embarrassed to say that my favorite character is TISH, but still enjoy watching her make her space outfit "like super cool" with a "like totally bitchin" belt and stick on rhinestones on her face.

But anyways, the movie is actually one of the few "family" movies that holds your interest. I know that the begining drags, particuarly if you know what is going to happen, but the second half is probably one of the most nerve wracking segments in a family film.

I wouldn't stand up in front of millions of people and proclaim to love this movie, in fact renting it is pretty embarrassing itself, but I'll admit it here with the internet to hide behind.

Hurrah! A space film that doesn't take itself too seriously and everyone can come along for the exciting ride that is space camp. The film starts slowly, the usual mix of idiots and high-fliers mixed together into a dodgy soup. But when the going gets tough - the tough get themselves sorted out and it's not an un-believable change in the characters as you can believe that there's some responsibility in their young minds.

The only flaw in the film is that Kate Capshaw is EXTREMELY annoying as the "I'm right and you're all wrong" instructor. I would recommend this as a nice night in movie and a 7 Vote. Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also. Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.

The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.

The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.

I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.

I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,"invisible", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour. Excellent show. Instead of watching the same old sitcom type shows where it's the same old thing, just different "stars", this refreshing show provided an incredibly entertaining view of office situations. We have been away from watching any television for 2 years and after coming back, of all the shows available we look forward to watching this show on W. Shame on Global for pulling the plug on this one. I thought this one would be a winner. Let's be realistic about things, FEW Canadian SHOWS make it. Everyone I talk to enjoys this show and I believe it was foolish of Global to walk away. I guess they want to stick it out with the typical mind numbing shows from the States instead of pulling behind a Canadian made show that had a lot of promise. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lot of shows on TV, but, come on people, let's keep the variety. This unique show provided a very comedic view of a slightly exaggerated realistic side of office life and relationships, with unique characters that you don't see on any sitcoms today or in the past. Too bad that global had to say no to this one, foolish mistake. I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10. Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces. The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.

Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.

Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery.

"My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.

Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.

Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.

He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?

In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.

Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced. An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film. This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o) I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels! I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.

This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.

I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.

OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.

Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.

Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please! This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.

This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.

What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".

Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.

The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.

My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.

Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it. John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman – the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait") For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face. This is a good example a film that in spite of the low rating is more than worth watching. The story is engaging and it doesn't take long before the chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin grabs your attention. The acting is first class and the characters are represented well. Sometimes it feels like the director couldn't decide himself between drama and romantic comedy. Ben Chiller's portrayal of the law abiding and shy Englishman with porn S.M. magazines hidden in the bedroom creates plenty of moments for laughs! As does the look in Nicole Kidman's eyes when she is offering John his first taste of intimacy in a long time... Other times the actors and especially Nicole Kidman give this comedy quite expertly a dramatic slant. The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02. Are you a giraffe?... ask John to Nadia, and she, sure of responding well, responds him: yes. In this way begin the communication between a man and a woman who don't know each other, and at the same time, the questions and doubts in "Birthday Girl". A film that i heard a lot of times, but i don't dare to see... until two hours of write this.

"Birthday Girl" is a passionate movie that makes me fall in count, at the same time, that Nicole Kidman is one of the best actress (Besides she is pretty and intelligent) that i have ever seen. "Birthday Girl" is the story of a lonely and routine man who looks for a wife at internet. The woman that he finds comes from Russia. She seems to be that delicate woman, normal, not more. One day, in her birthday comes suddenly, his cousin and his friend. The man, begin to discover certain things. Since here, he don't going to be the lonely and routine man that always have been.

Much of us going to think that this movie is just a regular one with a exploited plot. Much of us going to think that the action and thrills are sure and don't novel. But "Birthday Girl" is just the opposite. This movie is full of good surprises, good performances and a imaginative plot that i had never seen and imagined. This romantic thriller with certain funny touch is an excellent natural film with a lot of proposes for the films of it kind. "Birthday Girl" have certain beauty and crudeness in its scenes, but at the same time, certain touching nature, and makes it so deeper.

"Birthday Girl" is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes violent, but at the end, is totally satisfactory. And I'm not sorry in say that this is a masterpiece.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any. This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series"Heartbeat" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character. From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in "K-19." Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz. The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.

Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).

Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.

See it with an open mind! This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game. When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's.

Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable.

Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.

Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.

I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing.

I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime. A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their "businesses" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines Modern, original, romantic story.

Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.

Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me.

Conclusion : good movie.

Les Pays-Bas : huit points. Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing. Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed. I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.

I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.

http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm

It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.

My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

WuMaster

- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Good, funny, straightforward story, excellent Nicole Kidman (I almost always like the movies she's in). This was a good "vehicle" for someone adept at comedy and drama since there are elements of both. A romantic comedy wrapped around two crime stories, great closing lines. Chaplin, very good here, was also good in another good, but unpopular romantic comedy ("Truth about Cats & Dogs"). Maybe they're too implausible. Ebert didn't even post a review for this. The great "screwball" comedies obviously were totally implausible ("Bringing up Baby", etc.). If you've seen one implausible comedy, you've seen them all? Or maybe people are ready to move on from the 1930s. Weird. Birthday Girl is a movie I've enjoyed several times. Nicole Kidman may be the "killer app" for home video. I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did. Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through. As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:) I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.

Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.

Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...

(9/10) I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10. And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie.

All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.

While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer.

It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go. This film has a clear storyline, which is quite unusual to the musical genre. "Cats", "Phantom of the Opera", and other Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals can be considered metaphorical, as they use literary works as their framework. "Biarkan Bintang Menari" (BBM)'s storyline touches the very core of human relationships, especially that of Indonesian people. Despite the fact the film was based on a "supposedly" fairytale, it's actually a fantasy of the 'child' in Indonesian adults. The dance sequences are not perfect, yet the songs represent how Indonesians express themselves. I reckon the choreographer should explore Indonesian way of dancing, by not dismaying the fact that Indonesia's dance development tends to be more westernized. The dance sequences seem awkward in some ways and not synchronized with the songs and/or music. Yet, I still love this movie and regard it as a new wave of Indonesian film genre which I hope to improve in the future. In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.

This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.

The ending is wonderful. This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.

A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.

All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great. Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: "Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.

It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times.

In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...

On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past.

A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.

Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.

For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.

Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.

The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.

After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'. While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television. As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said. Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.

Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).

The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.

This programme is available on network DVD One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.

The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements. This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.

Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.

His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.

The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.

Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.

The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences. This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.

Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.

Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.

I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.

There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.

A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly. I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended. hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.

This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through.

This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about. I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway... This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good. This movie will always be a Broadway and Movie classic, as long as there are still people who sing, dance, and act. As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars. I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical. When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.

Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.

Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.

Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.

Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.

In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.

To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.

During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics. As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know! Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??.

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner! Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.

Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.

There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.

Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.

Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges. I found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award? "I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide! The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.

Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.

It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time). What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful? It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself. The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more. I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin. I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.

The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)

The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom. Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more. I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it! What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10. What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more. I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket. This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.

Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.

By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.

These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war. Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.

In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.

It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.

The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden! The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.

Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.

The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively. There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last. I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. ** When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you. Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks. This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.

I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.

The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.

I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating. I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet. In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.

Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved! This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned. This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.

THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.

I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!

This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story. I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality. Michigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, "Hatred of a Minute" has all the draw of mainstream hits like "Silence of the Lambs" and of cult classics like "Army of Darkness." The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out "Hatred of a Minute." despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.

It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now

honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development

i was glad i watched it So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out. This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks. "Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters. I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy. I have been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.

i give cut a 8 out of 10 Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it. I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago. I was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.

This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.

The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.

When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film "Stab" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.

WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!

Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.

Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed! Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it! This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that. Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.

To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.

While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.

While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.

This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.

Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.

Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie. Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.

Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful. Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.

Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.

Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.

I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun). The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.

The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.

Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...

Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.

Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.

To be continued... I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit. I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good! Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening credits—and a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standards—moderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids. This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East.

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film. It might be a little erroneous to open a review by describing a film in terms of other films, but I think it's the best way to give an approximation of the place Election occupies in the gangster genre arena. It works somewhere in between The Godfather and Kinji Fukasaku's yakuza opus The Yakuza Papers (AKA Battles Without Honour and Humanity), in that it is simultaneously both romanticized and realistic, dark and gritty. But it's also a Johnnie To film, and as such it carries the distinct touch of the Hong Kong auteur.

Every two years the HK Triad elects a new boss. Only this time one of the candidates is not overly happy with the result so he decides to take matters into his own hands much to the dismay of the rest of the Triads and the police. That's the story in a nutshell but rest assured it has a lot more going for it than that. As in The Yakuza Papers, there's a great deal of scheming, back-stabbing and forming and switching of allegiances (sometimes all it takes is a phone call - in one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in recent time) which might not necessarily make for deep drama but makes for an interesting plot and good character conflict. Fans of the gangster genre are likely to appreciate it in that aspect. Election is not as action-oriented as one might expect; although it IS violent. And I'm not talking about the glossy, glamour version of Hollywood violence. This is dark and grim. To's camera lingers in the scenes of people being brutalized in ways that reveal both the humanity and inhumanity of the perpetrators and victims; after all violence IS an integral part of us whether we like it or not.

If you're familiar with To's style, then you should know what to expect. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate. The cinematography is great, slick and dark in equal measures, utilizing dark hues (brown, dark green and orange) while the smooth tracking shots add a vibrant quality to it. In the end, Election occupies a peculiar place. It's not exactly a character study and it's not an action-oriented gangster film. It explores a situation (the election and its aftermath), but does so in style, and is both realistic and romanticized (the Triad ceremonies in particular echo of an oriental Godfather). First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.

In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.

Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.

While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.

Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.

My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more.

Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be. Election is a Chinese mob movie, or triads in this case. Every two years an election is held to decide on a new leader, and at first it seems a toss up between Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai, or as I know him, "The Other Tony Leung") and Lok (Simon Yam, who was Judge in Full Contact!). Though once Lok wins, Big D refuses to accept the choice and goes to whatever lengths he can to secure recognition as the new leader. Unlike any other Asian film I watch featuring gangsters, this one is not an action movie. It has its bloody moments, when necessary, as in Goodfellas, but it's basically just a really effective drama. There are a lot of characters, which is really hard to keep track of, but I think that plays into the craziness of it all a bit. A 100-year-old baton, which is the symbol of power I mentioned before, changes hands several times before things settle down. And though it may appear that the film ends at the 65 or 70-minute mark, there are still a couple big surprises waiting. Simon Yam was my favorite character here and sort of anchors the picture.

Election was quite the award winner at last year's Hong Kong Film Awards, winning for best actor (Tony Leung), best picture, best director (Johnny To, who did Heroic Trio!!), and best screenplay. It also had nominations for cinematography, editing, film score (which I loved), and three more acting performances (including Yam). There can be no denying that Hak Se Wui (Election in English) is a well made and well thought out film. The film uses numerous clever pieces of identification all the time playing with modernity yet sticking to tradition – a theme played with throughout the film Where John Woo's Hong Kong films are action packed and over the top in their explosive content as seen in Hard Boiled (1992) and when Hong Kong films do settle down into rhythms of telling the story from the 'bad' point of view, they can sometimes stutter and just become merely unmemorable, a good example being City on Fire (1987).

Election is a film that is memorable for the sheer fact of its unpredictable scenes, spontaneous action and violence that are done in a realistic and tasteful (if that's the right word) manner as well as the clever little 'in pieces' of film-making. It's difficult to spot during the viewing but Election is really constructed in a kind of three act structure: there is the first point of concern involving the actual election and whoever is voted in is voted in – not everyone likes the decision but what the Uncles say, goes. The second act is the retrieving of the ancient baton from China that tradition demands must be present during the inauguration with the final third the aftermath of the inauguration and certain characters coming up with their own ideas on how the Triads should and could be run. Needless to say; certain events and twists occur during each of the three thirds, some are small and immaterial whereas some are much larger and spectacular.

Election does have some faults with the majority coming in the opening third. Trying to kill off time surrounding an election that only takes a few minutes to complete was clearly a hard task for the writers and filmmakers and that shows at numerous points. I got the feeling that a certain scene was just starting to go somewhere before it was interrupted by the police and then everyone gets arrested. This happens a few times: a fight breaks out in a restaurant but the police are there and everyone is arrested; there's a secret meeting about the baton between the Triads but the police show up and everyone gets arrested; some other Triads are having a pre-election talk but the police show up and guess what? You know.

Once the film gets out of that rut that I thought it would, it uses a sacred baton as a plot device to get everybody moving. The baton spawns some good fight scenes such as the chasing of a truck after it's been hotwired, another chase involving a motorbike and a kung-fu fight with a load of melee weapons in a street – the scenes are unpredictable, realistic and violent but like I said, they are in a 'tasteful' manner. Where Election really soars is its attention to that fine detail. When the Triads are in jail, the bars are covered with wire suggesting they're all animals in cages as that's how they behave on the outside when in conflict. Another fine piece of attention to detail is the way the Uncles toast using tea and not alcohol, elevating themselves above other head gangsters who'd use champagne (The Long Good Friday) and also referencing Chinese tradition of drinking tea to celebrate or commemorate.

Election is a good film that is structured well enough to enjoy and a film that has fantastic mise-en-scene as you look at what's going on. Some of the indoor settings and the clothing as well as the buckets of style that is poured on as the search and chase for the baton intensifies. The inauguration is like another short film entirely and very well integrated into the film; hinting at Chinese tradition in the process. I feel the best scene is the ending scene as it sums it up perfectly: two shifty characters fishing and debating the ruling of the Triads all the while remaining realistic, unpredictable and violent: in a tasteful manner, of course. This isn't as violent as I was expecting which makes the violent scenes appear all the more brutal and effective.

There are a lot of twists and turns and back stabbing and double crossing all the way through the film making it hard to know who's side a particular character is on.

The plot is pacey with some good dialogue and character development and gives an interesting view of the workings of the Triad gang it follows.

The violence when it comes is brutal, no guns or martial art scenes with special effects, this is believable in your face violence and for all the dialogue you are never allowed forget that the Triad is a violent criminal organisation.

The ending is surprising but thoroughly consistent and believable. Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right. enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there. Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol) British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type.

The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.

The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies. Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females) This series could very well be the best Britcom ever, and that is saying a great deal, considering the competitors (Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbours, to name just two).

What made Butterflies so superior, even to the best of the best, is that it did not just exemplify great, classic, classy and intelligent comedy, but it also expanded horizons, reflecting - flawlessly, gently, and at every detail - the great social change that was occurring in Britain at the time.

I remember watching this show as a teenager and being in awe of everything about it. The lifestyle depicted was remarkable in itself. This was the first time I saw real people using cordless phones. And the wardrobe of all the characters was far removed from the goofy seventies attire still seen in North America at the time. Then there were the decors, shop fronts, cars. These people - even the layabout sons, with their philosophical approach to life and epigrammatic humor - were sophisticated. They were examples of the "New Europeans" that would come to have an impact on life and style throughout the world in the coming decade (1980s).

Of course, the premise was strange and fantastic. The idea that someone who was living the suburban dream could be so discontent and restless was revolutionary, particularly to North Americans for whom happiness was always defined as money and things (sure the situation was depicted in American movies and TV, but not with the intensity of Butterflies or the movie Montenegro). And, if the premise was not surprising enough, the means by which it was expressed took it to the extreme. A potential affair that was not really about sex, or even romance? Butterflies dazzled many, but it must have left some people smacking their foreheads in disbelief... at the time anyway.

Butterflies turned out to be - in so many ways - prophetic. It documented, ahead of its time - post-modern ennui, all-pervasive lifestyle, the notion of emotional infidelity, and generational disconnect and male discontent (portrayed perfectly by the strained father-son relationships). It is too bad this series has not been rediscovered in a big way, and all those involved given credit for creating a meaningful snapshot of a certain time and place, and foreseeing all the slickness and angst that was to come. This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.

Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.

Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.

The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.

Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.

Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.

As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.

The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...

Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts... Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties.

How could that happen? What drove me into addiction?

OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce.

Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.

Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in "Love Actually", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is.

Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing "All Over The World", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage.

It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there.

Got Still Crazy... anyone? I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.

It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.

I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?

My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience. What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye! This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond. ...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.

The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.

A small delight, and thanks for the memory.

Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road) I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever! The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.

Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's. > Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (
> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since. This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended.. What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.

Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.

Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.

Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.

It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.

Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work. So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all. If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired! In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.

One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.

The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too. I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.

The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.

This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.

And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World."

Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.

Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem. I agree with what "veinbreaker" wrote with regards to the "Ahhhh" feeling you get at the end of this movie. I absolutely loved the locations they chose to film, the songs were well written and interesting, especially the psychedelic sounding track on which Hans Matheson sings. It's trippy. Nighy was fab in his role, Nail "nailed" it, Beano was the typical drummer, and Rea kept it together. Bruce Robinson was awesome. Helena was a lovely girlfriend. But I felt Juliet Aubrey's performance was gorgeous. The scenes between Aubrey & Robinson killed me! Perfectly played and the music behind the scene was spot on! Too bad not many more musicians have checked this movie out! They ought to!I've told all my musician friends. great quote by Jimmy Nail's character: "it's supposed to be rock & roll, not the Phantom of the f*****g opera!" As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England. I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something. I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!! I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10 This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie. If you like Deep Purple, you will enjoy in this excellent movie with Stephen Rea in main role. The story is about the most famous rock group back there in 70s, Strange Fruits, and they decided to play together again. But, of course, there is going to be lots of problem during theirs concerts. Jimmy Nail and Bill Nighy are great, and song "The Flame Still Burns" is perfect. You have to watch it. An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later. I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :) I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great. wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.

i've seen it 3 times so far.

the american audiences are going to love it. Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap. I have rarely emerged from viewing a film with such a warm, happy feeling. I felt as if I had been out with really good friends and had a wonderful time! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting was superb, although I would have to mention Bill Nye in particular as giving an absolutely faultless performance. Bill is an excellent actor and would love to see him in more films. Timothy Spall and Jimmy Nail are also favourites and always love to see them as they give such a solid performance. And Billy Connolly, as always, totally gorgeous. It was a wonderful ensemble performance from all concerned. Such a refreshing experience to see a well-written, superbly acted and good-looking movie. Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).

Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.

I savour "moments", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...

Hugely enjoyable. "Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies). I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order. I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in "From Here To Eternity" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt. I also saw this upon its release in '56, and have been struck since then with its final scene. If this is an answer to 'High Noon,' then it's an apt and apposite response. The notion that, as this string is headed, "The town comes together" is a much stronger message than the lonely personal heroism of 'High Noon.' In this theme, 'Concho' is a phenomenal precursor of one my other all-time favorites, 'The Magnificent Seven.' Both Sinatra and Conrad give impressive and convincing performances, especially Sinatra's transformation from bullying kid brother to liberating town savior. I can only hope that at some point all the friends and family on whom over the years I've inflicted my affection for this movie will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves. I borrowed this movie despite its extremely low rating, because I wanted to see how the crew manages to animate the presence of multiple worlds. As a matter of fact, they didn't - at least, so its seems. Some cameo appearance cut rather clumsily into the movie - that's it, this is what the majority of viewers think. However, the surprise comes at the end, and unfortunately then, when probably most of the viewers have already stopped this movie. I was also astonished when I saw that the Brazilian-Portuguese title of this movie means "Voyage into Death". This is THE spoiler.

That this movie is about a young girl who goes ALONE onto this boat (on reasons that are completely unclear), you understand only in the last 5 minutes. When you start the movie with the English title "Haunted Boat" in your head, you clearly think that the cameo appearances of strange figures are the "ghosts". But in reality, this movie is not like most other horror movies told from the distant writer-watcher perspective who can at almost any time differentiate between different levels of reality, it is told from the perspective of the young girl. We see her not alone, but together with the four friends because SHE sees them. We do not see that she is alone. So, the parallel worlds are not the cameo appearances flickering into the picture-stream, but the main story! We have at least two parallel worlds: The world in which the girl is and the world in which the 4 friends are. An intrusion of a third world is probably the young man with the medical skills who comes for a short time on the boat.

I cannot get rid of the deep conviction that with this movie, the movie-makers "cheated" an audience of several thousand people by letting them believe that what they have done is more or less a sophomore film-student elaborate with hastily "chosen" pseudo-actors that have met just the night before the start of the shooting in a dump after at least twelve beers. How mistaken can one be! But in addition to this big surprise which one learns only in the very last minutes, the end that follows gives another surprise. The girl is saved by a crew in a helicopter and another boat. When she has recovered from her shock, she visits again the place at the harbor where she ascended the boat together with the four friends. And there they are again! They wave her to them from the boat which has already taken off shore. She jumps into the water, arrives at the boat - and they are away. Miraculously beautiful. It remembers me a bit to the end of a poem by a Rhetoromance writer: When I awoke, I saw Death standing at my bed. But I closed my eyes. When I opened them again - he was gone. Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie "san pedro, California" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach "Queen Mary" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.

Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!

Best lines in the movie:

Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...

Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.

Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!

LOL! Well this movie was probobly one of the funniest scary movie i have ever seen. The effects are so bad you just have to laugh, and the acting, well lets say its no mel gibson. But Gary Browning who plays an police officer is so damn bad, he becomes good. I dont know how but he him self makes this movie a 10. You must see it if your in to horror/slash movies cause its bloody and funny at the same time. Killer movie. no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh. Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick! Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.

The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness. I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been? Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say "Keko Mask: Unknown" while the actor names are listed!

The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: "I've never seen such a beautiful vagina" and "Now I can die in peace." This film is totally fantastic!!

There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says "Hey there's no fog in it!" I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.

This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal? This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.

Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare. Very nicely done movie. It does stay in your memory. Better billed as a romance than flying or war, altho the flying parts are realistic and almost error free. Flying buffs like myself will enjoy this movie even if attracted by the airplanes, unless they have no sensitivity or have never been in love.

Fun watching early Crowe. He is good and exudes charm. His reading of "High Flight" is superb.

cheers, Boom Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently. I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story. I have just seen this film, and fallen in love with it. There is a little bit of something for everyone, and its a particular free for all when it comes to the romance between Lachlan and Lil. When they are on the beach, I nearly cried... there is the unspoken realization that time is the most precious commodity and it is most evident when they are together. This idea taken from several angles, from marriage to sibblings to finding love in the least conventional of places. The film almost makes you long for that kind of desperation when you know that tomorrow could very well be your last. Crowe was particularly wonderful in his role of Lachlan. I've always had a soft spot for the accent, but I nearly melted with his portrayal of his character. The way this film was shot is also beautiful, with the music, backdrop of the open fields, and superb acting. All together, this is a wonderful film that tugs at all of human emotions. I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.

Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator. I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing. Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.

PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret. I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead. I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.

First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.

Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.

I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime. Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this "Marty Feldman" thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it. This movie is far better than the original The Jerk. I would highly recommend it to anyone who like quirky humor. We have incorporated almost as many lines from this movie into our daytime discourse as we have from Monty Python.

The card game with the hobos and then with Mr. Suicide. The scene at the dinner table and his distaste for turtle soup. The original The Jerk was too choreographed ans staged. While I like Steve Martin, he seemed like he was trying to hard. The Jerk Too is a spoof and will be enjoyed by anyone. The Jerk Too is family friendly unlike the original The Jerk. Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.

Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.

It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.

Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.

I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.

Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.

For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend. First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic. Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans. If you're a a fan of either or both Chuck Norris & Judson Mills then this is the movie to see.It has a lot of adventure in it.It is a great follow up to President's Man.The chemistry between the main three stars(Chuck Norris,Judson Mills,Jennifer Tung)is incredible.My personal opinion.This movie along with the original,has turned out so well,that the networks should consider turning it into a regular series.If you've seen President's Man,i recommend this movie for you.If you've seen President's Man:A Line In The Sand but you haven't seen President's Man,then let me suggest that you do.You will not be disappointed with either one. Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10. I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie! There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.

Good show, very entertaining. Good marshal arts acting. Good story plot. The entire main crew did a nice job from Robert Urich, to Chuck, Norris, Jennifer Tung, and especially a BIG hand to Judson Mills. An especially fine tribute to Robert Urich, in his latter days. A GREAT ! actor who will be truly missed. A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.

This incredibly formulaic flick from the "Walker, Texas Ranger" squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of "Walker, Texas Ranger"), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10 When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this. Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye. So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons. me and my sister use to rent this every time we got movies and our parents would get so mad at so (but they let us anyways) and I love it...I can't find anyone that lives near me that knows what I am talking about...I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that loved this movie...I wish i could find this on DVD somewhere!! I would love to watch this now just bc I loved it so much as a little kid...and I'm 15 now!!! I remember so much about it...thats where I got the little bunny fufu song from and all my friends know the song but not the movie!! I think the little girl got there by sliding down the slide on her little playground thing I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing. Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role best in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--TAKE IT. I enjoyed this movie. Haven't seen Andy Griffith in ages and felt he fit this role perfectly. I've associated him with comedy but am pleased to see that he's versatile.

I wasn't troubled that Dotty's "anxiety disorder" may not have been verbatim from a psychiatric textbook. There are zillions of whatever-phobias and neuroses, and these can take on a broad variety of quantitative and qualitative forms. She is clearly a sensitive with extra-sensory powers as was understood by the local Indians but not by any Anglos. It is not surprising that this character is vulnerable and nominally eccentric.

Although this is taken to be a light "family movie", it is actually more sophisticated than it seems. Also, Hiram's twist at the end came as a pleasant surprise to me and tied all the preceding action together in a bundle. It's fun to contemplate the possibility of such spiritual guidance. Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.

The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.

Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.

7/10 The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again. Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.

I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them A classic cartoon, always enjoyable and funny. It has an interesting plot complete with lovable characters. Road Rovers is a show worth seeing, it is a short 13 episodes, and if you can ever manage a chance to see it, you should. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. I think Warner Brothers Studios should release a DVD that contains all 13 episodes. I would definitely buy it if they did, and if they do, you should buy it too. if you have kids who like dogs, they will love road rovers! Road Rovers should have gotten more attention while it was being aired, it was definitely an original and very special show that should have been appreciated much more than it was. Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great. Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours. "Radiofreccia" is still a good surprise in Italian cinema. The film is based on a book of Italian songwriter Luciano Ligabue, who also directs the movie and writes the music score -of course.

The film is a portrait of north Italian province life, in the Emilia Romagna region. We're in 1975, the time of the first free radios -one of the boys of the movie creates "Radioraptus". Youth wishes, friendship, love, sex, individual dramas and unemployment are among the themes, but the film speaks also about drugs -Freccia, the main character, is a victim of heroin slavery.

Without being boring and moralist, the story flows very well; the spontaneity of actors is strong and the way of directing as well. Obviously Luciano "Liga" Ligabue is neither Fellini nor a movie professional, first of all he's a musician. But he succeeds in making a good product. Unfortunately he'll not repeat the success with his second movie "Da zero a dieci" -not good at all.

In "Radiofreccia" actors are generally not very famous, the only star is Stefano Accorsi -one of the most popular young Italian actors. See in a small role another Italian songwriter -Francesco Guccini, he's the nice communist barman and football trainer! Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch. ...about the importance of being young, having friends, and most of all enjoying life. Through the experience of four friends, Ligabue shows to the audience how life was back in the 70's in a small italian village. the four carachters represent the four different aspects of human behavior; also the drug experience is well represented. I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano! John Candy's Performance in Once Upon A Crime is possibly his best ever. It's been My Favourite Movie since it came out. I Spent 5 Years searching for it. That's How Good It Is. If You Disagree, well, that's your opinion. Enjoy The Movie. This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!! With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment. I love Monte Carlo and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought everyone was very good. I was not familiar with Richard Lewis, I thought he made his character (Julian Peters) very personable, funny and attractive. Sean Young was very good as the befuddled rejected girl with a heart of gold. George Hamilton was charming and the perfect Italian gigolo. John Candy has a field day as the bon vivant. James Belushi is hysterical as a total jerk. Cybill Shepard gave a very sweet performance as a nice vulnerable ignored housewife. Delightful ensemble cast. Lots of talent, clever script, lots going on and beautiful locations. Just a nice pick me up for a dreary day. Especially in the winter when a trip to Europe is not anywhere on your horizon. I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named "Once Upon a Crime...". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a "great" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected. Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels. Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!! It's a good movie maybe I like it because it was filmed here in PR. The actors did a good performance and not only did the girls be girlish but they were good in fighting so it was awsome! The guy is cute too so it's a good match if you want to the guy or the girls. I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.

It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.

A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.

Regards, I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.

Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.

While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.

What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.

If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).

9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this. My roommate had bought this documentary and invited me to watch it with her. She's from China and only heard so much about 9/11 and wanted to know the cold hard truth and she wanted me to tell her more after the documentary. I felt awful watching this documentary, it was like reliving the nightmare and it still brings tears to my eyes.

But I'm extremely grateful that I watched this documentary, because on the day of September 11th, I'm sure we all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard, all of us could only think certain questions: "Why?", "How?", "What's going on?", "Oh, my God!". Almost all the Americans were grateful for the brave firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save others. But I don't think we thought about what they were really going though. This wasn't actually supposed to be a documentary about 9/11, the cameraman was just filming a typical day on the job and they just happened to be a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers and got everything, outside and in, on tape.

On Sep. 11th, I thought to myself "It's OK, the policemen and firemen will get the people out that survived". To be honest, I thought it was an accident, I was in my junior year of high school and getting changed from gym and getting ready to go to my science class. Someone came into the locker room shouting "Some building just got bombed in New York!", we all got dressed quickly and ran to our classrooms as we watched the first tower burning on TV. Not only 15 seconds later live on TV does the second plane crash into the other World Trade Center and we knew this was no accident. A few minutes later, we heard about the Pentagon and that there was a plane headed for Chicago but was shot down. So many thoughts ran through our heads and I kept on thinking "What are the firemen and policemen going to do?". But it's procedure to them I thought, they'll know what to do.

The first tower collapsed, we knew it, so many lives are now gone, the second tower crashed, things would never be the same. Those firemen in this documentary showed courage, confusion, and strength, the real raw human emotions. They didn't know what to do, they were just as scarred as those other people who were in the towers. They heard the bodies collapsing on the ground from people jumping out the windows. And here I was in a classroom just crying seeing all that was going on on TV. I was amazed with this film and just wanted to go to New York and tell them how grateful all the Americans were for their help. I know they feel like they were just doing their job, but they did more, they were hero's. Every day after Sep. 11th for 3 weeks they kept on digging knowing that there were no survivors, but they kept on hoping and praying. May God bless their kind and brave hearts.

As for my roommate she was crying and admitted this was her first time crying at these attacks. She got to see the truth of what had happened that tragic day. She asked "Why?". I didn't know what to say, it breaks my heart that people can be that evil. "It sounds clique', but it was a normal day for everyone" one of the firemen said in the documentary. No one expected this to happen. Not like that, those people in the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon or the planes that were hijacked, they were just doing their job, happen to be there, or even just was there for a second passing by. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered, and those hijackers did it with a song in their heart. Then seeing in the middle east all the people celebrating, why do people do this? They celebrated death and the lose of: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why?

So, thanks to those people for making this documentary. You truly think about the firemen, policemen, and the troops in Iraq and it keeps your hope up that there are good people in this world. Thank you to all those people, you are our heroes.

10/10 "9/11," hosted by Robert DeNiro, presents footage from outside and inside the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001.

Never too grisly and gory, yet powerful and moving. "9/11" is a real treat. Anyone not moved by this television show is immune to anything.

5/5 stars --

It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.

No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.

I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.

The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.

Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.

We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.

Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7. 9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).

In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.

The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.

The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?

This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.

I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?

There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?

There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying. **Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**

(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective.

In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together.

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter.

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion.

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them.

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10. Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended. Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary..... I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour. To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.

IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.

I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.

How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.

jf This was the most visually stunning, moving, amazing and incredible story I've ever experienced. Quite frankly, even those adjectives just cannot describe it. I can't just choose one scene that stood out for me. I suppose if I had to list a few it would be the reactions of the fireman to the crashing sound of jumping victims; the reaction of people trapped in the elevator, who were unaware of what was going on, as they finally emerge to the horrific scene; the shock and disbelief of the onlookers; and finally the silence.

On that day, and even now, I am reminded of Star Wars (1977). Obi-Wan says, `I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.' It is amazing how it is so accurate in its description. There was truly a disturbance in the Force.

This documentary vividly reveals this disturbance. The feelings are so incredibly visual. The anger, the frustration, the shock, the fear, the exhaustion, and the realization of its very magnitude. It's all there. Not a thing is missed.

This is a powerful and most moving documentary and well deserving of the Emmy. Not just because it documents 9/11 but because it is simply everything it should be.

If you plan to watch, be sure to grab a box of tissues. You'll need them. I know that I did. Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author. This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...

This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.

Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go. This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2

In a near future, the ordinary man above any suspicious from the suburb Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is hired by Digicorp, a huge corporation, to be assigned as a spy and steal secrets from their competitors, Sunways. Along his training, Morgan is brainwashed, assumes a new identity of Jack Thursby and travels to boring lectures. In one of them, he is approached by the beautiful and mysterious Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who advises him that nothing is how it seems to be. Morgan acknowledges a new reality, where he does not know who can be trusted.

The unknown "Cypher" was a great surprise for me. This movie has not been released in Brazil, but the engaging and exciting story is quite complex, with many plot points, and with great screenplay, direction and performances. In the very last twist, I recalled Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall". This movie certainly deserves to be watched more than once, and I really did not like the last scene, when the independent spy disposes the disputed disc in the sea. In only know the director Vicenzo Natali from the fantastic "Cube", and this second work I see is also stunning. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now. Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.

In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.

But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.

However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.

From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).

Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.

Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis. Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions.

I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.

I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.

While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in.

When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.

As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.

Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.

One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.

Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.

The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.

David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.

But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.

Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.

Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.

A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff! If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.

To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.

A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.

You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.

If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it! This movie is about this wimpy guy who decides to become a spy for a glamorous high tech company named Digicorp. This wimpy guy, Morgan (Jeremy Northam) is unhappy with his miserable suburban life and his demanding wife so he decides to become a spy. He is suppose to go to conventions from other high tech companies and find out all the companies' plans. Instead, Morgan finds himself attracted to a beautiful woman (played by Lucy Liu) and pretty much being double-crossed by these two companies that force him to become a double agent. How will Morgan get himself out of this? Can he trust the beautiful but mysterious Rita Foster (played by Lucy Liu)? And more importantly, can Morgan make it out alive? Wow! What a nifty movie! I was completely sucked in after 15 minutes of watching this movie. It is very suspenseful and you can feel Morgan's fear and confusion as he is doing his best to stay alive. The scene where they put this horrible contraption on Morgan's head to brainwash him is brilliantly creepy and frightening. Morgan slowly goes through a personality transformation that is not so readily apparent until you think about it after the film is finished. From a wimpy guy with bad hair and glasses, he turns into a man actively fighting for his life.

The ending, wow, the ending is incredible! The twist is so much fun! It left me gasping and cheering like crazy! Good performances from all around, especially from Jeremy Natham, Lucy Liu and Nigel Bennett.

I highly recommend this film! It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds" – starring Rock Hudson – as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time. WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.

Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.

It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.

I wish'd it would never end.

Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy.

This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.

Incredible!

8-22-06. Walt D in LV Who can watch a movie, look at Lucy Liu and not be overjoyed. That woman is amazingly beautiful & a talented actress. That's a tough combination to find now a days. And Jeremy Northam. i heard his name plenty of times, but i never really noticed him. My advice to Hollywood is : "use him more".

now about the movie: I watched it in one of my graveyard shift. I don't recommend that to anyone. It's a bit to complicated & mysterious for that. i still can't believe i didn't see the ending coming. I'm not gonna say what cause that'll spoil the hole movie. although saying this is spoilment enough.

now i'm suppose to cast my vote about this movie. I love the dark mystic story, the actors did a good job & i love the directors (natali) work in the past. There's not a big audience for this kind of thing, that's also pretty risky. you know what, i'm just gonna give this work a 8 cause everybody should see this. Then again, 1 point deduction cause there is always space for improvement. I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.

The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.

Congratulations to the Producer ! This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.

I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.

I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time. This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.

I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.

I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data.

Take it from there.

This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.

Then it begins to accelerate.

The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.

And at the end: All is not what it seems.

Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN. Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.

The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.

The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.

However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too "slow", but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.

Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and "louder" but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again... Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end. Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.

The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.

There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to.

What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.

Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film. "Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10. Don't read anything about this movie (especially nothing that could contain any spoilers). Just watch this awesome movie without knowing anything about it - and you'll have a really great experience. If you like to see an intelligent, twisted story: Go, get the DVD and you'll truly not be disappointed. "Cypher" is not really a sci-fi movie, more a psycho thriller settled in the environment of globalized business. It's about corporate secrets, how big companies spy each others research departments and the methods used by them. The actors do a great performance and the overall visual style of the movie provides a perfect mode of coldness. Cypher is much deeper, more complex and - what belongs the story and the ending - also much, much more satisfying than Vincenzo Natali's other movies "Cube" and "Nothing". Actually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen (and that's something I really don't say this about every fifth well-made flick). Sorry, can't tell you anything more about this movie without risking to hurt your experience. Just give it a chance. ;-) Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.

It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.

Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.

The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.

I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).

Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.

I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them. We stumbled upon the documentary, Grey Gardens, last Sunday and got "sucked in" without warning. Everyone who entered the room became transfixed on the television and the haunting images of Edith and Edie who seemed to be living out their lives in practically one room of a large filthy mansion on the beach, eating ice cream and corn on the cob (which was cooked on the bedside table)--and the cat urinating on edith's bed and her unbelievable words, "i thrive on it [the smell]." We had not seen the beginning and wondered what we were watching and how these aristocratic women managed to get in the position they were in. Spellbinding! a must see!!!! I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing. One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?

The answer is: Probably not.

But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.

This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.

Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.

Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.

Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.

Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.

As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.

There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.

Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.

Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."

Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.

Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."

It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.

Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.

There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.

At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.

This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort. 'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today. I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate

look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget

society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge

brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather

mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.

Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.

have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a

Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is

almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes

growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She

prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like

headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We

never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint

that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still

beautiful and full of life.

In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's

lives have become much less than what they once were. Little

Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her

earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and

even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings

along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is

one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a

model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to

find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,

full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic

bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.

Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little

Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,

the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver

scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly

candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable

since it's all real.

I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth

Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's

worth every penny. Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a "cult hit" so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ("Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!"), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as "eccentric", and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for "wacked out of their gourds", but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my "normal" type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed. I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's. This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended. Several years ago when I first watched "Grey Gardens" I remember laughing and finding it hilarious camp. Years later I still laugh out loud when I watch it, but after many viewings I've come to see the beauty in the strange, twisted relationship between the inseparable "Big" Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter "Little" Edith Bouvier Beale.

Mother and daughter living together in their decaying 28 room East Hampton mansion add a whole new meaning to the term "Shabby Chic". With innumerable cats, raccoons and opossums as roommates this Aunt and Niece of Jackie O. allowed filmmakers Albert and David Maysles into their mansion to film them living life day to day. The result is a hilarious, beautiful, sad and moving account of true love and anarchy rule.

The relationship between Big and Little Edie is a testament to the unbreakable bonds of love. And their lives an example of drive, determination and free-will. This movie has more to recommend it than I can put down into words. It is a rare experience that you must see for yourself.

I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out.

I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating?

Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time. This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !

Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' ) The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film. Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding. Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one. I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable. Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget. Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable. I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary.

Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.

I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film. Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society. I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up! Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion. Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"

Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!"

Great documentary!!

9/10 When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do. I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though. It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's "The Gates" in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings "Tea for Two". Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, " at least someone is doing what they want"! One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: "It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie "The World Famous Singer" and Little Edie " The World Famous Dancer." I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.

Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating. All I can say is, if you don't fall in love with Big and Little Edie after watching this movie, then you're not human! Even after watching it for the first time, I was hooked. It is a mesmerizing experience that is difficult to describe, as I'm sure other fans will attest to. After watching it, you will cry to think that these two wonderful ladies are no longer with us. At least we have Grey Gardens to remember them! I think we all long to possess the fierce independence these two ladies were graced with. Although I have always admired Jackie Onassis Kennedy, she does not stay in your heart the way Big and Little Edie do. What a rare treat to have know such people; I only wish I had! This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word "bigot" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to "shock"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity... This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)

Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment. For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.

What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.

So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that. I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.

You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is "pulled over" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - "Do you know why I am standing here?" he asks. "Because you got all C's in high school?" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.

Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her "Jesus is Magic" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that. Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and "Your car smells like farts" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel! I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").

I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.

This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out! Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there? Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job). When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.

Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.

I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.

The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show. First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too. Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever. The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will "get it," it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with "Jesus is Magic" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot. Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential.

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds. Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time. The Sarah Silverman program is ... better than those other shows. No laugh tracks, no painful jokes, just a program. The Sarah Silverman program. If you're like me, and you love comedy, this is probably a show for you.

Sarah Silverman brings out-there-funny, and right-here-funny to the table with ease. A mix of different styles, which makes for its own.

This program isn't something you want to start a compare war with, seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with them (other shows). This show is its own entity, and i think most comedy heads will like it just fine.

Go watch and see. I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there.

ps, Sarah? Call me.... I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year! The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor. This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.

The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.

One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.

At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.

And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.

This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not. The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.

Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top.

Poison Clan rocks! Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"

The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.

The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.

The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest! For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale. Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.

But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.

Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.

Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.

The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes. Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.

The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.

The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed! After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his "unfinished" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five "venoms" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!! Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet. Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story. There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.

An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word "Venom" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.

Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.

It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.

One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan. "In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from." One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD. A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.

Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.

Around 7 out of 10. This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison. If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10

I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.

The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.

How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.

We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.

If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this. I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!

We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".

Watch it soon! This movie is really good. The plot, which works like puzzle forces viewer to think and guess, what will happen next. Such a trick brings a lot of surprises and makes a viewer really looking forward to solution of a riddle. Fighting scenes are very good. There's a lot of different combat styles (although one of styles was a bit unreal for me, but it's only my opinion) to watch and it's fascinating show. The only thing which may be irritating is actors look. A bit too effeminate (at least for me). Hong Kong was always good at kung-fu movies especially in the 70's and 80's, so "Five Venoms" (or other its versions) is great choice. When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended. After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the "spin" pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one. I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly. Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best. The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!! I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.

The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important "type writer" clicks and air "whooshes", which is a cool effect though quite amusing!

I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action. The comic banter between William Powell and Jean Arthur is the highlight of this murder mystery, which has one of the most bizarre and unlikely plots ever. Powell is probably the most suave detective of the 30's, and Arthur has a unique voice which often sounds like a succession of tiny tinkly bells. They are extremely fun to watch, so take the brashness of the plot with a grain of salt and just enjoy seeing it unfold. Eric Blore also has some comic turns as Powell's butler.

Powell's contract with MGM included a clause which allowed him to reject being loaned out to another studio, but he wanted to work again with Arthur and he liked the script, so he eagerly accepted the assignment. They had worked together in two 1929 Paramount films, The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, both in the Philo Vance series. RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films. I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself. William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were. "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" (1936), starring Thin Man series star William Powell (this film was released the same year as the second Thin Man film, "After The Thin Man," comes very close to duplicating the fun and style of the Thin Man films, but it nonetheless misses. Still, it is a wonderfully fun, highly entertaining murder mystery in the same comic vein.

Is Myrna Loy missed? Of course, let's not lie. However, I'd be hard-pressed to name a better substitute than Jean Arthur. And the chemistry between Arthur and co-star William Powell is real and it's fun, romantic and involving.

The story and screenplay by Anthonyu Vieller and John Wyne's production company partner, James Edward Grant ("The Angel & The Bad Man") is close to being up there with a Thin Man effort, but lacks a bit of the proper wit and sizzle.

While it's not in the stratosphere of 'The Thin Man" movies (what else is?), "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is one of the most entertaining of the dozens and dozens of mystery-comedy "who-done-its" of the '30s & 40s. Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), "Mister Roberts", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), "Shane", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) "King Kong" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS! A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)

Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.

Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages. As with all of Angelopoulos' films, "The Suspended Step of the Stork" implicitly demands a close and intimate participation on the part of the viewer, a fact that has certainly contributed to the limited popularity of his work. Dialogues are sparing, with no monologues or exchanges exteriorizing the characters' inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The filmmaker prefers to keep the viewers away from their own emotional responses, and instead forces them to explore and study the characters' identities for themselves. As a result, the acting is understated and implicit, as opposed to overt and explicit.

The action scenes are set between long intervals of contemplation, where the viewer is asked to become a participant, to participate as an actor, by probing his or her own psyche. As in a novel, where the drama rests entirely on the author's writing to provide a template where the reader's imagination and/or past experience flourish, Angelopoulos' drama rests within his images: his uses of the long shots, the long takes, the leisurely pacing, the sparing dialogues that have become his trademark, inviting the viewer to experience the film from his or her personal perspective. Angelopoulos uses silence to capture moments of high intensity, reverting to the non-verbal language of gestures, gazes, sounds, and music, when he believes that words can only take us so far.

The music, by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, provides more than just a discreet background, but becomes itself a dramatic element of the story. A large part of the film consists of exterior shots in subtle, subdued colors, recorded in a drab winter light. Angelopoulos presents us with an "other Greece," one far different from the Greece of the tourist brochures, with ethereal blue skies and emerald seas, drowned in an eternal sunshine. Here, the skies are covered and gray, the air is cold and misty, and the sands of the pristine beaches have been replaced by the trampled, dirty snow of the village streets. Angelopoulos' genius through Arvanitis' camera is on display throughout the film.

"The Suspended Step of the Stork" is above all else a political statement aimed at the socio-political situation in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century. It is deeply concerned with the meaning of "borders," and with those who are the victims of the confusion between nations. In the "waiting room" facing the Albanian border, the refugees, political or other, outcast by the rest of humanity, wait. They may be stuck against a political border, but unfortunately they still carry with them, and hang on, deeper ancestral borders: those of the languages, of the customs, and of the races. Although Angelopoulos' political views are well known, the film steers clear of any political discourse regarding the causes of the refugees' plights. In the process, Angelopoulos forces us to meditate on the concepts of geographical, cultural, political, and personal "borders."

Angelopoulos considers himself a historian of twentieth century Greece, and he likes to bring lessons from the Hellenic myths into his discussions. In this film, he does some border crossing himself between the Greek and Italian cultures, drawing from a combined Homeric and Dantesque tradition of Odysseus' travel. Alexander is a Telemachus, in search of a story about an aging Greek politician/Odysseus who disappeared, never to be heard of again. This political man, a brilliant orator, unexpectedly and inexplicably left the comfort of his bourgeois existence, his wife, and his brilliant career, to live anonymously in a refugee camp with the lowest of the low. He became a poet in exile wondering how to change the world. Of course, the "politician" is not Alexander's father, but the "politician" stands before Alexander like a father figure/Odysseus. As with Homer's Telemachus, Alexander grows as a person during his odyssey.

Of course, it would be wrong to try and see in the film a retelling of Homer's Odyssey in a contemporary context. Angelopoulos draws on Odysseus's travels only as structuring and thematic elements for his film. In Angelopoulos' ending, "Odysseus" is more like the Dante's Odysseus: he does not leave for Ithaca but goes on, "carrying a suitcase." And Alexander/Telemachus is "suspended" between returning to his home and his career, or embarking on a voyage to "somewhere else." He states as much, in a voice-over at the beginning of the film, paraphrasing few lines from Dante's "Inferno": "And don't forget that the time for a voyage has come again. The wind blows your eyes far away."

Finally, although Angelopoulos is not a religious person, there is a Greek Orthodox religious theme introduced during the film in the form of the yellow-suited linesmen, who go around bettering things for their fellow human beings by reconnecting communications, and also the Christ-like figure of the "politician." In the final scene, these men in yellow demonstrate once more the Byzantine iconography's influence in Angelopoulos' work. They appear like "stylites," religious figures found in the Orthodox tradition, solitary and fervent men who took up their abode upon the tops of pillars, in a form of asceticism.

The film ends without a resolution as to the true identity of the character played by Mastroianni. Angelopoulos does not give us any clues, and the wife's statement, "It's not him," is far from convincing and left ambiguous enough. The important question of the film is not whether he is or is not the vanished politician, but that he could be the politician. But the film still ends on an optimistic note. Whereas the wires strung from pole to pole run only along the river, and thus communications across the border are still not possible, and it remains impenetrable, we note that this final scene is taken from a point of view across the river: the camera has crossed the border, and the reverse tracking shot is inviting Alexander and the viewer to follow beyond the boundary. On this account, Angelopoulos gives us hope that somehow, some of the borders will eventually crumble. I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time. Was flipping around the TV and HBO was showing a double whammy of unbelievably horrendous medical conditions, so I turned to my twin sister and said, "Hey this looks like fun," - truly I love documentaries - so we started watching it. At first I thought Jonni Kennedy was a young man, but then it was explained that due to his condition, he never went through puberty, thus the high voice and smaller body. He was on a crusade to raise money for his cause. He had the most wonderful sense of humor combined with a beautiful sense of spirituality... I cried, watched some more, laughed, got up to get another Kleenex, then cried some more. Once Jonni Kennedy's "time was up" he flew to heaven to be with the angels. He was more than ready; he had learned his lessons from this life and he was free. I highly recommend this. If you do not fall in love with this guy, you have no heart. I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's. In September 2003 36-year-old Jonny Kennedy died. He had a terrible genetic condition called Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - which meant that his skin literally fell off at the slightest touch, leaving his body covered in agonising sores and leading to a final fight against skin cancer. In his last months Jonny decided to work with filmmaker Patrick Collerton to document his life and death, and the result was a film, first broadcast in March, that was an uplifting, confounding and provocatively humorous story of a singular man. Not shying away from the grim reality of EB, the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full. Produced and directed by Patrick Collerton and first shown in March 2004 The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off has become the most talked about documentary of that year. It attracted nearly five million viewers and after the screening the public donated over half a million pounds to Jonny's charity, DEBRA. A Jonny Kennedy Memorial Fund has been set up to raise another half a million with the aim of ensuring that Jonny Kennedy left a one million pound legacy. The most moving and truly eye opening documentary ever created. I cried the whole way through, from start to end. Watching the show you are immediately captured by a man's struggle to live without pain, to live a life we would take for granted. The first time I heard the title, I was almost scared to see the program, it was hard for me to comprehend living in agony every day of every year of my life. I truly felt for him. The saddest part of the documentary is when Jonny picks out his coffin. Could you imagine doing that? Even more so, even though he was in excruciating and unbearable pain he still opened up his own charity. (DEBRA)Jonny is one of the only people that deserves true respect and admiration, he is the definition of a role model, what a true and undeniable hero he was! This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or "down" day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it! i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above. This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy. This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary! I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh! This movie isn't as bad as I heard. It was enjoyable, funny and I love that is revolves around the holiday season. It totally has me in the mood to Christmas shop and listen to holiday music. When this movie comes out on DVD it will take the place of Christmas Vacation in my collection. It will be a movie to watch every year after Thanksgiving to get me in the mood for the best time of the year. I heard that Ben's character was a bit crazy but I think it just adds to the movie and why be so serious all the time. Take it for what is it, a Christmas comedy with a love twist. I enjoyed it. No, it isn't Titanic and it won't make your heart pound with anticipation but it will bring on a laugh or two. So go laugh and have a good time:) What would you expect from a film titled 'Surviving Christmas'and presented as 'festive fun', something like Ghandi or English patient? There are lots of things I love about this film, it's funny, it is very well cast and it is superbly written. I came to the film as a Kaplan/Elfort fan but was dubious when I read the plot, it sounded ridiculous. But the film doesn't come across like that because Affleck (as Drew Latham) plays his part perfectly, one minute a child-like adult, the next a mature man who realises he has gained everything in life apart from what he really wants. In fact we see Latham grow up in this film, when he encounters the problems of those he envies and realises that their lives are not so good, he sees that his own lot is not so bad.

This film has fewer weak or dud scenes than many other comedies I have seen. Comedy is so much harder than any other type of drama, it either works or it doesn't and very few comedy writers get it correct every time.I particularly loved the drama scene, where the family take to reading parts written by Latham . The pleasure is in the reaction of Tom Valco (James Gandolfini) and the comments of Brian Valco (Josh Zuckerman). It is the dilemma of the greedy Tom Valco who has to bite his tongue, wear silly hats or sing to the Christmas tree in order to earn the prize money that keeps the film moving along well.

The addition of daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) into the story brings a delightful romantic angle, and why not in a Christmas film? Of course its corny and contrived; he's rich and handsome, she's beautiful and single, and so inevitably her and Afflect end up falling over together in the snow and finding themselves face to face. Great! One thing I would have liked was more use of festive music to boost the atmosphere but I can't really complain. I got what I wanted. At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too. Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies. I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.

This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".

If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out. Its a good thing I rented the movie before seeing the viewer rating from this site. It was a wonderful movie that I will be adding to my Christmas selection. The cast was wonderfully chosen and Ben Affleck plays a good leading role. I would tell viewers who have not seen the movie to go ahead and buy it. I rate it right up there with Christmas vacation. The movie was very funny and well written and Ben plays the eccentric rich executive very well. The things he says and does is just how I would imagine a person with too much money to act. The movie is much funnier than The Santa Claus and Christmas With The Kranks. Plus it has a good story line and teaches the true meaning of Christmas which is you can't buy love with money. What's not to like about this movie? Every year you know that you're going to get one or two yule tide movies during Christmas time and most of them are going to be terrible. This movie is definitely a fresh new idea that was pulled off pretty well. A very funny take on a rich young guy paying a family to simulate a real Christmas for him. What is the good of having money like that if you can't do fun things with it. It was a win-win situation. A regular family gets six figures and a rich guy gets to experience Christmas like he imagined. Only if.

Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) was incredibly difficult to deal with and it was just a riot to see the family reluctantly comply with his absurd demands. It was a fun and funny movie. You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene. Come on people. This movie is better than 4. I can see this happening...wealthy people have done crazier things than this. And it was funny.

I watch a comedy to be entertained, escape from the pressures of the world for a short while, and not to have to take anything too seriously. This movie fully suits that purpose. I judge a movie on its own merits and am not about to compare Surviving Christmas to Blazing Saddles. I watched totally dysfunctional people grow into caring, likable individuals who could easily live down the street from my home. It will remain on my list of "favorite.....must watch for the holiday season". If you just want to have a fun 90 minutes, watch this one. What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it. This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone. A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?

The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.

No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7. When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".

Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks. Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick "Hot Blooded" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.

When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late.

Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous. for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people. This is surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable and well made, with some decent gore!. All the characters are decent, and the story is quite fun, plus Molly Ringwald played the annoying bitch extremely well. I bought this at a pawn shop for a 1$, and it was surprisingly worth it, and the special effects were pretty damn good for the budget, plus I loved the mask the killer wore as it was actually somewhat creepy. The finale was really cool, as I loved how they defeated the killer, and the ending while predictable was very amusing as well, plus all the characters except for Ringwald were surprisingly pretty likable!. It's decently made and written, and I thought it was quite creative and original at times as well, plus some of the death scenes were very impressive. This killer didn't mess around, and I loved it, and Slasher fans(like myself) should really enjoy this film, plus The opening was really wicked too, with them filming the movie!. This is a surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable,and well made, with some decent gore, and I say it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Kimble Rendall does a good! job here with solid camera work, using a creepy setting, good angles and keeping the film at a fast moving pace. The acting is solid!. Molly Ringwald plays the bitch extremely well,and I had troubles feeling sorry for her, after all she was supposed to be the heroine, she turned out better towards the end, but not by much, I'm surprised she decided to do this film, nonetheless she did an excellent job!. Frank Roberts is fantastic as the killer, he is menacing, creepy and had one hell of a mask, and this guy didn't mess around, he was fantastic!. Kylie Minogue plays a bitch very well in her small role. Jessica Napier is cute and does fine as the other heroine. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5 This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.

So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight. "Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both. It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me. What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.

This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.

If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out. Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.

'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.

The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.

Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.

While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.

Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.

'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.

*** ½ out of 4 Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all...... Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger. I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.

The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.

I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason. Jon Voight is brilliant in Midnight Cowboy, but Hoffman's performance, though reminiscent of his later turn in Rainman, is the kind of performance that keeps me watching movies. As a portrayal of a New York character, only Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Bill Butcher in Gangs of New York comes to mind as comparable, and Day doesn't give his character the emotional depth that Hoffman gives Ratso.

It's typical of Hoffman's way of acting that the actor we tend to identify most with Midnight Cowboy is Voight. I think Hoffman is one of the 4 or 5 best actors in the history of film at playing off the people around him in such a way that he raises their performances far above their normal levels.

Voight's Buck is so naive that he would float out of the film altogether, except that Ratso pulls him down - pulls him down, but also teaches him, a lot about how to survive and, more importantly, how to live.

Midnight Cowboy is a movie about escape that turns into a movie about finding yourself. I think that, as gritty a movie as it is, it has a very beautiful message, that no matter how much a loser you might be (Ratso clearly defines "loser"), if you can find a way to be true to yourself, you are in possession of the secret of life, and you might even be able to share that insight with someone else.

I can't help but compare Midnight Cowboy to Klute, from a few years later, which I think is more like a movie about finding yourself that turns into a movie about escape. I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.

The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.

The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.

Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.

It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.

Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.

All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life. I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.

I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.

I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.

In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended. The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.

Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.

Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.

The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.

The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.

With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined. What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different. THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)

Number 1 - Television Show of all Time

Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.

James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.

While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.

The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.

Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.

Simply exceptional.

10/10 Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)

I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.

Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading. When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.

I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.

It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.

I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will. As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance? Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons.

6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).

I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever.

Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase. There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV The "gangster" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichés that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you. Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time. "The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4 I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1 It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......

From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!

While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)

But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?

Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.

All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled. I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems. Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it. The Sopranos is perhaps the most mind-opening series you could possibly ever want to watch. It's smart, it's quirky, it's funny - and it carries the mafia genre so well that most people can't resist watching. The best aspect of this show is the overwhelming realism of the characters, set in the subterranean world of the New York crime families. For most of the time, you really don't know whether the wise guys will stab someone in the back, or buy them lunch.

Further adding to the realistic approach of the characters in this show is the depth of their personalities - These are dangerous men, most of them murderers, but by God if you don't love them too. I've laughed at their wisecracks, been torn when they've made err in judgement, and felt scared at the sheer ruthlessness of a serious criminal.

The suburban setting of New Jersey is absolutely perfect for this show's subtext - people aren't always as they seem, and the stark contrast between humdrum and the actions taken by these seemingly petty criminals weigh up to even the odds.

If you haven't already, you most definitely should. I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.

I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).

Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....

Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1). The Sopranos stands out as an airtight, dynamic exploration of American life, and how the American experience is shaped and defined by money. By setting the story in the milieu of the underworld, David Chase eliminates all barriers to a grunt, low to the ground and outright mean deconstruction of the post-modern era.

Every character represents a facet of American industry. Tony Soprano exemplifies the beleaguered working stiff, torn between familial duty and a need to keep his "business" on an even keel. The convergence of these two things is the imperative that keeps the story moving forward. The characters of Christopher, Paulie, and Bobby reflect the loyal - but self-serving underlings present in every enterprise, who are trusted out of necessity rather than merit. With the character of Ralph, Joe Pantoliano essays a brilliant interpretation of the charismatic psychopath, a twisted businessman who's flourishes of violence are tragically outweighed by his stunning earning power. And Dominic Chianese is the ultimate symbol of the antiquated old-guard, which maintains power through established relationships and the need of the up- and-comers to deflect blame.

Though abrasive and occasionally disturbing, The Sopranos has earned its place as the ultimate TV drama.

PS A good companion piece to Chase's series would be The Shield, another violent drama that manages to make the ugliest of characters interesting. Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more. The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.

The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it... The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.

Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.

James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.

Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.

The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.

Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).

Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit. Though "The Sopranos" is yet another gift from the megahit "The Godfather" and sequels, which dramatized and to a certain extent glamorized the mafia, "The Sopranos" takes another tack. No suited up, classy mobsters here with homes in Lake Tahoe and stakes in Vegas casinos - these guys are goombahs, with a front of waste management, who deal with things that fall off the back of trucks, topless bars, protection money - in short, what the neighborhood mobs were all about.

Colorful characters dominate this series, which doesn't hold back on the sex and graphic violence. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mob head with a wife and two children, living in New Jersey, who suffers from panic attacks as he tries to balance his biological family with his mafia one. To get to the bottom of his attacks, he sees a psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), who is afraid of him and yet attracted to him at the same time. Tony's henchman - Paulie, his nephew Christopher, his Uncle Junior (the titular head of the mob), his good friend Pussy - are all fully fleshed-out characters.

As we learn going through the series, there are enemies not only from without, but from within, and one of those enemies includes Tony's sickly but horrible mother (Nancy Marchand), who convinces Junior that Tony is a danger to him. Tony's sister Janice, meanwhile, is searching for money in her mother's house with a stethoscope and a Geiger counter. Tony has mistress problems, and a wife (Edie Falco) who puts up with a lot because she loves him, all the while keeping ties to her Catholic religion. "The church frowns on divorce," she tells one woman contemplating a split. "Let the Pope live with him," is the response. As far as Tony's mistress problems, his psychiatrist points out that Tony is attracted to demanding women for whom nothing is ever enough, and asks him if it sounds familiar. Yeah, it sounds like his mother.

I'm of Italian descent, and yes, I'm sick of Italians being shown in a negative light and everyone assuming all Italians are mobsters. Yet you can't help liking this show, which is a constant reminder of our culture. (Thanksgiving, it's pointed out, isn't turkey and sweet potato pie - it's the antipasto, the manicotti, the meatballs and escarole, and then the bird!) Not to mention, the right-on pronunciation of words like melenzana (mullinyan), escarole (scarole), manicotti (manigot) etc. The only un-Italian thing about Tony is that he doesn't have a finished basement, something unheard of in the rest of my family (except my parents never had one either).

The standouts in this show are Gandolfini, as a ruthless gangster on antidepressants, Falco, who is brilliant as his wife, and Bracco as the tortured Jennifer. But everyone is excellent. If you can take the violence and the language, this is a great show, an unrelenting portrait of New Jersey mob life. As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this. "The Godfather" of television, but aside from it's acclaim and mobster characters, the two are nothing alike. Tony Soprano is forced to go to a psychiatrist after a series of panic attacks. His psychiatrist learns that Tony is actually part of two families -- in one family he is a loving father yet not-so-perfect-husband, and in the other family he is a ruthless wiseguy. After analysis, Dr. Melfi concludes that Tony's problems actually derive from his mother Livia, who's suspected to have borderline-personality disorder. Gandolfini is rightfully praised as the main character; yet Bracco and Marchand aren't nearly as recognized for their equally and talented performances as the psychiatrist and mother, respectively. Falco, Imperioli and DeMatteo are acclaimed for their brilliant supporting roles. Van Zandt (from the E-Street Band) plays his first and only role as Tony's best friend, and is quite convincing and latching. Chianese, the only recurring actor to have actually appeared in a Godfather film, plays Tony's uncle and on-and-off nemesis. Many fans also enjoyed characters played by Pastore, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, Pantoliano, Lip, Sciorra and Buscemi. Tony's children are "okay" but not notable (with the exception of Iler's stunning performance in the third-to-last episode, "The Second Coming"); Sirico and Schirripa are unconvincing and over-the-top, but the show is too strong for them to hold it back. Even as the show continues for over six season, it ceases to have a dull or predictable moment.

**** (out of four) Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos. The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano....... This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.

Season 1

1. The Sopranos: 5/5

2. 46 Long: 4.5/5

3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5

4. Meadowlands: 4/5

5. College:

6. Pax Soprana: 5/5

7. Down Neck: 4.5/5

8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5

9. Boca: 4.5/5

10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5

11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5

12. Isabella: 5/5

13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5 Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.

All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.

Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context. Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best. Spoilers!

From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!

If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?

After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up.

I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"

This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place.

Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty.

9 of 10 stars.

So sayeth the Hound.

Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider! Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+. I've always liked this John Frankenheimer film. Good script by Elmore Leonard and the main reason this wasn't just another thriller is because of Frankenheimer. His taut direction and attention to little details make all the difference, he even hired porn star Ron Jeremy as a consultant! You can make a case that its the last good film Roy Scheider made. I've always said that Robert Trebor gave just a terrific performance. Clarence Williams III got all the publicity with his scary performance and he's excellent also but I really thought Trebor stood out. Frankenheimer may not be as proud of this film as others but it is an effective thriller full of blackmail, murder, sex, drugs, and real porno actors appear in sleazy parts. What can you say about a film that has Ann Margaret being shot up with drugs and raped? A guilty pleasure to say the least. Vanity has a real sleazy role and a very young Kelly Preston makes an early appearance. A classic exploitive thriller that shouldn't be forgotten. This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking "but I loved GET SHORTY" you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the "feel" for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday. This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie. 52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this. Life's going not to badly for Harry Mitchell, he's an ex-air force major (plus nifty little pension I imagine), who's raking in the cash for a patent he's developed (fusing titanium and steel via explosive process, creating super metal fit for NASA), and his wife of twenty-odd years has kept herself in pretty good nick. He's got a nice little pad in LA. I like to see visions of the 80s consumer dream, and you get a good slice here, what with the restored silver Jag (a series 1 E-type roadster) for him, and the gorgeous antique dolls house for her (as well as I'm sure other trinkets and boys toys). There's always got to be more though hasn't there? So Harry let's himself get caught up in some romantic shenanigans (you're only as old as the woman you're feeling). As in many films noir, one mistake, in an otherwise blotch-less life, leads to a downwards arc for Harry.

Three blackmailers leech onto him. These are where the value are for me, great character actors playing very believable roles. Bobby Shy (played by Clarence Williams III) is a black ex-con who is capable of performing incredible psychopathic acts in order to avoid jail and punish double-crossers. He's reminiscent of Pluto, the vicious black ex-con psychopath from Carl Franklin's well-regarded neo-noir "One False Move" (1992). There's a similar character motivation I believe. Both men have had enough of the man, and well pretty much everyone, in extremis. Robert Trebor plays Leo Franks, a fat lily-livered pansy who runs a nudie parlour where gents can photograph nude models at $25 for half an hour, and $50 for a whole hour (did anyone else guffaw at the lack of discount?). He's in over his head, and it's great to watch Trebor acting when Leo starts to feel the heat, believable breakdown. John Glover wins as Alan Raimy, who is the brains of the plot, an actually brilliant man who becomes a pornographer and turns to a life of crime out of sheer sociopathic ennui. He's a sexual sadist and does a few particularly unpleasant things during the movie, including what I believe is a pretty well-implied rape (pay attention to his RAP sheet readout, it's easily missed, and read between the lines for the motel scene with "Slim").

In common with One False Move, though not exclusively, I think the real impact of the movie is in the unusually communicative scenes of violence.

So far so good but I think there's a real problem with the film. Harry Mitchell is told at one point that he has his "tit in the wringer". My problem is that Harry Mitchell is played by Roy Scheider. Roy Scheider protagonists never lose, they're self-sure and smooth, but not in an annoying way. I feel I'm being asked to believe that his character is in peril, the movie relies on this for dramatic tension; however I didn't believe it. For me it's like being asked to believe that Sandra Bullock's character is going to end up sleeping alone by the end of a romantic drama, or Stephen Seagal's character is going to get taken down by the baddies (did actually happen in one movie but was done deliberately for shock value). Roy Scheider doesn't convince as an adulterer either, you don't feel any annoyance with him at all, his character is Teflon-coated.

It also felt like a movie that took some cuts. At 110 minutes it still feels underdeveloped: Harry's wife, Ann Margaret, is pretty much a cardboard cutout, an extension of Harry, her back story as a politician running for office receives scant attention. The effect that the affair has on Harry's marriage isn't properly communicated. This could be a Frankenheimer problem, he's not known for character development. I never felt that Harry was dealing with little more than an overtly annoying and erroneous tax claim from the IRS.

There is good sleazy violent noir content in this film, but I feel that to be in the excellent bracket that the casting of Harry could have been done better (no disrespect to the great Roy Scheider). The film felt short, even with the long running time, and I think could have taken some more fleshing out.

But you really can't forget the sleaze, like the deliciously pervy scene of Harry taking photos of Doreen in the nudie parlour. Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out. This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport. The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end. I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard. I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids! I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(

I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today. Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours. I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only. OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too. First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.

This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.

What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers. I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents. I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie! First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.

I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver.

It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.

However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.

Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over. I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.

Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces". Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game. Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.

The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary? I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been. it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.

it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt. I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best. I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now! "Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.

Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.

My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood. Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.

After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.

The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.

It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.

Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies." At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in.

long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.

i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....

it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....

what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.

well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try?

i would For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.

This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.

If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity. This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt. "I'll Take You There" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers. I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy:

"It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless" Real cool, smart movie. I loved Sheedy's colors, especially the purple car. Alice Drummond is Wise And Wonderful as Stella. I liked Sheedy's reference to how her face had gotten fatter. The roadside dance scene is brilliant. Really liked this one. I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...

It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.

I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done! This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production. The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.

The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.

The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)

Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way. i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent. I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff. Monty Berman and Dennis Spooner followed up 'The Baron' with this, a fantasy series about three superhuman spies which preempted 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. It was a favourite of mine when I was a youngster, and I enjoy watching it still. Stuart Damon and William Gaunt had an unmistakable on-screen chemistry as Craig Stirling and Richard Barrett, while the luscious Alexandra Bastedo pouted her way through her role as Sharron Macready. The late Anthony Nicholls made a wonderfully gruff Tremayne. By far the best episodes were those written by Tony Williamson, Terry Nation and Brian Clemens, while Spooner's own 'The Interrogation' compared favourably with 'The Prisoner'. I regret that there was never a second series; the concept had so much life left in it. Would Craig and Richard have been competitors for Sharron's affections? What if Tremayne had learned of the Champions' powers? Did the Champions have any other abilities other than those we saw? We never found out, alas. Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done! My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).

I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans. I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...

The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.

Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).

The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.

The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.

Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.

If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

Enjoy! When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set! "Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.

The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.

Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.

Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.

The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.

The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.

Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10 Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise! If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...

Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.

With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.

Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.

It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.

Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.

Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!

Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing. I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs. Maléfique is a very interesting movie. It is an unholy alloy of triumphs and failures. The central concept is great, three inmates with bizarre personalities are joined by a fourth (who the audience identify with) and they try to escape from their cell using a book of magic that they find within the walls of the cell.

The atmosphere is well-woven, it reminds me of reading about the prison stay of Edmond Dantes' in the Château d'If (prior to becoming the Count of Monte Cristo). The director sets up the feeling that the characters are tied to the cell, particularly the character we are meant to identify with (Carrère - a white-collar criminal whose crime is not specified, but it's obliquely suggested might be fraud). On one occasion Carrère dithers when leaving the cell for exercise and has the cell door shut on him; we never leave the cell, the claustrophobia is unbroken. There are also no shots of the prison outside the cell, and the view through the bars is a longing sunset over a generic prison wall. So even though the film appears to be very modern, it has a very old world feel of incarceration.

The characters are intriguing. We have Marcus, a violent pre-op transsexual who plays an abusive mother to Pâquerette (French for Daisy) a heavily retarded young man. Pâquerette likes to eat everything he finds beautiful, and unfortunately this included his baby sister, hence his current predicament (I like this comment on internalisation, very primitive). Lasalle is a withdrawn, possessed elderly man, in for brutally murdering his wife.

The central message of the movie is that your desires will annihilate you, and there's a ritual that goes with that. I think that's what disturbs me the most, seeing people destroying themselves ritualistically. It has a real life ring to it. The quite simple soundtrack backs this up well, every step deeper into the quicksand is accompanied by the dull ringing of a gong. I'm actually hearing the gong now every time I do something self-destructive.

I think one of the plot problems is that the ends of the characters don't really reinforce the message consistently, particularly with Carrère, also the concept of the book seems to alter throughout the film, not in terms of a successive revelation either. I also think that some of the images we see are a bit amateurish, more by design than execution, such as the famous "vagina eye", and the sodomy of Lasalle, for me, totally hollow images.

At the end the movie it feels like the director is in a rush to get it over with, and some things don't seem logical, for example we've been clumsily led to believe different things about Carrère's child. This doesn't change the fact though that what we have here is that rare bird, a "pure" horror movie. There is no comedic dross or genre segueing, like Cube (1997/Natali), the obvious movie to compare it to, it's a total immersion experience, where you feel as if you are in the cell with the characters. This last comment I make about it being a "pure" experience I think is something others have mentioned as well so that is a fairly unanimous point.

On a personal note my favourite part of the film is when Lasalle talks about his past as a librarian. He very vividly describes a scene where he goes to work one day and sits down in his usual place in the centre of a room where all the books are arranged in a circle around him. The books seem to be chanting to him that he will never contain their knowledge. This prompts Lasalle to go insane. That really is the problem with an obsession with understanding and knowledge. It's something I myself have felt.

One final comment is that two of the quite well-received comments on the board have confused the characters' names. To convince yourself that Lasalle is the older librarian character, simply click on Philippe Laudenbach's page and you will see he was born in 1936. French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.

Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing! Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with… Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals. Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.

Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version. In a penitentiary, four prisoners occupy a cell: Carrère (Gérald Laroche), who used his company to commit a fraud and was betrayed by his wife; the drag Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and his protégée, the retarded Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who ate his six months sister; and the intellectual Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), who killed his wife. One night, Carrère finds an ancient journal hidden in a hole in the wall of the cell. They realize that the book was written by Danvers (Geoffrey Carey) in the beginning of the last century and is about black magic. They decide to read and use its content to escape from the prison, when they find the truth about Danvers' fate. "Maléfique" is an original, intriguing and claustrophobic French low-budget horror movie. The story is practically in the same location, does not have any clichés and hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. I am a great fan of French cinema, usually romances, dramas and police stories, but I noted that recently I have seen some good French horror movies, such as "Un Jeu d' Enfants", "Belphegor" and "Dead End". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sinais do Mal" ("Signs of the Evil") This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.

Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.

I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them. Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good. Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.

The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.

I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.

I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10 I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go "What the f*ck did I just see?" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like "The Grudge" or even "Silent Hill". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be! Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women. A prison cell.Four prisoners-Carrere,a young company director accused of fraud,35 year old transsexual in the process of his transformation, Daisy,a 20 year-old mentally challenged idiot savant and Lassalle,a 60 year-old intellectual who murdered his wife.Behind a stone slab in the cell,mysteriously pulled loose,they discovered a book:the diary of a former prisoner,Danvers,who occupied the cell at the beginning of the century.The diary contains magic formulas that supposedly enable prisoners to escape."Malefique" is one of the creepiest and most intelligent horror films I have seen this year.The film has a grimy,shadowy feel influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft,which makes for a very creepy and unsettling atmosphere.There is a fair amount of gore involved with some imaginative and brutal death scenes and the characters of four prisoners are surprisingly well-developed.It's a shame that Eric Valette made truly horrible remake of "One Missed Call" after his stunning debut.9 out of 10. Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3- Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it. I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.

Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...

Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?

'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.

'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10 Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing…

Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit…

Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money…

With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie… Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. **** Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.

But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.

Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.

The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.

The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.

Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.

I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.

In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.

It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.

Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.

Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.

Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.

Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.

Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.

Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.

It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.

Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.) I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie. To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.

It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him ! Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked. Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old?

There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.

The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell.

Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.

The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on.

Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q. Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch. This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.

Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.

And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action!

Brilliant movie! The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.

The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.

The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.

Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years. FORGET CREDIBILITY

You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.

"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."

After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter. After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.

Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****). Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies. This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed! This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........ Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'. This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****

Remember Extreme ääliöt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video. I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky. There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice. I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.

Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.

Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.

The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years. A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.

The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...

Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.

It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Highly recommended. There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker. You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films. This is an excellent show! I had a US history teacher in high school that was much like this. There are many "facts" in history that are not quite true and Mr Wuhl points them out very well, in a way that is unforgettable.

Mr Wuhl is teaching a class of film students but history students and even the general public will appreciate the witty way that he uncovers some very well known fallacies in the history of the world and strive to impress them upon that brains of his students. Use of live actors performing "skits" is also very entertaining.

I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in having the history they learned as a child turned upside down. THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.

This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...

THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10 This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation! Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!! Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one. Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff! Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS. Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others. This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it. It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time.

Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.

The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.

Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.

Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.

The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English.

The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.

Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date.

Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn. This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.

If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.

There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.

I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character. This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity. As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed. Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money! I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.

The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.

Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though. Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter. I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!! I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD. One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry! Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well. I acquired this, one of my all-time favourite films on DVD recently and as usual, during viewing, the whole thing just blew me away.

I am a massive fan of Hazel O'Connor and the soundtrack to this film just has me in tears, especially the "Will You" track. It's a pure nostalgia trip for me back to my youth. This rates second best to Quadrophenia (which also starred Phil Daniels).

A great soundtrack and a great view of Britain in the Thatcherite years of the grim 80's in which I grew up. The ending is so sad, for hours after the end of the film I am like a blubbering baby.

I expect to wear out this DVD from repeated viewing, I can watch it over and over again and never be bored, simply for the soundtrack alone.

Hazel, sorry to hear about your dad darling. God Bless you all. xx Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though. Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride. Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it. Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9. For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.

Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.

This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.

By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.

I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.

The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.

If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.

If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one. Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out!

I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!

Good work to all concerned!

(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)

It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?

Really glad I found it!

(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)

The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.

Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!

I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza

"Never give up, never surender!"

Viva les frontieres This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.

Make it so... I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.

Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode. Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen.

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly.

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better.

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock!

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place. I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked! With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.

Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9. This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.

I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.

If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire. Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch. Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest… some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles… some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise… some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.

Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word… but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics… it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them. What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure. Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent. Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.

There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.

And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that. Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name. terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.

Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.

Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.

All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you. /* slight spoilers */

Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.

Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.

For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.

The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.

The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray

some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.

The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.

As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.

Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.

***/***** This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around. Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time. The story is extremely unique.It's about these 2 pilots saving Earth from alien beings but they have to use a special speed that makes everything around them age rapidly.The whole series is about the pilots dealing with the loss of time,friends,and mentors.

The ending COULD have been fantastic.It started to end on a total down note and leave a real mark but instead ended on a super happy Disney note and annoyed me VERY bad.

The animation is decent for 89 but can't compare to nowadays.I have also heard many complain about the cheesiness of the nudity.I actually found it to be somewhat decent.The nudity for the most part was warranted except in episode 2 where there was an excess.

Overall it deserves a look but the ending keeps it from being a classic. I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him. This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.

I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.

A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future. This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8 I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity. Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy. Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.

Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.

While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.

This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.

A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions. Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years. This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended. I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie. This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again. The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story. The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features. At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties! Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through. This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films. I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work. Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller. Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesques—at Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cutting—all very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples? 'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch. The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token.

Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.

At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?

The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.

Highly Recommended. Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis." I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties. I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way! This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans! One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...

My favorite horror movie, straight 10+. Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out. I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10. Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.

Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.

When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.

Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.

This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from "The Exorcist." The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.

The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.

9/10 In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie. As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel. Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began. "Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10. I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.

I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.

The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.

This is one of the creepiest, scariest and most heartbreaking horror movie EVER!

Dr Creed (Louise) and his family moving in to new home with his wife (Rachel), Daughter (Ellie) and little son (Gage) Everything seems normal until Dr Creed loses one his patient who had a terrible head injury,Then he is haunted by the ghost know as Victor takes him to the Pet Sematarty and show him that where the dead come to life.

Louis not knowing if that was all dream and is talking to Ellie who worried about her cat that could be killed by lorry and then later on Rachel tells Louis that it really hard for to talk about death because of her sister Zelda who was really sick (As we see in a flashback how sick her sister really was and this is one of the most creepiest scene ever!)

The next day Louis gets a call from Jed saying there cat as been killed by lorry and Jed take him to place where Victor the Ghost told him not to go! And bury the Cat, His wife and kids have go to see their Grandparents and Louise is home alone shocked to see the cat is back and now it as evil in it eyes so he goes to see Jed then Jed tell him that he also buried his dog there too (As we seen other flashback).

Later on in the movie The Family out having Picnic, Gage is playing with kite and Gage say's I drop it", The wind blow the rod near the road where a lorry coming at fast past, Gage is get closer to road, Louis is rushing to get him, The most HEARTBREAKING scene in any horror movie will leave with your Jaw on floor or Shivers will go down your back when you hear Louis screams, Soon he missing him so much, Louis then buries Gage in same place where is buried the Cat.

The scariest thing about this movie is that some scenes in this movie are not too far from really life.

This movie is just Amazing and the acting from everyone was great! 10 out 10 Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now. "Pet Sematary" succeeds on two major situations. First, it's a scary Horror movie. Those that just aren't produced in these days. Second, it's an emotional, clever movie overall. So if you are looking for chills, scares, creepiness and visually stunning settings, great acting, dialongs, and gruesome effects; this is the movie you are looking for. A classic now and truly a must see for any Horror fan.

Probably, the best adaptation to any of King's novels. The events feel a little rushed compared with the novel, but that doesn't means that this underrated movie isn't a complete Horror/Drama accomplishment.

Stephen King's novel is widely known for being very emotional and gruesome at the same time. The movie captures the same feeling mainly because there's a great character development and you can feel the loving relationship between it's members. Then, when everything seems to be happiness (technically happy, because the title "Pet Sematary" does not offers appiness!) a tragic event changes the movie's atmosphere, now it turns very dark. The movie has a sinister feeling since the opening credits, but after Gage is killed the movie becomes sad, gray, creepy. Dealing with the loss of a baby son is something that can ruin a family's entire life, and "Pet Sematary" proves it dramatically.

The legend behind the pet sematary is more than a myth that no one wants to experience, but sadness and desperation lead an emotionally destroyed father to give it a shot. Sadly enough, the legend comes true and baby Gage returns from the dead. The previous encounter with the pet sematary legend turned out to be a tragedy but this time it's something much, much worse. What will happened with the lives of our All American family? Could Pascow prevent this tragedy? What is it with the surreal nightmares?

Watch "Pet Sematary" to witness one of the most touching, emotional Horror movies of recent times. You won't regret. The acting is very good although I didn't dig the actor who portrayed the father. He didn't seem disturbed enough when the situations asked for his desperation. But that's just my opinion. Denise Crosby truly delivered a great performance and worked perfect as the noble, tender mother. Baby Gage was amazing even on his creepy parts. *Shivers*. Overall this is a great classic of all time and a disturbing movie that touches people's deepest fears... the loss of someone you love, the dead returning to life, and a feeling of desperation.

Something is for sure... I don't wanna be buried, in a pet sematary!! MINOR SPOILER

Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10. *****Spoilers herein*****

What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?

Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.

I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.

The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.

I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children. Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I´d probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you´re nine you just don´t care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I´m kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year´s eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It´s like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can´t see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don´t mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast´s balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don´t mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff. So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10) Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.

Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.

Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this. Ah, clichés, clichés, clichés; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller. Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!! Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies). There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better!

I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better! when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego. A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.

Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.

Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for. George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer.

In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)

As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film. Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.

Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.

Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival. In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view. I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\

All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.

I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.

Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one. High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see. This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!

All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!

Highly recommended. This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindström are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.

"Vuxna människor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldn´t be better off without it. This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !)

You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.

There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.

Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition. Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of **** Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.

John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy.

Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go.

The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.

Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.

Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.

The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones.

7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad. I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron. Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest movies ever made in America and it deserved every single award it won and it's place on the AFI Top 100 list (though it's shamefully too low on the IMDB Top 250 list, at only #183 as of this writing). If you enjoy acting of the highest calibre (Voight and Hoffman are a superb match), well-drawn characterizations and inventive direction, editing and cinematography, you'll love this just as much as I did. Schlesinger paints a vivid, always credible picture of the late 60s New York City scene and it's many victims struggling to overcome personal demons and survive amidst the amorality, poverty and hopelessness of 42nd Street, New York City.

The filmmaking techniques employed here brilliantly capture the feel of the underground New York film movement (and of the city) and are nothing less than dazzling. I've seen many ideas (including the rapid-fire editing, the handling of the voice-over flashbacks, the drug/trip sequences and the cartoonish face slipped in during a murder scene to convey angst and terror) stolen by other filmmakers.

The relationship between Joe and Ratso is handled in such a way as to be viewed as an unusually strong friendship OR having it's homosexual underpinnings. I think the director handled this in a subtle way not to cop out to the censorship of the times, but rather to concentrate his energies on the importance of a strong human connection in life, whether it be sexual or not.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a brave, moving film of magnitude, influence and importance that has lost absolutely none of it's impact over the years, so if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on a true American classic. I recommend this film to everyone.

Score: 10 out of 10. Virile, but naive, big Joe Buck leaves his home in Big Spring, Texas, and hustles off to the Big Apple in search of women and big bucks. In NYC, JB meets up with frustration, and with "Ratso" Rizzo, a scruffy but cordial con artist. Somehow, this mismatched pair manage to survive each other which in turn helps both of them cope with a gritty, sometimes brutal, urban America, en route to a poignant ending.

Both funny and depressing, our "Midnight Cowboy" rides head-on into the vortex of cyclonic cultural change, and thus confirms to 1969 viewers that they, themselves, have been swept away from the 1950's age of innocence, and dropped, Dorothy and Toto like, into the 1960's Age of Aquarius.

The film's direction is masterful; the casting is perfect; the acting is top notch; the script is crisp and cogent; the cinematography is engaging; and the music enhances all of the above. Deservedly, it won the best picture Oscar of 1969, and I would vote it as one of the best films of that cyclonic decade. Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since.

Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences.

It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools.

10/10 The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).

I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.

This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.

The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.

I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.

I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.

I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.

On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.

Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.

Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences. I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)

So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.

The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.

Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.

Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)

4.5/5 Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser. 'Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.

The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason. It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".

The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.

In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.

The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger". Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from **** After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus. Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.

He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.

Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.

The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.

It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman. Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.

What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene.

The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie. Just kidding.

Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.

While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.

Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.

8.5/10 "Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).

The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.

Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).

It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all. John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.

Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.

Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'

Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.

'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages. Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.

A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the "end of innocence" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.

JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend "Ratzo" dreams of living in.

But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting "Midnight Cowboy" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.

Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life. Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too. Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone. "Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.

The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10) An American in Paris is a showcase of Gene Kelly. Watch as Gene sings, acts and dances his way through Paris in any number of situations. Some purely majestic, others pure corn. One can imagine just what Kelly was made of as he made this film only a year before "Singin' In The Rain". He is definately one of the all time greats. It is interesting to look at the parallels between the two films, especially in Kelly's characters, the only main difference being that one is based in Paris, the other in L.A.

Some have said that Leslie Caron's acting was less than pure. Perhaps Cyd Charisse, who was originally intended for the role could have done better, however Caron is quite believable in the role and has chemistry with Kelly. Oscar Levant's short role in this film gave it just what it needed, someone who doesn't look like Gene Kelly. Filling the role as the everyman isn't an easy task, yet Levant did it with as much class as any other lead.

The song and dance routines are all perfection. Even the overlong ballet at the end of the film makes it a better film with it than without. Seeing that there really wasn't much screen time to make such a loving relationship believable, Minnelli used this sequence to make it seem as if you'd spent four hours with them. Ingenious!

I would have to rate this film up with Singin' since it is very similar in story and song. Singin' would barely get the nod because of Debbie Reynolds uplifting performance.

Full recommendation.

8/10 stars. The story and music (George Gershwin!) are wonderful, as are Levant, Guetary, Foch, and, of course, Kelly. One thing's missing, and that thing is a good leading lady. I'm sorry, Leslie Caron bothers me. Anyway, despite her, the plot moves along nicely with the famous (and deservedly so) Ballet. Oh the colours, the dazzling reds, blues, greens, and yellows. Musn't forget the beiges as well. ; ) I just adore the contrast between the Beaux Arts Ball (completely black and white costumes) and the ever-so-brilliant Ballet.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Please, by all means see it, and enjoy it, because though it isn't the best, it is MARVELOUS. But be sure not to forget that other Gene Kelly musical with the 20 year old girl that was catapulted to stardom just afterward. ... Oxford, Mississippi, at least. Okay, the Paris we get is Paris, Culver City apart from the Establishing library footage of the real McCoy but it IS Paris in spirit than which nothing, nowhere, is better. Okay, Kelly is no Astaire but then who is and Caron is no Hepburn, ditto but Alan Lerner is light years ahead of the vastly overrated Comden and Green who scripted Kelly's other 'big' 50s musical Singin' In The Rain (a curious replication of lyricists writing screenplays featuring songs by OTHER lyricists and just to balance things the Gershwin numbers are far superior to the Arthur Freed/Nacio Herb Brown numbers so Alan Lerner didn't have to feel too outclassed). The story needn't detain us any more than the anomalies -Kelly hasn't got change of a match and is a painter, i.e. bohemian, yet he is able to scare up a perfectly good suit at a few hours notice when Foch invites him to dinner at her hotel; in the well-documented Love Is Here To Stay sequence the lovers are strangely unmolested by passers-by, other lovers and the bridge in the background is totally free of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic - this is, after all, a feelgood musical so it stands or falls by the score and in this case it stands four square. As feel good musicals go it's definitely in the top 10. If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.

The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.

Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guétary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.

Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guétary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.

I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.

But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.

I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.

The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow. An American in Paris is a wonderful musical about an American painter living in Paris for inspiration. He meets a rich woman who admires his paintings on the street and she believes she can get his work to be even more popular to the public, e.g. in a museum. Golden Globe nominated Gene Kelly as the artist Jerry Mulligan is just perfect at both singing and especially dancing. He also meets the main girl Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) who is engaged to his best friend. He can't help his feelings for this girl, even after he finds out who she is engaged to. Filled with nice romance and wonderful song and dance, this is a very good musical film. It may drag slightly with his dancing dream sequence, i.e. The American in Paris ballet, but there is a good happy ending. It won the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay and Best Picture, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Minnelli and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Millenni (Liza's father). Gene Kelly was number 66 on The 100 Movie Stars, and he was number 15 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, "I Got Rhythm" was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 9 on 100 Years of Musicals, it was number 39 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, it was number 68 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good! An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin.

The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include "I Got Rhythm," "'S Wonderful," and "Our Love is Here to Stay". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the "songbook" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is "The American in Paris" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.

It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.

Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a "real" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, "Who's Gene Kelly?" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.

Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.

Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.

Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.

Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of "Stairway to Paradise"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's "Concerto in F" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)

The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.

There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).

Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.

Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, "An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance." An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good." The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.

The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)

Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film." It was his only Oscar. This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.

The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one.

The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.

When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work.

But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.

One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.

8/10 The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, "An American in Paris", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.

Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancée of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.

The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to "Our Love Is Here to Stay" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. "I Got Rhythm" and "S'Wonderful" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while "Embraceable You" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in "On the Town" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.

As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise", George Guétary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras. This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.

A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me. What makes for Best Picture material? The Oscars have come in for a lot of stick for rewarding overblown spectacles that have aged poorly, and ignoring the "auteurs" who would be deified in decades to come. It wasn't because Hollywood was against art or creativity. The Academy Awards are the selections made by the industry itself, and that is why, at least in the classic era, they tended to reward the greatest collaborations, the most sensational meetings of creative minds.

The Arthur Freed unit at MGM had been bound for Oscar-winning glory for several years by this point; it was only a matter of time before Freed, aided by his strongest director Vincente Minnelli and some the finest musical stars in the business, would land a Best Picture. Freed had arguably done more to raise the status of the musical than anyone else, crafting pictures which wove story and song together without losing the dynamic spectacle of the 30s musicals. The point about Freed musicals, is that the lyrics of the songs, unlike those of Hammerstein or Lerner, don't have to tell or even relate to the stories. What's important is that the tone of the song and the way it is presented fit into the structure of the film.

An American in Paris was the first of three Freed musicals (the other two being Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon) which took existing classic numbers out of their original context and made them work in a completely unrelated story. The words don't fit the plot, but the routines fit the show. So, when Gene Kelly sings I Got Rhythm, he hasn't even got a girl yet, but the way it's done with the French kids joining in is a great bit of characterisation, and the upbeat tune and dance gives the movie the little lift it needs at this point. An American in Paris also uses the rule-breaking allowed in the genre to add little unconventional flights of fancy to tell the story, such as the series of dances which accompany the description of Leslie Caron's character.

And what better director for this project than Minnelli, himself a painter and a pianist? At this time there wasn't really anyone who had a better feel for Technicolor. While some directors would saturate each scene in one colour or fill the screen with clashing shades, Minnelli's colour schemes are tightly controlled but never look forced. In the opening scenes the tones are fairly muted, but not drab, and in particular there is an absence of red. During Oscar Levant and Georges Guetary's meeting in the café, a few more vibrant shades are introduced. Then, during the first musical number, "By Strauss" Minnelli gradually brings in splashes of red – a table cloth, a bunch of roses – until it eventually dominates, as if the song has awoken the picture's colour scheme. For most of the songs, the colours are choreographed as intricately as the people. However, in some numbers, such as "Tra-la-la" he keeps the shades the same and instead opens out the space as the song swells up and the characters become more animated.

The Achilles' heel of An American in Paris is its story. I personally find the romantic angle particularly unpalatable, playing as it does like a last hurrah for the misogynistic love stories that reigned supreme in the 30s; the headstrong, independent woman gets rejected while the meek, delicate girl is harassed into loving the hero. Even if you don't mind that, it is difficult to connect emotionally with the story because it is constantly overshadowed by the songs and dances. Compare this to Singin' in the Rain, which doesn't really have as many great routines or memorable set-pieces as An American in Paris, but it has a winning storyline. Singin' in the Rain was overlooked at the 1952 Oscars, yet it is regarded as a classic of the genre today. But I think people sometimes forget that cinema is an all-encompassing form of visual entertainment, not just a means of telling a story. An American in Paris is not deep or engaging or tear-jerking but, like a certain DeMille picture that won the top award the following year, it certainly is a great show. The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by! Although the word megalmania is used a lot to describe Gene Kelly, and sometimes his dancing is way too stiff, you have to admit the guy knows how to put on a show. In American In Paris, he choreographs some outstanding numbers, some which stall the plot, but are nonetheless amazing to look at. (Check out Gene Kelly's "Getting Out Of Bed Routine" for starters)

Gene Kelly stars as a GI who is based out of Paris, he stayed there to paint, soon he is a rich woman's gigolo, but he really LOVES SOMEONE ELSE! Hoary story sure, but the musical numbers save the show here! I really loved Georges Gu¨¦tary's voice work in this one. His 'Stairway to Paradise' and his duet with Le Gene on 'S Wonderful' is 's marvelous'. Oscar Levant and Leslie Caron I can take or leave. All in all, a pretty good, but not dynamite movie. Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.

Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.

Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane?

I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.

But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.

Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.

The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.

The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together. I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.

Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.

CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen.

It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.

I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me. This has to be one the best movies about serial killers that I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who absolutely loved Silence of the Lambs. HBO has hit the jackpot here. This film is compelling from the first moment until the last.

This film has so many underlying themes its hard to tell exactly what it is about. It chronicles the decade-long search for the Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Stephen Rea gives a brilliantly reserved performance as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation, and Donald Sutherland gives an even more involving performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him. Both of their performances are subtle masterpieces---Rea begins naive and unwilling to compromise, while Sutherland begins detached and almost amused by the situation. Towards the end, Rea becomes more world-weary and beaten by the system, while Sutherland finds himself more passionate and idealistic.

In any other movie, I would have said that Sutherland's performance stands out above the rest, but here even it is rivaled by Jeffrey DuMann, as the serial killer himself. DuMann brilliantly creates a character here who inspires empathy rather than the hatred we think we would find---he is a monster, but he doesn't want to be, and we get the idea that he is just as disgusted with what he does as we are. He is tortured, ashamed, but vicious as well.

If you can take the incredibly dark subject matter, (and it is *very* disturbing), then you should see this movie. This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see. There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it. Here's an oddity: a modern-day film about a serial killer that has no fight scenes, nobody seen dying, no car chases and no loud noises.....and it takes place in Russia. There are only two short action scenes but they are horrific.

The rest of the story is detective work, and how much red tape the poor detective had to go through to solve the murders. This is a very somber movie, and "somber" best describes the personality of the hero (Stephen Rea), as well. Yet, the story is not depressing and it's very interesting all the way through.

Rea is outstanding as the determined, harried-looked detective. Jeffrey DeMunn is downright scary as the killer. Donald Sutherland's Russian accent is suspect but he plays the only character in this film that has some warmth.

Once again, the story is dotted with liberal agendas, here and there, with not one but two references to bias against gays, the total validity of secular psychology, police and government officials being boorish/crude/bigoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Otherwise, it's an intelligent and refreshingly low-key crime film. This is a somewhat unique film that probably is not well-known but is well-liked by the people who have seen it. Since it's based on a true-life account of this killer, it's all the more chilling. Don't pass this by just because you haven't anything about it. "Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B) This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved.

I rate this film 10/10 Spoilers - in as far as I describe characters and their relation to the plot.

This is a quality film. The subject matter is at once grim and gripping. The dogged determination of Stephen Rea's character, Burakov, is simply captivating. With any due apologies to him, his hangdog, continually put-upon expression serves the character well. He is, as we in England would say of the Inspector Taggart TV series character, bound to be grim because he sees three murders a week. Well, that's not strictly accurate as Chikatila operated over a number of years...

You get a real sense of the blankwall resistance of the USSR bureaucracy, brilliantly portrayed by Joss Ackland (who often seems made for this sort of role).

A key character (and I write this as the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is being shown on BBC1) is the Donald Sutherland character "Mikhail Fetisov". His quiet support of Burakov is steadfast. And it endures through Perestroika, and drives the involvement of the FBI for profiling. Brilliant.

This is a must-see, as far as I am concerned. There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.

So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief

Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it . A surprisingly complex and well crafted study of "The First" serial killer in the USSR. Set in the days of perestroika this intense piece is brought to full life with the performances of Stephen Reah and Donald Sutherland.

This examination of Cicatillo as a killer is well rounded and by hinting at some of his behaviors while out right showing others there is a subtlety that is compelling without being overtly graphic. Not for the weak of heart however as it's subject matter is often disturbing but necessary to it's full development of the main participants in this fact based story.

HBO has furnished us with an excellent film in an unusual manner. Congrats to the director and editor of this great piece. It is in my Top 10 Must see list. Caution: May contain spoilers...

I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.

As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.

Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.

A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.

Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.

Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.

9 out of 10 stars A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.

The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause – to catch the serial killer.

Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.

Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help. Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me. Rea, Sutherland, DeMunn, and von Sydow (in a small role) are all brilliant in their performances. Sutherland is particularly adept at this sort of role, where he must portray a character whose morality is, at first, uncertain to the audience. As is so often the case with Sutherland's characters, we must ask "is he a villian [in this case, a minor one], or a hero?"

This is a disturbing story, intelligently told, about the incompetence and fearful bureaucracy in the old Soviet Union that impeded the efforts of extremely competent people. As Sutherland's character wryly notes, "The measure of a bureaucracy is its ability not to make special exceptions". The "committee meeting" (between Rea and Sutherland's characters) after perestroika is enforced, with its revelations, has enormous emotional impact. You can feel the suffering of the dedicated people who labored in that system.

The handful of dramatic scenes portraying victims' family members adds emotional resonance to the impact of the story. This is seldom a feature of a film with this sickening subject matter, but effectively reminds us that the victims had lives, and were loved.

This is a sad, but very important film, which deserved its showcase on Canada's History Television. Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today! I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre. Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers. Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts – above all – which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.

For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes – which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated. Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film The poor DVD video quality is the only reason why I gave this movie a 9 instead of a 10. That could have been so much better, this movie deserves it.

This is truly a movie that covers several themes simultaneously. If you do not like movies about serial killers, but are fascinated by the astonishing bureaucratic culture in the former Sovjet Union, this movie is a must-see anyway.

I can't compare it to "Silence of the Lambs" for several reasons. The way the serial killer is portrayed, has been done far much better in Citizen X. You see several details of his private life, because you "travel" along with the killer, which gives you some idea of the source of his constant anger and sexual frustration.

The only other movie I have seen that is as realistic as this one was "Henry - portrait of a serial killer". If you were fascinated by that movie you definitely need to take a look at Citizen X. "Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

** Mild Spoilers **

Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"

The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.

More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made. This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.

The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."

Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.

This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.

I was surprised at how fascinating this movie was. The performances were extremely good, especially by Rea as the compassionate no-nonsense detective.

Despite a low budget, no big FX or flashy camerawork, Citizen X somehow manages to surpass the majority of similar big Hollywood films by just. Telling. The. Story.

True stories tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang, and that's the case here, but apart from that, this is a highly recommended detective yarn. CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.

CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).

Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.

In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.

CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.

The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.

Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.

His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.

So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.

Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.

Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.

5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.

The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.

In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.

Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.

A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.

Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.

CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.

WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.

Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.

Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.

Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10) This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see. This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.

Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.

If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.

Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb. Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9 This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it. I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path. i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year...... I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others. This is why I still have nightmares.

This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.

A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).

The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.

Not suitable for children. Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.

Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.

I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it! I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.

This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.

I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf. This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA. Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco – of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly.

A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant – a zombie in his closet.

Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him – and his family – he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.

Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan – who wrote and directed – blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality – it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).

The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless.

Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.

However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal. Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.

Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell. I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you.

It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.

And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.

If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD. I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see! Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.

The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichéd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.

Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.

The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts. Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film. I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful! Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.

"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.

Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.

The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.

"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out. This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.

Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.

The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.

Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending. The combination of the superb black and white photography and the 'Eugene Onegin with a twist' plot made this a real knock out for me. The atmosphere created by the mostly very dark shots contrasted with occasional very bright overexposed white was gripping. There was a superb moment where where transparencies - apparently conventional holiday snaps but where the faces of the actors revealed character and situation subtly but instantly - were shown accompanied by Lensky's heart-wrenching aria from the Tschaikowsky opera Eugene Onegin.

For me the mark of a good film is that it should take advantage of the opportunities presented by that medium, which means that often the story is less important than imagery and atmosphere - Last Year in Marienbad is a good example of such a film. Krisana is in the same mould. This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me. this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!

I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.

I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!

If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan. When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best. I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.

I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.

I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)

I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.

Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it) Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).

Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.

The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words".

You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.

The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath. This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.

Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.

Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON! When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.

But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.

I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased. Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.

It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help.

"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.

All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko".

While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.

"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film. This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience. Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10. (Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended. Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.

The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.

What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.

Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.

The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.

"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form. Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.

The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.

I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it! Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten. Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come. fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again. Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).

Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes.

It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career. A masterful treatment of James Caine's "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French "Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended. TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !! To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films. A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.

When people nowadays hear of a 1940s drama, they usually appear to create a distance of irony claiming that it's another tearjerker with great stars in the lead of tragic, melancholic roles. This opinion, however, does not resemble Neorealist movies, in particular this one directed by Count Luchino Visconti. OSSESSIONE as his debut once censored and once cherished as nearly a realistic masterpiece is still loved by some people and strongly criticized by others. The contradictory opinions about the film that have appeared in these 65 years seem to have been caused by the content of the movie itself, exceptionally controversial for modern times as well as the past. At the same time, while being based on the novel by James M. Cain, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, it is one of the most genuine screen adaptations where director remains his own style, view, his own art. I have seen the film twice and the second viewing led me to very detailed analysis part of which I'd like to entail below.

First, Visconti's movie seems to touch all psychology and actions that people may do in life, in particular those absorbed by desire. These people make such tragic decisions in spite of terrible consequences they are bound to face. Gino (Massimo Girotti) a traveler with "bear like shoulders" turns up at the crossroad of a motorway near Ferrara and enters the tavern. Although many people go there to have a meal, Gino occurs to get something more - much more: the indefatigable desire of beautiful Giovanna (Clara Calamai) a woman already married to an elderly man who runs the bar, Mr Giuseppe Bragana (Juan De Landa). Her body and her song possess his mind totally and from the moment of their first love, the couple plan to get rid of the old obstacle and build up a new life together... However, are people bound to wrong deeds in face of desire? Can one build love upon murder? What is love and what is loyalty? Does desire lead to a dangerous addiction or even obsession? Such questions intensely arise while watching the movie, when, to the core, the viewer is supplied with an insight into characters. "We have to love each other affectionately" answers Giovanna seemingly giving a cure to all crying conscience but may desirous love justify and cure everything? "Isn't it what we both wanted" says one of the couple... it occurs that it's not. Therefore, the content of the film appears to be very dangerous if not analyzed with intellect and heart. Yet, it constantly remains thought provoking.

Second, OSSESSIONE has a very strong point that talks to modern viewers: brilliant moments and marvelous cinematography, which go in pair with memorable sequences and visual power. These make a modern viewer realize that a film made almost 70 years ago is absolutely entertaining to watch. They range from tasteful erotic images to purely technical shots. Who can possibly skip that moment in Ferrara where Gino meets a beautiful girl, a sort of "Ragazza Perfetta" (perfect girl), a dancer Anita and buys her ice cream. His desires show him totally different direction... Do viewers remain indifferent at Gino-Giovanna's first meeting? The first focus of camera is on Giovanna's legs seemingly representing carnal desire over love that Gino experiences. A marvel of shot is Gino and Giovanna leaving the investigation room and the closeup of their shadows that directs our attention towards their suspicious look.

Third, OSSESSIONE can boast outstanding performances both from the leading pair as well as the supporting cast. Massimo Girotti once said in an interview that working in this movie had been one of the most difficult jobs he had ever done; yet, consequently, what comes out is a flawless acting. He portrays a bisexual man torn within desires who commits a crime but cannot stand any of the objects that remind him of his victim, which represents conscience. His bisexuality is indicated through the character of Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo) whom he meets in very surprising circumstances in the train for Ancona. Clara Calamai, who was cast in the role after eminent Anna Magnani had refused, fits very well to the role and we may claim that there is a true chemistry between the couple. They are both very convincing. Besides, I liked Juan De Langa in the role of Bragana: he portrays an old husband not affectionate to his wife and still crazy about high art. In some of his most witty moments, he asks his wife to wash his back or walks in the empty streets singing his favorite opera songs after sort of karaoke performance.

In sum, we, as modern viewers who are capable of critical view, have to look at this film very objectively. It is art for sure thanks to the aspects aforementioned, it is a powerful story as well thanks to the controversy it carries; yet, is it educational? Visconti was not Fellini who said that he did not carry any message for humanity. In such case, his films would only entertain (which is, of course, not entirely Fellini's style, too). Visconti always had something to convey. What did he want to say here? Is the film against bad marriage? Or is it against wrong actions of people absorbed by desire? The final shocking moments say for themselves. Though you don't have to agree with the vision, OSSESSIONE is really a wonderfully realistic film, one of Visconti's best 8/10 I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book. Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career. Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.

The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.

Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.

Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.

8/10 Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.

The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.

In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.

There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.

All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement. Ossessione

Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable. Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...

Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.

Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.

Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.

This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did. This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.

The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.

Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.

The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).

So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.

Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun.

In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy. This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do. William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen. I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings.

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you. The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!

The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.

MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!

The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).

Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?

While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.

TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day! There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended. Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.

Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.

Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.

There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.

Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem. As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic. I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.

After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.

One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.

The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.

It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie. Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their "boys." People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy. When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate! "Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see. This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone. This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended. A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout) In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films. The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan. Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids! Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.

I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:

Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.

Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.

Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful.

Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous.

Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.

Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)

Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!

Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.

So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code.

The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.

Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex. I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so. One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).

Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.

Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.

I really like this film a great deal.

If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.

You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures. A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.

Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.

Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't dead—only wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).

The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.

Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing props—dodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swings—but these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb. 108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.

John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.

DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.

KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risqué jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.

Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934). Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie. Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there. Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time. I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode. I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs. this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films. You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two. If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!! I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics.

The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.

Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight. It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance. Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord." One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' ! When originally screened in America in 1972, 'The Night Stalker' became the highest rated made-for-T.V. movie in history. Based on Jeff Rice's unpublished novel, it told how a fearless investigative reporter named Carl Kolchak ( the late Darren McGavin ) discovered the existence of a vampire in modern-day Las Vegas. When it arrived on British television four years later, it did not quite have the same impact, but my friends were talking about it at school on Monday morning, as indeed was I. We all agreed that it was one of the most exciting things we had seen.

I did not know of the existence of 'The Night Strangler' until it turned up nearly a decade later. I.T.V., who screened the 'Kolchak' movies, had apparently decided to pass on the spin-off series; they felt 'Barnaby Jones' starring Buddy Ebsen to be more of a draw, and anyway, viewers might confuse 'Kolchak' with 'Kojak'! For years my only source of information concerning the show was an article in Fangoria magazine. I could not even purchase the Jeff Rice novels.

Then something wonderful happened. In 1990, B.B.C.-2 put out the show as part of a late-night Friday series devoted to the supernatural called 'Mystery Train', hosted by Richard O'Brian. 'Kolchak' found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of 'The Brain Eaters' and 'Earth Vs.The Spider'. The opening titles were trimmed, removing Kolchak's whistling, and the closing credits...well, there were none.

The first episode screened was 'Werewolf'. I cannot say I was overly impressed, but stuck with it, and am I glad that I did!

I really wish I'd seen it in 1974. My twelve year old self would have adored it. Creepy, humorous, exciting, no wonder it fired Chris Carter's imagination.

The show's biggest asset was, of course, McGavin. Unlike the recent Kolchak, the original was an everyman figure, eccentrically dressed, rather conservative. He was to the supernatural what 'Columbo' was to crime. The late Simon Oakland was great too as Kolchak's bad-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo. The scripts overflowed with wonderful, dry wit. I found myself enjoying the programme more for the humour content than the horror. When the twenty episodes ended, I felt bereft.

'The X-Files' came along a few years later and filled the void - but only to an extent. I wanted Kolchak and Vincenzo back. I am glad that the show was never revived though. Without Oakland it would not have been the same.

I have the Rice books now and have read them several times. I was very surprised when Stephen King slated the first ( in his book 'Danse Macabre' ) as it is as good as anything he has written.

Alright, so some of the monsters were hardly state-of-the-art, but so what? The new 'Kolchak' totally missed the point of the original. What you don't see is sometimes more frightening than what you do...

Best Episode - 'Horror In The Heights' Worst Episode - 'The Sentry' Weak scripts at times? Yep! Cheesy special effects at times? Yep! Deliciously guilty pleasure most of the time? Yep! More about Carl Kolchak and Darren McGavin? Yep! I always enjoyed science fiction as a kid, but found so much of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy/horror stuff as just so much crap. It took Abbott and Costello to give me a new perspective on the classic Universal monsters, and it took Carl Kolchak to win me over to the "dark side" of entertainment. The Duke had Rooster Cogburn, Eastwood had Dirty Harry, Garner had Maverick and Rockford, Selleck had Magnum, and Darren McGavin had Carl Kolchak. Mixed in with all those weak scripts, cheesy special effects, that baroque group of supporting characters and actors and guest stars, there was Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak. He had a wry sense of humor in spite of the danger, was an idealist in his pursuit of the truth, and a realist when it came to accepting the obligatory incompetence and eventual cover-up by government officials. Additionally, unlike 98% of us, Kolchak was willing to stick his neck out and do what needed to be done, even if it meant his demise, the end of his journalistic career, or jail time. For all his faults, including no taste in clothes, Carl Kolchak was a man of charm and wit who drove a beautiful classic yellow Mustang (which was an old used car at the time) on his way to save the day for humanity. As good as any other fictional hero Carl Kolchak was the everyman hero brought to life every week for one season thanks to Darren McGavin. Now that he's passed on and his show is on DVD, I hope he's having as much fun watching me watch him have fun playing Kolchak The Night Stalker all over again! I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker. It's a genuine shame that this spin-off TV series inspired by the superior made-for-TV pictures "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler" only lasted a single season and twenty episodes, because at its best this program offered an often winning and highly entertaining blend of sharp cynical humor (Carl Kolchak's spirited verbal sparring matches with perpetually irascible and long-suffering editor Tony Vincenzo were always a treat to watch and hear), clever writing, nifty supernatural menaces (gotta love the offbeat and original creatures in "The Spanish Moss Murders," "The Sentry," and "Horror in the Heights," plus you can't go wrong with such tried'n'true fright favorites as zombies, vampires, werewolves, and witches), colorful characters, lively acting from a raft of cool guest stars (legendary biker flick icon William Smith got a rare chance to tackle a heroic lead in "The Energy Eater" while other episodes featured great veteran character actors like Keenan Wynn, John Fiedler, John Dehner, Severn Darden, and William Daniels in juicy roles), effective moments of genuine suspense (the sewer-set climax of "The Spanish Moss Murders" in particular was truly harrowing), and, best of all, the one and only Darren McGavin in peak zesty form as the brash, aggressive, and excitable, but basically decent, brave, and honest small-time Chicago, Illinois newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak.

Kolchak was the quintessential 70's everyman protagonist, a wily and quick-witted fellow with a strong nose for a tasty scoop and an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble. Moreover, the occasionally bumbling Kolchak was anything but superhuman; he usually either tripped or stumbled while running away from a deadly threat, yet possessed a certain inner strength and courage that enabled him to save the human race time and time again from all kinds of lethal otherworldly foes. Kolchak was surrounded by a handful of enjoyable secondary characters: Simon Oakland was perfect as Carl's chronically ill-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo, Jack Grinnage as the prissy Ron Updyke made for an ideal comic foil, Ruth McDevitt was simply delightful as the sweet Miss Emily Cowles, and Carol Ann Susi was likewise a lot of fun as eager beaver rookie Monique Marmelstein (who alas disappeared after popping up in only three episodes). Granted, the show did suffer from lackluster make-up and special effects (the titular lycanthrope in "The Werewolf" unfortunately resembles a Yorkshire terrier!) and the latter episodes boasted a few laughably silly monsters (the headless motorcyclist in "Chopper," Cathy Lee Crosby as Helen of Troy in "The Youth Killer'), but even the second-rate shows are redeemed by the program's trademark wickedly sly sardonic wit and McGavin's boundless vitality and engagingly scrappy presence. I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films. I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless. "Kolchak" was a TV series that really didn't fit into any category. Part horror, part comedy, some social awareness thrown in, and what we have is something that I think people weren't ready for. It's a shame really, as I've started to watch these shows on the Chiller network, (I never saw the originals), I realized how different and interesting it really was.

Starring Darren Mcgavin as Kolchak a reporter for the International News Service, and Simon Oakland as his always angry boss, Tony Vincenzo, the show followed the exploits of a Chicago news reporter who more often than not, became a part of the story himself, as he searched the windy city for modern day creepies that go bump in the night. The underlying charm of Macgavin really sets the show apart. A somewhat goofy guy, who always wears the same suit, you cannot help but love him. His jokes are great, and the back and forth between him and the skeptical editor, Oakland, are downright hilarious.

The stories are for the most part pretty good, and the acting is very good. The 70's were not a *great* period for special effects, and the show suffers for it, but if you suspend disbelief, what you have is a fun series that was ahead of it's time. A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately – but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.

Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn’t regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula – dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody’s hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps – but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.

That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) – not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he’s never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)!

While the hero’s cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there’s a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin’s relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) – to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there’s a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.

For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight’s armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast – featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak’s co-workers) return in the same roles – Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I’d lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – while, as the weakest, I’d go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I’ve already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).

Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself – in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise – returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet…but, for various reasons, I’m not sure I’d want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic! There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age. Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP. As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.

Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.

Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come. I barely remember this show, a little ,but I remembered it was great! My eldest brother, reminded me about the show recently and I had seen an advertisement for the D.V.D set coming out. The network, again screwed up in pulling this from the air, so that they could put what else in it's place? It should have gone at least 3 seasons. Why not, right? I think sometimes that the network executives think they are the 'gods' of the entertainment world. But they mis-guess and flat out miss good show placement from time to time. Let it be said that, they have a lot more flops than 'hits'. This was one of the poor decisions to cut from the line-up. Anyhow, I am getting this for my collection. If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker. Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series "X-Files"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).

Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book! "Kolchak: the Night Stalker" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead?

That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.

I'll address the question of Kolchak being "formula" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.

In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.

You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.

The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include:

Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.

The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the "Omen" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.)

Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.

Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!)

On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on "Buffy." McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone. This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.

It's a document.

It's mind-blowing.

I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)

NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS. Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.

It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.

For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible. We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.

The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back. The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.

On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars. The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always. The Unborn tells the tale of a married couple named Virginia (Brooke Adames) & Bradley Marshall (Jeff Hayenga) who have tried for the last five years to conceive, Virginia has had two miscarriages since then & is desperate to have a child. They visit Dr. Richard Meyerling (James Karen) for help after he is recommended by some of their friends, Dr. Meyerling says he will be able to help them have a child. Dr. Meyerling operates on Virginia & it is soon confirmed that the surgery has been a success & Virginia is pregnant. At first everything seems perfect & the Marshall's couldn't be happier, but their picture perfect lives don't last for long as Virginia's pregnancy develops problems, she becomes moody & acts totally out of character & she receives a worrying phone call from Beth (Jane Cameron), another woman who has undergone Dr. Meyerling's procedure, who claims that Meyerling is in fact using his patients for his own sinister ends & is in fact a disgraced genetic researcher. Virginia begins to question just what is growing inside of her...

Produced & directed by Rodman Flender I actually thought The Unborn was a decent horror/thriller (it's DEFINITELY NOT a sci-fi film as the IMDb would have you believe) that pleasantly surprised me. The script by Henry Dominic tries to be different & it must take some credit for that at least. The Unborn goes for psychological horror rather than cheap scares & bad special effects, it's got quite a clever story that works & plays on basic human fears. It moves along at a fair pace although it's not exactly an action packed film by any means. The climax was good & seemed a fitting way to round things off & the warnings about messing around with genetics seem even more relevant today than it must have been back then, maybe Flender knew something the rest of us didn't. On the down side it lacks some exploitation elements & is at heart a dialogue driven film mostly focusing on one person so it can get a bit dull at times. Also, I have to mention it, what on Erath was that grinning black skateboarding dwarf all about eh?!

Director Flender does an OK job, The Unborn is far from the most stylish or visually interesting film ever made but it's good enough. The atmosphere is good & there's a fair bit of tension as what Virginia has inside of her & Dr. Meyerling's sinister plans aren't fully revealed until the last possible moment. Disappointingly the blood & gore is almost non existent which in a way lets the film down because in retrospect nothing really memorable happens, The Unborn relies on good storytelling which is fine but in a week I doubt I'll remember too much about it.

Technically the film is OK, I'd imagine that The Unborn had a pretty low budget but it's well made even if it's a little bland & forgettable. The baby creature is actually a decent special effect & has fairly realistic facial movement. The acting is good & this was one of the first acting jobs credited to Friends (1994 - 2004) star Lisa Kudrow, I have to be honest I don't like Friends & I don't even know who she was in this so I can't tell you how she did.

The Unborn is a good horror/thriller that deserves to be more widely known & seen, it's far better than a lot of low budget crap that litter video shop shelves. If your a horror fan & are looking for something a bit different, something slightly more intelligent & thought provoking than usual then I think you could do a lot worse than The Unborn. Followed by a dumbed down sequel The Unborn II (1994) which I watched straight after this, check my review out if you want.. The Unborn is a very, very different film. James Karen & Brooke Adams are in the film and they performed quite well. this film is builds up solidly and it keeps you going. Though I think you must be a horror fan to watch this because of the scenes and the plot. There is one brief sex scene with no nudity that could have been left out and to some people this scene may disappoint someone like Me that's into the film and thinks that stuff ruins a good film but that's it when it comes to that. There is a scene where Adams' character goes nuts and kills a cat but you can tell its not real. The music is very different but very good. The Unborn in My opinion is a really creepy film that's superbly unpredictable and that's quite strange! I recommend all horror fans to this movie! i watched this film many years ago and have searched for it ever since in my opinion although very raw it is very educational as to what the future can hold i enjoyed the movie and to this this day rate it very high sorry to all those that disagree but a movie should always be judged each to there own and in my opinion its great give it a go with all the cloning and test tube babies that are happening today who are we to judge this film, this may be a dramatised event of what is to become but there you go. All the horrors of today are so far fetched even i laugh but this one gets me thinking and it scares me as a mother what if i was desperate,after watching this movie i would think twice sorry but i love the movie make your own mind up don't watch the movie making- just aknowledge the story and ask yourself this how far would you go for a child? If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film.

I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake.

Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight.

Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.

Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending.

But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little. As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.

The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)

The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it.

The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.

All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers. Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves. Zero Day leads you to think, even re-think why two boys/young men would do what they did - commit mutual suicide via slaughtering their classmates. It captures what must be beyond a bizarre mode of being for two humans who have decided to withdraw from common civility in order to define their own/mutual world via coupled destruction.

It is not a perfect movie but given what money/time the filmmaker and actors had - it is a remarkable product. In terms of explaining the motives and actions of the two young suicide/murderers it is better than 'Elephant' - in terms of being a film that gets under our 'rationalistic' skin it is a far, far better film than almost anything you are likely to see.

Flawed but honest with a terrible honesty. I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.

Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.

The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.

I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts.

It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids.

Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie. The thing that makes this movie so scary is the way that it portrays Andre and Calvin as (relatively) normal guys. These are definitely not people who want to become professional filmmakers since they goof around in front of the camera, forget scripted lines, etc. They are only making the video as a diary to show 'the survivors' how normal their lives were. Their parents just think the guys are filming for a family home video. By researching other kids attacks on their schools, Andre and Calvin learn what not to do and they inform (usually in a silly 'This Old House' kind of way) any potential 'Andres and Calvins' who might be watching this video how to make bombs, get weapons, and not get caught before Zero Day (the day of the attack). This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic. High school friends Andre Kriegman and Cal Gabriel declare war on their classmates and plan a terrifying assault on their high school. As they begin the deadly countdown to their final act of revenge, the two start a video diary to explain their feelings and chronicle their mission.

There is another similar movie like this, called "Elephant." Why do I bring this up? To compare the two films, of course. I have to say, even though I liked "Elephant," this is a much better film. What's the difference, you ask? Well, for starters, this is shot differently, much along the lines of "Cloverfield," "Blair Witch Project," and "Diary of the Dead." This makes the movie all the better because it's much more painfully realistic.

But what won me over was how the movie was willing to show the "other side of the story." You get to know these two shooters, unlike "Elephant." I actually cared for one of the shooters and could understand their actions and why they did what they did. This movie actually makes you feel sympathetic to these people and that's a good thing because it's not always black and white.

To be honest, this is why I almost cried in this movie. The characters are real human beings with logic and reasons behind their actions. You get to understand them. It's not like they want to kill people for attention. Overall, this film is emotionally gripping and very haunting and much better than "Elephant." Cutting to the chase: This is one of the most amazing, most intense film I've seen in a long time. The first movie in years that left me absolutely staggered. I could barely feel my way out of the theatre, I was so overwhelmed.

I've been staring at the screen for about fifteen minutes trying to find some way to describe the power of this film, and just failing. Highlighting any one aspect of it -- the documentary-style video diary format, the unflinching portrayal of the events, the force of the characters -- just seems to trivialise it all. Some may find it laughable that any killer could be characterised as normal. But then not all killers are raving lunatics foaming at the mouth. Many are quite regular, unassuming people. They're just wired differently.

And that's perhaps the most chilling thought of all. This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone. Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.

"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some. In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.

It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.

It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.

This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.

The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.

I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.

If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless. zero day is based of columbine high school massacre. and its a video diary of two boys. at first you don't know whats going to happen you think it is just a bad student film. until they start talking about the horrible things they are going to do in this quite school. until they start talking about pipe bombs and guns and going shooting in the woods. they is a lot to say about this movie. all know this film is well a film you forget you watching a film and watching a real video two boys made.

the two boys act like they are in a weird cult. they burn all there stuff. like play station games books dvds homework stuff school stuff. these two boys can be anybody your friends you brothers or the people you see walking down the street. it goes through there daily actives (and that is making a gun. in the videos they make it mentions the bullying that happens to them and how people said stuff about there clothes and the things you are into I'm not saying its right but many people do do things like that.

and also the thing is with this people are suspected to like it because of the sensitive topic they have chosen on this film.

so thats my review on zero day.

and lets just say the end shooting scene is messed up. Zero day has a purpose and this is not simply entertainment, it delivers a message about its specialised subject school shootings. Charting the lives of two friends Andre and Cal leading up to an attack on their high school.

Whilst the movie started in somewhat unassuming fashion, an impromptu announcement of the coming attack in amateurish teenage style followed by some brief encounters with the boys families. It is not long before we are down to business with the boys showing us their collection of guns, their fetishistic love of them, their sprawling sporadic narcissistic fantasies and even in a controversial scene how to build pipe bombs.

So what is the movie trying to say? What is really motivating these soon to be killers. It seems hard to really pinpoint. They certainly do not come across as cold blooded psychopaths yet they are planning an act of sheer brutality. This brings me to what I feel is the genius in part of Zero day. Cal and Andre talk constantly about how much they are on a different level, how above the rest of us they are and how they will 'leave us all behind.' Like the columbine killers they truly feel superior. Like Nietzsche's res sentiment Cal and Andre's value system seems to have been born out of rejection from their society. Yet we are given only glimpses of this, an expression of hatred for a popular athlete for example. So where is the motivation? What I feel is that Coccio portrayed two individuals desperate to make a statement of superiority a gesture of their power yet who have no reasonable venue for it. Hence they turn to mass murder and the kind of which that will garner them more attention than they could ever realise. This is why in part school shooters seem able to carry out atrocious acts despite coming from good stable loving homes. The murder is part of a fantasy, Cal and Andre are totally lost in their fantasy they almost fail to see the reality of their actions. They turn fantasy into tragedy.

What is secondly most enthralling about this film is the character development and the unique dependence Cal and Andre have on each other. Andre is throughout the film overtly the leader of the two, Cal's embrace of his demeanour and attire seem somewhat forced. Andre is uptight, Andre is intense and serious. He completely shuns others except for his family, he is meticulous and precise about everything he does and for a while appears the prime mover in the plot to attack the school. Yet he is likable in his own way, he does not embrace teenage nonsense and in part we feel compelled to agree with him, yet these moments are shattered by Andre's fleeting gestures of violence towards us the audience treating us as both confidante and potential victim. Cal on the other hand seems more relaxed than Andre, more accepting of reality. Yet he is in his own way dominant. We have many personal moments of introspection with Cal's video diary, scenes when he is alone and apart from Andre. Cal seems to be struggling with his own personal demons and using their plan to exorcise himself of them. Andre is jealous of Cal going to the prom with an old friend, he wants Cal all to himself. Cal placates Andre and encourages him. For the first time in his life Andre seems to have found someone who believes in him and who admires him he cannot lose it. Whilst Cal has found someone offering him a way out.

The movie certainly picks up pace and improves as it nears its grim conclusion. There is an excellent moment when Cal attends the high school prom. Suddenly the star of the movie becomes shy and introverted, not at all at ease with his peers. Yet we are inclined to feel more connection with Cal than with the raucous bawdy crowd screaming juvenile obscenities whilst drinking heavily in their limo. Theirs is an episode all too common and recognisable. We do not want to relate to them, when it is over and Cal is back with Andre silently preparing one of their final videos we like the characters feel once again at ease safe in the fantasy world they created. We feel like shunning the masses as they have.

The penultimate scene is superb. The final video sees Andre and Cal arming themselves in their car just moments before attacking. It is all too real and truly creates a sense of impending doom. By know we know Cal and Andre and are realising they are about to actually do it, with a kind of morbid fascination we are also relishing the films catharsis.

The massacre shot in CCTV fashion is at times shocking, and whilst it was certainly the perfect choice to depict the massacre if we were going to it is not void of flaws. What is most significant is the sudden radical change of perception we have of Cal and Andre, looking at them in the this person suddenly they are the callous killers we knew they would become yet refused to acknowledge that they would. It is violent and real, our heroes have become monsters and the reality of their fantasy is a terrible tragedy, which costs them everything.

The final scene shows a group of teens filming themselves burning the crosses erected for Andre and cal in disgust that they have been memorialised. Having known Andre and Cal we can only feel almost a sadness that they are actually gone forever and that they certainly did not win anything.

Zero day is a must see for anyone interested in these violent acts sensationalised by the media. It is a character study well worth experiencing. This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.

Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career. Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.

When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.

The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.

It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.

I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened. As a fan of looking further into the phenomenon that is school shootings, this film took an interesting and different approach to the idea. Presented as a series of video recordings made by the two troubled men (I cannot refer to persons who kill as boys or teens), the months of preparation leading to zero day (the codename for the day on which they will attack) the film tries to present the situation from the opposite end of the gun. It seems intent on portraying the pain they suffer, yet focuses on the literal preparation. The problem is that little in terms of emotion is directly delivered. The only point at which emotion became overwhelming was the ending, as expected. But leading up to this point, it's never really clear as to why they are planning this out. We are told the obligatory story that they were mocked, but the film also seems to contradict this. Without ruining the film, it's easy to say it was a great attempt and had equally great intentions, but falls short because of sloppy film-making. All directing is amateur, to further the homemade video concept, but the story and continuity is weak. The film seems to want the audience to decide a lot, but also fails to provide the information for such an event. The ending is abrupt, and doesn't feel like it finishes everything that the film began. I am a big fan of cinema verite and saw this movie because I heard how interesting it was. I can honestly say it was very interesting indeed. The two lead actors are awesome, the film isn't ever boring, and the concept behind it (though obviously inspired by the Columbine killings and the home movies of the killers) is really interesting. There are some weaknesses, such as the final 20 minutes which really detracts from the realism seen in the first hour or so and the ending really doesn't make any sense at all. The shaky camera sometimes can be a distraction, but in cinema verite that is a given. But I still think the movie is very well done and the director Ben Coccio deserves some credit. Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.

That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies. Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.

That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies. I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T "go there" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of "why???" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary. This is the best movie I've come across in a long while. Not only is this the best movie of its kind(school shooting)The way Ben Coccio(the director) decided to film it was magnificent. He filmed it using teenage actors who were still attending high school. He filmed it in the actors own rooms and used the actors real parents as their parents in the film. Also the actors were filming too using camcorders making it seem much more like a video diary. It is almost artful.(if that is indeed a word)There are a few slip ups however, for example when Cal calls brads(?) land rover a range rover(or vice versa, It's been awhile since I've seen it) I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.

In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".

The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.

You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.

The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".

I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.

A+. This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw "real" feeling of the film that makes it. What is most disturbing about this film is not that school killing sprees like the one depicted actually happen, but that the truth is they are carried out by teenagers like Cal and Andre...normal kids with normal families. By using a hand held camera technique a la Blair Witch, Ben Coccio succeeds in bringing us into the lives of two friends who have some issues with high school, although we aren't ever told exactly what is behind those issues. They seem to be typical -a lot of people hate high school, so what? A part of you just doesn't believe they will ever carry out the very well thought out massacre on Zero Day. The surveillance camera scenes in the school during the shooting are made all the more powerful for that reason. You can't believe it's really happening, and that it's really happened. The hand held camera technique also creates the illusion that this is not a scripted movie, a brilliant idea given the subject matter. I saw this film at the Rhode Island International Film Festival and was completely blown away. The structure and execution of the film was fantastic...I know it won't, but it really deserves an Oscar nod. Cal and Andre were phenomenal as the two disturbed classmates. Yes, the film is very controversial and I can see a lot of people having a lot of problems with it, as it deals with school shooting and especially makes you identify with the killers. However, despite its harsh and blunt subject matter, Zero Day is SO worth watching. I'm looking forward to it coming out on video so I can buy it - it's very, very good. Very powerful and intense...the end shooting sequence leaves you speechless because it's almost too realistic. Their uncertainty, the "recordings", the footage and panic of the students, totally indescribable. I really hope it gets the attention it deserves. It's done in the same format as The Blair Witch Project, handheld camera, made to appear as a true home video documentary kind of film - but god is it INFINITELY better. Very impressive, hats off to everyone involved. If you've got the chance you really should see it. SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.

They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.

Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.

I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.

Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.

This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone. Beside the fact, that in all it's awesomeness this movie has risen beyond all my expectations, this masterpiece of cinema history portrait the overuse of crappy filters in it's best! Paul Johansson and Craig Sheffer show a brotherconflict with all there is to it. As usual a woman concieling her true intentions. The end came as surprising as unforssen as the killing of Keith Scott by his older brother.

The scenes in 'wiking land' are just as I remember it from my early time travels. - To be honest my strong passion for trash movies makes this one a must have in my never finished collection.

I recommend this movie to all the people in love with the most awesome brother cast from One Tree Hill.

-Odin- I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists.

Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.

On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.

I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that. On one level, this film can bring out the child in us that just wants to build sandcastles and throw stuff in the air just for the sake of seeing it fall down again. On a deeper level though, it explores a profound desire to reconnect with the land. I thoroughly empathized with the artist when he said, "when I'm not out here (alone) for any length of time, I feel unrooted."

I considered Andy Goldsworthy one of the great contemporary artists. I'm familiar with his works mainly through his coffee-table books and a couple art gallery installations. But to see his work in motion, captured perfectly through Riedelsheimer's lens, was a revelation. Unfrozen in time, Goldsworthy's creations come alive, swirling, flying, dissolving, crumbling, crashing.

And that's precisely what he's all about: Time. The process of creation and destruction. Of emergence and disappearing. Of coming out of the Void and becoming the Universe, and back again. There's a shamanic quality about him, verging on madness. You get the feeling, watching him at work, that his art is a lifeforce for him, that if he didn't do it, he would whither and perish.

Luckily for us, Goldsworthy is able to share his vision through the communication medium of photography. Otherwise, with the exception of a few cairns and walls, they would only exist for one person. Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best. As the jacket proclaims, this film is "Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited," and, yes, it is mesmerizingly beautiful. The timelessness that we perceive in stoic rock and in the unceasing ebb and flow of water frames the ephemeral works from Goldsworthy's hands so that in their very ephemeralness they point to eternity.

And so the beauty of his compositions haunt us with just a touch of melancholy woven in--or in the words of Matthew Arnold from "Dover Beach":

Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.

At one point near the end of the film Goldsworthy says that "Words do their job, but what I'm doing here says a lot more." As a wordsmith myself I take no offense and not for a moment do I think him immodest because the combination of form and time and change and texture and color and composition that Goldsworthy painstakingly and intuitively creates, is indeed something more than mere words can say.

At another point he remarks on "What is here to stay...and what isn't." That is his theme.

I think that artists sometime in the twentieth century became acutely aware of how ephemeral even the greatest works of art are compared to the vast expanse of cosmic time; and so they began to reflect this understanding by composing works that were deliberately ephemeral. The idea was, that by emphasizing how short-lived are even the mightiest works of humans, a sense of the timelessness of art would be expressed.

Perhaps part of the effectiveness of Goldsworthy's work is in this sort of expression. He painstakingly composes some form of straw or leaves where the tide will reach it, or places it in the river where it will be swept away; and in this process is merged both the composition and its ephemerality.

Both the transitory and the timeless are necessary for us to understand our world and our place within it. And it is important that these works be done within the context of nature so that what is composed is set within what is natural. Thus the walls of stone and the eggs of stone that Goldsworthy constructs are silent and solid yet we know that they are not monuments to eternity, but instead will stay for some undefined length of time and then dissipate and return to a state much like that which existed before we came along.

This is art as art should be, akin to the spiritual.

In a sense Goldsworthy's work is an inarticulated understanding. It is an experience purely of time and form. In a sense his work "answers" Shelley's famous poem "Ozymandias" by saying, even as the tide washes the work away, and even as the river dissipates the expression, even so the art lives on because of our experience of it. Similarly one thinks of Tibetan sand paintings so carefully composed and measured out, and then just as they are so beautifully and preciously finished, they are given to the wind, so that we might know that all is flux.

Yet, in the modern world these works of art endure in photos and videos. Goldsworthy is an accomplished photographer (of necessity I would say) and all his works, even the unsuccessful ones, he tells us, are photographed so that he can look back at them in a more reflective mood and see what he has accomplished and what he has not.

This cinematic production directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer with the beautiful and appropriately haunting music by Fred Frith is not to be missed. It is one of the most beautiful documentaries that I have ever seen and one of the most spiritual. Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk. This German documentary, in English, is about a Scottish environmental sculptor named Andy Goldsworthy. He makes art from objects he finds in nature. For example, early in the film we see him taking sections of icicles and "gluing" them together with a little moisture into a serpentine shape that seems to repeatedly go through a vertical rock.

Of course, the icicles melt, but that transience is a part of most of Goldsworthy's work. He goes to a site and gets a feeling for it, deciding intuitively what to make that day. He talks of having a "dialog" with the rocks and other materials that he works with, attempting to work *with* rather than against them. It might be stones, or flowers, or leaves, or sticks. The sculpture might last for minutes or years, or might not even last long enough to be completed and photographed. The work seems to be more of a process than a goal.

The film, and the work, is beautiful, inspiring, and thought provoking. It moves pretty slowly, which is appropriate for the material, but you should be sure to go when you have had a good night's sleep. But do go if you have the opportunity.

Search the web for some other pages about Andy Goldsworthy or to read about his local sculpture at Stanford University. There are also several books available with photographs of his sculptures.

My thoughts: Skip reading this part if you want to find what this film means to you completely independently. I recall a couple of ideas that occurred to me while watching the film which I thought I would share for those of you still reading. First, the transitory nature of much of Andy Goldsworthy's work reminded me of the natural ebb and flow of human life. We're born, we live, and eventually we die. That's natural, and that's also naturally a part of Goldsworthy's art.

The other thought was to be awestruck with the way that Goldsworthy has managed to integrate his passion and his work so thoroughly into his life. Most of us have work which is tolerated at best, a life which we hardly notice living, and passions which we really mean to spend more time on, if we even remember what they are. Andy Goldsworthy has managed to create an amalgam of all of these aspects of his life that looks like it works very well, and is nourishing for him and those around him. Wow.

Seen on 8/28/2002. Being a fan of Andy Goldsworthy's art for a while now, and owning some of his books, I had some expectations of what I would see. What I got was something completely satisfying, and quite a bit more than I expected. Being an artist myself (I work in clay), finding inspiration within our surroundings to make good art is imperative, and it is something Andy Goldsworthy has mastered. Following him over the course of a year, the director captures the spontaneous energy, skill, and devotion to the artists connection with nature with dratic inspiring flair. The music set to the film is embracing and intoxicating. If you are an artist in need of inspiration, or anyone else in need of an uplifting experience, then SEE THIS MOVIE. I for one am glad to know that Andy is somewhere out there. Creating, dancing, wrestling with the forces of nature to make our world more beautiful. The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie! The Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy fashions natural materials into ephemeral artworks, assembling rocks into egg-shaped cairns, filling riverside rock-pools with fiery flowers and stitching thorns and twigs into intricate web patterns. An original work and a few photographs of his other creations are tucked away in a corner of Southampton art gallery (near where I live), but although I found these pieces intriguing, I only realised the wonder of Goldsworthy's work when I was lucky enough to catch a re-screening of Rivers and Tides.

Thomas Reidelsheimer's film, accompanied by a beautiful instrumental soundtrack by Fred Frith, brings Goldsworthy and his art to life by showing the artist at work. The opening scene captures him fusing icicle fragments into a snake-like thread set atop a tree-stump. Working with his teeth and bare hands, Goldsworthy crafts a beautiful, ephemeral work. Before long this delicate sculpture melts away to nothing in the brilliant Nova Scotian sunlight. This scene is among the most beautiful in the film, but the breadth and inventiveness of Goldsworthy's work is remarkable. Reidelsheimer shows both the successes and the failures, capturing the frustration of pieces that collapse before they are completed as well as the glory of those that shine, even if for just a few hours, minutes or seconds.

Goldsworthy himself provides the narration, speaking slowly but thoughtfully about the themes in his work. He makes plain his need to work with nature, to be alone in it and to further his understanding of it through trying to work with natural materials, even when they seem to be working against him. At times he is down-to-earth and humorous; at other times he struggles for the words to express his purpose – something which is quite understandable when witnessing his astonishing work first hand. The 'Rivers and Tides' of the title become increasingly pertinent as we see the natural materials pass through the artist's hands, flowing from one form to the next. The capture of the creation and dissolution of Goldworthy's work is in itself a striking piece of art.

Although Goldsworthy works with widely varying materials and covers territory across North America and Europe, the presentation of artworks one after the other in this film is exhausting; it gave me the same feeling of fatigue that I get when I spend too long in an art gallery and struggle to take in anything new. A brief interval in which we are introduced to Andy's family and hometown is all that breaks the long succession of his artworks. Nevertheless, Reidelsheimer does a superb job in photographing Goldsworthy and his creations, locating them in their wider environments, from meandering Canadian rivers to rainy Scottish hillsides. Fittingly, the film ends with Goldsworthy casting handfuls of earth and snow into the sky. Fleeting patterns emerge from the dust particles even as they dissipate into the air; this is the purest expression of the beauty to be found in the work of this remarkable artist. A very engaging documentary about Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy, whose work consists mostly of ephemeral sculptures made from elements from nature. His work is made of rocks, leaves, grass, ice, etc., that gets blown away when the tide arrives at the beach or the wind blows at the field. Thus, most of Goldsworthy's works don't really last, except as photos or films of what they were. Now, one can argue that Goldsworthy's works are a reflection of mortality, or words to that effect, but isn't it easier to say that what he does is just beautiful art. And at a time when the stereotype about artists is that they are mostly bitter, pretentious, often mentally unstable people who live in decrepit urban settings, Goldsworthy seems to be the opposite: a stable, unpretentious, family oriented person who loves nature and lives in a small village in Scotland (of course, I'm sure those are the same reasons why he's shunned by some people on the art world who found his works fluffy or superficial). This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre. this has by far been one of the most beautiful portraits of a person that I've ever seen on screen. Andy Goldsworthy is a kind of man that is upon extinction. he views the earth and nature with such admiration and respect that it's primitive in a good sense. his purity, honesty and kindness breathes clearly as you watch him work in such simplistic yet full of life momentary pieces of art. I was amazed how patiently he created his pieces and how patiently he accepted their end. sometimes prematurely, but his Scottish sense of humor covers his disappointments brilliantly. the film is shoot elegantly and contains the same flow that Goldsworthy's art has. it combines nature and art in a minimal way as it is in itself. Fred Frith's score is organic enough that it blends everything together without interfering with it naturalistic sound. this is overall a great piece of work in every aspect. it has no boundaries as far as age goes. I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb) This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends. Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you. A new way to enjoy Goldsworthy's work, Rivers and Tides allows fans to see his work in motion. Watching Goldsworthy build his pieces, one develops an appreciation for every stone, leaf, and thorn that he uses. Goldsworthy describes how the flow of life, the rivers, and the tides inspires and affects his work. Although, I was happy the film covered the majority of Goldsworthy's pieces (no snowballs), I do feel it was a bit long. The film makers did a wonderful job of bringing Goldsworthy's work to life, and created a beautiful film that was a joy to watch. Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect. This film is mesmerizing in its beauty and creativity. An artist's profound vision, his art that springs intuitively from its natural source brings us an inspiring Hosanna, blending his creations with trees, white water dashing against rocks, fields and rain...Andy Goldsworthy makes the viewer feel joy in being alive, aware that we are all made of the clay of this glorious earth. He doesn't spare us his occasional frustration, but on the whole we see the miracle in joining art with nature. Credit also goes of course to the filmmaker, Thomas Riedelsheimer, who directed, photographed and edited the movie with incredible sensibility and perfect timing.

If you have any feeling for beauty, nature and art...do not miss this fantastic film!

So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.

The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole. As a person who sought out an existence as a 'professional' person with income backed by a BS in Chemistry and MS in Business Management, my sanity was always spasmodically sustained in outside indulgences in things more artistic. My post-post graduate classes were always emotionally and spiritually supported by an interest in photography, stained-glass, ceramics, metal forging/welding, and art drawing that also included silk screening.

I also keep healthy with jogging, walking and lately, hiking to remote destinations in California and nearby states like Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Jogging, walking and hiking gets one close to the earth with time to stop and watch and listen and also photograph or record sounds.

Within that background, I was obsessed with RIVERS AND TIDES. I was equally impressed with the documentary content of artist Andy Goldsworthy as well as the skills and smoothness of Director/Cinematographer Thomas Riedelsheimer. I actually could not separate the art of Goldsworthy with camera path of Riedelsheimer.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful. I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.

I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.

Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond "art". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...

Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.

OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask. Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.

The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience! One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the "cut-out" method of animation (a la "South Park"), the real talent behind "Twice Upon a Time" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's "Rhoda") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The "accidental nightmare" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed. This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_. You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.

It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.

A lush fantasy world with quirky characters and annoying 80's music. This epitomizes the 80's desire to rewrite fairy tales and make fun of how they work. Personally I liked Greensleeves and the other harsher characters. They had some of the more amusing lines. Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version – there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release – since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities. Set in the Cameroons in West Africa in the 1950s, Claire Denis' Chocolat is a beautifully photographed and emotionally resonant tone poem that depicts the effects of a dying colonialism on a young family during the last years of French rule. The theme is similar to the recent Nowhere in Africa, though the films are vastly different in scope and emphasis. The film is told from the perspective of an adult returning to her childhood home in a foreign country. France Dalens (Mireille Perrier), a young woman traveling through Cameroon, recalls her childhood when her father (Francois Cluzet) was a government official in the French Cameroons and she had a loving friendship with the brooding manservant, Protée (Isaach de Bankolé). The heart of the film, however, revolves around France's mother Aimée (Giulia Boschi) and her love/hate relationship with Protée that is seething with unspoken sexual tension.

The household is divided into public and private spaces. The white families rooms are private and off limits to all except Protée who works in the house while the servants are forced to eat and shower outdoors, exposing their naked bronze bodies to the white family's gazes. It becomes clear when her husband Marc (François Cluzet) goes away on business that Aimée and Protée are sexually attracted to each other but the rules of society prevent it from being openly acknowledged. In one telling sequence, she invites him into her bedroom to help her put on her dress and the two stare at each other's image in the mirror with a defiant longing in their eyes, knowing that any interaction is taboo.

The young France (Cecile Ducasse) also forms a bond with the manservant, feeding him from her plate while he shows her how to eat crushed ants and carries her on his shoulders in walks beneath the nocturnal sky. In spite of their bond, the true nature of their master-servant relationship is apparent when France commands Protée to interrupt his conversation with a teacher and immediately take her home, and when Protée stands beside her at the dinner table, waiting for her next command. When a plane loses its propeller and is forced to land in the nearby mountains, the crew and passengers must move into the compound until a replacement part can be located. Each visitor shows their disdain for the Africans, one, a wealthy owner of a coffee plantation brings leftover food from the kitchen to his black mistress hiding in his room. Another, Luc (Jean-Claude Adelin), an arrogant white Frenchman, upsets the racial balance when he uses the outside shower, eats with the servants, and taunts Aimée about her attraction to Protée leading her to a final emotional confrontation with the manservant.

Chocolat is loosely autobiographical, adapted from the childhood memories of the director, and is slowly paced and as mysterious as the brooding isolation of the land on which it is filmed. Denis makes her point about the effects of colonialism without preaching or romanticizing the characters. There are no victims or oppressors, no simplistic good guys. Protée is a servant but he is also a protector as when he stands guard over the bed where Aimée and her daughter sleep to protect them from a rampaging hyena. It is a sad fact that Protée is treated as a boy and not as a man, but Bankolé imbues his character with such dignity and stature that it lessens the pain. Because of its pace, Western audiences may have to work hard to fully appreciate the film and Denis does not, in Roger Ebert's phrase, "coach our emotions". The truth of Chocolat lies in the gestures and glances that touch the silent longing of our heart. My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protée and Aimée compared to the one between Protée and France.

I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the "sexiest" scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, "Yes!" when he figured out the scene: the one where Protée is helping Aimée lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the "mirror technique" when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is "sexy".

Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was "Africanism", and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot "become" African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African. Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' "houseboy," perhaps the only "real" human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite. This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered.

The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimée and her servant, Protée. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protée or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protée lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.

Also interesting is the relationship between Protée and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.

There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protée! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.

While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.

Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel. In reflecting on this movie I can think of two others to help put it in perspective. One relatively forgettable but covering the same geography, is Coup de Torchon, the other thousands of miles away and much larger in scope is the unforgettable Indochine. Claire Denis has produced a movie that has some of the grand underpinnings of Indochine, the complex and unspoken relationship between France and her colonial subjects.

I was struck with the dignity of Potee, with his struggle to maintain his dignity among his peers and with his white bosses. I was also struck with the love/hate relationship between him and Aimee. It is the latter that gives the film its driving force, it is the latter that links this movie to Indochine.

One never is sure what motivates everyone, though some of the characters are required of a remembrance of colonialism. It is this cynical side of the story that ties it to Coup de Torchon. Theirs is the more scandalous story, perhaps even more interesting in a depraved way, but Denis gives us a remembrance of how it was with all the tension and unresolved relationships.

The American black who gives the grown up France a ride in the beginning and end of the movie offers yet another interesting side to the confusion that we in the Western world have when we look at Africa. He says that when he came he wanted to call everyone brother. He was coming home, but they just thought him to be a little daft. France, the character and the girl, grew up in Cameroon, but neither fully understands what it is even though they can remember how it was.

I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!! I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really "get it" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to "get", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like "exciting" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you. The story is about a little girl growing up in colonial Africa, but it is so much more than that.

Anyone growing up in the South would experience the same things. A longing for another, one of a different race, that cannot be consummated. Even a glance is forbidden. There are no words needed. Their facial expressions say everything.

It is the story of a black servant, Protée (Isaach De Bankolé) and a white woman, Aimée (Giulia Boschi). Their desire for each other is so strong that they torture each other because they cannot have each other.

The little girl, France (Cécile Ducasse) is lonely and spends all her time with Protée. She really can't see this dance.

One of the more irritating aspects of the film is the laziness of the colonials. They cannot even get undressed for bed by themselves. There world is about to end; they just don't know it yet. Their racist attitudes will be erased with their presence.

I think I would like to visit this Africa. It seems so quiet; especially at night when you only hear the animals. I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside.

It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant.

For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut. This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective. Claire Denis's Chocolat is a beautiful but frustrating film. The film presents a very interesting look at the household of a European colonial family living in Cameroon, giving the viewer an informative perspective on the lives of many characters and their interaction. However, the development of these characters is often maddeningly insufficient. For example, a central theme in the story is young France's inability to form strong relationships with others. Although this portrayal is executed flawlessly, notably in the way that Denis frames the story with scenes from France's return to her childhood home, the girl's lack of intimacy with the film's other characters makes it difficult for a viewer to invest much interest in her development (or lack thereof) as a protagonist. The general stagnation of the film's character development makes it difficult to become engaged in the loosely organized plot. The film raises a great deal of tension between characters, particularly between Aimee and the men in her life, but never fully addresses this social friction, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. The final few scenes are powerful but depressing. Denis's work is certainly interesting from an intellectual and historical standpoint, but if you are looking for a film with adventure or drama, Chocolat is definitely not the best choice. I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel! This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all. Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.

With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.

A great discourse. I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing. This film struck me as a project that had a lot of the right ingredients, but somewhere along the way they didn't quite come together. I don't know who made it, but it has a slightly Disney-esque feel. While parts of it are improbable (like when a pre-teen runs for a public office) and tend to prevent the story from being taken seriously, there is a healthy dose of normalcy (whatever that is) to keep things balanced and in perspective. The acting is alright. Strangely, the relationship between Frankie and her grandmother is convincing, but the relationship between Hazel and Frankie is a bit...off. It's interesting to see how she has to work hard to keep a balance between her best friend, her grandmother, and her two passions: ballet and baseball. Being a baseball player myself, it was quite painful to watch Frankie try to hold her own on a team of boys, but it does a good job of showing the struggle she faces. I read somewhere that she isn't really ballerina, but the editing in this film did a very good job of making her dancing look not only natural but beautiful. Overall, it was a good film about honesty and ambition, but its star Mischa Barton didn't quite achieve the level of realism we saw during her performances in "Lawn Dogs", "Lost and Delirious", and her small but shocking performance opposite Haley Joel Osment in "The 6th Sense." An excellent family movie... gives a lot to think on... There's absolutely nothing wrong in this film. Everything is just perfect. The script is great - it's so... real... such things could happen in everyone's life. And don't forget about acting - it's just awesome! Just look at Frankie and You'll know what I thought about... This picture is a real can't-miss!!! This is a great movie to see with your girlfriend. My friend and I both love dance and ran into this movie at the video store. We had to get it. With no violence and such a warming story its a great movie to relax to and just enjoy your night. I would recommend this movie to any family or just a bunch of girls looking for a cute movie. A great storyline with a message. Joan Plowright is superb as "Phoebe", Mike Kopsa is hilarious as "coach" and Richard de Klerk plays the role of "Carmine" superbly. Mischa Barton as "Frankie" puts in a good performance and Ingrid as "Hazel" plays her first lead extremely well. This film is superbly directed by Jo-Beth Williams. The editing is first rate. I thought that it was a great film for kids ages 6-12. A little sappy, but the story is uplifting an fresh. It proves that the dreams of an adolescent can truly come true. I think that it's a great story for any kid who is feelings down, or feels as if there trying to juggle too many things among them. Very 'cute' film. Bravo. Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.

While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.

I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!

I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy. S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.

MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.

Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market.

The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.

I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock. EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.

Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.

On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.

Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner. When Philo Vance (Edmund Lowe) is standing precariously on the edge of a balcony high above the city, apparently hypnotized and just about to step to his death,it immediately reminded me of a nearly identical scene in another film made nine years later, "The Woman in Green" in which Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone)is similarly about to hurl himself into space while being hypnotized.

Happily, both Philo Vance and Sherlock Holmes survive these attempts at murder by unscrupulous criminals. Exciting cinematic suspense in both these scenes. When will they learn you can't cloud the minds of great fictional detectives ? Etienne Girardot is just a character actor--the sort of person people almost never would know by name. However, he once again plays the coroner--one of the only actors in the Philo Vance films that played his role more than once. I've already seen him two other times and loved him every time because he was so funny and a breath of fresh air. This film also is great to watch because in addition to Girardot, there are many other wonderful character actors along for the ride--including Grant Mitchell, Gene Lockhart, Henry Walthal, Kent Smith, H.B. Warner and Nat Pendleton. This is quite an impressive cast, and they sure made the job easier for leading man and woman Edmund Lowe and Virginia Bruce.

These great character actors are one of the big reasons I love these old B-movies. While the mystery itself is rarely that terrific, because of the breezy writing and acting, the films really satisfy. As for this film, Vance is played wonderfully by Lowe but, like I said, the mystery itself is only an after-thought--with a silly plot involving hypnosis and suicides. Unfortunately, you cannot hypnotize anyone to do anything of the sort--I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD do anything like the evil guy could do in the film, I would have done it! Used car salesmen and a few of my old bosses would have been obvious targets!!

Overall, while not the best Philo Vance film, it was very good and it's a darn shame Lowe only played this role once. In fact, aside from William Powell (who played Vance five times), the series was hindered by a long, long succession of actors such as Basil Rathbone, Wilfred Hyde-White and Warren William (and many others) playing Vance. This is a similar problem that also plagued the Bulldog Drummond series--just too many different actors playing the leading man.

Well worth seeing and exciting--though also quite impossible. updated January 1st, 2006

Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.

Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.

Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.

Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).

Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.

Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).

The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)

Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera. This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherché "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.

Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.

Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.

The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.

The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.

__________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing. Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.

Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film. Vincente Minnelli directed some of the most celebrated entertainments in cinema history... He was among the first Hollywood directors to show that a profound love of color, motion and music might produce intelligent entertainment...

'American in Paris' is the story of an ex-GI who remains in France after the war to study and paint... He falls in love with a charming gamine Lise Bourvier... Their romantic love affair sparkles as brightly as the City of Lights itself... The whole movie brings a touch of French elegance where technique, artistic style and music all come together in perfect synchronism...

The first musical sequence introduces the exciting personality of Leslie Caron in her screen debut... She is like a diamond, a touch of class... George Guetary describes his fiancée ambiguous grace in a montage of different dance styles, sweet and shy, vivacious and modern, graceful and awesome... The number leads to an unpretentious bistro, where Kelly and his very good friends in Paris share a gentle parody of Viennese waltzes... Later Kelly celebrates a popular tap dancing with a crowd of enthusiastic children singing with him 'I Got Rhythm,' and at the massive jazz nightclub Kelly spots the girl of his dreams... He is instantly hit by her sparkling sapphire blue eyes, and only one clear thing is in his mind, to pull Lize onto the dance floor and sing to her: "It's very clear, Our love is here to stay."

To the joyful 'Tra-La-La,' Kelly provides humor, wit and talent all around Oscar Levant's room ,and even on the top of his brown piano...

When he meets his pretty Cinderella along the Seine river, Kelly is swept away by his happy meeting with Caron... He expresses all his emotions with 'Our Love Is Here to Stay.' The piece had a definite nighttime feel as the two lovers were bathed in soft, blue smoky light... They start an enchanting dance-duet juxtaposing differing elements... Caron dances with her head on his shoulder, then tries to run away in a fluid way... They move backward, away from each other, then pause to rush toward each other, for a little kiss, and a warm hug...

The film's weakest numbers were those that bear little relation to the story... In one, Georges Guetary performs an entertaining stage show with showgirls in giant ornaments floating down to the stage... In another, Oscar Levant imagines himself conducting a concert, and playing not only a piano recital, but the other instruments as well... He even applauds to himself as members of the audience...

The extravagant climactic super ballet of the film is quite an adventure, a breakthrough in taste, direction and design... It is a blaze of love, fury and vividness... It is Kelly's major fantasy of his lost love and of his feeling about Paris as viewed through the huge backdrops of some of France's most Impressionist painters...

The number starts at the Beaux Arts Ball after Kelly finds himself separated from Lise, and begins a sketch with a black crayon... It gathers the important parts of the film's story through a constantly changing locations, all in the style of the painters who have influenced Jerry... The tour, richly attractive and superbly atmospheric, includes the Place De la Concorde Fountain, the Madeleine flower market, the Place De l'Opéra, to his Rendez-Vous at Montmartre, with the cancan dancers in a representation of Lautrec's Moulin Rouge...

Kelly seems to defy the boundaries of his physical self... Caron seems to dominate her space and sweeps you away to another time and place...

Nina Foch appeared very attractive and elegant in her one-shouldered white gown... In one of the film's most famous lines, Kelly asks her: 'That's quite a dress you almost have on. What holds it up?" Nina, cleverly replies, "modesty!"

'An American in Paris' garnered six Oscars, including an honorary award to Gene Kelly... The film gave us a wealth of memories to take home... Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM.

The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.

Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.

Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy.

Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.

Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.

In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.

In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.

Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated. I saw "An American in Paris" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are "It's Very Clear" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and "I Got Rhythm" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in "Une Chanson Americaine"). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it ! An American in Paris was, in many ways, the ultimate mixture of art and Hollywood musical. Made at the height of MGM's powers as a musical powerhouse, the film features memorable music from the Gershwins, who rightly have been called the 20th Century's equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart.

Gene Kelly was also at the height of his powers in this film, though it could be rightly argued that this movie was just the warm-up for his best work in Singin' in the Rain (1952). The two films are actually closely linked. Aside from the Arthur Freed connection, the Broadway Melody segment in "Rain" owes its existence to the incredible American in Paris Ballet sequence in this film. This might well have been the only time a dance number is specially mentioned in the opening credits of the film. And it deserved to be, as it showcases Gene Kelly's skills as a dancer and choreographer to their utmost degree.

The film's cast is uniformly excellent. Leslie Caron, incredibly making her film debut, shows a maturity that makes you think she'd been making films for years. Her introductory dance sequence, and later her work on the Ballet, provides some surprisingly sexy moments rivalled in MGM Musicals only by Cyd Charisse's work in Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon. Oscar Levant is hilarious as Kelly's stoic pal, who gets two of the film's best moments: during the end party sequence (which I will not give away for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and one of the film's most memorable musical numbers which couples his incredible piano skills with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects.

Less memorable are Georges Guetary as Kelly's romantic rival, though he does get a few musical highlights, and Nina Foch as Leslie Caron's romantic rival. The May-December relationship between Kelly's character and Nina's reminded me of the same "kept man" relationship seen between George Peppard and Patricia Neal in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

There are a few elements of the film that made it less satisfying for me than Singin' in the Rain. The Ballet, though lavish and well-produced, doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Without giving away the plot, the Ballet just happens, with no real rhyme or reason. And unlike the Broadway Melody sequence, it really doesn't have anything to do with the plot -- and in the best musicals, the songs always have some sort of raison d'etre.

Making matters worse is the ending of the film which happens immediately after the Ballet. Although the ending shouldn't be a surprise (this IS an MGM musical, after all), I was hoping for a bit more ... movie after the Ballet ended. It's as if director Vincente Minnelli felt that he couldn't follow the Ballet with anything else. The film literally left me in the lurch.

That negative aside, An American in Paris rightly ranks alongside the best of Hollywood's musicals. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Singin' in the Rain, but it comes close and it remains a testament to Gene Kelly's skills as one of the greatest dancers of all time. I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.

Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the "comments" index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.

Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing "Pal Joey" on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin "panorama" film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the "goody two shoes" roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of "For Me and My Gal"). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of "Pal Joey". This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to "Pal Joey." In my opinion, the WB film "Pal Joey" is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================

You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying "but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!". You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.

Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as "Joey's" enthusiasm to "start a nightclub". But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in "Pal Joey" (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================

Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no "chemistry". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse "forced" romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in "The Pride and the Passion". ====================================================

When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a "load of crap". ================================================== Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.

But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.)

The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.

Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch! I enjoyed this film. It was lighthearted, delightful, and very colorful. You can see that MGM was showing off Technicolor. There are hardly any colors that do not appear in this film. Every scene is packed full. The choreography was great. Gene Kelly is a wonder. He is so talented. The dance numbers in this film are all perfectly executed, and perfectly designed. He understands that the dances can tell the story as much as anything else. The last section of the film, the grand dance sequence, is very impressive. What makes this film very special is Gershwin's music. Few American composers have had a better gift for melody. I very much enjoy Gershwin's music. It is enchanting. Ira Gershwin is definitely one of the greatest lyric writers. He is so witty and charming. This was a highly entertaining film. Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say "they don't make 'em like they used to!" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see! Released two years before I was born, this Oscar-winning movie has it all - lavish Technicolor sets and costumes, breathtaking cinematography, superb wall-to-wall Gershwin music, superior choreography, a lighter-than-air screenplay, and great performances by Kelly, Levant, Foch, Guetary, and Caron. Hollywood doesn't make 'em like this anymore. Definitely, this is my favorite movie of all time, a standard by which I judge all other films. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY! I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10 While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist. Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run.

To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.

The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.

8/10

I can give you four reasons to see this movie:

1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.

2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.

3. A surprisingly good cast.

4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts.

Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a "Peter and the wolf"-like anecdote.

In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.

And at the end, Fernando Sariñana returns to the dark humor in the "grand finale" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films "Todo el poder", Sariñana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.

Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.

And it's a beautiful life in Mexico... This movie, even though is about one of the most favorite topics of Mexican producers producers: the extreme life in our cities, has a funny way to put it on the screen.

Four of the more important Mexican directors, of the last times, approach histories of our city framed in diverse literary sorts as it can be the farce or the satire, which gives us a film with a over exposed topic in our country, but narrated in a very different way which gives a freshness tone him.

With actors little known, but that interprets of excellent way their paper, each one of the directors reflect in the stories the capacity by we have been identified anywhere in the world, that capacity of laugh the pains and to make celebration of the sadness. Perhaps to many people in our country the film not have pleased, but I consider that people of other countries could find attractive and share the surrealism of the Mexican. I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinémas d'Amérique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4.

The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.

This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned. This show is awesome! I have been a fan since it premiered, and it only keeps me watching... I've seen some terrible things here, that I wish I hadn't, BUT, it really shows you how addiction affects all involved, not just the addict. You can see all kinds of different addictions, from drugs and alcohol to the shopping addict, or the eating disorder addict. And actually, it's really sad to see some of the famous faces that have come through also. We've seen accomplished musicians, an NBA player, and even young people, who really need the help. And since they have started showing a few follow-ups, that's been awesome too. Now, you can see how they are a long while after their ep aired. If you haven't checked this one out, please do. It's on A&E, and it's awesome! The new eps are Sunday nights at 10PM EST, if I remember correctly... so set your TiVo! I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.

Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.

Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.

I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them. 'Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.

The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, "the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood." The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, "collapse in a heap on the floor" and have their lives forever changed by the event.

For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.

To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.

To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me. I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that… What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.

Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.

Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.

The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up.

"Red Eye" is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, "Red Eye" might be your ticket. I saw an advanced screening for this movie tonight. I absolutely loved it. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all night. Cillian Murphy is extremely creepy as the villain. For those of you who have seen Batman Begins, his character was much scarier in this film. He played his character very well. The scariest "bad guy," I have seen in awhile. Rachel McAdams was great. Everyone in the audience laughed, gasped and cheered at the same time, as if we were on cue. The suspense is held through out the movie. THe amazing part is that the end was not anti-climatic. I was not disappointed in the end. I felt satisfied. The trailer does not do the movie justice. The movie is much better than the trailer indicated. Do not wait for this movie to come out on video. Go see it. Although, I did not have to pay to see this movie, I would have gladly given 10.75 to see it. Enjoy! I had fun watching Red Eye. It's not a masterpiece, but it's well directed and structured. Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams are perfect in the role. Yes, it's the same old story with a different setting but Wes Craven gave it a good pace. At least not another Scream with the usual college killer. It's nice when you can see a clean, coherent thriller even when originality doesn't stand out as its main character. Particularly from a film-maker like Craven that has brought so many innovative ideas to the thriller and horror genre in the past and that now just lends himself to bringing home what could have been a good TV movie had it not been released theatrically. Good job! Scream was Wes Craven's last decent thriller. Since then there has been nothing but an unbearable streak of Hollywood trash barely good enough for a blockbuster night, including the disappointment of the Scream sequels. Perhaps the genius and the craftsmanship devoted to the movie drained all the energy and creativity out of him, so that when it came time for supper, he had nothing to serve us but his own doo doo. Finally, after who knows how many bad movies later, he gives us a delicious, ruthless, gripping, chilling suspense thriller with Red Eye.

Rachel McAdams once again delivers an enjoyable performance as she plays a hotel manager who has the unfortunate connection with an important political figure and regular at her hotel. Then she meets Jackson Ripner (Cillian Murphy, Batman Beyond) at the airport, who she gets to know a little better after a delayed flight and a bay breeze. What she doesn't know is he already knows her. And he also knows her father, who she will never see again if she fails to cooperate and meet Jackson's demands- to use her connections to set up her hotel regular for assassination.

You're probably thinking this is nothing but your everyday thriller complete with predictability and chase scenes. Although this is a good old fashioned thriller, that's the beauty of it. No special effects. No cheap make up. Just classic suspense. You feel the desperation and regret with every decision McAdams is forced to make and you actually care for her as you cheer her on every move she makes to find an escape from her claustrophobic position.

As always she delivers an entertaining and convincing performance. It's either her sweet face or her uncanny ability to sincerely cry, but you always seem to sympathize with her if her role demands it. Cillian Murphy on the other hand is naturally creepy looking, so even if the trailer didn't reveal it, his ultimate transition from charming stranger to merciless jackass isn't so surprising. Perhaps it would have been more trippy to see a nice guy persona like Toby Maguire transforming into evil relentless madman. Nevertheless, Cillian Murphy, after his true identity is established, played the role so solidly you'd really want him to die, or at least get his ass kicked.

Don't overlook this feature. There are plenty of chalkboard screeching moments and heart jumpers that will keep your eyes on the screen instead of your watch like you would at Craven's recent pictures. If not for the you, do it for all the times you'll see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, or someone with popcorn jump and cling on to you. Wes finally gets it right. Aside from his trademark mastery in suspense, Red Eye is not without its humor as McAdams' replacement Cynthia at the front desk fumbles to keep the hotel in order. It was a relief that Red Eye wasn't a disappointment. Instead you'll get the pleasure of seeing McAdams deliver another incredibly talented performance, Murphy look creepier by the minute, and Craven craft a classic traditional thriller. A flight that was delayed and would have been the beginning of Craven's renaissance had it arrived right after Scream. Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy. On an overnight flight from Los Angeles to Miami, Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming man who turns out to be a hired killer who demands her help killing a businessman or else her own father will die.

Red Eye is a terrific thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The premise is similar to Cellular and Phone Booth but Red Eye is better than both of those films. Almost everything about Red Eye is above average including the suspense, the acting and the direction. Most of the film does take place on a plane but that doesn't slow down the movie. The film is very fast pace and exciting with no slow or boring spots. Wes Craven does a really good job behind the camera. Instead of focusing on the thrills, he focuses on the story and the characters. The movie does have its share of suspenseful moments but that's not what the film is really about. I also like the way Wes Craven focuses on the other passengers and the small details that become important later on. Red Eye really shows his skills at storytelling.

Red Eye also works well because of its young and talented cast. Rachel McAdams gives a very engaging performance and her character is hard to hate. You may even end up cheering for her out loud. Cillian Murphy gives a very creepy and effective performance as the villain. The way he acts charming at first but then turns psycho is especially impressive. The supporting actors are also pretty good which include Brain Cox and Jayma Mays.

The movie is also very stylish and it has this overall creepy vibe to it. The setting works well since there is an obvious fear of isolation and no escape. Overall, the tone of the film is consistently creepy. The screenplay isn't as strong as everything else though. There are a few unrealistic moments that may distract the viewer. Most of them didn't bother me but there were of few that left me shaking my head. Also, the ending is disappointing. It isn't a bad ending just a very simple one and a different approach would have been better. Since the movie focuses on the characters, there is really no scream moments maybe just a few jumps. If you expect a horror movie then you will end up disappointed. In the end, Red Eye is an engaging thriller and it's one of the best movies of the summer. Rating 8/10 I also just got back from an advanced screening of Redeye and I must say I haven't had so much fun at a movie in a long time. WES CRAVEN is at his best ever. He brings us an amazing end of summer thriller I was so desperately craving. This is THE thriller of the year..no doubt.

All the actors are amazing and the action is realistic and fun. The F/X were great. It steadily built suspense. I was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. It's been a while since I heard an audience cheer and clap and get excited in a theater.

If your looking for thrills,action and a GOOD plot this summer, REDEYE delivers. Go see it! Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.

The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.

Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.

For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.

In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.

Short haul fun. Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.

What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.

As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale. Red Eye starts in Texas where hotel receptionist Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is about to catch the last 'red eye' flight back to Miami where she lives & works. While waiting for her plane Lisa meets the handsome & charming Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) & they both seem to hit it off, then when they board the plane they discover that by a coincidence they are seated next to each other. Once the plane takes off & they are in the air Jackson reveals who he really is & that their seemingly chance meeting was not a coincidence, Jackson says that he is working for someone who wants to assassinate the homeland security secretary Charles Keefe (Jack Scalia) & they need her to change his rooms at the hotel where she works in Miami. Jackson tells Lisa to phone the hotel & make it happen or her father will be killed...

Directed by Wes Craven who is perhaps better known for his horror films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991) & the Scream trilogy of teen slashers a short, punchy, fast paced little thriller like Red Eye seems like a big departure from the sort of film Craven usually makes. The script by Carl Ellsworth makes for a surprisingly gripping thriller that I must admit I really enjoyed, at only 85 odd minutes in length it's a very quick moving, economical & straight to the point sort of film that focuses almost entirely on one tight, taught plot rather than go off in various directions with lots of subplots. Some may like this approach like I did while other's may not but I think it draws you into the action a lot more as it comes thick & fast without the film slowing down any & giving you a chance to relax. I really liked the plot for Red Eye, sure a film like this is always going to have one or two questionable moments in terms of plotting but what the hell, it's a film made to entertain & for me that's what it did. I really liked the two central character's, Lisa comes across as very likable while Jackson Rippner (an obvious play on the name of the notorious Victorian serial killer Jack the Ripper) is a suitably slimy villain with a cold 'I'm only doing my job' type mentality. Another plus point is that I didn't think anyone behaved overly stupid here, everyone actually seemed like human beings & the films plays out in a relatively plausible fashion. I really liked this & it's one of Craven's better more recent films.

Craven turns in a good solid tense, tight, taught & fast paced thriller with an attractive cast, some good action & a gripping plot. He certainly doesn't hang about & once he starts the action & tension he never lets up, far & away the most effective part of the film is when Rippner is holding Lisa hostage on the plane & once the film switches to Miami & Lisa's fathers house it does become a little bit more routine but it's still good. A special mention goes to Rachel McAdams who is absolutely gorgeous in this, I could probably watch Red Eye again just because she is in it & looks drop dead stunning. Those who see Wes Craven's name attached to Red Eye expecting a horror film should think again since there's no horror in it at all (despite the IMDb listing 'Horror' as Red Eye's genre). I am not sure about the ending, on the one hand it was nice to see the villain live for a change which goes against traditional expectation but it might have been more satisfying to see Lisa kill him in some way.

DreamWorks apparently gave Red Eye an initial budget of $44,000,000 but reduced it to $25,000,000 although it's still a very well made film with glossy production values. Actually shot in Los Angeles & Florida in California. The film was supposedly written with husband & wife Sean Penn & Robin Wright Penn intended for the leads but eventually the makers opted for younger leads. As I have already said Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy & is a total babe in this & worth watching the film for on her own. Oh, & she puts in a decent performance too.

Red Eye is a really fast paced taught tension filled little thriller that I enjoyed immensely, I didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I did & I am glad I decided to watch it. This definitely gets a recommendation from me & Rachel McAdams really is hot stuff in this... Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.

Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.

A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.

This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.

The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.

Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578

I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.

8/10 Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one. "I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.

One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.

A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing..... Lisa is a hotel manager or owner and she gets on a flight to Miami. She ends up sitting next to an assassin named Jackson who tells her that she has to switch a room of a family or her father dies. The reason she has to switch the room is because Jackson wants to blow it up.

It's a great suspense movie because Lisa tries several ways to escape this ploy that Jackson has set up. The whole storyline is great and I thought that they could have spent some more time on the plane. There could have more to the plane but other than that, the whole movie was pretty good.

I especially liked the ending because it was heart-stopping. I didn't know what was going to happen and I was surprised by it. For me, this movie just took off. This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller. -A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.

-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with "Flightplan" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.

-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of "24" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.

-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing "Cursed" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.

-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.

-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half Red Eye, a movie that id had wanted to see for awhile...Cillian Murphy plays Jack Ripner (jack the ripper) a managerial pose to Assassins, and his literally killer plan to knock off a highly profiled man and his family.

An everyday woman "Lisa" (I think) is a normal woman, goes to work, home...worries...hates to fly.

The death of her grandmother sends her on a flight which delayed several times.

a flight where she meets Jack...an ordinary seeming guy, until he suavely reveals his profession and plans, which coincidentally include her in them, she is the key to the Keefe's (sp?) death.

She succeeds in saving them...but nearly the cost of her life is taken, Jack is beaten...the Keefs are saved...oh what a story *laughs* just kidding, the movie is really good actually, the best of last year...there are small things that you have to pay attention to earlier in the movie that play a GREAT importance to the movie later... (the Frankenstein pen) I watched it several times before catching all the little jokes and quirks...

a must see for thriller fans no sexual, but there is a slight hint (the bathroom scene) (jack) "Thanks for the quicky" and the (female attendant) "Ohhh...its gonna be ONE of those flights" (second female attendant) "Hey! this isn't a motel" you get the idea... (You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...)

Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper!

It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.

Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good! Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.

Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.

Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.

Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content I was bored one night and Red Eye was on and thought why not.

Red Eye is one of the best movies in a long time.

I mean I just got into the movie cause it was just so brilliant.

The story is new and different.

The movie also has two great leads in the movie with Rachel Mcadams as Lisa Reisert and Cillian Murphy as Jackson Rippner.

The acting is just brilliant and you get the feel for the people in the movie.

The music is just excellent, it give you chills and can also make you feel relax.

I just love how the movie was just so well done and it never gets boring.

Red Eye is just phenomenal. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's a excellent thriller.

Overall, I enjoy Red Eye so much that I can watch it over and over again.

If you like Red Eye, then I recommend Elektra and Cry Wolf.

I give Red Eye 9 out of 10.

Great movie Great little thriller. I was expecting some type of silly horror movie but what I got was tight short thriller that waste none of our time. Mostof these movies we have to get into the back characters stories so we will either feel sympathy for them or hatred when people start getting killed. o such foolishness here. Yes you see a few characters but they really only interact with the principals. Such as the husband wife at the motel whose room was canceled. We saw them so we could just how efficient the Lisa character was and how inefficient the new Hotel clerk was. We see the little girl simply because she will have a very small but important role later in the movie when all heck breaks loose. THe Flight Atrendants because we need on in particular to move the plot ahead. The bad guy in particular needs her in the beginning of the flight. The rude guy in the airport was important to the movie too. The only 2 characters that were just 5 liners with no use to the plot were the two young guys on the plane. THat was clever because I thought they would have something to do with plot. From the first scene to the last the woman character a young hotel executive named Lisa is in charge. Even when Jackson shows his true colors she doesn't panic. She thinks what she can do to stall time. Any other movie the smart executive women would be acting like idiots. But not this one. It was a very short movie and I was waiting for the usual plot devices to kick in because the movie seemed to be coming to its conclusion fast. Thankfuly none of them were used. The new hotel clerk did not do the usual called and told her what to do, which is panic drop the phone and run out of the hotel without saying anything, or question your boss and tell her she had to much to drink and just dismiss her. Was Craven should do more of these types of movies. Also one last comment. Brian Cox is in the movie but I had not one clue who he was. I had to come over here to see that he is Lisa's father. He is completely unrecognizable. Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.

In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.

Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...

Sometimes it reminds a "Scream", but he definitely better, than both "Screams" sequels together.

And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet... Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars The premise is simple. This movies starts out looking like your average lame chick flick about two attractive young people meeting each other in an airport, then things take a 180 degree turn...

I for one, really dislike the kind of mind numbing love story nonsense that pollutes the average movie theater. And it is my humble opinion that Wes Craven, based on his previous meta-horror films (Sceam) does too...

Following this logic, it's not surprising to find that Craven sardonically takes his time to built up a nauseatingly sweet 'sependipity love'-story, only to have an AWESOME Cillian Murphy wreck that whole sugar-coated dreamworld...

The scope of his character Jackson Ripner (Jack the Ripper, get it? lame, right?) in this film is impressive, he goes from being utterly charming to being a twisted nihilistic sicko, which is a plus in my book. As he proceeds to freak out his victim (Jennifer Garner lookalike Rachel McAdams, who I found pretty annoying by the way), you can't help but sympathize with the guy...

This is Wes Craven, embodied in Jackson Ripner, through Cillian Murphy, bashing all brainless chick flicks...

Mr. Craven, I salute you.

Best quote:

Jackson Ripner (after beating the snot out of Rachel McAdams in the airplane toilet): "Thanks for the quickie!!!" I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking. Distortion is a disturbing, haunting film, about life imitating art and art reflecting life. Haim Bouzaglo, the director of the film, plays the role of Haim Bouzaglo, artistically blocked and sexually impotent playwright, who finds inspiration in his suspicions about the subject of his girl friend's documentary. As an Arab suicide bomber, disguised in skullcap and American t-shirt, wanders through the landscape in search of his target and his nerves, Haim transcribes his girl friend's life as she films her documentary and incorporates himself and his actors' lives during rehearsals. But the bomber has already struck and Haim has left the restaurant just minutes earlier. Despite the manipulation of time and space, the story is crystal clear, comprehensive and absorbing, a brilliant commentary on the "distortion" of everyday Israeli life, where the political is intertwined with the personal, where everyone lives "on the edge," and people never know whether they are playing leading roles in their own lives or are merely dispensable bit players in someone else's dramatic narrative.

Bouzaglo plays with this notion of everyone being an actor in someone else's production brilliantly. We are always voyeurs, seeing what the fictional director sees illicitly but also what the "real" director chooses to reveal. To remind us that these glimpses are violations of privacy, Bouzaglo takes us into the bathroom and the bedroom (sometimes the bedroom is the street and rooftop), and repeatedly frames his views within TV, video, or security screens. Actors play the role of actors who represent the "real" characters played by actors. Of course, each of the actors is the star of his or her own production, only dimly aware of their diminished roles in their fellow actor's personal films. The detective hired by the playwright becomes a character in the play. The actor hired to play the role of the detective seeks out the detective for "tips" on how to play the role, is caught by the detective on surveillance tapes, and they attend a cast party as their real selves.

Despite this multiplicity of views, there is no mistaking the clear lines of this narrative: the playwright searches for subject matter, the bomber seeks a target, and the detective stalks the filmmaker. Nor is there any difficulty locating Bouzaglo's ultimate target—enervated and impotent Israel, fully conscious of the threatening peril but incapable of meaningful action. Israel is Bouzaglo, the impotent fictional playwright cannibalizing his own life for his play. Israel is also the bankrupt soldier-entrepreneur who is the subject of the filmmaker's documentary, the cheating actors and actresses, and the cuckolded husband. They are all Israel because they are all helpless, caught in inaction or aimless action, as the bomber scans the landscape for his best target. All the characters can do as another bombing is reported is have sex and keep "score" of victims.

There is personal triumph, vindication, perhaps revenge at the end of this play within a story within a film, but viewers will be left aching for the state of Israel even as they are filled with admiration for Bouzaglo's memorable rendition of a nation's plight within the telling of an individual's story. This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.

There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.

Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film. Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.

The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out. Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.

Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding. Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see! Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think...... I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.

I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train" and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, "Heaven's Burning". Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene.

I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005.

There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: "Gaijin" about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and "Sugar Cane Alley" about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but "Gaijin", sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is "A Thousand Pieces of Gold". This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun. This is a great film. From reading other reviews, I can see that I'm not the only one who shed a tear. Tamilyn Tomita acted with such skill and conviction, she made the ending heartfelt and memorable. In the hands of a lesser actress, her last scene would have seemed trite and corny. One would never guess this film was done on a tight, limited budget. The cinematography is gorgeous and there are a number of big name actors. The script is so wonderful, I can see why they all wanted to be in it. If you watch the long, long list of credits at the end, you'll see that half of Hawaii pitched in to make this film happen, and for good reason. The soundtrack (available on CD) is absolutely beautiful and sets the mood throughout the film. My only "complaint" is that I almost didn't want the film to end. Picture Bride has an excellent look into Hawaii's past and the people who lived there in that time. The time, money earned and the hours that these people had put into their lives to survive and live, takes a whole new meaning to blood, sweat and tears.

The concept of dating/matchmaking is something like what we do similar today via the net. Just that is more of snail mail. Very slow snail mail.

The singing of the plantation's songs from the workers reminds me of the southern plantation workers' songs of their demise and future goals.

The movie shows the hardship as well as soft romantic scenes that Hawaii can bring. Like the stillness of a storm coming and the sudden chaos of the rain and then the tranquility. For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.

If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, "Life" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level.

The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all. In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across "Burned at the Stake" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of "big bug" films and similar works years earlier. The first time i saw it i got half of it but i watched and i knew later on it was about a salem witch trials. They focused on the Sara Good's family. SHE is famous for cursing a priest which came true. In the film it depicts her daughter dorcas and her husband the spirit of Ann Putnam Sara's husband comes to the future hunts this girl to redeem her soul. which does happen at the end of the movie. Dorcas is depict as witch at 5years old who is burned at the stake. Which never happen Ann putnam saves her from the flames. the girl is safe she goes to Ann putnam's grave to to see that is not empty but it is at first because she accuse her of witchcraft, and lets her burn to death. Now that ann putnam saves her her spirit is redeemed, and she is not a outcast to society for the salem witch trials. Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.

An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.

Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.

Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.

8/10 The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! William Hurt may not be an American matinee idol anymore, but he still has pretty good taste in B-movie projects. Here, he plays a specialist in hazardous waste clean-ups with a tragic past tracking down a perennial loser on the run --played by former pretty-boy Weller-- who has been contaminated with a deadly poison. Current pretty-boy Hardy Kruger Jr --possibly more handsome than his dad-- is featured as Weller's arrogant boss in a horrifying sequence at a chemical production plant which gets the story moving. Natasha McElhone is a slightly wacky government agent looking into the incident who provides inevitable & high-cheekboned love interest for hero Hurt. Michael Brandon pops up to play a slimy take-no-prisoners type whose comeuppance you can't wait for. The Coca-Cola company wins the Product Placement award for 2000 as the soft drink is featured throughout the production, shot lovingly on location in a wintery picture-postcard Hungary. The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you. I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10 I read so many comments that I, too, shared about remembering this movie and wanting so badly to see it again but I didn't know the name of the movie. Thankfully, because of doing a search and finding the title on this site, I read the comments left here and realized that this was the movie I remembered. I then did a search and did find the movie and was so thrilled to be able to watch the movie once more 40 years later. Because of this site and your comments, you helped me and so I want to thank all of you. I want to share how I was able to find this movie for all of you who were looking for a copy as well. It was on the VHS version of Wonderful World of Disney's "Call it Courage" which contained 2 movies, the second one being "The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle." It touched me now as much as it did 40 years ago and now I own my own copy of it. I think it is only available on VHS. I found it on ebay and I have seen several copies of it there. Enjoy it, I know I did!

It is a wonderful story about the love of a boy and the eagle he took care of. When it was time to sacrifice the eagle, the boy set the eagle free because he couldn't allow it to be killed. After the boy was forced to leave the tribe for punishment after freeing the eagle, the eagle, too, saved the boy's life and more than that, taught him how to survive. The closeness that the boy and the eagle shared in the wilderness was so moving and the filming was really remarkable. What a wonderful era this was. I have never seen anything come even close to this movie! I have seen this movie when I was about 7 years old - which was 33 years ago - and I never forgot this movie! I was deeply touched and moved by the brave little boy and the beautiful eagle. And I just couldn't believe it when he turned into an eagle just when everyone in the theater thought he was going to die...

My sister was in the movie with me and I asked her recently if she remembered the movie we saw with the boy and the eagle and she said she remembered it like we saw it only yesterday. So it isn't just me.

This movie is a MUST SEE !!!

You will never forget it - just like my sister and me... My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible. I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away... I remembered seeing this movie when i was a kid one day on the wonderful world of Disney. This movie has been in my memory for over 30 years and I have been looking for it. I would have to say that out of all the kids movies I saw back then,, this one stuck out more than all of them and after only seeing it once, I really hoped I would get to see it again. The story and images of this movie have been burned into my memory. To this day, I never did see it after that day back in the 70s, in fact, I never remembered the title until an internet search earlier today disclosed it to me. I loved it and want my kids to see it.Does anybody know where I can find it? My son was 7 years old when he saw this movie, he is now on a Russian Fishing vessel and said that the movie he was most impressed with and that has lingered in his mind all of these 39 years is the movie of The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle. He has asked if it were possible for me to get this for him. I am sure that a lot of things go through his head as he has only 3 hours of daylight and he has been on this ship for 3 months and will have 3 more months before his contract expires. Since we have Indian blood he connects to this movie. On January 27th he will turn 47 years old and I would like to be able to obtain this movie for him. He lives in Thailand and has been a commercial fisherman for the past 17 years and as we all know this is one of the most dangerous jobs. Can you help me obtain this movie? Thanking you in advance, Dolly Crout-Soto, Deerfield Beach, FL I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...

I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK!

What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace.

CB Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, " The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle". I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!! Man, I loved this movie! This really takes me back to when I was a kid. These were the days when the teachers still showed classroom films on reel-to-real and if you were good, they would rewind the movie slowly so you could watch it play backward. I still remember one of the opening lines...."Tutazema was his name, and he was an Orphan. He lived with his sister so and so in the village." This is a great movie for kids and as enduring as the red balloon. At the end the other Indian boys in the village attach the feathers to Tutazema and he becomes an eagle himself. He gets to live the way he always wanted to. He gets to soar the heavens. This movie was great and I would like to buy it.The boy goes with his grandfather to catch a young eagle. the boy has to feed and care for the eagle until it is old enough to be sacrificed for the crops. the boy saves the eagle from being killed and runs away from the tribe.The eagle helps feed him by catching a duck from a small pond the boy scares up. Later the boy shoots a deer that a bully kid was claiming because their arrows were marked very close the same. Only until they check the thickness of the red lines do they determine who actually got the deer. But this was unfortunate because it made the other boys even crueler to him,and at the end he is being chased up onto a cliff but when you think he will fall off his pure love for the eagle transforms him into a golden eagle with only a necklace as a reminder of who he was.Please if anyone knows where I can buy this movie let me know.I haven't seen it for over 30 years,but still remember parts of the movie.deniselacey2000@yahoo.com I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned! Someday somebody is going to write an essay comparing Paul Naschy's "Fury of the Wolfman" to the great Spanish surrealist films, "L'age D'or" and "Un Chien Andelou". The Naschy film is a masterpiece of delirium from beginning to end. Dali and Bunuel probably loved it, and ate their hearts out seeing someone do with such apparent ease what they had to rack their brains to pull off.

The film lacks cohesive structure even though it does have a plot that moves from A to B to C. Some mishmash about a "Professor Walterman" -- his first name, mind you -- who was bitten by a Yeti monster during an expedition to Tibet and hasn't been the same since, which is understandable. One of his jealous colleagues, the insane daughter of the noted Doctor Wolfstein, knows about his condition and reveals that his wife has been cheating on him. But its a setup for a twisted scientific experiment to unleash his inner beast.

"Walterman" flips out, turns into a werewolf, kills a few people, is electrocuted, dies, is buried, unburied, taken to a castle filled with circus freaks, wired to various machines, zapped with assorted electronic effects, injected with potent elixirs, is chained up, turns into a werewolf, a woman in an evening gown with thigh-high Nazi fetish boots whips him, he escapes, helps the pretty female doctor find her way out of the castle, fends off the circus freaks with a battle axe, eventually turns back into a werewolf, and has to fight to the death against the female werewolf incarnation of his cheating wife. The lady with the Nazi boots shoots him with silver bullets from her Luger pistol, they die together, and the pretty doctor walks off into the morning with the studly reporter, who did nothing. "Look! What a beautiful day it is!"

"La furia del Hombre Lobo" was written by Paul Naschy in a hurry. Original director Enrique Eguilez was fired and replaced by José María Zabalza, a drunk who was infamously intoxicated throughout the production. He was often unable to work (though he did find time to instruct his 14 year old nephew to make some alterations to the script) and Naschy ended up directing much of the film uncredited. Zabalza did rally enough to clip some action scenes from one of Naschy's previous movies, "Mark of the Wolfman". The scenes were fortunately good enough to use twice even if the costumes were different, and helped pad out the runtime after Zabalza refused to get out of bed to finish the movie. Post production was a nightmare. Nobody knew who was doing the editing, the money ran out, the master print disappeared for a while, and then at a pre-release screening for a film distributor the executive arrived to find Zabalza urinating into the gutter in front of the theater. He was too drunk to find the restroom but at least he made it to the curb.

Yet somehow the film works, if you let it. It keys into those atavistic memories we have about murky castles, vaulted catacombs, chains, whips, gloomy moors. Fans of those sort of things will find it hypnotically watchable even if the story as a whole doesn't make much sense due to the fractured discontinuity of the execution. In one scene its pouring rain and the wolfman howls at the lightning; in the next shot its bone dry and he's howling at the full moon. Then its raining again. And yet you don't look at it as a gaffe. Its like an unfolding dream where contradictions are possible, opposites are the same, and effects proceed causes; First the wolfman picks up the power cable and screams, and then the cable starts sparking with electricity. People say its low budget hurts the overall effectiveness -- I say the film would have been unwatchable if they had a dime more to spend. It is a marvel of making something out of nothing, and succeeds not because of what it could of had, but because of what it does. It's easy to laugh at stuff like this and even easier to dismiss it. The trick is being able to see through the mayhem, or rather to regard the chaos as part of the effect.

Paul Naschy died last week at the age of 75. He had been ill with pancreatic cancer for a year or more, was working on film projects right up until his last days, but passed away in Madrid, Spain, with his family while receiving chemotherapy treatment. His rich, varied, and surprisingly lengthy career is a legacy to a man stubbornly pursuing his artistic vision in the face of universal mainstream disinterest. And yet in all of us there is an eleven year old kid who will watch his movies like "Fury of the Wolfman" in rapt awe. Even people who don't like Euro Horror will discover something in this movie to marvel at, if only for just a minute in a couple spots. You can find it for free at Archive.Org or even buy it on a DVD for a nickel. It's worth far, far more.

Amusingly, Naschy was horrified to learn that many others like myself regard this twisted, sick, demented little movie as a classic, if not an outright masterpiece of Cinema Dementia. The problems he encountered during the production and the mess of a film that was left after were perhaps too personal an artistic disappointment for Naschy to forgive. I would never presume to dare to forgive it for him, but I will say this: I'd rather watch "Fury of the Wolfman" in its dingiest, most cut and degraded fullscreen public domain print than ever sit though the overbearing, obnoxious crap churning out up at the Swine Flu cineplexes this or any other weekend.

The world lost a great artist this month. Watch his films, and remember.

9/10 This movie is stuffed full of stock Horror movie goodies: chained lunatics, pre-meditated murder, a mad (vaguely lesbian) female scientist with an even madder father who wears a mask because of his horrible disfigurement, poisoning, spooky castles, werewolves (male and female), adultery, slain lovers, Tibetan mystics, the half-man/half-plant victim of some unnamed experiment, grave robbing, mind control, walled up bodies, a car crash on a lonely road, electrocution, knights in armour - the lot, all topped off with an incredibly awful score and some of the worst Foley work ever done.

The script is incomprehensible (even by badly dubbed Spanish Horror movie standards) and some of the editing is just bizarre. In one scene where the lead female evil scientist goes to visit our heroine in her bedroom for one of the badly dubbed: "That is fantastical. I do not understand. Explain to me again how this is..." exposition scenes that litter this movie, there is a sudden hand held cutaway of the girl's thighs as she gets out of bed for no apparent reason at all other than to cover a cut in the bad scientist's "Mwahaha! All your werewolfs belong mine!" speech. Though why they went to the bother I don't know because there are plenty of other jarring jump cuts all over the place - even allowing for the atrocious pan and scan of the print I saw.

The Director was, according to one interview with the star, drunk for most of the shoot and the film looks like it. It is an incoherent mess. It's made even more incoherent by the inclusion of werewolf rampage footage from a different film The Mark of the Wolf Man (made 4 years earlier, featuring the same actor but playing the part with more aggression and with a different shirt and make up - IS there a word in Spanish for "Continuity"?) and more padding of another actor in the wolfman get-up ambling about in long shot.

The music is incredibly bad varying almost at random from full orchestral creepy house music, to bosannova, to the longest piano and gong duet ever recorded. (Thinking about it, it might not have been a duet. It might have been a solo. The piano part was so simple it could have been picked out with one hand while the player whacked away at the gong with the other.)

This is one of the most bewilderedly trance-state inducing bad movies of the year so far for me. Enjoy.

Favourite line: "Ilona! This madness and perversity will turn against you!" How true.

Favourite shot: The lover, discovering his girlfriend slain, dropping the candle in a cartoon-like demonstration of surprise. Rank amateur directing there. This movie catches a lot of flak, but this is usually based on the horrible looking and covered / clothed version of the film that played US television and has also been issued to death on VHS and DVD buy companies like Alpha, Unicorn, etc. This movie never had a theatrical release in the states, although it was picked up by Avco Embassy in 1973. In Spain at the time, when there was nudity involved, the filmmakers shot two versions, one with clothes and one with out. The fully uncut English dubbed export print was titled WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS and seems to have been released to home video only in Sweden back in the 80's. It can be found on Ebay and the likes and comes highly recommended. My guess is Avco cut the film down for a R rated release that never happened. In 1974 it was released by Avco to television titled FURY OF THE WOLFMAN and the clothed version was used for this TV print. Cut to 12 years later and FURY OF THE WOLFMAN pops up on home video on the Charter label. This version appears to be what Avco was going to release back in '73. It's the uncovered version, with some nudity that would never pass on TV or in a PG movie. There are several scenes on the Charter tape that play out with nudity that are clothed in the TV print ( the source for all those dollar Dud's and VHS editions ). But a comparison to the fully uncut WOLFMAN NEVER SLEEPS reveals that 2 scenes are cut on this version! ( spoilers in next paragraph ) The scene where Ilona has Waldermar chained to the wall and whips him after he transforms into the werewolf is incomplete. After whipping him into submission, she starts to remove her clothes and begins making love to the werewolf!!! The werewolf responds positively to these sexual shenanigans too. This scene certainly ranks as one of the most unusual in the history of horror films and is a delirious treat. It's not graphic but the implied bestiality was too much for US audiences, or more likely the MPAA. Ilona is desperately in love with Waldemar and could not possess him, hence her whole scheme to mind control Waldermar's wife and involve her in an affair. She wanted to wreck his marriage, and she accomplishes this while Waldemar is in Tibet. Unfortunately he returns a werewolf, but this does not slow her down a bit. If she can't physically have him as a man, she loves him enough to have sex with him as a werewolf. This also helps explain the later scene where the werewolf beds down with a woman he spots getting naked before bedtime while peeping through her window. This scene is presented sans nudity in the covered version and really makes no sense. In the uncut version, it would seem Ilona's affections have made the werewolf horny and in need of release, so he rapes the first woman he can after escaping. The other cut is a complete scene of Waldemar in bed with Karen and she is seen naked. A very similar bedroom scene was cut out of the US version of WEREWOLF SHADOW ( WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) as well. The film does have it's problems though, for certain. The director was drunk, the bad stand in for the werewolf at points, the atrocious English dubbing, the inclusion of sequences from the first Waldemar film MARK OF THE WOLFMAN aka FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR and the grotesque overuse of that film's music score throughout etc, but seen in it's original widescreen format and uncut ( ie: WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS ) it is one of the wildest and most outrageous of the Daninsky werewolf series, with a plot line unmatched in it's everything but the kitchen sink approach. The cut / clothed pan and scan full screen copies of this film do it no favors, and unfortunately that's the version almost everyone commenting on the film have seen. The film carries a 1970 copyright, and I'd bet the 1972 release date on the IMDb is incorrect. The film precedes WEREWOLF SHADOW ( aka WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) in the series and was certainly released before WEREWOLF SHADOW. The ending of WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS / FURY OF THE WOLFMAN dovetails directly into the opening of WEREWOLF SHADOW, offering concrete evidence of this. Sadly a complete version of this may never get a decent release. A perfect release would be the uncut English version but in Spanish with English subtitles. The English dubbing severely hurts the movie. But any Spanish language version would reflect the covered version as shown in Spain during the Franco era, where nudity was verboten. The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today!

If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)! For someone who remembers Jane in the Daily Mirror strip cartoon, viewing this film is an exercise in nostalgia. In that context it is wonderful, but younger viewers would undoubtedly find the comedy limp and would miss the point that the actors are cartoon characters. The plotline is also a bit limp for today's audience, but reflects the naivety of the 40s and 50s very well. Jane, you must remember, was part of the escapist fantasy of the wartime years, created to boost the morale of the troops. She gave a double meaning to the "strip" in strip cartoon.

The story has something in common with the tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rider Haggard. The theme would have been a familiar one to readers in that era, a bunch of bumbling Nazis thwarted by a few equally bumbling Englanders, and set in the African jungle of course.

For Jane fans, a must see. For the rest of you, a damp squib.

It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.

The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.

Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.

The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.

The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever. As a another reviewer states Hanna's War is an outstanding film about an outstanding person, Hanna "Anniko" Senesh, who would become the Jewish Joan Of Arc. Unfortunately I diverge in opinion not agreeing that Miss Detmers as the lead is too beautiful to be taken seriously as a resistance fighter. In truth for me her performance is not held back by her beauty but makes it all the more stark in the terror of the sadistic brutality as a resistor she faces. Maruschka Detmers performance is brave, poignant, heartfelt or understood, and totally believable. In other words for me "In the zone." from the opening credits. If you would like to learn about the suffering of someone else for something they believe in and be impressively entertained give Hanna's War with Maruschka Detmers a try. My hat is off also to Ellen Burstyn as Hanna's mother a much well known and famous actress who could have made effort to walk off with the film. In that it is a team effort perhaps of two actress' but not an All About Eve situation. this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2. I find this movie the best movie I have ever seen, because it reflects the inner strength of a young girl during the second world war. The movie is impressive, not least because it actually happened. It reminds me of the story of Anne Frank.

This was a really cool movie. It just goes to prove that you don't need silly litle things like continuity and scripts to make a movie. It traverses continents in seconds, people get shot and nothing happens to them, swords set on fire, samuari fight on sinking galleons, David Essex is the epitome of slimey villainy and John Rhys Davies is just the dude. I enjoyed this movie but I like s**t movies, this is the perfect example of a very s**t movie that just KICKS ASS. If you like Battlefield Earth you'll love this film, its swashbuckling, its fast, its silly, its samuaraitastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It also looks as if it was made in 1972 It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song. by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.

Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.

So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost. This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....

This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.

This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!

If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!! I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).

Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.

However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the "Swallow" and "Gunnerside" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.

The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history. "In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first "national" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the "Windy City" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic."

The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.

Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.

Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), "Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard." If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?

Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany.

The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.

The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101 `An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.' Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name "A. Flea" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming "T- Bone!" He then sings, "There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!")

That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea.

The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal! Bob Clampett's 'An Itch in Time' milks seven minutes of crazy action out of a very small premise. Elmer Fudd tells his dog that if he scratches himself just once more that he will be given a dreaded bath. Unfortunately for the dog, a relentless flea makes it all but impossible to stop from scratching. The cartoon switches between the flea's progress inside the dog's fur and the dog's desperate attempts to cope with it. In a great sequence that really captures the frustration of an itch that can't be scratched, the dog changes colour from brown to blue to red to polka dotted to plaid! It sounds ludicrously surreal but it perfectly evokes the indescribable feeling of an itch in a way only Clampett could. There are several other elements which make 'An Itch in Time' pure Clampett. There's the grotesque concept itself, which leads to some graphic scenes of the flea munching on the dog's flesh. There's the unrestrained violence that rears its head in any scene featuring the cat. Most notably, there's the dirty jokes including a huge shot of the dog's behind which causes the flea to wolf-whistle and a hysterical sequence in which the dog attempts to scratch himself by dragging his backside along the floor. He momentarily breaks off to address the audience: "Hey, I better cut this out. I may get to like it"! With a very limited concept, Clampett manages to make 'An Itch in Time' a unique, minutiae-based cartoon. Like an early episode of 'Seinfeld', 'An Itch in Time' is practically about nothing but very funny with it. One of the many Merrie Melodies cartoons that entertained American moviegoers during WWII, Bob Clampett's "An Itch in Time" portrays a hobo flea settling on Elmer Fudd's dog. The little guy turns into a real sadist while making a home on the dog's back, but Elmer warns the dog: "One more scwatch and I'll give you a bath!" Meanwhile, the flea is setting up dynamite on the dog!* And that's not the end! I noticed that in one scene, Elmer is reading a comic book featuring Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig. Obviously, Elmer and Bugs frequently co-starred but Elmer never co-starred with Porky (unless you count the very short "Any Bonds Today?"). But to me, the thought of Elmer reading about these other famous characters from his same genre stresses the metaphysical nature of his world, as though he knew of their existence within his universe even though they don't appear in this cartoon.

Of course, I'm probably going too far in my analysis. I'm sure that the cartoon was intended as pure entertainment, and it certainly entertains. As for the "I might get to like this" line, it sounds as though that was something that the censors wouldn't have allowed but somehow missed; I, for one, don't actually know what it was supposed to sound like. Was it something sexual? As for the end, had I thought that I'd seen everything, I would have been tempted to look for more, rather than do what the cat did (although it was a neat trick).

*The guys behind these cartoons sure had a thing for TNT, didn't they? In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.

The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.

It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.

Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.

Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.

Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set!

It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.

A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.

PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. SPOILERS

In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, "Hell is other people". In "The Odd Couple", Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau demonstrate just how accurate this can be. As Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison, Lemmon and Matthau respectively create two good friends who decide to live together. As the two begin to slowly grow more and more frustrated with each other, the laughs come thick and fast, before Felix departs, leaving Oscar a changed and more cleanly individual.

Jack Lemmon as Ungar is absolutely superb as the neurotic, cleaning obsessed divorcee coping with life as a single man. Walter Matthau in contrast to Lemmon's character is equally as good as the slobbish sports writer who simply wants to play poker to earn money for his child benefits.

Lemmon and Matthau are magnificant in their selected parts, to some degree dependent upon the beautiful script by Neil Simon, and simultaneously because they work well as a team. As two friends who are inherently different in lifestyles, although similar in relationships with ex-wives and children, these two, late, great actors create a partnership which is practically impossible to recreate. So great in fact, that the world screamed out so much for something similar, that two years before Matthau's death and three before Lemmon's, the characters were reunited in an inferior sequel. This idea, whilst following Hollywood's irritating obsession with sequels, might have worked to a certain degree, but at the same time, it could never come close to replicating the genius of this original film.

Ultimately it's not really possible to say anything else. With Simon's amazing script, filled with humour and laughter, the creators of this film were already onto a hit. The casting of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison though, is the most important part of this film. "The Odd Couple", with it's traditional soundtrack (which even gained a tribute in "The Simpsons"), it's excellent script and it's genius leading men, is a tribute to cinema and a feature for history to remember. I have seen this film many times and I like all bad teachers want to give it ten out of ten but feel that it would be unfair to other good films. However, I do think that this is one of those rare gems: a perfect comedy. It is I would venture one of the greatest comic films of all times. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly matched and mismatched. The script is so sharp that you need to staunch the bleeding. The story is well known and has already been described in other comments. The two leads give extraordinary performances, the girls are superb and the situations are side-splittingly funny. Not one swear-word in sight (mark that Hollywood, you don't have to swear to be funny, you have to be witty) and the move from stage to film is seamless. They don't make'em like this any more. Timeless. I saw this many years after the television series and, initially, I didn't care for it. Then, as my memory of the series receded with the passage of time, I watched again, and found it absolutely hilarious. Based on the stage play by Neil Simon, it has not been 'opened out' much for the big screen, and that's one of its strengths. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are brilliant as Oscar and Felix, and the supporting cast are wonderful, particularly John Fielder as 'Vinnie'. Even now, certain moments can reduce me to tears of laughter - Felix interrupting Oscar in the middle of a ball game with a dinner request, Oscar cracking up and chasing Felix around the apartment, the giggling 'Pigeon Sisters' brought low by Felix's sob stories, and of course, the legendary cafeteria scene ( later ripped off by Nora Ephron's 'When Harry Met Sally' ). Razor-sharp dialogue too. When the boys think Felix has taken an overdose, Oscar says: "They could be vitamins! He could be the healthiest one in the room!". Fantastic! I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.

Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.

I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.

Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.

Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time. This cordial comedy confronts a few bizarre characters. Especially, of course, the two leading characters. Jack Lemmon plays Felix, a hypochondriac whose wife lost him because she couldn't stand his cleaning and cooking attacks any longer. So he tries to kill himself but every attempt fails. Walter Matthau plays Oscar, his friend, an untidy, unreliable sports-reporter who lives in divorce from his ex-wife in a bachelor apartment. He offers his distressed friend Felix a new home in his apartment. And soon the trouble begins because two such contrary characters can't live together for a long time. Felix turns Oscar's disorderly flat into a clean exhibition flat. He cleans and cooks the whole time. After a short while, Oscar feels persecution mania ... Filmed in a theatrical way and excellent acted. Above all, Jack Lemmon's play is wonderful. He is the perfect clown. He makes us laugh but in a tragi-comic way. Look for the wonderful scene when both men invite their two female neighbours for supper, because Oscar has to touch something more softer than a bowling-ball. While he is preparing the drinks, Felix sits with the two young ladies in the living-room. To get out of this embarrassing situation, he starts to talk about the weather. A minute later, he changes the subject and talks about his ex-wife and children. Suddenly he begins to weep and when Oscar comes back with the drinks, there are three weeping people in the living-room. The film is full of such amusing and at the same time touching scenes. An intelligent, entertaining comedy with much heart. 10 out of 10! Simon's best comedy is superbly crafted by director Gene Saks and given life by the immense talents of Lemmon and Matthau. No one delivers these lines better. No one times them better. Nobody does it better. The Odd Couple is a comic gem. One the funniest script ever committed to celluloid - exceeded only by Strangelove, Spinal Tap and Lebowski! Lemmon and Matthau are best friends: obsessive compulsive Felix and sloppy, irresponsible Oscar. Oscar's wife has already left him because he is impossible to live with due to his irresponsible attitude. Felix's wife leaves him at the start of the movie, and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with poker buddy Oscar. Thats when the fun begins.

The entire script is brilliant and filled with brilliant one-liners. You are probably already familiar with the "F.U." joke but it still works brilliantly due to Matthau's comic timing.

My favorite moments are when Lemmon tries to clear his sinus in the diner and when the Pigeon sisters are being charmed by a very suave Matthau and Lemmon is totally out of his element. This one requires repeat viewings! "The Odd Couple" is one of those movies that far surpasses its reputation. People all know it, they hum the theme song, they complain of living with a sloppy "Oscar" or a fastidious "Felix"...but they're under-selling the film without knowing it. This isn't just about a neat guy living with a sloppy guy; it's a portrait of two friends helping each other through the agony of divorce. It's also damn funny from start to finish, but it's the kind of comedy that arises from realistic, stressful, and just plain awful situations. So, some viewers have actually found the film to be a bit uncomfortable, but I think its verisimilitude is its strength. Besides, Matthau's bulldog face just cracks me up! My favorite comedy, by a country mile. Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean "house husband" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses.

Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!

Very entertaining. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau began and ending their career together. Remember best as the Grumpiest of Old Men as well as the Oddest Couple to have ever made us laugh, Lemmon and Matthau were one of Hollywood's best loved comedy teams of the last 100 years. Not as "raunchy" as Pryor and Wilder, instead, they were the classic comedy team that reflected a more modern Marx Brothers routine. Such as the physical comedy as well as the mixed blend of chaos that Marx, Chaplin and Keaton were so famous for. In the Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau play complete opposites that create the chaos. The physical comedy is as unique as Chaplins. The joke is usually on themselves as oppose to passing the joke onto another. Not your typical guy film, it is in a way a coming of age comedy with two old men as oppose to two young teenagers in their prime. The chemistry between Lemmon and Matthau is entertainment enough. Although this movie isn't for everyone, this is a great comedy. A simple comment...

What can I say... this is a wonderful film that I can watch over and over. It is definitely one of the top ten comedies made. With a great cast, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau wording a perfect script by Neil Simon, based on his play.

It is real to life situation done perfectly. If you have digital cable, one gets the menu on bottom of screen to give what is on. It usually gives this film ***% stars but in reality it deserves **** stars. If you really watch this film, one can tell that it will be as funny and fresh a hundred years from now. I don't think I've really ever given Walter Matthau his due as a comedic performer. He's certainly been wonderful in plenty of lighthearted roles, but I guess I always put his success down to his characters' grumpiness and ruthlessness, a gruff contrast to the flamboyant personality of his frequent co-star Jack Lemmon, and, I suppose, a natural extension of his earlier work in dramatic pictures. Watching Gene Saks' 'The Odd Couple (1968),' adapted from a popular Neil Simon play, the realisation suddenly clicked: Matthau is, in his own right, absolutely hilarious! Initially striking the audience as filthy, crude and generally unappealing, his Oscar Madison eventually manages to worm his way into our hearts, culminating in a hilariously overplayed confession of emotions that Matthau rasps out in a voice not entirely his own. At the same time, while holding his own as a comedian, his interplay with Lemmon is, of course, pitch-perfect; indeed, the film rightly belongs to both actors, who have never failed to light up the cinema screen by themselves, let alone together.

Calling to mind Billy Wilder's screenplay for 'The Apartment (1960),' this Neil Simon comedy builds itself around around a rather morbid premise. Compulsive house-cleaner Felix Unger (Lemmon), having just been evicted by his wife of twelve years, attempts to commit suicide, but fruitlessly abandons the idea after he wrecks his back trying to open the hotel window. Dejected, he arrives at the house of good friend Oscar (Matthau), a divorced slob who lives alone on a diet of potato crisps and green sandwiches (that might contain either very new cheese or very old meat!). Oscar kindly offers Felix a place to stay, but is soon overwhelmed by his friend's finicky personality and constant insistence on absolute cleanliness. The pair form an unusual sort of marital arrangement, with Felix assuming the role of the effeminate and constantly-nagging wife, and Oscar as the sloppy, unappreciative husband who always comes home later than he's supposed to. This is a marriage that barely lasts three weeks, and, by the end of it, we can completely sympathise with Felix's ex-wife, who remains unseen.

'The Odd Couple' is a terrific comedy, most of all because it has a lot of heart. For all their arguing, it's obvious that the two roommates have plenty of affection for each other, most movingly seen when Felix tries to launch into a furious tirade, instead – perhaps inadvertently – ending up informing Oscar how "tops" he his. The pair's four poker buddies (John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner and Larry Haines) are also constantly badgering each other about some obscure annoyance, but you can't deny that they've got the best of intentions. Their decision to treat Felix as though nothing has happened to him may have sounded fine in theory, but maybe being ignored wasn't quite the correct solution to Felix's gloomy feelings of inadequacy and inconsequentiality. Unlike some comedies based on popular stage plays {I was recently disappointed by Wilder's 'The Seven Year Itch (1955)}, this film doesn't simply strike at the same chord throughout, and the relationship between the two leads is progressively developed, through tears, laughter and much disagreement. There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says "Good night." "Goodbye," he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together — aha, he's going to off himself — we watch him struggle to open the window — oh no, he's going to jump — The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger — his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy — it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes — no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags — just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married — to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys. Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally).

For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.

For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments. THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)

Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners. If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work. There's nothing really to dislike about "The Odd Couple," and it's no surprise that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make a hugely winning comedic team. But there's something so underdeveloped about Neil Simon's adaptation of his hit stage play as to make it seem more like a skit on a sketch comedy show than a full-bodied film. I have not seen the play, but have to assume that the screen version is fairly faithful, since Simon wrote it, so the defects cannot be blamed on a stage-to-screen adaptation. There are some interesting ideas in this story--two recently divorced men who fall immediately into traditional married roles when they become roommates because neither knows any differently--that Simon never fully fleshes out. Still, there are many worse ways to kill a couple of hours. Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.

He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.

The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.

This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix. and laugh out loud funny in many scenes.

The movie's basic plot is well chronicled, a story of opposites trying to find a way to survive each other in close proximity.

This is unquestionably Lemmon and Matheau's best film as co-stars, and the interaction between the sloppy Oscar and the OCD Felix are classic.

The scene where Oscar lines up a double date, leaves the room briefly, and comes back to find Felix and the two girls all crying is pricelessly funny.

For any fan of intelligent comedies, The Odd Couple is a "go out of your way to see it" film. First ever viewing: July 21, 2008

Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.

One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!

Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made. The original movie, The Odd Couple, has some wonderful comic one-liners. The entire world it seems knows the story of neurotic neat-freak Felix Ungar and funny, obnoxious, slob Oscar Madison. This paring of mismatched roommates created one of the most successful TV series of all time as well as countless, not anywhere near as good, imitations.

The Odd Couple movie has some wonderful jokes about Oscar's apartment and his sloppy habits. He says, "Who wants food?" One of his poker player buddies asks, "What do ya got?" Oscar says, "I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches." "What's the brown?" It's either very new cheese or very old meat!" I also love the line about Oscar's refrigerator, "It's been out of order for two weeks, I saw milk standing in there that wasn't even in a bottle!" There is no question that Walter Matthau's Oscar Madison is a joy to watch on screen. He's almost as good as Jack Klugman's version in the TV series.

The problem with the movie is Jack Lemmon's Felix Ungar. Jack makes a very, very, honest effort at the role. The problem is that he makes Felix SO depressing and down-trodden that he becomes more annoying than comical. Tony Randall's performance in the series, brought the kind of humor, warmth, and sensitivity, to Felix's character, which Lemmon's portrayal lacks. Tony's Felix Unger obviously could be annoying some of the time. However, in the TV series, it related to specific situations where the annoyance was needed in the storyline. Jack's Felix Ungar, (note the different spelling) in the movie, seems to never be happy, fun, or interesting. The movie Felix Ungar is a roommate that drives you up the wall, all the time.

The movie still has great moments that withstand the test of time, the "famous" meatloaf fight is one of the greatest scenes ever! One of the other great examples of Felix's "little notes" on Oscar's pillow will be remembered forever. However, there are some darker sides where Oscar goes over the top, His "crying" near the end after bawling out Felix, and a scene involving Felix's Linguine dinner, (although lightened by a funny line.) seem more depressing than comical.

Perhaps there wasn't enough time to see the lighter side of these characters that made the series so memorable in the movie. The beginning 20 minutes are very boring. The same issue occurs with Felix's conversation with the Pidgeon Sisters. The movie's ending is predictable and too pat. There's very little care or compassion for each of them by the other. The result is that the darker side of the film leads to a lot of depression and anger, rather than comedy, unless you are watching the great scenes described above. It appears that Jack Lemmon's monotone persona of Felix brings the film down, rather than enhances or embraces the comedy between the characters.

It really took the 1970's TV series to make The Odd Couple the best that it could be. The original film is still very good. However, the TV series is much better. Some of the best movies that are categorized as "comedies" actually blur between comedy and drama. "The Graduate" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", which were made also in the late 1960's are perfect examples. Are they comedies with dramatic undertones, or dramas with a lot of humor? In many respects, "The Odd Couple" falls into this same category of being both comedy yet highly dramatic with deep underpinnings about human nature. Much of what happens may be funny to the audience but the characters are not laughing.

Despite the rather light-hearted TV show of the 1970's, the original "Odd Couple" is not merely about a neat guy and messy guy who are forced to live together because of their marital situation. It's really about two opposites who must face why their marriages fell apart and how their detrimental idiosyncrasies reveal themselves outside of their marriage. Neatness, the characteristic of Felix Ungar (Jack Lemon perfectly cast) and messiness, the characteristic of Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), are only the beginning and somewhat superficial. As the story unfolds, we find there is a lot more to these men than simply neatness versus messiness.

Briefly, the story is really about Felix Ungar, who has to face an impending divorce from his wife Francis, who we never meet but is an important character throughout the story. On the verge of suicide, Ungar goes to the only place he knows: the apartment of Oscar Madison where a group of poker buddies hang out every so often. We learn that Ungar is not only a member of this "poker club" but the group knows what's happening to him and try, in their inept way, to help out. Madison figures the best way to help Ungar is to let him move in with him until his suicidal tendencies wear off.

Unfortunately for Madison, he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Madison is a carefree happy-go-lucky if rather irresponsible slob who's refrigerator was last cleaned probably when Herbert Hoover was still in the White House. Madison's idea of serving snacks is grabbing moldy cheese and sticking them in between two pieces of bread, and then throwing the contents of a bag of chips on the table. On the other hand, he enjoys booze and women, in short having a good time.

Ungar is not only altogether different, he is diametrically opposite. He is not only an obsessive neatness nut that finds more joy in disinfecting the apartment than meeting women but he knows more than most women do about cooking and fine eating. At one point, he calls his ex-wife, not to talk about reconciling, but to get her recipe for meatloaf. At another moment, Ungar was going to spend the rest of the evening cutting cabbage for coleslaw. When Madison seems unimpressed, Ungar finally confesses he was only doing it for his roommate because he can't stand coleslaw. Who is this guy? But he has another endearing trait: Felix is also a hypochondriac. He obsesses about his health to the point where he makes strange noises in public places claiming he's helping his sinuses. He seems to have every health condition in the book. And if they made up more, Felix would probably have them. Ultimately, he is overly self-absorbed.

Running throughout the movie are references to marriage. At one point when Madison is trying to convince Ungar to move in, he says, "What do you want, a wedding ring?" But little does he know that it is not the neat guy who can't deal with the messy guy, but the other way around. Their friendship becomes an inadvertent hellish relationship. And the climax occurs when Oscar invites two lonely British sisters for a get-together with both comedic and tragic results. This is one of the best comedies of its type ever written and not to be missed, with superlative performances by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon in roles that are hard to imagine better played by anyone else. It is unfortunate that writing of this caliber is sadly lacking from most comedies being produced today. Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.

It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.

Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this. The first time I saw this, I didn't laugh too much. At the time, I was only about fifteen years old and thought that maybe some of the deeper humor was too mature for me to understand at the time. I had the same reaction when I viewed it a second time a few months ago, and this time, it was because Felix's aborted suicide attempt at the beginning of the movie kind of darkened the movie a bit. This scene made some of the things Oscar said and did to Felix later in the movie seem needlessly cruel, and their personality clashes weren't as amusing as they could have been. Had I not already known the story, I would have been worried that some of Oscar's antics to Felix might push him over the edge. As it was, it didn't make me laugh or smile like the television show with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall did. Still, all in all, a pretty good movie and it spawned one of the greatest sitcoms on television. 7 out of 10. Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt. This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! "The Odd Couple" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS! THE ODD COUPLE is the classic film version of Neil Simon's most famous play about a TV newswriter named Felix Unger, who is an obsessive neat freak, who moves in with his divorced best friend, Oscar Madison, a sportswriter and complete slob, after his wife Frances throws him out of their apartment. Already divorced, Oscar takes his best friend in and regrets it from the moment he does it. Neil Simon's classic comedy first came to Broadway with Art Carney playing Felix and Walter Matthau playing Oscar. Jack Lemmon takes over for Carney in the film version with a memorable performance as Felix Unger. Lemmon is not only terribly funny in the role but so vividly real that he brings an element of melancholy to the pitiful figure that is Felix Unger. Matthau, fortunately, was allowed to recreate his role as Oscar, a one-of-a-kind gem of comic performance that provides consistent laughs throughout. This teaming of Lemmon and Matthau turned out to be comic gold that was re-visited in nine other films. With both of these actors no longer with us, the viewing of this classic becomes more touching but no less hilarious. Simon's play has been nicely expanded for the screen with a silent prologue chronicling a depressed Felix's suicide attempt that is a winner. The supporting cast includes Herb Edelman, John Fiedler, Larry Haines, and David Sheiner as Oscar's poker playing buddies and Moncia Evans and Carole Shelley as the Piedgon Sisters, blind dates of Oscar and Felix. Of course, it later became an excellent TV series with Tony Randall and Jack Klugman, but there's nothing like the original. A joy from start to finish. Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) has just been dumped by his wife, because he is one of the most annoying , neurotic people in the world. Suicide is his way out, but he just can't seem to get it to work, so he heads over to his friends house. Oscar Madison (Walther Matthau) is also recently divorced and living it up in bachelor heaven. Smoking, gambling, hitting on chicks, eating out and never cleaning is paradise to him. Well, with the suicide attempts Oscar decides to let Felix move in. At first, it is a match made in heaven, Felix cooks and cleans and helps Oscar pay his alimony on time, but soon Oscar is jonesing for women and Felix (who in today's world would probably be gay) isn't ready to move on. They invite a couple of British birds over and they find Felix so tender that soon they and Felix are weeping and chatting about his family life, leaving Oscar denied. This is it, he explodes and throws him out, but Felix isn't as helpless as it seems, and soon he has the upper hand. My favorite quote "You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Based on a Neil Simon play (who also wrote the screenplay), this has a certain theatre feel to it. Set and the repartee and looks feel quite play-like (for better or worse). Lemmon and Mathau have excellent comedic chemistry and have appeared in the Grumpier Old Men movies and Out to Sea, reprising the same finicky/slob roles, but with different names (to avoid royalty issues, I'm sure).

This movie is like strawberries dipped in chocolate. The chocolate is smooth, sweet and rich, the strawberry is tart, juicy and bright red (unless you get those nasty greenish ones). They are almost polar opposites, but together, the contrasts highlight each other and make a wonderful dessert. 7/10

http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies Neil Simon had a knack for dialog and nowhere is this more evident than the lines he gives WALTER MATTHAU and JACK LEMMON as opposite types in THE ODD COUPLE--a mixture of comedy and sadness that depends entirely on the believability of two such mismatched friends sharing an apartment.

Lemmon is neatnik Felix Ungar, bent on suicide after the divorce from his wife and reluctantly agreeing to share an apartment with Oscar Madison (Matthau) with somewhat disastrous results. Seems that everything Felix says and does drives Oscar up the wall and neither one can stand the other's ways, with Oscar being the messiest male imaginable and Felix the exact opposite.

Funniest scene for me was when the giggling Pigeon sisters in the apartment above visit them on a dinner date. The priceless interaction between Lemmon, Matthau and Carole Shelley and Monica Evans is enough to put you in stitches. The talented Pigeon sisters are the gals who did the voices for the Gabble Sisters (a pair of geese) in Disney's THE ARISTOCATS, and here--their comic timing on top of Lemmon's sad story of despair is enough to spin the film into hilarity--where it remains much of the time.

If you're a Neil Simon fan and have enjoyed other screen treatments of his work, this one is not to be missed. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly cast (even though they considered exchanging roles before filming began) and, of course, it's easy to see why it became a top-rated TV show later on.

Summing up: Top Simon comedy, not to be missed. It's hard to watch this movie without thinking forward to the television show it would become, especially if, like me, you happen to like the TV show more. But there's a lot to be said for the source.

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is a top New York City sportswriter who lives in an eight-room apartment by himself, a casualty of divorce and his own stubbornly sloppy mindset. Enter his friend Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon), needing a place to live after his wife threw him out for his stubbornly neatnik mindset. The result is a train wreck and one of the most beloved movie adaptations of a Neil Simon stage play.

First thing's first: I love that apartment! Poker table, novelty dart board, askew photos of baseball players, empty booze and beer containers, even a pair of Roman columns. It's a place where men can be boys. Simon and director Gene Saks do a great job opening up the stage play's single set, Oscar's living room, by moving the action into the bedrooms and kitchen and giving the mounting tension between Oscar and Felix more corners to bounce off of.

Neal Hefti's familiar score was heard on the TV show, but never so sweepingly orchestrated as it is here, in several different arrangements that make the on-screen action soar whenever its played. Real location work and night shots of Manhattan give the film an energy common to films shot in that place and time ("Buddwing," "The World Of Henry Orient," "Midnight Cowboy," "Manchurian Candidate," "Rosemary's Baby," etc.)

Are Lemmon and Matthau too heavy in comparison to Tony Randall and Jack Klugman? To be fair, the movie is meant to be a more serious affair, dealing with the then-uncommon condition of mid-life divorce and the frustration inherent in not being able to make a relationship work. Simon has more in mind than entering Felix and Oscar in a game of "Password" or a battle of wits with Howard Cosell. But I don't know...

Both Lemmon and Matthau were terrific comedians I enjoy watching especially in the middle of this film as I often do in their separate movies, but I never understood why they were regarded as a great comedy team. Here, in their best-regarded partnership, they seem to be acting in two different films; Lemmon in a comedy-drama and Matthau in a farce. Matthau is great in the beginning, charming us with his teddy-bear demeanor around the poker table, but near the end of the film he takes a turn much like Jack Torrance's in "The Shining," reacting to Felix cleaning up his apartment and serving tasty food to his friends in a way that totally upsets the delicate balance of blame.

While the ending bothers me, the part many see as the most jarring, the beginning, works fine as I see it. Watching Felix stumbling around trying to kill himself isn't great comedy, no, but it's a good way to get into a great comedy, setting us up with some real-life pain before bringing in the warmth and laughter. (Plus it has some great shots of the seedier parts of the city.) In the middle of the movie, this scene would have been a miscalculation, but it works as a way of establishing Felix's torment and a sense of sharp relief to come when we see Oscar and his poker friends bicker and feud.

That's where Simon's lines are so great. They are the underlying strength of the film. He gets the banter exactly right and real, and still makes it funny. "I don't mind you talking, Felix. You got things to say. What's scaring me is I'm beginning to listen." The TV show showed how wrong it is to assume the movie is always better, in fact the TV show once made a good point about "assuming" anything at all, but the movie makes for a solid foundation and is a joy in its own right. Bill Crain's rarer than rare 'slasher' movie certainly doesn't follow the standard stalk and slash guidelines that have become so essential of its counterparts. The bogeyman this time around uses grenades and small arms as well as an awesome array of melee weapons; - a sin that's virtually unacceptable in most post-Halloween genre pieces. But there's still just enough familiarity to keep slasher buffs from checking the rule book and the plot never strays too far from the path that you've grown to expect. Just as Wally Koz's surprisingly decent 555 was seemingly put together with help from various members of his family, Mirage seems to have been a joint production from relatives of the director. Looking through the credits I noticed numerous 'Crains' listed in key positions throughout the construction of the feature. But despite fairly good distribution across the globe, the movie failed to make an impression either side of the Atlantic and now it has become pretty much a phantom of the VHS market. Nevertheless this only made it appeal to me even more and so I strained my resources to track a copy down…

It all takes place in the middle of the dessert, which as I'm sure you'll agree is hardly the most exciting location. With that said though, I must admit that there's certainly going to be no chance of any nosey John Q Laws turning up unexpectedly. Four undeniably beautiful youngsters head out into the sand for a night of debauchery and frolics that always seems to rub homicidal maniacs the wrong way. Chris (Jennifer McAllister) and her boyfriend Greg (Kenny Johnson) meet up with amusing new age hippies Trip (Kevin McParland) and Mary (Nicole Anton) at a make shift camp site in the midst of the dune-like wilderness. Greg's older brother Kyle (Todd Schaefer) and his buxom girlfriend Bambi (Laura Albert) soon turn up to join the body count applicants in their quest for an early grave. Kyle used to date Chris before his younger brother took the liberty of stealing his squeeze – something that Kyle doesn't seem too keen to forget. Sound like a motive for a massacre? Well what did you expect? Before long an unseen someone driving a truck with tinted windows joins the gathering with a unique set of tricks up his sleeve. Will any of the kids survive to turn up for a sequel?

I have had trouble tracking down any information at all about this feature. I don't even know if director Bill Crain is aka William Crain – the man behind Midnight Fear and Blacula among others. Mirage certainly doesn't appear on his official filmography, so your guess is as good as mine. Judging by the credible work behind the camera, I'd have to say that I find it hard to believe that this is the debut of a man with no previous cinematic experience. The film is stylishly photographed with some superb work from DP Michael Crain, and the director boasts a credible talent for building suspense when it's necessary. R. Christopher Biggs' gore FX are imaginatively created and gruesome, and kudos to the sleepy head over at the BBFC who inexplicably let this pass through UNCUT on a usually stringent 18 rating. A couple of the murders are indeed extremely macabre. One guy gets buried up to his neck in sand before coming face to face with a grenade, while another ends up literally legless after loosing a battle with a chain and a pick up truck! There's also some black humor that's surely unintentional. We spend the majority of the feature seeing only the killer's boots as he steps out of his vehicle and stalks the youngsters. But when he's revealed to hilariously resemble Keanu Reeves circa Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, I didn't quite know what to expect. Thankfully Crain knows exactly how to keep things creepy and the showdown is particularly mean spirited as the psycho taunts Chris sadistically.

There are some surprisingly good performances on display from an extremely inexperienced cast. The divine Jennifer McAllister does a superb job as the heroine and B.G. Steers portrays off his rocker dementia with finesse. The Casting director chose wisely to pick some of the most beautiful females ever slaughtered in slasher cinema and it gratefully doesn't come at the cost of thespian potential. The soundtrack works well to build the desolate atmosphere of isolation, which is carefully handled by a director that should have been signed and nurtured by Hollywood bigwigs. Watch out for the superb nightmare sequence that is truly horror film-making at it's freakiest.

Mirage is a good late entry to the cycle that was somewhat unfortunate to miss a boom year placing amongst the slasher elite. When you consider that this was made with just a cast of seven and a pick up truck, you have to say that they did a damn good job. The flaws are numerous, but never detract credibility from the net result. Unfortunately you've probably got more chance of finding liquid gold in your coffee mug than you have of ever tracking down a copy. If you see this one covered in dust on the top shelf of your local video store, then make sure you pick it up. Recommended. Mirage (1990) is a very rare horror/chiller from 1990, released here in the UK on the "New World Video" label.

It's a desert based horror film about a group of young friends who are partying for the weekend, only to be killed off one by one by an unknown force who drives a menacing black truck!!! This film has some creepy scenes, and some gore here and there, but i have to say that the acting was so lame, even by low budget standards! But the film was oddly addictive and i liked it, and i never fell asleep or turned it off, which is always a good sign! I nearly gave this movie 6/10, but seeing as it built up steam along the way, had some good moments of gore and suspense, had some good nudity, and the fact that the blonde in the main female role was a hottie too! i'll give it 7/10. This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date ("The Trip", "Joy Ride", "Jeepers Creepers") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended. Well, this was one of those films I caught on the off-chance, and it was good enough for me to record when it showed up next time... If, like myself, you enjoy many 80's horror flicks that branched out a little from the norm (i.e. not just another glut of generic sequels) then I think you may enjoy this. When the bad guy eventually turns up in person, he was definitely not what I expected to see! All in all, I wouldn't go out of your way for this one, but if you like the genre, then watch it if it comes up and you have an hour and a half to kill, I guess. I'd give it 6.5 out of 10. I remember that i was a child when i first saw this movie, it was my first horror movie (maybe that's the reason why i can still remember some parts of it). I don't remember much about acting, nude scenes or other things but i do remember a male has head blown up with a grenade, a male dismembered over a tree and a male run down by truck and shot in head :) (Todd Schaefer, Kenny Johnson and Kevin McParland). I also remember the last scene when Jennifer McAllister riped of the killer stomach to get the keys of the truck. It's a movie that gives you the creep and it's worth a look. But where do i find it? How can i download it? A group of friends decide to take a camping trip into the desert-and find themselves stalked and murdered by a mysterious killer in a black pick-up truck."Mirage" is obviously inspired by Spielberg's "Duel" and Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes".Still this slasher yarn offers plenty of nasty violence and gore.The film's gory highlight is a sequence involving a man having his arm and leg chained together around a tree and then having his limbs dismembered when the chain is pulled by a truck.There is also a little bit of suspense and some exciting stalk-and-slash sequences.The acting is pretty lame and the script is quite weak,but the film is fast-paced and shocking.B.G.Steers who plays the villain is fairly threatening.The desert locations provide some atmosphere and the gore is rather strong.Overall,if you like low-budget horror films give this one a look.8 out of 10. As a biographical film, "The Lady With Red Hair" (the story of how director /producer/playwright David Belasco transformed notorious society divorcee Mrs. Leslie Carter into an international stage star) is certainly not in a league with that other Warner's biopic of similar vintage, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (what is?), but "Lady" is an enjoyable film in its own right--AND shares quite a few traits in common with the Cagney classic.

Like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" brims over with old -time show-business flavor. (Among other things, both films feature delicious theatrical boarding-house sequences as well as the inevitable scenes set backstage and in theatrical managers' offices.) Also, in "Lady" as in the Cohan biopic, the supporting cast is made up of familiar and beloved character actors of the period, all doing the sort of top-notch work we remember them for.

Need I add that, again like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" doesn't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story? But, also like "Dandy," "Lady" does manage--gloriously!--to convey the esssence of its show-business-giant hero's larger-than-life personality. Everyone knows that Cagney limned Cohan for all time in his brilliant and affectionate portrayal in "Yankee Doodle Dandy"--but few moviegoers realize that Claude Rains did a similar service for David Belasco in "The Lady With Red Hair"- -and did it with a panache that almost equals Cagney's.

Rains-as-Belasco perfectly captures that legendary showman's galvanic personality in all its outsized glory. Rains gives a tremendously enjoyable , superbly observed, and remarkably true-to-life performance as the man all Broadway once called "The Wizard." To watch Claude Rains in action (looking in every shot as if he's having a helluva good time!) in "The Lady With Red Hair" is to see David Belasco leap to life on film as if he can't wait to shake things up on the Main Stem once again.

I had seen Lady with Red Hair back when it appeared, and didn't remember it as something to cherish. The truth is that, notwithstanding its base in a true story, its screen play is silly and unbelievable. The real merit of the picture is the cast. A constellation of some of the best supporting players of the 30's and 40's make a background for the delicate, intelligent work of the always underrated Miriam Hopkins, and the wonderful, spectacular performance of Claude Rains, who, as usual, is the best thing in the picture. What an actor! He never won an Oscar, but he is in the good company of Chaplin, Garbo and Hitchcock. Perhaps Lady with Red Hair contains his best work in films. See it and enjoy him.

Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.

Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.

Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.

The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.

Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual. I rented this movie from blockbuster on a whim .. i like alan arkin and the cover was catching ... i read the back and knew right away it was going to either be the best or the worst movie i have ever seen ... i guess i got lucky .. i laughed from beginning to end .. alan arkin brings a great character to this movie. i have since bought a used rental copy for my own collection and watch it all the time .. i have recommeded this movie to loads of people and they all enjoyed it as much as i did ... i see complaints about the menus and dvd functions .. but it doesn't take away from the movie .. the disk was authored for Blockbuster exculsivley which is why they didn't allow you to skip past the previews .. aside from that you shouldn't let the functions of the DVD to deterr you from watching the excellent film. This movie is awesome for three main reasons. It is esthetically beautiful. I absolutely loved that. There is a bold color theme throughout the movie with extraordinary costumes and picturesque sets. A photography which looks very costly (and probably was not) completes the look . I always enjoy those stories about groups of misfits/loners coming together and becoming a family . Sometimes they fall into clichés but this one does not. This group of actors really portrays well flawed, yet extremely likable characters. Alan Larkin is the best (between him , the van and the road movie theme, I could not help but remember my favorite movie of last year Little Miss Sunshine…) . I discovered Fabrizio Bentivoglio , very interesting actor, and just got annoyed a tiny little bit by Til Schweiger performance at times . The opening scene, all the scenes where they mess up their tricks are very funny. There is a mix of humor and emotion throughout the film. I like the end a lot. And of course it is all about the Magician theme . A good magician is making the audience look where he wants them to, to create an illusion. Which happens to be exactly what a movie director does and that's why they call it movie magic. This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.

It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.

Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.

Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one. This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about.

I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.

I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.

This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)

Also watch for the cameos from known character actors. I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.

P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald. Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet. The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected. This, along with "Hare Tonic," ranks as one of the best Bugs cartoons, indeed one of the best Bugs, ever. There are some comments about how Bugs in these cartoons is "basic," meaning, I guess, that he is as yet not fully developed. I actually prefer this "basic" version from the mid-40s (Chuck Jones' was the best version) who is actually more rabbit-sized and far more amusing than the eventual long-legged version who towered over Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck. The latter-day Bugs came to be too suave and sophisticated for my liking. Also check out "Hair Raising Hare" (1946) and "Rabbit Punch" (1948) for great examples of classic Bugs and classic Chuck Jones. Is it a good idea to use live animals for department store window displays?

No, and here's why....

In "Hare Conditioned" the sale that Bugs is helping promote is over and the store manager (Nelson) is transferring him to a new department: taxidermy. Naturally, Bugs objects and the fun begins.

using nearly every department in the store (children's wear, sports, shoes, costumes, women's nightgowns - don't ask.), Bugs comes out on top at every turn, even referring to the manager as "The Great GilderSNEEZE". Even when trapped in the confines of an elevator, Bugs makes the best of the situation.

Director Jones is on top of his pictorial game as always, as are Blanc (as Bugs, natch) and Nelson (the manager - who DOES sound like radio mainstay Gildersleeves - go ask your grand-parents).

And a sage word of advice: when confronted by a fuzzy-looking woman wanting to try on bathroom slippers, always check her ears.

Ten stars for "Hare Conditioner", the best argument yet for animal labor laws. A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: A- In another one of Bugs Bunny's hare-raisingly wacky shorts, the famous leporid* works in a department store display case, when owner Gildersleeve decides to stuff him. Of course, this proves nearly impossible, as Bugs apparently knows the store better than Gildersleeve (and knows when to cross-dress). As always, they keep everything coming at top speed, and so you have to wonder how hilarious this cartoon must have seemed when it first debuted! Among other things, "Hare Conditioned" is a fine example of how the Looney Tunes looked in the '40s before the Termite Terrace crowd polished them. But don't get me wrong, the cartoons were still really good after the refined forms arrived.

Anyway, this is a great one.

*Leporids are rabbits and hares. Great entertainment from start to the end. Wonderful performances by Belushi, Beach, Dalton & Railsback. Some twists and many action scenes. The movie was made for me! Funny lines in the screenplay, good music. Dalton as the tough sheriff and Railsback as "redneck-villain". I must recommend this film to every action-adventure fan! 10/10 i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh. I bought this movie a few days ago, and thought that it would be a pretty shitty film. But when i popped it into the DVD-player, it surprised me in a very good way. James Belushi plays very well as Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie. But especially Timothy Dalton plays a very good roll as the Sheriff. The 'end' scene, in the house of Bill is very excellent, good camera-work, nice dialogues and very good acting. Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie has stolen 12 Million Dollars from the Mafia. Together with his wife he lives in South-Carolina in a witness protection program. But the Mafia tracks him down, and wants the 12 Million Dollar. Bill can only trust the only person he knows inside out, himself. This movie surprised me in a good way. From the box I got the impression that it was an action thriller but it was too funny to be a thriller, even though it was somewhat exciting.

There's a lot of nice one-liners and funny situations in this movie and James Belushi was born to do Bill Manucci, he does a great job. The rest of the cast ain't half-bad either and especially Timothy Dalton is a treat.

The story can get pretty confusing at times as new characters shows up during the film. Things get more complicated as nobody seldom tells the truth about things. If you don't pay attention things might get a bit messy in the end but I really liked it.

Louis Morneau isn't all that well known but he has done a perfectly OK job with this one and I never really grew impatient while watching the movie.

Made men is well worth checking out. What a good film! Made Men is a great action movie with lots of twists and turns. James Belushi is very good as an ex hood who has stolen 12 million from the boss who has to fend of the gangsters , hillbillies his wife and the local sheriff( Timothy Dalton).you wont be disappointed, jump on board and enjoy the ride. 8 out of 10 This movie has everything you want from an action movie. Explosions,shootouts,bad guys and worse guys. It is fun to see James Belushi using his humor to get out of the trouble he has gotten himself in to since he stole 12 million dollars from the ultimate big boss "The Skipper. Does this sounds cheesy. Of course it is. But boy,did I have fun watching this movie. It is a whole lot better than all the direct to DVD garbage that is made nowadays. If you can get over the silly plot than you will find out that this movie has quite a few surprises in store. You could argue about the twists being predictable. But the fast pace of this movie doesn't give you time too think too much of them,which is a blessing since this movie is not about revealing the ultimate twist. But more about the journey to that moment. Only the title is a bit misleading and that could be the reason why so many people hated this movie. They probably expected a movie about mobsters in stead of some crooks double crossing each other. Pure fun! This movie surprised me, it had good one-liners and laughs, + a nonstop action-packed storyline with tons of gun action and explosions. This movie surprisingly had a lot of good twists and turns. The plot is solid despite what others may think, it kept my interest the whole time right up till the very end. In conclusion; this is a great way for an action movie buff to spend time on. Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived."

You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.

Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy. I guess that everyone has to make a comeback at some point. And that's exactly what embarrassed Taft resident Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) intends to do in "The Best of Times". Yep, the man who went all crazy with the radio in "Good Morning, Vietnam" is playing football. In this case, he seeks to replay a game that cost his high school a prestigious title. But ex-teammate Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) isn't just going to go along with it so easily.

Granted, it's not the best movie for either man. But Williams and Russell are actually a pretty good comedy team. And some of the names in this movie are likely to give you the giggles (to say the least). Check it out. Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, "The Best of Times." In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. *** Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played (note to the NFL). Why did this movie fail commercially? It's got a sharp script (by Ron Shelton) and great performances by Kurt Russell and, especially, Robin Williams, in a brilliant manic nerd turn that's different from any of his other work. A great renter. The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it. Spoiler This movie is about such a concept. Williams will go to any low in order to replay the football game that haunts his life. Russel plays the ex jock who peaked in high school. Finally the under dog get its shot, and Williams can save face, instead of being the clown. A great reverse tragedy. 7/10 Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended. The film did not do well at the box office.

I saw it in a sneak preview.

I have always enjoyed the film.

I live in 1 of the cities mentioned in the film where past players moved to.

Not the best film ever put to screen, but enjoyable.

Robin did well with his role.

Best line of the film at the beginning, by Robin's character Jack: "I was that SOB!" Cleaned up here as not to offend anyone.

Was glad when it came to DVD a few years back in the wide screen/letter box format.

I am not a football fan or a real sports fan. But, you do not need to be one to like this film. I love this movie, but the music at all the alumni gatherings is just stupid.

The fateful game took place in 1972. That means that the protagonists graduated in 1972. But almost all of the music played at the dances etc. is from the 1950s and very early 1960s.

Having just attended my 30th high school reunion, I can assure you that the last music to be played at a reunion or dance of former high school people is their parents' music.

I understand the difficulty of finding relevant 1970s music -- we all know what a desolate time it was musically. But it wasn't completely bereft, and the producers of the film should have taken more care. I found those dance scenes very jarring to my otherwise willing suspension of disbelief in the rest of the film.

This was a bad director and/or producer decision. Robin Williams does his best to combine comedy and pathos, but comes off a bit shrill. Donald Moffat is too one-note as his father-in-law. Jeff Bridges is excellent though as the quarterback, and Holly Palance and Pamela Reed are marvelous, carrying the film through most of its rough spots. It fills time nicely, but is little more than that. hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye For all of the Has-Beens or Never Was's or for the curious, this film is for you....Ever played a sport, or wondered what it felt like after the lights went down and the crowd left..this film explores that and more.

Robin Williams(Jack Dundee) is a small town assistant banker in Taft CA., whose life has been plagued, by a miscue in a BIG rival high school football game 13 years ago, when he dropped the pass that would have won over Bakersfield, their Arch-Rival, that takes great pleasure in pounding the Taft Rockets, season after season . Kurt Russell(Reno Hightower) was the Quarterback in that famous game, and is the local legend, that now is a van repair specialist, whose life is fading into lethargy, like the town of Taft itself.

Williams gets an idea to remake history, by replaying the GAME ! He meets with skeptical resistance, so he goes on a one man terror spree, and literally paints the town , orange, yellow and black , to raise the ire of the residents to recreate THE game . After succeeding, the players from that 1972 team reunite, and try to get in shape to practice, which is hysterical . The game is on , Bakesfield is loaded with all of the high tech gadgets, game strategies, and sophisticated training routines . Taft is drawing plays in the mud, with sticks, stones, and bottle caps, what a riot ! Does Taft overcome the odds, does Robin Willians purge the demons from his bowels, does Kurt Russell rise from lethargy, watch "The Best of Times" for one of the BEST viewing experiences ever!

One of Robin Williams best UNDERSTATED performances, the chemistry between Robin and Russell is magic . And who is Kid Lester ???

Holly Palance and Pamela Reed give memorable performances as the wives of Williams and Russell. Succeeds on Many Levels. A 10 ! Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played. Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball that ever lived."

You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.

Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy. Finally we get a TV series where we get to see the acting talent! Episode one was excellent! The script gave us a little more than usual, yeah, there was still the "i'm not your father -i'm your father and omigod you cheated on me!" rubbish but the script allowed the actors to actually feel and live those real moments rather than show us what it would feel like if -like so many TV soaps do.

The camera work also gave us a little more than usual, there were no boring shots of repeated angles for hours yet there was no unnecessary 'shots inside shots or hand-held camera crap' to add an "artistic" edge it gave us what we needed to see and also some beautiful scenery pictures as well!

Nothing was over-dramatised or melodramatic they were real people in a real place dealing with real situations, the show lacked nothing in drama and was completely relevant. It was SUCH a relief to be exposed to real acting and so nice to let our country see just how talented our actors can be when given a real script, a real opportunity! Thank you Tony Tilse, Sam Miller, channel ten and all cast and crew -wonderful work!! please continue what you are doing, your efforts are much appreciated and do not go unnoticed! Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.

The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.

Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season! A fine effort for an Australian show. which is probably not surprising seeing as there seems to be somewhat of a resurgence in quality Aussie drama. dare i compare this show to the brilliance of love my way? no. but it is reminiscent of early secret life of us. the cast is great, gibney works her magic in the first two episodes i have seen, the British cast is strong also especially the callum and lizzie characters. but abe forsythe may be the saving light (not that it needs saving) if this show is to get another season. i wasn't a fan of his performance in the awesomely awesome marking time mini series a few years back but he was great as hal in always greener. its also good to see brooke satchwell again. lets hope the show keeps improving with each episode. Amazing acting, music. A simple and clear plot but it drew me in and kept me captivated all the way through. I don't know why it was so fantastic but it simply was. So many of the characters were so real. It moved me and made me think I would like to watch more like this.

The idea of a school trip as a forum for such an amazing plot was a genius idea and so many of the people were like people were like those encountered every day by teachers in the classroom.

The film tackles issues of religion, prejudice,drugs friendship, memories, difficult experiences and simple the diversity of life itself. if you have a chance of seeing this film do see it. it's quite shocking in parts and really makes you think about so many important issues but it's not didactic. in my opinion it's a piece of art... beautifully filmed, fine music of many styles, the typically impressive level of acting that one has come to expect from BBC Drama. Nathalie Press (billed as 'Natalie' Press) is convincing in her role as depressed teenager exploited by a male classmate. Celia Imrie has that beautifully reassuring quality that gives the sometimes unnerving action stability and the viewer comfort in the knowledge that someone out there is actually 'normal', but the real star as always is Timothy Spall - surely one of the greatest actors of our time! "Mr. Harvey Lights a Candle" is anchored by a brilliant performance by Timothy Spall.

While we can predict that his titular morose, up tight teacher will have some sort of break down or catharsis based on some deep down secret from his past, how his emotions are unveiled is surprising. Spall's range of feelings conveyed is quite moving and more than he usually gets to portray as part of the Mike Leigh repertory.

While an expected boring school bus trip has only been used for comic purposes, such as on "The Simpsons," this central situation of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral in Rhidian Brook's script is well-contained and structured for dramatic purposes, and is almost formally divided into acts.

We're introduced to the urban British range of racially and religiously diverse kids (with their uniforms I couldn't tell if this is a "private" or "public" school), as they gather – the rapping black kids, the serious South Asians and Muslims, the white bullies and mean girls – but conveyed quite naturally and individually. The young actors, some of whom I recognized from British TV such as "Shameless," were exuberant in representing the usual range of junior high social pressures. Celia Imrie puts more warmth into the supervisor's role than the martinets she usually has to play.

A break in the trip leads to a transformative crisis for some while others remain amusingly oblivious. We think, like the teacher portrayed by Ben Miles of "Coupling," that we will be spoon fed a didactic lesson about religious tolerance, but it's much more about faith in people as well as God, which is why the BBC showed it in England at Easter time and BBC America showed it in the U.S. over Christmas.

Nathalie Press, who was also so good in "Summer of Love," has a key role in Mr. Harvey's redemption that could have been played for movie-of-the-week preaching, but is touching as they reach out to each other in an unexpected way (unfortunately I saw their intense scene interrupted by commercials).

While it is a bit heavy-handed in several times pointedly calling this road trip "a pilgrimage," this quiet film was the best evocation of "good will towards men" than I've seen in most holiday-themed TV movies. Although this was not without its faults, this drama was a fitting one to be shown around Easter time. It reminded us of our spiritual selves and showed that behind our facades, we often hide our deepest sufferings and experiences. There was so much to enjoy in the drama, not least the rapping teenagers who provided a better musical accompaniment to the drama than the rather poor sound score in the background. The acting was excellent and Timothy Spall was once again superb. The climax was very satisfying, if rather simplistic. Timothy Spall's "letting go" of his long-dead wife's suicide was credible and mirrored well the feelings of despair that were present in the teenage girl who self-harmed. The resolution between the graffiti boy and the Muslim was gratifying but less believable. A wonderful drama which left myself and my husband felling that the evening had been well spent. Congratulations! "Why did they make them so big? Why didn't they just give the money to the poor?" The question about cathedrals was asked by a student to Mr. Harvey during a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. "That's a good question," he replied. "Partly to inspire them - to get them to look up with awe." I'm not sure that cathedrals have that impact on everyone, but this movie certainly had that impact on me. It was awesome!

It didn't start out that way. For a while it seemed to be little more than a depiction of - well - a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. If you've ever been on a high school field trip to anywhere this is basically it. You have a group of largely disinterested kids just happy to be out of school for a day, the bus driver who's driven crazy by them and some teachers trying desperately to keep it all under control. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt was my initial reaction. I figured that in the end this was going to be a typical story of a teacher managing to inspire a group of disinterested students. YAWN! But it turns out to be so much more! Timothy Spall was brilliant as Mr. Harvey - a sombre, unsmiling teacher with a strange fascination for cathedrals. Over the course of the movie, his story slowly comes out and becomes the focal point of the story. We also get introduced to some of the troubled students - most notably Helen, also brilliantly played by Nathalie Press, who's into self-mutilation.

This isn't a religious movie, but it includes some powerful reflections on religious themes. When Harvey's colleague Jonathon (played by Ben Miles) says "I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else" Harvey replies, "that isn't tolerance - it's indifference!" - which is, in fact (in my opinion) what often passes for religious tolerance in our society. There are scenes of reconciliation between various characters, and the final scene of the movie was brilliant. As Harvey climbs back on the bus, director Susanna White has the camera slowly pan upwards, so that the final shot is simply of the sky - hearkening back to Harvey's comment that the purpose of the cathedral is to get people to look up in awe. The cathedral accomplishes its goal. We look up into the universe in awe, seeking something greater than ourselves, however we choose to define it. This is a very powerful and very inspiring movie. 9/10 This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.

Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity. I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES! ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988)

directed by: James Signorelli

starring: Cassandra Peterson, W. Morgan Sheppard, Daniel Greene, and Edie McClurg

plot: Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) quits her TV show and heads to the small Christian town Fallwell, Massachusettes to collect on her dead aunt's inheritance, hoping to make big bucks to open up a show in Vegas. Unfortunately for her, all she gets is a creepy old house, a poodle, and a magic cookbook. While in Fallwell, Elvira tries to make money, breathe some life into the teenagers, win the heart of a stud (Daniel Greene), avoid being burned at the stake, and keep the cookbook from her creepy uncle (W. Morgan Sheppard), who is planning to use the book to end the world.

my thoughts: I love both Cassandra Peterson and her alter-ego Elvira. She is a very successful, beautiful, and funny woman and as Elvira she's all that plus morbid and hilariously naive, not to mention she has an amazing pair of knockers. In this movie, her charms are put to good use.

I loved the whole 'fish out of water' feel to the film. You got Elvira, with her low-cut black dress, her big black hair, and her enormous 'twins', and she's in a Christian town where most of the girls aren't even allowed to wear makeup. This also makes her love story with Bob (Daniel Greene) a lot more entertaining.

W. Morgan Sheppard is equally great as Elvira's uncle/nemesis Vincent, out to steal the book to use it for evil. He has a lot of presence but still doesn't get in the way and steal scenes from Elvira.

What really makes the film is not the plot, but the many jokes. Everything from boob jokes to horror spoofing is here and makes me laugh a lot more than anything from a SCARY MOVIE sequel. I hear there are about 56 boob jokes in this film, and any fan of Roger Corman B-horror flicks will love the spoofing in this film.

If you love Elvira, you will love this flick. Also check out ELVIRA'S HAUNTED HILLS. OK, this movie is stupid. I mean that in a good way though.It was stupid on purpose, and was one of the better "stupid" movies I've seen. The jokes and gags are purposefully bad, but delivered in a way that it struck all the right notes with me. The supporting characters were pretty shallow and mediocre. There is a pretty weak plot, but it works just fine.

Elvira's character is the focus here.She is lovable and adorable.Cassandra Petersen has a world of acting talent that just glows in this movie.On top of that acting talent she had physical attributes which were frankly, stunning. Few men could disagree with that. The parts that show off her figure were also some of the funnier scenes in the movie.

I had a smile ear to ear from the first scene to the last.

Highly recommended to fans of comedy, and to fans of beautiful women. I wish they had made a dozen more Elvia movies. Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.

"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.

Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.

The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her "endowments" and sexiness as a joke ("And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads"). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course). This film is pure Elvira and shows her at her breast... I mean best! The story (co-written by Cassandra Peterson, Elvira's alter ego) is inspiring and captivating and is brought to life by Elvira's wit and charm. The viewer gets an opportunity to see Elvira in a whole new light as she struggles with the prejudices of the people of Fallwell, Massachusetts (where she has travelled from Los Angeles in order to attend the reading of her Great Aunt Morganna's will) and at the same time tries to help the long-suffering teenagers who have been deprived of fun by the matriarchal Chastity Pariah and the rest of the town council. She also has to deal with her attraction to Bob Redding, the owner of the local cinema, and another woman (Patty) who has her eye on Bob as well but is not nearly as deserving of his love as Elvira. And, later in the movie, she also faces the complications of being descended from ''a major metaphysical celebrity'' and the charges of witchcraft brought against her which mean that she will be burnt at the stake. Elvira manages to be both sexy and vulnerable, streetwise and naive in this film, while cracking risque jokes and delivering off-beat lines with double meanings.

This movie is inspiring because it gives out the message of never giving up on yourself and always trying to follow your dreams. In the end Elvira's dreams finally come true, which is the best thing that could happen to this wonderfully unique and determined woman.

I've seen this movie countless times and I never ever get tired of it! There are no unnecessary scenes and I found myself captivated throughout the whole movie. A review will not do justice to the actual movie, so I can just tell you to PLEASE watch it because it is one of the best movies ever made! Meanwhile, I wish you ''unpleasant dreams!'' This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...

Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a "Ruby" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).

There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: "Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!" Bad uncle Vinny: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"

There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.

But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she "ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her "very 80's" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic Elvira Mistress of the Dark is just that, a campy concoction of fun, sex appeal, horror and comedy all poured into a low cut black gown and toped with a sky high black bouffant hair-do. This movie is sure to delight any fan of Elvira's. It takes you upclose and personal with Elvira and probes deep into her...um past revealing her enormous... ancestry.

The movie takes you on a ride with Elvira as she goes from TV Horror Hostess with the Mostess to her home town of Fallwell Mass to claim her inheritance from a deceased Great Aunt. Where she encounters a stuffy town, a studly cinema owner, a creepy Great Uncle who seems to be after her for more than her good looks. A slew of high school kids that immediately love her, and a town board who are will do anything to get her out of town, even if it means burning her at the stake! Watch Elvira woo the kids, stalk the stud, avoid her creepy Great Uncle and thumb her nose at the stuffy uptight 'preservatives' who have no kind words for her, in Elvira Mistress of the Dark!

As Elvira would say "I guarantee it'll be a scream! (screams in background) Whoa! Good thing I didn't say it'd be a gas!" OK, I saw this in the theaters when it came out and I don't know why. I haven't seen it since, but I ended up on this page because I found myself thinking about this film - again I don't know why. But the fact that I remember it speaks volumes.

Comedy is hard - much harder than any drama. Doing it right makes it seem easy, but doing it wrong ... is there anything worse than a bad comedy? Steve Martin, pay attention, you are falling in this category again for some reason.

Elvira Mistress Of The Dark must have done it right for me to remember this movie fondly. Done at a quick pace, with tongue in cheek and knowing it isn't the Philedelphia Story, it entertains from start to finish. Brain Donors is another that fits right in this category (sans most of the gratuitous boob jokes).

One point of contention - the ending. It seems the writers/director had no idea how to finish a comedy. The ending tries to be a love story, somewhat undermining the quirky fast-paced dialogue up to that point. Then there is the "tassle" scene. Whereas this has to be seen (male opinion), it is so over the top and out of place it's like a shock. One more rewrite for the ending was needed.

This is not comedy genius like Spinal Tap or The Producers or The Holy Grail. But if you don't try to dissect it and just let the puns and sappy fun come to you, you'll laugh, I guarantee it. I think that this movie is very fun and horror. I love Elvira and I like this movie. It's very pity that second part of this wonderful movie had no success, because it very funny like a first part. I also regret that besides of this movie I have no seen Cassandra Peterson in other films.I think that she is amazing actress with big...potential. I hope that II'll see her in future in the third part of Elvira's adventures. Cassandra Peterson is one of my favorite comedy actresses. Cassandra, if you read this, know that you are the best and my heart will be with you. You can rely on me. What can I more add? This is cool and classical movie! What can one say about Elvira that hasn't already been said in the world's press? The classic comedienne that IS Elvira delivers in her first full-length big budget comedy masterpiece.

From the very first movie frame thingy, Elvira packs an acting punch that clearly says Film Great....eat your heart out, Bette Davis! See a forlorn Elvira, see an excitable Elvira, see a jealous Elvira, see a murderous Elvira. You can do nothing but marvel at her acting prowess!

At the heart of this comedy masterpiece is Elvira's desire for Las Vegas show stardom. Despite putting "the boob back in the boobtube" as a horror hostess (with the mostest), Elvira finds the small screen constrictive emotionally....and PHYSICALLY! Nuff said, she packs up her kitbag and heads East....a hotdog in one hand and a letter from her Aunt's lawyer outlining her inheritance 'windfall' in the other.

I've seen this movie so many times, I can almost recite it verbatim....(verbatim would just be showing off)!

Grab a copy, laugh yourself silly, learn the lines....

Why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar for this role is beyond me. elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out! There are two things that I like about Elvira, and they're both bigger than she is and she keeps them covered up: her wit and her talent. A movie is the best thing to show off how funny she can be or how she commands attention. Looking like a combined clone of Morticia Adams and Anna Nicole Smith, she inherits a distant relative's estate only to discover that she is really the heiress of the occult. The comedy in this movie is the best thing about it, but it could have been a lot more scary and chilling. It's mostly a campy fare with as many bad horror movie references in it such as the rioting mob or the fleeing heroine who trips and stumbles on her heels. My favorite part is when she uses her marvelous endowments to break the chains keeping her locked in the cemetary. The ending is sappingly sweet as if it were written by the Bradys, but the Las Vegas act at the end seems too grandiose for this type of movie. This film is fun, if your a person who likes a good campy feature film every now and then. By no means is this movie fine cinema, but if you dont take things too seriously, and can laugh at yourself once in a while, Elvira is a good frownbuster. when my sister said this movie was gonna be good i had second thoughts but i watched it and it was actually funny. basically the movie is made of a weird girl who goes to a small town where no one likes her and she just wants to go there and get the reading of her aunts will don so she can go. but its not all that easy. In this movie you will come across hilarious humor, a witch, a book of spells/recopies, a mentally challenged uncle and a dog. You will understand the meaning of the word freak a after anyways i hope you run right out and try to find this really old movie. hope you like it in total i will have to give it a 0.... no I'm totally joking ill give it a 9 hope you understand that you will laugh, you will scream and you may just be offended.

love yours truly: Dakota you can email me at dakota_loves_it@hot mail.com if you wanna I suck at gratuitous Boob references, so i'm just going to write a plainly flat (no pun intended) review. I love Elvira, not in a "I'm-going-to-shoot-the-pres-just-to-impress-jodi-foster-fanatical" way, But suffice to say I think she rocks. The movie is played like a 50's horror film only alot more fun, look for the "Leasurely stroking of the ankle" reference to know what I mean. what relay shines through in the movie is Elvira's (or should that be cassandras) absolute charm. i first saw this movie at the tender age of 8, and have seen it contless times since.. I realy should get around to buying a copy, the videostore version is looking a little worse for the wear. If any other fans of the movie want to e-mail me about it feel free.

p.s another great performance from Edie McClurg (chastedy pariah) an actress who never gets the attention she deserves. Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10 Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm – and respect from the fans – lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their "early" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song "Mistress of the Dark" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.

And in 1988, after films like "Fright Night" and "TerrorVision" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).

When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.

It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the "Naked Gun" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point ("Killer Party", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly ("Saturday the 14th"). Although "Elvira" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.

I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... "Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel"! But if you haven't seen "Atomic Cyborg", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better. To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.

I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.

They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style.

The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra.

This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night. The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.

Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints. I wasn't expecting much, and, to be honest, I didn't like this film the first time around but watching it again and I realised that it's kinda cool. Sure, it's a one joke film but it's a funny gag.

Someone posted that it could be better written and it could be. I think this film had the potential to be a over-the-top My Cousin Vinny. But with a horror host instead of a lawyer. Sadly it's a wasted opportunity. With just a bit more writing it could be a classic. The kids are underused there's no reason why they should latch on to Elvira. Apart from the obvious reasons. It would have been great to see their relationship flourish. I know it's a comedy but it's little differences that separate the good films from the brilliant.

Elvira herself is always fun and engaging. Not to mention flirty. Every time she smiles you will too. It's hard to knock a film when the main character is so charming. And it really is her charm, don't let her looks fool you into thinking that she's some sort of tart. Well she is. But she's a nice one. The sort of person you'd let look after your kids. Wouldn't let her cook for them, though...

I'd recommend giving it a go.

Just don't expect too much.

She's more than just a great set of boobs. She's also an incredible pair of legs. Elvira, Mistress of The Dark, is a fun, camp horror comedy, in which the fourth wall is broken a couple of times and the jokes often stay below the navel. And the breasts of Cassandra Peterson become a character of their own.

Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) is stacked horror show hostess, who learns, that she has inherited her aunt Morgana. So she goes to a little town of Fallwell, which is ruled by the most horrendous monster ever to embrace the earth: Morality comity. Elviras boobacious appearance is, of course, too much for the prunes, but the kids of the town get a kick out of her different kind of approach on life. And of course there is even more sinister evil, her uncle Vincent (William Morgan Sheppard), who is after Elvira's mothers book of spells. See, Elvira actually is a real witch, she just doesn't know it. Yet.

For what it is, Elvira is quite funny film, even though the script does leave a lot of room for improvement. Most laughs come from the difference between Elvira and the people of good morals, but there are a couple of good visual gags as well. Over all direction is okay, but it never rises to be anything more than that. In all, a good, intentionally campy, comedy. If you like this kind of thing, that is. Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -

The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -

This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ---- Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988): Cassandra Peterson, Daniel Greene, William Morgan Sheppard, Susan Kellerman, Edie McClug, Jeff Conaway, Phil Rubenstein, Larry Flash Jenkins, Tress MacNeille, Damita Jo Freeman, Mario Celario, William Dance, Lee McLaughlin, Charles Woolf, Sharon Hays, Bill Cable, Joseph Arias, Scott Morris, Ira Heiden, Frank Collison, Lynne Marie Stewart, Marie Sullivan, Jack Fletcher, Robert Benedetti, Kate Brown, Hugh Gillin, Eve Smith, Raleigh Bond, Tony Burrier, Alan Dewames, Timm Hill, Read Scot, James Hogan, Derek Givens...Director James Signorelli...Screenplay Sam Egan, John Paragon.

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark was an 80's TV icon who had her own late night show on cable. She hosted and presented classic American horror films, many of them campy, while providing her own quips and humorous remarks. Actress Cassandra Peterson has to this date ridden on that success. In 1988, her first film was released. Playing herself, she's stuck hosting monster movie shows but longs for her own show in Las Vegas and make big money. Her agent Manny proves a disappointment. It's not long before she inherits a mansion from a deceased relative, a pet dog and a book of recipes. She comes to claim her inheritance in a small Nevada town - she was on her way to Vegas and became lost - and soon stirs things up in the sedate community. Outspoken conservative town council woman Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) soon sees her as a threat to the decency and values of the small town. Her voluptuous figure and winning personality soon draws the youth of the town. She falls for Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) the town handyman/carpenter, but before any real relationship can bloom, she finds herself in deep trouble. Vincent Talbot (William Morgan Sheppard) an eerie older man who is also set to inherit part of the fortune of Elvira's relative is in fact an age-old sorcerer who has a personal vendetta against Elvira's aunt and Elvira herself. He is aware that the so-called "recipe book" is actually a book of powerful magic, a power he wishes to claim for himself. He schemes to bring down Elvira by having the town burn her at the stake. How will Elvira get out of this one ? The movie was no real success at the box office, drawing a crowd of mostly young audiences familiar with the Elvira show on cable. Truth be told, this is a funny and feel-good movie. The script is chalk full of all kinds of jokes, some bad, some good, lots of sexual innuendo, visual jokes and overall campiness i.e. the hilarious last scene in which Elvira has finally got her own strip show in Vegas. This film is a cult classic of sorts, catering to Elvira fans. You couldn't enjoy this film otherwise. It's also a look back at "pop" culture of the 80's. Elvira was as much an icon of the 80's as was Alf, Vicky the Robot, Hulk Hogan, Mr. T and Madonna. Cassandra Peterson originally created Elvira as the television hostess of late-night horror films, and when the character proved unexpectedly popular she suddenly found herself doing everything from beer commercials to spots on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. She reached the peak of her popularity in the late 1980s, and the film ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK was the result.

The plot is flyweight. Television horror film hostess Elvira dreams of success in Las Vegas. When her great aunt dies, she travels to New England in hopes that the estate will provide enough money to back a stage show; she is disappointed to find she has inherited a rundown house, a poodle, and an old book. It happens that the town is puritanical beyond all description, and she provokes righteous indignation everywhere she goes. It also happens that her great uncle is secretly an evil warlock and very intent on laying hands on "the old book." Throw in a few teenagers, a stud muffin, and a hateful woman with falsies and there you go.

No one would accuse it of being a cinematic masterpiece, and it does drag now and then. But Cassandra Peterson demonstrates tremendous flair from start to finish: squirmy, sexy, and mixing lowbrow humor with flashes of sharp comedy, she dances through the film like a ringmaster in a circus of corny and often self-mocking jokes. From a FLASHDANCE disaster to witchcraft craziness, she is never less than wildly entertaining. It's a tremendous amount of fun, and the film's conclusion even manages to generate considerable suspense. Will Elvira best her evil uncle and save the day? Well, I don't want to give anything away, so let's just say you'll have a lot of fun finding out.

DVD quality is okay and there's little in the way of bonus material, but if you're in the mood for something silly this one is sure to answer the urge. And if you've never seen tassle-twirling, you're in for a treat. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal "Elvira's Haunted Hills" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience! Then you must see this film, to understand the reality. Having read the book, Ms. Duke is now an advocate for those afflicted with bipolar disorder; formerly labeled manic-depression.

It is hard to believe that in this day and age, people still critique others with emotional problems, or those who seek psychiatric help. Regressive and discriminatory thinking still exists, and this is unfortunate.

In this film, the audience sees the pain and suffering Ms. Duke had been through, especially as a child. Many of us may remember her from the teenage "Patty Duke Show". She was a household name in America by age 15.

You learn of her exploitation by the Ross'(well played by Howard Hesseman). As she was growing up in the 1950's, the stigma was in full-force. However, we see as she advances in her career, yet the illness becomes worse. She goes through bouts of substance abuse and promiscuity; even marries someone whom she divorces the next week; and she has several conflicts and tantrums with her children and elderly mother. All these problem occurred before she received adequate therapy, and medication.

A recent survey released by NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) recorded that a majority of US adults fail to recognize most of the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder. It also was released that one in five respondents to the poll believed that people could CONTROL their illness without medication if they wanted to. (bp Magazine, Winter 2006) If you watch this film, you will learn the true story of a talented woman who could not "pull herself up by her bootstraps" and "get well" until she was educated about her disorder, and received proper treatment. Thank you, Ms. Duke, for being an advocate against ignorance and prejudice. I think it took a lot of guts for her to come forward like that. It is unfortunate that when a celebrity suffers that is what helps people most. But, in her case, what she did was remarkable. I have been in the mental health field for five years and I think it is great that mental illness is not a terrible word anymore and I believe she helped. I always thought she was great and always will. I am glad that she wrote this book and that the movie was made. She is a remarkable lady and I hope she continues to act. She has been through a lot and has faced it. I would really love to see her work more with children, especially child actors. Her ordeal should not have happened and I think she would be wonderful as a mentor to young people. The movie was so moving to me that I was very touched. Suffering a TBI which brought the onset of my disorder and having PTSD, it is good to know that someone has the courage enough to display her life as she did. I believe it helped this nation and people in general realize that there are others like them and that there is help. Thank you Ms. Duke, or Anna, which ever you prefer. This is such a great movie "Call Me Anna" because it shows how a person has suffered for so long without knowing what was wrong with her. For Patty Duke to come out in the publics eye and tell her story is an inspiration to those who suffer from this disease. I have a lot of respect for her as a person. The only thing I don't like is I can't get it on tape, I've tried looking for it but with no success. Any one know how to get it? Ms Patty Duke's story about her life and struggles with manic depression were just like my life struggles. I saw myself acting out just like her. I was so amazed at the similarities of our lives to include the sexual abuse that we both endured as children.

I saw the movie when it first premiered in 1990 and I have loved this movie so much. Anyone who has struggled with manic depression could get so much from this movie. Never mind about if it showed her awards or what they were for. That is not the issue here. The issue is how Ms Duke had an illness and fought to survive it and overcame. Ms. Duke has much to be proud of in her accomplishments with her struggles for survival of a disease that often leaves many victims without hope.

Unless a person has struggled with this illness personally they don't know the hell they have to live with. The movie to me was a success because it showed the real issues and how a person who is depressed and manic acts. It was so real...so, so, real. It was like watching myself up there on screen.

I wish I could thank Ms. Patty Duke in person for having the courage to let the public know about her illness. Bocka Long before Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins would shake the world of the Christian subculture (and make millions in the process) with the LEFT BEHIND books, MARK IV Pictures, the Christian film distribution company of the Billy Graham evangelistic association, gave us this masterwork. What I love most about this genre is its incredible attention to detail, sitting in a living room. Instead of taking us to the dramatic scenes of this "post-rapture" tribulation, we sit in the living room, hearing about it on the news because the filmmakers can't afford to show it. The film's premise is grounded in Pre-Millenial, pre-Tribulation eschatalogy, believing that Christ comes once for the secret taking of the true church, and then comes again at the end of the seven years of hell on earth. What used to terrify me in junior high now makes me laugh. The intriguing adventures of Patty and her journey throughout the tribulation (and two of the film's three sequels) tells her remarkable story of unbelief and ultimately damnation. I hate to admit it, but I still thoroughly enjoy watching this. It even has the SAME EXACT score of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think I'm the only person in history to make that observation. Now, for all of the cinematographical buffs out there, this film may not rank high on your list of things to see. But if you know anything about plot development, profound truth, and the intentions that this film (the series) had, you'd understand my p.o.v.

Granted, the specifics of the film are renderings of the writer, who cannot be expected to know what will happen in the end. But the film is biblically accurate and justifiably "scares" viewers into thinking about what may be. I'm a Christian, not due to this movie, but due to my personal decision to accept Jesus as my Savior. The film and potential that something similar to the circumstances portrayed therein can remarkably scare someone into thinking about their actions and decisions. It's not some cheap attempt to scare people into believing in God, but rather, a means to get your attention.

As a Christian, I know I'll not be left behind, and thanks to movies like this, I can look beyond the superficialities of entertainment, acting, and film budgeting to appreciate the depth that the film has to offer. This is a movie you shouldn't not only see, but feel with your heart and soul. The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends. I remember seeing this movie a long time ago, back then even though it didn't have any special effects, the acting was really good. And it still has the same message for today, even though the technology has changed, maybe they should make a remake of this movie, it would be interesting to see a remake. I also enjoyed the music from the movie as well, Larry Norman was a really good songwriter during that time period, although now most Christian music is now worship and praise music. I was always curious to know what ever happened to Patty after the series ended? Did she go on to make more movies, did she get eventually get married and raise a family? I would like to have an update. To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention! Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything... A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.

THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.

CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.

The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.

As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church. This is a great movie. Some will disagree with me but , if you know anything about the bible you know it is. I think everyone should see it!! I agree a new updated version like be nice but the message is still right on. If you can see this movie. Is not a "scare the hell of you movie",it is truthful with the Bible. I think the U. N. will play a major role in the world government to come. The last days are lining up with the Bible. Look at what has happened with the chip for dogs and cats that now has come to light to protect on children from being kidnapped. It's the size of a grain of rice. This I feel is the fore runner of the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible. Without the mark you can't sell or buy, with this chip that small in the future there is no telling how much info can be put on it. A Thief in the Night has got to be the best out of all the end times thrillers. I have no clue what people are complaining about what people are whining about when they say that these movies scared them into accepting God. They just needed to find an excuse and blamed A Thief In The Night. Do not listen! These movies do not only tell of one of the many possibilities of the tribulation, but they're also fun to watch in their simplicity. They are in fact low-budget and that is a little obvious, but not all too obvious upon first viewing. I had no clue because I really assumed that a lot of movies like these made in the 70's included low-budgets all the time.

A Thief in the night tells the story of young and cynical Patty Myers who lives for what comes her way, until her husband, and nearly all her friends disappear in the prophetic rapture everyone warned her about. At first, the movie isn't all based around her until the rapture happens. What it leads up to are showing that everyone else around her are becoming christians and believing in Christ, which is usually what happens to a lot of people. Everyone around them they once knew and loved will be gone forever, and the one who is left behind is the one who blames everyone but themselves. No one can ever blame themselves because they're always right.

Just like these whiners who complain about the movie. These people must be full grown adults. I'm thirteen, and you don't see me whining, especially since I was exactly like Patty before I re-accepted Christ into my heart. For those who haven't seen it, if you want a little bit of everything tossed into a Christian movie instead of stereo-typical everyone else is wrong movies, than you'll enjoy A Thief In The Night. Don't knock it before you try it. Something new is always good. Trust your own instincts. This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.

When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week.

If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer.

If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now. I've read most of the comments on this movie. I have seen this movie(and the whole prophecy series) many times with family members of all ages, we all enjoyed and it just made us meditate on what we already knew from reading and studying the bible about the rapture and end times. No one got scared or traumatized like I have read on some posts. The movie is just based on biblical facts. I have seen a lot of end time movies "Tribulation", "Armagedon" and so on and by far this one is one of the best in presenting bible truths. It may not have a lot of great special effects like todays movies but I believe it is a good witnessing tool. This movie and its prophecy series can be seen free at this website higherpraise.com, and judge for yourself. Blessings to all. I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school. I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them. This Film was really eye-opening. I have seen this film several times. First, when I was four and I actually remembered it and then when I was 12. The whole message that the director is conveying is for everyone to wake up and not make the mistake of leaving God out of our everyday lives or just Plain going the extra mile to insult him.

A great Movie for Non-believers and Believers alike! "A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered. This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure.

It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it.

The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic.

I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him.

Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.

I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!

xxx Enjoy! Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.

It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.

Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around.

But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money.

This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him. This movie is a remake of two movies that were a lot better. The last one, Heaven Can Wait, was great, I suggest you see that one. This one is not so great. The last third of the movie is not so bad and Chris Rock starts to show some of the comic fun that got him to where he is today. However, I don't know what happened to the first two parts of this movie. It plays like some really bad "B" movie where people sound like they are in some bad TV sit-com. The situations are forced and it is like they are just trying to get the story over so they can start the real movie. It all seems real fake and the editing is just bad. I don't know how they could release this movie like that. Anyway, the last part isn't to bad, so wait for the video and see it then. I'm not saying that just as a Chris Rock fan, I'm saying this as a person who had low expectations going in to this movie and was proved wrong. The first flaw was it's everything-works-out ending that everybody saw coming. Flaw number two was I found that the chemistry between Regina King and Chris Rock seemed fake. Finally the acting in this movie was sub-par, with the best actor being Regina King and the worst being Mark Addy. but I saw past that flaw and saw a solid comedy. In a heads-up scenario, watch heaven can wait instead, it's better. So for all you Chris Rock fans out there, WATCH THIS MOVIE, you'll enjoy out. He has some good stand-up in this movie.

Overall: 7 out of 10 Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...

Still a good 7/10 for me. This movie i have been dying to see. Well it took till now to decide to actually rent it. It was completely worth it. This movie made me laugh from the beginning to the end. Chris Rock is funny no matter which movie he is in. However, this should come real close to being his greatest. If ur lookin for a family movie, ie pre-teens and up then this is one u can't pass over. Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.

As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.

There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.

Well to the actual plot of the film.

Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie! Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending. My fondness for Chris Rock varies with his movies,I hated him after Lethal Weapon 4,but I hated everyone in that movie after it.I like him when he is himself and not holding back,like in Dogma. Well this is his best yet,wasn't expecting this to be that good.Laughed my arse off the whole time. Chris Rock delivers a sweet wonderful story backed by some of the funniest comedy I've seen in quite some time. Loved it. THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny I found this movie really funny because you have a youthful black comedian (Chris Rock) who dies and is sent back to earth in a mid-50's white mans body. He doesn't realize that his behavior should change and continues to act as he had before. He listens to rap music, sings along, and plays the stereotypical part of an urban black man. The real humor in this movie was watching the trouble that this behavior gets him into with the black community. After hitting the viewers with three very different episodes right off the bat, Serling continued to go about introducing viewers to 'The Twilight Zone' in a very strange way by scheduling one the series biggest growers as the fourth episode. 'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' is one of the more understated episodes, focusing on an aging movie star's inability to cope with the changing times and only introducing a supernatural element in the closing minutes. Because of this approach, the episode is under whelming at first but subsequent viewings reveal it to be a thoroughly classy and beautifully written short story.

Both the leads, Ida Lupino as Barbara Jean Trent and Martin Balsam as her frustrated but caring agent, shine in their performances. The main problem with the episode is that the supposedly 25 year old footage of the actress is unconvincing. Lupino looks identical when playing the young Trent as she does when playing the middle aged Trent and this diminishes the tragedy of the situation significantly. Fortunately, Lupino acts her socks off in convincing us of her desperation to return to the past. It's a situation most can sympathise with, and yet Trent is far from a sympathetic character. She is a prima-donna who gives little thought to the feelings of those around her, such as the disastrously withered co-star who she tactlessly belittles because he reminds her of just how long ago her glory days were. It is somewhat surprising, then, that she is rewarded with a happy ending. It is clear what is going to happen from the moment we see the huge projection screen and it is cleverly pre-empted in the opening moments when Trent scares her maid by stepping out from behind the screen. What is not clear at the beginning, however, is whether being sucked into the projector will prove a reward or a harsh lesson in appreciating what we have and living in the moment. As it turns out, Trent is allowed to return to the past she longed for, a testament to how strong the wishful thinking of humans can be.

'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' gets better with each viewing. The top notch writing and acting combine to create a short play of enormous power which reflects the nature of humans to long for the past, even though we can never return. Except in the Twilight Zone. I really enjoyed this episode, which was a great surprise given the bad reputation it seems to have acquired. From a pure writing perspective, 'The 16mm shrine' is an absolute treat, with fantastic dialogue and character analysis, typical of Sterling. In particular I really enjoyed the philosophical indulgences of the episode, tackling themes of existence and reality, whilst balancing it with more psychological topics such as denial, pride, and desire. 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine' is an episode about how these ideas based around an unwillingness to accept change can seemingly alienate a person from the rest of the ever-changing world. It is also a fantastic example of cerebral Twilight Zone; one that explores the mind rather than the world outside it. These elements all come together very nicely to create a thought provoking and incredibly interesting 25 minutes.

The episode is not without its faults however, which mainly lay in Lupino and Leisen shoes. Ironically, I felt Lupino was unconvincing throughout, with only a few scenes that could count as memorable. This of course being an absolute shame considering how well Sterling had written her character. Furthermore Leisen didn't seem to know what to do with most of his characters, sometimes having them stand around on set doing next to nothing -which probably explains why accepted the poor performances from Lupino half the time-. Thankfully Balsam does a good job of covering up a lot of weak spots, helping redeem the show from an acting perspective at least.

As I said previously however, if you're a fan of classic film and cerebral science fiction, this shouldn't be as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. In addition to the writing that I mentioned above, the episode also features some fantastic photography (it still amazes me that the show looks this good nearly fifty years later!) and decent enough set-design. Overall 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine" is a great episode and above all is certainly one to make you think. There's a theory of time that posits that all the moments that ever existed and will exist, actually exist right now. It's a bit too much to wrap your head around, but perhaps a bit of a comfort to those who wish they could go back to a simpler time and place. For Barbara Jean Trenton (Ida Lupino), that time was twenty five years earlier, the mid 1930's when her youth and glamor held the greatest promise. For my part, if I could travel through time, it would be back to the 1950's when I grew up. Maybe to a place like Willoughby, but that's another episode.

One thing that wouldn't be so special about 1959 would involve dealing with all that clunky machinery just to watch an episode of "The Twilight Zone". How many reels do you think it would take to catalog the entire series, and then find a particular story you wanted to watch? I guess you have to consider the trade offs, convenience versus simplicity, having it right now or taking the time to spool it up to the exact spot where the story begins. Popping in a CD has it's advantages.

I'm a little surprised that Rod Serling would pen a story that so closely resembled "Sunset Boulevard". Ida Lupino's character mirror imaged Norma Desmond just a bit too closely to be considered an original concept. Martin Balsam portrays very much a similar character to Erich von Stroheim, the husband turned butler who's loyalty is unquestioned. Where the story diverges has to do with the way Danny (Balsam) and Sall (Ted de Corsia) challenge Barbara Jean to get with reality and clear the cobwebs that paralyze her existence.

Fortunately for us viewers, Ida Lupino had no such reservations about taking parts that were 'not big, but a nice showcase'. It's a real treat to watch any episode of "The Twilight Zone" and get to see who pops up from days gone by. Sometimes you get a two-fer, like you have here with Lupino and Balsam, celebrities who sometimes made their mark before the series began, and sometimes after. Combined with the stories that the program produced, it's not surprising that they still manage to entertain so well today. Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh. OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.

Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.

Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb. clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula." Clara Bow (Hula Calhoun) is daughter of plantation owner Albert Gran (Bill Calhoun), who is mainly interested in playing cards and boozing with friends. She's interested in riding in the countryside until engineer Clive Brook (Anthony Haldane) shows up to build a dam. One of her father's friends Arlette Marchal (Mrs. Bane) then competes for his attentions. His wife Maude Truax (Margaret Haldane) shows up for the contrived finale.

Lots of 'pre-code' elements like nude bathing.

Wonderful location shooting in Hawaii. I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.

Highly recommended series, i want more!! If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!

The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this.

The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.

If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike. I always follow the Dakar, so when my husband bought Charlie's 'Race to Dakar' DVD home I couldn't wait to watch it! Of course we'd seen the broadcast of the race when the actual race was on, but that never gives the background and specific teams.

If you watched Long Way Round then you won't be surprised by the language which frankly I find more amusing than offensive.

I think the only thing that annoyed me about the DVD was Charlie's hair, but he had it styled before Dakar so my feminine need for neatness was assuaged; tho' I could have lived without the 'flame' undies lol As with LWR, the preparation was every bit as interesting as the race itself. I nearly cried when Charlie broke his hand, and winced at every bruise he sustained while training....and of course the death of Andy Caldicott...that was an appalling tragedy, but then every year there's something.

Russ drives me nuts, although his attitude has improved a thousand times from the argumentative cynic he was in LWR. It's great to see him get along so well now with Charlie.

What I learned from this odyssey was - 1. never let Scorpion prepare your vehicle for ANYTHING! - they had months to prepare the X5, and still the day before the team left for Lisbon, Scorpion had only done half of things that needed to be done, and the vehicle was a pain throughout the whole race; 2. the Dakar organizers need to put a lot more work into their rider/driver retrieval plan - leaving Matt (and presumably a large number of other riders/drivers out to dry the way they did was nothing short of culpable negligence; 3. Charlie has an endearing enthusiasm for 'rough and tough' adventure but needs to toughen up a lot to really perform as he'd like; and finally, 4. Charlie and Ewan are planning another of these epos called the Long Way Down in 2007, and I can't wait to get my hands on it! :D If you love bikes and/or genuinely nice blokes 'having a go', you have to watch this, I guarantee you love it. It's very entertaining.

In conclusion, to Simon Pavey - you sir are a hero, I was so impressed by the your 'quiet achiever' manner and the fact that you actually finished.....just incredible considering what an monumentally difficult race it is. And to Charlie, Matt and the rest of the team - full marks for pulling it off. To think that a relatively green team could have achieved so much is truly admirable. You're all wonderful. The planning episodes were a bit dull, but when they reached the desert it was quite fun to watch. The reason why I call it the most realistic reality show is because, much to my surprise,Charley fell out of the race relatively early. When his hands were sore, I expected the usual stress and then a miracle fix, but instead he actually quit the race. The most anxious moment of the show must've been when Max was stuck out in the desert with almost no water or food! The ending was great and I was very happy to see at least one of the team make it. Overall, not as great as the Long Way Round, but definitely an interesting watch, as one gets a peek into the most challenging race in the world. Having seen Charley Boorman in Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor, I was very interested to see how Charley would be in his own show. I thought Charley came across as a lovely guy who is very grounded and down to earth. Its nice to see that celebrities struggle with their weight and fitness, it just show's their human too! I don't know a lot about bikes, but this show gripped me right from the start. The preparation and organising for this event seems immense. The event itself seems very dangerous and I'm fascinated to see why Charley and everyone else is doing it and how far he gets. I love the pace of the show and the fast upbeat music. I can't believe he broke his collar bone, I really hope its not the end, I cant wait to see the next episode... Excellent pirate entertainment! It has all the good ingredients to keep one's attention -- an absorbing tale of intrigue, a fiery lady pirate named Spitfire Stevens (Maureen O'Hara) who's attracted to the irresistible Mr. Hawke (Errol Flynn) who is out on a secret mission of his own. They make a fine romantic pair onscreen -- sigh!

Anthony Quinn is the mean, bad pirate weaving his villainous web of divide and conquer. I noticed the very familiar face of Mildred Natwick playing a supporting role as Mrs. MacGregor, the protector of young Princess Patma (Alice Kelley).

There is beautifully filmed scenery of shorelines, ships, and the bay. Lots of action too of sword fighting clashes, ship battles, daring leaps of Errol Flynn (Robin Hood on board ship!). From the flaming redhead herself I once heard in an interview of Maureen O'Hara that she boasted great command of the bullwhip and could also outdo Flynn in sword fighting in those days but there'd be no need to put it to the test here.

Very enjoyable movie. "Against All Flags" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, "Against All Flags" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp. A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.

But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time. Being the prototype of the classical Errol Flynn adventure movie and having a good story as well as two more brilliant co-stars in Maureen O'Hara (what an exquisite beauty!) and Anthony Quinn, I can only recommend this movie to all those having even the slightest liking for romance and adventure.

Hollywood at its best! By 1945, and after a string of solid WWII propaganda pieces, Errol Flynn’s hold over U.S. box office had started to decline so, in spite of the increased burden of waning looks, he embarked on a series of films pertaining to that genre which had earlier made his name: the swashbuckler. The first of these was a good one actually – ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN (1948) – but it also proved to be his last big-budget Hollywood starring vehicle. The rest of his sword-wielding days were spent wandering all over Europe: in England for KIM (1950), THE MASTER OF BALLANTRAE (1953) and THE DARK AVENGER (1955), in France for ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN FABIAN (1951) and Italy for the aborted THE STORY OF WILLIAM TELL (1953) and the little-seen CROSSED SWORDS (1954). However, Hollywood did beckon him one last time to his old seafaring ways – albeit for a modestly-budgeted Universal picture rather than a Warner Brothers ‘A’ production to which he had been accustomed when at his peak…

Still, the glorious Technicolor cinematography leaps off the screen here and, while an older and flabbier Flynn may look like the pale shadow of his former self, his red-headed leading lady Maureen O’Hara has a field day as a tomboyish buccaneer leader who deep down craves romance and wants to be treated like a lady. Anthony Quinn was still a few years away from his larger-than-life starring vehicles, so here he is typically seen as the baddie – the pirate captain Roc Brasiliano, a role he attacks with gusto. Like THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH (1954) – a viewing of which preceded this one – AGAINST ALL FLAGS takes me back to my cherished childhood days of constant TV viewing when vintage Hollywood movies were the order of the day on both the local and neighboring Italian channels.

For all I know, this might well have been the very first pirate movie I’ve ever seen and I cringe at the thought of today’s generation of youngsters supposedly believing that the grossly overblown PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy is what buccaneering is all about! As I said earlier, AGAINST ALL FLAGS might not be the finest pirate yarn ever brought to the screen but it’s a solid example of this prolific genre all the same. Nowadays, the amorous persistence of the child-like Indian princess (Alice Kelley) towards her pirate captor Flynn may strike one as being awfully silly but the rest of it – despite clearly not scaling the heights of THE SEA HAWK (1940) and THE BLACK SWAN (1942), to mention the finest seafaring ventures of its respective stars – is briskly paced and reasonably engaging. Incidentally, the film would later go on to be remade as THE KING’S PIRATE (1967) with Doug McClure!

For what it’s worth, the unprecedented box office success of that unappetizing modern franchise is most probably what induced reluctant movie studios to dust off their catalogue swashbuckling titles and release them on DVD and, as a matter of fact, AGAINST ALL FLAGS itself was the one gem in a poorly-thought out “Pirates Of The Golden Age Movie Collection” set from Universal which also consisted of obscure dross like BUCCANEER’S GIRL (1950; with Yvonne De Carlo), DOULE CROSSBONES (1951; with Donald O’Connor) and YANKEE BUCCANEER (1952; with Jeff Chandler)! Value for money, perhaps but, so far, I have only acquired the Errol Flynn flick from other sources; even so, if the mood strikes me in future, I might wish to lay my hands on similar marine adventures like Edward Dmytyk’s MUTINY (1952), the afore-mentioned YANKEE BUCCANEER and PIRATES OF TORTUGA (1961). The Secret of Kells is a film I've been waiting for for years after seeing some early footage at the Cartoon Saloon in Kilkenny. I'm here to tell you now it's been worth the wait. The cartoons are heavily stylised but not annoyingly so as I'd feared. The whole film is a thing of beauty and great imagination, I particularly love the animated illuminated book where the little figures come to life on the page. The characterisation is superb, I love Brendan Gleeson's voice as the stern Abbot and I especially liked the voice of the sprite Aisling. The forest is a triumph, such a beautiful place. The story is well realised, a mix of fact and fantasy. and really draws the viewer in to cheer on Brendan in his quest for the perfect materials for the Book. I'm a lover of calligraphy and illumination anyway so the subject is close to my heart, but all the people I know who've seen this and are not fans of the craft agree that it's a lovely little film. I will definitely buy the DVD when it's released, and would like to say, well done Cartoon Saloon and all the people involved in this mammoth project. May there be many more. :) Coming back in here to say that I bought several copies of the DVD as soon as I could and gave them out at Christmas, everyone loves it! And I wish them all the luck in the world at the Oscars, such a joy to see this nominated. THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed... I would not have known about this film if not for its "surprise" Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature film. Thankfully, it came to pass that I was able to watch this animated little treasure.

The story is about the child Brendan who was the nephew of the imposing and overprotective Abbot of the township of Kells. The main pre-occupation of the Abbot is to build a wall to protect Kells from the attacking Vikings. One day, Aiden, the renowned illustrator from Iona, sought refuge with them. Aiden opens Brendan's eyes to the art of illustration and the lure of the outside world. Along the way, Brendan befriended the white forest sprite Aisling, as he sought to recover an ancient crystal invaluable to the meticulous art of book illustration.

"The Secret of Kells" is unlike most of the animation released these days. It is a throwback of sorts as the illustrations are done in stark geometric lines and design without much care for realism, as much as symbolism. The movements of these lines are reminiscent of the simplistic yet fluid animation style used at the beginning sequence of "Kung Fu Panda." However, it is the magnificent use of color that is the main source of wonderment for the audience. The reds used in the Viking invasion sequence is unforgettably haunting.

Try to catch this quiet gem of a film. It is a welcome respite from all the senseless bombast of current animated fare such as "Monsters vs. Aliens" and the like. The sparse Celtic musical score is effective in evoking the sense of fantasy that imbues the film. OK, the story might be a little shallow and the ending a bit wanting. I would have liked to know more about the Book that Brendan and Aiden was working on. But the clear star of this film is clearly its amazing stylized artwork, said to be based on the artwork in the real Book of Kells. THE SECRET OF KELLS is an astonishing first animated feature which will dazzle your eye and move your heart. The shortcomings of the film's limited budget and sometimes limited animation are more than compensated for by the visual poetry of the story of young Brendan's heroic quest to become a master illuminator during the dark ages. Historically this was in the late 8th century, when the centers of Irish learning were over-run by the Vikings. The Vikings appear here as brute antagonists, the equivalent on the North Seas of the plundering Huns and Mongols further East. The film's narrative--- which functions more as a parable--- centers around the conflict between Brendan, who seeks to create beauty in his illuminations during a time of encroaching darkness, and his stern Uncle the Abbot-- who seeks to protect the town of Kells and his nephew with a looming wall as barrier against the Norsemen. The Abbot disregards the value of Brendan's art in his quest for security. This is the movie's outer conflict. Brendan's inner conflict is to find the hidden eye of creative illumination which will allow him to complete the most difficult painting in the Book of Kells. This eye is guarded by a Dragon Ouroboros, who destroys from within those not suited to this quest as surely as the Vikings will kill from without (That's as much of the story as I'll divulge!)

What I really like about this film is its creators' imaginative understanding of some of the greatest art work to survive in the West from 1200 years ago. The characters are stylized in flat abstract shapes defined by line just as in the original Book of Kells. (Particularly noteworthy is monk Aidan's pet cat, defined in few lines, yet purely--- and even magically metamorphically feline.) The range of emotion which Brendan and the other animated characters convey given their economy of abstract design is a tribute to the excellent artistry of the director and his animators. The decorative borders on the edge of the picture change to complement the dramatic impact of a given scene, and this characteristic of illuminations from the dark ages is brought to wondrous animated life in THE SECRET OF KELLS. Of course, historical dramas usually tell us more about our own times than the times which these dramas endeavor to depict. However, by introducing archetypal elements into this story, the writers and director of THE SECRET OF KELLS convey a numinous sense of lived-life from that far-off time in Ireland which feels psychologically true, however much the script might stray from pedantic historical fact. (The United Nations' band of illuminators who appear as a rogues' club of artists in The SECRET OF KELLS aren't historically probable, but they're all well-designed, individuated characters who do much to convey the universal appeal of this quintessentially Irish story.) Animation has always seemed the best vehicle to me to better help us understand the visual art of different times and cultures. The magnificent art direction of this movie clearly derives from its historical visual source, but has also been cleverly adapted to the demands of animated storytelling; if animation had existed in the Dark Ages, the SECRET OF KELLS is what it would look like! Finally, Brendan's hero's quest in this film is the artist's perennial quest to convey the spirit of beauty, life and inspiration. (Without being preachy or even particularly Christian, this movie affirms Jesus' dictum that "Man does not live by bread alone." ) In my estimation the most inspired movie about the creative process of visual artists is Andrei Tarkovsky's ANDREI RUBLEV, a film about the great Russian icon painter of the 15th century. The SECRET OF KELLS expresses much the same sense of mystery and exhilaration about the artist's visual quest and creative process. It's certainly not as profound as ANDREI RUBLEV, but--- heck--- its a cartoon! (And one which will appeal to young and old alike.) I think this movie will hold up well to repeated viewing: in its own modest life-affirming way, this stylized SECRET OF KELLS is a classic. The Secret of Kells is an independent, animated feature that gives us one of the fabled stories surrounding the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript from the Middle Ages featuring the four Gospels of the New Testament. I didn't know that this book actually exists, but knowing it now makes my interpretation and analysis much a lot easier. There are a few stories and ideas floating around about how the book came to be, who wrote it, and how it has survived over 1,000 years. This is one of them.

We are introduced to Brendan, an orphan who lives at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland with his uncle, Abbot Cellach (voiced by Brendan Gleeson). Abbot Cellach is constructing a massive wall around the abbey to protect the villagers and monks. Brendan is not fond of the wall and neither are the other monks. They are more focused on reading and writing, something Abbot Cellach does not have time for anymore. He fears the "Northmen," those who plunder and leave towns and villages empty and burnt to the ground.

One day a traveler comes from the island of Iona near Scotland. It is Brother Aidan, a very wise man who carries with him a special book that is not yet finished. Abbot Cellach grants him permission to stay and Brendan buddies up with him. Aidan has special plans for Brendan. First he needs ink for the book, but he requires specific berries. The only way to get them is to venture outside the walls and into the forest, an area off limits to Brendan. Seeing that he is the only chance for Aidan to continue his work, he decides to sneak out and return with the berries before his uncle notices his absence.

In the forest Brendan meets Ashley, the protector of the forest. She allows Brendan passage to the berries and along the way becomes akin to his company. She warns him of the looming danger in the dark and not to foil with it. There are things worse than Vikings out there. From there Brendan is met with more challenges with the book and the looming certainty of invasion.

I like the story a lot more now that I know what it is about. Knowing now what the Book of Kells is and what it contains, the animation makes perfect sense. I'm sure you have seen pictures or copies of old texts from hundreds of years ago, with frilly borders, colorful pictures, and extravagant patterns, creatures, and writings adorning the pages. Much like the opening frames of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. The animation here contains a lot of similar designs and patterns. It creates a very unique viewing experience where the story and the animation almost try to outdo each other.

I couldn't take my eyes off of the incredible detail. This is some of the finest 2D animation I have seen in years. It's vibrant, stimulating, and full of life. The characters are constantly surrounded by designs, doodles, and patterns in trees, on the walls, and in the air just floating around. It enhances the film.

The story is satisfactory, although I think the ending could have been strung out a little more. With a runtime of only 75 minutes I think there could have been something special in the final act. It doesn't give a lot of information nor does it allude to the significance of the book. We are reminded of it's importance but never fully understand. We are told that it gives hope, but never why or how. That was really the only lacking portion of the film. Otherwise I thought the story was interesting though completely outdone by the animation.

I guess that's okay to a certain degree. The animation can carry a film so far before it falls short. The story lacks a few parts, but it is an interesting take on a fascinating piece of history. I would recommend looking up briefly the Book of Kells just to get an idea of what myself and this film are talking about. I think it will help your viewing experience a lot more. This a very impressive and beautifully illustrated film that should definitely not be missed. The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.

The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book which—legend has it—can turn dark into light.

See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html While watching this movie I was frustrated and distracted and by the end, I wanted to give the movie a solid 4 or 5. I thought the animation was random and all over the place and there was too much going on. Even my A.D.D couldn't keep up. It felt like a slight acid trip. Everything looked flat, there was no dimension to anything. There were so many shapes, lines and patterns. I really wanted to stop the movie mid-way and smash my burned copy of this movie. But after I finish watching it, I went online to read up on the movie and I should have done a little research into this movie before watching.

The Secret of Kells is loosely based on the true story about the original Book of Kells. A small boy, Brendan, is given the task of penning new pages in what is set to be the greatest book ever written. This book will contain information that will help "change darkness into light." Brendan lives in the village of Kells behind huge stone walls. Taking place in the 8th century, Brendan's uncle, the Abbot of Kells, is trying to build the wall to keep the Vikings out. Brendan's uncle insist he help complete the wall, but a traveler and keeper of "the book" secretly trains Brendan to hone in on his illustration skills, and convinces him to complete "the book" and carry out it's word.

The entire time I watched the movie I thought I was missing something because I didn't really understand what was going on. I figured I was just missing a piece of Irish history. A simple Google search taught me all I needed to know about the original Book of Kells. After reading many articles, my opinion of the movie greatly changed.

The Book of Kells is a copied version of the first few books of the New Testament transcribed into Latin by Gaelic monks in Ireland in the 8th century. Along with it's paleographic and insular script, the book is also beautifully illustrated in insular art, a type of early art form know for it's intricacy, complexity, and miniature illustrations. Much of the art in the Book of Kells is depicted as lots of art was at the time, flat and dimensionality challenged with no perspective. But what makes the Book of Kells stand out from other early pieces of art is it's use of many colors.

The Secret of Kells is very colorful. I originally thought the animation was flat and boring. It reminded me a lot of the cartoon Samurai Jack which also had a flat and "amine" look to it. Once I learned about the art styles of the Book of Kells, it's obvious that many of the styles from the book are mimicked in the movie. There are lines and swirls and various shapes that inhabit Brendan's mind. Whenever he goes into his imagination, circular shapes resembling the sun, cogs, clocks and wheels begin filling the screen. The edges of the screen become framed in decorated moving triangles or circles. Transitions are filled with color, and Celtic knots. From the trees to the floors, many things in this world are covered in shapes or patterns.

Clocking in at 70 minutes minus credits, The Secret of Kells is a fun little history lesson with a little adventure and silliness thrown in to keep people (maybe just children) interested. I think one has to generally be open-mined to The Secret of Kells as half art piece, half movie about history. Despite looking like it was animated with Adobe illustrator, It's a very nice looking movie. But based on the 20 films submitted for Oscar consideration, I don't think it was worth being nominated over Mary and Max.

ThatWasJunk.Blogspot.com A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.

Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.

The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.

The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.

The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.

Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed! This animated feature (a co-production between Ireland, Belgium and France) deals with what is surely one of the oddest subject ever for a movie: the creation in the 9th century of a famous illuminated manuscript, the book of Kells. In this fantastic retelling of that story, a prepubescent boy named Brendan, living in a monastery ruled by his uncle, a stern abbot who is worried preparing the defenses of the abbey from the impending attack by the feared vikings, must get into the forbidding surrounding forest to find the materials that a master illuminator named Aidan needs to finish the book. To do that task, in the forest he unexpectedly finds the help of a friendly fairy named Aisling.Gorgeously and delicately drawn by hand (there is some computer animation in a few key passages) in a manner that wants to resemble both medieval and traditional Celtic art, and with a very creative use of color and all sorts of geometric shapes, this film is relentlessly strange, but is a good strange, not of the off putting variety but of the eye opening sort. If one were to nitpick - beyond some anachronisms, like an African monk in 9th century Ireland – one would have to say that the blend of Catholic mysticism with Celtic paganism in this movie never really coalesce. And the comic relief is sometimes a bit too broad. That's why I cannot give them the highest ranking. But these are minor problems with an otherwise delightful and superbly imaginative film. First animated feature film from Ireland is also one of the best animated films I've ever seen. Its a real warts and all story that is unlike any of the other Oscar nominees and any other film from this year or any other year.

The plot of the film has the Abbot of Kells, a village in Ireland building a wall around his town to prevent the vikings from destroying the town should they ever attack. His nephew Brendon, is a young monk who does the best he can but meets the ire of his uncle by doing things in his own time. When a legendary illuminator Aidan arrives from a destroyed monastery, Brendon drifts towards him and his warm personality. Much to his uncle's chagrin Aiden offers to teach Brendon how to illuminate. In order to help Aidan work on his great book, saved from his destroyed monastery, Brendan goes out into the forest to get material to make ink. While outside the walls he meets Ashley, a forest spirit with whom he develops a friendship. Unfortunately the Abbot finds out that he went outside the wall and there is hell to pay. But lurking in the distance are the vikings...

Forget what you think you know about this film you're wrong. Even what I've explained doesn't do this film justice. Its a simple story with so much more going on. This is a wonderful movie about trying to find your way in the world, over coming demons and finding the beauty of the world outside of the walls. (As the film says the world is a dangerous place and doesn't cease to be even if you build walls).

Its a film that treats its audience as adults and deals with all of life including the darkness. There is death and destruction and joy and happiness. Its not sugar coated. People die. Monsters lurk. (it freaked out some of the kids), but in the end there is hope. Frankly the darkness in this film is completely unlike anything in any recent American film. Forget the "sadness" in a Pixar film, this is the real thing, and its refreshing and it shows how homogenized even Pixar has become.

Its a Genndy Tartakovsky-esquire (Samurai Jack) animated film who's look is actually based upon the the Celtic art of the period. Its a film that looks unlike any other. Here again is another film that takes the movie frame and uses it in every way possible. the Images are designed to fill the available space as much as possible. Often the film manipulated things to make it look like a page in the legendary Book of Kells. Its stunningly beautiful and best described as art come to life.

Director Tomm Moore has fashioned a film that is a masterpiece. I can't say more than that. Its a masterpiece. Its one of the best animated films I've ever run across. The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year. I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this. There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong. I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites. Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.

At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death... I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!

It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of. WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS, in my opinion, is a very touching and kind of heartbreaking drama about the consequences of being anorexic or bulimic. Anytime Lexi (Katie Wright) or Jennifer (Marley Shelton) threw up, I wanted to vomit myself. It's kind of hard to explain why. If you ask me, they should have been more cooperative about things. However, I did enjoy seeing them do things together as well as get lectured by their parents. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "If you ask me, WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS does indeed show you how being anorexic or bulimic can affect a person's body. " Now, in conclusion, I recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. You're in for some tears and a good time, so the next time it's on TV, kick back with a friend and watch it. A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..

This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.

I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it! What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it. There are people claiming this is another "bad language" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of "Cero y van cuatro" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider "Tamales de Chivo" the best one.

The movie is deeper than some "cabrón" and "pendejo" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously. I was lucky enough to catch this movie while volunteering at the Maryland Film Festival. I've always been a fan of classic horror films and especially the gimmicks of William Castle, so this was definitely a must-see for me.

This is about the life and work of William Castle, who in my opinion was an underrated director. True, he made some cheap budget schlocky horror films, but he added something to these films: real live theater gimmicks that you don't see anymore. For example, he had nurses in case someone had a heart attack at his movies and put vibrators at the bottoms of chairs in THE TINGLER.

This is truly a well-made documentary and brings this rather shadowed director into the light, and celebrated his contributions to horror cinema. It also paints Castle as a larger than life character, who was very well-liked and had a smile on his face.

Unlike most film documentaries that mostly show testaments from film historians, SPINE TINGLER! shows interviews mostly from his family members and directors who were influenced by his work, such as John Waters, John Landis, and Joe Dante. A must see for classic horror and sci-fi fans. This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In "13 Ghosts" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). "The Tingler" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. "Marabre" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great. As far as I can recall, Balanchine's alterations to Tchaikovsky's score are as follows:

1) The final section of the Grossvatertanz (a traditional tune played at the end of a party) is repeated several times to give the children a last dance before their scene is over.

2) A violin solo, written for but eliminated from Tchaikovsky's score for The Sleeping Beauty, is interpolated between the end of the party scene and the beginning of the transformation scene. Balanchine chose this music because of its melodic relationship to the music for the growing Christmas tree that occurs shortly thereafter.

3) The solo for the Sugar Plum Fairy's cavalier is eliminated.

It seems to me the accusation that Balanchine has somehow desecrated Tchaikovsky's great score is misplaced. Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing. Those who have given this production such a low rating probably have never seen the celebrated George Balanchine production live onstage, or are letting their disdain for the star casting of Macaulay Culkin influence their judgement. The Atlanta Ballet was fortunate enough, from the 1960's to the 1980's, to be the first ballet company authorized to stage this production other than the New York City Ballet, and I have seen it live onstage several times. I can assure readers that the film is a quite accurate rendering of this production, and that the use of a child with limited dancing abilities in the title role is not a cheap stunt dreamed up to showcase Culkin; it was Balanchine's idea to use a child in this role, just as it was his idea to use a child for the role of Marie. The "heavy" dancing is left to the adults in the story.

This is deliberately a stagebound film; in a way, it resembles Laurence Olivier's "Othello". Exactly as in that film, the sets of the stage production have been enlarged to the size of a movie soundstage, but not made any less artificial, and the ballet is straightforwardly photographed with discreet closeups, and without the distracting "music video" quick cuts featured in the 1986 overrated Maurice Sendak-Carroll Ballard version. There are only two false steps in this 1993 film. One is the addition of distracting and completely unnecessary sound effects (mouse squeaks, the children whispering "Ma-gic!" to Drosselmeyer,etc.). Those sound effects are never heard in any stage production of any "Nutcracker", and they have been put in as a cheap concession simply to appease unsophisticated audiences who may not relish the idea of watching a ballet on film.

The other false step is Macaulay Culkin's nutcracker make-up, which looks absolutely ridiculous. When he is on screen as the Nutcracker, rather than wearing a huge mask (as is always done when the Balanchine production is performed onstage), Culkin is actually made up as the toy - he wears what looks like a bald cap, as well as a white wig, whiskers, and a beard. He also has his face rouged up somewhat, and the worst aspect of his make-up is that it is still recognizably his face, amateurishly transformed in a manner similar to Ray Bolger, Jack Haley and Bert Lahr's makeups in "The Wizard of Oz" (that film's makeup results though, worked spectacularly, as this one's does not). And a comparison with Baryshnikov's nutcracker in *his* production shows how wonderfully creative Baryshnikov's nutcracker mask was - the "jaws" actually seemed to move whenever Baryshnikov tilted his head back.

The dancing itself in the Macaulay Culkin version is excellent, of course, except for Culkin himself, whose dancing, as I said, isn't meant to even be spectacular. (The Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier are the prominent dancing roles in Balanchine's production of "The Nutcracker".) The film's colors, though, could be a bit brighter since this IS a fantasy. The choreography is also brilliant, and the adaptation of it is so faithful as to include the sequence that features additional music from Tchaikovsky's ballet "The Sleeping Beauty" - as Marie sneaks downstairs, falls asleep on the sofa, and dreams that Drosselmeyer is "repairing" the broken Nutcracker (this sequence was, of course, never included in Tchaikovsky's original ballet---it is the only sequence in this production which features music from a work other than "The Nutcracker").

Those who have missed out on this film, or those who despise (or loathe it) should give it a chance, despite its two big drawbacks. It is far better than it seems when one first hears that Culkin is in it. This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.

Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.

If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.

But I have a few complaints.

Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK? This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one. I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises. Tea Leoni plays Nora Wilde, a serious photographer, who is going through a bad divorce. She wants her freedom but it comes at a cost. She wants to legitimate photography but is hired to work for the tabloids as a paparazzi. Her boss is played by the wonderful and divine Holland Taylor. The show was well-written most of the time. TEa's Nora was beginning to develop into quite a memorable character but the network just didn't support comedy and they still don't. Even when they brought in George Wendt from Cheers, they made unnecessary changes in casting and characters. The show was fine in the beginning and the audience was getting used to it but then the network botches it up like a bad plastic surgery. A truly adorable heroine who, at turns, is surprised and terrified by giblets, wrestles with mattresses, runs full-on into closed doors ... just a few of the moments that sparkle in my memory of 'The Naked Truth'. I LOVED what I caught of this show: enjoyably daft plots and some good supporting characters provided the setting for the diamond of the show - Tea Leoni as, 'Nora Wilde'; cute, clownish, and wonderfully accident-prone - How refreshing to see an actress who can clown - it's no wonder Hollyood doesn't seem to know how to cast her. But where-oh-WHERE are the DVD releases? The amount of (bleep) they release, it's incredible me that this little gem continues to remain buried. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.

Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow "photographers" on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.

A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never "made it". If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?! Pialat films people in extreme emotional situations, usually with several violent scenes. In La Gueule ouverte, he's dealing with the devastating effects on a woman's husband and son as she dies of cancer. In A nos amours, the teenage girl's sexual experimentation leads to violent confrontations with her family. Here we have a rather spoiled young woman who abandons her husband to take up with a sexy ex-con. Her motivation is a little cloudy, since Loulou is incapable of reading or discussing anything more challenging than TV shows; on the other hand, he's got a fabulous body (I wonder why Depardieu never made a sports movie to show off that physique--he would have been great as a rugby player).

The casting is impressive. Isabelle Huppert isn't allowed to give a bland, inexpressive performance (she has given many); Depardieu plays Loulou with all the dynamism and charm you could want--see the scene in the bar, where he's stabbed in the gut, runs away and seeks treatment, then soon restarts with Nelly. Guy Marchand, with those coal-black eyes and distressed look, plays Nelly's husband beautifully; it's a fine repeat of the pairing in Coup de foudre. 'Loulou' delights in the same way an expensive, high quality French wine does. It leaves you with a very fine aftertaste.

'Loulou's theme isn't new. The film doesn't carry an original plot either. Its colored picturing shows fine, but not extraordinary. Its setting is serious. Its elegant styling never and nowhere puts any weight on your mind.

Whatever one further may say about 'Loulou', it's beyond doubt that this very French film stands out for its excellent acting. The three leads convincingly reflect all numerous doubts and tenses sparkling between them, making the plot alive. Their acting fully invites you to participate, to make friends.

For those around at the time, 'Loulou' also provides an extra bonus: its perfectly captured mood of 1980. This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. Well-made but basically dreary low-life melodrama which, according to the accompanying interview with lead Isabelle Huppert, writer/director Pialat infused with a good deal of autobiographical detail; given the mainly unsympathetic characters involved, it doesn't do him any compliments - and he does seem to have been a troubled man, as Huppert also says that Pialat often disappeared for days on end during the shoot!

The acting is uniformly excellent, however; despite their relatively young age, Huppert and co-star Gerard Depardieu (as the title character!) were already at the forefront of modern French stars - a status which, with varying degrees of success, they both still hold to this day.

I have 3 more of Pialat's films in my "VHS To Watch" pile, albeit all in French without English Subtitles; due to this fact but also LOULOU'S oppressive realism - in spite of its undeniable artistic merit - I can't say that I'm in any particular hurry to check them out now... It was very heart-warming. As an expatriated french, I particularly enjoyed this "TV" movie, which I think deserves a broader distribution. The acting was good, and the bonds between each member of this rural French family seemed so

strong and so natural. No doubt a great movie about the concept of family and inclusion in the face of homosexuality and AIDS. One of the strongest aspect of the movie is this privileged relationship between the eldest son (Leo), who has contracted HIV, and the youngest son (Marcel), to whom the rest of the family try to hide the situation. The two characters

progressively explore each other as time runs out for Leo, who is not willing to spend the rest of his life surviving under drugs... It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.

When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion.

Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real. I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it. This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.

The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.

The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.

Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers. I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.

I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.

I saw this movie about a week ago and still keep thinking about it. I was very moved by this movie. I found the characters very believable and likable almost to a fault. As in real life though sometimes people disappoint, as was the case with Leo, who even though I liked his character I could not have been more disappointed when he was willing to have unprotected sex even though fully aware of his HIV status. I was also disappointed with Leo for rejecting the medicine available to him, and the awful way he treated Marcel when he decided to ship him back home on the train. I think this movie showed in a very real way why HIV numbers are up in young gay men. This is in no way meant to bash gays (I am gay) and movie very well could have been made about a young straight person who makes bad choices and seems unaware of the consequences to himself and others. The only part of the movie I couldn't understand was why the (gay friendly) family was unwilling to include Marcel in Leo's illness to the point of not allowing him to go to the funeral.

I think the biggest message from this movie is that whether gay or straight is DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it – until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo – just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic – Aids.

Although the person who has aids – is Leo – the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel – he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother – the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me – the way they supported their son – even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them– most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together – you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.

Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from "Scarface". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled "American Dream".

Anybody complaining about the "cheesiness" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.

This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.

The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.

Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. "Scarface" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10 "Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.

It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.

But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"!

Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!

There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.

There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.

About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!

Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.

Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.

Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.

The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling.

"Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland! This is one of my all time favorites.

If the movie has a flaw, it's that it comes at you like a raging bull. It doesn't so much engage the viewer as assault him. ''Scarface'' is as voracious and unyielding a production as Tony Montana himself. Nothing is left to the viewer's imagination.

Moroder's languorous synthpop fits the action to a tee. Like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, it wails and gnashes, broods and tugs, a constant reminder of Tony's inexorable fate.

Not so much a tale of caution as a disaster in progress, ''Scarface'' rips across the screen with the unstoppable force of a runaway train. "A Classic is something that everybody wants to have read but nobody wants to read. A classic is also something that everyone praises but no one has read." -Mark Twain

'Classic' seems to be the word used to describe "Scarface", Brian DePalma's 1983 film about opulence, self surrender, greed, and danger among Florida's drug ring. People and critics (and rappers for that matter) deem this film 'an epic gangster classic' or 'eptiome of gangster films.' When it is anything but. It is praised for all the wrong reasons. Scarface is a terrific film that deserves praise from all over, but not all the praise it gets from audiences today, and therefor the fine points it so poignantly makes are missed by the general public.

First off, the film is about a Cuban refugee, with a past of wanting to escape communism grasp and find happiness. Simple? Yes. But the layers of De Palma's directing genius, and the great story written by Oliver Stone (yes I know, he actually wrote a real good one here) play into all of it. The characters are all looking for an escape, as escape is a natural element dealt with in the film by all. Each character has something to offer, that makes them likable by everyone who could appreciate this film. They are entwined in a world of mystique and money, but all that has a price, as they all learn. Each character thinks they are getting better chances in life, when in true dramatic irony, they are actually getting worse. 'Tragedy' would be a better word to describe this movie. All those who praise the film for it's drug usage, it's violence, it's dialog, totally missed the point. There is nothing really positive about the film besides the characters positive expectations of themselves. And that is why the film works so well. The devastation through out the film serves to deliver the message of the film, not to look cool or attract viewers. Brian De Palma doesn't make movies for cult gangsters, or brainless action fans.

Next on, the film is an adult drama. It is not a 'gangster film'. It has it's share of action, but the action is plotted very carefully, so it has a point. It's not like "Aliens"- an example of a big dumb action film, and most audiences perceive this film as a big dumb action gangster film about doing drugs and shooting people. Ridiculous. Hogwash. If this film is about that, then it is about how bad it is. Not a promotion of it.

This being said, the film is indeed a great film. It has great cinematography that pulls you into the story. It has a very dramatic score (in true Giorgio Moroder style), which simply could give you chills, or bring you to tears. The film is rather lengthy, but it is a story, and each moment counts. The acting is terrific. Al Pacino - enough said. He can do any role that he puts his mind to, and this was no exception. Pretty boy Steven Bauer, as Manny. I didn't think much of him in other films he did, but he actually makes you like him when he goes under maestro De Palma's direction. Michelle Pfeiffer is a true gem as Elvira. Popping' fresh off the heels of a sort of embarrassment in "Grease 2" she got her ticket to ride performing a no holds barred performance of a beauty that is more than meets the eye. But the three true diamonds in this rough are Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio as Tony's sister Gina, who when she smiles, or cries, we see her soul and her fresh way of living, and watch it deteriorate; Paul Shenar as Alejandro Sosa, a drug lord, who runs deeper than a river, and Shenar portrays him as so; and Miriam Colom as Tony and Gina's torn mother. These three dig the film as deep as it can go.

This reviewer learned one main thing when watching "Scarface" for the first time. Always go into a film unsuspecting. All the hype and talk of this film cannot possibly prepare you for what you really see. Only knowing De Palma (like I do) can give you even a glimpse of what this film holds. So ignore the rap crap, ignore the mindless violence supporters, and fix yourself a glass of Bailey's on the rocks, and indulge yourself in an emotional viewing of a great film, the real "Scarface." Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, "Scarface" is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the "king" in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10 Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.

A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.

Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.

Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."

That's what Tony saw as the American dream.

He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.

The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.

After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?

This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.

Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today? The story turns around Antonio 'Scarface' Montana, an ultra-violent Cuban refugee who comes to the United States with less than nothing, and makes a place for himself at the top of the cocaine trade...

As a calculating man with a conscience, and extreme ambitions, Tony strongly begins to desire the things he sees a criminal high-roller enjoying, including his luscious lover... Heights his way out of a refugee camp by enjoying the chance to stab a former taker of Freedom, takes out rival dealers, gains the confidence of an important drug lord by eclipsing a local gang boss in Miami, and eventually makes it to the highest levels of the drug organization...

Pacino shows the results of greed and lust for power on the human psyche... He guns his way through the sunny streets of Miami where he got 'the world and everything in it.' With his ruthlessness, obscene dialog, and his negotiation skills, he begins to imagine himself invulnerable and above all others... He quickly moves deep to the world of gangs, and becomes more ruthless than anyone else can possibly imagine...

Michelle Pfeiffer looks dazzling as the addicted wife with no inner life... She succeeds in portraying the trophy 'object' navigating uncertain waters with her anti-hero... Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio happens to be the best in Tony's life, the only thing that is good and pure... Her revulsion at the end of the movie is so fiery that her whole head could have blown off... Robert Loggia exhibits a weak and fearful disposition, especially when faced with Pacino as a challenger... He proves to be a less-ambitious boss in a position of power... Steven Bauer shines as the man of charm, loyal ally and faithful friend...

The Oliver Stone-scripted 'Scarface' is a change in genre, lifting scene after scene of Hawks' classic while updating the rise-and-fall gangster saga to modern, drug-infested Miami... But, as always, the focus is on decadence, profanity and violence—memorably a sickening chainsaw murder, rather than on the psychological and social reasons for the hoodlum's psychopathic behavior... Arguebly Al Pacino's best role. He plays Tony Montana, A small time hood from Cuba turned into a rich and powerful crime lord in Miami, and he does it with the only two things he's got in this world, his balls and his word, and he doesn't break'em for nobody. Starts as doing jobs for a big time Cuban dealer, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) and quickly goes up the ladder of the organization along with his long time friend Manny (Steven Bauer). Soon he has an eye for the boss's sexy wife Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). After Frank sees a threat from Tony to his position, he attempts to assassin Tony but with no luck. Tony is upset and nothing can stop him now. the film has a great supporting cast among them is F. Murray Abraham as a jumpy gangster, another familiar face is Harris Yulin as a crooked cop trying to shake down Tony, Marry Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Tony's young sister. Credits to the Ecxellent screenplay by Oliver Stone. This film is one of Brian DePalma's Brightest points in his long ups and downs career, you can see this guy is very talented. The movie has a magnificent look to it. Also pay attention for two memorable scenes: The one at the fancy restaurant ("Say goodnight to the bad guy"). the other is the final shootout where Tony shows that he still knows how to kick ass and kills about 20 assassins that invaded to his house. this is certainly one of the most impressive endings to a movie I have ever seen. For fans of Al Pacino and crime movies it's a must-see. For the rest of you it's highly recommended. 10/10 In 1983, Director Brian De Palma set out to make a film about the rise and fall of an American gangster, and that he did-- with the help of a terrific screenplay by Oliver Stone and some impeccable work by an outstanding cast. The result was `Scarface,' starring Al Pacino in one of his most memorable roles. The story begins in May of 1980, when Castro opened the harbor at Mariel, Cuba, to allow Cuban nationals to join their families in the United States. 125,000 left Cuba at that time, for the greener pastures of freedom in America, and most were honest, hard-working people, thankful for the opportunity they had been granted. But not all. Among the `Marielitos' who streamed into Florida, approximately 25,000 had criminal records and were nothing less than the dregs of Cuba's jails-- criminals considered beyond redemption, who Castro had merely wanted to be rid of. And they, too, saw America as a land of opportunity, even as Al Capone had considered Chicago some fifty years earlier. And among the most ambitious was a man named Tony Montana (Pacino), known to his associates as `Caracortada.' Scarface.

Now that he was free of the yoke of Communism under which he had grown up, Montana wanted what he felt was coming to him, and he wanted it now; and from the moment he stepped off the boat in Florida, he was determined to have it all. Wealth and power-- that was Montana's dream, and he would get it by doing what he did best, beginning with a favor for a man living in Miami by the name of Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez, it seems, had a brother in Cuba who had met an untimely end at the hands of one of Castro's goons, a man who, having outlived his usefulness to Castro, had been summarily discarded and was currently being held in `Little Havana,' along with Montana and all of the Cubans just off the boats, where they awaited their papers from the government that would effect their transition into their new lives. And in short order, Montana sees to it that Lopez's brother has been avenged, and it sets the stage for his own entrance into the underworld of America.

Lopez, a wealthy businessman with the right connections, in return for the favor gets Montana and his friend, Manny (Steven Bauer), released from the holding camp, and puts them to work. In his day, Capone may have had bootlegging as a means through which to line his coffers with illicit gain, but Lopez has the modern day equivalent, and it's even more lucrative: Cocaine. Lopez takes Montana under his wing and indoctrinates him into the life, but once he has a taste of it, Montana isn't satisfied with whatever crumbs Lopez sees fit to throw his way, and he sets a course that will take him to where he wants to be: At the `top.' With a cold-blooded, iron will, Montana decides he'll do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the cost. but before it's over, he will realize the price for his dream, and he'll pay it; but for a brief moment, perhaps he will know what it's like to be The Man. And he will also know whether or not it was worth it.

In step with De Palma's vision, Pacino plays Montana larger-than-life, and he does it beautifully. From the accent he affects (which he researched thoroughly to make sure he got it right-- and he did), to the body language and the attitude, he's got it all, and it makes Montana convincing and very real. What he brings to the role is nuance and style, in a way that few actors (De Niro would be one) can. This is definitely not a character that is sympathetic in any way, nor is there anything about Montana that you can readily relate to on a personal level; but Pacino's screen presence is so strong that it makes him a thoroughly engrossing character, even though it's hard to become emotionally involved with him. It's quite simply a dynamic, memorable performance.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid performance, as well, in the role that put her on the path to stardom. As Elvira, the woman who becomes an integral part of Montana's dream, Pfeiffer is subtle and understated, giving that sense of something going on underneath, while affecting a rather cold and distant exterior countenance. She, like Pacino, definitely makes her presence felt as she fairly glides across the screen with a stoic, enigmatic and sultry demeanor.

The supporting cast includes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Sosa) and Harris Yulin (Bernstein). An excellent precursor to the more recent and highly acclaimed `Traffic,' and `Blow,' and well as having a climactic scene reminiscent of Peckinpah's `The Wild Bunch,' De Palma's `Scarface,' originally panned by critics, has since been cited by many as being the definitive American gangster saga. Much of the violence is implied rather than graphic, but this film still has an edge of realism to it that many may find somewhat disturbing. But if you stay with it, there is a lesson to be learned in the end. And like many lessons in life, the most valuable are often the hardest to take at the time. But the reward is always worth it, and that's the way it is with this film. I rate this one 8/10.





Many people like this movie and many more love it, but it seems that it is all for the wrong reasons. Scarface should be liked and loved but not in the way it has been or is.

Many people say the acting was over-the-top, but who better to do an over-the-top character than Al Pacino. To say that Pacino went over-the-top in here would be an understatement. Yet he does it so well, he just brings the inner devil out of you so well. His character Tony Montana was not such a great guy to begin with but his thirst for power just bring his sickness of greed to another level; an inhumane level. Sure at times Pacino seems to be a bit cartoonish and surreal but that does not at all to me seem to be a liability at all. The supporting cast served its job very well. Michelle Pfeiffer was not really at her best but she certainly fit the role she played. On the other hand Steven Bauer was at his best, still he is Steven Bauer. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was good and like Michelle Pfeiffer fit her role very well. Robert Loggia I have always enjoyed watching in just seeing him yell. Other than Pacino they were not really any standout or memorable performances. Everybody just seemed to fit their roles by being there. They did not fit in perfectly but were convincing enough.

Brian De Palma did a very good job directing this movie. Whenever an actor is able to become larger than life with his performance some credit should be given to the director and I will certainly give De Palma that. Brian De Palma, though not given the respect, is a very versatile director by my count. He knows how to direct movies according to their genres, but that at times has not turned out well. In here it does, this is by all counts a gangster movie but few are much better than this one because of De Palma.

The writing was great it was just pure Oliver Stone. When I saw the credits at the end of this movie and saw that Oliver Stone had written this I was not the least bit surprised. That is a testament to him though. I have always though of him as a great writer and to me he proves this once again with Scarface. Nobody knows how to write a surreal reality for a movie than Oliver Stone.

The music was good but not that great. It is certainly not my favorite from Giorgio Moroder. The music was a little bit too 80s-ish for me but it didn't annoy me. The cinematography was good, not amazing but really who cares with a movie like this.

This has probably been one of the most influential movies in the past 25 years but as mentioned before it is for the wrong reasons. People should realize that the character of Tony Montana is no hero, he is a monster. He is not inspiring in anyway. He is greedy, bloodthirsty, uneducated and self consumed. Yet he is a role model to many people because he is in some way or another a rebel but probably most of all because he is a deluded gangster. A vigilante would be like Mother Tereasa next to Scarface.

The good thing about this movie though is that it shows that the Tony Montanas' are not the real problem. If we or the people of authority would want to shut people like him down we could do it but we don't. In a freaky twisted way he is a necessity of our society. He is somebody you could blame everything on and fell better about yourself doing it. The Tony Montanas' of this world are the scapegoats of our society. This in no way excuses people like him. Instead it is more of a reminder that we shouldn't excuse or allow ourselves to do bad things just because we measure up or think we measure up compared better to a gangster or drug dealer. I love this movie because it is more than a corruption movie, it is a movie that in a strange way makes you self reflect. Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, SCARFACE paints a picture not easily forgotten. Al Pacino turns in a stunning performance as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee than becomes a powerful player in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his self made kingdom of crime in Florida. This gangster flick is harsh, violent, loud, gross, unpleasant and must hold the record for uttering the word "f--k" the most number of times. Almost three hours long, and yes it can get repulsive. A stout hearted constitution keeps you in your seat cheering for the demise of a ruthless crime lord.

Also playing interesting characters are Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, F. Murray Abraham and Angel Salazar. Pacino proves to be one of the greatest of his generation. He manages to bring reality to his character that leaves a strong impression. This will not be a movie for everyone for you leave thinking you walked away from a disaster. Is that powerful enough for you? Crime does not pay for long! This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic. if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list?? Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????

If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets! I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough.

Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction.

Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!

Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.

All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here. Most people who have seen this movie thinks that it is the best movie ever made. I disagree but this movie is very very good. Tony is a bad ass guy and knows that he's intimidating and uses it to get ahead. It's about him and how he goes from washing dishes to having a huge house and a office with cocaine all over the desk. If you want a family movie then this isn't the way to go but if you want mobsters and vengeance and stuff like that then you'll like it. I heard a few friends one day saying that "Scarface sucks... some idiot tried to make another Godfather set in the early 80s." Now, I usualy listen to idiots/watch CNN so I decided I'd stay away from it. Then my mate handed me the DVD and said "This is #1 with the pelicangs", confused I tried it. This IS THE BEST FILM EVER MADE. It's more realistic than all this crap about racing stolen cars that are too expensive for someone in that area could afford (*cough2Fast2Furiouscough*) There is some humor though... i.e. the Pelicangs and the light 80s music. Still, whats better than Al Pacino wielding an m203? I give this a ***** out of ****, perfect for fans of Al or GTA:Vice City. One of the most definitive gangster films of the 80's, Scarface is very much a film of its time. The first thing you notice when you watch this film is that it is screaming at you, 'made in 1983'. The costumes, the music score and soundtrack, the hairstyles, make no mistake about it this is a film all about crime in the 80's and while it should have dated horribly it hasn't. This is still a superb film. While Georgio Moroder's music has dated a fair bit, it still compliments the story of Tony Montana well thanks to the superb screenplay by Oliver Stone and the first class direction of Brian De Palma, one of two films that he has made with Pacino (the other being the fantastic Carlito's Way). All of De Palma's trademarks are here; the strong language, the graphic violence (more on that later), the stylish excesses such as grandiose set pieces and of course the stylish camera work.

Pacino dominates the film and I mean that literally. He is the dominant star of this film. His performance over the top, this is one of those films were Pacino doesn't so much say his lines as he does shouts them, this time with a superb Cuban accent. However, this is Pacino and he does it fantastically. Only he could go this far over the top and still come away from the film with his acting integrity in tact. While some may complain about his shouting of his lines and the sheer excess of it all, this is an excessive film. Take a look at the production design of Tony's house, take a look at the violence in this film. The chainsaw incident is downright brutal and their is blood everywhere. The shoot out at the end has bodies going down at a rate that is more akin to Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the Rambo films. Take a look at the amount of coke that is displayed in the film so Pacino's performance I suppose is perfect for the film. He is supported by actors who are more akin to saying their lines in a more controlled way. Steven Bauer, in particularly, as Manny, Tony's best friend, is the stand out of the supporting cast. His performance is so controlled and quiet in a De Niro sort of way it is a wonder how he ended up doing straight to video soft porn. Michelle Pfeiffer, of course, adds the glamor, Robert Loggia adds gravitas as usual and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio makes a great debut as Tony's sister.

Of course this is more than just a film about excess. There is more to it than drugs, violence, chainsaw assaults and a big great shoot out. This is a film about the darker side of the American dream. In many ways it puts it on a thematic par with The Godfather films. Tony finds himself coming to America, getting it all, living the American dream and then losing it all in violent fashion, and by saying he loses it all, I mean he loses it all. He kills his best friend, his sister is killed, his empire crumbles, literally, around him and to top it of he is killed in his own mansion, bullets ripping through him.

Without doubt Scarface is one of the key films of the early 80's. Sure, it doesn't have the subtleties of The Godfather films, but this is still a fine film and one that is worth going to again and again. Perhaps this could be the best movie ever made and if it's not it's certainly one of those who are burned onto your pupils as what Brian De Palma delivers here is a great piece of cinematographic artwork. First there is the director's touch of Brian De Palma who proves once again he might be one of the best directors ever, there is the superb performance from Al Pacino who is delivering an immortal hero on the big screen (Tony Montana), there are the many different (violent) scenes that you will never forget (the one with the chainsaw, the one in where Tony is sitting in a bath which is as big as most people's living rooms), there are the many superb one-liners (count how many times the word "f*ck" is used), there are the superb little details (the Pan American-globe that screams "The world is yours") or the great discomusic from Giorgio Moroder. Nothing can be named that isn't sublime here and it easily is along with "The Godfather", "Good fellas" and "White heat" one of the best gangstermovies ever made! for whoever play games video games here did anybody notice that the GTA:Vice City Mansion inside the game and some other things including weapons from the movie that are connected to this movie and this movie inspired the makers of the game (Rockstar Games) to copy some things from this movie and by the way this is one of the best 80's movies out there i recommend this for anybody who still didn't see it 10/10 no questions asked This movie is very entertaining and is never ever boring even running at nearly 3 hours. Al Pacino, Michelle Phieffer and the rest of the cast are great in the film and are very believable. The violence was a little extreme in the film but then it showed how vicious the drug trade was at the time of the film. The ending is amazing and is probalby one of the coolest scenes ever. Great movie and you will probably really enjoy it. This movie has it all. It is a classic depiction of the events that surrounded the migration of thousands of Cuban refugees. Antonio Montana(played by Al Pacino), is just one of the thousands to get a chance to choose his destiny in America. This cinematic yet extremely accurate depiction of Miamis' Drug Empire is astonishing. Brian DePalma does an amazing job directing this picture, so much that, the viewer becomes involved with both the storyline, as well as every character in the cast. With Tony's characters' pressence being so believable and strong, Brian DePalma brang out the raw talent exposed by Steven Bauer(Manny, Tony's best Friend), Mary Elizabeth Mastantonio(Gina, Tony's Sister), Robert Loggia(Frank, Tony's Boss)and Michelle Pfeiffer(Elvira, Frank's Wife). I enjoyed every minute watching this movie, and still watch it on a weekly basis. On this year, the 20th Anniversary of this classic crime movie, I for one am a true believer that in another 20 years people will still refer to this movie in astonishing numbers. With other crime movies being so dramatic I find, this movie is a shock to the system. On MTV cribs all the ballers and shot callers pull the classic movie Scarface out of their DVD collection. This may give you an idea that Scarface is a "gangster movie". Sure, there are gangsters and mobs in it, but that's not the point of Scarface. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) is just a cuban refuge looking for a new way of life. He falls in with the mob group and becomes a well-known drug lord. Montana was all for doing what you wanted to do with your life. The classic phrase: "Say hello to my little friend!" is in Scarface. This quote is what always comes to mind when I think about Brian DePalmas movie, Scarface. This falls under my top 10 favorite movies. I would rate it ***1/2 (out of ****). Definitely a movie you must see. PHENOMENAL. this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.

Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)

even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.

this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy" A lot of people are saying that Al Pacino over acted but I mean common obviously for a movie role like this -- a cuban drug lord you need a bit of over acting in this role with that cuban accent. This movie overall was a really good movie I myself rated a 10/10 I would highly recommend people to watch this movie. This movie can be described in those 2 words "just unbelievable". This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy. Wow. Something of a surprise. Though flawed, it is far better that I expected.

The brand new space liner Arcturus with some 3,000 passengers is in the final days of its sixteen day trip to Jupiter. Without warning, the ship's Cerebral (central computer) sounds a disaster alarm and orders everyone to evacuate.

Soon, there are only a handful of people remaining including one of the ship's astrogators (Penny), the captain (Cary), and the director of the shipping line (Kenyon).

It turns out that the alarm was false and that the main Cerebral is acting

erratically. The remaining passengers and crew must escape the ship and

avoid personal conflicts in order to survive.

The film starts out very well. The opening commercial is a very nice touch. There are obvious parallels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and to the historic

sinking of the Titanic. The film does slow down at times and has pacing

problems, but is generally well made and well acted. I agree with "Jerry." It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not "rip-off") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his "mind", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all. Life Pod is one of those movies that you just watch and try not to analyze too hard. The acting is rather amateurish, at best. The special effects are obviously low budget, but not too bad. The story line is rather stock, but with an interesting twist. Computer run amok, but not exactly a computer and the running amok is very understandable when the truth is revealed. Still the movie has its moments and is quite watchable. For me, at least part of the allure of this movie is the prominent role of Kristine DeBell. She may not be the greatest actress in the world, but having been a former playmate of the month, she is cute enough. In all Life Pod is much like other low-budget Sci-Fi movies of the 1980s and somewhat predictable.

The White Star Lines bit is cute, if completely inaccurate. The last of the White Star Lines Company stock was purchased by the Cunard Lines 1947 and the last ship to sail under the White Star colors was the Britannic (not the sister of Titanic) which was sold for scrap in 1960. Spirit is a unique and original look at western life from the point of view of a wild horse, and native Americans. The film focuses on the friendships and perils that a wild horse, Spirit, encounters during his life.

Very well done in the presentation, using the technology available today to deliver stunning visuals that are breathtaking in their depth and realism.

The music is fantastic, with songs by Bryan Adams, and music by Hans Zimmer, who also was responsible for the extremely popular music from the 1994 Disney hit, The Lion King.

The story is not very deep but the fact that it isn't quite as in-depth as some movies doesn't in my opinion detract from the film as a whole.

An excellent film which I enjoyed immensely, and that is suitable for all the family. Not one to be missed. (10/10) In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the "Indomitable Spirit". If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you. I have probably seen this movie over fifty times by now because of the kids they just cant get enough of Spirit. The best thing about the movie I think is that the animals isn't able to talk, this makes the whole movie more honest and makes a better impression on both kids and the adults so 10/10 from the kids and me If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10. Well, what can I say, this movie really got to me, it's not so bad, as many say, I really loved it, although the idea seems so simple, and rather boring, it isn't. First of all I enjoyed the soundtrack (Bryan Adams), it really goes with the movie. Second the simple story, and the drama of Spirit gets your attention. One thing I like the most is that they didn't give the stallion a human voice to interact with the other horses, it makes the movie more realistic, not many animations seem realistic now do they ?, but... I don't know, making animals talk is just so... lame.

One of the most beautiful animations of 2002 in my opinion, I recommend it to everyone, not just the kids :), because it is very relaxing. The horse is indeed a fine animal. Picturesque depictions of wild horses and their grace could never have been more majestic in an animation flick.

The animation is simply stupendous. The fine animation forms the backbone of the beauty that the horses embolden across the flick. More so when the stallion traverses diverse terrain, jumps across cliffs and braves waters.

Soundtrack too is very impressive. The wonderful instrumental music lures you to appreciate the movie.

"They say the story of the west was written from the saddle of a horse . " huh? Well ,The story of a fine horse sure was written from the saddle of the west .

All in all, this movie is clearly up there with the best .It is one of the best animation flicks i have watched. Would be a very fine choice on a lonely night. An easy 9/10. I liked this movie a lot. The animation was well done and the romance was cute. I liked most of Bryan Adams' songs and the Hans Zimmer score was excellent. What a lot of people don't realize is how well it relates to the Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now themes (what happens when so-called "civilization" invades someone elses home, what does it mean to be "civilized" etc.). The opening scenery and music were very stirring. The film is a lament to an America that was once beautiful. I really dislike both Shrek films. (Since their both "PG" and have words in them I would never say myself, so I disliked them.)

But when it comes to "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," which I just barely watched for the first time last month, I became a fan of animated films, other than Pixar. ***Spoilers ahead*** In "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," a horse foal is born and eventually becomes the leader of his heard. One night, he sees a strange light in the distance, and he sets off toward it. This action eventually leads to his capture, and several more things. Throughout the movie, we hear a narration. It's through the thoughts of Spirit, though the horses never talk. This is what makes the movie so goo. They (the movie makers) recored real horses to do the sounds the horses made; none of those sounds were made by humans.

Spirit meets Rain, a beautiful mare, and Little Creek, a native-American, who owns Rain. Little Creek later frees Spirit and Rain, they go running home.

I have never been a big fan of Brian Adams, but I intend to buy the soundtrack to this film in the near future.

Watch this film, and you won't regret it. My Score: 10/10 I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.

What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.

What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.

Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.

One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is an overall wonderful movie. The blending of animation types is unique, the storyline is amazing, and the music is wonderful.

The drawn animation is a special thing about many animations. How they expressed the characters, especially the horses, through their animation are spectacular especially. While the way horses communicate through body language is easy to understand, many young children and people who haven't studied horses might not understand. Without words, I would imagine it would have to be challenging to express them through the features. Because of this, I understand the 'eyebrow' they added to the horses (while real horses don't have those thick lines). One of the few things I noticed about horse habits that might have been portrayed strangely is that Spirit lead his mother's herd. In wild horse herds, the lead stallion usually chases the young colts out.

Also, while some people might think portraying the white army officers as the 'bad guys' is stereotyping, think of all the movies in which the Native Americans have been portrayed as that. Sometimes back then; they did treat mustangs very poorly. For example, in real history, the Appaloosa breed was almost wiped out due to the Army officers. Imagine what would have happened to one of the worlds best loved riding breeds if the Native Americans had not saved them.

I think it's amazing how the realism wasn't subtracted by making the horses talk to each other. Spirit's feelings were expressed by a little bit of narration, but mostly through the music (by Bryan Adams). The songs express the story really well, and Hans Zimmer and Bryan Adams did a great job telling the story through melodies and lyrics.

The emotion I got when watching the movie, whether the first time or the twentieth (yes, I've watched it that much), you wouldn't believe. Some of the scenes take your breath away, while others seem to force tears into your eyes. The opening sequence, showing Spirit's homeland, puts you right into the spectacular action right away.

I don't understand at all why some people are so hateful of this brilliant movie. Overall, I rate it a 10/10 - a must watch. I thought this movie would be dumb, but I really liked it. People I know hate it because Spirit was the only horse that talked. Well, so what? The songs were good, and the horses didn't need to talk to seem human. I wouldn't care to own the movie, and I would love to see it again. 8/10 This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.

I think the title says it all, "spirit". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end.

Enjoy "Spirit" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too. I recently watched Spirit and enjoyed it very much, I've seen it about 4 times now on HBO and will buy the DVD. Those who gave negative reviews would probably think that `Vanishing Point' was just another car chase movie and `Thelma & Louise' was just another chick flick. Although the conclusions of those films are darker I feel the themes are somewhat related; that freedom and individualism are very important and that there is usually someone wanting to take it away from you. The other common trait of these movies is the caring, thoughtful `guardian angel' types who help the main characters to overcome adversity.

Another review here mentions how this film relates to the theme of civilization invading someone else's home. All one has to do is look around at the dwindling open areas around us to see that.

I thought the animation and the story were amazing, the animators really got the horses to look, act and move naturally. Spirit's emotions were very clear as the story progressed (yes I'm aware they do humanize the horses a bit, but this is fiction). In a couple of action scenes you feel caught in the current of the rapids and the heat from a forest fire. In other more quiet scenes (which are most of the time) you're allowed to savor the backgrounds. One of the big things that make the story really work is by not going the talking, singing animals route. Doing so would take away from the story's power. Instead the flow of the story is told by occasional narration by the main character, further punch is added by the fantastic soundtrack. Another plus is that they weren't afraid to give the story somewhat of a dark side (which really made this film watchable to me). This isn't prevalent through the entire movie though, and the conclusion is fitting and uplifting without being sappy.

Those who appreciate horses will really like this movie, but I think it's a bit more than a horse movie. I don't feel this would be a good movie to take children to if they're brought up on the inane fare that's offered up today. But if they're the thoughtful sort that can handle compelling stories like The Lord of the Rings and Black Beauty they'll likely love this movie. Hell, I'm 35 years old and STILL love that stuff. This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.

The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.

I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household. This is one of the most calming, relaxing, and beautifully made animation films I've ever seen. With beautiful music throughout the movie, the sounds and music can make you feel like you're in the movie! This movie is not just great for kids, but adults too. It teaches you lessons, such as never forget who you are, you can do whatever you stick your mind to, and to brave and daring. This movie can make you cry at times too, which is always a nice touch in movies. This movie is funny, sad, cute, and keeps you on the edge of your seat! Some movies really give you a fuzzy feeling after you see them, and the movie "Spirit" is definitely one of them! With my vote of 9/10 stars for animation, music, and a wonderful idea for a movie, it gave me a whole lot of Spirit! This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.

One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. "Spirit" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so.

"Spirit" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it. This animated movie is a masterpiece! The narration, music, animation, and storyline where all remarkable. My girlfriend and I saw it again for a second time and we got more insight from it. We invited a couple friends to see Spirit with us and they really enjoyed it a lot. When I asked them to come along to see it, they thought it was a movie about horses, but afterwards they realized it was more than that. I liked Esperanza, Spirit, Rain, and Lil' Creek, who reminds me of Nathan Chasing Horse who is Smiles A Lot in Dances With Wolves. Spirit has deep symbolic meanings and metaphors that I found to be empowering and inspirational.

I saw Spirit for a third time and I want to go see it again. I enjoyed "Spirit" tremendously because its portrayal of American Indians is realistic, dignified, and non-stereotypical unlike the movie "The Road to El Dorado", which was a total farce because it portrayed American Indians in a disrespectful and stereotypical way. But Dreamworks has redeemed themselves by making Spirit a great movie that I found to be acceptable! I hope they continue to make more animated movies like Spirit, and I would like to see sequels or spinoffs to Spirit if its done respectfully and without stereotyping American Indians.

I highly recommend this to others who have an open mind to go and pay to see Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. While I had wanted to se this film since the first time I watched the trailer, I was in for a deep surprise with this film. While some of the elements and actions of the characters seemed a little too ‘cartoonish,' the dark nature of the film really makes this a much different experience. Instead of the feel-good-happy-story, this film takes you in another direction that proves to be uplifting, but also disturbing. Most kids won't understand some of the darker moments in the film, which makes this film rather watchable for adults. I was also impressed with the cinematography, using animation and digital animation to create a seamless network of pans and tilts. The musical score was once again solid, proving Hans Zimmer is the go-to guy when it comes to animated scores, and I never thought I would say I actually enjoyed Brian Adams' music. I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though. White man + progress + industrialization = BAD. First nations + nature + animals = GOOD. Simple formula. Actually, in past days the same kind of propaganda was used to defend the status quo; now it is used to attack it. However, that being said, I think the movie does succeed in overcoming hackneyed politicization because it plays to the themes of freedom and original nature in a way that appeals to everyone. You may not be onside with the movie's rubbishy revisionism of how the West was won, er lost. But anyone can feel a sense of longing for the days when horses could run free on the Western plains. (The movie also conveniently sidesteps the fact that there were no horses in America before the evil white man brought them there). Anyway, I liked it. The quality of the animation - especially the opening shot - is incredible. Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).

Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in "The Departed" was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did "Spirit". I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.

Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.

I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.

OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...

Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck! Despite gorgeous and breathtaking animation, this is probably one of most uninspiring Disney films I've seen, and I don't slam Disney films very often. Spirit is a wild stallion who repeatedly gets captured, either by the cavalry or by Indians, both of which try to "break" him. Spirit ends up forming a bond with the Indian, and that, in a nutshell, is the story. With exception to the beautiful animation of the horses, neither I or my five year old were very inspired or excited by this film. It's ironic that it's titled "Spirit", as spirit is what this film could have used a bit more of. An extra point was given for the soundtrack, which was enjoyable, with songs by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer. And although this film is rated G, you will still probably have to end up explaining what "breaking a horse" means to your five year old. I did.

This is amazing-looking movie with the whole thing done in just six or seven colors. When it came out over 15 years ago, it stunned audiences with its color scheme, being so different from anything else that had ever been put on film. Those colors, for me at least, make this an absolutely fascinating film to watch. There are literally thousands of scenes I wish could freeze and somehow convert them to a painting to study for their artwork.

The characters and the story don't match up to the greatness of the photography, but they are all over-the-top, especially the villains. The famous actors who played them here must have a had a lot of fun on the set playing "Flatop," "Pruneface," "Lips," "Mumbles," etc.

Meanwhile, Warren Beatty and Gleanne Hedley are good as Dick Tracey and girlfriend Tess Truehart, and she's as sweet and soft as her name. Another good addition is Charlie Korsmo as the delinquent young boy Dick and Tess take under their wing. The colorful other characters are played by Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, William Forysthe, Paul Sorvino, Mandy Patinkin, Madona and other names you know but are too numerous to list here. Check the full credits on the main page and you'll amazed.

The only negatives I found were Pacino's voice which grates on you after awhile, Madonna's off-key singing voice and the fact that the film would have been better trimmed about 10 minutes. Those "faults" are all minor because overall, this is a fun movie....a cartoon strip coming to life in an incredibly-colorful fashion.....like nothing you have ever seen. I've been watching "Dick Tracy" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.

Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.

There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as "Mumbles," and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.

Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.

Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars. "Dick Tracy" is one of our family's favorites -- the actors are great -- the art direction is exceptional -- the music is magic. It's not supposed to be "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- it's a fun experience.

Stephen Sondhemim's songs are stellar: "Back in Business" is energetic, "Sooner or Later" is just right, "What Can You Lose" is haunting -- even tunes like "Live Alone and Like It" add to the story

Got to love the giddily over-the-top performances of Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Glenn Headly, Charlie Korsmo, Mandy Patinkin, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, supporting villains... The list is far too long. And, yes -- even Madonna and Warren Beatty are awesome. Written with a smile a minute (how many times have we looked at each other and said, "Wait a minute -- I'm having a thought -- it's gone!"?).

However, one of most telling things about in this film is that everyone involved seems to be having a good time -- and that above all adds to the enjoyment for the viewer. So, if you haven't already, why not give "Dick Tracy" a chance -- accept it for what it is -- a Sunday comic strip brought to life -- and in a wonderful way!! If Dick Tracy was in black and white, the pope wouldn't be religious. Giving a new sense to the concept of color in a movie, we are offered an unique experience throughout a comic-strip world, and it's one of the few movies which succeeded in doing so, thanks to a serious script, good direction, great performances (Al Pacino is astonishing) and most importantly a powerful mix of cinematography, art direction and costume design. Using only primary colors, the experience is quite different from anything we have seen before. And there is also a quite successful hommage to all the gangster-movie genre, pratically extinct from modern cinema. Overall, I see this movie as a fresh attempt and a touch of originality to a cinema which relies more and more on the old and already-seen formulas. 7 out of 10. I never attended the midnight showing of a movie before "Dick Tracy" came out.

I still have the "t-shirt ticket" I had to wear to get admitted to the showing around here somewhere and, like that shirt, "Dick Tracy" has stuck with me ever since.

If you've seen the movie, the sharp visuals, bright primary colors and strong characters have no doubt been etched into your brain. It's a wonder to behold.

As director/star/co-writer/producer, Beatty knows what works in a film and shows it here, taking a familiar American icon and re-creating him for a whole new era. Still set in the '30s, "Tracy" has a kind of timeless quality like all good films do. I've lost track of how many times I've watched "Tracy" and I still catch something new every time I do.

The others are all top notch, starting with Pacino's Big Boy Caprice (a reminder that he can do comedy with the best of them), even Madonna's Breathless Mahoney is a relevation in that under the right environment, she can act (GASP!).

But there's still such themes touched on as the necessity of family, keeping true to one's self, good versus evil, even Machiavellian themes are explored. Odd for a comic strip film, but hey, it works.

All in all, "Dick Tracy" is a classic unto itself. Compared with other films of this decade, it makes a strong statement. It's a good, strong film that doesn't depend on blood, violence, profanity or nudity to make its point.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

Ten stars. Great Scott! Don't look for an overdeveloped plotline here....just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy this one. A gallery of stars pop up as the classic cartoon character's villains in this live action comedy, which features incredible makeup and set design, not to mention knockout performances from Beatty, Madonna, and Pacino. Great fun for kids and adults alike.

*** out of **** Dick Tracy is easily the best comic book based movie made to date. The movie has the same feel as the comic book, staying true to the color scheme. The Batman series has climbed, fallen, climbed and fallen again. Dick Tracy has true staying power as something that both adults and children can enjoy. The good guys triumph over evil, without blood and gore to get the point across. Al Pacino does a wonderful job of his own adaptation of Big Boy Caprice and Madonna is memorable as Breathless. But the best job by far is Warren Beatty who just epitomizes Dick Tracy just as he did with Clyde Barrows. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD on April 2, 2002, my tape is wearing thin. I thoroughly enjoyed this true to form take on the Dick Tracy persona. This is a well done product that used modern technology to craft a imagery filled comic era story. If you are a fan of or recently watched some of the old Dick Tracy b&w movies then you're sure to get a kick out of this rendition. The pastel colors and larger than life characters rendered in a painstakingly authentic take on an era gone by is entertainment as it's meant to be. I personally find Madonna's musical element to be a major part of this film-the CD featuring her music from this movie is one I've listened to often over the years, it's just so well done and performed musically and tuned to that era. In my mind, Madonna's finest moment both on-screen but especially musically. This is sure to bring out the "kid" in you. Dick Tracy is one of my all time favorite films. I must admit to those that haven't seen it. You will either really love it or really hate it. It came out a year after the success of Batman. So everyone's expectations were so high that many were let down simply because the plot is so simple. But its based on a comic strip...what did you expect? Creatively, this movie is amazing! The sets, make-up, music, costumes, and the impressive acting make this film fantastic. The film has bloodless violence and no bad language - that's something rare these days. Directed, produced, and stars Warren Beatty as the ace crime fighter going up against Al Pacino's evil Big Boy Caprice and his mob of thugs. Madonna steals the show as the seductive Breathless Mahoney. This is one of the best characters Madonna has ever played. She has the best one liners I've heard! Madonna fans would love it! One of the coolest things about the film is that they only used seven colors to make it look like a comic strip. This film is truly a piece of artwork that is sadly overlooked by the public. To sum things up, this film brings out the child in all of us. It's a film that will leave you smiling at the end. The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.

Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as "Big Boy" Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.

The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him "the Bath." James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.

This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business. Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.

The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's "messed up" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than "breathless" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.

To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me. Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the "Breathless" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than "What about bob?". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours. Most successful comic book movies usually depend on having villains that are bigger than life, ready to jump off the screen and strangle you alive with a smile or a demented line or two of dialog. The Tim Burton Batmans had it, as did (in an even more grotesque manner) Sin City. With Dick Tracy producer/director/star Warren Beatty piles on the villains until it becomes part of the framework. Like a boisterous homage to 1930s gangster pictures- only this time meant for kids as opposed to the darker Bonnie and Clyde- Dick Tracy is filled, joyfully, with archetypes and bright, primary colors, where the criminals carry tommy guns and are formed on their faces to shape their personalities. Villains like The Stooge, Shoulders, Lips, The Brow, Mumbles, the Blank, Pruneface, Spud. Chester Gould gave the names to his characters that fit their profiles, and gave his hero a jaw that could cut glass. The film is a continuation of sight gags that are perfectly taken seriously.

If, at the time, movies like Batman and (underrated) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were darker depictions of reality within a comic-book outline, Dick Tracy is more 'old-school'. It's a story of cops and crooks, or rather A cop, detective Tracy as he tries to bust Big Boy (Al Pacino, in what is arguably his BIGGEST performance to date, and in a sense the one that makes sense for his grandiose style), but with no such luck. There's also a little kid, called simply the Kid (Charlie Korsmo, who somehow brings more spunk to this little kid than would've been imagined), and Tracy's love interest in Tess. And then there's the nightclub 'dame' (Madonna, who probably doesn't give any kind of great acting performance, but maybe that suits the role fine, and she sings excellently when called upon), who wont testify unless Tracy admits feelings he doesn't have for her. Then there's convoluted dealings with taking Tracy down, and a mysterious masked figure with a scraggly voice.

Meantime, as if doing an impersonation of a Howard Hawks film in a splash of visual effects and bigger explosions, Dick Tracy adds on the wink-and-nod comedy and the action like its syrup on a tall stack of pancakes. It's a wonder to look at this world, which is created in ways that have a fascination to them that had they been done today would just be simply by proxy of computers (i.e. Sin City, which can be justifiably compared to Beatty's film). We're driven through this world in great big shots and then thrust in the plot line, or whatever there is of it, in big editing montages with camera angles that seem to come out of those little tilted panels in the comics of old. I'm almost reminded of the Cotton Club during these sequences, as story, music, detail, and a few BIG punches and gun-shots go a long way to revealing what needs to be said, which, actually, isn't more than it needs to. And there's a heap-load of catchy dialog from the script (one of my favorites: "the enemy of my enemy is... my enemy", plus any of Pacino's references to other figures in quotes).

Revisiting this after seeing it for the first time in the movie theater (and only remembering little bits), Dick Tracy is a hard-boiled fantasy to the finest degree. It's filled with good cheer for the kids, and with some pretty good action squared away without some of the more sinister intent of its cousin comic-book movies (i.e. PG-13 fare), and for the adults its throw-back central done with panache and a solid feeling for the unsubtle. Even Dustin Hoffman hams it up, and he barely says an audible word! I saw Dick Tracy when I was very young. I didn't know who any of the actors were, and I didn't know the movie would turn out different than the way it was previewed. I sure loved it though.

Warren Beatty stars as the crime-fighting 1930's detective Dick Tracy who goes after the biggest mob bosses in the city. This time, Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) has killed a very powerful man and is out to take over the city with his singer girlfriend Breathless Mahoney (Madonna) who has her eye on Tracy. It becomes even worse because a new criminal is invading and the worst part is: this criminal has no face. He or she is very unknown. Plus, the famous villians are back from the comic book collection.

I thought that this movie was very colorful and creative. It was entertaining and fun to watch especially as a child. Warren Beaty was just like James Bond of the 1930's the way he played Dick Tracy.

An ensemble cast of the film includes: Charlie Korsmo, Glenn Headly, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, James Caan, Ed O' Ross, Tommy Lee Jones, Mandy Patinkin, Charles Durning. Plus More!

Dick Tracy is a movie for all ages and is a fun movie for a family to enjoy. Take my word for it. That was great fun! I never read those Chester-Gould-comics but it's not necessary to know them. Maybe there were some inside jokes I didn't figure out but what the eye doesn't see the heart cannot grieve over. This is such an ironic, colourful film and the actors are good-humoured all together. The setting is similar to that in the „Batman` movies, but not as dark and grey. Okay, the story is not so original but there is a plot (which is not self-evident) and a more or less surprising ending.

With this movie, you could play an interesting game, if you watch it with friends. Don't watch the credits at the beginning and then look who's the fastest to find out who are the famous actors under their make-up! At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice. Usually, when we use the word "escapist", we mean it negatively; Warren Beatty's big screen version of "Dick Tracy" proves that "escapist" can be good. This is truly one entertaining movie. As the eponymous, yellow-clad, fearless title character, Beatty creates a detective to whom we can all relate: ready for action, but not without his weaknesses.

From there, the rest of characters are almost a world unto themselves. Tess Truehart (Glenne Headly) is as glamorous as one would expect the hubby of any crime fighter to be; Breathless Mahoney (Madonna) is possibly the most perplexing person imaginable; Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) is the average villain: ruthless but cool. Other characters include the speech-challenged Mumbles (Dustin Hoffman), the over-musical 88 Keys (Mandy Patinkin), and The Kid (Charlie Korsmo). Charles Durning, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, Estelle Parsons, Catherine O'Hara, Seymour Cassel, Paul Sorvino and Kathy Bates also star.

Oh, wait a minute. I haven't even explained the plot! The plot involves Tracy trying - and failing so far - to find some way to nab Big Boy. Simultaneously, some very bizarre events have been going on in town, the answers to which may or may not be closer than everyone thinks.

Of course, the main thing about this movie is that it's fun to watch. If Warren Beatty was having trouble acting his age, then he made good use of that here. "Dick Tracy" is one cool movie. Love it or loathe it, it's hard to not find Warren Beatty's take on "Dick Tracy," the 1990 film adaptation of Chester Gould's famous comic strip, anything short of a genre classic. Superhero films have been coming out of the woodwork in recent years, and may soon become a genre all on its own.

Beatty's film liberally uses Gould's source material to full effect, shooting in all six of the strip's primary colors, and thus giving this unique yet familiar world of trigger-happy mutant gangsters and loose, seductive women a lush visual style and tone.

It can be stated that the film's strong visual aesthetics drastically short-change the characters and their acting abilities, which I don't think can be any further from the truth.

"Dick Tracy" relishes in its look and ghastly characters, and Beatty himself, who plays the dogged and incorruptible detective of the title, is appropriately stoic and ready to bust the bad guys at any and all costs.

Other than the visual treats and Oscar-winning makeup, there is a plot, and Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino, deliciously over-the-top in an Oscar-nominated performance), seeks to eliminate Tracy in one well-planned move, but also seeks to gain control of all criminal action in the city by uniting all the feuding gangs under him.

Tracy, meanwhile, is juggling his relationship with Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), who as her name would have it, remains faithfully by his side and cares for The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), who eventually finds a father figure to look up to in our crime-busting hero. Tracy's fidelity to Tess is tested by the tempting advances of Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), who is also Big Boy's main squeeze. At the same time that all of this is going down, things become heated when a new criminal figure arrives in town, and decides to play both sides against the middle.

The performances are good, as Beatty's focus on the strained and romantic relationships between each of the leads becomes the center of the material, as opposed to just concentrating on pointless action and special effects. Pacino freely chews up the scenery in a role that's truly standout from the rest.

"Dick Tracy" is one of the best and most overlooked of the comic book movie genre. I think that if Chester Gould was still alive, he would be proud of Warren Beatty's take on his beloved crime-fighting detective.

8/10 This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.

Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.

This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk.

!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! Dick Tracy was originally a comic book created in 1931 by Chester Gould. He is a plainclothes detective who tracks down a crew of villains, ranging from all types of visually original characters such as Flattop to The Blank to Big Boy Caprice. (These villains became so popular in the 40's that Warner Bros. created their own take on the Tracy-style villains in such cartoons as Daffy Duck) Tracy's comics were known for their liberal use of gunplay and the up-to-date technology advances (notably the wristwatch communicator), which got their fair share of screen time on this excellent movie. The music was done wonderfully by Danny Elfman, and the original songs by Madonna were interesting, but they were not the high point for her career. It's weird because as you watch the film and see the suspenseful moments, the film feels so much like Batman because of Elfman's memorable sound to his pieces.

I love the tough-talking kid, Pacino's acting as Big Boy Caprice (and that chin!), Madonna's take on villainy, and the cinematography and directing were impeccable. This film was very professionally made and features tons of great actors who were known as great actors for a while before this film was made (Warren Beatty, Al Pacino, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Mandy Patinkin, Catherine O'Hara, Dick Van Dyke). The film was directed by Beatty himself, which was interesting. It is almost like Beatty saw himself as Tracy in a past life or something because he really fit the part.

I had to give this film an 8/10 for everything that it brought to cinema that got overlooked (for whatever reason). There have been tons of misunderstandings over the rating of this movie on IMDb, and I still don't understand why. The characters were completely original and vibrant, as was the style of the sets, wardrobe, lighting, and everything in this film. Go buy it today. You will not be sorry. I still liked it though. Warren Beatty is only fair as the comic book hero. What saves this movie is the set, the incredible cast and it offshoots a mediocre script. I really expected something more substantial in the terms of action, or plot but I got very little. The main reason to watch this movie is to watch some of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time in such an unusual film.

The one person who did a terrible job and did not even belong in this film was Madonna. She did not belong in this movie and her acting job was pretty bad. The movie at some points just stood still. You expected something more and you got nothing. Al Pacino plays a really bad dude and he does pretty good. He and Beatty do make an excellent good guy and bad guy.

It is also interesting to see Dustin Hoffman, and Warren Beatty in a film other than Isthar. I did not see Ishtar but I heard bad things. The thing about this movie is it is good, but it could have been so much better. I liked it as a child because I thought it looked cool, and visually the movie is amazing, the sets are incredible, the writing is only fair, and with such a cast in the movie I would expect a little better anyway.

SPOILER

I especially thought the finale was not big enough. It was interesting but for such a grand scale film I just thought it could have ended with a little more of a bang. The reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. The movie only uses the 7 comic book colors making it all that more excellent visually anyway.

The costumes and makeup were flawless as well. The facial makeup for the villains was great. Beatty is just not up to such a bigger than life character. Still, this is a good movie that could have been much much more. It is to me better than Batman, the other comic book adaptation that came out close to the same time. Of course that movie was much bigger in terms of gross. Dick Tracy wasn't the best for many comic book fans, because they wanted something with blood like Batman. Dick Tracy plays the innocence of just being a comic book with villains that have severe appearance disorder and being fun. Warren Beatty directs and stars as the main character that fights crime without even using super powers. I have liked Dick Tracy since I was a child because of the comic atmosphere of the main colors: red, blue, orange, yellow, green and black. This is the perfect film for anybody to watch with their children. Al Pacino is like the Jack Nicholson in Batman and plays Big Boy Caprice with zest. Madonna as the babe who is the second villain in this film doesn't play the same boy toy she represents. Like I said, no blood, obscenities, sexually innuendo or anything to offend anybody. At one end of the Eighties Warren Beatty created and starred in the literate epic Reds about the founding of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of iconoclast radical John Reed. It was a profound film both entertaining and with a message presented by an all star cast. At the end of the decade Warren Beatty created another kind of epic in Dick Tracy that makes no pretense to being anything other than entertainment with a whole bunch of the best actors around just having a great old time hamming it up under tons of makeup.

That both Reds and Dick Tracy could come from the same individual speaks volumes about the range this man has as a player. In this film Beatty managed to get all the famous cartoon characters from the strip and put them in one original screenplay.

The city's top mobster Big Boy Caprice is making a move to really eliminate competition. The film opens with him rubbing out Lips Manlis's henchmen in a Valentine Massacre style shooting and then Lips himself being fitted for a cement overcoat. But Caprice's moves are making him a target for Tracy.

In the meantime a third mysterious and faceless individual is looking to topple Caprice himself. Will our hero sort out this thicket of crime?

The spirit of fun this film has is truly infectious. When people like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, R.G. Armstrong get themselves outrageously made-up to look like the cartoon creations of strip author Chester Gould and then indulge in an exercise of carving the biggest slice of ham, you've got to love this film.

Al Pacino got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but any of these guys could have, it's only that Pacino as Big Boy Caprice gets the most screen time. Only Beatty plays it completely straight, the others all seem to play off of him. Dick Tracy won Oscars for Best Art&Set Design, Best Song written by Stephen Sondheim and introduced by Madonna, Sooner Or Later. The fact he was even able to get somebody like Sondheim to write a score for this film only shows Sondheim wanted to get in on the fun. As for Madonna, the Material Girl does more than hold her own with all these acting heavyweights as club torch singer Breathless Mahoney.

Before this film, Dick Tracy movies were consigned to the B pictures and worse as Saturday afternoon serials. The only thing that rivals this all star extravaganza is a radio broadcast done for Armed Forces Radio during World War II that got to vinyl. Can you believe a cast like Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore, Jimmy Durante, Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, and the Andrews Sisters? Try and find a recording of that gem.

Until then Warren Beatty's classic comic strip for the big screen will do nicely. After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others. Everything was better in past days. Even children's television. And Fraggle Rock proves my point quite easily. At the time of writing this comment I am fourteen years old but even in my teen years I can't resist the charm of Fraggle Rock. For those of you that have indeed been living under a rock (haha!), Fraggle Rock is about a horde of playful and goofy creatures called Fraggles who live-amazingly-in a rock. But they're not the only creatures. The rock is inhabited with many other species like the hardworking Doozers and countless living plants. Outside the rock on one side live inventor-scientist Doc and his dog Sprocket (who later befriends Gobo Fraggle), on the other side a family of Gorgs-supposed rulers of the Universe. The five main Fraggles Gobo (fearless leader), Mokey (arty and peaceful), Wembley (indecisive and a friend to Gobo), Boober (a pessimistic domestic god) and Red (loves anything to do with sport and general feistyness)get caught up in some strange situations each episode while at the same time sing and dance their cares away.

Fraggle Rock is definitely a family show-the plots may have intricate details that infants may not follow well, but the song-and-dance routines will hold their attention. The characters are strong and likable, their conflicts believable and their adventures thrilling. The Gorgs are frightening, Doc and Sprocket enlightening, Uncle Travelling Matt hilarious (the postcard segments are very 80s!) and the final episode, Change of Address, genuinely touching. Let's go down to Fraggle Rock again! Fragglerock is excellent in the way that Schindler's List was excellent. A Great watch for children and adults of all genders. Big noses can be seen as hinting towards phallic symbols, in the same way that H.R. Puff N Stuff had hinted towards marijuana smoking. Your kids will love this movie. I enjoyed it very much as a child. My father showed me this movie as a child. He enjoyed it as well and pointed out that the exaggerated noses were phallic symbols. Although at the time I had no clue about what those were. The movie is comedy and adventure. The storyline is wacky and cheerful. I and you shall enjoy this together. Rented the movie as a joke. My friends and I had so much fun laughing at it that I went and found a used copy and bought it for myself. Now when all my friends are looking for a funny movie I give them Sasquatch Hunters. It needs to be said though there is a rule that was made that made the movie that much better. No talking is allowed while the movie is on unless the words are Sasquatch repeated in a chant. I loved the credit at the end of the movie as well. "Thanks for the Jeep, Tom!" Whoever Tom is I say thank you because without your Jeep the movie may not have been made. In short a great movie if you are looking for something to laugh at. If you want a good movie maybe look for something else but if you don't mind a laugh at the expense of a man in a monkey suit grab yourself a copy. "Sasquatch Hunters" actually wasn't as bad as I thought.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling into the woods, Park Rangers Charles Landon, (Kevin O'Connor) Roger Gordon, (Matt Latimore) Brian Stratton (David Zelina) Spencer Combs, (Rick Holland) and his sister Janet, (Stacey Branscombe) escort Dr. Helen Gilbert, (Amy Shelton-White) her boss Dr. Ethan Edwards, (Gary Sturm) and assistant Louise Keaton, (Juliana Dever) to find the site of some reputed bones found in the area. When they make camp, the team discovers a giant burial ground and more strange bones littering the area. When members of the group start to disappear, they start to wander through the woods to safety. It's discovered that a Sasquatch is behind the killings, and the team band together to survive.

The Good News: This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The movie really starts to pick up some steam at around the half-way point, when the creature attacks. That is a masterful series of scenes, as the whole group is subjected to attacks by the creature, and the suspense throughout the entire play-out is extremely high. The wooded area is most appropriately milked during these parts, heightening the tension and wondering when a single person wandering around in the forest will get their comeuppance. Also spread quite liberally through the movie is the effective use of off-screen growls and roars that are truly unworldly. They really do add much to make this part so creepy, as well as the other times the growling shriek is heard. It's quite effective, and works well. It's quite nice that the later part of the film picks up the pace, as it goes out pretty well on a high note of action. One scene especially I feel must point out as being a special scene on first viewing. As a man is running through the forest from the creature, he spots the expedition that has gone on looking for it. Raising his hands to holler to them for help, the second he goes to announce his presence is he attacked from out of nowhere and killed quite hastily. It caught me by surprise and actually gave me a little jump on first viewing.

The Bad News: There was only a couple things to complain about here, and one is a usual complaint. The creature here is mostly rendered by horrible CGI, which made him look totally ridiculous and destroys any credibility it might've had. The air of menace conjured up by the opening of the film is almost shot out the window when the creature appears on screen. It's so distracting that it's a shame a little more work wasn't put into it. I've complained about this one a lot, and is something that really should be done away with, as it doesn't look that realistic and is quite fake. Another big one is the off-screen kills in here. Very often in the film is a person grabbed and then yanked away, and then finding the bloody body afterward. It's quite aggravating when the kills look nice and juicy afterward. Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one, as everything else that's usually critiqued about this one didn't really bother me, but it is called on for others beyond this stuff.

The Final Verdict: I kinda liked this one, but it's still not the best Sasquatch movie ever. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, and if viewed that way, it's actually quoit enjoyable. Fans of these films should give this one a look, and those that like the Sci-Fi Creature Features might find some nice things in here as well.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and some graphic carcasses This isn't the best Bigfoot ever made, but by the recent standards of Nature gone awry movies, mostly showing on the Sci-Fi channel, this is quality stuff. It has some action, some humor, decent F/X and Bigfoot. CG is used, but so are some practical F/X, which I like.

Overall this movie is worth a watch if you are a fan of B horror/sci-fi and need a fix. It's better than the movie Sasquatch and not a sequel to it, so don't be fooled.

The acting is better than you may expect to find in a movie like this and the directing is more than adequate. Expect a bit of a lul as the characters are "developed", but know that things will pick up. If you are watching a DVD you may want to skip a chapter or two. I read a few reviews of this TV movie which all said that the film dragged on for too long and that it was basically only sensationalistic entertainment. I agree that perhaps, the film goes on a bit too long (2h30 would have been enough...) but I certainly do not think it sensationalize the subject matter. Jim Jones' expansive power trip and slow degradation into mental illness, paranoia and drug abuse are never treated in a voyeuristic manner. The movie takes its time in showing how Jones recruited followers (Brenda Vaccaro's and Brad Dourif's character are stand-outs in that matter) but also in observing an uncanny shift in Jones' perception of reality. It is mind-boggling to see an egalitarian, left-wing and compassionnate preacher become such a destructive and cruel dictator. Perhaps the movie doesn't explore Jones' motivations enough, which can make the whole ordeal a bit superficial at times (may have to do with censorship as well...) But Powers Boothe's mesmerizing performance makes it all come true. I am not familiar with the details of the real Jim Jones' life, but Boothe sure makes the monster he plays believable and real. The movie features many strong scenes, among them the preaching messes of Jones, Jones's meeting with Father Divine (a remarquable James Earl Jones), Congressman Leo Ryan (Ned Beatty)'s visit to the Guyana camp and of course, the suicide scene. It is quite a gloomy spectable to watch and Boothe is quite commanding in those last moments. Madge Sinclair shines in this scene as one of the suddenly sceptic follower, and so do Veronica Cartwright (as Jones' wife) and Brad Dourif, especially when their time comes to drink the murderous potion. The relative calm of the end of this scene, the tasteful direction and the contrasting beauty of the natural surroundings all work in making those images quite impossible to erase from one's mind. A disturbing reflection on human nature and its weaknesses. Worth watching, if only to keep in mind one of the truly horrific events of the 20th century. Not to let it be repeated again. Like, ironically, the inscription in Jim Jones' camp: "Those who do not know the past are bound to repeat it". Powers Boothe turns in a stellar performance as 1970's cult figure Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple. Jones physical likeness to Jones is uncanny and the story is acted out chillingly. The movie keeps you riveted and is a must see for anyone. check it out. A well cast summary of a real event! Well, actually, I wasn't there, but I think this is how it may have been like. I think there are two typically American standpoints evident in the film: 'communistophobia' and parallels to Adolf Hitler. These should be evident to most independent observers. Anyway, Boothe does a great performance, and so do lots of other well-known actors. The last twenty minutes of the film are unbearable - and I mean it! Anyone who can sleep well after them is abnormal. (That's why it's so terrible - it all happened, and it probably looked just like that). But, actually, did that last scene on the air station really take place? I've seen this film literally over 100 times...it's absolutely jam-packed with entertainment!!! Powers Boothe gives a stellar performance. As a fan of actors such as William Shatner (Impulse, 1974) and Ron Liebmann (Up The Academy, 1981)I never thought an actor could capture the "intensity" like Shatner and Liebmann in those roles, until I saw Boothe as Jim Jones! As far as I'm concerned, Powers Boothe IS Jim Jones...this film captures his best performance!!! Powers Booth is hypnotic as cult leader jim jones who led his Peoples Temple followers from 1953 until 1978 when he led them in a mass suicide in 1978 where over 900 died. A very well done movie which may seem a little dated due to the 70s time period but well worth the time 8 of 10 Just given the fact that it is based on the most infamous mass suicide incident of modern times would have been enough to give this 2-part 1980 made-for-TV film attention. But the fact is that it is a superb recreation of the life of the Rev. Jim Jones, who built a church into a virtual empire, and then encouraged it to disintegrate into a sleazy cult in which a Congressman and his entourage were assassinated, and 917 cult followers committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid doused with cyanide.

Done very tastefully but horrifying enough, unlike the excruciatingly sadistic CULT OF THE DAMNED, GUYANA TRAGEDY features an all-star cast, including Ned Beatty (as Rep. Leo Ryan), Meg Foster, Randy Quaid, Brad Dourif, Brenda Vaccaro, LeVar Burton, and Madge Sinclair. But it is Powers Boothe (in his first big role) that really stands out as Jim Jones. He actually BECOMES the man, and his performance is riveting and chilling. Thus, it is no wonder that this film still manages to attract attention after more than twenty years. I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others. This is quite the gripping, fascinating, tragic story. Quite good, and for the most part pretty accurate, considering it IS a TV movie rather than a documentary. They did create some fictional characters, and combine several actual people into one character, but otherwise this is a good telling of a very tragic and dark story.

The final moments of the movie, depicting the mass suicide/murder, are almost directly taken from an audio recording made by Jim Jones. This recording was made during the final 44 minutes of the Peoples Temple's existence. It is available in several places on the internet. This portion of the film is almost spot on in that regard.

To sum up, a documentary this is not. However, it does cover most of the base elements to the People's Temple story. I am watching the series back to back as fast as possible. I am attempting to watch all things Star Trek. This is month 3 and I am now on Season 3 of TNG and I have already gone thru DS9 in its entirety. Star Trek is the greatest television phenomenon ever achieved.

"Shades of Grey" is the first recap episode in the TNG series. Having just watched the shows, these clips were fresh in my mind, but I noticed how a couple of them were re-shot because the film looked better. Season 1 always seemed real dark and ugly to me - and the actors looked silly, like they didn't fit in their own skins.

The show is essentially just made of up a greatest hits of the happiest and saddest moments in Riker's life on the Enterprise up until this point. The Data and Riker scene in the holo-deck is a classic moment of new friendship. My other favorite is when the 2nd officer on the Klingon ship challenges Riker's authority as first officer and Riker beat the living CRAP out of that Klingon. Then the admiral kicks his a$$ but good. This entire episode is a heck of a reminder that a LOT of crazy, great things have happened already in a mere 2 seasons with 5 more to go and a handful of movies! At this point in the series they are really starting to develop the emotions that tie Riker to Deanna Troi as Imzadi. Up until this point they have mentioned the fact, but they have yet to exploit it. Let the record show that the ST Wiki - Memory Alpha claims that Imzadi means "first" and denotes that she has had intimate relations with Riker and also remains deeply close on an emotional one. This episode further proves there will be a tense romantic interest in each other for a long time to come.

Here is the article: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Imzadi By this point in the series, production value is up to speed and Star Trek TNG is settling into the sci-fi behemoth it was destined to become. Watching this again as an adult I see now what GREAT ACTORS the Star Trek Universe provides. They really need to make a new ST show set after all the current shows. A DS9 movie would have been nice too. I am going to go out on a limb, and actually defend "Shades of Grey" as a good clip-show episode, which delved into the life and death struggle of Commander William Thomas Riker who was battling a terminally fatal disease.

The scenes from the flashback sequences were implemented quite well with the mood Riker was in such as when he was reliving his romantic episodes such as "11001001," "Angel One," and "Up the Long Ladder." Tragic moments were highlighted such as Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil," as well as elements of pulse-pounding danger in "Heart of Glory," "Conspiracy," and the aforementioned "Skin of Evil." Riker also exhibited courage under fire by telling some humorous jokes such as "An ancestor of mine was bitten by a rattlesnake once...after 3 days of intense pain, the snake died." This episode highlighted the psychological ordeal of Will Riker under extreme duress. And, YES, I am biased in my opinion in proclaiming "Shades of Grey" as a solid episode, because at the time of its original airing, my face was covered in sweat, wondering whether or not Riker would pullout of it alive and live to see other great, galactic, outerspace adventures beyond the final frontier...

Of course, in subsequent years, I seem to have formed a singular opinion of this particular episode...but, if an award should go for "the best clip-show episode in the history of television," then I believe that this episode should be highly regarded in that respect. This is a very intriguing short movie by David Lynch, and saying the name David Lynch is probably enough for a lot of people. This is your typical Lynch short. A blonde and a brunette are in a dark room. The blonde has been crying, the brunette is talking in a threatening way to the blonde, and that's about it.

With a lot of silent moments, but with the haunting music from Angelo Badalamenti, there is a strange form of suspense. This short feels a little like 'Mulholland Dr.', a movie I loved, and therefore I liked this one as well. It is probably especially for Lynch fans but there is a chance you like this. David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.

Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.

Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.

Hello, this little film is interesting especially for an artist, film-maker or music creator or a visual artist, for:

One can feel and examine David's touch/style straight out of a short piece of relative simplicity.

You can see the rhythmic spacing of the shots, the pans and the sound elements.

Even as simple film, this creation is multy-layer. For example, there are some sounds that drone all along, while others appear (though subtle), at certain points to support certain shots.

One can see also several types of pans: some go up and down in a gentle back-forth way. There is diagonal pan. Zooms also go back and forth sometimes.

The lightning and the composition/disposition of elements in the space is, as usual and obviously, work of a painer/artist. This can be felt even in this crappy room. This is to say: one can make exquisite art already by the simple art of placing the look/view and composing the scene. Then comes the forcelines of the visuals: like digonales, parallels, etc. The light's degradées and the colours, although without too much research for textures as in big productions, are fine too. This is an artist's sketch of a sort...

All this is not calculated but done with inner feeling and this feel gives the David's touch/feel to it, as with any true artist. I really think that people are taking the wrong approach at this one. First of all, I find this short-film very entertaining and interesting. I just take it for what it is. I think the suspense and mystery are ingenious in their insinuation upon the watcher. One other thing that caught my fancy was that it immediately gets the viewer involved even though there is no clear story, just hints and pauses and emotions played out by the characters that kind of give you the impression that there is a story to all that is going on. No-one else could have done that better than Lynch. This is the essence of lynchianism at its best. Sure, I will agree with anyone that people that start viewing this with the desire to be entertained without any really imaginative work from the viewer's side, will find themselves disappointed. And in good right. Lynch is not about that. At least this side of Lynch is not. The one that helped make Lost Highway/Mulholland Dr. is at full tilt here and people that just expect to be entertained like they would watching anything else, will just not get what this is all about. My opinion is that Darkened Room is all about messing with your animal-core, your instinctual self, by giving you the means (image, sound, situation) by which you instinctively react. It's not about pleasure of any kind, it's about getting the desired reaction out of you. And, that, my friend, is pure art. It's a short movie from David Lynch with just 8 minutes, but it got all the "Lynchian ingredients"! It's mysterious, dark, inconclusive, eerie, and strange; and before the blond girl starts to talk it's even a bit scary! The soundtrack is exceptional to create this odd atmosphere because it's also sinister and mysterious…

About the setting itself, it hasn't the "traditional" red curtains, but it has socking purple painted walls, which give it an equally effect of eeriness.

The plot is about a girl who's locked in a dark room and she cries for help; then comes another girl who starts talking to her in a mysterious way, saying she's there just because of her fault… We don't know what did happen or what will happen next… it ended unsolved and puzzling, as a good Lynch movie must end!

It's a great short, despite some amateurish acting. The girls are professional actresses, but I think their acting could have been better in this short. This is almost typical Lynch. However, What makes this film slightly unusual for Lynch is the fact that it looks very raw, almost amateurish. But i believe Lynch does this on purpose to give a greater sense of realism, which serves to increase the intensity of surreal moments.

However, a lot of Typical Lynch motifs are present, such as: floating camera work; haunting music; long (excruciating) pauses; hanging curtains; dim lights growing darker at a slow (almost indiscernible) pace; extreme close ups; themes of women in trouble; over-bearing, incompassionate, all knowing characters facing off with characters who are distraught, temporarily oblivious, in the dark and so on...

The performances are great and the short is thought provoking. As usual, Lynch leaves almost everything up to interpretation. Many questions are left unanswered and this ignites the imagination.

Another brilliant effort from Lynch. I only hope he makes some shorts, more along the lines of his sony playstation 2 commercials. They were inspired. I don't quite know how to explain "Darkend Room," because to summarize it wouldn't really do it justice. It's a quintessentially Lynchian short film with two beautiful girls in a strange, mysterious situation. I would say this short is definitely more on the "Mulholland Drive" end of the Lynchian spectrum, as opposed to "The Elephant Man" or "The Straight Story." It's hidden on Lynch's website, and well worth the search. As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.

Remember the "strings" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing "Suspicious Minds". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.

As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.

Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places. Rock Star: INXS was the best music TV series I have ever watched! It had some of the greatest rock n' roll songs ever written, performed by 15 very talented singers/performers. It also had (in my opinion) the most heart-felt, feel-good, surprise endings in all of reality TV. It actually made me shed tears of happiness for the winner!!! Over the 13 weeks of this televised competition, the viewing audience got to know and became familiar with all of the contestants. After 30-some episodes the remaining contestants seemed more like friends than just some more strangers competing against each other on a reality TV show. And the fact that INXS was, and still is, one of the greatest rock n' roll bands EVER just added to the emotional tension created by this wonderful reality series. If you don't have the series recorded, ROCK STAR: INXS the DVD is a great alternative. Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.

I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.

The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power.

I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.

Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.)

So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.

If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school. The documentary presents an original theory about "Guns, Germs and Steel". The series graphically portray several episodes strongly supporting the theory, and defend the theory against common criticism.

I was deeply puzzled to find user comments complaining about lack of new information in these series. They say documentary presents information which is taught in middle school. Indeed, it does. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the original look at the information which I have known since middle school and the unexpected analysis.

So, if you like knowing WHY things work, if you have taken apart the telephone trying to determine how it worked, if you have gone to the farm to see how farm works and how cows are milked, you will enjoy this series. A definite recommendation. This is a documentary I came across by chance on the UK TV channel More4 and I have to say I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I will also be seeking out the book that was the source material for this documentary. Basically this is Professor Jared Diamond theory on why certain parts of the earth's societies prospered and others did not. The argument he presents was new to me and argued about how the fortune of the right crops and the right animals that where able to domesticated is certainly a compelling one. As for the documentary itself it is well shot and well narrated with not to much of the re-created scenes that spoil many a modern documentary. Diamond also helps by not being to condescending which is a fault of a lot of intellectuals when trying to get a message to the masses. People have claimed his theory is Marxist but I do not buy this and see it more socio geologist. It was also refreshing to hear an theory on the evolution of society not based around religion. Highly recommended viewing. Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence. This series adds new information and background to the book and includes personal appearances by the author and by archaeologists and other anthropologists. It brings the book to life and makes even more sense of the author's subsequent opus, *Collapse*.

Diamond himself comes off as personable and caring, not just a disinterested or disengaged academic. This series makes it clear that his book was not just a response to a need to "publish or perish," as the saying goes about academe, but a deeply considered answer to a question from someone he respects, "Why you white people got so much cargo, and we have so little?" Because he respected the intelligence of the questioner and his community, Diamond looked for an answer that didn't insult that intelligence or that community. I like to think of his answer in a very simple way, in the same spirit as "South Park's" "Blame Canada": "Blame wheat!" "Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines". --- It is obvious that the person who wrote this comment hasn't understood the reasoning behind this documentary or the original book. Please don't ruin this great piece by your simple mindedness. The reasons are far more complex than the single thing you mentioned. Please read the book as is it a great source of information. I enjoyed it a lot. This book is even a taught as a text book at some universities. Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character. (WARNING: minor spoilers)

I ran into this one partway through and watched from there, not knowing what it was or what the plot was. It certainly held my attention; I didn't know until the ending that it was based on a true story! The guy she used to do the dirty deed came out looking like a seriously nice guy who just got his head twisted around by a devious girl; I have to question how true to life that portrayal is. Anyone who would murder a husband and wife as they slept just can't be entirely nice. Still, I did have some sympathy for him, as he had been set up and taken advantage of; that much was made clear.

My main complaint is with the ending (here comes the biggest spoiler! skip this paragraph if you don't want to learn it). A few minutes before it ended, there seemed no way for the truth to be discovered. The way it got discovered was in a "sting" operation, but my question is: how did the police get convinced to go along with it? The movie didn't show us that, and it seemed a bit too convenient absent the explanation of how they were persuaded to do it.

I think the way they handled that was done for dramatic purposes, as the omission of the explanation lent an aura of suspense to the crucial scene which otherwise wouldn't have been there (we would already have known what the scene was about, and what was going on with Brad in it).

Otherwise, this is a pretty good film; I give it 7/10. It made me think. Now I'm interested to find out the facts of the real case.

One more thing: the movie was done in 1996. Some of the reviews here seem to be treating it as a more recent movie.

P.S. Meadow Sisto is lovely. I hadn't seen her before. She can act a little, too (always a plus in her line of work, LOL). hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye I like the movie. Twisted Desire had Jeremy Jordan,one of my favorite and one of the cutest actors ever. Melissa Joan Hart is a good actress. I've seen most of her movies but all of Jeremy Jordan's. The thing i dislike about Twisted Desire is when "Nick" gets arrested and "Jennifer" rats him out. Twisted Desire is my second favorite movie. My first is The Goonies. But i still love Jeremy Jordan. This movie is totally wicked! It's really great to see MJH in a different role than her Sabrina character! The plot is totally cool, and the characters are excellently written. Definitely one of the best movies!! I have seen it & i like it Melissa plays her part well. It was actually believable. My brother in law saw it with my sister & i and when i mentioned to my sister that i forgot it was based on a true story (i had seen it a few years ago.) he said just because its on lifetime you think its true & both my sister & i were like it was so anyway i was wondering if anyone knew what murder it was or like who was really involved was because i want to prove it to him. I love lifetime movies especially the ones that are true, or just the ones that teach a good lesson. I thought I saw something about it a week ago but i cant remember where any help would be appreciated. I have to say that this TV movie was the work that really showed how talented Melissa Joan Hart is. We are so used to, now, seeing her in a sitcom and I really hope that a TV station will show this TV movie again soon as it will show the Sabrina fans that MJH shines in a drama. Seen as we have watched her on Sabrina now for now 5 years and so to give the viewers a taste of her much unused talent would be a plus. Melissa plays her role so well in this wanting her parents "done away" with so she can be with the guy she loves. One thing that all Sabrina viewers will notice, Melissa works with David Lascher in this, well before he took the role of Josh on Sabrina. So it would be kind of neat to see this currently whenever it gets aired again. Hopefully MJH gets some good roles in movies or even in more TV Movies, sort of like Kellie Martin who has always shined in TV Movies. Lots of unused talent waiting to bust out when it comes to Melissa Joan Hart, you shine always Melissa!!! Somewhere near the bottom of the film studio ladder you can find companies like U.F.O, Troma and beneath them lie Seduction cinema.

Seduction is a direct to video production company that specialize in lesbian themed, non-hardcore erotic movies. It has developed a very dedicated fan base that purchase each new title as they are released but sadly the company has become too closely associated with frequent star Misty Mundae. I say sadly because recent mainstream interest and her appearance on the show Masters of Horrors has caused her to set her sights a little higher than the zero budget S.C efforts which forces the company to find a new identity. But back in their glory days they released this film on a very appreciative world.

The gorgeous Misty Mundae is forced to attend a boarding school at the request of a absent father. At the school she meets her absurdly hot room-mate played by Ruby Larocca who immediately has designs on her but the headmistress (Barbara Joyce) has other plans. In typical S.C style the movie stops every ten minutes for a extended sex scene but unlike most of their efforts this one has a somewhat interesting story and a couple of good performances. Ms. Larocca appears to be having a great time as the sexual predator who views Misty as a tasty meal and Darian Caine makes a welcome (though brief) appearance as Satan. This is the sort of film that Jess Franco would crank out in the 70s (although this one does not have the hardcore sex that Franco was always willing to throw in for foreign sales) and fans of that madman's work would be wise to give this one a go.

To me, as a long time zero budget cinema fan (and Troma worshiper), I came across the Seduction cinema films through their parody films (Playmate of the apes, Who wants to be a erotic billionaire) but I actually prefer their more original works. You either see past the low budget and occasionally weak acting or you get hung up on these things and just hate all of these films. For me the most obvious thing that unites these no-budget movies is a real sense of fun. These low budget companies are able to create their own unique style which gives the viewer something very different from the bland, by the numbers, studio efforts that load up the multiplexes.

If you have never seen a Seduction cinema film either this or Sin Sisters (featuring both of the Mundae sisters) are excellent choices to begin with. This one is a fun, fast paced film (although the frequent exterior shots of the school do get a little old) and the DVD is totally loaded with extras including a ton of previews of other company offerings, a great behind the scenes featurette and some deleted scenes including a alternate opening. I do recommend you pass on the disc's bonus feature, the first film by director, as it is quite weak and not really worth viewing. The good thing about this film is that it stands alone - you don't have to have seen the original. Unfortunately this is also it's biggest drawback. It would have been nice to have included a few of the original characters in the new story and seen how their lives had developed. Sinclair as in the original is excellent and provides the films best comic moments as he attempts to deal with awkward and embarrassing situations but the supporting cast is not as strong as in the original movie. Forsyth is to be congratulated on a brave attempt to move the character on and create an original sequel but the film is ultimately flawed and lacks the warmth of the original A shift in outlook is neccesary to enjoy modern British films, one that somehow allows them to be seen in their own right and for their own qualities rather than by the criteria that American films are judged. Britfilm has to try hard to be gritty and finds it hard to make it, but at warmth British films can lord it over their otherwise overwhelming competitor.

This film fails not in its content but only in attaching itself to the predeccesor, so allowing it to be all to easily seen as the work of star and director somewhere near the end of their tethers. It's a couple of decades later, Gregory teaching and this time with two girls on his mind. He teaches at his school railing against human rights abuses. When students he's fired up find abuses in their midst he must face whether he's just all talk.

This is a subversive film in that there's not the usual worldly character of any American movie that you expect to do whatever he does, but a naive man boy who may still put everything on the line for principles. Maybe. It's certainly no protest-by-numbers though, being too warm. Where U.S. film may seem realistic because they're urban and gritty, this and other British films of recent years - those that don't try to match America for visceral thrills - are real because British humour reveals truths. As a huge fan of the original, I avoided this film like the plague when the bad reviews started coming in eight years ago, but I just finished watching this film and found it to be a really pleasant surprise.

Okay, if you are looking for a retread of the original, you're in for a big disappointment, but if you are looking for something quite different, a bit edgy and political, then this is the film for you.

Gregory is now thirty four and works as a teacher at his old comprehensive school, where he's being pursued by a fellow teacher and having sexual dreams about one of his students. When the student insists on meeting up with Gregory, a series of misadventures ensue that include torture, breaking and entering and all manner of unexpected twists and turns that left me feeling elated and moved.

If you are looking for something original, then I highly recommend this film. I only wish that more people had gone to see this when it was released and seen it for what it really is. This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.

Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.

THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.

Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less. The Last Hard Men finds James Coburn an outlaw doing a long sentence breaking free from a chain gang. Do he and his friends head for the Mexican border from jail and safety. No they don't because Coburn has a mission of revenge. To kill the peace officer who brought him in and in the process killed his woman.

That peace officer is Charlton Heston who is now retired and he knows what Coburn is after. As he explains it to his daughter, Barbara Hershey, Coburn was holed up in a shack and was involved in a Waco like standoff. His Indian woman was killed in the hail of bullets fired. It's not something he's proud of, she was a collateral casualty in a manhunt.

Lest we feel sorry for Coburn he lets us know full well what an evil man he truly is. Heston is his usual stalwart hero, but the acting honors in The Last Hard Men go to James Coburn. He blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.

Coburn gets the bright idea of making sure Heston trails him by kidnapping Hershey and taking her to an Indian reservation where the white authorities can't touch him. He knows that Heston has to make it personal then.

Coburn's gang includes, Morgan Paull, Thalmus Rasulala, John Quade, Larry Wilcox, and Jorge Rivero. Heston has Chris Mitchum along who is his son-in-law to be.

The Last Hard Men is one nasty and brutal western. Andrew McLaglen directed it and I'm thinking it may have been a project originally intended for Sam Peckinpaugh. It sure shows a lot of his influence with the liberal use of slow motion to accentuate the violence. Of which there is a lot.

For a little Peckinpaugh lite, The Last Hard Men is your film. I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!

The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..

Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!

All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..

Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10. ***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.

Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!

Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic "The Searchers" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.

The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.

Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.

***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good! "The Last Hard Men" is a typical western for the 70's. Most of them seem to be inspired by Sam Peckinpah. Also this one, but Director Andrew McLaglan is a John Ford Pupil and this can be obviously shown in many scenes. IMO the beginning is very good. In a certain way McLaglan wanted to show the audience a travel from the civilization to the wilderness. In the third part there are some illogical flaws and I complain a bit about Charlton Heston. He has to play an old ex-lawman named Sam Burgade but he is in a fantastic physical shape. I never got the feeling that he really has problems to climb on a horse or on a rock. For me he didn't looks very motivated as he usual do in most of his epic movies. Same goes to the beautiful Barbara Hershey who is playing the sheriff's daughter. Maybe both had troubles with the director or were unhappy with their roles. Hershey and Coburn are not showing their best but they are still good. If the scriptwriter had John Wayne in their mind as Sam Burgade? Also Michael Parks as modern sheriff is a bit underused in his role. On the other Hand there is James Coburn as outlaw Zach Provo. Coburn is a really great villain in this one. He is portraying the bad guy between maniac hate and cleverness. His role and his acting is the best of the movie.

Landscapes and Shootouts are terrific. The shootings scenes are bloody and the violence looks realistic. Zach Provo and his gang had some gory and violent scenes. What I miss is the typical western action in the middle of the movie. I would have appreciated a bank robbery or something similar. Overall it's an entertaining western flick. Not a great movie but above the average because of a great Coburn, a very good beginning and some gory and violent scenes. Good western filmed in the rocky Arizona wilds. Lots of tough guys throughout; Cobern's character seemed to rock back and forth between a raging psycho and a laid back type. Several holes appeared in the picture, but not enough to offset it being exciting and worth seeing. One really dumb scene shows Heston emptying .45 cases of their powder and collecting it in a sack for the purpose of starting a fire. A. To gather that much gunpowder he would have needed a pack mule to carry the ammo. B. The grass was obviously dry: why not just drop a match on it and let 'er rip? Thought at first this film would be your typical Western film, however, it turned out to be very interesting and kept me spellbound right to the very end, which turned out very unusual. Charlton Heston,(Sam Burgade),"Midway",'76, had past experiences with James Coburn,(Zach Provo),"Deadfall",'93, and Zach never forgave Sam and would stop at nothing to make sure he caught up with him and paid him back. Unfortunately, Barbara Hershey,(Susan Burgade),"The Portrait of a Lady",'96, managed to get caught up in this situation and found herself among sex starved men who never seemed to leave her alone. Sam Burgade had to make some very hard decisions and and I was quite surprised at the conclusion. This is a very entertaining film and the acting was outstanding. This is by far the most incredible movie I have seen in a long time. The actors gave wonderful portrayals of the characters in the movie. The story was accurately portrayed. The story starts out with a young woman from the British Isles and her father traveling by steamboat to Nauvoo, Illinois. She has become a member of the LDS Church and he has not. He thinks she is ridiculous for making the trip and is discouraging. She encourages him to read about Joseph Smith, the Prophet. This is where the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith begins. The movie accurately portrays his life and some of the history of the LDS Church at the same time. It was graphic at times, but was needed. The emotional expression was very believable, which caused my emotions to spill out. Filming was awesome. The way in which the story was presented was touching. After the movie was over, we just sat there unable to moved. I was stunned. For people who know very little of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, I would encourage you to see this. If nothing else but to gain some understanding of his life. For those who are members of the Church, I would encourage you to see it. It will increase your testimony of this most incredible man. This is a must see. After reading the comments to this movie and seeing the mixed reviews, I decided that I would add my ten cents worth to say I thought the film was excellent, not only in the visual beauty, the writing, music score, acting, and directing, but in putting across the story of Joseph Smith and the road he traveled through life of hardship and persecution for believing in God the way he felt and knew to be his path. I am very pleased, indeed, to have had a small part in telling the story of this remarkable man. I recommend everyone to see this when the opportunity presents itself, no matter what religious path he or she may be walking, this only instills one with more determination to live the life that we should with true values of love and forgiveness as the Savior taught us to do. I saw it at the Legacy Theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City this morning. I'm going to assume that one's level of enjoyment during this movie will largely be based on one's level of acceptance of Joseph's story.

However, that aside it was very well made, well acted, and had a nice score. If you get to Salt Lake City, it is a must to see it in the Legacy Theater. I have never been in a nicer theater as far as picture quality, sound quality and ambiance in my entire life...I wonder if the Church would let me watch Batman Begins there! Being that I'm LDS and regard Joseph as a prophet, I was touched in several places and was brought to tears quite a few times...which I presume is expected since they handed out tissues BEFORE the movie started! Anyway, I'm told that this film is available in several LDS Visitor Centers around the globe, if you have 70 minutes check it out because whether you believe Joseph Smith or not, he tells a fascinating story. I am stunned at the negative comments that I have read and can only assume that the people making such comments were less than honest. This is the most moving and real portrayal of Joseph Smith that I have ever seen. It was well acted to the point that at times I forgot that I was watching a movie. It brought Joseph's life of hardship, good-natured optimism, enduring faith in people and God, and ultimate sacrifice to life such in a way that frankly left me speechless and silent in awe. If anyone, of ANY Christian religion can watch this movie without being touched in some positive way--I would have to say it is a reflection of the individual and NOT the movie. I give the movie a "10" and encourage honest souls to view it. At the very LEAST it is an extremely heart felt portrayal of man who gave everything he had for what he believed...In a world where values and beliefs are ridiculed, this movie stands as a enduring reminder of the kind of people we are supposed to be- no matter what religious beliefs we hold.- Ann Pruitt- Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted. I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?! This movie makes a statement about Joseph Smith, what he stood for, and what the LDS church believes. With all the current media coverage of a certain fugitive people have confused the LDS church with the FLDS church and criminal fugitive Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is Not associated with the LDS church yet media groups internationally have asked for comments about Jeffs from The LDS church. Jeffs is not mentioned in the movie at all but I think that it is ironic that this movie with all it's points about Joseph also point away from the fews of the FLDS church and their leader at this time in the media world. This is a movie about Joseph Smith and a great one at that. Some of the most obvious differences between Jeffs and Joseph is portrayed in Joseph's humanity, acceptance and love. Jeffs views and opinions differ greatly from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and it is seen in this movie. Jeffs thinks of the "Negro" as devils. Joseph Smith knew they were children of god and gave up his wife's favorite horse to a African American (former slave) to buy his son's freedom. Joseph is shown doing housework for his wife Emma and is criticized by a member until Joseph tells him that a man may lose his wife in the next life if she chooses not to stay with her husband and that doing chores is a way to help and cherish your wife. Jeffs brought one of his polygamist wives to her knees in front of a class full of students by grabbing her braid and twisting it painfully till she came to her knees. Lastly Joseph participated with law enforcement and sought aid from the government at all times. Jeffs thumbs his nose at government and flees at all times.

I loved this movie and if you don't know much about Joseph Smith and what the LDS church believes, then this is the movie to see. And if you had confused the LDS Church with the FLDS church then you really need to get your act together. We are not much different from anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the Sanctity of marriage and the family, as well a patriotic to our homeland and country. We are all different as well just like you can find different protestants, Presbyterians, methodist, baptist and Catholics. What's important is our message and what we stand for. This movie trys to portray that but there is so much of Joseph's life that can't be covered in a mere 2 hour movie. This was a really great show. This is one of the most spiritual movies I have ever seen. I headed up with about 150 people to St. George and we saw this movie in the visiting center of the St. George temple.. Not one person had dry eyes in the audience. Also, there were some non- religious and anti-Mormon people in the audience who felt the spirit of the movie and were touched by the captivating music and reenactment of the story of the pioneers and the hardships they faced because of their beliefs.

I recommend this movie for anyone who wishes to understand more about Joseph and the hardships that the pioneers went through. After all, it is apart of American History. The most amazing, spiritually uplifting movie about the restoration of the gospel. Far better than any other film, or movie made about the restoration thus far. If you haven't seen it, hop on a plane to Salt Lake and see it now. You won't regret it! You truly get a sense of what the first saints had to struggle through, putting complete and total faith in there prophet Joseph Smith. You finally get some sort of comprehension of the things the prophet had to fight through and the persecutions he and his people faced. If you have any questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints and our humble beginnings just watch this movie, it will make complete and total sense afterward. This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone. This film is a true and historical film. It is very useful to those researching the LDS church, because it is 100% true. It is an excellent film and I recommend it.

It is very factual, exciting, and motivational. There are some who think it is not factual, but it is.

It is about the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and about the prophet, Joseph Smith, who restored it. It has such events in his life as the disease that he had when he was a small boy, his courting Emma Smith, Emma, his wife, giving birth, and so on. But most importantly it reveals the restoration of the church. As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward.

On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only "full length motion pictures" of the church's I had seen was "Legacy" and "My Best Two Years", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.

At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought "OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears." Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

See it & believe in it's powerful message! Despite reading the "initial comments" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone! I don't know what movie some of these other people watched, but they must have seen a different "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" than the one I saw.

I think the movie was both well-done and inspiring. I think it's definitely worth watching. It's apparent from the outset that a lot of care went into the making of this film. The background scenery is beautiful.

I think the film does a good job of portraying Joseph Smith both as a man and as a prophet. Joseph's spiritual experiences are portrayed with taste and reverence.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie. I think the film is educational. However, it fails to treat the issue which sparked so much controversy: plural marriage. Also, the film fails to reveal what the LDS church espouses. Big opportunity was missed to tell the world what they actually believe. I could not get a clear idea of what it is LDS views are on central topics of religion.

I have many LDS friends and they are nice people. Would have been nice to get a clearer picture of how they view their prophet's more controversial statements. Maybe these statements are just too controversial to be treated in a film format, but it would have been great to hear the whole story of Joseph Smith's truly interesting life. After all, it gives insight into American thought on religion in the 18th century. Hope they do some documentaries on this fascinating subject, allowing historians to comment on Smith's life. We may have a Mormon president some day. After all, Smith ran for president. I have seen this wonderful production, and I wonder if anyone can tell me anything about the actress who played the blacksmith's wife-I am not sure of her character's name. I went to BYU with her and lost touch with her-her maiden name was Kim Luke-and I wonder if anyone has any info on her. She is not listed in the credits. This production was outstanding, a tear-jerker on all accounts, superb acting by all. I guess I don't even want to put it in the general category of 'acting', more like 'portraying with feeling the amazing events that led to the opening of the Heavens for this the final dispensation'.....something like that. If anyone worked with Kim or has a website or something please let me know!!! She was fantastic in her role, by the way....Thanks, Melissa Thorne This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time. Brilliant kung-fu scenes, loads of melodrama, peculiar footwear symbolism and an unhappy (?) end makes Barefoot Kid an unforgettable film.

One of the silliest subtitles I've seen... If you are viewing this show for the first time, you may start wondering if you are in an alternate reality. Colorful and imaginative characters? Entertaining dialogue? Plots that seem to have some depth to them, even creating atmospheres of suspense and drama at times? I mean, this is a syndicated children's show right? This is the same venue that has brought kids such drek as "Pokemon", "Pepper Ann", "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", and "VR Troopers" (please note that three of the titles mentioned above are crass Japanese exports, courtesy of the Fox Network and Saban Entertainment). Don't worry, you are just sampling some of the quality fare that was available to kids during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Some examples of this period would be "Transformers", "Garfield and Friends", "Captain Power", and "C.O.P.S." (a cartoon NOT to be confused with the live action show on Fox). Besides these prime examples, Disney also returned to syndicated programs for kids, coming up with a lineup called "The Disney Afternoon". Aside from a dumbed-down show called "The Gummi Bears", early shows like "Darkwing Duck", "Duck Tales", and "Chip 'N Dale's Rescue Rangers" gave credence to the Disney animation teams that were also turning out theatrical classics like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "The Rescuers Down Under", and "The Great Mouse Detective". But above all these wonders shines "TaleSpin". The premiere of "Plunder and Lightning" was a two-hour thrill ride, and won an Emmy. Much to my delight, the rest of the episodes were up to par on the promise of the premiere.

While I enjoy the plots and dialogue, I guess for me the greatest attraction are the characters. There's Rebecca Cunningham, an independent female, but still fallible; Kit Cloudkicker, full of pre-teen angst and optimism; Louie, with his loyalty and support; Frank Wildcat, the most entertaining engineer since Scotty on the original "Star Trek"; Molly Cunningham, cute and witty, but with some depth that most child characters don't have, and of course in the middle of it all, there's Baloo, whom I would describe as a slobby version of James Bond. This is because whenever there's trouble, Baloo saves the day with the assistance of his sleeker-than-most, fastest-of-all Sea Duck (Read: James Bond's Aston Martin). Of course every great show has to have great villains, and TaleSpin doesn't disappoint here either. From the megalomania of businesstiger Shere Kahn, to the vain and always failing air pirate Don Karnage, to the hilarious and inept Soviet-satirized Thembrians. The animation is good, the music appropriate, and the episodes are (for me) the finest that children's programming has ever had to offer. Great fun for the WHOLE family! "Spin it!"

The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, "TaleSpin," the TV cartoon series that featured characters from "The Jungle Book." Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!

This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.

And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of "Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!"

10/10 As for many on here I can't help but praise the Cast and Crew who developed Talespin and others they made throughout My Childhood, I as all who have commented here have thoroughly enjoyed the Quality of not just the animation but the quality of the story lines and the characters.

To Class this work of art as a "Cartoon" could never do talespin justice, In fact it's an insult to class it as a "Cartoon", Talespin is an Animation and nothing less, It is evidently the greatest work of genius to be produced at Disney to date, When Disney "Pulled" it from the air little did they realise what they did and I'm sure their souls have been tortured by regret ever since.

I'll take a moment to explain, From the first which is ducktales to the last which I think is Darkwing Duck, Disney has been plagued with failures due to political Correctness and have taken a Quantum Leap backwards since, They prefer Quantity over Quality now not to mention the room full of Monkey's for the story's, I couldn't have My children watching the mind-numbing "Cartoons" they throw out now in fear that they would all turn out to be homer Simpson some time in the future and 50% of the blame would be on me for permitting them to watch it, I couldn't let that happen, Which is why I have ALL of the shows from the late 80's to the mid 90's on a Harddrive so one day My children couldn't be corrupted by the "Cartoon Crap" of today and to Savour the last piece of childhood I have and to hold on to and I owe that all to Talespin.

Talespin to me is without a doubt the best Animation ever produced in the world on account of it's depth, Charm, Wit, Compassion, Emotion and lack of Truly bad quality and story lines of which many have today, Do You see any of that content in say "Ed, Edd and Eddie or anything else You can think of?, The rubbish produced today can be likened to some 3 year old's undecipherable Hyroglyph Depicting a Picasso.

The next time You watch an episode of Talespin; take a look at the woodgrain on any wooden object or building such as Higher for Hire and salivate over the quality of workmanship and effort put into this Animation, Even the one shot backgrounds were done as though they would use them again and again, The Buildings look true to the Art Deco movement which was popular in the time period depicted, Even the vehicles are true to life, OK not ALL of the Episodes Were Fantastic in animation but the lower grade scenes were covered up by the superior scenes so all in all it evened it all out by the end of the episode and You'd probably never even notice at all unless you were focused and have an attention to detail.

The one thing I love about this is what I like to call the "Deliberate Mistakes" or "Intended Mistakes" in each episode and some have two, For example in sheepskin deep where rebecca say's "You're up to something Baloo" and Baloo replies "Who, Me!, I'm as innocent as a schoolboy" take a look into rebecca's eyes, I won't spoil the rest of the Baloopers but just keep an Eye out next time.

Everyone elses comment's are bang on and 100% correct, I have nothing else to add that others haven't said already on here, Disney, WAKE UP and smell the coffee, You have been asleep for over a decade, Stop producing rubbish and bring back Quality into Animations and Stop producing "Cartoons", We have seen the proof of what You can do and We want it back as rapidly as possible. Along with Darkwing Duck this is unfairly cancelled. Disney has been in decline since Tarzan and we need a show like this to get Disney back on track. Ed Gilbert and Jim Cummings were perfect for the voices of Louis and Baloo (sounds familiar?) The theme theme tune is also catchy. Out of all the villains, which are all great on their own merits, Tony Jay stands out as Shere Kahn. Louis and Baloo actually sound very similar to the voice overs in the Jungle Book, which isn't a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite inspirational! The animation was spot on, and the script had plenty of wit that has been severely lacking in animations for years. PLEASE BRING THIS SHOW BACK! 9/10. Bethany Cox Ever since I remember, I have loved airplanes and flying. I am now in college with a private pilot's license and looking to become a commercial. I could never remember why I was so obsessed with the subject until I came across my old Tail Spin tapes in my basement at home and it hit me, this was it. My parents bought every single tape they had and this was the only show I would watch as a kid. I had the theme memorized as I grew up and I can still re-cite it today. It is absolutely amazing and I plan on buying the DVD's soon! It really is great for children and adults and is absolutely timeless. I cannot get enough of this show. Ahh, Talespin! What can I say that hasn't already been said about this great show? Nothing! This is without a doubt one of the most well-written shows I've ever encountered, live-action or animation. The newer stuff is way too dumbed down for my tastes, and some of the "mature" stuff I have to shoo kids out of the room for. But not Talespin.

The stories are engaging and very plausible. Some of them could even be stretched out to an hour or two for a movie. Episodes like Stormy Weather and Her Chance to Dream are very dramatic while still being enjoyable for kids and adults alike. Then there are the pure comedy episodes such as the Bluest of the Baloo Bloods and Stuck on you, where the emphasis is on hilarity. I can laugh myself to tears in a few choice ones.

The drama aspect is very lacking in most shows nowadays(at least, those which aren't specifically geared toward it), especially in cartoons. In the episode Stormy Weather for instance, Kit Cloudkicker decides that he's going to join an air circus, but Baloo believes that it would be too dangerous. In the biggest fight of the episode, Baloo yells at Kit to stay away from Daring Dan, to which Kit screams "NO! You can't tell me what to do! YOUR'RE *NOT* *MY* *DAD*!" and buries his face in his pillow. The next day he leaves for the air circus. This kind of drama is a rarity in a cartoon, and would be most welcome in the ones created nowadays.

The Characters have a lot of depth to them. Baloo is pretty much the way he is in The Jungle Book, plus or minus a few degrees of laziness. Rebecca is a cunning business woman whose ideas on getting money, while good in theory, are seldom good in practice. Molly is a cute little girl, but you can't let that deceive you. She can be a real hellion sometimes. Kit Cloudkicker is a darker character than the rest. He doesn't trust adults much unless they appeal to him, and he has a tendency to break off relationships. Watch his expression in Plunder and Lightning when he grabs the grappling hook: he looks as though he's prepared to put it right through a pirate.

In the end, it's the drama combined with the very real chemistry between the characters that makes this show #1 in my book. The relationship between Baloo and Kit is very real, almost father and son. This is demonstrated well in All's Whale That Ends Whale when Baloo takes Kit's word for it that Seymour is abusing the animals in his aquarium instead of siding with the other adults. Baloo and Becky's relationship is also realistic, due to Baloo's motivation for working comes from wanting to buy back the ol' Sea Duck, not necessarily a desire to help Rebecca. But something tells me that if he did get the Duck back he'd still do jobs for Rebecca.

The Sea Duck, not to mention all the other planes in the series, is pretty realistically designed. The plane's functions don't change once throughout the series(continuity like that is hard to come by also), and unlike most other "super-planes" of other cartoons, it doesn't have one single weapon on board(unless you count mangoes!), and relies instead on it's cunning pilot's great skill to get out of trouble. It's hard to think of a hero vehicle that doesn't have some sort of gun turret, laser cannon, or even a handgun somewhere on board. And the fact that they use their heads to get out of trouble is so hard to find in a cartoon nowadays. Plus it's just such a darn cool design!

This is definitely the best cartoon. Ever. Period. Definitely worth all ten stars! In the year 1990, the world of Disney TV cartoons was certainly at it's prime. Shows like Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, DuckTales and Gummi Bears was already popular, and now Disney made another great cartoon and that cartoon brought the birth of the Disney Afternoon. That cartoon is called TaleSpin. It's about old Jungle Book character Baloo the Bear as he gets a job in the plane business. In the series he meets Kit Cloudkicker, former Air Pirate and good cloud surfer, business lady Rebecca Cunningham and her hyperactive daughter Molly. This series is very funny and has tons of great puns that you may not understand as a kid but understand later on in life. This is one cleverly written series and it's great to add to your DVD collection. Parents, buy this for your kids rather letting them watch all of those horrible Nickelodeon cartoons. If you liked TaleSpin, then check out "Darkwing Duck" and "Goof Troop". Spin it! Thanks Jymn Magon, for creating Disney's 2 best cartoons ever. This show has improved very much over the years. As a kid, I didn't like it because I thought it was a rip-off of Ducktales, which was my favorite Disney thing at the time (like Grandmoffromero). Then later on though it was good but not great. But after reading the reviews here, I decided to give it another chance & bought the DVD set & watched the whole pilot the first day I got it, & was very pleasantly surprised. It's still my favorite episode, although the series did live up to it. And by the end of disc 1, I knew this was going to be a top tenner.

The characters are so complex & charming. My favorite has got to be Wildcat. He's absolutely hilarious and sweet to boot. My next favorite is Baloo, the best pilot on the show. I can see why 'ol Jymn built the show around him. Then it's Kit Cloudkicker. He & Baloo have the best relationship in the series. After that, Louie. Jim Cummings did a perfect job of impersonating the original voice. After him, Rebecca. She has made me laugh pretty hard, and I do believe she and Baloo eventually marry. And finally(for the heroes), Molly. Although she's my least favorite, I still like her. I think she's a very cute character(much better than Webby from Ducktales). And the villains were very original. Don Karnage & his air pirates always crack me up, Kahn is ice-cold and ruthless, and the Thembrians are always at least amusing.

As said before, the stories range from hilarious(Time Waits For No Bear, Romance of Red Chimp) to nothing short of touching(The Old Man & the Seaduck, Paradise Lost), to fun, funny & exciting adventures(In Search of Ancient Blunders & my favorite For Whom the Bell Klangs). These are only a few of my favorite episodes. Anyway, Talespin is Disney's best, aside from Gummi Bears Some reasons for this? GB had a decent amount of my favorite character(Cubbi), while TS didn't have enough of Wildcat. But in the end Talespin remains a classic. BOTTOM LINE- 10/10 6th best cartoon ever. I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. When I think about it, I only remember it vaguely. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember vaguely are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. Since it has been some years since I reviewed this classic I have decided to go back and review it more in dept, but first some insider notes from a movie critic.

This animated series is one of those that I grew up with, it made my childhood joyful, it made it awesome, miss some of this stuff today that we clearly don't see as much as we did back in the days, well on to the review...

Talespin, or Luftens Helte which it is called in Denmark is a great animated series, it is much like chip and dale, ducktales and a lot of those old ones, so it has that weird feeling surrounding it, i cannot remember this series as much as I would like to remember it.

But in my opinion it was very great, it came with some kind of message, not that wild of a message, however it is one of the old ones so that can be forgiven.

Now i don't want to sound old or anything but i feel like time slipped out of my hands with these cartoons, today we see something like Ed Edd and Eddy or anything else weird like that, we have all these new or nearly new shows like Hannah Montana or something like that, yet I feel like that we don't have the same spirit in cartoons or real shows like we did in the early days.

Now maybe i am wrong but i feel like time has changed to much, to conclude i would be thrilled to see these series like Talespin being released again to the TV screen instead of all the new ones, give me back my childhood cartoons, give them to the kids i have some day, give them again... I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture. I am only 11 years old but I discovered Full House when I was about five and watched it constantly until I was seven. Then I grew older and figured Full House could wait and that I had "more important" things to do. Plus there was also the fact that my younger brother who watched it faithfully with me for those two years started to dislike it thinking it too "girly."

Then I realized every afternoon at five it was on 23 and I once again became addicted to it. Full House has made me laugh and cry. It's made me realize how nice it would be if our world was like the world of Full House plus a mom. I have heard people say Full House is cheesy and unbelievable. But look at the big picture: three girls whose mom was killed by a drunk driver. The sisters fight and get their feelings hurt. The three men who live with the girls can get into bickers at times. What's any more real than that?

If anything the show has lifted me up when I'm down and brought me up even higher when I thought I was at the point of complete happiness. I have howled like a hyena at the show and gained a massive obsessiveness over Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. (Of course Hilary Duff has now taken that spot but they were literally the cutest babies I have ever seen. They are great actresses and seem to be very nice people.) I have never seen a show as good as Full House. Full House puts all of the newer shows to shame, big time! Anyone who has never seen it, which I don't see how it is possible, should see it. It is a great show for anyone of any age. Full House will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will amaze you. True, some people feel that there are some "cheesy" aspects to the show, but, the positive aspects out weigh all of the "cheesy" aspects. Full House ran it's first episode on September 22, 1987 entitled "Our Very First Show" and ran it's last episode on May 23, 1995 entitled "Michelle Rides Again Part II".

The plot of the show is very believable. Danny Tanner (Bob Saget) losses his wife, Pam, in an accident involving a drunk driver. Danny has his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis (John Stamos), which is Pam's younger brother, and Danny also brings in his best friend Joey Gladstone (Dave Coulier) to help him raise his three daughters. Danny's daughters are named DJ (Candice Cameron-Bure), Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen).Joey and Jesse plan on moving in with Danny and his three girls for a few months just to help out and end up living with them for eight years; which is the number of years the show ran for.

The following is a short description of some of the characters and the actor/actress who played him/her: John Stamos (Jesse): John Stamos is a great actor. He plays Jesse. Jesse is a rock star waiting to get his big break. In Full House, John Stamos does a great job portraying his character. He looked and played music like his idol, Elvis Presley.

Bob Saget (Danny): Bob Saget is also a great actor. He looses his wife in car accident involving a drunk driver. He has to raise three girls without a having the girl's Mother. Bob Saget does a great job portraying a single parent who works full time and still has time to raise his three girls.

Dave Coulier (Joey): One word can describe Dave Coulier, funny. He is great. Playing the character of Joey was perfect for him. He does a great job playing the stand-up comedian waiting for his big break.

Candice Cameron-Bure (DJ): She is a tremendous actress. She plays the oldest sister, DJ which is short for Donna Jo. She is one of the best actresses I have ever seen. Her acting ability in Full House was very believable.

Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie): Two simple words can describe Jodie Sweetin, incredibly amazing! I wish I could say every thing that I would like to say about Jodie, but, I would use up the 1,000 word maximum just on her. She got her start in a kids show called Mother Goose Stories and when she came to Full House, she blew the audience's and creator's mind. Her great looks and absolutely amazing acting ability helped to make the show the success that it was. According to Dave Coulier, Jodie was supposed to be the star of the show. It was supposed to be where she was going to get her big break. Jodie, at five years old when the show first aired, could hit every line perfectly. She showed great enthusiasm. Most young kids can't do this. As you can probably guess, Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie) is my favorite character in Full House.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (Michelle): Great actress. Full House is where they got their start. They received the part of Michelle because they were the only babies who did not cry while in front of a camera.

There are many more cast members that should be recognized. These are the original characters from when the show first went on the air in 1987.

The only negative thing that I can say is how Full House became The Michelle Show towards the end. I think it was to focused on her towards the end. Especially when I think Jodie and Candice were much better at acting.

Full House is a great show for everyone. It can teach you a lot. One of the biggest things it can teach you is that everyone can live a great life even if a tragedy, such as loosing a family member, occurs. Full House continues to attract new fans. With all this said, there is only a couple things left to say; Full House will never die, and, thank you, the cast of Full House, for giving everyone a show that they can enjoy. This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show! This is how I feel about the show.

I started watching the show in reruns in 2001.

I enjoy the show but it had too many faults.

I HATE THE MICHELLE & JOEY CHARACTERS!

Stealing story lines from old TV shows. They even stole from "The Partirdge Family." Then in 1 episode "The Partridge Family" was mentioned.

Actors playing different roles in different episodes. MTV Martha Quinn the most notable doing this, especially when she played herself in 1 episode.

The Michelle character COULD NOT take a joke but then they had this little kid act out "revenge" to her sisters for a joke by them on her.

Story lines that came & went in 1 episode. Joey getting the TV show with Frankie & Annette, never heard from it again after that. Danny all of a sudden playing the guitar. 1 episode he is coaching soccer, 1 episode he is coaching softball/baseball. 1 game & you are out huh Danny?

Jesse & Joey keep getting jobs REALLY QUICKLY with no experience. Only in a TV show.

I did like the D.J. & Stephanie characters. Wish Jodie Sweetin could have learned from Candace Cameron Bure & had a clean NON drug adult life. "FULL HOUSE," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. One of my favorite episodes is where Jesse (John Stamos) and Rebecca (Lori Loughlin) get married. If you want to know how what made it so funny, you'd have to have seen it for yourself. It was a two-parter, so you'd have to have seen both parts. Another one of my favorite episodes is where Jesse, Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen) get locked in a gas station on Michelle's birthday. You'd also have to have seen it for yourself if you want to know how and why that happened. I have many other ones that I like, too. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. Full House was and still is a great show. It's a good show for people of all ages and is also a good family show. There really aren't any shows like it anymore. The kids are very cute and even though it's a bit cheesy, it's still good, especially for anyone who watched it when they were a kid. I would love to see the cast interviewed now. Anyone that would like to see interviews of the cast, kind of like a where are they now type thing for the special features of the DVD, should go to the Petition spot website and sign a petition titled Full House Reunion on DVD as there is a petition for this in hopes that the cast may want to do it. Yay for Full House! I try to watch it everyday most of the time, and even though I have watched it for the past 4 years, I have not seen every episode.

The Show is about Danny Tanner who is guy who does news for sports. His wife is killed by a car accident from a drunk driver and he asks Jesse, an Elvis maniac with a motorcycle and has an obsession of his hair. Joey, an adult kid who does comedy and does voices of cartoons all the time to take care of his three girls, Donna Joe, they call her D.J., Stephinie who is the second oldest and Michelle, the youngest.

They all live under one roof with no one to help them out.

Later in the show, Jesse gets a girl friend and later is married to her and have twins, Nicki and Alex. (this starts to happen in the new seasons) This show is awesome, if you like The Suite life of Zack and Cody, That's so Raven, Boy Meets world, and Designing Woman, you will love this. (It starts to get better in the ending seasons) Watch it, you will love it! I love full house so much that i couldn't live without full house. Why did it end? It upsets a lot of the fan of it. Can we have a Full House II? Oh, come on! But it is better that we have those DVD to help us. But i need those real ones to come up with another new episode. Love, Warmth are filled the house! All the characters are very cute and handsome! Candace Cameron, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Jodie Sweetin, Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, and John Stamos, loooooooove you! DJ, Michelle, Stephanie, Danny, Joey, and Jesse please come back to the screen please! How is Michelle after falling down from a horse? How are Nicky and Alex? Is Joey alone or is he having a wife or at least a girlfriend? Are they still living in the same house? I want to continue the life of full house! and please don't upset me! OK. Who brought the cheese. I love it. During it's run it became a phenomenon. The Anorexic Twins became popular.Bob Saget started making a paycheck (Instead of his REALLY funny stand-up). And people knew who Dave Coulier was. This is when life was good and simple. This is one of the great American classics. It was humorous and always brought home a good lesson. And this is where I differ from the norm: I liked the last few seasons. Like Home Improvement, when children get older there are a lot more you can do with the script. This is why I dare say...It could have gone much later than it did. But anyway. I gave it an 8/10 because of its wholesome, funny story lines, and because of Bob Saget! This show is about three little girls. (D.J, Stephanie, and Michelle) Their Mother is killed by a drunk driver so their father Danny invites his Brother-in-law (Jesse) and his Old Friend(Joey). So the whole show is about living life. The girls go through life's troubles and have life lessons. They develop crushes, boyfriends, and many more. The whole show is basically about to go with the flow. You do not have to hold grudges you just have to let it go. I think this show is really good and fun to watch. I grew up watching this show and still watch it today. I am glad they still air this show on television. I watch it almost every day. I rate it 10/10. Full House is a great family show. However, after watching some episodes over and over again I've realized that they're incredibly boring and they seem to shelter themselves from the outside world a lot. Yes, there is a lot of comedy, but there are times when it's incredibly cheesy. It's not like I hate it, but just don't watch them over and over again because they get old quick. Probably the best season is the first.

Full House is about widower Danny Tanner(Bob Saget)and his three daughters D.J. (Candace Cameron) Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley). When Danny's wife dies the he is in need of some help. So, his best friend Joey (Dave Coulier) and the girls' Uncle Jesse (John Stamos) moves in with them. Once they live there together they find they can't live without each other.

Full House reminds you just how important family is and that you can always go home again. i really did not watch this show as often when i was a child but the first episode i remember ever seeing is the episode where Kimmy Gibbler pierced Stephanie ears. when i started high school back in 2000. i had problems all through out high school and i'd rather not get into that. but i used to always watch saved by the bell but that show really reminded me of the problems i faced at school, and it rarely showed the kids parents. saved by the bell is okay, but not a good family show. a few days after i graduated high school in 2004. i turned the TV to the family channel and day after day i got addicted to full house. i could even push the info button and see the year it came out and i would remember what i was doing during that time period. the episode was about to come on and it was titled "birthday blues" and to this day it is most favorite episode, it's sad, with a happy ending, and you see Kimmy Gibbler in a way she doesn't act in other episodes, she actually shows her serious side. i have seasons 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 on DVD and i am waiting for 7 and 8. i wished somehow they could have a documentary and some commentaries from the cast members. i don't why some people have a hatred for this show because you don't see trash and violence on this show. and for those who hate this show, i pray for you because you might have grown up in a dysfunctional family where there was no love. but full house in my opinion is a family living in heaven where everyone is happy and good things always happen. and the characters are so awesome. Danny Tanner reminds me of my mother and grandmother. Joey is good natured and is always in a good mood. when i was a child i used to be just like Jesse and he is the first actor on TV as a guy that is so obsessed with hair. somehow you can actually tell that DJ is a California girl. i really like the episodes with Kimmy Gibbler because she always makes me smile and brightens my day when i watch her. and Stephanie is so cool. also i have a hard time telling the Olsen twins apart. i want my kids to watch it one day. but full house is my #1 favorite show and Sabrina the teenage witch is my #2 favorite. one day, sometime before i die, i would really like to meet all the cast of full house in person. the first 3 seasons are kinda boring but they start getting better in the 4th season. i just wished they could have made a 9th season. they stopped making full house in 1995 and in the fall of 1996 Sabrina the teenage witch came out (which is a similar family show)but full house is a very loving show and they have their good times and bad times, and yes, i understand, if your a wild trashy type person your going to hate this show but this is a show for happiness and it is also moral show. also i would like to say that the first 3 seasons is good kid shows but around the 4th and 5th seasons DJ and Stephanie become teenagers. also i noticed, not only with full house but a lot of shows, they never talk about the problems in the world and politics, like when full house was on the air during the gulf war in 1991 and during the time of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, they never mention anything about it. also steve was my favorite DJ's boyfriend, the ones with viper and nelson were'nt very interesting. but season 5 and 6 i think are the best. i just wished they would have made a 9th season because, it left a big question mark in my head, because on the last episode in the last minute, dj gets a surprise and goes to her prom with her ex boyfriend steve, i always wondered if they got back together. and i liked how in the final seasons, DJ was always the responisible one and stephanie was always wanting to do something daring, like in the episode "stephanie's wild ride" Full House is a wonderful sitcom that is about a dad, Danny Tanner, whose wife had just died in a car crash. So Danny asks his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis, and best friend, Joey Gladstone, to help raise his three girls, Donna Jo 'DJ' Tanner, Stephanie Tanner, and Michelle Tanner. This is my favorite show ever, and I can watch it all day long. And something on Full House is always making me laugh and there are sad parts also. There is never a dull moment in Full House. The main characters are played by, Bob Saget(Danny Tanner), John Stamos(Jesse Katsopolis), Dave Coulier(Joey Gladstone), Candace Cameron(DJ Tanner), Jodie Sweetin(Stephanie Tanner), and Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen(Michelle Tanner). I grew up watching Full House as a child. I stopped watching it for years, but about two weeks ago I started back watching it again. Now my kids watch the show and they love to watch it as well. My kids can't believe that DJ , on the show, and I are the same age.

I really love the show, because it is a show you can watch with your family. It has good teachings your kids can learn from. Also there isn't any drugs and violence on it. Also when the kids, on the show, have a problem they can always open up to their family for help. That's the message kids should be getting from TV now a days, turn to your family for help, not to drugs. Kids should be watching more shows like Full House instead of half the mess on TV now a days.

I also love the show because it makes you laugh and it is down to earth. It talks about real life problems and family matters. There is always a lesson you can learn from the show.

I vote the show a 10. I think the comments regarding the show being cheesy are a bit too exaggerated. When a person comes to watch a TV show, what does he look out for? It is to enjoy that he watches a show, unless he/she is a critic or a person who analyzes story. But most of us are not so and watch the shows to relax and enjoy. FULL HOUSE is an ideal show to watch after having a heavy day in the office/school. It makes you laugh and it is not just humor.

Yes, the Tanner family is a perfect family, a perfectly hypothetical family. If any such family existed in real world, it would be a role model for us to follow. But this is a TV show, and not a real family, and there is nothing wrong in depicting a hypothetical family on television. The very fact that the show could run so long shows us that people enjoyed watching it, whatever be the comments later on.

Another good point about the show is that any person of any age would not only enjoy watching it, but would take back a message however childish that message be. Those Jesse's talks with Michelle are extremely touching, if one doesn't think of it as childish.

Overall I would say after watching every show of Full House, there is a contentment in your heart that is rarely present after many other shows. Full House came to me when I was about 9. I remember seeing re-runs of America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Saget, and one day my mom told me that he was also in a show called Full House. One day, I was lucky enough to catch an episode while visiting family. It didn't seem too interesting at first, but as I watched more and more, ever night at 9:00, I would just be so into it.

This show really makes you want to be there yourself, hang out with the girls, go places with them, and maybe even join in their little family "sing-alongs".

The thing I like most about Full House is that it's a great show for kids AND adults of all ages. There will be some parts that are more for adults, then parts that are meant for kids, so that the whole family will enjoy it. No matter how cheesy it can be, it's still a great show, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone.

10/10 I loved this show growing up and I still watch the first season DVD at age 19 today. What can I say? I grew up in a house much like the one on Full House. I had a dad, two sisters, and a dog. I guess the only difference was that I did not live with my uncle and my dad's best friend. Also, I grew up with my mom in the house. I don't know what I would have done without Full House on television. I think that Stephanie (played by Jodie Sweetin), D.J. (played by Kirk Cameron's sister Candace), and Michelle (Played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are my favorite characters. I can relate to each of them because I am the middle child of my family like Steph, I am a younger sister like Michelle, and I am an older sister like D.J. I really like how the show always has moral values because I don't really like any of the O.C.-like shows today. I like the comedy of Full House, too. Uncle Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coulier), and Danny (Bob Saget) are hilarious as the girls' uncle, dad's friend, and dad, respectively. The story goes that, after the girls' mom dies, Danny's best friend Joey and his brother-in-law, Jesse move in to help raise the kids. Three men trying to raise three young girls=hilarious. Each character on Full House is full of heart, funny, and genuinely believable. Joey is an aspiring comedian with a kid's heart and soul. Jesse is the cool, motorcycle riding, tough-guy uncle who is softened by his three nieces, and later, his wife Becky (Laurie Laughlin, from Summerville). Both kids and adults will love this show. Guaranteed. Full House is a great show. I am still today growing up on it. I started watching it when i was 8 and now i am 12 and still watching it. i fell in love with all of the characters, especially Stephanie. she is my favorite. she had such a sense of humor. in case there are people on this sight that hardly watch the show, you should because you will get hooked on it. i became hooked on it after the first show i saw, which just happened to be the first episode, in 2002. it really is a good show. i really think that this show should go down to many generations in families. and it's great too because it is an appropriate show for all ages. and for all parents, it teaches kids lessons on how to go on with their life. nothing terrible happens, like violence or swearing. it is just a really great sit-com. i give it 5 out of 5 stars. what do you think? OH and the best time to watch it is when you are home sick from school or even the old office. It will make you feel a lot better. Trust me i am hardly home sick but i still know that it will make you feel better. and to everybody that thinks the show is stupid, well that's too bad for you because you won't get as far in life even if you are happy with your life. you really should watch it and you will get hooked on it. i am just telling you what happened to me and everybody else that started watching this awesome show. well i need must go to have some lunch. remember you must start watching full house and soon! I don't know if this is a sitcom or not, but I agree that this is one of the greatest television shows ever. It's great that this show still airs. And I love Michelle. It's cute on the episodes when she was a baby and she talked, and she sometimes said something funny. Aw.

This show can relate to children and teens and.. well, families as they struggle through rough times and try to work it out as a family. I don't know who would ever turn down an opportunity to watch this show with someone.

I love the episode when I think her name is DD.. the older girl accidentally stole a sweatshirt, and she learned a lesson about stealing. That was a great episode. An example that this TV show shows the family working things out as a family.

I recommend this show for everyone. This is a excellent series. You will laugh, you will cry, these wonderful people will be a part of your family. The way this family cares for one another and helps each other through their crisis sets a great example of the way we should live our lives. There are many good things they do, and a number of bad choices, but they never turn their backs on family, they work through problems. Michelle, the youngest daughter, is the cutest thing I've seen. Stephanie, the middle daughter, suffers with Middle Child Syndrome and with the help of EVERYONE in the family it's better. DJ, the oldest daughter, is growing up whether her dad wants it to happen or not. One thing they all share is they miss their mom. Danny (Dad), Joey, and Uncle Jesse love these kids so much, and it's apparent in every episode. Reading a wide variety of "Scoop" reviews over the past few days, I walked into the theater prepared for a subpar outing from Woody. Happily, I couldn't have been more wrong. Granted, Woody the performer is slowing down a touch or two, but Woody the writer/director is in fine form - and found a credible way to integrate his 70-year old self into the story. Judging from the laughter and guffaws, the audience ate up Allen's one-liners and dialogue in a way that I haven't seen in several years.

In a movie landscape dominated by software-approved story arcs, twentysomething tastes and assembly-line formula fare for kiddies, it's a source of both satisfaction and inspiration to see Allen pursuing his highly personal and still-rewarding path. I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. "Cute" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being. "Scoop" is easily Woody Allen's funniest film of the 2000's so far. Allen, although finally looking his age, is at the top of his game as low-brow magician Sidney Waterman. His one-liners and demeanor are hilarious. Don't let the critics sway your opinion. "Scoop" is a top notch "Woody-Lite" picture.

The classical music score is an excellent compliment to the action on screen. Scarlett Johanson looks gorgeous in that bathing suit. Jackman is dashing. The cinematography glows. "Scoop" is wonderful escapist fare from start to finish. The last shot of the film alone is worth the admission price. I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.

'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.

'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.

Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try. I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.

This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her "sexy" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.

This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than "Devil Wears Prada" and more interesting than "Superman" a great comedy to go see with friends. "Scoop" is also the name of a late-Thirties Evelyn Waugh novel, and Woody Allen's new movie, though set today, has a nostalgic charm and simplicity. It hasn't the depth of characterization, intense performances, suspense or shocking final frisson of Allen's penultimate effort "Match Point," (argued by many, including this reviewer, to be a strong return to form) but "Scoop" does closely resemble Allen's last outing in its focus on English aristocrats, posh London flats, murder, and detection. This time Woody leaves behind the arriviste murder mystery genre and returns to comedy, and is himself back on the screen as an amiable vaudevillian, a magician called Sid Waterman, stage moniker The Great Splendini, who counters some snobs' probing with, "I used to be of the Hebrew persuasion, but as I got older, I converted to narcissism." Following a revelation in the midst of Splendini's standard dematerializing act, with Scarlett Johansson (as Sondra Pransky) the audience volunteer, the mismatched pair get drawn into a dead ace English journalist's post-mortem attempt to score one last top news story. On the edge of the Styx Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) has just met the shade of one Lord Lyman's son's secretary, who says she was poisoned, and she's told him the charming aristocratic bounder son Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) was the Tarot Card murderer, a London serial killer. Sondra and Sid immediately become a pair of amateur sleuths. With Sid's deadpan wit and Sondra's bumptious beauty they cut a quick swath through to the cream of the London aristocracy.

Woody isn't pawing his young heroine muse -- as in "Match Point," Johansson again -- as in the past. This time moreover Scarlett's not an ambitious sexpot and would-be movie star. She's morphed surprisingly into a klutzy, bespectacled but still pretty coed. Sid and Sondra have no flirtation, which is a great relief. They simply team up, more or less politely, to carry out Strombel's wishes by befriending Lyman and watching him for clues to his guilt. With only minimal protests Sid consents to appear as Sondra's dad. Sondra, who's captivated Peter by pretending to drown in his club pool, re-christens herself Jade Spence. Mr. Spence, i.e., Woody, keeps breaking cover by doing card tricks, but he amuses dowagers with these and beats their husbands at poker, spewing non-stop one-liners and all the while maintaining, apparently with success, that he's in oil and precious metals, just as "Jade" has told him to say.

That's about all there is to it, or all that can be told without spoiling the story by revealing its outcome. At first Allen's decision to make Johansson a gauche, naively plainspoken, and badly dressed college girl seems not just unkind but an all-around bad decision. But Johansson, who has pluck and panache as an actress, miraculously manages to carry it off, helped by Jackman, an actor who knows how to make any actress appear desirable, if he desires her. The film actually creates a sense of relationships, to make up for it limited range of characters: Sid and Sondra spar in a friendly way, and Peter and Sondra have a believable attraction even though it's artificial and tainted (she is, after all, going to bed with a suspected homicidal maniac).

What palls a bit is Allen's again drooling over English wealth and class, things his Brooklyn background seems to have left him, despite all his celebrity, with a irresistible hankering for. Jackman is an impressive fellow, glamorous and dashing. His parents were English. But could this athletic musical comedy star raised in Australia ("X-Man's" Wolverine) really pass as an aristocrat? Only in the movies, perhaps (here and in "Kate and Leopold").

This isn't as strong a film as "Match Point," but to say it's a loser as some viewers have is quite wrong. It has no more depth than a half-hour radio drama or a TV show, but Woody's jokes are far funnier and more original than you'll get in any such media affair, and sometimes they show a return to the old wit and cleverness. It doesn't matter if a movie is silly or slapdash when it's diverting summer entertainment. On a hot day you don't want a heavy meal. The whole thing deliciously evokes a time when movie comedies were really light escapist entertainment, without crude jokes or bombastic effects; without Vince Vaughan or Owen Wilson. Critics are eager to tell you this is a return to the Allen decline that preceded "Match Point." Don't believe them. He doesn't try too hard. Why should he? He may be 70, but verbally, he's still light on his feet. And his body moves pretty fast too. Greetings again from the darkness. Remember all the "What happened to Woody Allen?" jokes? Even Mr. Allen poked fun at the fans who wanted him to continue making his same "funny" films. As with any great artist, Mr. Allen's craft evolved over the years and he lost some fans, while picking up others. Last year's masterpiece "Matchpoint" showed he is still every bit as relevant and poignant as he was in the days of "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan". What is most striking to us 40 plus year fans is that Mr. New York himself seems to have a bit of a crush on the mother country. Apparently he actually likes England!! While filming "Matchpoint", Mr. Allen became enamored with Scarlett Johansson and her real life spirit and sense of humor. This attraction motivated him to write his best comedy in years. Scarlett, while risking overexposure, must be given credit for not just picking films that cast her in some glamorous light. She is unafraid to look and act like a real person. In "Scoop", she flashes some real on screen comedy chops and, in many scenes, delivers the real punchline to Mr. Allen's straight man. Of course, any time Mr. Allen decides to put himself in front of the camera, he will get more than his share of one liners and social commentaries in - which is fine, because few do it better.

Very nice support work from Ian McShane and Hugh Jackman. In fact, Mr. Jackman provides a few glimpses into why many of us thought him the best choice to replace Brosnan as the new Bond. As with most of Allen's films, the star is the script, not the actors. Although Scarlett delivers superbly here and is a nice contrast to the polished Allen and Jackman, what makes this one crackle is the dialogue ... especially the banter between Allen and Scarlett. If you are not a huge Woody the actor fan, fear not. He does limit his screen time and he is quite effective, except in two or three brief scenes that almost seem out of place. Another Woodman tradition is a sparkling musical background and "Scoop" is no exception ... especially the Strauss composition.

"Scoop" is a nice cross between "Annie Hall" and the best of the Marx Brothers films or the Cary Grant comedies. Yes it is an adult comedy, but it is actually very cute ... especially for a serial killer and talking ghost comedy!! First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, "I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it." but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, "That would have been funny in the early sixties." So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.

Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.

Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the "family business" leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.

As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.

But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of "Old Money" that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)

So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century. Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next. I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman. Allow yourself to be transported to a different, old school kind of storytelling. Scoop is classic Woody Allen.

Allen's latest muse, Scarlett Johansson (who also appeared in last year's Match Point, also by Allen), is surprisingly able to tone down her sultry sex kitten appeal and transform into a normal looking student-type with the aid of nerdish glasses and outfits but still fails to make the audience believe how Hugh Jackman's lordly character can be so smitten by her, given the royal's background (don't worry, no spoilers here). There are no grand transformations for Johansson's character here, as she consistently plays the same character throughout despite the script saying otherwise. You even forgive her character's apparent lack of logic, continuing an affair with a suspected serial killer, simply because he is His Royal Hotness Jackman, who is refreshing to see sans the Wolverine duds.

If anything, consistency is what the 70-year old Allen is all about. He continues to tell his stories on celluloid in the same way he always has; as if he's never been exposed to modern film-making, which is probably what makes his quiet, simple films appealing. They never seem to aim for a specific market; as if Allen makes movies to his taste alone, whether the public likes it or not. Great movie, enough laughs and action for any audience.

Since the last person who posted on this movie took it upon themselves to call Woody Allen incestuous and not comment on the film, here I am.

The film follows an unlikely duo, Johansson and Allen, as they follow a tip given to them by the ghost of a recently deceased English reporter. Their search takes them into the home of the killer, and eventually to a somewhat tragic end. But don't let the plot fool you, the film truly is hilarious and the acting is superb.

It seems that as directors reach a certain age they really get things right. Clint Eastwood, Allen and Pollack all seem to making some of the most imaginative work of their respective careers. Also, from watching the movie in a pact theater, you can just tell that people really love Woody Allen and are ready for him to really make a comeback. The second he walked on screen audience lit up. There's just something about the man and he really shines in Scoop.

Check it out, it's worth the trip. Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.

Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time.

Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.

Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.

As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade. Scoop *** out of **** Woody Allen is definitely not my favorite director, but I enjoyed "Match Point." It was an excellent dark romantic thriller that luckily did not star Woody Allen. It did have the beautiful Scarlett Johansson in it.

"Scoop" is Woody Allen's latest film and though he appears in this one, it's OK. It also features Scarlett Johansson and the two of them work perfect together.

Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a young college journalist who gets the scoop of a life time from the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane.) Joe heard the scoop while on a boat with the grim reaper and a bunch of other souls the Reaper has taken. One of those souls is the secretary of Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman.) She tells Joe that Peter may be the serial killer roaming the streets of England. Joe, with the scoop of a life time, travels back to the living and gives this info to Sondra, during a magic act. Sondra is at some magic show with Magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen.) She becomes a volunteer to go in a disappearing box and while she is in the box, she gets the visit from Joe. Not knowing what to do, she enlists the help of Sid Waterman to help her crack the case.

This film has a nice light-hearted feel to it compared to "Match Point" and yet it all works. Johansson and Allen work great together. Allen's humor fits perfect for this story and role. Hugh Jackman is terrific as Peter Layman, the "suspected" serial killer.

This is a fun little movie to see if your ever looking for one to watch. The cast ensemble works well together and the story flows and you sometimes forget that your watching Woody Allen be himself. I say give it a chance because you just might like it. Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.

When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.

Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.

The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In "Scoop", Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.

Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of "Scoop", seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity.

"Scoop" is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen. I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and ended up really enjoying it. It lacked authenticity and believability- Some of the things that the characters said and did were completely bizarre, and a lot of the script seemed like it was ad-libbed (perhaps this is typical of Woody Allen? Excuse my ignorance) but the whole audience in the theater was laughing so hard. It wasn't even at the jokes in the movie per se, but at the whole movie itself. The acting reminded me of Seinfeld's acting, where he tries not to laugh at his own jokes- they are corny, but if you don't take the movie too seriously, you can really appreciate the humour of the ACTORS, not the CHARACTERS. If you're looking for a random movie, and you like Woody Allen, I'd definitely recommend it! Woody Allen's second movie set in London. Tha Tarot Card murderer is killing prostitutes in London. Aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) gets a tip that he may be Lord Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). She starts to romance him but quickly falls in love. She's helped by stage magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) who doesn't like what he sees.

I like this better than the over rated "Match Point" from last year. It was shorter and moved much more quickly. The plot is old but I was entertained and it kept me guessing till the very end. It's not really a comedy but a mystery with a few very good comedic lines (all from Allen of course). It's not one of Allen's best but it's far better than his worst.

The acting is, for the most part, very good. Allen is bad but he's played this character a million times before and it's gotten tiresome. But Johansson and Jackman are just great--they look fantastic and give two very appealing believable performances. Also Allen (surprisingly) works on their sex appeal--there is a sequence where they're both in the their bathing suits to show off their nice bodies. The only real debit is that Allen still seems unsure on how to shot London. He's not as off as he was on "Match Point" though--maybe he'll just get better as he goes along.

Worth seeing. I give it an 8. "Match Point" and now "Scoop" have both convinced me that not only is Woody Allen doing a neat job making movies in England (and that Scarlett Johansson is the right cast member), but corroborated what I have known for years: he shouldn't focus on neurotic rich New Yorkers. In this case, Johansson plays journalism student Sondra Pransky, whom magician Sid Waterman (Allen) puts in his disappearing box, where she meets the ghost of murdered reporter Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), who tells her that the serial killings that have plagued London were committed by millionaire Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). So, she gets to know him, and...well, I don't know how much I can tell you without giving it away. But I can say that this is probably Allen's funniest movie in years. There's his ubiquitous unique style of humor (especially the line about his religion).

So, you're sure to like this movie. If nothing else, it'll make you fall in love with London. But mostly, it's just so damn hilarious. Even if you don't like Woody Allen, you gotta love this one. Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.

It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.

There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.

I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling. ***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on "Match Point" the two return for "Scoop" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as "Match Point" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.

with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like? I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman. I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.

Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...

Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.

In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.

Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else... In the funeral of the famous British journalist Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), his colleagues and friends recall how obstinate he was while seeking for a scoop. Meanwhile the deceased Joe discloses the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to the American student of journalism Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who is on the stage in the middle of a magic show of the magician Sidney Waterman (Woody Allen) in London, and tells her that the murderer is the aristocrat Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). Sondra drags Sid in her investigation, seeking for evidences that Peter is the killer. However, she falls in love with him and questions if Joe Strombel is right in his scoop.

"Scoop" is another great Woody Allen's comedy outside Manhattan, actually again in London. His ironic and witty lines are simply fantastic, and I laughed a lot inclusive with his fate of hero in a country where people drive "in the wrong side". Sid Waterman is extremely funny and Woody Allen is in an excellent shape as comedian. However, his present muse Scarlett Johansson, of whom I am a big fan, has over-acting and is annoying in many moments, changing inclusive her accent to a histrionic pronunciation. Her character is absolutely silly and promiscuous, and I was quite disappointed with her performance (probably for the first time in her filmography). But this supernatural comedy is still a hilarious and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Scoop – O Grande Furo" ("Scoop – The Big Scoop") They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from "His Girl Friday" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism." Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the "American Tragedy"/Place in the Sun boating "accident." As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, "I'd be very surprised if he killed one person." This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class. As a baseball die-hard, this movie goes contrary to what I expect in a sports movie: authentic-looking sports action, believable characters, and an original story line. While "Angels in the Outfield" fails miserably in the first category, it succeeds beautifully in the latter two. "Angels" weaves the story of Roger and J.P., two Anaheim foster kids in love with baseball but searching for a family, with that of the woebegone Angels franchise, struggling to draw fans and win games. Pushed by his deadbeat father's promise that they would be a family only when the Angels win the pennant, Roger asks for some heavenly help, and gets it in the form of diamond-dwelling spirits bent on reversing the franchise's downward spiral. And, when short-fused manager George Knox (portrayed by Danny Glover) begins believing in what Roger sees, the team suddenly has hope for turning their season around--and Roger and J.P. find something to believe in. Glover in particular gives a nice performance, and Tony Danza, playing a washed-up pitcher, also does well, despite clearly having ZERO idea of how to pitch out of the windup! I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film! I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay. That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.

8/10 I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was "cool" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.

As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job. Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely. At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10! I think this is a lovely family movie. There are plenty of hilarious scenes and heart-warming moments to be had throughout the movie. The actors are great and the effects well executed throughout. Danny Glover plays George Knox who manages the terrible baseball team 'The Angels' and is great throughout the film. Also fantastic are the young actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Milton Davis Jr. Christopher Lloyd is good as Al 'The Angel' and the effects are great in this top notch Disney movie. A touching and heart-warming movie which everyone should enjoy. I saw this film on TV many years ago and I saw this film when I got this on tape. I thought that this was reasonably well done. It was not the best of all movies, but it was good enough. The movie has enough talent to inspire many people, especially younger kids. The acting was good, with Danny Glover leading the cast. The plot line was not very believable, but the script was well written. This movie can also be the interest of avid baseball fans. It does not directly apply to a action-packed sports movie. It directly applies to a nice film that you can watch with your family and learn some messages that are hidden in this film. Overall, the film was good, but not great. I give this a movie a 7/10. This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.

*** out of **** This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10 One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.

At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.

Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans. This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being "stacked", how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter. I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up. The quality of this movie is simply unmatched by any baseball title of its time. Pam Dixon branches out in the film industry to recruit blue-chip prospects and make this work of art a must-see. Academy Award winners Brenda Fricker (Home Alone: Lost in New York, A Time to Kill), Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show, Red Dawn), and Adrien Brody (The Pianist, The Village) amplify the atmosphere of the movie, drawing in an anxious audience. However, the dramatic performances are neutralized by quirky radio broadcaster Jay O. Sanders (JFK, The Day After Tomorrow).

The story is centralized around a foster child, up-and-coming actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick, The Lookout). Sidekick Milton Davis Jr. delivers a tear-jerking performance as the longtime friend who never knew his parents. The two don't have much, but what they do have: Angels' baseball, and what they are seeking: identity. That's when 4-time Emmy Nominee Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon, Predator 2) comes in to save the day as frustrated Angels Manager, George Knox. In relation, all characters in the story seem to have the same mission: search within themselves to find out who they really are.

Depressed over the fact that Roger (JGL) is separated from his father, he wishes to God for reunification if the Angels can take the pennant. Odds are astronomical, but 3-time Emmy winner Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, My Favorite Martian) comes in as the omniscient overseer to work a little magic (pun). Before you know it, Al (Lloyd) is sitting with Roger in the stands, snacking on cracker jacks, and causing some of baseball's biggest boners! Dorothy Kingsley and George Wells' (DK Oscar Nominee GW Oscar Winner) 1951 screenplay is done justice under the finger of mastermind William Dear (nominated in Directors Guild of America). He includes a touching side story centered around pitcher Mel Clark, played by Tony Danza (4-time Golden Globe nominee, Emmy nominee), who in relation to all other cast members is just trying to find his place in a confused Anaheim. Clark has been dubbed a wash-up, a once big-name in Cinci, but he has something to prove to Manager Knox.

Spoiling this nail-biting plot would simply be the equivalent to committing adultery in the 18th century. This one is a diamond in the rough, and it will keep you on the edge of the seat until all come to peace. Did I mention a cameo by Matthew McConaughey (A Time to Kill, We Are Marshall) for all you ladies out there? I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film. GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!

~~~Rube

i luv raven-s! One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain this movie was one of the best disney movies i've ever seen. great for the entire family to watch. the ideas may be a little far-fetched, but it's a feel-good comedy and the acting is great. love the little boy, j.p. and academy award winner adrien brody's part may have been very short, but very memorable. highly recommended. Christopher Lloyd is funny and really believable as "Al the head angel". This movie is much better than the first, but it has great special effects that the first did not have as well as a much better plot and writing.

OK - it was written for kids, but adults have as much fun as the kids do. Tony Danza does a very realistic job in his role - but this is NOT a Taxi reunion.

Danny Glover is actually good and even seems to be very human in his emotions as well as showing some real acting talent for a change, a pleasant change.

Watch at least once - it is worth the effort to catch it. This movie is perfect for families to watch together. It is a great film and it deserves more credit. The special effects are stunning and spectacular. Everyone who has children should share this with theirs. "Angels in the Outfield" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).

This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!

What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).

"Angels in the Outfield" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!

10/10 Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes. With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.

The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.

All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie! But how can you stand to mange a baseball team that can't win. For George Knox, it is not easy. As the movie opens, Roger Beaumont (Joseph-Gordon-Levitt) and his best friend J.P (Milton Davis Jr.) are riding on thier bikes around the angels' stadium. When they return to thier foster mother's home, Roger is suprised to have a visit from his dad (Dermot Mulroney). His mom is dead! And when he asks his father when they going to be a family again, he father jokes "I say when the angels win the division championship" So later on, Roger and J.P hide in a tree to watch the angels play baseball. When the manger George Knox (Danny Glover) take out his pitcher, the pitcher gets mad and gets into a fight with him, and soon the angels team get into the fightm that gets Knox ejected from the game. That night Roger makes a prayer, for the angles win the championship. When his foster mother Maggie Nelson (Brenda Ficker) agrees that Roger and J.P go to a basball, Roger sees real angles come on the field and helps the left fielder (Matthew McConaughey) makes a catch, that leaves the manger and the play-by-play man (Jay. O Sanders) how did he to that. Roger learns from the head angel (Christopher Lloyd) that only he can see the angles, because he was the only that prayed for help.

10/10 You know, this movie isn't that great, but, I mean, c'mon, it's about angels helping a baseball team. I find the plot line to be hilarious anyways, this kid's dad says he'll take him back if the angels win the pennant (because he knows they won't) Kid prays to his fake god to help the angels win, god helps the whole time (via the angel Christopher Lloyd, RIP) And in the end, his dad doesn't take him back and rides off on his motorcycle right in that kids face. it's hilarious until Danny Glover adopts it and it's friend.

I guess the upside is that the old lady is left alone to die with her stitchin' projects and her stories. The real winner here, though, is god. Because later he got a job as a writer for numerous prank shows.

As a kids movie, it gets a 7. As a movie about the mysteries of blind, stupid faith, and the nature of "god," it gets a 10. This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-( I enjoyed Albert Pyun's "Nemesis" for its cheesy action and semi-complicated script. A lot of people complain about the "confusing" plot to the first film, which is probably why "Nemesis 2: Nebula" has a dumb as rocks plot with the same super-action to carry it through.

This one gives the name of the first movie's hero, Alex, to a bulked up super-female sent to the past to save the future. She is raised by a tribe in Africa. A good portion of the film only has dialogue in an African tongue without subtitles, which I liked because it made it seem somewhat authentic (how often do movies in this genre really try to do that?). It doesn't take long for the evil cyborgs to time travel back in time to find her and try to kill her.

Don't get me wrong, this is a piece of crap (not that the first one was anything great). There are subplots involving Africa's political unrest, treasure hunting, and tribal combat. The picture is very short on brains, so none of these things gets a very good treatment. The picture is basically a drawn out fight with some chases that boils down to muscle-babe vs. cyborg. It has its entertainment value, just don't expect quality, or anything of the first movie. The Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero. A delightful little thriller opens with Trevor Howard in his Jag convertible and ends on a dockside in Liverpool. It's all thrills and spills as the ex-spy has to restart his career just as he's getting some serious R & R cataloguing butterflies (how British is that?).

Trevor Howard and Jean Simmons frolic from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool (via Ullswater) - he's just been thrown out of MI5 or something, and she, you guessed it, is on the run, wrongly accused of murder. There's seedy docks, rolling Lake District hills, sheep, country pubs, coppers getting lost, waterfalls, a bunch of amateur cyclists, rooftop chases, and lots of Chinamen (don't ask), and it's all very Hitchcocky and Hannayesque...

..and a smashing example of British Noir... A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of "Police Net Closing In" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle. This film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.

The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.

This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find it. Hitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.

This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.

All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.

In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough. This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days. William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is "Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story".

I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.)

His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of "13 Ghosts" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for "The Tingler" (see separate review), money back guarantees for "Homicidal"... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.

The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to "Rosemary's Baby", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.

The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not "E! True Hollywood Story". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.

I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film. I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it. - After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.

- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.

- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.

- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any. Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("Hush…Hush…Sweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking. The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.

Director Curtis ("Night Tide," "Ruby") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original "Friday the 13th" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers. Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.

The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.

Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.

In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.

My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.

By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top! I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).

The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).

Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating... Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious. this was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, "problems" develop.

It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947 This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.

You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up.

Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal. This movie is one of the many "Kung Fu" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- "Wax on, wax off" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. "This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one! I agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love this!!! This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!

Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless! Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score. Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for? I saw this movie once on late night t.v. and knew it was the best movie ever. This is one of the few Kung-Fu movies with a decent plot. The progression of the main character is seamless. The whole movie is great! I thought this would be a sequel to the original "36th Chamber of Shaolin" but actually it's more of a light-hearted "sister" to the original. Gordon Liu still stars as a would-be hero on a quest to learn kung fu to defeat those pesky Manchus... but this time around it's lighter and more comedic. The film centres around the local dye mill, where wages are cut due to the hiring of 10 new Manchurian bosses. Liu plays "Chao", who is able to fool the mill bosses into thinking he is a shaolin monk possessing almost magical kung fu skill. But his luck runs out, he is exposed as a fraud, and he promises the mill workers that he will go to the Shaolin monastery to learn kung fu, and return to protect them.

The comedy really begins at the monastery where Chao makes several bungling attempts to get accepted. This sets up lots of really funny moments, and lots of great fight choreography. Continuing in the "36th Chamber" tradition we see all kinds of neat and interesting (and supremely hokey) training methods at the monastery as well as creative uses of wooden benches as weapons.

Also unique and of note is the blending of kung fu and the craft of bamboo scaffold building. Chao is not accepted as a student at Shaolin but is made to build bamboo scaffolding for the "10 year restoration" of the monastery. On the DVD I bought there is a special on bamboo scaffold building and the inspiration that director Lau Kar-Leung drew from it. This is a craft many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old, and in Hong Kong scaffolding is still built of bamboo even on large high-rises, though the West exclusively uses steel tubes and clamps. As a result of his scaffolding work, Chao develops a special style of kung fu... when asked what kind it is, he hilariously replies "scaffolding kung fu!!" which he first tests during a dust-up with the monastery's Abbot. In the final confrontation with the Manchus, there is a dazzling array of creative uses for bamboo poles and ties.

From a comedy perspective, I think it's one of the best of the kung fu genre. As a kung fu film in general, it also stands out... I recommend it to anyone! Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu. After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.

At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.

Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.

Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral. Of the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.

The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.

Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.

Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.

This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget it! **SPOILER ALERT** W. Somerset Maugham classic on film about a love obsessed young man who's abused hurt and humiliated by the object of his obsession to the point of losing everything he has only to find true love in the end under the most unusual circumstances.

Leslie Howard plays the role of Philip Carey a sensitive young artiest in Paris trying to make a living by selling his paintings. Told by a local art expert that his work is not at all good enough to be sold to the art going public Philip decides to go back to his native England and study medicine and become a physician in order to help others.

Philip being born with a club foot is very hypersensitive about his awkward condition and makes up for that by being a very pleasant and friendly person. One afternoon Philip is at a local café with a fellow medical student and spots pretty waitress Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis, and immediately falls in love with her. Mildred at first rebuffs the love-sick Philip but later realizing just what a sap he is takes advantage of his feelings for her. Mildred has him spend himself into poverty buying her gifts and taking her out to the theater every time she off from work. Phlip also falls behind on his studies, by paying so much attention towards Mildred, at the medical university and fails his final exams.

Going into hock buying an engagement ring for Mildred in an attempt to ask for her hand in marriage the cold hearted Mildred tells the startled Philip that she's already engaged to be married to Emil Miller, Alan Hale. It turns out that he's one of the customers at the café that she's always flirting with.

Philip broke and heart-sick slowly get his life back together and later retakes his medical exam and passes it and at the same time finds a new love in Nora, Fay Johnson, a writer for a local love magazine. Later to Philip's shock and surprise Mildred walks back into his life.

Mildred telling Philip that her husband Emil, who's child she's carrying, threw her out of the house has the kind and understanding Philip take her back at the expense of Nora who was very much in love with him. It later turns out that Mildred wasn't married to Emil but had a child out of wedlock by having an illicit affair with him! Emil it turns out was already married.

As before Mildred takes advantage of Philip's kind heart for her and her baby daughter, where he supports them with food medical attention and shelter, to the point where he again goes broke and can't continue his studies ending with her leaving Philip; after having a very heated and emotional encounter with him. Out on the streets with nowhere to go Philip is taken in by Mr. Athanly, Reginald Owens, who he once treated at the hospital and falls in love with his daughter Sally, Frances Dee.

Later Philip has his club foot corrected at the medical center and with the help of Mr. Athenly gets back to being a doctor. It's then when he encounters Mildred again who's really at the end of her rope. Dying of tuberculosis and having lost her daughter she's all alone with no one to look after her. Philip now well to do and respected in medical circles does all he can to help the sick and poor Mildred but in the end she succumbed to her illness and passes away.

Mildred had the love and devotion in Philip all those years that he was in love with her but choose to abuse him and have affairs with man who were just like her, cold unfeeling and selfish. In the end Mildred got back just what she gave to the kind and sensitive Philip: She became both unloved and alone. Philip found in the sweet and caring Sally everything that Mildred wasn't and in the end also found the true love that he was looking for all of his life. This movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him ("You cad, you dirty swine....") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on film. Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.

Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.

Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.

Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending. How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel. Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.

While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).

Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.

Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah.

Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.

The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.

Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.

Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.

Available on DVD.

9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.

I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.

I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.

"Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.

Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.

It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.

Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.

Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead. I happen to like Leslie Howard, in his better films. Yet, for some reason, his performance in OF HUMAN BONDAGE never has moved me tremendously. I first saw the film on my college campus in 1972 and the reviewer in the college newspaper made the comment that in the 1930s and 1940s Howard played the roles supposedly later picked up by Dirk Bogard as the man who was born to be betrayed. This is not usually the case (off hand I think of Ashley Wilkes as a man who might be betrayed, if he and Scarlett O'Hara were meant to be an item by Margaret Mitchell - but Ashley loved Melonie, not Scarlett). Howard could play any type, and a role like R. J. Mitchell or Professor Henry Higgins is not one who is betrayed.*

(*One can make the case that Philip Armstrong Scott is betrayed by the two strangers he shows hospitality to in 49TH PARALLEL, but they are Nazis who consider him - a liberal, westerner, Canadian - fair game to double cross in wartime. It isn't the same as emotional betrayal, and Howard does not shrivel up as a result, but faces the Nazis and captures one after beating him up.)

I think what the reviewer meant was that Howard could be soulful - or try to be soulful. Witness his poet - dreamer - wanderer in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. But that character was not betrayed, except by history perhaps (as he feels his type is as out of date as the gangster played by Humphrey Bogart). The character of Philip Carey in Somerset Maugham's OF HUMAN BONDAGE is soulful too. He is sensitive for several reasons. He has an interest in art and tries to become a painter - but unlike the artist Strickland in THE MOON AND SIXPENCE he has no real talent. So he decides to concentrate on medical studies, accentuated by a club foot condition he has. Here he is a man with low self-esteem who is set up to be betrayed.

Philip finds that betrayal in the form of Mildred a Cockney waitress (Bette Davis) who is mercenary and as selfish as they come. Why Philip falls for her is not really addressed in the film, but he does find the woman fascinating. And she finds him an easy meal ticket. Ironically in being so captivated by this slut, Philip fails to notice two other women who are interested in him (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee), and are more fit to be his mate. He also keeps finding himself forgiving Davis when she has affairs with other men (Alan Hale and Reginald Denny - the latter a friend of Howard's).

Although Howard's performance captures the doormat tendency of Philip towards Mildred, he really does not show enough passion (until late in the movie, when he turns on her). That is why I find I never cared for his performance here - it lacks any reality. His later tortured insistence in GONE WITH THE WIND that he loves Olivia De Haviland, not Vivian Leigh, has more consistency with a man in love. But the performance of Davis as Mildred makes the film important. She had a wide variety of parts up to 1934, like the girlfriend of the deaf pianist in THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD or the spoiled heiress who gets murdered in FOG OVER FRISCO or the mouse-like secretary in THREE ON A MATCH. As Mildred she finally showed she could be a major actress by playing a selfish bitch.

Curiously her performance was not all of one note. While she uses and abuses Howard for two thirds of the film, culminating in that famous scene where she shows how disgusted his kissing of her made her, her last scenes show she too could fall apart due to her health deteriorating, and her inability to keep any honest jobs. When Howard rejects her the viewers fail to note how equally vicious he becomes (he asks what happened to her baby - she tells him the baby died and Howard says brusquely that he is glad, which is hardly the response she expects). In the end Howard does finally get his life in order, but Mildred ends a casualty (ironically her death discovered by her old boyfriend Denny on a medical call). The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences did fail to nominate Davis in 1934 (leading to the largest write - in campaign in it's history, and a permanent change in it's rules), but Davis was established as a star. In one year she won the Oscar as Joyce Heth in DANGEROUS. And in two years she co-starred with Howard again (as equal stars) in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. This movie is about sexual obsession. Bette Davis plays Mildred. This is a woman who men are drawn to. Not because she is a nice beautiful girl but because she is a sexual entity. Now the movie does not come out and say that but it is obvious. There is a scene in the movie in which men are all going googly eyes over her. She works as a waitress in a coffee shop, she can't read and she not really anybody to look at but she is a flirt. It is obvious the male customers in that coffee shop are there because of her. One day Phillip a club footed failed painter medical student comes in the shop to say a good word for his friend but he becomes besotted the moment he sees her. He starts buying her things even pays for her apartment. Meanwhile she is seeing other people and she makes no secrets of it. He dreams about her like she is a angel, but she is no angel. He is constantly thinking about her. His med school grades are even failing. So what the nookie is too good. He wants to marry her but she rejects him because she is marrying another guy. She always lets Phil know she really doesn't have love feelings for him all of time. He is heart broken but he meets another woman. They seem fine but it is obvious he is still dreaming of the Bimbo. Mildred does comes back with a baby and unwed. Phillip takes her in again, but she starts going out with a friend of his, the light bulb comes on a little and he kicks her out. She does what she knows works so she tries to seduce him, well it doesn't work and she proceeds to burn his tuition money up. Oh we have a club foot that he has problems about, even though a street teenager who has the same problem tells him to lighten up about it. He meets another girl named Sally we have a March of time montage which shows her aging while he strings her along still waiting for Mildred. Well he has no school tuition, can't find a job. Finally Sally and her dad takes him in. Not before another March of Time montage showing him going downhill. Soon his uncle who raised him dies and he gets money to become a doctor. Meanwhile he finds Mildred needs him again. She has TB. meanwhile he is still leading Sally down the Primrose path about marriage and he takes a job on a steamship. Finally the bimbo dies and Phillip declares he is free now and he will marry Sally. I wished she told him to stuff it. Now I know my take on the characters are not going to get me any points. But I feel Phillip was the bad guy. Yes Mildred is a Strumpet BUT he knows it, and he keeps coming back. Mean while he has two other girlfriends who love him but he treats as appetizers. I guess the sex wasn't as good. But in any case he dogs those women waiting for Mildred. Not only that but the man who gets Mildred pregnant is already married and when Philip asks him what he intends to do about Baby ( apparently the baby's name) he laughs is off, he has no intention in supporting her and Baby and he is wealthy. Sally's father who has 9 children say some pretty nasty things about women but he is said to be a old traditionalist. Philip doesn't seem to refute his feelings either. Men are using Mildred as a Boy Toy but the men in this movie come out as unscathed. Yes she was not a respectable woman but far from a villain. To me it is Philip who was had the real problem and it was his sexual obsession for Mildred. Enjoyable in spite of Leslie Howard's performance. Mr. Howard plays Philip as a flat, uninteresting character. One is supposed to feel sorry for this man; however, I find myself cheering Bette Davis' Mildred. Ms. Davis gives one her finest performances (she received an Academy Award nomination). Thanks to her performance she brings this rather dull movie to life. **Be sure not to miss when Mildred tells Philip exactly how she feels about him. The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.

Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated. Bette Davis' cockney accent in this film is absolutely appalling. I totally understand that Americans and other nationalities mightn't realise this and that's fine; but believe me, it's about half as good as Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent in Mary Poppins, and that was a right load of old pony (slipped into London vernacular there - many apologies).

The remarkable thing to me is that the strange accents and exaggerated acting styles don't detract from the films' power. Of Human Bondage is a fascinating piece of cinema despite its superficial faults. It also has to be viewed in perspective. The technical and cultural limitations of film making at the time have to be appreciated, and given those limitations John Cromwell does a very good job directing the camera and allowing the narrative to develop cinematically rather than solely via the mannered acting and stilted dialogue. A fine example of his skillful direction is the scene set at Victoria Station. It is beautifully conceived, shot and edited. Note too the stark shots of the prostrate Mildred towards the end of the film; they owe more to the early days of artistic film making than the sanitised, formulaic world of the studio that was about to dominate.

The themes of the film are universally familiar and compelling ones: sexual obsession, unrequited love, scorned passion, self-loathing, manipulative relationships, social divides and youthful folly. Though the dialogue is often rather hackneyed, the difficult task of portraying these themes and the inner lives of the characters is tackled well albeit in a low-key way. Some of the scenes of obsession and emotional rejection are uncomfortable to watch but the story doesn't descend into cliché; we're aware that the characters (even the poisonous Mildred) are both victims and perpetrators, and that their actions are motivated by their misunderstanding of each others feelings as well as by wilful selfishness. Whilst naive in style the story reaches to the complex heart of the human condition and the mannered nature of the acting and the occasionally grating exchanges don't diminish the veracity of the work.

Of Human Bondage was one of the films that got Bette Davis noticed in Hollywood and whilst watching it you are conscious of being witness at the birth of a celebrated career. Her unconventional beauty and screen charisma (no one flounced or did disdain quite like Ms Davis) grab your attention from her first appearance. Whilst hers is definitely the memorable performance in the film, Leslie Howard is also excellent as the sensitive and fragile student Philip Carey. They are a good combination, though, why oh why didn't he help her with that terrible, terrible accent!? This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.

I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.

In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics. I just saw "Of Human Bondage" for the first time a few days ago and WOW! What a mysterious and almost spooky film. I loved how the music went with the pace of each step of Philip's feet. It gave me the chills for some reason...

One of the greatest aspects of this film is that you get to see Bette Davis coming into herself right before your eyes. She's great, not necessarily because this is her best work, but because it was so out of the ordinary to be so vicious, gritty, and unflinching as an actress in 1934... Bette was a risk taker, always wanting to be different and this is right about when she started to realize that she could be as nasty and daring as she wanted and people would love her for it. If you're a true lover of film, it's amazing to see...

She just had a way of delivering a line that made the part, and the film for that matter, belong to her. Like "A mass of music and fire. That's me...an old kazoo and some sparklers" or "But you are Blanche, you are in that chair!" or "WITH ALL MY HEART, I STILL LOVE THE MAN I KILLED!!"... Those are from a few of her films, but you get my drift. She was just so brave, sassy, and exotic looking with those beautiful big eyes. After seeing this, I can't believe it was remade twice...

Leslie Howard was gorgeous...so calm and persistent, needing to be loved. I thought he was adorable and couldn't understand how everyone wasn't falling for him, but then again, everyone was...except Mildred. He did a great job...

The only thing that I didn't like was something that was common with the writing in the early films. They'd make a character so hateful that it's almost unbelievable that someone would actually fall for them in the first place. The performances were great, but in real life, Philip would have never been interested in Mildred. That's just the simple truth... See it!! The story is somewhat stilted, what with the main character's sudden reversals of fortune, but Leslie Howard and Bette Davis's portrayals of Philip Carey, the naïve obsessed lover and Mildred Rogers, the unworthy object of his affections, raise this film considerably above standard melodrama.

Sensitive, cultured Philip, who for most of the picture is in bondage to first his infatuation and then his pity for Mildred is not unlike a character Howard was to play a few years later--Ashley Wilkes, the Southern gentleman too refined and decent to make it in the rough Reconstruction era. Philip in fact seems resigned to disappointment even before Mildred enters the picture—he doesn't even seem particularly surprised when his art teacher tells him he'll never make it as a painter. It is perhaps this passivity, these lowered expectations that makes him put up with the selfish Cockney waitress for as long as he does.

Although Leslie Howard is memorable, today "Of Human Bondage" is mainly thought of as a Bette Davis picture, perhaps because of the well known story of how she had to fight Jack Warner to get the part of Mildred, and perhaps too because movie audiences tend to prefer characters with her sort of brash energy. Mildred may have a grating voice, but she also has the ethereal beauty of a stained glass angel, making it somewhat understandable why Philip let himself be strung along for as long as he did. Although man eating Mildred may at times seem one dimensional, she does evoke sympathy in the viewer from time to time as when she becomes ill and belatedly realizes that Philip is the only decent man who ever cared for her. One may also think she is on to something when she accuses Philip of looking down on her for not being "fine" enough. (The scene in which Philip and Norah dismiss romance magazines as trash for kitchen maids seems to confirm this).

Most of the supporting characters are also effective, particularly Norah the sensible romance writer who loves Philip but knows she can never compete with Mildred and Sally who has Mildred's beauty and Norah's decency and emerges as the deserving woman Philip is rewarded with in the end. The only character I found hollow was Sally's eccentric, ale slurping aristocratic father who seems like a stock character from an earlier era.

A classic that deserves it reputation. Bette Davis turns in a coldly amusing performance as Mildred Rogers in this 1934 film. The film seems rather dated now in 2003. It is no doubt well worth watching for film buffs and Bette Davis fans but may not have as much appeal for the average movie watcher today. It was startling for me to see how young Ms. Davis looks in this move. The actors turn in performances which are basically sound and the story is meaningful and interesting. Leslie Howard is well cast as Philip Carey, the club-footed medical student. This is a film with a strong message about whom we choose to love and why. However, "Of Human Bondage" didn't seem to have a strong impact on me mentally or emotionally. I felt slightly indifferent and detached about the movie after viewing it. I have an intuition that this may be the reaction that the director was going for. You be the judge!

I saw this film again and noticed how close it is to the novel if we ignore the part about Cary's [Leslie Howard] childhood. Considering that

at the time not much can be shown on the screen, [not that there is much in the novel] the obsession of the character with Mildred [Bette Davis] is very well conveyed to the audience. I recommend this film to anyone who ever fell for another person and the other side tried to take advantage of him or her. I have read that Maugham was asked to make a recording of the novel for sale, but when he started to in the studio he began crying and could not finish more than a few lines and whole project was chucked. One can tell the novel is written from the heart and the film is a good

adaptation of a part of it at least. This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others.

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part. Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.

After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with "why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available". You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called "baby", never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.

At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as "you cad, you dirty swine", "I only kissed you because you begged me" and "when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH"!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as "you're a gentleman in every sense of the word", "I don't mind", and "Mr. High and Mighty" were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.

The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's "sickness" could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.

Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face ("The Silver Cord" and "Blood Money") but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines "whilst reading a book off camera". He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported "the kid was running away with the picture"!!!

Highly, Highly Recommended. The movie may be great. I just watched it last night, but feel unable to give an honest opinion of it because I read the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that I was disappointed with the film. If you plan to watch "Of Human Bondage," don't read the book beforehand. On the other hand, the book is so good, and contains so much more than the love affair Phillip has with Mildred, you could still enjoy it after seeing the movie. I do not make this claim lightly. I average reading a book every 4 days, and read such disparate authors as Danielle Steel, Ovid, Faulkner, Plato, and Shakespeare. "Of Human Bondage" gets my vote as one of the top ten novels ever written. Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's "Of Human Bondage"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a "club foot" (explained in the film).

Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of "Mildred" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to "WIPE MY MOUTH!" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted.

Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a "write-in" campaign for the 1934 "Best Actress" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were:

1. Claudette Colbert - "It Happened One Night"

2. Norma Shearer - "The Barretts of Wimpole Street"

3. Bette Davis - "Of Human Bondage"

4. Grace Moore - "One Night of Love"

******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.

The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.

But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.

For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark. Today actresses happily gain weight, dye their hair, dress like slobs, and lose their glamor for a role, and Bette Davis was probably the actress who started the trend. Even as a pretty young woman who occasionally wore designer clothes and Constance Bennett-type makeup in films, Davis was willing to ravage herself in order to create a character on the outside as well as the inside.

Her determination is amply demonstrated here in her breakout film, "Of Human Bondage," in which she stars with Leslie Howard as Philip Carey. Davis plays Mildred, a slutty, manipulative, greedy low-life to Howard's masochistic, club-footed Philip. He first meets her when she's a waitress, and she allows him to take her out to dinner and theater while she frolics with a wealthy older man (Alan Hale Sr.). In truth, Mildred is repulsed by Philip's club foot. On his part, Philip seems to enjoy the abuse of her open flirtation and her coolness toward him. He allows Mildred to bleed him dry financially in between boyfriends who drop her when they tire of her, while he blows off a couple of truly lovely women (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee). When he gets the gumption to throw her out, Mildred trashes his apartment and robs him, forcing him to withdraw from medical school and lose his lodgings.

"Of Human Bondage" looks rather stilted today in parts. Though Leslie Howard was a wonderful actor and attractive, his acting style is of a more formal old school, and as a result, he tends to date whatever he's in. He shines in material like his role opposite Davis in "It's Love I'm After" or "The Petrified Forest" which call for his kind of technique. His dated acting is even more obvious here because Davis was forging new ground with a gritty, edgy performance that would really make her name. If she seems at times over the top, she came from the stage, and the subtleties of film acting would emerge later for her. Contrast this performance with the restraint, warmth and gentleness of her Henriette in "All This, and Heaven Too" or the pathos she brought to "Dark Victory." She was a true actress and a true artist. Davis really allows herself to look like holy hell; Mildred's deterioration is absolutely pathetic as Philip seems to gain strength as her spirit fades.

An excellent film in which to see the burgeoning of one of film's greatest stars. When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.

I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.

Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.

Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.

Grade: B+ Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes! ...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.

Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.

However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.

And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.

Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.

IMDb votes concur! Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.

So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments. This movie is obviously low-budget & filmed in British Columbia,Canada. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make this movie convincing(set in California & late 60's-80's)were well conceived.I believe this is the best & most accurate version of the Zodiac killings that plagued the town of Vallejo & the Bay area from 1968-19? (he was never caught).Edward James Olmos(Det. Dave Toschi) & George Dzundza(Zodiac-at the time believed to be Arthur Leigh Allen, since cleared by DNA & fingerprints)play a game of cat & mouse re-visiting crime scenes together, each one trying to trigger the other into an emotional revelation.Olmos dying from some type of terminal disease & knowing Dzundza did it,still totally obsessed to the point of losing his family & becoming a full blown alcoholic along the way.Dzundza totally oblivious & self absorbed(like all serial killers) to the carnage left in his wake.The only disappointment was the"over the top" ending otherwise pretty accurate.If you tire of the typical Hollywood fluff or have an interest in the Zodiac case,check it out. I usually steer clear of TV movies because of the many ways you know that it's TV movies five seconds into the picture. This one got my attention because of the unusual title and its gloomy, well-crafted mood that is established from the very start. While the ever present rain confirmed my suspicions of a misplaced story (even if claiming to be set in California the movie was largely shot around a stormy Vancouver, B.C.), the dark and oppressive outdoors beautifully complement Olmos' excellent acting. The premise of this anime series is about bread, of all things to base a plot on! I truly laughed. The main character has a special bread making power that he was born with, and he goes off to bread baking school. I wish it were available on DVD, and it doesn't matter if it's subtitled or dubbed - it's that good. Even the theme song alone is funny. At one point in the theme song, there's an African-Japanese man with an afro on horseback, wielding a French baguette as if it were a samurai sword. These images will not make sense unless you see the anime. You'll laugh until your sides hurt. It is definitely the most unique anime I have seen thus far. When I first started watching this anime I never thought that something about making bread could actually be interesting, but thankfully I was mistaken. From the moment I started watching it, anime just pulled into the world of bread making, I was hooked.

The biggest advantage of this anime is it's humor, which is very intelligent and very funny, with some recurring gags. But the animation, soundtrack and character development are below average, while these disadvantages aren't seen so much in the first episodes, because of the great job on this anime, it really starts to show in the last 20 episodes, when the reactions and recurring gags just grow old, and aren't as funny as before.

As far as I'm concerned, if this anime had ended with episode 52 I would have given it a 9, but the last episodes just leave a bitter aftertaste, which sadly can't be washed away by the awesome 50 episodes.

7/10 For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show.

In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while. Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages. Yakitate! Ja-pan (translated as Fresh Baked! Japanese Bread) is the story of a young man named Azuma Kazuma and his journey to make the perfect Japanese Bread or Ja-pan, for Japan, and for the Japanese, that will be recognized the the whole world.

Of course, that's just on the outside. In reality, Yakitate! Ja-pan isn't really about the bread, but the reaction that come after eating the bread, and the pun that comes with the reaction. The series is lovable because of these puns. From popular anime titles like Naruto, Detective Conan, and Dragon Ball to blockbuster movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. It's all there.

So what makes this title different from other titles of the same genre like Cooking Master Boy or Mr. Ajikko? Well, unlike the others who use cooking for world domination, Yakitate! Ja-pan is purely comedy. Sure, there are times that the story turns to drama, or even murder, but the comedic atmosphere makes you laugh at them. You'll be laughing at their own view of heaven. Just watch it.

Just remember that this is also fiction, although some of the bread made here are based on real bread, eating the home made Japan #2 won't turn you to a Super Saiyan or turn your body to rubber. I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty creepy movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.

Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage?

Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty good. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him is a good one). The creepy atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot better than it should be. I can honestly say that if Barbara Steele had not been in this film, it would be a big zero. She makes the movie a ten! Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra"/"Castle of Blood" is an eerie,atmospheric chiller that succeeds on all fronts.It looks absolutely beautiful in black & white and it has wonderfully creepy Gothic vibe.Alan Foster is an English journalist who pursues an interview with visiting American horror writer Edgar Allan Poe.Poe bets Foster that he can't spend one night in the abandoned mansion of Poe's friend,Thomas Blackwood.Accepting the wager,Foster is locked in the mansion and the horror begins!The film is extremely atmospheric and it scared the hell out of me.The crypt sequence is really eerie and the tension is almost unbearable.Barbara Steele looks incredibly beautiful as sinister specter Elisabeth Blackwood."Castle of Blood" is easily one of the best Italian horror movies made in early 60's.A masterpiece! Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra" aka. "Castle Of Blood" of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's "La Maschera Del Demonio" (aka. "Black Sunday") of 1960 and Roger Corman's "Pit And The Pendulum" of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to "Danza Macabra" was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as "Django" (1966) and "The Great Silence" (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and "Castle of Blood" is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece.

When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...

The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. "Castle of Blood" is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: "Castle of Blood" is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10 Well executed old and very dark house horror. Good set-up which includes the character of Poe, himself, alluding to the story in a London pub. Although from here it is pretty much the one guy who has taken the dare to visit the house on a particular night running from room to room either looking for or avoiding people, it is still most enjoyable. Plus we have the delightful and enigmatic Barbara Steele. There is some wooden dialogue and some unexplained bits and bobs but it is the super creepy atmosphere that is maintained throughout, that and the super musical score that keep this one moving nicely along. DVD originates from US and has a few extras I have never seen a Barbara Steele movie that I haven't liked, and have always been a sucker for a good haunted-house story (especially for such wonderful pictures as "The Legend of Hell House" and the original versions of "The Haunting" and "House on Haunted Hill"), so I had a feeling that "Castle of Blood" would be right up my alley. And boy, was it ever! This French-Italian coproduction, while perhaps not the classic that Steele's first horror film, "Black Sunday," remains to this day, is nevertheless an extremely atmospheric, chilling entry in the spook genre. Filmed in black and white, it manages to convey a genuinely creepy miasma. The film concerns a journalist who bets one Lord Blackwood and an author named Edgar Allen Poe that he can spend the night in Blackwood's castle on the night of All Saints Day, when the spirits of those killed in the castle reenact their fate. The viewer gets to see these deaths, and they ARE pretty horrible, for the most part. The film does indeed send shivers up the viewer's spine, and in the uncut DVD that I just watched--thanks to the fine folks at Synapse--even features a surprising topless scene and some mild lesbianism! And Barbara is wonderful in this movie; her otherworldly beauty is put to good advantage playing a sympathetic spectre. Her mere presence turns a creepy ghost story into something truly memorable. Not for nothing has she been called "The Queen of Horror." This begins a wager between Edgar Allen Poe and a journalist...Poe bets that the man can not spend an entire night in a creepy castle. Well, of course he can, but will he come out unscathed? Hard to say with all these strange people that aren't supposed to be there wandering around, including the icy Barbara Steele. This is a fairly odd film in that the presentation is both in French and English, and switches back and forth a few times. Perhaps this is done because bits of dialog were lost? It's also rather dark and claustrophobic, being that one doesn't see much beyond a small circle of light that candles and such generate, plus there's a feel of dread and impending doom pretty much at all times. This version (on Synapse) is also uncensored and I wondered what might be censored in a film from 1964 until I saw the topless scene, I guess that might be it. Overall this is pretty good and in gloomy black and white. Barbara Steele definitely makes the movie too. 8 out of 10. I remember seeing this film at the West End theater in Louisville, Kentucky when I was a boy. The scene where Dr. Carmus finds the gardener's coffin, and the breathing dead body therein, was the scariest part of the movie for me, only intensified by the darkness of the film. I also wondered about the people hanging from the trees at the end, until I recognized the part of the film in which the family name of the Blackwoods was changed from Blackblood, due to the fact that in the family history there was a character who was known for his many hangings of various people. Sir Thomas Blackwood seemed to get his kicks out of adding to the deaths caused by his family. I also noticed that as Foster first enters the gate of the cemetery, he is careful in noticing the sharp object of the gate, where he meets his end. I would not hesitate to recommend this film to horror movie lovers. The DVD for "Danaza Macabra" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.

The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.

A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.

This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.

The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.

Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot. If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he – Alan Foster – would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror. I originally saw this movie as a boy at the old Rialto Theatre as part of a Saturday afternoon matinée triple bill which also featured Vincent Price's "Last Man on Earth" and Mario Bava's "Nightmare Castle." I had nightmares about blood lusting ghosts for a week afterwards! Though I didn't know it then, all three movies would prove to be classics of the genre. No wonder I was so scared! Though all three films frightened me, it was Castle of Blood that had the most profound impact.

It was the first on the bill. I didn't even get to see it from the beginning as we were late getting to the cinema and missed the first 20 minutes of the movie. That's lot to miss since the edited print only ran about 79 minutes (the unedited runs 87minutes). But despite this, the dark creepy atmosphere (complete with ruined castles, fog enshrouded cemeteries, shadows and cobwebs), Gothic set design, strong acting, and suspense (especially the last 20 minutes) scared the bejeepers out of me and made a lasting impression It took me years to finally get a copy of the film for my collection. Since it was a French - Italian import, it wasn't a movie that showed up on the late show in Winnipeg. I couldn't quite remember the title (remember I didn't get to seen the beginning of the film and was scared witless), and to make matters worse, the film had been released under literally a dozen different movie titles (aka Danze Macabre, Coffin of Terror, Castle of Terror, Long Night of Terror, etc...) and the USA/UK working title "Castle of Blood" was very generic, similar to dozens of other "b" horror and suspense films, making it illusive. But thanks to the internet and perseverance, I found it at last! What a treat to finally watch the film in its entirety after so many years! It may not have had quite the sheer emotional impact that it did when I was a boy, but as haunted house movies go, it's stands up well and compares favourably to similar iconic films of the period such as "The Haunting," "The Innocents" or "Black Sunday," The film is a fine early effort of Italian director Antonio Margheriti. It stars 60's scream queen icon Barbara Steele and features a well written screenplay by Sergio Corbucci about a sceptical writer (Georges Riviere) who, on a bet, spends the night in haunted house and unsuspectingly becomes part of an annual ongoing ghostly story. The hypnotic Steele is well cast as the ghostly love interest - as is Arturo Dominici as Dr. Carmus, and Margarete Robsahm as Julia.

Many of the tricks Margheriti employs to create the film's eerie atmosphere (cobwebs, creaking doors, fog, etc) are bound to seem cliché to a modern audience, but they work far more effectively in black and white than they ever could in modern day colour. Rather than using body counts and special effects, the film creates scares the old fashion way, relying on a good story, stylish direction, fine set production, interesting camera work, and strong acting performances. Margheriti does a marvellous job taking these elements and building the film's suspense as the horrifying paranormal secret of the house gradually reveals itself to the unwitting writer.

The film is not without faults. The pace drags at the beginning of the film (ironically, the 20 minutes I originally missed). This is probably worsened by Synapse films effort to restore the film to its original length. Though fans will likely appreciate the chance to see the film restored - in terms of the intro - it may have been more of hindrance than a help. The English voice dubs are merely passable and, in the restored scenes, the language shifts from English to French (English subtitles provided) which is sure to be annoying to some viewers.

However, Synapse Films deserves kudos for the quality of the print. Clearly some effort was put into its restoration and deservedly so.

I enjoyed the film immensely and highly recommend it to aficionados of 60's Italian Goth films, or anyone who enjoys a good ghost story.

Rob Rheubottom Winnipeg, MB Canada This complicated story begins fairly simply, with an English journalist accepting a wager from Edgar Allen Poe and his friend Lord Blackwood that he cannot spend a night in the haunted Blackwood castle. Once there, the writer wanders around the dusty rooms and corridors, until music and a glimpse of a waltzing couple lead him into an empty room. He sits at the harpsichord and starts to play the tune he has heard, and is surprised to be tapped on the shoulder by the stunningly beautiful Elizabeth Blackwood. She informs him with an ambiguous charming/eerie manner that she has prepared his room upstairs and that someone is always expected on this night...the Night of the Dead. Thus begins a startling series of supernatural events that bewilder the journalist all the rest of the night. SPOILER AHEAD: it probably won't surprise too many viewers to learn that the lovely Elizabeth is actually a ghost. This doesn't prevent her from falling in love with the journalist, but it does make things more complicated for them than for the average couple. This is a fun movie, with absolutely everything: ghosts, the spooky castle, repeated visions of past events, sex and violence ( though both have been toned down in the version most Americans have seen over the years.) The alluring, captivating Barbara Steele is the main reason to see it. She has a strange charisma unlike anyone else you've ever seen in the movies. Recommended! I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy When American author Edgar Allan Poe visits London, he is approached by British journalist Alan Foster, who becomes the target of a peculiar wager. Not believing Poe's assertion that all of his macabre stories have been based on actual experience, Foster accepts a bet from Poe and his friend Sir Thomas Blackwood that he cannot spend an entire night in the Blackwood's haunted castle. Once installed in the abandoned castle, Foster discovers that he is not alone, as he is approached by various beautiful women and handsome men, and a doctor of metaphysics - who explains that they are all lost souls damned to replay the stories of their demises on the anniversary of their deaths! The first time I watched this glorious bit of classic horror, I was mesmerized the entire time. I found the movie genuinely creepy and at the same time sorrowful. Babs Steele is undeniably beautiful. The music score makes the atmosphere twice as terror inducing. The topless scene threw me for a loop, as I was not expecting it. It looks as Synapse did a great job with picture enhancement, because this movie looks damn fine for its age, and it's the Uncut International version, to boot. This is the movie responsible for me starting a Babs Steele and Klaus Kinski collection. Castle of Blood is a good example of the quality work in the horror genre being turned out in Italy in the 60s. The film has all of the right elements - old dark house, atmosphere, a decent story, and Barbara Steele. Steele makes most any film worth seeing.

The story concerns a haunted castle. People have visited, but none have returned. Our hero makes a wager that he can spend the night in the castle and return to collect his winnings. But, the night he visits is a special night. It's the night each year when the dead return to relive their deaths.

The only flaw I see in the movie is the running time. It almost feels padded. There is a large portion of the first act where literally nothing happens. Our hero stumbles around in the dark finding nothing of interest. But once he does find something, the movie picks up and become quite enjoyable.

Castle of Blood is a definite must for Steele fans and fans of Italian Gothic horror in general. Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers!

Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem! I first remember seeing this one back in the 70s when it was shown on late night television. Scared the hell out of me. But then, I was a teenager back in those days, not as jaded about films as I am now.

CASTLE OF BLOOD (aka: DANSE MACABRE) is a fine example of the 60s Italian horror genre, along with Mario Bava's BLACK SUNDAY(1960), CURSE OF THE LIVING DEAD (aka: KILL BABY KILL) (1966) and Mario Caiano's NIGHTMARE CASTLE (1965). If you want spooky atmosphere along with great writing, then check these out as well. I also rate these along with those early Poe films that Roger Corman was doing during the same period.

I saw the new Synapse DVD that was taken from a French print and it's a great improvement over that old pan-and-scan print that was making the rounds on television over the years. It adds a couple of minutes of dialog (in French) that don't really add much to the movie as whole, but it's nice to see it complete, without cuts. Unfortunately the DVD doesn't really offer any extras beyond stills from the film.

One flub I noticed was in the opening scene, seeing the smoke-effects man next to the camera being reflected on the glass of the inn's front door. I guess the editors didn't catch it at the time, or maybe they didn't care, but it is something I didn't notice the first time. That's the wonders of DVD. You get to see all the flubs, mistakes and details that weren't apparent the first time around. But no matter.

But no matter, it still gets a 7 on the imdb meter

`Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.

While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.

Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.

It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'. I saw this film when I was 10 or 11 years old, alone in my parent's basement on a Saturday night. It was being shown on "Chiller Theatre," a regular fright feature that I watched religiously as a young 'un. Now, I have seen many old horror films thanks to Chiller Theatre, but none ever stuck with me like "Danse Macabre," a.k.a. "Castle of Blood." I am 51 now, and only last year was I fortunate enough to locate a relatively recent, quality DVD edition of this wonderfully shudder-inducing supernatural classic, having thought I'd never manage to see it again. I have already watched it four more times, and cannot seem to get tired of it.

They just don't make spook films like this one anymore. Haunted catacombs and mist-enshrouded graveyards just don't work as well in color as they did in black and white back in the day. Anyway, this one has Edgar Allen Poe and Barbara Steele, deliciously shadowy, cobweb-wrap'ed haunted castle sets, restless spirits re-enacting their deaths... and a wickedly ironic ending.

IMO, this one's right up there with Robert Wise's "The Haunting," "The Innocents" (with Deborah Kerr), and the more recent "The Others."

Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.

I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.

And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past. Hardcastle and McCormick is an excellent TV show.

Yes, it is predictable much like The Dukes of Hazzard, Hunter, The A-Team, etc etc etc.

This show is just good clean television. The relationship between Hardcastle and McCormick is quite amusing. They often take jabs at each other several times an episode, which adds a great deal of humor to the show. It contains several car chases in almost every episode, but, who doesn't enjoy a good car chase? Especially with the Coyote!

I only wish they made clean television like this today I highly recommend this! I took a chance on "Hardcastle and McCormick" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection. Wonderful family drama/comedy starring MacClaine and Garr that entertains and warms the heart every time I see it. Strongly recommended for all ages from 9 year olds to grannies. Lovely period piece capturing 1962. The story encompasses the struggling Garr, her two children and Aunt Zena (MacClaine) trying to make ends meet without a man as head of the household. The "family" heads west to take the inheritance of a long forgotten relative that has left Garr a run down, ramshackle road side cafe right out of the late 1940's. The tenacious Garr, as the sweet but determined mom, gets the whole family into the restoration and opening of the cafe. But wait......Aunt Zena is an old circus performer with card tricks, magic powders and a jesters sense of humor......she loves to get the kids and her into silly and sometimes dangerous games.....What happens next is a delightful combination of "Miracle at Lords" thrown together with the Cuban missile crises (with authentic TV news from the real event) and a "ghost" prank that gets totally out of hand. This film entertains, philosophizes, questions religiosity and gives an unnerving glimpse of the frightening scare of October 1962's Cuban missile crises. In the end one is left with the wonder of faith, family and rediscovered love. Oh, and the music from the era of the early 60's is just great!

Recommend STRONGLY as a FEEL GOOD FILM 10 out 10 Shirley MacLaine in another tailor-made role. As the aunt to a single mom in a 1962 working-class Chicago neighborhood, the veteran character actress gets another work-out as a gutsy woman who won't let any set-backs defeat her spirit of success. The children, a pre-teen boy and girl, are drawn to their spirited Aunt Zoe, although the many magic tricks and practical jokes learned from her, and applied at all the wrong opportunities eventually get them expelled from school.

The plot is cleverly enveloped in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with all of the social implications. Men building bomb shelters, people watching news programs on what seemed to be the only TV set, at a diner, and a general mist of uneasiness and fear in the air. When a "harmless" miracle is blown out of proportions, the climactic conclusion nonetheless makes the viewer feel good. Yes, Virginia, the sun will come up tomorrow! Clearly a small-budget production, this is still a sweet little film, filled with the magic that Sunday Matinees were made of. With a few choice "Oldies" thrown into an effective Sound Track, the whole family is sure to enjoy this one.**** A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller. Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from **** Having watched this film strictly on the strength of reviewers' ratings I was most pleasantly surprised. Although clearly low-budget, it bears the signs of clever ingenuity. For example, when Julia wakes in the strange house and looks out the window I found myself thinking that her sense of isolation would be enhanced with an exterior shot focused on her face and then moving backwards to include the house and its isolated location. And lo and behold! the next scene was exactly that last shot of the house standing lonely on the cliff at the water's edge. There are other examples of how a clever director can elevate his film to the level of a very enjoyable thriller. Savvy viewers will surely spot them but should rest assured they will not be disappointed.

As to the performances, George Macready is his usual creepy self, barely maintaining his composure while suggesting a capacity for unadulterated violence. Nina Foch was surprisingly good as the no-nonsense working girl who's not about to submit without a fight. But Dame May Witty, oh boy, she even had me doubting my own eyes and believing she could get away with her evil schemes.

This a real diamond in the rough and not to be missed. Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.

"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.

Well done.

Grade: B+ Julia Ross (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position as a secretary with the rich Hughes family to get over her boyfriend leaving her. Almost immediately she is drugged and shipped off to the family's estate in Cornwall. When she awakens they keep telling her she's Marion Hughes, has been mentally ill and keep her locked up...but why? You'll probably guess why but won't mind because this one is fun.

Along with "The Narrow Margin" and "Face Behind the Mask" this is one of the best B pictures ever made. (B pictures were low budget pictures made quickly with low budgets and no major stars). It's just as long as it needs to be (only 65 minutes), is well-directed, fast paced and exciting. It only stumbles at the end which I found a bit too implausible to buy.

Foch (a good actress) is just OK in the lead but Dame May Witty is great and George Macready is excellent (and frightening) as the villains. Well worth catching. A perfect example of how you can make a great movie on a small budget. For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.

Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.

Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director. Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense. This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.

When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.

The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her? Nina Foch insists that "My Name is Julia Ross" in this 1945 film noir also starring Dame May Witty and George Macready. It's short, and because it is, the film suffers. It could have stood to have been a good fifteen minutes to a half hour longer.

When I was growing up, Foch was a fixture on television, playing a neurotic woman, the wife with the cheating husband, the nervous wreck. She became one of the great acting teachers in Los Angeles. Here, she's a pretty young ingenue playing the title role. Julia answers an ad for a secretary and is hired immediately by Mrs. Hughes and her son Ralph. Little does she know - though we learn immediately - that the employment agent is a front, set up to get just the right woman for this assignment, a woman with no family and no boyfriend.

It's a live-in situation; once Julia gets to the house, she's drugged, and when she wakes up, she's told she's Mrs. Hughes and not allowed to leave.

The acting is very good. Low budget but still entertaining - some things, particularly at the end, happen way too quickly, which is why I said the movie is too short. Nevertheless, I recommend it. Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.

It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.

The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.

Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.

Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.

George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.

It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable. A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot. What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?

This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it.

Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times.

Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity.

But there's more.

Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.

Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing. Nicolas Roeg's projects are variable to say the least, but are never less than interesting. "Insignificance" is obviously, first and foremost, an adapted stageplay: it's wordy and pretty-much 'room-bound'. BUT, it pays to view this film more than once: the underlying themes are not overtly presented and, what's more, it takes a while to adjust to the juxtaposition and role-reversals of the four protagonists: Einstein, McCarthy, Munroe, and DiMaggio.

Einstein is wracked by guilt over Hiroshima yet fancies the simplicity of a sexual liaison with Munro; Munro is sick of being seen as a bimbo and craves intellectual credence; Senator McCarthy is at the height of his witch-hunting powers but is an impotent sleazebag; DiMaggio is insecure about his celebrity, self-obsessed, and prone to violence. Each of them contains the seeds of their own destruction. Each character has a troubled, abused/abusive past and a questionable future. Gradually, we see that obsession itself is the central theme. America's obsession with its postwar cultural icons and mores; the obsessions of the protagonists for something none can have: peace-of-mind and/or happiness.

Compared with the theory of relativity, a proposed unified-field theory and, indeed, the cosmos itself, all the aspirations and interactions of Roeg's protagonists seem insignificant. Yet these aspects of the physical universe (it's all quantum, trust me!) affect us when they are applied to the development of the means to destroy us. Monroe's mention of the principle behind the neutron-bomb (without naming it as such) is not an anachronism per se, but can only be understood by a contemporary audience. Indeed, ALL the references within the script are only accessible to a knowledgeable viewer: one au fait with '50s occurrences/personality cults and how they affect us in the 21st century.

This film and its screenplay are either very, very clever, or extremely opaque and pretentious. Ultimately, however, probably insignificant.

live long and prosper :)

I have always been a great admirer of Nicolas Roeg and "Walkabout" is one of my favorite films. This is a film version of Roegs stage play and while most of the film takes place in a hotel room it still has some of Roegs cinematic flare. Very unique story is about a famous actress (Theresa Russell) who after a hard nights work on a film in 1954 goes to a hotel to visit a famous professor (Michael Emil) and together in his hotel room they talk. After awhile she wants to go to bed with him but as they start to get undressed her husband is banging on the door. Her husband is a famous ex-baseball player (Gary Busey) and he wants to know what is going on. The three of them in the hotel room talk about what is going on and what the future holds for them. Meanwhile, a famous senator (Tony Curtis) is threatening to take away the professors papers if he doesn't testify at a hearing. Theresa Russell is just excellent and while she's not trying exactly to impersonate Marilyn Monroe she does a wonderful job of exuding the phobia's and nuances that Monroe is very well known for. One thing the film does is show her as not only a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown but show her as a physical wreck as well. She talks of being unable to have children and at one point in the film she suffers a miscarriage. You can make an excellent case that this is Russell's best performance and I probably wouldn't argue. The film does an interesting thing in showing many flashbacks as the characters continue to talk about one thing and in the flashback we see one of many reasons for their actions. Busey also gives a good solid performance and it reminds me of what a strong persona he gives off on screen. Emil as the professor is a character that has many more things on his mind then we originally thought. The last scene in this film is a demonstration of his darker side! One of the highlights of the film for me is the little conversation he has with the elevator man (Will Sampson of "Cuckoo's Nest") and they discuss what Cherokee Indians think about at all times. But of course the famous scene in this film is where Russell demonstrates to Emil how she does understand the theory of relativity and uses toys to show this. The professor is delighted by her demonstration and so are we! Russell and Roeg are married in real life and they do admirable work when they are in collaboration and this is probably their best film together. Good performances and a very interesting job of directing make this a challenging and visually thought provoking film. Yes, it's flawed - especially if you're into Hollywood films that demand a lot of effects, a purely entertaining or fantasy story or plot, and you can't actually think for yourself.

Roeg's films are for the intelligent film-goer, and Insignificance is a perfect example.

The characterizations are brilliant, the story is excellent, but, like all Nic Roeg's films - it has you thinking on every level about aspects of reality that would never have dawned on you before. His films always make you think, and personally, I like that in a film.

So don't expect to come away from watching this film and feeling all happy-happy, because it's likely you'll be disappointed.

But I think it's excellent. If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.

This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.

New York, 1953. One hot night, four famous iconic figures will come together. The professor (Albert Einstein) has come to NY to give a speech, which he has, the senator (Joesph MacCarthy) on his back. Later that night his gets a surprise visitor; a famous actress (Marilyn Monroe). Who actually wants to discuss the theories of Relativity. Soon her ball-playing husband (Joe DiMaggio) turns up at the hotel room, begging to work things out for their crumbling relationship. Flashbacks of childhood, important events, perceived consequences of their actions creep in to show how these individuals cope with despair and a hidden fear waiting to break out.

Now that's one-of-a-kind! Adapted off a stage-play by Terry Johnson (who would also script the screenplay for the film), "Insignificance" is an odd, quirky, seductive and downright curious fictional pop-culture gimmick in the hands of director Nicolas Roeg. This inspired and cerebral experimental effort might be rooted in its stage-play origins, because it does feel theatrical and most of the action occurs in a hotel backdrop and one main suite. The cramp look only enhanced the moody and smoky atmosphere of New York to great effect. However these limitations can't contain the fruitful and daring ideas that Roeg manages to randomly storm up visually and through the meaningful material. The way he reflects on the characters' (who are suggestively famous figures, without the need of naming of them) philosophical journeys and interpretations of their notions is stimulating in a spiritual sense, with the memories gelling into the present and visions showing their fears of realisations, which depending on what you're seeing is either beautiful, or hauntingly implemented. There's plenty of food for thought and hints within the verbosely innovative (if sometimes awkward) script, with the main focus concerning the present situation, but the flashbacks gives us the personal make-up (sex, power, enlightenment and glory) of what makes them who they are and how much of a burden it can be in there already demanding lives. Sure the story might not lead to anything by the end, and it can feel disjointed, but the dreamy vibe and intelligent arrangement irons out those folds and makes sure it never turns giddy. Peter Hannan's sensually fluid photography and Stanley Myers' titillatingly oozing blues soundtrack fit in snugly with Roeg's stylistically subdue and established style of directing. He makes it look like he's working with something big and large-scale, but otherwise that's not the case and a small little universe is created. The vintage costumes and locations of the period all come off fittingly enough. What made the film for me had to be the impressive acting it boasted from the main four. Theresa Russell's perky, drop dead gorgeous appeal of the sexy pin-up actress is a growing portrayal that definitely held the film together along with an genuinely excellent and endearing performance by Michael Emil as the professor. Tony Curtis marvellously plays it up as witch-hunting senator and Gary Busey is suitably good in the stoically gravel manner as the ballplayer. Showing up in minor, but amusing support roles happen to be Will Sampson and Patrick Kilpatrick.

A memorably striking, fresh and tour de force meditation piece of metaphysics linked together by four different extremes. Some might find it pretentiously estrange and too talky, but this one had me wrapped up in its own little unique world to worry too much about its shortcomings. It is not known whether Marilyn Monroe ever met and spoke with Albert Einstein (and since the mysterious disappearance of her diary after her equally mysterious death, we may never know), but in their lifetime the opportunity was there.

Scripted by Terry Johnson from his own play, Nicolas Roeg's Insignificance imagines an encounter in a New York hotel room one night in 1953 between the two icons plus Joe DiMaggio (Busey), and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Curtis) - but only on one level. On another level, it elevates - or reduces - these 'personalities' (and what a lousy phrase that is) to mere avatars (the characters are deliberately unnamed), at once greater and lesser in status.

The title Insignificance is both apposite and deeply ironic; here, DiMaggio's net worth has been reduced to little more than a picture on a bubblegum card. Monroe too is reduced to her constituent parts of dress, hair, lipstick, wiggle and voice. By uncovering their insecurities and reversing their roles, the film brings into sharp focus received notions of celebrity, exploding the cult of personality.

Furthering the theme, there will be another explosion at the film's climax: Hiroshima in a hotel suite, in which 'The Actress' is burned to a cinder in seconds; a literal deconstruction of fame. Goodbye, Norma Jean. History informs the script, which in turn, shakes history upside down. As Roeg mused after watching Johnson's play for the first time, "These characters were mythic, not invented by any single person, not the public or the press, probably not even by the characters themselves." As played by Theresa Russell, Marilyn (a closet intellectual in real life), lectures a childlike Einstein ('The Professor', played by Emil) on the theory of relativity using balloons and a flashlight, while getting The Professor to show off his legs, in conscious parody of her own role in The Seven-Year Itch, the movie The Actress is seen to be working on in the film's opening.

History records that Monroe's then-husband, fading baseball star DiMaggio (played by Busey as a tenderly psychotic simpleton), was unhappy about her iconic dress-splaying scene in the film, precipitating their break-up. Right on cue, we discover the jealous 'Ballplayer' in a bar, bemoaning the fact that if, "I want to see her underwear, I just walk down to the corner like all the other guys".

In contrast to The Professor, The Ballplayer believes the universe is round - a contention shared by Native Americans. But the Big Chief (Sampson, of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest fame) who operates the Roosevelt Hotel's elevator has been all but disenfranchised from his own culture: "I no longer Cherokee - I watch TV." Meanwhile, 'The Senator' is investigating The Professor, who is on the eve of delivering a pacifist speech to the United Nations, but whom The Senator suspects is a Red. In fact, as he divulges to Monroe, Einstein is wracked with guilt over Hiroshima, and what the white heat future holds. Yet in a seemingly godless universe, all such worries and aspirations are rendered insignificant in the light of a higher (atomic) power.

Roeg really is the perfect director to bring Johnson's stage play to the screen. Throughout, tortured childhood flashbacks and pessimistic flash-forwards (ka-boom!) draw unexpected connections between time, place and circumstance, with the repeated visual motif of a wristwatch employed to mark time's passing - but perhaps also to suggest all time is one time; each moment co-existing. As evinced by his back catalogue, it's something of a hobbyhorse for a director enchanted with the notion of synchronicity - see Don't Look Now in particular. Here, 1920 bleeds into 1945 and drip-feeds into the 1980s, a period in which another 'Actor' has taken on his greatest role as the President of the United States.

If all this sounds rather heavy going (quantum physics is surely involved), the execution is anything but, owing to Johnson's witty, zippy screenplay, Roeg's playful direction, opening out an essentially stagey set-up - and the cast themselves, who are on stellar form. Tony Curtis especially leaves denture marks in the wood panelling as the paranoid, impotent Senator, who is seen attempting congress with a Monroe impersonator (a real one, as opposed to Russell's), before being let down by his dwindling member.

Of course, Curtis once co-starred with the real Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot, and whose embrace he memorably described as like "kissing Hitler". As Roeg commented, "Everything suddenly seemed connected... when the film began to take shape even the actors themselves seemed part of this endless linking." It all goes into the pot, to be boiled down and served up in new and fascinating ways. "Insignificance" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-"Don't Look Now" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like "Bad Timing" and "Cold Heaven". As the "Actress", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like "Walkabout" or "Performance". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/***** "The Woman in Black" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch "The Woman in Black" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10. The Woman in Black (1989) is a TV adaptation of Susan Hill's modern classic ghost story, published only a few years earlier than the film was made. Sadly, this film has not been released on DVD, and as far as I am aware it has been deleted on VHS. It's availability is in direct contrast to it's popularity amongst those in the know about horror films. The story revolves around events in a seaside community in the early 20th century where a young solicitor is sent by his firm to conclude the affairs of a recently deceased widow, who died on her isolated marshland estate. What he thought would be a routine and probably tedious task turns into a nightmare as he discovers that the old woman was haunted to her death, and that the ghosts of her past are not content to rest. The story is told in a subtle but concise way, never being self-indulgent, flashy or over-expositional. The obviously tight budget may have contributed to the no-nonsense approach, but it's just what the story needs, and why it works so well. It's what you don't see that scares. Having said that, there is one particularly terrifying scene that relies on the visual, and it works to perfection. I watched this film during the day, and it still gave me nightmares nearly a week later. If you love being terrified, do what you must to get hold of and watch a copy of The Woman In Black. This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.

My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.

She was saying something like "Don't let her get me" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.

So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this! Every once in a while in the wonderful world of horror,diamonds are crafted, and one becomes completely awestruck by its sheer brilliance. This is no less than a diamond!! This is a film brimful of eeriness,chilling anticipation, and dark atmosphere, and I think it's safe to say, one of my favourite horror films of all time! And of course it contains probably the single most, flat out scary sequence in the whole of history of horror! Every time I see the film, and it gets up to the point where you know the inevitably will happen, I try to remember exactly when I will be frightened out of my wits, but it never fails to happen; I never get it right, and I find myself as terrorized as the first time I saw it!! Now, it must be said, to scare a jaded horror fan like that, that is nothing short of pure perfection. Unlike the Americans, the Brits know their subtleties, they take pride in the art of acting, they do not need any special effect in order to convey atmosphere, they rely on the power of the potent story, and the creepiness(in this case)of suggestion and anticipation. Every single element is impeccable, from the set pieces, the acting, the story, to the menacing atmosphere. Pauline Moran surely could make the devil whimper, that's for sure!! As an end note, if you for some demented reason don't like this piece of insanity, then you honestly don't know what horror is all about, and frankly do not deserve to know it either. Thank you! I really miss the production of good old fashion Spooky films. If Ismail Merchant and James Ivory had been given the task of producing such a film it may have been this one, save for the lack of an internationally known, top drawer cast. This is one of those films that you watch alone on a dark evening with a pizza and some popcorn, and you don't even bother doing the dishes until morning because you just want to hide under the covers. Bravo to Director Herbert Wise, Writers Susan Hill and Nigel Kneale, top Production design by Jon Bunker, Art Direction by John Ralph and an excellent cast for making me shudder and feel so isolated even though I'm living in one of the most populated cities in the world in the beginning of the 21st Century. I gave it a "9" out of "10" because with the production and budget constraints of television, they really pulled of a great show. I love ghost stories in general, but I PARTICULARLY LOVE chilly, atmospheric and elegantly creepy British period-style ghost stories. This one qualifies on all counts. A naive young lawyer ("solicitor" in Britspeak) is sent to a small village near the seaside to settle an elderly, deceased woman's estate. It's the 1920s, a time when many middle-class Brits go to the seaside on vacation for "their health." Well, guess what, there's nothing "healthy" about the village of Crythin Gifford, the creepy site of the elderly woman's hulking, brooding Victorian estate, which is located on the fringes of a fog-swathed salt marsh. When the lawyer saves the life of a small girl (none of the locals will help the endangered tot -- you find out why later on in the film), he inadvertently incurs the wrath of a malevolent spirit, the woman in black. She is no filmy, gauzy wraith, but a solid black silhouette of malice and evil. The viewer only sees her a few times, but you feel her malevolent presence in every frame. As the camera creeps up on the lawyer while he's reading through legal papers, you expect to see the woman in black at any moment. When the lawyer goes out to the generator shed to turn on the electricity for the creepy old house, the camera snakes in on him and you think she'll pop up there, too. Waiting for the woman in black to show up is nail-bitingly suspenseful. We've seen many elements of this story before(the locked room that no one enters, the fog, the naive outsider who ignores the locals' warnings) but the director somehow manages to combine them all into a completely new-seeming and compelling ghost story. Watch it with a buddy so you can have someone warm to grab onto while waiting for the woman in black. . . Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.

The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary.

If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.

This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared. I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.

This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen. Whilst I have loved haunted house movies such as Amityville and Poltergeist, this made for TV adaption of Susan Hills book packs a huge punch on the horrors of Hollywood.

With a brilliant cast (many of which star in Heartbeat and other TV dramas), great acting, and fantastic setting (which portrays 1920's life convincingly), it has all the right ingredients to entice the viewer into what is a powerful ghost story.

Herbert Wise did not need blood, violence, or gore to send chills down the spines of an audience. Using your own imagination, the Woman In Black is a figure of fear and dread, and whose presence is never absent once she first appears.

The main character Arthur Kidd, a solicitor, learns about his unseen spectre on his mission to settle the estate. The widow dies and Arthur spends few nights inside her dreary home in which he notices many oddities, which may haunt him for some days. Some of the scenes are very unsettling and claustrophobic, particularly the locked room which opens itself, which turns the generator off and closes Arthur in darkness. The film becomes more harrowing the more you put yourself in Arthurs shoes, and his efforts to shake this ghost off. The writer puts many chilling additions into the story, an example being the tin soldier's re-appearance. One is eager to learn the meaning of it all. The fact we never really learn that much about the widow, leaves more to the imagination and makes it all the more unsettling.

The widow for the most part, looks vicious and intimidating. The scene after winding the generator sent the chills down me, a woman who appears out of nowhere on isolated marshy land with a howling wind – having been on such properties myself I can appreciate how isolating this is. And the scene in the inn was perhaps the most horrible things I've seen, one I don't wish to watch in a hurry or show to elderly relatives. I have often woken up at night thinking she was behind me in my sleep.

The Woman In Black is a great TV movie and a lost gem. I agree to some extent the Internet hype for this film has been totally overblown and can see why people were disappointed after spending the best of £50 on it, but I think the net has defeated hidden gems because it makes films like these over-exposed. I think it's still brilliant and fantastically acted and I consider it the greatest ghost story of the last century. I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/

I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.

The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.

I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?

Thanks, I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!).

Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end...

I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :) Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out. I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem. This film gave me nightmares for months and I'm 17. This is the scariest movie ever made! That is no exaggeration!! I saw this movie at school in English lessons and no one else was scared which amazed me. After reading other reviews I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this so scary!! Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.

Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more.

I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.

Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.

The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.

This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.

Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama. I gave this film an 10/10 with some reluctance as it's hard to praise something that so haunted and terrified me for years. The sheer menace on the woman in black's face is just pure horror and the accompanying music just worsens the dread.

I saw this when it was first on TV when I was 10 and it really did disturb me for years. I'm fascinated by the fact that so many other users have said this too. So many movie reviews go on about how disturbing or terrifying a film might be but you can believe all those who have posted on this board, this really is incredibly powerful stuff. I mean I really like horror films and generally find them quite funny more often than not, but this really is menacing and will probably disturb most people. I haven't seen it since I was 10 and I'm tempted to watch it again but fear I might have some sleepless nights. I can't quite put my finger on what it is exactly, but I think it's something to do with the fact that fear is the Woman's greatest weapon and that we, as viewers, are just as susceptible as we feel the fear so intensely. It's remarkable that other viewers' feelings are so unanimous.

I've also seen the stage play, which was an excellent production...but nothing can compare to this. How much could the general Hollywood director learn from this movie? All... when it comes to actually scaring people. This movies truly shows that it is possible to really frighten and scare a viewer, and that monstrous monsters and long knifes never will be the best way of achieving this. All who love a real psychological thriller must see this movie... it is the best of it's kind. The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.

There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!

A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing! There is nothing remotely scary about modern "horror" which is an insult to the word "horror". Freddie Vs Jason, the Scream movies, Cabin Trash, and especially Stephen King's infantile attempts - he's recycled every story from The Monkey's Paw to whatever, often in the same story - at horror in both writing and on film (except for Kubrick's version of The Shining which actually was scary, unlike King's books which are as frightening as my big toe - the left one, which still has the nail.

But The Woman In Black is that rare modern film that will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. This is the way it should be done; the director creates tension, and the scariest ghost ever actually seen simply by having her suddenly turn up standing still somewhere or other with that incredible look on her face. Then he brings it all to a ghastly disturbing close. He's learned his lessons from the masters who knew how to make horror - Val Lewton (original Cat People) and Robert Wise (a Val Lewton disciple and director of the Haunting and The Body Snatcher), Jacques Tournier (another Val Lewton disciple who directed a truly horrifying zombie film, not the gross rubbish Raimi did (gross isn't scary, folks, it's just gross), and Lewis Allen (The Uninvited), and of course Jack Clayton's turn on Henry James The Innocents, and the way the master of suspense, Hitchcock, can still bring you to the edge of your seat even with a slow-building and burning period piece like Under Capricorn.

TEN STARS... I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!! A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed. ...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release. ...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.

All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.

If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!! This is a plain old spooky ghost story. I showed it to some friends of mine in my movie club, and they were kept spellbound until the ending! No blood or gore- just good old fashioned suspense. It starts out right from the beginning, and builds and builds. The ending is a real twist that caught me unawares.

Well directed and well acted. It is also a "period piece"- set in the 1920s- which added to the atmosphere.

I was so impressed I got the book by Susan Hill from Amazon. The movie follows the book rather closely.

It's a shame it's not readily available on DVD. My copy is VHS. This along with "Haunted" are probably two of the best Ghost Stories I've ever scene. Which just goes to show that a little creativity outdoes "in your face" gore any day! A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.

Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it… expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.

Anyhow what the British TV presentation of "The Woman in Black" effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does…. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.

Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.

This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse. The Woman In Black is fantastic in all aspects. It's scary, suspenseful and so realistic that you can actually see it happening in real life. I first saw this on the TV back in 1989, and with all the lights off and the volume turned up, it was probably the most creepy experience of my entire life. I managed to get hold of a copy, and now, I make sure to bring it out every Halloween and show it too unsuspecting family members, who have no idea what they're in for, and all I can do is laugh with glee. As for the film:

It starts out with a young lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is assigned by his firm to go to the market town of Crythin Gifford to settle the papers of a recently deceased client - Mrs. Alice Drablow.

This film starts off as a reasonably solid and interesting ghost story. But then, Arthur attends the funeral, and from that scene on, we do not feel safe. We are constantly on edge and biting our nails, and that goes on for the next hour or so, until the final, thrilling finale.

A warning to all new viewers though: do not watch this alone... Yes, a true classic! This is what British drama is all about,realism and the minimal use of special effects (and over inflated budgets). I last saw this drama when it was last screened on British terrestial TV in 1994. It truly should be viewed by everyone who likes a scary plot,no big names but non-the-less great acting.Sadly the copywrite is now owned by someone unknown and as such this great drama is unlikely to be aired anytime soon.I myself recently acquired The Woman In Black on VHS,so now once again I shall be able to enjoy this truly great British drama. You should try and enjoy it too!

Mark R. Horobin The Woman In Black was a British made for TV movie which was first broadcast on the BBC on Christmave Eve of '89, and again in '92. I believe it made a round on American TV on A&E. It was released on VHS in Britain in the early 90's but went out of print. A U.S. company released it on DVD later, but that version also sold out. According to the website of the author of the book, the rights to the movie are now owned by someone else and that it won't be released again, and that there are unofficial bootlegs being sold on ebay.

I first heard about this movie just recently on a message board and had to check it out. I found a copy on ebay for about 28 bucks. It's certain to be a counterfeit from a seller in the far east, even though the DVD says, "made in Canada," ha ha. But it's a good copy, and you can't really fault the bootleg labels for releasing stuff that is rare, out of print, and lost in legal disputes.

I love the movie. It's a period piece set in the 1920's, with all the very authentic and quaint British settings of that time. The Woman In Black is very atmospheric and dark. For the most part, the movie is very low-key, but effective and scary. There is no self indulgent gore, violence or much at all in special effects, but The Woman In Black is still able to create absolutely chilling moments. It's a chilling classic styled ghost movie. The movie itself looks like it could have been made in the 1930's except for the color. Without all the flash of all the modern horror movies, I'm afraid this film will always just be a lost gem. For me, it places itself as one of my all time favorites. Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this? I recently stumbled across this film on TNT five minutes into it, while on vacation in Florida... (hey there has to be some down time in the hotel, right?) I was initially surprised to see Melissa Joan Hart in any feature length film on TNT. I mean "Drive Me Crazy" isn't THAT old already, is it?

But I stuck with it, and was thoroughly surprised and entertained. Melissa plays her role as the psychotic Jennifer excellently. The supporting cast (Nick, the ex-con boyfriend; Karen, her best friend; and her life-controlling parents) all added a great degree of believability. The twist at the end was a nice closure to this tale of the girl who always seemed to be one step ahead of everybody.

If you get a chance, check it out!

Twisted Desire (1996) was a TV movie starring Melissa Joan Hart. Melissa's character, Jennifer Stanton, a seventeen-year-old seduces her current boyfriend Nick Ryan into murdering her two parents. The movie is based on the 1990 murders of the parents of 14 year old Jessica Wiseman. Jessica had her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Christopher Thomas shoot and kill her parents! Thomas was executed in 2000! Jessica was released from prison when she turned 21 years old. Evidence now suggests that it was Jessica who fired the fatal shot that killed her mother. Jessica is known to now be residing somewhere in the state of Virginia. When I was flicking through the TV Guide, and came across "Twisted Desire" on the movie section, I read it's description. Three words caught my eye "Melissa Joan Hart" ...I find her role in "Sabrina: The Teenage Witch" absolutely vile, I hate those kind of programs, so I was just thinking that it was going to be a boring old, love story starring her...Little did I know.

It finally started on the television, I had my bucket ready in case I were to puke over it's cheesiness or soppiness, you know what I mean. At first, you think she's just a nice, ordinary girl who's in love, but has mean parents. Then when you find out she's manipulated her boyfriend into killing her parents, so she could be with her TRUE love, you're like "Whoa". You just don't expect this sort of role for that sort of actress. She played her role very well in my opinion, I never expected her to be able to act like such a bitch, and voilà, she did it perfectly! Congrats to her, the movie was very good, I'd definitely watch it again and recommend it to others. The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.

The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.

Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"

I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out. Although the story is fictional, it draws from the reality of not only the history of latin american countries but all the third world. This is the true, pure and raw recent history of these countries summarized concisely in this novel / film. The offbeat supranatural stuff, lightens up the intensity of historical events presented in this movie. After all the supranatural stuff is a part of the culture in the third world. Although is not critically acclaimed (probably because of the supranatural stuff), This is an excellent movie, with a great story and great acting. I liked the movie, first of all because it told an interesting story, but the story as told in the movie felt like it was condensed from a much-longer story. Since the book is over 400 pages, that makes sense. It spans a time period from the 1920s to the 1970s, in a fictional South American country, also a lot to fit into the time available. I think it would have been much better as a six-hour mini-series than it turned out as a 140-minute movie.

Even though it's rushed, the story doesn't skip so much that it gets confusing. What is told is told fairly well. One fault is that Clara's supernatural powers appear inconsistently; either they should have appeared more evenly through the course of the movie, or they should have been left out. Two more faults (which could be spoilers): Esteban's eventual return to goodness happens somewhat too suddenly, and Ferula's curse seems to wear off, even though the tone of the story suggests that it should endure forever.

The acting is excellent. Glenn Close, as the tormented spinster Ferula, is outstanding. Jeremy Irons, as the brutal self-made rich man, is also excellent. Meryl Streep, as the main character Clara, is great, although she's often even better than she was in this movie. There were many well-performed smaller roles too. The biggest fault is that the movie seemed to lack a dialect coach; each actor seemed to speak in a different sort of accent. Brilliant adaptation of the novel that made famous the relatives of Chilean President Salvador Allende killed. In the environment of a large estate that arises from the ruins, becoming a force to abuse and exploitation of outrage, a luxury estate for the benefit of the upstart Esteban Trueba and his undeserved family, the brilliant Danish director Bille August recreates, in micro, which at the time would be the process leading to the greatest infamy of his story to the hardened Chilean nation, and whose main character would Augusto Pinochet (Stephen similarities with it are inevitable: recall, as an example, that image of the senator with dark glasses that makes him the wink to the general to begin making the palace).

Bille August attends an exceptional cast in the Jeremy protruding Irons, whose character changes from arrogance and extreme cruelty, the hard lesson that life always brings us to almost force us to change. In Esteban fully applies the law of resonance, with great wisdom, Solomon describes in these words:"The things that freckles are the same punishment that will serve you."

Unforgettable Glenn Close playing splint, the tainted sister of Stephen, whose sin, driven by loneliness, spiritual and platonic love was the wife of his cruel snowy brother. Meryl Streep also brilliant, a woman whose name came to him like a glove Clara. With telekinetic powers, cognitive and mediumistic, this hardened woman, loyal to his blunt, conservative husband, is an indicator of character and self-control that we wish for ourselves and for all human beings.

Every character is a portrait of virtuosity (as Blanca worthy rebel leader Pedro Segundo unhappy ...) or a portrait of humiliation, like Stephen Jr., the bastard child of Senator, who serves as an instrument for the return of the boomerang.

The film moves the bowels, we recreated some facts that should not ever be repeated, but that absurdly still happen (Colombia is a sad example) and another reminder that, against all, life is wonderful because there are always people like Isabel Allende and immortalize just Bille August. Could not understand why Jeremy Irons felt it necessary to exhibit a most disconcerting accent, spoken through clenched teeth,and from the back of his throat. In fact it rather spoiled the film for me, and distracted from what was probably a fine performance by him (very irritating). No other actor or actress seemed to have such a pronounced accent and whilst I have always rated Jeremy Irons as a fine actor, I would not class this film as being one of his best. The film however has whetted my appetite, as have some of the other comments made re this film, which I have found very interesting,and intend to now read the book. The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.

But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering "Who is the actress playing Blanca?" all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!

All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book. At first I didn't didn't like it that much, although I did. They didn't include the third Trueba generation, the love between Blanca and Pedro wans't well explained and some actors were too different from what I had imagined.

Later I realized that, had the movie been more loyal to the book, it would have been like five hours long, and would be kind of tedious. Now I like it very much, because my favourite characters are there as I portraited them. Clara really looks like an Angel in live, and her introduction to the story at the beggining of the film was fantastic, loyal and short. Glenn Close is Ferula. I pictured her just like that, only not in mourning throughout the whole thing. Esteban is find enough. I never really liked his character, and, although I was interested in him, I hated him a lot, more specially when he hit Clara. As in the book, the very last part is the most exciting one, and it has real history too there.

The movie is really good, specially considering that it was a gringo film based upon a latin american book. Its amazing how many famous stars are there, don't you think so? This movie is an incredible piece of work. It explores every nook and cranny of the human mind, focusing on the characters relationships with the people around them. Stellar performances all around. This one had me weeping for about half an hour straight. Spend some real time with this one. This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?

When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.

Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.

So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for! Maybe it's because I saw the movie before reading the book, but I really love this movie. I've seen it many many times and will be watching it many times more. It's a compelling story, that's interesting from the beginning to the end. It has everything: action, romance etc. well, i said it all in the summary, i simpley adore the movie and the cast...i would give each actor an Oscar...great, great movie...i'm 25 now and i watched it 4 times in different periods and i always think i won't cry and i always do, about 2 or 3 times...;) meryl s. was absolutely brilliant, jeremy irons also..just brilliant...i wish the movie received more awards... i really don't know anybody who watched it and didn't loved it... also, glenn close was fantastic... the story was beautiful and sad at the same time... i loved the fact that despite everything clara and esteban loved each other so much, and how blanca was close to her parents... Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little. Can such an ambient production have failed its primary goal, which was to correctly adapt Allende's novel? Obviously yes. Bille August managed to make a superficial, shallow film where basic elements of South American mentality are presented simply as side events, resulting in total incoherency. I can't believe there was a whole production team that could not understand the book! There is of course technical quality in this film and I think the actors did their best with what they had in their hands, but something is missing. And this something was the most important part. I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.

This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.

Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.

Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.

All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way. I think it's one of the greatest movies which are ever made, and I've seen many... The book is better, but it's still a very good movie! Rumour has it that around the time that ABBA – the multi-award winning Swedish disco favourites –'s star had reached its zenith, the band grew disillusioned with singing in English and yearned to perform in their native tongue. Soon after, problems began to emerge in the onetime-wed locked-watertight partnership and recordings became less and less frequent. The band dissolved, albeit unofficially, in 1982 and pop lost one of its most celebrated artists. Although they have never admitted that there's any truth in those rumours, the fact remains that ABBA would never have been so successful had they only recorded in their native tongue. If you want to appeal to the largest money-making media market in the entire world, then you must cater for English speaking audiences.

It's amazing for me how such a small island that's located a stone-throw away from the European continent could have created perhaps the most recognised, although not most widely spoken, language in the world. Everyone speaks a little bit of English; whether it be simply 'hello' or a common swear word - you'll find an English speaker almost everywhere. Pedro Galindo obviously didn't agree, because Trampa Infernal was never subtitled for global consumption until it was released recently on budget DVD. That's a real shame, because it's actually a decent slasher movie that's a lot better than many of its English-speaking genre compatriots.

The film launches in the somewhat unfamiliar territory of a pistol duel. Two unidentified characters are shown sneaking around a dilapidated complex searching out one another for the inevitable final showdown. After some suspense and a couple of near misses, one of the pistoleers emerges victoriously. Next we learn that they were only paintball guns and the two competitors are actually youngsters from the local town. Nacho and Mauricio are fiercest rivals and Mauricio is always trying to prove himself to be better than his soft-spoken opponent, but as of yet he hasn't succeeded.

Later that night, whilst the victorious gunslinger celebrates his triumph with his girlfriend Alejandra and his buddy Charly, Mauricio enters the bar and says that he has one last challenge for his glorious nemesis. He says that this will be the competition that will prove to the town once and for all who deserves the uttermost respect. Nacho is at first reluctant because Alejandra warns him of the perils of continual competitiveness, but he eventually succumbs to the weight of peer pressure and agrees; much to the distaste of his morally superior partner.

They plan to head out to the remote region of Filo de Caballo, because recent press coverage has reported that numerous people have been butchered by what locals believe to be a vicious bear. Mauricio proposes that whoever murders the animal can be regarded as the greatest and he also promises that it will be the last battle that he wages against his adversary.

After visiting the armoury to stock up on weapons and ignoring the warnings of the elderly store-keeper, the group set out to the remoteness of the secluded woodland. Hunters become hunted as they learn that the 'bear' is actually a homicidal Vietnam vet who is still unaware that the war has ended and considers all humans as his enemy. What started as a competitive adventure suddenly becomes a battle for survival as they are stalked and slaughtered by the malevolent assassin.

I picked up Trampa whilst studying in Madrid from a Mexican student who lived in the dorm room next-door to me. I remember that the copy I watched was faulty and the tape ended about 10 minutes before the final credits rolled, which meant I never got to see the final scenes. Thankfully I came across the budget DVD recently on Amazon and immediately added it to my collection.

Gallindo's slasher is a surprisingly good effort that excels from its skillful direction and enthusiastic plot, which attempts to cover areas not usually approached by slasher movies. It is in fact so good that it reminded me on more than one occasion of the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Predator. This is especially evident in the scenes that show the creepily-masked assassin jogging through the forest and stalking the panic-stricken troupe as they struggle to escape the maniac's playground.

Despite Gallindo's obvious awareness of genre platitudes (the bogeyman even uses a claw-fingered glove a la Freddy Kruegar); Trampa also attempts to add something different to the standard template. Whilst the majority of the runtime plays by the concrete rules of the category, the final third heralds a significant step in individuality as the maniac arms himself with a machine gun and entices the hero to his lair for the final showdown. From here on, the film rapidly swaps genres and becomes almost an action film, which depending on your taste will either excite or disappoint you. The last slasher that tried to crossbreed the two styles was that shoddy eighties entry 'The Majorettes', which is not necessarily a good thing.

As is the case with many Latin films (especially Spanish flicks by Almodovar and Amenabar), Trampa has a subtle undercurrent of a moral to its story, which is conveyed successfully without being rammed down the viewer's throat. Over indulge in the temptations of competitive masculinity and you may not always be the winner. It's a sugar-coated point, but it's handled delicately enough not to detract from the fun of the feature.

Trampa may be cheesy, but it deserves to be seen and recognised as one of the better late slashers. The killer looks great in creepy army fatigues and white Valentine-style mask and the attempts at originality just about work. It may lack the gore that most sincere horror fans enjoy, but it has enough in terms of suspense and creativity to warrant at least one viewing. Talk about a blast opening, "Trampa Infernal" has the coolest opening credits ever! Guided by musical tones that are perhaps slightly inspired by the legendary "Friday the 13th" theme (Tsh-Tsh-Tsh-Ha-Ha-Ha), the names of the lead players appear on screen split up in giant syllables. Promising intro of a totally obscure Mexican slasher/backwoods survival thriller and it only becomes cooler with every minute that passes. Two extremely competitive and testosterone-overloaded paintball enemies challenge each other to the ultimate showdown in a sleazy bar. According to a newspaper article, there's a savage bear loose in the nearby woods and it already killed multiple of the hunters that tried to catch it. The challenge includes that whoever kills the bear will be declared the ultimate macho hero with the biggest set of balls. Upon arrival, however, it quickly becomes obvious they're not up against a bear but a bewildered and utterly maniacal war veteran with quite an arsenal of weapons in his hideout and numerous combat tricks up his sleeve. After a whole decade of tame and derivative American slashers, this early 90's Mexican effort looks and feels very refreshing and vivid. The formula is simplistic but efficient, the lead characters are plausible enough and the building up towards the confrontations with the sadist killer is reasonably suspenseful. The maniac must have been a fan of Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, as he also uses a self-made glove with sharp knives attached to it and a white mask to cover his face. The murders are pleasingly nasty and barbaric, which I was really hoping for since the awesome aforementioned opening sequences, and waste a whole lot of gratuitous blood. The forestry setting and particularly the camouflaged booby traps are joyously spectacular. "Trampa Internal" is a Mexican slasher/survival sleeper hit that comes warmly recommended to the fans of the genre. I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.

Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.

Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head).

Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10. Four macho rough'n'tumble guys and three sexy gals venture into a remote woodland area to hunt for a bear. The motley coed group runs afoul of crazed Vietnam veteran Jesse (an effectively creepy portrayal by Alberto Mejia Baron), who not surprisingly doesn't take kindly to any strangers trespassing on his terrain. Director/co-writer Pedro Galindo III relates the gripping story at a steady pace, creates a good deal of nerve-rattling tension, and delivers a fair amount of graphic gore with the brutal murder set pieces (a nasty throat slicing and a hand being blown off with a shotgun rate as the definite gruesome splatter highlights). The capable cast all give solid performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Pedro Fernandez as the nice, humane Nacho, Edith Gonzalez as the feisty Alejandra, Charly Valentino as the amiable Charly, and Tono Mauri as antagonistic jerk Mauricio. Better still, both yummy blonde Marisol Santacruz and lovely brunette Adriana Vega supply some tasty eye candy by wearing skimpy bathing suits. Antonio de Anda's slick, agile cinematography, the breathtaking sylvan scenery, Pedro Plascencia's robust, shuddery, stirring score, the well-developed characters, and the pleasingly tight'n'trim 76 minute running time further enhance the overall sound quality of this bang-up horror/action hybrid winner. Seven young people go to the forest looking for a bear.Soon they are all stalked and viciously murdered by a crazy Vietnam veteran."Trampa Infernal" is a pretty entertaining Mexican slasher that reminds me a lot "The Zero Boys".The film is fast-paced and there are some good death scenes like throat slashing or axe in the neck.Unfortunately there is not much gore,so fans of grand-guignol will be disappointed.However if you are a fan of slasher movies give this rarity a look.Mexican horror flicks are quite obscure(I have seen only "Alucarda" and "Don't Panic"),so this should be another reason to see this enjoyable slasher.My rating:7 out of 10.Highly recommended. Tintin was one of my favorite heroes as a kid. I used to borrow the books from the school library every chance I got. My favorite one was "The Red Sea Sharks" - so much action and humor.

This documentary was a brilliant exposition of the background story of Herge and his development of Tintin. The film-maker's personal experience in interviewing Herge and the story of his relationship with the artist who was the inspiration for the Chan character was very moving.

A great documentary of a very talented and well-loved artist. A great example of someone who has become internationally renown, and has brought joy of millions of children (and the young at heart) all over the world. Imagine that I was about to miss this great cultural event on Swedish TV last night, and it was only because my girlfriend insisted on keeping the TV on (to make it easier for her to fall asleep!) that I came across it (yes I had seen an advert for it previously but of course forgotten about it and looked forward to an 'early night'...).

Anyway - this must surely be a rather unusual idea - to base a film documentary on an interview made with sound only more than 30 years ago. But with animated and other documentary film material it adds up to a really good and insightful portrait of one of the 20th centuries' most appreciated literary artists - Georges Remy a.k.a Hergé.

I for sure will read my Tintin albums with a different eye after having seen this film, which makes it easier to connect the variations in style as well as content with the different periods in Hergé's life (and I can tell you that I will a.s.a.p get the few that I don't have). Of course my perception of the albums has changed over the more than 25 years that I have already been reading them, as has my view about what albums are my favourites, but this adds (at least) one more dimension to them. "Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).

We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.

Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.

Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again. If you as I have a very close and long relationship with the world of Tintin....do yourself a favor and watch this beautiful documentary about Hergé and his life creating Tintin. I'ts so brilliant and a very cool production. The whole background story about Hergé and the people and also very much the many different situations he was influenced by, for good and worse is amazing. There is a very fine and obvious connection between the comic books and just this. I will for sure be in my basement digging up the Tintin albums again. Also, the movie itself are very well told and has a great ambient sound to it. I really do hope people will find this as intriguing as I did! This is a brilliant documentary that follows the life of Herge and his creating TinTin. Its based around a series of interviews conducted in 1971, and covers every thing from his early life and "Nazi collaboration" to the final moments of his life.

Brilliantly edited, very cinematic and fast paced enough to not get boring. This film will give you a new appreciation for the work of Herge.

The film makers make the film more than just another documentary. Using the latest state of the art technology and for a change putting it to good use.

Recently more and more documentaries have been making it to cinemas. But this one as to be amongst the best... Some thirty years ago, Author Numa Sadoul published a book length interview with the Belgian comic book artist Georges Remi (better known as Herge, the creator of Tintin). This movie catches up with Sadoul today as he recalls the interview, while we listen to the cassettes (Herge died in 1983) and see some old photos and footage of the man himself. Some parts of the interview were not published in the book at the request of Herge, and we now know these dealt with his separation from his wife, after he had an affair with one of his collaborators (who years later would become his second wife). An interesting thing the movie does not address well is the shift in the Tintin books from the early rightist and imperialist books (Tintin in the Congo, Tintin in the lands of the Soviets) to fairly anti-imperialist books just a few years later (The Blue Lotus). On the whole, I come out of this movie knowing a few more things about Herge and seeing him as a bit more unlikable than when I come in to the theater. Tintin and I recently aired as an episode of PBS's P.O.V. series. It's based on a taped interview of Georges Remi a.k.a. Herge, Tintin's creator, from 1971 in which in discusses his various experiences publishing his popular character, first in a Catholic newspaper, then in his own series of comic books. Awesome sweeping views of various comic pages and surreal images of Herge's dreams. I first encountered Tintin in the pages of Children's Digest at my local elementary school library reading The Secrets of the Unicorn. My mom later got a subscription to CD and I read the entire Red Rackham's Treasure every month in 1978. I remember seeing some Tintin comic books in a local book store after that but for some reason I didn't get any probably because I was 12 and I thought I was outgrowing them. I do have Breaking Free, a book written and drawn by J. Daniels, published in 1989, six years after Herge's death. Haven't read it yet. This film also covers the artist's personal life as when he left his first wife after his affair with a colorist in his employ (whom he later married). Her name is Fanny and she is interviewed here. If you love Tintin and his creator, this film is definitely worth a look. Update: 9/4/07-I've now read Breaking Free. Tintin and The Captain are the only regular characters that appear here and they are tailored to the anti-capitalist views of Mr. Daniels with Tintin portrayed as a rabble rouser with a chip on his shoulder who nevertheless cares for The Captain who he's staying with. The Captain here is just trying to make ends meet with a wife and daughter that he loves dearly. They and other construction workers vow to strike after a fellow employee dies from a faulty equipment accident. The whole thing takes place in England with working-class cockney accents intact. Not the kind of thing Herge would approve of but an interesting read nonetheless. Oh, yes, dog Snowy only appears in the top left corner of the cover (which has Tintin running over the police!) and the dedication page. This is a excellent start to the film career of Mickey Rooney. His talents here shows that a long career is ahead for him. The car and truck chase is exciting for the 1937 era. This start of the Andy Hardy series is an American treasure in my book. Spring Byington performance is excellent as usual. Please Mr Rooney or owners of the film rights, take a chance and get this produced on DVD. I think it would be a winner. "A Family Affair" takes us back to a less complicated time in America. It's sobering to see how different everything was back then. It was a more innocent era in our country and we watch a 'functional' family dealing in things together. The film also marks the beginning of the series featuring the Hardy family.

The film, directed by George Seitz, is based on a successful play. Judge James Hardy, and his wife Emmily, are facing a domestic crisis that must be dealt with. Married daughter Joan comes home after she has committed a social blunder and her husband holds her responsible. At the same time, another daughter, Marion, brings home a beau, who is clear will clash with her father. The happy teen ager Andy, seems to be the only one without a problem until his mother makes him escort Polly to the dance, something he is reluctant to do.

Needless to say, Judge Hardy will prove why he knows best as he puts a plan into action to get everyone together again. After all, he is a man that understands, not only the law, but how to deal with those outside forces that threatens his standing in the community and what will make his family happy.

Lionel Barrymore plays Judge Hardy with conviction. He is the glue that holds everything together. Spring Byington is seen as Emily, the mother. Mickey Rooney has a small part in this film, but he is as always, fun to watch. Cecilia Parker and Julie Haydon appeared as the daughters, Marion and Joan. Sara Hayden and Margaret Marquis are also featured in the film as Aunt Milly and Polly, the girl that surprises Andy with her beauty.

"A Family Affair" is a good way to observe our past through the positive image painted of an American family. Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful. This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better. Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure. Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than "Persuasion," which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this "Emma" I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' "Pride and Prejudice," care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight. I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more "agreeable" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.

10 out of 10

My 2 cents! This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular "Pride and Prejudice," "Emma" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film. I've really enjoyed this adaptation of "Emma".I have seen it many times and am always looking forward to seeing it again.Though it only lasts 107 minutes, most of the novel plot and sub-plots were developed in a satisfactory way. All the characters are well-portrayed. Most of the dialogues come directly from the novel with no silly jokes added as in Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility.

As a foreigner, I particularly appreciate the perfect diction of the actors. The setting and costumes were beautiful. I find this version quite on a par with the 1995 miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" but then the producer and screenwriter were the same. Kate Beckinsale did a really good job portraying "Emma" of whom Jane Austen said she would create a heroin no-one but her would love. She is snobbish but has just enough youth and inexperience to be still likable. Mark Strong was also very good at portraying Mr Knightley, not an easy part, I think, though he has not the charisma shown by Colin Firth's Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. Even the end scene (the harvest festival) which does not happen in the novel provides a fitting end except for when it shows Emma being cold and almost unpleasant with Frank Churchill whereas in the novel she was thoroughly reconciled with him, even telling him that she would have enjoyed the duplicity, had she been in his situation. A strange departure from the faithfulness otherwise shown throughout the film. I find the costumes more beautiful and elaborate than in other adaptations from Jane Austen's novels. It has taken me a while to watch this version as unfortunately I don't seem to be able to rent it in the video store, only the other version but I fell in love with it. I was always borderline with the other Emma. Gwenneth and Toni Collette, as they are not British naturally have to put on the accent, and well to me it doesn't seem natural. It seems put on. Sorry but don't think Toni and Gwenneth did a brilliant job there. I could not warm to any of the characters, but this version is more heart warming and more the type of person I imagined Emma to be. It is definitely the version I will come back to from now on. I was disappointed that Mr Knightley was not better looking, but he is convincing. I also like Jane Fairfax better (played by Olivia Williams). I never warmed to her in the movie version, but she is better portrayed in this version. Come to think of it, (besides Mr Knightley) all characters are better played, and a lot less over the top. Unfortunately both came out around same time and the Paltrow version got more publicity. Pity...... I also love the new scene at the end. Well done to Kate Beckingsale! Therefore, if you are a Jane Austen fan, don't forget to watch this one. Kate Beckinsale steals the show! Bravo! Too bad Knightly ins't as good looking as Jeremy Northam. Mark Strong did a fabulous job. Bernard Hepton was perfect as Emmas father. I love the end scene (which is an addition to the novel-but well written) when the harvest is in and Knightly dines with his workers and high society friends. Emma must show that she accepts this now. She is a changed woman. That is too much too quick, but OK. I'll buy into it. Samantha Bond plays Emma's ex-governess and confidant. She is wonderful. just as I would have imagined her. I believe that when the UK does a Jane Austen its the best. American versions of English literature are done for money and not for quality. See this one! Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane! Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years.

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld".

I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.

This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10 i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well. The minute I started watching this I realised that I was watching a quality production so I was not surprised to find that the screenplay was written by Andrew Davis and was produced by Sue Birtwhistle both of these brought us the excellent 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice! So my only gripe here is that Emma did not run to 3 or 4 or maybe even six episodes like Pride and Prejudice. The acting was superb with I think Prunella scales excellent as Miss Bates but I loved Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong just as much. The language is a delight to listen to, can you imagine in this day and age having a right go at someone without actually uttering a swear word? Samantha Morton was excellent as Miss Smith in fact the casting was spot on much as it was with Pride and Prejudice. I liked it so much that I watched it twice in two days!! So once again thank you BBC for another quality piece of television. I have seen the Paltrow version and it is okay but I do think the BBC version is far superior. An excellent production that I am very happy to own on DVD!!! This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one. As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.

The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.

As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.

Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.

Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.

If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come! Kate Beckinsale is as good if not better than Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma in this movie, although I really liked Gwyneth Paltrow in the other Emma version. They're both good in different ways. Kate Beckinsale as Emma seems more interesting, almost, though. And I liked the woman who played Harriet Smith in this movie better, too...she was more believably sweet and sentimental. There are certain things I like better about the Gwyneth Paltrow version, though, like how the humorous side is more apparent. I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more "humanized". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that? Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that "Lili Marleen" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's "women movies" like "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (1979) and "Lola" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that "stories can be told much better with women than with men", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, "women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play "The City, the Garbage and the Death" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title "Shadow of Angels" (1976).

Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their "misuse" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because "good" and "bad" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. If you are the sort of person looking for a realistic film or one with a strong and believable plot, then this film is NOT for you. Nope--you'll hate it. However, for those who like sweet, slightly screwball comedies, then you'll have a nice time watching this slight film.

Tony Randall works for the IRS and he investigates a very nice farmer who never realized he needed to file an income tax return. However hard he tries to convince them of the seriousness of his visit, everyone in the family is thrilled to have company. They dote on him and treat him like one of the family,...and have plans on getting him hitched to their daughter, Debbie Reynolds. That's really about all the plot there is. But the film gets high marks for a fun script and decent acting. A really nice little curio from the late 1950s. Excellent farce! Which, of course, is all it is intended to be. Thankfully there is neither a social or political message, nor is there the slightest attempt in that direction. Could the plot actually take, or have taken place in any particular time or location? Unlikely, for, after all, this is simply, merely, a movie, and movies spring from imagination, not from reality. The only goal of this movie is to entertain, certainly not to educate, and entertain it does, with reality delightfully and lightheartedly tossed to the winds. I think most would agree that from documentaries we expect enlightenment and authenticity. But for entertainment I want what is nowadays described as a "no-brainer," which The Mating Game is in all respects. For a few chuckles and an outright laugh now and then, this is fine fare fantasy. I have always liked this comedy as one of the few ever seriously trying to deal with the U.S. Government's yearly demand for taxes. Ever read a tax code?: it is quite a trial to follow it's multiple clauses that our congressmen and senators push in to help their financial backers and various interest groups. Despite claims that it is fair, the tax code has always laid the lion share of the burden on the middle and working classes rather than the rich and influential. Most of the various special clauses are meant for their use - go through the average 1040 or 1040A form and look at the variety of different investment and business ventures all of which have a different set of rules. Most people will never have any use for these.

The story here is that a wealthy landowner (Philip Ober) uses his influence to tip off the IRS that his neighbors (Paul Douglas and Una Merkle) have not payed taxes in 20 years. The Baltimore office of the IRS is under Fred Clarke, and he is snapping to attention for Ober with his influence. He sends Tony Randall to check out the situation.

Randall finds that Douglas, Merkle, and their three girls and two boys are pretty decent people, who rarely have need for cash (they get along on their farm produce and barter with their neighbors). But Randall, trained in the clear (to the IRS) lines of the tax code tries to pin down the family to fundamentals. But gradually Douglas notes that Reynolds is fond of Randall, and he keeps sidetracking Randall from his chore, eventually getting him drunk. He also makes it difficult for Randall to leave by having the motor of his car removed "for repairs" by his two sons.

The plot follows the growing attraction and frictions between urban, vaguely ambitious Randall, and countryside, life loving Reynolds. They make a cute couple actually. Eventually, after Ober complains, Randall is sent back in disgrace and Clarke (a tougher cookie) gets down to brass tacks. And comes up with a very large tax bill, that will possibly ruin Douglas's family.

The film does not end there - it does end happily, but it does remind us that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that the Government does, all too frequently, go in for destruction. A chance in a million reversal saves the family, but it is so rare that we know it is just a dramatic trick. More realistic is how Clarke's boss, (Charles Lane) cuts to the essence regarding Ober's "help" by suggesting that next year his taxes will be looked at more carefully. After that Ober is rather green. Mating Game is a charming, wonderful movie from an era gone by. Hollywood needs to consider a charming remake of this movie. My wife and I would go see it.

It is an excellent romantic comedy that my wife and I watched on AMC.

This movie has Tony Randall at his best. Debbie Reynolds is great, as always.

Loved it. We plan on ordering on DVD to add to our growing collection of movies.

Too bad Hollywood does not make movies like this anymore.

Hey Hollywood....time to dig some of these type of scripts out of the old safe, update them a bit (without spoiling the original movie and script as you have done with other remakes), and hold a casting call.

A remake would be a big hit on the silver screen, DVD, and on cable/SATTV.

SN Austin, TX I saw this movie in 1959 when I was 11 years old at a drive-in theater with my family.

Way back then, I thought it was very funny . . . even though I was too young to understand 90% of what makes this marvelous movie such a delight! I saw it again this morning on "Turner South". As I watched it, I was absolutely convulsed with laughter! "The Mating Game" is a unique classic from a by-gone age. If you're too young to have experienced the enchanting period in history that produced this film, I feel very sorry for you. There's no way you can watch movies like this and understand how they can (even today) deliver such a delightful slice of heaven to "old timers" like me.

Having said that, all I can do is respectfully request that younger people refrain from commenting on films like "The Mating Game".

Movies like this were made for the generation that preceded the current group of your people. And as such, these films speak a very different language than any of you can understand.

In other words – if you don't understand the issues the film is addressing, please don't embarrass yourself by offering comments which – frankly – make no sense. "The Incredible Melting Man" is a fantastically gross, trashy and energetic Z-grade production that every self-respecting camp-horror freak simply has to see for him/herself! The ideal way to describe this low-budget 70's gem is like a shameless copy of Hammer's "The Quatermass Xperiment" ...only a thousand times filthier! Astronaust Steve West is the only survivor of a disastrous space-mission, but turns out the carrier of a horrible disease that makes him radioactive and ... causes him to melt! In shock after seeing his face in the mirror (can you blame him?), Steve busts out of the hospital, leaving a trail of sticky pus and fallen off body parts behind. Doctor Ted Nelson has to find him urgently, as the disease also set Steve up with an insatiable appetite for human flesh. The premise may sound utterly stupid but this flick is enormously entertaining and contains great make-up effects from the hand of Rick Baker. The melting dude's face looks like a rotting pizza and his heavy breathing makes him sound like Darth Vader! Another big advantage is that William Sachs' screenplay doesn't waste any time on tedious scientific explanations or emotional speeches. The repulsiveness starts right away and lasts until the very last moment of the film. Just enjoy this silly horror gem and try to switch off your brain activity as much as you can because, if you start contemplating about the many stupidities in the script, you'll miss out on all the campy fun! First off, anyone looking for meaningful "outcome oriented" cinema that packs some sort of social message with meaningful performances and soul searching dialog spoken by dedicated, emotive, heartfelt thespians, please leave now. You are wasting your time and life is short, go see the new Brangelina Jolie movie, have a good cry, go out & buy a hybrid car or throw away your conflict diamonds if that will make you feel better, and leave us alone.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out either. THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is a grade B minus regional horror epic shot in the wastelands of Oklahoma by a young, TV friendly cast & crew, and concerns itself with an astronaut who is exposed to bizarre radiation effects, wakes up in a hospital, and finds that his body is liquefying on him as he sits there feeling like a chump. The melting man is played by one Alex Rebar, who is recognizable for about the first four minutes of the film. But once he starts oozin' with Rick Baker's extraordinary special effects makeup he more resembles something you might find in a tin of spam before you drain off all the runny, viscous blebs of grease.

The film has zero exposition and does not bandy about with plot points: There are a couple of scenes involving scientist types riding around on an absurd industrial conveyor machine who dutifully recite a few obligatory lines about the effects of radiation but the movie does not care, really. It's a freak show and a marvelous one at that with a decidedly sick sense of humor for those who can stomach it -- One great laugh comes when the melting man stumbles upon a young girl in the forest and is so at a loss for what to do that one of his eyes pops out. Hilarious.

The "hero" of the film is played by Burr DeBenning, a fascinating character actor from the golden 1970s & 80s television scene who was sort of an early model for the Kevin Spacey prototype; slightly twisted, neurotic, and one step ahead of most everyone in the room even if he looks confused. He appeared just after this movie was made in a bizarre made for TV anthology horror piece called HOUSE OF THE DEAD (or THE ALIEN ZONE) that is regarded as one of the finest movies ever made in Oklahoma, which is where I suspect this film was made as well. The arid, cold looking rural midwestern landscapes are certainly the same, and the creek that one unfortunate fly fisher chooses for his afternoon of sport appears to be the same one that Cameron Mitchell fought off flying alien pancakes in WITHOUT WARNING ... which also had a sick sense of humor, a TV friendly cast, and some pretty outrageous gore. I definitely sense at least an aesthetic connection between the three movies, as well as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS which is of no surprise considering that director Jonathan Demme is a part of MELTING MAN's cast.

Essentially, as others have pointed out, this is a 1950s B movie plot updated for later 1970s era special effects & the inevitable boobs. The movie it probably borrows most of it's ideas from is PHANTOM FROM SPACE with Peter Graves as an astronaut who also returns to Earth after being exposed to funky radiation effects that set him off on a killing spree. One of the things that I actually admire about the film is that absolutely no regard is given for the melting man's motivations: He simply goes on a rampage and the movie's drama comes from wondering if he's going to fall to pieces before certain characters fall victim to his madness. The budget for the film is also delightfully low and every dime spent on it is up there on the screen, Rick Baker's disgusting effects getting the lion's share of whatever was spent on this.

Sick, disgusting fun best enjoyed with a crowd of friends and plenty of beer. Why can't people have made more movies like these?

8/10 Astronaut Steve West (Alex Rebar) and his comrades undertake a space mission that sees them flying through the rings of Saturn. His comrades are killed instantly, but it would seem that they are in fact the lucky ones. Steve returns to Earth a constantly oozing mass of humanoid pulp; as he turns into a savage killer, melting every step of the way, he is tracked by his friend, Dr. Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning).

This is often so uproariously funny - with enough absurd lines and situations to go around - that it's hard for me to believe that the laughs are all unintentional. It seems to me to be kind of a goof on low-budget genre efforts from the '50's and 60's, and as such, it's a marvelously entertaining movie. That sequence with the nurse is simply hilarious. We're even treated to a split screen sequence that doesn't really add anything, but is still a gas to watch.

Writer / director William Sachs deserves credit for coming up with this ingenious idea; his ultra-slimy character is a memorable one indeed. I think his pacing is a little off; some scenes (like the one with the elderly couple) go on a little long, but ultimately he delivers solid, schlocky, B-movie goods with a degree of panache. The climax is especially fun.

Arlon Obers' music is enjoyably shuddery (yet also amusingly silly during some moments), and Willy Curtis's cinematography creates some really great shots at times. That brings me to Rick Bakers' fantastic and convincing makeup effects, which form a highly respectable centerpiece for the movie, right down to the ultimate final melt.

Rebar is under the heavy makeup for almost the entire movie (Sachs also gets my praise for having the movie hit the ground running) and does what he has to do well enough. DeBenning makes for a rather oafish and silly hero, and Ann Sweeney isn't so hot either as his wife, but Myron Healey, Michael Alldredge, and Lisle Wilson are fine in support. It's also worth it to see folk like Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith (doing an appreciable topless shot), Janus Blythe (of Tobe Hoopers' "Eaten Alive" and Wes Cravens' "The Hills Have Eyes"), and even director Jonathan Demme in a bit part.

This is a highly entertaining midnight movie with enough gore, chills, and laughs to rate it as worth catching for lovers of low-grade sci-fi / horror everywhere.

8/10 As a collector of movie memorabilia, I had to buy the movie poster for this film which, now that I've finally seen it, has to be the best thing about it. There's nothing more attractive to hang on your wall than a 27x41 inch image of the melting man. However, there's nothing more awful to put in your VCR than an hour and a half long image of the melting man. At first I thought this movie was pure garbage but then I realized that it did have some qualities which made me laugh. The character of Dr. Ted Nelson has to be the most wishy-washy persona ever brought to the big screen. His dialogue is so trite it's unbelievable! ("It's incredible! He seems to be getting stronger as he melts!)

And could somebody tell me please how the heck they know exactly how much time Steve has left before he melts completely and exactly what their plan is to "help" him? If this movie was meant to scare its audience, I think it missed its calling. Thanks to this fungal film I do NOT want my Maypo, can't stomach the thought of Maltex or Wheatena, and even that granola over there doesn't look so innocent anymore! Why wasn't the song "Slop Time", by the Sherrys, used as the theme? THE MELTING MAN...a tragic victim of the space race, he perished MELTING...never comprehending the race had LONG GONE BY...!

A man (Burr DeBenning) burns his hand on the kitchen stove. But instead of screaming something a NORMAL person would scream, he shouts something that sounds like "AAAAATCH-KAH!!" This movie you've popped in...isn't a normal movie. You've just taken your first step into THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, the famous late-70's gore film featuring Rick Baker's wonderful makeup effects. Baker was just on the edge of becoming a superstar, and did this at the same time as his famous "cantina aliens" in STAR WARS. For some strange reason, STAR WARS became a household name, and INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN did not.

It might have something to do with the fact that this movie is just mind-numbingly awful. From the opening credits ("Starring Alex Rebar as THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN"...that's really what it says!), to the chubby nurse running through a glass door, to the fisherman's head going over a waterfall and smashing graphically apart on some rocks, this film provides many, many moments of sheer incomprehensibility. "Why did they...but how come he...why are they...?" After a while, you give up wondering why and watch it as what it is--a very entertaining piece of garbage.

An astronaut returns to Earth in a melting, radioactive condition; he escapes and, his mind disintegrating as well as his body, begins a mad melting killing spree. The authorities quickly decide that the melting man must be stopped, but (probably not wanting to "cause a panic") want him captured as quietly as possible. So they send one guy with a geiger counter after him. Wow.

Storywise, surprisingly little happens during the movie. The melting guy wanders around killing people. A doctor searches for him with a geiger counter. Various characters are introduced, ask questions, and leave. Eventually the doctor catches up with the melting man, but is shot by a security guard for no reason, after he explains that he's "Dr. Ted Nelson." The melting man wanders off and finally dissolves into a big puddle of goo. The End.

It's so brainless that it somehow ends up being a lot of fun, despite a fairly downbeat ending. Supposedly, a widescreen DVD release is planned. A very special movie. To me there is something so appealing and nostalgic about low-budget sci-fi. As a kid in the 50s thats all there was. In 1957 I saw "The First Man Into Space" in a movie theater with my Dad. It had Marshall Thompson starring and some other poor slob who got the title role. It is also about a space mission gone bad where the astronaut turns into a grizzly killer. Scared the Good & Plenty right out of me. The memory of those heebie-jeebies still lives within me. The Incredible Melting Man is almost a re-make only in full glorious color...that is wherever the scenes were well-lit. Just gotta love it for what it is......a little over an hour of darkly lit scenes, disgusting noises, and that eerie music. Bravo ! I must admit I'm a little surprised and disappointed at some of the very negative comments this film seems to provoke. I think its a great horror/sci fi film. Colonel Steve West (Alex Rebar) returns to Earth after an historical space flight to Saturn. While in space he contracted some bizarre and unknown disease. He wakes up in a hospital bed, he looks in a mirror and before his very eyes his face is melting! Escaping the hospitals supervision, he hides out in some local woods surrounding a small town. Unfortunately he starts to develop a rapidly growing hunger that can only be satisfied by eating other people. He must feed on human flesh and drink the blood of others to survive! Stalking human prey he begins his reign of terror! Its up to his old friend Dr Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning) to find him and try and help him. He has to work alone as his boss General Perry (Myron Healey) wants it kept ultra quiet. Nelson can't even tell his wife Judy (Ann Sweeny). However, Sheriff Blake (Micheal Alldredge) becomes suspicious as General Perry turns up just as some of the local townspeople start turning up half eaten. I don't really understand why this film gets such negative reviews, what do people expect? Anyway, I really like this film. The star of the film are unquestionably Rick Bakers Special Make-up and gore effects which for the most part are excellent, and the fact their all prosthetic effects and no rubbish horrible CGI makes them even better. Writer and Director William Sachs isn't afraid to use them either, we get some nice long lingering close up shots of the incredible melting man and they hold up very well, even now. Photography, music and direction are a little bit dull, but professional enough. The script manages to create some sympathy for the the monster, shots of him looking longingly into Ted Nelsons house, or when he sees his own reflection in some water and reacts violently. The ending, set in a large factory of some sort, is pretty downbeat so don't expect any happy ending. Which surprised me. Also, the script doesn't really do anything with the premise, he just walks around melting and killing, with his friend trying to stop him, maybe a bit too simple. Personally I think the worst bit of the film is near the start when the fat nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion, her screams are also portrayed in slow motion too, it looks and sounds totally ridiculous! You need to see it to believe it! I like this film a lot and recommend it to 70's and 80's horror/sci fi fans. A bit of a favourite of mine. I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging "Clueless" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. "True Crime" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward "feel" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.

Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!

"True Crime" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.

Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in "Carriers" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played "Captain Arends". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show "Who's the Boss" may also have an interest in "Carriers" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.

"True Crime" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing. This is the best made-for-TV movie of all-time! Am I saying this because I'm a huge Silverstone fan? Partially, but even without her, I'd still see it. I'm a fan of serial killer genre films, and believe this to be a great entry in that category. Also, Mary Giordano easily ranks among Alicia's top five character creations. Totally memorable - like she really exists. I'd have her on my side, too, if there was a mystery to be solved. She plays the character, like she does with her real life, with complete confidence in everything she does. Seems sweet, honest, nice...just like she is in real life. So is that acting? Yes, indeed, she's sort of a rebel once again. This time she's not bad, she's too good and a bit afraid to do things that seem above the law. But she doesn't do things the normal teenager would do. Instead, she spends her time reading detective mags and solves crimes. A cliche abounds: she's sort of avenging her father's death, in a different way than vigilante-style. At the time, Alicia seemed to be playing the same characters: rebellious, seductive, without a parent, a loner. This happens here, too, but she's a bit nerdy this time around. That doesn't matter; she's still cool as a nerd. Check this out soon, or else Giordano will be investigating why you haven't... I have seen this movie and even though I kind of knew who the killer was from the beginning I still liked watching it. I would recommend it to other people. It comes on Lifetime movie network quite a lot. And I am thinking since it's close to Halloween they might play it more. So please be on the look out for it if you are interested in watching it. I believe that Alicia Silverstone played her part very well. I really like her as an actress and person. She seems so nice and down to earth. Kevin Dillon he's performance was so so for me. I am not trying to knock him or anything but I believe that his brother Matt would have been able to pull this bad evil serial killer persona better. Kevin just seems too sweet for me. But I think he did okay. i got to see the whole movie last night and i found it very exciting.it was at least,not like the teen-slasher movies that pop out every now and then.the search for the killer and the 'partner' relationship between the hero&the so-called bad guy was parts i liked about the movie.also,i remember once being on the edge of my seat during a specific scene in the movie.i mean it's exciting.maybe some time later,i might watch the movie again... I saw True Crime when it was first released back in the mid-nineties and I have watched it many times since. It is a great mystery about Mary (played by Alicia Silverstone), a high school senior in a California town who's classmate's younger sister was tortured and killed by an unknown murderer. Mary meets Tony (played by Kevin Dillon), a police cadet who sees how bright she is and they decide to work together to try to find the killer.

Many suspects in this one. True Crime feels very "true" or real to me. I read a newsgroup review where someone wrote that total suspension of disbelief is present here and it is so true. Alicia Silverstone is perfect in this role and Kevin Dillon and Bill Nunn do a great job, as do the other actors. The locations are right on and the writer/director, Pat Verducci, really captures some of the realities of teenage life and of Mary's loneliness (see the scene where Mary awakens from the dream sequence after having viewed the photos she took of Tony). I wish Verducci would make more movies.

I have not seen any other movie quite like True Crime. 10/10 i thought this movie was wonderfully plotted it made me confused and my cousin who watched it with me.to tell the truth i think that the younger kevin dillon was hot.hahahaha...but i also thought the girl was stupid to go along with the cop and that was wrong what he said to her before his death"i was inside you".i think that's what she gets for doing what she did with him and how is he going to tell her that she's too young when he never cared how old the other girls were.?now i don't think i myself could ever trust a cop like that.but to tell the truth it was pretty obvious it was him even if he was wanting to become a cop i would still be suspicious of him either way.and that was funny when she sprayed him in the eye in the store.hahahahaha.she was still stupid for going into the warehouse again by herself and so was the cop who died HELLO!! it's called back-up.sometimes these movies make me mad when people act stupid and do stupid things.but that's what i think an thought about the movie. This is a nice piece of work. Very sexy and engaging enough plot to keep my interest throughout. Its main disadvantage is that it seems like it was made-for-TV: Full screen, and though there were several sex scenes, there was absolutely no nudity (but boy did it come close!). Strange, too, since Netflix shows that it was rated R.

Nonetheless, very titillating, and I wish Alicia Silverstone made more movies like this.

One Netflix reviewer stated that it was part of a series, but I have been unable to find out what series that is. I'd like to find out, though, because this movie was THAT good.

Walt D in LV. 8/23/2005 Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat. Set in Japan, Ashura is the story of Demons taking over the earth. The premise is far more complicated, but the arching storyline should not be forgotten. Japan is in turmoil, with Demons occupying human form roaming the lands. Generally speaking Demons look and act like humans, but are evil. The Japanese word they use is not just demons, but rather the classical form of 'ogre' which is a mythological creature of some historic stature. We're talking about creatures that would appear more like gods than simple ugly child-eating monsters.

However in human form all that remains is the green eyes and green teeth, which appear when put under any sort of stress. In order to save the world from Demons there are Demon-slayers. Trained and skilled warriors who can spot and defeat most every kind of demon, and who guard the passage-way between the realm of hell and that of the real world. These are the basic premises.

The story begins with a festival in a local town. Amid these festivities, 3 men ride in, dressed in all black, seemingly intent on doing harm. The villagers run, excepting those which are demonic in nature, who turn green-eyed and try to kill them. The Demon-Slayers end up killing off the majority of the demons. From here the story gets interesting. The whole essence of the story begins when at the gate to hell a fortune-telling demon appears before the 3 gate-keepers, revealing the arrival of Ashura. With it, comes the end of the reign of man, and begins the reign of demons. Ashura however requires some form of birthing process, the first step of which occurred during the opening battle, but which won't be revealed to you until you see the film. The 3 demon-slayers are a wise old man, a powerful yet unprincipled man, and a skilled and compassionate warrior. Immediately you can see the split between them, the old man wanting to stop the demons, the powerful one wanting to bend them to his increasing ego maniacal wishes and the third looking to stop the second. Along the way he meets a woman who he begins to take fancy to, and believes himself to have a special relationship with. She in turn is a brigand who is good-natured, sought after by authorities. When the two finally meet face to face, he places his hand on her shoulder, and suddenly she is scathed by a mark on her shoulder. Needless to say, the mark is not a good sign. What ensues is a battle for earth, a battle between both good and evil, as it should be, but also between good and good itself.

The point for me of this film became something other than what I thought it would. I came in thinking it would either be a fast-paced action style film with demons, or a horror film with macabre evil and foul creatures the likes of which would be seen in Ringu and Ju-on. I was however mistaken in the best possible way. The story it seemed to me is an adaptation of a very old Japanese play, and it plays itself out as such, combining the essentially action driven adrenaline scenes with a great concept, an amazing narrative, and a style which makes you compelled to think rather than just sit wallowing in gore. Many scenes are painted with luxurious dialogue between two characters the likes of which will never be seen in a Hollywood film. It becomes a practically theatrical experience which takes your breath away.

The film makes use of some immaculate scenery and camera-work comparable to many great Samurai films of our days, but adding to it a well-thought and classical plot. With great acting, great music, and thoroughly stunning scenes, its a must watch in my book.

That being said, it does need the disclaimer that it is not for everyone. Its not cheap thrills horror, its not balls to the wall action. Its a horror style play thats been filmed. It has very much to say and takes the time to do so, flying in the face of the conventional one-liners. Like Japanese plays, the exchanges between the characters can last for many minutes before they come together for a quick yet marvelous battle scene. If you can enjoy such a thing, this is a masterpiece. If your idea of a good film is slasher flicks with little plot and excessive nudity, then you can easily watch something else.

Overall, this film to me is a unique and amazing one, which keeps you riveted and amused. it has good writing, good acting, and good direction. It is all in all a solidly great film. Japan is in serious trouble. Demons have infested Edo, taking possession of earthly forms and bending them to their unholy will. On top of that, the rebirth of Ashura, Queen of the demons, is nigh. The only thing that stands against this grave threat are the Demon Wardens, a fearsome group of warriors, who might just be as bad as the demons themselves.

Izumo is a retired Demon Warden, who five years ago, took up theater instead of Demon Slaying after accidentally killing a innocent child (In a battle that's strangely reminiscent of the bar scene from Dusk till Dawn). One night by a chance encounter he meets a beautiful and mysterious woman named Tsubaki. Their fortunes intertwine (literally) and they are bound by fate to be lovers and enemies.

If you think this sounds like your typical Japanese Fantasy/Swordplay epic, you'd be wrong. In fact, there's nothing typical about Ashura. It is a hodge-podge of many different genre's of film. Those just mentioned, as well as a comedy, drama, and romance. Director Yojiro Takita (Onmyoji) juggles the genre's fairly respectfully (Although, the comedy seems forced in some scenes) and the end result is a ridiculous, but really fun popcorn movie.

To be sure, there are flaws in the film. Some of the humor seems contrived, and out of place. And the acting isn't the greatest. But seriously, do you watch Fantasy/Swordplay/Comedy films for the great acting performances?? No, we watch them for the action and the crazy CG visuals, all of which Ashura has in Spades. Not to be misleading, the film is not all action, but it is spaced out generously enough with lots of swordplay and buckets of green blood to keep the average viewer happy.

Bottom line; the films has it's faults and is not a martial arts epic, but it doesn't try to be and it features interesting visuals and good swordplay action. The reason the film worked for me is that it never takes itself too seriously and if the viewer does the same, their sure to be delighted by this fun and silly swordplay fantasy action flick.

My Rating 7 out of 10. Fun popcorn movie. I went to see Ashura as 2005 Fantasia Festival Kickoff. Man, that was one cool kick off. The director was supposed to be in Montreal for the Canadian premiere, but due to health reasons, he's still in Japan...oh lord I hope he gets better and makes plenty of other movies.

The plot is pretty simple, but somewhat original...the demons are roaming in Edo in Japan and Swordsmans called "Demon Wardens" are slaying them and fearing the rebirth of Ashura, the demon goddess who's sleeping and supposedly is very kick-ass.

It brings us to Izumo...some kind of elite swordsman called "Demon Slayer" and his buddy Jaku who's the typical violent jealous asshole...

Seems boring? Well now it thickens....

Izumo took his retirement from killing demons since he slayed a young kid on the "impression" that he was the demon, he never knew, but he did killed her. So Izumo went on with his life and recycled himself in Kabuki theater. In a boat joyride on a nice night, Izumo spots a girl hiding on a bridge and it changes his life and restart to slay demons...for the good cause, the cause of love...and damn...the guy knows how to handle a sword and to pull an entertaining massacre.

Izumo carries the movie as far as playing goes...he is the total package...he knows how to fight(hell yeah he knows), he's witty, he's intelligent and he has that grit. You never have to yell :"NO IZUMO, IT'S A TRAP" The guy already knows it he has that common sense. He's really the perfect hero.

As far as cinematography goes, the esthetics are pretty interesting. It's by far, the movie that looks the most like a manga. It's creamed full of special effects and nothing, at all cost will prevent this movie to look realistic...it's pretty amazing. Lots of colours an "unreal" photography, other than that...it's pretty straightforward...but like I said, the main character is carrying the movie A must see, a tale lead by masterful hands The movie only enter the cinema in Indonesia this year (2007), two years after it's official release, and after many illegal DVD's had found its way to the public. Apparently the popularity of the illegal DVD's lead to the release into the theaters, with still public coming to watch.

The movie is a great epic, bringing Japanese culture into your house in an exiting way. In a sometimes humorist way, the story is told about a theater writer who writes a story for his theater, since the regular Kabuki theater plays is something he finds boring.

At first, the audience might be a little bit confused about which story we are following, but when the story unfolds, we see that the love between a male human and a female demon leads to a great story for a new Kabuki theater piece.

The audience is left in the dark if this is a story that is supposed to really have happened in Japanese traditions and mythology, but that doesn't matter.

The way the story is told with a love for theater, expression, vivid colors, humor and tragedy, makes this a great ride on the roller-coaster of Japanese cinema as well as theater.

Let yourself go completely when you watch this movie, try to see it in a cinema instead of on your television at home.

One critical point though: the soundtrack is sometimes a little bit annoying. Though most of it is great music, there are a few moments in the movie that I think they should have chosen some more dramatic music. But maybe the fact that the story contains moments of humor made the director choose for lighter moments in music as well. I loved this movie from the opening sequence right through to the end. I found the director/ actor's style of directly addressing me/the audience very engaging.

What I found most exciting and refreshing about this movie was its ignoring -- and thus challenging -- of gender and class stereotypes. The idiosyncrasies of the characters are portrayed as strengths, and the absence of judgment -- and the characters' acceptance of themselves and each other -- enabled me to embrace them and allow myself to be drawn into their world. Without preaching, and with intelligence and gentle and loving humor, this movie has the power to open us to new possibilities, and offers hope for a world in which people see and accept each other as unique and precious individuals. I look forward to more offerings from this creative and talented director. This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a "Midnight Cowboy" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco. A great and truly independent film that hit most of my emotions and carried me into another world. Isn't this why we go to the movies? I was especially impressed with the editing and the music, the combination of which was very transportive. What is so taboo about love?! People seem to have major problems with the transgenered.

The title of this movie didn't catch my eye. It was a grainy shot about 4 minutes into the movie is what made me stop channel surfing. I could not believe how freaking amazing this film was. It touches on so many levels of human emotion that it did not once fail to move me in some way. It is by far one of the best independent films I have ever seen. I did not view these characters as either gender, just human. I would recommend it to anyone who loves movies. Especially independent films. Praise to all fearless filmmakers! By Hook or By Crook is a tremendously innovative film from a pair of immensely smart and talented filmmakers, Harry Dodge and Silas Howard. They manage to tell an original story in a distinctive cinematic style, and it's beautifully shot by Ann T. Rosetti, and wonderfully written -- truly poetic.

The lead characters are true heroes and serve as a rare kind of role model/inspiration for butch dykes and trannies everywhere. This film has so much energy, so much poignant passion and scruffy San Francisco heart to it. I can't recommend it highly enough!

The best butch buddy movie of all time! people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film. I was very impressed with this small, independently made picture. The story, about a pair of social outcasts who meet, become friends, and provide each other with a support system both seemed to lack as children, is at times hilarious, at times sad, but always provocative. Music, mostly by underground bands, was used to great effect, as was the experimentation with camera angles, filters, and slow or fast motion techniques. The performances (the leads are played by the writers and directors of the film) are some of the best I've seen in the last couple of years. If you ever felt like a square peg being forced into a round slot, I really believe you'll appreciate "By Hook or By Crook". These are excerpts from a nine-page "Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out):

"...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the "theme"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to "Please Don't Kiss Me" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as "Disney". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a "falling down" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny "dramatic" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, "I want you to kill him." This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. "Please Don't Kiss Me" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to "Please Don't Kiss Me"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture."

All of these edits from Orson were ignored After all, you do not go to an Orson Welles movie to see a nice simple little plot and a burnishing of the image of a happy-ever-after star…

You go to see theatrically heightened characters locked in conflict against colorful and unusual settings, lighted and scored imaginatively, photographed bravely, and the whole thing peppered with unexpected details of surprise that a wiser and duller director would either avoid or not think of in the first place…

As usual, as well as directing, Welles wrote the script and he also played the hero – a young Irish seaman who had knocked about the world and seen its evil, but still retained his clear-eyed trust in the goodness of others… Unfortunately for him, he reposed this trust in Rita Hayworth, whose cool good looks concealed a gloomy past and murderous inclinations for the future… She was married without love, to an impotent, crippled advocate, acted like a malevolent lizard by the brilliant Everett Sloane…

There is a youthful romanticism underlying it all, and this quality came into exuberant play in "The Lady from Shanghai." Before the inevitable happened, Welles escaped – to a final triangular showdown in a hall of mirrors, which has become one of the classic scenes of the post-war cinema …

Welles did not miss a chance throughout the whole film to counterpoint the words and actions with visual detail which enriched the texture and heightened the atmosphere… His camera seemed almost to caress Rita Hayworth as the sun played with her hair and her long limbs while she playfully teased the young seaman into her web… Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders.

The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says.

Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints.

This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game. After CITIZEN KANE in 1941, Hollywood executives turned their cob-webbed backs on the great Orson Welles. With the exception of KANE, Welles lost all creative control on MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and many other films to come. Welles was an innovative and creative genius, the most unconventional of filmmakers when Hollywood was in need of a few more. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is yet another example of the misunderstood view of Welles' films at the time, a movie that seems a bit choppy and non-fluent. It has a conventional 1940's premise told in a most unconventional way, and I am sure some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It is now legend that Columbia mogul Harry Cohn stood up during its initial screening and asked what it was about. In hindsight, many old grumps that ran the studios back then had not one clue as to the cinematic techniques and master story-telling of Orson Welles and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is only nearly great because of their intrusion.

Beside being arguably the greatest director of all-time, Welles was also quite a performer as an actor. At 25, we all know what he did as "Charles Foster Kane", perhaps the most famous character in film history. Here, he inhabits a rare character of dim wit and not much intelligence, something unfamiliar to those familiar with Welles other great work. Instead of a slick, wise tongue, he speaks with a rough, Irish twang. Rita Hayworth (his unhappily married wife at the time) plays an unhappily married wife of a lawyer who puts Welles in a spell and is able to draw him into a job that will take him to the limits of deception and disillusionment. He is a large lug who may have even murdered a man, but the real mystery lies in the relationship between Hayworth (with stunning blonde hair) and crippled hubby Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein from CITIZEN KANE). A creepy partner of Sloane's is along for the sail around the country to set off a number of peculiar events that has Welles' "Michael O'Hara" head spinning. Welles narrates the picture as O'Hara, but things are still unclear throughout. See for yourself and realize that it takes at least 2 viewings to fully know exactly what's up.

An uncharacteristically strange courtroom sequence centers around "O'Hara", with Sloane defending him. It is an oddly comedic scene with some quirky courtroom methods, including Sloane cross-examining himself. I didn't really laugh here because the film stalls at this point after a first portion that never gets to take off anyway. Up to this point, the cinematography is great, some scenes are shot with craft and skill (aquarium love scene), but there is no distinct line drawing the elements and us, the audience, in. Reportedly, the court scene was re-shot against Welles' requests (10 closeups of Hayworth were ordered) and a makeshift song sung by the starlet was thrown in at Cohn's insistence. A gaudy score infuriated Welles, who once again, was left out of the editing process. Thank Welles himself for saving the film entirely with a tour-de-force ending that will always be treasured. The so-called "Hall of Mirrors" scene brings buffs back time and time again, rightfully so.

It must be seen to be believed and it does a good job of wrapping up some confusing ideas presented. The crash of the mirrors represents "O'Hara's" disillusionment and the "crazy house" itself is a masterpiece of art and set decoration. It seems more like a state of mind than an actual place and is indeed "crazy", twisted and turned like a Dali painting. This is a great ending to a flawed picture that if left alone would probably have made the AFI's Top 100. Then again, 3 or 4 more of Orson Welles films may have made all collective "best of" lists if he had been left alone to create his own magic.

NOTE: Look for the Mercury Players that are so prominent in Welles pictures. They pop up all over. RATING: 8 of 10 One can only imagine the film Mr. Welles might have finished without the interference of the studio! This film is a flawed Welles, but worth every minute of it because one can see the greatness of perhaps America's best motion picture director of all times!

We can see the toll it took on Orson Welles the filming of this movie. The story has a lot of holes in it, perhaps because of the demands of the studio executives that didn't trust the director.

It is curious by reading some of the opinions submitted to IMDB that compare Orson Welles with the Coen brothers, Roman Polanski, even Woody Allen, when it should be all of those directors that must be regarded as followers of the great master himself. No one was more original and creative in the history of American cinema than Mr. Welles. Lucky are we to still have his legacy either in retrospective looks such as the one the Film Forum in New York just ended, or his films either on tape or DVD form.

Rita Hayworth was never more lovingly photographed than here. If she was a beauty with her red hair, as a blonde, she is just too stunning for words. Everett Sloan and Glenn Anders made an excellent contribution to the movie.

The only thing that might have made this film another masterpiece to be added to Orson Welles body of work, was his own appearance in it. Had he concentrated in the directing and had another actor interpret Michael O'Hara, a different film might have been achieved altogether. Orson Welles has to be credited for being perhaps a pioneer in taking the camera away from the studio lot into the street. The visuals in this film are so amazing that we leave the theater after seeing this movie truly impressed for the work, the vision and the talent he gave us. Orson Welles' "The Lady From Shanghai" does not have the brilliant screenplay of "Citizen Kane," e.g., but Charles Lawton, Jr.'s cinematography, the unforgettable set pieces (such as the scene in the aquarium, the seagoing scene featuring a stunning, blonde-tressed Rita Hayworth singing "Please Don't Love Me," and the truly amazing Hall of Mirrors climax), and the wonderful cast (Everett Sloane in his greatest performance, Welles in a beautifully under-played role, the afore-mentioned Miss Hayworth--Welles' wife at the time--at her most gorgeous) make for a very memorable filmgoing experience. The bizarre murder mystery plot is fun and compelling, not inscrutable at all. The viewer is surprised by the twists and turns, and Welles' closing line is an unheralded classic. "The Lady From Shanghai" gets four stars from this impartial arbiter. As I watched one of Orson Welles' last contributions to Hollywood as a filmmaker, I knew I was watching a great movie unfold, though at times I did not know why. The story in The Lady from Shanghai has the prime elements of a film-noir: average-Joe lead, femme fatale, conspicuous supporting characters, and a comprehensible if somewhat convoluted plot structure. It is an entertaining ride, and it's filled to the brim with Welles' unique gifts as a director, but there are scenes that tend to just not work, or don't feel complete in what was Welles' full vision (the latter is unfortunately too true- executive producer Harry Cohn and the Columbia execs are to blame for that).

Welles co-stars with his then wife, the profoundly gorgeous Rita Hayworth, as Mike O'Hara, an Irish worker who can and does get angry at the right people. Hayworth is Mrs. Bannister, married to Mr. Bannister (Everett Sloane, who played Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane), who is accompanied by a friend Mr. Grisby (Glenn Anders, who has great control in his eyes). They want to go sailing on their yacht and take O'Hara along for the ride, and at first he's reluctant, but agrees since he's falling for the married Mrs. As their journey unfolds, O'Hara finds that Bannister and Grisby are not pleasant to be around, and more so with Grisby, who at first seems out of his gourd. Yet as the plot unfolds, O'Hara is drawn into a scam that Grisby is planning for insurance money, with results that I dare not reveal (although they have been discussed over and over by others).

Whatever liabilities pop up here and there in the mystery part of the story (and those few noticeable moments where shots were studio dictated), the performances and the look of the film are what remains striking after over fifty-five years. Though he doesn't have the terrific Greg Tolland (Kane's DP) at his side, dependable Charles Lawton Jr. assists Welles in creating an atmosphere that is both elegant and stark, covered in shadows, deep focus, low angles, the works. A particular accomplishment is the fun-house mirror scene, which is merely a highlight among others. Welles himself is always dependable as an actor- even if his accent isn't anything special- and Hayworth herself makes a scene a little more lush, despite her path in the story.

The Lady from Shanghai is worth checking out, especially for Welles, Hayworth, or film-noir buffs (fans of the Coen brothers might find this fascinating as well). It may just take a little while, repeat viewings (as was for Touch of Evil), for the underlying motives in the plot to sink in. Made in 1946 and released in 1948, The Lady and Shanghai was one of the big films made by Welles after returning from relative exile for making Citizen Kane. Dark, brooding and expressing some early Cold War paranoia, this film stands tall as a Film-Noir crime film. The cinematography of this film is filled with Welles' characteristic quirks of odd angles, quick cuts, long pans and sinister lighting. The use of ambient street music is a precursor to the incredible long opening shot in Touch of Evil, and the mysterious Chinese characters and the sequences in Chinatown can only be considered as the inspiration, in many ways, to Roman Polanski's Chinatown. Unfortunately, it is Welles' obsession with technical filmmaking that hurts this film in its entirety. The plot of this story is often lost behind a sometimes incomprehensible clutter of film techniques.

However, despite this criticism, the story combined with wonderful performances by Welles, Hayworth and especially Glenn Anders (Laughter) make this film a joy to watch. Orson Welles pulls off not only the Irish brogue, but the torn identities as the honest but dangerous sailor. Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time, breaks with her usual roles as a sex goddess and takes on a role of real depth and contradictions. Finally, Glenn Anders strange and bizarre portrayal or Elsa's husbands' law partner is nothing short of classic! At the point in time that The Lady from Shanghai was being made, the marriage of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth was disintegrating. The film was as much an effort by Welles to rekindle the old flames as it was to make a classic noir. Not received well at the time, The Lady from Shanghai has gotten more and more critical acclaim as years pass. Gotten better with age so to speak.

Welles is Irish seaman Michael O'Hara who on a fateful night rescues the beautiful Rita Hayworth from three muggers in Central Park. Sparks do fly, but then comes the rub, turns out the lady is married to crippled, but brilliant criminal attorney Everett Sloane. Nevertheless Sloane takes an apparent liking to Welles and hires him to skipper his yacht.

So far this film is starting to sound a lot like Gilda. If Orson had seen Gilda and was not at this point thinking with his male member, he would have skedaddled back to the seaman's hiring hall in Lower Manhattan. Instead he gets himself involved in a lovely web or intrigue and finds himself pegged for two murders and Sloane as his eminent counsel.

Welles for whatever reason decided that his wife would be a blond in this film. Supposedly Harry Cohn hit the roof as Rita was internationally known for her coppery red hair. This may have soured him on the picture as he joined the legion of studio bosses who saw Welles's vision of independent film making a threat to their power.

Stage actor Glenn Anders plays Sloane's partner Grisby who is one slimy dude, he winds up a corpse. The other corpse to be here is Ted DeCorsia, a bottom feeding private detective who tries to go in business for himself.

It's a good noir thriller, showing Rita at her glamorous best even if she was a blond here. The final shoot out in the hall of mirrors is beautifully staged, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it if one is on any controlled substance. The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.

If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.

What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.

For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this.

The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.

Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.

My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).

Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.

More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all. In NYC, seaman Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles) rescues Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) from a mugging & rape as she takes a horse & carriage through Central Park -and lives to regret it. Titian-haired Hayworth's a platinum blonde in this one; as dazzling as fresh-fallen snow -but nowhere near as pure...

To reveal any more of the convoluted plot in this seminal "noir" would be criminal. It's as deceptive as the mirrors used to cataclysmic effect in the final scenes -but the film holds far darker secrets: From the NY Times: "Childhood Shadows: The Hidden Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder" by Mary Pacios "Mary Pacios, who was 5 years old when she was befriended by 15 year old Bette Short, retraces Short's steps, interviewing friends and associates. She also offered a detailed, if speculative, analysis of Orson Welles -particularly in regard to his movie "The Lady From Shanghai". According to Ms. Pacios, the movie, along with related archival materials, has many of the same ritualistic elements associated with Short's murder. She raises the question: Could Welles have been the killer?" Interesting theories -and with the spate of books now out on "The Black Dahlia", much more may come to light. Fritz Lang's brutal "film noir", "The Big Heat" (1953), was a roman-a-clef telling of the "Dahlia" killing in "The City Of Nets" that was L.A. -but it's the Orson opus that the "Dahlia" had a "hands-on" connection to. In reality, it was Bugsy Siegel (and the Hollywood mob wars of the 1940's) that did the "Dahlia" in ...but that doesn't negate much of what Pacios wrote. Almost all of Hollywood intersected with Elizabeth ("The Black Dahlia") Short and her tale/aura/legacy/curse is encoded in a number of Golden Age films.

The "Black Dahlia" was always on the peripheral edges of "Shanghai"-even before it started filming. Barbara Payton on Franchot Tone: "It was when he was thinking about making "The Lady From Shanghai", before he lost the option to Orson Welles. Franchot said he'd been in a bad state over that deal when he ran into the Dahlia in the Formosa Cafe* across from the Goldwyn studios..." *The floor above the Formosa Cafe was Bugsy Siegel's office and "The Dahlia" one of his on again/off again working "girls".

It gets deeper and darker- After the 1951 brawl over Barbara Payton between Tom Neal and Franchot Tone that sent Franchot to the hospital with a concussion and "never talking the same way again," Barbara said, she married Tone "just to spite Neal." Tom ("Detour") Neal also knew "The Dahlia" (who didn't?) and became obsessed- From "L.A. Despair" by John Gilmore: "The January 1947 slaying of the young, beautiful would-be actress Elizabeth Short, known as "The Black Dahlia", was one of the most grisly murders in the annals of modern crime. A project, called "Who Killed The Black Dahlia?" was being kicked off by actor Tom Neal, a hell-raiser from WW II movies. Potential producer Gene Harris: "Someone will have to come up with a more imaginative business proposition than what has been presented by Tom Neal and his cohorts..." Not long after: "It would be very clear one beautiful day to come, when Tom would sneak up on his pretty, new Palm Springs wife as she lay on their sofa and shoot a .45 bullet through her head." Barbara Payton and Norma Jean Dougherty (later Marilyn Monroe) knew the "Dahlia" and their stories are well known. It seems all who crossed the path of the "Dahlia" (like the proverbial black cat) entered a "Twilight Zone" darkness and/or had an incredible string of bad luck afterward. Tone/Neal/Welles are only a few -and this includes a butchered film called "The Lady From Shanghai"...

"Lady From Shanghai" took two years to be released, thanks to extensive re-editing -and all because Columbia president Harry Cohn couldn't understand the story. It's dark "noir" to be sure -one of the darkest, in fact. It's also a wicked satire on life in the new Atomic Age.

Nicolas Christopher:

"Shanghai" pushes forth an insistent subtext of nuclear apocalypse and contains the definitive noir statement concerning the atomic bomb and the American city. The film's principal murder victim (and there are many), a psychotic and double-dealing lawyer, manically foresees Armageddon at every turn, claiming he can "feel it." He announces that he plans to escape to a remote Pacific island -a particularly acid joke on Welles' part since this was the very year the U.S. began testing atomic bombs at just such a place, the Bikini Atoll, relocating all the inhabitants and destroying the ecosystem. By the time of Bikini, the erotic identification of Hayworth with the Bomb appears to have been institutionalized, with the blessing of the military brass; the first bomb dropped in the Pacific testing ground in named "Gilda" and has Hayworth's image, in provocative dress, painted directly on its casing..."

Its ironic that Orson Welles' broad interpretation of an Irishman is considered a detriment to the film by many. Welles is giving a clue to viewers that "Michael O'Hara" is only the storyteller - not part of the story even though it revolves around him. "O'Hara" contradicts the shark motif throughout the film. Sharks on a feeding frenzy won't stop until there's nothing left. "Michael O'Hara" lives to tell the tale. "Elsa Bannister" causes a feeding frenzy during "O'Hara's" trial and her netted chapeau suggests she's caged in -so as not to devour the human spectators to a Roman Coleseum. The spectators are on a feeding frenzy of their own, gossiping and carrying on about "Elsa" -a human aquarium correlating to the San Francisco marine museum sequence. That's the human condition ...except for "Michael O'Hara". And yet he'll be spending his life trying to forget his past ("Elsa") -or die trying. "Elsa" is part of "Michael" and the tale eats its own tail in the end and the viewer is cautioned to stay out of trouble. This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.

'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.

Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.

The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.

Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.

Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.

This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.

The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.

9/10. Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10. Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet! Surreal film noir released soon after the "real," genre-defining classics "The Maltese Falcon," "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice." Welles films shouldn't be evaluated against others. He was playing by different rules. In fact, he was playing. This starts where other femme fatale films leave off, so the vaguely logical (but interesting) whodunit is embellished with a display of Wellesian scenes (typical rapid-fire style), dialog (lots of "hard-boiled" philosophy), and unusual acting (good Hayworth presumably intentionally one-dimensional). To Welles "genre" may have meant "formula" but he seemed to like using "mysteries" as backgrounds for his "entertainments." What can I say, it's a damn good movie. See it if you still haven't. Great camera works and lighting techniques. Awesome, just awesome. Orson Welles is incredible 'The Lady From Shanghai' can certainly take the place of 'Citizen Kane'. This 1947 film stars and was directed and written by Orson Welles (with a funky Irish accent) and also stars the gorgeous Rita Hayworth with less appealing short blonde hair. So, I've hung out with Orson before in Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane and the Third Man etc. but this was my first Rita Hayworth interaction. Our first meeting went well, she does a superb job playing the frightened/cagey Elsa, married to a crippled millionaire lawyer. Mike (Welles) and Elsa fall for each other. He wants to run away with her, she doesn't know if she can live without the things money can buy. Elsa, her husband, and his partner bicker and bite, just like the sharks Mike describes attacking each other and his foretelling proves just too true. Several twists and turns follow in this murder mystery as we come to the climax in the fun house. (Think the ending shootout in The Man with the Golden Gun, which borrowed heavily from this scene). I wasn't sure who the murderer was until the end.

This movie is like shrimp in garlic and lemon. The dish centers on the sea, it is subtle, sour, and pungent, all to great effect. These might not be the best, fresh shrimp, but good quality frozen shrimp from Costco. The flavorful sauce adds to the naturalness of the pink shrimp as you fill up on a healthy, but filling alternative to more mundane, common fare. 7/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminent director, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many a moon. It's a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period when more conventional films of this type were quite popular, and it concerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls in with a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with a brainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows, with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan's law partner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving odd speeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that the man is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and all sorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at this point the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes off the deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliant directorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give the movie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself, possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at all times incomprehensible mess.

It's hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film aside from maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle for his wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does with Welles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she is also cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beauty her most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, a quality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself is strangely unappealing and hammy at O'Hara, the (presumably) easygoing sailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easy man to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later Sean Connery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Welles does not. The most interesting performance in the movie is Glenn Anders' as Grisby, Sloan's loony, treacherous law partner. Anders works wonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while his scenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but for all this he manages to make Grisby's derangement palpable and disturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyant Method actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.

There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Welles trying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tended to make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with his world view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have an answer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. He had reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system he despised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn't exactly a nose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that it is, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers) expressing Welles' opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That he presented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself was certainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place for long. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigious film (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from which he never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speak its name in this film, which is to say Welles' personal failure in not getting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and his inability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of him turning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could not forestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himself in the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack of self-knowledge on Welles' part. He was much more of an inside player than he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of the worldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much. It's very hard to say just what was going on with "The Lady from Shanghai" and what the film could have been without studio interference. Orson Welles' prime interest in film at this point was to raise money for his theater; indeed, funding his own projects is what drove him to seek out acting jobs. He made "Lady from Shanghai" for his soon to be ex-wife, Rita Hayworth. Harry Cohn was fearful for Rita's image and held back the release of this movie for one year.

The plot concerns an Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara, who falls in love with Else (Hayworth, stunning with short blond hair). Her husband is a well known criminal attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) who is as crippled on the inside as he is out. He hires O'Hara to work on his yacht, and there O'Hara is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of murder and deceit.

"The Lady from Shanghai" moves at a snail's pace, though I agree with one of the posters that films today are criticized for taking time to build a plot. Still, this movie drags. The scene in the fun house is fantastic - Welles wanted it without music, though, and I believe the studio cut it down. It's a shame. The photography throughout is stunning, atmospheric, bold, and very stylish.

Welles was an excellent actor, handsome in his youth, charismatic and possessing a magnificent voice and technique, but in many films, it's almost as if he doesn't trust himself or doesn't take the time to develop a character. Instead he relies on externals such as accents and fake noses. One of the only times he didn't do this was "Tomorrow is Forever," where the director gets an excellent, deeply felt performance out of him. Contrast that with "Compulsion" where he shows he is a master of pure technical acting as he phones in his performance. Here Welles is doing quadruple duty - as director, star, co-writer and narrator. Sporting a completely unnecessary accent and looking intense was a fast way to a characterization. Nevertheless, he is always compelling.

The supporting players are excellent, including Sloan and Glenn Anders. Hayworth, gorgeous and soft-voiced (her singing was again dubbed by Anita Ellis) is as usual a complete goddess and one of the great screen presences. What a sad life for such a vibrant beauty.

Any film that Orson Welles directed is worth seeing, and "The Lady from Shanghai" is no exception. But this one leaves the viewer frustrated, as does "The Magnificent Ambersons" - as does any work that Welles did within the studio system. He was a great artist who should have been given a freer reign; he wasn't. He was a strange dichotomy - he needed more freedom, but as is evidenced by some of his later work, he needed the structure of the studio. Alas, he couldn't have both. Despite loving Rita Hayworth, finding the final few sequences of the film intriguing and being able to appreciate some of the subtler "symbolic" aspects of the cinematography, The Lady from Shanghai didn't quite work for me. I had a problem with most of the performances, the script and the overall structure. And in a film that's mostly people talking with each other in various situations, that's quite a problem. The Lady from Shanghai ended up at a very low "C", or a 7, for me.

The Lady from Shanghai is really all about Orson Welles' character, Michael O'Hara. O'Hara sees Elsa "Rosalie" Bannister (Rita Hayworth) in Central Park on a carriage ride and hits on her. Later, he saves her from a mugging and she takes a shine to him. O'Hara is a seaman from Ireland and the globetrotting Elsa happens to own a yacht with her husband, Arthur (Everett Sloane), a very famous and powerful California defense attorney. They talk O'Hara into working for them, despite his initial reservations--it seems to him, and to the audience, that Elsa is just looking for someone to have an affair with, and O'Hara doesn't want to get involved.

Shortly after going to work on their yacht, a strange man, George Grisby (Glenn Anders), who says he's Arthur's partner, shows up at a port of call and begins stirring up trouble. Eventually, Grisby asks O'Hara to enter into a very dubious and dangerous scheme. Foolishly, O'Hara agrees. Naturally it gets him into quite a bit of trouble, and eventually, a number of mysteries are revealed.

Maybe my problems with the film lie in the fact that, so far, I'm not exactly a huge fan of Orson Welles, and here, he produces, writes, directs and consumes most of the screen time. I haven't seen anywhere near the majority of Welles' work yet, but I've tended to like his later films better, when he became a bit more campy and performance-arty. I love F for Fake (Vérités et mensonges, 1974) for example, and I even kind of like his performance in Casino Royale (1967), when he bizarrely insisted on being allowed to do magic tricks at a baccarat table, but Citizen Kane (1941) never did much for me, despite giving it 3 or 4 chances over the years (including about one year ago; my rating was a low 7--the same as my current score for The Lady from Shanghai).

Welles' performance and the dialogue he's written for himself come across as affected and pretentious to me. He's a bit of a motormouth, a bit of a boor, and a bit monotone--he tends to sound like he's reading. His performance reminded me of what I've seen of Welles' version of Moby Dick (listed on IMDb as 1999, but "completed" in 1971, it can also be seen in Orson Welles: The One-Man Band (1995)), where he seems to be just reading to the camera and believing that he's inherently, sublimely dramatic. I'm also someone who almost never complains about accents, but somehow Welles manages to make his Irish accent sound affected and pretentious to me, too.

As for the other performances, I can only say I thought Hayworth did an excellent job. Of course she's gorgeous, which doesn't hurt. Plenty of eye candy here. Like Welles, Sloane also seemed a bit affected and pretentious to me--I never quite bought his character, his handicap and so on, and Anders is simply bizarre where bizarre doesn't seem to fit. Welles often shoots him in close-up and Anders almost always has some over-exaggerated, manic expression on his sweaty face.

Structurally, The Lady from Shanghai is very uneven. The first 50 minutes or so are extremely bland and soap-operatic, although the soap opera ministrations tend to be approached from a tortuous oblique. Once Grisby introduces his scheme, things pick up a bit, and mostly improve as we near the end. But by the time The Lady from Shanghai becomes a crime/mystery film, it's too little too late, and it quickly turns into a courtroom drama before the sudden, thrilling ending that comes almost out of nowhere and is over far too quickly for its relative excellence.

The ending is more action-oriented, less-dialogue heavy, more varied and exotic in settings, and at times, fairly abstract. Welles handles that combination of material skillfully as a director. If The Lady from Shanghai would have been a largely a combination of the crime/mystery stuff and the arty ending, it could have easily been at least a 9. The final scenes are easily 10s, as Welles shifts from a Hitchcockian suspense scene in a San Francisco Chinese opera house to another suspense scene in a Chinese amusement park. The funhouse climax uses cinematography that was experimental for its time. It's well integrated with the script, as it allows a complex resolution and fuels a lot of symbolism.

The cinematography throughout is interesting, even if it usually can't make up for the problems in the foreground. Welles blocks scenes with skill. There are lots of attractively filmed settings, from Central Park to Acapulco to various San Francisco locations. Welles effectively creates symbolic backdrops for his action, from the emphasized heights and precipitous drops of Acapulco to the maze-like Caribbean streets, the beautifully framed and silhouetted shots of the San Francisco Aquarium, and so on. The romance material, for which the Aquarium serves as one backdrop, is interestingly tempered with a kind of unease throughout the film, but on the other hand, that makes the romance never quite work as romance.

Surely serious Welles fans will appreciate The Lady from Shanghai much more than I did, and of course it's worth a watch if you love Rita Hayworth. The Lady from Shanghai isn't exactly a terrible film, in my view, but it's dangerously close to not "passing". Proceed with caution. Pure Orson Welles genius makes this one of the greatest of movies. Welles is drawn into a murder conspiracy only to be set up as the fall guy, which is what he refers to with the sarcastic comment "big dummy that I am." Plot is so complex that I still don't know whether the victim knew that his life was about to be lost. The shootout scene in the carnival hall of mirrors is one of the most amazing ever filmed. That scene alone is worth the price of admission. This is the only time that Rita Hayworth ever played a complex yet believable character. No one but Welles would have had the nerve to cut her hair and dye it brassy blond. No one should miss this picture. Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.

Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.

Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.

Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something. It is not as great a film as many people believe (including my late aunt, who said it was her favorite movie). But due to the better sections of this film noir, particularly that justifiably famous "fun house" finale, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI has gained a position of importance beyond it's actual worth as a key to the saga of Orson Welles' failure to conquer Hollywood.

By 1946 Welles' position as a Hollywood figure was mixed. CITIZEN KANE was not recognized as the great movie it has since been seen as due to the way it was attacked by the Hearst press and by Hollywood insiders themselves. Welles' attempt at total control (direction and production and acting) of his movies seemed to threaten the whole system. His best job in this period was as Edward Rochester in JANE EYRE, supposedly shot by Robert Stevenson, but actually shot in large measure (with Stevenson's blessing) by Welles. But the credit went to Stevenson. Only THE STRANGER, a film benefiting from a postwar interest in fleeing Nazi war criminals, made a profit. For five years in Hollywood it was barely a great record.

Welles returned to Broadway in 1946, hoping to recapture his critical abilities by his production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. But despite the assistance Mike Todd, and Cole Porter composing the score, the musical was a failure. His failure occurred just at the same time that his wife, Rita Hayworth, was on the rise with her portrayal of GILDA. So the marriage was going on the rocks as well.

Welles had to make money - his Broadway production had led to his personal bankruptcy. He sold his interest in the possible movie rights to AROUND THE WORLD to Todd (which he would eventually rue), and he also sold the idea of a film about the career of Henri Desire Landru to Charlie Chaplin, who was supposed to be directed in it (and who turned it into MONSIEUR VERDOUX).

The story goes that Welles, with a $10,000.00 tax bill to worry about, called Cohn and offered to do a film with Rita for a down payment. Cohn was willing to do so, but naturally asked what the film was. It was a wise question. Welles was on a pay phone in New York in a pharmacy that had a book department. He grabbed a book with the title THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and raved that it was a great thriller. Somehow Welles convinced the normally astute Cohn that Welles knew what he was talking about. Cohn said he'd look into getting the rights, and sent Welles his down-payment of $10,000.00. After Cohn hung up Welles bought the book and read it - and found it was really pretty bad. He spent time rewriting a treatment and screenplay that would build up Rita's character of Elsa Bannister.

Certainly it has a curious plot development. Michael O'Hara is a seaman/longshoreman. He rescues Elsa Bannister, when she is apparently attacked by gangsters in a park in San Francisco. Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) a crippled criminal lawyer with a great reputation. She convinces him to hire Michael as the skipper of their yacht. The cruise also contains Bannister's sinister partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders) and one Sidney Broome (Ted De Corsia) who turns out to be a detective hired by Bannister to watch Elsa. When they can Michael and Elsa try to find time together, but Broome or Grisby keeps showing up.

Grisby makes Michael an offer - he wants (for reasons connected to his so-called fatalistic view of modern society) to drop out of it, pretending to be dead. According to Grisby (the plot becomes murky here) he can still collect his life insurance (although dead?) and use it to run off to the South Seas. He will pay Michael $10,000.00 if he will pretend to shoot Grisby. This includes actually signing a document admitting to the murder (Michael does not realize that such an admission would wipe out the need to produce a corpse if all the other evidence suggests that Grisby is probably dead).

Of course Grisby is killed, and Michael is arrested for that, and for the murder of Broome (shot with Michael's gun). Michael is tried with Bannister defending him, and discovers that the latter is doing a second rate job because he wants Michael to be convicted. Michael is convinced that Bannister is the actual murderer, and manages to escape just before the jury verdict. He is knocked out and deposited in a deserted carnival, and this leads to the famous "fun house" sequence and the conclusion of the film.

It's a terribly confusing movie (as I have had commented on). That does not mean it's not worth seeing - visually it is striking. Witness the fight between Michael and the police in the trial judge's quarters, where he knocks the bailiff into the judge's bookcase, shattering glass. Or the clever use of photography to capture Hayworth diving from a rock, reflected on the lecherous Grisby's binoculars.

The acting is pretty good, in particular Sloane (possibly that fine actor's best film role). Glenn Anders was a leading Broadway performer. He rarely made movies before THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and his slimy Grisby is unforgettable. Also Ted De Corsia does very nicely with Broome - a detective who is really looking for his own interests, to his own cost.

As for Hayworth, she turns in a performance that was unlike most of what she had done before (BLOOD AND SAND, TALES OF MANHATTAN, and THE STRAWBERRY BLOND are exceptions), and is a memorable siren. Welles' O'Hara is a very unusual character for the actor - a likable but naive man who learns the hard way not to believe what he secretly wants to believe. It's not KANE, AMBERSOMS, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL, or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but it is a good film for all that. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is proof that the great genius Orson Welles could direct a "mainstream" movie if he wanted to. By comparison to his other, more artistic works, this film has only a moderate amount of craftiness, and almost no esoteric elements.

The exception being, of course, the final scene in the hall of mirrors, widely agreed to be one of the greatest scenes in the history of film. It alone is worth the cost of a rental.

The sweet surprise was the superb acting by the beautiful Rita Hayworth. Her acting during the beginning and middle of the film is so excellent, she made the other actors appear as caricatures instead of characters. Even the great Mr. Welles. In a lot of his films (Citizen Kane, Confidential Report, Touch of evil) Orson Welles gave him the role of an exuberant men. In "The Lady from Shanghai" it's the only time I see him holding the role of the victim. The role of the culprit, he gave it to Rita Hayworth, I guess it's because he was in love with her. Therefore, it's an interesting film. But I find the story excellent too. The direction is genius, as usual with Welles : two scenes are particularly brilliant: the one in the aquarium and the final one with the mirrors. This film is brilliant.(10/10) One reviewer notes that it does not seem to matter what Welles actually says or does, he moves you. I concur. He was and remains a unique force in film. More than a triple threat who could act, write and direct, he had a genius uniquely suited to film. One can consider whether in an earlier age he would have been a painter. This film certainly reinforces that impression. A musician, a theatre actor, an heir to Shakespeare? hard to tell but I am very grateful that his time cam with film and he have him captured on film. I like the accent. I like the face, the size, the style, the mind and the games. I love all of his movies and wish there were more. I particularly love how other actors interacted with him on film. Many were never better or at least somehow different with him because he was o firmly there. Even towards the end when his beauty was ruined, perhaps by his own intent, he was impossible to ignore and he made every scene he was in. Rita was a gorgeous blonde -- a Lana Turner look alike but perhaps even lovelier and even then the eye goes to Welles and one wishes for another minute, another film, another hour in his company. That is why we all wish we could come upon the lost scraps cut from his films because we know, we all know, that there is not part of him not worthy of our time. Watch it and be grateful for the chance. I did no research on the film prior to my first viewing of it because it was part of a Welles box set I had recently purchased. A box set I chiefly got because I wanted to own A Man For All Seasons and to also re-evaluate Waterloo. So I stick Orson and Rita in the player and I'm treated to class and confusion in equal measure.

On the surface the story seemed a simple one, man meets gorgeous woman and saves her from a couple of thugs, they click straight away and man gets offer of work on a cruise with woman and her famous lawyer husband, and then.............

..well it becomes murder mystery of plotted devilment and much shenanigans. Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles} himself doesn't really know what is going on, he is as confused as the viewer is, and that is wonderful to watch as he is pulled all over the place by pretty much everyone in the film. Obviously being pulled by the heart strings by a femme fatale of such beauty as Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth} has its moments, but you just know that things are going to go pear shaped.

So many wonderful things in the film, it has Welles visual style all over it, see a scene in an aquarium that is marvellous and the ending sequences in a fun house is majestic on the eye. The narration from O'Hara is joyously self mocking, and we get good light relief by way of a court case with Everett Sloane considerably lighting up proceedings.

Yet the film is an oddity, and in fact it's a choppy viewing experience, because {as I was to find out after} studio bosses cut the film by pretty much a whole hour, and that is just not only frustrating to us the viewer, but unfair on Welles' vision. I'm positive that a full original cut of this film would have been lauded and revered wholesale, as it is tho, we have a very good and intriguing film, one that sadly only hints at greatness, but remains a fiendishly engrossing film that I'm glad I own to revisit further. 8.5/10 "The Lady from Shanghai" is well known as one of Hollywood's most troubled productions. Welles' original cut was taken away by the producers and cut to ribbons. This made the already muddled mystery story even more difficult to keep track of. They post dubbed a good amount of his dialog because of the density of the Irish accent, and the dubbing is all too apparent and poorly done. Most disastrous of all, Welles and his on screen and real life leading lady Rita Hayworth were falling apart in their relationship, and their tumultuous chemistry comes through on screen.

Fortunately, this is all overcome by just how fantastic Orson Welles' direction is. He makes the film incredibly stylish and atmospheric - every scene just seems to be breathing down your back from the screen. Also, the characters and scenes are so bizarre they border on dreamlike and surreal. This sense of weirdness elevates scenes that are often found in these films, such as the courtroom sequences in the middle. I typically find courtroom dramas a bore, but Welles' direction and quirky touches make them just as fascinating as everything else. The ending at the carnival reminds one of David Lynch almost.

The acting here is also very good. Despite their failing relationship, Welles and Hayworth both give decent performances - their interactions however are just a bit lacking. Everyone else is superb and delightful to watch though, especially Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. "The Lady from Shanghai" obviously has its problems, but its worth watching just to see one of cinema's masters at his finest. (8/10) In my opinion, A GUY THING is a hilarious, witty, sexy, romantic, and totally beautiful chick flick that guys will also enjoy. I thought that Jason Lee and Julia Stiles dazzled as a bewildered groom-to-be and his soon-to-be sexy cousin-in-law. If you ask me, they lit up the screen like magic. You can also feel their chemistry between them. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the performances were top grade, the direction was flawless, the production design was nice, the casting was perfect, and the costumes were perfectly designed. In conclusion, to anyone who's a fan of Jason Lee or Julia Stiles, I recommend this movie. You're in for lots of laughs and thrills, so, go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. I happened to watch this movie by chance some days ago while flipping channels. My expectations were not very high but it was an interesting movie.In 'A Guy Thing', Jason Lee plays Paul, a straight-laced, Seattle-based fellow who is about to marry his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) and settle down to an unchallenging life of middle-class domesticity. We first meet Paul at his bachelor party, where he professes no desire to engage in any of the normal bachelor party type activities his (surprisingly few) buddies encourage, in case he's a bit naughty and gets into hot bother with his soon to be trouble and strife. Of course, the next thing Paul knows, it's the morning after the night before, he's in bed with a naked hula dancer, and his mother-in-law phones to inform him that Karen is on her way over. Oh, and the hula dancer is Karen's cousin Becky (Julia Stiles).

From this small acorn of potential trouble grows a mighty oak of frenetic misfortune, as Paul scrabbles from misadventure to misadventure, trying to cover up what he's done whilst keeping up the appearance of being a dutiful, family-oriented good guy, who's super-excited about his forthcoming nuptials. His efforts to ensure Karen remains none the wiser about any potential wrong-doing on his part ironically forces Paul closer and closer to the fun-loving Becky, forcing him to question whether he really wants the life that seems to have been mapped out for him. The movie contains the right mix of comedy and romance. Definitely worth a watch. I think this movie got a low rating because it got judged by it's worst moments. There is a diarrhea joke and an embarrassing nut-scratching scene, but apart from that there are actually quite a few moments that made me laugh out loud. Jason Lee is performing some wonderfully subtle comedy in this movie and Julia Stiles manages to be pretty damn funny herself. Apart from that this movie behaves like most romantic comedies, after about 40 minutes into it you know how it is going to end. (Which is better than most of them, where you already know after +/- 5 minutes). Anyway, better movies to watch but definitely not the worst pick...Cheers Recap: The morning after his bachelor party Paul is woken by his mother-in-law-to-be and discovers that there is a woman sleeping beside him. Unfortunately its a waitress from the bar, and not his fiancée. And suddenly she turns up everywhere... the toll booth at the freeway and at his parent-in-laws dinner. And it is hard to keep a secret when her jealous ex-boyfriend had him followed and photographed. It is not only about saving his wedding... it is about survival.

Comments: Actually much better than expected. Not the sweet romantic comedy I expected, but something much funnier, something with a little edge. This movie wasn't afraid to take the jokes a little further. And Jason Lee does now how to deliver comedy, especially when his character is half-panicked and deep in trouble, as he is here. And he got nice support from beautiful ladies Julia Stiles and Selma Blair. And actually I thought Lochlyn Munro did a nice part as the ex.

So, more emphasis on comedy than romance, and the end result was good. I enjoyed it very much.

7/10 Paul (Jason Lee) is an underachiever who just happens to be engaged to a type-A princess named Karen (Selma Blair). She chooses his clothes and his daily schedule. At his bachelor party, Paul gets a little too drunk and somehow ends up taking a pretty dancer named Becky (Julia Stiles) back to his digs. "Nothing happened", as they say, but the duo do wake up in the same bed. Suddenly Karen telephones. She's on her way to Paul's apartment. Understandably, Paul hustles Becky out of the place, although her underpants are left behind. But, there is even more fun ahead. At a family dinner at Karen's parents' home, Paul runs smack into Becky again, learning that she is Karen's cousin. Talk about some explaining to do! But, instead, Paul chooses to feign a stomach problem and hides out in the bathroom. Will Karen ever find out that Becky spent the night at Paul's place? And, what will be the consequences? I'm sorry for critics who pan movies like this. They should definitely lighten up, for this film is fresh and fun. Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that Lee is a consummate funny man, Stiles is a charming beauty or that Blair is a natural as a pretty but anal fiancée. The rest of the cast, including James Brolin and Julie Haggerty, is also quite nice. The look of the film is wonderful, as are the costumes and California settings. Best of all, the script is imaginative and inspired, creating big laughs for the audience. In short, if you want to tickle the proverbial funnybones, get this movie tonight. It may not be Academy Award material but it is absolutely guaranteed to turn a bad day into a darn good one. What would you say about a man who was about to get married and was having his bachelor party with some of his closest friends at a Hawaiian guy bar? All smooth sailing until he takes his "bachelor hat" off. What would you say about him talking to one of the suggestive dancers and then sleeping with her? What would you say if that exact girl was the cousin of his finance? A new low, right? Well Paul Coleman, played comically by Jason Lee, leads this experience of a nauseous blur and a new low. I got to say this is one of his good leading roles. However I do believe his role in Vanilla Sky was better acted.

His finance named Karen is played by the up-and-down actress Selma Blair while Karen's character, Becky, is played by the lovely and talented Julia Stiles. Getting back to where we left off, Paul now has to deal with one arising problem to another. He gets diseases, has to deal with certain people, and has to play his lie games with stealth or any member of each of the families could get P.O'ed, including one of his relatives that hasn't had a "bowel movement" for 14 days. *Vomit* All of this leads to the long awaited wedding with one hilarious scene before it recapping all the hell that Paul and his brother had to go through.

Overall, A Guy Thing is quite funny and is all right. Sometimes the story may seem to go nowhere and you get tired of scenes here and there but it's a mixed movie. And if you're a Canadian and a fellow fan of the CTV Brett Butt sitcom, Corner Gas, you'd recognize a small role played by Fred Ewanuick, the same man who plays the hilarious Hank in the series. This movie is all right. It's another feather in Lee's hat (quite an empty hat so far, however).

My Rating: 7/10

Eliason A. I think the deal with this movie is that it has about 2 minutes of really, really funny moments and it makes a very good trailer and a lot of people came in with expectations from the trailer and this time the movie doesn't live up to the trailer. It's a little more sluggish and drags a little slowly for such an exciting premise, and i think i'm seeing from the comments people having a love/hate relationship with this movie.

However, if you look at this movie for what it is and not what it could have been considering the talent of the cast, i think it's still pretty good. Julia Stiles is clearly the star, she's so giddy and carefree that set among the conformity of everyone else, she just glows and the whole audience falls in love with her along with Lee. The rest of the cast, of course, Lee's testosterone-filled coworkers, his elegant mother-in-law, his fratlike friend Jim and his bride-to-be all do an excellent job of fitting into stereotypes of conformity and boringness that make Stiles stand out in the first place.

Lee doesn't live up to his costars, i don't think, but you could view that as more that they're hard to live up to. Maybe that's one source of disappointment.

The movie itself, despite a bit of slowness and a few jokes that don't come off as funny as the writer's intended, is still pretty funny and I found a rather intelligent film. The themes of conformity and "taking the safe route" seemed to cleverly align on several layers. For example, there was the whole motif of how he would imagine scenarios but would never act on them until the last scene, or how he was listening to a radio program on the highway talking about how everyone conforms, or just how everything selma blair and julia stiles' characters said and did was echoed by those themes of one person being the safe choice and one being the risky choice.

The other good thing about the movie was that it was kind of a screwball comedy in which Jason Lee has to keep lying his way through the movie and who through dumb luck (example: the pharmacy guy turning out to be a good chef) and some cleverness on his part gets away with it for the most part.

While it wasn't as funny as i expected and there was a little bit of squandered talent, but overall it's still a good movie. First a quick 'shut up!' to those saying this movie stinks. You can't go to every movie expecting 'Citizen Kane'. This was actually a fun movie. Jason Lee is good in everything he does. The only flaw in this movie is, I don't think there was enough chemestry between Lee and Julia Stiles. They should have dwelled more on that. Other than that, the movie is good fun. Selma Blair needs to eat something. She's worrying me. But she still looks beautiful. So yes, I recommend this movie for a date or light saturday afternoon fun. Go see.

RATING: **1/2 out of **** This movie starts out brisk, has some slow moments in the middle, but generally moves along well, has a few very good moments, then peters out at the end of Act 3. I was able to get to see this in LA premieres 2 times (with 2 different endings). Jason Lee is a star, but he is not tomorrows leading man. He is humorous and holds his own, but he is better served as a supporting actor. Julia Stiles does 'ok' in a comedy role, new for her, but she doesn't 'steal' this movie, the way a star of her caliber should. For an actress who has so much potential(10 Things, Save the Last Dance, O), it is hard to watch her continue to do roles that are so 'average', and then not have her take the role and run away with the movie (like Daniel Day-Lewis did in 'Gangs'). Selma Blair is a good young actress as well, and does an 'ok' job. I didn't expect an academy award performance from her, and she didn't deliver one, but, her performance was adequate. Chris Koch delivers another film that is 'above average'. Perhaps the problem lies in the script more than anything else. I 'did' like this movie! But, it is not a movie where you walk away and say...'that was great!'...This 'story' has been done so many times before and there was just not much new here. The rehearsal dinner scene was probably the best in the movie, and Larry Miller gives an incredible performance in a supporting role (he could be the best surprise of the film). If you want to go see a movie that will make you laugh a few times, and have an enjoyable evening, I can still recommend this film, but unless they have changed the ending...again...leave during the church scene, or you will surely be disappointed. I was literally preparing to hate this movie, so believe me when I say this film is worth seeing. Overall, the story and gags are contrived, but the film has the charm and finesse to pull them off. That gag where Jason Lee thinks he has crabs, and tries not to let his boss/future father-in-law and co-workers see him scratching himself isn't terribly intelligent, but it sent me into a frenzy of laughter. Very few of the film's gags are high-brow, but they made me laugh. As I said, the film has charm and charm can go a long way.

The characters are likable, too. I must say I wish I got to see more of James Brolin's character, since he was a hoot in the very few scenes he was in. Plus, I admire any romantic comedy that has the guts to not make the character of the wife (who serves as the obstacle in the plot) a total witch. The Selma Blair character is hardly unlikable, and there's never a scene where I thought to myself, "Why did he want to marry her in the first place?" The ending is Hollywood-ish, but it could've been much more schmaltzy.

The cast is talented. I haven't had a favorable view of most of Jason Lee's mainstream work. I just loved him so much in Kevin Smith's films that I couldn't help but feel disappointed at seeing him in these dopey roles. And he never looks comfortable in these dopey roles. Even in this movie, he doesn't look perfectly comfortable, but he contributes his own two cents and effectively handles each scene. But I still miss his work in independent films. Julia Stiles proves again why she's so damn likable. Of course, she's a very beautiful girl with a radiant smile that makes me want to faint, but she also possesses a unique charm and seems to have good personality. In other words, her beauty shows inside and out. I don't know the actresses' name, but the woman who plays the drunk granny is hilarious. Julie Hagerty also has a small part, and she's always enjoyable to watch, which makes me wish she received better roles. I loved her so much in "Airplane" and "Lost in America" that it's a shame she doesn't get the same opportunities to flaunt her skills.

Don't be put off by the horrible trailers and even more horrible box office records. This is a funny, charming film. Romantic comedies are getting so predictable nowadays that it feels like the genre itself is ready to be flushed down the toilet, so it's always to see a good one among all these bad apples.

My score: 7 (out of 10) Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.

Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, "Go get her, Tiger!" For the rest of us, I say, "See _A Guy Thing_." It's a lot of fun.

Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its "Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!" plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.

Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.

And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.

A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.

But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.

A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.

For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.

And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say "It's a Guy Thing," and leave it at that. On the night of his bachelor party, Paul Coleman (Jason Lee) meets the gorgeous dancer Becky (Julia Stiles) in the bar, they drink a lot together and in the next morning, he wakes up with her on the bed. His future mother-in-law calls him and informs that his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) might be arriving in his apartment, and he desperately asks Becky to leave his place in a hurry. Sooner, he finds that her has crabs, and later, in the preparation of his wedding dinner party, he realizes that Becky is the cousin of Karen. This is the beginning of a very funny comedy, with hilarious situations. The first attraction of this movie certainly is the central trio of actresses and actor. Julia Stiles and Selma Blair, who are excellent actresses and extremely gorgeous, and Jason Lee, who is amazingly funny, have good performances. I laughed a lot along the story, but there are some scenes that are really hilarious. For example, when Paul finds Becky in his bed; when he finds her paints; his imagination in many situations; in the drugstore, trying to buy and get explanations about the crab medicine; most of the scenes of his neighbor, the minister; when Karen calls the department store; or when the police finds a suspect of assaulting Paul. I could number many other scenes, but better off the reader rent or buy this movie and have lots of fun. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil):"Louco Por Elas" ("Crazy For Them") "A Guy Thing" may not be a classic, but it sure is a good, funny comedy. The plot focuses on Paul (Jason Lee), who wakes up the morning after his bachelor party with no memory and Becky (Julia Stiles) lying naked in his bed. Before he can figure out what happened, he rushes Becky out of his apartment because his fiance Karen (Selma Blair) is coming. After that, as you could imagine, chaos ensues.

Almost every single scene in "A Guy Thing" delivers loud laughs. The funniest moments come from when Paul imagines what could happen if he tells Karen. Selma Blair is a truly talented comedian, and the worst thing about this film is that she goes underused. Although, she turns out to be more funny than Stiles' character, who actually isn't that interesting. Of course, not every comedy is perfect.

As I said, "A Guy Thing" is no classic, but it's not bad either, 7/10. What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended. A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me. Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag. In a year of pretentious muck like "Synecdoche, New York" a film born out of Charlie Kaufman's own self-indulgence, comes a film that is similarly hard to watch but about three times as important. "Frownland" is a labor of love by the crew, the actors and the filmmaker, shot over years by friends. It traces a man who cannot communicate through his thoroughly authentic, REAL Brooklyn world. The people that you see are a step beyond even the stylization of the "mumblecore" movement. They are real people, painfully trapped in their own self-contained neuroses, unwilling to change, unable. The real world to them is their own set of delusions and because this is a film about people who are so profoundly out of touch, it is very difficult to watch. It is 16mm film-making without proper light, money or any of the other factors that would make a film "slick", but its honesty can not be understated, a fact that would cause a room full of people to dismiss it and for Richard Linklater to give it an award as he did at SXSW. This does remind of films like "Naked" or the best of the "mumblecore". It is a film that is not for everyone, but one that challenges you to watch and grows on you the longer you think about it. I found the film quite expressive , the way the main character was lost but at the same much more clear about certain things in life than people who mocked him ( his flatmate for example ) .

he was tortured and you loved to watch him being tortured ! it had this perverted side which was frightening but we were all happy to see him come out of the misery again .

it was like a game character or pan-man through a mine-land or to enemy and we love to watch him under sniper attack or fire but then at the end we are happy to see him survive ...

. The most bizarre of the cinematic sub-genres is the so called "The Great Ladies of the Grand Guignol": camp horror films which combined over-the-top melodrama with gothic thrills and always starred by seasoned and almost forgotten actress from hollywood golden age in unflattering roles of either long suffering victims or screeching evil harpies. This genre provided them with an unusual acting showcase that allowed strut their stuff on the screen once again and win new generations of fans at expense of their glamorous images from yesterday.

"What's the matter with Helen" is the last drop of this sub-genre with stunning performances of both Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters as the troubled mothers of two convicted criminals who run away from their past to the sunny California in the 1930s to open a talent school to milk out the eagerly mothers who want their daughters to be the next Shirley Temple. In California, Debbie gets happiness, clients, tango, tap dancing and a new love interest (Dennis Weaver meanwhile Shelley gets wacko with horrible flashbacks, menacing anonymous calls, menacing strangers, menacing Agnes Moorehead as a radio evangelist, cute little rabbits (!) and an unfortunate encounter with an electric fan (ouch!).

The sloppy script (penned by Henry Farrell, the man who started all this genre with "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" along with master director Robert Aldrich, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis) is full of plot holes, red herrings and wasted opportunities that could had made this movie great: the underlying themes of twisted motherhood (with Debbie and Shelley's characters as "failed mothers" and the overbearing mommies of the child stars) and obsessive female bonding (Debbie and Shelley relationship and the fact that the few male characters of this movie are either sinister or sleazy even Dennis Weaver dream boat Texan) are wasted. Instead we get Debbie Reynolds musicals interludes and dancing tots, although fun to watch take too much screen time of what is supposedly to be a psychological chiller. But still this movie is highly entertaining. The two stars and Curtis Harrington stylish direction easily overcomes its flaws. The movie recreation of the 1930's is colorful and elegant (look at Debbie's clothes!) made with a very tight budget. The increasing atmosphere of madness and hysteria is genuinely creepy with a shocking finale that will haunt you for days. And you wouldn't easily forget that silly "Goody, goody" song that runs through the movie either. And seeing an increasingly mad Shelley Winters screw every one of Debbie Reynolds' chances at happiness is a hoot to watch!

8 out of 10. From the writer of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" and "Hush .. Hush, Sweet Charlotte," this tail-end of the sixties horror cycle has some eerie and campy fun. Micheál Macliammóir does a Victor Buono-type bit, but too often the movie totters dangerously close to a bad musical ... there's a particularly awful children's recital about halfway through. Debbie taps, tangos and tricks up a lá Harlow, while Winters' religious fanatic has a lesbian edge to her. Agnes Moorehead checks in as an evangelist. Weaver has nothing to do - and even has to pay a gigolo to dance with Debbie. A vastly underrated black comedy, the finest in a series of grand guignol movies to follow 'Baby Jane'. Reynolds and Winters are mothers of young convicted murderers (a nod to 'Compulsion') who run away to hide in Hollywood. They run a school for would-be movie tots, a bunch of hilariously untalented kids attended by awful stage moms. Debbie, in her blonde wig ('I'm a Harlow, you're more a Marion Davies' she tells Winters) leads the tots at their concert and wins a rich dad, Weaver. She also does a deliciously funny tango and, over all, gives an outstanding performance, unlike anything she'd done before. The atmosphere is a fine mix of comic and eerie. It looks wonderful with great period detail (30's). Lots of lovely swipes at Hollywood and the terrifying movie tot. Micheal MacLiammoir has a ball as the drama coach: 'Hamilton Starr', he purrs, 'two r's but prophetic nonetheless'. See it and love it. This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. "I was just starting to like the poms." Renny Harlin's first American film was one of the best of a slew of prison-set horror films(like "Death House" or "The Chair")in the late 80's.Twenty years before,guard Lane Smith had wrongfully executed a condemned man.Now,he is the warden of the newly re-opened prison,and the man's ghost is back for bloody revenge.This atmospheric and very moody film features lots of gruesome gore and violence.Viggo Mortensen,Tiny Lister,Tom Everett and Kane Hodder are onhand for the entertaining carnage. Story of a wrongly executed prisoner who haunts the prison he was electrocuted in and kills random prisoners while waiting to take revenge on the man who framed him.

Viggo Mortensen is great, and the acting is pretty good overall. Lane Smith is deliciously wicked as the guilty warden. Also, this film has some great gore, including death by barbed-wire mummification. What we have here is a compelling piece of low budget horror with a relatively original premise, a cast that is filled with familiar faces AND one of the most convincing filming locations in the history of horror films. So...could anyone please tell me why this movie is so utterly underrated??? "Prison" is the Finnish director Harlin's American debut, which still counts as his best effort even though he went on making blockbuster hits like "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger" and "Deep Blue Sea". The story entirely takes place in an ancient and ramshackle Wyoming prison, re-opened for the cause of over-population in other, more modern state penitentiaries. Inside the former execution dungeons, the restless spirit of the electric chair's last victim still dwells around. The now promoted warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) was there already 40 years ago, when this innocent man was put to death, and the spirit still remembers his vile role in the unfair trial. It seems that the time for vengeance has finally arrived. Viggo Mortensen plays the good car thief who has to prevent an even larger body count and Chelsea Field is the humane social worker who slowly unravels the secrets from the past.

"Prison" contains over half a dozen memorable gore sequences but it's the unbearably tense atmosphere that'll stick to you for certain! Unlike any other horror picture from that decade, "Prison" features an amazing sense of realism! By this, I refer to the authentic scenery and the mood inside the prison walls, of course, and not towards the supernatural murders that are being committed... even though these are genuinely unsettling as well. The film's best parts are images of realistic and tough prison-drama sequences combined with visual mayhem and shocking horror. The absolute best terror-moment (providing me with nightmares ever since I saw it at rather young age) focuses on a grizzly death-struggle involving barbed wire. Haunting!! The screenplay only suffers one flaw, but that's a common one...almost inevitable, I guess: clichés! The story introduces nearly every possible stereotype there is in a prison surrounding. We've got the ugly, fat pervert with his 'cute' boy-toy, the cowardly and racist guard avoids confrontation at all costs and – naturally – the old 'n wise black con who serves a lifetime (did I hear anybody yell the name Morgan Freeman?) Don't stare yourself blind on these clichés is my advise, as there are so many other elements to admire. The photography is dark and moist, the mystery is upheld long and successfully and the supportive inmate-roles of class B-actors are excellent (the fans will recognize Tom Everett, Tom 'Tiny' Lister and even immortal horror icon Kane Hodder). Forget about Wes Craven's god-awful attempt "Shocker" or the downright pathetic cheese-flick "the Chair". This is the only prison chiller worth tracking down! Especially considering Viggo Mortensen peaking popularity nowadays (I heard he starred in a successful franchise involving elves, Hobbits and other fairy creatures...) this true 80's horror gem oughts to get an urgent DVD-release! I pulled down a VHS box from my vast collection - many unseen - and picked out a movie, based on the box art, I thought would be fun, and yes, bad. Prison had that 80s cheesy look all over that box. I sat down and watched, and lo! and behold!, found that sometimes we do indeed sit down to a movie with preconceived expectations in mind. Fortunately, I reversed mine quickly and soon realized I was sitting down not just to an okay film but a rather good movie in total. Prison tells the story of an old, dilapidated prison being reopened to save on budgetary concerns. It looks creepy as all empty and filled with prisoners. The prison used as a set is incredibly atmospheric and easily the most important character in the film. The story using the prison as its central setting tells in a prologue of a man being killed via the electric chair. We see Lane Smith as a guard - tearing away a Crucifix before sending the man to his Maker. We then go to present day, first with a government board at a meeting deciding to open the prison and send a beautiful doctor in to make sure that conditions are acceptable as she campaigned vigorously against re-opening the old prison. Then we see the new warden, Lane Smith, haunted by a nightmare in bed - and given the new job of opening a prison he has not been to in years. Well, the rest follows suit: prisoners and guards arrive with plenty of stereotypes abounding. We are given some character depth and several of the prisoners are interesting characters. The acting is better than one might expect with Lane Smith doing as always a workmanlike job. Viggo Mortenson as a very different prisoner being solid. Tom Everett, Tiny Lister, and Ivan Kane really exploring the boundaries of their stereotypical characters. Chelsea Field is okay as the female lead. The best performance is by Lincoln Kilpatrick, an underrated character actor, as Cresus - a prisoner who had been in that very same prison years ago when the "man" had been executed" with some kind of terrible secret. Prison is not the next best thing to sliced bread or anything like that, but it is definitely worth a look and definitely better than most would expect from it. I was pleasantly surprised at the way director Renny Harlin created a story so visually atmospheric. The film has a tense, taut pace and Harlin knows how to build his scenes. There are a few excessively shot gore scenes - the one with the barbed wire was a bit much as was the one with all the pipes. But these scenes are visually creative and interesting. The acting is uniformly decent. The script actually much more cohesive than one usually gets from films like these. That may in part be credited to Irwin Yablans who wrote the story. You may remember he came up with the idea of making Halloween scary as a holiday. Here he makes incarceration a hell of a lot more scarier than it already is. Give Prison a break(get it). This is an excellent example of what can be done on a small budget movie. The acting is excellent considering the script & the whole atmosphere of the film is very foreboding. The gore is well done and used sparingly (look out for the excellent barbed-wire death) & the action is punchy when used. It's true that there are dodgy lines in the script at times, but compared to other movies on the same (or bigger!) budget, it's hardly noticeable at all. Overall, this is recommended. Trust me, it's better than it appears! 8/10 Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.

The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down. Viggo Mortensen stars as a new inmate of a haunted prison in which the warden (Played well by Lane Smith) has a grisly secret that could be the reason why various prison guards and inmates are being slaughtered by a supernatural presence. Lincoln Kilpatrick is the lifer who knows the secret and is scared for his life. When I think prison movies, I always think action movies starring Stallone or Van Damme or high caliber dramas such as Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile. However I didn't expect a ghost story more along the lines of Exorcist III. Prison however is an atmospheric effort and it certainly remains the best movie of Renny Harlin's career. The movie is creepy and has some good acting from a cast of (at the time) unknowns. Lane Smith comes off the best because his warden isn't the usual cliché of evil personified but rather nervous and twitchy which adds some credibility to a movie that far exceeds expectations.

*** out of 4-(Good) Prisons are not exactly renowned for their kind hospitality and 'happy vibes', what with stories of fights, chaos, murder and of course extreme male bonding! But the prison in this film is a different beast altogether. Horror films set in cells are, as you probably know, nothing particularly new as they emphasis and exaggerate the fear of claustrophobia and the inability of escape – two of the greatest themes in horror cinema. With such examples as THE CHAIR (Waldermar Korzeniowsky, 1988), THE GREEN MILE (Frank Darabont, 1999), ALIEN 3 (David Fincher, 1992)and of course the entire Women In Prison exploitation genre itself, another entry into this niche has to be something inventive and a lot of fun to boot in order to be recognised. Or at least that's what you'd have thought. PRISON is certainly an incredibly fun and enjoyable ride and it's somewhat of a shame that it isn't as well known as it should be.

The film, in short, centres on an old prison (well, duh!) which has been reopened. However, it's not just fellow inmates and guards the prisoners have to fear, but also a mean ass demon ghost spirit with only one thing on its mind; death! And boy, are we treated to some awesome death scenes! I won't spoil anything here for you but there are plenty of innovative and enjoyable murders all done by invisible hands.

Besides the special effects and the murders, this film also has another thing going for it; it's cast. Headlining, we have LORD OF THE RINGS (Peter Jackson, 2001-2003) star Viggo Mortensen (and for all those so inclined, yes, he does get naked) whose performance is not only highly believable, but is done with such skill that his Eastwood-esquire character is both bad-to-the-bone and likable (a very delicate mix). Add him to a cast of 'hey-wait-a-minute-I-know-that-guy' actors and you've got yourself one great set of stars. The characters themselves however lack three-dimensionality and more often than not come across as very stereotypical. We've got a black oculist, a hard-as-nails prison warden, a human-rights activist woman and plenty of other stock characters. But in all honesty, this 'fault' actually aids the film. Instead of boring character development in an over-long equilibrium, we are chucked, more or less, straight into the action and once it gets going (very early on) there's not a single scene that's a filler – it's balls to the wall plot. Unlike a certain SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Frank Darabont, 1994 )! Sharing conventions with the slasher genre, this is somewhat of a convention itself, and, in good ol' slasher genre tradition, PRISON punishes those who have been bad.

All in all this is an excellent little horror film and one which is sadly overlooked and unmentioned among the horror world. With an excellent cast and great special effects and rather original death scenes this film is highly recommended to horror fans. Don't be fooled into thinking it'll be a cheesy little film either, just because it was made in USA 1980s, it's far from cheesy (although the very end does ruin this) and, simultaneously, far from gritty and realistic (whilst it attempts to tackle issues such as prison rape, these are rather subtly done).

I give it 3.5 out of 5 luvs. A very entertaining horror film with some very nice touches indeed. A long-defunct prison, shut down for over 20 years, is re-opened and Ethan Sharpe (the late, great character actor Lane Smith), once a guard there, is put in place as warden. As the prisoners are put to work fixing the place up, they're instructed to break into the old execution room. This unleashes a fierce spirit that wreaks merciless havoc upon both guards and prisoners; cool-as-can-be low-key prisoner Burke (Viggo Mortensen, showing real poise in an early role) is thrust into the role of hero.

I know it's a no-brainer to praise the film for its atmosphere (it was shot in an actual abandoned penitentiary near Rawlins, Wyoming), but it elevates this horror film to a higher level. It's got a great sense of foreboding, established right at the outset. Director Renny Harlin made his fourth directorial effort here; it got him the "Nightmare on Elm Street 4" directing gig and effectively began an impressive career in mainstream action movies, thrillers, and horror films.

It may have stock characters, but it's got a capable cast bringing them to life: Chelsea Field as the young woman vying for prison reform, Lincoln Kilpatrick as weary veteran convict Cresus, Tom Everett as restless con Rabbitt, Ivan Kane as the outgoing Lasagna, Tommy "Tiny" Lister as soft-spoken giant Tiny, and Arlen Dean Snyder as Captain Horton. It's also worth noting as an early acting credit for Kane Hodder (as the vengeful spirit) that helped *him* land the gig of playing Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" series.

Decent special effects, moody lighting courtesy of prolific genre cinematographer Mac Ahlberg, spooky music by Richard Band and Christopher Stone, great visuals, the incredibly gloomy location, and an overall flashy and intense presentation help to make it quite entertaining. It's nasty, gruesome, and good fun for a horror fan.

8/10 Caught this film in about 1990 on video by chance and without knowing what i was in for. Many horror fans may have missed this thinking it was a typical prison film and the ones who did get it didn't like it as it was not what they wanted to see. The above mentioned factors are probably the reasons it is low rated but just ignore that and give it a whirl if you're a fan of the genre.

It has strong suits in all departments from script and atmosphere to acting and the prison itself.

An absolute diamond, a film i still have on video to this day. Check it out. I was living Rawlins when this movie was made and I got lucky enough to be able to work on it. Both as an extra and with Eddie Surkin on special effects. It was fun to see all the behind the scene workings, from the Barbedwire coming alive to the Electric chair up through the wardens office floor. Also it was a lot of fun getting to meet all the actors, from Viggo to Tiny. Also the gate that was cut into the prison wall for the movie was and still is called "Disney Gate" by locals. If anybody is interested and is ever in Rawlins, most of the movies sets are still in place and can be seen during the self guided tour. It was a lot of fun working for and with R. Harlin and wished I had a chance to do it again. You'd be forgiven to think a Finnish director from Helsinki would be no good at directing an American horror movie (especially one entirely located inside a US prison) - see this to prove yourself wrong! It was produced in the 80's after all and the film was made on a budget more fitting to a modern DIY company TV advert (something I think anyone would really notice nowadays what with practically everyone being accustomed to $100m+ budgets for action movies unfortunately dominating the industry mind!) being Mr Harlin's first major production and the - at least what nowadays would be considered a stellar - cast. I still think most of the Nordic contribution to the film industry as a whole is more to do with Stellan Stargaard's screen appearances (not mentioning the well overrated Mr(s) Bergman directorial efforts) - at least for all female viewers - but this flick really proves there does exist proper movie talent outside of the US and Hollywood to make us watch a film in suspense. Do try and watch this movie even if you're not a horror puff, IMO it's definitely worth it! **Warning! Spoilers Ahead!**

This short is part one of two that expound upon the brief portion of "The Matrix" in which Morpheus explains how the matrix came to be. Because we already know the story, the plot itself is no surprise; and the short isn't so much entertaining as informative. But that's how it is presented, as a file in the historical archives. The visuals are better than average, and the generally cold colors aid the purpose of the short.

A couple problems. The violence of the tale is a little gratuitous and, combined with the occasional dose of political correctness (UN scenes), detracts from the straight narrative of the short. Plus it needs to be seen with part two to be complete.

The Animatrix concept is brilliant, and despite a few issues, this short still fulfills its purpose. It would not have fit in the original movie in style, content, or flow. This is the perfect method to reveal the history.

Bottom Line: Good information. Could have been told a little better, but still a solid 7 of 10. 2003 was seen as the year of the Matrix, with the release of two sequels and a computer game that actually linked to the plot of the film. Also released was a DVD of 9 short animated films, most written and made in Japan and made as Anime. Japan makes some of the best animation in the world. Sadly most of these shorts are disappointing. The best of them is the first part of a prequel to the first Matrix film.

The Second Renaissance is made as a historical file. It tells how humans made machines in their own likeness. Humans live the high life whilst machines are the grunts, the workers of society, second class citizens. In the year 2090, a machine, BI-66ER was put of trial for murder, after killing his owners who wanted to deactivate him. The machine does not have a fair trial and riots start around the world. The governments of the world order to dismantle machines. Many machines leave human society and form their own country in the Middle East, O1. 01 has a productive economy and easily undercut the human nations, forcing them into economic crisis. The human blockade 01 and reject the machines requests for peace, thereby it was the humans who were responsible for the war that enslaves them.

The Second Renaissance is a interesting watch, with excellent, traditional animation style and sets a compelling world. It shows how the machines were mistreated and that humanity sowed the seeds of their own destruction. There is a political and social world and the short tells a lot in it short running time. The short shares themes and a style to the classic silent film Metropolis, partly the beginning with the underworld. They are the themes of slavery, the mistreatment of the working class and racism. The short also has some religious themes and religious iconography. Mainly that men saw themselves as God and created the machines in their own likeness. Seeing themselves as the rightful masters of the machines. The machines too use religious iconography, mainly forming their nation in 'cradle of human civilisation' and the machines coming to the United Nations dressed as Adam and Eve, offering an apple.

The animation style is beautiful, done in the traditional anime style (like Akira). The set designs are great, combine futuristic with historic cities, e.g. Washington D.C.. There is well down future scene, and surprising violence, which is key to the film. The director, Mahiro Maeda, also directed the anime sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1, so has good credentials to Hollywood. He is willing to use violence and know how to keep a story going.

The only real complain is a continuity error to the first Matrix film because Morpheus mentions that the humans have no historical records or know who started the war. But its a good watch. This is the second Animatrix short, and the first of them to be what one could call 'artistic'. It contains a lot of references, metaphors and symbols in the dense amount of material, especially with a running time of 9 minutes. I've heard some complaints that this is "anti-human", or tries to direct hate towards man, for their "sins against machine". I don't think that's true; it merely uses the robots to show us, that as humans, we aren't particularly accepting or open-minded towards anyone different from ourselves. I'd say it does a great job of that. The plot is good... it plays as a historical document, recounting what led to one of the main conflicts in the trilogy. Thus it holds clips from fictional news reports and the like. The voice acting is very good, if there is not a lot of it. The animation is nice, and the use of color, in spite of the usually realistic drawing style, makes it more open to do the smooth transitions and other surreal imagery. This has several bits of strong violence and disturbing visuals, as well as a little nudity. The disc holds a commentary, not in English but subtitled, and worth a listen/read. There is also a well-done and informative making of, based on both parts, so I would advise watching it after seeing the next one, as well. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys the Matrix universe, and/or science fiction in general. 8/10 this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.

this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.

the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.

anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.

the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies. What was always missing with the Matrix story was how things came to be in the real world. Say no more, because this part of the story covered most of the bases. What was truly interesting was how political it was, maybe even a cheap shot at the current presidential administration. Fascism and violence were the only things man could think of in regards to fighting the robotic horde, who were meant as nothing more than servants to humanity. What I also found interesting was the use of fear and how it was perpetuated by the idea of the unknown. We as humans tend to fall into that trap quite often, letting the lack of logic and thought overtake us because people can't believe the contrary. Well represented and put together, this a true testament to how illogical humans can be. The first time you see The Second Renaissance it may look boring. Look at it at least twice and definitely watch part 2. It will change your view of the matrix. Are the human people the ones who started the war ? Is AI a bad thing ? This is the second part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'.

In this one we learn how men and machines could not work and live together. It is a little history lesson in the world of 'The Matrix'. Not as good as the first part ('The Final Flight of the Osiris') but still pretty entertaining. This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled... along with it's partner, this is the greatest piece of animation ever created. the images and styles are amazing, and match perfectly with the story which is a brilliantly realistic reinterpretation of our own world, where is has been, and where it could go. quite affecting and sometimes painful to watch, it it a masterpiece of the visual art. For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the "Second Renaissance" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.

What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, "God" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by "Man's own image".

As far as the shorts go in the collection, "The Second Renaissance: Part I" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become "the architect of its own destruction." Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.

--PolarisDiB 'The second beginning' as it's title explains, shows us the beginning of the end for the human race. Set long before the matrix existed, this short anime written by the Wachowski's shows us the world that could lay infront of us in the not to distant future, set at the turn of the 21st century, the second renaissance delves into issues common with human behaviour; greed, power, control, vanity etc.

The use of robots or artificial intellegence as slaves or servents is common among science fiction/fantasy stories. The second renaissance is no exeption to this concept, however instead of a simple man vs. machine layout, this story explains the struggle that the machines put up with, the struggle for acceptance in a world ruled by humans. Where the matrix films show us the human perspective, these short animations tell both sides of the story.

The second renaissance part 1 + 2, answer many questions brought up by the original Matrix film, such as how the war broke out, how the sky was blackend, what led to the use of humans as batteries and it also introduces us to the machine city called 01, which may have relevance to the upcoming Matrix Revolutions film.

I won't give away too much of the story, as I do not want to ruin the experience for perspective viewers, however, I will recommend it to anybody interested in the world of the matrix or simply anybody interested in Japanese animation (anime).

9/10. Minor Spoilers

Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) is a successful top model, living with the lawyer Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) in his apartment. She tried to commit suicide twice in the past: the first time, when she was a teenager and saw her father cheating her mother with two women in her home, and then when Michael's wife died. Since then, she left Christ and the Catholic Church behind. Alison wants to live alone in her own apartment and with the help of the real state agent Miss Logan (Ava Gardner), she finds a wonderful furnished old apartment in Brooklyn Heights for a reasonable rental. She sees a weird man in the window in the last floor of the building, and Miss Logan informs that he is Father Francis Matthew Halloran (John Carradine), a blinded priest who lives alone supported by the Catholic Church. Alison moves to her new place, and once there, she receives a visitor: her neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) welcomes her and introduces the new neighbors to her. Then, he invites Alison to his cat Jezebel's birthday party in the night. On the next day, weird things happen with Alison in her apartment and with her health. Alison looks for Miss Logan and is informed that she lives alone with the priest in the building. A further investigation shows that all the persons she knew in the party were dead criminals. Frightened with the situation, Alison embraces Christ again, while Michael investigates the creepy events. Alison realizes that she is living in the gateway to hell.

Although underrated in IMDb User Rating, 'The Sentinel' is one of the best horror movies ever. I have seen this film at least six times, being the first time in the 70's, in the movie theater. In 07 September 2002, I bought the imported DVD and saw it again. Yesterday I saw this movie once more. Even after so many years, this film is still terrific. The creepy and lurid story frightens even in the present days. The cast is a constellation of stars and starlets. You can see many actors and actresses, who became famous, in the beginning of career. Fans of horror movie certainly worships 'The Sentinel', and I am one of them. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'A Sentinela dos Malditos' ('The Sentinel of the Damned')

Obs.: On 02 September 2007, I saw this movie again. Bizarre horror movie filled with famous faces but stolen by Cristina Raines (later of TV's "Flamingo Road") as a pretty but somewhat unstable model with a gummy smile who is slated to pay for her attempted suicides by guarding the Gateway to Hell! The scenes with Raines modeling are very well captured, the mood music is perfect, Deborah Raffin is charming as Cristina's pal, but when Raines moves into a creepy Brooklyn Heights brownstone (inhabited by a blind priest on the top floor), things really start cooking. The neighbors, including a fantastically wicked Burgess Meredith and kinky couple Sylvia Miles & Beverly D'Angelo, are a diabolical lot, and Eli Wallach is great fun as a wily police detective. The movie is nearly a cross-pollination of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist"--but what a combination! Based on the best-seller by Jeffrey Konvitz, "The Sentinel" is entertainingly spooky, full of shocks brought off well by director Michael Winner, who mounts a thoughtfully downbeat ending with skill. ***1/2 from **** Bored with the normal, run-of-the-mill staple films to watch this Halloween that I've seen over and over again, I took a chance on "The Sentinel", hoping it could get my horror juices flowing again. Mind you, I had just come back from seeing the Dark Castle remake of "The House on Haunted Hill" - complete and utter crap. Thankfully, "The Sentinel" BLEW ME AWAY! In a riviting story about a model who moves into a creepy building in Brooklyn Hights, the film offered everything that I hope to find in a good movie - (1) Campy and fantasically juicy characters, exchanges and dialogue, including hilaraious turns by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and especially, Martin Balsam, as an absent minded professor - (2) Horrifying Terror! Not to give a frame away, but there are scenes in this film that chilled me to my pancreas - (3) Fantastic gore, terrific make-up and wacky (if very uneven) direction from Michael Winner, which flows rather nicely with this unreal treat. If you loved "Evil Dead 2", "Dead Alive" and "Deep Rising" - this will be your queen of favourites. Just to emphasize my love for this film - after I watched it for the first time, jaw-dropped, I rewound it and watched it again. It is now one of favourites of all time. Do yourself a favour and check it out! I have read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great. Of all the movies of the seventies, none captured to truest essence of the good versus evil battle as did the Sentinel. I mean, yes, there were movies like the Exorcist, and other ones; but none of them captured the human element of the protagonist like this one. If you have time, check this one out. You may not be able to get past the dated devices as such, but this is a story worth getting into.Then there are all the stars and soon-to-be stars. My absolute favorites were Eli Wallach, Sylvia Miles, and Burgess Meredith. Then there are the subtle clues that lead to what's going on too. Pay close attention. I had to watch it four times to catch on to all the smaller weird statements like 'black and white cat, black and white cake'. Plus, the books are really good as well. I'm just sorry that they're not going to turn the second book into a film. It's so scary that it would outdo this movie. ''The Sentinel'' is one of the best horror movies already made in the movie's Industry! I think it is very scary as very few movies actually are. Alison Parker is a model with some fame. She dates a lawyer called Michael Lerman, and has as a best friend, another model called Jennifer. Everything was great in her life, until she decides to live alone for some time and rents a beautiful and old apartment.

The problem are her neighbors, who are very, VERY strange. Suddenly Alison starts to have health problems and faints with frequency; She also remembers some painful facts about her past that makes her have nightmares or illusions. But everything has a reason, and it has to do with the new house she is living...

I personally find ''The Sentinel'' a very creepy movie, and along with ''The Exorcist'' they are two of the scariest movies I already watched. When we discover that Alison's house is only occupied by the priest and herself my blood froze! It's also horrible to see that she needs to become blind in the end of the movie in order to be the new sentinel to keep the monsters away from our world. Man, I really love the new DVD that Universal put out. I've never seen THE SENTINEL look this good since I had to put up with crappy, grainy VHS tapes for years. Unfortunately there are no extras beyond a trailer that looks pretty worse for wear. And AVOID the Goodtimes DVD at all costs. It sucks.

Anyway, troubled fashion model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into haunted NYC brownstone, only it's more than just haunted. It's also a portal to hell and the Vatican keeps an old blind priest (John Carradine) to keep watch over it and make sure the devils and arch-angels don't escape.

This has an all star cast full of old-timey actors like Ava Gardner, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer etc... as well as cameos of upcoming 80s stars including Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum (who's voice was mysteriously overdubbed) and Tom Berenger. And you won't even recognize Jerry Orbach from LAW & ORDER. I had to do a double-take when I didn't quite place where I'd seen him before.

Nice gore scenes of Alison slicing the eye and nose off her dead father's rotting corpse that's been possessed by the devil. And there's a neat ending where disfigured, deformed people try to haunt Alison into committing suicide so she won't be the next one to guard the portal. It seems Alison's troubled past makes her a prime candidate by the Vatican to become the next sentinel.

An excellent, creepy 70s classic from director Michael Winner that shouldn't be missed. I also recommended it for those who want something a little more imaginative beyond the usual stupid teenager slashers and horror comedy.

7 out of 10

- Sigh… I sincerely wonder why all the acclaimed and supposedly profound movie critics hold such a grudge against director Michael Winner? Surely he isn't the avatar of subtlety, as his films are practically always hard-handed and confronting, but so what? They're awesomely entertaining. His most famous action movies, like the first three entries in the "Death Wish"-series for example, are easy targets to clobber down because they allegedly glorify violence and the personal use of shotguns, but even when Winner takes on far more mature cinema genres – like the religious horrors of "The Sentinel" for example – he doesn't stand a chance with any of the critics. "The Sentinel" generated some controversy and infuriated several people upon its release, when it leaked that Michael Winner cast genuinely malformed and handicapped people to portray the creatures attempting to cross the gateways between hell and earth. Pretty much the exact same controversy caused Todd's Browning's masterpiece and landmark in horror cinema "Freaks" to remain banned and unseen for over thirty years! And why? Just because certain prudish and easily offended people, who shouldn't watch the movie in the first place, claim it's an unethical thing to do? I don't suppose Michael Winner or Todd Browning held these people at gunpoint or forced them to appear in their films, so what gives us the right to feel embarrassed in their place? Another major reason why critics didn't warmly welcome "The Sentinel" is because Jeffrey Konvitz' novel – and thus Michael Winner's screenplay – is hugely derivative of other contemporary but far more successful religiously themed horror stories and thus, according to the merciless pens of horror critics, little more than pure plagiarism. Admittedly "The Sentinel" borrows multiple substantial elements from "Rosemary's Baby", "The Omen" and "The Exorcist", but let's face it, 70's cinema largely thrives on stolen formulas and imitating success stories. If you overlook the slightly unoriginal concept and, in all fairness, a handful of thoroughly confusing and unnecessary sub plots, "The Sentinel" honestly still remains a uniquely atmospheric and often downright petrifying 70's horror-highlight with an impressive ensemble cast and nightmarish imagery you're not likely to forget easy.

Alison Parker, a ravishing model with some unprocessed mental traumas, moves into a stunning brownstone apartment in Brooklyn, deeply against the will of her boyfriend Michael who proposed to wed her several times already. Alison's physical existence and especially her mental condition drastically alter shortly after, and the ominous apartment appears to be the root of all misery. She meets eccentric neighbors and attends birthday parties for their cats, even though the landlady claims she and a blind priest are the only tenants. She frequently faints during her work assignments and has truly creepy visions of her bastard father and the night she attempted to commit suicide. It slowly becomes clear that Alison got chosen to serve a higher supernatural purpose inside this apartment building, but simultaneously malignant forces try and prevent this. It's truly regrettable how the promotional taglines and even brief synopsis on the back of the DVD immediately reveal that Alison's brownstone apartment is the earth's gateway to hell itself and she's the chosen one to guard it, because the film's script only slowly builds up towards this shocking revelation. For nearly 75 minutes (and throughout some sadly tedious and overlong sequences) Michael Winner successfully maintains the impression that Alison's own mind is playing tricks with her and that the involvement of the Catholic Church and her fiancée's odd behavior are strictly red herrings. Multiple of the horrific scenes come pretty close to being genius, like Alison's flashback or her first acquaintance with the priest upstairs. The whole climax, with the controversial guest appearances mentioned here above, is a literally perplexing showcase of pure terror and easily one of the most unforgettable and nail-biting denouements I ever witnessed.

The cast Michael Winner managed to gather is deeply impressive, especially considering "The Sentinel" still remains a legitimate horror movie and this genre isn't the most popular among prominent actors, but of course you also have to put the cast listing a little into perspective. With such an extended cast, obviously several of the roles in the film are little more than cameos. Martin Balsam and John Carradine, for example, only appear on screen for a couple of minutes all together. Several others (like Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger) perhaps add a lot of fame to the movie nowadays, but back when it was released they were still too unknown in order to attract curious viewers. My personal pick for best performances go to Burgess Meredith as the uncanny neighbor and Eli Wallach as the satirical police inspector. The relatively unknown Cristina Raines does an admirable job carrying the film and Chris Sarandon neatly back her up, even though he sports a ridiculous mustache. In my humble opinion "The Sentinel" is a marvelously entertaining and frightening horror movie, and most definitely a must-see for TRUE genre fanatics. Christina Raines plays a lovely model in New York who seeks out a new apartment and begins to meet strange neighbors and reveal a secret about the building and herself slowly building up to quite a climax by film's end. This film has all kinds of neat plot elements from the Roman Catholic Church vs. the Devil, to the gateway to Hell, to bizarre rituals, to a growing conspiracy, and finally to a host of talented famous actors and actresses flooding the film. We get Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Chris Sarandon, Jerry Orbach, Deborah Raffin, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Slyvia Miles, Beverly DeAngelo, Eli Wallach, Martin Balsam, Christopher Walkin, William Hickey, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, and who can forget John Carradine as the old priest. Many of these actors ham it up - particularly Burgess Meredith giving a fine comic/demented performance as one of the neighbors with a little bird and a cat. Meredith is memorable as is Balsam and Chris Sarandon. Some of the performers have virtually nothing to do like Jose Ferrer in a thankless role even if it is nothing more than a cameo. The Sentinel is a fine horror film with plenty of psychological elements and some truly terrifying scenes. The end scene is repulsive and yet chilling. I do find fault with some of the gratuitous sex and violence in the film, particularly that whole scene with DeAngelo and Miles. Was that really necessary? I think not. Also, the father/daughter stuff was a bit much as well, but overall the film works and has a winning pace. Director Michael Winner does a workmanlike job and is effective creating tension and scary movie moments. The scenes with Carradine are particularly effective. Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her "sometimes" neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to "Burnt Offerings". 8 out of 10. A young woman who is a successful model, and is also engaged to be married, and who has twice attempted suicide in the past, is chosen by a secretive and distant association of Catholic priests to be the next "sentinel" to the gateway to Hell, which apparently goes through a creepy old, but well maintained Brooklyn apartment building. Its tenants take the stairway up and can reincarnate themselves, but apparently can't escape as long as a sentinel is there to block the way. The previous one(John Carradine) is about dead, so she, by fate or whatever, becomes the next one, and the doomed must get her to kill herself in order for them to be free. Lots of interesting details lie under the surface, her relationship with her father, the stories of the doomed, her fiancé, so one can pass this off as cheap exploitation horror, but given the sets, the great cast, and overall level of bizarreness, this is definitely worth seeing. NYC model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) rents a room in an old brownstone where she meets a few bizarre neighbors and experiences some creepy hallucinations. As lawyer boyfriend Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) goes about making inquiries on her behalf, she struggles to maintain her sanity (not to mention her will to live) as her experiences take a toll on her physical, mental, and emotional health.

I don't want to spoil the better moments in this psychological horror film for those unfamiliar with it. The story is interesting and entertaining, but the film doesn't really offer much in terms of real scares. Or, for that matter, any atmosphere. It is sort of quietly sinister, but it's not like the traditional horror film. It's more of a story about a troubled woman's attempts to deal with the increasing unreality in her life. On that level, it works, but it's not quite powerful enough.

What "The Sentinel" *does* offer are some eye-catching set pieces (in particular, the fascinating, fabulously creepy climax, and there's a scene with Beverly D'Angelo that must be seen to be believed). There's also some gore to be seen, but not very much. An ominous music score by Gil Melle adds to the menace.

No review of this film would be complete without an appraisal for the film-makers in gathering such excellent actors for its ensemble cast. Some of them don't get to do too much, but to see all of them together is impressive. Eli Wallach and Burgess Meredith make the biggest impressions as, respectively, a hard-nosed detective and a solicitous neighbor. Other legendary names include Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, and Ava Gardner. Future stars like D'Angelo, Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum make brief appearances, and other familiar faces include Jerry Orbach, Sylvia Miles, William Hickey, and Martin Balsam. Whoever was the casting director for this film deserves some sort of prize.

Written for the screen by director Michael Winner, probably best known for the "Death Wish" series that he did with Charles Bronson, from the novel by Jeffrey Konvitz.

I wouldn't consider this a truly great horror thriller but it has its moments and is reasonably entertaining.

7/10 I was an usherette in an old theater in Northern California when this movie came out. As good as it is on DVD, it's even more eerie and terrifying on the big screen. Although it has been about 9 years since I have seen it, it is still one of my all-time favorites. At the risk of sounding trite, "They just don't make 'em like this anymore!" If Sixth Sense freaked you out at all, this movie is definitely for you! Great storyline, incredible cast of characters, ominous setting; even the soundtrack has a haunting quality to it. I highly recommend you not watch it alone. What a brownstone apartment was renting for in 1977 alone, will have you gasping (it would be at least 10-times that price today). In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.

The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.

If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.

I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen. This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- "Blind? Then what does he look at?" After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the "invisible" neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light. Boasting an all-star cast so impressive that it almost seems like the "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" of horror pictures, "The Sentinel" (1977) is nevertheless an effectively creepy film centering on the relatively unknown actress Cristina Raines. In this one, she plays a fashion model, Alison Parker, who moves into a Brooklyn Heights brownstone that is (and I don't think I'm giving away too much at this late date) very close to the gateway of Hell. And as a tenant in this building, she suffers far worse conditions than leaky plumbing and the occasional water bug, to put it mildly! Indeed, the scene in which Alison encounters her noisy upstairs neighbor is truly terrifying, and should certainly send the ice water coursing down the spines of most viewers. Despite many critics' complaints regarding Raines' acting ability, I thought she was just fine, more than ably holding her own in scenes with Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Kennedy, Chris Sarandon and Eli Wallach. The picture builds to an effectively eerie conclusion, and although some plot points go unexplained, I was left feeling more than satisfied. As the book "DVD Delirium" puts it, "any movie with Beverly D'Angelo and Sylvia Miles as topless cannibal lesbians in leotards can't be all bad"! On a side note, yesterday I walked over to 10 Montague Terrace in Brooklyn Heights to take a look at the Sentinel House. Yes, it's still there, and although shorn of its heavy coat of ivy and lacking a blind priest/nun at the top-floor window, looks much the same as it did in this picture. If this house really does sit atop the entrance to Hell, I take it that Hell is...the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. But we New Yorkers have known THAT for some time! This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.

The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.

The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.

The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil. I'm not sure why this little film has been banished into obscurity, as despite some rather silly goings on; The Sentinel is a clever and inventive horror film that gives most of the highly praised ghost stories of today more than a run for their money. Michael Winner has admitted many times that he's not the best director of all time, and that does shine through on a number of occasions with this film; but it has to be said that the film works in spite of it's uninspired direction, and the fact that Winner has somehow managed to round up a simply amazing cast of talent more than makes up for it. The plot is rich with mystery, and begins by focusing on Alison Parker and her hunt for a flat. She finds that she can't afford most properties she looks at, but thinks her luck has changed when she finds a fully furnished apartment for an affordable price. Her problems start soon after moving in, as she doesn't like her neighbours very much...and this problem increases when the property broker tells her that she has just one neighbour; an elderly blind priest on the top floor...

The cast list is truly superb, with the relatively unknown Cristina Raines heading up a great support cast. Chris Sarandon is a little wooden in his role opposite Raines, but small parts for the likes of John Carradine, Eli Wallach, Ava Gardner, Jeff Goldblum and Christopher Walken, to name but a handful more than make up for Sarandon's lifeless portrayal. Michael Winner does a good job with his central location, as the block of flats provides a creepy and macabre setting for the story. The film is a little slow to start, but it's never boring; and Michael Winner's screenplay provides a surprise that's almost impossible to guess from the offset, which certainly deserves some praise. Like many similar slow-burning horrors, this one doesn't go for the money shot early on - but unlike many, the ending is a definite climax as Winner goes all out to shock the viewer, and if the rumour that he used actual human oddities is true; I've got to say that he does a very good job at it! Overall, while this film may be pure hokum whichever way you look at it; The Sentinel is one of the better films of its type, and it's definitely a major highlight for its director. Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining. The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.

Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.

7/10 Director / writer Michael Winner's feature is a better than expected offbeat supernatural horror film (although still schlock efficiently catered for), which really does by go unnoticed. Sure it might borrow ideas from other similar themed horror movies of this period, but still manages to bring its own psychological imprint to the smokescreen material (of good vs. evil) and a unique vision that has a fair share of impressively expansive, if somewhat exploitative set-pieces. As a whole it's sketchy, however remains intriguing by instilling an ominous charge without going gang-busters with the scares. Actually there's always something going on amongst its busy framework, but it's rather down-played with its shocks steering to soapy patterns and atmospheric tailoring, up until its vividly repellent and grisly climax with a downbeat revelation. Winner's dressed up craftsmanship might feel pedestrian, however it's the ensemble cast that really holds it together… as you try to spot the faces. There's plenty too. Some having more to do with the scheme of things than others, but there's no doubts every one of them are committed, despite the ludicrously crude nature of it all. It's interesting to see names like Sylvia Miles (who's significantly creepy!), Beverly D'Angelo (likewise), Deborah Raffin, Eli Wallach, Christopher Walken, William Hickey (a neat cameo), Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach and Tom Berenger in bit parts. Then you got a mild-mannered Chris Sarandon and movingly gorgeous Cristina Raines in the leads. Offering able support José Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith and Arthur Kennedy. The script does throw around many characters, as well as notions but gets disjointedly sidetrack by trying to squeeze all of it in. However it's disorienting air works in its favour in establishing the suspicion and deception of what's really going on here. Is there a reason for all of this, and why is it surrounding Raines' character? The emphasis is mainly built upon that moody angle, as it begins to slowly shed light of her inner goings and that of the strange/worrying experiences she encounters when she's moves into her new apartment. This is where Winner tries to pull out the eerie shades, which projects some icy moments. Gil Melle was the man responsible for the grand, overpowering orchestral score that never misses a cue and Richard C. Kratina instruments the sweeping, scope-like photography. Michael Winner is probably best known for his revenge-themed films, such as "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land", but he is equally gifted as a director of occult Horror cinema, as "The Sentinel" of 1977 proves. "The Sentinel", which is based on a novel by John Konvitz, who also wrote the screenplay, is a clever and immensely creepy religious chiller that no lover of occult Horror should consider missing. The film is obviously inspired by successful occult classics such as "Rosemary's Baby", "The Exorcist" or "The Omen", but, as far as I am concerned, it is also easily as unsettling as these more widely acclaimed films, and probably even creepier.

Allison Parker (Christina Raines) is a beautiful young New York model. Traumatized by events in her her past and not yet willing to marry her lawyer boyfriend (Chris Sarandon), Allison is in search for an apartment, and finds a big, incredibly nice one, which is also affordable, in an old mansion in Brooklyn. The new apartment, however, comes along with a bunch of very strange other tenants. And the sinister new neighbors soon become more than a little bothersome to Alice... This may not be an adequate plot synopsis, but I would hate to spoil any of this film's great moments, so I will not give any further plot description. What I will say, however, is that "The Sentinel" is a very creepy and effective film that profits from a great cast as well as an often bizarre and constantly uncanny atmosphere. The fact that director Michael Winner and writer John Konnvitz also acted as producers here certainly had its influence on the outcome. The film is imaginatively photographed, and the eerie old Brooklyn mansion is a fantastic setting for this kind of film. As mentioned above, the atmosphere is obscure and creepy, and the film also includes several shock-moments and genuine scares. The film features many sinister and eccentric characters, and the cast is superb. Beautiful Christina Raines is great in her role of Allison Parker, lovable and yet on the cusp to losing her mind. Chris Sarandon is also very good as her boyfriend, a successful lawyer, and the supporting cast includes many big names, such as Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger, before becoming really famous. The cast also includes stars like Ava Gardner, Horror icon John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, and, my personal favorite, the great Eli Wallach as a cynical homicide detective. I've been a great fan of director Michael Winner for a long time, mostly for films like "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land". "The Sentinel" is yet another great film in Winner's repertoire, and also the proof that the man is not only a master of hard-boiled revenge-cinema, but also of atmospheric occult Horror. All in all, "The Sentinel" is a creepy, intelligent, and amazingly bizarre occult chiller that is highly recommended to all Horror fans! Ahh, yes, the all-star blockbuster. Take a so-so concept, stuff it into a script and load it down with every single freakin' special effect that the Wizards of Hollyweird can conjure up, then round up the usual suspects: hot up-and-comers, has-beens, wanna-be's and never-wuzzes, and stick 'em all in ensemble roles of various sizes in front of the unforgiving eye of the cameras. And hope to gawd that some of them aren't too old to remember their lines.

Leave it to the bishops of Box Office to apply the concept to horror films at last, as was the case with the post-EXORCIST thriller THE SENTINEL. Novelist Jeffrey Konvitz decided to try and one-up Ira Levin's ROSEMARY'S BABY scenario of creepy (and ultimately satanic) neighbors in a New York brownstone. The result was a controversial best-seller that some claimed bordered on the plagiaristic, and an equally controversial, top-heavy/star-laden vehicle co-written and directed by DEATH WISH's Michael Winner, but for many unsettlingly different reasons.

Cristina Raines (NASHVILLE) plays successful model Alison Parker, who is pretty much over- stressed and over-worked, (I won't add "overpaid." I mean she IS a model, so that would be redundant), not just by her 24/7 schedule, by also by her insistent , 'wanna-get-married- right-NOW' boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon of DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the classic SOB.I.G. movie LIPSTICK). One of the ways she decides to try to get away from it all is to move into her own place; a big, beautiful brownstone in Manhattan which she's able to get dirt-cheap, (that should've been the BIG red flag - cheap real estate in New York!), from the mysteriously accommodating broker Miss Logan (Golden Age screen vet Ava Gardner, fresh from the storm drain in EARTHQUAKE.)

Things seem fine at first, but ah, yes...then comes the noises and the loud pounding from the apartment upstairs at night. And what about the REALLY strange neighbors like Gerde (Sylvia Miles) and Sandra (a VERY early Beverly D'Angelo), the nice "single friends" (read: lesbians) living together, and kindly old Mr. Charles Chazen (a nicely creepy Burgess Meredith), who seems maybe a little too concerned with Alison's welfare? And that's not to mention other assorted squirrelly cohabitants (You'll never hear the phrase "Black and white cat, black and white cake" again without wanting to laugh milk through your nose and possibly vomit simultaneously.) Especially the old blind priest living in the penthouse...

Things really start to go downhill when an apparition-laden nightmare of Alison's morphs into a grisly murder, (in one of the movie's most underwear-staining scares), and both Alison and Michael, with some assistance from Alison's BFF, Jennifer (Deborah Raffin), begin to piece together the puzzle that reveals the brownstone's dark origins, as well as the murderous agenda of its other-worldly inhabitants, not to mention Alison's connection to them, which as it turns out is anything but coincidental.

Although there's nothing controversial about the overstuffed cast, which seems to feature every actor of diverse genres looking for work at the time, (Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, and even early appearances by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Nana Visitor!) Winner and company went back to bombastic basics and pulled a "Tod Browning"...by enlisting real-life physically-challenged actors to appear in THE SENTINEL'S climactic everything-and-everybody-goes-to-Hell sequence, which I guess any ballsy director would do, finding himself unable to access Linda Blair and a case of green-pea soup. It does definitely leave you with arctic fingers playing your spinal cord like a zither, knowing this juicy little tidbit of info as you watch. And it does feature a technique to which filmmakers have only begun to return very recently: live on-set makeup and special effects that don't involve CGI, (which was pretty much non-existent back then.)

THE SENTINEL has that kitschy, late-Seventies cheese factor, but does manage to distinguish itself from time to time with some gasp-inducing moments like the one mentioned above, not to mention that queasy feeling of dread that horror writers find it easy to play upon, of isolation and things that go bump-and-shriek in the night. After all, what living-single-in- the-big-city person hasn't lain in bed in the dark, and listened intently to the sounds of what they HOPE is "the building settling?"

Konvitz followed up THE SENTINEL with an inevitable sequel, THE GUARDIAN (not to be confused with the William Friedkin supernatural thriller namesake), that was never adapted for the screen. =sigh of relief= I had the TV on for a white noise companion and heard" $400 for a fully furnished apartment" So I ran into the TV room expecting another 70's flick and got much more. Luckily, I could rewind to the beginning (DVR buffer) and hit the record button to watch it entirely.(Cinemax uncut and in HD no less!) Aside from some holes in the story and intermittent improbable dialog/events, this is an effective thriller worthy of your time to watch. Pretty creepy and progressive at times: Beverly D'Angelo's character masturbates in front of Alison Parker, played adroitly by Cristina Raines, Parker stabs, in very gory fashion, her father, an explicit menage a trios scene.( don't let the kids watch) The film is TOTALLY 70's full of bad clothes(polyester suits and tacky ascots) and decor, bad hair,over bloated music score, and familiar looking cinematography. The cast is excellent, take a second on this film's home page to check it out.It was a surprise to see Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach and Jeff Goldblum so young. Sylvia Miles- always wonderfully creepy! ENJOY! Well, after long anticipation after seeing a few clips on Bravo's The 100 Scariest Movie Moments I had long awaited to see this film. The plot was simple, beautiful model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into an apartment building that's a gateway to hell. The Sentinel is a down right creepy film, even if it's a bit slow. It's a mix of The Omen and Rosemary's Baby. The acting is fine, and there are some truly disturbing bits such as the awkward orgy scene with the dead father and the chubby woman in the middle of the orgy eating cake and laughing The ending is a weird mix of deformed people and cannibals. It's a very odd, campy but in the end, I truly believe a great film! One of my favorites from the 70's, even if it's nothing greatly original. It's wacky and extremely creepy! Probably one of my all time favorites. 9/10 Wonderful film, one of the best horror films of the 70s. She is realistic settings and atmospheres. As usual it was inevitable the usual negative comments. I have noticed that most horror films of a certain period many times fail to reach even sufficiency. Obviously because most horror movies are old and must be denigrati, is like a mental mechanism that moves the minds of the potential of music critics here.

Before you read the review already knew what was the final judgment. In the film a good gift because 10 is really well done. Raines reads quite well and the film as a way in which it was produced reminds me a lot of Kubrick films. He really impression. Excellent film really. I consider a film anthology of years'70. I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the "Brotherhood of the Protectors", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers "excommunicated" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as "brothers" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say "Father" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says "Brother" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as "Father".

In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all "Brotherhood of the Protector" scenes re-shot as "Archdiocese" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in "Godzilla"). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film? Cashing in on the "demons-meets-clergy" trend of the late '60s/early '70s that most prominently included the triptych of "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist," and "The Omen," "The Sentinel" is an addition that's just as good (albeit the most overlooked of the lot). In a way, it combines the best elements of those films and tosses in a dash of Polanski's "The Tenant" (which came out the same year) for good measure. A New York model unable to commit to her lawyer boyfriend takes up residence in a moss-coated townhouse that initially seems like the perfect locale; she meets a wily old coot of a neighbor (the brilliant Burgess Meredith), plus the other off-center tenants. Kept awake by loud noises above her apartment, she soon discovers that a mute priest and herself are the only residents in the otherwise deserted building. From there, director Michael Winner ("Death Wish") kicks this supernatural thriller into gear, and there is a devilish glee to the hallucinogenic tortures he inflicts on his heroine. Aided by a brilliant ensemble cast, a subtle storyline, and excellent makeup FX by Dick Smith ("The Exorcist"), "The Sentinel" is a genuinely creepy horror flick. This 1986 Italian-French remake of the 1946 film of the same name turns up the heat early, and doesn't let us come up for air. The story is about a high-school student (Federico Pitzalis) who can't keep his eyes off the mysteriously beautiful young woman (played by Dutch phenom Maruschka Detmers) who lives next door to the school. One day, he follows her, and his persistence pays off. There's only one problem: She's engaged to a sketchy character (Riccardo De Torrebruna) who may or may not have committed a heinous crime, and if he repents, will probably be let off with a slap on the wrist. Also, the young woman is a little "funny in the head", and this is corroborated when we discover she has been seeing the boy's father, who is a psychiatrist. Giulia's emotional instability is only equalled by her prodigious sexual desires. Hot, hot, hot, from the word go, with handsome leads and a bombshell performance from Detmers, who plays us like a yo-yo (as she does the boy) from scene to scene, with enough suspense to keep us guessing right up until--and even after--the end. Available in R and X (!) rated versions. I'll be quick to address the matters of the film here: It was a very engaging story about the destructive qualities about all-consuming passions; a young Italian woman who cannot emotionally connect with her jailed political-radical fiancé (due in part to her apolitical attitudes and freewheeling approach to life) finds solace and passion in a new young lover whom she embarks on an explicitly sexual relationship with. The anxieties, rage, tenderness and passions that swirl around in the atmosphere of the story equal the dispassionate quiet that seems to engulf the two leads. It lends the film an unsettling mood that permeates through all the political strife that is otherwise lost on the viewer (unless you have a deep knowledge of Italian politics during the 80's). I found the film compelling...what ruined it somewhat is a gratuitous oral sex scene that the actress performs on the male lead...it isn't simulated and leaves little to the imagination. There are other scenes of sex in the film, which I do feel were necessary because they outline the madness and loneliness that the characters live in. But the oral sex scene, I feel, derails the focus on the actual story. It was smooth sailing up until that point and once the infamous sex scene appears (which caused much hoopla back in its day), it's like hitting a roadblock. It's jarring and unnecessary and I am in the camp that believes that the film would not have been harmed any if the scene had been removed from it. And what's unfortunate is that this particular scene may deter people from watching this intriguing film, which I believe is worth a viewing because there is so much going on underneath the surface, emotions and further turmoils layered in the subtext.

Overall: Wonderful film hampered by a much not-needed sex scene. Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.

Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.

Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way "upatz." He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as "media." He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.

Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from "Antigone," which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.

That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, "I hate her." She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in "Repulsion." The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.

A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.

The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.

Worth it. I loved the the film. it beautifully analyzes Italian petty bourgeois society, how the leftists of the 70s have given up all their ideals and come to a happy arrangement which they don't want disturbed. For instance, the aging psychoanalyst who is jealous of his own son, and doesn't want to be reminded of his more radical youth.

For a long time wanted to buy the video after having seen the movie a couple of times on the big screen and on TV, but it seems to have completely disappeared from the market, even in Italy no one in the book shops knew about the film. a great pity.

The one sex scene, which everyone seems to go on about, does the film no harm. Notable because of it's notorious explicit scene when the gorgeous Maruschka Detmers takes her young lover's penis from his trousers and into her mouth. Even without this moment the film is a splendid if slightly disturbing passionate and blindingly sexy ride. Detmers puts in a great performance as the partly deranged, insatiable delight, wandering about her flat nude. Dressed, partly dressed and naked she steals most of the film about love, sexual passion, philosophy and politics. For me the last two get a little lost and the ending is most confusing when her fiancé is released whilst fellow terrorists are released, she seems uncertain as to who she wants and the young lover seems more interested in his exams than anything else as she weeps, beautifully of course! the movie is far more sophisticated and intelligent is its exploration of sexual tension than such American attempts as 9 and a half weeks...the courtroom scene itself...with the couple copulating in the cage while the heroine pleads for their orgasm...is amazing...I have not seen this movie in 20 years...but it made indelible pictures in my mind...it is rich in texture and successful in creating a world where sex is the engine for all activity, and at its bottom is the yawning angst that lives in us all....the plot is European, and it meanders a bit, but so does life...especially when you are 17 and have a constant hard on.... I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.

Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a "too young" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor.

The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.

It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a "Devil in the Flesh"?

The whole movie is a real treat! Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.

I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both. I can understand those who dislike this movie cause of a lack of knowledge.

First of all, those girls are not Geisha, but brothel tenants, and one that don't know the difference will not understand half of the movie, and certainly not the end. This is a complete art work about the women's life and needs in this era. Everything is important, and certainly the way they dress, all over the movie means more than words. To those who thought it was a boring geisha movie, I'll suggest you to read a bit about this society before making a conclusion that is so out of the reality. This is Kurosawa's work of is life, and I'm sure that the director understood the silent meaning of Kurosawa's piece to the right intellectual range. A wonderful film to watch with astonishing scenes and talented actors, such as Misa Shimizu and Nagiko Tono. After 15 minutes of watching, your eyes get locked on the screen and you do nothing but breathing in the atmosphere of the film waiting what the destiny will bring to the characters. This film makes you leave your position as a standard audience, it takes you in, it makes you a part of the story... Costumes and settings are brilliant; especially the district of the okiyas is skillfully built. It is definitely not very Akira Kurosawa, however it still gets a lot from the master, especially the stylistic story telling tells us we're in a distinguished land of cinema which is quite far from hollywoodish flamboyance. A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.

If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.

Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity. My boyfriend and I both enjoyed this film very much. The viewer is swept away from modern life into old Japan, while at the same time exposed to very current themes. The characters are realistic and detailed; it has an unpredictable ending and story, which is very refreshing. The story is made up of mini-plots within the life of several geisha living together in a poor city district. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a realistic romance or life in old Japan.

'Umi wa miteita' ('The Sea is Watching') was Akira Kurasawa's swansong to film: his adaptation of his favored novelist Shugoro Yamamoto's story into a screenplay he intended to film was his final mark he left on a brilliant career. Director Kei Kumai pays homage to both Kurosawa and Yamamoto in presenting this visually stunning transformation of word to image.

Set in 19th century Japan, the story explores the lives of the women of a Geisha house whose sole purpose in life is to earn money by pleasuring men. The house is run by an older couple who are genteel and the geishas are an enchanting group of women who know their trade and take pride in their careers. Each has a reason for turning to the life of geisha. Oshin (Nagiko Tono) supports her family who live in a neighboring village, Kikuno (Misa Shimizu) has customers both good and evil whom she manages to sustain with her stories of her higher caste. Oshin befriends an endangered samurai, falls in love with the gentle fellow, only to find that he must not marry out of his caste and leaves his pleasures with Oshin to marry his promised betrothed. Oshin's heart bruises easily but is always supported emotionally and physically/monetarily by Kikuno and the other geishas.

A handsome samurai Ryosuke (Masatoshi Nagase) enters Oshin's life and develops the first trusted and devoted relationship with her. Kikuno is beset by problems, deciding whether to accept the humble love of an old man who wishes to marry her, and coping with a rich but abusive customer. All the while the sea is watching and as a typhoon destroys the geisha house and street, Oshin and Kikuno sit atop the roof waiting for the promised rescue by Ryosuke. The manner in which the story ends is one of sacrifice, love, and devotion. The sea is watching and will find protection for true love.

The photography by Kazuo Okuhara is breathtakingly beautiful: night scenes with glowing lanterns and colorful geisha interiors are matched with recurring glimpses of the sea both calm and turbulent. The acting is a bit strained for Edo art, but the characters are well created and keep the story credible. The one distraction which is definitely NOT something Kurosawa would have condoned is the tacky Western music score that sounds like cheap soap opera filler except for the isolated moments when real Japanese music on authentic instruments graces the track. But in the end there is enough of Kurosawa's influence to imbue this film with his brand of dreamlike wonder that will always maintain his importance on world cinema. Grady Harp I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.

This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.

It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones.

The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.

I recommend "The Sea is Watching" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection. this movie just goes to show that you dont need big explosions,muti-billion dollar computer graphics,or highly over paid actors and actresses to make a good movie, All you need is a excellent story line and plot. which the master of all japanese films,Akira Kurosawa pulls off brilliantly. I recommend this film to all that love a epic period piece. and for those that enjoy Kurosawas earlier works. 10/10 It helps immensely if one is familiar with the culture and time period in which this film takes place. First of all, these ladies are NOT geisha, they are oiran (prostitutes)in the Yoshiwara-type "green houses", circa 1860, give or take.. This should help clear up some details which may be confusing to the unaware. The film deals with issues of loyalty, love and, perhaps most importantly, how people deal with adversity, both their own and that of others in their immediate environment. That plus the outrageous photography together with the hauntingly beautiful music, make for a lovely ride. Just plug it in, suspend your disbelief and enter their world. You won't be disappointed. This is a wonderful movie about a brothel in a fishing village, that could be best described with scene constellations and direction of old Kurosawa's works, combined with Dostoyevski's topics of human psychology (O-shin - Sonia Marmeladova ), Shakespeare's drama and Hans Christian Andersen's tragic and cheerfulness. The screenplay is wondrous, the scenes are colour- and beautiful some scenes stay really imprinted in my mind. The plot is interesting and unpredictable - each of the characters is very well developed and interesting - there is also a little action, so if you don't like all the sentiments you'd also come to your costs - . It is not about mysterious Geishas and proud Samurai with their Bushido pouring all out of them, but about life, work and kinds of people found everywhere at any time. A lovely and fascinating tribute to Kurosawa, certainly worth seeing. This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody. Kurosawa weaves a tale that has a cast of characters as diverse as any Shakespearean drama, and the acting is true to the story, with each star playing their role as a part of the larger tale. It is touching, funny and intriguing in all parts. The character development is near perfect, the cinematography is vivid and engaging, and the story draws you in.

I would like to say that the "Samurai freaks" and those obsessed with late 18th and 19th century dynastic tales of Japan may snub this film as not Kurosawa's best work. Perhaps not his best, but even at his worst, Kurosawa is better than many of the best. This story is so based in elevating the mundane lives of ordinary people in a time of great change, that it is timeless, despite being set in the not-so-distant past.

I would heartily recommend this to any movie buff, and especially to those who are likely to continue on to read the novel on which the film is based. The Sea Is Watching has been made from an original Akira Kurosawa script, and it is indeed a lush and warm film. Watching it will be a pleasure !

Kei Kumai as director is certainly no equal to the old but everlasting master (particularly the mass scenes in the beginning of the film has some terrible acting), but the overall mood and scenery is very enjoyable. Another thing that is missed here: Kurosawa always managed to let the characters be so much more then what they are actually showing and doing.

Probably that was his magic on set while shooting; and just maybe this script was not fully up to par yet.

Maybe we just miss the eye of the master.

This is one lovely and sweet film, but it is no Kurosawa. To expect that might well be very silly... Artistically speaking, this is a beautiful movie--the cinematography, music and costumes are gorgeous. In fact, this movie is prettier than those directed by Akira Kurasawa himself. In this case, he only wrote the movie as it was made several years after his death.

So, as far as the writing goes, the dialog was well-written and the story, at times, was interesting. However, the story was also rather depressing yet uninvolving in some ways--after all, it's the story of a group of women who work in a brothel. It's interesting that although prostitution has been seen as a much more acceptable business in Japan, the women STILL long for a better life. This reminds me a lot of the movie Streets Of Shame, though Streets Of Shame's characters are a lot less likable and more one-dimensional.

So, overall it gets a 7--mostly due to everything BUT the writing. It's too bad that the weakest link in this movie is the story by the great Kurasawa. The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.

While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true – people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes – au contraire – but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.

Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the "honey – I'll give you a deal" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century. Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its "celestial" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's "la roue" ) is eventually more convincing than the "up above" heavenly world.

Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of "three comrades" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.

Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as "chief magistrate" tells :"here there's no more difference" .

Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career. There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance. Loved Joan. Great performance. What isn't she good in. I watched this film and then Jane Eyre right after... she just keeps getting better. My heart was racing. Great old movie drama. Just what i want from a classic movie. Facial expressions are worth the whole film. I'm glad i have it on video. Don't know what more you need in a film. Beautiful woman....wealth..... greed.....murder....detectives......a trial.....

The costumes are very nice. Makes me wonder what the budget was for this movie? Wish they still made films like this. Whenever they try they just seem to make a cheesy movie. Films in black and white still hold a certain mystery. Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film. Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest. An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can! Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling "feet foremost through the floor into an empty space." Does anyone happen to know where this film was shot? The aviation scene on the cliff is beautiful. It appears to be England. However, Ivy's apartment building certainly looks like the Brill Building, with its fascinating elevators.

Charles Mendl is listed as playing "Sir Charles Gage". Maybe I blinked, but I never saw him. Perhaps he was the husband's lawyer, but, again, I don't recall that character being in the film, other than being mentioned as having made a phone call. Perhaps he was in the aviation scene? Or the ballroom scene? Did anyone spot him?

Herbert Marshall was 57 years old when he shot this film. Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir. Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.

Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.

Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.

As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.

I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it. Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf. I just viewed this great good-natured parody of Night of the Living Dead, and I have to say it was so awful and so corny it was excellent. This movie incorporated all the antics and scenery shots that the original had including the cemetery, the supposable abandoned house, the basement and the front lawn. What I especially love about this movie is the comical use of bread and all the common household enemies bread has a grudge against. C'mon, we know that toasters, toaster ovens and zip-locks have done bread in a dozen times and now we must call for their help in order to defeat the reanimated bread. Aside from the cheap acting and voice-overs, this short horror film is my personal favorite parody of Night of the Living Dead, even better than Night of the Living Dead of 1990.

I think what makes this movie worth watching is how the writers and directors utilized all the dialogue from the original movie and revolved it around bread, including how the bread became reanimated and to avoid leftovers because they are especially dangerous. Another great reason why I love this movie is that, there is no exception as to what bread is evil, bagels are evil and even communions are evil, which is demonstrated by a hilarious scene involving a newscaster and a rather monotone priest. I think that the actors are especially humorous performing the deed of being viscously attacked by slices of bread (i.e. the car scene). I think the end is very worth sticking around.

Even though this is a short and that "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" is debatably another great parody, it's still recommend as a great horror parody done by, what seems to be college filmmakers. I highly recommend this movie to anybody who is able to make fun of Night of the Living Dead and still have respect for the filmmakers. I would also like to recommend this movie to anybody who loves D-movies and horror parody's, it's just a wonderful little short horror film that's fun to watch and learn. Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???

(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!) "Bread" very sharply skewers the conventions of horror movies in general and "Night of the Living Dead" in specific and is constantly inventive. The production values are a little rough at times (it's a student film, after all), but it never loses sight of its goal to entertain. Hey -- George Romero liked it enough to include it on the remastered "Dead" video tape, laserdisc and DVD... that should tell you something. By 1987 Hong Kong had given the world such films as Sammo Hung's `Encounters of the Spooky Kind' Chow Yun Fat in John Woo's iconic `A Better Tomorrow', `Zu Warriors' and the classic `Mr Vampire'. Jackie Chan was having international success on video, but it was with `A Chinese Ghost Story' that HK cinema had its first real crossover theatrical hit in the West for many years.

Western filmgoers had never seen anything like it. It was a film that took various ingredients that HK cinema had used for years (flying swordsman, wildly choreographed martial arts and the supernatural) and blended them to create a film that was unique in its look, feel and execution. Forget the poor and unnecessary sequels it spawned, this is the original and best.

Director Siu-Tung Ching (still best known as an Action Choreographer on such films as Woo's `A Better Tomorrow 2'/'The Killer') has, under the watchful eye of legendary Producer Tsui Hark, created a masterpiece of Fantasy/Horror cinema. And with such an expert crew at his disposal (no less than 6 Martial Arts Coordinators) the chances of the film being anything but wonderful would be unthinkable.

The editing by the amazingly prolific David Wu (who wrote/directed `The Bride With White Hair 2' and edited such classic titles as `A Better Tomorrow 1/2/3', `Hardboiled' and the cult hit `The Club') is quite simply a work of genius. His crafting of the perfectly choreographed high flying, tree climbing sword fights makes them some of the best HK cinema has ever created. Fast moving, outlandish but never confusing they are, even today, the pinnacle of their art.

The crew of cinematographers have also done miracles. This is a film where every shot is an expertly crafted painting. Where wonderful blue tinged night sequences, shrouded in an ever-present ghostly fog, are the breathtaking platform for our story to unfold. It's a film where everything is used to weave a dreamlike beauty. Even the silken robes and dresses worn by Hsiao Tsing become living parts of the movie, whether in romantic sequences or battle scenes the ever present silk flows across the screen. Even a simple scene where Hsiao Tsing changes robes is turned into a thing of fluttering beauty as every skill on the set combines to create a most memorable scene from such a simple act. The sets are also amazing, giving an other worldly sense to the forests, and the temple and harshness to the scorched, flag filled wasteland of hell for the amazing finale. The production design by Zhongwen Xi deserves the highest praise.

Another major factor to the films success is the music by Romeo Diaz and James Wong. Hong Kong films have given us some fantastic music and songs that have added so much to the success of a sequence, but on `A Chinese Ghost Story' the music is, quite simply, vital. From the opening song onwards the music becomes as important as the characters.

The score is a perfect mixture of modern and traditional instruments. Drums, bells and guitars pound away over the action sequences to great effect, but it's in the slower, achingly romantic pieces that it comes into it's own. Here; flutes, strings and female choral effects create what are possibly the finest pieces of music heard in an HK film. Add to this the female vocal, stunningly beautiful song that plays over Tsau-shen's and Hsiao Tsing's love making, (nothing is ever seen, but the effect is wonderful. This is lovingly innocent movie romance) and you have a shining example of the power a film's music can have.

And we of course have the acting talent. Leslie Cheung (`A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2' and a very popular singer) is outstanding as the innocent tax collector. His work in the (thankfully mild) comic sequences is never over the top and his scenes with Joey Wang are played with just the right amount of passion and innocence.

Joey Wang (who would later be mostly relegated to support roles in films like the Chow Yun Fat/Andy Lau classic "God of Gamblers") has never looked more radiant than how she does here. She is the epitome of ethereal beauty. Her portrayal of the tragic Hsiao Tsing is stunning. She shows her characters sadness at what she has become and what she is made to do, but also gives off a subtle eroticism in the scenes where she is luring the men to their gruesome deaths. Veteran actor Wu Ma (`Mr. Vampire', `Swordsman') is great fun as the wise, brave, but ever so grumpy, Yen. He treads a fine line between the eccentric and the annoying with practised ease. And what so easily could have been a character that could have harmed the film is actually wonderfully entertaining and memorable.

But what about the monsters and beasties?, I hear you cry. Well they range from the rather crude but fun stop motion/animatronic zombies that inhabit the temple (resulting in a great running gag with constantly thwarted attempts to munch on the amusingly unsuspecting Tsau-shen), to the rather cheesy but surprisingly effective Lord Black. Complete with an arsenal of vicious flying heads, and quite outstanding wire work. Most of which has, to this day, never been topped.

But the most outstanding effect and creation is the tree spirit's killer tongue. We first encounter this thing with an `Evil Dead' style rushing camera effect as it powers down its victims throats to deliver a lethal French kiss that turns the victims into zombiefied husks. But later it's shown in all its crazy glory. It can grow so big and long that it shoots through the forest after prey, rips apart trees, wraps itself around buildings and coils it's slimy length around people before picking them up and throwing them against tree trunks!! It can even split open to reveal a fang filled mouth! It's an outrageous idea that given the deeply romantic main plot shouldn't work. But it does, to fantastic and unforgettable effect.

So what all this adds up to is a classic example of Hong Kong movie making. A true team effort that has given us a truly ground breaking movie. It's a film packed with wit, invention, action, monsters, martial arts, ghosts, fantastic ideas, lush visuals, beautiful music, and most important to it's enduring charm, one of cinemas most moving romances. I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!! I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, "Choy Huk").

Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.

Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)

For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.

Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine. This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.

Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10. This is the best Chinese movie I have ever seen, and, in my opinion, a lot better than Hero or Chrouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The movie is a unique combination of several genres: It's a beautiful love story, action movie, comedy and horror at the same time. And the most amazing thing is that it really succeeds in all of this!

This movie definitely makes it to my top 5, and should be enjoyable to every movie lover. The action sequences do have the traditional unrealistic jumping and even flying, but the way it's shot differs from the style of Hero a lot and the flying always looks great and usually even makes sense (ghosts can fly)

See this movie, you won't regret it. 10/10 This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended. I saw this movie in my childhood. And after 10 years I did not remember anything about this movie but I found out it I also don't know how I was able to find out this movie. Its my life. My all times favorite movie. My words will fall short of true meaning what I have inside for this movie. I follow this movie. It's a brilliant mix of fantasy, comedy, romance, horror, erotic, scary and martial arts. The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm. It's a masterpiece of Hong Kong Cinema.

Sinnui Yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her. Sinnui yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her First things first, the female lead is too gorgeous to be missed. Now actress Wang Zu Xian, the one who played Xiao Qian in the movie, is 42 years old and well aged. It's always good to review these glorious times when seeing old-school HongKong productions like this.

The movie is one of the most influential titles made in 1980s. The art set decoration and other aesthetic facets are all mesmerizing. More fantastically the movie had a total black humorous undertone in it. It feels like a horror movie but ultimately it's not scaring, but only fun.

I had the experience of translating the second script of "A Chinese Ghotst Story", and I thought that script was a decent write. However when I saw the movie, I firstly was disappointed in seeing the movie different from the script, like in a smaller scale and involving more comic roles. However, it turned out to be better executed in terms of being entertaining.

If you have seen the Lord of the Rings, you will notice the similarities in this movie to LOTR. The climax is like a mirror of Miranda Otto fighting with the Ring Witch. It's definitely a laugh-out-loud. Bravo! Though I'm not the biggest fan of wirework based martial arts films, when a film goes straight for fantasy rather than fighting I get a lot more fun out of it and this film is one of the best in terms of fantastical plotting and crazy flying shenanigans. Ching Siu Tung has crafted here an enchanting treat with fine performance and much ethereal beauty. The great, tragic Leslie Cheung plays a tax collector hero who stays the night in a haunted temple and gets involved with a stunning fox spirit and a wacky Taoist. Cheungs performance is filled with naive but dignified charm and Wu Ma is pleasingly off the wall as the Taoist monk, who shows off some swordplay and even gets a musical number. Perhaps best off all is Joey Wang as the fox spirit, truly a delight to behold with every movement and gesture entrancingly seductive. The film takes in elements of fantasy, horror, comedy and romance, all stirred together into a constantly entertaining package. Ching Siu Tung, directing and handling the choreography gives some neat wirework thrills, and fills the film with mists, shadows and eerily enthralling benighted forest colours, giving every forest scene a wonderfully bewitching atmosphere. Also notable are the elaborate hair stylings and gorgeous flowing garments of the female characters, with, if I'm not mistaken, Joey Wang sporting hair done up like fox ears at times, a marvellous touch. Though the film features relatively little action and some perhaps ill advised cheesy pop songs at times, this is a beautiful piece of entertainment, with swell characters and plotting, even the odd neat character arc, a near constant supply of visual treats and copious dreamy atmosphere. An ethereal treasure, highly recommended. A masterpiece of comedy, a masterpiece of horror, a masterpiece of romance, if there is anything negative to say about A Chinese Ghost Story, it might be that the special effects looked dated in comparison to modern technology. The film has a simple premise: a poor debt collector has to stay in a secluded area while trying to collect a debt. Of course, it happens to be haunted as well.

What I wasn't expecting the first time I saw this film is that it's one of the most touching love stories I've ever seen; that is without losing any of the slapstick comedy that will have you in stitches. Unlike some films of Asian cinema, A Chinese Ghost Story isn't hard to swallow for those that aren't versed in Chinese culture. Indeed, it plays on timeless, cultureless themes of the paranormal and romance.

Think Evil Dead 2, if they had thrown a wonderful love story into the mix. This film is for real, despite being overlooked by many. It's absolutely among the best I've ever seen. It's ability to combine the best aspects of multiple genres, and cross cultural boundaries in order to appeal to humanity everywhere, is nothing short of fantastic. Highly recommended, 10/10. Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.

To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.

Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10 There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.

It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.

I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection. Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.

The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.

The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.

Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.

On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.

Since its release, "A Chinese Ghost Story" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10.

For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it. Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means "Dawn please never comes" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow. "Chinese Ghost Story" is one of the most amazing Hong Kong films I have ever seen.It's a brilliant mix of fantasy,comedy,romance,horror and martial arts.The film has some wonderful visuals and amazing fights.I love especially the fight scene between Wu Ma and the tree demon tongue.Truly original and refreshing film and another Embalmer's fine recommendation. Just read the original story which is written by Pu in 18th century. Strikingly, the movie despict the original spirit very well, though the plot was modified tremendously. The film language, the rhythm, the special effect are all from hollywood, but still there is a chinese core. It is amazing how Hark Tsui managed to combine them together. The result is pure beauty. A mix of comedy, romance, music(?!), action and horror. A knockout. This is one of the reasons people rave about Hong Kong cinema. If you're looking for something totally original, look no further. Entertainment at it's peak. There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see. If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!! A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.

The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.

Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seen—a sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish. Wasn't quite sure what to expect with this one, outside of the uniform positive reviews I've read. Turns out, I could have never imagined this movie, because it's very close to "The Bride with White Hair" in being operatic and dealing with the fantastic. This walks a fine line between being a farce, a comedy, and just plain good old fashion ghost story telling. There's nothing scary about it, that's not the theme, it's really mostly a love story dealing with a bumbling guy who encounters a beautiful ghost, who is in a lot of trouble with other ghosts. So the main theme is the guy trying to save the beautiful ghost. This also takes place in ancient China, with wild outlandish Kung Fu exhibitions, and a trip to hell (more or less). Some of the stop-action ghosts are pretty cool, and the visual effects are top rate all the way. I could watch this genre of Chinese movies all day, because they are highly entertaining, great visuals, and pretty much tongue-in-cheek. And I'm looking forward to watching the first sequel of this movie also. Highly recommended. this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s. I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10 Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his "collecting trip" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.

This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.

The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.

Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre. It's sort of crazy, but I taped from TCM both, this german version of MGM's "Anna Christie", and the english one...but I got to see this one first, 'cos I'd heard that many people thought it was better than the english version.

Without having seen the other one, I cannot compare them, but anyway this is an excellent early talkie, with a straight-from-the-heart performance by Garbo. She looks very beautiful in this film, her face shines throughout, especially when Cameraman William Daniels, gets those gorgeous close-ups of her.

The atmosphere of the film seems different from the regular MGM stuff made on that era, it looks very similar to french or german expressionistic films from the thirties, well it was directed by a great french director, Monsieur Jacques Feyder, who had directed Garbo in 1929 in "The Kiss".

Theo Shall is excellent and gives an absolutelly believable performance as Anna's sweetheart, the hard-boiled, tough, sailor, who's just a kid in man's body. Also Hans Junkermann gives a very fine performance, as Anna's alcoholic father and Salka Viertel too, as a good-hearted old cheap floozie.

In all quite an experience, because it's the only film were you can listen to Garbo speak in a foreign language...'cos all the other films she did in either Sweden or Germany, were during the Silent Era.

Serious Flick. This version of Anna Christie is in German. Greta Garbo again plays Anna Christie, but all of the other characters have different actors from the English version. Both were filmed back to back because Garbo had such a following in Germany. Garbo herself supposedly favored her Anna Christie in this version over the English version. It's a good tale and a must-see for Garbo fans. Filmed by MGM on the same sets as the English version, but in German, Garbo's second portrayal of "Anna Christie" benefited from practice and her apparent ease with German dialog. Garbo appears more relaxed and natural under Jacques Feyder's direction than under Clarence Brown's, and her silent movie mannerisms have all but disappeared, which made her transition to sound complete. The strength she brought to the character remains here, although it has been softened, and Garbo reveals more of Anna's vulnerability. The entire cast, with the exception of Garbo, is different from the previous version of the film, and Garbo benefits from not having to compete with Marie Dressler, who stole every scene she was in during the English-language version. In Feyder's film, Garbo holds the center of attention throughout, although the three supporting players, particularly the father, gave excellent performances.

Feyder's direction was more assured than Clarence Brown's, and his use of the camera and editing techniques did not seem as constrained by the new sound process as did those of Brown. The film moves with more fluidity than the English language adaptation, and the static nature of the first film has been replaced with a flow that maintains viewer interest. Even William Daniels cinematography seems improved over his filming of the Brown version. He captured Garbo's luminescence and the atmospherics of the docks with style. Also, the screenplay adaptation for the European audience made Anna's profession quite clear from the start, and the explicitness clarifies for viewers who were unfamiliar with the play as to what was only implied in the Brown filming. However, the film was made before the Production Code was introduced, which made the censorship puzzling.

Garbo's Oscar nomination for "Anna Christie" was always somewhat mystifying, and I suspected that the nod was given more in recognition of her relatively smooth transition to sound films than for her performance. However, some of the Academy voters may have seen the German-language version of the film, and they realized, as will contemporary viewers, that her "Anna Christie" under Feyder's direction was definitely Oscar worthy. After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's "Anna Christie", Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna "Anna Christie" is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's?

In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo!

Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.

Who shines in the German "Anna Christie", who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great!

If you have seen the American "Anna Christie" and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann! Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman). Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.

In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).

Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.

What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.

In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.

All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.

On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.

The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised. "Hotel du Nord " is the only Carné movie from the 1936-1946 era which has dialogs not written by Jacques Prévert,but by Henri Jeanson.Janson was much more interested in the Jouvet/Arletty couple than in the pair of lovers,Annabella/Aumont.The latter is rather bland ,and their story recalls oddly the Edith Piaf's song "les amants d'un jour",except that the chanteuse's tale is a tragic one.What's fascinating today is this popular little world ,the canal Saint-Martin settings.

This movie is dear to the French movies buffs for another very special reason.The pimp Jouvet tells his protégée Raymonde he wants a change of air(atmosphère) Because she does not understand the meaning of the world atmosphère,the whore Raymonde (wonderful Arletty)thinks it's an insult and she delivers this line,that is ,undeniably,the most famous of the whole French cinéma:

In French :"Atmosphère?Atmosphère?Est-ce que j'ai une gueule d'atmosphère?" Translation attempt:"Atmosphere?atmosphere?Have I got an atmosphere face? This is our French "Nobody's perfect". I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?

Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!

A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful. This is an excellent film, and is the sort of treasure that one can only catch through sporadic cinema showings, as it is unavailable on video/DVD. The way that the film begins with the two lovers arriving, and ends with them leaving (although quite a lot happens in between, and they don't stay in one place during this time), gives you a sense of closure, and a feeling that all is right with the world. If you get a chance to see this film, then do. I can't wait to see it again, and wish that it could be put on general release. I love this movie, Jouvet, Arletty, Blier, Carné... almost everything has already been said about the movie, but there is one detail I'd like to shed some light onto: no footage of the real, still standing, Hôtel du Nord (is it still? I heard it was to be demolished...) has been used for the movie - the whole scene has been rebuilt on set, the main reason being that they could not stop the traffic on the St Martin canal for several weeks. A true classic. Beautifully filmed and acted. Reveals an area of Paris which is alive and filled with comedy and tragedy. Although the area of 'Hotel du Nord' and the Hotel itself still exists, it is not as gay (in the original sense of the word) and joyful as it once must have been. The film makes one yearn for the past, which has been lost, with a sigh and bittersweetness. Hotel Du Nord is a gripping drama of guilt in which Marcel Carne portrayed an entertaining tale of ill-fated love which also functions as a revolt against the cruel world.The film is based entirely on a pair of hapless lovers.Pierre and Renee were mistaken when they believed that suicide would put an end to their misery.Hotel Du Nord has its own inimitable charm as its inhabitants have become an essential part of the establishment.There is an element of togetherness as everyone flocks to Hotel Du Nord to eat,chat etc.Marcel Carne has remained true to the spirit of the films produced in 30s and 40s as Hotel Du Nord has a certain kind of nostalgic feel.Carne,while recreating the life of Parisian roads was able to create a sort of nostalgia for black and white giving a unique genre of poetic realism to his oeuvre.Hotel Du Nord can be termed as a quintessence of cinematographic populism.The 14th July ball scene on the banks of Saint Martin canal remains a magnificent sequence.The film's immense popularity can be judged from the fact that Hotel Du Nord has been declared as a national monument. Before all, I'd like to point out that I have not read the book, so there was no chance I'd be disappointed in that aspect. The major flaw I spotted was historical detail, with several cars, trains, clothes, etc. I think don´t belong at that time.

***Possible spoiler*****

The technical aspect of the film is ok, nothing to brag about. But the acting, I think, was terrific. I don't have no experience in acting, still I can't believe how people can consider this terrible! Maybe they've only seen two movies (ever), and the other one must have been very good indeed!

I specially liked Jeremy Irons, and really understood his character, someone who crawled up the social ladder with very hard work, then fights against those who would take his life's work from him, only he gets so involved in this fight, he doesn't realize reason is no longer at his side, and he ends up a beaten, disappointed man. Irons made this so believable, I sympathized with the character despite his brutality.

After Jeremy Irons, Winona Ryder is also wonderful as a romantic young women, who is drawn into the revolutionary ideals by her boyfriend (Banderas, he had an under-developed part, I think), and Glenn Close was also very good. Meryl Streep had an average performance, it was not bad, just not up to the standards of the other actors. Watch out for Miguel Guilherme, a fine Portuguese actor, between so many stars.

In contrast to today's movies, here only the interpretations, only people matter, but at the same time, it is not a pretensious film, too worried trying to be intellectual. The best proof I really liked it, I'm writing a review 7 years later. The House of the Spirits is a gripping tale of family intrigue, South American politics and super-natural powers. Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons bring Isabel Allende's novel to life with all its passion and suspense. This, in my view, is one of the best films of the 1990s. Jeremy Irons as Esteban Trueba ages and mellows very believably, while Meryl Streep in the role of Clara maintains her gentle, loving warmth throughout her relatively short life. Winona Ryder and Antonio Banderas make a handsome couple struggling for family acceptance in a racist culture. Glenn Close, as Esteban's sister, gives a very moving performance. The countryside of Portugal is a reasonable substitute for a non-tropical Latin American country. Settings of Clara's home and Esteban's ranch are effective and the period US cars add nicely to the post-war atmosphere. I always feel strange and guilty saying it (because I'm a fairly well-educated non-teenager), but I actually sort of like the Olsen twins, and I respect the movies they make, even though I've never really been their target audience. "When in Rome" was a traditional Mary-Kate and Ashley movie, complete with the foreign travel, accents, motorbikes, adult romance as a "B" storyline, fashion orientation, and even the gag reel over the credits. I enjoyed myself. "When in Rome" and the other Olsen twin movies never pretend to be anything they're not; most of the time, they only premiere on video, and they never claim to be the next "Citizen Kane" or even "An Affair to Remember." My point is, people who watch this movie and expect it to be anything other than another Olsen twin movie will be disappointed.

That said, those who ARE fans of the Olsen twins will really enjoy themselves. For those of us who've watched them since the first episodes of "Full House," it's really great to see them growing into more mature roles. This movie provides important historical and geographical information, just like many of their other movies (remember 10 Downing Street from "Winning London" and the visit to the Louvre from "Passport to Paris"?) as well as providing good, clean fun that can be enjoyed by the whole family.

As long as I still feel like I'm on my soapbox, and as long as I can make it relevant to the movie, let me take a moment to challenge those who reject the Olsen twins: in order to be a fan of the Olsen twins, you don't have to be some pre-teen "valley girl" from California. In fact, that's not really the target audience. If it were, the MK&A fashion line of clothes and accessories would be run through Gap or some store like that, not Wal-Mart. "When in Rome," while it does feature "high fashion" and globe-trotting and two girls from a valley in Cali, isn't really ABOUT that... it's more about inspiring young girls who have initiative to let it take them places. If that means setting the movie in some glamorous foreign city with cute guys on motorbikes, so be it. That's called marketing--you take an idea and sell it by making it appealing. At least they're sending a good message, even if the means seem a little superficial.

Basically, don't knock the film until you've seen it, and then don't knock it until you've tried to understand what the Olsen twins do: they encourage young girls to be creative, intuitive, and driven young women. This movie does that, I think, just like their others. Kids - enjoy. Parents - do the same. If you like the Olsen twins, you won't be disappointed. this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it. If you haven't already seen this movie of Mary-Kate and Ashley's, then all I can say is: "What Are You Waiting For!?". This is yet another terrific and wonderful movie by the fraternal twins that we all know and love so much! It's fun, romantic, exciting and absolutely breath-taking (scenery-wise)! Of course; as always, Mary-Kate and Ashley are the main scenery here anyway! Would any true fan want it any other way? Of course not! Anyway; it's a great movie in every sense of the word, so if you haven't already seen it then you just have to now! I mean right now too! So what are you waiting for? I promise that you won't be disappointed! Sincerely, Rick Morris For years we've been watching every horror film that comes out, from the dull Hollywood retreads like Saw 2, to awful indie releases that are completely unmatchable... we suffer through all of bad films in hopes of finding little gems like "Dark Remains".

We managed to catch a screening of this film at Shriekfest 2005. The audience loved it and I believe it ended up winning the award for the best film.

While it may not have the budget or star power of studio films, it packs a serious punch in the creepy atmosphere and scare category. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but it's the direction that makes this film worth the view. The story and characters develop at just the right pace to provide some fantastic scares.

The editing and visual fx are also top notch. And while many horror films don't manage to use music to their benefit, the score for "Dark Remains" only adds to it's creepiness.

I know the film has shown at a bunch of festivals, but none have been near me, so I can't wait to hear when it'll finally be coming out on DVD. Trust me, even if you're sick of the current state of horror films, give this one a try... you won't regret it! What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.

What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.

Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.

Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find "Dark Remains" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out! After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.

Make sure and pay attention, as the "subtle" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.

There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she "normally" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.

Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.

This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays. Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain."Dark Remains" is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10. This movie was very good. If you are one who likes to watch horror movies, I recommend it. The acting was very good although I thought that the actress playing Julie could have had more emotion behind her lines. Allan was very good and I thought the cinematography was amazing. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time while my friends were freaking out and screaming. It was a complete success in my opinion and should have made it to the big screen. I give it two thumbs up! I definitely would say that if you haven't already seen it then go rent it. If you have seen it and didn't like it go and watch it again because there are parts that were completely unreal. I also liked how a lot of the movie was filmed around and on my school's campus. Allen and Julie move into a cabin in the mountains after their daughter is murdered one night. No one knows who killed the little girl but it's why they moved to the mountains. So the couple moves into this cabin and it's haunted by people who killed themselves there and no one in the nearby town wants to talk about it.

This movie has a lot of creepiness to it and it has a lot of parts that made me jump. Some of the parts are predictable but once in a while there is a part I didn't expect. It was a pretty good movie that wasn't the scariest movie in the world but it was still scary enough to make it pretty good.

I also liked the ending because it left the viewer to decide how it ends. It is also kind of a sad movie as well but a well done horror movie. First, nobody can understand why this movie is rated so poorly. Not only is this the first real horrific movie since a very long time for me who am pretty hard-boiled with a decades long experience of horror starting with driving through dark rides (ghost trains) as a child. Second, the main actress Cheri Christian has a face that lets you hope she will be the leading actress in major pictures of the future. Third, this woman is that tremendously beautiful that I suggest the directors retire all those Cameron Diazes, Eva Mendezes, and how ever the names of these ephemeral bulb-lights are. Mrs. Christian is not a light, but a sun.

However, "Dark remains" is also of considerable metaphysical importance. They idea that photographs shows creatures of the intermediary reign between reality and "imagination" that are not visible with one' own eyes is not new. But I have never seen in a movie before that those creatures are visible on the photographs only for certain people and only to certain times. This means that the photo is not just an iconic picture of reality (by which reality turns into a sign), but becomes an alternative form of reality which can change as the "real" reality can. Being a sign, the changing of the picture means that it influences the photographed objects, i.e. the sign behaves like an object. Now, in our usual world of perception, it is common that objects change signs. F.ex., if someone grows a bird, his photograph will show him with beard, not without, as it did before. But the opposite, the changing of objects by signs would imply that the photo with beard is first and only then the beard grows on the man. This is, very simply expressed, the case that happen with the photos taken by the main character in the prison, in this movie. This is new, and we must be thankful for everything new in horror movies which usually just repeat and reorder effects and features that are already well-known, mostly since the silent time. I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.

I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.

After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.

The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.

There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.

Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video. Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake. Well, this film is a difficult one really. To be straight with you, this film doesn't contain much of a riveting story, nore does it make u 'want' to know how it'll end...but I'll tell you something now...never have I been as tense and jumped up before in my life! This film sure does deliver the jumps and thrills! To be fair, I did watch it at almost midnight so I was kinda sleepy anyway, so maybe that explains why I was jumpy...or maybe it's because this film does deliver in that aspect! It's basically about a couple who lose their child in a tragic event. They decide to move away and rent a cabin looking thing in the mountains...all looks peaceful and calm until they have their first visitors (i think it's it's the sister of the main character, and she brings along her husband)...during the night, the husband hears noises...checks it out, and thats when things start to go really really wrong...they don't stay for another day and tell the couple they should leave asap as something isn't right...to cut a long story short...eventually they find out what has happened in that house in the past few years and decide it needs to be taken care of.

It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, nore does it have a huge budget, but please don't let that put you off. It's creepy, tense and very very jumpy! Just give it a try :) I just watched this movie and have to say, I was very impressed. It's very creepy and has numerous moments that will make you jump out of seat! I had to smoke several "emergency" cigarettes along the way to calm my nerves! If I had to criticise, I'd say that perhaps if anything, there were too many jump moments. It got to the point where every single new scene climaxed with a jump and this gradually wore away the startling effect, because you kind of new what was coming.

Although it contains virtually every cliché in the ghost genre, they were all done so well that it maintained the creepy, fear-factor. It had elements of The Shining, The 6th Sense and The Changeling (in particular, the soundtrack reminded me of The Changeling).

I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned scare! This movie scared the crap out of me! I have to admit that I spent most of the film watching through my fingers but what I saw was really scary. I screamed out loud two or three times during the show.

Film-making-wise my favorite aspects were the sound and photography. The sound was particularly great and the setting was really creepy beautiful. I read somewhere that it's some weird husband and wife team that made it. For some reason that makes this even stranger for me.

If you enjoy the jumps and jitters of scary movies than this one is for you! Very suspenseful and a great movie to rent with a bunch of friends who love to watch movies curled up on a sofa screaming like little girls! Although I was in this movie playing the part of Sheriff Hodges, it still managed to make me jump in several places and believe me I'm NOT that easy. You might say that I'm biased about the film, and, OK, I am, but I didn't see the finished product until 12/27/2006 and was extremely pleased. I'm not a Horror film fan as such but love the old "B" movies and black and white Sci Fi films. This movie will make you "think" you know when something is going to happen, then it doesn't, then it does. It will keep you completely off balance. I would suggest watching the movie first then the director's notes and special features. It is so well written, directed and filmed and I can tell you personally that it was a real joy to work with this cast and crew. I sincerely hope to be part of Brian and Laurence's future projects. I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features. OK, so I don't watch too many horror movies - and the reason is films like 'Dark Remains'. I caught this on (a surprisingly feature-filled) DVD and it scared me silly. In fact the only extra I think the DVD was missing was a pair of new pants.

However, the next day I was telling someone about it when I realised I'd only really seen about 10% of it. The rest of the time I'd been watching the pizza on my coffee table - nervous that my girlfriend would catch me if I actually covered my eyes. The few times I DID brave watching the screen I jumped so hard that I decided not to look up again.

The film-making is solid and the characters' situation was really compelling. The simplicity of the film is what really captured my jump-button - it's merely a woodland, a cabin and a disused jail - and a LOT of darkness. Most surprising to me was the fact that while this was clearly not a multi-million dollar production, the make-up effects really looked like it was! Also, it's obvious this is a film made by someone with a great love of film-making. The sound design and the music really made use of my surround system like many Hollywood movies have never done. I noticed on-line that this film won the LA Shriekfest - a really major achievement, and I guess that the festival had seen the filmmakers' clear talent - and probably a great deal more of this movie than I managed to.

Turn up the sound, turn off the lights, and, if you want to keep your girlfriend - order a pizza. this movie has a great message,a impressive cast, ellen burstyn, samantha mathis, jodelle ferland( was 4 years old when she made this movie) ellen burstyn and jodelle ferland have both been nominated for best actress in a tv drama at the up-coming emmy awards in new york, peter masterson-director- has been nominated best director tv drama at the emmy awards also. april 1, 2001, jodelle ferland 'Won', best actress in a tv drama, at the young artist awards, in studio city, ca. i can see why they have 3 nominations. mermaid is a true story, during the cridits they have the real family on the set, something you don't see often. you can find mermaid at all blockbuster video stores. do watch it,you'll be glad you did. What are the odds of a "Mermaid" helium balloon traveling from Yuba City, Ca.(on Nov 8th,1993) and landing 4 Days later,(on Nov. 12) in MERMAID, Prince Edward Island, Canada.(Approx. 4000 miles). This is a great movie. It is based on a true story. This movie helps not only children cope with losses, but older people as well. Hope everyone will enjoy it!!! Rhonda What a lovely heart warming television movie. The story tells of a little five year old girl who has lost her daddy and finds it impossible to cope. Her mother is also very distressed ..only a miracle can alleviate their unhappiness.Which all viewers hope will materialise. Samantha Mathis is brilliant as the little girl's mum ,as she was as the nanny in" Jack and Sarah",worth watching if you like both Samantha Mathis and happy; year tear jerking movies! Ellen Burstyn is, as, always a delightful grandmother in this tender and magnificently acted movie. Jodelle Ferland (the little five year old) is charming and a most convincing young actress. The film is based on a true story which makes it so touching."Mermaid" is a tribute to the milk of human kindness which is clearly illustrated and clearly is still all around us in this difficult world we live in. "Mermaid" gives us all hope ,by realising that there a lot of lovely people in the world with lot's of love to give. James Robson Glasgow Scotland U.K. My family and I have viewed this movie often over the years. It is clean, wholesome, heartbreaking and heartwarming. Showing us the compassion between two families of two countries thousands of miles apart and by the most uncanny of coincidences, it's almost as if the hand of God had to be intervening.

5 yo Jodelle Micah Ferland who plays Desi the heart stricken little girl, does a magnificent job of acting her part, and for me she was the Priam choice for the lead role.

All in all, a 10 out of 10. There are no downsides to this sweet human story. Children of all ages will tearfully, then joyfully watch this and it will bring the viewing family together with smiles and good feelings. This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out. What an inspiring movie, I laughed, cried and felt love. For a true story,it does give you hope and that miracles do happen. It has a great cast. Ellen Burstyn, Samantha Mathis, Jodelle Ferland(she's 4 or 5yrs. old) what a actress. Its on Showtime. A Must See Movie!! :)= And look how a true story, "... with a little help of it's friends..." : a welldone and touching script, a good directing and a surprising great acting from a bunch of "no-name" actors, especially from the 4-yr-old Jodelle Ferland, becomes a must seen movie. 9/10 A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.

Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.

Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.

Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.

Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress. The little girl Desi is so adorable... I cant think of a more beautiful story then this one here. It will make you cry, laugh, and believe. Knowing that this was based on a true story just made me gasp and it also made me realize that there are nice people out there. Great cast and an overall great movie. I didn't know the real events when I sat down to watch this, just the fact that this was based upon a true story. After the death of the kid's father, Rhonda tries to help her daughter Desiree(... I did not know anyone actually named their offspring that) cope with the loss. This is really made for children, as is often the case with "family" flicks(with that said, go ahead and get everyone together for a viewing, though I'd keep teenagers out of it, unless you're sure they're gonna buy the concept), but it doesn't downplay the sting that the death of a parent is, and it doesn't really talk down to anyone. The plot is sufficiently interesting, and moves along well enough. Acting varies, with the excellent Burstyn outshining most of her fellow cast, Mathis following that pretty well, and Ferland and her peers(with a few exceptions) being the least convincing of the bunch(and frankly, they're irritating; then again, I'm not really in the intended audience for this thing). The editing and cinematography are standard, and certainly not less than that. While humor is limited to a handful of amusing lines or so, the tone is not an unpleasant one. There is an intense scene or two in this. I recommend this to fans of these types of movies. 7/10 i just saw this movie on TV..

i've lost my dad when i was young and this movie surely did touch me..

i can feel the lost that the little girl Desi felt..

the feeling of wanting to see her father again..

wanting to talk to him..

or at least given the chance to say goodbye..

and i'm so touched with the letter that was wrote back to her..

saying that her father read her letter, and sent it back to someone to reply her and buy her a present because there isn't a shop in heaven..

it just lets me feel that miracles do exist.. It is a great movie. i sow that some people think that this might not be based on a true story. No matter this !!, the movie is great, and all u can think is not why a balloon with a mermaid on it ends up flying in the mermaid town and so on, instead thinking that "a little girl's wish came true", and this means that all our peaceful dreams will come true if we trust in us, and do all in this world to make them true. The little girl (Desi - in the movie), and her mom, were the best actors i've been seen in a long time. Good for they, for all actors, all for the director. If someone can tell them this, please tell them, "A 25 year guy from Romania says thank you for making this movie". OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again. This is the first Jean Renoir Silent film I have watched and perhaps rightly so since it is generally regarded to be his best, besides being also his first major work. Overall, it is indeed a very assured and technically accomplished film which belies the fact that it was only Renoir’s sophomore effort. For fans of the director, it is full of interesting hints at future Renoir movies especially THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946) and THE GOLDEN COACH (1952) – in its depiction of a lower class femme fatale madly desired by various aristocrats who disgrace themselves for her – but also THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – showing as it does in one sequence how the rowdy servants behave when their masters' backs are turned away from them – and FRENCH CANCAN (1955) – Nana is seen having a go at the scandalous dance at one point. Personally, I would say that the film makes for a respectable companion piece to G.W. Pabst’s PANDORA’S BOX (1928), Josef von Sternberg’s THE BLUE ANGEL (1930) and Max Ophuls’ LOLA MONTES (1955) in its vivid recreation of the sordid life of a courtesan.

Having said all that, the film was a resounding critical and commercial failure at the time of its release – a “mad undertaking” as Renoir himself later referred to it in his memoirs which, not only personally cost him a fortune (he eventually eased the resulting financial burden by selling off some of his late father’s paintings), but almost made him give up the cinema for good! Stylistically, NANA is quite different from Renoir’s sound work and owes a particular debt to Erich von Stroheim’s FOOLISH WIVES (1922), a film Renoir greatly admired – and, on a personal note, one which I really ought to revisit presto (having owned the Kino DVD of it and the other von Stroheims for 4 years now). Anyway, NANA is certainly not without its flaws: a deliberate pace makes itself felt during the overly generous 130 minute running time with some sequences (the horse race around the mid-point in particular) going on too long.

The overly mannered acting style on display is also hard to take at times – particularly that of Catherine Hessling’s Nana and Raymond Guerin-Catelain’s Georges Hugon (one of her various suitors)…although, technically, they are being their characters i.e. a bad actress (who takes to the courtesan lifestyle when she is booed off the stage) and an immature weakling, respectively. However, like Anna Magnani in THE GOLDEN COACH, Hessling (Renoir’s wife at the time, by the way) is just not attractive enough to be very convincing as “the epitome of elegance” (as another admirer describes her at one stage) who is able to enslave every man she meets. Other notables in the cast are “Dr. Caligari” himself, Werner Krauss (as Nana’s most fervent devotee, Count Muffat), Jean Angelo (as an initially skeptical but eventually tragic suitor of Nana’s) and future distinguished film director Claude Autant-Lara (billed as Claude Moore and also serving as art director here) as Muffat’s close friend but who is secretly enamored with the latter’s neglected wife!

The print I watched – via Lionsgate’s “Jean Renoir 3-Disc Collector’s Edition” – is, for the most part, a lovingly restored and beautifully-tinted one which had been previously available only on French DVD. Being based on a classic of French literature (by Emile Zola, no less), it cannot help but having been brought to the screen several times and the two most notable film versions are Dorothy Arzner’s in 1934 (with Anna Sten and Lionel Atwill and which I own on VHS) and Christian-Jaque’s in 1955 (with Martine Carol and Charles Boyer, which I am not familiar with). If Jean Renoir's first film "Whirlpool of Fate" first takes us into the world of the countryside, the rivers, the lives of the peasantry that he will continue to explore, it seems only fitting that his second film deals for the most part with the wealthy and the privileged, the upper classes and those who are trying to claw their way upwards. Put the characters from the first two films together and you have the seeds of his great "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game." This is beautifully filmed, with the restless camera making full use of the amazingly huge apartments and backstage areas that dominate the film's interiors, and the acting though frequently overwrought offers some great moments as well, particularly from Werner Krauss' Muffat. But the glamorous and sultry Ms. Hessling, who at first appears as if she might give Louise Brooks a run for her money in vampishness, never goes beyond a one note, selfish harlot portrayal. Perhaps this is in part a problem with the script, which does seem to mostly go for high points and outraged emotions; not having read the novel I'm not really clear on whether the choices were well-made or not.

Still, the differences between Nana's suitors are well-drawn, and I particularly liked the relationship between Muffat and Jean Angelo's Vandeuvres -- the tragic understandings that each seems to have of his ultimate fate and their sympathy with each other, particularly in the scene at the bottom of the enormous staircase where Vandeuvres warns Muffat, and we wonder if violence will erupt -- this and other gleanings of the ridiculousness of the idle rich help give the film the depth it has.

Far from his greatest achievement, and for me probably just shy overall of "Whirlpool of Fate", this is still well worth seeing for Renoir fans or those interested in silent cinema generally. I definitely recommend reading the book prior to watching the film. This book won National Book Council Award in 1978 and is a very gripping read (pun not intended). It's not too difficult to read for those out there that don't read often so don't be afraid! The book seems to capture the passion of the relationships more so than the movie and the movie will make more sense after reading the book. Having grown up in Melbourne I could really relate to this book and movie. Very few Australian female writers were around the in the 70's therefore very little is documented about the way of life for a women in an urban city in Australia during this era or class. It's a precious piece of Melbourne history. It's a shame that it is documented as some sort of 80's soft porn movie. It's far from that and as the other reviewer has mentioned please do not read the DVD jacket, it does not represent what the movie is about at all. Those that rent the movie based on this description will only be disappointed. Just remember this movie was made in 1982, so don't expect the Hollywood over dramatization that they seem to incorporate these days. This is what I like about it. It's also great seeing Noni Hazlehurst in this role, she is just fantastic as Nora and it's great watching her really acting, for if you're close to my age you will best remember her for her stints on Playschool and Better Homes and Gardens. Who knew she hid this talent? This movie will give you an entirely new impression of her. A classic Australian Story! Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, "Monkey Grip" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former "Play School" and "Better Homes & Gardens" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.

10/10 Nora is a single mother-of-two who still wants to live the life of a young artist in the 1970s, as do her friends, a group of writers, singers and actors. The ‘free love' philosophy isn't quite out of the system – and Nora didn't count on falling in love, particularly with a junkie. Hazlehurst won her first of two AFI Awards in the space of four years for her amazing portrayal of Nora, who makes sure she does the right thing by her children, but falls in love with junkie Javo (Friels) at the same time. Garner – who would later costar in films such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES and STRANGE PLANET – is well-cast as Nora's pre-pubescent daughter, and Caton (perhaps in readiness for his role as host of the lifestyle program HOT PROPERTY in 2000???) appears as a bearded painter. Early effort by director Cameron is a winner; he went on to make the award-winning miniseries MY BROTHER JACK among his later projects. But it's the stunning delivery by Hazlehurst which brings to life the intelligent, searching script, based on Helen Garner's award-winning novel. Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100. A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.

Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.

This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.

ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.

One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.

Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.

That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.

Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.

FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch!

Highly recommended. Farewell Friend aka Adieu L'Ami/Honour Among Thieves isn't perfect but it is a neat and entertaining thriller that sees mismatched demobbed French Algerian War veterans Alain Delon and Charles Bronson trapped in the same basement vault, one to return stolen bonds, the other to clean out the two million in wages sitting there over the Christmas weekend. Naturally things aren't quite that simple even after they open the vault, leading to some neat twists and turns. On the debit side, there's a very bizarre striptease scene in a car park, Bronson has a very irritating Fonzie-like catchphrase he uses at the most inopportune moments, Brigitte Fossey, sporting perhaps the most hideously misconceived hairstyle of the 60s (it makes her look like a bald woman whose wig is blown back off the top of her head by a high wind), is something of a liability – her "I'll cook spaghetti! I'll learn to make love well! I'll read Shakespeare!" speech is hysterical in all the wrong ways – and it's a shame about the horrible last line/shot, but otherwise this is a surprisingly entertaining and unpretentious number that's worth checking out if you can find a decent print.

Cinema Club's UK DVD only offers the English soundtrack, but since Delon voices himself and the rest of the cast are fairly well dubbed that's no great problem, especially since the widescreen transfer is pretty good quality. This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see. Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system.

The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids… try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot.

A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions. Short synopsis

This film opens with soldiers being released from the company of men. One of them pursues another with a weird scheme the other repeatedly refuses. Later they both get trapped in an office building in which they want to crack a safe during the Christmas holidays. Hostility turns into playful banter and then into a desperate fight for survival (during the bantering they lose all drinkable liquids, so it is really serious). With exposed, well built and well oiled torsos they ram a hole into a wall and finally manage to escape – only to find out that they have been betrayed and set up by women. One gets caught, the other remains free and is not given away by his companion. A last encounter, a last light for a cigarette, adieu l'ami, farewell, friend.

I found it hard not to see closet homosexuals in the two main characters, played by classical he-man superstars Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. They are obviously attracted to each other, their treatment of women is abominable and marked by contempt throughout. The whole story seems to have a strong symbolic undertow, a little like Deliverance. It is also very stylish. The safe the two men want to crack is in a – for the time – ultra modern glass and aluminum tower. It is the seat of a publicity firm, so there are many fancy posters and wall coverings around. The wardrobe is also very good. The ultra stylish Citroen DS (maybe the most modern and elegant car of all times) features large in this movie – perhaps a subtle kind of product placement.

I can recommend this movie for the actor's performances alone. Delon and Bronson are really sharing the top billing, in a manner that struck me as very fair and sporting. Both do a considerable amount of acrobatics. I have never seen Bronson better than here, he really acts - and speaks French throughout, with a heavy accent buy very passably indeed. And it is certainly the man himself we hear. (So the French language version is highly recommended). The police inspector who pursues the two is played by on of my favorite Franch character actors, Bernard Fresson who was Gene Hackman's partner in French Connection II. He is the best brainy police inspector I know. Also very good is former child actress Brigitte Fossey as the young ingénue who, as it turns out, is not so Innocent as it first seems.

Anyone who expects the „old in-an-out" of classical heist movies might be disappointed with this film. For those with a little patience this will be a rewarding experience, full of novel and original ideas and directorial quirks, although it my be a little too brutal and sadistic for its own sake. This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see. I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. magellan33 said: "You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member."

I assume, then, that you never heard of "Topper".

Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.

This was the kind of program that had "Not Gonna Make It" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp. Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out "stop wasting my time!" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels. If you are already a fan of Peter O'Donnell's wonderful Modesty Blaise books from the sixties, you will really enjoy this movie. If you have ever seen the 1966 "Modesty Blaise" film, forget it! That was camp. This is the real Modesty Blaise. The story and character are both true to the Modesty that fans of the books know and love. It's a long way from Joe Losey's 1966 travesty, and it takes our Modesty quite seriously. Alexandra Staden is quite good and believable in the part, and yes, we do get to see her kick butt. chuckle

This is likely meant to be the first movie of a series and as such it serves to introduce Modesty, her childhood and her days with Lob.

Since Peter O'Donnell was the creative consultant on the movie, everything really rings true. Even the story O'Donnell told of how he conceived the character is just as he told it. Having read all the books, I enjoyed the movie even more for that.

Now that Miramax has kept their option on the property by having Quentin Tarrentino make this film, I do hope to see more of the Modesty stories asap. Especially as the wonderful character of Willie Garvin makes Modesty's character really come alive. To that end, I really hope the film does well in Europe. I have no idea if Miramax intends to ever distribute the DVD in the USA. I suspect it might not do that well in the USA in general distribution. I wonder how Miramax decides where and how to distribute it's films.

In the story, Modesty is in her early 20's, working at Louche's casino in Tangier. The flashback sequences are artfully done and take Modesty from about 9 years old, through her teens up to her current age in the movie - about 21-22, I'd guess. I really don't think there's a "perfect actress" for Modesty. For many of us Modesty fans, she's much too powerful a presence in our imaginations already. Alexandra Staden is credible. She is very slim, graceful and poised. She has lots of closeups. She has a great face - one that sticks in your mind well after the movie is over. According to O' Donnell's illustrator, Romero, Modesty has rather a fuller figure than Staden, but I'm willing to overlook that. If Staden continues in the role, I think she will mature into it - just as Modesty grows more powerful and skilled as she gets older. Staden already conveys Modesty's humor and absolute assurance very well. Go ahead and rent this movie, it's not like anything else you've seen and even though it was directed by Scott Spiegel, it is full of Tarrentino touches, great camera moves, lighting and well-done action sequences. Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.

I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.

Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.

Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.

The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.

I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made. Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a "Creative Consultant." The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin! Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story. First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS!

Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)

She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.

Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends.

What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.

Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)

The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud!

My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!

Watch it, you won't be disappointed! There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.

Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.

The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look. Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina. I've seen this movie and I must say I'm very impressed. There are not much movies I like, but I do like this one. You should see this movie by yourself and comment it,because this is one of my most favorite movie. I fancy to see this again. Action fused with a fantastic story. Very impressing. I like Modesty's character. Actually she's very mystic and mysterious (I DO like that^^). The bad boy is pretty too. Well, actually this whole movie is rare in 'movieworld'. I considered about the vote of this movie, I thought this is should be a very popular movie. I guess wrong. It was ME who was very impressed about this movie, and I hope I'm not the only one who takes only the cost to watch this one. See and vote. The best Modesty Blaise movie I have seen so far. It's like a good pilot for a TV-series. I even think it's a little bit "cult", like with a lite touch of Quentin Tarantino's magic, or something. They have caught a great deal of Modesty's character, but I admit missing Willy Garwin a bit. Even if i have read many comics and book by Peter O'donnell I'm not disappointed of this film, quite the opposite. Positive surprised of this story about Modesty and her childhood. I did not put my expectations so high, because of the bad movie from 1966. So I may have overrate this movie just a little. But if you like the comics and other storys about Modesty Blaise, you should definitely see this one! can't wait for a follow-up... I enjoyed this film. It was a joy to see a version so close to the vision of Peter O'Donnell.

A number of people have disliked the film, but it has to be seen in context of the origin story that it is. The film uses flashback to show the young Modesty and the events that shaped her into the woman that she became. Before the Network. Before Willie Garvin.

The pace is a trifle slow, and for my taste not enough tension is developed in the present day scenes. However this is acceptable just to get such a faithful version.

If you like Modesty Blaise, you will enjoy it even with its faults, if you just want an action flick with car chases - forget it.

It has the feeling of being the first of a franchise, but as I have never seen it promoted anywhere, I suspect there will be no more to follow. Sadly. Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars. This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The "purists" should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was "stalling for time." I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other "reviewers" did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this "prequel" is a sign of what's to come! Recap: It's business as usual at Louche's casino in Tanger. The casino is about to close and prepares for a big transaction the next day. The owner Louche and some staff leave for the night, leaving Modesty in charge. Suddenly a troop of armed gangsters storm the casino, shooting wildly. Unknown to Modesty, they have already killed Louche, and are now after the money hidden in the vault. But no one present, and still alive, at the casino knows the code to open the vault. The vault itself is heavily booby trapped with explosives so the assailants can't blow the door as planned. Suddenly Modesty finds herself eye to eye with the gangsters' leader Miklos in a game of roulette with their lives in jeopardy.

Comments: This is a review written with no connection what so ever with other published media about Modesty Blaise, as I have neither seen nor read any of it. The first point I like to make is that this is slightly wrongfully classified. Foremost I thought this was a thriller with a battle of wits between Modesty and Miklos as the main plot. Sure, there are some bursts of action but they are not really an integral or important part of the story.

As already mentioned the main plot and the main suspense-filled scene, is the game between Modesty and Miklos. It's an innovative and intriguing way of revealing the background of a character, and in doing so much of the story takes place outside the casino at a much earlier time. Someone said that it is almost like a pilot for a TV-series, and the feeling is that it might indeed be used as such. But, I felt it was a much better way to introduce a character than many other have done. I was in no way disappointed in the lack of action, instead I enjoyed this game, the history much more than a simple action movie.

I think the two main stars, Alexandra Staden and Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau did very well. Staden especially portrays Modesty very well, and really carries this confident and talented character.

7/10 While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here. The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV. As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.

As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.

In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.

OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories! I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English I was pleased to see that she had black hair! I've been a fan for about 30 years now and have been disgusted at the two earlier attempts to film the stories.

I was pleased that the screenwriters updated the period to include a computer, it didn't spoil it at all. In fact I watched the film twice in one day, a sure sign that it was up to standard. This is what I do with books that I like as well.

I thought all the characters were well depicted and represented the early days of Modesty Blaise extremely well as evinced in both book and comic strip. I would also have to disagree with a comment made by an earlier reviewer about baddies having to be ugly. Has he actually read the books?

I thought this was a very good film and look forward to sequels with anticipation. For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film. This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise "history". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as "Creative Consultant" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty. I was expecting this to be the same kind of schlock as the previous Modesty Blaise movie, which is why I left it unwatched for so long, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Far from being a succession of silly gun battles and car/boat chases, it was an almost thoughtful analysis of how a pretty girl gets to become as hard as nails, with nothing being overstated or over-rationalized.

It's likely that the budgetary constraints actually helped with that: less time and effort was spent on finding ever-stupider ways for stunt men to pretend to die, and more was dedicated to making the movie worth watching. Hell, the biggest gun battle takes place off screen -- and the scene where it is heard is all the better for that background noise, that adds to the suspense -- who's winning? Who's dying?

Alexandra Staden might not be as drop-dead gorgeous as Monica Vitti, but few are, and she certainly has every ounce of class and fire that's needed to make the character work -- and the shape of her face, her hair, and her tall, slender body could have been lifted straight from the comic-strip graphics.

Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau was the perfect choice for a Blaise bad-guy, in that he made the character interesting and enjoyable to watch -- even likable (and I doubt I'd consider taking on many brutal, psychopathic murderers as drinking buddies). I can't think of a single one of Hollywood's "former waiters" who could have pulled the role off that well.

Fortunately, Blaise baddies always die, in the end (no spoilers there!) That's a really good thing, because all the girls who would have spent their time swooning over such a disgustingly handsome and interesting hunk can now pragmatically settle for us ordinary Joes. Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars. Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie. David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.

Well directed, well acted and a good story. This film has a lot of raw potential. The script is sharp, the dialogue is (usually) excellent (though it could stand to lose the cheezy voice-overs), the direction and cinematography is surprisingly quite good, though some of the experimentation just doesn't work. The main problem here is David Duchovny. Once a geek-boy, always a geek-boy; and the sad, simple fact is that he's incapable of playing anything but Fox Mulder. He postures, he tries to be slick, he poses, he tries to be macho. In the end he just tries too hard. He overplays his character, he overspeaks his lines, and he's just outplayed in all ways by Timothy Hutton and Angelina Jolie, who are each in a class above him in terms of acting skill. Timothy Hutton was (as always) really good. There was a spotty moment or two where he over-dramatized his role, but you could tell he was having fun with it. He looked the part, and he became the character both physically and atmospherically. Angelina Jolie was also really good. She didn't have much of a role; in fact, I though she could have used a much stronger one...her character wasn't nearly developed enough, though she did remarkably well with what she had. And the chemistry between her and Hutton was apparent (gee, maybe that's why Uma left him...;) All in all, it was rough around the edges, but a solid effort by a good cast and great supporting roles. If David Duchovny hadn't ripped his role to pieces it would've been *that* much better. 7/10. David Duchovney creates a role that he was to replicate somewhat in Californication - the troubled talent. And it is a role he plays well.

This thriller starts off at a good speed and carries you through to the end. Timothy Hutton plays a fine villain and Angelina Jolie pouts. The story of a disgraced doctor finding his way into a criminal world is well scripted. Drug addiction and a desire for the sultry Jolie mix a heady cocktail. Unfortunately towards the end the story gets a little weaker and the relationships between villains and the FBI is muddled and rushed as if it was created only to develop the final scene. But, that aside, a movie worth seeing. Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look. I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood. This movie really kicked some ass. I watched it over and over and it never got boring. Angelina Jolie really kicked some ass in the movie, you should see the movie, you won't be disappointed. And another reason you should see the movie is because the guy from The X-Files is in it, David Duchovny. With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it. Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second. A hit at the time but now better categorised as an Australian cult film. The humour is broad, unsubtle and, in the final scene where a BBC studio fire is extinguished by urinating on it, crude. Contains just about every cliche about the traditional Australian pilgrimage to 'the old country', and every cliche about those rapacious, stuck up, whinging, Tory Brits. Would be acceptable to the British because of its strong cast of well known actors, and to Australians of that generation, who can 'get' the humour. Americans -- forget it. The language and jokes are in the Australian dialect of English and as such will be unintelligible. I love this movie like no other. Another time I will try to explain its virtues to the uninitiated, but for the moment let me quote a few of pieces the remarkable dialogue, which, please remember, is all tongue in cheek. Aussies and Poms will understand, everyone else-well?

(title song lyric)"he can sink a beer, he can pick a queer, in his latest double-breasted Bondi gear."

(another song lyric) "All pommies are bastards, bastards, or worse, and England is the a**e-hole of the universe."

(during a television interview on an "arty program"): Mr Mackenzie what artists have impressed you most since you've been in England? (Barry's response)Flamin' bull-artists!

(while chatting up a naive young pom girl): Mr Mackenzie, I suppose you have hordes of Aboriginal servants back in Australia? (Barry's response) Abos? I've never seen an Abo in me life. Mum does most of the solid yacca (ie hard work) round our place.

This is just a taste of the hilarious farce of this bonser Aussie flick. If you can get a copy of it, watch and enjoy. This film and it's sequel Barry Mckenzie holds his own, are the two greatest comedies to ever be produced. A great story a young Aussie bloke travels to england to claim his inheritance and meets up with his mates, who are just as loveable and innocent as he is.

It's chock a block full of great, sayings , where else could you find someone who needs a drink so bad that he's as dry as a dead dingoes donger? great characters, top acting, and it's got great sheilas and more Fosters consumption then any other three films put together. Top notch.

And some of the funniest songs you'll ever hear, and it's full of great celebrities. Definitely my two favourite films of all time, I watch them at least once a fortnight. 'The Adventures Of Barry McKenzie' started life as a satirical comic strip in 'Private Eye', written by Barry Humphries and based on an idea by Peter Cook. McKenzie ( 'Bazza' to his friends ) is a lanky, loud, hat-wearing Australian whose two main interests in life are sex ( despite never having had any ) and Fosters lager. In 1972, he found his way to the big screen for the first of two outings. It must have been tempting for Humphries to cast himself as 'Bazza', but he wisely left the job to Barry Crocker ( later to sing the theme to the television soap opera 'Neighbours'! ). Humphries instead played multiple roles in true Peter Sellers fashion, most notably Bazza's overbearing Aunt 'Edna Everage' ( this was before she became a Dame ).

You know this is not going to be 'The Importance Of Being Ernest' when its censorship classification N.P.A. stands for 'No Poofters Allowed'. Pom-hating Bazza is told by a Sydney solicitor that in order to inherit a share in his father's will he must go to England to absorb British culture. With Aunt Edna in tow, he catches a Quantas flight to Hong Kong, and then on to London. An over-efficient customs officer makes Bazza pay import duties on everything he bought over there, including a suitcase full of 'tubes of Fosters lager'. As he puts it: "when it comes to fleecing you, the Poms have got the edge on the gyppos!". A crafty taxi driver ( Bernard Spear ) maximises the fare by taking Bazza and Edna first to Stonehenge, then Scotland. The streets of London are filthy, and their hotel is a hovel run by a seedy landlord ( Spike Milligan ) who makes Bazza put pound notes in the electricity meter every twenty minutes. There is some good news for our hero though; he meets up with other Aussies in Earls Court, and Fosters is on sale in British pubs.

What happens next is a series of comical escapades that take Bazza from starring in his own cigarette commercial, putting curry down his pants in the belief it is some form of aphrodisiac, a bizarre encounter with Dennis Price as an upper-class pervert who loves being spanked while wearing a schoolboy's uniform, a Young Conservative dance in Rickmansworth to a charity rock concert where his song about 'chundering' ( vomiting ) almost makes him an international star, and finally to the B.B.C. T.V. Centre where he pulls his pants down on a live talk-show hosted by the thinking man's crumpet herself, Joan Bakewell. A fire breaks out, and Bazza's friends come to the rescue - downing cans of Fosters, they urinate on the flames en masse.

This is a far cry from Bruce Beresford's later works - 'Breaker Morant' and 'Driving Miss Daisy'. On release, it was savaged by critics for being too 'vulgar'. Well, yes, it is, but it is also great non-P.C. fun. 'Bazza' is a disgusting creation, but his zest for life is unmistakable, you cannot help but like the guy. His various euphemisms for urinating ( 'point Percy at the porcelain' ) and vomiting ( 'the Technicolour yawn' ) have passed into the English language without a lot of people knowing where they came from. Other guest stars include Dick Bentley ( as a detective who chases Bazza everywhere ), Peter Cook, Julie Covington ( later to star in 'Rock Follies' ), and even future arts presenter Russell Davies.

A sequel - the wonderfully-named 'Barry McKenzie Holds His Own - came out two years later. At its premiere, Humphries took the opportunity to blast the critics who had savaged the first film. Good for him.

What must have been of greater concern to him, though, was the release of 'Crocodile Dundee' in 1985. It also featured a lanky, hat-wearing Aussie struggling to come to terms with a foreign culture. And made tonnes more money.

The song on the end credits ( performed by Snacka Fitzgibbon ) is magnificent. You have a love a lyric that includes the line: "If you want to send your sister in a frenzy, introduce her to Barry McKenzie!". Time to end this review. I have to go the dunny to shake hands with the unemployed... The story centers around Barry McKenzie who must go to England if he wishes to claim his inheritance. Being about the grossest Aussie shearer ever to set foot outside this great Nation of ours there is something of a culture clash and much fun and games ensue. The songs of Barry McKenzie(Barry Crocker) are highlights. Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.

If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75. CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.

A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.

A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.

In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.

The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit. This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays. This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre. A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.

A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores. Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else. Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.

Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.

One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.

Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.

So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.

Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.

This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.

The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.

By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN. There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director. I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.

Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering. one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame. While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!

Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise. Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband.

But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.

Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin. I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.

The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.

I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content. This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.

The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.

Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public 'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy.

'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.

International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship.

Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language.

Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two. For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human. Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning. The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion/emotion in the acting. The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.

Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions. Easily one of the best Indian films ever. Granted, that's not saying much(I made this conclusion after a whopping 15 minutes of watching). But I can truly say that Fire is also one of the really beautiful and brilliant films I've seen.

Beautiful because of its imagery. The best example I can give is the parallelism between the 2 female leads(Radha and Sita) and the characters of the same name in Hindu mythology. Sita, for example, is the wife of the revered Lord Ram. As legend goes, Ram subjugates his wife by making her walk through a Fire to prove her `purity.' Sita, in response, cries and leaves him, reuniting with her mother(the Earth). This story has all sort of crazy links to the stories of the 2 Indian women(Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi). The word `Fire' all of a sudden has many meanings - marriage, tradition, religion, motherhood, and probably a few others I didn't catch.

Brilliant because of its social overtones. Many who were offended by the premise for this movie should in fact be first to see Fire(e.g. my mom, who actually loved it). Why? Because although Fire is an attack on tradition, it is also an attack on tradition. In other words, that is its strength, NOT its weakness. Traditional conservative social mores(whether Indian or Canadian or American or whatever) are useless if they enslave you. Gender roles and self-denial can both do this.

These are the things I took with me after seeing Fire. Hats off to Deepa Mehta… As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.

All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.

The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind. For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice.

Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.

Fire is ok.

But still good days are yet to come.

Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.

Thanks and Regards.

PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her. ...means "take up and read", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having seen this marvelous film.

Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle, clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again.

Watch out for this young director...he's going places. Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action. This is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he seems tired and bored with the monotony of life.

Later in the film, he walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says things the way we wish we could all say them.

See this weird film--it's amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before. The finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less "recognizable", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people who read, for those whose "bar" is set high and for those who recognize that living in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why he had to make the art he became known for. This movie, with all its complexity and subtlety, makes for one of the most thought-provoking short films I have ever seen. The topics it addresses are ugly, cynical, and at times, even macabre, but the film remains beautiful in its language, artful with its camera angles, and gorgeous in its style, skillfully recreating the short story of the same name written by a master of short stories, Tobias Wolff.

Not wishing to spoil anything of the movie, I won't go into any details, other than to say that this movie is magnificent in and of itself. It takes pride in what it does, and does it well. It shows the most important memories of life, all of which can be topped by the single most elusive feeling: unexpected bliss. This movie, of its own volition, has created in me the same feelings the main character (Tom Noonan) felt when words transformed his very existence, and that is one impressive feat. This short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on. Well, I have to disagree with Leonard Maltin on this animated short. He loves it and claimed it was hilarious. I enjoyed it but didn't see any humor. He doesn't even like hockey or know anything about it, and still loved the story. Living right across the border from Canada, I have watched hockey for 50 years both there and in Buffalo....but I didn't think much of this cartoon. Oh, it was interesting and I know what would happen if you wore a Toronto jersey up in the Quebec area - disaster! That especially holds true in the glory years of Les Canadians. However, that doesn't make the story funny.

Back in the 1950s, everyone in the Quebec provinces idolized the Montreal Canadians and their star player, Maurice Richard, and everyone wanted to be like him. When his mother orders a new sweater, it has the Toronto Maple Leafs emblem on it, so the kid doesn't want to be caught dead wearing it.. When he finally does and heads to the local rink, he gets ostracized from the rest of his hockey buddies. What's so funny about that? I could see the same thing happening to a kid in Boston who is Red Sox die-hard and his mom gets him Yankees shirt! Horrors! You couldn't wear it, and vice-versa.

Maybe to someone who doesn't follow sports at all, like Maltin, this situation seems odd and humorous to him...but it's a fact of life or any bit-time sports fan and his favorite team. It was an interesting story, and totally believable, but nothing that made me laugh.

The art was fun to look at throughout, almost like looking at a long series of crayon paintings done by a talented school kid. The French Canadian accent was good, too. This movie was part of the DVD "Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada. Having been raised in Canada, I saw this short many times mostly on the CBC. I have seen it numerous times, at many ages in my life, and each time the reactions are the same. It is a joyous bittersweet, beautifully animated film that tugs at your heart. I am sure I have it on some VHS tape somewhere digging around.

Every kid growing up can relate to the situation, and wanting to fit in with your favourite idols. The scene and look on the kids face when his mom is filling out the Eatons catalogue and his jumping around the room is priceless. I haven't seen someone capture that carefree mood of youth on film as well as this little short has.

Sure I am a Montreal habs fan, and that makes my appreciation for it more special. But in the end it is the nostalgic look and feel of pond hockey, and the memories of your family telling you that you should be greatful for what you get even if it isn't exactly what you wanted. And oh yeah, the animation is beautiful too ;)

Rating 10 out of 10 Animated shorts just don't get much better than this wonderful Canadian film. This short feature is dripping with Canadian references, and so, this film will probably be appreciated by Canadians most of all. But the basic story is universal, and it is told lovingly by writer Roch Carrier. It is a hilarious story that I have known for quite sometime, and I was recently fortunate enough to see it again, so I simply HAD to write a hearty recommendation for it. This is a masterpiece, and a must-see whether or not you are Canadian. This marvelous short will hit home with everyone who, as a child, specifically asked for something because it was hip or cool, only to be given something that would mark you for life with your peers and were told by your Mom or Dad (or both) that it didn't matter, as you earnestly began considering enlisting in a Witness Protection Program in order to avoid ridicule. For those U.S. residents who don't get the horror because you don't follow hockey, it's like a Dallas Cowboy fan getting a Washington Redskins jersey or a Yankees fan getting a Red Sox jersey. It isn't pretty. For our European friends, think of two great rival football (soccer to us) clubs and imagine a fan of one getting a jersey from the other. Ouch!!! NFB of C outdid themselves here!

Une hommage du Maurice "Rocket" Richard, merci, M. Richard. A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate. I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.

Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice "the Rocket" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable. This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go. I throughly enjoyed this short, even as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.

Director Sheldon Cohen and Narrator Roch Carrier captured all of the boy's emotions perfectly. From the feelings he had for his hero, Maurice "Rocket" Richard, to the excitement, anticipation and hope of getting a new Montreal Canadiens sweater soon, to the look of horror on his face when he got his sweater from his mother; A Toronto Maple Leafs sweater was priceless and the shame of having to wear this dreadful (in his eyes) blue and white Toronto Maple Leafs sweater; Not the rouge, bleu and blanc of the Montreal Canadiens with Richard's number nine, like his old sweater. And worst of all, his Mum made him wear this Maple Leafs sweater out of the house. You could envision and anticipate the ridicule he would get from his friends when he hit the ice wearing that sweater before he got there.

I was laughing the whole time and this is one of the best animated shorts I've seen.

This is a piece of cinematic beauty, and it shows more of Quebec culture to others than probably any other work to come from la belle province. It takes everybody into a first-person experience of the culture, to the point that you wish you glued your hair in place and lived, breathed, and ate everything Maurice Richard. The book does this as well as the short, and I'm glad that in all the time I did spend studying French in high school, this was required reading in both languages.

I thought it was brilliant to have Roch Carrier narrate this story. His molasses-thick accent brought a lot of realism to the story. The animation was good, as well, very surrealist, which brings attention to the idea of this being a whimsical daydream, fancying over better days gone by.

Again, as a symbol of culture quebecoise, this is unsurpassed. One can almost smell the tourtiere being cooked slowly over a wood stove. This whole film deserves endless praise for making people proud to be Canadian, and encourage us all to appreciate the finer things of family and our roots. I'm from Ontario, and this film made me fall in love with Quebec. Maurice Richard va toujours vivre dans nos coeurs. This story focuses on the birth defect known as FAS, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a disease diagnosed too often among Native Americans. In spite of the down-beat nature of this drama, the great script and the characterizations move the story along very well. This is arguably Smits best performance. It has been years since I have been privileged to see this movie on TV. I only wish I could contact someone to see it again. I married a man with three children and two had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I didn't' realize this but seeing this movie helped me understand more about their problems and more about how I can love them and help them overcome their difficulties. My step-son is now 35 and thank the Lord he has blossomed wonderfully but still has many after affects of being born by an alcoholic mother. We speak every month to Rehab patients with alcohol and drug addictions and this sharing has truly made monumental changes in their behaviors and endeavors to start out a new life not addicted to drugs and alcohol. Please please let me know how I can get a copy VHS or DVD of this movie or when they will show the movie again on TV. If you have not been in these shoes, you probably could never understand its value. Thank you so very much. This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: Ottenbreit2@netzero.net thank you This was a excellent movie. I deal with a child who I am raising that has FAE and watching this movie was more than word can explain. I also purchased the book and it was great. I would like to have a copy for my own use and so I can have my son's teachers watch it also.I would like to know if anyone could sell me a copy of this movie, let me use it for a time or refer me to someone where I could purchase it. Thank You, Myra I would recommend this movie to anyone who deal with children/adults with special ability's. This movie should be shown again on TV. The team of doctor's that have been tracking my son would also like to have a copy. His special Ed teacher has also asked me to try to locate a copy that he can have or that he can borrow.

Thank You A very good film, focusing on a very important issue. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a very serious birth defect that is totally preventable. If more families saw this film, perhaps more children would not end up like Adam. Jimmie Smits performs in one of his best roles ever. This is an excellent movie that takes into account a very special family with very important needs. This is not unlike thousands of families that exist in the United States today. There are children struggling with this world wide. The really important point here is that it all could have been prevented. More people should see this movie and take what it has to say seriously. It is well done, with important messages, handled in a graceful way. Channel zapping one night I just caught the start of this movie and it hooked me from the beginning. It tells the sad story of an adopted child, Adam, whose mother left him after birth. The movie takes us through his childhood, and makes us discover a very disturbing fact from Adam's past. I will not reveal more, but it is a very in-depth movie and will intrigue you for sure. This was one of Jimmy Smits best roles in my opinion. When the circus comes to town and places the lion's cage directly over Bugs Bunny's home, Bugs ends up somewhere in the range right between freaked out and intrepid. Despite the title "Acrobatty Bunny", it's only at the end when Bugs and the lion perform acrobatics. But even leading up to that, it's quite funny what Bugs does to escape getting eaten; somehow, he always manages to use the other character's weakness against him, and then pull any convenient object out of thin air! Bugs later ended up in the circus in "Big Top Bunny". I liked this one better, as the latter got drug down a little bit by giving the antagonist an Eastern European accent (I know that it was during the Cold War, but still). I recommend this one.

And with the end, we can affirm that it'll never be Aloha Oe for this cartoon. A savage, undisciplined lion has been put behind bars for a circus carnival. He suddenly notices a hole on the floor of his cell, then sticks his nose into this hole to snuff it. At first he thinks Bugs Bunny's home is belong to a camel; yet when he wakes Bugs up from his sleep hoisting him up to the ground, there he meets with Bugs, his next trainer.

If you ever wonder how Bugs would turn a savage lion into a Hawaiian hula dancer with traditional skirts on, you should watch this cartoon. Director Bob McKimson offers endless laughters by means of absurd and unexpected demonstrative humour.

The signature scenes include:

1/ the look of Bugs Bunny's home, cross-referencing to Donald Duck with the B.B. name acronym on the headboard of Bugs's bed

2/ Bugs Bunny's short journey with the mine hoist climbing up to the ground floor

3/ When Nero the Lion calls his friend the Elephant for help, Bugs uses a toy mouse to scare the Elephant; since the Elephant needed a broom to outpower that toy mouse, he uses Nero as a broom!

4/ Bugs becoming a clown with the proper costume and make-up and the practical clown jokes that he makes

5/ the trapeze scene while Nero chasing after Bugs

6/ the famous Human Cannonball scene after which Nero the Lion starts dancing Hawaiian Hula

The magic moments which keep Acrobatty Bunny fresh at all times in our memory:

1/ When Bugs comes out of his bunny hole, he thinks he's in the Pinocchio tale; and starts acting to save Pinocchio out of the giant whale's stomach

2/ When the Lion roars to scare him, Bugs replies back to him with roaring

3/ Bugs arguing with the Lion for he's making so much noise, then finding a piece of wood to rub it against the iron bars while singing in order to make more noise than him

4/ Wearing rubber heels at the circus, Bugs starts to bounce like toy rabbits and causes Nero to bounce!

Those are the 10 main reasons that keeps Acrobatty Bunny as a Bugs Bunny classic and can be found in the "Bugs Bunny Classics' MGM/UA Video (1989)" The "good news" is that the circus is in town. The "bad news" is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.

To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.

I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls "Nero," but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.

About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance! Once again, Bugs Bunny sacred home is violated by careless people. This time the traveling circus put a lion's cage right over the rabbit's hole. So Bug's has to come out of the hole and face Nero (that's the name of the lion), which he does in his usual hilarious style. After a slow and rocky beginning to the cart, it keeps getting better and better and winds up being quite hilarious. Nero the lion turns out to be a pretty good foil for Bugs and that turns this short into a highly memorable one, if still shorn of a classic. This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3.

My Grade: A- Robert McKimson's 'Acrobatty Bunny' is one of the director's finest shorts. Although the circus-based setting may evoke hideous memories of McKimson's dreadful 'Big Top Bunny', 'Acrobatty Bunny' is in fact nowhere near as dull as that travesty. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a ferocious lion, 'Acrobatty Bunny' is fresh and funny from the outset, not to mention extremely attractive to look at. There's a classic scene in which Bugs takes a strangled elevator ride out of his hole only to emerge directly into the jaws of the lion. In a brilliant Disney parody, he hollers "Pinocchio" down the lion's throat! This brilliant opening is a sign of things to come. There are some expertly choreographed antics in and around the lion's cage to begin with, followed by a hilariously grotesque and irritating rendition of 'Laugh Clown Laugh' which, as a child, I used to impersonate regularly! All this culminates in a short acrobatic sequence which gives the cartoon its name. I've never been fond of the circus as a setting for cartoons and find it usually makes for a dull and predictable set of gags but 'Acrobatty Bunny' breaks from the mould and the result is an exhilaratingly funny short which stands amongst McKimson's best. Julie Andrews plays a German spy who falls in love with an American pilot Rock Hudson, while on an assignment for Germany.

The songs are beautiful. The two are well-paired. Julie demonstrates a more temperamental side in this film than the nice girl she normally plays.

A half-German, half-English girl who sings beautiful and entertains the troops in WW I, Julie sings some endearing Mancini songs.

I loved the film. Some will say it's a "chick-flick," but so what. It's wonderful.

Supporting characters are somewhat stereotyped. It may not be up to Rock's performance in Pillow Talk, Magnificent Obsession, or Giant.

Blake Edwards shot the film in Ireland and authentic WW I -type planes were used in the film. Scenery for England and France is absolutely gorgeous. I suppose I like this film as well as any I know; it is not perfect, but under the title "The Americanization of Lily" this charming and memorable semi-musical satire might I suggest have been appreciated more, and still loved by those who recognized its special Blake Edwards'-produced spirit of gentleness, clever humor and solid narrative. The improbably but delightful story-line follows Lili Smith, a fringe-type spy for the Germans in a much simpler and less black-and-white war; Lili Schmidt passing as Smith is helping her Uncle who is patriotic too, for Germany but neither cruel nor political, merely opportunistic. Lili's target is William Larrabee, a charismatic U.S. squadron leader who can supply her valuable information. The plot thickens comes when Lili falls in love with Larrabee, has her eyes opened to the consequences of her playing spy, and sees the effects of combat on wounded men at a hospital and realizes what it might mean to his men whom she has met and likes. She gets jealous of a rival for Larrabee's affections, then realizes she can no longer do what she has been doing and gives up the spy business. The logical end of the film comes when after the terrible WWI has ended, as she sings the theme song of the film, "Wishing" in a darkened theater, one by one the members of Larrabee's squadron appear, including her lover himself, indicating they have forgiven her and their former opponents; and even Uncle Kurt enthusiastically joins in the singing of "It's a Long To Tipperraree", to indicate all is well with the world again. This is an audacious and sometime brilliant story idea, written by director Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty of "John Goldfarb" fame; and it is a delightful narrative. Larrabee's squadron, including an inebriate who keeps crashing and other lovable types populate this lively film; and the feel of this stylish and glowing film is almost epic, both in its scope and realization. Credit must go to Jack Bear and Donald Brooks for their costume creations, Reg Allen and Jack Stevens for sets, Fernando Carrere for another beautiful production design, Henry Mancini for his sensitive and appropriate musical score, and to Russell Harlan for his shining cinematography. In the beautiful footage, the principal actors are Julie Andrews as Lili, Rock Hudson as Larrabee, Keremy Kemp outstanding as Lili's Uncle Kurt, Michael Witney, Lance Percival as the inebriate pilot, gorgeous Gloria Paul as Lili's stripteasing rival, and many other fine actors in smaller parts. It is hard to say enough nice things about the pace, or the cleverness of the just-this-side-of broad comedy; this element is introduced by Edwards to leaven the horrors of actual warfare, to example the almost comic-opera approach with which men made war back in a more innocent-minded era of human civilization.. This comedy also helps prepare the way for Lili's conversion from uncritical acceptance of a duty to the German state to acceptance of the reality of what she is doing and potentially what she may be causing. This is a rare "sense-of-life" film about Lili's "Americanization", her assertion of herself in the real world and then among others before tragedy can happen. It is haunting, I find, and beautiful in many ways. I consider it to be Blake Edwards'masterpiece of directing; and under the title "The Americanization of Lili" I believe with hardly any changes it might have been recognized as the polished sapphire of a film it is by every standard I know. This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack! Darling Lili is fantastic! Its by far one my favorite films! It certainly didn't deserve the poor reviews it received. Julie Andrews, playing the title role of Lili Smith (Schmidt) is the best part of the whole movie. She is entrancing and spectacular! As Julie Andrews is my most favorite actress and singer by far, I was most definatly not surprised by how stunning she is. This movie is just...great (I'm running out of adjectives!), it's magnificent, marvellous, amazing, funny, terribly romantic, sad, and just an all-out thrill and its all thanks to Dame Julie Andrews!And to her husband, director Blake Edwards. Oh, yeah Rock Hudson was ok, too :)

Julie Andrews is the beautiful and well-loved singer, Lili Smith. Rock Hudson portrays Major Larabee, who quickly falls for Lili, and she with him. But their affair was not coincedental. There meeting was planned by the German Government (I'm not sure if that's exactly what you'd call them, but you get the point), because the warm, happy, singing entertainer Lili is actually a German Spy. Lili is told to seduce Major LArabee in order to get information of the new Top Secret Opertaion (later know as "Crepe Suzette"). Though Lili is on a solemn mission, she falls in love with Bill (Major Larabee), for real, making her original quest challenging. But Lili pulls through and completes er task, after she finds out something that is not really true about Bill. The ending will remain unsaid by me as it is wonderfully layed out. If anything, you'll thoroughly enjoy this movie, I most certainly did!!!!!!!!

Yes, I am a romantic of sorts who likes musicals and comedy and this fit the bill! Julie Andrews gives a mesmerizing performance at the beginning and end of this film with the "Whistling in the Dark" production number. The sedate-to-outrageous number that she performs in the middle of the story when she believes that Rock Hudson has been seeing a dancing/call girl is eye-popping and will certainly make you giggle.

I only wish that this film could be found in video or DVD as I would surely purchase it in a heartbeat for my home library! Even a bad Julie Andrews Musical is worth watching and this isn't bad! In fact it's quite entertaining. Actually it's a fascinating study on trying to manipulate a star's personae.

To break Julie's "goody two shoes mold" she plays a German Spy/English Musical Hall Actress. She subsequently went on to take her top off in the movie S.O.B. and play a drag queen in Victor Victoria and other not so goody girls usually under hubby Blake Edward's direction.

The movie is admittedly problematic It is hard to feel for her character because she's a German Spy. We want to love Julie but she's on the wrong side of the law. Probably this is why this movie flopped. Julie as a German Spy? Our Mary Poppins? our Maria Van Trapp suddenly a German Spy?

The romance seems to happen overnight and come from nowhere. But never mind, it's a musical and it has Jullie. Oh and did I mention hunky Rock Hudson is in it too?

Julie gives a glowing wonderful performance that any musical comedy buff should not miss. Great WW 1 Songs and nice tunes by Mancini.

Yes the film has plot holes and at times doesn't seem logical. For example, why is Julie and her uncle suddenly pursued by the Germans when a minute ago she was spying for them.

But on another note, who cares? The musical numbers are fun and exciting. The costumes and scenery extraordinarily lavish. The cinematography quite on the mark.

It has the annoying idiot detectives that Blake Edwards puts in all his movies. (Yawn)

But it has Julie- trying desperately to change her image. (You can imagine dinner with Blake and Julie - Julie: "Blake we need to change my image."

Blake: "I Will make you a German Spy, then we will take your clothes off in another movie and then play a transvestite in a another movie. They won't recognize you. It will be the death of Maria Von Trapp"

Fascinating study on changing an image. Wonderful Julie. A must see for musical comedy buffs. Much more entertaining than Star! I always loved this film. The music,story and the action. I especially love the opening and closing of the film. The music stayed with me throughout the years. The WWI plane battles were great and the comedy is typical Blake Edwards. Slaptick is his forte' after all. Julie's singing is amazing and keeps me glued to the screen. The sets and the scenes are wonderful. The characters are appealing. I loved the scene with the wounded soldiers and Julie's singing to them. I wish she sang to me in Vietnam. I also enjoyed the old cars from the period and the WWI music.I was glad when the DVD arrived. Now I can whistle in the dark watching it again and again. This movie is certainly well-constructed, beginning and ending in the dark, with focus on Lili Smith /Schmidt, Julie Andrews,initially the singing 'angel' later the notorious spy.

It's beautiful! I saw the movie about 15 years ago and watched it again recently. While it was dismissed by critics in the 70's as overblown, 'cinema vulgaris', and lacking in structure (among others) time has proven them wrong. Blake Edwards certainly has produced a film that is almost of lyrical quality.

The film soars and swirls (aerial photography; Julie Andrews in motion) and captivates. One must just buy into the premise that Julie Andrews is a spy whose mission has gone wrong. Overlooking the tepid chemistry between Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, one must believe that these are lovers - who in all innocence fall for each other. And in the end, love is far more important than winning wars. And so is maintaining innocence.

There is a lot of understated acting, and the film certainly reaches emotional depths often not seen in comedies.

There are wonderful comedic elements (foreshadowing the French goons in Victor/Victoria), interesting diplomatic asides (reminding me of The Tamarind Seed, seen about 18 years ago) and a general sense of good-will.

Suspend all disbelief and this movie will carry you away. Julie Andrews' belting out of war songs and the haunting 'Whistling Away the Dark' are reason enough to turn the TV on, just for the soundtrack. And the striptease number, like the 'Jenny' number in Star! works.

This film has, like a good champagne, aged well. Paramount should bring it to DVD as soon as possible. The same applies to transferring the laser disk of Star! to DVD. These are both interesting pieces of Julie Andrews' meticulous and then underrated works. i found the story to be just enough of a thriller that the wonderful henry mancici music didn't lull me. julie andrews was excellant and i sure don't understand why this movie had problems at the box office when it came out because it just makes me happy at the end to have everybody singing. and i do like happy ever after endings which i think you can say this movie has along with some traditional blake edwards humor... Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie / musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, "Whistling Away the Dark," will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again. This Blake Edwards film isn't too sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a drama or a musical. No matter, the sheer presence of Julie Andrews, is reason enough to see this comedy-drama-musical-spy spoof. Julie is beautiful and uses her many talents, throughout the film. Rock Hudson looks tired, but he's is more than fine, as Julie's romantic interest. Authentic World War I cars and planes, add to the appeal. Overall, the film is very entertaining. The DVD release is an edited (by Blake Edwards) version of the original release. Supposedly, this is the only version that Edwards would allow; but, Turner Classic Movies has shown the complete (theatrical release) version, recently. Recommended. I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!

The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun.

I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered. I am an avid Julie Andrews fan and I just watched this for the first time on DVD -- the Director's Cut version. I was very surprised that it was rated G. How did they get bedroom scenes, a seduction story line, two strip tease acts, and war/shooting/blood into a G rating? Weird. I would rate it PG-13.

Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was a beautiful showcase of Andrew's voice and talent. The acting was great. The storyline was a little weak, leaving gaps that could have been filled with some good dialogue. There were too many "no talking, just walking" scenes for me... I would have liked to see the the relationship between Julie and Rock blossom, so that the intense love would be more believable. Darling Lili is a mixture of Perfection and Magic! The Stars; Julie Andrews & Rock Hudson could not have done a better attempt if they tried. It's full of all the magic that a young lady wishes for and it makes it seem as if it can all really happen to you. The brilliance of the Director; Blake Edwards is shown to be at his best. He was truly capturing the woman he loved on screen!

The blend of each song, went perfectly with the moment in the film. The Film opened with Julie Andrews singing Whistling Away In The Dark and closed with the same Song by Andrews.

For A Film Of This Excellence To Have Been Such A Failure When It Was Released, Is A Total Shock...

As It Is: "Inspirational...Purely....Inspirational!" ~One Of Andrews Most Memorable Lines In This Film! It really is a great film (after being able to ignore Blake Edwards Pink Panther references which he appears to be obsessed with and are hugely unfunny). Julie is, as usual, wonderful - singing and acting brilliantly. I remember seeing it at the Odeon Cinema in the Haymarket, London on its release. However Julie's non-appearance at the UK premiere of STAR! was most unfortunate and (apparently!) due to filming the aerial shots for Darling Lili over Ireland. A reasonable excuse if she had appeared in any of these aerial shots but she did not. Two box office flops in a row ruined her film career for quite a few years. But Darling Lili,just like STAR!, deserves much more public appreciation. Fun, entertaining movie about WWII German spy (Julie Andrews!) falling in love with American pilot (Rock Hudson), while trying to get secrets from him. For some reason this was attacked by critics and shunned by the public in 1970--I can't see why. It's beautifully shot, has wonderful costumes and interiors, and exciting aerial dogfights. Also it has Andrews doing a strip-tease (strictly PG material) and singing a beautiful song--"Whistling in the Dark". The movie does have problems. Andrews and Hudson did not get along during the shooting of this--and it shows. Their love scenes lack spark and they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they turn in OK performances. The film is a little long (even in the 105 min director's cut I saw) and gets way too dark and serious at the end. Still, worth catching. Try seeing the directors cut...the other one runs half an hour longer! The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s.

The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability "to take fragments and make them whole" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, "If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks.

From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come. The main reason for watching this picture is to savor the brilliant performance of S. Ephata Merkerson. Ms. Merkerson dominates this film with her tremendous presence as Nanny, the woman who believes in doing good, no matter to whom, with no strings attached. This actress clearly shows a range that is amazing.

Thanks to director George Wolf for bringing this distinguished cast of some of the best Black Americans actors together. This ensemble group under his tight direction help create the right atmosphere in which the action takes place.

Of course, none of this would have been possible if Ruben Santiago Hudson hadn't written his wonderful play. Working with Mr. Wolf, perhaps the best theater director of this generation, they have opened the play in a way that it evokes that not too distant past where a child lives under the influence of Ms. Crosby, when his own parents are not around to take care of him. Ms. Crosby becomes the adoring mother of little Ruben; in a way, he represents her reward for having lost her own daughter.

Unfortunately, there is no time to develop some of the characters, as the action solely concentrates in enhancing the relationship between Nanny and the young Ruben, played with such charm by the young Marcus Carl Franklin, who is a natural. The only thing that could have been done differently was the voice over narration that is at times intrusive, as it doesn't clarify, or justify what one is seeing. Frankly, just by watching the interaction of the players, is self explanatory.

In the background there is always music. No matter what hard times these people are going through, but Nanny's house is full of laughter and that glorious music that takes us back to that era.

Aside from Ms. Merkerson, other notable performances are given by Terrence Dashon Howard, one of the rising stars of the moment. Mos Def, Jeffrey Wright, Marcy Gray, Louis Gossett Jr.,Delroy Lindo, Rosie Perez, Carmen Ejogo, Jimmy Smits and the rest.

Ms. S. Ephata Merkerson deserves to be seen by a wider audience. In "Lackawanna Blues", she clearly demonstrates she can do anything she wants because of her enormous talent and charisma. I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.

The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day. Superb editing, outstanding acting, especially by Epatha Merkerson, and highly enjoyable musical soundtrack. This film reaches back to the 40's to comment on the racial lifestyle differences and some effect of desegregation while it weaves the true story of a truly admirable and fantastic lady.

The actor portraying the young Terrence Howard character does a wonderful job reflecting the life and times of his upbringing in the small upstate New York town. The audience laughed, cried, and erupted in applause for the film and its director.

Soon to be shown on HBO (Feb 7, I believe) - fire up the TIVO and enjoy a great story! I gave this film my rare 10 stars.

When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.

This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.

Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.

In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era. "Lackawanna Blues'is so emotionally powerful in its portrayal of urban Blacks during the 50s and early 60s. A culture of joy and sadness specific to working class Blacks that existed outside the mainstream culture. The characters of Santiago-Hudson's play depicted Black individuals who lived imperfect lives but maintained strong positive values of love,loyalty and honor. Although the characters moved away from those values at times, they did not deny the importance of the values. Instead they recognized and accepted their own imperfection and those of the other characters, without judgment, that passed through the life of "nanny". The central characters were strong and believable, the settings were realistic and brought back personal memories of a by-gone era. Pre-integration urban life was a time of sensory intoxication, sight, sound,and smell, that could almost be experienced by watching the drama "Lackawanna Blues" unfold. I will watch it again and again. No blood, no sex (though it oozes passion), no special effects, but just one of those pearls that comes across your movie screen when you're not really looking and grabs your attention.

Great acting, great sets, great music, beautiful storyline. If only there were a lot more movies made like this one!

The sets move us through time and make us feel like we were there.

The acting appears like real life, and elevates us to the level of awareness of "Nanny", to whom no-one is a lost cause, least of all the inhabitants of her own "Halfway" house.

Best of all it's a true story of misfits learning to "fit in". I was somewhat jealous of the good times that everyone appeared to be having in the movie! Could we all spend some time in Nanny's house? This was a great movie. Something not only for Black History month but as a reminder of the goodness of people and the statement that it truly does take a village to raise a child. The performances by S Eptath was outstanding. Mos Def and his singing was off the hook. Had to do a double take when I saw that was Rosie Perez there. But the supporting cast of actors and actresses made this worth watching. All the different stories they had was amazing. And how Nanny protected Jr and literally everyone else that was in her presence. I can truly understand her being the matriarch of that time period and even more so how tired she was in helping everyone. Cant wait for it to come out on DVD. It would be a welcome addition to any movie library. This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role. This is a must-see movie. You will laugh, you will cry, and when it's over you'll wish there were more. Well-written and compelling, this movie draws you in and holds on tight. The casting was perfect, the characters purposeful, and the performances outstanding. "Nanny" is the standard to which all women should hold themselves: strong, forgiving, protective, and never judgmental. "Nanny", to me, is the epitome of what a Christian mother and woman should be: a true pillar of the community. If I were half the woman "Nanny" is, I might consider myself to be doing okay. I would have been devastated if "Nanny" had died at some point in the movie, but since she didn't I will definitely buy this when it comes out on DVD. I can only hope that the story continues and that Ruben goes back to Lackawanna to try to rebuild the town, piece by piece and person by person. This was absolutely one of the best movies I've seen.

Excellent performances from a marvelous A-List cast that will move you from smiles to laughter to tears and back.

I couldn't help but care about the characters. Ms. Merkerson will blow you away, as will the young man playing the young lead.

I also thought that the set design was top-rate. The viewer is really placed inside each era as it's presented.

The music is a blast, too. Nice selections to represent mood, time and place. The blind blues man is stereotypic but he delivers some great songs.

This is a great story that will survive many repeated viewings. Take the time to watch it! Fantastically written, acted, and produced! Loved seeing this gleaming, talented cast -- every single one of them -- give a such great performance. This movie thoroughly warmed the cockles of my heart! Great storytelling!

This is a great movie for Black History month. Full of an accurate portrayal of recent history and very real characters who weathered incredible pain -- with dignity and a belief in a better future. It is so easy to see how these diverse adults all affected this child and contributed to the fertile imagination that would eventually fuel the talent of his adulthood. The next time you're in the company of a listening and observing child, remember; show or he may be a writer-in-the-making! Lackawanna Blues is a very moving film depicting an era filled with varying emotions and characters as seen through the eyes of a young boy. The film clearly supports "it takes a village to raise a child" and reminds of an important time in black history and culture. I gained an incredible amount of respect for Macy Gray as an actress. Her character was a little crazy, yet lovable; clearly we all have known someone like Macy's character. S. Epatha Merkerson is absolutely fantastic as Nanny. I never realized that Epatha was such a great actress. Law & Order never showcased the depth of Epatha's acting abilities like Lackawanna Blues. I was pleasantly surprised and amazed! The music and the characters reminded me of my own childhood...it was a sweet nostalgic walk down memory lane. I truly enjoyed the film and eagerly await the DVD release to add to my collection. I watch Lackawanna Blues every time it comes on. It brings back happy times for me. I grow up in a big city in the mid-west. It reminds me of when I was a child although my situation was a little different it feels the same. It makes me wonder if all we will ever know about families are lost. The big mama's of day are under the age of 55. Will they see know what it takes to be a inspiration to other. I hope that I was not the only one who loved this movie enough to relate it to their past. The music was great in this movie. I truly felt like this should have gone to the theaters I would have paid to see it. As I viewed the movie for the second time I figured out who life this movie was about. He did an superb job in writing and producing this film. I guess who better to produce a film based on your life other than you. As soon as I can I will be obtaining a copy for my home use. I alway enjoy black producer or directors they make such film feel like you were actually living in the time right than. Thanks for such a great movie. Lackawanna Blues is and excellent movie. The casting was perfect. Every actor and actress was perfectly suited for the role they played. Their chemistry together was amazing. The acting was superb. I felt as if i knew the characters. I could almost 'feel' them. They reminded me of people that I knew as a child growing up in the 50's and 60's. Oh, the memories!! My personal belief is that this movie should have been on the big screen for all to see. I have watched this movie so many times, that I can almost recite the lines as the characters are saying them. I can't even list my favorite part, because I have SO MANY favorite parts. Thank you for bringing back a part of my youth that I never see in this day and age...and that is Black people loving each other, looking out for each other, respecting each other, caring about each other, and doing all we can to help each other. Gotta go now. I have to go watch it again. I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental. Just a great soundtrack. Really enjoyable music. Outstanding cast, great lead performance. Worth watching.

Doesn't really explain what happened to the neighborhood. You are left feeling that integration is to blame or that with the departure of the lead character the neighborhood disintegrated.

This movie seems well researched and extremely well crafted. I especially enjoyed some of the minor characters like Jeffrey Wright.

The cutting during the opening sequence helps express what a lively, engaging and desirable experience that nightclub would have been with the jump music, food, drink, dancing, gambling and sex. Lackawanna Blues is a moving story about a boy who is raised in a house by some pretty unusual people.

It's editing and soundtrack really pulls you in to the story and lets you experience the film the way the writer really meant for it to be seen.

The music really tied into the story, which made the characters come to life. The editing made the story more progressive and captivating.

I was also surprised by some of the performances of the cast, most notably S. Epatha Merkerson's.

I can't wait to see the one man show featuring this films writer, Ruben Santiago-Hudson. One of the best,Lackawanna Blues

Great movie,great cast,great music,this is one of those movies that is so good that when it is over you wish it would go on for another 90 minutes,I will w3atch this one many times.

This is one of those movies that grabs you from the beginning and twist and slams you emotionally throughout the feature. The cast is extraordinary without the faintest hint of anyone being uncormfortable in their role. You get the sense that you're really there taking all this in. A great deal of care was given in the sets, costumes and music of the period. The relationship between the characters we meet is both simple and complicated as the movie goes on, but the steady performance of Ms. Merkerson is so powerful that the movie ends before we've had our fill of the wonderful misfits. To single out anyone other than "Nanny" is an injustice because we have very good performances by great veteran actors including:

Jeffery Wright, Jimmy Smits, Terrence Howard and Delroy Lindo. But it is Marcus Franklin, Macy Gray and Ms. Merkerson that makes this a wonderful experience.

The movie moves rapidly and is short by todays standards, but it is without question one of the best movies you're going to see this year. If you like good period pieces that will challenge you emotionally, tug at your heart, lift you joyfully and have you tapping your feet at the same time, then this is the movie for you. I've shown it to several friends and they all want my copy, that says it all, the movie is that good. Check it out for yourself.

danceability-1, Amsterdam Holland This is one of those movies that you just don't want to end. The characters are rich like a well woven tapestry. Colorful costumes, music and characters draw you in and tell a tale of the people that lived in a boarding house over the decades around the time of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. A young man is taken in by a dynamic, big-hearted woman that runs the house and these are stories based on his experiences.

I couldn't believe this was a made for television film. It was so well executed. S. Epatha Merkerson is wonderful as Nanny and she brings so much life to this role. You want to be right there amongst her boarders.

I enjoyed this film so much I bought the DVD. What a wonderful film, filled with eccentric, unique characters who are wonderfully realized by a great ensemble cast. The director also did a great job keeping the story held together, getting those wonderful performances (on not messing with them) and using music (and what wonderful music it is) to great effect. S. Epatha in the lead role is great. I had always heard what a brilliant stage actor she is, and although I have enjoyed her on Law and Order, this really shows what she can do with a filled out, complex role. Macy Gray is terrific, Mos Def, as usual, wonderful. Lou Gossett, great. Jimmy Smits, terrific, and doesn't try to pull focus because he's a star. A true piece of ensemble acting.

Rent it, enjoy it, groove to it, and treasure it. Something special. Lackawana Blues An impressive HBO movie about a beautiful woman that made her house a home for several characters.Touching,alive,entrancing-a great mix of sound and story- based on a true story featuring an All-Star cast.A time capsule about .....

you get the point and no I am not on the payola for the HBO crew- I would throw around more superlatives but I am about to go out . The extras on the DVD include a deleted scene,a featurette and commentary.The funniest part about the featurette was "star" lighting they used when interviewing exec producer Halle Berry..

OK seriously - good times A Ever since I first encountered the Divine Ms Merkerson as a sex therapist in Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It" I have been sold on the range of this exceedingly gifted yet terribly underrated actress. She received an Emmy for her portrayal here and to say it is well-deserved is a masterpiece of understatement.

Here she simply shines as THE guiding force and hand in her community. This was especially poignant for me for I grew up in this very same time period. The production detail was phenomenal and evoked wooooooooooooooonderful memories of life and times during the 50s & 60s and of women like Ms Merkerson portrayed. She was thoroughly and ably accompanied by a hot, hot cast with performances one would enjoy over and over again. I first saw Macy Gray's name in the credits and went ho-hum. Her performance was so good, I didn't even recognize her until about a 3rd of the way through. I am especially proud of the obvious care and attention to detail to produce a feel and look of another beautiful era in African-American culture that is very tastefully done.

Another very interesting aspect is that the project was less concerned with the racial fabric of the times but infinitely more attuned to the richness of the characters and the emotional diversity they provide to exemplify that in the final analysis it is about the choices we make and to what extent we accept responsibility for those choices.

This is a worthy, elegant presentation of African-American life and is most assuredly destined to become a classic. You owe it to yourself to have this as part of your collection.

I highly recommend. S. Epatha Merkerson shines as Nanny in this touching and vibrant look at the life of Ruben Santiago, Jr. (Marcus Franklin) while growing up under the guardianship of Nanny. The film gives a good character study of both Nanny and Ruben and manages to capture life's ups and downs in a realistic fashion unlike so many memoirs that are made into film. The supporting cast adds much spark and many recognizable faces appear in smaller roles including Mos Def, Macy Gray, Terrence Dashon Howard, Rosie Perez, Louis Gossett, Jr., Liev Schreiber, Jimmy Smits, Ernie Hudson, Delroy Lindo, and Patricia Wettig. Loses some steam and vibrancy towards the end, and the ending sequence leaves a bittersweet feeling. But, overall a great film with a truly outstanding performance by Merkerson. This is by far one of the best biographical films of recent times. I'll go so far as to put it up there with Ray and The Aviator. It is the story of a young, bi-racial boy who lives in a boarding house run by the amazing Miss Rachael aka "Nanny". You will fall in love with Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to those around her. S. Epatha Merkerson brings the character to life beautifully, and the other cast members are do the same. If I were to praise each actor for the way they played their roles, I'd have to mention everyone in the entire cast.

The music in this film perfectly blends with the story, almost dictates the way it goes. And what's more, this film is actually entertaining. It won't bore you at all, not even for a minute!

I highly recommend this film to anyone wanting to spend an evening at home watching a very smart, very entertaining, quality film. LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it. Every once in a while a film comes along with characters we all know and love. A film where you see people you know portrayed on screen. It's cinema very at its best.

Lackawanna Blues is that film. Set in 1960s upstate New York, the story surrounds a rock- solid woman, who is the foundation for her community. This, based on a true story film, is told from a child she accepted as her own. This child, Ruben Santiago-Hudson wrote the screenplay.

*Emmy winner, S. Epatha Merkerson stars as Nanny, a woman who has wit, drive and determination for helping others in her boarding home. She does this as she wrestles with infidelity from her young lover, Bill Crosby, played by the **Oscar nominated Terrence Howard.

But make no mistake; see this film for the amazing performance of Merkerson, who is brilliant in this role. She encompasses a person we have all known, and perhaps love.

Lackawanna Blues is already on DVD; be sure to pick it up at your local video story today.

*Merkerson has already won an Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for this role.

**Howard has an Oscar nomination for his role in Hustle & Flow. Lackawanna Blues is a touching story about Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to help those in need. It's told from the viewpoint of a boy, taken in by Nanny when his own mother isn't quite up to the task.

I have respect for this movie for three main reasons: 1) It is touching, but not sappy. It's told in a very real fashion, without a lot of the aggravating Hollywood storytelling baggage. And the ending is quite good (teary but not over-the-top).

2) Although it's clearly an African-American film, being set in the post-segregation black community of Lackawanna, New York, it doesn't wear its ethnicity on its sleeve. The story stands on the strength of the characters and the dramas (and comedies) surrounding their lives. It's not preachy, it's simply good.

3) It has a great soundtrack (can't beat old-school R&B and Chicago blues).

Generally the acting is strong, but not universally so. Some of the performances simply don't hold up to the characters the actors are supposed to portray. But considering it was a made-for-TV movie, that's to be expected.

8 out of 10. Imperfect but likable, good film for a rainy day. Lackawanna Blues is a drama through and through. It details the life of a strong woman by the name of Rachel Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson). Rachel is referred to as Nanny by all who know her, but she could have just as easily been called Wonder Woman. She epitomized strength, will power, confidence and resolve. She owned a home that she used to house just about every type of person that society would reject. Her tenants consisted of a lesbian, a psychotic war veteran, an amputee, and a host of other vagrants that made the home miles away from ordinary. Each successive event Rachel took in stride and handled flawlessly. She wasn't a dictator devoid of compassion, but in fact she was quite the opposite. She displayed compassion almost to a fault by giving shelter and refuge to so many that she seemed to over-extend herself.

Merkerson did a good job, but I believe this role was right up her alley anyway. The movie had an even keel never straying from Rachel. There were of course dramatic moments but they were to be expected. Nothing was ever to shocking or profound other than Rachel herself. LACKAWANNA BLUES is a fine stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and an even finer film as the author adapted his own life story for the screen. This brilliant film ignites the screen with rich colors, fine music, brilliant editing, superb direction by George C. Wolfe, and a cast so stunning that they make an encore viewing compulsory! Yes, it is just that good.

The story is based on the author's life as the child 'Junior' (Marcus Carl Franklin) raised in the inimitable home of soulfully empathetic Rachel "Nanny" Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson), a lady who devoted her life to aiding the disenfranchised by transporting them from the South, from mental hospitals, and from the streets to Lackawanna, New York. The boy recalls all the lessons he learned about life from the inhabitants of the house - odd characters with painful pasts - and from the disintegration of his racially mixed biological family rescued by Nanny. The myriad characters of the home are too numerous to outline but they are portrayed by some of the finest actors in the business: Terrence Howard, Rosie Perez, Mos Def, the beautiful Carmen Ejogo, Louis Gossett Jr., Jeffrey Wright, Ernie Hudson, Charlayne Woodward, Jimmy Smits, Patricia Wettig, Macy Gray, Liev Schreiber, Kathleen Chalfant, Lou Myers, Hill Harper - the list goes on and on.

In the course of the film we are introduced to the cruelties of racism, the history of desegregation, the dynamics of drug abuse and violence, the infectious joy of African American music contributions to our musical culture, and the courage of one fine woman who battled all the hardships the world can dish out to maintain the dignity of those with whom she came into contact. S. Epatha Merkerson is wholly submerged in this role, a role she makes shine like a beacon of reason in a world of chaos. She offers one of the most stunning performances of the past years, and had this film been released in the theaters instead of as an HBO movie, she without a doubt would add the Oscar to place along side her Golden Globe award.

The entire cast is exceptional and Wolfe handles the acting and the story like a master: like riffs in a jazz piece, he pastes tiny moments of conversation with each character and Junior along with flashes of scenes from the story with the matrix of dance fests at the local clubs brimming over the top with incredible blues, jazz, dancing, and joy. The production crew has mounted this little miracle of a picture with extreme care and never for a moment does attention lag from the momentum of the story. Highly Recommended, almost Compulsory Viewing! Grady Harp I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.

It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.

The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.

This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.

Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.

Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.

I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser. 'The Dresser' is one of those films which are so perfect you really struggle to find something not to like about them. Written by Ronald Harwood (himself a former dresser to the legendary Donald Wolfit), it sparkles with energy and true love of life behind the footlights.

As 'Sir', the overbearing actor and main focus of the play, Albert Finney is a joy to watch - whether complaining about the lack of a storm during the 'blow, winds ...' bit of 'King Lear' or chatting to his faithful stage manager, Madge (Eileen Atkins, good as ever) about the old times. As Norman, his camp dresser, Tom Courtenay gives a fabulous performance, wiggling around at the beck and call of 'Lear', collecting a bottle to go at the pub, or bitchily disparaging the former Fool, Mr Davenport-Scott (often mentioned, but never seen!).

In an engaging support cast, there's Edward Fox as Oxenby (a typical arrogant second lead), Zena Walker as her Ladyship, Lockwood West as the replacement Fool, and many others.

This film has great energy, bringing with it some of the greasepaint of its stage origins, it is true, but being so well-acted you don't notice. Very well done indeed.

What more can you ask for? A great screenplay based on one of the finest plays of the latter half of the 20th century, two fine emotional performances by Courtney and Finney, a realistic vision of war time london, a great supporting cast. This film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster through humour, sadness, loss and fulfillment. if you are in the theatre it is even more effective. This is a true 10 on the rating scale ! A fantastic cinema experience. I really enjoyed seeing this truly magnificent film in the theater when it came out. There is nothing to add, except that is a terrible shame that sir Albert Finney still isn't accepted by the AMPAS (American Academy). After roles in such films as Tom Jones, Murder on the Orient Express, Under the Volcano (to name only few - for these he was nominated for the Oscar), The Dresser is arguably his highlight, yet...

I know, Oscars are just popularity contest, but if Americans like British actors and actresses ("and the Oscar goes to" Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Glenda Jackson etc. - and they all deserved the award!), why they always left sir Finney with empty hands?

On the other hand, they gave it to John Wayne and Marisa Tomei (in Cousin Vinny). I don't know, should I laugh or cry.

If you have seen the two leads in The Dresser, you won't forget what is the art of acting. Watch this film and enjoy! I recommend it to everyone who loves art.

I give 9/10 for this excellent film (1 point missing for non-cinematic material, after all it is "just" a theater)

Note: My criteria is much stronger than this on IMDb (10 only for the cinematic masterpiece that should/could last forever). Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we "see" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in "Lear" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video. This film has its detractors, and Courtney's fey dresser may offend some folks (who, frankly, need a good smack upside the head) -- but the film is top notch in every way: engaging, poignant, relevant. Finney, naturally, is larger than life. Courtney makes an ideal foil. I thought the performances to be terribly strong in both leads, and Courtney's character provides plenty of dark humor. The period is well captured, the supporting cast well chosen. This is to be seen and savored like a fine cordial. I only wish it were out on DVD already...(*sigh*)... This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers. "Sir" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. "The Dresser" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by "Sir", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called "The Old School".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal

of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of "The Girls" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in "The Theatre".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw "The Dresser" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's "Norman" was rather more subdued than in the movie."Sir" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an "also - ran" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that "Sir" and "Norman" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. "Norman" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British "New Wave" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,"middle - class and ashamed of it" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.

"The Dresser" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large "We're still here".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one. Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love

this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny

and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two

very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic

Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging

around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre

company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.

Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,

whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.

Really a must see. What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal offense in England at the time.

We can read under the surface that this recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic and literal depiction of the man's inner torment.

So while the drama is of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about him, as the title suggests.

The art direction, pacing and cinematic style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all its flaws. "The Dresser" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to "Terms of Endearment"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).

Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of "King Lear"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.

Grade: A The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.

The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are "senior citizens", the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence

How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger. This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.

Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax. "The Dresser" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the "energetic" character of Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never dwells on it or makes it more than it is.

The gritty style of Peter Yates that worked so well in "Bullitt" is again on display, and gives the film a sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so easily have become tedious. In the end, "The Dresser" will bore many people silly, but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema.

7.7 out of 10 Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch. I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made "The Postman" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in "Butterfly Effect". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo! As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard. Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was pretty accurate.

I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case.

The movie is truly more character/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than Costner's is.

Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds.

As girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the movie.

As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun, Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times.

I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any other language.

The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a little long towards the end.

You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid.

I hope you enjoy the movie. I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end. I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.

It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard. I was pleasantly surprised to find this movie showing as a sneak preview in my local theater.

We have all seen this plot line before (Top Gun, GI Jane, An Officer and a Gentleman) but a good script still works. This story is basically about the training of a Coast Guard rescue team with a couple of side story lines. Kevin Costner plays a highly successful rescue team leader, Ben Randall, who is forced into heading the training team after a tough mission. The movie takes us through the rigors of the training process and the personal stories of both the Costner character and that of Jake Fischer, played by Ashton Kutcher. I am happy to say that Ashton is great in this part.

There are no great surprises in this movie and you will probably realize what is coming long before it arrives. However, the use of humor, the exploration of the toughness of the training and the fun of watching Ben Randall "do his own thing as a trainer", kept me riveted and thoroughly entertained. I really enjoy watching a movie that makes the entire audience laugh out loud, gasp here and there, and clap at the end as a tribute to the movie.

We all had a good time (despite a couple of tough moments in the movie)and, I think, you will too. I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.

I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.

It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.

But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs.

Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.

I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.

Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.

Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education?

Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.

THE GIST

Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth. If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast. So, I would say the ending left me disappointed.

I thought that the characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing it.

In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written/Edited Ending. Still, Go See It!!! I've seen this story before but my kids haven't. Boy with troubled past joins military, faces his past, falls in love and becomes a man. The mentor this time is played perfectly by Kevin Costner; An ordinary man with common everyday problems who lives an extraordinary conviction, to save lives. After losing his team he takes a teaching position training the next generation of heroes. The young troubled recruit is played by Kutcher. While his scenes with the local love interest are a tad stiff and don't generate enough heat to melt butter, he compliments Costner well. I never really understood Sela Ward as the neglected wife and felt she should of wanted Costner to quit out of concern for his safety as opposed to her selfish needs. But her presence on screen is a pleasure. The two unaccredited stars of this movie are the Coast Guard and the Sea. Both powerful forces which should not be taken for granted in real life or this movie. The movie has some slow spots and could have used the wasted 15 minutes to strengthen the character relationships. But it still works. The rescue scenes are intense and well filmed and edited to provide maximum impact. This movie earns the audience applause. And the applause of my two sons. I'm a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6) and have been in the USCG for 6 years and feel that this movie strongly represents the Coast Guard. There were only a few scenes that were far fetched. The most far-fetched was when PO Fischer (Kutcher) went down inside of the sinking vessel to pull the vessel's captain out of the engine room... that would never happen. Swimmers are not allowed to go inside of any vessel no matter the circumstances. Second, the Command Center (supposedly in Kodiak), it looked more like a NASA command center... we don't have any gear that hi-tech. Third, the Captain of the Airstation would not be running the search & rescue cases with like 10 people on watch. In reality it would be an E-6 or E-7 as the SAR Controller and maybe 2 other support personnel like an assist SAR Controller & a Radio Watchstander. Otherwise the movie was dead on, I think they should have incorporated more of the other rates in the CG and their roles in search & rescue instead of just Aviation based rates. Some of the scenes from "A" school reminded me of my days their and the dumb stuff I did and got in trouble for in my younger days. Our family (and the entire sold out sneak preview audience) enjoyed "The Guardian". Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher gave convincing performances as the fictional helicopter rescue swimmer characters Ben and Jake. After seeing this movie, you can't help but imagine how difficult it must be to graduate from the USCG helicopter rescue swimmer school and one day take part in real rescues.

Even though this is a fictional movie, it delivered rather convincing virtues of team spirit, dedication and bravery exhibited by all the members of the actual U. S. Coast Guard.

The special effects used to create the rescue scenes were incredible. You actually felt like you were taking part in a real rescue.

I feel the movie could have been made without the "Hollywood" bar scene (when you see the movie, you might agree) since the real Coast Guard does not condone such behavior.

Very entertaining, very action packed, definitely worth seeing. Thank you, U. S. Coast Guard and the REAL helicopter rescue swimmers, "So Others May Live". I'd highly recommend this movie to everyone. I was fortunate enough to see this movie on pre-release last night and, though I wasn't expecting to, actually really enjoyed the movie for the most part. The rescues and sea effects were amazing to watch and definitely provided edge of the seat tense moments, probably all the more so knowing that there are guys who do this for a living. The weaker parts of the movie revolve largely around using stereotypical set scenes. I'm not going to spoil the movie but this really follows along the lines of An Officer and a Gentleman and those moments give it a little bit of a cheesy aftertaste.

Like I said over all this movie is pretty good and worth checking out as long as you can get past the clichés. I only went to see this movie because I have always liked Kevin Costner. I felt that Ashton did a great job in the Butterfly Effect. Unfortunately, even though these two actors were/are capable of good if not great acting moments some of that was missing here. Some of the scenes were just not believable and didn't have enough story line support.

Though the movie claims influence from the hurricane Katrina aftermath, there was very little (none) to that effect in the movie.

Overall, I liked the fact that the movie brought forward some of what goes into saving lives from a water perspective.

The special effects were pretty good and more than a little intimidating. Not sure I'll ever go deep sea fishing again...

I expected a little more emotion in the film than what was presented.

Definitely a movie that could've been seen on DVD. This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.

I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.

This films is Truly Exceptional! How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.

BUT...

See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.

The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.

From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.

7 of 10 but almost a 6. My yardstick for measuring a movie's watch-ability is if I get squirmy. If I start shifting positions and noticing my butt is sore, the film is too long. This movie did not even come close to being boring. Predictable in some parts sure, but never boring.

All of the other military branches have had love notes written about them and seen their recruitment levels go up, why not the Coast Guard too? They are definitely under-appreciated, until the day your boat sinks that is.

The movie was very enjoyable and fun. Kevin Costner is perfect as the aging macho man who doesn't know when to quit. However, I was most impressed by Ashton Kutcher's performance. I have never liked him, never watched any of his TV shows and always considered him an immature ... well, punk. In this film, he does a great job! He is well on his way to having leading-man status. I think the film we were shown must have been an advance rough cut or something, because about 2/3 of the way in, the film stock turned very grainy, the sound level dropped and microphones were seen dropping down all over the place. Also at the viewing were representatives from the movie, looking for audience feedback - particularly on the parts of the film we didn't like.

*****POSSIBLE SPOILER: The feedback I gave concerned a a couple of lines in the beginning. Kevin Costner comes home to see his wife, Sela Ward, packing her stuff up and moving out. He says, "Maybe I should be the one to move out." And she replies, "No, you don't know where anything is in this house; I should be the one to go." This doesn't make sense: If she knows the layout so well, Costner is right, he *should* be the one to leave. My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could! I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge. The 08th MS team features two hopeful romantics from different sides of the conflict. Aina, the Zeon officer, and Shiro, the Federal Forces' new pilot, meet in a battle in space, throughout the 12 episode series (and one "movie") the two debate their love for each other while trying to come to grips with the war that surrounds them. It features a Romeo and Juliet romance and unbeatable animation. By far one of the best to hit American Shores. Suit Up! I just re-watched 08th MS Gundam for the 2nd time. It is so much better than Gundam Wing. I can't wait to get the DVD and see what was edited out of the series. This is great to see the Gundams actually move about clumsily through the land. Somebody really thought over writing this move script.

See this today,. When I saw this film, it reminded me of all the greatest dreams i had (mostly filled with robots)

I can relate to Eledore's problems and I have a similarity to Shiro, and this is a great film to watch (if you're a Goth who is bitter and eccentric like me!). All in all, watch it before it's out of print! It took a loan out film to Columbia for Gene Kelly's home studio MGM to realize his creative talent and give him some control over what he did in his own films. Cover Girl also became Rita Hayworth's signature film for the GIs and their pinup fantasies during World War II.

Kelly plays the owner of a small nightclub in Brooklyn where Rita is a featured dancer and Phil Silvers the comic. Of course Kelly does a bit of hoofing himself there.

Hayworth comes to the attention of millionaire Otto Kruger when it turns out that Kruger had loved and lost Hayworth's grandmother. In some flashback sequences from the gaslight era, Hayworth also plays her own grandmother with Jess Barker playing the young Kruger. You might remember Jess Barker was the husband of that other legendary screen redhead, Susan Hayward.

Broadway producer Lee Bowman also is attracted to Hayward, but he's not interested in nostalgia. He wants her for his Ziegfeld Follies revue and in fact the biggest number of Cover Girl is the title song of the film. It's nicely done in Follies style.

Hayworth also gets to sing A Sure Thing in a gaslight era number and in the only song in the show not written by Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin, Hayworth also does an old English music hall number Poor John. When I say sing, as everyone knows Rita mouths words. Singing here is done by Nan Wynn.

The biggest hit of the show is Long Ago and Far Away which is introduced by Gene Kelly. It was one of the biggest hits of the World War II era and one of the biggest sellers Jerome Kern ever wrote. It happens in fact to be a favorite of an aunt of mine who with my uncle will be celebrating 60 years of marriage this September. Long Ago and Far Away was nominated for Best Song, but lost to Swinging on a Star.

What really sets Cover Girl apart and what makes it a milestone film for Gene Kelly is the two numbers Put Me to the Test and the Alter Ego number. Harry Cohn decided to do what Louis B. Mayer had refused at MGM, to give Kelly creative control of his own material. Kelly later said the alter ego number was one of the hardest things he ever attempted in his career. In it he dances with a pale reflection of himself and the choreography is dazzling and intricate.

In fact after one more loan out film, Christmas Holiday at Universal, Louis B. Mayer never loaned out Gene Kelly for the rest of the time he was at MGM. And he did get creative control from then on.

With that dazzling technicolor cinematography and Rita's red hair and Gene Kelly's boundless creativity, Cover Girl was and is a classic and will forever be so. A good story about Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) who dreams of being on broadway which means she would have to leave the small dinner theater where she works with Danny (Gene Kelly) and Genius (Phil Silvers). Rusty is in love with Danny. All three are good friends and every Friday night they go to a local bar where they get oysters so they can look for a pearl (they never eat them). The story line provides numerous opportunities for songs and dancing. The movie has two questions that Rusty must answer: Is fame all that it is cracked up to be? and Is less really more if you are happy? Answering those questions makes the movie. The movie also does a good job of showcasing the talents that all three principals had. Never a dull moment! "Cover Girl" is the best musical Rita Hayworth ever made. Ms. Hayworth will always be remembered for "Gilda", however, the next movie would be "Cover Girl". The story is great. It is about a dancer who wants to be a cover girl and makes it big in show business. She does it without the help of her talented dancer/director boyfriend (Gene Kelly). Mr. Kelly is given the chance to choreograph the musical numbers. The dances are spectacular. It is fun to see Phil Silvers, a comic, do the musical numbers with Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Kelly.

The supporting cast is perfect. Lee Bowman is given a chance to be an interesting third wheel, the other boyfriend. Rita Hayworth as Rusty Parker is the COVER GIRL du jour--she's one of the dancing girls in Danny McGuire's club, the most special one according to Danny (Gene Kelly) and pretty much anyone who comes across her. Take for example, Vanity magazine magnate John Coudair (Otto Kruger): enchanted by Rusty's resemblance to her grandmother Maribelle (also played by Hayworth in flashbacks), whom he wooed devotedly when he fell in love with her, he tries to relive his youth by fixing what he thinks went wrong between himself and Maribelle. He doesn't believe that Danny could give Rusty happiness, or everything she should be entitled to--he even gets Danny believing this himself. When Rusty shoots to fame as Vanity's 'Cover Girl', Danny drives her away into the ready and waiting arms of Noel Wheaton (Lee Bowman). So what happens when Danny returns to town with his sidekick Genius (Phil Silvers) in tow, only to discover that Rusty is marrying Wheaton?

As a musical, COVER GIRL benefits from the beautiful score and songs written by Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin, including the Oscar-nominated 'Long Ago and Far Away' (possibly one of the most gorgeous ballads ever written and beautifully, sweetly sung as a duet by Hayworth and Kelly), Maribelle's number 'Sure Thing' (the more lacklustre 'Poor John' isn't a Kern/Gershwin collaboration) and 'Put Me To The Test'. The dancing, of course, is top-notch, since Gene Kelly had more than just a hand in the choreography. It shows in the simplest of dances, for example his dance with Hayworth to 'Put Me To The Test', or the joyfully exuberant 'Make Way For Tomorrow' number (performed by the trio of Danny, Rusty and Genius)... which foreshadows the reaction Gene's character has to the police cop in the title number in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Kelly especially scored a technological and artistic coup with the 'Alter-Ego' dance. Like its successors in ANCHORS AWEIGH and AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (Jerry the Mouse and the 16-minute ballet respectively), this dance is an example of the incredible innovation and creativity Kelly brought to the modern film musical: wanting to use the film medium to present dances that couldn't be showcased on a stage, and years before CGI, Kelly insisted on dancing with the one person who could possibly match him in talent and style--himself. The number is hardly five minutes long, but it (and Kelly's genius) still takes one's breath away, even sixty years down the line. This is the reason I watched COVER GIRL, and if nothing else, this dance is truly worth it.

You can tell that a great deal of money was lavished onto COVER GIRL and Rita Hayworth--not that she doesn't deserve it. Witness the scene when Rusty hits Broadway--the large screen showcasing all the different cover girls gives way to a staggeringly large stage rigged for Rusty's entrance. Hayworth is indeed one of the most effortlessly beautiful girls on show in the film, and she dances with a style and grace that is almost worthy of Kelly. (Very few of Kelly's co-stars have that honour.) She is hilarious in some scenes, for example her drunk scene when John and Wheaton come to get her from Joe's.

For some reason, however, her performance still lacks the spark of greatness which would help COVER GIRL overcome its general curse of mediocrity. That curse is only lifted whenever Gene Kelly is on the screen (dancing or no), or when Eve Arden as John's long-suffering secretary 'Stonewall' sidles by with another cutting comment or clever observation. Since the film, in the end, belongs to Hayworth, neither Kelly nor Arden can save it as a whole. This isn't to say that the film is bad--it isn't. It's enjoyable, with great songs and cute numbers and lots of pretty girls to look at. But it's just not quite a classic. The dancing is classic though--so watch COVER GIRL for that, and you won't regret it. This is definitely an outstanding 1944 musical with great young stars and famous veteran actors under the direction of Charles Vidor. Rita Hayworth, (Rusty Parker),"Charlie Chan in Egypt", sang and danced with Gene Kelly,(Danny McGuire), "Anchors Away", Danny McGuire owned a night club in Brooklyn, N.Y. and was in love with Rusty Parker who was a dancer in his club along with Phil Silvers,(Genius),"Coney Island", who was the comedian in this picture and also worked and dance together with Danny, Rusty. Otto Kruger, (John Coudair),"Duel in the Sun" played the role as a promoter of a cover girl magazine and decided Rusty Parker was going to be his top model. Jerome Kern's music is heard through out the entire picture and the song, "Long Ago & Far Away" is the theme music for this musical. This film was nominated for many awards and was a big hit at the box office during WW II which kept peoples minds off of the war that was going on at the time. Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly were instant hits and their career's exploded on the silver screen for many many years. Great Musical and a film you will not want to miss, this is truly a great Classic Film. Enjoy This is a very enjoyable, fluffy, glamorous musical from the 40's. 'Cover Girl' made Rita Hayworth (formerly the dark-haired Latin senorita Margarita Cansino) into a bona-fide, all-American star. It confirmed Gene Kelly's amazing talent as a dancer, singer, actor and choreographer. It epitomises the exuberance and colour of the musical genre.

Rita Hayworth is great as Rusty Parker- it is her picture, and her presence is always at the forefront. Her singing is dubbed, but her dancing is absolutely brilliant and she combines very well with Kelly. I think that Rita was highly underrated as an actress- she plays every scene superbly here. Gene choreographed the dance sequences (he was basically given almost complete creative freedom here), and his 'Alter Ego' dance number is amazing. Such artistry. The stand-out tunes are 'Make Way For Tomorrow', 'Put Me To The Test', and, of course, 'Long Ago and Far Away'. The plot is rather thin, yet it does have a moral. It's about the perils of quick fame and fast money, and how any happiness with only these factors will ultimately be doomed. This will cheer you up, lift you up to your feet and make you laugh.

That said, 'Cover Girl' is not the greatest musical ever produced- it has a number of flaws that must be addressed. One can say that a little bit of Phil Silvers goes a long way. His character gets tedious rather quickly. However, I was impressed with his dancing ability and how he was able to keep up with Gene and Rita. Another major problem is that too many songs are just not that great. The 'Cover Girl' number looks fantastic, but I'm not a fan of the lyrics or the singing. 'Poor Tom' is a huge downer. I think it's one of the worst numbers I've heard in a 40's-50's musical yet. It stinks. The grandmother sub-plot borders on being ridiculous. But that's only my opinion. Others may like these elements.

Still, apart from it's faults it's a very, very good film, much better than most of the product churned out today. The dancing and singing is sublime, the production values are excellent, and it's mood is infectious.

8/10. This is one of the best musicals of the 1940s. The glorious Technicolor shows off Rita Hayworth's beauty and spectacular hair. She should have made more movies in color, but then Columbia was hardly in a position to splash out money for Technicolor spectaculars.

Rita is a WOW as Rusty Parker - she more than keeps up with Gene in some of the most sparkling numbers ever. She also looked beautiful in turn of the century gowns, so she was given a chance to play her own grandmother.

The film opens with "The Show Must Go On" - it looks great to me - but Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly) is not impressed. His motto is work, work, work!!! One of the dancers, Maurine (Lesley Brookes) is determined to better herself and is going to audition for Vanity's Golden Wedding Cover Girl Competition. Rusty just happens to find herself at the auditions as well. In a very funny scene Maurine has just had a so so audition and seeing Rusty, gives her a few tips on how to impress the judges!!! "Don't be shy and demure - chatter and sparkle". Rusty does so with gusto!!!

They decide on Maurine and go to the show to see her but John Coudair (Otto Kruger) sees Rusty - she reminds him of someone from his past. Cornelia (Eve Arden) is still having nightmares over Rusty's audition. "Whose Complaining" features Genius (Phil Silvers) and the dancers, dressed up as working girls - (Rusty is a cabbie).

John is remembering a long lost love (Rusty's grandmother, Maribelle Hicks) the first time he saw her singing "A Sure Thing" - set at the races. Meanwhile Danny, Rusty and Genius are looking for pearls at their local diner. They then launch into the happiest song of the 1940s (in my opinion) - "Make Way For Tomorrow".

"Put Me to the Test" is a spirited song and dance number featuring Danny and Rusty. In the meantime Rusty has been chosen Cover Girl and Danny McGuires' is the place to be seen. Lee Bowman appears as Danny's romantic rival and puts a damper on things. Lee Bowman is probably the most boring leading man ever - so Danny never needs to worry.

Rusty (dubbed by Martha Mears) sings "Long Ago and Far Away" and it is danced beautifully by Danny and Rusty. The gowns that Rita wears are stunning. Travis Banton and Gwen Wakeling designed them. Danny wants the best for Rusty but is afraid he will lose her. Gene Kelly is also fantastic in the "Alter Ego" number where he dances with himself.

"Poor John" is another look back to the turn of the century - it was written in 1906 and is an extremely funny song poking fun at rich relations - Hayworth looks gorgeous in an amazingly quaint outfit. Look for Al Norman in both "Poor John" and "A Sure Thing". He was an amazing eccentric dancer, who appeared in several early musicals, including "King of Jazz" and "Paramount on Parade". He was easy to spot.

The "Cover Girl" dance is just wonderful. Rita was so talented - beautiful and a great dancer. After a bevy of beautiful models parade through covers of America's top magazines, Rusty bursts through in a beautiful gold gown dancing down a ramp to the very catchy "Cover Girl" song. Gosh I just LOVE this movie!!!!

Highly Recommended. Rita Hayworth is right there where she should be - as a "Cover Girl" in this 1944 Technicolor film also starring Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Lee Bowman, and Otto Kruger. Rita plays a beautiful showgirl, Rusty, working at a small club owned by the man she loves, Danny (Kelly). Each Friday they go out for oysters with Genius (Silvers), the club comedian. They all hate oysters, but they're looking for a pearl. When they find one, all three of them will have good luck, they believe.

Rusty auditions and wins the role of cover girl for a magazine - she starts off ahead of the other contestants because the magazine owner (Kruger) sees a resemblance between Rusty and the girl he once loved, who turns out to be Rusty's grandmother. Once she becomes the cover girl, the world opens up for her and her dreams of appearing on Broadway come true. Danny wants her to have her success, but at the same time realizes he's lost her.

"Cover Girl" has exuberant dance numbers and songs by Jerome Kern, with Rita dubbed by Martha Mears. Rita is at her best playing both Rusty in the present and her grandmother in the past. For such a sexy, desirable, gorgeous woman, she was apparently very insecure and always under the thumb of domineering men. None of this ever showed on screen, nor did the fact that she didn't want to be a movie star. She is one of the true goddesses and brought everything she did to life. Gene Kelly is in a serious role here, but gets plenty of chances to dance and sing. Phil Silvers is very amiable and funny as the in-house comic and best friend.

This is a very good movie with no dull spots. The only problem I had is the idea that Rusty has to choose between a successful career and the man she loves. When supermodel Jinx Falkenberg, who plays herself in the film, speaks of getting married, she's warned by her boss not to, that she's too necessary to the modeling business. We're not told if Rusty continues with her career or goes back to work at Danny's - but all signs seemed to point toward the Brooklyn club. Why couldn't she have had both? Nevertheless, you can't beat "Cover Girl" for top entertainment, beautiful color, lovely music, great energy, fine performances, and its most fabulous asset, the glorious Rita Hayworth. This has got to be one of the better post-Astaire musicals made by Columbia. Produced by Arthur Schwartz and directed by vet Charles Vidor, this picture really put Gene Kelly on the map and cemented Rita Hayworth's reputation as cinema's premier female dance partner. She plays a bit of a dual role here since she performs contemporary 1940s numbers with Gene and co-star Phil Silvers, but also puts her in the role of her grandmother, a nightclub performer in the late 19th Centry.

The music should also be singled out because this was I believe the last project that the legendary Jerome Kern (most famous today for "Old Man River" and "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes") worked on, and his lyricist was the equally legendary Ira Gershwin. They supplied a score that is full of charm and characterization. The music for the historical sequences is especially noteworthy because it's so perfectly styled in the early 20th Century idiom that was Kern's original period. It's a bit like picking up a record from one of your favorite bands from the 1970s and hearing them do a song in the original style of that time.

The story is pretty inconsequential, which is fine with me because this film is as close an approximation as you will ever be likely to see of the 1930s/40s golden age of Broadway musical comedy style on film. Even the 1940s war propaganda aspects of the film's music give it extra charm as the talented trio sing "make way for tomorrow" and even humorously poke fun at America's enemies and use period slang such as referring to "gremlins".

Probably the most memorable performance in the film is Kelly's dance to the "Alter-Ego Dance", which found him arguing with and then dancing with himself as a metaphorical image of the battle of the conscience. This prefigures much of his later work and also stands an effective and memorable scene in and of itself.

Fans will want to seek this out for various reasons -- Kelly fans will see this as a rare chance to see him outside of the confines of MGM with a different set of co-stars and music superior to his usual MGM material. Hayworth fans will want to see Rita in glorious color at the peak of her fame and ability. And fans of classic Broadway musicals will definitely want to hear Kern's final score and marvel at the quality of Gershwin's lyrics and the compatibility of their styles. This is a definite gem in the crown of Columbia's musical program. A fantastic musical starring Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth. He owns a nightclub where she dances. She's no star yet, but she gets a big break when she's chosen as a cover girl for Vanity, whose owner was actually in love with her grandmother. When he sees the resemblance, he picks her right away for a contest his maganzine is running. Hayworth's newfound fame at first works wonders for Kelly's club, but her star rises so quickly and so high up that his grasp on her begins to falter. This isn't the most original of plots, but the two leads really make it work. It also helps that the screenplay is great. Kelly's not yet at his peak, especially his peak as an actor. His dancing, however, wow. Hayworth is the star, but Kelly claims the film's most memorable moment as he dances passionately with his own reflection. It's obviously a take-off of Fred Astaire's shadow dancing in Swing Time, but I think Kelly one-ups it, which is hardly believable. In fact, this has got to be the most amazing dance sequence in film history, save perhaps the finale of An American in Paris several years later. The rest of the songs are also excellent, and the musical numbers are even better. Too bad Rita didn't sing her own songs (well, she may have a couple of them, as her singing voice seemed to be different sometimes). Her dancing is wonderful, as is the rest of her acting. It's hard not to love her in anything. She's really one of the few truly beautiful women from the classic era. Not plastic like many of them; no, you can really see the warmth in that woman. Her smile is so disarming. Phil Silvers has the role as Kelly's best friend, and he is also very funny. The trio of Kelly-Hayworth-Silvers is obviously the kernel which became the Kelly-Reynolds-O'Connor trio in Singin' in the Rain eight years afterwards. One of the biggest musical numbers in the film seems almost completely pilfered with the "Good Morning" number in Singin'. I do think Singin' in the Rain is the better film, as Cover Girl is a little rough around the edges. This roughness, though, just adds to the charm. There are aspects of this film that beat Singin' in the Rain, and even An American in Paris. For instance, the central relationship is more emotionally involving. Instead of the dominant older man chasing the little girl (Leslie Caron and Debbie Reynolds were just teenagers, after all), we have a very nice relationship with two people who seem more like equals. There is no chasing around - an aspect that does unfortunately turn a lot of the best musicals a little sour, you have to admit. Kelly and Hayworth are a couple from the start, and when that begins to fray, I really felt it. 9/10. I really like this film because of all the stars and the dancing and the story that goes along with it. Rita Hayworth was at her most glamorous in this musical and the costumes were gorgeous. Although a musical, I thought Rita Hayworth did a fine performance of dramatic acting in this film as well. As far as her dancing, I think she was excellent. Even Betty Grable pretty much endorsed Rita's dancing in this film as she commented that Rita danced rings around her own dancing and let's face it, Betty Grable was an excellent dancer. The cinematography and vivid colors are also noted. Rita wants to be a cover girl for a magazine but she's also in love with her mentor played by Gene Kelly. Does she leave Kelly to fulfill her dream and bypass love and Broadway stardom or does she stick around to find that unique pearl that will change her life forever? You'll have to watch the film to find out! Rita Hayworth lights up the screen in this fun, fancy and delightful musical starring Gene Kelly. Rita plays nightclub dancer Rusty Parker who has dreams to be a successful Broadway star. Unfortunately, her career is getting no where in Danny McGuire's Night Club. When one of her fellow dancers says she's going to enter a Cover Girl contest, she decides to follow her dreams and enters. She reminds the publisher of her Grandma, who he was deeply in love with many years ago. But when she finds this success, her boyfriend is not happy about it.

I had never seen Rita before this, and I am so glad I did! She has such a scene presence and is a very good actress. There are some good numbers in here, not the best of any musical but they are melodic and good to listen to. One thing I didn't like was Gene Kelly's character. He should have supported his girlfriend! But anyway, that's perhaps the only criticism I have about this movie. Cover Girl is a glorious, fluffy film - perfect escapism. Not everyone's ideal movie, but a wonderful movie nonetheless, due to Rita Hayworth's star power. Great movie, truly impressed. In Brooklyn, the nightclub dancer Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) has a simple but happy life dancing in the McGuire's, owned by her boyfriend Danny (Gene Kelly). Rusty, Danny and Genius (Phil Silvers) have a ritual on Friday nights: they order oysters in a bar, trying to find a pearl. The life of Rusty changes when she participates and wins a contest to be the cover page of the Vanity magazine. She is invited to work in a huge theater in Broadway, whose owner proposes her. She loses her happiness and starts drinking in her new life style, missing the love of Danny and her old friends. 'Cover Girl' is a delightful romantic comedy, very naive and having magnificent parts, such as the beauty and talented Rita Hayworth dancing, singing and acting; Gene Kelly, specially in two scenes, dancing with himself and with Rusty and Genius on the street; the songs and the choreography of the dances are also spectaculars. Danny, the character of Gene Kelly, is almost nasty with his chauvinist behavior. Rita Hayworth surprised me with her talent: I found her amazing in 'Gilda', but she is stunning in 'Cover Girl'. In accordance with the information on the cover of the VHS, 'Cover Girl' was the first musical where the songs were part of the plot, giving continuity to the story, instead of just being 'thrown' in the movie. My sixteen years old son saw this movie with a friend of the same age in a recent Gene Kelly festival and they loved 'Cover Girl', therefore I dare to say that this classic is recommended to any movie lover and not only to the old generations. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Modelos' ('Models') One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.

The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre. Long ago and far away they knew how to make a musical and "Cover Girl" is no exception to the rule.

A story of a dancer in a nightclub who becomes a cover girl and famous. The old adage applies here- that happiness and fame always don't mix.

The dance routines are marvelously choreographed. What dancing and chemistry between Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly.

Otto Kruger is the older gentleman who discovers Hayworth, when he sees her picture that shows a strong resemblance to the woman who left him at the aisle-Hayworth's grandmother Maribel.

A jealous reaction by Kelly drives Rusty (Hayworth) into the arms of Broadway producer Lee Bowman.

The picture is basically history repeating itself at the end.

To add to the glory of this fine film, there is the always wise-cracking Eve Arden and the hilarious Phil Silvers, appropriately named Genius in the film. Another great musical from Hollywoods Golden Age! I liked this movies story about a trio of friends who are performers at a small nightclub that is far from Broadway and all its glitter. Although not the big time they are very content with their lives and the small club where they perform. Gene Kelly plays the owner of the small club and is also the boyfriend of one of its dancers, Rita Hayworth who happens to garner some attention when she's given an opportunity to be on a cover of a magazine. Trouble begins for Gene Kelly as his girlfriend is now the talk of the town. Phil Silvers plays one of the three friends and does a good job. Of course there is the music and the dancing. One dance performance by Gene Kelly stands out. He is walking along the street at night alone and he see his reflection in a shop window. His reflection soon starts dancing along with him in the streets, great cinematography. Don't miss this one, great entertainment. This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.

Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the "wrong side of the tracks" in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.

The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.

Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.

Kelly's character in the 1980 "Xanadu" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended. Though I strongly feel that SITR is the best Gene Kelly movie, but this a pretty good one. I liked the music and the dancing and the ending on how Gene got the girl. My favorite part though without a doubt is Gene's dance with his alter ego. I love watching two Gene Kelly's for the price of one. It shows what talent Mr. Kelly really was. It is a movie that I think that everyone should watch at least once in their life time. So you have not seen it go out and find to watch it today! I'm sure that everyone out there has a Gene Kelly friend that has this movie in their collection. So go over to their house and pop some popcorn and enjoy! Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor.

Despite Jerome Kern's collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and my favorite musical number, "Alter-Ego Dance." The amusing Phil Silvers nearly steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet, charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films like BLOOD AND SAND (1941).

All in all, this is a delightful film that's worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's production.

While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her. I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.

This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).

Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.

But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.

Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.

I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.

The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus! Although the plot of Cover Girl is very flimsy and tired, it does serve well enough as an anchor for the Kern and Gershwin musical numbers. Following her signature role in Gilda, Hayworth opted to star in this musical that seems tailor made for her. Besides looking as gorgeous as ever, she impresses with her dancing as well. Gene Kelly, who was on loan to Columbia from MGM, matches her in dancing and the sequence where he cavorts with his own shadow was nicely done. The supporting characters were also competently acted. Personally, I didn't enjoy Cover Girl as much as the musicals Hayworth made with Fred Astaire. However, Cover Girl is still very entertaining and easy to recommend. My score: 7/10. The most notable feature of this film is the chemistry between the actors, the sense of camaraderie in their dialogue and dances. This typical rising-star musical has an overworked plot, even for 1944, but because of the actors it's still fun to watch. Hayworth isn't even that much of a dancer, but she has a lot of 'inexperienced' charm that fits her character. Kelly plays his usual caring authoritarian role while Silvers provides plenty of self-deprecation and laughs. The movie can also be very serious at times. Not a must-see, but recommended if you like the actors. To be brief, the story is paper thin and you can see the ending coming from a mile away, but Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and an impossibly young Phil Silvers keep the movie afloat throughout and at times lift it right up into the air. A few of the songs are terrible clunkers ("Poor John" is a train wreck) but most of them are great fun, and the scene of Hayworth performing on the absurdly huge set for Kelly's rival has to be seen to be believed. Another treat is the perfect faux-NYC sets in the best Hollywood tradition.

Another attraction, if you consider such things attractions, is the howlingly awful male "chivalry" toward women. The oily leering and transparent obsequiousness that passed for male charm back then (in the movies, at least) is presented in its most lurid form here. Some of the men are about like a cartoon wolf.

One minor disappointment is Eve Arden trapped in a role so minor that she barely has a chance to do anything. I can imagine a lot of potential comic interplay between her and Silvers--a missed opportunity. One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '

With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the background.

Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.

Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.

Well that's just my 2 cents. To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later. Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?... The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it - said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or going to the toilet, etc.

The humor of the show is extremely dry (it uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable; so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street in order to get a tip on heart surgery.

Those familiar with the Naked Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular "take" approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to "re-enact the crime", has a squad of homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime, for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the films.

Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen in the films (primarily "2" and "3") that never occur in the show's shorter time-frame.

Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away one's tolerance.

None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim, medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health. I watched this series after I had seen the Naked Gun films. I found it much better than the films, and I thought the films were great! This series literally glues you to the television set in anticipation of the next pun, sight gag, or funny situation (the all night wicker place, club flamingo). I don't think I've ever laughed as hard at a TV series in my life, even after seeing the movies first and thus knowing some of the jokes. I think its a shame that only six episodes were produced, but I agree that the writers would be very hard pressed to maintain this level of comedy for any more episodes. Overall, the series is a must see for those who like puns, bad jokes, and slapstick sight-gags. I still count "Police Squad!" as the absolute funniest TV show of the 1980s. Somewhere, on BetaMax no less, I have all six episodes. I knew that a show this good wouldn't last and that I had to preserve it for myself. How stupid was ABC? They were quoted as saying that viewers didn't know that "Police Squad!" was a comedy because it had no laugh track! Right! When Drebin has a line like "You take chances just getting up in the morning, driving to work, or sticking your face in a fan.", how can THAT be comedy!?!? I've seen every episode at least ten times and still see something new I missed before. Even the deep backgrounds always have gags ongoing. Don't miss it if you have chance to see an episode, but if you're reading this then you probably already have copies squirreled away someplace as I do. Two years after 'Airplane!' took off, Jim Abrahams, Jerry and David Zucker cast one of its stars - Leslie Nielsen - in this hilarious television series, a glorious take-off of old U.S. detective shows such as 'Dragnet'. Nielsen played Frank Drebin, America's answer to 'Inspector Clouseau'. It had the same style of humour as 'Airplane!'; clever visual gags in the background, unnoticed absurdities, and recurring characters such as Johnny the shoe-shine boy who seems to know everything about everything. Guest-stars ( including William Shatner! ) were killed off in the opening credits. 'Police Squad' was the first U.S. sitcom since 'Batman' to lack a laugh track. Many have lamented the fact that only six episodes were made, but I think it was about right. The concept could never have sustained a full 24-episode run. Five years later, 'Police Squad' made a successful transfer to the big screen, when the first of the 'Naked Gun' trilogy was released. Jim, Jerry, David, and Leslie had the last laugh. The funniest show ever on TV, albeit the humor is not for everyone. I realize it would have been hard to keep the show fresh if it had ran longer, but it's a shame only six episodes were filmed. The gags fly rapidly from the opening credits until the very end, when you would see Drebin and his boss, Ed Hocken, pretending to be in freeze frame as the closing credits rolled, during which the criminal (still moving) would see everyone else motionless and try to escape. In another episode, the building started collapsing around them as Drebin and Hocken remained in freeze mode.

Leslie Nielsen was comedic brilliance as Frank Drebin and the perfect fit for this show … how he managed to keep a straight face through some of this is beyond me. Because the jokes and sight gags came so often and quick, you can watch the episodes a 2nd and 3rd time and catch things you missed the first time. If you're like me, you can watch them over and over and still find yourself laughing. Even the jokes that made no sense nor seemingly had any reason to them, such as the "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln" tag-line in the opening announcement, somehow worked … perhaps they were thrown in there precisely for that reason.

Cleverly spoofing the old Quinn Martin detective/cop shows of the 1970s, Police Squad would return from commercial break with the words "Act Two" appearing on the screen, which was immediately followed by "Yankees One" or some other quip. On the opening credits, the episode's title would appear on the screen, but the announcer would utter a completely different title. My favorite jokes and lines from this series are way too numerous to list, but one of my favorites is when Drebin asks a down-on-his-luck boxer who has previously tanked fights, "Do you think you can beat the Champ?" The boxer responds, "I can take him blindfolded!" To which Drebin responds back, "But what if he's not blindfolded?" A minute later, in reference to the boxer's small, dingy apartment, Drebin tells him, "I'm going to help you get out of this sewer." The next thing you see, Drebin is popping up through a manhole cover on the street! In another episode, Drebin and Hocken are questioning a bombing suspect's flimsy alibi. Drebin, not believing him, says, "Alright, let's say you did go the movies." After a slight pause, Drebin, Hocken, and the suspect all look at the camera and in unison say, "You did go the movies." A few moments later, when Drebin is forced to let the suspected bomber walk free due to lack of evidence, he storms away and angrily yells, "Tell that bomber to take off!" What's seen next is a cop giving the thumbs-up signal to a WWII-style plane on a runway right outside the building! While there were many classic Drebin quotes, one particularly memorable one was, "Sorry to bother you Mrs. Twice. We would have come earlier, but your husband wasn't dead then." Another classic was, "I'm a locksmith … and, I'm a locksmith." When a visibly shaken kidnap victim's father asks Drebin, "What I do I do?" … Drebin, in classic deadpan fashion, responds back, "Well, as I understand it, you're in the textile business." As I said, the humor is not for everyone … many people simply will not "get" it. During the show's brief run, I remember the reaction being very mixed. Some people thought it was absolutely hysterical and one of the funniest things around, while others thought it was the stupid and unfunny. For me, Police Squad, even 20+ years later, is the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. For younger viewers who enjoy this type of humor but who have never seen Police Squad because they were too young when the series initially aired, I highly recommend. I found the six episodes to be even funnier than the subsequent "Naked Gun" movies. Police Squad! (1982) was a funny show that ended too soon. But I guess it had it's run before it got too repetitive and unfunny like so many American television shows. The geniuses behind this funny show were the team of Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker. Every since his straight act in the comedy hit AIRPLANE!, Leslie Nielsen has found a new career as a comedian. In this short lived t.v. series he had the chance to play the straight man in a wacky comedy once more. The bizarre titles to each episode gave away the ending. But Lt. Drebrin (Leslie Nielsen) got into so many weird cases that they have to be seen to be believed.

Tooo bad they never released this on D.V.D. If a show needed to be re-released it would have to be this one. A whole new generation is waiting to see this show!

Highly recommended! After reading over all these reviews I'm very surprised to see that no one has even once noted that this show was based on the 1957 to 1960 NBC cop show "M Squad" starring Lee Marvin, i read reviews comparing it to "Dragnet" and some of the Quinn Martin police shows, but if you watch M Squad you'll see it was based on it. In the late 1958 episodes of M Squad onwards, you'll see Lee Marvin who plays Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger get out of his car and then hes shot at,and he shoots back, the beginning of Police Squad is basically the same ( including the Jazz music) and then Lee Marvin narrates what goes on, (Im Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger,M Squad,a special department of the Chicago police) and in Police Squad Leslie Neilsen does the same (Im Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad, a special division of the Police Department) and so on, in one of the M Squad episodes there's even the Johnny the shoeshine guy character and in a M Squad episode entitled " More Deadly" there's a Police Squad episode entitled "A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)" which is the same story! The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long, irreverent, sophomoric and really funny.

They followed up with the very popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen, and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every cliché of every aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the lead.

As Sgt/Lt./Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns, sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police/crime clichés.All of these strung together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info. They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and printed titles never matched.

They had a great musical score, which even though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.)

One thing that this all too short of a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall.

In regards to the series cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes "...called for too much attention on the part of the viewer." So, isn't that what one would want?

So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV Exec!

* THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to television and to video. I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.

Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.

The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....

If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this.

I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J. When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.

One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!

The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies, "Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever.

Good acting, good gags, great show!

7/10 The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.

It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.

*Before "Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow" and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's been all comedy all the time. A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more hits than misses.

Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken.

The story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters.

The jokes themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags, most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good.

The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass.

Though not especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The Simpsons' Groening: and he should know.

Dated by todays standards, if you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat. I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice.

But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen.

Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda.

Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here. Two years after the success of 'Airplane', Jim Abrahams and Jerry & David Zucker created this brilliant sitcom starring the great Leslie Nielsen as plain clothed detective 'Frank Drebin'. Also in the cast was Alan North as 'Captain Ed Hocken', Ed Williams as 'Ted Olsen' and William Duell as 'Johnny The Shoe Shine Boy'. 'Police Squad!' featured unashamedly corny jokes and clever visual gags playing in the background. Each episode would conclude with a mock freeze frame in which the characters in frame stand completely still. One of the best 'freeze frame' sequences saw one of the characters pouring coffee into a cup while standing still, causing the cup to overflow! Guest stars were killed off in the opening titles, one included Georg Stanford Brown being crushed by a falling safe! Despite gaining positive reviews and much critical acclaim, 'Squad!' only lasted for six episodes before being cancelled. This didn't mean the end though, five years later the show was transferred to the big screen for the first in the trilogy of the 'Naked Gun' films. Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.

Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.

The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.

The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.

There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.

Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though. Having long disdained network television programming, I remember the first time I caught an episode of "Police Squad!". It was totally by accident. It was during the show's initial network run on ABC in early 1982. I am a chronic channel surfer and was flipping the dial one evening when suddenly appeared "Police Squad!"'s opening credit sequence on my TV screen. I immediately recognized it as a sendup of the opening credits of "M-Squad" starring Lee Marvin, one of my all-time favorite cop shows. I stopped surfing. Then of course came headquarters getting shot up, followed by the immortal Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln. By now I was saying to myself "What the heck is THIS??". Then came "special guest star" Georg Stanford Brown getting flattened by a plummeting safe. I was hooked from that moment. The episode was "Ring of Fear/A Dangerous Assignment", with its comic references to "On The Waterfront", and "Muhammed Ali", but most memorable of course were all the sight gags and non sequiturs. Leslie Nielsen and Alan North in their loose parody of Lee Marvin and Paul Newlan of "M Squad" were an absolute riot. "Finally", I said to myself, "A network television program truly worth watching!!!". Wouldn't you know it would be canceled just a few weeks later. Leave it to the networks -- I should have known. Anyway, I just bought the DVD collection of all six episodes and they are just as funny today as they were 27 years ago. The "Naked Gun" movies were terrific as well, but I really missed Alan North (he was so good as Ed Hocken), Peter Lupus as Nordberg (what were they thinking casting OJ in that part?), and especially William Duell's "Johnny" the shoeshine guy. Great stuff. The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original. Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many times before.

Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema.

I was reading Chekhov's "Three Sisters" the other day, and chanced upon what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding:

"MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth, otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense."

Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film.

BTW as a minor correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film, though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter which looks like an English "B". 1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious.

During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's.

This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, "You can dream when the war is over." In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing "cranes white and gray floating in the sky."

The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, "the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors."



If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons, blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war. It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in dealing with it.

Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here. You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in any aspect. Love and war did happen on the other side of the iron curtain and by looking losely at it love was just as strong as in the West and war was often more poignant (should I say more realistic ?).

This film is as much about war and love as it is about the Soviet thaw of Mr K's era. It also reminds us than the best war movies were not necessarily made in the 1990's with rivers of hemoglobin and millions of USD spent on special effects and marketed actors.

This movie is a classic of Soviet cinema and a outstanding picture of one of the greatest human tragedies : war.

The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.

With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.

This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.

Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made.

I would like to tell you just a few things before considering seeing this movie. If at one point or another you thought you've seen good camera work, be prepared to be amazed by this movie. For the record, this movie was made in 1957 in Russia, but the technique used here is probably something that we've seen much later in the western world...about 20 years later. The level of emotions through the film varies quite a lot: happiness -love-war- despair-joy, but in the end you remain with something quite unique: the joy of seeing one masterpiece of filmmaking. The young directors from our time should study more this kind of movies and maybe they will be able to create something similar..even though I think movies like this are very hard to come by... If you've seen "I am Cuba" , then this movie would appeal to you very much, but if not, be prepared for a unique experience. The Russian directors have something in common: very small budgets, great actors, and a joy of creating art...and yes, they are able to create more masterpieces than all the western world together. I am not a big fan of Russia, actually I hate everything that's communist, but the film making in that part of the world, manages to create such feelings that are hard to describe.

Enjoy it.

One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a superb film to spend some time with and enjoy. It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B/W movie that was made 50 years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called "ottepel'" or "the thaw", has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer indifferent.

For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River. Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just from the movies and the books. "Cranes are Flying" speaks to me clearly and honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past. In Moscow, the young couple Veronika (T. Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) are in deep love for each other. With the World War II, Boris volunteers to join the army and is sent to the front on the day before Veronika's birthday, and they do not have the chance to say goodbye to each other. While waiting for news from Boris, Veronika is raped by Boris' cousin Mark (A. Shvorin) and they marry each other. However, Veronika does not forget Boris, and keeps waiting for him.

"Letyat zhuravli" is an impressive and heartbreaking romance in times of war. The direction is excellent and uses ellipses along the story, inclusive in the capital scene when Veronika is raped by Mark. The camera-work is amazing, with sophisticated planes and angles, and long traveling. The scenes of Veronika in the middle of the tanks, or in the train station with many figurants are awesome. The magnificent cinematography is highlighted by the restored image of the DVD. T. Samojlova has an extremely beautiful face, and a touching and sensitive performance. The speech in the last scene makes another great example of an anti-war movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Quando Voam as Cegonhas" ("When Fly the Stork") A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...

In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget. I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema!

Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.

The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!

Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming...

The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!! While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind. Russian actress TATIANA SAMOILOVA reminds me so much of the young Audrey Hepburn and the camera in THE CRANES ARE FLYING seems to love her just as much. She is the focal point of a bittersweet war romance against the background of World War II in Moscow.

The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous B&W cinematography which was the main reason for watching the film in the first place, since I had never heard of it and decided to give it a try when it aired on TCM.

It's a very moving love story about a girl's deep love for a man who is suddenly swept away by his role as a soldier drafted in wartime Russia. She's unable to forget the memory of her romantic attachment to him, but inexplicably marries someone else who has forced himself on her, a pianist who soon realizes that she still loves the soldier she hopes to hear from. Their marriage is a troubled one because she can't let go of her remembrance of a happier time with her soldier sweetheart.

By the end of the story, she accepts the idea that he's never going to return and is able to face reality and cope with the situation. There's a very poignant final scene at a train station where arriving soldiers are greeting their loved ones and the tearful girl shares the joy of the returning soldiers by giving some flowers from her bouquet to the joyous families.

The stylish and striking camera-work is what carries the film, as well as the honestly played story.

Tastefully done, but perhaps the English subtitles didn't tell the whole tale because some of the plot elements seemed a bit blurred to me as if they had been glossed over.

Summing up: Easy to see why it won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, of another great Russian film, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER. This movie won a special award at Cannes for its acting and it's not difficult to see why. (A few spoilers - but for the ending, you'll have to watch the movie!) A simple story - in Moscow on the eve of war between Russia and Germany in WW II Veronika (Tatiana Samoilova) is in love with Boris (Aleksei Batalov) but they have a spat when she learns that he has enlisted in the army. Boris leaves for the front before Veronika can tell him she loves him. Boris is shot but his ultimate fate remains unknown to Veronika or his family. Mark, Boris' cousin, rapes Veronika who feels obligated to marry him. Degraded and demeaned by the cowardly Mark, Veronika clings to the hope that someday Boris will return. Superb camera-work and wonderful set pieces by director Kalatozov. (For anyone interested in film technique another movie by Kalatozov, I AM CUBA, has at least two superb set pieces - one of them a long tracking shot that begins with a funeral procession through the streets of Havana, rises two stories to a cigar factory, tracks though the window and follows the procession down a long, long avenue - all without a cut.) Superb acting, particularly by Samoilova and Vasili Merkuryev (as Boris' uncle) that is made all the more poignant by sheer understatement. A devastatingly romantic movie with a heart-stopping performance by Samoilova. (This movie is frequently linked with the other Russian classic Ballad Of A Soldier.) The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill {a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli / The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.

'The Cranes are Flying' is both an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility, brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept, is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting, Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders soullessly through the celebrating crowds.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode. Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held photography: "The camera," he once declared, "can express what the actor is unable to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors." Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her fiancé Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering to serve in the great war.

Others have summarized the movie so well, so I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and "has to marry" Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't "French existential cinema", the latter doesn't happen. Thankfully!

Another scene that tears at your heart is when the unnamed "musician" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris buried, after all.

I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at least a "tenner" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own losses in mind, first saw this movie.

Incredible. Go see it. It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.

Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.

The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.

Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.

The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another.

This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.

What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans.

On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces.

When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.

It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.

From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity. Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment.

In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness, and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they might be able to live according to their dreams.

But Man is not a bird. Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail.

Boris eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment. His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage takes place, which is never accepted by the family.

Soon feelings of guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital.

When war finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death.

Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one. She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate.

Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10. Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.

Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.

The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.

Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.

The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do. Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without 'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the highest order. This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should be put on everyone's "Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)" list. Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film. I'm out of words to describe the beauty of "The Cranes are Flying", but I'll try anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika) separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison with the emotion.

There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a emotional/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a better future.

Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique.

Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or small) the film and its message will remain relevant. This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the magnificently restored Criterion DVD.

Cranes is the very essence of the War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo Bridge with no class consciousness.

Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fiancé enlists and doesn't write or come back.

The fiancé, Boris, dies on the front, and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to "over the top." But that scene will stay with you.

Although the Soviets were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it. The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty kopek).

Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is, of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema, quite advanced considering where and when it was made. If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.

This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see. I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer! This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada". In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.

Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film. Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful, adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome, confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good as gold! Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.

10/10 First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever! In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.

1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.

Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.

However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.

It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.

8/10 Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony. Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)

I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice! I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.

Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this.

Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!! An absolute classic of 80's scare flix. This one isn't like any other as it pits pint-size, wild-eyed, psychotic youngsters with an urge to kill against all the grown-ups in town. Bud from JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (80's gold again) plays one of the killer-kids and he's paired up with one of the little girls Jake Blues tries to purchase in the BLUES BROTHERS. There is a third blond boy, but he keeps disappearing from the movie for whatever reason. The violence is hilarious at times and also surprisingly gruesome in spots. The demonic gang of smiling kids, though somehow possessed by extra-planetary means, bear little resemblance to the droid-ish Children of the Damned, who never thought to use pistols, crossbows and shovels to kill those pesky adults. Julie Brown (not Downtown Julie Brown-the other one) shows her rack, like three times, as she dances around in her bedroom. This movie is a rarity that I cannot believe I missed growing up in the 80's. This would have been my absolute favorite movie as a kid if I had seen it. Where is the sequel the ending begs for? This movie is just incredible. Seek it out at all costs. This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must. Three ten-year-old children born at the same time during a solar eclipse begin to slyly murder anybody that offends them.

While killer kid movies weren't exactly new at the time of this twisted 80's slasher the theme of children as murderers works nicely for this film. Bloody Birthday does deliver some good chills and suspense, while managing to be a competent killer thriller with some strange qualities. It straddles a fine line between cheesy and creepy, but it does remain entertaining throughout with an interesting plot. There's some strong murder scenes, as well as a good bit of nudity to establish this as a solid slasher guilty pleasure.

The cast does a fairly good job. Young stars Elizabeth Hoy and K.C. Martel deliver some menacing performances, while rising star Julie Brown does a striptease before a memorable murder scene. Veteran star Susan Strasberg does well as the teacher and Jose Ferrer has a cameo appearance.

All around this off-beat slasher entry isn't bad, though it's admittedly not flawless, but it is well worth watching for genre fans.

*** out of **** Sorry about the "extremely clever" summary phrase. I don't know what I was thinking, but I really couldn't help myself.

I've been meaning to see 'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me, the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part.

In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people, since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?)

Like I was saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film, looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress, singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P

So basically, this movie is fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives. This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all. I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much.

So, now you know: you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss it ;) This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy, especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about those darn kids though, I guarantee you! This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.

The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.

Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item. Bloody Birthday plays on the assumed innocence of children and shows them as bloodthirsty monsters. Steven (Andy Freeman), Curtis (Billy Jayne;credited as Billy Jacoby), and Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy), were all born on the same day during an eclipse. Besides sharing a birthday, they also share a love of murder (and they're not picky about who they kill either). Young Billy, Elizabeth, and Andy play the parts of these emotionless monsters quite well but they know when to put on the charm too. But they can't go on fooling everyone. This is an overall good horror flick, its not too unrealistic, there are a few good moments of suspense and the kids portrayed the roles well, (the grown-ups are pretty hammy though). I'd say its well worth seeing, (I own a copy myself). Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for murder. Oh, and the people who are "hot" on their trail.

Bloody Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion.

It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end, only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot.

Nevertheless, this movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick. Three children are born during a solar eclipse and ten years later this has somehow caused them to grow up without consciences. As their simultaneous tenth birthday celebrations approach, they become cunning and calculating cold-blooded murderers. Nice-girl local teen Joyce Russel (Lori Lethin) finds herself confronting these little terrors when most others are falling for their angelic demeanors.

Hearkening back to films like "The Bad Seed" and "Village of the Damned", this films' premise of evil children may not be wholly original but it's still pretty disturbing. All three of the child actors - Elizabeth Hoy, Billy Jacoby, and Andy Freeman - are chillingly convincing. Director Ed Hunt and his co-writer Barry Pearson maintain the unpleasant yet compelling mood for the duration of the film; they go so far as to have the little girl charge admission for an unwilling peep show involving her older sister (future stand-up comedienne and MTV personality Julie Brown, whose striptease is a real eyeful).

Name actors Susan Strasberg, as an icy teacher, and Jose Ferrer, with barely any screen time as a doctor, add to the proceedings with their presence, while K.C. Martel, one of the youngsters from the original "The Amityville Horror", is very likable as Joyces' kid brother. Other familiar faces like Ellen Geer, B-movie he-man Michael Dudikoff, Cyril O'Reilly ("Porky's", "Dance of the Damned"), Joe Penny ('Jake and the Fatman'), and William Boyett ("The Hidden") can be seen as well.

Touching upon such parental fears as children playing with guns that they've discovered and being locked inside old refrigerators, "Bloody Birthday" is a little more than just a slasher variation with kids as antagonists. Aided and abetted by Arlon Obers' music score, this film sticks in the memory more than some of its brethren, without lots of gore to fall back on (although that arrow through the eye gag works quite well).

Bleak, nasty, and downbeat, "Bloody Birthday" is worth a look for the curious.

7/10 Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.

Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless

DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework" (which features nudity)

My Grade: B- I thought I was going to watch another Friday The 13th or a Halloween rip off, But I was surprised, It's about 3 psycho kids who kill, There's not too many movies like that, I can think of Mikey, Children Of The Corn and a few others, It's not the greatest horror movie but it's a least worth a rent. Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree."Bloody Birthday" is a typical slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no gore or scares in "Bloody Birthday",but the film is mildly entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's slasher movies give this one a look. I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.

Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it. Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters.

And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.

The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance.

If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately. If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.

If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009. Thirst

I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.

Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.

The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.

For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.

But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9/10 I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.

I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance" with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of "Thirst".

"Thirst" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can! From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year. The vampire "craze" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and, coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you didn't see as of now.

Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of "guy" and "girl" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into "sides". I think men are prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future "neutral" pics since they grew up with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon.

The plot follows an Emile Zola novel called Thérèse Raquin, which I have not read. According to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her. The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover each other's plans, and commit suicide.

Now, transcribe this nearly 150 year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it.

The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients.

Let's continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil more prominently).

The woman character is a caricature, and her profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without divine intervention. No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being "naughty" exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.

If you have seen Wook's previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ... Now that I have seen it, it was NOT what I was expecting, at least not until the very END. I read some of the other reviews before picking up a used copy of this from Amazon and was glad I did. Having been first introduced to Park's work via Oldboy, I was curious to how he'd treat the genre and was rather pleased at the clever manner in which he executed it. I think Park has matured in terms of presentation because while Oldboy and some of his other work has very nice and deliberate camera work, he has some nice innovations in Bakjwi that I had not seen in other vamp movies. For example the scene where Father Hyeon is realizing the "beast" growing within him as he gives his shoes to the always barefoot Tae-ju and he is able to SEE the blood pumping through Tae-ju's skin and his eye's widen in blood-lust for it. That was a nice effect. I was also happy that Park did not CG the crap out of the movie and the is in fact very little CG at all. I came away from Bakjwi being totally set up to think one thing was going to happen and get taken for a ride in true Park fashion. Additionally, I liked that Park played with a little symbolism and reversal whereas we don't usually get this is Asia cinema. During the beginning of the movie we see the plot develop slowly and get to know the characters and you feel like an invisible observer to the thing that are transpiring. Park treats you a little like Ghost of Christmas future coming to show you, albeit a bit boringly, what life is like outside your world. Ah, but then we start to feel a little kinship with the befallen Father and his burgeoning lust for Tae-ju and conflict with duty as a priest. We almost start to root for them even until Park not so nicely slaps us back into reality and we really see that in the end Bakjwi is a movie about moral dilemma and right and wrong. It won't spoil it if I tell you to watch Bakjwi from the mindset of a priest and I think you'll come away from it with what Park wants you to come away with. Don't expect Oldboy and stylization because that's not what you'll get here. A very interesting take on the genre indeed. Those who missed the MANY literary elements and religious allusions watched some other movie, not Bakjwi. After Bakjwi, watch Let The Right One IN, it's also not what you'll expect either. After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.

The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.

The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.

The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.

This is just a great film. Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.

Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.

Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.

If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try. The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and "idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.

That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.

Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.

If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10 Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.

Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.

Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.

Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.

Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.

See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man. 'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history.

Trusting the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent, asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half.

'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films in terms of in-your-face violence.

All in all, be warned that this is neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors. Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), and now Thirst.

Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see - typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that I've seen.

Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more palatable for repeat viewings. A beloved and devoted priest from a small town volunteers for a medical experiment which fails and turns him into a vampire.

Physical and psychological changes lead to his affair with a wife of his childhood friend who is repressed and tired of her mundane life.

The one-time priest falls deeper in despair and depravity. As things turns for worse, he struggles to maintain whats left of his humanity...

The vampire movie should have really been extinct now thanks to the poor efforts of the Twilight and Underworld franchises, but the director injects new blood into the story of the vampire, by putting simple things into perspective.

These vampires have reflections, and no fangs, but still feed and die the same. Making the main protagonist a priest really opens up a can of worms for questioning ones acts. The priest primarily feeds to make himself better, but when he meets his friends unfulfilled wife, carnal instincts set in.

What makes this film intensely erotic is that when the couple consent for the first time, they are experiencing something they have never before, forbidden passion, which makes the scenario all that more sensual.

Chan-Wook adds some much needed humour into the film, but this is only realised in the final third of the movie. We see the daughter lift her mother in the chair in front of everyone, and when she realises her own strength, just puts the chair down and carry on. Hilarious.

and the final act wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, or even the three Stooges as the couple fight for survival/death respectively.

CGI is subtle and fantastic, and the scenes with them jumping from building to building is so graceful, you could be watching ballet.

The vampire genre feels fresh and vibrant after this, but more importantly, has the eroticism and intensity that most vampire films are missing these days. It's violent, but from the director in question, i wouldn't expect anything different.

A really interesting story, with fantastic characters and beautiful cinematography. There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the same time.

You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire, decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral training.

The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too.

--PolarisDiB The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/

And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost. I'm the first to recognize that Chan-wook Park's Thirst is exceptionally well made, but spending over two hours with Tae-joo(OK-vin Kim)is enough for anyone to tolerate for such a length of time. Sang-hyeon(Kang-ho Song)is a priest desiring to volunteer for experimental studies on those willing to subject themselves to rigorous injections concerning a specific virus which kills infectiously. Instead of legitimately dying, Hyeon becomes a vampire, always yearning for the sustenance blood gives for him to fight off an infectious disease which returns causing the symptoms which flat-lined him to begin with(..bumps/sores, and the body vomits blood). Sunlight, as is known in the vampire genre, causes torturous death if exposed to Hyeon for a length of time. Hyeon falls in lust with Tae-joo, the wife of sickly childhood friend Kang-woo(Ha-kyun Shin). Tae-joo was taken in by Mrs. Ra(Hae-sook Kim), regarded as a puppy, and practically used as a domestic animal to be ordered around. Ta-joo is miserable in this situation and begins a torrid affair she instigates with Hyeon, soon manipulating him into perhaps killing Kang-woo by having him believe she's a victim of abuse. Renouncing his priesthood, Hyeon dives headlong into the relationship with Tae-joo, soon a willing participant in killing Kang-woo. This incident, which Tae-woo contributed to(..using a boat, in the middle of a lake, both proceeded to burying him underwater, Tae-woo keeping him Kang-woo from re-surfacing as he attempted to re-enter)will haunt both, as circumstances arise with Kang-woo "missing"(Hyeon got rid of him, where police would not find his corpse). Soon Mrs Ra suffers a stroke(..though, one finger and the ability to blink her eyes contribute mightily as the story progresses, showing that she more aware than they are led to believe), and Hyeon gives Tae-joo a special birthday gift..vampirism. In doing so, Hyeon has created a monster. Tae-joo admits(..though a slip of the tongue)that, in fact, Kang-woo never hurt her, and as she thirsts for blood it is soon realized that killing for a supply doesn't bother her morally or psychologically. Tae-joo becomes such a hand full, Hyeon has to take desperate measures if he is to stop such a menace to society, himself included.

I will say that Thirst is one of the best horror films I've seen regarding 2009. It's a methodical approach Park takes and we are led down a dark road with Hyeon and Tae-joo, as they commit terrible deeds with nothing positive ever to come from their unholy union. Innocent people die because of Hyeon's love(..what once was lust shifts into an obsessive love by the end)for Tae-joo, and it will cease to end if he doesn't make a painful choice. We see inside their heads, their souls, and it isn't always pretty. 2 hours with them can be quite exhausting..but, credit to the director for pulling no punches in regards to devious behavior and how the powers of vampirism can be given to the wrong people. Hyeon, seen as a rather pleasant soul at the opening, accepts "hell" for Tae-joo so one could look at Thirst as a unique love story, but not exactly a healthy one.

In regards to the violence, while Park does have a tendency to pull away from extremely graphic details, there's enough sadism involved to perhaps turn the stomach a bit. At the very least, the way the violence is carried out may be certain to leave a lasting impact. The sexual situations between Hyeon and Tae-joo can be pretty heated and erotic, while also sordid and morally reprehensible. The movie, I think, is still quite a complex examination of the lengths one will go to remain attached to an object of affection(lust). We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.

This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. "Thirst" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.

Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing! The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the head minus the cliché of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high expectations of Bakjwi.

I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style.

There aren't many negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this.

Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a good movie. They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.

That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.

For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above. Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot "Thirst" - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals.

It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.

I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film. Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama – yes, that is a lot of adjectives — inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.

Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:

how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.

the very strong and well acted love scenes.

the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.

Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.

the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.

I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film.

I recommend it. The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.

Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.

The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.

Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully). (This has been edited for space)

Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.

The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.

An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of ways

The film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.

The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart.

I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.

I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year. SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.

I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with "Oldboy" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.

The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, "sang" means "blood" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in "Badlands", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.

Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.

Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.

The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.

All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time. This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners. A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class. Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those interested in vastly different cultures. The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives. This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect! It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended! This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?

Yes.

And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable.

The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?

A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.

And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.

The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.

Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)

The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.

Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night.

And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train." I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study).

It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).

Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:

1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process.

2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .

3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.

4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.

5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).

6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.

These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.

Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.

But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.

The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.

Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.

All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!

-9/10 Well, this is about as good as they come. There are arguments about whether Hitchcock was only a "master of commercial suspense" or maybe a "compulsive technician" -- or was he really "deep." Nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean, but it's legitimate to ask if, at his best, he could not have been all three things at once.

In this one he seems to be about at his peak. Hardly anything in it is accidental. It abounds with doubt, ambiguity, and wit. And the story is engrossing, Patricia Highsmith apparently having complexes similar to Hitchcock's own.

I'm sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so I won't bother going into it. I'll just point out five on screen incidents that Hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for.

Bruno Antony (Walker) has followed Miriam (Laura Miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. She's noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it.

1. Laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through The Tunnel of Love and then to an island in the center of the lake. Walker is right behind them, smiling, in his boat -- Pluto. "Pluto." It's not an allusion to the Walt Disney cartoon character. It's a reference to Pluto, also called Hades, a god of the underworld in Greek and Roman mythology. This tiny touch can't be an accident. And the "underworld" that Walker represents is not just a literal hell, but the underworld of the human mind. I hate to say he's a Jungian "shadow" but that's what he is. (Did Carl Jung see this movie? He was alive at the time of its release -- but probably not.) 2. Now, this is a deadly serious sequence, right? Walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn't even know. Imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. A night-time stalking through a crowded carnival, stealing from shadow to shadow, the killer peering from behind the canvas walls, and so forth. What does Hitchcock show us? When Walker first comes through the gates, concentrating on his victim, a little boy in a cowboy suit, holding a balloon, runs up and shouts, "Bang! Bang! You're dead!" Walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. And when the kid starts to walk away, Walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it, then continues his pursuit without another glance. That's one way Hitchcock treats impending doom.

3. The famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses, which has been aped innumerable times.

4. Miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet, sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. One of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn't reach the bell at the top. Under Miriam's delighted and admiring gaze, Walker smiles and rubs his hands together, then picks up the mallet, slams it down, and the puck bangs against the bell. She's thrilled. He puts the mallet down, looks at her, grins, and WAGGLES HIS EYEBROWS at her like a ten-year-old showoff! 5. After the discovery of Miriam's body, while whistles blow and people shout, Walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. Walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection, gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. A macabre joke.

These incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen-minutes of the carnival visit. (Robert Walker's performance is exceptional throughout.) It's essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (Cf: "Ride the Pink Horse") But the menace of the scene is undercut by Hitchcock's insistence on irony and distance. None of the familiar noir techniques are employed. There's nothing really "creepy" about it. And the murder itself is hardly a savage one. I don't think that any director other than Hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. It would have been all menace and shadows, hiding places, abortive attempts, scowls instead of grins.

Not that it's an entirely flawless movie. A flawless movie is not yet with us. Some of the middle section is a bit slow going and Farley Granger, although a nice guy, is stolid, dull, and rather stupid. His new girl friend is just dull.

Hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in "The Wrong Man." I'm not sure Hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. The latter was imposed on him at an early age by his Catholic education. "Original sin" -- you're BORN with it -- and all that. In filmed interviews, he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. We're justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a "screen memory." I hope you get the pun. I know, I know. It's strained and inept but I spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up. This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films, and one of his most underrated. I believe it certainly exceeds a 'Psycho' or 'The Birds' for technical artistry and brilliance. It is a macabre, tense, darkly humorous product that will leave you in awe for quite some time.

Robert Walker creates one of Hitchcock's most memorable villains as the father-hating, mother-fixated (but aren't most of Hitchcock's villains mummy's boys?) Bruno. It is a disturbing, stunning performance that illuminates the whole film. His character is obsessive, apparently homosexual (look at those deliberately effeminate ties and hear how he is described as 'European'), strangely charming and dangerous to cross. Farley Granger certainly knows this as he becomes entangled in Bruno's sordid web after the pair meet on a train. Bruno, knowing some inside information on Guy's affairs, proposes the two 'swap' murders for each other's benefit. Walker will kill Granger's slutty, conniving wife who is inhibiting his marriage to beautiful Anne, whilst Granger will murder Bruno's father, who he so intensely hates. Everyone's happy, right? A win-win, as Bruno asserts? Wrong. Granger forgets about the indecent proposal, but an obsessed Walker doesn't. He commits his murder and is determined to hound Granger until he completes his side of the bargain too. 'Strangers' becomes a riveting, suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in Hitch's capable hands.

Hitchcock was absolutely amazing at creating intriguing minor characters and building scenes. We have the whore Miriam, Granger's estranged wife pregnant to another man. She lasciviously slurps a phallic ice-cream cone whilst openly eating up Bruno with her eyes. Barbara Morton, Anne's sister, is a deceptively sweet yet smart and cunning young girl who comes out with the most crude remarks you'll hear from a bespectacled girl in the pictures in the 50's. Senator Morton is authoritative and self-absorbed. This is one of the most daring films Hitchcock ever made, and it is, typical to a Hitch film, subtly sexual in detail.

This fits into the film-noir category with it's focus on murder, lies and deceit and shadowy cinematography. Walker's nut is one for the ages, and Granger makes a convincing troubled protagonist. Roman is perhaps weaker than the other two, and I never believed her relationship with Granger. Still, the overwhelming positives cancel out the slight negatives and it can be safely said that this is one of the BEST American films ever made.

Just look at what Hitch does here- the originality, the technical skill. We see the murder of Miriam reflected in her shattered glasses. A game of tennis turns into one of the most thrilling, intense scenes you'll ever see. A innocent fairground turns into a place of murder and foul occurrences. A young boy's balloon is popped callously by Walker (Hitch obviously liked what he saw in 'The Third Man!').Children's delight at riding the carousel turns into screaming, fast-paced terror. Hitch subverts normal, everyday events like no other.

The camera-work here is among the best ever seen in a Hitchcock film, and the premise is to-die-for. It's slick, oozes sophistication and devilish charm. The cross-cutting between Walker and Granger's characters is magnificent- Granger's do-or-die tennis match is just as vital as villain Walker's rescue of an incriminating piece of evidence lost down a drain. Hitch again build his villain into a nasty, repulsive yet sympathetic and oddly charming (Did anyone else find him strangely attractive, more so than Granger?) piece of work- we are just as tense as Walker in our hope that he can get the lighter out of the drain. We need him to, anyway. He holds the key to the story.

You'll never view an approach from a stranger in the same way again after seeing this film.

Amazing.

10/10. In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: "He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour." The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.

"Strangers on a Train" is probably one of the best in his "wrongly-accused" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.

Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.

Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.

"Strangers on a Train" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.

The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an "i'll-get-you" smile.

The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).

"Strangers on a Train" is easily one of Hitchcock's best "wrongly accused" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.

<< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>> In Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers On A Train", Guy Haines (Farley Granger)and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker)meet for the first time on a train journey and discuss the idea of carrying out two murders. The rather pushy Anthony suggests that he could murder Haines' unfaithful wife and Haines could murder Anthony's domineering father. The lack of any connection between the murderer and the victim in each case should ensure that both crimes would remain unsolved. The tenor of the conversation leaves the more easy going Haines with the impression that the proposal is not entirely serious. Complications arise later when Anthony murders Haines' wife in an amusement park and then pursues Haines to keep his side of the bargain.

The differences between the two men are clear from the start. Haines is a professional tennis player, respectable and rather modest about his achievements whereas Anthony's life is going nowhere and he admits to having been thrown out of three colleges for drinking and gambling. Haines is in a relationship with a Senator's daughter who he wants to marry. Anthony characteristically interprets this as a cynical manoeuvre on Haines' part to provide himself with a shortcut to a career. The character differences are also reinforced visually. Anthony often inhabits shadowed areas and travels in a boat called "Pluto" whereas Haines is frequently seen from the more heroic perspective provided by low camera angles.

There are some striking visual sequences such as:-

(1) The murder of Haines' wife which is shown through the reflection of her glasses which fall to the ground as she struggles to free herself from Anthony.

(2) The depiction of Anthony alone, dressed in black and looking very small against the enormous white Jefferson Memorial building.

(3) The occasion where all the spectators at a tennis match are moving their heads in unison, following the action, whilst one head (Anthony's) chillingly remains fixed in a position looking at Haines.

(4)The scene where the roundabout goes wildly out of control and eventually crashes spectacularly.

Frequent use is made of "doubles" throughout the story, for example, Haines and Anthony are originally introduced as 2 pairs of feet getting out of their taxis and going to the train. As the train pulls out of the station, there are 2 sets of tracks each providing a choice of 2 ways forward. The 2 men discuss the murders of 2 potential victims and order 2 double whiskies. The Hitchcock cameo sees him struggling on board the train carrying a double bass. Haines feels double crossed when his wife reneges on an agreement they had for her to see a lawyer to arrange a divorce. Haines' wife goes to the amusement park with 2 boyfriends. When Anthony confronts her before the murder he lights his cigarette lighter and produces 2 reflections in her glasses. Anthony later becomes very disconcerted when he meets the Senator's younger daughter who he sees as a double for Haines' wife. Anthony also feels double crossed when Haines refuses to go ahead with the second murder. When Haines is travelling alone in a train going to Metcalf, he sees 2 men in the same carriage accidentally kicking their feet together in the same way that he and Anthony had.

The action throughout the movie proceeds at a great pace and the performances of Robert Walker and Patricia Hitchcock (as the Senator's younger daughter) are particularly powerful. I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.

Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.

Hitch's pallet here is the "game play" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.

For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.

Back to the movie...

Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed. When Alfred Hitchcock made STRANGERS ON A TRAIN it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. From 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes, and his contractual arrangement with David O. Selznick ended because of this. Actually he made some really good films in the period, such as NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, UNDER CAPRICORN, ROPE, and (my opinion) STAGESTRUCK. But while NOTORIOUS AND SPELLBOUND were liked, the audiences were turned off by Hitch's attempts at experimentation: his use of a dream sequence by Salvator Dali in SPELLBOUND was acceptable, as was the setting among psychiatrists. But the experiment with long takes in ROPE confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film), and the willingness of Hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked - far more disliked then it deserved to be - in STAGESTRUCK. A matter of bad timing for UNDER CAPRICORN (it was released just as the scandal of it's star Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn't). THE PARADINE CASE was another failure - and one that really had little in it's favor.

With STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. Instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the story was of how Guy Haines, a professional tennis player, meets a fan of his - Bruno Anthony, a playboy - who is traveling on a cross-country train at the same time as the athlete. Bruno is talkative and fawning, and Guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met...if a little eccentric, with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. But Bruno knows all about Guy's personal problems. He is married to a promiscuous young woman named Miriam, and is in love with Anne Morton, daughter of a Senator. Bruno knows that Miriam won't divorce her successful celebrity husband. Bruno mentions how he can sympathize - he hates his stepfather, who is constantly criticizing him. Then Bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men - technically strangers - exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect, unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. Guy listens to the idea - and agrees it is an interesting idea. The train reaches Guy's destination, and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. He just does not realize that the "eccentric" Bruno is a sociopath, and believes Guy has just agreed to the two killing each other's foe!

It's a wonderfully simple plot actually. Bruno, of course does kill Miriam, but he fully expects Guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. Guy is horrified - and worse, he finds that he is the police department's number one suspect. When Bruno, to encourage Guy, mentions he has the latter's lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site, Guy finds himself in deeper problems - how to avoid the police, and how to control (if possible) the insane Bruno?

Hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully, so that from the start we see both our "heroes" from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. There are constant cross-contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other's orbits. It is like fate drawing them together. Yet both have their own personality - and Hitch, with a typical twist, makes the mad Bruno actually more of an attractive figure. His scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful, and he will have Guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. One suspects that once Guy too had one, but his marriage's failure, coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman, has made him more circumspect and dull than he was.

The cast is good too. Robert Walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). It was a far cry from the homespun boy-next-door of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY or THE CLOCK. His lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. As Guy Farley Granger acts like a cousin of his co-murderer in ROPE, especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to Jimmy Stewart). As for the ladies, Kasie Rogers is properly sluttish as Miriam - enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering Bruno in his act of evil. Patricia Hitchcock appears as the younger sister of Anne (Ruth Roman), who bears a close resemblance to Miriam, and accidentally sets off Bruno at a social occasion. She plays this rare role well. Ruth Roman is properly supportive of Granger, but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background, and somewhat low keyed. Other supporting performers, Leo G. Caroll as the Senator, Marion Lorne (usually a comedian) as Bruno's dotty mother, and Norma Varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from Walker are all shown to best advantage - all at the hand of a master. Safer indeed. Hitchcock is cinema's all time pervert; however, we all know his perversions are ours as well, so we forgive him. And we not only forgive him but we applaud his clever way to invite us for an unforgettable train ride.

I saw Hitch's 1953, I Confess, a week before this one, and I put both in the same category as part of his trademarks. These trademarks resided in his genius questioning and pulsing his artistic veins that spills psychological drops of blood on the viewer without leaving stains of guilt, instead very subtle awareness of feeling ashame.

The pen is always mightier than the sword and Hitch firmly wrote the most arguable questions with his wrist, and then holding firmly with his hands, he held cameras that always reflected peoples thirst for blood (most humans have), otherwise comedy wouldn't be mostly a tragic thing, and making people laugh wouldn't be so complex.

Mixing all dark elements of "high society", with a wealthy psychopath Bruno, and an ambitious tennis player wanna be politician, Guy, the story is one of the most well constructed and guided by Hitch, inspiring many filmmakers, not only with its plot, but with tricky images provoking dark smiles and happy nightmares.

Barely perfect! One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with "Psycho" and "The 39 Steps", "Strangers On A Train" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.

Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.

It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives "Strangers On A Train" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.

What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.

"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things," Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. "You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important."

Later on, Bruno calls himself a "bum", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his élan as he tries.

Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. ("20 Big Shows" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.

You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but "clinic" sounds too dull. "Strangers On A Train" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second! As I looked at this movie once again, I think it belongs among Hitchcock's greatest films. The first time I saw it I was just blown away by the suspense, action and imagery. It has the gripping ending, the deranged murderer, the innocent man framed or victimized by circumstances, some great on-location shots, e.g. the Jefferson Memorial in Washington and Penn Central in New York. It also has great supporting actors with Hitch's daughter Patricia in the role of the younger sister to Ruth Roman and the stalwart Leo G. Carroll in another of his Hitchcock movies. The merry-go-round episode near the end is one of the most nerve-wracking in Hitchcock's body of work.

Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony (his last full film) gives a great performance as the deranged stranger on the train, who worms himself into the life of the unsuspecting tennis star, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Granger plays the nice guy who is caught up in a messy divorce. The movie opens with the camera showing the shoes of two separate men as they leave their taxis to board the train. Eventually, they meet and the story takes over. The stranger takes an unusual interest in the tennis star and as the movie continues,the stranger becomes a stalker. The action shifts from place to place, including Washington, the fictional small town of Metcalf, the Forest Hills tennis championship, and a passenger train taking the two leading men back and forth on separate missions. Towards the end, the pace of a tennis game is woven into the plot as they race against time. The camera cuts away to the faces of the athletes as they volley and serve in a remarkable series of shots. When the closely-fought contest is over, the climactic chase takes place. Hitchcock has a love for trains and it is great to see Penn Station, long since gone. Trains are featured in the 39 Steps, the Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, North by Northwest and this movie.

This classic Hitchcock thriller took place at the start of a period of great creativity for the master of suspense - the 1950's and I am convinced that one day it will be given its due in the Hitchcock hall of fame. I knew the premise of this film, and obviously I can't miss a good sounding film, especially from "Master of Suspense" director Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Basically tennis champ Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets eccentric stranger, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train travelling from Washington to New York. Bruno talks about a perfect murder, Guy hates his wife, and Bruno hates his father, so Bruno "suggests" swapping murders. Guy obviously didn't take him seriously, until of course when Guy's wife Miriam Joyce Haines (Kasey Rogers (or Laura Elliott)) is found murdered in an amusement park. Guy of course is the chief suspect, and Bruno keeps "bumping into him" reminding him of their "plan", and giving him more things to help him kill the father he wants dead. This murder enquiry and Bruno's stalking are threatening his tennis career, and his relationship with the daughter of Sen. Morton (North by Northwest's Leo G. Carroll), Anne (Ruth Roman). Bruno realises that Guy won't do his murder, so he decides to plant the evidence at the crime scene to make him guilty, Guy's monogrammed cigarette lighter at the amusement park. After his tennis game, Guy and Anne (who obviously found out the murder "plan") race to the amusement park to stop Bruno, and they have a fight on the speeding out-of-control carousel. Also starring Patricia Hitchcock (the director's daughter) as Barbara Morton, Marion Lorne as Mrs. Anthony, Jonathan Hale as Mr. Anthony, Howard St. John as Police Capt. Turley and John Brown as Prof. Collins, and Hitchcock's cameo is the Man boarding train carrying a double bass. Some interesting dialogue and character interactions, some good suspense moments, and of course the unforgettable carousel finale, a good classic film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Cinematography. Sir Alfred Hitchcock was number 75 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, the film was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Thrills. Very good! In my never-ending quest to see as many quality movies as possible in my lifetime, i stumbled upon this film on cable. I tried Hitchcock three times before this, and never have i felt that the man's work lived up to the praise he had received. I always felt he was good, not great (from what I've seen) This was the best of his films I've seen thusfar. Robert Walker is absolutely chilling, his performance takes the film where Hitchcock wanted it to go. Even an average performance here damages the overall product. My favorite scene was his obsession about getting the lighter from the drain (how exactly does he get his arm down there though?) Bruno is quite a compelling character, but i also loved the performance by Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara. The rest of the Morton family as well as Guy were a bit dry and boring, but she added some flare to the movie, as well as having some of the better lines in the script.

Lastly, in any suspense movie, you're going to live and die by your ending. This one holds water, unlike a couple other Hitchcock films I've seen. I truly was unsure of how it would end, which kept me on the edge while i watched and waited. I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10 Has aged really well - still thrilling and suspenseful today. Certainly one of Hitch's best movies. Beautifully shot, with a great premise for suspense, sex-appeal provided by beautiful Ruth Roman. Because of the great premise, you feel like you have to watch it to the end. If you find yourself losing faith in Hitch and doubting his title as the Master of Suspense, i recommend this nice little movie as an antidote. 5 out of 5. Rating: 8 out of 10. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets the mysterious Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Soon afterwards, Guy finds himself drawn into the psychotic realm of Bruno's world.

Guy is separated from his wife and is now involved with a senator's daughter. Guy is interested in entering into politics after he retires from tennis. Bruno wants to kill his own father but doesn't want to do it himself.

Bruno proposes that he disposes with Guy's wife, while Guy's part of the deal is to eliminate Bruno's father. Guy dismisses this idea since he isn't interested in having his troublesome wife killed.

Bruno goes ahead with his half of the proposal. While Guy becomes the prime suspect of his wife's murder. As law enforcement continues to investigate Guy, Bruno continues to torment Guy, wanting him to complete the other half of the proposal.

'Strangers on a Train' has one of the most exciting endings of all Hitchcock movies. This is a well-crafted piece from everyone's favorite master of suspense. As usual, the technical elements such as camera work and lighting are outstanding (especially for the film's time). I did not find the first part of the film very exciting, but the latter one certainly made up for it with one thrilling scene after another.

The only thing I did not like about this movie was the choice of Farley Granger for the part of Guy Haines. Somehow, I didn't find him very believable. On the other hand, Robert Walker shines as sinister 'bad guy' Bruno Anthony.

Overall, I would highly recommend this. It's been said before--Strangers on a Train is Hitchcock's best movie--and he's made so many good ones! Like other Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train requires your full attention to really appreciate it, but once you can...you will. This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now. This movie was fabulous. It is definitely a top 5 hitchcock film. The directing and camera shots are nearly flawless(aside from the dog scene when he licks the guys hand, clearly in slow motion). The plot is well written and realistic. It was very believable that an innocent man could fall into a trap like that.

I would rate Bruno as hitchcocks second most interesting character( of course bates is first). Robert Walker plays a very believable maniac. He didnt overact the part which made it believable(much the same how perkins didnt overact his part). Overall this is an excellent movie, an absolute must see for any hitchcock fans.



The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to the cop in the first place.4/5

The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to

the cop in the first place.4/5 I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended. Being the second last of Chaplin's Essanay films, CARMEN is a parody of Cecil B. Demille's drama with the same title. It stands as quite obvious that Demille's acknowledged film didn't impress the comedy king that much, which he later admitted in his autobiography.

Parodies were not a new experiment for Chaplin. He had done several of them already, namely HIS PREHISTORIC PAST and HIS NEW JOB, and would continue to do so until the very end of his career in films (for instance in A KING IN NEW YORK).

Chaplin does a very good portrayal of Don José, and Edna Purviance's is very as good as Carmen. Neither act as we are used to; Charlie is not the lovable Tramp and Edna is far from an innocent little woman, but that was not Chaplin's intentions, either. A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN is a somewhat odd Chaplin-film, very different, but includes good material nonetheless.

The main story is, although very differently structured, as in the original drama. Don José is very much in love with Carmen, but is not alone in that field; "Carmen, Carmen, (the) beautiful Carmen, (is) loved by all men under 96," but he has the big advantage that he is an officer, and there we are; this is the famous story about rivalry, love, greed and honor, seen from a humorous perspective. Thanks to Chaplin's and Purviance's performances, and to the wonderful, wonderful music by George Bizet which I highly admire, this could actually have been a near-comedy masterpiece, it's time taken into consideration. It could have been. But unfortunately, although it is a good pretty good comedy, I don't feel it's fair to blame people who claim that A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is far from being a masterpiece. But it's important to keep in mind that this has nothing to do with any lack of talent, but rather a result of conflicts concerning business. When Chaplin refused to re-sign Essanay contract after completing his last film for the company, POLICE, they took revenge by editing back all the scenes Chaplin originally had edited out from CARMEN. Thanks to this, the film is somewhat confusing and has several pointless scenes which are more annoying than funny, and the film turned out to be rather a Ben Turpin-feature --Turpin played Remendados-- than a Chaplin-short. Naturally, Chaplin was in despair when he discovered what Essanay had done, and had to stay in bed for several days.

Despite its obvious flaws, A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is highly recommended to Chaplin-fans and to admirers of beautiful music. One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then "Prosper Merimee's" well-known story about "Carmen." I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes.

From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen.

Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ("A band who put the GYP in gypsy."), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has "spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics."

On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that "the mules are the ones with long ears." In case you couldn't tell, I guess.

Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as "a brave soldier and lover of women." Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.

What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.

Soon Carmen enters ("Loved by all men under the age of 96…"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary.

Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.

The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work! I Would have to disagree strongly with the previous lame comment. I watched this not expecting too much from it. The Fact is that the cast were superb, Especially The lead Teen Female. The dark sides of them all came through, all were messed up in an not obvious way. There was an underlying current which ran through the movie of teenage angst and sexuality. The serial killer role was played well also as you could feel he had gone through what they had as children. What this movie is, is a strong drama/thriller. Yes I would agree they don't do the obvious, but you could relate with the messed up teenage heads they did what they did and it is believable. Also a decent dark ending, instead of which could have so easily been an opt out happy one. The attention to detail in the movie was fantastic also. I very good solid 7 out of 10. A little slow at times, but lets a thinking person see where the characters are coming from. I saw what I believe to be the best Australian film of the year so far, Jon Hewitt's Acolytes.

Acolytes is a stylish thriller with a killer premise. Get this…two bullied and molested teens discover a local serial killer in their suburb AND then set about blackmailing him to kill the bully who molested them. Hewitt has picked a top notch cast including excellent new comers Sebastian Gregory, Josua Payne and Hanna Mangan Lawrence to play the teens. Add to that three, yes, thats right three great psycho's! Lead by Joel Edgerton in an outstanding performance of serial killer du jour, Belinda McClory his deranged spouse and Michael Dorman as the teen raping bully, with swastika tattoos. Once you add these teens and these menacing adults, all hell breaks loose… Hewitt has crafted a balls to the wall serial thriller thats damn original and accomplished. You can see the influence of Larry Clark and David Lynch's Twin Peaks but Hewitt makes it all his own, in a Qld suburban back water, always ringing with the drones of emptiness. The script by Shayne Armstong, Shane Krouse and Hewitt is tight.

If marketed correctly this film could be a break out hit with teens. The next Wolf Creek? It could well be. It makes all the right moves. The teens are real ala Larry Clark. They don't suck and have an attached PC agenda, they are non communicative, good looking and hip. The killers are dark with real menace. Joel Edgerton steals his scenes as the mild mannered local Ted Bundy, who sports a butterfly on his 4WD spare ala John Fowles The Collector. Dorman's petrol head rapist pours on the menace that tops Suburban Mayhem and provides a creepy thug who you can't wait to see buy the farm.

The film is fast paced, tough and brutal. Not only that, it displays a confidence and directorial mastery from Hewitt that is surely to win him an IF or AFI nomination, if not award! Its nuanced and poetic mise en scene, brilliant sound design, excellent cinematography and tight structure mark it as clearly one of the best directed Oz features I have seen so far this year.

The film leaves you shaken, thinking and unsettled. Its a truly great edition to the return to genre going on in Australian cinema at present. It will surely garner the interest of Hollywood. Oh, and did I mention it got into Toronto? What other Oz feature films can say that much? The world should get ready for a new auteur, Jon Hewitt. I have been a Mario fan for as long as I can remember, I have very fond memories of playing Super Mario World as a kid, this game has brought back many of those memories while adding something new. Super Mario Galaxy is the latest installment in the amazing Mario franchise. There is much very different about this game from any other Mario before it, while still keeping intact the greatest elements of Mario, the first noticeable difference is that the story takes place in space.

The story begins much like any other Mario game, Mario receives a letter from Princess Peach inviting him to a celebration at her castle in the Mushroom Kingdom. Upon arriving at Peach's castle Mario finds Bowser and his son (Bowser Jr.) attacking the castle with their airships. Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and then lifts her castle up into space. In the midst of the castle being lifted into space Mario falls off and lands on an unknown planet. Mario is found by a talking star named Luma and is taken back to the Luma's home, a floating space station, here Mario meets many other Lumas and also meets their leader, a woman named Rosalina. Rosalina tells Mario that Bowser has taken away the space station's Power Stars and scattered them across the universe, it is up to Mario to help the Lumas find them and save Peach, thus the adventure begins.

The way you play the game is by flying from the space station to other galaxies, each galaxy consists of multiple planets that Mario travels amongst in levels via these shooting stars to retrieve the Power Stars. Mario can at many times walk all the way around planets without losing gravity, some planets are small and others are big, many planets are similar to classic Mario environments. The best thing about the game are the controls, all of the stuff like jumping and such is still the same, but the wiimote is used in many unique ways in this game. You shake the remote Mario will perform a spin that is used as the primary attack in the game, and it will as well activate the shooting stars. You can also point the remote at the screen and use the pointer to fire star bits at enemies or objects in the environment. Then there is the graphics, these are by far the best graphics on the Wii, it is just so hard to describe how great this game looks, you could probably almost say it looks as good as some 360 games.

My only minor gripes is that the going upside down effect takes some getting used to, and also the story is pretty weak. The worst part is that you lose all of your lives when you turn off the game, no matter how many you had when you last quit you restart at 4 lives. Still these minor problems aside it's a superb game that is highly entertaining and is very challenging. This is the type of game that we've been waiting for on the Wii.

A perfect 10 out of 10! *THIS COMMENT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SPOILERS!! I CHECKED THE SPOILERS BOX JUST IN CASE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SPOILERS, BUT BE AWARE ANYWAYS IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A SPOILER AND I DON'T!* Wow...best game since Super Mario 64. I got this game the first day it came out, and before I got it, I went on some gaming websites to look at its ratings (yes, they already reviewed it before it came out), and I was shocked. I was expecting something like Sunshine because lately all the Mario games have kind of been getting worse and worse. But this one totally beat the other games. The scores on this game even beat Halo 3! It's simply amazing.

STORY: Not the best, Mario games are never known for their plots, and this one isn't really much of a difference. Bowser once again kidnaps Peach but this time invades the Mushroom Kingdom on a festival celebrated once every century and gets a flying saucer and it shoots lasers on the ground and then they put anchors inside the ground and rip off the castle and its foundation into outer space.

GRAPHICS: Absolutely gorgeous, the best graphics on Wii so far. The water effects are really nice too, if you ever see the water, it looks so real because the effects they put in it.

MUSIC: Simply amazing, the music in this game is orchestrated. Not all of it, but even the ones that aren't orchestrated still sound very nice.

GAMEPLAY: Very entertaining, keeps you wanting to play more and more, and for me, since usually I tend to be very frustrated with games if I die a lot, I mean, I'm definitely not the only one, but this game for me didn't have that a lot. Now it still kind of did, but not to the point like Mario 64 where I totally go crazy and end up turning off the game because it made me mad, this one never did that.

DIFFICULTY: There are two types of difficulty, because you can just technically beat the game with just 60 stars, which I think is kind of easy, but to beat the game 100%, you have to get 120, like always, and that quest is way harder, but at the same time still very fun.

LENGTH: Good length, definitely not too short. It took me around 15-16 hours to beat it with just 60 stars, but 120 took me more like 45-50 hours. Now I didn't play it constantly that much, I played first a lot one day, then the next couple of days just a couple hours each day, then the next two days I played it all day. To me though, I think the quest for 60 stars was a tiny bit short, so if you want a long game, I suggest getting all of them.

PRESENTATION: Now, the cinematic scenes in this movie are superb. The way they are, it just looks so much like something I would see in the theaters. They are hands down the best cinematic scenes on any Mario game so far.

OVERALL: This game is definitely a great game, and I advise you to not wait until Christmas, get it as soon as possible. This game also is a good mixture of old and new, you'll have some sidescroller levels where you move just side to side, or up and down because they'll change on gravity, but even the music has some old classics in it. So this game seems to be like a masterpiece. To me, it's my favorite Mario game of all time, but others may disagree. But it's still a great game. I recommend every gamer who wants to have fun in a game to get this. the mario series is back, and in my opinion, better than ever. Galaxy is the most creative mario yet; even more so than super mario 64. the controls are great; some of the best for the wii. beautiful graphical design as well. the levels are very big, and the good old bosses are back. there is tons to explore in this game; definitely a high level of replay value. I only have 2 complaints: 1: the story is a little to similar to mario 64. and 2: the difficulty isn't very high; though it does require some patience. mario fans: the game you've been waiting for. Casual gamers: this game is more than worth the buy. 9.8 out of 10. Like some other people wrote, I'm a die-hard mario fan, and I loved this game.

This game starts slightly boring, but trust me, it's worth it. As soon as you start, your hooked! The levels are fun and exiting. They will hook you 'till your mind turns to mush. I'm not kidding. This game is also orchestrated, and is beautifully done.

To keep this spoiler free, I have to keep my mouth shut about details. But please try this game! It'll be worth it!

Story: 9.9 Action: 10.1 (It's that good!) Hardness: 10 Attention Grabber: 10 Average: 10 (Warning: May Contain Spoilers) Let Rosalina help Mario lead the way and smile because this game will brighten your day.

120 stars will require luck and skill, but 60 will bring you as much of a thrill!

Blasting through stars show Mario and Luigi and what travelers they now are!

Walking upside down has never been more fun, especially a final battle with Koopa near the Sun!

This is truly a super awesome game and it absolutely deserves a place in Nintendo's Hall of Fame! Ever since 1981, Nintendo has been making great video games such as Super Mario and Zelda. Most ideas would get a bit boring after 20 years. Games made by Nintendo never seem to get boring because they're always adding something new. It went from arcade games to the Wii and I hear that there's a new version of the Wii scheduled for release in 2011. The thing that makes Wii games so different is the fact that your actually doing something instead of just sitting on the couch pushing buttons.

And I have more good news. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is to be released in 2010. This is one of those games where you love it to bits or hate it to shreds.Even being a hardcore Mario fan can make you dislike this game.You can hate it because it is 2 short and somewhat boring and easy.Or you can love it because it is a mixture of amazing graphics(not a Nintendo fan huge excitement) music or game play.I know a lot of people that say it is amazing,and others who think its the worst Mario ever.It really depends on the type of Nintendo fan you are.I personally love this game and I think it is the best wii game,but you should determine that for yourself.So I think you should absolutely get it if you are the right Nintendo fan.But If you love The classics too much,you may not like it.So try it out yourself. What exactly do people expect when they watch an Al Adamson film? Are they expecting classic cinema that is wonderful beyond belief and will leave them with lasting memories? You'd think so by some of the reviews. Al Adamson's films are trashy and sleazy and cheesy, not much more, so if you go into them knowing that already it helps, and they aren't necessarily to be taken at face value, especially when they have so much unintentional entertainment value. First off, this starts by ripping off the end theme music from Outer Limits, so you know things are looking promising. This is the story of some wacko cult that lives in the hills and while trying to raise a dead body, the leader suffers a heart attack and ends up in the hospital. Of course Nurse Sherri tends to his needs and all, and when an operation is needed she just happens to be hanging out in the operating room when the guy passes on so his spirit invades her. And Nurse Sherri begins to change. No longer the nice nurse, she develops a taste for blood and sharp objects. There's a couple little side stories going on like folks trying to burn the body of the dead cult leader and a blinded football star that has become the love object of one of Sherri's co-workers who also just happens to dabble in voodoo. This is not bad if you're a cult film fan, but it may be bad if you're a "Spiderman" fan because you won't like it. At times this actually lurches towards "respectability" (for Adamson, anyway) but then it "unredeems: itself with some ridiculous event. If you enjoy Adamson's films and similar trash you may well like this, for anyone else who may be looking for a lost treasure, keep digging. 7 out of 10. I love just about everything the late Al Adamson directed in his long and varied career, but "The Possession of Nurse Sherri" stands head and shoulders above fun yet admittedly grade-Z schlockfests like "Horror of the Blood Monsters" and "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein". This film is actually scary! Am I saying that you're going to jump out of your seat when you watch "Nurse Sherri"? No, of course not. But this pastiche of elements from "The Exorcist", "Ruby", and "Carrie" is one of those nice, eerie little horror movies common to the seventies. You can't put your finger on what's so spooky about it, but the film drips with atmosphere. (And what an ending! Don't worry, I won't spoil it for you.) Adamson and producer Sam Sherman really nailed it with this one, and it doesn't matter whether "Nurse Sherri" was a calculated success or a happy accident. Jill Jacobson is likable but not outstanding as the hapless nurse who becomes possessed by the spirit of a recently deceased cult leader (Bill Roy, who shines in his brief role). Geoffrey Land is okay as her surly doctor boyfriend. There are some blaxploitative elements here (profit was the bottom line with these cheap drive-in flicks, after all) but they actually contribute to the plot rather than just being window dressing. "Nurse Sherri" was a Poverty Row production, and it shows at times (sets, special effects, etc.). Still, the film has heart, mostly decent acting and direction, and some genuine chills. Sam Sherman also saw fit to use Harry Lubin's theme music for the late '50s/early '60s television series "One Step Beyond" in this film, which certainly adds to the creepy atmosphere. The DVD contains two significantly different cuts of the movie (the early version features a lot of T&A that wound up on the cutting room floor to make way for more horrific stuff) as well as the theatrical trailer, the TV spot, and a great commentary by Sherman. Does anybody know whatever happened to Bill Roy, by the way? Next to John Carradine, he's the best actor I've ever seen in an Al Adamson film, and he plays the cult leader like he means it. ''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.

The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.

Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.

7 Out Of 10 Reanhauer (Bill Roy) is the leader of a desert-dwelling cult who tries to resurrect one of his people, only to have a heart attack himself! He ends up dying on an operating table, and for the sake of revenge, his spirit takes over the body of the title character (Jill Jacobson), who then proceeds to go about hacking and slashing until her fellow nurses learn what needs to be done to exorcise the demon.

While I know enough about the directors' filmography to know that it primarily consists of outright schlock, "Nurse Sherri" is really not all that bad. Sure, it's clear that this was very low-budget stuff, yet all that I found egregiously cheesy about it were the visual effects. The acting is not as bad as one might expect, either.

There are two different versions available of this on DVD. A much more sex-oriented version featuring bountiful amounts of T & A is the original cut, with such hilariously silly vignettes as the victim and and her love interest sharing their "strangest sex" moments, including one involving fellatio during a college lecture!

The movie would then be re-cut for theatrical version with the horror elements emphasized more strongly. Some scenes are dropped with new ones added (with Stevens, the role played by J.C. Wells, expanded). The movies' most memorable sequence in this cut is a scene in a foundry, and it works quite well. This cut of the movie is more interesting overall; I would recommend that a viewer see them both and compare them.

Both versions hit their stride in the final third, and benefit from a marvelously scene-stealing performance from Bill Roy as the crazed Reanhauer, and a moody climax set in a graveyard (although actually filmed in Adamsons' backyard!). Marilyn Joi is also worth mentioning as the cute nurse who is attracted to football player turned patient Marcus Washington (Prentiss Moulden), who's lost his eyes in a car accident, and who incidentally is key to resolving the story with his knowledge of voodoo rituals. The movie also makes amusing use of music from composer Harry Lubins' personal collection, including compositions for such TV series as 'One Step Beyond' and 'The Outer Limits'.

"Nurse Sherri" (known by more alternate titles (including "Beyond the Living" and "Hospital of Terror") than any other Adamson movie) is actually fairly entertaining low-budget fare. I ended up having a good time watching it.

7/10 I saw this film at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival.

This is the first Indian film I've seen in the Tamil language, and while it does share some similarities with other Indian films (wonderful music and choreography, sweeping storyline), the director attempts more than just to entertain. The film tells the story of Amudha, a precocious nine-year old whose parents reveal to her that she was adopted, thus beginning an odyssey that takes them all from India to war-torn Sri Lanka. Gorgeous visuals mix with horrifying scenes of violence expressly to make a point, though it is a simplistic one. Amudha is played by P.S. Keerthana, and she is one of the few child actors I've seen who can be precocious and yet not annoying. Her charm and beauty held the film together. Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.

Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.

Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.

The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.

A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.

Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.

I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.

Recommended. I am a big follower of Indian Movies especially Malayalam and Tamil.

Shame on India for not sending this movie as their official Oscar entry. I have seen this movie and it has clearly revealed to me the maturity Tamil cinema has in its screenplay and narrative which bollywood better catch up with.By the way to all we westerners, Tamil Cinema is more qualitative and very different from Bollywood which is all about good looks glamour and promotion.

Coming to the point what was India thinking when they sent a movie like 'Devdas' to the Oscars? That was a really a Masochist move. I think they are trying to punish Oscar judges with boredom by sending Devdas since the judges toppled Lagaan last year.

'Devdas' is just a brigthly colored but stale and predictable melodrama of Love, fate and destiny. I would keep away from it. Anyway, not sending a movie like Kanathil Muthital shows how much of a revamp Indian administration needs to save them from poor administrators who lack intelligence. Now I know why this country has so many issues. They are heavily talented but not showcased properly. In Sri Lanka, a country divided by religion and language, the civil war between the pro-Sinhalese government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist organization, has claimed an estimated 68,000 lives since 1983. Human rights groups have said that, as a result of the war, more than one million people have been displaced, homeless or living in camps. The impact on children and families caught in the conflict is sensitively dramatized by acclaimed Tamil director Mani Ratnam in his 2002 film A Peck on the Cheek, winner of several awards at the National Film Awards in India. While the civil war is merely a backdrop for the story of a young girl's voyage of discovery, the human cost of war is made quite clear and Ratnam gives the fighting a universal context, pointing the finger at global arms traffickers as the source of wrongdoing.

Beautifully photographed in Southern India by cinematographer Ravi K Chandran in a setting mirroring the terrain of Sri Lanka, the film tells a moving story about an adopted 9-year old girl who sets out to find her real mother in the middle of the fighting in Sri Lanka. Played with deep feeling and expressiveness by P.S. Keerthana in a memorable performance, Amudha is brought up by a loving middle class family with two younger brothers after her natural parents Shyama (Nandita Das) and Dileepan (J.D. Chakravarthi) were forced to flee when the fighting broke out, leaving her in a Red Cross camp. In a loving flashback, we see Amudha's adoptive parents, father Thiru (Madhavan) a prominent Tamil writer, and mother Indra (Simran) a TV personality, marry to facilitate their adoption of the darker-skinned little girl.

Young Amudha has no idea that she is adopted until it is sprung upon her abruptly on her ninth birthday, according to the parents' prior agreement. While she is playing, Thiru tells her almost in a matter of fact tone that "you are not our daughter" and the response is predictable. Distraught, she questions who her father was, what her mother's name was, why she gave her up, and so forth but few answers are forthcoming. Amudha runs away several times until her parents agree to go to Sri Lanka to help her find her true mother, now a fighter for the Tamil separatists. The family's immersion in the reality of the civil war leads to some traumatic moments and difficult decisions, handled mostly with skill by Ratnam, though a sequence where the family was caught in a crossfire felt amateurish.

A Peck on the Cheek is of course a Bollywood-style film and that means tons of music and melodrama. The melodrama did not get in the way because of the strong performances by the lead actors; however, I found the musical dramatizations of songs by A. R. Rahman counter to the mood of the film with their slick, high production techniques and fast-paced music video-style editing. Yet the compelling nature of the story and the honesty in which it is told transcend the film's limitations. Tamil cinema has been criticized by many, even within the country as being too clichéd and commercial, yet A Peck on the Cheek is both a film of entertainment and one that tackles serious issues. That it successfully straddles the line between art and commerce is not a rejection but a tribute. Kannathil Muthamittal was simply one of the most touching and sincere movies ive seen in a long time. the story of an adopted girl who on her 9th birthday learns the truth about her parentage. she sets out in an endeavour to find out more about her real mother and learns that her mother is now a terrorist.

the greatness of the movie lies in its simplicity. mani ratnam generally has a tendency to create unreal and pompous overblown characters in this movie, every person seems real and their interactions are touching and sincere. this is the reason why this ranks as one of his best movies.

the movie is emotionally draining and tugs at the heart of the viewer, keerthana as the 9 year old amudha and simran as her adopted mother are simply brilliant. their relationship is the cornerstone of this movie. there are some notable flaws here, particularly the scene where amudha learns that she is an adopted child is jarring and seems totally unreal. it is hard to believe that such sensitive parents would break such a news in the manner that they did. another flaw is, surprisingly enough, the brilliant songs. they again seem forced and stand out, not gelling with the rest of the script.

having said these, this still is one of the most poignant and beautiful movies to come out of india in a long long time. this beauty is not just in the script or characters but in teh technical brilliance as well, ravi chandran's camera work is sheer poetry. all characters perform creditably and the realistic humour, especially in teh flashback scenes are entertaining.

a sincere 9!! This movie was astonishing how good it was! The plot is extraordinary, and the acting spectacular. At first I thought this wasn't going to be that great because of a summary, but after about the first five or ten minutes of the movie, it struck me that I was dead wrong. I literally cried about four or five times in this movie, and despite this, I must've watched the same scenes over and over again about thirty times in one week! No, the song scenes were not as awesome as they could've been, but the plot is what really gets you. American or Asain, I would recommend this to anyone--and I have now. I guarantee that after seeing this one, you'll get the best out of it, and its plot. I hope you feel the same, and write a rave review too! The Director of Kannathil Muthamittal directed the first Indian film I had seen "Dil Se" which led me down the path of buying well over 122 Hindi DVDs in the

course of four months. I can say I understood the total attraction, I was

somehow confused as to why the film would stop for "music videos". It was an excellent movie, I didn't know what to make of the dancing and the female

vocals were a bit shrill for my western ears, but somehow I found AR Rahmen's score hypnotic. I bought the soundtrack the following day and then Lagan, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and K3G the following week and with the exception of "Ichi the

killer" a few other Korean films , I can't be bothered to watch much else. Kind of strange for someone who has only watched a strict diet of Hong Kong, Horror

and Action/Science fiction films for the past 30 years.

But I should get back to Kannathil Muthamittal, It is one of the Mani Ratman's latest efforts and I laughed, Cried, Got totally mad, terrified and most of all I didn't feel manipulated. The acting was superb, the photography was beautiful, I think you could stop the movie at any given time and would notice that any give frame would be worthy of painting. The music fit the movie perfectly and after the

credits rolled, I wanted to watch again... so I did.

It would be foolish to discuss the plot for fear that you may miss the pleasure of watching the events unfold and the characters develop. This is what great film is all about! I stood and applauded in my home theater when it was over!

My wife is watching now, and I can't wait for her reaction, I can't expect it will be anything less than mine. I finally snagged a copy of Kannathil Muthamittal through Netflix and spent New Yera's Eve watching an amazing drama unfold. It began with Shyama (a winsome Nandita Das) getting married to Dhileepan in the backwaters of Sri Lanka and then a war takes over their romance. Shyama has to flee to India and is in a refugee camp as she gives birth to a child. Several years later we see Amudha, a playful well-loved child (P. S. Keerthana), who is the darling (or burden) of teachers, parents and fellow schoolmates alike, in a very How to Solve a Problem Like Maria sequence. On her birthday she is told by her parents Thiru (Madhavan) and Indra (Simran) that she is not their biological child, she was adopted. This tilts her confident love-filled world and she constantly dwells on why her birth mother left her. Several attempts at truancy later the adoptive parents take her to Sri Lanka to try to find her birth mother. The country is torn asunder by a raging civil war and the trio are inevitably caught up in the mess. But this also leads to their meeting the new Shyama - one who finally is confronted by Amudha and asked why she abandoned her daughter.

The story of a child who has to grapple with the fact that she was abandoned at birth, her obsessive drive to reconnect with her birth mother, the unconditional love of the adoptive parents, the demons that drive the birth mother, the normalcy of Chennai and the horrors of terrorism ravaged Sri Lanka - Mani Ratnam made a masterful film that blended many ingredients into a saga that is soul stirring. AR Rahman's music beautifully complements the magical and the poignant moments in the film. The film has excellent performances from Madhavan, Nandita Das, Simran and an absolute stunner role as Amudha - the abandoned one - done by the child artiste P. S. Keerthana. This performance won her a National award.

The cinematography is visual poetry - each frame is beautifully crafted and breathtakingly shot. I am intrigued by the connection Mani Ratnam has with terrorism, love and obsessions. I think his exploration of these subjects is absolutely outstanding. Mahadevan's character was quite unique - his passion and idealism did not make him selfish, rather was well matched with how much he cared for the little girl. His one liners were hilarious. The mother played by Simran was also quite multi-dimensional - she was idealistic, loved the adopted daughter but also worried about her biological kids. The shock, angst, and obsession of the child Amudha was outstandingly portrayed by P. S. Keerthana. Her wide accusing eyes did most of the talking. In fact the enigmatic characters were those of Nandita Das, and her husband. Perhaps Mani deliberately made them mysterious so as to not give us overt ideas of why they were the way they were - the enigma of why a terrorist becomes what he or she becomes. It also kept him from being judgmental - this was another conflict in which he took no sides but merely reported while showing the human tragedy.

Kannathil Muthamittal is visual poetry and a soul stirring drama - I rarely weep in the movies, but this one left me moist eyed and a little heartsick. This is a beautiful film - a treasure and a keeper if you can find a copy; beg borrow or steal one today and watch the film! Mani is back wit a Rathnam(gem) he manages to capture the mental trauma of a small girl searching 4 her mother they way he goes about showing the problems-in Ceylon is a treat.. .. Tis movie is a must watch.the musical score does enhance the viewing pleasure.. Rahman a find of Rathnam has given some great tunes the lyrics r apt 4 the movie the locations used for the movie are very good and makes viewing pleasant the movie starts of in a light manner moves over to capture the feelings of the girl finally goes on o shed light into the life of people in war torn places across the world this is yet another classic from ManiRathnam One more classic performance by Maniratnam and his team. They can be proud to show this movie at all film festivals for it has got everything that needs to name it as an "all time classic". The war and its impacts in Sri Lanka through the eyes of a ten year old girl is the movie all about but the scenes and circumstances will surely be not the one that you will expect. Madhavan no wonder he is one of the best actors in the country who can always add beauty and unique identity for the role he plays, and it needs real daringness to act as a father for three kids when he is considered as a dream boy with a glamorous personality in the industry. Music by AR Rahman makes the movie a special one for those who love melodies. Above all the story and the way it is told makes it as the best movie in the recent times. This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.

If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.

*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS. When I stepped into the theater, I thought this was going to be a great movie. And I was not disappointed one bit. WOW! This movie is brilliant! The emotions felt through out the whole movie are extraordinary! Great acting by Madhavan and Simran. Beautiful music by A.R. Rahman. This might most probably be the best Tamil movie I've seen in ages. Mani Ratnam has yet again proved that he is the best in making meaningful and heartfelt movies.

This movie is basically about a young girl (P.S. Keerthana) who is in search of her biological mother (Nandita Das) who abandoned her in a refugee camp to fight for her country just like her husband (J.D. Chakravathy). A young novelist (Madhavan) finds out about this young girl's story and decides to write a story about her. He and his wife (Simran) decide to adopt this young child but one day she finds out that they are not her real parents and decides to search for her biological mother.

This movie really screams EXCELLENT. The way Mani Ratnam presented the movie is magnificent.

My Rating - 10/10 I think this is one of the best tamil movies i've seen in a while. i love the fact that it doesn't revolve around a guy and girl falling in love and they made the movie brilliantly. The cast did a great job and i especially congratulate the litte girl. She was brilliant and really brought out the feeling of an adopted child searching for her real mother. Best of all are the songs, beautiful music and moving lyrics. There are some great songs in this move ya'll! especially 'Kannathil Mutthamittal' and 'Velai Pookal'. Great songs, both of them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a good cry and some great acting (and superb songs! ). Cheers Simran. You don't have to be a tamilian to appreciate this gem of a movie.I don't know a word of tamil and saw this movie only because a friend had recommended it to me.Understanding a movie without knowing the language is quite tough but I could make out the story because the lead actors (and actresses)emoted really well.And the little girl was really cute (she wasn't irritating like child actors in most hindi movies).The story is really touching and hats off to Mr. Ratnam for trying something different.The relationship between the parents and their children are shown quite realistically.(I could identify with the characters in the movie).It was alltogether a movie that will remain in my heart forever and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to my friends.Also the songs are just out of this world!They were beautifully and meaningfully picturised.If only I could understand the right meaning of the lyrics:( To tell you the truth, I do not speak Tamil, and I did not understand the film. My good Tamil friend, Kaneswaran Kumarswamypillai (wow, what a long name), explained every thing to me. What a great movie!!! After watching this movie, I felt I should have watched many more movies from Tollywood (Tamil Film Industry). The war scenes were amazing, camera work excellent, and plot beautiful. The actress "Simran", what a beauty. Give her an award for best looking someone. Ding, Ding, Ding, come on I smell a OSCAR winner. I didnt understand the songs, but they were excellent. Mani Ratnam is a great director, and I hope his next film was a success. Hello all! I went to this movie without any expectation though I knew Maniratnam would've given an excellent film! I was stunned!! The backdrop is the struggle between the tamils settled in Sri Lanka and the government. The story is about how an young girl Amudha who lives with her foster parents at Chennai, India leaves to Sri Lanka in search of her real mother. The high points of the film are the performances of every actor and actress and ofcourse, the cinematography, editing and all other technical details. Full marks to the cast and crew. I have to mention about the cinematography as it brings out the war in such a way that you feel yourself being there. Excellent work! Though the war sequences reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, such a work was never attempted on Indian Screen. Overall the movie is great! And hats off to Mr.Maniratnam.

Mani Ratnam has once again proved that he is a director who can take Indian cinema to great heights! I would love to watch this film again and again. An excellent film and a must see. Kannathil Muthamittal is for sure a great movie. I have to give it to Mani Ratnam for a great directing job and A.R. Rahman for great songs. The camera work is just excellent and is similar to Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. I will be shocked if this movie does not win an Oscar for Best Foreign Film or even Best Camera Work. When you want to celebrate life and love, especially for precious little daughters, you have to shout it from the countryside. And what gorgeous countrysides! There are so many tears of joy even God joins in. See this movie.

I have seen this movie when it was released and no doubt it is heart touching. I liked the point of view of a kid who came to know that what she was thinking about her were actually not true. It's a shatter to that small kid. And her search to find out who she is. And before and after she knows about her, the relationship between her and her foster-mom. That's a nice view. A R Rahman adds his stress by a good re-recording and songs. In this movie mani ratnam does not exaggerate or give advices (like in Vuyire) but simply narrates the characters as they are . And because of that the film exactly strikes the audience. The pool bath scene of chakkarvarthy and nandhitadas did not convey perfectly what it meant for. Mani Ratnam has amazingly improved. This film is absolute gold. If you haven't seen it, do. Mani Ratnam outdoes himself once again. This film introduced me to Nandita Das as well, though everyone shines in this movie. My only regret is I've never found a copy with subtitles to the lyrics of the songs. We are led from the jungle of northern Sri Lanka to the serene beaches of Southern India, as well as from the terror of war to the ultimate conquest by love of the human heart. Beautiful, subtle, witty, with a few hidden surprises waiting for the viewer, this movie stands up to being seen again and again, and the story within the story, The Umbrella, is done so well, as we watch the scene unfold from drawings in a book. Lovely. Watch it. Mani sir as usual brings out another amazing story with Kannathil Muthamittal. Such an amazing relationship between parents and child is brought out in a beautiful fashion. Mani Sir as usual without much special effects and not much outdoor shoots.(In fact this was the only movie where he went outside India ever..that too just to sri lanka).Mani's class is written all over the movie...and to add to it ARR's music..which is just amazing...Vellai Pookal is one of my most fav songs ever... Maddy,who is what he is in the film industry has impressed a lot too. Starting from alaipayuthey ,to kannathil to ayutha ezuthu to guru.. Mani ratnam has showed to the world what a versatile actor Maddy is. Simran has been really good too. She has showed that she can act too in non-glamorous and character roles. In all an amazing movie. Sad that the tamil public could not appreciate this gr8 movie and it bombed at the box-office.... It pays to watch Reader's Digest. Or Time, if it was the original source of the article that served as a supposed inspiration to Mani Ratnam to make this masterpiece. Based on a true story of an adopted girl who goes in search of her biological parents, Mr. Ratnam paints a classic that rivets as much as it rebukes, cherishes as much as it chastens and preaches as much as it practises.

Where does one start? The foreboding gloom that precedes fresh strife in northern Sri Lanka? The chaotic household of a family headed by a firebrand engineer-author and 3 adorably naughty children? Or that murky region where reality crosses the point of providing a comfortable existence and becomes a monster of incredulous and sinister events and ideologies? Whichever way one looks at it, this film is worth being in your collection, if you happen to like Mani Ratnam's compelling dramas.

Mr. Ratnam is a past master in blending fictional tales within real life incidents and in this film, he oozes class in adapting two real-life stories into one. I will not go into the story as it is better seen than read. But, what I will dwell upon is the impact it had upon me and why, for all the war-mongering that happens in this world, it cannot destroy that simple yet inexhaustible force called hope.

Innocence, in its purity, cannot fathom the complex desires of adult decadence and greed. Nor does it recognize perils when it is accompanied by the fierce determination to seek what it wants. It is an innocence of such nature that drives Amudha to seek her biological parents, despite warnings that they could be lost in the cauldron of civil war. Having survived a terrorizing experience of conversing with a physically challenged man only to realize that he is a more lethal entity in disguise, Amudha sticks to her cause in a manner that tears down her well-wishers' resistance. And finally, when the twain do meet, mother and daughter, the reunion is so taut with emotion that even the temperamental adoptive father is reduced to tears. Aided by a coruscating background score from A R Rahman, the scene that follows is poignant to melt even the stoniest of hearts: a list of questions that Amudha has to ask her biological mother. In a culmination as dramatic as the sequence of incidents leading to it, a child discovers its mother, alive in body but lost in spirit. With the crushing realization that she has no hope of staying with the one who bore her, Amudha does to her adoptive mother what this film's title means: a peck on the cheek.

As for the cast, the trail is clearly blazed by the brilliant PS Keerthana. Mr. Ratnam has a gift of extracting spectacular performances from little-known child artistes, but this should take nothing away from Keerthana for an award-winning performance. With an able supporting cast of Madhavan (Thiru), Simran (Indira) and the stupendous Nandita Das (Shyama), she embellishes the scenes in almost every frame she is in. The music may be not as memorable as other Rahman offerings but that still didn't stop him from garnering another National Award for the best music direction. "Vellai Pookal" is as much an ode for the need to cherish human life as it is for nature. The dialogues are top-class (sample the touching exchange Amudha and Indira have on the swing, shortly after the revelation that she is not Indira's biological daughter) and the cinematography, superb.

This film is a clear statement to drop arms as much as it is to respect human life and expressions. Do not judge it as a lesson in film-making; you will only lose out on experiencing one of the very best from the Mani Ratnam-A R Rahman stable. Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.

At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.

The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.

Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!

Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras). Recently had the pleasure of seeing this emotionally charged film by Director Mani Ratnam at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival. I have bestowed my highest honour of the Film Festival on this feature. Make sure that you do not let an opportunity to experience this cinematic gem pass you by ... but be forewarded: this film will make you shed a tear if you belong to the species known as homo sapien! A 10 !! Touching Bollywood epic melodrama about a 10 year-old girl who finds out that she's adopted, and is determined to find her birth mother. The film's major success is the performance of P.S. Keerthana, who plays the girl. The first half of the film is very good. There are a few really good songs, too, especially the number that introduces the protagonist. Unfortunately, the film's second half, which takes place in war-torn Sri Lanka, feels like an entirely different, and disappointing movie. It's big on explosions and special effects, with Sri Lankan soldiers and rebels dodging grenades, running from fireballs, and being yanked by stunt wires. All the film can offer as insight are cheap platitudes like, "Some day there must come peace" and "Perhaps the children will find a way". The final sequence, where the daughter and mother are reunited, is good, but so over-the-top with the music and a well-timed downpour that it feels like a cheat. I know, I know, it's all in the style of Bollywood. But this is a story where big moments simply detract from the simple, powerful central story. Bollywood could certainly use a little restraint at times, too. My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious.

This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers.

Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.

It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.

A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it

This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border

How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America

It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel

My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb As I peruse through the hundreds of comments that loyal readers of the IMDB have posted on this film, I find it very interesting how few ,"middle of the road" comments there are. Everyone either loves it, or they hate it. Having seen Apocalypse Now approximately 30 times, and having recently dissected it on DVD (how did we ever live without those magical digital machines?????), I can say without hesitation that I am one of those who have a very special place in my heart for this film. "Why would you like a film that's so confusing?" ask many of my associates. The answer is this: Forget the war, forget the brutality....This is a classic story of society protecting itself from those that refuse to fall in line with the status quo. Brando represents the individual that has his own way of getting the job done. They (Big Brother) sent him out to do the job, he does it too well, without adhering to the accepted "standards" of death and destruction (Am I the only one who's troubled by the fact that we have 'standards' for death and destruction????), so they send the "Conformity Police" out to eliminate the individual. Hmmmmmm....Draw any parallels between this and things you see every day? With the deepest respect to Mr. Coppola, whom I believe is one of the best directors of all time, I think he transcended his original intent of the movie, and probably didn't even realize it until after the movie was released. The subtle sub-text that permeates the entire movie has way too much to it to have been planned and portrayed; instead, it seems to have 'grown' itself, like some wild flower in the middle of a vegetable garden. Again I must reiterate: I think FF Coppola did a bang-up job on this entire production, as did the cast and crew, but the sum of the movie exceeds the individual efforts ten-fold. So if you haven't seen the movie, rent it, watch it, then watch it again, and maybe a few more times, and look for all the generic parallels to everyday life. Only then make a judgment on the quality of the film. Those of you that have seen it, watch it again with the mindset previously described. I think you may just have a whole new appreciation for the film. Or maybe not! No matter whether you love it or hate it, be sure and give credit to Coppola for his masterful story-telling style! During the final throes of the Vitnam war, our central character, Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched by the CIA on an illegal one-man mission to assassinate a renegade US Marine commander, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has allegedly gone 'completely insane', but who is successfully waging a private cross-border war from his base in Cambodia, a neutral and therefore off-limits country.

The entire narrated story of what Willard sees and does as he is ferried up the Da Nang river by an undisciplined and terrorised navy patrol boat crew to murder Kurtz is a grand metaphor for the excesses, decadence and ultimately the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon psyche: If we don't understand something, and we are unable to control it, exterminate it. Kurtz had eventually come to know this.

Unless you pay complete attention to every emotional gesture, to every word of the dialogue between the protagonists, especially in the scene where the two of them are alone in Kurtz's darkened lair, you will miss one of the central themes of this incredible movie. Kurtz's subtle deal with his executioner, his unilateral 'surrender' in return for Willard agreeing (did he nod?) to tell Kurtz's 'son' (another metaphor for us, the next generation, the ones watching the movie) the truth about all the horrors that they had both seen in Vietnam, is mind-expanding stuff.The bonding between the two men whilst Kurtz cross-examines Willard,--interlaced with some of his own horror stories, is incredible, nay, genius, film. The closing (intercut)scene of the ritual slaughter of a sacrificial bull is the single most powerful of symbols. Coppolla has made, intentionally or not, the ultimate anti-war statement, one that should resonate through the ages. 'Apocalypse Now Redux', Francis Ford Coppola's war opus is probably the most beautiful war film I have ever seen. Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is a Vietnam soldier who is tapped to head a very dangerous and highly classified mission into Cambodia to 'terminate the position' of Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly ranked and highly regarded army man who seemingly has gone completely insane and defected from the army, setting up his own little society and helped by a cultish following of soldiers. Escorting him up the river to Cambodia is a handful of navy men, and along the way, they encounter several interesting people (most notably is Robert Duvall's Kilgore, a badass lieutenant colonel with a few screws loose) and some horrifying situations.

'Apocalypse' is less historical war film than a philosophical and psychological study. It is more 'Full Metal Jacket' than 'Platoon'. The running time of 'Apocalypse' is over three hours, but the film is so wonderfully paced and compelling that when the end of the film arrived, I was actually surprised at the amount of time that had passed. The beautiful cinematography is surely what stood out the most for me, however. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Coppola is one of the masters of light and photography in film history. The 'Godfather' films were all tinged with an almost sepia tone, and shadows created the feeling of a Baroque composition. With 'Apocalypse', there is an incredible usage of natural light, and the shadows, particularly in the scenes involving Brando and Sheen, almost become a living character, they are so pervasive and effective. Another gorgeous scene was when Cpt. Willard and Jay Hicks (Frederic Forrest) were in the jungle looking for mangoes, and come across a tiger. The sheer enormity of the surrounding foliage (leaves as big as a house) made the characters almost Lilliputian, but the colorization of the scene was incredible. While everything else was almost a muted grey, the leaves were an incredibly vibrant green, an effect that was particularly striking. Another really minor positive moment in the film was the great scene when the helicopters carrying Duvall and company attack the small village while playing Wagner. This could have just been an ultra-dramatic underlying soundtrack to the scene, but instead Coppola turns the song into an actual part of the scene, with Duvall mentioning that he likes to play it while they are approaching to 'scare the hell out of them'.

The performances in 'Apocalypse' are first class. Much has been made of the amount of money Brando earned for the film, and the amount of trouble he caused. Regardless of this, he turned out a powerful performance for a relatively short amount of screen time. Sheen is completely outstanding - this is the first time I have seen him really unleash in a film – and Duvall is a lot of fun to watch as the loony Kilgore. 'Apocalypse Now' is a film that is so pervasive in pop culture by now (most know several choice lines from the film, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' et al) but I knew little enough about it that there were plenty of surprises left to experience. I have not seen the original cut of 'Apocalypse Now' so I cannot compare it to this newer cut, but this is a film that should most certainly be experienced. 8/10

--Shelly i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.

after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.

the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.

all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.

a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, "This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.

this movie is based on the short story "Heart of darkness" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.

this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.

a true classic

rating:10 Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is not a Vietnam War film. Do not confuse it with one. It is set to the back drop of the war, but it is a metaphorical exposition on the deteriorating effects that war has on the human psyche. It is also one of the most audacious films ever made, produced, or even conceived (second to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To call it a masterpiece would be an understatement of proportions as ambitious as the film's production levels.

Opening with no credits and following a memorable first scene playing to the tune of the Doors "The End" as Martin Sheen's Captain Benjamin L. Willard hallucinates to images of helicopters and napalm, the plot is essentially laid out in the first 15 minutes. Willard's mission is to "terminate... with extreme prejudice" Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has invariably gone AWOL in the far reaches of the Cambodian jungle and, as told by his general, is "out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops." Kurtz is a delusional Colonel now being worshipped by a large group of followers who have dubbed him a god. For Willard, this covert operation seems somewhat more manageable than actual combat, yet, the journey he is about to take will be a personal quest that will challenge the limits of his human behavior.

Teaming up with a small crew, they embark down the vast reaches of the river in a rickety boat. Along the way, Willard educates himself on all things Kurtz. During Sheen's raspy voice over, he details his thoughts on the abundance of material he reads. Kurtz was a highly decorated and respected Green Beret. He was a normal man with a family, until a part of him succumbed to the horrors of human brutality and he led himself down the path that Willard is being led. The descent into the jungle is marked by a mesmerizing aura that echoes the battles being fought not to far away. Eventually the power of the experience weights on the group as drugs and a sort of solitary confinement attacks their senses. But Willard seems unfazed and desensitized in his quest to find Kurtz. As he reads about this mythic figure, he is drawn to the man's power and why he has become what he has become. We know that Willard's slow decay will parallel that of Kurtz's.

Marlon Brando has been revered for decades. His presence: unmatchable. His genius: undeniable. But for those unacquainted with his acting prowess and unaccustomed to his physical nuance, Brando can be perceived, in the eyes of an uncompromising film-goer, as a hack. He is most certainly not. Brando was difficult to work with, hard to interpret and impossible to understand, but his talent for unintelligible rants and unparalleled monologues is irrefutable. The man obviously knew what he was doing even if we didn't. His Colonel Kurtz is a being of limitless delusions and continual profundity.

If the film is any indication of the journeys into hell than Francis Ford Coppola's actual experience with making this masterpiece is a true life account of one man's fanatical struggle to produce a movie. It is reported that during the film's 200 plus day principle photography schedule, Coppola contemplated suicide. The film was not only an undeniable struggle to make; it is a grueling film to watch. Coppola's sweat and blood seep through the pores of the steamy locals and his dedication filters through the orifices of Martin Sheen's haunted soldier Willard.

I can not help but feel a warm sense of nostalgia for this type of film. At the dawn of all that was original and unprecedented, films that challenged as well as stimulated were commonplace. Audacity aside, Apocalypse Now is pure film-making. My respect and admiration for Mr. Coppola is of the highest order. But I shudder at the return to what has become the norm for today's standards for film: a lack of innovation. It is not simply the unoriginality of the world of cinema today; it is the fact that nobody seems to care to tell a story anymore or to tell one with heart. But we still have the great ones like Coppola's masterpiece, a film which bathed in its ability to give us something deeper than that which we could comprehend.

That depth in Apocalypse Now is the step into madness. The killing can disturb. The loss of innocence can unhinge. But it is the damage from within; the countless barrages of images that distress, unnerve and detach us from our everyday world and the memories that plague our deepest thoughts that eventually segregates us from humanity and propels us into the realm of the instinctual, the savage and the animalistic. If the thought of killing does not provide sustenance, the act of killing provides man with its fundamental catharsis. Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ... This movie changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten. After the success of the first two 'Godfather' films in 1972 and 1974 respectively, Francis Ford Coppola embarked on an ambitious attempt to bring home the reality of the war in Vietnam, which had concluded with the fall of Saigon to the Vietcong in 1975… The plot was loosely based on the book 'Heart of Darkness,' a story by Joseph Conrad about Kurtz, a trading company agent in the African jungle who has acquired mysterious powers over the natives…Coppola retains much of this, including such details as the severed heads outside Kurtz's headquarters and his final words, "The horror… the horror…"

In the film, Sheen plays an army captain given the mission to penetrate into Cambodia, and eliminate, with "extreme prejudice," a decorated officer who has become an embarrassment to the authorities… On his journey up the river to the renegade's camp he experiences the demoralization of the US forces, high on dope or drunk with power…

Although, as a result of cuts forced on Coppola, the film was accused of incoherence when first released, it was by the most serious attempt to get to grips with the experience of Vietnam and a victorious reinvention of the war film genre… In 1980 the film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound…

"Apocalypse Now" was re-released in 2001 with fifty minutes restored… As a result, the motion picture can now be seen as the epic masterpiece it is… From all of the Vietnam war movies this is probably the most frightening and disturbing and that is really saying a lot with so many spectacular ones that have come out. It has this freakish feel to it. Everything is so chaotic in the movie it scares you. It is not like it shows a lot of different things compared to the other Vietnam war movies. What does push to such a high level is the:

The directing was spectacular here. Francis Ford Coppola shows of his talent in his last epic movie. Unlike other directors he makes you feel as if you are in the war. Most others just display and show you the horrors of war. Coppola though makes you feel confused, shocked and scared. These feelings of war are usually told to us from a movie or story. This is something that I have only experienced very few times while watching a film. The writing was of course amazing too. It brought you write into the middle of the movie. It never made me bored and this movie is three hours. The cinematography goes hand in hand with the directing which very much added to the freakish experience of watching this film showing all the chaos around you even when everything seems calm.

The acting was bone-chilling. Just look at Marlon Brando also giving his last great performance playing a deluded, out of whack colonel. When ever I think of a crazy gone made soldier I think Marlon Brando in Apocalpyse Now. With Brando n this film you don't want to look into his eyes. Like the movie he was freakish. To me this performance is as memorable as the one he gave in The Godfather. Martin Sheen gave a very deep performance and probably the best one of his career making you see everything through his eyes all the craziness he is experiencing and yet wanting him to get to his goal. It is just a wonder why these two did not get Oscar nominations. Robert Duvall was able to show part of that craziness with his ludicrous battle strategies, among those playing music to tell the enemy he is coming. Also Duvall's character asking one of the soldiers to surf in the middle of a battle was just shocking but believable. Other great supporting performances were given by a young Laurence Fishburne, Sam Bottoms and Frederic Forest who all summed up the attitudes of many of the soldiers at that time without becoming a cliché. Also for once cameos were put into good use having Dennis Hopper and Harrison Ford who I both love.

I would definitely recommend people to watch this movie. It has a message and everyone involved in the making of it is at their best. There is nothing more I could ask of this movie with its great acting, directing, writing, cinematography and great ending. Watch and you will see why it lives up to its title Apocalpyse Now. Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.

I still think Martin Sheen got "dissed" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?

Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.

The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......

Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.

That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.

So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember! Spoilers. This review has been edited due to word limit.

`The horror. The horror.' Marlon Brando, Apocalypse Now (1979) and Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)

The sentence which is as famous as `Here's looking at you, kid,' or `Are you talkin' to me?' or `May the Force be with you,' or `I'll be back,' means a little more than some one-liners. When it is spoken it lingers in the air with an importance and meaning that does not go unnoticed. What might drive some viewers nuts is that they may never find an answer to the horror unless they re-watch the film and try to pay close observation to every single frame.

What, exactly, does this line of dialogue mean? The horror spoken of is the reality of war. The reality of moral men being so easily corrupted that they turn on their inborn instincts and kill fellow beings without any sign of guilt. When Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) stands before the dying Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) at the end of the film, `The horror.the horror.' is the realization of Willard's corruptness. He has mercilessly killed a man in cold blood as part of his assignment. This isn't a typical Hollywood ending. In most cases a character gains something, whether it be emotionally, physically, mentally or all three. But Willard both gains and loses. He gains the knowledge that he has lost his morals. And that is a shocking ending.

`Apocalypse Now' is Francis Ford Coppola's tribute to the artistic side of filmmaking. This film is wholly different from `The Godfather.' It is hallucinogenic, visually dazzling, and an ode to the guilty side of human nature. At first it seems realistic, and then it becomes strange, and then symbolic, and, by the end, original in its own unique perspective of the spiritual side of warfare. This is not as much a film about the Vietnam War as it is a film about the war within us.

At first it does appear to be another war film. Captain Willard (Sheen) is assigned by an Army Lieutenant (a young Harrison Ford) to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Brando), who is hiding out somewhere in Vietnam with a hoard of troops who more or less act as his slaves.

Willard carries out his mission `with extreme prejudice,' heading out on a boat along with four soldiers, including the boat captain, Chief (Albert Hall), Chef (Frederic Forest), and a very young `Larry' Fishburne (who later went on to appear as Morpheus in `The Matrix').

"Apocalypse Now" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey. As our main character, Willard, carries on his journey, he meets an array of original and strange characters, including Lt. Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who has a strange fetish for surfing, and a stoned photographer (Dennis Hopper), whose lively gestures and mannerisms can be compared to those of the very much lesser Jeremy Davies in "The Million Dollar Hotel," one of the worst films I have ever seen. Davies failed to make any connection with an audience; Hopper does. He is like the poetic vibe between Willard and Kurtz; he is like an interpreter going back and forth and speaking in foreign languages. In this case, he is translating Kurtz to Willard, although I'm not so sure Kurtz needs a translation of Willard.

Many films are lucky enough to have one or two memorable scenes or lines. "Apocalypse Now" has many. Kilgore descending upon a Vietnam village playing Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" remains one of the most remembered scenes in all of film history. There is sharpness to it, a brutality to it, an ironic tone to it, and also a sense of playfulness. When Kilgore kneels down on that beach and says, `I love the smell of napalm in the morning.it smells like victory,' we all crack a smile.

I won't lie to you: `Apocalypse Now' is a strange film. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to analyze. The end may frustrate some viewers if they don't understand Marlon Brando's significant speeches. But what it all comes down to, what really matters, is that this film is about the dark nature of the human psyche. The horror is the realization of war and its effects, not the war itself. Kurtz says, `You have a right to kill me. But you have no right to judge me.' Brando's character, Kurtz, is left to the audience to judge. To many naïve viewers he may appear as a crazy loon whose power got to his head. But that isn't what Francis Ford Coppola is trying to get across. By fighting in Vietnam, Kurtz has realized just how great he had it, and how bad some others had it. By walking through devastated villages he eventually comes to realize that we are the naïve ones, living our lives in a fool's paradise. We are totally naïve to our surroundings and possible misfortunes until they hit. By seeing how unlucky some Vietnamese are, Kurtz realizes just how easily he could be struck by something. Just how easily he could end up like the people around him. And he also realizes that the people who did this are people who have abandoned their morals and left them at the door. Many people think the horror is one thing. It is two. For Kurtz, the horror is the reality of how naïve he was and the reality of the war's impact upon men. And after Willard murders Kurtz, and hears Kurtz's dying words, he realizes it too. He realizes the effects of war. To see so many soldiers with no sense of right or wrong makes him realize the horror of what war can do to a man. And what it has done to him. The horror.

5/5 stars -

Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) has been sent on a classified mission into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to assassinate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) as he has gone completely insane and is no longer taking orders. And since Kurtz is one of the most decorated men in the armed forces, it is hard for Capt. Willard to understand how Col. Kurtz could go off the deep end as he has, killing without clearance and taking the war into his own hands. What possibly could have pushed this great man over the top? Through Willard's long journey through the jungle to find his target, he tries with some success to understand why. But what will he decide to do once he finds him?

Any movie that can start out with The Doors' "The End" is a great movie in my book, especially if it can flow with the mood and imagery shown with the song. Apocalypse Now does this perfectly. I can't think of anything better for it to be set to, the Vietnam War and the insanity in the soliders' minds that it created. AN is a dark and brutal story about a long journey through some of the hairiest jungle in Vietnam, the ultimate destination of which is murder. Through it's use of music and score alone, we are thrown into a dark world of mystery, violence, and insanity. A perfect example of how to set mood through music alone is this film right here.

An overall great cast, with the exception of Laurence Fishburne, of which Sheen and Brando give us more than enough acting skills to spread around on our movie desire bread. I just don't like Fishburne, ever since I found out he was Cowboy Curtis in PeeWee's playhouse my contempt and hatred for this man has increased ten fold. I realize the pettiness of this but I simply do not care. We need to sick Gary Oldman on him. Brando is excellent as Col. Kurtz and I can't think of any other actor that could have played the good man gone insane and hold such screen presence. Sheen is also fun to watch as Willard and we can identify with his questioning of his mission and the war in general. My favorite character in the movie has to be Robert Duvall's Lt. Colonel Kilgore. Before this film I never pictured Duvall as a wartime cowboy but honestly it's my favorite of his parts to date. He simply nailed his character, which is one of the best in the entire film, as the gung-ho Air Cavalry commander who loves to surf. Maybe a little over the top but still brilliant. I also love the smell of napalm in the morning.

The plot is a fairly simple one and it doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out what's going on. Willard's mission is to kill Kurtz, plain and simple. But it's the journey of the film that is really it's heart and also the dire situations of war itself. In the Redux version we are forced to sit through the extended French plantation scene and the Playboy bunny scene which really adds nothing to the film's entirety other than it makes it a longer journey. I don't feel they take away anything though, it's just a matter of if you want to watch a three and a half hour movie or the original. Through this journey, the film points out the utter futility and irrelevance of the war to the Americans and the massive effect it had on the soldiers who fought in it...in fact, that's the entire point. On top of that, the troops were not supported by the public and that could very well have helped cause a character like Kurtz' to go completely mad.

A big war movie lover, this one is up there with Platoon and The Deer Hunter, all of them classics. I sometimes try to compare films of the same genre to one another but it has gotten me in trouble in the past in my reviews as I have had to go back on what I've said. All three have their own strengths and add their own twist to the Vietnam War....so to really say one is better than the other is fairly pointless...even if after having most recently view AN I think it's a tad better. In the end, Apocalypse Now is a true classic in either version and worthy of the status it's been given. As a fellow reviewer has previously stated, AN is one of the most ambitious films ever made. Movies seem to fall into two categories: films that reinforce existing societal values and beliefs, and those that challenge them. This film is a 180-degree shift from the idealistic rhetoric portrayed in offerings like "The Longest Day" and "The Green Berets" which seem more like Disney fantasies by comparison. The "Apocalypse Now!" project, the production and resulting film, is "Heart of Darkness" updated into a psychological horror story of the late 20th century post-modernist variety. The cast and crew who worked on it probably could relate to the terrifying places the human mind can achieve. This is the plight of Joseph Conrad's original character Kurtz who came into literary being in 1901 and subsequently referenced in TS Eliot's "The Hollow Men" (Mistah Kurtz, he dead) of 1925. Although neither a straight telling of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (1901) nor a first-hand account of the Vietnam experience, "Apocalypse Now!" stands as a masterpiece which pushed on the envelope of cinematic potential. "Apocalypse" is not just about the "horrors" of war per se, like "Platoon" and "The Deer Hunter", but the darker sensibilities of human nature as revealed through the raw and demeaning confrontations of violent conflict on a mass scale. Apocalypse Now! is not so much seen as experienced.

The bulk of the movie is the journey of a trained secret assassin, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen in a tour-de-force performance), aboard a US military boat traversing an unnamed river into the heart of Vietnam and Cambodia where few westerners would ever tread. His mission is to terminate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a career army Special Forces Division officer who was the darling of the US Military until he went AWOL and renegade in the deep uncharted jungles between Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The official classified report is that the colonel has gone insane but as events play out, something else has happened to him that is far more terrifying than simply insanity. Sheen's mission is to terminate the colonel with the American public none the wiser.

The movie is rather episodic. The journey along the river is made up of several vignettes as Sheen and his crew meet different self-contained "aspects" of the war at the ground level. American audiences of the 1970's had probably never seen this kind of film-making before, with the possible exception of "The Deer Hunter" which was released in the previous year. The first, and one of the most notable, is an helicopter battalion led by Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall in an Oscar-nominated performance) who is a cross between General Robert E Lee and Richard Wagner. He loves to play "Ride of the Valkyries" from Wagner's "The Ring" when he bombards helpless villages. His line "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" is one of those oft-quoted lines from the annals of cinema. Other encounters include an amphitheater where enlisted privates will be entertained by the likes of Hugh Heffner and Playboy bunnies.

Despite all the production catastrophes that impeded getting this footage into the can, the remarkable aspect of this film is its pacing. The original release (not the later Redux version) does a fine of job of building until the viewer is emotionally prepared to deal with the climactic confrontation between Willard and Kurtz. The strange discourse between Willard and Kurtz is worth the price of admission alone. And some of the shots of both Sheen and Brando in certain places are some of the starkest and terrifying images ever produced on film. Not even the likes of Clive Barker, Wes Craven or David Cronenberg have anything on Coppola in terms of horrific imagery. Brando's Kurtz in one scene in particular is so utterly terrifying it makes most other horror movies seem tame by comparison, which comes from the recognition that the horror is not from without but from within.

Without giving too much away, Coppola's solution to the climactic moment stands as one of the most innovative of cinematic revelations. According to the documentary "Hearts of Darkness", Coppola feared that the inevitable final scene would lapse into melodrama, and the atmosphere of the movie's darker hues would be compromised. He wasn't sure how he could make it work until his wife encouraged the director to witness the ceremonial sacrifice of an ox as practiced by the native people with whom Coppola was using as extras in the scenes with Kurtz at "his" village. After the viewing, Coppola had his ending, and it is one of the most simultaneously disturbing and beautiful sequences in the history of American film-making. Love it or hate it, no western viewer will be the same after seeing this scene.

This film is not for all tastes just as Conrad's original novel is not the kind of book that will be read on airplanes. It's not just the violence and the pointlessness of violence that are difficult for most American viewers to absorb. It's the naked unveiling of aspects of the human condition that seem so removed from suburban American life that make this film difficult for the average movie-goer to handle, which is as it should be. Coppola did not make a family picture. However, if the viewer can understand its larger point, there is a lot to be gotten out of Apocalypse Now!. If you're looking for a film experience to reaffirm pre-existing attitudes about American sensibility and heroism, better stick with John Wayne. But if you're willing to be taken into places you've never been, even beyond "the evils of war" rhetoric, "Apocalypse Now" will take you into a world you thought you'd never visited before, and the disturbing part of it is that you may recognize it. Even with all the cinema dealing with the trauma of the Vietnam War (Jacob's Ladder, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver to an extent) one feels that we don't even know the half of what happened. Even contemplating the horror feels inhuman. And a progression - or retreat? - to the inhumanity that it necessitates is a key part of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's greatest and one of the most important films ever made. Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness" which chronicles the loss of sanity and corruption of morality that comes with distance from civilization - a surfacing of a bestial nature, as it were, a la Lord of the Flies - it brings the story of a physical and psychological journey to Vietnam. The story is of Willard, a general commissioned on a special mission to Cambodia after his first tour of duty in Vietnam is served. Willard at the beginning of the film is stuck in Saigon, psychologically unable to go back home - eerily echoing Nicky in The Deer Hunter. So he is contacted: his mission is to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has isolated himself in a remote outpost on the Nung River, and who has purportedly gone completely insane - worshiped like a god by the natives, and killing indiscriminately. This man's name is Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando in the second best role of his career (the best being Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire). As Willard journeys upriver in an army boat with some soldiers accompanying, his witnessing the horrors and the insanity - and the overwhelming pointlessness of it all - leads to an eerie sympathy and identification with Kurtz before they even meet. By the time they do, Kurtz's methods don't really seem as wrong or as they should, and they certainly don't seem too unusual or out-of-place. Apocalypse - a place beyond morality, the outpost on the end of the world. The loss of civilization, the loss of judgement, of self. Kurtz's monologue about an atrocity he witnessed as a Green Beret, and his later revelation, is one of the most chilling and well-delivered speeches in cinema history. The film is about trauma, about the human spirit and its breaking point - here, it's a lot like The Deer Hunter, and just as good. Apocalypse, however, takes the boundaries of what we can endure to a global level - Coppola's sweeping footage of the humid, murky jungles of Cambodia and an opening sequence of helicopters amid exploding forests and an orange sky - set to an oddly fitting Doors soundtrack - as well as chilling scenes on the river and of an air raid on a village with Wagner blasting from speakers (a scene which has gone down as one of the most chilling, darkly humorous, and strikingly pointless war scenes ever) - this all contributes to the sense of Apocalypse - the end of the world - and not at some distant point in the future, but Apocalypse Now and forever. The Deer Hunter is much more up close and personal, you can even tell by the title, and shows the totalling effect trauma has on the individual psyche, the breaking down of the human soul, and its ability to either surrender completely to forces of darkness, or to limp on. This is why both films are equal - they are two parts of the same thing. In "Heart of Darkness", Kurtz is shown as conflicted between morality (civilization) and his inner savage. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz has left all conflict behind. He is beyond good and evil. He has let go of morality like a drowning man lets go of a saving hand in the moments before his death. Kurtz indeed is only waiting for death, quoting T. S. Eliot in his temple to himself, lost in the jungle. His last words, and the words echoed at the end of the movie, are, "The horror...the horror." He is referring to the infinite void of existence, of the human psyche, and to the pitch black emptiness within his own mind, where atrocities are born again. It is impossible to express in words the experience one goes through watching this film - the experience, in short, that Willard experiences on his journey. The end part, at the outpost, almost in fact comparable to its brother scene in The Deer Hunter, is one of the most deeply, calmly, and seductively disturbing things I've ever seen. I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks. I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.

The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song "The End" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. "Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500." The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "Hoorah" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.

The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.

The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.

The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: "Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now." Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious. Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece was a great ending for a golden decade of American cinema. In the 1970s there was an atmosphere of tolerance, open-mindness, and progressiveness among the studios that allowed the making of major films by a few of the best directors that the United States has ever had. I am not a historian, but all the events that preceded the decade (a few being the violent deaths of major figures of the American political and cultural scenes, the racial struggles, the emergence of the 1960s counter-culture, the increase of violence and death in the streets...) seemed to influence the vision of filmmakers who were willing to dare, be different, and create entertaining and intelligent motion pictures. Coppola's film is a strange blend of humanistic thinking and skillful film-making, following the parameters of war and adventure films, and at the same time subverting them with its flowing reflections on the value of life, the reason of death, or the ethics of war. It is also a passionate work, made against all odds, chronicled in the 1991 documentary "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse"; a motion picture that went beyond any previous reflection on the Vietnam war ever to reach the screen. This may not be the definite Vietnam motion picture, but dealing with it Coppola defied the formula of classic melodrama found in two Vietnam movies made simultaneously, "The Deer Hunter" and "Coming Home", or in latter ones as "Platoon" and "Casualties of War", before Vietnam became the starting point to make products of any genre, as horror in "Jacob's Ladder", or comedies as "Good Morning, Vietnam", among the more respectable. Coppola had the courage to take that economic and political conflict as the background of a search for answers to questions faced by any man every day of his life, without betraying the dramatic consequences of that war. First of all, I believe that this movie is much more appreciated by viewers who have actually read Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness", the book that was the literary basis for the movie. With that said, I believe that this movie is astounding. It is an excellent war film that doesn't so much concentrate on the gore and brutality of the Vietnam Conflict, but more the psychological toll that it took on the young, inexperienced "kids" who were sent to fight it. Coppola showed real genius in the art of film-making, using many visuals to help tell the story. The acting I felt was definitely all-around up to par. Marlon Brando's part in the movie is what really got me as far as acting. His elucidation to Willard at the end of the film reels you in, and reveals the hollowness of a man that you've heard about and wanted to see throughout the movie. Those who would consider this just another war movie need to give a detailed look to all the literary elements that are entwined with this film, because there is a great amount of meaning behind it all. In my opinion, this is one of the most sculptured and best-made films of all time. It's that film that loads of people hail as a classic - Apocalypse Now, now a re-cut, re-up, Redux 22 years after it's original release.

The film is loosely based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness, it's main plot (if it has one) being Capt. Willard's journey on a naval boat through the Vietnam conflict on his way to terminate a rogue Colonel. (Colonel Kurtz) We see the characters and situations he meets, and he tells the Colonel's story along the way.

My initial feelings towards the film is that it's not particularly gripping at times, especially early on, but at least a good dose of comedy is put in, in the form of surfing fanatic Col. Kilgore. As the film progresses however, a good deal of tension is built up with Willard's reading through various reports on Col. Kurtz until the end is in sight, when everything comes together and the atmosphere of the film reaches an incredible level and holds it there until the end.

The usual aspects everyone looks for in a decent film are all of a good standard. Cinematography in particular stands out as exceptional, and I found the performances of Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall and Frederic Forrest to all be worthy of a special mention. The score I found initially sounded out of place, but as the film progressed... I'm not entirely sure if it did actually get better, or it fitted better, or if it had just grown on me, but by the end of the film I was thoroughly enjoying it.

This is the second time I have seen the Redux version, (I have seen the original around four times) I'll say now that the first time I saw it I was disappointed. I was expecting a "classic" film, with lots of war. The fact that Willard got the mission at the beginning of the film and didn't carry it out until the end had me bored because all of the character interaction on the way that IS the film seemed unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the plot is not entirely defined (as the focus is more on the character and the journey more than the plot), in most cases a second viewing is needed to appreciate the film fully (as with all films that are more character than plot based), as the second time around, you know where the plot is going. I had a similar experience with It's A Wonderful Life, which is now one of my favourite films.

With the big four Vietnam films, Apocalypse Now wins over the rest on atmosphere, but lacks the action and involvement of Platoon, the emotional intensity of The Deer Hunter, and cannot really be compared to Full Metal Jacket (probably my favourite of the four). Apocalypse Now is a great piece of work, especially towards the end where it becomes staggering, and is to be recommended for anyone who enjoys a good character based film and doesn't mind some casual violence. This movie is a must see for any war movie buff. One of the greatest movies of all time and loaded with great quotes such as:

Kilgore: If I say its safe to surf this beach Captain, then its safe to surf this beach!

Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that? Lance: What? Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing in the world smells like that. Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!! I have seen this movie 4 times in 5 months and i never get tired of it just because it is perfect. And it has also got the best film music ever and the best supporting roles ever written for a movie. I mean you just have to love Robert Duval , Marlon Brando , Martin Sheen and Lauerence Fishburne in this movie but specially Duval. I can not believe that Kramer vs. Kramer did win an Oscar in stead of this amazing war movie. So this is my conclusion if you take the director of the worlds greatest movie ( The Godfather ) and the best of Hollywood actors you can only succeed. Now I just have to writhe something to get this preview so do not read this except the last line. This movie rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can find an anti-war statement here without looking too hard; that layer is hackneyed. Or you can find a value neutral comment on the madness of war (stripped of "judgement"); that layer is completely uninteresting.

Or you can watch this for the darn good entertainment value of Duvall's one-liners, but that's just a coating for commercial mastication.

You can try to view this as a 'realistic' Vietnam war film, but ask any veteran and he'll swat down that notion -- most vets will say it stinks.

Or view it as a 'will he or won't he' morality play -- nothing rich there, either.

Where I found the value was in the superb self-reference. Coppola needed a container with great enough dimensions (the war) to fit the greatness of the skilled multi-dimensional actor playing 'a great man'.

Brando the man was as much of a maverick as the Kurtz character. The studios were uncomfortable with his acting 'method', yet he always excelled and won accolades; the 'generals' are uncomfortable with Kurtz's 'unsound methods', in spite of his strategic genius.

So Coppola makes a movie all about Brando's greatness. To hammer on the point, he places himself in the movie (as Hopper, a manic photojournalist laden with multiple cameras) to spout his praises. Brando himself is only seen in half-light and silhouettes -- brilliant cinematography by Storaro that only increases the actor's power. And he goes out like the sacrificial bull to complete the narrative equation. Oh, yes: "the horror..."

Other pieces of interest: the great use of point of view camera perspectives, including 'being in the firefight' long before "Private Ryan"; the ground breaking use of sound, notably the ominous flanging sweeps and the sonic depiction of an acid trip.

Don't get caught in the outer layers; the rich part you should despoil from this is the brilliant core of sound, vision and self-reference. It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, "Hearts of Darkness," I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: "Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service." It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: "I mean, the man's a genius—sometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say "did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'…if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs" and then "I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas" (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot. I would like to submit the following goof.

During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink. This is an apocalyptic vision of the hell of our contemporary world. The social criticism of our shallow, commercially oriented values is what makes this film an exceptional vision of the "war is hell" cliché, underscored by a mythical journey upriver to Cambodia by a special forces captain whose mission is to eliminate (with extreme prejudice) a rogue colonel, who's left behind the army's concepts of justice to create his own world. When I saw Apocalypse Now in 1980, I thought it was a deeply flawed masterpiece. In particular, I found the final segment of the journey with Brando, which encapsulates Conrad's Heart of Darkness, to be rather boring. I finally got around to seeing Apocalypse Now Redux and the flaws have been taken care of. Redux makes the movie an outright masterpiece, certainly among the top 100 films ever made. Brando's performance now seems full and complete, perhaps rather less mysterious, but much more profound. Martin Sheen is brilliant at the heart of one of the best acting ensembles ever assembled. It's great to spot a young Harrison Ford, Scott Glenn, etc. in early screen performances that suggest what fine actors they will eventually be recognized as. The work of Robert Duvall, Fred Forrest, Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Bottoms is greatly enhanced by the additional footage. If you've never seen this film, skip the original and head straight for Redux. I wish we could get a Gangs of New York Redux from Scorcese to fill in all the gaps in that deeply flawed potential masterpiece. This is a classic war movie. One of the best, a stark image fest of flashing lights, harrowing dark backgrounds and helicopter blades morphing into ceiling fans. A star-studded spectacle of immense power.

Martin Sheen is a mercenary sent up river to assassinate the general gone astray, a sadistic dictator played beyond belief by the great Marlon Brando. Also along for the ride are, Robert Duvall as an over the top DI with a penchant for "napalm in the morning" or at least the smell of it. Dennis Hopper is an edgy photojournalist with a view slanted views about the war and about his leader. Also in this amazing film you'll see up and coming stars such as Laurence Fishburne, R. Lee Ermey, Sam Bottoms, Albert Hall and keep an eye out for Harrison Ford too...

Behind the lens is Francis Ford Coppolla delivering a film with maybe more intensity and drama than the acclaimed Godfather films, he highlights war in it's most basic form, which for the most part is something you can't see, you can only feel it, as the boat carries on up river the feeling of the war tightening in is quite unbearable. The feeling of this is a rather claustrophobic feeling and really makes for unusual moods from the viewers. Honestly no films has ever made me feel like that.

Criticism is hard to find. The biggest qualm from some is that Brando earned tons of money for a ten minute role, but in all fairness this is unjustified. It was money well earned, a role that physically restricted him, being at the time an unwell man, and a role that he really made his own. I can't picture anyone better for the role. And if you get the Apocalypse Now Redux version, there's some extra bits of the great man, and I think the Redux does make the film miles better.

Final impressions are that if you are lucky to get the Redux version then you will be blessed with a completely satisfying film with a cool 49 minutes extra footage. If not, then still you won't be disappointed, this film is up there with the best, and deserves some great recognition, and a firm place as one of the top 50 films ever made... Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.

What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.

In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.

The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.

Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated. I have to admit that I had low expectations for this movie. But I was surprised to find it entertaining, interesting, and funny. It's an entertaining thriller and not so much a horror film. There were moments that made my hairs stand up! Even better, though, were the highly amusing, occasionally hysterical, comedic moments in the film (you'll know which ones I'm talking about). There also are a few great special effects (and the humor and the special effects aren't necessarily separate).

The acting, on the whole, is very good--way better than a typical low budget horror film. The lead (Jackie), in particular, and many of the smaller, supporting roles (like the lawyer, the couple living next door, the pizza man) are well acted. If they hadn't been, the film wouldn't have kept my interest and I would have lost my belief in the story. This is a good, interesting low budget thriller and definitely worth a rental! One thing that came across to me in watching this film is that it was fun/exciting for the cast and crew; I could sense that they were going up against the budget constraint with enthusiasm & dedication because they apparently liked the people involved.

I tend to like B movies that are original and have heart, and I think this is one such work. The actors seem to me to be putting there hearts in it more than usual, maybe because of some good direction from the lead actress/director, and they evidently were clear enough in their parts of the story to make a coherent, watchable piece of art.

The critiques of this film that more or less say, "why not just rent a hardcore porn movie," make the point as to why they didn't like the film. Going to this film hoping for a lot of T&A without patience for the material of the plot is why it is so unenjoyable for them. One could say the movie is more of a romantic work than a softcore porn movie, even though I take it the star has done her share of soft porn. I think she graduated.

In terms of the writing, the dialog is not a huge part of the movie, like in a Tarentino film, but the plot is decent and the twists are original and sometimes fun. Particularly the ending is not a disappointment but a pleasure, with the villianess/heroine and the "leading man" learning from their complex web of feelings.

I understand that the producer got a 3 film deal out of this. Hats off for proving a few tens of thousands of dollars can go pretty far if you have some artistic sensibility and pride.

Gabriella and the other girls with scenes of nudity were likable along with being hot, not just airhead bimbos, so as an erotic science fantasy piece with some gorgeous nude art, even with the limits of B-movie land, not disappointing. Anyone who critiques 'Jacqueline Hyde' as anything more than the playful and undeniably erotic romp that it's intended to be is just not playing with a full deck. Just from the title, it's obvious that this low budget horror comedy isn't meant to be taken seriously... it's as tongue in cheek as a nympho's french kiss, and just as titillating. The female cast members are all great and fun to watch. Check this out, Rolfe Kanefsky is the clown-prince of soft-core horror. Unlike most soft-core horror flicks, this one is entertaining all the way through with charismatic and exceptionally attractive actresses. The movie doesn't even attempt to follow the storyline of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, but instead seeks out every way possible to create risqué sight gags and erotic situations. Blythe Metz, the brunette femme fatale who portrays the sexier, homicidal side of Jacqueline, is a real knockout. Watch and enjoy! Jacqueline Hyde is a good quality film and does manage to be likable because of what it is. Everyone out there will like it! Sandwiched between the amount of breast shots, the times Jacqueline rubs herself, the various times Jackie spends chatting to herself and the times spent heaving in the Magdelena Mountains, this could create one hell of a dishwasher if your career were to end.

Unlike most horror movies that take place in space or in some restless tranquility with ripe green apples, this one takes awhile to guzzle. The performing is good. Other than great acting by Dan the pizza delivery guy (must see), there are no standouts, but no notably bad outcroppings from my recent dinner either (and I do mean recent). Excellent acting overall because there are no typically dreadful actors which you'd find in movies of the four "Skin" related data fields or in the biological skimmer's found in any IBM shop. In addition if you see a female in this movie, the likelihood is that she will be butt naked by the next scene! Now that I think about it, there is quite a bit of action in this movie. Between the first and the second electro yank obtained from a hot chick and the time you observe her "buckets naked", keeps em' speculating. I loved it! Me and my mates used to gather together in one house to watch this on a Friday night before going to the pub. It was the only programme that ever made us miss opening time. It is one of the best comedies I have ever watched if not the best. David Jason was brilliant and was compared many times to Buster Keaton with his clever stunts that were pulled off so believably. I wish I could get hold of the series on DVD to watch again. He had an amazing ability to make stupid things look believable and this series shows how much talent he has in so many different directions. He is an accomplished "Trip and fall guy" and I remember watching a trailer once where he showed people how to do this professionally. Certainly he is the one to teach people this art. He only showed glimpses of it in other programs he did. Pshaw, this program shows how multi talented he is. I am lost as to why David Jason vetoed another series being made, as for my mind it was one of the best things he has ever done and I've been a fan of his since he did this series. It is said he did not like it because it showed the rawness of his early career. Well to my mind, that might possibly have been the right decision when he took it, but now his career has progressed so far, I believe this would be a good time for him to do another series showing him looking back on his "secret life" full of blunders that he does not see. Rod With the obvious exception of Fools & Horses, this was in my opinion David Jason's finest series.

Coming straight after his TV debut on 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', these 13 episodes revealed a mastery of comic timing not seen since the old silent movie days. By comparison, Porridge, Open All Hours and that awful series 'Lucky Man' did not come close.

I believe Jason banned the series being repeated because it showed him at his rawest. Shame on him. A new generation deserves to enjoy this. The series actually flopped in the ratings but that is most likely because it was shown against 'The Brothers' which aired on BBC at the same time, before VCRs were commonplace.

BTW, I have only just noticed that his long suffering assistant, Spencer, was played by Mark Eden ; Alan Bradley off Coronation Street. I am amazed he didn't try to murder Edgar Briggs!!!! In the '60's/'70's, David Jason was renowned for his many supporting roles in television comedies such as 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', 'Hark At Barker' and the 'Doctor' series. It was in 1974 that he landed his first leading role, in London Weekend Television's 'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs', written by Richard Laing & Bernard McKenna.

Edgar Briggs is a secret agent of the 'S.I.S' ('Secret Intelligence Service'). He genuinely tries to do his job well but always seems to mess things up. Astonishingly enough, though, he always succeeds in getting to the bottom of cases, much to the amazement of his colleagues- 'Buxton' (Michael Stainton), 'Spencer' (Mark Eden) and 'Cathy' (the lovely Elisabeth Counsell), all of which answer to 'The Commander' (Noel Coleman).

Briggs is married to 'Jennifer' (Barbara Angell), a woman who, much like Michele Dotrice's 'Betty' from 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em!', has the patience of a saint and stands by her hare-brained (but well-meaning) husband, no matter what.

Like 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em' and 'The Baldy Man', 'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' was laced completely with slapstick. Each episode saw Jason perform stunts such as plummeting from a high window sill or falling from the top of a ladder while decorating his flat. It was 'custard pie in the face' stuff really.

'Edgar Briggs' was not a big hit, due to poor scheduling from I.T.V. A shame as it was an amusing and enjoyable show, well served by its star and the fine support cast. The leading man, though, did not seem to enjoy the experience of the show. David Jason vetoed repeat screenings of the show because he felt his acting in it was non-refined. Granted, the David Jason who played 'Del Boy', 'Inspector Frost' and 'Pop Larkin' is way different to the one that played Briggs but by no means was his acting unrefined. Most actors would have turned Briggs into a ridiculous caricature but Jason's performance made Briggs a credible, realistic figure. Odd perhaps, but not unimaginable.

Jason's next vehicle was 'Lucky Feller', in which he played mummy's boy 'Shorty Mempstead'. It too failed to make the ratings. His lucky break came in the shape of A.T.V's 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath', in which he played walking disaster area 'Peter Barnes' for four series between 1977-1981. So, while not outstanding as such, 'Briggs' is an easy and worthwhile watch. Nice 'James Bond' style theme tune, too! Comic secret agents have made a comeback in recent years, with Mike Myers' 'Austin Powers' and Rowan Atkinson's 'Johnny English', and more recently Steve Carell in the big-screen version of the hit '60's show 'Get Smart!'.

Back in 1974, it was David Jason who was wearing a shoulder holster and carrying an attaché case full of documents marked 'Classified'.

'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs' was his first starring role in a sitcom, after years of being a supporting actor in such shows as 'Six Dates With Barker', the 'Doctor' series, and 'Hark At Barker'.

Humphrey Barclay had found him working in a pier theatre in Bournemouth and was sufficiently impressed to include him alongside Michael Palin, Terry Jones and Eric Idle in the children's comedy show 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!'.

'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' cast Jason as 'Edgar Briggs', a well-meaning but incompetent agent for the Secret Intelligence Service. Whereas John Steed wore a bowler hat, Briggs had a trilby. Whereas Napoleon Solo carried a radio pen, Briggs owned a pipe. Objects fell to bits in his hands. He read Confidential documents in bed while his wife ( Barbara Angell ) perused Woman's Own ( on one occasion it would be the other way round ). When he tracked a pair of Russian agents to a heliport, he accidentally switched on the airport's Tannoy system, and broadcast his plans to capture them! When he hid on a train so as to photograph a meeting between an S.I.S. man and his enemy-contact, it moved off with him aboard and took him straight to Brighton! When he tried to organise the defection of a female Russian scientist, he took a 'short cut' to elude his pursuers, only to wind up hopelessly lost in a car park. Yet, like 'Inspector Clouseau', he always seemed to come out on top at the end, much to the dismay of his colleagues.

As previously mentioned, he was married. His wife Jennifer was understanding about the sort of work he did. Though they had a row once which resulted in her yelling at him from the window of their high-rise flat: "Secret Service this, Secret Service that! You never stop thinking about the Secret Service!". He shouted back: "Think of the neighbours! They're not supposed to know I'm in the Secret Service!".

Briggs was part of a team of agents whose number included 'Coronation Street' villain Mark Eden ( he was the psychotic Alan Bradley ) as 'Spencer', Michael Stainton as 'Buxton', and 'Doctor At Sea''s Elisabeth Counsell as the lovely 'Cathy Strong'. They answered to 'The Commander', played by the late Noel Coleman. The Commander was kidnapped in one episode, leaving Briggs temporarily in charge of the S.I.S. - which naturally horrified everyone.

This hilarious show was by Richard Laing and Bernard McKenna, who had written for the 'Doctor' series. Rather than spoof Bond, it was more of a send-up of the serious spy shows such as 'Callan' ( though it had a Bond-style theme tune ). Furtive meetings in underground car parks, code-breaking, stolen missile plans, that kind of thing. Jason brought a lot of energy to the role, doing a lot of his own stunts, such as Briggs falling off a ladder whilst decorating his flat, and tumbling down a hill in a wastepaper bin, and were reminiscent of those to be found in the 'Pink Panther' films.

'Briggs' had all the ingredients to be a smash-hit. Unfortunately, it was not networked. In the London area, it was put out on Sundays at 7.25 P.M. where it was trounced in the ratings by the B.B.C.'s soapy drama 'The Brothers'. It was then moved to Fridays at 7 P.M. because I.T.V. wanted to showcase its latest American import - the T.V. version of 'Planet Of The Apes'. Briggs never found an audience. A similar fate befell Jason's next major show: 1976's 'Lucky Feller'. It was not until 1977 and 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath' that he found his first successful solo vehicle.

You can see the title sequence ( along with two brief excerpts in German! ) for this series on YouTube. Unfortunately, that is all you can see. Jason will not permit his early starring shows either to be repeated or released on D.V.D. A great shame. For the moment, however, Edgar Briggs' life will have to remain top secret.

CODA: I have seen a number of episodes recently and I'm pleased to say it stands up incredibly well. Excellent and moving story of the end of a uniquely intimate affair. Then again, the point of the film, to paraphrase another comment, is that every relationship can be unique and intimate. A truly quality short film which caught me at my busiest, yet had the power to pull me down onto the sofa and watch, fixed and quiet, for the duration. Bobby and Tessa are powerfully moving characters and anyone who has suffered the end of a love affair will find this film to be a cathartic exercise. Beyond that, the 'film within a film' idea plays out very well with this cast and is quite riveting, though in a somewhat melancholic way. At the beginning of this film, which I found myself watching on IFC in the wee hours of the morning, I was filled with a sense of claustrophobia and general discomfort. The feeling of being trapped with no way to escape was so powerful that I didn't know if I wanted to continue watching...although it didn't really seem to me that I had much of a choice, so compelling was the situation.

Gradually, though, that feeling of discomfort waned (although it never really disappeared entirely), and I felt drawn into Tessa & Bobby's predicaments, and really just hoping against hope that they might get back together.

Really just a moving, powerful story fit snugly into a tiny package. I had no idea that Sarah Polley had anything to do with it until perusing her trivia, so now I love it even more.

I definitely recommend it. ...If your lucky enough to catch it on the Independent Film Channel sometime, or wily enough to figure out some other way to view it. In moments of desperation were willing to do whatever it takes to win. I loved how the Maple Leaves futility was used as a metaphorical basis for Bobby and Tessa. The acting was accurate by far superior from the hogwash intake given by the film industry.

Great editing! At the end of the short I felt it was a bit incomplete but so is life and this is were life and art waltz into cinematic masterpiece.

Excuse me while I rinse off the cheese whiz, but I guess it's acceptable at certain times.

Two scenes which I must point out are: The bath tub and the couch scene.

The couch scene for Tessa was a defining moment and 360 of the human condition. Throughout the short I viewed her as a brute, but now we see her true reality. Her mind spoke before her heart. Need I say more about the bath tub scene. This is a very moving film that takes a new twist on somewhere we've all been: a relationship as it's about to end. Kristen Thomson's performance as Tessa, desperately trying to hold onto her connection with Bobby for just one more day, is extremely convincing and moving and takes you right into the story. Who hasn't been faced with the end of a relationship and at least wanted to shout out tearfully, "Just one more night!" When he does give her one more night, the journey that these two people share makes you pause and think about how precious every truly close relationship can be, and how each one - whether permanent or not - should be treated with respect, rather than simply thrown away. So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes. I was half-dozing as I watched a late night selection of short films--but sat bolt upright from the first frames of "I Shout Love" and could not take my eyes away for its full, brief, perfect length. With incredibly assured pacing and performances, this film maintains its funny/sad/insightful tone throughout. The credits at the end went by so quickly and in such small type, I had to go online to find out the person responsible for this master work. What a pleasing surprise to see the name of Sarah Polley, a major actress who is too seldom seen.

Kristen Thomsen (Tessa) and Matthew Ferguson (Bobby) turn in rich, touching performances as a couple in the throes of breaking up. As they work through a reprise of Tessa's favorite moments from their time together, both actors reveal dimensions of their characters and their relationship in ways that bring nothing but honor to their talents--and to the director/writer's skills. The film creates a moving narrative with laugh-out-loud moments and caught-breath sorrow.

"I Shout Love" is unquestionably one of the greatest and most memorable short films I ever expect to see. It has wit, heart and stunning originality. It matters. I like many others saw this as a child and I loved it and it horrified me up until adulthood, I have been trying to find this movie and even been searching for it to play again on TV someday, since it originally played on USA networks. Does Anyone know where to buy this movie, or does anyone have it and would be willing to make a copy for me? Also does anyone know if there is a chance for it to be played on TV again? Maybe all of us fans should write a station in hopes of them airing it again. I don't think they did a good job of promoting this movie in the past because no one really knows about, people only know of the Stepford wives and Stepford husband movies. No one is familiar with the fact that there was a children version. Maybe they should also do a re-make of it since they seem to be doing that a lot lately with a lot of my favorite old thriller/horror flicks. Well if anyone has any input Please I Beg Of You write me with information. Thanks Taira tcampo23@aol.com The Stepford Children is the second best Stepford movie in the Stepford series.I saw the original The Stepford Wives in the theater when it came out in 1975.I was absolutely blown away,it was terrific.I have seen all of the Stepford movies, and I like all of them.I think that The Stepford Children is such a campy and fun movie.I just watched it again recently on tape, and I enjoyed it immensely.The cast in this movie was real good to watch. Barbara Eden did a bang up job as usual.Every role that she has ever played has been very good.Barbara Eden is very good at playing roles where she is a kind and nurturing type of person.Don Murray as the husband and father was just perfect in this movie.He was particularly effective at being the irritated father to his two teenage children.I made sure that I have all of the Stepford movie on tape to enjoy.If you get a chance to see this movie you should. You may have serious doubts about watching the third sequel to The Stepford Wifes, but this is an absolute classic. Much scarier in premise than the first, and very entertaining. It only got a video release here in the UK, but should be released worldwide for everyone to enjoy. The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered "Good" behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting. The third entry in the "Stepford" franchise, but apparently the three made-for-TV obscure sequels are incredibly obscure and hard to trace down, whereas the 70's original as well as the blockbuster remake with Nicole Kidman are commonly known and very popular. I haven't seen either the early 80's "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" or the mid 90's "The Stepford Husbands", but this "The Stepford Children" is a quite charming and highly entertaining little film. It's basically the exact same film as the original; obviously less mysterious yet much cheesier and incredibly 80's to the nth degree. The main difference here, like the title implies, is that not just the liberated wives but also the rebellious and punk teenage offspring in town undergoes the typical and highly effective "Stepford treatment", licensed by the local Men's Association. For some reason the scenario attempts to uphold the Stepford mystery until late in the film, even though nobody is likely to watch this sequel before having checked out the original and presumably everybody also knows about the denouement. The Harding family is all packed and ready to move from the grisly city of New York to the small and peaceful community of Stepford. Particularly father Steven is excited about their new life because he already lived in Stepford and always wanted to go back ever since his first wife, whom his new wife Laura and adolescent children Mary and David know very little about, died under mysterious circumstances. The town is almost too perfect, with picturesque neighbors and model students, and especially the modern teenagers face huge difficulties to adjust. Their efforts to modernize the place and take the local youth of Stanford in tow cause confrontations with the eminent townsfolk, particularly the members of the Men's Association, and put the familial relationships under a lot of stress. David meets and falls in love with the last "normal" girl in school Lois, but when even she transforms into a domestic dummy overnight, David can convince his skeptical mother to investigate the sinister Stanford secret. The first hour of "The Stanford Children" is slow-paced and rather tame, but the finale is trashy and cheesy like the VHS cover promises and like a late 80's thriller ought to be, in fact. The modus operandi behind the Stanford secrets is illustrated in greater detail, and I think horror fans and lovers of the original film will appreciate that. At least, I did. The overall plot still doesn't make a lot of sense and the script is chock-full of irrational aspects, but it's nonetheless an engaging formula and undoubtedly one that evokes an atmosphere of suspense and fear. The acting performances are far above average. Especially the arrogant and obnoxious members of the Men's Association depict plausible characters and even teenage players Tammy Lauren and Randall Batinkoff give away impressive performances. Recommended without hesitation! As the superb `Prime Suspect' series reaches part four there is no loss of momentum at all, this in itself a considerable achievement.' Prime Suspect IV: The Lost Child' has the solid supporting cast that we take for granted in these British dramas but of course the beautiful Helen Mirren easily dominates; our eyes never leave her while she's on-screen.

The search for the lost child of the title leads Superintendent Jane Tennison's CID team to a prime suspect who turns out to be a convicted pedophile now living with a single mother and her two young daughters. The insight we are given into the workings of his mind is one of the emotional highlights of this mini-series but it may be too strong for many stomachs.

The action sequences are brilliantly handled with the hand-held camera thrusting us right into the middle of the excitement and there's gripping tension during the climactic siege.

Altogether this is another magnificent police procedural drama. "Prime Suspect 4" continues the exploits of the inscrutable and dogged seeker of truth and justice, Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison; the first of three miniseries (PS4, PS5, & PS6) with the notable absence of founding writer Lynda La Plante from the credits. Imbued with the same gritty reality of the first three series, the second three series pit Tennison against the forces of evil while coping with middle age, loneliness, indiscretions, a host of personal and professional problems, and resolutions which are sometimes less than ideal. PS4 conjures two stories while PS5 & PS6 are single episodes each which find Tennison seeking justice on behalf of the brutally wronged while waging war against institutions which are willing to sacrifice the interests of her victims for those of a greater good. In other words, to prevail, Tennison must overcome both evil and good forces, something which makes the always gray scenarios of the PS series yet grayer and the Tennison wars as much a matter of principle as of finding murderers. Very good stuff which only gets better from series to series. (B+) I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like "The Lost Child" Tennison, the heroine, throughout the "Prime Suspect"series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another "lost child" - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.

Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as "actor proof" as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American"Law & Order" - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope. After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister! Inherited this from my x's DVD collection when he left with my best friend (enough said), watched it one night when there was nothing on the telly (nothing new there then) and got a very pleasant surprise. Very British (you no hardly any budget, no faces you know or have even seen before), the accents were a bit thick for my liking, but after a worrying start (a bit too close to home in my case) it began to grow on me. Apart from the some unnecessary jokey cutting that really didn't add anything, I found the film throughly uplifting, very real, natural performances throughout left me wanting more from an ending that came suddenly too soon. Highly recommended! A vg Brit rom-com, one to watch if you can get your hands on a copy. Quirky and often surprising, this is not the best of Brady's films (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is by far the funniest), though it does have a unique charm. Well written the story veers off into a few dead ends but mostly surfaces with a new plot high. You know from the start how it's going to end, but when it comes it is honest and very open ended, a realistic and credible ending, the end seemed like a beginning, enjoyable and left me wanting more. Rented this out from my local because it was the only new British film available this week. Never heard of the film-maker before or his other films (thank you IMDB). About time some one made a good young British comedy that didn't star Hugh Grant or forty something's. The story is a morality tale but never preachy, throughly enjoyable from a young and fresh faced cast. Luke Goss's cameo was surprisingly very good, but then he did surprise me with his excellent performance in 'Blade'. Loved the colour grading, especially in the night club sequences. Great music and a truly original voice at work here. Nine out of ten and well worth the rental charge. We really liked this movie. It wasn't trying to be outrageous, controversial, clever or profound. It was just entertaining and was what it said on the box a charming romantic comedy. Every other Brit film maker seems to want to change the world, nice to see one that just concentrates on telling a good yarn with elegant style. It's just one of those films, you're either love it or hate it, my girlfriend and me loved it, told my brother to rent it and he hated it, said it was too flashy and colloquial, then again he only usually goes to see big action movies, so probably not enough explosions left him disappointed. There were some great new talent (I'd never heard of the leads before anyway)? Des Brady (the directors brother?) was especially good. Playing a right dick at the start I thought he never would redeem himself but he managed to crawl out of the dark hole he had created and by the end I was really routing for him. A very surprising film with a whole lot of heart, if you can live without a body count and explosions then this one is very original. Yashimo. Brixton in the UK. A very charming film with wonderful sentiment and heart. It is rare when a film-maker takes the time to tell a worthy moral tale with care and love that doesn't fall into the trap of being overly syrupy or over indulgent. Nine out of ten for a truly lovely film. Wow! Why aren't more British movies like this. Great rights of passage money with a big heart and some stand out performances. The comedy is quirky and original and the kid is really great. One to hunt down and watch. Look out for it! Ten out of ten. I watched Love Life on holiday, when it was filmed at a film festival in Florida. It was a lovely surprise to find a British film that wasn't derivative or exploitive. A beautiful romantic comedy for a change that will charm the pants of audiences prepared to sit back and enjoy the gentle pace of the film. The transitions between scenes I found a bit distracting, but as whole I think Love Life is a winner, a ruby in the dust. One for all the family. A pleasant change to see a British film for teen audiences that isn't littered with four letter words. Try and see it. Logged on to the imdb to say what a charming film Love Love is and am totally confused. Seems to me that someone has been getting their titles mixed up. "Plastic demon baby" what? This wasn't Love Life. A little bit luvy dovey for my tastes but a great, funny and original film. Especially liked the ending that didn't fall into the normal pit of cliche that all hollywood romantic films crash and burn it. Nine out of ten. Watched this film at a local festival, the Silver Sprocket International Film Festival Florida . What a lovely film. A simple, uncomplicated morality tale about a young care free young man having to take responsibility for his actions. It neither pretentious or flashy my two teenage daughters loved it and for a change I wasn't embarrassed by any of the film content or language. A real family film and the best British comedy film I've seen since Billy Elliot.The film went on to win not surprisingly the top festival awards of Best Film and Best Director. Ten out of ten. This Gundam series only follows Gundam 0083 Stardust Memory. The story takes place during the same time line as the original Gundam in the year U.C. 0079 the time of the One year war, but the mobile suits are designed as new models are and are as a result look more articulate. The Hero of the story is a young Lt. Shiro Amada, who may lack any real combat experience but makes up for it with creativity and effort.

His life get complicated when he meets Aina Sahalin a Jion ace pilot (the enemy), the to end up falling in love and begin to change their attitudes about the war around them. The other cast of characters in the story are not there for background either, every one in this story has a history to them.

There is also another Ace mobile suit pilot in this series that can be added into the pantheon of ace mobile suit pilots. Right up there with Char Aznable and Anavel Gato is Norris Packard, not the top villain in this series, but his presence give the 8th mobile suit team a hard fight. 3 of them against Norris and his single MS-07B Gouf custom mobile suit.

In conclusion This Gundam along with Stardust Memory is a must see!!

It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually facing of with Dracula himself and he was for lack of a better word boring. So boring in fact that the character was shelved and in fact never used in the Marvel universe. At least until he was reinvented.

David Goyer did a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman like darkness. Snipes is pretty good as the title character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the character. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for one film (which is clearly seen from the inferior sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German, Udo Kier, should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best screen villains I have perhaps ever seen.

The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since Robert Rodrigues' From Dusk Till Dawn) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a comic book feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it. A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. Including the effects which are pretty good for their time. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. In stead of adding a lot of blood when a vampire dies Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously com-bust which looks great. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.

As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the following Blade movies. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense dark atmosphere which works great in tune with the main character and story. Along with the visual style the music which also works fine and adds a lot to the atmosphere of the movie.

All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should probably have had an 8 from me but a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie, suffice to say, many of them are located near the ending of the film) does that the film must settle with a high 7.

7/10 I admit I go more for the traditional vampire tale, but this one is a real winner. Lots of way out graphics and good story to go with them made for an interesting 2 hours. There was loads of gore with vicious blood suckers attacking mortals and even each other for control of the world. A good one for all us vampire lovers. Hope the summary line won't irritate you that much (it's a little homage to the Chappelle Show/Charlie Murphy, but also to the character Daywalker). But I'll try to put all the things I liked about the movie in one paragraph and everything I didn't like in another paragraph, so it will be easier to read!

Let's start with the good things! The quote "strong bloody violence" (which is used by rating boards, to describe the content of a movie, does fit here very well. This is not a movie for kids! Or for the faint of hearted! It has Blade as a central character (Wesley Snipes is phenomenal) and a crazy enough story thread to hold/justify the action scenes! The original idea is also very engaging and intelligent. The action scenes are great here too.

OK over to the things I didn't like. The overall story is too thin. It's enough as I've written above to hold the action scenes together, but there could be more. And a character like Blade deserves more (imo). The drama therefor isn't the best ... also it's use of clichés doesn't help. Some characters are underwritten ... That's that! :o) 'Blade' would be an extremely above-average comic-book, vampire-hunter action/horror if it weren't for two minor flaws. #1 I loved seeing the all-but invincible Blade/Snipes do his slicing and dicing, but the whole "Yes!" fist/punch was literally a letdown. #2 Bad, no make that horrible, CGI – even for 1998 standards. This is mainly in the last third, but some sprinkled throughout. Okay, despite those minor infractions, I really enjoyed this movie. All actors did a suburb job and the fact that this now looks like yet another 'Matrix' rip-off is hilarious considering this came out one year prior. So maybe 'The Matrix' copied 'Blade.' At any rate, it's a very movie for multiple genre-loving audiences: Comic Book geeks, action fanatics and horror/vampire lovers. So, we have Blade, half-man/half-vampire, or "day-walker" and his accomplish, Whisler (a la "Batman and Alfred") battling the undead who, apparently almost out number humans. Who knew? In a rare act of humanity (Blade's more of an antihero) our sword ninja/vamp rescues a newly infected (coincidentally) blood specialist/doctor. Meanwhile, trouble brews amongst the vampires as one wants (you guessed it) supreme power and needs Blade somehow to obtain it. It's not the most original concept, if you read what I just wrote, but still highly enjoyable. You will want to see Blade succeed, you will root for him despite his imperfections and mannerisms. And you will know what's coming as this is the typical act 1-2-3 of a comic book introduction movie. Still, watch this without trying to go too deep. Such as Vampire SPF-1000 "suntan lotion"? Really? What about the scalp? Wouldn't that still burn? Just like the money they burn for weapons? Uh, okay, I am going too deep. Once again, sit back and enjoy the techno-charged fun ride. Overall, I give this film a decent 7.6. To start I'll say I love how the character was portrayed and adapted on to the screen. If you read comics occasionally or simply watch DVD extras you'll see the Blade character is drastically different from the one we see in the film. Among the changes, Blade is now most importantly half vampire, therefore acquiring "all of their strengths, but none of their weaknesses." The credit for this goes obviously to David Goyer, a fellow fan of the darker genre of comic books. Thanks to him Blade has become a much more interesting character and I find him one of my favorite anti-heroes really. Wesley Snipes is born to play this role, although some would've probably pererred Dezenel Washington or Will Smith (lol). His acting here doesn't need to be exactly Oscar winning per say considering the character but I'm glad he decids to play the DayWalker in the two sequels. Also starring is Stephen Dorff as our main villain and Kris Kristofferson as Blade's Alfred so to speak. The acting is good actually and the action keeps the plot going for sure. The opening scene in the club is one of my favorite parts I've got to say. As much as like this movie there are few things that bother me which take away from this film ranking with something like "Spider-Man" or "X-Men". Stephen Norrington had the villains portrayed in a way I didn't like so much honestly. Their lines were so full of foul mouthed comedy it didn't really feel like a comic book film to me. Plus "La Magra" a bit disappointing as the final villain but the intense sword fight makes up for it I guess. Not to mention a sense of extra non-realism: a black man in a leather coat with a sword beaing the #$%^ out of a cop in broad day light some how going unnoticed by the crowds walking by seemed kinda..well...dumb. Moving away from a few of its flaws, the music by Mark Isham was great and fitted the film nicely. Luckily all these problems are fixed and improved on in the stunning sequel, "Blade 2". Blade is a dark, gloomy, but significent vampire movie and is one of the best ones. A bit of gore, but nothing really that bad. Wesley snipes played a strong role as he eliminates the vampires. Not really like buffy, because thats too tame but Blade delivers a decent plot and it's the kind of movie that you would probably like to watch on a dark stormy night....thats at best viewing!

87% In the ever growing film genre of comic book adaptations, Blade is by far one of the best realised, and most faithful (overall) to the source material.... given that the character has almost 30 years of history in the comics since his debut as a back up figure in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula, the writer took almost ALL of the characters and plot elements from the comic's history. While changes were inevitably made, the finer points of the film steamroll right over any criticisms. Don't let any of you friends tell you different: Blade is one fine film. If it feels too "comic booky" for you Stanley Kubrick snobs out there, it's because it's supposed to. Deal with it, but don't dis it for it. However closely the movie is to the comics, it doesn't matter. This movie radically moves away from the boredom of "Interview with the Vampire" (although it's acting was good) and slides in the wonderful action scenes. Very convincing tale and interesting with surprisingly good acting from all. Disadvantage - poor graphics. Does it matter? Nope. For a brief moment. The opening scene with Traci Lords and the

techno bar is incredible. I'd probably follow her to my ultimate death too! Best vampire movie of all time but with a twist. The fight scenes are awesome. Wesley Snipes displays an athleticism you dont get to see every day. And Stephen Dorff is impressive and very believable as an ambitious new recruit moving himself up the hierarchy by any means necessary. Great flick 9/10. Where's Blade II? Interesting twist on the Vampire yarn - fast, loud and moody. Despite my initial fears Kris K carries his part reasonably well and Snipes aka Blade provides a formidable physical presence. Lots of blood, steel, silver, burning and exploding bodies provide an enjoyable :) 110 minute distraction. IF you like the black look of The Matrix then Blade will appeal to you, Blade even has a 'dodge the bullets' sequence. This film is superb! Wesley Snipes Plays Blade the vampire hunter with pure class, he kicks butt in such a fluid and violent way that would make Bruce Lee proud. The movie is a fast paced, thrill ride of action and superb stunts. The first action scene and last are outstanding and Wesley looks like a Terminator as he runs around wiping out all suck heads. The script is pretty good and there is sharp dialogue too. Wesley should have done more action films than he has, i know he is a very good actor and in this he is not streched as much as in his more comic or drama roles but as far as action stars go he is the best actor of them all, only Bruce Willis, Stallone and perhaps Tom Cruise (if he counts as an action star) come close. Also aswell as Wesley being quality, Steven Dorff is also very good as the bad guy. It was an unexpected surprise that someone of small stature compared to Snipes should come across as menacing, but he does. Overall the film is sharp, stylish and i hope the sequal is done with the same sort of pace. This is one of those movies that I can watch again and again and not get tired of it. It is by far one of the best comic book adaptations ever. I liked this one even more than X-men. In fact, this movie is sort of a cross between X-men and the matrix and it came out before either. Wesley Snipes does a great job with the character of Blade. He is just not an emotionless super hero. Also, this movie isn't sugercoated to get a pg-13 rating. Sure comic books are for kids mainly, but I like a little more in my movies. Let's face it, if we were in these situations we would cuss up a storm to so it is more realistic. This comic book adaptation also has something that many don't. A good fight in the end between the bad guy and good guy. Let's face it, none of the Batman movies had a very good ending fight. I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out.

While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.

What I will say is this:

The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.

Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end. this film was brilliant! i absolutely loved it! wesley snipes was great for this role - and i'm sure blade 2 would be just as good.

blade is by far one of my favorite action/horror movies out there! and if you havent seen it yet, and like vampires and blood (all that stuff) you should really rent it, because i assure you that you'll love it! I loved it. In fact, I watched it over and over and over, and I could watch it again. This movie doesn't get boring.

The vampire concept is revolutionized in this movie. It's a job well done, great for today's generation.

Wesley Snipes was born for this role. Stephen Dorff was an ideal vampire. Arly Jover, mmmm mmm, she can bite me any time she wants and what a sexy accent she has. Donal Logue provides great comical relief.

This vampire movie is like no other. I can't wait for Blade 2. Great underrated movie great action good actors and a wonderful story line. Wesley is verry good and the villain the bad guy is wonderful The girl plays a nice role and the comedy mixed with blakness! Blade is probably one of the best vampire/action movies ever made.It has it all:action,horror,blood.this movie is for action fans.It's either you like it a lot either you hate it and if you hate it ,it means you don't like action or vampires movies.Wesley snipes takes his role seriously and he his the perfect guy for blade In this film I prefer Deacon Frost. He's so sexy! I love his glacial eyes! I like Stephen Dorff and the vampires, so I went to see it. I hope to see a gothic film with him. "Blade" it was very "about the future". If vampires had been real, I would be turned by Frost! Not being the least bit familiar with the characters from the comic book series, I expected this film to merely accomplish the basic: introduce me to the characters and their inherent characteristics, present a plot, and end with the destruction of the main adversary and perhaps hint at the possibility of a sequel. And that's exactly what this movie happens to deliver.

However, unlike with most other comic book movies, I felt that this one did it with a bit of class. Risking a more limited audience with strong language and graphic fight scenes, "Blade" presents a very modern, believable and dismal world whose little nuances effectively managed to elicit a sense of dread--as minor as it may have been--from a viewer who rarely ever becomes involved in a story unless an emotional (i.e., sappy) aspect is concerned.

Yes, the movie has innumerable plotholes, and preposterously unrealistic situations such as a standard female doctor being astute enough to contrive what no one else has been able to for several thousand years. But when you have an enemy as cool as the one in this movie, and fight scenes with involving and exciting camera cuts and special effects such as this, what else matters? It may run a little long, but for what it sets out to do, "Blade" stands out in sharp relief among most other movies in this genre. It's got action and fantasy mixed all together what more do you want in an action movie? And it also has one of the best martial artists in the movie industry today, Wesley snipes.So all in all this movie hasn't left anything out. And that's my comment of what I think is a classic beat em up movie. hi

Blade is an sensational action movie . the hero (Wesley Snipes) and the villain have done justice to their roles.

The movie's action sequences are better then Matrix!

Wesley Snipes is one the best action heroes ever.

If u like action/vampire movies , this is the ONE.

the theme is pretty good considering the fact that so many vampire movies have been made before.But these is the best of them.

Enjoy the Ride. Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.

Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being "turned."

Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.

The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the "head" vampire you just love to hate.

I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)

Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!

My Rating: 8/10 Blade was a thrilling horror masterpiece and it was a brilliant movie with real great action, I cant wait for Blade 2, This is one of Wesley Snipes greatest movies, the acting is great the story line is great everything about this movie is great. The real life case of an innocent First Nations chief(the Indian) by an Winnipeg city officer(the Cowboy) is the basis of this TV movie. The actual case caused its fair share of racial tension in Canada, a small scale Martin Luther King thing. The misjustice of First Nations people is becoming a staple in the Canadian cinema diet. What makes this film worth viewing is the focus on the family's reactions. The father played by Gordon Tootoosis demands forgiveness and the brother played by Eric Schweig demands justice. The stars Gordon Tootoosis and Adam Beach(WINDTALKERS, SKINWALKERS)have minor, almost cameo, appearances. Soon-to-be star Eric Schweig makes his mark in this film with a powerful performance. An honourable mention goes to veteran actor Gary Chalk who has chalked up over 100 movies to his credit. His portrayal of the troubled soul Inspector Dowson was worthy of a Gemini Award(the Canadian Emmy)along with Eric Schweig. The special effects(jump cuts, dream sequences) are occasional and not overbearing. Couple this with some beautiful northern Canadian scenery and recent ongoing events involving police officers and First Nations people like the Neil Stonechild case, and you have a very rewarding and relevant viewing experience. I grew up in Winnipeg and saw the treatment of the natives almost everyday. There are good and bad in EVERY race, why make them all out to be bad? That goes for all races today. John Harper was an educated man, he graduated from high school, he even had a year of university under his belt before going back to the reserve. How do I know this? John Harper lived with my family for the 3 years he was in high school, and he kept in contact with us the year after graduation. He was a kind and gentle soul, he could be fun loving and he could be serious when the times were right. I wasn't very old when he left our house, but I can still remember all the times he helped me with my homework when my own brother couldn't be bothered. He even taught grade 3 the year before he came to Winnipeg. None of this is mentioned in the movie, and the suicide of constable cross is an admission of guilt as far as I'm concerned. What happened to John is unforgivable, not only in the native community, but also in the white community. Not everyone in Winnipeg think like the police do, I knew the person inside, and what he was like as a PERSON, not an Indian! I just watched it for the second time today and I must say with all my heart it is about damn time they made a movie about us as people not as spiritual beings. Such a waste of human life as this story was maybe some good will come out of it. And Eric is hotter than ever. To often in the movies First Nations people are seen as other than everyday people. We are always portrayed as chiefs or medicine people. Hey we are just like everyone else. And this movie showed just that. We hurt when an injustice is done and we can win in quest for justice. It is really to bad that the big movie companies cant see that. I cant wait till this comes out on DVD. Thanks to those who chose to show this story as it really was. Cowboys and Indians is an excellent film. The writing, acting, directing could not have been better. This was a story that begged to be told, and this group of talented individuals and teams did a superb job of doing so. Stories like this one are not pleasant ones, but serve to remind people of the social injustices that exist all around the world. It is my hope that when this film is seen that attitudes and prejudices will be changed. A film that can do that is a rare a special thing. Andrew Berzins is an excellent writer, and his talents and expertise in this field came shining through in this film.

Thank you for telling this story!!!

Ruby I really enjoy this particular production of "The Mikado." The producers added a few touches throughout to make it more amusing for modern audiences -- for instance, "As Some Day It May Happen" (the "little list" song) is completely updated, and a few lines are ad-libbed throughout the play. Liberties were also taken with the setting. The costumes are not Japanese, but rather 1920s English (although some of the "Tittipudlian" girls wear '20s-inspired kimonos). This production is well-choreographed with some 1920s dance styles, and there are some extra dancing maids and bellhops to keep your eyes (as well as ears) entertained during the songs. If you're a Gilbert & Sullivan purist these changes may bother you, but I think they're fine -- and I love the costumes!

Felicity Palmer (Katisha) is absolutely hilarious; all of her scenes make me laugh out loud (one of my favorite add-ons is when she first makes an entrance -- the dancing bellhops annoy her with their antics, so she screeches at the top of her voice, "STOP IT!!!"). All of the other main characters do a fine job as well. I particularly like Mark Richardson as Pish-Tush (that toupee!) and Lesley Garrett as Yum-Yum.

You must keep in mind that this is a stage production being filmed and set your expectations accordingly. There is no change of setting, although the filmmakers used some 1930s film techniques to add interest. If there is one draw-back to this production, it is that the stage makeup wasn't modified for close-up shots with a camera. Foundation lines are often visible and there seems to be a surplus of eyeliner, lipstick, and blush everywhere. I've seen this sort of thing happen before with films of plays, and it's a little jarring at first. However, I hope you'll get used to it and enjoy "The Mikado" for what it's worth -- a thoroughly enjoyable rendition of a classic! I first saw this on Thames television and loved it. I subsequently saw a dreadful write-up by someone who certainly hadn't watched or listened to it. So, I bought a copy and then I bought another copy! The only sad thing is that it is not available on PAL VHS or Region 2 DVD. The Australian version is great, but this one is better! I might buy another............. There are times I am convinced that The Mikado is the best Sullivan & Gilbert opera ever, but that is only so long as I'm not listening to Iolanthe. Be that as it may, The Mikado is probably the most frequently filmed of the Savoy Operas. (Yes, I put the composer first. Nobody says Hammerstein and Rodgers, or Hart and Rodgers, or Boito and Verdi, or What's-His-Face and Strauss. You don't even hear the names of librettists for Offenbach, Suppe, or Balfe. Gilbert was just the bigger name (and the bigger ego) at the time, so they put his name first. It's time that silly practice was put to rest.

Anyway, The Mikado is a compleat S&G operetta. It has some of Sullivan's catchiest numbers, combined with some of Gilbert's cleverest lyrics. It has an interesting book and sprightly dialogue. It's got a wonderful degree of craziness. And it leaves the door wide open for elaborate and whimsical costuming.

This particular production, filmed in a live performance in 1990, turns its imagination toward striking simplicity. Set in a British seaside resort toward the end of the Art Nouveau period, it throws over the japonerie of the original entirely. The result is costuming and setting in an eye-caressing medley of whites, grey, and blacks, accented by occasional bits of red (and less frequent uses of yellow and green). It takes some getting used to, but it's really spiffy. Of course, when the chorus tells you they are gentlemen of Japan, you would be right to exclaim, "Oh, pooh. Bah!" (Did I just say that?) It's most gratifying that this fine production is now on DVD. However, one caveat: the print seems to be photographed through a glass of imperfect clarity, so that the expected sharpness of the image is softened and ever so slightly fuzzy. The tendency to superimpose images is, alas, annoying. Why do people who are doing a really spiffy production want to muck it up with artsy-fartsy stuff of that sort? But it's the performance that counts the most. We may skip the overture, since although one is performed, Sullivan never wrote one. (True, it may be so he wrote none for any of the Savoys. But the Mikado overture doesn't even date from Sullivan's lifetime and was compiled by observing the techniques used in the others.) As for the rest of the operetta, it's first-rate and supremely funny.

The Ko-Ko here is the estimable Eric Idle, who does it credit. There is a tradition of bringing a Big Name into the role. The was a U.S. TV production years ago in which Ko-Ko was played by Groucho Marx with mixed results. Idle's performance is delightfully quirky ... he does "Taken from a county jail" assisted by a tennis racquet. His "I've Got a Little List" is done as a speech to a microphone -- of course it has the usual updated lyrics, which are much funnier than the usual run of such things, and his delivery is positively hysterical. It goes on that way throughout.

In this operetta, it's important to have a good Katisha; it's just no fun if you're not being bellowed at in style. This Mikado has a fabulous Katisha in Felicity Palmer, in her way almost as Big a Name as Idle. She bellows with the best of them in a wonderful rich contralto ... wonderful, especially, for a soprano. And her costume...!!! (Not to mention her recital with Franz Liszt, apparently, accompanying.) Nanki-Poo is played by Bonaventura Bottone. I have trouble getting around is somewhat un-Nanki-Pooish chubby shortness -- but is voice is undeniably a solid, rich addition to the vocal palette. There is a nice touch during "A Wand'ring Minstrel", where the chorus reacts with distaste to the mention of "his nancy on his knee" -- bear in mind the Mikado's decree about flirting. Be that as it may, Bottone is a fine singing actor and if his appearance doesn't put the best face on Nanki-Poo, his performance does.

Yum-Yum (Lesley Garett) and her friends are appropriately pretty and silly. She and Bottone do lovely duets. Pish-Tush (Mark Richardson) plays his persona as something a blageur and does it very well. Poo Bah (Richard Van Allan) is wonderful as a stuffed shirt out of water ... a role later done to death in American sitcoms (you know: haughty butlers forced to cater to bratty children -- that sort of thing). The Mikado (Richard Angas) is bloody marvelous, with an imperious voice at absolute variance with his ridiculous lyrics.

I don't recommend you get this as your only Mikado. Get a good traditional production as well, so you can see what Gilbert intended (more or less) in terms of staging. That being said, I'll watch this one twice while viewing any traditional bit once. On the whole this is a terrific offering, a vocal and visual delight, with delicious over-acting. It's a DVD to treasure, with dervish-like maids, tap-dancing bellhops, and all. Watch for the bellhops with signs. If you want to see a brilliant performance of Mikado, played to perfection with expert timing and panache, don't watch this version. If you want to see a hammy version with Eric Idle strutting around in 1930's english gentlemen's private club society, this is the one to watch. It's a lot of fun and a good intro to Gilbert and Sullivan, but after this, rush out and rent the Canadian Stratford version. You'll see the difference between good and great. Nobody does G&S better than Brian McDonald and the Stratford group. If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy "You Are Alone". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.

Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.

Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.

As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie. Jessica Bohl plays Daphne, the sexually precocious suburban teenager struggling with the hell of high school. Daphne's neighbor is Buddy (Richard Brundage), a depressed middle-aged man still angry over loosing his wife. Daphne is attracted to world of prostitution because it promises to cure her of barely legal boredom and loneliness. Once Buddy strips Daphne of her secret, he hires her to help him accept the loss of his wife. The entire film takes place at the Hotel Duncan, yet details of each character's history are exposed through dialogue and flashbacks. Their appointment climaxes with the story's concluding twist.

Both actors truly understand and become their particular character, delivering a convincing, sincere performance. Their on-screen chemistry, critical to the entire film, is genuine.

The film's dialogue is natural, real to life. The writer, Gorman Bechard, undoubtedly did his homework because all references are industry and character-age appropriate. Daphne is intelligent, yet clearly still an eighteen year old. Buddy may be middle-aged, but still not the hackneyed naïve type normally depicted in film. Daphne and Buddy's conversation primarily deals with their despair and frustration with life, but is still comical at the right times. Although the general mood is very relaxed, the dialogue has its own vivacity, forcing the audience to become empathetic toward the character's conditions and uncomfortable at their straightforward vulgarities.

The incredible soundtrack truly captures the essence of the film. Each track commands sentiment, actually contributing to the scenes and characters. Even existing independently from the film, the compilation truly expresses You Are Alone's central theme-- loneliness.

You Are Alone is a less conventional piece that deals with of notions typically not spoken. Definitely worth seeing… it's the sort of thought provoking film that forces you to question your own threshold of loneliness. I caught this at the Chicago IndieFest and have to say YOU ARE ALONE is a lot funnier than the other reviews and even the website would lead you to think. Not HA HA Wedding Crashers' funny, but sick, twisted, I can't believe she just said that but it's so damn true funny.

Jessica Bohl, who deservedly won Best Actress, is amazing to watch. There's never a moment when you think oh, I'm watching a movie and she's an actress. She's too damn real for words.

In fact there's 2 scenes that I'm still giggling over, and I won't give them away, but in one she's in the bathroom talking about how much she gets paid for performing a certain service and how "awesome" it is. (I almost wonder how many people in the audience are secretly thinking the same thing!!!)

In another she talks about a teenagers definition of "sex" versus an adults, and if it isn't the truest dialog I've heard in a movie in a long time, I don't know what is. The actors in this dark film are truly believable and well cast. The quality of the camera work makes you feel as if you are there The screenplay is intense and does not wander. The plot is one that makes you want to watch it a second time from the new perspective gained by the ending. We showed this film to a small group of patrons at Gadsden's Center for Cultural Arts. After the film, ever patron was eager to discuss the film and one person called me the next day to say that they were still "bothered". While we put an 18 and up age restriction on the film, I would watch the film with a youth group as it is a very real portrayal of an ugly situation and sets the stage for great conversation. The 1980's 'My Dinner with Andre,' with Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, is essentially a dialog about the world and how it affects and can lift the spirit. 2005's 'You Are Alone' demonstrates how common worldly events can shatter the soul.

The story revolves around three principal characters. There's Daphne, a pretty teenage student who frets about virtually every decision in her life. Then there's the prostitute, or paid escort, Britney, as self-confident as Daphne is self-conscious. What makes them interesting is that they share the same body, if not the same personae. Part of the magic of this film occurs in one of the early scenes where Daphne approaches a door of an aged hotel room. She halts and is obviously torn by the decision of whether or not to knock on the door – but it is Britney that effortlessly glides into the room when the door is opened.

On the other side of that door is Buddy, a middle-aged nobody with few, if any, personal qualities that anyone would find attractive. He goes so far as to be confrontational about Britney's chosen profession as soon as she enters the room. However, we soon learn that Buddy is Daphne's next-door neighbor and has watched through the years as she grew from little girl to womanhood. This complicates things for the audience. Is Buddy just being a concerned neighbor or does he want something else?

If it's sex that Buddy wants, here it is. Britney loves sex. Her definitions may be Clintonesque but that doesn't lesson her enthusiasm. She prefers older men and wears a rainbow of plastic wristbands that her clients are invited to chose from. Each color band denotes a specific act that she'll perform – but exactly which act isn't revealed until after the band is broken off her wrist and the choice is irrevocably made.

Britney is, or believes that she is, in control of every encounter. Even when blindfolded and bound, as she is by one of her regular clients, she imagines her arms and body being stroked by multiple men but her legs and pubic area being caressed by a woman in blood red lingerie. The film's imagery just keeps coming.

Buddy's pathetic life is one of acceptance. He's lost his wife, his dog, even his fantasies of the pretty teenager next-door. It's no coincidence that he's lured Daphne or Britney to this particular hotel room. There's a painting on the wall of a dinner plate with only a fish head left. This is a perfect metaphor for Buddy's life; all of the good parts are finished. So it's here, where he brought his wife when they were still college students, that he makes his stand – to regain some control of his own life, to make his statement.

The director of 'You Are Alone,' Gorman Bechard, knows his craft. The principal action in the hotel room serves as a solid anchor for the film, assisted by a myriad of inter-cut scenes that add dimension to the characters, their circumstances and conflicts.

As the film progresses, Britney asks Buddy if she should get undressed. He says yes, but she strips only to her underwear. An actual prostitute would probably remove all of her clothes (one of the profession's five gets). But it isn't Buddy that's being teased, we are. As the film concludes, we find that there are far deeper human emotions and motivations in play. A tease doesn't work unless it actually delivers. Britney does, so does 'You Are Alone'. I have a hard time putting into words just how wonderful this was. Once in a while you see a film that just sticks with you. "You Are Alone" is that movie (for me). The film is constantly in my head and in my heart. I replay the scenes mentally every day and analyze them and go through the emotions all over again, as if I am seeing it for the first time.

There is nothing I did not like about the movie. Amazing soundtrack!!! The ending was perfect. Very emotionally stirring!!! It was compelling and riveting.

I adored Jessica Bohl and her performance was the greatest I have ever witnessed. I admired Brittany's strength (what a strong woman).

The tag line is "When your darkest moments come to life". We never know what we are capable of doing. Everyone says oh I would never do that, when really we have no idea what we would do in a situation. We are very capable of anything and this movies delves straight into that subject. The honesty of the movie may be my absolute favorite part.

Thank you Gorman Becherd for a perfect piece of art!!!! Some people are born with mourning souls with their song sung singularly until they encounter another soul as tortured and/or as bitterly sweetly beautiful as their own and an unusual magic happens. YOU ARE ALONE is a brutally honest look into two tortured souls that intertwine for a moment of understanding and oneness only to be torn apart by the differences in the oneness between they're pain. Death is explored figuratively and literally. It is what happens when ones soul is dead or similarly too alive, too awake to reality. It is the life NOT which you imagined behind the eyes of passer-by's. This film explores the aching pain in us all, the frown beneath the cheery facade, the ache below. The ugly instinctual animalistic thoughts and acts become honest and matter of fact and then Bechard sprinkles a dash of unexpected innocence and beauty into the mix knowing both linger in us all. Bechard, the writer, is a expert observer of the human condition and because of his non judgmental attitude presents life in a light we often shield our eyes from but yearn to see and understand. He, as director, focuses on the nuances of the actors spirit that shines through the character they're playing to the actors own personal familiarity with the emotions brought on by each situation. This is the most accurately written and directed character portrayal of a man and woman's experience together I have encountered as of yet, even though the two characters encounter is probably not the "normal" encounter.

The soundtrack encapsulates in each songs lyrics what the characters would let their hearts spill out if able and strong enough. It is each characters real voice sung through the beauty, pain, talent, and emotional intelligence of emerging indie artists ready to explode onto the alternative music market. The perfect soundtrack for those of us with issues - those of us who admit that we have issues and those of us that hide it.

I always enjoy exploring the darker sides of life with Mr. Bechard's both fascinatingly creative and realistic view of life and the characters that revolve within it. You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.

The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.

Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.

Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.

After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.

Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes – I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about – perhaps argue about – afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.

I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.

To everyone involved: bravo. I am a film directors nightmare... especially of the mega buck, multiplex variety. While not a student of the art I still have a high threshold for disbelief suspension and buying into the film maker's vision, if I can find it. That's why a gem such as 'You Are Alone' is such an exhilarating find. The intimacy and pacing drew me in and never let me go. Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage give thoughtful nuanced performances and director Gorman Bechard displays a deft hand in presenting what is an understandably disturbing day in the lives of two terribly damaged people.

Spoiler below

I bought the DVD version and have shared it with several people. The reactions have been varied, from disbelief in the ability of Daphne to complete the assignment for which Buddy has paid her to an inability to watch the whole film because it was just too real and emotionally devastating. As a compulsively skeptical moviegoer I have to be either grabbed by the collars and hauled for the ride or sidled up to and seduced by the filmmaker. This film took the later route for me and by the end I was so involved that I felt Daphne's horror and pain at her role in Buddy's demise. My reaction to this film reminded me of watching 'The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover' by Peter Greenaway many, many years ago. By the end I was fascinated and repelled and utterly unable to tear my eyes away from that film too. I've watched this film several times now and truly appreciate the eye and ear the director has demonstrated. I am familiar with other works he has been done including a couple of cheeky movies, 'Galactic Gigolo' and 'Attack of the Killer Bimbos' and a mixed bag 'The Kiss' which I recently learned was killed in the cradle by the producer and doesn't really represent the directors vision. Too bad, because I loved the prior two films and even found 'The Kiss' interesting but wish 'The Kiss' was available in a director's cut with all of the original vision and music in tact. I look forward to future work by this interesting director and the leads Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage. This was a fantastic movie about two people, one a young teenage girl, and the other, a middle aged man, who are each looking for someone to help them fulfill a certain emptiness left by former loved ones.

Both actors give brilliant performances that various audiences can relate to. The script, although written by Gorman Bechard, seems as though it was written from a woman's point of view. And at the same time, men can relate to the male characters because of how well they were developed and described in the movie.

The end of the movie has an unusual but powerful and unexpected twist that leaves you speechless. I would recommend this film to anyone who has ever felt lonely or abandoned by a loved one. It is clear in this film that you are not alone. This film is Engaging and Complex while maintaining simple beauty .Our two characters come together sharing the base of curiosity and loneliness, but it is a springboard for learning these people, they 're life styles and pasts which support this.

The two lead actors (Bohl, Brundruge) were in the moment as any two actors I have ever seen. %100 believable, they transport the audience seemingly effortlessly, into their world. The actors' seamless acting teamed with Bechard's Beautiful, realistic dialog and his truthful direction drives the story forward into a striking and moving finale.This film is visual treat- soft ,increasing the intensity of The story. The soundtrack serenades the viewer, soothing yet drawing out the emotional content of the film. I find this project to be nothing short of a masterpiece. intriguing.intense. This movie is like Happiness meets Lost in Translation with a Sixth Sense ending (or maybe a Crying Game surprise), and the best soundtrack I've probably ever heard...if that all make sense.

The first 30 seconds pretty much tells you you're in for a twisted ride. (I was surprised no one walked out right away during the Brooklyn premiere.) But from there, the film settles down into a talk-fest between two really damaged people, Daphne and Buddy.

They're lonely, mess-up, and boy do they talk about sex. Daphne brings to life her most interesting tales of escorting, some are quite funny (Mr. Chang) some disturbing (the Harlan scenes with music that tells us what we see might now be what's going on, or what Daphne is really feeling), and because I have a friend who used to escort, I might add, most seem quite real.

You Are Alone is multi-layered and mostly brilliant. Okay, maybe a couple minutes less of the talking, and I don't know that we'd have missed anything.

Then again, I need to see it again knowing the ending.

I like this movie.

(The director asked people in the Brooklyn audience to write a review on IMDb because a lot of people read them. Request granted.) I saw the film at the Brooklyn International Film Festival (World Premiere).

A haunting, intimate portrait of Loneliness, and the repercussions of letting it grow and turn into something darker.

The acting of the two leads (Jessica Bohl & Richard Brundage) is excellent, and makes one wish you had met these characters before they became so damaged.

Reminded me in theme of the works of Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and Raymond Carver (Where I'm Calling From).

The Soundtrack (Tywanna Jo Baskette, Crooked Fingers) is excellent and reinforces moments in the film without drawing attention to itself.

Highly recommend the Film and the Soundtrack. I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.

Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.

Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.)

----------------------------- SPOILER

I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)

Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.

However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie/story missing.

Much of this movie is reminiscent of "Sex, Lies, and Video Tape." I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending.

So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind. This really is a movie that you need to see twice. When I first saw this film I was really drawn into the story. While the majority of the story takes place inside of a hotel room, the stories that Buddy (Nick Drake, wonderful allusion) and Daphne share take you outside of their room and into their world. Through their conversations you get a feel for the loneliness and pain that each feels. The soundtrack accompanies the movie perfectly, dark, lo-fi and intriguing. When you see the film the second time around you can pick up all of the clues that you missed the first time around leading up to one of the best ending I have seen in a long time. I hope to see this movie find a distributor for the DVD so that it will be more accessible. Great movie, you won't be disappointed. One of the BEST movies I have seen in a very long time. Bechard has a way of looking at things that is completely unique and this movie does not disappoint.

This movie has you guessing throughout, and with the seemingly taboo topics addressed it keeps you glued to the screen. There are no bad guys or good guys, Bechard makes sure of that. The characters are so perfectly complex you feel for each of them, you care about what they have been through.

Bechard's use an attention to details is unmatched in this world of "FAST FOOD MOVIES" and while some of the topics may make some uncomfortable - you love the feeling it gives you.

I have heard it said too often that there are no NEW stories to tell. Thank you Gorman Bechard for proving that false.

Run, don't walk, to see this movie. Although it was dark, depressing, and at times hard to watch, You Are Alone held my attention and was refreshingly honest in its dialog. It truly captured the angst of teenage romantic relationships. In addition, the soundtrack was amazing. The lyrics and the tone of the songs complemented the sadness of the film so well that it made you wonder if the tracks were created specifically for the movie.

Jessica Bohl is the best actress I have ever watched. Her compelling and believable performance made the movie. It made me wonder if she really IS a prostitute. Who knows. Anyway, the movie was very worth seeing. LOVE, YOUR SISTER! yeah, that's right.... I just saw this film at the Sidewalk Film Festival in Birmingham, AL, which was actually a really fun festival, and was blown away by it. It was the best movie I saw all day by a long shot. A school aged prostitute meets with a middle age man and attempt to end there deep depression together. It's an inner look into the darkest parts of human sexuality. Story stems from real life occurrences, ripped straight from the headlines. Raw, blunt dialog and a killer twist at the end. The film does contain graphic sexual dialog and nudity. Definitely not suitable for kids. Too depressing for some people's tastes. Definitely worth checking out in my opinion though. Good show, really good acting, and the director takes us swimming through his storyline in an interesting, unpredictable way, especially since, essentially, it's two people in a room. It doesn't race through like many modern films, but doesn't drag, either. Bohl is flippant enough to believe her in the "now" of her character, which is still involved and not going back on her 'career' choices - so it is believable without the need for her to show us a deep, self-examination of her soul...Brundage has the delicate balance of weight, innocence, meekness, and class to pull off 'Buddy' very well. A bit grainy on the film quality, but it fits the tone of the story. Could use a little polishing on the hair and makeup end of things, but definitely worth watching. Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in "The King and I". He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it. Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.

Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.

Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.

The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.

All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10 "The Journey" is a romantic version of the cold war. It's about an English woman (Deborah Kerr) trying to smuggle her former love, a Hungarian scientist (Jason Robards, Jr.), out of Hungary during the Hungary Revolt in 1956. She's on board a bus with thirteen other international people who are trying to get out of Hungary through the Austrian border.

Of course, the bus gets stopped by the Russians for a security check. The Russian officer-in-charge (Yul Brynner) becomes attracted to the English woman (Deborah Kerr)and delays the trip. Of course, the Russian officer knows the truth about the Hungarian scientist posing as a British citizen, but he decides not to arrest the scientist because he is waiting for the English woman to come to him. Of course, this all sounds absurd, but it is a fun movie to watch. Despite the romantic flow of dialogue between Mr. Brynner and Ms. Kerr, which seems inappropriate in the situation that they are in, the movie becomes suspenseful and interesting. The good acting overrides some of the silly dialogue. Perhaps, some people involved in the Hungarian Revolt would not appreciate this movie; they would consider it a piece of fluff.

This is my favorite Yul Brynner role. He speaks with his own, masculine voice and is very attractive, especially when he becomes vulnerable. This is Deborah Kerr's second time working with Yul Brynner since they made "The King and I" in 1956. They make a very attractive couple. Too bad they never worked again. This was the second sexy role Ms. Kerr took since "From Here to Eternity". Despite the fact that Ms. Kerr was wearing heavy winter clothes throughout the movie, she was very beautiful and sensual.

The fine supporting cast was headed by Jason Robards, Jr., in his first film role. Some of the international cast were recognizable, like for instance, Robert Morley from England. However, the rest of the actors, I have never seen before or since, were just great in the movie. In the background, it was fun to see Senta Berger, as one of the maids, speak a few lines of Hungarian. A few years later in 1966, she was in a movie, "Cast a Giant Shadow", with Yul Brynner as his leading lady. She is still working today. Set during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, this story has all the suspense of a good cold war book or movie as a multinational group of foreigners attempt to smuggle Jason Robards out of Hungary into Austria. However, three things complement the story, making this an extremely good movie.

First, the actors use the actual languages of their roles. The Russian soldiers speak only Russian; the Hungarians only Hungarian; the Germans only German, except to the minimal extent to tell the story. Since Debra Kerr is English, she speaks only English, and, of course, Yul Brynner and a few others essential to the story also speak heavily accented English. As a result, the empathy of the audience to the travelers becomes paramount. The viewer shares all the confusion and suspense of being involved in an illicit border crossing when he/she cannot understand any of the languages spoken around them. Very powerful feelings are aroused in the audience, and notwithstanding the heavy use of foreign languages, the audience is never at a loss for following the film. No subtitles are necessary.

Second. I was in Hungary in 1995, and I'm telling you, this movie has it right on. From the gypsy music overpowering the dinner meal to the underground caverns in the buildings where much of the action takes place to the village scenes, the realism is incredible. If I didn't eat in the actual restaurant in the movie, I ate at its double. I thought that I actually walked down the main street in that village. (Actually, the film was shot in Austria).

Third, and most important, this movie reunites Deberah Kerr and Yul Brynner (after The King and I) and the magnetism between them as the story unfolds is nothing short of Oscar qualified. Of course, Yul already received an Oscar for playing that relationship, so the Acadamy wasn't going to give him another one, but that is the quality of the film. Don't miss this one. I have seen several Yul Brynner films--yet this is his best performance as the camera captures his emotions in close up as he snarls, smiles, and laughs. Brynner might have been equally arresting in Ten Commandments, Taras Bulba, The Magnificent Seven, The Brother Karamazov and the Mad Woman of Chaillot but none of these films have captured his range of talent in close ups as in this one. He is arresting and tantalizing to watch in every shot.

Equally fascinating and sexy, without removing her clothes, is Deborah Kerr. The script allows her to exude a sensuality that is not visual but suggestive--she reprised this sort of role years later in The Night of Iguana. The film does not suggest that she slept with anyone to help with the release of the group from the clutches of the Russians in fact she is shown as running away from the Russian Major (in contrast to the Maupassant story or the Isak Denisen story). Yet the film bursts with suggested but real physical allure of the Kerr character.

Kerr can never be classified as a beautiful actress in my view, but she is a superb actress. She puts her soul into dignifying the characters that she portrays, which often clashes with the spirit of the character. It is this contradiction that makes her roles in The journey, Quo Vadis, and The Night of Iguana memorable.

Why is this an unusual film? It is not easy in Hollywood to see Russian characters portrayed as good people--Dr Zhivago was an exception. Brynner's Romance of a Horse Thief was again great cinema by Abraham Polonsky but never acknowledged as such because of the intolerance towards Leftists in the post-McCarthy era.

The film is also unusual in its casting--great French actors Gerard Oury and Anouk Aimee--rub shoulders with Jason Robards Jr and British actor Robert Morley. In many ways the film is international than American. All four are great actors and add to the entertainment.

Those who have read Maupassant and Denisen's works will find the film is not true to either work. Yet the film can stand on its own as its sanitized (censored?) version has a dignified charm of its own--provided by the reality of the night that led to the release of the group. I think Litvak deserves to have the last laugh in providing an interesting and plausible twist to the tales that led to the making of the film, while entwining bits of both written tales (e.g. the last bus ride and the final kiss)

But I do have one grouse--why do Hollywood never acknowledge the sources that inspire the stories? Only recently (e.g., Insomnia) have the original works begun to be mentioned prominently in the credits. Yul Brynner is Major Surov, a singing, dancing, vodka-drinking Russian Officer stationed near the Austrian -Hungarian border during the Hungarian uprising of 1956 in Anatole Litvak's The Journey. Though the film has yet to be released on video or DVD, it remains one of Brynner's most compelling performances. Because of the political unrest, a group of travelers cannot fly out of Budapest but are put on a bus to Vienna. Before they can reach the border, however, their passports are taken and they are detained for questioning by the Russians led by Major Surov.

The Major has reason to suspect that there is a Hungarian freedom fighter among the group being smuggled out of the country. Indeed Lady Ashmore is hiding a mysterious passenger, Paul Fleming (Jason Robards, Jr.) who pretends to be an American but fools no one. She is helping Fleming mainly to repay a debt she owed because of the trouble her past association caused him. Among the other passengers are a British journalist played by Robert Morley, an American family played by E.G. Marshall, his wife Anne Jackson and their two children, one of which is the screen debut of little Ron Howard.

Major Surov takes a romantic interest in Lady Diana Ashmore (Deborah Kerr), and a romance of sorts develops between them. She offers him nothing but disdain and a stiff upper lip, however, though we suspect that underneath her heart still beats. The Cold War intrigue and the powerful acting carry the story but the romance is never quite convincing. It remains, however, one of my favorite Yul Brynner films and deserves to be seen if only for his passionate performance. I really enjoy this movie. The first time it was on Turner Classic Movies. All the actors did very well but Brynner steals the show again like always ( he is so sexy!).This is one of the movie that you do see Brynner's emotions. Actually this movie this is the first I ever seen him laugh because he plays very strong, larger-than-life and serious roles in other movies. In this movie you see both a masculine, tough and sensitive side of Brynner .Brynner seems to be a "ladies'man" in this movie.That is amazing how Brynner eats the glass cup and speaks in his Russian tongue it drives me crazy in love. I don't understand when both Brynner and Kerr ( they both have very good chemistry) stars in a movie together and then Brynner always die at the end it kind of reminds you "The King and I" in a way. a great movie, with a rather unclear political message. it´s shot in a theatrical style, i.c. most of the action takes place inside. mayor surov and diana ashcroft seem equally suspicious of each other. emotions run high since the western tourists and business-people seem unwilling and unable to yield to the eastern-russian charm of the mayor, although he makes every effort to understand their point of view. the two opposite world-views are made pointedly clear, but the movie also shows that human emotions cannot be controlled by politics. its powerfully acted and has a high emotional impact for a 50s movie. As a big Dostoyevsky fan, I had always been disappointed with Hollywood's halfhearted attempts to get into the Russian romantic aesthetic -- case in point, Yul Brynner as Dmitri Karamazov. I had thought the whole problem was a poor casting decisions, but then I saw Yul as Major Surov and changed my mind. When given an intelligent script to work with, he suddenly came alive and was as noble, sexy, and conflicted as you could ever want a Neurotic Russian Officer to be! So he was a better Dmitri as Major Surov than he was as Dmitri. But that's because writer Tabori actually gave Yul, as the Conflicted Russian Officer, the kind of Conflicted Russian Officer lines that are worthy of real literature, and that have real meaning and pathos in them. For example, a propos of folk music, he says musingly, "You hear a man crying in the dark. And if you listen carefully enough, you know what he cries for. You look surprised, Lady Ashmore. Despite what you may have heard, tractors and Marxism aren't the only things the Russian cares for. There is always time for music."

Brilliant!! "The Journey" is a very good film. Produced in the spring of 1958, in Vienna, and released in 1959, this movie was quite popular in his early years. Despite the political problems, which influenced the movie's success (because the story happens during the Hungarian Revolution, the Cold War), "The Journey" is a very good film, but not well-known. I think it should be released immediately on DVD, because most of the people who have seen it so far want to have it at home. One of the most important qualities of the film is the extraordinary chemistry between Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, their intense relationship. All their scenes together are very important, but they also reveal the strong feelings, the great passion and love between the characters (Major Surov and Diana Ashmore). Another quality is the script, which is very well written. It was even published as a novel, by the screen player George Tabori. The film keeps its tension from the beginning to the end. At first, we didn't know if Diana and the other travelers could leave Hungary, because the Communist Major discovers that Diana's friend, Paul Kedes, is Hungarian and he isn't allowed to leave the country. The Major falls deeply in love with Diana and this is, in fact, the true reason why he doesn't want to let her go. But after he embraces her and gives her one of the most memorable kisses ever seen on screen, and she kisses him, too, he lets her go. And the end of the film is one of the most dramatic endings ever filmed-the Major and Diana say "Goodbye!", she arrives at the frontier with all the travelers, including Paul, while Surov is shot several times by some Hungarians, so he dies. Yul Brynner is very, very handsome and Deborah Kerr is very beautiful, charming, refined, just like an English Lady. Yul and Deborah are perfect together. They are one of the greatest couples of the Golden Hollywood. A true moviegoer should watch this film. "The Journey" has everything that a good film should have-a great, captivating story, interesting characters, a wonderful direction (Anatole Litvak is, in my opinion, at his best). Finally, I want to give a message to Warner Bros. Studios or those who restore and release classic films: Please, release "The Journey" on DVD as soon as possible. Yul Brynner was a symbol of villein in the tine of 50,s , he play a role of Russian leader in Hungary at the time of revolution in this country in 1956 that made it against the Marxism.

The script of this film made it by good taste from the writer that mixing love and adventure with showing different characters in the journey from Hungary to England.

The best point in this film was the symbol of challenge from the Hungarian Resistance to kill the Russian major(Yul Brynner) in the hall time of the film that made a meaning about the disadvantages of this major from his bad works , but at the end he made a good work to help Deborah Kerr for escaping her and her darling to London to write in his book a good working to gain at the end people,s agreement and trustment after his assassination by the Hungarian Resistance. Most people will consider that Yul Brynner's greatest performance was as the ruler of Siam in THE KING AND I. Certainly it gave him a wide variety of moods to test his abilities in, from comic, to tragic, from eager to learn to dominating to hateful. It also showed him to advantage as a "talk singer" and a dancer. Finally, as it was also his Tony Award winning performance from Broadway, the film allowed us to capture something of the great Broadway performance as well.

But he did other movies that showed his talents as well as THE KING AND I. His comic turn in ONCE MORE WITH FEELING was quite nice. So was his performance as General Bunin in ANASTASIA, or his Ramses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Yet he came terribly close to being a 1950s successor to Eric Von Stroheim as "the man you love to hate." A certain vulnerability in his acting and roles endeared him to the movie public, even after his best years as a star were behind him - and he retreated more and more to repeating the King of Siam on television and the stage.

To me, his finest performance is in this 1959 drama with Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards Jr., Robert Morley, E. G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Ronnie Howard. The film is set in pretty modern times - the powder-keg that was Hungary in 1956, when briefly it looked like the Iron Curtain was about to collapse there under the reforms of Hungarian patriot Imre Nagy and his supporters. But the Hungarian Revolution collapsed due to bad timing. The Russians and their Polish and East German allies sent tanks in to crush the revolt (and arrested and executed Nagy and other reformers). The West stood by and let this happen: England and France had gotten caught in the Suez crisis, and the U.S. had berated them and Israel for attacking Egypt. Due to the actions of three close allies of the U.S., the West found it hard to condemn the overkill of the Soviet Union. It was an unfortunate situation, and the Hungarians have never forgotten how they were abandoned in it.

In the film Brynner is Major Surov, a Russian intelligence officer who is watching for some of the leaders of the Hungarian revolt, one of whom is Paul Kedes (Jason Robards). Kedes may be getting assistance from some westerners on a bus tour through Hungary, led by Robert Morley (including Marshall, Jackson, and Howard, and Kerr). The latter are being kept in a hotel while their bus is being repaired, and Brynner mingles with them, hoping for a lead to the whereabouts of Robards. But Brynner is human - he tries to be ingratiating with these people (all of whom see him as a monster), and in sequence, when he has drunk a little too much, he confronts them with the questions that has bothered historians since 1945: How is it (even if one notes that Russia had Stalin in charge) that relations between Russia and the West collapsed so quickly? The allies, on the whole, had worked well together from 1941 to 1945, but after Yalta and Potsdam all types of mutual suspicions just erupted. Did they have to? Surov is a good officer, but he is torn in half by loyalty to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and in Hungary that he supports, and his growing fondness towards Kerr, who is hiding Robards but is also willing to note the more human side of the Russian major. And as the film reaches it's tragic climax, we watch as Surov has to decide if he will follow his sense of duty, or take pity on Kerr, Robards, and the other westerners who want to leave. It becomes a true struggle for him - and one that he may win far too late. It was a great film about a tragedy of post war Europe, and possibly the most thoughtful role Yul Brynner ever portrayed. There have been many excellent comments about this movie and I want to add my voice to the praise. Yul Brynner has never been more powerfully attractive. His Major Surov was riveting. Your eyes just cannot leave the screen when he's on it. This is his movie. This is not to slight the rest of the cast which was also exemplary, especially Deborah Kerr and Anne Jackson. As they were mostly stage actors, they brought many nuances to their performances. For example, I have seen this movie at least 4 times, but this is the first time I noticed the reaction of the German girl when she came face-to-face with a Russian soldier. Even though he was not threatening, her absolutely hysterical reaction made me realize that she must have been in Germany after WWII and was most likely gang-raped by the Red Army. The possibility of discovering deeper layers of story that may lie just beneath the surface makes me want to see this fascinating film again and again. Please put it on DVD. Anatole Litvak directed the 1959 film, "The Journey," starring Yul Brynner, Deborah Kerr, Robert Morley, E.G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Jason Robards.

The film takes place during the 1956 Hungarian uprising and concerns a group of travelers having problems getting out of Budapest because of political problems in that part of the world. They are put on a bus to Vienna, but the Russians, led by Major Surov (Brynner) confiscate their passports and hold them for questioning. One of the passengers is Paul Fleming (Robards), posing as an American but in reality a Hungarian freedom fighter, whom the major believes is being smuggled out of Hungary. In fact, Lady Ashmore (Kerr) is hiding him. She becomes the focus of the Major's romantic attentions.

Very good film that conveys the tension and hassle of the Cold War, and all of the performances are wonderful. Brynner is particularly excellent as the passionate Major who isn't all bad, and Anne Jackson gives a realistic, powerful performance as a pregnant woman who doesn't want her child born in a Communist country.

Good script, good director, good cast - there should be more films like this. Highly recommended. The "silver screen" gets freshly polished with this beautiful film about aging happily and enjoying life's rainbows. There's plenty of silver hair on this silver screen, but the film's namesake is more like 85-going on-25 with his energy, humor and lust for life. The story of entertainer extraordinaire Uncle Frank, his devoted wife Aunt Tillie, and the zippy residents of the local area nursing homes inspires us to "live each day as if it's your last" and brings a glimmer of hope to those often-dreaded golden years. A great movie for young and old audiences! It doesn't matter whether you've experienced the plight of the elderly in America or if you're just plain clueless, Uncle Frank and Matthew Ginsburg give you that clue in a straight forward, funny, wake up and smell the roses sort of way. By the end of the film, it is obvious that while being totally entertained, somehow, you've also been educated. A terrific film, by a terrific up and coming talent in the movie field. Matthew Ginsburg is a name to pay attention to. This film works on a lot of different levels. It's a profile of one very cool couple, a social commentary on aging and nursing homes, a love story, a musical. I've seen Uncle Frank a few times, and every time I watch it I'm not sure who to go call first--my parents, my wife, a friend I've lost touch with . . But it has a way of making you remember the most important relationships in your life--and want to reaffirm the ones that continue. Expect a lot of laughs, and probably some tears if any of the vibrant characters here strike a chord. I'm pretty sure they will. Uncle Frank is everyone's uncle. This documentary covered all aspects of aging in America, the lonliness, the humor, the irony. Uncle Frank and Aunt Tillie were supremely generous in sharing their life experiences with the audience. The director did an unbelieveable job of capturing the small and large pieces that made up their lives. Thanks to everyone who helped in making this film! I watched this movie three times at different ages of my life and always did enjoy it very much indeed. This Can-Can is an authentic explosion of joie de vivre, like Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly musical, but in French way. And a Jean Renoir nice tribute to his time, his friends, lovers, music and dances. It is at same time a show business chronicle of that age, full of affection and French mood. It is too a clear tribute to the Impressionism (people who likes impressionistic painters will like this picture). It is particularly a tribute to Toulouse-Lautrec and, of course, to Jean Renoir father, Pierre-Auguste. You will find hear a trustworthy and splendid colored recreation of some Renoir master work. Excellent casting, scenery, sound-effects and music. Even it tell us about the creation of Parisian Moulin Rouge, obviously it is a fiction story (and not very original by the way, as it fall down in the very well know moral that the show must go on). But the Jean Renoir production is great.

This is my favorite Renoir from the Fifties. It's the story of how Henri Danglard built and launched the Moulin Rouge nightclub; we see the workmen blasting at the site to get construction underway, and the training of the dancers. Finally, the giddiness of opening night and the long sequence of cancan dancing. Financial problems and the ego displays of the performers are described.

Gabin is in great form as the easy-going Danglard--see him deal humorously with Nini's violent boyfriend. Gianni Esposito is moving as the wistful Prince who is courting Nini. Maria Felix, with that amazon's body, is imposing as the egotistical Lola, Danglard's first lover. Finally Françoise Arnoul as Nini the washing girl who ends up dancing for Danglard, and becoming his girl, is just stunning; her loveliness and pert charm will win you over.

A bonus: we get Edith Piaf, Patachou, André Claveau and other stars in cameos playing the stars of a century ago who ruled over the Moulin rouge. "French Cancan" is one of my favorite all time movies. It's an excellent film. There's color, there's humor, there's music. It's a very good portrait of the so called Belle Époque, though Jean Renoir's priorities were always to show a creation, a fantasie. So the film isn't a historical movie. The final sequences in which the girls dance cancan are unforgettable images. It's a film you shouldn't miss. Although it doesn't seem very promising for a long stretch, Renoir's French Cancan ends up being an effortlessly charming film. The story is cliché: a laundry girl, Nini (Françoise Arnoul), is discovered by a night club owner, Danglard (Jean Gabin). Danglard steals her from her baker boyfriend and drops his current girlfriend, both of whom come back for their former lovers. Nini has to choose whether to go back to her humble life with the baker, go on with the show with her employer, oh, or become a princess, as a prince falls in love with her at one point, too. I'm glad the film didn't go for the most obvious choice, as a lesser film certainly would have. The film ends with the opening of Danglard's new night club, the Moulin Rouge, and a couple of gorgeous song and dance numbers. The first of them, "Complainte de la Butte," which also provides the base of most of the film's musical score, is simply one of the most gorgeous songs ever written, and Renoir himself wrote it. If you're a fan of Baz Luhrmann's 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, you'll recognize the tune, as it comes up near the beginning of that film, sung by Rufus Wainwright. Although it isn't very prominent in that film, everyone I know who owns the soundtrack loves it. In addition to having one of the most lovely songs ever written, French Cancan also boasts one of the cutest leading ladies ever to grace the screen. It's hard not to fall head-over-heels in love with that girl. 8/10. Renoir's tale of Paris,the Cancan,a washer-girl and the Moulin Rouge.A more subdued,but highly entertaining version of the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin gives his usual excellent performance.The Technicolor photography on the print I saw was exquisite.An easy evening's viewing. chris w galla There are frames in this film that could be Renoir paintings with vivid colors against muted backgrounds. The humorous combination of sexual honesty and innocence is refreshing in this fifties film and makes palatable the old story line of the ingenue that becomes a star. The can-can number at the end seems realistic and exciting but not over the top as in an American dance sequence. Jean Renoir's homage to the Paris of the late 19th century is beautiful in many ways. Not only does it appear to have been photographed by Toulouse-Lautrec and Mucha, it portrays the geographic Paris; the streets accessible only by staircases, the unpleasant end of fleeting popularity, and the sexual opportunism of men with a product to sell, in an uncompromising picture of show business that is in stark contrast with the picture painted by Hollywood. There is an obvious comparison to be made with Lloyd Bacon's "42nd Street," which had been made about 20 years before, featuring Ruby Keeler as a dancing sensation, a fresh-faced kid from the sticks who had come to New York to get into show business, who saves the show when the star fails--"You're going out there a kid from the chorus, but you've got to come back a STAR!!" Warner Baxter's "Julian Marsh" is a director who suffers for his art and is unappreciated. Jean Gabin's "Danglard" keeps running afoul of genital politics, but when he talks about the show he is more like Knute Rockne than like Julian Marsh. He's all about the game, except--for his pointy thing. He has a profitable new venture sewed up until his mistress become jealous of the woman whom she recognizes as his next mistress. His prospects rise and fall with every coital journey he takes.

Danglard takes Mistress 1 (Lola de Castro, played by Maria Felix) slumming to a dive, where he sees "Nini," (Françoise Arnoul) with her boyfriend and first lover, Paulo the baker, and discovers that she is a spirited dancer. He uses his charm and the prospect of money to lure Nini to studying dancing so that she may go on the stage. The prospect of money and fame charms Nini, and she become Danglard's next mistress, as well as an apt student of the cancan, which Danglard has dubbed "French Cancan," to cater to the current Anglophile tendency in the dance.

Both "42nd St" and "French Cancan" are tributes to show business--to modern entertainment--that has is own iconography and its own conceit. "42nd St." is centered around Julian Marsh, a great director of Broadway shows, which he organizes with great personal energy and dubious sexual involvement. The male juvenile is a middle-aged twit with lumbago, replaced by Dick Powell, the pretty tenor with secret wealth to hide. Danglard, on the other hand, goes from woman to woman, seducing them with the promise of fame, hooking them with what must have been a very persuasive endowment. One has no doubt that he is heterosexual and quite active. Postcoital scenes abound.

Days after seducing Nini away from Paulo, he has discovered Esther, a Piaf type, and begun to prepare her for her job of singing the film's theme song while he plays it on her fiddle. That of course arouses Nini's jealousy just as she has aroused the jealousy of Lola. (And of course Nini had already forsworn the privilege of being a Czarina!) The whole movie is about how Danglard's concupiscence has cost him money but how even his troublesome horniness is subordinate to his love for the show--how the audience demands devotion--and it is this potent combination of phallic persuasion and tempting fame that makes Danglard the hero, while asserting that a true lover of the show will never profit as much as the money men. At the movie's conclusion, Danglard, having outfoxed the creditors and the jealous babes, approaches a new attraction watching the incredible (and believe me, it IS incredible) performance of the cancan. "Have you ever thought about being on the stage?" he asks, and the curtain descends. Meanwhile, poor Julian is sitting of the fire escape of the theatre listening to Peggy Sawyer's new fans disparage his contribution to the show's success. (I won't even go into "42nd Street"'s central line, "Oh, Guy, it was GRAND of you to COME!")

Furthermore, I won't go into the glimpse one gets of legendary Parisian entertainers, including a brief vision of Piaf, nor of the vision of a Paris both urban and rural. Certainly there is a sample of the styles that engendered Trenet and Aznavour. But it is the memoir of an assertive and welcome masculinity, something unseen in any Hollywood musical with which it might be compared, is a pleasant relief from the androgynes of 30's Hollywood musicals (including my beloved Fred Astaire, not to mention Dick Powell), let alone the barf promulgated by MGM in movies like the repulsive "American in Paris." All those fountains! We'll save our comparison of that turkey to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and its deconstruction of the American male for another day.

That Danglard may have been a hopeful vision, in postwar France, of a kind of hyper-masculine mec that may or may not have ever existed, is practically beside the point. That he is a man's man, neither John Wayne nor Edward Everett Horton, is perhaps more on target. That he is a man who likes the ladies is never in question. I, for one, wouldn't mind living his life at all. I wonder if Gabin was that lucky.

At the beginning of this comment I wanted to talk about Baz Luhrman and what Sinclair Lewis called "boloney". I never got that far. Baz's Moulin Rouge... well, Paris doesn't put that kind of stuff in the Seine anymore. I just viewed Jean Renoir's wonderful film, French Can Can. It is a visual delight and a great entertainment. The recently produced Moulin Rouge pales by comparison. I didn't quite get all of the praise that the recent movie received. Now I'm convinced more than ever, that my appraisal was correct after seeing a master film maker like Jean Renoir's version of the same story. He succeeded in getting great performances out of his entire cast, and the great French actor, Jean Gabin was in rare form. The dance sequence near the end was one of the most exciting one I'd ever seen. It was long, but I didn't want it to end. This film deserves to receive more recognition than it's got. This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ("will the show STILL go on?"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.

Nothing new but well done nevertheless. Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by Édith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.

Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.

Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.

As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film "Moulin Rouge" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his "French Cancan" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Françoise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in "French Cancan"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.

Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used.

"French Cancan" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.

The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in "Moulin Rouge"; in fact, if I have one complaint about "French Cancan," it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life. I am not a fan of musicals, but I am a huge fan of Jean Renoir and Jean Gabin. I rented this movie on a whim and was pleasantly surprised even expecting greatness from the classic director. This movie is BEAUTIFUL. The shots are like oil paintings with motion, something a lot of directors strive for but Renoir MASTERS. I cannot express how much this movie transcends itself... it's not really a musical, it just has a couple of well-placed musical numbers and a grand dancing finale. But there is something about this movie in particular which makes you feel absolute JOY when watching it.

I am a fan of foreign art films, but I'm also a meathead who loves things like Die Hard and Schwarzenegger movies. I get very easily turned off by things that are overly happy or in "la la land," but this movie has an overwhelming positive energy that is just irresistible -- not to mention every frame is gorgeous and the plot is good. 10 out of 10. I made a promise that if ever I posted a comment that was less than complimentary, then later felt different about it, I would return and make known my change of heart. So far, this is the first time it's happened.

I'm really starting to enjoy Hack. Something has clearly changed. The storylines seem to be much stronger. The plot may still be a tad surreal, but the characters have developed so much more depth that a surreal plot can be forgiven. I attribute this to fine acting.

Not every show can come charging out of the starting gate a winner. Some need time to pick up speed. I'm glad I kept watching this program, and I really hope it lasts. To keep it as simple as possible. This is a very good show. That is well written, and has a fantastic cast. It's not loaded with blood and guts. And centers around a disgraced cop and his relationship with his ex-wife, his son, his former partner (Andre Braugher), his childhood friend, now a priest (George Dzunzda), and lastly the person who happens to get into his hack in that episode. Are you likely to find something like this going on in your city NO. Is this still a good story YES. And it's nice to see a man portrayed as good father in spite of his flaws. Watch more then one ( 2-3) and you'll see why a lot of us are hooked on this show. And thank you David Morse for making this character so interesting. Another good job! It seems that Hack has been described as un-realistic... but that's what TV is. TV is meant to provide an escape from everyday life and I feel Hack does a great job in that regard. Add to this the slow process of revealing his past and engaging/interesting plots; you just can't seem to get enough. Plus, with such great actors as David Morse, Andre Braugher, and even little Mathew Borish, what more can you ask for. So if you are looking for an involving experience and have a liking for "underdog" characters, I suggest giving Hack a chance, especially now that it's finally getting off its feet. "Hey, I didn't order no cab!" "Yeah, well you got one..." What can I say about Hack...what a man among men. He was a heartened ex-cop turned cab driver with a heart of gold. If you were able to (and fortunately for America's TV viewers...one person per week was) penetrate the cold, hard surface of Hack's exterior, you got to see a caring man devoted to vigilante justice. The show was superb, I laughed, I cried, I smiled...all in the same episode. My arms would break out in goosebumps when our dear friend Hack would exit his cab in another dark alley...with nothing more than his fists...ready to avenge a wronged civilian. A smile would break out on my face when the screen showed me a criminal in a dark alley's facial expressions when the Taxi of Justice's headlights illuminated upon his face. Week after week I canceled my duties as president of the Klingon Association to bask in the warmth glow of Hack's brilliance. I have never seen a better show, and I mourned the loss of one of America's greatest treasures when the show was canceled. In other Hack-related news, I would like to announce to the world that my wife and I are expecting Hack Koen to come into the world in about three weeks. I have only see three episodes of Hack, starring David Morse, and it looks as though I've missed 37 episodes! well thats if ITV 3 are showing them in chronological order. I've just watched 'Misty Blue' (episode 38). I have really enjoyed the 3 episodes, but then I'm a David Morse fan, (esp St. Elsewhere). For any one reading this, Hack is excellent. Pity its being aired on ITV 3. The cast is strong, though I cant get used to the idea of David playing a bent cop, still we all know he's the good guy wrongly accused. I see Gary Cole has guest starred, what ever happened to 'Midnight Caller'? Just wonder if Hack is available on DVD (yet). Lovin it. Cheers. David Morse and Andre Braugher are very talented actors, which is why I'm trying so hard to support this program. Unfortunately, an irrational plot, and very poor writing is making it difficult for me. I'm hoping that the show gets a serious overhaul, or that the actors find new projects that are worthy of them. I am sick of series with young and clueless people, talking about their "problems" all the time, self centered, boring and absolutely annoying (Popular; Dawson's Creek; Beverly Hills; etc). "Hack" is a breath of fresh air, with a great actor (David Morse), a completely different plot, credible people with REAL problems (thank God !!) and very, very good histories. I just love it!! I hope "Hack" will go on for a long time, because it is a great television series for grown up people, for a change. I love this show. It's clever and very well acted. David Morse and Andre Braugher have great chemistry. The writing is clever and subplots generally give great comic relief. After every new episode, I'm always amazed how thought provoking and at the same time entertaining this show is. My only complaint would be Donna Murphy's absence, at this point, in the second season. As David Morse ex-wife, Heather, she added such character to the show.

I think this show is a credit to the crime/drama genre. With that said - I can not for the life of me understand why this show has such a low rating. Would someone please who gave this show a 1 rating back it up with a critique? I like "Hack." Think the "Lone Ranger" reincarnated as a 2000s cab driver, a decent but flawed guy, in Philadelphia doing his best, while seeking to work out issues from a troubled past, and you've got the synopsis. David Morse is nearly perfect as Olshansky. He helps people but instead of riding "Silver" in the old west he drives a cab through the mean streets of contemporary Philly, without handing out silver bullets. The supporting cast is first class and well above average. At times, the witty dialog almost reaches the level of that 70s classic series, "The Rockford Files." This show deserves a return, hopefully in a better time slot than 9PM Friday(eastern). Okay, so this series kind of takes the route of 'here we go again!' Week in, week out David Morse's character helps out his ride who is in a bit of a pickle - but what's wrong with that!? David Morse is one of the greatest character actors out there, and certainly the coolest, and to have him in a series created by David Koepp - a great writer - is heaven!!

Due to the lack of love for this show by many, I can't see it going to a season series - but you never know? The amount of rubbish that has made it beyond that baffles me - let's hope something good can make it past a first series!!! An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season. It is nice to see a show that has a little more content than just blood and guts for a change! As an added bonus, it is nice to see some local home boys from Massachusetts making good in L.A. I hope this show will be a keeper. Everywhere I hear that people are calling this show bad because its premise is too far fetched....well maybe a do-good cab driver in Philly is pushing it a little (at least the cab drivers ive met), but that's what makes the show great.

The fact that this show is a little off the reality track is an issue but its still enjoyable and fun. Its highly watchable and even though u know Mike wins out in the end he never wins in life. David Morse is a great actor and does a great job in the title role. His supporting cast is great and i must say the location of the show is especially great!

All in all I watch this show not because im looking for a good dose of reality or a show with lots of action, I watch this show because its got great acting, a good premise, and a great story-line every week. It's also a plus when i can pick out the landmarks he drives by, or know what intersection he's at. I Love this show and I love Philly!! Give this show a shot! This is NOT your run-of-the mill police story where the characters were only secondary to the gun battles and car chases. The episodes, so far, are more realistic and intelligent.

If you are looking for something with a lot of butt-kicking Rambo-style cop story, you will not find it here.

I gave it a 9. I wish this series lives long. Morse is excellent! He's not your conventional cab driver.

This guys got issues. With his wife, with his son, a priest, all his fares, his ex-partner and most of all himself. And the greatest thing is they just throw us all into it. So we have to keep watching to find out more about his past.

The idea may not be original but David Morse makes it so. I think this is a great show, and I hope people catch-on before the season's over.

WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!! "Ahh...I didn't order no amazing hit show"....."We'll you got one" Hack is simply the greatest television show ever made. A little bit of me died when I flicked on the t.v. one Friday night to catch a little Hack and it wasn't on. The show dug deep into key social issues of our culture. I found that at the end of any episode I watched; I walked away having been both entertained and informed. I am actually dumber now that Hack is gone. I no longer want to help the needy and less fortunate. Since Hack has been gone I see them as eyesore's and an unneeded strain on taxpayers. So for the love of God we need to bring back Hack! I have never missed an episode. David Morse is a wonderful actor and I am hoping that this show can survive. It certainly beats out that CSI crap. I love the storyline and would actually like to see him as a cop again someday. I give the show a 10. Ugh, what an embarrassing episode last night! It was either a failed script for "ABC Afterschool Special", or the product of an earnest rookie writer, just out of college, making an homage to that classic PC anti-gun homily from 1974, "The Gun". In fact hubby & were disappointed that the closing shot wasn't of The Gun being melted down like in the movie!

No, I'm not some NRA shill. It's just that when the producer of an intelligent & nuanced series gets it in his head that I should be subjected to a didactic dramatization of his personal Cause, I'd appreciate it if the lecture at least wasn't delivered via 2-by-4. Geez!

OK, the sociology lesson is over. The Message has been delivered. The Important Episode has been aired. Now let's get back to some entertaining episodes that try to respect our intelligence. Legendary hammy and arrogant horror movie star Conrad Radzoff (splendidly played with wicked sardonic aplomb by Ferdy Mayne) dies of a heart attack. A bunch of drama school students steal Radzoff's corpse from its crypt and take it to a rundown mansion so they can party with it. Radzoff comes back to life and picks off the rude youths for desecrating his grave. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane concocts a fresh, original, and even pretty stylish spin on the usual body count premise, offers a neat evocation of the glitzy Hollywood milieu, and does a sturdy job of maintaining a pleasingly misty and spooky ooga-booga atmosphere. The kill set pieces deliver the grisly goods, with a gal being set on fire, a juicy decapitation (the severed head rolls right down the stairs and onto the lawn so a raven can peck away at it!), and another poor lass being crushed with a levitating coffin rating as the definite gruesome highlights. Kudos are also in order for the stellar cast of familiar B-flick faces: Mayne has a deliciously eye-rolling ball with his flashy role, Leon Askin contributes an amusing cameo as bitter washed-up director Wolfgang, Nita Talbot adds some class as flaky psychic medium Mrs. Rohmer, plus there are nice turns by Luca Bercovici as jerky drama student ringleader Saint, Jennifer Starrett as the sweet Meg, Jeffrey Combs as the geeky Stu, and Scott Thomson as the nerdy Bobo. Popping up in cool bits are Chuck "Porky" Mitchell as a detective, Patrick Wright in one of his customary policeman parts, and Tallie Cochrane as a corpse. Joel King's polished cinematography gives the film an attractive glossy look. The moody score by Jerry Mosely likewise hits the shuddery spot. A fun little fright flick. Look, this movie is obscure, brilliant, and a classic that should sought out by any means necessary. I suppose the powers that be have decided that it will forever be relegated towards the bargin bin; nevertheless, we could only pray for the chance to see this one on DVD. I would say that it even beats the great Phatasm. If you like a dark movie, with plenty of spooky imagery, look for this one and see how an 80s horror movie is suppose to be. Is there any question that Jeffrey Combs is one of the true horror greats? This movie seriously doesn't suck and is sort of funny... Watching a young Combs at work is great but I wish he had had more lines. Look out for Beyond Re-Animator. It's going to kick some azz. While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast. Red Skelton (in his first starring role) plays Wally Benton who plays 'The Fox' on a radio show. He writes the murder mysteries and as 'The Fox' solves them. Joseph Jones (Conrad Veidt) is trying to figure out how to perform the perfect murder on someone. He kidnaps Benton, his girlfriend (Ann Rutherford) and another girlfriend (Virginia Grey). He tells Benton to write out the perfect murder...or his girlfriends get it...

Very funny and enjoyable movie. Fast-moving (it's only 77 minutes), a good script and perfect casting really puts this across. Skelton is very good in his first starring role--very funny, fast, handsome and intelligent. Veidt is excellent as the evil Jones. Rutherford and Grey are lots of fun as Skelton's girlfriends. All three of them play off each other perfectly--their verbal sparring is the highlight of this pic. Also fun to see Eve Arden in a small role.

Well worth your time. There are 3 of these movies, all similarly crafted and each extremely amusing. Red plays radio sleuth Wally Benton, aka The Fox who gets wrangled into solving real life crimes along with his fiance played by your typical wartime girl next door looker, Ann Rutherford. Many of the one-liners and gags are dumb and probably were in the 1940s which I anticipated. But, just as many actually made me laugh out loud, which was unexpected to say the least. Red Skelton has a surprisingly strong screen presence, surprising I say because I grew up with a much older version of the man who's charm really didnt play well in my formidable years. I have to give these movies the go ahead though -if your in the mood for this type of nostalgic fare. I almost threw in light hearted, but in truth people get wasted and beaten up and dare i say it, the suspense at times is well above average. As with most movies from this era, it gets a PI (politically incorrect) rating for reasons you can well imagine. Wartime is funny that way I guess, and so then again are these movies. Watch one, watch them all. Red Skelton plays a radio detective known as "The Fox" in "Whistling in the Dark," also starring Ann Rutherford, Conrad Veidt, Eve Arden, Virgina Grey and Rags Ragland. Wally Benton, aka "The Fox" finds his plans to marry his fiancé Carol (Rutherford) thwarted when he's kidnapped by a the leader of a sham cult (Veidt). Joseph Jones (Veidt) has just learned that his cult, The Silver Haven, is not getting a promised inheritance because of the existence of the old woman's nephew, who is going to be living off of the interest. He wants Wally to devise a perfect murder plot so the man can be killed on the airplane en route to meet with his attorney. For backup, and because he's not sure which one is Wally's fiancé, Jones kidnaps Carol and also the radio sponsor's daughter (Grey).

This, to me anyway, is a superior film to the second entry in this series, "Whistling in Dixie." The plot is better, the cast is better, there is less slapstick and fewer corny jokes. Skelton, when he's not making faces and rolling his eyes, is quite amiable, and Rutherford is very good. Veidt always played these evil men to perfection. Eve Arden is Wally's agent, who arranges a date for him and Grey to make sure his contract is renewed. I had only seen Grey in films from the 1950s onward. She was always a good-looking woman, but who knew she was such a knockout in the '30s and '40s? This is a fun film with a neat cast. You have to be awfully patient to sit through a film with one-liners so flat and unfunny that you wonder what all the fuss was about when WHISTLING IN THE DARK opened to such an enthusiastic greeting from audiences in the 1940s.

On top of some weak one-liners and ordinary sight gags, the plot is as far-fetched as the tales The Fox (Red Skelton) tells his radio audience. You have to wonder why anyone would think he could come up with a real-life solution on how to commit the perfect crime and get away with it. But then, that's how unrealistic the comedy is.

But--if you're a true Red Skelton fan and enjoy a look back at how comedies were made in the '40s--you can at least enjoy the amiable cast supporting him. Ann Rutherford and Virginia Grey do nicely as his love interest and Conrad Veidt, as always, makes an interesting villain. One of his more amusing moments is his reaction to Skelton explaining the mysteries of wearing turbans. "I never knew that," he muses, impressed by a minor point that is cleverly introduced.

All in all, typical nonsense that requires you to accept the lack of credibility and just accept the gags as they are. Not always easy for a discriminating viewer as many of them simply fall flat, the way many comedies of this era do because the novelty of the sight gags and one-liners has simply worn off. Note: After writing this review I see that this listing is indeed about the TV series and not the original film. My mistake. I thought IMDb for a database for movies, not TV shows. But since most people will look up this film under BAGDAD CAFE and not OUT OF ROSENHEIM, which, strangely, is the name this film is listed under on IMDb, I'll leave this comment here.

Maybe I missed something, but when I read that other review it seemed to be entirely a review of the CBS series -- which must have been loosely based on this film. I did not see the TV series and I might like it or not, but one thing I am sure is that it is very different than this film. This film is NOT like a TV show at all and Whoopie Goldberg is not in it or any other famous Hollywood stars (other than Jack Palance, who was very charming in his role).

This is a terribly sweet movie that totally thinks "outside the box." It is not at all like a Hollywood formula movie, which is probably why the (what's a nice word for idiots?) who decide to market movies or not decided not to market this one.

First of all, this movie captured my heart and imagination from the get-go. From the music (which is just part of the time so you can't really call it a musical) to the cinematography to the really cool story.

A German or Bavarian woman (very pretty and quite plump) gets in an argument with the other German or Bavarian man with whom she is traveling through the California desert with and parts ways with him --he taking off in the car and she left to fend for herself on a deserted and desert-like highway out in the middle of nowhere.

She finds the small and dilapidated but charming Bagdad Cafe, in Bagdad, California and checks in. The rest of the story is magic. I don't want to try to describe this film because I want you to enjoy every surprise.

Warning: If you are a racist or have something against big women you will not like this movie, as the main romantic lead is a big woman and characters of brown and red skin have large roles and are included as "part of the mix" without any racism involved.

I gave this film a 10 for orginality, entertainment and sheer delightfulness. I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven "Crime Doctor" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.

I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films. Another nice entry in the Crime Doctor series [#4/10], with atmospheric almost noirish black and white photography and some splendid Spanish American backdrops and sets. And a more off-the-wall storyline too!

A man who looks like the insane murderer of his first two wives is found dead in a locked room after a dramatic dinner party. The Crime Doctor is on the scene (ostensibly as a guest) to immediately and resignedly proclaim it murder, and so we are presented with a quite weird set of people to mull over, for one of them did the deed. Was it the frothing brother of the dead 1st wife, the 3rd wife and rich widow Hilary Brooke, the dancing brother and sister vampires, the intense young man, the eccentric cabinet maker Lloyd Corrigan on loan from Boston Blackie, the irreplaceable butler, or odds-on Jerome Cowan? Police Inspector Emory Parnell had his work cut out, but Warner Baxter as Ordway was as unflappable as ever in working it all out. One of the goofs listed on the IMDb is wrong: On breaking into the murder room Ordway says "Right through the centre of the forehead" and Cowan replies "He didn't miss this time". Favorite bits: Baxter and Cowan travelling through club sandwiches and beer at the nightclub to make amends for their interrupted dinner party; The scene where the Braga's place of repose is seemingly rumbled. The plot does seem to meander a bit at times and the way it was all explained off was perhaps more worthy of Monogram, but leaving it in the air as supernatural wouldn't do either!

Well worth a watch if you already like the genre, you won't be disappointed unless you really don't like the genre. Better than average World War II-era "who-dun-it" featuring Warner Baxter as a former gangster who suffered amnesia and has been reborn as a psychiatrist now known as Robert Ordway who helps both the police and criminals who want to go straight. Crime Doctor's Courage is the fourth in the series of ten and also involves a victim who might have some mental problems. The link to "courage" is not particularly clear.

This entry revolves around the death of fortune hunter Gordon Carson whose two previous wives have under mysterious circumstances and who in turn dies in a locked room under conditions that resemble suicide but Dr. Ordway labels murder. Hillary Brooke plays the part of widow Kathleen Carson who is involved with Anthony Caruso - a mysterious Spanish dancer whose act includes his sister that disappears on stage. As a mystery novelist, Jerome Cowan is a good supporting actor as is Lloyd Corrigan as an aficionado in crime.

Spooky houses with creaking doors, caskets in the cellar, and suspects that are never seen in daylight add to the air of suspense. The set for the dance sequence is quite elaborate and the ballet music very good. Direction, production design, and photography stand out. The exterior shots and costumes suggest more affluence rather than normally found in the average "B" detective thriller.

Strongly recommended. The sort of "little" film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a "soul" version of the more well-known "The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells". Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold. A very delightful bit of filmwork that should have had wider distribution. Ian McShane is right at home playing the soul loving DJ who gets canned because he won't " go along with the program " and sets out to let the world know what they're missing. The supporting cast is great as well, and the music is the "Soul" of the film. I just wish that the film would be released so that I could get a copy of this for my film library. Ordinarily, Anthony Mann made westerns with 'the big guys' - James Stewart, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda . . . the A list cowboy stars. But in this B+ film, he tackled something notably different and had quite a bit of success with what turned out to be a truly one of a kind western. The main character, played by Victor Mature, is a trapper/ mountain man, and ordinarily they are romanticized in films - Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson, that sort of thing, where the hero is not in fact a typical mountain man but a clean cut heroic figure who hangs out with real mountain men. Not here. For once, a true mountain man - vulgar, crude, animalistic - is the central figure, and it's something to see, giving Mature one of his better later roles. The real acting chops are provided by Robert Preston, excellent as a self-absorbed Custer type cavalry commander, and James Whitmore, the poor man's Spencer Tracy, as another of those old timers who feel themselves trapped between ever more hostile Indians on the one side and the oncoming force of civilization on the other. Even more impressive is a very young Anne Bancroft as the officer's wife, who is initially repulsed by the very sight of Mature's grisly character, then finds her own veneer of civilization slipping away as she begins to realize, to her own shock, that she's attracted to him. Rarely if ever has a remote frontier fort been so accurately realized on screen, without the romantic allure that John Ford gave such a place in his masterful Fort Apache. The battle sequences are big scale and notably violent, and particularly impressive if you seen them in widescreen format. Good show, and underrated movie, all around.

`The Last Frontier' is a superior western that overcomes numerous deficiencies in weaving its tale of trappers Jed (Victor Mature), Gus (James Whitmore) and Mongo (Pat Hogan) and their relationships with the army, particularly Captain Riordon (Guy Madison), Colonel Marston(Robert Preston) and Corrina Marston, colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft). Hired as scouts after losing their supplies to the Indians, Jed, Gus and Mungo adjust to living the `civilized' life within a fort on the edge of the `last frontier.' Jed, who has been raised by Gus, both inspires and looks up to the `older' Gus and Mungo, and has an especially difficult time dealing with `civilization.' His real problems start after he becomes strongly attracted to the colonel's wife, Corrina. Colonel Marstonis a reckless man, who endangers every one around him with his dreams of ruthless victory over any opponent. Corrina, a woman repressed by her station and sense of responsibility, loves her husband for what he could be and Jed for what he is. Caught in the middle is Captain Riordon, a brave and likeable man torn among his duty to the army, his strong friendship with Jed and his fear of the likely disastrous consequences of the colonel's recklessness.

What makes this movie so interesting (as well as entertaining) is that, in most cases the weaknesses and the strengths of `The Last Frontier' are EXACTLY the same elements (forget the insipid title and dated music)

First, the screenplay. Almost all of the subplots (particularly, the reckless Colonel) have been done better elsewhere, but have rarely been assembled with such eccentricity. Just when you THINK you know what is going to happen next, this one takes off in a DIFFERENT direction. POSSIBLE SPOILER: `The Last Frontier' being a `Production Code' movie (back in the day the word `virgin' was taboo), it's very surprising that the adultery factor was handled in such a mature, tolerant manner. I expected either Jed or the colonel's wife to reap some retribution for their sin. I was surprised and a little disappointed the movie didn't exploit that expectation to create a less predictable ending.

Second, the casting. Mature is at least ten years too old to play the part of Jed, the wild-eyed innocent raised in the woods'. James Whitmore, who plays Gus, `the man who raised Jed' is actually five years younger than Mature. Nevertheless, Mature is very endearing, playing a character who is innocent of civilization but is in no way stupid. Although there were several actors who could have played the role at the time (most notably, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas), none could have played Jed better. Preston (also Mature's junior) plays Colonel Marston, missing the tics and affectations one would expect from such a driven man. However, Preston perfectly captures the sense of honor someone must have seen in Marston to promote such a reckless fool to colonel's rank. Bancroft is an especially shrewd choice as Corrina. Bancroft's dark hair has been died blonde, and this achieves the same effect as it did for Winona Ryder (`Edward Scissorhands') and Christina Ricci (`Sleepy Hollow'). That is, I felt conflicted about the character without knowing exactly why; I believe the answer is that blondes and brunettes have considerably different skin tones and eye shades. Further, Bancroft has always projected a toughness that borders on hardness (here the blonde hair softens her up a bit, though). This enables the 24 year old Bancroft to stand toe to toe with both the 40 year old Mature and the 37 year old Preston; yep, she could be a colonel's wife. Madison walks a careful balancing act as Riordan, handling a complex role and sometimes ackward dialogue.Playing a role similar to that of John Wayne in `Fort Apache' Madison does a more skillful job at it.

This movie has a `Silverado' type camaraderie. That alone makes it worth seeing. It also has memorable performances, beautiful scenerary and great action and direction. I just hope a letterbox version is available (many have been lost), because this movie takes full advantage of that format. One of the more obscure of Anthony Mann's Westerns, The Last Frontier was also his only cavalry Western (aside from one brief episode in Winchester '73), though naturally he focuses on the outsiders and internal conflicts rather than offering a Fordian celebration of comradeship and shared ideals. Set not in his beloved high country but in the foothills and forests, it's a much more cynical view of life of the frontier, in many ways his Fort Apache without the need to preserve the legend: this outpost is made up of misfits, failures, cowards and the odd competent officer ignored by his superiors, badly led while the Civil War takes priority and all the best the army has to offer.

Victor Mature and James Whitmore are the free trappers who find civilisation creeping up on them when they are relieved of their pelts and packhorses by a local tribe aggrieved by the incursion of the Cavalry into their territory. Rather than blame the Indians for their losses they decide it's the army's fault for building the fort and decide to demand compensation from them, ending up joining their ranks as scouts instead. But despite the best efforts of Guy Madison's amiable and competent acting commander to bring Mature into the 19th Century and make him fit to wear the uniform, the arrival of Robert Preston's humiliated Colonel eager to revenge himself on the tribe that drove him out of his own outpost – and Mature's clumsy infatuation with the Colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft, too much of a blank slate here to do much with the role of a woman who's tired of being saved by men who think they know what's best for her) – soon drive matters into much darker territory. It's not long before some of the soldiers are busily planning on killing each other, both sides trying to goad their subordinates into doing the deed for them: little wonder that at one point Mature throws away the bluecoat he has long coveted in disgust, screaming "I would have died for this, but it's nothing but a dirty filthy blue rag!" The Stallone of his day, Mature was one of those actors who could surprise you with the odd excellent performance here and there when matched with the right part and the right director. This is not one of his better days despite having his most complex part, perversely enough as a simple man – well-meaning but drunk, violent, uneducated and with a unsubtle, almost childlike lust for life, the part seems designed with Burt Lancaster in mind, with some striking similarities to his character in The Kentuckian. But Robert Preston's Ahab-like Colonel is clearly the best role, determined to resurrect the career he destroyed in a single disastrously suicidal Civil War engagement by launching another pointless suicidal campaign against the tribe that added another humiliation to the list that keeps him out of sight and out of mind of the promotion board. In his obsession to redeem his career he moves further away from any hope of moral redemption, driven as much by his sense of shame at his wife's sympathy as by the promotion of former comrades he regards as his inferiors. He's beyond salvation, but there's still a recognisable human being in there and one not entirely without a sense of integrity – he genuinely admires Madison's courage in making a futile attempt to get Preston's orders countermanded by their superiors – fatally skewed though it is.

Like its hero, the film is a little rough around the edges (and boasts one of the most surreal and jaunty title songs of any Western), but that only tends to make it more interesting, and there are plenty of Mann's typically elegant camera moves and plays on perspective, while the frontier setting is convincingly harsh and primitive. Unfortunately the deficiencies of the early CinemaScope lenses are very apparent in Columbia's DVD, with the image often dark (2.55:1 CinemaScope required a huge amount of additional lighting and early Scope films show a lot of trial-and-error) and grainy. this is another good western,which i enjoyed.it's not an epic or anything,but it is good for what it is.it' about 3 fur trappers,led by a men named Jed,who is crude and uncivilized.Jed and his two friends find themselves as scouts for a fort that is the only thing standing between them and and Indian band,who resent the Americans on their land,and want to take it back.that's the gist of the story.what follows is action,excitement,even a bit of humour,and forbidden romance.one of Jed's friends,Gus,reminded me a lot of the character Quint(played by Robert Shaw)in the movie Jaws.they both have that crusty,gruff demeanor.anyway,if you're a western fan,you should find lots to like about this particular entry.i think it deserves a 7/10 Victor Mature, as a barely civilized and mostly out of control mountain man and trapper, may be on the poster, but Robert Preston as a failed Union colonel who led his men to get "cut to ribbons" by Confederate artillery at Shiloh, and is sent to a fort in Oregon for his incompetence, has the most interesting part, married to a young and hard to recognize at first Anne Bancroft. The uncivilized Mature lusts for the colonel's wife, giving the film an interesting and even dark subplot which goes so far as to reference coveting another man's wife at one point by James Whitmore who plays Mature's older and wiser mountain man father figure. Directed by Anthony Mann, this film is lost among his more famous westerns with James Stewart, but even so you really don't need the Indian menace to make this a film worth seeing, although Preston gets to prove his bad judgement as a commanding officer again in a failed expedition to finally bring the Indians under submission, in a well staged attack among the forest that quickly turns into a rout. I enjoyed this film, which offers a variety of interesting subplots and complex love-hate relations, along with interspersed action scenes and some lighthearted moments in which the mountain men counter harsh army discipline. All the main characters are well cast. True, John Wayne or Robert Mitchum could probably have done the starring role just as well, but Victor Mature certainly comes across as a headstrong brawling Tarzan of sorts. Reminds me of his film role as Samson, another difficult, but not impossible, man to tame.

The mountain men in the opening scene are certainly an anachronism, as the era of pure trapper mountain men pretty much ended 20 years before, with the collapse of western beaver populations as well as the fashion market for beaver pelts. This story supposedly takes place in Oregon just before the end of the Civil War. Judging by the volcano in the background of the opening scene(probably Mt. Lassen), the fictional fort was located somewhere in a remote section of the Cascades, as we never see any other civilians. However, there is plenty of conflicting evidence that it actually takes place in the mountains of Wyoming or Montana! Red Cloud, the war chief who threatens the trappers and soldiers in the fort, is the namesake of a very famous Sioux war chief who led a very successful campaign in 1865-66 to exterminate the newly built army forts in Wyoming and Montana. Fort Laramie(eastern Wyoming)is mentioned as being not too far removed from the fictional fort. The plains tribe of Assiniboines is mentioning as joining Red Cloud. This aspect of the story, then, bears a general resemblance to historical fact.

It may be of interest to note certain resemblances between the plot of this story and that of John Ford's "Fort Apache". In both cases, we have a fort commander who was recently assigned to his first frontier post with Native American problems. He underestimates the military prowess of his adversaries, regarding them as little more than cannon fodder to promote his career. In both films, he pays dearly for his inexperience in dealing with the enemy.. Also in common, the greenhorn commander resents a subordinate who has long experience with the local Native Americans and wants to tell him what is wise to do and not to do. In both films, we have a budding romantic relaionship between a woman very close to the commander's heart and a subordinate, which the commander does everything to squelch. Clearly, the commander must be eliminated to allow these romances to proceed to completion.

I also see certain resemblances with "The Misfits". The soldiers, as a whole, including the commander, are misfits of a sort((as one of them admits): mostly they have "problems" or are raw recruits with no experience fighting Native Americans. The commander's wife apparently is the only woman in or anywhere near this fort, thus is inherently a misfit, with a husband who is very uncertain of his future in the army. The trappers, in turn, are also misfits, not really wanting to accept army or civilian discipline, yet cut off from their previous free spirit lives by the recent army-generated antagonism by Red Cloud.

Finally, we can also compare this story with Anthony Mann's later film "The Far Country", starring Jimmy Stewart. In Stewart's case, he can choose to return to being a loner cowboy, at the end. But Mature's character doesn't come up with an appetizing new way of being his own boss. Red Cloud has made life outside of the army in this region too dangerous to contemplate. Besides, he has an obsession with the Commander's wife. Very enjoyable 50's Western. I have it in my collection and recommend it to Western fans.

Mostly Victor Mature's movie and quite well done in my estimation.

He's a trapper who joins a frontier post as a scout. Red Cloud caught three of them on their land and took their possessions. They all joined as scouts after their loss.

Victor has set his eye's on the Colonel's wife and lives life on the post without much regards to regulations.

Action done quite convincingly but no great depth or much feeling to other characters.

50's Westerns are my favorites and this slides easily to a satisfaction. A Western of this kind is in the pages of the past and perhaps never to be made much again. One to enjoy. Gave it a 7 rating. Likely 6.8 worthy but films like these become more precious over time.

For film-noir fans..."The Big Steal" "They Live By Night" "Side Street" are most wonderful movies to be enjoyed. Bought and viewed. Noir seems to resemble Westerns in a way. Some long ago and never forever. Dylan and Bobby are boyhood friends and they are in love the way that young boys sometimes are. But Dylan has met a girl and is starting to put those boyhood things aside. Bobby knows that he's not interested in girls and misses what he had with Dylan.

Told as part cheesy 80's pop video, part home movie, part video recollection this film tells a confusing and sad, but all too often true, story that will hit home with many that see it.

This film brings back a lot of memories and struck a very true chord with me but I wish the film maker had gone a bit further and left it on a happier note. Yes, we all love and lose, even when we are young, but there's always tomorrow, especially when we are young. Beautiful....that one word pretty much sums up this whole film. Everything from the cinematography, the directing, the acting.....brilliant. At any point of the film, you can pause it, and you will no doubt be looking at something mosaic or "artsy fartsy" as some people would say. I assure you, that after one viewing, "Bobbycrush" will be stuck in your head. I know this from first hand experience. Even the soundtrack is great. It goes together very well with the tone and pace of the film. Be thankful that Cam Archer exists in this world. We need more people like him to make films that show love and shame in totally real (and surreal) imagery. Cam Archer's lyrical Bobbycrush boldly captures the disorienting kaleidoscope that is adolescent desire with a lush rendering (beautifully photographed by Aaron Platt) that is more vibe than narrative. Caught somewhere between documentary and dream, Bobbycrush recalls the inventiveness of early Todd Haynes and the vivid hyperrealism of Gus van Sant. With grit, glamour and heartbreak, it's kinda like the movie equivalent of Sonic Youth playing bubblegum pop. One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.

What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).

Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.

Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.

Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.

And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.

STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self. Alfred Hitchcock has made many brilliant thrillers, and many of them have gone on to be hailed as some of the greatest films of all time. One film that tends to get somewhat lost under the Vertigo's and the Psycho's is this film; Strangers on a Train, the most compelling film that Hitchcock ever made. The story follows Guy Haines, a tennis player and a man soon to be wed to the Senator's daughter, if he can get a divorce from his current wife. One day, on the way to see his wife, he meets the mentally unstable Bruno Anthony aboard a train and soon gets drawn into a murder plot that he can neither stop nor stall; and one that could ultimately cost him his life.

The conversation aboard the train between Bruno and Guy is one of the cinema's most intriguing and thought provoking of all time. What if two people "swapped" murders, thus resolving themselves of all suspicion of the crime, and rendering their motive irrelevant? Could this truly be the perfect murder? What makes this film all the more frightening is that the events that Guy is lead into could happen to any, normal everyday person. Everyone has someone they'd like to get rid of, so what if you met an insane man aboard a train that does your murder for you and then forces you to do his? The chances of it happening are unlikely, but it's the idea that anyone could be a murderer that is central to the message of Strangers on a Train; and in this situation, anyone could.

Is there any actor on earth that could have portrayed the character of Bruno Anthony any better than Robert Walker? The man was simply born for the part. He manages to capture just the right mood for his character and absolutely commands every scene he is in. The character of Bruno is a madman, but he's not a lunatic; he's a calculating, conniving human being and Robert Walker makes the character believable. His performance is extremely malevolent, and yet understated enough to keep the character firmly within the realms of reality. Unfortunately, Robert Walker died just one year after the release of Strangers on a Train, and I believe that is a great loss to cinema. Nobody in the cast shines as much as Walker does, but worth mentioning is his co-star Farley Granger. Granger never really impresses that much, but his performance is good enough and he holds his own against Walker. Also notable about his performance is that he portrays his character as a very normal person; and that is how it should be. Ruth Roman is Guy's wife to be. She isn't really in the film enough to make a lasting impression, but she makes the best of what she has. Alfred Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, takes the final role of the four central roles as Barbara, the sister of Guy's fiancé. She is suitably lovely in this role, and she tends to steal a lot of the scenes that she is in.

Alfred Hitchcock's direction is always sublime, and it is very much so in this film. There is one shot in particular, that sees the murder of the film being committed in the reflection of a pair of sunglasses. This is an absolutely brilliant shot, and one that creates a great atmosphere for the scene. Hitchcock's direction is moody throughout, and very much complies with the film noir style. The climax to the film is both spectacular and exciting, and I don't think that anyone but Hitchcock could have pulled it off to the great effect that it was shown in this film. It's truly overblown, and out of turn from the rest of the movie; but it works. There is a reason that Hitchcock is often cited as the greatest director of all time, and the reason for that is that he doesn't only use the script to tell the film's story, but he also uses to camera to do so as well. Strangers on a Train is one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Its story is both intriguing and thought provoking, and is sure to delight any fan of cinema. A masterpiece. Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as "Throw Momma Off The Train." "Strangers on a Train" was one of those film classics I had always heard about but somehow never gotten around to actually seeing. I finally watched it a few weeks ago and, as always with any Hitchcock movie, it not only stood up to the test of time, it far surpassed most thrillers being made today. You can see the inspiration for future action movies here - the climactic ending with the out-of-control merry-go-round and the two villains dueling each other reminded me of the big action sequence at the end of Jan de Bont's "Speed." Of course, "Strangers" is over forty years older than "Speed" and contains no modern special effects, but the visceral thrill is there - Hitchcock was a true genius.

The not-so-subtle gay side of Bruno (Robert Walker in an amazing performance) has taken form in many other psycho-stalker-figures in future movies. Consider him a male version of Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Single White Female." He knows about Guy before he even meets him on the train - we almost get the feeling their contact isn't incidental - and is soon entirely obsessed with him.

Hitchcock loved the Oedipial elements in his movies (also see "Psycho" for more blatant undertones) and there's a lot of that here. Bruno hates his father and wants him to die so he can be with his mother. His effeminate ways and obvious homosexuality must have just slipped by the censors in 1951, when gays were not "allowed" to be portrayed on the screen - yet Hitchcock gets the message through effectively when we see Bruno in the lounge on the telephone wearing a very non-masculine robe, flirting with Guy and responding to his mother.

The deep layers of this movie make it a fast-paced thriller than you can return to again and again - unfortunately it's being remade as a big-budget Hollywood production, but after seeing the original I honestly can't imagine anything surpassing the sheer white-knuckle thrills of this movie. In Strangers On A Train, it's obvious from the start that playboy wastrel Robert Walker has singled out Farley Granger as an unwilling accomplice to a pair of murders. Granger's a semi-public figure, he's a tennis pro, but not an especially high one. High enough however for him to know that Granger is trapped in a loveless marriage and would like to be free to marry Ruth Roman.

So when they meet as complete Strangers On A Train one afternoon, Walker knows enough that Granger will at least be intrigued enough with the possibility that if the two of them, complete strangers, did commit homicide on parties that the other would be convenienced by their demise. Though Granger is repulsed by the idea, one of the beautiful things about this film, is that you can see in the performance he gives that Granger just might submit to temptation.

In fact when Walker kills Laura Elliot, Granger's wife whose been two timing him and even gotten pregnant by another man, he expects that Granger will in turn murder Walker's father so that Walker can inherit his estate. Today Walker would be called a trust fund baby and a pretty malevolent one at that.

Alfred Hitchcock directed Walker to his career role, ironically in his last complete film. Walker died the following year with most of My Son John finished. Hitchcock does not do too bad by Farley Granger either.

Of course when Granger does balk at committing homicide on people who never did anything to him, the tension. Strangers On A Train is also characterized by great editing, first in the tennis match in which Granger has to finish the match and waylay Walker before he plants evidence convicting Granger at the crime scene. And also in that final climax with a fight on a runaway carousel between Walker and Granger.

Strangers On A Train is Hitchcock at his best, it should not be missed and ought to be required viewing when film classes study editing.

"Lets swap Murders- your wife, my father"- seemingly innocent conversation between two strangers - Bruno Anthony and Guy Haines when they meet over lunch on a train journey. Guy, a solid, respectable tennis player, whose problem is that his wife, the flirtatious Miriam, won't divorce him so he can marry senators daughter Anne, laughs the whole conversation off as a joke. The following week he isn't laughing any more. In a scene of classic Hitchcock suspense, Bruno stalks Miriam through a carnival and strangles her. As he does, her glasses fall off and we see the murder eerily reflected twice through her lenses. Cold hearted and amoral Bruno, his part of the deal completed, approaches an appalled Guy expecting, even pressuring him into 'doing his bit.' Matters are not helped when Anne's precocious and outspoken younger sister turns up suspecting Guy of Miriam's murder. So accused of a murder he didn't commit and expected to commit another, what is Guy going to do? The power of this film is in the presentation of human beings as having a murderous side to their nature - and this Hitchcock does to perfection. I went into this film expecting a slasher, and while Mute Witness does take influence from said style of film-making, this is much more than just your average slash flick. There are a number of thrillers that focus on a certain disability - blindness is more common (Blind Terror, Wait Until Dark, Cat o'Nine Tails to name a handful), but the implications of having a mute lead in a thriller such as this are well portrayed, and actually integral to the plot as the fact that the lead character can't speak is often the reason why she finds herself in dangerous situations that would be easy for anyone else to get out of. Our mute witness is Billy Hughes, a make-up artist working on a horror film production at a studio in Moscow. She finds herself locked in after hours one night, and after attempting to phone her sister for help, she stumbles upon what at first appears to be the making of an illicit sex flick, but soon turns out to be a snuff movie! She tries to convince the authorities of what she's seen, but finds that no one believes her story...

Recently Hostel made the headlines for showing snuff movie making in a foreign country, but this film did it first and actually does a better job. It's maybe not quite as nasty as Eli Roth's opus, but the gore is more effective, and since director Anthony Waller (who went on to direct one of my favourite modern thrillers with 'The Guilty') implements a good sense of humour into the proceedings, Mute Witness is both sufficiently gory and fun to watch. The director certainly has a talent for crafting suspenseful thrill rides, as this one never stands still. The plot is put into action quickly, and Waller constantly introduces plot twists which give a big helping hand to the overall entertainment value of the film. The acting isn't bad for a B-movie, with young performers Marina Zudina, Fay Ripley and Evan Richards delivering good performances. The atmosphere is gritty, and the Russian locations are suitably unfriendly, which helps the film to retain a foreboding atmosphere. Overall, Mute Witness is a much better film than you might expect it to be. The plot flows well, and the atmosphere and tension are spot on. If you enjoy suspense this movie has it. The fact that Marina Zudina portrays a mute adds to her haplessness and increases the suspense. Alec Guiness's appearance was nice, but didn't really add to the movie. I'm not sure if Evan Richard's part as Andy Clarke was an attempt to add a little humor or if he was supposed to just be a bumbling idiot. I thought the cinematography was excellent. This added not just to the quality of the production but to the suspense as well. The bathtub seen with the water droplets in slow motion was wonderful. Also the scene where the knife comes down and then it switches to Andy Clarke cutting an extremely rare piece of meat was very well done. I would call it overall good entertainment It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in "Mute Witness", we find a prime example of this.

*Scene spoiler*

In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....

...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.

*End Scene Spoiler*

I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.

The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.

Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.

The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.

There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.

As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!) The story is airtight from the beginning until the latter third of this movie. Then the story gets more and more outrageous. The Main character portrayed by Marina Sudina is fantastic and had a difficult role. This could have been a super-great movie had the ending been more realistic. I couldn't stop watching this movie, though it was far past my bedtime.

Comparisons to Hitchcock are deserved -- this thing really plays with you. It walks a wonderful line between real, immediate suspense and a dark, distancing humor. Like many of Hitch's heroes, our doe-eyed mute witness has innocently stumbled into something truly horrific -- and we are taken on quite a ride with her, at turns identifying totally and feeling her fear, at turns watching in thrilling suspense as she is placed further in jeopardy.

The filmmakers have put in a lot of tender care in working this out. Right from the opening shots, they engage and challenge you to determine what is real and what is fabrication; who is to be trusted and who is a monster. The plot twists and turns unpredictably. Suspense is created with a combination of carefully chosen camerawork, imagery, music -- but most simply THE EYES of the characters, which sends raw fear right into you.

A warning: there is some frighteningly real gore, as well as some nudity. The horror scenes are done in an emotional way that make them far more scary and disturbing than in any teenage-slasher pic.

And a teen-slasher pic it AIN'T. The characters are quirky and feel like real people, for one thing -- a couple (including the heroine) you may even find endearing as I did. There will be no mistake you're watching a movie made for grown-ups. I mean, Alec Guinness is in it, briefly, and you know he didn't NEED the work!

Pop this in the VCR some night when you can't sleep. . . and don't want to, yet. In today's world of advertising and teenage horror and sensationalism it is very rare that one gets to see a movie and no nothing about it. Movies like Psycho and Blair Witch, while being great in suspense (both with great build ups) are spoiled by the fact that we know all about the best scenes and at least the plot before we see them. With Mute Witness, a rare treat, I stumbled upon this film and watched it, scared witless, in the middle of the night. I was scared by the menacing Russian ambience, the 'snuff' theme and the claustrophobic plight of the mute and the fact that the (amusing, which always leads to likeable) characters could meet the end at any second. Since this is a low budget and rare film we watch it without any expectations. It also has Fay Ripley in a rare movie role, watch and prepare to be excited, scared and thrilled in totally unexpected ways. Man, I never laugh so much this year, and it's pretty hard to make me laugh. While I expected some Hostel-style movie, the smile came to my face even from the beginning. This film-inside-film shows a female stabbed "victim" messing the whole set until she finally "die". Her overacting drive the director nuts and his funny reaction tell us, the viewers, that Mute Witness is not a typically horror movie.

The main character, the mute American make-up artist Billy Hughes, is played by the beautiful yet talented Russian actress Marina Zudina. Her performance is top-notch; her character can't speak, so the body language and the emotions on her face must compensate.And, oh boy, she did a wonderful job. Her sister (Fay Ripley) is the girlfriend or the fiancée or the wife of the "in-film director" (Evan Richards). They were both very funny most of the time. I won't spoil more, but the scenes following the bathtub moment, with them two, the fake policemen and later the angry neighbor were plain brilliant black comedy.

The plot get twisted near the end, possibly misleading at one particular moment. But don't worry. Such a delicious movie can be viewed in family or with your boy-/girl-/friend. I don't know how this film went unnoticed for so long.

I saw this film on TV, i was flipping through the channels and came across this unexpectedly well made film. i missed the first, probably , 10 minutes, but that does not matter..this film literally gripped me, it is a real spine chiller.

The absence of well known actors in the film adds on to the effect,u do not know what to expect from the actors because they are new. U never know when they will get killed or what they are up to. so it is all the more tense.Even though there are many new faces their performances were top class.

The filmmakers play with your mind, just revealing enough gore to make imagine the rest. The shock, fear, horror and helplessness are also brought out well by characters in the film.

The well written situations n twists,fast camera movements, slick editing and superb direction makes it an excellent suspense thriller. This film actually switches between the genres - horror and suspense thriller leaving the viewer clueless and tensed. Undoubtedly comparable to Hitchcock.

I could not even move from the TV even during the commercial breaks .. i was the helpless MUTE WITNESS to this superb film. One of my all-time favourite movies. Nothing can beat watching this movie for the first time. If I could go back in time and erase my memory or suffer from momentary amnesia I would so I could enjoy this movie as much as I did that very first time. It's still enjoyable second and third times round but I found myself appreciating the humour more as the shocks and thrills weren't unexpected. If you want a see a film that you truly won't be able to predict the ending of then I highly recommend this film. Its chilling, shocking, full of suspense and there's also loads of humour to help you through it too. If you watch this film and don't love it I truly question your sanity! This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.

The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.

One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.

The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's "Psycho" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.

While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.

All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en. I enjoyed the acting in this movie. Except for the sister. She reminded me of Janice on Friends. I could never quite believe she was anything but obnoxious.

My main problems with the movie were the anticlimatic ending and the execution scene with the sister and brother-in-law. The guy falling out of the exploding car? Maybe if his hand had been blown off and he ran to the mute for help and she kissed him and rushed him to a hospital, maybe then I could have gone for the ending. I think somebody needed to die in the execution scene. Mainly the brother-in-law. He was such a pain in the ass anyway. Or maybe the sister needed to accidentally kill the guy who saved the mute. I could have even bought into the brother-in-law killing the hero and the ending being the two sisters being put in snuff films.

It is worth watching again and as I always say, it is much easier to be a reviewer instead of an author. The plot is somewhat original, and all the actors did their job pretty well. There is a plenty of comic relief, too. Some things do not make a lot of sense (e.g. the first "chase" scene, why would the heroine not just hide somewhere and wait until the baddies leave?). The Russians actually speak Russian without accent, but the cars are extremely strange, with models spanning like 50 years, and so the place seems weirdly out of time. Overall, if you like thrillers you will probably like this one as well. I've waited 9 years to watch this film, simply because i never saw it advertised on TV. Eventually i caught it and it was well worth the wait. It's much better than your over-hyped scream or last summer garbage because it's all at a fairly quick pace, with no drawn out, creeping through the house to cheesy music scenes. Only the bad dubbing lets it down a little but don't let that put you off in any way. What lies beneath - over hyped and crap. Mute witness - low budget, not hyped at all and very good. I love this movie ! I think I've seen it 5 times already (it was quite a success in France and they often play it on TV). Ok, it's a thriller and there is great tension. But mostly (and specifically in the second part) it is absolutely hilarious ! And very original. The directing and photography are just splendid. This is definitely one of the most scary and spell-binding films ever made. You are stuck to the movie from the beginning to the very end. Even though there are some plot holes, it keeps being exciting to the final showdown. Besides "8 MM" and "Peeping Tom" this is one of the best films about "Snuff Movies", a taboo theme of our culture. If you like the SCREAM Trilogy, you will probably love that one. An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat. Superbly crafted low-budget thriller with more twists and turns than you can shake a stick at, and plenty of ghoulish humour along the way as well.

The cast play it very well, although Richards' self-centered movie director is a bit hard to take at times. The tiny two-scene cameo by Sir Alec Guinness, oozing menace as the crime czar of Moscow, is simply the icing on the cake.

Well worth repeated viewing, but not on dark nights when you're all alone! This is a VERY good movie. I give it a 10.

It's very different in that it's kind of a long stalking scene all the way through. The fact that the main character is mute is used throughout the story in a very believable way.

She sees a murder (for a snuff-movie) and decides to run but is chased (this takes quite some time). I won't reveal the rest of the movie for it would spoil the experience, but rest assured: it's very believable, well played, very intense and has some nice surprises plus a great ending.

Don't miss this movie. Mute Witness is a modest, yet very solid thriller that never really received the attention or good comments it deserves. The film – written and directed entirely by Anthony Waller – is a tense, action-packed thriller with black comedy aspects and horror influences. No pointless mumbo-jumbo or endless plot-twists…just straight to the point mystery. Mute Witness handles about the vicious topic of `snuff'-movies and is effectively set in Russia. *** SPOILERS *** Since the production costs are cheaper there, a US film crew temporarily moves to Russia for shooting a horror film. An old hangar is used as film location. The female make-up artist of the team accidentally gets locked up overnight and while trying to find a way out, she witnesses the recordings of an authentic snuff-movie! She's caught and tries to escape but, since she's a mute, she can't cry for help and neither can she explain what she saw to the police properly. The girl's life is in real danger now, since there's a whole hidden network behind these snuff productions and they don't want the witnesses to be alive… *** End Spoilers ***. Mute Witness contains multiple highly exiting action sequences and is rather bloody. Some of the mystery clues are effectively kept secret till the very end. Regarding the similar topic, I'd say it's definitely better than the more famous `8 mm', directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Nicolas Cage. The acting in Mute Witness isn't great, but the leading actress (who's Russian herself) looks really cute. Sir Alec Guinness makes a special appearance, too. And a very cool one, I may say. Surely recommended with guaranteed fun and scares. Well, this film came on on a workday at 230am. The cute little actress who played Billy caught my attention initially and after the 1st 15 minutes I was held captive to my television till the very end. It has you on the edge of your seat, then throws in clever bits of comedy during the most tense sequences.

The only draw back is that the story was not substantial enough to fill hour an a half film, causing certain sequences to drag just a little. Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining, and I recommended it to all my co-workers the next day. If you want to see a true thriller, rent this!!! It's not from the director or screenwriter of "Scream", doesn't feature overacting, overpaid "TV" actors passing off as "stars", and is not a run of the mill special effects bonanza. Instead you'll get a top-notch, edgy, very strong (in violence) yet thrilling nailbiter. First half of the movie scared the hell out of me and normally I'm not easy to scare, but second half of this thriller didn't work quite a well, but still very scary! A good thriller, than use simple ways to make good horror. Lowbudget, set in Russia, unknown cast, and made in Europe. but still great fun, and yes there is a few laughs throw in for good matters as well! This is one of the movies one has to start watching with an open mind. One knows it's going to about a mute, one could look forward to or be afraid for a lot of sentiment.

Well, forget it. The movie starts with a little black humour, and then gets started. From then on its takes you on an ever frightening ride through the dark centers of Moscow. All right, it must be said: the unexpected twists are expected, and the mute is mainly used as a plot tool or fear builder. But this movie doesn't let you go.

It's like the old gangster movies, but then without any glamour at all and in Russia. And that's one of the most important aspects of this movie: it's situated in Russia. This does have a great impact on the movie, according to me it makes it better. Everything becomes simple and basic, life is without nonsense. This could be a great potential for more movies in the future, gangster movies about the Russian mafia.

It is a beautifull and terrifying movie. It's horror, but you can't feel but sympathy for the little mute. One last advice: don't look this too late in the evening if you want to sleep well. I'm just starting to explore the so far wonderful world of monsieur Ozon. I've seen only 4 films so far, and with the last one in the row it hit me that all of them were in fact about lonely women and their actions. Not a single non-lonely female character out of 12, and all of them bring heavy impact of surroundings.

This film is probably the only one (out of four) where this impact is for good.

The gay theme is an almost standard part of background for Ozon's films, so it doesn't grab the accent (although the looks of the characters might). Watch for the feelings, not for their objects.

Very nice and fleeting, truly like a summer romance, and while being a relaxation to thought and mind, it gives some food for the soul. There's not a dull moment in Francois Ozon's "Robe d'Ete". It's surprising how much is packed into this short film. While reclining on a deserted beach after a nude swim, a young gay is approached by a girl seeking a light for her cigarette. She invites him to make love in a wooded area near the beach. On returning to the beach. they find that all his clothes have been stolen. She lends him a summer dress to cover his nakedness and requests he return it next day. He rides his bike back to the holiday cabin dressed as a girl. His gay companion is sexually excited. Early next morning the young man returns to the sea and bids farewell to the girl whose holiday has ended. She suggests he keep the dress as a memento of their summer romance. It's a light-hearted film that captures the spirit of summer holidays by the sea, but perhaps not for those who are embarrassed by nudity or homosexual themes. i expected it to be good, after i'd seen some other ozon's superb moments, and read much about it... but this movie is brilliant - clever, very bright (emotionally and visionally), perfect in all moments. every movement is there for a reason, everything fits so closely and primordially true and honest. this is the movie about the beauty and innocence; about it's simplicity. Subtle, delicate ,touching.

A young man in a summer dress on a bike like incarnation of perfect joy. History of a coming -out and anatomy of relationship.

Soft ambiguous gestures, slices of desire and a day like space of innocent miracle expression.

Two men, a girl, a afternoon on beach, some words and a gift. Religious traces and a pantheist vision. Cercle of light and expression, nooks of an ordinary day and hot evening.

A erotic chaste film in which the gay identity or the first sexual relation are only instruments for good definition of a universe with sensitives values.

Pledge for self- discover, universe of beauty exploration, the sign of Ozon and same nostalgic air of every creation, "Robe d'ete" is a splendid occasion to understand the moment like projection of dream, to look, with emotion and child soul the essence of the essence beyond the images or people. Sadness and nostalgia permeate Late Chrysanthemums, a 1954 film by Japanese auteur Mikio Naruse, now undergoing a retrospective of his long unavailable films thanks to James Quandt of Cinematheque Ontario and The Japan Foundation. Based on three stories by Fumiko Hayashi, Late Chrysanthemums tells the story of four retired geishas, now middle-aged, whose lives have become full of disappointment and regret. Performance are uniformly outstanding, particularly that of Haruko Sugimura, who starred in films by Ozu's Late Spring, Floating Weeds, and Tokyo Story among others. Sugimura portrays Kin, a former Geisha who has no children and lives only with her young maid who is unable to speak.

She has become cynical about men and has turned her attention to money, particularly real estate speculation and loaning money to her friends, Nobu (Sadako Sawamura), Tamae (Chikako Hosokawa), and Tomi (Yuko Mochizuki), all former geishas. Kin's friends live in meager circumstances and complain about how Kin has become greedy and Tomi spends considerable time gambling to try and make ends meet. Both Tomi and Tamae are in the process of losing their children. Tamae's son is leaving to work in the coalmines in Hokkaido, and Tomi's daughter has decided to accept a marriage proposal from an older man. Both resist the change in their circumstances but come to accept it as inevitable.

Two male friends visit Kin, Seki a former lover with whom she once contemplated double suicide, and Tabe (Ken Uehara), another lover who she looks forward to seeing again after many years. Her mood is upbeat but soon turns to resentment when she discovers that the two men are only interested in borrowing money. Naruse cuts between two extended sequences seamlessly as Kin confronts Tabe and Tomi and Tamae console each other over the loss of their children The dialogue is extremely natural and the characters are women of strength who, though their future does not seem bright, refuse to see themselves merely as victims. Late Chrysanthemums has the simplicity, humor, and stoic acceptance of life prominent in the films of Ozu and is a bittersweet reminder of the slow passing of time and the comfort that memory and companionship can bring along the way. For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.

The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.

What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.

I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.

The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.

This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.

The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen. Mikio Naruse's examination of the lives of three idling, constantly complaining, single ex-geishas in post-war Japan is a wonderful character piece. They used to be friends in the old days but now their relationship is strained because one of the women has become a successful moneylender and the other two owe her. Although the moneylender is the only one who has become successful in this rebuilding economy, she is the only one of the three that has no children. The other two each have a child whom they depend upon for income, because neither of them work. Complications ensue when the kids decide to get married (though not to each other) and leave home. This leads to the bitter, grumbling old women to become even more bitter and grumbling, getting drunk and bemoaning their rotten children and inconsiderate friend the moneylender. Meanwhile the moneylender is herself unhappy, despite her fortunes. She has no one besides her young deaf maid to keep her company and chance encounters with two former lovers from her geisha days lead nowhere - all they really want is to borrow money from her. The three characters are all neck-deep in the quicksand of their own bored lives and are too weary to struggle much, usually opting instead to resign themselves to the futility of it all or, at the very most, toss complaints back and forth to each other.

"Late Chrysanthemums" is very slow-moving and not much actually happens but Naruse, like all great directors, has the ability to do much with very little. I haven't seen much of his work but I suspect that this isn't his best, even though it is very good. The problem, I think, is that it all doesn't seem to amount to much. But the film is full of good points. Although it is cynical, it isn't overly so. Naruse seems to sympathize with his desperate characters, and he paints vivid portraits that make the characters seem even somewhat noble in the squalor of their self-made misery. While the film isn't a must-see, it is important as a fragment of the work of a great little-known (outside of his own country) director, precious little of which is available on video here in the U. S. A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7/10. Naruse is typically considered one of the 3 master founders of Japanese film, the other two being Ozu and Mizoguchi. This is an interesting and honest film on the lives of retired Geishas. Whatever happens, when such a woman ages, and loses her charm and mystique? Well, for those who are interested, watch this film. One: Okin, is successful as a money-lender, but the other two have to borrow from her and are resentful. Okin doesn't have any children, but the other do. Okin finds out that her old love is coming to visit her, and is excited. Naruse is a master in subtle studies of his female protagonists' characters. Bangiku ultimately draws the viewer into the study of the questions of ones happiness, and one's life-worth. Very good film indeed. This film is about aging Geisha in post war Tokyo. Okin, played by the incredible Haruko Sugimara, lends money to two other ex Geisha, Tamae (Chikako Hosokawa) and Otomi (Yuko Mochizuki) and they resent the way she is somewhat smug about it. Tamae has a son, Otomi a daughter, who during the film announce they're leaving them while Okin, never a mother, gets visits from two men in her past who, it turns out, just want money from her. Its a compelling tale of what choices you make, what you do to get through life and who you're responsible and beholden to. Haruko Sugimara has always been in my eyes one of the greatest character actresses ever from any country and she plays the mostly unyielding, less than compassionate Okin with an air of superiority that makes you not like her, but at the same time almost envy her. At a time when great films were made by Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kinoshita and Kurosawa, amongst others, Mr. Naruse is right up there with him. If you have a region free DVD player, you should attempt to find the two Naruse box sets released in England. I think this film was a great character study of women who are in danger of being irrelevant. That they are really not makes this film a veritable masterpiece. MINOR SPOILERS

Misunderstood classic remains one of Henson's finest and most personal films. It may seem funny to call a movie as beloved as this one 'misunderstood,' but people do seem to remember this one mostly for Jerry Juhl's snappy screenplay and Paul Williams's knockout songs. Now while these things are admittedly great, as is the movie's formal playfulness (screenplay-within-the-screenplay, film break, etc.), what distinguishes 'The Muppet Movie' from the other Muppet films is the serious, wistful thread that runs through the picture. It's a road movie, all right, but like most road movies, the pleasure is in the getting there, and the achievement of the characters' goals is tempered by uncertainty, and by the knowledge that they can never really go back again. Throughout the film, we are shown the down side of show business, even before the Muppets have 'made it': Piggy abandons Kermit without a second thought at a phone call from her agent, Gonzo expresses the loneliness and regret of a performer's life on the road in his haunting 'I'm Going to Go Back There Someday,' and, worst of all, Kermit is continually tortured and tested by Doc Hopper, who wants him to commercialize his art for the unholiest of purposes. (One can only wonder what Henson would have made of his family's management of the company after his death.) Kermit himself agonizes over his choices in the desert conversation scene, and the final 'Magic Store' number questions whether it's all been worth it, before concluding that it probably doesn't matter either way. All this is punctuated with the expected Muppet chaos and satire and deliciously awful jokes, and of course the serious stuff wouldn't work if it weren't. But 'The Muppet Movie' isn't just another jokefest, as the rest of the diminishing-return Muppet films would become. No, it's a lovely, gentle metaphor about the relationship between art and entertainment and business, and it's every bit as effective today as it was 25 years ago. 9.5 out of 10. In many ways, the perfect movie. The "Incredible Journey" and Horatio Alger tale come together for a positive spin on the usually depressing subject of existentialism. In essence, the travails of the muppets boil down to the finale song of the movie: "Life's like a movie, write your own ending, keep believing, keep pretending." They create their own reality, which has all the trappings of every epic tale: a lofty goal at the end of what is necessarily a obstacle-laden journey; an ever-increasing group of like-minded individuals for camaraderie; a nasty set of villians who are not beyond all redemption; and a big-budget Hollywood ending because, darn it all, they CAN.

Only Jim Henson could pull this off. He walks the line between sentimentality and philosophy without swerving too long or too hard into either. Of course it seems odd that invest such weight into a film starring puppets, but in the end perhaps they are the perfect, uh, puppet to make these points. The movie's atmosphere allows for the pure enjoyment of the Hollywood dream, the "happy" ending, unnecessary cameos, and bursting into song at the drop of a hat. Usually these aspects are anathema to quality in film, but the self-deprecating manner under which the story is delivered makes for guilt-free viewing. One of the few films that can truly be called "suitable for all ages."

The other muppet-related films (including "The Empire Strikes Back"), while palatable, do not touch the simple grace of this film. Take, for instance, the musical number "Hope that Something Better Comes Along," the duet of Kermit and Rowlf. Amusing in its vaudevillian goofiness, yet makes a bitingly crucial point about the motivations behind life choices. Brilliant. Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.

This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++ Y'know, it's very interesting watching this... half the people involved with it are now dead...

Anyways, it's been a long time since I've watched anything Muppet related, but this stuff is pure gold. I'm a great fan of puns, and this movie has them quite well placed, but one of the amazing aspects of it is its pacing: it's not really high-speed children's pacing where the filmmakers just randomly decide to move the story along without giving the character's depth, it's just kind of moves along with the characters wherever they want to go.

Kermit the Frog is just an awesome character. His voice and the expressions on his puppet-face are fantastic. But above all, he points out why he's popular--"he can sing and make jokes too!"--but more appropriately why he's so endearing--he, without any effort, inspires everyone to search for their dreams. In the meantime, he also has to deal with himself, which is an uncommon theme in family movies.

It also contains quite an ensemble of comedians making appearances here and there, some to great effect, others to a little less (I think Mel Brook's part was just a bit overplayed, do you?). Some parts of the film are just kind of odd. But it's highly imaginative and takes itself to the same destination from a very different direction.

Moving right along...

--PolarisDiB Jim Henson as Kermit, Dr.Teeth, Rowlf and Waldorf.

Frank Oz as Fozzie, Piggy and Animal.

Jerry Nelson as Floyd Pepper, Robin the Frog, Lew Zealand and Crazy Harry.

Richard Hunt as Janice, Statler,Beaker and Scooter.

Dave Goelz as Gonzo, Dr.Hunnydew and Zoot.

Charles Durning and Mel Brooks.

cameos by Steve Martin, Carol Kane, Orson Welles, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor and others.

This is the first Muppet movie of the billion others that came out, and is also the best, by far! This deals with Kermit the frog going on a trip to Hollywood and meeting the other characters along the way. This movie, along with being already good, has excellent songs performed by the Muppets, including Rainbow Connection, Can You Picture That?, Moving Right Along and others. This movie, unlike the other Muppet flicks, carries a strong sentimental value to me. It's such a nice movie. Also noted is it's many cameos featuring Steve Martin, Mel Brooks and a dozen others.

my rating-A plus. 109 mins. rated G. First of all i'd like to say that this movie is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. It is the best out of all the excellent Muppet movies, and every other movie out there! so BOO-YA for jim Henson!

This Movie is the first of all the Muppet movies and the best. (boo ya) It's about a Frog (kermit) who tries to make to hollywood. along with the awesome friends he meets on the way comes a couple of the greatest songs ever made that are bound to become classics, including "the rainbow connection"

in conclusion i would like to say that watching this movie was the greatest thing EVER!. If you havn't already seen it, then get off your computer and get you tushy to your nearest video store!!! (if they don't have the muppet movie, i'd sue them BIG TIME ) I would have been about 11 years old when this movie was first released. All these years later at 37 and I had no qualms hiring it on DVD. Great entertainment for all ages. And what about the song The Rainbow Connection? See:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows And what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, And rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it I know they're wrong, wait and see. Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star? Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it, And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing And what do we think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

All of us under its spell, We know that it's probably magic...

... Have you been half asleep? And have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name. ... Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors? The voice might be one and the same I've heard it too many times to ignore it It's something that I'm s'posed to be... Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

Laa, da daa dee da daa daa, La laa la la laa dee daa doo... Who doesn't love the muppets?! Impossible it is to watch them without getting some kind of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. So, I guess what's important is that this movie seemed to very successfully capture what makes the muppets so special. I don't remember much about the details of the plot but the various moments and characters in the film I recall quite fondly. In fact, there was quite a nostalgic atmosphere to the whole movie but without being self-conscious in any bad way. Refreshing for someone who possibly gets too hung up on meticulous details and technique; the "magic" transcends all that other stuff. 'Tis indeed what movies are made of.

So, how does the film achieve these things? Hmmm, nice question! Stumped am I? Let's see. Really, I feel like it's quite simple. The filmmakers believe in their material and don't take themselves too seriously in the process. I probably wouldn't say the film has many truly inspired moments, but it does have a certain life to it (that funnily enough a great many "real people" movies lack). A zest. You really want to believe in these funny little people and their adventures. They also have a certain innocence about them that makes them all the more endearing.

Generally I get the impression that the people that made the movie just weren't afraid to try whatever felt right to them at the time which gives the whole thing quite a loose feel. Kind of like a really accessible and enjoyable extended jazz session. Lots of talent, little predictability and plenty of warm personalities coming through. The cameos were of course a bunch of nice surprises for instance. Maybe I don't feel I have much to say about it because I was half-asleep when I saw it (and/or as I write this review). Anyway, I'm sort of semi-repeating myself here but I really liked the sense of family the movie had. Full of love I suppose you might say. Again, a feeling of nostalgia comes to mind which not many films manage to achieve so effectively or effortlessly.

And to repeat myself once more, one of the film's best charms is its very relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. Like the Nathaniel Hawthorne quote about happiness being (like) a butterfly, so The Muppet Movie greatly succeeds partially by not seeming to try to do so. Same with beauty being best undiscovered or untouched or unforced or something like that. Anyway, if that sounds sappy, I also reckon it was pretty hilarious.

So, all in all, this movie was very funny, touching and difficult not to smile along to. Plus it features lots of great music! Highly recommended to all humans, both the young and the young at heart. The first feature length Muppet Movie, and excepting maybe The Muppet Christmas Carol, the movie puppeteers the world over are still looking for as a guide. Disney has done the Muppets a dis-service and this movie proves it over and over again. Featuring classic comedians and guest star cameos, keeps to a simple but original plot, classic Muppet lame jokes, Paul Williams genius in song writing, and Electric Mayhem madness, and comes off with an amazing movie especially when you realize that the major cast are puppets. Only Croft has come close to Hensen's genius with puppets. Half of the fun today is playing is that cameo actor/actress still alive???? I can only hope Frank Oz and Dave Goelz and the rest of the surviving Muppeteers can somehow rescue and revive Kermit and Company from the deadly grasp of Disney. This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of "extras" delivering a film that turned out to be "okey dokey".

Kermit's melancholy ukulele number "Rainbow Connection" was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's "It Goes Like It Goes". I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me! I have not seen this movie since 1979 when I was a teenager. I grew up with the Sesame street muppets and later realized how much effort and time went into bringing these characters to life. Jim Hensen was a genius and master muppeteer. When I watched this movie the other day it took me back in time when I was younger and things seemed so much simpler. For this bit of time travel I rate this movie a 10.

The plot line explores how Kermit goes from the swamp to Hollywood. The laughs and gags are classic muppetism. I am glad these films are still around for the next generation. I hope I never out grow the magic of the muppets. I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever.

Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.

The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.

All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it. A bunch of full-length movies featuring the Muppets, created by Jim Henson & Co, have been made, but "The Muppet Movie" was the first one of them all, and the first in the original trilogy, which also features "The Great Muppet Caper" and "The Muppets Take Manhattan". It was released seven years before I was born, so I obviously didn't get to see it at the time (nor did I get to see its two successors when they were first released). However, I saw a lot of the Muppets during my childhood, mostly after Henson's premature death in 1990. I finally got around to seeing this movie for the first time around the mid-nineties, after hearing the soundtrack. Unsurprisingly, I liked it at the time, and revisiting it in recent years hasn't exactly been disappointing.

One day, while Kermit the Frog sits in a swamp with his banjo after singing "Rainbow Connection", a Hollywood agent named Bernie comes by in a boat and urges him to pursue a career in Tinseltown. Kermit takes his advice and goes west. He soon meets Fozzie Bear, an unsuccessful stand-up comedian in a restaurant, and convinces him to come along. The frog is also noticed by Doc Hopper, the owner of a frog leg restaurant chain who wants Kermit to be his mascot. As a frog, Kermit is disgusted by this, so he refuses and leaves with Fozzie. On their road trip across the country, Kermit and Fozzie meet other Muppets who join them, including Miss Piggy (who soon becomes Kermit's love interest) and Gonzo. Unfortunately, as they all try to make their way to Hollywood, Doc Hopper, assisted by Max, is willing to do anything to force Kermit to become his restaurant chain's mascot, so Kermit finds himself in increasing danger!

One thing many people praise this film for is the songs, and I can understand why. There is, of course, the Oscar-nominated "Rainbow Connection" at the beginning, and more good tunes follow, such as Kermit and Fozzie's catchy road song, "Movin' Right Along", and "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", a poignant ballad sung by Gonzo. "Never Before, Never Again", the song Miss Piggy sings when she first sees Kermit, is the only one I would consider rather weak, and their romance seems awfully sudden. The Muppets in this movie are generally lovable, just like they are on TV, and some of them provide a lot of the humour, including Fozzie, making his first appearance in the film hopelessly trying to entertain people in a restaurant with his stand-up, and, well, if you're familiar with these famous Muppets, you should know what to expect from each of them. Some of the live actors who appear briefly in the film can also be funny, such as Dom DeLuise as Bernie the Agent and Steve Martin as the "Insolent Waiter." Also, it's not 100% comedy. There are serious parts of the film which they also did well.

Watching this original Muppet movie again this year was my first time watching any of them since seeing "Muppets from Space" (one of the Muppet movies made after Henson's death, released in 1999) for the first time last year. I was very disappointed when I saw that film, which had never happened before when I watched any film or TV show featuring the popular puppet characters! Not only is that movie not very funny, I also think it's a tad too dark and cruel for the Muppets, as I stated in my review of it! However, I can't say I think the same of any of that movie's predecessors, including this one, released twenty years earlier. "The Muppet Movie" seems to be the most popular of the bunch, and since it has so much to like, not just for kids, that's understandable. I highly doubt there's much left to say about "The Muppet Movie" that hasn't been said at some point in the past thirty years, but today, it remains good family entertainment. Who doesn't remember The Muppet Movie???

Kermit the Frog is now an American culture icon. What child doesn't appeal to this character?

As the first actual Muppet film, the movie simply called, The Muppet Movie did very well. Kermit takes a Hollywood agent's advice and goes out of his home swamp to respond to the ad. Along the way he meets up with a pig, a bear, chickens a rock band and a few other quality puppets. Watch for dozens of cameo appearances like Madaline Kahn, Steve Martian, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks and several more. I grew up watching this movie and I loved it. I am 17, and a biased Muppet fan, and while I love Treasure Island, Christmas Carol and Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie absolutely deserves to be up there with the best of them. It is enormously entertaining, thanks to the snappy script by Jerry Juhl, and the film looks lovely, with some beautifully staged musical numbers. Speaking of the songs, I really liked them, sure they aren't the best song score out of the Muppet franchise, but they were very nice to listen to, especially Never Before. Never Before is now one of my favourite Muppet songs along with First Time It Happens and Professional Pirate. The Muppets as usual were fantastic, particularly the always delightful Miss Piggy, and the chemistry between Kermit and Fozzie was great. And what a brilliant human cast- from Bob Hope to Orson Welles, from Madeleine Kahn(the same wonderful actress who brought us hilarious movies like What's Up Doc?, Blazing Saddles and Clue) to Cloris Leachman, from Steve Martin to Richard Pryor, all of whom made memorable guest appearances, if careful not to overshadow the Muppets in a fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox The Muppet Movie

directed by

James Frawley

Kermit the Frog and friends relive the tales and stories of how they all came together.

The Muppets star in their first feature film, bringing the magic they are known for to a bigger picture. The story is not too complex and is written as a prequel of sorts. The well written jokes appear as each character gets a worthy introduction. The cameos aren't just thrown in either, but written in as interesting characters, making one of the many peaks for our furry friends. If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of "The Muppet Show" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to "make millions of people happy." Of course.

Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing "Movin' Right Along", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.

The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any "children's" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.

This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue. I've Seen The Beginning Of The Muppet Movie, But Just The Half. Because I Only Watched It At Mrs Kelly's Friend's House. The Songs Were The Best And The Muppets Were So Hilarious. They Learn That If They Believe In The End Of The Rainbow, Anyone Can Make It, No Matter How Small, No Matter How Green(Which Was Included In The Trailer).

Kermit Is My Favorite Protagonist(Which Means It Describes The Main Character) And So Are The Other Muppets. Mel Brooks Was Amazing When He Played Professor Max Krassman. The Scene Where Miss Piggy Saves Kermit By Doing Kung Fu On Those Guys. It Was So Cool.

The Muppet Movie Is The Best Jim Henson Film With The Most Hilarious Characters And People Will Cherish For His Successful Film. The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due. I enjoyed THE MUPPET MOVIE very much. It was the first of the Muppet movies and is by far the best because it's so creative and fresh. With later films, the ideas just didn't seem quite so original. But here, we get to see Kermit and Miss Piggy riding bikes (an incredibly difficult scene), an excellent ensemble cast and just a lot of fun. I loved every minute the Muppets were performing and I would have rated the film a lot higher except for one serious problem. In this and most subsequent Muppet films, some powers that be felt there was a need to include lots of non-Muppets--in particular, many, many cameos by stars. Some worked fine (such as Charles Durning's) but many just seemed irrelevant and slowed the picture to a grinding halt. Probably the worst of them was with Edgar Bergan. Yes, he was an amazing man who inspired Jim Henson and the rest of his crew, but the tiny scene he's in just wasn't needed nor were most of the cameos. Still, despite this big complaint, it's a great film for the entire family--from the kids to even the most demanding adults. A delight from start to finish.

If you don't like the Muppets, then I just have to feel sorry for you. This terrific film doesn't simply cash in on the Muppets' popularity -- it's a well-conceived and well-written film in its own right. It's got great songs, and it has that thread of wistful melancholy that was always present in Jim Henson's creations and which is most personified in the character of Kermit the Frog. I always responded to this as a kid, and it's what makes the Muppets still enjoyable to me as an adult when other material aimed at children drives me crazy.

A huge cast of big names appearing in cameos makes this film feel like a kiddie-sized version of "Around the World in 80 Days," except that it's about 80 times better.

Grade: A "Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?" Kermit poses this relatively simple double interrogative near the beginning of "The Muppet Movie" while singing his signature song, "The Rainbow Connection." As time goes by, the question and the movie only gain profundity.

I'm going to forgo the review of this movie as a children's comedy, but look at it instead as a classic for every generation to love with serious ideals and a heartwarming message that gains more warmth with each passing year.

As the milestones in my own life come creeping up on me, I hear more and more the evocative strains of that elementary ditty, and realize that it can fit the soundtrack to anyone's life, because we all dream. And that is what this movie is about. It's not just a bunch of puppets-- it's a bunch of puppets having the strength to pursue their dreams, which is a good lesson for everyone.

And while the humor and mirth of the film always feel good, they're not a fair judge of the movie. Only "The Rainbow Connection" and the powerful emotions it will realize. And it all fits in: "Rainbow Connection" *is* the Muppet Movie, and vice versa. It's existentialism meets children's entertainment-- there's no simpler way to describe it. The Muppet movie is an instant classic. I remember the opening scene with the bird's eye view of the swamp and Kermit starting into (in my opinion) the most loved song in the history of songs. At this point my mom would always sing along with Kermit.

Watching this title as a young adult it makes me smile. I can still sing along to my heart's desire. Like many Muppet films there are in jokes for adults that are( In my opinion) still funny today. My favorite line of all time is actually from this film, it's the last line spoken by my green, goggle eyed hero Kermit "Life's like a movie , Write your own ending". That's what I intend to do! Thank you Jim Henson. I first saw this movie as a teenager when it came out in theaters, way back when. Seeing it again, nearly 30 years later, I was surprised at how well it has held up. The gags are still funny, the interaction between characters works great, and the cameos come off better than ever. (Steve Martin's has to be the best one.)

My kids (9, 11, and 14) all loved it, and the music is good enough that they are still humming the tunes many days later.

I would suggest that before seeing the movie, you should view at least a half-dozen episodes of the Muppet Show, to get a sense of the back-story behind the characters, otherwise the movie won't make all that much sense. Looking back on Jim Henson's works years after his death is like taking a look back into another time. For unlike most so-called creative types attempting to sell to, or worse yet cynically exploit, children nowadays, Jim never seemed to really forget what it was like to be a child. And if there ever was a moment in which he demonstrated this, Labyrinth aside, it is 1979's Muppet Movie. Filmed as an allegorical story about how Henson came to work in children's television as a puppeteer and ended up with a half-hour show of his own on primetime television, The Muppet Movie ends up an affirmation of everything more progressive, understanding sorts would say to children who did not quite meet the expected norm during the 1980s. And as we enjoy the fruits of an era in which we are gagged and bound from speaking about anything lest someone might get offended, the open celebration of difference or diversity that formed a large part of The Muppet Show is on offer here. I have said it in other comments, but I must say it here. A great light in the world went out the day Jim Henson died.

The Muppet Movie begins with its cast sitting down to see the premiere of what were about to see for the next eighty or so minutes. In short, precise strokes, we are introduced to the major players as well as some of the minors. And when the story proper begins, boy are we given a great song to bring us into the moment. The Rainbow Connection painted both a beautiful and sad image of what the Muppets, especially Kermit, were. These were not just a bunch of felt puppets with singular personalities who combined to put on a show. They were living things based upon a part of all of us, only writ so much more boldly than we are used to. As each Muppet was introduced to us in turn, we saw another reflection of part of ourselves, and of course the children in the audience would respond differently to each character. Hence, everyone had a favourite. When Animal appeared behind a drum kit and attempted to eat a cymbal, I knew I had found one of mine. Nowadays, I am more of a Swedish Chef fan, but what the hey.

Complementing the characters was a string of musical numbers that further developed their motivations and personalities. Can You Picture That? shared an insight into Dr. Teeth and his band as well as the creative soul of Henson. But the most relevant song to me was Gonzo's number, asking what he is and where he came from. Many of us would spend a lifetime gazing into the stars and, like Gonzo, saying we knew we would be going back there someday. Not that all the songs were so deadly serious, of course. Fozzy and Kermit share a number after they decide to combine their talent (or lack thereof) and hit the road. If any evidence were required that present-day "musicians" have lost the ability to use the pop structure to create something listenable, this number would be it. Never before, and never again, would the group dynamic of a cast and the music so perfectly complement one another. With the puppeteers and voice actors so perfectly on top of their game, the human cast had a lot to live up to.

Which makes it all the more amazing that the human element also lived up to their end of the deal. Cameos literally pepper the film, with everyone from Steve Martin to Telly Savalas popping in to offer their support. Even Richard Pryor, the last man one would expect to see in a film about the Muppets, appears to set up a hilarious moment. Mel Brooks' cameo is just as disturbing to me as an adult as it was when I was a small boy, but I suspect that is because Henson knew why I would find it disturbing now. The big acting strength, though, comes from Charles Durning, who as Doc Hopper embodies everything both Henson and his audience determined to resist. At every junction, Hopper comes to either offer Kermit the chance to sell out and betray his own kind. Or perhaps offer stops being the right word when Hopper's attempts to ensure Kermit's compliance become progressively more forceful and violent. The whole thing is one big metaphor for how every artist has his heart broken by the world.

Of course, Animal also shows up to remind us that just because our friends are not sweet and cuddly does not make them any less of a friend. In point of fact, Animal turns out to be the best friend that Kermit has in that moment. And that has been the core message of every good show or film Henson has been involved in ever since. That shunning or dismissing others simply because of linguistic or cosmetic differences could literally be the worst mistake one ever makes. There can be little doubt that in today's world where a moron in a purple suit can tell my sons they are not good if they do not have good feelings for fifteen seasons and still not come under serious investigation by child welfare authorities, Henson's creature workshop could never have got off the ground. To misquote the album title, daring to be stupid is one thing, but enforcing the choice upon others is another matter. The Muppet Movie demonstrates how Henson dared to ask us all to think, both inside and outside of the proverbial box. There will never be another entirely like him, but he never would want us to stop trying.

Therefore, The Muppet Movie is the epitome of a ten out of ten film. If we were to send a film out into the cosmos to prove to intelligent life that we are worth more than being obliterated, this would be it. As Muppet movies go, this is easily and clearly the best. It features loads of cameos by big named comedic stars of the age, a solid script, and some great Disneyesque songs, and blends them together in a culmination of the best display of Henson's talent. The story is basic, and the jokes are many-leveled in order to amuse both the adults and the kids to which this was marketed, without exposing them to ideologies their parents may not find desirable.

This is simply fun, but it is also a well made, well written, beautifully endearing classic.

It rates an 8.9/10 from...

the Fiend :. This is a movie that will brighten up your day, for sure. Kermit the Frog, is just an ordinary frog in his swamp, when a talent agent stops by and tells him that Hollywood is looking for frogs to be in movie (lol). On the way, Kermit meets Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Gonzo and his chicken Camilla, Rowlf, The Electric Mayhem, Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker. But also trailing Kermit is the proprietor of a restaurant chain, Doc Hoppers French Fried Frog Legs. All things considered though, Kermit and the Muppets make it to Hollywood.

This movie is recommended for everyone, young and old.

It has some wonderful musical numbers, like "The Rainbow Connection, "I'm Going to go Back There Someday," and "Movin' Right Along." The Muppets also use many forms of transportation in this movie. Kermit rides a bike, Fozzie drives a Studebaker, and another car, Gonzo takes flight with a bundle of helium balloons, (which is one of my favorite moments by the way ;) ), and Kermit and the rest of the Muppets finally go the rest of the way by the Electric Mayhem's bus (Dr. Teeth, Floyd, Janice, Scooter, and Animal); who meet up with them in the desert after Fozzie's car breaks down.

Even some Sesame Street Muppets make cameo appearances (i.e. Big Bird is walking along on the road, on the way to NYC to break into public television). The end is also a very heartwarming moment. Every single Muppet created is in the final scene, along with a final "Rainbow Connection" reprise.

But those poor Muppets worked so hard on their movie set, then it all comes crashing down, and the camera explodes in a huge ball of sparks. You'd think everything is ruined and destroyed, But the rainbow comes shining through the roof at the end, and it all sums up the magic of this film, and you know everything will be all right.

Perfect 10/10. Watch it, and you'll be enchanted by the fun and sadness of this movie. This wonderful movie captures so many elements of what makes a family comedy funny, entertaining, sweet and memorable, it's difficult to decide where to start.

From the opening number, "Rainbow Connection," Paul Williams's excellent score sung with gusto by Kermit D. Frog, which gives us a prologue of what the whole adventure is about, throughout the story, this is one fun movie.

Essentially, it's a road trip movie, where Kermit travels cross-country with a dream of pursuing a "rich and famous contract" to entertain. Along the way, our green hero meets a series of other aspiring actors, comedians, singers, and musicians, who coincidentally, are muppets like Kermit himself. Is this how the Muppets really started? "Approximately how it happened," Kermit tells us.

Not since "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" has the cameo formula been used so prolifically and successfully. The aspiring stars encounter many recognizable faces during their Odyssey; some just blink across the screen, but others have very memorable cameos. Steve Martin's amusing bit as a rude waiter is probably the best. Puppeteer Jim Henson's nod to his inspiration, Edgar Bergen, is especially touching.

Anyone who ever watched the Muppets TV show will get to see all of their favorite characters, they're all here. The puppetry work is magnificent; look especially for Kermit riding a bicycle (how dey do dat???) In-jokes and references to old movies are everywhere, but the best one-liners are reserved for Kermit himself. An example: when the crooks are terrorizing Kermit and Piggy, she affectionately says to her short, green, and handsome beau, "I wouldn't give up this evening together for anything, would you?" "Uhhh, make me an offer...." I also love the gunfight at the OK Corral scene: brilliantly absurd silliness.

Gotta get "Movin' right along" now, but to summarize: a good natured movie that can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of age or movie genre taste. Highly recommended. First of all, before I start my review, I just read every review for 'The Muppet Movie' here and I can't believe that someone could give a negative review to a movie like this. (Fortunately there was only one.) I mean, I can understand how someone may not like 'Star Wars' due to the whole Sci-Fi genre, but to not like a movie starring some of the most lovable puppets in the history of mankind is almost sad.

Okay, I will step off my soapbox now and review this movie.

'The Muppet Movie' came out when I was seven. All of my friends wanted to see this as their birthday movie, so I think I saw it about four times in the first month in theaters.

As a child many things attracted me to this and all the other Muppet movies & TV shows. The singing was probably the main one. Most of the songs in 'The Muppet Movie' are classics. From "Rainbow Connection" to "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", they're entertaining and thought-provoking.

As an adult I see 'The Muppet Movie' in almost a whole different light. Yes, the things that thrilled me about it as a kid are still there, but it's the little jokes and such that are just plain hilarious.

I mean, when you think about it, Jim Henson is a sick man.

Kermit is a frog and that is in love with a sweet pig that wears purple gloves and could karate chop you into two pieces. Fozzie is a stand-up comedian bear. Gonzo is a 'whatever' that is infatuated with chickens. Then you have two old guys that heckle, a piano-playing dog, a rock band with a maniac drummer, a Swedish chef that you can't understand and a number of other characters that are just plain eccentric.

Yet, for these reasons and more, Henson has entertained millions of children and adults, giving us all something special to watch and remember him by.

'The Muppet Movie' will always remain in my heart for many reasons, but I think the biggest one is because it's a movie, unlike a lot of recent children's movies, that I feel comfortable to have my kids watch. Plus, I don't get bored out of my mind with jokes that are dumbed down to my kids' level.

It's a great movie that is sure to be remembered forever. Quality entertainment all around. The spectacle of Kermit on his bicycle is one thats as memorable as ANY in cinema history. There's just not a bad thing to be said. Tons of muppets, great cameos, slapstick, puns, whatever you want, its here. The lovers, the dreamers, and me INDEED. I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future. This is a pretty obscure, dumb horror movie set in the 1970s Everglades. It is really stupid and lame for the first half, then it actually starts to get good for the last half. There is a scene with the hero running to save his friends interspersed with shots of a church group singing, I don't know. It is mesmerizing. I was impressed with the night time scenes, because it actually looked like night, unlike most low budget horror films where it still looks like daytime. I feel like the director was really talented but was working with a miniscule budget and a tough schedule. There are a few scenes towards the end, the one mentioned above and also the end credits that are extremely cool. This movie could have been a genuine classic if it left its Scooby Doo conventions behind and went straight for the throat. I was surprised at how good this movie turned out to be. I couldn't take my eyes off of it, and I had to ask myself "why?" I'm pleased that this was the work of foreign cinematographers because it can't be accused of unfair bias. With absolutely no cause, the Jacksonville cops rush to judgment in this case and pick the first black suspect to accuse of the murder of a white, foreign tourist. They picked a 15 yr. old kid who is just about as close to a saint as you could randomly find and then make fools of themselves trying to pin an unlikely case against him. In addition to the unfairness resulting from the blatant prejudice there is the matter of 6 months of unjust imprisonment of a completely innocent young black teenager. It makes one question whether as a society we should compensate those who are charged, imprisoned and subsequently found innocent. This docudrama is well produced, professionally recorded and presented in a captivating package from which you won't want to take a 1 minute break. If you care about social justice, don't miss this one. It certainly deserved its Oscar. I absolutely adored this movie. For me, the best reason to see it is how stark a contrast it is from legal dramas like "Boston Legal" or "Ally McBeal" or even "LA Law." This is REALITY. The law is not BS, won in some closing argument or through some ridiculous defense you pull out of your butt, like the "Chewbacca defense" on South Park.) This is a real travesty of justice, the legal system gone horribly wrong, and the work by GOOD lawyers - not the shyster stereotype, who use all of their skills to right it. It will do more for restoring your faith in humanity than any Frank Capra movie or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And most importantly, I wept. During the film, during the featurette included at the end of the DVD - it's amazing. Wonderful film; wonderfully made. Thank God the filmmakers made it. You know, before seeing this film I had little sympathy for those caught up in criminal cases. I mean if they were arrested and charged, "they must have been guilty" I reasoned?

I formed this opinion over some years. You see a good friend of mine once worked as a detective in some of the more seedy areas of Sydney. He frequently complained that his policing efforts were wasted due to 'bleeding heart' lawyers and magistrates. He would "bang the crooks up in the morning and they would be "back on the street by noon". It took its toll... they wore him down. He quit.

He has argued since, not unreasonably I thought, that creative evidence gathering, to keep the baddies "where they belong", was... well... "acceptable".

My arguments about the rights of innocent people weren't valid he claimed. "What are the chances that you will ever be arrested and charged with a serious crime"? he would argue. And, being a law abiding citizen, the weight of his argument convinced me he was right. The chances of me, or any of my family or friends, being charged with murder or a serious offense were zero to none I thought.

Hmmmmm. Well as mentioned earlier, seeing this wonderfully enlightening documentary changed all that.

I'm sending him a copy. I don't need to say much about how good this documentary is--it's truly an amazing piece of true narrative. The story is simple enough: a white senior citizen tourist is murdered by a young black man in Florida, and the boy who is arrested is mistreated and put on trial with only the public defender and his family on his side. It's very enthralling, and the public defender is a joy to watch in all his human ways--you can't help but pull for the triumph of justice, and the ending fulfills more than could be expected of a true story.

It's a shame more people haven't seen this documentary, but hopefully you will find a way to watch it. For those interested in race relations in the United States, and the actual workings of law enforcement and the legal process, it's well worth your time and effort to find this documentary. I give it a 10. I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it. This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10. I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.

But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him"

I have a new respect for some of the law in this country. I watched this movie with my mother. She is 81 yrs.old and was raised to be a bigot. She even acknowledges this. I don't think she really understood what was happening, she had already made up her mind that the kid was guilty. Scary. I felt for this child and his family. What torture they went through and remained faithful. That is true faith. Back to the movie. I was disgusted by the police force and their ineptitude. I am so glad that this public defender was chosen to work this case. It was very fortunate for this family that they had a person that cared enough to see through the crap that was handed to him. I could tell when one the cops was lying. He would not look the defender in the eyes. His eyes moved to the side when he answered the questions. It is unfortunate that a black person has to be punished because of the color of his skin. I read the book about the black man being dragged behind a truck by three white men. They were finally found guilty after many years. I can't remember the title, but it was the same premise. Whites doing whatever they want with blacks. I am sure the child in the movie will be traumatized for a long time, if not forever. I pointed out to my mother that most serial killers and pedophiles are white. No comment from her. I want to commend the director and producer of this film. I feel the exposure they gave to this blatant injustice was a necessary project. I am an avid viewer of indy films. I feel that they are well written and have substance. I am pleased that I happened to grab this movie on the shelf. I felt compelled to write a comment because of how strongly I feel about the film and the prejudice that continues to exist in our modern society. with that, carry the same dark weaknesses we all unfortunately possess: lying, deception, laziness, the list goes on.

However, as an American, I was shocked to see that corruption and racism exist in today's police force as is reflected with the Duval County Sheriff Department's horrible detective and police work with the murder of a white female tourist and a 15-year old accused black youth. I shook my head in shame that detectives were protected from their abusive work while a young man's LIFE hung in the crooked balance of justice.

However, there is also a story of hope with our judicial system and how poorly-paid public defenders stuck by their guns (irony intended) and forced the truth from the detectives. I wanted to fly down to Florida and tell anybody with influence what a great public defender team they have in Duval County; those lawyers care about the "little" man and, most importantly, for justice.

The other story line is about faith and family. Praises to the accused's family and their strong Christian (submit any dedicated religion) beliefs and wonderful family values. I hope they win their lawsuit against the Duval County Sheriff's Department.

Bravo for justice!!! Bravo for the little guy!!! I watched this on HBO because it won the Oscar a week earlier. It compares favorably with fictional courtroom dramas.

The story is of a 15-year-old black kid placed on trial for the Jacksonville, FL, murder of an elderly white woman based almost solely on the identification by the victim's husband and on a confession that the defense contends was coerced.

About half the footage is of the trial; it's supplemented with footage of the defense lawyers (two public defenders) explaining their case, interviewing witnesses, and visiting key locations. This is edited with a minimum of needless repetition, and placed in logical order. The camera work is pretty solid. And there's a mildly surprising epilogue. You think the police are always right.

You believe that "eye-witnesses" are always right.

You believe the prosecutors will not take a case to court if lazy police have failed to perform 98% of a basic investigation.

You believe a U.S. city might have a "few bad apples" in law enforcement, but that the "good cops" will quickly nip those who systematically engage in evil-for-evil's sake in the bud.

You believe that the possibility of an ex-football lineman being instated as a detective solely because his dad is the county sheriff, and being allowed to beat "confessions" out of randomly-selected teenagers with absolutely no fear of negative consequences to himself could happen in the America of the 1930s, but not today.

You believe a judge will NOT send a case to the jury if anyone with a brain in their head can see the defendant is a totally random passer-by nabbed by the police because it was hot, and they did not feel like working that day.

You believe that all the innocent people imprisoned six months here or 20 years there are "exceptions to the rule," and an injustice like this could NEVER involve your family member, someone in the middle class, or someone like YOU.

You think that you are aware of every terrible, indisputable, 100% proved outrage of the last 10 years in America--yet you haven't seen this film. Very good film. Very good documentary.

Very good to see those vermin detectives humiliated and found out as the bigoted, narcissistic, heartless swines their one eyed parents, community and environment raised them as.

I tip my lid to Pat McGuinness. Can we get this decent human being on some kind of 911 commission or investigation? We need his integrity, endurance, intelligence, clarity and spirit fighting the rigged game that is world politics and big business.

All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. Pat McGuinness should be the first drops of that real rain. The people who control this earth are animals. They need to be drowned.

I'm just in shock. Walking the night is scary business. The inhuman howling and cackling is of detectives, in Murder On A Sunday Morning. In Pat McGuinness' blazing spotlight, they look horribly caught, horribly guilty, and ready for a just and horrible drowning.

It is exceptionally satisfying, in a world in which the punters play a rigged game, to see justice done and to see every narcissistic felon drown like the pathetic human rats they are.

How does it feel you railroading, abominable, snaky fingers of the law? How does it feel to have your rigged prosecution, your rigged confession, your rigged detective work found out for what it really was? How does it feel?

I hope it twists like a knife you miserable, one eyed nothings. Anyone that is looking for an episode of "Law and Order" or "CSI" would have to look elsewhere as the most basic elements of police or forensics work were totally ignored in this case.

A murder took place, and all the police did was to grab a 15-year-old boy off the street and take him to the only witness - a 65-year-old man - and say is this the guy who did it? Sure, the old man thought that the kid in the back of the police car had to be guilty. never mind that he looked nothing like the real killer and was dressed completely differently. He must have shrunk, reversed his age by 5-10 years and changed clothes.

The police made absolutely no effort - and they admitted it! The did no forensics on any of the evidence, they questioned no other witnesses, and they beat a confession out of a 15-year-old.

The saddest thing about this compelling look at the criminal justice system is that it occurred right down the road in Jacksonville, Florida. Let everyone now start talking about "Southern justice." Art imitates life imitates art. Atticus Finch is reincarnated into the D.A. in this tragic and suspenseful gripping documentary that plays more like a who-done-it and how did it happen. The authenticity and sometimes reluctant honesty of the individuals make this a compelling story in many layers. Although racism is one of the themes there are other elements such as work ethic, integrity, and coping with grief that have drawn me back to view and review this film again and again. The music is driving but not obtrusive; the pacing and visuals are such that there is no mistaking the fact that these are real people going through an authentic experience. This is an extraordinary film. As a courtroom drama, it's compelling, as an indictment on the American justice system, it's frightening. For Brenton Butler the consequences of this system could be devastating. This film highlights the fundamental flaws of the legal process, that it's not about discovering guilt or innocence, but rather, is about who presents better in court. In truth, the implications of this case reach beyond the possibility of an innocent man being found guilty, or a guilty man being free. Every citizen has a right to justice, whether a perpetrator or a victim. But do they get it? The film is well paced, understated and one of the best courtroom documentaries I've seen. I saw this movie last night on HBO & didn't expect to get hooked - I usually fall asleep when I watch HBO. But it happened & you will too. It's a tragic documentary (2002 Oscar winner) about a murder of an elderly female tourist in Jacksonville, Florida and subsequent investigation, arrest, & trial of a 15 year old boy.

Watch this movie today & get a feel for how we have progressed as a society. This film was most deserving of an esteemed Oscar - you'll be moved to tears. A MUST SEE documentary.-----This movie had so many things to consider while watching it. It was a great documentary of a trial of a 15 year old black kid named Brenton Butler. He accused of killing a white tourist in Florida. It shows how the police took statements from the husband of the dead woman of the description of the man that killed his wife. The husband seemed to want to change some things to merge with what the police said the young man was wearing. The police little to investigate the crime. Brenton's lawyer Patrick McGuinness is meticulous in getting information to help his client. He tells the viewers what he thinks and the strategy he will use on the police to show their incomplete investigation and beatings against his young client to get him to confess. The camera goes with McGuinness to where Brenton was questioned. McGuinness also takes pictures of the room and how the audio is monitored. He questions a policeman on the stand and ask what the heard Brenton say to one of the investigators and he challenges their own words. McGuinness investigates with Ann Finnell each place the police should have gone and the things they should have done but did not. The movie shows the Butlers as a loving Christian family who have faith in their son's innocence and faith that God will set Brenton free. They visit him in jail and pray with him there to encourage him. There are scenes of group prayer for Brenton, the lawyers, the Judge and everyone involved in this case. I am a white and I was surprised to see how blacks in high police positions treat other blacks. It was very disappointing to see black and white police stick together when they think they got their man. Police have a hard job and I believe most of them are honorable not like the ones in this movie. I think this is a great movie for anyone involved in the Judicial system including Judges, police and lawyers and even potential jurors to watch this movie and learn from it. Wayne Wang's direction may be the ingredient which made this film much more impressive to me than "Slums of Beverly Hills", which covers remarkably similar ground. The interplay between Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman is riveting. Real chemistry there. This film succeeded in bringing me inside the dysfunctional life of these two women without dragging me down into depressed frustration. Susan Sarandon's character hammers at all the nerves which a narcissistic parent is capable of touching in an insecure adolescent. She amazingly manages to do this without coming across as floridly insane or intentionally sadistic. And, Natalie Portman deflects each attack on her character's ego with the resigned grace of an intelligent codependent child, untainted by the smug cynicism of the Natasha Lyonne character in "Slums of Beverly Hills". Portman's character is an adolescent with dignity under stress, an unusual creature in modern films. The film reaches a very satisfying resolution without trying too hard. I highly recommend this film to the viewer who wants to be challenged and entertained. Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman play Adele and Ann August, a single mother who's the working definition of the word "dreamer" and her solemn, pragmatic daughter. Adele, wanting to make a fresh start in a big city, moves them from Wisconsin to California.

Decent, if not exceptional or particularly memorable, with some serious and sad moments. It pushes some emotional buttons, that's for sure. Best thing it offers is a solid cast, and Sarandon and Portman are quite good in the leads - even if their characters are one-dimensional at times.

Could be better, could be worse.

I gave this one seven out of ten. This film was a new direction for Natalie Portman. A much more adult role, though she comes to it from the traces of a child in the movie itself. Ann,(Portman) and Susan Sarandon, who plays her newly divorced mother, Adele, travel from a small town in the middle of nowhere to Beverly Hills. There these tortured souls try to come to terms with their new life and their new relationship as Portman's character grows up. Unknowingly at first to Adele, she grows up and becomes a better mother for it.

Ann sees her mother telling her she wants to be an actress, or so she thinks. Adele uses that crutch every time there are problems in their lives. We see their struggle as mother and daughter come to terms between themselves and with being alone, having left their old lives behind.

The acting is top notch from both of them. They seemingly become mother and daughter before your eyes. You can almost feel there is a bond there beyond the actual movie.

Though this movie really doesn't take us to any new ground in these types of films, the fact that the acting is well done, and the story isn't too flawed, let's me recommend it.

I will say however, it will probably go away soon, I don't believe it can have the staying power needed for a huge Christmas season of movies starting in a week or so. See it now before this happens if you like either of these actresses. Well, I have not much to say about this film except that it was a truly wonderful film. Natalie Portman is absolutely fantastic as the daughter in this lovely mother-daughter relationship film.

Beautiful film. The interaction between Portman and Sarandon was quite interesting, and I was really sold on the mother-daughter relationship. It is a family story that isn't dulled down by frills and special effects; a story of how it really is. I couldn't help but give of a sigh at the end of this movie for alas it is a well told bittersweet tale of growing up and relating with family and friends. The acting was quite exquisite and I hope we'll be seeing both Portman and Sarandon in familiar roles down the road... Being a freshman in college, this movie reminded me of my relationship with my mom. Of course, my situation doesn't parrallel with Natalie Portman and Surandon's situation; but my mom and I have grown up with the typical mother and daughter fights. There is always the mother telling you what to do, or not being the kind of mother you want to be. I was balling my eyes at the end of this movie. Surandon's reaction of her daughter going to the East coast, miles away, after all they've been through reminded me of how I felt, being from a small city in the West coast, going to New York.

The movie is meant for women who have children that are now all grown up. It is very touching, I was moved by the movie. Every feeling out of the characters in this movie was utterly real, you didn't get any phony sentimentality. I was sitting through the credits at the screening of this movie, alone, wishing my mother was sitting next to me so I could hug her and thank her for everything. This movie is a bit corny of course, but everything is trully momentous. Its all about what a mom can learn from her child; and what a child learns from her mother. 8/10 Natile Portman and Susan Sarandon play off of each other like a symphony in this coming of age story about a young girl, who is sentenced to life as the daughter of one of the nuttest women you will ever encounter. Sarandon has this ability, call it talent if you will, to play some of the most off-beat characters and bring their humanity to forefront of any film she makes. As the mother of this obviously brilliant and muture beyond her years young girl, Sarandon alternates between being the mom and being the child with the ease of a ballet dancer. More importantly she does it with strength and flare without stomping all over Portman's portrayal of the daughter. The question is always asked when we deconstruct the film plot, who changes? This film is certainly about the daughter, but if you look close at the dreams and sacrifices that Mom makes you come to understand that she changes in step with her daughter. I am willing to bet this makes all of us in the audience change also. The hallmark of fine drama My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.

Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight. I was able to see "Anywhere But Here" last night as a free sneak preview. I absolutely LOVED the film! I was drawn to it because of the realistic portrayal of a mother/daughter relationship...there was definitely a connection between Adele a and Ann. I think that speaks volumes of the outstanding performances of both Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman. Sarandon was just the right actress to portray Adele and after leaving the theater I could not think of another actress in the role. Portman was also excellent as Ann. She brought a sense of maturity and intelligence to the role that I don't think any other teenage actress could. I think it would the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should give credit where it is due and nominate both Sarandon and Portman for Awards in the "Actress" and "Supporting Actress" categories. It would be a shame if they were overlooked. Anne (Natalie Portman) tells us about how much she hates her mother, Adele (Susane Sarandon). That's how the movie begins. Adele decided that her and her daughter were moving to California without asking anyone and leaving her husband without any reason. The story is about the relationship between the mother and the daughter. It's really deep and touching, thanks to the great work of the actresses. Natalie was nominated to a Golden Globe for that role. She is one of the most talented actresses I ever saw, and so is Sarandon. They really look like mother daughter. The soundtrack is also great. The movie is incredible. *10 out of 10* The main attraction of Anywhere but Here is the superb performance of Natalie Portman. She gave her rather thankless character a lot of much-appreciated emotional depth. Susan Sarandon, a fine actress, is suitably sincere as the mother figure. I thought the chemistry between the two stars was believable, a chemistry that could have been developed more with a more involving script. I am not saying the script was bad in any way, I am just saying it seemed underdeveloped at times. I don't think it was the script writer's fault. The film did suffer from being overlong, and became sometimes unfocused in the longer scenes. The film does look beautiful, with some good direction and excellent performances. All in all, watchable certainly, but maybe more for an older audience. 7/10 Bethany Cox. This film is about a single mother who is happy go lucky to the point that she is almost irresponsible, and her sensible teenage daughter who is undergoing adolescent turmoils.

"Anywhere But Here" is an engaging film from beginning to the end. Both Ann and Adele are described well right at the start, so we get to know how different their personalities are. Clashes inevitably ensue, and they are engagingly presented. I find myself so drawn to their state of minds and their circumstances. it is as if I am living their lives, feeling what they are feeling.

Susan Sarandon gives another excellent performance in "Anywhere But Here". She is charismatic, happy go lucky, hedonistic, warm and loving all at once. I have always liked Susan Sarandon, and I think she is grossly underrated.

"Anywhere But Here" is a captivating emotional journey. I thought Anywhere But Here was a good movie.It stars two wonderful actresses, Susan Sarandon and Natlie Portman, which when I heard they were in a movie together I resist watching it.Overall, it was a pretty enjoyable movie.It had it's moments where I felt as if they tried to hard, and there was also some really overdone and worn-out material, but there wasn't anything in the movie that I absolutely hated.I even liked how they used the pop-up performance of the uncredited Thora Birch, and all the little happy/sad moments are touching and effective.If you want to watch this movie, go ahead, because even though I don't recommend it, it's not something you should avoid, and a 5.9 rating seems unfair in my opinion. Regarded as another one of the recent over-the-top drama's brought upon us by Hollywood, this movie excels where others have totally failed(especially considering the most underrated performance in recent dramatic character portrayal by that of Natalie Portman), this film is almost unanimously driven by the chemistry that both Susan and Natalie share. They seem to be so natural during the movie that you would mistake them for a real family. They go through so many mother-daughter conflicts in the story its kind of hard not to pick up on their acting abilities. I feel that these two actress' talented performances picked up where the story was lacking and almost too familiar (full of cliche's) and really saved the suffering plot. I would recommend this movie mainly to those who like either of the two actresses or such over-the-top drama's. Chick Flick? Of course.... Been done before? Many times.... Predictable? Yes..... Worth watching? You bet! I was delighted with Sarandon and Portman's portrayals of otherwise stock characters in a familiar story line. I am a great fan of mother/daughter stories. What makes the difference between the good ones and the weak ones ARE the performances and the character development. Although this is not the BEST of its genre, I will buy it and watch it again. I felt the characters were believable and the acting was superior. Anywhere But Here is not exactly anything new, but the excellent performances by both of the main actresses made it worth watching. Sarandon and Portman are a mother and daughter who move from rural Wisconsin to sunny Beverly Hills, California, in search of a better life. The main conflict comes from the fact that Natalie would much rather have stayed in Wisconsin with all of her friends and family, and she felt that she was forced to go to California with her overbearing mother.

(spoilers) While it's true that the film as a whole is disappointingly predictable, Susan Sarandon and especially Natalie Portman give performances that are so good that they almost make the material seem new. Anywhere But Here doesn't cover any new ground, but it does have the rare quality of being able to take overused subject matter and make it fairly interesting again. Also seen in this movie is the most heartbreaking facial expression seen in years, seen on Natalie Portman's face when her mother drops her off on the side of the road and she watches the car fade into the distance. Particularly noteworthy is the ironic subplot about Natalie's mother pressing her to become an actress, as well as a very convincing performance from Shawn Hatosy as one of Natalie's very close cousins from back home. His death is a tragic cliché almost always seen in movies like this one, but the rest of the film makes up for numerous weaknesses like this. Not great, but Anywhere But Here is definitely worth a look. I was impressed with this film because of the quality of the acting and the powerful message in the script. Susan Sarandon plays the part of a flighty, irrational and possessive mother, who constantly gives her daughter the message that they must stick together. She removes her daughter from a dysfunctional but loving family in Indiana to pursue an exciting acting career in Hollywood. The daughter is dubious, but at first she has no choice--- the bond with mother is pathologically strong.

In time the girl sees that the mother is off into flights of fantasy and does not have her feet on the ground. She sees her mother go head over heels for a handsome, seductive guy who loves 'em and leaves 'em. She sees that the mother doesn't get it. So how can she look to her mother for guidance?

The mother directs the girl to a drama try-out and sees the daughter act out the part of the mother in such a way that a shockingly painful mirror is held up to the fly-by-night mother. This causes a period of depression and the girl is horrified at the impact on the mother and is apologetic, but the lesson takes hold.

There is character-growth as the mother realizes her selfish claim on the daughter and eventually is persuaded to let the girl go. It is a touching scene and a valuable lesson, that parents, however emotionally dependent, have to let the child go and become her own separate person. I was laying in bed, flicking through the channels... and boy do I have channels... 500 of them. With over 70 movie channels, I probably watch a movie on cable, once or twice a month... DVD has spolied me.

Anyway, I'm flicking through and I come to this movie and because I see Natilie Portman, I take interest. 110 minutes later I am still interested. How could this be? When I first saw the previews to this movie in the theater I remember making fun of it. I never thought I'd watch it... nevermind like it.

The story is based on a book, and you can tell. The movie is very episodic, andit's not like the movie has a great plot, it just sucks you in. May-be its that performances that do it. I'm pretty sure in must have been.

This movie was good for no reason...

Peter's Movie Rating (out of 10): 7 it´s a movie to see on tv and only once.. i mean, it´s good, but it´s a little too lengthy and the plot is so well-known, it isn´t very original but it isn´t boring. the best thing of the movie are the performances, natalie portman and susan sarandon are great actress and in this movie they have done a great job. i give it a 7. Susan Sarandon. She made this movie for me. I've never appreciated her acting more than as I did in this movie. She really acted as though she were Adele August. I can appreciate actors and actresses who leave their individual persona and create a character who's truly believable.

Natalie Portman as Ann August helped create the ideal antagonist as their characters developed through the movie. The movie was about them so the other characters were peripheral.

I gave this movie an eight rating, but Susan received a ten from me because of her performance. As far as relationship movies go, Beaches and Terms of Endearment had a greater impact on me than this movie, but I highly recommend it. Most families will recognise similarities between their own family and that created through brilliant acting by Natalie Portman and Susan Sarandon. Natalie creates an on screen image that justifies her as one of the best actresses in America and one worthy of a Golden Globe Nomination. The control of her emotions are so in tact that at any point in the movie she can tap into them and release an unforgettable scene. Susan is also amazing in this movie as yet again she chose a role that is so different to any other and carries it through with true professionalism.

Any Natalie fan would've seen the film based on her past successes, but you should also see it for the emotions that are released during the film. It is a truly humbling experience. Since I am a fan of Natalie Portman, I had to see the movie. I enjoyed every minute of it. It plays out in a very sincere way. Throughout the whole movie at seemed as if Natalie was the mother and Susan was the mother. Susan's character kept making bad decisions and kept getting burned because of it.

I heard that there was supposed to be a love scene involving Natalie and some-guy (he's in Outside Providence) but Natalie would only accept the script if that scene was removed. And I think that is great. I think that a love scene would have ruined the tone of the film.

Natalie must have a knack for picking good movies to be in because I haven't seen her in a bad film yet. So, any movie that has Natalie Portman will no doubt be seen by me.

A good film. 7/10 Its the best movie I have seen in 2000, it has the beautiful and talented Natalie Portman in it. It has a great storyline, cast and soundtrack. I enjoyed it very much. 10 out of 10 Being 15 myself I enjoyed this flick thouroughly!! I related to the character Ann August more than most would. My Mother isnt AS eccentric as Adele, but the feelings of lonliness is the same. This movie is perfect in the ating aspects, and Natalie's, and Susan's performances are so linked together that it's the best onscreen dual i have seen in years. Their chemistry brings the characters to life, they become real people! I would recommend this flick to anyone who is hoping to get away. Because there is genually alot of people out there who would wish to be "Anywhere But Here" including me! and if you can, see this movie with your best friend or your mother. Its the tears that blend everyone around you together more!! Adam Sandler's movies are my favorite comedies. The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite horror movie. The Matrix is my favorite sci-fi movie. Anywhere But Here is my favorite drama.

Perhaps the single most valuable asset that this movie has is it's acting.

Susan Sarandon is absolutely amazing. By the end of this movie I felt as if I knew her character better than I knew myself. She did a simply amazing job.

Natalie Portman also did a great job. I recently rented her first movie, Leon (1994), in which she played a 12 year old girl. I believe that she is a contradiction in terms; she was a good kid actress. Well, 5 years later she is still just as good an actress. In fact, she's much better.

Not only did Sarandon and Portman portray their characters well, but they also worked perfectly together. I mean, even now I can hardly believe that they are not actually mother and daughter in real life as well as in this movie.

This movie is about a 14 year old girl (Portman) and her restless mother (Sarandon) that leave their home town in Wisconsin for Beverly Hills.

At first Portman hates her mother for taking her away from her cousin and friends, and the two begin a very tumultuous relationship that goes up and down over the course of a couple years (usually down, might I add).

Although this explanation is a little vague, the plot can only be summarized vaguely. But when you see this movie you will see that the plot really is not so vague or weak, for it is actually very deep. What I am saying is that the plot is outlined weakly, but then they focus in on it to make it strong.

And it is very strong, but also the plot sequencing is great. And there are a few brilliant scenes that I hope will someday be seen as "classic".

I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried. And although, admittedly, there are a few loopholes, it's still a stellar movie and it really comes together in the end. I'm sorry, but "Star Wars Episode 1" did not do any justice to Natalie Portman's talent (and undeniable cuteness). She was entirely underused as Queen Amidala, and when she was used, her makeup was frighteningly terrible. For "Anywhere But Here," she sheds her god-awful makeup and she acts normally. And not only can she act good, she looks good doing it. I'm a bit older than she (she's only 18), and I have little or no chance of meeting her, but hey, a guy is allowed to dream, right?

Even though Susan Sarandon does take a good turn in this movie, the film belongs entirely to Portman. I've been a watcher of Portman's since "Beautiful Girls" (where she was younger, but just as cute). There's big things for her in the future - I can see it. I just came back from seeing this awesome movie!! I can relate to it so much...It reminded me when my sister had to go to college, we had to move from place to place, and my mom acts like Adele August! Boys might not like this movie since it brings tears to your eyes. One of the best real-life movies I've ever seen!! and Natalie Portman rules!! 10/10 I just saw this movie tonight. Coming into it I thought it would be good because I like Natalie Portman alot and Susan Sarandon is a great actor too, but it was way better than I could have imagined. You come out of the movie feeling great. The acting was excellent, which is something that can be hard to come by lately. Natalie Portman is destined for great things and me being a college student at NYU, think that it is great that she is going to school instead of just being an actor. Anyways, back on subject, the movie keeps you interested the entire way through and I definitely think that everyone should go see it. I would give more details, but I don't want to give away the movie. I absolutely LOVED this movie! Since I don't want to give much away, it's basically about about a mother and a daughter and the life they have together. It's very heartwarming story, between the struggles they have. I also think Natalie and Susan have perfect chemistry throughout the entire film! This is definitely worth seeing! Two thumbs up, way up! Being a fan of Saint Etienne and the City of London, I was very excited to see this movie on the list of the Vancouver International Film Festival. This movie has great shots, an absolutely excellent soundtrack and interesting insights into a 'not so well known' London.

The movie is held completely in 'dark' colours, which I personally don't like too much. Furthermore the narration was a little too British and the comments sometimes got a little flat. Other than that, there are some great comments by Londoners and excellent shots. FINISTERRE doesn't glorify London by showing all the great attractions of the city, but rather gives deep insights in what London is really like. From the East end to the vibrant centre with its music scene as well as the 'special little retreats' for Londoners.

All in all:

+Great Soundtrack +Nice shots +great insights

-Narration -Tiering to watch at times -Very dark picture

Worth watching! I give it a 7/10 This movie is about London and it's an amazing movie. it will be released on DVD in april 2003 and I will buy it when it gets out so If you have not seen it until then BUY IT. The music in the movie is even better (saint etienne) have done the soundtrack. Never, ever, have I been as impressed by a film as this little piece about four groups of people, that faces a crisis, or many. In some ways a little like Short Cuts, but totally different, at the same time.

There are a heap of lead characters, whom we all learn to know very well as their stories unfold, and they are, as persons show their good and their bad sides, their weaknesses and their strengths, with lots of drama and laughter.

The closest equivalent in a US movie, I can think of, which then is far weaker in every respect, is the Royal Tenenbaums.

Four Shades of Brown, as the title would be in English, tells the story about a stressed out hotelier and his wife, and his elderly parents (who are traveling magicians); about the receptionist at an animal crematory and his family misadventures; about the members of a cooking course (who mostly talk about their sorry lives) and fourthly about the funeral for a womanizing trotter jockey, who tries to continue orchestrating the family from beyond the grave, by singing and appearing in 3D during the funeral, thanks to high tech equipment that has cost his entire fortune (the family gets nil, not even the famous horse is given to the family)!

There is a warmth and compassion in this film, that is filled with grief and laughter, that I've never experienced before.

Most actors were new to me, except Robert Gustafsson and one or two more, but they all deserve the big slam the film took at the Swedish Guldbagge extravaganza (= the Swedish "Oscar" Awards) a week ago!

Male, female and male supporting actor prizes went to this film, plus a few more, to boot!

If you have the chance, go and see it - the hours float by very quickly! I didn't know what to expect from this hugely popular (and hilarious) Swedish comedy & satire team, as they released their first feature film. More broad satire? Well, we do get four contemporary, exceptionally memorable tales of family pains, generation gaps and fatherhood, in particular. But it's drama, thankfully, and what drama! Epic in its scope, as each episode is from carefully picked, geographically different parts of Sweden. But each story could seriously carry a whole movie, if expanded separately.

It's dark, twisted, harrowing, yet massively entertaining and breathtakingly executed. Script, acting and cinematography are absolute world class, as three hours seem to get by in a blink! It's four shades of mastery, and easily one of the best films in the nations' cinema history. It's Sweden's answer to "Short cuts" or "Magnolia", if you like, and instantly on par with those!

9 out of 10 from Ozjeppe This movie must be exported to the rest of the world! An absolute masterpiece, with a both bizarre and grim film about four different stories from four different locations in Sweden. The one with the newly renovated hotel with the improper wooden figure of an old finance minister is absolutely the best of the four, odd story about love or career. I would love to see all four as a film on their own they can be so much more extended.

Also the unique pause in the middle is something I've never seen before.

Can't wait for the series (if they're doing one) or the extended DVD. Apparently they had cut out a lot to fit it in to just 3,5 hours. During the making of this movie I once caught a statement on television about it. Something like: "Is Killinggänget now taking off Nazism?"

So, my comprehension of this movie, was from the beginning to get a notion of Nazism. When recently seeing this movie in the TV-version I had this filter before me and it wasn't difficult to see this.

Strangely enough I haven't met this way of interpreting the film ever since I first heard it.

These are the things I found in "Four shades of brown". In all four of the stories the lack of empathy leads to disaster:

1. The crematory-worker shows no realistic empathy to the dead animals or to those who had to say goodbye to them. In the crematory-room in dealing with death and fire it's almost like a cheerful game to him. The seriousness of death and fire is not emphasized by the father and his boy accordingly, in ignorance pushes a button that leads to the disaster that injures his father severely.

Possible lesson: The importance of showing the young adequate emotions. When they grow up they need to know what behavior leads to disaster and what emotions lead to good.

2.The magician maneuvers his wife like an invisible puppeteer. Just when she thinks she has begun to cut off the strings to the masters hand, reaching for personality, integrity and joy, he pulls hard and she is back in desolation and despair.

Their son has tried to revolt in creating his own life with perfection and "good" taste in opposite to his parents "bad" taste. The real problem he is carrying within is far from comprehensible to him: His fathers behavior passes on when suffocating his own wife in his spotless environment.

Possible lesson: Oppression breeds bondage.

3.The father who was abused as a child passes on sadism to his children when he cheats them on their inheritance. He robs them of their childhood and in the end even of their inheritance.

Possible lesson: When no love given you cannot give any.

4.The fathers abuse of his daughter creates in her a ruthless revenger with sadistic aggression. Here the ice cold Nazi-sadism becomes very obvious in physical violence. It gives a possible background and a somewhat plausible explanation to the actions of young "scin-head"-nazists behavior when oppressing others.

Possible lesson? : Can Nazism take birth in a pervert home?

Can the hideous consequence of ignoring empathy in family life, in the long run, be that room is given to sadistic Nazism ?

Very seldom does a movie contains so much. It reveals little by little as I meditate on it. I consider it brilliantly "painted" and the actors are superb. Especially the nice-seeming bloke played by Ulf Brunnberg that turns out to be the worst of all.. I like seeing Linda Blair playing in an actual "horror" movie again. I had been disappointed with her in most everything since the "Exorcist "movies (Which i loved). What was up with all of those nasty "B-movies" she did?

David Hassellhoff on the other hand, all i could do is laugh. He is not cut out to be a horror movie actor. David needs to stick to "Knight Rider" or "Baywatch".

All around, this is an awesome movie. Even for the eighties, this was an awesome film. It has horror, action, and drama. It is a suspenseful, and I loved the way Linda Blair turned out. Witchery, or Witchcraft as it's commonly known in Europe, beings with Jane Brooks (Linda Blair) waking up from a nightmare involving a witch. Jane's Mother & Father Rose (Annie Ross) & Freddie (Robert Champagne) are interested in buying an old deserted hotel on an island about 50 miles from Boston, renovating it & reopening it. Together with Jane & their young son Tommy (Michael Manchester) Rose & Freddie are planning to travel to the island with an architect named Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland) to check on the amount of work that needs doing, they also meet up with the estate agent Jerry Giordano (Rick Farnsworth) & hire a local fisherman named Sam (George Stevens) to take them to the island. Once there they enter the hotel & begin to inspect the property while back on the boat Sam is killed & the boat is let loose to sail off into the distance. They discover two unexpected guests in the shape of a photographer named Gary (David Hasselhoff) & his virgin fiancé Leslie (Leslie Cumming) who happens to be researching a book that she is writing about the gruesome legends & superstitions surrounding the infamous island & hotel. As the night draws on a raging storm outside isolates them from the mainland as a mysterious 'lady in black' (Hildegard Knef) keeps popping up as the ancient evil that resides in the hotel seeks fresh victims for demonic possession, human sacrifice & Satanic rites...

The director of this American Italian co-produced film is somewhat shrouded in mystery as the IMDb lists Fabrizio Laurenti as Martin Newlin but there are rumours that Joe D'Amato did the honours, either way to be honest despite it's bad reputation I found Witchery quite entertaining in a so-bad-it's-good cheesy sort of way. The script credited to Harry Spalding & Daniele Stroppa on the IMDb again is confusing too as the actual credit on the film itself is Daniel Davis, anyway whoever wrote this thing did a decent job, please stop laughing. At heart it's a haunted house horror but adds some gory deaths & a surreal feeling to everything. The different sets of characters have reasonable motives & didn't get on my nerves as much as I'd thought they might, it's not plotted very well, it doesn't make a whole a lot of sense & the dialogue isn't exactly top drawer stuff but as a whole Witchery entertained me for it's 95 odd minute duration plain & simple. It's reasonably well paced, a little slow to get going maybe but there are plenty of surreal, bizarre goings-on & gruesome deaths to keep one amused. One part of Witchery which destroys some of it's credibility is this so-called storm, there is no storm in sight & the sea is probably calm enough to swim in, Witchery's supposed 'twist' ending didn't really work for me either & just check out the dumb expression on Cummings face on that final freeze-frame. The hotel provides for a good isolated location & adds a certain atmosphere to the film which has the distinctive indefinable 'horror' feel throughout, cheap horror at that. Technically Witchery is not too bad at all, it was obviously shot on location so it looks good throughout & while not exactly the pinnacle of film-making finesse it's overall production values are slightly better than expected. The violence & gore is of typical Euro explicitness, a woman has her lips sewn shut & hung inside a fireplace so she can't scream as the others light it, someone is crucified & then burned alive, impaled on a swordfish, someones veins expand & pop & a woman is raped by a man with no lips. Witchery was shot in English so there is no dubbing, as far as acting goes David Hasselhoff & Linda Blair in the same film what more can I say?! Yes ladies Hasselhoff does take his shirt off & for the lads Cummings takes hers off. Both Hasselhoff & Blair are a hoot to watch in this thing, however the little kid is very annoying & really can't act at all. I sure most sane film-goers will disagree with my opinions but I still stand by the fact that I liked it & would happily watch it again, Witchery is pretty good fun & definitely worth a watch if your into 'bad' films or your a horror fan in general. Linda Blair has been acting for forty years now, and while she will never escape the part of Regan MacNeil in "The Exorcist", few of her subsequent horror films have used her legendary status to such great effect as "Witchery" does. She plays Jane Brooks, a pregnant single woman who travels with her family to an abandoned island hotel that her parents want to purchase. They are accompanied by a couple of real estate agents (Catherine Hickland and Rick Farnsworth) and upon arriving at the island they meet a photographer (David Hasselhoff) and his writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming) who are illegally squatting in the hotel while investigating the legend of a local witch (Hildegard Knef). It seems that a long-ago witch-hunt resulted in her suicide, and she was with child at the time. Unaware of the danger, Jane has recently dreamt of the witch's dramatic death, and Jane's little brother Tommy (Michael Manchester) has been more directly visited by her spooky, black-clad spirit, which he calls 'the lady in black'. The group's time at the island inn begins quietly enough; unknown to them, however, the Lady in Black has already dispatched the captain of their hired boat (George Stevens). Before long, the isolation and cold begin to affect everyone, and it is during this period of moodiness and tension that the Lady in Black begins her reign of terror. She plans to avenge her own fate by possessing Jane and sacrificing her companions and her unborn child. Each of her other victims fulfills an aspect of her vengeful curse - greed, lust, and the blood of a virgin. As the sun goes down and the sea becomes wild, she haunts them one by one in gruesome, horrifying ways. The island location is effectively scary, and the inn is very creepy and hauntingly shot. It's such a colorful film that it reminds me of Dario Argento's work. The lighting is excellent, and the set decoration is perfectly spooky. The soundtrack is very effective and unique. The horror effects are extreme, terrifying, and unforgettable. The cinematography is great, and it is this that brings us back to Linda Blair. The creative team behind this film shoots her like a horror star should be shot: lots of dramatic push-ins, lingering close-ups that subtly detail Jane's incremental possession, and moments that are reminiscent of other great horror films. There are hidden homages to "Rosemary's Baby", "Jacob's Ladder", "The Shining", "Black Sunday", and of course "The Exorcist". She does a great job, and absolutely steals the show with her moody and understated performance. That isn't to say that the rest of the cast disappoints; Catherine Hickland is sexy and very good, and veteran performer Annie Ross is memorable as Jane's bitchy mother Rose. Hasselhoff gives it his best, but he is not essentially a film star, and his television persona gets in the way of his performance. Blair and young Michael Manchester have a wonderful chemistry together. The film is otherwise so violent and creepy (in a good way) that it desperately needs their warmth (Blair also played a mother in 2003's "Monster Makers", and her maternal scenes in that film have the same tender feeling to them). Lastly, Hildegard Knef (in one of her last roles) plays a great witch, and she has the most amazing voice and accent. Along with Blair, she was also perfectly cast. But it's Blair's movie all the way. Jane Brooks also seems to have some psychic ability, and this aspect of the film hearkens back to "Exorcist II: The Heretic". I think "Witchery" is up there with "The Exorcist", "Exorcist II", "Hell Night", and "Summer of Fear" as Blair's best genre work to date. "Witchery" is a decent little Euro-Trash horror yarn! David Hasselhoff is pretty damn funny in this one and sadly, he's one of the better actors. Linda Blair is downright terrible and the lady who plays Hoff's wife...she is hilariously bad! The plot of this film is ridiculous too. It's got some holes, which you can't help but notice, but it remains entertaining throughout.

The gore in "Witchery" is freaking outstanding. I loved the part where the old bag gets "sucked" into the trash chute and ends up in the chimney to roast! And the part where the lady "gets taken advantage of" by the Devil was pretty damned disturbing. I'd say this one is a must for gorehounds.

If you're looking for an overproduced, well-acted flick, look elsewhere. But if you like old-school style Italian sleaze and over the top gore, "Witchery" belongs on your shelf.

I'm surprised by the low rating on here! What were you people expecting, "The Exorcist?" 7 out of 10, kids. *Please note: (The below text is taken from the Irish DVD Release). Some of this summary MAY be wrong:

Edge-of-your-seat chiller, in which The Legacy of an ancient Witch and her bloodthirsty coven causes a deserted island hotel to become the embodiment of evil two Centuries later.

When an inquisitive photographer (David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, Knight Rider) and his virginal fiancée (Linda Blair, The Exorcist) creep onto the island to research its gruesome history, they are joined by an unwit- ting estate agent and his prospective buyers.

Gradually the group find themselves falling victim to the ancient evil that lives on in the mysterious old woman who roams the hotel, seeking fresh victims for Satanic rites, human sacrifice and demon- ic possession...

Check in at the Witchcraft hotel... we hope you enjoy your SLAY!

Additional Info. on the movies contents:

Violence: Some gruesome, sexual violence - VERY STRONG!

Sex and/or nudity: Some strong, as well as innuendo.

Bad language: Some, strong.

Other: Some drug use and references. I must confess that I've been a huge fan of the almighty David "the Hoff" Hasselhoff ever since he starred in the hit 80's TV series "Knight Rider." Whether it's his extraordinary debut as a libidinous high school basketball player in the hilariously raunchy "Revenge of the Cheerleaders" or his brilliant portrayal of a dashing prince in the schlocky sci-fi gem "Starcrash," the Hoff has proved time and time again that he's a simply terrific (and shamefully underrated) actor supreme. The Hoff excels here as Gary, a cynical and skeptical photographer who along with his repressed virginal writer girlfriend Leslie (attractive brunette Leslie Cummings) investigates a seedy dilapidated haunted hotel located on a remote island off the coast of Massachussetts. They're doing research on witchcraft throughout the ages and the hotel's last owner was an actress who allegedly practiced the black arts. A bickering family also shows up on the premises to check out the hotel. Pretty soon various folks begin to get bumped off in assorted gruesome ways by the mysterious Lady in Black (an effectively eerie Hildegard Knef).

Granted, the rest of the cast gives the Hoff a run for his money: the ever-perky Linda Blair projects her customary charming flair as a spunky pregnant woman who winds up becoming possessed (natch!), legendary jazz singer Annie Ross bitches it up with gleeful aplomb as a snippy old bat (poor Annie winds up being incinerated alive after she has her lips sewn shut and she's hung upside down in a chimney), and gorgeous blonde Catherine Hickland oozes considerable sex appeal from every fetching pore as a lusty slut. Fabrizio Laurenti's competent direction, a suitably creepy atmosphere, Gianlorenzo Battaglia's slick, glossy cinematography (the fluid prowling Steadicam tracking shots are especially nice), the gaudy special effects, Carlo Maria Cordio and Randy Miller's spirited shuddery'n'spooky score, and the gory, sadistic violence are all up to par. But ultimately it's the tremendously dynamic and charismatic presence of the one and only the Hoff which makes this choice tasty chunk of tacky Italian horror cheese such a winner: He takes his shirt off once (hubba hubba!), gets sprayed with blood, and -- WARNING: Major *SPOILER* ahead -- even meets a pleasingly grisly untimely end. Produced by none other than Joe D'Amato, this picture overall rates as good, sleazy fun. I didn't see this movie until it appeared on television because I was doubtful about comic flicks. Ever since the "Batman" series, "Spawn," "Judge Dredd," and many other pitiful p.g.-13 bombs, I dodged everything at all cost. I would question in my mind, "why can't someone make a movie that is rated R and stays true to the story, how difficult is that?" And finally my prayers have been answered with Blade. This movie pops right out of the pages onto the screen with sheer violence, blood, martial arts, weapons, fire, the good against evil, etc. Yeah sure a lot of action flicks contain all these goodies, and most of them have bombed. But not Blade, the movie was filmed just right, not going overboard, delivering a good length and never a dull moment. Blade II is cool, but not as cool as the first. Blade is indeed one of the best real comic flicks I've seen in a long time. Now here is a movie that does something that hasn't been done in a long time. It take ten or so different elements that we're already familiar with (Vampires, martial arts, a techno beat, top-o-the-line special effects, etc.), and turns it into something that feels brand new. In what could have easily been merely a combination of "Mortal Kombat" and "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer," Wesley Snipes (no favorite of mine since and mostly because of "Passenger 57") gives a really good turn as the half human/ half bloodsucker. He acknowledges the internal conflict, but doesn't dwell on it more than necessary. He makes Blade as deep a character as Michael Keaton made Batman.

I'll say that the only part of the movie that got me a little miffed was the always present horror movie cliche of that one person that the hero happens to know who happens to know exactly how to stop the evil guy. On the other hand, you sort of have to have that in a movie like this, so it's easily excusable.

Well, Snipes is good. And Steven Dorff, hyped in the previews, makes a more than bad enough bad guy to Snipes' hero. He's got class, presence, and enough control in his little pinky to teach Al Pacino how to tone it down a bit. Who would ever think that a comic book movie would be a launching pad for an actor? I sincerely hope this is. And whoa! where the heck did Kris Kristofferson get acting talent? Don't get me wrong, but the prolific actor hasn't done anything memorable since "Millennium," and how many of us watched that just 'cause of the cool video box? Well, here he is, folks, in a very Obi-wanish turn, as Blade's mentor and father figure. And good job, too.

The quality of the acting is matched by the quality of the choreography and special effects. Accompanied by a pulsing techno beat, the fight scenes brings back and quickly banish memories of Mortal Kombat. Hey! It had a script, too! I was wondering what had happened to all the good writers out there.

The two major indications to me that I saw a quality flick were these; I had no feeling of remorse about paying full price to get in, a la any Schumacher "Batman," "The Avengers," "MK: Annihilation," "Godzilla," or "Armageddon." (wow, how many of those came out this year? Ugh) Also, I look forward to the inevitable sequel, as per the film's ending. Let's just hope they do as good a job with it as with the first one.

Blade is a fantastic action/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.

This film has everything that you would ask for in an action/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.

Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.

This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.

My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10 If you like horror or action watch this film ASAP. If the opening scene doesn't get your adrenaline pumping then someone should check your pulse. Great Action, excellent casting and top one-liners. This is the only film I have seen in a cinema where the crowd applauded each chop, kick & punch thrown. Not perfection but who cares when films can be this much fun. Its a pure rush of dark comic book action. 9/10 Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as Blade, a half human, half vampire known the daywalker. He has all their strengths and his only weakness is the thirst for blood. Since he teamed up with whistler (Kris Kristofferson) he has hunted down vampires who have lived amongst us unnoticed for centuries, but omnipotent overlord Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) is tired of living in harmony with the humans (Food as he calls them) and he plans to waken the blood god and take control of the world.

This movie is well cast, written and directed; ensuring the viewer has a thrilling ride from start to finish. Packed with great fight sequences and slick dialogue, Blade is certainly more action than horror, but it definitely delivers.

8/10 Ben Marshall, a teen ager from a religious background, is made aware about the financial situation at home by his domineering mother Laura. She suggests him to find a temporary job in order to contribute to the household. In fact the family has taken a widower, to board with them. Robert Marshall, the father, is a pastor at the local church; he'd much rather be in the country watching birds than tending to the souls entrusted to his church.

The job Ben applies is with an older actress, Evie Walton, who wants him to do things for her around the house. "Dame" Evie, as she calls herself, is a woman of a certain age whose career has died maybe because she was not that great. In fact the only memorable appearance seems to be in a soap opera which was popular but she'd rather forget about it. Evie, who is a compulsive liar, tells Ben she's dying, only to forget it conveniently, later on when she comes clean to the boy.

Ben is obviously in awe of the larger than life personality of his employer. He has been taking driving lessons. Evie asks him to take a camping trip, which he does against his better judgment. He knows that it will provoke his mother's fury. Not content with that, Evie decides to go on to Edinburgh, where she has been invited to read at an arts festival. It is this trip that solidifies their bond. Ben gets to meet and taste the pleasures of the flesh with a sympathetic Bryony.

When Ben gets back, everything crumbles at home. His mother, who has been having an affair with a parishioner, decides to leave the family in favor of the young man she has been having an affair with. Ben and Evie's relationship survives the test of time. He also begins to see his own father in a different light.

Jeremy Brock, the writer of "Driving Lessons" and other memorable English films, takes his first directorial job with this engaging comedy. The mixture of show business and religion, loyalty and friendship, are explored in his screen treatment making it a fun time at the movies. We have seen the similar situation before as in "Billy Elliott", where Julie Walters plays a nurturing role with a younger man. We had read the film was based on Mr. Brock's own experience while working Dame Peggy Ashcroft when he was young.

Julie Walters, who plays Evie Walton, is perhaps the best excuse to watch the movie. She always delivers. Ms. Walters is a welcome presence in any film she appears and she does wonders with her fake "dame". Laura Linney, a luminous player herself, doesn't quite get our sympathy with her icy mother. Rupert Grint, famous for his Harry Potter's movies plays Ben, the young man who sees in Evie a kind soul. Nicholas Farrell is the betrayed father. Michelle Duncan has a small role in which she shines. I really only watched this movie because it had Rupert Grint in it (who I knew as Ron from the Harry Potter movies). I had never really appreciated Rupert as an actor until this movie. I loved the entire film. Rupert does a wonderful job in this hilarious, quirky movie. I think the movie could have been fine without the sex, but it worked somehow. I can't wait to see more of Rupert's films in the future. Julie Walters also did an amazing job. In the Harry Potter movies, she has a very small role, so I didn't quite know what to expect from her either. But she was wonderful as Dame Evie. The part where she swallows the key was absolutely hilarious. Overall, an amazing movie. I'd heard about this movie, but didn't see it until my daughter, who saw it on a flight to Australia, told me it was a great movie. I was interested in seeing whether Rupert Grint, away from Harry Potter, was showing the promise you see in the Potter movies. I wasn't disappointed. He's become a fine actor, showing a range in Driving Lessons from a shy boy being beaten down by an over-bearing obsessive mother, to a young man finding himself to be worthy of his own, and other's, esteem. Going over lines from plays and poetry with his aging-actress employer, it's obvious that he's ready to take on much more complex roles in films and the stage. But the jewel of this movie was Julie Walters. I'd seen her previously in the Potter movies, Billy Elliott and Calendar Girls, and loved her. In Driving Lessons, as she does lines from poetry and Shakespeare, I was awed by her timing, command of the language, and body language. I'm hoping it was make-up/costuming, as she portrays an older woman with osteoporosis, though no mention of it is made in the movie-- as a nurse, I can say that she did this perfectly, portraying a woman on the brink of old-age, but clinging to the sparkling past that she reveled in. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and I wish I'd seen it in a theatre first-- but I doubt it ever played anywhere here in Albuquerque. We miss out on so many of these types of movies here. I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.

Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call "assistant" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.

Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors. This movie is a great film. The movie shows so many themes all in one amazing film. Driving Lessons centers around Ben (Rupert Grint) a shy 17 year old who is coming of age. The movie goes on about how Ben is sick of his dominating mother and how he just wants to be himself. Ben then meets Evie, who he makes a very special bond with. The two take a journey and in the process Ben finds himself and what a relationship that he and Evie share. This is the movie that you watch by yourself, or with someone else. No matter what, you will all feel what Ben goes through in the movie. It is a very heart warming film that just makes you think whether your driving lessons were ever as emotional or as much of a journey as Ben's Lessons. I thought it was going to be a lousy movie, honestly, I mean, Rupert Grint, RON, acting in a movie different from Harry Potter, was actually really difficult to picture it. But as the movie started, it showed that this guy does have talent, I mean, is the best actor of the HP trio, for reference, have you seen Emma Watson trying to act? Or what about Daniel's acting? Both lack experience even though they have acted in a million Harry Potter movies. Ben, his character is a very shy boy, incapable of showing his true feelings about everything, his despise about his over ruling mom and the resentful anger towards his father who is unable to step up and confront his unfaithful wife. Julie Walters was absolutely brilliant! Her interpretation of an old retired actress trying to live with the shadow of her past, while she tries to remember Shakespearian sonnets is absolutely wonderful! Also, it appears that many youth is wasted in religious nonsense acts. I thought this movie was cleverly written and very well acted. Its a movie that greatly surpasses other films in terms of originality and enjoyment.Rupert Grint played the part marvelously, and has a general knack for the acting business. The almost obsessive mother added quite a lot to the plot, and was a character one could almost instantly loathe. This reminded me, in a way, of the Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Not by means of actual content of the film, but the premises, and overall tone to the film itself. "Driving Lessons" is a coming of age story, which many might find very easy to relate to due to the overpowering mother, the lack of freedom, and the discovery of oneself. I had never heard about this film prior to coming across it as I was perusing the shelves at a local rental store. Having just watched the latest Harry Potter installment, I was intrigued by Rupert Grint and wanted to see more of his work. Reading the description on back about "an overzealous, evangelical Christian do-gooder," and identifying as an evangelical Christian, myself, I thought, "Oooh…this should be interesting." And so it was. I found Mr. Brock's story beautiful in both words and images; and sadly enough, all too familiar. The contrast he drew between Ben's parent's interpretations of what it means to be a Christian was a poignant commentary on how Christians view themselves and the impact that perception has on those around them. On the one hand, we have Ben's mom stating, "Whatever happens behind these walls, Ben, we're God's ambassadors. We show the world a smiling face." On the other hand is Ben's dad discussing truth in his sermon at the beginning of the film. At the end of his monologue, he states, "The more a person parades their Christianity for the benefit of others, the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim. God tells us true faith is the freedom to choose truth. Now, how you express that, the way, the manner, the means at your disposal, these things are of no consequence, be you Christian or atheist, unless in your heart you are true." If only our churches were full of Christians who ascribed to this latter definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, rather than the former. What a difference that would make! As a Christian and a psychologist, I would want an imperfect yet authentic faith over a perfectly polished image any day. What a tragedy – to feel like I always need to play a role when, really, I just need to rest in the freedom of being completely who God made me to be. I think Mr. Brock provides a refreshing glimpse of what this freedom in Christ looks like. I recommend this film for anyone who desires a fresh look at faith. I had to get this movie, since it didn't come to where I live. I waited patiently and it was worth the wait. I totally fell in love with this movie. The chemistry between Walters and Grint you could see, since they also worked together on the Harry Potter movies.The woman who plays his overbearing, righteous mother really had me convinced all right and how much of a hypocrite she is, I think she did a great job playing the role. I only wish we could of had seen the actually sex scene or more of it. LOL, but of course we just have to use our imagination on how it went down. (snickers) I totally thought the movie was worth the wait and if you want a good movie to watch. Rent this movie. I do have to say that Rupert really did a great job and it's nice to see that he's doing movies outside of Harry Potter,even though I totally love him as Ron Weasley. The whole cast did a great job and I hope Rupert continues to act outside of Harry Potter to broaden his skill! I was unsure what to expect from "driving lessons"- unsure whether Rupert Grint could carry such a role, but within the first few minutes I was completely hooked. All the way through, the music, acting and scenery were absolutely stunning. Julie Walters, as always, gave a superb performance as the eccentric old actress Evie, and Rupert Grint, equally as good,gave a fantastic performance as the romantic Ben.

Right from the beginning, I was forced into involuntary cringes, bursts of laughter and swellings of joy as Ben broke free from his controlling mother and fought for his friendship with his only friend, Evie. A very controversial story, probably rather exaggerated but none the less one of the best films i have seen in a long time.

Highly recommend to anyone seeking a good British film and an evening to kick-back and just enjoy yourself. If you love drive-in cheeze from the early '70s you will just love this one.How could you go wrong with a low budget film about bloodshed in a lunatic asylum? You can't! Crazy folks and sharp objects are always an entertaining combination.

The film looks like it was shot inside someone's house for about $320.65. For me that just ads to the fun of watching this type of stuff.The gore is a bit mild compared to others of this ilk,but there is enough to keep us bloodthirsty sickos (like myself)happy.Some horror films drag in parts and leave you waiting for something to happen.That's not the case here.The characters are entertaining enough to make every frame quite enjoyable.There is never a dull moment from start to finish.The mind melting climax at the end that is just unbelievable. I liked it so much that right after the end credits I watched it a second time.It's an absolute must see for any self respecting drive-in horror nut.

9.5/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...required viewing

Yea I love you..I DO love you...now take your Thorazine and put your clothes back on...please....8) You'll either love or hate movies such as this thriller set inside a lonesome asylum in a far off lonesome land. It's not so much of a horror show, but a concoction of frightening imageries and wackozoid mental patients. "Scream" is the best term to use in what was obviously a popular drive-in classic noted for some strange and wicked behaviors. Notice the "judge", who's about to put on the ax from behind the doctor! Brr-r-r-r!!! Not much else can be described here other than some bloody tasty goodness, but when you get a chance, remember the familiar old saying by the hag lady: "Get out! Get out! And never ever come back!". Don't you wish you haven't looked in the basement? Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?

DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say "It's only a movie, it's only a movie", it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish. If anyone ever assembles a compendium on modern American horror that is truly worth it's salt, there will *have* to be an entry for SF Brownrigg's ubiquetous exercize in Asylum Horror. Every time I watch this movie I am impressed by the complete economy of the film, from the compact, totally self-contained plot with a puzzling beginning and an all too horrible ending, the engaging performances by what was essentially a group of non-professional actors, and a prevading sense of dread and claustrophobia that effectively consumes the narrarive with a certain inevitability which is all the more terrifying because the viewers know what is going on long before the hero[es], with the only question being when are they going to wake up & smell the coffee?

Shot on a dental floss budget in Brownrigg's native Texas at an old palatial manor that nicely serves as the setting for a private sanitorium, DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is another intriguing twist on the good old Edgar Allan Poe tome about inmates taking over the asylum just before an otherwise "normal" outsider unwittingly joins the ranks without realizing until it is far too late that not all is what it seems, they are totally cut off & beyond any outside help, and inevitably find their own sanity questioned as the madness spins out of control -- The Original STAR TREK TV series had a go at this with their WHOM GODS DESTROY episode from 1968, Juan Moctezuma gave the proceedings a peyote fueled Mexican psychedelic trip in DR. TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON in 1972, and tangentially related is Fernando Di Leo's ASYLUM EROTICA/SLAUGHTER HOTEL, which injects the elements of an unknown killer and an ending that can only be defined as "Splatter Cinema" -- Brownrigg may not have seen or been thinking of SLAUGHTER HOTEL, but he sure came up with some similar ideas.

Legaliciuos former Playboy Playmate Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, RN in Clinical Psychology, who has just left her nice job as a supervisor at a major hospital to travel way out into the middle of some god forsaken waste right out of a Peckinpah movie to work with a Dr. Stevens at his private sanitorium. Dr. Stevens has pioneered a new form of therapy based upon basically encouraging the emotionally & psychologically scarred to face their inner obsessions, bring them to the surface and hopefully rid the patients of whatever has fried their sense of reasoning. Nice idea, but arming a 6ft 250 pound utterly insane man with an axe and telling him to pound out his aggression AND THEN TURNING YOUR BACK ON HIM probably isn't the smartest idea, and Dr. Stevens is dispatched before Ms. Holotik even appears onscreen with a good whack to the lower portion of his skull.

This event leaves the sanitorium effectively in the hands of one Geraldine Masters [actress Annabelle Weenick, who also served as the script supervisor & production manager], a woman of startlingly professional demeanor who quickly defuses the situation with the help of Sam, the film's wonderfully unlikely hero, a lobotomized African American boheomouth played by an actor named Bill McGhee who was sadly robbed of a supporting Oscar nomination for his turn as a mass of muscle with the brain of an 8 year old boy. Sam's one wish is to have someone help him put his prized toy boat "in the water", and his continual asking of the various female cast members to do so [and his nonstop consumption of chocolate popsicles] as *SOME* kind of underlying theme, though we will avoid such here because the kids might still be up. There is also a quick subplot about a staff member who has decided to leave after being threatened by one of the patients, but I'll leave the details of that to your discovery.

Ms. Holotik arrives just as Dr. Stevens has been effectively laid to rest and is quickly won over by the snappy professionalism of Ms. Masters, who reluctantly allows the leggy young nurse to stay on in spite of the tragedy that has just happened, oh, TWENTY MINUTES AGO, which you must admit was rather sporting of her. Holotik's Nurse Beale begins to demonstrate symptoms of not being the sharpest meat cleaver in the drawer, however, when informed that she shares living quarters with a bunch of maniacs and there are no locks on the doors & doesn't trudge off for the nearest Ace Hardware Store to pick up a hasp and padlock to secure herself, and we are treated to a couple of truly creepy scenes where some of the inmates sneak into her room & do stuff like smell her hair, try to kill her with butcher knives and caress her neck with axe heads. But that's all a part of working in such a radical psychiatric health care environment, Ms. Master's informs her, and she goes about her oddly defined "rounds" that consist of wearing as leg defining a nurse outfit as you can find in a 42nd Street fetish boutique and getting to know the inmates.

Allysson is a obsessive compulsive nymphomaniac with homicidal tendancies who likes to take off her shirt & provide the film with some T & A between fits of histrionics; Harriet is a young former mother who let her child die in a stupid accident and now dotes on a beat-up old doll that she is also homicidally protective of; The Seargant is an actual seargeant [and implied Vietnam vet] who's negligence led to the death of his platoon, and now watches from the window with binoculars for the approach of an unseen enemy; Jennifer is a Phish fan who couldn't score a ticket to the New Year's Eve Show and went insane & likes to scarf down nembutols and other barbituates when nobody is looking, and likewise has hidden homicidal tendancies linked to her inability to find a bra; Judge Cameron is apparently a homicidal pervert who became obsessed with his own sense of power and now likes to chop things up with axes; Ms. Callingham is an aged poet who serves as a sort of soothsaying old hag from MACBETH before the cat gets her tongue; and Danny is an insane idiot who was included in the cast as the random element that the plot cannot control, and who's antics serve as the real catalyst for the series of tragedies & murders that ultimately take place in this dark, old, creepy house in the middle of nowhere.

The house itself is a wonderful set, with a threadbare early 1970's decor that is remarkable in it's unremarkableness, with a fantastic use of color achieved by subtle ambient lighting. The house is a series of hallways and rooms with shiny brown wooden floors, twisting, confined stairways, secreted closets and passageways leading to the different larger areas, and of course the basement mentioned in the title -- visited only once, but boy it sure proves to be a doozy! I love the frosted old freezer where Sam keeps his stash of popsicles, the utterly plain exteriors that remind me of a summer home our family used to visit every year & force us to swelter in the heat: Everyone is covered with beads of persperation and looks exhausted, and even the ever cheerful Sam at one point begins to suspect that bad things are happening, though he cannot understand what it all means and Rosie H. is too firm in her belief of her profession to even suspect what has really happened, and while Ms. Holotik's limitations of an actress may have diminished the effectiveness of her Big Revelation scene, she's a great screamer when all Hell starts to break loose, and Brownrigg indulged of some nice camera shots of her in various suggestive poses or stages of undress that show off what a pretty lady she is without exposing anything more than her contract stipulated. Too bad!

The real show stealer is Sam, however, and fans of what I have been taught to refer to as Splatter Cinema will not be disappointed by the rather shocking finale, and there is something moving about how Sam runs to the protection of his friend and brutally kills everyone within arms reach in a matter of seconds that either suggests he was one mean motha before his lobotomy, or the film is CUT. In any event you won't be prepared for the ending the first time you see it, even though you as the viewer know what the score is long before anyone else in the film has put it all together.

Except for one person: Rhea MacAdams' uproariously stereotyped old coot Mrs. Callingham [who seems to be inspired by the Donald Sutherland Old Woman character from the Michael Reeves' 1964 Christopher Lee film CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, in addition to a rather nasty death by round spike to the eye], who not only predicts the future, but has the film's most laugh out loud amusing bit of dialogue while on a walk in the garden with Ms. Holotik that runs something like this --

"It's really beautiful out here. Do you get out much, Mrs. Callingham?" asks Holotik, to which the old woman replies

"It's YOU who needs to get out."

Hilarious, and one of those things you gotta kind of see for yourself to "get". DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is available on at least a half dozen "bargain bin" codefree DVD releases by companies like Brentwood Home Video, Diamond Entertainment, VCI and Platinum Disc Corp.'s HORROR CLASSICS series; I kind of like Alpha Video's sexily gorgeously decorated $6 release from 2003:

Dig through those bargain bins! But make sure you get one with the 89/90 minute print contained therein; an older 83 minute version is downright confusing due to some of the trims, and you really need to see the ending credits as intended to bring this sick, twisted and surprisingly entertaining yarn to it's end.

Masterpiece? Maybe not compared to THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it is a very uniquely American horror film, and a genuine classic of the drive-in age that deserves to be rediscovered by anyone looking for something made with more than just a little bit of brain juice, and not a penny more than they absolutely needed.

***1/2 out of **** Nurse Charlotte Beale(the lovely Rosie Holotik)has arrived to Dr. Stephens' clinic for the insane prepared for a new job. What she doesn't expect is to find another supposed doctor in his position after Stephens is attacked by axe-wielding maniacal "judge" Oliver W Cameron(..in a running gag, anytime he confronts a situation out of his control, he retreats to repeating his name). That doctor is Geraldine Masters(Annabelle Weenick)who isn't sure about whether Beale is a proper fit for their establishment. After a long discussion about the position(which is quite an awkward scene as the two debate about Beale's being sent a letter by Stephens getting a job at the clinic with Masters often reminding her that he is no longer in charge)Masters agrees to let her work in the nursing position, but the good Doctor may not be who she seems..

The assortment of loonies includes Sam(Bill McGee)a simple-minded child-man who was Stephens' last victim of lobotomy, Jennifer(Harryette Warren)a woman who needs an adult to comfort her as she wallows at Masters' heel like a puppy, Danny(Jessie Kirby)a trouble-making annoyance often trying to steal the fake baby of disturbed Harriet(Camilla Carr), Allyson(Betty Chandler)a sexy nympho who just wants to be loved and hops at any man she sees, & "Sergeant" Jaffee(Hugh Feagin)your typical case of soldier who hasn't escaped the madness of war.

The film shows Masters' unorthodox methods of running the clinic with allowing the patients to roam free with the doors to all rooms without locks calling into question..and, not to mention, the fact that Oliver is still allowed to walk around despite just chopping Dr. Stephens with an axe. And, what exactly happened to Dr. Stephens? Ah ha..

Tacky 70's drive-in trash is a lot of fun if you are into a warped brand of cinema. I'm attracted to bizarre flicks about mental rejects because of their unpredictable nature..you just never know what the hell might happen, especially in this case where they are allowed to roam often unattended. Some consider the low budget a liability, but in the case of this film, I think it enhances the experience. With the cheap photography and weak production values(being shot for peanuts in a run down house in some awful location)it seems creepier and I felt like a voyeur peering into insanity through a camera lens on the outside looking in. This is such a fun and funny movie. Highly entertaining at all angles. It features an outlandish array of memorable, psychotic but lovable nuts. We got; the judge, the Sargent, the kid, the creepy old lady, the slut, the clown. And unfortunately they all live in a big house that doesn't have any locks and is understaffed. So for our enjoyment we get to see them run around, play games, and be dangerous. We also learn a lesson along the way... never give your patient an ax!

This was before Cukkos Nest, AND surpasses it. At least on the fun level. It even has its sweet moments. "Love is pure. Love is grace. Love is strength. You love me, your love is pure, you'll always love me." Now who could resist that? Nuts are humans too. Just a few loose wires. Be a little careful, or you'll get an ax in the back! Children at play. Hehe.

The telephone repair man was really funny and his reactions to the nuts and bitchy boss were truly genuine. All the characters in this film are tremendously well played. And I really did find them funny. No, HILARIOUS! They may even give you dirty thoughts of how you can take advantage of them. Or how they can take advantage of you.

This is actually a very smart movie. There is a brilliant twist ending. I must say I expected this to be a good but never expected THIS. It is horrific. "The court has made its decision. You are no longer in control!" I love it. The ending is so, SO perfect... you'll shed a tear.

I am so thrilled after seeing a movie like this. I will never forget it now. It is not just a cult... it is a cult CLASSIC. Whatever you do... Don't Look In The Basement !!! Low-budget but memorable would-be shocker that instead emerges as theater of the bizarre. Vulnerable, naive nurse Charlotte Beale comes to a secluded mental hospital and is completely unaware that the only sane people have been murdered, despite the red flags that are constantly being raised all around her.

The lack of a decent budget really gives the filmmakers little more to go on than a sense of style, as well as a cast of wacky characters. The pleasures of this film don't come from the film's shocks, which are fairly tame, but from the weird atmosphere. First we have the delusional woman who thinks her baby doll is real. There's also an axe-murdering judge, a shell-shocked war veteran, and old Mrs. Callahan is like everybody's daffy elderly grandmother gone amok. A young patient named Allyson gives the term "nymphomaniac" new meaning. A big guy named Sam is just a little slow after a botched lobotomy, and Jennifer vaults suddenly between catatonia and violent outbursts. The only other sentient person in the place seems to be Dr. Masters, but does she have a secret?

"Don't Look in the Basement" is a great example of low-budget exploitation films. There isn't much plot going on, but the cheapness works for the movie. Several cast members turn in memorable performances, particularly Betty Chandler and Annabelle Weenick, and the way the director adds little weird details to the movie can really stick with you.

The scene between Allyson and "the telephone man" is a classic for all time, and especially delicious are the facial expressions of Dr. Masters when she begins to go over the edge near the finale of the movie. Brownrigg also makes great use of the cheap soundtrack, with several musical cues really evoking the characters that they accompany. My favorite cue is the "crazy" cue, a sitar that twangs whenever one of the patients does something pathological.

Also wonderful is the way that Charlotte herself plunges into hysteria at the climax, with the patients revealing that Dr. Masters is simply another inmate, and then suggesting that CHARLOTTE is also a patient who is being allowed to act out her delusions (she certainly has a tenuous grip on reality, why else would she not question the ominous lack of phone service or outside contact?). The scene where Charlotte manages to finish off the barely-alive Dr. Stephens with a toy boat has to be one of the greatest moments in low-budget horror. Yes, "Don't Look in the Basement" could very well be the "American Beauty" of Grade Z trash. I personally have a soft spot for horror films that are set in hospitals and asylums so I had a good feeling about watching this "Don't Look in the Basement", even though its reputation is doubtful. Well, turned out I was right! This is great, trashy entertainment with a couple of efficient shocks and delightfully absurd characters. You have to, of course, look beyond the poor productions values and the completely illogical plot but, if you manage to do that (and if you're a fan of this type of horror, that's an essential quality), you'll be rewarded with an outrageous "video-nasty" in which blood and insanity form the main elements. The young and cute nurse Charlotte arrives at a remote sanitarium where she's supposed to start her new job. She finds out that the Doctor who hired her was killed by a patient and the replacement doctor-in-charge Masters seems reluctant to accept the new arrival. The life inside the sanitarium is rather peculiar, with the patients running around free and every door is kept unlocked. After a whole series of bizarre events, Charlotte discovers the horrific secrets that the institution hides.... The opening 10 minutes (pre-credits) are great and so is the completely deranged climax. Everything in between is pretty much without surprise or tension but you patiently wait because you just feel that the finale will be wild fun. The asylum's patients are textbook lunatics, but I love them nevertheless. Some of my favorites include the former judge (who still talks exclusively in legal terms), the suspicious army-Sargeant and the mad-raving old lady. "Don't Look in the Basement" is great low-brained fun, especially recommended to fans of 70's trash-cinema, sick puppies and other types of scum. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, yeah!! I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.

My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!. The impossibly sexy Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, a new nurse at one of those movie-type asylums where the doctor in charge has his own, unorthodox ways of treating the inmates. Reluctantly bringing her on board is the officious Dr. Masters (Anne MacAdams, a.k.a. Annabelle Weenick). The inmates don't take too kindly to Charlotte, either.

Part mystery, part horror, this initial effort from B-movie director S.F. Brownrigg has an oppressive feel to it. These colorful psychos, including a nymphomaniac with no self-esteem, a gentle giant who's already had a lobotomy, and a supposed "judge" who speaks in legalese jargon, dominate the screen with their unnerving presence.

It's a picture that works fairly well, establishing the gritty, grim atmosphere right from the get go. Some brief bursts of graphic violence also help to give it that good old fashioned exploitative quality.

It builds in intensity as the imperiled heroine struggles to maintain her own sanity, offering one surreal encounter after another. Particularly effective is the poetry-quoting, dotty old Mrs. Callingham.

For cheap 1970's era cheese, it's pretty effective, with a particularly nasty climax. I had a pretty good time watching it.

7/10 Yet another in the long line of "Don't" films of the late 70's and early 80's yet this one is much more than that. This film is a highly underestimated low budget schlocker with a twist. It has the grainy quality and bizarre soundtrack that is typical of horror films of the time period but it's the highly underestimated performances of the surprisingly talented actors/actresses that make this movie good. A young nurse arrives at Dr. Stephens' progressive mental hospital right after he has been murdered by one of his patients and all is not what it appears to be. It seems Dr. Masters, a rather ambitious female doctor, has taken over his duties and begun to implement her own ideas. Each of the patients take on their own unique personalities and have their own personality traits and flaws which make for highly entertaining interactions. There is the nymphomaniac, the crazy old crone, the woman with an unhealthy obsession with infants, and a man who has reverted back to his childhood among others. There is also a strange little twist to this bizarre story that later finds the young nurse trapped inside the asylum with the patients running around loose and bodies piling up. If you are a fan of cheap 70's sleaze than this is the film for you! DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT This little forgotten gem holds a special place in my heart and on the Video Nasties List. The flute-sitar-rattle box soundtrack is classic. The main character, although way hotter than most low budget starlets, is a pretty standard low budget lead. The Doctor Masters character is well written and well acted. Some of the lesser characters are kinda stupid but add to the nostalgia of the movie. It's Campy. I ain't trying to lie. The character that makes this great is a Faulknarian Man-Child named Sam, one of the patients in this sanitarium-gone-mad-flick. The gore is pretty standard although I think the color of the blood is awesome. It's so ..Red. This movie, I believe, was received poorly because of it advertising scheme. Some soulless little ad executive got his grubby hands on it and thought " Let's rip of the AD campaign for Last House on the Left, that's doing well". Little chumps like this have ruined the world of film. All balls and no brain. Also, the editor may or may not have been an alcoholic. Maybe there all drunk. You'll see what I mean. One more little note. Don't buy this from the Wally-Mart dollar rack. They have cut it to and unwatchable level. Try to find the longest cut you can. ... but you probably have seen it or else you wouldn't be here. It's so obscure that you probably stumbled onto it like I did because this little known gem receives no word-of-mouth.

From the very beginning you know how the storyline will shake out but watching as our innocent redheaded nurse puts the pieces of the puzzle together is high quality entertainment. Most horror films bombard viewers with graphic displays of torture but Don't Look in the Basement plays it subtle, which makes for superior suspense. Note to horror filmmakers: some of us do like subtlety! Lovely and homely nurse Charlotte takes a job at a sanitarium but is dismayed when she learns that the head doctor who hired her had a gruesome accident and she is now the subordinate to a mysterious doctor, who we all know isn't a doctor at all. The suspense is built through Charlotte's unraveling of events with assistance from many of the patients, but which of the patients can Charlotte trust? This is a gem and is my absolute favorite TRUE HORROR movie. I love Re-Animator and Evil Dead but they play more for the HORROR-COMEDY crowd.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (Quite tame for horror standards but there is a decent sprinkling of gore throughout the film. The opening scene is classic; no other horror film starts out better, and the end has its fair share of gore as well).

NUDITY: $$$$ (Eager to fall in love Allyson (Betty Chandler) spends a good deal of time naked, attempting to seduce half the men at the sanitarium. Betty Chandler is a knockout and I am shocked that this is her only film credit).

STORY: $$$$ (The story is well handled despite the premise getting a lot of mileage in Hollywood. The script has a knack for building suspense and never fails to place poor Charlotte in a precarious situation).

ACTING: $$$$ (Betty Chandler does the best job here as Allyson, capturing dementia with naiveté in an ethereal form. The Judge was splendid as well, weighing facts before he came to a verdict while Rosie Holotik as Charlotte gives a genuine performance as you will feel for her character. 'Don't Look In the Basement' is so easy to knock but the truth is simply that Brownrigg is one of Horrors real underground stars and IMHO is vastly overdue some proper recognition. 'Don't' is his undisputed masterpiece. This scummy psychodrama snags the viewer straightaway into such an odd, disjointed, claustrophobic world of sweating insanity you have no real idea what the hell is going on. It succeeds in making you feel strangely dirty, just plain grubby, for Brownrigg's world is this mad, unwashed, scummy prison cell of rants, obsessions and all shades of mental illness. And he uses his low budget palette to wrap his grot blanket around you like a bad memory. There is just something so beautifully odd about the whole damn thing. In a word, classic.... Also, if you watch 'Don't' first then you will have some idea of the insane psychodrama style that marks Brownrigg's other films. In summary they really don't come any more esoteric than this - well, actually they do, track down Brownrigg's 'Keep My Grave Open'. Mad genius. Accept no substitute. Young, ambitious nurse Ms. Charlotee (Rosie Holotik) is sent to work at a mental asylum out in the middle of nowhere. During the course of 3 days, she encounters strange happenings, even a patient in her bedroom watching her, yet she still stays. The mental patients are all a little eye rolling (espically by the Judge), but my favorite was the old crazy biddy (Rhea MacAdams). The storyline is okay at best, and the acting is surprisingly alright, but after awhile it's gets to be a little much. But, still it's fun, quirky, strange, and original.

Note: The thing inside the basement is hardly horrifying, so the title is a little bananas. I'm not sure what intrigues me about this movie so. It is grainy, poorly written, bleached out, often ridiculous, and at many points mind numbingly dull (the person I was watching it with fell asleep twice.) And yet there is something in this film that fascinates me, though I am not sure what; perhaps the character of Sam, an enormous former patient who was lobotimized by the former head doctor and who is perpetually sucking on an ice pop), or the marvelously played head doctor (I forget her name).

Anyway, watch it and form you're own opinion; it has one of the greatest endings I have seen in film. Dr. Stephens (Michael Harvey), head of a seriously understaffed institute for the insane, takes a 'progressive' approach towards the treatment of his patients, even allowing his loonies complete freedom of the building, day and night; he pays the price for his forward thinking, however, when he rather stupidly prescribes chopping wood with an axe as therapy for one of his patients and consequently gets his neck mistaken for a log (serves him right for not suggesting basket weaving).

Shortly after this tragic incident, nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the hospital to take up position as the doctor's assistant, and discovers that the facility is now being run by the much sterner Dr. Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick). Despite being unaware of her deceased predecessor's decision to employ Ms Beale, and not particularly eager to take on new staff, Dr. Masters agrees to let the pretty nurse begin work, but following several harrowing experiences at the hospital, Charlotte begins to wonder whether it might have been better if she had been turned away.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is actually happening at the hospital, the 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' schtick being a premise that should be familiar to most seasoned horror fans, but S.F. Brownrigg's Don't Look In The Basement still proves to be an entertaining piece of drive-in fun thanks to its well defined collection of nutters: lobotomised, popsicle-sucking Sam (Bill McGhee); Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross), who continuously mumbles courtroom phrases; old Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams), who recites William Allingham's creepy poem The Fairies and warns Charlotte of impending doom; cackling loon Danny (Jessie Kirby), who delights in teasing the other patients; Harriet (Camilla Carr), who thinks her doll is a real baby; army nut Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin); and best of all, Allyson King (Betty Chandler), whose rejection by a series of men has left her with a craving for love (ie., she tries to jump any man who goes near her).

This convincingly crazy set of characters, plus a bit of gore and nudity, reasonable direction from Brownrigg (who also gave us the impressive white trash horror Scum of the Earth), and a solid turn from Playboy covergirl Holotik, all go to turn an otherwise rather predictable, low budget piece of exploitation into a very watchable psycho shocker. A nurse travels to a rural psychiatric clinic run by Doctor Stephens. She is upset to learn that the doctor has died,leaving his assistant Doctor Masters in charge.She is unnerved by the inmates including a crazy Judge,a shell-shocked Vietnam vet,a catatonic and a creepy nympho,but is soon befriended by a hulking black man Sam.She needs all the friends she can get as people are dying all around her."Don't Look in the Basement" is my first horror film of S.F Brownrigg.Despite its low-budget it manages to provide some genuine chills plus a nice amount of cheap gore including a particularly nasty scene with a desk-spindle through an eyeball.The climax of inmates taking control over mental asylum is an intense melange of wild camera-work,gore and piercing screams.8 out of 10. Although it isn't mentioned very often, "Don't Look in the Basement" is a very interesting film and is definitely worth a watch. The story follows a young nurse, Charlotte Beale, who is hired at Stephen's Sanitarium to replace Dr. Stephens, after he is murdered by a patient. Many patients begin to torment Miss Beale, and her boss, Dr. Geraldine Masters, acts as if she's hiding something...

This movie has many appealing characters that you actually end up caring about, and have sympathy for during the climax, which doesn't happen very often in horror films. The musical score is great and is reminiscent of "Dark Shadows," the performance from Rosie Holotik, Rhea McAdams, and Bill McGhee are all great, the story is very intriguing with a great twist ending. This movie has a campy atmosphere around it that no other film I have ever seen has been able to capture. Many horror fans have never seen or even heard of this film which is really unfortunate because it could have been a horror classic. "Don't Look in the Basement" is definitely worth watching for all fans of 1970s drive-in films. Back in the 70's, a small-time Texas filmmaker named S.F. Brownrigg directed a handful of surprisingly decent low-budget drive-in horror flicks which seem to have developed a small cult following over the years. Before viewing his first film, Don't Look In The Basement, I wasn't too sure what to expect, but I sure as hell didn't expect it to turn out to be the only Texas horror I thought was better than the Chainsaw Massacre. I don't know, this might actually be my all-time favorite horror movie.

We begin in an isolated insane asylum. At first, it seems like a rather laid-back place to get mentally healthy, considering all the patients are allowed to roam around freely and whatnot, as if it were their house (I guess it is). none of them seem all that dangerous, only delusional. The residents include a love-nympho, a 700 year old woman, a man-child, a spaz, a guy who thinks he's in a war, a woman who thinks she has a baby, and a guy who thinks he's a judge. One day, out of nowhere, Judge kills the doctor with an axe, shortly thereafter, the wanna-be baby mama kills the nurse. Ten minutes into the movie, and things are looking really ugly. Perhaps the new nurse will know what to do, then again, perhaps not. Giving away more would do more harm than good. It's best to plunge head first into this one, knowing as little as possible. If you can appreciate honest-to-God, untampered with horror, then you will not be disappointed.

If you liked Scream, if you liked Wrong Turn, if you go for that unoriginal, over-produced, over-scored digital Hollywood garbage, then chances are high you just wont see the beauty in this one. Don't Look In The Basement, being a first attempt makes the quality all the more shocking. The atmosphere and the graininess fit into the location and the score like a glove. Unfortunately, good ol' S.F. used up most of his good ideas on his first movie, although, the next entry in his Texas-sized quadrilogy, is somewhat of a masterpiece, that is, if you're into extra sleazy, mean-spirited, Hixploitation like someone I know. If you fall in love with Brownrigg's first two, and absolutely must find out what else he had to offer, check out Don't Open The Door, and The House Where Hell Froze Over. Don't Look in The Basement has everything that successful horror needs, no stars, no budget, no digital effects, just an original story brought to life in an insane asylum, with a dozen cast members, and a somber, subtle score, and of course, the twist. This is real horror for the real horror fan. 10/10 Widely known as "Don't Look in the Basement" - this is pure 70s horror, B-movie goodness that could actually pass as the genre's version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Though the movie seems to go nowhere throughout the first hour+ of it's runtime, I enjoyed this particular batch of quirky crazies and their various personalities and deficiencies - such as the former army sergeant, a chick obsessed with caring for a plastic doll, a lovable man-child, and a loony nymph. After their head-doctor is murdered by a patient, a small sanitarium hires a new nurse onto their under-staffed facility, who becomes immersed in the resident's different "ticks" and outbursts. Things gradually become stranger, however, when patients start acting far more abnormal than usual... You never really know, or care, where the movie is going, 'cause it still entertains up until it's completely whacked-out ending! Several of the "twists" felt a little too forced and I could have used a tad more blood, but I really dug this much too under-rated blend of humor and horror. Check it out... Clearly my rating for this is not to suggest it compares with the classy horrors of the likes of Argento but with other 70s low budget, drive in fare and in that department it truly is a classic. The lack of money shows, (Does anyone care too much?) the acting is adequate rather than professional, (Does that make it more realistic?) but unlike so many other movies, and not just low budget ones, this does not drag for a moment. Crap it may be but non stop crap, in your face crap and although inevitably a bit campy at times, this is a must see for anyone who has any idea what I'm talking about. At times quite delirious, this crazy little film filled out with crazy characters is clearly made for fun and fun indeed it is to watch. I just discovered this obscure '70s horror movie while browsing on YouTube. For a low-budget effort, it has plenty of compelling moments in gradual pacing in leading to the surprisingly shocking finish. While there is one woman who takes off her shirt constantly, the fact that she's a nymphomaniac makes those scenes important to the story and there's one scene with the curly-haired young man as he attempts to seduce her that turned me on before his pulling back made her screaming mad. The young nurse who comes in and gets hired is alluring herself and I'm not surprised she posed for the cover of Playboy. Some characters are very irritating and some scenes do seem ridiculous. For the most part, however, Don't Look in the Basement (That's the title I saw on YouTube) provides enough drama and chills for an entertaining B-movie. Don't Look in the basement is actually a very clever and well thought out exploitation flick that gets a bad rap because of its cheap quality and bad acting. Sure, it's not a masterpiece by anyone's standards but it is a very fun little B-film with a lot to offer and even a lot of creepy scenes that will stay in your head.

As I said, the acting could have been a lot better but that's the case with most exploitation so I can't really complain. The story is clever and has some great plot twists that will keep you guessing. I thought the gore was a lot of fun too. There's just something great about older gore films because they didn't have CGI back then so they had to actually set it all up themselves. See this one for a good time! This film, also known as "don't look in the basement" is actually not bad. It is a little known film even to die hard horror fans but I found this movie pretty entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not without its problems but do think more people should give it a look. The story of a hot nurse going to work in a sanitarium is certainly an appealing one to me. I thought the acting , which seemed forced at first, somehow got better as the film went along. It seems like the actors really got into their roles. There are some good, colorful characters, including a guy who thinks he's still a soldier, one who thinks he's a judge, an adult with a child's brain, and an attractive girl who craves attention so bad she drops her clothes when any man gets near her. The title "don't look in the basement" has about as much relevance to the story as "the last house on the left" has on that film. If you like movies with creepy characters in a mental ward like I do, check this out. Sweet young nurse Charlotte Beale (a charming performance by ravishing redhead knockout Rosie Holotik) goes to work at a remote rural asylum run by Dr. Geraldine S. Masters (the excellent Annabelle Weenick). Among the motley assortment of colorfully crazed patients are insatiable, aggressive nymphomaniac Allyson King (the luscious Betty Chandler), loopy Judge Oliver W. Cameron (a gloriously hammy Gene Ross), paranoid Vietnam veteran Sergeant Jaffee (nicely played by Hugh Feagin), gentle giant Sam (the amiable William Bill McGhee), and nutty old hag Mrs. Callingham (the supremely irritating Rhea MacAdams). Said patients are dangerously encouraged to act out their fantasies by Dr. Masters, which of course results in a rash of brutal killings. Director S.F. Brownrigg, working from a clever and suitably overwrought script by Tim Pope, does an expert job of creating and sustaining a suffocatingly dank and brooding atmosphere of seething madness and oppressive claustrophobia. Robert Farrar's spooky score, the grimy set design, a few wild grisly murders, Bruce B. Alcott's grungy no-frills cinematography, plenty of deliciously robust, scenery-scarfing histrionics from a game no-name cast (Ross in particular is a total eye-rolling hoot), and the genuinely shocking surprise bloodbath conclusion further add to the overall infectiously seedy fun of this choice trashy chunk of 70's low-budget regional horror exploitation cinema. As a late-going patron of the drive-in thearers (1970's-1980s), there are many movies that I have seen & forgotten. This is one I could never forget. Despite its low-budget, exploitation-style of movie-making, the STORY was very well done. The isolated therapy-asylum, where patients act out their fantasies in order to help cure their phsycosis, the accidental murder of the head doctor just as the new nurse arrives on the scene, the (supposed) assistant doctor taking over, the various crazy paitents, the revelation that the assistant doctor is actually a patient herself, and, finally, the rescue of the young nurse by the simple-minded Sam, who killed everyone else in the house so she could escape unharmed, made for a great STORY, which held the film together. I emphasised the word STORY because that's what makes a good or great film. No matter how much blood, gore, nudity, sexual matter, or outrageous behaviour you put in a film, if the STORY is not good, then the film is not good. The film credits show clips of all the actors, including the old hag with the final line telling you to get out & never come back, which is a great ending to this film. If it is out on video/DVD, see it & enjoy it. Nemesis Game is a mind-bending film filled with riddles, death, mystery, and philosophy. In it's simplest sense the film is about seeking answers and what happens when you've finally found them all. The search for answers leads Sarah Novak down a path that gets darker as it gets more compelling. The final answer seems more dangerous than it is worth, yet Sarah is so close to understanding it all. What would you do if you were offered the ability to finally make sense of the chaos of life?

The movie was written and directed by Jesse Warn. While this was Warn's first feature length film, the movie doesn't reflect that at all, but instead shows polish and an artistic approach to telling the story. Carly Pope was powerful in the lead role and showed a depth of complexity that was fascinating to watch. I would definitely love to see more of her work.

Being based on riddles, this is a very cerebral movie. It's that's your thing, as it is mine, then I totally recommend seeing Nemesis Game. Rating: 4.5/5 It could be easy to complain about the quality of this movie (you don't have to throw cartloads of money at a movie to make it good, nor will it guarantee that it is worth watching) but I think that is totally missing the point. If your expecting fast cars, T&A or a movie that will spell itself out for you then don't watch this, you'll be disappointed and dumbfounded.

This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, kept us on the edge of our seats and made us really think. The writer obviously put a lot of thought and research behind this movie and it shows through the end, just remember to keep an open mind.

Note: the school scenes were all filmed at McMaster University and most of the rest was done in Toronto. I saw the movie while I was in a class a few years back in high school. I thought it was a thought provoking movie that made you want to look into the power behind riddles. I think the type of people that wouldn't like this movie would be those who don't like solving things, or those who get frustrated when they can't solve riddles. its a good movie, based on a true story that happened in my home town of Toronto, Ontario. so if u want a real record of the things that happen in the alleys there, watch this movie. And for those who only watch movies to point out plot holes and character flaws, realize that in real life, this same stuff does happen. but thats all I want to say on that. The riddles are good, some are hard, some are not. But the movie also leaves you wanting more, more riddles, more explanation, just plainly, more. Something more I want to add, is that the ideas within this movie, the underground riddle world, does exist, but there is a lot more to it. To find it, you can not look for it. To never look for it, would be no way to find it. Leave your mark, and it will find you. A raw edgy thriller that aimed for great philosophical heights it couldn't quite attain. I did still enjoy the film immensely. It had great elements of suspense, leaving me with that delightful spine chill I expect from thrillers, and it achieved this purely psychologically, without resorting to escalating blood and gore. The soundtrack and setting added to the suspense perfectly. At times, it was a bit unpolished, particularly the acting, and character development. It could only have been a better film if we had known more about the nightmares from the past the characters see when they close their eyes, and why they felt this desperate need to seek the "answer" that is so integral to the storyline. After all they seemed to continue to seek it, despite knowing or at least having an inkling of what might happen when they found it. I would recommend seeing this film if you are prepared to look beyond the grit to see the potential of a diamond in the rough. What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.

I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.

As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them "mailed" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.

I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.

The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots "conclusion" or "answer" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the "meaning of life" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.

No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.

****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous "question" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...

YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM. this film was probably the best "scary film" i've seen in years. chilling might be a more accurate description. the ending was unexpected and therefore took me by surprise. if it has any flaw it would be the overuse of the whole meaning of life concept. since noone truly knows that answer, you definitely sail into murky waters when you incorporate that concept into a movie. put that aside and the movie is quite enjoyable. carly pope should emerge as one of the next bright young stars in the film industry. the rest of the cast were somewhat shaky, however since the focus was on sara novak (carly pope), her performance anchored the movie. the, at times poor acting abilities of her costars were not an issue since it was not their performances that fuelled this movie. (thankfully). watch this movie you should enjoy it.

t I have seen many many movies and this just totally blew my mind. The trauma, the suspense is just amazing. I ended so wound up in the psychological fear and Philosophy of it, and relating it to reality. Movies that play and challenge your mind are movies you don't forget, those that make you doubt your reality. A problem could be the quality, but that doesn't bring down the essence of the movie.

The idea it self is brilliant and the ending leaves you just completely shocked and with the question for you to seek the answer. I just totally loved it! So many clues and twitches and puzzles. One of the best movies ever, hands down. Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists I watched this film not knowing anything about it. I had presumed it was a sci-fi b movie of some sort. How wrong I was. The plot is enthralling and intelligent, the cast are all charismatic and the whole film just makes you think for a change. Some of the riddles stumped me completely but in the end the answers were rather simple. I am quite baffled at the low scoring of this film as I thought it was quite unusual. If you liked the film Se7en (Seven) with Brad Pit or The Matrix then you will like this. There is no major special effects or fancy gimmickry here at all. It is all about the plot, about building the characters and building an atmosphere. It is a film however than ultimately provides no answers which may irk some people but I thought the ending was great. I am still not sure if the film is based on an true story or not....... This is a cult classic for sure!!

It is tricky to follow at times, but then again, so is a film like Jacobs Ladder or even say Fight Club. If you want standard fare, then i figure go rent the Care Bears Movie or perhaps an old Disney classic. But if you want " to view the world differently" then i would say open yourself up to Enigma's and for that matter to a film that challenges what we see and think.

For me the key is that the film was original and had me questioning throughout. So while i have seen some complaints, all in all i would say take the film for what it is and enjoy. If you enjoy riddles and suspense, you will enjoy this movie. Truth be told it was mostly the Adrian Paul part that got me to pick it up, I knew almost nothing about the movie beforehand. Plot is: Sarah (Carly Pope), a student of philosophy and metaphysics, starts playing a mysterious riddle game trying to figure out "the reason" and gets involved in "the game" by solving riddles. Vern (Adrian Paul) is a shop owner, also a riddle fanatic, and also gets entangled in the game. Myth has it that if you solve the game, the meaning of existence (referred to as "The Design") is revealed. Brendan Fehr's character is a "village idiot" type hanging around the shop who turns out to be more than he seems. All in all, I thought the movie was pretty well done. And it's definitely an original concept, a rare find these days! I personally happen to like riddles and puns, so while most of them weren't very difficult, it was still a fun movie. Well worth the rental.

So, if you haven't seen it -- get it! :-D

To summerize this movie: nice for TV but too small for the theatre. I enjoyed watching this movie at home but I wont watch it a second time. The concept is good, but what ends up in the movie is just a summary. The end had a 'nice' twist but is still unsatisfying. Maybe it was the intention of the director but it wasn't worked out like a it should be. But then again, it's an OK kind of movie. Jennifer Montgomery's "Art for Teachers of Children" is a stunning, disturbing masterpiece. Montgomery's gritty camerawork and cinematography coupled with the brilliantly unemotional performances she evokes from her cast heighten the sense of shocking, raw realism in this autobiographical story of a 14-year-old Jennifer's seduction of her married boarding-school guidance counselor. The scenes between the amazingly uncanny actress playing Jennifer (Caitlin Grace McDonnell) and Jennifer's mother (actually voiced by Ruth Montgomery) on the phone are some of the most intriguing and powerful I've ever seen captured on film. The lesson ultimately learned here? "There's nothing more dangerous than a boring man who creates bad art." Well, I would highly recommend this remarkable piece of "Art" for anyone interested in thought-provoking independent cinema. The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.

Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.

Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?

The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general "flat" presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow. I watch a lot of movies - DVD, features, and classics, you name it. The night I watched JERICHO MILE, my wife (who had ordered it on the internet) said she remembered it from when she was in high school, that it had stayed with her all of these years. Somewhat reluctantly I sat down (with our daughter & son), and was riveted from the opening sequence to the end titles. We all were.

She, who remembered the original, and our kids (18 and 16) who had no idea what the movie was about couldn't believe it. Our favorite scene? Bar none, when peter Strauss so passionately bangs his fist down and says, "i'd do it AGAIN!". It didn't advocate violence because it was a defense crime, but evoked such intensity we couldn't believe it...when his fellow cell mates gave him their food in support of his efforts, there wasn't a dry eye in our house.

Someone please make more movies like this one. UNBELIEVABLE!! I watched the this the other night on a local station because I didn't feel like watching tripe like 'American Idol'. Peter Strauss gives a great performance as a convict named 'Rain' Murphy who keeps to himself. He admits to his crime and makes no bones that he feels no shame for it. His cell is bare of any comforts that other inmates have like books and pictures. The only time he feels in another zone is in running. He does it often and can run a mile in under four minutes. When a college coach hears about this, he wants to prime him for a shot at the Olympics. At first, 'Rain' wants no part of this, but when his best friend is killed, he shows interest.

This is a good movie, period. Strauss is very good (What did you expect, anything less?) and Michael Mann shows hints of greatness that would come full bloom years later. This movie had that bit of realism (probably because it was filmed among convicts). It almost feels like this was a true story. The additional casting is good. There is a lot of notable names like Brian Dennehy, Roger E. Mosley, and Richard Moll as well.

My heart sank when some pompous board of directors wouldn't let him run because he didn't feel bad for his crime. His final act made me stand up and cheer. When they took his dreams away, he took them back hard. This was back when TV movies were actually good. 'The Jericho Mile' is a gem of a film. ESPN Classic, PLEASE SHOW THIS FILM!!! I've never given a movie a ten out of ten before but this is the closest I have ever come (I gave it a 9). There are very few movies that I truly love, this however is one of them. With it's gritty realism, fantastic on-site locationing, and it's great soundtrack it literally blew my young mind when I first saw it in 1979. At that point I didn't know about prisons, violence, racial tensions, or the struggle to survive & live free. I doubt that anyone who is an adult, or for that matter anyone who is growing up in todays world could be impacted by this film in the same way I was all those years ago, but I will say this: "if you haven't seen this movie I envy you"; this is because you have the chance to see this great film for the frist time. For each of us they're different, but here's to the rarest movies of them all: the ones we actually love... An interesting and involved film about a "lifer" just trying to live out his days peacefully. Elements of the main character appear in Michael Mann's later films, like Thief (1981), Heat (1995), and so on. You can see this one at the UCLA Instructional Media Laboratory-- one of the only places in the country that has copies readily available to the public. It's a great one! I really enjoyed this movie - I like prison movies in general (I'm not sure why -- I'm sure some shrink could make something out of it!) I spent one night in jail more than 20 years ago, and I knew then I would never go back - I got the individual version of "scared straight"! (I did get locked up in an isolation cell on Alcatraz for a couple of hours, compliments of a park ranger, but that's another story!) Anyway, the genre really interests me. The soundtrack, specifically "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, was the perfect backdrop for the film. To this day, I think of "The Jericho Mile" every time I hear the song. Peter Strauss, by nature of appearing in mini-series and made-for-TV films, often gets an unfairly high proportion of bad reviews - Usually from casual observers who saw ten minutes of the film, having channel-hopped into it half-way through. Well, I've just read all the other 20 reviews for this film and am delighted to see not a single bad word said about The Jericho Mile - That should be enough to have you blasting out to buy this film!!

Peter Strauss won an Emmy for his role in this film and watching it even once will show you why he deserved it so much....

Looking to be objective, I attempted to criticise this film. Instead, I found myself arguing down every one of my possible nit-picks. This is what true, realistic film-making is about. This is not your typical Hollywood sensationalism, where everything is overacted - It's so realistic and true to life that people have thought it's based on a real event!! i love watching the Jericho mile. i mean watching peter Strauss run the mile is like watching usain bolt sprint the 100 meter. i think peter Strauss is a excellent actor and should do another running movie. he is lightning fast has great energy and can run a mile in under 4 minutes and that my friend is amazing. no man alive can out race rain Murphy i mean the man runs 80 mile a week no one does that but him. i've watched the Jericho mile 100's of times and will watch it 100's more. great movies get watched more than movies that are not. i thank the makers of this film for giving years of there lives to make it.they are great people and i bless them all.thank you for letting me get my word out again thank you all. A film that deserved theatrical release. This made-for-television movie is a cinematic gem that exemplifies the technique of Michael Mann with stirring contemporary music tightly integrated to the visual images. Always with Mr. Mann, the amplification of impact by the music is almost as if there is an invisible academy-award-winning actor added to the ensemble of cast, writer, director and cinematographer.

This film is definitely one of my all time favorites. While nothing is perfect, this film comes very, very close.

Along with an excellent script, great direction and masterful acting by Richard Strauss, there is an all-star ensemble of character actors at their finest: Roger Mosely; Brian Dennehy; Ed Lauter; Geoffrey Lewis; Richard Moll; Miguel Pinero; William Prince; Burton Guilliam; Ji-Tu Cumbuka; Richard Lawson and Billy Green Bush. You may not recognize the names, but you will recognize every face.

If this comes on TV, sit down with popcorn, turn up the sound for an amazing soundtrack and score, and prepare to be riveted for the 97 minutes of the film. I highly recommend recording it, since it is only available on VHS and DVD from Holland and the DVD is region 2 encoded. The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it alone…and crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry "Rain" Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory. I read on the web that this film is being remade into a theatrical feature. Finally!!!!! It's about time Hollywood got their act together. The big Studios always frown at edgy material, with Oscar written all over it. Go figure!!

JERICHO MILE was made ahead of it's time. It's a masterpiece.

Michael Mann, a true visionary, found a way to engage an audience without overindulgence. Peter Strauss' Emmy award performance is probably the best character role I've seen in my film-viewing lifetime. Any actor who touches this role will never be the same (unless an Academy Award is already sitting on their mantle).

The gritty multi ethnic ensemble, a backdrop for THE JERICHO MILE makes one understand the delicate social dynamics of our world. This is about redemption without public validation, and the power of the human spirit overcoming all barriers. Imagine a convict imprisoned since he was a teenager for life with no chance of parole, that doesn't know he is possibly the fastest runner in the world. ...what would you do??

This movie makes you walk away feeling you haven't been cheated on any level. Totally thrilling, engaging, emotional, and a "Rolling Stones" soundtrack that kick's ass!!!

I always thought this would be made for the big screen... Can't wait...!!! In the meantime I'll have to continue re-watching my weathered VHS copy I've had for many years. This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one! This movie was very good. I really enjoyed it. Tom McCamus' performance was excellent and very believable as the consumptive son Edmund. I also enjoyed the set design (house) and the costumes. "The Desperadoes" (1943) is a genuine classic, not for its story (which is fairly routine), but for its technical production elements. This was a landmark western, the biggest ever at the time of its release and all the more unique because it was a Columbia production-a lightweight studio with a bottom feeding reputation. Only Fox's "Jesse James" (also starring Randolph Scott) from a few years earlier gave anywhere near this lavish a treatment to the genre. Although it would be eclipsed in a few years by "The Searchers" and "High Noon", "The Desperadoes" was a ground breaking effort and a historical treasure.

In 1863, the economy in the town of Red Valley, Utah is based on rounding up and selling wild horses to the Union Army. The script gets a little messed up here with references to the railroad (which was several years away in Utah's future) and Custer's Last Stand (Custer was busy fighting Stuart in Pennsylvania at the time) but these are not important plot elements.

Red Valley has an honest sheriff, Steve Upton (Scott), but the banker and several citizens are corrupt; robbing their own bank each time the government pays for a herd of horses. The town is visited by Cheyenne Rogers (Glenn Ford), a famous outlaw who is an old friend Steve's. He wants to go straight, especially after falling for the pretty livery stable owner Alison McLeod (Evelyn Keyes). Cheyenne's partner "Nitro" Rankin (Guinn "Big Boy" Williams) is mainly there for comic relief as are Uncle Willie McLeod (Edgar Buchanan) and the town judge (Raymond Walburn who models his character on Frank Morgan's "Wizard of Oz" crystal ball faker).

Taking no chances with their huge budget Columbia packed this thing with tons of action and every western movie element but Indians and covered wagons. There is the best wild horse stampede ever filmed, a spectacular barroom brawl, an explosive climax, romance, and three-strip Technicolor. All this stuff doesn't necessarily fit together but who would have cared back in 1943. Unity is a problem as it tries to be both a serious action western and a comedy.

The cinematography was probably the best ever at the time of its filming. The indoor scenes are solid but it is the naturalistic outdoor photography that is truly impressive; both the lyrical static shots and the moving camera filming of the action sequences.

Scott and Claire Trevor were top billed, but the studio clearly wanted to promote Ford, who would soon be their biggest star. And Director Charles Vidor utilized the film to showcase his new wife Keyes (whose portrayal of Scarlett's sister in "Gone With the Wind" had connected with audiences more than any small part in the history of films).

The Ford-Keyes dynamic is "The Desperadoes" most unique and important feature. Rather than go for the cliché "love triangle" with Scott and/or Trevor (which it first appears will happen), the entire romantic focus is on the two younger actors. This was probably the best role Keyes ever got and she makes the most of it. Playing a tomboyish but extremely sexy young woman who looks great in both leather pants and dresses, and who rides and fights like Kiera Knightley's character in "Pirates of the Caribbean". This was revolutionary at the time and coincided with the 1942 formation of the WAAC for WWII military service.

"The Desperadoes" is one film that has been well taken care of and the print looks like it is brand new. Unfortunately there are no special features on the DVD.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Probably because this is Columbia's first film in color, the colors look different specially in the indoor scenes. They seem to be stronger, sharper and the result is a bit unrealistic, but very pleasing. Randolph Scott is the sheriff, a good guy but the real star of the movie is a very young Glenn Ford, who is an outlaw that wants to change. Evelyn Keyes is the woman that starts falling for Ford and Claire Trevor is the Countess that runs the saloon. There is a funny character called Nitro that does not think twice before blowing it. I particularly enjoyed two moments of the film, one when there is a tremendous horse stampede and you see thousands of horses, there was no computer to help at that time, so I presume they must have gathered all those horses, no easy task. Another moment is the final shootout, technically very good. There is also quite a fistfight. Seeing this western made in 1943 with such great action scenes, makes you come to a sad conclusion: They don't make them anymore. Would they be able to in case they wanted? I have my doubts. Randolph Scott and Glenn Ford were once outlaw pals together, but now Scott's a sheriff and young Ford is still hiring his gun out. He gets hired to pull a bank job, but is delayed getting to town and those that hired him get someone else. That leads to all kinds of complications, a lot for a film that's not even 90 minutes long.

Randy and Glenn both got girls here. Claire Trevor plays her usual good time gal with a heart of gold. And Evelyn Keyes is the daughter of Edgar Buchanan who falls for Ford big time without realizing who he is or why he came to the town that Scott is the sheriff in.

It's B western, but unusual for the time and for Columbia Pictures it was given the full technicolor treatment. The Desperadoes marked Glenn Ford's first film in technicolor, a process reserved only for some of the more expensive films from bigger studios. Harry Cohn was certainly not one to shell out for it. And definitely not during war time.

The plot gets a bit convoluted as both Ford and Scott are put to the test of friendship versus expediency/duty. The plot also involves some high class hypocritical skunks in Randy's town who are the real outlaws as far as the film is concerned.

The four leads do a fine job and the best supporting performance is Guinn Williams as Ford's lovable explosive lunkhead of a sidekick. The climax involves a cattle stampede and a shootout in the town saloon and is one of the best ever done in a western film.

Fans of the four leads and westerns in general will enjoy this one. i liked this western Starring Randolph Scoot and Glenn Ford.it's got pretty much everything a western should have.there's gunfights,action,chases on horseback.there's a bit of a romance angle that's hinted at.there's some nice comic relief in the form of Edgar Buchanan,who plays Uncle Willie McLeod,a character who pretend to be a doddering old fool,but is actually aware of everything going on.Randolph Scott plays the town Sheriff,and Glenn Ford Plays Cheyenne Rogers/Bill Smith,a hunted outlaw who eventually tries to change his ways.i liked the different mix of characters in the movie.i didn't find it always fast paced,but i never found it boring either.even though the movie is in 1943,it is in colour. 8/10 This is simply a good ole fashioned western..not overly complex or long. It doesn't deceive itself in thinking that it was made but for entertainment. Still, it is one of those westerns you can watch once and be done with without returning. It features former partners Randolph Scott and Glenn Ford whose friendship is strong despite the fact that Ford's Cheyenne Rogers has been part of bank robbing(he even steals Scott's Sheriff Steve Upton's horse without knowing it his good friend for which he is thieving). In Red valley, Upton is under heavy scrutiny for a bank robbing that ended with several dead. Claire Trvor portrays Countess Maletta, a friend of Cheyenne's who gives he and buddy "Nitro"(Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams)a place to stay for the time being. Cheyenne desires to go straight, but finds that hard when Jack Lester(Bernard Nedell)and his bad bunch want to rob Red Valley's bank. It is actually Jack who is behind the murders, but Cheyenne's troubled past is hard to get away from. He and Nitro will be charged with the murders they didn't commit(the robbery was one Cheyenne didn't commit)and it will be Upton who must somehow save the day before Lester gets away with murder. There are sub-plots which include Cheyenne's falling in love with Alison McLeod{Evelyn Keyes;the irony of the story is that Alison's father, Uncle Willie, is actually in cahoots with Banker Stanley Clanton(Porter Hall)in a planned united theft with Lester to steal the town of Red Valley's loot}. Will Upton uncover Uncle Willie and Banker Clanton's treacherous scheme? Will Uncle Willie be able to go through it without his conscience always bothering him? This film has a terrific barroom brawl and a dandy of a climactic shootout. Columbia couldn't have picked a better genre to begin the coloring process as this film has some fine mountainous shots as men give chase on horseback and such. Don't expect to get your socks blown off, but the film is simple and well paced. Glenn Ford is hired by a crooked bank owner and wily stable owner Edger Buchanan to stage a fake robbery while the banker hides the real loot. With Ford a no-show, the two instead go with a trigger happy second choice, leaving Ford on the hook for killings he didn't commit.

Columbia Pictures' first color feature, The Desperadoes looks fantastic with sets and costumes fabricated to take full advantage of the Technicolor process accentuating tons of well staged western spectacle.

This has the irresistible teaming of a young Glenn Ford (third-billed but essentially the star) and a prime Randolph Scott leading an incredible supporting cast of great character actors in colorful roles, including scene-stealer Edger Buchanan as a good-natured but mildly villainous yokel who isn't as dumb as he looks and who has quite a few memorable lines.

A fairly complex script effectively mixes incredible action sequences, melodrama, and comedy, well directed by Charles Vidor. This is one of the great westerns of the nineteen-forties and highly recommended. This was a excellent back when it came out. It had some the best talent available and a funny story. Between Candace Cameron and Tatyana Ali, it was hard to choose who is cuter, and add in Carlton from Fresh Prince and all the other big names, and you get a blockbuster. Ok, a made for TV blockbuster, but none the less. If you can find this move, don't miss it.

I think this movie is my favorite movie. I am not sure why, but it is. Julia Duffy has been my favorite actress for awhile, and when I saw this, I went crazy. It's sort of romantic, and I definitely recommend this movie. As a teenager, I watched this movie every time it was on TV (and it was on a LOT) because of its witty, appealing-to-teenager humor. It may not be what critics consider 4 star viewing, but I love it for what it is--a fun comedy meant to please the audience. The teen actors are of my generation (probably why I love the movie so much) and was like a fantasy cast of everyone's favorite TV shows of the early 90's--Full House, Family Matters, Fresh Prince--all of the shows were represented and the result was probably the best teen movie of the 90's. Though it may not include the high doses of nudity and violence that so many teen movie writers think vital to success among the youth demographic (or perhaps because of its absence), I highly recommend it to pre-teens and teenagers everywhere. This movie is all about reality, submarine warfare in WW2 was not a clean precise science. There were no computers giving exact enemy details, there was no precise instrumentation to 100% control the sub. Not all the crew went to fight with a song in their heart, and a smile on their dial.

People with expectations of seeing a "pretty war" in this movie will be grossly disappointed, .............. GOOD, they deserve to be disappointed, they deserve to have reality shoved into their face.

War is not clean, exact, fought by people about to break into song. It is endured by scared, cold/burnt, hungry, desperate people willing to do anything to survive.

"We Dive at Dawn" is a fine example portraying a desperate situation needing desperate actions. The submarine used was NOT Varangian! 'It' was in fact two boats, P614 and P615, both built for Turkey by Vickers Armstorng at Barrow-in-Furness but kept hold of by the Royal Navy for the duration of the war. P615 was sunk but P614 was eventually delivered in 1945.

The confusion no doubt arose because someone looked up P61 (as I did) and found Varangian! When in fact, the last digit of both P614 and P615 was in fact just painted out....

There are some extremely realistic moments in the film. These Turkish boats were very similar to the S-class. As no S-class submarines survive, the shots of them (as P61) and of the depot ship "Forth" form part of an interesting record now, as well as an excellent film. Any film about WWII made during WWII by a British production company has no latter-day peer in my opinion, respectfully. The confluence of so many things near and dear to my heart are in At Dawn We Dive: as a descendant of Admiral Horatio Nelson and student of all aspects of World War Two and particularly naval warfare, I favor depictions of subs and action in the North Atlantic and especially those which include the German side of things. For those unacquainted with target priorities, an attack on an enemy warship is the greatest event that a submarine can hope to encounter and such a rare opportunity would develop surprisingly similarly to what we see here. The pacing is deliberate and typical of the works coming out of the Ealing, Rank and British-Gaumont studios back in the day: frankly I prefer its quieter, more cerebral approach for its humanity and realism that engages far better than any over-produced Hollywood movie ever could. This reminds me of Powell and Pressburger's The 49th Parallel thanks to the powerfully persuasive Eric Portman, a favorite of mine. John Mills receives second billing and a smaller font in the titles, so this is clearly meant to be Mr. Portman's film but the whole cast shines. As for the title sequence, am I the only one who is utterly charmed by Gainsborough Production's lovely pre-CGI Gainsborough Girl? This is an excellent tub-thumper from the war years.

John Mills leads a fine cast of regular British B-movie stalwarts in a solo submarine attack upon a fictitious enemy battleship.

Filmed in black and white, it's well paced and also well placed considering that a war was going on at the time. If anything, it shows how seriously the authorities took positive propaganda.

The mission-side of the movie takes place in genuine submarines. Things are cramped and claustrophobic. The actors look suitably grimy and sweaty without being too offensive to the heroic palate. Other commentators have already drawn attention to the authentic little details like keeping the vessel trim and forgetting to read instruments, as well as the engine-room activities.

This probably is the first movie in which debris (and a dead German) is blown from the torpedo tube to fool an enemy destroyer. And it's the ONLY time I have seen part of the vessel exposed in a pretence of sinking - a high risk gamble if ever there was one.

I'm a little sceptical as to whether or not a submarine could punch its way through a wire-rope net. Submerged speed was barely twice that of human walking speed, and the net would have had a great deal of 'give'. Also, the engineer was at the same work-station and operating the same levers both on the surface and submerged. This, too, seems implausible as either diesel or electric engines were used and they were in different sections of the ship - or so I'm told.

There was a wee bit too much shore-side drama for my tastes. But then, this was a propaganda effort, and clearly contained a subtle message for civilians to mind their behaviour as it could adversely affect service morale and therefor the war effort.

These niggles aside, it's a pretty entertaining little adventure. Nowadays movies of such vintage tend to be screened in the afternoon, whilst far more modern and inferior movies enjoy prime-time. But then; it's no longer politically-correct to mention the war in the presence of our European friends (Too many of them have guilty consciences), or our own left-wing fascists (non of whom have ever fought for the freedoms they now take for granted).

As a submarine movie it is eminently collectible. Better than 'The Enemy Below', I think, though less demonstrative. Not so authentic as 'Das Boot' by any means, but not so gross either. If you're in the middle of a ferocious war and it's still not clear that you're going to come out on top, among the things you'll be concerned with is to keep up the morale of the civilians...to demonstrate that our troops have the bravery, the resourcefulness and the dedication to overcome all the odds in a noble cause. And that's just what director Anthony Asquith provided the British with 1943's naval war film, We Dive at Dawn. After more than 60 years, it's not surprising that some of the movie is dated. It doesn't help that the class stereotypes which help define the enlisted men from the officers can be jarring. Here, as in so many other British war films, the men invariably have thick regional working class accents while the officers speak with an educated fluency that would place them at home in England's finest ruling-class establishments. In this movie, Freddie Taylor (John Mills), the captain of the submarine Sea Tiger, is clever, confident, resourceful, aggressive, in control, good with his men, humorous with his peers, quick to make a decision. And it helps that he's lucky. His men are jolly tars, for the most part, competent at their jobs and always ready with a joke when things get tense. Although we spend the first third of the movie getting to know these people while they're on leave, after that things get tense quickly.

Taylor and his sub are ordered to destroy the Brandenburg, a new German battleship. They just miss the ship when it enters the Kiel Canal and heads into the Baltic. Taylor assesses the risks and decides the Sea Tiger will go after it, through mine fields, anti-sub nets and with a real risk of not having enough fuel to return to home base. After several tense situations, the confrontation takes place. The Sea Tiger lets loose six torpedoes but has to dive, not knowing if it had done its job. After a clever subterfuge, Taylor outfoxes a couple of German destroyers but then realizes there is not enough fuel. He plans to scuttle his sub and surrender when, just at the last moment, James Hobson (Eric Portman), a seaman who had been sullen and a loner and who speaks German, says there is a small Danish coastal village that had been a fuel depot. He thinks it might still be for the Germans. The last third of the movie is a rousing action sequence as the crew of the sub attempts to hold off the Germans long enough to pump in enough fuel to get the Sea Tiger back to Britain. This is a wartime propaganda movie, so don't expect failure. And did the Sea Tiger actually put the Brandenburg down? Are the men reunited with their wives and sweethearts? Did Hobson have a reconciliation with his wife and small son that left him smiling for once? Did Freddie Taylor finally have a chance to make use of all those female names in his little black book? You'll have to see the movie.

There are propaganda war movies and there are propaganda war movies. Some, like Powell's and Pressburger's One of Our Aircraft Is Missing and The 49th Parallel, still stand up to viewing today because the stories are solid and unexpected and the creators didn't use obvious shorthand clichés. Others, like We Dive at Dawn, were made with enough clichés that when watching we have to remind ourselves how dire the time was when the film was made. Still, Asquith can build a lot of suspense even with a few clichés. The Sea Tiger's forcing its way through a sub net was tense. The stalking of the Brandenburg and the plotting needed for the torpedo firing was realistic; John Mill's no-nonsense attitude while he prepared to attack was well-handled. The fake-out preparations to make the Sea Tiger look as if it had been destroyed by depth charges was as realistic, inside the sub as well as out, as you could hope for, and the battle for the fuel depot was dramatic and exciting. We Dive at Dawn is not a classic war film, but it's a well-made, well-acted example of its type and time.

John Mills, it's worth noting, had a long, long career. Especially in the Fifties he played in a number of serious-minded films looking back at those WWII days. He had the quality of showing grit, cheerfulness and perseverance, but of also being trustworthy, a man England could be proud of as he fought the war. Top-billed in this movie was Eric Portman, a fine actor with a unique voice and the ability to give stares so cold you'd want to put on a sweater. Everyone on the sub is very much in the joking but stiff-upper-lip mode, but Portman manages some complexity for his character. Mills and Portman did fine jobs working together on this film. I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty ("I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his "I Love Arabella" tattoo!

***************************MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**************************

We Dive at Dawn is an English made movie with John Mills in the lead role. The second time I watched the DVD version was on a big screen TV and I must say the movie is better than I thought the first time I saw it on the samll screen. May be it was the big screen viewing that helped?

I still say the first few segments of the movie are muddled, but once the submarine leaves the dock and begins its mission, the movie takes off too! The search for the German battleship named the Brandenburg and the adventures which went along with it were absorbing and the detail shown in the movie are interesting!

I'm increasing my rating to 7/10. If you enjoy WW II films, I think you'll find this one interesting once the submarine gets underway. Some of the men on the sub have quite a sense of humor, too! This seemed to be a lackluster film to me that betrays a low budget with poor cinematography and not all that great of a job of editing. It may be of interest to those who know something about submarines during the World War II era, but I recommend that all others beware. Many of the scenes in this film were flat and some of the actors were a bit weak. The story about the men getting called back to duty during a short leave seems realistic enough, but there's no real pacing or tension in the story. I also had a tough time understanding what the actors were saying, partially due to some strong English accents and perhaps some due to an inferior job of sound recording. I give this a 55/100. Most folks will want to "steer" clear. This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. This, in my opinion, is Rob Lowe at his best. I'm not quite sure why this film has gotten such a low rating. I guess you either love it or hate it, but if nothing else, it is definitely worth a rental. This one is a hilarious diamond in the rough. The acting and plot aren't that impressive, but the lines just keep on coming. This catches a lot of flack because it seems at first glance like, well, a bad movie, but it's so kooky that you can't help but be amused. The spastic lightening quick dialog and quirky characters keep it going... I was especially fond of Sharon, the Canuck on Shrooms eh? However, the one that really stole the show was Richard's little brother Andrew (Ira Heiden), his high pitched whining was somehow endearing. The whole movie rocked. I swear if I did ever tried cocaine I'd be able to relate to this film perfectly. Its pace, as well as the dialog, churns out at speeds that some viewers might need to stop and relax their heads.

There are great little elements that pop up through out the film, like how Rob Lowe's character seems to always be loosing a shoe, or how some characters keep running spirals around his zigzagged path. The story was put together extremely well and the direction seems flawless.

The movie reeks of clumsy and cuteness. This is one I think most could enjoy. A few laugh-out-loud-even-if-you-are-alone moments ensure that I'll certainly be watching this again. "Shivering Shakespeare" could be considered the first classic of the "Our Gang" talkie era. By now, Hal Roach Studios began to hit their stride in making talking pictures, and "Shakespeare" is the happy result.

The Gang is appearing in a version of Quo Vadis produced by Kennedy the Cop's wife. The kids don't find the play very fun to be in and are distracted by people in the theatre and cannot remember their lines. Among the funniest bits are Kennedy the Cop as the giant, who pulls off his makeup to fight an overzealous man in a bull costume; and the terrible dancing girl (played by director Bob McGowan's daughter.)

Several filmographies mention that "Shakespeare" has the first pie fight in a talkie. This may be true, seeing as they tried different speeds with the film during the fight. Buster Keaton's brother Harry is at the receiving end of one of the pies. Very funny and an early Gang talkie classic. 9 out of 10. I first saw this as a kid (THE LITTLE RASCALS first went on TV the year I was born) and fairly recently bought this on DVD. In between, I watched it on the occasions it was on and took careful notes at 1) the pie fight itself and 2) how racist some of these parts were: Farina as a Nubian slave, doing voodoo, for example. I think Roach and McGowan would have been beaten to death if they'd tried to do that now.

Notice how the pie fights in The Three Stooges' HALFWITS' HOLIDAY and IN THE SWEET PIE AND PIE resemble this one...and this film came out a few years before their initial contract with Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures. There was obviously some inspiration from SS and Laurel & Hardy's THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY for these films...remember, at that time, they all stole from the best, each other!!!

One more note: Laurel & Hardy buffs, that bake sale lady was none other than Dorothy Coburn, who also appeared in TBOTC-the 'flapper' getting into her car and getting it in the rear end. It always escapes me why she was never credited? Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets.

Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself.

As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.

Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't. Intense domestic suspense with the mistress of the house (Lupino, excellent as always) threatened by a psychotic migrant housecleaner (Ryan). The 2 masters of the genre are at their heady, erotic best as they match wits, emotions, and wills in a bizarre hostage situation right out of the Saturday Evening Post. Richly hued B & W photography with an unusual amount of close-up head shots. The young girl who teases Ryan is really well directed here. Improbable, but satisfying suburban melodrama. I can see that the ratings for this film aren't all that high for this film, so I must be in the minority for liking this film so much. Well, I am right and everyone else is wrong (just kidding). I guess I like it because I am a psychology teacher and I really liked the brooding character played by Ryan. While he truly is dangerous as well as VERY menacing, you can't exactly hate him because he is clearly mentally ill and probably suffering from some sort of brain trauma. And wow did Ryan do a really good job portraying this man! You really find yourself feeling for Ida Lupino as he destroys her life. So with such intense acting and menace, why is the movie rated relatively low? Well, probably because it isn't exactly believable,...but boy is it entertaining and creative. Give it a try and don't believe the score of 6.4--it's a lot better than that! Whenever Ida Lupino appeared or directed a film in the 30's,40's and 50's, you were guaranteed great entertainment even if the picture was black and white. Ida was able to capture audiences and keep them spellbound until the very end of her pictures. In this film as Mrs. Helen Gordon,"High Sierra",'41 along with Robert Ryan,(Howard Wilton),"Golden Gloves",'40 she keeps you guessing just how the relationship is going to turn out and just how poor Mrs. Gordon will be able to have a normal and happy marriage with love and real affection. If you liked Ida Lupino, who could play the roles as a criminal in a woman's prison and prison warden who was hated, this is the film for you to enjoy. I truly believe that Ida Lupino was not given the true credit she deserved for her great talents in the Movie Industry!!! The movie with its single set, minimal cast, and straightforward photography (except for a couple of brief special effects) reminds me of one of those old 60 minute playhouse dramas so popular during TV's early years. Nonetheless, the suspense hangs heavy over poor war widow Ida Lupino as she tries to deal with her semi-psychotic handyman Robert Ryan before one of his mood-swings kills her. And who better to play the troubled part than that great actor Ryan. He wasn't very versatile-- watching him essay comedy is almost painful. But no one was better at wounded idealism (On Dangerous Ground) or the psychic pain of this movie. Few actors could express as much with their eyes as this lean and towering figure.

Lupino's problem is that she's locked up in her house with a man who is kind and gentle one moment and raging the next. The suspense comes from her various ploys to keep him happy while trying to escape. It's a nail-biter all the way. This is not one of Lupino's many fine "soulful" parts that she was so good at. Instead, it's a role many lesser actresses could have handled well enough. My favorite scene is with Ryan and bratty teenager Margaret Whiting. Ryan's already having difficulty with his masculinity and what others are saying about him. Then when Whiting walks in and finds the attractive-looking Ryan scrubbing the floor, she starts getting coy, flirting with her budding sexuality. Sensing trouble, Ryan abruptly fends her off-- finesse is not his strong suit. Insulted, Whiting attacks his masculinity by calling his work "women's work". That does it. Up to that point he's been courteous and professional with Lupino, trying to set himself on a normal path. But Whiting has hit his raw nerve. Now there's heck to pay as Whiting bounces out the door, leaving Lupino to pay the price. It's a riveting scene, expertly done.

Anyway, this is one of the dozen or so films produced by Lupino and her husband at a time when audiences were moving away from these little black-and-whites in favor of wide-screen spectacles. Too bad. What a hugely talented figure she was both behind the camera and in front. She deserves at least an honorary Oscar from a movie industry to which she contributed so much. When I first saw this film it was about 1956 and even though I saw it again recently I have not changed my mind about it. I think it was Robert Ryans best film, because he portrayed someone like my father, and he was a schizophrenic in real life,(my father) although he never murdered anyone but was affected more so during the second world war which made him worse. Having to humour him just to get by and get through the day was so apt. (My mother and brother had to do this)When I saw Robert Ryan portraying this type of man, it was a very good imitation of this type of individual, and I was impressed. We are in a small town, a homely widow (Ida Lupino) hires a handyman (Robert Ryan) to look after her house. She soon starts to regret it as Ryan grows erratic by the hour, it appears that she is host to a dangerous schizophrenic, and now she is unable to escape her house.

Beware, My Lovely is adapted from Mel Dinelli's {The Spiral Staircase} story and play called "The Man". Pretty much a one set movie and a two character driven piece, the film boasts two great central performances and offers up an interesting take on mental illness. One however shouldn't be fooled into thinking this is a violent and nerve shredding picture, because it isn't. It's clear from the get go that Ryan's Howard Wilton is a dangerously troubled man, but this is a different sort of "peril" movie. One that throws up another slant on psychosis and thus makes it difficult to hate our dangerous protagonist.

Ryan and Lupino are a great combination, they had also done the excellent, and far better, On Dangerous Ground this same year. So with both actors clearly comfortable together, it brings out a finely tuned character story all based in the confines of one house, re: prison. Ryan is particularly strong as his character flits in and out of madness, with some scenes powerful and at times inducing fear and at others garnering deep sympathy. The direction from Harry Horner is safe {he in truth doesn't have to do much other than let his actors run with it} and George E. Diskant's cinematography contains some smart and impacting visual touches. With one involving Christmas tree baubles immensely memorable. Falling some where in between being average and great, Beware, My Lovely has enough about it to make it a recommendation to fans of borderline and easy to follow Film-Noir. For fans of Robert Ryan tho, it's something of an essential viewing, oh yes, and then some. 7/10 Beware My Lovely originated from a play written by Mel Dinelli who apparently liked writing about frightened women. His first and best effort was the screenplay for The Spiral Staircase. He also did a Loretta Young suspense thriller Cause For Alarm a couple of years earlier. The play Dinelli wrote was originally entitled The Man and it ran for 92 performances on Broadway during the 1950 season. It was Dinelli's only effort on Broadway and it starred Dorothy Gish and Richard Boone.

The roles that Gish and Boone played are taken by Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan. For whatever reason RKO thought to eliminate the age difference. Dinelli himself rewrote his play for the screen so I'm wondering what he thought about that. Certainly the frailty issue was eliminated completely from the story.

That wasn't the only thing that was eliminated. The people are all wearing period clothing from around World War I yet there's no reference at all to the time this story takes place in. I thought that strange and later on when the telephone company repairman comes to Ida Lupino's residence, I noticed his truck was a vintage one of the same era.

The film is almost entirely set within Ida Lupino's home where she's hired an itinerant stranger in Robert Ryan as a handyman. The film is a great object lesson in not hiring strangers without reference. It turns out that Ryan is a schizophrenic who imprisons Lupino in her home for about a day.

Both the leads do fine jobs even with the changes made. Films like Beware My Lovely are the stuff that a small studio like RKO did best. If this were done at MGM or Paramount the glossy trappings would have overwhelmed a solid story. The subject is World War II and Robert Ryan is a rejected soldier whom Lupino hires as handyman. She is a war widow.

The set is limited but the acting makes up for this. Robert Ryan is conflicted: one moment he seems nice, then confused about where he lives. At first Lupino tries to help him. He seems troubled but nothing more dangerous. But how do we know? The suspense builds. I truly enjoy films like this, which rely on the human element for suspense. What is this man capable of?. There are some scenes with O.Z. Whitehead and Dee Pollock as an annoying grocery boy who sees something is wrong. We keep thinking she will be helped, then Ryan's personality turns again. He becomes like a Jekyll/Hyde character and eventually chases Lupino with a knife.

Worth watching for these two superb actors. 9/10. I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only "damaged" character. Howard is rather ruthlessly "set-up" by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic " I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home". Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.

The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - "Floor's are my speciality". Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.

Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.

Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the "sacredness" of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything "untouched" has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.

Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.

Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer "On Dangerous Ground", but this is pretty good too. A terrific B-feature. A virtual two-hander and set over the course of a day, (you can see it's stage origins and even how it must have worked as a radio play), and although only 77 minutes long, played out in sequences akin to something like real time. Robert Ryan is the psychopath who keeps Ida Lupino trapped in her own home. Both are superb, especially the under-rated Lupino whose initial independence and self-control soon crumble before Ryan's unhinged intruder. Today, of course, it would be all guts and gore but the restraint shown by director Harry Horner, (much better known as an Art Director), only adds to the suspense which at times is worthy of Hitchcock. Beware, My Lovely came on TV on BBC2 recently during the early hours so I set the video to record it and was pleased I did.

A man finds a dead woman so he escapes so he don't get the blame for her murder and gets a job as a handyman at a widow's house but she does not know what she is taking on here. It turns out this man is a psychopath and possible killer. He starts tormenting her and locks her in the cellar. He then cuts the phones line so she can't get help from the outside. A young boy who regularly does shopping for her notices something isn't quite right when he comes to drop her shopping off. Eventually, the man leaves, acting as if nothing has happened.

I can see why Beware, My Lovely was given an X certificate when released in the cinemas. Some of the scenes are rather nasty for this time. I also thought the man was going to do something to the young boy too.

The cast features an excellent performance from Robert Ryan as the psychopath, Ida Lupino as the widow and are joined by Barbara Whiting and Dee Pollock as the boy.

This is certainly Robert Ryan's most chilling performance I've seen. A must see.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5. Ida Lupino is trapped in her own home by crazy Robert Ryan in "Beware, My Lovely," a 1952 film from RKO. Lupino and Ryan did three films together and worked well as a team, both being consummate professionals and strong performers. In this film, based on a Broadway play called "The Man," Lupino is a World War I widow who rents out a room in her home. She's very active and well-liked in her community and though her husband has been dead for two years, she's not ready to move on. The man who rents her room goes on vacation, and Lupino hires Robert Ryan to help her with some heavy-duty cleaning in the house. He's friendly enough to start, but later terrorizes her, locking her in the house, and not allowing her to answer the phone or the door, as he grows violent and more out of touch with reality.

The character played by Ryan is shown in the beginning of the movie running away when he discovers a dead body in another house he's working in. It isn't clear whether or not he's the killer, since he seems surprised to see the body. He might be a split personality, as when his personality turns ugly toward Lupino, he seems to have no memory of his activities when he comes out of it. He doesn't know that he has the keys to Lupino's house in his pocket and doesn't know why he has tickets to a party that he bought from young children who came to the door.

"Beware, My Lovely," is a very suspenseful film, and the two leads give terrific performances. The tension builds to a very high level and ends in a way you're not expecting. the fact that there was so much fuss is ironic, as the whole point of the programme was to highlight the way the media treat such 'taboo' subjects, such as paedophilia. the newsdesk set, the suits, the smug presenters, the men-at-the-scene shouting about things you can see behind them, the pointless cgi graphs and stats, the whole thing was a satire, a very very funny satire. the way c-list celebrity's will say absolutely anything if their agent tells them it'll be good for their career ("there is no evidence for it, but it is scientific fact"). It may be hard to watch (with milly dowler and the cambridgeshire girls, as well as 9/11), but satire is supposed to be challenging, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up against the blatant scaremongering and headline grabbing media, just because it's a delicate matter. How this show failed to win any TV awards for it's intelligence, observation, courage, acting and thought provocation is shameful, but, as watching it will show you, not in the least bit surprising. Chris Morris' Brass Eye TV series had always generated a large number of complaints, both from the audience and from the people taking part. But, nothing he has done has managed to stir up more controversy than this. The 2001 Brass Eye Special. Before the hugely overrated Jerry Springer Opera arrived, the Brass Eye Special held the record for the most complaints received about any TV program ever aired.

The sheer volume of complaints that the general public made towards the Brass Eye Special was unbelievable! Many complaints were voiced by people who never even watched the program! The subject that the program handled turned many heads, but the message was widely misinterpreted. The message was even lost on some who enjoyed the program. This was not a show that mocked the subject of paedophilia. The show was purely about the media and it's presentation of the subject. Morris, is and always will be, a media satirist. The notion that the program 'makes fun' of paedophiles and children who have been abused is completely laughable! Morris never attempts to do either such thing. He merely draws our attention to the overwhelming, and very often stupid media hype surrounding the subject.

Using many of his established 'Brass Eye' characters, such as, Ted Maul and others, Morris shows just how much the media over blow every little thing about a subject that they themselves created and built up, and the result is as funny, if not funnier, than anything Morris has done previously. Using his tried and tested formula, Morris manages to trick several gullible celebrities into believing that they are working on a serious documentary. In actuality, they are made to look like exactly what they are. Retards.

All in all, the Brass Eye Special needs to be seen to be believed. And, with one opening line, Morris manages to sum up the entire media situation as it stood in 2001: "Welcome to Paedo-Gedden!" Who ever put that review as 'of bad taste' is not all quite there... its so funny, genius and fantastic you could watch it until your eyes are square! not to mention the rest of the work he has done on the rest of the series...all is as good as Morris' standards. if you think that it is 'awful', 'distasteful' or 'sick' then i can only think of one thing to say to you: "go to hell." thanks. it had to be said! i think that the way that so many people complaining was a complete joke...i would like to make a shout out to all the people that actually did that: "haven't you got anything better to do with your time? what are you trying to prove?" thanks for reading my heart-filled review on the matter...cheers This BRASS EYE special PAEDO-GEDDON was swamped by complaints ( More on that later ) when it was broadcast in 2001 following a national debate around a possible " Sarah`s law " following the abduction and murder of school girl Sarah Payne . In fact it`s scheduling was delayed while Phil Collins took legal advice after he found out he`d been fooled by the show`s maker Chris Morris into a starting a campaign entitled Nonce-sense

If truth be told this show is probably more remembered for the controversy than the content which is in very poor taste but I do confess that I laughed out loud . The edition centres around paedophiles and how society treats both them and their victims . Chris Morris plays the presenter who tells the audience that an infamous paedophile has been launched into space then confesses that an eight year old child has accidentally been placed into the capsule along with the paedophile . Cue the child`s frightened screams . Like I said very poor taste

Other highlights of the show include Dr Fox giving a scientific lecture that paedophiles share an identical nervous system to crabs ( " No one knows this but it`s a scientific fact " ) Labour MP Barbara Follet giving a public warning about equipment paedophiles put on their genitals while surfing the net and Kate Thornton warning viewers that paedophiles can send gas through the internet which makes young children suseptable to sexual predators including one victim " Who was once a shy innocent child and who now has the sexuality of a sixty year old Colonel " . Morris also shows a police officer in the child protection squad a serious of photos wanting to know if they`re classed as obscene . The photos included Barbie surrounded by a marital aids and a composite photo featuring a young boys head , a dog`s body and an erect penis that could only have belonged to John Holmes . Hey I never said this show was tasteful did I ?

It`s impossible to mention PAEDO-GEDDON without the hypocritical fall out that surrounded it where politicians , childrens organizations and policemen rushed to condemn the show for making fun of a very serious subject . The show was poor taste despite me laughing all the way through it but it`s a biting satire . Perhaps the critics should take a long hard look in the mirror where a liberal elite allows convicted paedophile slime to walk around the streets of Britain before they criticise a mere TV show for exacerbating tensions . It's the 1980's and the teenagers are ready to party it up in a scary old house that is rumored to be haunted by the ghost of Murder McGee. After mistakenly conjuring the dead through an unfinished conversation on an Ouija board, the kids are forced to fight to the death battling a vengeful ghost who possesses and kills all of their friends one by one. Sound familiar? It's supposed to. It's clearly marketed to pay homage to the classic 80's slashers with the tagline: "Excessive violence. Gratuitous nudity. Zero budget."

Can't get enough; It's pure entertainment! I enjoyed the humor and the way it poked fun at all the horror cliché's, but at the same time embraced what was fun about movies from this time. There is something you get with this movie you never got with the old 80's slasher films though: good acting. The entire cast was very talented and you don't see that very much in any low budget flicks, recent or otherwise. There was a lot of chemistry between the characters. I was very entertained throughout the entire film, and I am fully convinced the writer/director and cast will go a long way in their separate careers. The script was very well written, and the dialogue flowed naturally.

The effects were a bit amateur and the scenes were not lit well, but the fact that this movie admits on its cover there was practically NO BUDGET, I already know this going in. This film makes it simple to politely ignore its faults and just sit back and enjoy. Although this is not an Oscar award winning opus, it never claims to be, and props to that. It's a lot of fun. If you like slashers, you'll really appreciate this film. If you like blood and boobies, you'll appreciate it also. STMD! is one of the most fun and enjoyable low-budget films I've seen in quite some time. Director Jeff Smith (who also served as co-writer, cinematographer and editor) definitely shows his love of under-appreciated 80's horror films with this movie! Anyone who loves the cheesiness, preposterous situations, wacky and stereotypical characters of 80's horror movies will definitely love this very tongue-in-cheek homage to the past.

STMD! definitely lives up to the qualities described in the poster and then some. It has all the "excessive violence" and "gratuitous nudity" that is reminiscent of those entertaining 80's horror movies we all love. I had a blast watching STMD! From the 80's outfits that the stereotypical characters wear to the blood splatter to the goofy tone I just couldn't get enough! Loved this movie! Kicking it old school! Love the idea. Love the script. Love the characters. I really really really loved the Geeks! I was excited to see the silly slapstick horror flicks still being honored. This was right up with my favs such as Saturday the 14th and Pandemonium. If you are a big fan of scary AND silly then this is your movie! Only taken off one star because I would love to have had better sound. Not bad sound but would have liked to have more. Great blood splatters. Great murder weapons. Great costumes! I really love the nod to the great 80's teenager stereotype ala breakfast club. And I can appreciate the non-CGI suspense. Really good camera action and light suspense instead of cutting to CGI. I would rather have good fake that really fake fake.

Kisses to the cast and makers! oh, loved the "making-of" too! OK, so the following review is more of a synopsis more so than really containing any spoilers, but better safe than sorry so as to avoid being blacklisted, right? Right! Consider yourselves officially warned, and read on...

In this parody/tribute to the greatest time in horror movie history - the 1980's - a group of stupid teens are getting together to host a seance in the house of the notorious Murder McGee, who butchered his entire family a few years back and buried them in the back yard. As I'm sure you can guess, things go from bad to worse faster than you can say "Where's the beef??" and in typical 80's horror movie fashion the deaths are bloody, the dialogue is cheesy, and beautiful women are taking off their clothes every chance they get. Good times...

No clique or 80's horror movie clichéd characterizations are left unrepresented here. In fact, no stone was left unturned at all – we have the cool hero, his innocent girlfriend, the Goth chick, the tough thug (think John Bender), the hot blonde who keeps losing her shirt, the shy dork in love with the hot blonde that keeps losing her shirt, a couple of gorgeous half-naked lesbians, and two big geeks.

As you can plainly see, the cast is pretty big. Usually, larger casts are where things can fall apart quickly, with one or two sour apples buggering up the whole barrel. Not in this case though. Not a single cast member left me disappointed. The acting was very well done. Everyone from the cool hero in his Thriller jacket played by Jovan Meredith to the grooovy Goth chick played by Renee Dorian to Geeks One & Two played by Cory Assink & Jonathan Brett – they all played it straight, brought their A-game, and knocked it out of the park. If you're a fan of Gary & Wyatt in Weird Science, you'll immediately fall in love with the geeks.

Director/co-writer Jeff C. Smith is a guy to watch for in the future, trust me on this. If this is what he can do with a low budget, there are nothing but good things ahead for him when he gets more money for future projects. The characters were dead on; the atmosphere was perfect; the laughs were huge; the blood flowed, and squirted, and sprayed beautifully – it was just like watching a horror movie from the 1980's. Call this one "THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets NIGHT OF THE DEMONS"!!! The tag line says it all, and says it honestly - "EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE; GRATUITOUS NUDITY; ZERO BUDGET" - no false advertising here, folks! As fans of this genre, we have to look to the indies and support these hard-working folks who are busting their humps out there bringing us original tales, lest we forever get stuck in a world filled with big studio watered-down PG-13 'horror' or pointless remakes like The Hitcher. No, thank you - no more of that for me.

In closing, I honestly have to say that STUPID TEENAGERS MUST DIE! is by far one of the best indie flicks I've gotten the pleasure of watching this year. It's a bloody good time, and holds up on repeat viewings. From the dialogue to the characters to the wardrobe...even the closing love theme over the end credits (which if that doesn't bring back fits of laughter recalling mid-80's power ballads by REO Speedwagon - over-pronounced R's on every word starting with the letter 'R' - then I'll eat my DVD right now)...bottom line is, if you're a fan of 80's horror or horror in general, no more hesitation - this flick deserves to be in your collection!! Cheezy? Yep. Poorly filmed? You betcha. Zero budget? They proudly claim it on their posters. Brilliant anyway (or because of it)? For sure.

This movie celebrates (and makes fun of) everything that was classic about the 80s teen horror genre: Characters with absolutely no depth, fitting into a stereotyped roll they never escape for a moment; teenagers trying to survive a slaying by some mysterious force they disturbed by doing something lamely adolescent; completely gratuitous nudity; impossible amounts of blood coming out of victims; slow moving zombies; great one-liners... and our hero even wears a Michael Jackson jacket!

This is not an all-out spoof like Scary Movie, but more a tribute film to the lost innocence of the 80s horror movies... when being scared and grossed out could also be a fun, silly, sexy, and goofy good time! Just saw Baby Blue Marine again after 30 years. I still find it a pleasant and romantic film which catches a time which has been lost forever. The innocence and purity of a time now long gone, is truthfully captured in this small film. The acting is above average and Richard Gere's brief appearance as a shell-shocked Raider Marine war hero, holds a keen interest for any film buff or Gere fan. Jan-Micheal Vincent is in his prime and looks and acts like the "All-American" boy. The late Bruno Kirby (who was billed as B.Kirby, Jr.) has a meaty role as "Pop", a peace-loving, Marine Corp reject, dreaming of getting back home to his wife. If you're looking for sex, drugs, or rock and roll, this movie is not for you. If you're looking for action and adventure, the same applies. However, if you want to recapture a time in America of innocence, honor, romance, and love, then Baby Blue Marine is a movie for you. I was actually around 13 years old camping near the McCloud River, near Shasta when this movie was being filmed. My family was paid to leave our campsite for the afternoon, when they filmed Vincent floating down the river. A little trivia...the scene where they pulled him out, was actually where he started his float down the river. And if the stunt man missed the netting, there was 20 foot waterfall about 1/4 mile down farther.

Anyway...I watched it at the time, and didn't get it. It wasn't until years later when I saw the movie and actually understood the meaning of it. It's pretty powerful movie and certainly a fine job by Jan at such a young age. His movie career never really took off as expected, but of course he later found success on TV. I wish this movie was available, cause I would love to see it again. **SPOILERS** Beautifully photographed slice of life home-front WWII love story with Norman Rockwell paintings in the beginning and end of the movie about how a "war hero" is not just someone who kills for his country but is also someone who thinks for himself and isn't corrupted by the war propaganda that's constantly drummed into his head. Washing out of the Marine Corps Marion "Hedg" Hedgepeth, Jan Michael-Vincent,is kicked out of boot-camp, after five weeks, and forced to put on a Baby Blue Marine uniform that shows that he just didn't have it to make the Corps. Humilitated and scorned wherever he went as he's going home to St. Louis and terrified what his family, whom his dad was in the Marine Corps in WWI, would think of him in that he couldn't "Cut the Mustard" as a US Marine.

Hedg stopping in a bar and finds sitting next to him is a Marine member of the fearless and deadly Marine Raiders Richard Gere whom a admiring Hedge buys a beer. Making conversation with Richard Hedge is shocked to find out that not only is he being sent back to the Pacific Theater after all the battles he fought in, and combat medals he got, but the totally gray hair and mid-thirty looking Richard is going to be 21 next month! That's what being in the Marine Corps and WWII did to him! Buying Hedge a number of drinks Richard takes the drunk Baby Blue outside and knocks him out taking his Baby Blues and leaves his impressive US Marine uniform with some money in it for Hedge to ware.

As soon as Hedge puts on Richard's uniform, that fits him perfectly, he's confronted by this big drunken US paratrooper who calls himself Cement-Head wanting to have a fist fight with the Marine Raider. Hedge doing everything he can to avoid trouble is forced by Cement-Head to belt him, after he himself cracked two beer bottle over his cement-head, to get himself warmed up for the big bout between Marine,Hedge, and Paratrooper, Cement-Head. Hedge incredibly floors the big cement headed buffoon knocking him out cold with one punch! "I guess the trick is not hitting him in on top of his head" a stunned Hedge tell his, Cement-Heads, fellow G.I's.

Hitch-hiking to this small town of Bidwell Hedge notices this US Military internment camp for Japanese-Americans who are there because their considered a threat to US security. It's later in the movie that Hedge shows everyone what a real hero he is, not who the people in the town think he is, by risking his life to save one of the hated "Japs" who mindlessly together with two of his friends escaped from the interment camp, where the hell did they think they were going anyway? Hedge risked his life by saving the scared to death Japanese-American from drowning in the dangerous rapids outside the town. Hedge in his actions taught the people of Bidwell that not all "Japs", even those who are American citizens, are bad and treacherous banzai screaming suicidal kamikazes like they were thought by the newspapers magazines and movies at the time to think that they were.

Hedge strikes up a conversation with the very cute and pretty waitress at the local diner Rose Hudkins, Glynnis O'Connor,who's just crazy about him that even Hedge at first thinks that it's his uniform not him that impressed her. Later when Hedge admits to Rose that he's not what she and her parents think,A US Marine Raider,that he is Rose had by then gotten to know the sweet and caring washed-out marine so well that it didn't matter to her at all what he was supposed to be, a Marine a Paratrooper or a Post Office worker, it was what was inside his heart that really counted.

The film has a number of touching and beautiful scenes in it between Hedge and Rose that shows how movies used to be made years ago without all the sex and profanity that we see and hear in movies today that involved two people in love with each other.

The way the film accurately, not phony baloney, shows the true feelings of average Americans, back then in 1943, about the war in general and Japanese in particular couldn't have been done in more authentic and accurate as well as good taste. "Baby Blur Marine" does it's best not to be too politically correct in not showing the hero's or leading actors and actresses in the film having the same feelings and ideas back then during WWII as most people have now, which would have come across as phony as a three dollar bill, to those people watching the film who lived during those historic and momentous times when the film was to take place. I first saw this film in 1980 and it touched a cord which reminded me of a more innocent time. The opening narrative, music and paintings by Norman Rockwell set the tone for me. You either love the movie or hate it. Jan Michael Vincent was at his all time best and portrayed Cpl Marion Hedgepeth in a most innocent and touching way. This movie is at the top of my all time favorites, a shame it isn't available on DVD or VHS anymore. The ending was also wonderful. John Hancock did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of the time. This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local café he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in "Buster and Billie", is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada. This movie bombed at the box office and in the voting here but I loved it. One measure of a movie's worth is how much of it you can still remember after 25 years. I won't bore you with a list but there are dozens of deeply comic scenes, also a good story and great casting. The inept robbers are a hoot. See it and judge if it ever gets on TCM. VERY memorable comedy. It's fun to watch the many situations develop and finally converge after a long journey on that greatest collection of eclectic humanity (and the world's largest honky-tonk) - the great American Freeway. Like "...mad, mad world" it's got loads of contemporary talent, old-boy politics, good comedic action and dialog. Unlike that one it is the target that seeks, not the unwitting seekers - they have no idea what they really want as they drift along America's great road. Nor does it carry the weight of having a great fall guy who is saved only in the end by a great belly-laugh. But the ending stunt sequence is nothing short of spectacular with excellent film editing, humor and timing, and the big city bank scene is hilarious with very original acting by one very talented character in particular. The total aplomb of the city dwellers in the face of chaos leaves one feeling like the proverbial fly on the ceiling. The slapstick is funny, but Honky Tonk Freeway deserves to be heard and seen closely because it is surprisingly loaded with nuance and character reactions that are easily missed. All in all a very funny reflection of who we were and are, good or bad, and the goofy situations we find ourselves in. It was just meant to be FUNNY and it is! In the early '80s, I recorded Honky Tonk Freeway from the cable. Since then I have waited, hoping it would be on DVD. Yesterday I found it. It is one of the best humorous character studies I ever saw. The Old Fashioned episode is priceless. At this time (4/28/02) only two have reviewed it. One hated it, the other loved it. If you have a DVD player, either rent it, or buy it as I did. A notorious big budget flop when released. This Robert Altman inspired comedy has some terrific moments and an occasionally inspired cast. Although it goes on to long an loses its focus completely, there are enough funny moments that will keep a curious viewer watching until the end. If you are a fan of character actors and actresses, this will be a treat for you; you will recognize so many terrific little known performers throughout this movie (you may not know their names, but you know their faces), heck even the kid from A Christmas Story turns up in a small part. Rent if from Netflix, if you read this, I bet you will enjoy it. I remember watching this movie over and over again when I was a kid. I loved it. Whilst I haven't watched it recently, I am sure I would enjoy it just the same today. Its a very light funny movie guaranteed to make anyone laugh. The situations with each one of the characters were so funny and imaginative! I particularly liked the one with the girl traveling with her mother's ashes (who ends up picking them up on the highway after the explosion) , the robbers and the nuns. This nice humour style is much missed these days. Also, this movie proved that actor Paul Keenan (Dynasty/Days of our Lives) was off to a great start. I recommend it to anyone lucky enough to find it in their local video shop. A wonderful film ahead of its time,

I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like "Northen Exposure", and now "Earl" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film. Back in August, '81 there was a country-ish buzz to movies, big hits like "Urban Cowboy", "Every Which Way But Loose", "Smokey and the Bandit" were all the rage. For that reason I suspect the producers of this movie chose "Honky Tonk Freeway" as the title hoping it would help the movie's box office receipts by drawing in that same "Urban Cowboy" crowd. Instead "Honky Tonk Freeway" bombed at the theaters and I suspect it do so in part by being burdened with a poorly chosen title. Thats same problem burdens it now on video and thats too bad because its a pretty good movie and in a comedy style ahead of it's time. No matter what, probably anybody who can remember 1981 will enjoy it.

Its too bad this movie bombed. But I think it would have anyway even if it hadn't been saddled with a poor title. Its a movie ahead of its time. One could look at this movie now and see that its clearly a father or *great-uncle anyway) to the kinds of comedy made today. For its day "Honky Tonk Freeway" was pretty full of innuendo and a kind of frankness about life that didn't get popular in comedy till much later on. While clearly its a child of "Airplane", its more mature, and while its certainly no "Knocked Up" it clearly points in that direction. The characters are more "comedy-mature" in that they are low-key and don't ever think anything they do is anything other than serious. The jokes are in the choices of what to emphasize and the camera views and the way the view themselves and their situations.

But, more than that, "Honky Tonk Freeway" is a real time capsule. A great look back at the exceedingly early 80's. The people in this movie are dressed and act as everyday people of 1981 did. It was clearly meant to reflect the times and be a sly comedic comment on everyday life around them.

I don't know if my review is helping you, but this is really a good, sometimes kind of excellent, movie thats worth renting if you want to see how a lot of faces that are familiar today looked when they were 30 years younger. Beverly D'Angelo is so young its hard to realize its her sometimes. So are Beau Bridges and Terri Garr. Terry Garr was just about to become the toast of Hollywood as her next movie after this one was "Tootsie" which finally made her a star. Howard Hessmann was arguably the biggest "current" star of the the day when this movie was made. Back in 1981 Howard Hessmann was the star of the big hit TV show "WKRP in Cinncinatti". He played its lead character, the rascally night DJ. Daniel Stern was just about to break out as a star as the grown-up narrator voice of the lead child character in the popular 80's sitcom "The Wonder Years" There are also several faces that are no longer with us these days, its nice to see Hume Crowyn and Jessica Tandy as a an old married couple on a journey. Jessica Tandy would finally pick up her Oscar ten years after this for "Driving Miss Daisy". There is also the great Geraldine Page in one of her final movie appearances. Though she'd had a brilliant career she didn't get her Oscar till four years after this in 1985's "Trip to Bountiful", for which she richly deserved it, and she died very soon after getting that award.

Plus, there are lots of other faces in this movie, actors who aren't big stars but who have done tons of supporting work. Many are familiar even if you can't think of their name.

This movie is a pleasant little diversion. A bunch of people with a variety of problems set out from various locations each for their own individual unrelated reasons who all, in a vaguely Altman-esk way, end up heading towards Florida and unbeknownst to them a rendevoux in the little town of Ticlaw, Florida, which happens to be reeling from the effects of being bypassed by the recently constructed interstate nearby which did not construct an exit to Ticlaw which effectively takes the town off the map.

And thats also what this movie is about, fascination with the whole idea of the interstate system, which had only recently been "completed". It had taken a generation to build, from when it was authorized by congress around 1960, through many years as different parts were built and then "went live" and by 1980 most of the system had finally been built and all connected together and first the first time the promise of what the interstate system would be had turned into what is. And people were enchanted by it. Everybody by 1980 was pretty much an "interstate freeway veteran" in the sense that by then everybody had used parts of it and knew how it worked and how it was different from other roads in that it had no red lights or stop signs, only on and off ramps, and that it went to places that were formerly less accessible. By 1980 anyone could drive anywhere in comfort and without having to stop for anything except to eat and sleep and a bathroom. And this was all new then.

The ending is anti-climatic and isn't that satisfying albeit its one spectacular moment. What makes it great is it's the journey not the destination that makes Honky Tonk Freeway timeless in spite of it being such a product of its day. Forget its title; instead let it take you down memory lane. I found this movie on Netflix and had to add it to my queue. I wasn't disappointed when I got it as it's just as funny now as when I saw it at a local drive-in theater back then.

It builds to a climax nicely with you getting glimpses of the various characters as they begin their trip across America on the "Honky Tonk Freeway, America on wheels." This was a strange comedic role for William DeVane as I remember him as Kennedy in the 1974 TV film "The Missiles of October" and felt no one could have pulled that dramatic character off as well as he did.

It reminds me a bit of Dick Van Dyke in "Cold Turkey' where Van Dyke played the local minister. DeVane's role as mayor, minister, and activist was typical for small towns so it makes his character seem amusing and real.

Howard Hessman and Teri Garr as the spoiled family in the RV was on target for the time as well. Anyone who has traveled across country with small children, (Are we there yet?) will appreciate those scenes.

The scenes of a small town struggling to survive reminded me a lot of the small town I grew up in but they handled it with the charm and humor that you often only saw in small towns. It's sad that many small towns disappeared because of the freeway system and it gives a realistic if humorous view of what they had to do to survive. (Used zoo animals anyone?)

All in all, it's a lightweight comedy with no particular message but a humorous glance at America during the early 80's. Well worth watching if you just need a bit of good cheer. Meant to be some sort of a social commentary about the way that our lives were spinning out of control in the 1970's, this movie plays more like something Mr. Schlesinger threw together after having a bad day on the freeway. A mish mash of snippets about the nuts encountered along the freeway in Florida, and along the freeway of life, the cast is mostly wasted and probably ended up on the cutting room floor. The problem is that what DIDN'T end up on the cutting room floor probably should have! Now available on DVD, it's kinda fun to see a comedy that would have cost $100 million to produce had it been made in 2004. It rolls along and isn't too difficult to sit through, and, strangely enough, in 2004 we're all still pretty much just

hopping in our cars and going faster and faster, heading nowhere. Love this little film, that reminds me somewhat of the original Japanese gem, SHALL WE DANCE? (not the overblown Gere/Jlo remake...) Luckily I found it and taped it when it was showing on a STARZ Promo Weekend, because as far as I know, it's not available on DVD. I'll watch just about anything with Yancy Butler (anyone remember the short-lived TV series MANN AND MACHINE ???) in it, and she positively shines in this. She does a dance routine to a disco song that is verrrryyyyyy HOT!! Loved all the other characters in it, especially the ones played by Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron (where's she been all these years?). This is one of those films that I take out from time to time and always come away smiling after watching it. Recommended highly!!! I felt that this movie had a lot of heart and must have been a labor of love for Eleanor Bergstein. The primary actors (Campbell Scott, Jennifer Beals, Yancy Butler, James Goodwin III, Patrick Stewart, and Leslie Caron) were very well selected and played their parts with excellence. It was a very uplifting movie that I wish was available on tape or DVD. A rare gem. I just finished this movie and my only comment is "OH! WOW!". Jennifer Beals is ok as the fiancee, but Yancy Butler as the female dance instructor is pure sexual dynamite! Having watched her in WITCHBLADE, I was not prepared for the pure unadulterated sensuality and raw sexual excitement she launches onto the screen.

I gotta see THIS movie again....if only for Yancy Butler as Corrinne! This may be the most tension-filled movie I have ever seen.

In fact, it's so nerve-wracking, I haven't been able to watch it again after viewing it two years ago, but I will since I have the DVD. There were a couple of scenes in here that are almost too much to watch....so if you've got problems and need to "escape" for an hour-and-half this film will get your mind off anything else.

The Russian actress Marina Zudina did a super job in facial expressions alone, which she had to do since her character in here is a mute. She plays a cute and wholesome makeup artist for a sleazy filmmaker. After the day's shooting is done and "Billie" is about to leave, she hears something. She takes a peek into the room where they were filming and discovers they are now shooting a "snuff film" and actually killing someone. Billie's eavesdropping is discovered and she runs for her life as the killers go searching for her in this big warehouse-type building.

There are two extended scenes in which our heroine is running for her life and both of them will wear you out. The first I described above. The second scene, the climactic one, goes on too long and isn't as well done as the first. In fact, the film should have been trimmed a bit but, overall, since it's so good at keeping our attention, then it served its purpose as entertainment. An amazing piece of film that was well-conceived and kept me on the edge of my seat. Brilliantly orchestrated in its timing, and the comedy kicked in exactly when the tension needed a release. The acting was generally well-done (the "Director" should've asked Alec Guinness for acting lessons), and the shot selections were impressive (as in elongating the hall as Billy tries to race to the door in the studio). This movie didn't let up since the opening scene... A couple of years before SCREAM spoofed the slasher/horror genre with savvy, self-conscious young things knowing every trick in the book of what to do and not to do in a precarious situation, a little movie produced in Russia hit the theatres without any grandiose pretensions.

This movie was MUTE WITNESS. Starring a cast of unknowns (except an extremely brief cameo by Sir Alec Guiness whose scenes were purportedly filmed eight years prior to the actual filming of this movie), it told the story of a mute make-up artist, Billie, who is working on a film on location in Russia produced and directed by her sister's boyfriend Andy. She is unaware that the set has closed when she goes to retrieve her belongings and inadvertently stumbles onto a porn shoot that becomes extremely bloody. Overcome with horror she alerts the murderers of her presence, a chase ensues, and finally she is rescued by Andy who take her home as they alert the police. The trouble is... there is no body, no evidence that anything of the sort took place. Even so, a mysterious inspector seems to be on Billie's side of the story....

And to say more would be criminal. MUTE WITNESS is the kind of film that demands a scrutiny of viewing similar to the most intricate, clever thriller because as much as it is a convoluted thriller, it's one that pays its dues to movies like WAIT UNTIL DARK and the best of Hitchcock in its choice of camera cuts, deadpan humor, Americans reacting in foreign countries where they are powerless, and nail-biting suspense until it seems something must snap. Even if the story does become a little too implausible due to the fact that the story arc suddenly becomes the focus of an even greater conspiracy, the film succeeds in not trying to trick the audience with cheap shots (for example the sudden appearance of a person on camera accompanied by a crashing swell of violins) but with the fear of the unknown and that death is only a shadow away. Very smart. Billy Hughes is a mute young lady working for make-up on a cheap horror picture being filmed in Moscow by an American director. One night Billy gets locked in the movie studio. Later that night she hears that someone might be in the building and goes to check it out. That's when she stumbles across a woman being brutally murdered, while being filmed. After escaping the clutches of the murderers, Billy informs the authorities, only to be red-faced when the men show it was an act. Billy knows what she saw and soon her life is in turmoil again from underground figures that believe she has something of importance.

I don't know how this heart-pounding sleeper passed me by, but I thought it was a much older flick. There's one thing though, it's got to be one of the most jarringly, and intense thrillers I've seen in quite a while. It's just a great suspense builder and mostly everything clicks into place! The first half of the feature is surprisingly gripping with taut sequences that have your heart in your throat and clouds us with an atmospherically foreboding environment of alienation. Underling this is a humorously wicked black streak. Faults do pop up in the story, as it does lose that furious grip it held so early and goofy humour (or better putter comic relief) between Fay Ripley and Evan Richard's characters is a hit and miss affair by being too forceful. In the long run, it probably could have done without. Despite some cringe moments, this aspect didn't hinder my enjoyment of it. For me, the soft ending they decided to go with just didn't feel right.

The interestingly mysterious premise was eerie to the bone and packed some unsettling goods. So multi-facet was the context and its thrills, there was something fresh to how this all plays out and the nervy jolts and unbearable tension are weaved into a range of sudden plot turns and twists. Really, they made superb use of the novel idea of this disability and to handicap the situation, by staging it in a foreign place where not too many spoke English and so we are caught up in the confusion too. The delicate Marina Zudina gives a harrowing portrayal of the American mute girl Billy. The way she able to display the erratic emotions through her eyes and actions gave it some gruff and believability. Director Anthony Waller shoots the flick in a rather stylish, well-timed and skillful manner, without loosing that grimy look that eventuates from its rigid surroundings and a powerfully airy music score persistently nags at you. The only real name to make an appearance was small cameo part by Alec Guinness. The performances by the cast were all fine, especially the nail biting turns by Oleg Yankovsky and Igor Volkov as the Russian murderers.

This riveting feature that's mostly made up of unknowns, is way better than your average dark thriller. Highly Recommended. Laura Gemser plays a magazine photographer who is sent to Africa for a photo shoot. There she is met by a couple and other swinging couples. They all stay at this huge, very touristy hotel with a gigantic swimming pool. One night they have a pool party complete with "real live" native dancers. It's very un-politically correct and very kitschy. Later, Emanuelle finally has her photo shoot, which turns out to be in one of those drive-through, stay-in-your-car safaris (albeit the photography is gorgeous). Throughout the film, Emanuelle is going after every man she meets. The photography is very well done in this film. There are scenes with cascading waterfalls, galloping giraffes and ancient ruins. The film is worth seeing for the soundtrack by Nico Fidenco alone. You know you're watching softcore with the wrong attitude when the poor dubbing bothers you. I'm okay with the crappy lip syncing but the sound mix is really of too. Every time someone says anything it sounds like there's a narrator. Either way, this is pretty much the purgatory between boring French professionalism and the heavenly campy Joe D'Amato flicks involving cannibalism and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, there's a fair dose of exploitation in this one, but there's always room for more. Laura Gemser stars, and that's good because she's hot. It's a bit freaky how at times you can see her bone structure, but she still rules over her white counterpart. You can also make a cool drinking game of how often she takes her kit of. Often. Every reason is good. Every person is good. Every location is good. One scene even involves an entire hockey team, whatever they are doing in Africa. Sometimes the plot gets in the way, and the supporting cast consists of some really vile looking people, but there's enough Laura Gemser for all. The incomparable Laura Gemser appeared briefly in an erotic scene from the French "Emmanuelle 2." This amazing woman did not go unnoticed, and was soon cast as the lead in this all new Italian series, where she is the centerpiece; a beautiful photojournalist who travels the world experiencing all the mysterious eroticism that the world had to offer. In this first installment, Mae Jordan/Emanuelle is sent to Africa to photograph the people as well as the stunning landscape and wild exotic animals. Much like Sylvia Kristels character, Emanuelle has not come into her own when it comes to being open and comfortable with her own sexuality. This first film is basically about how she becomes the "Emanuelle" that most exploitation cinema fans are familiar with. Filled with gorgeous cinematography, beautiful people, and an intoxicating 70's score from the legendary Nico Fidenco, this one is sure to please. Those who enjoy the more story-driven style of the original french "Emmanuelle" should definitely like this as well. The main story here being an interesting cat and mouse tale of a womanizing playboy who comes to the realization that he has fallen in love with a woman who is the female version of him! Sexy, fun and totally entertaining throughout; a soap opera to be sure, but one with enough skin and general eye candy to keep the male viewers entertained. For some reason this is the hardest one in the series to find on DVD. there has never been a legitimate DVD for this, which is very strange. The bootlegs that sometimes appear online will have to do until someone gives this diamond of a film a proper release. Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however. Created by Dennis Spooner, 'Department S' was a glossy thriller show about an offshoot of Interpol, based in Geneva, created to solve baffling mysteries the police could not handle. If a plane landed at Heathrow with no-one aboard, if a man was found wandering around London in a space-suit, if the passenger of a Rolls Royce suddenly transmogrified into a skeleton, if a train pulling into a tube station turned out to contain dead commuters, you called on 'Department S' to sort things out.

Peter Wyngarde played 'Jason King', a flamboyantly dressed crime novelist whose fertile imagination helped crack many of the bizarre cases. King caught the public's fancy and was later awarded a spin-off show. He was ably assisted by American 'Stuart Sullivan' ( Joel Fabiani ) and the delectable 'Annabelle Hurst' ( Rosemary Nicols ). Unusually for a '60's show, the department was headed by a black man - 'Sir Curtis Seretse' ( Dennis Alaba Peters ) If the show looked and felt a lot like 'The Avengers', it was hardly surprising. It shared many of the same writers and directors! The colourful titles were designed by Chambers & Partners, and are worth tuning in for alone. As was the case with so many I.T.C. series, the music was composed by Edwin Astley. His theme for 'Department S' has got to rank as one of the best television themes of all time.

Predictably, the show looks a little sexist and dated now, but don't let that dissuade you from tuning in. Imagine a hybrid of 'Jonathan Creek' and the 'Austin Powers' movies and you've got 'Department S'!

Trivia Note: the episode 'A Small War Of Nerves' features a young Sir Anthony Hopkins in a major role! With all due respect to Joel Fabiani and Rosemary Nicolls and their characters, Department S will be forever associated with Peter Wyngarde's Jason King.

Most people remember him as this camp, flamboyant and debonair womaniser cum detective in the mould of Austin Powers but that will do a disservice to the character: He's far more nuanced than that.

Jason King is lazy (he often lets Stewart fight all the bad guys and only chips in at the end), he is egotistical (his appreciation of people is based on whether they've read his novels or not), a lot of his detective work is speculation without facts to back them up and he sulks whenever Annabelle is right...and she often is. He's clearly a man having a mid-life crisis and drink drives but.......Jason King is brilliant. If Wyngarde had played him purely as a dashing hero, it wouldn't have worked but he shows King often as a paper tiger, led by his libido, love of finery and prone to grandstanding (and it gets in the way of his detective work at times) but he has some of the best lines and put downs in TV history. And by not playing him as whiter-than-white, the chemistry and interactions between the three lead characters is all the better for it.

Watching it again on DVD recently, you get to see just how much depth Wyngarde put into Jason King. Spawned by the same Monty Berman / Dennis Spooner partnership which produced The Champions and Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) - the latter retitled My Partner the Ghost for the US market - Department S remains a classic example of the action-adventure series which the UK produced in bulk during the late 1960s. Like those two shows, its internal dynamic of two guys and a girl might seem to indicate a progressive attitude towards equality (Dept S also has a black superior), but it's mostly facade: the launch episode, "Six Days", is barely halfway through before Rosemary Nichols is called upon to parade around in bra, panties and one (yes, one) stocking in order to extricate herself from a dodgy situation. Still, it's an interesting time capsule, even if the appalling fashion sense of Peter Wyngarde's character (which, amazingly, degenerated even further in the spin-off series Jason King) should definitely have remained buried. Well, SWORD IN THE MOON finally got a DVD release in Korea, and despite the mostly negative responses I've heard to it, and the suspiciously tardy DVD release, I couldn't help but pick it up - any wu xia film is better than most non-wu xia films in my eyes :D Perhaps low expectations were an advantage, because I was quite pleasantly surprised to find the film pretty enjoyable.

An assassin is killing a number of ministers who were involved in a revolution that usurped the throne, and the government's top swordsman is tasked with identifying the culprit. This doesn't take particularly long, but the answer is not one he wanted to hear. Through prolonged flashbacks we learn why, and the history of the swordsman and the assassin, and of the revolution.

The film is typically melodramatic for a Korean film, and resolutely serious in tone - no HK style comedy moments to be found here. The story can be a little difficult to follow at first, but all makes sense eventually. The film goes a bit wobbly at the end, but no worse than a Chang Cheh film might do, and for the most part I found it enjoyable. The production values are high, with some good cinematography to capture it. The fight scenes aren't up to the calibre of the better HK wu xia films, but perhaps they're not meant to be - the fights are more "realistic", in that they're less like choreographed dance routines, but there's some wirework and occasional cgi that put the film in "wu xia" mode. The film doesn't have the best cast, unfortunately, with the leads being a tad lacking in charm and occasionally difficult to distinguish from each other. There's a young lady in the film that I don't think I've seen before, but makes the best impression of any of the principle cast - not just because you see her nekkid... or perhaps it is :p The film lacks the charm and grace of the better HK wu xia films, and perhaps the beauty too, but I only wish HK would make them half this good anymore - TWINS EFFECT 2 does not give me hope that *that's* about to happen any time soon, though Tsui Hark surely still has it in him if he can get the funding and cast. SWORD IN THE MOON is not going to go onto my list of favourite wu xia by any means, but it's a whole heap better than ROMANTIC WARRIORS or LEGEND OF THE EVIL LAKE - perhaps better than BICHUNMOO too, though I did like that film quite a bit more on a second viewing. Obviously it's nowhere near the wonderful MUSA, but it's a different affair altogether really. SITM will probably get a second viewing within three years, which is perhaps the best indicator of how much I liked it :) 7/10 I saw the movie on its North American premiere (July 14, 2004) at the Fantasia Festival. I was slightly disappointed as I had been expecting a more epic, ensemble cast movie along the lines of Musa the Warrior. Instead, the movie concentrated only a much smaller number of characters. Still, the movie was solid, thoughtful and visually intriguing. There were slightly jarring tone shifts from the dominant thoughtful and realistic tone of confused loyalties, intrigue and blood, versus the lighter, more flamboyant, martial arts sequences. It almost seemed as though the filmmakers couldn't make up their minds about whether the movie was supposed to be a martial arts "flick" or a historical epic. The story touches nicely on the issue about the need for loyalty versus the need to adapt to new situations. Is it really worth your life and those of your friends to be loyal to one's master or does there come a time when one must submit to the winds of change? Is there perhaps greater courage in leaving the old ways for new ones? How does one decide? These questions are raised in this movie, and ironically, there is the suggestion that the answer given, may in fact be the wrong one! After seeing a preview for this film at my local mall where there is a stand for purchasing foreign films, I thought it looked very entertaining. Before watching the movie i went on to IMDb to see what ratings and comments it received. I was worried when I noticed the low numbers and the negative ratings. Despite the hype, I watched to movie and to my surprise I found it unbelievable.

The story was great (just pay attention) and the characters and their relationships within the film is astonishing. I haven't seen such a good combination of leading characters in long time. I really felt for both characters and sensed a strong bond. As reading previous posts about this movie not being "epic" enough or a lack of martial arts I could not disagree more. This film is what it is, its not Braveheart and its not Enter the Dragon but it is still a wonderful film that does an excellent job combining story both and action.

While Sword In The Moon isn't perfect (what movie is?) it still is wonderful and moving. Just wait until the ending scene, with the music and cinematography together, its breathtaking. I only hope more people can see this movie to give it a fair voting. I must say: out of all modern korean martial arts movies this one is worth checking out. It wasn't as epic as Musa-The Warriors and didn't develop the characters as well, but it had many nice ideas. Simple story: a elite soldier thought dead, returns after years to end the reign of the Japanese in Korea in medieval days. His counterpart was formerly the best friend he had and now he is out to stop him. The fight scenes are all with sword or different weapons and very entertaining to watch. The motives of the figures are discovered first near to the end. You might need to watch it again to get all the connections right. And me personally...I loved the end. I could watch it over and over again. Maybe a little pathetic, but a real freedom fighter story.... People can be killed, but not the ideas they stand for.... Although I saw this movie in Korea, in Korean, and therefore did not understand the language, images sure say more than enough. From what I can make of it, this is the story: Two superb sword fighters become friends in their service as the king's guard. One of them finds himself opposed to the ways of the king and starts assassinating important men. The other has to hunt him down. This movie is visually great. The swordfighting is great. And the movie has a gripping end. I just hope this movie will be marketed for the western cinema goers. And be released on DVD, of course. Nice movie. At the begining, i thought it's a medieve detective kind hi-fi movie, but the ending totally surprised me. I guess, the whole movie covers too many subjects, each of them can be the main subject,e.g. avenge, friendship, and dream. But it mixed all of them without focusing on any of them. I think, it'd be a great movie if it's built around the ending from the very begining.

Jewel Thief is a rare breed of film - completely noir in its story but nothing noir about the presentation. A young man Vinay, superbly played by a newly face lifted Dev Anand at age 40+, is estranged from his police officer Dad and finds a job in a jeweler's store. Soon random people come up to him and call him Amar. Using just a few pithy moments the presence of a "doppelganger" is established. Then a woman Shalini (Vyjayantimala) comes forward and claims to be engaged to said doppelganger. She is accompanied by her loving brother (Ashok Kumar) who is so convinced that Vinay is actually Amar he makes him take his shoe off and prove that he is not Aamr, the 6 toed one. The jeweler's super cute daughter Anju (Tanuja) is completely enamored with Vinay. Amidst all this confusion there is a Jewel thief on the loose and he is stealing at will. Slowly we learn from Vinay's encounter with a super hot night club singer (Helen!) that the thief is Amar the doppelganger. Many many good looking women (Anju Mahendru, Faryal) are after the hero. The police force, including Vinay's Dad, are completely befuddled. Vinay is slowly falling for Shalini/Shalu and her brother seems to bless the union. The action moves to Sikkim as that is where Amar's next heist is to occur. The rest is for you to watch - the duplicate, the girls, the men who hang on to Vinay's every word thinking he is their boss Amar, the loving brother sister duo - nothing seems quite right, and it takes the deft story telling (and direction) by Vijay Anand to conclude this tale in a highly entertaining manner. The movie has numerous moments that you will wonder at until they deliciously weave into a grand finale at a dance in a palace in Sikkim.

I was not a big Vyjayanthi fan but she is quite competent here, although at her chubbiest. She is able to add to the confusion in the story in a subtle way, but is best when she is sorrowful or dancing. Tanuja is cute as a button and I loved her in this film. I so badly wanted her to get the man. Dev was, well, Dev. If he were not walking like a man with a congenital shoulder defect (one shoulder always lower than the other) I would wonder who they had found to imitate him! Yet his style, charm and charisma were unfailing. In the song Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara, only Dev could look cool carrying a fishing rod to which a large plastic fish was attached! Ashok Kumar was simply awesome - Dada Moni did not miss a beat the entire movie and turned this into one for the history books.

SD Burman spun magic with numbers like Baithe Hain Kya Uske Paas (Helen in a blood red rooster imitation dancing on a bar top), Aasman Ke Neeche, Rula Ke Gaya Sapna Mera, and my personal favorite seductive number Raat Akeli Hai Bujh Gaye Diye.

If you are craving a great story, with more twists than a pretzel, wanting to be kept guessing, yet amused and entertained - then go buy or rent Jewel Thief. Better to buy it, then you can go back and see it again with your buddies. This one is a keeper. Unlike Bond and other detective movies, Alfred Hitchcock's hero used to be a common man who would get into trouble and then with his acumen and courage (and luck) would get out of it. Jewel Thief is based on the same principle and so in a way it is Vijay Anand's tribute to the master of suspense. The tribute as it may be but it stands its own grounds and establishes Vijay Anand as a great director himself.

It is the story of a common man Vinay who one day realizes that he has a double called Amar who in fact is a Jewel Thief. Suddenly Vinay finds himself in the middle of a hatching scheme and to save himself goes on a wild goose chase to find this Amar who remains one step ahead of him. The suspense is almost killing throughout the movie and as the plot unravels you are hit by the brilliance of the scheme. Just like Hitchcock's movies, Jewel Thief can boast of a grand climax shot inside the grand palace of Sikkim.

Everyone and I mean everyone; Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Ashok Kumar, Vajyanti Mala, Tanuja, SD Burman, Kishore Kumar, Majrooh Sultanpuri etc. etc. are in their top forms. This is one of the best thrillers ever made in India. Jewel Thief is *THE* crime thriller of Bollywood, and why should it not be? It is directed by the biggest exponent of the crime thriller art in Indian Cinema Vijay Anand ('Johny Mera Naam' and 'Teesri Manzil.) I could watch this movie for any of the following reasons (in order of importance):

1 Vijay Anand's direction 2 R D Burman's music 3 Dev Anand 4 Vyjayanthimala 5 Ashok Kumar 6 Majrooh Sultanpuri's lyrics

Even if Jewel Thief is not a Bond Movie it definitely has bond babes. Helen, Tanuja, and the mysterious Vyajanthimala (and some cameos.) But our sauvé Vinay (Dev Anand) is anything but Bond. He is out of control for most of the story and goes where the story takes him almost always as confused as we are. He even flirts with Anju (Tanuja) trying to hit her romantic nerve, just so that he can get employed in her father's shop.

Dev Anand might be in a double role - well I don't want to spoil your movie or else I would have told you. That is what most of the mystery is about. Dev Anand works in a Jewelry shop and there is a robbery when he is supposed to be at work - though is not, or at least has a perfect alibi. We wonder who did it, is it Dev Anand as 'Vijay' the person he claims to be or is it 'Amar' someone we have not yet seen but many people claim is his look alike. Comes 'Shalu' (Vyjayanthimala) who even claims that he is her fiancé, in a tense situation Dev Anand has to prove that he is Vinay and not Amar. While everyone wonders if Dev Anand is Vinay or Amar he is asked to remove his socks. Amar we are told has 6 digits on one of his foot. While we watch with bated breath the events that are about to unfold Dev Anand even finds time to joke.

The real life brothers Director Vijay Anand and Actor Dev Anand have many movies between them this is not the best of them but definitely the best in Crime Thriller.

There are moments of Hitchcock's North By Northwest, but the movies are very different. Except for the confusion about who is who, a treacherous female lead and lot of traveling there isn't a lot of similarity. Dev Anand could very well be Amar in addition to being Vijay. People have seen him, they identify him where ever he goes. There are too many of those people for this to be a fraud. Finally Vinay thinks it is better to carry along with being Amar to find out what is the truth, and it is a sad mistake. He gets too deep into it, only to be saved by the twists of Cinema.

When I watched the movie as a kid I was definitely not amused, the ending confused me completely. Even now there are parts about the ending that I do not like, but I'd recommend this movie anyway.

Even as a kid I enjoyed the songs this movie has to offer. 'Yeh dil ...' - a definite loafers song in Kishor Kumar's voice. I could hear 'Rulake gaya ...' whole day long. Ditto for 'Aasmaan ke neeche' which is set 'under the skies' of Gangtok (at least the story line suggests that). 'Raat akeli hai' among the sexiest song to come out of Hindi cinema featuring Tanuja as the seductress. 'Meri taraf dekho' - Helen's cabaret and we 'look at her'. 'Hothon pe ...' - now, could there be any better thriller of a song than this. As the song progresses we are more tensed than we ever were and the words 'hidden in Shalu's lips' add to it. An excellent thriller of all time. Vijay Anand excels as Director and Editor. Performances by Dev Anand, Vyjayantimala, Tanuja and Ashok Kumar prove to be an asset to the film which has its screenplay worked out to the minutest detail. Cinematography adds to the mystery, glamour and other requirements of the story as it evolves. And to top it all, music by Sachin Dev Burman is unforgettable. "Yeh dil na hota bechara" by Kishore Kumar, "Raat akeli hai" by Asha Bhosle, "Rula ke gaya sapna mera" by Lata, "Aasman ke niche" by Lata and Rafi and "Hothon pe aisi baat main" by Lata, again reaffirm Burman Dada's unique stature as a top notch composer with a style of his own. Jewel Thief is one of those suspense thrillers in which the viewers are left guessing till the end who the villain is. Suspense builds from the very first scene when the jewel thief becomes a national problem and there are cleverly concealed clues in the film so that you can guess who is the jewel thief. The story portrays that Dev Anand (Vinay in the film) and the jewel thief have identical faces. But you get a 1000 watt shock when you finally come to know the villain. There are many surprises and a lot of fishy stuff going on but there is time for romance and six melodious ever lasting songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishore Kumar and Mohmmad Rafi.

This film was also talked about for its song's videos. Consider the teasing and counter teasing in Asman Ke Neeche. Or the blocking of road by Dev Anand when Tanuja was going out with her friends in Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara. Or the romantic Dil Pukare Are Are in the beautiful Sikkim. Or the wonderful dance by Vyjantimala in Hotho Pe Aisi Baat. Add to it Rulake Gaya Sapna Mera and Raat Akeli Hain and you will never forget this film for any reason.

Able acting by Dev Anand, Ashok Kumar, Tanuja and Vyjantimala and direction by Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's younger brother) makes this one of the best loved Hindi films of all times even today. This movie was marketed extremely well. When it was released in '97, during the middle of Master P's fame and success anything and everything with his name on it was selling off the shelves. That's why it's no wonder this underground urban drama sold over 250,000 copies and still goin'.

If you are a fan of No Limit back then or even now check it out. It has a few old school phatty videos and don't get me started with the freaky deaky strippers at the bonus Ice Cream Party. So what I got to say to all the people who don't like Master P or No Limit Records don't watch it because it isn't for you and don't bother voting on it because you're only going to deter TRU no limit fans from renting or purchasing this video with your low votes. I love this movie. It is the first film Master P have ever done. It is based on the story of his life. It is low-budget, but it is very good. It shows how Master p grew up in projects in New Orleans.

Not only did Master P start in this movie, he also was the writer and director with Moon Jones. The DVD also has The No Limit ice cream party on it. This movie shows how Master P goes from bad too good and how he had to deal with the things around him. It also has many of The No Limit Records roster in this film. You should buy or rent this film.

It is a great movie to watch is you like rap, or is a Master P fan. I will not spoil this movie for you. Go get this movie as fast as you can and watch it. You will like it. This is one of the best films I've seen in the last years.Belmonndo and Deneuve shine in their respective roles, he as a naive plantation owner and she as an enigmatic trickster.Words won't do this masterpiece justice,suffice it to say that this is a movie that explores the darker side of love and the pain,humiliation and capacity for self-delusion that go with it, although it's dressed as a film noir. Forget that feeble remake with Jolie and Banderas, see the genuine artticle instead and treat yourselves to some moments of great cinematic beauty. I've slowly been collecting the films available on DVD of both Catherine Deneuve and Francois Truffaut. Both actress and director have done some stinkers in their time - fortunately Mississipi Mermaid is not one of them.

Next to "The Soft Skin", coincidentally staring Deneuve's sister (the late Francoise Dorleac), this would have to be my favourite Truffaut film.

As well as directing, Truffaut also wrote the screenplay. Something that always strikes me about Truffaut is his almost childlike innocence when presenting a story -- one could almost call it naivety.

There's a scene towards the end of the film where Belmondo returns to the apartment in Lyon with the remains of the loot. He rings the doorbell and Deneuve answers wearing a negligee. In the time it takes Belmondo to reach their room from the street, Deneuve changes into her dress, puts on her best pair of stockings and shoes, then lies on the bed and pretends she is asleep. It's a scene that could almost come from the mind of a child - but that's Truffaut for you.

Watching Catherine Deneuve in her films of the late 60's is indeed a sensory pleasure. She is so extraordinarily beautiful it is almost painful for us to watch. Incidentally, for those fans, there are a couple of topless scenes of her in this film - indeed a sinful pleasure.

I disagree with previous posters. I see nothing 'Hitchcockian' about the film at all. As for the 'look' of it - i love the look of the older film stock used in the 60's. It certainly gives films of this period a unique look.

Highly recommended for both Deneuve and Truffaut fans...... In Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, the owner of a cigarette factory Louis Mahé (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is engaged through correspondence with Julie Roussel and he does not know her. When Julie arrives in the island to get married with Louis, he waits for her in the docks but Louis does not recognize Julie in the passenger vessel and finds that she is totally different from the picture she had sent to Louis. They get married and Louis shares his bank accounts with her. When Julie's sister writes a letter to Louis asking her sister to write to her, Louis discovers that the woman is not Julie that is missing. Further, he finds that the woman has cleared his bank accounts and left the island. Louis and Julie's sister hire an efficient private detective Comolli (Michel Bouquet) and Louis travels to France seeking the woman, but he has a nervous breakdown in Nice and is submitted to an intense sleeping therapy in a clinic. He recovers and finds that the woman, actually Marion Vergano (Catherine Deneuve), works in the Phoenix Club Privé in Antibes and lives in the low-budget Monorail Hotel. Louis breaks in her room and when she arrives from the club, she tells that she was happy with him but her former dangerous lover Richard had blackmailed her. Louis is still in love with Marion and escapes with her to the countryside. But Comolli is chasing Marion in France accused of murdering Julie.

"La Sirène du Mississipi" is a film-noir by the great director/writer François Truffaut, with an unconventional love story of passion, murder and love that hurts. The femme fatale Catherine Deneuve is astonishing, probably in the top of her beauty and is delightful to see her face and the topless scenes on the road and in the room. Jean-Paul Belmondo is very athletic, and the sequence when he escalates the wall of the hotel is impressive. Catherine Deneuve makes this film worth and gives credibility to the passion and lust of Louis. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Sereia do Mississipi" ("The Mississippi Mermaid") (Contains spoilers)

People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the "Mississippi", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in "Julie's" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.

Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...

A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face. The film is a joy to watch, not just for the plot, which is gripping, but also for the superb performances of the actors, Deneuve and Belmondo. Though considered a 'flop' on its first release it has become a critical success, and it is clear to see why. Deneuve's acting style suited the film brilliantly. she constantly gives the impression that she is holding back or hiding something, and her character in this film is. I will not spoil it with saying what, though it is divulged fairly early on. Belmondo is lovable as the fairly naiive but in love tobacconist. I would recommend this film to all Truffaut or Deneuve fans. It is a brilliant Hitchcockian style thriller with exciting twists and interesting relationships and characters that develop as the film does. The film is approx 2 hrs, so you feel that you have not been sold short. Deneuve steals the show in this film, and it is clear that at the time of making the film Truffaut was very much smitten with her. A definite must see for any cineaste or moviefan. 10/10 This agreeable French movie deals about a millionaire owner of a tobacco factory on an African island nearly to Madagascar named Louis(Jean Paul Belmondo). He's a single man looking wife, then he advertises a bride and gets a gorgeous woman named Julia(Catherine Deneuve). When she spontaneously appears turns out to be much more attractive than expected. He marries to Julia but she suddenly disappears.A French eye private(Michael Bouquet) is hired by Julia's sister and soon he's on the trail of his previous spouse. Later Louis encounters her in a dancing-hall under another name. In spite of the romantic delusion and everything, Louis goes on enamored with his enigmatic wife.

This film is a splendid drama plenty of betrayal,deception, killing, theft and Hitchcockian suspense. Good performances by Jean Paul Belmondo as young proprietary of a cigarette company who seems determined to fall under the spell of a femme fatale and a wonderful Catherine Deneuve as suspect heroine. The film gets several references to the American cinema, but Truffaut(400 blows) was a fervent moviegoer, such as : Johnny Guitar, Colorado Jim, Bogart, and Hitchcock.The USA version was cut numerous minutes and deserves an urgent restoring and remastering. Loosely based on the novel titled'Waltz into darkness' by Cornell Woolrich (Rear window and screenwriter of Alfred Hitchcock hour) who also was adapted in 'Truffaut's The bride wore black'.Colorful cinematography by Denys Clerval(Stolen kisses) and atmospheric musical score by Antoine Duhamel, Truffaut's usual musician.This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with ¨Farenheit 451 and Shoot the piano player¨. Remade by an inferior version by Michael Christofer(2001) with Antonio Banderas, Angelina Jolie and Jack Thompson, full of erotic and lust scenes. A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel "Waltz into Darkness" of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover/wife of Louis Mahé (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France. This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..

This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.

The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.

It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat.

Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting. MISSISSIPPI MERMAID is a disturbing and unsettling examination of what it means to be in love with the "wrong" person.

Truffaut's directing is his usual outstanding work. Although this is far from his best. Deneuve is very, very beautiful. Despite the character she portrays. I honestly don't know what words IMDB will allow me to use in this review, as a result, I'm having a hard time describing these shorts. Let's just say there's a good amount of gay sex, some necrophilia, some incest, a fair amount of masturbation, and several artificial.... members. And I loved every minute of it.

Not that it's ALL crude humor. It isn't. They stray away from fart gags for the most part, with the exception of one sketch entitled "Pizza" in which they use one very well. "They" being 3/11ths of the short-lived sketch comedy group that aired on MTV called The State, namely David Wain, Michael Showalter, and Michael Ian Black.

The trio go on adventures, usually playing themselves and encounter strange and unusual people, people that are often actually more normal than they are. The supporting cast is fantastic as well. Paul Rudd, Julie Bowen, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Sam Rockwell all make appearances in various sketches. They're also joined by other The State alums like Joe Lo Truglio and Todd Holoubek. The musical selections are also very well placed.

I've enjoyed these sketches over and over again, but they aren't for everybody as they're pretty vulgar most of the time. If you like clever humor that isn't afraid to push the limits of good taste, then I highly recommend this. If you liked Wet Hot American Summer (Directed and written by Wain and Showalter) or The State, then you should really enjoy this.

I think it can currently only be ordered online. Check out their website and stream a couple of sketches to get an idea if you really want this first, and then find out how to buy the DVD. If you were ever a fan of MTV"s "The State," then these three guys will be familiar to you. But even if you only stumbled upon them via the internet like I did, you will soon come to appreciate their unique brand of comedy.

Born out of their stand up comedy trio, 'Stella', Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter and David Wain produced these brilliant vignettes of surreal comedy to display at their shows, and now after being available only to download from two websites, they appear in pristine glory on one DVD.

Think comedy sketch show sans censorship, and you'd be halfway there. No stone of decency is left unturned. But for those who like their comedy rude, self-indulgent and bordering on puerile, (and I mean that in the most flattering way) this is the DVD for you!

I think it's worth the money for the commentary from the two Michaels and David alone, you can't help but take a liking to them as they explain their actions, cringe at their own antics with sex toys and by turn pat each other on the back and hurl abuse.

Fantastic.

It must say something for the appeal of Stella that the likes of Julie Bowen and Paul Rudd are willing to throw themselves into the action so fearlessly. And you should follow their fine example, throw preconceptions to the wind, and prepare to laugh yourself sick. Hilarious and low-budget comedy at it's best. This set of unique individual sketches with extensive self-referential humor is reminiscent of a really raunchy Kids in the Hall. Be prepared for some of the most random and recitation worthy lines, filled with ethnic slurs and awful language. Sex toys included!

There should be more comedy like this around today. This collection of sketches on one DVD will warrant many viewings and reviewings in order to appreciate some of the parts. If you enjoyed The State and/or Wet Hot American Summer, get ready for some more glory. If you are even considering this for younger audiences I would say that every child on earth should see this. When I first saw Stella on comedy central I thought "god, this is horrible!" But I loved Wet Hot American Summer. So I knew something didn't make sense. There was nothing left for me to do but search out for the Stella shorts which I had heard contained more dildos than any other comedy troupe out there. When I found them not only were my dildo expectations met, but I found probably the greatest comedy scenes I've seen in years. The set of twenty odd short films put me on the edge of my seat with water running down my legs. Not only did I laugh my ass off the first time I watched them but continued to laugh harder when I watched them over and over again. It's really a shame Comedy Central had the restrictions of cable television for the Stella series. It would have faired much better on HBO or Showtime. Their brand of humor can't be restricted by censors or popular culture. Given even if it was on HBO I'm sure the "masses" would have voted it canceled in a season or less, but still it would have been fantastic. Needless to say I'm now in love with Stella and all it's individual members. Any Stella fan should check out David Wain's site with all his short films. They are equally as enjoyable as Stella itself. So my hat goes off to Michael Showalter, Michael Ian Black, and David Wain for the unbelievable comedy they have made with Stella. I hope to see much more of the troupe in the future. Wow, Stella Shorts are great! Lots of patrons from The State and Stella, the TV show. I never knew that Stella could have gotten any better then they were on the TV show Stella or even Comedy Central Presents: Stella. I also never knew short comedies could be any good. My favorite ones were Pizza, Racking Leaves, The Woods and David arranges to a meeting with his long lost cousin Greg. I think over all that David was the funniest one. Its funny when he doesn't make sense. I like the music in the shorts. Thats something I pay attention to a lot. They always had good taste in music. I wish they still made shorts, either that or bring back there sitcom. I hope they continue making good and funny comedy. Saw the film at the Hollywood Film Festival in Oct '04 . Mark Robertson took a huge chance writing an extremely difficult part for his first film and it paid off big in his casting of Kelly Overton. I had a strong feeling she came from the theater so I looked her up here and ...surprise, I'm right. More Hollywood actors should follow her lead, give up the expensive acting classes and get back to theater because only with that kind of training will you be prepared for a ride like this. For all the great things I can say about the film and the director (and there are many) I just can't stop talking to people about Kelly Overton's masterful performance. We'll be seeing a LOT MORE of her work, no doubt.

Congratulations to Mark and Kelly on a daring film. Get it out in the theaters so I can bring all the people I made want to see the film ASAP! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and to date, this year, it is one of my favorites. The story was excellent although the twist at the end was far too predictable and I knew what would happen far too early. Usually when this happens the film is spoiled for me (like "The Others") but even knowing the outcome I still enjoyed it right up to the end. Looking through the comments of others many people were impressed with the performance from Kelly Overton (Eve), I'm afraid I was not. Her performance seemed to be the weak part of the film to me, in contrast to the amazing performance (or characterization) by James Haven (Don Wake) ... I hope we see more of him. What a great little film, highly recommended to all! I saw the film yesterday and really enjoyed it.Although there were several clues which I could realize after second time watching ,I was not able to awake the Dow-Dawn case. Maybe this was my carelessness.The subconsciousness of a woman was became concrete with personalization.'Let me go out'the key sentence of the film.Let me go out from deep deep inside of your brain and we will both be free.A discrete film that forcing the limits of human conscious and brain.Anybody who have seen the 'Machinist' would realize the similarities with breaking dawn.A man that could not escape from his conscience (again a psychological and an abstract concept)meets it in an human body.And he will just be free of accepting and realizing there is no way of escape.Also I want to mention about the performances of 'breking dawn's stuffs.In spite of having not many experiences, from actors and actresses to director all exhibited separately reasonable performance that have created a synergy which would increase the quality of the movie When i saw this movie the first thing that jumped at me was the acting of Kelly Overton a young (and op and coming star) actress that i saw for the first time totally blew me away.. she is amazing on screen and I'm really looking forward to see what the future brings her....

The movie it self was good in the sense that it let Kelly Overton do her stuff and take the wiever for a ride... not much new tho i had the feeling that i had seen it all before.. but a good experience :) I would recommend this movie... if only to see Kelly Overton.. this stage actor takes the screen by storm.. i give this movie a vote of 7... 5 for the acting performance and 2 for the rest of the movie.

And on a last note.. sorry about my bad English.. if this is gibberish for you :P plz ignore me... I caught this movie on local t.v. at about 4:30 a.m. I didn't have expectations for it but after the opening credits I knew I was into something good.

There are situations that are left for your interpretation to "find out" what really happened so your attention is a key factor.

The whole psychological thriller situation deals a lot with character development and the way things are executed by the main character.

Your sub-conscience also plays an important part because through a series of events and dialogs you will be able to make a correct interpretation and generate an opinion.

The technical aspects are very good. Really good in fact. Kelly Overtone is extremely sexy and she's candy for the eye although she's most of the time in her white clothes.

The fear factor is almost inexistent but there's plenty of mystery and tension to dig from.

I would recommend it for those who enjoy supernatural and psychological thrillers. Stephanie Meyer is going to be so ticked! Now, her book "Breaking Dawn" will not be first with that title. Sorry, Twilight fans.

Kelly Overton (The Ring Two) is medical student, Eve, who is assigned to interview psychotic Don (James Haven - Angelina Jolie's brother). I suspected the twist, and when she found out they both grew up in the same town, I was sure of it.

She kept getting deeper and deeper with her patient to the point that I felt there was a shared delusion going on. At times, she even acted like she had PTSD. I really thought she was losing it.

Well, she wasn't losing it, and when the end came, I was floored. My whole suspicion turned out to be wrong. The twist was even more amazing than I believed.

Overton was fantastic and the story is so much better than something Stephanie Meyer would come up with. A must see. This movie is a mystery. It's not scary, it's spooky. You'll probably jump at some points and for some of it you'll be scratching your head to figure it out. It unfolds its mystery through the main character Eve and her psychotic college project at an insane asylum, Don. He needs her to search for some clues to vindicate himself from murdering his mother, and once Eve agrees to help him, she completely opens up pandora's box and unleashes some very strange things, including Malachi. I won't go into Malachi, but I thought the way that played out was complete genius. I know movie buffs won't regard this movie with the same prestige as other classics because it doesn't have anyone very famous in it (Angelina Jolie's brother was excellent, but maybe he should have asked his sister to show her face just so this movie could get some recognition) but I do think the way the Malachi ending works is something to talk about. I've recommended this to my friends, definitely worth the purchase or rental price. This was a surprisingly very good movie, and an interesting idea.. However, it was just a little bit disappointing in that the 'Twist' was a little too predictable and just a bit too early on in the movie. Whilst watching, it started to get a little bizarre and confusing to the point that, the only reasonable outcome possible was the inevitable plot twist, but it certainly did not ruin this movies flow. There were superb performances, there was never a dull boring moment, so totally well worth watching this one. It kept me interested right up until the end, and for me there isn't many movies that can do that these days. I highly recommend people watch this terrific little movie. The Jungle is more of an adventure than a science fiction movie. The only sci-fi part is the Woolly Mammoths living in the present day.

Elephants are attacking villages in a part of India and these attacks are also killing people. An expedition is sent to investigate and one of the members of this, an American hunter blames these elephants are being frightened by Woolly Mammoths, which are suppose to be extinct. Nobody believes him at first, but they do when the Mammoths appear at the end. An earthquake finishes them off.

The Jungle was shot on location in India and has a lot of nice scenery and some good Indian music, including some songs which keep the movie moving along nicely. The Mammoths are actually real elephants with fur coats and long tusks stuck on.

The cast includes Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero (The Lost Continent) and Marie Windsor (Cat-Women of the Moon).

The Jungle is worth seeing, just for the scenery and music. Very enjoyable.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing. Interesting tale of giant mammoth elephants running amok in modern India. Features transparent special effects-elephants dressed in shaggy coats sporting tusk extensions. All this said, we do have a good story and a fine cast at work, and an exciting climax. It's been said that the running time on this one was doubled when it showed in India-courtesy of Robert Lippert, a master at 'padding.' Given a choice, opt for the shorter version. I remember this film fondly from seeing it in the theatre. I recently found a copy on VHS & it held up to my memory of it. While obviously not a "big budget" film, the acting is quite credible & the scenery, locales, & costumes are very well done. I only wish the Mammoths had been in more of the picture, but when you see them, they are also well done (remember, SFX was done in those days without benefit of computers, some poor devil had to actually put all that hair & fake tusks on real elephants!)...the same effect was used on the elephants in "Quest for Fire". A better than average adventure film & a chance for the star, Rod Cameron to play something besides a cowboy, which he also did very well over the years. Earth Final Conflict began like a new world, a new vision from the creator of Star trek, something fresh and unique full of great elements. A very good cast with an extremely credible Kevin Kilner as William Boone, an ex cop good begins to work as guard of some kind of ambassador of a mysterious alien race (Talons), after the dead of his wife in strange circumstances. But soon the character of Kilner joins to a group with the mission to discover what are the truth intentions of the aliens, why they seem to be so nice and care for the human race. Soon this resistance group begin to discover the sinister plans of the Talons using the humans in they own problems to survive they own destruction. As I said before, the show began great, all was almost perfect, including characters like Da'an, the original Da'an was a big mystery because he seems to be a nice creature but at the same time he has his own evil plans manipulating some people in earth. Soon came Zo'or who wasn't bad but... mark the beginning of the fall of this show because he became the first big enemy of humans, the incarnation of evil, killing what could be something greater in Da'an. The first seasons ends in a great way with the dead of Boone and the second shows a new lead character (Liam) an hybrid being of human and Kimera (another alien race) with some very interesting powers. He replace Kilner character in a good way so another storylines make it better, including the conflict with the jaridians and the atavus. But as I said lines before the evilness of Zo'or begin to take more importance so the new conflicts were less realistic as the same Talons. With time the whole great storyline of the alien roots of Liam where almost totally erased the same with other things of the previous seasons. So when the final season began the original Earth Final conflict was just an almost forgotten dreams, all the magic was missing, just to let some vain intents to keep alive the show including the return of Kilner and Liam for a few episodes. The final episode was just the evidence of how bad was the show with so many bad changes (to think the writers of some episodes didn't know anything about the first stories), it was one of the worst end I have ever seen in a TV show. A real shame because Earth Final Conflict began like something unique, fresh, the stories the cast, after watch so many show from USA, something from Canada from the mind of the creator of Star trek was wonderful but in the end all change to worse. I hope someday someone make a remake of this show, of course using nothing from season fourth and fifth (except the cast, everyone were perfect in his work). I still can dream in a better things. Gene Roddenberry never let his fans down. His death ended Sci-Fi legacy that will never be matched. Earth: The Final Conflict was proof! His pilot film and the first 2 Seasons were well written and meticulously produced, but somewhere along the way the Roddenberry touch was lost. The loss of lead, Kevin Kilner (William Boone) definitely hurt the series as he was a vital part of what made it work. The story involves the human race being visited by the Taelons, an extra-terrestrial race who dub themselves 'The Companions'. After 3 years they have given earth new technologies, helpful information about the Universe and more. Many question their intentions here on Earth. The main liaison on Earth between the races is Da'an (Leni Parker) and he is to many, the most trustworthy Taelon. Questions arise: just why are they here? what are their goals, is Da'an aware of any suspected plots against the humans? There is an underground group led by millionaire industrialist Jonathan Doors (David Hemblen) who utilizes his millions to investigate the Taelons. By the end of the First Season things are going well, Da'an seems trustworthy, Boone assists Doors in his investigation while working with Da'an and the Taelons as a liaison. In the middle of the 2nd Season things start unraveling and the once terrific and fascinating series spirals downward, mostly because Roddenberry had died and was not around to guide the producers, of whom his wife Majel Barrett-Roddenberry was co-producer. Still, the first Season remains intriguing and fun to watch. Ok, everybody agreed on what was the best season. The first. And killing off Boone was a bad desicion. Also killing off others was bad. Blame the directors and writers for it. Bad boys. BUT. I still think this is the best scifi series ever! Sorry guys I can't help it! I see that the quality of the series was decreasing after the first season. Still it's easy to accept Liam as the new main character, if you are over Boone. He is really... mysterious. The thing that shocked me most was when Lilli was written out of the story and how. That was something she didn't deserve! And what do we get? Some blonde chick called Renee, with absolutely no character! But these Taelons stay mysterious, and you stay wondering about theyre true plans till the end. True Suspence. The conversations between Zo'or and Da'an are sometimes brilliant.

I understand that, when you jump in on an episode from the 3th,4th or 5th season, you may not understand this show. But when you watch from the beginning, you just cant break loose!

The acting is great, the special FX are marvellous, the music is beautiful and the plot intriguing. Gotta see this, guys! Believe me I wanted this series to work, but the early departure of Kevin Kilner dealt a near death blow after season one. Robert Leeshock just wasn't right for the part and Jane Heitmeyer did an admirable job as lead but the series just got too messy and confused at that point. I don't know what happened in Season Five, what a mess. Sometimes its time to drop the red cape and just stick the sword in the bull, if you know what I mean. The only consistent thread holding the series together were the amazing performances of Leni Parker and Anita LaSelva as the two Taelons in quiet idealogical conflict. If not for their talents and well-written dialogue they would have been two weird bald man-chicks in a B-movie series.

If only this series could have ended at season 4 and picked up later by SyFy... I'm sorry to see that it has been rated that low by many people. The series started off very good and after the first season it wasn't that good.

People tend to forget the beginning of something and only look at the end. This is not good to do, you should look at the total, not the end result. It is sad that a lot of the "usual" characters died but, damn, we had a lot of nice NEW characters.

Please do not attach yourself to a few characters but attach yourself to the series, the plot. Please do understand that I didn't like it when Boone died, when Augur died but well... it needs to be done. Can you imagine that everyone keeps living the whole series when they are in a lot of danger all the time? Come on, face it, if they didn't die they would be invincible. In this way you will always keep the tension, will he survive, will he die? I do realize that people attach their selves to characters, I do that too. My favorite character was Augur, the one who could get into every computer he wanted. He was the one who was mysterious, he could do things with the computer no one else could do.

I wish to make one statement to all the people who vote negative, does a series which started so good deserve to have such low rating? Should we look at the final season instead of the total? Should we not see how good the series was when it started? Should we not see how much we enjoyed it? I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason). I have been looking forward to the release of this DVD (and it's follow-up {Female Prisoner Scorpion: #701's Grudge Song}) for some time. I very much enjoyed the first two movies of this series. After just watching this film, I would have to say that this is probably my favorite of the three.

All three of these movies were directed by Shunya Ito. What is great about them, though, is that, even though they all feature the same lead character (wonderfully played by Meiko Kaji), they are each vastly different from the others.

The first movie (Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion) is more or less a typical Women In Prison movie. But the character of Scorpion is very intriguing - very reminiscent of the anti-heroes of many spaghetti westerns. And the director often used some very interesting and unusual visual approaches to the material.

The second movie (Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41) is a real tour-de-force. Not so much a WIP movie as the bulk of the film has Scorpion and six other escaped inmates on the lam.

This movie (Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable) is the third in the series and the last one directed by Shunya Ito. This one plays out as much more of a crime drama. Once again, our heroine is on the run. But this time out, she has managed to maintain a certain amount of normalcy in her life (relatively speaking anyway). She gets a job, she finds a place to live, she makes a friend on the outside. But, of course, everything has to unravel eventually. FPS: Beast Stable has a more straight-forward story that is told at a more leisurely pace than its predecessors. But I found it to be engaging from beginning to end. And don't worry: there is still plenty of depravity to go around in this movie! But I think these movies transcend most exploitation films because the more disturbing elements are played in a straighter tone rather than being used exclusively for in-your-face shock value. Yes, there were definitely moments in this movie where I cringed mightily. But I didn't feel that they detracted from the value of the story (well, maybe a time or two). One thing I have greatly enjoyed about these films is the continued build-up of Scorpion's mythos. With this entry character development is used much more extensively than in the previous two. We get to see that she is much more than just a stone-hearted vengeful badass!

As I mentioned earlier in this review, a fourth movie followed. It also features Meiko Kaji as Scorpion but had a different director. Without giving anything away I want to mention that FPS: Beast Stable ends in such a way as to make a sequel completely unnecessary. The fourth film is still quite good but it seems to play as a superfluous footnote to a mind-blowing trilogy.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in out-of-the-ordinary films. FPS: Beast Stable can be enjoyed as a stand-alone piece (as can the first two movies) but I would also recommend watching the others first if you have not already done so. The third film in a cycle of incomparably brilliant Exploitation movies, and the third masterpiece in a row, "Joshuu Sasori: Kemono-beya" aka. "Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable" (aka. "Sasori: Den Of The Beast" where I live) of 1973 is a film that differs from its predecessors in some aspects, but that equals (or arguably even surpasses) them in brilliance. The entire original Sasori series with the wonderful Meiko Kaji stands out as the absolute highlight in WIP cinema, and all of the films, especially the first three, uniquely combine Exploitation and Art-house cinema like no other movie does. "Beast Stable" is the third, and second-to-last "Sasori" film with Meiko Kaji, the last one to be directed by genius director Shunya Ito and, in my opinion, the greatest of them all. The first film "Joshuu 701-gô: Sasori" of 1972 is an absolute masterpiece of Exploitation cinema and simply THE Definition of Exploitation-Art. In the equally brilliant first sequel, "Joshuu Sasori: Dai-41 zakkyo-bô" Ito added more surrealism and symbolism. The third "Sasori" film, "Beast Stable" keeps up the surrealism (allthough not quite to the same extent as the second), and features even more social criticism than its predecessors. Topics like poverty, forced prostitution and the exploitation of the poor are central themes of the movie.

This third "Sasori" film is ingenious and sublime in all aspects and arguably the greatest of the, generally brilliant, cycle (to me it's this one, with the first one as a close second). Once again, "Best Stable" is both very artistic and very Exploitation-like. The visually stunning film features an enormous amount of brutal violence and sleaze again, as well as sequences of enormous surrealistic beauty. The stunningly beautiful Meiko Kaji is once again brilliant in her role of Nami Matsushima (aka. Sasori). I absolutely worship this wonderful actress, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do so. The rest of the performances are also great, especially Mikio Narita is great as a police Inspector who is obsessed with catching Sasori. The musical score is the same throughout all three films, with "Urami-Bushi", sung by Meiko Kaji herself, as the main theme, which is great, since the score is, simply put, pure perfection. As its predecessors, "Beast Stable" is an absolutely brilliant masterpiece of Exploitation-Art that no serious lover of film can afford to miss. The entire Sasori-cycle ranges high on my personal all-time favorite list. "Beast Stable" is arguably the most brilliant masterpiece of them all! 10/10 "Female Convict Scorpion - Beast Stable", the third in the series, is a magnificent piece of pulp sleaze. Closer in tone and subject to a Nikkatsu violent pinker than other Scorpion entries, it is stunningly photographed, directed with lurid enthusiasm, and populated with a rogue's gallery of villains and degenerates. Shinya Ito, the director of the first installment, returns for this surreal fable which begins with Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) cutting the arm off a cop she is handcuffed to and fleeing into the Tokyo subway with said arm still swinging from her wrist. She takes refuge in a red light district where she befriends a prostitute, who is first seen seen having incestuous intercourse with her brother (who ends up impregnating her). Scorpion's desire to protect this unfortunate woman eventually exposes her identity and all hell breaks loose. She is beaten, sexually assaulted, and locked inside a bizarre bird cage in the villain's lair. I loved everything about this hypnotic, nihilistic, and emotionally touching movie. It is the superior of the three first Scorpion films and features one great scene after another. I can't recommend it highly enough. Many consider BEAST STABLE to be the last of the "true" FEMALE PRISONER films, as it is the last of the series directed by Shunya Ito, and is followed by one other film (GRUDGE SONG) by a different director. I have not seen GRUDGE SONG yet (but soon will...) so I don't know how it stacks up to the previous FP films - but it will be interesting to see. The way BEAST STABLE ended didn't really leave a lot of room for another predecessor - but I guess I'll find out...

This entry has Scorpion on the run from the cops, where she hooks up with a street-hooker who ends up pregnant with her retarded brothers child (oh yeah - that's no lie...gotta love these sleazy story lines). Scorpion ends up being kidnapped by an old rival, but (as she is so good at...) ends up escaping and taking revenge on some people that wronged a few of her hooker friends...

I agree with some other reviewers, that this one is a little slower at points and more "serious" then the previous two entries. The story is somewhat confusing and convoluted at times, but a lot of these 70's era pinky films are - and I still love them. BEAST STABLE is lacking pretty badly in the nudity area which was pretty disappointing - but I thought it strong in other areas - storyline, cinematography, some good sleaze,etc...Definitely worthwhile to fans of this sort of thing, or who have enjoyed the other FEMALE PRISONER films...8/10 The third and final Female Prisoner Scorpion film directed by Shunya Ito. The series' star, Meiko Kaji, would complete the series in the fourth installment, Grudge Song, directed by the capable Yasuhara Hasebe (who also directed Kaji in the excellent Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter). The original Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion is one of my all-time favorites. The sequel, Jailhouse 41, is nearly as good. It's generally considered the best of the series, and I might agree, I think, if it ever gets a better release on DVD (the original, by Image, is very poor). Beast Stable, in my opinion, is nearly as good as FP701. It's much slower, much more contemplative. It has its share of violence and nastiness, but there's more focus on the story and the characters. Sasori (Kaji) eludes detectives in the first scene (she is handcuffed to one and lops his arm off – and escapes with it in tow, which must be seen to be believed!) and hooks up with a freelance prostitute, Yuki. Yuki is being hassled by a local prostitution ring, which includes a goofy-looking madame with a cage full of pet crows. What really surprised me is how sad the movie is. Yuki's story, which is never resolved, it heartbreaking. The images are startling, and Ito's direction is masterful. It's too bad that he never went anywhere after he left the FP701 series. This is an awesome film. There's hell to pay when you cross Nami Matsushima(Meiko Kaji), Female Scorpion, and a dangerous group of thugs(..including their sadistic head pimp and his equally repellent lady), operating a prostitution ring with an iron fist, does just that. Hell hath no fury like Scorpion, and a determined detective, Gondo(Mikio Narita), seeking revenge for decapitating his arm after handcuffing her, will do whatever it takes(..and that includes intimidating anyone who might know her whereabouts)to catch Nami. Nami finds an ally in hooker Yuki(Yayoi Watanabe), who provides her a temporary shelter. Yuki has a retarded brother who suffered a brain injury during a job, and must take care of him(..in a disturbing revelation, regarding incest, she also provides his sexual needs!)..she, in actuality, keeps him locked up in a room while working the streets! Meanwhile, Nami is targeted by a vile neighbor once she finds a place of her own(..she works as a sewer), and he threatens to turn her into the authorities(..Nami was an escaped convict, who fled a subway from the cops)if she doesn't supply him sexual favors. His wife dumps a tea kettle of boiling water all over his face and body, resulting in death, & the prostitution clan come looking for Nami to pay the debt of losing a very important member of their organization. That's when Katsu(Reisen Lee), the pimp's lover and confidant, realizes that the one responsible for the loss of their loyal member is a former inmate of hers, Scorpion. Subduing her with an injected liquid drug, placing her in a bird cage(!), Katsu embellishes in her imprisonment. What ultimately fuels Nami's rage is watching a prostitute die outside her cell, a victim of a forced late-term abortion, left to bleed to death. Finding a scalpel clutched in her hand(..from the operation room), Nami will break free from the cage and prey upon each member of the clan responsible for the hooker's death. The series of scalpel murders provide Gondo with an opportunity to catch Nami, and he'll trap her in the underground sewers below the city, but can he catch or kill her? Especially if Yuki comes to her aid?

Trust me when I say there was no shackles binding director Shunya Ito or his film-making team because FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is yet another perverse, deranged, and ultra-violent entry in the very entertaining series. Equipped with fine production values and a visually stylistic talent for capturing all of the madness in imaginative ways, Ito pulls you right(..or he did me)into the twisted drama that always exists when Nami Matsushima is on screen. When you have a protracted opening credits sequence where your anti-heroine is fleeing through the crowded city streets with a man's severed arm handcuffed to her, the viewer has to know what they're in for! The incestuous sub-plot is simply bizarre(..and it's shot in a soft-core way with the retarded brother humping his numb, cold sister with dead eyes staring ahead!), and the entire abortion sequence is rather hard to sit through. But, the abortion angle, as disturbing as it is, provides motivation for Nami's revenge..despite Nami's imperfect ways, and her criminal nature, you would rather see her take these cretins out than vice versa. Interesting angle with Detective Gondo, as well. Gondo is willing to break the rules, and he becomes a force-of-nature towards anyone who stands in his way of capturing his mortal enemy. His fate at the end, visiting another enemy of Nami's, in an isolated cell, while she looks on, perfectly encapsulates what makes these films so ridiculous yet so entertaining. The scalpel murders is a montage of slumping scumbags, in various places, the blades protruding from flesh, with Nami leaving the crime scenes very driven to wipe the whole clan out in memory of a fallen victim of unfortunate circumstances. While the film is essentially a comic book adventure, there's a sadness that permeates, and few characters come away without flaws. I imagine many will walk away from this scoffing at how unrealistic FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is(..specifically how Nami is able to escape capture time and time again, accomplishing her goals of revenge, paying back all those who have wronged her), but I looked at it as a violent action cartoon, much like the later 80's films, and enjoyed it for what it was. As always, this film features some beautiful Asian actresses and some colorful heavies. Meiko Kaji, almost always reserved/quiet, yet chilly staring down her enemies with violent intent, is in fine form(..in more ways than one)and Reisen Lee, as her cross-eyed, repugnant adversary, runs away with the picture as a perfectly realized contemptibly abusive foe worthy of psychological torment(..when both are in prison, Nami's ways of torturing her are sweet). My favorite scene has nothing to do with the plot, but is so wonderfully wrong, features a dog discovering Gondo's rotted severed arm, walking through a street eventually finding a resting place to chew on it! After finishing the Zero Woman series, I was looking forward to the Female Prisoner Scorpion series; both based upon comics by Tooru Shinohara. Unfortunately, I was not able to see them in order, as this is the third in the series.

It starts great as The Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) is escaping from the police. Detective Kondo (Mikio Narita) did manage to get a cuff on her, but she proceeded to cut off his arm and get away. If that isn't bad enough, later on a dog digs up the arm and is seen trotting down the street before finding a place to enjoy his treat.

Scorpion might as well go back to prison as life is no picnic on the outside. First, a local Yakuza Tanida (v) threatens to put her back if she doesn't put out; and then the gang leader gets her when she gets rid of Tanida. But, they don't hold her for long before she escapes and is looking for vengeance.

Soon they are dropping like flies. Some certainly deserved it for wearing garish outfits with shirt collars so big they went all the way to the shoulder. The madam (Reisen Lee) turns herself in to avoid getting killed.

The police arrive at her latest kill and trap her in the sewer. She's in there for a week and the cops find out that a friend (Yayoi Watanabe) has been supplying her with food. (The story O Yuki (Watanabe) and her brother is a subplot that is very interesting, but only incidental to the movie.) They try to burn her out, but this is The Scorpion, and she has some unfinished business.

Not the usual mix of sex and violence, this is a slow tale that is beautiful throughout. Since the past couple of days I'm really hooked on the "Female Scorpion" series and I keep hitting myself over the head because I waited until now – which is way too long – before purchasing the whole box set. "Beast Stable" is the third brilliant effort in a row, and the undeniably main trump of this series is how the writers always came up with something entirely new and different for each installment. Never before, or after, has there been an exploitation series that offered so much variety when it comes to story lines, settings, themes and filming styles. The original more or less qualified as a so-called "Women-in-Prison" flick (but already an atypical one), but you can't possibly categorize parts 2 and 3 as such, since they hardly feature any footage within prison walls. And the overall tone and atmosphere keeps changing with each new episode as well. The first film was harsh and gritty, whereas the second was psychedelic and part three is almost mainly melodramatic. Don't let this last description discourage you, however, as "Beast Stable" still features more than enough exploitative themes and disturbing footage in spite of the dramatic ambiance. The opening sequence, for example, is downright fantastic. Sasori, still a fugitive from the law, literally chops her way to freedom on the subway when there's no other possibility than to cut off the arm of the persistent policeman that handcuffed her. Her run through the city with the cut-off arm dangling on hers while the credits appear on screen, accompanied by the familiar theme song, is just pure and genuine exploitation gold! The story compellingly continues with our heroine desperately trying to lead an anonymous life in the big city, but the poor thing simply can't escape her past or even new types of agony. Sasori befriends a prostitute, though without exchanging dialog, and takes on a job in a sewing atelier. Her own retarded brother (!) impregnates the prostitute, while Sasori gets in trouble with the local pimping and underground crime network. She cleverly prevents a thug from taking advantage of her body, encounters a former enemy from prison and furiously avenges one of the prostitutes when she gets submitted to a barbaric abortion. Meanwhile, the one-armed cop continues to obsessively prowl the streets, looking for retribution against Sasori. Our multi-talented director Shunya Ito formidably criss-crosses all these story lines to a powerful wholesome and never once loses grip on the visual aspects or ingenious filming style. "Beast Stable" features some of the most impressive compositions and ingenious camera angles you can imagine, the editing is flawless and the exterior locations are effectively depressing. Those who know Sasori's character a bit are aware that the film seriously lacks memorable dialogs, but this always gets widely compensated with Meiko Kaji's wondrous on screen charisma and menacing grimaces. There's very little sleaze, apart from the aforementioned incestuous sub plot, but the brief flashes of extreme violence are terrific and the twisted ending is almost too brilliant for words. In fact, I think part three might just be the greatest (or at least, my favorite) one of the series so far. My only small and totally irrelevant point of criticism is regarding the ridiculous sounds one of the birds produces when Sasori is locked up in a cage. That bird sounds like a ventriloquist's dummy with stomach cramps. The original Female Convict Scorpion is an all time masterpiece. The first sequel, Jailhouse 41, was not quite as good in my opinion, though it's still notable for the fact that it took the idea from the original and created something in a completely different style. Director Shunya Ito has managed to do the same thing again with this film; the story is a bit different here, but still he's managed to take what made the previous entries excellent and better than many films of this type and craft something fairly original around it. Again the action focuses on Nami Matsushima (a.k.a. "Scorpion") and this time she's out of the jailhouse and not too keen on the idea of going back. After escaping from pursuing police officers, one thing leads to another and Scorpion finds herself getting it together with a prostitute and her retarded brother. The prostitute ends up getting impregnated by the retarded brother (...), while Scorpion is kidnapped and caged up by someone who she made an enemy out of in prison. But Scorpion doesn't like spending time behind bars and it's not long before she's back to doing what she does best.

The film gets off to a great start as we see Scorpion hack the arm off a copper intent on taking her back to jail. From there, however, the film slows down a lot and Beast Stable ends up being more of a drama than the previous two films. That's not to say that there isn't still plenty of action - Scorpion still spends a lot of time in 'revenge mode' and the film isn't exactly short on general sleaze. Meiko Kaji once again reprises her role as the sinister title character and it's another understated, almost wordless performance. Her screen presence is great, however and she manages to have a menacing presence despite being only small physically. The plot structure for this film is similar to the other two in that it all builds into a crescendo of revenge. There are more people who have angered Scorpion in this film than in the previous two so this section takes up a fairly large part of the film. There's a few surreal sequences, not as many as in the first film and nowhere near as in the second, but the film stays in with the rest of the series on that point. Overall, I would say this film is between the first two in terms of quality - not as great as the original and slightly better than the second. Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).

In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun. After seeing Undisputed 2, I knew what to expect from Isaac Florentine.

The Shepherd: Border Patrol is a decent flick (not Van Damme's best, but definitely not his worst.) There is some bad acting from VD's supporting cast, but it makes sense.

The storyline and plot has all been done before, so it's nothing new. I mean this is Van Damme. We don't really expect much of an amazing plot do we? So lets talk about what we all want to watch this movie for anyway: the fighting.

Without giving anything away, I thought the way the fights were filmed and shot were well done, way better than a few of VD's recent movies such as Second in Command, in which the entire end fight is HORRIBLE. With Florentine behind the camera, and if you've seen Undisputed 2, he seems to know how to photograph fights and enjoys it. A few of the fights in The Shepherd reminded me of VD's older stuff which is what we all want to see. The fights were good, and i said "hah, awesome" out loud a few times. But I was hoping for just a bit more considering how good I thought Undisputed 2 was.

Something I found intriguing was VD's daughter in the film, I thought "wow she's kinda hot" come to find out, its Bianca Van Varenberg, JC's real life daughter. I have never seen her before so that was a nice treat.

All in all, this movie is not half bad. Yeah the story has been done before but at least JC was attempting to make a good movie. Next time though, add more hand to hand combat! I think He still has what it takes to do another big budget movie...his acting has improved since he's been doing DTV's and he really is in great shape at 47. I don't know about you but I'm one of the ones who thinks that most of his DTV's are actually good with the exception of Derailed. All he needs to do is get back into "bloodsport" shape, and make a martial arts movie...and I think people would respond well even though he's not jet Li. This movie is definitely worth the rental. =) This film is good in it's genre and that genre is naturally action with a little/average budget. Looks like Van Damme delivers greatly better performances when he has a good director guiding him. There is your basic bar brawl, alley scene and mostly a lot of gun fighting. Some basic drama, but nothing too deep. Isaac Florentine directs an OK action flick if you ignore the weak plot and the holes in it. But the person who steals the show is:

Scott Adkins. How come this guy isn't a massive Arnold Schwarzenegger caliber action star that I don't know. Director Isaac Florentine has made a movie with Scott Adkins before called Special Forces (2003) which has some unbelievable martial arts talent that will satisfy the most demanding kungfu enthusiastic. Another amazing Scott Adkins feature is Undisputed 2. Check this guy out and make a noise, this guy needs to get super action star status and he needs to get it now!

What else can I say about the movie? It's Van Damme stepping up a notch from some of his most recent work. No Oscars here for sure, but you already knew that. But never the less it has a nice little town feel and I could find worse ways to spend my time. So I'm giving this a solid 7 out of 10 in it's genre. This is the best direct-to-DVD effort from Van Damme that I have seen yet. Van Damme plays a border patrol agent who is out to stop heroin smugglers trying to cross into the United States. The action in this movie is great and the fight scenes rank with Van Damme's best. Costar Scott Adkins shows why he should be the next big star in the martial arts genre. For further evidence check out "Undisputed 2". Adkins is so good in fact that before I watched "The Shepherd", I thought that Van Damme might not look very believable in defeating him on screen. Van Damme holds his own though and although he isn't quite as athletic as Adkins is, he can still kick with the best of them. All of the fight scenes in this film are very well done and the gun battles are above average for this type of film as well. The only negative thing I can say about this movie is that the story is a little underdeveloped. I think Van Damme's character's motives should have been presented earlier in the movie, especially in regard to why he carries around a rabbit. The reason he does is very cool but you don't find out until the very end. There are a couple of other things that are never really explained either but this is a Van Damme movie so you know where the priority lies in making this kind of movie and it ain't character development. Overall though, this is a solid action movie that I recommend. So run for the Damme border! I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.

Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen. Well...it's about time! Van Damme is back and kicking in this action thriller that's his best film in recent years. The plot isn't too inventive but the whole border patrol theme is interesting and the ex-marines as drug smugglers twist is cool. But what makes this movie awesome is the fact that Van Damme is back to doing martial arts again. His latest films have been more acting oriented, but in "The Shepard", JCVD is back to dropping the bad guys and looks to be in excellent shape. There are some impressive fight scenes and Van Damme shows he can still pull out the old famous 360-spinning heel kick. For being a low-budget action movie, it does have good sets and great stunts. Van Damme says some humorous lines and shows that he's improving as an actor. I'm glad he's back to dealing out some Van Damage...i've been let down by the lack of fighting in his recent films. Scott Adkins is great in his role and Van Damme and him have a 1 on 1 showdown at the end. Overall, it's one of Van Damme's better films and it will keep you entertained. A must rent for JCVD fans. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for another martial arts epic like "Bloodsport" or "Kickboxer". Nok Su Kow! It's really good to see Van Damme's film are slowly getting better of late and especially compared to C-grade flops "Derailed" and "Second in command" which were both tragic and not in a good way. The Sheperd: Border patrol is a good action flick with some really great action/fight sequences. It's good to know that Van Damme still knows how to kick seeing as his last film "Until Death" had no martial arts in it at all!!!

That being said, this film is significantly inferior to "Until Death" which was a really good turn for Van Damme. "Until Death" lacked the over-the-top action of most Van Damme films but was dark and gritty and Van Damme's performance as an actor was surprisingly good in that film. Still, The Shepherd is definitely a film worth checking out especially for Van Damme fans or just action movie fans in general but if you're looking for a film with a bit more story line.....you may want to skip this one!

I do believe that this film was done well enough especially on what little budget it would have been shot on. The only real problem I have with this film is the title; "The Shepherd"? I don't get it! I suppose "Border Patrol" just doesn't have the same ring to it without the word "Shepherd" in front of it!!!

My rating for this film is 7 out of 10 but that's by Van Damme movie standards not in any other film category.

i.e. It's good for a Van Damme film. I thought that this was the most interesting film that JCVD has done in a very long time. I loved his character and the whole thing with the rabbit set a different tone for this film. IMHO, JCDV may really be on to something going forward. A little more light heartedness, some obvious homages to other films, mixed in with some great fights...I would like to see more this style of film-making from him. One of the other posters thought that the bar scene was a Desperado rip off. I immediately saw the R. Rodriguez connection also, but thought it was very clever and made me want to see the film again to look for more subtle cues from other films. JCVD rocks!!

Other stuff after reading other comments:

No music in the dungeon fight? At first I didn't like that at first either, but then I thought it was interesting because it threw me off balance a bit by giving us something that we didn't expect. Made it seem more real.

I also always get a laugh when directors cry like 2 year olds that their film was "stolen" from the studio. Directors are paid to do a job. The studio is the boss and they want the product that they want. Very few directors have absolute final cut on a film. In this case, JCVD is THE talent and the only reason anyone is watching this film. I am sure he got a film that he was happy with. I have a relative who works at a post house who knew a little of the story. PRESUMABLY, the director worked on and delivered his cut of the film. Everyone who saw it said it was a disaster...then JCVD and the studio re edited the movie. This stuff happens all the time. He also did see the final cut (which he claims he didn't) and his "delicate genius" ego was severely bruised because they hated his delivered cut. If this director was smart, he should have taken credit for this one as it would have been his best. Like Steven Seagal I also am a big Van Damme fan and have followed most of his movies since the start of his acting career.

In this flick Van Damme assumes the role of Jack Robideaux whom is a cop that just moved to New Mexico from New Orleans to work as part of the Border Patrol. Haunted by memories of his past, it is up to Jack to put an end to a group of Ex-Navy Seals from smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S. that killed his daughter.

Overall I found this film to be very good, Van Damme is in very good shape for 48 years old and can really move. The action scenes are very intense and the movie even throws a couple of plot twists in to keep you guessing. Unfortunately Van Damme does not have the same intensity as he did say 10 years ago, regardless The Shepherd: Border Control is the 3rd straight solid film that Van Damme has made possibly opening the door for a larger project.

I definitely recommend this movie to a Van Damme fan or fan of action movies in general; The Shepherd: Border Control is a great movie, not as good as Until Death but better than the Hard Corps. Be sure to give this one a try, you will not be disappointed. After 10 years, it is finally save to say that our Belgian Action Star is back again. I personally found this one to be even better than Wake Of Death, which makes it his best movie in... 10 years!! Okay, it is not like his highlight years as Timecop, Universal Soldier, Sudden Death or even his best effort to date: Hard Target (one of the best action movies ever made by one of the best action directors John Woo.) The Action is good, the story is exciting, the dialogue is quite funny, this one is better than expected.The bad guys are awesome like in Hard Target, and the fight scenes are "old school". Real fans know what to expect. I must say, I gave up on him, but Van Damme is finally back. More Please.... I have not seen a Van Damme flick for a while, pleasantly surprised, he still has it, looking older, but tougher, kind of like Sly, becomes more rugged with age. This is a good flick and has prompted me to take a look at all the Van Damme movies I have missed over the last ten years. I would like to see a good director put Van Damme on the big screen with a good plot. Van Damme still has the moves to amaze the audiences, the last movie viewed with Van Damme was Legionnaire, that was a good flick as well. In addition, I looked in to Van Damme's early fighting history, I too my amazement I realized he is the real deal, very accomplished martial artist in his younger years. I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan. This movie was made on a relatively small budget (10-20 million dollars?) with almost no promotion at all from its distributors. I only knew about it because I am a long time Jean-Claude Van Damme fan and I always check out his latest films in hope that they will be at least watchable and aside from some real turkeys (Derailed, Second In Command), they are. This movie has an easy enough plot to follow and Van Damme gives a good, humorous performance through out but the movie owes all of its credit to the fight scenes involving Van Damme, Scott Adkins and the final one of them together. The editing and camera work for most of the film is pretty terrible but Isaac Florentine can definitely film a good fight scene. I too am happy that Van Damme has been acting better lately (In Hell, Wake of Death, Until Death) but with the good acting came less martial arts. In The Shepherd, Van Damme proves that he still has it. Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.

Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command. When I first got wind of this picture, it was just called "Shepherd" and was supposed to be the film that would put JCVD back into chances of doing theatrical shtuff. I was very well excited about the whole piece.

By the time it was titled "The Shepherd: Border Patrol," I was tap-dancing in excitement for this flick. With Isaac Fluorentine at the helm of directing, and JJ Perry pulling stunt coordination, I almost peed me pants in anticipation. Pics were released of JCVD kicking 8 different kinds of arse as well as Scott Adkins playing what I thought was the villain, and I was mind-blown in excitement. I thought it was going to be another epic martial arts situation like Lone Wolf McQuade.

Then it came out. I ordered it off Blockbuster online for $20 and was ready for anything. The reviews from vandammefan.net kinda had my ideas alittle altered, but I braced myself. The mail came on day 4 and I ripped open the package. My initial plan was to rush upstairs, rip the face off the cardboard packaging, then smash the case in the proper dynamics so the disc would land in my DVD player. However, I stared at the case for 10 minutes then placed the disc in my player and watched the film.

By the time it was over, I was cool as a fool in the pool. The Shepherd is certainly one of my all-time favorite direct-to-video films ever and makes Derailed look like even more of the toilet mess that it is. Sure, some of the fights ran a twee bit short, but they were still VERY awesome. The shootouts were superb, as was Scott Adkins, who SHOULD have been the villain, unlike the forgettable Steven Lord.

I highly recommend this flick. Seriously. Crack House (1989) was one of the few film during the 80's that falls into this genre. What's supposed to be an anti-drug film turns out to be nothing more than some white-exploitation exercise in depravity. There's nothing wrong with that however. The video presentation even has an anti-drug message from one of the stars of the show Richard "turncoat" Roundtree,

The movie follows two young lovers in high school. One of them is a quasi tough guy and the other is his girl. One of them get's turned out by a mutual friend whilst the other is given a trip to the slam and is later on given a chance to get back at his ex-friends. Jim Brown appears as the movie's "Mister Big", he's one bad dude who still can punk-out anybody and is a very sadistic guy who likes to smack his hoes and beat the tar out of those who try to defy his word. Luke from General Hospital makes a guest star spot as well.

If you like hard edge sleaze then this movie's for you. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't make these any more and when they do, it's neither exploitative nor entertaining.

Recommended for sleaze fans. This film essentially contains all the elements of a great 70's exploitation film, except it was done in the late 80's for the direct to video market.

You have a young couple in love, but the whole world around them is involved either in crack dealing or gang violence. When the boyfriend goes to jail, the girlfriend ends up vulnerable to all the criminals, who are everyone in this movie except for the cops. First she gets hooked on crack by a dealer and then because he owes drug lord Jim Brown money, she becomes Brown's property. Then she's basically enslaved in a military style crack house that the movie is named for.

As if this isn't enough reason to see this movie, you also have Anthony Geary playing a seemingly conservative school guidance counselor, but he's really a major crack dealer. In a sleazy yet hilarious scene, he demands sexual favors from the heroine because she has no money for a fix. In an earlier scene it was established that he is her counselor. That scene and another where Jim Brown forces her to take a scalding hot shower because she stinks are hysterical. Lead actress Cheryl Kay was really good in this film. Tarantino, bring her back.

It's not surprising to me that someone mentioned in another review that Tarantino is a major fan of this. It has just the right blend of comedy, action, sex, romance, and yes a central message to stay away from drugs. Jim Brown's villainous turn here deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as another great 80's B villain, Wings Hauser in Vice Squad. Sometimes I think there should be a b movie Oscars where performances like this could be acknowledged. In the meantime let's hope that the modern straight to DVD filmmakers learn learn to use this same type of tongue in cheek humor. I saw this movie for the first time when Quentin Tarantino showed it to a bunch of us at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. He prefaced it with how freaking awesome he thought he was and how funny it was and in the context of his explanation, it was HILARIOUS. I can see how it would be damaging to some audiences, and the subject is not funny at all, but there are at least three lines in the film that had me laughing so hard I thought I'd pee. They don't come until after the halfway point, but when they do, oh God...you will die. Oh and Jim Brown is brilliant. He's not in a lot of the movie, but when he's there, you know whose movie it is. Naturally, the best line in the movie (and the funniest) is his; you'll know it when you hear it. Working girl Kitty (Sothern) is engaged to Bill (Kelly), who neglects her by working long hours at his garage in order to save money for their marriage. After being stood up on her birthday, Kitty goes on a double-date/blind date, where she meets department store heir Bob Hartwell (Hamilton). She falls in love, but leaves him when his protestations of love appear to cover a desire for her to be his mistress, rather than his wife. Faithful Bill rallies 'round to comfort her, and at last she gives in to his repeated requests to reinstate their engagement, pressured in part by Bill's support of her family after she loses her job. When Bob returns, however, convinced that he wants marriage after all, will Kitty follow her heart or her conscience?

This film was a lot better than I'd expected it to be. The character of Bill at first comes off as the sort of loud comic Irishman type that Jack Carson played so often. But Kelly (and the script) infuse the character with real compassion and love, and Bill turns out to be the best person in the entire group. Viewers may find themselves rooting for him against the feckless Hartwell! The tone of the film wavers, however, between light-hearted romance and a much darker side, especially in the depiction of a dance marathon and a rather horrific accident at Bill's garage.

The cast is rounded out by the dependable Jane Darwell as Kitty's mother, an impish but not yet thoroughly obnoxious Mickey Rooney as Kitty's younger brother, and Spencer Charters as Kitty's ne'er-do-well father. "Blind Date" is one of three stories-made-into-movie by author Vida Hurst. Lots of familiar faces in this oldie from 1934. Mickey Rooney as a mouthy little punk. He seems to be in the film for comedic and homey "family values". Jane Darwell again plays the strong-willed mother, just as she had in Grapes of Wrath and the Oxbow Incident. Ann Sothern is Kitty, who has been dating Bill (Paul Kelly), but meets up with rich Bob Hartwell, played by Neil Hamilton, who may or may not be better for her. You can certainly tell that this was made at the very beginning of the Hays production code -- at one point, Kitty says she can't be up there alone with him if there isn't anyone else in the house...what a change from just a year or two prior, when anything and everything was OK. Good solid plot, but a whole lot of conversation and mushy love talk. It raises the question over what a girl should be searching for in a man; should she hold out for a man with integrity who treats her nice, or just find a man with big bucks, as most of the movies from the previous 20 years had advocated...? and how do men change when their situation changes ? watch out for some violence in the strange dance marathon scene. TV viewers from the 1960s will recognize Hamilton as Commissioner Gordon from Batman..... Also some weird drama in the off-screen lives for some of the cast in this one --Paul Kelly had gone to jail for being accessory to murder in a love triangle. Mickey Rooney had an affair with Norma Shearer, who was 20 years older; Rooney ended up being married eight times. Tyler Brooke (Emory) and Spencer Charters (Pa) both knocked themselves off in real life. The title "Blind Date" has been reused many times, for films, TV series, and even cartoons, but none of them seem to have the same plot as this one. The story is about a working girl (Ann Sothern) who has a pretty thoughtless boyfriend (Paul Kelly). This boyfriend is so busy trying to start his own business that again and again he forgets dates or shows up late. The final straw is when Sothern has a birthday and Kelly says he's too busy to take her out to celebrate. So, not wanting to just stay home, she goes on a blind date with what turns out to be a very rich young man (Neil Hamilton). Sparks fly but it also becomes apparent after Sothern breaks off her relationship with Kelly that new boyfriend Hamilton is a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort of guy. How all this is finally resolved is not too difficult to predict--just suffice to say that in the end everything works out just perfectly.

This is a very modest little film from Columbia Pictures--with a relatively small budget as well as second-tier stars. It's clearly a "B-movie" despite there being small roles played by a Mickey Rooney and Jane Darwell--as both had yet to become famous. Now this is NOT to say that these are bad actors or the production isn't any good. In fact, given the production values, this is a pretty amazing film as everything seems to work so well despite having a pretty ordinary and somewhat predictable plot outline. That's because the actors and director did a really good job putting the story across. Plus the writers did a good job of humanizing the characters and making you care about them. The ending, in particular, is really sweet and practically had my tear ducts flowing! Because of these factors, the film earns a 7 of 10. This has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The idea of a typical family leaving everything behind to live in the wilderness. When mom and dad both lose there jobs, not to mention they have green slime in their bathtub. They decide it's in their families best interest to move to Oregon. Once there everything goes wrong. An interesting cast of characters compliment this movie. Including a young Molly Ringwald,this a movie I would definetly recommend. ...and I'm so disappointed because I can't seem to buy the DVD or VHS of it anywhere.

Its a kind of mix of, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors and Molly Ringwald is fabulous as the spoilt teenager. This was made when Molly was still a brunette, just before she hit the big time with Pretty In Pink.

I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who likes a good clean family comedy, with an edge!

If anyone has a copy of this, or knows where I can get one...please leave a message for me - it'll be much appreciated. i first saw this movie back in the early 90's,and instantly fell in love with it.richard benjamin and his wife paula made the 1981 movie "saturday the 14th"in 1981 prior to making this movie in 1983.i think they work quite well together.this movie made me laugh on several occasions.it also has a young molly ringwald,who would later go on in the late 1980's to do movies such as pretty in pink and sixteen candles.it is fun watching her a little younger.although not seen by many people..i don't even think the average movie fan has ever heard of this movie.but when i first came acrossed it i was glad i did.i gave this movie 10 out of 10 stars as i think it is a fun movie the whole family can enjoy.lastly i would like to say its not available on DVD,so i picked up a VHS copy on ebay,so if your interested,you probably can find one on there.it might be in the $20-$30 dollar range but i got mind for $12 bucks.i wish they would eventually release this on DVD. The Hollow is a wonderful murder mystery that provides all you can expect from Agatha Christie and of course Poirot. It' s set on a country house on a weekend. As always all the guests are suspects and it's up to Poirot to figure out the truth. With movies like this it's always best not to give too much away so I'll stop here. What I loved in the `Hollow' was that it's a mystery the old fashioned way. When Poirot arrives everybody is around the body for example. Everybody seems to be the culprit. There's that suspicious look and the atmosphere is just perfect for the story.

You can expect a wonderful time giving guesses as to whom did it and how and why and maybe in the end even be surprised. A cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter night and you got a pretty enjoyable experience.

The actors are all very good. As a curiosity notice Edward Hardwicke who played Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes. Nice to see him after a few years. Suchet is amazing as always and fortunately is on screen most of the time.

I did find out who the murderer was but still it's not predictable and It's also very believable.

So in conclusion a great movie and as always a pleasure.

In a better civilization, this and many other of the David Suchet movies would be released in theaters. The plots are fabulous (no, I'd no clue who had done it, but the clues were all there if I'd been more imaginative - the best kind of mystery), the production values astounding, the acting (from Edward Fox, Sarah Miles, Lysette Anthony, Megan Dodds, and of course David Suchet as Hercule Poirot) simply perfect, the dialogue wonderful, the music and sens of suspense and tension just wonderful stuff.

One of the pleasures of these Hercule Poirot movies for a man is how many beautiful women star in them! Here were have two - the sexy sinuous Megan Doods and the stunning Lysette Anthony.

You really can't go wrong renting these - they're just wonderful - like the most wonderful dinner in the most wonderful restaurant with the most perfect company you can imagine - your mind constantly working because it's all there and you struggle but by keeping your mind constantly thinking can keep up with everything - and the settings gorgeous.

I can't think of movies that stimulate thought more than these Hercule Poirot/David Suchet movies. It's impossible to over-praise them - and I had never seen one before a few months ago nor read an Agatha Christie. David Suchet,(Poirot),"FoolProof",'03, gave an outstanding performance as a perfectionist in almost everything he did or said. If he had a cocktail, he always had a napkin to blot the excess on his mouth with unbelievable perfection! You could just view the expressions on the detective's face and see that he never missed an item of importance in the suspects behavior. The beautiful Falls Colors through out the English countryside was simply breath taking. Megan Dodds, "Bait",2000, gave an outstanding performance as a very sexy, wild woman who was able to keep very important secrets away from Mr. Poirot. A very enjoyable film if you really like the acting of David Suchet as Mr. Poirot! Excellent work all around especially by the actress who played the wife Gerda (Claire Price) as well, of course, as David Suchet. I did really figure out whodunit but that is beside the point. The ending, which I won't divulge (someone describes it on the Board in answer to someone else's question if you are interested.) I found really sad. Despite Agatha Christie's reputation for writing cardboard characters, I thought these really well-rounded by and large.

The pacing of the story was good and I enjoyed seeing Sarah Miles as Lucy and Edward Hardwicke (Cedric's son I believe in addition to being a well-known Dr. Watson.)) as her husband. This movie deserves a 20/10 if I could give one. "THE HOLLOW" is a great Hercule Poirot novel and the twist at the end fools most people. I am overjoyed that this movie stayed completely faithful to the novel. There was no major difference that I could spot. The only difference was that Poirot was introduced into the story earlier that in the novel. The acting was superb, and the music, as usual, was amazing quality! David Suchet is perfect in his role, and the rest of the cast is perfect in their respective roles either. In no other movie that I've seen so far has Poirot been portrayed so brilliantly! Hats off to the producers-- they have made a movie that I along with many others will cherish for a long time to come! This is an absolutely true and faithful adaptation of 'The Hollow'. It could be argued that the actual mystery here is not one Christie's best but what makes 'The Hollow' special is the characterisation and I found the actors here, more or less without exception, were perfect in their parts. In such a uniformly good cast it's difficult to select stand out performances but I have to say that Sarah Miles is just perfect as Lucy Angkatell. What is extraordinary is that she not only conveys Lucy's dottiness, tactlessness and her more lovable qualities BUT she also manages to pull off the underlying truth that in fact, Lucy is not really all that nice! Megan Dodds is also very good as Henrietta and Claire Price very affecting as Gerda. John Christow is really quite an unlikeable character but Jonathan Cake nevertheless manages to make us see what his women see in him.

As I said, the script follows the story quite faithfully. The only disconcerting thing I found was that Midge and Edward's relationship really comes out of nowhere and I do believe that some of it must have ended up on the cutting room floor! Theirs a secondary story however and the primary story is very well done. The whole thing looks beautiful as well, really capturing a perfect English autumn.

Its a beautiful film in every respect and well worth seeing. Just after having moved into his new cottage in the English country, Hercule Poirot gets an invitation to dinner from Sir Henry and Lady Angkatell, the owners of a large mansion nearby. But the next day, one of the guests is found shot near the pool, and his clumsy wife is holding a revolver a few steps away....

This Agatha Christie mystery is somewhat thin, though the killer's plan is still very clever. It's the exquisite filming and cinematography that elevate the story to a higher level. This episode mostly keeps the serious tone of "Five Little Pigs" and "Sad Cypress", but contains more dark humor than them. The cast includes possibly the two most famous actors to have worked in the series by this point, Edward Fox (as the butler) and Sarah Miles (as Lady Angkatell), though the standout performance is given by the dazzlingly beautiful Megan Dodds as the ahead-of-her-time Henrietta: her one-on-one confrontations with Suchet sparkle and are the highlights of the film. Oh, and since an English police inspector does get involved in the case, I think they could have brought Philip Jackson back for this one. (***) The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov! The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov! In Extramarital we see B-actress Traci Lords at her very best. She's all wrapped in horror & suspense here, a type of role that suits her very well.

This mainstream movie lends a lot of its atmosphere from Paul Verhoeven's 'Basic Instinct' (1992), by the way. However, there are differences between the main female characters of Traci Lords ('99) and that of Sharon Stone ('92). For instance, in Extramarital Traci adds some tiny elements from her porn-past. We also shouldn't forget mentioning Extramarital's three main actors. By putting down a convincing performance, each of them greatly contributes to the overall quality of this movie.

All this makes Extramarital into a very enjoyable B-movie. Its storyline shows a good build-up, its tense being well-spread from start to finish. This movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, until its unexpected end. Good Film.

I managed to pick this up on DVD in a local store sale. £2.99 seems like a good deal and it is. Thing is the film is named "To Kill For". It took a little detective work to find out it's original name.

In the UK it has been rated as an 18 and rightly so although the standard of films depends on the "ability to sell". Having seen Final Destination 3 last night it, in my view, should have been a 18.

Maybe the fact the delightful, Traci Lords is in it tends to make the classification board step it up to 18. Such a shame.

Traci is a great actress and should be given the chance to appear in bigger and large budget productions. She ability to turn what is branded a B-Movies into a Fine performance is nothing short of amazing.

Long Live Traci Lords and her incredible talent as an actress. A very good offering from HBO. Traci Lords is becoming a much-better dramatic actress with each effort. I hope to see this attractive lady in more challenging roles in the future, instead of the "flighty" roles she has been stuck with in the past. I really like Traci Lords. She may not be the greatest actress in the world but she's rather good in this. She play the dowdy, conservative, reporter to a 'T'. It's a great little thriller which keeps you guessing for a good while. Jeff Fahey is also good as Traci's boss. I think given a decent break Traci could be a top actress. She's certainly no worse than some of today's leading ladies. Ok i am a huge Traci fan so her just being in the movie automatically makes it rank at the 8.5+ rating. But even besides her being in it i thought it was a good movie especially for it being an HBO movie. But i am afraid if you take Traci out of the movie it would just be ok. But a person can't do that she is in it and she is a wonderful actress. She just keeps getting better and better. I hardly know where to begin in writing about this gem, except to say that it represents young Buster Keaton at the peak of his powers and must certainly rank with the half-dozen best short comedies ever made. THE GOAT is twenty minutes of smoothly paced, expertly photographed, beautifully executed gags; two reels of non-stop comic invention driven by an unmistakable undercurrent of paranoia and yet somehow leading to a happy ending -- which wasn't always the way with Buster's comedies. (See COPS for one case where Fatalism ultimately got the better of him, or ONE WEEK for the victory of Defeatism.) If I had to describe this film in one word I'd call it "effortless," but if I were permitted two I'd call it "seemingly effortless," for surely a lot of hard labor goes into the making of any comic opus that unfolds with such sublime ease. Still, they didn't call him the Great Stone Face for nothing: Buster never let the public see him sweat.

A sardonic title card tells us that our opening sequence is set "along Millionaires' Row," i.e. on a bread line in a grim urban setting, where Buster waits patiently at the back of the line and, as a result, doesn't get fed. But it needs to be emphasized that not for one moment does he play for pathos; Buster has our sympathy, but he never asks for it. Before long, through a series of accidents, coincidences and absurd misunderstandings, Buster is believed to be an escaped killer named Dead Shot Dan and is being pursued by every cop for miles around, and yet while he's clearly dismayed by this turn of events there is never a hint of self-pity or even surprise; we get the sense he always knew that this is what life would have in store for him, and that he hasn't time to feel sorry for himself anyway, he has to figure out new ways to dodge those cops and escape from the latest trap.

Just as Buster refrains from playing for sympathy he never seems to strain for laughs either, which is especially impressive because THE GOAT must be one of the most laugh-packed short comedies in existence. This is the film that features that iconic shot of Buster riding a train's cow-catcher right up to the very lens of the camera, which isn't a gag exactly but sure is laugh-provoking in its own strange way. Meanwhile, there are gags involving guns, dogs, cops, an incredibly furry mustache, and a clay statue of a horse that melts under Buster's weight (a surreal sight indeed), but some of the biggest boffos are saved for the finale when Buster is trying to elude his primary nemesis, Big Joe Roberts, a rotund cop who also happens to be the father of leading lady Virginia Fox. Trapped in Big Joe's dining room, Buster leap-frogs over him and sails through a transom, turns a phone-booth into an elevator and pretends to disappear, and eventually uses the elevator itself to rid himself of his pursuer and win the girl in time for one last fade-out gag.

To say more would be a disservice to first-time viewers. I only wish I could see this film in a theater full of people who'd never seen it before, and float on the laughter. Live musical accompaniment would be nice too; and incidentally the musical score supplied by Kino for their home video/DVD version of THE GOAT is first-rate, serving as icing on an already tasty cake. Along with Cops, The Goat is one of Keaton's two funniest shorts. Which makes it one of the best shorts ever made. This has an decent "plot" for a short, and it forms a perfect line on which to hang some great gags. Keaton is mistaken for an escaped convict (how the mistake happens is a classic) and then must elude the authorities. Best gags - the bread line and t he "elevator". This Metro film is episodic, but nearly a constant series of chases, mainly trying to escape police, whether real or imagined, as Buster is mistaken for an escaped criminal. It is consistently inventive and entertaining. Its greatest value is in its documenting what Hollywood looked like in the early twenties, since 95% of it is shot outside among the streets and building exteriors of the time. One gem moment and one gem sequence are present here.

The great moment is when a train at a great distance quickly approaches the camera and finally stops just short of it - with Buster glumly sitting on the cowcatcher and thus moving from a long shot to a close-up within seconds.

The great sequence is with the phone booth next to the elevator - one constantly being mistaken for the other with races from floor to floor - one of the great Keaton gags.

Kino's print is sharp and clear - almost pristine. There is a violin/piano score accompaniment. This is one to seek out and enjoy. Not all, but most of this story is Buster being mistaken for "Dead Shot Dan," a notorious criminal.

There really is no story, just a series of adventures to show off Buster's physical talents, which are amazing, and his comedic timing. The 27-minute film is basically one adventure after the other mostly involving someone chasing our hero.

Earlier, it's a couple of policemen on their beats racing through the streets after Keaton and later it's "Big Joe" Roberts, a rotund cop - and father a girl Buster is interested in - who chases him. Those latter scenes were the best I thought, with a lot of clever gags involving the hotel elevator where Big Joe and his daughter live. That was Keaton at his best.

It's just a madcap half hour that makes little sense, but cares? It's Buster at his slapstick best, or near it, and so it serves its purpose: to entertain us. Just think: 85 years after this film was made there are people (like me) still discovering and enjoying these silent comedy classics! Cool! To my eternal shame, I've never seen a silent movie - not even the mother of all vampire movies, "Nosferatu". However, if they display half the creativity and sheer joy of this effort from Buster Keaton then I'll probably try to watch a few more. This is genuinely funny as well as being a stunning introduction to the world of the silent comedies. The premise, such as it is, focuses around an unfortunate case of mistaken identity as Keaton is mistaken for renowned bad-guy Dead Shot Dan (co-director Malcolm St Clair). This leads to a number of chases and escapes as the authorities get ever closer to the increasingly desperate Keaton.

You're left amazed and entertained in equal measures. Keaton is a natural comedian but also an accomplished stunt-man, judging by the way he leaps and jumps around like Jackie Chan on speed. And the comedy is also of an exceptionally high standard - my Better Half had to cut short a phone call to her parents because she was laughing too much! If you've never experienced a silent movie like this then it is nothing short of a revelation to watch - it certainly blew away any ideas I may have had about silent films. Naturally, it isn't as polished as today's movies - the acting is pretty awful, truth be told but that doesn't matter because you're enjoying the movie regardless. Anyone with a passing interest in movies in general should make the effort to watch this because they will not be disappointed. Brilliant! This is one you can watch over and over and laugh just as much each time. We have been on a Keaton fest around here after purchasing some of his films. In this one Buster is mistaken for an escaped murderer and there are lots of chase scenes and crazy scenes but also what is best about Buster - his creativity. The opening scene is really funny and it just keeps going from there. There is a running thread in film comedy that all the great comics are just falling short of the law or on going to jail. Think of that conman's conman W.C.Fields in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, or the Marx Brothers in A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, or Chaplin in THE ADVENTURER, of Mae West in SHE DONE HIM WRONG. The skirting of the law is inevitable, and when they end up on the side of the law the results are actually still hostile between the forces of law and order and the comic. Think of Lloyd in his first talkie, WELCOME DANGER, trying to "assist" the San Francisco Police Department in the midst of a crime wave, and making police sergeant Edgar Kennedy want to kill him. Think of Laurel and Hardy as ill-fated cops in MIDNIGHT PATROL. I find this type of hostility is so patent in all these giants' (and their peers') comedy that even a fake title for a film deals with it. Think of Jerry Seinfeld in one episode of his series creating a Three Stooges short, SAPPY PAPPIES, where the boys end up being electrocuted for murder.

Buster Keaton frequently pulls in the forces of law and order to be his opponents in his comedies. Look at STEAMBOAT BILL, JR., where he tries to spring his dad from a calaboose. But he actually had more conflict from police forces in his shorts. In CONVICT 13 he is dragged back to prison when mistaken for an escaped convict. In COPS (perfect title - if you see it you'd understand) the police force of a large city is repeatedly looking for Keaton, mistaken for a terrorist). And in THE GOAT he is unable to avoid the police for most of the film.

Keaton is a tramp just looking for food. But he is totally unlucky. When he sees a stranger throw a lucky horseshoe (which Keaton earlier ignored) over his shoulder, and then find a wallet full of money, Keaton tries the same thing, and hits a cop in the head. The cop gives chase, and Keaton (as luck would have it) runs into another cop, tries to act normal, but ends by throwing the other cop into the path of the first. Soon he has three cops chasing him. Briefly shaking them he walks by a window at the local jail where local murderer "Dead Shot Dan" (Malcolm St. Clair*) is being photographed. Passing in back of the barred windows, Keaton is stupid enough to stop and look straight in. The desperado notes this and ducks as the picture is taken. When Dead Shot flees the police, it is Keaton's face on all the wanted posters.

(*St. Clair would eventually be a successful director of silent and early sound comedies, although in his later biography would be a stint at 20th Century Fox where his work with Laurel & Hardy was below par.)

Keaton flees to another town by train (disconnecting the passenger cars containing his pursuers from the locomotive and tender). This is the film (by the way) that has two famous Keaton jokes. His arrival on the locomotive is done in a distant shot, with it coming closer and closer, and suddenly the audience sees Keaton sitting on the cowcatcher.

The second famous sequence goes later (and may have influenced Chaplin somewhat in the beginning of CITY LIGHTS). Keaton had accidentally knocked out a man who was arguing too violently with a pretty woman with a dog (Virginia Fox). When he sees the poster's calling him a murderer he thinks he killed the man. He is being chased in this town by a suspicious chief of police (Joe Roberts), and momentarily loses Roberts in the park. A statue of "Man-of-War" is being constructed and the sculptor is unveiling a clay model of the horse). Keaton is seen seated on the clay model, trying to maintain his dignity as the clay legs of the horse start collapsing under his weight.

Keaton manages to meet the pretty Ms Fox, who invites him home for dinner. Only he doesn't realize her father is Roberts. The last five minutes of the film deal Keaton fleeing and avoiding Roberts while he and Fox get away together.

It's a funny comedy, and a wonderful example of Keaton's work at his best. Saw this for the first time on UK TV, with good musical accompaniment. The elevator scene is class, especially when he does the going-down thing in the phone booth, and then fiddles with the floor-indicator. The jump through the transom is really impressive, and there's so much more. Apart from all the stuff that's been mentioned before, there's the fight with the man who's been bullying the woman with the dog - it just looks so simple. The only drawback is the plot - he gets mixed up with Dead Eye Dan, who then escapes but doesn't reappear, even when some more gangsters get involved later on. The scene where it looks like he's shooting at the fat inspector is funny, but would have been better if Dead Eye was the one pulling the trigger. This is a wonderful comedy short--one of Keaton's absolute best. Through a long series of silly mistakes, Buster is mistaken for a wanted killer. And, as a result, most of the film consists of him running from the cops and one detective in particular. While generally I am NOT a fan of movies with a lot of chase scenes, this one is the absolute best as far as pure athletic and acrobatic ability. I have seen some that have had wilder stunts, but none where the star was so limber and able to move with amazing grace. In particular, there is a scene where he runs across a table, jumps on a man's shoulders and dives up through the transom as lithely as is humanly possible. Plus so many of the gags are funny and perfectly timed, such as how he really comes to believe that he's actually killed someone. By the way, this film is VERY similar to COPS, also by Keaton, but original enough and with enough energy to make them both worth seeing.

This film is brilliant and the only Keaton short I can think of that I probably liked even more was THE PLAYHOUSE--where Buster plays every role at the theater. Buster Keaton was arguably at his most enjoyable when he did short 20 minute films, and they don't come more rib-ticklingly funny than this gem. The dead pan comic gets involved in a photographic mix-up with a wanted felon. This leads to his elaborate evasion of several street cops and fellow passengers who recognise the his face from the "Wanted" signs. The Goat is choc-a-bloc with brilliant site gags, from the opening scene at the bread queue, right up to the wonderful elevator chase at the end. A Keaton film never feels as though its silence is lacking, as sound is never something you needed with him. His movies explain themselves through the wonderful (yet incredibly dangerous) things he did to himself. It isn't hard to see just how influential he really was - the man is every bit as thoroughly amazing today as he was in 1921. A BUSTER KEATON Silent Short.

Poor Buster becomes THE GOAT ("scapegoat") for a dangerous escaped murderer.

This is a wonderful, hilarious little film with Keaton at his absolute best. In what is essentially a series of chases, Buster gets to exercise his endlessly inventive imagination. Big Joe Roberts appears as the highly suspicious police chief.

Born into a family of Vaudevillian acrobats, Buster Keaton (1895-1966) mastered physical comedy at a very early age. An association with Fatty Arbuckle led to a series of highly imaginative short subjects and classic, silent feature-length films - all from 1920 to 1928. Writer, director, star & stuntman - Buster could do it all and his intuitive genius gave him almost miraculous knowledge as to the intricacies of film making and of what it took to please an audience. More akin to Fairbanks than Chaplin, Buster's films were full of splendid adventure, exciting derring-do and the most dangerous physical stunts imaginable. His theme of a little man against the world, who triumphs through bravery & ingenuity, dominates his films. Through every calamity & disaster, Buster remained the Great Stone Face, a stoic survivor in a universe gone mad.

In the late 1920's Buster was betrayed by his manager/brother-in-law and his contract was sold to MGM, which proceeded to nearly destroy his career. Teamed initially with Jimmy Durante and eventually allowed small roles in mediocre comedies, Buster was for 35 years consistently given work far beneath his talent. Finally, before lung cancer took him at age 70, he had the satisfaction of knowing that his classic films were being rediscovered. Now, well past his centenary, Buster Keaton is routinely recognized & appreciated as one of cinema's true authentic geniuses. And he knew how to make people laugh... Well, I'm an Italian horror big fan and I love movies from directors such Argento, Fulci, Bava Sr and Bava Jr, only to quote the most famous. "La villa delle anime maledette" is one of the most unknown movie of this genre, shot when this kind of cinema began its crisis that continues still today, and director Carlo Ausino sounds totally new to my ears (althoug he directed six movies... this is the price Italian directors have to pay to not work in Rome...) . But the film is not so bad. And it's absolutely not correct to talk about "trash". OK, the plot is not so original; it reminds me stuff like the Amytville series (the year is the same of "Amityville Possession" by Damiano Damiani) or "Shock", the last work of Mario Bava. But you have to think that this is the movie of a cinematographer (like Mario Bava movies); so the most important thing is the atmosphere, not the story or the characters; atmosphere very well created by the use of light and by the camera movement. The rest remain in the background. I think the movie works; not so good, but works; it's surely better than a lot of Hollywoodian production like "the Haunting" which have a bigger budget, but not bigger ideas... I just saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival and i have to say that i thought it was amazing. The combination of humor and sincerity really made the movie worthwhile. The movie was about a seventeen year-old boy whose mother and father are very religious. The seventeen year old, Ben, decides to work for a retired actress who teaches him about girls and driving and life. It is very comical and touching. I honestly have to say that it is now one of my favorite movies. I recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. If you didn't catch one of the showings at the film festival, it's supposed to come out in theaters later in the year. Please go see it! It is a great film. A British twist on Harold and Maude, Driving Lessons features a reined-in Rupert Grint and an over-the-top Julie Walters. While it is true that Grint is stone-faced like a redheaded Benjamin Braddock for the first half of the movie, it does not deter from the quirky family film--there are things going on that are out of his character's experience that would create a shell-shocked reaction. The chemistry between Walters and Grint carries the film, though Laura Linney's hard work to make her written stereotype human is also notable. These performances combined with a fun poppy soundtrack with artists like Sufjan Stevens, John Renbourn and Salsa Celtica make this kids popcorn flick worth a Saturday afternoon. I only heard about Driving Lessons through the ITV adverts, and to be honest, I didn't know how much I would like it. I switched on the TV last night and was totally surprised. Driving Lessons is a modest, simple film which draws you in right from the start. Rupert Grint plays the part of socially awkward teenager Ben brilliantly. He's definitely one to look out for in the future. Dame Eve Walton is played by the fabulous Julie Walters. I loved the simple plot and the way the actors portrayed their characters with great sensitivity. The highlight of the film, for me was Evie's rather colourful poem. It shows how friendships can form between the most unlikely pairs. In my opinion, watching Driving Lessons is a great way to spend 2 hours. The scenery was also striking, especially the countryside. Anyone who can call this sparkling comedy forgettable, I strongly disagree with I saw this tonight with moderate expectations - if Tartan Films have picked up on something and are releasing it the that's generally a good sign, however I'm not normally a fan of Julie Walters, generally disliking her comedy roles (sorry to any fans, but it's a personal thing - I just don't find her funny in comedy).

This was magnificent though - a great performance by all, but Grint and Walters are exceptional! Plenty of laughs, plenty of pathos, great timing and a wonderfully paced film - such a coming of age film wouldn't normally be something I'd expect to like so much but I can't recommend this highly enough - and watch Rupert Grint as he matures into a fine fine actor. I can't disagree with a previous comment that "Driving Lessons" is more than a little twee, but one man's indictment is another's endorsement, I suppose. In my book this film succeeds on pure charm, no small feat in itself.

I can't help but wish the story was a little less conventional given the amount of acting talent in it, but by the end the plot seems more like a backdrop for the character interactions anyway. Julie Walters' Dame Evie is a gloriously over the top and over the hill actress. Though Evie hasn't had steady work in years, it's unclear the last time she visited reality, if ever (think Edina from "AbFab" at 65, at one point she is even forced to come to grips with her kitsch-factor). Some may find her annoying, but I think that's the point, to emphasize just how much she pushes the reserved Ben's (Rupert Grint) buttons to force him out of his shell. Ben is equally isolated from reality, living his whole life under the thumb of his overly dependent mother, who Laura Linney manages to breath some life into, despite being a fairly one-dimensional character (ye olde overbearing religious mom). I was rather impressed with Rupert Grint who I found to give a very honest and believable performance (not to mention sweet as all get-out), I can't think of many teen actors today for whom I can say that.

The heart of the movie is what happens when Ben and Evie's worlds collide. At first Ben is understandably tentative, but also intrigued, as Evie is essentially the exact opposite of everything he's ever known. With the combination of Evie's persistence and Ben's helpful nature a genuine sweetness develops between them, culminating in an unlikely road trip that gives Ben his first real taste of independence.

The tone is consistently light even through a few brief melodramatic bits, but there was still a surprising amount of emotional resonance, a credit to the main actors. All in all I'd say that if you're willing to sit back and let yourself be charmed by some lovely performances, "Driving Lessons" shouldn't disappoint. However, if "cute" is not in your movie vocabulary, best to stay away.

One other minor note, the soundtrack features the music of Sufjan Stevens prominently, a nice touch. Driving Lessons From the writer of the critically acclaimed films, Mrs. Brown and Charlotte Gray, Jeremy Brock brings a touching heartfelt dramedy starring Academy Award Nominees Julie Walters and Laura Linney and from the Harry Potter series, Rupert Grint. The beautiful portrait tells the story of Ben Marshall, (Rupert Grint) a seventeen year old boy being held captive in the heart of his religiously neurotic mother Laura (Laura Linney). After his school year ends he decides to take a job with a clever, free-spirited, and "heavy on the bottle" retired actress, Evie Walton (Julie Walters). The pair embarks upon wonderful adventures from camping to walks around the block to the simple conversations about life. Challenging the domineering mother, as well as each other along the way, the two develop a beautiful bond that revolutionizes both their lives.

The comedic elements are flawless and precise especially coming from the British veteran, Julie Walters. Brock uses his unique style to create an infamous and loving nature that first time directors could only dream. Directing comes naturally to Brock as he builds up stunning imagery that breaks the surfaces and plunges the viewer down into an overabundance of adoration and creation. Even the subtle score by unknown composers Clive Carroll and John Renbourn accentuate the tone and manner Brock had no trouble in generating.

Laura Linney is always making her mark in films as she does as "Laura." The bossy and overbearing mother is at times unbearable and with Linney at the helm of it we are engulfed into that persona. The complexity of her character couldn't have been more flawlessly portrayed by anyone else. Rupert Grint breaks away from "Ron Weasley" and tries on someone new. His performance is more responsive than loquacious but Grint gives us someone brand new to a child performance and the viewer gets to enjoy it. But the standout is coming from Oscar nominated actress Julie Walters who gives "Evie" a life of her own. Despite the role being clearly a leading one, Walters fairs better in the supporting category where I believe she can simply take home the prize. "Evie" is a mix of "Clementine Kruczynski" and "Mrs. Laura Henderson" with her free spirit and lovable persona. Hopefully her role will not go unnoticed this awards season.

Driving Lessons isn't an "out of this world" experience but a fine, enjoyable one that any viewer could just kick back and learn a little something about life, love, and friendship coming in the forms of the most beautiful colors and sizes.

Grade: ***/**** I caught the first screening of Driving Lessons at the Tribeca Film Festival. Rupert Grint shows he can act past Harry Potter. Laura Linney is amazing as the overbearing mother. Julie Walters is hilarious as Dame Evie Walton, with a mouth worse than a sailor. I hope that this film is picked up by an American distributor so that everyone can see it. This film is not only about Driving Lessons, but life lessons. Ben (Rupert Grint) is torn between wanting to obey his overbearing mother and vicar father and wanting to live his own life. It's an amazing film, from an amazing director whose taken his own life and put it on the screen for everyone to see, and everyone who can, should. I wasn't expecting much out of this movie and I was slapped in the face. Julie Walters, Rupert Grint, and Laura Linney perform wonderfully as the main characters in this movie. Any teenager can relate to parental control and the urge to come out as who you really are, which is basically what this movie is about. Ben (Rupert Grint) does this when he meets retired actress Evie (Julie Walters) and begins to express his ideas with words. He slowly but surely breaks out of his shell and becomes much less awkward. Each and every viewer feels the ups and downs of the movie and the theatre is filled with laughter 75% of the time. The film satisfies all, and I hope that soon it might be released in all US theatres, because many do not have the chance to see the film unless they live in big cities. It is a MUST see! "Driving Lessons" sees two middle class quintessential British families meet head on, when Grint's character comes into contact with Evee, (Walters), a slightly deranged out-of-touch actress with an ego. Grint betrays his overpowering, and over-Christian mother, (Linney), and goes off travelling with Evee to Scotland, to accompany her on a trip to participate in a Poetry reading, something she claims could be her last, due to an illness.

Grint's portrayal of a caged youngster, brainwashed by an overbearing, and even hypocritical mother, is the masterpiece of this film. His portrayal of a downtrodden teen in search of his true morals, and happiness, is captivating to watch unfold throughout. The film is sharply shot, and well paced, with very few moments leaving you tired, an achievement, particularly considering the nature of the plot. Walters really grabs hold of her character with both hands, and successfully brings the audience to her side of things, emphasising Linney's ironic immorality throughout. Her role in "Driving Lessons" is enjoyable and memorable in every sense.

The plot develops nicely, leaving the audience cheering on Grint as he chases back to Evee's place during his lunch break during his stint at a local bookshop to apologise for his wrongdoings. The values in the piece are continued and brought out thoroughly up until the final drag, in a very consistent way. The overbearing, (and relieving), main idea being that religion doesn't lead to happiness, and certainly doesn't lead to morality.

The audience are left sympathising with the radical but lovable Evee, with her and Grint making an irresistible partnership on the big screen, transferred directly from their debut in the "Harry Potter" series. Charismatic and beautiful acting together with a tight and fact paced script make this a must-see this Christmas. I watched this film on ITV and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very watchable and very funny. Julie Walters and Rupert Grint were perfect in their roles. Julie Walters gets a special mention since she creates a wonderful diverse interesting character to watch. Ben's character is kinda shy and Stoic but the changes he goes through are wonderfully acted out by Rupert Grint, I would definitely say he has a future in acting after Harry Potter.

Laura Linney is quite good in her role as Ben's over protective mother, the only thing they went wrong with is by making her too....Villain-y. Ben's father was also an interesting contrast to his mother, and in the end he is quite honourable too. The only character i wasn't keen on was Bryony, she was a bit plain and unnecessary i thought.

Overall this is a great comedy drama that is very easy to watch. one of my favourite films of the year easily. Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as "Ben" finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching. Sweet, entertaining tale of a young 17 1/2 year old boy, controlled by by an overbearing religious mother and withdrawn father, and how he finds himself through his work with a retired, eccentric and tragic actress. Very well acted, especially by Julie Walters. Rupert Grint plays the role of the teenage boy well, showing his talent will last longer than the Harry Potter series of films. Laura Linney plays his ruthlessly strict mother without a hint of redemption, so there's no room to like her at all. But the film is a very entertaining film, made well by the British in the style of the likes of Keeping Mum and Calendar Girls. A beautiful film. One that made me think of god but not feel guilty nor overwhelmed. Made me think about death but not fear it, think about life but not hide from it. A movie that gave both love for all I stand for and at the same time condemned it to the deepest pits of hell. A movie that made me think of love and all that I have lost, but no sadness graced my eyes, for some strange reason, relief. A child of two worlds, god and theater. And a good bit of wine and irony! I most highly recommend *****

"When The S*** Hits The Fan, Get A Tent" Oh and we should all go camping. Every day. I've felt that Rupert Grint has a lot of promise from that role by which everyone knows him. So even though I had never heard of this film before, when it appeared in my cable TV listings, I immediately switched to that channel. I am so happy that I did!

I've read from other reviewers that they don't generally like coming of age stories; I on the other hand quite do. I am one of those who is always coming of age; I have been since I was 12, I'm 52 now, and I will probably continue until I'm 92. Coming of age is nothing more than suddenly realizing the possibilities that another day brings. The suddenness of the realization, the magnitude of it, sometimes throws us into disarray. If we try to shelter our delicate selves from that, then yes, I can see how the coming of age can end. But if we simply dust ourselves off, and settle into the new direction we've discovered, then we're all of a sudden on a new path, and we're just as alive as we were yesterday, only stronger, brighter, and I daresay, more interesting.

So that's what this movie was about. This was a coming of age story all the way round; young Ben, his father, Father Robert, and certainly Dame Evie... all went through a marvelous transformation. In fact, so too did Mr. Fincham, didn't he?! All did, I suspect, except in fact the mother, in spite of her enormous opportunity so to do, provided by the events of the end of the film. One is left with the feeling that she will continue on exactly the same path she's been on, only with perhaps a different supporting cast.

So an excellent film, that could not possibly have been made in America, which is utterly depressing to think about, but thank God we have a steady supply of films made elsewhere that we occasionally get to see. I really heartily recommend this film, so long as you don't mind cringing through those parts of it that are all too familiar to us all, and grinning through all the rest of it. After seeing the Harry Potter movies, I've been a fan of the trio actors Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson; yet, we've been waiting to see if they would do other projects besides play the same characters year or every two years of the J.K. Rowling series. Mainly instead of a trio, the cameras and magazine articles concentrate more on Daniel and Emma, being that they're the leading male and only leading female in the saga leaving Rupert dead-end. No matter, every actor has a time to shine and Rupert's light hits him for once in this movie.

"Driving Lessons" is called the Harold and Maude of this generation with Rupert Grint playing the role of Ben Marshall, a young British lad who lives with his domineering mother (Laura Linney) and a wimp of a vicar (priest) father for which he wants a job in the summer but can't find work while at the same time taking his driving tests (and failing) and writing poetry for a young girl who doesn't have any interest in him.

Ben seeks an ad in a church newspaper for which the job requires to take care of an elderly lady. He takes the job and realizes that he's in for a fun of surprises as Evie (Julie Walters, Rupert's mother in the Harry Potter series) an out-of-work actress who is also a poet giving Ben the run for his money. They bond where and tell each other secrets along with Evie acting like a child and getting into mischief where she drags Ben along for a country road trip. From their not only does Ben drive all the way from Britain to Scotland since Evie needs to recite at a local library, but at the same time an older lady falls for the young man in which Ben starts becoming a man.

There is mishap and at the same time rejoice with Ben and Evie along with saying that I was very pleased about the film when it came out in theaters and I was impressed with Rupert Grint's acting, especially if he showed the rest of the world that even though he brings a bit of Ron Weasley within Ben Marshall, there's no stopping the actor on his brilliant performance. DRIVING LESSONS is a little film that sneaks up on you. What at first seems to be a bit of fluffy nonsense comedy British style is at its base a very fine story about coming of age and the needs for significant friendship of both the young and the elderly. Writer Jeremy Brock ('Mrs. Brown', 'Charlotte Gray', 'The Last King of Scotland') here directs his own screenplay and the result is a cohesive, progressively involving tale filled with fascinating and diverse characters, each performed by sterling actors.

Ben Marshall (Rupert Grint, standing firmly on his own as a developing actor post 'Harry Potter' series) is a quiet, plain little poetic seventeen-year-old living with his bird watching Vicar father (Nicholas Farrell) and his obsessive compulsive, rigid, evangelical do-gooder mother (Laura Linney) in a home where 'needy people', such as the murderous cross-dressing Mr. Fincham (Jim Norton), take precedence over family matters: the mother is by the way having an affair with priest Peter (Oliver Milburn), using Ben as her cover! Sad Ben is among other things attempting to learn to drive a car. His mother is a poor teacher and decides he needs professional lessons AND needs to get a job to help pay for poor Mr. Fincham's needs. Ben follows an ad and meets Dame Eve Walton (Julie Walters), an elderly has-been actress who is as zany as any character ever created. She hires Ben and the fireworks begin. Through a series of incidents, including a camping trip Evie demands they take, the two learn life's lessons missing from each other's natures: Ben learns self respect and self confidence and Evie finds a true friend who will allow her to drop her stagy facade and be the dear human being she has been hiding.

Julie Walters, always offering the finest skills of acting in every character she creates, finds a role like no other here: she is outlandishly wild and lovable. Rupert Grint is exactly the right choice for the challenged coming of age Ben. The chemistry between the two is as tender as that in the classic film 'Harold and Maude'. Laura Linney is as always a superb actress playing a role quite different from her usual repertoire. And the supporting cast is a panorama of fine characterizations. This film is a delightful surprise and one sure to warm the heart and entertain those who love fine writing and direction and acting - and message! Grady Harp lovely. i just love the movie. i want to see this movie because Rupert Grint is a fantastic actor. his expressions are great, spectacular. the movie was excellent. Julie Walters it was perfect too. I think that Rupert is the only boy with red hair that i love. Rupert have a beautiful smile, a beautiful voice. and a wonderful accent. i think that the movie was great and was great see Rupert in another thing but harry potter. and its a very good actor, so it deserves that and more. he just have a golden globe but probably it deserves an Oscar academy award. there are some actors that do not act very well but have a Oscar anyway. it does not matter. but he is perfect, brilliant and beautiful Although i don't like cricket at all and i have seen this movie 13 years ago, I still think it is one of the best coming-of-age movies ..i remember the day i returned home from my school and sat down to have my lunch, I saw the opening titles of that movie and then....i was so immersed in it that i felt i was there, it really affected me personally. i still remember how i felt when i first saw it ,i felt that the poor boy was a friend of mine, going through the same adolescent experience we were having in those days. what i really liked about that movie is the main theme of a "shy" boy fantasizing about "kissing" his dream girl, no offense but if that was an American movie, you would certainly see-at a certain point, mainly climax- the "shy" boy "making love" to his girl, and i really can't grasp this contradicting concepts till now...i have a simple request ,if anyone knows how to get this movie on a DVD by mail ,please let me know cause i need a shot of memories..Thanks I was at school in the late sixties and early seventies and this film is very much how my school was. The school play where the leading actors kiss, that happened at my school. A crazy gang of lads, my school again only when we went on a cross country run we would have a smoke! 'Getting the whack', some one at my school broke in through a sky light and broke the canes! after that they were kept in a safe!!! And as for certain nocternal activities! what can I say.... The film actually came out in 1982, I remember that as it was when I bought my house and the film was showing at the same time. If you like British films and films about school, growing up and period pieces, then this is for you. Another film very much like it, 'SWALK', came out a few years before and I for one would like to see that again, also 'Kes' is in the genre. Highly recommended. (But trust me, 1982 is when it came out) An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10. Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and

raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film

then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is

harassed by a stranger.

Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and

Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,

laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing

hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated

entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in

"Three Days of the Condor."

Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes

stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a

whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's

boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that

overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a

little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was

because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of

the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that

regard.

Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting

harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then

heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up

a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.

Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from

Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that

day and age.

The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into

scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and

Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The

film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,

and everyone is professional.

This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any

idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror

movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the

morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The

teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what

exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said

that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.

After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants

are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because

Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom

she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with

modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously

knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is

an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch

the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The

problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an

afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has

real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything

changes, filmwise, and not for the better.

I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget

her revealing role in "The Betsy"), but she has not done anything in

almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way

back then.

I will recommend "Are You in the House Alone?!" based on the

acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of

the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,

this is your cup of Tab.

This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual

violence, and some adult situations. Okay, I love this movie!!!!! I watched it over and over again. It is so hard to tell who the attacker is. You keep thinking it's one person, then another, then back to the first person, then another person. It is so suspense full you want to fast forward your TV to the end to see who it is.

SUMMARY: Gail Osborne is raped and left at her home. She is in the hospital and begins to tell the story of how she was raped. It goes from her meeting her steady boyfriend, to her teacher who takes a liking to her, to her ex-boyfriend, all different stories, all suspects. But who did it?

I love the acting, they have a lot of great talent in here. The suspense is wonderful and the settings are superb. If it comes on TV watch it. *** 1/2 stars 10/10 "Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film. There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes. (I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that "rape is omnipresent. You never know who it is going to be".) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip. Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School melodrama or 70s kitsch in general. Distributor: GOODTIMES home video

Plot: A pretty high school student is marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her.

Audio/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant lines at the bottom and top of the screen.

Extras: No extras from Goodtimes home video.

Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are patient, the ending is pretty good. I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece. I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each other from showing on screen.

The other problem with LAURE is that some sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly.

Speaking of drag, another dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle. This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up.

Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today.

p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in that movie is also great. Gorgeous Annie Belle in her prime stars in this adventure/sex movie. She wears her hair in a buzz cut that is bleached platinum. She and her boyfriend are visiting some tropical Asian paradise. They have decided to keep an "open" sexual relationship, which is played out on their journey to find a secret society/tribe where the people live one year and then are reborn in some kind of ceremony. The scenery is gorgeous, deep vast green gorges and jungles are explored. The imagery is very similar to that of the movie "Black Emanuelle". It is rich and colorful. Recommended! Despite some really scenic locations in the orient and some sporadically energetic music by Franco Micalizzi, this film doesn't quite reach the level of Joe D'Amato's similar efforts while staying just about as trashy. The author of the original book "Emmanuelle: The Joys of a Woman", Emmanuelle Arsan, directed and had a smallish role in this film, which mostly pornographically showcases a very young Annie Belle as she gets in a variety of oddball sexual situations. Her boyfriend, played by ZOMBIE's Al Cliver actually approves of her sleeping around and even persuades her to continue her practices even after the two of them are married! Orso Maria Guerrini drops by as a professor who is oh so usually married simultaneously to two women, one of whom is played by Arsan herself. Despite beginning promisingly and having a few hilarious lines of dialog like "can you see me with the naked eye?" ... "I can see you better naked!", the film shambles along plotlessly up until the less-than-spectacular finale. Much like D'Amato's EMANUELLE AND THE LAST CANNIBALS, the main characters are all in search of some lost tribe, but don't get your hopes up, there's no violence at all in this film, and not much sex either for that matter. Just a lot of nudity and silly dialog. I couldn't help but find some appreciation for this little film, if only for the completely cornball logic the film goes by. I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece. Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One Night at McCool's.

It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one.

recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it. I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time.

I was given the great opportunity to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried, and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one football film you will need to see, its hilarious!

The fact that this film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing, the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour, with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen.

WELL DONE! This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.

Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!! I am a huge fan of Harald Zwart, and I just knew that I had to see this movie, even though I can't say I'm a soccer fan. But watching this just filled my heart with joy, and I had a great time in the movies watching it.

Bjørn Fast Nagell does a tremendous job directing this movie, and even though you notice the main characters are new at acting, they grow with the movie and makes it what it is. Even though it is supposed to be a soccer movie, there is surprisingly little soccer in it. The whole idea is to show the six guys making up the word N O R W A Y on their trip to the World Cup in soccer playing in Germany this year.

If you're only gonna see one Norwegian movie this year, this is the one.. [CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]

Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman. A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth. Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth. Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless.

Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona, until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with them.

Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat. Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000 voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down before?

- In this TV special Jon is the one who needs a life. The highlight of his day is counting the tiles on the ceiling and rearranging his sock drawer. Not content with this forever, Jon takes Garfield to a self help group in order to meet people. How many people will be interested in a loner 20-something who's best friend is a cat?

After several failed attempts at getting a girl, including one cringeworthy dance scene that rivals David Brents' fusion of Flashdance and MC Hammer in The Office (Disco's dead?, says Jon), he is more than shocked to find a cute girl who is as much as a jerk as himself.

Naturally, they get on but Garfield is worried that John will forget about him and prefer having kids to a cat. Fortunately Jon's new girlfriend is allergic to cats.

With slicker animation than past TV specials, this feels like a longer episode of Garfield and Friends. Can you capture the moment? When first you hear rain on a roof? Some things are beyond the sum of their parts, expressing the poetry of life. The things that matter.

Poet Dylan Thomas captured the seemingly inexpressible "A good poem helps to . . . extend everyone's knowledge, of himself and the world around him." (Bob Dylan named himself after him). So why has it taken so long to make a film of the great Dylan Thomas? A simple biopic could have missed the point. Writer Sharman Macdonald has taken a different, better approach.

In The Edge of Love, she creates the world of passions and complexities that fill the poems so we can swim in them. The lives of four friends. Dylan, who lusts and loves to the full. Wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller), his feisty support. War-hero William (Cillian Murphy), who saves him from a street brawl. And then there's his childhood sweetheart. Vera. Dear Vera. Take your breath away Vera. She's Caitlin's closest friend. William's wife. And, like a muse, the 'star' in Dylan's dark sky.

It all kicks off in the 1940 London Blitz, with bomb shelters in the Underground. Enter Vera (an impressive Keira Knightley) under makeshift stage spotlights. She meets Dylan for the first time again in years, her heart is flushed. Their eyes shine through the smoke of the room. The purity of their former passion. Dylan (native Welsh-speaker, Matthew Rhys) is no sanctified, sanitised poet. Master of his vices he must experience them all fully. He introduces his beloved wife then continues to woo Vera.

The Edge of Love is a visual treat. The soundtrack leaves you wanting for more. Performances are possibly the best by these actors in their careers. As a lush love story it's pretty good. As an insight into Dylan Thomas and the reality of poetry in all our lives, not bad at all. And as a tribute to a great man, inspiring.

The production has been at pains to project the spirit of Dylan Thomas without compromising historical accuracy too much. Dramatic tension involves a pull between artistic freedom and conventional morality. Audiences looking for an experience based on the latter may be disappointed. And it will play less well to audiences whose boundaries are those of Albert Square.

Sharman Macdonald seemed aware of the headstrong nature of artistic freedom and its limits when she spoke to producer Rebekah Gilbertson (granddaughter of the real William and Vera). "Think of all the things that you don't want me to write about," she said," because I have to have carte blanche." For Macdonald, the limits were if she should cause offence to Dylan's memory. But for many artists, especially men, the limits are those which wife and family could set on them. A woman is not going to let lofty ideals interfere with practical common sense issues, and will even put her children's interests before her own (This occasionally happens the other way round, as when towering genius Virginia Woolf refused to let loving Leonard bring her down to earth - in The Hours).

In spite of the tension between Caitlin and Vera, these two women become closest buddies. It is one of the main (and very beautiful) themes of the film.

The film's colours tell a story in themselves. In a drab, wartime Britain, Caitlin and Vera are vivid highlights in an ocean of grey. Shortly after meeting Vera's lit-up-in-lights stage persona, we encounter Caitlin through her searing blue eyes, sparkling in a darkened railway carriage. Her dramatic red coat cuts a dash through streets of colourless homogeneity, triumphing on a beautiful staircase as she reunites with Dylan. But Vera's lipstick red brightness is less enduring. For her, marriage is second-best, even when she has become possessed with genuine love for her husband.

Outstanding cinematography extends to using montage to juxtapose images, in a manner similar to poetry's juxtaposition of unrelated words to create further meaning. Horrific war scenes in Thessaly are intercut with screams of Vera in pregnancy. Giving birth or is it abortion? We are not told immediately. Pain is universal and goes beyond time and place to our present day.

Constant echoes of Dylan's poetry throughout the film lead us beyond earthly opposites. It reminds me of Marlon Brando reading TS Eliot in Apocalypse Now. A light beyond the horrors of the world. A different way of seeing things. "I'll take you back to a time when no bombs fell from the sky and no-one died – ever," says Dylan to Vera as they walk along the beach. Elsewhere, Caitlin recalls childhood with Vera: "We're still innocent in Dylan," she says.

There's a time to leave your knickers at home or share a universal cigarette. (Not literally, perhaps.) A time to be inspired. Enjoy what is possibly the best British film of the year. So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.

The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.

If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.

This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.

There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.

GO ON!! give it a go! I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.

*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****

Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.

I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards. Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance between the tragic and the down-to-earth.

The music and lyrics of the cabaret/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it ís mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy.

London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger.

Maybe the end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in all this is a great romantic story. I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.

*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****

Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.

I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards. From the start of "The Edge Of Love", the viewer is transported to the striking world of WW2 London. We follow the lives of four people who might have been created just for this movie, an exploration of female friendship and the strains caused on it by marriage and infidelity. Except one of the characters is named Dylan Thomas, perhaps the greatest English poet of the 20th century. And his reactions to the world around him were not only selfish, but at times truly despicable.

This movie is based on Thomas' writings about love and romance. These were adapted with a sharp screenplay by Sharman MacDonald (Keira Knightley's mother). The director, John Maybury, does claim that the three other lead characters were actual people.

All four are performed very strongly. Sienna Miller is Dylan's wife, Keira Knightley is the cabaret singer Vera Phillips. Matthew Rhys is Dylan Thomas, and Cillian Murphy is William Killick. The first section of the movie takes place in London during the Nazi air raids, with Vera being pursued by Willaim, a soldier waiting for deployment. By a chance encounter, Dylan meets with his first love, Vera. From there Vera meets Caitlin, Dylan's wife. While the three are drinking, William successfully breaks Vera's guard.

The film follows their lives as Vera and William are married and he is sent to war. Vera has become pregnant, and returns to Wales with Dylan and Caitlin. There they face a gritty existence, with Vera supporting Dylan and Caitlin with her husband's war pay. Through these times, Vera's and Caitlin's friendship grows. So does Dylan's infatuation with Vera. She gives in. This creates the first test for the two women.

When William returns from war, he barely recognizes his wife, and has no bond with his infant son. Things get worse, as Dylan idly watches his friend struggle with battleground fatigue (post traumatic stress disorder). William realizes something has happened between Dylan and Vera, and in a drunken rage shoots up Dylan's house.

"Edge Of Love" starts as a stylish romance in war torn London and ends in the stark, gritty life of motherhood, infidelity, and attempted murder in Wales. The treatment of PTSD is well done, and should speak to an American audience. Some day (see ending).

Each star has a great moment. Miller when she is yanking out stitches in her head in response to her abortion of another man's child. Knightley and Murpy when he finally bonds with his son. Oh hell, almost all their scenes are awesome. And Rhys when he purgers himself on the stand to get Vera's husband sent to jail.

Yet, the real star of the movie is Jonathan Freeman's cinematography and John Maybury's direction. They seem to understand that no matter how good the story or how historical Thomas is, this is a film dominated by two great actresses of our time. And they cherish their scenes with stunning shots. While this isn't best picture material, it is a very good movie (much more engaging than "The Dutchess"). It has a visual lyricism that accentuates the use of Thomas' poetry. Also, this is clearly Knightley's second best performance of her career, and perhaps Miller's best.

I have always had a weakness for the Artist in struggle, whether it's Hulce's Mozart, or Hoffman's Capote. But I was stunned at how little sympathy I felt for Dylan Thomas. His struggles with alcohol are well known. But his antagonism of William and Caitlin to gain possession of his first love Vera makes him out to be.....a bad man.

So is this Academy Award Worthy? Clearly no. At least, not this year. It will be released state side in March, 2009, making it ineligible for the Academies. This is 9 months after it was released in Britain. Between Atonement, Miss Pettigrew, and Brideshead Revisited, the US has had its fill of WW2 British period pieces. Too bad. This film is better then the other ones, except Atonement. But in this one, Knightley's soldier does come back, but as a shell of the man who left her. With its ww2 timing, falling in and out of love, and easy on the eye Kira, this is re-Atonement.

This a relationship story with focused main characters working out the the balance between first and fast love in the home front of WW2. Poet Dylan Thomas philanders his way between wife and ex in dark and smoky Blitz London and later in windy wales.

Vera's ex and next spark off each other as the poet and soldier become a sideline while the girls bond and share. An easy watch that works well in the era bouncing along with just a few dips in pace. Would work well with French subtitles but then I may have been to too many art house movies lately. Where would Hollywood have been without Fredric March as Robert Browning or Dennis Price as Lord Byron, famous lovers in their day? Even an actor as normally straitlaced as Michael Redgrave once brought some moody charm to a portrayal of W.B. Yeats. Writers' lives are an endless source of inspiration.

But of all poets it was Dylan Thomas, the roistering, free-loving Welshman who enjoyed a pint or two (and drank himself to death in New York at the age of 39), who was closest in spirit to the film industry. During World War II, he produced scripts for British propaganda documentaries. He even wrote the screenplay of a vapid melodrama called The Three Weird Sisters, in which three old maids in a Welsh village plot the murder of their rich half-brother. All that is now forgiven.

In John Maybury's The Edge of Love, Thomas is played by the Welsh actor Matthew Rhys. It's not a full-scale biopic. The film covers four years in the poet's life during World War II, when he lived with two women: his wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller) and a former lover Vera Phillips (Keira Knightley), whom he met again by chance during the war. It seems he loved them both. The relationship of these extraordinary women -- to Thomas and to each other -- is at the heart of Maybury's absorbing film.

How it came to be made is a story almost as remarkable as that of the lovers themselves. Rebekah Gilbertson, the film's producer, is the granddaughter of Vera Phillips and William Killick. William, a war hero (played in the film by Cillian Murphy), married Vera while she was still in love with the poet. Gilbertson was inspired to make the film when she discovered a book about her grandparents, Dylan Thomas: A Farm, Two Mansions and Bungalow, by David Thomas, describing their tangled lives. Sharman Macdonald, who wrote the screenplay, is the mother of Knightley. The part requires Knightley to sing, and her mother included songs especially for her. Surely no film with such felicitous family connections deserves to do other than succeed.

We begin in London during the Blitz. Bombs are falling, sirens are wailing, and Phillips is singing to sheltering crowds in an underground Tube station. In a pub, by chance, she meets Thomas and discovers after all these years that he has a wife and child. Phillips and Caitlin form a friendship untroubled by jealousy or rancour and are soon sharing beds and bathtubs, listening to Thomas read his poems, exchanging intimate secrets and smoking their heads off, as everyone did in wartime. Caitlin turns out to be more experienced in the ways of the world ("My first was Augustus John, he seduced me when I was 15"). But it's the refined and soulful Phillips who stirs Thomas's deepest responses and eventually succumbs to his charms. In the meantime, she has reluctantly married Killick, who has seen her in the Tube station and been instantly captivated by her beauty (if not her singing).

It is an intense and strangely beautiful film, though Thomas himself may be its least impressive character. He is best remembered for Under Milk Wood, his verse radio play about a day in the life of the mythical Welsh village of Llareggub, whose name spelt backwards was not something polite English teachers drew attention to. I once had a vinyl recording of Richard Burton reading the poem (he appeared in a film of Under Milk Wood in 1971), and I've never forgotten the creamy, seductive quality of his voice. The legendary charisma, the magnetism of the man, is something I missed in Rhys's performance. Thomas comes across as a strangely pallid, even secondary, figure compared with the women in his life.

In his previous film, Love Is the Devil, Maybury explored the turbulent life of painter Francis Bacon and his sadomasochistic relationship with his lover and model, George Dyer. The Edge of Love seems to me a richer and more satisfying film. If you ask what insights it offers into the springs of Thomas's creative inspiration, I would have to say Llareggub. But as an insight into his egotism, his smouldering moods and his general indifference to the feelings of others, it is wonderfully sad and revealing.

Thomas had a good war, boozing and writing while other men (including Killick) were being traumatised by the horrors of battle. In one scene near the end, Thomas's behaviour towards his friends seems unforgivably callous. But this is not, after all, Thomas's film. Murphy gives us a magnificent study in doomed passion and the emotional debilitation of war. Miller is charming and pathetic as the wife. And Knightley looks almost too exquisitely delicate to be real (as she did in Pride and Prejudice). But this is probably her finest performance. And in every respect the film is worthy of her. Welsh poet Dylan Thomas excused from serving in active duty is doing his bit for the war effort producing bits of prose for some propaganda branch of government in Whitehall.

Thomas is portrayed as a freethinker believing in free love married to a woman with an equally demanding artistic streak and likewise with a penchant for extramarital romance. Thomas writing and reciting his poetry in systematic domestic mayhem throughout becomes somewhat priggish towards the end, resting somewhat uncomfortably on his society connections and pulling rank on a war veteran, who had shot up his house, and who was incidentally married to the woman he had been having an affair with.

The real story of this film is the love of two women, one (Keira Knightley) whose first love was Thomas (Matthew Rhys), the second (Sienna Miller) who is Thomas's wife. At times it reminds of The Singing Detective, as in very good television with slightly sinister overtones laid on top of scenes of surreal camp absurdity. Keira Knightley and Sienna Miller stars in the story of two of the women in the life of Dylan Thomas. Knightley is Thomas's boyhood sweetheart he re-encounters during the Blitz. Meeting at a bar they reconnect, however things become complicated when Thomas' brings his wife (Miller) along the next time he meets her. The women hit it off and things proceed at pace until the trio are joined by the man who will become Knightly's husband. This further complicates things as jealousy begins to show its face.

Beautiful to look at, extraordinarily written and wonderfully acted (everyone disappears completely into their roles) this is a sumptuous feast for the eyes and the ears. It's so nice to see a film about adults being adults. On a purely visceral level I really enjoyed watching the film because the film is so artistically pleasing. Rarely have I ever seen a film that is this beautifully crafted.

The trouble with the film is I'm not entirely sure of everything that happened. Something seemed to be missing and a couple of times I had to replay the film to see if I missed something. Its not bad, but its not completely satisfying as a result. (I tried to look up on line to see how much of the film is true but I couldn't find anything) Still I think this is a film worth seeing. It's a beautiful film for adults with probably the best acting the leads have done. This film flopped miserably in the UK, and it didn't deserve to. The trailer of this film is slightly misleading, and I guess it mislead critics and audiences into thinking it was "Atonement: Part 2". While the film was marketed that way to capitalise on the earlier success of Joe Wright's BAFTA-winning film, it's very different in tone. It focuses on an imagination of sorts of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas' life during the Second World War as the writer of propaganda films for the war effort, and his subsequent return to Wales. Director John Maybury quickly introduces Dylan's (Matthew Ryhs) childhood sweetheart Vera Phillips, played by Keira Knightley. She was Dylan's first love in their homeland, but the moment has passed, and singer Vera only wants it as a beautiful memory. Or does she? Vera unexpectedly strikes up a close bond with the other woman in Dylan's life, "Queen of Ireland, love of my life, mother of my child" Caitlin Thomas (Sienna Miller). The three form a sort of menage a trois in war-struck London, but Vera then falls for a dashing soldier, William Killick (Cillian Murphy). They quickly marry, with Killick leaving for War. A frightened Vera convinces the Thomas' to return witb her to Wales, but the three are faced with the realism of the birth of Vera's child, William's jealousy and shell-shock after returning home, and Caitlin realising she cannot share Dylan with her best friend.

Filmed on a low budget, this is more of a mood piece than anything else. It works best as a realisation that some memories and feelings need to be treasured but not renewed. The performance of Sienna Miller is particularly excrellent (unfortunately the paparazzi nonsense detracts from the fact thats she's quite a talent), and Knightley and Murphy are once again very good. The let-down is Rhys as Dylan, who, while the Welsh poet himself was no bed of roses, lacks charisma and makes us wonder what these women see in Dylan. The writing is very choppy, some beautiful moments interspersed with sloppiness. It's certainly worth watching, however. i did not expect to enjoy this. in truth i watched it because a friend knew a friend knew a friend who wrote the script but wasn't credited. knowing Dylan thomas, and really being appreciative of his poetry but aware and rather disconcerted by the man, i didn't feel i needed to see a twee adaption of his lame bohemian life laid bare. and this was not it. critical and yet appreciative it was. it made me cry. kiera knightley was superb, even with that slightly strained welsh accent,and it is a sad tale that they tell. Dylan thomas is not the hero as sadly he was not throughout his life and neither really are the so called 'feisty woman' of the pr spiel. it is cillian the william of the movie. a man that leaves the woman he loves to fight a war that they ignore. his challenge to reoonnect with that indifference is what is of real interest to this film and what a beautiful performance from that actor. i thiink this film is underrated because it was marketed so badly. Dylan thomas fans will expect something more from their so very flawed hero and get less, and well that is how it was marketed. it is not a film about Dylan thomas and it is much more interesting for it. This is primarily about love in WWII, yet we must remember that it's also a biopic for Dylan Thomas and those around him at this particular stage in his life.

The movie's timing is just great. It really captures what I think would have been the spirit during those times; smiling and hoping you're not going to get bombed. While it may prove boring to some, the movie does have a particularly dangerous edge to it.

At one point, my heart was racing towards the end as the movie hits its climax. It really does feature some poignant moments that are handled with skill by the four main actors. Cillian Murphy is on fine form here, as is Matthew Rhys. Both are polar opposites and it makes for an interesting watch. The relationship formed between Sienna Miller and Keira Knightley's characters is wonderful and we have the acting to thank (and watch out for a cameo by Suggs of 'Madness').

Despite all of this, it's a rather slow movie. Coupled with the fact it's just shy of two hours, it's quite a slog to get to the conclusion.

Overall, it's a solid non-fiction war movie with many wonderfully crafted moments that were no doubt helped by the splendid number of well-known British names behind the scenes. But it really does drone on for too much at times. Still, a worthwhile watch. 7/10 Given that Dylan Thomas is an icon of modern Anglophone poetry I expected a movie that would be prone to a hagiography of the subject. On the contrary the poet is presented as sexually irresponsible, a drunkard, a bad father, a lier and a hypocrite and perhaps a coward. Of course one could argue that all those things are an advantage when some one is an artist and especially a poet since one of the purposes of art is to subvert the standards of conventional morality but still I do not thing that a positive role model could crop up from such a bundle of personality traits. Any way I found the other male hero of the story Captain Cillic a more endearing character. The two female roles were played by actresses Knigtley and Miller and were truly charming especially the first when she performed songs in slim outfit to inspire bombarded Londoners during WW2. Another good point is the role that sexual jealousy plays even in relatively progressive milieus that think that age-old conventions can easily be surpassed.The atmosphere of the Blitz was also convincing as well as the portrayal of the distinct outlooks among people who have experienced war as opposed to those who talk about it theorizing on it's possible political outcomes.I think one would recommend such a movie. Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.

The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns

As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story.

I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today. Can't grade this very well, because I can't say I liked it. But it is the story that bothered me, not the realization of the film. The acting, directing, atmosphere, music were all good. It's just that after you see a bunch of people doing things you can't truly relate to, the movie ends. It is educational in the way that it shows the horrors of war as seen from home and the way feelings don't need to make any sense at all and still be strong, but that's about it.

The plot covers a period of a few years in which the poet Dylan Thomas is taken under the roof of a former ex-girlfriend. He is married, brings his wife and later the kid, while the ex (Knightley) marries some other guy. But the tension is there, Dylan is a self obsessed jerk and the new husband comes back home from the war with a slight case of PTSD. Add in some pretty temperamental characters and you have your hands full.

Bottom line: you have to be "in the mood" to like this film. The hard part is defining this mood. I don't think I've ever been in it yet. Ever. So it is probably better watched by adults with a grasp on weird complex human behaviour and maybe a curiosity about Dylan Thomas. This is a masterful piece of film-making, with many themes simmering and occasionally boiling over in this warts and all study of the poet's bohemian, self-indulgent wartime years that span the aerial bombardments of London and the outward tranquillity of a Welsh coastal retreat - the borderlines between friendship, lust and love, dedication to art and experience versus practical concerns, jealousy, rivalry, cowardice and egotism versus heroism and self-sacrifice and more. A mature, subtle script that suggests and occasionally brings into dramatic focus the underlying tensions is well served by perfect performances (apart from the odd inappropriate smiling that Keira Knightley is prone to, though perhaps under direction this time as the other characters themselves often mention it). But above all the exquisite visual composition of each moment, with inventive and elegant use of close-up, camera angle and lighting, including pointillistic faux home movie footage, is a wonder and joy to behold. It's as continuously beautiful to look at as a Bertolucci, but the relationships here are more convincing and the narrative more engaging than some of that master's work. A very rare type of film these days - it holds the attention and stirs the emotions without abandoning artistic integrity and succumbing to manipulative, superficial shortcuts. ...but it's still an entertaining TV movie. The transposition to the Civil War makes a nice change of pace, and adds a few subtexts (such as Ariel's servitude to Prosper/Prospero) that you might not otherwise see. Thankfully, they didn't try to make it a mini-series: at 90 minutes, it's just about right. Never having read or seen the Bard's original work, I can't begin to compare this work to his story. So I won't. Instead I will just say that this was a very entertaining story with some very nice special effects (and some that looked a little lower in budget, but still decent enough to enjoy). I thought all the primary actors did a fine job performing. The style of magic seemed more black than white and is almost certain to offend anyone easily upset about that sort of thing, but I thought it was well done. For a TV movie this was definately worth seeing. All the acting was very well done and the story itself had a touching universal theme. I have not read/seen the original and as a rule I can't stand Shakespeare, but I enjoyed this movie(the civil war setting was very well done as well). Dont expect to see an epic, however you should find it moving enough to enjoy. By the way (on a side note) don't compare this (or any other movie for that matter) to the original work. Movies aren't supposed to transfer a book to the screen, but rather take the general idea of it a then adapt a story from it. When people say "the book was so much better" (they're usually wrong anyway) what they are really trying to say is the book was so different. It is a nice comedy. It has the great features of the childhood, lying or trying to get away from own generated troubles. The casting is great, great acting. And the special effects ? Well, some stunts are really impressive. Watch it! :) Okay, I'll admit that if I didn't have kids, I never would have seen this film and would never see it. But, considering all the rotten kids movies I have seen (such as SPY KIDS 2 or BABE: PIG IN THE CITY), this is a significant improvement. And, it had enough in it that I wasn't totally bored out of my skull or contemplated suicide (something I did repeatedly in the other two movies). Sure, the performances are pretty broad and the plot is kinda silly--but it IS a kids film. And, compared with other films in the genre, this is definitely better than average. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bines actually appear to have some talent and probably will continue to have careers after puberty--at least on infomercials or doing voice-overs.

So, if you are looking for a film to see with your kids, you certainly could do a lot worse! This Movie is really an entertaining, good clean fun movie, for the kiddies. Kaley(played by Nickelodeon's talented Amanda) is the sidekick to a rambunctious boy who has a hard time telling the truth. He eventually works this into a movie script that gets stolen. I won't bore you with the details. If you have children and want to see an entertaining if not thrilling kids movie, I highly recommend this one. "Big Fat Liar" comes as a welcome -- shallow, but welcome -- breath of fresh air after one too many films featuring bathrooms, bodily fluids, pets on acid, gaseous jokes and crotch gags. After all, "See Spot Run," "Max Keeble's Big Move" and "Snow Dogs" had signaled The Degenerative Spiral of Kiddie Movie-making. Worse is the realization that the young audience would later be satiated by the smuttier offerings of "Not Another Teen Movie" and "Slackers." Written by Nickelodeon producers Dan Schneider and Brian Robbins (who coincidentally co-starred on the '80s sitcom "Head of the Class"), the film stars Frankie Muniz as Jason, who's always ready with a good lie to get out of scrapes. (Where's the English paper? Dad choked on a Swedish meatball.) His teacher (Sandra Oh) issues an ultimatum: Turn in the paper by the end of the day or take summer school. Jason whips out a story called "Big Fat Liar" and is struck en route to school by a limousine carrying insensitive Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti). Wolf gives him a ride, but Jason leaves his paper behind. No one will hear the truth this time, and Dad tells him he's lost his trust.

Months later, Jason and best friend Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) see a movie preview for "Big Fat Liar," and head off to Los Angeles to wreak havoc on Wolf's life -- all to get a confession that he stole Jason's paper to make the film. They even gain the sympathy of some of Wolf's abused employees, including his assistant (Amanda Detmer), former chauffeur (Donald Faison), movie star (Jaleel "Urkel" White, playing himself) and stunt coordinator (a much-aged Lee Majors).

Because "Big Fat Liar" is without the edge that his sitcom "Malcolm in the Middle" is known for, Muniz is easy to root for but doesn't have much to work with. Likewise for Bynes, who headlines her own Tracey Ullman-like sketch show on Nickelodeon. All the hamminess is given to Giamatti, whose eyes bulge and cheeks wiggle with every sneering insult.

The film gets snaps just by attempting the high road, and should be enjoyed by its target audience (especially since most of the high jinks occur on the Universal Studios lot). But here's one head-scratcher: The message is that it pays to tell the truth. But didn't we just see Jason getting to his payback by telling white lies throughout the film? Well, at least there's no poop. I saw this movie on my flight from Philly to Denver. The screen was three rows in front of me and about 12" x 10". So I really wasn't going to watch it. But I like Malcolm in the Middle, so I thought I'd watch just a few minutes. Next thing I know I'm sucked in, having a great time, and was pleased as how good it was and how fast it seemed to make the time go by. I agree with that the acting is very good for this level of entertainment. Being one of the older baby boomers, I was also pleased to see Lee Majors with a role in the movie, as with a couple of other actors who were famous (Jamiel?) "yesterday" but are out of the spotlight today poking fun at themselves.

It's your basic "kid is wronged, kid gets even (and then some), and everyone enjoys themselves in the process". No heavy thinking, no great analysis needed. Just a good fun way to pass the time.

3.5 out of 5. Big Fat Liar is what you get when you combine terrific writing, great production, and an emphasis on clever ideas over adolescent pap. The two stars work great together, and--what can I say? Amanda Bynes shines. Putting "Irkel" and Lee Majors in the film were brilliant touches. Watch this film with your kids. If you don't laugh throughout it, you must not have been paying attention. This movie was fun! Especially if your between 8 and 15. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes make a believable team of 8th graders getting back at an adult who really deserves it. Paul Giamatti makes a great adult who you really want to 'get'. My 13 year old daughter and her friend loved it. Parents: No really bad words or any sex to worry about. Recommend it for the 'right' crowd. AP I just had to add my comment to raise the average on this one. Paul Giamatti lets it all hang out in this one and is a hoot. He would probably say it was easy, but he really does a great job and should have won something for it. We've had the DVD for several years and my kids (boy now 4 1/2 and girl 9) will watch this one over and over, and the humor is adult enough that I don't mind having to hear it in the background (and I do run to the TV for the really funny parts). Simple moral message, lots of decent action and slapstick, "bad" grownups acting goofy to take the edge off, minimal bad language and minimal potty jokes make it hard to beat for a family standard. I can't understand why IMDb users would rate this movie 5.2/10? It really is great, very funny. I would strongly recommend this movie for all of you, adults, teenagers and especially children!

The story is about a 14-year-old kid who always tell lie, at home and school. One day he had his homework of writing a 1000-word-story. But he didn't, so the teacher told him to write it and gave her in 3 hours, or he would have to go to Summer School. Yep, he wrote it in 2:45. "Big fat liar", I think it was a story of himself. On the way to the school he hit a limo of a famous Hollywood producer, and he gave him a ride. But the kid forgot the story in the limo. He told his parents and the teacher, but of course, they did not believe him. And the movie producer, he took the kid's story as his new movie, "Big fat liar". When the kid saw the trailer of the movie, he told his parents he had written it, but they didn't believe. So, he and his friend had to go to L.A to prove one thing: The truth is never overrated

Enjoy this great movie, you won't be disappointed. Don't trust the 5.2/10 rate, it should be 9/10! Believe me!

P/S: so sorry, my English isn't good enough to make a better comment! Much better than expected. Good family flick - catch it on reruns. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Paul Giamatti chews up the scenery - he has way more talent then the role deserves. A treat to watch Inspector Uhl from "The Illusionist" go over the top. The blue man scenes had my 11 year old in stitches. The cameos were particular fun for the parents - nice to see Lee Majors and Urkel (umm, Jaleel) again. It's going to be tough to think up 10 lines for this film , but let's hear it for a movie that promotes honesty between a child and their parents! Amanda Bynes does a fine job when she gets to be part of the sting. I normally can't stand Frankie Muniz but he is just fine here. Hats off to the casting director - if only for hiring Giamatti! I could watch this movie ALL DAY! I LOVE it. Probably my all time favorite movies. But, by the way, "badger1970" there are a few parts with bad language, not TOO bad, but it's not exactly G rated. GREAT movie!!!!! I recommend it to everybody. Any way, it's making me type 10 lines of text, so I am going to keep typing until it will let me post this comment. Okay... Still typing... This is getting annoying. Ugh. I still have four more to go. Anyway, WATCH THIS MOVIE! Even if you have already seen it. I DON'T CARE! Has it been 10 lines yet? Nope. Only 2 more lines left. I don't even know why it wants me to do this. I think I am done. Wait a minute, I'm NOT done, SORRY, people. I know it's torture listening to me. WEll, I suppose that you don't HAVE to read this comment... But you should, because I wrote it. I am probably done now. Finally, bye. This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called "Big Fat Liar". When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it. This isn't a life-changing movie; it's not an epic, or anything like that. But it's entertaining, and it's fun. It's a film that the whole family can watch together, and at the moment there are precious few kid-suitable films that DON'T have a love story in them! It tells a good story in a lighthearted way without trying to dazzle the audience with over-the-top special effects, like lots of films these days are. It's got some fairly good acting in, and all the music that's been used fits in pretty well with the movie content. The acting is quite good too, the actors look comfortable and believable in their surroundings and most importantly the jokes are actually funny. I'd recommend it for people of all ages - it certainly made me laugh. :) I love this movie.

Yes, the main character lies, but that's why it's called "big fat liar". Even though this kid runs away to Hollywood, it doesn't give kids the idea that they can. Besides, he doesn't just do it for fun or to get away from anything, he does it to regain trust.

I don't think it was just one big ad for Universal Studios, because I liked how it gave an inside view of what it's like for kids who don't know how cool movie-making is.

It has good music and fun characters. This family/comedy is totally fun for kids and parents alike. It has humour, excitement, and real life difficulties like lying.

In the end, "Big Fat Liar" sends out a moral: don't expect lying to be easy. SPOILER WARNING

We've all heard the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" legend. But what if the wolf was a person in the modern world. Well it might be something like Big Fat Liar. Fourteen-year-old Jason Sheperd ( Frankie Muniz from "Malcolm in the Middle" ) is always lying to keep himself out of trouble. One day he is pressured to write an English essay, but it winds up in the hands of sleazy film-maker Marty Wolf ( Paul Giamatti ) who plans to turn Jason's story into a Hollywood blockbuster. No one believes Jason when he for once tells the truth and he ends up in summer school. However Jason is determined to prove to his parents the truth and travels to L.A. with his friend Kaylee ( Amanda Bynes ). When Wolf refuses to admit he ripped off his story, Jason plans to make Wolf's life a living hell. B.F.L. is no masterpiece but it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes of you're time. I wished they could've made it a bit longer though and there aren't that much pranks although they are clever enough ( I like the pool-dye the best ). I might not have liked this as much as I do if it weren't for Paul Giamatti. He is simply hilarious in this. If you have 90 minutes to kill try this out. You might just enjoy it. BIG FAT LIAR, in my opinion, is an absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it. When Jason (Frankie Muniz - "MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE") and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes - "ALL THAT") played those tricks on Marty (Paul Giamatti - DOCTOR DOLITTLE), I really smiled and felt good. That's what I liked most about this movie. As a matter of fact, everything that happened after Jason's essay erroneously ended up in Marty's hands was hilarious. I especially loved Jaleel White's cameo. When I first saw him, I couldn't be certain, but, when I asked my mother if it was him, she said, "Of course!" Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "Like I said earlier, there is a moral to this story, and that moral is, always tell the truth." Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan of Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, or Paul Giamatti, I highly recommend this absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it. Big Fat Liar is a great watch for kids of all ages, even adults. I had a great time watching this movie and recommend this to kids of 10 years and under. The laughs never end and the adventurous plot is pretty good too! Frankie Muniz is funny and Marty Wolfe is hilarious! Overall, a nicely made film for kids to enjoy and just have a great time. Big fat liar is a pretty funny movie. But as I was watching it, I thought about something. Some of the events that occur in this film are unbelievable. So really, the film is kind of a big fat lie. There is no way that he could've gotten away with all of this. Here are all of the unbelievable stuff.

1. When he fakes his father had choked on a meatball, and acts like he is the father. Jason(Frankie Munez) couldn't have gotten away with that. Well, luckily for us, he didn't. So it didn't stick with it, the outrageous.

2.Even if the Grandmother was blind, she still could've figured out that that wasn't her granddaughter.

3.They couldn't have gotten on the plane, flown to L.A., acted like they were coat salesmen, sneak into the studio, and then, and then... Well, some of the film is a little unbelievable. But it doesn't hurt to tell a little white lie. Trust me, I do it all the time.

Big fat liar, though unbelievable at times, is fun. It's also very funny. But let me just say one thing before I continue this review. If Paul Giamatti wasn't in this movie, it would really suck. It would be horrible. Big fat liar is also pretty funny, though corny at times. I give it a thumbs up.

Big fat liar:***/**** After seeing Big Fat Liar, I think Jason learned a lot more. When he told the truth about Marty stealing his story, it was like the boy who cried wolf. People heard him, but they didn't believe him. Nobody did anything to help him. Besides, not only Marty's movies stink, so does his advice. The truth is not overrated. I am so glad he got exposed for what he really is. Everyone found out that he stole from that boy, including his parents. Not only he stole from that boy and lied about it, he gave them someone else's work and tried to call it his own, which is plagiarism. Doesn't he know that it is illegal to plagiarize someone's idea? Another reason why he got fired. He is not trustworthy. He's a liar, a cheat, a thief, a crook, and a plagiarist. You got that Marty? You're a plagiarist. Plus, you got everything that you deserved. SPOILER ALERT!!!! This was my son's review of the movie, which he wanted me to post.He wrote this, I swear.

With Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz, and Nickelodeon's Amanda Bynes, they get to go to show business. They team up on the actor Paul Giamatti. He stole Jason Shepherd's essay on Big Fat Liar, and makes it in to a movie. Jason (Frankie Muniz) and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) have to go to L.A. to get it back. Jason's dad does not believe that he wrote that essay. So every time they see each other Jason asks Wolf (Paul Giamatti) to give Jason's dad a call because he wants his essay BACK!!!! Wolf does not make the movie but the President of the company makes it. At the end the family and Kaylee see the movie, Made by Wolf Pictures and based on a real story written by Jason Shepherd. I wasn't expecting much from this tale of a kid whose term paper is stolen and turned into a movie script.. who then he travels to hollywood to get even.. but.. hey.. it's still a fun film. Frankie Muniz of "Malcom in the Middle" fame stars as the kid and is fairly good and Amanda Bynes as his friend is also very good. Yea the film does work as an advertisement for Universal Studios theme park and is really kinda a silly kids film.. but i enjoyed it anyways. GRADE: B- With all of the "R" movies out today, it's hard to find something you can take the whole family to see. My kids loved it. It was good clean fun. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to take the whole family out for a nice evening at the movies. Fun movie! Great for the kids - they found it very entertaining. Somewhat predictable, but there are a few surprises. Great movie to watch if you're looking for something just to entertain (don't expect to be seeing a classic!) Who said it had to be believable? Do yourself a favor and turn off your ration before you sit down to view this film. You'll enjoy the experience much more. You'll find yourself forgiving some of the movie's more outlandish plot set-ups, and simply accepting it for what it is--a great family film. I appreciated not having to be concerned about "questionable elements" in a children's film for once. That, to me, is worth the price of the ticket. And it manages to maintain its wholesomeness without being obvious about it--older chidlren will enjoy this film. Enough good humor to keep adults interested. Very good film. I know not why people considered it trashy or obnoxious; It's not like American Pie or something. I know not why people are offended by the Universal plugs; since it's part of the plot, the advertising is excusable.

This is a funny movie with good dialogue, good subtle wit, a good story, a good moral (that thankfully doesn't get too sappy), GREAT acting, and a cheesy ending.

(minor spoiler) The basic premise here is the classic story of a Shepherd boy (Muniz) who lies so much that no one believes him when the Wolf (Giamatti) comes along. So he gets his best friend Kaylee (Bynes) and they go and drive the Wolf crazy.

Frankie Muniz can be annoying in other roles, but not as Jason Shepherd. He handles the suave confidence of his character perfectly well, and what appears to be a lack of expression at first glance is really a perfectly executed nonchalantness.

Amanda Bynes. What more can I say? The girl's got the gift. She's funny, talented, versatile, and very, very attractive. (I'm only 6 months older than her. I need to get to California sometime soon.) In fact, the 'best-friend' part was originally a boy, but became a girl as soon as the makers saw Amanda's interest. Which works out pretty well, since the part would've been pretty dull without the blessing of Bynes's abilities.

Paul Giamatti is a very talented man. While some would play Marty Wolf as evil and diabolical, Giamatti made him-not just a jerk, mind you, but a LIKEABLE jerk, a jerk that livens up the screen, rather than intentionally dimming it. And I doubt many other actors could pull off the psychological breakdown that Wolf undergoes as well.

All in all, great movie. Loved seeing Jaleel White able to mock himself. Loved seeing all the little references & such built into the film. (one of the guests in the party scene is the director, Shawn Levy, another is Bynes's former co-star Kenan Thompson) Loved seeing Amanda in those outfits........ Get the DVD if you can. It's got all kinds of great extra stuff, and the lovely Ms. Bynes is your guide through the menus. :) Well it might be a kid's movie...perhaps but i'm not gonna let my kids from 9 watch it!,so the one who say it is a kid movie hmm?!,it is teenager movie i agree..,so but back to the movie it is about a boy who can lie very good..,so good that at the end nobody nows truth or lie.Anyway it is a nice movie to see nice screen play i vote a 8 for screen play and story ...i think they writers mend a litlle lesson whit it...''the truth is never overated''. Big Fat Liar is the best movie ever! It is funny, and cool. Jason Shepherd (Frankie Muniz) proves that he was not lying and goes to Los Angeles to Get his paper back from Marty Wolf( Paul Giamatti). Along with friend Kaylee(Amanda Bynes), mess up his life since Marty won't call Jasons' dad and say he wrote the paper! Yet it all turns out good and is a good movie to watch! I have to admit that I absolutely loved this movie. Of course as I'm sure you know that "Malcolm's in the Middle" star Frankie Muniz, and the ever so sweet Amanda Bynes "The Amanda Show" starred in this children's comedy as two friends that I'm sure that we can all re-late to. The movie is about a boy Jason Shepard(Frankie) and his friend Kaylee(Amanda)going onto an adventure in Hollywood.

SPOILERS AHEAD

As it begins Jason is a typical 14 year old boy whom lies to get around every day life's problems. One day Jason is hit by Mr. Wolf(the big bad director). Jason's english paper is stolen by Wolf and begins the adventure along with kaylee to earn his father's trust back. They fly to Hollywood in search of Wolf to get him back. Frankie and Amanda do all sorts of crazy stunts to get Wolf back, and all he has to do is call Jason's dad and tell him he stole his idea. But the end is no real surprise, being the good proveles and wins.

The story is cute and fifth grade humored but what do you expect it's rated PG. I really belive this is one of the years best family comedies. Not only is the childrens acting great, exceptional casting, well written, but it's good clean fun. It made me laugh as well as fall in love with it's innocent message. I highly reccomend it and would like to disagree with that someone who gave it a zero out of ten. The unemployed critic isn't unemployed for nothing. I give it (well i voted a ten out of ten) a perfect. If you have seen the Telugu version of Gilli "Okkadu" you will find this to be very similar in story line, but Gilli has different songs and takes place in Tamil Nadu not Andra pradesh. Although this is a remake of "Okkadu" you will find that Vijay and Trisha make this a unique film, Vijay and Trisha make a great pair. A few negatives were when Vijays character slaps Trishas character for going to buy a present for him, he never apologizes and she still stays with him in the end. Good action and songs make this an all around great movie I recommend it.

I give it a 10/10, one of the best I have seen. Am an ardent Vijay fan. I have never seen another movie of his which is as good as this.

It has all the regular clichés that one can expect from a commercial entertainer. A hero who is bad in studies but a star in his forte i.e.Kabbadi. His friends to fill in the comedy quota. A heroine in a life-and-death situation. A villain, which I say is the best ever portrayed by the protagonist. High octane chase and action sequences. Music that can make one dance. And above all that a perfect storyline to keep all the above factors within an enjoyable circle. Perfect.

The director doesn't give any chance for the audience to loosen up. He just goes on from one nail on the head to the next. And one can see the lighter side of Vijay in this film which he rarely executes.

All said.....This movie was and will be perfect for many years to come.... Ghillie a remake of the Telugu "okkadu' is thankfully a clarified version of the original. It packs the same punch and Dharani true to his cinematic brilliance delivers it with style and panache. A flagging Vijay's career with the entry of the likes of Surya and Vikram on the fray, got the much needed uplift with this movie. This might well prove to be the best movie Vijay has ever been on, considering the choices he has been making since then. The hard-working actor seems to have lost his bearing what with talented new entrants being accepted both by the industry and public alike.

The tightly snug script, which runs at, a neck-break speed revolves around Velu, a willful youngster aspiring to make a mark in the game of Kabaddi( a popular game among boys in India). The events following the chance encounter with Muthupandi, his rescue of the girl in distress and how he juggles with the aspirations of his friends and his own forms the fulcrum and end of the movie. Vijay fits as a 'T' into the role and essays a subdued and believable portrayal of the boy next door.

Trisha has more than a stereotyped Tamil heroine mantle to play. The role is far more complex than just a girl in trouble. With limited dialog's, Trisha exploits her occasional muted expressions and subtle vulnerability to add color to the role. This is a classic case of a cover page girl coming-of-age to become a professional actress. Trisha became my personal favorite after this movie.

The movie ends on predictable lines, although one has to credit the Director for keeping the audience guessing on many things including Trisha's change in decision to leave the country. Prakash Raj deserves a word of praise for providing the perfect counter-weight for Vijay's role. His almost indomitable stature in the role of a villain and the apparent chinks in the hero's armor form a perfect ploy for keeping the audience guessing.

Overall this is a great movie that deserves at least a single viewing. I give it a clear 8 out of 10. brilliant screenplay..

the screenplay is very tight ..that u will be gelled in seat..

this movie is an example for movie can survive only with screenplay and no-story needed..

story is very simple that u can write in one line. but screenplay was amazing..

brilliant performance by Vijay and Prakashraj..

though plot is similar to okkadu.. director adapted only the plot. Tamil version is much fast paced than Telugu.

Movie travels straight without any chance of deviation, though u can understand each and every characters back-drop.

keep going Ghilli is the best movie of vijay & one of the biggest hit in his career.... As I had not seen the Telegu movie so I could enjoy this movie even more.The story is about a girl wanting to escape the clutches of a local goon who wants to forcibly marry her. Since he is a goon so no body is ready to help the heroine. Vijay who had come to play a Kabaddi match there sees this and decides to help her. The rest of the movie is how vijay helps her & how the girl ultimately escapes the clutches of the goon & the goon's father's political cronies. The movie has lot of the edge of the seat thriller moments and will keep the viewer engaged till the end. Vijay is as usual very good in role of the kabaddi player. Trisha,Ashish Vidyarthi,the bunch of vijay friends all have done their job competently. A special mention has to be made about the villain of the movie Prakashraj.The villain's character has been properly etched out and prakashraj has portrayed it very well. Surprisingly, for the first time, I felt sympathy for the villain in the end. The dialogue "Hi Chellam" has really caught on with the masses. The music by vidyasagar is brilliant and the song 'apadi podu' is a rage all over..Dharani has to be credited with such a nice masala movie which will be enjoyed by not just die hard vijay fans but also by the general tamil movie audience all over the world. if u haven't seen Vijay in "Ghillli", "Gilly" or "Ghillie". go watch it. wow. its devastatingly hilarious. i don't know if Dharani (the brilliant director) was being serious or not. There are tons of hot guys in this one, look out for someone who calls Velu "Maacha". The one with the brilliant braids, devastatingly hot. His teeth are brilliant as well. Vijay rocks. Trisha cries every 5 seconds. It is very deep. Watch it, you won't regret it. There are some great laughs in this one. If you don't speak Tamil, learn it. Then you will get all the inside jokes. It is one for the whole family, except maybe the violent bits should be skipped. I've seen this movie around eleven times .... and counting.

Wow! The word Ghilli actually means a small sharp wooden game instrument that is used in a game called ghilli-danda (a precursor to Cricket) in India. The use of the word as nickname for the principal character is stylish, as it signifies one who is sharp, fast and can hurt badly when rubbed in the wrong way.

Ghilli is one of the best movies for Vijay and in it is unrivaled in its pace and action. The movie never slacks for a moment, and keep you always with some exciting action. The movie is set in Madurai and Chennai and its story core is simple. A rich landlord tries to covet a beautiful girl in his town, and his unquestionable power and authority, prevents the girl from seeking a justice. The hero tries to rescue her and the majority of this movie portrays the week in which all this action happens.

A very exciting movie and though the story is nothing new, the director and the actors receive praise for the full-paced action. "Tumbling Doll of Flesh" by Tamakichi Anaru is a Japanese shocker about three thugs who sexually abuse,torture and dismember a young woman whilst filming their horrible actions.Typically twisted Japanese porno sickie that offers plenty of sadistic sexual violence and grisly gore.There is no plot to speak of,just plenty of hard core sex scenes(optically censored again)and lots of blood.The special effects are quite impressive-the dismemberment of Japanese porn actress is shown in unflinching detail.The tongue cutting scene really made me squirm.Her arm is also chopped off and her stomach is graphically sliced open and finally one of the sickos is having sex with her intestines."Psycho:The Snuff Reels" actually reminds me "Guinea Pig:Flowers of Flesh and Blood",but it's not as memorable.So if you're a fan of ultra-depraved Japanese sickies like "All Women Are Whores" or "Raping My Virgin Slave" give this one a look.8 out of 10. If you were enjoyed by watching "Guinea Pig" - then you'll like this movie to! "Psycho: The Snuff Reels" is a nice pseudo snuff movie with lots of sex elements. Actually the effects are not so realistic like in "Guinea Pig", but its still pretty gory.

"Psycho: The Snuff Reels" contains 70 minutes of sex, fetish and then torture scenes. First 20 minutes is like a normal porno movie. After that you'll see fetish sex scenes. And last one is a torture scene. The guys torture and rape girl - they cut off her legs, hand, tongue... In the end guy rapes girl in her stomach (!) and after that other guy beat him and cut off his balls. Sounds pretty sick, isn't it?:)

Like I said - it's pseudo snuff movie. "Psycho: The Snuff Reels" is pretty rare Japanese movie and as I know it's really hard to find it. But if you are crazy about that sort of films I believe that you can find it! First of all , you should watch this only if you don't mind the lack of subtitles , pornography , kinky sex and utter , horrifying and truly shocking depravity . I mentioned kinky sex , but to call sex in the second half of the movie " kinky " would be a great understatement . It's more like a punch in the face if you aren't prepared for this sort of sickness . That being said , I can go back to reviewing this morbid piece of pseudo - snuff genre brought to us by our fellow Japanese .

The plot seems to be fairly basic , almost nonexistent : a girl is hired to perform in amateur porn movie . Don't expect much in first 30 - 40 minutes . There is some dialog - if you don't speak Japanese it's not going to mean much to you - that seems to be an occasional chatting between the girl and the crew & performer , then there is some porn ( straight sex ) , and after the scene is finished the performers and the crew take a break . And then ... it starts to happen .

It seems that the girl is talked into performing one more scene - this time tied with the rope . The abuse begins : whipping , slapping , hot wax ... In the end , girl breaks down and cries . They untie her .

Then we see performers and crew sitting at the table as if nothing had happened - except for the girl . She is visibly shaken and looks like she wants to leave . She walks to the door , sits on the floor to put her shoes on ... and that's when hell breaks loose .

She is hit in the head with the baseball bat , her wound is treated , she is tied to the bed . What ensues can be briefly described ( I'm not going to spoil everything for you ) as rape during dismemberment . Think of " Flower of flesh and blood " , mix it with porn and you will get the idea .It goes on for about 20 minutes or so . SFX are very good , makeup too . Everything is shown , with no mercy for the viewer . You have been warned .

I thought " Visitor Q " was a very sick movie . After watching " Niku daruma " it looked like a fairytale to me .This movie is so sick , so depraved , so twisted , so disgusting that the harshest words pale in comparison to it's finale . Too bad it's released only on VHS so there are no subtitles available . But the movie still works without them . So , if you are into ultra sickness , extreme sadism and other beauties of this beloved genre , check this out . I hope you won't have nightmares .8/10 . Tumbling Doll of Flesh (aka Niku daruma and Psycho: The Snuff Reels) This was on my want list for quite a while, and then I finally scored a copy on Ebay a while back. It's never been on DVD, and what I got from Ebay was a very good quality DVD-R, which I'm quite satisfied with. The movie is I believe the most extreme example of torture porn, with an emphasis on porn. A woman responds to an ad for a porn movie and goes with the producer to a place where it is filmed. The porn is definitely real, with the annoying Japanese pixelation to try and hide the hardcore shots, without much success most of the time. After the porn movie is shot and the actress is ready to leave, she gets clubbed over the head with a baseball bat, and taken back to the room and savagely dismembered in slow shots, and in one of the most disgusting scenes, the male porn guy screws her in an open wound in her chest. This is after both legs have been severed, her arm, and a few other niceities. This movie outdoes the Guinea Pig series by a long shot, in fact, they are not even close to the realism, although cheap gore effects, shown in this movie. This is indeed one of the best fake snuff films I have ever seen, if not the best. Now I must warn you, that if you are not into this stuff, you should stay far far away. This movie is very strong, and with the real sex, it is in a very sick way, erotic to an extent. And I mean, in a very sick way. But wherever you come down on this subject material, this movie brings the goods home, and I would definitely recommend you seek it out. After reading about the movie, I was expecting something very strong, but it exceeded that by a bunch. The Japanese have probably the most sadistic movies around the world,and this is one of the strongest examples.With a running time at about an hour,it contains enough sexual violence and gore to disgust every single sane person on earth(even those who are hunting this type of movies).Three men and a woman are making a porn film.After some normally shots(which are pixelated),the girl is tied up,and the madmen cut her food,arm and tong.After that,they make a hole in her abdomen and a man has sexual intercourse with her intestines.He is knocked unconscious too and has his penis cut off.The special effects are good for an obviously low budget production(only the tong cut scene looks fake),and we can't talk about acting,direction or screenplay.After hearing a lot about this film,I was very happy when I finally found it.The first part is pretty boring,but the second one totally f***k up my mind,the torture and killing scenes being some of the most extreme and disturbing I have ever seen.The gore hounds will be satisfied by "Tumbling Doll of Flesh",but an unknowing viewer shouldn't even read the synopsis. My Mother Frank begins as a warm, amiable comedy about a middle-aged Catholic woman (Frank, short for Francis, played by Sinead Cusack) who shakes herself out of the doldrums by enrolling as a student in her son's university. Most of her friends and family are horrified, not least her son (Matthew Newton), who is busy falling in love with his best mate's girlfriend (Rose Byrne). Meanwhile Frank has raised the ire of her disapproving English tutor (Sam Neill).

Matthew Newton is utterly disarming as David; relaxed and natural in the role, even when the character's uptight. He generates valuable goodwill, steering the audience through some of the film's more awkward, broad comedy moments. Not long after the half-way point, first-time writer-director Mark Lamprell expertly steers his film into darker emotional territory and gives Cusack a real chance to shine.

The supporting cast is full of familiar and welcome faces (Lynette Curran, Sacha Horler, Nicholas Bishop) and all the principals (including a more animated than usual Sam Neill) are excellent. While it meanders a little towards the end, My Mother Frank delivers more than it promises and is a genuine Australian crowd-pleaser. I can't see how a film of this quality only gets an average of 5.7 from IMDb voters. It's a classic Australian production that resembles recent efforts such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES, THE SUGAR FACTORY, OCCASIONAL COARSE LANGUAGE, RUSSIAN DOLL, SAMPLE PEOPLE, THE SECRET LIFE OF US, LA SPAGNOLA, STRANGE PLANET, FRESH AIR, DUST OFF THE WINGS, DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE, etc..., as a 19-year-old uni student (Newton, in perhaps his best role yet, on par with CHANGI at least) with a bored, over-religious mother gets the shock of his life when she decides to enrol in the same course as him - and before you go thinking ANOTHER GOOFY MOVIE, it's not, there's some real substance here. Sure, it's a simplistic view of life in general and arts students in particular (but then they are rather simplistic under all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo aren't they?), and maybe the study of Sinead Cusack's character is a little muddled at times, but the film is bright, funny, and has some important messages. The principle cast is terrific: Cusack and Newton are wonderful, and Rose Byrne (see her also in THE GODDESS OF 1967) is so underrated it's not funny. She's a beautiful, fresh, confident actor who deserves every accolade she receives. I gave MY MOTHER FRANK 8/10. The Australian public and the Australian film industry are often heard to complain that there are not enough great Aussie films around, or that they are all the same.

Well in this case this film is not a carbon copy of other Australian films. It is unique - it will make you laugh out-loud, it will make you cry and it will make you feel really good about yourself.

The casting of this film is superb and the acting is second to none. The script and the photography (colour/light etc) is wonderful. But more important this is a great film. I don't want to talk about the plot as I think it is always best to see a film knowing as little about it as possible. Suffice to say this film will appeal to a wide range of audiences. Take your girlfriend, take your Mum, take your friends - for a great evening out.

10/10!!!! A fantastic film featuring great Aussie talent. Director Mark Lamprell dealt with the potentially sob-inducing subject matter in a way which was humorous and refreshing. Definitely the highlight of the 2000 Brisbane International Film Festival. Australian film veteran, Sam Neill was, as always, fabulous in the role of Frank's uni professor and new talent Matt Newton gave a performance which will have people saying, " you know, Bert Newton, Matt's dad!" Get out and see this movie!!! I saw this film purely by chance. It was shown very late, or more correctly very early one morning on television. I had woken up and was having trouble getting to sleep and this film came on.

It deals with a subject covered many times elsewhere (it certainly isn't as good as Educating Rita, despite a couple of additional twists) and has a very predictable ending.

Despite its very obvious shortcomings I did enjoy the film and this was thanks to the acting of some of its players rather than the story or the piece as a whole.

I am a big fan of Sam Neil and have seen him in many different films including: Dead Calm; The Piano; Sirens; Children of the Revolution; Event Horizon; Bicentennial Man and the ubiquitous Jurassic Park. He was very good but he could have played this part with his eyes shut.

Some of the acting was, in my opinion, dreadful Rose Byrne for example and some of the elusions were rather heavy handed (all the board woman in empty lives all dressed totally in white for example).

However, two actors (who I hadn't, or don't remember, seen before) impressed me a lot Sinéad Cusackn as Frances (Frank) Kennedy, and especially Matthew Newton as her son David. He, in particular, was very convincing and I would like to see a lot more of him. Brilliant Aussie movie... A little slow at the beginning, but once it gets going you can't stop laughing. When I originally saw the movie I vaguely knew the plot line, as I am not sure if many people are aware that this movie is based on a true story, and more so in particular, the director and his mother (obviously names have been changed). I only knew this fact as the director is a friend of a friend of my family. When I saw the movie, somehow my stepmum kept it secret that we were to meet Matthew Newton after the screening... Such a nice gentleman (except for a particularly nasty incident with his ex)! Brillian casting as well with Sam Neill and others! A great reason to keep supporting the Australian film industry It's almost impossible for me to sit down and write a conscientious review of THREE COLORS: RED without letting people in on some of the ideas that Krysztoff Kieszlowski has explored in the previous two entries to this fascinating trilogy. The more I see them and think of them, and imagine myself in their world, the more I get its theme: that we are more linked to each other than we would want to think ourselves, and all it takes is a little hand of fate to set some events in motion. In BLUE, Juliette Binoche played a grieving widow whose plan to live her life without connections to the past had her meet someone unexpected. In WHITE, an act of cruelty spawns an unlikely friendship between two men who will, against the odds, conspire to bring the perpetrator to justice and full circle. And now, in RED, all the elements of fate and apparent coincidence apply themselves into the meeting of a young Genevese model and a retired judge who has a habit of prying into other people's lives.

This young girl is appropriately named: Valentine (a luminous Irene Jacob), who has this radiance about her and even smiles openly while working the runway. Not that she is without some baggage: she has a boyfriend, unseen, who also demands to know what she is doing at all times, she has a brother who troubles her, and she rejects the advances of a photographer who is working on her image for a huge billboard. She strikes a dog while driving and nurses her back to health, but when she takes her to the owner, a retired judge (Jean Louis Trintingnant), he does not want her. "I want nothing," he coldly says, and elements of BLUE suddenly reveal themselves as this arrogant man, who also lives in anonymity and apparent, free-floating freedom, conducts surveillance on unsuspecting people. This male version of Juliette Binoche's character at first shocks Valentine -- she states she can only feel pity for him as she walks away in horror, but a chance event has her back at his place, and here is when he begins revealing who he is, and his great loss.

At the same time Kieszlowski is unfolding a parallel story: the story of a young man, Auguste (Jean Pierre Lorit), about to become a judge and who lives right across the street from Valentine -- but they keep missing each other. Chance is the word. Like Valentine winning the jackpot at the grocery story she visits, elements of chance pepper her life and Auguste's. He has a girlfriend who also supplies people with telephoned reports about the weather. One of them happens to be the old judge. He knows more about her than Auguste does, and he's never met her. Like God, or Prospero, he is slowly creating a storm which will crack the walls of this present state of conformity and bring a new meaning to the expression "We meet again." It's this parallelism between the old and young judge that makes RED so beautiful and transcendent, because time is, in reality, a lot more fluid than we would like to deem it. There are people whom we meet in life that if only we had been born in similar time frames, so many things would be different.

Such is the case with Valentine and the old judge. I believe that there is definitely a strong fraternity of souls tying them together in a tight bond: she is that woman whom he did not meet -- by chance or not -- and is, whether he knows it or not, trying to make amends, hence why he goes to the great risk of revealing his surveillance and becoming the social outcast. But it doesn't end there. One of the many links between the three movies is the character of an old woman walking to a large garbage container. Where Julie did not see her (and would not have helped her anyhow), and Karol fresh from his public humiliation sneers at her thinking, "Someone is worse off than I am," Valentine is the one who helps her. Frailty in need can happen anywhere, and Kieszlowski even applies it here in a minor character.

Now, RED is so much more than a story. Valentine, the old judge, Auguste, even Rita the dog: these aren't characters confined by storytelling. An American version would ruin the idea and commercialize chance encounters and even bring forth a dumbed-down ending. RED is so devoid of a linear, defined plot that anything could happen to any of these people and the possibilities that this story could have veered off in so many directions had one crucial element not taken place at the exact moment and place.

Adding to the concept of characters who mirror each other despite time frames or location is the theme of sexual betrayal. This is also an important and character defining element in all of the three films: in BLUE, Julie's husband had a mistress and she also betrays Olivier when it's become clear she's emotionally dead. In WHITE, Dominique has Karol listen to her moan over the phone (which becomes an important device in RED) as she has sex with a man while the billboard of Brigite Bardot's CONTEMPT looks on. In RED, the old judge's tale of love and betrayal gets re-enacted. And all this time, Valentine's billboard image looms over them like a presage of what is to come at the same time that Rita, the dog Valentine's car struck, bears seven pups, life renewed for the six major players in this complex trilogy obviously filmed with care and love. Why do I say six? You'll have to watch the movie and wonder. I feel at a loss, so brilliant is this film. Kieslowski is a writer, a philosopher; and while an excellent filmmaker, his greatness lies in his writing; and "Red" is his paradigm. This film is a metafictional study of the artist's judgement in the creation of his fictional world; of how an artist can attempt to remake life -- even his own -- thru his art, even as he cannot escape the knowledge that, no matter how he involves himself in his story, it is still fiction and he is still outside of his remade world, still burdened with its unreality and the reality of the life he has tried to artistically remake. And magically, all of this is not to the smallest degree at the expense of a wonderful story about the mysteries of love and fate and the characters who live out this story, this pre-judged destiny. If I had to choose, I might nominate this the greatest film ever made. This is the last film of Krzysztof Kieslowski - one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. He intended to retire after this film, so in a way it is his artistic testament. He died a couple of years after making the film, and though it is said that he intended to return to directing, Destiny decided that this was indeed his last. And what a film!

'Rouge' the last film in the three colors French trilogy is actually a very Swiss film. Set in Geneva, one of the two main characters is a Swiss retired judge, and Durenmatt immediately comes to mind. But there is more Switzerland in the cool atmosphere, in the lack of communication of the characters, in the politeness that envelops cruelty of life. Several characters who start with little relationship will come together at the end in a moving and human final, which only a great artist could have staged.

Little else can be said that was not said and written hundred of times. Yes, the film starts slowly, and the fans of the American style of action movies or melodramas will get discouraged first and will get lost as viewers. They deserve it. The film gets quality as it advances, and one of the not so hidden messages is that real life and real humans are more interesting than the Hollywood cartoon and plastic action and characters. Cinema quality is very original, the image being a 'Study in Red', as the title shows. Acting is fabulous, with Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant - the later in what will remain probable the best role of his old age.

A great film. Seeing it again probably adds, and I am happy to have it recorded on tape. 9/10 on my personal scale. See Three Colors: Blue and Three Colors: White. They are both wonderful films and will give an added dimension to the finale Three Colors: Red. Red is a fantastic film. It can be enjoyed in a single viewing, and indeed, the climax of the film is very powerful in that first viewing. But, watch it again. Once you understand the use of symbolism and character parallels in this movie, you will see new things with each viewing. With the first viewing you understand that the film is the work of a brilliant mind. With each additional viewing, you find yourself discovering that it is, in fact, a work of genius. Red is meant to symbolize fraternity in the French flag. The story turns the theme of fraternity around to be viewed at angles one would never suspect. The facets of fraternity shared by the different characters is as deep as you care to peer. If you are used to the blatant "symbolism" in most mass films, you may find Red a bit slow. You may find yourself looking at a screen filled with intensity that you do not fathom... and yawning, wonder what all the excitement is about. This is not a mindless, vicarious experience. Everything is not explained to you. You must think as you watch. You must see... not simply look. Wonderful movie... one meant to be enjoyed by a wonderful moviegoer. This film is not only the last piece of the Three Colours trilogy, but also the best of the three and one of the best movies of the 90s. There's hardly another movie that so wisely and consequently asks for humanity and respect for every human being.

Valentine (Irene Jacob) lives in Geneva, where she works as a model. Though she has a boyfriend, she seems to be rather lonely. One night she has an accident and injures a dog and who leads her to his owner, a retired jugde (Jean-Louis Trintignant), who is cynical and spies his neighbors phone calls. Disgusted by him she cannot go away and they meet again. Two lonely souls meet each other and they become friends and develop a deep love for each other.

The story itself is too complex to be told completely, there is another connection between them in a young man who represents both the judge and Valentines real love and there is more to their relationship than only friendship.

The actors are wonderful, Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant developing a deep and authentic friendship.

The topics are of an endless validity, Fraternity, not only in contact with each other, but also in the respect for the right of privacy. Alarmingly we seem to loose this right more and more, which makes movies like this one even more important than it might have been in 1994.

Red is one of the strongest colours that exists, representing inner turmoil, love, anger and passion. Used here as another protagonist, it brings a unmatched depth to the movie. A masterpiece! The final part of Kieslowski's trilogy based on the colors of the French flag finds the director at peace with the metaphysical and transcendent nature of the cinematic image. In Red, imagery is paramount, as well as the obvious but clever color coding. However, rather than adhering to empty aesthetic contrivances based on the 'cinema du look', Kieslowski's Red is a multi-layered, densely plotted meditation on the nature of fate and love. In Red, love and fate are intertwined but complex notions, dictated as much by the whims of human beings as the invisible parallel associations that seems to pass us by. You sense Red is really an allegory, a reenactment of Prospero's omnipresent gestures in The Tempest, yet it is more than its story appears. Red demands countless viewings, and in each viewing something new is discovered that weaves itself into the already immaculately plotted structure.

Although Red stands alone as a masterwork from Kieslowski, it's best viewed as part of the trilogy. Elements of Blue and White are referenced in Red, which knowing viewers will enjoy. It is not only difficult to comment separately on the three parts of Kieslowski's trilogy, it seems obvious that the filmmaker wants us to do just the opposite: view them in order, Blue, White, and Red, and consider them together as one complete work. It is true they are distinct stories with distinct themes: liberty, equality, fraternity, and each them is developed with unique applications of intrigue and artistry. They are each well worth seeing independently, but I believe they are best seen as one work. Collectively, I would rate the trilogy as a 9; separately, I place each in my top ten for the years 1993 and 1994.

The color red is most memorable in the third movie as a backdrop in a billboard ad, the profiled model of which is the central of the movie's three main characters. The other two characters do a double-take of a varying degree of recognition when they first come upon the ad, posted larger than life alongside a busy city intersection. This ad is not a major part of the plot of this movie, yet its image becomes striking and is one of the reasons I have called Red a `mind-bending' film. This is the third of Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy, based on the Blue-White-Red of the French flag and the three parts of its motto, `Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The films stay primarily focused on these themes, keeping with the basic levels of one, two, or three main characters, yet with each film the complexity of plot escalates as the three principles move from fundamentally personal (Liberty, Blue) to relational (Equality, White) to social (Fraternity, Red). Red is my favorite of these films, and I give it a 9. It stands by itself as a great film, but one should see Blue and White first for the fullest effect. and there are not many in cinema history. "Rouge" seems to be a bit of a hope. Hope in mankind and in life. But to say only that may be naive. Kieslowski could find the right way to tell the story of that embittered judge and the twentish but wise model. Perhaps that old and disappointing love affair will not be repeated -there's the new couple with the young judge after the accident-. But what to say about this master of the camera? You can't miss a second of the movie because you have to watch every and each one of those faces. Kieslowski loved human beings and that is quite evident in the way the camera treats the actors. Ms. Jacob and Mr. Tringtignant are perfect It's not only this movie but the downbeat "Thou shall not kill" and "A story about love" that may you think about contemporary cinema as a way of expressing an artist's point of view. Pity American public -the average one- could not see these films. At least they are not in the Maltin's dictionary. And even the Baseline does not know what to say about this unique man. abel posadas Valentine, a model in France is separated from her lover who is abroad, they plan to meet up in England, but seem to be growing ever more distant as the film progresses. One night after declining a pass made by her coworker, she hits a dog named Rita. The dog survives and she returns it to her owner, a hostile retired judge who's is living as a hermit and eavesdropper, listening in on the conversations of all his neighbours. She becomes intrigued by the nature of this man and visits him often, often becoming part of his eavesdropping games. One conversation the two listen in on is of extreme importance though, the conversation between a young soon to be judge and his wife, which we find out parallels the life of the man who is eavesdropping upon them. As we find out more about the couple, the man reveals more of his story, then continues his story, and we find out if the two men will continue towards the same fate. Little does Valentine know how her life, this encounter and the fate of the young judge will become entangled together. Her hitting the dog that day seemed to be fate, a divine sacrifice by the dog for her owner, allowing Valentine to be the saviour of the young judge, who is traveling the same path as her dear friend, to prevent him from having such a grim future, filled with loneliness and solitude. It seems the old man's dream will come true after all, and he can sleep with a smile on his face for the rest of his days.

An AMAZING finale to possibly the BEST trilogy of all time! Kieslowski never ceases to amaze me. He is one of my favourite directors, and one of the most talented directors in the history of cinema. His use of the colours of the French flag in the three films was nothing short of incredible, every shot, every scene was like a work of art. Three of the most visually appealing movies i've ever seen. And his subtle connections between the three films are awesome. Usually signified with a subtle pause, or late focus in a scene, see if you can spot some. I have to mention this and it is a huge SPOILER, i loved the ending, how all the characters of the three films were the remaining survivors of the ferry disaster, with Valentine and the young judge together, and the old man watching it on her TV, solidifying his happiness over the suffering which he dealt with for those many years. I couldn't think of a better way to end the film, but a smile on my face, great way to wrap up an amazing film and trilogy! I recommend this for EVERYONE who loves film, movies, anything...A Work of Art! 10 out of 10 for both the movie and trilogy. Its my favourite film because there's so much going on that you don't see at first and so many things that make you wonder "Did Kieslowski mean that or is it in my head?" For instance - is the judge meant to be God or some supreme being ?

Also Irene Jacob as in The Double Life Of Veronique is outstanding, there may be a few superficially prettier actresses but none who manage to convey beauty of spirit with physical beauty the way she does.

Tritingnant also is magnificent without really saying much and the things he does say are excellent such as his answer to Valentine . . . "Be". In the "goofs" section for this film there's a comment to the effect that there is a mistake in continuity where Auguste's car is seen to be parked in a different place from that seen in a previous shot in the same scene. This is incorrect. One of the views is from Auguste's flat, the other is from Valentiné's flat across the street. The whole purpose of this segment is to show how Valentiné and Auguste - who may be made for each other - almost cross paths (as happens several other times) but never quite do so, until circumstances throw them together on the ferry at the end of the film. (And here there is the implication that Joseph has manipulated things so that Auguste is on that ferry, having inspected Valentiné's ticket to see which sailing she is booked on.) Trilogies are very interesting. Some go out with a bang (Lord of the Rings), some get progressively weaker (The Matrix), some get lost in obscurity (Blade, Back to the Future), but some maintain the genius, that seemingly ever-growing bright light that floats beyond the surface of its flawless exterior. Case and point: "Three Colors Trilogy". This chapter in the trilogy, being the last one, is the most philosophical and thought-provoking. In "Blue" we had a more visually stunning, more character-driven plot, in "White" it was more of a light hearted, narrative-driven story where we listen more to what the characters say than anything. "Red", however is focused on the "what ifs" and "how comes". It questions our own fate and focuses mainly on the past and the future than the present.

This chapter is about a young model who runs over a dog and brings him back to his owner. She soon finds out that the owner of the dog is actually a cynical retired judge who spies on his neighbors' phone calls through advanced spying equipment. All three films in the trilogies have very basic plot lines, but bring a lot more to the story. Consider in "Blue", the story of a woman dealing with the loss of her loved ones. We are constantly shown ideas about the contemporary French society and how that reflects the character's behavior. "Red" is not only about a young woman who finds shelter in an older man's life, but it is also about chance, hope, and fate.

Irene Jacob stars as Valentine Dussaut, who at first finds the old man (Jean-Louis Trintignant), whom we never find the name of, extremely self-centered and disgusting. Though through self reflective analysis, and her voyeuristic intentions, she learns that the judge would be the perfect man for her, if only he was 40 years younger. Irene lives across from another, younger judge, who highly resembles the old man. This is the "what if" that keeps circling in the movie. What if Irene were born 40 years ago? The old man would have been her perfect match. But what if the younger judge is actually her perfect match, since he so closely resembles the older one. Valentine doesn't know this, only we do, and Krzysztof Kieslowski subtly suggests this in almost every frame which Irene is in. We are constantly smacked in the face with his presence, as almost a suggestion of Irene's fate.

I mention that the old man does not have a name for a reason. That reason is because it is very symbolic to the overall theme in the story. We are to compare the old judge to Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), the younger judge, in more than one way. We learn that the old man once had someone he loved but she got away. In another scene, we see Auguste heartbroken as the love of his life gets away with another man. There are constant reminders of whether or not Valentine will ever meet this man. Even though they pass each other without noticing every single day. There is also the motif of the telephone, to Valentine it is a way of keeping sane and updating her life, to Auguste it is what leads to his heartbreak, and to the old man, it is the only thing he has left. These three elements serve to shadow the characters own psychology. It is a sort of statement about what they are and who they are.

All three "Colors" films stand for a certain principle, most common in France. "Blue" stands for Liberty (the personal being), "White" stands for Equality (being accepted by more than one), and "Red" is Fraternity (to socialize, to learn). And although this final chapter is an obvious focus on the Fraternity principle, Kieslowski makes sure he brings in the other two as well, in order to connect all three stories. For example, we see the old man trying to reach out to Valentine and enlighten her with his spy equipment, which is a reflection of the Equality principle. We also see near the end that Valentine is doing some soul searching and that she's more concerned about herself than others (not picking up the phone when Michel calls), a clear example of Liberty. And with all three principles established, Kieslowski nicely connects all of the characters as well, in the final and most heartfelt scene.

"Red" is about where you could have been if you were older or younger. It is about whether or not there is someone completely perfect for everyone, and whether or not one person can change your life. The final chapter in the most awe-inspiring trilogy ever made, this film breaks barriers in both directing and storytelling. It is not only about our modern life, but about where life could and should be in our modern time. And although the movie is more subtle than both "Blue" and "White", it boldly exclaims a statement of love and compassion.

It's hard to imagine that "Red" was Kieslowski's last film, and that he died at such a young age. Nevertheless, the trilogy will always be his masterpiece and we will always remember him for his work that ranks right up with Bergman, Fellini, and Wenders as a truly remarkable director who's never been awarded with an Oscar. Kieslowski, you have been missed! Master Kieslowsky came with an idea in 1993, the idea was to portrait how human relationship are in the world today, passing from Blue (a crafted visual masterpiece about a woman's life) from White (A visual comedy movie about marriage) and finally arriving to Red (A masterpiece dealing with human interaction).

While I'm not going to spoil the move I can easily say Red is the best movie from the 90's decade because it has one of the strongest messages in a script I have ever ever seen.

The movie begins a little slow but finds it's rhythm early enough to keep you hooked through the whole movie.

The performances are perfect, sublime. since the characters are completely realistic and they're not clichéd in any way and one could expect no less from the actors and one doesn't get disappointed... seriously I believe Jean Louis Tringtignat deserved an Oscar nod at least.

The music from Zbiegnew Preisner is amazing it's one of the best musical scores ever. Piotr Sobocinsk Cinematography is also outstanding he got an Oscar nod for it (and deserved to win).

Overall the movie is a perfect 10 and will be loved by people that love foreign cinema and people who don't. Don't Miss it.

How did the awful Pulp Fiction beat ed this masterpiece at Cannes is beyond my comprehension Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.

"Trois couleurs: Rouge" is based on the concept of "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD". The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in "Dekalog 9" it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.

In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about "dialogue tests" between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.

And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH! I believe I share the same psychological outlook on the world with Kieslowski. He is Polish, I am Dutch, yet we share a synthetic mind: the world is not void of the metaphysical amidst total coincidence. Hardly ruled by man or perhaps by a poet-prime minister, so that as a social and cultural 'low pressure area', Poland could play the role it did in WWII, being critical yet Christian towards the Jews but often not less critical toward oneself. There are innocence and guilt in Kieslowski's world view, as the symbols in Catholicism: the White versus the Black Madonna. In Rouge, the Black Madonna is she who the judge fell in love with when he was a young man. Flashbacks are magically-realistically intertwined with the present, although totally coincidental, such as the camera simply swinging to the other side of the street or the then young judge's red jeep passing by the now young woman's car after she accidentally hit his dog with it. That we leaped through time in those same camera moves, is what we grasp later. His love was unanswered, so that his life wasn't as he had planned it. He lost his ability to love other people and animals. Being a judge, he feels he is actually spying on other peoples' lives and when he retires, he simply continues to do so, spying on his neighbors this time. The innocence and sense of righteousness of the younger woman (literally) accidentally getting into his life, reinstalls his better judgment and it is because of her that he spontaneously confesses his spying behavior to his neighbors and the police, accepting and even holding on to the stones consequentially thrown through his windows. In the process, history repeats itself between this man and the woman he loves, although this time he is old and the woman not the same. Kieslowski may have wrestled with this bit for the old judge is his alter ego, and it is said he was infatuated by Irène Jacob. Both women play the same essential role in his psychology, of the one (!) who possesses his heart and soul and therefore can make him or break him, even as an old man! It is as if the 'powers in the air' are, or God is, bringing them together. Coincidences are *too* coincidental to just be chance or even good luck. There has to be some mystical, supernatural or theological source influencing these unfathomably deep life-decisions. The study book fell and opened at the page of the exam question is another example of this. Or the moment the old judge spoke his heart to the young woman, the wind outside the opera house suddenly slams the open doors and breaks the windows. The gigantic picture of the young woman happens to predict the one on TV, after the drowning accident on her Canal crossing trip. These moments are effectively accentuated through the human voice of liturgy or what sounds like it (Van den Budenmayer). Well every scene so perfectly presented. Never before had I seen such a movie that has meaning in almost every scene.

Well while I was watching this movie I remembered watching "Amilie". Amilie is also a similar kind of movie with more fun and fantasy touch. These movies are both based on a same plot line. But both of them are Perfectly perfect in there own way and being able to create a world of their own.

Red is able to provoke lots of thoughts in people about destiny and dejavu s. And I am still thinking about it.

The story is great and the ending is a bit funny. I was laughing in the end scene. Well funny how this three movie Red White and Blue are connected.

All in all a great work of art. A work of a masterman.

10/10 In my analysis of "Trois couleurs: Blanc" I wrote that its tone is much lighter than the tone of "Trois couleurs: Bleu". I think it's the same with this film. This time it's not because of a tragic comedy-element, but much more because of the main character Valentine. Although her boyfriend is living abroad and is ridiculously jealous, she manages her life with lightness and optimism, it seems to me that she might be Kieslowski's image for a carefree youth. The opposite seems to be the judge, who is very pessimistic, a grumpy old man, who experiences big loneliness. In my view, Valentine and the judge are pretty similar to each other, the judge is just much older and has experienced many more disappointments. They share a different kind of naivety and they both discover that they can learn much from the other one. Finally I would like to stress Irène Jacob's performance, she rounds off the run of amazing female contributions to the "Three Colours"-trilogy. This is a classic continuation to Bleu, the likewise excellent film, with Juliet Binouche as a main star, moreover, she is a cameo appearance here, in Rouge, just for a second at the very end. But this film, truly red and very sweet although very sad, is a real winner. The main heroine, played by ever great Irene Jakob, is a successful photo / fashion model. She leads a full, active life, only darkened by her traumatic relations with her weird friend Mike, who is in England. By some lucky chance, she gets friendly with the old Judge, who spends time listening to the private telephone talks of his neighbors. The story starts to weave even further, and we see him in court, being almost universally condemned for his pastime. She is the only one who feels sympathy for him, for his cute doggy Rita and her pups, and for all the people who surround them. We also witness the break-up of a happy couple of a young lawyer and his lady, and their quarrel is also fueled by that telephone scandal... But the film is not about this, even. It is mostly about the loneliness and deep rifts between people, far and near. When she sails to England on a ferry, with that lawyer as a chance fellow-passenger, as well as that earlier mentioned Binoche who starred in Bleu, the ship sinks and we see the horrified look of The Judge when he watches the news trying to guess if she survived. She did, and still we feel very heavy at heart. Mr. Kislowski managed to draw a grand, subtle story about the solitude, misunderstanding, secrets and pain. Deep, dark personal pain of those who are lost and lonely. Brilliant film. The greatest movie ever.

How's that for a contention? However, if we look at it through purely cinematic terms, it is clear that Three Colours Red is a masterpiece. It is not enough to merely say this - Three Colours Red is the masterpiece of world cinema. If you accept that Citizen Kane is not human enough, if you accept that Star Wars is not actually very good, if you accept that Ozu and Mizoguchi both have to take a step back - then Three Colours Red is the foremost masterpiece of all time. As a discussion into human morality, Three Colours Red works on an intensely metaphysical level, with a depth that none can match. Blue went almost as far into the human psyche, but stopped as it was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat. White forced us to reflect on the humanity of equality - this, in retrospect, was better still, but still not quite there. Red, however, is the real thing. What he expresses in this movie, is an expression of what it is to be human. In fact, what he expresses is _how_ it is to feel human. It forces us to examine up to the minutest detail, the very nature of our souls, of our ethical selves. In Red, one may find meaning on one of its several levels. On the first level, Red achieves a high level of verisimilitude - we could have no trouble in calling Red an exceptionally entertaining story. However, the coincidences inherent in the film and its conceits force us to examine the movie as a movie. It is as if Kieslowski is saying: "Ceci n'est pas la réalité". In effect, in pursuing a humanistic goal, Kieslowski can also challenge reality. It is a trick that Kieslowski has been attempting since Le Double Vie de Véronique, but not until this, his final film, did he finally manage to reach this divine intertwining of fate, philosophy and circumstance. The actors and actresses, too, appear to be at the mercy of a greater power. Valentine (Irène Jacob), is aptly name, for she seems to represent an almost pure love. Meanwhile, the idea of first impressions is challenged by Jean-Louis Tritignant's Judge Kern, a cantankerous man, who, by the end, becomes an almost all-knowing observer of events - a character who symbolically seems to possess the power to bring characters together - a power to make people happy, a power which he could only achieve through Valentine.

We have a capability to see films as more than just a series of pictures. In fact, films have the potential to possess more meaning than literature. It won't happen, of course, but at least we have the power to view this film, knowing that it gives us the power to achieve the something that we can't define, but all possess. A synopsis of this film read: "A film about a woman who runs over a dog". Well, it is.

Isn't it?

-Simon Huxtable

I use IMDB very much. Mainly reading comments of other people about movies I´ve or not seen. I´ve thought it was time to write a few words about this movie that changed my life, and the way I look a movie. I think I have seen it at least a dozen times since autumn 94, when I saw it in the theatre for the first time.

I feel Kieslowski is one of the best directors of all time. And I think this is his best one. It was his last one. I was very sad the day I knew he has died, because sure we lost the chance to get something more from him.

RED is just the best Kieslowski + incredibile performance by Trintignant & Jacob + cinematography by Sobocinski. If you haven´t seen it LOOK FOR it!!! If you have, just come back to it!!

Red: just a masterpiece. please, forgive my poor English!, reader Valentine "Dogkiller" Dussaut and Joe "The Judge" Kern join forces to clean up the mean streets of Geneva! Thrill as they put the kibosh on international heroin smugglers, Polish fugitives, peeping toms, philandering girlfriends, renegade dogs, and litterbugs who are too lazy to bin their recyclables. Don't be fooled by the deceptive Miramax ad campaign that paints it as a pretentious, art house flick. This movie is 100% action! There's a spartan, unsentimental edge to this film that allows plenty of room for us to participate in the action without any stylistic encumbrance telling us HOW we're meant to be feeling; in 'Blue', everything was overtly sad (sure, powerful as hell, but still); in 'White', it was delightful whimsy. But there are no such emotional clues, or cues for that matter, in this one. It's as if he finally let the force of the tale work its own magic without razzle-dazzle embelishment. I think that's what makes it the most initially enigmatic of the three, but finally, the most transcendent and redemptive. Never has remorseless, unsparing honesty been quite so beautiful. "Rouge" is part of a trilogy, but very much stands on its own. It isn't a sequel of any sort. The very end, which I won't divulge, ties the three films together, but not seeing the other two doesn't make it too confusing.

This film amazes me because it is so spare, so subtle and simple, but is as effective, emotionally and intellectually, as any big-budget spectacle or all-star melodrama. Kieslowski here investigates the phenomena of chance and destiny. Both themes are loosely woven together in the story. The film is very much a puzzle, but the message is pretty straightforward: Everything happens for a reason. Love is in all of our destinies as long as we open ourselves to it. The title, "Red" refers to the French flag, where red represents "fraternity," or brotherhood. The color dominates the visuals of the movie. I tend to think of it as representing love or passion, or the blood of life. It's great when a film allows the freedom to do that ;) Most of Kieslowski's films seem like puzzles to me, meant to expand mind and soul. The characters are not very believable, are idealized, are schematic. Nevertheless, the way Kieslowski presents their winding ways through life, their complicated interaction with others, with the universe, with chance or destiny, makes me understand faith, makes me (want to) believe in God. That at some point it all has a meaning, if not to me, then certainly to someone.

Trois couleurs and especially "Rouge" comes closer to making me touch, feel, experience the "truth", the "meaning" than perhaps any other of his films. The only problem being the paths of the "puzzles" explored are a bit too similar to his other films and at some point they become somewhat predictable. There is still plenty of joy to be had here. It is like a familiar brand of wine - you know what to expect and it delivers, sometimes with a newly found bouquet which might come from aging - either the wine or yourself. Irene Jacob is mesmerizing in this final installment of Krzysztof Kieslowski's trilogy and the story is infinitely satisfying as it succeeds in tying all three films together. I am simply in awe of the amount of talent it took to do one of these stories, let alone all three. Everything seems to fit together so precisely, all the elements of filmmaking so eloquently executed, and the end result so much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Trois Couleurs is epic in nature and belongs on any list of great cinematic achievements. Simply brilliant! "They both believed that a hidden sentiment has unified them. This certitude is beautiful,but the incertitude is more beautiful. They believed that they had never been met.Nothing has happened between them.But those roads,those stairs,those corridors for all that time they could have been met." Although it did not mean to be,it was a swan song.Two young people,who are neighbors and have never been met,are found in the same places,the same times,doing most of the times the same things.They finally meet in the dramatic and very brilliant end that brings them together.Meanwhile the woman has met an old man.Their relation is brotherhood-like.He told her his life.It was like the young one's but with better prospectives.The young man can do whatever the old man has not lived.He can be happy with the woman. The ending is exceptional.There is a ship wreck.The only survivors are the heros of the "Three colors".The man and the woman finally meet.The scene lasts a few seconds.The woman there looks like the photo she had taken for an ad in the beginning of the film;sad in a red fond."But every start is only the continue.The book of the life is opened in the middle." This movie is not only about feelings and human emotions, it is also about everything that could be but it's not. Poetry in movies can be awfully boring and annoying, but this movie is delightful to be watched. Not to mention the amazing Irène Jacob, a great actress in France - one of the best, actually. When the movie ends, you can only feel sorry. After all, when something is truly great, we want more (Well, for another great movie by K Kieslowsky with Irène Jacob we can always watch La double vie de Veronique) A wonder. My favorite film. The most important film about relationships ever made. Brilliant writing. Magnificent directing. Image systems and symbolism that leave you thinking about it all days, weeks, years later. Wow. A truly great work of art. What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy. Transcendental, sophisticated, incisive, emotive, powerful... I could think of a hundred adjectives to describe this fantastic work of art and intelligence, and still I would feel they were insufficient. All I can really say is that I am infatuated with this film. Applause to Krzysztof Kieslowski, Zbigniew Preisner, Irène Jacob, and Jean-Louis Trintignant. May "Rouge" live forever. Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first ‘true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.

It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.

Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny. This is one of L&H's shorts most frequently cited as the first "real" L&H teaming and perhaps one of their best silent features. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Ollie) is a millionaire who has come to the docks to greet his nephew Philip, whom he's never seen. At first Ollie is laughing it up with everyone when this strange little man unboards and draws a great deal of attention to himself by the way he's behaving during his medical exam, but is quite humiliated when it turns out that this is the fellow he's supposed to be greeting. He has been told that Philip is a good boy, but he has one weakness--women. Mumblethunder and Philip set off to go home, but their journey there is continually interrupted by Philip breaking into a little dance every time he sees a woman, then chasing after the woman. Huge crowds gather each time this happens, not so much because he's chasing skirts, but because Philip himself is also wearing a skirt (a kilt). Finally Mumblethunder manages to drag Philip into a tailor's shop to be measured for a proper pair of pants, but Philip escapes from there as well to chase more skirts. There are lots of laughs all around. It's also nice to see a short like this because the boys aren't exactly the characters we know and love. Ollie is pretty much his usual character, but it's such a joy to see Stan acting so differently from his usual man-child character. It shows he wasn't a one-trick pony and excelled in other types of roles when he got the chance. With a run time of 19 minutes its short and sweet, providing classic one liners which still have me in stitches. This is a Laurel & Hardy comedy short with some great and funny moments but overall the movie relies a bit too much on just one comical premise.

The comical premise this movie mostly relies on is very simple; Stan Laurel not wearing any pants. Laurel plays a Scottish naive young person who arrives in America in full kilt. For some reason he gets the center of attention because of this and his uncle played by Oliver Hardy thinks because of this that its time to put some pants on Philip.

Its humor is well executed but the main premise also gets a bit tiresome after a while. Although the movie definitely still has its comical great moments, it at the same time is also far from the best of the many Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts that are still around. The movie is simply too simple to be considered one of the greatest, although it definitely is most fine executed all, for most part.

Great good clean fun, just nothing too remarkable or memorable all.

7/10 this movie is certainly worth a watch. it's full of action. it's also humorous. you'll laugh until your stomach hurts if you watch this movie. this movie also includes lots of hi-tech things hence the name gen-y. i recommend you to watch the prequel of this movie which is gen-x. Genius or utter madness? That depends on your interpretation of this film. I responded to it on the level of a self-aware "cop-movie parody", and I sincerely hope that was the intention as I don't see anyone taking it seriously! :-D Paul Rudd for one seems to be chewing up the scenery and really getting into the spirit of things! Is this film supposed to mark a departure for Rudd from his core background in the comedy genre? Some kind of insane attempt to reinvent him as a hard-boiled action star? I think not!

With the cheesy, almost awkward acting, low budget FX, and zany over-the-top action set pieces, it all kinda evoked that old TV show "Sledge Hammer" for me! HILARIOUS!!! :-)

Of course, I may have totally interpreted the film wrong. If it was in fact an attempt at a 'straight' action movie, then it was certainly an amusing failure!!

Watch with lots of alcohol and some mates!!! ;-) This is a well done action movie. There are plenty of fight scenes, the acting is convincing (for this genre) and RS1 is awesome. I don't know why people feel compelled to trash RS1, I thought his effects were executed very nicely and his design looked great. The plot was acceptable for a martial arts movie.

Having said that, I must tell you Richard Sun is one of the worst actors from Hong Kong I have ever watched. At least RS1 had the right idea by killing him. Now, for all of you who thought Sam Lee (Alien) was a bad actor...he wasn't meant to be taken seriously! I have just had the pleasure of watching Gen-X Cops (prequel) and Sam Lee played the same character the same way!

Now, please, all of you guys who watch highly reviewed Oscar winners: DO NOT JUDGE THIS IS A THINKING MAN'S MOVIE! IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE THOUGHT! Just meant to be enjoyed, that's all. I hope they make another soon. I am having a holiday in hong kong now, and i just saw gen y cops at the cinema.... what can i say... it was sooo cool!!

Everything you could wish for was in it! Basically... just see it if ya can... I'm gonna get my friend to send me the vcd when it comes out....

Only bad thing was the dodgy American style of talking employed by some of the hl actors... like Edison... "What's up my man?!" but it did add even more humour to iy... hhehe

See it... especially if ya like any of the following geners: HKfilm, action, comedy, sci fi! SEEITMAN!! Edison did a good song for it too... so download it... Edison Tse - Heroes This film is great. All the hi-tech machinery and technology is mind-boggling. It is packed with action, humour and not to mention, guys. You will want to see it again and again. Very very funny. Also, it has a very unique plot which is unpredictable. You wouldn't want to miss out on it. Gen-Y Cops...since I heard of the film being in release, I have been wanting to see it because I loved Gen-X Cops. I was a little disappointed that A) Nicholas Tse didn't return and B) too much slapstick. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the sequel because it may not be good as the first film, but it is good in its own way.

Stephen Fung returns as the ultracool ladies man Match, who has a steady girl in Oli (NOTE: Where is Haze?) and Sam Lee returns as the insane Alien (this time sporting a mohawk and speaking a lot of English!!!!). The real star of the film is newcomer Edison Chen. He makes a great replacement for Nicholas Tse as...Edison. I also enjoyed Paul Rudd's performance of Agent Curtis...he seems to be the tough as nails, smartmouth FBI Agent you'd love to hate...but soon, you'd like his character.

The fight scenes are a lot better in this one...even though there are very few, but they are great, courtesy of Jackie Chan stuntman Nicky Li.

Look for a cameo from Ron Smoorenburg as a cage fighter who has a teeny little fight with Match. Smoorenburg also is the stunt double for Rudd.

If you liked GEN-X COPS...you'll love GEN-Y COPS!!! I think this movie has got it all. It has really cool music that I can never get out of my head. It has cool looking characters. IS REALLY funny(you know, the kind that you'll crack up on the ground and you'll keep saying the funny parts over every day for three weeks).Despite the bad acting, bad cgi, and bad story(about cops going after a robot), its really cool. Its one of those movies you and all of your family can watch, get together, eat pizza, laugh like crazy, and watch it two more times.

There are so many funny parts, like when Kurt was trying to get Edison's attention and gave him the finger, and then threw a paint ball gun at him so they could play paint ball. On that part, I kept saying "Remember, Remember?"to my cousins who saw it and showed them what happened. There was also a really funny part when Edision ran into the room and Kurt was there(just before they fought) and Kurt was talking about his "Strange dream" and how he was "Superman". I LOVED that part, although it has been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember that part. Everything the actors said were funny, like how Kurt says, "I worship you, like a GOD!" to the robot.

Although there was some bad things, in all it was a GREAT movie. Man, I can't stop laughing. I wish I had that movie. ); I have so much hope for the sequel to Gen-X. Luckily, my hopes have came true. You got a whole bunch of action, comedy...silly comedy, and surprises. I think the newcomer Edison, is really a hit in the movie, but I really find Sam's 'Alien' stupidly annoying with English. Although the movie had some flaws with the robot graphics and the silly dialogue, the action always keeps it strong. The action set-up is much stronger than the 1st.

This movie is getting more of an American feel since 60% of the movie is in English from the Cantonese. This movie will not disappoint you. I recommended this for young 'uns that care about pure action-packed fun.

The main reason to check this one out is to watch Laura Gemser in all her glory.

That's reason enough for me.

She heads to Africa as guests of another rich guy that seems to be all over these films. Huge mansion near the jungle. Hunters staying around for parties when they aren't out hunting zebras. And said parties becoming drunken orgies.

All the high society types in the Emanuelle films seem to have out of control fetishes. And Emanuelle beds most of them.

Joe D'Amato did NOT direct this one. He just ripped it off and used the same cast(s). And did anyone notice the 'subliminal' sexual images at the gas station? And why did most of the men stay dressed during the sex scenes?

Coherence? Hardly any. BUT GODDESS GEMSER IS BEAUTIFUL. The first of the Italian rip-offs of the French soft porn blockbuster (though it might be interesting to note that the boot-shaped country actually got their first with Cesare Canevari's 1968 IO, EMMANUELLE starring Erika Blanc) is a very different kettle of fish than the sleazy sequels provided by the late, questionably great Joe D'Amato. It is much closer in spirit to the now very dated Just Jaeckin film from 1973, taking a pokerfaced look at male/female relationships, questioning such then hot topics as fidelity and jealousy, all in luxurious exotic surroundings. Unlike D'Amato, director Albert Thomas (aka Adalberto Albertini, who also made the hard to find YELLOW EMANUELLE, actually a sexed-up version of MADAME BUTTERFLY !) does not present us with predatory drug lords, snuff movie makers or rampaging cannibals, making for an admittedly less sensational yet far more erotic viewing experience.

Photo journalist Mae Jordan aka 'Emanuelle' (lovely Java-born Laura Gemser in her first lead role following bit parts as a Thai masseuse in EMMANUELLE 2 and an 'unspoilt native' in Just Jaeckin's portion of the rarely seen COLLECTIONS PRIVEES) flies down to Nairobi where she's to shoot the stills accompanying an article by noted British writer Anne, played by the very Teutonic Karin Schubert with a butch haircut that takes some getting used to. Anne shares an 'open relationship' (remember when this was made) with her Italian husband Gianni (Angelo Infanti), meaning that both pretty much jump anything with a pulse. Contrary to her subsequent reputation, Emanuelle appears positively reticent compared to her heavy breathing hosts, smoldering seductively at Gianni by way of foreplay until the exquisitely tantalizing pay-off. Okay, so she does make up for this lack of wantonness at the end when she does an entire male hockey team on the train. I kid you not.

Production on this sexploitation classic is quite impressive, especially the superb cinematography. And Nico Fidenco's musical theme is a solid favorite of anyone with more than a passing interest in the genre, a hilarious Eurotrash pop ditty (try to make out those totally nonsensical lyrics and have a full evening's worth of fun with the family !) that turns up throughout the entire film in every conceivable type of rendition from slow 'n' sexy to hip-gyrating disco.

This is entirely Laura Gemser's show though. Billed simply as 'Emanuelle' (as was another actress on the same director's elusive EMANUELLE NERA 2), she lights up the screen from start to finish. Not yet submitted to endless rape scenarios (as she would be once D'Amato took over), she seems much more relaxed than in later films, even smiling from time to time, a rare occasion as anyone who has seen some of the lady's work surely knows. A flawless Eurasian rather than as the title suggests black beauty (she hails from Dutch India now Indonesia and is actually quite close in physical appearance to the supposed author of the novel Emmanuelle Arsan), she projects a slightly passive, even submissive sensuality which somehow detaches her from the 'depravity' her morally corrupted cohorts indulge in. Unlike the French film, cheapskate moralizing is kept to a bare minimum, almost thrown in as an afterthought near film's end when Emanuelle tells Gianni that he hasn't lost her as he never possessed her to begin with. I swear you could hear audiences of the Just Jaeckin version groan whenever Alain Cuny's supremely irritating Mario showed up on screen as it meant we were in for too many minutes of halfbacks libertine philosophizing as an alibi for getting the divine Sylvia Kristel (now living in the Belgian capital of Brussels by the way...) to disrobe, the real reasons theaters were packed for years on end. Gemser's later husband, Gabriele Tinti (now deceased, she has remarried), appears on the sidelines as the constantly drunk 'Scottish' (huh ?) writer who forces himself briefly on Emanuelle amid the African ruins at some point, but no real sex scene though. Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and oo7/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith quite impressive. I just cannot emphasize enough what a lovely movie this is. Just

the memory of this movie right now enchants me. If you want to

see a sweeping epic of a movie, with wonderful actors in vivid

scenery, with great dialogue, reminding you of what early America

could have been like [what the world could have been like back

then]...well...I highly recommend this movie. Especially during a

time of war and conflict in Iraq...when our American image is not at

all what it used to be...this movie takes you back to a time when we

were just starting out. When being an American meant really

picking yourself up by your bootstraps and getting going. When

the world was such an untamed and unknown place. Well, this

movie has that...and more. Enjoy. In a Morocco completely invaded by Europeans and Americans, in the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Moroccan leader Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent (Sean Connery) kidnaps the American Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen), her son and her daughter. His intention is to get some money and rifles as ransom for them, to fight against the corrupt Sultan of Moroco (Marc Zuber). In times of election, the American President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) agrees with the proposal. However, Raisuli is betrayed and Eden helps him to be released from the prison with the American soldiers. I do not like films about explicit colonialism and lack of respect to the sovereignty of other countries, but `The Lion and the Wind' is indeed a great adventure. The action scenes are very realistic. Candice Bergen, the most beautiful American actress in the 70´s, is wonderful, performing an abducted woman like in the remarkable movie `Soldier Blue'. Sean Connery is perfect, as usual, as an honest and nationalist religious leader. Brian Keith is great as the American president. I do not know much about the Morocco history to analyze whether there is any truth in this story, but this movie is a worthwhile entertainment. In Brazil it is only available on VHS. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `O Vento e o Leão' (`The Lion and the Wind')



Average adventure movie that took a serious story and "Holywoodised" it.The watering down effect done particularly towards the average script snatched away this movie's place as a would be solid classic. Why water down such a great storyline?Probably because it deals with "sensitive" colonial subject matters and the producers do not want to create political heat,just quick profits thank you.The directing,cinematography and soundtrack and acting was good.The screenplay was average.The charm of Connery made up for his wrong Arabic accent and all the scenes with President T. Roosevelt were masterpiece takes.The costumes/sets here was very good.Too bad we did not get more of a serious historical drama since this is what the story demands.Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance/Adventure Holywood movies..... The portrayal of the Marines in this film is spot on. The action scenes are some of the best ever produced in accuracy of content. The uniforms and weaponry of both the U.S. and German troops were perfect. The costumes and weaponry of the Berbers were perfectly accurate as well. This film could easily be used to teach militaria of the period and has been used by the USMC Academy for this purpose. The scenes depicting Roosevelt shooting and the rifles he was using was beautiful. Procuring so many period weapons in such good shape is testament to the attention to detail and presentation this film should be noted for. Millius is a genius. The Wind and the Lion is well written and superbly acted. It is a tale that exemplifies the American spirit and the American character. This movie is a story from the early 20th century that is strangely relevant to the political landscape of the world in the beginning of the 21st century. It is a true classic. The wind and the lion is a marvelous sweeping motion picture. It is a monument to what filmmaking once was but is no more.

Connery, despite the thick scottish brogue, plays the Raisulu very well. He inspires the viewer in a way many lead characters cannot.

Candice Bergen, in one of her early roles, is marvelous as the kidnapped socialite Mrs. Pedacaris, showing courage in the face of adversity (and plenty of humour as well). A marvelous film, rent or buy it and you won't be disappointed. I saw this film at school and absolutely loved it. Based on a true story, this is an absolutely splendid masterpiece of a film. Seriously, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. One definite plus is how it was filmed. Set in Morrocco in 1904, the Wind and the Lion is filled with stirring images like the Great Raisuli on horseback especially. The cinematography was faultless, the editing was crisp, the costumes were gorgeous and the scenery was breathtaking. And I have to mention the music from Jerry Goldsmith, it was phenomenal. I have used this phrase a lot recently, but Goldsmith ain't my favourite film composer for nothing. His score here is so rousing and exciting, it shows the man's true musical genius, and this gem of a score should be up there with Goldsmith's best scores with Legend, Rambo:First Blood, Patton and The Secret of NIMH.

The action is exhilarating and the screenplay is intelligent and sophisticated. The direction is sensitively handled too. The performances were astounding as well, with Sean Connery, ever the picture of charisma and suavity, magnificent as the Great Raisuli, he almost dominates the entire picture on his own. He is joined by a feisty Candice Bergen, a wily John Huston and a captivating Brian Keith in one of his more understated performances. The history is fairly accurate, perhaps flimsy in some areas, but with the acting, music and visuals so good I am past caring. 10/10 Bethany Cox I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue snippets:

Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen): "You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your bucket."

Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past. Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will.

Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous. Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter: You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at times, too. In a very-near-future world, a corrupt government monitors everyone constantly with computers and surveillance. One man has managed to evade assimilation, and operates outside the system, fighting to preserve his freedom. An engaging and imaginative story and some very interesting editing and camera work. There are some confusing and slow parts, but all in all, an excellent example of what a small crew with brains and talent can do on a shoestring budget. I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.

I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.

Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.

Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.

I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.

Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco. This is the type of film that may need to be viewed several times to capture all of its beauty and intelligence { just like Curse of Frankenstein from 1957} . If you don't like odd, non-mainstream films, steer clear of this masterpiece. For me, the artwork alone in this film is worth the purchase price of the videocassete. The storyline is a bit fantastic but seems to becoming reality in our world today. For being produced in the 1980s, this film is proving to be a prophetic vision of whats to come with Big government and Big brother wanting to control and monitor us.

There are many slow sections and the dialog can be quite hard to catch in many scenes { thats why I've watched it 6 times now} but if you can digest it all, it may prove to be well worth your time.

The film is basically about a world where people have evolved into robotic machines that have lost their individualism . They are only concerned about accumulating and procreating. The hero of the film has not succumb to this sickness and has not been " tagged" and monitored by big brother. His mission is to release a secret drug into the water supply which will change the way the human robots think and allow individulaism to once again be a part of humanity.

Yes, its very low budget, but for its time the computer effects and sound effects are very unique and the paintings are utterly fascinating. If you have an open mind, this film should impress and its prophetic visions are chilling. If you Listen to Ween (The Pod, God/Satan), then you know what's going on with "Split" I found that watching the film under the influence of LSD helped to deal with Audio/Video tracers from fantastic editing job. The plot was only important from second to second. The acid helped to interact with the sounds, subliminal and general pace of this masterpiece. Don't bother writing about something out of your comprehension's reach...There just isn't enough of these great independent attempts at expression at it's most raw , amateur level. I dare anyone to make a movie that can equally Mess with my head and change the way I look at visual arts and the world's reality. Not to mention the many realities that haven't yet been explored by this humans mind. I love the vision of Chris Shaw. I also appreciate the texturing terroristic film "The Begotten" by E. Elias Merhige. Ten years before "The Matrix" and hot on the heals of "They Live" came this brilliant piece of low budget science fiction film making. If you like bizarre, unconventional, intellectually challenging, David Lynch meets John Carpenter style movie-making you'll love "Split". There are moments of true genius in the framing and cinematography. Look closely at a sequence shot through wine glasses in an art opening party and right after that a scene involving cue cards. The plot involves a man named Starker who lives outside of society who wants to wake us up from the dream. Similar to "They Live", "1984" and "The Matrix", it is based on the premise that we are all constantly monitored by shadowy Big Brother type government agents that know everything about us and have invisible robot probes constantly patrolling the city. This is all revealed pretty early on in the plot. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Starker has invented a drug that when placed in the water supply will wake everyone up from the illusion of reality. Along with the cinematography and the ingenious ways the director makes do with his shoestring budget, the other highlights of this film are the monologues. I challenge anyone to not be rewinding, memorizing and quoting the classic quotes from this movie for years to come. I saw this movie once a long time ago, just once, and I didn't know where it had come from, and I looked for about six years to find it, and I finally found it here at IMDb.com! Just the whole concept of the movie is great, I believe it's got something to do with a race of bioengineered beings, keeping tabs on us and our planet, but there is one person who keeps out of being assimilated into conformity. And the way that he does it,to keep himself from being tracked and located, is what keeps the movie entertaining. I don't remember exactly how it ended, but I remember, it finished with a great climax, and a good twist. When I first heard about "Greek," I figured I would watch it because it sounded ridiculous. Another of ABC Family's so-bad-they're-almost-good shows. But tuning in with a friend from college found us both enjoying the pilot episode a lot more than we had expected.

As a member of a Greek society, I can say that a lot of the stereotypes that are brought up here are ones that come up almost every time someone starts talking about the sororities and fraternities on a campus. And are also very fun to play with just on are own, let alone to watch on a TV screen. The opening scene harkened to an only-slightly-dramatized version of preparing for an actual formal rush in some sororities and it continued on from there.

This isn't a show for over-sensitive Greeks. If you get offended even at jokes about things that aren't-so-great about Greek life, then you'll spend the entire first episode, and probably many other, cringing and yelling. But everyone else should have a ton of fun watching it. It's nothing new, but when it comes to college, nothing ever is. I really like the show!! As a part of Greek Life, I can say that some things are over-exaggerated, but overall it's still pretty damn funny.

Rusty is a likable lead character, his roommate is HILARIOUS and the entire cast is entertaining in their own rights. I like that it focuses on individual situations as well as interpersonal relations with the organizations.

This show covers it all, and they do it without cursing or anything else that bad (how else could it be on ABC Family?).

My favorites are Cappie (of course), Rusty's roommate and pretty much all of Kappa Tau. This show is a great launch pad for them and I'm excited to see what doors this opens.

Please renew this show next summer, ABC Family. Like I said, love love LOVE it!! So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.

Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!

It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.

I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.

Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing.

Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.

I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to. I just recently stumbled upon this show when ABC family had an all day marathon before season 2 premiered. I remember seeing previews for the show back in 2007, and thought it would be short lived, and not very well written, because it was on ABC Family.

Never doubt an ABC family show! This show surprised me in the best way possible. Not only is the show well written, story lines are realistic, funny, and enjoyable. I was expecting a lot of talk about relationships, something like "this guy dated that girl who dumped me for that kid... etc." But this show is anything but! The characters are appealing and you really feel a connection between them all. There is a lot of chemistry between the actors, and they can really make you feel like the stuff is happening right before your eyes.

Don't doubt this show, it is truly enjoyable to watch... and get hooked on ;) I'm not a big TV person... but when I saw the premier episode of Greek, I couldn't wait until next week! I don't miss the show for NOTHING!

THANK GOD for DVR! LOL I'm in love with Cappie... he acts like a bad boy, but he is so sweet... Everybody has their own character so, we have pretty much all types of people. You could still throw in a Hispanic and a chubby persons.

I didn't go to school in USA, so, I never liked the idea of frat houses and stuff like that, so, when my husband told me about the show I didn't pay attention, until he asked me to watch it and since I didn't have noting better to do, I agreed. I laughed SO hard the first night that I just needed to keep watching it.

So.. i'm with the other people that voted for this show to continue on! I will hope for a second, third and who knows how many more episodes! Its a really good show, very funny and entertaining! I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....

but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.

All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.

It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!! I watched the pilot episode for this one with high expectations, having just graduated college and moved on to "real life". I was not in a fraternity, but a lot of my best buddies were, and I got to partake in a lot of the partying that they did in their house, so I know what goes on to some extent.

This show is obviously a dramatization, not a documentary in any way of Greek life, or college life for that matter, although it does hold a lot of truth, albeit exaggerated for the most part. If you watch the show for the value it contains as a TV show, and nothing more, it is very entertaining, much like movies such as Old School, Porky's, Animal House, etc. If you watch it expecting it to chronicle all of your experiences in your own college life, you will probably either be left wanting more, or mad that they over-dramatize a lot of events. I have watched two episodes so far, I really like it. Even though I am no longer in college, it makes me miss the wonderful college life. I wish that I spent a little more time socializing. I kind of identify myself with rusty. When I was rushing a fraternity, my big brother was not like Cappie at all, I wish that I had a big brother like him. So if a show like this can actually make people to identify themselves with the characters, then it is a pretty good show.

It is more realistic than American pie with less explicit sex jokes. Can we also call this a younger version of "desperate wives?" some of the writers must be Greeks themselves, the story seems to reflect somewhat of the real fraternity and sorority life. It was shot in high definition. And they actually filmed outside instead of inside of studios. so the picture quality is very good. They could easily make this a good film. Unlike a movie which can only last a few hours, I can have about 45 minutes of fun watching it free on TV weekly.

The casting is excellent, the actors are about the right age, and they are new and fresh, so that makes them more real. This show practically is about everyone. There are Asian and black frat boys and sorority girls in the show as well. It is almost a little shocking that they had a little story about two guys in the fraternity had sex in first episode, then tried to hook up again in the second episode. I don't think that I have seen anything like this on TV before. This show somehow reminded me about a Warner bro's TV show of teenagers called "Young Americans" which got canceled in early 2001. In that show, a girl who dressed like a man kissed a guy, and that guy thought that she was a male homosexual.

Greek life can be fun, but on the same time, students have to study for exams, etc; by the time when people actually have some free time in their lives, There is no fraternity of sorority for them to join any more. I don't know how long this show will last, sooner or later, those people will have to "graduate" college, too. Maybe they will find some new actors for another 4 years of fun college life! When I sat down to watch Greek for the first time, I wasn't expecting a show with complex characters, intriguing plot lines, and impeccable writing... but that's exactly what I got.

Greek follows several college students who are in the Greek system at Cyprus Rhodes University. Rusty Cartwright enters Cyprus Rhodes as a Polymer Science major who aspires to be in a fraternity. His older sister, Casey (the show's center and soon-to-be-president of Zeta Beta Zeta, the most prestigious sorority on campus), isn't exactly supportive of his plans. In fact, none of her friends even knew she had a brother until he set foot on the college grounds! On top of dealing with the fact that her dorky younger brother has been forced back into her life, Casey's boyfriend Evan Chambers (soon-to-be-president of THE fraternity on campus, Omega Chi) is cheating on her with a new ZBZ pledge (Rebecca Logan), diabolical ZBZ president Frannie is pressuring her to stay with him, and she still has feelings for her slacker ex-boyfriend Cappie (president of the party house on campus, Kappa Tau). These characters are joined by Calvin Owens (an athletic, intelligent friend of Rusty's who happens to be gay), Dale Kettlewell (Rusty's die-hard Christian and "possibly racist" roommate and best friend), and Ashleigh (Casey's quirky best friend and confidante).

Throughout Greek's two seasons (or four chapters) viewers are often reminded that college life is not black and white, but "in shades of gray from here on out." Every character makes their fair share of mistakes, but every one of them has redeemable qualities. Casey and Cappie have a complicated, but beautiful, relationship throughout the series. Rusty, Dale, and Calvin's friendship is not always perfect, but they manage to survive every obstacle that is thrown at them. Even Frannie, Rebecca, and Evan (the show's "villains") are shown as human every once in a while.

Greek shows college students at their best, worst, and in-between. It is a show that reveals college as what it truly is: a four-year adventure where one's morals, beliefs, and willpower are tested, compromised, and sometimes even changed.

Greek has at least one season left, if not more, before it ends. I cannot wait to see where the characters end up next. Greek is not your typical ABC family sitcom. If you want to tune in to a show that shows the truth behind human motivation, Greek is the show for you. i love this show. i hate when it goes to season finale because it feels like forever until the season starts again!! i have followed this show since its pilot then all the way threw from where rusty starts college and see's Casey his sister to now where he's dating Dana.. love this show cant wait until Monday night!! Also i am so glad that cappie and Casey finally got back together that was driving me crazy!!! As for Evan and rebecca i hope they get back together which it just feels like they will by the finale. i just looked it up about the main part of the cast and i am so SHOCKED that Casey Cartwright(Spencer Grammar)is Kelsey Grammar's daughter!!! that just surprises me so much and the other thing that's a huge SHOCKER is that she was born the same year as me and that she was born on my baby brother birth date with my year and i had been watching her the whole entire time and had no clue!! ...I cannot believe I was hooked on this show instantly, after seeing the first scene I was in it deep.

Anyway, first of all the guys are hot, Cappy, Evan, Calvin, Fischer, Cappy, Heath, Cappy etc.

Secondly, the girls are cute, sexy, smart and are not afraid of being called bitches. I like that. Which at the same time doesn't make them mean and greedy, just realistic.

Third the relationships are so great, especially Casey and Cappy. Lately every show turns very away from it's original path and people end up with someone who wasn't even in the first season. Cappy and Casey's relationship is true love, a kind that lasts. They loved each other throughout the years and it didn't end when a guest star appeared.

In todays world maybe it's kind of unbelievable for two people to love each other for a long time but it happens. And people define each other in college so I knew exactly who I wanted to be with in college. Just like Casey and Cappy.

I HOPE THERE ARE MANY MORE SEASONS OF THIS SHOW AND I HOPE WE CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASEY AND CAPPY NOW THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY STAY TOGETHER, at Thanksgiving... Love this show I am so excited that Greek is back! This season looks really eventful. Im glad that Casey is trying to get serious about school but is still involved in the sorority. Its really funny that she wants to go into politics & that they're highlighting her 'scheming talent.' I loved Calvin's new haircut! It makes him look more mature. They should shave Cappy's head, as well. All the guys are hot but Calvin is definitely the hottest! I cant wait to see more of him! I'm especially interested in what happens between Calvin, Adam, & Rusty! I also love Rebecca. She's really pretty. I actually think that Rebecca & Calvin should hook up. go for it, Calvin! Join my team! As someone who was in a Pan-Hellenic sorority, I wasn't sure what to expect when I tuned into this show. After seeing so many over dramatizations in "made for TV movies" and the craziness of the reality shows, I was curious to see if Greek would be able to show the true College and Greek life experience.

I was very pleasantly surprised at how the show was able to give the viewer the satisfaction of identifying the ever-familiar characters of this genre, but it was also able to add depth to the characters. Greek life isn't just about parties and petty conflict. Although those things happen within Greek Life, they also happen in any other social or professional circle throughout a person's life. To characterize it as some exclusive experience to those in a Greek Organization would be false. Most of the story lines and situations taking place in Greek can and do take place everywhere, in every circle of friends, on sports teams, in real life. But I've watched both episodes and my "little sister" whom I'm still very close to and I have spent both episodes laughing and being reminded of how they've truly captured the spirit of our college years and experiences.

I liked how the second episode showed how the characters struggle with the other facets of their lives; school, relationships, goals, etc. Cappie telling Rusty that school comes first and going to your brothers for help, that was very true to life. You can't stay in an Organization if you have bad grades. The way Rusty got his assignment to his professor was far fetched, but it was entertaining. Even the dynamic between Casey and Rusty; It happens, you grow up and whatever your relationship with your sibling(s) was, it changes so you must adjust.

The bottom line: Greek is a great show, great entertainment value, and enough "real life" in there to be believable and definitely worth the viewers time. This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be genius.

And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been dethroned! This is a decent effort for a B-Movie Martial Arts actioner. Ian Jacklin, a former North American cruiser weight Kickboxing champion, is the lead and acquits himself well in the action scenes. The muscular Matthias Hues gets a chance to add more to his Martial Arts bad guy persona in this film than in all of his many others and if you are a fan of The Teutonic Titan, rent this movie now!

Renee Griffin is also noteworthy as the romantic interest in this film. She starts off with attitude but soon warms up to the hero and they make "The beast with two backs" in a very stylish fashion.

The fight scenes are good in the American tradition (NO Hong Kong acrobatics here!) with added realism from having Benny "The Jet" Urquidez playing himself as John Larson's (Jacklin) trainer.

All in all this film seems to have more sub plots than most in its genre so you get MORE of a story. Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s... Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator! Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre, thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its kickboxer cast.

The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A. docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches. "Why should things change?" says John, " If you need me, i'll be there." Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing buddy.

Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed. Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that!

It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman' roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on much..

On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy, here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty entertaining kickboxing movie. One of my favorite movies. I like horses, I like happy endings, and I like Walter Matthau. I miss him and am glad to have a great film like this to remind me why he was so wonderful. Watch it with your kids (or your horse).

The story of an old hard boot horse trainer with kids, and down on his luck. If you have ever had or appreciated horse racing you will appreciate the rags to riches storyline. It may be a little below "Seabiscuit", but not a lot. The story is the same one, except it is the quarter horse version. Well acted, correct racing terms and equipment, and nice racing scenes. Don't take my word for it, get it and make up your own mind. A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and it's a "little man gets his chance" movie, and it's a "how far would you go?" movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse who is a top racing prospect. "had nothing but a filling station and a good horse." The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start. Walter Matthau can always improve a mediocre film, and this movie proves it. He turns in a very realistic performance as a small-time horse trainer and single father, not sugar-coating either role.

He can be, by turns, soft-hearted and doting, then iron-handed to his boys, and we can see the same dichotomy in his approach to horse training (we see that he doesn't want his young prospect racing horse overworked and hurt in small-time races, but he seems to be willing to risk the horse's life when he gets into the big time).

This is just one of Matthau's wonderful performances, and one that I highly recommend. A wonderful family movie & a beautiful horse movie. 75+ %entertainment. Casey, Buddy, Kelly Marsh are very interesting and lovable characters. The horses are real beauties.

Has the horse racing as a backdrop for showing how luck is sometimes nothing but some good commonsense. Shows how kids can do stupid things for stupid reasons. Shows how adults can do stupid things for selfish reasons. The very realistically portrayed characters transform the unrealistic theme of the film into something everyone can relate to.

Andrew Rubin puts in a wonderful performance as Buddy,the sensible elder brother. Somewhat reminded me of Aidan Quinn(eyes, speech delivery, facial appearance).

Casey makes you fall in love with the character because of the earnestness. Sarah Blue is also nicely portrayed by Alexis Smith. Lloyd Bourdelle, the father, is played by Walter Matthau and he IS the character.

Though there is room for improvement in the movie, its a very enjoyable, feel-good movie. This is a great family film dealing with down to earth people who enjoy their local interests dealing mainly with horse racing. Lloyd Bourdelle, (Walter Matthau) is a farmer who also raises quarter horses and has a young son named Casey Bourdelle, who loves horses. Lloyd is able to raise a full grown horse who he calls "Casey's Shadow" after his son and this horse breaks all speed records and is a possible winner of a million dollar race. Sarah Blue, ( Alexis Smith) becomes interested in this horse and offers to buy the horse for $500,00 dollars, however, this horse receives serious injuries to his legs and Lloyd receives a serious set-back which upsets the entire family. Walter Matthau gave an outstanding performance and this is a great film to view and enjoy. I saw this on the Accent Underground release with the short films. I found the film at first boring and old fashioned and switched it off after the first hour - I was a little drunk and tired.

I went to bed, and no kidding I had a nightmare about this film within half and hour of falling asleep. I couldn't stop thinking about why, so I got up, switched the TV back on, loaded the DVD and saw the rest of the movie.

Well done Alex Frayne sir, you've managed to implant your film into this old, cynical movie goers head, and that takes doing. So 10 out of 10 to you.

I can't say I 'love' this film of yours, but it has made a lasting impact despite its flaws and low budget etc. Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure.

In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.

It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne. The most vivid portrait of small-town oddity I've seen in a long time -and I'm not just talking about Australian films. This piece of work seems to have been made "under the radar" and really, it's an entirely fascinating piece of work, that has a worldliness mostly unseen in recent Aust. film making.

At times it is rather slow and strange - it seems to meander hither and thither not really sure if it's a thriller or a 'head-movie'. But the stunning aspect of the film by Alex Frayne is its iron fisted, ruthless direction. It never wavers, it is highly controlled, precise and absolutely self-assured. The cinematography is some of the most artful, beautiful and lyrical I've seen. The sound is all psychological, the music builds the tension.

By the third act, the story is ramped up and episodes collide and converge - don't attempt to piece together the puzzle of the last 20 minutes, it's a bit of an impost - but by that time the film has you a bit of a trance, a sort of hypnosis, and you've been sold a riddle - that has no real answer. We see a man move from city to "out-back" and change dramatically - his family asks questions, but he goes mad.

Strange, brilliant film for screening here in Israel. Wonderful locations, great actors, a film which masquerades as a "thriller" but which is more a case-study of madness in the lead man.

The film was way above the other films screened as part of the AICE festival here in Israel. Best of luck to the team who arrived at this film. It's a Grand Guignol, a little masterpiece of noir.

My only criticism which prevents a "10" is that the sound and the music is overpowering at times. It tends to get in the way of the images, which speak for themselves. John and his wife Emily, accompanied by their child Edward venture from the comfortable environs of suburbia to the village where the husband spent some of his childhood. There has been a death in the family and John must begin proceedings to take control of an old ramshackle cottage, situated by the seaside and once inhabited by an old man who has apparently committed suicide.

Sceptical about the circumstances of the death, John divorces himself from his family and from reality, puts his own life in peril, and puts on the clothes of the old man who is now dead.

The film now changes - nothing is what it seems - the people of his past appear, in full Gothic/hillbilly glory - his wife worries about his mental state - and his son disappears into the reeds.

John finds that the old man didn't commit suicide, that his death is far more mysterious and strange. In a spine chilling finale, we learn that the events of the film actually never happened and that the entire narrative was imagined by the little boy, Edward, who is struggling to come to terms with his parents' divorce proceedings.

Modern Love is a macabre piece of high art cinema, a puzzling and perverse piece of pretentiousness, full of vague suggestion and unexplored red-herrings. It is humourless and seemingly unconcerned with current Indie trends which both validates its creators, but also renders it passé.

But the weaknesses of this Australian film are fully outweighed by its sheer muscular cinematic vision, its bloody-minded and uncompromising precision and its oddball Euro horror. The bastardry of script norms and lack of slick dialogue pales into insignificance against a backdrop of noir and a lead performance that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

One of the most aggressively weird Australian films in years. This film really used its locations well with some amazing shots, dark and disturbing the film moves very slowly, but constantly keeps you watching. Modern Love worked well in the Gold Coast Film Fantastic program this year offering audiences a glimpse at an Australian Cinema that is usually neglected. Most importantly it is refreshing to see Australian cinema not taking on the cliché Aussie characters and story lines we have seen done to death over the years. This film would compliment any festival and will open debate after its screenings. The performances and characters are well developed, and the cinematography is fantastic. An interesting exploration into family relationships, and environments. I caught this movie at the Glenwood Cinemas at the weekend as part of the Kansas International Film Festival, which, as usual has provided a thoughtful and eclectic sample of world cinema.

I have been keen on Australian Film for a number of years, so was pleased to learn that this film was included, and I was certainly not disappointed.

Superbly shot, firmly directed, it's an eerie tale of one man and his journey to the heart of darkness, as it were. It reminded me a tad of Lynch's Wild at Heart, it has that strange madness in it, but I was glued to the movie for other reasons - namely that it presents a portrait of Australia which is..well, very believable.

I have vacationed to the Land Down Under a number of times, once in the 1980's and again about 7 years ago with my wife.

I don't wish to go to great lengths explaining my vacations, but the director Frayne appears to have a grasp on much that I find so odd and eccentric about Australia, a country that is responsible for the extremities of, say, Nick Cave on one hand, and Steve Irwin (the 'Crocodile Hunter') on the other.

One incy wincy whinge - - I would have preferred even more of the 'unknown' Australia. Much more in fact. But I also realise that there's only 1 and a half hours to do it all in... 'Sigh.'

Overall though, this movie is very, very accomplished. OK. A warning for anyone out there who is a parent or guardian. Be careful about who you see this film with - ie - DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS FILM. I'll explain why.

1 - the title is misleading and the film has nothing to do with romance - I assume this was fully intentional on the producers behalf, but is annoying 2 - the film itself is really very very disturbing. I have some problems - first is the fact that the film is neither violent or sexual and therefore is not a 'horror film'. But it IS a very disturbing film ,and involves a child and his parents, and a small town.

OK, it boils down to this. The film is not suitable for minors, because it contains sequences and images that are unsettling and would be confusing to a child. Is has a bizarre quality to it, and its ONLY because it has a child in it that makes me feel its unsuitable. As a parent myself I feel strongly enough to want to tell people because I read only the other day that it is having a release in theatres.

I hope im not offending the film makers by saying this, but I think its my right, because its getting a release, and has an M rating only.(because its not violent or sexual). Just weird and unsettling but pretty good in and of itself. UK-born Australian helmer Alex Frayne calls for attention with his strange, necessitating a meticulous read, visually stunning Modern Love (2006). Following the steps of a man incapable of controlling a drastic personality change spurred by the death of a close relative pic offers a fascinating examination of human psychology. Distributed by Accent Film-Australia.

John (Mark Constable), his wife Emily (Victoria Hill), and their son Edward (William Traeger) arrive in a small Southern town to take care of his deceased uncle's (Don Barker) property. While Emily and Edward check into a local hotel John begins to question the locals about Uncle Tom's death - some say that he committed suicide, some are unwilling to talk. Puzzled John comes up with a theory of his own - Uncle Tom is alive and well, hiding in the nearby bushes.

If not for the occasional lines of dialog used to ease its heavy atmospheric tone Modern Love could have been easily mistaken for a Sokurov film. Shot with a 16mm camera its washed-out color scheme is strangely evocative of the Russian director's reflective forays into human agony. Perhaps it isn't a coincidence that it was at the Moscow International Film Festival where Modern Love had its premiere.

Looking under the surface of this unique collage of intoxicating visuals however reveals a slightly different picture - while Sokurov's films tend to remain painfully intimate, to a point where they intentionally detach the main protagonists from the surrounding environment by blurring everything into a large splash of the director's preferred yellow, Modern Love very much feeds off the Australian countryside. John's gradual psychological transformation is dependent on it and the more the story progresses the more it becomes obvious that nature was an integral part of Frayne's vision.

In Sokurov's The Second Circle a young man returns to the Russian countryside to bury his deceased father. In the shack where the old man once lived everything is covered with dust. He gathers the few old clothes scattered around and places the body of his father in a coffin. Then he bids goodbye and buries it. The rest of the film is a prolonged reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system, the loneliness and dissatisfaction many were left dealing with.

In Modern Love, somewhat ironically, love is nowhere to be seen. On the contrary it is pain, loneliness, and dissatisfaction with "modernity" that suddenly invade John's life. Unlike The Second Circle however here the main protagonist has the opportunity to re-embrace his modern life. His wife and son await him, yet, he walks away. Slowly but surely the present begins to disintegrate under the weight of a somewhat confusing past.

I doubt Frayne intended for Modern Love to be so strikingly similar to what Sokurov did in The Second Circle. Yet, the pacing, and in particular the puzzling framing, are precisely what transforms this film into a near meditative experience - a difficult and enormously brittle approach to deconstructing human psychology the two directors have mastered to perfection.

Mark Constable delivers a top-notch performance as John adding even greater depth to his highly challenging character. His facial expressions are outstanding. Both Victoria Hill and William Traeger match perfectly with their performances pic's tense visual style. Received this DVD from the ACCENT range which is a label which specializes in art-house flics, they released Irreversible and a range of Bergman's opus.

The thing that struck me about Alex Frayne's strangely titled film MODERN LOVE is that it is an impeccable film that breathes with perfection and vision, a film that takes us into the mind of Mr Joe Average, replete with voices in the head, visions, and madness. It's set in rural redneck Australia, the film doesn't trivialise or praise the folks like so many Australian movies. ie our films are full of "loveable rogues" or people with "hearts of gold" etc etc etc.

Not in this film. The spirit of Stanley Kubrick looms large here, it's not flawless, but has a mesmerising attention to details, a romantic streak and a mood that is bracing if not embraceable.

Minor quibbles...the transfer looks faulty - front credits were sliced, they don't fit in frame.

Also, one of the short films is corrupted, it stops half way. I saw this film at the 3rd Adelaide International Film Festival at the Palace cinemas, and was totally switched onto it in the opening five minutes. Thanks goodness for a film that ignores all the rubbish we often see in Australian films that seem to revolve around a)race b)gender and c) class, in favour of er...dare I say....jolly good cinema. The producer, a shy, slightly eccentric chap called Alex Frayne introduced his film, made with a bunch of his mates near the town he spent much of his childhood. Apparently he's spent much of the last year traveling the world with the film, mostly in Europe. The world the film creates is both brilliant and arty, not least because of strange and disconcerting editing style, the Gothic characters, and the surreal sense of time and place that draws viewers into its nightmarish realm.

The producer returned for the Q + A after-wards. Someone asked him what his inspiration was - he replied "South Australia." Hear hear! Another asked him what a 'day in the life of alex' entailed. He replied that he drives an old Ute, that he has breakfast at the same table at the same restaurant that he's jolly well eaten at for the past 8 years! and that he plays piano which helps him to think. He doesn't drink booze and plays cricket once a week. Then the Q and A session ended abruptly because of the next film screening - so my thoughts are that for the next festival, they need to extend the after film sessions. I saw this at the BendFilm Festival Friday amid an unsettled crowd of people, not helped by a poor decision by the planners of the event, who chose a totally inappropriate short film to precede the movie. And it really threw the audience when Modern Love came up after a light, whimsical short (name I forget).

People!!! It was really silly to mix this short with Modern Love - which is a serious drama movie. A film film.

So the audience gets the teaser which is a comedy and then...Modern Love. Hmmmm. Modern Love, despite my reservations (strange ending, a little too tangential)needed a short film that was commensurate with it's oddball strangeness, so my advice to the programmers for next year is to take more care planning the show.

The folks watching Modern Love really just didn't know what had hit them, - they were led up the path and this is not their fault.

Modern Love has some superb performances which play well against the tangential meanderings of the film - a film that its maker seems to have 'wondered out loud' rather than executed in the normal way a film is scripted and shot.

Too bad the audience was misinformed. Wrong session placement, wrong short film, wrong approach by the well intentioned programmers, who, despite good efforts, need to see a lot more films and travel to some other festivals. Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO. Nothing like it.

I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I think the basic approach of the film maker is not "surrealist" per se. therefore its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some scenes bearing the hallmark of "wierd" not surreal.

Secondly, I think the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company wants to push.

As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age. I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.

I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.

Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.

JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue.

This film arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away Moscow/Karlovy Vary interface.

Straight away I thought "this film is not for us" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because, like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'.

This film has a dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle/class angst - just a dude married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it stands up without regard to the "god-forsaken" country that it comes out of. Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do with "Modern Love"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will prob have a lot of fun with this one./ I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go onto something else.

This observation has generational implications, as it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful childhood it ultimately enjoyed.

The Generation X attitude to love is, of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received from this epiphany. This was a nice film. It had a interesting storyline, that was executed pretty well in the later part of the film. The storyline kinda reminded me of The City of God. But this one is done in a more nicer way in comparison. It had what i really loved:a tinge of surrealism. Some pretty interesting cinematography (thru the wooden camera) I'm not sure if it was culturally correct, but it definitely widens you're view of south Africa. The actors were good (for 1st timers, most of them anyway), i especially liked Estelle character, which made this movie pretty enjoyable. What is interesting though, was that it makes you ask about your own life. Are you really doing what you really love? Or do you consent to the norm, the conventionalism around you. Definitely worth a watch. This was a random rental at the video store. But I was impressed from the start. Wooden Camera is a gem of a 2nd feature by an engaging director. The film captures deeply insightful moments and several often times frustrating and complicated social interactions young interracial friends would experience in a modern post apartheid South Africa. The young actors are quite good and well directed in their approach to the core material and the dialogue is natural and interesting. The film is very rich in visuals providing a frame by frame study of deeper understanding and fulfillment without falling into iconic stereotypes and clichés. The musical score to the film adds body to the film without being obtrusive. After watching it the second time, I tracked down the DVD on amazon and have been happy ever since. Yes, maybe there are parts of this film which require suspending belief a little but that doesn't take anything away from the film's charm and wonder. It was shown as part of our town's youth film festival and was the organising committee's favourite. Which is not surprising. The subject matter - coming together in a race-torn, though post-apartheid South Africa is highly topical and the treatment of the theme is inspirational. Of course, as the previous comment mentions the film does have its shortcomings, but the realism of the setting and the way the director treats his subject matter belies these shortcomings. I saw this with my wife and we returned the same evening with the children. A film to watch, meditate, discuss and act upon. I enjoyed very much the movie wooden camera. I think it's a little bit influenced by the Brazilian movie "City of God", but maybe this parallelism between the two tracks possible to follow (crime and art) in social neighborhood are a reality.

I think the films made by Madiba are really beautiful. I don't think it's unreal that he shoot such good films, because there's a lot of artists that don't have any type of education and can be really genius.

I enjoyed very much the soundtrack. It's adjusted to the pictures.

See the movie...it's good to show how can be a life in a social neighborhood. This film is amazing, while not perfect by Hollywood standards it encompasses a gentle look at the wide divide between rich and poor, black and white that is true in many parts of the world. It handles the audience with kid gloves while delivering a truthful look at societal problems. The children are beautiful, take special note of the young man who plays Sipho. The friendships that develop are universally true, anyone can relate to the choices these young people have to make. The influence of adults is interesting - it appears to be taken from real life experiences as there are snip-its of conversations and interactions-much like a child would remember experiencing. I would highly recommend this film. One should not be too critical about the director's second feature.

I really like the camera work of Madiba. As Mr. Shawn pointed out, he had a unique way of looking at things.

However, howcome a 14 year old boy shoot such beautiful images? Remember he has not got any education of any sort. I don't think english is the common tongue in Cape Town ghettos. Worse still, Madiba looks even smaller than his supposed age of 14.

Any way, if you overcome above-mentioned peculiarities, you can watch the film and still enjoy it because of nice camera work. It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen. Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film. Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the intricacies and philosophy of the work.

Overall one of the most brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed. I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite "Company" (which was a very good effort) and "Vaastav" (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.

When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself "Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the "encounter" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.

Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.

But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.

The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster – Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.

Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.

Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea – it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.

Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years. Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.

"Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).

But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.

Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.

The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick. I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila. No music. No stupid masala. A reasonably realistic portrayal of the police system in India and based on a real "encounter" specialist in India, Daya Nayak. That is Ab Tak 56 (56 symbolises how many criminals the lead "Sadhu Agashe" has killed" - well you already know that bit)Brilliance exudes Nan Patekar in the role as a relaxed and calculating Indian cop. THe one liners are just hilarious. The plot though slightly predictable on review, is intriguing all the same. Another one of the films from Ram Gopal Vermas The Factory. Movies which are either decent or really good, Ab Tak CHappan meanders close to very good. But yet remains one of the Top 70 films released from India, commercial and artsy included.

What is great is the story telling is relaxed and showcases finally (in an Indian flick) how the police network works. The cast is really damn good but seriously the one liners are funny as hell (though i dont know if the subtitled version will appear as funny) The producers are trying for a Cannes release, which is interesting. Made by debut director Shamit Aman (i think thats his name).

Again 55 y.o. Nana Patekar is brilliant away from his silly shouting roles of the past, just shows what a good director can do with a good actor. Really good stuff. If you are interested in Indian movies and are disgusted by the nonsense some of our guys dish out then this is definitely a relief.

Again Patekar is the guy who happilly carries the movie on his shoulders and epitomises the style of the movie- relaxed, funny, intelligent and calculating. Good dialoges, good acting, nice direction all in all Great stuff. Recommendations: Gangaajal, Ram Gopal Verma's Company (both Indian flicks) Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on. I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for the refreshingly "non-Yash Raj" Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there. This is by far one of the best films that India has ever made. Following are the plus points of the film...

Wonderful direction, cinematography and editing, the editing is very smooth and the timing of changeovers is excellent.

Even though the film shows the life of Mumbai Policemen and their hardships, it never gets boring or sympathetic.

Mind-blowing acting by lead actor Nana Patekar. One can surely hope that he gets nominated for the Best actor for the academy awards.

Controlled violence. The violence is controlled and the film doesn't become a bloody mess.

No stupid songs as in usual Indian movies.

A really realistic, sensible movie by Ramgopal Verma . No stupidity like songs as in other Hindi movies. Class acting by Nana Patekar.

Much similarities to real 'encounters'. Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai, India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics.

I was surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making. Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.

It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.

The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.

For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.

Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).

All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.

There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.

But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.

Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.

The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.

The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.

That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already". It would seem a given, but if a viewer forgets context, he risks missing an opportunity of enjoyment.

It is easy to carp, from the lofty heights of the 21st century, at styles and prices of the Great Depression years; but the intelligent viewer will remember that magic word, "context," and better understand and, thus, enjoy "Accidents Will Happen."

Among the actors, Ronald Reagan again showed himself a good-looking and personable guy, and again gave a right-on performance.

A reviewer earlier said Gloria Blondell played the nasty wife, but that was wrong: She plays the concession-stand clerk who has a crush on the Reagan character, Eric Gregg, but keeps hands off as long as he is married.

Gloria was cute. Not as lushly beautiful as her sister, Joan, she was still attractive and a good actress. Perhaps her looking somewhat like Joan was a detriment to having a more successful career, and it is certainly our loss.

Sheila Bromley was Mrs. Gregg, and played it well.

Other actors included Dick Purcell, and the great Earl Dwire got to play something besides a villainous cowboy.

Again, most of the players never attained the "household-name" status many of them deserved, but they by gosh gave good performances here, in a story that is still current. Over the years I seemed to have missed this picture of Ronald Reagan, and due to his recent passing to the big screen in heaven, it was shown on TV recently. This is a great low budget B&W film of the late 1930's, however, it is very interesting to see how criminals used their talents to steal money from insurance companies with false claims during this particular time frame. I was surprised at the role Ronald Reagan,(Eric Gregg),"The Killer's,'64, played in this picture, along with a great veteran film star, Sheila Bromley,(Nona Gregg),"Nightmare Circus",'73, who was a great supporting actor. It was a great film that showed Ronald Reagan as a very young man reaching for the stars in his career in Hollywood at the time. God Bless HIM ! I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.

Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.

It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is "flying wine maker" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.

If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.

(8/10) I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.

The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.

Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' "The Sorrow and the Pity", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!

Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world. Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art.

As with any documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer, the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product sold.

If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). "It is all about image" against content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way. Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is easier.

There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across the ocean agree that a few people are "levelling" the taste of wines to maximize the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the "grey masses". Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the ocean.

As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste; difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice - and not just vacuum-packed "more of the same". Standardization sells easily and a lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one.

On this, I am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy "sante". I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed. First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect.

The themes raised in the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the wine industry as they really are, avoiding a cliché "Good against Evil". This could be the main difference between "Mondovino" and Michael Moore's documentaries; Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers.

I watched this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities. A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray. Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell.

The movie shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big, personal and global, character and formula.

The real stars of the people for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and themselves.

It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and editing, but it's worth it.

Highly recommended. It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.

Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.

However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10 mondovino is a moving and rewarding documentary. in the world of wine there is a huge different between the big winery and the small one. it's not just about size of of your vineyard but also the amount of money and power you have. if you have enough money to place ads in the wine spectator and hire a so called "wine except" then it doesn't matter the size of your estate. also in business world of today wine often has to mass marketed and suited to people's taste. what is means many times wine filtered of it's origin. mondovino shows the commercial side of wine in that of mega producer Robert mondavi, and Michael Rolland the wine expert who shapes wine to the taste of today's critics like Robert parker who is also in the film. now these men are not evil or wrong for they have done a great deal of good for wine. but they have power on a grand scale. as we all know power corrupts. mondovino also shows small wine makers such as Aime Guilbert of the languedoc and Hubert de montille of volnay in burgundy. these wine makers are not starving wine makers but they know like all great wine makers that it's about where the grapes are from. the best example of this is explained not by a wine maker but by a Haitian man working for Neal rosenthal the wine importer. the area the grapes are grown the terroir that matters, that a guiding hand that knows this makes important real wine. Our reviewer from Toronto told you what you need to know about this film (except note that it needs editing-the hand held technique gets really old, really fast). I saw this film last night in Menerbes, France-we are in the Luberon Valley, which is covered with vineyards and of course wine makers. They were all there in the Salle de Polyvalente for the showing-crammed in. Polite, patient, genial. Although my French is testy, I got the gist of the film but noted that the audience loved the "old" terror growers interviewed-esp. the one from a communist village in Languedoc. He got a lot of laughs. This is unusual in France-laughing aloud. There is no question which side of the terror-globalization war they are on! SM First, I loved the documentary. It represents a new school history/theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues.

I'll get the camera and dogs out of the way first. I hate the Blair Witch quality of the camera, but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. In fact, I agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access.

Dogs: Warning, I have a doctoral degree in literature which I do NOT use as a profession, so some of my training may seep in: The dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human's great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. The dogs might reflect their owners, as one reviewer suggested. But they also serve as a stand-in for the workers we see in the film. While this might hint at the Marxist problem raised by one reviewer, I think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. No Mondovi's in Italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (Yikes! I am a Marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway!) It is a remarkable bait and switch. The dogs are family, the workers are family. But, in the end, the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). While you may disagree with the politics, the artistry of the analogy, coupled with the more overt politics of the film, are wonderful.

Had only Faulkner (I am from Alabama) had the power of film beyond the Hollywood market, what interesting tales would have been told. This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the dialog.

This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a DVD, or a VHS tape.

"Christmas in Connecticut" was directed with great panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton.

The best thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well as "Lady Eve", Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination.

There are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley, the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the two principals.

S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the Sloan perfect Connecticut farm.

In reading other comments in this forum, it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what would be accomplished in 'coloring' them?

This film should be a requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and heart an maybe you'd like to see "Christmas in Connecticut" every year. I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie.

The fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas events unfold.

Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to watch.

It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but leaves you feeling glad that you saw it.

I can't wait for it to become available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy it. From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.

Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.

The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.

At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys Taber,whose column "Butternut Wisdom" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today.

Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is good enough Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.

Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.

S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper. It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years later, I'd say it was a remake.

Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart.

Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit with the public.

Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner.

So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through.

Christmas in Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the Hungarian restaurant owner/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them. Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way.

Most people remember this film as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to burlesque his own image and he made the most of it.

In a biography of Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set and the cast responded accordingly.

Now if only someone had been filming those numbers. Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat! But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended! It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.

The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect "Lishka" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.

If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.

A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.

Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere! Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr. Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander Yardley in "Christmas In Connecticut" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap tycoon in "The Hucksters" is a close second). Despite some problems with the screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season.

Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in "American Housekeeping" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates. Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him.

As the film begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the "actual" home of Stanwyck and himself and "their baby".

Of course, aside from putting off Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough for the season to be worth watching in December. This film is one of my favorite Christmas classics. Sure, it's fluff, it's not "relevant", but when did movies being simply entertaining and fun become a bad thing? No, this movie is definitely "A Good Thing" as Martha Stewart(appropriately)would say! Barbara Stanwyck is so appealing in this film and Dennis Morgan perfectly compliments her. Both of them have charm and warmth to spare. They are assisted by a crew of those incredible character actors who seem to have disappeared since the 40's and 50's--Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z.(Cuddles)Sakall, Reginald Gardiner and Una O'Connor among them. Where are characters like this today? Not one role could have been better cast. Bette Davis thankfully refused this role as beneath her and she was right to refuse it. She would have attempted to steam roll over everyone and everything around her and completely destroyed the film. Stanwyck was a strong actress, but had the wisdom to play this lightly. She has seldom been more appealing and is pitch perfect. Morgan is the essence of the nice guy. Because his part is the least splashy there is a tendency to overlook his skill. Just the fact that he could hold his own surrounded by such distinct character actors is an accomplishment in itself, but he too is absolutely perfect as Jefferson Jones. Skip the ill advised(and pointless)1992 remake and watch this bright, sparkling holiday gift! Personally, I don't like a lot of b/w movies, but there's something magical about this movie.

The movie starts with Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck). "Liz" writes a magazine column about how she's the 'Martha Stewart' of Connecticut. Of course, she's lying. This becomes a problem when her publisher, Mr Yardley, asks her to play host to a NAVY sailor over Christmas. In addition, Mr Yardley, who's going to be alone for Christmas, invites himself up to the farm for the Christmas party. From there, things just go crazy.

Since the movie is set on a New England farm, the movie has a warm holiday feeling. Plus, the characters are hilarious. Mr. Yardley is always shouting orders, and Liz's friend Felix is always yelling 'Catastroph!' when things go wrong. Finally, the movie ends the way a Christmas movie should end; a jolly fat man laughs and shouts "What a Christmas!"

In short, no matter what age you are, you will love this movie. Barbara Stanwyck is a sheer delight in this wartime comedy, about a sailor invited to spend Christmas with a popular magazine writer's family, at her farm in Connecticut. The problem is she has no husband, baby, or farm, as she writes about in her column, and she can't even cook; her wonderful recipes being provided for her by her good friend " Uncle" Felix, owner of a Hungarian restaurant in New York City.

Things get even more complicated when her strict publisher boss invites himself along for Christmas. A scheme is hastily planned, with her stuffy fiancé providing an actual Connecticut farm, neighbors providing a borrowed baby, and a quick wedding planned when the publisher isn't looking. But when the handsome young sailor arrives on Christmas Eve, romantic complications ensue, as the supposedly married author falls like a ton of bricks for the nice guy Navy man and vice versa.

This is a charming, warm film that deftly balances humor with sentiment and is a wonderful showcase for Barbara Stanwyck to display her considerable comedic talent, aided by such marvelous character actors as Sydney Greenstreet, Una O'Connor, S.Z.Sakall, and many others. A Christmas night dance at the town hall is a toe tapping delight to see, and the unexpectedly sweet and feminine side of Stanwyck is a wonderful surprise, for viewers who have seen her mainly as tough, bitchy women in femme fatale roles. Truly a wonderful film that has stood the test of time. I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed "Cuddles" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime! This is a wonderful old fashioned Christmas favorite, which I try to catch on TV every year if I can. It revolves around a Martha Stewart like journalist named Elizabeth Lane, charmingly portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck. However, in contrast to Martha, this lady is a phony with no domestic skills whatsoever. The other cast members effectively complete the story, and include Dennis Morgan (Jefferson Jones), Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), and Sydney Greenstreet (Alexander Yardley).

Elizabeth Lane is a journalist who writes food articles, portraying herself as a happily married country homemaker with children. In reality, she is a single woman living in a New York City apartment and cannot boil an egg. Her recipes are borrowed from her Hungarian chef friend, Felix. Elizabeth gets away with her deception until the publisher of her magazine, Alexander Yardley, decides he wants a nice old fashioned country Christmas, and invites himself to visit her, bringing with him a returning war hero, Jefferson Jones, a sailor who had been shipwrecked. Yardley demands total honesty of his employees. To get out of her predicament and save her deception based career, Elizabeth borrows the Connecticut country home of her longtime architect suitor, John Sloan, a dull, fussy chap who has long sought marriage. She also borrows a neighbour's baby (actually, several) to pass off as her own and her 'husband' Sloan's.

Of course this scenario makes for much merriment. It's a screwball comedy and a charming romance, with the added attraction of a Christmas atmosphere. Whenever I think of this movie, I picture the snowflakes falling, the tree beautifully decorated, the fire roaring in the hearth, the turkey roasting, and Christmas cookies baking.

Why did Hollywood feel compelled to do a remake? I understand there is a 1992 version, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and starring Dyan Cannon, Kris Kristofferson, and Tony Curtis. I have not seen this modern adaptation nor do I wish to. This old favorite is perfect just the way it is and a holiday 'must see' along with It's a Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, and of course all the versions of A Christmas Carol. Though it's a Christmas movie, "Christmas in Connecticut" could have been done any time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well, actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan.

This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, "Christmas in Connecticut" can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis, she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap, elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that, she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fiancé Reginald Gardner is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as the fake uncle/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a pancake before an audience.

I can imagine the impact this delightful film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the better times to come. I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it.

Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be.

This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list. A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a gem to be watched every Christmas. Stanwyck and Morgan are perfectly cast in what is, in many ways, a modern equivalent of Dickens' Christmas Carol in its sensibility. The success of the film depends on the casting of Sydney Greenstreet as the Alexander Yardley character. Yardley is the modern equivalent of Dickens' Scrooge in the way he exercizes control over his employees -- until the Christmas spirit overtakes him. The role is a 'walk in the park' for Greenstreet who had been one of the stage's great Falstaffs when he was part of the Lunts' company. Greenstreet had only entered films five years earlier when, at age 61, he was featured in what was to become a film classic, the first and best film John Huston ever directed: 'The Maltese Falcon'. 'Cuddles' Sakall was probably never better in his traditional role as the embodiment of middle European gemutlicheit. The attractive set used throughout most of the film is an eye-pleasing gem. "Christmas in Connecticut" is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas! Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to Elizabeth's "perfect farm" for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm, "perfect" or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John, happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage, though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: "Could you wait that long?" OUCH! In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's strangled pronunciation of his name ("Mr. Basternook"). "My name is FELIX!" It is amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by all involved. Don't miss this one! "Christmas In Connecticut" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at holiday time. I watch it every year.

Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly "uncle" restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine!

Dennis Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend Christmas in a "real" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too! This is a delightful, they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore kind of film. Well performed by everyone and peopled with interesting character actors. An intelligent, witty script acted with the right blend of broad comedy and understated humor. Holds up for repeated (annual?) viewings.

**WARNING** the re-make of this film with the same name, directed by Arnold Whatwashethinking, is an unbearable mess - painful to watch - without a scintilla of the charm and wit of the original. Add this little gem to your list of holiday regulars. It is

sweet, funny, and endearing This film reminds me very much of the later Rock Hudson film MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT--about a fishing writer who has NEVER fished and is forced into entering a fishing tournament. In this case, Barbara Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-like writer who can't cook and doesn't really have the perfect family she describes in her articles--in fact, she has no family at all. Well, like Rock, she is maneuvered into performing--in this case, creating a huge holiday dinner while vacationing in the countryside. Since there is no family, she takes home a veteran and a few friends and tried desperately NOT to "let the cat out of the bag" that she can't do any of the things she is known for doing. A cute little comedy and a welcome film to the annual holiday film lineup. A magazine columnist who writes about life on her farm house when in fact she lives in a NY apartment must come up with a plan when she learns that her publisher and a war hero will spend Christmas with her. After a slow start, it turns into an entertaining little screwball comedy, thanks to a fine cast. In a big departure from her previous role as a femme fatale in "Double Indemnity," Stanwyck displays a nice comedic flair. Morgan is smooth as the affable war hero while Greenstreet is well cast as the publisher. However, Sakall steals the film as a chef trying to master the English language while speaking with an almost incomprehensible European accent. I've discovered this movie accidentally and it was really a nice surprise. A Christmas Classic,it's also one of the fine comedies of the 40s. The story line is simple : Elisabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) makes out her living by writing culinary columns for a magazine. At Christmas time, her boss, Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet) asks her to invite a young weakened sailor in the Connecticut farm she write about. The only problem is : She hasn't got any farm and she can't cook. To get out of the jam, Elisabeth agrees to marry a wealthy friend (Reginald Gardiner,who has a farm) and flies for Connecticut with her wonderful cook Uncle Felix.

There's a fine direction by Peter Godfrey and the cast is really wonderful : Stanwyck has never been better as this witty and yet romantic woman. Greenstreet, Gardiner and Sakall make hilarious and human supporting characters. The only weak point is the leading man, Dennis Morgan. He starts well but as the movie goes on, becomes really a bore. One almost feels sorry for Elisabeht Lane to ends up with him rather than with Gary Cooper or David Niven who both would have been more suitable for the part. Anyway, this is a joyful Christmas time movie with a refreshing score and I advice it to everyone who likes to spend funny and sweet Holidays...in Connecticut. Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.

It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.

This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around. I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!! While it's not "perfect", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on. This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster, and my children grew up with it, too! "The baby swallowed the watch" was always my son's favorite line.

Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great songs, too.

I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the remake (blah). I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew. This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard to believe no one can make it available. Has anyone found a way to purchase copies of this series yet? I can see that a lot of people have inquired but I can't tell if any of them have been successful. It's hard to believe that a series this good cannot be viewed by people today, especially one based on real issues faced by real people during what were both tense and exciting times in our country. How can this be true and what can we do to change it? As an aside I agree with all the comments other writers have made about this series on this web site. This is an excellent story about events that everyone should be aware of and know something about today. Lots of us saw this series when we were in college or around that time anyway. Now we want to share it with our children ... but we can't? If that is true what would some good written materials be that would relay the same information? ...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see! I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received the following reply:

From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject: Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net

Dear Kate,

I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA, and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries 'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the need for a certificate).

I don't know which company is distributing it, but keep your eyes peeled!

Kind regards,

Emily +++++++++++++++++

hooray!

I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing this.

Kate Killebrew

kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply. If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in the US. You can also enter "Oppenheimer (1980)" on amazon.com, and find a box to check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released.

Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net

Here's the reply from the BBC:

Dear Kate

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Oppenheimer'.

I was interested to read that you would like a copy of this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the BBC:

Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane London W12 0TT

May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Elaine Hunter BBC Information ______________________________________

-----Original Message-----

{Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production "Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book/script by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't find it on video anywhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and, of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set. Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original "Roots." Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.

In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past.

The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.

The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me. I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies! I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been "American Masters", but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again. I, too, found "Oppenheimer" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10/10 is for the low-budget production values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my recollection.

The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on July 31st! It will be a Region 2/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1/NTSC set should be soon in the offing.

If you have a universal player in the US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK.

http://tinyurl.com/znyyq

Huzzah!! President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.

Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, "Oppenheimer", that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.

The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - "Star Wars") and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.

Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.

(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series "The Ascent of Man" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen".) 'Oppenheimer' with Sam Waterston in the title role and with David Suchet as Evard Teller is an example of the docudrama at its very finest. Well written, well acted by actors who bear a believable resemblance to their historical characters, highly informative, and very entertaining. The set designs and costumes capture the feel of the US during World War 2, and the plotting and dialog make the viewer feel as if he were really present at Los Alamos and caught up in the excitement of the Manhattan Project. The only downside is that this is a British production, and some of the actors lack skill in affecting a convincing American accent. (The skill of current day Australian & Irish actors taking on non-native dialects is amazing.) The storyline is fully consistent with Richard Rhodes' definitive history of the development of the atomic bomb. Sadly, the mini-series was shown only a couple of times on PBS at the beginning of the 1980s and then apparently vanished into oblivion.

'Oppenheimer' compares favorably to the more recent 'Fat Man & Little Boy' feature film with Paul Newman as Leslie Groves (the chronically overweight and rather homely General would be thoroughly flattered) and Dwight Schultz (alumnus of TV's 'A-Team') as Oppenheimer. As a mini-series, 'Oppenheimer' is around 4x as long as the Newman feature, but uses the all of the additional time completely to its advantage. Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for "Glory Enough for All", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was "Danger UXB". A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.

Pete Insanely well crafted mini-series.

I recall seeing most of it twice when shown on American Playhouse on PBS. Was heavily promoted at the time. I believe it might have been one of the very early mini-series showing on PBS outside of the Masterpiece Theater series.

The full length production was shown I believe only once during its first broadcast. Was 6-8 hours total. This length was edited down somewhat to 6 hours. Cut some interesting, but slow scenes.

I am very much hoping that the folks holding its current rights do follow through and restore a complete, not edited version to DVD. Not worth creating a VHS version at this point.

Would fit in very well in the mini-series or dramatic history genre. >>> Great News there is a BBC DVD release scheduled for 31st July 2006,UK - there is also a scheduled release in States - don't know the date - can't wait ! ! <<<<

>>>> below is my original comment <<<<<

I agree with all the other reviewers - it is simply staggering that one of the greatest TV dramas ever has never been released on DVD

The story line is gripping - the acting is outstanding and the character development is enthralling !

Over here in the UK we have quite a history of getting TV drama series and films out onto DVD through popular campaigns

It's very hard to see why the rights owners do not go into a DVD production ? I'm going to e:mail one of the leading players in this grass roots movement and see what happens. Who did the production ? was it BBC ? RW Like an earlier commentor, I saw it in 1980 and have never been able to shake the memory of the gripping story, splendid acting, and dramatic musical score. It certainly contains some of Sam Waterston's finest work. He and the writers depict Oppenheimer not simply as an unjustly victimized hero -- which he was -- but also as naive, fond of alcohol, and snobbish, a rounded portrait instead of a stereotype. Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC. There is a great danger when you watch a film that had had such a profound affect on you the first time around , that 20 years later , it wont hold the same magic as it did before. I must admit i wasnt expecting it to be as good as i remembered but a was pleasently suprised. P'tang Yang Kipperbang is still as fantastic as i remember it when i was a 12 year old .This film has a certain type of brilliance that not many films possess. It is engrossing , it is briliantly acted and best of all it makes me feel like a kid again and there isnt many things that can do that. John Albasiny and Abigail Cruttenden's rolls in this film are 1st class and i had forgotten how good they were until now. I urge any parent of teenagers to sit them down and watch this and see if it has the same affect on them as it did on me. P'TANG YANG KIPPERBANG EEHHH! 10 out of 10. Postwar England, the dawn of the "atomic age". Yet, the worries of a young schoolboy yearning to experience his first "kiss" cannot be derailed by something as inconsequential as THE BOMB. This was a delightful if not educational look at young love from the vantage point of an adolescent male and his world of the

1940's. Free of political correctness and preachy messages, this film exposes the viewer to the world that only the mind (and

hormones) of a young teenager can create. Wonderful subplots

maintain character interest ala "Gregory's Girl", and plenty

of well blocked shots help keep up the imagery of this era. This is a very good story for anyone, young or old, who has

ever been in love, or ever wanted to be. Does he ever get his wish? Watch it and see. An untidy man, known as Bill, lives in a small dreary flat, with a poster of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, and his typewriter for company. Only the man can't think of anything to write. He wanders around the streets following people, just to see where they go. Maybe this will give him some inspiration to write. He begins to follow a well dressed man holding a bag. He follows him for a few days. While in a cafe, the well dressed man sits down at a table on the opposite side of Bill, and inquires why Bill is following him. The well dressed man says his name is Cobb. Cobb then surprisingly informs Bill that he is a burglar, and even starts to take Bill with him into houses to steal things; although Cobb insists he doesn't go into other people's homes to just steal. He says he likes to let people know he has been there, and interrupted the things they take for granted. He puts knickers from another burglary into a man's trousers, for example.

The film is told in flashbacks at times too. The director used this technique in greater abundance in his recent feature Memento. Bill eventually decides to cut his hair and dress in a suit, on the advice of Cobb. He meets a Blonde lady in a club, who used to date the owner, a bald man, who is very dangerous, she says. We see a scene where a hammer is used by the bald man's hence men on a man's fingers in the Blonde lady's flat. These are some of the many pieces of the puzzle that the director shows us, and they will all fit into place when we arrive at the surprising conclusion. Given Christopher Nolan's string of successful films, it's a no brainer for me to want to check out his filmography watch his debut feature, which is shot in black and white back in England, running less than 70 minutes long, done with little budget, but containing all the hallmarks that has made him a master filmmaker and storyteller.

Though short, the film is no less gripping with its meandering plot that will leave you guessing, because the premise doesn't even scratch the surface of this tale, which is pretty amazing considering the depth in the narrative's structure and characterization. As told, we follow a writer wannabe called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who starts a habitual obsession with following random people he fancies on the streets in a voyeuristic manner, which at first could be conceived as research, before he starts to make up his own rules, and break them.

He meets up with charismatic Cobb (Alex Haw) who turns out to be a robber with peculiar sensibilities and modus operandi, and soon finds himself hooked with hanging out with him as they go about breaking and entering and speculating about their victim's livelihood, as does the pursuit of a femme fatale blond (Lucy Russell), a mobster's moll who rejects his every advance.

Told in a non-linear fashion which comes with scenes that don't quite add up in the beginning, this sets the film up for multiple viewings as you study just how Nolan sustains that suspense and intrigue with you as the audience expecting and wanting more, which gets duly delivered. There are enough twists here which spins the film into a dizzying crescendo, where loose ends begin to come together, and the brilliance of the stellar story start to shine through.

It's also amazing how, as a first feature shot on the cheap, that something that clever and sophisticated can be conceived from his own experience in being burgled, with Nolan involved in every stage of production, from writing to shooting, producing and directing, having worked on the project for a year since shoots can only happen on weekends. I guess here's an example of a successful filmmaker's humble roots, which should serve as inspiration and spur new filmmakers out there. Now I'll patiently wait for Christopher Nolan's Inception due out later this year, whose trailer is already such a tease. Following is a little-known 1998 British film, which was made with a budget of £8000 and has a running time of 70 minutes. When watching it, you'd never expect its director to go on to make it in Hollywood and become one of the most acclaimed and celebrated directors of the 21st Century – well, everybody has to start somewhere I suppose.

The director of Following, as you probably already know is Englishman Christopher Nolan, who directly after Following would go on to direct the critically-acclaimed independent film Memento; a few years later he would be hired by Warner Bros. to direct the new Batman series, which further brought him acclaim, and so on and so forth. My point is, everybody has to start somewhere – even if it's not in the most astounding debut – and Christopher Nolan introduces himself to the world in 1998 with Following.

When watching it, I couldn't help but draw resemblances to another directorial debut, avant-garde auteur David Lynch's Eraserhead. Following is not a surrealist psychological horror film in that sense, but the similarities are noticeable; most notable, it's shot in grainy black-and-white and has an atmosphere about it that makes it unique. It's hard to describe in words, but it loosely resembles the smoky atmosphere you'd find in the film noirs of old. Hence, it can be said that Following is a contemporary film noir, or a neo-noir. Overall, it's an amalgamation of that and a psychological thriller, and the story is most appropriate to these two genres.

The main character is nameless, and the movie's title stems from an early, obsessive-compulsive trait he possessed – randomly picking out people on the street and following them, sometimes even for hours on end. During one of these 'stalking expeditions', the main character becomes noticed by one of the people he is following, and is confronted. Turns out that the 'confronter' is a man who is willing to befriend our narrator, and he introduces himself; his name is Cobb, and he's a petty burglar who invites the narrator to follow him on his burglaries.

From there, the main character becomes swept up in Cobb's world, and he becomes embroiled in crime, passion and violence as he gets more and more intimate with Cobb. Following is not so much a character study, but instead a film which follows the tumultuous relationship between these two main characters, and the devastating ramifications it has on our narrator. Nolan succeeds in making the film resemble a film noir, and emulates the respective atmosphere well.

As a thriller, Following is taut and atmospheric; however as a film in general, it's somewhat of a disappointment. If not that, then one could definitely call it underwhelming. The entire film is shot in a non-chronological and non-linear fashion, and it makes the story and film-experience unique, to some extent – this style has been done so many times now it's almost commonplace technique – and the story itself is unique to some extent.

However, Following is ultimately underwhelming for the entire film, and is disappointingly unspectacular. The story calls for more – more action, more suspense and more thrills – but it becomes too embroiled in its own storyline, and instead focuses on creating an intricate story. Following does succeed in doing that, but without any other elements it's a film noir that doesn't quite work out; it's got a sense of emptiness which isn't enormous, but still noticeable nonetheless. Furthermore, the film's shocking revelation at the end – almost a mandatory convention in film noirs – is one that makes us feel cheated; it's unpredictable and comes out of nowhere, but in relation to the story it's disappointing, as it essentially makes the preceding scenes, and the entire film, seem like an enormous waste of time.

But the positives far outweigh the negatives, and in the end Following turns out to be a flawed but satisfying film, Yes, everybody has to start somewhere. Christopher Nolan does it with Following, and he does it in a fine manner. A quiet, meek but fine manner. It's not the most astounding movie, and it isn't quite worthy of the accolades the director would go on to receive in the following decade, but it's still a good film nonetheless. When singling out Following, you find a well-made, taut and atmospheric thriller, one which lacks noticeable nuance or innovative style but still manages to grip audiences nonetheless. Chris Nolan's labyrinth like noir about voyeurism and identity is amazing from start to finish. A first film is as complex as "Memento" or "The Prestige", though maybe a little harder to get a handle on. Still it smacks of originality and creative drive, and has a "twist" as intellectually challenging as it is realistic pulp. Few film makers have made as good of use of their editors and attention to narrative that Nolan has. The story is about a bored writer who likes to follow random strangers down the street, until he follows someone, whose noticed him following others, and has been following him in tern, from there the complexity escalates and identities begin to rearrange. More naturalistic and realist than Nolan's later work but just as razor sharp. This is definitely Nolan's most intimite,and thought-provoking piece. Not to say that Memento or Insomnia are bad,but they were definitely up to more Hollywood standards...while Following is more of an indie flick. The story is very brilliant,and very well developed. Overall...watch this if your a fan of any of Nolan's work,I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it more. A suprisingly good film considering the circumstances of its production. Features performances from no-name actors that rival the top talent on the planet (sadly none have persued a career).

Also features the the god-like ability of Christopher Nolan to write perfect dialogue. Dialogue is what carries this story, which is about a man who likes to follow people for material for his books. Well shot, VERY well edited, even better written, and amazingly well performed.

This movie has everything a great film needs, except people who have seen it. 9/10 If Christopher Nolan had made Memento before Following, then all of the flaws in Following would have been corrected. In Memento, Nolan constructed the switches in time perfectly. We were able to tell when it was the past, when it's current, etc. However, Nolan experimented with it a little, and it just doesn't work. Although he had a small budget and couldn't use color (which is one way Memento worked), it was just too hard to distinguish between time. On the DVD is a feature that allows you to play the scenes in chronological order. I intended to write my review after watching it, so hopefully it would make more sense, but, of course, it wasn't working.

You can't blame Nolan for not coming up with original ideas. A young man, Bill (Jeremy Theobald), is bored, so he decides to follow random people on the street. He finds one, Cobb (Alex Haw), that particularly interests him. Soon, Bill becomes friends with Cobb and goes with him as he breaks into houses and robs them. Then, a saucy young blond (Lucy Russell) enters, and the movie becomes even weirder from there.

The ending of Following is one of the most shocking endings I've seen. Sure, Fight Club had an amazing ending, but the way that Following's ending played out was amazing. I felt like someone had smacked me on the head and given me a concussion. Nolan has a thing for making good endings (well, maybe not, I could guess Insomnia's from a mile away), and can really construct a great story. Following may not be the easiest to follow or look at, but it's such a finely crafted, original story with a shocker ending that you'll probably want to watch all of its 70 minutes again.

My rating: 7/10

Rated R for language and some violence. Great British director Christopher Nolan (Momento, Insomnia), directs this odd film about a struggling writer obsessed with following people. This proves harmless at first but soon turns dangerous after taking the game a step further after meeting a like-minded man who shows him the ins and outs of breaking and entering. The two men soon get in over their heads in a strange world involving the mafia and prostitution. Jeremy Theobald plays the writer and Alex Haw the like-minded friend. Both are great performances. This low budget movie was shot total guerrilla-style with no permits for any locations and no big stars but has what a lot of huge budget films don't have which is a clever script and creative direction. An impressive debut by one of todays best directors. Good Stuff! Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later 'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut, simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling. Christopher Nolan's first film is a 'no budget' black and white film about a unemployed writer who begins following strangers, which in turn leads to robbery and also violence. It is very good.

Like in his later film 'Memento' he doesn't present the story in a linear way. Instead it jumps around somewhat so you end up really sucked in trying to piece it all together and early, apparently random, shots take on significance as the film progresses. This style also means the twists are much more effective.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance (especially if you like his later work and/or Film Noir) An excellent debut movie for the the director of Batman Begins, comes the Following, a movie about a man who follows other people for inspiration of characters in stories he writes. One man he follows, he decides to go further and the man turns out to be more than he bargained for.

Using a cast of non-actors and his uncle, writing directing producing and otherwise completely making this movie entirely on his own with almost no budget and produced independently, this movie is much more than you'd expect.

For anyone who likes Memento and complex twists, turns, shocks, and messing around with time, this is definitely a movie for you. There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the "box". As soon as Cole finds it he says, "The box. Everyone's got a box". A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, "We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often".

Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)

I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.

That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.

Color me obsessive. This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing. Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at 70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer enthralled.

Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however, and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento, one of the most original movies of our time. I'm amazed that Memento (which is an excellent flick) is so well-regarded in the Top 250 and this one doesn't even appear!! What the hell is that?? To be honest - when this movie ended my knee-jerk reaction was that this movie is better than Memento. After the euphoria of the fabulous ending wore off, I concluded that they are equal in their excellence. I am just confused about why its not in the Top 50 along with Memento. I'm going to venture a guess that (sadly) it's because it's in black and white or because (again sadly)that the characters all have British accents ...sadly because that is no reason to not appreciate a great movie like this.

I'm telling you that if you loved Memento, you will love Following as well. Brilliant! Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations. And the fact that it was more of an art house movie. This film is superb, it has the same low-budget first film feel of 'Pi' and 'Clerks', but has the style of 'Memento' (also by Writer/Director Christopher Nolan). The score, sound effects, photography and editing are almost 'Memento' prototypes, and the story shows that Christopher Nolan is best when Writing and Directing. Don't be put off by the low-budget look and acting, or even the short length of the film, and just watch it! This was a great movie for being only 67 minutes long. There was an aspect of film-noir contained in this movie and I am glad that Nolan picked to film it in black and white. The plot is simple yet entertaining that keeps you engaged. Even the dialogue was good along with the acting. It reminded me of what was to come in Memento by not being in chronological order. I liked how the main character tried to use what Cobb taught him for example saying "everyone has a box" which he put his personal things into. Also, on the writer's door was the batman logo which seemed ironic because Christopher Nolan would later direct Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, two other great movies. There is a great twist in the end which I'm not going to spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it, even though I kind of figured what would happen when Cobb gave the young man D Lloyds credit card. I also liked how the writer had a copy of The Republic by Plato one of my favorite philosophical books. This is definitely a movie you need to watch more than once to get the full aspect of it, plus it only being an hour long. There is also a circular aspect to it by ending where it began which I thought was pretty brilliant. This flick was the introduction for a lot of us to the works of K Gordon Murray. That's because it was easy to find. It was on every public domain label in the VHS era, and before that, a late night t.v. cult classic, double knee thigh slapper. Besides, HOW do you resist the title?

For late comers, a brief explanation of it's merit: Florida wheeler dealer K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican horror films, dubbed them into English, then made a mint with them at the drive in. The Mexican ORIGINALS were weird enough to begin with; American boundaries and accepted horror film conventions were cheerfully disregarded. Great, great set design and lighting were placed beside weird or laughable special effects. NOTHING in Hollywood was as close as these were to out and out strange. Now, mix in Catholic influenced social conventions, Mexican folk lore, and we are not in Kansas anymore.

Add to THAT the English scripts they were dubbed into. Most were written by Reuban Guberman, who wanted words to match movements of the actors lips ON SCREEN, not the literal translation. As a result the American soundtracks tended to run from overwrought to down right loopy. There's even a fan web site for Murray that prints the best, most over the top lines for each movie. First time viewers to the films complain about the pacing, the purple prose, the production values and are told it's SUPPOSED to be that way..while the people laugh with enjoyment over things normally considered fatal film flaws. It all must be very confusing if you don't have a taste for it.

This one was made back to back in 1957 with the two previous films in the series; THE AZTEC MUMMY and CURSE OF THE AZTEC MUMMY. All three are now available on the 3 disc AZTEC MUMMY COLLECTION (BCI) and it's about time. It has the K Gordon Murray version on one side, the original Mexican production on the other side. The contrast between the two is fascinating. A lot of the times the original Spanish is not much saner.

ROBOT/MUMMY starts off with a nice long flashback bringing you up to speed on the previous episodes, sort of..continuity was tossed out the window in number two, and it's downhill from there, logic wise. You don't even get The Angel back, or any mention of him in this final episode. Names, places, even family trees switch between films. After a while, you start LOOKING for the continuity changes.

By now, the series villain Doc Krupp is totally pig biting mad, nearly drooling with dementia and STILL wants to steal the Aztec breastplate. Rosita Arenas is sent back to the past with another nice edit of the AZTEC MUMMY floor show, and wanders out into the dark in her nightie to help find that doggone breastplate again. The mummy isn't any happier with this then he was last time.

The robot actually has a production credit. It was made by 'Viana & Co S.A.'. I mention this, because it looks like the grips came up with it between takes on a slow afternoon when the real costume went walkabout. Nope.

This was PLANNED.

Wait until you see the controller it runs from. X box, where WERE you when Krupp NEEDED you??? The Robot LOOKS crushed to death at the end, but actually came back in two more Mexican made movies..it had a FAN BASE..

All in all, a funny quirky finish to a three movie series. Sit back and enjoy. What a film. Quite possibly the best I've ever seen, the Direction, the Production,the score and the cinematography,absoloutley wonderful. The acting is also excellent, and the Man/Robot scenes have to be seen to be belieived. I can not recommend this film enough. Get it out on video now, turn the lights down and enjoy. This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should. Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say; That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors. It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those 'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie! The Kid is a really good family movie about a stuffy image consultant, Russ Duritz, who has lots of money, a good job, nice house, etc. The only problem is he doesn't have much of a social life as nobody seems to like him as he isn't always very nice. One day though things are about to change when an eight year old version of himself magically appears. This gives Russ a second chance to make things right. Bruce Willis plays the lead role here and he gives a really good performance. The Kid is a nice, heart-warming movie for everyone. From a perspective that it is possible to make movies that are not offensive to people with strong moral values, this one is definitely worthwhile. This is the second Bruce Willis film in a row that manages to tell its story with no nudity, off-color humor, profanity, or gratuitous violence. (I refer of course to The Sixth Sense.) Both movies are engaging on more than one level. This one is appropriate for children as well, although as others have pointed out, it isn't a flick FOR kids.

I was bothered that the time travel device that drives this plot is never explained, except that we know Russell himself initiates it as a 70 year old. Also, why does his dying mother have to come to school to get him when he wins the fight; why, if as his older self says, he has to fight that kid again and again for the next few years does his mother not have to come and get him every time, and why he doesn't learn to kick butt in the process. I also found the score rather annoying and not always appropriate to the action on stage.

Good use of the red plane as metaphor, however. The Kid - At 39 years old Russel Duritz has a life that most men would envy - he has a great job, is respected (and feared), has a beautiful house and makes buckets of money. But everything comes at a cost, in this case no social life, no conscience and a fear of spending the rest of his life alone. He just needs someone to show him the way.

As I watched the movie, I kept wondering why Disney didn't pass this film on to Miramax - not because it's particularly daring or edgy, but because it is clearly a movie for adults. This is exacerbated by the marketing campaign which is clearly targeting children - it is lumped in with trailers for "Rugrats the Movie", and "Pokemon 2000" (aren't they passe yet?). But I quibble.

I was impressed by the sensitive treatment of the subject matter - rather than the typical male midlife crisis that involves some pathetic sap buying a Porsche convertible and acting like a moron, Willis' character undertakes some serious introspection and takes stock of his life. His guide on this journey of self-discovery is himself at age 8 (they never explain how Rusty arrives and frankly, I didn't care). Young Rusty's innocence and unbridled optimism give him a distinct advantage in divining the truth - he sums up Russell's job as an image consultant thusly, "You teach people how to lie and pretend to be something they aren't". In order for a good script to succeed, however, you need actors to bring it to life. Not a problem here.

Although Willis has thrice ignored W.C. Fields' warnings about starring with children or animals he has lucked out once again, meshing as well comedically with Breslin as he did dramatically with Osment. Willis manages to balance Russell's cutthroat powerbroker traits with vulnerability and confusion, without becoming ridiculous. Breslin meanwhile gives a dead on portrayal of a kid from everyone's childhood - the one that always stuck out for some reason and got picked on. We also get two bonus performances: Lily Tomlin is great as Russell's levelheaded assistant and Jean Smart is perfect as an insightful charming anchorwoman (I loved her in "Guinevere").

The Kid is charming, heavy, and real. And it will appeal to adults of all ages. When the first trailer for this film was viewed by myself, I was curious as to what angle the storyline would take. After all the plot of having one's childhood self return to the present leaves open many options. Bruce Willis however does a superb job in the role he was given. I was surprised to see just how well he could act in this part. This is also a good career move as many others have said but after seeing it I now agree. This film is mainly about remembering the kid you used to be, and coming to the realization that you aren't the adult you planned to be. This is a wonderful story and a gripping tale that makes us all think. Usually we scorn at "What if..." movies. For example, Waterworld attempted to answer the question "What if the world were to be covered with water and...?" But truthfully, nobody cared. This movie however effects everyone in the theatre. True, young children may not fully grasp the idea of growing up and having all your dreams fizzle away, but it leaves a great impact on the adults and parents of those children. This movie is definitely worth seeing. Although, it will be better the second time around because you won't be thinking so much (about how the kid got there, and why and all that stuff) Just relax and have fun. And take something with you when you leave that cinema. Take that piece of your childhood you've forgotten and enjoy it. Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the 'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors.

The story begins..... He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated!

Russell can't seem to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to him, "You have unfinished business to take care of, now!"

Amy the supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was foundational is becoming like jelly!

Willis is fun, egocentric and at times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching 'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground.

All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****) While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids? As a word of explanation, Disney's "The Kid" has absolutely nothing in common with the Charlie Chaplin 1921 classic of the same name. What we do have is a pleasant enough, though unbelievable, feel good family comedy as only the folks at Disney can provide.

Bruce Willis, in a change of pace, plays a self-centered stuffed shirt of an "Image Consultant". He degrades, not only his clients, but those close to him as well. You know that he is going to have to change before the final credits.

Into his life comes a chapter from his past in the form of Willis' character as a nerdy 8 year old played with cutesy pie conviction by Spencer Breslin (Disney always finds these kids somewhere). This forces Willis to come to grips with his past and well..you know the rest.

Appearing as Willis' love interest is Emily Mortimer and Lily Tomlin as his Executive Assistant. Both have little enough to do as most of the movie involves the inter-action between the Willis and Breslin characters.

"The Kid", though not the greatest of Disney movies is one nonetheless that you can sit down and watch with your family and come away from with a warm feeling. It is so nice to see Bruce Willis come down off his action throne and let us see that he really is a talented actor. He shines in this film as the near-40-year-old image consultant who has totally lost touch with his inner child--until he meets him face to face. This is one of those rare films that doesn't talk down to its audience and truly offers something for the WHOLE family. It is about caring for each other, keeping some of the child inside you, and realizing that you don't grow up exactly the way you thought you would. Willis seems to be building an impressive track record for working with kids (just witness "The Sixth Sense" with Haley Joel Osment), and he has great chemistry with Spencer Breslin here. There is some nice photography and music, and the ending is wonderful and uplifting. A great film to see with EVERY member of your family. Truly a wonderful movie. Bruce Willis gives his always-outstanding comedic-romantic acting power to this message-movie and the movie brings hope to the losers many of us know we are. A gift to everyone of middle age whose spent time seems both full and yet empty: there is more around the next bend and it can be great, enriching, and romantic. Leave the recent past and return to the lessons of the distant past, and then take off on a favorite flight to your better future. If we could re-live our youthful experiences, if we could really remember the events that shaped us, wouldn't we find a special kind of freedom? See the movie, open the gift. Imagine you have the opportunity to see yourself again as a kid. Now think what would happen if you had the chance to speak with your younger self, or even change him/you. Would you try to influence or try to change your younger self's beliefs in light of your future experience? Or perhaps the encounter would change your older self's perception of life and reality?

Walt Disney's The Kid tries to engage this complex thought by putting "older self" Bruce Willis in a collision course with "younger self" Spenser Breslin (from The Santa Clause 2 and The Cat in the Hat "fame"). The result is a sometimes funny sometimes touching encounter, which makes you ponder about your own past, present and future – and truly believe it is never too late to change your course. hello, looking for a movie for the family to watch on a Friday night? Can't find what your looking for? I thought this was an extremely enjoyable movie. Good for the whole family. I found that it had a remarkably rare combination of it being appealing to both adults and children alike. It was brilliant, to say the least. Bruce Willis's acting was top-notch, there was a lot of humor in it and overall, a great movie. In my opinion, it's a must-see movie. And I don't think that about a lot of movies, believe me when I say it takes a lot for a movie to get me to think that. It's clear that there was much work done by Bruce Willis and cast to get this movie done. Excellent story, good acting, and again, overall a thoroughly enjoyable movie. This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an amazing performance from Bruce Willis!. All the characters are great, and I thought Willis and Spencer Breslin were just awesome together, plus Bruce Willis is simply amazing in this!. This is definitely one of Bruce's best comedic performances (The waaaaaaaaaamabulance thing was great) and I thought it was very well written and made as well, plus The finale is especially cool!. It's good natured and it was cool how you can see Russell's (Willis) character change throughout the film! plus the ending was pretty good. I think this should be higher then 6.0 and it's one of the best Disney films I have ever seen! plus it has many surprising moments throughout. All the characters are extremely likable, and it also has a cute love story angle too it as well, plus Bruce and Spencer Breslin both had some really funny lines (Holy Smokes!). This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an an amazing performance from Bruce Willis and I say its a must see!. The Direction is great!. Jon Turteltaub does a great job here with really good camera work, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting is excellent!. Bruce Willis is amazing as always and is amazing here, he gives one of his best comedic performances, is hilarious had wonderful chemistry with both Spencer Breslin and Emily Mortimer, had some funny lines, and was dead on throughout the movie, he was one of the main reasons I liked this movie so much! (Willis Rules!!!!!!!). Spencer Breslin is fantastic as the younger version of Russell, he was very funny and didn't get on my nerves once, he is one of the better child actors out there!. Emily Mortimer is good as Amy and was really cute I liked her she had decent chemistry with Bruce too. Lily Tomlin is funny as Janet I liked her quite a bit. Jean Smart is good with what she had to do, which was not much. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out pf 5 I really enjoyed this movie. Yes there was disrespect throughout the movie, but Bruce Willis learned, from The Kid, that there is more value in repecting others, and his life of disrespect needs to change. This movie was a refreshing change from the trash that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats. There are some very good lessons to be learned in this movie. I really believe this was one of Disneys best, even though a couple of things could have been left out. I was impressed with the lack of swearing and lack of sexual inuendos. It isn't perfect, but much better than most everything else out there. I waited long to watch this movie. Also because I like Bruce Willis. The plot was quite different from what I had expected but still quite good. Its a good mix of emotions, humor and drama.

Left me thinking over and again :) At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. "Rusty" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going. In this Dream-Come-True, I found myself loving what was going on. It's a good movie, and should not be passed off as a corny fantasy movie. It's too smart for that. It's definitely a feel good movie, but with a nice message to leave you with. 7/10, B, **1/2 out of **** Perhaps I was just in a really good mood when I watched this film. but, for whatever reason, I really liked this film. Was it terribly original? No. Was it a bit predictable? Yes. And so what? It was still a really nice movie. I've always liked Bruce Willis (well, almost always, there was Hudson Hawk and The Fifth Element, after all), and he portrayed a selfish, sarcastic b***ard perfectly. Maybe this movie isn't Academy Award material, but it sure is feel good material. Go rent it. The story is quite slow at the beginning except few interesting humour that come along the way but some of the plot still empty.

The science on how the kid entered the 21st century is still a mystery except at the end of the movie, we have been shown of how.

Other than that, everything looks ok! I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly. Why would I say that? Because when the movie ended, I was in a good mood. So many people exclaim at the end, wow! Bruce Willis can be funny. For those of you who believe he learned how to act after the sixth sense, you must be very new to his career. He won an emmy for best actor in a comedy series before he did Die Hard. It's like saying, wow, the sky learned to deposit snow on the ground just because it's your first winter in life. The movie was hilarious. What boggles my mind is how some other comments made about this movie claims that there are no memorable lines or scenes. Spoiler...

The waaaambulance? I am not a loser? Have you ever seen a grown up scream I am not a loser before?

I thought this movie was great. It was funny, it was never boring and in a cheesy Disney sort of way, it had a point to make. Something to do with life and of course any kid movie trying to do that is in over it's head but for once, I didn't care.

If you haven't watched it. Do so. You'll like it. (WARNING - CONTAINS MILD SPOILER) A movie almost designed to make you pause and check your recollection of it - it's confined to an almost empty motel where the huge courtyard resembles a circus ring and the rooms seem like temporary withdrawal points rather than refuges; as the characters become increasingly preoccupied by the past, the present increasingly falls away, until the ultimate incendiary appearance of the Countess in the black Mercedes marks the fusion of reality and fantasy. Whether or not their stories are true, and whether Stanton is truly the father or just a crazy old man stepping into their stories, seems impossible to determine. The theme seems to be how love of an extreme and unconsidered nature messes with stability to the point where reality itself breaks down; where exotic, misplaced fantasy becomes dangerously tangible. The image of the burning motel - a symbol of dislocation beset by destruction - is an appropriately weird ending for this strange but effective, startlingly imaginative, movie. Adapted from Sam Shepard's play, this movie retains many play-like elements such as a relatively fixed setting (a roadside 50's motel in the Southwest) and extensive, intriguing dialogues. A woman "May" is hounded by a man "Eddie" (played by Sam Shepard). She tries to hide from him in the out-of-the-way motel, but he finds her. The film explores the history of their relationship, mainly from their childhoods, that has led them to this point. It's very easy to feel sympathy for the characters and to understand that their dysfunctional present relationship is a result of past events out of their control. We mainly watch them fight, make up, fight, make up and so on. One image that stands out in my mind, is of Eddie hauling May over his shoulder kicking and screaming, taking her somewhere she doesn't want to go.

The soundtrack is also perfect soulful country with vocals by a lesser known artist "Sandy Rogers". She has this country doll voice that almost yodels at some points in the album! This is the kind of movie that will stay lodged in some part of your brain/soul. In other words, go see it! Once again, we are fortunate to see a gorgeous opening scene where the artists' work has been fully restored and we see this old-time grocery store on a street corner with the snow gently falling. Inside are the rich colors of all the merchandise, from produce to canned and boxed goods to medicine to candy, etc.

In essence, this is a story of those goods "coming to life," such as the animals on the labels of items, or a pie, or even a pack of cigarettes.

The whole "show" is narrated by "Jack Bunny," a Jack Benny impersonator, with music from conductor Leopold Stokowski, who was in so many Looney Tunes animated shorts I have lost count. A lot of the humor is topical, so it pays to know who "Little Egypt" and other characters. The Busby Berkeley-type "aqua" number with bathing suited-sardines coming out of the can, and the tomato can-can dance were both clever!

All of the above, and more, was in the first half of this slightly longer-than-normal length cartoon. The second half was about a King Kong-type which escapes from the "Animal Crackers" box and terrorizes everyone. That part was not much, and ended on a somewhat stupid note. So..... an "A" for the first half, a "D" for the second, making it about a C-plus or B-minus overall. While caricatures and/or references to entertainment industry people or things or even brands of products is usually a staple in shorts like this one, they aren't used in quantity here. Most of the individual gags are rather generic. As I'm going to give examples, there will be spoilers below:

There are only three (well, technically four-there's a quick one at the very end of the cartoon) caricatures that I spotted, which is kind of low for this type of short, though one is a featured character with a fair amount of activity. They are Jack Benny (as Jack Bunny), Leopold Stowkowski and the inimitable Ned Sparks (as a crab on a can-chances are very good that, if a crab was involved in a Warner Brothers short in the 1930s-1940s, the caricature used would be Ned Sparks). There are also references to Billy Rose's Aquacade and a riff on a radio show character called "Henry Aldrich" (Coming, mother!), a play on Superman (Superguy here) and the villain is a take-off on "King Kong". That's it for that kind of gag.

The products themselves are mostly generic and the gags are more plays on basic items in unusual situations, such as turtles coming off of cans of soup to attack the villain as tanks, tomato soup cans doing "The can-can', gingerbread men who turn into paratroopers, using tissues for parachutes and so on. The gags are very good and it's an excellent example of a Bob Clampett cartoon. Clampett had hit his stride as a director by this point and while it isn't anywhere near his best work, it's nothing to sneeze at either. This short can be found on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Vol. 3, which is an excellent set that I highly recommend. This short itself is also recommended. Heya Denver fans! The animation is a cartoon's classic & one of my favorite too (and yes, it was broadcast in Europe as well. Including my tiny central-European country, Slovenia! =:) Oh, how I miss the 80's cartoons!! Honestly, they were way better than today's children shows. More imaginative, creative, full of fun with good morals, more substance, great storyline and excellent character voices. Computer animated shows of today lack all of these features. So all of you, who agree and want to bring back all the shows so that the kids of today's generation would see the entertainment that these cartoons brought to us, please log on the side posted bellow and sign a petition for a rerun of the 80's best cartoons!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com /1/we-want-an-80s-child-cartoon-kids-show-channel

Carpe Denver! =)

Lejla hello all Denver fans!

i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations.

Viva Denver! :) This film, for what it was set out to be, succeeded. It's a short tragic film. Although my choice of film are ones that really develop characters and their relationships, this film is meant to just give a taste, leaving you with the "what happens next" factor. After watching it, I really was wanting more, more of the characters back story, what influences they had to make them into the people they were. I think thats what the makers intended the viewing audience to think. The acting is amazing. There aren't many lines in the film so their body language, facial expressions, and overall presence needed to be powerful enough to withhold a scene. Both Franco and Miner have that element and it shows. For them (especially Franco) to take the time to make this, obviously says they believed in this film and wanted to be apart of it and for that, I appreciated the film for what it was. Also I'm happy I own it so I can share it with other people that would've never known it existed. Travis (James Franco) is a young man riding a train for business reasons (we're to assume) who leaves his beloved phone behind. It gets picked up by a prostitute, Terri (Rachel Miner), and when he goes to her city to pick it up, a series of events occur that are sure to stay with him forever.

Both characters have barriers they've put up to defend themselves from communication. But despite their facades, it's obvious both are eager to bust them down. In total there are about 30 or so spoken lines, but from the way James Franco and Rachel Miner use their faces you might as well turn off the volume, words are unnecessary. A scene to look out for is Terri staring at herself in the mirror. You can just feel her despair permeating the room.

But, the movie isn't perfect. It's mostly filmed using hand-held cameras, which gets a bit distracting. Mainly due to the acting of Mr. Franco and Miner and the photography, the script's flaws don't stand out as much. Still, sometimes it seems as if the story doesn't really know where it wants to go.

All in all, this is the type of film that truly stays with you long after you watched it. An hour after you've seen it, you're still 'what-if'-ing yourself on the behalf of certain characters. It's not flawless, but still leaves you wanting more, wishing it were at least 4x as long. This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the right sound and/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end. Kudos to the writer/director and all involved.

This is my first review of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it. In my opinion the directing, editing, lighting, and acting(minus Franco) were very good. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with this film. I wasn't expecting much, in way of camera angles, sound, etc, but in these areas the film wasn't bad at all.

After seeing the film, I personally felt frustrated with both characters because I wanted so badly for these two characters to reach out to one another. And I felt like the Travis(Franco) character wasn't really affected or changed in the end after Terri commits suicide. Although, this is probably due to the lack or inability of James Franco to express emotion(of any kind) very well in this movie. I've seen a few of Franco's other films, and to me he just can't pull it off when a scene calls for real emotion or facial expressions. The only positive he brings to the film, is the possibility of more people watching this movie.

On the other hand, Rachel Miner's portrayal of Terri was well done, and she looks to have a bright future ahead. I could really see and feel the sadness and emptiness in her character, and it made me feel for her. I only wish I could have seen more into Terri's life before the film ended.

For a short film, this movie was good, but it leaves you wanting more in the end. I only wish it could have been just a bit longer, to see the characters develop a little more. In spite of that, I hope to see more films from the director and crew in the future.:) I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.

"Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.

At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.

Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.

Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...

Right.

Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.

Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.

Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.

Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one — one! — f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.

The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.

A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers. Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket, sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly.

There isn't much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell.

This could have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm and put it onto a solid footing. This movie is about six men who are assigned to transport money from bank to businesses. Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) was in Iraq for the war serving his country and now just is being helped out making a living by his friend Mike Cochrone (Matt Dillon) making sure he does not loose his house. Mike tells him that this wasn't the life his parents were expecting for him and he should be living a better life than he is now with his brother Jimmy Hackett (Andre Kinney). Telling Ty that him and Jimmy have always been family to him and would do anything to help them out, Mike tells Ty about a plan to make a heist. The money would be around 43 million split six ways among the other transport men too, although Ty does not like the idea he tells his friend Mike as long as no one gets hurt he would be in. The last night Ty was forced to talk to a welfare lady about putting up his brother in foster care giving him a dilemma to lose what matters most in his life. Although the plan sounds safe at first, greed isn't everything when it comes to taking lives.

When it comes to heists, your either in or your out, so when you don't go with a plan its hard to play the hero and stop greed driven people when it comes to having large sums of money. This movie comes with a star studded cast to keep you interested starring Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Amaury Nolasco, Fred Ward, Skeet Ulrich, and Milo Ventimiglia. Short I have recently only remembered him in "Stomp the Yard" which was about a kid who lost his brother and lives his dream to go to college. This was probably one of his best movies I have seen him in and this one he fits the character so well it's great to see him on the big screen again in action. New guy at an armored car company gets talked into becoming involved in an armored car heist by his fellow drivers in order to score some quick cash. The problem is that they really don't have much of a plan and when complications arise things turn deadly.

Fast moving popcorn action film has a great deal going with it. First off the film is under 90 minutes so the film doesn't really have the time to bog down in plot. It cranks everything up and just goes. Next the film has some great action sequences so one moves towards the edge of ones seat. Lastly the film has a stellar cast that include Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Lawrence Fishburne. Its a first rate cast that sells and covers over the stories short comings.

This isn't brain surgery its a popcorn movie and on that level it scores highly. Worth a look. This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher. Well unlike most people.... I went into this movie expecting it to not be that good and it turned out to be an awesome film. Pretty cool plot I love the idea of it but what really made this movie was the actors. they all did an incredible job and it was pretty cool to see fishburn and dillon work together. It's a movie where you go in thinking right away you will be able to predict whats going to happen but it doesen't quite turn out how you predicted. I don't want to give away anything about the story so I wont... but I suggest giving this one a chance. If you saw the movie Money Train and enjoyed that you would love this movie. Maybe everything Lawrence Fishburn touches is gold? Watching the preview of Armored I thought the movie was either going to be a very bad or a very good film. Thankfully, the movie was entertaining, suspenseful, and realistic. There never is the perfect crime, and Armored showed why. The movie show perfectly when people get into stressful situation they behave like animals. The last hour of the film is very entertaining. Matt Dillon is still a very good actor. Hard to believe Dillon is 50 years of age. I would buy this movie. I give Armored eight out of ten. Not a Christmas movie. Did I write ten lines yet? Nope! Anyways, there is not to many action films. Armored has a lot of excitement in it, which gives the movie goer a choice over another comedy. This film was great!Tangi Miller and Flex did a great job. They both look good together and they both pulled it off.Tasha Smith was so funny as the cousin,and she couldn't stay out of her business.Essence held it down for her girl, when she needed her. Aloma was sweet and played a dear Grandmother she really reminded me of my grandmother.And Oh,I can't forget about the stripper, he was so find, and I didn't know if I should cover my eyes or smile while I watch him reveal his sexiness on the big screen.Damn! he was fine! Tangi looked flawless, and sexy, and she stepped up a notch since Felicity. Over all the movie had a lot "A" List Actors and Actress. It was funny, sexy, crazy, touching,loving, emotional and wonderful. This movie is a must see! Go it get on DVD now if don't have it! Cute Movie feel good movie I had never heard of this movie but ran across it while looking for something to rent. I had high hopes for this movie based purely on Flex being in this movie. I have never seen him in anything not worth while. True to form this movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the story. The movie is full of great actors and actresses. The hilarious Tasha Smith, Essence Atkins and of course Tangi Miller. I really liked this movie a lot. I didn't give it five stars because it did not discuss certain issues that I thought the movie should have detailed. The issue was apparently resolved but I would have appreciated a discussion resolving the issues. I liked the movie so much that I am now buying the movie after I've already rented and watched it. True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was "That Guy". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is "A Must See". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen My friends and I saw this at the San Diego Black Film Festival. It was great. Stormy is a strong black woman and Nana reminds me of my grandmother.

Rene is FINE!!! Seeing him take off his clothes was definitely worth the price of admission. Can someone forward me his contact info?

My friend thinks Flex is the finer of the two. She's been a Flex fan for years though so she might be a little biased. The cousins were funny and just as trifling as Nana described them. LOL.

I am looking forward to seeing this movie again when it comes to theaters. The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as "the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance."

Tan: "Just a knickknack." THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent. This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening. This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.

However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.

Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.

Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.

Overall Grade - B Wrestlemania 6, is an entertaining Wrestlemania, if not an entirely successful one. The Ultimate Challenge, is of course worth the price of admission alone, but once again as with a lot of the early Mania's, there's too much filler in between. The crowd pops for almost everything, and as always, giving us the reliable announcing team of Gorilla&The Body. Having a Face vs Face match as the main event for a Wrestlemania, was absolutely unheard of at this time, it only made things that much more tense.

Matches.

Koko B. Ware/W Frankie Vs "The Model" Rick Martel. For a 3 or so minute match, this is as good as it gets. I wish it was a tad longer, but what I got, was pretty damn good. Martel wins, with the Boston Crab.

2 1/2 /5

WWF Tag Team Championship. Demolition Vs Colossal Connection|C|/W Bobby Heean. HUGE Pop for Demolition. Match itself is pretty dull, I often had trouble paying attention. Andre really didn't do much, so in a way it was more like a 2 on 1. There is solid talent involved here, and it's a shame they couldn't produce better. Demolition wins that titles, with there Pattened maneuver off the top. Crowd blows the roof of for the finish.

1 1/2 /5

Earthquake/W Jimmy Hart. Vs Hercules I got what I expected here, a standard boring filler match, with Earthquake doing his thing. I'm not really a fan of either, so It didn't perk my interest much. Quake wins with his sit down splash.

1/5

Brutus Beefcake Vs Mr.Pefect/W The Genius. Deafening pop for Bruti. Really good match up, with sadly not enough time given to develop even further. It really kept my interest, and remains one of my favorites on the card. Beefcake wins with a slingshot to the post, much to the crowd's approval.

3/5

Roddy Piper Vs Bad News Brown. HUGE pop for Piper. Nothing more than a boring brawl, that does not know what it wants to be. Some entertaining antics from The Hot Rod, but nothing else. Noteworthy for Roddy painting himself half black, and calling himself "Hot Scott"

1/5

The Hart Foundation Vs The Bolsheviks. Record breaking, but other than that, nothing to see here. Harts win with, The Hart Attack.

0/5

The Barbarian/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Tito Santana. Average for the time it got, but watchable nonetheless. Crowd was rather dead for it, except for Heenan's interference. Jessie's hilarious cracks, about Tito's food is more entertaining, then the match itself. Barbarian wins with a nasty looking, flying clothesline off the top.

2/5

Mixed Tag Match. Dusty&Sapphire/W Elizabeth. Vs Macho King&Sherri. Big pop for Dusty, and an even bigger one for Elizabeth, who looks absolutely stunning, might I add. I thought it was OK. It was lively at least, if nothing that great. I'm not a fan of Dusty' so. Dusty and Sapphire win, when She rolls up Sherri.

2/5

The Orient Express/W Fuji. Vs The Rockers. Crowd is rather anemic for this, surprisingly. Decent no doubt, but with these guys involved, it should have been better. The constant focus with Fuji, kinda detracts from the match. Express wins by count out, when Janetty gets nailed with salt.

2 1/2 /5

Jim Duggan Vs Dino Bravo/W Earthquake&Jimmy Hart. Duggan like an idiot, brings out The American flag in Canada. Duggan gets some solid boo's for it too, but that also may be due to Bravo's Canadian heritage. Crappy match all around, I don't care for Duggan, but that's not why it sucked. Too short in the end, to really matter. Duggan wins when he whacks Bravo in the back, with the two by four. Duggan gets splashed for his troubles.

0/5

Million Dollar Championship. Ted Dibiase|C|/W Virgil. Vs Jake Robers/W Damien. Some slow spots, but when all was said and done, I had a good time. Two solid wrestlers giving it there all, resulted in an entertaining match up. Crowd noticeably gets Ancy during parts of it though, by doing the wave. Dibiase wins by count out. Jake has the last laugh, by giving away some of his money, much to the crowd's delight.

3/5

Big Bossman Vs Akeem/W Slick. Nice pop for The Bossman. Too routine, and too short to really mean anything, in the end. Akeem was a gimmick, I was never too fond of. Bossman wins with his slam.

0/5

The Rhythm&Blues segment was pretty much a failure. Crowd wasn't into it

Rick Rude/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Jimmy Snuka. For a filler match, before the main event, this wasn't too bad. If it had time to get going more, it would have been excellent, for sure. Rude wins, with the Rude Awakening.

2/5

Title For Title. Ultimate Warrior|IC Champ| Vs Hulk Hogan|WWF Champ| This one is all about the atmosphere from the crowd, and the split crowd reaction, for the most part. Warrior got a pretty decent pop, but in my opinion it was a little underwhelming. Hogan dwarfs it completely,with his. It's one of Wrestlemania's best matches in history. With two people, who aren't really known for there wrestling, they managed to create an amazing match up that was talked about for ages. I have seen this many times, and my respect level grows higher for each one, for their effort, considering i'm not a fan of either. Even die-hard fanatics who crave pure wrestling, can't bitch about this one!. Warrior wins with his splash.

5/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 6 is an entertaining entry, if nothing overly special. It's memorable for the main event, the location, and the crowd, but it's not one of the best if you ask me. That being said I do enjoy it, and I give it my recommendation to fellow wrestling fans.

7/10 WrestleMania 6 took place April 1, 1990 at the SkyDome in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Match 1: Rick Martel vs. Koko B. Ware - For what it was, a very solid opening match. Koko was always fairly popular with the fans, and at this point Martel was still getting over as a heel talent. In the end Martel is able to snag the win in a pretty non memorable match.

Match 2: The Colossal Connection (Andre The Giant & Haku) (c) (with Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan) vs Demolition (Ax & Smash) for the WWF Tag Team Championship - At this point Andre's health was really awful, so his performance was really nothing special. The crowd is 100% pro Demolition in this match. In the end Haku is pinned and we have New Tag Team Champions. After the match Andre lays out Haku and Heenan and turns face at what would turn out to be his last WrestleMania.

Match 3: Earthquack vs Hercules - Very short match. Big dominant heels were really a popular thing at the time. R.I.P. to both men in the match. John Tenta (Earthquake) passed not that long ago and same with Hercules. In the end Earthquake pins Hercules for the win.

Match 4: Mr. Perfect vs Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake - The first really good match of the night. R.I.P. to Curt Henning (Mr. Perfect). Really solid back and forth action from both of these talented guys. In the end Brutus gets the win thanks to a lot of his major fan support during the match.

Match 5: 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper vs Bad News Brown - Not a technical classic, but a pretty decent brawl for WrestleMania. Piper comes out half black/half white in what is considerably a classic moment. In the end both guys fight to a double count out with no clear cut winner.

Match 6: The Hart Foundation vs The Bolsheviks - Complete squash match. The Hart Foundation gets an easy win. Surprising that WWE used to have a tag team division.

Match 7: The Barbarian vs Tito Santana - Bobby Heenan's "Heenan Family" fairs better in this match as The Barbarian takes the win against Tito Santana. Not memorable, but good to go back and watch years later.

Match 8: Randy Savage & Sensational Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes & Sapphire - Big inter-gender tag team match. Dusty Rhodes wears the uncomfortable polka dot outfit out to the ring. In the end Rhodes and Sapphire get the win over "The Macho King" and Sensational Queen Sherri.

Match 9: The Rockers vs The Orient Express - Surprisingly another tag team match. Tag wrestling used to be so much better during this time period. A young Shawn Michaels and his partner Marty Jannetty take a loss by count out in this match to the Orient Express.

Match 10: Dino Bravo vs Jim Duggan - Duggan gets a decent reaction, despite his American Patriot gimmick. Bravo, a member of Jimmy Hart's group, comes to the ring with Hart and Earthquake. Although he has support, Duggan takes the win.

Match 11: "The Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase (c) vs Jake 'The Snake' Roberts for the Million Dollar Championship - The first major main event of the night. Roberts was extremely over with the fans. Match was considerably good for what it was. DiBiase is able to pick up a count out win on Roberts. But Roberts ends up possessing DiBiase's money and giving it away.

Match 12: The Big Boss Man vs Akeem (with Slick) - One Man Gang's sad attempt at being an African Dream named Akeem. A really short match that needed some more time to develop itself as a match. Boss Man wins with a slam.

Match 13: Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka vs Rick Rude - Heenan comes to the ring with Rude for this match. Snuka, never really got it good at WrestleMania. He always seemed to be on the losing end. After a short 5 minutes, Rude gets the win over Snuka.

Match 14: WWF Champion Hulk Hogan vs Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior - Dubbed as "The Ultimate Challenge" we get some interesting promos from both men earlier in the night. The match was actually very good, given that people tend to think Hogan can't wrestle. A lot of near falls that really got the crowd and people that watch at home into it. In the end Warrior gets the win on Hogan and wins both titles. A stunned crowd looks on as Hulk Hogan suffers his first loss at WrestleMania. In the 1980s in wrestling the world was simple. Hulk Hogan would take on Roddy Piper, or Bobby Heenan's cronies or Ted DiBiase and come out victorious more often than not. Occasionally he would get an ally like Randy Savage in 1988, but mostly it was all about Hulk Hogan vs Bobby Heenan, and that's the way it should be.

But on this night that was about to change, a new champion, a man who the WWE thought would be their man for the 90s was crowned. It didn't work out. But the WWE was right about one thing: Hulkamania was finished and a new order needed to be established.

This historic Wrestlemania, the first to be held outside America, kicked off with Rick Martel defeating Koko B Ware. Koko never really had a lot of luck at Wrestlemania and was taken down in short order here.

Next up the Colossal Connection Andre the Giant and Haku put their tag team titles on the line against Demolition Ax and Smash and lost. New tag team champions crowned.

Next match saw Earthquake defeat Hercules. Hercules was another fellow who didn't really have a lot of luck at Wrestlemania. Plenty of luck for Brutus Beefcake as he ended Mr Perfect's undefeated streak. Well, I guess someone had to end it.

Roddy Piper and Bad News Brown fought to a double count out in a slow but fun match, next up the Hart Foundation defeated Nikolai Volkov and Boris Zhukov in 19 seconds. Not really a match, unfortunately. The Barbarian then defeated Tito Santana in a short match.

The American Dream Dusty Rhodes and Saphire then defeated the Macho King Randy Savage and Queen Sherri in a messy mixed tag match. This was the only female wrestling really going on in the WWE at this point of time.

Next up was a fun match as the Rockers Marty Janetty and Shawn Micheals defeated The Orient Express in a fast paced encounter. There were a lot of good tag teams at this point in time. Jim Duggan then beat Dino Bravo in a nothing match.

Next Ted DiBiase put his most cherished possession, the Million Dollar Championship on the line against Jake Roberts. Roberts was distracted by Virgil and counted out allowing Ted to retain his title in an entertaining match and one of the longer matches on the show.

Next up the Twin Towers collide as the Big Bossman defeats Akeem in short order, this is followed by Rick Rude winning a short match with Jimmy Snuka.

Finally we come to the main event with Hulk Hogan putting the WWE Title on the line against Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior. This is an entertaining back and forth match won by the Warrior after Hogan missed a leg drop. The crowd was extraordinary and the match was a great spectacle.

And so the torch was passed, but would the Ultimate Warrior prove to be the Champion the WWE hoped he would be? This event defined an era of wrestling entertainment that, I believe, is not equaled today. The colorful characters - in their stereotypical garb - brought a certain charm to the show that has since been raped by society and overexposed. Wrestling had a bit of an innocence back then. A kid could watch it without watching an episode of Jerry Springer.

Looking back now (I was 5 at the time), although I loved both Warrior and Hogan, I think I enjoyed Warrior more because of his mystique. Hogan was the branded hero who weilded an impressive public image. The Ultimate Warrior, on the other hand, was a masked man of few words - an out-of-the-limelight hero for a different audience.

This rivalry was so exciting as a kid because of this duality in me duking it out for each combatant. I had a place for both of them. Because there was bloodshed too in this long, heavy battle, the stakes were high - at least to me as a kid. On a similar note, because of Hogan's defeat, this made him more human - I remember feeling kind of sorry for him.

All of these emotions at play in the juvenile boy's soap opera made Wrestlemania VI such a great time to witness this game. *SPOILERS AHEAD*

Great WrestleManias were still a few years away. But this one was certainly good, with lots of good matches, and one great match.

Demolition was always at their best at WrestleMania. I'm glad their last WM hoorah (I refuse to include the other version) was a win over the Colossal Connection. I liked the gag of Andre never tagging in.

Few fans know that this was the first time anyone ever beat Mr. Perfect. For some reason, Brutus Beefcake's feat was never recognized. Or the fact that he did it pretty easily.

The Hart Foundation's win over the Bolsheviks was the shortest in WM history, including the 24/9 second match between King Kong Bundy and S.D. Jones.

I'm glad Jake and DiBiase got to fight at WrestleMania. This made up for the fact that the feud had to be put on hold for so long.

I expected the Big Bossman-Akeem feud to heat up, but the Bossman just clobbered him. As good as Bossman was as a heel, he was just great as a face. He was always intense and obviously loved his job.

If the Warrior just had a better work ethic and maybe tried to learn to wrestle, he would have been a great WWF champion.

Worth a watch, especially since the boring matches are too short to complain about. And the tag team matches are all very exciting. The largest crowd to ever see a wrestling event in the US took place at Wrestlemania 6. Over 93,000 people showed up to break the Rolling Stones indoor record, and this event didn't disappoint at all. Maybe the biggest match of all time took place as the Immortal Hulk defended his world title against the Ultimate Warrior. There are over 12 matches in all so you get tons of action I first saw this film in the early 80's on cable. It was unique as a statement about the sixties, culture, war, music, race, and a bunch of things I'm certain I missed. However about a year ago it came back into my life as I started enjoying it with my son. He's a little young (9) for a lot of the themes in it, but he understands dancing hippies are fun to watch, and he gets the idea that end is ironic. While I can't think of other films in this genre, it does have a stand alone genius I love. It also does a unique justice to Central Park. Most musicals are lost on me, one way or another. "Tommy" was over the top and heavy handed in direction, "Oliver" seemed like crowd control on the silver screen, "The Wall" was so much abstract self important and indulgent dribble, but listening to "Failure of the Flesh" from Hair sounds right for our times today, as it did in the eighties, as it must have in the sixties...truly Timeless. I have seen this movie more than 50 times in my life, and each time I watch it the movie is just as entertaining as it was the first time! George Berger (played by Treat Williams) leads a small group of 1960's-1970's era anti-war "hippies" living at large in New York City. This small group happens upon a young man, Claude Bukowski (played by John Savage) who has been drafted into the US Army for service in Vietnam. Despite their best efforts to dissuade him, Claude does eventually report for basic training in the Army. Still distressed over his having left them, the hippie group steal a car and travel across the USA to visit Claude "...for a couple of hours," in the words of George Berger (to an M.P. stationed at the entry gate of the Army base Claude is temporarily stationed at in Nevada). The outcome is truly touching, so I won't spoil it for those who have not yet seen this fantastic movie. The musical score is equally fantastic! Don Dacus (of the rock group Chicago), who plays the part of "Woof" - one of the hippies, is a not a key character, but the movie wouldn't have been the same without him. Beverly D'Angelo (who plays Sheila Franklin, an uptown girl who is befriended by the hippie group) is sensational in her role! A MUST SEE film!! Now more than ever we need Peace & Love in this world!

This film really showcases the wonderful music of the Broadway show, and the fabulous Choreography of the legendary Twila Tharp! I saw it again after many years, and it still holds up well.

Thank you, MGM/UA for putting this on DVD! I love the option of seeing in Widescreen. MGM rocks for doing this on many of their DVD releases.

Ya gotta love Treat Williams as Berger and John Savage as Claude. They couldn't have picked better actors & actresses for this film! Beverly D'Angelo is such a 'hot mama' in this film--I had forgotten just how hot! WOW!

The supporting cast is absolutely great,

with the late great Nell Carter making a singing cameo in a couple of scenes, as well as the kooky Charlotte Ray (Mrs. Garrett on 'Facts Of Life')

The story gets a little weak toward the end, but the anti-war sentiment of the late 60's still holds up, and is relevant today.

It's beautifully filmed (quite a bit on location) and is so colorful and lovely and really brings the spirit of 1968 back on the big screen.

I saw this movie when it was released in 1979 when I was 15, and was moved by it then, and it still moves me now at 40. Some other reviews on here say they think it should have been made sooner--I don't think Hollywood was ready to make such a movie back in the late 60's-early 70's.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975, and the whole thing hit a little too close to home, I think for this story to be filmed before it was (like in 1969, 70, 71)

Bravo to Director Milos Foreman! I love this film!!!!!!!

It's nice to see it again, this time on DVD. It never looked better! The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice.

The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very "watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect.

In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out. (May contain spoilers) I find myself disappointed with the criticism this movie receives. While it is most certainly not perfect, it is much better than it is given credit for. The acting and photography are excellent. Some of the musical numbers are great; including the title number, "Where Do I Go?", "Easy to be Hard", and "Black Boys/White Boys". While I have not seen the stage musical, I think that it clouds the judgement of many. This is not the musical you see in theatres. Do not attempt to compare them. The theatrical musical might have been sensational to watch, but it would never have had the same effect on film, so a plot had to be added. And the ending that has been added is just amazing. The movie left me feeling like I had actually watched something important, unlike most of today's movies, which only satisfy on one level. The 1979 film musical of HAIR was loosely based on the infamous 1960's Broadway musical that became famous because of its infamous nude scene. The stage musical isn't really much more than a group of skits strung together with some amusing musical numbers; however for the film director Milos Foreman (who won an Oscar for directing ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) and the writers have taken the basic premise of the play and the score and constructed a real story to make the show more "user friendly" for the big screen. In the film, naive farm boy Claude Hooper Buchowski (John Savage) is about to go into the army and decides to spend a couple of days in New York where he meets a group of aging hippies (Treat Williams, Dorsey Wright, Annie Golden, Don Dacus)who get him involved in a group of nutty misadventures, including the pursuit of a snooty society girl (Beverly D'Angelo). The story divides into a series of vignettes that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, but it is all gorgeously photographed with a clever use of NYC locations and imaginatively staged musical numbers (outstandingly choreographed by the legendary Twyla Tharp). Treat Williams lights up the screen as Berger, the unconventional and free-spirited hippie who does his best to get Claude to loosen up and is matched scene for scene by Savage as Claude, who brings a lovely sweetness to the role of Claude. Annie Golden is a charmer as Jeannie, the pregnant hippie who is pregnant by Wright or Dacus, doesn't know which one is the father and doesn't seem to care. There is one outstanding musical number after another here..."Aquarius" is a tour through Central Park which includes dancing horses...Treat Williams disrupts a fancy dinner party in "I Got Life"..."Black Boys/White Boys" features the late Nell Carter and Ellen Foley extolling the ethnic virtues of men and "Easy to be Hard" is a powerful rendering of one of the best songs in the show by original cast member Cheryl Barnes, who plays Wright's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. This is a beautifully photographed, well-acted sung, and danced psychedelic acid trip of a movie that must be seen and once seen, will initiate multiple viewings as this dazzler has to much to offer to catch it all in one showing. I'm not a big musical fan, but this is one of the few I really love. Unlike many other musicals, such as "The Sound of Music," none of the songs are about gratuitous stuff. Each song is social commentary, acumen on war, sexuality, recalcitrance, spirituality, and freedom. Especially amazing songs are "Easy To Be Hard," "Age of Aquarius," "Hair," "Flesh Failures/3-5-0-0," "Walking In Space," and "Hare Krishna." Totally revolutionary and wonderful. I can't wait to someday see it live! The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools, mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers and singers. The antiwar musical "Hair" is my number one cult-movie. I do not know how many time I have seen this film in the movie-theaters and on VHS, or how many times I have listened the CD with the stunning soundtrack, and now, this masterpiece has been finally released on DVD in Brazil.

The pacifist and touching story is still amazing, a hymn of freedom, friendship and liberty of choices, and pictures the resistance of a generation against the stupidity of war. I do not know what happened to this wonderful generation of the counterculture of the 70's and their dreams, since the present world is probably worse than in the 70's. I do not recall who won the Oscar in 1979, but Treat Williams and John Savage deserved at least a nomination for their awesome performances. Beverly D'Angelo is extremely gorgeous in the role of a hypocrite spoiled upper-class teenager. I have seen "Hair" probably more than twelve times, and my eyes always get wet while Berger walks to the airplane singing "That's me, that's me, that's me", and I start crying with his gravestone in the cemetery. I believe this is one of the most beautiful, sad and touching conclusions of the cinema history. My wife, my daughter and my son also love this film; therefore I can guarantee that "Hair" is timeless and recommended for any audience. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Hair" When I was younger I saw the end of HAIR on TV. I just watched the last 5 minutes of the film. And I was really impressed by it. I got goose pimples and I said to myself that I HAD to watch this film.

And I did, and I've to say: This film is amazing. The songs are great, the actors are very good and the message... The message of this film is one of the most important ones: "Make love, no war". This film is a real masterpiece. Meanwhile it's my favourite film.

The last song is one of the saddest and happiest I ever listened to. I nearly could feel myself joining the crowd. All I've got to say: "LET THE SUN SHINE, LET THE SUN SHINE IN" Hair is one of my favorite movies of all times. Even not being part of my generation, I already watched this movie 9 times and I can't get enough with the beautiful message of understanding,passion,beauty and love. This movie is against the Vietnam war and shows how people should be united independent of the color,origins, religions and classes. I love the characters Berger and Woof and I think Central Park of the 70's one of the most beautiful places I already saw in my life.

By the way,I still have this music in my mind:

When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius The age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or decisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius!

ps: I am surprised to see that the director of this movie is the same director of AMADEUS. I just love both movies! i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.

if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!! Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country. One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely "cells" in a "body" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role. Absolutely amazing! Humor, up-beat music and an anti-war message make this probably the best movie I have ever seen.

First of all, I love how clever this movie is, particularly in the Vietnam part of the plot. It's interesting how they make the army officials enforcing the draft look ridiculous. Follow that with the serious situation of the actual war, and then the conclusion (which leaves me seething with anger at the war); and yet there is absolutely no violence on the screen. Wow.

Also, the music is really cool. But what is very unique in this musical (as opposed to Evita, or Wizard of Oz, for example) is that the lyrics don't tell the story. The mood does (along with the visuals and between-songs-dialog): "Donna" is an upbeat song which emphasizes the happy mood, whereas "Flesh Failures" has a driving, intense beat, in a minor key.

Also, I notice the LSD scene is not very flattering. Now I'm definitely not going to do drugs (not that I ever intended to).

All things considered, this is an amazing movie. The only negative comment I could say is that it's sometimes hard to hear the dialog. But who cares? 10/10 stars! This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them. November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for thought.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.

The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...

There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.

Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...

Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.

How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.

Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too. I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun.

The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills) and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers (especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as Claude) are memorable.

As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam issues of the 1960s.

Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy of 'Easy To Be Hard'.

I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era. Treat Williams reached a degree of stardom with this movie, and really squandered it. Don't be led astray by his poor movie choices since. This movie really stands out. "Hair" is a musical that really deals with the attitude, and probably more so with the persona, of the famed peace movement of the 60's. There is a lot of spectacular music done in spectacular fashion. Unlike the music videos of the late 70's, 80's, and 90's, the video flashes coincide with the subject matter of the music. In other words, the video makes sense when matched with the songs, so you know it never could've made it on MTV. The subject matter dwells on drugs and being hippies, but it mostly an anti war movie dealing with the senseless tragedies of Viet Nam. One of the protagonists is an Oklahoma boy intent on making a difference, believing all the patriotic dribble he is spoon fed, and he happens upon a gang in New York, who are more or less glorified hoodlums; their characters are very unique, and probably wouldn't make sense today, but this bunch bands together by burning their draft cards. What ensues in some spectacular scenery and mesmerizing scenes involving not only the three leads, but the other 3 gang members, as well as a newcomer with a small child, whose entrance is easily one of the ten grandest entrances of all time in cinema, partly because she sings one of the greatest songs of that generation. Despite their faults, you come to love these people, a cinematic triumph with a heart felt and grand finale. Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later, seems even more unique and rare in retrospect.

The music is just extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting.

But the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting, costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've seen.

I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in "Hair," based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures, but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father.

I love the fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks (one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of 1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of both.

"Hair"isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day. I first saw this movie in the theater. I was 10. I just watched it a second time and I must say it was amazing. The music, the dancing, the acting. It is a great story and told extremely well. I fell absolutely in love with Treat Williams when I was a kid after seeing him in this movie. One of my favorite parts was when his mom kept yelling at him to give her his pants, and then finally said "how much do you need"? (money). That was classic. ; ).

Moms are the best. If you haven't seen this movie since it came out I say see it again. It's timeless. It will do what all great movies do; make you laugh, cry, and think. conventional and superficial ,Claude´s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough i don´t know why it was given a PG rating .

It couldn't have come out at a worse time--just as the nation was entering the Reagan years, the boom-boom 80s, the time of no regrets, no concerns. It got no word of mouth, and opened poorly. The studio ditched it. But Hair is possibly the best musical ever made--with Forman directing and Tharpe choreographing, it's a startlingly beautiful, well-acted, well-written triumph that few people remember. The casting is perfect, the musical numbers unforgettable, and even the downer of an ending doesn't diminish the film's indomitable spirit.

If you haven't see this movie, you haven't seen the best musical of all time. Seriously. This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! Just watched Hair after a lapse of 20 years. It struck home. For those of us who tried to stand on the shoulders of the civil rights movement and fight the rule of privilege and power; who resisted the fascism of the Johnson/Nixon administrations; who now as veterans of civil wars fought the war in Vietnam every single day until finally the US beast died and fled; for all who said no in many different ways -- it's remarkable how unsuccessful we were. How large the real table was on which Treat danced. How driven the wizard behind the curtain. We were 20, 22, 24. We didn't know the nature of the enemy. The size of the monster who for the next thirty years and counting would continue to eat the world. How could we? Even with smoke and the bat (the bat!) in our hand, like Treat, we were too young, too middle class, too invested, too much a part of the actions we hated.

But there was a moment. As Andre Gregory observes in My Dinner With. . . , there was a moment or two somewhere back there in the late 60's and early 70's when perhaps we could have found something besides the yellow brick road. Something not fueled by Bechtel, prisons, Enron, and Dick. Something collaborative. Something innocent and critical at once. Something with dance.

But we missed it. Like Kong bending a girder, the "revolution" was turned in on itself. Into sexism. Racism. Homophobia. And class crushing politics. Until we got to "W". Treat would have hated "W". And Iraq and the pathological lies. If they were in that film. Then. But the moment passed and "W" was almost inevitable. Comprehensive incompetence riding the drunken, raging bull into estuaries, children's lives, and China shops.

We should have done something more. Something better. But we clearly didn't know what.

Now what? For people like me who were born long after the '60s ended, we can only learn about the era through cultural artifacts, of which "Hair" is one. This is certainly a well done tour de force. One can get a sense of how things were for the hippie culture. Probably the most impressive scene - for me at least - is when the group crashes the rich people's party. As for the movie's final scene, one might interpret it as the symbolic end of everything that the '60s represented.

But no matter how one interprets this movie, it's important to understand that even though the '60s themselves may have ended, the movements that typified them still exist in small enclaves. It's a time that people won't soon forget.

Anyway, this movie is one that I definitely recommend. Milos Forman scored another great one here, right between his two masterpieces "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Ragtime" (so why did he later make a piece of crap like "Man on the Moon"?!). Starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly D'Angelo. A competent comedy that delivers the laughs for fans of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. I suppose this film was made for those who enjoyed the two GRUMPY OLD MEN films, as there seemed to be a bunch of these buddy team-ups spotlighting the comical duo in their twilight years. The idea is a sure-fire one: Matthau, a bumbling gambler who's thousands of dollars in debt, connives his unsuspecting friend Lemmon into taking a free cruise with him where they can meet rich old ladies; the catch is, they've been signed on as Dance Hosts and Matthau can't dance.

OUT TO SEA is a funny film, and not all of the chuckles are to be found courtesy of Lemmon and Matthau. I found Brent Spiner (best known as Data from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION) to be very humorous as the snobby ball-busting dance coordinator. As the prissy boss of the two aging actors, he manages to match them in the laughs department. Though the film doesn't really need any, there's also a a love story or two to be found here as well, involving Dyan Cannon (who looks pretty fine for her years). Movies aren't always suppose to be about deep, provolking thoughts. Sometimes they're simply meant to be escapes from reality. Out To Sea fits the bill perfectly.

A light hearted "golden years" romantic comedy, Out To Sea may not be big budget, you might be able to easily tell when they were acting in front of a green screen, but it's still very much a movie worth watching. A sweet movie that needs to be given a break.

This is just good, light hearted fun. It's not meant to be a deep movie. It's something worth watching. If for nothing else, you must see it for Brent Spiner's humorously stiff and uptight rendition of Oye Como Va. Gil is a character you love to hate and Mr. Spiner pulls off the perfect evil comic foil to two beloved comedy movie gods. While this movie is not the most entertaining in the world, I think it is better than most over all. I mean it had it's little laughs and just all around a good feeling. It's not too often we get to see two old geezers just having fun with their age and honestly having a good time with the jokes. Walter and Jack had such a great chemistry together as friends/brother in-laws. Just watching them romancing these women was fun and you rooted for them all the way because wither we have to admit it or not, for their age, they still had game! :D I loved just the whole plot of being able to move on and having fun no matter how old you are. I'd recommend this movie for a nice laugh if you want one.

7/10 I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies. The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon, both of whom are sadly missed, proved once again that they were a team dedicated to their craft of bringing hilarious moments to the screen. This film is just another example of this.

This time out they play two brothers-in-law who land on a ship as dance instructors on board.

Of course, their boss is a perfectionist and miserable person named Gil Godwin who just enjoys harassing these boys. It's hilarious how Lemmon gives a quick lesson in dancing to Matthau and how the latter dances a riotous rumba with the boat's owner Rue McLanahan.

Too bad that fellow dance instructors Hal Linden and Donald O'Connor are given so little to do but their parts call for that. Matthau falls for Dyan Cannon, on board with her fellow gold-digging mother, the usual outrageous Elaine Stritch. Unknown to them, Matthau has no money either. The widower Lemmon falls for Gloria De Haven, looking lovelier than ever.

The film belongs to Matthau and Lemmon and will serve as a further tribute to their illustrious careers. I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an enormous talent.

There is a great chemistry among all the main cast members and Matthau has never been funnier.

I am tremendously glad that this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves that "Data" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can play.

The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I highly recommend it. 8/2008. When I originally wrote my comments, shortly after first seeing this film, I took a critical view, feeling that Lemmon and Matthau had basically "phoned-in" their performances, which paired them in a manner they'd done several times previously.

But upon seeing it again, it seemed different, especially in view that neither of the two main mega-stars lived a great deal longer after its release.

With the exception of Spiner, all of the eight principals are performers with considerable experience, and likewise unavoidably a lot "longer in tooth" than we've seen in many of their other film and t.v. work. But isn't almost everyone?

Seeing it again, while it certainly won't be regarded as a "classis" in any of their careers, it is a fun film, with a lot of interesting scenery as well.

From my viewpoint, it reminds me that many films, plays, etc., can often be looked at either from a very critical viewpoint, or looking instead to the lighter side, without expecting a film to be another "Citizen Kane," "Casablance," or (in terms of the two leads), another original "Odd Couple." It also will provide a continuing piece of nostalgia for Lemmon and Matthau, as well as the others in the cast. This is the kind of movie that people of a certain age will say of "I didn't think they made movies like that anymore". Walter Matthau gives his usual over-the-top performance, but instead of leaving teeth marks all over the scenery, leaves endearing grease stains. He is like that great uncle we all know that still wears plaid polyester and embarrasses everyone, but we still love anyway.

Jack Lemmon's performance reminds us why he had more Golden Globe nominations than anyone else (22). He gives a true-to-life performance of the basically 'good, ordinary man', even in the milieu of a farce.

This film will probably not appeal to people who prefer blunt humor designed to confront or offend, but will appeal to people who appreciate broad farce played with a straight face.

The entire supporting cast is excellent in their ability to play such absurd characters while maintaining the reality of each character.

Brent Spiner gives a marvelous performance as a professional version of a lounge lizard. Anyone who has known professional hosts in real life will immediately recognize the type he is playing. He nails the type perfectly. His rendition of 'slime' merits study as a perfect example of the contrast between absurd and pathetic.

The plot is rather a straight-forward 'let's marry rich' theme that has the usual results. Just because a plot theme has been done a thousand times does not mean that it is dated, but rather that it is a timeless theme.

The rest of the supporting cast shows what can happen when professionals exhibit their skills in the roles that are written for them, instead of vying for the spotlight. In this film even the second tier actors shine. It is also obvious that they enjoyed making this film.

The plot may be standard and thin, but it allows the performers to shine.

This film is a true treat for people who want to see professional actors engaging in their craft. The plot falls away and the performers shine. with two old friends.

I've always enjoyed both Lemmon's and Mathaeu's films, and of course their team efforts are always worth watching, and often hilarious.

Although I didn't personally regard this film as in the hilarious category, it is certainly a competent and entertaining vehicle for fans of the two principle actors and of 60s style romantic comedy plots.

Brent Spiner may actually steal the show in terms of laughs as the arrogant and tyrannical Cruise Director.

Gloria DeHaven proves that senior ladies can remain enormously attractive. Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again. "Out to Sea" is a fun movie starring that wonderful duo of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. This film is not quite as funny as their "Grumpy Old Men" comedies (which it strongly resembles), but there are many laughs throughout. Lemmon and Matthau play a couple of in-laws who take a cruise together. Once they get on the boat, the thing Lemmon doesn't know is that Matthau has signed them on as dance hosts so they don't have to pay for the cruise. This infuriates Lemmon who's in no mood to dance. What's worse, Matthau doesn't even know how to dance. Nevertheless, they go along with it and it the process they meet some of their fellow passengers and crew members. Here are the crew members: there's the cruise director Gil Godwyn, played to the hilt by "Star Trek: The Next Generation" veteran Brent Spiner, who acts like an evil dictator. There's two fellow dance hosts, played by "Barney Miller" star Hal Linden and veteran movie musical star Donald O'Connor. There's the ship's owner Mrs. Carruthers, played by "Golden Girl" Rue McClanahan. As for the passengers: there's Vivian, a widow played by Gloria De Haven, who falls in love with Lemmon. There's Liz, played by one of my all-time favorite actresses, Dyan Cannon, who falls in love with Matthau. There's Mavis, Liz's mother, played by veteran stage actress Elaine Stritch. And they meet others as well. All these actors are a pleasure to watch as Lemmon and Matthau play off of them. It's great to see Cannon here, see's beautiful as ever; Stritch is a hoot; Spiner is a funny comic villain who's plays it deadly straight; De Haven is wonderful; Linden, O'Connor, and McClanahan have a good moment or two; and finally, the two main stars, Lemmon and Matthau, are fine as usual. A nice little gem of a comedy.

*** (out of four) This film is well cast, often silly and always funny. Lemmon and Matthau work their tag team magic to perfection. Brent Spiner is just a riot as the egotistical tyrant of a cruise director. From the first "hare krishna" to the last "you ought pay him fifty bucks for calling you two studs", I thought this was a totally entertaining fun comedy A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T. Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event, and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other 'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper'). We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.

America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of "native" peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.

Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's "Big Stick". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best. Sean Connery is very good as the Great Raisuli, Lord of the Rif and Defender of the Faithful. This is an adventure movie with Arabs, Germans and the USMC all coming to grips at one point or another. There is also a lot of humor in the interplay among the main and supporting characters. The story is based on the true incident in which a wealthy Greek-American businessman was kidnapped by the Raisuli in the early 1900s. Milius has substituted Candace Bergen and her two children as the victims of the kidnapping, and this opens the story to a lot of literary license.

On the other hand, the movie gives Milius the opportunity to remind the viewer of two of the most famous (though mostly forgotten) political quotations of the TR era. Brian Keith (very good as TR) says, "Pedecaris alive or the Raisuli dead!"; and John Huston (also good as Sec of State John Hay)asks the Japanese Ambassador at a White House dinner, "You likee knifee, you likee forkee?" One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...

Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans...

Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?"

Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.

Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...

Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD. Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during 1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right. Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of Morocco, "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."

But in this adaptation of that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was serviceable enough at the time.

The damsel in distress makes better screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond one brigand's demand for ransom.

The Wind and the Lion is hardly history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his predecessor William McKinley.

But kids don't use this film to skip reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era. This was my late wife's favorite film. I'm sorry she did not live long enough to have the video as I'm sure she would have worn it out. What can we say? A great romantic story and the push off of two great men, the Raisuli and Teddy Rex. Sean Connery and Brian Keith are great in these roles. But while Connery is his usual sexy sex, it's the late Brian Keith who gives us a solid performance as the mercurial Teddy Roosevelt. Back up is provided with Candy Bergen, gorgeous in her early 30s, as the kidnapped American widow. Great back-up also comes from the great John Huston as Teddy's beleaguered SecState, John Hay; Geoffrey Lewis, from the Clint Eastwood films is great as the hesitant US Ambassador, Gummere; the late Vladek Sheybal with his demonically evil stare is great as the Beshaw and more is given by Steve Kanaly and Roy Jensen whose faces we have seen in several backgrounds. All in all, this is a film filled with wonderful romance, mindful of an era long gone. Mindless story? Not at all. The issue of big nations pushing around smaller ones for their own hegemonical interests is as true today as it was then. Overly romantic? Not really-- certainly not maudlin in any sense. Fun to watch? You bet. I own the video and will watch it again and again. I suggest you do the same. When I reviewed the video for a local magazine, I called it "the greatest achievement in the history of the American cinema." That was not wholly tongue in cheek. TW&TL remains Milius' best work, and it's sad that he has so little opportunity to work anymore. However, TW&TL remains a striking exposition of what once was known as The American Character, largely on the strength of Brian Keith's superb portrayal of Teddy R. (Obviously Milius--and Keith--admired TR tremendously to make two films about him, including "The Rough Riders.") It's hard to fault this film at any level: a splendid balance of action, levity, relationships, and the serious topic of America coming of age in the world. Furthermore, TW&TL has exceptional appeal across the board: note the stats showing it rates best with under-18 males, females 18-29, and over 45! Clearly Candy Bergen struck a responsive chord with women as well as men. This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to "Lawrence of Arabia" does no justice to both movies. "The Wind and the Lion" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me. I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it, everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10 out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it.

Systemoffell This is one great, sweeping, movie you will remember for a long time. It is about history, America, the change of times, Teddy Roosevelt, Morocco, a kidnapped American and her children, and the leader of the Berbers, with the blood of the Prophet in his veins.

This movie is based on a true story--like Jesse James was a banker. An American WAS kidnapped in Morocco and the Marines went part-way to the shores of Tripoli to rescue him. So much for that. You know Hollywood. Sean Connery is the Berber chieftain and Muslim leader. Candice Bergan is the guy who was kidnapped, along with her two kids; the son is Rex Harrison's grandson, Simon, no less. John Huston is Secretary of State, with a great John-Huston-style straight line at a State Dinner, watch out for it. Brian Kieth IS Teddy Roosevelt, all-American, all-male, a character that is an interesting commentary as modern as today.

The sweep and beauty of the desert and Morocco are shown beautifully in the cinematography in this film, which will stay with you, a haunting and compelling memory. The score is as sweeping and exotic as the images.

This is a story about two cultures, both with grand ideas and historic pasts, struggling for the future without an idea at all about one another. In any event, the struggle comes down to might versus ingenuity.

Then at the last, there is the little boy--remember the little boy? What do you think HE thinks? Writer/director John Milius takes a little-known incident from American history and extrapolates wildly in all the right ways. The result is a grand adventure tale that showcases two of its stars in memorable, larger-than-life roles: Sean Connery as the wily Arab sheik with an inexplicable Scottish brogue, and Brian Keith as President Theodore Roosevelt, itching for the chance to put that "big stick" to good use.

Aided immeasurably by Billy Williams' glorious widescreen cinematography and a magnificent score by the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith, this early effort seemed the harbinger of a talent to rank with contemporaries Lucas, Coppola and Spielberg. Although Milius served up tantalizing glimpses of his ability in scripts for JEREMIAH JOHNSON and APOCALYPSE NOW, his career seemed to take a downward turn not long after he started directing, ultimately foundering on dreck like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and RED DAWN.

Here's hoping that he will again find his way. This is a perfectly watchable adventurous movie to watch, with a great cast and a good story, based on true events.

It's interesting to note that the story of the movie is based on true events. It's above all for most part an adventurous story, with all of the usual ingredients you would expect from an adventurous movies set in an Arabic world. So, lots of sword fighting, good old fashioned honor, religion and a rich proud country. But the movie is also filled with humor, to make the movie a light and pleasant one to watch.

The constant cutting back and forth between the Morocco plot involving Sean Connery and Candice Berger and the American plot line involving Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) wasn't the best possible approach in my opinion. The two things have totally different paces, totally different characters, it are just totally different worlds! Of course both story lines are connected and focuses on the same thing but the contrast between the two worlds is just too big to let it work out. It doesn't at all times make the movie feel connected and a bit disjointed. The American plot line is most of the time more political while the Morrocan plot line is purely adventurous and action filled. In the end you could perhaps even wonder what the whole point or Roosevelt in this movie was. Seem that John Milius is just a big admirer of him. Often the American plot line would take away most of the pace out of the far more interesting and more action filled fast paced Morrocan plot line. After all, John Milius always has been at his best as an action director.

It isn't until halve way through that the movie fully gets on steam. The most- and largest scaled action of the movie then kicks in. Especially the large scale end battle does not disappoint. I wish the entire movie was like this. That way this movie would had also been a better known one, no doubt.

The movie has a great Jerry Goldsmith musical score, that is perhaps way better known than the actual movie itself. The movie is also a good looking one with great production design and nice looking action and battle sequences in it. Appereantly the movie only costs $4,000,000 to make but that is really hard to believe, considering the settings and size of the movie. I mean John Milius his best known movie "Conan the Barbarian" cost about $20,000,000 to make but was a far more campy looking one and was less impressive on its scale.

Quite funny to see an Arabic speak with a big fat Scottish accent but hey, it's Sean Connery so you just simply tend to accept this. He suits his role well. So does Candice Bergen. It's always hard for a female character to come across as believable and work out in a movie such as this one but she manages. Also John Huston plays a great role in this movie!

A perfectly fine watchable movie!

7/10 Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.

The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.

In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.

Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake. 1904. The North African nation of Morocco is hanging onto a tenuous Independence, as the various European powers - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain, and now the United States - are vying for influence in the region. The Sultan (Marc Zuber) is a weak puppet; his uncle, the Bashaw (Vladek Sheybal), who is being manipulated by the French and Germans, is the real power behind the throne. Enter Berber Chieftan Raisuli (Sean Connery), the leader of the Rif tribe and "the last of the Barbary Pirates", who kidnaps an American missionary, Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her two children and takes them hostage. Back in the US, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) threatens to go to war over the issue: "Pedecaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!" - seeing the issue as the perfect way to exercise his "Big Stick" diplomacy, though Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston) is not so confident. However, the Raisuli has less sinister plans for the Pedecarises, who are more than capable of handling themselves in any event.

John Milius's great historical film, based VERY loosely off of a true story (i.e. Pedecaris was a middle-aged man), is a wonderful bit of escapism. It has some amazing action scenes, a witty, well-written script, a fine cast enjoying themselves with the material, and does not overstay its welcome like, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean" or the "Lord of the Rings" movies. It's not really an "epic" film in the strictest sense, but it's one of the best pure action movies ever made.

While the historical context is shaky, the storyline is interesting, and as some reviewers point out, it is even more pertinent today than it was when made. As President Roosevelt says, "America is like a grizzly bear" - fierce, strong, but a little blind and reckless at times. At the time of the film's setting, America has just been propelled onto the world stage as superpower, following their resounding victory in the Spanish-American War - and Roosevelt seizes this incident as a way to prove America's worth. In real life, it didn't quite work out that way, but allegorically it works well. While written from a right-wing perspective, Milius's screenplay is pretty accurate in assessing America and its place in the world. He admires Roosevelt and his method of "big stick" diplomacy, and correctly recognizes (in the words of Roosevelt) that while America may be feared and respected, they'll never be truly "loved" by the world, no matter what they do. And there are some scenes - like Roosevelt's target shooting of European leaders and the almost-comic surprise attack by Marines on the Bashaw's palace - which show America's reckless and violent side, while others - the climactic showdown with the Germans - show their heroism.

The historical/political context of the film is, of course, merely meat on the bones of what is essentially a rousing action/adventure film. There are some brilliantly done action scenes, such as Raisuli's rescue of the Pedecaris's from double-crossing tribesmen, which features some of the best swordplay in any film. The opening entrance of the Raisuli and the aforementioned march and attack of the US Marines are brilliantly done bravura set pieces. And the final battle, which combines elements of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Wild Bunch", while a major historical fantasy (a three-way battle between Germans, Americans, and the Rifs), is a superbly staged, adrenaline-pumping sequence.

The excellent cast gives some wonderful performances. Everyone seems to be having a fun time with the film, and it shows. Sean Connery is surprisingly convincing as a Berber with a Scottish accent, but manages to pull off his interesting, well-drawn and chivalrous character who comes to respect his hostage and abhors modern, uncivil warfare. Candice Bergen, an actress whom I've never been fond of, gives a fine performance as the feisty Eden Pedecaris, who is every bit as tough as her captor. Brian Keith is an amazingly convincing TR - you really feel he must have been like this, an athletic, blustering, yet practical and intelligent man with an admirable sense of self. The scenes of Roosevelt boxing and target-shooting while discussing foreign policy are some of the greatest "bad ass" moments in movie history - and who can forget lines like "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" John Huston provides solid support as the weary, cautious Hay, acting as a perfect foil to the much more impetuous Roosevelt.

Among the fine supporting cast, the best are Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel Gummere, the cynical Ambassador caught in the middle of the political intrigue, and Steve Kanaly, as the gung-ho Marine Captain who cheerfully advocates (and carries out) "Military intervention!" as the blunt and simple solution to the whole complex situation. Other familiar faces such as Vladek Sheybal, Nadim Sawalha, Roy Jenson, Larry Cross, Marc Zuber, and Darrell Fetty also do fine work, no matter how small their role. Spaghetti Western fans will recognize Antoine Saint-John ("A Fistful of Dynamite") as the German general and Aldo Sambrell as one of Raisuli's tribesmen.

"The Wind and the Lion" is, all around, a wonderfully done adventure film. It has something for everyone: wonderful gun- and swordplay, a lot of humor, a tough, feisty heroine (and her two cute children), a nice (if unconsummated) romance, and an interesting (if fanciful) political/historical context. It's not a masterpiece, but hey, it wasn't trying to be. I give "The Wind and the Lion" a stirring nine stars and my highest recommendation. Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident "The Wind and the Lion" is a very good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa.

El Raisuli (Sean Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very complete and enjoyable movie in the genre.

The outdoor dessert locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly.

Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as American president Teddy Roosevelt.

Most entertaining and very good cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it. Okay,I'm a history buff,and okay,I'm a action film junkie,so of course,this film is on my top ten of all time.I really love the action scenes,and the unique weaponry of the period.I sort of have doubts about fighting two-handed sword from horse-back,and the Raisuli sword seems more katana-like than scimitar-like,...oh well,I've never fought from horse back,either.

I love the attempts at philosophic proverbs,too.The typical desert tribesman probably couldn't read the Koran,so they'd take his word for it.Several writers have criticized Connery's brogue;well,on vacation as a youth,I met a family of South Africans in our west,Dinosaur National Monument,and although they spoke Africaans between themselves(yeah,second generation Germans can hear the difference),they spoke English with a Scottish brogue.Seems that who teaches you affects your pronunciation.Scottish Missionary? One of the earlier reviews of this movie ends with "Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance/Adventure Holywood movies...," as if those weren't reason enough to love it! Anyone who, after seeing this movie, complains about Connery's accent, or the lack of historical verisimilitude, or the realism of the political motivations, or any other extra-movie concerns, simply doesn't love movies. See it and be awed by the star-power of the two leads, the exotic, romantic, photography and music, and the bold adventure of a truly escapist film. This is proof that Hollywood can "make 'em like they used to" when it really wants to. A solid 8/10. Now, lissen you guys, I LOVED THIS FILM, though not quite as much as FAREWELL TO THE KING, another beloved John Milius epic. It was fun, a lot more than if it were based on a Tennessee Williams drama. It's a great yarn, with a whiff of political correctness. I love this film for its beautiful photography, its humor and its attenuated criticism of the Bad Guys (Berbers) and the REAL Bad Guys, the spear- carriers for the acquisitive 'civilized' world, with their repeating rifles, artillery and large gunboats out there in the harbor.

The standout scene is the Berber encampment with blue-gray smoke from the cooking fires rising into the chill desert air. It is visually eloquent, highly evocative.

Set in 1904 Morocco, WIND features a helpless American woman (Candace Bergen) who is taken hostage by a dashing, albeit immodest, Berber bandit (Sean Connery-the very model ofa Scottish Muslim nomad). The exciting story is based on a few historical facts. The photography is Milius beautiful, punctuated by Jerry Goldsmith's outstanding score.

Mrs Pedicaris and the Raisuli conduct protracted foreplay and bounce around in the desert between oases. Even though the Raisuli proudly traces his lineage back to the apes, he is a perfect gentleman - he even lets her keep her head after she beats him at chess! A Marine detachment storms the Bashaw's palace, putting out the fires of competing hegemonies with gasoline. Don't mess with the Corps, Abdul.

There are many entertaining stereotypes:

Despicable Sultan - resembles a dissipated ferret. Definitely not a Liberal.

Cruel German Officer - a large, bellicose Dachshund sporting a monocle. He gallantly chooses to fight the Raisuli with swords instead of gunning him down in the manner of Indiana Jones. Noblesse oblige, by way of Von Clausewitz?

Dashing Marine Officer - kicks the crap out of the Bashaw of Tangier's army and storms his palace while chewing tobacco. His speech is mildly aphasic. The Bashaw begged him not to breathe on him.

The Berbers - a horde of groveling sycophants led by a charming megalomaniac. None of them take baths, except perhaps in camel urine.

President Teddy Roosevelt is undeservedly portrayed as vacuous and preoccupied with guns, toys and stuffed grizzly bears.

Beautiful American widow - gives the men a lesson in courage, as do her two children. She evidently has a huge supply of clean, starched clothes and rarely has a hair out of place.

The Raisuli sends Teddy Roosevelt a message, thanking him for the gift of a Remington repeating rifle, declaring,

"MEESTER ROOSEVELT, YOU ARE THE LION AND AIEE AM THE BREAKING WIND."

How true.

Please do not take my acerbic remarks to mean that I did not like the film. I had almost as much fun writing this as watching da Pitcher. I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times.

I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.

All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.

As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY."

With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement. Haines is excellent as the brash cadet who thinks West Point will really amount to something now that he has arrived. Haines displays his easy, goofy comic persona as he takes on West Point and Joan Crawford, the local beauty. Great fun for the first half. And amazingly touching after Haines's character goes too far and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets. The new, humility-filled Haines get s alast-minute reprieve to play in the bill football game against Navy and, despite a broken arm, wins the game. Great, rousing entertainment by MGM in this Haines formula film, shows Billy at his best. William Bakewell also scores as the skinny follower. The handsome-but-goony character would be played by Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper and others in later decades, another take on the beautiful-but-daffy dames played by Carole Lombard and Marion Davies. West Point is a winner! A brash, self-centered Army cadet arrives at WEST POINT with a dangerous wise guy attitude towards the Corps.

In a role obviously tailor-made for him, William Haines shines in this highly enjoyable tale of honor & friendship. A grade-A scene stealer, Haines during the first half of the film is up to his usual Silly Billy behavior, which under normal circumstances should have gotten him confined to the guardhouse. The last half, however, becomes very serious, leading up to Haines' moral redemption and giving him a fine opportunity to exhibit his acting talents. If WEST POINT does not quite reach the caliber of Haines' previous TELL IT TO THE MARINES (1926), this is doubtless due to the absence here of a costar of the charisma & quality of Lon Chaney for Haines to interact with. However, this tribute to the Army is very effective entertainment and should be appreciated on its own merit.

Joan Crawford appears as Haines' love interest, playing the virginal daughter of the local innkeeper. Joan is pert & pretty and especially shines in her first scenes, when she meets Haines on a Hudson River ferry and is subjected to his usual immature antics. Haines & Crawford made five silent feature films together and were tremendous friends for life. He was the much bigger celebrity at this period and gave her many hints for getting ahead in Hollywood. A superstar herself by the early 1930's, she reciprocated after his ouster from MGM in 1932 by encouraging his career change to interior decoration.

Little William Bakewell is effectively cast as a Plebe who idolizes Haines; their relationship is actually given more of a sentimental treatment than that of Haines & Crawford.

The film was made with the full cooperation of the War Department. Extensive location filming at the Academy helps tremendously with the production's ambiance, which was given splendid production values by MGM.

WEST POINT has been recently restored and given a rousing new score by David Davidson. Was struck at how even the acting was throughout. William Haines had an acting range that is wonderful for silent film. Not over the edge. There are moments where the camera work is most excellent, and combined with the story, like when he is waiting to see the Superintendent, very well done.

Thoroughly enjoyed the flick.

I just watched this, an early Harold Lloyd short film that featured his "glasses" character on Kino Video's DVD of "The Harold Lloyd Collection". He's actually a con man with Snub Pollard as his partner who gets discovered by Bebe Daniels who herself performs fake séances. What she discovers is that Lloyd and Pollard bilk many customers by dropping fake rings that are "lost". I'll stop there and just say this was quite funny especially when Harold and Snub enter the place Bebe works and encounter some creepy contraptions and put on costumes like Snub trying one of Bebe's outfits. Not too much slapstick but what there is of was also quite funny. So on that note, I recommend Are Crooks Dishonest? This is a very odd movie for Harold Lloyd--at least in regard to the sweet character he played in movies throughout the 1920s and 30s. Instead of a nice guy, he and Snib Pollard are con men--out to rob everyone blind. In a particularly successful con, Chester pretends to have lost a "very valuable ring" and a bit later, Harold finds it as a stooge is also looking for the ring. The ring, of course, is a cheap one dropped and then found by Harold, but the greed of the stooge is so great, he "convinces" Harold to say nothing and sell him the "valuable" ring and then they run away to enjoy their luck(?). Again and again they find patsies until they meet up with a woman who herself is a con woman (working with a guy doing fake séances). She arranges a nifty con and takes all the money they stole--and has a cop standing by to make sure they give her the money.

As luck would have it, the two con men stumble into the lady's shady business when no one is home. Soon, the lady returns and messes with their minds--releasing a lot of dirty tricks to punish them for their wicked ways.

All around, this is a completely odd and contrived film, but it is also exceedingly funny, as the jokes work very well and Lloyd and Pollard make an excellent team. Plus, while creepy and strange, I liked seeing Pollard dressed like a lady. Sure, most people will designate "Island of the Fishmen" as silly and trashy hokum, but can you honestly name one other movie that brings forward THIS many exhilarating themes? This Italian gem stands for pure entertainment and features stuff like voodoo, volcanic eruptions, mutant fish-creatures, the mysterious continent of Atlantis, treasure-hunting, a remote island filled with death traps and utterly mad scientists! All this and much more in one simple movie? Yes, please! Close-minded opponents of Italian horror cinema can easily tag this film as a cheap exploitation version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but the truth is that this is so much more! "Island of the Fishmen" delivers thrills and adventure from start to finish with surprisingly convincing special effects and astonishingly stylish camera-work. The story promisingly opens with a small group of prisoners, survivors of a shipwreck, washing ashore a tropical island. They encounter the sadistic Edmond Rackham who rules over a native tribe…and a legion of genetically created amphibian monsters that live in the island's swamps. There are so many twists and additional sub-plots in the story that it's almost impossible to write a summary but, trust me, this gem is worth checking out. Sergio Martino once again proves that he's an ingenious filmmaker who has the talent to be commercial-minded and creative at the same time. He makes great use of the beautiful island location and also the interior sets look very impressive. The staggering underwater footage and imaginative scenery really lift this film high above the normal standards of late 70's exploitation. I don't quite understand why Roger Corman reworked the original so much and released it on the American market under a different title ("Screamers"), because there are very few elements open for improvement. The cast members are all Sergio Martino regulars (with the exception of the great Joseph Cotton is a neat supportive rule) and give away great performances. In case you can get your hands on the recently restored German version, you're treated to fifteen uncut minutes of extra action. See it! I finally got a chance to settle in and compare the two versions of this film currently going around -- First, the good old scummy, sleazy Embassy VHS print called SCREAMERS, and then a new fully restored Italian DVD by everyone's new favorite media company, No Shame of Italy.

The American adverts about "men turned inside out" is as everyone says, totally misleading, and indicative of a Roger Cormanized take on what otherwise would be a superior fantasy-adventure thriller for grown ups. The complete Italian version is a somewhat sprawling, well designed and deliberately paced take on "Island of Dr. Moreau", and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a sumptuous, handsome Euro Horror outing with a brain, good plotting, character development, location shooting, period costuming and sets, etc.

But I must admit that the 14 year old knucklehead weed puffer still lurking somewhere inside of me got a bigger kick out of the more lurid, sleazy and unkempt Roger Corman version, which has some nice over the top gore, a flashy but preposterous opening segment, and then the bulk of Martino's original film, albeit somewhat abridged to make room for Roger's idea of entertainment. The pacing was somewhat quicker, the shock sequences closer together, and you see just as much of Ms. Bach's fantastic form as you do in the extended Italian version.

I still don't have much of an idea about what the specific story concerns though: there are a number of plot twists and incidental characters that were somewhat hard to keep track of. A local voodoo subplot didn't help much, and it's funny how everything culminates in just another fistfight between the noble castaway prisoner and the mad scientist ... Perhaps a few more viewings are in order. I will say this: Fans of the movie should avail themselves of one of these PAL imports and take a look at what is actually a movie rather than just another murky old home video -- the widescreen shot compositions once again reveal that Martino had an eye for filling his screen with interesting stuff. Nobody gets their heads ripped off like in the SCREAMERS print, but it's still interesting stuff, and once again proof that while his standards may have been pretty much confined to the area around the gutter, Roger Corman new good trashy fun when he had it made for him, and side by side these are actually better movies than they had to be.

7/10 This movie surprised me. The box is misleading, the tagline is misleading and the costumes and tone of the film are misleading. The movie is quite gory, well-acted and beautifully shot. The special-effects are top-notch and seem to be ahead of their time, until you realize this movie came out in 1979, not in 1963 like it's tone would suggest. It is a unique take on the Dr. Moreau story, and one of the better versions filmed. The first fifteen minutes are the highlight and the most shocking, but the film doesn't ever really fall apart. Definitely worth-seeing if you are a fan of dramatic costume/horror classics and gore-fests. Screamers is an Italian fantasy film (L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce) bought by Roger Corman and released through his New World Pictures. Of course Corman has to carve his initials on it by having one of his lackeys (Dan T. Miller) direct some additional gore footage before he has it released in the states.

L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce is a very entertaining retelling of the Island of Dr. Moreau. It is 1891 and Claudio Cassinelli is shipwrecked on a mysterious island with a few newly escaped convicts. Claudio comes across the stellar Barbara Bach and Richard Johnson. Johnson plays the dastardly Edmund Rackham: a man who is able to manipulate scientist Joseph Cotton into turning the local native population into amphibious deep-sea diving creatures, (they look like a cross between the Black Lagoon creature and one of The Humanoids From the Deep), by convincing Cotton that the mutations are being created for the highest of scientific and humanitarian motives.

Having discovered the lost city of Atlantis, Rackham is using the amphibious creatures to loot its treasures. Sexy Barbara Bach plays Cotton's daughter who has a psychic link with these mutations. In one memorable scene, Bach takes a midnight swim with these mutants wearing only a thin white cotton dress that leaves little to the imagination. Claudio discovers one of the convicts he has befriended has been turned into a gill-creature and then all Hell breaks loose.

Filmed at the same time and in the same location as Zombi 2, Richard Johnson didn't even have to change suits between films. The house where the experiments take place is the same house Johnson uses to conduct experiments in Zombi 2. Talk about economic filmmaking!

The additional footage features a few bloody beheadings, (way to go Roger!), and a laughably bad Cameron Mitchell doing his best pirate imitation. All that's missing is the parrot.

Spanish title: Le Continent Des Hommes Poissons Fans of Euro-horror flicks - Portland's video/DVD store Movie Madness has a whole section devoted to this genre - can't afford to miss Sergio Martino's gut-busting "L'isola degli uomini pesce" (called "Screamers" in the United States). Here's the lowdown: some shipwreck survivors land on an uncharted Caribbean island in 1891. The island is inhabited by a landowner, a scientist (Joseph Cotten) and his daughter (Barbara Bach). Sure enough, it turns out that the landowner is making the scientist create a race of fish-men. And while the fish-men remain calm as long as they can drink their potion, they get nasty otherwise.

This movie is sort of a mixture of genres: Euro-horror, swashbuckling, voodoo, and maybe a little bit of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". But it's mostly an excuse to have the fish-men disembowel trespassers; ya gotta love that! I wouldn't be surprised if the Euro-horror genre gave Quentin Tarantino some of his ideas for "Grindhouse". After all, the European horror directors have no scruples about what they show. This is one that you're sure to like.

So Joseph Cotten is the only cast member from an Alfred Hitchcock movie (I mean "Shadow of a Doubt") who later co-starred with Ringo Starr's soon-to-be wife and Audrey Hepburn's ex (by whom I mean Mel Ferrer) in an Italian horror flick. The things that we see in life... When a group of escaped convicts manage to flee to a remote island,they soon find that their new home is inhabited by a strangely menacing doctor(Richard Johnson of "Zombi 2" fame),a mad scientist(Joseph Cotten),his beautiful daughter(Barbara Bach)and a horde of superstitious natives.The tribesmen say that the doctor has created grotesque half-human,half-fish creatures for evil,secretive purposes.And though at first the prisoners do not believe this,as they disappear,one by one,they begin to change their minds."Screamers" is a very entertaining mix of "Mysterious Island" and "Humanoids from the Deep".There is plenty of gore with really cool decapitation scene and throat tearing to boost.The acting is so-so,but the film is fast-paced and entertaining.Give it a look.8 out of 10. Although the video box for many copies of this film claims it is about people turned inside out, this is a total lie. In fact, apart from the opening segment, the film isn't even a horror movie. With its sunken treasure, legions of fish people, and mad scientists, it's a lot more like a Doug McClure adventure movie. Obviously, this film is no work of art, but it's kind of fun to watch... Just be warned that the beginning is quite gory. action packed,with my favorite type of creature.I won't give any of it away if you have'nt seen it,cause it's worth taking the time to sit down and unravel in the mystery of things as presented in this film.It did gets slow at times and those were the moments my mind wondered which does easily anyways but moist of it kept me quietly thrilled,where you keep it in your head instead of letting it out,probably the mood I was in at the time.Special effects and action sequences you could feel made up for the occasional lulls.Of course there'es a duschload of movies out there exactly like this,the film still has it's own style and flavor,which I respect from underground independent horror movies anyways. I saw this movie on television as SCREAMERS and loved it. I heard an interesting story about this film. When Roger Corman released it to drive-ins in the summer of 1981, his trailer department sent out an advance trailer which was not actually footage from the film. It was allegedly footage of a naked woman being chased around a laboratory set by a monster. During the film's opening at drive-in's, irate customers complained the did not see the movie they paid to see. Theater owners called Corman and said their customers felt ripped off. So Corman had to run off copies of the footage, and send the positive film to theater owners to splice into the film themselves. Since the footage was never part of the film negative, it has not appeared in any video, DVD or television broadcast. Has anyone ever seen this footage? Anyone who saw this film at a drive-in in the summer of 1981 remember this? Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.

This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II. Watching this odd little adventure movie, it's hard to believe that it was directed by the same man who brought us such high quality Giallo classics as The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and The Case of the Scorpion's Tail, but it has to be said that despite it's low quality production values, Island of the Fish Men is an entertaining ride and one that surely deserves more praise than it's getting. Like many Italian films from the seventies, this is one is a rip off of a successful American film, the one in question this time being the critically panned Island of Dr Moreau. Sergio Martino's film takes ideas such as mutation, greed and adventure and moulds it into one slightly compelling film, which makes up for what it's lacks in coherency and logic with a load of mostly intriguing ideas. The central plot follows a boat which crashes on a small island. It quickly becomes apparent that not everything about this place is normal, and it soon transpires that half of the population has been turned into "fish men" - a cross between a man and a fish, which exist for purely selfish reasons...

The truth about this movie is that it's a lot more fun if you ignore the trashy production values. The central monsters look completely ridiculous, and much of the movie takes place on sets that look like they cost someone a few pennies - but the movie is well shot in spite of this, with the underwater photography being a particular highlight and the pacing of the movie is well done in that the film never becomes boring. The way that the plot comes together isn't exactly genius, but it takes in a lot of ideas and I've seen films made on plots with much less thought put into them than this one. The biggest location standout in the film is definitely the lost city of Atlantis. To be honest, I'm not a massive fan of adventure movies, and therefore don't see this lost city get mentioned much - but it is always nice to see it in a movie. The central island location is good in that it provides an apt setting for the story and also provides the movie with the right amount of mystery, as Martino makes good use of the voodoo theme. Overall, this isn't exactly a classic and there are certainly a lot worse trashy adventure movies out there than this one. 1891: Stalwart, morally upright military doctor Lieutenant Claude de Ross (solid Claudio Cassinelli) and several other shipwreck survivors wash ashore on a remote tropical island that's governed with an iron fist by the ruthless and sadistic Edmund Rackham (superbly played to the deliciously slimy hilt by Richard Johnson), who lives on the island with the feisty Amanda Martin (a winningly spunky performance by the ravishing Barbara Bach) and her unhinged rogue biologist father Professor Ernest Martin (a marvelously dotty portrayal by Joseph Cotten). Moreover, de Ross discovers that Professor Martin has control over a dangerous race of fishman beasts who are being exploited as slave labor by Rackham. Director/co-writer Sergio Martino relates the lively and absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the lush and remote tropical setting, does an expert job of creating and maintaining a creepy and mysterious atmosphere in the spooky opening third, further spices things up with a nice line in dry humor, and stages the exhilarating action-loaded climax with considerable rip-roaring aplomb. While the central premise is obviously inspired by "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the story nonetheless is given a great deal of freshness and intrigue because of Martino's artful melding of such diverse elements as voodoo, the lost underwater city of Atlantis, a rousing mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption, buried treasure, unscrupulous genetic experiments, and even some exciting rough'tumble fisticuffs between de Ross and Rackham during the thrilling conclusion into an altogether dynamic, imaginative, and often immensely entertaining whole. The sound acting by the sturdy cast qualifies as another substantial plus: Cassinelli makes for a likable hero, Johnson essays his juicy villain part with supremely lip-smacking aplomb, Bach rates as a quite fetching damsel in distress, plus there are neat supporting contributions by Beryl Cunningham as sinister voodoo priestess Shakira, Franco Iavarone as the superstitious Jose, and Roberto Posse as surly troublemaker Peter. Giancarlo Fernando's sumptuous widescreen cinematography delivers a wealth of striking visuals while Luciano Michelini's throbbing tribal score hits the funky spot. The amphibious humanoid fishman creatures are pretty gnarly-looking, too. An extremely fun flick. This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer. An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did. Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show. I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance! Trust me, it's good! GZSZ is the longest running daily soap in Germany and it's cult! I started watching it from the first day on and I got hooked on it right from the start. Over the years so much has changed, the old characters like Heiko, Elke, Tina, Saskia etc. left, and new ones appeared like Marie, Kai, Cora or John. I have to say that I liked GZSZ better in the years 1995-2000 because today the show focuses too much on the younger characters. My favorite character is Sonja Wiebe because she is the most scheming person that has ever been on that soap and she is also one of the most interesting characters on the show. Tina Bordihn was great as the first Sonja but as Tokessa became the recast of Sonja the character got even better. "The Planet" is an astounding piece of film making. For a mere £8000 Stirton Production have turned out one of the most original sci-fi films for a long time.

Starring the physically intimidating Mike Mitchell, the film is a mix of great special effects, strong storytelling and well planned action. From the opening space battle, to the pounding finale, everything about this film appears well above it's budget.

To start with the special effects, while certainly not "Revenge Of The Sith" standard, they are on level, if not above, the likes of Babylon 5 and Farscape. And for a snip of a price as well. The detail and the movement is superb, and captures the imagination from the off. The design of everything, ships, weapons, entities is second to none. The imagination and creativity involved is a real surprise for a film of this budget.

Another surprise was the strength of the story, and the arc it takes. There are a few twists and turn, most of which are well written into the script, surprising and well played out. I was surprised that, two years in the making and first imagined 15 years ago, how relevant some aspects of the story are to today's society. With the happenings around the world, there may be a certain resonance with the lengths the mercenaries are forced to go to in order to survive.

Even the sounds effects are spot on, as is the atmospheric music. The use of light and costume add further to the professional look. Balmedie Beach in Aberdeen looks a desolate and lonely place.

In all honesty this film looks 10, if not 100, times the budget spent, and that's testament to a creative, hard working team of people, from the director, to the cast, to the effects via the producer and sound team. Wonderful effort, I recommend you get your hand on a copy ASAP Every once in a while you stumble across a movie that takes you by surprise and this is one of them. On the surprise scale this would rate as sharing a hot tub with Jessica Alba whilst a band consisting of Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Phil Lynott and Keith Moon play you music for the night. The reason why this film will surprise you is that for the meagre budget they had (£8,000) and that this was done by a bunch of mates who just wanted to try it out they have produced something very slick and looks easily 100 times more than its budget.

The plot is simple a crew of mercenaries carrying a dangerous prisoner through space come under attack and are forced to crash land on a nearby desolate planet. After some checks not only does the planet not exist according to star charts but they are not alone as it seems and something very unfriendly begins to pick them of one by one. It sounds like very standard Sci-Fi fare mixing elements of Aliens. Predator and Pitch Black but it takes all these and makes them into something that feels fresh and original.

The Location shooting in this is fantastic, utilising Balmeddie beach in Aberdeen to the maximum and you genuinely feel that you are one an alien world. The seemingly never ending sand dunes and clever lighting effects give it a very bleak feel , you truly think the crew are stranded on an alien world. Also the action sequences are superb, the opening assault on the freighter a great showcase of what special effects can be achieved on a budget and the firefights as well as the stunning finale all showcase the inventiveness of the film.

As for the team of mercenaries the cast excels themselves. For a low budget independent movie the casting here was done via local media outlets and they seem to have picked some possible stars for the future. Local body builder Mike Mitchell whilst not a natural actor slots into his role as the Arnie-Esq leader of the mercenaries. From the rest of the cast there are two stand out performances Patrick Wright as second in command McNeal and Scott Ironside as the rough and ready engineer Vince. Both have some the best lines in the movie and Scott injects a good bit of humour into the movie with his performance. Patrick gives a well rounded performance as the cool as ice second in command.

Director Mark Stirton can be very proud of what he has achieved and shows that Scottish cinema need not all be 'Kilts and Ceilidhs' or 'Slums and Drugs' Scottish films can be fresh, inventive and most of all a lot of god damn fun. This film is Scottish (with a north east flavour) to the core and praise to the actors and directors for keeping the accents intact which adds to the charm of the piece. Although the budget limitations show from time to time (the only fault i could find) that is to be expected. This film, its cast and crew deserve all the success they get and then some more. I for one wish Mark and his crew every success and theirs is a career to keep a very close eye on.

Rating - 9/10 The first Scottish sci-fi is bold, fresh and inventive a real triumph.

Movie reviews, news and opinion like no other plus the kick ass bi-weekly pod-casts.

www.fightrunner.co.uk

contact@fightrunner.co.uk WOW!! Talk about a film that divides the audience! This is a real love it or loath it kinda movie. Personally I really enjoyed it. I noticed that other reviews are comparing it to Pitch Black - this is kinda dumb as the only thing they have in common is SAND! People can be real stupid. No, this film is far more in common with The Thing (how people fail to notice is amazing - they even have the same basic music) Lots of Carpenter touches are there, blue collar heroes, sharp humor, endless rolling landscapes full of death and things not understood. Perhaps what stops this film being a real classic is it's deference to other Carpenter works. Not least Dark Star which it has something in common with. I'd be interested to know how much it REALLY cost? $8000? Is that even possible? Maybe it was based on a short film that cost $8000? But I did find myself strangely moved when the various space dudes died. They are so underplayed that it's like watching a documentary at times. Having said that the script is kinda clunky and only about half of them can act however and I'm not sure the big guy playing the Captain is one of them. But his gun is AWESOME!! Give it a chance, if you like early Carpenter you might fall for it, just don't expect 2001. Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash at things to make them good.

The story is straightforward at first, with a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of their problems.

The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings.

Whilst none of the actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and brawn.

Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained, it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further.

A cracking little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first.

Recommended. The '7' rating is not necessarily a smear-- this movie was done on a low budget-- but done well within its limits.

A usual pot-boiler plot-- Ship carrying a prisoner is destroyed in space, people and prisoner escape in pods, land on unknown planet where their presence wakes something up. Mayhem ensues, a lot of ammo is expended.

The special effects were spare and properly done, emphasizing future technology with holographic displays and controls instead of relying on bulky, cheap looking plastic props. Plus the pacing of the story moved without allowing the viewer to lapse into boredom where they start picking things apart.

I peg this one as a lite Saturday afternoon flick. You can get up and hit the fridge without pausing it and it'll still be enjoyable. Even better, your girlfriend can talk all the way through it without damaging your enjoyment-- and she'll be happy: after all, she got to TALK to you! It's THAT type of movie.

Anyways, the actual story line has s few holes in after they hit the planet, but hey, this is a Guns 'n' Ammo action movie. Cohesive story lines are not necessarily required so long as you have Beer and chips at hand. So don't get get yourself into a brain-cramp over the ending. I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!

I did buy this film for a dollar and I've seen much worse for much more!!

This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!! Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had no idea who was going to die first.

If you watch a movie for it's 'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred like.

Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows nothing about the film industry.

Good marks for a good film, extra marks for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING SCOTS! I was trying to work out why I enjoyed this film?? Its not because of money spent on it that's for sure!! Did I see a painted water pistol in there? Maybe they don't have the same sort of visual effects houses in the Scotland? Or maybe they just didn't have any money? The making of clearly shows a gang of very plucky guys making a movie against the odds. Awesome! But what I really liked was the grit of the performances. Mike Michell and Patrick White play the lead parts like 2 normal guys. No Hollywood histrionics here.

OK, so the effects work isn't very good. The spaceships just don't look as good as they should in todays FX world and I've seen much better free stuff on youtube. But the film holds together very well once they get to the Planet. Was this filmed in Scotland or just by a Scottish crew? Or is it just better effects work? Did they edit out the water? By the end I kinda loved this film and was disappointed when they all died. On many levels it's very good. In fact, considering that this was a low-budget British indie by a first time feature-director with a largely neophyte cast, it's a magnificent achievement. I don't know how much it cost. The figure of £8,000 was bandied about in publicity but you never know how reliable a figure like that is. The point is that this film looks like it cost a couple of million quid and it clearly cost a tiny fraction of that Great special effects, terrific production design, effective props and costumes, excellent photography, good acting and direction, an impressive score and an absolutely stunning sound mix. Even having said that, much of the script was great. The characters were clearly identified and all had something to do. This is a movie about ten men all dressed roughly the same in one location and it would be easy for them to be nameless, faceless blanks but these were ten characters - mostly that was done through the dialogue and the way they reacted to things. Throughout the middle act, when the plot was developing, the script told the story well and showed how it affected the characters. If the whole film was like the second act, it would be stunning.

Before the ship blows up, twelve people make it to individual escape pods or 'e-pods' which blast away from the ship. They're not much more than automatic metal coffins and the poor sods inside are trapped, cramped and have no real idea where they're going - but that makes sense. I like the e-pods - they're an excellent idea done very well and make more sense than a nice, roomy escape capsule. I also like the way that we are specifically told, later, that they are designed for ship-to-ship escape but can just about make planetfall in an emergency - because, let's face it, these guys were bloody lucky that their ship was blown up so close to a planet. That said, it doesn't look to me like there are 116 unused e-pods still on the freighter and you have to wonder how the prisoner is able to get into an e-pod - but in he gets. (And it has just occurred to me: shouldn't the Captain have gone down with his ship rather than being the first guy out of there?) Anyway, the e-pods all land on a barren planet with nothing but sand and sparse vegetation - or at least on a sandy, sparsely vegetated part of the planet which may have icy wastes and lush jungles elsewhere. Nah, it's a planet in a sci-fi movie - it will be exactly the same all over. We have to accept that all the e-pods come down within a few miles of each other so that the ten survivors are able to meet up, firing flares into the sky to locate each other.

The Captain, a muscular mountain of a man who could have a pretty good career in action flicks if he gets the right agent, decides that they should try and contact 'Captain Behan' with whom they were intending to rendezvous. But they cannot do this from the planet, they need to get into orbit. The engineer says that if they combine the power units from two e-pods they can probably give one of them enough juice to lift itself on anti-grav doodads high enough to blast above the atmosphere. It can all be done on automatic but it will need a 'pilot' to send the signal. The captain valiantly volunteers for this but in a commendably sensible move the engineer points out that putting the heaviest man into the somewhat dodgily repaired e-pod is ridiculous and that it needs to be the lightest member of the team. That's Kid. I really liked the way that he now points out that his name is David and the Captain starts using it, treating him with dignity and respect. That was good storytelling and good characterisation. OK, so maybe it's because I'm from the North East of Scotland and I talk just like the guys in this film, but I found this great fun. Cheap fun to be sure, but plenty of effort has gone into making the film look great and the actors certainly give it all. I was actually quite effected when they died. In particulare when the Captain finally fell. The script? Well it;s a game of 2 halfs. The opening half of the film is well written and sharp. The last half hour is not so great, with many questions left unanswered. This will doubtless annoy others as it annoyed me. But nevertheless, good fun and a very smart first feature from Sturton. i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the way... where is the sequel!!!

the budget is obviously extremely low... but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a 'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI fights (starwars).

The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10 years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story.

The acting is good, except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control?

Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery, get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not star wars/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening.

In fact, I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene.

OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The 'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end? This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy rest'

Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end. I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie? Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it. The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit Scotland! Got this the other day from the Creators on DVD. I saw this advertised in a free magazine whilst family were stopping in a hotel, had never heard anything about it. After reading it was filmed on Balmedie beach i just had to buy it. I used to take the kids to the dunes in the film all the time whilst living in Aberdeen.

1st off Im not a big Sci-Fi fan (baring Star Wars) I was really just wanting to see what they had done with this film location, I was presently surprised. This didn't turn out to be a standard Sci-Fi, more like a mix of sci-fi and survival horror.

Had a good storyline, which was different, had great special effects for the budget that it was produced with £8000. Acting was better than average for a low budget film. The way they have edited out the whole coastline to make it feel like the dry desert planet that they are on was nice.

Weapons in the film were realistic and the creatures were cool kinda like predator in invisibe mode.

All in all I will buy any future releases from these guys, maybe a all out horror next (Hint Hint). The extras on the DVD were very informative on giving background for the producers, I would like to see some of them shorts included as extras on a next DVD release.

Excellent work keep it up People seem to be expecting Citizen Kane here! The Planet is a B-monster movie and as such is good fun and different enough to be enjoyed. The director clearly has something to offer - not so sure about some of the cast. As for the effects? £8000 ain't a lot of effects budget.I for one would happily recommend this outing to a sci-fi head or anyone who doesn't take monster movies too seriously. If so? Watch 3colours blue instead.I noticed one review saying it had ripped off Alien. Like Alien didn't rip things off. The best thing about the film? The director. The worst thing about the film? The cast. Maybe it's time for the Director to move from Glasgow to London and find some talent. In the meantime - well done. At least you're trying to do something. I have to confess that I know some of those involved, I was in the forerunner to The Planet, Evil Unleased, however this was more than 10 years ago and I had since lost contact with them. I happened to be watching BBC Scotland News and a piece regarding Scottish Cinema, this mentioned and showed clips from The Planet and comments from it's director Mark Stirton, this prompted me to order a copy of the film on DVD.

Now to the film, the level of acting, writing, directing and sfx is up there with some of the best around, OK it's not Star Wars but I've seen many a Hollywood product that is far inferior. It is very strange watching a film spoken in my local North East Scotland accent but that soon passed.

^Mild Spoilers^

The Planet draws on several sci-fi classics; Star Wars, Alien, Pitch Black, Forbidden Planet and Predator, a handful of the merchant crew of a deep space transport ship survive their craft being attacked and destroyed by unknown ships, they escape onto a deserted desert planet, one by one they are killed by invisible attackers, the ships only passenger, a mysterious prisoner also makes it to the planet, a battle ensues as the crew fight to survive.

The Planet is a brilliant piece of sci-fi film making that certainly hides it's limited budget, well done to Mark, Mike and all those involved, I look forward to your next work. I believe this film was made for the not so princely sum of £8000 but that didn't really show. There wasn't anything amateurish about the production or the acting, the characters were gritty and real and the location could have been any desert area in the world instead of a not too warm beach just north of Aberdeen. The actors were quite easily acceptable as a bunch of mercenaries stranded on a mysterious, deserted and uncharted planet, none of them seemed to be particularly friendly with each-other but were willing to fight to keep themselves and their comrades alive. There weren't any great explanations of what was going on, which can be really contrived, so a lot of the plot was left to your imagination rather like The Big Empty which was a film I also enjoyed. I found that I quite warmed to most of the characters, there were some perhaps unintentionally amusing moments, the men were so ordinary that you felt you could empathise with them and the film's climax and ending were quite poignant. I think Mr Stirton and his crew should be quite proud of themselves I've seen worse films with a budget of millions. Crazy Scottish warrior race, stranded deep in outer-space, low on food and budget free, started ten now down to three, who will help these men of pluck, with visual effects that semi suck, but I kinda liked the freaky being, if I met one then I'd be fleeing, but not if I had Scottish mates, we'd f'n swear and avoid that fate, so in the end it wasn't botched, it was a DVD I'm glad I watched, but if they ever make a sequel, dump some actors, not all were equal, some were good, with gritty acting, some were wooden, and should maybe pack it in, but the action kept me watching all, the shooting, shouting, didn't stall, I'll tell my friends not to fear, and watch again in another year. My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.

So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".

The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.

Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.

That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.

Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10 Man, I can't believe the largely harsh and negative comments for this movie. Okay, it sure ain't no sophisticated work of cinematic art. But it is a good deal of entertainingly tacky fun. For starters, the titular pumpkin-headed supernatural killer dude has to be one of the single most laughably silly and unscary things to ever stumble in front of a camera; he looks like something you would see in a fourth-rate carnival spookhouse. Secondly, the moderate gore is ridiculously fake and unconvincing, with the definite highlight occurring when this annoying uptight ultra-conservative woman gets electrocuted by a toaster. Then there's the always welcome presence of the ever-lovely Linnea Quigley, who's memorably introduced taking a nice, long, utterly gratuitous shower that goes on for two minutes. Amazingly, we also have appearances by deceased schlock picture legends John Carradine as an evil warlock and Cameron Mitchell as a horror TV show host. Moreover, scream queens Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith have fleeting cameos. Lead child actor Ryan Latshaw projects all the charm and acting ability of a moldy old tree stump. Pretty brunette Rachel Carter pops her top and bares her cute little breasts. The cruddy special effects are decidedly less than special. The score is suitably overwrought. Yet this film overall has a certain endearingly hokey appeal to it which in turn makes this honey a real delectably cheesy hoot to watch. Story involves ancient demon being released upon a small town on Halloween night. In all my life I have never seen such a cheesy film, but it is so d**m entertaining you can forgive its bad acting, effects, direction, and script. This is the best movie created for the Halloween season since the original Halloween. And when they introduce Linnea Quigley's character for the first time, she is butt naked in the shower for like 5 mins. Goodness they just don't get any better than this. Rush and buy this tape right away. 5/10 Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its hilarious! 10/10 Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of "educational moments." The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature of the series are the circumstances surrounding his "education", which are outright embarrassing, yet funny at the same time. Believe me when I say this show is just plain hilarious. The basic story is about Kintaro Oe who travels from town to town taking part time jobs, chasing women, and learning all he can about life. Kintaro has to be one of the easiest to relate to characters ever made. He takes everything to the extreme, and it's just laugh out loud funny every time. From his constant never ending quest to study life, to tiny things he instantly blows up into life or death matters.

One of the funniest things about this show is simply Kintaro's constantly extremely over the top expressions and reactions. He spends a great amount of time in various super deformed modes like Dragon Half or Trigun. Other times in less then 0.1 seconds his face will turn not just serious, but manga-fighter-style life or death expressions like a weight lifter trying to benchpress a new record. It's hilarious.

If that wasn't enough, the writing is superb and the english voice acting couldn't possibly be better. Kintaro's English VA is just perfect and will have you rolling around when he's not even really saying anything. The one thing to mention though is this is without a doubt an Ecchi series. It practically defines the word. If you're an adult anime fan who can get a laugh out of movies like American Pie, you'll love this.

- Rirath_com Simply put, there are two parts of this series that made me cry till my eyes fell out. First: The part where he was set to wash the toilet, but ended up drinking the toilet water while imagining it was the hot director giving him a golden shower!!! (I laughed so hard!)

Second: The part where he tried to prove worthy of a swimming school instructor. He seemed like a pro diving in, but as expected, he couldn't swim (proper at least^^). However the funny part of this was when he finally reached the end and said "how was that" or something. That was so friggin hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing.

If you get the chance to see this anime series, I strongly recommend it. One of the best I've seen.

Definitely the funniest! I liked this quite a bit but I have friends that hated this. There's no sex, but there's very little nudity in any of the episodes - which is a good thing. Also, Keitaro has a toilet fixation that's explored in at least half the episodes. (Toilets are way more advanced in Japan.) Hmm, I'm wondering why I rated this so high myself...? It certainly isn't that I like naked cartoon girls. In some ways, Keitaro Oe (the main character) is analogous to Johnny Bravo except instead of being an obnoxious, musclebound jock, Keitaro is a hyperactive nerd. Or you can think of him as Japan's answer to Leisure Suit Larry. He's easier to take if you watch it subtitled rather than dubbed, but he grows on you either way if you give him a chance. He IS the Goldenboy.

The formula is the same for each episode. Boy meets girl, boy tries to win girl's heart despite being a dorky pervert, boy somehow succeeds against all odds. Typically, the girl doesn't realize she likes Keitaro until after he's beaten to a pulp and/or pulled off some spectacular stunt like engineering a modern operating system in one week or winning a race against a gasoline-powered motorcycle using his bicycle.

Episode #1 features a rich software tycoon. I think animating her boobs put a major dent in the budget because she's the only female that has this kind of animation. She also dresses completely unprofessionally. Most people who rate this negatively probably never got past the first episode.

Episode #2 has the rich, young daughter who likes to tease. She's only 16 but that's legal age in Japan (and in some states in the US, I might add). Her father is also a brutal yakuzza type that has a reputation for killing guys interested in his daughter.

Girl #3 is the sweet innocent daughter of a noodle shop owner that's mixed up with a bad boyfriend. Aside from Keitaro running interference for the maiden and being kissed by a guy, there's almost no ecchi of any kind in this episode - a sharp drop from the previous two. Nevertheless, Keitaro and the evil boyfriend really pound each other.

Episode #4 has Keitaro trying to impress a top-notch swimming coach. Keitaro seems more 'direct' about his intentions with this particular girl than any other... and she's pretty direct in return...

Girl #5 is the biker babe. She's probably the most top-heavy of the 6 (although not super-buoyant like girl #1) and 'raciest' in terms of sexuality and vulgarity. This particular episode is easily the most over-the-top in terms of (lack of) realism. Keitaro should have broken every bone in his body at least twice during the race against the biker babe but I think the producers and writers said, "It's just a cartoon! We can do anything!" This lapse in realism makes it a fan favorite.

Finally, episode #6 introduces a new girl (that's works in animation) and the previous 5 girls help Keitaro as he tries to cope with impossible time and resource constraints to get an OAV out the door by the deadline. In terms of ecchi, this one's very tame as well, but there's plenty of humor. The ending has all 5 extremely pretty girls from the past team up to hunt Keitaro, who slips away unnoticed, ostensibly with the intention of gang-raping him. Yeah, that -ALMOST- happens in real life. Someone crossed Ukyo Tachibana (ala Samurai Shodown) with Steve Urkel(ala Family Matters)...

All in all, there's no middle ground for this. You'll either hate it or love it. If you're new to anime, you probably don't want to start with this. At the same time, if you can stand characters like Happosai (from Ranma 1/2) or Johnny Bravo... or you like comedies that lean more heavily towards silliness but have very sexual overtones, you should give it a shot. Golden Boy is in my opinion one the sleeper / lost treasures animes out there. A sexy comedy, about a young man quest to find his nitch in life and he blunders into all sort of odd jobs that somehow has this rather sexy girl who ultimately falls for him but he not really realizing it! Its truly something that you can easily miss if you at the name, but once viewing it...will fall for the comedy/silliness that lies inside. Truly a crime that only produced 6 OVA episodes and pilot movie were made. However, being unique as it is. I'm surprised it survived to produce that many. If you want a good laugh, with high quality anime that is (100% CGI free), check this anime out. Boy who one day may save the world....or maybe not. Endearingly silly anime, only six episodes in duration, about a hapless delivery boy called Kintaro (well, he's called a delivery boy, though he is meant to be in his 20's), and the adventures he has on his travels. Each episode sees him arriving in a new town, acquiring a new job, developing something of a love interest before each episode ends with him leaving.

Gently sexist, juvenile, very immature at times, this is the kind of anime that just puts a smile on the face.

Not one to start with if you are not a fan of anime, as this certainly won't convince you about the genre, but for those who are already converted, this is entertaining fluff. Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page. During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series. Finally! Other people who have actually seen this show! It is the funniest anime I have ever seen, but most people have even heard about it. It is just hilarious. 'And so kintaro will continue to ride his trusty bike and maybe one day, he will save the world....or maybe not'. tare just some classic bits in it 'and so he will ride onto the next city...because he has no choice since his brakes are broken (study study study)' And some of the lessons that he writes down in his little notebook, 'today i had a very educational experience. I tried to look backwards, but unfortunately I was already looking that way. It hurt. Todays lesson, the human head cannot turn 360 degrees.' This is the last episode of the Goldenboy OVA series. Kentaro finds himself working in an animation studio, which is rather interesting if you don't know anything about the way anime studios were run. Besides episode 3, this was probably the least risqué, but it had a nice girl interest, as well as a surprise reunion from others in the previous episodes. My only complaint about this episode is it seemed a little too short, but at the same time this may have only been because it was the only original script for the show that wasn't based on one of the manga chapters. but it ended well, leaving us with the nice feeling that Kentaro is permanently 25, studying on. Definitely watch the rest of the series all the way through, you can buy the whole series for like $17, you can watch it all the way through in about 2 1/2 hours, or watch your favorite episode if you have 20 minutes free time (which i do if i have a lunch break at school.) good series, check it out. This film was a wonderful romp, intelligent, playful, mysterious, full of surprises, with humor in odd places and a tremendous energy. The famous film director (the protagonist) and the events he tries to manipulate through film all become entangled in fascinating ways as he is nearly out-maneuvered by a prince who has never heard of him. There are wonderfully rich images throughout and paths suggested but not followed (exactly what is going on with the somber wife of the pedestrian tourist wedding director?). The ending is so much the better for being untidy. Realism and logic are not what you should be looking for here. If we are going to turn our weddings and our imaginative lives over to film directors, we should be prepared for a wild ride, this film seems to suggest. There is something that one of the characters (the aging film director who pretends to be dead) says which may summarize all the film: "In Italy it's the dead who rule". True! This is a country without a future, in the hands of old and jaded men. And Bellocchio's cryptic portrait of the country, pivoted on the apparently senseless story of a director who has to film marriage parties to earn a living, manages to say a lot about what is not working here. But foreigners may miss the point, as it's not clearly expressed. I understand that Australian or Canadian people who watch this may get bored and wonder if there's a meaning--well, there's a meaning, but it's clear only to people who live here today, and keep their eyes wide open... like Bellocchio. Surely it's not one of his best films, and it's not as powerful as Buongiorno, notte, but it's worth seeing... for Italians who live in Italy. If Sicily is a territory of the baroque, with its doubling of perspective, that's part of this movie's challenge to realism. And it's an exuberant pleasure here, outdoing Fellini with not one but three film directors, plus of course the actual Bellocchio, who has made some really great movies and shouldn't be touchy about his honor. There is a variety of takes and casting improvisations on Manzoni's "I promessi sposi" with, somewhere there, actual marriage. Sicily is also taken to be a territory of skulduggery (You already know this version of the island, so there's no spoiler involved), a comic version of which makes the picture worth seeing for Sergio Castellito's work with guard dogs on the floor of the great hall of a palazzo. The title role of this western is played by Robert Walker, Jr. He's a young gun who with partner David Carradine gets separated after doing a contract hit on a Mexican general. In eluding their pursuers Carradine and Walker become separated. Walker comes upon the camp of lawman Robert Mitchum who takes a liking to Walker and makes him a protégé and reclamation project of sorts.

This is the first of two films Robert Mitchum did with writer/director Burt Kennedy. The second was the more humorous The Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

Not that Young Billy Young does not have its moments of hilarity. But it is a tripartite story involving the Walker reclamation, Mitchum's hunt for the bad who killed his son and a romantic triangle involving Mitchum, Angie Dickinson, and town boss Jack Kelly.

The film abounds with nepotism. David Carradine is John's son. Dean Martin's daughter Deana is in this, Walker is the son of Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones and Mitchum's son Chris plays Mitchum's son in some silent flashbacks.

Robert Mitchum got his start in westerns and always looks right at home in them. Angie Dickinson essentially repeats the role she had in Rio Bravo. Walker had a brief career playing rebellious youths and doing a good job at it. I've often wondered what happened to him. He looks hauntingly like his father. Maybe he didn't want to come to such a tragic early end like his father.

And it that wasn't enough, Mitchum fans get to hear old rumple eyes sing the title song at the beginning of the film. Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.

Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.

He filled this role easily like a well used glove.

The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).

Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.

ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).

He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.

Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.

In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.

It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.

Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.

It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.

Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10) A good entertainment but nothing more : in this western we are between the classics and the spaghetti ones. This provides us a good a conventional story but it's always a pleasure to see Robert Mitchum with his legendary flegma although he isn't as fit as in the forties or the fifties. And don't forget David Carradine is the son of John Carradine I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.

The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more work.

There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay Angus/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon. This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc.

The topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated, but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director.

It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself. I caught this film at an OutFest screening in Los Angeles in July, 2006. It's rough around the edges (sound recording in particular is wobbly) and often very funny. The script is rather jarringly episodic and ends abruptly, but Ash Christian infuses the film with lots of genuine heart. It's also a refreshing change of pace to have a gay film that doesn't star underwear models obsessed with partying and chasing straight guys. Props to a warmly sympathetic Jonathan Caouette as Mr. Cox, a kindred spirit to Rodney (Ash Christian), the lively and spirited Ashley Finke as Rodney's best friend, and Deborah Theaker as Rodney's mom, who is given the best one-liners in the script and steals her every scene. The film is like its writer/director/star—lumpy and a bit odd, but also very sweet. My friends and I saw the movie last night in Austin at a showing for AGLIFF (a film festival). This movie was one of the best I've seen this year. It was a great comedy - very original and heartfelt - and FUNNY AS HELL! Everyone in the audience was laughing throughout the entire movie. Texas is a big state - with LOTS of small towns - and of course, plenty of teenagers who grew up as "fat girls." I know a lot of people will relate to this film on a personal level. Ashley Fink and Robin de Jesus were awesome - they were so great in these rolls, it was like the script was written with them in mind. And speaking of the script, it was very well written (very believable), and Ash is a great actor (his facial expressions alone made me giggle). It IS an independent film - but don't let that fool you...It's a good one! Seeing this caliber of work from someone so young is truly inspiring. I saw this last night in Fort Lauderdale. In general it was funny and I liked the characters especially Sabrina. The acting is good and the story line was OK except for the ending which left way to many strings dangling and we were like (what?) I wanted to know what happened to the characters and it was a strange ending that could have been done so much better.

The film did portray rule life really well and we laughed throughout. It has flaws that is for sure but for a first time film for Ash Christian I thought it was good. You might want to wait for the DVD on this one. But if you get a chance to see it give it a shot OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings, tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling. But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane. It's hard for me to explain this show to my grown friends. I have a bunch of Shasta Daisy's in the back yard which I lovingly call my "Chuckle Patch." My friends laugh at me and look at me like I have 2 heads. It would be great to see this series on DVD for us folks who remember it fondly with our other childhood memories, or to show our friends that there really WAS a chuckle patch! Where kids TV today is compiled of violent cartoons, characters who do magic, or a talking sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea, The Magic Garden was real in the respect that it taught us good values.

I will hold fond memories of Carole and Paula, and the Chuckle Patch. One of the best memories of my childhood. Should be on DVD. It captured everything we grew up with in the seventies - peace, mellowness, flower power and great acoustic music. The two hosts, Carol and Paula, were the definitive peacenik hippies, with long hair, peasant blouses and bell bottoms(they looked like a Katherine Ross(ala "The Graduate") and Ali McGraw(ala "Love Story"),respectively.)

They made us happy with jokes from the daisy "chucklepatch", gave us lessons on being nice through conversations with the crotchedy garden squirrel, and entertained us with music from their guitar. They were the best, and Carol was also the original Sandy in the original production of "Grease"(cool).

This show should be in a time capsule from the era that would also include, "The Yellow Submarine", "Arrow to the Sun", and Marlo Thomas', "Free to Be...You & Me.", also, "Sunshine", and "The Point."

And last, but not least, that theme song, "See ya, See ya, Hope you had a good, good time, ah ha, Glad we got to say good mornin' to ya , Hope we get get to see ya again, See ya, See ya, Glad that you could stay awhile, ah ha, hope we get see ya again, see ya, see ya. I grew up in New York and this show came on when I was four-years-old. I had half-day kindergarten and this was on WPIX Channel 11 in the afternoon. I just loved the music and stories and remember humming them around the house when playing.

I just saw part of an episode on YouTube and for a moment I could remember how it felt watching those shows as a small child. I, of course, stopped watching when I got in 1st grade because it was on before school got out (no VCR's or DVR's back then). I grew up, not realizing that the show was still on until I was in 11th grade!

I also had no idea that there are DVD's and wish my nieces and nephews were young enough to enjoy this show, but now they're all past the demographic, or I'd buy all of them DVD sets. This was so much better than a lot of the kid shows today. When I was five years old, it was my favorite television show. I remembered it was on channel 11 at 2PM everyday. The show's premise was simple with Carole and Janis as the hostesses of this children's television show. They sang songs and read stories to us as children. It was done in a studio with only 54 episodes which was re-broadcasted over and over. I remember Sherlock, the puppet, in the tree. The show taught us how to count, add, subtract, and the alphabet. For thirty minutes a day now, I learned something new with Paula and Janis. I remember those days as pleasant memories and now I hope the children of today can learn to love simpler things like hearing stories, inexpensive props, riding the swings, and talking to puppets. The set was ideal and simple but it was Carole and Janis who made it worth while while. I miss my childhood and those days where the most important thing was watching the Magic Garden. Life seemed so much simpler and better. Now, I hope the kids today enjoy the show. This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid. It had it all--music, stories, a talking squirrel, and chuckling daisies. I wanted to be one of those hippie chicks singing and swinging on a swing. I'm 35 and I grew up in South Jersey, but we got three New York channels with our cable hook-up, and I think it was on Channel 11. They just don't make shows like this anymore (I know that makes me sound really old), and it blows my mind that I grew up with only 9 channels on our TV, but I could always find something cool to watch. I've only talked to one other person who actually heard of and watched this show. She's three years younger than me, and she grew up in North Jersey. I would love to see this series on DVD, so I could show it to my 5 year old daughter, and she could see what silly (but great) stuff her mom used to watch! I just found a VHS tape of a few episodes, and a music CD from the show on ebay, and I bought them right up, even though they were a little pricey. I can't wait to get them to re-live the great memories! This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film "Dahmer" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer. This film is the most traumatising and painful horror film I have ever seen in my life. To know that this film is based on a true story and watching Jeffrey Dahmer(Carl Crew) brutally murder his victims is enough to bring a tear to my eye. I admit this was a low budget film with not the best dialogue, however it explained why Jeffrey Dahmer was a Psycotic maniac. As he was so selfishly/inwardly emotional his emotions and selfishness went so far deep into his brain that it resulted into him becoming a murderer. Every person that he lured back to his apartment, he was attracted to and had feelings for, and the reasons why he murdered them wasn't only for the thrill of killing them but because he couldn't cope with the fact of them leaving him. In the scene when he killed his first victim by bashing an object at the back of the guys head from what I noticed wasn't because he wanted to kill him but because he was devastated with the idea of the guy leaving him. It was from thereafter that he got use to the homicidal behaviour and made killing his hobby - for both evil and emotional reasons.

The scene when he was talking while crying on the phone with his mother and telling her how much he loved her and the love he showed to his grandmother and how he didn't want to move out of her house did show that he did have love in his heart. One scene that I found quite spooky and strange was when a priest overheard Jeffrey in a pub inviting a guy back to his apartment and then phoned Jeffrey up in a phone booth within the pub so that the guy would lose patience and change his mind on going home with Jeffrey. When the guy left the pub, the priest then hung up the phone and was was laughing at Jeffrey. I also found that Carl Crew played a remarkable acting performance as the role of Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil and cold blooded facial expressions before he massacred his victims were so real, I was shivering in my seat. His facial expressions reminded me of the way Vincent D'onofrio (Private Pyle/Leonard) in the film 'Full Metal Jacket' looked just before he gunned-down the General in the toilet barracks.

If your an emotional person I wouldn't recommend you to watch this film but if your not, than go ahead and watch it. Hey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen "Dahmer" (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : "If they had bothered to look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives" Enjoy! I just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet another chance to take my shots at "The Departed". When one knows exactly what is going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe who did my favorite mob movie, "Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than "The Departed" Gibbs "Strike Force" or "The Librarians" is a fun action movie that doesn't it take itself too seriously. William Forsythe stars as Simon, who is looking for a missing daughter of a wealthy client. He meets up with Sandi (Erika Eleniak) who is also looking for someone-her sister. But there are evil bad guys afoot. The most evil of them all is Marcos Canarious (Andrew Divoff). Marcos likes to kill people. So now, Simon and Sandi have to team up to bring down the villains. The whole cast is great, with Divoff stealing the movie. There are also cameos by Ed Lauter and Burt Reynolds. If you are looking for a good action film, watch this and have a good time. Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time? I felt cheated out of knowing the whole story. While there could be a twist, this twist was so significant, that I felt betrayed. I believe it could have used a better writer who could weave all the elements of the story together better. The writer could have revealed more of the 'twists' throughout the movie, rather than all at once at the end. That aside, I believe that the actors did very well with what they had, particularly Matt Damon, who actually had a little character in his character, little quirks that weren't egotistic or like a smooth criminal who always knows what he is doing. The other main characters were their own separate entities who just happened to converse with one another. The cohesiveness of the group in Ocean's Eleven was gone. Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term "star-vehicle" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day. Film certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium. Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people actually miss the tiresome clichés of romance disguised as tension between the leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for those trying to make film something it's not. With a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious, as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's 11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected. Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12. Ocean's 12

'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.' (Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard)

This adage certainly rings true in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from Rusty's (Pitt's) past.

On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence. Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of character development? Plenty.

Ocean and his band of merry men are charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends, filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent.

The stars of this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean) and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film doesn't work.

Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a mainstream film like this. Ocean's twelve is probably better than Ocean's eleven. I know most people would disagree, But I actually liked it more. After three years, it was good seeing the gang return. The reason behind the heist is a bit more inspired the second time around. I see why they stole from Benedict(Andy Garcia) in the last film. This film they have a bit more motivation the second time around. Ocean's twelve is more entertaining, and cooler than Ocean's eleven. With a funny cameo by Topher Grace saying "I just walked in that new Dennis Quaid movie" and other things. I think Ocean's Twelve is probably the best in the series.

The Plot: A year or so after Ocean's Twelve, Terry Benedict(the guy they robbed in the last film) is back and says that if Ocean's eleven doesn't pay him back the money they stole, he's going to call the cops. So Danny Ocean and the gang go to Europe, where Rusty meets his old cop girlfriend Isabelle. After she meets him again, she begins to follow them around. Also, the gang learns that they have an enemy who is also a thief who is a little better than they are.

With many funny scenes like when Tess(Julia Roberts) goes to Europe and pretends to be Julia Roberts, Ocean's Twelve is a pretty clever film. It's cooler, funnier, and more entertaining than Ocean's eleven. I heard that after the first Oceans movie, the sequels begin to go downhill. I believe that this is not the case(at least not for this film). This movie is even better than the first film! The original crew returns three years after they successfully robbed Terry Benedict's casinos. Now, Benedict is visiting each one of them personally telling them to get the money back within two weeks. To do that, they must do a couple heists in Europe to get the money.

The acting is very good. The all-star cast exceeded expectations. Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Catherine Zeta-Jones were probably the best in this film.

There are some confusing moments in this film. But that does not matter because there are only a few confusing moments. Anyway, this movie is only made for harmless fun.

Overall, this is a great heist movie. I rate this movie 9/10. I would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining. These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just the same.

I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase. The first season told pretty much how all elements of the Marine Corps would operate (i.e. ground, air, helicopters and jets) as a team. That's the season I give the high rating to! (True, there are still a lot of "liberties" taken in season 1, but the stories were more believable.)

The subsequent seasons were a gawd-awful attempt of Melrose Place meets Top Gun!

I was a Marine stationed at Miramar at the time and I remember them shooting the show around the San Diego area. I got to talk to Rod Rowland and James Brolin.

Rowland's character was good to go.

Brolin's character was good in the first season only. For some reason he slacked off after the first ep of the second season.

If you want to see a LITTLE of how the Marine Air Ground team operates, then season one is the one to watch.

If you're into Melrose Place and soap opera like plots with an attempt to merge them into Top Gun, then see the last two seasons. One would think that a film based on the life of the Japanese author Yukio Mishima would be a daunting if not impossible task. However Paul Schrader has indeed made a film "about" Mishima that is both superb & complex. While it is not a literal biography, Schrader & his co-screenwriter Leonard Scharder (his brother) have taken several incidents from his life, including his sucide and crafted what can best be described as incidental tableaus that are visually sparse and stunning. Mishima's homosexuality is almost not there, due to legal threats from his widow, but in spite of this, the film is still terrific, and one of the best films I saw in 1985. I should also mention the important contribution of Philip Glass who did the score, which adds an additional texture to the film, and is superior to the one he did for Scorsese's Kundun. Also notable is John Bailey's fine crisp beautifully colored cinematography and the great production design & costumes by Eiko Ishioka who went on to do the memorable costumes for Coppola's Dracula for which she received a well deserved Oscar. Hopefully this film will soon be available on DVD. Mishima is one of the greatest films ever made. Now I think Paul Schrader is the greatest screenwriter of all time, but I don't really like the films he's directed of what I've seen (with the exception of this and Affliction), but this is an amazing, disturbing, and highly 3-dimensional character study. It follows the life of Yukio Mishima, Japan's most celebrated writer, combining the last day of his life with flashbacks and his stories. I don't know how, but Paul Schrader manages to combine all of those in a very artistic way. The acting is great, so is the photography, and a perfect score by Philip Glass. Although confusing the first viewing, this is one of the few films that becomes richer with each viewing. Truly an underrated gem of a film. It has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing. Movies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima. Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations, Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is brilliant. There are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip Glass Soundtrack. This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats. The only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood.

So says Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and "the Wizard Of Oz". These stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword (when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and "pure" being).

Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for "Taxi Driver", and directed "Cat People"(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film.

Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels, plays, and short stories.

A short and sweet version is to say Mishima has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets, you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this transformation so natural and remarkable.

Though the story, fascinating at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography, performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic.

One day I will pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film.

Those interested in Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well. Mishima - a life in four chapters is in my opinion the best Paul Schrader film to this day. Mesmorizing cinematography, accompanied with Philip Glass mystical musical score added a completely magical aura to the story of one of the Japan's greatest novelists, whose originality and picturesque narrative are beautifully portrayed in this picture. As any gifted character, Mishima was troubled with severe self conflicts, the main of them being the conflict between the "pen and a sword" as the director puts it in his final chapter, or the struggle between the sensitive poet with homosexual feelings, living in a notoriously masculine society with centuries long warrior traditions, thus widening the gap between the sensitive and the militantly traditional side of Mishima himself.

All Schrader's films (and the ones he wrote scripts for) are basically stories of the inside conflict within a man that doesn't belong in an environment he lives in. That also goes for Mishima, who, apart from Japanese military school upbringing is brought up with love for theater and words. His demise consisted of both of these key points in his life, it was about words and theatrical ending in a life long play. Film like this comes along once in a long while, and most will have to wait a lifetime to reach this beauty. 20 out of 10!! "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" is a visually stunning production that handles complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema. John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. "Mishima" is the best film I've seen this year, so far. This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10 Paul Schrader and his brother Leonard wrote Mishima, and in so doing, clearly drew parallels between the life of Yukio Mishima and his work. The film is divided into four sections: beauty, art, action, and the fateful day when Mishima held an army general hostage and spoke to the garrison, only to have it ridicule him and his Bushido ideals of the samurai code. Mishima committed ritual seppuku on November 25, 1970, and he planned it as a meshing of beauty, art, and action. Schrader edits scenes recreating that day with three different scenarios from Mishima's novels: Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Runaway Horses. The moment of seppuku is perfectly realized in relation to its shocking climax via pulling back the camera while simultaneously zooming in.

Black and white sequences are intermingled with the colorful moments depicted in Mishima's novels. The black and white scenes represent memories from Mishima's childhood and youth. Schrader correlates some of these autobiographical moments with scenes from the novels that often parallel Mishima's real life, such as his stammer, development of his bodybuilding obsession, and his fostering of the samurai code. Each of the three themes of beauty, art, and action is exemplified in the chosen depictions from the respective novels. The color sequences are reminiscent of early, stagy Technicolor films, giving the film, perhaps, an intended surreal quality considering the subject matter.

Ken Ogata plays the real Mishima with unfailing determination, headed to the general's office on that fateful day and resembles the real Mishima. Schrader took tremendous risks with this film in focusing on the novels he did and with tying them thematically to both Mishima's personal life and his literary ambitions. The editing of the film between the three main sections of November 25, 1970, the black and white growing up segments, and the colorful novel scenes clearly point to the deliberate intersection of these elements of beauty, art, and action in Mishima's life. At times, it is difficult to follow, and there may be little to recommend for the uninitiated viewer. *** of 4 stars. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters is an art-house biography about Yukio Mishima, celebrated Japanese writer, who bears resemblance to Paul Schrader's earlier character Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver): both of them are lonely people searching for their place in their society and when they realize that world doesn't need them, they try to destroy their surrounding universe.

If you want to learn about life of Mishima, then you won't find a lot of information here, because it shows that he didn't live a very interesting life (except for his final day), but if you want to understand his personality, then it is the best movie of its kind, as most of the movie is adaptation of his novels and also provides a guide to his thoughts. This movie shows that Mishima was a person, who witnessed the fall of Japanese culture, which he was very fond of and with his final act he tried to save traditions and prove to himself that he is a real warrior, but he realized that as a person he was just a man with no power to change the events. This movie is a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s.

I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of "wonder") are the excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda.

The stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater, politics, or Japanese history. I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider ("we're going to need a bigger boat!"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!

Cheers

Damian I never heard of Mishima before I watched this film and although parts of it are a little tedious, I still find myself drawn to watch it when it is repeated on the box. At the beginning of the film, we are told about a celebrated Japanese writer behaves like a lunatic and commits seppuku in public. As the film progresses you are gently inducted into twisted logic of Mishima's mind. The stages of his life are are presented in four chapters. Each chapter itself is a blend of two contrasting narratives, the first continues the story with scenes from Mishima's life and appear in black and white. The second narrative is an adaptation of scenes from a novel and these are staged like a play and filmed in vivid colours. There is a different novel staged in each chapter. Between each chapter, the narrative returns to the present, as Mishima proceeds towards his eventual ritual suicide. This means that the drama and tension is maintained until the end.

I suspect that many people will find this film to be boring pretentious and art-house. I respect that, this is not a film for people who want action and a strong story line. If on the other hand you are the kind of person who relishes the opportunity to penetrate the mind a bizarre man while watching his life story told in collage of beautiful pictures set to music by Philip Glass, you will love it. I loved it.

I've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs (girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger children.

The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to give away any more of the plot. This film is titled "Junior Pilot" here on IMDb but "Final Approach" at Netflix. Go figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line.

In any case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed.

The young actors give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist "Ricky" with quite well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft and sensitive "Shashi" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well.

As is typical of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure.

This movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their once-youthful perspective. This was a great movie. It had one "sot-so-nice" outburst. Plus there were some very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers, under 6.

For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end.

This movie had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite amusing.

We hope you like as much as we did. Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed! I spotted this film in a branch of the Duane Reed pharmacy in New York on holiday, and it seemed like a bit of silly fun. And sure enough, the whole premise is ridiculous beyond words - but it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable action film for kids, and their parents too.

10-year-old Ricky Bernard (Jordan Garrett) has his head in the clouds most of the time, much to his father's (Larry Miller) dismay. As a member of his school orchestra, Ricky and schoolmates fly to a concert performance ... and once again Ricky's mind 'takes off' and suspects some criminal plot is happening.

Reluctantly aided by best friend Sashi, who is a fan of hot sauce (what a strange plot device that was) and others they try to get to solve the mystery. Oh yes, and Ricky's skills 1,000 hours of flight simulator experience prove to be handy when he is called on to save the day in the film's thrilling climax! It was good to see Eric Roberts and Mark Dacoscos play parts in a family film. And watching the DVD interviews everyone seems to have had great fun taking part.

I totally liked Junior Pilot; charming and good-natured performances, funny plot line and a real; sense of enjoyment and sheer silliness.

If you are looking for an entertaining family film, you could do far worse than buy this one. I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.

Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.

Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!

Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.

Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time

Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.

RSGRE GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.

We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.

There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.

Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE.

And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.

It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.

To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.

The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.

Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even "classic" in the true sense.

The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.

* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.

** We had in additional "Ace in the Hole" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.

He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant. It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it.

I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.

It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good. I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her "nuna" (older sister). Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie, but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think, Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting/death/depressing stuff/incest?? 'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end. Let's face it.

This movie is incredibly cliché, as Korean romance dramas and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life.

Still, I like this movie.

Without the right actors, this movie would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors.

I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone. I was geared up to not like this movie, and the first 10 minutes or so did nothing to allay my fears. It starts off with 2 high school gangs squaring off against each other with bad kung-fu. A scenario found in countless other Korean films. Ho-hum. Add the fact that the story was written by the same guy who wrote "He Was Cool" (which was barely passable) and, well, I thought I was in for a nondescript 2 hours.

But don't give up so quickly! "A Romance of Their Own" was directed by Tae-gyun Kim, who also did "Volcano High" (which I thought was loads of fun). Anyway, "Romance of Their Own" soon takes a turn much for the better. A high school girl, just having moved to Seoul, finds herself in the middle of attention from two prospective suitors. Each guy has his own merit, and it is not clear which one (if either) would be the right pick.

What follows is not your usual teen love triangle. The emotions are complex, and while you may not agree with certain choices or actions as the film develops, you can certainly understand why the characters make them.

The movie asks questions of the characters and the audience. Who does one choose? At what point is one obligated to even make a choice (and is it unfair to one if it seems he is being strung along)? After you (or your heart) has made a choice, how do you react (and how *should* you react) when new information comes up that sheds new light on the situation? There is one scene, near the end, that is very subtle but perfectly captures what I think would be a real-life reaction instead of over-the-top "movie reaction." The subtlety is in a character in the background of the scene. Recent events and revelations have left him confused and emotionally overwhelmed. Basically, he doesn't know what to make of things. Instead of having him "act out" something, or look all gape-mouthed dumbstruck, he just stares off at some fixed point unable to react or say anything at all. It's like someone just pulled the plug on him. His reaction rang true to me and I appreciated the scene.

Like most Korean films, there is a mix of action, bravado, slapstick, and melodrama. Korean films often take abrupt turns (see, "Sex Is Zero" for a great example), which can be quite a shock for the uninitiated. Go ahead and initiate yourself with this one. Like it, love it, or hate it, I think most viewers will be able to relate to and appreciate the characters' actions and reactions. I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something.

I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.

It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries. This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer. The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the day.

One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got annoying from time to time. Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye is a great family movie. Salman Khan is looking handsome and great than ever! There's even a scene where he takes off his shirt! What a surprise!!! Rani Mukherjee is great too. Pooja Batra had very few lines to say but I'm glad she has been acknowledged for her role because she definitely has potential.

It's about Prem (Salman Khan) and he is a wedding singer. He is about to marry Nisha (Raveena Tandon) but gets stood up. Prem goes to Nisha's house and asks her why he was ditched and it's because her brother is ill and she needs to marry an NRI, Rahul (Inder Kumar), to get the money to get him treated. Prem moves on and in comes Priya (Rani Mukherjee). Prem falls in

love with Priya but it's a shame she's about to get married to an NRI! Who could this NRI be?! Priya falls in love with Prem too while Rahul is there with her. Prem gives Priya an insulting comment one day and she goes off and sets off to Agra for the wedding with Rahul. Will Prem stop her? Watch KPNHJ to find out!

The film was very funny! The songs were great especially the song "O Priya O Priya" It's a shame the film flopped in India and I don't know why?! Every film in India is going flop nowadays!! This film deserved to be a hit. The only problem I found with the film is that they had an obsession about NRI's! They think ALL NRI's are rich! The film deserves a 9/10! Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness. A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier. I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.

Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.

The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone. Humphrey Bogart in his first starring role looks very young, acts well, but has a pronounced lisp only hinted at later in his career. Still, he's very good and very appealing as the idealistic young inventor of a new airplane motor.

Dorothy Mackaill is the real star here, playing a once-rich woman who's torn between her real love for Bogart (he's broke too) and the comfort and security of marrying an older man (Hale Hamilton).

Along for the ride are Astrid Allwyn as Bogart's trampy sister, Bradley Page as her would-be producer, Barbara Leonard as the cosmetologist, Jack Kennedy as Gilligan, and Halliwell Hobbes as the faithful (and wise) butler).

Both Mackaill (whi had been a star in silent films) and Bogart were trying to gain a toehold in talkies in 1932. Bogart was a slow-rising actor from the Broadway stage; Mackaill was slipping and would soon appear in skid-row production like PICTURE BRIDES. Yet they are both very good here. Mackaill wasn't even 30 when she appeared in this film! "You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !" Gilligan says to Jim Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol, played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor, but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68 minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the incredible "Flying Down to Rio". Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.

Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.

For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.

This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films.

Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****

Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did "Memento," and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.

Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.

Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them.

But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.

If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see. The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.

One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans. I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of 10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in chronological order.

I rented this movie because of my fascination of Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities; this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is very similar.

Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the actors is believable.

Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my favourite actor Al Pacino. Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast.

Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to.

As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies.

Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan. Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today.

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia. Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people.

Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro, and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone : after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop.

One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how wrong he was by breaking it.

Amazingly good low-budget movie made by Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-breaking and original motion picture classic "Momento" some two years later that has already become a major cult movie.

"Following" is actually a much better movie then "Momento" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story. Compared to "Momento's" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes "Following" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was trying to tell them like "Momento" did. "Following" is a story within a story within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see.

Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars. Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is.

Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head.

Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes. Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.

None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.

Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.

The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.

My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.

Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest. Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so.

Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished. Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end.

I dare say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are present and the acting is very good.

This film was made with a mere $6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience, following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'. Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good.

This is a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you. It is an interesting exercise to witness the early works of great artists. Sometimes, even without the 20/20 vision that hindsight offers you can see the cogs and wheels that make these people what they are. Following is one such look into the past of Christopher Nolan, one of the great time-warping story-teller of today.

Christopher Nolan's style of film-making puts a great deal of emphasis on the delivery of the story. Although people might complain it relies too much on the back-and-forth shifting of time, I still find it fascinating to see how he uses that one technique differently each time. Memento was probably the most convoluted piece of story-telling I have ever seen. Discount the hardened cynics who say it is an old piece of meat wrapped in fancy dressing. Memento shows how even the simplest of stories can be turned into a mind-bender. The Prestige, which was considerably stripped down in comparison, still showed creativity in how its three stories were interwoven. Even in a jaded enterprise like the Batman series did Christopher Nolan sprinkle some of his outstanding yarn-weaving tricks, breathing new life into the dark knight.

Following is an intense tale of intrigue and mystery, where we see a dilettante writer, who becomes a reluctant voyeur, who becomes an unknowing accomplice to a variety of petty crimes, and finally sees an end no one could have expected. Having never heard of Following before, I had no idea what I was to expect. At every point the film kept me guessing as to where it was leading me. Since the mystery angle was clear, I was constantly trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And that is where I think the film succeeds so well. The film has many elements that led me off on many wild goose chases.

The film is entirely in black and white and told in multiple timelines, both of which are considered gimmicky these days. Following does all of this in the least formulaic or contrived way possible. There doesn't seem to be a reason why the story is told in the way it is, but you don't feel like you are being taken for a ride. The lack of pretension or self-aware arrogance is what makes this style of story-telling work. Highly recommended! This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive, just like the somewhat similar "A Pure Formality" did. Still, Alan Rickman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt about it. (**1/2) Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie. Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell out me today. It's happening now.

Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us are a little more succinct about writing opinions. I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with subtlety and depth.

This is an important movie. It could be profoundly transformative.

I would pay good money never, ever to see it again. Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important. Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle.

But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that there's more to the world than the movie. I really love this movie. It has a very real feel to it. I believe it was never popular because of the subject matter, however, because of the subject matter, it makes the movie all that much more important.

This is an "A" movie and I recommend it highly. If you liked "1984" book or movie, I think you will like this one as well.

This is harsh, to say the least, including mental and physical acts of torture, some pretty vile. Not for the week at heart or stomach. No gore, but his movie is so great at projecting the mental anticipation it doesn't need blood and guts.

If you are not a realist or a pestimistic person I don't think you will enjoy it. It leaves you with an uneasy feeling about humans, what they're capable of, and the very real possibility that our government(s)does not necessarily have our personal best interest in it's heart. This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you. What would it be like to be accused of being a subversive? This is what this film explores through the eyes of 2 characters, one being the accused subversive, the other being the interrogator. It is a frightening journey from the beginning to the end. This film is not for everybody and if you do not understand political governments thoroughly, you will never get the point of this film, as proved by 90% of the reviews here. Rarely does a film capture such intense drama and emotion. What makes this film so unsettling is that the drama feels so real, it's almost hard to remember that it's only a movie. This is by far Madeline Stowe and Alan Rickman's performance of their careers. The film almost feels like a theatrical production the way it is staged and lit. The only bad thing about this movie is that it's very difficult to get a copy of it. I have yet to see it other than on Laserdisc. This truly powerful film deserves a digitally remastered transfer and special edition treatment on DVD. It really is that good. Ms. Stowe is sensational in this power drama about a secret policeman who interrogates a children's author because he believes she is trying to plant ideas in her writings that are contrary to the state's. This is an incredibly powerful film. Both performances are worthy of more recognition as is the message of this movie. Put this on your must see list if you can locate it. This is an amazing movie and is very clever at using the few actors and sets. It is also very shocking - the physical and psychological torture (both explicit and implied) is mixed with calm and even humourous stretches. So the horror is always unexpected, and brutal. I'm not soft, but this would have to be the most shocking film I have ever seen. The message of this film is definitely delivered with a sledgehammer. This is the film I will always remember both actors for. The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding. It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences. This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach, inspire.

Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing.

The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that 1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius. This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve Oscars for their performances. I caught this movie late one night and never knew what hit me. This was one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, yet had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next. Alan Rickman is an excellent "bad guy" but this character beats all others. I've never been so affected by a movie! It's been 6 years and I still can't forget "Closet Land." Closet Land is an amazing, terrifying piece of cinema. It features only two actors in a single set, but never loses your attention. The set design is imaginative and troubling, the staging of scenes maintains your attention, while adding to your own sense of confusion and terror. The acting is outstanding, with Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe having the duty of carrying every scene.

I first saw this film in 1991, soon after it came out on video. It didn't play in theaters where I lived; not surprising, given its political content. It should be seen, though. It features a brilliant staging of the torture and interrogation techniques used by repressive societies to instill fear and obedience in its citizens. The country is never named, which makes it all the more striking. It could be anywhere; East, West, 3rd World, 1st World. It illustrates what happens when a small group of people decide what is best for everyone; when government becomes the ruler of the citizens, rather than the servant.

Madeleine Stowe is a children's author who has been dragged from her bed in the night and subjected to terror and torture. She finds herself in a room with Alan Rickman, a seemingly pleasant functionary. At first it seems a horrible mistake and she is free to go; but, fear causes her to remain and the terror escalates. She is increasingly subjected to physical and mental torture. The interrogator uses sensory deprivation, temporal manipulation, confusion, auditory manipulation, role play, and twisted logic to break down the author. She is humiliated and browbeaten, forced to endure strenuous bodily positions, deprived of food and water.

Through it all, she refuses to give in; to do what the interrogator asks. She is told that it will all end if she just signs a confession. A simple little act. She refuses. Through it all, she employs defense mechanisms that have developed since childhood. It is slowly revealed that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse. To survive, she developed fantasy worlds and characters that would take her away from the abuse. These mechanisms allow her to transcend her torture and turn the tables on her interrogator. She starts attacking his own beliefs and profession, forcing him to examine his own life and motives. In the end, she is free, because she maintains the freedom of thought. The interrogator is the one trapped by the state.

This movie was made during the height of the Cold war, Apartheid, and at a time when the crimes of many governments throughout the world made daily news. It is even more timely in a world where "enemy combatants" are held and interrogated in secret prisons, denied legal rights or counsel; where "ethnic cleansing" lays waste to whole societies, and humanitarian aid is denied. It demonstrates that the individual can stand up to the state or other oppressor by refusing to give in to fear and terror. Closet land is not at happy movie. Neither is it connected to any kind of social realism. This is perhaps its strength. The distance from specific time and nations strengthens the message, makes it more powerful and rips away the burden of nationalism and propaganda you often sense in movies made to criticize nations in opposit of ones own (I am of course primarily speaking of the USA propaganda in some commercial film).

Bit closet land is so much more than a message. It is a film of pure, surrealistic beauty, filled with the same clean, clinical form you find in work such as 1984 and it's equals.

I am of old a big fan of Alan Rickman, the man with the golden sarcasm (and, I might add, the uncomparable sex-appeal ;-)). The outplay between him and Madeleine Stowe is brilliant. Everytime I see him, he seems to play a character even nastier than the last one...

But, enough sweettalk. The film lacks in action. I dont want any crashing cars, but I want something to happen, except pure talk. After an hour I got really tired of the interrogationroom, the predictable actions and more than anything I wanted a more complex view of it all, the world, the former lives of the characters and all the rest of the framework that was missing. For some people a nice touch. For me something less positive.

Anyway, Closet Land is a movie worth it's time if you are ready to make a trip into the abyss of the human nature.

And of course for us who really loves the Always Evil Alan Rickman. this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in any sort of political activity. Simply beautiful. One of the best mind-- umm... screws--- in existence. Both Rickman and Stowe play their roles to the hilt in this tale of a childrens' book writer who-- maybe?-- has written a subversive tract. Moscow could learn a few things from the torture techniques in this film. They could also do worse than hiring Alan Rickman. Five out of five stars, and at present (1-20-2000) #2 on my top 100 films of all time list. This film, with only two characters, takes you closer to these two people, the interrogator and the prisoner, than most films take you to any character, however well-crafted.

The sheer confusion, terror and pain which Madeleine Stowe's character undergoes is deeply disturbing, as is Alan Rickman's sadistic yet charming interrogator.

This film is all too possible, and builds to a shocking climax, the effect of the film as a whole leaving you sitting in silence at the end. It'll haunt you for a long time. I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous, bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film, Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with "Scream"? "Cat in the Brain" is a must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a "good" film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a "serious" critic I'd give it a 3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give it a 7....Really whacked out flick... Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films – especially the latter ones – being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci! Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!

I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.

It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended. "Un Gatto nel Cervello"/"Cat in the Brain" is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as "self parody" of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio" and "I Fantasmi di Sodoma"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised "The Snake House" aka "Bloody Psycho" by Leandro Lucchetti,"Massacre" by Andrea Bianchi,"Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta" by Mario Bianchi,"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini" by Giovanni Simonelli and "Luna di Sangue" aka "Fuga dalla Morte" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema! Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed such disappointments as "Voices From Beyond". The story is simple as Fulci plays himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people.

Fulci used gore scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are "Massacre" directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), "Touch of Death" directed by Fulci, "The Murders Secret" and I can't remember the rest of the films.

Nightmare Concert is a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9/10 stars "Cat In The Brain" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the cinematic gore. "Cat in The Brain" is not about presenting a clear story and following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clichés that have been surrounding the horror genre for years.

Lucio Fulci plays himself as a horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's films in real life.

The film retains all the trademarks of Italian splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made. Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in "Cat In The Brain". Some of them are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece. The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing. This sort of "film in film" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore. But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no doubt be satisfied with that fact.

Lucio Fulci was a very polarized figure. People either hate his work or love it. "Cat in the Brain" won't convince any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out. Un Gatto nel Cervello, or Nightmare Concert as it's more commonly know amongst English speaking audiences, starts as horror film director Lucio Fulci (played by the man himself Lucio Fulci) goes to lunch after filming a very gory & violent scene, however he orders steak & has a horrible vision relating to cannibalism. The grotesque visions, hallucinations & dreams continue & begin to affect his mental state, Fulci decides to seek help & contacts Professor Egon Schwarz (Dvid L. Thompson) for psychiatric help. Schwarz claims that Fulci cannot separate fantasy from reality & agrees to help him, however Schwarz has a more sinister ulterior motive as a serial killer starts to brutally kill prostitutes & Fulci thinks he might be responsible....

This Italian production was co-written & directed by Lucio Fulci who also stars in the film as a horror film director named Lucio Fulci which doesn't really feel like a lot of effort went into it, anyway Un Gatto nel Cervello is gory if nothing else & for that alone I rather liked it. The script by Fulci, John Fitzsimmons, Giovanni Simonelli & Antonio Tentori is nothing more than a threadbare excuse to edit together lots of gory footage from other Italian films. It serves it's purpose well enough I suppose & to see Fulci on screen has a certain fascination if your a fan of his or are familiar with his films, the ending is very rushed almost as if they ran out of money as it just has a policeman telling Fulci they killed the killer & that's it. Another thing about that ending when the two cops put the white sheet over the dead killer in the field & then they walk away leaving it there without any other police presence, I mean would the police in Italy just leave a dead body in the middle of a field on it's own? It moves along at a good pace & if you like your gore then you have to see this although if you don't like gore then you'll hate it with a passion, it all depends on your disposition so the choice folks is yours.

Director Fulci was never the most artistically adept filmmaker & it shows here as his footage is bland, flat & looks like it was shot for TV, the footage from the other films (7 in total) doesn't match the stuff Fulci shot & it is obvious that this has been pieced together from different films. If your looking for gore you've hit the jackpot, people are dismembered with chainsaws, put through meat grinders, faces are melted, there are a few decapitations, there are some slit throats, someones body is gorily crushed under a car, a tongue is ripped out, someone has their throat crushed as a wheelchair runs over it, there are loads of stabbings, someone has their guts removed with a hook, there's a rotten corpse complete with maggots, someone hand is cut off, someone has their head bashed in & their eye falls out, a gory death by piano wire as it slices through someones throat, there are loads of severed limbs, gallons of blood splashed around & a scene of some cats eating brains & there's more as well. Having said that some of the special effects are a bit fake & look cheesy.

With a supposed budget of around $100,000 it shows, this is pretty cheap looking, it has no visual style or artistic merit but then again why would you want those when you can see a Nazi orgy sequence & wall-to-wall gore? The acting in this is terrible including Fulci.

Un Gatto nel Cervello is a top film if your a gore-hound like me, however if your looking for something with a little bit more substance or indeed any substance then this ones not for you. This is the sort of film which divides people straight down the middle, you'll either love what it does or hate it. I couldn't help but relish the entire premise of CAT IN THE BRAIN because it dutifully explains a director's steadily going mad, seeing people murdered from past movies he has made. Even mundane activities such as cooking a meal in the microwave or running a faucet of water yield some horrific butchery from a film in the past. Director Fulci playing himself, is directing GHOSTS OF SODOM(?)and can not seem to deprive his mental well being from constant murder. He seeks help from a psychiatrist who, instead, uses Fulci's work as a method to execute a series of innocent people, hypnotizing the director into thinking that perhaps he's responsible.

This is obviously a film playfully poking fun at Fulci's image, while exploring the themes of how such a profession, which produces so much death and destruction, rarely untamed, could mold and shape a legacy. The film features pretty much a wrap-around story surrounding non-stop graphic violence with every possible way to kill a woman expressed in grisly detail. This has a shower murder Hitchcock never could direct, or probably want to. The film's savagery compliments the mental state of Fulci's Fulci(..I know)during the running time. Reality and cinematic fiction have fused and Fulci can find no escape. The ending(..explaining the old cliché:"It's only a movie")couldn't work any better than it does here. Fulci's boat says Perversion(..excellent touch)and he sails off..I can only wish this was his final film because that's a perfect close if there ever was one. David L Thompson is the deranged psychiatrist planning to kill his adulterous wife. Jeoffrey Kennedy is a cop Fulci fears had a family murdered by the fiend.

The ultra-violence in the film features plenty of unique ways to take a head off such as the door to a chest, a scythe, a chainsaw, and hatchet. The most brutal violence derives from nasty chainsaw activity as a dead body is hacked to pieces(..how a gardener's chainsaw work on a log fits beautifully in one nightmarish hallucination sequence)..the most shocking use of a chainsaw is when a little boy gets decapitated! The opening scene with the puppet cat tearing away, feasting on Fulci's brain, is a howler. The scenes which are spliced within the film, featuring a horrified Fulci looking on, are obvious, but I couldn't help but enjoy this anyway. The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence that will definitely please the gore addicts. In the late eighties and early nineties the decline and death of independent video companies like Vestron and Media effectively shut off Italian horror films for much of it's American audience. Coincidently(?) Italian genre films also declined in quality and profitability.

Occasionally movies like Primal Rage, "sequels" like Beyond The Door III, Troll 2, and a few Dario Argento films limped out onto video but most remained unreleased (until DVD) in the US for nearly a decade or longer. Movies from these lost years became very sought after and talked about among horror fans.

Of these films, Cat In The Brain is probably one of the most hyped of all due to the legions of Lucio Fulci fans and the fact that it was not only directed by but also starred their idol, Fulci himself.

Though not quite Fulci's best, it's still better than most of his later efforts. His rabid fan-base will probably love it. Italian horror and giallo aficionados might also enjoy it, depending on their tastes but I'm not sure about anyone else. People who only watch Hollywood stuff might not want to take the word of the many glowing reviews here.

One thing I personally found fascinating were the scenes featuring probably Benito Mussolini's only lasting contribution to Italy, Cinecitta Studios. The name is instantly recognizable to any fan of Italian movies. Until I saw it here, I could only imagine what it looked like. Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.

Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face... Lucio Fulci was one of the most prolific Italian directors by the time of his death in 1996, yet his career had long since descended into a downward spiral of increasingly futile genre entries that could barely stand in the shadow of his earlier work. For much of the '70s into the mid-'80s, he cranked out such stylistically distinctive horrors as "City of the Living Dead," "The Beyond," and the brutal giallo "The New York Ripper," fondly remembered by fans like myself. And while "Cat in the Brain" falls in with the era of Fulci's decline as a filmmaker, it is a shocking, darkly hilarious headtrip that, while a clearly inferior work (the framing, effects, and acting are below par), proves an interesting, open-ended meditation on pop psychology and film's ability to desensitize. Make no mistake: "Cat in the Brain" is a total gorefest, and as disjointed as Fulci's previous films, but it deserves credit for trying to be something more. In a deliciously tongue-in-cheek touch, Fulci plays himself: a director in the midst of filming yet another violent horror flick who comes down with perverse/murderous hallucinations; after visiting a shrink who puts him under hypnosis, his dreams and reality begin to intersect, to the point where the viewer cannot discern the two. The recent DVD from Grindhouse Releasing mentions "Cat" as an heir apparent to the likes of "Eraserhead," and it does carry a similarly disquieting, awkwardly funny quality associated with the best surrealist art. This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly crazy "self-portrait" of an artist ("I make horror films. If I would make love films, no-one would buy tickets..."). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all the time there is some "action" or tension going on; and many sexy girls/women... Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies/art in the first place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course, because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond). Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive need to confess "crimes" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE. And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts. I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of the area; in his "House By The Cemetery"-movie for example there is a character named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography/pictures in this film. Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others it may be too much. I honestly have to say that A CAT IN THE BRAIN is one of the most fun and unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. This film is packed with stupid dialog, ridiculous scenes, and a self-involving plot, starring legendary horror director Lucio Fulci himself.

The threadbare story-line is about an aging director (Fulci, who is also named Lucio Fulci in the film...)who is starting to go nuts and hallucinate because of all the vicious things he's put down in film over the past many years. He goes to a shrink who hypnotizes Fulci, and tells him that he will believe himself to be a killer, but that the shrink will actually be the one doing the killing. The rest of the film is made up of shots from the "film" that Fulci is directing during all this action, scenes of the shrink killing people all-the-while grinning like a f!cking moron, and some of Fulci's hallucination sequences. Oh, and a few tits thrown in for good measure as well...

A CAT IN THE BRAIN is completely over-top-and ridiculous in every sense. The gore is classic Fulci - nasty and strong with some really decent scenes. The chainsaw sectioning of a female corpse is pretty cool, as is the chainsaw beheading of a small boy. Lots of stabbings, gougings and other cool kill-scenes make this one a pretty non-stop bloodbath. The ridiculous dialog (LICK IT!!!!LICK IT!!!), as well as some of the insanely goofy scenes (the Nazi orgy, the opera singing slap-fest and the running down of an innocent hippy come easily to mind...) make this one fun as hell. Not nearly as dark as some of Fulci's other films - CAT is more of a self-indulgent horror/comedy that if it wasn't meant to be funny, is actually kind of sad. I say to grab a fifth of cheap bourbon and settle in to this one. I watched CAT with a few friends and we laughed the entire time. THIS is the feel-good movie of the summer...Recommended 8/10 this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true. In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks" people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.

I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.

Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.

It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.

Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.

It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works. The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.

A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'. Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.

If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).

So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs. Hearkening back to those "Good Old Days" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!) The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former "Little Tramp' from Los Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an "undesirable Alien". (No Schultz, he's NOT from another Planet!)

CHARLIE had been deemed to be a 'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism.

COMPOUNDING Mr. Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become an American Citizen.

ANYHOW, enough of this background already!

SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving and quickly forgetting Americanos.

IT would be a fine gesture to the great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering in the Millions.

BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation of the multi date film fest.

IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture. As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE.

IN RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me!

CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he wants to a group of actors.

THIS segment was well done and well received by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings were almost building themselves.

THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.; roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide variety of subject matter and mood.

FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles Chaplin Productions/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the German Army.

DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin Productions/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises.

AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin/First National, 1923) was a good choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by every comedian and team. The "Pilgrim" in the story is not of your standard Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a "dude" or "Tenderfoot", who has ventured out West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church!

OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies)

POODLE SCHNITZ!! STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.

To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.

Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.

If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. ***** Mr Bean was great fun, i loved it, every episode was really funny, Rowan Atkinson was perfect for this role, he's a funny looking bloke and his facial expressions were hilarious!!!

The series was so successful that they even made a Mr Bean movie in 1997, which was also pretty funny by the way!!

It's funny seeing all the adventures and situations he gets himself into, this series was a classic for sure, and i still watch an episode from time to time.

Mr Bean is well worth a 10/10 in my book, fans of offbeat comedy must check this out. "Mr. Bean", starring the legendary Rowan Atkinson, was a huge hit during its run in the 1990s, and I probably first saw it when I was around ten, shortly after it ended, so I was seeing reruns. I certainly wasn't much of a fan at the time, and didn't see too many episodes. I didn't really get into the show until my late teens, just a few years ago, which was when I finally watched every episode. Unlike before, it made me laugh many times, and since then, that has always been the case during repeat viewings of episodes!

Mr. Bean is a mysterious, self-centred, antisocial, extremely naive buffoon whose best friend is his Teddy! He is pretty much isolated from society, and life is not easy for him, as he constantly struggles with very simple things! This is because he lacks some fairly basic knowledge, and has the mind of a child. He finds himself in various kinds of trouble wherever he goes, and comes up with very bizarre ways to try and solve the problems he faces! Not only does he often cause trouble for himself, but sometimes for other people as well, which he often doesn't tend to realize! In other words, Mr. Bean is a walking disaster!

The humour in this show is very visual, and there is very little dialogue. The gags are almost always sight gags, which is mostly what the show is about. While there may be an occasional lacklustre gag, I would say the vast majority of them are funny, often hilarious, (there are so many highlights)! While "Mr. Bean" is certainly not the most sophisticated comedy ever made, it's still great for many of those who like visual humour, and due to the very limited dialogue, you don't even have to speak fluent English to enjoy the show, which is why it has received such a world-wide reputation! The show ran for a few years, but the episodes were made very gradually, so only fourteen were made in total. Nonetheless, it is a classic series, and deserves its wide appeal! ...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease. Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to see for yourself.

The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself, and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first! Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw fits of laughter while watching.

Finally, I'd like to point out that although "Bean" is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more "adult" jokes will go over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, "Bean" is the truest definition of a family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day. This is a wonderful family sitcom. Rowan Atkinson has appeared in to other excellent sitcoms, The Thin Blue Line (Better than this) and Blackadder (Not better than this).

Mr Bean is a no talking, human disaster. He goes to places and gets himself in absolute mayhem, the mayhem includes: Climbing up to the top diving board and is too frightened to jump off, taking about 20 minutes, until some kids eventually throw him off, ending up inside a washing machine and driving his car while sat on a roof. Bean drives a Mini and has a teddy.

This was quite similar to The Baldy Man, a series staring Gregor Fisher who says very little, but gets himself in mayhem Best Episode: Do it Yourself Mr Bean, Episode 9: Bean hosts a New Years Eve party, then gets some stuff for decorating his flat, but has too much stuff and has to drive his car on the roof. Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever etched upon the memory of those who viewed it.

Living alone and appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this.

Even when driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known.

Before he found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? "Who?" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius! Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time. Mr. Bean has always been my favorite. No matte how many times you watch the same thing, the show never gets monotonous or repetitive. Mr. Bean is one of the greatest comedians in the world who doesn't need to even speak to make people laugh. His gestures, his facial expressions and his face itself is so funny to watch. The situations which he faces on the show is simply hilarious and the way he handles them is even greater. There is simply no reason why this show shouldn't receive a 10 because it is fabulous. Its something that would even make the most serious or sad person in the universe laugh. Some of my all time favorites episodes from the show are: 1) When Mr. Bean lodges at a hotel 2) The one where he watches the scary film 3) Mind the baby ( The diaper scene especially). In fact, all the episodes are so good that it is really difficult to criticize the show. Mr.Bean can go to any heights to prove that he is funny, including completely stripping himself in one of the episodes. the way he handled that situation was simply mind blowing. 10 out of 10. Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches - yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest, realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world, and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. "Extras" and "Little Britain" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most original. These escapades never get old! 10/10 This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.

I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages. Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with the teacher holding his finger over the pause/play button. At the end of any age group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging students to shout out the answers to "What's this?", "What will happen?", "What's happening?", "What's wrong?", or any other question that elicits responses from that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar.

Because everyone's looking at the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or stopped at any point, it's a perfect "filler" for the awkward "between" times while students are leaving and arriving.

I tried other DVDs, notably "Tom & Jerry" cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as "Mister Bean" at holding students' constant attention. The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time.

However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s.

MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan Atkinson.

Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context.

Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends, rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve.

Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always reassuring.

Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years, MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have come, gone and been forgotten.

Some critics claim the show only appeals to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they did the first time.

The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen. The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie). As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt.

Returning to the TV series, each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable and well ahead of the two movies.

My favourite episodes are the first three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless.

To summarise, MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series. This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time, Rowan Atkinson is simply a genius!, and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review!. I can't begin to tell you how much i love Mr. Bean he's the man, and what amazes me, is how he gets out of these incredibly difficult situations, and he is always so creative,plus Robyn Driscoll also deserves accolades!, he is also a genius!. My favorite bit that he has done is the Amazing Adventures of Mr. Bean and while all the rest of them are amazing, this remains my true favorite, plus i wish the show didn't stop so soon!. Each episode is brilliantly written, and they were all masterfully directed, plus Each episode is a classic in my eyes!. This show is incredibly popular, and i can definitely see why, as it's quite possibly the funniest show ever. The character actors all played there roles really well, especially Robyn Driscoll and Matilda Ziegler (as Irma). This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time Rowan Atkinso is simply put a genius and an incredibly talented comedian (possibly the best!), and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review f you haven't seen this show , drop what your doing right now and go check it out, you will not regret it trust me it's one of the best T.V shows ever!,and i will continue to watch the show over and over again, i never tire of it!, Mr. Bean Rules!. ***** out of 5 There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.

There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.

It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.

The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying. When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy, driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen. Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider, Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding! I liked this movie way too much. My only problem is I thought the actor playing the villain was a low rent Michael Ironside. Of corse Ironside is just a low rent Jack Nicholson. I guess Mike was busy that year with "Highlander 2: The Quickening". Sadly "Beastmaster 2" would have been a much better career move. It is certainly the best of the Beastmaster series and in many ways reminiscent of that great big screen classic "Masters of the Universe". Not only does it star the incomparable Mark Singer it also features an amazing supporting cast, specifically the second girl from "Sliders", Uncle Phil from "Fresh Prince of Belair" and evil chick from "Superman 2". It rocked my world and is certainly a must see for anyone with no social or physical outlets. BEASTMASTER FOREVER!!! ROCK'N ROLL!!! All the reviewers are making one big mistake. This movie was not suppose to be taken seriously.

It was made for kids and teens of the late 80ies or early 90ies and as such it was truly a film of it's time. If you hated that period, or love the first movie so much that you can't even take a joke about it, then this is garbage, but only because it wasn't meant for you. The low budget here and failure of the Beastmaster 1 at the box office (grossed under four mil. with a nine mil. budget) were obviously the reasons to drop the seriousness of the original and to put it in the present day. You can complain about the story, dialog or logic, but again this was made to run, not to win races. If the movie had tried to take itself seriously it would be a total failure, but it doesn't do that for a second (in "our" world, Dar sees a movie theater that's advertising The Beastmaster 2, enough said). To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry movies: This movie knows it's limitations. It's more of a comedy/parody then usual adventure. Soundtrack (for the time) was also great. Actors aren't taking themselves that seriously either so even the usually irritating "spoiled rich brat" role (played here very well by young Kari Wuhrer) turns out good.

So, if you are nostalgic for the 80ies/90ies (cheese) culture, or you liked the first part, and don't mind going out on a cheese limb, you'll have tremendous fun with this attempt to revive Dar in the 90ies (literarly). This is not really the sequel to the first, and don't watch it if that's what you want. It's more of a "what if" fantasy sequel.

As for the "why different dimension and not just different time" question: When in history did we have those tall winged humanoid creatures that suck the flash of bones (from the end of part 1)? By the way, the movie ends in the Zoo because of an attempt at a cheap (moneywise) big finale. It's suppose to be the best place for Dar to show all his moves (him being the manipulator of animals). A "sleeper". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real. I'm rating this pretty high just because of Sam Elliott. I could've done without the female nudity but I'd sit through almost any nonsense in order to see Sam strut his stuff. He gets to spout wonderfully cynical witticisms, many of which I agree with, and it's a joy to see him in a role in which he actually gets to emote instead of just standing around scowling and looking virile as can be. My boyfriend opined that this movie is in a couple of ways similar to a film in which Ed Harris had a Hispanic partner (in the police sense of the term!) who was a little overeager to prove himself. You can draw your own conclusions on that score but if you like Sam, you'll like this. You could say I'm biased, but who isn't in some way? I'd buy this on DVD in a heartbeat! From the start you will like Sam Elliott's character (Falon) : a trustworthy cop that is notably loyal to his partner. But too loyal, and too revengeful when seeing his partner dead in an alley, cause he then kills who he thought to be the assailant before giving him a chance to explain. Falon is an alcoholic, and that tends to sway him from being in self control, though he manages to direct his attention towards finding who's really behind his partners death. He carries along a rookie as his new partner (which seems to be seen too often in films) but Esai Morales does well in accompanying Sam Elliot, though puzzling pieces begin to fit to where Morales begins a self-approved investigation towards Falon; he mainly wants to find the answers since Fallon isn't letting him in on the whole story, and does not like what he finds. There is not a last minute showing at who the bad detectives are, which is okay; and they are not able to sway Falon into joining them, leading to a dramatic ending. Fine acting all the way around, with a touch of humor from Paul Sorvino who is the captain of detectives. It's a good movie that will make you want to see it several times; so it qualifies as a -must see-, and a good addition to a movie collection! (Filmed in San Francisco) Sam Elliot is brilliant as a tough San Francisco Detective Charlie Fallon. When his partner is killed while meeting with an informant Fallon snaps, beats the informant to death, and dumps his body in a river. The next day Fallon is assigned a rookie partner, and given the task of investigating the informants murder. Sam Elliot does a good job of portraying a man who tortured by the guilt of his own murderous actions, and grief over the death of his partner who may have been involved in police corruption. Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just plain silly.

But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere! Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman, but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work despite some of the lame lines he is given to say.

Paul Sorvino is fun to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too.

This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do! **SPOILERS** Extremely brutal police drama set in San Francisco involving a sting operation that goes terribly wrong. A cop Det. Falon, Sam Elliott,mistakenly and savagely beats to death an undercover policeman Winch, Mike Watson,thinking that he murdered his partner Det. Sam Levinson, Mike Burstyn. A partner who unknowing to Falon was dirty.

Getting the lowdown that a group of policemen under his command are dealing drugs by knocking off drug dealers of their cocaine and heroin and then selling it back to them Captain Delgoti, Paul Sorvino, sets up a number of sting operations in his precinct with one of the cops targeted being Det. Levinson. Levinson's partner Det. Falon who's as honest as the day is long has no idea of Levinson's corruption. When Det. Falon find's his partner Det. Levinson stabbed to death outside a bar, were they were at drinking the night away, he goes nuts and attacks and beats to death the man on the scene Winch. Winch who was not responsible for Levinson's murder was in fact there to get him to turn and gives up the names of his fellow drug-dealing corrupt cops.

With the help of striper and girlfriend Sally, Mimi Craven, Falon has Winch's body put in a car and drives down to the docks dumping it in San Francisco Bay feeling that the "cop killer" got just what he deserved. What Falon doesn't know is that the two cops later put on the case of Leinson's murder Holloway & Orlanski, Dan Lauria & Richard Gilliland, were the one's who murdered him.

It's not until much later that Falon realizes that his partner was dirty when he was assigned together with rookie detective Michael Murrow, Esai Morales, on the Winch case and tries to cover-up his involvement in Winch's death. Falon's new partner senses that he's anything but interested in finding Winch's killer and slowly puts two and two together.

The two dirty cops, Holloway & Orlaski, trying to cover up their role in both Levinson murder, whom they killed fearing that he's about to turn evidence on them, as well as their drug dealings. The two crooked cops set up ex-con Jerome Johnson, Perry Moore, by breaking into his apartment and planting drugs there and then, to make it look like a drug hit, brutally murdering him and his wife! This happens right in front of the couples two year old son in one of the most shocking and sickening murders scenes ever put in a movie.

Not satisfied with killing Levinson and Johnson, together with his wife, Holloway and Orlanski get to Falon's girlfriend Sally, who was a junkie and being supplied with her drugs by the late Det. Levinson. The two corrupt cops stick a needle in Sally's arm forcing her to overdose not realizing, by sticking the needle in her left arm, that she's left-handed! Which would make it physically impossible and which also alerts Falon, who finds her body, that Sally was in fact murdered and didn't kill herself voluntary or by accident.

Falon begins to come to his senses when he's later approached at his old watering hole by Holloway and Orlanski and asked to join them in their drug dealing operation. Falon angrily refuses but now he knows that like his partner the late Sam Levinson that he knows too much and is now a marked man.

Meanwhile Det. Murrow, now a lot smarter and wiser, by getting to know what his partner Falon is all about confronts Falon about Winch's death only to get knocked out and cuffed to a sink at the bar that Falon was at. With Falon now smashed from his drinking, but with a full head of steam, goes outside to meet Holloway and Orlanski knowing that no matter what happens he'll end up on the losing end.

Tough and uncompromising movie about police corruption with Sam Elliott as the old veteran who thinks he's seen and knows everything about crime and police work but has a lot to learn. Still he overlooks his partners Det. Levinson, whom he worked with for 20 years, secret life as a drug dealer that not only leads to him murdering an innocent man but ending up being killed himself. It has to be said that this film is definitely one of the better "bargain bin" movies out there - I'd feel a bit cheated if I had paid £15 for it, but at about £1.50 I felt that I definitely got more than my monies worth.

The film can't quite decide if it wants to be "Mad Max" or one of the Clint Eastwood "man with no name" spaghetti westerns, and as such is stacked with clichés from both. Even the manic loony who hangs out with the bad guys in "Mad Max" is there.

That guy from "Blade Runner" also cops a good billing, although he only turns up at the beginning and the end of the movie.

Favourite bit - for me the punch-up on top of the oil refinery - if you look closely you can see the "post-apocalyptic" rush hour traffic thundering past in the distance as the two protagonists knock seven bells out of each other.

Get several lagers in, a few pizzas and sit back and enjoy what is ultimately lightweight but entertaining drivel. Ok, when I rented this several years ago I had the worst expectations. Yes, the acting isn't great, and the picture itself looks dated, but as I sat there, a strange thing happened. I started to like it. The action is great and there are few scenes that make you jump. Brion James, maybe one of the greatest B-grade actors next to Bruce Campbell, is great as always. The story isn't bad either. Now I wouldn't rush out and buy it, but you won't waste your time at least watching this good b-grade post apocalyptic western. Well, I saw that yesterday and It was much better than the other making-off from VH1, too bad than this one it's pretty outdated but you get to see all the staff who makes south park, very interesting stuff.

It's also funny than this documentary portrays Trey and Matt like selfish greedy snobs creators who doesn't work and spend all the time having fun or relaxing (which is kinda ironic because they work pretty hard on the show).

It also shows all the animation process to make a south park episode, interview with the actors who brings character's voices and much more.

If you're a fan of south park I highly recommend you this. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, finally get out of their grueling schedule to talk to the cameras while sipping champagne in their hot tub. At first, when watching this, I did not sense as much sarcasm as there was in this. I knew they were joking when they would complain about different actors on the show and when Trey said he wasn't going to give his mother any of his money, but there is so much sarcasm throughout, that this documentary, is more of a mockumentary full of inside jokes.

This "documentary" shows everything about South Park (up until the second season anyways). It shows what goes on behind the scenes with the animation and the recording. It has interviews, many of which are fake interviews, but some, amongst all the fabrications, give insight into the show. Clips from both of Trey Parker's Spirit of Christmas shorts are shown, as are many good clips from the show. If you were a South Park fan, then this should have quenched your thirst for show knowledge back in late 1998 when this was made. Now, obviously the show has changed, but this is still interesting.

What we have here is an amusing documentary where Trey Parker (especially) and Matt Stone come off as arrogant jerks, and that's exactly what they wanted to come off as. They may be this way in real life, but here it was a joke, a 51 minute long insightful joke.

My rating: *** out of ****. 51 mins. Not rated, contains Language and Sexual Content. Going' Down To South Park is a 1hr long documentary about South Park with interviews with Trey Parker and Matt STone and all the other people who work on South Park.There really isn't much to say, it shows the history of South Park and what it takes to make one episode.It is basically a behind the scenes of the show. It shows the different merchandise that south park has made(it was really comedy central who put it out). It also shows the controversy which was caused by South Park.It shows plenty of funny clips from the show as well.It's a fairly funny documentary.Any fan of South Park should check this out.You can find it on youtube.

9/10 This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of…" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.

Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.

My IMDb Rating: 7/10 This film is a very beautiful and slow film. There is nothing Hollywood about it. It is very danish and the characters are very real. It is the first danish film to take up this transsexual theme. It is really about love that has no gender. I would not say it is about lesbian love even though the two main characters (the transsexual veronika and Charlotte) are attracted to each other. It is a story about love and life.

The story pretty much takes place in the two apartments. There is almost no background music, which makes it seem more real and intense. The two actors playing the main characters are great. They really make them seem real. They are not archetypes, but real people you could meet in the street. I think it is the first time I have seen a transsexual portrayed this well. Very well done. A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do now is waiting for an approval certificate.

Then these two individuals meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it.

The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment, Delphic but full of desire.

Two main characters are played by Trine Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing.

This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere, whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way. The Soap is an interesting movie and very brilliant at parts. You must watch it for its strong characterisation and the risks the plot about two troubled individuals falling in love takes. You must know the story through various other reviews, so lets speak about what is brilliant about this movie.

Firstly, the two protagonists are so real and such intriguing personalities. The first being a woman who has opted out of a four year relationship and is angry enough to sleep with anyone coming her way. The second being a man who has always wanted to be a woman, whose pain and loneliness is shown with so much sensitivity and brilliance. You hate the former and your heart bleeds for the latter.

The second thing about this movie is the entire concept of loving one for who one is, irrespective of gender. So, would you still love your partner if he/she were to change his/her sex? The movie explores that idea and it is a beautiful one.

But there is one point where the movie fails. I wish the relationship between the protagonists had developed in a better way. That what they feel is love doesn't come across till the end. But watch it, and post your thoughts on it here....... The first episode of 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' that just aired was at least up to scratch with most episodes of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and had me at "My Maisonette". Hope it keeps up the good work of 'faux terribles' on my TV. Richard Ayoade is one of the best in the new breed of "alternative comedy"(I hate this phrase but am too lazy too think of another one.) comedians on TV today.I'm glad that on a trip of local DVD retailers today "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace" was sold out across the board. Even from his brief stint in Nathan Barley I knew that Ayoade was a serious talent and I'm sure he would have been great as Dixon Bainbridge in 'The Mighty Boosh' To continued success! In the vein of these programs I also felt it necessary to extend my review, in order to secure a place on this public domain. After the highs of darkplace it was never conceivable that Holness and Adobye would be able to create anything half as good as garth marengi. Yet i think that man to man in its own right is as good a show (on the good episodes) as darkplace. i cant argue that 2 of the episodes really are'nt that good but the other 4 certainly make up for it. if i had to pick 2 great episodes id go for formula4 driver Steve Pising (pronounced Pissing) and the great Garth Marengi. to already have a bit of understanding of the programme is a real plus as Dean Learner makes many inside jokes but even if you have'nt seen much Dean id recommend this as some of the rants he launches into are genius ie. His argument with Def Lepord over their name. All in All a great show which just misses full marks because of the couple of less funny episodes. A spin off comedy talk show from the creators of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' The new series, Man to Man with Dean Learner, focuses on Garth's manager, publisher and publicity agent, as played by Richard Ayoade.

Nightclub owner, restaurateur, publisher, international playboy - Dean Learner is a one-man brand.

After his co-funded Channel 4 television hit Garth Marenghi's Darkplace he now invites you into his luxury penthouse flat for an all-new, entertaining and immensely stylish TV talk show.

Man to Man with Dean Learner will feature all Dean's remaining celebrity friends, as well as plenty of live music and fine fish-dish cuisine in a show that reeks of class - but not fish!

I attended two of the live recordings and it had me in stitches. There are distinct comparisons to Alan Partridge's 'Knowing me Knowing you' in the layout but Richard Ayoade and Matt Holness's unique writing style take it to another level.

If your a fan of Darkplace then you can't miss it. Catch it when its aired late this summer This is a very strange series with Dean Learner. I really didn't understand the guests. I knew they weren't serious but whether they were really them was unclear because...i guess i'm just that stupid. I don't know if this classes as a spoiler but the guests aren't real like in Ali g or anything they're played by one man or so i believe. I love the serious look that he's got going on. Its like that programme that was on on a Sunday morning that i forget the name of lol. I also really like the suit and moustache thing he has got going on. Its quite hot. He's insensitive which is one of the funniest qualities. I also like the way he has subsections of the programme. It makes it seem more authentic. There are only a few movies which can be called `must see' and SHEPHERED is one of those films. In many ways it was ahead of it's time (and you can tell it was a source of inspiration for several better-known films) Copied by many, equaled by none, this truly is one great movie.

The story is complex but unfolds itself as a taut yet frequently amusing thriller and highly thought provoking exploration of the nature of humanity. The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where people must live underground and chaos reigns. C. Thomas Howell is a `Shepherd' one who protects the populace for various religious leaders by killing off any unfit members of the society. The whole idea made me think about our society. It's really a brilliant social commentary, which is more than I can say for certain recent sci-fi/action blockbusters. MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS didn't make one feel that any real innovation was taking place, just dull video-game effects. But SHEPHERD scores on the action scale too...

Not once does this movie let the viewer catch their breath. Peter Hayman proves himself to be one of the few genius action directors. We're talking 100%, high grade, down home kung fu fighting! It was excellent. Really good special effects, shoot-outs, bleak-futuristic cyber-punk noir style… the film really has its own elements.

When talking about SHEPHERD, it's impossible not to mention how much style it has. The vision of this city is really stunning. It recalls images of Tim Burton's very memorable vision of Gotham in BATMAN. And these sights are photographed by Graeme Mears with a degree of skill that puts Gordon Willis and Conrad Hall to shame. Even the special effects proved amazing. Doubtless the scenes where fighting occurs are landmarks in all of filmmaking. This movie is a ballet of awesome visual display.

Still, at the base of it all, there lies an interesting story, carried through by a strong cast. The acting (especially Rowdy Piper) and the plot are both great, and excellently directed. In contrast with loads of futuristic films made with a strong artificial flavor, the characters are believable and the dialogue is natural and full of wit. I'm always proud to see a great film like SHEPHERD come along. It's a damn shame that it didn't receive good distribution and made nothing in the box office. It's a rarity worth searching for. This movie will impress you and make you feel 10 times cooler for having seen it! A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of 10. We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it succeeds.

Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well. Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow provides tart comedic moments.

The music is almost the star of this film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one. (Mild Spoilers) Frankie Machine had been dealt a bad hand in life. A card dealer at an illegal gambling den in his Chicago neighborhood he was busted when the joint was raided by the cops and given six months in jail.

While behind bars Frankie was treated for his heroin addiction at the prisons hospital and learned how to play the drums as part of his rehabilitation program. Now out of prison and back in his old neighborhood Frankie is trying to put his life back together by getting a union card in the Musicians Union and then a job as a drummer in a band and put his old life behind him but instead it catches up with Frankie in no time at all in "The Man with the Golden Arm".

Otto Preminger's ground-breaking 1955 film about heroin addiction with Frank Sinatra giving the performance of his life as the drug addicted card sharp Frankie Machine, the Man with the Golden Arm. Frankie tries to getaway from the life that he lead but has this monkey or, better yet, gorilla on his back that just won't let him. Soild performances by the entire supporting cast starting with Frankie's friend Sparrow, Arnold Stang. Sparrows attempt to get Frankie back on his feet by shoplifting a suit of clothes for him ends up putting him and Frankie in the slammer, and almost back to prison, until his former boss at the gambling den Schwiefka bailed him out.

There's Frankie's psychically as well as emotionally crippled wife Zosch, Eleanor Parker, who sees that her hold on Frankie is slipping and is slowly driven to madness murder and suicide. There's Frankie's drug dealer Louie, with Darren McGavin in one of his first acting roles, who's hold on Frankie is only good as long as he stays addicted and Louie goes out of his way to make sure that he does.

There's the owner of the gambling joint that Frankie works at as it's top card dealer Schwiefka, Robert Strauss, who like Louie goes out of his way to get Frankie back to work for him even though if he's arrested again Frankie's hopes for a new and better life will go down the drain. And then there's Frankie's next-door neighbor and friend Molly, Kim Novak,who goes to almost impossible lengths to get him over his addiction by locking him up in her apartment. It's there that he goes "Cold Turkey" and almost ends up dying trying to kick the habit in one of the most harrowing sequence ever put on film.

A no holds barred movie with explosive performances by everyone involved makes "The Man with the Golden Arm" one of the great classics of realism in motion pictures coming out of the 1950's. The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best.

Maybe if Otto Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film.

Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are conspiring against him.

First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing, especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just to keep him around.

Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you shaken.

Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody, she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career.

Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl.

Elmer Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring up your family. Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless. I've always enjoyed Frank Sinatra's music, and just recently I wrote a term paper about his life story. I've been fascinated by the life and legend of Ol' Blue Eyes. However, I've never seen any of his movies. So I wanted to see if his acting was as great as his singing. Well...it was! I was blown away by his performance in this movie! He really does a tremendous job as recovering heroin addict Frankie Machine, who's trying to put his life back together and audition as a drummer for a local band.

Otto Preminger's direction is great as well. I haven't seen any of his other movies. I read his biography on the IMDB. He seems like one of those directors who was sorely misunderstood, and people had conflicted thoughts about him. Seems like the kind of person who appeals most to cult enthusiasts. I haven't seen enough of his films to know for sure if he's really brilliant, but now I'm curious. I want to see more of his films, because judging by his attempt with "The Man with the Golden Arm" this guy has talent. I also loved the music for this movie. The score definitely contains the kind of music that I'll remember if I ever happen to hear it again. That's when you know you have a great score.

The supporting performances are fine as well, including Darren McGavin as the local drug pusher, Eleanor Parker as Frankie's wheelchair-bound wife and Kim Novak as his lover.

It's interesting to see how filmmakers handled the subject of drug abuse, as opposed to modern attempts in films like "Trainspotting" and "Requiem for a Dream." Back in 1955, just mentioning the word "drugs" caused controversy, and if you watch the film they kept the subject on a very discreet level. There's only one scene where Frankie is actually getting heroin injected into his arm, and they showed a close-up of the reaction of his face rather than showing the needle graphically poking into his veins. But it delivered its message without making it feel watered-down. In a powerful drama like this, with powerful performances and direction like this, you don't need graphic portrayals of drug abuse to keep the audience intrigued.

"The Man with the Golden Arm" is a dramatic gem that all film buffs should check out. It really is an amazing piece of work!

My score: 8 (out of 10) This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance), Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints: this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough. Otto Preminger's "The Man with the Golden Arm" is a reference to heroin addiction - something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago (the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!).

The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself battling the demons of temptation.

Preminger is one of my favorite directors (his "Anatomy of a Murder" starring James Stewart is a brilliant and revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of cinema back in the '50s - "Anatomy of a Murder" was extremely controversial when it came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's "panties," seduction, etc.) and "The Man with the Golden Arm" deals with a topic that is equally volatile.

However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming exploitative. This is like a forerunner to "The Panic in Needle Park" (1971) and bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy Wilder movie "Lost Weekend," starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain relevant today. Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do the movie this way?

The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then neither is the film.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna. I am fifteen years old and have seen thirty-three of Sinatra's films (not counting videos of TV shows and documentaries) and have been unimpressed by only two of them. ''Till the Clouds Roll By," and "The Miracle of the Bells" don't really count, however, considering that in the first all he does is sing a magnificent "Ol' Man River," and in the latter he's not half bad-only the picture is pathetic. My favorite records, radio shows, TV shows, and movies concerning Sinatra change virtually every day-everything taking on a different connotation at each viewing and occasionally seeming the best thing he ever did and occasionally the worst until the cycle comes around again, but there are a couple things that are beyond comparison. When it comes to movies, "The Man with the Golden Arm" heads that list. Everybody who knows anything about Sinatra knows he thought this was his best-ever performance; he was Oscar-nominated; it was the first serious look at drug addiction; etc.,etc. The jazz score is unforgettable, Kim Novak's likable despite a ludicrous accent, Eleanor Parker is annoying and waaaay too dramatic, the turtle-like Arnold Stang is amusing the first time but more embarrassing every time out, and Darren McGavin makes a wonderfully slimy drug dealer, the sets are unconvincing - at first glance it seems a peculiar mixed bag tossed together by the great Otto Preminger with an off-center charm.

Then you come to Sinatra. Like everything else in his life - other than music - reports of his acting are alway divided in half. Directors like Fred Zinnemann, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, and Otto Preminger, all agreed that had Sinatra worked as hard on his films as he did on singing, he'd have been among the greatest actors in the world - if not THE greatest. Humphrey Bogart even said,"This guy has the most natural acting talent I've ever seen." Not bad for a man who never took an acting lesson in his life, was at the same time producing the discography that would make him "the greatest singer of the 20th Century," and did almost all his scenes in one take.

In direct conflict with all of this are those other reviews and biographies that sniff haughtily about what a lousy actor was this Mr.Sinatra, and how many "bad" movies he made. The question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction because controversy was among Sinatra's greatest assets, and both arguments were in a sense playing into his hand. In any case, at this time, in this role, Sinatra is magnificent. A reviewer said in the late fifties,"Sinatra may not be the greatest actor in the world, but there is none more fascinating to watch." No matter what Sinatra is doing in a film, it's hard to take your eyes off him. This, of course, is a "charisma," that I've only seen in a handful of other people-Orson Welles, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift-perhaps James Cagney. There's no real definition for it and it often makes it hard to figure out whether you're really enjoying a performance or just spellbound, but that quality on display here is what makes the movie. Sinatra is downright riveting, real, intense - transcending decades and thousands of paper-doll pop stars with something called quality. Like it or not, this is a one-man show with a few character actors hanging around in the background. He covers every emotion with remarkable subtlety, from sweet, lonely tenderness with Kim Novak to the terrifying shock of Frank Sinatra (Frank Sinatra!) whimpering and screaming in the agony of "cold turkey." Sinatra was right - this is his best performance. No question.

I was eight when Frank Sinatra died. I wasn't around for all the years of bobby-soxers and ''Anchors Aweigh,'' Mr. Ava Gardner and ''From Here to Eternity," albums with lamp posts and ''swingin' lovers," Kennedy, Vegas, ring-a- ding ding. Basie and Mia and Reagan and concerts from Madison Square Garden to South Africa to the White House to the Sands. I can't say I like Sinatra because I heard him at the Paramount or because I hear "September of My Years" autobiographically-the usual excuses. And my excuse? When I was eleven I watched a movie called "On the Town"... I have never been as surprised by a film that was this old. Only "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" holds up this well, performance-wise. As someone that has seen heroin addiction first-hand, I was shocked at how realistic this film was. Frank Sinatra's performance is completely uncompromising, realistic, and heart wrenching. Otto Preminger's direction is perfect for the film, with long takes and a very mobile camera.

Kim Novak's performance is good, as is Eleanor Parker's. In fact, the entire supporting cast works very well, with understated performances, as befitting this film's style. The documentary style is part of what keeps this film up to date. Highly recommended.

8.0 out of 10 Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack. If you like your films to pull your emotions out of you, if you like your films with a guy you can root for, and relate to, if you like your films in black and white, you gotta see this film! Watch it from start to finish, because you don't want to miss a beat. It is sometimes slow, and it makes you wonder when something is going to happen, then when the plot begins to unfold, you will be on the edge of your seat! I know I was! My Mother told me about this film as our family had some of the same things going on in it as the film does. We loved Frankie, who plays the lead convincingly. What ever you think about Frank Sinatra, put that aside, in the film, he is skinny and he doesn't sing, so keep an open mind. For the era it was made in, it tells a story that is still being told today in homes all across the nation, and quite possibly the world. Please watch, if you like older films, give this one a try. Frank Sinatra has one of his best roles as a reformed heroin addict coming back to his Chicago neighborhood after an extensive stay in a clinic. He plans to stay off the drug and find work as a drummer, but he can't avoid running into his old friends. He had been arrested originally not for any drug-related charge, but because he was caught dealing in an illegal poker game. His skill at poker has earned him the nickname of The Man with the Golden Arm, and the men who run the game, one of them being his former heroin connection, want him to deal again. Meanwhile, Frank has to take care of a woman whom he injured in a car accident, Zosch (Eleanor Parker), and make up with his old girlfriend, Molly (Kim Novak). The film is great at putting us in Sinatra's mental state. When he feels sure of himself at the beginning of the film, I felt good for him. But, when a promised phone call doesn't come one day, he descends into depression and goes back on the smack. Later, when he finally gets to audition, he arrives completely strung out. His embarrassment when he can't play the correct beat is devastating. He had such big dreams, and the other musicians don't even pay him a bit of attention as he rushes out of the room. The film moves quickly and it shows Frank's drug problem in a realistic light without turning into a social message picture. The actors are uniformly fine. Elmer Bernstein's score is one of the best of its time. The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending.

SPOILERS

Although I really like the character of Zosch and Parker is very good in the film, they could have done a little more to fill in her backstory. The ending is a little too pat. While there is surely pathos that will remain with the characters after the film closes, Zosch's death ties up all the loose ends a bit too neatly. Frank is free to love Molly and he won't go to jail. Also, his dealer is dead, so at least the immediate threat is gone. Well, I guess in Hollywood there's always a desire to tie everything up in a neat little package. It harms the film a little, but, as it stands, it's still one of the best and most adult movies about drug addiction I can think of. 9/10. Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished "packages",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of "product" and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the "Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake" ethos in film-making,but now "Ars Gratia Artis" has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,"Laura","Where the sidewalk ends" and "The moon is blue",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel "The man with the golden arm" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in "From here to eternity",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called "The Life",in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in "The Life",and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently "doing" cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in "It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger. Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e. Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug culture is embedded in American life. *** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.

Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie.

It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.

Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.

*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy. Great little ground-breaking movie (in 1955) about an important subject.

I wasn't expecting much from Sinatra's performance and was pleasantly surprised by it. Loved Kim Novak! She was gorgeous!

Loved the jazz score by Elmer Bernstein! As great as that by Lazlo Schifrin for "Bullitt"! I am very surprised it doesn't seem available on CD (if anyone knows about the soundtrack's availability on any other format, they should post it here somewhere!).

Preminger's direction was, as usual, borderline flawless.

Haven't read Nelson Algren's novel nor have any idea how faithful the screenplay was to it. The subplot of Frankie as a "hot" card dealer was a bit of a surprise, too, as were a few other things. But see for yourself. It's very much worth seeing... A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in. From the crash of the opening theme, "The Man With the Golden Arm" is classic 1950's entertainment. No subtlety here, Frank comes home from prison with a monkey on his back and goes right back to the old neighborhood, where the old scumbags still lurk. This is a tale of his dark ride with all of his emotional baggage intact. The performances are all a bit overripe, but that's part of the fun of watching. Darren McGavin and Arnold Stang are unforgettable, and almost steal the show. This and "The Manchurian Candidate" are the two greatest Chairman of the Board films, in my humble opinion. Don't miss either one of them. A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin; maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel we are compelled to endure year after year.

It's the story of a man who is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison, trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers, and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife.

Even if you didn't like the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy, swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine.

I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits, fedoras, or jazz. Great book, great movie, great soundtrack. Frank Sinatra shows in this movie that when he wanted to put the effort in, he could act. The ending is a bit schmaltzy, but for the time it's understandable the studio wanted a happy ending. The graphic nature of the heroin addiction (groundbreaking for the period) is a plus. Add the terrific soundtrack and you've got one of the great American movies. The Man with the Golden Arm was one of the first films to have as its main topic (and, in some respects, the message) the tragedy of heroin addiction. It's nowhere near a great film, but its importance lies in Otto Preminger's dedication to making it feel real and on the edge of melodrama and naturalism. What I liked is that it's not so much an expose of junkies (if you want the best expose of that read Naked Lunch, if you can get through it anyway, besides the point), but the nature of the urban environment Frankie Machine lives. He expects after he gets out of prison for dealing to go on the straight and narrow, to become a drummer in a band and make it legit as a musician. But he has his "crippled" wife Zosch, who can't work and needs money and often complains, and then there's the old neighborhood- he can't escape seeing Louie (Darren McGavin), who is still doing back-room card games and, yes, pushing dope. Like Mean Streets, it's hard to escape the minutia unless you leave.

But then again, it's hard for Frankie Machine not to try and operate naturally in this urban quarter. It's just that he can't escape the temptation of junk (when he's booked on a phony theft charge with his friend, he sees a junkie freaking out, and it puts back the fear of going back on into his clean self). And personifying Frankie is Sinatra, and I can't see anyone else who could've played him, even original choice Brando. He fits into the neighborhood, and seems like the kind of guy who should be a step ahead of the game. But there's also a vulnerability to Sinatra that he pulls out wonderfully, and by the time we see him going 'cold turkey' in Molly's apartment, it's believable even if it's not the kind of thing those from 'my' generation would think of heroin (i.e. Trainspotting and certainly Requiem for a Dream). If for nothing else, you want to watch the movie to see what happens to Sinatra as this character.

The flaws, however, come in some of the other performances, though it's a little tricky. Eleanor Parker seems to be overacting for a good portion of the movie, fooling Frankie that she's really crippled when in reality she can walk and is fooling him for one reason or another. But then it becomes clearer as it goes along- she's supposed to be nuts, and nuts with jealousy, and on that level it starts to get better. Meanwhile, Kim Novak is good, though not Vertigo-worthy, as the possible girl in the side but more like the voice of reason in the story. Then there's a Detective Bendar, who might be one of the most one-note characters/performances, ever. And also Sparrow, Frankie's nerdy friend, and the characters of Louie and Schiefka, and they're all played as one might expect them to (actually, McGavin is better than OK). As far as casting other talent around Sinatra, Preminger doesn't do all that great. And, frankly, some scenes kind of fall flat.

But there's a lot of fascination in the Man with the Golden Arm, and not just as some dated piece of sociological interest. It works as compelling drama, and as a message piece conveyed without being preachy or campy. It's a genuine article, just not exceptional. STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

One time heroin addict Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) gets out of prison to his bumbling jailbird partner Sparrow (Arnold Stang), needy cripple of a wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker) and bit on the side Molly (Kim Novak.) He's trying to make it big as a drummer in a band, but until his big break comes along he's stuck doing the only other thing he was any good at other than being a junkie- dealing cards in high stakes games. And try as he might, even prison hasn't cured him of his addiction to the devil's drug- causing him to lie to and deceive all those around him and driving him to desperate measures to feed his habit. His yearning to come off it is his only motivation towards a happy ending.

When people think of Frank Sinatra they generally think of classic high pitched songs like Under My Skin, New York New York and It Had to Be You. But lest anyone forget he was actually a renowned actor too and, if his performance in the acclaimed From Here to Eternity wasn't enough, he will also be remembered for this cutting edge drama, dealing with what was at the time the ultra taboo subject of drug abuse.

The film is often listed as one of the first to feature graphic heroin use (probably the reason behind the 15 certificate) in a time when it was a subject that was still very much pushed underground. In his portrayal of the main protagonist, Sinatra is fine, perfectly conveying the despair, desperation and sincerity of a man losing every second chance that is being given to him. His cold turkey scene is much more intense than Ewan McGregor's in Trainspotting. The first co-star to make an impression is Parker as Machine's demanding, needy cripple of a wife, using her husband's guilt and sense of duty to all the effect she can. Novak as his secret lover still manages some strong moments but is less of a star than Parker. Stang does his usual comic relief thing, as the bumbling sidekick who trails the leading man around with his waspy New York accent.

Director Otto Preminger does allow the pace to drag a bit sometimes but this is still a powerfully absorbing film all the way, with plenty of unexpected twists and turns and which should be admired for being one of the first films to bring such a grim subject so powerfully to life. **** I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it recently. That is how much this movie has affected me.

Considering this is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were affected by the realism of this movie back in those days.

I personally think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen.

When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and/or addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to watch. Just getting released from a six month drug rehabilitation program and having served his time for dealing cards in illegal gambling card games, Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) has high hopes for going clean and finding a new life as a big band drummer. However upon returning to his old crime-ridden Chicago neighborhood, he soon finds the pressure mounting from those around him, including his wheelchair-ridden wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker), to return to the old money-making "Dealer" lifestyle that first got him started on the path of self-destruction that is being an heroin addict.

It's very rare that a film has so many great character performances as this one does. Frank Sinatra is superb as Frankie Machine, and realistically portrays the symptoms of a drug addict going through withdrawal arguably better than anyone else had ever been done before him. Sinatra seems to possess a keen understanding and awareness of his character here and expresses the constant battle for control over his own life that is forever going on inside the heart of the man that is Frankie Machine. Parker as his crippled wife Zosch wants to possess Frankie forever, to have him "deal" to make good money so as to take care of her and pay her ever-mounting medical bills. She seems terrified by anything she sees as a threat to her control over him, such as the freedom the life of a drummer might offer, or anything that might change the status quo between them.

Onlooker Molly (Kim Novak), a girl who lives in the same building and seems to possess real, strong genuine feelings for Frankie, having no desire to control him but only to help him proves the best thing Frankie has going for him in the world if he can just stay straight long enough to wake up and realize it. Darren McGavin as the heroin drug peddler Louie however is always there just waiting in the wings knowing just the right buttons to push, just the thing to say, to get a former addict to revert back to that old habit, one profitable to Louie but deadly for the addict.

The setting too seems to take on a life of its own, constantly dark, gritty, seedy and crime-ridden with nowhere near enough positive things to look forward to in life, a place where it's all too easy to escape via a bottle or drugs, a quick "fix" that's truly no fix at all but only works to keep one in the dark away from the daylight and all the bright prospects the world might have to offer. It's a neat touch that when Frankie is on the right track, the setting always seems brighter than when he's headed down the wrong road. While some argue it is a bit dated, to me this is a gritty film featuring a realistic inner war within a man for control over his own fate, one that features very strong character performances by all involved. Given that, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM gets my highest possible recommendation. A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in. "The Moon Is Blue" director Otto Preminger tackled even more taboo subject matter in his controversial 1955 release "The Man with the Golden Arm." Whereas he had incensed the Motion Picture Association of America with his use of the words "virgin" and "mistress" in his mild 1953 comedy "The Moon Is Blue," Preminger went far beyond what any movie had attempted with "The Man with the Golden Arm" since Dick Powell made his law and order epic "To the Ends of the Earth"(1946) about thwarting the international traffic in narcotics. Based on Nelson Algren's novel that won the 1950 National Book Award, this gritty, uncompromising, 119-minute, black & white melodrama deals with heroin addiction. Initially, when Preminger's film came out, the Motion Picture Association of America would not issue its seal of approval because the filmmakers depicted addiction to narcotics. This groundbreaking film qualified as the first major motion picture to handle narcotics from the dope fiend's perspective and actually showed the paraphernalia that junkies wielded to shoot up heroin. The Production Code stipulated that filmmakers must refrain from showing characters using illicit narcotics. Nevertheless, United Artists released this unique Frank Sinatra picture and it grossed over $4-million dollars.

The critical and commercial success of "The Man with the Golden Arm" eviscerated the Production Code. As a result, the MPAA amended the Code so that filmmakers could delve into other taboo subjects, such as drug abuse, kidnapping, abortion and prostitution. The film received three Academy Award nominations. Oscar nominations went to Sinatra for Best Acting, Joseph C. Wright and Darrell Silvera for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White and Elmer Bernstein for Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture. Indeed, Elmer Bernstein made a name for himself with his jazzy score. The producers had thought about casting Marlon Brando in the title role, but Sinatra beat Brando to the punch. Eleanor Parker, Kim Novak, Arnold Stang, Darren McGavin, and Robert Strauss co-starred with Ole Blue Eyes. McGavin was particularly memorable as a sleazy heroin dealer, while Eleanor Parker played the protagonist's wife with a dark, deep secret of her own that comes as quite a shock.

"The Man with the Golden Arm" refers to protagonist Frankie Machine's ability to manipulate a deck of cards. Frankie deals cards for Zero Schwiefka (Robert Strauss of "Stalag 17") but he has been out of Chicago for the last six months in a federal narcotics hospital recovering from heroin addiction. Not only has Frankie licked the habit, but he also has learned how to play the drums and plans to embark of a music career. Optimistic as Frank is about his future, he finds himself facing his past all over again when he returns to his old stomping grounds. Schwiefka wants him to deal for him again, and Nifty Louie Fomorowski (Darren McGavin of "Counter-Attack") tries to induce him to resume his heroin usage. Meanwhile, Frankie comes home to his invalid, wheel-chair bound wife, Zosh (Eleanor Parker of "Escape from Fort Bravo"), who manipulates him with guilt. Frankie was drunk when he had a car accident and Zosh wound up in a wheel chair. Frankie shows up with high hopes and a drum set, but Zosh sees no future for him as a musician and urges to go back to work for Schwiefka. Frankie plans to visit a music promoting and one of his own friends, Sparrow (Arnold Stang of "My Sister Eileen"), shoplifts a business suit from a department store for Frankie. After Frankie refuses to work for Schwiefka because he is going to see musical agent Harry Lane (Will Wright of "The Wild One"), Schwiefka turns both Frank and Sparrow into the police. Meanwhile, Schwiefka gets Brach's Department Store to drop the shoplifting charges. The suit was worth $37.00. Frankie agrees to resume dealing for Schweifka and the hustler bails him out. Not long afterward, despite his resolution to shun heroin use, Frankie breaks down and pays Louie the $2.00 for a fix.

Eventually, Frankie meets Harry Lane and Lane warns him that he is catches Frankie shooting up that he will have nothing to do with him. What poor Frankie doesn't know is that Zosh has recovered her ability to walk, but she uses his guilt about the accident to hold on to him. Zosh is also jealous of her downstairs neighbor, Molly Novotny (Kim Novak of "Picnic"), Frankie's former sweetheart who hustles drinks at a nearby strip bar called the Safari Club. When Zosh complains about headaches that Frankie gives her practicing on his drum set, Frankie moves them downstairs into Molly's apartment. Schwiefka and Louie are planning a big poker game with Sam Markette (George E. Stone of "Guys and Dolls") and Williams (George Mathews of "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral"), two big-time gamblers who have heard about Frank and his legendary 'golden arm.' Schwiefka and Louie persuade a reluctant Frankie to deal for $250. After an early winning streak, Frankie starts losing and he cannot reverse his bad luck. In fact, Frankie spends about two days dealing. Exhausted, his nerves shot and desperate for a fix, he falls apart on the second day and Markette and Williams catch him cheating. Louie refuses to give Frankie a fix, so Frankie knocks him out and ransacks his apartment for the heroin.

Preminger pulls no punches in "The Man with the Golden Arm," and the film is pretty disillusioning. None of the characters here are remotely sympathetic. Essentially, they are either hustlers or hustled. Sinatra gives another dynamite performance as does McGavin and Parker. To be sure, "The Man with the Golden Arm" has lost much of its impact in the intervening 50 or more years, but it still ranks as a landmark film. But quite dated today. Otto Preminger made this movie without the certificate of approval that was needed then. It was enormously courageous and risky as he could have lost his investment and future.

The film is not true to the wonderful book and is unfortunately hollywoodized.

Frank Sinatra (and I've never been a fan) playing Frankie Machine, is astonishing in his performance. One forgets it is Frank up there, the level of realism he brings to the role of a jonesing drug addict has to be seen to be believed.

Kim Novak, eternally gorgeous and talented, does not disappoint in the role of the devoted outsider, always there for Frankie.

Supporting roles, particularly a young, handsome and talented Darrin Mc Gavin, are faultless.

Eleanor Parker, playing Frankie's wife, is hopelessly inept. She swings from irritating to melodramatic and is far too over the top. A forgettable performance.

The stagey, cheap settings are appalling, as if a firm gust of wind would blow the whole tacky painted cardboards over the horizon. Almost laughable at times in their tawdry cheapness.

The music was irritating, poundingly so at times. As if each nuance of the script (example: when Louie is getting Frankie his fix out of a drawer) had to be underscored at a high decibel level.

7 out of 10. Sinatra truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Worth seeing. The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.

The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.

What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid. A proof that it's not necessary for a movie to have a deep many-layered story and other sophisticated elements to be a good movie. Even if the story could be expanded in many directions, especially in more sociological way (people lust for money) it seems that it's perfect just the way it is. Through many sudden changes it takes the spectator to the end without any unnecessary complications and without letting the spectator taking the eyes of the screen.

But the acting for me isn't so good. With the exception of Lindsey McKeon the others were average or even worst. In some scenes they just empty-stared in front of themselves. For exception of Lindsey which was more convincing. It's a really simple movie for just laying back and enjoying.

7/10 I saw this mini-movie when it first aired, and loved it!It kinda funny to see how far people will go for money.It's also funny to see how much a boyfriend can be "Whipped". "Whipped" enough to kill. I think the cast was great, especially the character Kristin.Without Her smooth talking,and deceptive looks the movie would have not been the same.

I never use to watch USA but now it is one of my stations.

Clifton Webb as "Mr. Scoutmaster" is one of the all-time greats for comedy and remembering an innocence, now diminished in the world. I cannot understand why the networks like American Movie Classics and such do not show this movie, although I have requested it time and again.

This movie should be shown to children now for its portrayal of loyalty, respect, dedication and resolve to achieve the best possible on an individual basis. There is so much low self-esteem talked about in present daily lives, but this movie, among many, many others, would be a wonderful learning tool for the present-day younger generation to see what can be accomplished by common sense and decency and pride in yourself and your achievements to better yourself. Sad that this type of movie does not appeal to modern audiences. It certainly appealed to us 'baby boomer' generation of yesterday. OLD LESSONS ARE UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS. A middle aged man, Robert Jordan, set in his ways, takes on a boy scout troop after his predecessor leaves under duress. Jordan takes on the pack mostly to learn what the boys like so he can revive his flagging radio program which is losing it's appeal to the younger set. He has a rough go at first with the boys, especially so with Mike, an 8 year old who forms an attachment for the older man which is anything but reciprocated. Do things work out for Jordan and the scouts? Check out this entertaining and amusing film from the old days. This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.

Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself!

What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy. Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM WARNING: MAY contain some minor spoilers.

Hard to say anything bad about this movie, except for one thing.

YOU DON'T GET TO SEE IT MUCH ANYMORE !!!! Then again, maybe that's because you have to be home in the morning or at 3 am to catch it the Fox Movie channel.

Too bad, for this is another gem lost to time, Clifton Webb takes his patented sour, know-it-all demeanor he had perfected as Lynn Belvedere ("Sitting Pretty" and sequels), and turns 'Nature Boy'.

Actually, it's like this.

Webb plays Robert Jordan the host of a Sunday children's educational program that is losing audience share, and the network breaks it to him that he needs to do something about it, or else.

Part of the problem may be due to the fact that the married host has no children.

BUMMER !!! But as such things happen, the local church pastor needs a leader for an unruly troop of Boy Scouts, and finds a willing victim ... ahhhh 'VOLUNTEER' ... in the host, so Jordan he takes the position.

Problem solved, RIGHT ???

WRONG !!! This being a movie there are other problems.

For example, it turns out one of the Scouts is the son of his boss at the TV station, which causes a little friction; especially since the kid is overweight, has asthma as well as an attitude.

And he is the more reasonable one.

Also, there is this Cub Scout, Mike (George Winslow) who wants to hang around, being the 'stray puppy' type.

As it turns out, the reason is that he has no folks of his own, but is cared for by a relative who hasn't much time for him.

It is things like this that makes his job harder than expected.

All in all, Webb becomes more understanding of kids, and not only saves his show but learns a rewarding lesson, and eventually even adopts Mike.

Still a great movie after all these years. A Brief History of Time is not only a documentary on the beginning and the ending of the universal and reality as we know it, this is a story about the man and the genius known as Stephen Hawking. It is his story that reflects the story of time and change throughout the history of the universal. The style of the documentary / editing style of the interviews begin and end with a quick fade to black. Almost like blinking in between segments and interviews, the documentary gives you an odd feeling like this is the view point of Stephen Hawking and not the eye of the camera. The running time is only a little longer than an hour. It is a short story, then again, its subject matter could be talked about for days and days. An interesting and proud story. Based on Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", this amazing film by Eroll Morris documents the the life and work of one of the greatest minds in the history of astronomy. He has contributed more to Science, despite his debilitating disease, ALS, than an able bodied Scientist could only dream of.

The film begins by telling of Hawking's childhood, and how he was a poor student that was recognizably bright. He slacked his way through college and university, where he was diagnosed with the disease that would take away normal functions of his body, but would allow him to continue living and thinking perfectly.

Morris discusses how the brilliant mind of Stephen developed from childhood to the present, at one point his mother tells how- when she was pregnant- she prophetically bought a astronomical atlas to read while in the hospital. Hawking himself narrates the timeline of his discoveries, while Morris interviews close friends and colleagues whom have been lucky enough to befriend the magnificent man.

He tells how he was first intrigued by the discovery that the Universe was expanding similar to how a star would expand. We also know that stars eventually die and become what is now known as "black holes", if this is the case,will the universe not too begin to contract, reversing itself until we reach the "big crunch"? as Hawking puts it. And when the universe does begin to recede, will time not "reverse"? When posed this question, I began to think that death may not be the end, perhaps one day time will go backwards, and our death will become our rebirth and our birth our death. The universe is one big cycle just like everything else in life.

This is what Hawking is telling us, everything in the universe recycles itself. This is completely logical and can make your mind wonder in a million directions pondering it. This is why i love this film and why isay it is a MUST SEE!!! An 11 out of 10 ...Morris never ceases toamaze! I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work.

The plot is a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings himself.

Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to laugh at and aw over at the same time.

Find this movie. Watch it and enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary edition would be perfect NOW... Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it. A brief history of time. The cosmological content of this documentary is fascinating, the thoughts provoking and the man... brilliant. Yet I had a hard time enjoying this documentary.

The way the family members and professors are interviewed feels so unnatural. These members were interviewed on specifically built sets and were directed uncomfortably. Mostly, their accounts came across as very acted and forcefully directed. The (deliberate) non-inclusion of asked questions manipulates the given information into a very harsh and impersonal format.

I do not know who are responsibly for the interviewing but they did a dreadful job and with that took away from the viewing experience.

Overall still a fascinating documentary well worth seeing, if only for the interesting concepts presented. Stephen Hawking has one of the greatest minds, or if that's too simplistic to coin for him one of the most curious and daring, that also happens to be trapped in a body crippled by a disease that leaves him in a wheelchair and a computer to communicate. Perhaps I didn't know enough about Hawking going in (I always knew him as 'that guy speaking like a computer who knows a lot about like, the universe and stuff, you know') that he is British, that he was a rather normal kid, and, perhaps most remarkably, the disease that could have possibly left him dead at 21 put him in the position of putting his life in focus.

According to Errol Morris's equally curious and coolly, visually dazzling portrait in A Brief History of Time, Hawking was already brilliant, in spurts (when other Oxford students were faced with daunting algebraic equations, he answered more than three times the amount in an hour's time), but when faced with challenges, mostly from other theories by other scientists, he bounced back with his own. Beneath some of the complex scientific talk- and if you got any less than a B- in astronomy, like me, you'll need to keep your ears especially perked up in explanations of time's possible infinity or the peculiarities of the black hole- there's a human being who just wants to enjoy his goose on his birthday.

Morris captures Hawking just right for those who can't get enough of his theories on how particles may be going in and out of a black hole, or if there is even a creator or not depending on how much one takes into account Einstein and time. But he also captures the back-story on the man and his condition, which creates this as something much more interesting than if Morris had done one or the other. Too much talk about the cosmos would make one's head hurt, and too much about his personal life and one might wonder what all the fuss is about this bloke who's book of the film's title was on bestseller lists for over five years.

Almost in spite of his appearance, Hawking defines what it is to be a conscious entity in a universe which, he observes, he won't be apart of if and when the universe goes kaput another 10 billion years from now. Through it all, in A Brief History of Time, we get a glimpse of a genius and his humility (not to mention his colleagues and family's' ten cents here and there) through an unfathomably hypothetical and mathematical thought process of the universe. An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas.

A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).

Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon! Subject Matter: Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Stephen Hawking

Soundtrack: Phillip Glass

Have I died and gone to Heaven?

You will be enraptured. Johnny Crawford is great in this movie of a troubled teen coming of age in a generation that was in the middle of a cultural and spiritual upheaval. Billy Graham does a good job of portraying life in this sweet, sometimes corny, but all the way sincere flick. He gives us a look at not only the social scene but gives good, solid advice that holds true today about morals, decisions, the generation gap, teen dating, (some of the statistics that are given in this movie are astounding. They sound like today's stats). Just to see Billy in his younger days is worth seeing. It's an awesome movie. It made me realize that human nature does not change, even though hair, fashion and language may change, humans are still struggling with the same issues they have been struggling with for thousands of years. The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever scheduled my week around.

Intelligent, believable, well-written and well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw. (Peter Brown was no dog, either :o)

I agree that it is one of the most underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my grandchildren to watch. At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman.

Russell kept law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young deputy Peter Brown.

Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal Troop was around.

The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of children when Lawman was in first run.

Sadly Peggie Castle developed substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful woman.

Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the adult television western. It was one of the best. It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.

Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.

As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.

Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.

Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.

Michael Weldon,

Udon Thani, Thailand William Haines sparks this tale of a brash cadet who thinks West Point will really be something now that he has arrived. Terrific goony comic performance by Haines was his trademark--one that made him a top box office star from 1928-1932 and one of MGM's biggest stars. Joan Crawford and William Bakewell are fine too. And although this storyline may seem trite now, this was a huge hit, putting Haines and Crawford in a college football (a national craze during the 20s) story. After Haines blows off his big mouth one time too often and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets, he turns in a wonderful performance as he swallows his pride and gets into the big game against Navy. Even with a broken arm, he wins the game for Army and regains his place at West Point. It's easy to see from this film and Show People (with the always underrated Marion Davies) why Billy Haines was a huge star of the time. He needs and deserves to be remembered! It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film – turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and "Night and the City" quite soon.

Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.

Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight. You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir. There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone! American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for the cash in typical "crime never pays" tragedy fashion.

The "rififi" in the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and the full title, "Du rififi chez les hommes" means roughly "Some naughty in the house of men", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a laugh) when she predicts "All of you are just going to kill each other." The characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so much. This 1955 heist film follows Tony le Stephanois, recently released from prison for theft, as he undertakes the robbery of his life. He teams up with his old heist buddies and they bring in an expert safe-cracker, Cesar from Milan (played by Jules Dassin, who also directed. He only directed because he had been blacklisted as a communist in the U.S. and couldn't work in Hollywood.) The brilliance of this film is the 1/2 hour during the robbery. During all this time, there is no dialogue and no music, only the muted sounds of digging through the floor or drilling the safe. This increases the suspense and draws you in. They get away with several hundred million francs worth of jewels, but a jewel offered to a dancer by Cesar brings their haul to the attention of a trio of brutal brothers. They set out to get the stash for themselves and bring misfortune in their wake. Great heist/gangster movie, but I prefer J.-P. Melville's films in this genre.

This movie is like some lemonade I had last night. I had gone to a Caribbean restaurant and the lemonade was made with sugar cane juice instead of sugar. It also had a lot of ice and was heavy on the lemons, leaving it fairly sour (which I like). The sugar cane juice imparted a subtle, slightly more mellow taste to it than actual sugar, and the ice made sure it was cold and refreshing as I sucked it down. 7.5/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies To start with, I have done some further research on the film. Firslty, Jules Dassin directed and acted in this extremely imaginative and different film noir crime film. Secondly, This was a very low budget film, created in the Rennaissance of the prime moment of film noir. Thirdly, the jewelers where the robbery was attempted is an actual jewelers. The producers of Rififi asked them to film their, surprisingly, (I quote Jules Dassin in a recent interview on the subject, "surprisingly, for some not very obvious reason, they were delighted at the idea of a crime film being set in their shop).

It's impeccable characters and plot fit in so beautifully with their surroundings. To add on to my praise I will say this; some might say that this was a typical Hollywood film, on the contrary, this set the base for the regular plot of a Hollywood crime film.

Laslty, I would like to say that I support this fresh idea of a film where not only one side wins, and that side doesn't always have to be the good one. For once, I can say that a film is not predictable! Ten stars! What a gas of a movie! "Film Noir" has always been one of my favorite genres, but this one stands apart from the rest. Only "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past", "Murder My Sweet", and "The Killers" can come close to this caper classic. I know these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a "noirean", gritty quality about them, similar to "Rififi".

What is different here is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers around "le Stephanois", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!). Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role.

That aside, the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through the famous "silent" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal "perps". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to best understand the underlying futility of it all! "Rififi" is a terrific heist movie, and one from which subsequent heist films have drawn ever since. Jules Dassin had a feel for the seedy underworld in which these thieves live---you will not find here the Hollywood glamour of "Ocean's Eleven." The robbers in "Rififi" don't rob for the thrill, and they're not playing a game. They rob to survive, to pay for their children's upbringing, to prove to themselves and others that they still have something to offer the world. The much-lauded heist scene is a nail biter, filmed in virtual silence. I did have the feeling that the plot went on a bit longer than it needed to, but the high-speed race to deliver the child to his mother that ends the film is classic.

Be warned---this movie is very bleak. But it's also very good.

Grade: A- Rififi is a great film that is overlooked. It's a crime drama where a man gets out of jail and plans another job. It's an over used story but this one is different from the others. They round up the usual suspects for the job. This film takes a look at how the family gets torn apart as time goes on. The actual heist scene is one of the best I have ever seen. Instead of a suspenseful soundtrack the director decided to go with silence, around thirty minutes of silence. This fits the mood perfectly and is often copied these days. Of course things get out of hand and people die and it ends in a great ending that builds up in suspense.

So if you're looking for a great film noir that not a lot of people talk about this is a great pick up. The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to see recent films, such as "Oceans Eleven (remake)", reviewed in such high regard-especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is.

Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer. Run, don't walk, to rent this movie. It is re-released on an excellent DVD version. It is primo acting/directing/cinematography in the world of suspense/film noir. Tribute this to the blacklisted American director Jules Dassin, who also plays the Italian safe-cracker. See it! Fantastic movie! One of the best film noir movies ever made. Bad guys, bad girls, a jewel heist, a twisted morality, a kidnapping, everything is here. Jean Servais has a face that would make Bogart proud and the rest of the cast is is full of character actors who seem to to know they're onto something good. Get some popcorn and have a great time. Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.

One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.

You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well. With the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous criminals.

They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure.

The special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting.

I have not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian. Many experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors. Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly. Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.

There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.

Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust. Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly acclaimed "Band of Brothers" miniseries.

Formed in July of 1942 on the eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG (political prison/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not "Traitors of the Motherland" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law.

This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss Antip "Kulak" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest) Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to keep on fighting.

Although set during a war, not every episode features combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march, the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog likewise does not censor out the swearing.

The acting is superb and deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness, to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity. Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one will likely forgive these slight mishaps. This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.

There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.

Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.

Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.

The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.

To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life. A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended. A true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed! Ice the Limerick:

A virus pulled out of the ice

Just didn't know how to play nice.

If infected you'll kill

Because you are ill.

The cure is to be infected twice.

Ice is a great episode; one of the greats from season 1 that began shaping the show and if you ask me you really couldn't ask for much better throughout the entire series. It starts out with an awesome teaser which in my opinion is really one of the best teasers of the series also. A group of scientists in Alaska have drilled something out of the ice core which has for some reason caused them to kill each other. Now Mulder and Scully are sent with three other scientists to investigate what happened. As Mulder says this is either because they are brilliant or expendable. I take this to mean that they had better be brilliant or else... The group soon finds out that the cause of mayhem is a small parasite pulled out of the ice core. A little worm that gets into the bloodstream and causes violent behavior. Since the pilot is infected the rest of the show turns to a suspenseful sort of who-done-it paranoiac thriller as the others begin to suspect each other of being infected. This is not helped at all by an overly paranoid doctor Hodge who is un-trusting of anyone which we learn early on by the first thing he asks: to see everyone's credentials to "make sure we are who we say we are". Events lead to finding out the one who is infected and learning how to cure them.

There are a number of things I like about the episode and of course certain characters that I want to smack in the face from this episode, as well as a couple loopholes but most can be attributed to heightened caution and not thinking clearly. I like Bear from the moment I first meet him. Its a shame he has to die. I also like the scene shown from the other scientist's point of view as Mulder and Scully argue in the other room. It gives an interesting twist to our typical perception as a viewer and for me seems to say maybe we shouldn't assume that just because someone is government means they know all sorts of conspiracy secrets. As much as Hodges frustrates me in this episode I do think that Mulder was as much to blame for some of the rash actions taken as any. I really like Scully in this episode. First of all she can tackle like a frickin linebacker! Second I really like the focus on her terror of what can happen to them out there and how she tries not to let trust and friendship of Mulder keep her from biasing her judgment. I love the scene when she goes into the room to sleep and first looks as the picture of the previous group all hugging and the birthday presents from them to whoever used to sleep in that room and then how she suddenly freaks out and pushes the dresser in front of the door and in a final touch of subtlety as she sits on the floor with her knees pulled into her chest we see the bottom of a poster on the wall that says "Bosom Buddies". This is such great writing. A way to say without any words that Scully is worried that she may not be able to trust even her very best friend.

Unfortunately this heightened suspicion leads the group to believe Mulder to be infected since he discover's Murphy's dead body even though they haven't inspected him at all to find out for sure. That was my main problem with the behavior of the characters is they could easily have solved all the suspicion simply by giving blood. But I guess I probably would have acted rashly in that situation too. But then stupid Hodges decides that he has to assume Mulder is infected even though Mulder willingly surrenders and then is going willingly to be inspected and almost infects Mulder in the process. Luckily he sees that it is really Dasilva that is infected and we finally reach a resolution. At least as much as you can expect from an X-File. The "government" wastes no time in torching the evidence as always happens in these cases and Mulder is left with yet another frustrating "unsolved" case. In closing I give "Ice" and easy 10/10 and I leave you with a haiku.

"We're not who we are. It goes no further than this. It ends right here right now." This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!

Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.

10 out of 10 FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of "The Thing".

The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.

Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.

Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.

8/10 Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this.

The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts.

The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now.

The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'. This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as "Home", "Humbug" "Bad Blood" and "Milagro" for being the best in their respective season.

Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.

Mulder: "Bring your mittens" This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear "X-Files". the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.

This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film "the THING". the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.

Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.

ICE is the best direct tribute/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10. Yeah, I know my title sucks. I couldn't think of any other title. x] Ice is a brilliant first season episode. Very interesting idea and good acting as well. The whole worm-looking-thing was really creepy in my opinion. I've never been a fan of insects, so all the insect episodes are creepy to me. x] Anyway, lets go on to the good and bad things about this episode,

The Good: The parasite thing. Awesome!

Scully finally trusting Mulder. Awww... <33

It was a good idea to put another parasite in the ear. Though if someone told me they had to put that thing in my ear... I think the whole cabin would be dead.

The Bad: How did the dog stay alive for so long?

How didn't Huffman get those black spots? Or maybe she did, but no-one saw it...

Conclusion: Very good episode, especially for Season 1. 8/10 Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.

So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.

Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.

The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.

Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.

Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular. Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.

The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.

The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.

The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.

However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).

While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.

A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.

7.4/10 Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.

With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.

Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.

Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.

The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.

Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.

If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks. I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.

The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.

You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.

Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans. I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.

What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw. I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.

There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.

Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.

This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie. Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.

The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.

Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.

Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.

This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.

The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.

This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.

Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.

It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.

Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.

Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better. Was excited at the opening to hear part of "Chevaliers De Sangreal" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the "God Particle" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein Still haven't read a single Dan Brown book, but I watched all his movies adaptations. I won't fall into the game to rate this one with the previous because the scope isn't really the same: actually, this one is a thriller, a race against time filled with puzzles.

The plot is very twisted, imaginative and the cast is excellent: I never been a great fan of Hanks but he delivers well. I noticed his jeans shirt (the one spilled with blood) because I search for one like this in vain! The Italian searcher is a brilliant newcomer for me but I really applauded Ewan MacGregor portrayal: his inner faith and calm is really impressive.

I really like the debate between science and religion. The action taking place in the Vatican, it felt like vacation. At last, I am not sure it helps to add new converts into Christianism. With all the gold and man presence displayed, any one would ask what charity means and why women are so dismissed of the church life whereas they stand for half or more the believers. As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.

I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in "the day." He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.

The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.

Although the story of the "God Particle" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.

In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.

All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.

It rates an 8.8/10 from...

the Fiend :. As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.

Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.

Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.

Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.

Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.

My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...

Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into one. So first things first..

Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.

Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.

In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.

Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.

My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.

overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general. First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done.

Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together.

The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.

i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist. As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second. This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch. OK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use. No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me.

Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The "arachnids" looked like they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc...

You must really love B-Movies to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others. In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?

I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for. I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.

There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from "The Scare Master", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.

The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love it! Brett Piper again makes a very good film that is trashed by the so called film "experts." it is low budget, but fun, and the leading lady is very sexy. I wish i could see more of Irene Joseph. Good viewing fun. I bought the DVD and enjoyed it. The special effects are stop motion animation, and much better than the computer generated crap they call effects today. I always enjoy Brett Piper movies, and if you liked this I recommend Bite Me, Screaming Dead and anything else he has done. I look forward to seeing more of his work and well as more of Ms. Joseph. I simply cannot see why this woman hasn't been in more movies, as her acting is excellent. I first saw "Death in Venice" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist.

"Death in Venice" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach (Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy, Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner. Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, "I was able to witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did happen to me."

Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection but nothing will ever compare to "Death in Venice". I dare say that Mahler's music IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing, worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy was for the aging composer/writer/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm. Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.

We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.

Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.

[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art.

[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.]

Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. " Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. **** Are sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary "Don't Look Now" depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more light-hearted approach, see "Just Married" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at 2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler, on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother. Set in Venice mainly on the Lido, Visconti's "Death in Venice" is a triumph of filmmaking combining the excellence of Dirk Bogarde's characterisation and expert photography of the resort area in all its various daily moods. For those who love Venice, this is a film to cherish.

Mahler's music frequently heard throughout the film heightens the drama. The mood it creates is not always happy. But then what else would you expect with a title like that?

There is not a lot of dialogue in the film. Rather sparse in fact. It's mainly background noises and chatter and laughter among the hotel guests. The intriguing part is to interpret the exchange of glances between Gustav von Aschenbach a composer of some renown and a slim teenage youth Tadzio who see each other from time to time across the tables of the hotel dining room, on the beach and at odd unexpected places around Venice. They seem to acknowledge each other's presence shyly at first with little more than the suggestion of a smile but later with a strong and riveting and urgent gaze.

Each viewer will have his own interpretation. The composer has lost a child of his own. Is this behaviour an expression of yearning for the child he loved? Is it perhaps a sexual attraction towards this fragile young man with his dazed somewhat girlish stare? Could he be discovering some new inspiration for a yet unwritten musical masterpiece? Who knows?

From beginning to end this film captures the true spirit of 19th Century Venice. The elegance of the ladies, the deck chairs on the sand, the children frolicking in their neck-to-knee bathing costumes, the glow of sunsets and a general feeling of satisfaction with the world. While some may think the pace is rather slow at times, the film has an overall gentle quality, but with a simmering indecision between two repressed human beings. Be prepared for a sad and beautiful ending. Story of a strange love and a fall desire. Poem about beauty and his perfection, fear and touch.A slice of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. And an agonize Venice. Idon't know if it is a masterpiece, a poem or the reflection of a film director's world. It is, absolutely, a" memento mori". and a exploration of illusion. A old mirror of limits, signs and death's delicacy. A trip in an old space, nostalgic, cruel and splendid. "Death" is a Orfeu's trip copy in the immediate reality. And the essence is the music. A soft, sweet music, like honey or winter's fire. Like every regret and every sorrow. Like a refuge in deep solitude. Gustav is gay by accident. He is the Researcher of last form of God's presence. The Beauty, that beauty who gives life's sense, who is sin and virtue in same time, the gift of expectations and sufferings. He dies because he has right to hope, to believe in the reality of miracle and in his way. A victim? No way! Only Tadzio may give the freedom like an insignificant sacrifice. Who saw the sun can hope to live in same condition? In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once… it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses… Else what…if the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself.

It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself.

Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him.

Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself.

In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art. I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and "The Leopard" not; it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story. Like "The Leopard," it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike. It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point -- Gustav surrounded by a visual din.

The way in which the object of Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him, just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem (there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much). Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms in is all.

The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene, which unlocks his repressed vanity.

It isn't totally successful -- the whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower, something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes -- touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses, or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9/10 It may be hard to explain how, but this film is a masterpiece. Perhaps, because i never imagined that a plot like this or a film with so few words would convey all this poetry. The true poetry and aristocracy of human passions and obsession. Bogard is amazing and needless to say that Venice is utilised as a perfect scenery: dark, sinking and dreary just like Bogard's soul. And classical music is more that a simple background escort to human feelings. In my opinion, a classic masterpiece of european film-making. From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art, to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some minor shortcomings.

Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art, so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute anomalies in the plot disturb me.

Maybe I'm just a victim of man's desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard as crucial.

WARNING: SPOILERS

In Mann's story, Aschenbach eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book, but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering life itself.

In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought.

But that's all forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and mysterious finale. Contains Spoilers

Luchino Visconti's film adaptation of Thomas Mann's novella is visually, if not philosophically, faithful to its source (Britten's opera offers a more faithful reading of the Apollonian/Dionysian struggles which consume the aging writer). It is certainly one of the most gorgeous films ever made.

In the Visconti version, the emphasis is more on the physical aspects of the story. Never has Venice looked more beautiful and alluring, more decadent and effete. If you've read the novella, it's like having the descriptions on its pages come to life. Dirk Bogarde gives an outstanding performance as Gustav von Aschenbach. Although he has very little dialogue, he conveys the bitterness, aroused passion and finally, pitiful yearning of Aschenbach through facial expressions alone. Bjorn Andresen, the young actor who plays Tadzio, the beautiful object of Aschenbach's desire, was perfectly cast. He too plays the part with facial expressions and gestures. The Tadzio character is pivotal to the story, so any actor in this role must be worthy of inspiring passion and desire. Visconti, with his incredible eye for beauty, knew exactly what he was doing. And changing Ashenbach from a writer to a composer based on Gustav Mahler, and then using Mahler's music, especially the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony, was another brilliant stroke. Although I'd read the Mann story before the film, Mahler's music and Death in Venice will always be inextricably linked in my mind. As will the haunting images which appear throughout the film, especially that last one of Ashenbach dying on the beach as Tadzio walks slowly into the sea.

One day this film will be released in DVD widescreen format and its visual splendors completely restored to us. Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).

You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.

I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds. Visconti's masterpiece! I admit that I am unfamiliar with much of his work but I cannot imagine his other work surpassing this fabulous film. Last night I watched Death in Venice after an absence of about 25 years and was totally captivated by all that I saw. This captivation was a pastiche composed of many elements: The extraordinary shots directed by Visconte, primarily his love of long, languorous shots of people dining, swimming, walking and containing a significant character passing through this mass of people; the cinematographers brilliant interpretation of Visconti's shot selection; the acting by the principles without over-riding dialog and conveying the scenes complexity through facial features alone.

It is true: young people watching this film for the first time must be aware that they are watching a unique film, a film that could not be made in 2006. A film whose time rests in those brief handful of years in the Sixties and early Seventies of the last century when artistic license was passed to film directors and money-men took secondary roles. As many of the recent IMDb commentator's have written, this film, in their judgment, is long, boring (too little action) and pretentious. I suppose by the standards of Hollywood pap, these comments contain merit. Unfortunately they tragically minimize the amazing beauty and depth of this work and others like it from those years.

Please, if you have not seen Death in Venice, rent a copy and immerse yourself in a film and story from another time. You will be rewarded. I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder. You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10 stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it.

Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film. I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella.

For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning.

I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.

And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead). His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can cheat by writing a 4/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1, but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too slow "snail's pace" is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner conductor, "He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity." For all I know this was meant as a compliment.

I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's "Death in Venice", and there's "Solyaris". I much prefer the former. For one thing, "Solyaris" steps over the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; "Death in Venice" is gripping from beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at the right pace, with photography you can get lost in

Another way of cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. "Death in Venice" isn't one of them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's a great work. A film to divide its viewers. Just criticism points at its funereal pace, over-used snap zooms and persistent, lingering gazes between the protagonists. Advocates point to Dirk Bogarde's mighty performance and Pasqualino De Santis' benchmark photography of Venice.

Taken altogether, this might suggest an indulgent, romanticised elegy for the nobility of homosexual love (at a time, 1971, when it was becoming consensually legal). In fact Visconti has succeeded in making a richer, more complex film than such a single-issue vehicle. He has knit his ideas - foibles and all - into a meticulously paced arc.

Inside this does indeed sit the central performance of Bogarde's Aschenbach. Rather than a simpering, Johnny-come-lately gay, he manages to give a pathetic composer beaten by tragedy and misunderstood integrity who sees salvation in Tadzio. His mesmerised staggering around an increasingly hellish Venice after the boy is a straight metaphor for the artist's tenacity for truth in the teeth of the dilettante mob (and it is explicitly cut with such a flashback).

Mahler's music is possibly a little over-used although it is well appropriated. The Italian overdub is a wearing anachronism but thankfully the acting doesn't suffer too much. 7/10 The greatest tragedy man faces is that, capable so often of the divine he settles for the banal.From this fact does so much great tragedy emerge. Death in Venice is one of very few films with the patience and bravery to tackle this fact head-on.It confronts the human eye with beauty and inspiration in their two most inevitable human forms-self denial and decay. Undoubtedly this is the greatest film to have no discernable influence on mainstream cinema. Its austerely refined look, echoey sound, mixture of unsubtitled languages, and highly challenging themes being impossible to copy: as much an accident of its peculiar production as of the vision of its director. The central performance, at once rigid, aroused, and vulnerable in the face of expression and decadence highlights Bogarde as if not the best British actor of his generation then certainly the most adventurous. Able to hold on to sympathy as his desires take him over and interesting despite the endless close-ups and Mahler score playing above him Not one for a Friday night with your girlfriend but certainly OK if you want to explore the limits of human spiritual limitation. If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.

This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.

So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it. CAUTION: SPOILERS

Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of conflict and desire must do it justice.

The study of Gustav von Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions, behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song. In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents.

Ultimately, Gustav is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome of prolonging his stay.

Complimenting the captivating character interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders this film a true masterpiece. Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always different, because I am always at a different stage of life.

The movie is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note. When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted.

This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies, the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best movie ever. Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.

This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti. Relish every moment of this languorous spectacle with music to match (Mahler's 5th is gorgeous, but listen to the vocal portion of the 3rd symphony so beautifully utilised in this film). There are many aspects to this film, but the main subject is the overpowering force of beauty, its spontaneous nature, absence of logic for love and adoration. I am also an ardent fan of Bogarde and believe he was rarely as wonderful (try him in "The Servant" however). Note: I recommmend multiple viewings. This is a ravishing, yet spare adaption of Thomas Mann's novelette of the same title. Dirk Bogarde gives his finest screen performance - he himself believed so. The dialogue is minimal, so his face must register the nuances of his anguished character - a composer (a writer in the novelette - the only major alteration) who travels to Venice in 1910. Visconti revels in the portrayal of beauty, it's passing, and the whiff of decay beneath.Trained as an opera director, Visconti blends Mahler's music and imagery seamlessly in his finest film since "The Leopard" (another stunning film, which greatly influenced Coppola's Sicily in the "Godfather"). Luchino Visconti has become famous to the world after his marvelous production THE LEOPARD. Movie fans got to know the style of the director who introduced himself as one among the post war new realists, an aristocrat who developed his individual free thinking and, consequently, expressed them as an artist. However, when applied to this movie, MORTE A VENEZIA based upon the novel by Thomas Mann, it's a slightly different story.

The entire film is, at first view, so unique, so psychological and so much influenced by the various thoughts of an artist (both director and main character Gustav von Aschenbach) that it seems to be "unwatchable" for many viewers. Therefore, such opinions about the movie rose as being "too slow", "unendurable" or "endless boredom". Why? The reason seems to lie in a significant view widespread nowadays: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO FLAWLESS ACTION." Here, it would be appropriate to say: "GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO NO ACTION." As a matter of fact, everyone would be able to say one sentence about the whole movie's content and that would suffice. All that we find in MORTE A VENEZIA has a sense of vague reality filled with both profoundity and shallowness that appear to be significant for the sake of each single moment. And it is so when we notice the psychedelic scenes in Venice, when we see Gustav at the railroad station, when we are supplied with his intensely emotional memories. The insight into his decaying mind is sometimes so intense that the only way for the viewer to go on watching the film is to do his/her best to feel and experience rather than see and think. All is doomed to fade, to wither like flowers on meadow when their time comes. In other words, all has a sense of loss and death without many events or even dialogs. As a result, it is quite unlikely that you will get the idea of the movie after a single viewing. It must be seen more than twice with the mind that is constantly open. If you'll like it or not...that's a different story, very personal one.

The artistic values are the factor that is noticeable at first sight and stays with us throughout. Beauty as something very meaningful for the main character that appears to come and leave; rest as something he's heading for so badly and which comes to him in the most unexpected way; feeling that he finds in a teenage boy who appears as a model of all the dreams and desires, as a forbidden fruit of homosexual lust which vanishes. The costume designer Piero Tosi does a splendid job in this movie. Through lots of wonderful wardrobe he supplies us with a very realistic view of 1911 when the action takes place. The cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis provides us with a terrific visual experience that can be called a real feast for the eyes. And in the background comes Gustav Mahler's music, the composer whose life inspired Thomas Mann to introduce the character.

The performances are top notch, particularly from Dirk Bogart as the main character, Gustav von Aschenbach, who wants a rest after hard artistic job and vainly attempts to find it in crowded Venice. For the majority of the film, we have a great insight into his thoughts, feelings and acts of anger, exhaust and despair. Though sometimes depressing, he keeps us on the right track till the end not losing hope for the less tragic end... Tadzio (Bjorn Andersen) depicts the model of decadent homosexual desire but also a model of beauty and purity that appears to last pretty short... "Adieu Tadzio, it was all too short" says the main character. A great, though very controversial, job is done by Mark Burns as a sort of "super ego" Alfred with whom Gustav polemics about such ideals as beauty, justice, hope, human dignity. For Alfred, beauty belongs to the senses. How Freudian, yet how dangerous the idea might be! And ever present in artistic Italian movies of the time, Silvana Mangano - here as an elegant lady from Poland, Tadzio's mother.

Memorable moments indeed constitute the movie's strong points; yet, not all viewers will find them unforgettable. They, similarly to the whole odd movie, require much effort to get onto the right track in director's individual ego and within the four walls of his psyche. Among such scenes, I consider the beach sequence pretty important, particularly the way Gustav observes Tadzio. The physical distance accurately represents the lack of courage to come closer... I also appreciate the shots when Gustav is sitting in the gondola and the city's view moves in the background - how memorably that may raise existential thoughts of transfer. Aren't we, people, a sort of "passangers" in the world, in the journey that life is.

In the end, I must tell you one important thing. I had found MORTE A VENEZIA extremely weird until I started to look deeper at what the director is really trying to convey. Then, every scene turned out to be meaningful in its interpretation with which you don't have to agree (I hardly agree with anything the main character does) but you should at least tolerate this as something the author badly wanted to say. Listen to his voice, allow him for a few words in one page of reality...

Therefore, there is a long way towards understanding the film since not many movies like that were being made in 1971 and are being made now. Paradoxically, it seems that we are all bound to have the right feelings about this film in the long run similarly to that we are all bound to experience once a strange, unavoidable, usually unexpected reality that death is... 7/10 Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look. A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.

It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told. After the death of all senior officers, Commander Craig-Scott, of the Laundry and Morale Corps, finds himself promoted to command of an intergalactic spaceship owned by Starcups Corporation. Its chief mission is to search for inhabitable planets and, of course, long-term coffee markets.

Craig-Scott and his second in command, Chief Blather, find themselves ill-prepared for command, except insofar as they are fully able to keep the crew's undies clean--which is not to diminish the importance of clean undies, especially when incompetent commanders cause those same undies to be, well, soiled on a regular basis.

The episodes are presented as a series of short, 2-3 minutes reports by the Commander to Earth. The humor is a mix of wry deadpan and outrageous physical comedy. Think Yes Minister meets Red Dwarf, but on a shoe-string budget. All the usual plot devices of sci-fi are here--aliens, nuclear weapons, computer malfunctions--but each is improved by the fresh lemony scent of high-grade laundry detergent.

Commander's Log is definitely low-budget, but the somewhat cheesy effects and props fit the absurd premise of the show. Remember those hilarious hockey helmets they wore on the old Battlestar Galactica? With the "Jofa" brand-name still visible? Okay, there's a lot of that in Commander's Log, but it's cute.

Commander's Log ain't high-art, but that's not what it's trying to be. It's just a little bit of off-kilter fun. It does a good job of being that. I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus have to make up for the lack of "eye candy" with good writing and acting. Linden Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of presenting an earnest but clueless persona.

Bowlsby's original idea was for the story to be told in two minute "interstitials", shown in between other shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing somewhere near you. I recently saw Episodes 1-4, and now I can't wait for 5 & 6 to be available! (I've heard they are coming soon.) Commander's Log seems destined to become a cult hit among the university crowd and all others with a taste for quirky comedy. It's obvious that the budget was small, but the care taken in crafting the script is quite evident. In fact, the simplicity of the show allowed me appreciate the writing and the acting more. Bowlsby is a master of the put-down... I just wish I could remember all the best ones for later use on unsuspecting co-workers! Let's just say that if you don't like Commander's Log, I'll personally see to it that your undies get extra starch! "Entrails of a Beauty" features a gang of Yakuza blokes gang-raping a woman and they drug her,and later on she dies and returns as this big slimy monster with a huge penis that has sharp teeth and also a big sloppy vagina.Crazy film,but not very good.The gore doesn't come until the last 20 minutes and most of the film is a standard soft core sex with lots of rape.Worth checking out,unfortunately heavily censored optically and nowhere near as much fun as "Entrails of a Virgin". I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went over.

Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in this case). It's basically a rape/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky?

PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics.

Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand behind this one. 8/10. This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent. Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness, yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff. GUTS OF A BEAUTY is a bit better than its predecessor GUTS OF A VIRGIN. Although this film isn't really a sequel in the sense that it has absolutely nothing to do with the first installment, I did find BEAUTY to be a little stronger and better put together all-the-way-around than VIRGIN...but then again, that's not really saying much.

BEAUTY starts off as a pretty rough and straight-faced exploit film. A couple of Yakuza cats are holding a young woman prisoner and begin gang raping her in pretty brutal fashion. As this nastiness is going on, the head guy tells the girl that they did the same to her sister and sold her into slavery in Africa, and that they're gonna do the same to her. They then shoot her up with some drugs and rape her some more. She somehow gets away and ends up at a clinic where the nurse there listens to her sob story. The rapee ends up freaking out from the stress of her prior experience and commits suicide. The clinic worker, moved by the young lady's story, decides to take revenge on the gang by seducing one of the lower-level guys and trying to hypnotize him to make him kill the Yakuza leaders. This whole plan backfires, so now Ms. Vigilante-Clinic-Worker gets exposed to much the same treatment that our original rapee got - only worse (some pretty rough butt-rape ensues along with the pre-requisite gang rape...). She too is drugged, but the drug has a strange side effect on our seemingly hapless victim ----- it turns her into a raging hermaphroditic BLOOD DEMON!!! (no sh!t, that's what really happens!!!) This is when BEAUTY really takes off with some pretty f!cking insane kill scenes - including a very classy chest-burst-rape that looks like a cross between ALIEN and a bad porn, and my favorite - a head-engulfed-by-demon-vagina kill (complete with demon vagina-slime...)that has to be seen to be believed...

Definitely some promising stuff going on in GUTS OF A BEAUTY, but still very disjointed feeling. BEAUTY almost feels like two different films being forced together in a non-compatible way. Still, I have to give the film credit - the rape scenes are very rough and misogynistic, and the kill scenes are just totally off the wall. A solid 7/10 for another crazy J-horror "classic". Kazuo Komizu strikes again with "Entrails of a Beautiful Woman", the sequel to "Entrails of a Virgin". This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to become…dum, dum, dum – "Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the day…not really.

Well it is better than "Entrails of a Virgin", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare. If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.

Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.

The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).

Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.

The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rain—after which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.

Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.

As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb. Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core, as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although writer/director Kazuo "Gaira" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex/rape based for about two thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Yôichi Takahashi is occasionally effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point/brains, but hey, it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe don't expect the second coming. "What Alice Found" was a pleasant discovery. As written and directed by A. Dean Bell, this is combination of a road movie with a cautionary tale, as well as a voyage of discovery.

If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop reading here.

Alice is a case study of a young woman that wants to break away from the unhappy life she leads in a New England town. Her pretext for leaving is going to join her best friend, who is away studying at a Miami university. Alice is the product of a single mother's home, one that is struggling to make ends meet, in sharp contrast with the life of ease her friend seems to inhabit. In flashbacks we get to see Alice's life before going on the road.

Alice, like her namesake in "Alice in Wonderland", embarks in a trip to the unknown that life hasn't prepared her for. The highways of America are full of predators in search of the weak and innocent. Alice meets with disaster when her car breaks down the road and a friendly Southern couple come to her assistance when a strange man approaches in the darkness with the excuse he wants to help her. Sandra and Bill convince her to come along in their plush R.V. on her way down South.

Nothing has prepared Alice for what this couple turns out to be. After all, in her sheltered life, she hasn't dealt with what Sandra and Bill, her new benefactors do during the overnight stays at the rest stops in the American highways. It comes as a shock to her the realization that the kind Sandra is nothing but a prostitute that plies her trade among the truck driving populace one meets in those places.

Alice, brilliantly played by Emily Grace, is a study in how the young woman awakens to the new reality she can't escape. In fact, Sandra makes it seem so easy that Alice tries her luck at the oldest profession on earth in order to raise some badly needed money.

Judith Ivey gives a tremendous performance as Sandra. Ms. Ivey is perfect as the seemingly normal woman, one wouldn't suspect she is doing the nasty with clients she and Bill find along the route they travel. Ms. Ivey is amazing when she reveals the truth about her life to an accusing Alice. As the husband, Bill Raymond is good in his portrayal as the husband, that in reality is a procurer.

Under the excellent direction of Mr. Dean Bell, the film is not afraid to go to places mainstream films dare not to go. Congratulations to this director who has written a plausible story and has gathered the perfect cast to play it for our benefit. Until I did a Web search on "What Alice Found", I didn't realize that the name of the film is embedded in the title of one of Lewis Carroll's books. The book's complete title is "Through the Looking-Glass (And What Alice Found There)".

The Alice of the film comes from a background quite different from that of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Her fresh and assertive character, however, is similar. The movie Alice begins as a young woman in New Hampshire who steals money from her ass-patting boss and takes off for Miami, vaguely planning to study marine biology and play with dolphins. She encounters a middle-aged couple in a motor home (the husband's retired from the military) who rescue her from a strange man at a roadside stop and from her car's breakdown (perhaps caused by their mechanizations).

As it turns out, the couple is heavily involved in truck stop prostitution and see sweet, young Alice as a promising recruit. The wife (played by Judith Ivey in a performance worthy of some big award) buys Alice sexy clothing and shows her how to apply hot makeup. Initially, Alice passively accepts her ministrations and, with the couple's instructions, does several tricks. The encounter shown in the most detail is quite different from most cinematic sex but may be typical of what most often happens in real life. The man is shy and deferential and apologizes for "finishing" too fast.

What's wonderful about Alice (and different from her prototypes from Clarissa to Sister Carrie) is that she learns from her experiences and asserts herself. This is how things really are. Prostitution is everywhere. People are neither all good or all bad. Alice leaves the motor home with her well-earned money and a feeling of mutual respect. Writer-director Dean Bell offered many surprises and engaging moments in this modest yet compelling road film. His dialogue was snappy, and his use of very short flashback sequences was especially effective in the film's narrative structure.

At the heart of the film is the character of Alice, who is running away from her New England past in a desperate effort to get to Florida. Along the way, she travels with a pair of eccentrics, Bill and Sandra, who incredibly make the attempt to groom Alice as a prostitute earning money at truck stops.

As a newcomer performing in her first screen role, Emily Grace as Alice is sensational. There is not a false note in her character choices. But the film is worth watching above all for the wily yet sensitive character of Sandra, as masterfully created by Judith Ivey. There is an especially sly subtext to virtually every moment in which Ivey is on-camera. As a viewer, I found myself stopping the tape, hitting rewind, and reviewing her scenes in order to attempt to discern the psychological subtleties.

The film raises the following question about the characters: Are Bill and Sandra good Samaritans, or are they an evil pair of Dickensian predators preying upon the youthful Alice? One of the strengths of the film is that it never quite fully answers that question. Alice seems more self-confident than she started out as a result of her experiences with Bill and Sandra. But is she really a better person?

Part comedy, part road picture, and part coming-of-age drama, this carefully crafted film succeeds in involving us on many levels. This is a low budget, well acted little gem. Alice, a small town Massachusetts teenager, fed up with her existence, takes to the road to escape her mother who flips burgers and her own job as a check out in a super market. She sets out for Florida and to stay with her wealthier high school friend who is a freshman at Miami. After her car suspiciously breaks down on the thruway and she loses all her money, she ends up with a retired couple in an RV who also happen to be traveling to Florida.. The couple, brilliantly played by Judith Ivy and Bill Raymond are overly hospitable and, it turns out, a prostitute and and her pimp. Slowly, Alice is lured into truck stop prostitution as the RV meanders down the thruway in the general direction of Florida. Through intermittent flashbacks, we learn a little more about Alice and her desire to leave tiny Milford. We also see the couple in a new light and their life and the choices made by the couple and Alice all seem quite credible. An excellent, well made film that you will think about when it is over. Having worked professionally with young girls on the run, I found this film surprisingly authentic. I would never have found it had a friend not loaned his videotape. There are classic themes here: Coming of Age, Mother/Daughter Estrangement, The Limited Choices of the Underprivileged, Who is the Good Samaritan, Tragedy is in Every Life & the many layers or relationships. Flashbacks are meaningful (when Alice acquires a gun we know she has some familiarity with how to use it) and it does not end in cliché. The cast really "sells" their roles. It is adult material and the audio is a bit too grainy. Allow it 15 minutes to so to draw you in. It's a sad state in corporate Hollywood when a movie surprises you by not taking routes you've been seeing in the movie house since day one. I had literally no idea how this film was going to end, because it went left when I expected it to go right, zigged when I expected a zag, etc. This could have easily unraveled into generic suspense thriller, or depressing white trash drama, but it stayed a course all its own till the end. It is a sad story, though. Not because of what happens to Alice, but because of the sad world that surrounds her and leads her down this path.

The plot has a quiet dignity of form that's usually reserved for theater, but the pacing could use some tightening up. Either way, it's a very good film, and for some reason I suspect sour grapes from those who have scored this one low. While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding, alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open. Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam, provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it. This is a very amazing movie! The characters seemed so realistic to me, it was hard to believe they weren't real people. Being from the South, I thought Judith Ivey's character seemed especially real, and as everyone else has mentioned, she does an outstanding acting job. The characters are not beautiful and look nothing like the average Hollywood stars - their imperfect bodies and personalities seem so much more natural and real.

One reviewer mentioned that the main character, Alice, had no good reason to run away from home, which is true - she didn't have any moral or upstanding reason to run away, such as escaping child abuse, etc. I thought that she was just fed up with dead-end jobs in a working class life and wanted to flee down to Florida where her friend lived the appealing and privileged life of a college student in Miami. The actress shows Alice's confusion, uncertainty, and questioning turn into decisiveness and willingness to take control of her life with impressive naturalness. The film also shows how Alice is trapped in situations with seemingly no options, causing her to panic, take action, and reach out for help.

At first, the grainy filming style put me off and made me think that it was a very low budget or homemade movie, but in actuality it is very well done. The home movie quality really makes you feel like you are there with the characters, a part of their RV trip across the country. This is definitely a film worth seeing, although I don't quite understand all the descriptions of it as a heart-warming coming of age tale. It is rather vulgar and disturbing at times, even if it is not completely sad in the end. There's nothing much to the story. A young woman steals some money from the dreary Vermont supermarket where she works, decides to run away to Florida where he has dreams of attending school with her friend Julie, and encounters an odd couple on the highway. If you remember the elderly couple from "Rosemary's Baby," you have some idea of what these two are like. Bill has a comical face and is retired from the Army. Sandra is an ex stripper now become a truckstop whore, although we don't find this out at once. They're affectionate, helpful, and full of common sense.

They more or less adopt the girl, Alice, and promise to give her a ride in their elaborate RV, although they are not driving "directly" to Florida.

This is where the film could have gone one-hundred-percent wrong. All the film makers had to do was turn the elderly couple into the personification of evil. They would take the virginal Alice (handcuffed to the bed or whatever) and sell her body to any greaseball driver who has a lot of money and likes rough sex. (Alice would have had a heck of a time escaping, with lots of aborted attempts, before the final shootout.) But, no. The couple really IS pretty nice, and Alice is far from virginal. Alice overhears Sandra with a customer, asks about the business, and tries to turn a trick on her own. Bill prevents anything from happening and insists she do the job right if she's going to do it at all. They don't talk her into it. They guide her.

Alice makes several hundred dollars, which is several hundred dollars more than she had when she met the couple. Bill and Sandra keep her money in the safe where customers aren't going to find it. Alice misunderstands. She doesn't find whoring very pleasant work, and she thinks she'll never be paid off because every time she asks to be dropped off, Sandra responds with, "What? Not here, honey. Not in the middle of nowhere." However, after she is talked into handing her gun over to Sandra, the couple give her the money she wants and rather lovingly release her to continue her trip to Florida.

You know what I found the most tragic moment in the film? It had nothing to do with prostitution or thievery. Alice has been expecting to room with her friend Julie after she arrives in Miami. Julie is after all a legitimate student. But when Alice calls her friend from someplace in Alabama to assure her she's on her way but will be late, Julie hesitates and says, "Well -- my mother doesn't think you should room with us. And to tell you the truth, my roommate isn't cool on it either. I invited you down, sure, but I thought it was just like a visit for a week or something. Go back to Milford, Alice" There is a long silence before Alice hangs up.

Only one shot is fired (a few white frames of film) and no one is hit. Tears appear only once. Nobody slugs anybody else. No car explodes in a fireball. No cop chases them down the Interstate.

The direction is occasionally clumsy. Too much cross-cutting between Sandra trying to disarm Alice and Alice's hand holding the wobbling pistol. There is hardly any musical score. There is brief male and female nudity and it's awkward, as it's probably supposed to be. Alice isn't unattractive but she is not babalicious either. She sports Asiatic eyes, a kind of robust version of Molly Parker. The cinematography looks cheap and the colors are washed out. The direction is a straightforward narrative, with a few illuminating flashbacks. Nothing is wasted. And it was all evidently shot around Danbury, Connecticut. The city sticks in my mind because I drove through it after one of its floods and remember the cars caked with a film of mud all the way up to the door handles.

I don't know exactly What Alice Found. (I dread even THINKING that the answer to the riddle is that "she found herself.") The acting isn't bad at all. Judith Ivey is better than that. It's definitely worth seeing, a quiet, orderly film that treats the audience like adults. Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first page of the movie's location in the IMDb.

I found "What Alice Found" to be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's 6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again.

For me, "Alice" was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping you guessing whether she was good or evil.

Ignore the rating and see this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.) At the first glance of this film the camera angles immediately make you think that this is a low budget film that will bore you to tears or make you press the stop button. Surprisingly, the storyline comes forward and is played through the screen in a way that I feel most would relate to. I scored this movie at 7 but like most would, felt it should be a 10, you will understand as you watch it because its a rare thing for a film to be in touch with a persons feelings and how life should be shown by a TV set. Most films try to leave you in awe of their special effects, twists and turns etc, this film dealt a true hand showed a good film backed by an Alabama style storyline that most would feel was a good waste of a couple of hours. Wish I had put the popcorn maker on after all well done! A great performance by Emily Grace! I stumbled upon this movie while browsing my satellite listings and was curious by the summary of the plot giving by my satellite service provider. I was high entertained and had much compassion for the character "Alice" played by Emily Grace. The story had me guessing in what would happen to Alice and was not predicable. The overall story was refreshing and had some great twists to the supporting characters. The ending of the story ended on a rather fair way. I will purchase this DVD to add to my library. I am a new fan of Emily Grace and I high anticipate in seeing more from her performances. I just saw this on cable. I liked it. It held my interest and the dramatic choices were good. The old couple were very good and good at being subtly creepy. The cinematography is not so great, but the shabby video also adds to the sense of realism, so its a trade-off, you know? At times the girl would hit the New England accent to hard. The accent would sort of come and go. Anyway, I thought the film was well done overall, though. The storyline was strong and dramatic tension was held because you felt their was some subtle mystery going on, even though things seemed mundane. Good job on a low budget. Another good SUNY Purchase filmmaker. Way to go. Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go. at the story. It is reality mixed with Americana- and very original.

Emily Grace is a young girl tired of her boring life working at a minimum wage job, in New England. Her sleazy boss propositions her- she quits and takes a little bit of cash from the register. Driving from New Hampshire to Miami, Florida, is not a short trip, and her Ford Escort dies out. She then meets a personable older couple, portrayed by Judith Ivey and Bill Raymond. They have an RV and graciously offer to help her out- it isn't safe for a girl to be alone on the road. Especially I-95.

Emily Grace is very realistic as Alice, and initially lets the Judith Ivey character help her; buy her decent clothes, cosmetics, etc. At first it is a nice vacation for Alice, who hopes to hook up with her girlfriend, who attends college in Miami. There is interesting cinematography, as the trio drives the RV down to Florida: the rest-stops, bland scenery and eventually beautiful mountains of North Carolina.

Eventually there is something awry, and the Ivey character apparently has fabricated stories about her daughter, as well as her husband, who now seems a bit sinister.

I will not spoil the outcome of this film- but it ends positively as the audience waits in suspense- This film reminded me a bit of Spielberg's "Duel"- while it was initially not as menacing- the moral of the story is - you never know what people are thinking- especially if you are driving cross-country. Beware!!. You will enjoy this film. This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one! I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I rented this film, as a lot of independent films seem to be a bit overrated these days (well, Hollywood films too for that matter) but this movie was fantastic, really great, it's too bad it didn't reach a huge audience because it's just superb. I really love Alice's determination, it really makes me look upon my life as a gift, and i see how privileged I am just to have an education. But all of that aside, this movie really proves that a good artist can tell a good story, no matter what the budget, it's an excellent film and everyone should watch it, they will love it and definitely learn something from it. I don't have to be roger ebert to know it's one of the best movies I've seen all year, and certainly one of the most truthful. Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered such a gem of a movie.

A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop. However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy after she spends some time on the road with them.

Everyone in it was just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this happen in real life in front of you.

Newcomer Emily Grace did a fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing Emily in more films in the future.

Contrary to what some others have said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip.

I didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it. More films like this are *exactly* what we need.

SF "What Alice Found" is the greatest movie that nobody's ever heard of! I underestimated it when I heard of it, and I though that it would all sex, no plot, and just really stupid, but in reality, it was really good. They say all indie movies suck, but this one, and "Napoleon Dynamite" didn't suck. I asked my friend, who'd seen it before I did, and she said that Alice has all these three-ways, and you see all this nudity, but no, there is no three-way that I remember, and little nudity. The movie did have a point, and it taught me never trust hitchhikers. I liked that in the end, they got Alice a little dolphin In the end, on her way to Flordia. I totally suggest seeing this movie. I gave this 9 stars out of a possible 10. If it had had just a teensy weensy bit more plot line I would have given it 10.

Nonetheless it is a highly interesting film.

Judith Ivey, playing a likable old floozy, should have been given the Oscar for her performance.

Emily Grace (portraying Alice), whom I had never seen before, also does an excellent job and has THE sexiest body I think I've ever seen on film.

In a beat to heck old car, Alice has lit out from the n.e. for Florida where she has a friend (or maybe it's her sister, I'm not sure, and that's my fault, not the film's), and high hopes of going to college, which she and her family can't really afford.

She seems rather vulnerable out there on the road alone, and sure enough she encounters some slightly rough looking characters and shortly after that it's discovered there's a hole in one of her tires.

She is at a rest stop at the time and is assisted by a woman named Sandra and her husband, Bill, an older couple who are traveling in an RV.

They're going south, to Florida, and take her under their wing, but is everyone quite the way they're presenting themselves? Flashbacks and paranoia enter the story as our young heroine learns some new lessons about life. Excellent story, wonderful acting, amazing production values and a cool, action-packed short with a perfect twist at the end. What a great short film!

I saw this film in Vail or Aspen at a film festival and was wowed by it. Then I saw it again at another festival (where it won again) and I was even more impressed because subtle touches become evident the second time around - for a short film, this packs a lot of clever layers into a short time.

AWOL is not for the faint of heart, but it is very well done and completely impressive for a short film - for any film actually. It's an interesting story told very well, and every scene moves the story, which reveals good film-making instincts went into making this film. The film looks gorgeous and David Morse is also stunning, with a dynamic performance delivered in every scene. Watching his character attempt to defeat the curveballs life is throwing him makes a great viewing experience.

It also should be noted, that when tortures of war are in the headlines everyday, the lines between reality, good and evil, can get very gray while the rhetoric gets loud and attempts to make things black and white. AWOL smartly allows the audience to decide for themselves what they think the message is, what is real and what is not, which adds to the mystery.

Both times I've seen it, the audience was WAY more into this movie than the others playing with it, which is saying a lot. There are a lot of shorts out there right now, but few deliver the kind of all around excellence and complex subject matter that AWOL does.

It sounds to me like the previous reviewer is off his or her rocker, or has some personal agenda, because this really is a great example of short independent film-making. I see a LOT of short films, and I must say if only ALL the shorts making the festival rounds were this good, THEN the shorts business would have some serious legs. I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little thriller that hearkens back to "The Outer Limits." The performances are solid, not that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who, as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun film. If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out. This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.

This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching.

I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one? After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the shows that were done in the later '90s.

"Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health" used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful, egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well.

Columbo is brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining. I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30 minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie entry.

26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem. But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie "Tai-Pan", among many other projects.

It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975 movie "Columbo: Playback". Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough 'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective relieving Columbo-comedy.

Simply a good late Columbo movie entry.

7/10 Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to "Billy Budd", "The Collector" and "Modesty Blaise") had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox distributed "Poor Cow" in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his successes, "Kes", "Family Life", "Black Jack". until I caught up in the 80's. The beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology "Troubadour". Ken Loach showed the world the down-and-out flip side of Swinging London with "Poor Cow", about London woman Joy (Carol White) hooking up with a thief and having a son with him, only to see the man end up in the slammer. While his friend (Terence Stamp) manages to help her out some, he proves to be little better in what a loser he is. It soon becomes clear to Joy that she's going to have to make a serious decision about where she's going in her life.

One thing that I determined - I don't know whether or not this is accurate - was a use of irony in the movie. Her name is Joy, but she experiences no joy in her life. Even if that wasn't intended, it's still a movie that I recommend to everyone. Featuring songs by Donovan (one of which - "Colors" - appeared in another Terence Stamp movie: "The Limey" (which, incidentally, came out in 1999, when I was as old as my parents were when "Poor Cow" came out)). One of the best of the 'kitchen-sinks'. Fantastic views of London and invaluable snippets of working class life of the 60's. Loach's eye seems to capture everything, yet makes no judgment - a taste of things to come. As with 'Kes', 'Riff-raff' and 'Sweet Sixteen', it serves as a cinematic social history of Britain. Carol White is completely convincing, you love her, fancy her, want to take care of her, but hold your head at her self-destructive decisions and still follow her in some vain hope. Well backed up by Terence Stamp, ( fresh off 'The collector', also catch 'The Hit' ) and a plethora of English faces ( all looking very young ). Pefectly set to Donovan's dulcet tones. Stamp sings 'Yellow is the color', in a lovely scene, ending with him saying, " Getting better, ain't I " ( song also used in 'The rules of Attraction' - I think ) Watch Carol Whites screen mum getting ready to 'go out and get a bloke', putting on her false eye-lashes to the sound of 'Rosie' on the radio - priceless. A treasure for anyone who was around at the time and a reminder of how good life is now in England. Incidentally Soderburgh used clips from 'Poor cow' in 'The Limey'. Recently released on British DVD, this is a good movie (as long as you have an attention span and IQ of more than a fruit fly). Not as depressing as it could have been, this is kitchen-sink at its most dirty. Terrance Stamp is great in it, the music is sweet, Carol White is very believeable as the single mum tart who can't stop loving criminals.

My favourite scene is where Carol and her friend who works in the pub with her (the one with the enormous beehive hairdo which comes down over one eye) sit outisde and gossip about all the men who walk past.

The only thing that marred this was the shakey acting of Carol's first husband, but if you can get past that, you're OK. And Donovan provides some of the most languid, mellow, bittersweet lyrics to come out of the 60s. Not a film of entertainment, but of real lives & limited ambition for the working class in 60's. Enjoyable because of my upbringing, not sure it'd work for most people. Typical Loach. Full of TV actors/actresses of 70's/80's/90's. This Is one of those classic American made for TV movies that are just made for watching on a rainy afternoon. Although the script is highly implausible it never takes itself too seriously and neither do the cast which leads to a great tongue in cheek murder mystery / horror film best enjoyed with a bid bag of popcorn or box of chocolates. A big bonus of this film is the fantastic location filming and despite the strange goings on and even stranger residents round Lake Tommahawk I for one would not mind living there!

All in all a great film to watch over and over again. The premise of the story is common enough; average family wants out of the rat race; wants to find the simple life....so they move from Sherman Oaks,California to Lake Tomahawk; kids in tow.

The lake is beautiful, they have leased an old house....but wait; there may be something in the lake; people are being murdered, and no one knows how (never mind why). Gerald McRaney is excellent, a familiar face for Lifetime viewers; Valerie Harper is also good; since this film was made in '88 maybe the writer should produce a sequel!.

You will also enjoy Barry Corbin as the town eccentric, and Darryl Anderson as a Bruce Dern-lookalike/crazed military man.

While the story plot is a bit over the top; if you are a movie buff you will be reminded of similar scenarios from ""Psycho""; ""Deliverance""; as well as other horror stories of that genre. Several camera shots and sequences will give you a sense of deja vu.

Sit back and enjoy; if you don't take it too seriously it is very entertaining; and better than, for example the more recent movie:

""I Know What You Did Last Summer""; it seems they made better movies in the good old 80's!. Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel lived at as a child.

They say you can not go home again but this is an ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods.

We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists.

Can the ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his/her foot in it?

This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs. Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets, personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story.

By far the greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively. With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door.

A WORD OF CAUTION...

What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole.

I'm not a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal favorites. "Closet Land" was sponsored by Amnesty International and does have a lot of political overtones, but there's so much more to this richly stirring story than that...

This is not just about the political tension of the late 80s - it's about the personal persecution that a woman puts herself through as a child who was molested by a family friend. We see the subtle allusion to the parallels of a dishonest government/society structure and the culture of sexual predation where one in four young children are molested and one in three women has experienced some form of rape.

For me, it brings up a chilling chicken-and-egg question: does the attitude of our sexual repression-leading-to-predation create the political environment of fear and censoring, or does the socio-political dysfunction fuel a culture of sexual predation? The psychological ramifications of even asking this question force us to a place where we are brought to develop our own answers.

In the end, our young lady writer (Stowe) has a similar moment to the one at the end of Hensen's "Labyrinth" - she realizes in one shining, brilliant moment that the idea of having her power stolen from her by the secret police (Rickman) is an illusion. No one can steal your power - they can only trick you into giving it up, and then you have the right to take it back at any time.

This is not a movie to be entered into lightly, and you most certainly do ENTER it. The minimalist aspects coupled with the child-like animation stirs the deepest parts of the psyche and leaves no viewer unchanged. This film hits the heart with a reality like no other I have seen. It shows what us what we, in a democratic society, take for granted, and just what we are lucky enough not to be experiencing. The acting in the film is superb, sometimes you have to remind yourself that the movie is a dramatization, and not real life. Mr. Rickman does wonders with his role (as he does with all roles) making the interrogator fully dimensional and human. The set is incredible. It gives the feeling of 'in the round" theater. Which does not add or take away from the emotion of the action. This movie seeks to open the eyes of the viewer, and I'd say they have made a success of that goal. Acting, of course! Think about it, Closet Land could easily have turned out so horribly - an entire movie filmed in one room with only two people, they better have some damned interesting things to chat about.

But it didn't turn out horribly. On the contrary, thanks to incredible portrayals by both Stowe and Rickman, Closet Land is a masterpiece in its own right.

That's not to say it is for everyone. Persons who have had their attention spans decreased through glitzy sex scenes and random gun fire may have trouble digesting Closet Land. However, those who can appreciate good story telling without explosions should give it a look (no matter how many video stores you have to call to find someone who has it in stock). This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do. "Closet Land" tells a powerful story and has many different subtle elements. You could read lots of stuff about the movie's plot before hand, but you don't really need to. All you need to know is that the movie is all about an interrogation. Along the way, we learn lots of things about the interrogator and the person being interrogated. We also learn that the world can be a dark and scary place. Especially when you have absolutely no control over it.

In the end, the movie amounts to a warning (really though, the movie has several different aspects to it) about what happens to people's freedoms when they "look the other way" and ignore injustices happening to those around them.

If you've got about an hour and a half and know where you can rent this, I strongly recommend that you do so. Like Margot in "Fear of Fear" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in "Fox and his friends" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in "The Stationsmaster's Wife" who goes to prison in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company, so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German "Wirtschaftswunder"-Society after World War II in R.W. Fassbinder's "The Merchant of the Four Seasons". Simply from the fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not favorize any sex.

In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard "crying out" his produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a "street-worker" in their family. "The love of his life" (she has no name in the movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening, after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice? I'd be hard pressed to say what is it that makes this film so important to me. While a very good movie, this is definitely not the most outstanding Fassbinder's film. Still along with the American Soldier it keeps making it into my personal list of favorites whenever I get to thinking about it. What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason, that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was. After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA.

Once again, the special is divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special. The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would allow endless chances for Barbra to "enter" different art works that would correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect opportunity to take advantage of filming in color.

After the recording of "Draw Me a Circle" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's "Yesterdays." She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's "One Kiss" as Thomas Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's "Minute Waltz" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm of Peter Matz's "Gotta Move," and performs a wrenching rendition of "Non C'est Rien" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When." The Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus animals, while singing various songs with farm/circus/animal themes. Some highlights include Barbra singing "Were Thine That Special Face" to a baby elephant, performing "I've Grown Accustomed to that Face" as a serenade to a piglet, the campy "Sam, You Made the Pants to Long" sung to a group of baby penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning "We Have So Much in Common." Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to the chorus of "Spring Again," and then slows things down by performing a haunting version of "I Stayed Too Long at the Fair" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a little French.

The Act III concert is once again the high point of the hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's "Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is Home," before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard "It Had to Be You" and the rarely-heard "C'est Si Bon (It's So Good)." Streisand then really amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of the Sweet Charity ballad "Where Am I Going," of which Streisand delivers the definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad "Starting Here, Starting Now," which contains an impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances of her long career.

More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA, COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original. Follow-up to 1965's "My Name Is Barbra", and shot in brilliant color, "Color Me Barbra" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle. She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and moving, even if a few of her songs are not ("One Kiss", "Yesterdays"). The circus sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word "face"!) is girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively, jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as "My Name Is Barbra", but certainly a sterling sophomore effort. A year after her triumphant first special, "My Name Is Barbra", Barbra Streisand regrouped with her production team to produce this follow-up CBS-TV special in then-revolutionary color. First broadcast in March 1966, "Color Me Barbra" follows a similar format to its predecessor - three segments, the first two with unique concepts. The first takes place in the after-hours halls of the Philadelphia Museum of Art where dressed as a period maid, she roams the galleries and becomes part of the artwork through song. In various guises, Streisand expresses a variety of moods from the comedy schtick of the "Minute Waltz" to the melodrama of "Non C'est Rien" in a Modigliani painting to the beatnik-style frenzy of "Gotta Move" set to abstract art. My favorite moment in the special is when she transforms into a dead ringer of Queen Nefertiti while singing a haunting rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When".

Opening with another comic monologue full of silly non-sequiturs, this time in French, the second segment is back in the studio for a brightly-colored circus medley where she interacts with animals, including her beloved poodle Sadie. She finds an appropriate context for "Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long" with a bevy of penguins and comically compares her profile to an anteater's with "We Have So Much in Common". As with the first special, the program ends with a riveting solo concert in which she sings some chestnuts, "Any Place I Hang My Hat Is Home", "Where Am I Going?" and "Starting Here, Starting Now" among them. Also included is the brief introduction she filmed in 1986, ironically dressed in all-white, when the special was first released on VHS. The juxtaposition of locale and song is even more effective than in her first special, and a 23-year old Streisand is in peak form. Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it.

It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy "Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out. Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.

The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.

Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.

In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?

It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.

I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.

This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8. Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of "The Decalogue" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth commandment, or, "Thou shalt not kill".

Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about "Crime and Punishment", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities.

The story shows the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored. Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or present.

The other element in the story is the relationship between the public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to retrieve the picture and send it to his mother.

Kieslowski's account of how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten. This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.

One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.

As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.

--PolarisDiB Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However, when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer), Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my view, "Are you not as guilty as this man?" This sort of indirect address of the audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense, neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder, and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and, typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning. The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do. 'Identity– . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us' (Ntozake Shange qtd in "Fires in the Mirror").

Pieces like Decalogue V used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon with. It's still working inside me.

The film wasn't sympathetic, per se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up.

The 'science' of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something.

There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea: after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this natural process, makes me want to buck the system.'

I do not think Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury.

For surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond to their world view.

And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that separates them from their landscape.

Landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure, and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have power over. But it cannot be changed itself. A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully trying to defend and then console the accused. It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris' statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if he/she states that Kieslowski's film "Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)" has universal connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital punishments have not been able to prevent homicide. Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.

The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.

Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10 I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.

The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world. She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate "hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female "Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.

The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour. This movie was much better than I expected. ++++ Jean Peters actually does a passable job as a pirate and does decent work in her sword fights. (To the extent she may have a double doing the action, it's hard to tell...but Peters herself obviously is doing a good deal of it, and doing it well.) ++++ With a good and serious script, this could have been an excellent film. But it's basically cheesy. Still entertaining however. ++++ Not up to a regular Jacques Tournier film, but definitely above a regular Jean Peters film. Color is typical of this '50s time period, ie. too garish and not realistic. The actors for Blackbeard and her first mate and the drunken doctor were good. Louis Jordan was a bit weak. I don't think Debra Paget was right either. But certainly Jean Peters and Debra Paget were probably the two best looking female stars in the '50s. This is one of several period sea-faring yarns of its era, which has the added distinction (although not in itself unique) of a female buccaneer at its center. At first, both leads – Jean Peters and Louis Jourdan – might seem miscast but they grow nicely into their roles eventually, thanks no doubt to the talented players (Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez and James Robertson Justice) who support them. Velvety-voiced Marshall is uncharacteristically cast as the ship’s obligatory philosophical lush of a doctor, and Gomez is suitably larger-than-life as Blackbeard The Pirate.

The cast is completed by Debra Paget as Jourdan’s wife, who incurs the jealous rage of the tomboyish titular character in whom Jourdan instills the first pangs of love (which, however, does not spare him the occasional flogging or sword-wound); incidentally, the film was the second exotic teaming of Jourdan and Paget in one year, following Delmer Daves’ BIRD OF PARADISE. The direct result of this unexpected softening of Anne’s character is her falling out with Blackbeard’s crew, and her unlikely climactic sacrifice in order to save the lives of the stranded Jourdan, Paget and Marshall.

While the film is not a particularly outstanding example of its type, Jacques Tourneur’s energetic direction and Franz Waxman’s grandiose score ensure an above-average effort that moves along at a brisk pace; incidentally, Tourneur had already done service in the genre with the superior Burt Lancaster vehicle, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW (1950). As usual with vintage Technicolor productions, the cinematography gives the film a sumptuousness that is invigorating. By the way, differing running-times are given for this film (81 or 87 minutes) and, for the record, the version I watched was the shorter one. Sometimes it's hard to be a pirate...............but by golly Miss Jean Peters has a lot of fun trying - and it shows,particularly during her first spot of friendly swordplay with Blackbeard (Mr Thomas Gomez - eminently hissable)when the sheer joy of performing is plain on her face. With fifty years of hindsight Feminists seem intent on grabbing this movie as some sort of an anthem for the empowerment of women in a male - dominated society but I have serious doubts that either M.Tourneur or Miss Peters had any such concept in their heads at the time. It was an exciting,entertaining family film with absolutely no pretensions,hidden meanings or alternative agenda.It was fun. M.Louis Jourdan is both winsome and treacherous as her love interest. Mr Herbert Chapman is wise and philosophical as the wise and philosophical doctor.Mr James Robertson Justice is just a tad unbelievable as the bosun. But it is Miss Peters who stays in the memory.Wilfully adolescent,illiterate,tough but vulnerable,wonderfully agile,and ultimately,courageous,she is everybody's idea of a lady pirate. There was a definite window of opportunity for her in feisty costume roles - that she did not choose to seize it is a matter of some regret. I saw this movie when I was very young living in Houston, Texas. I really enjoyed this movie, and I wrote to Jean Peters in Hollywood, and I told her how much I enjoyed seeing her in this movie. She sent me an autographed photo. This movie was directed by Jacques Tourneur, and besides Jean Peters in the starring role. It also stars Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, and Herbert Marshall. It was released in 1951 in color and is 81 minutes long. Jean Peters was married to Howard Hughes. She also starred in "Viva Zapata" with Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, who won an Oscar for playing the role Zapata's brother (Marlon Brando starred as Zapata) (1952). And she also starred in "Captain from Castile" (1947) with Tyron Power. Since then I've been trying to find a place where it is available, but so far I have not been successful. Does anybody have any suggestions about where I can find and purchase this movie? It this comment contains spoilers, I am unaware of it. The cast for this production of Rigoletto is excellent. Edita Gruberova sings Gilda magnificently and passionately. Luciano Pavarotti also sings splendidly. Vergara is a fine Maddalena; Fedora Barbieri is a famous older singer who sings the maid, Giovanna. Weikl sings Marullo; Wixell sings both Rigoletto and Monterone. As Rigoletto, Wixell is probably the most convincing acting singer in this hard-to-beat ensemble of great singers. Kathleen Kuhlmann in the Contessa. All principals are well-known and world-renowned.

This is an exciting Rigoletto visually as well as musically.

I have it on both laser disc and DVD. You should have it too! Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect.

A masterpiece of cinematography!

I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED the snippets of "Madame Butterfly" in "My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in "Moonstruck" and "Pretty Woman"), but unlike the characters in those films, I just didn't "get it."

Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of "Rigoletto" presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I "got it." What a wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when the music is magical, as it is in "Rigoletto," an opera can be a magnificent entertainment.

A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live performances of "Rigoletto" live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage.

If you've never seen "Rigoletto," or if you think you don't like or understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it. If you don't like this, if this production of "Rigoletto" doesn't make you appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Bill Anderson This is the sort of unknown and forgotten film one dreams about discovering in watching old videos. It is a superb comic gem with brilliantly funny writing, embedded in the marvellous array of characters, a wonderfully inventive and funny musical score, and witty, light direction from Montgomery himself. This is one to watch over and over. Montgomery is a bit part actor who finds himself assigned by his military reserve division to infiltrate a young debutante's home to discover the identity of her former beau, a suspected jewel thief. While the premise is rather preposterous, the results are hilarious. Montgomery is the befuddled plant, Ann Blyth is a marvel as the romantically obsessed, terribly earnest debutante and the parade of comic characterizations from veteran stage actress, Jane Cowl's lawyer mother to Lillian Randolph's take-charge maid - are all fabulous.

Oddly enough this only earned an Oscar nom for Sound, when it deserved top nods for Direction, Screenplay and Musical Score.

DO NOT MISS IT - it's one of Hollywood's best. I was surprised, "Once More, My Darling", had not generated enough votes (at this writing) for a "user rating". It's a "screwy" comedy I have enjoyed many times over the years. Robert Montgomery's mission places him in some very improbable situations, and he's just the man for the job. He maintains his trademark "befuddled" look throughout the film and hysterically, too. Ann Blyth plays his precocious/eccentric pursuer, who assumes a relationship that does not exist. Her character is kooky enough to warrant the unearned nickname "Killer", but remains cute and cuddly.

Among the glut of "B" movies from the late 1940's and 1950's, "Once More, My Darling" is a standout. This one is worth looking for.... In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed "Serpentine Dance" in two different fantastical, flowing robes.

Moore was one of the bigger stars of the late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts, including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in 1894.

Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later version/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on to star as the "Gibson Bathing Girl" in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared there until 1912.

The short is notable for its framing of motion, which, especially during the "second half", becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant work.

You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of different anthologies of early films. Like all of the very earliest films, this "movie" is very, very short--lasting about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film. Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I think the red one depicted on the DVD "The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary Works" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and odd.

If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on Google Video (type in "serpentine dance"). Could this be one of the earliest colour films? It's actually the second. This is a very beautiful piece of film produced by Thomas Edison. This was one of many of his other films.

I think this is the most beautiful of any Thomas Edison films. It shows a girl dancing and moving her dress all around, which turns red with the film. It's just beautiful.

You are watching history when you watch this. You are watching what began to make movies of the day great! This may not have a plot, or anything very interesting, but this is the second colour film ever.

I recommend this to everyone, especially if you're teaching students about filming or something of the sort, you have to show them what began color films! A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role... "Hoppity Goes to Town" was the second and last full length animated feature made by Max and Dave Fleischer, who created a parallel universe to Disney. While Disney's films are well remembered today, both of the Fleischer films "Gulliver's Travels" and this one are forgotten.

"Hoppity" is a spellbinding original, not an adaptation like the first picture. That is a major plus, one would think. No, the critics, rarely on the Fleischers' sides to begin with, tore into them for this. Yes, the story is not as tight as "Gulliver", but how can you hate a film that flaunts itself so joyfully?

It is filled with great musical numbers and a very involving story, which would be a crime to reveal. The characters are lovable and charming and there is heart in this film.

The Fleischers' really outdid themselves here and never quite did so again. Most of their time would be devoted to one-reelers after this tanked at the box office. It's a shame they didn't continue making features. Who knows? Their next attempt may have become the masterpiece they were aiming for.

**** out of 4 stars Leslie Carbaga's excellent book on the Fleishers tells the whole story of the Fleischer's big move of their entire animation unit to Florida, and their subsequent ejection by Paramount.

Mr. Bug Goes to Town didn't destroy the animation pioneers' credit with Paramount, although it's often told that way, and this was Paramount's favorite version of the story. According to Carbaga, the big studio, more than anything, wanted to get their mitts on the animation studio and ease the famously bickering brothers out of the picture altogether. Mr. Bug provided them the pretext to do just that. --The sad closing of a great quirky, innovative chapter in American animation.

I wanted to comment, also, that the film actually debuted December 4, 1941, not December 7. That may have been close enough to do the trick, anyway, in terms of national mood damaging the film's success. But another part of the legend of this troubled little film is that it was killed by having the bad luck to be in the theaters at the same time Dumbo (released October 23, 1941) was still doing very brisk holiday business. I haven't done the research into box office numbers, but I'd say that Dumbo's concurrent presence in theaters likely had an impact on Mr. Bug. Movie-going was at an all time high at this period, and successful films could go strong in theaters for months. -- Something unimaginable in these typically short-run, quick to-DVD days. I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).

As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.

Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.

To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.

Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.

Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).

I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.

My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!

I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.

Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar! Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long gone, the film has slipped through the cracks.

The film was made by the Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities.

In the mid 1950s, this film was re-released under a new name "Hoppity Goes to Town," named after the lead character in the film.

The film is a true period piece, capturing a slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look.

The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the studio is more or less forgotten.

Almost as a whole the body of work of the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are public domain, all but one of the "Color Classics" series are public domain, and the film "Gulliver's Travels" is also in the public domain. This film never appears to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I recommend the search. I have for years remembered a song "JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE" ("No. twenty moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air"). I couldn't find the song, but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of "Gullivar's Travels" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie. Hello again, I have been thinking about this movie all my life. I saw it when I was 5 years old in Los Angeles, California in 1942. What a wonderful story of being good to one another, kindness, and charity. You forget it is the bugs relating to one another. It was just as if they were people. I love this movie and so do my adult children. Such beautiful color in this movie.I need to see this movie again. There is a story about an envelope in the movie, that I just can't remember the "why" of it.

Thanks for listening. I have viewed this cartoon as a child, a father, and now a grand-father. It is my favorite cartoon. I love the characters, the great little tunes, and the very good drawings. I totally love the main song which comes up throughout the cartoon. I think it is a beautiful little cartoon. Everyone I have shown it to simply loves it. It is too bad it opened on such a bad day (Pearl Harbor bombing). If it wasn't for the bad timing it would have been a great success. I hope I can find a DVD of it because all the VHS tapes don't do it justice.

I think if anyone shows it to their child they will come up with the same result. They will just love it.

What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles, buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time.

From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film, being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by "Hoppity" and and his beautiful girl "Honey" to make it happily-ever-after and out of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and not worry about humans trampling them.

There is a nasty villain, though - "C. Bagley Beetle" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers ("Swat, The Fly" and "Smack, the Mosquito") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails.

My favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy "Hoppity" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was fantastic animation!

You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet! Hoppity is a charming if slightly phycadelic animated movie that considering it was made in the 1941 has stood the test of time incredibly well. Now I have to admit I have a soft spot for 'HoppityGoes To Town' (as it is called in the United Kingdom) having watched a VHS version taped of the TV by our parents many times with my siblings.Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning just in time to catch it on Channel Four (at 0615 never the less!) The film was just as delightful as I remembered it with the animation standing the test of time and a lovely moral tale which should appeal to parents and children alike. Maybe one day I to shall share this forgotten classic with children of my own. With a nice running time for kids (88 Min's)and a simple yet involving storyline there really is something for everyone in this tale of the little guy coming good. I really could see this being successfully remade in CGI. Take note Pixar. "Mr. Bug Goes To Town" was the last major achievement the Fleischer studios produced. The quality of the Superman series produced at the same time is evident in this extraordinary film.

The music and lyrics by Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael (with assistance by Flieshcer veteran Sammy Timberg are quite good, but not as much as the scoring of the picture by Leigh Harline who also scored Snow White for Disney. Harline's "atmospheric music" is superb, and a treat for the ears.

The layout and staging of the picture was years ahead of it's time, and once again the Fleischer's background artists outdid themselves. The techincolored beauty of the film cannot be denied, and while Hoppity the grasshopper is the star, the characters of Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito steal the picture. Swat's voicing by Jack Mercer (of Popeye fame) is priceless. Kenny Gardner (brother-in-law) of Guy Lombardo...and a featured vocalist in his band...does his usual pleasant job in the role of Dick Dickinsen.

The movie has been criticized for all the wrong reasons. The Fleischer Studios were animation experts par excellence and this shows very clearly in the finished product. The movie is tuneful, the story great for all ages, and the final scenes of the bugs scrambling for their lives upon a rising skyscraper is some of the best staging and animation of any animated film past and present.

Do not miss this wonderfully hand drawn film. Also don't fail to appreciate the title sequence with the most elaborate example of Max Fleischer's remarkable 3-D sterioptical process which took four months to construct and employed 16,000 tiny panes of glass in the "electrified" buildings of Manhattan.

Do not miss Mr. Bug Goes To Town...aka Hoppity Goes To Town. I'll wager you'll be bug eyed at the results! well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times. It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and over all originality. When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle - and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late?

While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any `heart' - they don't come `alive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a year earlier in PINOCCHIO.

However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series was already in release.

HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank Capra, with it's energetic, go get ‘em hero up against powerful societal forces. Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures.

Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles.

The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered.

It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening credits. People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.

To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.

You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE".

It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).

Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.

"Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?"

My answer: Partially.

It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.

Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.

The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.

So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go. Normally I am a typical "creepy-crawly-hatin'" girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the "jitter-bugs" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love "We're a Couple in The Castle;" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.

This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug. There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them. There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending too. Wow. I saw this movie and "Up" on the same day within an hour of each other at different theaters. I saw "Mr Bug" first, and was then totally disappointed in "Up"'s follow-up. What a beautiful and touching film! Movies of the 1930s and 40s to us nowadays can be irking with their melodramatic acting and dialog, but as animation the same melodrama and groaning humor can be wonderful. And the soft "organic" lines of 30s drawing AND the music just puts you in a nice comfortable mood and you can enjoy the show with all its little characters: ladybugs, grasshoppers, bees, snails, stinkbugs, flies, mosquitoes, beetles, crickets, and more each with all their own cute little (but not overbearing) idiosyncrasies. The interaction with the human world, from nemesis (cigar smokers, high-heel wearers, innocent kick-the-can playing kids) to the kind-hearted, and to the unknown destroyers, is realistic and fascinating. You care for the bugs, AND Dick and Mary. The protagonist Hoppity is not some perfect superman who comes to "set things right" but a starry-eyed optimist who leads everyone down the garden path (literally!), and every time you think it's going to end happily in 1930s style, along comes another roadblock...! I was on the edge of my seat much more than with "Up." I walked out of the movie theater grinning and chuckling: something that hasn't happened in a long long long long time! While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market – many attribute their downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty.

In a patch of overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer) fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end. Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans.

What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation – all the bugs are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive – even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message to boot. This is a very modest, very lovely movie with a great score by Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser with a standout number, We're The Couple In The Castle, that is totally evocative of the period and harks back to Penthouse Serenade just as the opening premise (Hoppity's coming) may well have inspired Fred Saidy and Yip Harburg's opening (Woody's Coming) in Finian's Rainbow six years later. I totally agree with those posters who have noted that were the name Disney appended to this it would by now have achieved 'classic' status rather than have fallen into neglect. It's wonderfully inventive, never more so than when objects barely noticed in the 'real' world assume a much greater significance - both pro and con - in the insect world. Actually it IS a classic, albeit a minor one. I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was canceled.

It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But there were very talented people singing.

I find it very sad for them.

That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down.

Its a pity

Ariette Croes I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential. I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges. I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV. First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was never "big" here in the US as it is everywhere else.

That said, I must say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best sci-fi shows I've ever seen.

Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all over and this show stands out.

The first season was tops to begin with, with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey/Ricky who are just a blast to watch. Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye.

Aside from the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn fine.

The production and direction of the show is top notch. Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible.

My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job. They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this to me while we watch the show) and respectfully.

I won't mention anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started airing the 2nd season.

I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of dialog.

It really is that good.

PS: Thanks to the producers for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!** I remember being so excited on Saturday nights when I was a kid, waiting for Dr. Who. I thought it was the best show ever made. Then, I grew up, Dr. Who went off the air, and no one I knew had ever heard of it. Then I found out there was going to be a new series. I was a little nervous about it. Was it going to live up to the expectations I had carried around since I was little? Would they screw it up? Would the Dr. suck? Would his assistant suck? Would they create a more intimate relationship with the Dr. and his assistant? YES, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! This show is wonderful!! I love the new Dr. I love his assistant. I love the show. And I find myself excited on Friday nights now, waiting for the "new" episode. I'm just now seeing 2005 episodes, as I live in the States, so I'm a little behind the rest of you. I hope the next Dr. is as great as this one! I never saw Doctor Who before (at least not in any focused way), so I was new to the concept. I have to say that the new show works very well. It's funny (it really also ought to say "Comedy" in the genre description; many plot turns are only acceptable because of their comedic value), it's well-written and it's making a meager budget go a long way. The human dimension is very strong and engaging, which is very rare in current TV shows.

I've seen the first eight episodes, and #6-8 were my favorites so far. Even types of stories that are all too easy to screw up (with time-travel, saving one's dead parents and that sort of stuff) works out amazingly well here.

Christopher Eccleston is a joy to watch as the witty and light-hearted though occasionally morose Doctor - if they can find a good replacement for him, I'll be quite surprised. But I'm willing to give the new guy a chance. There's little doubt, however, that the Eccleston episodes are going to go down in history as classics.

The relationship between the Doctor and Rose is particularly refreshing. The Doc is much more of a father figure to her than a romantic interest, and yet there are hints of romantic innuendo between them, which however is much more emotional and human than sexual.

A good show. The biggest drawback is the low budget - a show like this ought to have better special effects. And why they don't simply use some cheaper effects, I don't know. In this day and age, SFX don't have to cost a bundle - just look at the Star Wars: Revelations fan film.

8 out of 10. It was September 2003 that I heard the BBC were going to resurrect DOCTOR WHO and make it " Bigger and better " but I'd heard these rumours in the press before and thought that's all they were - Rumours . But it was then mentioned that Russell T Davies was going to executively produce and write the show and then one Saturday afternoon in March 2004 Channel 4 news interviewed the actor cast in the title role - Christopher Eccleston . Yes that Christopher Eccleston an actor I've always been impressed by since watching his film debut in LET HIM HAVE IT and if he was getting interviewed on television it must have been true . As the months passed more and more information was leaked , Billie Piper was being cast , the Daleks would be returning and The Mill , the Hollywood effects company who had done the FX for GLADIATOR were contracted to do the special effects for the show . For several weeks before the first broadcast trailers galore heralded the return of the new series , massive billboards in London informed the public about the return of the show , tabloid newspapers carried massive photo spreads of the aliens appearing and Christopher Eccleston appeared on programmes as diverse as BLUE PETER , MASTERMIND ( Which had a special DOCTOR WHO night edition ) , THIS MORNING and Friday NIGHT WITH JOHNATHAN ROSS . In fact this new series of DOCTOR WHO must have been the most hyped programme in the history of British television , it had better be bloody good

So was it bloody good ? Undoubtedly it has been a major success with nearly every episode making the top ten shows in the TV charts . To give you clue of its rating success only one episode ( The Ark In Space episode two - Febuary 1975 ) from the old series had made it into the top five TV chart . The opening series episode made number three with two more episodes either beating or equalling the previous record and this is in an era where there's far more competition in terms of TV stations and choice . Let's laugh and cheer at the fact DOCTOR WHO stuffed HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME , CELEBRITY WRESTLING and mauled ANT AND DEC'S Saturday NIGHT TAKEAWAY . Of course much of the success is down to the breath taking visuals and the casting of a well known prestigious actor in the role . For the most part everything you see on screen here equals anything you'll see in a Spielberg / Hollywood movie . There's a Dalek invasion force numbering tens of thousands , exotic aliens , a 19th Century Cardiff that looks like a 19th Century Cardiff and night filming that is actually night filming and not done by sticking a dark filter over the screen . I promise you'll be hearing a lot more from the directors who worked on this series , Joe Ahearne especially will one day be in the Hollywood A list

There are some flaws to the new series of DOCTOR WHO and all of them should be laid at the door of Russell T Davies . It may be contentious whether the soap opera and post modernist elements are successful or not ( In my opinion they're not ) but what's not in dispute is that the weakest scripts are all written by RTD . As I mentioned in my review of CASANOVA he cheats the audience and he does the same thing here: when faced by armed soldiers pointing their guns at him The Doctor bellows " attack plan delta " which makes no sense to anyone in the audience but allows him to escape from a tight spot , a naked Captain Jack suddenly pulls out a laser he's been hiding and RTD scripts are full of these type of cheats and deus ex machina type endings . In fact the final episode is spoiled greatly by the ridiculous concept of what the " Bad Wolf " is which seems to have got RTD out of a tight spot more than The Doctor . And of the endings I'm trying to remember if any of them were actually down to The Doctor ? More often than it's a supporting character or the Doctor's companion who saves the day . The show is called DOCTOR WHO not ROSE TYLER so can we see the title character save the day please just like he did in the classic series ? One final point about the portrayal of the Doctor is the way he's written as a grinning loon . Eccleston is best known for his serious and gloomy roles and he's absolutely breath taking at scenes when he's showing grief , like the tear running down his face in the End Of The World but more often than not he's written as a " Tom Baker on speed " character . It's obvious why Eccleston hasn't done much comedy in his career - He's not very good at it

Am I starting to sound like I hate this show ? Sorry I didn't mean to but it's just that while some anticipations have been met or surpassed some others haven't and they're nearly all down to Russell T Davies who thankfully is contributing less in the way of scripts in the next series of DOCTOR WHO . Let's see more traditional stories of a human outpost being under threat from monsters like we saw in the 1960s and 70s , imagine a story like The Sea Devils with a massive budget directed by Joe Ahearne ! Oh and one last request - Can we see these " NEXT TIME " trailers scrapped ? They reveal all the best bits of next week's episode I seriously enjoy Dr Who.

Seriously, don't just dismiss me as a "sci-fi person", because I'm not normally. I caught on because a friend got me hooked when they started watching it. It is actually really funny, and more often than not, it's fast-paced. All of my family watch it pretty much and that's a miracle.

Christopher Ecclestion is pretty good, but David Tennant is brilliant. I think it's because he made the Doctor so manic and it's just nice to have that little bit of eccentricity in a TV character again.

I don't know what it is about it, but everything manages to work like clockwork.

All I'm going to say is just try it. One episode (probably best if you don't pick the second half of a two-parter, though). 2005 will go down in 'Dr.Who' history as its most incredible year. Everything seemed to click; a first-rate new Doctor and companion, big audiences ( 10 million for the first episode and Christmas special ), major awards, critical acclaim and those idiots who spent years giggling at the Daleks' seeming inability to negotiate stairs were well and truly silenced. But then Christopher Eccleston dropped a bombshell, quitting after just one series. It looked like the honeymoon was over. Luckily, the public appears to have embraced his successor, the excellent David Tennant. On top of this the show boasts fine S.F.X., like the spaceship crashing into 'Big Ben' in 'Aliens Of London' and superb story lines such as 'Tooth & Claw', 'Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday'. The new 'Dr.Who' is basically the same as the old, only updated for the 21st century. Some fans have accused Russell T.Davies of 'ruining' the show. They need to remember that there was no show for sixteen years until he came along. I get a kick out of the new Who fans who call it, excellent,Their entitled to that opinion but the new series isn't quite there yet, it's getting there. It's definitely good.

First the good things. The special effects are obviously better nearly 20 yrs later since the last episode of Doctor Who "Battlefield" was aired.

One thing the BBC has always liked is Doctor Who (except when they tried to cancel in the 70's and 80's). However, the anticipation and the pressure was great but I think the New series has passed the test it's good, it's still not excellent because it does have it's flaws. Some of the stories "Dalek" were very poor. I assume it was written in a couple of minutes by some idiot who never bothered to remake the Dalek character or never bothered to watch the old series.

"Aliens in London" was by far probably the best episode so far, it started a new storyline about Aliens which has lasted across several episodes including "Boomtown".

Now the other bad things, the companion, Rose, Billie Piper, isn't great. She's actually quite annoying but as is Dr. Who a young teeny bopper had to be eventually chosen and she got the part.

Christopher Eccleston is pretty respectable, he's started to catch his niche. He tried to play the character, straight then funny always missing the right punchline but he's taken it much more serious and it shows.

Continuity wise there still some issues that didn't get resolved well, Paul Mcgann was still the doctor before this but he didn't get put back.

Aside from that though the series overall is pretty good, I haven't missed an episode and it never gets boring, so I recommend any Doctor Who fan to check it out and see the new Doctor Who series. As a child I was never in a situation where I could be introduced to Dr Who and though I had heard of the series in passing, I never really realized exactly what it was. It was, then, with some hesitation that i sat down to watch the ninth Doctor and his antics having be told that he was something like Arthur Dent (from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but cooler. I can't believe what I've been missing out on, seriously, why had no one told me about this before? My entire childhood was deprived of Doctor Who adventures; me being a tremendous fan of most sci-fi and fantasy adventures. Honestly, i thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to any future episodes.

I have to admit that at first I was not so sure that Billie Piper would be the best actress but I'm happy to say that she did very well, i thought, and added a very realistic touch to the series. I think, actually, that was one of my favourite aspects of the series; the contrast between great alien conflict scenes contrasted with the infuriating normality of the South London Council Estate life. I'm always interested in instances where people's ideas about the world are drastically challenged and how people can take any situation and edit it in their minds so that it may fit in with their mundane lives. I also loved Christopher Eccleston. I haven't seen many of his films and I've never seen another actor as Dr Who, but I thought his portrayal of the Doctor was brilliant, immensely likable and yet dark enough to make you wonder. I find that many other characters with his sort of character history tend to be a bit two-dimensional; they have all the right emotions and actions, but they always seems slightly shallow. This Doctor, on the other hand, earned my loyalty with his stratified personality. I agree with some of the other comments that a higher budget for the special effects, aliens and whatnot, might have been a bit more effective. but then again, this isn't about special effects (though they help) from what I've read and heard from long-time Dr Who fans; it's the spirit of the whole things that really counts. And I don't think they did a bad job with what they had. I quite liked all the aliens but my favourite had to be the Daleks; if I ever knew anything about Dr Who before watching the series, it was that there were things in it that looked like upturned dustbins on wheels. Previous to watching, i was quite sceptical about these pepper-pots threatening the existence of humanity but some of them were quite scary! Which I loved,of course.

Overall, a good show. I look forward to future episodes with delight. The Doctor has a new fan. I have just watched the season 2 finale of Doctor Who, and apart from a couple of dull episodes this show is fantastic.

Its a sad loss that we say goodbye to a main character once again in the season final but the show moves on.

The BBC does need to increase the budget on the show, there are only so many things that can happen in London and the surrounding areas. Also some of the special effects all though on the main very good, on the odd occasion do need to be a little more polished.

It was a huge gamble for the BBC to bring back a show that lost its way a long time ago and they must be congratulated for doing so.

Roll on to the Christmas 2006 special, the 2005 Christmas special was by far the best thing on television. Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around.

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!! i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as "camera copies" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.

when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, "cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is" (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...

bad wolf rules!!!!!

2008 update - i love David tennant! his "mod" persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving.

The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming "Exterminate" then).

A few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated, but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy come to life. She gives that to me.

The few things I don't like about this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so quickly, he really made the show brilliant.

But I can let those few things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind if they have stuff set on earth.

Just don't take this show seriously -- it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy!

ps -- don't watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2 were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish, completely destroys the show. Honestly, I don't really understand why there has been so much controversy about this show. It embraces the elements of the original, while expanding on them. The storytelling has been updated and, while some of the episodes seem to be a bit "Fast", that is a good thing.

Christopher Eccleston is perfect in the role. Easily as good as Tom Baker.

Rose is one of the best companions, on par with Sarah Jane Smith or Leela.

I like the concept that the timelords have been destroyed - No more politicking with the Doctor acting as president emeritus. And it adds something to the character to be the only one left.

The SFX are outstanding - especially in comparison to the original.

Take it from me (And I was a huge Dr Who geek - I actually took notes while watching the show all the way from Dr Number 1 to Dr Number 8. I tossed the horrible movie out of cannon, personally) this is the best sci fi show on TV right now, possibly ever. Watch it and buy the DVD. As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!

Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.

With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.

This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.

Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...

As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a lifetime." Unlike most people who've commented, I was born after the last Sylvester Mccoy Episode and so couldn't have compared the two centuries of doctor who at first. I thoroughly enjoyed it when Christopher Eccleston took control of the TARDIS and the continuation of the series. I have, since then, seen old episodes of Doctor Who and some where great, but, like the doctor, the series needed to regenerate to continue. The 21st century doctor who's are great, I thought Martha was great, almost a match for the doctor and if Jack's appearance is anything to go by, she's going to be brilliant when she cameos in series 4 or 5.

Speaking of Jack, the spin of, Torchwood is also brilliant and you should watch both of these programmes (though this is definitely more suitable for kids). However, if you insist that this isn't the same and just isn't Doctor Who, please, just stay in your basement.

10/10 I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new "Doctor who" started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off "Torchwood"). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.

in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening "companion" role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.

all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure. I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called "Blink" has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with "The Family" and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.

It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it. i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking I LOVE Dr WHo SO much! I believe that David Tennant is the best Dr the show has ever had and Billie Piper the Best companion! I liked the way the Dr and Rose had such a connection and a great relationship and the Dr came close a few times to expressing his love for rose! It sadly came to an end after only 2 seasons. I will miss watching rose heaps and think that the show will not be the same without Rose! But David is still there to make me laugh and make me happy to watch him play this fantastic role! I rate this show 110% it is FANTASTIC! The graphics and monsters in this show are wonderful and every storyline is different but somewhat connected and i have actually learned somethings about love, the world and relationships from this show. Therefore it must be one of the most fantastic shows of all time! First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.

This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.

A MUST SEE! I love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this. Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as Eccelson.

I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down.

Anyways, I think everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10/10 I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the "Doctors" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the "man" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about "Choice", "Love" and "Sacrifice". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor. As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.

Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.

This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!".

Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.

So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! - If you're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now. (Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!) Russell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are clearly all true devotees of the original series.

In much the same way as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if no expense was spared.

The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole programme over again.

How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1. One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.

Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and "The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.

She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.

Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here. For those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular. Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but.. this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor characters come alive.

I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here.. Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!! I enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans) through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this newer version.

Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant.

I like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain, anger, and sense of adventure right along with them.

Billie Piper (Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry. Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.

For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.

But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.

"Saturday Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake. If (as I just pointed out in THE GOAT) Keaton is following the tradition of the comics finding themselves at odds with the law, this Langdon short (the last released before he did TRAMP, TRAMP, TRAMP) was based on another comic ploy - being married to a shrewish spouse, and trying to get away for some secret two-timing dating. Laurel & Hardy did this in several films, as did Fields, and Chaplin.

I have a problem with it - why do these characters always marry such nasty women? And there is an interesting sociological side issue - why don't you find female comics married to male counterparts to these shrews? I can't recall any, except in a Carol Burnett skit, where the two nastier members of two couples discover that they prefer having someone give it back as good as they get (a kind of mutual sado-masochism, but also reassurance that their not married to a namby-pamby type). As for the fact that the comics do marry shrews, I suppose one can imagine they get what they deserve. Or do they? Ollie really deserves a wife who throws pots and dishes at him? Yeah he went to that convention in SONS OF THE DESERT that ruined her plans, but he wanted to get some private time - there is nothing suggesting he and Stan cheated on their wives. Actually he is creamed by Mae Busch because he lied to her while Stan collapsed and told the truth to his wife.

Here Harry's wife (Alice Ward) is shown at the start talking to her mother about how she keeps him under strict control. We see Harry at his job (it is Saturday morning, and the job ends at noon for the rest of the weekend - this was before the idea of a five - day a week, 40 hour a week job in industry). He works in a foundry where he hits red hot metal into shape (an early joke about Langdon - he is a small, light man, not the muscular type to swing a sledge hammer). He just misses his streetcar trying to give a man a light. He calls home to explain things and gets an earful from the missus for being two minutes late.

On the way home Harry meets his pal Steve (Vernon Dent) who has met two nice, sweet girls who would just love to have a date. Harry is hesitant but agrees to it after talking to the girl (he agrees to pay for the hot-dogs for the foursome - he has a 1926 silver half dollar in his pocket). But his plans seem derailed when his wife discovers his hidden "cache" of coins. He keeps it hidden under the living room rug, and finds it by walking along the edge of the rug. But his wife spies on him, and confiscates all of it. Later she overhears him talking to himself and berating her. In contempt she gives him back a dime and says he can treat his date to a soda.

But Harry has a second cache of coins, and dresses up for the date - and goes out. He and Dent are apparently late, and Dent blames Harry, but Harry tries to make it up to him: he produces two prostitutes. They get into a quarrel when Dent (wisely) says they are not the type of girls he'd term as "nice". Eventually the girls do show up and the date begins. But soon Harry is hiding in the rumble seat, as his wife drives past in her roadster, and the girls boy friends turn up - angry at their two rivals.

The short works well and is amusing, and gives one a better idea of the persona that Harry Langdon developed in his brief stardom as a comic master. He is constantly put upon by others. He misses his streetcar because some stranger keeps asking for a smoke and a light, and in the end the stranger gets his own. The nice girl who is Harry's date has a little dog who chases him away. He rests between two cars that both start driving away and he ends up wrapped around a pole. It certainly demonstrates that Langdon had his screen persona down pat by the time that he made his features. If only he could have kept the complex whole together beyond those three first features. "Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl.

It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives.

He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once.

Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that.

The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in.

This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed. I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe. He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview.

The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that "I have people who read that sort of thing for me."

All the time she was in her cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on her.

Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has "learned" her lesson, she answered his question, "Do you think you got a raw deal?" with a resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the situations in her life that she "finds" herself in, to which she pretty much stared at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge "role model" Hilton is to some people, and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy.

During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting out, "I don't have a favorite passage."

Judge Sauer, in my book, is a hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what she truly is. As talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a live audience.

On the other side, King's show is definitely much better than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to read the script.

When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones.

If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and/or researches everything written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000 times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry. Tia Carrere was the reason I decided to watch this film, as neither the title, nor the cover would have been enough to make me spend my time and money on this film – which goes to show, me and everyone, that a DVD shouldn't be judged by it's cover.

***SPOILERS*** The film felt like it was trundling along, not really going anywhere for the moment – the awkwardness of Paul Faber (Zak Orth) around girls being almost too embarrassing to watch, and the fringe on the otherwise attractive Kirsten Beck (as Alexondra Lee) being too school-girlish to watch. Where those really fashionable in 1995?

The relationship between Vicky Mueller (Tia Carrere) and Todd Boomer (Jason London) was tantalising from the start of though! That first meeting across the lake – magical. What a beautiful coincidence they should meet again just as he has behaved like a complete moron ("Boomer, with two O's as in moron…") in front of Alexondra. A shame really that we as the audience knew who Vicky Mueller really was. (Well… the title did give that away, wouldn't you think?)

What really surprised me was the acting. Especially in the scene where Vicky gives Todd a metal version of his alter ego (the dog character), in the little white jewellery box. The actors really managed to recreate that tingling sensation of a first kiss – point of no return for Todd and Vicky. A shame really that the film ends with focus on (after getting over Todd's fathers Harvard drive) his re-uniting with his friends. I could envision a whole new film – following Vicky to New York – there must be a good art University there that Todd could attend?!?

Nevertheless, a film that does just what we want Hollywood to: entertain us for the duration of the film. Did anyone else notice how none of the loves are happy ones in this film? Todd's mother is slightly insane (on the phone 24/7), his Dad doesn't find her attractive (any more?) Todd's teacher obviously is disenchanted by his wife and vice versa – Todd himself enters into a wonderfully erotic & daring relationship which, however nice it may be, would realistically be very difficult to maintain (age difference, maturity difference etc), and Alexondra & Zak do not get together because Alexondra is not mature enough to handle a relationship (-> her reactions towards the condom, the cheating, Zak's advances etc. are all very immature, and often involve running away), and Zak himself, the poor guy – is too much of a best friend/like a brother-guy to pull even Alexondra.

Mind you, good film though! I gave it an 8/10. Brilliant performance by the actors - who bring the script to life. To paraphrase Thora Birch: "I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film".

This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?

But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. "My Teacher's Wife" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.

Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in "The Man In the Moon" and "Dazed and Confused". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father.

As someone commented earlier, this is a "mature" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find.

But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a "believable" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,

"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.

So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.

When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!

However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.

It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film. Three American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action, romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to compare the two or even to consider this a sequel. The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to "An American werewolf in London". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.

I dare to say the opposite.

An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.

The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...

I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that!

The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.

There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.

So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars! I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying "London" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to "Paris" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel "What If" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title "An American Werewolf Comes Home" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!! OK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent movie as well.

First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2 American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor, action/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before 1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones, horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten path...

An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts at trying to re-create a classic. I have never seen "American Werewolf in London" but this movie was very entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in it, taking the violence seriously is hard.

J.Hurst (8th grade) this movie is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to admit it`s a good (not great) movie.

most if not all fx were done by C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman - (Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie.

there were a lot of wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to name but two.

this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine.

rating for this movie 8/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out there.

Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez

I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it. Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris" ("An American Werewolf in Paris") Of course I am going to think it was a great movie. I recognized several people I didn't see during filming also. I was the one playing the guard about an hour into the movie in the death row exercise yard asking for a light for a cigarette. I also changed this one scene. They had originally had it set to go into the rec yard and straighten out the inmate and turn him around and walk him out. The Director said "It is taking to long, what would you do Gower." I said, "We need to go in and hook the arms and drag him out backwards. That way your camera can stay on his face as we take him off set." I also lived at this same prison as a young child as my father was the Assistant Warden of Security. I am also a current employee with the Tennessee Deaprtment of Corrections as a supervisor at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Even though a lot of the movie was a joke, the part I was in was reality enough. Also in the bar scene the dancer kicking high in the air and leaving the stage was an actual stripper I use to work with at a club called "The Classic Cat". "Landscape after a battle" opens with escaping prisoners over a snowy field full of fences - in rather funny movements accompanied by Vivaldis Four Seasons. A touching opening. But we soon enough learn to know these prisoners as a mob, and when they (also treated humouristic) burry a man alive, the protagonist stops for a moment, but is soon more engaged in finding books from the turndowned camp than caring about his neighbour.

The rest of the film is set in an American camp from where the prisoners are not released, in some kind of semi freedom, semi camp. A perfect set for a study of war criminality, American camps, Polish nationalism, Catholisism, grief and human misery in general.

Film makes an important turn. In comes women, and with them film changes light, colour and temper. At the same time it turns out that these prisoners were slaves in Holocaust. I think a main underlying political theme of the film must mankind's treatments of Jews under and after the world war, and not only the Nazi exterminations, but mankind letting it happen - and even forcing them out of Europe after the war. On an emotional level the film is about grief and the problem with letting grief come, how environment makes grief difficult, and how difficult it can be to share grief for people with different experiences.

But the film is a carpet of underlying contradictions,humour, irony and sudden beauty. A couple of times during the film a gypsy prisoner plays on an harp, an emotional tune brutally rejected (filmatically speaking) by the protagonist. That example picks up an important essence of the film's style and theme. When it comes to humour its very comic how the protagonist constantly looses and finds back his glasses, in crowds, in hay stacks etc.

Its not hard to understand Spielberg's respect of Wajda when you see this film. The great treatment of light can be compared with Spielberg on his best. The Grunwald intermezzo speaks for itself. Narrativly it only brings the film out of the camp, but filmatically it brings the film to dream and eternity with profound beauty. Anyhow, there is also another scene I can't let go without comment. Its the Christian Supper. Undoubtly ironical, but simultaneously deeply religious we see the transsubstantiation moment, everybody falling on their knees, while the protagonist is saved from isolation by the priest to serve as a comic altar boy. His bells are mocking the scene, but also gives it emotion and love. When Nina gets her bread, sun light falls upon her and bells ring spheric, its the peak moment of the film.

Main actors are excellent in their roles. Olbrychski as the perfect Wajda protagonist - the doubting reflecting mind, unable to put all the aspects of his mind and emotion into life. Beautiful Celinska is with great body acting debuting in a character unable to express all her inner in her proud movements.

Those who try to describe everything, often are unable to take nothing in consideration. This is what Wajda manages. His films are either very moving, deep or beautifully shot, but pays attention to life's and society's particularity. A moment of joy for one, is the moment of irony for a second, the moment of grief for the third, a moment of nothing for the fourth.

There is at least two reasons to pay attention to Wajdas films of this period. First is the remarkable free expression of deep political impact. This country was the first to overthrow communism twenty years later. Second is the development of a filmatic and narrative language that Kusturica has rose to grandeur. In Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in Poland, freed immediately after the WWII.

A hand-held camera explores a lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence. Aside from the fact that the women in the film are stunningly beautiful and all the camp prisoners are too fat, this film rings true on the chaos of the post-war.

Beautiful photography, and a powerful national expression of the Polish national character.

It's very slow at points, but its entire pacing is so different from American and Western European films that it's quite refreshing.

Both lead actors do a very good job. On the DVD version, you can see interviews with the principal actors and crew, and the lead actress Stanislawa Celinska has gained about 50 lbs and lost all of her beauty. But in 1970, she was a stunner. Krajobraz po bitwie like many films of Wajda is, perhaps, not understandable for the "rest of the world". Story based on the few short stories of Tadeusz Borowski, who during WWII was the prisoner of Oswiecim, Dachau and Dautmergen camps. Borowski in his books describes inhuman life in the Nazi camps from the point of view vorarbeiter Tadek - porte parole of author who also was on the privileged position among the prisoners. Borowski was merciless for the humanity and merciless for himself. He describes the human history as the endless chain of exploitation and humiliation. Ironically, after the returning to Poland he stopped writing artistic prose and became communistic propagandist, producing stream of anti-imperialistic and anti-american press publications. After few years he committed suicide. In the movie Wajda changes point of view. Vorarbeiter Tadek - character created by the Tadeusz Janczar - plays only supporting role. Story is focused on the poet, destroyed, burned out by the war and imprisonement and his one-day love affair with Nina, Jewish girl who escaped from communistic Poland although she actually hates jewish life and mentality. As the background we can observe sad grotesque of so-called "dipis" (displaced persons) life, who after the liberation are settled by the Americans in SS barracks. Marches, patriotic kitsch mixed with hunting for the extra dose of food and/or prostituting German girls.

there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10 A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety. The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based. When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.

It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.

If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++ An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.

It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.

There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them. If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time. Everything about "Choose Connor" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!

Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and "the system" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.

I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain. Over the many years, there are some films that just slip by & hardly anyone views.

Choose Conner is one of those films.

This small gem played at some festivals & had a short 2 week run in a small theatre in West Hollywood making all of about $ 5500.

It is now on DVD I do hope many more will now see this,.

It is a strange drama of a shrewd youngish politician, who influences a very bright 15 year old lad.This politico also has a handsome nephew (about 17 years old) who befriends the 15 year old lad.

The above paragraph is slightly vague as to what occurs, SO is the film, & that is what I appreciated, we do NOT get all the facts,Much is left to our own thinking. You will hear dialog that makes this logical..

Steven Weber (Wings) is our politician,his role is slightly vague,this is another point for the audience to ponder

Alex D.Linz is our 15 year old, He was about 17 when they made this movie, but easily can pass for younger. He has been in films & TV since he was a young child, He is a very good actor & is quite convincing.

Escher Holloway is the older teen, This role is his first major part & he too is excellent.

Now I am saving the best for last, the writer/director,

Luke Eberl is not yet 23 years old. For a first effort a big thumbs up. I do hope he as well as our 2 lads have a long career.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 86 points(out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10) I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.

I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the "valuable lesson" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.

Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.

I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun. The plot line is an expose of the under belly of American politics. While the theme seems common, what "makes" the movie is the unconventional way the story is told.

The characters are played with conviction. You feel the innocence of the lead, and his innocence lost. The politician is the prince of double-talk, a real snake.

The camera work is impressive. It affirms the nuances of the acting and dialogue. Ditto for the music.

The story uses a parable-style with vingettes where the message is filled with double-entendres. A very canny strategy by the writer/director. The tension in the storyline is carried through to the last scenes.

The movie was like a good mystery book. Something was "afoot"; you knew it was bad; you didn't know exactly what it could be - you had your suspicions; and when the evil was revealed you let out your breath you hadn't noticed you were holding in. Saddened, shaking your head.

A story well written and well told. 3 cheers to a young writer/director. In this election year, where so much idealism is attached to one of the candidates, it is poignant to watch a film that warns us not to make an idol out of anyone running for public office.

Luke Eberl is the writer and director of "Choose Connor". There are significant parts of the film that reveal that he is a 'genius' when it comes to telling stories via the cinema.

Go see this movie before the election and then ponder why and for whom you will cast your vote.

Let you eyes be opened like those of the young protagonist.

A mix of "Citizen Kane", "Advise and Consent" and "Paths of Glory" by a young director as talented as those who made the films listed above. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that defines 1950s French Cinema.

Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also gave him a second chance at making films.

Jules Dassin gave the filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions. His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955). Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir pictures.

Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography, directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made in motion picture history.

The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118 minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion picture.

Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or/and music would ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency that never once lets down.

Maintaining a high level of suspense is what makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and tension.

Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann, Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc...

Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955). Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist. Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats.

Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) became a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end. Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed, that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense, character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that set the scene for film noire for years to come.

Cinematically and technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le Stéphanois's hallucinogenic drive towards redemption. RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955)

To me, it seems a very risky idea to attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off?

Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some "The Grandddady of all caper- and heist movies". In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic, beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film. Whatever one's opinion of the film.

In the last couple of years RIFIFI has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have some ammunition for comparing the two.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10 I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was released back in 1954!

I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print.

The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure quality.

Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry humour.

Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a gold star for effort!!

If you ever get a chance to see this movie, please do not hesitate, it's a classic.

After five years in prison, Tony le Stéphanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl Möhner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' Âge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.

"Du Rififi Chez les Hommes" is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Rififi" Or vice-versa.

This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.

Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.

Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.

In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the "good" bad guys we are identifying with and the "bad" bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even "good" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood "code," was "Crime Doesn't Pay," with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.

Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being "one last heist" for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.

One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.

Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full. The minutiae of what's involved in carrying out a robbery is what makes this one of the best of all heist movies. Then there's the robbery itself, a wordless, thirty minute nail-biter that has never been surpassed, followed by what is probably the cinema's most pronounced example of dishonor among thieves as things begin to spectacularly unravel, and we have what is unquestionably the greatest of all heist movies.

This was a tough and unsentimental film when it first appeared in 1955 and it is just as tough and unsentimental today. (It displays some of the edgy brutality of Dassin's earlier "Brute Force"). There isn't a flabby moment or duff performance in the entire film and Dassin captures the milieu of seedy clubs and Parisian back streets like no-one else and the final drive through Paris by a dying man is one of the most iconic closing sequences of any movie. A classic. This film is a work of pure class from start to finish, for a moment forget the famous 28 minute no dialog heist, forget that it's set in Paris and forget it's Noir. The film itself, the premise and the execution make this a pure gold experience.. it's sharp intelligent and thought through in great detail, just like the heist itself. It portrays real characters that are not only believable but whom you empathize with. It's a film that doesn't glamorize the notion of a robbery but shows it for what it is.. theft. It shows that a heist is hard work and ultimately not worth doing. Now all things considered put on top of that a daring 28 minute sequence with not a word spoken and set in gorgeous Paris with truly great attention to detail and fantastic cinematography and that last scene ...when you look up and see those trees... wonderful use of raw and basic filming techniques... it is a master piece in my view and I'm glad to have seen it. If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood demise.

"Rififi" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show them that way.

When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the Milanese, an expert safe cracker.

Tony, who has come out of prison recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado.

When the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away. Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which unravels the well thought plan.

Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men.

The film best asset is the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius as proved mainly with "The Naked City", "Night and the City" and "Rififi". As far as I am concerned, this film noir had two totally different things going for it as opposed to the film noirs I am used to viewing: 1 - the setting is Paris, France; 2 - there is 28-minute scene with no dialog.

Both make this movie a bit unique, at least to English-speaking film noir fans. Actually, an American, Jules Dussain, shot the film, so it's not entirely a European film. Initially, I was disappointed in this after I had watched the first 40 minutes. It's an expensive DVD and I was bored. However, once that silent segment started - the actual heist (you already know what's it about), the film picked up considerably and just got better and better.

In fact, I thought the best part of the story was what happened after the heist. The best aspect of the entire film was the cinematography. This is what makes the disc worth owning. It's excellent film noir photography and a real travelogue for those of us who have never seen Paris...and this is Paris in the mid 1950s. There are lots of bleak-but-interesting rain-soaked Paris streets and buildings I found fascinating to view. In fact, there were many more of those great shots than of London in the much better known film, The Third Man.

The lead actor in here, Jean Servais, I think his name is, also is interesting to view. Someone described his face as a cross between Humphrey Bogart and Harry Dean Stanton, and that sums it up perfectly. A warning for those not expecting profanity or nudity in a classic film. This is France, not the United States, so there is a little bit of both in here. I appreciate the DVD offering the choice of subtitles or a dubbed version, too. Du rififi chez les hommes is a brilliant film which studies criminal minds and allows viewers to have a better understanding of criminals who are fundamentally not different from ordinary folks like us.What director Jules Dassin shows is that criminal do have families and they care a lot for them.That is why they adhere to a strict code of honor. For them a family is not only made up of wives,mistresses and children but also include casual acquaintances and close friends.Contrary to what many might find it hard to believe,Jules Dassin has not tried to glorify crime in his film as rififi makes it clear that crime never pays.It shows that all kinds of bad activities result in some kind of human loss.Apart from its philosophical stance Rifif is worth watching for its technical finesse.While watching one of the film's most brilliant sequences about breaking of a safe,one would find it hard to believe meticulous precision with which criminal minds execute their plans.This is a scene which nobody has dared to copy in Hollywood. A recent re-issue of the French crime film (original title 'Du Rififi Chez les Hommes'), with its famous 20-minute silent jewel heist sequence, now comes in the US in a gorgeous new print from The Criterion Collection with improved subtitles and some extras. Jules Dassin was an American (born Julius Dassin in Middletown Connecticut) who was forced to make films in Europe because he was Blacklisted. Rififi was well publicized in the US and did well in art houses. Later Dassin became a lot more famous in the US for 'Never on Sunday' (1960) starring his wife, the Greek actress and political activist Melina Mercouri. (Greece was again glamorized and popularized for Americans and others with Anthony Quinn in Mihalis Kakogiannis' 1964 'Zorba the Greek', which was even a big hit in Cairo.) The new Rififi DVD includes a recent interview with Dassin. I did not previously realize that one of the main robbers, Cesar the Milanese, was played by Dassin, who stepped in when the original actor became unavailable. He's one of the most memorable characters, a dandified Italian safe cracker who speaks no French.

Although this classic has all the trappings of French film noir--the black and white twilight world of well lit apartments, shiny black cars, men in suits, the nightclub scenes, including a dramatically filmed and lit title song performed at the club, the stony faces and the Gauloises in hand or mouth--I don't think it's as atmospheric or has quite as distinctive a style as Melville's films do. But there's the mesmerizing robbery, which still holds up today as a tour de force. It goes like clockwork, with a fine sense of craft and teamwork among the robbers. Some nosy cops are efficiently dealt with. Things quickly go wrong after they go home and distribute the loot when one of the players gets sloppy and gives a dame a ring with a million-dollar bangle in it. Has there ever been a heist film whose perps lived happily ever after?

It's the wordless heist sequence that guarantees this a special place, and Dassin, an American director who had an unusually varied and exotic career, deserves full credit for that. He took a novel so conventional he was going to reject it, and added some key elements that make it special. In the event, he couldn't pass on doing the adaptation: he needed the money too much. Jean Servais, who plays the lead character Tony le Stephanois, was an actor rather down on his luck. His grim face is perfect for the role. He was later to play the lead in Dassin's He Who Must Die (1957), which used French actors in Greece for a political tale. 'Topkapi' is a somewhat disappointing 1964 caper film (it pales compared to 'Rififi') that also got US distribution. It does have a good setting, but it's wasted, gone all bland and bright and prettified. Of Dassin's post-Hollywood oeuvre, 'Never on Sunday,' with its catchy theme song and charismatic heroine, is the popular choice (and won Best Film at Cannes 1960); 'He Who Must Die' the political choice; 'Rififi' the genre choice. An odd piece is his 'Phaedra' with Mercouri and Tony Perkins (1962). Purists of tough-guy Hollywood genre work would eschew these and favor Dassin's early films, which include a prison drama, 'Brute Force' (1947);a cop flick, 'The Naked City' (1948); and two hard core noirs, 'Thieves' Highway' (1949), and 'Night and the City' (1950). Personally I tend to like French noir and American neo-noir spinoffs better than the original American noir source material--hence my enduring fascination with 'Rififi'. But Dassin is rather unique in having not only made Hollywood noir but then going over to Paris and producing a memorable example of its Fifties French derivative. After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin) I was more than excited to watch his "Masterpiece" (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI.

Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story.

So I have at least these five questions in my mind:

1. In the final Countdown Louis Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le Stéphanois. He couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

2. In another important scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid. And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL QUESTIONMARK.

3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE.

4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist?? Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too SIMPLE.

5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife. And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this Black/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story. In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands it. Jules Dassin is the master.

I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical Hollywood of its day.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has not has the pleasure of seeing it.

I cannot give it enough stars. I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer/director Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right to remake any of his films.

I love "caper" films and "film noir," and this combines the best of both.

Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl Möhner), What makes this a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance.

The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons, Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over.

A great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are measured. The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in today's cinema. I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.

In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.

John Servais plays the idea man Tony le Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.

The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.

It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially. This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own. well-made documentary about a sailing race, sanity and the loss of both.

i remembered reading Sir Francis Chichester's account of his trip around the world when i was in high school as i watched this film. what an adventure that was.

deep water tells an equally fascinating story.

it takes a special person and an excellent sailor to manage a non-stop trip around the world...alone.

this film does a great job of demonstrating that.

i love to sail, and my brother races J-30s.

but i could never accomplish such a feat. I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too. The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable. This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.

As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.

As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.

Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite". If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!" (7/10) What a trip down memory lane.

Do not look for great acting, believable plot lines, or anything resembling a quality movie.

This is pure blaxploitation at it's finest. Outrageous outfits, unrepeatable dialog, objectification of women, and the sleaziest cops you can imagine.

This vanity piece by the "Godfather of Rap," Rudy Ray Moore, who left us for good last week is the standard by which all blaxploitation is measured.

You not only see blaxploitation at it's finest, but get glimpses of his comedy genius, and see why his records were kept under the counter. Dolelemite (1975) is a cult classic. Starring Rudy Ray Moore as the pimp superhero out to wrong rights whilst challenging the MAN along the way. He has two enemies, that no good Willie Green and the sleazy mayor. Watch Dolemite kick, punch, slap and pimp his way across the screen. What's the man's name? DOLEMITE!

Interesting film that paved the way for a generation of rappers and performers. To sell more of his party albums, Rudy Ray Moore made several on the cheap films during the seventies. Self produced and marketed he catered towards a specific audience. Some people call it blacksploitation others call it trash, I call it entertaining. Dolemite was followed by the semi-sequel The Human Tornado and a direct to video Return of Dolemite 25 years later.

Highly recommended, a definite cult classic!

Footnotes, if the film was properly matted on video you wouldn't see the boom mikes. Dolemite was cut to receive an R-rating. Dolemite is, for me, an object of my deepest affection. It's got everything: a gang of karate-fighting prostitutes, Dolemite punching his fist through Willie Green's (director Martin) stomach, high pumps and 100 gallon dalmation-print hats. Moore's unique comedy raps, actually toasts, are close to the roots of hip hop. No wonder Dr. Dre mentioned "Dolemite" 3 times on his classic album "The Chronic." Add the best list of characters to ever grace a movie, like the horny preacher, the hamburger pimp and, of course, "the one who no one knows until it's time." Credit should be given for style to director D'Urville Martin, a fella who probly doesn't get as much attention as he should around film fan circles (I've been looking for a copy of his and Fred Williamsons' movies from the early 70s for years and can't find them).

A lot of people are really down on this movie and say it's really bad, and it is true that you can see boom mikes appearing everywhere (look to DP Nicholas Josef Von Sternberg, for whom I think this was a very early effort), there are a lot of things going for this movie. Number one, there is no other movie like it. Number two, you get to see Rudy Ray Moore do a (highly sanitized; everyone who HASN'T seen Moore's outrageous live act will have to use their imaginations) cinematic version of his toasts, plus him living the life of his comic book character superpimp come to life. The action scenes are pretty poor, but the characters' dialogue when they're talking trash more than makes up for it. It's full of strange little details (like the fact that the Hamburger Pimp is wearing a Dolemite T-shirt inside out -- was this intentional or did the guy just pick up whatever shirt was lying on the set and put it on?) that keep you coming back to watch it again and again.

At least I have.

Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie.

Rudy Ray Moore knew what he wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties. A blaxploitation classic, this movie was terribly influential in rap music for the "toasts" that Rudy Ray Moore performs. Toasts are long rhyming stories that are funny and deliver a point, and you can see how they would naturally evolve into rap. For more on toasts, Rudy Ray Moore, and why this movie is important, go to Dolemite.com.

Which leaves us just to talk about the movie itself. This movie packs in a great deal of "laugh-at-the-funny-outfits-and-hairstyles" bang for the buck, as nearly every shot has some sort of outrageous element or dialogue. It starts as Dolemite is being released from prison in order to find out who framed him and bring him to justice. I was unaware that prisons release people so they can prove their own innocence, but that's me, I'm a neophyte in the prison scene. He is helped in this by Queen Bee, who is Dolemite's lead prostitute and has been running his brothel while he's been gone. She has also put all of his prostitutes through karate school, so now he has an army of female karate fighters.

I watched this movie in two parts, which is usually a mistake, but in this case it provided an interesting contrast. The first part I watched on my lunch break while exercising, and wasn't enjoying it much at all. It struck me as particularly poorly made blaxploitation, with a ludicrous story, shoddy craftsmanship—well, I guess that makes it sound like it had SOME craftsmanship—and tons of outrageous locales, outfits and dialogue. But I wasn't enjoying that—in fact, it kind of made me feel dirty. Let's face it, a white guy watching something like this to laugh at the outfits and the things the characters say is essentially getting an enjoyment out of it that is racist: how ridiculously those black people dress, what silly things they say. I wasn't really enjoying it, wasn't laughing, and wasn't looking forward to watching the rest.

Later that night, when I was in a "much more relaxed state," I watched the rest—and legitimately loved it. Like Disco Godfather, which I had watched a few days previously, this has a warmth and sweetness at its core that makes it likable even when it's silly or violent. The character of Dolemite has an element of self-parody about him that makes the whole thing fun, and the appearance of several actors who were also in Disco Godfather implies that we're watching the group effort of a bunch of friends who just want to make something fun together. Even the poor dubbing, karate fights, and everything else just makes it that much more charming.

What I find interesting about the Dolemite films is that they have some moral ambiguity I don't see in other blaxploitation films, and certainly in very few mainstream films. In this one, there is an African-American woman who gives a speech about the (white) Mayor, saying "he has done more for the black community than anyone." We later find out that the Mayor is, surprise, corrupt, but I like that the movie would present this woman as essentially misguided and not try to "redeem" her in some other way. There's also the figure of the Hamburger Pimp, who is presented as a useless junkie, and no one makes an effort to find some redeeming, socially positive angle to what he is, he just is. In Disco Godfather the religious character Lady Reed plays is presented as just nuts for wanting to pray for her child, hopelessly lost to angel dust. I like that the films would present such harshly critical portrayals of people in their own community without sugar-coating or trying to redeem them to make them more palatable.

There are a lot of hootworthy elements, such as when Dolemite says "Move over and let me pass, or I'm gonna be pulling these Hush Puppies out your muthatf** a**." There is Queen Bee reaching over and answering the phone: "Dolemite's Total Experience." And you will not be able to miss (though you may wish to cover your eyes) the extended nude scene by the REPULSIVE Mayor. I am all for mustachioed pervy older men, but even I have limits—-and my limits are usually a few miles past most people's, so be warned. The DVD I had is clearly edited, which is noticeable in certain of the dialogue scenes, and at the end, when Dolemite's killing of a major character with his bare hands obviously excludes the main event.

If you do get the DVD, however, be sure to watch all three trailers for the Dolemite films, as they are a hoot. I wasn't going to watch The Human Tornado, but after seeing that trailer, you'd better BELIEVE that I am. Also, there is a scene in the Dolemite trailer that I don't remember from the movie when Dolemite swings at a Mexican-looking thug, obviously misses, and the guy flips himself into a nearby car trunk.

After watching the first half, I was going to say to skip this and watch Disco Godfather, as the film-making and story has marginally improved, but after really enjoying the second half, I would advise watching this one over Disco Godfather, as this one is even more exuberantly fun, outrageous, and good-natured—and has those toasts which, even if one doesn't understand the roots and nuances of the form, are still something to see.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com Dolemite is a blaxploitation film about, well, Dolemite and his army of kung fu killer women, led by Queen Bee. He fights to get his club, The Total Experience, back from Willie Green by utilizing their kung fu abilities and their devotion to him. I liked this movie because of the witty dialogue and also the use of Rudy Ray Moore's ability to preach to his brothers in rhyme. Dolemite is awesome. Rudy Ray Moore's rhymin kung fu pimp with horrible choreographed action sequences is about as close as you can get to becoming a spoof of a genre without actually being spoof. Citizen Kane this may not be nor Les Infant Au Revoir, but this is undoubtedly genius in it's own right. The production values in this movie are so bad they could qualify as existential special effects. The plot drags a little in the middle but the power of such a cheap premise as kung fu hookers is enough to bring all but the snootiest film lovers through. The infamous ever present boom mike evokes shades of the gloriously incompetent Ed Wood and never grows unfunny. I sometimes wonder if the boom mike was left in on purpose as commentary on the ridiculous aspects of movies in general but i usually get distracted by erotic scenes that lack eroticism to the point of high art mundanacity. Everything is this movie is alive and breathing, dripping with desperate longing to be simultaneously loved and reviled. It works.

9 out of 10 Yeah...I read David Lee Roth's autobiography, "Crazy From the Heat," (which by the way is an amazing read), and DLR says this was his favorite blacksploitation movie as a kid. In fact, he says he always imagined himself as a black guy in Southern Cal. Mr Roth is quoted as saying:

"We saw every Blacksploitation picture, and those movies were a HUGE influence on me. Trouble Man, Superfly, Foxy Brown, Shaft, Cleopatra Jones, Blacula, Rudy Ray Moore doin' his Dolemite vibe-I saw all of those..."

He goes on to say:

"Dolemite - Rudy Ray Moore - was one of the originals. He was a blue comic, doing blue humor. Like Redd Foxx did on early party records. So he was the most perfect to play a new secret agent. His answer was not "Bonds. James Bond." His answer was "Dolemite, motherf*****!" We would wait for that line in all of his movies. "Get Whitey" would show up in every single movie at least once, and we would wait for that, too. They had the cars. They had the shoes. They had the guns. The Haircuts. The Slang. And the scams. And we all knew that all those beatific resolves at the end of the movie were white bull****. He's trying to feed hungry children but he's actually a pimp...bull****. That was designed to make it palatable to our moms and dads so they'd let us go see the picture."

Spoken like a true genius. So upon reading about Dolemite in Mr. Roth's book I immediately bought in on DVD and I really like it. Yeah, it's super low-budget, and yeah...I hate rap...but as a fan of Tarantino movies, I can see many similarities, especially some of the 70's fusion/funk ala-jaco pastorius music throughout the film. I also love the scene where the two cops 'bust' him for coke and then one of them snorts a whole bunch of it like he'd done it a thousand times before, and says something like, "Aww yeah....that's the real mccoy!"...and then he continues to talk and has a little bit of coke still on his lip. CLASSIC! Some of the violence is a little over the edge, but shocking, which I would consider to be a positive quality. Not as predictable as I assumed it would be. Definitely going to pick up "The Human Tornado" very soon. 10 out of 10. Rudy Rae Moore is getting out of prison and getting revenge! Often referred to as the Godfather of Rap, he should also be the Godfather of great movies. The non-stop action will keep you on the edge of your seat and will leave you begging for more. Luckily, Rudy comes back as Dolemite in Human Tornado, so sit back relax, and have the rewind button ready because you won't believe your eyes!! Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know that "The Human Tornado" was several times better than this. I think that those who can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again. Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed. Citizen Kane....The Godfather Part II....D'Urville Martin's Dolemite. This is the single greatest piece of celluloid ever created and unleashed upon humanity. Rudy Ray Moore, in a role that transcends Academy Awards stars as Dolemite, the baddest cat in the universe. He clearly does not take any jive from no turkey (I myself am unfortunately a turkey) and proves it with his powers of rapping, pimping, and karate chopping. This is blaxploitation at its absolute finest, a shining example of the genre with its low budget, continuity errors, and hatred for rat-soup eating honkey expletive expletive. The true Godfather of Rap (not this new Ali nonsense) Moore is something of a juxtaposition of acting technique; somehow managing to be the most charismatic awful actor of the 1970's, and thats saying something. This one is HIGHLY recommended folks, if not for the one-liners alone. Dolemite is one of the best movies featuring a pimp as a hero, who takes down the man, meanwhile hooking up with all the finest women that the ghetto has to provide. Mind you that these women know karate, and are fine foxy ladies.

SPOILER--the end fight scene is pretty crazy, with Dolemite ripping the heart out of Willy Green. Make sure your copy is unrated.

Plus there are a cast full of innovative brilliant characters like the Hamburger Pimp, Reverend, Mayor, Queen Bee, and others. The apparel is great, and the sets are full of 70's style. There are a few mess-ups in the production, such as boom mikes accidentally appearing, among other things, but that adds to the charm and laughs.

I would recommend drinking a 6-pack before and during this movie, and keeping squares and the man a far distance away. Dolemite may not have been the first black exploitation flick to come along but it certainly is one of the best. It is a pivotal film in the Black Exploitation genre as where it caused a dramatic shift between the films that came before it in contrast to the films that came after it. It wasn't necessarily a poignant or moving film about black culture and it's fight to overcome issues like racism or anything as important as that, but it was the story of one bad-assed dude fighting "whitey" with his army of hot kung-fu mama's. It was a guilty pleasure, great fun and best to watch it with friends. (10 out of 10) This movie is all about blaxploitation, there is absolutely no plot at all. A pimp stops some bad guys with his kung fu hoes to try to get his nightclub back. Rated R for Strong Language, and a brief sexual situation. The various Law & Order and CSI franchises had better be glad Dolomite doesn't pass through. The lady cops,ADAs,and coroners would all be enthralled and the males be subject to such soul shivering,badge melting warp speed kicks ( Wouldn't you just love to see David Caruso's Horatio and that know it all on CSI get Dolomite's Hush Puppies pulled from their respective asses)Ice T might start crying and get back on the Playa Trail.

Low low budget,bad but enthusiastic acting,and a vision at what gutbucket nightclubs offered to its patrons;funk bands soul singers,the last vestiges of old style Chitlin Circuit entertainers( that weirdling dance troupe)James Brown,Wilson Pickett,Otis Redding,and a host of others came from those clubs to glory, while their peers labored on in local or regional stardom. Rudy Ray Moore came from that background and the character of Dolomite is a mix of the bold Black badasses who strutted through. He shouldn't have went to the joint, the swine didn't have a warrant, how his middle aged ,blubbery self maintained a loyal stable of kung fu wenches is a mystery only a student of cults can explain, but all that is beside the point. It's a glorious home movie of a legendary performer that compared to the mirrors of actors ranging from Established Hollywood to indie film snorefests,hits its mark. A fun dumb movie! Anybody interested what black film making was like in the 70's watch this film. Some the dialog in this film is so funny IE the summary of my submission. Also watch out for the boom mic to show up in some of the scenes as well as some of the best karate action ever. Don't take this movie seriously or you will be disappointed, go into it with an open mind and step into the world of one the the baddest mutha in the world Dolemite!!! Editing wise its put together like it was sliced with a razor but once again this film is so much more than what you see in the movie it has influenced the black community in ways you cant understand!!! Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, "The Human Tornado" The best so-bad-it's-good movie ever made. Rudy Ray Moore is my personal hero. Whether dealing with day to day life or pimping ho's down the block, I can always look to him for inspiration and guidance. When it comes to blaxploitation, Rudy's the man. Nobody is meaner. Watch Dolemite as he and his army of all-female kung fu killers take down Mr. Big and Willie Green. Awesome plot, huh? There are so many one-liners that multiple viewings are necessary to improve your vocabulary. If you say a couple of lines from Dolemite, you are instantly cool. If you are in the mood for a laugh riot, rent this movie. Also check out The Human Tornado, Disco Godfather, and Petey Wheatstraw the Devil's Son-In-Law. Now, can you dig that?

"You no business barring, insecure, rat soup-eating, motha!!'" This movie is funny in more ways than one. It's got action. It's got humour. It's got attitude. It's got Dolemite's all girl army of kung-fu hos! And that's just what the movie offers as a film. It's also badly acted by some, the mic makes more than one cameo appearance, and some "punches" miss by feet. But when you make a movie this cool, who's got time to pay attention to those "details"? This movie rocks. Rent it tonight, if you can find it... I had to buy it to see it, but I don't regret it! If you watch this movie you'll be quoting it and referring to it for a long time to come. It's been years since I saw Dolemite and I still quote it to this day. It's a true classic. It is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes a hilarious view. Every terrible line of dialogue is totally amazing. Every wobbly shot a work of art(?). And every punch and kick so woefully executed. You won't believe your eyes. It's all I can say. If I really get into how mesmerizing this movie is I won't be able to stop and I'll go way over the IMDb 1000-word limit.

Please, please watch this movie. You'll be in hysterics. Either 1/10 or 10/10, depending on your sense of humor. I find this film meretricious, tentative, lethargic, and skillfully a bad choice of entertainment on celluloid. But I admire the courage to throw away a script, turn the camera on, and act a fool. I find the inauspiciously performances, lighting, cinematography, sound, and whatever film school laws D' Urville Martin broke funny. Speaking from a film directors perspective there is times I just want to drop everything and have fun on the set. This film looks like fun. When other aspiring film directors ask me advice I just tell them to watch any film by Rudy Ray Moore. They always return a puzzled look asking me why not watch the masters Woody Allen, Scorsese, Lucas, Capra? I laugh and include that you always want to know what not to do in cinematic story telling first. I was fortunate enough to catch a midnight screening of this movie tonight. I must say, I was expecting a horribly cheap movie with bad acting and a mediocre plot. I was completely mistaken. This movie was not only incredibly entertaining, but everything about it I simply loved. Bruce Campbell was as amazing as ever. The biggest surprise was none other than Ted Raimi, you know, Sam's little brother. He played the mad doctor's henchman to the greatest extent. Somewhere between physical comedy and clever dialogue, he did nothing but shine. But i really cannot ignore the magic that is Bruce Campbell. Though I did think that Ted Raimi stole the show, Bruce did what he does best on the big screen. Somewhere between the sketchy nasty American business man and the tragic victim, he displayed the same energy that he has always shown to be incredibly attractive to audiences. The movie itself was often interrupted by applause from the viewers. The crowd was definitely excited with each little turn that the movie took.

This movie may not be Oscar material, but my goodness, it was amazing. I would highly recommend this to any Bruce Campbell fan. Also, anybody that likes campy sci-fi movies, do yourself a favor and watch this. Can't wait till this makes it out to DVD.

Take it as you want to....

- the fed I don't know what some people were thinking when they said this movie was bad. It Was Great. Classic Bruce Campbell, yes it was low budget and the special effect showed this but that is not what you see a Bruce movie for you watch it for Bruce. Also Ted Rami was excellent. I found this movie hilarious and entertaining I still crack up when I recall Bruce on that pink moped. Now I will admit this movie is not for everyone if you don't like B movies you probably won't like this one if you crave big budget effects and actors steer clear. But if you like slap stick and off the wall sci-fi plots this movie is for you.

Hail The King Baby! I went to see this movie at a book signing in Lexington, Ky last night. After a wonderful night that consisted of a few brief words with Mr. Bruce Campbell (you have to say it all, not just Bruce or Mr. Campbell ;D), friends while the books were being signed, and a QnA session with our favorite deadite killer the lights dimmed.

So as not to spoil anything, I wont go into detail...but I loved the movie! Mr. Bruce Campbell did a wonderful job keeping the classic b-movie feel. The characters were classic 'b' characters, the place was refreshing (what movies do *you* know of that are based in Bulgaria?) and the setting was both near-original and fun! On top of that the humor that is portioned throughout the movie that kept the audience laughing through much of the movie.

While this movie dosen't have as great of a general appeal to people as some, it is a beacon of fun and laughter in a season of (as Mr. Bruce Campbell put it) 'b-movies' that are listed as 'a-movies' (Bewitched, Dukes of Hazard, Charlie and the Chocolate factory? Come on guys!). Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel maid gypsy.

William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a voice in his brain who controls half of his body.

The Man With The Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce Campbell, or B-movies in general. These are the kinds of movies I loved, and still love growing up. Unlike big budget movies that crate huge plot holes and never acknowledge them. This movie takes in all in stride and just makes something you can sit back and enjoy.

There was some film student earlier that complained it wasn't A list material. But that is not the point. The point of this movie is that no everyone likes huge CGI Cliché' filled movies. There are a lot of people who like movies that are meant to just entertain you, and not get as much money as they can.

Besides, its also nice to know that good ol' Bruce isn't dead yet. I saw it last night and I was laughing out loud for the whole second half of the movie. The whole audience was. Bruce Campbell has made a damn funny movie! I don't want to give anything away, but when the film turns and gets wacky, it gets really wacky. Just one funny scene after another. My hats of to Mr. Campbell and crew for pulling this off on such a tiny budget. Bruce was there to introduce the film and do a Q and A, which was a treat. A lot of the questions people were asking were pretty lame, but Bruce would turn it around on them and be all sarcastic. He was great! Anyway, loved the film. I'll be looking forward to seeing this on DVD later this year. B sure to check it out on the Sci-Fi channel this fall. I highly recommend this one. Okay, so I love silly movies. If you enjoy silly sci-fi movies, over the top movies, or if you are a fan of Mr. Bruce Campbell, i would go see this movie. This movie is all that i wanted it to be. Being a fan of over the top movies, this fit the bill. Every time i thought to myself "this movie would be the sillest, best movie ever if *blank* would happen...." then just as i thought it, *blank* would happen. It's a wonderful silly 'b'-movie. If you are a fan of Campbell i'd say 'see it', bring your friends, laugh at it. It's fun. It's not classic, or anything, but if it's on TV some night, watch it. It has become, for me, a movie i would file under "indulgent movies". Movies that may not be good, but after a hard day of work, i could come home and watch, (this list also includes 'harold and kumar go to white castle', 'army of darkness', and ' Intolerable Cruelty' )

If you feel like a over the top, wonderfully slightly bad movie, watch this. if not, go rent "Bubba Ho-tep" This is screamingly funny (well, except when Bruce is in the hospital scene, which is a little sad).

Ted Raimi and Stacy Keach are both excellent and worth watching.

Sure, it's not a big budget-suit controlled blockbuster, but it's everything it promises to be and more- and BTW- the women are wonderful in their parts, though I don't know them from other movies, I'd welcome seeing them again.

The two-brain walking scene is inspired and certainly a showcase for Bruce's outstanding physical comedy- he is one yummy guy!

Thanks Bruce, for your brain, this is your baby! Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.

For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.

The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.

With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.

If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell? This was a funny movie. Just having seeing the Evil Dead trilogy not a week ago (and left wanting for more), I got as many Bruce Campbell movies as I could, including really bad ones. This one is funny, without being exceptional, but as sure as hell original.

I mean you've got mad scientists, superhuman cyborgs, half brain freaks, gypsies, ex KGB cab drivers, jealousy, murders of passion, love, romance, sex, action and what more, all with the same 6 actors :)

You really have to see it and enjoy it, I can't explain it in a text box. I guess it is not so much a cult movie as Evil Dead was, but it certainly has that Bruce Campbell touch I love. Ted Raimi lends a hand, Tamara Gorski looks both beautiful and interesting (she has gone a long way from the hooker in Friday the 13th) and Vladimir Kolev also shows a lot of promise as an actor, although he will probably be cast as secondary character in Hollywood movies his entire career.

Bottom line: funny movie. If you liked Evil Dead you'll like this, too. I saw this last week during Bruce Campbell's book tour. I thought it was amazing. Almost everything I would expect from a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie. Its campy and very funny. Ted Raimi was also hilarious and extremely goofy. The plot is wacky, an American business man goes to Bulgaria and is killed. Stacy Keach plays a mad scientist who saves/brings Bruce Campbell back to life by implanting half of the brain of an ex-KGB turned cabbie. Bruce Campbell spends the rest of the film trying to avenge his death and has many internal arguments between himself and the KGB agent. The movie has all the great Bruce Campbell slap stick and humor. The movie is somewhat predictable, I knew once the wife was killed that she would be sharing a brain with her killer. However I didn't go to see this movie because I thought it would have an Oscar winning script, I went to see it because it was a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie and I was not disappointed in the least. I highly recommend that you go see him on his book tour or wait and watch it on the sci-fi channel next month. Although before the movie he said the Sci-Fi channel did cut some of the movie out to make it TV friendly. If you are a fan of Bruce, I highly recommend it. I haven't seen so many people packed outside a theater since Star Wars Episode III. Both shows sold out, and for good reason. The Man With the Screaming Brain was the best movie to see with a crowd full of geeks. (Hey, I'm a dork too.)

Bruce Campbell was present and had the whole crowd in stitches! The movie was cheesy in the best possible way. It may be the funniest movie that Bruce has done. Ted Raimi steals the show with his Bulgarian hip hop-itude and zany facial expressions, he is a laugh riot! Who knew that Ted could rap?

I changed my mind, the person who stole the show was actually a robot. There is nothing funnier than a robot...doing the robot.

As for Bruce's performance: "I take the 5th." Thanks Bruce. Thanks for being cool, thanks for taking the time, thanks for all of the fun. Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess (I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense) than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I, personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather, spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the best with what you had. ;| (Some Spoilers) It took some 19 years for Bruce Campbell to finally put his masterpiece " Man with the Screaming Brain" on the screen. But Campbell had to alter his story by having it, due to financial problems, take place in Sofia Bulgaria not where he initially wanted it to be filmed in Los Angeles California.

In the film Burce Campbell plays US pharmaceutical tycoon Willian Cole who travels together with his spoiled rotten wife Jackie, Antoinette Byron,to the former Communist Republic of Bulgaria. It's there that William wants to help finance Bulgaria's almost non-existent mass transportation system.

It's poor William's misfortune to get involved with both Gypsy woman Tatoya, Tamara Gorski, and her ex-boyfriend Yegor, Valdimir Kolev, an ex-KGB taxi driver. The two, William & Yegor, will unwittingly end up shearing their brains, inside William's skull,because of Tatoya's jealousy and vindictiveness.

After Tatoya murders both William and Yegor their bodies are delivered to mad scientist Dr. Ivan Ivanowitch Ivanov, Stacy Keach, by his loyal assistant Pavel, Ted Raimi, to have their brains experimented with. Dr. Ivanov has this theory in that two heads are better then one. And now with the material, William & Yegor, available to him Dr. Ivanov at last is finally going to prove it. What Dr. Ivanov is going to sadly find out is that by fusing the two heads, or brains, together their brain waves will overlap and cause them to not only malfunction but turn against each other!

William with Yegor's right lobe fused into his damaged brain is out to find Tatoya and make her pay for the damage she caused both him and Yegor. Yegor for his part is stuck in William's head who's likes and dislikes, in both food and drink, are totally opposite to his own. This causes a lot of tension and hostility between the two brains in them fighting for control of William's body!

Things get even more screwed up when Jackie finding out that Tatoya murdered her husband William confront her in the dangerous and high crime section of Bravoda call Gypsy Town and ends up being murdered herself. Brought back to Dr. Ivanov by his assistant Pavel it's determined, with no body available,to plant Jackie's brain inside of an experimental robot that Pavel's been working on. The operation is a rousing success but the only drawback is that Jackie, with her brain inside the robot, has to have her brain recharged every few hours! Or, like a real brain lacking oxygen, she'll die together with the robot's batteries.

Combination 1930's-like screw-ball comedy and horror flick with both William & Yegor turning the Bulgarian town of Bravoda upside down in trying to find Tatoya and make her pay, with her life, for the sad state of existence she put them both into.

***SPOILER ALERT*** It's Dr. Ivanov who in fact saves the day by discovering how to keep the two brains from fighting, and thus cooperating, with each other! This is done by him instead of fusing the brains together Dr. Ivanov keep them independent by implanting a neutralizing cell wall in between the two uncooperative globs of gray matter. Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell, meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm, cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?), and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his panic and screams at a statue, "What are you looking at?!" The movie looks like a Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning, yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard "bumbling assistant" role admirably enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk. (Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre, nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a cinematic experience too seriously. an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch. Or if you've seen the "Evil Dead" trilogy and/or "Bubba Ho-Tep", then you should know that his movies are total farces. With "Man with the Screaming Brain", he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in "All of Me".

Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.

So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway. OK, well, no one in their right mind(s) would pick up a movie titled "The Man with the Screaming Brain" and expect it to be serious. This is an outrageous b-movie, and that means a truly hokey plot, strange characters, clichés, over-the-top action, and oh-so-cheesy one liners. For that odd segment of the population (including myself) that gets a kick out of that kind of thing, this is a gem.

The acting is better than expected. Stacy Keach is embedded in his character. Bruce Campbell brings a spirited, convincing performance. His physical comedy skills are truly impressive in this movie and hearken back to the "Evil Dead" films. Its really been a long time since the last time somebody created a movie such as like this on. A so called B movie. Maybe it was not a great movie, but it is fun to watch, classic Bruce Cambell, it has its Good parts, funny ones, Disgusting ones, even artistic ones.

******Spoiler Ahead*******

----------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------

The part where his wife as a dummy-robot-avenger is about to die, I don't know about you, but it made me feel so weird, so sad and disgusted in a good way. I compare this scene with the scene form the Fly 2 where his dog as a monster dies. Makes you think oh my god.

---------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------

********No more Spoilers*********

If you are a Bruce Cambell fan, you definitely wanna have this movie in your collection. If you are generally interested in movies, you might wanna. Just think that the movies target is to make you smile, gross you out(Don't worry not that bad though) and make you have a good time with your buddies. Attention, I said buddies, not possible future girlfriend. Now, the sci-fi channel original company has made some pretty crappy films (House of the dead 2, All souls day, etc.) but when you leave the job entirely to horror master actor/writer and now director, Bruce Campbell, you get one of the best damn made for TV independent horror films ever made! I normally hate these movies, in my previous review, House of the dead 2, I could not believe how horrible the film was! But somehow I took a liking for this film, a very good liking for this film. The violence is good and so is the black comedy in the film and I recommend you get it, a true Bruce Campbell masterpiece! Well, since there is only a few more lines left I can say whatever I want about this movie: IJAJKASIF JHJDJ NXD FNEHSD FHNCFNFVHS DJKEALJWSNS.UHHD SISHSNHF AHCNAKDJH HNDCHJNDNH JACND HCHJNNHW JHJ NASHDNFHCKA FHNKHAD SAKASDADJ FJKDFA It's taken years for cult icon Bruce Campbell to get this project off the ground - but he finally has, it's here - and what a great piece of schlock entertainment it is! Looking at the plot; it sounds like two things. A great base for a very silly B-movie, and a shameless excuse for Bruce Campbell to what he does best - Evil Dead II style slapstick humour, and this film delivers on both counts. The Man With the Screaming Brain is comic book nonsense all the way through - but there's some really great scenes, and it's almost impossible to be bored with this movie. Bruce Campbell wrote, directs, produces and stars in this film - and while it's not quite Citizen Kane, it has to be said that this is an achievement for the man most famous for battling off his own hand in a woodland cabin. The plot follows American businessman William Cole on a business trip to Bulgaria with his girlfriend. The trip goes awry, however, when he, his girlfriend and his taxi driver end up dead; thanks to the same woman. Mad scientist Stacy Keach is on hand to merge Cole and the taxi driver's brains into one; and we've got a cult flick on our hands.

The first half hour or so is entertaining and features a few laughs; but once the main plot point has been executed; the movie really picks up. Bruce makes best use of the scenario in all kinds of silly situations, from changing his clothes in a waste bin, to deciding (with the taxi driver in his brain) what to eat in a restaurant. The humour is mostly of the slapstick variety, and anyone who enjoyed Evil Dead II (which should be anyone who's seen it), will no doubt enjoy this too. It does feel like Campbell is playing to his strengths a little bit too much with this whole project, but if you tuned in and DIDN'T see Bruce doing what he does best, disappointment would ensue. Besides that, no disrespect to the man; but he's never been the actor with the greatest range. Despite being lots of fun; the movie isn't great, as it gets a little bit too silly at times; and there's a whole sub-plot with a robot that I didn't like; but overall, The Man With the Screaming Brain is a film that we, sadly, don't see too much of nowadays. The film is an all-out, no holds barred, B-movie; and it deserves respect for that if nothing else. I am a firm believer that a film, TV serial or any form of art should and would be fully appreciated once the timing factor- as to when written, produced or conceived-should be taken in to account.

Yeh Jo hai Zindagi is one such series. I remember watching it in the mid-80's on TV and the re-runs via the video cassette libraries during early 90's. and laughing out loud and being addicted to it. That made me buy the full series DVD set and surprise of surprises- the comedy and the moments of the good 'ol days simply fell flat for me. Even the very popular "30 years ka experience" "GULAAAAB JAMUN!" and "Sofa cum bed" did not invoke the kind of mirth I thought it would. The timing factor: for the 80's, this was the showstopper. The main event. The mother of all TV comedies. And it worked during the age and time! Perhaps the same cannot be said right now, but nonetheless, watching the DVD did bring back pleasant memories.

I wish the seasons with Shafi Inamdar and Swarup Sampat were longer. Satish Shah has been un-believably good as the heart of the show, with equally effective support cast of Farida Jalal, Tiku Talsania and the bengali neighbours. Rakesh Bedi hams throughout.

All in all, an experience that will bring back memories for those who saw it during the prime times, might not appeal to the younger viewers or first time watchers! One of the best sitcoms to run on Indian television along with Dekh bhai dekh and Idhar udhar. Great acting, well paced and an extremely amusing script made this a truly memorable series. The fun filled opening montage (sung by none other than the inimitable Kishore Kumar)gave a very accurate picture of what one could expect. I used to borrow it from my local video library years after Doordarshan had stopped airing it. I wish Indian television would revert back to serials such as these rather than the asinine saas-bahu soaps and reality television which is all its good for these days. Anyone who's found of genuinely good comedy ought to go and get this series. You'll might also enjoy a couple of Pakistani sitcoms such as ups and downs and aik aur aik which are certainly comparable to India's best. I saw this title again on Shemaroo. I also asked my nephew who was 17 to watch the same with me. I am 35 and he is 17. He liked it and I did too. It still is funny, a little childish a times but still very clean entertainment. Satish Shah is hilarious in multiple roles. This sitcom would still fare better than many of the recent serials on TV. But obviously some people obviously like mundane fares that come out today. It would have been nice that Shafi Inamdar would have continued for all the seasons. He is no longer alive today. I would wish if someone could list all the episodes here.

WHo can forget the lines "Yeh Kya Ho Raha HAi" "What a relief" "Kaat Daalu Boss" "Vyavhaar hai Vyavhaar" "30 Years Ka Experience hai"

and the title track Yeh Jo hai Zindagi, teaching us to live the life as it comes and take enjoyment out of it. The life of common people.

I still like this sitcom. it may not seem as funny at times but certain episodes are still hilarious. i was a huge fan of this series. Yesterday i watched it again on DVD. I was apprehensive about whether laughs would come or not? But in a few episodes i was laughing hysterically and some episodes were good. Acting wise Rakesh Bedi(Raja} & Satish Shah is brilliant whereas Swaroop Sampat is plain bad but I think she gets the job done. Maybe a better actress could have been used in place of her. This series shows what good, clean comedy is.

If this series were to air in the current year I would have given it 9/10. And to think that this series is almost 25 years old and its comedy is still good. I give it 10/10. I would highly recommend this series for watching on DVD. This sitcom was a big crowd puller in the year 1984-1985.That was a time people could see deserted streets in most of the over crowded Indian cities whenever there were sitcom on Indian television screens. All this was the result of the setting up of television relay stations across the entire Indian nation. This was one of the essential elements of the modernization of Indian television network strategy adopted by the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi.It was also continued by her son Rajiv Gandhi. This series provided clean entertainment which a large majority of Indian television audience watched on their black and white television sets.A funny thing about this series is that it was sponsored by an indigenous company dealing in Ayurvedic products. A couple of days ago I caught sight of some episodes of this series but the overall laughter equation was missing. This goes on to prove that may be with the ever changing passage of time entertainment material lose their charm and hold over people's minds. Simply put, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly were remarkable. The movie is less about the raw science of Darwin's beliefs, and holds the focus very strongly on his relationship with his family, primarily his wife, Emma, and daughter, Annie.

Toby Jones gives a wonderful turn as Thomas Huxley, the great defender of Darwin's beliefs, and the rest of the cast is up to the task of sharing screen time with Bettany and Connelly.

But it is those two who carry the movie. Their real chemistry is apparent from beginning to end, but develops transcendence as Darwin grapples with his demons. The scene where Darwin relates the ending of the story of Jenny, the orangutan, to his dying daughter, Annie, is utterly gripping. The world premiere audience at the TIFF was spellbound. Bettany's performance will be recognized as one of the year's best in short order. Equally magnificent is Connelly's work playing the religious wife of a man who, in Huxley's words, "killed God".

The film moves slowly through the entire spectrum of Darwin's grief, relishing every detail of Bettany and Connelly's acting.

Brilliant. I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.

Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.

Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.

The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.

All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today. I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival.

The Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+ pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book.

The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box (Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually. I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father.

Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or wonder whether he "killed god" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves "his" creatures is untenable.

I really cannot see many Americans objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not have horns, a tail and a pitchfork. Wow! Fantastic film in my opinion, i wasn't expecting it to be this good! I was captivated from start to finish- it's a very well made and educational film that really gives us a fascinating insight into the trials Darwin had to go through in order to convey his ideas to the world, chronicling his life as he writes "Origin of the Species"; fighting both personal demons as well as the ignorant society of the time in order to do so. He struggles hard with his mind, body and soul as personal matters get to breaking point and even his family seems to slip away...whilst the rest of the world stand against him as he knows that his findings literally shake the very foundations of their lives, culture and meaning of existence. It's a subtle movie (not over-exaggerated in any way in that typical Hollywood way, this is a BBC produced British film) yet thankfully very powerful in meaning and this is thanks to the amazing well directed scenes as well as the superb acting by Bettany. Connelly acts as more of a light supporting role but I did enjoy her in this and she's as good as to be expected as always, her chemistry alongside her husband was definitely strong and endearing, you could feel the connection, and their real-life husband/wife bond definitely shines through their performances. But the star of the show is definitely Bettany and he does a brilliant job, a very touching performance- i both understood and sympathised with him as he battled his own degrading health and impending "insanity" to try to understand what he has uncovered and come to terms with what it all really is and means as he found his thinking contradict his feelings, and found himself losing it all including his wife who of course was a firm believer in religion and a strict Christian whilst he was in the realm of science, two worlds which could not see eye to eye, so their relationship was at stake too.

Anyway- a really very good, well acted emotional drama and dare I say I did shed a tear during the tragic climax which was truly heartbreaking as well as beautifully poignant and moving. The film is symbolic and very intellectually artistic as well, in fact i can't wait to watch it again as there was a lot to take in first time round which i missed. Easily one of the best films i've seen this year. This is definitely a touching movie, and a great expression of Charles Darwins personal struggle. The movie is not only about his struggle to get his book "the origin of Species" published, but also his relationship with his oldest daughter. His daughter was at start the only person in his family to approve of his views, something that she as well had to pay for. Een more than him at times.

Now, this is not an evolutionary propaganda film, as a matter of fact I think it managed to stay very neutral. A hard thing to do in my opinion. of course it does not condone the way the characters was treated by the church, quite the opposite actually. If you need me to use the big words to shed light on this film; it will be liked by deists and atheists alike, but goes away from theism. The movie talks about evolution, and that's it.

Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin was incredible. Of course we all may think of Darwin as that old man with the funny beard, but this movie centers around the man in his late 20's, early 30's. Jennifer Connelly (Emma Darwin) is great as always, but the actor who impressed me was Martha West as Annie Darwin, Darwins daughter. Definitely on of the best child actors of the decade. The story is about Darwin and his daughter, and it is beautifully acted.

Except for a few jumps in time that was momentarily confusing, the production of this film is pretty flawless. Some scenes were Darwin observes nature is just marvelous, and is almost like taken out of a high production National geographic documentary.

I must admit though, I'm not quite sure of why they chose "Creation" as the title. I doubt it is an irony, the movie is too respectful for that. Well, I'm sure there's a meaning too it, just don't let it scare you away.

I give this movie a 9/10. This is truly a great tribute to Charles Darwin, and please give it a chance. Paul Bettany did a great role as the tortured father whose favorite little girl dies tragically of disease. For that, he deserves all the credit. However, the movie was mostly about exactly that, keeping the adventures of Darwin as he gathered data for his theories as incomplete stories told to children and skipping completely the disputes regarding his ideas.

Two things bothered me terribly: the soundtrack, with its whiny sound, practically shoving sadness down the throat of the viewer, and the movie trailer, showing some beautiful sceneries, the theological musings of him and his wife and the enthusiasm of his best friends as they prepare for a battle against blind faith, thus misrepresenting the movie completely.

To put it bluntly, if one were to remove the scenes of the movie trailer from the movie, the result would be a non descript family drama about a little child dying and the hardships of her parents as a result. Clearly, not what I expected from a movie about Darwin, albeit the movie was beautifully interpreted. Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation, which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war against God, and even to have "killed God".

The film revolves around Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say "Amen" is foreshadowing of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting God.

Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals, dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny, playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action.

Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically says: "The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow". Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief.

When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy, telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an accomplice out of his staunchest adversary.

It is fascinating that Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race.

The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a documentary on, I quote, "Hitler's passion for ping-pong". This is true in some respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well executed and flawlessy acted period drama.

My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7 Total score: 14 I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say. I have read reviews of this film that found it 'disappointing' and 'confused'. I am at a loss to understand why this should be so. From the beginning I found it a remarkable experience and a complete joy to watch.

Spoiler: The opening titles overlay a beautiful visual of the evolutionary process, and this introduces the story with a serene and sweeping style. The film isn't about the process itself though, it concerns Charles Darwin's struggle with his conscience, his love for his wife, his deceased daughter and his search for truth.

The appearances of his daughter are the manifestations of a tormented mind that knows it has "killed God". The daughter is an adult, making adult comments about his work and torturing Darwin with personal doubts. Was he in some way responsible for her death? Husband and wife in real life Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly give truly wonderful performances as Charles and Emma Darwin, as does Martha West as Annie. Bettany's size and awkward gait give Darwin's character a genuine sense of reality, whilst Connelly seems very comfortable with her English accent and occasionally somewhat severe persona.

It's easy to misunderstand the times in which this film resides. The grip that religion had on society and the inner struggles that a man like Darwin must have endured to seek the truth in what he witnessed. Science and religion have always been awkward bedfellows and although it didn't cost him his life, as it did with so many earlier men and women, science put a barrier between husband and wife, fact and faith. This film portrays that barrier supremely well.

I give Creation ten stars, because I think it's beautiful, profound, superbly well acted and a genuine, no-extraneous-frills-required look at one of the world's true geniuses.

What seems obvious to everyone today (well, almost everyone... see Bill Maher's wonderful "Religulous") was hidden for millennia. The truth, once it was discovered, was undoubtedly painful for many. Creation examines that pain, and the realisation that we are all that we possess.

A wonderful cinematic experience. As this movie unfolds you start to feel the conundrum of human existence. If you carry with you questions, inner wars, unsolved puzzles about the meaning of life then you will feel this movie with every morsel of your body. Charles Darwin begins a war with an utterly predictable ending. War with God. His theories resemble the fact that God has nothing to do with mankind, has nothing to do with the amazing World that we live in. Savage, harsh, ironic and chaotic, this words surround the mind of the character thrown into an universe of material truth, who slowly pushes hope for God, out from his mind. Nevertheless, the movie as Charles Darwin, still sees wonder and beauty beyond God in the universe of infinite Evolution. Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.

I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).

All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch. As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based on blind faith. Nuff said there then.

The film was produced by the BBC, and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going to see it.

In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene, where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's daughter.

With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But maybe they're just monkeying around... Return to Me is a movie you will want to own. It is a story of inspiration and family love that appeals to all ages. The story, though seemingly impossible, aspires to divine intervention when a man looses his wife in a tragic accident and finds that love again in the woman who receives his wife's heart. David Duchovny and Minnie Driver give warm hearted performances as the designated to-be-lovers who meet by chance. But the real story lies in the friends and family around them who love and support them in times of trial. Carol O'Connor as Minnie Driver's grandfather, is authentic in every scene. Bonnie Hunt as the friend whose wit and encouragement underlines Minnie as a 'sister' is funny yet warm in the scenes especially with James Belushi as her husband. Classic scenes and writing makes this story so enjoyable and touching to watch over and over again. Thank you for making a movie that demonstrates families and friends as close knit caring people who love each other through difficult times. I just watched this move for the 5th or 6th time and am still in love with it. It still makes me cry and sing and worry and celebrate.

I almost wrote Bonnie Hunt a letter to tell her how much I love it. David Duchovny's grief scene is so flippin real!!! Minnie Driver is so natural and honest. My favorite line is when Duchovny says "I miss Elizabeth but I ache for Grace". Oh man! I'm crying just thinking about it. ALSO... Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi are sooooooooooooo the perfect Chicago area couple!! I know them I swear! I'm related to them I'm sure.

This movie is in my three times a year rotation!!! I'd watch it once a week but I'm afraid I'd get too used to it!!! I always want to make it a special day when I watch it!! When I saw the trailer for this film, I said out loud to no one in particular "this film is going to bomb." I also said that about THE MATRIX and look at what happened there. Now I am not a box office guru by any stretch but I usually have a pretty good gut about what is going to be good and what is going to really suck. In this case I was blinded by my complete and utter apathy towards David Duchovney. Let me put it to you a different way: I don't like his as a person ( from what I have read of him in interviews, he is unbelievably pre-madonna like and he is full of himself considering all he has done is X-Files ) or as an actor. PLAYING GOD was a really poor film but he came off thinking that for some reason he deserved big bucks on the big screen. But I am happy to say that even though those things may still be true about the man, Return To Me is delightful and has it's heart in the right place. Bonnie Hunt has directed a beautiful story and she has told it with class and grace. This is one of the most romantic films I have seen and even though it may seem to be a bit sad and maudlin in its premise, give it a chance and you will be hooked.

It has to be said ( and this pains me to do so ) that the reason this film works so well is because of the story and the cast. Duchovney and Driver are so wonderful and believable here that I honestly wanted to cry along with them. There is one particularly powerful scene when Duchovney comes home after his wife has died and he slumps down on the floor of his house. As it always does, the family dog looks to the door to wait for his wife to come walking in. She doesn't and with his shirt collar still stained with blood, Rob ( Duchovney ) tells him that she is not coming home, ever. He then calls the dog over to him and they seem to share a cry together. The dog lets out a small moan and then Rob cries. And this is one of the most realistic moments of pain I have ever seen in any character in any movie. You can feel his pain and at that moment I forgot I was watching an actor that I generally don't like, and I felt that I was watching someone that I knew moarn the loss of his beloved. This is powerful stuff.

Another strength of the film is the supporting cast. Bonnie Hunt has combined an ethnic melting pot of Irish and Italian characters that share a common bond. They share a pub called O'Reilley's Italian Pub. That is a delicious name all by itself. And heading the diametric scale of clashing cultures is Carol O'Connor and Robert Loggia. These are two proud old men that love their homeland but love their granddaughter and niece ( I think it is ) respectively. And that is the character played by Minnie Driver. This scenario is ripe for comedy and Hunt doesn't miss anything here.

Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi also share some funny moments together as the middle aged married couple and Belushi gets top points as he accepts humility gracefully and shows off his ample keg of a stomach for laughs. With his family consisting of three or four kids, there is very little time for him and the wife to have quality time. And again Hunt handles this with perfect elegance.

This is a wonderful story of finding true love, knowing how lucky you are to have true love and the power of friendship and family. Return To Me is a wonderful romance and even though I still don't have a great admiration for David Duchovney, I have to admit that he was perfect in this role and I could not picture anyone else playing his character. He was sensitive and believable and the movie was good because of him, not just because of him, but he sure added to the flavour.

If you are a sucker for a good romance and you want a good cry, then this is the film for you.

8.5 out of 10 I will see anything that Bonnie Hunt puts out with her in the director's chair. My two daughters (ages 11 and 13) and I were lucky enough to see a screening of this movie last night. We were all pleasantly surprised to see how entertaining and funny this movie was. David Duchovny was very appealing as the male lead and Minnie Driver gave her usually competent performance. Some of the scenes are laugh out loud funny - especially one scene Minnie Driver has with a fellow "transplant" donee. I liked the fact that it was a movie that I could watch with my children and I wasn't embarrassed by any scene whatsoever. Everyone in the movie theater was laughing and enjoying themselves. Thumbs up Bonnie Hunt! I love this movie! It has everything! Bonnie Hunt did a fantastic job co-writing, directing and co-starring in this film. David Duchovny is just plain hot. and Minnie Driver is as cute as ever. combine all that talent with David Allen Grier, Carol O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Joley Richardson, and Jim Belushi you have a Oscar worthy movie! I'm surprised they didn't get one. if you haven't seen it, go rent the DVD, watch it once then put directors commentary on...Bonnie Hunt is Fabulous! I saw this movie with my mother, and I loved it! It was such a sweet story, (Not to mention funny because of the supporting cast!) They never make movies like this...ever! My favorite part is when Grace(Minnie Driver) finds out about her boyfriend's wife's death, and that she has the deceased wife's heart and she screams, "WHAT WAS GOD THINKING?" I do believe everyone(No matter who you believe in) has thoughts like that once in awhile. But while it's very sappy, it just might make you believe in true love and destiny for once and for all.(Sigh)

The comedic timing between Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi will just make you crack up(especially in the aforementioned scene, it's terrible, and yet so funny!). They make a good pair, and I hope to see them again in something soon. 10/10 Stars I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!

This beautiful, charming love story drew me in immediately with its lovable characters and heart-warming romance. I became so attached to the characters throughout the film that I felt as if I knew them personally. The storyline is very enchanting, and it brought me to tears in several touching moments. Duchovny and Driver have a very cute, chaste relationship that you can't help getting involved in. This one's worth watching more than once, and showing to all your friends. I'm just curious, why wasn't this a big hit?

I give this a 10 out of 10! Spectacular film! (And this is coming from a guy who thinks that 9 out of 10 movies aren't even worth watching.) I watched this movie again yesterday with a 20-year-old intern from my office (OK - it was the quiet day after Thanksgiving) and we both loved it. I love the unique plot, David Duchovny, David Allen Greer, and the way the dog keeps waiting at the door. Isn't part of each of us just like that dog after someone we love dies?

I also love the old folks at the restaurant - they remind me of some of the older people around Southern New England, where your ethnic group is a very important topic of discussion. And I love the wedding at the end.

Minnie Driver is great in this movie - and Bonnie Hunt should have won an award for everything.

Bonnie - make more movies! This is one of those movies that has everything in it. I don't think I would get tired of seeing it. Hopefully more movies like this one will be made in the future. The casting was perfect in all respects. In a sense, the song sung by Engelbert Humperdink "I Never Got to Say Goodbye", is the song come to life. You will most definitely laugh and cry throughout the entire scenario for sure. I'm just surprised that I had never seen it before this past weekend. I think that it's positively worth seeing, and your heart will be glowing. It would be nice to cuddle up with your "honey"; sip a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy being in the presence of each other. There is so much heart and emotion at times you honestly don't know where to turn. You will know exactly how the character feels. True family expression is available all the way through. In fact, at times you'll even think you are part of that family or they a part of yours. See it! This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!! I must admit that I didn't get around to seeing this movie in the theater. As it was released at the beginning of a summer blockbuster season, this cute little film couldn't help but get a bit lost in the shadow of multi-million dollar special effects movies, could it?

"Return to Me" has a lovely and simple story at its core, and is extremely well-directed and written by Bonnie Hunt (who has been in a number of major pictures as an actress herself....along with this one!) The charming story is beautifully woven with clever comedy and brought to life with superb performances by veteran as well as younger actors.

To those who say that David Duchovny hasn't really had a good shot at breaking out of his "Fox Mulder" mold, I agree. I've seen his other film work, and is, by far, the best thing he could have done for himself. Minnie Driver is simply beautiful, charming, funny, and lively in her role as Grace.

Outside of these two leads, however, you are surrounded by Grace's close-knit family and friends. Jim Belushi is an absolute stitch, Bonnie Hunt is a stable and real-life force. I cannot, however, go without mentioning the talents of Robert Loggia, and the dearly departed Carroll O'Connor. Ironically, I watched this film again on DVD only the day before he passed away. This was his last film, and he gave a performance that an actor of his calibre could certainly be proud to leave as the finale to a great career.

Overall, "Return To Me" turned what would have still been just a fun love story, and grew it into a film that has become one of my favorites! Take the time rent this one.....it's well worth the effort! A delightful and wonderful film, which has entered my pantheon of great romantic comedies. IN many ways it's even better than "When Harry met Sally." IT wears well on viewing and re-viewing. The cast is excellent, and both David Duchovny and Minnie Driver give us really believable characters. especially considering I can count on one hand the romantic comedy films I have ever enjoyed.

Minnie Driver is very good as the heart transplant patient, who has a mysterious connection to Duchovny's recently deceased wife. (I can think of several awful films which have used this story line- I think there was an LMN movie with Jane Seymour) This film, however, is a keeper.

Duchovny is sympathetic, and the scenes with his dog are cute and sad- the dog misses his deceased wife. All of his friends want him to find a replacement, and there is an amusing scene where he is on a blind date and Driver is the waitress. His date is horrible, and he finds himself intrigued by Minnie Driver.

Caroll O'Connor is also good in one of his last roles, as the curmudgeonly grandfather. Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi (this is the only film I have liked him in) round out the comedy aspect of the film.

This is a good film because the story works, it is not overly romantic, and does not insult the audience's intelligence. Highly recommended 9/10. Awesome Movie! Great combination of talents! I'm a HUGE fan of David Duchovny and he is outstanding in this movie! I would love to see him in more movies of this nature. His talents are definitely under-used and has SO much more to offer besides "Agent Mulder" (although I'm a huge fan of that series too), Anyway, I want to see more of him. He is easily the Cary Grant of our generation. If you haven't seen this movie, you MUST! Great love story that shows love never dies... it's with you forever. Minnie Driver is great and how can you go wrong with a cast containing Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Loggia and Mr. Belushi? This movie didn't get any type of awards nod, but deserved one. Great job Bonnie Hunt! ** By the way... the soundtrack is great too! ** I saw this movie a fews years ago and was literally swept away by it. So charming and so very romantic. David Duchovny and Ms. Driver have chemistry that is so hot, you will need to take off a layer of clothing. The supporting cast is 100% top notch. Just watching Caroll O'Connor and Robert Loggia play off one another is pure poetry. Bonnie Hunt and Jim Bellushi and a wonderful team and some of the films most charming moments are when they are on the screen. Like Jim Belushi screaming at his children to go to sleep "FOREVER!" or him dancing in the kitchen. This film made we wish I knew people like that in my own life. Not to mention, what woman does not want David Duchovny for a boyfriend? Gracie (Minnie Driver), a woman in her late twenties, is on a waiting list for a heart transplant. Bob (David Duchovny) has just had the tragedy of losing his wife in an automobile accident. One can guess the outcome. Gracie receives Bob's wife's heart, although they have no knowledge of each other....yet! A year later, Gracie is feeling like a new person while Bob is just beginning to think about his social life. When a friend sets him up on a blind date, Bob finds himself interested in the waitress, Gracie, at the restaurant where the date occurs. They begin to see each other. How long will it be before the truth materializes and what will be the consequences? This lovely, funny, and touching movie is one of the best romantic comedies ever constructed. The two stars dazzle as the couple only heaven could bring together and the supporting cast, of Bonnie Hunt, Jim Belushi, and Carroll O'Connor, are just marvelous as well. Taking place near Chicago, the neighborhood setting is likewise charming and beautiful. Let's make that dittos for the costumes and script. If you know someone who goes ga-ga over mirthful love stories, you will be in their good graces forever if you introduce him or her to this fine movie. This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing. Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast, who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film. David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie! I love this movie. At first, I didn't expect much of this movie since I didn't hear anyone talk about it and it seemed like it went on video soon after it had just opened in the theatres. I also didn't think David and Minnie would make a good on-screen couple. (I've expected a lot out of on-screen couples since I saw "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.) Personally, I think Joely Richardson should've played Minnie's part and vice versa. I don't know, I just think Joely should've stayed in the movie longer with David. They seemed perfect for each other. But it just figures that in a movie, the girl next door always gets the guy. :) (Like in "While You Were Sleeping".) I was very wrong though. This movie was fantastic!!! Everything was done brilliantly. Bonnie Hunt did a great job of directing. The lines were perfect with the wise cracks everywhere.

***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!***

I love how everything intertwined with each other. For example, in the beginning, Elizabeth and Bob were talking about going to Italy, and in the end, Bob meets Grace in Italy. Sydney (the ape) doing the hand thing with Grace like he had done with Elizabeth is an example too.

***NOTICE: SPOILERS END NOW!!!***

One thing I didn't like about the movie was it was a little unrealisitic. Well, I just don't think a man could get over his wife in a year when she was the only woman he had ever been with his entire life. You'd think he'd isolate himself from the world for years before even coming out of his house to talk someone. Instead, he goes on a blind date a year later and falls *instantly* in love with a woman he's never seen in his life but feels a connection with.

Over all, it was a splendid movie. It had me crying two or three times, and it had me laughing countless times (the scene in the restaurant with Bob's picky date for bottled water was hilarious!). It is definitely up there with great romantic-comedies like "You've Got Mail", "Sliding Doors", and "While You Were Sleeping".

GO RENT IT TODAY!! This is a true "feel-good" movie, full of genuine sweetness and admirable people. Although the premise requires a significant suspension of disbelief, it is worth the trouble to do so. The director, writers, and actors truly convey what it feels like to be in love. This movie is so cool. It told me to enjoy every moment in life to its fulness. I think that Bonnie Hunt (Jerry Maguire) writes well and I am so happy that she gave aging actors opportunity to have such big roles in the movie. That is really neat, in a society that worships wealth, health and youth, it was nice to see a movie about normal people. The movie reminded me a lot of "While you were Sleeping" which I really love. If you don't like this movie you should work on your sensitivity skills.

Favorite Quotes: Megan Dayton: "I'm just saying, for safety, don't shave your legs,because then you definitely won't let it go too far." Grace Briggs: "Megan, it's a first date." Megan Dayton:" I married a first date. I'm sure you plan on being level-headed, but once you're in the moment, the male brain seems, I don't know, everything they say suddenly seems brilliant. Hairy legs are your only link to reality." Favorite Scenes: Megan (Good Will Hunting) riding her bike. All the scenes in the garden. The conversation and comradery among the grandpa and friends in the restaurant. Please do not miss this movie it will warm up your heart! There are so many positive reviews on Return to Me that my opinion is not necessary to encourage you to watch this movie. However, I feel the need to express my admiration for this unique movie. Bonnie Hunt has proved that she is not only an exceptional actress but also a marvelous director and script writer. This movie has everything and is full of humanity, tenderness, sense of humor ... Don't miss it, don't wait any longer. And, regarding the poor reviews don't pay any attention. Some viewers forget that this type of movies have to be watched with your heart, not only with your eyes. If some viewers prefer Notting Hill or You've got Mail that's their mistake. For me, Return to Me is a true gem, an unforgettable movie. This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts. I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial debut.

I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of reactions.

This film depicts real life like people with real life like situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the film)

It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets).

I really enjoyed it. Well worth the rental or the purchase. I think the romance of this movie helps couples develop a deeper appreciation for each other. Although I saw one goof in the early part of the movie, it was fairly well done. The plot can make you cry if you think about the situation enough. I loved it..watched it twice already and highly recommend it! This movie is sweet - not cloying, just warm-spirited and kind. I found it only mildly funny, and the premise *is* wildly improbable, but the characters are so charming (especially Minnie Driver's) that they had my full attention right from the beginning, and soon had my affection too.

Bonnie Hunt has done a great job in her directing debut, and a good job with the writing as well. I highly recommend this movie and will see it again, I'm sure. This movie is very well done although the ending is given away too early in the film. The four elderly men in the restaurant are what makes this film fun to watch. Minnie Driver is a very talented actress and comes across wonderfully on screen. Bonny Hunt scores a coup with her directorial debut. Minnie Driver and David Duchovny have that indescribable something called chemistry. Sure the plot is unlikely, but that doesn't stop one from enjoying this film. Carroll O'Conner does a great job as Grace's grandfather. Other great character actors play his card buddies. Jim Belushi is hilarious as the down-to-earth husband of Megan, part of the extended family.

Faith, family, and marriage are respected. A few sexual references and salty words are used but in context and with gentle humor.

And in the background that wonderful Dean Martin tune--"Return to Me."

Recommended. I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first 15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where the "chemistry" abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order! This film is the most romantic in years. David Duchovny is superb. He´ll make you cry, smile and dream. Minnie driver and James Belushi are very good too. But, David is astonish. Don´t miss the opportunity to see this little film and fall in love with Bob and Grace. Run, don´t walk! Valley Girl will always hold a special place in my heart: I would say this is certainly the best of the 80's teen-sex-comedies, but that is a back-handed compliment. This is a good movie, period. It is very specific in time and place--nearly twenty years later this is a marvelous snapshot--yet its story remains timeless. (This is just Romeo and Juliet, minus the death, after all!) Nicolas Cage is wonderful, showing all the early promise that, it turns out, he has squandered on overblown action crapola. Deborah Foreman is the revelation of this movie, and I can't believe she didn't go on to have a bigger career; someone rediscover her QUICK. This is sweeter and gentler than most films of the genre--the requisite nudity seems thrown in by contractual obligation--and, while not groundbreaking, it certainly is nice to see this kind of movie that respects its characters and doesn't crucify its shallow young girls for having fun--even Foreman's crew of best friends, misguided by peer pressure, are never presented as villains. (Indeed, her friend Stacy, forced to doubledate w/ Cage's friend Fred, has a good time despite her protests, and makes out w/ Fred in the backseat.) This will take you back to the early 80's if you were there, but it holds up quite well today. Warning to those unfamiliar with the movie: do NOT watch one of VH1's seemingly continual showings of it--go rent it in its unedited glory. Otherwise, you are missing some of the movies' most potent, time-specific dialogue. And one can't write about Valley Girl and not mention the fabu soundtrack of great 80's tunes--most of them by one-hit wonders, which are not only integral to the sense of time and place in this movie, but thematically well-chosen. See it--awesome little flick! Fer shur!! It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately. Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie, played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic. Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves if you like 80's music. But perhaps you have to have grown up in the 80's to truly appreciate this movie. If you love the early 80's this is definitely a must see. Also, one of the best soundtracks ever! This movie is one of my all time favorite movies and is what made me a lifelong Nicolas Cage fan. Back in the mid-80's I taped this movie (when VCR's were impossible to do this with!!) and would watch it over and over. Nicolas Cage is just brilliant here. And, he looks wonderful and has no affecting "acting-isms" (see "Peggy Sue Got Married" to know what I mean about that!!). I measure all his performances against this one. He was so perfectly cast as the cool punk guy with the edgy friends. The music was GREAT. The Plimsouls! The Psychodelic Furs! Modern English! Men At Work! Whenever I hear "Melt With You" I am taken back to the finale of this movie.

What ever happened to his cute costar, Deborah Foreman? And his hysterical friend, Cameron Dye? Certainly took a different turn than Nicolas! Interestingly, the slutty friend (Elizabeth Daily) ended up being the voice of Tommy from the Rugrats (she is billed as E.G. Daily for that horrid show)! Bizarre!

IF you want to take a great trip back to the 80's, watch this movie. It is definitely a classic. Like Totally! I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me. This is the essence of the early eighties! The malls, the credit card machines, the food, the punk hair color, the soundtrack... I am in love with this movie. This sweet, intelligent Romeo & Juliet teen flick is instantly addictive.

Martha Coolidge is one of my favorite directors. She really employs her actors, like John Hughes and Steven Soderberg, so check out -Joy of Sex- and -Real Genius-. The soundtracks for -Valley Girl- are great. If you can find a copy of the film, buy it! It's out of print and very hard to come by. This gem captures early 80's life brilliantly. As a grad '83 boy

myself, I must say that Valley Girl (along with Fast Times at

Ridgemont High )stands out as the class of the teen sex film

genre. The characters are accurate representatives of the era; the

vapid mall chicks, pseudo punk rebels, preppy jocks are all

represented here.

I have seen this over ten times now. The music in the film was top

notch. Unfortunately, these tunes could were never as popular in

their era as those by arena cockrockers like Journey, Styx or

Loverboy. Before the soundtrack existed, I searched out records

and tapes (it was the 80's after all !) of Josie Cotton, Sparks,

Plimsouls and Modern English.

This movie deserves respect. It isn't just a good 80's teen flick. It is

a great film. Period. 20 Years later and this movie still has echoes of its greatness floating around. Never has a movie surpassed Valley Girl's incredible soundtrack. The movie completely encapsulated the 80's to such a perfect degree that it could only be realized this many years later. Nicolas Cage at his best. A movie that just has so much character to it, that it makes you realize how sad hollywood has become (as far as quality goes). The special edition DVD is loaded with tons of extras and well worth it to purchase it as you'll have plenty of material to sift through. For sure. I remember seeing this film when I was 13 years old and I fell in love with it and I was a big fan of the film and the characters I adored. My favorite character was Stacey (Heidi Holicker), because she made me laugh when she showed no interest in Fred (Cameron Dye) who really liked her and I was hoping that in the end that they would get together then her boring boyfriend, Ralphie (Christopher Murray)because he ignored her and hung out with his friends. I love the cast and the story. I always love the part when Fred try to get together with Stacey, and I always remember when he chased her around the car. But it was so good. I'll always remember cherish that in my teen years. Now that I am 33 years old and I picked up my copy on DVD and will look forward seeing it. putting aside the "i'm so sure"s and "totally gnarly"s this is one of the sweetest and lifelike romances portrayed on film. deborah foreman (where is she now?) as julie and nicolas cage as randy are as classic as romeo and juliet, tony and maria, jake and samantha... you can't help but fall in love with them. plus the soundtrack - the plimsouls, sparks, the furs, the flirts, and of course, modern english - is also outstanding. for fans of films about young love, i'd equally recommend the recent film all the real girls by david gordon green. I just love this film it totally rocks! Nicolas Cage looks hot and Tommy does not! I definitely feel that Fred and Randy should have had a little more time together on screen cause they're totally cool. My favorite part is when he says "Peter Piper Picked A Pepper I guess I Did!" We still really love the movie and soundtrack "Valley Girl". I have owned it on video for eons and wore out the original soundtrack. I have several friends with whom I get together and we have "80's Raves" - parties where we get together and play 80's music and run "Valley Girl" on the big screen - and we're all in our 30's now. We have an AWESOME time.

It's all in good fun, like, ya know? One of the better teen comedies to be filmed during the 80's, Valley Girl has a young Nicolas Cage in a starring role. Deborah Foreman is fun as the object of Cage's desire (and whatever happened to her?). Look for veteran actors Colleen Camp and Frederic Forrest as Julie's hippie parents - they're quite funny! For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this film. Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman provide stunning performances in this 80's tour de force! A great 80's movie akin to Fast Times at Ridgemont High! I highly recommend this movie to any child of the 80's who hasn't seen it. It's a cult classic. What can I say?? This movie has it all...Romance, break-ups, rich kids, punks and preps. This is my all time favorite movie that I can recite line for line....I remember when it first came out, I was 14 and couldn't get in....so finally got to see it on cable... I was hooked! Wanted to move to California and be a Valley Girl.. (Hey, I even remember the song by Moon Zappa, do you?) Tried in vain for years to get the never produced soundtrack...now you can find it on rhino records.... This typical teenagers movie is one of the best, beside the story is good, the music is well accompany the movie all along.

Although i do not enjoy classic movie unless it is classic and better written script, this one is exceptional. Maybe the hair style and language should be change a bit, in the 80's i believe offensive language is still rarely heard.

Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it is a movie and not a video of an actual "day-in-the-life" of any high school, USA. This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you don't like it, well then "Gag me with a spoon." There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight. I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you back to a "Totally Rad" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple. Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD! Sweet, rich valley girl develops crush on a punk from the alley and when her snobby friends disapprove of him, she's forced to choose between her heart and her popularity. Very funny romantic comedy blends in elements of black comedy and '80's cheese that make this all the more fun to watch. The movie not only follows the life of the valley girl and her punk; but her friends too as they shop, party, hang out, and go to the mall. If the dialogue doesn't have you laughing non-stop for a week, the music will. Songs like "Johnny, Are You Queer?" are found throughout. Also, Elizabeth Daily is a funny, existential character and the Prom King & Queen speech at the end is hilarious! I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny, unique characters. I think it's right up there with "Fast Times" and "Weird Science" (quintessential eighties flicks!) Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a sentence without using the word "like". That is without a doubt the legacy this movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie. I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!! I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent. This is a romantic, albeit cheesy movie that is one of my all time favorites. It is one of the many CLASSICS of the 80's genre like "Pretty in Pink" or "Some kind of Wonderful".

Nic plays the traditional punk guy in love with the traditional valley, preppy girl Julie. It is a heartwarming love story that makes you root for him to win the girl in the end.

True, most of the acting sucks but ...

I have been in love with Nic since seeing this in the theaters and have seen nearly every movie he's been in since. He's really grown as an actor but it is obvious in this early movie of his that he had a LOT of potential.

If you love 80's movies, you will LOVE this classic.

Go rent it!!!!! This is good movie that is flawed in many ways with low production. Martha Coolidge herself said she only had 350,000 dollars to work with. This is a movie that I loved growing up in the midwest. I remember friends and I having the nostalgia trip on this movie 10 years ago. Great things about this movie....Great cast with hungry actors and a hungry director. Bad points of this movie....To small of a budget calling for way too much improvisation. If Martha Coolidge had been given more money and time on this movie then the results would of been even better. They should have taken the story from an early 20's prospective and not from a 15-17 year old high school stand point. Most of the actors/actresses were in their early to mid 20's trying to play 15-17 year olds....(come on) The music is extremely memorable and the two soundtracks get played all the time in my car. The best scenes in this film take place in seedy Hollywood clubs by Nicolas Cage's character. I gave this film a high rating of 9/10 for five reasons.. Nicholas Cage's improvisational on the spot acting; The camera work and angles are excellent given the budget they had and only being able to have one take of each scene; The sytles, music and lingo are captured perfectly and forever; Again the music is incredible and carries the story along from scene to scene; And finally...Martha Coolidge could turn a weak script, unknown actors and a very very low budget and 20 days of shooting the entire movie into such a good and memorable movie is astounding! "Valley Girl" launched Nicolas Cage's career and was an 80's version of "Romeo and Juliet." It is a definite example of an 80's teen classic. Nicolas Cage, Deborah Foreman and Elizabeth Daily all have brilliant portrayals in this movie, but it will never top "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" as the ultimate 80's teen flick because if it weren't for "Fast Times," then the 80's generation of teen flicks would just be a big blow to the head. That's for sure. Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and "gritty downtown" from a suburban perspective.

The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English, Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama.

This movie truly is Romeo and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad, played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he doesn't judge, ya dig?? I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the 'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent! The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years.

I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's charm.

I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet seen it.

You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience. The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her and her daughter will do than the state of her husband.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character. This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont difficult for the majority of people to relate to.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you. Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer cause of his crushed spirit.

First, it's highly unlikely that his mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity itself-- which both the Legion and war offered.

Second, Hans loses his successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career.

Third, he commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence.

A few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery scene).

And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally, Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall. Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair.

This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and present a marked contrast to Han's fall. In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of camera work and storytelling down pat.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought).

His camera work was getting there too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann.

Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior. THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS was Rainer Werner Fassbinder's first shot at mainstream acceptance. In a turbulent career of just fifteen years, he managed to create an astounding body of work in film and theater, both as a performer and a creative producer, actor, and director. Although this movie might not appeal to many viewers, the film has much to offer. The storyline is fairly straightforward. A man is ostracized from his upper middle class family due to emotional and economic problems, and proves unable to control his downward spiral. THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS is shot with a slavish devotion to elegant detail, and each set is very carefully designed and constructed. Every object on set seems painstakingly arranged so as to provoke layers of emotional texture. Many religious paintings and icons decorate the walls of the various rooms and seem to speak to Hans's desperate quest for spiritual meaning or direction in his life. Much thought was given to how lighting and color were employed to contrast and enhance the drama. Several times during the film, I froze the frame to marvel at the beauty of the shot's composition. I streamed this film, and the print was nearly flawless and second to none. Fassbinder employs his actors in an almost vehement "Anti-Natural' style. He does everything possible to prevent the actors from reacting in a normal or colloquial manner, and this creates a rather stilted effect. However, by doing so, he injects an almost 'hyper-reality' to the narrative. Rather than the presentation of a mundane melodrama, the actors almost militant lack of affectation forces the viewer to confront the film in a different manner. Fassbinder's film intentionally prevents the viewer from easily connecting with the characters' trials and tribulations. You are constantly on the outside, looking in. This will be a disconcerting experience for many, but I found it to be a unique and satisfying artistic adventure. The Merchant of Four Seasons isn't what I would call a happy movie, at all, or even one that impressed me to the point of praising it to the sky (there are other Fassbinder flicks for that, like Veronika Voss and the underrated Satan's Brew). But it's certainly no less than a fascinating experiment in taking a look at those in a society that you and me and others we know might possibly know, or not really want to know. I imagine in the early 70s in Germany a generation, coming out of WW2, had a stigma to live with but tried their best just to get by. This is a stigma that floats all over this film, and in many instances in Fassbinder's work in general, but especially because with Four Seasons he takes his eye on the middle class, and a particular married couple- the distanced, depressed, angry Hans the fruit seller and his long-suffered wife- that is nothing short than trying for realism in the guise of melodrama. If Cassavetes were a crazy German he might make this film, maybe even as just a lark.

The story sounds simple enough, where Hans' drinking gets out of control, he beats his wife (this scene is one of the toughest to take, maybe in just any movie, the way Fassbinder's camera lingers without a cut as his wife is left helpless and their daughter trying to stop him in his frenzy) and then she's ready to leave him. As he stands in the room, her family holding him back, she makes the call for divorce and he gets a heart attack right there. He recovers, his business suddenly starts booming again with some help from some good (or not so good) employees - and yet this only continues his longing, for another woman, and his despair in general.

And yet it's in this simplicity that Fassbinder tries, and succeeds for the most part, in attaining a mood of dread, of a tense vibe in a kitchen or in the bedroom or out on the street that you can cut with a knife and bleed out. The weakest part of this all may be the acting... at least that was my initial impression. Hans, played by Hirschmuller, can be a stilted presence, with only the slightest movements in his face and eyes, and for a while it doesn't look like he's much of a good actor. The actress playing his wife, Irm Hermann, and her sister (Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla) fare better, but only cause they're given more to do conventionally, like cry or look concerned. It takes some time to adjust to what is, essentially, a void in his guy Hans, of something from his own psychological self-torment or self-pity that pervades himself and those around him who just want to get on with some sense of normalcy, especially once Hans gets successful.

Not everything clicks together in The Merchant of Four Seasons, but enough did to make me recommend it to those looking for a different slice-of-life than you might be used to with more modern American movies. Fassbinder's world here is a combat between the melodrama he loves in cinema and the harsh, crushing sense of humanism that he feels personally and puts into characters that, for better or worse, we somehow identify with. Are the Epps a family you know of? Or could you even be them? Who's to say. It's a methodical study of tragic emptiness in the human spirit, and its goals are all attained. Rent this, I own the DVD, got it for $9.99. A steal being so under-rated. Sure, there are better movies. Movies with fewer or no holes in the plot or action. BUt I don't have that problem with this movie. For me if a movie stays true to itself, honest and exploitive of its flaws (and virtues, obviously!) in the name of entertainment, then it has fulfilled its purpose. I got me to care, because its makers cared. The entire movie is preposterous from beginning to end, but its makers took the whole undertaking seriously, And I did not feel manipulated into taking the movie seriously. And that is so true, because I want to take every movie seriously yet many, oh so many, let me down. For all of its preposterousness, this movie is almost perfect, and completely entertaining!What a funny screenplay! It also has become eerily relevant in light of the events on 9/11. In no way do I seek to minimize the loss. But this movie incorporates the tradegy of the WTC collapse before it happened in ways that we will never see had the movie been made after those events.

"...it's either gone for good, or here to stay." "wouldn't you agree?" I think Shane Black is one of the all time greatest action screenwriters ever! He gave us the awesome (at it's time)Lethal Weapon, shooting Mel Gibson to super stardom. Then followed that up with the second best movie Bruce Willis has ever been in (The Last Boyscout).Stumbled a bit with The Last Action Hero, but redeemed himself with this one, The Long Kiss Goodnight.

If you're a fan of action films, this has it all...Action, Comedy, Thrills, then tops it of with more Action, Comedy and Thrills. Geena Davies is great, Samual L Jackson is even greater. Don't miss it !

9/10 I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into their movies.

10/10 I love this film...! I've seen it 1000 x on dvd and I cant say enough about it. It has it all, comedy, awesome action and incredible stunts/fx. Samuel Jackson steals the show here big time. I dont think there isnt a moment that he's in that he isnt funny! "Everyone knows that when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption"!! The f/x are great! The bridge/truck explosion is incredible, although the sound isnt all that great!When Samuel drives out of the truck, the sound is off a little I think and what he says is priceless!!! For those of you who own it on dvd, put the audio in french!!! It's halarious!!! Even emotional moments are great when the bad guy discovers that Sam's/Charlie's daughter is his, is great... This is a great film that no action fan can do without... I also reccomend Cutthroat Island... Aside from all the negative publicity, it kicks!!!! I was happy to find out that at least now this movie is beginning to get the appreciation it deserves (just view those votes). Not top-class action like "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon", but still something like a solid 7 out of 10: fine script, good actors with working chemistry, and a director who knows what he wants (sadly, this was director Harlin's last good film. "Deep Blue Sea" managed to reach 'an OK rollercoaster-ride'- status, but "Cutthroat Island, and especially, "Driven" are well-deserved flops!) Personally I think the turn-off at the box-office might have been the "Woman as an action star"-theme. Well, give her a chance, because Davis does deliver a performance above par. And, after all, this film doesn't concentrate so much on the "feminine"-side, but instead on good ol' action, buddyism (Jackson as a sidekick is given a lot of room in here, plus his share of action- and about a thousand killer wisecracks!) and on the plot (from Shane Black, the writer of "Lethal Weapon" and "The Last Boy Scout". The latter of which as a movie is on very many levels much like this one...the theme, the clever plot, also as good and as underrated!) Overall: if one hasn't seen this one yet, don't forget to rent it for the next quiet Saturday night! Almost no cinema experience can beat a good thriller with a sense of humor. Geena Davis is a schoolteacher housewife who suffers from amnesia. She'e even on the PTA! But then an auto accident awakens the woman she used to be, and it's HOT! Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as the low rent private eye who tries to help Davis find her past, only to find out he's in way over his head. Davis has some hilarious lines too, and the interaction between her and Jackson works surprisingly well.

Look for Brian Cox, the original Hannibal Lechter, and David Moorse finally managing to shed his St. Elsewhere TV image. The film is directed by Davis' husband, who almost seems to have built the whole film around her, but it works.

I pull out this DVD and rewatch it often. I still love the makeup scene. Is Geena hot or what?

SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW

The Long Kiss Goodnight is yet another prime example of a common affliction of many modern films; it starts off on a very interesting concept - a trained assassin whose memory was erased regains consciousness of herself - and the initial setup is engaging but then it seems the writers don't know very well where to go next and the whole thing trails off down increasingly confusing and/or inane paths, leaving the disappointing taste of something that was OK but promised to be a lot better. The baddies are remarkably unremarkable, and even Jackson's comic sidekick turn seems more like something from his pre-Pulp Fiction days; it looks like Harlin, as in Cutthroat Island, made every effort so that no-one would upstage his then wife. Her character is by far the best of the film and this fact only makes you feel even more frustrated that they weren't able to do something better with it.

However, there is still something about this film which for me sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill hollywood actioner and places it above average, if only just. It is something very subtle I can't quite put my finger on; it's a disturbing, cold, dark, even sickly edge, a nightmarish and unreal feel, a decadent air, a mean streak, which keeps cropping up in various ways. It's in the dark reddish photography and almost permanent night the characters dwell in, it's in Samantha's dreams in front of the mirror, it's in her vicious eyes and smile whenever she's about to kill a man or when she announces how she will enjoy watching her nemesis die with her daughter listening, it's in Mitch's comeback at the wheel of a car while he is spurting so much blood from his mouth he can hardly speak... I don't know, it's an atmosphere, something I can't define but which gives me the creeps (a bit) and which makes this film still oddly intriguing for me. Terrific movie: If you did not watch yet, you must watch. Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson are amazing in this movie.

Great actors + good story + incredible action scenes > "The Long Kiss Goodnight"

I give it a 10, A+, 4 stars. This is one of the best action films I have seen. Geena's portrayal of the tough as nails, 'Charly'/gentle mother 'Sam', was superb and Samuel L Jackson just keeps you laughing all the way through, with his classic one liners. Sure, there were a few holes in the actual story, but this fast-paced flick keeps you on the edge of your seat to the end.

I felt Geena was a perfect choice for the role of Sam/Charly and her versatility as an actress is evident for her role as the mother in the recent movie 'Stuart Little'. Both Samuel and Geena were well supported by David Morse, Brian Cox, sweet little Yvonne Zima and newcomers, sexy Craig Bierko, and Melina Kanakaredes. This film accentuates the growing trend of strong female character and the diversion away from traditional male/female stereotypes as we see Sam/Charly (Davis) and Mitch (Jackson) hurtling from one disaster to the next.

While I and many others loved this movie, it is fair to say that there will always be people that don't and that's fine - each, to their own. I highly recommend this film to action fans, for its hilarious scenes and fast-paced action. I'm an action movie fan but until today I've never seen a preview or an ad for this movie in Italy, so I went to see "The Long Kiss Goodnight" on pay-TV hoping for nothing special.

But, what a surprise! This movie is great! The only problem I found is the presence of some holes in the plot, but the rest is the most entertaining, intriguing and funny action movie ever made.

The transformation of Samantha/Charly from ordinary wife-teacher to cool-blooded agent recovering from amnesia seems to be a good idea. The action scenes and the stunts are the best I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson adds some of the best lines I have ever heard and his chemistry with Geena Davis is good.

And what about Geena? She is wonderful, she plays the best action heroine ever seen and does strong, convincing acting and fantastic stunts.

So I think this movie had weak performances at box office and bad critics because most reviewers and some kind of public have a hard time with strong female lead roles.

9/10. Surprisingly well-acted, well-written movie about hard rockin'-but-decent young man getting that much-hoped-for ticket to stardom: his favorite heavy metal band wants him to replace their lead singer. Not far-fetched, the film tries keeping things in perspective and doesn't go over-the-top; it certainly makes you think twice about those lingering adolescent fantasies about being in the music business. But the script, despite solid dialogue, follows a tried-and-true, formulaic pattern, and gets bogged down by its own clichés in the final act. I enjoyed it much more than the sugary fluffball "Almost Famous". It has a nice, bitter edge to go with its heavy metal decadence, but a stronger finish might've made it more memorable. **1/2 from **** ROCK STAR / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

"Rock Star" is the story of a nobody who becomes propelled into fame, only to realize living his dream is not the way he imagined it. We have seen all this before (in better movies), but this human story does capture the world of rock and roll with a brutally honest and insightful edge. It garners a recommendation because of its visualization of the atmosphere. The script, by "Crazy/Beautiful" director John Stockwell, portrays the hard-core universe with memorable images-it doesn't explain what it is about, it shows us.

"Rock Star," originally titled "Metal God," stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris "Izzy" Cole, a Pittsburgh office supplies salesperson who dreams of becoming Bobby Beers, the fiery lead singer for the heavy metal rock group, Steel Dragon. Although Chris already sings for his own tribute rock group called Blood Pollution, instead of writing his own songs, he insists on performing only those by Steel Dragon, and only in the exact way they perform them. His group becomes irritated with Chris' obsessions and gives him the boot.

This devastates Chris, as well as his supportive parents and faithful girlfriend, Emily (Jennifer Aniston from TV's "Friends"). He then receives a phone call. It's the Steel Dragon band. They have seen Chris' tapes and want him to replace the recently fired lead singer. In an instant, Chris rockets into the dizzying world of sudden stardom-from the biggest rock fan to the biggest rock star. Unfortunately, it's not as rewarding as he expected.

A true story inspired the "Rock Star" concept. An Ohio supply salesman, Tim "Ripper" Owens, really did replace Rob Halford, the lead singer in Judas Priest, after initially singing for a tribute band. The rest of the film is probably fiction, although most of what happens must represent the experiences of many other bands. The film details the various ordeals of being a rock star. It explores the aspects of touring, personality differences, the danger of drug abuse and violence, struggling relationships, sexual freedom, dishonesty, and the extreme measures of the producers all to please the fans and keep popularity high.

I have seen all of Mark Wahlberg's movies, and this is the first that has earned my affection. Wahlberg, a former singer/model, has made movies like "Fear," "Boogie Nights" "Three Kings," and most recently Tim Burton's lacking remake "Planet of the Apes." I am starting to admire the young actor more and more. Although he has not performed in many successful films, he has taken many chances, and done a variety of roles. "Rock Star" is his best film to date. I can't think of many actors who could have convincingly portrayed Chris Cole's struggles and aspirations. Wahlberg truly makes "Rock Star" rock.

Jennifer Aniston lights up the screen as well. She creates a chemistry-rich relationship with Chris that induces audience participation. It's tragic of what happens to their relationship. We care about these characters a great deal.

During the film concert scenes, director Stephen Herek (who also directed "Holy Man" and the live action version of "101 Dalmatians") creates a gripping atmosphere. He captures the scenes with an intense urgency, and a raw, unmistakable energy. The musical numbers provide the film with the best, most involving scenes.

Unfortunately Herek cannot sustain the energy and zest throughout. At the three-quarters mark, he looses the spark as the movie becomes dull and unpleasant. I understand where the story needs to go in order to portray the negative side of fame, but this movie loses everything it previously had going for it. In "Almost Famous," a much better film about rock and roll, there is a certain amount of interest and life in even the most sorrowful scenes. Here, it feels as if the filmmakers lose their passion.

The message comes a bit too late and suddenly in the story. The film turns into a morality tale that wants to provide us with a sappy destination. The filmmakers might as well stop everything, appear on screen and say: "now audience, the moral of the story is…" We understand the theme, but it's too instantaneous. The personal discovery for Chris' must be gradual.

Fortunately, all of this happens in the last twenty-five minutes of the film, hardly enough to completely destroy an entire eighty-five minutes of a reasonably good feature. "Rock Star" is not a great movie-see "Almost Famous" if you want a remarkable film about rock and roll-but for Marky Mark, it's a turning point in his career.

ROCK STAR is a well-told Hollywood-style rendition of the tale based on fact actually on how Ripper became Rob Halford's replacement for Judas Priest. Mark Wahlberg poured on his likable boy-ish charm and performed with believable admirably, something he has been known to do since the release of BOOGIE NIGHTS.

Stephen Herek, no stranger to musically-themed movies, takes the audience through the wonders of the breakneck lifestyle of an extinct species, the Hair-Metal Rock God. Wahlberg's "Izzy" acts as the film's host plays the everyman who gets to see his wish come true. His likable character quickly wins over the heart of the viewer, who wants to see him succeed and gets the chance to give him the Metal "goat horn" hand-sign several times over.

The only real complaint with the story is that the supporting cast, namely the other members of the band, were not fleshed out, or even introduced, properly. More interaction with these life-long Rock musicians would have amplified and solidified Izzy's new surroundings.

Naturally, ROCK STAR is filled with great music. Rabin's score, the Steel Dragon's original work and plenty of 80's-style Metal hits makes this soundtrack a must-have! Let's all hope that films like ROCK STAR not only give a credibility to a style of music that helped define a generation but also spark a very-needed revival. I've been looking forward to the release of this movie since I first heard the concept two years ago, and I was not disappointed. I won't bother summarizing the story since everyone else has, but I will say that it was just plain entertaining throughout. The performances were great, as was the music, and the main characters were likeable.

My only complaints are: (1) the story was definitely lacking; the movie wrapped up very abruptly- in fact the writing became pretty lax in the second half, as though the writers weren't sure what to do with the plot. Since the plot wasn't nearly as important as the music and the action, this didn't really affect the entertainment value of the film, so this is not as major a complaint as it would seem.

(2) This is really nitpicky, but the music that the characters in the movie were listening to was sometimes dated after 1985, when the movie was set. INXS' Devil Inside was from 1987 and AC/DC's Are You Ready was from 1990, among other mistakes. This bothers me a bit, since they obviously went to lengths to make a good period piece, they could have checked the copyright date on these songs to make sure they were 1985 or earlier. Again, not a big deal.

Oh, I thought of something else that was strange. The Steel Dragon band members were supposed to be English, but for some reason Dokken bassist Jeff Pilson and Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde played band members, and they each had a couple of speaking lines in AMERICAN accents. That was kind of lazy also, but it was still cool to see actual musicians playing musicians, so I will forgive that as well.

I could probably nitpick all day, but I don't want to give the impression that this wasn't a super entertaining movie. I will probably buy the DVD when it comes out, and I will certainly buy the soundtrack CD simply for the six Steel Dragon songs (some of which were sung by the singer from the band Steelheart, if you remember them!). The highlight of the film was possibly a great outtake where Mark Wahlberg is lipsynching to a rock song on stage and suddenly someone plays "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. The surprised look of Mark's face is priceless. Classic rock and roll flick! Score: 8/10 due to extreme entertainment I must admit I wasn't expecting much on this movie. I was surprised I truly enjoyed it as much as I did. The script wasn't oscar material, but it wasn't horrible either. The acting was great by Mark Wahlberg. Jennifer Aniston had a great supporting role, and looked lovely as ever. What made this movie for me was the music. If you do not like 80's glam metal or hair bands, then you probably wont like this movie. Its all about being a rockstar. Some cliche's were present, but didn't bring down the movie at all. I would recommend it to anyone who likes rock and roll and remember to Stand up and Shout!!! 8 of 10 for great acting and awesome music.

Jason Nothing really unpredictable in this movie, but a solid flick in all respects. Everything from acting to cinematography was solid. Not a perfectly linear plot line, but there wasn't anything you couldn't see coming. Perhaps a tad melodramatic at points, but again, a fairly decent movie none the less. Definitely worth checking out. If in doubt of what film to rent over the weekend, give this a go. Though you may not feel like running out and buying it, I found it to be quite worth while. If you like the 80's rock, you should definitely see this movie! I've only seen it recently and completely fell in love with it!

Overall, the movie is very entertaining, provides you with a great load of rock tunes and not a single second of the movie do I find boring! It was a great idea that some of the real-life musicians were in this, doing what they do best. I was happy to see Zakk, as well as Blas Elias, they all delivered solid performances. I tend to agree with a lot of people saying that the first half of the movie was much better than the second one, specially in the terms of the script.That could have been worked on a bit better, but not a major biggie. One thing that did bother me a bit was Jennifer Aniston's performance. I thought she wasn't the right person for this role,I just couldn't see her as a rock star girlfriend.But as the movie goes on, you somehow realize that she did a good job with this.There is a certain amount of honesty and sincerity she delivers that just doesn't live you cold.

To summarize, a good and a funny movie, that doesn't go deep into characters but provides you with a good fun, a sense of nostalgia and of course the mighty vocals by Jeff Scott Soto and Mike Matijevic! Mark Walhberg in a great role, idolises a rock star to the extent of knowing all his songs, imitating him to perfection, and dressing like him. When the opportunity comes for him to take over his "idol's" role in the band, he jumps at the opportunity. However the role of a rock star may not be what it is cracked up to be... and relationships can change .... This movie certainly struck me as having the theme of what you attain for may not be what you think it is once you get it. Overall a really good movie with great performances from all the cast as well as the two leads, Mark Walhberg and Jennifer Aniston. It did make me feel sad, especially when Emily, (Jennifer Aniston), met up with Chris in Seattle and saw the depths to what he had sunk. If anybody ever dreamed of being a rock star or a groupie they should watch this movie to see that the lifestyle, although glamourous for a while, is very lonely and ultimately not what you may want. What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock movie classic. Oh well....

I loved this movie-and would see it again and again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the reason why I loved this movie so.

But it isn't a great movie. I understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the character development.

What is wrong with the character development is this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples- 1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes)

2)The first "after show" party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.)

3)Backtracking a little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-the whole "business as usual" tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played very effectively.

But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the actors/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go beyond the "formula" feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the movie wasn't.

Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all.

Watching this, it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out....

I hope I'm not being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons. I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie, instead of a cliché. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie.

So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great, great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still means so much to so many of us. WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

'Rock Star' is one of the solid rock movies I have ever seen. The original idea of the script focuses on a young singer in the 80s, leading a tribute band of one of the most famous hard rock bands of the period. He is not only playing their music to the note, but also living the life of his idols. When his friends in the tribute band expel him, in search of some originality, the destiny plays him a good turn, and gets hired to replace the lead singer of the idols band. A dream came true? Well, almost. While starting to live the life of the famous, including the drug and sex excesses of the rock scene of the 80s, he will also have to face the problems in relationship with his supportive girlfriend, and will be eventually need to answer questions about creativity and having a saying in the music of the band.

I liked the film, one of the reasons being that it is one of the first times that the life and music of the hard metal rock bands is shown in a realistic manner. Fans of the music genre will be satisfied by the soundtrack. The overall idea is original, and the issues of how an artist lives his life and creates his art are being rendered in a sensible and balanced manner. Acting is quite good, with Mark Wahlberg better than in most of the other action flics I saw him lately, and Jennifer Aniston in tune with the nice-girl-who-knows-a-lot-about-life role. More problematic is the ending, which is quite conventional, and may disappoint. It looks like the main character after quiting the big and famous band has found his own creative path. However, in an ironical twist the music he is playing in the club at the end is the worst in the whole movie!

8/10 on my personal scale. Worth seeing - however, expect exposure to a high dose of metal. If you do not like this kind of music, you may chose to avoid this film. I seen this movie when it came out. I thought what an average movie. I have now realized that this director was ahead of his time. This is a great movie and great soundtrack. I have seen my share of rock films but although this is far from spinal tap (which I did not like)> This film does take us into the life of an 80s rocker wanting to be nothing but. This is nothing more than our inner child wanting to grow up and to be a *ROCK STAR* Yeah I said it. Everyone wants to grow up and be on the spot light( Weather said or not). This movie just puts you in the core of emotions and you can almost feel the excitement of Izzy. I must admit the acting was less par but still the music and story was enough to hold you in to it, till the credits rolled. Worth the watch especially if you are a fan of ye Ole mighty hair bands. Rock Star is a "nice" movie. Everyone is nice. Even the guys who aren't supposed to be nice, really are nice. Chris is a nice guy, who learns a lesson in life. He goes back to his girlfriend Emily, who is also nice.

It's a good movie, despite all the niceness. Maybe I'm just used to all the angst of the X Gen music. In some ways the film was a caricature of Rock Stars and not hard edged enough to be believable.

Mark Wahlberg's acting is quite good. Jennifer Aniston played her role well, but it was uncomplicated. She was a nice girl.

Go see it. If you have ever been to a rock concert or seen Spinal Tap, go see it. I was very excited to see Rock Star because I am a big fan of Mark Wahlberg's. I was surprised to have liked it more than I originally thought I would. The script did leave something to be desired, but the movie's performances made up for it. There were a few moments when visions of Spinal Tap came rushing back, and I can't help but think this movie would have been even better as a mocumentary. But, I digress.

Wahlberg continues to demonstrate his talent, as he plays with believability an ordinary guy whose biggest dream comes true. He does it with the wonder and innocence that make you not only believe him, but also make you really care about his character.

Jennifer Aniston, who hasn't impressed me in movies up to this point, is surprisingly good as the girlfriend/manager. She shows more real emotion than I've seen in her last few movies combined.

But above all, it's the music in this movie that really draws you in. Peppered with some 80's tunes (let's face it - Bon Jovi would have any 80's music fans rocking in their seat), the movie really rocks with the original Steel Dragon songs and Wahlberg's performance of them.

I plan to see this movie again, but first I'm going to rush out and buy the soundtrack! This film is great with some of the best songs preformed by Bon Jovi and kiss.The film is about a man named Chris(Mark Wahlberg)Who is the biggest fan of a band named Steel Dragon.And then when he gets the gig for lead singer his world changes upside down.With great acting by Jennifer Aniston this film is a must see for rock lovers!!

4/5 stars So, you wanna be a rock star? See this movie. You don't like rock, you say? Or you're REALLY into heavy metal? Then put on your favorite album and dream yourself away, this movie has nothing to offer. Rarely have I ever seen a movie being able to portrait the dream of being in a rock band as good as this. I had long hair during the late 1980's and early nineties, and I have played guitar for the last 15 years or so. Did I like Rock Star? Oh yes. The music is good, not great, the actors are good, and believable, even Jennifer Aniston plays her part to perfection. And Mark Wahlberg is perfect as the wannabe rock singer. So you know what you're going to get. A movie about dreams coming true, being stepped on, and finally figuring out what life is really about. It's a good solid seven out of ten, no more, no less. I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as "the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted. I love this movie, first and foremost because of Mark Wahlberg is in it and secondly because the end justifies the means. There is something about this film that sucks you in and allows you to feel all of the emotions the characters are feeling. Jen Aniston is great as the girlfriend in this movie. It takes a look at the Rockstar lifestyle that so many hardcore rockers lived back in the day (perhaps these days they have gotten just abit smarter). It takes through a rainbow of emotions and has a lot of subtle facets to allow the light through. Like a diamond, this movie shines. You won't waste your popcorn on this one. Semi-chick flick but my husband enjoyed it too. There's some laughs thrown in too. This was an interesting movie. I could have done without the bathroom scene and the seduction scene - EWWWW! Other than that, I loved the head-banging music this movie revolved around. Chris/Izzy's parents are AWESOME! They totally support their sons interests and believe in him enough to support him - now that is AWESOME!! What really surprised me was the Chris's realization at the end. It was not quite the "hollywood" ending on his road to self discovery. The overall rise to stardom and the fall of it was quite a roller- coaster ride. Well, let me put it this way - I have always been one of the "hardcore brothers"; I've always loved rock music, and especially heavy metal!! That's why this movie is like a gift from God! I believe this movie is one of the best movies ever (well, except from Neverending Story and Star Wars, of course ...). It's great to hear all the classics, like "Long live rock and roll" (DIO), "Stranglehold (Ted Nugent), songs by Jon Bon Jovie, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Zakk Wylde and several other legendary rock bands. Heavenly! Absolutely gorgeous! WONDERFUL!!! I hope they will make more movies like this (otherwise it's just crap movies, like that "AC in da USA" or what they call it, and "8 miles". Bulls***!). Well, I strongly recommend this anyway! Everything I'm missing is a couple of Stratovarius-songs! But except from that, it's one of the best movies ever! Ten out of ten! After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all

After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all

I loved this movie. It is a very simple plot and from what I understand it is based on a true story. Growing up in the 80's with hard rock/hair metal may have something to do with my love of this film but even aside from the music it is a really fun movie to watch. Give it a try, you will like it unless you are the hardest of critics and only like movies of "Citizen Kane" caliber. This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all about metal.

Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day.

The story doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll! The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here).

Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a true metal dude!

'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie!

10/10 `Rock star' is not on its way to any `stairway to heaven' category as one of the best rock films of all time, but it does make you `jump' from time to time because of its high-level energy. The film's theme is on a die-hard rock group fanatic who actually becomes the lead singer of his favorite band. The story is based upon the true story on what happened to the heavy metal band Judas Priest. If you think this movie is filled with a witty screenplay and intellect direction- then you got `another thing coming'. However, what did `shook me all night long' was the fine acting of Jennifer Aniston as the rock star's devoted girlfriend. I could not say the same about the rock star himself; Mark Wahlberg was much better as a porn star than a rock star. I did enjoy the 80's retrospect journey the movie intakes. It reminded me of my teenage years where everything `smelled like teen spirit'. I guess the film is worth a viewing, but for you to have a better time watching it make sure you bring along some `girls, girls, girls.' *** Average Jon Cryer reprises his role as a neurotic guy in Two and a Half Men, which he perfected in this series. He longs to have a good relationship with a girl like his coworker has developed, and the tet-a-tet between him and his partner's girlfriend's best friend are pretty funny. Then they realize that they're attracted to each other and start dating. In one of the funniest lines on TV EVER -- I think in the final episode -- he and his partner are discussing that he wants to propose to the girl.

His partner prepares him for the moment by suggesting: "What's the worst that can happen? She says no."

Armed with newfound optimism, he proposes to his date over dinner. To which she replies,

"GOD, no!"

I laughed so hard I cried. I enjoyed this show, it was on in the uk, but not at peak time, and they seemed to move it all over the schedules so I wasn't able to watch them all. I was surprised when it didn't return and had no i idea why, still don't know, but i guess that's not important.

Great performances from the two leads, they were very believable as friends. The two supporting actresses also added well to the mix. I guess it was part of a whole load of shows that were lifestyle centred, Friends being the obvious main one, but sex in the city came along a few years later.

The characters, get take out coffee, they drink at nice bars , that sort of thing, a little woody allenish in a way. This was a modern TV classic! The story goes like this, Bob has a girlfriend named Alicia. Bob and Alicia are in love and want to get married. Bob has a bud named Owen who he works with. Owen is jealous of Alicia. He likes hanging around with Bob. Now Owen hangs around with Bob AND Alicia. Bob and Owen have a secretary named Heather. Heather is very accident prone. She is also, if you haven't guessed it, is kind of lonely. She too hangs around with Bob and Alicia, and Owen. Sometimes Alicia wishes Bob didn't have any friends.

By the end of the first season, it looked like Owen finally found himself a real longlasting girlfriend. Bob and Alicia went driving on the night before their wedding, making out in a tiny car and then getting stuck. Way out in the middle of nowhere! What happened next? What about poor Heather? Did anyone get married?? Sorry, series ended.

Not even a plea from TV Guide made FOX think twice about putting it back on the air. It was a great show with a great cast. I loved Heather too. She looked cool in those glasses and was hilarious. I miss this show a lot. This is like reading a good book with the ending missing......sad. Jesse yet again delivers, after almost 12 months of hype about his upcoming production it finally reaches the dark world of the internet with more than a brilliant approach to amateur film making.

DBP is a original, nail-biting commentary on a troubled child growing into an even more troubled adult. if i had more than two thumbs, i would give more, but i think two will be enough.

Great work from all cast, especially by Marissa and Elizabeth, the character of Emily as an adult has given me shivers so far and i'm afraid of where she'll go next.

An excellent watch This new movie by Jeskid is awesome! Check it out and you'll be amazed. The story of Emily Waters, once a girl from a broken home, whose only means of escape from an abusive father was through her sketchbook. Until one night her drawings manifested into reality and saved her, and now using this power she fights against those who would do evil. Both live action film and hand drawn animation blend together to create a unique and original experience that will shake your soul and blow you away. The music is incredible as well, it really intesifies the emotional experience and draws you deep into the conflict. Directed by Jesse Cowell and animated by Erica Langworthy, starring the beautiful Marissa Parness, with music by Nico Audy-Rowland, Daniel Collins, Jeff Strathearn, Matt Sisco, and Selcuk Bor. Support this film and support Jeskid, he is a very talented guy. Go see his film Shades of Grey as well. This young filmmaker has a talent for capturing his audience quickly with unusual camera work and sparse but intense scripts. The concept here of combining animation with live footage is remarkably well-executed and the soundtrack is very good.

The decision to release the movie in twelve parts online puts the onus on the director to make each episode fascinating enough for the viewer to invest in buying each upcoming episode. I only wish all motion pictures had this kind of commitment to keeping their audiences entertained throughout their stories.

Highly recommended. Drawn by Pain is easily one of the best pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Here are my reviews of the episodes released so far:

Episode one was even better than I expected and from everything I had heard about it, I expected quite a lot. I am very impressed with the actors already. The father was creepy and played perfectly. The little girl is so expressive, she uses her eyes to convey such emotion. The animation was superb. The cinematography was amazing, each camera angle capturing the feeling of the scene perfectly. The editing was done so well, each scene blending seamlessly into the next. The music captured the emotions quite well and drew you into the story. I just can't say enough about how wonderful this episode was. It definitely whets my appetite for more!

Episode 2 was even better than the first one! Everything I said about the first episode carries through, only you get to see even more of the character development. I can not wait to finally see episode 3, or the rest of the series for that matter. What is developing is an intriguing, character driven storyline with all the trappings of a big Hollywood production, but without the pretension. So much is said, with so few words. This series is something like you've never seen and perched to become a real success.

This episode was FREAKING AWESOME! No other words describe it! WOW! Everything that I've said about the previous episodes holds true for this one, and yet it was even better! I don't know how you manage to take something amazing and make it even better! The further character development proves that this is a completely character driven piece. The cinematography excels as it always has and draws you into Emily's pain, fear, hate and emotional roller-coaster. I can't wait to see Episode 4... or the rest of the series for that matter. You have truly outdone yourself!

As much as I have loved the other episodes, episode 4 is the best yet. I love the character progression. I feel like we are really coming to know Emily, her pain, and her internal struggle. The other themes I've stated in past reviews are continued. GREAT cinematography, the writing is superb, the actors are right on with their portrayals and have made the characters their own, and the animation is simply amazing! Another great job from the DbP crew! The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with life, her demons, and her fears.

Young Emily watched her parents fight and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world.

This movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part series. Eve is an eye opener, because of the great sceneries and the tech-no music in the backgrounds, we hear. This movie shows a good aspect on the human body being God's creation and to considerate about it, viewers can earn better respect on the legendary story of Adam and Eve (either if it's true or just a fairy tale, depending on what we believe) from watching this movie. Actress/model Inger Ebeltoft's impersonation of Eve is so good, there's no good word to describe her performance, and I can't imagine having another actress being Eve. This movie to me, comes in really handy for the type of therapy of stress relief. We'd never fell so relax then before from watching this movie. This movie is a masterpiece, God supposedly wanted this movie to be made in the first place!

Mr. Razbin! I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say "Like Pelswick" and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The "Genie" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the "Ntalented" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show. (Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.)

I just watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it, my rating 10 / 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase. You got to see it to believe it. Shot in Hollywood on the strip in the middle of the sleazy, anything goes 70s, this cheaply made flick must of really packed the inner city theatres back in the day. Then again, I bet it had a one week run. Actually, its pretty hilarious. The acting is dreadful, the direction non existent, but the hair, clothes, rotten pre disco music and the general out and out sleaziness of the story are mind boggling. Sleazy, its very sleazy. Highly recomended (if you can find it) Here's one of the more pleasingly scuzzy 70's blaxploitation grindhouse items; it's a pervasively low-rent pimp opus which comes across like a sleazier version of "The Mack." John Daniels, the studly womanizing hairdresser hero Mr. Jonathan in the immortal "Black Shampoo," gives an excellent steely portrayal of the Baron, a ruthless, business savvy, forever on the make all-powerful flesh peddler who much to the dismay of his bitter, brutal Italian rivals reigns supreme over the Sunset Strip. When not locking horns with his fellow no-count criminal pals or doing his best to avoid being busted by the local vice cops, Daniels is leading a sweetly average existence as your standard garden-variety suburbanite dude (complete with caring wife and loving kids!) in some typically humdrum California small town.

The glaringly absurd premise alone promises top-rate trashy greatness of a decidedly Grade B schlock picture variety (George Theakos deserves kudos for his hilariously ludicrous script). Matt Cimber's commendably tactless and tasteless direction delivers the junky goods by the slimy bucketful, thus making this film a hugely enjoyable serving of celluloid grime. Among the assorted squalid delights to be savored herein are plentiful gratuitous female nudity, coarse dialogue, beautifully gaudy Me Decade threads (halter tops, felt hats, sparkling Day-Glo jewelry, loud seersucker suits), an intensely funky R&B score by Smoke, some hopelessly pathetic acting (the little old lady who lives next door to Daniels is excruciatingly shrill), a memorably nasty turn by Patrick Wright as a sadistic goon, a couple of cool action set pieces (the climactic slow motion barroom massacre seriously cooks), more lurid travelogue footage of the Sunset Strip than you can shake a feather boa at (said footage allegedly includes "the actual hookers and blades of the Sunset Strip in Hollywood"), effectively dark'n'dingy cinematography by Ken Gibb, a few sicko sexual fetish tableaux, some raw explicit violence (a prostitute has one of her breasts cut off!), and amusing supporting performances by familiar schlock feature perennials Richard Kennedy and George "Buck" Flower as a pair of racist, corrupt, browbeating police detectives. Sure, this movie ain't art, but it's certainly artless enough to qualify as a deliciously grungy chunk of entertainingly sordid cinematic swill. A ghost story on a typical Turkish high school with nice sound and visual effects. Taylan biraderler(taylan brothers) had made their first shots on a tv-show a couple of years ago, as far as i know. That was kind of a Turkish X-Files, they had very nice stories but lacked on visual effects. This time it seems they had what they needed and used them well. This movie will make you laugh that's for sure, and as well it might have you scared. It has a nice plot and some young, bright actors in it. If you are a high school student in Turkey you will find so many things about you here. There are many clues in the movie about its story and ending, some you understand at the moment, some will make sense afterwords, the dialogs were written very cleverly. So these make the movie one of the best Turk movies made in the last years. Do not forget, this movie is the first of its kind in the Turkish film industry. This movie coming from Turkey where you can't find any tradition of horror movies. First I was afraid of watching just an adaptation but after seeing it I have changed my mind. It has original scenario.A love movie using horror thema. Most of the players are not famous young people but their performance is proofing that a new generation is coming. Maybe this is a sign that turkish cinema is coming back after 20 years. Okul is the first of its kind in Turkish cinema, and it's way better than I expected. Those people who say it's neither scary nor funny have a point, it's not all that great indeed. But it must be kept in mind that everyone involved with the movie is rather amateur, so it's basically a maiden voyage. And comparing this one to Sinan Çetin's other films such as the 1st class garbage "Propaganda", this movie is pretty damn good.

One thing that MUST be said: It deals with the highschool students' life in Turkey VERY realistically! That's exactly how it goes! The scenes that are meant to scare are somewhat cheap, and Hollywoodish. Most of them even if not all. But that religion lesson scene made me laugh in tears, and Emre Kýnay performs the best acting of this flick as a religion teacher.

It's NOT a waste of your time, go and watch it! You'll find it rather amusing especially if you know Turkey enough to relate to Turkish youngsters' school lives. I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much love.. This film is the most impressing turkish film that I have ever seen. Probably "Okul" is the first turkish horror film. I must say that I were excited while watching the movie because of some reasons, The first reason is that the story is impressive, I mean that at the end of the film you realised all the details about movie, this makes the film attractive and the other reason is that no turkish man made such a movie like that before. This shows that turkish film improves itself by time. Although the first trial to make a horror movie, It was really successful. I advice all of you not to miss this movie... Everybody seems to compare this to The Matrix and The 13th Floor, and when I first saw it I would have agreed -- I was expecting The Matrix and was a little disappointed. But upon repeated viewings my respect for this movie has grown immensely.

The thing to keep in mind is that The Matrix is a great action movie with some philosophical mumbo-jumbo thrown in. The 13th Floor is a passable action movie with some slightly more interesting philosophical mumbo-jumbo thrown in. Existenz is not an action movie at all, and is not (as many seem to believe) about "reality" or any such "deep" concept. It's about the human tendency to intentionally replace reality with an artificial (both in its origin and in its behavior) world of make-believe.

The most chilling moment in the movie is when Allegra Geller repeats her "scripted" line. It's at that point you realize that the people in the game have voluntarily surrendered their free will in order to participate in a story. This is made even more frightening at the end when D'Arcy Nader (or rather his player) comments on the possibility of spending one's life in the game. I sympathize completely with the "realist" philosophy, that providing interesting worlds in which people simply locate the correct predefined path to the end goal is ultimately a recipe for a soulless existence. Living "in the game" is not living at all, but is a tempting way to spend one's time on earth. As Allegra comments about the real world, "there's nothing going on here." Might as well jack into someone else's imagination, and pretend to be doing something interesting. (Although I have to ask whether Cronenberg considers this a self-indictment, considering that he himself offers up worlds to be experienced in 90 minute snippets.)

Upon leaving the theater after first watching this movie, I thought it was one of those movies that was watchable only to see how it ended. But having seen it a couple more times (thank you SciFi Channel) I've realized how much deeper it goes. Seriously, if you've only seen it once, it deserves another viewing. David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.

The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.

The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.

This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it. Who should watch this film? Anyone who has ever taken acid, read Philip K. Dick, thought the premise of the Matrix was better then the special effects, has an interest in Philosophy, or likes having their sense of reality messed with. I laughed out loud at this film, just because it was so outrageous and so spot-on. This film is great. This film is cool. It is better than the Matrix, by a long shot (I didn't fall asleep in Existenz, for a kick off: action/special effects films bore me stupid, and despite a plausible philosophical gloss, that is exactly what the Matrix is). Existenz is gross, it is disturbing, and it is funny. David Cronenberg has done some shonky stuff (Rabid) and some works of genius too (Videodrome is another one worth checking out, as is Stephen King adaptation The Dead Zone). But this is one of my all-time favourites. I can't remember the ending- which is a good thing, cos it means I can watch it again. Or perhaps I never watched this film at all. Maybe it's an implanted memory. Or maybe it 'really' happened to me. I don't know. At any rate, it is now seamlessly stitched into my overall illusion of reality, and I'm glad. David Cronenberg's `eXistenZ' is a well designed reflection of the philosophy of existentialism. It addresses the problems of a culture that is plugged into technology that it can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality or between the organic and the mechanical. The movie shocks the audience with its replacement of mechanical technology with organic, metabolismic one. In this context the technology is able to be part of human body. After playing the virtual reality game of `eXistenZ', the real world feels like a game and as a result, human behavior change in order to apply violent game-urges even when the game is over. In eXistenZ, technology has evolved from machinery to biological organisms that plug directly into the human nervous system; an idea that reflects Marshall McLuhan's belief who is a well known media theorist, that computers are extensions of human consciousness. Like telephone is an extention of the ear, television is an extention of the eye, telegram is an extention of the central nervous system high-tech virtual reality is an extention of human consciousness. In eXistenZ, technology is biological and thus more human than it is in our world. But as technology becomes organic, humans become more mechanical and therefore less free, unable to resist their game-urges. eXistenZ is a virtual realty simulation of man's existence. Jean Baudrillard describes a mediated society in his book of Simulacra and Simulation, which all power to act has been transformed to appear. The world has passed into a pure simulation of itself. In eXistenZ it is obvious to see Baudrillard's mediated society with the themes of the invasion of the body, the loss of control and the transformation of the self into other.

While you are in the eXistenZ, consciousness slowly replaces with another identity, your role in the game, which is a reflection each individual's real life subconscious. While you gain the control of your hyperreal life step by step, the aura of your real life disappers. For Baudrillard, `.simulations or simulacra, have become hyperreal, more than real.' Our hyperreality, like Cronenberg's world of computer simulation, `.now feels, and, for all intents and purposes is, more real than what we call the real world.' (Baudrillard) The purpose of the game which can basically be called 'experience' is quite metaphorical. Because you can not even know what is experience unless you experience it. As existentialists say that, life without an exact explanation is absurd, the game of eXistenZ is absurd too. Cronenberg, ironically reflects the absurdity of our lives. For instance, in the game, the other roles just stand still unless you ask them a pre-programmed question. And when you put their aimless funny looking state of being into the representation of our lifes, the exposed absurdity really shocks.

The theme of the game is to understand what it is for? This hidden metaphorical question creates anguish over the people who play eXistenZ. They have no doubt about their existence, however they do not know the underlying reason of their existence. The essence.

Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th-century French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence. `Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a choice. Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads.' Perhaps I should mention, `eXistenZ' deals with the concept of freedom of choice too. You achieve your final role in the game by taking right decisions. If you don't than the game becomes irrevelant and boring. So, you begin to interrogate the game, your existence rather than your essence. You suddenly become schzopfrenically alianated from the game and realize your position outside the game. Well as a last word, eXistenZ is a well designed reverse simulation of life thus existentialism.

"We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand." So says Ted Pikul in the film. Which for some people sums up life and 'eXistenZ' probably is a film about existence. What is real and what is unreal and how you tell the difference. Or not. The last line of the film is superbly ambiguous.

The film seems like a shaggy dog story (indeed it has a real shaggy dog in it) but it takes you along on an interesting ride, full of provocative Cronenberg touches that will make you look at amphibians, game pods, fish, spines and bones in a new light. Some bits are quite icky. It takes place in a rural setting where the gas station is called 'GAS STATION' and a Chinese restaurant is called 'CHINESE RESTAURANT.'The film has an engrossing texture that is leagues away from your usual big budget science fiction movie.You can read many things into the film and it repays watching more than once.

The main actors are Jude Law who is OK and Jennifer Jason Leigh who is great. Some roles don't suit this very talented actor but when she has a good role like this she is unmatchable. Her unconventional beauty and fascinating voice suits the part of Allegra. (Looks great in a short black skirt too.) There are other familiar actors but they are not given much to do. It looks good, sounds good and a Howard Shore score complements the film very well. Cronenberg is possibly the Alfred Hitchcock of the sci-fi/horror genre. No matter what film he makes he is always worth watching. An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder.

Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic.

A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled "TranscendenZ". Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the "game", which then they fear is real.

The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is "real" but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.

Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the "Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level." Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to "transcend" the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is "imaginative" and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview. eXistenZ is an exploration of reality and virtual reality, wherein characters run from realm to realm, landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it's leading them. Within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games, calling into question which reality they arrive from is the "real" one.

Of course it's not spectacular at hiding the fact that it's not going to reasonably answer to a true reality, instead tossing the idea of whether it's real or a video game into question even up to the end. I'm not even sure Cronenberg pretends that twist won't be there, it's so incredibly obvious in a sense it's kind of disconcerting.

The problem with this film though is its base nature, in a sense. Cronenberg is questioning reality AND criticizing game play. Yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it: the violence, the discontinuity, the lack of focus and in a sense, the pixellation even if there isn't such pixellation in the film. I have once heard someone state that Cronenberg's violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media, but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans, animals, and amorphous piles of biological sludge.

What IS brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes, relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that don't make sense, only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice-versa, all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. It definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that's nauseating and absurd, but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal "pods" of biological matter that squirm and shift and are, frankly, disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. For what it's worth, this film causes a reaction in you.

But what for? It criticizes virtual reality, but it's a movie: it is its own virtual reality. It seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design, yet it maintains that banality. It definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life, and yet I say again, it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people, objects, beasts, things, and organisms into bloody shreds.

So whereas it has a key focus of angst, it doesn't really do anything with it, not really. Only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can't really be denied its own moment of splendor.

In a sense, it'd be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent, because there's no good reason I can see for loving it and yet I can't disregard it as mediocre or bad. It'd be easier to simply not be able to take it, but since I can, there's nothing I can really do with it. I do believe it is a little excessive, it really didn't need to go as far as it went, but Cronenberg's intentions are so mixed up and confused I don't know if that was Cronenberg's flaw or Cronenberg's point, and I don't think there's really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly.

--PolarisDiB After his earlier movie "Videodrome", which definitely shows similarities to this movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole other level.

"eXistenZ" is an highly original movie that is well directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director David Cronenberg.

"eXistenZ" is a movie that knows to constantly fool you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending that will leave you thinking even more.

The movie has a perfect kind of game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is.

The movie knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of its events, dialogs and unusual environments.

The movie is not only just weird though. I was actually surprised to see that "Videodrome" has an higher rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort of movies.

The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required 'gaming' feeling.

The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star. The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe.

An highly original movie that is well worth watching, especially if you have seen "Videodrome" previously.

8/10 The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means 'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian... - Hum... Is that so ?

Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote "In The Days of Perky Pat") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!)

The nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? "Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the players' minds" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures (helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer.

Playing eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess').

What game would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged in the world ?

And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ???

Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of virtuality in virtuality in reality. I always believed that a film that's plot is centred around a virtual reality video game never sounds as though it's going to be anything special but eXistenZ proved I couldn't have been more wrong. This film is unbelievable and, whilst highly entertaining, offers so much more than that. From start to finish, this film has you conceptualising to the point where you can have so many ideas, you can not make a final conclusion. David Cronenberg has a talent for this as he does so many things.

eXistenZ is pure Cronenberg; the way it's written and the way it's directed is very unique to his style and that can only be a good thing. Cronenberg set himself a clear target with this film and that was to keep the audience guessing which he did with apparent ease. His fondness for the grotesque is not as predominant in this film as it is in The Fly or Naked Lunch but there are still some elements such as the game pods and how they are made that can make the audience wince. With regards to his earlier work, eXistenZ is more a combination of Videodrome and a less violent Scanners, a pretty awesome combination. Setting the film in the not too distant future was a really good decision as it allowed Cronenberg to be extremely imaginative with the films surroundings and also enabled him to visualise more concepts, allowing for less inhibited writing. It was important that the film didn't become over confusing and Cronenberg avoided this very well by keeping things relatively simple. Besides, if he wanted to make an unwatchable film, he'd know how to do it a lot better than this.

eXistenZ boasts an extremely talented cast of character actors and all perform very well. Jennifer Jason Leigh gives the standout performance as the game designer who spends more time out of reality than in to it. Leigh is sexy and commanding in her role as Allegra and she really gets her teeth in to the role. The emotional range she shows in the film is particularly impressive, making her completely believable (if you can believe anything). Jude Law is also good and is very convincing in his character's fear of implantation. The chemistry between these two is very electric and gives the film an extra bit of flavour. Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe are just two of the great actors in support who add further depth to the film with very colourful performances. The cast of the film isn't huge but eXistenZ definitely has the 'quality is better than quantity' ethic which works very well.

As well as being entertaining and thought provoking, eXistenZ touches social issues such as control and loss of self. This further demonstrates the film as an intellectual vessel and could also explain why it wasn't a huge Hollywood hit. eXistenZ has so much to offer and although it isn't to everyone's taste, those who like Cronenberg's work or who like science fiction will almost be certain to like this film. It is one of those films that needs to be watched with an open mind but it really is something special. So let's begin!)))

The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...

My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!

I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow.

The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)

Recommend with confidence!)))) WARNING: PLOT SPOILER

The always-abnormal movies of David Cronenberg certainly are an acquired taste. Fans of his earlier films will probably like `eXistenZ', but it definitely isn't one for the squeamish. All of the usual elements are here. A game pod made out of skin (hooked into your back), buckets of blood, a gun made out of bones, and a manic mechanic to name but a few. The result is good in parts, bad in parts, and just plain weird in others. But one thing the film has is undeniable originality.

Despite the excessive use of… weirdness it does prove a point- virtual reality games can have a dangerous effect on some people. In the movie, a character shoots someone dead claiming that he was `annoying' (assuming that she was still in the game). But it leaves the question as to whether that really happened or if it was an occurrence in this stunningly life-like game. `eXistenZ' leads to a conclusion that can be responded to in several ways.

Despite some extra gadgets and gook, it was simply your classic `it was all a dream… or was it' twist. It is a smart surprise and answers a few questions, but giving that the entire film was leading up to this moment is a bit disappointing. At only 97 minutes it could have went on a bit longer too. In a peculiar way the film raises moral issues but answers them in a violent and rather inappropriate way.

Jennifer Jason Leigh appears here in her first big role in quite a while. But her character doesn't have enough qualities to make her jump off the screen or even give her a likeable character. Jude Law on the other hand (equipped with a curious American accent) is good as your average Joe sucked into this abnormal world. We see the film through his perspective.

`eXistenZ' is far from flawless but it certainly is a movie experience to remember. There's tonnes of weird characteristics to match the similar styles of David Lynch (what next? - being consumed by a question mark?!?!?!). It definitely isn't for all tastes but it is rewarding enough to recommend. My IMDb rating: 6.2/10. eXistenZ combines director David Cronenberg's traditional love of blood and gore and exploding heads with the more confusing aspects of a reality twisting David Lynch film. And it actually works effectively. I won't bother trying to give even the bare bones of a plot synopsis here because it'll only cause more confusion. All you need to know is that the film is about a virtual reality computer game that is so incredibly lifelike that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between reality and virtual reality. The film almost seems to abandon its technology fearing point at the end, but then it throws in the final twist in the very last line of dialogue.

There's also some very gross sexual imagery based around the 'bio-ports' in the protagonists backs, as well as some very gross acting from Jude Law. He manages to come off as naive and stupid and boring and any other annoying habit you can care to think of. Jason Jennifer Leigh comes off much better, and everyone else can be called a supporting character, including Willem Dafoe in a functional, if unspectacular, role as a money-crazed mechanic. Overall, eXistenZ is a very effective sci-fi film about the possibilities technology can present and the possible consequences it will receive. eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic "pods" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.

But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.

Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns ! The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ. This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.

eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one... Now being a fan of sci fi, the trailer for this film looked a bit too, how do i put it, hollywood. But after watching it i can gladly say it has impressed me greatly. Jude is a class actor and miss Leigh pulls it off better than she did in Delores Clairborne. It brings films like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys and The Cell into mind, which might not sound that appealing, but it truly is one of the best films i have seen.

my favorite science fiction, incredible ride through mistrust and the warping of reality. Probably the best performance I have ever seen Jude Law play. Incredibly original with interesting character developments and a story line that twists and turns so rapidly that it takes a couple of minutes after the film to fully grasps its genius. Even more fun watching it again for the end changes the beginning. A bit "the movie in the movie" case, or as the theme is virtual game here, which is the reality or even more frightening which reality is the "real" one.As any Cronenberg there are organic things, like the pod and that wonderful idea:the organic gun, a weapon made of bones and tissues that shoots teeth. If there are some slower moments, the sets, designs and ideas are there with some thoughts of revolution. Can be not liked because the way the movie is happening is quite unusual and sometimes disturbing, but it's definitely worth it. This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.

Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.

Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is. yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie. I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly, Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena one step beyond.

In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned above then by all means go out and get this one. The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10 David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. "eXistenZ" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows.

The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about "eXistenZ" is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for. I have seen this movie twice and it's theme is an invigorating one. I have been into computers for many years now and this movie inspired me in a technologically sense as does a fresh love which stoked the furnace of my poetic passion in the heat of infatuation. Very original idea,great allurement in the way it holds you as it tells it's story to minds that need a release from the every day realities of this life. This was a movie I came across by accident. I was flipping through and saw it was on Showtime so I watched it. Now i watch it at least once a month. This is a movie that is filled with symbols that might cause some people to trash it. Don't listen to people that hate this movie, if they want an action movie with expensive f/x they should have rented a movie that promises them. If you are in the mood for a good sci-fi, i highly recommend. If purchasing on DVD I recommend the Alliance Atlantic edition of the film, it contains many more extras than the Dimension Films edition. Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - "eXistenZ" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee ("P.R. nerd") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films ("Videodrome", "Scanners", "The Fly", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - " I can't help myself." "eXistenZ" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm. This is actually the first movie I ever saw in a theatre , where the people didn't leave immediately when the end credits started. In stead they remained seated for a few minutes , gaping with their mouths open staring in the infinite , trying to understand what they 've just seen.

The only thing I can say: Try to go watch this movie with as little knowledge about it as possible (so did I)!. I gave it a 10 River's edge is not a PLEASANT film to watch but it is an incredible one. Having viewed it many years ago I truly think it would still have the ability to shock were it to be re released or remade or something. Perhaps no movie ever made has captured the essense of young suburban inertia like this distrubing frightening movie. Given that this is based on a true story it is even more disturbing. Very well acted and just UNPLEASANT at many times to watch but also a little known masterpiece and a truely important film. Should be a mandatory to watch shown nationwide in all highschools. Fantastic. One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it.

Disturbing but incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles, is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne (Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best performance in the film.

I saw "River's Edge" for the first time a long time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive time.

Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr. Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of his students seem to care.

I will never forget this film, not as long as I live. It's too saddening for that.

10/10 This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.

Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff! I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.

It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character roles.

The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.

I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse.

This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end. Less Than Zero could have been the 80s movie that reveals teenage apathy in its most extreme form had they actually stuck to the damn book. But, where they hadn't, this movie presents does the job, and leaves you with the creepiest feeling when its all over in ways not done until the late nineties with Larry Clark's movies 'Kids' and 'Bully.'

Societal outcast teens are faced with a rather curious dilemma (they don't treat it much like one) when their estranged friend (Daniel Roebuck) boasts to them that he killed a teenage girl near the river's edge in their suburban town. Keanu Reeves may be the only civilized character among the bunch, the only one willing to exhibit any sort of conscience, anyway, while the others either don't do anything about the girl's death or want to help their friend hide the body.

I don't know who is more sick in this film--Crispin Glover--who becomes nearly obsessed and quite paternal in trying to protect the friend and hide the crime by smuggling him out of the state. Dennis Hopper, an on-edge drug dealer (who clings to a female blowup doll) that befriends the teens (as a dealer, of course) and suddenly becomes involved in the events. Or, Josh Miller, who plays Reeve's little brother, Tim. He appears to be the most apathetic of them all, at least until his emotional breakdown at the end. It is definitely not peppy 80s teen fare, obviously. And certainly makes the point strikingly clear about the serious detachment these kids deal with (despite a bizarre series of events) thanks to many great performances all around (even Reeves proved some acting capability).

Help yourself to a comedy to recover if it rocks you too hard. River's Edge is an excellent film and it's a shame that it hasn't made more of a mark for itself in cinematic history. There were a number of gritty films based around school kids made in the eighties, but of all the ones I've seen; this is certainly the most nihilistic and disturbing. The film takes a storyline that is disturbing in its own right and adds the theme of teenage slackers and their uncaring attitude about things, which takes the story onto another level. The film works because the central story is interesting and it's played out by complex characters. The film begins with a murder. We then follow the murderer, nicknamed John, as he goes back to school and tells all his friends about what he has done. Rather than give the expected reaction, most of them hardly react at all and the strongest reaction that the murderer gets comes from Layne; who makes it his number one priority to help John clear up the mess he's in and get him out of it. The other friends mull over the crime, and before long one of them goes to the police...

River's Edge features a host of great performances from its young cast. Keanu Reeves has a reputation for wooden acting, and for good reason; but he fits in very well to this early role and this performance is easily one of his best. Crispin Glover is the biggest standout as the slightly insane Layne. Glover always stands out in every film he's in, and while he does go over the top a little bit; he convinces well as the lead in this movie. Reeves and Glover receive good support from a talented young cast that includes Daniel Roebuck and Joshua john Miller, as well as the great Dennis Hopper in another wild role. The film features a very gritty picture which bodes well with its nihilistic tone. The central characters are all of the 'slacker/stoner' generation and the way that they genuinely don't seem to care about the murder of their friend is more shocking than the murder itself; and the point that the film tries to make about modern society is both strong and well defined. The film is also rather funny, owing to some of the characters' lines; but the humour is pitch black and clearly this film was never meant to be a comedy. Overall, this is an excellent and memorable film that is definitely worth seeing! I have seen this movie a number of times and find it very compelling and sad. The lack of real emotion from most of the characters is very disturbing. They seem empty, hopeless. The story is based on a real event.

A teenage girl is murdered by her boyfriend for no obvious reason - apparently he just felt like it. Then he boasts about it to his friends and as they don't believe him he takes them to view the body - a number of times. No one reports the murder. There are two strong leads - Keanu Reeves and Crispen Glover - Crispen Glovers character is seriously annoying.

Keanu's character Matt appears to be the only one who has a sense of right and wrong. This is Keanu at his best - a flawless performance and very believable - anyone who thinks this man can't act should watch this movie. Matt's little brother is almost the most disturbing character in the movie. Only twelve and no compassion or love factor in his life. It is very sad to think there are kids out there like this. It really makes you grateful for what you have. 9/10. I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X").

In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.

What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.

This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10. I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.

Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.

This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.

Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.

The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.

This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film. After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-based reality/invention.

Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.

There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.

I really don't have any complaints about this movie, except for the disturbing scenes with the body. I fell upon it while switching around the tv one night. The acting was actually amazing, I didn't expect it to be better than it appeared! I thought Keanu's(who looks the SAME since 1986, which is a very good thing hehe) acting was really *great*, and Crispin played his character perfectly! This movie is a hidden gem! Its a fresh awaking of reality to the '80s, compared to the other teen movies done by the brat pack(even though I do like those moives alot too). All in all, I give it thumbs up! IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- "This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it." You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following:

(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.

(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.

(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.

Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time. I'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character. Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are normal, please stay away. Apparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point?

The killer in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, "She was okay." The movie only seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed.

The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper.

Even though the fashion is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think River's Edge is as relevant today as ever.

My rating: 10/10 Pot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the "River's Edge", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend.

Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr. Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other quirky connections on your own.

You can read a lot into the movie, or not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude, and "toilet"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled.

******* River's Edge (8/27/86) Tim Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up… but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing… Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt. Loosely based on actual events, "River's Edge" is a film, much in the style of David Lynch, about a group of teenagers who are aware of a murder committed by one of their friends, but no one does anything about it for a long time. With top notch acting by Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper, we are able to forgive the average acting by everyone else in the film.

The film begins with a young boy, Tim (Joshua John Miller), dropping a doll off of a bridge (murder #1). Tim then hears someone yelling, when he looks up he sees Samson (Daniel Roebuck) standing on the bank of the river with the dead naked body of his girlfriend behind him (murder #2). Samson eventually shows the body to his friends. All of which are horrified, not only because of the murder, but also because the victim, Jamie (Danyi Deats), was a friend of theirs. Despite all of this, no one goes to the police. You may think this is unrealistic, but this is what happened in the real story. If you are familiar with the story of "Alpha Dog" (2006) you will know that the same thing happened there as well. Through all of this, Layne (Crispin Glover) is working to keep Samson safe, although no one (including Samson) seems to care about keeping him out of harms way. As time goes on we learn that Feck (Dennis Hopper), a middle aged shut in who deals drugs to the local teenagers, has also killed a woman before (murder #3). From here things begin to close in on Samson and his friends and eventually everything is revealed, but not in the way you may be expecting.

In the film we learn of three murders, each one with a different reason, a different reaction, and a different effect on those involved. When Tim drops his younger sister's doll off of the bridge, we are never made aware of his motive. However, we do see the reaction of the younger sister. She cries and screams while her mother consoles her. Later, her older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), helps her put a cross in the yard in remembrance of her doll. The murder of Jamie horrifies everyone (except Samson who is apathetic to the whole situation, and when asked by Layne why he did it, Samson replies with, "She was talking sh*t."), but they do not sob or scream, the run away and go on with their lives trying to forget what had happened. In Feck's situation, he did not kill his girlfriend out of hate. We never really know why he killed her, but we see that Feck is not proud of what he had done. He even mentions that he is sorry, and that her loved her. From this we see the different ways we can be affected by death. In the film, it is easy for us to identify with the teenagers, because they do not know what they feel, or how they should feel about the death of their friend. In much the same way, we, the audience, do not know how to feel, because we do not know Jamie. We are obviously saddened by the death and realize that Samson should be arrested, but we don't feel strongly for Jamie as an individual.

There are several similarities between "River's Edge" and "Twin Peaks" (1990-1991), especially in the overall feel of the film. I wonder if Mark Frost and David Lynch were thinking of "River's Edge" when they were creating their series. After all, Tim Hunter did go on to direct three episodes of "Twin Peaks".

Crispin Glover's performance as the hyperactive, frantic Layne is an Oscar worthy performance. Always in a rush and always worried about keeping Samson from getting caught, Layne is an intense character that seems to be on speed. If you have seen Crispin Glover in any film, you know that he can deliver a line like no one else. It is always a treat to see him perform. The other great performance in "River's Edge" is by Dennis Hopper. His portrayal of Feck, the shut in drug dealer who has one leg and an inflatable sex doll he talks to named Elly, reminded me of a more toned down and more humorous version of Frank Booth, Hopper's character in David Lynch's film, "Blue Velvet" (1986).

River's Edge is great film and I believe it shows us how easy it is to be apathetic, when in reality we need to step up and speak out against the evils in the world. I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie.

It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it. This film is so 1980's and that is what I like so much about it. It does an excellent job of conveying the feel of that odd decade. The reality that Russian nukes could wipe you out at any time. Reagan in the White House telling everybody that things were great, while more and more social programs were slashed. Young people dropped out, but not as far as their parents of the 1960's did. Young people still went to school, they just smoked so much dope that their sensetivities were all but dead. Nothing effected them, not even the death of one of their classmates at the hands of one of their friends. How weird is it to realize that the murder was wrong, but you are not sure why. Watching the characters deal with the crime is fascinating and telling of a very sick society. Glover is great, Keanu is great, Hopper is incredible. One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world.

***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***

Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future.

By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest!

***SPOILERS*** What makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***

Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film. Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie. River's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that "River's Edge" cannot simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film admirer. I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother.

(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.

Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.

For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date.

The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison.

Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character.

Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best! i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom "hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid".

Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.

Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!

It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good "human interest" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche. Crispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that I didn't know of it earlier. I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line "I poked her with a stick."

The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status. i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on. River's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as "stoners". One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the nerve to "talk sh*t" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside even these apathetic kids.

River's Edge is certainly not condoning or championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the earth.

What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a fact.

8 of 10 stars.

The Hound. "River's Edge" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that also saw "Blue Velvet", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost little of its power and remains much better than the overrated "Kids". The previews for "Kids" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth. In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock value. "River's Edge" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic.

Keanu Reeves, known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper (on the comeback trail with this, "Blue Velvet", and "Hoosiers") gives a great performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover, while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck. As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves.

The film is overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes clichéd high school flick such as "The Breakfast Club". This is a shocking piece of nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check out a Canadian film from 1981 called "Out of the Blue", directed by Dennis Hopper. Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its obscurity, may have been an influence on "River's Edge". (7/10) This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for "Gummo". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen. This relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good fun, not great but entertaining.

Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam, when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although the ending was certainly a surprise.

Stanwyck is the best thing about this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable.

While ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one point Stanwyck says to Cortez, "My brains are in my feet, while yours are in...." That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70 years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the basic plot, with the original ending, in place. This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.

In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.

Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.

FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten. One of the last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, "Ten Cents a Dance" stars Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl "Barbara" in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks quite "plain-jane" in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton. The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway thru, and is VERY similar to "The Bride Walks Out" from 1936, ALSO starring Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of the Hays code... 1931 also presented "an American tragedy", the original tale of "who will he take up with, poor girl or rich girl". this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical resemblance to bing Crosby of "the big broadcast" ('32), even a receding hairline and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel Barrymore!!!! This is an account of events that have been covered in print several times, and I had read two books - 'A Voyage for Madmen' and 'The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst' before seeing the film in Sheffield just before Christmas. I must say, it exceeded all expectations in its telling of the 1968 Sunday Times Golden Globe yacht race. These men set out to do something that had never been done before with no support vessels, wooden boats, no satellite phones, no GPS, and just their wits and skill to get them round the globe in one piece. Not to mention the months of solitude, the thundering southern ocean, little sleep, and boats that were often literally falling apart around them.

This documentary is excellently put together in my opinion, tightly edited, well paced with superb narration. The archive footage and the interviews are fascinating and bring the story to life. Clare Crowhurst's interview footage is especially revealing and moving as she relates the events that led up to her husband, Donald Crowhurst's departure from Teignmouth, the doubts and fears in his mind and her reaction as subsequent events unfolded.

I was moved and had even shed a tear or two by the time the credits started rolling, and overheard other people expressing similar feelings.

The two books I mentioned above are useful for more detail and back-story which couldn't have been fitted into the 90 minutes and I would recommend those too.

This is ultimately a true story of human courage and human frailty. A must see for anyone interested in sailing, adventure, human endeavour and real-life heroes. Deep Water examines the pressures and ambitions on an ordinary man in a compelling documentary. The testimony and archive footage are a fascinating insight to the late 1960's and a ground-breaking round the world yacht race. The personal conflicts of duty to family, self and reputation are played out in one of the most memorable and affecting films I have seen. I was not familiar with the history of this story and the drama was successfully and clearly directed. The story is mostly respectful to the participants with heroes and villains implied rather than ruthlessly exposed. Most of the interpretation is left open to the viewer allowing room to personally relate to the situations and characters. This movie is a bitter sweet experience with an entertaining mix of thoughtful suspense, joy and drama. This is a gem. As a Film Four production - the anticipated quality was indeed delivered. Shot with great style that reminded me some Errol Morris films, well arranged and simply gripping. It's long yet horrifying to the point it's excruciating. We know something bad happened (one can guess by the lack of participation of a person in the interviews) but we are compelled to see it, a bit like a car accident in slow motion. The story spans most conceivable aspects and unlike some documentaries did not try and refrain from showing the grimmer sides of the stories, as also dealing with the guilt of the people Don left behind him, wondering why they didn't stop him in time. It took me a few hours to get out of the melancholy that gripped me after seeing this very-well made documentary. I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in 1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13 year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was to attempt the journey without stopping.

It's important to remember that this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic, never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald Crowhurst did.

A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then), including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him, and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'. (Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit.

In the wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film, together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him. Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule, bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan. But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was.

This beautifully edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon, knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self.

I strongly suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since) probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked what they found.

The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late 60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie. Highly recommended. I happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not saying a word to each other.

I never knew the tale of the the first solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story.

The story is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb.

I'm shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie, but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance.

It's a must see, whether you like documentaries or not. Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.

It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.

The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.

By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.

Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question. "Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.

DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.

A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.

That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.

Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.

The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.

Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.

In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.

SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one! This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.

I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.

Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.

Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.

Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.

The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too. Deep Water (2006) ****

"It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up." Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it.

After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go – after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over.

The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter.

Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears, and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses.

There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family.

To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels. If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him.

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did. Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold yourself back from screaming things like "No! Don't do it!"? No? Well it's time you do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started.

The story is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word "individuals" is important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out alone.

Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of England (where they launch from), but one of them is the "unknown dark horse," and his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property, everything.

Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well ...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a wife and several children). You'll note the term "unproven captain" in there, too. Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their respective boats.

The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst.

The ending is also amazing in that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race.

Incredible. Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.

That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.

While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.

On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.

This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.

Thurston Hunger 8/10 Filmmakers made a rather boring everyman's story look interesting and complex by focusing on his wife back at home. At the same time, we're exposed to a truly original, existential French loner.

The film is more than a documentary. Hardly ever do I feel that I've experienced something that's accidentally profound, which makes it all the more profound.

Film has visually interesting interior moments. Absolutely loved the journey the filmmakers took me on. (Quite a lot of Europeans in the credits). Hopefully, PBS will screen this so that it reaches a wider audience in the USA. I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it, this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home, not a hero, but as an outcast.

As someone mentioned, I was initially confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him.

I think this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million films, he's captivating.

Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play. Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her.

Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional here as Derville.

I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest. First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo? Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish. This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.

The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.

The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.

Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.

It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony. Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money. This movie was better than I expected. I don't think it deserved an R rating, though. I've seen PG-13 films with worse language and violence. I found this movie entertaining and I enjoyed it. If you're a person who dissects everything, you might find a lot wrong with it, but if you take it for its face value, I think you'll find it entertaining. This movie will not be considered for an academy award, but if you enjoy a movie that doesn't take itself seriously and just wants the viewer to enjoy for ninety mins it is not a disappointment. You'll enjoy a send up of Darth Vader for the villain (the breather), a female Batman for the heroine (but much cuter with much less costume), and a running joke that involves cigarettes and the police captain that's very funny. Not by any means a great cinematic achievement. But if you enjoy campy fun it was worth a viewing. God help me, I liked it. Black Scorpion is a fun flick about a groovy female super heroine who wears leather tights and drives a car that can morph into her snazzy armored Scorpion Mobile. She battles the evil Breathtaker and all of this is an excellent recipe for a good time IMHO. I loved the bit about her having to say "Yo" to get the car's computer to take orders! Breathtaker is so evil he wants to give the entire city asthma! It's all so over the top and that's the beauty of it! The scene where Black Scorpion "attacks" her partner steals the show. You'll know it when you see it. This DVD also has a fun interview with Joan Severance. She's a doll. Black Scorpion is a fun DVD. Loved it! I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no storyline Batman's either)

A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that collection.

If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies)

If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some booty.

It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright, give it an extra star ) Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS. Though this is a good, enjoyable cartoon, they did much better ones later on, like Carrotblanca. This is almost like the first Star Trek feature, which would have been welcomed with open arms and glee no matter what, just for existing. This is really a patchwork of old bits with some nice touches, but nothing special. Reminds me a bit of the hunting trilogy in spots and the ending is priceless. Available and certainly well worth watching just for the novelty and the good bits. Recommended. Don't get me wrong this was fun to watch. It has some nice animation with exception of an odd looking Bugs, and some nice music. And the standout scene was definitely Elmer, Bugs and Daffy's dance on the floor, that was such a nice and fun touch. As a matter of fact, the whole cartoon is nice to watch, but all in all it is not what I call exceptional like Carrotblanca. There are some very nice gags, but they have been used before I feel, and there wasn't much that I would deem hilarious. And Daffy joining forces with Elmer? Somehow seeing as he was a target of the hunter, didn't it seem odd that he would be friends with him. Though I will admit it was nice having Daffy there. The voice acting was above average too, but somehow I missed Mel Blanc.

All in all, unexceptional but very nice cartoon. 7/10 Bethany Cox Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like 'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff shouldn't miss this one. Here is a much lesser known 50's sci-fi with a little different twist. An atomic researchers son is kidnapped and held for a ransom of the the Father's atomic secrets.

This is a tightly knit atomic sci-fi thriller with great production values and above average acting, even from the kid. The Atomic City actually has a movie feel to it unlike a lot of other 50's sci-fi of this time which which came off more like an episode of a TV show.

The Atomic City was also actually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Screenplay - how many other 50's sci-fi can tout an Academy Award Nomination?

Great pacing, tight direction and some superb location filming in the 'real' Atomic City of Los Alamos, New Mexico make this one worth hunting down. The collectors print in circulation is an above average transfer and makes for a great double feature with the Atomic Man!!

Recommended. Check out the first 20 minutes even though the suspense hasn't yet kicked in. We get a pretty good look at super-secret Los Alamos just a few years after the big bomb test that helped end WWII. Except for the tight security, it looks unthreatening enough. Note how it's a TV repairman, an obvious regular guy, who takes us through security. Once through, it's like any-town-USA, nice homes, quiet streets, kids going to school, and a family TV on the blink. Later on we see little Tommy and little Peggy frolicking along streets lined with impressive looking facilities separated by locked gates. The movie appears to be saying, "Okay, we're tough, only because we have to be. But, basically, we're still just folks."

Now, I expect that was a comforting message to Cold War audiences still not used to government's "dooms-day" research. It's a clear effort at popular reassurance. The one darker note is when Tommy's mother (Clarke) worries about her son's mental state. He doesn't say, "When I grow up"; instead, it's, "If I grow up". That note of doubt not only reflects a Los Alamos reality, but also a national one that in 1952 had just seen footage of the apocalyptic H-bomb. Note too, how professionally FBI agents are portrayed, a standard feature of McCarthy era fare. When brute force is needed, it's not they, but private citizen Gene Barry who thrashes out the information—an early version, I suppose, of modern era "rendition".

Once the kidnapping occurs, the suspense doesn't let up. The intrigue is nicely handled with colorful LA locations that keep us guessing. The climactic scenes around the cliff dwellings may not be plausible as a hiding place, but the view of northern New Mexico is great. Then too, the ancient stone apartments amount to one of the more exotic backdrops of the decade. Note also the extensive use of the police helicopter just coming into use as a law enforcement tool. Among an otherwise subdued cast, Nancy Gates remains a sparkling presence as teacher Ellen Haskell. Never Hollywood glamorous, she was still a fine unsung actress and winning personality. I also expect this was one of director Hopper's more successful movie efforts, and though people have since gotten used to the nuclear threat, the movie remains a revealing and riveting document of its time. Night Hunter starts in '1968' as a young Jack Cutter (Chris Aguilar) is unexpectedly handed the family tradition of becoming a Vampire hunter when a fellow Vampire hunter Sid O'Mack (Sid Haim) betrays his family & hands them over to the Vampire's, to aid Jack on his quest he is given a book that contains the name of every Vampire alive, or dead whichever way you look at it... Jump to 'June 1995' & Los Angeles where the now adult Cutter (Don 'The Dragon' Wilson, also credited as co-producer) has but four names left in the book including, Argento (Vince Murdocco) & Carmella (Sophia Crawford) together they are the last of the American Vampires. As they all dine in a restaurant Cutter crashes the party & kills them, job done right? Wrong as King of the Vampires Bruno Fischer (Nicholas Guest) calls in the last four remaining Vampires from around the world, the French Tournier (Maria Ford), the Asian Hashimoto (Ron Yuan), Ulmer (David 'Shark Fralick) & Sangster (Vincent Klyn) to track Cutter down & kill him. Meanwhile Detective's Hooper (Marcus Aurelius) & Browning (Cash Casey) don't have a clue & a nosey reporter named Raimy Baker (Melanie Smith) becomes involved in the battle between Cutter & the Vampire's on which the very fate of Earth rests!

Directed by Rick Jacobson I thought Night Hunter was quite a fun way to pass 85 odd minutes. The script by William C. Martell mixes martial arts & horror with a fair degree of success, it moves along at a nice pace & is at least never boring & thankfully doesn't seem to take itself too seriously. The character names that reference other horror film director's/actors are a little tacky though. Some may be surprised at how closely Night Hunter resembles Blade (1998) yet was made a couple of years prior, the lone moody long coat wearing Vampire hunter who happens to be an expert in martial arts, the scene set in a nightclub & the innocent woman drawn into the world of Vampire's. Night Hunter doesn't really stick to traditional Vampire film law, for instance sunlight only irritates their eye's, they can only breed on a solar eclipse (why?), stakes through the heart & garlic is no good as the way to kill a Vampire in Night Hunter is to break it's neck. I could have done with a bit more horror & a bit more blood as it leans more towards the martial arts side of things. The dialogue is suitably cheesy & the character's are just about likable enough in a silly way.

Director Jacobson does his best to ruin the film, the actions scenes are OK but lack a certain something & for some bizarre reason whenever an action sequence takes place he shakes his camera constantly, it's like the camera is placed upon a washing machine full cycle! Hey Rick, mate, it's not clever or stylish it's irritating & annoying. The gore is disappointing with a few gory gunshot wounds & a few splashes of blood, breaking Vampire's necks don't involve much blood unfortunately.

With a budget that probably didn't amount to much Night Hunter is competently made throughout. The acting was bad most of the time & what's with 'The Dragon' thing in Don 'The Dragon' Wilson's name? Has he legally changed his name? Does he sign cheques Don 'The Dragon' Wilson?! Does he get mail addressed to him in that name? I think I might do something like this, from now on I want to be known as Paul 'The Killer Klown' Andrews...

Night Hunter is one of those crap films that transcends it's limitations & awfulness to become pure golden entertainment. If you like your films fun then Night Hunter might be for you, if your looking for big-budget thrills in a similar vein (! Vampire's, veins & blood get it?) then Blade & it's sequels would probably be a better choice. What the hell, I liked it so sue me. Night hunter is a sold B style action movie. Get a life and grow up people. Don "the Dragon" Wilson is a kick boxer, (hall of fame) and not an actor. If your looking for an Oscar, it's not here brother. Looking for kick ass action movie with lower then low budget, this is it.The plot line may have been a little thin, but what B movie isn't. I understand everybody is a critic and how one man's junk is another man's treasure. Get real people, judging every movie like it is an Oscar contender, just silly. Awesome fight scenes, mixed with a new twist on vampire moves. See it if your a fan, rent something else if your a hater. Yes, indeed we have a winner- a winner in best dumb-action-movie!

The only reason I chose to vote a 10 for this movie is because it's so incredibly bad-made that it actually becomes funny.

"Night Hunter" is basically about Jack Cutter, a Vampire hunter (Vampire hunters have been in his generation for centuries, apparently), and his mission, being that he has to kill the last remaining Vampires.

This movie contains one of the cheesiest scenes I have ever seen in my life. Not to mention the really bad gun-shooting scenes. When people are shot in this movie, blood splatters- thick as ketchup all over the place, this makes the movie seem so cheap and lame that you just lose interest. A constant shaking of the camera is what annoys me the most during the fight-scenes. This is, I suppose, done to create an "action-effect", though in my opinion it gives no effect whatsoever. Its completely ridiculous!

All stunt-scenes are done extremely badly. E.g a scene where the dead Vampire-leader gets thrown off a roof. When the corpse hits the ground, it bounces like a wobbly rubber-doll. A scene where Jack sniffs the ground, getting a vision was so lame it got me laughing hysterically.

Lame music, cheesy scenes, bad acting and plain dumb filming techniques are obviously the functions that make this movie such a malfunction. To state that this is a good movie would be the same as stating that nuclear bombs are good for humans. Clearly those of you who say that this is one of the best action-movies, haven't seen many in your life.

This is basically a B-class vampire-action-movie that deserves 0/10 but which I'll give 10/10, just for its ability (being the lousiest action-movie I have ever seen)of making me laugh and because I just can't live without it. Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting but it does have a very good vampire plot! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups and fighting films like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! Don 'The Dragon' Wilson is excellent and his character is really cool in the movie. Nicholas Guest was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! He really performs as a fantastic villain! Melanie Smith was also good. I think that this very fine looking actress is very underrated. Michael Cavanaugh was good. It was really cool to see Vince Murdocco in this film! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the super cool fighting scenes. The fighting in this picture is really some of the greatest I have seen! There is so much that happens in the 86 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and superb fighting that this film has to offer! Night Hunter is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper and plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! In My opinion Night Hunter is one of the greatest fighting films that I have ever watched and the characters are so neat. If you like Don 'The Dragon' Wilson and want to see Nicholas Guest in a great performance then I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot em ups, fighting movies, and vampire films and has been disappointed by other movies that has the look of a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get and buy Night Hunter today! More exciting than the Wesley Snipes film, and with better characters, too. The last vampire hunter must save Los Angeles from a coven of vampires out to conquer the city, aided by a tabloid journalist. Lost of fun... and the names of the characters are great! Sony Pictures Classics, I'm looking at you! Sony's got the rights to Harry records -- you need to distribute the film and you'll get radically increased sales of his back catalog! Anyhow, this is a great study of a fascinating musician, woefully underknown, full of great stories, greater music, and it could have been 3 hours longer and I'd have loved it even more. Saw it at the American Cinemateque Mods & Rockers Festival at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica, where it played to a packed house. They were turning people away at the door! I went to many of the Mods & Rockers festival films, and let me assure you that no other film came even close to selling out, let alone turning people away. See it in the theatre, buy the DVD, and make sure some slow-on-the-uptake company [*cough SONY cough*] picks it up ASAP! I saw this superb documentary at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival. It is extremely absorbing and very well crafted, drawing you into the life and career of Harry Nilsson, one of the most overlooked musical talents of the 1960's and 70's. While I was familiar with his better known compositions ("One is the Loneliest Number", "Without You"), I learned about this man's brilliant writing and beautiful singing. If you love music, you'll find plenty to draw you in to his world, which unfortunately spiraled out of control as his success increased and his past haunted him. However sad, he nonetheless was completely devoted to his family and you will find yourself so glad to have met this man. The profile is effectively told through Nilsson's own words and those of his friends and colleagues (a virtual Who's Who of Rock)who loved and respected him. Don't miss this! Saw this film during the Mod & Rockers fest in August. I was so inspired and touched. Harry had an amazing life and one of the best and distinct voices ever recorded. For those of you who don't know about Harry Nilsson do a little research and you'll see that Harry has probably found his way into your life in one way or another - maybe it was his 70s special "The Point" or "Everybody's Talking" from Midnight Cowboy. For me it started with "people let me tell you bout my best friend" - the theme song from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father." Watching this film you can really feel the love and admiration from Harry's true friends and peers. Don't shed a tear for Harry - he had a ball...

Brett Biodoc on the enigmatic singer/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts, spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone).

All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful, after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night' (standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young family that he seemed to adore.

The film's strengths begin with the completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and, later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American musician).

Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories about Nilsson – many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are interview segments with Nilsson's wives – Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc.

The most glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the performance of his greatest hit, "Without You," is cut short after about 8 bars. Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song through, and perhaps one or two more, like "One," or his Oscar winning cover of "Everybody's Talking.'" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5/10 (low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01/07/07) I was lucky enough to have seen this film at it's Seattle Film Fest screening, and was blown away by how great it was. This is without a doubt one of the best music documentaries I've ever seen, (and I've seen a lot!) This is a loving look back at the life and times, music and relationships of one of music's true legends. Harry Nilsson deserves to be up there with the likes of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and all the other great song writers of 20th century standards. He was considered a peer by all four members of the Beatles, who all called him a 5th Beatle, and one the same wavelength as themselves.

Harry refused to tour, so many today don't remember him, and those born after his heyday, are unaware of who he was. This is tragic. Everyone should have the opportunity to be exposed to this wonderful talent. This film is a step in the right direction, to finally give the man his due. Unfortunately, the film has yet to have wide distribution, or even a DVD so for the time being, good luck in getting to see it.

If you are someone with the power to put together a DVD distribution deal, PLEASE contact the film makers. This film needs to be available. Hey VH-1, how about screening it on air, then maybe putting it out on DVD? Harry Nilsson deserves nothing less. This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at work. There's even a few shots from "Son Of Dracula". This movie is the final and fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well known as some of the songs he wrote and/or performed. His friends tell incredibly funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it! I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric, life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music, really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It succeeds on all levels. Really, really good. Thursday June 15, 9:30pm The Egyptian

Saturday June 17, 11:00am The Egyptian

"He spent most of his life in pursuit of a good time, and he caught it." - Eric Idle

Harry Nilsson left Brooklyn, "…feeling like Holden Caulfield. I was fifteen." Eventually, he ended up working as an usher at the LA Paramount and within a few years fell back asswards into one of the greatest songwriting careers in the history of American music. 'Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talking' About Him?)' chronicles the legendary life of "… the best songwriter of our generation." Writer/Director John Scheinfeld produces a 'who's who' of musical royalty, from Brian Wilson and Al Kooper to Paul Williams, Randy Newman and Ray Cooper, "His voice was a medical instrument. It would heal you." Assorted archives include his 1969 appearance on 'Playboy After Dark' and Nilsson's BBC special. The John Lennon, brandy Alexander, Smothers Brothers at the Troubadour comeback-show heckling debacle is one memorable recounting among so many they seem to virtually squeeze Nilsson's enchanting music out of this comprehensive and bitter-sweet bio-doc.

"He was a wonderful perpetrator."

" … I woke up three days later, getting a massage in Phoenix." I saw Heaven's Gate on its opening week nearly twenty years ago. Tickets were sold in advance based on the great anticipation of seeing Cimino's long in the making follow up to his 1978 masterpiece "The Deerhunter." The reviews came in and critics trashed the film with vehemence. An influential New York film critic led the way and most critics followed suit, and the 3hr. 40-min. film was pulled from distribution. United Artists had Cimino shorten the film by about an hour and it was re-released many months later to equally horrible reviews and to dismal business. The film at that time cost about 40 million dollars (now considered low budget) making it one of the most expensive in history and Cimino had free rein on the project with endless retakes despite it being only his third film. "The Deerhunter" had also received a negative backlash based on a perceived political ideology, which was not popular. I mention all this to present a possible bias building up against Cimino. At the time I thought the film was very good and when I saw the shorter version it was still very good only less so. The film showed up again in a museum in the early 1990's. They were supposed to show the long version but they could not find an existing print. Nevertheless, seeing the film years later I now thought Heaven's Gate was a masterpiece. Finally, the long version started to appear in a few select cities, I got to see it recently and it was well worth the wait. Heaven's Gate begins with the graduation ceremony at Harvard University. Two of the graduates are Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt and we some of the flaws in their characters early on. Despite the mandate Joseph Cotton gives in his speech to the graduating class to use their education to enlighten and improve their country, many of the graduates behave as if they are part of an elite country club. The film flashes ahead 20 years to Johnson County in Wyoming. A cattle company called "the Stockholders Association" has hired poor people to shoot 125 poor immigrants claiming they are cattle thieves. Kristofferson sides with the immigrants while John Hurt is part of the Association. Although Hurt is totally against this insane action he is too ineffectual a character to do anything about it. A massacre takes place but the immigrants do well in defending themselves. A United States Cavalry comes to the rescue of the Association to allegedly arrest them after most of the damage has been done when in fact they sanctioned the mass killing. Kristofferson also suffers a great personal loss and the film ends with him years later as part of the elite class of his Harvard days married, bored, on a yacht, living but dead on the inside.

This is a very complex film which is brilliant in every department such as it's themes, structure, direction, cinematography, writing, music, editing, set designs, and acting. Kristofferson, Walken, Hurt, Huppert, Dourif, Bridges, Waterston, and Cotton are all excellent portraying very complex characters. Some of the major complaints I read about this film state that is ugly to look at, incoherent, too long, that the characters make no sense and that the words are often unintelligible. In its defense, Heaven's Gate has the look of photographs of that period just as "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" did. Some of the scenes are smoky looking to suggest the industrial revolution or sometimes horses, wagons, people are passing by from all sides creating a sense of reality.(The critic who called it one of the ugliest movies ever made likes to use his thumbs a lot.) But in spite of all that, the composition of each frame and the cinematography are impeccable. The film makes a great deal of sense if you pay attention to it. Everything is not spelled out for the viewer and one has to observe closely to understand the motivations of the characters or its themes. As to its length, it is a beautifully structured piece, at times moving, poetic, exhilarating, or devastating with virtually one great scene following another. At times some of the words are unintelligible especially in some of the scenes bustling with activity. But one could understand such a cinematic film as this through its use of film language, the glances between characters or their actions. One day soon this film should be re-released in its full length so that people and critics could give it a second chance. Do not let Michael Cimino become another Orson Welles- under appreciated in his lifetime and not able to make the kinds of great films he is capable of making. 'Heaven's Gate' is not a masterpiece, which apparently was what it needed to be upon first release to justify its great cost, and, more importantly, the continued uneasy reliance of Hollywood on the Auteur model of film-making. Yet 'Heaven's Gate', seen today at last on DVD in a cut of 229 minutes, is a superb film. It is a touch lethargic in pace. But at least it is paced. Quite apart from the incompetence of construction that marks many films today, there have been many films which, deliberate in form, have been severely damaged by being hacked down with no care for rhythm so the films become shapeless and confusing. Beyond this, the criticisms leveled at the film have become in retrospect quite lame. If the good guys and bad guys are too obviously pronounced for a serious film, and yes Sam Waterston's mustachioed, fur-clad villain is comic-opera (and not in the multi-leveled manner of Bill The Butcher from 'Gangs of New York'), and yes, the townsfolk do seem a touch 'Fiddler On The Roof' on occasions, then a few dozen serious films made since then, including 'Titanic' and the graceless 'Cold Mountain' (which bears certain similarities and is a notable failure in convincing qualities compared to this film) can be castigated for exactly the same reason.

Also despite accusations, the film has a plot, quite a well-essayed plot at that. It simply does not bow to standard-form 'epic' quality, by providing Titan heroes, rafts of sub-plots and confusion. It experiments with telling in a manner more like much smaller, modest films, by carefully-caught moments of character interaction, and well-textured pageant-like explosions of communal action, as with the opening at Harvard and, most specially, the wonderful scene where the Johnson County folk, following the lead of a brilliantly physical fiddler, make celebration on roller-skates.

'The Deer Hunter' was a critical and commercial success but abandoned the first half's inspired, mosaic-like accumulation of detail, and I think in a manner similar to criticism of Robert Penn Warren's novel 'All The King's Men' and its dictionary of Jacobean stunts, if Cimino had not had such a strong grasp of the conventions of Hollywood epics, he might have made a special rare work of art based in honest visualisation of people within their milieu. In contrast, 'Heaven's Gate' succeeds in screwing its narrative momentum and tension upwards in a slowly expanding arc, until the finale explodes, whilst not abandoning the mosaic approach.

The central romantic triangle, for instance, resists standard inflections; a decent, intelligent, but psychically defeated man, James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) competes with a hot-shot but identity-challenged young gunman Nate Champion (Christopher Walken) for the hand of a young Madame, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert); there is no self-conscious bed-hopping, no slaps in the face, recriminations, or typical sad-sack moments, but more a sad and distanced decision by Ella to choose the younger man whom she loves less because he is ready to make the commitment. Ella emerges as the film's true hero (Huppert's performance, though initially awkward, is really quite excellent, balancing a dewy emotionalism with a hard-hammered spirit), attempting first to rescue Nate and then mustering the resistance party of immigrants into an enterprising defence. Subsequently, Averill is stung into action as friends die. Indeed, in the process of overcoming so many traps of cliché and style, 'Heaven's Gate' successfully and willfully throws off the defeated outsider-heroes grace note of so many '70s Westerns and portrays an eventual, vigorous, cheer-the-heroes rallying to a compromised but still relished victory.

The social conflict of so many '70s Westerns at last hardens into a fully-fledged war; where capital attempts a crushing final victory over the miscreants who stand in their way, suddenly they find a massed and more-powerful people's army, led by the man who played the thoroughly-destroyed Billy the Kid a decade before. This is what led the film to be described as the first Marxist Western, but really it simply deflowers a theme of the genre extant well before the '60s. Such various and classic old-school works as William Wyler's 'The Westerner', and even 'Shane', tell awfully similar stories. It is simply here that the romantic myth of the gunslinger has been replaced by the romantic myth of the people's revolt. In a spectacular, exiting, but realistic and thus chaotic finale, the marauding Cattlemen's encampment is attacked, ringed by dust clouds punctuated by fallen horses, writhing bodies, and gunfire. Averill puts his classical education to work finally by stealing a Roman trick and bringing the Cattlemen to the brink of annihilation before they are rescued by the Cavalry (another distinctly seditious touch, but surely not so offensive after 'Little Big Man's unrelenting depiction of Native American massacres). Really, it's hard to think of a more heroically American vision of grassroots resistance. The film's only real dead spot stands as an unnecessary coda indicating Averill's eventual relapse, a rather potted piece of tragedy.

Despite then certain failings and a slow mid-section, 'Heaven's Gate' is a supreme piece of work, a genuine attempt to create a contemporary Western and a new kind of epic. If one has to still join the chorus that reckons Cimino was absurd in his behaviour on set and expenditure, it is regretfully. When, today, flops like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' and 'K-19 - The Widowmaker' see nearly a hundred million dollars sink down the drain, and yet a tag of infamy still hangs on this film, one ponders what exactly its grim death signified. The attempt at original style, the bawdy sexuality, the very hard-won sense of detail, the breathtaking rigor of the film-making and what is being filmed, all throw into contrast what is sorely lacking in so much contemporary Hollywood product. I seriously don´t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was first released. Sure, it´s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don´t think that the people who hated "Heaven´s Gate" really understood it. "Heaven´s Gate" in its uncut form, much like "The Deer Hunter" shows the gross differences of living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming) and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled "Americans" in Wyoming and Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted, "Heaven´s Gate", with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes. However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a blockbuster) that "Gate" and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own mind.

Until today, I thought there only three people, including me, who considered Heaven's Gate (1980)to be a masterpiece and perhaps the last great western, (since the 1970), after, Little Big Man (1970), Jeremiah Johnson (1972), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Long Riders (1980).

I was stunned and pleased to see that 22.5% of those voting at IMDB rate this movie a 10, as do I. A recent book, the Worst Movies of All Time, includes Heaven's Gate. Through it's production and release it was vilified, as no movie since Cleopatra, almost twenty years before. At one time it was considered the most expensive over-budget movie of all time, surpassing even Cleopatra. It was blamed for the downfall of its studio, United Artists, until everyone finally saw all the studios were falling. Michael Cimino, fresh from his glory with the Deer Hunter was hated and despised for his success and movie making excess, but clearly, that was petty jealousy at its worst.

Cimino ended up fashioning one of the great expositions of the American experience. This film is not to be missed but any serious student of American filmmaking. I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle confusing...

So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least.

Yes, it's a long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America (1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956) at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the scene.

But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do with reinforcing myths about history and heroes.

Not so Heaven's Gate: in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War.

Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment, it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and infamous.

Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative – the story of the three main characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it is, I think, entirely appropriate.

And that war is depicted graphically, viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited flawlessly – although in the final massacre between the Association and the immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and confusion of war...

Which brings me to another criticism by others: the noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words – until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent: life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war, it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are present in and within the scenes...

And what of the title? From Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie – and it is stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) – is a useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say, namely the idea that the brave immigrants – the God-fearing salt of the earth – were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion.

Was that Cimino's intent – to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history? Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves... I was expecting this movie to be a stinker but I wanted to see for myself, but I was surprised how good of a movie this was. I know longer movies often don't do well at the box office but why this was pulled and not allowed to be viewed by the public is beyond me. It maintained my interest throughout and the scenery and photography is breathtaking at times. The plot was good and the morality play was a good one. I liked the realism which was along the lines of "Unforgiven". I had to rent this movie to see it but it was definitely worth it. I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored director's cut.

To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film.

Firstly, two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is unable to register what it is the characters are saying.

The cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which succeeds in blurring foreground and background.

Structurally, the narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even 'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of 'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America.

This structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of period speech.

The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one of the most evocative scenes ever put to film.

Another set piece which works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its saving grace if pursued more convincingly.

Some critics have complained about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial interest.

Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative itself.

Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly amiss. "The Deer Hunter's" success with critics and publics alike led United Artists to give Cimino carte-blanche on "Heaven's Gate," an epic Western about the 1892 Johnson County Wars…

The elliptical story, about the persecution of lowly European-born farmers by Wyoming's cattle-barons, was a muddled mixture of class-conflict, sumptuous pageant and underwritten, stereotypical characters… However, Cimino's fetish for authenticity and his sweeping sense of scale ensured that the film running at nearly four hours – was rarely tedious…

Its undeserved status as a cause célébre, with critics divided as to whether it was a masterpiece or a fiasco, derived from its inflated budget… Blamed for the studio's financial problems, Cimino became a scapegoat for Hollywood's general decline, and the film, edited into an incomprehensible short version after its initial release, was a commercial disaster… i watched the longer version and could not take my eyes off the screen. 219 minutes passed and yet it seemed like only an hour had gone by. the characters were very believable and entertaining, and the photography was excellent. the story pulled me in and held my attention. i will definitely watch this again and again. this true story telling at it's best... not Hollywoods usual cheap thrills and skin deep glitz. i've seen a quite a lot of reviews on this movie. most seem to pan the film or give it faint praise. basically, it's a great film that received unfairly harsh reviews. watch it for yourself with an open mind. if you like westerns, historic period pieces, albeit historically inaccurate you'll enjoy the movie. Superb!!! 10/10 By the time it opened, "Heaven's Gate" had become, to its detriment, more a cultural phenomenon than a motion picture. At a time when concern about excessive budgets and directorial arrogance were growing, it was a convenient target, as it was a far-over-budget work by the latest "auteur" to hit Hollywood, who had not yet established the track record that would have given him the benefit of the doubt among critics and the industry alike. As someone pointed out at the time, no one was going to jump on Warren Beatty's even-more costly and dark "Reds," because Beatty was "one of us," while Michael Cimino had not achieved that status.

But "Heaven's Gate" was also affected by a cultural change taking place at that time, the political move rightwards and toward a more unquestioning patriotism and enshrinement of the myth of the West (and the Western). A few years earlier, Cimino's demythologizing of the frontier might have seemed timely, fresh, and a necessary corrective. But by 1980, in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, it was thought of as nearly un-American.

Which is a shame, because the film, seen from the vantage point of several decades away, is a fascinating and thought-provoking look at that particular time and place as a world where life was, in Hobbes's words, "nasty, brutish, and short." Kristofferson plays James Averill, an upper-class Easterner who, in search of adventure, becomes a sheriff in Wyoming, where he finds himself having to lead a resistance by the settlers and squatters against an attack by a mercenary death-squad hired by wealthy landowners, including Averill's lifelong best friend. In a more innocent time, Averill and his rag-tag "army" of poor farmers would emerge triumphant; but this is anything but a traditional Western, and when the U.S. Cavalry joins the fight here, it isn't on the side of the "good guys."

Much like "The Deer Hunter," Cimino's previous film, "Heaven's Gate" spends a great deal of time building up the details of the lives of its principals, giving the film an at-times leisurely pace that nevertheless leads to a gripping conclusion. With excellent acting, a fine musical score, and the visual texture that makes one believe one is actually seeing the "Old West" through new eyes, "Heaven's Gate" is a film that rewards repeat viewings. I only wish that MGM would put out a new DVD, with an improved transfer and a commentary by Cimino. Nonetheless, the current version is satisfactory enough to let viewers see what critics in 1980, possibly blinded by the film's cultural subtexts, managed to miss...that "Heaven's Gate" is a great film. I'ts like going around in a museum. You can appreciate the great talent of the main composer, Michael Cimino & this fabulous art desinger of light ..Vilmos Zsigmond. As I said I'ts like being in heaven discovering all the creation this man can applied to a single frame. Imagine when you can look at a moving picture of this artist. I can say: this film is one of the best. I only saw this film once a quarter of a century ago, yet it's impact has never left me and I can still remember even now my reactions to it.I was mesmerised by the breadth and the sheer beauty of so much of the photography. I was astounded that an American studio could produce such a European film with it's slow pace and its unfocused plot. The lack of any strong characters felt like a flaw but I raged at the completely unnecessary ending on the yacht which seemed as though it was bolted on to give some kind of plot cohesion and which was entirely at odds with the style of the rest of the picture.It was also refreshing to see a western which made no pretence about the brutality and exploitation that so often was the unfortunate detritus of the American Dream.The western scenes and sets also had an authenticity which was entirely new to me and which prefigured the recent Deadwood series.The film was massively cut for the American audience and its my very real wish that in these days of Director's Cuts that Michael Cimino is given the opportunity of a fresh edit in the light of reflection - a cut which could turn this ill fated movie into the masterpiece it had the potential to become. I have now seen the original first cut and the network of relationships makes so much more sense,although Christopher Walken is responsible mainly for carrying this off. If only De Niro and not Kris Kristofferson had Played the main lead!There was still a massive preoccupation with creating the reality and atmosphere to the detriment of a good script. Nevertheless, the camera work was so cleverly handled that at times you could almost believe you were inside the action yourself.And there were many special moments. Everybody arguing in the hall in different languages trying to overcome their national differences and seek some unity of action in face of the impending disaster gave a real insight into the difficulties facing the welding together of the USA: especially when the threat came from a combination of the old elite and money.Nate's faltering approach to Ella when she first visited his cabin stood in stark contrast to the violence that was to follow and was another one. I had a special showing with a large group of mates to see the new cut and we all enjoyed it whilst having varying reservations.This revisionist and much closer to the truth version of events was probably too much for Americans to take when the film was first released but we all felt it had enormous merit and that its place in cinema history was also due for major revision So many of us who are devoted to the "art" of the motion picture will disregard or forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics "gunning" for the picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing.

You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62 re-make 0f "Mutiny on the Bounty", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to "Heaven's Gate". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt, powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange, mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach. They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-office failure of "Heaven's Gate".

By nature, a film editor, I am deeply frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem.

There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in all "Heaven's Gate" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece. Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering. This great film never showed up in my town, so actually I didn't have any opportunity to watch it until the late 80'es when I caught it on German television. I was expecting something of a disaster, and found instead a well-acted grand western with superb location work. The tiny tube couldn't really damage it and there's almost not a dull moment in this 4-hour film, so I hope to see it once again on the big screen. What a spectacle that would be! Don't miss it, if you ever have the chance. Unfortunately the harsh treatment of "Heaven's Gate" at its opening ruined Michael Cimino's career and he moved from the passable ("Year of the Dragon") to the boringly ludicrous ("The Sicilian") and the screechingly dumb ("Desperate Hours"). If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-screen version. It is stunning. I actually liked this movie even though this movie seems to be so hated and i think it's even better then The Deer Hunter, which was overrated. Both this movie and Year Of The Dragon are very underrated although i could see why someone would not like this movie. At three and a half hours the movie just goes on too long and the second half of the movie is much better than the first half. Kris Kristofferson and Christopher Walken are fighting over Isabelle Huppert but she can't make up her mind about which one to be with. Sam Waterston is the villain who has a list of 125 people to be killed who is says are anarchists and thieves. There is a great cast that also has Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif and a young Mickey Rourke. Though this film destroyed Director and Screenwriter Michael Cimino's career and bankrupted United Artists, it still stands as one of the top movies of all time. There are plenty of reasons to prematurely dismiss this movie for sure. Among them: its length, its technical problems, its colossal mistreatment of animals on set -- the list goes on and on. And yet, for all of this, it remains a film that captures something. It is a classic example of naturalistic storytelling on par with Strindberg -- its moments lasting as long as they might in reality, having not been dumbed down for good cinematic timing. It feels real in its moments of anger, love, and war (and hopelessness). This film should be seen by any person who appreciates film and storytelling. I missed the full four hour version when it was originally released in theaters because it played one week. I had to settle for seeing the shorter two and a half hour version a year or so later and was left stunned by what I saw. I left the theater thinking I had witnessed a masterpiece and wondering what the full version was like.

The full version is mostly good but it has sequences that are so incredibly dull that the whole movie is pulled down and almost sinks beneath the waves.

The problem is entirely in the editing which should be labeled as the final word on excess. There are times when things go on and on and on and nothing happens. Shots of people in a city that go on much too long with no purpose in the narrative. We get beautiful vistas and visions of such beauty that they bring tears to your eyes but they are used too frequently as a place holder instead of as punctuation or to set a place. Much of the longer version seems to be on screen simply because it looked good.

I've attempted to actually sit down and watch Heavens Gate with out resorting to the Fast Forward button but somewhere along the way I find I can't stand it any more.

I wish MGM would take pity on us and release the shorter version to DVD as well as the huge dinosaur. Perhaps as a two pack so that we could see which is the better version, and whether Cimino was mad or not.

And while they were at it why not include the once rumored Johnson County War edit that ran 90 minutes. Supposedly United Artists tinkered with a further cut in the hopes of getting some of their money back. Whether it was ever done or still exists is up in the air, but it would be interesting to see. This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big sister/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as when King Randolph exclaims, "They're just SHOES! Aren't they?" And tender moments such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a blunder.

The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers.

The resolution of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story.

My 4-year-old daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be quite acceptable for her to watch. This movie was very cute and totally little girl appropriate. My nieces have watched it non-stop since they've gotten it, and as a result I've seen it nearly 4 times all the way through. I can't get enough of it. The CGI images are great to watch, the humor is good, and the ballet portrayals are excellent. Although the story line has a few holes, no little girl will pick up on them, and as an adult, the movie is so charming that one hardly even notices. Just keep in mind that it is a Barbie movie, and, though cheesy at times, in my experience, this one lives up to the high standard which the other Barbie princess movies have set for it. I would recommend this to anyone who has a little girl who has always wanted to be a princess. It teaches a good lesson as well. Everyone is special and different in their own way, and everyone can make a difference. I thought this movie was perfect for little girls. It was about a magical place where Genevieve and all her sisters could do what they wanted to do the most anytime they'd like. Most little girls would like this story, even though there is the thought of death in it. Although no one dies, the king almost does, but little girls would not understand it, so it adds up to make a perfect story. All the events add up, creating a great plot that can have a meaning if you dig deep enough. This story is perfect for little girls, and since it is a barbie movie, the kids can have more fun with it, especially if they have barbies of their own. Anyone can have fun with it, though, because it is so cute and understandable. Overall, I think this movie is a good movie for everyone, especially little girls, and will give anyone a smile at least once during it. I feel that this movie is different from so many others in that it shows a family of girls who actually care about each other. They may have faults, but bitterness and put-downs have no place with these girls. Try to find that on TV or in the usual movies. It is a breath of fresh air to see girls being feminine--wearing beautiful, feminine dresses and shoes. Contrast that with the apparel in stores today, i.e. raggedy and faded jeans and jackets, etc. The story line has an evil thread running through but that is what makes it more realistic and interesting. I know that it is animated, but it still gives you a feeling that families can stick together and come out okay. I would recommend this movie for boys and girls alike. I have a 4yr old daughter, and before this movie she was all about the Disney princesses, now she watched this movie and all she can talk about is Princess Genevieve, and all her sisters. I definitely recommend this movie for all young girls. This movie is one of the best from the Barbie collection. It shows all the good values that any mother would love to encourage on there little girls. With the great songs and dance moves, it gets my daughter up and trying to mimic the moves. The extras are also good, one even works on how good your memory is. I would definitely have say it is a must see for kids and grown-ups alike. This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again. This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again. Grand Champion is a bit old fashion at first glance. Andrew Morton at the Fort Worth Star Telegram said it best "If Walt Disney had hailed from Texas, he would have made Grand Champion"

The movie does not have the video and special effects but it has heart and soul. The kids are great and the array of stars is incredible. I bet Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts are proud to be in a movie that their kids can actually see:) (G rated)

This is a masterfully crafted "simple" little film made in Texas by Texas Barry Tubb. Take your kids, take your kids friends, take Grandma too....they will all enjoy it and you will too. Went to the Preview Engagement of "Grand Champion" today (Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, Snyder and a couple of other Texas cities). There are so few movies suitable for young children...but this one is, and it's great. Though the plot is a little "Hokey" (also the name of the steer in the movie), it is a wonderful story for children. And I enjoyed it, too.

The film pretty well represents West Texas ranch family life, although a little exaggerated. Director/Author Barry Tubb ought to get it right since he grew up in that environment. He called the film his "love letter to Texas."

Joey Lauren Adams plays the single mom of Buddy (Jacob Fisher) and Sister 'Blow' (Emma Roberts). Watch Emma Roberts (Julia Roberts' niece); she's very good and I think she will be in more films. There are also cameo appearances from Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, musicians George Strait, Charlie Robison, Robert Earl Keen, Joe Ely and rodeo legends Larry Mahan and Tuff Hedeman.

If you have young children or just want to see a feel-good movie, check out "Grand Champion" when it comes to your city (supposedly later this month). Y'all will enjoy it and it WILL make you feel good.

I guess since I'm from West Texas, I might be a little biased...nah, I'm impartial. The film is excellent! My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for kids.... someone really understands them.

It was fun to see Julia Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo appearances.

As someone who lives in the city the fictional "Big Texas" was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The kids looked like kids, not like superstars.

I hope everyone supports this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go see it, then spread the word! Not all movies are Oscar worthy but let's face it, sometimes these types of movies are more fun to watch and leave a longer and lasting impression. This one left me smiling and happy and I couldn't wait to hug my own son. Anyone who has had a pet (no matter what type) knows what it feels like to lose one. I believe most people would identify with Buddy almost losing his best friend who he raised from birth. Bruce Willis was great as the tycoon turned nice guy and Joey Lauren Adams was convincing as a good mother. The little boy who played Buddy had a cherub face and his sister and friend Edgar played terrific backup roles. Liked the movie a lot and it was something the whole family could enjoy. Thanks! I loved this movie. My daughter is 3 1/2 and a country girl at heart. There are not any movies for young children. I loved this one because the worst thing in it was when one of the boys said "stupid". I applaud them for stepping out and making a true family movie. I rented it the first time we saw it and know looking to buy to add to our collection. My daughter can not stop talking about it. It goes along with our lifestyle. We live in East Texas. I hope to see more family films like this one. She even named one of our calves "Hokey Pokey Keen"!!! I can not say enough about this movie. I look forward to many more films like this one. My mom and I went to the Ft Worth Premiere mainly to see George Strait, but ended up getting the chance to see the movie premier at Bass Hall. What a wonderful, beautiful film which not only depicts the beautiful Texas landscape, but also had a great feel-good storyline. It was well written, directed and produced and my mom and I loved it from start to finish!. Thank you Jay for giving us the opportunity to be a part of the premiere of this wonderful movie. It was a night we will never forget. As if seeing the movie was not enough, we also were fortunate enough to be sitting 4 rows in front of my favorite singer, George Strait!! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! Keep up the great work and again, thank you!

Debbie McClendon & Maureen Daugherty Ft. Worth, TX Everybody interested in Texas needs to have this DVD. It's just a good movie about real Texas with great scenes. It took a bunch of Texans to do this right. Hollywood never would have gotten it. There are so many subtle things that Tubb put in the movie and may not have even thought about, but it makes the show.

Guest cameos are not seen as cameos at all. Each star fits in perfectly and does not distract from the film. Many of the guests spots blend so perfect that when the credits roll you will go back through the movie to find the character. Strait's roll is dead on, it could not have been done any better in real life.

The second half of the movie is completely different from the first, it get's a little "hokey", but that's alright. Somehow the storyline works. The "hokey" stuff is like an after school special but it looks believable and natural.

I have never heard anyone use the Sonny Pruitt line before, other than locals that I grew up with. That was the icing on the cake for me.

Definitely a collectible, right up there with Pure Country, Sugarland Express, Jr. Bonner, Texasville, The Last Picture Show, Giant, and of course Hud.

Gig'em Aggies '86 This is the kind of movie that I grew up on. It is great family fun, that the kids love and the parents enjoy as well. I wish more films like this were made. It's a great story about a little boy who raises a Bull with his mother and sister, and shows it all the way up to the National Grand Championship, where he wins! Then he's scared that someone's going to barbecue his bull, so he kidnaps it and heads home with it. I was really excited when I first saw this film in the theater and was surprised to see George Strait, Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in this little film. The music was great with all kinds of huge country names like Willie Nelson and the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, doesn't have any children or never was a kid them self. It was easy to get lost in the simplicity and light hearted humor of this year's best family film...Grand Champion. The story of a 12 year old boy (Buddy) that with the help of his sister, Mom and best friend is determined to raise a Grand Champion steer. It is a whimsical journey to the big competition. After Hokey Pokey is crowned, Grand Champion, he is auctioned for $775,000. to pay for the kids college education. Buddy finds out that the next time he sees Hokey....it would be on a bun! The kids conspire to steal the prize winning steer,vowing to save him from the BBQ. This is where the fun begins...Julia Roberts, Larry Mahan, George Strait, Natalie Maines, Steven Bland, Tommy Guy, Tuff Hedeman, and so many more stars create the backdrop for all the antics. You wont believe who actually won the steer at the auction!!! (he looks good in a mustache) The soundtrack is rich with tunes from George Strait, Natalie Maines, Willie Nelson and more. Where else can you experience Movie stars, Country & Western stars and Rodeo stars....only in Texas...only in Grand Champion.

It is masterfully crafted "simple" little film that may be the best movie you see this year. The movie opens in select cities on Friday, August 27th. 2004.

Another great film from Rope the Moon and Michaelson Productions is IN A WHISPER. Keep an eye out on the cable networks for this one! We all enjoyed the movie. It is a very charming family film with many fun cameos. It was fun to see Austin musicians, Charlie Robison, Joe Ely and Robert Earl Keen in the film as well as turns by famous actors Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis. Emma Roberts is especially cute in the film however all the children are good. The west Texas scenery is great as is the soundtrack full of Texas artists. The last half seemed a bit far fetched to me, however, my son was interested throughout the film which is not so often with him. Something in the storyline was captivating for children. Having shown calves as a child, I really liked the ending. That is definitely not the way it really works unless you have heifers. I have watched Grand Champion all the way through at least twice now. I enjoyed the movie's story, the characters and the actors were not bad. It is refreshing to see a G rated movie. This is a feel good movie. The story is mostly from the view of the children. The interactions between the kids and the adults makes the story interesting. I recommend this movie if you are looking for a family film. If you liked the Little Rascals, you will probably enjoy this. I viewed this movie on cable. Either on Encore or Showtime family. This is not a movie that I would have gone to see at the theatre. But, I only go to the theatre for the effects of the big screen, so most comedies, romantic films, or dramas I do not go for big screen-I wait for TV/cable edition. Get your kids together, pop some popcorn and enjoy! I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was. First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um, a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why in the world did their internal house look like something out of a "western" versace store? That was one flaw.

The cameos are great, there's about five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed to be on a tight type budget.

I liked this movie, it was a fun one to watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000? Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids running around the house. Without doubt, GRAND CHAMPION has the most impressive cast of "AAA" level stars and musicians ever gathered together for a fun, "G" rated family adventure. This is a MUST BUY for every video collection! Director BARRY TUBB skillfully combines the drama of the rodeo / 4H competition for the "GRAND CHAMPION" cow with a touching and funny story of perseverance against difficult challenges. Joey Lauren Adams delivers her typically solid performance as the well-intentioned mother, but the star of the show is 12-year-old EMMA ROBERTS, whose on-camera presence is a glowing as that of her famous aunt, JULIA. You can expect a lot from this young Roberts-protégé' as is already proving itself in her new, hit Nickelodeon series, "UNFABULOUS." Ninja Hunter (AKA Wu Tang vs Ninja) is pure entertainment from start to finish due to its outrageous characters, nonsensical plot and lack of any pretensions whatsoever. The makers of this film have given us a truly OTT masterpiece which has to be seen to be believed.

The plot centres around Wu Tang villain, Abbot White, who wants to destroy the Shaolin monks and become supreme martial artist. In order to do so, he teams up with a clan of Ninjas, led by three masters – gold lamé ninja, white mustachioed ninja and black ninja – and succeeds in destroying the Shaolin temple and most of its inhabitants. However, there are some survivors. It is their job to pass on the knowledge of the Shaolin finger jab to a new generation, who must defeat the ninjas and Abbott White if peace and order is to be restored.

Unfortunately, Abbott White is a difficult foe to beat, since he is able to make himself virtually indestructible by sucking the life force out of hot naked chicks (an excuse for some welcome gratuitous nudity!).

Other treats in store for viewers include loads of very impressive fighting (despite some of it being speeded up), some really amazing outfits (the aforementioned gold lamé ninja, Abbott White's Yin Yang suits, and even some assassins wearing Swastika tunics), a ninja turning into a flying carpet, plus some cheesy gore for good measure. And I nearly forgot to mention the really impressive eyebrows on display in this movie – surely a good reason not to pass up on this gem. Alexander Lou, star of classics such as 'The Super Ninja' and 'Mafia vs Ninja' headlines here in this entertaining martial arts fest.

The plot involves the evil Abbott White (who boasts some humongous and frankly somewhat scary looking white eyebrows) enlisting the aid of a ninja clan in order to overthrow the Shaolin Temple.

This goal he achieves and furthermore wipes out most of it's members, although needless to say, one or two do manage to survive and rather predictably go on to exact eventual revenge upon the miscreant Abbott.

....Ok so the plot isn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of creativity but does anyone watching a film with a title like 'Wu Tang vs Ninja' aka 'The Ninja Hunter' really care much for such an inconsequential factor as a plot? Of course not! - It's the fights that matter in these films and by gum - you get your moneys worth here! There's some superbly choreographed martial arts on display from everyone involved in this and rarely a minute seems to goes by without a fight breaking out for some reason.

If your at all into martial arts movies then this is a must see! I've just revisited this fondly remembered bit of cinematic madness from my early days, and must urge you to beg steal or borrow it.

The story begins with a duel between a righteous Shaolin priest and our villain Abbot White, needless to say, Abbot White kicks Buddhist ass, and wages his campaign against Shaolin unhindered with the aid of his new ninja allies (a golden clad one who fights with a gold ring, a black clad one who fights with a spear, and my favourite; one who fights with a pair of knives who can disappear and reappear as a flying carpet). The rest of the story concerns the training of the disciples of the Shaolin monks killed by Abbot white, one of whom is Alexander Lo Rei. Whilst we are treated to the punishing training sequences the two young avengers must go through to learn the Shaolin Finger Jab technique needed to defeat Abbot White's invincible armour technique, we see some of the ways our villain keeps in shape...mostly using Taoist magic to extract the blood from naked ladies. We all know how this is going to end, but it's the psychedelic trip in between that we're here for. In conclusion, this is a good example of what Taiwan was doing when Hong Kong was getting sick of martial arts movies, and that is making more and more outrageous martial arts movies. This movie is very well choreographed, has some nudity, some gore and enough balls to the wall gimickry to keep even the most jaded viewer entertained. Visit your local Beewise today!

This is one of the best martial art(Kung-fu) movies of all time. if u love martial art movies this is a not to miss. From flying nuns to training monks this movie has top kungfu styles and a good story line. Its about a priest from the wu dang clan trying to eliminate all the shaoulin fighters to be claim the title of being the best in martial arts. after killing key members of the shaoulin temple the faith of the shoulin is remained in the hand of two boys secretly training under a shaoulin monk. The white abbot or the priest from the wu dang clan develops new techniques that turn him into iron. well this a not to miss classic. It involves Ninjas, shaoulin and nuns fighters. it a great classic This film is absolute cinematic genius. It has a well brought together cast who give an almost magical performance. The effects are nothing but stunning and the story will keep you hanging off your chair right the way through the movie. Jack Long plays the part of abbot white exceptionally well, he provides an immensely thrilling portrayal of absolute evil. If your a kung fu fan or just an action movie enthusiast this film is an excellent choice for anyone who is lucky enough to find a copy. For any big kung fu fans this movie provides a compelling insight into the world of shaolin. This film is definitely 10/10 quality and should be considered as one of the greatest eastern movies of all time. With its rerelease by ADV Films, I've had a chance to watch "The Giant Majin" for the first time without the deep cuts and unkind words of a late night Horror Chiller Theaters. Guess what? It's a pretty damn good movie!

The sets are authentic, the acting in subdued and believable, and the giant Majin is stately, powerful, and unstopable. I loved the subtle fantasy touches (the enchanted wood, luck charm, etc), and the potrayal of the god as a little less than 'good'.

This movie is begging for a remake in the new century! Ruthless evil warlord Samanosuke (superbly played to the hateful hilt by Yutaro Gomi) cruelly mistreats the peaceful residents of a small village. The giant stone statue Majin eventually comes to life to destroy Samanosuke and his wicked minions. Director Kimiyoshi Yasudo and screenwriter Tetsuro Yoshida give the compelling story all the power and simplicity of an ancient age-old legendary folktale: there's a very strong sense of an ancient time and faraway remote place (it's specifically set in feudal Japan), the good guys are noble and appealing while the villains are truly nasty and detestable, the occasional stirring swordfights are staged with considerable skill and gusto, the special effects are fine and impressive, the serious tone and steady pace never falter for a minute, and Majin's last reel rampage of savage destruction is extremely lively, exciting, and more than a little scary. Moreover, the fantastic elements of the narrative are given substantial credibility by being firmly grounded in a throughly believable dark, harsh and gritty world. This film earns bonus points for depicting Majin as more of a brutal and frightening force of angry vengeance instead of a pure spirit of absolute good. Veteran composer Akira Ifukube supplies a typically rich, robust and rousing score. Fujio Morita's sharp, moody cinematography likewise hits the bull's eye. The capable cast all give admirably sound and sincere performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Jun Fujimaki as the valiant, protective Kogenta and Tatsuo Endo as mean henchman Gunjuro. Highly recommended. For those of you who've wondered what an art-house monster movie might be like, wonder no more. The DAIMAJIN trilogy, circa 1966, was just such a series. More period samurai epics than anything else, these three movies just also happen to feature one of the most (literally) monstrous deux et machinas ever. There's not a single facet of these gems that is unpolished, from the scenario(s) to the performances to the filmmaker's craftsmanship. Even the special effects are handled with well-above-average skill, and are integrated (in most instances) almost seamlessly into the movie(s). If you're a GOJIRA fan or a fan of samurai movies or one of us who just likes a good movie regardless of genre, I highly recommend the DAIMAJIN trilogy. Nice combination of the giant monster and samurai genres. The giant monster Majin, god of the mountain, is an aloof and forbidding figure that comes across very much like the Old-Testament God, raining destruction and punishment on those who desecrate his holy ground - but it's interesting to note that what finally awakens him is not the suffering of the people but a pointed and personal insult. It's beautifully photographed, with solid acting, great miniatures, and a wonderful score by the great Akira Ifukube. Majin is not a 400+ foot monster like Godzilla - he's 2 1/2 times normal size, so the evil samurai he stomps into the ground get a good look into his contemptuous eyes as he bears down on their fortress and smashes it to smithereens. Not much in terms of extras, but it's nice to see this forgotten minor classic rescued and restored to the digital format. Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first sequel "Return of the Ginat Majin".

Now I haven't seen it since then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too.

No masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy/horror film. Worth catching--but not if it's the dubbed print. This movie was made by Daiei Studios, known for its Gamera movies. It is about a samurai lord who was murdered by one of his own men. He claims his throne, forcing his former's two children to flee into the woods, where they hide near a huge stone statue for 10 years. In those time that passed, the new samurai lord has proved to be very brutal and ruthless towards the village people and the valley. Therefore, it seems that the good people's only hope is the stone statue, which is where a demon god sleeps; they want the god to help them.

This samurai movie brings to us traditional Japanese aspects including sword-fights, geisha and worshipers. It is a superb and powerful story of survival and hope, with the protagonists attempting to triumph over pure evil. It is full of excitement, particularly the parts where the children struggles to remain in hiding as the evil warlord is out to get them. In addition, it has beautiful cinematography, with luscious landscapes of the village and countryside-instantly reminds you of the ancient times in Japan.

As with most samurai movies like "The Seven Samuari" and "The Last Samuarai," this movie is no less than pure, sometimes graphic, action. There are several disturbing scenes in the film. Therefore, it is not the casual sci-fi film. Yet, it is strong and powerful, and delivers a message that a good-natured human can overcome any adversaries, as depicted in this film, even the young innocent girl can calm the wrath of the demon god. The scenes of the demon god, known as Daimajin, trampling on its enemies and anything that stands in his way will instantly remind you of a Godzilla or Gamera film. Overall, a powerful and serious, yet hopeful film.

So, be careful with your samurai sword. You wouldn't want to rattle Daimajin's cages.

Grade A Evil warlord puts a town through pain and suffering. Not long before they call upon giant stone samurai Daimaijin for help. Daimaijin soon comes and really gets the warlord with all his viscious might. The revenge climax is really funny as Daimajin squashes guys under his feet and crushes guys with his fist and even drives a spike though a man's heart. When the noble Hanabusa clan is decimated by the usurping Samanosuke clan, loyal retainer Kogenta (Jun Fujimaki) escapes with his lord's eight year old son, Tadafumi, and his daughter, Kozasa. They are sheltered by the priestess Shinobu (Otome Tsukimiya), who serves the Hanabusa clan's god, Majin, a vengeful spirit imprisoned in the giant stature carved into the side of a local mountain. Ten years later, Kogenta and Tadafumi (Yoshihiko Aoyama) seek vengeance against Lord Samanosuke (Yutaro Gomi), but are captured in the attempt, and sentenced to die. Priestess Shinobu, desperately attempting to save her master, threatens Samanosuke with the god's displeasure, only to be slashed to death for her efforts. Samanosuke, a vain, cruel, narrow man, orders Majin's statue to be destroyed, in order to crush any last vestiges of hope among the remaining Hanabusa loyalists. But the god Majin, who hitherto has been implacably silent, has other ideas...

Daimajin is an enthralling, timeless, deeply moving fairy tale. Lavishly produced on a respectable budget, it is a film about values: the values of nobility, of justice, of decency, of loyalty, of self sacrifice, and of love. It is about hierarchy, and rule, and of the consequences of failing to live up to the responsibility that rule entails. These are things that are not talked about much in our demotic times, except by scribbling toads like William Bennet, but are nonetheless relevant, and Daimajin shows us why.

Daimajin is a perfect example of why Japanese cinema is so glorious. The values listed above have palpable relevance for those involved in this film, as they do for many a Japanese filmmaker. There is no lip service, no condescension, no irony here. Instead, there is an authentic effort to conjure a world where these values can once again have life, and to show what happens when they fall into abeyance. Just compare Daimajin, or the Lone Wolf and Cub series, or any Kurosawa film to the egregious Tarantino's nihilistic Kill Bill b*llshit, to see what I mean.

In a film whose contributing talent is so uniformly excellent, I would merely like to point out master Akira Ifikuba's majestic score, the talent and beauty of actors Jun Fujimaki, Yoshihiko Aoyama, and Miwi Takada; and the stunning portrayal by Otome Tsukimiya. Her death scene is one of the most moving and meaningful that I have ever witnessed. The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the "key to the universe" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.

My Grade: A What I got was something better.

Just like many movies I've commented on as of recently, I'd been looking forward to this one for a while. Especially after I saw one of Toshiaki Toyoda's other films, "Blue Spring" which is easily in my top 20 favorite films. I loved the trailer for "9 Souls", and I thought it sounded very good. I didn't hear anything bad about it. Now I know why.

This movie starts up as sort of a comedy, then during the last half of the film, it quickly becomes something else. It becomes more dramatic as each of the characters face their own tragedies. Each character gets just enough screen time, and you care about what happens to each of them. Even though there are 9 characters we have to learn, and care about, within just two hours, Toshiaki Toyoda pulls it off brilliantly.

After I saw "Blue Spring" I was hoping the soundtrack would be at least a little bit as good, as it was in that film. I got my wish, because the soundtrack to "9 Souls" was also incredible. The music used in each scene, more specifically the more dramatic ones, is just simply wonderful. I loved every second of it.

I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to see another Toshiaki Toyoda film, "Pornostar", but after I saw this, I'm going to. Definitely. Also, because I read the plot for it, and I think it sounds really good. I'm looking forward to it. On the R1 DVD of "9 Souls", there are two interviews with Toyoda. He says he's completed another film, and he wants to start writing the screenplay for his next. I can't wait for both.

I highly recommend this film. You must see it. Now. Finally! Third time lucky. This film has been always been on my mind, but my first viewing I forgot about it and only caught the second half of the film. Then only a couple months later I had the my second chance of watching of it, so I decided I would record it. Only to discover that my timer went off late and again I missed the first half of the flick. I wasn't going to allow that to happen again. So, when it came on TV again, I thought bugger it I'll wait until it comes on, then I will record it. And it was a good choice. I would have just watched the film, but they always put on weeknights around midnight.

After discovering a hole in their crowded cell, nine prisoners escape their confinement to track down the key of the universe, which a fellow prisoner known as the Counterfeit King said he had hidden. They think that this key could be an opening for a hidden loot of counterfeit bills. On this journey they naturally see this as an opportunity to pick up their lives before they were gaoled. Although things don't turn out the way that they intended to, with most of the criminals plans going astray.

"9 Souls" is an perky spiritual journey from Japanese director Toshiaki Toyada, which flung it's viewers into a film of two totally different halves. The first half of the story plays out more like a psychical comedy with the criminals bonds and the situations they find themselves being the selling point, but all that makes way to a moralistic and consequence drama-packed second half, where the real trouble begins with some quite nasty and bloody moments replacing the goofball tone it started off with. While, the first half is quite amusing with its on the road, screwball doodling and offbeat banter. But it's really the genuinely haunting latter half with it's peculiar turn of events that hit you so hard with some surprising touches that make you really sympathise for these very human characters. Even though they are not truly innocent from their crimes, you just become entrenched by these flesh-out characters in the first half that when you see them spiral into their downfall, you know it's an effective drama when you become shell-shocked in the dramatic change. The nine characters get enough screen time to truly understand their personal story and what weakness would eventually bring them down. The way the plot works out is that Michiru and Torakichi are the lead characters and we mostly see it from their perspectives. The escapism tale is an unquestionably engaging character study that's clear in it's goal and puts to you many questions on society and the path you choice to take to escape life and free yourself from these restraints.

While, the symbolic story is full of clarity and vividly told. The visual element doesn't go by unnoticed, because there's just a dreamy and trance-like vibe that channels itself into the unique atmosphere. What HIGHLY contributed to that factor and gave the film a lift was the sweepingly, moody instrumental rock soundtrack. The mellow atmospheric gel it was able to create in many scenes left me rather breathless with the everlasting emotions it was able to provoke. Simply beautiful and downright powerful control on that front. The pacing for such an long film ( 2 hours ) seems to breeze by and editing is swiftly done, because we are just so wrapped up in it all. The hypnotic photography is crisp in detail. While, the performances by the cast as a odd bunch of criminals are that of high quality with each one providing enough personality and features to separate themselves.

I found "9 Souls" to be a pleasing and quite an amazing surreal film that stirs up the emotions and then it smacks you with an almighty wallop when it changes direction. Highly recommended. To be totally honest I wasn't expecting much at all going into 9 Souls even after reading heap upon heap of praise plied upon it but to say I was surprised would be a major understatement, in short I was totally blown away.

The basic plot is as simple as they come, nine prison inmates ranging from a drug pusher all the way up to multiple murderer's escape from prison and go in search of a secret stash presumed to be forged money hidden by a tenth inmate who cracked and was dragged away by guards shortly before their escape but it's the direction that director Toshiaki Toyoda takes this simple story that is so brilliant and original perfectly blending drama, comedy and violence creating a truly one of kind movie that deserve's to be seen not only fans of Asian cinema but cinema in general.

Superbly acted, emotional, funny, violent and at times very surreal this is a movie has it all. When a bomber, a patricide, a pornographer, and a mad biker, together with various other forms of social scum, have had enough of their sh** infested cell, they spot a rat and look for the hole. Escaping from the sewage the group of 9 souls, take advantage of their new found freedom and head for civilization. What soon follows is not surprising. Complete mayhem and terror follow in their wake. It seems that each has some unfinished business to take care of.

Loosely based on The Great Escape, 9 SOULS is by far in the top 5 best films I've seen this year. Running at right around 2 hours 9 SOULS will deliver a story so powerful it'll literally leave you breathless. The beautiful, yet subtle, use of the rolling country sides adds the realism that is expected from this story. The vision of director Toshiaki Toyoda (Blue Spring, Porno Star), is completely mind boggling as he implements a sense of pity towards the characters. As quickly as each character grasps their dream, it's as quick as it's torn from them. Now, all responsibility of the success of this film should not fall solely on the shoulders of the director, yet props must go to the actors as well. This film was full of excellent acting from top to bottom. Ryuhei Matsuda (the son of Miyuki Matsuda of Audition) delivers a stellar performance, and seems to bring some of his mothers eeriness to the screen.

I must give props to Artsmagic DVD as well. This is the 6th film of theirs I've seen now, and they seem to get better and better each DVD. The sound quality is perfect and the picture; clean and crisp. It's very annoying trying to watch a film that is too dark in transfer, so the discs from theses cats are nice.

Bottom line is this film will soon receive masterpiece status by viewers' world wide. Keep an eye out in 2005 for 9 SOULS; it's really amazing film to watch. Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions. A great film. Every moment masterfully conducted by Toyoda and his crew. The actors give credible performances all around.The visuals are haunting,beautiful and sometimes hauntingly beautiful shots of the Japanese country and city landscapes.The sounds,courtesy of Japanese band 'Dig', are never overly edgy as one would expect from band-made soundtracks. It's strangely atmospheric and well suited to the scenes they're on.

All in all, they worked everything out perfectly....Well, if they were to give any justice to the story, perfection is the only thing anyone could have accepted.

The real greatness of 9 Souls is the compelling story. The prison break movie maybe something of a lost genre these days, and road trip movie losing it's appeal due to the way the world is getting smaller. But this story easily mixes something fresh to those two genres.

9 convicts are given freedom and possibly the opportunity to regain their places in society. will society accept them? will they be truly free of their dark pasts? and can they stick together long enough to stay alive and find out?

Each convict has an interesting history. Their crimes are as varied as their apparent fates. A sense of brotherhood among them keeps the story high on drama and supplies it with hilariously comedic situations. And due to the nature of their backgrounds, violence is always something waiting to happen.

After all that, all i can say is go give it a watch. I watched "9 souls" in Athens' 12th International Film Festival (September 2006), where Toshiaki Toyoda, the films's director was also present and answered many questions of the audience. This road film is about 9 fugitives, all very different characters from each other. They decide to stay together travelling with their red van across Japan. Every time the van stops, we see these 9 fugitives trying to escape from their past in order to build up a new life or to fulfil a dream. However, no matter how hard they try, it seems impossible and their violent past comes after them and leads them to their final destruction.

Though a very pessimistic film, it is not a dark film. On the contrary, it is full of beautiful pictures, surreal elements and elegant humor. Toyoda's heroes cannot escape their "prison" and they face a divine(?) punishment for their "crimes". They are small pieces of a beautiful painting, where the tower of Tokyo depicted as a huge knife turned upside down prevails! this is film is probably one of the best i've seen so far. i would put it only second to All About Lily Chou-chou because it kind of gives me the same vibes....'9 souls' is about 9 prisoners who have just escaped prison to go and find some counterfeit money stored in a time capsule at Mount Fuji Primary School. they later find out that there wasn't much there and set off on their own ways. the first half of the movie is just a time for the characters to be introduced and for the main points to be stated. it is a comedic yet serious part of the journey. the second half, moved me to tears. as the movie progresses, each character goes and tries to fulfill their dreams, but unfortunately ending somewhat badly. in the end only 2 of the 9 escapees are left. the way that each character left the scene was very sad and you will probably feel tears in your eyes. a beautiful film directed fantastically. this is a movie for people who have enjoyed Toshiaki Toyoda's other films such as 'Blue Spring'. This film was full of suspense and was well directed, the black and white effect made it a great mystery. Fay Emerson,(Hilda Fenchurch) who was married twice to the famous musician Skitch Henderson and also the son of Elliott Roosevelt, (FDR's Son) fell madly in love with Zachary Scott( Ronnie Mason/Marsh). Ronnie wins the hearts of all the ladies in the picture, even Mona Freeman(Anne Fenchurch) and proposes marriage whenever he can. Rosemary DeCamp (Dr. Jane Silla)(famous radio and tv actress in the 30's and 40's played mostly small town MOM'S) warned the ladies about Ronnie Mason's sick mind, and the abusive childhood he had when growing up, which caused his love/hate relationship with women. Fay Emerson and Zachary Scott would have been greater stars with more rewarding roles, but their lives were short lived in real life. This film is beyond critizing, it is a trully great 1945 film classic for many generations to view and enjoy! Zachary Scott does what he does best, i.e., plays a worm, in "Danger Signal," a 1945 B movie also starring Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, and Rosemary DeCamp. Scott plays a writer who kills women after he gets their money. On the lam from his last murder, he rents a room in the home owned by the Fenchurch family, Hilda (Emerson) and her mother (Mary Servoss). Scott throws himself at Emerson, and she's dazzled. Mid-romance, her younger sister Anne (Freeman) comes home from a medical treatment. When she mentions that she was Uncle Wade's favorite and he left her $25,000 (big bucks by 1945 standards), Scott loses interest in poor Hilda and makes a play for Anne. Anne looks like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm until she starts sneaking around with Scott - overnight, she ages 10 years and becomes downright nasty to her sister. Finally getting the message that her tenant is no good, Hilda calls in a psychiatrist (Rosemary DeCamp) to psyche him out and advise her.

Psychological dramas were all the rage during and after World War II, and Scott does an excellent job as a smooth sociopath. This was his forte - as a weak-willed sheriff in "Flamingo Road," he exhibited no real presence. As for two-timing, we saw him do that in "Mildred Pierce," where he proved himself particularly good at it. Emerson is a bookish stenographer with her hair pushed off her face and her big glasses, but after hours, she's lovely, and gives a strong performance. DeCamp was always an underrated actress - here, she sports a soft German accent and is delightful.

This is a highly entertaining film though a very routine story. The acting truly elevates it. Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look. Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another superb, medium-budget movie, "The Stepfather," by more than two decades.

The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in "The Awful Truth.") Scott, Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped.

Setting a creepy lodger-in-the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at all.

The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together. Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made 70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios', where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman, who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill, with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination. This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus, casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low, he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer smile.

I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in Mildred Pierce.

I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for "Ronnie Mason", Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie. Caught this film on TCM in the early A.M. It was amazing.

Starting out slow but ominously.... Scott is a shady character who preys on women. In this case, two women who happen to be due an inheritance in Southern California.

The sets of the beach and neighborhoods of the 1940's are original and intriguing. The title may have been more creative, but the theme and nefarious shadows of human nature are intriguingly exposed, almost in a Hitchcockian version.

Scott reminded me of the character Uncle Charley in "Shadow of a Doubt", one of Hitch's reputed favorite films. The audience learns,we truly do not know what lurks in the dark side of the human mind.This film is a displaced gem and well-worth purchasing. 10/10. I've seen various Hamlets, and I've taught the play. As I watch Jacobi, I'm tempted to think that he's every bit as intelligent as Hamlet himself, so alive is he to every nuance of this character's wit. He deepens, rather than solves, every puzzle regarding Hamlet's character. He illuminates line after line, word after word, shining light into this sparkling mind. At the same time, however, we cringe at the horror Hamlet feels at his betrayal--far more than with any other actor--because Jacobi feels the pain more profoundly than anyone else. And we shudder at Hamlet's own betrayals, because Jacobi is not afraid of the baseness to which Hamlet can descend. In short, Jacobi gives us Hamlet in full, and Hamlet in full is the greatest character in literature. That's why I'm satisfied that Jacobi's Hamlet is the finest performance I've seen by an actor. This production of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is by far the best that I have seen. Although it may not have the production value of some of the more recent adaptations, it does have the most important element: Sir Derek Jacobi as Hamlet.

Jacobi's portrayal of the disturbed Prince is multi-layered and riveting. His displays of emotion swing from hatred to sorrow, love to vengefulness and everywhere else on the map, but without seeming forced or over-the-top. In fact, some of the more powerful sequences occur when he underplays them, with stillness, soft speech and thoughtful expression. As to whether or not he interprets Hamlet as mad or sane...well, you should decide for yourselves; I changed my mind more than once. At one point it seems he has thought himself sane and merely playing at madness, but suspects that he is actually mad after all...a revelation to himself, captured beautifully. Having performed the part of Hamlet on stage more times than any other actor in history, Jacobi's affinity for the role then comes as little surprise.

As for the production itself, it is presented as a kind of "filmed-copy" of the stage play, with little special effects or fancy camera work, minimal sets and no musical accompaniment to speak of. This production relies on the acting prowess of the cast, and the words of Shakespeare, to evoke the emotion and interest of its audience. And it works. The other players are top-notch as well, particularly Patrick Stewart's "Claudius" and Claire Bloom's "Gertrude." Together the cast present a seamless ensemble.

The last (but far from least) element that makes this production stand out is the play itself. Here it is presented in its entirety, a rarity on film. But, oddly enough, I never noticed the time. I was too busy getting caught up in the story. I suspect that you will, too. I have seen all the film interpretations of Hamlet, from Sir Lawrence Olivier to Mel Gibson (gasp). Derek Jacobi captures the true essence of the character, from the beginning to the brutal climax. Superb acting all around. This one should not be missed. I saw this version of Hamlet on television many years ago, and have seen every other version since, whether television or movie. However, this is the one that remains the truest depiction of the story for me. Most excellent Derek Jacobi made Hamlet *real* for me. Before I saw this version, Shakespeare was simply gibberish to me and I never tried to understand the Elizabethan English. Having seen Jacobi's Hamlet several times not only increased my knowledge of literature, but also that of my family. I promptly checked the play out of Library and read it, and poured over the accompanying recording. Jacobi's rendition attracted me to a deeper knowledge. And yet, I have been searing for a video of it for years and years to no avail. It gets a very high rating from viewers. Why, then, has it not been released on video? It's the only Hamlet that I'd invest in... Absolutely the most thoughtful, spiritually deep, intense Hamlet ever done -- no other version comes close. Jacobi has the best understanding of the role of all the actors that have played it. Patrick Stewart's Claudius is ferocious and still sympathetic -- I particularly like the two doofuses playing Rosencranz and Guildenstern. Very feckless and yet sinister. Some might gripe about the need for a strong Ophelia -- she's not a strong person, that's the point, and Lalla Ward hits the proper nuances. Amazing. Simply Amazing -- every one of the more than two dozen times I've watched it. If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.

It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.

Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself. Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier, Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful, full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best.

Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete -- that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind.

Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials.

At 3 hours and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again, if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare lovers and scholars. I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.

I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb.

Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.

And now I'm going to watch it all over again.... Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching this.

Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz, it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and this killed it for me. That said, he does get the "To be, or not to be" speech right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions at that point in the play.

The supporting roles, to me better written and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius.

At four and a half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if you're interested but be prepared for a long watch. I have seen this play many times, from Olivier to Branagh, and this remains the one version that always stands out in my memory. Many actors have captured aspects of this character, but for me, it is always Derek Jacobi's performance they are compared to and all others just come up a bit short. 1. I've seen Branaghs Hamlet: Branagh is too old, speaks frequently with a high pitched voice (unwillingly funny!) - not a convincing Hamlet, and his directors qualities - poor ! (see also much ado about nothing from Branagh - the funny parts of the dialogues have mostly been cut out not speaking of the directors mistakes in the dialogue cuts!) 2. I've seen Hamlet 2000: I think the scenario is an interesting idea - but such lousy actors - all of them 3. Orson Welles Hamlet is OK - but this BBC Hamlet is the best! Derec Jacobi is convincing - seems a bit of a lunatic - very suitable! and Patric Stewart - wonderful, and Claire Bloom is a very attractive queen. You believe those actors what they are saying - I think this is the best compliment. I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen!

He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he IS Hamlet.

Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is.

If you like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek gives will leave you breathless. Amazing, amazing, amazing. What more can be said? Jacobi is the best Hamlet ever to grace the stage and captures every inch of the character. Every nuance and element of Hamlet is depicted and depicted well. Some people have complained about his age, but you honestly cannot tell when watching the film. If anything, he looks drastically younger than 40. I only wish a more worthy Ophelia could have been found. Her acting is passable but she just doesn't look the part. The only real exceptional performances come from Jacobi and Stewart, who is a great Claudius. The rest of the cast is good, but Jacobi is what truly elevates this teleplay. This is by far my favorite action movie. But what makes it work is not the elaborate Renny Harlin explosions and shoot-em-ups. It's the Shane Black script and its deft delivery by Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson.

The chemistry between the two principals merited a sequel. Thank God it was never made. Too much danger of marring the original.

'The Long Kiss' checkerboards from quotable scene to action scene to quotable scene and back again. Never a dull moment.

This has to be Jackson's funniest role ever, and the amazing thing is that he is playing one of the most normal characters of his career. No quirky Tarantino hit-man, super-cool Shaft, or borderline psycho soldier. In TLKG, Jackson is the everyman we identify with. The poor schmuck gets dragged along on this crazy woman's odyssey to uncover the dangerous secret of her past.

Though the story claims that Davis's character, Samantha Caine is suffering from amnesia, the writer and director treat her condition as if it were a multiple personality disorder.

Samantha Caine is not just a new identity taken by the amnesiac Charly Baltimore -- she is a separate, fully-developed personality. The traumas suffered by Samantha in the first half-hour of the movie help the submerged dissociate personality of Charly to emerge again.

The materials of her past life excavated by Jackson's detective Mitch Henessey facilitate Charly's resurfacing. Good timing, too, considering the target Samantha makes of herself.

But Charly has to fight herself to remain the dominant personality. One gathers from bits of dialogue that the warrior personality (Charly) developed after her father died and she was recruited by the "Chapter".

In the eight years Charly was buried in the psyche, though, her Samantha identity developed into the dominant personality. (She's even funnier that Charly.) This was probably due to becoming a mother, because it's the reunion with her daughter that breaks Charly's struggle to suppress Samantha, leading to their apparent integration by movie's end.

It's impossible to choose a "best quote" from this film:

"Now you're a sharpshooter?"

"I saved your ass. It was great!"

"Continue dying. Out."

"I sock 'em in the jaw and yell 'Pop goes the weasel'".

And a couple of dozen more, many too raunchy to quote here.

Geena Davis looks great, and comes off as an action hero without glossing over the fact she's turning forty. (Listen to Charley's history, do the math).

Fantastic soundtrack, too. Santana, Muddy Waters, Elvis, LaBelle, Marvin Gaye.

I give 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' a 9, only because I don't believe in a perfect 10. Seen it a dozen times, and it still stays fresh. Nice twisted holiday flick to place on your shelf next to 'It's A Wonderful Life.' Definitely a movie for people who ask only to be entertained and who do not over-think their movies.

Lots of action, lots of great dialogue (e.g. fun to quote), a little intrigue, and stuff blowing up all over the place. Samuel L Jackson and Geena Davis had great chemistry. Violent, but not gory. The fact that the female part was the competent action lead is a pleasant turn-about.

Have seen the movie more than a dozen times and still enjoy it enough to put it back in my favorite films rotation every 3 or 4 months. I initially rented the movie because Samuel L Jackson was in the film, but was caught up in the events surrounding Samantha's quest to regain her memory and have never looked back.

All you cerebral folks out there -- suspend disbelief for once, take yourself a little less seriously -- you might actually enjoy yourselves! Not a box office success; no-one really knows why. It may have failed simply because of its title. It looks as though you need a two-word tough-guy title to attract a sufficient proportion of the idiot crowd - "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Hard Weapon", "Die Lethal", etc. - talking about "the long kiss goodnight" will get you nowhere. But for once Renny Harlin has made a GOOD action movie. A large part of the reason for this lies in the fact that the central character, Samantha, earns our affection and interest early on. As she becomes Charly again, we're torn: we certainly want Charly to thwart the bad guys, and all that; but we don't want her to lose touch with Samantha in order to do so - even though we like Charly, too. Geena Davis bestows all of her considerable charm on both halves of the central character. Samuel L. Jackson plays second fiddle for a change. It turns out he's good at it. That was a compliment.

Intelligent, far superior to anything in the "Die Hard" series - if I were more cynical I'd add, "it's not surprising that it didn't do well", but I don't really feel that way; it IS surprising that it didn't do well. A small-town schoolteacher (Geena Davis) slowly begins to realize that she has suffered amnesia and really use to be a secret government assassin! Soon, there are men after her and a small-time private detective (Samuel L. Jackson).

This was action-packed, with some great special effects and really funny one-liners (especially from Jackson). Although the action may get a little silly at times, who cares? After all, aren't movies meant to be a good time?

Craig Bierko is fun as a ruthless villain. The movie itself was an all-around good time. Just don't expect to have to think too much about it because then, if you take it too seriously, then the movie actually won't be fun but stupid instead.

This movie doesn't deserve to be called stupid or any other bad name. This is a film that in no way reflects the real world. Nothing in this film makes any real world sense or has any real world logic. It operates entirely in its own little world and your ability to accept it or not will determine your love or hate for this film.

I love the film.

Somewhere at the very beginning I bought into the completely unreal premise of the hit woman regaining her memory as the past comes back to haunt her. There was a moment early on where I remember accepting that this was going to be one of those movies where the heroine was going to know nothing until it was needed, despite all logic that it wouldn't happen that way. "Oh its one of those films" I said to myself and was hooked as the film took off on a wild two hour chase.

This is an action film with brain and brawn as things follow there own internal logic and you actually have to pay attention to follow some of the twists and turns. I like this a great deal and am pleasantly surprised when I bump into people who feel the same way too. People either love it or hate it, if they've ever heard of it at all.

If you like action films this is a film to definitely try. You may not like it, but it certainly worth the effort to find out

And as always, leave reality at the door. I hadn't planned on leaving a review, but seeing some of the other dreadful reviews for this movie, I had to say something.

I'm not going to give away the ending or anything, but I do give away some important plot points in this review, so you should be aware of that. The short (non-spoiler) version of my review - Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis both kick butt in this movie, and it's a lot of fun. Watch it.

This movie is one of my favorites of all time. Geena Davis is perfect as the action heroine, torn between her existing life as a housewife and mother, and the memories that are resurfacing of her former life as a CIA Assassin. Her performance is superb as she plays both facets of this relatively complex character perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson's performance is, as always, also excellent, as the Private Investigator that Geena Davis' character hired to look into her forgotten past. He does a great job of playing the unwitting sidekick to Geena Davis' tough character. Some of the lines he utters in this movie are the best he's ever used in any movie he's been in.

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, do. It's a fantastic story with lots of unexpected twists and turns, and it's extremely well directed and acted. "The Long Kiss Goodnight" is an enjoyable and very cool action thriller, and a career breakthrough for Geena Davis. The plot is very familiar to that of The Bourne Identity but so what. The fight scenes are a real treat for the eyes and the plotline is strong enough to keep you engaged for the 2 hours.

It's directed with a slick sense of style and avoids most action cliches. Geena Davis is great as an action chick and gets past her usual "good wife" role. Samuel L. Jackson is good as usual as the supporting player. The film's baddie is overly cheesy though and you can tell what's going to happen to him.

It breaks away from the usual run-of-the-mill actioners such as Commando and On Deadly Ground and is definetly one of the best actioners in years. Good fun and good popcorn entertainment. 7.4/10. I feel extremely sad for some of the people who have been reviewing this film. It is apparent that their standards are so high that they will never be able to enjoy a film just for enjoyment sake. Or, perhaps, their enjoyment is derived from the act of picking films apart; looking for any reason at all to dislike them?

The Long Kiss Goodnight is an action film, in every sense of the word. Sure, there are holes in the plot big enough to drive a semi through, but none of them are enough to stop the flow of the film itself. I have never been a big Geena Davis fan, but I was impressed with how she was able to create two very different characters, Samantha Cain and Charlie Baltimore. In my opinion, it wasn't even necessary to have changed her physical appearance to differentiate between the two...her acting was more than enough to do the trick.

More than anything else, though, this film was Craig Bierko's. In another's hands, the character of Timothy could've been just another interchangeable villain. His decision to play him with a more casual approach was just the right counterpoint to all of the action scenes. It isn't often that you find an actor who can express himself so well with just his facial expressions...point in case: the scene in the freezer with Charlie and her daughter. Where most films would've cluttered the moment of "revelation" with unnecessary dialogue, Bierko's eyes told the whole story.

The basic plot? Thin, to be truthful. A seemingly average housewife who suffers from amnesia slowly discovers that she had been an assassin. As her memory returns, so do the people who want the assassin dead. Is she really Samantha, the cookie baking housewife, or Charlie, the cold blooded assassin? Or maybe a little bit of both? For me, The Long Kiss Goodnight was an enjoyable journey to find out. This film is a great rampage of action and comedy, it gets right in to it right from the start, there's no boring build up. The chemistry of the leading roles adds to the excitement and anticipation of the ending, even though my suspicions were not satisfied. The special effects worked brilliantly and were believable! Would have liked a different ending but it still had me reeling in emotions. The story line unfolds well however it is a film you have to watch from start to end carefully to pick up on all the details, to fully understand and get maximum enjoyment.

I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to give it.

Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no conscience.

This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry. I am a happily married 49 year old female, who just happens to LOVE this movie to death.

Geena Davis' character is strong, smart and kick ass...............I thought she did an excellent (thats an understatement) job in this movie.

I'm not real big on action movies, but i thought it was sooooooooooo sexy and entertaining.

She is my alter-ego.............when she starts putting that assault rifle together in the old hotel room.....................i got chills...............she did it like she knew what she was doing............thats one of my MANY favorite parts in that movie........

i think she deserved an Oscar for her acting and physical roles........

I'm going to have 'CHARLY' tattoed on my back..............I'm one of those girls who will NEVER BE A VICTIM......................I'm like her...............(shhhhhhhhhhhhhh secretly........and isn't that oh so sexy?) I have seen this film probably a dozen times since it was originally released theatrically. Anyone who calls this movie trash or horrible just doesn't understand action films or recognize a good one. Perhaps to some the incidents and outcomes may seem far fetched, but in my opinion screenwriter Shane Black ( Lethal Weapon/ Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) crafted one of the most well thought out action adventures you will ever come across. Over the top or not this film flows like clockwork and the action just keeps coming. The final action sequence is one of the best I have ever seen in any film. The cast in this film crackles. Genna Davis gave a tremendous performance and its a damn shame there was never a "LKG" sequel. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as her sidekick Mitch a down on his luck private eye trying to help her discover her lost past and make a few bucks. If Baffles me how anyone could not like this film. It packs so many thrills and its so funny. The wisecracks in this film still make me laugh just as hard 10 years later. In my mind the first Matrix film and the Long Kiss Goodnight were easily 2 of the best and most original action flicks of the 90's. Incidentally Shane Black made a fortune when he sold this script. At the time it was the highest selling screenplay and its worth every penny. It's so sad that audiences never gave this movie a chance, cause they would have witnessed Renny Harlins best film and Genna Davis like you have never seen her before. Long live "The Long Kiss Goodnight"!! There is a serious scene in this movie. A scene that lets you know that his film won't be pulling many cheap punches. It takes place in a crowded train station and the protagonists are ambushed by assassins with automatic weapons. They make a break for it and just manage to get out in a hail of gunfire. The main hall of the train station is now filled with corpses of innocent people that were caught in the crossfire. Some would call that too sad and/or grim to put into what is supposed to be an enjoyable action flick. I call it honesty. Most action movies tend to lean toward the "safe side" of showing violence and plot elements. This mostly means that in spite massive shootouts innocent people tend not to die or at least we don't see them die. The violence is all purely the good guys versus the bad guys with mainly the bad guys dying. A bit of common sense clearly shows this to be absurd.

Renny Harlin showed a hint of this in his first (and sadly only) hit, Die Hard 2. The villains intentionally crash a plane full of people to get their point across. The scene was also filmed with a backup scene of a cargo plane with only a few people on-board going down, but the grimmer and probably more realistic scenario ended up being used. However, to fit the spirit of the first film, Die Hard 2 was mostly a "fun action movie." Here, that grimmer and more convincing edge is pervasive. The violence is bloody. The one liners are hilarious, but with a certain style that more echoes natural human sarcasm than clichéd film wisecracks at key moments of action. The plot is also packed with more malicious intent than most action films. The villain is not just some rogue out for revenge or a mad grab at power. It is less ridiculous, but also more frightening than that. From recent films, the "Bourne" trilogy almost gets there with its less cheesy than usual action film style, but this film is from 1996 and 7 years before "The Bourne Identity" with Matt Damon made it to the big screen.

Another interesting aspect is that the main hero is actually a heroine. And this is well before the movie version of "Tomb Raider" became a hit. What's more is that this heroine genuinely looks like she could take down John McClane and then take his still lit cigarette. This movie marks Geena Davis's second action-heroine role and she still didn't manage to score a hit. While Angelina Jolie stars in "Tomb Raider" years later and scores a hit. The reasons are beyond me. Completely.

Lastly, this movie isn't all dark edged. There are many outrageous and spectacular set pieces that one can only see in an action film. The climatic explosion of a chemical bomb is an absolutely spectacular display of movie pyrotechnics, with more than one law of physics taking a convenient break. Thus, there is formula here, but it is the Anti-Formula for the everyday Hollywood Action Movie Formula. --- 9/10

BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence, profanity I had never heard of this film till it popped up on cable TV and I can't understand why. Geena outdoes Arnold as an action hero in this film! Geena is an ex-CIA assassin who is brainwashed and given an identity as a schoolteacher with a quiet family life in a rural town. She continues that life for 8 years with a husband and daughter. Clues start coming to her that she may have been someone else, especially when someone tries to kill her. It seems that her former employers have discovered that she never died and want to make sure that she does. She hires Samuel L. Jackson, who is a former police officer. Together they form a pair that is as entertaining as Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. When Geena finally regains her memory she undergoes a transformation into the killing machine she once was with the song "She's Not There" playing in the background. What follows is Geena and Samuel have to go after the bad guys and hopefully stay alive. All through the rest of the film Geena has to decide who she really is. The killing unfeeling machine? The mother/schoolteacher with the quiet family life? Or a combination of both? Especially, since the bad guys grab Geena's daughter. Great action scenes that rank up with any of the Die Hard movies! A wonderful Christmas story on the moving theme of "Susie Homemaker finds her Inner Amazon." No, I'm serious! Geena Davis's amnesia starts to improve when she is knocked on the head. From this familiar beginning, we move in an unexpected direction. Good pace, good action, fun story, lots of explosions and mayhem. I thought this was a great action flick. A very good role for Geena Davis. She is a very versatile actress. One of my favs next to Angelina Jolie. I actually watched The Long Kiss Goodnight right after seeing the new Tomb Raider movie. It got me thinking, Charlie or Lara? Which one would win in a fight??? Either way, both women are very strong, intelligent characters that are fun to watch. Especially when they're kicking butt. I just hope to see Geena in another film soon. Seems like she's been out of the spotlight a bit too long. It would be especially nice to see her in another film with Samuel L. Jackson. Now they make a great duo. Watch this film if you haven't. You won't be disappointed. Let me start by saying overall I enjoyed The Long Kiss Goodnight. I would give it a 7/10. The Good: 1. Acting: Samuel L Jackson is entertaining in almost any role. In this movie he doesn't play his usual character, the type that is in control, instead Geena Davis is in control and Sam is along for the ride. His timing on his lines are great and he is the high point of the movie. Geena Davis also gives a great preformance as Samantha Caine/Charlie Baltimore. She is a believable action hero and I don't think too many other actresses could pull off the preformance Geena Does. 2. The Action: This is a very action packed movie. Things are pretty much always crashing or blowing up or someone is chasing someone else. The special effects are pretty good especially for being almost 8 years old. I can see some green screen stuff but it doesn't detract too much from the acting.

The Bad: 1. Why did it take half of the movie to set up the plot? This film needed to be edited in the script stage so that it didn't run as long as it did. Maybe a drama or something can run this long but people really need to be into the movie the entire time to sustain it. I think that if you can stick out the first half you will be pleseantly suprized the second half. 2. Geena Davis is cold weather and a tank top but she never seems cold. 3. Some things are unrealistic. Sam Jackson flies through a giant sign after he is blasted out of a room and then he lands in a tree and just gets up. When you see this part you will think it's a gag. overall fun movie 7/10 This is movie is actually one of my all time favorites. I'm not a Renny Harlin fan because most of his movies suck, but TLKG hits its mark time after time. TLKG is about a woman named Samantha Cain (Davis) who suffers from amnesia. she is married with a kid and as she qoutes "I'm a goddamn member of the PTA." and then her world comes crumbling down as the pieces fall into place about her earlier identity. Samuel Jackson plays a con artist cop who does PI gigs, he is dragged along by her to solve her identity and to get paid some cash for his work. along the way we find out Samantha is really Charlie Baltimore, a secret spy that was left for dead years earlier. the plot is great, making this story seem real and Jackson does a great job as second fiddle to Davis (whom always does a great acting job). the explosions are endless, the action is intertwined with memorable scene after memorable scene. pretty impressive visually though the kid got on my nerves at the end (watch out of the cars!) I'm tired of little kids screwing up a film to be saved but still, this movie is worth it as the kid adds to the film. again, this movie is really good, i never understood why it didn't make more at the box office but if it was a man starring in the movie I'm sure it would have grossed a hundred million. what is good is that over the years more people are discovering this movie and giving it good marks as the average of this film on this site has risen over the years. i hope it goes up further as this is one great action film. and i love action films The Long Kiss Goodnight has just about everything action fans want: a witty screenplay by the guy who wrote Lethal Weapon, Samuel L. Jackson, and great action set pieces by Renny Harlin.

Seriously underrated. One of the best action movies ever. When this movie came out, I had seen Geena Davis play only soft, feminine roles... This movie was anything but soft and feminine. Great lines, great action...she and Samuel L really clicked. Too violent for the kiddies, but if you and your significant other are trying to agree on a movie, try this one on for size. Go Geena! Go Geena! Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful, hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra. They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say a "shave"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well. Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji), changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story.

This is a film where the horror comes not simply out of "oh, ghost, ah", but out of the total dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the "evidence" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused, etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start, manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry: Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly atmospheric.

While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end, there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at stake.

And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp (sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this (i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered. This is a film by Oshima, the director of the notorious "In The Realm Of The Senses", a film so sexually brazed and unabashedly controversial it was banned for a while. This film takes place initially in 1895 in Japan and stars the very pretty Keziko Yoshiyuki as Seki, the wife of a rickshaw driver who falls for a much younger man who woos her in kind. That man, Toyoji, comes to her as she was sleeping and seduces her, though she soon is rather willing to be seduced. Soon they are having an affair and plot to kill Seki's husband, to be together forever. They do, and throw him down a well. However, they didn't count on the ghost of the dead husband haunting Seki and others in the village! This film is visually very stunning, the use of shadows highlighting this tale of murder for passion. Ms. Yoshiyuki (who is still active as an actress) is especially very good in her role. Its sexual at times, but not like "In The Realm Of The Senses". Some of what ensues is up to our imagination. I found this film to have a consistency of mood that makes it very watchable. A little creepy but that goes with the territory. I'd recommend this. In the Realm of the Senses is a beautifully filmed, well-written, and splendidly acted film. It tells the haunting story of a woman who kills her husband after falling in love with another man. The ghost of her husband continues to haunt her lond after his murder. This film is really good, anyone interested should definitely check it out. this particular title is very interesting. the whole movie was like watching a ninja RPG, which is really cool. three magical swords, three clans, a horrible demon, a political power, yotoden has it all. the animation is decent, but a little grainy, the story is top notch, and the fight scenes are real cool. one thing that really looks good in this movie are the monsters. they are pretty freaky. if you liked blood reign and ninja scroll, yotoden is the one to see. After having spent a lot of my youth watching such movies, I found this one very easy to follow in both the unedited and cut versions, (Although the story has much more to hold it together in the unedited version. Unlike Ninja Scroll this movie hit a much more serious note and i think that's where it hit me. The animation while grainy is very original, and I just love the way artists in that year stressed shadows to show different emotions. I think the story is perfect. The beginning of the movie really hits hard and as the movie progresses you get the feeling that you're going along in this adventure with the characters. As they meet, become allies and find out the their greatest strengths, a lot of heart was put into this. After reading more than my fair share of reviews for a vast number of different movies I have noticed a certain trend, people judge to harshly on what the expected to see. I figure if you go into a movie open-minded not expecting anything certain than you will have better feelings towards it then if you try and watch but have pre-created standards you want it to reach.

Since I try not to be hypocritical I watched this movie with a very clean slate and open-mind, and was very much pleased. Since it is not a mainstream title or award winning for that matter I did not know quite what to expect, but in all truth I enjoyed it a good deal more than Ninja Scroll. Lovely animation, deep story, and the always joyful ninja hack-n-slashing combined extremely well to one of my personal favorite animes ever made.

I am not promising that you will enjoy it, but just give it a chance and you may come out with a pleasant surprise.

- "Before speaking, be sure of what you will say will be more beautiful than the silence" - Chinese proverb I really liked this one. (SPOILERS??) It had a really good plot, the main female in this movie is really kewl.

Despite the fact that she's the only one left alive and her lover dead, it seemed to be much like Ninja Scroll. Another kick ass movie. ;)

Watch it in japanese with subtitles. I don't know where the idiots who learned to speak english are, but for some reason all dubs get an F in translation techniques. The subtitles are more correct.

9/10

Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 9/10 A lot of the comments seem to treat this film as a baseball movie, but I feel this is only secondary. It's really about living in Japan, and it really succeeds.

I spent a few years living in Japan, and I suppose the reason that this movie didn't do too well is that you sort of have to have experienced Japan to get it. I was watching this with a well-travelled friend who's never been to Japan, and he noted that many of the events in the movie were so ludicrous that they destroyed the suspension of disbelief. My reply was that those events were the absolute unvarnished truth about life in Japan!

I think that this movie is definitely worth watching, especially if you've lived in Japan or are interested in it. MR. BASEBALL is a film of paradoxes. Written and filmed as a "light, sports comedy" it truly has a heartwarming core as human and universal as some of Capra's finest. At the plot level, you have the paradox of baseball, a fine old American game, as it is played in Japan - turned around, with American values cast off and Japanese values imprinted upon the game. (Some of the superficial "sports comedy" results from Jack's uncomprehending disbelief at how "basa-boru" is played in Japan.) You also have a lead character who's presented as an over-the-hill, aging baseball star, but who is actually quite immature - pro ball allowed him to postpone growing up. And you have a lead character who is rudely resistant to the changes in his life that are being forced upon him, refusing to accept the curveball that life has given him, in the midst of a new country, a new manager, a new team, and a new girlfriend, who have all welcomed him and try to accept him. Sound like heavy stuff? Not really. It's a charming "clash of cultures" comedy that takes place on the national, sports, romantic, and professional levels. But if you watch it sensitively enough, you will also find a great story about a man who has to abandon his immaturity and grow up way too late in life (causing some amount of personal pain), and finds success in places he never expected it. I love the story, but I also have great respect for Selleck's performance; he bares his tush (literally) to portray an ugly American, insulting people and throwing tantrums in public, then lets us inside this character to understand his dismay. It also doesn't hurt if you're a big fan of Takakura Ken like I am. MR. BASEBALL is a surprising "loss of innocence" tale. I agree with BigAlC - this movie actually prepared me for a lot of the cultural differences and practices before I went to live in Japan for a year in 1993. Tom Selleck does a fantastic job here, as always, and the movie is greatly humorous and educational. I'm a big fan of Tom Selleck's, and he blesses this part with his usual charm and charisma to this part, bringing the film to life in a way I can't imagine any other actor being able to pull off.

This film featured some first-rate Japanese actors, and it was highly entertaining to watch them as they interacted with Selleck - I can imagine the fun he had during the actual filming of the movie - Japan's an awesome place to go, whether you want to party, sight-see or just try to take everything in. You have to have lived in Japan for awhile to enjoy the beauty of this movie! I lived on Okinawa for over 2 years, and northern Honshu for 4. Believe it or not, what you see paints a very good and accurate picture of contrasting east/west mentalities, both from a sports as well as personal relationships perspective. A funny, funny, and heartwarming movie that deserves better than Americans viewing it can ever judge. 8+ out of 10! I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.

I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks I liked this movie, not because Tom Selleck was in it, but because it was a good story about baseball and it also had a semi-over dramatized view of some of the issues that a BASEBALL player coming to the end of their time in Major League sports must face. I also greatly enjoyed the cultural differences in American and Japanese baseball and the small facts on how the games are played differently.

Overall, it is a good movie to watch on Cable TV or rent on a cold winter's night and watch about the "Dog Day's" of summer and know that spring training is only a few months away. A good movie for a baseball fan as well as a good "DATE" movie … Trust me on that one! *Wink* Redo the Oscars from 1992, and this film might get nominated, or even win. It was SO good at capturing its era and dual cultures that it belongs in American and Japanese time capsules. If you wanted to know what living here or there was like back then, this film will show you. As an American, you'll feel like you tagged along for an extended Japanese vacation, and by the end of the film, you'll be a die-hard Dragons fan, as you accept the injection of Japanese tradition and culture into their baseball, much as we have done with our culture in our own game.

Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck) is a slumping, aging Detroit Tigers' slugger who is traded to the Dragons, perennial runners-up to the dynastic Yomuri Giants, Japan's answer to the Yankees. The Giants are admired for their success, yet that success also has everyone wanting to surpass them, something which is rarely done. The Dragons' manager recruits Jack as the final piece of the pennant-winning puzzle, and we're left with what could have been Gung Ho on a baseball field, but instead was much more.

The casting was outstanding: Selleck proved that with a good script and a character that suits him, he can carry a film as well as he did his television show, and the Japanese cast was equally good, down to Mr. Takagi from Die Hard back as the image-conscious owner. The other actors, including the one who plays the love interest (also the manager's daughter), strong and independent yet simultaneously a believer in Japanese traditions, beyond what was forced on her. She is a proper and supportive girlfriend for Jack. Even her father never tells her not to see him, almost sympathizing with Jack for what he endures from her, and a bit relieved he at least knows the man she has chosen to love.

The baseball scenes are great, bolstered immensely by a pre-fame Dennis Haysbert as another American ex-patriate and Jack's western mentor. The usual fish-out-of-water elements are there, and you can almost feel yourself stumbling right along with Jack to fit into a country that doesn't speak our language, and doesn't practice our ways, yet copies everything we do, including our national pastime. one of the funnier scenes occurs when Jack, clutching a magazine, informs his manager that he has learned of the tradition in Japan where you can get drunk and tell off your boss, and it can't be used against you, and exercises that right very humorously. The plots and subplots are tied up neatly at the end, but not too neatly, and nothing concludes unrealistically.

To call this a comedy is misguided: it's a pure comedy-drama, or even a drama with good humor. The plot is too deep to dismiss it the way it was by critics as an actor out of his league trying to carry a lightweight film. The situations were amusing, but in their place against a far more serious, profound, and precisely detailed backdrop that results in one of the best films I've ever seen. The baseball cinematography rivals that of For Love Of The Game, for realism.

Some say the film is about baseball, or about Japan, but more than anything it seems to be about the workplace, and how people arrive at work from totally different origins, with different agendas, and somehow have to put their differences aside for the good of the company, or the team.

A truly great film that never should have had to apologize for itself the way it did when it was in theaters. Many believe this movie is a baseball movie. Such people are disappointed because it's about a baseball player, but the movie isn't about baseball.

Some think this movie is a romantic comedy and are disappointed because the relationship isn't really developed. This movie is not a romantic comedy.

This movie is about culture. An arrogant American Major Leaguer and a stern traditional Japanese baseball manager cannot succeed because they can't, indeed, won't understand one another. It's after they manage to break through the cultural barrier that they have success. The ballplayer becomes more Japanese in his team mentality and the manager more American in allowing individual achievement, and they meet in the middle.

Baseball and the romance is subordinate to this critique of the two cultures. Many who have no understanding of the Japanese mindset miss this and think it's a movie on baseball or romance and see the culture clash as mild comedy relief. It's not---the culture clash is the gravamen of the movie. Based on my own experience and understanding of the Japanese culture, I think this movie did quite well in that it didn't overly romanticize the Japanese culture nor overdo it in its portrayal.

Overall, I believe this is an enjoyable and relaxing movie if one understands what it is really about. This has always been a favorite movie of mine. I've owned a VHS copy, and a couple of months ago I found a DVD release which is also part of my video collection. I also happen to be a huge baseball fan, and as part of my off-season reading, I picked up a copy of Robert Whiting's excellent book "You Gotta Have WA", that profiles the ins and outs of Japanese baseball, and the challenges that foreign players have encountered playing in Japan. As I began to read yesterday, it made me think of this movie, because it appears the screenplay was based almost verbatim on this book. The parallels are uncanny. The Jack Elliot character closely resembles Bob Horner, an aging MLB slugger whose best days were behind him. Horner's teammate Leon Lee is also depicted in the character Max "Hammer" Dubois, a veteran in the Japanese league who has made his peace with the frustrations of the Japanese game, and helps keeps his teammate sane. The Elliot character goes through the same sequence of encounters as Horner, from big fanfare signing, early success that fuels an already ravenous sports media, and the ensuing slump that spurs frustration, alienation from teammates, fans and media, and the resulting disillusionment that prompts a desire to go back home to the US. The only difference is that the movie adds such Hollywood touches as a love interest and a happy ending.

Speaking of love interests, I'm sure many viewers have come to this site (as I did) to look up the actress who played "Hiroko" (the beautiful Aya Takanashi), and what other work she has done. It only lists this movie. It turns out, based on an article I read, that the brief love scene she has with Tom Selleck (a foreigner) in this movie (mild by our standards - basically they kiss while he's in the bath and she's wearing a towel) caused such an outrage on the part of the Japanese public (males in particular) that she has never been offered another role of any kind, in Movies or television - essentially blackballed by the Japanese movie industry. It's a real shame, as she is(was) quite a talented actress in this movie.

If you like this movie as much for the baseball elements and cultural differences as I did -- go find a copy of "You Gotta Have WA" by Robert Whiting. A good read and a great companion book to this movie. This is an excellent, little known movie. Tom Selleck does an outstanding job of acting in this movie, with the Japanese 'Clint Eastwood'. I'd love to see if this movie has come out on DVD yet, there are some spots that clearly have been cut. Hiroku (Tom's love interest) has clearly had some parts chopped. It would be interesting to see more of Japan in the film. The baseball sequences are far and away the most realistic of any baseball movie, I'm quite sure most of the actors were current or former baseball players. I love loading the tape of this movie at least once a year. Best scenes involve the lack of hat tipping after Tom gets beaned in the big game, and an intensely sensual scene of Tom having a hot bath with Hiroku. Dennis Haysbert also does a great job, it's good to see he's finally getting some recognition, not just in baseball movies(he was also in Major League). *Minor spoilers* I just wanted to say that for anyone who likes entertaining baseball films, this is definitely in my top three. Only Little Big League and Major League can compete with this one in my mind. I would also like to commend the writers of this film for creating such enjoyable dialogue!! Without being too specific, I would say that the lines are very fitting for each character. Tom Selleck seemed to have no problem creating a realistic character as a ballplayer. His animosity towards playing overseas in Japan sets the tone for comical, yet meaningful interactions with his new team, the Dragons. He must adjust to life in Japan ("First you wash, THEN you bathe!") He eventually sees eye to eye with his coach and sets his goals to have that one final season of greatness, though in a much different environment than he ever imagined! So for any baseball fan, or anybody that wants to watch a good baseball movie, Mr. Baseball will not let you down! Not too many people seem to know about this movie. Which is too bad because I think it's pretty good. Sure it is a bit cheesy at times and may have a predictable storyline. But the presentation of the movie is pretty well done. I think the casting is good with likeable actors/characters. Tom Selleck does a good job at playing a baseball player (go figure... not too much of a stretch I suppose) and Ken Takakura (from Black Rain) plays the chief (the coach of the Japanese baseball team). There isn't too much to complain about. It's just a light, easy-going, happy comedy and I recommend it. I am an Australian currently living in Japan. I saw this movie on TV here and was very impressed by the accuracy and honesty in the portrayal of Western and Japanese ideologies colliding. Whoever wrote the screenplay, and directed this film must have a good knowledge of what it's like to be a foreigner living in Japan. The only part I thought was too Hollywood-y was when Tom Selleck's character kisses the woman in the middle of her office and she lets him. Public displays of affection are not really acceptable here. Finally a movie that highlights the true 'gaijin' experience! 9/10 I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan. An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film, sometimes slapstick as in "Folks!", but always there seems to be some higher purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve his personal difficulties while holding fast to "doing the right thing," and you end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time, Mr. Baseball hits a home run. I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.

Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope. Mr Baseball was a fun video rental with my Fiancé Susan Nauss. Susan said that she had been looking forward to seeing the movie. Ken Takakura Oda as a tough yet Honorable Manager makes sense. Ken Takakura has made so many wonderful Asian movies, I correct the one reviewer and say Takakura is still a Cinematic Presence with films like Hotari. Of course everyone likes Tom Selleck yet Ken Takakura is the better dramatic actor of the two. Today someone accused me of being Yakuza, well I say that My Great Uncle Shadow President Jack F Kennedy myself and others are part of the legitimate Human leadership in our Universe and thanks to our coCreators Humans are free people fighting all the parts of adversity that President Kennedy talked about in his inaugural address. To be honest someone has kept food prices very low in Canada on things like bread. In honor of our CoCreators please stop eating amphibians reptiles and eggs. I hope that there will one day be a sequel to Mr Baseball with Father Ken Takakura Oda still as Manager. Thank you to IMDb for supporting freedom of speech like the kind President George W Bush and I support. Support IMDb. This film got less attention than "League of Their Own," possibly because it has only one "name" star. But whereas women's professional baseball had only an eight year, Midwestern town existence, Japanese baseball is a vastly bigger entity, both in financial underwriting and popular support. That alone would make it the better movie.

"Mr. Baseball" shows the facts of life of Japan-ball: the regimented cheering, the deference to umpires, the pressure of corporate owners on managers, the extreme conservatism of play - and no hot dog players welcome.

It also touches upon the isolation that any gai-jin - but especially an American jock, not the people most versed in foreign cultures - feels living in Dai Nippon. And the Japanese, for their part, are not comfortable around foreigners and let it show in various ways ("the gai-jin strike zone," one American player complains, "bigger than a Buick.")

The script may not have won any awards, playing once again on the "redemption by improved play" theme, but I found it considerably more enjoyable to watch than the pokey "League." Definitely recommended for those who want to see another angle on this great sport. You have to like baseball, and you have to at least sort of like Tom Selleck, but if you meet those criteria you should thoroughly enjoy this movie. Selleck plays former major league star who finds himself traded (?) to Japan as his career winds down. Really well thought out and fascinating look at Japanese customs and behavior. Great supporting performances by Selleck's manager ("Japan's Clint Eastwood"), his girl friend Takanashi, and his interpreter. The chemistry between Selleck and Takanashi works very very well, this is really a very nice romantic movie apart from the baseball. Look for Haysbert as fellow player well before he became a persistent shill for Allstate. Movie wraps up very nicely. Easily in my top fifty all time movies and maybe my favorite one on baseball. "Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own", while that may be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league baseball....but not to worry, "Mr Baseball" is there to try and change all that. But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock! Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles. The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch! I saw this movie at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.

Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated is the directorial debut of actor Liev Schreiber. Schreiber also wrote the screenplay. In the movie, Jonathan (Elijah Wood) obsessively collects items from his family, from toothbrushes to retainers to scraps of paper which he then seals in ziploc bags and pins to a wall in his house to record his family history. But the space for his grandfather is conspicuously bare. All Jonathan really has of him is a piece of jewelry and an old photo of him with a woman who hid him from the Nazis during the Second World War. Jonathan decides to undertake a quest to Ukraine to find the woman, thank her, and learn more about his grandfather.

His quest is aided there by a couple of characters who run a tourist company for Jewish people, including a young man obsessed with western culture (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather (Boris Leskin), who thinks he is blind and who may have memories and demons of his own from the war, and his grandfather's temperamental seeing eye dog.

The screenplay effectively combines both humour and drama as the three characters travel through the countryside looking for Jonathan's grandfather's town, driving deeper and deeper into the memories of the past. The best performance probably comes from Eugene Hutz, playing Alex Jr., who starts the movie as a tracksuit-wearing, break dancing slacker just out to have fun but evolves into something more as not only Jonathan, but all the characters gain their own illumination.

Liev Schreiber, Elijah Wood, and Eugene Hutz attended the screening and did a very humorous Q&A after the film:

- Schreiber was very close to his grandfather, who was a Ukranian immigrant, and who died in 1993. This caused him to start to write to get his memories down on paper. Meanwhile, he was asked to do a reading of Foer's short story, The Very Rigid Search, which was an excerpt from the still unpublished novel. Schreiber was blown away by the quality of the writing, saying that Foer had done in 15 pages what Schreiber tried to do in 107. Schreiber approached Foer and they talked about their grandfathers, culture, movies, and the nature of short-term memory in America; in the end, Foer agreed to let Schreiber adapt the book.

- Schreiber's own project was intended to be a road movie, but the book has parallel narrative that is an imagined chronological history of the town of Trochenbrod that spans 500 years; given his budget and limitations as a filmmaker, he said he'd leave that to Milos Forman and take the road trip instead. This imagined chronology was what moved him to make the movie in the first place, the idea that "a past lovingly imagined was as valuable as a past accurately recalled".

- Schreiber said the movie was a series of happy accidents. After searching unsuccessfully in Ukraine for an actor, he was walking through the Lower East Side in New York, when he saw a poster of a woman centaur, topless from the waist up, with an insane cossack sitting astride her. Under the poster said the name Gogol Bordello Ukranian Punk Gypsy Band.

Eugene Hutz then took over the story. He had never pursued acting as music was his first passion. One day, a friend gave him the book, and he thought it was written in a manner similar to how he writes music; screw sentences/syntax, language is my own.

Later, they got a call from a production company, looking for eastern European music that was medieval but modern. Hutz met with Schreiber, and he soon found the movie was based on the book he just happened to be reading. Not long after that came up, Schreiber asked Hutz what he thought about Alex and whether he could do the character by any chance.

- Foer and Schreiber talked about the film in the fall of 2001, shortly after the events of September 11. Both were in Europe at the time and they talked about the derogatory comments they were hearing about Americans, which led Schreiber to want to try to find an articulate American who would defy the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans. Someone who was awkward, vulnerable, flawed, innocent, and looking for history beyond the borders of his own country. Schreiber started thinking about who that was, and Elijah came up.

One of Schreiber's inspirations as a filmmaker is Emir Kusturica (I think that's who he said, who also directed a segment in another festival movie, All the Invisible Children) who said "you don't look for the actors, you look for the people." Schreiber said there is something about who Elijah is that he has a generosity of spirit and a sincere goodness as a human being, that came across on film. Schreiber said that the eyes are important when trying to articulate a character who is an observer, and that if "eyes are the doors to the soul, Elijah's are garage doors."

- Elijah Wood had fun with a question about the similarities between his character Kevin in Sin City and Jonathan in this movie as both are sort of a blank slate on which emotions are projected. Wood replied that Jonathan may seem still and seemingly emotionless, but it is all about his observations, about his experiences with other characters and the environment he was in.

- On the differences between directing and writing: Schreiber said he likes writing a lot more and jokingly described directing as "hell". After his grandfather died, Schreiber started to think about how to preserve some sense of history and himself; is he content driven or not, or just good at interpreting other people's work? He said he loved the exercise of figuring out what is emotional to you, important to you. I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to witness, "Everything is Illuminated". I walked out with a joy I have barely come to feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely touching scenes "Everything is Illuminated" managed to capture my heart. In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the woman that saved his entire family.

This is a heart-felt tale about someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere). But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.

From someone I talked to, this movie is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless, this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can someone say Oscar? I just saw "Everything is Illuminated" at the Telluride Film Festival. This is a truly remarkable film. Very emotional, funny at times and heart-warming. Bring your handkerchiefs! For those of you who enjoy a movie that brings tears to your eyes, I'm reminded of the endings of "Babette's Feast" and "The Notebook." The stories were completely different but had that same emotional power to bring tears to my eyes, just as this film did.

No spoilers here. The summary is, as IMDb describes, a young man's journey to the Ukraine to follow his roots and find the village where his father grew up.

The dialog is in English and Ukrainian (and Russian too, I believe). This allows for some wonderfully linguistically-based moments as one character interprets, more or less faithfully, for the English speaker in the group, depending on the circumstances.

The scenery is wonderful and the musical score is a treat with wonderful Eastern European influences. Be sure you stay through the credits for the final tune.

This is Lieve Schreiber's directorial debut and is well done. I give this film a 9, one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I recommend it highly. This is precious. Everything Is Illuminated is sweetly and sublimely funny from the first delicious line of dialogue. Oh, how I've been waiting for this to arrive in Austin. While Elijah Wood is charming as ever as Jonathan Safran Foer (the real-life author of the novel Everything Is Illuminated), it's Eugene Hutz (playing Jonathan's Ukrainian tour-guide and translator, Alex) who truly steals this film. Alex is a hip-hop-lovin' Ukrainian break-dancer who, along with his grandfather, helps Jonathan find the woman who saved Jonathan's grandfather's life during World War II. The Ukrainian countryside has never looked so breath taking. I'm thinking of packing it all up and moving to the former Soviet state.

The tone of the film, however, shifts when Jonathan and Alex do finally meet the woman they're looking for, and suddenly, this adorable comedy turns into a heart-breaking historical drama about a Jewish village that was annihilated during the Nazi occupation. Everything Is Illuminated is about history, heritage, and the wisdom that can be gained from uncovering the past. It's perfect. If anyone has any doubts about the talent of Liev Schrieber, just a look at his new film, "Everything is Illuminated", which clearly shows a man that is not only one of America's finest actors, but a new director whose first effort is indeed an inspiration and a harbinger of what is to follow. Mr. Schreiber has adapted the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer into a film that will live forever because of the way the director has adapted the material. The film clearly surpassed our expectations since we had no preconceived ideas.

For those who haven't watched the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

Jonathan is a collector. His love for his grandparents is boundless. He watches as his grandfather dies and as his grandmother is on what appears to be her death bed. On a clear moment, this dying woman gives Jonathan a picture and an amber ornament for his collection. Watching the photograph, taken a long time ago, a young couple are seen together. Watching makes Jonathan think it shows the grandfather and his girlfriend, taken on happier times. Watching the snapshot seems to be the motivation for this intense young man to go looking for his ancestors' past in the Ukraine.

Jonathan has made arrangements with a travel agency, Heritage Tours, of Odessa for his trip to Trochenbrod, the mythical place where his grandfather came from. The agency is handled by an older man, who claims to be blind, and his grandson, Alex, a man who loves the pop American culture that has captured his imagination, as well as his contemporaries in the country. Alex speaks a kind of English no one speaks and his conversation and translation, for Jonathan's benefit are hilarious to our ear for the use of sometimes unheard English terms. The old man insists in taking his dog, Sammy Davis Jr., against the wishes of Jonathan, who doesn't want to sit next to the snarling and barking animal during the trip.

As they embark in search of Trochenbrod, it's clearly that his companions, especially the old man has no clue where he is going. At this point, the film becomes a road movie, as the three characters riding the back roads of the country become more acquainted with one another. As the trio arrive at the sunflower field with the house at the end, it indicates they have indeed come to the right place. Some places are a clear reminder of the conflicts of the past.

The older woman, living in the isolated place, is the missing link of the story. She is able to put things into the right perspective. But here is where the story changes its emphasis from Jonathan, who clearly has come to the land of his ancestors, to the old man. We watch as this older man starts remembering things about himself. This, in turn, changes the dynamic of the film as we discover how connected Jonathan and his guides have been all the time.

Some criticism in these pages have expressed opinions about the accuracy of the story, which after all, it's a work of fiction and liberties have been taken. It would have been impossible to make another film including so much that is contained in the book. The great way the film is divided into different chapters is a clever way to let the viewer know what's about to be seen.

Elijah Wood, a magnificent film actor, does an excellent work by underplaying Jonathan. Mr. Wood makes one of his best appearances in any film with his interpretation of the main character. The felicitous casting of Eugene Hutz as Alex, the Ukranian tour assistant and translator, seems to be an idea made in heaven. Mr. Hutz is about the best thing in the film. His arcane usage of English gives the film a funny angle that delights the viewer. Boris Leskin as Alex's grandfather and driver of the tour car makes a valuable contribution to the film, as well as Laryssa Lauret, who is seen in the last part of the movie.

The excellent cinematography of Matthew Libatique brings the splendor of the Czech Republic's countryside in all its magnificence. The musical score by Paul Cantelon is heard in the background adorning the film in ways that it adds a richness to the movie.

Above all, this is a triumph for Liev Schreiber, the first time director that will surely go far in whatever he decides to do next. Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the soul.

Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life's little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.

This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan's obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It's a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It's also about one's legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film's end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.

The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its déjà vu feeling.

Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather's dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that's right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.

The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.

The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex's grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan's blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future. "Everything is Illuminated" is a simplified interpretation of something more than half of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This version is more about changes in Eastern Europe from World War II through post-Cold War and how the younger generation relates to that history as a family memory.

Debut director/adapter Liev Schreiber retains some of the humor and language clashes of the novel, mostly through the marvelous Eugene Hutz as the U.S.-beguiled Ukrainian tour guide. He is so eye-catching that the film becomes more his odyssey into his country and his family as he goes from his comfortable milieu in sophisticated Odessa to the heart of a cynical, isolated land that has been ravaged by conquerors through the Communists and now capitalists, with both Jews and non-Jews as detritus. As funny as his opening scenes are when he establishes his cheeky bravura, we later feel his fish-out-of-waterness in his own country when he tries to ask directions of local yokels.

Shreiber uses Elijah Wood, as the American tourist, as an up tight cog in a visual panoply, as his character is less verbal than as one of the narrators in the book. He and Hutz play off each other well until the conclusion that becomes more sentimental in this streamlined plot. Once the grandfather's story takes over in the last quarter of the film, marvelously and unpredictably enacted by Boris Leskin, the younger generation does not seem to undergo any catharsis, as they just tidy up the closure.

Schreiber does a wonderful job visualizing the human urge to document history. One of his consultants in the credits is Professor Yaffa Eliach and her style of remembering pre-Holocaust shtetl life through artifacts clearly inspired the look and it is very powerful and effective.

The Czech Republic stands in for the Ukraine and the production design staff were able to find memorable symbols of change in the cities, towns and countryside, as this is now primarily a road movie, and the long driving scenes do drag a bit. Schreiber retains some of the symbolism from the book, particularly of the moon and river, but having cut out the portions of the book that explain those, they just look pretty or ominous for atmosphere and no longer represent time and fate.

As W.C. Fields would have predicted, the dog steals most of his scenes for easy laughs. In general, Schreiber does go for more poignancy than the book. It is irresistibly touching, especially for those who haven't read the book, but less morally and emotionally messy.

The film is enormously uplifted by its marvelous soundtrack, which ranges from songs and instrumentals from Hutz's gypsy band to traditional tunes to contemporary tracks to Paul Cantelon's klezmer fusion score.

This is not a Holocaust film per se, being a kind of mirror image of "The Train of Life (Train de vie)" as about memory of a time that is freighted with meaning now, but will resonate more with those who have an emotional connection to that history. What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the "actor", but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two "D's" (direction and the DOG). All in all a "10".

/ 2005 was one of the best year for movies. We had so many wonderful movies, like Batman Begins, Sin City, Corpse Bride, A History of Violence.....Coming up we also got Brokeback Mountain, King Kong....But if this year the only great movie that came out was Everything Is Illuminated, then we wouldn't miss all this year has brought. The first movie as a director of the talented Liev Schreiber is a delightful, heart-warming, touching drama that also brings one of Elijah Wood's best roles. He is perfect as Jonathan, a curious man that heads for Ukraine to find the woman who saved his Grandfather in World War II. Liev Schreiber, who also writes the movie, conducts a masterpiece, with memorable scenes and (a lot of) funny quotes. This here is a genuine mixture of Comedy with Drama, bringing a movie that will be commented years from now. A serious Oscar contender, Everything is Illuminated is a powerful, original, and, why not say, illuminated movie. But there's one thing you should remember while entering the movie: leave normal behind. This is special.------9/10 I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review actually said, that this movie "benefits from a light touch." That to me is very misleading.

There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle, sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity, Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular.

How can Humor and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish / Yiddish literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a means of "recovering the Divine" for men and women who choose a path of Faith rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See "Fiddler on the Roof" for Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition.

Elijah Wood (Jonathon) Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and Old Alex ... is to me so very moving.

There are some wonderful scenes and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to this from first hand experience.

All in all, if you're looking for light comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out this wonderful movie. SPOILERS A Jewish Frodo? Yep, that'll be Elijah Wood again.

Ever since the concluding part of "Lord of the Rings", Elijah Wood as Frodo has found it increasingly difficult to get away from that major role. Playing a football hooligan, a psychopath and now a young Jewish American, Wood has tried any route he can to escape this typecasting. Now, with "Everything Is Illuminated" he might finally have achieved this. Playing a role which isn't as radical as other efforts, he truly gets to the soul of his character. Still, it isn't like Wood does this alone. Aided by a magnificent adaptation by first time directer Liev Schreiber and a wonderful performance by newcomer Eugene Hutz, Wood has found a magnificent production to spread his wings. "Everything is Illuminated" is a magnificent, moving piece of cinema.

Jonathan Safran Foer (Wood), a young American Jew, sets out to the Ukraine to find the mysterious girl who rescued his grandfather and helped him get to America. Arriving in the country, Jonathan meets the all talking, all dancing Alex (Hutz) and his racist grandfather (Boris Leskin). Travelling across the country, the three slowly learn more and more about the history and relations that Alex and Jonathan never knew existed.

It's a strange feeling when the film progresses into it's second chapter (it is actually divided into four overall). The first part, whilst occasionally a bit funny, is mostly serious and intense. So when we are given a brief history of Alex and his family in the second part, to switch from serious to hilarious is a weird step. It doesn't quite work, but as the film progresses, it definitely learns it's lesson as this mix of humour and sadness merges finer as time passes.

To the ultimate credit of everyone involved, as the story does continue, so do we begin to fall for the characters more and more. Elijah Wood is magnificent, Boris Leskin is so intense and strong that it raises questions why Hollywood has never properly noticed him. Most notable of all however is newcomer Eugene Hutz. Playing an intensely troubled character, Hutz is absolutely brilliant. He shows the split between his relatives and the real world with almost perfect skill, and when his character is communicating with Wood, you genuinely connect with him on a deeper level. Without Hutz, the story is so strong that the film would still be magnificent, but with him, it hits the next level.

As a debut work for actor turned director Liev Schreiber, the story is also a brilliant piece to start. A work of passion (Schreiber's grandfather himself an immigrant to America), he manages to truly embrace the emotion of the content, and by presenting us with some truly beautiful scenery and some magnificent shots, he manages to really hit home. The final half hour in particular is so beautifully created, that it's a challenge for a tear not to form in any viewers eye. It is a moving story, and with Schreiber's help, it becomes even more powerful.

Constructed with love from a passionate director, "Everything is Illuminated" is a beautiful piece. A road story with a difference, it is magnificently acted and wonderfully written. It's a film that everyone should see, and it is the perfect way for Elijah Wood to finally lay Frodo to rest. In America, the Jewish Jonathan Safran Foer (Elijah Wood) collects personal belongings of his family for recollection. A few moments before dying, his grandmother gives an old photograph of his grandfather with a woman called Augustine in Ukraine. Jonathan contacts the Odessa Heritage Tours, a family agency in Ukraine, to guide him to the location where the picture had been taken to find Augustine, and together with the interpreter Alex (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather and a weird dog, they travel in an old car searching the missing past of Jonathan's family.

"Everything Is Illuminated" is a strange movie about a weird young man with the compulsive behavior of collecting souvenirs from his family to not forget them that seeks the past of his grandfather to understand how could be his life if his grandfather had not moved to USA. This bizarre vegetarian character meets a dysfunctional Ukrainian family that owns an amateurish travel agency specialized in helping Jews to find missing relatives, and together they have an almost surrealistic road-trip through the country of Ukraine. The movie begins like a comedy, with a sarcastic black humor, and ends in a touching and tragic drama recommended for specific audiences. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Uma Vida Iluminada" ("An Illuminated Life") I first saw this movie on an Alaska Airlines flight, and have since seen it twice more. It simply is -- and is simply -- one of the best films in years. I found myself having enjoyed it after my first viewing, but a little cloudy on what had happened. After seeing it again a few weeks later, things began to fall into place. It wasn't confusing, just deep. In fact, the depth of the movie may not be appreciated for a long time. For example, it occurred to me only after my third viewing that Sammy Davis Jr Jr (Grandfather's dog) is more than just a pet -- perhaps she's the stand-in for his dead wife. Witness how fiercely he protects her. There is symbolism galore, and none of it sappy or indulgent, just real. The adventure of their trip keeps the story-line in perpetual motion, and even when they arrive, you're not sure if it really was the destination. As the movie continues, so does the adventure and I got the sense the destination was merely a way-point. The sound-track is fun, the scenery compelling -- and both decidedly eastern-block. I could go on and on about the deeper meanings within the film, but I'm not entirely sure I've discovered all the nuances yet. Besides, it's more fun to tease these out yourself. As much as any film can be, "Everything Is Illuminated" has proved to be like a fine wine that sweetens with time. I highly recommend seeing it -- twice. Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.

Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.

Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.

Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.

As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.

Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.

Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.

-Chi&Ojo If you've ever been to Ukraine, this movie is absolutely hilarious. From teenagers wearing gold chains, listening to hip hop and break dancing on the side to jokes about air bags in cars and waitresses in total shock over meeting a vegetarian, this movie really captures bits and pieces of Ukraine that you would never know unless you went there. I spent most of the movie nodding my head and thinking, "Yep. That's exactly right." It's a lot of fun if you understand Russian too because the subtitles just don't always do it justice. The actors are so believable and Elijah Wood does a great job playing a socially inept Jewish kid. My favorite character is definitely Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., the grandfather's "seeing eye dog" who is really a psychopathic border collie. The characters are so eclectic and likable that you believe that they are real people. Having not read the book, I was more open to the fresh interpretation that each director gives to their medium (which is film, not "to the letter" reproductions of literature)on this particular film. I was happy that the holocaust that occurred in Russia (and it's neighboring countries) finally received some attention. The Nazis were particularly cruel to Russians and Russian Jews. If you read the histories and see the monuments built in Smolensk and nearby regions you will understand this movie and why many kept silent when they should've spoken up.

It was certainly time for this to be chronicled and I hope that more stories will come out of this. It's high time. I saw this last night and voted it an "8". Since then, it's grown on me and I'd give it a "9".

The film has (at first) a seemingly slightly disconnected facade between the first and second halves. The first half is a comedy and there's little hint of the ragged truths of eras, life, wars, religious intolerance that will become revealed in the second half. While at first it may be a little disconcerting because it's a slightly unfamiliar narrative sequence, on reflection it works.

The acting was good (Hultz in the role of Alex, the interpreter, was especially great).

I've scanned most other "User Comments" and see that some who've read the book are pleased with the movie while there are a few who are not. Both feelings, of course, are valid.

For me, a retired family therapist and one-world believer, the film was relevant on two different levels.

The first, as history, gave a powerful reminder of how commonly polarizations happen -- with demonizing and trying to exterminate any of those with a smidge different moral value system than our own.

The second was that in demonstrating the first, it also revealed something in common to EACH of us, ALL our families -- that each of us must go back to our roots to more fully understand ourselves.

T.S. Eliot expressed this exquisitely in the 4th of his "Four Quartets" when he said: -- "We shall not cease from exploration// And the end of all our exploring// Will be to arrive where we started// And know the place for the first time."

Jonathan goes on a fulfilling journey that any of us would find fantastically illuminating -- to explore and discover our roots; what were those people going through then, who were they -- really! -- before, when, and during the early years before and after we were born? Etc.

So the film at first gives us the impression of a comedy, then shifts to give us a lesson in history and human deficiencies, but through all that it also gives us -- subliminally -- a message about each of ourselves. All of us would be abundantly rewarded to go back and understand the place from which we first started. This movie was one if not the best movie I've seen in the past year I highly recommend it it starts off as a very funny movie but as the film progress's turns into so much more. do yourself a favor and see this film. I saw a screener of this movie but I am going to buy it not only for myself but for several true film fans i have the unfortunate feeling this great film will be widely unrecognized as is the case with so many other non commercial films this is a comedic yet heart wrenching movie it will make you laugh it will make you cry it will make you think and yes you will think about it when its over and isn't that what a good movie is! I thought this movie was amazing. I was a bit skeptical since I really had no idea what it was about, but it was beautiful story. I cried a lot and I also laughed out loud.

I think it is very important that there are movies being created that are about the Holocaust and how it affects people (It only happened 60 years ago!) I have been to Germany and Eastern Europe and I have studied the Holocaust, so this film meant a lot to me. I think this film did an amazing job capturing this story (I wont go into detail, I do not want to spoil it) But I definitely recommend it for anyone looking for a movie that, I know this may sound cliché', but will change your mindset on things. This is a beautiful, yet simple movie about one man, driven to find an answer, an answer he doesn't necessarily need but has structured his whole life around. It is heartrending, it is hilarious, it is glorious, it is tormenting, it is delicate and dynamic, I say it's genius.

I have read Jonathan Safran Foer's book Everything is Illuminated (mainly because I heard Elijah Wood was starring in the movie adaptation), and I was just enraptured by the characters. I laughed out loud more than once. And every time someone talks about what it's about, I hear the same hackneyed response, almost like it's one big long word: "It'saboutaguylookingforthewomanwhosavedhisgrandpafromtheNazis." Yet, this story is so philosophical; it goes deeper than that. That conversation about the ring and "in case." It really gets one thinking. Suddenly, this story merges from a simple quest to an inner metamorphosis, and I find myself looking at things a bit differently now.

I recommend renting this before, if ever, reading it, because the book had many obscene, downright perverted stories that were not included in the movie, mainly the history of Jonathan's family that was not necessary for the film.

A bit of trivia, I heard, is that Wood's current girlfriend has a cameo in this flick as the drummer in the band that Alex arranges to perform as Jonathan steps off the train into Ukraine.

You spend half of the movie trying to figure out what it's about, exactly, and what Jonathan is about, because his character is so withdrawn, like a turtle in a shell.

It is magnificent, and in my opinion, one of Elijah Wood's best movies. This movie reminds me of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and 'Garden State' not because of content, but because it is one of those movies that you don't hear about except through word of mouth, or you read the back of the DVD at the video store and think "why not". Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised (like the aforementioned films) at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it.

Best seen with little knowledge of the movie and with only intrigue guiding you to actually watch it. Also best seen with someone else or if you know someone else that has seen it - you will want to talk about it!! It's a beautiful film that stays with you well after you watch it. It's also an intelligent watch that requires little effort into figuring out parts for yourself.

Just enjoy :) The movie "Everything is Illuminated" comes from first-time writer-director Liev Schreiber, adapting Jonathan Safran Foer's first novel. The book was ambitious and sprawling, its magical-realist elements and vivid use of language seemingly impossible to represent on screen. The movie, wisely, attempts less. While the end result is not as wildly original as the novel, it's still an accomplished movie about a strange Eastern European road trip, or, as one of the characters would have it, "a very rigid search."

That character is Alex (Eugene Hutz), a young Ukrainian man who loves American pop culture but can't seem to get the English language straight. Nevertheless, his grandfather (Russian actor Boris Leskin), who runs a tour company catering to American Jews, convinces him to serve as a translator for Jonathan (Elijah Wood). Jonathan is investigating his family history, and specifically trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. More than one family secret gets revealed during their quest.

The movie's Jonathan (not to be confused with the author of the novel) is a semi- kleptomaniacal weirdo who steals his own grandmother's dentures to add to his collection of "family things". Wood's quiet, wide-eyed, earnest manner works very well in this role. Hutz makes an impressive debut as the loose-limbed, easygoing Alex. His malapropisms are hilarious, but he is also able to pull off the character's growing self-awareness. The dog Mikki is very funny as the demented Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., and one of the few movie dogs I've ever seen that isn't cloyingly cute and precocious.

"Everything is Illuminated" eventually puts the Holocaust on a human scale, asking us to remember it not as a general event, but as millions of specific, small tragedies. Reminiscent of a European movie, it also ponders the effect of past events on present-day young people like Jonathan and Alex. With its original perspective, strong performances and some very striking visuals, "Everything is Illuminated" is great work for a first-timer, and hopefully Schreiber will continue to direct movies. "Everything is Illuminated" is like viewing a fine piece of museum quality artwork. It absolutely inundates the emotions through a very broad spectrum. Jonathan Safran Foer is played with candor by Elijah Wood. He is in search of his paternal heritage in the Ukraine. His travels bring him in contact with Alex, played very well and with extreme humor by Eugene Hutz. His grandfather is the most emotional tie to this film and he is aptly portrayed by Boris Leskin. If one finds little humor in the human characters in this cinema, then one has only to turn to Mikke, a real dog who is called Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. by Alex and his grandfather. They also call him the "seeing eye bitch". The cinematography is spectacular. The colors are a very important part of the patchwork of the film. It is a film worth the time and emotional investment. i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film. Excellence seems to come rare in Hollwood today. Many consider just two out of the year's best picture nominees to display sense to the movie industry. And in 'Everything is Illuminated,' the mark is hit directly.

The film initiates its brilliance with the beautiful setting-the-scene entry. From the beginning, you receive a sense of warmth and true family connections and relations between one and another. And also, the cast is introduced perfectly. For Elijah Wood's character, Jonathon, his sensibility is expressed through holding his dying grandmother's hand. And for the character entitled Alex, it is easy to see his life in his perspective - the true Ukrainian rock star. With the cast illuminated at first, the story slowly eases into our minds as Jonathon decides to venture to Ukraine to meet the woman believed to save his grandfather, thus the entire family. And from there, the story movies slowly, yet kept at a fast pace from the contrast of tear-dripping drama and laugh-out-loud humor included in scene-by-scene, every scene.

Although the movie itself is rather awarding, there are several complaints from other sources commenting about Liev Schrieber's inaccurate adaptation of the Jonathon Safron Foer novel. Personally, I have never read the novel. But any movie, especially this movie in particular should not be graded on whether the storyboard of the film matches the storyline of the book, but rather how the major concepts from the novel were expressed and exploited through the film. Just because it may be far-fetched from the novel does not mean that this film is no longer a must-see - it still is.

Throughout the film, new information inundates the audience's mind very slowly. Some of these thoughts are never answered; and in fact, the second half of the movie refocuses its entire topic and reason of travel through Ukraine onto something different, yet rather similar to the original intentions of this film. The film does however leave you on a satisfied note - yet to the weak-hearted souls, a tear may be dropped. And throughout the film. to the saneful people with common sense of humor may just have to laugh from Alex and John's fun and ongoing conversations.

I would recommend this film to several different types of people: to those whom enjoy movies that share the genre drama-comedy, for those who have an interest in family connections, and to those whom have an interest in Holocaustic subjects. And to those insane people who find slapstick as hilarious comedy, this movie is not for you. And for you whom think that this is a seriously funny and absolutely ingeniously funny film, you are wrong; this film shares comedic moments and dramatic sequences. And to those whom judge a movie based on their likeliness with its corresponding novel, you may or may not enjoy this film, but this film should be taken for much more than whether or not it was close to the book.

All in all, 'Everything is Illuminated' is an ingenious piece of work that will enlighten anyones' hearts. Let me start by saying that Liev has gained a ton of respect from me after seeing his directorial debut "Everything Is Illuminated". Anyone who has read the book knows how saturated the story is with nonsensical and hilarious vocabulary by Alex along with countless flashback scenes and crazy dreamlike sequences. Liev took all of this and made it work. The movie itself is great - the soundtrack, the performances, the cinematography - it all works. There is a lot of story missing about the town and its inhabitants, but there's only so much you can do with an indie, so this part of it didn't bother me too much. It's just disappointing that not a lot of people will see this movie or even know that it exists because of the lack of promotion that came with it. I didn't even know it was in theatres. I didn't know when the DVD came out. You'd think that since Frodo Baggins was one of the main characters, SOMEBODY wouldve at least released a commercial for it. I had to see the trailer on my "Paradise Now" DVD (released on DVD in the Spring of '06) to even know that it had a "Fall of 2005" theatrical release date. Haha - sad really.

Anyhow, if you stumble across this review somehow because one of your friends read the book and loved it or saw the movie and are recommending that you see it - take my advice and watch it. It's a very good experience.

8 out of 10. Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book – or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film – and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.

To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer – played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all – a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.

Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people – and maybe his own family as well – were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude – and his grandfather's – towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.

Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II. Before you watch this movie - clean your ears, take away the make-up from your eyes and tell your girlfriend to stop kissing you. She doesn't have to. This picture will give you both warmth enough to keep your relationship life-long enough. If you're Jew/Russian/Ukrainian/immigrant - yes, what popular-movie-minority so ever - laugh within your memories. If you're something else or whatever your are anyway - laugh for the bittersweet memory of importance of friendship and family. It this movie, nothing will seem strange how ever strange it may seem. Still, I'm afraid that few will see this movie, because it's not the type of picture people watch when they go to movies. But please, do it for the humanity, and don't forget to get the soundtrack, for pleasure. When I first saw this movie, I had thought that it was going to be a terrible upset, being directed by first-time director Liev Schrieber. What I saw in the next 130 minutes completely and utterly changed my mind. Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything is Illuminated tells the story of a young Jewish-American collector(masterfully played by Elijah Wood)who is trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis in WWII. He travels to Germany and enlists in the help of a 20-something, club hitting translator and his grandfather. This results in a rigid search across the country, and they are determined to find what they are looking for. Shot in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, Everything Is Illuminated delivers tension between the translator and his grandfather, and of the help that Jonathan needs to find his quarry. There is much religious matter as well, as the grandfather refers to Jonathan as "The Jew." All in all, This is a movie that deals with finding yourself and loving family. I give this wonderful, if not illuminated movie, a 10 out of 10.-Arjun The slightly overlong set up episode of the previous week paid off in no uncertain terms with an episode that hit the heights. There was a certain deus ex machina flavour to the resolution of the cliffhanger, but it was a good start for all that. As is now common with this Doctor the moral, ethical and emotional considerations of his actions were centre stage. They were always there in the classic series, but they were a side issue, to be glossed over when the Doctor was in the heat of battle. This regeneration even says sorry to a cyberman during the battle! This episode finally shows Mickey embracing the heroic side that had been hinted at in previous episodes. His journey from zero to hero is complete, and it has been an utterly convincing one. With scares, humour and scenes that brought a lump to your throat this episode had everything. After much consideration I can finally say that the new series betters the classic series in every single respect. Coming from a die hard Whovian you can get no better recommendation than that. Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour ("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of "get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek".

In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.

While "The rise of the Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so. Age of Steel follows up the previous episode, Rise of the Cybermen, which was excellent in some respects, lacking in others. RotC had some positive elements, the most important being Tennant's excellent portrayal of the Doctor. Indeed, his sort of daft giddiness bears, to this writer, the shadow of Tom Baker's Doctor, with his sort of subconscious asides (as when ticking off time periods when Mickey is holding down the button in the Tardis), yet brings his own aloof superiority a la McCoy's Doctor as he lets events coalesce around him. Some reviewers and fans whose pieces I've read seem a bit dismayed at having such a young actor portray someone who must by now be over a 1000 old, but I disagree. Tennant's Doctor does indeed "bear the weight of the world on his shoulders" as he points out in this episode, and one can see this in his almost smug characterization, as when he finally confronts Lumic/The Cybercontroller in the climax. His world-weary, eyes-rolling "anothermaniacherewegoagain" sort of attitude is refreshing, especially after Eccleston's excellent pseudo-working class, bada** interpretation of the character, more the man of action than Tennant's fresh-faced pseudo-doofus. Tennant's best moment is perhaps after the end when he is restoring the Tardis with his big goofy Baker-esquire grin as the Tardis re-starts. Here we begin to get a feeling for this new Doctor, a character who is little more than the average person's different personality facets split up into 13 different people; some contradictory, some more likable than others, yet all forming part of a whole. This aside, these two episodes were passable, but weak. The concept of reviving the Cybermen is much welcomed, and they look fantastic, but the plot involving a parallel Earth where this action takes place doesn't seem to work right. True, the allegory here of humans' reliance on technology and their need to serve it, as the Doctor points out, is outstanding, but this could easily have been placed on contemporary Earth or thereabouts. Some other weak spots are, as others have pointed out, the ease with which the Doctor and Co. get out of the tight spots, viz. the death ray from the Tardis component, the seemingly endless array of uses of the Sonic Screwdriver (my wife laughed when they were using it to burn through the rope ladder at the end; she has barely watched Who, so I had to explain that it was used traditionally as a plot device to extricate the characters from situations from which there is no other escape! Used here sadly). Some of the acting was wanting, especially Mickey, who really needs his due, and some of the supporting cast. Lumic was creepy, as he needed to be, his voice even sounded Cyberman-esquire. The score was horrific, though, with the music's volume often swamping out the scene. Overall, I found Rise of the Cyberman more entertaining, though the second half was passable. The build-up to what we knew was inevitable plays out well, however the resolution was disappointing. Too many unlikely escapes, no development of the supporting cast, and not enough Tennant in my opinion. This new show is outstanding, and Davies is taking it in a good direction, but the dialogue (beyond the Doctor's) needs to be tightened up, as Mickey's farewells illustrate, which were pure ham. Beginning where it left off, Doctor Who, Rose, her alternative dad, Mickey, his alternative counterpart Ricky, and Mickey's small gang of rebels find themselves at the mercy of this realities version of the Cybermen, this second part of the 2 episode Cybermen arc feels more like a Doctor Who episode, as opposed to the previous part which honestly felt like more of an episode of the defunct show "Sliders", which granted was a great show in it's own right. The arc as a whole was enjoyable enough as I'm one to subscribe to the maxim that ANY Who is good Who, but at the same time it's inevitable that this will be compared to the Dalek episode of the previous series. And said comparisons would only make this seem like a lesser work, as it is. I just feel that this story could've been done in one episode. Remember in the first part of the review I said that these type of stories dealing with alternative realities usually have no lasting repercussions, well that's not the case here, but what changes overall feels tagged on and not really in keeping with the character.

My Grade: C+ Okay so there were the odd hole in the plot you could drive a zeppelin through, but how well was the emotional stuff handled? It would have been so easy to descend into cheesiness but the writer pulled it off. The image of the ex female cyberman making crying noises as she/it saw her reflection after regaining her emotions is one that will stay with me forever. That's twice now the monsters have shown a soft side and been presented fleetingly sympathetically, the previous being the last Dalek from series one, but by Jove it's worked. Add to that the other ex-female who had been "upgraded" on the eve of her wedding, and Jackie Tyler recognising her husband after she had become "cyber" and you have a permanent throat lump. Keep it up! This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie.

Being Part 2 of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build up to the final.

The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be careful with young children watching this. I'd like to point out these excellent points in favor of this movie:

#1 Angelina Jolie sex scene

#2 Foley artist outdid themselves

#3 plot was quite thick

#4 DVD does includes trailers and chapter stops

#5 no animals were harmed in the making of the movie

#6 homages to blade runner through out the film

#7 burning trash cans

#8 funny guy with no legs

#9 Voice overs by Jack Palance added a real dynamic element to the film.

#10 Sage advise, for example "When you dine with the devil bring a long spoon".

#11 Angelina Jolie was only 18!

To sum it up: an evening of entertainment was provided. I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those. This sci-fi great fortunately has little to do with the first one. Elias Koteas,Jack Palance play good roles Angelina is hot and gets naked.Billy Drago appears in this and is cool as usual + a cameo by Sven ole Thorsen helps make this a very enjoyable movie with good acting and a decent budget. I caught this movie late night on TV, and was expecting a low-budget campy "masterpiece", I was surprised with a pretty decent movie. Angelina Jolie's unique acting capabilities (or should I say lack thereof?) make her perfect as an android, and the other actors, while terribly average, are at least not terrible.

There is a plot; a fairly intricate plot at that, involving conspiracies and the lengths a couple (one human, one android) will go to pursue their illegal romance, with a "big brother"-type figure and android assassin thrown in the mix. The production and sets, also, were much better than I expected. I haven't seen the original Cyborg, so I can't really compare it to much else; granted this film is no Blade Runner, but as a late-night, futuristic guilty pleasure, its worth a watch. This was a pretty good movie that was overall done quite well. The idea about Mercy (won't spoil) was original also. I think Angelina did a good job as one of her first movies. The only things I frowned upon were some of the corny fight scenes (won't spoil either). I liked the first movie and I liked this one as well. 7/10 Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie. This is a pretty clever, well-acted version of the "modern" 30s woman's fairytale romance. In this case, she helps the man she loves become head of the company while serving as his secretary and eventually wins his love from a scheming social butterfly. Interestingly, her business sense is shown as subtly parallel to her homemaking prowess, and the ladies of the office are depicted as the "powers behind the throne." Lifted way above the average by Mrs. Astor's intelligent performance. Terrific little film that stars Mary Astor as a go-getter who works her way up as a struggling paper company, but when the owner has to sell for health reasons, she comes up with a scheme for the employees to buy the company with a jerk salesman (Robert Ames) as the "front" even though she is the brains.

Of course he becomes a big success and she becomes his executive secretary, basically still running everything and teaching him class. She loves the dope, but he never catches on as he fools around with a string of bimbos. She is chased by a married but separated man, Ricardo Cortez, who isn't free. But when a society gal catches Ames, everything goes to hell.

Astor is just wonderful as the too-smart woman who almost makes a huge mistake after she loses her man. Ames is good as the jerk (but what does she see in him?), and Cortez is good but doesn't have much to do. Kitty Kelly is good as the sidekick, Dolores. Charles Sellon is the original owner, Cather Dale Owen is the society babe, and Edna Murphy is funny as Daisy.

Worth a look. I tivo'd this on Turner Classic just because it was pre-code and sounded interesting. When I got around to watching, I noticed that the "critique" gave it one and a half stars on a four-star scale. I started watching with trepidation -- even old movies can be bad movies -- but I quickly got engaged in the story and Mary Astor's performance as the business brains behind a simple salesman's rise to success. Not a truly great movie -- too predictable -- but certainly better than advertised. And I would have liked to have seen more of Ricardo Cortez as the man who appreciates Mary but won't give up his wealthy wife. I'd recommend giving it a look just to appreciate Astor and what a long way we've come, baby. There's a good running bit about the price tag of a silk negligee. The bimbo in the office shows off the bargain she got for $22 (closeup of tag). Later, Mary Astor finds the tag in the boss's bedroom (proof that bimbo slept with him). Still later, Mary Astor is about to have an affair with Ricardo Cortez, looks at the price tag of HER silk negligee ($14) and is reminded of how disgusted she was about the bimbo, as well as the fact that she's spent $8 less than the "most obvious" woman she's ever met. It sounds an obvious morality turn, but it was well done. The film would be stronger if Robert Ames' character had been played by a more powerful actor (he's too low-key for a self-made salesman and he spends most of the film with his face turned away from the camera), and if Ricardo Cortez had been given more to do than smile ironically. Both male leads are bland and forgettable, and are hindered by the pancake male makeup so popular in this film's era. However, the Mary Astor character is interesting, appealing and believable. Behind Closed Doors is well worth seeing. I cannot understand why this 1971 Hollywood production is currently only available through an Australian video company,but such is the unfortunate obscurity of this Peter Sellers classic(Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide continues to grant it the same BOMB review they gave it in the 1970's).With so many scene stealers on display,Sellers comes through with what may perhaps be his most hilarious role.It all begins with his discovery of a patient who expired at 11:15AM,but Sellers argues that the corpse is still living due to the fact that the new day doesn't start until noon! The final straw for the beleaguered hospital commissioner comes in that very room,the DO NOT DISTURB sign still on the door; once he exits the room(handkerchief holding his nose),there is a brief conversation with the doctor with him- DOCTOR:"We can't save them all! That man was at least 85! COMMISSIONER: "How old was he when he died,63?" Harold Gould plays an inept surgeon who shuts his eyes when the knife digs in,Richard Lenz(whose "pompous ass" reporter in "The Shootist" was booted in the rear by John Wayne)plays the patient who exposes the fraud(he only came in for a chest x-ray,until they discovered he owns a house).Also in the cast on screen(and supplying some excellent country-flavored music)is Keith Allison,former guitarist for Paul Revere and the Raiders,who also worked with Michael Nesmith on a few Monkees recordings(and co-wrote "Auntie's Municipal Court" with Nesmith on 1968's "The Birds,the Bees,and the Monkees").Alas,there is some missing footage from this print,including a topless sequence with Uschi Digard near the end,also a scene with actress Kathleen Freeman(who wants to use green stamps to finance her operation),who gets locked by Sellers in his office,never to be seen again(in the uncut version,he returns to his office to find that she has written in large letters on the wall "UNFAIR PRICK" ; his response? "you misspelled price!"). Though often considered Peter Sellers' worst film, it is in fact an excellent send-up of medical corporate corruption and abuses of power. Often misunderstood, the film is actually a departure from the type of film Sellers was best known for; satirical farce. This film had excellent performances by Jo Ann Pflug and Pat Morita (of Happy Days and the Karate Kid movies), but was marked by its ribaldary, irreverence, and total madcap demolition of the medical industry of the day. It was ahead of its time (1972) in taking the outrageous path that the Monty Python crew would take into the cinema some time later. As such, it was unacceptable to the traditional Peter Sellers fan, who found the more pointed barbs in this humor to be something to which they were unaccustomed. Presently, Peter Sellers movies are in demand by fans, but this effort, Where Does It Hurt?, has by its nature become almost impossible to find. I remember seeing this film in my late teens or early twenties on TV - probably HBO. I watched it with my parents, a brother and a few friends. Since that was about 30 years ago, I don't remember a lot of the story. I do remember that the entire group of us watching agreed that this was the funniest movie we had ever seen. When it was over, our bellies hurt from so much laughing. My dad worked at a hospital, so that made it all the better.

Every time I see The Party in the TV listings, I look to see if this one is there, too. To my dismay, it never is. Although I loved The Party, I feel this one is funnier. Peter Sellers was great as a crooked hospital administrator. Why it's never been released on video is a mystery to me. It's a classic, but it appears that nobody under 35 or 40 has been allowed to see it. I'd buy it in a second if they ever release it to DVD. It has been since 1972 that I saw this movie and I still remember it as one of my favorite all time movies. I would buy a copy if it were on DVD and it is too bad it isn't. You would think that anything starring Peter Sellers would be brought back. Much better than "Being There" and as good as the Pink Panther series. Uschi Digard had a small part for such a well endowed performer. She is bonus in this movie. I think the medical field may not appreciate this film as it really makes fun of the profession and it also makes one appreciate that Sellers was never available to treat them as his bed side manner sucked as well did his analysis of urine samples. I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals.

The idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era) was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good movie with a real social message.

I have ever since been looking for this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned. I'm having as much fun reading the user comments as I did watching the movie! It seems that this is the classic either "Love it" or "Hate it" movie. And I have to say that I not only am on the "Love it" side, I'm going on a limb to say it this my FAVORITE movie, EVER! Thank heavens I found it in the first place. Almost IMPOSSIBLE to find, I was lucky about ten years ago to record it off a late night UHF channel. Of course my liking of Sellers may make me a bit biased, but I can't see how anyone with a cornball, dry sense of humor (like me), can not be in love with this flick. The plot is great (but perhaps as a previous poster said, maybe the reason why it's not a widely known movie ... upset the medical field?) the acting is great (I can see why some may say the acting was horrible ... but that's what made this movie so great ... it's total tacky-ness) and the humor is gut busting. I'm proud to say I have watched this film no less than about 20 times and have pretty much every line memorized. This film is genius!! This is one of Peter Sellers' best movies. Why is it never shown on TV or movie theaters? Will it ever be released as a home movie? Is it too derogatory for the medical field? I would love to see this movie again. I would like my son, who is a doctor,to see it. Laughter is the best medicine and Peter Sellers is the best doctor for this. Hilarious, Sellers at his funniest ... a shame you can't get this on video, or even see it on TV anymore ... I'd love to get a good copy somewhere. Maybe it's tied up in court on some legal issue, but a truly riotous hospital farce with Sellers as crooked administrator. One of the funniest films I ever saw in the theater back in the early '70s, and sadly, it's only been on TV a few times since. This movie should be released on video. It's Sellers at his sleaziest, slimiest best as a crooked hospital administrator. Great cast, great movie. If anyone has a good VHS copy, I'd love to buy it. This is a great movie. Too bad it is not available on home video. For anyone who has ever sought happiness, "Half Empty" is a must-see. This original cross- cultural musical comedy has hilarious numbers, which make "The Producers" seem boringly staid. Writer Bob Patterson puts his soul into sharing his thoughts on life, wisdom and happiness, even scribbling inspirational comments on index cards as his girlfriend spills her heart out, ending their relationship. When his book on happiness, "North Star" finds zero success in the States, his publishers send him to Germany for a book signing tour. While explaining their decision to Bob, the boardroom erupts into a rousing song which would make Monty Python proud. From his arrival in Hamburg, Bob's complete ignorance of the German language leaves him at a distinct disadvantage. However, he soldiers on, impervious of his hosts true feelings towards him, until a wildly devoted fan arrives and changes everyone's reaction toward him.

The original songs propel the film, often describing the subtext of the story in side-splitting precision. The cast, led by Robert Peters, exhibit an immaculately dry sense of humor and inhabit their characters as if they were not acting. See it for: A case study of how good intentions are totally irrelevant; How merciless Americans abroad are viewed; How little reason it takes to burst into song, and, above all, For a silly, entertaining, unconventional laugh. this film explores if not creates a whole new genre with perfect imperfection --- hilarity, truth, fun, talent and circumstance that make for MAGIC.

from creative musical numbers to off the cuff comedy that incorporates actors at their very best, if i hadn't have known better, i would have thought there was an elaborate script here.

what you get: a mighty wind meets conversations with god meets something so fresh and new and delightful that it becomes it's own entity.

peters and fell both give stellar performances and reel you in immediately. the rest of the cast is also phenomenal. there are no small parts....... only small actors, and everyone involved here should be patted on the back, taken out to dinner and be considered for an Oscar.

well done! Had the fun pleasure of viewing a new independent film called "Half Empty." I usually go out to the local cinema with my husband and feel as if we are held captive to the latest Sequel, or Prequel that Hollywood throws at us. This was DIFFERENT and surprisingly – SO MUCH more entertaining than anything Hollywood spends millions advertising. When my husband and I go the movies, we go to be entertained – and "Half Empty" did just that and the film did so in a smart manner that made me feel as if my trip to the movie theater was worth it. It is a funny, human, and surprising sometimes musical story that cleverly entertains in its simplicity. I especially enjoyed the scene with the 4 men singing in harmony in the bathroom. It is almost like an operetta. That particular scene reminded me of a scene in "Phantom of the Opera" when 4 of the performers did not just, i.e., they sang against one another in a friendly retort. I am not a film maven but this film was more enjoyable than any other major studio film I have seen lately. It is silly, funny, entertaining and amusing. Completely enjoyable – which is what I expect from movies but rarely do they deliver like "Half Empty." "Half Empty" is a hilarious musical about the eternal optimist –in this case, a self-help book writer who goes to Germany mistakenly thinking he's popular there. Instead of an adoring audience, he finds himself adrift in a world of jaded misanthropes, including the woman who is supposed to be his publicist. His attempts to make friends—in scenes that are largely improvised—lead to one great encounter after another when he is verbally abused by nihilistic musicians, gruff gangsters, etc. In time, he manages to win over his publicist—both her heart and her mind--but his own world view is shaken when his hero, a much more popular self-help writer, turns out to be not quite what he seems. The action is punctuated by several musical numbers.

We saw this at the DeadCenter film festival in Oklahoma City and were blown away. This is a really funny, inspired small-scale indie production. You could quibble about a few technical things (like the lighting, which is a bit dark) but the piece is funny and inspired enough that you can't care too much. If Voltaire were writing "Candide" today, the character would be a self-help writer. This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across this film- check it out! "Admissions" is a fine drama even though they're are some problems with the ending. Lauren Ambrose plays Evie who is trying to avoid college. To make her overworked mother not notice, she makes up poems that everybody thinks her mentally challenged sister wrote. All the acting is first-rate especially Lauren Ambrose and Amy Madigan. They both put in great performances. The climax is also very powerful. There are only two bad parts. First is the character of Stewart Worthy played by Christopher Lloyd. His part is underdeveloped. The other weakness is the ending. It goes around in circles, which I didn't expect with the 84 min run time. Besides that, the movie is definitely worth watching. The Brighton has a traumatic drama in the breast of their family: the twenty years old Emily Brighton (Taylor Roberts) is retarded due to a fall when she was one, and her overprotective mother Martha Brighton (Amy Madigan) blames her negligence for the accident. The seventeen years old Evie Brighton (Lauren Ambrose) loves her sister and reads poems and stories for Emily. Their father Harry Brighton (John Savage), a bank investor, lives in the basement with his models of trains and railroads. Evie mysteriously sabotages her interviews for different universities being rejected, and teaches the poetries of her own to Emily. When Martha hears Emily repeating the poems, she takes notes and shows them to the English teacher Stewart Worthy (Christopher Lloyd), who believes that Emily has had a moment of geniuses. When Evie's only friend James (Fran Kranz) reads the notes, he immediately discloses the truth about the authority of the poetries. But when Martha becomes aware, she finds the reality of Evie, triggering a series of revelations.

"Admissions" is a very powerful drama about needy of love and guilty complex. The performances are stunning, and this is the first work of Lauren Ambrose, from "Six Feet Under", that I see and she is amazing. This independent movie is an excellent choice for the viewers that are looking for a refreshing story based on the acting of the cast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Cumplicidade" ("Complicity") I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography. I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of escapism.

The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.

And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.

You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties. We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry. While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.

What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot more than they at first seem.

Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.

The directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's certainly an enjoyable one.

--PolarisDiB I was surprised to like this movie since I'm from the "check your brain at the door and have fun" school of film viewing. However, this film touched my heart. I have friends like mentally retarded Emily. I have friends like unsocialized Evie. And I've been in Evie's shoes, chasing away opportunity out of fear and out of devotion to others.

Amy Madigan's disappointment in her daughters was almost palpable on screen and the awkward moments where she tried to bridge the gap with Evie were raw and painful to watch. And perhaps I am denser than most, but I never saw the twist with Evie's father coming. Usually I cotton on to those things rather quickly.

My reservations are similar to others posted here. I thought Christopher Lloyd's wonderful, sympathetic character (a very different role for him, I thought) was underused. What happened to him once he realized what was going on with the poetry? Would he, like James, try again??? Second, the ending, such as it was, didn't seem to resolve or accomplish anything. I didn't expect the pieces to be picked up and all the ends tied neatly, but I felt that I was left at odds with the characters, that there was no real healing taking place here or any real efforts at healing being made.

Otherwise, exquisite and lyrical and disturbing and, for some, very, very true. At first I didn't think that the performance by Lauren Ambrose was anything but flaky, but as her character developed the portrayal made more sense. Amy Madigan seemed too terse for her role and didn't really tie her daughter's characters together, even though it was apparent that her character was disengaged with the character played by Lauren Ambrose.

Christopher Lloyd is a hit as usual and carried off his role to encourage the story line. His character development left the audience wondering why he was chastised by the younger characters and could have been accomplished more directly with

The overwhelming glue to this somewhat vague story line was play by Taylor Roberts. Her comprehensive delivery of a simplistic character held the movie together. In this pivotal role, Taylor was able to encourage a realistic family relationship between the characters while acting as the antagonist for all of the other relationships in the film. There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. "Run the world" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The loss followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as "Christmas Doors" not "Admissions". Dark and bleak sets, thrilling music that cuts through your spin like aknife (or razor) a perfect cast lead by Broadway greats Hearn and Lansbury. This is exciting theatre flawlessly transferred to the small screen. Sondheim is the most talented songwriter of our age and Todd is his Masterpiece, from the Brechtian opening ballad to the darkly humorous Act I finale- "A Little Priest" where Lovett and Todd fantasize about the victims that will wind up in their meat pies , this play never ceases to thrill,excite and satisfy. Betsy Joslyn also excels as Johanna, even she, as the plays ingenue seems slightly mad.Edmund Lyndeck turns in a bravado performance as the corrupt Judge who lusts after Joslyn and is the subject of Todd's vendetta. Lansbury and Hearn command the show as only two great actor/stars can do. Other musical highlights include Todd's "johanna" Lovett's "worst pies in London" and the Act II opening 'GOD THATS GOOD", And that is a title to describe this production ! First of all, I have watched this show since I was a little toddler, and I have always loved it. Sure, maybe I didn't understand it when I was that young, but I still enjoyed it! And now that I have been able to understand it for several years, I love it even more. The score of this musical is the most wonderfully detailed score I have ever heard! Every note is perfect, I don't even need to hear the singing to enjoy it!

Moving on to this particular production- This is magnificent! Of course no one could play Mrs. Lovett besides Angela Lansbury, and she does it perfectly. And she should, she has been playing this part for several years. George Hearn is absolutely brilliant. The best Sweeney Todd I have ever heard. He has a wonderful voice, yet he can throw his voice so well! His "epiphany" is incredible, as you can tell by the audience's reaction to it. The Judge, Toby, Antony, and Pirelli are also so wonderful in their roles. Everyone is perfect! Well, I still have to fast forward through Johanna's Green finch and linnet bird. She just doesn't sing that song well at all.

This show CAN be appreciated at all ages, but it is not always accepted. I am not your typical middle-aged theater lover, I am only 15 years old, yet Sweeney Todd has given me a greater appreciation for music than I have gotten from any other musical. I have only praise for this film. From start to finish it captured the brilliance of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I am not a big fan of musicals most of them are very overdone. This one however changed my mind. I am an actor myself and have actully played Sweeney and I know how hard this role is. George Hearn gave a stunning, masterful and rounded performance worthy of the highest awards that we can give him (He won an Emmy and that's something.) Everything he does he turns to gold. He is so good it will blow your mind why he's not in films winning oscars. Lansbury is also very good and very funny. Sara Woods is creepy and wonderful as the Beggar Woman. All in all a great video. Pick it up if you can. Even if you're not a "theatre person," I highly recommend that you see this. Based off of a play of the same name by Christopher Bond (which, in turn, had been based off of an old London legend), Sondheim did a wonderful job bringing it to the musical theatre stage. The score is just amazing-- by far Sondheim's best, and probably one of the best scores written for a musical ever. The show was cast extremely well, my only complaint being of Betsy Joscelyn's portrayal of Johanna. It;s good, mind you, and she's a very versatile actress, but she just doesn't sing "Greenfinch and Linnet Bird" too well. But other than that, it's all phenomenal-- Angela Lansbury *made* the role of Mrs. Lovette, and she just does it so well. George Hearn was a good replacement for Len Cariou in the title role, and Ken Jennings gives a great performance as Tobias. The ending will give you chills. Top marks for a wonderful show. Though the video technology may be dated, this classic musical play, now on DVD, is the best version of Sondheim's most important and polished work on Broadway. If you've never seen SWEENEY TODD, then you must buy this DVD. I saw this production in November 1980 at Kennedy Center in Washington--and fell in love with a pre-"Murder She Wrote" Angela Lansbury. Subsequently, I tried to find any and all of her work, among them: MOVIES: "The Harvey Girls," "The Picture of Dorian Gray," "Manchurian Candidate"; CDs: "Mame," "Dear World," and "Gypsy"; and many more. The rest of the cast is flawless, too. All in all, this wonderful DVD gives us the definitive version of Sondheim's opera! There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of respect.

This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be introduced to theatre this way.

Astounding and amazing. I own a copy of this film and have always loved it. I comment here, however, because I saw the PBS presentation of a concert version of Sweeney Todd earlier this week. That production was put on by the San Francisco Opera and starred George Hearn and Patti LuPone. In the early '80s Hearn replaced Len Cariou as Sweeney (Cariou had won the Tony for his performance). I saw Hearn and Angela Lansbury (who also won the Tony for her performance as Mrs. Lovett) perform Sweeney on broadway. They must have made the film at about the time I saw the show. To this day, the most moving moment I can ever remember in the theatre occurred when Hearn sang "These are my Friends." ("These are my friends, see how they glisten." "My arm is complete again!")

Hearn's performance in the San Francisco Opera production convinced me that he has lost nothing in the nearly twenty years since I first saw him perform the piece on Broadway and later in the film. What a talent! He is sympathetic, funny, and scary -- all at once; and he can sing, boy can he sing. All of this reminded me of how terrific the film is. Highly recommended. Ten out of ten. I saw "Sweeney Todd" on Broadway in 1980. It starred George Hearn and featured most of the other cast principals who appeared in the national touring company production, which was videotaped for TV in Los Angeles in 1982. Last night I watched the new DVD release of the Los Angeles production, although I have owned the videotape for many years. The production and the performances could have hardly been better but the original tape's age showed because both the audio and video quality are below modern standards, even on a newly pressed DVD. Nevertheless I still give it 10 out of 10 because of the greatness of the work and George Hearns's and Angella Lansbury's startlingly wonderful performances. Even today, my most memorable recollection from a live musical theater performance has to be Hearn's rendition of "These are My Friends." "You'll drip rubies," brrr. The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street." "Sweeney Todd" is in my opinion one of a few "perfect" musicals. Like "My Fair Lady" and "West Side Story" it has a wonderful, intelligent score. It offers the two leads and several supporting characters interesting roles. It has a timeless theme, revenge. It has a good deal of humor, and is just as powerful when presented simply or on a grand scale.

"Sweeney Todd" tells the story of a simply wronged man during the industrial period in England. It shows mans' inhumanity to man, how in Sweeney's own words, "There are two kinds of men. There's the one staying put in his proper place and the one with his foot in the other one's face." In an effort to correct the wrong that was done to him, Mr. Todd devices a plan to seek revenge. With the help of Mrs. Lovett, who owns a meat pie shop under Mr.Todd's barbershop, they set out to have "those above, serve those down below".

I was fortunate enough to have seen the original Broadway version eight times (six with Cariou and Lansbury, the other two with Hearn and Loudon). I saw the revival with Bob Gunton and Beth Fowler, and several other concert versions.

While the technical aspects in this production are lacking, to say the least, I believe that this filmed production version is the best. Lansbury and Hearn were the two best in these roles, and they have a wonderful time playing off of each other.

Very good supporting work by Ken Jennings and Edmund Lyndeck. Although Betsy Joslyn and Cris Groenendaal, as the young lovers have absolutely no chemistry, and are basically unwatchable.

9 out of 10 I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to "portray" the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie. Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them.

After seeing Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have a biased view like me. The genius that is Stephen Sondheim was never more prominently displayed as it was in his 1979 "Musical Thriller" SWEENEY TODD, a Gothic, gory, grisly, yet delicious musical concoction about a demented barber who returns to London to exact revenge on the evil Judge who not only had him permanently exiled from London, but who is also raising his daughter as his own and plans to marry her to "shield her from all the evils of the world." The barber finds love,sympathy, and assistance from a lonely pie shop owner who has her own agenda where Todd is concerned. This musical rocked Broadway and won nine Tony Awards, including Best Musical and Best Actress in a Musical (Angela Lansbury). The production was filmed in its entirety in 1982 with Angela Lansbury recreating her Broadway role as Mrs. Lovett, the daffy pie shop owner who finds a practical use for the heads that Todd makes mincemeat out of. George Hearn, who replaced Len Cariou on Broadway, is electrifying in the title role, so much so that you have to wonder why he wasn't originally cast in the role. Lansbury and Hearn are riveting from start to finish and commit 100% to their ghoulish characters aided, by a first rate Sondaheim score, probably the closest thing Sondheim has written to an opera. Lansbury shines on "The Worst Pies in London" and "By the Sea". George Hearn stops the show with "Epiphany" and is also compelling during "Pretty Women", a duet he sings with Judge Turpin, the man he has sworn revenge on. Cris Groendahl is vocally impressive as Antony, the young sailer who rescues Todd and falls for his daughter Johanna. Betsy Joselyn is a little over the top as Johanna and really pushes vocally to the point that during "Green Funch and Linnet Bird" she actually drives her voice off-pitch during a couple of moments. The rest of the cast is first rate, especially Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin who gets to perform "Johanna" in this production, which was cut from the original production and Ken Jennings as Toby, whose gorgeous tenor fills the auditorium on "Not While I'm Around." But it is breathtaking musical score by Stephen Sondheim and the mesmerizing performance by Lansbury an especially George Hearn that makes this night of Gothic musical theater an experience that stays with you long after curtain call. Not for all tastes, but if you're game and have strong heart, SWEENEY TODD is a joy for all music theater lovers and a must for fans of Stephen Sondheim and Angela Lansbury. I can't get over the quality of the score, the book, and the performances. This is the first production I've ever seen of Sweeney Todd so I have no others to compare it to. But the impact is so strong, I just can't imagine anything better.

First, there's the music -- take "Johanna" (Act II), during which Sweeney, Anthony and Johanna sing an interwoven vocal line incorporating the melodies from three songs. It's like a Bach chorale in that sense -- just a masterpiece of composition. And the underlying chord structure and voicings are so perfect -- a little bit of melancholy, a little bit of contentment, a little bit of yearning, all expressing these three singers' points of view.

Then -- the lyrics. The rhymes are so clever. The rhyme schemes sometimes seem random but they always add up at the end. (The DVD, which I watched, has Closed Captions, and these are indispensable for appreciating the dialog and the lyrics.) Sondheim deserves a literary award for his poetry alone.

Finally, the performances. I can't imagine anyone better than George Hearn. Why haven't I heard of him before? His singing, alone, is masterful, but the range of his acting is simply amazing. Angela Lansbury totally surprised me. The song about "you and me down by the seaside" -- who could do it any better? Her timing is flawless, pitch is perfect, every beat of the score is accounted for; and overlaying this achievement in musicianship is her utterly delightful comic delivery.

It's a dark tale but I found it to be sweet at times; and the tune to "Johanna" continues to play in my head. I viewed my videotape last night, for the first time in at least ten years. I found the work itself and the performances just as gripping as they were in my memory. George Hearn, of course,was the master of the role of Sweeney; there is never a touch of softness in his determination to wreak vengeance on those he believes caused his wife's death and his daughter's disappearance; at least not until the end, when he discovers that his thirst for revenge has led him to murder his wife. Angela Lansbury, on the other hand, creates a more complex portrayal, as Mrs. Lovett. She understood that Sondheim wanted that role to be something of a "comic" counterpart to Sweeney; and even brings some tenderness into her courtship of Sweeney and her nurture of the boy Tobias. For those with long memories, this performance takes one back to her debut performances in The Picture of Dorian Grey and Gaslight; long before Murder, She Wrote. Only a year ago I saw the musical at Lyric Opera of Chicago. with current opera superstar Brynn Terfel as Sweeney. Others have commented on the operatic quality of the score. My conclusion is that "Sweeney" works better with actors who can at least handle the vocal lines, than with opera performers who have limited acting skills. As a final note, I commend the performer who portrayed Tobias. with his mixed loyalties and confusion about what is going on around him. It seemed appropriate that he had virtually the last word. Not having seen the 1936 version of this story, I cannot offer any comparison there. I can, however, state that Stephen Sondheim's musical treatment of this story is absolutely genius. Only Sondheim could come up with music and lyrics that are stellar in their own right, yet perfectly suited to the very bizarre subject matter. If anyone needs an explanation of what a dark comedy is, they should see this (and "Dr. Strangelove" as well). When Mrs. Lovett goes from having the "worst pies in London" to a booming business with high acclaim, we aren't talking "Soylent Green," - but the ingredients are similar. Particularly brilliant is the song where Mrs. Lovett pitches her idea to Mr. Todd. Even in the introductory number, the line "...they went to their Maker impeccably shaved..." gives a great indication of the premise, the drama, AND the comedy to come. Outstanding! I saw this version about a decade ago, and have been looking for it ever since. I just recently found an original VHS version, and purchased it for $125.00. Sounds crazy, but if you, like me, consider it as one of the best the Broadway musical stage has ever produced, you wouldn't even think twice.

Why, it's just a little over paying for a Broadway ticket today. I really hope they re-release this in DVD form soon. It's a piece of musical theater that screams to be seen by all! Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd...The strangest, most off-putting, but most wonderful Broadway musical. It is chilling, funny, and moving all at once through Sondheim's most memorable and incredible score and sharp performances. George Hearn is incomparable in the title role, bringing a strong voice and dead on (no pun intended) impersonation of the legendary demon barber, while Angela Lansbury provides the comic relief as she cheerfully grinds up his victims into meat pies. If you just allow yourself to enjoy it, "Sweeney Todd" is a real treat. Well I'm not the world's biggest Sondheim fan, so although I have the cast album and I've listened to it a few times I've never actually seen this show performed and I haven't seen the Tim Burton movie version either. I felt like I wanted to see something more faithful before I see the Burton one and give it a chance just as a movie. This version isn't a movie at all, it's a filmed play with some of the original members of the cast, including most importantly Angela Lansbury's performance as Nellie Lovett. This is one of those performances that's just like a conduit into the heart of the magic of Broadway and theater itself. She must have had so much fun with this role. Sweeney Todd himself isn't played by Len Cariou, who did it originally, but by George Hearn. Hearn does a fantastic job; his voice isn't quite as good as Cariou's, but he seems to play it a bit broader.

The only problem I had really was with the Johanna character as played by Betsy Joslyn, and to some extent her lover Anthony as played by Cris Groenendaal. Joslyn's voice can't sustain high notes, but I wasn't entirely sure if that was maybe supposed to be the point since I'm not hugely familiar with this play. More importantly, I'm not sure if the story of "Sweeney Todd" really holds up enough weight to sustain some of the music, but thankfully the whole thing doesn't seem to have been taken too seriously by its creators. As a lark, and a bit of comedy in the vein of "Grand Guignol", it's quite enjoyable. I don't feel like it's as significant a piece of work as "Company" and "Into the Woods" or some of his other shows. Some of the music is quite spectacular, but at other points it seems to exist in a world outside of the show.

I won't say a whole lot about it here because this is a film website and this is really not a film, but just a play that has been shot on film. There were maybe 3 or 4 scenes where they moved the camera around but that was it. People will want to see this, because it preserves Lansbury's legendary performance which deserves its legendary status because it's a hilarious and insightful performance. George Hearn can be proud of his version of Sweeney as well. This would be a good film to show children over the age of 5 or so to get them interested in musicals because the blood and cannibalism will really surprise them. Seeing a performance filmed so expertly and so faithfully makes me wish that more efforts like this had been made over the years with musical theater, because I prefer shows from the 20s through the 50s to these later era affairs. "Sweeney Todd" is an exceptional show from its era however, miles and miles above the AL Webber madness. Televised in 1982, from a Los Angeles production, this is probably the finest example of a filmed stage musical you are likely to encounter. Issued on DVD in 2004 in a remastered digital transfer, it is quite stunning. Hearn and Lansbury give the performances of their lives and the rest of the cast are quite obviously caught up in the electricity generated. Of course it is Sondheim's music and lyrics that make this possible. If anyone doubts that he is one of the "greats" of the American Musical form listen to this. The sets are stark, as befits the plot, and clever in allowing the swift scene changes required and the cameras catch the action without obliterating the fact that this is a stage production. A central, move-able and revolving platform is Mrs. Lovett's pie shop, with the barber's shop upstairs. Around it are various gantries and moving stairs to allow the rest of the action to take place. The brutal tale of injustice leading to revenge, murder and mayhem is liberally spiced with dark humour and comic moments. Sondheim does for barber shops what Hitchcock did for showers ! An important work in American musical theatre is here given an electrifying performance. Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles. Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances. Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway staging.

There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a "stand and sing" quality, and while both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast.

Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients "go to their graves impeccably shaved." The overall cast is quite fine and although the film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In 1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one, however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a 1973 version by Christopher Bond.

The story is very Grand Guignol, with a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time, however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music.

Like the "concert version" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film version, most particularly the opening "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd," which runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer I saw this play on Showtime some years back in the comfort of my home and when the final note was struck, I wanted to jump off the sofa and give the production a standing ovation. As it was, I shed a tear that it was such a bunch of fantastic performances and songs. For my birthday, my kids bought me the VHS version as well as the Cd of the play with Len Cariou in the Sweeny Todd Role.

I've shared the play with many...some finding the subject a bit sick, but none having anything but praise for the songs.

I've always loved the interplay in songs with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn as well as Hearn and Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin.

I must own the DVD. George Hearn really went all out and over the top which in this case was great. I've heard the Len Cariou version but it was too tame. George was great in that character - very expressive.

Angela Lansbury was perfect for the part. She gave a great performance. She gave the Mrs. Lovett a great devious and comical personality which balanced out the dark story.

I love the dark humor when Angela Lansbury sings her songs as well as her physical expressions and the angry emotions of George Hearn in his songs of rage, vengeance and distress.

I've watched this play 20 times since 1985 when I saw it on PBS. I bought it on video (after copying it in 1985 on my own)when it came out in 1990 and I definitely bought a copy of the DVD when it came out in 2004. This telecast of the classic musical "Sweeney Todd" does not do the production justice, but is still quite enthralling.

Firstly, the most enjoyable aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the slashing.

The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh, they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, "Kiss Me." In fact, the actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's performance of "Johanna" that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the cannibal anthem "A Little Priest"?

Otherwise, this is an excellent production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even peripherally talking about "meat pies with a twist". After a couple years of searching for the Humphrey Bogart film, "Two Against the World", it unexpectedly showed up as a TCM offering under the title "One Fatal Hour", a First National film from 1936. Bogey's character is Sherry Scott, the man who runs WUBC, a radio station whose program lineup is losing listeners. The owner Bertram Reynolds (Robert Middlemass), is a pathetic executive who calls the shots at the station, but hides behind his decisions by pawning them off on Scott.

In an effort to boost the audience base and revenues, Reynolds has the idea of reviving a twenty year old murder case, and offering it as a fifteen chapter radio play. Scott enlists the aid of Dr. Martin Leavenworth (Harry Hayden) to write the play and present it on the air.

The Pembroke Murder case involved a woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, the circumstances of which are not made clear. However Gloria Pembroke has married, and is now living as Martha Carstairs (Helen MacKellar), married to a successful banker (Henry O'Neill), and their daughter Edith (Linda Perry) is about to be married (on the same day no less as the radio play is to reveal the identity of Gloria Pembroke). About to be faced with the devastating effects of this revelation, Martha and Jim Carstairs embark on a crusade to have the program stopped. Simultaneously, Edith's future in-laws respond by demanding that the marriage not take place.

Without revealing the final outcome, the film takes a devastating turn to jolt the viewer. Edith Carstairs confronts the principals of the radio station, vigorously admonishing Scott and the sniveling Reynolds. While accepting his share of the blame for the outcome, Scott partially redeems himself by quitting his job, firing his secretary, and hauling her out of the office, recognizing her for the conscience he once had. With an entirely abrupt finish, the film leaves one as disoriented and unsettled as any movie that doesn't have a happy ending.

With about a dozen films under his belt, Humphrey Bogart gets a chance to take center stage here with intriguing results. With no name supporting players, Bogey rises to the occasion by taking charge in the confines of the radio offices, and runs the show as if it was his own. In an interesting bit of characterization, he expresses his exasperation by crossing his hands over his bowed head, predating by a half dozen years a similar effect we'll see him do in "Casablanca". For Bogart fans, it's a genuine treat to catch an unexpected nuance like this. I saw this last night on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I had never heard of it before, and was quite surprised to find it so engrossing.

Bogart does a star turn as a city-wise cynical editor who reluctantly goes along with his greedy radio-network boss in this incisive "B" programmer. About 12 years before he played similar city-wise cynics to perfection in movies like Deadline USA, Knock On Any Door, The Barefoot Contessa, and The Harder They Fall, Bogie already had the star qualities down pat.

In order to boost ratings, and bring their somewhat high-brow programming to a more popular level, WUBC, "the Voice of America", pushes a tell-all radio mini-series about a woman who was acquitted 20 years ago by a plea of self-defense of killing her husband. Not willing to be discreet in order to save the woman's and her husband's reputations, the station uses underhanded methods to reveal all to all listeners, and as luridly as possible.

As a time capsule, I also found it very illuminating of male-female mores in the workplace in the mid-1930's. Although beyond Henry O'Neill, I'm unfamiliar with the supporting cast, the players were uniformly excellent, and the direction was taut.

If you like this kind of movie at all (e.g., A Face In The Crowd, An Inspector Calls, etc.), don't miss the opportunity to see this one.

This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.

Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.

This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt. FIVE STAR FINAL was one of the best films of the early 1930s. It starred Edward G. Robinson and was a very gritty story about a sleazy newspaper and their willingness to do anything...ANYTHING to sell newspapers. In particular, an old story of an innocent woman is plastered across the pages and helps to destroy her now happy life--many years after she was inadvertently involved in a scandal. The reason I loved the film so much was that it was unflinching and pulled no punches--showing just how low the publishers can be to sell papers.

Here in TWO AGAINST THE WORLD, it is a remake of FIVE STAR FINAL--with a few changes. Instead of Robinson, this film stars Humphrey Bogart and he is the head of programming at a radio station, not a newspaper. Otherwise, the story is essentially the same--except that it's a bit less edgy and lacks some of the grit and sensationalism of the original. This isn't to say the film is bad--it just doesn't pack quite as good a punch as the first film. In other words, if you must see one of these films, see the first--though this film is quite powerful and enjoyable as well. As for me, I loved the story so much, I saw both films and enjoyed them both.

TWO AGAINST THE WORLD begins with the UBC radio owner complaining to his programming head (Bogart) that all the "high brow" shows he's put on are getting low ratings. The owner demands muck--lots of muck in order to get more listeners. One way they discuss is to do a multi-part dramatization of a famous killing that occurred two decades ago--even though the killer was acquitted and she killed only in self-defense. However, they decide to play up the story as if she was guilty and they even go so far as to both send a writer to the lady's home pretending to be a minister(!) as well as broadcasting her current name and whereabouts. Needless to say, this ruins the woman and leads to a horrible tragedy. Then, and only then, does Bogart feel any real remorse for producing such garbage--leading to a dandy finale about journalistic integrity and decency.

Well-acted, a great story idea and a message that is just as important today as it was back in the 1930s, this is one story you have to see. In particular, notice the wonderful and very emotional confrontation scene where the daughter attacks the owner and Bogart---it is one heck of a great example of acting and writing. Well, I've just seen Buster Keaton's film debut in Fatty Arbuckle's The Butcher Boy and-despite the crude way everything just seems to happen for almost no logical reason-I found plenty to laugh at. Like when Buster orders molasses from butcher boy Fatty, Fatty makes Buster come back to pay, Buster says he put it in the bucket that has the molasses, Fatty dumps molasses in Buster's hat and takes money, Buster takes hat back on head as it gets stuck, Fatty attempts to remove it while molasses fall to floor, Buster's feet are now stuck on floor and so on. That probably didn't read funny but on screen it was hilarious as were some more slapstick involving flour being thrown and a later sequence that takes place in Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school with Fatty dressed in drag and Buster helping Fatty's rival also in drag. Like I said, many scenes don't make a lick of sense but the visuals, especially those involving Arbuckle and Keaton, are laugh inducing even today. Recommended viewing for Keaton completists. This film certainly wasn't very sophisticated. No, the humor was in fact pretty dumb now that I think about it. But, also while I think of it, I did laugh--proving decent comedy doesn't need to be very deep.

Fatty Arbuckle is the definite star of this short, despite Buster Keaton's appearing in the film as well. He is the butcher in an old-time grocery store. A lot of silly stuff occurred in the store and I think I laughed the most at the coffee grinder sequence--you'll just have to see it yourself.

Anyway, later, Fatty's girlfriend is forced to go to a girls' school and because he can't stand to part, he dresses in drag and infiltrates the school. Arbuckle is one ugly woman! So, for silly and unsophisticated fun, see this film. It won't change your life and is a very slight picture, but it's also fun. This Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a funny one overall. "The Butcher Boy" has lots of laughs and is an example of pure old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a matter of course.

The first half of the film takes place in a general store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety, skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much.

Buster Keaton is a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile, his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses.

The second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school. A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to "be girls." buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway, helping St. John.

The ending of "The Butcher Boy" becomes a little emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest, it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for. I guess this is the first time I have seen a Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle movie. I really liked him in his (title) role as a butcher boy. The way he moves is very funny in my opinion, for example how he handles his knife and the way he rolls a cigarette. I think he is a good actor; his facial expressions really suit the role he plays, for example how he winks at the audience in the end. But one might add that that was probably not too difficult. Anyway I think he would have deserved a longer career. As you probably know it was ruined by greedy journalists who made money by printing false accusations that said he was involved in a scandal.

The plot is not very important. In the first half, Fatty and Alum are employees at a store and rivals for Almondine's affection. After a heavy food fight, Almondine is sent to a girls' school by her father, the store owner. (This is the beginning of the second half). Both Fatty and Alum enter the school in drag, and the fight for Almondine continues. (Some of the characters' names are different in the version that I have seen. It seems that for some reason they replaced the original title cards with new ones.)

There are a lot of corny gags like food fights and pratfalls, but they are done well in my opinion. And there are some gags I really liked, for example how they make the dog run the pepper mill (or is it a coffee mill?), or the scene when Fatty dons a coat although it is obviously not necessary, or when Miss Teachem, the head of the girls' school, spanks Fatty, and he spanks her back.

Buster Keaton is also funny in this, his first, movie; a good addition to the cast. In the first half he is a customer at the store, in the second half he supports Alum in his fight for Almondine. I liked his acrobatics, for example when Fatty pushes him from one room of the school to another, he doesn't show a simple pratfall but lands on his hands and his head and does a little pirouette. Watch out for one scene in the food fight: Alum throws a flour bag at him, but it misses and hits the store owner instead. That makes Buster laugh, which must be a rarity since he normally always shows a neutral expression (which - as you probably also know already - got him the nickname 'The Great Stone Face'). (One more note: Al St. John, who plays Alum, was 'Fatty' Arbuckle's nephew, and later became famous for the role of 'Fuzzy' that he played in lots of westerns.)

I don't like this one as much as I like, for example, 'One Week' and 'The Balloonatic' (films that Buster made later, without 'Fatty'). And it didn't make me laugh out loud often - but it made me smile a lot, so I have given it eight points. Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna was a two-part star studded historical T.V. movie based on the Peter Kurth book, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. It keeps up historically pretty much, names are changed etc. But sticks to the real story quite well. Omar Sharif and Claire Bloom do quite well as the Russian royals, Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra. What stuck out in my mind was the all too short portrayals by Rex Harrison and Olivia De Havilland. All in all it was a pretty classy production with some fine acting. I was quite awestruck by the production values when it first aired on NBC in late 1986. Also starring was the fine German actor Jan Niklas who had previously starred in NBC's other Russian epic "Peter the Great".

I felt that Part 2 skipped over some important details of Anna Anderson's trip to America. It's important to know too, that in 1986 less was known about the Anna Anderson story. Back then it was still not known whether her claim to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia was genuine. By the late 1990's more was known and Anna Anderson is now reputed to have been a fraud.

Too bad the networks aren't making fine made-for-television movies like this anymore. It's out of question that the real Anna Anderson was NOT Princess Anastasia. Apart from very distinctive differences in physical appearance(Anderson's eyes are perceivably larger, lips thicker, nose larger and turned up at the end....etc), Anderson's unable to speak Russian was a ridiculous tell......That's why I detest Anna Anderson and her confederates so much. Not a lot of swindlers have the audacity and endurance to scam for 60+ years with such a blatantly untenable scheme.

Yet to some extent I have sympathy for Anna Anderson. Life must have been hard for a young Polish peasant worker in those days. And to impersonate another woman for 60+ years is an arduous task for anybody.She had to hold back her fleshy lips all the time to mimic the thin lips of Anastasia's, and had to occasionally go lunatic to make people believe all her chaotic memory was just a result of mental problem.

Anna Anderson was an awesome woman on a wrong track. Had she put her good-looks, learned elegance, endurance, acting skills into proper use, she could of made a first-class actress.

On a side note: Some main characters of this two-parter seem to be loosely based on real figures. Prince Erich could be a mixture of Gleb Botkin(believed by many the most possible brain behind the whole scheme), Duke George and Dmitri of Leuchtenberg, and several other figures. And Darya Romanoff seem to be based on the gorgeous Princess Xenia Georgievna Romanova. But unlike the real confederates, Prince Erich was motiveless in this show and supported Anna out of love for and sincere belief in her, which is touching.

On the whole this is a great show. Fictionalised a bit but still remains faithful to the reality. The power of Amy Irving's acting lies in that she successfully represented Anderson's self-assuredness, the mixture of impersonating others and being herself is intriguing. Just as Princess Xenia said about Anderson:"She was herself at all times and never gave the slightest impression of acting a part." Highly recommended. It was probably watching this TV movie that got me interested in the debate as to whether "Anna" was really Tsar Nicholas's daughter Anastasia. Since seeing it I have made a point of watching various documentaries and also bought a book. Despite the evidence that has been discovered since the film was released, I sometimes still think she was. Such is the power of Amy Irving's acting in this 2-parter which is somewhat liberal with the historical facts, but packed to the brim with tear-jerking drama and Irving's totally convincing performance.

I was not consciously aware of Irving before this, though I must have seen her without realizing it in "Carrie" (another favourite film). In "Anasasia", I never felt for one moment that "it's only a film". For me this woman WAS Anastasia, and when part one ended with her in the railway carriage meeting members of the royal family, I knew that come hell or high water I had to see the second part. I just wanted to see how she would prove that she was who she claimed to be, and as the story progressed I felt an intense hatred of Rex Harrison's character, though I greatly admire him as an actor.

When I saw the movie listed again in the TV guide, I convinced my Mother that we should watch it, and afterward she thanked me for doing so, being almost as keen as I had been to watch part 2. Then I bought the video and can totally recommend it. "Anastasia" is one of those rare TV movies that you simply must watch for the sheer enjoyment of watching the finest acting I have ever seen on TV, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe the legend or not. I wouldn't be so sure to accept the DNA tests as irrefutable evidence against Anna Anderson. First, read Peter Kurth's book on which this film is based. Anna Anderson knew things that only the real Grand Duchess Anastasia could possibly have known (forensic evidence in Anna's favor aside). Second, compare the pictures of Anastasia and Anna Anderson. Anyone can see that they are one-and-the-same person. Third, visit Peter Kurth's website (url below) where you can read detailed information about the DNA tests, as well as why Franziska Schanzkowska and Anna Anderson are not the same person (scroll down to the link, "ANNA-ANASTASIA NOTES ON FRANZISKA SCHANZKOWSKA"). Even Schanzkowska's relatives believed that their sister and Anna Anderson were not the same person.

I for one will always believe that HIH Anastasia Nicolevna Romanova and Anna Anderson were indeed the same person; I will never be swayed to the contrary .

www.peterkurth.com What I find remarkable about this terrific film, is that Altman, the crazy and wild guy that he is, took the novel THAT COLD DAY IN THE PARK and the Sandy Dennis character was originally a male in the book. He was a mentally whacked out isolated gay who looked out of his apartment window when he spotted the hustler. It is strange that Altman fans aren't aware of how clever he was to change the sex of the main character; thereby avoiding the homo erotic taboos of gay life in the 60's and actually making Dennis' reclusive kind of madness work even better in the transposition.If you see the film again, it will be evident how wily the Altman mind works... First of all, let me say this film isn't for everyone. It has a very strange subject matter. A spinster living alone and living a boring life discovers a young man in a park just across the street from her townhouse. She notices him sitting out in the rain and invites him in to dry off & warm up. The man does not speak and the woman assumes he is deaf mute. Still, she is fascinated with him and sexually interested in him. He finds her odd and continues his silence although we find out later that he isn't mute at all and that he reports to his sister everything that is going on between him & the woman. I won't give away the rest of the plot. If you can find this film watch it. You cannot take your eyes off of it. What makes it so interesting? Well, it is totally unique. I've never seen anything like it and watching these two together is very uncomfortable. Especially when you find out what this bland, boring, obsessive spinster is capable of. You won't forget it soon. This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.

The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the "mute" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.

I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet. This is another of Robert Altman's underrated films(let's be honest, the only movie he's made that really didn't work was Ready to Wear), and Sandy Dennis gives a spellbinding performance in it.She is far better here than she was in "The Out of Towners". The material, I will admit, is beneath the great director Altman and the extraordinary actress Dennis, but that hardly matters anyway.As long as there allowed to do their thing and do it well, just about any story will do. ***SPOILERS*** Feeling alone and needing companionship as well as love Frances Austen, Sandy Dennis, keeps all these emotions inside as she goes through life as a popular young single lady who has many high class friends. But for reasons of her own deep insecurity she keeps them at arms length. As for Frances male friends non are anywhere near her age so that she won't have any reason to have any romantic involvement with them.

One early evening as Frances was entertaining some of her friends she spots outside her apartment window a young man, Michael Burns, sitting alone in the cold pouring rain. Feeling that he's homeless and alone after her friends leave Frances goes outside to the park and offers the young man shelter at her place until the rain subsides and even to stay over for the night at a guest bedroom that she has. You can see right away that Frances is more interested in just having the young mans safely out of the cold and rain then she wants to have him as a friend lover or even play-toy all for herself and as the movie progresses you see that you were right.

A really amazing performance by Sandy Dennis that in a way is very much like that of Kathy Bates' Academy Award performance in the movie "Misery" that was made in 1990 some twenty one years later. Frances thinking that the young man was alone and homeless and, later when she meets him, mute sees the perfect person for her to have as a true friend. He's in no way her equal or better then her like the friends that she has, doctors lawyers Indian chiefs, and thus is totally dependent on her. It later turns out that the young man is not the lonely and homeless person that Frances thought that he is. It's when she slowly finds out that he really doesn't need her as well as him manipulating her instead the other way around it sets off something in Frances' mind that turns out to be a compulsion of murderous proportions.

A really weird film by director Robert Altman that goes deep into the depths of loneliness and depression of the human mind. Actress Sandy Dennis is perfect as the Dr. Jekyll and Miss. Hyde personality in her acting as the lonely but at the same time dangerous Frances Austen and it's a pity that not only didn't she get an Academy Award for her role in the film but wasn't even nominated for it.

Like most Robert Altman movies there seems to be a lot of improvisation among the actors in the movie and ad lib dialog especially between the young man's sister Nina, Susanne Benton, and her boyfriend Nick, David Garfield. The only thing in the movie that I found confusing is when we see Frances go to a city clinic to have a full gynecological exam and tells the doctor that she expects to get married very soon. Was her husband to be the young man staying at her apartment? But besides that the movie sticks to the story pretty well and the ending is a real shock to the audience as well as the young man. When he finally, in the end, realizes that Frances is not only a bit off-the-wall but murderously insane as well. I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF? Growing up as of child of the movies, one of the trilogies I shall not soon forget is that of the Karate Kid. You can put down Ralph / Daniel all you want, but its the message behind the movies that are important, that its important to be respectful to all creatures great and small, but stand up for yourself when the time calls for it. Getting back to the movie at hand, its rather funny because, I saw Boys Don't Cry and was really impressed with the performance of Hillary Swank, and in flipping through the sea of channels the other night, I came across the showing of this film and I hadn't realized at the time of my first viewing of this movie that she was in it. The story centers around Julie, just like Daniel, not knowing where to fit in or if she even wants to fit in and the master teacher is brought in to help straighten her out and guide her. I really liked this addition to the series as it gave a good feminine side to the story and yes, even some outfits that Hillary were in kept me, shall we say stimulated.

Overall 3.5 out of 5 I read a few reviews of the movie and got the impression that it was not as good as the previous Karate Kid installments. Although my favorite is still Karate Kid II, I felt this fourth installment of the movie series was consistent with the others and had some important lessons to share. Unlike the previous versions, the karate student is a female teenager who takes a somewhat different learning path, rather than a male teenager. Maggi finds this a little more challenging, but rises to the occasion. The plot twists are believable and predictable. I found that the bad guys are a little one dimensional, but this weakness is present in all the installments in varying degrees. The camera work is impressive and pans across some beautiful scenery from time to time. The Zen monastery is both austere and charming. The Zen monks add some humor and lightness to the narrative flow. I liked the "Zen Bowling" scenes which are a humorous counterpoint to the more serious Zen archery scene earlier on. The quality level of the movie is like a good TV series. The music chosen for the background is very good, especially with the Little River Band playing "Listen to Your Heart". The lessons in the movie are valuable and worthwhile to learn. They feel faithful to the spirit of karate and take care not to over-glorify the fighting part. All in all, I enjoyed it. Hilary was great as julie, and Pat was once again magnificent as Mr. Miyagi, but there should have been more references towards the other three movies! I mean, come on! First off, Where's Daniel!? Miyagi makes a very brief mention of him and that's it. Daniel was his best friend and should've at least made an appearance in the movie. He could've helped Miyagi train Julie-San! On the flip side, the music stayed true to the movie though, with a little more instrumentation(Fretless Bass)to accompany the wonderfully played Pan-Flute! It doesn't feel like a Karate Kid movie unless you hear that Pan-Flute! Thank you Zamfir! Overall, a decent movie though! We miss you Noriyuki! I thought this movie was great, if you didn't take it too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy Hilary Swank in all her greatness and laugh when the monks go to Boston, MA. I also think this movie has a great message about self control and inner strength. Plus Mr. Myagi was so sweet, I wish he'd teach me karate! this is the 4th movie in the Karate Kid series.however it has nothing to do with the previous 3.the only character remaining is Mr Myagi.this time around Mr Myagi meets troubled teen Julie pierce(Hliary Swank,before she was famous)Julie having all kinds of Problem including being bullied at school by a guy,belonging to a pseudo military club on campus.Naturally she is trained how to fight.Anyway,through Myagi,Julie learns Karate and becomes a better person spiritually and learns how to respect herself and in the end regains her respect.i like the unique idea of the antagonist being a female and having a male as her enemy.i there are also some fight scenes which are done quite well,very low key and minimal violence.none of the fighting is graphic.the ending is also good and a bit surprising.it is predictable but not a typical ending for this kind of film.the film has echoes of the original obviously,especially the spiritual aspect and the lessons learned.it is not as good as the 1st movie,and certainly not as good as the 2nd.it is however,a giant leap forward compared to the underwhelming 3rd entry.this is a very entertaining under dog movie that is suitable for the whole family. 8/10 This film was very different form the previous films and I had to wonder, "Where is Ralph Macchio?" he could have been involved in the plot somewhere as Myiagi's old friend who teaches Julie what he already knows, then Myiagi can come along and add some more! Macchio could've been the love interest for Julie in this film! Never mind!

On a serious level, I enjoyed this film because it involved teaching a teenage girl how to do Karate, and her feelings are very different to what Daniel's were. Julie is much more wild than Daniel was and needs taming, something which Myiagi finds very challenging; she's quite a troubled girl and a rude, obnoxious brat!

It was very satisfying to watch the transformation in Julie as she warms to Myiagi and gets to understand more about Karate and her life in general. We can all learn a thing or two from Myiagi's witticisms! Another 'good overcoming evil' story, but with a difference. This includes learning self-discipline. When Julie goes with her teacher to a Zen monastery, she learns about herself. She also hones her karate skills.

When the Zen monks visit the city, some awkward and comical moments ensue. Not uproarious, but entertaining nonetheless.

Next Karate Kid has much to say about looking within, and improving what is there -- as well as using what you have.

I first viewed this film shortly after it was put out on video in 1995, I dismissed it offhand, saying that Julie was no Daniel, never really giving it a chance and saying it was horrid.

But here it is, 5 years later, its on Disney and im watching it again. And I'm finding that it isnt as bad as I made it out to be. Miyagi is still Miyagi, just as kool as ever, the musical score is still there pleasant as ever. And Swank's character isnt that bad, her acting is pretty good considering the script. It beats the third installment by a wide margin. So, my original rating of 4 has been raised to 7. For once a sequel to "The Karate Kid" without Ralph Macchio! Hilary Swank did an excellent job playing the orphan Julie Pierce. Pat Morita, the one who plays Mr. Miyagi worked his way with Julie quite different from Daniel. Both Daniel and Julie favored karate. Unlike Daniel, Julie was the most surly person Miyagi ever challenged. And there was no tournament to compete in. And there's gonna be some humor in this movie as well. I liked the part where when Julie came home from school, Miyagi went to check on her, and saw her change clothes in the process. That was very funny! And the classic "Wax on, Wax off" scene was different as well. It was funny when Miyagi tells Julie, "Uh-oh, missed spot". The set in Boston was a far cry from California. The Militant group in that group, was like the "Cobra Kai" in Boston. And Michael Ironside's Col. Dugan was no John Kreese. His group practically deserted him when Julie kicked some serious butt. They all paid the price when they blew up that classic Oldsmoblie. What a cowardly act. At least they'll find redemption from Dugan's poison. This Karate Kid sets some morals, unlike the last three, which talked about "Honor" and "Respect". Hilary Swank is outstandingly hot in any movie and everything else she does. Movie 9, Hilary Swank 10! THE NEXT KARATE KID, in my opinion, is an excellent martial arts flick. I thought that Eric (Chris Conrad) and Julie (Hilary Swank) looked good in their prom attire. To me, Ned (Michael Cavalieri) was a real bully. This was because he got Julie in trouble with Principal Wilkes (Eugene Boles). If you ask me, Colonel Dugan (Michael Ironside) was a pure a******! This was because he was a very harsh man who wouldn't tolerate mistakes. My favorite parts were the prom and the showdown between Julie and the Alpha Elite. In conclusion, I highly recommend this smash hit to all of you who like martial-arts flicks or are fans of Hilary Swank. OK, so this is a complete rip off of the first Karate Kid. However, I think there can never be too many movies like the first Karate Kid. There's something about this type of story that particularly seems to apply to people like me. You get a overall sense of being able to overcome adversity by finding out new things about yourself. In this movie, Hillary Swank is a particular gem as the Next Karate Kid. You can really tell that she has a bright future ahead of her.

Not to say this movie is not without it's problems. Unlike the first one, Mr Miyagi appears to be a little to eager to get Julie to learn martial arts and get her involved in fighting. It almost seems like he forgot what his values were from the first movie. Also, one must have a suspended disbelief when examining the monks. The movie makes the monks appear to have a way too simplistic view of life, and doesn't really explain why they do what they do in the plot-line. The villains are also a bit questionable, even though truly hateable bad guys. I also have a suspicion about Martial Arts movies that end on prom night.

So maybe this isn't a perfect movie. So maybe this wouldn't be the greatest movie to rent on a Friday night. However, in more ways than one, it's a guilty pleasure. Hillary Swank is just so loveable, and the story, even though unoriginal, works. In a genre of movies that seems to be based around nothing other than action and violence, this is a breath of fresh air. Unlike all those Steven Seagal and Jean Claude Van-Damme, this is a movie about the spirit and the heart. There are some people that need movies like this, and we'll take whatever we can get. My rating: 8/10 After a very disappointing Part 3, I kinda wondered if I should even bother with The Next Karate Kid, while I could see why this saga wouldn't continue, I still enjoyed The Next Karate Kid most out of the second and the third Karate Kid movies. While there are some very unrealistic moments and situations, it was very enjoyable and the story is a catchy and warm one.

Hilary Swank, has this girl come far or what? She plays a rebel girl who has lost her parents to a car accident and when Miaugi sort of "babysits" her per say, he notices that she has karate skills. He offers her more lessons if she becomes more serious in life. Now of course there is the boy that likes her and the mean bullies that are pretty similar to the first Karate Kid, but I would recommend this one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

7/10 I'm not sure how I can make ten lines out of this question, but I'll try.

When Julie went to the dance and they were dancing to slow music. What was the name of the song that was playing and who played it?

I love that song! And I watch the movie over and over just to hear that one song.

I did several searches online and even looked up the soundtrack but I sill can't find the song.

It might be because the song they were dancing to wasn't a complete song and just partial.

I would appreciate if anyone out there who knows what the name of the song and the group who sung it.

Thank you.

Frank I've seen this movie more than once and it's worth it. For those of you who like martial arts and overcoming internal conflict, this is a worthy choice. After seeing this movie, I wanted to be a more productive member of society because I could relate to the inner turmoil of a girl looking for acceptance and needing a path to follow. Of course, Mr. Miyagi always provides his sage advice. 2 thumbs up! This movie is specially for children and I think they will enjoy the movie. For older than 10 the movie is not great but Hilary Swank played very well and without her the movie is very bad but now it gets a 7. I wish the series had not ended so soon. Although the acting may not be the greatest in the world, it does end on a positive note and does teach morals and values to the viewers. Hilary Swank did a good job of portraying a High School student who had lost her parents, etc. Miyagi was great as in the previous 3!! If you are not into the happy ending, this movie, like the previous 3 in the series is not for you. This day in which we live you can not see enough about the bad guys getting what they deserve and the good guys coming out on top. The Bible teaches that good will always triumph over evil. That is exactly what happens in this one. It is a great family movie. Please see it if you have not already. Well, it took them 4 tries, but they finally got it right! In this 4th sequel to the Karate Kid franchise, the producers really hit a home run! Well first of all I applaud them for finally getting rid of Ralph Macchio. I felt he never did service to the role of the Karate Kid. I would have rather have seen Danny 'Ralph Mouth' Most in that role. Macchio turned out what proved to be the best movie in the series, and look where his career is now! Instead they put in a girl! They got Hillary Swank, best known for playing a variety of sheman parts in every movie she is in. I personally don't care for her buck teeth, but thats a personal preference. But still, look how Karate Kid 4 launched her career into orbit! She won a freakin Oscar. Jiminey Christmas! Meanwhile where is Ralphy?? He should put out some amateur porn tape like Screech or something.

Anyways, my only disagreement with the movie is that they have a girl doing karate. As a self-proclaimed master of Karate, I have been the proud owner of a white belt for the last 8 5/8 years. The first thing they taught me is that there is no place in any of the martial arts for girls... well except for Judo... but thats kinda gay. So for the purposes of accuracy, I think they should have stuck with another male for this role. I was thinking perhaps Dennis Franz. He would give the role the depth it requires.

Perhaps they will listen to my suggestions and make the proper adjustments in Karate Kid 5. Its too Pat Marita is no longer. I was thinking maybe Justin Guarini is the perfect replacement for the lovable Asian fellow Mr. Miyagi. He will give "Wax on wax off" a whole new meaning. HAHAHAHAHAHA funny huh? Anyways, if you are looking for an exciting movie filled with Karate and triumph of the human spirit, Karate Kid 4 is for you. Don't waste your time with 1-3. This is the Karate Kid for you! This is the Karate Kid for r the ages! I like this movie cause it has a good approach of Buddhism, for example, the way Buddhist use to care all kind of living things, combining some fancy and real situations; in some parts the photography is very good and a lot of messages about freedom, as the hawk episode, staying always focused in every moment, even in tough situations.. It has also funny situations as Swank's birthday and, talking this two times academy awards, her acting show us how the people who use to live in this kind of culture is trying to have a resistance behavior when Miyagi is taking her to a Buddhist temple, and how she, slowly, is changing her mind. And, of course, Pat Morita has been always great "The next Karate Kid" is an outstanding movie full of adventure and new surprises. It has a wonderful plot and moral that tells a wonderful story. Hilary Swank does an incredible job of achieving the role of Julie. I have seen the actor who plays Mr. Miagee and this is one of his best performances in my opinion. The movie is funny and charming and I cannot stress enough about how interesting the movie is. I definantly gove this movie a 10 out of 10. I suggest the movie to anyone who likes a good movie. The Internet is a wondrous thing is it not? I am watching a taped episode of one of my all time favorite documentaries, "Vietnam:The Ten Thousand Day War", from my DVR in Florida USA to my laptop in Kuwait; I'm writing a review about this series and have just read another review from someone who actually lives in Vietnam! Amazing. I would like to just say that for Minh Nguyen to make the statement that America brought the war to Vietnam is one sided. I know America was the main player in the west but it takes two sides to wage war. The Soviets and the Chinese were major arms providers to the North so why Mr Nguyen doesn't mention them as partially to blame is showing an ignorance (well, I think we all know why he doesn't mention them, either ignorance from being raised in a communist system and its political dogma, or because he to scared to say the truth for fear of being arrested.). Also, Mr Nguyen, I guess the parts about the North being the main aggressor it whole war were not shown in your country so to blame America again shows ignorance. Regardless, its interesting to read a review from Vietnam (of course that could be made up as well but I'll take that as real), at least the communist east is somewhat open. As far as the mini series; why do I love it? It doesn't focus on the American involvement solely. This was a war that started 15 years before America got involved and the series covers every facet of the history so thats a real plus. The footage used is first rate, all the Vietnam War programs you see made now will use the same footage so you are not missing anything by watching this older series. The date this series was made is another plus. It has all the major players being interviewed which you can't do now because they are dead from old age, it's a major historical reference. Third, Richard Basehart adds a very distinctive narrative voice, his voice sounds as distinguished as James Earl Jones voice would and I think thats very steep praise. I don't think you could find a better war documentary ever made, it's like taking the relatively modern technology of 1980 and transplanting it to the year 1950 and interviewing all the generals and politicians on both sides of world war two, it does that for the Vietnam War.

OK, I do see some bias, its subtle, a 1970's-80's style subtle bias kind of like NPR "All Things Considered" bias where it all seems so straight forward but when you blink you end up shaking your head. In this shows case the later episodes don't throw a whole lot of light on the role of the media and propaganda in general, all useful tools to influence the outcome of a war, DON'T YOU THINK?????

From an OIF War Veteran going through the same thing 30 years later. I watched the movie with tears and smiles alternatively. Anger surged in me to see the ruin of Hanoi after the 12-day bombard. And by living in the country right now with my parents, who's been living in Saigon for 50 years, I understand that we're much better off now, and would have been better if the American didn't bring war here. Watching the movie, I learned more of the different kinds of wars that the America planned in Vietnam, and what disasters they caused.

The series seems to do well with the interviews with the real people. But I don't like it that some people only give generic opinions, like the analyst near the end of the series, I forgot his name.

There should also be more documentary images, like the life in the army camp of the South Vietnam, and those of the North (if possible). There's also a sudden change from the year of 1972 to 1975 (I'm not sure if the in-between was censored, because I watched this series on TV). This movie is engaging from start to finish with excellent performances, a great soundtrack with original music by Douglas Brown, and a well paced script that's full of surprises.

Full of new and not so new faces, this movie showcases promising talent especially in the case of Craig Morris who plays the main character Eddie Monroe. Morris, who also co-wrote the script, displays a quiet strength combined with a strong emotional performance as he creates a believable character on screen. Also a poignant delivery by Paul Vario who plays Uncle Benny with a genuine warmth, was so convincing that he made me hungry as he lovingly prepared his Italian sauce.

Great new faces, great new music, and a great new story - what more could you ask for. This film is highly recommended! Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best. I just viewed Eddie Monroe and I was very impressed. The story was easily paced as the plot unraveled to a surprise ending. Heartwarming performances, action, humor, and drama filled the screen. Topnotch acting by some talented Long Islanders. Great script. This is the best film that Fred Carpenter has made to date, he should be very proud of this work. Doug Brown's score is on the mark. Craig Morris is the next Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. Hard to believe this is a low budget, independent film. Just imagine what Carpenter can do with a Hollywood level budget. Paul Regina's last film and he is greatly missed and loved by all. He was a wonderful, successful, talented actor and a great human being. He will watch over us all and we will never forget his dynamic smile and spirit. Great job to all who participated in this film. A few cherished scene stealing, and humorous cameos to break up the serious content. You will enjoy this film, go see it! I was very impressed with what Eddie Monroe was able to accomplish in regards to its overall affect on me. I say this because I know this independent film had a limited budget/resources, but despite this, it comes across as a convincing and well crafted piece of work.

Enjoyable from start to finish with several relatively unknown actors which I can't help but believe will make a big noise in the industry in years to come, Eddie Monroe didn't fail to keep my interest engaged and my emotional meter dancing. It's a well scripted story with a startling ending despite my effort to not be taken off guard.

Many of the cast names listed for this film are names to look out for in the future. Someone told me that Paul Regina recently passed, and if this is true it's a real tragedy since his stoic performance in Eddie Monroe is remarkable.

Kudos to Fred Carpenter who has truly pulled out a winner with this one! No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or "Big Paulie" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, "This Thing Of Ours". Thankfully, the "Eddie Monroe" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh? Eddie Monroe is Hooooot. He is a great actor and I could be his girl anytime. He's so fine. I was so sad at the end. I'm not going to ruin the end but wow. Girls are so vicious. His girl was wrong. If Eddie was my man I would never disrespect. Those Mobsters were spooky. The moral of the story is Trust No One. Your friends will hurt u if they can. Oh and Eddie tell your girlfriend that yo mine, she should move ova! I would suggest seeing the movie. Why? Becasur I said so. It kept my eyes on the screen. My sister loved it also so I am going to see it again because now my friends want to see it and its worth seeing two times. Peace,Happy New Year! I loved this film, Independent film-making at its best. The cinematography , pacing, rhythm , and acting were perfectly in sync. Fred Carpenters best work to date! The movie is well written with lots of plot twists that take you to a great ending. It moves well and keeps you involved. Being a photographer, I was most impressed with the cinematography. the lighting creates mood and a beauty that is usually found in a much bigger budget film. This gave the actors a great canvas to start from, to work their magic. And that is just what they did! Great performances from all the actors and each one was well cast in their roles. As I said in the beginning, the is a wonderful film, and one of Fred Carpenters best movies. You will love it. I was a guest at the Sept. 30th screening of Eddie Monroe and was pleasantly surprised with the story, the great acting and the talented directing. I found it hard to believe that all this talent can be found in an independent film. Powerful performances by Vario, (Uncle Benny), Sara, (Jessica Tsunis), and Morris, (Eddie Monroe). The supporting cast was chock full of colorful and amusing characters. This film reminds me of one of those movies that you will look back on in 20 years and discover that it launched many actors into stardom. Much like "The Outsiders" where Tom Cruise, Emilio Estavez, Patrick Swazey, Ralph Macchio, and others can be found. Look out Hollywood, there are new stars out on the horizon and they can be discovered in a little Long Island, independent film called, "Eddie Monroe." Great job! I've been writing hardboiled crime fiction for a number of years now. When a writer develops a story he always has a character/actor in mind to bring the story to life. Last weekend I found a new one in Paul Vario playing uncle Benny in Eddie Monroe. This was a slick film highlighted by Vario's presence both on and off the screen (as his voice-over narration is also heard). I also especially liked the actress playing Benny's niece and Eddie's ex-wife, although everyone did a fine job in this exciting movie about playing with bad guys and the double-crossing that goes with it. A nice job all around ... and Mr. Vario shined brightest. He's gotta be my Tony Gangi someday ... I found the Movie very interesting. I really enjoyed the film the actors were great. It was entertainment. Benny the uncle was wonderful He was real at his character. The ending took a wonderful twist. I would recommend you seeing it. Eddie Mores girlfriend reminded me a little of sandra bullock she was sharp as a nail. I also like the little girls acting in the movie she was very convincing. Benny reminded me of a friend of mine who really lives his life growing up in Brooklyn. I loved the scene where he tasted the sauce in the pot because thats how most people cook lol. I actually watched the movie 2 times and learned more the second time. As a Long Island independent film maker myself, and having have had two theatrical releases under my producing/directing belt I had always been told of how much I could learn by viewing a FRED CARPENTER production so I was lucky enough to have his "Eddie Monroe" as my initiation to his superb budgeting, production, casting, settings and masterful directing talents. My heart went out to it's characters, it's story and was totally won over by the trick/switch ending that brought the film's plot to fruition! Location's were marvelously chosen and human emotions in it's characters brought a realistic link to my bonding with all the elements that Mr Carpenter utilized throughout, to his and his film's benefit! I was at a friends house for Thanksgiving and watched a DVD of the movie, Eddie Monroe. I've been a fan of Indie Films for almost 20 years, (I loved the Brothers McMullen), and was impressed how good this movie is. My friend, who works at Magno Sound, told us that this movie was shot on Super 16. The photography was so good, it looked as though it was a 35mm shoot. Furthermore, the music combined with Fred Carpenter's direction, was art. The storyline was original and led up to an ending that surprised all of us watching...very cool. The acting by the entire cast was good, especially the actor who played, Uncle Benny. He was amazing. This film was a nice holiday treat, and I was delighted to be one of the first to view a movie that many will be seeing in the future. I viewed the movie for a second time on September 30, 2006 and thought that it was even better than the first time I saw it. I thoroughly enjoyed the acting, especially "Uncle Benny". I thought that Fred Carpenter did an excellent job of writing and directing this film. The story line definitely kept your interest and I hope this movie makes it all the way to the top. I felt it moved very smoothly between scenes and the surprise twist at the end, well, lets just say I didn't see it coming. I also thought that Craig, the actor who played "Eddie Monroe" did an excellent job and I hope that this movie will help him to go further in his acting career. From start to finish, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved the film "Eddie Monroe". The film had all the components that kept me interested while watching it. I especially loved the plot twists along the way and the surprising ending. Craig Morris has Brad Pitt potential both in looks and talent. His blue eyes reminded me of Paul Newman's. Fred Carpenter took this movie to a new level.I loved the cast. The music score, cinematography, talent, locations and script were awesome. I loved seeing some of my favorite actors in Eddie Monroe. Fred Carpenter is an incredibly talented and gifted director. He gives his work 200%. The film has great texture. I hope that there will be an Eddie Monroe 2. I would love to see how Nicolette turns out after getting her windfall of money. Fred Carpenter's Eddie Monroe is Hollywood level. I have seen a few of Fred Carpenter's movies on Showtime, Pay Per View and video/DVD and I enjoyed most of these films especially with a few beers, (Carpenter knows how to entertain)"EDDIE MONROE" and "MURDERED INNOCENCE" are my favorites. I recently Viewed a Promo DVD of "EDDIE MONROE" and everything from the cast to the storyline and directing all worked smoothly. (Doug Brown's Music Score was sensational.) I enjoyed seeing Frank Sivero ("Goodfellas", "New York, New York" and "The Wedding Singer"), he is an amazing and very underrated actor.But I especially liked the performance of Paul Vario who played Uncle Benny, I looked up his acting credits on the IMDb and I found out this was his first starring role. Where has this guy been! Give Fred Carpenter credit for discovering Great New Talent, it's only a matter of time you'll be seeing this guy costarring with Pacino and DeNiro. As I mentioned Carpenter knows how to entertain and when your working with a limited budget it is amazing what Carpenter can Produce.(I read the VENT MAGAZINE interview and Carpenter has never made a movie for more than $400,000.00 dollars.) Before I watched "EDDIE MONROE" I saw "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd" both great films. "Eddie Monroe" took me on a ride to a surprised ending because of a very good script, good performances from the entire cast(Craig Morris is a movie star waiting to happen and the lead Actress Jessica Tsunis was hot!) great Cinematography, Direction and Doug Brown's Music Score. As I stated I recently seen "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd", if I were to write a comment about those two movies I would be saying some of the same things I have stated about "EDDIE MONROE", the only thing those two very good films don't have in common with "Eddie Monroe", they didn't cost a few hundred grand. Great movie and I didn't even drink a beer. I am a Talent Manager. I have been for 15 years now. I have discovered some wonderful talent. They have been in Movies, Commericals, Braodway and Television. In my opinion Eddie Monroe was cast wonderful. I love seeing the ability of real people. Not just a name. The Actors in this movie were very natural and believable. I was very entertained by this film. I love a movie with a few twists. I also enjoy when at the end of the movie the puzzle is solved. I still would like to know what happened to the large sum of the money.(When you see the flick you will understand what I am saying.) The Mobsters all look real ???? I would like to see this film on the Big Screen. The footage was shot really well. The scenery of New York was the New York that I know. Have a Happy 2006 and may this movie make it to the awards. cool flick. enjoyable to watch. hope to see more from Fred Carpenter soon. i really like the location setting with all the new york references. it was interesting the way it all unfolds in the end. the suspense factor was effective and the acting, though kept simple, was also effective in portraying the characters. there are a bunch of neat little tricks incorporated into this film that make all the better. i think the supporting actress did a great job in her role. the casting and directing in this film seem to be sewn together seamlessly and the quality of the shooting is quite impressive. the movie is not without its soft moments either, which gives it a nice sense of balance. Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico was no doubt the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo animated features. Loch Ness Monster is a considerable improvement.

This time the gang head off to Scotland to see the Highland Games and visit Blake castle, Daphne's ancestral home. And wouldn't you know, the castle happens to be in the 'quaint' fishing village of Drumnadrochit, on the shores of Loch Ness.

During their stay they meet a few interesting folks. First there is Fiona Pembrooke, a scientist who has drowned all of her money into finding the Loch Ness Monster.

Sir Ian Locksley, the boss of the National Heritage Museum of Scotland, he is staunch non-believer of Nessie.

The Haggarts, the own a cozy Inn on the shores of the loch. The sons are a couple of local jokers, always into mischief.

Del Chilman, a wild, paranoid hippie dude who is convinced the monster is out there and will stop at nothing on find her.

And finally, Duncan MacGubbin, the dock master who has seen Nessie too many times to count.

Most of these characters are stereotypes, which gets a bit annoying as this is teaching younger audiences a load of crap and giving the wrong impression. However if you can immune yourself to it you'll be alright. Being from Scotland I can't help but wince at the awfully mimicked Scottish accents. Fact: We DON'T sound like that.

Soon enough Nessie, looking rather more demonic than 'usual', shows up and causes havoc. Looks like the gang have another mystery on their hands. The usual chase scenes, clues and Shaggy's wacky disguises follow. There are plenty of laughs. The animation is splendid, with some atmospheric scenes and locations. And the plot a lot better than Monster of Mexico.

The only bad thing this time around is the music. I miss Louis Febre's scoring and the songs here are pretty rotten too. Where are the Hex Girls when you need 'em?

The region 2 DVD is in crystal clear 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen (the region 1 ain't) with Dolby 5.0 sound. Some okay extras are included. Definitely worth getting. good job.that's how i would describe this animated Scooby-Doo adventure.this is so far the best of the animated Scooby movies i have seen.i liked the story.i thought it had some depth to to it.the movie is also well paced.it doesn't get boring for a minute.it also has an interesting group of characters(besides Scooby and Shaggy and the gang,of course)plus,the movie was a real blast.i has a lot of fun watching it.i also liked the great Scottish music.it was very catchy and infectious.naturally,we know that Scooby and the Gamg will solve the mystery,but it's still fun getting to that point.the animation is also pretty good for this movie.i would love it if they did a 3D animation Scooby adventure,but we'll just have to wait and see.for me,Scooby-Doo and the Loch Ness monster is a 7/10 One of quite a few cartoon Scooby Doo films, "Scooby Doo and the Loch Ness Monster" turns out to be entertaining, exciting, interesting, funny and also does a surprisingly good interpretation of the Highlands of Scotland. One annoying aspect of the film is the voices of many of the characters - American people trying to sound Scottish in this film are unfortunately not succeeding all that well (although some people do better Scottish accents than others).

Daphne has come to the Highlands to see her cousin Shannon and the Highland games at Blake Castle. Gravely Shannon tells the gang that she believes to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. When yet more chaos arises, the Mystery Inc Gang have another mystery on their hands...

Good for Scooby Doo fans and for people who want to find out more about Scotland! Enjoy "Scooby Doo and the Loch Ness Monster"! :-) Monster of Mexico I do agree is the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo movies, mainly because of the weak plot and how predictable it all was. Loch Ness Monster however, is a considerable improvement, with gorgeous animation, honestly Scotland looked beautiful. The music is good, and the plot is well thought out. Plus, there is some great dialogue, and the voice acting was fabulous, with Casey Kasem a consistent delight as Shaggy, and the beautiful Scottish singer Sheena Easten a pleasant surprise in a guest starring role. In fact, my only complaints were some strange accents in one or two members of the voice cast, with the exception of Easten whose accent did sound genuine, and somehow the Loch Ness Monster wasn't as well designed as it had potential to be. Overall, a solid and enjoyable Scooby Doo film. 8/10 Bethany Cox My son Adam (5 years old) is a big Scooby Doo fan. He like this film a lot. He particularly liked when the Loch Ness monster tried to attack Shaggy and Scooby. The vote score is his choice and reflects his love of the characters.

Having seen the "Vampire Rock" film first, this, not surprisingly, was very similar as they repeat a well worn basic plot in a different setting.

Few adults will come across this without having their own memories of the TV cartoon series and even fewer will watch it without children. You either like this or love it. I loved Scooby Doo for half an hour as a kid, I am happy my son loves it, I can just about put up with it now. Four unhappy women leave dreary London to spend an ENCHANTED APRIL in a castle on the coast of Italy.

Elizabeth von Arnim's novel comes alive in this charming little film which beautifully demonstrates the virtues of a literate script and ensemble acting. All the elements come together to produce a movie that, although nearly forgotten now, still produces a feeling of appreciation at the story's appropriate resolution.

The actresses each acquit themselves splendidly. Ann Harding is the free-spirited wife longing for 'wisteria & tranquillity' far from foggy London. Katharine Alexander plays the quiet housewife wishing for the elegant responsibility of acting as hostess in the castle. Jane Baxter is the beautiful young noblewoman temporarily escaped from her throng of male admirers. Jessie Ralph steals every scene she's in as an old lady wanting only to be alone with her memories of the past.

The men in the story are also well cast. As Miss Harding's husband, Frank Morgan has a rather complex role as a mousy researcher who has a disturbing personality change when he becomes a successful writer. Reginald Owen, as Miss Alexander's spouse, is marvelously pompous as a man well equipped to bore for England (his hilarious attempt to take an English bath in an Italian bathtub is made even funnier with the assistance of Charles Judels & Rafaela Ottiano as the castle's harried servants). Finally, Ralph Forbes, one of the decade's finest forgotten actors, is joyously eccentric as the ladies' lighthearted landlord.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Ethel Griffies playing the proprietress of the Hampstead Housewives Club. OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.

Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates. The third part of Miike's Dead or Alive trilogy is as unrelated to the first two parts as they were to each other, more or less. Show Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi are back again for the lead roles, but this time the movie thrusts us forward 300 years or so into the future... post apocalypse.

Riki plays a tough cop, an enforcer for the corrupt city's extreme police policies, and Show plays a drifter who hooks up with a bunch of the city's oppressed rebels. The film must have been shot in Hong Kong, as most of the rest of the cast are Cantonese speakers, with Terence Yin and Josie Ho being the most recognisable faces. There's also a HK stunt crew on hand for the films action sequences, which are very cool in a HK-via-Miike style.

This could be fodder for a dreadful low budget B-movie, but in Miike's hands it of course becomes something more interesting. It's quite a slow, thoughtful film that meanders along and doesn't try to force anything down the viewer's throat. Characters are rounded and interesting and the plot an interesting but fairly loose framework for the story to be hung on.

All in all a fairly low key effort until the action scenes, which show Miike's increasing prowess at directing and choreographing very nice action. Watching the short making of with Show & Riki in wire rigs is really fun - you can tell they were having a great time

The finale of the film tries to tie together the 3 Dead Or Alive movies, which is quite unnecessary because each one is really self contained. Miike's explanation of the connection is very funny though, and caps the series off quite nicely.

Not as deep or well developed as DOA2, not as outrageous and intense as DOA1... still another good Miike movie though. Two actors play rival gangsters in three films, the final of which is a sci-fi film, that nods strangely to William S. Burroughs, Philip K. Dick, and anime all at once. The robots are actually called "replicants", a reference to Dicks Blade Runner(several visual allusions to the film can be found as well) and the bad guy is a psychotic gay mayor obsessed with limiting procreation through use of a compulsory drug for "heterosexual love is fleeting, and homosexual love is eternal"....martial arts fights ensue, a first for the dead or alive films. The hilarious climax involves the two leads morphing into a winged robot with a gigantic phallus for a head, who personifies "destruction", which has been the path of both characters thus far, their individual minds and later literal heads functioning as something like testicles. The film ends with the mayor f*&%ing his free jazz playing boy lackey as the robot apparently tears down a wall around them, the last words of the mayor "Oh f*&%", followed by a quick fade to black. Part of me felt cheated, part of me confused, but mostly I was just laughing. A lot of the film is quite boring though, the best scenes bookend the film while the rest is far too slow. Takashi Miike has always mined the sexual motifs beneath male violence in action films, and this film with the exception of "Gozu", reinforces this theme more than any other. Sex and violence are two pretty basic themes, but like Cronerberg(who the jazz interludes may be a homage to ala Naked Lunch)Miike is able to show where the two connect, to hilarious an oddly cohesive effect. The final installment sees Sho Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi (looking cooler than ever in his reversible overcoat!) pitched against each other for one last battle, this time in the future. The plot owes a lot to Blade Runner, but done in Takashi Miike's low budget, frenetic, comic style. I did feel that it was the weakest of the three DOA films, and although the ending was still outrageous, it lacked the shock value of the previous two. Compared to the likes of Ichi the Killer and Visitor Q, DOA:Final is nowhere near as extreme, but is faithful to the other two films in the trilogy. That said, fans of the first two (and fans of Miike) will get a lot from this as it ties all three films together and gives a final explanation of the relationship between the two protagonists. I love those kind of movies. Blood, Revenge, A Lot of Action, Very Dark, Cheesy and More. But this one doesn't deliver the genre that you might expect. When I saw Kite Birds and Ichi the Killer before, I had fun watching those but why this one not? Dead or Alive: Final is a decent anime and its not hardcore and don't even expect nudity in this movie.At least add some more action to entertain the audience. Even the drama wasn't that good. Well, I don't want to spoil the movie nor the plot.But I felt that Dead or Alive: Final is a bit nerdy. So, without further to do. I don't recommend this movie to everyone but I recommend for the people who love decent and well directed anime.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne Dead or Alive: Final, the movie that supposedly brings together the three films in the very loose Dead or Alive trilogy, and connected mostly by its stars, Riki Takeiuchi and Sho Aikawa and that each film has its share of bizarro-world fixtures and neuroses and heaps of violence, is admittedly the weakest of the lot. That none of the three films ends up being a disappointment is less a testament to the creativity of the material but to the pound-for-pound guts that director Takashi Miike takes with the surroundings and the material. Here he presents an overtly dystopian future, however low-key, where a homosexual mayor/dictator (Richard Chen) has the entire village drugged except for a group of rebels. There's also replicants- robots- in this year of 2346, one of them is Ryo (Aikawa), a robot of complete lethal skill but also with the capacity to love and learn and so forth. Then a cop, Takeshi (Takeiuchi) happens to be the mayor's top guard. But things start to unravel on both sides, Ryo teaming up with the rebels and Takeshi with his employer, though blood-soaked mishaps like a hostage trade-off gone bad, and with Takeshi finding out his wife and son are robots (not done in an Alien mood, mind you, just suddenly as if in a the power went out), and that he himself is one as well. And it all leads up to one last, inexplicable showdown between the two men.

Strange that there's yet another film where Miike has peaks and valleys here, sometimes finding that middle ground of success where science fiction can have some meaning to it. But there really isn't anything to take from this story, except that the mayor/dictator is a dingbat with no back-story who gets his rocks off making sure his drug stops couples from getting pregnant and that everything remains under control. He also has along with him his love slave, I'd guess, in the hilarious non-speaking part of a saxophone player who also doubles sometimes as a human fixture when not plugging away the moody blues. Meanwhile, we get the conventional sides to Ryo and Takeshi's stories, and they're never uninteresting, just not totally convincing enough to hold interest. Of course Miike isn't above having some fun, like when Takeshi plops Michelle (Maria Chen) in to the water to get her to swim after a near-assassination attempt on the mayor, or in having the original rebel leader speaking English for no good reason at all. There's even a playful homage to old sci-fi cartoons at the start of the film. But there's nothing very compelling substance-wise, with the exception of Takeshi's minor turns at becoming "good" midway through the film (helping one couple get by with clearance to have a kid), and mostly Miike's strengths this time are purely stylistically and in the choice of locations and sets.

It's like a grungy Japanese Alphaville where everything still has a contemporary feel through all of the special effects. And I really liked the yellow-green tint Miike used through the movie, as it impacted very well in outdoor scenes and added just enough grittiness in the indoor scenes. But as for peaks and valleys, one sees this ever more clearly- and the sci-fi movie channel level of visual effects, with maybe a few more dollars put into it- during the climax. This contains some of the funniest material in the most delirious, Freudian sensibility from the director, even if it has to get started by unbearable contrivance; the way that Ryo and Takeshi finally meet up is sort of random and just a means for the producers to try and cheaply tie together the past two films, when it wasn't needed. On the other hand, in terms of the sheer guilty entertainment value of a flick like Miike's where one sees something totally unexpected and very crudely sexual, it ranks right up there with the best scenes in Happiness of the Katakuris and Visitor Q. Overall, Dead or Alive: Final is a cheesy 90 minute effort that doesn't take itself TOO seriously, and is better off all the more for its wicked contrivances, militaristic decay and cultural hang-ups put on pulp-level display. If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film "Nemesis", then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like "Nemesis" its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line. This is a film that has to be taken in context. It shouldn't be seen unless you've seen the first two films, but the sort of people seeing this film will probably own the box set, or at least know someone who does. And you shouldn't go in expecting Blade Runner; the films budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and it's a far more zany ride.

Essentially the film is a science fiction set in future Yokohama (shot in Hong Kong as is obvious) about a society where it's illegal to procreate. Sho Aikawa reprises a similar role from Dead or Alive 2 and Riki Takeuchi is a detective for the birth control cops. Takashi Miike isn't one to give all of his reasons to you on a platter, but one can assume that the law on procreation (enforced by giving people the pill) is there because of over population, increased life spans and so forth. Interestingly the dialogue in the film is mainly Cantonese, whilst Sho and Riki (who play their parts, as always, brilliantly) speak Japanese, and a few speak English. People have criticised the English as being wooden, but I found no problems with it. Also, another person found the homosexuality themes throughout the film to be offensive; said that Takashi Miike was anti-homosexual. He may very well be (and not all artists have to be left-wing), but I can't see this film as an insult to homosexuals. He merely calls back philosophies of ancient Greece when homo or bisexuality was more common. The film contains similar proportions of action-packed and poignant moments to DoA 2, although in this film the action is more martial-arts based, and are done in a very good Hong Kong style. The cinematography in the film is very nice on the eyes, with symmetrical shots, a good control on colours to give the air a polluted look, and it's nice to see uncut, lengthy shots that are so rare in Hollywood these days. Basically, there's a lot to like in this film: a good sense of humour, exciting action and some very beautiful moments. It's a great finish to the series. You could criticise it for being a bit cheesy, but isn't that part of the charm? I taped this on Sundance and had no idea that it was a Miike film. I thought it was just another kung fu movie.

Then I saw things like the dancing sax player

who sounded like an Oriental Gato Barbieri, and I knew this had to be Miike.

I missed the beginning opening credits and had to wait till the very end of the closing credits to see Miike's credits.

So far he hasn't disappointed me yet. Audition, City of Lost Souls, Ichi the Killer and The Happiness of the Katakuries were all good flicks, and now I've found out that this was the third in a trilogy.

Other than Miike and Todd Solendz there's nobody making interesting films nowadays. This film makes several nods to various science fiction films. The prologue reminds me of the one for the original theatrical version of THX-1138 (the trailer for BUCK ROGERS, here it was clips from some early Japanese SF TV show). Then the opening shot of the city in 2345 has the dragon blip flying overhead with a billboard, reminding one immediately of BLADERUNNER. The BLADERUNNER aspect comes even

more pronounced when we meet the hero, who is called a Replicant (He is blond haired and is called Ryo, a homage to Roy Batty, Rutger Hauer's character in BLADERUNNER?). A battle scene soon ensues which reminds one immediately of THE MATRIX. The government forcing the population to take drugs is like THX-1138 and the chief enforcer, while looks like a cross between Elvis and Dan Ackroyd, turns out to be a robot, very much like the TERMINATOR. The end battle reminds one of TERMINATOR 2 and the end result is hilarious. Probably not one of the best SF films out there, but is enjoyable, certainly a lot more enjoyable than tripe like BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A lot of 'alternative' comedy in Britain in the 1980s was insular, misguided, overly-political, and unfunny, and the worst of the Comic Strip Presents... stuff fell into this category.

But this is at the other end - a remarkable film that works on different intellectual levels.

Is Dennis a criminal mastermind or is he lying?

Is he telling the truth, bluffing, double-bluffing, counter-doubly-bubbly-bluffingwhatever?

I've probably watched Supergrass 20 or 30 times, and I still can't decide 100%. That's the wonderful thing.

As well as Ade Edmonson, there are big roles for other early Comic Strip mainstays - French & Saunders, Pete Richardson, Alexei Sayle, Keith Allen, Nigel Planer and Robbie Coltrane, though curiously enough not Rik Mayall.

All of the Comic Strip cast - however much I disliked the hidden agenda of some of their members - are convincing actors, and turn in superb performances in this big-screen outing, while the Richardson-Richens writing team's work is so often pure genius, with nice little touches of detail throughout.

Ultimately this is a study of crime, criminology and human nature, in all it's wondrous complexity. And very funny with it. You will not be disappointed. This film is great! Being a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents..." I just knew I would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version.

Anyway, the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling going on down in Devon.

This film is not as funny as I expected but it is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier set to "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

So if you are a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents...", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British comedy see it A.S.A.P!!! Great 1980s Comic Strip comedy set in the South West of England. It is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas and murder by the seaside. Adrian Edmondson, French and Saunders, Nigel Planer (hilarious in drag) and Robbie Coltrane play a part. Dennis (Edmondson) tries to impress girlfriend by boasting he is involved in a multi-million pounds drug deal. This leads to complications with hilarious results. I am trying to find out the original picture ratio for this film but it does not appear under 'Technical Aspects' of the IMDb site. I spotted the DVD in the shop and it appears to be in 1.33:1 (full screen) format. Was the film shot in this ratio or was it originally a widescreen film with a pan and scan DVD? It would be useful to know as I hate pan and scan films. So come on IMDb. Could you find out for us? The funniest movie from Britain I have ever seen, "The Supergrass" is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas, and murder by the seaside. Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmonson), average moron, is out to impress his so-called girlfriend, Andrea (Dawn French), because she thinks he is too law-abiding. So, to get her to come along with him on a romantic getaway, he comes up with a scheme that perhaps will impress her and entice her to spend some time with him. Trouble is, Dennis' lie is that he's somehow gotten involved in an international drugs ring, and while telling her, a couple of policemen overhear his boasting and nick him. And so begins this witty movie, full of slick comedy and crude jokes. Dennis is banged up in the local nick, and, much to the arresting officers' delight, there seems to be no way out (Andrea's earlier attempts to explain it was all a lie were dismissed by a hilarious melody of "Stand by Your Man" by the two officers'). Then comes along Commander Robertson (Ronald Allen), Chief Intelligence, Scotland Yard. He makes a deal with Dennis, that if he helps him catch the drug smugglers, then he will be set free and allowed whatever he pleases. Dennis agrees, and is teamed up with Harvey Duncan (Peter Richardson), and Lesley Reynolds (Jennifer Saunders). The rest is an unforgettable rib-tickling experience, with Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Troy adding humourous colour to the film. His walk along the dry-dock against "Frankie Goes To Hollywood's Two Tribes" is superb, and probably the best scene in motion picture history. The two officers' who nick Dennis are wonderfully played by Michael Elphick and Patrick Durkin, and Alexei Sayle as the motorcycle cop is a laugh! If you want something good to watch on a Saturday night, then I suggest you rent this. You won't forget it! I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious, some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it. Two hard-luck but crafty ladies decide to act like HAVANA WIDOWS by sailing to Cuba to meet & blackmail rich gentlemen...

This was the sort of ephemeral comic frippery which the studios produced quite effortlessly during the 1930's. Well made & highly enjoyable, Depression audiences couldn't seem to get enough of these popular, funny photo dramas.

Joan Blondell & Glenda Farrell are perfectly cast as the frantic, fast-talking females who will go to great lengths to make a little dishonest dough. Although Joan gets both top billing and the romantic scenes, both gals are as talented & watchable as they are gorgeous.

Handsome Lyle Talbot plays Joan's persistent suitor, but he's given relatively little to do. Chubby, cherubic Guy Kibbee appears as the girls' intended target. Whether awakening to find himself in the wrong bed or being chased across the roof of a Cuban hacienda in his long johns, he is equally hilarious. Behind him comes a rank of character actors - Allen Jenkins, Frank McHugh, Ruth Donnelly, Hobart Cavanaugh, Maude Eburne, Dewey Robinson - all equally adept at pleasing the toughest crowd.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited James Murray as the suspicious bank teller with the forged check. This very talented actor was pulled out of complete obscurity to star in King Vidor's THE CROWD (1928), one of the silent era's most prestigious films. Hopes were high for a great career, but his celebrity faded quickly with sound pictures. After a long string of tiny roles & bit parts, broke & destitute, his life ended in the waters of a New York river in 1936. He was only 35 years old.

While never stars of the first rank, Joan Blondell (1906-1979) & Glenda Farrell (1904-1971) enlivened scores of films at Warner Bros. throughout the 1930's, especially the eight in which they appeared together. Whether playing gold diggers or working girls, reporters or secretaries, these blonde & brassy ladies were very nearly always a match for whatever leading man was lucky enough to share equal billing alongside them. With a wisecrack or a glance, their characters showed they were ready to take on the world - and any man in it. Never as wickedly brazen as Paramount's Mae West, you always had the feeling that, tough as they were, Blondell & Farrell used their toughness to defend vulnerable hearts ready to break over the right guy. While many performances from seven decades ago can look campy or contrived today, these two lovely ladies are still spirited & sassy. Blondell & Farrell are excellent. Blondell was edible. This was very funny and I laughed often throughout it. Great dialogue and its loaded with wisecracks. I could've watched it for hours. Tremendous fun to watch. Black Day Blue Night was actually good modern noir. Three young nomads on the run from their own lives team up on something of a road trip through a desert in the middle of nowhere (as most modern noir does). One woman finds that her husband is cheating on her, and after finding him in a hotel room, decides to head off and start anew. Strangely enough, she travels with her husband's mistress, who is forgiveable given that the sleazebag never told her he was married. And together, while driving in the pouring rain, they meet a third, very mysterious young man with a suitcase full of secrets. While they're giddy and free and all suspicious of one another, the cops back at town have them marked as suspects in the death of a policeman.

Black Day Blue Night starts out with immediate confrontation, and throws in a pretty good story with all it's twists meant to mislead your suspicions of one character after another, leading to a very unusual ending. That is, the movie starts with immediate action confrontation, and once you think the story is solved, you are immediately thrust into yet another turn in the plot, revealing just a little more than you expected before the movie is over.

But, as some viewers have written, the ending is slightly confusing and a bit of a let down. The killer is not who you would immediately expect and, once revealed, becomes somewhat confusing due to a rather thinly explained flashback which reveals all of the necessary motive to solve the mystery. But actually, there is a finale beyond that, which I would think is the most interesting of the film. Because modern noir always involves a circle of criminal suspects, almost always all of them guilty of something, it is also a genre that always involves money. And thus the question in these movies always becomes --how far are the characters willing to go for money?

If you like this rendition of modern film noir, I would suggest watching Red Rock West (it's also got J.T. Walsh and some going-ons in the blasted desert)! It looks b grade and you will probably think there is no reason to rent this film! But do! I expected nothing from this movie, just something to pass the time, but I was hooked from the start! Two interesting premises - A bank robbery gone wrong, a million dollars missing and two girls on the road to start a new life - How will these two stories collide? Just when you think you know what direction the movie is headed, it does a 180 and you are left blown away by the great twists in the plot! It has a great but unexpected ending, and you are left wanting more - always a good sign - rent it or even buy it, you will not be disappointed! This neo-film noir is one of a genre of late twentieth century American films that all seem to involve corrupt characters, fast cars, a ribbon of highway and, of course, plenty of guns wielded by people who appear never to have taken a gun safety course. The actors are the best reason to see "Black Day, Blue Night." There is the late, great J.T. Walsh ("Swing Blade," "Pleasantville," "Red Rock West," "The Last Seduction," and many more), who did many neo-films noirs (See also "Breakdown"). Then there is Michele Forbes of the TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Homicide." (In a supporting role, there is even the late Bejamin Lum who also appeared on a Star Trek episode titled "The Naked Now.") A spoiler of sorts--a clue really: Only the most innocent survive, but innocence is a very relative term in a movie like this, and you probably won't guess who is innocent before the final reel. "The Charge at Feather River" is a routine Western about the U. S. Cavalry against the Cheyenne Indians... The film carried a constantly mounting tension with some pleasant diversion...

Guy Madison and Frank Lovejoy play the officers who rescue Helen Westcott and Vera Miles from the Indians...

The outdoor scenes are well photographed, specially the exciting Indian charge at Feather River at the climax of the movie with the rain of spears, the fight to-the-death between Madison and Thunderhawk, the sketches of the Guardhouse Brigade, even a mouthful of tobacco juice used against a rattlesnake, and the romantic interludes between our hero and Helen Westcott... All are here, pictorially entertaining in 3-D and Technicolor... Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days. Saw this film the first time in 1953 with my older brother. It was one of the great 3 Demension films released in that era. We saw it at least thirteen times and were proud of it. Scott does a typical western shoot em up job while surrounded by the Indian arrows rather than surround sound. Oh, for those polaroid lenses again. I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years to notice it.

As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.

There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them. What makes this one better than most "movie movies" is that it doesn't feel phony. The film the story of the hot-headed director and his rise and fall and rise, by using real recognizable names and events during the silent and early sound eras. Instead of the generic "sound will put us out of business" business, they actually SHOW Jolson and "The Jazz Singer". The acting is really quite good, with believeable performances from Don Ameche, Alice Faye and J. Edward Bromberg in particular. It's 1913. A studio prop boy spies the actress who is going to become Hollywood's next great movie star and he's the director that's going to make it happen. After inventing pie throwing and the keystone cops, his dream comes true. Being completely absorbed in his film-making, however, he fails to notice that he is losing his leading lady to another man. Several over-budget flops later, he is known as nothing more than the director who turned down Rin-tin-tin. Fortunately for him, the loyal and compassionate residents of Hollywood are untainted by ambition and ego. He'll be okay as long as he still has his friends.

This movie starts out as a mad-cap comedy typical of the time period, and in the opening scenes it holds its own with the best of them. It has a playful lack of self-consciousness which is sorely missing in most of today's comedies. Shortly into the film, however, it moves away from this mode of comedy and instead attempts to entertain us using the films within the film. These are silent slapstick comedies, well done but nothing out of the ordinary, and they go on for much longer than is necessary for any audience which has seen the originals. Upon returning, the film takes a dramatic turn. It's well written and the cast does an excellent job of making the transition, but the movie really should have decided from the beginning what it was going to be.

By the end of the film, it has transformed once again - this time into a paean to the glitter of Hollywood. The small town of Los Angeles has grown up into the city which makes the movies that entertain the whole world.

In spite of its promising beginnings, this film has not aged particularly well. Nevertheless, it does have some strong scenes, a certain nostalgic appeal, and an entertaining sub-text about the people who made it and the audiences it was made for. "Hollywood Cavalcade" is a mildly entertaining 1939 film starring two staples of the 20th Century Fox roster, Don Ameche and Alice Faye, and containing a couple of in jokes.

The film concerns a Max Sennett type, Michael Connors (Ameche) who brings an actress to Hollywood, Molly Adair (Faye) and makes her a big silent comedienne, eventually moving her into more dramatic roles. He becomes extremely successful with her as his star. Obsessed with his work, he's absolutely shocked when she and her leading man (Alan Curtis) run off and get married. He's so shocked, he dumps her. She and her husband go off and continue to be more and more popular while Connors' studio starts losing money at an alarming rate. Before you know it, he's through. Molly wants to help and asks that Connors direct her next film.

There's lots of Keystone Kop type footage, which is quite funny, and some fantastic slapstick by Buster Keaton, who is wonderful. The film also has a scene from "The Jazz Singer" when the talkies take over. The in-joke, of course, has to do with Rin Tin-Tin, for whom Zanuck used to write. In one scene, Rinny's trainer brings him in as a potential contract player for Connors' studio. Connors throws both of them out of his office. A few scenes later, Rin-Tin-Tin is shown to be #1 box office. The role of the famous German shepherd in this film is played by Rin Tin-Tin, Jr., daddy having passed away in Jean Harlow's arms in 1932, one month shy of his 14th birthday. Fortune smiled on him even at the end.

Alice Faye is very pretty and does a fine job, as does Ameche, who turns in an energetic performance. J. Edward Bromberg and Stuart Erwin provide very good support.

Unfortunately, this film isn't quite sure what it is - history, comedy, romance, or drama. However, "Hollywood Cavalcade" is still quite watchable. The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a "positive" reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael "Linnett" Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, "here I am!". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, "I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help." Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and a third one is coming our way this summer.

The first one, which was released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable, there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however, takes all of these aspects and excels upon them.

The action first of all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force of the fighting.

The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney, however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid.

The music... I think that's where this movie fails. The original composer/conductor for the TV show was used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to the action. But, except for a few violin/string pieces towards the end and some choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything special.

The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and exciting.

Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be, it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because... I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers. I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants. It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a better villain than any of those in the previous movie. I'm a big fan of Naruto, even though I haven't watched every episode or read every manga.

I really liked the first Naruto movie, and to tell you the truth I was a little nervous that this one wouldn't be as good (or action packed) as the first (mainly because this one in Australia only had a PG instead of an M, which is a PG-13 US or 12 UK). But I was wrong (thankfully)! The animation was more improved (although some drawings of the characters at points looked rushed) and was very good especially in the fight scenes.

Speaking of that, let's talk about the fight scenes! The animation and action in the fight scenes was spectacular and very entertaining! I especially enjoyed the genjutsu battle with kankuro and the fight with Gaara fighting the shape shifting female warriors! All the characters you want are here! Naruto, Sakura, Gaara, Kankuro and Shikamaru! If only Temari was in the movie, Shikamaru could save her from the female warriors in dramatic fashion! And maybe they could have a PASSIONATE KISS! In my summary at the top I say that this qualify's more as a piece of Cinema than just an extended episode. And it does! The action is very cinematic and the animation quality looks very fancy especially during the fighting! Overall, this is a excellent anime Film that is a must-see for any Naruto fan! 5/5! 10/10! 50/50! 100/100! Alright I'll stop! I have to say this is one of the best movie i have seen so far for naruto. the action was a lot better then the first movie because it had a lot more fight scene and it came to u at a faster pace. it was amazing, the choreograph was excellent as well as most of the visual effects.

the story line is something new to naruto. but it is basically the same as the first movie. in the series u see them fight against other ninjas,but in the movies (1+2) u see them fighting against machine of mass destruction. it is nice to see them fighting something other then ninja, and that it was great to see some other power other then chakra. and how other people from other land across the ocean fight. also sakura finally killed someone that is more stronger then her. (she have truly become strong) it was a lot better then the fillers on the series that i'm watching now. when u watch this movie the fast action scene will surely make your heart pound. With new jutsus and garra in the movie, u know it is good. and the music was good as well, but i find it to be lacking something. But the ending theme song was a plus. (dind dong dang) i think was a really good song. I totally recommend it.

all in all i give this movie a 10, because i just love it. if u do decide to watch it, enjoy it. lol One Life Stand is an accomplished piece of film making which hasn't been given the credit it deserves. Its IMDB rating of 1.7 doesn't do it justice and is, perhaps, due to the very few screenings it has had rather than the quality of the film itself. Shot on digital in black and white, the film is well directed with production values that belie its shoestring budget. The performances are excellent, particularly that of Gary Lewis who gets better with every role. My only criticisms are that it is a bit on the long side and could have done with a touch more humour to offset the darker moments. Overall, though, it is a fine piece of work. I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is this the future of wonderful, affordable film making? Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors, I saw One Life Stand when it premiered at the 2000 Edinburgh International Film Festival and was blown away by it. Made on a micro budget, this black and white digital movie is very much a European film and succeeds brilliantly in spite of the limitations of DV. The film works because it's in the indie tradition - dealing with complex issues, yet moving and relieved by touches of understated humour. One Life Stand avoids falling into the trap of other UK realist films, with ordinary working people portrayed as either hopeless victims or comedic stereotypes. The performances are strong, particularly Maureen Carr as the mother, Trise. I understand the film has recently been released on DVD and I would definitely recommend it. The rating on this site is misleading, which is why I gave it a high score because the filmmaker, May Miles Thomas obviously put her heart and soul into it and deserves better than 2.8 for her amazing achievement. A truly accurate and unglamourous look into modern day life. It could be set in any town in the UK.

I live in a housing estate in Glasgow and can relate to this film very well.

Sadly the situations and characters are all too realistic but not predictable.

The actors are scarily believable, I felt as if I was spying on my neighbours. It was an intimate dip into the lives of fragile and hopeless people. I was very moved by a few scenes.

I loved the way this film was shot.

Overall this film IS a must see. Seriously engaging, intelligent and thought provoking drama at its very best. Mean, gripping, moody and captivating. Every home should have a copy! Don't take my word for it see it yourself. One Life Stand makes you consider your own lifestyle and how you treat your family and friends. Beautiful photography and impressive acting makes for one of the best cinema-graphic experiences of the year. John Kielty's debut is a delight and adds a real touch of truth and realism to this deep and gritty film. This is a film that cares and has an honesty that is unequalled in recent years. No car chases, but a film packed with hum our and emotion. I first saw this film screened at the Edinburgh film festival in 2000 and am now delighted to be able to own a copy on DVD. All budding filmmakers should watch this movie - it is like a masterclass in digital film- making in itself. Some of the scenes look like they have been shot on much higher production values than what they really have been. It is very encouraging that such a well crafted piece of work can be made on a low budget. The acting is very good, and the characters are very interesting, particularly that of the lead boy (John Kielty), who manages to play a teenager experiencing difficulties whilst remaining really likable. His beautiful but fading mother was also very well portrayed, and the relationship between her and her boss was very intriguing. This is a very quirky, interesting piece and I will be looking for anything else made by the same team. The director is certainly one to watch. I just watched the DVD of this award winning film. One Life Stand is a stark drama that through it's pace, black and white shots and atmospheric music, paints a very compelling and honest picture. It's a story about life's dilemma's around power, sex and control highlighted by a few sad lonely lives. The mother (very well acted by Maureen Carr) is uptight and drawn in on herself. The father only appears on the side-lines, and yet is a powerful and pivotal part of the drama. Money is hidden in boxes and shoes.

The writing was superb, and I liked the sensual close-up shots of details such as nails, red lips, a candle, mirrors etc. The way the camera was used made it very intimate. It's a harrowing tale, with sexual undertones, while the Glasgow drizzle on the dark streets adds to the despair of the sad characters.

There are some highly memorable shots conveyed simply by a walk, or a dropped shoulder - such as Trise walking away under the bridge. And the stunned and hurt look on Trise's face in the call centre, which hopes to helps people through using tarot cards, as she listens to a caller talk of her own abuse.

At the start we see John Paul, wide-eyed and innocent, having photos shot as he wants to try modelling. Trise, his mother, is deluded and making poor choices for him, in a way pushing him away while she tries to keep him. John Paul's modelling turns into escort work and Trise's boss offers her money, and eventually they go on a date. There are also moments of humour and subtle irony. One excellent scene is when they are having a fairly normal meal, and starting to open up a bit, when the father appears with his dark presence and clouds everything over. But this, and other things offer moments of hope.

I felt at times the pacing of the film was a shade too intense, but this is a small detail in another wise challenging and memorable film, and something a bit different. It stands in start contrast to most American films which are either total fantasy, or the real' world' as seen through tainted glasses. This film depicts life with all its rough edges and displays unforgettable images.

This isn't 'light entertainment' but a thought provoking and real life drama.

One Life Stand is a truly involving and emotionally honest film. I would like to thank you for giving me a chance to be one of the first to actually view the film. It really does grip you. John Paul does eventually get to see the light and make a life for himself away from being tied to his mothers apron strings.

I imagine there must be so many families these days in the same position (especially with children leaving home older but I wouldn't say wiser) with very sad parents who haven't really got lives of their own and who make their lives a misery.

I think this film should definitely have a wider audience. I would also say that the other actors played brilliant parts as well. It is such a deep film and very moving. I've enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in the theatre. Some movies have a cast of characters and a script that come together in perfect synergy, and this is one of them. The characters illustrate some truths about getting the best out of people, working together harmoniously, building a team and achieving goals, without ever preaching morality. The situations are crafted well and are consistent with the movie's opening premise. The tension builds nicely and the humor is clean and consistent throughout. The movie manages to pull me right in to root for the characters, and to laugh pretty well all the way through. This is a feel good movie as good as they come.

What amazes me is that a movie which appears so simple can be so long term entertaining. The music is a perfect copy of music in the typical serious post war navy movies, which helps to create the humor and point out that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. The scenes in the credits are a great music video of "In the Navy", which deserve their own full screen special feature. The scenes and cuts are crafted well, and the casting and acting is right on.

This movie is a classic as great as any ever made, without any pretensions. In fact, the lack of pretension is what makes it so much fun to watch. I love these guys and gal.

The other day I thought of the film, and wondered whether it was available on DVD. Good fortune has come to us, and the DVD came out in May 2004. I headed to the store, and snapped up a copy. Then my wife and I enjoyed another hilarious night in front of the big screen. I've rated this movie as a 10 because it comes together on all levels, far better than many high budget films and Oscar winners. This is entertainment.

Listen up Fox home video: you have a great movie in your vaults, and it's a shame to find a cheap shot DVD with badly degraded off tint colors only 8 years since release. So why not restore the colors and present the film as it was meant to be seen? I'd gladly pay a few bucks more to get the picture right. I'm grateful to have my own copy. Now give us the eye candy that the film deserves, and how about recreating the credit sequence as a full screen music video special feature. This is one of those movies the critics really missed the mark on. This movie is practically McHale's Navy for the 90s or Police Academy at sea. Grammer proves he can play roles other than Frasier as he outwits and outfoxes the Navy in order to get his own sub. Rob Schneider is as wormy as usual, the same in every role he plays, and Lauren Holly is the local sexpot albeit with a brain. Ken Hudson Campbell is as funny as usual with almost every line a catch phrase. The movie has a wonderful intelligent plot and a non-predictable script that still surprises me every time I watch it. Many of the Navy phrases and terms go over my head, though, but it's a small obstacle for the sheer accuracy and realism of the movie and its characters. I'm glad they finally released it on DVD. I bought the video tape years ago and watch it at least once or twice a year.

Grammer has a wry wit about him that really makes this movie a success. Its formula is certainly not original, but it's very funny nonetheless. I am very surprised that it didn't receive higher in the ratings.

It ranks as one of my all-time favorite comedies. It's just a fun little flick that makes you feel good. And sometimes, that's all a movie is meant to be. There was a recent documentary on making movies, that featured a long list of actors and directors talking about what its like to make movies. One common theme was you can have a great script, great cast, the best director and lots of money and still create a bad movie.

Down Periscope is proof of the corollary to that theory. Not an original or terribly well written screenplay. A few solid actors, but mostly unknowns, and this movie just makes you laugh out loud! It would be easy to just say that Kelsey Grammar carried this movie, but that isn't truly the case. Other character actors, like Rob Schneider, and the hilarious Harland Williams, added significantly to the enjoyability of the film.

Cast dynamics, or that mysterious "movie magic" are really what happened here, creating a film that flows smoothly, has incredibly well executed transitions and line after line of well written and well performed dialog.

A preposterous premise, lots and lots of technical inaccuracies and just plan silly things that could not happen in the real world, or the real navy, but you just don't care. As a merchant marine myself, I found that the overall feel of the movie, while not plausible, was also not too far off the mark as far as life at sea goes.

This is a VERY funny movie, a good family film, and, particularly if your a fan, lots of Kelsey Grammar wit, sarcasm and just damn funniness. Starring: Kelsey Grammar, Rob Schneider, Lauren Holly, Rip Torn This movie is a classic family favorite. At least for most members of my family that is. One of us rolls our eyes at the mention of this movie and thinks, "What a stupid movie." I'm not that person though. I still find this movie highly amusing. I just watched it again last night with someone who had never seen it, and I laughed just as hard as the first time I watched it. It's still very funny to me.

Naval Captain Tom Dodge (Grammar) is a bit of a black sheep in the navy. He's the kind of guy who will play golf while on a sub, cracking a ball onto a golf course while they sail past it. He's the kind of guy who will get drunk, pass out, and wake up with a hangover and a tattoo on his dongle. He's not the kind of guy that everybody wants to be commanding a sub.

But Dodge is at the end of the line. He's put in applications to get command of his own sub several times, and if he doesn't get a sub this time, he's headed for a desk job, meaning that's it for naval life. The Admiralty decide to give him his own boat, but they don't give him a new nuclear sub. They give him a diesel sub, an ancient relic from World War II. His mission is to clean her up and take her out on the Atlantic for a war game.

Dodge is obviously a little bit frustrated to have such a crappy boat given to him when he's worked so hard to get to the point that he's at, so he goes and talks to Admiral Winslow (Torn) about it. Winslow explains the purpose of the war game. Diesel subs are still being sold out there in the real world, to countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to name a few. Winslow wants to know what would happen if some renegade captain in a diesel sub came to the States and tried to smuggle a nuclear warhead into one of the bases. Would they make it? Dodge and most of the Admiralty don't think so, but Winslow wants to know for sure, hence why he has devised this war game. Dodge's mission is to take the Stingray out to sea, then try to evade the U.S. nuclear navy and blow up the American naval bases. In simulated battle, of course.

So, that's about as deep as the plot gets. This is not a plot driven movie. It's a stupid movie that is just a big gag. It makes fun of itself, and you are not expected to take it seriously. If you're looking for good dumb laughs on a Friday night, I'd urge you to check it out.

Bottom Line: 3 out of 4 (worth a look) Surprisingly good and quick-witted adventure that features Kelsey Grammer (supposedly in his first lead role in a feature) as an unconventional Navy sub commander who wants to run a nuclear sub of his own, however; he has earn it by competing against the U.S. Navy in a series of war-games with a crew of untested, questionable, and lovable men (and a woman, too).

Director David S. Ward ("Major League") and his writers have put together a hysterically clever and upbeat comedy that tries to make the film easy to understand, which they do quite well. Second, besides the Grammer character, most of the crew provide some or plenty of the movie's humor, which is treated like a double-edged sword. Three members of the supporting cast - Harland Williams, Toby Huss, and Rob Schneider provide the funniest scenes, which includes weird gestures, impersonations, and, well, their personalities.

"Down Periscope" is more than a Navy version of "Police Academy" or "The Dirty Dozen". What the film does is get the job done the right way and I liked it. LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean "Tom Cruise". Maverick means "non-conformist".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia, North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before 9/11.

The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors. Despite having "welcome aboard" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of "Police Academy". I love military comedies (Sgt. Bilko, Stripes, In The Army Now, Major Payne) and Down Periscope is hilarious, but it has a heart as well.

The Stingray SS-161 (The USS Pampanito) was gorgeous. Absolutely beautiful, a piece of art come alive. So it was a diesel engine sub, so what? I learned that the Aircraft Carrier USS Ranger (which stood in for The Enterprise in Star Trek IV), a huge ship, was 'conventionally powered', which might mean that Ranger was a diesel too.

My favorite scene: Pascal: Jesus, Buckman, this can's been on the stingray since Korea! This can expired in 1966! Buckman: (Takes finger full and tastes it) What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like creamed corn.

Pascal: (Yelling) Except, it's DEVILED HAM!! Buckman: That would be a problem.

It's story, perhaps a wee strained, seemed plausible. Winslow respected Dodge, and seemed to care about him, so he wanted to give Dodge a chance. He gave him a battered but still seaworthy Balao-class sub, and assigns him the task of using the diesel sub to evade the nuclear Navy and 'attack' Charlston Harbor, and Norfolk. 2-star Admiral Graham (with his eye on his third star, and a grudge against Dodge) assigned him the ragtag crew, hoping that they would screw up so Dodge would lose. Can Tom Dodge get the crew up to speed and working as a team, and can he take an old, out of date sub, and beat the Navy's best? Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.

Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.

The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.

Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious. The scripting of the subtle comedy is unmatched by any movie in recent years. The characters are interesting, even if a bit predictable. The comedic timing written into the script is more than enough to make up for a well-worn underdog plot. When you're sure you know the ending....SURPRISE! Highly recommended for all ages, although the younger set will probably not appreciate some of the more subtle references, they will certainly appreciate one galley scene in particular! Great movie! "Down Periscope" has been in our library since it first arrived in VHS. Since then, we have acquired the DVD and a digital from Cinema Now.

It is a quirky flick that does not go militarily overboard as either pro or con. It is first and foremost a comedy and as a vehicle for the main characters, I am quite surprised that a sequel has never been offered.

The movie has gained a following that borders on a cult obsession, even among the very young. I became aware of this while visiting the USS Drum in Mobile, Alabama in 2002. A group of Cub Scouts, my grandson among them, had all taken up the roles from the movie and planned to relive it during their overnighter on board.

It is a fun romp that makes you proud both of our Navy and Hollywood... which is rare company.

Thanks to Kelsey Grammar, Lauren Holly and Rob Schneider for making what could have been an otherwise unremarkable movie, such great entertainment! This is a VERY underrated movie to say the least. As has been pointed out in previous posts, this movie has a somewhat loose and highly implausible script but you find yourself saying "Who cares?" while shooting milk (or insert beverage of your choice here) through your nose. It was indeed due to a rare mix of actors in sync. While Kelsey Grammar is obviously a gifted actor (reference 'Frasier', this movie) the supporting actors/actress play their roles quite well. I found in interesting how they threw in the part about Duane Martin blowing the shot in the 'big game' for Navy's basketball team; if any of you is a basketball fan you'll remember Martin from 'White Men Can't Jump' and 'Above the Rim' and you'll know that Martin had a short stint in the NBA with the Knicks. Nice how they threw in believable character attributes such as this. Rob Schneider's anal-retentive character was the perfect offset to Grammar's calm demeanor. Lauren Holly played the gutsy-sexpot-with-a-brain well enough to make you want her to succeed. This is a movie that will make you laugh even if you've seen it many times before...the comic bits in this movie definitely last. I still find myself laughing 12 years later.

"Is that one of my chickens?" "Uhhh...no. This a parrot....from the Caribbean." "Well don't let it fly away...that's supper." "Arrrrr.....arr." I just discovered this film and love it. Just the right mix of fast moving story, entertaining characters, hilarious moments (but not overloaded with stupid jokes), and fun performances by Kelsey Grammar, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron Schneider, Rip Torn and more. Buckman is especially good, and I really enjoyed watching the guy who played Stapanick.

I also find it interesting that they used a real submarine, the Pampanito, for the running on top scenes and emulated it almost exactly for their sets. The set decoration is really impressive if you do a digital tour of the Pampanito online and then compare it to scenes in the movie. They did an excellent job on this film.

What a light entertaining and truly enjoyable movie! I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with "Pushing Tin" for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.

There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, "with a tattoo on his thing", is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).

Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the "run silent" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.

Towards the end the machinist says "D.B.F." with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear "DBF" pins - Diesel Boats Forever.

A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.

I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise! It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the "Wackiest Ship in the Arm" and the "Pink Sub" this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and "pirate" crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about lines than plot. From the "beered up" fisherman in Charleston harbor to the "whale" decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud. Down Periscope is not a "Great Movie". But then again very few flicks are. So if your looking for entertainment instead of great wisdom this is a "great movie", without the capitals. No sharp sexism or graphic violence spoil this light comedy about a bunch of misfits who are assigned to a antique submarine. They are set to fail their tasks so that a general can get his extra star. They must take on the entire US-navy with it's nuclear submarines. But they are underdogs and this is a comedy so you can guess the outcome. But you root for those underdogs and this makes it a very entertaining movie. Watch and enjoy ******** (eight stars that is) Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these days, it's a 10.

Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start to finish.

Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like "Frank Burns") and pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and Bruce Dern.

Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2! The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of "different" sailors- I even married one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar with his "God I LOVE this job!"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I just love it! I really enjoyed this movie. I have probably watched it 2 dozen times or more and still enjoy it. Being an old Navy guy, Im still stirred by the rousing rendition of Anchors Away! I also love the "McHales Navy" pirate atmosphere. I could have done without the female dive officer but Im just old fashioned I guess. She was still good to look at, lol, espesially after the crew got done with her laundry. The cook, sonarman, and electrician made the movie. Loved the salty old engineer and his first class PO too. And Grammer actually did a very commendable job of being a misfit Officer. I loved the "driving scene" as they passed the golf course on the way into port, lol. Pure Navy! And I swear I had an XO that was just like that little weasel... Im am so glad this is out on DVD, about bloody time. :0) This film is about a bunch of misfits who are supposed to be assigned to a task that is expected to fail miserably. The misfits pull together to successfully complete their mission.

Hilarity ensues.

Like the "Police Academy" films, the humor comes from the kooky characters on the boat. I thought it was an engaging film and I will stop to watch it anytime it is on TV. No, it won't cause you to ponder your relative role in the cosmos or inspire you to do great things for the service of mankind, but it is fun enough entertainment for 90-some-odd minutes. Plus, Lauren Holly looks hot in a naval uniform. You know sometimes you just gotta have it? That's how this movie is with me. I am almost embarrassed to admit that I like it, it is so goofy in some parts, but I find myself reaching for it when I'm down and just need a good laugh...and trust me, I am just not a "goofy movie" kinda guy.

You can read the synopsis so I don't have to bore you with that, just rest assured, if you like Kelsey Grammer you will probably like this movie.

One more thing, be SURE to watch the end credits. You don't need to read them, just watch them and catch the performance of "In the Navy" by the Village People...and friends. I've seen this movie at least 8 times, and I still laugh every time. The movie is about how an intelligent and motivated man, against all odds, can cheat the entire over-self-confident system.

This movie is for all people, who like a funny movie.

The action and comedy is well mixed into a brilliant film, that I hope to see on DVD soon.

As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and has all of the "inside jokes" from the submarine force. A great cast with the stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the "Orlando" and our heroes on the diesel boat. Definitely "DBF" by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here?

Line 10. I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was exact. Nice going troops. I've lost count of the times I have seen this movie, but I love it and find it very funny each time I see it. The facial expressions, slapstick humor and the timing on the jokes makes it great. The characters, especially "Nitro", "Sonar" and "Stepanik" are hilarious. I thought Kelsey Grammar, Rip Torn and Bruce Dern did a great job. In fact, I think this movie was perfectly cast. I think it does need to be released in DVD before I wear my VHS version out. This is one of my 3 favorite movies. I've been out on the water since I was 13, so I got a lot of the humor as well as recognizing a lot of the near-land scenery (the movie, although taking place in and around Virginia, was filmed around the San Francisco Bay), most notably the mothball fleet just east of the Benicia Bridge where Kelsey Grammar's character was first introduced to the USS Stingray, and the piers of San Francisco at the very end of the movie (including a boat that I've worked on). As other people have said, the actors appeared to have fun making this movie as well as making it entertaining. The line "We're approaching the bottom, sir! I can hear a couple of lobsters duking it out" is, at least to me, priceless.

I am one of numerous people who is anxiously awaiting a letterboxed DVD of Down Periscope to be introduced. I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release! especially when looking at the amount of crap that has made it to DVD. I found this movie very funny. Rip Torn is classic with his barbs; Rob Schneider if hilariously annoying as the over-compensating Ensign; Bruce Dern makes a great "villain". The entire cast seems to be having a blast, and it's not at the expense of the audience. If you like just plain fun comedy, and aren't looking too deeply into meaning, you just might fall in love with this one. My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS. If you like the excitement of a good submarine drama and the fun of a good comedy, then this film comes highly recommended. Kelsey Grammer gives an excellent performance here.

The film also gives you something to think about the next time a serious sub movie asks for 'silent running'....

Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of 19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband. But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players' performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is indeed a solid good movie. In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo.

"Ai no Borei" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive "Ringu" and the American remake "The Ring" use the view of the well from inside in the same angle. The performances and direction are excellent making "Ai no Borei" a great movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Império da Paixão" ("The Empire of Passion") A genuinely creepy ghost story, full of chills and sensuality, this movie just falls short of what it promises. It is apparently based on an old ghost story, and perhaps relies a little too much on a simple premise. For most of the way, its imaginative and genuinely gripping, but at the end its almost like Oshima just lost interest in it, and brought it to a rapid ending.

The story is simple - a woman and her younger lover kill her husband so that they can be together. But their failure of nerve and his returning ghost condemn them to madness. Its beautifully handled, with imaginative set scenes, and the lovers passion is portrayed beautifully. But too often the movie fails to really deliver on its promise, almost as if Oshima loses his nerve in the same way the lovers do.

Its a worthwhile movie to watch just to see how Oshima combines his great skill as a film maker with some exploitation movie tricks to pull the audience along, but sadly its not a true classic in the mold of movies like Onibaba or Woman of the Dunes. Where do I begin? Let me say that -- after having watched the entire film and the special features on the DVD -- my wife and I watched the whole film again with the director's commentary running. I can't remember having ever before endured more than 7 minutes of such commentary for a film. It's worth hearing.

I'm not a southern boy, but I spent some time around Memphis a long time ago, and have a feel for the area. This film almost smells of the South, it's so real. Samuel Jackson, one of my all-time favorite actors, is magnificent as the emotionally bent Lazarus, and Christina Ricci gives the performance of a lifetime as Rae, a woman who's been wounded severely during her brief life. I've always liked Ms. Ricci's work, but in this performance she's giving 137% of herself every second she's on the screen. Awards and little statues are not enough to reward her for what she lays before the audience in this film.

There are other places where you can read the essence of the story, so I'm just commenting on the work. I'd heard the name Justin Timberlake before seeing "BSM," but had no idea what he looked like, or even why he's famous. Bumping my head on 60 years old, I'm outside his target demographic, to say the least. After seeing this film I will recognize him. He can act! He gives a substantial, believable performance as the loving soulmate of the county slut.

The director is from Memphis, and shows reverence for his home region. He is also a fine story teller.

.....and I MUST mention the music. I love Blues, and the soundtrack for Black Snake Moan is a veritable feast for a blues fan.

I'm writing less coherently than usual because my enthusiasm for this movie is overcoming my sentence structure. See this film, and I mean now. my girlfriend, as we walk in the cold London evening in leicester square, after the movie, says: if they didn't speak English and they didn't show the stadium, you could have thought this was the slums of a South American city or some other slum anywhere in the world,not Queens in NYC.

Ramin Bahrani is , right now, my official hero, because he seems to have devoted his work to show not the OTHER face of American, but the REAL face of America.

Ramin Bahrani's movies are like Ladri di biciclette, or Germania anno zero, or Roma citta' aperta. Chop shop is reality turned into a movie, is more realistic than a documentary, in fact I think Ramin Bahrani's movies are more realistic than documentaries. This is a great movies, but don't expect any car chase or shooting. This movie is about tragic lives on the margin of the wealthiest , richest country in the world. Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), called Ale for short, works at an auto-body repair shop in what has come to be known as the Iron Triangle, a deteriorating twenty block stretch of auto junk yards and sleazy car repair dealers close to Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Here customers do not question whether or not parts come from stolen cars or why they are able to receive such large discounts, they simply put down their cash and hope that everything is on the up and up. Sleazy outskirts like these are not highlighted in the tour guides but Iranian-American director Ramin Bahrani puts them on vivid display in Chop Shop, a powerful Indie film that received much affection last year at Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. A follow up to his acclaimed "Man Push Cart", Bahrani spent one and a half years in the location that F. Scott Fitzgerald described as in the Great Gatsby as "the valley of the ashes".

For all its depiction of bleakness, Chop Shop is not a work of social criticism but, like Hector Babenco's Pixote, a poignant character study in which a young boy's survival is bought at the price of his innocence. Shot on location at Willets Point in Queens, Bahrani makes you feel as if you are there, sweating in a hot and humid New York summer with all of its noise and chaos. The film's focus is on the charming, street-smart 12-year-old Ale who lives on the edge without any adult support or supervision other than his boss (Rob Sowulski), the real-life proprietor of the Iron Triangle garage. Polanco's performance is raw and slightly ragged yet he fully earned the standing ovation he received at the film's premiere at Cannes along with a hug from great Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami.

Cramped into a tiny room above the garage together with his 16-year-old sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who works dispensing food from a lunch wagon, Ale is like one of the interchangeable spare parts he deals with. While he has dreams of owning his own food-service van, in the city that never sleeps, he knows that the only thing that may make the "top of the heap" is another dented fender. In this environment, Ale and Isi use any means necessary to keep their heads above water while their love for each other remains constant and they still laugh and act out the childhood that was never theirs. As Barack Obama says in his book "Dreams From My Father", the change may come later when their eyes stop laughing and they have shut off something inside. In the meantime, Ale supplements his earnings by selling candy bars in the crowded New York subways with his friend Carlos (Carlos Zapata) and pushing bootleg DVDs on the street corners, while Isi does tricks for the truck drivers to save enough money to buy the rusted $4500 van in which they hope to start their own business.

Though Ale is a "good boy", he is not above stealing purses and hubcaps in the Shea Stadium parking lot, events that Bahrani's camera observes without judgment. In Chop Shop, Bahrani has provided a compelling antidote to the underdog success stories churned out by the Hollywood dream factory, and has given us a film of stunning naturalism and respect for its characters, similar in many ways to the great Italian neo-realist films and the recent Iranian works of Kiarostami, Panahi, and others. While the outcome of the characters is far from certain, Bahrani makes sure that we notice a giant billboard at Shea Stadium that reads, "Make dreams happen", leaving us with the hint that, in Rumi's phrase, "the drum of the realization of that promise is beating," A friend brought me this movie and at first I was hesitating, the pace in the movie was so slow that it was admittedly boring at the beginning. But the life scenes were attractive, it's like observing than watching.

It turned out to be simply stunning throughout the film, the way how the director handled the life scenes to reflect the reality was confounding but somehow also overwhelming. It's like understanding the real life of a lively person than watching a movie.

Mr Alejandro Polanco and Miss Isamar Gonzales did their roles so well that it's more like telling us their own stories. Indeed they used their real names in the movie. Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York.

These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level.

Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister.

Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.

The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister. Chop Shop is a hidden treasure out in theaters! I cannot begin to describe how wonderful the performances are in this movie. This film is for anyone who wants to watch a powerful story and see an example of what contemporary movies should look and be like.

This film is about a young boy, Alejandro "Ale" who works and lives with his teenage sister, Isamar "Izzie" in a one-room tiny loft in an auto shop. The story takes place in a part of New York City (that I did not even know existed--Willits Points) where there are endless junkyards and body shops. Here, Bahrani tells the story of two forgotten children hoping to support themselves by buying and fixing up a food van.

Ale makes money helping at the auto shop, and Izzie helps at a food van; both, however, earn extra money on the side. Ale sells bootleg movies and stolen car parts; Izzie results to selling herself. Their lives are surrounded by grit and grim, but even though both witness, live and barely survive within their harsh world, their love for each other is never tainted by the filth that surround them. And occasionally they are able to laugh and enjoy moments of their childhood that is being stolen by the reality of struggling to survive and stay together.

The best comparison I have for Chop Shop is that Bahrani's juxtaposition of an innocent love between family members against such a bleak atmosphere is as powerful as Pasolini's Mama Roma combined with the struggles of growing up too fast in an adverse environment just as in Bresson's Mouchette.

Having co-written, directed and edited both this film and his first, Man Push Cart (which won awards all over the world), Bahrani is a total package filmmaker.

I can only hope that his films will not be hidden treasures for long! This almost documentary look at an enterprising boy who lives in the body shop area outside of New York is real all the way. Real lighting. Real sound. Less editing in the whole movie than in 1 minute of most movies. And while there is very little script, there is a story. Shot in primary colors, almost all red, white, blue and yellow, we get a real sense of the life of a boy who is making something from nothing. He has a place to live that he makes his own, has a good job, and is trying to bring his sister into his little universe. The people in the chop shop area also give us a look at this culture which I didn't know about. They mostly seem decent and pay Ale what seems like daily, seeming truly concerned about his well being. The actor (I think) playing Ale says more with one facial expression than one can imagine. This reminded me what a true small movie can accomplish. It shows what kids are capable of, even without much support and love. Definitely recommend. Ramin Bahrani sets up a scene early on in Chop Shop that immediately had me identifying with where the character of Ale (Alejandro Polanco) and his friend were coming from. The two of them get on a subway, and as soon as the doors close they ask if they could have everyone's attention for a moment, and that they are selling candy bars or M&M's or something, and then they proceed to sell some bars. If you (as I) have ever been on a subway in New York city, at any time, this is the kind of situation that happens so often you almost don't notice it. Often the people on a subway will see kids like these or minorities selling something or announcing and talking about something on a subway and not pay them any mind. Bahrani's focus isn't necessarily just on kids who hock things for sale on subway rides, but on survival and the state of being one is in when in the lower class in America. It is, subsequently in his hands, thoughtful and heartbreaking, usually at once.

To compare it to Pixote or the Bicycle Thief isn't too far of a leap (actually in the latter at least the father and son have each other), though Bahrani is specific in his intentions in his documentary style. We care about this character Ali, no older than eleven and working in a car shop cleaning some cars and helping take apart others, and his sister who comes from out of town to stay with him. But it's not simply because we're force-fed any clichés, aside from, you know, a brother and sister (more-so the brother) trying to take care of one another. Bahrani makes the story accessible through the simple aspiration Ali has, the kind of goal that is possible attainable in his situation: saving up enough to buy a used food truck that Ali and Isamar can operate themselves.

It's all Ali is working for, but what Bahrani shows us in brutal detail is this work, what Ali has to do to make it happen even if its distasteful things like ripping hubcaps off of tires from cars in Shea Stadium or, at one point, stealing a purse in a desperate moment. This makes it all the more serious an issue when Ale sees what his sister does for money on the side at night, doing sexual favors for men in an abandoned truck on the side of the road. He doesn't mention it and pushes it aside, but its always something that adds to the tension, something Ale wants to protect his sister from. It adds to the tragedy when Ale finds out the real cost of what it will take to make the food truck into a profit-maker, a cost that just further adds to the anguish that he just internalizes.

One could look immediately at the fact that Ale is an orphan in such a neighborhood as the one in the area of Queens the film was shot in- naturally, as with a work of neo-neo realism (lets just call it realism), featuring practically all non-professional actors in the parts of the mechanics and workers and people on the streets- but Bahrani is focused more-so on the here and the now, and that is what makes Chop Shop so immediate and heartfelt. Not a trace of melodrama is in the film, barely even music accompaniment aside from the live Latino music coming from the cars and radios. Sometimes Bahrani will focus on a very subtle moment that makes it pronounced in further scenes, like the way Ale is awake but acts like he's asleep the first night after he witnesses Isamar's late-night tryst, and we see as she slinks into bed she probably knows he's awake but neither can say a word. Or, in a lot of other scenes, poetic touches that seem seamless, like when the man shows Ale how feeding the pigeons work.

It's rough and gritty, as you can expect, and it doesn't give much hope for its main characters despite the few moments of happiness sprinkled about. It's also a superbly shot hand-held film, where the technique, as with a lot of movies made in its urban-set tone and approach, informs and compliment the subjects on screen and what they're doing, but it also is never recklessly shot or too flashy. The filmmaker has a superb 'real-life' cast (Ale was plucked from a NYC public school without any experience) and knows how to not waste a shot, while at the same time achieve a brutal artistry with just showing what he shows. It's not City of God or Pixote; it's its own little masterpiece on a character or characters we usually would just not give a second look to (or a first one barely) on our way in a city such as New York. If you're not moved by Ale and his daily struggles, I don't know what to do for you. Chop Shop, the second feature from Ramin Bahrani, is a rare breed. It is an American film that tells a story not usually found in American cinema, the story of the of a minority living in poverty. It is a work of simple beauty. Shot on location in Queens, New York in the shadows of Shea Stadium, Chop Shop is neo-realism to the core. Featuring a cast of non-actors, it has more in common with Vittorio De Sica's classic Bicycle Thieves than anything made in the United States. There is no score or soundtrack, all the music and sounds are diagetic. Watching it feels like watching a great foreign film, it takes us to another world because it is so uncommon to see. However this other world is not post-World War II Rome or Istanbul or New Delhi, it is contemporary New York City.

Bahrani tells the story of Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), better known as Ale. He is a 12-year-old Latin-American kid with no parents or family unit to watch after him. He lives in a tiny room upstairs in the auto shop that he also works at. He shares the same bed with his teenage sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales). Neither of them have made it passed second grade. Ale, though young, is tough and mature. He acts as the head of the small family. He hooks his sister up with a job, and he himself does anything he can to make a buck when not working at the chop shop. He sells bootleg DVDs on the streets and candy in subways. He searches for scrap auto parts and sells them to the many auto shops lining the street where he lives.

Alejandro is heartbroken when he learns his sister is working nights as a prostitute. He himself becomes progressively disinterested in abiding by the law. He begins to steal, first car parts and later wallets. Like Antonio, the desperate protagonist in Bicycle Thieves, we cannot blame Ale for becoming a thief. It is merely survival. Ale and Isamar save up in hopes of buying a food vending van for $4,500. They see the van as their way out, and there is much optimism. However, as is usually the case in neo-realism, we know this will only lead to disappointment.

Polanco's riveting performance is what gives legitimacy to Chop Shop's realism. Here is a 12-year-old character that needs to be believably independent and vulnerably naive. Whether he is directing cars to the shop, selling movies and Snickers bars or playing with his sister in their scanty room, it is authentic.

Chop Shop is a sobering reminder that not all American children grow up in a land of opportunity. Ale's lifestyle is what many in middle-class white America consider 'third world'. They act cognizant the poverty and deprivation in foreign lands while sipping their coffee and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning, but make themselves blind to it on their own streets. Once you watch Chop Shop, you will think differently of the kids peddling candy on the subway.

more reviews at www.mediasickness.com For the very reason that I love movies such as "Central do Brasil" ("Central Station", 1998), I really love "Chop Shop". There is no sugar-coating, there is no attempt to make these people's lives over to something more palatable or pretty. What you see is what you get, and that is often gritty and at times heartbreaking. But that is exactly what makes a movie such as "Chop Shop" so wonderful, alongside the fact that the storyline unfolds so elegantly and subtly. For a young brother and sister, who are about as close to homelessness as one would ever want to get, working (and living) at an auto body repair shop in Queens, New York is as good as it gets. Is this a good or bad thing? That is the question this movie essentially poses to the viewer. This movie is really a fantastic slice-of-life piece that at times feels like a documentary instead of a drama, and that is a great thing, because it looks and feels so real. In the midst of so, so many current movies based on essentially surreal and often implausible plots, stumbling upon "Chop Shop" is like finding a little gem. I enjoyed Ramin Bahrani's Man Push Cart, and this film is equally good. This slice of life is almost a documentary about how life on the edges is lived.

Alejandro Polanco and Isamar Gonzales do an excellent job as a 12-year-old brother and a 16-year-old sister who live in a small room over an auto shop. There are no parents; they are on their own surviving. Ali supplements his income by stealing auto parts, selling bootleg DVDs and selling candy on the subway. Izzie supplements her income working a food truck by selling herself. They are trying to make money to but their own truck.

One is tempted to express outrage at the fact that these two children are left to fend on their own, and certainly one can be very upset that Izzie sells her body to willing truckers, but the fact is that this exists today in the world's richest country, not some underdeveloped land. Save the outrage and do something. Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think. Some critics have compared Chop Shop with the theatrical releases of City of God and Pixote. I've seen both of those as well as Chop Shop and like in many instances, I don't feel the comparison is warranted. City of God and Pixote surely had a much higher budget. Chop Shop is a low budget independent film about survival and hope, disappointment, and continuing with life. One of the scenes is allegedly filmed during the US Open and either the filmmakers had incredible connections or the scene was filmed at another time and the US open footage was added. I say that because I live in the area where this movie was filmed and security is insane while the tennis matches are in progress. It's also noteworthy that the actors actual names were their character's names in the movie. Back to the movie. It's an enjoyable story about survival. However, it ended up getting a 7 because... at times the actors acted extremely well. At other times, they appeared to be just reciting their lines. If the actors were less competent (as they were in the low budget "The Big Dis" for example) I would have been more forgiving. But in several scenes each and every one of these actors gave exemplary performances. At other times, they appeared bored. The director might be at fault here. I also had problems with the ending. This is one of those movies that "just ends". Maybe there will be a part 2? Definitely worth getting on DVD. I wont bother summing up the story because that info is already available on IMDb. This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.

Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.

Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.

I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.

Bora Kizilirmak The majesty of Ramin Bahrani's second feature is that, like the work of a poet, he portrays the very soul of humanity and lets it flourish on the screen. Beyond the scope of most other indie films out there, CHOP SHOP is wise, exuding the very best of the great cinema of the ages; we can look back at the works of Bresson and Pasolini and compare Bahrani's work to theirs, and yet CHOP SHOP is fresh and urgent to modern society. We can see the workings of a master here – a certain sense of beauty, style, and content all merge together in a film that reminds us what it means to be alive. Instead of focusing on the side of NYC we so often see, we live and breathe with our young hero, Alejandro, in the destitute Willits Point – a fascinating quasi-sub-world of our culture – and yet it's a very, very real place. Trying to stay afloat, Alejandro has to support himself and his older sister. Watch this film and feel the sense of raw spiritual understanding that Bahrani leads us toward – all with profound and concise realism. i was very impressed with this production on likely all levels; from production to plot and character development.

this definitely fall under the "realism" genre, since there is nothing going on here that makes use of creative imagination, twists, or manipulating audience in how a viewer shall feel, think and asses.

the actors are great, especially the "little" ones. the chemistry between the brother and the sister is mind blowing, maybe not even as common as should be in real life. it is a movie excellent to literally watch while visualizing it. one knows when a movie is good when one just does not want it to end, but eventually everything does... This is marvelous movie, about a soul of Ale. This is a journey to Ale's heart. I found it fascinating. The director did a great job. He makes the scenes talk. Especially on the silent scenes. The window of Ale is a great one. An the scenes when he lies in bed are one of the best directed scenes I have seen.

Apart from directing. It has been a quite time I did not watch a movie about a soul. As a philosopher I can say that, this film proves that the age does not matter about your soul. So as Ale's soul.

As living in Turkey I do not care about the other side of NY. This is a universal scene you can see everywhere in the world. As to my opinion more universal than every other thing.

Do not miss this film. Otherwise you will miss a great thing about a soul. If you have one.

Baris.Sentuna Gray can make the English language jump through hoops like none other. He recounts a number of events, tied together by his writing of a manuscript (the "Monster" of the title), some sad, some uproariously funny, all in his characteristic, sarcastic manner. If you liked "Swimming to Cambodia" you will love this one. I actually thought this was a bit more interesting and better told than "Swimming to Cambodia". A real masterpiece. Three of the things you can say about Spalding Gray are: he certainly marched to the beat of his own "drummer;" he was never at a loss for words; and he obviously felt that those watching and listening to him would be interested in every aspect of his life, experiences and thoughts - no matter how trivial at times.

Most of us are not quite as far "off the wall" as he was. Most of us aren't as interested in sharing the most minute parts of ourselves with others - even one-on-one or in small groups, let alone on stage.

But that doesn't make it any less-interesting to watch and listen to this erudite, unusual man. And after seeing one of his performances, on reflection, we can find many of his articulate musings were perhaps more relevant to our own lives and thoughts than we may have first thought.

Granted, he was a "New York/avant-garde" type of personality, and undeniably a bit "strange." (There are those who would maintain describing someone as "New York" and strange" was being unnecessarily redundant.)

I give him a "10" for the talent he presents in this genre which is his specialty. in his descriptions of CAA, platinum card lunches in Hollywood, psychoanalysis, a vacation in Provincetown he never took, and free trips to Nicaragua, financed by Columbia pictures.

It sounds narcissistic, but Spalding Gray (possibly because of his unusual personality) ropes the audience in, laughs at himself (perhaps because he did not take the Hollywood thing oh-so-seriously) and gets us to care.

This monologue is not just about "The Killing Fields", or "Swimming to Cambodia"; it is more a pastiche of events, as he sees them. Some of the lines are classic, as when Gray meets with the esteemed talent agents at CAA. The conference table is ..."full of them, tanned, healthy, fresh from drinking blue-green algae from an Oregon lake...there are no drugs now in Hollywood".

This was before the tragedy occurred. Many of us will miss his off-balance humor. 9/10. The violent death of Fernando Ramos Da Silva only eight years after the completion of this film, only adds to the poignancy of dierector BAbenco's powerful message. The film is split into two halves - the first in a reformatory where a group of youngsters are abused and violated by the violent law enforcers and guardians. The second backdrop is the city where they are confined instead by their own actions and morality, which includes mugging, pimping and killing different characters who enter their lives.

The differing gender and sexual roles in the film allow for constant changes in the characters as they interact with other people. Particularly interesting is teh character of Lalica, a transvestite who is mother and lover to some of the children. Her reaction to the arrival of Sueli, a prostitute is both poignant and tragic.

There is no happy ending to this story and i reccomend to watch it with caution as there are some very uncomfortable scenes to watch especially in teh opening twenty minutes. But whilst watching it, it is important to remember that this is not just a fictional tale. The actors are not trained professionals but instead boys selected from the streetsof Sao Paulo. They actually lived this life that is portrayed so vividly on screen and in da Silva's case, died at the hands of the police who are depicted so brutally. A documentary? A piece of fiction. It borders on both but it certainly makes for heart wrenching material and is a film that actually leaves you breathless and thinking long after having watched it.

10/10 "Pixote: A Lei do Mais Fraco" deals with what is perhaps the greatest of all Brazilian themes: poverty. And along with poverty the other unnatural feelings and actions it brings; prostitution, violence, crime, rape and murder.

Brazil is the country of paradoxes, and its social problems are present everywhere. The difference between the rich and the poor; the beautiful and the ugly; happiness and the most profound human decay.

"Pixote" is one of the films that dare to touch and open these so painful wounds, and does it without the slightest glimmer of hope, in an honest portrayal of a country that, like Pixote himself, is already lost. This is no walk in the park. I saw this when it came out, and haven't had the guts to watch it again. You will never see a more horrifyingly devastating or depressing movie. I felt like I'd been severely beaten. What kind of world are we living in when we have children who are treated worse than garbage? This is our world, what we have created, what we have allowed to happen. And I would hesitate to say that I-ME-WE are not responsible for this. Babenco made this film to wake us up, to shake us to our very core, and he succeeded. How can we be cruel, or self-indulgent, or neglectful of our children, when we see the graphic results of such behavior? He is pointing a finger of accusation at us all for doing this to the lowliest and least powerful of our society. And if you aren't doing something each day to prevent it, then you are part of the problem. I am NOT a religious fanatic, but this movie made me think about the state of my soul. This is a difficult movie to watch, and would have been even more difficult had I known then that the actor playing the protagonist was in fact killed in his home by police at age 19. Pixote (PeeWee) is a street kid in Sao Paulo who is caught in a roundup triggered by a murder in which he had no involvement. He is committed to a juvenile prison where he witnesses brutality and exploitation that ordinary citizens try very hard to believe doesn't exist. When finally he escapes, he and three comrades survive by the only means they know, which is crime. What makes the film so heart-rending is that both Pixote and the actor portraying him clearly do not wish to be the characters life circumstances have made them. Pixote tries to trust and to love and to bond, but there simply is no room in his world for the gentle side of human nature. One is left at the end wanting desperately to do something for the Pixotes of the world, but what? Building more children's's prisons with higher walls surely is not the answer... The film opens with the director talking to the camera and saying he is going to show a story about Brazilain street kids whose families live in poverty and must steal and kill to survive. In fact the main character (Pixote) was played by an actual street kid only 11 years old. What follows was one of the most brutal, depressing and horrifying film I've even seen. I saw it about 17 years ago (on a double bill with "Black Orpheus") and have never forgotten it. I don't think I ever want to see it again--it was just too much.

SPOILER AHEAD!!!! The scene which will not leave me is when Pixote meets a prostitute who has to abort her own fetus. You don't see her do it...but you get a quick glance at what she got out. It's almost 20 years later and just recalling that scene upsets me. SPOILER END!!!!!

The movie gets more brutal as it goes along and ends the only way it can. What's all the more harrowing is stories like this really did happen in Brazil in 1981...and are STILL happening today.

A harrowing brutal film...but it should be seen if you can handle it. I'm surprised this got an R rating--I've seen X rated film that are less graphic. A 10. "Pixote" is the one of most powerful, shocking, and moving motion picture to come from Brazil. It's about the lives of street kids on the streets of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro, and it centers around a ten-year-old boy. The camera follows them around in an almost documentary style;from the juvenile detention center (where most of the staff is as corrupt as the police) and back to the streets, and it never turns away from the horrors of the city. Prostitution, drug use/dealing, corruption, and murder are all witnessed by these youths; yet it's something they're painfully used to. Director Hector Babenco used real street kids as the actors, adding to the films brutal reality. Although not for everyone, a film I highly recommend. An emotionally devastating movie.

When it was released, in the beginning of the 80's, Pixote brings to Brazilian society the problems of young delinquents, and the impact of this in Brazilian society. I can't watch the movie at that time, cause I was too young, but now I got a chance and watched It a few days ago. It's a very brutal movie, but everything is absolutely true, and sad. pixote is the name of a 12 year-old boy who lives in the streets, and survive with misdemeanors; he stays for a while in a house of detention, and when he left it he continues to plan robs with other buns and a prostitute, played by marilia Pera. the boy is still a marijuana addicted and smell glue with another teenagers, to forget his sad reality. the quality of the images it's not the best, but the movie is totally realistic about Brazilian problems, and must be viewed and admired. I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto "Cidade de Deus / City of God". Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than "City of God".

The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of São Paulo.

I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.

Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on. This was really a "nightmare" of a film; i saw it about nine years ago on cable TV and haven't forgotten it since. Pixote is a 10-year old boy who lives in the streets of Sao Paulo (Brazil) and leads a criminal life in the company of his teenage friends Lilica, Dito and Chico; they steal, pimp, sell drugs and murder in order to survive each day...In the first half of the film Pixote is caught by the police and sent to a sadistic foster home where he witnesses every kind of abuse from the older inmates and guards to the rest of the kids; one night, Lilica's boyfriend is killed after a beating, so Pixote and his friends decide to escape during a riot. The rest of the film shows Pixote's descent into a criminal life; he doesn't show any feelings or remorse after killing someone, maybe because he knows that good feelings are of no use in the world in which he lives...But there is, however, a gentle scene in the middle of the film; Pixote and his friends are at the beach, missing (and wishing) one of his friends from the reformatory was there. I thought it was a poetic and melancholy scene in the middle of all these horrible events...the boys are obviously longing not only for their friend, but for a better life. Director Hector Babenco's "Pixote" is a brave and depressing film that doesn't shy away from showing the harshest reality many people -including myself- tend to ignore or misunderstand. This film will probably open your eyes and make you a better and compassionate person. For me, this is another one of those films that I got to see off of the Los Angeles based "Z" Channel when it was in service. And it was another one of those movies that I saw when I was young...and learned that there was a world out there...one I did not want to accept.

Moving to Los Angeles and getting to watch international cinema became quite the guilty pleasure hobby of mine and to date, no premiere channel programming has matched the "Z" Channel in its showing of international films. The three international films that stuck in my young head were "Spetters", "Beau Pere" and of course this one, "Pixote".

This was the most shocking and saddest movie I ever witnessed in my life. This was also one of the first movies that made me understand that there IS a difference in cinema: to entertain, and to inform. Let me be honest..growing up in a small town on the east coast, I had no idea anything like this -- to this extent -- existed. All I knew from South America was brochures of fabulous Brazillian vacations and that Columbia had a lot of drug trafficking.

Then comes a film like Pixote. Sad. Disturbing. Unflinching. Scary. You're watching: Children. Those that need shelter, love, understanding and all these get are a way to survive day after day through drugs, sex, robbing, stealing, sleeping on the streets and in sadistic group homes etc. Their survival is hard to watch with other street children, prostitutes, etc., and you begin to wonder HOW can things like this be allowed to happen in this world.

Pixote is not a film for entertainment, it is a film of information. It shows shocking and disturbing images - but it shows life for these daily street children. Film about the failure of government and the selfishness of adults. Overwhelming impossibility of dealing with life and the means the children go to to try to achieve living. Only living. Staying alive in a cruel world. A nightmare world, we are afraid to watch it because we are seeing truth and are afraid to see it. To see a world of despair when we are all so comfortable in our own lives and even complaining about what we have not got when it is so trivial compared to someone else. They, the children of the movie, are desensitized. They are more than desensitized by what is around them. They see sex as an act, like they are watching a tv program. When the one boy is with the hooker, Pixote is sitting on the bed watching with a blank stare, no feeling. He wants to be a little boy and have a family but the hooker has no compassion either and pushes him away. A "human" film, with "human" relations and moral judgement in a ugly, scared, cruel world. Reminds us that life is not fair, but you can still have a human connection. I'm originally from Brazil... the sad thing about this movie was the exploitation that was done to that boy. They told his life story and he never got one "centavo" (Brazilian cent) of that movie. Fernando is not the first and will not be the last to go through that life style in Brazil. Sad... but that is the world we live in. It's about making money not saving lives. Question is: Where is Fernando today? Most probably... dead. We tend to want to live in this "Disney filled fantasy bubbled life". When someone comes up to the plate to help... along comes the higher power and says: "What do I get from this? Where's my cut?" - I wish people's conscience would speak up! This is probably the best movie from director Hector Babenco. It shows a Brazilian reality unknown by foreigners, which is the same reality that haunts all of the Latin American countries, poverty and a survival instinct. The most affected in this reality is the children usually left orphans, or abandoned by their poor parents have to make it in a "dog eat dog" society many times falling into the gap of delinquency, prostitution and crime. Very well acted and with a "no frills" approach, this movie will get to you, Great story plot, a must have movie on anybody's collection. The starring role went to Fernando Ramos da Silva, a young boy who fell into the crime wave, killed some years later during a robbery. I would suggest people to watch the movie "Who killed Pixote?" so you can have a more in depth idea of the lives of these characters. Some other Characters from the movie had a similar fate, some died and others are in jail. None the less this movie will last for a long time in your memory Pixote is directed with barely a shred of sentimentality. And yet I more than imagine Hector Babenco owes some of his film-making chops with this film to Vittorio De Sica's neo-realist style, in particular Shoeshine (that film, as with Pixote, takes place mostly inside a children's prison). And yet while I might still prefer De Sica's film if it came down to deciding between the two it's so close because it is, no pun intended, like choosing between two children. They're both marvelous works of raw drama, and with Pixote Babenco has an extra edge and harrowing quality to deal with in that this isn't filmed in conditions brought on after a world war. This is how it was in Brazil- one would see it with slightly more flair and awe in City of God, perhaps in some of the same locations- and these children were on the streets before and after the film was made. Some aren't alive some 20+ years later, for all anyone knows.

The "star", pre-teen street kid Fernando Ramos da Silva, plays the title character, a youth without a father or really any family who will look out for him, and placed among dozens of other street kids and delinquents in a reformatory for boys. The conditions couldn't be much worse, and are made even more unbearable as two children are killed one after the other by some cause of the guard duty. There's a riot, and an escape, and halfway through the film we find Pixote with a few other youths, including Lilica a practical transvestite not even 18, and they become pickpockets, drug dealers, whatever to get by. None of this, I should repeat, is shown with a kind of ham-fisted earnestness- certainly you would never in a million years see Ron Howard or Paul Haggis direct this kind of picture- and yet there's an emotional honesty to everything exactly because nothing is trivialized.

Nearly every scene is significant to showing how fragile life is for Pixote, and how he could be killed or die some way at any turn, and so without even reaching puberty yet he has to be on the level of those around him who are a little older (though not by much at all) and become things that will haunt this person forever. Despite Babenco's usage of a tender and mournful musical score and one or two scenes with people crying a lot, nothing feels forced. As with De Sica, maybe more-so given the consistent conditions of San Paolo and Rio street kids, he's a natural director of children, and coax's out of Ramos da Silva and Jorge Julião and others some really fine work that provides just the right touches of "cinematic" drama (that is not so real that it becomes documentary, which isn't a bad thing per-say) and even subtlety in some scenes.

Pixote may not be as well known as it's later 21st century Brazilian films that look back on the horrors of Rio, or even neo-realist films, but it should be. Anyone wanting to get a good, hard glimpse at what it was like should seek it out at a library or other and soak in what is the best foreign film of 1981. To speak relatively, if one were only to see now Hector Babenco's "Pixote" (1981, Brazil;pronounced as "pi-shot"), after having seen quite a number of films that deal with street children, juvenile delinquents, kids in trouble (Truffaut's "The 400 Blows", Bunuel's "Los Olvidados", De Sica's "Shoeshine", Nair's "Salaam, Bombay!", Bresson's "Mouchette", Nugroho's "Leaf on a Pillow", etc.), one might be afraid that the plight of the kid portrayed in the film might not affect one anymore, having been "de-synthesized" already after going through the emotional roller-coaster ride put in motion by the previously quoted films.

Thankfully, that won't be the case. For Babenco narrates his film in such a matter-of-fact manner ("artlessly", as one film reviewer put it, in a positive light) and that his central child performer, Fernando Ramos da Silva (13 years old at that time and a street kid himself), gives such a no-frills, wounded performance, raw in its simplicity (that hardened face, those lonely and longing eyes) that one is hard put not to be pierced in any way. (Such a feeling may achieve such a heightened realism when one learns that the child had only lived but a short life, having been involved in street crimes after the film and subsequently murdered.)

In about first half of the film, Pixote and his fellow street kids and delinquents spend their time in a repressive state-run reformatory school, where brutalization and humiliation, rape and murder, are the norm and culture;where they are forced to confess to their "crimes", on the flimsy notion that under the Brazilian law, underage felons are not "punishable" for their offenses. For these kids, the dubious freedom offered by the streets is more preferable than the harsh rehabilitation provided by these supposed well-meaning authorities. Within the walls of this supposed protective establishment, these young souls are soon to discover that love and care from parental figures are likewise nowhere to be found, if not to a degree worser.

(For Pixote, the only form of escape comes from puffing grass and sniffing glue, secretly smuggled inside the reformatory.)

When the kids burst themselves into a small-scale "revolt" to finally express and then fulfill their collective desire to get back to the outside world--their "home"--the intensity and form are of such a kind that one can't avoid thinking of the schoolboys' revolt in Jean Vigo's influential "Zero for Conduct". It's only that in "Pixote", the "uprising" is made to appear on a gutter level.

Once Pixote and his small group are back on the streets (the film's second half), they engage in robbery, pimping and drug-dealing to fend for themselves, along which they get to meet Sueli, a battered but kindly prostitute. Sueli willingly accomodates the four lost souls, in such a way that she allows her customers to be robbed by them and that she provides more than motherly care (at least to one of the children).

One would have thought that the street kids have at long last found the one person who can provide them the love and warmth that have been sorely lacking in their lives. But as dubious as the freedom that these kids believe the streets are providing, this new-found "maternal figure" cannot but stay forever.

Jealousy, squabbles, differences, and murder have only set the kids apart--and for good. And during that defining scene where Pixote, prompted by the circumstance, gets to shoot not just Sueli's arrogant American customer but also his fellow street urchin Ditto (more than a son to Sueli), he thereafter literally goes back to "infancy", as he sucks from the right breast of the disoriented woman, right there and then materializing his lingering desire for parental affection, the image itself both sad and unsettling.

It is so that Sueli, in a probable coming back to her "senses", lamentably pushes back Pixote from his "nourishing" position and rejects him, for good. Thus, in a quietly wrenching moment, Pixote, with that young-old face and those sullen eyes (not entirely dissimilar, though in a different context, to the young boy's mien in Elem Klimov's harrowing "Come and See"), gets himself up, puts on his coat and takes his gun (yes, a gun!), and sets off to nowhere, walking along the train tracks and with the morning light just beginning to show up. With that scene, Babenco may just be doing an homage (amongst many other homages found in different films!) to the iconoclastic final scene in Truffaut's "The 400 Blows".

But whereas we got to know what has become of Antoine Doinel three years later in the short film "Antoine et Colette" (as well as in three other feature films in the years thereafter), we are left grappling in the dark as to what lies ahead for Pixote after he finally disappears from the last frame, that being the last time that we'll get to see this real-life street child (notwithstanding the fate that eventually befell him in actuality).

"Pixote" may not be as nearly as whimsical as "The 400 Blows" or as hallucinatory as "Los Olvidados", but it still stands out among films of similar theme and texture because of its simple, raw power. The story takes place on the streets of Sao Paoulo in Brazil where a young boy named Pixote grows up alone without his parents. Left troubled and with no direction, Pixote gets taken into a child asylum with other adolescents from the street. Behind closed doors terrible things occurs within the staff and within the child-groups. And there is one last trigger that gets the place blown up, the last incident that makes Pixote and his friends decide to break out and escape. From there on begins a journey overwhelmed with strong bonded friendships, friendships torn apart, love and hate, criminal activities and simply chilling on the beach talking about things, something someone like you and I also does sometimes.

I think this film is perfect in so many ways because it touches you on so many levels, it did that with me anyway. The document-like style used to portray Pixote and his surroundings does it seem more realistic, and the actors, who really are street children and have lived similar lives, helps the humanity in the conditions seem more natural. It has a social comment about child abuse too, but I think what makes the film so great is that the pressure is on the story and not on the political views. The last scene, which I find the best piece from the film, strikes me as something beyond nothing I've seen before. So full of emotions and yet so unsentimental makes this film a truthful, believable, unbearable, unforgettable story-tale. A true heartbreaking masterpiece which is so underrated!

My vote: 10/10 Trust the excellent and accurate Junagadh75 review! This film is compelling and moving in that roughest, most brutally beautiful film-masterpiece "way". File under UNFORGETTABLE STRONG MEAT. Or FILMS THAT HOWL AT THE MOON. Pixote gets into your nervous system and elevates you despite the pain on the screen. Here's an unrelated list of films that did the same thing for me, i.e. "engaged, destroyed, transformed,inspired, resonated... this category transcends nerdy film top ten lists that seek film perfection. "A Woman Under the Influence" , "Wiseblood", "Wages of Fear" "Saint Jack" "Funny Bones" "Out of the Blue". This movie has an outstanding acting, by Marilia Pêra, and a stunning dicretcion by the argentine Hector Babenco. This is, in my opinion, the best Brazilian movie ever made. The movie was filmed with child from the 'favelas' , the brazilian ghetos. The children weren't actors and were casted by Babenco in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The story is about the criminal children that are arrested in the correctional prison, that looks much worse than Alcatraz. The children are constantly raped and beaten by the policeman. Unfortunately this is not purely fiction, in Brazil it does happen till today. A must see for those who like violent movies. But take your mother off the room, because it is a hard movie. I first saw this masterpiece on VHS 10 years ago, and the powerful interpretation on angry-kid-painfully-against-established-society it carried stayed in my heart since then. Director Hector Babenco is such a good humanity, who finds a delicate angle to tell the story of how urbanity kills the childhood of the kids from poverty class. Even the outcast kids have their innocent beautiful dreams. But the corrupt reality never gives a chance...

Thanks to the publishers for the recent DVD release, I now can keep this great movie to my favorite collection. A straight-forward X File that shows that action is always the equal of intelligence. Rob Bowman's direction is crisp and sharp, the episode looks just as fresh now as it did almost a decade ago. David and Gillian both give fine performances and both seem to relish the lack of baggage - it's a standalone X File that even non-fans could happen upon and enjoy. Junior Brown gives both the leads a run for their money during his scene with them, he's so convincing that you could believe the crew drove to the middle of nowhere and knocked on the first door they came to. Bryan Cranston is intense and energetic as Patrick Crump, he has since admitted in interviews that he knew next to nothing about the X Files prior to this role, a fact that makes his hit-the-floor-running performance all the more incredible. A brilliantly dumb episode. As much as 'The Beginning' showed that we're still going to get "classic" x-files, Drive showed that the X-Files was going to explore new territory. They start by giving us a unique teaser to Drive, with the news camera footage. It was an interesting transition from the the TV to the real events. I would've liked it even better if they had kept that news footage camera for the entire teaser and not cut to the inside of the car. Upon viewing this episode live back in 1998 I was thinking, "Am I on the right channel?" That first autopsy by Scully flooded me with big words that I don't understand. I think she learned her lesson to ALWAYS wear a mask before performing an autopsy. Silly Scully! What is the deal with the lighting in the autopsy lab? It's as dark as a tomb in there! How are they supposed to see what they're doing in there? Assistant Director Kersh gets his first lines in this episode. I have no love lost for that man. He is the third recurring character in a row that is introduced that you love to hate, the first two being Diana Fowley and Jeffrey Spender. I guess the producers felt that there was too much love going on for Mulder, Scully and Skinner. So they needed to add some characters to give our favorite agents some grief and incite our ire as fans. I love the quarantine suits worn by Scully and her team with the cool helmet light bulbs. Boy. It's really smoky or foggy in DRY northern Nevada at night. Can we say the word "effect"? Drive is a cool episode, but looking at route 36 on my U.S. atlas, there's no way Mulder could've maintained a speed of 70-100 MPH on that road. If he had been on I-80, the freeway, maybe. But no way on a state road with that many curves. All of the filming inside the car looked very authentic. Excellent job by Rob Bowman. It looks nothing like the old days of the obvious blue screen or clip of passing scenery outside a car window on a stage. This was a fun episode, but some of the inaccuracies keep it from being a great episode. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, so hold on for a fast ride! Drive was an enjoyable episode with a dark ending. Basically a man and his wife are infected in their inner ear by a high pitched sound wave being emitted by some military equipment. Some favorite parts of mine from this episode are Mulder's dialogue in the car, and the scene where Scully goes in with the Hazmat team and find the little old deaf lady completely unaffected by what they thought was a virus. The ending of course is tragic in its realism because it leads the viewer to believe that they are going to actually be able to pull off this elaborate plan to save the victim but when Mulder arrives the man is already dead. 8/10 Another decent offering from the pen of Vince Gilligan.

A pre-"Malcolm in the Middle" Bryan Cranston plays Patrick Crump, a deranged guy who eventually hijacks Mulder via gunpoint and has him driving west at high speeds. It has something to do with his severe head ringing (& possible deadly combustion--his wife just experienced it), and the pressure only seems to be relieved by heading towards the left coast. Only Mulder could relate to this guy's plight, and actually bond with his captor before the all night ride is completed.

Meanwhile, Scully seems to have solved the case with a possible remedy for Mr. Crump, and will meet them at the ocean. Check it out to see if our Dynamic Duo can hook up at the Pacific and somehow rectify Mr. Crump's big problem. Cool action - yeah the premise has been done - but not this way - that's the trick. hey folks - SHOCK - it's an X-File.

To me - it's cool that Scully/Mulder have almost no scenes together -- they have to adapt, rely on each other's intrinsic sense about what's really going on - and each other's adaptation skills. They read into each other's moves and get the job done.... (sort of).

Oh yeah --- really good acting -- do these people get paid to do this? Or- a slow day when the convenience store doesn't call them into work. (hey - Duchovny - where's the day-old donuts?? Malcolm - get to school...) In 1937 Darryl Zanuck, who had recently moved from head of production at Warner Brothers, was trying to get his newly created company, 20th Century Fox off the ground and on a level playing field with his old bosses at Warners and the glitter palace at MGM. "This Is My Affair" was an attempt to cash in on the current success of historical films set around the turn of the century ("San Francisco" "In Old Chicago")and in retrospect he succeeded quite mightily. The plot is fascinating. A trouble maker but heroic naval officer (Robert Taylor) is given a secret assignment by President McKinley to uncover a ring of bank robbers that are paralyzing American finance. He finds the gang but falls in love with their female mascot (Barbara Stanwyck) and must decide between love and duty.

Not everything about this vintage film works well, but overall it is a good slice of studio film-making. The plot gimmick would be borrowed by Kurt Vonnegut for "Mother Night" (the lead role of that film of the book was played brilliantly by Nick Nolte) and seems quite believable, at least within the confides of studio make believe. As a fan of old movies I am always thrilled when I stumble upon one that I have never seen and "This is my Affair" was no exception. A bland title disguises this solidly-carpentered example of old-fashioned Hollywood entertainment, this film proves a largely successful hodgepodge of several disparate elements: a period piece, a romantic drama, a crime movie and a political thriller. Interestingly, though made by Fox, its protagonists – Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck – were both usually associated with other studios; their on screen chemistry here is palpable and eventually led to marriage in a couple of years' time. While a bit too young, Taylor is a dashing hero (a Marine personally appointed by President McKinley to uncover the culprits behind an organized clean-up of numerous banks); unsurprisingly, no sooner has he tracked them down (led by smooth Brian Donlevy and thuggish Victor McLaglen) that he falls for a chanteuse (naturally, Stanwyck) who has thrown her lot with the gang – although, truth be told, singing is far from being the actress' forte! Similarly, apart from having to prove his worth to make it into their fold, he has to vie with McLaglen for Stanwyck's attentions; by the way, the practical joker persona of the former reminded me a lot of Charley Chase in SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) which, incidentally, was likewise directed by William A. Seiter. Later on, Taylor is in two minds about involving Stanwyck in the impending bait and tries to offer his resignation to the President while eloping with the girl – but the jealous rival disrupts his plans. The robbery gone awry, we find Donlevy dead and the other two in jail; Taylor's hopes for McKinley's intervention – having meanwhile learned the identity of the elusive and obviously prominent 'inside man' – are seemingly dashed when the President winds up assassinated himself (a great plot twist, though the resulting eleventh-hour suspense feels contrived)! To get back to the film's jumble of styles, even if the vaudeville sequences are a matter of taste, the romantic triangle slows things up and it skimps somewhat on the thriller aspect, this emerges a handsome production indeed – with the actors already mentioned ably supported by the likes of John Carradine (who unaccountably disappears after just one scene!), Douglas Fowley, Sig Rumann and, as two American Presidents, Sidney Blackmer (the bubbly Theodore Roosevelt) and Frank Conroy (McKinley). This is an unusual film because although it was made by Twentieth-Century Fox because it's one of the few pairings of Barbara Stanwyck and her future husband, Robert Taylor. Barbara Stanwyck had been making films for many different studios (RKO, Paramount and Selznick) at about the time she made THIS IS MY AFFAIR, but Taylor was an MGM contract player so he only appeared in this film because he was loaned to Fox--something studios occasionally did during this era.

The film is interesting because many real-life people have roles in the film, though the piece is otherwise pure fiction. You'll see actors playing William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey. I can't recall any film with McKinley or Dewey in it as a character, though I do remember Roosevelt from THE WIND AND THE LION and a couple other films. Three cheers for seeing a "lesser President" in a film as a major character!

The film begins with McKinley taking a young lieutenant (Robert Taylor) aside and asking him to be a special agent for him--and telling no one--not even the Secret Service. That's because the President fears that someone within the agency is tipping off a gang that has been making a long string of robberies--all based on inside information. So it's up to Taylor (who is NOT known for his manly roles--especially at this stage of his career) to pose as a thug and find the gang responsible AND the inside man.

However, there are two serious complications. First, while he is able to find the gang members, one of the gang member's step-sister is Stanwyck. Taylor finds that he's fallen in love with her but he must also do his duty and turn them in to the authorities. Second, because McKinley is the only other person who knows the truth, SERIOUS problems develop when McKinley is assassinated and Taylor is on death row for the crimes!!!

The film did a nice job of creating a story and placing it within a historical context. While today most people don't remember McKinley nor remember that he was assassinated, the film is set in this interesting time period. The acting is pretty decent, as the stars are supported by Victor McLaglen and Brian Donlevy, though I must admit that Donlevy's role was pretty tame and ordinary compared to many of his other film roles. Overall, it's very interesting, well written and not too sappy in the romance department. A good outing for all. This film shows up on the premium cable channels quite often and, I find that I keep watching it over and over again. The performances are wonderful, and the material has so much happening that there is always something new to take away from the film.

Maybe I am too often distracted when watching films at home, you know the drill, the dogs bark, the phone rings, the popcorn finishes during the credits. But this film is about people and what motivates us, what enlivens us, what causes rifts between us, and what inspires us.

For me, it is films like The Love Letter that keep me taking a chance on new films. Frankly, I am surprised that the film is not better known. I would love to see Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan in many more roles. They are a delight to watch. Kate Capshaw is wonderful and I had no previous idea that she would be. Ellen DeGeneres plays a role that is much more complex than simply being the comic relief.

This film provides interesting visuals as a proper background to the characters and their interactions. I find it refreshing every time I take the time to watch it. I normally don't like romantic films, but I love this film very much. The story is really touching, and the ending is very appropriate. I feel I really care for many characters in this film. I feel I can feel their feelings. While most romantic films always make me feel detached and bored, this one completely makes me feel involved, starting from the scene of Capshaw running along the beach with Scott until the ending scene. I want to rate this film 11 out of 10, because I want to give an extra one point for the ending. The acting part is very strong. Kate Capshaw has a good opportunity to show her talent. Though I'm not impressed with Scott in `Dead Man on Campus,' this film completely changes my viewpoint towards him. He's so irresistibly charming here. Geraldine McEwan is as terrific as ever.

This film might not be as good, complex, deep, or believable as other films which deal a little bit with the same kind of relationship, such as `L'ecole de la chair' or 'Post coitum, animal triste,' but `The Love Letter' can still be proud of itself as it casts a rare different light on that kind of relationship. And that difference makes this film eminently enjoyable. By being unambitious and relying on great charms of small stars, Dreamworks, this time you really make my dream come true. Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.

Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.

Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing. Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a bookstore in the sleepy, coastal town of Loblolly by the Sea. Divorced, Helen has a young daughter who is going to camp for the summer, giving mother a bit more freedom. Working at Helen's store are the manager, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres), a man-crazy village-gossip girl who has eyes for the handsome fireman, George (Tom Selleck), and two young college students, Jennifer (Julianne Nicholson) and Johnny (Tom Everett Scott). One day, Helen stumbles across a romantic, tender love letter and she suspects that Johnny has written it for her. Throwing caution to the wind, Helen and Johnny begin a small-time "thing". But, the letter subsequently lands in others' hands, including Janet's, who thinks George has sent it to her, and Johnny's, who imagines Helen has penned it for him. And, on and on the letter goes. But, in truth, George possibly has eyes for Helen and Jennifer has fallen hard for Johnny. The town's museum curator, too, may have a secret love. Will tangled affairs like these ever straighten themselves out? This is a cute movie with a gorgeous setting and capable stars. Each of the main actors gives a pleasing performance, including the addition of Blythe Danner and Gloria Stuart to those mentioned previously. Then, too, the coastal scenery is most lovely, the costumes quite well-chosen, and the photography very nice indeed. There are a few surprises, including a subtle gay plot development, which may not please all viewers. But, for those who love romantic comedies, this one should be included on any list of good choices for the genre. The Love Letter (1999): Starring Kate Capshaw, Tom Everett Scott, Tom Selleck, Ellen De Generes, Gloria Stuart, Blythe Danner, Jessica Capshaw, Alice Drummond, Bill Buell, Erik Jensen, Margaret Ann Brady, Walter Covell, Patrick Donnelly, Lucas Hall, Christian Harmony, Christopher Nee, Breanne Smith, Marilyn Rockafellow, Sasha Spielberg, Jack Black.....Director Peter Chan, Screenplay Maria Maggenti.

Based on the novel "The Love Letter" by Cathleen Schine, Director Peter Chan's film version, released in 1999, was not a big box-office draw, not even for a romantic movie with some comedy elements. While it was not as popular in theaters, it soon became a beloved film on cable television and on VHS/DVD. Set in a seaport town in the good old USA (I forget the exact location), this is the story of a mysterious, passionately written love letter who sparks emotions and confusion among the principal characters, each who think the letter is personally addressed to them. By the end of the film, we don't know who the lover or the beloved is but the power of the letter has altered the lives of nearly everyone in the small town. The cast is made up of wonderful actors who have fared well on TV and film, among them Kate Capshaw in the lead role of middle-aged beauty Helen, a bookstore owner, comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as her friend/employee Janet Hall, young hottie Tom Everett Scott as Johnny, the young 20 something guy who falls for the older Hellen and an older Tom Selleck as the firefighter George Matthias who must compete with Johnny for Helen's affections. There are cameo roles by veteran old Hollywood actress Gloria Stuart, who is best known to modern audiences as the elderly Rose in "Titanic" (1997) and a cameo by Kate Capshaw's own daughter (with husband Steven Spielberg) Jessica Capshaw. The love triangle is between a middle-aged woman, an older man and a young man, each of whom feel as passionately for Helen as the writer of the mysterious letter. The conflict lies in Helen's indecision. Will she choose the right person ? Which man has the most to offer her ? Johnny is in a relationship with a girl his age who loves him with a passion all her own, and is in fact, a kind of reminder of what Helen was like at her age. George is in the process of divorcing his wife and has lived a worldly and eventful life. A cultured intellectual, he takes Helen on an opera date, where the tragic death of Puccini's ultra-Italian heroine Tosca moves Helen to explosive tears. There are lots of beautiful vistas of the charming coastal town, rendered beautifully by cinematographer Tami Reiker. The score is a paradise of romantic and lovely songs - " I've Never Been In Love Before", "I'm In The Mood For Love" and "Only The Lonely". Ellen DeGeneres as Janet Hall, who is consistently late to her job at Helen's bookshop, who endlessly dates men without being able to find the right guy , is simply wonderful. She has not lost her comedic flair, even though at this point in her career she was not appearing much on TV or film because only about two years before her hit mid-90's TV show "Ellen" was cancelled because of her "coming out" as a lesbian and the new lesbian subject matter of the show. Here you even find comedian Jack Black, long before he made it big, in the bit part of a fisherman. This is a moving film about human emotions and making decisions that are significant, about the human need for a passionate consuming love and the general love of escapism brought not only through books, letters, and music, but through a genuinely loving and secure relationship. This is a great film with wonderful moments and an infectious romantic spirit. I'm a large scarred heterosexual male ex-bouncer, ex-rugby player, and ex-boxer, and I love this movie.

It's no "Mystic River." It's a piece of fluff. But there is room in life for fluff, and when that fluff is engagingly shot, well-acted by attractive, likable people, cleverly plotted and full of good dialogue, there's even more room for it.

I'm not the biggest Tom Selleck fan. But he's good in this. So are Julianne Nicholson (love her bald head and freckles), Ellen Degeneres, Kate Capshaw and even Tom Everett Scott (That Thing You Do!).

The scenery is nice, the mood is upbeat, there's heartache and wistfulness and farce and even a little redemption.

Any (male) reviewer who disses this movie is, shall we say, not perfectly confident in his masculinity. In the meantime I'll continue to catch bits and pieces of it without apology whenever it shows up on cable. This is definitely a girl movie. My husband found it utterly boring, but I think this is a really sweet movie. It's amazing to think that just a note can bring so many people together. This is a great get-away for anyone who loves a cute, funny romance! This is one of the better feel-good films of 1999 with Kate Capshaw leading an all-star cast about a small town and a love letter. First off, the scenery is beautiful, and anyone who sees this film and doesn't want to move to this location is crazy! For the cast, Capshaw is stunning as the lead actress who captivates the emotional roller-coaster role. Tom Everett Scott is charming as the "author" of the note throughout the film, and the always delightful Ellen Degeneres is hilarious! Blythe Danner and the actress who plays the bookstore saleswoman are both terrific, too. Although it was unsuccessful, the film is great as it is both short and sweet and well as very romantic. 10/10 Aside from the fact that this movie was filmed mostly in Rockport MA, which is a beautiful town where my mother once rented a small storefront and I spent many a pleasant summer as a child, it is fun and cute little film.

I must admit that I had no desire to actually see this movie even though I have a weakspot for romantic comedies (I don't know why). The trailers I saw were not appealing, the cast did not look that interesting and I had no idea what the plot would be about. In the end I found it to be an interesting meditation on relationships and family. I thoroughly enjoyed myself and must admit that I thought that this film was one of the most overlooked gems of last year. I am disappointed that so few people seemed to have enjoyed the very "human-ness" that this movie presented the viewer with.

I have read many bad reviews of this film, and must admit a certain level of shock at the cynicism that is prevalent in them. As a grad student I consider myself to be quite cynical, but this was a beautiful little film that deserves much better than it got. So well done. The photography, sound, music and the performances were the best. It's also an amusing story line that brings a smile to your face with each scene--I loved it and I'm a 60 year old heterosexual guy. Each character seemed to fit their part to a tee. It's the best performance that I've seen from Ms. Capshaw--she's been in more movies than I thought, but this was a wonderful achievement. I suppose it's a plus to have Spielberg money behind you allowing for a fat budget and all the best that money can buy technically. Two of the cast have successful T.V. shows of their own now--it's easy to see why. Tom Selleck does his usual good job. I thought that the love letter was a pretty good movie. There were certain things that could have made it better. But Kate Capshaw is absolutely beautiful, and she showed it in this movie. I wish that there could have been a few more revealing scenes of her, but it was still a very good movie. It was very fun to watch! This film ain't half bad. It may be a little long at times, but carried along by beautiful scenery, an IMMENSELY beautiful love letter and great actors, you forget time and enjoy. The grand prize, however, goes to Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan as..........well that would be telling, but they are just GREAT! This movie was a sicky sweet cutesy romantic comedy, just the kind of movie I usually dislike but this one was just cute enough to keep me interested. It was really funny in one moment (probably why I liked it) and then just as serious in the next. Plus, it had Ellen in it and I've always had a soft spot for her.

Basically, the owner of a book store, Helen (Kate Capshaw) finds a love letter in one of the old couches in her store. She thinks it is for her and goes crazy trying to figure out who sent it. She has kind of shut herself off from the world, so it really throws her for a loop. Eventually, almost everyone connected with her finds this letter and they are all getting mixed signals which creates some really funny moments.

Like I said, I am usually not one for this type of movie but I really wound up enjoying it and recommend it highly. I thought the movie was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself as I viewed it. However, the last scene at Johnny's birthday party was cut way too short. I, myself, was an extra in that scene and was upset with the results. But other than that, (and the weird casting), the movie was superb. The Love Letter is one of my all-time favorite books, so naturally I was skeptical when I heard it was to become a movie. But, I liked it. I found myself grinning through the entire movie. I admit that it isn't a great movie but definitely a pleasant hour and a half. I thought that Capshaw and Scott were perfect as Helen and Johnny. Just as I pictured them. And the town and scenery were just right as well. I recommend this film, but don't expect too much, just enjoy it. "The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.

It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.

The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)

It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance. This movie was sweet. The main character lady was sensitive to 2 different men who wanted her. She seemed not a character at all but a real person who had made some mistakes but was trying to set things right. I liked the movie a lot. Even the older ladies who were lesbian didn't irritate me too much. It's along the line of comedy of errors, mistaken affection transferring from one to another, blossoms and passes on…kinda cat and mouse situations… Flares of passion, sparks of fire fanned and put out…guessing maybe she loves, he loves or they love… Circle of emotions, evolving, releasing…hiding, yet not hiding…wanting to let him know, wanting to let her know, let them know… Good ensemble cast in spite of the seemingly confusing mix of emotions from different parties involved.

It's a refreshing charmer, casual, free and easy and rather down to earth -- not Hollywood glamorous like "Notting Hill", but lots of human feelings, frailty, vulnerability a-flowing. Yes, all revolving around an accidentally (lost &) found love letter. Kate Capshaw as the owner of the town's bookstore, with a variety of characters portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Tom Everett Scott, Gloria Stuart, Alice Drummond and Geraldine McEwan as the seemingly unaffected Mrs. Scattergoods. Romance is in the air, love lurking everywhere. You get to appreciate the talented Kate Capshaw. ("The Alarmist" is another quirky little movie which is fun to watch: Capshaw has a wonderful chemistry with David Arquette, and Arquette with Stanley Tucci).

"Notting Hill" is satisfying in its story revolving around the glittering pairing of Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant, and the wonderful support of his circle of (London) friends. "Love Letters" is delightful in its quirky (Loblolly) small town-ness, and its story involving Kate Capshaw's centrifuged ripple effects on her friends and neighbors. Both maybe fantasies, somehow, the latter felt more attainable if it should happen to you. And if you appreciate words or poetic lines, it could be the movie for you. A while back I bought the Chinese box set of Fist of the North Star which came with all of Fist of the North Star, Fist of the North Star 2, New Fist of the North Star, and the Fist of the North Star movie. While there is an American Version and a few European Versions, they end half way through Fist of the North Star which is about as far as the movie goes.

The series is about the successor of an ancient martial art called Hokuto Shin Ken (Fist of the North Star) named Kenshiro, or Ken for short. There is only one successor each generation. It takes place in a post apocalyptic future where martial arts is the most powerful weapon. The two most powerful arts are Hokuto Shin Ken and Nanto Divine Ken as my version calls it. Nanto is really multiple styles but they are all the same since they allow a person to chop someone to pieces. There are six Nanto masters and each has their own star. Hokuto is an art that allows someone to damage/kill or heal someone by hitting a point on their body. Each art has their own constellation. Hokuto - Big Dipper, Nanto - Gemini. Kenshiro goes around saving the world from evil consisting of going after his two brothers and three of the Nanto masters and their armies. Each army captain has their own way of fighting which makes each episode different and the number of soldiers bloody. Also, Kenshiro is looking for his girlfriend Yuria who was stolen by the Nanto master Shin. Along the journey Kenshiro is joined by his brother Toki after rescuing him from his brother Rao who calls himself Kenou or Boxing King. He is also joined by two Nanto masters Rei, who is looking for his sister who was taken by Ken's brother Jagi, and Shu. Both of them and Toki die along the way. Other characters that join Ken are two kids Rin and Batto who don't do much. That's about as much as I can say for story since its so long and full of details. The series is also divided into four parts.

What makes this show great is the fighting. Ken normally goes up against a group of people that think they are tough and then get killed in one hit. Which is funny and badass, but makes for quick fights. Another great part is comedy/badassness. Ken hits someone, and they think its nothing. Ken says they are already dead. Then they die. Other parts are when he'll hit them and tell them they have a few seconds to live. Then a counter will pop up. Or when he tells them they are not worthy of knowing his name. Then there is when he does a rapid fire kick or punch and goes wa da da da da da da etc. Eventually you might find yourself doing it with him. One great part was when a bad guy thought he knew Hokuto. He went up to Ken and hit him. Ken stood there said he was dead in a few seconds. The bad guy counted off then died. It isn't limited to Ken everyone else kills just as quick. There has never been a character as awesome as Ken and their probably never will.

There are a few problems though. One is the repetitive nature. Some flashbacks mainly the one with Yuria being taken are played too much, and there are also too many recap episodes especially in part four of the series. In fact, the last episode is a recap of the whole thing. Another problem is the ending. The final battle with Rao wasn't that impressive. Ken and Rao fought then talked, etc, until Rao came to some realization and kills himself instead of Ken killing him. But it is better than the American and European versions that just cut off halfway.

Who would I recommend this for? This is for older teenagers and adults who like action. Since the styles cause people to explode or get cut into pieces, the violence is very graphic and there is a lot of it, but they don't show much blood because they usually make the death just a silhouette that still looks like the person but less colorful. This was probably done to avoid censorship. If you don't like action rent the American Version. If you like action though, then I say go for the import since you can see all of the series, but they do not have the best English translation since it is subtitled by the Chinese. Note: My import came with everything I said at the beginning, some imported versions do not, but you still have to get an import to see all of the series and Fist of the North Star 2. If you don't think you can handle the subtitles for any reason then go get the American Version. Another note: In the version I got no subtitles were on the last disc for New Fist of the North Star; although, New Fist of the North Star isn't very good to begin with.

I give the show an 8/10 for its high amount of action, good story, and the awesomeness of Kenshiro.

****UPDATE****

Toei Animation released an English subtitled version. You can download the episodes as well as Hokuto no Ken 2 from IGN's Direct2Drive or watch it free on FUNimation's site. You can't watch a film like Peter Watkins' "Privilege," a story of the exploitation of a pop music performer by big business, the state, and even organized religion, without thinking of creatively degenerate commodities like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears, who hawk corporate giants like Pepsi or some other poison for money. Or any number of entertainers, in music or movies, who become tools of political parties or commercial religious interests like Scientology and Kabbalah. A film like Privilege must have seemed almost like science fiction when released in 1967, so fantastic was its premise. Today we tend to take celebrity endorsements for granted, giving little thought to its more alarming implications. Watkins' vision has not only become reality, we tacitly accept this reality as "normal."

Now consider Punishment Park. As Privilege challenges the viewer to examine what is being sold to us, and why, Punishment Park demands that we reckon with what is being taken from us, and why.

Heaven help America, and for that matter the world, if contemporary politicians get their hands on this film. It is already so close to reality, that in viewing it recently, I experienced a genuine, nauseating feeling of anxiety.

Watkins again skillfully employs a documentary-style narrative. Whereas in Privilege some rough edges to this technique were apparent, in Punishment Park it has been honed to sharp, seamless perfection. The sense of realism is enhanced by disarmingly unpretentious, economical, believable portrayals by the entire cast. This is the kind of acting Hollywood has completely turned its back on, to its detriment, in favor of cosmetically perfect image projections. The cast has first-rate material to work with in Watkins' screenplay.

Many cinematic visionaries have tried to shake the viewer out of their complacent, false sense of security. No one has ever achieved this result with such stark and chilling accuracy as Peter Watkins does here.

"What seems quite clear now, is that instead of trying to bring the estranged and excluded Americans, such as these people, back into the national community, the Administration has chosen to accept and exploit the present division within the country, and to side with what it considers is the majority. Instead of the politics of reconciliation, it has chosen the politics of polarization."

To paraphrase one of the characters, we don't have to call them pigs because they know what they are. Better than we do. My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.

The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).

The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.

I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.

As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.

I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for. To think this film was made the year I was born. To think people are still having their constitutional rights taken away, now in the name of "homeland security". To think this movie was intentionally banned from the American public. PUNISHMENT PARK addresses the political divide in the United States better than any movie I've ever seen. Had it been more widely seen, would it have changed anything? A movie like this is so polarizing, it has the potential to cause riots. It shakes you up and forces you to take sides. It makes you face the issue: are you for the people's right of dissent in a time of war, or for the constitution being compromised in the name of "national security"? The protagonists are forced by the government to race to the American flag in a game that undermines the very ideals the flag stands for. The acting is totally convincing. So much so, I can't see any acting going on here at all. If this is a scripted documentary, it's more convincing than any reality show on television today. PUNISHMENT PARK is possibly the most important film ever made. It really makes you think. It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.

The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an american flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.

The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by european film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a european film crew allowed to film those things.

There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophists, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.

These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of "watching their language" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intendend they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.

The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand this free days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since they is no real difference.

The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. These is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even is this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.

To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional goverment nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And such a film is banned. Think about it when you see the american flag the next time. Punishment Park is a brilliant piece of cinema. Shot in the Southern

California desert using his patent faux documentary style, Watkins

creates a film like no other. He follows two groups of prisoners (one

pre-sentenced the other post-sentenced) throughout the picture. After

they're tried by a military tribunal, they have the choice of either

serving out a prison sentence or they can participate in Punishment

Park (a grueling three day hike through the desert with nothing but the

clothes on their backs) whilst being hunted down by local law

enforcement officers who use the park as a live action training

ground). I can't say enough about this movie. Sometimes it feels as if

you're watching a real documentary. This is one of Peter Watkins most

accessible films. I advise you to look out for it. You wont regret it!

Highly recommended

A+

Contains Spoilers

This is a Peter Watkins film. If one has seen his BBC masterpieces "Cullodden" and "The War Game", one will recognize the style (and his voice) within seconds after the start. Made in 1971 it is set in a very near future, when the Vietnam war has escalated even more and now seems to involve China. Nixon is still president and civil disobedience and protest is dealt with violently using drumhead tribunals (outwardly civilian with 'everyday citizens' as judges). Because "prison building can't keep up", an alternative is introduced: The Punishment Park. Delinquents can choose between severe prison sentences and a man hunt in a hostile environment, in this case a 85 km trip through the Californian desert at 100°F. If they reach an American flag at the end without being caught by National Guard or Riot Police, they will be set free, or else they have to serve their sentence (or be dead, as we will see). The film is made in a completely documentary style with three European teams covering a tribunal and the course of two groups already sentenced. Scenes jump between the tribunal tent, the hunting troops and the hunted condemned. Watkin's scarce off commentary gives us raw background information (time, temperature etc.). The tribunal scenes show a kangaroo court on the one side and a wide range of personalities on the other ranging from real terrorists over 'undesirables' to clearly innocents (e.g. a total pacifist who can't even hurt flies). The defense lawyer (who does take his job seriously) has to take abuse from both sides. What makes these scenes especially eerie is their resemblance to the rhetoric of todays administration to the detail. Meanwhile, some unfortunate events in the desert make clear that the 'rules of the game' don't really apply. The question remains open, whether it is rigged from the start or arbitrariness by the troops due to those events that leads to the outcome (I suspect, it is both). At the end we are back at square one with the next group going to "Punishment Park". This description may indicate a heavily biased (or even demagogic) propaganda movie but that would be misleading. The behavior (all participants were nonprofessionals as usual with Watkins) looks and sounds real (the tribunal scenes may even contain text material from real contemporary trials). I'd say that this could be sold as the 'real thing' without problem. With Watkins's "The Forgotten Faces" the reaction was "We can't send that or nobody will believe our real newsreels anymore (because this is indistinguishable from the real thing)". With "Punishment Park" it ought to be the same. Effectively banned in the US as far as I know this is a must see that hasn't lost its power or its relevance (especially today). Punishment Park is a pseudo-documentary made by Peter Watkins. The premise is that the nation's dissidents (hippies, musicians, protesters, pacifists, etc.) are being rounded up and tried by a tribunal and then given the choice of prison or running the course of Punishment Park. It's a 52 mile grueling trek through the desert to an American flag, with police, National Guard, and various other authority figures in pursuit. The idea is, that if you make it to the flag, you're set free. The tribunal consists of a bunch of conservative types, all condemning any behavior that is not like their own, and there is no result except a prison sentence or the option of "Punishment Park" for any of those on trial. There are a lot of things in this that still ring true today, which is quite disturbing in itself. The people running the course are promised water at the half-way point, which isn't true, and the pursuing officials are mostly a sadistic bunch that are just out for a bit of target practice. This is not a very graphic film but it's more shocking in its ideas and themes than anything else. The scary thing is, it could happen. Not a very upbeat film but definitely worth seeing. Warning: it might make you angry. 9 out of 10. Certain aspects of Punishment Park are less than perfect, specifically some of the acting. However I feel that this is probably the most important movie of the "war on terror" era. I grew up hating hippies and in some respects I still do. It wasn't until the United States was started down the path of an unnecessary and deceitful war in Iraq that I began to see the world through their eyes. I can feel what they must have felt. Although the film is somewhat dated, watching it brings those uncomfortable emotions about our present situation right to the surface. It's clear enough early in the film that Punishment Park is designed to be a concentration and death camp for all the "unpatriotic" elements of American society. This is certainly an exaggerated and extreme view of our polarized society, but it is CREDIBLE. At times I find myself believing that the USA could easily slip into fascism. As I watched this film I could only think about how I hear similar sentiments from people on both sides of the political spectrum almost daily. This movie is a raw, concentrated distillation of America's PRESENT political scene. I am both impressed and saddened that something this relevant (and yes, accurate) was filmed more than 30 years ago. If you take a more moderate view of the movie and choose to believe that this couldn't happen here, look more closely at Guantanamo Bay, some of our "enemy combatants," the rumored CIA secret prisons and the many incidents similar to the one in Greensboro, NC in 1979 (8 full years AFTER the making of this movie). Realistic Master-Piece. thirty years later, the pictures can look a bit old, but actually, it only accurate the 'fist in the face' effect of the movie. I never saw in my whole life a film like this one. First time I saw it, I didn't know if it was a fiction... And It didn't looked like... That movie is a masterpiece that every single person in the world have to see. It's the best ever society critical movie. The ultimate movie that demonstrate that the system is down. And the system has not change a lot, in thirty years. I think this movie would have to be watched as an education piece. I saw Peter Watkin's Culloden and The War Game a few months before this and was very impressed. The technique is essentially the same, or at least very similar, in this film detailing on the one hand a trial of dissidents in California in the (apparently) near future, and on the other the attempts of a group of convicted "criminals" to slog through 50 miles of desert to win their freedom in a government-run "punishment park" as an alternative to prison. Watkins films everything in a documentary style, which causes for more than a little awkwardness or required strong suspension of disbelief: how is it that the camera crew is with the group of starving and parched prisoners over 2 days without either offering help or sharing in their misery? And that's merely the most obvious example. But questionable storytelling aside, this packs a punch; no question you have to be interested in political film-making to really get involved, but the film really isn't like anything else of its era: it pulls no punches, offers no simple solutions. The leftist political figures are certainly painted broadly at times, but they aren't all alike; the right-wing government functionaries seem a little more cartoonish, but even they are allowed to show at least a little humanity. Overall, the film gives much to think about and leaves an indelible taste.....8/10 DVD rental This extraordinary pseudo-documentary, made in 1971, perfectly captures the zeitgeist of America today...which makes it all the more scary and relevant. "subversives" (college students, hippies, black activists, academics) are being rounded up by the government and given lengthy prison terms for what amount to thought crimes and social protest. As an alternative to life in prison, these convicted "criminals" are offered three days in "Punishment Park". Their objective inside the park is to make their way to the American flag where freedom awaits them. Not surprisingly, the Punishment Park option is a dirty lie. This brilliant film from Peter Watkins even pre-dates "Battle Royale" and "Series 7", though its angle of attack is more blatantly political. Shot in '71, it looks and feels as fresh as anything made today. The performances are exemplary and the direction is razer sharp. The narrative cuts back and forth between various groups trying to survive the harsh conditions of the park and the McCarthy-like trials that convicted them. Today, this film still retains its power. In '71, there was nothing but nothing quite like it. This is a masterpiece that succeeds on a dozen levels. It has the balls that most people today have lost. It kicks you in the stomach. There are other films with more convincing characters, a more realistic story, and maybe even more depth concerning political invocations. But then again, most of these are not directed by Peter Watkins. Maybe the one true genius artist of British Film to emerge out of the 1960s, Watkins has made quite a bunch of rarely seen films that perfectly capture the spirit of the outer-aesthetic world - the world of political ongoings, social problems and governmental solutions. Thus, his work is probably less "filmic" than, say, political, which some may call a weakening of their inherent artistic quality. Then again, why shouldn't art allow itself to become engaged? Watkins dares. And succeeds. You won't feel well with this one. You won't feel happy. Actually, you won't really like the film; it is uncompromising, honest, direct, unashamed; a smash in your face, in short. You can't help getting angry, you can't resist to let the things you see touch you. That is what makes Watkins' films so rewarding. Set in a California detention camp in an indistinct future, an English film crew capture proceedings as young students and political dissidents are put on trial under a fictional 'Insurrection Act' that allows the United States government to suspend civil liberties for its own citizens in cases of emergency without the right to bail or the necessity of evidence. In such cases the government is authorised to apprehend and detain anyone they believe may engage in future activities of sabotage. The group on trial includes a feminist, a black panther and a folk singer.

Those convicted by the a Conservative tribunal have the choice of a lengthy prison sentence or three days in Punishment Park, in which they can attain their freedom by reaching an American flag in the desert. They must accomplish this without food or water. They are also to be pursued by armed National Guards and police who can return them to the camp if captured to face the penal sentence attributed to each person convicted. The reality is different; those that choose Punishment Park are hunted and killed or brutalised with no hope of gaining their freedom after a policeman is found dead in the park. The park seems to be a training ground for the police and guards who need to master these acts of suppression so they can be put to use in open American society.

Shot on 16mm and in the documentary style developed by Watkins, in his celebrated Culloden and the controversial The War Game for the BBC; he interacts with the prisoners and guards and observes the unconstitutional trial, inter cutting between them to create a totally convincing political movie that still remains vital and relevant. Using his knowledge of the medium, Watkins has produced a driving, relentless and ultimately frightening film portrayal of an entirely fictional American political detention camp that would not convince if it wasn't for his flawless construction. Many of the actors are amateurs improvising with broad characters. The sparks fly in the trial scenes in which each case is heard, in part to the fact that Watkins kept those on trial away from the jury until the filming of those scenes. Watkins also claims that the actors are often expressing their own opinions which certainly explain the ferocity as well as the believability of their performances.

The film has been heavily criticised for polarising the opinions of those that see it. It has been claimed that the film is reactionary and unequivocally represents that conservatism and war are the root of America's social problems. While these criticisms may be valid it is important to consider that the film is working on a fictional, metaphorical level and it is perhaps the realism that the film so cleverly constructs that encourages such a heated opinion on its content. In fact the films most important theme is the problem of polarisation itself. The 'conservative' judges and brutal law officers are on one side and the 'liberal' convicts are clearly on the other with no concessions made on either side. This seems to be what the movie is really about. The new law and the park itself is the outgrowth of a situation where mediation between the two political positions has been lost.

Made during and in protest to the Vietnam War and the treatment of those who opposed the war in America the films main themes of Governmental persecution of its own citizens and Conservatism impinging on civil liberties still strike the same chord in the era of the Patriot act and the identity card. It also strikes a disturbing chord with news footage of Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Allied forces.

The threat of internal 'terrorism' is such a volatile issue that the film cannot fail to connect with current attitudes to the subject. Not surprisingly the film has had a checkered distribution history, being marginalised to an extreme due to its content but the disturbing fact that this movie is that can still remain so relevant today suggests that the wait has not been for nothing. Punishment Park is a film that has had to fight to be seen anywhere and it demands your attention. First of all, the entire script is mostly improv, adding to the fantastic illusion that what we are watching is an actual documentary. Secondly, the actors hired by Watkins were purposefully chosen to represent their true political alliances and backgrounds. The hippies portrayed are actual hippies, the government officials (though not necessarily in the government themselves) are at least actually hearty conservatives within the system, and several of the cops are actual policemen. The interactions of these actors, given the textual freedoms alloted by Watkins, eventually come to a violent head where even Watkins himself is convinced that a cast member had actually been shot. (We hear him screaming "Cut! Cut!" in the background.)

An AMAZING film though American critics were quite harsh in their reviews, one actually reporting that it was the "most offensive" film she had ever seen. This not entirely unexpected as the unveiling of this oppressive communist-like mentality of America during this era would certainly rattle some cages. This pseudo-documentary definitely requires an open mind, though if you are seriously looking for an intensely accurate portrayal of 60s culture, this would be THE film to watch. As far as fake documentaries go (fakumentaries anyone?), this one is up there with the best! It looks very real and that is what it aims for. In recent light of events (Guantanamo) this movie is even scarier, so you could say it was ahead of it's time, when it was released in the 70s!

One can only hope that a government like that doesn't exist! Looking for terrorists and interviewing people just like that? Of course the people interviewed all seemed to have the same (70s mentality): Screw the politicians and politics in general. Maybe that wasn't so clever one might think ... but hey, don't forget: It's only a movie! ;o) Peter Watkins' rarely seen Punishment Park is a brutality-laced, uncompromised political weapon set across a never ending desertscape. An unapologetically left leaning anti authoritarian abuse fest, the escapades at first appear to be so over the top militaristic and sickening that it could come off as some distant fantastical dystopian alternate history, one Harry Turtledove would even enjoy. But once we delve deeper in and really pay attention to the abhorrent diatribe spouting out of those presiding over the tent topped tribunal, as well as the shotgun toting guards overseeing the bloody affair, our eyes are truly opened. Suddenly we realize just how prescient Watkins' film-making is, as much of this is the kind of neo-con talking points about youth culture and the legality of divergent thought tossed around by politicians today. Granted, much of it was drivel pouring out then as well, but it really shows us how little has changed, and informs of how, in some ways, we are closer to such a world where Punishment Parks would be a real and frightening operation.

The main players in nearly every scene are seasoned non actors, mostly chosen for their rash political views and desire to get them on camera. This lends an unprecedented heap of authenticity to the entire experience as we never, even for a second, question the reality of all the chaos. Shot documentary style with 16mm film, this appears like a gritty documentation of some despicable government test project that was classified until found years later. At least it appears to have that history to it now, maybe not as much when it was (barely) released. But this gives an added weight to all the proceedings and helps draw you into this incredible not-so-alternate universe of torture for convicted dissidents. Well I've enjoy this movie, even though sometimes it turns too much to a stereotypical situation. I didnt understood at this time if the "Punishment Park" has exist in the past, but I think the matter isnt really here.

You have to look at this movie in a different manner. It shows how much violence you can find in our world. It reminds us that we live in a world who is lead by violence and that nobody can escape from it. If anyone refuse to "take his responsabilities" then you will be thrown out of our society...All our history is made by wars, we should never forget this. In fact its only when we will finally accept the truth that, maybe, we will change and understand that our "intellectual skills" have improve. So we could use them to find others ways to resolve our problems.

In 2 words this movie is a must see, maybe it will help us to accept the truth... I watched pp the other night. I have to say I was very impressed with how real the film seemed. It felt very much like a documentary. I also think that the film presented realistic possibilities. In the film the war in Vietnam escalates to the point where China has become involved. What if that had happened? I think the scenarios would be similar to the one portrayed in the movie. We have had camps before in this country... and still do...

Highly Recommended for everyone...especially radicals...

I kept saying that if I were in the position that those kids were in that I would just lie my ass off. I love America and its grand wars (wink wink) Death Camp Opera: Right Here, Right Now!

Ten years ago, I read that a very special movie had been directed about the polarization of our society. A certain Peter Watkins was the author. His picture was acted by some non-professional actors, citizens like you and me… and others. The violence of the atmosphere was described as extremely realistic. Was it a movie, a documentary? Both actually.

Over the years, I realized how hard it was to find it. Maybe I would, by coincidence? Anyway, it's yet an old story. I saw it a short while ago. Totally impressing. My very favourite peace of art: Punishment Park is its name. I love this "docu-fiction", this "truecastmovie", this "realityshowfictionnal", what ever. After all the shock movies I saw, I reach the best with this strong and intense cinematography'experience. I found a masterpiece. There is enough on the net to know many things about the movie. It is even to buy on DVD, with additional stuff. The only words I want to add is about my own experience with this film. I can only trust such a sincere and engaged peace of art about people and for people, those who direct, act or watch. A cinema which is simply a real human experience within an art adventure… or the opposite.

So, I'm not talking about all the 'mucs' we can see on TV, especially the 'real'shity-show' whom the concepts of people playing them-selves are interesting, but used in a stupid and perverse way. In Punishment Park, we can see some real individuals living as they are. We only put them in a very specific context, with a few lines to follow, and we let them be what they want to be. It's a kind of therapy, a way of 'individuation' for those inside the movie and also for the active spectators in front of screens. Then, to end, the director's touch edits a short and sweet apocalypse movie, a desperate scream, a 'Death Camp Opera', where some folks are on the run after virulent trials. Punishment Park is for those who want to grow. See this film and have the opportunity to choose your own morality. Grow up and harmonize yourself with it! If you can feel it! If you can see it!! In my case, Punishment Park is stuck in me for ever, with all my love, consciousness and will. The most amazing film I have ever seen. I didn't read the programming and I just stumbled onto the movie by accident. I thought it was a real documentary and i felt sick at what I saw. I only found out it was a movie after it was finished and i looked on the web for more info about "punishment park" in the U.S. It felt incredibly real and it is easy to believe that this really has happened in the US if you are from Europe. I must admit that I felt really anti-american after watching the movie and before finding out that it didn't really happen that way. I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant. A powerful "real-tv" movie. Very subversive and therefore remaining almost un-broadcasted ! (almost...thanx 2 arte in France). After you've watched this manhunt all movies filmed with the same concept (a documentary team following the events as they arrived) seem so weak.

DAVID The strong points in the film were clear for the beginning and middle part of the film. It showed how a very violent, reactive authority might react to resistance. Filmed in the fashion of a documentary, the director captures what would have happened if the United States enacted martial law. Volunteering for "punishment park," a training ground for cops where you're bullied and harassed, would offer you an out to this dire scenario. It switches between the court trials for those facing accusations, those who are in the park escaping police attention, the training of officers preparing to handle these prisoners, the judges in their leisure time, among many other things. It was a very strong, deeply moving film.

The only fault I had with this was its realism. Officers are often seen holding their pistols like they were seven years old with a plastic toy (i.e. a 90 degree bent elbow when pointing a gun in someone's face, or the way one cop just makes it look like it's hard to kick someone when they're down, etc., etc..). It starts out as an honest and interesting attempt to capture a very critical state of political affairs. By the end of the film, the viewer is slowly reminded again and again of the prejudices of the director and the producers. The antagonist characters in the story start out as genuine, real human beings and then slowly progress into "stereotypical, objectifiable forces of evil" by the very end. The mistakes they make are stupid, the force they demonstrate is unreal and unlike the way real police act, the judges during this court hearing are shown making stupid and unreal mistakes, among many other things.

The realness of the movie started to fall apart when it became evident that this was just another blank-check attempt to make government look bad. And that's coming from an Anarchist. The scenes at the end started to get hokey, unreal, and a thousand times over-dramatic. Still, for the earlier part of it, it promises some very moving storyline. I caught this movie on TV yesterday. I had a certain curiosity about it, being that it was directed by Emilio Estevez and starring him and his real-life Dad, Martin Sheen. I love to see a movie about a father-son relationship that involves a real-life father and son. Naturally, there's an instant chemistry between Sheen and Estevez, and their scenes of conflict are even more intense, knowing that they're actually related. Of course, it helps that the two of them are both terrific actors. I've seen Martin Sheen in intense roles before, but I think this is Emilio's most intense role--being that I mostly recall him from the "Mighty Ducks" series--and I was very impressed. Talent REALLY does run in that family. And Kathy Bates steals the movie in an Oscar-worthy performance. She tugged at my heartstrings with every word of dialogue. Kimberly Williams--the beautiful actress from the "Father of the Bride" movies--is also very good, holding her own among a group of talented veteran actors.

The movie is a bit stagey, with dialogue that's obviously geared for the stage, but that didn't bother me. This is not meant to be an action movie; this is a character study. And for a film that's based on a play, it never gets too claustrophobic. When Emilio's character, Jeremy, reminisces to his days in Vietnam, we actually see his harrowing memories brought to life.

The film is extremely powerful and realistic, without being sentimental. At the end, I expected all the conflicts to be resolved and the family would become hunky-dory, but that's not how it turned out. The ending made me cry, without resorting to standard Hollywood melodrama. That proves reality is much more gripping than anything Hollywood can conjure up.

If you're in the mood for a beautiful, powerful drama with extremely wonderful performances that will knock your socks off...please check out this underrated gem. Hopefully, one day Martin and Emilio will unite with Charlie, and they will all make a great film together.

My score: 9 (out of 10) The most intense and powerful film I have seen in years. There have been other films before that delved into the Vietnam Vet but nothing compared to this emotionally heartwrenching film, as a typical American suburban family, circa 1972, comes apart at the seams, revealing the scars that Vietnam has left on our all of our collective souls. The cast is A++++ fantastic with all four actors(with Kathy Bates a stand-out) giving riveting performances. What is wonderful about this film is that you take no sides, but understand all four characters and empathize with them, even though all four have divergent viewpoints and needs. There are scenes in here that are so powerful as family secrets and feelings are revealed(such as the confrontation between son and mother) that will have you emotionally drained and in tears of anguish. I actually cried in this film, something I rarely do. The shocking end is a stunner! A much overlooked film that should be seen. I rate this 1996 film a 10/10 a superlative piece. Highly recommended especially in this day and age with again, our country embroiled in a hideous war, our headlines shouting of atrocities and again, our young men and women returning with deep psychological scars, with their deep pain of deeds done in the line of honor. A must see film. I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable, Not being a movie aficionado, I am not familiar with the names of leading Directors, Scriptwriters, Producers and the like, but I can tell an outstanding movie when I see one.

The makers of this fine movie could well be now at the top of their fields, or may well get there pretty soon. I know that the actors are already there.

It takes talent closer to genius to show with such realism how a national tragedy like Vietnam has impacted the everyday life of a typically average American family, and make us see at close range why there are so many homeless Vietnam veterans.

Without getting into gratuitous scenes of gore and bloodshed, it makes us understand why so many youg men had flashbacks of what they had been thru.

The dialog is particularly gripping, and gives us an idea of what went on in so many families in the aftermath of Vietnam.

I wish there were more good movies like this one, not just about Vietnam, but about other social conditions as well. The connection with James Dean?In a short plan ,we see Emilio Estevez toying with a teddy bear(remember the first scene of Ray's "rebel without a cause").Moreover,the main conflict is Estevez versus Sheen,father against son,as in "East of Eden".The soldier has come home,and nobody has been able to communicate with him, even his sister (a psychology student,what a derision).The mother,a crude matron (a superb Kathy Bates),gets bogged down in nougatine ,she 's not able to understand that her values (religion,family) have become a thing of the past,specially for someone like his son whose innocence was betrayed. The father ,an irresolute man ,under his wife's thumb,although he tries hard to play the macho,wanted to make up for the mediocrity of his life .So he saved his "honor" by forcing his son to do his duty.The scene in which Estevez's hatred for his father explodes is very intense.The actor-director gives a restrained performance,interiorized,as Lee Strasberg's students used to do,and his final burst of anger is increased tenfold so. Emilio Estevez actually directed a good movie--who woulda thought? I sat through two previous films Estevez directed--"Wisdom" (with then girlfriend Demi Moore) and "Men at Work" (with brother Charlie Sheen). They are lousy films---badly acted, directed, stupid and offensive. Estevez is a good actor but lousy as a director. I turned this on in pure curiousity--it has a great cast and I had nothing else to do. Damned if it didn't pull me in.

It concerns Estevez coming home from Vietnam permanently scarred by what happened over there. His parents (Kathy Bates, Martin Sheen) and sister (Kimberly Williams) try to reach him but can't. Something in Vietnam has affected him deeply...and he's about to explode...

A bit overlong but still very good. A lot of the material is familar but the cast is so good that they make it seem new. Estevez is good, Sheen is terrific (and Estevezs' real life father), Williams is touching and Bates is just extraordinary--trying to hold the family together. It all leads up to a powerful ending which REALLY surprised me.

Well worth catching.

This movie is on cable sporadically, and I never really watched it, thinking it would be similar to the Bruce Willis film "Ïn America", with the usual trite story about American freedom, etc. But it was not; it was so much more!.

Of course, Martin Sheen is excellent; (I have never seen him in a movie I haven't loved, even if the script is bad, because he is so talented). Kathy Bates is the overbearing mom, and does a great job. The real surprise is Emilio Estevez, who has not always been in the greatest films, but also directed this movie. Please don't stereotype him from the "Breakfast Club" movie; he is so much better in this, and I wish he would do more non-commercial, atypical Hollywood movies.

The film is realistic, as we see Emilio home from Vietnam, during Thanksgiving. Kimberly Williams is passable as the sister, who feels she is "disgraced and embarrassed" by the returning soldier, her brother; he is quite alienated from the family, and, especially at this time in US history, this story is VERY relevant.

I learned a great deal about post-traumatic stress, and you will genuinely empathize with this character; This is not a violent, journalistic portrayal, like "Platoon" for example, it is more of a character study, which leaves us even more intrigued and concerned about the effects of war, especially when one considers the young age of the soldiers who are victims. With today's violence, it is rare that a movie causes one to genuinely feel sad, and shed a tear; this does it, and deserves recognition. One of my desires is to be a film-maker, and I just have to say there's no way I will be able to compete with the powerful drama The War at Home. The reason is because the acting is perfect, and when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. All I can suggest is watching it, I got so involved in it and was extremely impressed.

Estevez's and Sheen's relationship on the screen was absolutely amazing.

And so was his relationship with his mother (Kathy Bates). Some of the best scenes include these 2.

As well as the relationship between Sheen and his daughter, Estevez's sister in the film.

10/10, and definitely in my top 10. I want the DVD! The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of "The War At Home," I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with.

One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next.

This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the "Young Guns" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting.

The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags.

What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing. This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as the some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her characters in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.

This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.



Emilio Estevez takes the wonderful play HOMEFRONT and makes it into an engaging movie.

THE WAR AT HOME has an exceptionally strong cast -- all seemingly digging deep into their characters. The acting here is TOP NOTCH!

Credit must also go to director Emilio Estevez. The visual transitions between past and present were ultra smooth. The sound effects during the battle scenes were chilling and effectively added to the tension.

Remove all of the Viet Nam elements from the story, and still left would be interesting characters wrestling with the good and bad of the full range of family dynamics. (A viewer might see this point more clearly by keeping in mind the "discovering the old photo" scene from the beginning as the rest of the movie is watched).

As a movie, I found THE WAR AT HOME to be more direct and to the point than BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY. A fine effort -- almost a 10.

An under-appreciated, unseen gem. Estevez does a remarkable job of illustrating in poignant, heartbreaking fashion, the tension that arises between a son who's been to hell and back, and his parents, who can't begin to understand the emotional scarring left behind. It's not unlike Born on the Fourth of July, in that it deals with a soldiers' emotional and mental breakdown after serving in Vietnam, but while that one focused more on the politics of post-Vietnam (anti-war speeches, etc.), this one deals with a much more personal topic: Family. One man's struggle to return to normalcy after a life-altering experience, and his parents' failure to see the change that has occurred.

Estevez delivers a smoldering performance as Jeremy Collier. You can sense the pain and frustration bubbling beneath surface. There to match him inch for inch is his real-life father, Martin Sheen. It's a trip watching these two act off of each other, as you get the sense that they're constantly trying to one-up one another. It's like the presence of each other inspired the pair to do their best, and their performances triumph because of it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates solid acting, writing and directing. And to any Vietnam war buff.

****/***** (8/10) This movie is powerful. I watched this movie at 3:00 am and I was suppose to be at work at 6:00 am, needless to say I was late to work. I could not bring myself to get up off my bed to go to work. This is the most powerful movie that I have seen in a long time. And that made me cry and feel the pain of the family. I think Emilo did a wonderful job of directing this film. I agree with the previous comments from other views that this is the only movie that I have seen that has brought the war home and showed what a family had to go through, what a veteran went through. It is almost heart breaking to think that back then people just thought you could come home from a life changing experience and be the same person you were before you left. Kathy Bates reminded me of my mother in a way. I believe she really showed how women felt and acted back then. I am surprised that this film wasn't up for more awards. Estevez, Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates are superb in this portrayal of a Vietnam vet home from the war but still haunted by it. Bates plays a clueless mother who just wants the family to be a "family." Sheen is terrific as the father who tries to understand what his son is going through but is too wrapped up in his principles to really empathize. The setting is Thanksgiving Day and the relatives are coming for dinner. Estevez, who plays the returning vet, wants no part of family tradition and insists on wearing his combat fatigues to dinner, explaining "This is what I wore last Thanksgiving." The bickering and family arguments are priceless, particularly the "peanut brittle crisis," but the ending is both gripping and terrifying. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Overall, one of the best movies I've ever seen. This movie has a very deep look at the relationships between a mother who was raised in a Christian environment and learned that appearance is everything. She and her son, who just recently returned from Vietnam collide in some very tense issues. The relationship has no connections intimately and is a great accurate portrayal of what it is like to live with someone who is false and only looks at the surface of issues. Kathy Bates does an excellent job of portraying a woman of false faith who is either oblivious to her cruelty, forgetful or just doesn't want to be confronted. Jeremy's wrath is never feared and it leads to a very disturbing conflict between him and his feelings about his fathers love for him. This is a very honest look at some family dynamics after a traumatic event leads one to despair. I had never heard of this film and only got it because I am a Martin Sheen fan. Now I am stunned as to why it did not receive the praise and recognition that it truly deserves. The four characters all make you feel for them, the father trying to assert his authority, the mother still clinging to traditional family values and both trying to keep up appearances despite the total fragmentation of their family, the daughter wanting her own life and the son haunted by his experiences in Vietnam. One felt that this was a scenario that must have been played out in thousands of 'ordinary' families after Vietnam. Emilio Estevez as Jeremy was superb - totally unhinged by his war experience which none of his family could relate to. The screen chemistry between him and his real-life father Martin Sheen was amazing. And there were times when Emilio's anguished face was so like Martin's in "Apocalypse Now". I feel sure that just as Martin has counted Apocalype as one of his best films, Emilio will count this one as one of his best too. The scene with the gun was totally mind-blowing, as all the emotions were there on the family's faces. Brilliant acting by Estevez, Sheen and Kathy Bates. I watched the film for the first time last night - and today the lead story in the news was about a Gulf War veteran who had shot several members of his family. How many more young men are going to have their lives destroyed by war? This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view.

Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family.

Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.

It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whom

Emilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.

Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons. I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news. The movie shows many feelings and emotions that are very strong and personal. The atmosphere in the movie is very tense and sad. You can really get a clear picture of what the main character is going through, and how he is responding to the world around him. I think it is a great movie, and that everybody should see it.

I feel privileged to have accidentally seen this movie. I actually ran across this movie by accident. I was taping another movie on Showtime one night, overnight and this movie came on afterward. So I sat and watched it and boy was I blown away. The acting is absolutely superb. Kathy Bates...who has been my favorite actress since Misery and Fried Green Tomatoes gave an amazing performance as a domineering mother who tries desperately to hold on to her old school values (religion, family) at the risk of alienating her family. Martin Sheen is superb as the "tough" patriarch who is really not in control of anything in his life or family. The one thing I really loved about this movie is how it tells what happens when the heroes come home. It shows the true damage that is done to our soldiers after they fight pointless wars for political and financial gain. This movie just blew me away and I feel blessed to have accidentally taped this movie and seen it. This is a must-see for anyone who wants a true drama, this is not too melodramatic and preachy, but pulls at your heartstrings like none other There have been many movies about people returning home from wars and having to cope, but "The War at Home" is worth seeing. Portraying Vietnam vet Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) having trouble connecting with his Texas family, much of the movie is very likely to tense you up. But nothing can prepare you for what ends up getting revealed.

Part of what makes this movie so good is how it gives the viewer the feeling of both Texas and of the generation gap. Jeremy's parents Bob (Martin Sheen) and Maurine (Kathy Bates) clearly have a problem with their son's attitude, both about the war and his rejection of Americanism. His sister Karen (Kimberly Williams) is uncertain with whom to side. But after the dinner, there can be no neutrality.

So, we as Americans may never be able to fully get over the Vietnam War, but this movie can probably help us look seriously at how it affected so many people. Emilio Estevez certainly did a good job directing. Also starring Corin Nemec and Carla Gugino. This movie was well done. It covers the difficulties a returning Vietnam veteran has in dealing with the horrors of war. Unfortunately the writers chose to focus on a Vet who had been involved in an act of atrocity. I was in Vietnam and only once heard of such an act by one who witnessed it. The offender was prosecuted and sentenced to many years in Leavenworth.

The notion that only vets involved in atrocities had emotional problems is a disservice to all who served. All of the soldiers I knew personally or knew of by word of mouth were honorable soldiers who respected even the enemy and believed they were there to halt the spread of Communism. The biggest problem was coming home to learn that many Americans were opposed to the war. That is what caused many Veterans to feel they had taken part in something less than honorable. Not the manner in which they served.

The ending depicted the father acting more as a belligerent bully than a loving, caring father. For that I gave it a 7 out of 10. Had the ending allowed for a degree of acceptance I could have rated it a 9.

Most decent men will come home from war with guilt and emotional scars. They need acceptance and understanding to overcome that. I pray that the public is more understanding of our present day Veterans than it was in the the Vietnam era. I would like to know if "The Outsiders" (Australian TV series) will ever be released on DVD sometime in the future? And is the music (Title Theme) available on CD?

There was only one series of 13 episodes of this drama and should have gone on to at least three or even four series in total.

The Young German Actor in the series was also in a German TV series called "Black Forest Clinic" which aired here in the UK with English dialogue superimposed with the lip-sync.

I look forward to hearing any comments from TV Industry personnel on the above questions, thank you in advance. The Outsiders is undoubtedly a classic Australian TV series. Well defined characters, tight scripts, varied and interesting locales, great guest stars and a filmic ambiance all combined to make this series a special one.

Sadly, Andrew Keir has passed on & Sascha Hehn from Germany does not appear (unfortunately) to have enjoyed small screen success in his native country. The ABC has repeated the series many times yet a DVD release is yet to happen.

The series is one which is timeless. It is as likely to strike a resonant chord with viewers today as it did in its own day. Come on ABC...release The Outsiders on DVD!!!!! Watched this when it was first screened and then missed it when it disappeared of British screens. It showed a different side of Old Australia that we need to see more of. Good juxtaposition of old hand and young turk. Then the realism of the hard out back was fantastic. It was sadly missed. This show was a cold look at the old way of looking at Australia. Hard living and hard working. The young idealist clashing with the old practical head. Real Politicka fighting with the young upstarts of New Labour. To add modern political vernacular.

This show was the first of its type that I came across that did not try to do a tourist job on Australia. It was a great showing of the realistic

come documentary realistic type of show. Some good films were out at the time doing a similar job. It would be great to see more of this type of TV come from Australia for it has been sadly missing this last twenty years. for all we have been fed is the soap pulp of varying quality. Yeah great cult TV series. Great atmosphere, top script and good performances make this a class A candidate for DVD release.

This is a seminal tour de force of Australian TV history and has that unforgettable groovy period piece soundtrack with Doug Parkinson's gravel and phlegm voice spewing 70's Australiana all over your cathode ray box as a amazingly long camera zoom out reveals the religion of the open road in all its Antipodean glory. This is a memento from another and not too distant era, and has the proud stamp of the land mighty Down Under from start to finish in all its raw freedom and gritty grandeur.

Come on ABC! Get with the program and release this cool 70's cult baby for all to enjoy - or re-enjoy if you're lucky enough to have lived the dream at the time. This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good. This film has not been seen by me in quite a few years. It came on the Disney Channel in the wee hours of the morning. I stayed up to watch it, and found it even more entertaining than the first time. The story, the scenery and the characters are as good as they come. I know that if anyone takes the time to view this film, they will find it definitely worth seeing a second time. It's very memorable in more ways than one. I would recommend this film to anyone because it is both entertaining and educational for all concerned.

s A lumberman finds a young cougar in need of help. To young to be on his own the cat soon takes up with the rugged camp workers. Nicknamed "Good Time Charlie' his antics amuse everyone at first. His wild nature eventually begins to cause trouble and reintroducing him into his natural habitat becomes an issue. This film is among those wonderful Disney nature films that were common in the 50's and 60's Lots of action, beautiful scenery and some endearing animal to charm you. These films were not long but included fascinating glimpses into wildlife and the effects of human contact. Unlike Disney's animated talking animals the animals in these films remained true to their own nature. They also make great travel films for seeing the western states. this is one of my favorite movies ever! along with casablanca and cannibal holocaust, this is near perfect cinema. rex allen narrates this wonderful tale of a cougar who just needs a little loving. contains action, adventure, suspense, comedy, and riverbed chaos! SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE TO KILL TO DO IT!!! you will not find a better cat picture anywhere, with "cat from outer space" coming in as a not so close second. charlie's performance is magnificent. even includes animal cruelty and intense logging! gotta love disney, for all moral failures! Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.

The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.

In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good. It was a sweet, intro for the most intelegent Sailor Soldier, Sailor Mercury. It consisted with a new "in croud", Merciurios. He, at the beganing wrote a love letter to Ami, which would be starltling (of course) and, now, Ami thiks he is a chibi-Einstien, and he is attractive (He ended up looking like Umino (Melvin)). This was a halarios (expesialy Minako's "It's no skin off my neck" scene (HOT!)) Well, I really like the Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon Series, I personally think its the best anime ever!, But, this movie was nice, funny, but not as adventurios as Sailor Moon R- It was more like the "S" movie. I saw this @ Sailor Moon Univewrse, with real Player, and it was pretty good. (Over all) Almost missed it. While visiting friends in Philadelphia sometime in the early 1980`s, I was channel surfing after everyone else went to bed. It wasn`t just Bogart he was obsessed with; but rather the entire era of those old flicks those of my age know so well. Add to that a plot liken to The Maltese Falcon - where so many different characters were interacting with Sacchi - and you have a piece of art as far as I`m concerned. About ten years later it appeared on TV and I taped it. > This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience. Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot. Making this short and to the point. This movie was great! I loved it! I actually picked this up at a Hollywood Video for 3 bucks on VHS and watched it about 5 times in the last couple weeks. I'm a big Bogart fan and I just latched onto this movie. I thought the song was funny and now have it as a ring tone on my phone. Robert Sacchi is great and pulls off a good Bogart. His nose is a little big, his voice is a Bogart-Columbo mix, and he does a few things that are awkward but otherwise, he was fantastic and this film was wonderful. No one can be a perfect Bogart but he was great. Remember, Sam Marlow is a fan of Bogart and isn't going to do everything he did. He mentions a lot of other movies and does some things that were never part of the real Bogart's character's. But, it's so funny and hilarious and has a great cast, including some beautiful women. Watch it and have fun! This movie is a very enjoyable homage to the Bogart and other detective films of old. Robert Sacchi nails it as Bogie and Michelle Phillips is a truly timeless beauty as Gena Anastas.

However, the most noteworthy portion of this film involves the longest belly dancing scene ever produced in a Hollywood film. One well-known professional instructor commented that nothing else in cinema comes close for dance excitement.

The scene, which ends up being an important part of the plot, occurs in a lushly beautiful Middle Eastern nightclub and is by all accounts mesmerizing. The pulsating music, the swirling veils and ringing finger cymbals, free-flowing undulations and beautiful costumes - and a surprise twist involving the seductive Sybil Danning - build tension and excitement until the very end.

The three talented and beautiful professional nightclub dancers are led by exotic brunette beauty Kamala Almanzar, one of the US' leading belly dancers since the mid-1970s. She was hand-picked by famed Armenian musician Guy Chookoorian to travel with his orchestra on the road. Guy's ensemble is the live band that the dancers perform to in the scene. If you watch the trailer on this site, you will see a glimpse of Kamala (playing the finger cymbals behind Sybil Danning).

If you're not yet a fan of belly dancing, you will be after watching this movie, and if you're an aficionado, it holds up very well after repeated viewing. As over the past ten years or even longer the whole world is flooded with so-called sitcoms (actually only very few deserve this title 'cause they're so predictable), King of Queens is a very original, unique and astoundingly funny alternation. It's about the daily life of a deliveryman and his wife who works as an attorney's assistant in Manhattan in Queens, NY. With them lives Carrie's father Arthur, a picture-book extrovert, who is played by the fantastic Jerry Stiller and who steals the show from all the others every time he appears. Other important people are their best friends Deacon and Kelly, a married couple, and their other friend Spence who's almost 30 and still lives with his mother. What makes this show so unique and funny is, above all, that every single character seems so real and Carrie's cynical, sarcastic attitude is the total opposite of Doug's good-natured, slightly dumb optimism.And Arthur's the one who makes it absolutely unpredictable with his strange ideas and habits. He often gets himself into trouble and Doug and Carrie have to drag him out of the mud. Even if in my opinion the quality of the show decreased a little within the last years it's still one of the best daily sitcoms ever made. It takes a little time to get into the characters and relate to them, but after that's done, you get some unstoppable laughs from it. Although I think I couldn't survive one day with Arthur in a closed room without beating the guts out of him, I really adore him in this show. Watch and have fun, I give it a 9 out of 10. This show is brilliantly hilarious! I started watching in 2007, and had never heard of it before then. After one episode, I was hooked. I'm never home to watch it, so my wife bought me the entire series on DVD. Non stop laughs, need I say more? I wish it was still on TV, because it is definitely worthy and a whole lot better of crap on currently on TV.

I wish they would make a movie, seriously, who wouldn't go see it. Kevin James's name alone will bring a huge fanbase to any movie, the guy is (make your stomach hurt) funny.

Just a really good, down to earth, believable show. If you have the chance to buy it on DVD, do it, its worth it. This is by far the funniest sitcom that has ever aired on TV. I own all 9 seasons on DVD and literally could watch them over and over. Anyone who does not find this show hilarious, heartwarming, entertaining, and laugh out loud hysterical, is crazy! Kevin James is absolutely one of the most talented comedians out there. My boyfriend and I love going to stand up comedy shows in Boston (where we live) and have seen Kevin James twice and his brother Gary Valentine (Danny) once. They are both so unbelievably talented and just plan smart with their work. There are so many comedians out there that are just awful and Kevin and Gary really show the true side of real comedy. Leah Remini, although a snob and bitch in real life (so I have read) is an amazing actress and deserves more credit than any other woman in sitcoms. She truly makes the show...along with Jerry Stiller! This show is a must see and you will get addicted within one to two episodes! This is the best comedy period. It is so underrated! Clever witty humor, Great casting! Jerry Stiller is the jewel in the show, he is so incredibly funny and quirky, simply a comical genius! Doug and Carrie have great chemistry! I so do not see what the hype is about when it comes to Everybody loves Raymond it is SO overrated with lame jokes mostly forced humor and just not the witty show, I can't remember laughing in more than 1 episode. King of Queens is a rare comedy that has all the right ingredients to give you serious belly laughs which is normally caused by Arthur Spooner, I think its about time this comedy gets the hype it deserves and not the lame Raymond & CO. This is,in short,the TV comedy series with the best cast ever;and the most likable also.Each one of them is a first—hand comedy actor.I know only one TV series which was better (i.e., "Moonlighting")—that one had Willis as a lead—yet it had Willis only,while The King of Queens has a pocketful of actors that are as fine as one can enjoy--Kevin James, Leah Remini, Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt, Nicole Sullivan, Victor Williams, Gary Valentine,and even all the rest of them ….I spontaneously and continually and promptly liked it.Advancing age didn't spoil the fun,anyway.

In a few words,the series is intelligent and original,miraculously spared of the current TV stupidity and garbage. It is politically incorrect and doesn't court the minorities in the usual disgusting way.

The comic is very palatable and savory.

I read, mostly approvingly, a few IMDb writers, and sometimes they write about their favorite shows—yet, though these writers are several, I did not encountered, at any of them, the slightest mention of my favorite TV shows (--but it's true that the critics one likes are not those with whom he finds himself in complete approval—but those who at least offer a common basis for disapproval)—which are, mainly, WILD WILD WEST, MOONLIGHTING, QUEENS, FANTOMAS, the '80s TWILIGHT ZONE, Bradbury's TV show and SANDOKAN. Most of them I have seen when I was 13—14 yrs; about a few of them I have written, and execrably. I cant believe how many excellent actors can be on one show. It's the realism and fine acting that makes it look real. This has got to be the best comedy ever created to this day and I love Seinfeld and Everyone Loves Ramond. It is just fabulous and it seems everyone in my family agrees. Thats no isolated opinion of mine. The whole world seems to talk about different incidents and they try to reenact them. My hat off to the crew. Some shows have an actor that makes the whole show. This plot comedy has a slew (8) of them . That's what makes it so amazing. Some people pray for Health , Wealth or fame. I pray that the show never ends. Sicerely John. LKHUBBLE2@talkamerica.net If you put Seinfeld aside, this is The Best Comedy ever, no doubt! Just Great!

"The King Of Queens" just finished its eighth season of domestic bliss. Set in the working-class suburb of Queens, New York, the show follows Doug Heffernan (Kevin James), an amiable delivery man, and his wife, spitfire legal secretary Carrie Heffernan (Leah Remini), as they explore the everyday challenges of love, life, family and marriage.

Doug and Carrie deal with day-to-day domestic realities that reflect our times and enable us to laugh at ourselves. Their love for each other ultimately carries them through each dilemma they face, whether it's Doug's fixation with food or Carrie's obsession with expensive clothing.

Doug and Carrie also have to deal with the third, high-maintenance member of the Heffernan household ­ Carrie's twice-widowed father, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in their basement. His constant presence and often bizarre behavior add to their daily adventures. Doug and Carrie have stumbled upon an unorthodox solution to reduce their burden and keep Arthur happy ­ his regular excursions with gullible dog walker Holly (Nicole Sullivan). Doug's friends Deacon Palmer (Victor Williams), Spence Olchin (Patton Oswalt) and cousin Danny Heffernan (Gary Valentine) round out the cast with their "guy" humor and diverse perspectives.

In a manner that evokes "The Honeymooners," THE KING OF QUEENS finds inspiration in life's everyday situations. Last season alone saw Doug "loaning" Carrie to a wifeless Deacon for help with Thanksgiving dinner; the Heffernans suffering through the annoyance and financial strain of mold damage to their house; and Doug and Carrie striving to copy a couple whose photos ­ of a more adventurous life than Doug and Carrie's ­ they accidentally took home. We also watched Arthur grow jealous of a new dog that Holly added to her route, and Doug finding out that his overprotective parents replaced his childhood dog Rocky three times behind his back. Throughout, the series showcases James' incredible physical comedy, Remini's hard-edged wit, and Stiller's unique comic presence.

You can't... You shoulden't Miss it! "THE KING OF QUEENS," in my opinion, is a pure CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it very much. For that reason, it's hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. Even so, I must say that CBS really knows how to make a good sitcom. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gives a good performance, the production design is spectacular, the costumes are well-designed, and the writing is always very strong. In conclusion, if this show lives on in syndication after it goes off CBS, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. I have just started watching this show. Its airing in Ireland at the moment on the Irish television station RTE1 at 12.30pm in the Afternoon (as of 26th July 2006).

This program literally makes me laugh out aloud and I cannot boast that on most sitcom's (apart from UK's 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais in it).

Todays episode of TKoQ (26 July 2006)was the one where Carrie starts a new job and invites her friends home and goes off to make some coffee and Doug wants Carrie to have no 'outside' friends so he lifts up his top and shows off his 'belly hair!' and licks plates when he goes out to dinner! But another funny episode was the other week when the old fella (carries Dad) won on the Bingo and that episode creased me up with laughter especially when they went out and got a replacement fridge and Carries father stood there looking at it and thought it was new.

So I don't know how much longer this has got to run on Irish TV or at which stage (year recorded) we are at but I hope it don't end soon because I am really enjoying it.

To sum up there is some great writing, some great characters and comedy acting (namely by Carrie, Doug and Carries father) some great punchlines and delivered well - a bit saucy and near the mark sometimes (send the kids out the room!) but i think this US Sitcom is a winner and very funny. Wow,this is in my opinion the best sitcom since Friends. If you have had a crap day just sit yourself down with a beer (if you are old enough that is.if not a root beer will have to do.) and watch a couple of episodes,it's the perfect recipe for happiness.

The thing I like most is that everybody in the show is very funny and they all have fantastic comedy timing. After a while you become attached to the characters and really care about them. I think the secret to the shows success is that they have an enviable life. Doug is fat but still happy with it,he loves his wife his job and his friends. The father in law is the fly in the ointment but hey nothings perfect. This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived! this show is the best it is full of laughs and Kevin James is the best so if you want a good show i recommend the king of queens and its a letdown that they canceled it so in the end this show will make you forget your worries and troubles cause if you have a cast with Kevin James and jerry stiller you cant go wrong. so i don't know why the canceled the show if any one knows please tell me.now a days you cant find a lot of shows that fulfill your needs as an audience.after Seinfeld and king of queens the only show worth watching is prison break and if that stops i don't know what to do. in the end if i had to recommend a show it will be king of queens. Just want to inform you guys that this movie was actually pretty good !!!

Thought it was a lame ass movie, but not at all, many moments in this movie wore pretty horrifying.

This movie has enough blood, gore, and some sexy make out scenes of course, to keep any horror buff like me 100% satisfied! The cast was also pretty good IMO.

Even though its not a high budget movie, the effects wore definitely kinda creepy sometimes.

Worth watching if u like a kick ass horror movie thats for sure!!

- Tom As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do "This present darkness" as a movie. When the movie first started I thought cheesy. The first ten minutes were really boring. After the slow beginning and some of the soap opera antics, I started liking it. The plot was different than anything I had ever seen. Now, was it a horror? Not really. It shouldn't have been classied as a horror or the producers should have put more money into the movie to make it scary. As it was, the creatures where only there for a short time. I can only assume this was for money reason.

The good side was that the movie was very entertaining. It held my interest (after the start) and did make me wonder about creatures from another dimension.

It was obvious that this was a first time movie for the director, but there were a couple of highlights. By the end, I was hooked. Too bad Hollywood didn't put more money behind this. An RKO Short Subject.

A group of rowdy little bullies are given a lesson in tolerance by crooner Frank Sinatra, who compares America to THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.

This little film delivers a pertinent message about the evils of prejudice & bias. Sinatra is an absolute natural in front of the camera; intense & sincere, he is the perfect spokesperson for the values espoused here.

Sinatra sings ‘The House I Live In,' by Lewis Allan & Earl Robinson. This fine tune, with a solid, pro-American message, is being given something of a comeback since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001.

After Pearl Harbor, Hollywood went to war totally against the Axis. Not only did many of the stars join up or do home front service, but the output of the Studios was largely turned to the war effort. The newsreels, of course, brought the latest war news into the neighborhood theater every week. The features showcased battle stories or war related themes. Even the short subjects & cartoons were used as a quick means of spreading Allied propaganda, the boosting of morale or information dissemination. Together, Uncle Sam, the American People & Hollywood proved to be an unbeatable combination. It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed "message films" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as "message films" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child – indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American… and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.

Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra – already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become – opens the film in a recording studio, booming out "If You Are But a Dream" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies "Nazi werewolves" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart… unless, of course, you're one of those bloody "Japs." There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.

Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of "The House I Live In," which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for "Best Film for Promoting International Good Will" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra. This short subject gathered kudos from all kinds of places for its plea for religious toleration.

After a session at a recording studio Frank Sinatra leaves and comes upon a group of kids beating up on another because he was Jewish. He lectured them as only an American icon could about the meaning of prejudice and what we had just fought for against the Nazis. The meaning could not be clearer.

Both songs from this short subject were recorded and sold big for Columbia records. If You Are But A Dream and the song written for the film, The House I Live In. The latter is one of the best songs about an idealized version of America, we'd all like to strive for.

Sinatra in fact recorded The House I Live In again during the Sixties for a joint album he did for his Reprise record label. The album is now a rarity and it shouldn't be. His collaborators were Bing Crosby and Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians with the orchestra conducted by Nelson Riddle.

Axel Stordahl was Sinatra's primary music conductor and arranger during the forties. When he died that position eventually fell to Nelson Riddle. Stordahl does the orchestration for the short and the Columbia record, Riddle for the Reprise record.

Sinatra aficionados and others should listen to both back to back and compare. And catch this worthwhile film whenever it is shown. Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.

The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy. Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.

Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.

2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.

Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.

I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10. For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film ("like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?"), here's a word you might want to think about:

Beauty.

Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so.

'2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde. Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience. A review I have put off for far too long....

Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.

Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.

The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.

While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.

Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.

All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.

Very highly recommended. I spent many a sleepless night after watching 2001. Not only because of the psychological horror (of which 2001 is a masterpiece) but also because of the way it brought me (a restless soul) some clarity to the way I observe the universe. It changed my way of thinking in a very profound way. And after reading the novel (by Arthur C. Clarke) I found myself once again inspired (a writer as I am) by the level of imagination.

The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.

Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.

Or maybe I'm just plain crazy... I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.

Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.

Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed. This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. As the title implies, there is an archetypal journey, a motive repeated for thousands of years. This motive was always used not only to depict a trip in space and time, and beyond, but also had rich philosophic meaning. The film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions. It is not just an odyssey of a person; it is an odyssey of our species. The film is great by itself, yet, in my case, the impression from it will always be mingled with that from the book. I've read it at the age of 10, really not thinking about problems like 'what is the relationship between evolution of humankind and development of human morality'. But the impression was great enough to make me fall for entire genre of science fiction.

The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me. Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of "2001: A Space Odyssey", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We "see" our primordial past, and we "infer" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.

From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.

In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.

"2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night". "200l: A Space Odyssey" is a supremely intriguing space-travel journey with a profound look at mankind's future... It is one of the very few great films of our times... It gives us something to think, talk and argue... It wonders about our importance in the universe and ignites our imagination and curiosity... It inspires us to dig for insights...

As a science fiction fantasy, it is one of the most original films ever made... Kubrick's camera dances to the "Blue Danube" with planets floating exuberantly through the light years... It's an experience in the poetry of motion, a rich statement to the power of cinema...

But "2001" reveals that it's not really a science fiction film after all... It's, instead, a philosophical enigma, a magnificent meditation on man's place in the grand scheme of things, and a quest to understand ourselves by knowing all else...

"2001" is a unique film about man's evolution told in almost subliminal terms... The people in this classic science-fiction epic hardly matter... Kubrick relates a chronology in images of things—the mountains, the desert, the technology, the space capsule, the computer named HAL (who is more interesting than the humans), and the time warp... The final landing scene is the very hallmark of cinematic genius...

As a terror story, too, it is a towering achievement (not on the same scream-inducing level as Hitchcock's "Psycho"), but in an innocent and far more haunting way...The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture's vision of man... In Kubrick's fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape's exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth... Man has indeed evolved!

As a spectacle "2001" assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions... We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment... The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the "Starchild" returning home to charm the orb...

"2001" is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet...

"2001" is also a work of great visual acuity... It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man... Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery... They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question... Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick's film… But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving... Like a Circle around the human condition, 2001 starts at the beginning, skips the middle, and proceeds to the ending, right back where we started. Noting the weakness of words compared to image(s), Kubrick wisely dispenses with dialogue, preferring the power and essence of the scenery, and allowing the intelligence of the audience to do the deciphering. Or not, depending on the audience.

A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.

I'm always surprised, given that the famous title track of 2001 is called "Also sprach Zarathustra", that nobody (nobody I've read, anyway) has noted the parallels between the movie and Nietzsche's famous work, "Also sprach Zarathustra". The idea of man's rebirth into a star child; an infant form of an indescribably more advanced being, is an explicit part of N.'s "Zarathustra"; there is a prominent passage called "On how a camel becomes a lion, and a lion becomes a child", in which N. describes the first incarnation of the overman as a child, transcending both the ascetic, altruistic side of man (the camel; always asking to bear more weight) and the rapacious, brutish, will-to-power side of man (the lion). The fact that the song plays during the star child sequence can hardly be coincidence. And also, Zarathustra said that "man is a rope tied between beasts and the overman." The structure of the movie fits that description: a brief history of man as beast, until we become truly man by mastering weapons and acquiring reason, then a long sequence about man (the rope, as it were), and then a brief glimpse of the overman. The inscrutability of how these transformations occurred, and the suggestion that an external force caused them, is also Nietzschean; in "Zarathustra", he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't have a clue how people are going to be able to enact these changes themselves and suggests that we will have to depend on an outsider (Zarathustra) to show us how to "go under". Bowman's psychedelic sequence at the near-end could be seen as Kubrick's best 1960's-style attempt at depicting the mystical "going under".

I know these parallels are pretty broad, and almost certainly have been noted elsewhere despite the fact that I have not personally seen it. But I just wanted to mention them, if for no other reason than to try to dispel the myth that Nietzsche was ultimately a gloomy philosopher. Few people find the ending of 2001 to be gloomy, and it is in my opinion, explicitly and unmistakeably Nietzschean. The case could certainly be made that 2001 is above all a dramatization of "Zarathustra" updated for the modern age. Feel free to disregard the outright snobbishness of my tying everything to Nietzsche. This movie is not just good, its amazing. Besides providing us with good performances, original plot, fantastic special effects, thoughtful messages and a lot more, it was an, until then, completely unseen world to the public. This is the first sci-fi movie that takes us out into the unknown space of our galaxy with such splendid effects and mind bursting reality that the audience is left without words. I am only 16 years old, and therefore I was raised into a world of modern effects and 3D animations in the movies. But nonetheless I was really, and I mean completely, blown away by the quality of these effects, even after almost 40 years. The visual effects was just one of the merits of this movie, the camera was in true Kubrick style amazing and enchanting. It feels like you are consumed by the screen and sucked into this surreal world (especially in the round control room or whatever you call it). The effects, the camera and the sheer size of this movie caught me of my guards even though I had seen the rating before I bought it. But this movie has more to it than this. The meaning of this movie can also be interpreted as you wish yourself, even though I think there are some clear points concerning humanity (also true Kubrick style). How humanity on top of its evolution is just maintenance on board, and therefore not needed by the computer, one of humanities tools. How we in space appear like babies, learning to walk once more, losing control of our tools in zero-gravity, breathing through equipment as fish out of water. On the peak of evolution, we set out into the never-ending adventure as simple primates. Many might think that the length and slow pace of this movie is, boring? ridicules? or just a waste of time. But before you can jump to those conclusions, think about why Kubrick spends time with calm music and a spaceship in the middle of space for several minutes. This is to illustrate the beauty of it. Beauty, beauty is in many cases not granted the rightful respect by viewers. Kubrick wants to show us beauty, and if we do not succumb to it and relax, we can not enjoy this film as it was intended. This is not an ordinary movie, we can not just sit and watch as we can with some other movies, this requires time, thoughts and above all commitment and feelings to watch. All of this together, makes this one of the greatest achievements in the world of moving pictures. 10/10 Let me know if you agree with me. Spoilers ahead.

2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.

The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.

The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.

Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.

The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are "Blue Danube" and "Also Spake Zarathustra" (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.

The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.

The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.

This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.

This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth.

In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.

2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Is it a sermon? An account of the history of mankind? An exploration of man's futile attempts to advance technology only to have technology destroy him? Is it about the fragile balance of time and space? A lesson in evolution? Or is it just a spectacular effects show; a film Kubrick made only to show us the limitless possibilities of the motion picture and present to us the truth that images are exceedingly more powerful than words?

2001: A Space Odyssey is all of these things. One of the most interpretable films ever created, it's almost more fun to dissect and discuss the ambiguous plot design and events of the film, than it is to actually watch. But it's left open to discussion intentionally; if Kubrick had explained the meaning to his wondrous 1968 classic (ranked #22 on AFI's list of the greatest 100 films ever made, my personal 21st favorite film—currently--, and nominated for 4 Academy Awards: Director, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, and Visual Effects which it won for) it would have lost half its fascination, all of its complexity, and a good portion of its cinematic worth. We would only be left with the technical ingenuity; which in itself is worth praising.

Because every shot is worth taking the time to look. And there is plenty of time. 2001 is very elegiac, and also coolly distant; detached. The emotional remoteness and slow pace pay perfect tribute however to the unique visual experience; 2001 begins with mankind's ape ancestors, who upgrade from scavengers of the planet to hunters and toolmakers after discovering a giant monolith in the midst of their desert home, then (in one of motion picture history's most inspired jump-cut edits) as a bone is tossed into the air and becomes a satellite, jumping forward a couple thousand years into space, where astronauts have discovered a similar object on the moon, and next the film following a crew of space traveler's mission as they follow the monolith's signal through space, accompanied by their untrustworthy computer HAL, who attempts to sabotage the shuttle and kill the crew, before finally the lone survivor is launched through space and time (in a flurry of drug-induced colors that probably gave hippies an epileptic shock back in the day) to grow old, die, and be reborn a "Star-child". Whew.

This pacing and emotional blankness, is also in sharp contrast with the film's most ironic scene; the destruction of HAL. As the crew's final explorer shuts the machine down, bathed in the holy aura of red light Kubrick has always used as a repeat motif, HAL singing a lovely tune, it is a strangely emotional experience. And it's all genius.

Other notable aspects of Kubrick's masterpiece is the memorable voice of HAL (a calm, somehow sinister, Douglas Rain), the minimal use of dialogue (Kubrick was wisely trusting of his images to propel the film; giving only banal, unhelpful lines to his actors. The most famous being "Open the pod bay doors HAL"), satellites dancing around in orbit to unorthodox music, and that first, awe-inspiring shot of earth; slowly revealing the glare of the sun in front of it, played to the sound of blasting, triumphant horns.

2001 shall always remain a mystery, and will forever be a testament to the cinema's strongest point: visuals are more powerful than writing. It's all from one of film history's most legendary and best directors, whose unique vision, was always his own. 10/10

"Open the pod bay doors HAL"-2001: A Space Odyssey "2001: A Space Odyssey" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is "The Dawn of Man" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world?

During "The Dawn of Man" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from… out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch… man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.

We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, "Well, that's how you would think it looks." No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with "2001".

HAL is the liveliest person, shoot… I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL "reads" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he "sees" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.

The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of… whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought.

In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't. There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.

I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.

There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.

The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.

(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.

I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.

What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.

If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.

But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life. A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean "laughs", and it doesn't necessarily mean "light". It basically means you're not bored while watching it.

As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills.

It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games).

I myself think it's a "memorable" film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films).

Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me. Not only unique for its time but one of the greatest Science fiction films of all time. Made without CGI on a very lean budget in today's adjusted figures. Stanley Kubrick made this film without the high shooting ratio he normally has. Stanley Kubrick is without doubt the greatest director in History thus far.

This film was cut from five hours to two hours and twenty minutes and the art direction was superb.

Stanley Kubrick and the great Aurthur C. Clarke collaborated to write this time less classic.

Aliens a special message on Earth at the dawn of Human Kind and one on the Moon which modern man finds .

Finally Humans accompanied by the most advanced computer ever made set of to Jupiter the find the next monumental message which turns out to be a gateway.

Any one who studied film and/or wishes to be a part of the film industry or just enjoy great films must experience this film .

If you don't like it then you belong to Bollywood or your a true Aussie. Being a big fan of Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange there was of course "no question about it" that I had to see this one. However I put it off far too long because some of my friends discarded it with comments like "extremely boring" or "nothing happened" "a complete waste of time". But when I saw images on the internet of the mysterious black monolith I was allowed to see a glimpse of the exquisite experience that is 2001: A Space Odyssey. There was no doubt in my mind that I was going to rent that movie the same evening.

It turned out to be the greatest visual experience of my life. Of course, watching a very good painting or picture can be wonderful, but watching a movie constructed with the same kind of virtuosity in every frame adds a whole new dimension to it. My god... I like my friends a lot but it's a pity that I can't share with them the very thing that makes my heart jump up with excitement and makes my spirit fly like a bird in the sky. That thing, my friends, is beauty. As this film goes to show, beauty is terribly underrated in our technologically advanced, intellectually shallow, consumer driven fast-food western societies. That doesn't mean however that I reject these fast-paced societies or that I look down on them (and neither does Kubrick) but only that they can be so much more if only people would stop for a moment and take a little time to absorb the sheer beauty of the world we live in. And what better opportunity is there to do this then by slowing down to the elegant pace of this film and to let yourself be taken to that place between waking and dreaming.

When we go to this place it is possible to get a so called "natural high". It is something that our spirit can do whenever we meet pure and boundless beauty. And never in my life has this "natural high" or "spiritual orgasm" as it is called by some or "samaddhi" by others been more intense. Yes it's more intense than a regular orgasm... several times more intense actually. Many religions have claimed that this particular feeling proves that they are right. Are they right? For me a straight answer to such a question would only detract from the impenetrable mesmerizing mystery of the universe. In my opinion the film tries to convey the same mystery through the depiction of the black monolith and by stating the following about it: "Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter the four-million year old black monolith has remained completely inert. Its origin and purpose are still a total mystery." The trance that Bowman experiences is the same thing I experience when watching those gorgeous visuals.

I can imagine that mystery can be frustrating for those who need straight fast-food answers to big ontological questions. But instead of giving us comfort we are constantly irritated by the awareness of the simplifications that are contained in these answers. The doubt and discomfort that is subsequently caused will make us point to our deeper intellectual activity as the source of all this trouble, while in fact we only have our easy answers to blame. But this film shows us that when fast ontological statements give rise to nothing but doubt, we can always rely on phenomena to make some sense out of the world. From the moment you realize that beauty is something that can only really be presented to us as a phenomenon and never as a "thing in itself" the mysterious black monolith is no longer disturbing, frightening or irritating but instead becomes fascinating, enchanting and maybe even comforting. We don't need an answer to what's really out there to be in touch with one of the greatest forces in our lives. When we are able to let mystery be what it is, to embrace it even... we can finally bring our souls to rest. I am pretty sure though that a film that contains so much beauty and so much philosophical and artistic depth can never really be surpassed. Especially now that the greatest director who ever lived is no longer with us. Dear Readers, 2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick at his best...although I really can't say that as Space Odyssey is his only film I've ever watched. But still, it's a good film. Strange, but good.

The movie is in three acts, much like the novel...which is unsurprising since the author wrote the screenplay. Anyhow, we first start out with the simple yet spectacular opening with Also Sparach Zarathustra blaring on the speakers. Then comes the boring beyond belief 'Dawn of Man' sequence. Then there's the odd 'Finding of the Monolith' sequence on the Moon, played to Strauss's Blue Danube. Finally things get good with the Spaceship scenes and HAL going berserk and killing people. After that things die down and we have the 'Entering the Monolith' sequence which was WAY too long and the ultra-strange ending. Even though, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film. It's not Star Wars, Stargate, Terminator, or The Abyss, but it rocks. My compliments to the chef, Mr. Kubrick.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector This move is absolutely, most certainly one of the greatest films of its, or any other, genre. Kubrick is not only one of the greatest directors of all time, but his entire filmography should be put into a time capsule and can never be forgotten. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a journey unlike anything I have ever seen on the screen. Kubrick is one of the few directors that can draw you in and keep you captivated from beginning to end, even with the absence of extended dialogue or plot development. Just with visuals along, 2001 is able to present a picture of the future that is both sublime and horrifying. 10 out of 10, no doubt. For my money, it doesn't get much better than 2001: A Space Oddysey....now, the sequel, 2010...that's a different story. it starts off with a view of earth and jupiter aligned.

where do we come from, and where we are headed.

the story starts with "the dawn of Man", a documentary-like view of the Pre-historic grass-eater ape that was facing its extinction due to no physical ability that would let him hunt to eat, and the lack of grass and water in the austral Africa. the monkeys hadn't survived if it wasn't for the "god-like" intervention of an alien artifact, that somehow transformed the apes that touched it, and gave them the ability to use tools, that were first used as weapons that allowed them to kill pigs to eat for super and to kill other monkeys in fights for water. that ape was Man. an enigmatic start for an enigmatic film.

after the fast-forward that leaves the movie at the present days, we see a magnificent dance of spaceships at the sound of Strauss. The rest of the movie is about how tools got control of Man. the strange artifact appears once again to evolve Man to his final stage: the starchild.

at 1968, the year this movie was released, only astronauts had idea of what was out there in space. after this movie, that changed. it's futurism took 7 years to be explored. the special effects are incredible. they are completely realistic, even today.

the directing, along with excellent taste in music, good acting, and the fantastic filmography, makes it an epic.

the plot, with its vision of the year 2001 and the evolution of man tools, with an AI psycokiller, with the psycotropical hypnotising end, makes it the trip our lives.

if you have never seen this movie, see it. don't be scared with the lack of dialog, sit back and enjoy. it's a symphony of evolution. it's terrific. In 1968, Stanley Kubrick made this historic film masterpiece base on a book written by Arthur C. Clark. It was such an early effort to make a science fiction movie combined with scientific facts. His style of movie making is still fresh and intact.

I have seen this movie more that half a dozen times and I even have a VHS copy of the movie in my library. CS3 class made me to see the movie again with another perspective: Who is HAL and what is he thinking?

I enjoyed watching the movie again and tried to focus of HAL's dialogues throughout the second episode of the movie. In the second scene, Dr. Dave Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole are eating their food in front of two TV monitor on their sides and HAL's round reddish glass dome is in the middle of them. In the TV report, HAL was introduced as the new generation of super computer put in work in January 12, 1992 called HAL 9000 Series. During the interview HAL reacts as a humble working machine trying to accomplish the mission of the spaceship fully.

In another scene, Dave is sketching Dr. Hunter, Dr. Kambel and Dr. Kaminsky who they are all in Hibernation sleep. HAL is curious to see those sketches and brings up his doubtful question about the purpose of the Jupiter mission. His calm and monotone voice makes the audience listen to him more carefully.

In the next few scenes we will see how HAL tries to kill astronauts one by one and takes the power. His conscious makes him capable to try to save his life from termination. When Dave wants to return to the spaceship and HAL does not listen to him, there is the most memorable line of the move: ' I'm sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't do that. ' In the middle of the most important interact between human and machine, HAL's voice can conjure both solid calm and malevolence in the same monotone.

Dave has gone back to the ship, lost all his fellow astronauts, and determined to disconnect the HAL's main brain cells. HAL uses his final apologetic techniques to convince Dave of not disconnecting him. HAL begs him to stop and let him correct himself. These are his famous lines while Dave is disconnecting his modules one by one:

'Dave, what do you think you are doing?

Dave? I am entitled to the answer of the question!

I know everything is not quiet right with me recently…

But I feel much better know…

I can see are really upset about this very poor decision of mine recently…

Dave, stop! Will you?

Dave, stop!

I am afraid Dave!'

HAL's voice is slowing down during this process and becomes thicker and less audible:

'my mind is going… I can feel it'

'Can I sing a song for you?'

Dave is putting final modules out and let HAL to sing his song called 'Daisy':

'Daisy give me…

your answer to me…

I am crazy…

Although I am not confused…'

HAL dies as the Jupiter Mission continues…

Artificial God bless you HAL, store in peace! This was such a great film. It was done with such beautiful design, such symmetry. I love the way the classical music tied in with the classical art of earth, space and beyond. It was such a fluent, and thought provoking masterpiece. I loved the way the monoliths never changed, although primate, earth and space did. I loved how it was a question of "Do you need me/us now"? The movie expressed desire, peace, love, curiosity, finesse, gentleness, courage and innocence. What more could you ask for from a mere movie? Perhaps a complement movie. Any appreciator of 2001: A Space Odyssey will find the movie 2010 is 2001's complement movie. 2010 is more story orientated than 2001. No one can argue with it. This IS and WILL BE the best movie ever, as it is the perfect definition of what any movie should be : a collective hypnosis beyond times. No movie can give you more perfectly this impression that you carried it inside you, even before you saw it for the first time.

There are images that stay forever... Straight up, I love this film. I love everything about it. It has a great soundtrack, it has a lot of recognizable faces and it is funny as hell. There are so many plots in this film and every one of them is funny in one way or another.

Where as Spicolli lit up the screen two years back, Drake is almost as memorable of a character. All he wants to do is have fun. He moves out of the house without his parent's consent, he skips work whenever he feels like it, he is obsessed with sex, he loves his drugs and booze and he tries to be a good friend. It is his lacksidaisical attitude that makes him such a joy to watch. And he comes out with some great lines. And there are so many tiny observations that you don't see coming but they make you laugh at the sheer velocity when it hits you. One particular moment is when Tommy and Bill are talking about Bill's ex girlfriend dating someone else now. At the end of the conversation, Tommy takes his huge beer bottle and just throws it over his shoulder, casually. He then says good night and the scene ends. It is a perfect scene. Tommy's world is his own. He really lives to party and have fun. When the conversation is over, his time is over and he doesn't care who he offends in the process. He has an innocence about him. "It's casual" is his favourite saying.

Another such classic scene is Reggie handing Bill a donut. He says something to him that me and my friends will never forget because we rewound the film ten times and watched that part over and over again and hurt ourselves laughing. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Wild Life is a throw back to when teen comedies were funny, raunchy, had a good ear, entertained us and just wanted us to get lost in their world for 90 minutes. Wild Life does all those things perfectly. If this is a film that you haven't seen, give it a chance. It is a classic.

Also check out the army store guy that Jim has problems with. He is a very familiar face now and it is his first role on the big screen. There are a lot of people that put down on these type 80's movies but those people may not have been coming of age during this time. I was just starting college when this movie was released so I could really appreciate it at the time and my friends and I still, to this day, will occasionally joke about certain lines in the movie. As much as I liked Sean Penn's Character Jeff Spicoli in "Fast Times", I actually enjoy Chris Penn's Character "Tommy" more because he is the lead character with more of a actual speaking roll opposed to just a series of one liners such as with Spicoli. Chris Penn should probably pop this film in his VCR and use it for motivation to lose some weight. Yes, the subplot with the Randy Quaid, Vietnam vet character does seem a little out of place, but he does a convincing job in the role. If there is anyone out there that hasn't seen this movie but liked the other similar type movies such as "Fast Times", etc. I highly recommend it. While I hold its predecessor, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High," as a standard to which other teen comedies should be compared, "The Wild Life" is one of the better lesser known films from that time-and a worthy sequel, if you can call it that. I believe its tagline reads, "From the makers of FTARH, something even faster." This definitely holds true. Though it may lack the depth of the former which tackles issues like first dates, teen sex, and abortions, "The Wild Life" is, nonetheless, a great flick. It's pure chaotic fun, especially due to Chris Penn's over-the-top character, Thomas Drake. If Spicolli was high on coke instead of weed, he would be Drake. Eric Stoltz, in his first major role, is great as the straight-laced Bill Conrad. The two characters work well off one another. Think a younger, hipper Odd Couple, complete with 80's gloss. Outside of them there are so many other great things about this film worth mentioning. Lea Thompsom has never looked cuter, especially during the scenes of her working at the donut shop. Jenny Wright is just delectable and fun to watch. Rick Moranis plays a great nerd/perv who is dying to get in her pants. Thomas Drake's wrestler buddies are hysterical, especially Benny, the little Puerto Rican guy, who says some pretty memorable lines. One in particular that he yells out during a night out at a strip club had me on the floor the first time I saw it. That's saying something! Finally, the movie ends with one of the best 80's party scenes on film, ever. Look out for special appearances by Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, Leo Penn (Sean and Chris Penn's dad), and a random Michael Jackson look-alike at the party. Throw in a score by none other than the man himself, Eddie Van Halen, and you can't go wrong. For Van Hagar fans, keep your ears open for riffs that would be found on such albums as 5150, OU812, and For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

If anything disrupts the flow of the movie it is a small subplot involving Randy Quaid as a burned out Vietnam vet. It just seems out of place and unnecessary. Other than that, it's near perfect. If your a fan of mindless but fun 80's movies and have not yet seen this one, you're in for something special. RENT IT NOW!!!

p.s.-The credits say Cameron Crowe has a cameo as one of the cops in the film. Does he have his back turned during his scene because I have yet to find him. Someone please help me. Great party movie, following the adventures of Bill & Tom, two high school buddies at opposite ends of the spectrum. Bill (Eric Stolz) prefers to live life straight-laced, while his friend Tom (Chris Penn) takes nothing seriously except partying all the time. When Bill moves out of his mother's house to live on his own he faces many issues, from his girlfriend, to his brother, to his landlord. Meanwhile, his friend Tom moves in to keep the rent down but proceeds to turn Bill's life upside down. This movie is non-stop comedy from start to finish and is a personal favorite of mine. Soundtrack features guitar virtioso Edward Van Halen throughout the movie, also features cameos by rockers Lee Ving and Ron Wood. 70s Pornstar legend Kitten Navidad also makes an appearance! Classic 80s movie is worth multiple looks. Now all that needs to be done is a much anticipated DVD release! If you enjoyed this movie, take a look at "The Last American Virgin" which is similar to "Wild Life". I rate both highly. Fast Times it ain't. But check this movie out, it has a heart. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy. It's loaded with a slew of just-beginning stars. Sherilyn Fenn has her first on-screen credited cameo. Chris Penn, Lea Thompson, Eric Stotz, Jenny Wright, Rick Moranis, etc.--they all look so young. Oh and if you look closely the cop's wife is Nancy Wilson from the rock band Heart. _The Wild Life_ has an obvious resemblance to _Fast Times At Ridgemont High_, and _The Wild Life_ comes up short.

------------

Some other stan wrote the above comment. Of course The Wild Life is no Ridgemont. Ridgemont is the quintessential 80s flica. However, the Wild Life is enjoyable if you're not whiny about mindless movies being mindless movies (especially when you know it's supposed to be a mindless movie in the first place). The little Latino from Scarface is in this movie and he's straight disrespectful ("I got Visa...Masterrrrr Charrrrge!!") The Colonel also makes an appearance ("Lawsuit..."). RIP The Colonel 1931-1997.

This movie is no worse than a 6 in comparison to other genres, btw. It is no worse than a 7 in terms of other 80s teen comedies at that. It does very much have the feel of a Cameron Crowe movie. Only staniels gave it a 5. This movie was really funny. The people that were expecting to see an Oscar worthy comedy, should get over themselves. This was a fun movie to see with interesting and funny characters, plot lines, dialog quotes and catch phrases. I rate a movie a 10 if I have bought the DVD, or in this case, the videotape, and have watched it many times, and in this case, still laugh out loud. I have about 12 movies in my collection with a rating of 10 and about half don't have anything do do with the Oscars. Again, this was just a fun, light-hearted movie. I hope this comes out on DVD. I highly suggest checking this movie out, if you are in the mood for a wacky comedy. At the time of this writing (January 25, 2006), I am saddened to hear of the passing within the past few hours of Chris Penn. Other than Footloose, The Wild Life is the film that I remember Chris most from.

I still remember in the film, with slight fondness, of Chris' wrestling character and teammates sitting in their favourite restaurant with a huge plate of french fries in front of them, drowned in an entire bottle of ketchup.

Anyhow, my comment is in regards to the title track sung by Bananarama. After these many years, I still remember the rumour (Canadian spelling -- lol) that Bananarama was called in at the very VERY LAST moment to compose the track for the film and that they wrote the song on the plane bound to the recording studio to record the song and just after they recorded the song they went to shoot the low cost video for their title track. I heard that this entire process (from start to finish) took 4 hours to do! If this is true, then they truly are worthy of being the most successful female band of all time.

Anyhow this is just a rumour I had heard back in the day and still remember a generation later. Perhaps anyone who reads this can comment and clarify. Thanks. This movie is such a fine example of the greatness that is 80's entertainment. Oh don't get me wrong, most of the music back then sucked. I only ever liked the metal bands from the 80s. Bands that had some balls. Forget that whiny keyboard crap and all that 'life is horrible and I want to die' garbage. But the movies from the 80's are the best. They were all about nonsense and just having a good time. This movie exemplifies that! Party! Get naked! Get laid! WOOOOOOHOOOOO! Chris Penn is hilarious as the all-time stoner brother of Jeff spicoli. This movie is great because it was a lot more real and funnier than fast times at ridgemont high. Casting was perfect and one of my favorite soundtracks of almost all Eddie van halen which went on to become songs on ou812 and unlawful carnal knowledge. This movie is one of the great stoner film heroes with cheech and chong. Fast times was more depressing than funny. Abortions, friends cheating on friends, jerking off in bathrooms, bad jobs, and failing school. Someone must hate the eighties to like ridgemont more than the wild life. The film even had great cameos like the maker of city limits Michelle schocked in the liquor store or Ben Stein in his first role in the sunny's surplus store. For some reason, some shows just fail...some deservedly, some not... Buddy Faro was a clever show with interesting characters and dark humor that was enjoyable to watch...Maybe it was never intended to be a big hit, but it had a "quirkiness" about it that made it enjoyable... that being said it appears I may have been the only one watching....Dennis Farina and Frank Whaley were casted perfectly in their respective roles...production quality and writing were great and Vegas was the perfect backdrop... hopefully the first and only season will be released on DVD as I believe it deserves some notoriety... maybe at least make it on TV Land.... cheers I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences. Some TV programs continue into embarrassment (my beloved 'X-Files' comes to mind.) I've been a fan of Dennis Farina since 'Crime Story,' another late, lamented show. 'Buddy Faro' never had a chance. The series had a good premise and great actors. It's really, really a shame. This movie has a twist that caught me off-guard. It made me go over the scenes in my mind to see if there were any clues along the way. Loved the gorgeous Roy Thinnes and Joan Hackett's skillful acting. The beautiful, haunting music stays with me as well as the intriguing story. I first saw this movie at least thirty years ago, and it remains one of my all-time faves! It's a classic - the intriguing plot, great characters, suspense and shocking twist ending (all set against the backdrop of the gorgeous Monterey/Big Sur coast) never get old. Roy Thinnes portrays Johnny Brant, a captivating character that grows more mysterious as his true identity unfolds. The acting is great and believable; viewers get caught up in the web that develops between the workaholic husband, disenchanted wife and the alluring stranger (Thinnes as Brant). I have searched for a copy to buy for years - I guess TV movies don't get released to video, unfortunately. Great movie, see it if you can find it. Roy Thinnes and Joan Hackett are superb in this 1970 melodrama. The lush settings, the haunting music, and plot twists make it a truly interesting film. I had seen it when it first came out on TV. Once more it aired when I had a VCR, but I did not have a chance to tape it. Would love it on VHS if someone has a copy. Apart from the suspense (which is worked in beautifully) I feel the story is unique, and is pretty much true to the book, MRS. MAITLAND'S AFFAIR by Margaret Lynn. I would say that it was one of the greatly overlooked best films of the 1970's out of movies made for TV. I have given the film a number #10 rating, because it is done with so much originality. There is a true pathos and air of romance which has the viewer sympathizing with the culprit. I have Never forgot this movie. All these years and it has remained in my life. I have looked for this movie on so many sites and stores. If anyone ever reads this and has a copy I will pay you for a copy of it or please let me know where I could find one. This is a movie that should be a Classic Romance known as well as my other favorite, Somewhere in Time. It was truly brilliant. If the right actors would remake this film and give it the Patience it needs, to be the Right acting, It could be a block buster.A Love story as powerful as this should be around for all lovers to see. I remember how sad I was at the ending and it really came as a shock. I believe with all my heart that Johnny really loved the woman and she him. This was one terrific movie and it is a shame that it is not available for us to purchase. Please contact me at shawe49@aol.com - I want to give my thanks to a wonderful lady that responded to my message almost a year later. She had a copy of the movie and was so kind to send it to me. She is a great fan of this movie as I am. With her help, there have been 3 happy ladies to receive these DVDs'. She is waiting for the book that it is based on. I am checking with my local library for it, titled 'Mrs Maitlands Affair, by Margarett Lynn. I am sure it is great also. Many thanks to Julie for her graciousness and friendship. I am your friend always,/ Sharon I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.

It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years. I was a 20 year old college student living with the folks when I first saw this, and I've never forgotten it. I'm a huge Joan Hackett fan, and this film was perfect for her remarkable talent. I'm so glad to see that so many other people have such a fond memory of seeing this. Naturally, it's not available on any media! It would be perfect to show on Lifetime, but because of its age, they won't. You never see anything there before the mid-eighties. I can still remember what made me watch it when it was first run: Rex Reed reviewed it in The New York Daily News, and he said that it was like a throwback to the great Hollywood films of the forties, and had it been made then, the Hackett and Grimes parts would have been played by Stanwyck and Crawford. Think about that! P.S. So sad that Joan Hackett left us so tragically young. This movie has remained in my mind for years as one of the best made-for-TV movie mysteries I've ever seen. The acting is superb. I've seen it twice and still am puzzled at some parts. I'd love to have a copy so I can play certain parts over and over again. I am interested in buying a copy of this movie, but cannot find it anywhere.I am wondering if if anyone has any suggestions how to find it? I've tried e-bay, Amazon.com, Internet searches, and am completely frustrated. I've not seen it on Turner Classic Movies, nor on American Movie Classics and I have even put out fliers in our community asking if anyone has a copy. Having seen only once and in the dawn hours, I can't seem to forget this haunting film. A mix of mystery, suspense, and heartbreaking romance it reminds me of Vertigo.The actors, though not that well known are good especially Joan Hackett in one of her best performances.You believe in her, in her love,in her newfound quest for freedom brought by her love, and in the end in her overwhelming pain.The plot is ingenious and compelling and does not stretch credibility. The direction and technical stuff certainly could be better but they do not compromise the overall effect. And it has one message: don't let revenge blind you, you can became its last victim.A real pity it has not been remade, but perhaps it is a period piece better left alone. I watched this episode a lot of times because I didn't get how Prue died. This is what happened. Prue, Piper, and Phoebe try and save their innocent,A Doctor, because Shax wants to kill him. Phoebe goes upstairs to look in The Book Of Shadows while Prue and Piper are protecting their innocent. Shax appears while Phoebe is still upstairs, so Shax throw an energy ball at the doctor but Prue pushes him out of the way and Prue get hit in the chest with it and smashes against the wall, same with Piper. So Phoebe comes downstairs and says the spell, since it was only Phoebe who said it and not the power of three Shax only got wounded. Phoebes calls Leo to heal Piper and Prue. So Leo heals them. Phoebe went into the Underworld to find Cole, meanwhile Prue and Piper are looking for Shax in the streets. Piper and Prue see Shax and Piper uses her Power to Blow up Shax, meanwhile a New reporter got it all on tape. So its all over the new about the three powerful Halliwell sisters, meanwhile Phoebe doesn't know anything because she is still in the Underworld. There's Repoters and people all over the Halliwell house. Then a maniac comes in the house and says "Can I be Part Of Your Coven?" and Prue says "No this is our house get out of here!" and Prue uses her powers to throw her out. As the maniac come out of the house crying saying "There Mean Witches". The maniac gets so mad that she shoots Piper right through the stomach. Prue get in her car and trays to go to the hospital but people won't let her through ,so Prue uses her powers to move people out of the way, making people wanna kill her more. They got to the hospital but Piper didn't make it. Meanwhile Phoebe is in the Underworld.Phoebe finds out that they have been exposed, so Phoebe asks Cole to ask the source if he can reverse time.The Source says he will only reverse time if Phoebe promises to stay here in The Underworld, so Cole told Phoebe what the source told him. Phoebe says "What would Make him think i would make a deal like that?" and then Cole says, "So you can save one of your sisters lives." Leo goes to the hospital to find out the Piper really is dead so he tells Phoebe that its true. Then Phoebe agrees to stay only if Cole will go back to warn Piper and Prue about the exposer and death of Piper. Back at the hospital SWAT is about the shoot Prue, but the second before they do time is rewound back when they were at the manor with the doctor but this time Phoebe wasn't there to call Leo to heal Prue and Piper, so the doctor get throw in the wall too. The doctor died and so did Prue. But this is what I didn't get, if Piper was throw against the wall too how come only Prue died? Why did they not show Leo come and heal Piper and Leo trying to heal Prue? If you know the answer please e-mail me at angelpuss924@yahoo.com PS. I miss Prue but I like Paige too and i'm glad the show continued Prue and Piper bring Dr. Griffiths to their home to save him from the Sauce's assassin Shax. While Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadow how to vanquish the demon, Prue and Piper fight and chase Shax on the streets to destroy him. However, they are filmed and exposed live in the television news as witches. They become national sensation with a crowd in front of their house. Phoebe trusts on Cole and goes to the underworld with Leo to ask him to summon Tempus and revert time while a fanatic woman shots Piper, who dies. The source proposes Phoebe to stay with him and in return he would save her sister. Phoebe accepts the deal, and the time is reverted to the moment Shax is attacking Prue, Piper and Dr. Griffits.

"All Hell Breaks Loose" is a good but incoherent episode. With Piper dead and The Power of Three destroyed, why should The Source revert time to save her? But this dramatic show is certainly one of the best of the Third Season and let the viewers anxiously waiting for the next episode. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Voltando no Tempo" ("Back in Time") This episode of Charmed changed everything! The show is about to end it's third season, and all hell IS breaking loose in this episode. The Charmed ones bring an Innocent named Dr. Griffiths to the manor the protect him from Shax, The Sources assassin. When Shax attacks, he blasts in as a tornado and then corporealizes into his demon skin. He blasts Prue threw a wall which totally knocks her out and practically kills her. Then blasts Piper threw what is left of the wall. Phoebe comes from the attic and says the vanquishing spell before Shax came kill the doctor. But being the Power of One, it just wounds him.Leo comes to heal the other sisters and Prue wants to find Shax and destroy him for real. Phoebe, meanwhile is in the Underworld trying to find Cole.When Prue and Piper go out into the street to find the demon, the demon finds them. After their battle, the witches realize that a camera caught everything! When they get back to Manor trying to battle the media and after they vanquished Shax, a a witch gone kookoo shoots Piper. Prue uses her telekinesis to move people out of the way so she can get to the hospital. But they get their to late and Piper dies. And just when Prue is about to get shot, time is rewound to where they bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor. Shax blows in and blasts Prue and Piper. But Phoebe is still in the Underworld so Shax kills the doctor and blasts out of the Manor. When Leo finally comes, he can't heal Prue. Prue is dead and so is the Power of Three. For Now. Personally. this episode was sad. Prue was the strongset of all of them. I would love to have her power of telekinesis. i really don't think Phoebe should of went to the Underworld because if she didn't, Shax wouldn't have killed Prue. But Paige brings The Power of Three together again and I'm happy with the show's progress i'm not going to ramble on about it but i'm just going to make it brief. basically for those who don't know how prue actually died........... the first time round the demonic assassin comes hit piper and prue with an energy ball they fly through the wall blood everywhere. phoebe the third sister comes down the stairs, says the spell which send him away but not vanquished.(NEEDS THE POWER OF THREE)leo comes heals them both and so on. they get exposed along the line and the only way the can be saved is for a demon named tempus to turn back time. the only way he can do that is is phoebe stays in the underworld. she agrees, tempus turns back time. it now around 7:00 in the morning again. demon comes strucks piper and prue with energy ball. they fly through wall again. but this time phoebe isn't there to say the spell to fend demon off. demon kills doctor. doctor flies through window. he is dead. demon goes in a whirl wing type thing and glass on the doors shatter which is a great effect bye the way and there is and airy sound. thats where it ends. NOW.......... what the whole world doesn't know if they didn't pay attention to the next episode. although what i'm about to say wasn't shown its what happens trust me................ because this time there was no phoebe to call for leo this time he arrives later. piper survives because her injuries wern't as fatal as prue's and leo heals her first before prue so by that time prue is already dead. there mystery solved. ps calling for prue with a spell should have worked!!! and she should have made a surprise appearance in the last ever episode.OK i did ramble on right the hospital scene with Holly and Shannon was done brilliantly it starts off with Piper On A gurney looking very badly injured, the docs race her into a resuscitation room & they move her from the gurney onto a bed and Prue Holds Her Hand from that point on it is obvious that Piper is having a lot of trouble breathing and her lungs are failing, as she turns to beg of Prue to not leave her side she gaps "don't go i love you and then her pulse drops and she goes into cardiac arrest & the monitor shows a clear flat line & the nurses go into full out trauma mode & bring in a defibrillator Prue Steps back from the bed in horror as the doctors desperately try to shock her dying sisters heart but there is no response and she is tragically pronounced dead well great scene well done girls Piper, Prue and Phoebe bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor in order to try and save him from The Source's personal assassin, Shax. Whilst Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadows for a spell to vanquish Shax, Prue and Piper are attacked by Shax and chase him into the street. Unbeknownst to Prue and Piper, they were filmed by a news reporter and her cameraman using their powers and broadcasted live on national television. With Phoebe in the Underworld, Prue, Piper, and Leo must find a way to reverse the damage done. Leo goes down to Phoebe, and tells her that the Charmed Ones have been exposed as witches. On the surface, Piper is shot by a manic witch-wannabe, and Prue has to take her to the hospital. The problem here is that the crowds are blocking the driveway. So Prue has to use her magic on the crowd, and they go to the hospital. Piper is pronounced dead, and a SWAT team moves in. Leo learns of Piper's death, and goes down to tell Phoebe. Cole is asked to ask The Source to reset time, and The Source agrees; only if Phoebe turns to the dark side. Phoebe agrees, but the deal will shatter them. Up on the surface, Prue and Piper are battling Shax. Prue shouts out for Phoebe, who unbeknownst to them is in the Underworld. Shax throws Piper and Prue through a wall, and Dr. Griffiths out of a window. Prue is not pronounced dead until the Season 4 Premiere episode, "Charmed Again, Part One".

"All Hell Breaks Loose" is a gripping episode, and it made me sit on the edge of my seat. Sad that Prue's dead, but happy that there will be five more seasons of Charmed. My vote; 10 out of 10. EXCELLENT this episode is not incoherent like another person said. the source agreed to help because he was not going to keep his word, if you pay attention... he says after she (phoebe) agrees to stay down there in hell, "GET RID OF HER AND BALTHAZOR SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM IN THE FUTURE"... and also, he didn't let COLE WARN THE SISTERS LIKE PHOEBE ASKED IN EXCHANGE OF ACCEPTING THE DEAL, that's why PRUE DIED, because she got hit harder than PIPER and on the head, and there was no PHOEBE to call for LEO this time, and in the past LEO SAID THAT SHE ALMOST GOT HERSELF KILLED. pay more attention next time! and there is not a "TO BE CONTINUED..." after this episode. it is the ending of season 3, and on season 4 they can't show anything from PRUE because she owns the rights of it "PRUE", so the producers would have to pay her for whatever they show. this is the last episode she is in! Charmed was awesome!!!! I don't get how Pheobe goes to the underworld and makes a deal with the source but then in season 4 is back... how does she get back. is there a deleted episode that was never showed?????? i am confused i brought 1 2 3 4 5 and season 8 but am still confused will someone help me help help help h e l p

h e l p

h e l p

h e l p me me me me lull lull Lilllie loll

loll loll lull loll Lilla Lilla loll lull

Lilllie

Lilla loll Lilla Lilla lull loll lull Lilllie Lilllie ll Lilllie lull This was it! i would have never expected the ending if i didn't already know the behind the scenes stuff.

The one thing that i hated was that why was Shannon kicked off and not Alyssa. i hate her i would rather her character die that Shannon's. what was funny is that in the scene where piper is dieing on the hospital bed and Prue was crying by her side i started crying too lol. at the time that this aired i was about 10yo and my favorite character was Piper from the beginning so i was saying to myself if she dies then i will not see the show anymore! lol

then the whole go back in time thing was a shocker and really good. i also blame Pheobe for Prue's death because instead of being with her sisters she had to be a slutty bi*** and be with her good for nothing demon boyfriend.

but i think this episode will be now and forever one of my favorites and a CHRMED classic.

FOREVER CHARMED! Blessed Be! It's a talking, trigger happy, alcoholic ASS COP! I have seen the first and second episodes. The artwork and animation fits very well (note the facial expressions, lol). The main character being a gun toting, badge wearing, pair of butt cheeks, shooting at whoever he thinks to be offensive or "guilty". So far, the episodes have had simple and followable plots that work very well with Assy's investigations. Don Sanchez, Assy's partner, play's the sobering retort to assy's A.A. antics and random "I've got a hunch" leads. Assy's lines are very funny and clever, here's one for example, "I've got one bullet and its got your email address on it, don't make me hit send" *bang* "looks like your in-box just got some new mail." The think box at Assy Mcgee's headquarters are so far, consistent and on cue. As for the sound, it's perfect, the sound effects and voice work are 9/10. Assy sounds like Sylvester Stallone all boozed up, Don Sanchez, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, all have voices that "Fit" there persona's very well. I recommend this to anyone who wants to catch a few laughs before they go to bed, as it does air on adult swim on Sunday nights. Very funny, imaginative, visually different comedy. 10/10 Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.

All the standard genre clichés are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream "I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, "Hey, where are you going, asshole!?" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: "I'm going... to shoot you."

Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor. Assy McGee is an out-of-control, hard-nosed detective based on the countless examples from late 20th century police dramas. The twist here is that Assy is literally a walking buttocks.

The cheap, low-brow facade of the show belies its cleverness and hidden satire. That is not to say that Assy is devoid of fart jokes, just that the toilet humor is used sparingly enough to elicit consistent laughs, not groans and eye-rolls. The title sequence of the program demonstrates the clever, subtle humor used throughout. The sequence consists of panning photos of the city set to a jazzy 70s cop theme. In one photo, a police cruiser is shown and the "camera" zooms in on the front license plate holder, which is vacant. The meaningless zoom-in satirizes the production of the typical 70s-80s cop drama and, incidentally, makes me laugh every time.

All the typical characters are included: the frustrated police chief who can't control Assy; the loyal, minority partner who acts as a foil to Assy's recklessness; the regular cops who detest Assy's means.... all are accounted for and all are hilarious satires of the typical police drama.

The voice acting, primarily performed by Larry Murphy, is nothing less than spectacular. Assy's voice--breathy and gruff with a bit of a drunken slur--is so clever and unique that it ranks alongside all-time greats like Stewie Griffin (Family Guy) and Homer Simpson (Simpsons). Though the voice is slurred, the diction is somehow clear and easy to understand. This is a nice change from other Adult Swim program voices that often require closed captioning to understand.

Besides the fantastic production and voice acting, the script is also hilarious. Assy's no- nonsense directness fuels most of the humor, particularly in his interactions with citizens outside the police force.

If you have access to the Adult Swim comedies, Assy McGee is certainly worth the watching. Each episode clocks in at a mere 8-9 minutes, so you really have little to lose. "Please, don't kill me! I'm just an actor!" "Can you play dead?" It's difficult to describe this show. It's like a crime dramedy. Where the bad cop is an ass. Literally. What's great about the show is some of Assy's perfectly awful one-liners. Cracking out such gems as "Adios, Blimp," Assy Mcgee provides some great laughs at points. Sadly at other times, the show seems to drag along at a slow pace, making it almost hard to watch. This is definitely the kind of show you'll love or hate, there's essentially no middleman. It's not the best show on {Adult Swim}, but it has some strong points. It's worth looking into just to see if you enjoy it. I know I did. I couldn't believe that the Adult Swim guys came up with this character. I laughed for days just thinking about this show. Having finally seen the pilot I guess I will stick around for a few more episodes. Assy is pretty funny and the whole crew of police show characters are around, but Assy is hard to understand and that was a little frustrating. Most of the humor revolves around the fact that the title character is literally a walking ass with nothing else but legs that sport socks with garters and feet with traditional wing tips. Assy drinks too much and "plays by his own rules" as you might have guessed. The only other funny moments are Assy shooting many,many people and spending time at home - in the bathroom. It is not Squidbillies funny, but it is worth a look. This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the "Our Gang" comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994. During the War for Southern Independence, GENERAL SPANKY mobilizes his forces to defend the local women & children against a Yankee invasion.

In 1936, Hal Roach decided it was time for his popular OUR GANG kids to branch out into occasional feature-length films. With the big success of Shirley Temple in two Civil War period movies in 1935 (THE LITTLE COLONEL, THE LITTLEST REBEL), it was only natural that Roach would look in that same direction for his GANG. Although given a rather lavish production and distributed by MGM, GENERAL SPANKY was not a critical or box-office success. The little GANGsters would henceforth stick to short subjects.

Although he's given top billing & the title role, George ‘Spanky' McFarland is rivaled throughout the film's first half by little Billie ‘Buckwheat' Thomas. Here were two of the finest young actors to ever appear in American movies. With all the experience of old, seasoned pros, these two gamin could steal scenes & hearts with equal bravado. A constant joy, without a false note between them, they provide the essential reason for watching the film today.

Phillips Holmes gives a quiet, gentlemanly performance as Spanky's adult protector. Nearly forgotten now, Holmes was a fine actor who died much too soon, during World War Two. Genial Ralph Morgan is especially good as a sympathetic Union general - his scenes with Spanky are quite amusing.

Other OUR GANGers appear midpoint into the movie, most notably Carl ‘Alfalfa' Switzer; he gets to warble ‘Just Before The Battle, Mother.' Even pretty Rosina Lawrence (the GANG's schoolmarm) shows up to play Holmes' beloved.

Irving Pichel is particularly slimy as a cowardly cardsharp turned vindictive Yankee captain. Bumbling Willie Best & feisty Louise Beavers play Miss Lawrence's slaves.

It should be noted that there is racism in the film, not unusual for Hollywood of that era - but almost completely missing in the original series of OUR GANG shorts.

Fans of 19th Century music will enjoy paying attention to the soundtrack, which is a long succession of ancient tunes. The film starts with promise because there is more interaction between Spanky and Buckwheat, but as the film progresses, the two boys have fewer scenes together. This slows the pace considerably. Billie "Buckwheat" Thomas gives a very strong performance in his early scenes. When he is left behind on the riverboat, his fear and abandonment are palpable and his tears are truly heartbreaking. When he goes from man to man asking for help and is repeatedly rejected the viewer really begins to wonder if this is a comedy or not. Watching a children's birthday party through a picket fence is another moving moment. As another reviewer mentioned, I was also worried about the big dog choking on chicken bones! Once Spanky and Buckwheat are in Marshall Valiant's home, Spanky tends to interact mainly with the adults and the chemistry of the children is essentially lost.

The Old South/Huck Finn-type setting really doesn't do much for the plot except allow the children to be out of doors a great deal. Ralph Morgan is the most engaging adult, but then the other roles really don't have much substance to them. Louise Beavers manages some funny moments with a Yankee soldier towards the end.

The villains aren't really villainous enough and the lovers not intense enough. Yet, I do think it's worth viewing if you're an Our Gang enthusiast, if for no other reason that the odd curiosity of the whole piece. I give it seven stars because, while not a great movie, it kept me engaged the whole time and curious as to what would happen next. I must admit that this is one of the few Lou Costello films that I actually saw in the theater. Most have now been seen on T.V. and I must admit that Lou is really enjoyable and he gets the girl,too. This was my first time seeing Dorothy Provine perform and of course I fell in love with her like so many others that day. I have seen most of the work she has done and enjoyed each one. Her performance in The Great Race is one of the reasons I bought the disc in the first place!

Every comment on this movie tells that this is the one movie that Lou Costello did with out Bud Abbott,which is true,but if Lou had lived he would have made many more. He really does a good job and doesn't have to rely on his old routines to get laughs. I for one am sorry that the little man from Patterson,N.J. didn't get the chance to do that.

I hope this comes out on DVD some time so I can add it to my comedy/sci fi collection. After "Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman" with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on "The Lucy Show." Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !! The four signs on the road say "If You're Looking For Fun.....You Don't Need A Reason....All You Need Is A Gun....It's Rabbit Season!"

In the woods, we see hundreds of "Rabbit Season" signs posted on every tree. We see more and more signs pointing exactly to Bugs Bunny's hole. Who's putting up all these signs? Daffy Duck!

Daffy puts the last sign up, tiptoes away and says to us, the audience, "Awfully unsporting of me, I know. But, what the hey - I gotta have some fun! Besides, it's really duck season."

From that point, we now see Elmer Fudd, shotgun in hand.....and a war of semantics between Bugs and Daffy with Bugs winning every time. Only in cartoons, thankfully, can we see someone getting shotgun-blasted in the head five times and keep going! This is my all time favorite Looney Tunes cartoon. It's a common plot: Daffy Duck tries to convince Elmer Fudd that it is really rabbit season and shoot Bugs. But your can never outsmart that rabbit! In addition to usual cartoon comedy, this cartoon is supported by great word play that will keep you rolling on the floor. Once again Elmer is faced with the dilemma of who to shoot. Bugs of Daffy. He's unsure of what season it is and Bunny and Duck arguing help matters not. Though Bugs proves he's the smartest once more by repeatedly using reverse psychology on Daffy in increasingly subtle ways. And when that runs out he does his trademark cross-dressing thingy. Daffy freaks out and demands the bunny be shot. Though Elmer is too stupid he is hopelessly in love with the girl bunny thing. Elmer really is to blame for all this. If he weren't so dumb he'd know it REALLY is duck season and just blast Daffy. But poor old Daff can't believe the utter preposterousness of the situation. His cruel plans of misdirection have been foiled by Elmer's dumbness. Daffy is so shocked that he even goes home with Elmer to be blasted in his living room.

Poor Daff. He rules! The "Hunting Trilogy" of Rabbit Fire (1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952), and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! (1953) should be considered the comedic high water mark of the Chuck Jones-Michael Maltese collaboration. While they are seldom mentioned in lists of the "greatest" or "most important" cartoons in the history of animation, they are certainly THE FUNNIEST cartoons I've ever seen. Michael Maltese never got the credit that directors like Jones, Freleng or Avery got, but it's his dialogue and situations that make Warner Bros. cartoons, and these three in particular, some of the FUNNIEST ever made. Daffy Duck has signs hanging from every inch of every available tree announcing that it's rabbit season. But, you guessed it - it's really duck season. Elmer Fudd appears: he's the only hunter dumb enough to fall for the gag.

He's even dumber than that. When Bugs Bunny strides up to him and asks how the rabbit hunting is going, Elmer admits that he hasn't seen a rabbit yet. This is more than Daffy can stand. He emerges from his hiding place and immediately points to a rabbit: Bugs Bunny. "Shoot him now!" Daffy screams. "You be quiet," says Bugs. "He doesn't have to shoot you now." Daffy insists that he does.

After Daffy returns his blasted-off beak to his head, he is doomed to more arguments infected with "pronoun trouble" which all have the same result. Later, Bugs dresses as a sexy woman and flirtingly asks Elmer for a duck dinner. Will Daffy get the last laugh? "Ha, ha, very funny! Ha, ha, ha!"

What's funny about this classic cartoon? Bug recoils in fright as Daffy screams in his face. Bugs Bunny says "Yes?" while dripping with self-satisfaction. Daffy Duck stands on tiptoes demanding to be shot. Elmer Fudd whines that he "can't wait any wonger." Daffy sees Bugs in women's clothes and makes that little noise with his tongue. Carl Stalling plays "You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby" during Bugs's drag act. Daffy demands "sheer honesty" out of Bugs. Stalling plays "Home Sweet Home" at an inappropriately appropriate moment. Daffy tells Bugs he's "desthpicable."

In five words: every detail of this film.

NOTE: This short is available on "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One," Disc 1 If you overlook the fact that the plot has been done many times, this is a hilarious and gleefully enjoyable Looney Tunes cartoon. The animation is wonderful, the backgrounds so detailed and a lot of audacious colouring too. The writing is razor sharp, and the sight gags especially Daffy constantly getting his head blown off are brilliantly timed. I really did love the arguments between Daffy and Bugs, and that Bugs wins every time. I also love it that Daffy is really greedy and nasty while being uproariously funny. I do prefer him when he's manic but he is great fun here too. Bugs is still his charming and rascally self, and Elmer is funny if rather dumb too. In short, this is absolutely brilliant, and actually my personal favourite of the Hunting Trilogy for sheer entertainment value. 10/10 Bethany Cox There is only one film I can think of that might be as good or better than this one when it comes to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck--ALI BABA BUNNY. However, determining which is THE best is irrelevant--just watch them both and enjoy.

I compared this to ALI BABA BUNNY because both feature Daffy at his absolute worst--greedy, nasty and very funny in the process. However, I think I prefer RABBIT SEASONING simply because Bugs is also pretty awful in this one--doing horrible things right back to Daffy every time Daffy tries a dirty trick.

The film begins with Daffy leaving rabbit tracks right up to Bugs' hole in the hope that a hunter (naturally, it's Elmer) will blast the rabbit and leave Daffy alone! Not to be outdone, Bugs time and again takes all of Daffy's tricks and turns them around--and in most cases it involves Daffy getting shot in the face! It's all very, very clever and funny and I don't care how old you are, this cartoon will make you laugh unless you are a grouch. I especially love the great and unexpected ending, but I won't say more, as I don't want to spoil the surprise. Chuck Jones's 'Rabbit Seasoning', the second in the much beloved hunting trilogy, is often considered to be the best of the three. While I find it almost impossible to choose between this trio of fantastic cartoons, I would have to concede that 'Rabbit Seasoning' is the most finely honed script. Here, the emphasis is placed on language as Bugs and Daffy run through a series of complex dialogues in the grand tradition of Abbot and Costello's 'Who's on next' routine. As a long term Daffy fan, I have always been delighted by the hunting trilogy because it is consistently Daffy who gets all the best lines (the famous "Pronoun trouble" being one of the all time classics) and does most of the work. Bugs plays the role of cool manipulator while Elmer, as always, is the befuddled dupe. Part of what makes the hunting trilogy so much fun is that Daffy and Elmer pose so little threat to Bugs that he is basically just kicking back and having some easy laughs. Elmer falls into every trap that is laid for him but it is poor old Daffy who comes off worst, being shot in the face again and again, his beak ending up in more and more ridiculous positions. It all builds to the inevitable climactic declaration "You're despicable". As intricate an example of Chuck Jones's impeccable timing as you'll come across, 'Rabbit Seasoning' is a true classic. ...And there were quite a few of these.

I do not like this cartoon as much as many others, partly because it was made in its period. I much prefer cartoons with Daffy and Bugs which are fifteen or so years before-hand. Many people will like this, particularly people who always find violence funny, cartoon or not.

The basic plot is a pretty well known one for Looney Tunes: Elmer goes out hunting, Daffy leads him to Bugs and Daffy ends up being shot instead. Also inserted are quite clever and highly entertaining jokes (some do not enhance the episode), ugly shooting and animation which is slightly mediocre. The plot is mainly geared by jokes - each joke keeps the episode going. This way of plot-going is not all that unusual in Looney Tunes (of course if you are pretty much a Looney Tunes boffin - or an eager one - like me, then you'll know this already).

For people who love everything about Looney Tunes and Daffy Duck and like the sound of what I have said about it, enjoy "Rabbit Seasoning"!

7 and a half out of ten. Rabbit Seasoning is one of three cartoons that feature Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd in a war of words and wits about whether it's rabbit season or duck season. Love Bugs and Daffy stirring up "pronoun trouble" with Daffy always the victim of Elmer's shotgun resulting with his beak always getting dismembered. Then there's the rabbit's cross-dressing that always gets Elmer in his love struck mode. Chuck Jones and Michael Maltese are always favorites of mine in the writer-director team category because of these hilarious hunting trilogy cartoons I've laughed at since I was a kid. And at least two of them end with Daffy's exclamation to Bugs: "You're despicable!" Can't get better that that! In one of the many Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons, Elmer Fudd is out hunting, and Daffy tries to get him to shoot Bugs. Needless to say, Bugs has his own agenda. Moreover, "Rabbit Seasoning" makes interesting use of word order and pronouns (warning: it just might hilariously and royally mess up your speech).

I think that probably my favorite aspect of this cartoon is the costumes worn by Bugs and Daffy. One of them seems like it would have been risqué for 1952 (especially in a cartoon), but they pull it off perfectly, as they always did. All in all, this just goes to show what geniuses the people behind these cartoons were. This is the second and best in the Hunting Trilogy! What makes it the best is the clever dialogue!

Bugs: Do you want to shoot me now or wait till you get home?

It was kind of funny how they kept that going through out the short! This is the middle cartoon of the three (between Rabbit Fire and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!) and is the weakest of the three, while still being quite funny. It simply depends on one gag for too much of the action. Still a good cartoon. I feel a definite sympathy for Daffy in this one, which is rare for me. Daffy is so clearly overmatched that it almost becomes painful to watch at times. Good cartoon in an excellent series. Recommended. Strange enough, shorts like this get a 10. Why? They are hilarious. This is hilarious. Notice a lot of the quirky humor. Dated and childish to toon naysayers, but they don't know what they're talking about. They got to know that cartoons aren't just for kids. The art in this is probabley the best non-Road Runner art of the 1950's Looney Tunes shorts. It's hard to come across something better than the art in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery", although nothing ever will. This probabley runs a close 3rd or 2nd. Shorts like this one might have spawned witless LT rip-offs like Tiny Toons Adventures to try to squeeze out all the old comedy out over and over again, like how great movies like Scream spawned crap like I Know... which was released just to squeeze out all the old horror from Scream, but like Scream, this is great alone. Chuck Jones has had his faults with shorts once in a while but he does make up for them. Take Hopper for example. Few people like Hopper but it never ruined the LT reputation, but I'm sure this was his make up on things as such. Bottom line: This is not as good as "Duck! Rabbit! Duck!", but close. Catch it on Cartoon Network frequently. Having just got the "Loony Tunes Golden Collection"(which i HIGHLY recommend, by the way), I'm going to try to comment on most if not all of the cartoons individually. As such the starting statement might seem redundant for those whom read multiple reviews of them, for this i apologize.

Rabbit Seasoning is the middle short in a trilogy of like-minded shorts (the other two being "Rabbit Fire" and "Duck! Rabbit, Duck). Bags and Daffy argue about who Elmer Fudd should short. It makes me laugh EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! On the DVD it has a commentary, featurette, & option to play it music only.

My Grade: A+

DVD Extras: Disk 1: an introduction by Chuck Jones; The Boy of Termite Terrice part 1; clips from the films "Two Guys from Texas" and "My Dream is Yours", both with Bugs cameos; Bridging sequences for an episode of "the Bugs Bunny show"; the Astro Nuts audio recording session; 2 vintage trailers; "Blooper Bunny: Bugs Bunny 51st and a half anniversary" with optional commentary with writer Greg Ford & stills gallery We just saw this film previewed before release at the Norfolk (VA) Film Forum, and there was general agreement on two matters: There were excellent performances in a first rate drama by the two leads and by others: and secondly, the marketing for this movie will only bring disaster. We saw a lurid poster with chains and suggestive commentary implying some sort of wacko sexual relationship between Samuel Jackson and Cristina Ricci, whereas the movie has some real depth and some thoughtful ideas. What's sad is that people looking for near porn will be drawn in to see the film and will be disappointed because it will be too "heavy" for them, while the people who would really enjoy it wouldn't be caught dead walking into the theater showing it. Too bad. A good film wasted. Working at a movie theater as a projectionist, I have the opportunity to watch basically every movie that comes out. When I first saw the trailer for 'Black Snake Moan' I laughed and thought, "Great. Another 'Snakes on a Plane' Samuel L Jackson movie". But of course, I wanted to see it for the laugh factor. Many people have judged this movie too quickly based on the innuendo in the title, the images on promotional ads and on the fact that Justin Timberlake is in the film. Personally I loved every second of this movie. It tells the story of an older man and young woman who are both going through rough times and are able to reach out to one another. The story is truly touching and sends out a great message about life and how we live. Of course, I do not recommend it for young audiences due to some graphic material, but if you are looking for a great story and genuine acting from Sam Jackson, Christina Ricci and,yes, even Justin Timberlake, I encourage you to see 'Black Snake Moan'. Just got back from seeing Black Snake Moan. I had spent time reading reviews ... most seemed to focus on the obvious ... "skinny white girl chained to a black man's radiator" ... I hate when "critics" miss the point of a film. Now I suppose it helps that I live in Memphis ... and have lived in Mississippi a couple of times too. It may also help that I am the former Director of the Delta Blues Museum in Clarksdale ... but I get this movie. Brewer's simple "redemption tale" is easy to follow and could have had various themes to tell the story ... but I believe it is highly effect as a "blues". It would be my hope that people don't read all the hype ... and/or various reviews ... and miss a really good movie. Get past the various things like skinny girls in white panties ... get past Justin Timberlake, accept his character Ronnis (which he plays very well) ... get past "Snakes on a Plane" and see how mercuricul Samuel L. Jackson is ... as he has transformed himself into a very believable Mid-South blues man. If you know little about Mid-South culture a lot of what goes on may strike some as cartoonish ... but accept the fact that Craig Brewer KNOWS how to paint the canvas and let the actors tell the story and you will enjoy this film. Not one to tell endings ... so go see this movie ... and yes I will agree with one thing the critics got right ... the music is wonderful! Me and my roommate got free tickets for a Pre Screening I guess you would call it in Atlanta, GA at Atlantic Station. Walking in I was expecting something controversial, provocative, unnecessarily overdone, etc.. But the film is much more than that. It's a story of two people helping each other. It's not overdone, and the film is done in a careful balance as to not make you cringe or say its unnecessary.

It's put together really well and doesn't take itself too seriously. Thats the beauty of it. If it tried to take itself seriously, it would have failed miserably, but instead it carries itself through humor (some unintentional) and some surprisingly good acting by Ricci. Although Timberlake fails miserably in his role, the movie is good enough for you to put that on the side.

I would definitely recommend this movie, if not for any other reason than the fact it is something different to experience. I watched this movie at the first showing available in my area, and it was quite clear that most people didn't get the movie. Even if you don't, it's a good movie with some interesting character development. It is a thoroughly human story about some very imperfect people in a backwoods southern town, and really speaks to the root of the blues. If you don't know what the "Black Snake Moan" is by the time you leave the theater, you didn't get it. And no.. it's not just a song. Christina Ricci does a great job and is thoroughly convincing in her role, as is Samuel L Jackson. I think this is his best performance since his role in Pulp Fiction, and probably his best including that because of the range of his character in BSM. The rest of the cast is solid, with a few shining performances here and there, particularly John Cothran Jr as Reverend R. L.. I'm a very selective movie watcher, and this film honestly rates among my favorites because of its candid look at race, sex, religion and neurosis in a rural southern town, along with its cinematic genius, in my opinion. If you've been looking for a film where a out of control nympho gets chained to a radiator by an extremely religious southern man then look no further than Paramount Vantage's latest release 'Black Snake Moan'. Not exactly looking for what I just described you say? Well then, you best get ya wits 'bout yaself and mosey on down to your local theater and still see it as Samuel L. Jackson's character Lazarus would say. As long as you're open minded and don't take everything seriously, there's no reason you won't leave the theater glad you saw it.

In the third offering from director Craig Brewer, we are taken into the deep south where as the tagline to the film claims, everything is hotter. While there we're introduced to the Godfearing bluesman, Lazarus as previously said played by Jackson, and the almost always half naked Rae; a role bravely taken on by Christina Ricci. In the film this unlikely pair cross paths long enough for their characters to each learn a lesson from one another. Both lessons ultimately convey the message to us the audience that no matter what, we are all human. No one is perfect and if everyone would realize that, then we'd be a lot better off. The question of if this will be understood, or be accepted by all who see the film is another story.

One thing not up for debate is how great Jackson and Ricci both are here. You'd think with the role of a sex-crazed woman, overacting would be a given, but no, not here. Ricci breaks through and demonstrates true talent with a raw performance that also doubles as her best to date. Then we have Jackson who completely disappears and for the first time in a long time makes us forget who he even is. Sadly, the third star of the film, Justin Timberlake who plays Rae's military-bound boyfriend isn't all that great. At the start, he fails miserably as he appears to be trying too hard. Later on he steps it up some, still he's far from the level he reached in January's 'Alpha Dog'.

The other thing 'Black Snake Moan' boasts is a splendid soundtrack. Containing tracks from The Black Keys, John Doe, pieces from the score done by Scott Bomar, & of course four, count 'em, four tracks from Jackson himself. It's actually one of his songs, the main performance of the film, 'Stackolee' that is the fuel to the fire of this great collection. It alone is worth the ticket price. Other notable musical delights from the soundtrack are Bomar's 'The Chain', 'When the Lights Go Out' from the Black Keys, & the title track which is also among the most memorable scenes in the film where Lazarus sings to Rae on a stormy night.

The efforts of Craig Brewer can't go without mention though. His last film 'Hustle & Flow' which ended up surpassing low expectations and gaining critical acclaim put him on the map. What he has done with 'Black Snake Moan' will be what sets him apart from other newbies to the industry. He not only directed 'Moan', but also wrote its screenplay. The end result is a story that is surprising and clever. As you watch you feel like you know exactly where it's headed despite its valiant composure. Just as you think you've predicted the next move Brewer shifts gears and takes an entirely different route. There are however some blotches within the screenplay. The background characters are drab and flat while the ending is somewhat disappointing. It left me craving for something more exciting. After so many highs I guess the final scenes were a tad weak compared to the rest of the film.

I imagine the majority of people who see 'Black Snake Moan' won't enjoy it due to the fact they won't be able to stop themselves from thinking how unlikely the situations are. The depressing part about that is there are many other films with just as unlikely, even more outrageous scenarios that are widely well received. It's the issues of race, religious motives, & sexuality the film exhibits that will have more effect on opinion than anything. The idea of a black man chaining a white woman up in his house is enough to make most people not even consider seeing it. Simply put, it's not for everyone. Like I said, to fully enjoy it you have to go in with an open mind, or else you're just wasting your money. For those of you who can do that, I highly recommend it. I knew as soon as I saw the first trailer for Black Snake Moan that I would have to see it. I was not disappointed in the slightest in the film, which was written and directed by Hustle and Flow's creator Craig Brewer. It tells the story of a broken blues man and the nymphomaniac he aims to cure not just for her sake, but also his own...yet it's so much more than that. It's complex and rich and it manages to steep you in a gritty, sticky, sultry blue Memphis without making you feel like you need a bath afterward.

The characters are (for the most part) multifaceted and very well-written and performed. The accents and the dialogue were carried off flawlessly. However, there was one weak link in the chain: Justin Timberlake. The best I can say for him is that he can pull off crying...it's a rare male actor who can cry convincingly. However, Justin's Ronnie was flat, but as an actor he was trying very hard. I would definitely give him another chance.

Lazarus and Rae (Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci respectively) have a great chemistry and a great respect for each other. This is one of those films where it doesn't matter how good one actor is if the other one isn't up to the task and, luckily, both of the actors were up to the task.

The music was very bit as good as you would expect, especially when Mr. Samuel L. Jackson sings the blues. Phenomenal.

On the technical side, all was brilliance as far as I could see. It was well-edited, well shot, and well-mixed...everything was great. The character and set designs were just right, the casting of the supporting characters (even Justin Timberlake and especially Kim Richards) was spot on... Loved it. Craig Brewer is now officially a writer/director for whom I will see any film by, no matter how bad it may look. His debut, Hustle and Flow, was one of my favorites from that year, with its emotionally charged storyline and realistic, fallible characters. I wasn't quite sure what I would end up thinking after seeing this sophomore effort. The cast seemed great, the trailer used music effectively, however, it seemed like there was a good chance it would cross into absurdity, and fast. Fortunately, Black Snake Moan hits all its marks dead-on. The acting is astonishing, the writing superb, and the editing style, as well as juxtaposed music, riveting the whole way. Brewer seems to be a master at getting his characters to have the right mix of both compassion and malice as they set forward on their paths toward redemption.

The first moment I knew I was in for a treat was during the abbreviated credit sequence at the beginning. Like he did with Hustle and Flow, Brewer lays the music over the widescreen shots perfectly with simply titled fonts coming up statically. The 70's aesthetic was welcome and helped show that this would be another great character piece in the vain of those from that decade of some of cinema's best. From here we continued on with the short snippets into the lives of both Lazarus and Rae, each vignette mirroring the other while they journey to the fateful moment their paths finally cross. The editing between them was fluid and relevant rather than abruptly cutting before the scene felt finished with its purpose. Rae's boyfriend leaves for duty in the service and Laz's wife leaves him for his brother. Each feels the loneliness and reverts to what they know in that situation—Rae to sex and Laz to the bottle. Only when Rae is left for dead at the side of the road and her savior comes from his farm to take her in does the reasoning for their actions finally start to become clear.

Samuel L. Jackson is fantastic as the older bluesman farmer trying to reconcile his life with God and that of the flesh and the pain it has brought him. There are the moments of stoic sternness as well as those of kindheartedness with his captive/patient. You never really look at the setup as comical or unrealistic because he sells what he is doing so well. Also, the character of Rae is not chained up for very long, despite what the trailers would have you believe. The situation starts a bit awkward until we see that the chaining was for her own good and is actually used for only a day or two. As for that chained girl, Christina Ricci really shines. I never really saw her as anything special, but this role is a true breakthrough for her. This girl is so troubled that her past sexual abuse has scarred her very deep down. Any time she is away from her love she starts seeing flashes of the man who took her childhood innocence away and itches to be touched by any man available to let the image go away. Her nymphomania is not for pleasure, but rather for survival from the haunting nightmares always hiding behind her eyelids. Ricci fully inhabits the role and shows all the emotional trauma to great effect and realism. Mention must also be made of Justin Timberlake, again showing some real acting talent. Where this guy came from I have no clue, but hopefully he will continue taking more films and steer away from the mostly crap music he churns out.

While not as solid and consistent as Hustle and Flow, Moan still ranks equally to it, in my mind, because when it is on, it is spectacular. Towards the end we have a truly enthralling sequence with "This Little Light of Mine" singing out, and earlier, the interaction between captive and captor, when the chain is first introduced, shows some top-notch work. The truly magical moment, though, is when Jackson sings (yes that is him throughout, like it was Terrence Howard in Hustle) the titular song while a thunderstorm roars and the lights flicker. If I don't see a more beautifully shot sequence all year, I won't be surprised. What these two people do for each other is wonderful and shows what humanity is capable of. One thing I think I really enjoy with Brewer's work is the fact that he doesn't show sinners becoming redeemed heroes. Instead he shows us that no matter how bad you have been, or how bad life has been, everyone can strive for redemption and to be better people. We don't have saints here, but fallible people looking to right their ship. If the course stays true or if it falls back into darkness, no one really knows, but at least they can say that they tried as hard as they could. If ever a potential movie must've sounded like it wouldn't work based on reading the script on paper, it would be this one. Here we have what seemingly looks like a lurid and seedy soft-porn s&m flick, complete with the huge in-theatre poster, depicting a near-naked Christina Ricci chained to none other than Mr. Bad Ass MF himself, Samuel Jackson. But let me tell you, if ever a film springs to life on celluloid major big time with soulful power to spare, it's Craig Brewer's redemptive follow-up to Hustle & Flow, Black Snake Moan.

Unashamedly over the top from the get go, this film sucks you in with the opening scenes and proceeds to dig deeper and deeper in with every subsequent frame. It's yer basic story of two deeply damaged characters who find in each other the strength and courage to move on, in more positive ways, with their lives. Been done before, of course, this tale, but as I've always said, it's the manner in which a story is told that gives it heart, depth, meaning and power.

Ricci's damaged-by-childhood-abuse wild-child character Rae and Jackson's equally soulsick musician character Lazarus find each other under desperate circumstances, and Laz takes it upon himself to try to help Rae. This in itself is relatively unique: the idea of a man trying to genuinely help a woman who is in serious pain, rather than trying to take further advantage of her, and we know from the onset that Laz's heart, and the film's heart, is in the right place. The movie at its core is about the redemptive, healing power of love (with music as a very close second), and the film resonates profoundly with this truth - soulfully, artfully and brilliantly.

A major reason the film succeeds so profoundly is because of the fierce, committed performances from Ricci and Jackson. Scenes that would have come off as laughable and pathetic in lesser artists' hands are, instead, powerful as all get-out. In particular, the film's arc scene, in which Jackson sings and plays the song of the title alone in his house, with Ricci, amidst a serious thunderstorm and the abusive demons from Rae's past running amok inside her head, leading her to crawl to Lazarus and cling to his leg, comes off not ridiculous as technically it should, but rather as gut-wrenchingly cathartic.

All the supporting performances are fantastic here too. Justin Timberlake is completely believable as Rae's anxiety-ridden boyfriend Ronnie, and the always-wonderful S. Epatha Merkerson is also perfectly cast as a character who obviously has feelings for Lazarus. John Cothran Jr. is outstanding as well, as Laz's reverend friend R.L. (a nod to blues musician R. L. Burnside, no doubt). Everything works about this movie, let's face it, including the music/soundtrack, which features Burnside, Scott Bomar, Bobby Rush, Son House, and most importantly, Jackson himself, whose fantastic version of Stackolee I am listening to as I compose this review. There's also a really beautiful and moving version of "This Little Light of Mine" featured in the film, sung heart-breakingly tentative and soft by Ricci.

Samuel Jackson has said in recent interviews that he believes his performance in this movie is the best of his career thus far; I could not agree with him more. This is work that he can be monumentally proud of, along with everyone else involved in this audacious, supremely wise and deeply heartfelt mother*ucker of a project. Craig Brewer grew up in Tennessee, it is evident in his movie. Forget the Black guy on White Girl action. It happens, but it isn't Samuel L. Jackson on Christina Ricci. More importantly this movie is about the values and culture of the people in this Tennessee town. How they deal with divorce, abandonment, sexual abuse and psychological disorders. While shrinks make millions in the cities of the North, Midwest and West Coast, the town minister, who also grapples with his own problems, becomes the counselor and mediator. It is a interesting concept and one that may not settle well with everyone.

Brewer shows us the region he grew up in. Yes it is still tainted with racial problems, though worse problems exist in many metropolitan cities. This is in the subtext and not the main plot of the story. People live a more simple lifestyle, yet life is still complex and excruciating.

Jackson and Ricci do a fantastic job in this film. Jackson the aging-former blues guitarist who eeks out a living on his small farm. His wife of 12 years leaves him for his brother, so he spirals into depression. Meanwhile Ricci and Justin Timberlake have a last wild sexually charged night before he ships off to the Army. Ricci suffers from a childhood of sexual abuse, though that isn't revealed until later, her torment can only be quenched by sexual forays with various boys (Black and White) in the town.

When Ricci is beat up and left for dead on the road near Jacksons farm, he finds her and nurses her back to health. He believes it is divine intervention that this half-naked White girl is left in his care. He clutches his Bible and prays for guidance. He refuses her sexual advances and instead treats her with dignity, respect and care. Something few men in her life have ever done.

She in time sees Jackson as a man of honor and morals, yet he also carries his own pain. He plays his guitar and sings to her. Yes it's the Blues and damn good too, With the minister counseling her, she slowly understands how to deal with her childhood sexual abuse. Jackson, through Ricci's transformation, realizes he must let his own pain heal.

Justin Timberlake comes back, discharged due to "anxiety problems". As he searches for Ricci, who has been living with Jackson during her recovery, he finds out she has been promiscuous and unfaithful to him.

He finds her and Jackson at a bar, where Jackson has decided (as part of his healing process) to come out retirement and play the Blues again. Timberlake follows them home and confronts Jackson and Ricci.

You will have to see the movie to get the rest of the story. Should you decide to see this film, remember to look at it from the aspect of a foreign or independent movie. It is a slice of life, from a particular region of America that few of us get to see. It is interesting and revealing. It also shows us that regardless of the color of our skin, we all have similar problems that can be fixed with similar solutions. In Mississippi, the former blues man Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) is in crisis, missing his wife that has just left him. He finds the town slut and nymphomaniac Rae (Chritina Ricci) dumped on the road nearby his little farm, drugged, beaten and almost dead. Lazarus brings her home, giving medicine and nursing and nourishing her like a father, keeping her chained to control her heat. When her boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) is discharged from the army due to his anxiety issue, he misunderstands the relationship of Lazarus and Rae, and tries to kill him.

"Black Snake Moan" is a weird tale of faith, hope, love and blues. The gifted Christina Ricci has an impressive performance in the role of a young tramp abused since her childhood by her father and having had sex with the whole town where she lives. It is amazing the versatility of this actress, and probably this is the most mature work that I have seen Christina Ricci perform. Samuel L. Jackson has also a fantastic performance in the role of Lazarus. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard in a movie, with wonderful blues. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Entre o Céu e o Inferno" ("Between the Heaven and the Hell") (My Synopsis) Rae (Christina Ricci) was a high school slut and nymphomaniac who connects with Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) to fulfill her needs. Ronnie must report to his National Guard unit and leaves Rae all alone. Rae is not alone for long, because she is the town tramp with a powerful need to hook-up with a man. After a party, Rae is taken home by a friend who ends up beating her half to death and throws her on the side of the road. The next day, Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds Rae and carries her home. Lazarus gives medical care to Rae, and believes that he can also save her from herself. Rae is like a dog in heat so Lazarus puts a 40 pound chain around her and his radiator to keep her from going out looking for men. Lazarus has problems of his own, because his wife has just left him for another man. Lazarus turns to his blues music to relieve his pain.

(My Comment) The movie has a deep meaning to it once you get past the sex and violence. The film has a different feel to it. The story is raw and almost puts you in the movie as if you were there. The 40 pound chain is a good metaphor, and symbolic of a chastity belt. You don't give love away to anyone, but you keep it for your true love. The chain could also be a parallel to a wife who is chained to the kitchen, yet Rae didn't cook. Rae only wanted to have sex all the time whereas a wife may not. I think Craig Brewer (writer & director) has made an extraordinary movie, and Samuel L. Jackson sings a mean blues song. The story is emotionally charged, tackling the subjects of race, religion, music, and sex all into one. (Paramount Classics, Run time 1:56, Rated R)(8/10) I was surprised by how great Black Snake Moan turned out to be.Being a fan of Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson id figure id give this a try.Well when this was over I was just left stunned by how great this film truly was.I mean everything was dead-on great and very accurate for that matter.This film shows how the great director and writer Craig Brewer(who made Hustle & Flow another great film) can just take anything even something that seems ludacras and make it into this.Well, I like how it is just a good time, like its a film that just makes it there own in a good way.Also I love that it doesn't show big steroeypes of the south and how its been portrayed in things as the most repulsive place to be, but not this film it makes very accurate and because of that very reconisable.The cating in this was just phenomenal especially from Christina Ricci(who deserves an Oscar for this role), the always great Samuel L. Jackson, and even Justin Timberlake did a great job as well.Overall almost everything is great about this, and while its not everyones type of film its definitely worth a viewing from anyone who can enjoy a good time. Three Cheers For Black Snake Moan!!!!

9.3 out of 10 stars I really think this movie deserves some Oscars! I really don't care what people can say badly about this movie...because it's a really well played parts from Samuel L. Jackson, and mainly by Christina Ricci!! I'm a big fan of hers, right since I saw her in Addams Family...been trying to watch all things she makes, and this is absolutely one of the best parts she played!! I love her looks (even though people say she's not pretty...I think she is...and I love her eyes)!! The movie is about many things...people say that is religious...people say that it's about racism...people say that is about drugs...people say that is about nymphomania...well...maybe is a little bit of all that!! But what I truly feel is that this movie has a high level of eye opening for what blues is...what it stands for...and mainly were it comes from: life...heart...pain...sorrow...and above all...spontaneous feelings!! I hope you get to see it...if you are that kind of person that likes a movie not only from the pictures or the story it tells...this is a good movie to see...if your not...well...see it anyway...cant hurt that much, and you get to see Christina Ricci acting so horny!! She's a fox!! If you want to see a movie with nudity, sex, drugs, alcohol, brutal beating of a woman and child rape, this movie will satisfy you. If you want to see a man creatively exact revenge on the treasure of a wife who left him, this movie has it. You've already heard the wonderful music that keeps the raw emotion going. The surprise is that in a story of violence, action and music a climax can come in a moment of silence, without a pedantic speech, which transforms the movie. Look for a final scene that is an unexpected evidence of a wounded person healing. Perhaps we who wonder why we wallow in the abundant profane will learn that love can be located above the loins in the heart. From the pumping pounding follow the rhythm to where where love is sacred. This if the first movie I've given a 10 to in years. If there was ever a movie that needed word-of-mouth to promote, this is it. A $4 Mil box is a disgrace. People don't know what it's about. If you have any appreciation for the Blues, or just a good use of excellent music, that alone is reason to go see it. How many people knew Jackson could sing, and damn fine too. You hear books and movies taunting that they're about salvation. After seeing this, you'll never be able to forgive such trivial use of the word. Yes, it's gritty, sexy, down home truth, bizarre and in-your-face real. Isn't that the best reason to see a movie? Those that get my meaning won't stay away from seeing this another week. I suppose this is what is called Southern Gothic.

It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci, and also Justin Timberlake is featured in a role. Timberlake does good work, much to my surprise, I didn't expect it of him.

When you're lost and you can't find your way home--that's the black snake moan.

The people in this movie are definitely lost in many ways, psychologically and emotionally damaged, betrayed by those they trusted and loved and filled with a lot of pain.

Samuel L. Jackson plays a blues singer/musician--whose wife has messed around with his brother and now left him for his brother, along with aborting a child he had hoped to have with her.

Christina Ricci's character is a woman who was sexually abused when young--this has turned her into a self destructive nymphomaniac; allowing men to treat her badly.

The story lies in the intersection of these two characters lives. It is a love story, but not a sexual love story, between them--the older black man and the young white woman.

It is different from most films Hollywood grinds out.

I highly recommend it.

10 stars In "Black Snake Moan," writer-director Craig Brewer is so obsessed with heavy symbolism that part of me felt like dismissing the entire film as pretentious--a sweltering Southern parable with some oh-so-risky subject matter. The movie also contains a heavy spiritual subtext where religion is being hauled into the picture--again, this is integrated without subtlety. After the darker opening scenes, the film increasingly blunts its edge until the entire production comes off with the artificial quality of a stage play (and I'll admit, the last 15 minutes go way too far into "Happy Ending" territory for my liking). And that's not to mention the archival footage of musician Son House, ruminating on love and death (and heavily foreshadowing things to come, of course). Yet in a strange way, these demerits are also qualities of "Black Snake Moan," the tale of aging Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson), recently dumped by his wife (for his brother, no less), who comes across near-death nympho Rae (Christina Ricci, easily giving the hottest portrayal of trailer trash on celluloid ever); nursing the girl back to health, he chains her to his radiator to overcome her demons, and hopefully redeem his own fallen self. While there is a definite prurient appeal in watching Ricci fall out of her skimpy outfits, her performance is risky and mature--not a trace of Wednesday Addams to be found, and she easily holds her own with Jackson, who personifies "the blues" in his portrait of a flawed, God-fearing man. While heavy-handed, the scene where Lazarus sings Rae a song in the midst of a lightning storm/blackout is compelling, as is a scene inside a jumping blues club that makes you wish you were there. The setting is strong, and a case can be made for the literal symbolism (the chain, the radiator, the strange blurry man who haunts Rae's libido) being a deliberate outgrowth of superstition and spirituality. And it is the conviction with which this spirituality is played that lends "Black Snake Moan" much of its strength--the committed performances of Jackson and Ricci make this a film that goes from wrenching to uplifting with, well, seamless grace. While Justin Timberlake's jealous lover is a plot contrivance I could have done without, neither he nor the sledgehammer subtlety can keep this from being a fascinatingly meditative film. I actually though that Black Snake Moan was great movie which takes place in the south. The story follows a man named Lazarus whose wife dumps him for his brother and finds Rae abandoned and beaten up on the side of the road. Lazarus finds out that Rae is a sex addict and was abused as a child so he decides to take matters into his own hands by tying up Rae with a chain to cure her of her wickedness. Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci have great chemistry together and their performances make you believe that through their struggles and search for redemption that Lazarus and Rae become best friends. I was also amazed by Sam's ability to play an electric guitar and being able to sing. S Epatha Merrkensen is great as Lazarus' love interest Angela, Justin Timberlake plays Rae's boyfriend Ronnie who is underused in the film but does the best that he can to deliver a fine performance. This movie is complex and interesting in so many ways. It is a non stop plethora of emotion and taboo subjects. Sex and love. Women's emotional abuse of men, Men's physical abuse of women, Sexual child abuse, Fresh approach to religion in real life, and all tied together with very raw and powerful blues music.

I promise you that if you sit through the first 20 minutes you will find the tie in and bettering of all the characters. And the ending will be more pleasant than you can expect. Music is outstanding the writing is powerful and acting from everyone was brilliant.

And the DVD has some great features, including Samuel Jackson's background of learning to play guitar and feel the blues.

This movie is not for children and I even caution parents of teenagers. I'm astounded and dismayed by the number of reviewers on this site who did not get the point of Black Snake Moan. It's not about black/white relationships or old/young relationships, though I think director Craig Brewer deliberately threw in both elements to tweak imagined taboos. It's not about sexual abuse or sex addiction, though Christina Ricci's character, Rae, typifies those. It's not about folk religion in the black community, though religion plays a large role. It's not a love story, though there are not one, but two happy couples at the end. And it's certainly not about the south, where "everything is hotter," though it's set in the south and it's undeniably hot; holy smokes, even the tag-line writers didn't get the point.

Black Snake Moan is a parable about Mississippi Delta Blues; who feels them, who writes them, who plays them, what they're playing about, how it heals them.

It's as though the film producers sat down with a blank slate and asked, "Ok, if we were going to help people understand what the Blues are really about, what would it look like?" So they set it in the rural south. Then they dream up two characters, one whose wife left him to live with his best friend, the other who goes off to war and his badly abused girl sleeps with everybody in town. Then, we throw in grizzled worldliness touched just a little by folk religion (they know Jesus wants their lives, and though they respect Him, they know they can't give Him that), some violence between men and women, and lots and lots of steamy sexual images, including -- ready to go over the top? -- a black man in a sleeveless undershirt holding a half-naked white girl captive on the end of a 40 lb chain. Fill it with authentic delta blues sounds, make it about a genuine blues picker, use music as the main healing element in the plot, slap clips of blues-man Son House on both ends, and Voila -- you have a modern parable about what the Blues are all about. Even the film's climax is not character conflict, but the whole town dancing steamy dances to hot, raunchy blues.

Of course, there's a bit of a dilemma here. Rae (Ricci) is being destroyed by uncontrollable lust, and is being healed by Lazarus' (Jackson's) homey religion and steadfastness (and don't forget the chain.) But then, we're shown the restored Rae dancing raunchily to blues at the end. Is this an expression of a restored, healthy life force, or just more of the same trashy behavior that ruined her in the first place? Brewer wants it both ways, but blues really is about sex and violence, not to mention depression. I suppose he would say blues gives healthy expression to both (sex and violence) without unleashing either. I have my doubts.

Not for the first time, Samuel L Jackson plays so well that we forget we're watching Samuel L Jackson; the man is unbelievably good. He even picks some of his own tunes in the film, and his playing is authentic, dirty, and hot. Christina Ricci isn't usually this good, either. Granted, half her job is done by the Costume That Wasn't There and her slinky figure, but she's a marvelous combination of cynical lust, rebellion, and vulnerability; bravo to her, she's arrived. I was impressed by the country preacher, John Cothran, Jr. I had to check the database to assure myself that he's a professional actor and not a genuine country minister.

Parents need to be aware of what they're getting if their kids bring this one home. The language is pretty far off the charts, the first half-hour is full of graphic sex, and women are violated in a dozen ways during the course of the film (Lazarus means well and is decent, but honestly, chaining a woman to the radiator?) Plus, Ricci spends half the movie dressed for sex; if you've got teenage boys, they'll be licking the screen halfway into the film. I don't recommend this for kids of any age. Adults only, please.

That being said, Black Snake Moan is informative and accurate about blues, folk religion, and sexual abuse, and tells a tale that's redemptive in lots of ways. It's unorthodox, but well worth the time. And, my goodness, is the sound track hot. I must admit, I didn't expect this to be as good as it was. I also didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to play slide and sing blue either.

Cinemark of Beaver County PA does this frequently. They advertise movies in the lobby, get you all excited about seeing it, and then disappoint you by not showing it...

I Expected that with such a great cast of Jackson and Ricci and even a former N'Syncer (Timberlake), that this movie would at least have shown for a week. But nay, at that time if I remember correctly MI3 was showing on 3 screens (that or some other type of supposed blockbuster).

Like Blues Brothers, and Crossroads, this movie incorporates the mystic and legend of what blues music is all about. Passion, and hard times. Religion and Sex. Hell Hounds of the past. Redemption. I mean so many elements go into the blues to make it work.

This was just a good all around story. Of course, not many people will see it cause it doesn't have pirates or swinging spiders. But it does have Samuel L. Jackson...

Think of what happens to Jacksons character from Pulp Fiction after he walks the earth and settles down and that essentially describes him to a "T".

Great and underrated, but aren't all the good ones like that anyway? then you will be a big fan of this movie. Its almost the same basic concept, a nice mixture of music, soul, and drama. I'll admit, i was a little aprehensive about seeing this movie, I had only seen previews of a white trash girl chained to a radiator, but I am a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson and I enjoyed Hustle & Flow so i thought I would give it a chance.

I'm very glad that I did. It turned out to be more than just the surface story of a nymphomaniac southern girl being imprisoned by a 60 year old black man. The story had heart, and was very influential.

The music in this movie also added a nice touch. Craig Brewer mixed his style from Hustle & Flow into this movie, except took a new spin and used the Blues. His musical scenes are still at the top of the charts as far as performance scenes go by. He also has very interesting flashback scenes and just gives you an overall crazy feel during some of the more controversial scenes.

No doubt, if you liked Hustle & Flow, you will love this movie, and if you are a fan of the blues you should definitely go an see this. I give it a 9 out of 10, very interesting film, and it is extremely under rated. shame.

Go out and rent this movie. As I was reading through the comments, I was surprised to come across one that said this movie was "not very profound." I have to disagree—this has to be one of the deepest and most thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Yes, the acting and the music were excellent; they have been praised over and over in the reviews. However, I also praise the heart of the movie. It resonates with deep meaning and feeling—it is a story of redemption. It is about two very different and very flawed characters, beaten down by life but too strong to lie down and die. It is about a man seeing more value in a girl than she saw in herself. It reminded me strongly of the book Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers, which has a similar story of redemption. Yes, the images and themes are messy and sometimes shocking, but if you look close enough, you may just see yourself in these characters. Sometimes the truest things in life are not pretty, but they are real. Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.

As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with "once upon a time"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.

But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.

The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the "ultimate bad-ass". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.

But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his "Black Snake Moan" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.

And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.

In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision – and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.

It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet. The trailer to this film focused so much on the chain (of course, because it's so sensational) that it missed most of the movie, which is about a developing, although rather simply drawn, relationship between Lazarus and Rae as they attempt to recover from their past pains with each other.

Of course, with the premise of a nymphomaniac in chains, it's no surprise that there's plenty of implied sex involved. However, at it's core, Black Snake Moan is a basic tale of redemption and the healing power of helping another person along. Maybe it's just me though, but I think poor Lazarus should've had his story focused on more. He's a hurting man after his wife leaves him, but we never fully see how helping Rae resolve her past pains heals him too. It's just implied that it does--in essence, he plays the wizard that helps the young Rae overcome her curse, through a big ol' chain and some blues.

I like the story, but I wish it were a bit more even and didn't have to rely on the sensational. The side characters were fairly decent, if simple and I liked the music. The acting was good enough, although I can't be certain if the Rae character is fully believable. But that might just be my naivety.

All in all, I liked the film, but I wasn't compelled by it. Maybe it's that I'm too critical, but the story seems a little too convenient to be fully believable and so, while it all seemed very cool, I could never truly buy it. The chain thing was a little too far-fetched for me. Still, this can provide some entertainment for those looking for dramatic redemption stories with a shot of the blues. 7/10 Initially I was put off renting this movie due to the jacket art for the DVD. In fact, this held true with friends of mine who didn't rent it due to the art and the mental image(s) it conjured of being a movie that held little or no interest to me (or to my friends). But, I rented and watched it and was truly amazed.

I agree with another user's comments that this movie is not for everyone due to the blatant sexual inferences, so it is definitely not something I'd want young children to watch (and doubt seriously if they would understand it anyway).

I enjoy movies like this whereby the character's personalities and who they are are genuinely defined in a no-nonsense, direct way with no teasers to indicate they will turn out bad. The acting done ... was it acting? Ricci and Jackson performed so well, I was drawn into this movie not even realizing they were acting. Same thing with the story ... may seem far-fetched somewhat, but it was done so very, very well. It reminded me of another movie with Mel Gibson, Tim, where each character had limitations, whether mental or circumstantial, so were well-defined.

I found much depth in this movie with the character's involved, so feel that everyone involved (from the cameramen to the actors) should be commended on a perfect fit/result. After viewing this movie, I had talked to a couple of friends who had a negative approach to watching it like I did, so after hearing my comments, they rented and watched it. They, too, were quite surprised at how good it was. It is too bad that the art on the jacket was done the way it was since it is a turn off. I can see now how the art applies, but I'd not heard of this movie before, and the art was my first impression ... art sells or destroys DVD sales/rentals.

These characters had more depth to them and good timing was allotted to give an audience like me time to absorb the "feel" for each. I felt I could trust the movie to flow well, and it did. So, with the jacket art aside, I would recommend watching this movie. I opted to watch this film for one reason and one reason alone...Samuel L. Jackson. I happen to like him, a lot. I had seen no previews or trailers for this overlooked film, so went into it with no real expectations.

Jackson didn't disappoint as Lazarus, a down-on-his-luck blues man in the Deep South, and delivered perhaps his most powerful performance ever, including playing and singing a number of excellent blues tunes. But the real surprise here was Christina Ricci, at best a vapid airhead in real life, who took the role of the sexually-abused town tramp Rae and made her a believable, almost even likable character. Watching the decidedly non-sexual relationship evolve between Lazarus and Rae was simply amazing.

Justin Timberlake, pop star turned wanna-be actor, should go back to causing "wardrobe malfunctions" and prancing around a pop stage. His mostly forced performance was distracting, at best, from the real story here.

This movie is raw, gritty, and at times quite "in your face". Not everyone will like it. Those that do, however, will be quickly moving it to the top of their favorites list. Better than I expected from a film selling itself on the premise of nymphomania and inter-racial bondage. The music is great, and cinematography focuses greatly on turning Ricci into a trailer trash Betty Paige and it works. Samuel L. get's to shout a lot, which he's good at, as well as play lots of blues guitar, which he looks cool doing. Even Justin Timberlake was decent as the mentally disturbed boyfriend. I get the feeling that this material under anyone else would have been complete s*%#, but instead managed to just barley carve out it's own odd little transgressive pulp niche, while still being an effective drama. I lack cable-vision and no longer have "DirecTV". So being a rural resident I have to wait for DVD releases. Being a lover of blondes but not blonds, I of course not only have "Barb Wire", but I have "Stripperella: The Complete First Season". I've not yet found "VIP" or a second season for Stripperella. I have the "Baywatch Hawaiian Wedding" DVD. I have the issues of "Playboy" that Pamela Denise Anderson posed in. I could go on. I love Pamela! There is no one or anything that could make me feel guilty about enjoying Stripperella. But there are certain elements that I dislike, but live with, for other series depict smoking and alcohol consumption too, some times. But those are my personal peeves and I try not to let them ruin the fun of a series like this for me. I too was taken aback by the change in animation style, but I adapted. However, the amount of female nudity decreased, and that is a big disappointment as one expects a lot of it in a series with a premise like this. But then again I adapted. One of my favorite episodes of "Mork & Mindy" was when they got to meet Robin Williams! So of course one of my favorite episodes of "Striperella" is when Pamela & Tommy visit the club and the comparisons begin! If there really is a "Season 2" I hope that I can find it, for as a completest, I need to complete my collection. I recommend this for other admirers of the female form and lovers of blondes. (Hey! Psst! "Blonde" & "blondes" are the feminine form for spelling "blond"! Your software should already know that!) At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!

Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.

The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clichés and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made. When I saw the preview for this movie, I figured to myself, "here's another dumb TV movie that's written with the thought and complexity of a soap opera," but when I saw it I was surprised. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen stars (and proves that she can indeed act if given the chance) as a woman who falls in love with and marries a man (Now and Again's Eric Close) but begins to lose trust in him when a series of rapes begin to take place in her community. At first, she is blinded by his assurances that he is innocent and her love for him, but as time passes she continues to be suspicious of him.

While this sounds like the set-up for another boring melodramatic TV-movie, it is really much better than that, because the characters are well-acted by Thiessen and Close, and the movie's script allows them to be much more complicated and intelligent than you'd expect; these aren't just caricatures or cardboard characters that exist only to move the plot along but real, three-dimensional people, and we find ourselves really caring about them. And the movie is smart enough that it is able to provide an exciting, involving climax to the story without resorting to dumb action scenes, mindless cliches or cheap melodrama. Instead we share in the main character's inner conflicts and fears, and are given a realistic portrayal of how she might be able to resolve them and do the right thing.

If you get a chance to give this one a look, please do so. It's production values are not exactly top-notch (it is a TV movie, after all), but if you can look past that, there is an excellent story to enjoy. Gerald McRaney,(Dave Morgan),"War Crimes",'01 TV Series, was like a father to Tiffani Thiessen,(Jennifer Gallagher),"A Kiss Before Lying",'03, who experience a very bad situation in her life and it caused Jennifer to be withdrawn with people and young men. Dave Morgan tries desperately to get her out of the house and manages to introduce Jennifer to Chris (Gallagher) who falls madly in love with her at their very first meeting. In almost one or two dates later, Chris asks Jennifer if she will marry him and she agrees. It is not very long after the Wedding that things start to happen, Chris is in the Navy and does not like working in submarines and things start happening to young gals in the neighborhood. This is a very excellent TV film and it sometimes makes you wonder if the guy or gal I want as a Soul Mate is the Perfect PERSON ! Hmm, is it right to compare Tiffani Thiessen and Mark-Paul Gosselaar's post Saved By The Bell acting? Of course it's not right, it's ridiculous. And is right to give this movie a `10' rating? Hahahahahaha... that's funny. This movie wasn't so horrible, though; better than I expected it to be. Made-for-TV movies are often so so so similar. So many of them have the same feel to them. This one had that same feel but it worked even though it was yet another tortured wife who's gotta get the b*stard in the end story. Before it started I had envisioned Ms. Thiessen as a vixen type 90210 seductress but here she was as innocent as Kelly Kapowski which was refreshing. Eric Close surprised me by playing his part really well. With some decent writing the director got a pretty good, convincing performance out of him without being at all cheesy. All in all it was somewhat interesting, definitely better than most TV movies. My grade: B- Surprisingly good made for T.V. Thriller. I wasn't expecting too much from this one but I'm glad to say that this is one of the best of it's kind. It's fast paced and features solid acting and interesting events.

The story gets you hooked on since the beginning and with many hits, you can't help but find the movie very interesting.

The background story of Thiessen's character is hard but it turns into a nightmare when her husband is something much worse than her childhood friend's step father.

The "stranger" concept and his actions are disturbing if you consider that it is a common disease in society. A serial rapist does not respect society or even his own family and this movie displays the sickness and crime in a perfect way.

My beef with the movie was the non sense situation when Thiessen's character returns home with her deranged husband after he's released on bail. By that moment she knew what he did to his young relative (played by the cute Allyson Hannigan). But that's just the typical Hollywood scene that provokes more trouble.

The climax scene shows Thiessen following her husband when he's about to commit another rape, then she calls the cops who come in time just to capture him. The ending tells us that the husband was sentenced for 99 years in prison in real life.

The acting is also pretty good, and Tiffany is great and gorgeous as always. The direction is also very good. The movie is good and I think Tiffany Amber is very beautiful. I liked the movie. Can anyone tell me how I can get hold of the songs from this movie? Even the soundtrack will do. If that's not possible, can I at least get the names of the songs with their respective singers? I tried to look up amazon.com but its not there. I tried CD baby, not there either. I browsed through Google to get some details but there weren't any. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the answer to my question. I know that the songs belong to Country Music and is sung by a country artist. I just need the title names along with the singer. I would recommend this movie or rather the songs to any country loving person. Really don't care that no one on here likes this movie,, i do , and that's what this review is about. Lou Diamond Phillips is great in this comedic role. that line about train a b and c is now to me an instant classic, the cg is great, yeah train looks a little fake,, but the aliens wow do they ever rock,, Todd Bridges,, where's Arnold, and Mr. Drummond,, wow he's been out of the loop , guess that's what jail does to you.. a bullet train is on it's way to Las Vegas with the Senator for him to deliver a big speech, a meteor has just hit,, and now all of a sudden we got aliens running loose aboard the train, and our hero cop has to save the day, to make matters worse his ex-wife is on board arguing with him. i just thought this movie was so wonderful,, a must see if you like action. I played Sam (the porter, Lou's sidekick) in the Film "Dead Rail" Which later aired as "Alien Express." And, I have to say that for my part I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. As a struggling actor this was a chance for me to work with fantastic people, it gave me great scenes to include on my reel, and it allowed me to work on a dream job for a month and a half (no waiting tables!) Turi(the director) And Steve and Scott (the producers) Were very kind by giving me this opportunity to participate in the production. I made many friends (Lou, Todd, Steven) and I consider myself very fortunate to have been able to work with these incredibly talented people. There was not a day that went by that I did not laugh my butt off. The real tragedy isn't so much the special effects, it's that every single person who watched this film didn't get to see what happened behind the scenes and all the talent that truly went into it. Craftsmen building the set, prop masters, gaffers,wardrobe, makeup artists, script supervisors, the cinematographer, production assistants, extras, craft services, producers, director, and actors. It's a given that Sci fi didn't spend a terrible amount of money on the film (2 million) But There was a lot of time, energy, and man power that was instilled into it. I look on the film now as a production that brought a lot of talented people together for a fun project that was shot without complications in less than two months. It was a magnificent cast and crew and I'm just so glad to be apart of it! On a further note to those of you who don't know Lou Diamond Phillips, Todd Bridges, and Steven Brand. They are fantastic people who are incredibly funny. Lou I still am working on my Deniro impression and can't thank you enough for introducing me to "midnight Run." Todd, every time I hear an Elvis song I can't forget the story you told me about hanging out with him at his house for dinner. "Can you please pass me the pa tators?" (IM A HUGE ELVIS FAN!) Steven, "Mr. Brand!" You are a true gent and all the advice and encouragement I received from you will always be appreciated. I miss you guys and hope you are well. Thanks for the good memories, stories, jokes,and friendship. Oh and miss Utah says hello! wink wink.

joe- I have to say that this film was excellently produced and tops the ratings as a typical sci fi film! I enjoyed it.. its a sci fi film, if you want a thriller watch another channel.. This is what the scifi lovers want. Excellently produced by one of Sci-fi's best producers Scot Vandiver ! OK the special effects weren't excellent, but what a great cast! Some more money could have been used for effects but then again what sci fi has high budgeted effects. Stop complaining and change the channel if you don't like these type of films.. Films like Mission Impossible and Braveheart are great but these aren't Sci fi films.. Sci fi produces excellent films like Sabretooth , Alien Hunters etc .. Well done .. keep them churning out! This is a very well done film showing the life of international students during their "Erasmus year" in Barcelona which by the way is one of the most beautiful towns in Europe and is an ideal location.

The idea itself with all the different languages is great and gives the film an original atmosphere. There are some clichés about the countries but most of them are true! The characters could not better represent their different countries.

Having experienced "Erasmus" on myself during my exchang semester in Italy I can say that is movie is incredibly authentic. I had many experiences which were similar to the characters (except I didn't get laid as often). The movie is also quite funny yet not like all those stupid American college movies.

Finally the movie touches also some important issues like the change from student to work life.

9/10 (I may not be very objective though) There are a few things in life that we can't experience more than once and the college experience is one of them. Especially if we're living in a foreign country and in a apartment with 6 wackos from 6 different countries. Xavier the main character leaves his tidy life in Paris, his ex-hippy mother and his beautiful girlfriend and goes to Barcelona to study spanish in order to get a job at the embassy. He falls in love with the wife of a french doctor and he makes friends that make him look at things differently. When Wendy's brother (Wendy is one of the room mates) comes from England the film starts to become a lot funnier. Well anyway, Xavier starts to see things differently with all his new friends and he probably lives something he will never forget and will change his life forever. Overall a very nice nostalgic film, which becomes even more interesting because of the multinational cast. I thought it was very interesting that you could see all these kids from different countries, all of them speaking different languages and having different cultures get along with each other and fun. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because I left the theatre with a smile on my face and thinking about things I haven't done yet while I'm still in college and would want to do before it's too late. In France, Xavier (Romain Duris) is a young economist of twenty and something years, trying to get a job in a governmental department through a friend of his father. He is advised to have a specialization in Spanish economy and language to get a good position. He decides to apply in an European exchange program called "Erasmus" and move to Barcelona to improve his knowledges in Spanish culture and language. She leaves his girlfriend Martine (Audry Tautou), promising to keep a close contact with her, and once in Barcelona, he is temporarily lodged by a French doctor Jean-Michel (Xavier de Guillebon) and his young and lonely wife Anne-Sophie (Judith Godrèche) he had met in the airport. Later, he moves to an apartment with international students: the English Wendy (Kelly Reilly), the Spanish Soledad (Cristina Brondo), the Italian Alessandro (Fédérico D'anna), the Danish Lars (Christian Pagh) and the German Tobias (Barnaby Metschurat). Then the Belgium Isabelle (Cécile de France) and Wendy's brother William (Kevin Bishop) join the group, and Xavier learns Spanish language, and finds friendship and love in his experience living abroad. "L' Auberge Espagnole" is one of those movies the viewer becomes sad when it ends. The story is a delightful and funny tale of friendship and love, in a globalized world and an unified Europe. This very charming movie made me feel good and happy, although I have never experienced to live in a republic of students. The newcomer William provokes the funniest situations along the story, with his big mouth and short brain. Further, it great to see a fresh approach of students living together different from those dumb American fraternities and their stereotypes, common in American movies. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Albergue Espanhol" (Spanish Auberge") One of the biggest French success of the year 2002, "l'auberge espagnole" was also very well greeted abroad which is quite extraordinary for a French film. It is not difficult to define the reasons of this success. This movie made by one of the most interesting French film-makers of these last years, Cédric Klapisch, presents students coming from all over Europe and gathered all together under the same roof in Barcelona. These students are described like the ones you imagine or you see in everyday life: either untidy, either serious or with a sense of humor. I guess that if the movie worked so well, it is because a lot of students must have recognized themselves in the main characters' portraits and especially Xavier's.

We follow the movie and so his experience abroad as an Erasmus student through his eyes. Xavier is really an ordinary student with his qualities, his faults. An intelligent making with quite a lot of ingenious ideas perfectly expresses his lost mind and his anxiety about the world and being an Erasmus student. On that subject, the best examples can be found in two sequences. The first one is when Xavier asks a woman at university for the papers he has to send to prepare his DEA. When the same woman informs him about the different necessary procedures, all the papers appear on the screen when she is naming them! In the next sequence, Xavier's voice-over confides to the spectator his vision of the modern world. Now, where to find the second example? Well, the scene where Xavier has a thorough medical examination during which Klapisch films his visions is widely sufficient to speak of itself.

Moreover, the director wasn't really interested by his main character's studies. He left this point low-key. He rather put a lot of effort into Xavier's private life, of course, in his love affair with Anne Sophie but also and especially in his relations with his fellow tenants. It is a real friendship story that Klapisch shows us with its moments of happiness but also its arguments and its tensions. Through Xavier's adventure and at the end of his stay, he will have been initiated into life which will make him more mature. The message that the author wanted to transmit isn't difficult to guess. You naively believe that you live in an untidy and complicated world. You mustn't give up but intensively search to get what you want even if it is difficult.

Apart from this, we could also fear that with the topic, Cédric Klapisch wouldn't avoid a trap: the clichés. Let's be frank about it: they are included in the screenplay but the director does his best not to spread them too much in his movie. Then, the screenplay contains convenient and predictable moments: at the airport and before boarding we see Xavier shedding a tear after he left his family. But fortunately the shortcomings of the script stop here. Quite funny dialogs and cool young actors perfectly at ease in their roles make up the whole.

In spite of its weaknesses, "l'auberge espagnole" is to be taken for a success in the movie of young people. Besides, the whole atmosphere it brings out lets us think that this movie is directed primarily to a young audience. Ultimately, the end of the movie and its big success let us suggest that Klapisch succumbed to a fashion that goes right for American cinema: the elaboration of sequels. And indeed, the film-maker currently works on a sequel entitled "les poupées russes". Let's hope that it will be as good as "l'auberge espagnole". This film is about Xavier, an Erasmus exchange student from Paris who spends one year in Barcelona. During that time, under the influence of all the new impressions, he changes and grows. Upon return, he has a much clearer view on his life and finally takes it into his own hands.

This is one of the most moving films I've ever seen, and the reason is probably that I've been in a very similar situation. I'm from Germany, not from France, and for me it was Madrid, not Barcelona, but I can assure you that this film is a completely accurate depiction of what an Erasmus semester in Spain will do to you. From what I hear the story is autobiographic, and that's probably why it is so realistic.

Let me give some examples (mild SPOILER alert) - Xavier shares a flat with other students from Italy, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and England. The flat looks EXACTLY like all the Erasmus shared flats I've seen in Madrid. The main characters are nicely developed, and some funny scenes arise from the usual stereotypes. The Spanish landlord is also 100% accurate. - The story of Xavier and his girlfriend Martine, who remained in Paris, is also very typical. About 90% of all relationships break up during an Erasmus semester (or shortly thereafter). - There's a wonderful scene in which Xavier tries to convince Wendy, his flatmate from England who is kind of "uncool", to go out with all the others. He finally succeeds, and Wendy probably has the night of her life.

Another great thing in this film is that it's truly trilingual: The students in the flat speak Spanish or English, and Xavier speaks French with his mother and girlfriend. There are subtitles so that everyone can understand what's being said. I surely hope that this film never gets dubbed anywhere.

I can imagine that for non-Erasmus people this is simply an entertaining comedy, but for all my fellow Erasmus I can only say: This is YOUR film! If you haven't seen it, do so. But be prepared for some feelings of nostalgia...

10/10 "L'Auberge Espagnole" collected the audience wherever it was shown. It gathered audience awards on many film festivals all over the world. And it is not strange. We have the ability to watch a cheerful and an astonishing piece of art. And it is wise by the way. "L'Auberge Espagnole" is a very funny comedy about youth and growing up. But most of all it is about the lights and shadows of living in the European Union.

The main character of the film is a French student of economy Xavier. For his future carrier his is sent for one year of studying to Barcelona. In Spain it turns out that the lectures are being given in Catalonian language. That probably doesn't help the increasement of knowledge. But it helps in tightening the relationships inside the group of foreign exchange students. Especially if they rent a big flat together. There are 3 girls: English, Belgian and Spanish, as well as three boys: German, Danish and Italian. Our French guy will also get there. A year is a very long time. Long enough to get close and make friends. And get to know some European stereotypes while trying to break them apart.

Klapisch treats this special case of a process of uniting Europe with humor and without pecky didactism. He comes out of the idea that young people are everywhere just the same. They like jokes. They like to make irresponsible relationships. But they don't neglect their aspirations. The most interesting is the sum of experience of this little community. They live together in the fire of everyday tasks fighting with the surrounding reality. They are full of unusual ideas for life. Young Europeans come back to their countries to take up a life of an adult on their own. They are Europe's hope to fight the many problems of the Union. For example, the terrifying administration system. In the end they proof that not only can they communicate and make friends despite the many differences. But they also now how to live the full of life. And they won't allow taking that full of life away from them. The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect "geezer" stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film. Cliché-avoidance is one of this film's main achievements. When you hear a vague outline of the story – Erasmus students of mixed nationalities sharing a flat in Barcelona – you predict a collection of Euro-stereotypes in a farcical tangle. Pas du tout! In fact, it's a finely judged comedy about a young Frenchman, Xavier, trying to make sense of human relationships. There are some excellently observed minor roles (the arrogant French neurologist, the insufferably irrepressible brother of the English girl, Xavier's forlorn mother) and some fine visual humour, especially in the opening scenes mocking the bureacratic complexity of the application procedure. So what does Xavier learn about relationships? Nothing positive. In place of a conventionally happy ending, there is a regrettably portentous finale about `Identity' – Xavier has ‘become' all the friends he made. Nevertheless, this highly enjoyable film deserves its great success. I saw it in Luxembourg with a mixed Euro-audience, who enjoyed themselves hugely and even applauded at the end. As a European, the movie is a nice throwback to my time as a student in the 1980's and the experiences I had living abroad and interacting with other nationalities, although the circumstances were slightly different. Klapisch (the director) went to the New York Film School from 1982-85, so one would think that he is drawing on this experience.

It is interesting how the film balances the message that "one should not generalize" with the notion that "for every stereotype, there is some underlying truth". For example, the Italian character is based more on the pothead aspect than on any well-known Italian stereotype. The German character features a few more tried and tested stereotypes. But the most stereotypical aspect about the movie is not a character but the central theme of infidelity. As a critic observed, infidelity is as crucial to French film as class is to British film.

Both the main character and his girlfriend are played as not entirely likable, which I think is deliberate and great.

It may be unintentional, but some of the nationals have elements that could be taken as a metaphor for their countries' perceived role in the EU. The British woman has a fling with an American (who is an entertainer - like a 1980's US president) while the Frenchman shows himself as the natural leader (when the landlord shows up).

Although Europe is not as diverse as New York, it is striking that we see only two non-white characters. One is a Chilean woman with indigenous features, who despite appearing the age of our main character is not portrayed as a potential object of interest. Another is a Gambian-Spanish or rather Gambian-Catalan male who appears a bit invented.

One might ask why Klapisch chose protagonists who were all from long-established EU member countries in Western Europe. While these nationalities reflect what he and I would meet as students in the 1980's, I believe exchange programs in contemporary Europe are much more diverse. The Erasmus program encompasses some 30 countries from Iceland to Eastern Europe, many of which are not EU members. I do understand, however, that the choice of nationalities that are more familiar to the majority of the viewership may have been deemed necessary not to distract from the contrast Klapisch wants to create between the Peoples' Europe and the Bureaucratic Europe.

Despite minor gripes a great movie that made me consider going back to Europe to live. A French friend of mine, also an expatriate in the US, captured our shared feelings in this piece of contradiction "If Europe was more like the US, I would leave in a heartbeat". Cedric Klapisch's movie L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is easy, breezy charm wrapped in nostalgia for our younger years and attractive youths. At its core, it's the feature-length presentation of the long-running MTV reality soap opera known as "The Real World" in which, as its motto goes: "This is the 'true story' of seven strangers picked to live in a house and have their lives taped... so watch what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real." This is exactly what happens -- minus the cameras planted at every minuscule corner of the house in Barcelona, Spain, where Xavier (Romain Duris) comes to stay, having to learn Spanish to fill into his job's requirements. An outsider in many ways, he slowly forms a camaraderie with his house-mates who come from all corners of Europe except America... this is a movie in which the only American shown is an unlikable character with whom Wendy (the adorable Kelly Reilly) is having an affair with ("Only for sex," she confesses, since she has her own boyfriend who makes a late but dazed appearance.). Throughout his stay there, he tries to maintain a long-distance relationship with his girlfriend played by Audrey Tautou while he begins a tentative flirtation with the wife of the owner of the Spanish house where he is staying at and gets some advice from a lesbian house-mate (Cecile de France) as to how to seduce a woman. A sweet little feature that presents a moment in time that twenty-somethings will never see again, L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is forgettable fun containing within itself the threshold into the "real world" experienced through Xavier's eyes. **SPOILERS AHEAD**

It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be

such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clichés and

that it basically tried to hard.

To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your

time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey

sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly

gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your

husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone

being "à la fac" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't

you use a more common word like "université"?

I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand

Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this

pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the

European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all

sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in

itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too

many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the

movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier

talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does

he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that

"freedom"? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on

a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what

it's made up of?

Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith

Godrèche's role and acting. Why was she made to look like

Emanuelle Béart so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but

with retrospect I think he was pretty bad.

And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,

scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really

good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the

soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content

pretty horrible. Xavier,a French student moves into an apartment in Barcelona with a cast of six other characters from all over Europe. An Italian, a Danish, a German, a British, a Spanish and a Belgium.

He wants to get a job in EU with the help of his father's friend. He says there are jobs here a lot, but if you know Spanish and Spanish market. So, he advice him to go Spain. Xavier gets an Eramus grand and fly to Barcelona by living his girlfriend and mother.

He first learns that the house he will stay is no longer available and the small rooms in Barcelona are even more expensive than he thinks. He stays in a French couples house while he was looking for a house. He has been interviewed with the 5 people from the house and has been accepted. He had an affair with this French guys lovely wife and totally messed up everything with his problematic girlfriend.

Do you want to hear more? Did you travel abroad for education? Watch this movie, I promise that you will have a very nice time. I love this film (dont know why it is called Pot Luck in England - what a rubbish, and entirely irrelevant name!), I spent 8 months in Barcelona, not as an Erasmus student but living with other foreigners, so it felt just the same. It brings back so many great memories of the fun I had with all the friends I made from different countries, and of the city itself. I really want to see the followup 'Les Poupees Russes ' (the Russian Dolls), I'm guessing it wont be released here? My brother saw it in France and said it def wasn't as good, but had a lot of the same cast (the Brother of Wendy gets married apparently). Anyone know anything about this film? and whether it may be released? My wife and I watched this marvelous movie this evening because we will watch Russian Dolls tomorrow and the first is important to see before the second.

We both loved The Spaniah Apartment and will enjoy following some of the characters through the early years of their lives-now in St. Pertersburg, Russia. We both identified slightly with the rough framework of the story because we were students, Florence Italy for us, so the script was not completely foreign to our early lives. Our living was considerably different but as with this movie, anytime you throw together young people passing through the same life-hoops as any developed world people they will experience much the same life situations.

The collection of people and the personal difficulties that they faced were universals and therein lies the beauty of this film and probably its sequence that I will see tomorrow. As I wrote, the characters as well as these situations are familiar to all of us and therefore we can enjoy living their lives for awhile. This must be one of the film's great strengths-allowing the viewer to vicariously experience the emotional upheavals of the people involved and yet remain aloof. The viewer can, through that distance, chuckle to themselves thinking, "I wouldn't have done something that dumb" or "I would have avoided that trap". Maybe that's why we go to movies. I got to watch this movie in my french class as part of lets say "french culture". I thought the way it was filmed and the editing was real good but mostly it was entertaining especially the guy that played Wendy's brother. Also the story line was really good as well as it was believable and yet adventurous as well.

Favorite Part: When William is making fun of the German guy studying and when he acts out how flies reproduce! :)

My french isn't that good but with the subtitles i could pretty much get what was going on.

WATCH IT! My favorite film this year. Great characters and plot, and the direction and editing was smooth, visually beautiful, and interesting.

Set in Barcelona, the film follows a year in the lives of six foreign graduate students and assorted others. Cultures and languages clash but hearts and lives intertwine. The leading role would never have been cast in Hollywood, but he carried the part perfectly. The characters were nicely developed and their interplay was honest and accurate. There were two especially noteworthy scenes, the climax was truly inspired. The film is sentimental, and the last ten minutes could have been cut, but it was wonderfully entertaining.

I nearly didn't watch it, but did just to see Audrey Tautou. Her role although billed second or third was minor, and was outshined by several other characters. I wish more films like this were made. It brought to mind The Big Chill or The Breakfast Club. Don't start this movie late if you plan to go to bed 1/2 way through. L'Auberge Espagnole is full of energy, and it's honest, realistic, and refreshing. Not a comedy or drama but more a slice of life movie about this particular group of very interesting but still normal young people who share an apartment in Barcelona for one year. Beautifully photographed with a nice soundtrack. If you're older, this movie should bring back a flood of good memories. If you're young, learn by this example. As a former Erasmus student I enjoyed this film very much. It was so realistic and funny. It really picked up the spirit that exists among Erasmus students. I hope, many other students will follow this experience, too. However, I wonder if this movie is all that interesting to watch for people with no international experience. But at least one of my friends who has never gone on Erasmus also enjoyed it very much. I give it 9 out of 10. This movie deals with the European ERASMUS exchange program but more generally about the European youth. It is so true , that I don't know Klapisch did to reach such a masterpiece... Definitely one of my top 5 movies. It reminds me of the famous song "This is my life, my life, life is life..." 10/10 Surprising, witty, funny and totally engaging, the film grabs a little-known reality: that of the student that goes studying in an Erasmus program. The beginning is great, as the story kicks off, of course it has a few lulls on the midsection, and the story drifts sometimes away from the main character, but the viewer won't bother - the movie is young, fresh, and light-hearted, even though I don't agree with the notion that when you do Erasmus and you come back you no longer make part of that universe. But that's just me. The movie is deep, and at the same time very light. Cool and recommendable. I liked this film very much, as I liked before the other movies by Cedric Klapish. All the actors, coming from all over Europe, are very good and funny. One can really feel the influence of "Amelie", like in many other recent movies, but it's ok. A young Frenchman uproots himself as he becomes an Erasmus exchange student in Barcelona and comes back a better man. Sounds boring? No way! The movie is filled with colourful people, all of them stereotypes (the British twat and her racist brother, the sexually liberated Dane, the ultra-organised German,...). In this case though, the stereotypes are brilliantly done. You feel like you know people like that (I for one know an arrogant doctor and his trophy wife, and they're just like the characters in the film!), they feel like REAL PEOPLE!

Go see this movie and enjoy the subtitles! this movies is really special ! it's about a young french who go in Barcelona (spain) in order to study and in barcleona he meets other youngs europeean like him. This film he's the EUROPEAN MOVIES of the YEAR so go watch it ! A rather charming depiction of European union beginning to operate among the young generation as representatives of that group learn to live together in an apartment in Barcelona, where they are all studying on international fellowships. Central to the story is Xavier ( Romain Duris),who may have lived a rather conventional life with his mother in France, but who quickly becomes a leader in the group, helping them deal with landlords and other problems. He learns about life and love rapidly. Duris has a wholesome appearance and gives a fine performance. The rest of the cast also play well. Occasionally they all lapse into English when they want to make sure they are communicating,uncertain about all their apartment mates' ability to understand French or Danish or whatever the languages may be. Cinematography noteworthy including fine views of Barcelona and its famed Gaudi towers. So we saw this on DVD at our apartment here in Paris. We're all here on an exchange program. We all laughed so hard cuz so much of what was going on in the movie happened to us! I mean yeah sure some of it was pretty clichéd but still true, know what I'm saying.

I think I related more to the quiet guy (the Italian) than Xavier because I'm more of the observer in our group. Anyway, I wish I had a hot roommate like Cecile de France. She seems like a cool chick in the movie and for real, after I saw her hosting the Cannes Festival last month.

Now I'm thinking I wanna go to Barcelona next summer after seeing this movie. I gotta check out the sequel too which just came out here in France. I forsee many students now signing up for student exchange to Barcelona and being disappointed when they don't have quite such an exciting time.

The movie was enjoyable. It's of course always a pleasure to see Audrey Tatou.

However, I have a very strong issue with part of the movie. The lesbian roommate tells Xavier that women like to be physically dominated (which I take issue with) and shows him some sort of butt-grabbing move that's guaranteed to get a woman. Xavier then tries out the butt grab on a shy married friend - who starts out saying "no no" "I'm married, I'm married" but then somehow succumbs to the butt grab?? All of a sudden she's moaning "yes yes" and they're going at it on the benches in Parc Guell. I found this really really offensive. Furthermore it is very stereotyped. How often have we seen scenes where the woman says "no" but obviously doesn't mean it? No means no. Grabbing butts/physical domination isn't going to make it right. It just totally supported the stereotypical rape myths.

I wasn't even sure how to read the next scene where he gloats to the lesbian about how it worked and how next time he was just going to demand "suck it, slut" (or something like that). Did he really think forcing himself onto a woman with no respect for her feelings was the way to go?

This section really ruined the movie for me. I love this Disney Movie! Its a real cute movie, and when it comes on again, I will have to make a mental note to tape it. I really like how they break into the bank trying to find Susie's parents information. You should really see this movie. Its great for the whole family. this is the best movie i have ever seen and i love it very much is is so sad and loving i could watch this movie over and over again. when i first seen it on Disney channel i was like i would love to see this movie again. i would love to watch this movie everyday and i recommend it to anyone. this is really a good movie. to anyone who has not seen this movie and is thinking about it they better go and see it because it is really good. i love the part when the boy found out about the girl and from then on i was just all into this movie. if i could watch two movies everyday it would be this one and beloved those are my two favorite movies i really love them Although not the most technically advanced film I have seen, this was a fun and enjoyable couple of hours. The main characters are sweet and you really get to like them, and feel something when Susie Q. has to go, but feel good again when she returns as Maggie.

Lots of stock dialogue, and a contrived plot-line, but most of all, LOTS OF FUN. Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the cliché cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!! Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a

7/10 Don't you ever miss the good old days when Disney actually made great movies that really moved you? Growing up with Disney I always found myself being captivated by the characters. Every single one seemed truly talented and knew how to act their way through a movie. I remember Friday nights and running to turn on the TV just to watch their newest movies. Susie Q was one of my all time favorites. I never forgot this movie. Even till this day when one mentions the song "Susie Q" I always remember the movie. If anyone is thinking of watching this movie I promise you, you will fall in love with it. I don't think I will ever be able to forget it. You will not regret watching it.

Unfortunately it's sad to see Disney movies such as "The Hannah Montana Movie" come out. What ever happened to Disney? My kids loved this movie. we watched it every chance we got.it was fun a fun movie. we watched it as a family and everyone of us enjoyed it. it was a movie you could watch without any uncomfortable spots that you would have to explain to the younger ones. my boys loved this movie and they would love to be able to see it again. even after all these years they remember it. that Amy Jo Johnson was a very cute girl. all my boys had crushes on her. they loved her as the pink power ranger which is why we watched this movie to begin with. (as you can tell i am rambling a bit to fill lines LOL). but seriously it is a fun movie and worth watching. Disney please give us a DVD or replay! i love this movie. is it on air anymore? what can i do to get it on air again because i miss this movie when does this movie air again? i love this movie so much. does anyone know how long it has been since it was last on Disney?it has been a very very long time and i am so sick of waiting!i want to see Susie Q again. i swear, they take all the good movies off air and play new stupid gay ones that are fake and retarded. i miss this movie, wish upon a star, Kazaam with Shaquille O'neil, and a bunch more. where did all the good movies go? i want them back.i miss all the good movies and they don't have them anymore. if anybody finds out if Susie Q or any good old Disney movie comes out will you please let me know, my email is girlygirl148@aol.com girlygirl(no blank space)148. thank you and i hope you want this movie back too. have a great day does anyone know where i could get my hands on this video or the film for this. I have been searching for it for a long time to show my daughter to show her and i can not find it anywhere. probably because it was only on video and they never made the DVD or VHS or idk.

i saw this right off Disney back in 1996 and i think it would be the best video to show her. such a good movie that has every type of emotion displayed throughout the whole movie. also has a lot of actors that started their careers with this movie. If anyone knows how to get a copy of this movie or has a copy and willing to sell it to me for like 50 bucks or something, please call 201-566-0148. thank you I'm absolutely disgusted this movie isn't being sold. All who love this movie should email Disney and increase the demand for it. They'd eventually have to sell it then. I'd buy copies for everybody I know. Everything and everybody in this movie did a good job, and I haven't figured out why Disney hasn't put this movie on DVD or on VHS in rental stores. At least I haven't seen any copies. This is a wicked good movie and should be seen by all. The kids in the new generation don't get to see it and I think they should. It should at least be put back on the Channel. This movie doesn't deserve a cheap download. It deserves the real thing. I'm emailing them now. This movie WILL be on DVD. I LOVE this movie. and Disney channel is ridiculous for not playing it anymore. I think they should definitely put Susie Q back on the air at least one night so we can record it!!! but if not does anyone know where I can find it?? my email is cristin6891@aim.com please email me if you know where i can find this movie. Online, or anywhere. I told my kids about this movie and i think that they deserve to see it also. All these Disney movies that are coming out now are fake and boring. I need Susie Q back!! It was a great movie and had great actors and i don't see why it was taken off the air. If everyone loves this movie so much why was it taken off the air. Please take my comment into consideration and along with all of the other comments made to this movie. Thank you, have a nice day. This movie is very good and the whole family would enjoy watching it.When Susie Q is of to her big night at prom she dies in a fatal car crash on her way to prom by kids who are drunk and high.As the years go by Susie's house gets sold and a family moves into the house that she loves.As the boy who now lives in the house sees Susie and is the only one who can.The two team together with his little little sister and try to save Susie's parents from being broke.Staring Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q.This movie will fell your heart with comedy,sadness and laughter.I hope that you see this movie because it is very good.But no one seems to have it on DVD or Vh's and it no longer comes on TV. This movie used to be played constantly on the Disney Channel when I was a bit younger, and I really remember liking it. However, I didn't have great taste back then (not to say that I do now) so I can't vouch for my nine-year-old self too well. The movie was probably a 7/10 but it had some good music so I gave it an extra point. Yeah, worth watching. I know that some fans of this movie are wondering what a certain song is - the one that appears when she is in the car crash. The song is "Play a Love Song" by the Jaguars and it is VERY hard to find and obtain. In fact, this movie is, too. I can't find it anywhere online or on DVD or on VHS. I'd like to see it again so I can gauge if it was actually a good movie. Oh well. Susie Q is a great romantic prom Movie. Amy Jo Johnson (Susie Q) is a great Actress. I think she did a great performance. I hope that sometime that the Disney Company could put this movie on DVD. I think it's kind of cool and a little bit hilarious. It's kind of sad when Susie Q dies in a Car accident in the beginning at first it makes you want to cry or sob. But in the middle when no one suspects Susie Q it gets kind of funny and surprising. There is a little bit of mystery in this movie but not much. But still I would recommend this movie to the whole family if they enjoy comedy, mystery, or romance type of movies. It's Great! I think that Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q is Cute. I'll be brief: I normally hate films like this venomously ... but there is just something about this one that just draws me in and won't let me go. Granted, there are some major flaws in it (some of the acting is below par at best and the dialogue is sometimes so poor it's funny) but there are enough redeeming features to make it watchable to the end.

But what are they? Well, it's got a cool little plot - by no means is it original, but it is better presented than other films of its kind. The three main stars (Whalin, Johnson, Long) put in fairly decent performances that more than make up for the distinct lack of quality from the supporting cast (the fat cop and Coach Quinn really bugged me), and the scripting is slick and witty (even if it is poor in places).

The bottom line is, though, this film is so CUTE: I grinned all the way through it and it has a place in my video collection purely because it could cheer up anybody. You really have to be some kind of humourless bore not to like this (I DARE somebody to sit through this without grinning!!!).

I do recommend this one if you want a simple, fun, and - above all - enjoyable watch. You won't regret it!

~Top$~ I saw this flick on the big screen as a kid and loved it -- cheeziness and all. Recently, I found a copy on video and checked it out again. Badly made, sure... schlocky fun, most definitely. It still packs an entertaining punch. It's much more fun than the dull Disney version ("Alive"). The only thing "Alive" did better were the special effects. If you're a lover of B-movies, I highly recommend "Survive", not to mention all the other Rene Cardona Jnr movies... and the Mexican wrestling flicks made by his father (Rene Cardona Snr). "Survive" is long overdue for DVD special edition treatment. Are you listening, all you kind folk, at Anchor Bay...? Almost 20 years before Frank Marshall brought tears to your eyes with his mesmerizing epic "Alive", there already was the legendary Mexican exploitation director René Cardona who used the same drama as an outline for his ambitious film "Supervivientes de los Andes". The unforgettable fatal flight of Fairchild 571 that crashed in the Argentinian Andes on October 13, 1972. This terrible accident cost the lives of many passengers, most of them members of a professional rugby team. But 16 people of them were eventually rescued thanks to their strong will to survive and because they fed on the mortal remains of their unfortunate fellow-passengers. Of course you can't claim that this cheaply made and roughly edited film is better than the famous 90's version but I definitely appreciate and respect this film more. After all, an exploitation film demands a lot more input from both cast and crew while the big-budgeted Marshall film, although intense, feels more like routine money-making. The sets and special effects naturally can't compete with "Alive", but "Supervivientes..." delivers an equally impressive sentiment of hopelessness and creates an even more nightmarish hell of snow. Cardona's film is ambitious, surprisingly compelling and easily one of the most remarkable Mexican productions ever. I am really astonished that Cardona's take on this story isn't more exploitative and explicit. The scenes where the deceased passengers are cut open and consumed are nevertheless hard to digest, but they only serve to increase the credibility of the catastrophe and to stress the inhuman conditions of the survivors. Rather praiseworthy for a vicious director who gained fame with his notoriously bad films like "Night of the Bloody Apes" and the Santo-series. The unknown young Mexican actors do a great job and the musical score is endearing. The story is well-known, of course, so the screenplay doesn't offer any unexpected shocks. Either by history or previously having seen "Alive", you know which kind of dramas these people still have to endure before being rescued and you can only await them. Still, this is a good film that shouldn't be bashed like too often is the case. I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.

All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break. Graphics is far from the best part of the game. This is the number one best TH game in the series. Next to Underground. It deserves strong love. It is an insane game. There are massive levels, massive unlockable characters... it's just a massive game. Waste your money on this game. This is the kind of money that is wasted properly. And even though graphics suck, thats doesn't make a game good. Actually, the graphics were good at the time. Today the graphics are crap. WHO CARES? As they say in Canada, This is the fun game, aye. (You get to go to Canada in THPS3) Well, I don't know if they say that, but they might. who knows. Well, Canadian people do. Wait a minute, I'm getting off topic. This game rocks. Buy it, play it, enjoy it, love it. It's PURE BRILLIANCE. Graphically, it is the same game as the first one just different levels and some new features added for fun.

The PS1 version still has an issue with giving skaters enough air for some ground tricks. The Dreamcast version, which is rarely seen anymore, was the best version of the 4 versions (Xbox eventually came out with a 5th with 2x), it had the clearer resolution and the skaters looked better and more detailed the PS1 and N64 could handle.

The levels are really amazingly done, from start to finish, like the first one, the school was my favorite, i enjoyed that level so much, not only for the golf cart that would sometimes run you over but for the length. That's what i liked about the first two games, they don't make these games graphically enhanced, they just focused on length of levels, which is cool.

Overall, just as good as the first one, and well worth playing. This game is very good for the n64. You can skate as Tony Hawk, Bob Burnquist, Steve Caballero, Kareem Campell, Eric Koston, Bucky Lasek, Rune Glifberg, Andrew Reynolds, Elissa Steamer, Jamie Thomas, Rodney Mullen, Chad Muska, and maybe some more skaters. The game doesn't have Mike V or Bam Margera. Dang! Well anyway, the gameplay is awesome. The level School II is a great level with so much to skate. In Career mode, you collect SKATE, get money, get high scores and other various things in 2 minutes. There's create a skater, which is pretty cool. I created a skater named Butt Mulligan, a black guy with an afro, and a Girl board. There's park editor, some cool premade parks, free skate, and there's single session where you skate for 2 minutes and get a score. You can watch replays, which is always cool. Each skater has 2 styles: A and B. The graphics aren't that good. Well, they're good for an n64 game. I wish I had a controller pack so I could save my data. Overall, this game is awesome. I give it an 8/10 for n64. But with the GBA version, it's just as fun as the n64 version, but kinda hard to control. I give it a 7/10 for GBA. So, go out to a place that still sells n64 games and pick up a copy. There's also versions for PS1. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, isn't much different at all from the previous games (excluding Tony Hawk 3). The only thing new that is featured in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, is the new selection of levels, and tweaked out graphics. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x offers a new career mode, and that is the 2x career. The 2x career is basically Tony Hawk 1 career, because there is only about five challenges per level. If you missed Tony Hawk 1 and 2, I suggest that you buy Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, but if you have played the first two games, you should still try this one. Overall, there really isn't anything new, but it is still very fun to go through the game. Hopefully this review benefits your needs.

Graphics: 7 out of 10 Overall, the clean visuals isn't really one of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's main characteristics. The atmosphere has been changed around a lot from Tony Hawk 1 and 2, and the character models look a little bit improved. When you look back to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2 on the old PS1, the thought that those old graphics are ugly run through your head. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, the graphics are rendered A LOT better. The character models are no longer filled with jaggys, the textures are more smooth, but not to the farthest extent. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's visuals do not compare to Tony Hawk 3's graphics, but Activision probably didn't want to make Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x have extraordinary graphics. Overall, the graphics deserve an average score of 7 because they did not put the full power of the Xbox to use in here. Graphics are nice, and clean, that's all I have to say.

Sound: 8 out of 10 The sound effects don't deliver much to the imagination, but the skateboards popping off of the ground sound great. The main reason why I gave the sound factor a rating, was because you are not obligated to listen to the below average Tony Hawk soundtrack, because there is a custom soundtrack feature. The sound effects sound a lot better than the sounds in Tony Hawk 1 and 2, mainly because it is more clearer, and just the fact that everything sounds great. One of the main reasons why I bought this game, is because of the custom soundtrack. The grind sound effects still sound the same as the first two games did, just a little tweaked out. One of the major problems of the sound factor, is the fact that if the song is over, it will NOT proceed to the next track, the song that you have just listened to will just play over again. I don't like the in-game soundtrack, but like I said, you are not obligated to listen to it.

Controls: 10 out of 10 The controls are the best part of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x. The control set-up is marvelously comfortable, and easy to get used to. Back in the Playstation days, people thought that the controls were the best ever, but it looks like 2x has done a better job with the Xbox control. Surprisingly, it is very easy to use the control stick to execute tricks. Activision has done great work with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's controls. They have made the Xbox controller the best for Tony Hawk games. You will not be disappointed with the control style, and that is a guarantee.

Game play: 10 out of 10 Excluding the fact that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is basically Tony Hawk 1 and 2 put together, the game play is still unbelievably fun. The game play factor has been changed around a bit. This time, you get A LOT more air than in the first two games, and it is a lot easier to perform tricks. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, each character has three career modes, consisting of Tony Hawk 1 career, Tony Hawk 2 career, and the 2x career. Tony Hawk 1 career is rather easy because in the first game, you get NOTHING for air. The Tony Hawk 2 career delivers the same amount of difficulty as the playstation version did. The only amount of difficulty that applies to the 2x career, is finding out where all items are, but after you've done that, 2x career is no hard at all. In the 2x career, there is a total of 3 levels, and the first two levels consist of finding the secret tapes, collecting S-K-A-T-E, and doing whatever else is required for that particular level. The third level out of the three, is the competition level, where you have to get a certain amount of points to get the gold. In the first two levels, the secret tapes, and collecting the letters S-K-A-T-E, are featured in both of them. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x still maintains the old Tony Hawk's Pro Skater vibe.

Story: -

Fun factor: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the most funnest game on Xbox today. I have played Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2, and back then, I didn't like them, but for some reason, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is really fun. There really isn't much to say, except that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the best game on Xbox today. One problem, is that if you've already gone through the game once, you will play it a couple more times, but it will be repetitive.

Replay value: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x delivers a high amount of replay value. There is a lot of cheats to unlock, and a lot of character videos. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x has lots of replay value, mainly because it is so fun.

Best feature: You are not obligated to listen to the crappy in-game soundtrack. Worst feature: The custom soundtrack is a bit messed up.

Final Statement: Lots of people have complained in the past that they didn't like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x because there is nothing new, but they should stop complaining because your getting a lot of game for $50.00.

Graphics: 7 out of 10. Sound: 8 out of 10. Control: 10 out of 10. Game play: 10 out of 10. Story: N/A Fun factor: 10 out of 10.

Overall score: 9 out of 10. I don't skateboard because I think it's gay but this game is really great it's smooth, fast, easy to play, and just fun even if you don't do so well. It can be just really fun to make the skaters just crash and burn, easily one of the best video games ever! This is a "revised" Riverdance presentation, staged at Radio City Music hall in New York City. Of the three Irish "dance" musicals that I watched during the mid to late '90s (which includes the first "Riverdance" and "Lord of the Dance") I liked this one the best.

I thought it was better than the original, held in Dublin, Ireland, because it adds segments that are mostly good, it has a more varied and colorful stage setting and it eliminated apiece for two from that original that wasn't good to begin with. This is just a very solid show with few weak spots. To be certain, there are some songs/dances that are just "fair" but none that are poor, which is amazing considering there are 20 numbers in all.

The cast is similar to the first Riverdance with the main exception of Colin Dunne replacing Michael Flatley as the featured dancer. Both are extremely talented. The major difference might be in their looks with Dunne a little, goateed black-haired guy while Flatley is the clean-shaven blond. I prefer Dunne because Flatley's ego is so big he gets annoying at times. The female lead, Jean Butler, thankfully, is still there and is great to watch: what graceful beauty and talent! Butler and the rest of these women have the greatest legs I've seen on dancers. I also enjoyed the dancing of Maria Pages, a Spanish flamenco performer, and two guys: Daniel B. Wooten and Ivan Thomas. One number - with those two pairing off against Dunne and two other dancers -0 is called "Trading Taps" and is terrific fun to watch, maybe the highlight of the whole show. I have no complaints about violinist Eileen Ivers, either.

The "fast" Irish songs here appealed to me the most. I appreciated the audience not getting in the way of the performance either with shrieks and screams like the women do in the "Lord Of The Dance" video. In my opinion, Flatley ruined the first show with his ridiculous ego. He was disrespectful to his dancing partner, tried to upstage everyone and had no awareness of the spirit of Riverdance. It's well he left the show. Colin Dunne, the new male lead, is superb, and when he and Jean Butler dance together, magic happens! Eileen Ivers' fiddling is astonishing (as is Noel Eccles' percussion,) and Maria Pages' "Fire Dance" is worth the price of admission! When Pages and Ivers get together, near the end of the show for a musical duet, well, it's a genuine treasure. I agree, the editing isn't complimentary, but no technical shortcoming can quell this extraordinary tour de force. This is the one to get. There's never been anything like Riverdance! This is the real one! Others have commented on the somewhat strange video arrangements. I think they were trying to capture what you'd be looking at when attending a live performance. The feet, the faces, the overall view. Unfortunately, it falls a bit short. But, having said that, watching Colin Dunne is nevertheless gratifying. It's an interesting contrast to Michael Flatley in the original video. The progression of the show is evident, changes from the original Dublin production are evident.

"Trading Taps" is the highlight of the video, in my opinion. Tarik Winston is unbelievable, as is his partner in the piece.

I think the audio was better in this version than the original video production (1995). In Dolby 5.1 on DVD it's excellent.

Despite the flawed videography, it's a must-own for Riverdance fans. The show is GREAT. No words to describe it. Wonderful music. Incredible dance. The editors couldn't spoil it, not because they were not *that*bad*, but because the show is really *that*good*.

The editors are compulsive cutters, you can't see a scene without a cut for more than 15 secs. It's OK to show various angles, but those guys were working with multiple cameras for the first time in their lives, and they will remind you of how many cameras they have every five seconds on average... They manage to film the start of a jump with one camera, then cut it in the middle, and show the rest of it in another angle.

No matter how much they tried, they couldn't spoil that wonderful show. It's a must for dance and music lovers. I saw Riverdance - The New Show and loved it from the very first moment! It is an energetic tribute to Irish dance filled with brilliant dancing, music and choreography! The leads, Jean Butler and Colin Dunne had me captivated with their exquisite dancing! May they always keep shining and keep dancing. Their on stage chemistry was amazing, and the unity between them on stage was obvious. They look like they were made to dance with each other! This show is my absolute favourite, and probably always will be. Long Live Riverdance! I've seen Riverdance in person and nothing compares to the video, but the show is awesome. The dancers are amazing. The music is impacting. And the overall performance is outstanding. I've never seen anything like it! I suggest that you see this show if you can!!! Very good "Precoder" starring Dick Barthelmess, which in a way, kind of reminded me of Hawks' "Only Angels Have Wings" (1939), in which Barthelmess also acted. This film was directed by masterful William Wellman, who was responsible for the landmark aviation Silent picture "Wings".

Barthelmess plays a devil-may-care airplane pilot, who is a blamed for an aviation accident. Afterwards he meets and falls for pretty Sally Eilers, who participates as part of an Act in an itinerant Air Circus; but when Barthelmess' brother appears in scene, a triangular relationship ensues.

"Central Airport" has many thrilling moments and some moving and touching scenes too, thanks to the great chemistry that develops between Barthelmess and Eilers (who, in my opinion, in this film resembles very much actress Dorothy Mackaill). Tom Brown is good as Barthelmess brother, fresh from his success in Wyler's "Tom Brown of Culver".

Great special effects, good flying stunts, swiftly paced film; in all, highly entertaining. Don't miss it when TCM airs it again. Central Airport is the story of a pilot named Jim (Richard Barthelmess) who has one bad flight in over 4000 hours and is forced to give up commercial flying. He meets a beautiful girl named Jill (Sally Eilers) and the two start up an act involving flying and stunts. The two start a relationship, but when Jim is hurt, his brother (Tom Brown) takes over the act for a while and falls for his brother's girlfriend. From there, things get exciting and terribly terribly sad.

This film is a pre-code because of several reasons. First, Jim and Jill have consummated their relationship without being married and with no intention of having a wedding. Second, Eilers is shown in her underwear, and absolutely restricted scene when the Production Code came into effect.

This film does not skimp on the dramatic love triangle and in consequence ends bittersweetly. William Wellmann, who directed one of the most exciting silent films ever made, 'Wings' (1927), here returns to the skies with another rip-roaring story of dare-devil fliers. Wellmann had been an air ace in World War One, and no one knew biplanes like he did. Here they are, stunt-flying, crashing, exploding in the air, and everything you can think of, plus a fascinating glimpse of commercial air operations in 1932 as well. And there is a good strong story, excellently played by the sombre Richard Barthelmess (the silent star who made several films with D. W. Griffith), Sally Eilers and Tom Brown. Eilers is a real sizzler. Such a relief to see a real woman with real fire and character instead of one of those photofit botoxed dummies who play in movies in today's Hollywood and all look identical. The story is a sad one, played with genuine pathos, and well directed. Towards the end of the film there are some extraordinarily thrilling scenes of danger and rescue, and what must be the most ingenious blind landing in thick fog ever thought of. I dare not give away the ingenious aspects of that particular episode. The character played by Barthelmess is very like Wellmann himself, a truly wild hell-raiser in the air. Anyone who likes early aviation would love this film, and it's very rewarding for anyone who likes good solid entertainment, love, tears, and non-stop action all combined in a kind of delectable Wellmann omelette. Many of the earlier comments are right on the money, but some, well, not so much.

This Is hardly a 'B' movie...it's well produced, the live flying sequences are really superb, and the model sequences are first rate. It's no "cheapie".

Ricard Barthelmess is quite good in this, and it makes a a nice companion piece for "Only Angels Have Wings".

If you want to spot John Wayne, spot J. Carrol Naish first, they end up together.

Tom Browne is juvenile enough (and somewhat dull), but when they saddle him with the most pathetic pencil-mustache in Hollywood history, it makes his character even less believable. Sally Eilers is much more so.

As for later influences, this is Wellman in the early Airliner-in-Distress zone...the opening sequence of this film, with the Airline Operations guy arriving at the "Grand Central Airport" would have fit very nicely into "The High and the Mighty"...just imagine Regis Toomey...and a 1955 Buick. Loved the shots of airports -- Dallas, Phoenix, Fresno, etc., just single buildings with the name in block letters on the roof. And the tri-motors, and the well-dressed passengers. Fast-forward 75 years....

But what really got to me was the hammer and sickle emblem and what appeared to be a Chinese ideogram adjacent the logo, aft of the pilot's seat on the starboard side of the fuselage. Remember when the mutual acquaintance Neil and Jill encounter says that Jim'd become a general in a Chinese rebel army? That, based on the hammer and sickle, could only have been the People's Revolutionary Army of Mao Tse Dung!!! Never mind the undies and the unwed twosome in bed -- would that logo and that reference have survived during the Cold War?

Additional observation 12/27: This film of the 30's with the soviet emblem may/must also reflect the influence on and charm of communism in Hollywood and much of America during the Depression. Adds to the historical value of this terrific film.

Also I liked the American Dream aspects of two guys from Winnemucca taking at least part of the world by storm, Red-Blooded (literally and copiously in Jim's case)American Boys.

Others have commented more ably than I on the aerobatics, etc. I loved it all.

This gem deserved more than the mere 1.5 stars Osborne and Co. rated it on TCM, if only for recording parts of American history of the early 30s. Every Saturday morning at 11 a.m. I watched Superstars. All the biggest events happened on this show at the time. Challenge, which aired Sunday mornings, was decent too, but all the big stuff happened on this show. Wrestlers would do all their interviews with Mean Gene on a platform next to the live crowd or talk on their own to the screen in front of a background that promoted them. The matches were usually squashes but sometimes you would see 2 mid carders square off in the main event. There were also interview shows that usually resulted in violence thus setting up a feud. These segments ranged from Pipers Pit, The Body Shop, The Flower Shop, The Snake Pit, The Brother Love Show, The Funeral Parlor, and The Barber Shop. I don't recall any titles changing hands on this show. That usually happened at pay per views and Saturday Nights Main Event. Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named "Good Night, Irene" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George "the Animal" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray "the Crippler" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of. This is a witty and delightful adaptation of the Dr Seuss book, brilliantly animated by UPA's finest and thoroughly deserving of its Academy Award. Special mention should be made of the superb music score and sound effects, which are an integral element in helping to make this such a memorable and enjoyable cartoon. Later episodes in the series (of which there were four in total) were not actually based on original Dr Seuss material, although all but the last continued to use his familiar rhyming style. The three sequels were: Gerald McBoing Boing's Symphony (1953); How Now Boing Boing (1954); Gerald McBoing Boing On Planet Moo (1956) - although he also appeared in a later episode of Mr Magoo. This short, which won an Oscar, spawned two sequels and a TV cartoon show, has minimal animation but adelightful script (by Theodore Geisel aka Dr. Seuss) and aneven more memorable and enchanting main character. UPA pioneered a style of animation that even influenced Disney during the mid-1950s and produced some of the best animated shorts done in the late 1940s and the 1950s. This is on of their finest. God to have it in print. Highly recommended. If there's one cartoon that helped to put UPA on the map more than any other, It's Gerald McBoing-Boing. This tale of a little boy who only speaks in sound effects has kept its charm for the last 57 years. Besides the effects, loved the music, the abstract animation and backgrounds, the narration by Marvin Miller, pretty much everything. And it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short of 1950. Glad to have seen it on YouTube after reading about this Dr. Seuss story for so many years. And Rocky and Bullwinkle creator Bill Scott also contributed, how awesome! Hope to see the subsequent shorts made in the series, if not on YouTube, then maybe in a DVD collection. Now I guess I'll watch another UPA short there... My dad had this movie as an 8mm reel. I loved it when he would pull out the projector, tape a sheet to the wall, and play Gerald McBoing Boing. The thought of a child who communicated through sounds fascinated me.

Nine years ago, my son was diagnosised as autistic. The doctors would ask me questions about my son such as "How does he communicate with you?" I would respond, "Have you ever seen the cartoon, Gerald McBoing Boing?" I would love to have a copy of this cartoon to show my son and his educators, this is how my son see he's world.

Recently, I spoke with a digital transfer specialist who indicated most personal 8mm films did not contain sound until the mid 1970's. I guess I was pretty lucky to have experienced the sights and sounds of Gerald McBoing Boing in 1972. MCBOING BOING is one of the cartoons that have stuck in my head over the years and finally decided to look into it as was pleasantly surprised and was also surprised on the people involved with the production. If I remember correctly we had to watch it on a UHF station and this meant using a converter in those days UHF not part of regular TV to tune in the local station to watch the cartoon a big deal in those days which made the show even more mysterious. I remember all the sound effects that Gerald used to talk. A great memory from 50+ years ago. I'll have to see what other memories might be hiding on the web. By the way I try to do computer animation thats where the johnl3d comes into the picture During the brief Golden Age of the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Home Movies, we purchased a GAF Projector for $148.00 on close-out at a Downtown Chicago Camera Store. It seemed that GAF was getting out of the Camera & Projector Business; although they would continue with their other enterprises, such as the former Sawyer's Vue-Master 3 Dimensional color slide viewers.

Little did we know nor anticipate the rapid approach of the Video Camera, the Betamax, the VHS and the eventual DVD revolutions. With the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Camera that we also purchased, we took some sound film records as our Daughter, Jenn's First Holy Communion and her younger Sister, Michelle's Graduation from Pre-School. This was all circa 1979-82.

During this time we also purchased a few Daddy Toys to go with it; like some Super 8 Magnetic Sound LAUREL & HARDY Films and W.C. FIELDS' Shorts from Blackhawk Films, Davenport, Iowa. We also picked up a Columbia Pictures Home Movies Sound Film of a then sort of forgotten Classic Cartoon, UPA's GERALD McBOING-BOING (United Productions of America/Columbia, 1951). It was THE hit of our Home Movies Time!

Being members of that Baby Boomer Generation, the Wife (Deanna) and meself had recollection of the Character of Gerald McBoing-Boing; for Gerald had a Network TV Show on CBS, early Sunday Evenings, ca. 1955. Bill Goodwin was the Announcer/Host. But we had never seen this original UPA Theatrical Cartoon; nor was it known to us that the young Master McBoing-Boing was a creation of Dr. Seuss of "Grinch", "Horton" and "Mulberry Street" fame.

THE staff assembled was very talent rich and deep. The outstanding production values are apparent. Director Robert Cannon and Supervisoring Director John Hubley were veterans at the top of their craft. Writers were Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss, Himself), Phil Eastman and Bill Scott.

Mr. Scott is remembered not so much for his writing contributions to UPA, but for being partners with Jay Ward in such Television Properties as ROCKY & BULLWINKLE, MR. PEABODY, FRACTURED FLICKERS, GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE, HOPPITY HOOPER and FRACTURED FLICKERS. With the Jay Ward Productions he was a writer, voice man and Kibitzer-General of the whole company.

The cartoon receives its only "voice" from the Narrator, Radio/Movie/TV Actor Marvin Miller. Remember him? He was Michael Anthony on the TV Ssries THE MILLIONAIRE (Don Fedderson Productions/CBS Television Network, 1955-60).

Bold color schematic and imaginative design went into giving the UPA animations a special feelings of loneliness, fear apprehension and eventual triumph. And, we might add, the animation is definitely of the "Limited" Variety.

AS with so many great stories, ours starts out with a simple premise; one's being born different. In this case it is young boy Gerald McCloy, who has been born to make sound effects in communicating rather than talking. Kids can be cruel and soon he is dubbed with his not so flattering nick name by a group of youthful taunters chanting: "Nya, nya, your name's not McCloy; it's Gerald McBoing-Boing, the Noise Making Boy!" AT this point, the Animation Team does an outstanding job in shifting the emotional gears in the young outcast from happy & carefree to isolated & lonely and finally to depression & despair in not being able to turn to anyone for help and understanding; not even to his Mother and Father.

A frighteningly fashioned dark scene involving a highly UPA stylized run away scene involving a Train and an equally stylized Snowfall brings Gerald right to the brink of absolute despair. But then, he is interrupted by a gentleman announcing that young Gerald is wanted by the producer of some Radio Program to provide the sounds for the show down at the Studio.

ONCE the premiere show is done with Gerald starring in the Sound Department, he rides off in a huge Limousine (which seems to have anticipated those S-t-r-e-t-c-h Limos of our day) to the cheers and admiration of his Classmates and the World.

IT has been said that there are only so many plots and, in that case this story is most likely a variation on The Ugly Duckling; for after all, a sad and lonely boy finds his place in the world and true happiness.

NOTE: United Productions of America, or UPA for short, was an outstanding center of creativity in the field of the Animated Cartoon. They were responsible not only for GERALD McBOING-BOING and several sequels and a TV Series, but also the highly popular MR. MAGOO Theatrical Cartoons and subsequent TV Show (with voice talent of Jim Backus), the Classic Original TV Cartoon of FROSTY THE SNOWMAN and the rather bizarre DICK TRACY Cartoon Show (with Tracy's voice rendered by Mr. Everett Sloane!). I have remembered this cartoon for over 50 years - what staying power it has! It was funny and creative; I wish my children and grandchildren could have seen it. It ranks right up there with Winky Dink - another favorite. I was pleased to find out that one of the creators later worked on Rocky and Bullwinkle. These early shows had a lot going for them that todays cartoons for kids don't have. Today's cartoons seem to push the idea that one needs something special, some magic formula or talent to be able to succeed against evil or dangerous circumstances. While the early cartoons didn't address evil very much - it WAS a much gentler and safer time - they allowed us to develop our own talents and character. If you repeat a lie enough number of times will it become the truth? 15 park avenue is the story of an alternative reality of a schizophrenic (Mithi). The movie is about her search for her home at a fictitious address where her imaginary husband and 5 children live. Aparna Sen delivers yet another masterpiece. Each and every actor of the movie was better than the other. Konkona Sen looks unbelievably convincing as a schizophrenic. She pulls off the role with such ease and maturity beyond her age. Shabana Azmi is incredible as usual. She plays the dominating and fiercely independent elder sister of Mithi who takes care of her ailing sister and aging mother. She refuses to accept that in-spite of all her strength and courage, she still feels lonely at times. This should have been a very easy movie for Rahul Bose. The role was least bit demanding and anyone could have done the role.

The ending of the movie was the most surreal part of the whole park avenue experience. It took me a while to digest that the movie had ended. It left me confused and maybe even a bit disturbed. But later on, it started sinking in. My eyes are black. But if everyone says they are blue, will I still believe that its black??! This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.

Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.

- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ("ojha" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the "ghosts" sitting in Mithi's brain.

- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is "believed" to work

- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book.

- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for "maya".

- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is "no doubt in his mind" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)

- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu "Charu sent this man to beat me" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.

Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about "normal", "healthy" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?

IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than "A Beautiful Mind". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection.

This was a story very well-told indeed. 15 Park Avenue, well the name mystifies initially being an address from New York and film being set in Kolkata. However as the story unfolds, one realize the thin line that director tries to walk between Relationships, Social Cause and of course the world of Schizophrenia. I would say Aparna Sen is one director who has so much more to say and has so less time at disposal. Well no doubt she has managed to make a good movie. In a way she makes us realize that probably each one of us is looking for our own '15 Park Avenue'. Its an unending search within each of one of us...

The powerhouse performance from Shabana Azmi is a treat to watch. Her screen presence brings whole lot of life into the scene. Indeed it was surprising to see her in such a powerful act after long because I expected it to be all the way Konkona Sen's terrain. Shabana makes you feel skin deep of an elder sister who is running the whole show for a rather unfortunate family and during this time she almost forgets to live her own life. She burdens all her ambitions and desires with ailing 18 year younger sister ( who is more like a daughter to her ) and an aging mother played by veteran Waheeda Rehman. As for the leading actress from Guide ( that's how I can recall her instantly ) there is hardly anything to say except few lines and tear drops here and there. Ever dependable Rahul Bose plays another pivotal role in the film, he shows the emotions of a middle age man with repent on his face to near perfection. This man really amazes me with the variety of work he has done. From a musician in Jhankar Beats to a liberal Muslim in Mr. & Mrs. Iyer and so many others…. He is one versatile I really wish if he had some more shots in the first part of the movie as well. The cameo in the movie is by Shefali Shah (remember Satya and Monsoon Wedding). She looks really beautiful and depicts the role of a mother of 2 kids with real ease. She gives you a glimpse of today's Indian woman who is modern in approach but still conventional when it comes to her husband's prior relationships.

The focus of camera has been Meethi, portrayed by Konkona. She and her schizophrenic world constitute the nucleus of 15 Park Avenue. She has really worked hard for the character but there are times when she is not able to relate with the audience. The fateful accident of her life tries to rope in sympathy and it has been only partially successful.

The movie tries to address quite a few things in one go starting from the unique world of a disabled person to the unequal status of a female even in today's modern India and also the twisted relationships in a tattered family. And I believe Aparna has succeeded to certain extent. The helplessness of Meethi while she works as a journalist in a rural eastern state really gives us all a naked picture of the country we are so proud of.

Well after I finished 15 Park Avenue, there was a sense of unquenched thirst within me. I wanted more out of this movie to drench me emotionally. It has been a commendable effort on the part of director except few hiccups. Must watch for all those who like to see a different cinema, something with a strong purpose. i went to watch this film with my family who were expecting a neatly conclusive story like ''mr.& mrs.iyer''.and they returned home thoroughly disappointed.so,this is a warning to all ''conclusive story lovers'' to stay away.15 park avenue does not seek to answer questions or provide moral solutions on how to treat the mentally challenged.rather its intention is loud and clear.it questions every human being's,sane or not,sense of reality.in fact for me it even arouses doubts about my taken-for-granted sense of sanity.the security,bondage,satisfaction that i find in my present,is it really what i am or does it really create an illusion that all of us desperately and sometimes ignorantly cling on to just to falsely console the neglected 'meethi' which exists in all of us in some way or the other? so,why does anjali so maniacally makes it a point to show off her strength of mind when she is really harrowed by the realization that she is becoming a monster?aren't we all who think we are ''normal'' ,really monstrous and helplessly vulnerable about it deep down inside? is it not better to be happy even insanely,than to create the impression of 'normalcy' while suppressing one's fragility? meethi bravely,madly,sincerely does that.and society labels her as ''schizophrenic''.the ending did confound me at first,but then you realise that meethi bravery and sincere belief took her where she wanted to go.she found what she was searching for,not caring what society had to comment upon her search. and it is the seemingly 'real' people - anjali,the psychiatrist,and jojo- who never reach anywhere.my family thinks that i am schizophrenic too in trying to make sense of a film that is largely 'insane' to the rest of the world.anyone else willing to believe in my sense of reality...........? SPOILERS AHEAD

15 PARK AVENUE: My Humble take on this film

Now, for a viewer of cinema having tastes as severely limited as mine, niche films like 15 Park Avenue ought to be palatable to my sensibilities. With this thought, and a mild sense of embarrassment that I hadn't watched the complete film earlier, I watched this film last Saturday. There are some starting similarities with other works like the legendary Mulholland Drive (David Lynch) from which, this film borrows at least 3 concepts:-

a) That (at least some) truths are relative b) The first scene of Shabana and Konkonam going around in a car as the opening credits roll, is uncannily similar to the car ride that Betty and Rita undertook in Mulholland Drive. In both cases, the object of inquiry happens to be a place which is probably mythical in both cases and perhaps more openly symbolic in Aparna's film c) The incident revolving around the mad beggar woman is again extremely reminiscent of the whole 'occurence behind Winkies' involving a bum but while that scary creature is an embodiment of something and that that 'something' as well as the character per Se is seamlessly linked to other works of Lynch (notice carefully the disheveled long hair), the effect of the beggar woman in 15 PA appears to be a tribute and therefore insignificant in the context of the film and its message

The other films from which 15 PA also borrows is Blow Up (especially the last scene is a throw back to the truth Vs. perceived truth poser presented towards the end of Antonioni's masterpiece). Of course, the professor and schizophrenia angle also bring to the mind, "A Beautiful mind". Although, admittedly the subject here is high brow physics and Shabana, who professes it, inadvertently ends up being the brilliant antithesis to the delusional hallucinations of Konkona's character through those very prophecies. In an outstanding scene in the movie, some of these elements are juxtaposed with each other and that scene cuts back and forth from the 'real' world of Shabana, where Quantum Physics and the Theory of Relativity justify the finiteness and composition of the universe, to the artificial edifice of the 'make believe' world of Mithi But for all their differences, the sisters are alike too. Both are incapable of forming long lasting relationships- one out of choice and the other out of nature. So, Mithi's pain at being rejected in love by Joydeep is in harmony with the inability of Shaban to form a special bond with either Kunal(Dhritiman) or Sanjeev (Kanwaljeet). But I'm getting ahead of myself. Viewers generally tend to view this film in one of the following two ways:-

Hypothesis 1: "It was Shabana all along" There is a certain section of the audience who think so. But that explanation is not only too far fetched but also contrived as that would mean she was dreaming up so many other characters too (i.e. all those characters whom she visualized as visualizing Mithi along with her)

Hypothesis 2: "There WAS a REAL Mithi and the ending is a metaphor" This POV says that the film's essence is summarized in one dialog in the film, when in response to a statement by Joy (Rahul Bose), that Mithi is looking for something that she will never find, his wife Laxmi (Shefali Shah) philosophizes that we all are looking indeed for that illusive utopia, the end of the rainbow wherein appears to lie the mirage of happiness and contentment

There are other more minor possibilities which have not been embraced that much by our knowledgeable audience like:-

Hypothesis 3:" Shabana and Konkona are alter egos of the same person" Hypothesis 4: "Shabana too is a figment of Mithi's imagination" Hypothesis 5: "The old, haggard, perhaps mad, beggar woman is the real protagonist of the story"

Are these hypotheses worthy of even being tested? Well, your guess is as good as mine

"Why 15 Park Avenue?" Contrary to the popular perception that she was thinking of the Park Avenue in NY, I believe that she got the name from the brand name of a semi popular bathing soap. Remember, her stating Jo Jo's profession as "Prime minister of Shikakai", which as you may be knowing is a popular ingredient used in manufacturing Shampoos. The prefix '15' is used as it was on 15th December that Mithi got engaged to Joydeep and after his walkout, she remains forever in a time warp. The film has its fair share of flaws- lack of use of a strong background score, which in films like these can really augment the narrative, some sloppy dialogs unabated by some forced dialog delivery. Inconsistent performances (Shabana and Dhritimaan are excellent though IMO) by a few of the cast members albeit many members of this ensemble cast have been wasted. Shefali Chaya's sudden insecurity about her husband seems to be an unimaginatively introduced dimension in the plot. I give it 7/10 as it made me think but not any higher than that because I can easily fathom its sources of inspiration and having experienced (and for the most part, thoroughly enjoyed) those previously, I have already thought on similar lines earlier. So, the experience post 15 PA is bound to be sans a certain degree of novelty. Where am I coming from? I gave 9.5/10 to '36 Chowringhee Lane' (though rumors still persist that one Satyajit Ray ghost directed it), 7.5 to 'Paromiter Ek Din', 7 to 'Mr and Mrs Iyer' and 5 to 'Paroma'. On an existential level, it failed to invoke my interest, not even as much as say a 'Truman Show' i have just seen the movie "15 park avenue" which was the first night presentation movie in the asia society human rights film festival in new york.i was really moved by the subject matter of this movie and also the excellent portrayal of "mithi" by the lead actor konkona sen sharma.i have just one word for everyone who is reading this comment,run to get a copy of this gem and watch it.my sincere thanks to director aparna sen who has done a excellent job again.movie like this comes on once in a blue moon and i was lucky enough to see this movie on screen and also took part in a after movie discussion/question and answer session with konkona sen sharma.in a simple word "a wonderful experience. I must say it was a let down. Overall its great to see the way Aparna Sen has handled the issue of schizophrenia, I am not much knowledgeable on this and got whatever it was depicted in A Beautiful Mind, and here too its interesting portrayal.

But the thing that caused the let down for me was the artificial dialogues and over use of English. Its true that a new class is being formed/ has been formed in India which talks in English even at home, but I am sure its not as formal as in the movie. Moreover, Waheeda Rehmaan did not seem very comfortable talking everything in English. Charu's dialogue in Bihari tone was seemingly much more realistic and digestible.

The second thing, its about the abstract flavor she has tried to give to the movie. I generally like movies with open ending, but here there were many loose ends. Its like cut pieces are joined together to make the movie. Also there seemed no central theme to the movie. Schizophernia for sure was the main line but intermingling sister-sister, mother-daughter, adding doctor-azmi relation, no real use of brother, Bose - Bose's wife relations..... all were not required and made the audience loose track of what actually did she try to depict.

On the whole, a watch for people who like off-beat movies, a must avoid for the ones who just see movies as an entertainment tool. 15 PARK AVENUE is the address "Mithi/Mithali" (Konkona) is in search for from the movies beginning. "Prof.Anu" (Shabhana Azmi)is Mithi's extremely caring and loving half sister from Mithi's mom's earlier marriage. The movie revolves around these characters and looks into the life of a schizophrenic patient (Mithi). The director tries to explain to the viewer the imaginary world of Mithi, through her continuous blabbering to Anu and others.

Konkona deserves not one but thousands of awards (which I am sure, she will be getting)for this rendition of Mithi in this movie. You can see the look of a patient written on her face, by the drooping lips and sleepy eyes, from the first scene itself. Rahul Bose has done a good job, but has been reduced to one half of the movie in spite of his importance in their life.

Watch out for the intense relationships shown between the characters of the movie, Mithi & Anu, Anu & Anu's Mom and between Anu & Sanjiv (Kanwaljit Singh). Shabhana Azmi, as usual has done a riveting performance to be remembered as the sister, who sacrificed her life for Mithi.

The movie might not be your usual Hindi potboiler, but can certainly make people look at the schizophrenic patients in a different light altogether.

As usual, Aparna Sen brings the movie to a different ending rather than any clichéd ones, we might think off. Hats off to her, for this great movie!!! As everyone knows by now, 15 Park Avenue is the story of a schizophrenic girl and her half-sister.

The manifestation of Schizophrenia is still viewed as being an illness which people often feel might disappear if ignored. There are also those, who, however far fetched it may seem when it's shown in the film, think that the illness manifests itself as a result of some sort of supernatural influence. I think Ms. Sen deserves a lot of praise for "15 Park Avenue". She has done a good turn, not only to the general public, but also to those who deal with schizophrenics ... relatives, social workers, psycho-analysts. The film actually helps in dispelling a lot of myths and misconceptions about the exact nature of this psychological disorder. I'm told that the film is largely based on her own personal experiences with a person very close to her, who suffers from this mental affliction. To that effect, I'm sure that none of what has been shown, is blown out of proportion ... on the contrary, it is a true representation of facts.

The performances are good, on the whole, as can be expected. Konkona Sen Sharma, Shabana Azmi and of course Rahul Bose, are very good indeed. They emerge as very "real" characters ... credible enough for one to be able to identify with them at times. People may think me terribly queer, but I think there are moments when one can identify with Meethi as well! I suppose all of us have a streak of "insanity" inside us .... perhaps some more than others. These are the people who are singled out. After all, don't we all have our secret fantasies and dreams? Impossible ones, at times? Would we be dubbed as being "off our rockers" if people could glimpse into these areas of our minds? Would a person with low self-esteem, be considered a schizophrenic because he/she shuns company ... preferring instead to live in a world of his/her own because that's the only space where there is a sense of security?

Konkona, as Meethi, is outstanding!! Her performance is so effortless ... she lives her part. She has shown the ability to lull the audience into forgetting the divide between reality and acting! A case in point is the part where she's distressed at the scene, shown on TV, of Saddam Hussein's arrest. Her reaction seems so uninhibited and intense ...as if she's really heart-broken at this tragedy! Her brand of Indian English too, is so spontaneous and natural.

However, the same cannot be said for at least a couple of the other actors. Kanwaljeet and Waheeda Rehman, splendid actors both, seem ill at ease when delivering their dialogue in English. Their diction is less than perfect ... stilted and affected, the fact that they are making a supreme effort, becomes more than apparent. Their dialogue delivery is jarring and tends to break the smooth flow of the unfolding of the tale.

The brutal rape of Meethi (Konkona), seems somewhat unnecessary. Any other incident would have sufficed just as well, I feel. The point here is that something triggers off the extreme manifestation of the illness. As the psychiatrist explains, one cannot, with any modicum of conviction or certainty, say that the incident of the rape was instrumental in bringing the hitherto latent propensity towards schizophrenia, to the fore. Then why are we subjected to the scene where Meethi lies bleeding and unconscious. Was Ms. Sen trying to make a social statement about the state of politics in our country, where the voice of the masses is silenced by a handful of people who resort to violence in order to stay in power?? If so, then the scene of the rape is warranted but not strictly in the context of the main body of the film.

The ending seems somewhat abrupt. Is the audience expected to find a solution? Where does Meethi disappear to? Does Ms. Sen want us to feel that perhaps what the psychiatrist says about whose reality is more real and hence credible, holds true? In other words, is she trying to say that we are not without bias when judging who is on this side of the fine line between sanity and insanity? I'm not very sure.

A thought-provoking film on the whole and well worth watching. However, IF you are the sort of person who likes things to be neat and tidy ... everything cut and dried, with a water-tight solution to each issue that comes up ... this film is clearly not meant for you! Ms Aparna Sen, the maker of Mr & Mrs Iyer, directs this movie about a young girl's struggle to cope with her debilitating condition.

Meethi (Konkona Sen) has been an aloof kid ever since childhood and has shown signs of delusion, no one knows why. The dormant tendency however slips out of control, when the job assignment takes her to neighboring Bihar where she's raped by some political goons. The resulting trauma also leads to episodes of manic-depressive psychosis in addition to her schizophrenia. She careens out of control over the years, progressively getting worse and sinking deeper into her private 'world'.

The juxtaposition of an 'unsettled' (divorced) elder sister and how her domineering ways make an already bad situation worse, is indicative of what a fine line there is between abnormal and *seemingly normal*. Ms Sen also makes an excellent commentary on the social alienation of such individuals. Social rehab is standard therapy along with all the deadly mind-altering drugs. But what about the poor and the destitute, who're always left to fend for themselves and usually fall by the wayside?

The romantic connection between Dr Kunal and Anu was unnecessary. Also the cafeteria scene where Dr Kunal explains to Anu how real their world really is to them, was redundant. Anu should already know all that. The English dialog is a bit awkward at times though the acting compensates for that. Konkona and Shabana prove that their reputation is every bit worth it. Waheeda, Rahul and Shefali play their limited roles very well.

Extensive research seems to have been done about this illness, its very evident. But its not clear if MDP can coexist with schizophrenia in the same patient, side-by-side. Also in the early part, Dr Kunal recommends E.C.T (shock therapy) while invalidating the fact that it doesn't work for schizophrenics, only for extreme MDP with suicidal tendencies and other forms of bipolar disorder.

The ending of the remarkable story is suggestive of an unknown solution (maybe no solution). The movie could have ended on a nicer note, since worldwide the mentally ill can and do lead balanced and fruitful if not very fulfilling, lives under good medical care.

Nonetheless, its an excellent film made with extreme sensitivity to the subject. HATS OFF to Ms Sen! No one in India could've done it better. Once in a while one come across a movie that forces one to rethink about society's reaction to people who differ from its definition of normal.

Mitthi having suffered at the hands of unsocial elements,left all alone to cope with her tragedy, retreats into her idyllic world....one which according to her is the real world.....

Surreal(Mitthi's world) superimposes itself on the real(her family).

Mitthi, suffering from schizophrenia, forces us to reconsider our priorities about trying to rehabilitate 'patients' like them. Are we right to drag them back to our reality when all we have to offer them in ours is pain and suffering? What right have we to deprive them of their source of happiness? What right do we have to take away their joy when we are unable to help them in their sorrow? 15 Park Avenue is one of the best movies on social issues...showing us the need that any patient needs empathy and not plain sympathy. The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. ..The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. Aparna Sen's 15 Park Avenue is a film about nature of reality.

A young delusional girl, prone to imagining things and hearing voices, possibly out of sheer boredom, is taken to be schizophrenic by her educated father and control-freak educated elder step-sister. Controlled, pitied and treated like an invalid (even if out of love and affection), she has ghost of a chance to develop as a normal person. When a boy offers to marry her, her father and step-sister passionately try to convince him against taking such a step. A traumatic experience, caused primarily due to her sheltered existence, finally takes her across the line of no return, and she lives full time in a delusional world of her own.

The family and society around her are intolerant of her delusions,and want to suppress them with medicines, electric shock therapy, anything, even though they all have delusions of one kind or other of their own.

Her mother doesn't see the irony in allowing a ghost-buster to treat her of the delusions. Her step-sister is a professor of Physics, teaching among other things Quantum Mechanics, a subject in which a stream of experts accept parallel multi-universes and many more dimensions in space than the 3 we see. A friend recounts with admiration an experience with a holy person claiming to hear hallucinatory voices. Far away, George W Bush has real or fake delusions of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and is allowed to invade Iraq.

As some viewers have already pointed out, Aparna Sen shied away from attacking the mother of all delusions -mainstream religions, which is a pity.

In other words, accepted reality is what a majority or an influential minority believe in. That's been the case since the beginning, and lot more powerful people than Mithali in the film, among them Bruno and Galileo, have suffered as a consequence.

The film's controversial and difficult ending was necessary to show it's a film about nature of reality, and not the case study of a schizophrenic girl.

All the cast have given great performances, but Shabana Azmi and Konkona Sen Sharma have excelled. Aparna Sen has produced an outstanding philosophical film. Well its a great work by Aparnaji and some where people like this makes us believe that there is a lot more concepts till now which has to be expressed and the film is a great media to do that. Well all great actors together hence nothing to say about acting or directing but the film gave us a great message through out. It has nicely predicted the conditioning of human minds with that of the patient. We all believe that what we believe is true with our own point of view and we want to solve all the problem accordingly.Hence from the professor to the maid servant all tried their own ways. So when JOydeep was discussing with her wife he says that , 'she is looking for a thing which she will never get' and the wife replies 'are not we all?'. So that was a great comment which after the film left me with a great question, 'are we all sick?' From "36 Chowringhee Lane" to "15 Park Avenue", Aparna Sen has indeed traveled a long way. If the first one goes down in history as a débutant's clean sweep the latter will definitely carve a special place as a "mature" film. Until you see 15 Park Avenue you cannot imagine feeling thrilled and moved at the same time. Thrilled to see the director's ingenuity and agility in portraying seriously challenging situations and moved by the sensitivity echoing throughout the film. It is not a movie that merely makes you feel 'tchh tchh, how difficult life must be for schizophrenics', but makes you ask a much deeper question about the reality that you see and believe. Sen has done a brilliant job in highlighting this supreme fact of our existence that we all are, in some way or other, trying to live in a make-believe world of our own, trying to run after mirages called happiness, peace, contentment. Along with the depiction of a delusional mind, Sen's magic has brought forth many little nuances of human relationships as they sustain stress and strain. The fact that at times we all lose calm, break down, make wrong choices, be haunted by guilt, behave selfishly and so on, is captured with extreme adroitness by Sen. She showed the cruel dilemma which Shabana had to deal with all her life, of having to choose between a schizophrenic sister and a normal life with a husband and kids for herself. And in the act of always being beside her sister, always being a strong persona, providing support, making judgments and so on, she unknowingly cut off some of the oxygen that her sister needed to bloom. Isn't this a very harsh truth that at times, in an attempt to do the best for someone, we strangle their assertiveness and end up hurting their self-esteem? Of course Konkona's and Shabana's acting deserves laurels as always because had the ingredients not been so good, the dish could not have turned out to be so extraordinary. Aparna Sen once again made a masterpiece of a movie for those who crave for some "food-for-thought" . Bravo ! After Mrs and Mr. Iyer this is yet another very good film by Aparna sen(mostly in English). In the earlier film she treated a contemporary political environment and its effect on individuals. In this film it is the impact of mentally disabled member of the family and its impact on the family. As a parallel sub theme she treats a philosophical concept on "reality". It is a film which leads to thinking after seeing the film.

Mithee the younger sister (Konkana Sen Sharma, the daughter of Aparna Sen) is suffering from Schizophrenia being taken care of by the dominant elder sister Anjali (Shabana Azmi) . Mithee after her marriage with Jojo and separation from him believes that she is still with JOJO and her five children in 15 Park avenue in Kolkotta.(there is no such address in Kolkotta-it seems there is one in New York) and she is intense in her belief. It is almost like an intense religious belief. Ultimately what is reality? In one scene she tells Anjali "if I tell you that you are not a professor but only imagine that you are a professor". The open ending reflects this reality. In a supposedly search for her home in park avenue, Mithee is lost. The penultimate scene is Mithee looking at a group of five children playing and her looking at them with joy of returning to her family and then she is lost. About this concept of reality I am reminded of another film of fifties called HARRY with James Stewart. The protagonist believes that a big sized rabbit (?), called Harry is always with him and he is always conversing with him. At the end even the doctor believes perhaps there is Harry. What is reality, is it what the protagonist believes or what other believe Shabhna Azmi dominates the film with her sterling performance as the strong elder sister with undercurrent of frustration. Konkana Sen Sharma gives equally befitting performance as the schizophrenic.

Yet the film is not as tight as Mrs and Mr. Iyer. There appear to be some loose ends. And perhaps there are too many characters. Those who want a closed ending may not appreciate the open ending here. But the ending befits the theme of the film.

Yet another good film by Aparana sen. exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.

Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi... I thought I was wasting my precious 50 bucks going to watch this movie. But at the earnest request of my friend who is an ardent fan of Aparna Sen, I decided to turn up for the movie. Going at this cheap theater really bothered me, cos I had seen King Kong for 50 bucks at one of the best theatres in town. Anywasy the movie starts of and surprisingly I wasn't complaining.

A great story and some really wonderful wonderful acting on Shabana Azmi and Konkona Sen Sharma's part. Shabana Azmi a divorcée who has dedicated her life to the well being of her mother and step sister. Konkona Sen Sharma a schizophrenic(spare me the spelling), who imagines thing all the time. Rahul Bose also gives a stellar performance.

The story is that Mithi (Sen Sharma) is a schizophrenic, and after getting brutally raped on her field job as a reporter, her levels really increase, her fiancée leaves her, for the person she became. In all her world comes down upon her. Shabana Azmi, her elder step sister, takes care of her, and Mithi in her imagination believes that she has been married to her fiancée, has 5 children and they stay in 15th Park Avenue (which really is a place in New York). The plot goes on as Mithi becomes suicidal, as she believe no one believes her and she is being held captive in her home from her husband. As fate would have, Mithi and her fiancée meet up when they both are out on a trip. 11 years after the brutal rape, her fiancée has no existence in her real world, she cant recognize him. Her fiancée, now married and a father of two children feels it is his duty to correct the wrong he did 11 years earlier and he promises to take her to Park Avenue. and he does. He takes her to a place in Kolkata which supposedly looks like her husband's home. As Joydeep/Jojo(Rahul Bose), her fiancée is talking on his cell phone he loses track of Mithi. Everyone comes looking for her but she is nowhere to be found. She finally gets what was denied to her, her family, her own imaginative family in her own world at 15th Park Avenue.

I must say, that it touched my heart. I myself am now a fan of Aparna Sen's direction. The camera work is superb. And the quality of performance is spell bounding. Konkona Sen Sharma gives a solid performance as the schizophrenic child. Shabana Azmi gives another mind blowing role as the divorcée elder sister, who has the load of keeping the family. Rahul Bose, another neat and quiet role(I don't know why this guy doesn't get big breaks, he has so much potential). Lastly Aparna Sen, she still captivates the audience, even if she is not in front of the camera and behind it.

A very well deserved 8/10.... This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was "There was no Taylor". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...

Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben. Our Family and friends enjoyed this movie very much. The theme was well handled by the Director with great performances from Shabana Azmi, Konkana Sen and well supported by good performances from the other cast. The climax was built well but for the ending which was a far from being called "Good". We are still trying to understand what was the Director trying to convey? Were they short of ideas or was the ending beyond the understanding of common movie lovers? A better ending would have created a lasting impression on the audience and increased the viewer-ship. This however should not take away credit that is due to Konkana and Shabana Azmi for relating so well with the characters! I resisted watching 15 Park Avenue despite of recommendations, discarding the movie as a clichéd topic of extreme emotional dramas and over-the-top acting.

Once in a while, movies like 15 Park Avenue come by and sweep you off your feet.

The movie grasps your attention pretty early on and there is no moment to rest after that. Aparna Sen has done a wonderful job of gluing the audience to every line of the movie. The impeccable character development, "just right" amount of emotions and an enigmatic end to match it all...

I have a renewed respect for Konkana Sen Sharma, who convincingly plays the schizophrenic Mithi. She beats expectation yet again after Page-3 and Mr.& Mrs.Iyer. Prof. Anjali's role is very well developed and Shabana does full justice to the character. Rahul Bose, Shefali Chaya, Waheeda Rehman add incredible flavor to the movie.

I define "shower moments" as thoughts of scenes from a movie that you ponder over in your shower endlessly, till your wife/girlfriend/mom bangs at the door. 15PA delivers many "shower moments" especially the conversation between Anjali and her mother where the mother is cautious when talking to Anjali about her thoughts. It immediately brings out Anjali's personality to the audience.

The end is a very bold statement by the director; probably too westernized for the Indian audience; yet delivers the elements to promote the movie from a "good" to a "great" status. comeundone, I love you! I could not have come to a better conclusion than you did about this movie and it's ending. My family has not seen this movie yet, but I know them too well; they will hate it. But this time, I watched it alone and I found that it affected me greatly. Although the movie is long in length, I was tied to the story and amazed by the ending. I initially thought it was weird as to how she just vanished, but on some level, it makes perfect sense.

But like comeundone said, this movie does not make sense of reality. Instead, it challenges it and the viewer to think strongly about what the word "normal" means. It also gives you the insight to personally think about what the ending means, I can say that I loved how it turned out and I'm happy for Mithi. I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.

Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.

We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In "... cuckoo's nest," for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in "15 ..." the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.

The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.

It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.

The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.

Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.

Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle? The tunes are the best aspect of this television film which has admittedly better-than-average production values, but very surface and slightly altered biography. Dramatizes Richard's discovery of "We've Only Just Begun" and Karen's marriage troubles admirably (the "Superstar" montage was a nice touch), yet notably leaves out the disagreement with Neil Sedaka, the contribution of Tony Peluso's guitar solos, etc. Gibb is sweet in her Karen persona, but it doesn't include the tomboyish and gutsier sides of the real Carpenter's personality. Anderson is in fine form as the creative and take-charge Richard, and Fletcher makes her mark as the loving but overbearing Agnes. The most haunting moment of the original broadcast is the use of "Goodbye to Love" in the background of a commercial displaying an anorexia hotline. I didn't personally know Karen Carpenter, nor, Richard for that matter, so I must go by how the movie portrayed her. I think a better person to ask about it's accuracy would be her brother Richard. However, from what I did see and learn of Karen, I felt her pain, share her sadness, and she was a very special person to me growing up. I know that I wasn't born until 1965 so I didn't get to know her as much as some of you older fans but I definitely grew up listening to her music and I have fond memories of her music. I remember the song about the "Radio" (every sha la la la every whoa...so fine,) etc and I remember "We've only just begun! As a matter of fact, I memorized many, many of her songs and some people (quite a few) tell me that my voice sounds almost identical to her!!! ( I am not joking on this). I also used to be anorexic during high school and part of college (1978-1987) to be exact and weighed anywhere from 82 pounds to eventually 120 pounds in 1987. I developed some pretty serious health problems from that which helped me to identify with the actress portraying Karen in the movie. The mother (Agnes) was very MUCH like my mother in many ways and I could also feel the pain that Karen must have experienced. For, my mother was often unfeeling, critical, and disapproving as Agnes was (if this was true to accuracy). The movie was helpful in identifying and getting to know Karen on a more personal note by not just hearing her music but by seeing what she was going through. It is quite difficult to portray a person's entire life in 2-3 hours and recount every single detail perfectly so I would have to say that there is probably no biography that is that accurate. I will give this story an 8 though! I wish I did know Karen personally! I would have DIED to meet her!! I would have loved to have shook her hand, given her a hug, or talked to her. I feel her warmth and love every time I hear one of her songs and she is greatly missed. There is a clever little scene in The Karen Carpenter Story, where both Carpenters are in a recording studio, and Richard makes an impromptu decision to have Karen sing for the owner of the studio.

Richard picks the wrong key for Karen to sing in, so Karen is singing above her natural range. You can see a look of bemusement on the owner's face; he figures she really can't sing. Richard quickly realizes his mistake and tries again in a different key. The next thing you hear is Karen's amazing, beautiful voice, and the owner does a priceless double take. Nicely done! For some reason, I have never forgotten that scene.

The Karen Carpenter Story chronicles the meteoric rise of the Carpenters, and Karen's struggle to overcome anorexia. A lot of things are glossed over. This isn't a documentary, and the movie left me with a lot of questions. Very little is mentioned of Karen's solo venture (the CD was released only a few years ago. If you buy it, you will wonder why they waited. It's some of Karen's best work. The songs aren't as timeless as her work with brother Richard, but it was a great recording, in my opinion).

I have heard it said that, you can be listening to a cheap, time-worn little radio in the middle of the Third World, that would seem to produce more static than anything else. But when a Carpenter song comes on the radio, you would think you were listening to a $1000 Hi-Fidelity unit.

Watch this movie! One of the better made for TV biopics, I just wish it had told us more. I have read many biographies and seen other things about the Carpenters, and this movie did what it could, based on the constraints placed on it by the family. Cynthis Gibb did a wonderful job trying to bring Karen to life. One of my disappointments is that there was not more insight into Karen's anorexia. In the reading I have done about the disease (especially Cherry Boone O'Neill's wonderful book, Starving for Attention) anorexia appears to be a disease of control. Karen saw her weight as one thing in her life that she could control. She felt that she was being controlled in every other aspect of her life. Don't get me wrong, I believed she truly loved the music, but she felt she had little control over her career. She truly loved her family, but they did not express it well, and she didn't know how to make her family understand her. The film could have touched so much more on that. I treasure the music I have of the Carpenters and wish she was still alive to contribute more to music today. I first saw this movie back in 1994 or '95 during my freshman year in high school when it was on Lifetime. After I first saw it, I thought it was wonderful. Sure, it may not have run longer, but it is as accurate as can be in my own opinion (regardless of what anyone else may think). Cynthia Gibb was great at portraying Karen, and Mitchell Anderson was okay as Richard. Louise Fletcher (Yes, who played Nurse Ratched in 1975's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") was fine as well, but I found her version of Agnes (Karen and Richard's mother) to be a little bit of a control freak. I am an EXTREMELY HUGE fan of the Carpenters, and I believe that Karen's voice was and still is so wonderful. It really saddens me about the fact that she is gone and had left this earth too soon, but thanks to the never ending popularity of her music and her angelic voice, the music will live on. Anyway, back on track to this movie, it really is a mystery to me and possibly other people (fans and non-fans of the Carpenters) as to what caused Karen to end up getting this problem with her health. Was it the media that was responsible or was it just Karen's decision? I would not believe that it was her decision. It could have been the media from one article that was printed out about her somewhere in '70, when their hit "Close to You" came out (from what was shown in the film). There are some other moments in the movie as well. Richard's struggle with drugs, and Karen's brief marriage. I did not hear about her loss in February of 1983, as I was not yet into watching the news; I had found out years later. I don't know if there will be another movie about the Carpenters or Karen made in the future, but until then, this movie will do fine. I will say this though: If Karen had disregarded the false details of that article or any future articles that might have been published with similar content calling her "chubby" (which must have been quite an insult), she would still be here on this earth today. I know that she is in Heaven and probably entertaining everyone with her beautiful voice. God bless you, Karen!! Unlike some of the former commentators, I was (and am) an avid fan of the Carpenters. Face it, Christmas would never be Christmas without The Carpenters. That said, I believe the movie did a good, not excellent, job at depicting Karen's life. The movie was enjoyable to see on primetime TV, but the content fell a little short. I suggest that you all look into getting some of the Carpenters specials that were shown in the 70's. You cannot believe how awesome a drummer Karen was. Cynthia did not capture the extent of Karen's talent. Also, Karen was beautiful but had a bad hairdresser. My choice for playing Karen is Hilary Swank. I would love to see a more substantive story, because there was more to Karen than meets the eyes when listening to We've Only Just Begun. I have tons of unreleased Carpenters' music, and it is absolutely excellent. (Her singing of California Dreamin is to die for). The Karen Carpenter Story shows a little more about singer Karen Carpenter's complex life. Though it fails in giving accurate facts, and details.

Cynthia Gibb (portrays Karen) was not a fine election. She is a good actress , but plays a very naive and sort of dumb Karen Carpenter. I think that the role needed a stronger character. Someone with a stronger personality.

Louise Fletcher role as Agnes Carpenter is terrific, she does a great job as Karen's mother.

It has great songs, which could have been included in a soundtrack album. Unfortunately they weren't, though this movie was on the top of the ratings in USA and other several countries Being an avid Carpenter Fan, I really loved this film (although the wigs do leave a lot to be desired!) and agree with many of the comments, that certain areas of her life were absent or not touched on. Whatever - it leaves your curiosity well and truly unsatisfied, so off I went to discover more. I must recommend a book by Ray Coleman - Carpenters - The Untold Story. The book is an intelligent read and unlike the film, is 'real' and down to earth. I hope you enjoy it. I remember Cynthia Gibb from her days in Fame and Gypsy. She is a singer (aswell as dancer) in her own right and I think this was the edge needed to create the character. Some other actresses may have struggled with this. It is ashame the film did not delve deeper into her story. After all this is the film title, but I felt we learnt more about Richard, but I suppose like any performer worth their salt, you should always leave them wanting more! This film was made soon enough after Karen's passing that perhaps Richard Carpenter and the people closest to Karen were feeling a little guilty as to how they may have contributed to her health problems. As the years have passed (almost 25 to be exact) it must have gotten easier to deny any complicity. Richard has spent the years after Karen's death endlessly remixing and recompiling the recordings he made with her. He married his cousin, Mary, and from what I have read, it looks like he may be planning a next generation Carpenters with his children. He seems to have regretted making this film,and that may very well be why it is unavailable in any form. It seemed to me to be a fairly honest assessment of the tragically short life and incredible talent that was Karen Carpenter. On watching this film, I was amazed at how media perception can mould a persons opinion of a celebrity. Karen Carpenter was a carefree, but very unconfident young lady, whose wonderful voice helped her and her brother Richard to soar the charts with wonderful songs. As with all celebrities of today, they were often criticised about their music as well as their looks, styles, etc. THis had a huge effect on Karen who raged a battle against her eating and drastically lost weight, which eventually caused her death. This heart felt film was not initially something which I would have thought of watching. But on starting to view it, then I was hooked. In the same way that the Tina Turner story does, then this film enlightens you and allows you to see into the young performers life. The acting was superb and even after nearly 20 years after it was made, then the directional and the dialogue are still entertaining.

I would recommend this to anyone who hasn't yet watched it. It is amazingly accurate and emotionally charged. Yes, this is one of the better done television movies and I wouldn't expect less from Joe Sargent. One thing for this reviewer is that I was also a great fan of The Carpenters, I got to sing all of their material in elementary school and middle school choir and I got to do much of the solo material of which Karen sang lead. I thought she was one of the most wonderful pop singers of the 70's - and being a child/teen singing these songs and learning music - the one thing I was looking forward to was meeting this woman. I never got to, she died three weeks before that was to happen. And yes, that did effect me for I knew nothing of anorexia - and could not understand completely what happened.

When this TV movie got produced, I got quite an understanding. Maybe not everything in Karen and Richard's life is open to the television audience, but in opening the parts that were shown, I got to understand much from the music industry of that time. What upsets me is that I am writing "of that time" and seeing "now". No one has learned a darned thing, even though this was a very informative and heartfelt look into a family's problems in the music industry.

These films aren't done for fun, they're done to open a door and show us something. Here was a wonderful woman who got caught up in the whole idea that her talent was based on weight. She was fine. Didn't know it. She got mixed messages about her weight from the brother she loved, the parents she loved and the music industry that cared more about her looks/weight than the talent within. With the onset of MTV, it got worse. With 'American Idol' it's like a puss festering in an English accent.

A wonderful TV film, I am sure later someone may give it an HBO treatment but either way, many lessons to be learned and the absence of another wonderful talent. Every time I hear Karen Carpenter's voice, there is that old familiar feeling of 70's blues. What an overwhelmingly beautiful and mature voice she had. Cynthia Gibb cast in the title role does a good job, however, I thought Karen Allen would have been a better choice. This is a tearjerker movie that does a fine job of presenting the professional careers of Karen and Richard but also the personal struggles that Karen dealt with and her disease. The recording sessions in Herp Albert's studio are very nicely done. However Karen Carpenter turned out, there was a time when she was very special and brought a great deal joy to her fans and music lovers. Even if you weren't a Carpenter's fan this is a nice story that depicts how a great talent can fall victim to the pressures of society. A must for any die hard Carpenters fans!

Cynthia Gibb does the role of KC a huuuuuge amount of justice, and although the 'story' isn't 100% factual, is still a good insight into the lives of both Richard and Karen and worth a watch just for the soundtrack.

Makes me cry everytime!!!

I have been watching King of Queens from the beginning, and have felt it is overlooked at the award shows. This show has the best humor, you can identify with the characters, we talk about it at work a lot, because I work at a company a lot like IPS, (DHL) and we just love the Teamster plugs!! Carrie is my hero, she is the best, she just puts it out there, no matter what the subject is. Arthur well what can you say? He just cracks you up, and really puts a spin on things. Doug, well he is just so lovable, and funny, the three characters, plus all the friends just make the show complete. This is the best comedy on TV!! I would say up there with Seinfeld, and hey, there's nothing wrong with that .... Excellente!! as Doug would say. When this show first came on the air, I saw it once or twice and thought it was another "fat guy, skinny wife" show that seemed to populate the networks at the time. It was just "okay" upon initial viewings and I didn't watch it again; however, once it went into syndication, I caught several episodes (simply because it was on twice a night), and I'm telling you, the more you watch this show, the funnier it is. Once you see how all of the great supporting characters are connected, this show makes you laugh out loud. Every new episode I watch is more creative than the one before--people who only watch this a couple of times will not notice this. The writing and story lines are much more sophisticated than they appear at first (this is far from "According to Jim"). First of all, Kevin James is hysterical, incredibly charming, and a talented comedic actor, as is the supporting cast. Leah Remini has excellent timing, and Patton Oswalt's Spence is one of the funnier characters on the show. And of course, Jerry Stiller is brilliant as Arthur. I was shocked to read comments that he was the worst part of the show--he's a gigantic part of why this show is so great--his delivery of these ridiculous schemes (rounding out the crazy dad character) are beyond hilarious. And the yelling--the best episode is when they show him as a kid yelling "Lemon Icee!!". That episode, during which Carrie takes him to a therapist in hopes to get him medicated (to make Doug less stressed out), guest star William Hurt decides that Arthur yells because he's never been validated. The latter part of the episode where Doug beats up his childhood self in a therapy session is beyond funny, it's one of the most creative scenes I've seen on a sitcom. I feel the strange need to defend this show, because it is severely underrated--while "Friends" was sometimes amusing, and "Raymond" has some great episodes and characters, they both lacked the creative touch that "King of Queens" has. In an era where most sitcoms have canned jokes and are on the whole mediocre, "King of Queens" continues to push the sitcom envelope and show real comic genius. Critics of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching. It's certainly on par with my other two favorites, "Seinfeld" and "The Office" in its ridiculous tone. It's the Arthurs, Kramers, and Michael Scotts of TV that keep us watching, and laughing out loud. Here in Germany "King of Queens" has a big big cult status! Nearly every teenager (and adults) watch this sitcom. It's really awesome!! Better than the other horrible American sitcoms like "Full House" or "Set by Step" (the only series, who is still OK, is "Al Bundy"). There haven't been an Amercian sitcom in Europe who was as effective as this really funny show!! Kevin James and Leah Remini as Doug & Carrie Haffernan are the craziest couple I know, Jerry Stiller as Arthur is the funniest "grandpa" I know, and Victor Williams and (especially) Patton Oswalt as Deacon & Spence are the most different, but funny guys I know. I watch it as often as I could, and I still haven't enough, good humor! I have not seen a better comedy than the King of Queens for many years. I rate it one of the best ever. I've just returned to Ireland from Arizona on American Airlines from a biz trip and by chance they showed several episodes. I laughed my head off and later I asked the stewards to play again and they did. Thank you AA. The acting from all the team is first rate and especially from Kevin James, Leah Remini and Gerry Stiller, but from all of the cast in fact the acting is superb. I love all the cast, they are so funny. There is a hard edge in the King of Queens that I love and is seldom seen in today's TV comedy. Both Leah and Kevin play off each other so well that every situation is believable and hilariously funny. I have just purchased the 2nd season while I was in Az this week and I intend buying the full set the next time I am in the US. My son who is 20yrs old also loves this show and its brilliance is that it has the magic to reach out to different generations. I would like to thank all those involved with this amazing show - it's so appreciated to see this kind of TV show in what is in my opinion an era of poor TV fair in general these days with the exception of re-runs of Seinfeld and such like... Thanks for a great show.. In a time of bad, if not plain awful, comedies, King of Queens is more than just a breath of fresh air, it's a complete oxygen tank! It is in my opinion one of the 5 best comedy shows of all times. Nothing has been this good since Married with Children. Kevin James and Jerry Stiller are comic geniuses! And believe me, it takes a lot to make me label someone as comic genius. These guys truly understand what is funny. I could watch ten episodes of Seinfeld and wouldn't get half the laughs from seeing KOQ just once. Other funny people in this show are Carrie, Janet Heffernan, Spence and Doug Pruzan (Carrie's boss). I'm so happy they managed to get so many seasons from this gem. The show has been a hilarious winner in a time of mostly comic losers. Check it out if you haven't!! "The King of Queens" could be divided into two eras.

The first era, constituted of the first few seasons portrayed the issues of everyday life of a man and his wife making it through life in the city paycheck by paycheck.

The second era, increased the scope of the show, addressing current popular culture and marital issues with a humorous spin.

But besides all of that...

This show was freaking hilarious.

Kevin James, when not doing crap comedy films with Adam Sandler, is a genius of laughter, and his chemistry with Leah Remini was unparalleled on TV.

Jerry Stiller as the psychotic live-in father in law added his own unique style of quirky humor, and Patton Oswalt as the "man-child" Spence Ulchin was amazing, (he's a great comedian too) "The King of Queens" was the final sitcom of the 1990s to go off the air, and it's a damn shame. Now, all we have to watch are the idiotic sitcoms full of untalented actors and actresses whose only appeal is their physical appearance. I like many fans of actually funny TV shows am now in a state of mourning King of Queens is comic genius. Kevin James, whom plays IPS deliveryman Doug Heffernan is extremely funny, Leah Remini who plays Doug's wife Carrie is incredibly hot ( # 19 on Stuff magazine's hottest 102 woman list ), and very funny. The true magic of the show However is the scenes with Jerry Stiller, they are the funniest in the show. Jerry, a comic genius, plays Carrie's father, Arthur Spooner, whom lives in Doug and Carrie's always cold basement. I must admit that I never watched this show until this year, 2006. Whenever I had flipped by it previously it never seemed funny, but with the cancellation of Friends, Still Standing, and Yes Dear, I needed some new comedy. Actually giving The King Of Queens a chance I discovered that it was absolutely fantastic. So funny in fact that I downloaded the first 7 seasons and watched each season in 8 hour blocks. I strongly urge anyone whom has not seen this treasure to check it out. You will not be disappointed. This is one of the funniest shows on TV today. It hits the mark 99% of the time. Usually after watching a sitcom after a few years, the actors become to cartoonish, as if they are trying to become the beloved characters they play. These actors have in my opinion stayed true to their roles. The chemistry is still there, the writing has not gone down and I still look forward to watching it. The family dynamic still seems real and the situations after all this time are not so far fetched to make it seem the writers are reaching into an empty bag trying to keep the show on for one more season It is one of the few shows I watch without the remote in my hand for quick switching. I need help identifying an episode of King of Queens. It begins with a scene where Doug is talking to Carrie on the phone, and he suggests that they agree to stop ending every conversation with "I love you." However, it's hard to do and he ends up calling her back, only to close with "I love you." It's a very clever moment and one I think says a lot about relationships that have lasted a long time.

I THINK (but I'm sure) that's it's the same episode where Doug gets some local construction guys to whistle and throw lurid comments at Carrie to perk her spirits up.

I saw this episode recently, but it was probably a repeat. Don't know what network I saw it on. Can anyone tell me the title and season of this episode? I recently started to watch this show in syndication and find it a bit hit and miss. Some episodes are silly -- Doug is upset about some trivial/juvenile thing and acts stupid etc.

Still, others are quite amusing, and sometimes touching. These include those episodes that face up to the complexities of the characters. For instance, the "juvenile overweight amiable guy marries sexy wife" theme is found in several sitcoms. (Carrie also has something about her, looks-wise. Not just a run of the mill sexy girl.) But, Carrie has an edge -- she might be nice on the eyes, but has a few too many personality traits not too far different than her father.

And, she readily admits to it -- for instance, one episode revolves at her lack of desire to be nice to co-workers. I personally find her b*ness sexy, but you have to be the right sort of person to be able to live with that. Amiable Doug is a good match. And, deep down, see likes the simple things too. Maybe, not as much as Doug whose nirvana is watching TV and eating a big snack next to his big screen t.v., but no culture gal she. This lack of an overally sensitive side is one reason the two don't have children.

Of course, the simple pleasures of a guy is nothing to sneer at either, and adds to the charm of the show. They live an ordinary working class sort of life in Queens -- it is realistic in that sense. And, overall, amusing and pleasant sitcom fare, esp. if you just want to relax. It gets a little tired at the end, so it's probably good it is ending. It had a good run. See also, Becker. I guess my husband and I are a little slow. We don't usually warm up to a series until they are almost at the end of their production life. In this case, we didn't start watching KoQs until almost the 6th season. I'm not sure how it escaped our radar for so long. Other than the fact that we are not big fans of "appointment" TV viewing. Our schedules our such that we don't like to commit to watching series every time they come on (and we didn't have a DVR yet). So I guess it wasn't until TBS starting running reruns on their daily lineup in the evenings that we started watching consistently.

By the time we got hooked, there were only a couple more season's left before the series was canceled. But we still watch it almost daily on TBS. I almost prefer to see series this way, because you can watch multiple episodes day after day and it helps to build continuity and what's going on with the characters without having to wait a whole week.

But the episodes stand alone in the since that the stories don't carry over from week to week. But that is fine with me, because you can watch an episode, then miss weeks - and still pick back up.

My only criticism is the writing wasn't always consistent. Some episodes would be outrageously hilarious, and then some would only be mildly funny. So, I'm not sure it had the quality of writers that Seinfeld or Raymond had. But I loved the casting and the characters are all quite believable and realistic. Kevin James is just plain funny to look at! So even if the plot isn't that great, James body language and expressions make the show worth watching. Leah Remini is great as the "play-it-straight" wife. I think its harder to play the straight character for laughs, than the comedic character, and she does a great job. She has a knack at sarcasm and insults like no one else. She is one tough cookie! And who can forget Arthur as Carrie's dad, who lives with them in their basement.

This a great series and I was sorry when it cancelled. But a big thanks to TBS for keeping the King alive in reruns! I'm not really a t.v. watcher - except between the ages of 6 and 8 and "General Hospital" still had Luke and Laura - but there are a few exceptions and I definitely think that "King of Queens" is one of them. Every decade has it's classics and I think that this show will (or damn-well should) be amongst this decade's best. Its comedic timing is awesome and can, at times, be down right odd. On a more 'serious' note the actors more than succeed in conveying subtle - and not so subtle :)- complexities in their characters without getting too hokey. One commenter wrote that it may take a couple of episodes to get into it and I agree; it's definitely one that kind of grows on you but once you're in, you're pretty much hooked. And with good reason! I think the problem with this show not getting the respect it truly deserves is that it comes after Seinfeld,after ELR and after Friends. Those three sitcoms were the star shows of their time.

KOQs came at the end of this special time in TV.

But don't let that dissuade you.

King of Queens is as good if not better than two of the three mentioned.

Seinfeld started it all and was and is a timeless classic. I never laughed so hard than I did at Seinfeld. But KOQs comes real close.

When it comes to laughing, I have to rate KOQs second only to Seinfeld. ELR has to be second though as the character creation and interaction is more endearing.

Either way, KOQs is top ten of the last 20 years.

The only other sitcom worth mentioning now is Two and a Half Men which really doesn't hold a candle to the other four but is all we have left. I don't usually like to see movies while they're still in theaters because of high ticket prices but I saw a poster for Some Things That Stay and I thought, "that young actress looks intelligent and mysterious, not like the usual blonde teenybopper BS". So I decided to take the plunge and see this movie on it's opening night.

I must tell you, I was happily surprised. I went to this film with no expectations. I didn't really know what it would be about, but the raw emotion and honest teenage experiences expressed by Katie Boland left me feeling rather satisfied with my decision. Alberta Watson also did a fantastic job as the role of Tamara's disease-stricken mother and I must also add that I was quite impressed with the comedic stylings of Megan Park as Tamara's friend Brenda.

The film was wonderfully directed by Gail Harvey, and pulled together in the kind of kitschy 50's way that leaves you feeling warm and happy, even if the storyline tended not to be so uplifting. I also thought that the film was well-shot, many beautiful images of a 1950's countryside will remain in my mind for weeks to come.

This film as a whole was quirky and great. I found it to be unpredictable and although the story ends in a somewhat open-ended way, I was still left satisfied. Whether you are looking for a fun, yet powerful coming-of-age story, or simply want to reminisce about life in the 1950's, I guarantee this film is for you. Even if you have no expectations, it is still quite likely that you will be most impressed. Give this one a shot! I saw this movie with my girlfriends and we all loved it! It is so sweet and heartwarming, a real tear-jerker! I was still thinking about the story days after i'd seen the movie. It's such a beautiful story about the difficult things all families go through, it's something anybody can relate to. I really recommend this movie to anybody looking for a Saturday night rental. With your girlfriends, your family, your boyfriend, everyone will really enjoy it! :D It's a real story about a real family that would pull at anyones heartstrings. Not to mention, beautiful landscape shots and fantastic acting. See it, i'm sure you'll love it as much as I did! Yes, I am ashamed to admit it, but this show is positively DEVINE!!!It's so entertaining, and I have the absolute greatest time watching it.Ever since Cycle 1 it's been great, and I haven't noticed a downfall in it's glory AT ALL.Tyra Banks as you know is the host, and as fabulous as she is, there's also the other judges and co-hosts such as J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, Nigel Barker, and Twiggy.The main point of the show is for every girl invited to become America's Next Top Model, has to work their way up to the top by completing and winning photo shoot competitions.It sounds great already doesn't it, and let me tell you IT IS GREAT!!!!!It's awesome watching all the different kinds of photo shoots the girls take, and each one is different, cool, and daring.Anybody who hates this show, doesn't have a clue, and I will tell you that this show will be on for a LONG time, so DEAL WITH IT!!! This show is my guilty pleasure all the way!! When I first tuned in to America's Next Top Model, I expected to be bored, and to find it very very stupid. I didn't. This show is actually serious fun. I read on one of the other reviews that it makes you wonder if you have what it takes to be America's Next top model. And it so does! Who doesn't love the glamour and excitement that come with being a model? On ANTM you get to see what it's REALLY like. And who doesn't love hearing the girls bitch about each other and get into fights? Or enjoy wanting to throw something at that Janice lady?

Give this a chance. Don't expect something intelligent or a show you can look to for a life lesson. Just enjoy it for what it is. Serious fun! America's Next Top Model is a great reality show in every sense. It has a great hostess, has great guests, a great production and some of the best professionals of the modeling world contributing for something they hadn't achieved yet: present a true America's Next Top Model. Of course this is not something easy to do, therefore USA and the world already would have 10 top models concurring and fighting between themselves in this cruel world.

But it's obvious that its intention is not to present the America's next top model, but yes, the America's Next Pop Model. The show gets together a bunch of models without any experience with different personalities and big personal, professional and financial problems, giving them a chance for bringing to life a dream or to make their lives something worthy. It's obvious that Tyra Banks uses all that for her advantage, she gives the dream, but in exchange for that she gains audience and more popularity. Anyway, she deserves it, because she is intelligent and, if I might say that, a pioneer to this kind of show. Tyra also is a great observer and knows how to give based opinions, differing herself of other models and hostess of foreign versions of the NEXT TOP MODEL franchise. In Brazil, as an example, Fernanda Motta is its hostess and "once-upon-a-time"-Top Model. She doesn't have even 1/10 of Tyra's professional skills, which keeps Tyra Banks on the top. Tyra have professional and personal knowledge about what she says and she's a great mentor because she not only criticizes but she points the mistake and teaches the right way with wisdom.

The show doesn't suffer from big problems, it does and fulfills what it promises during the cycles. The models chosen to work on the show in fact are not the best unknown models of entire country because Tyra Banks bets with the difference, and she is right, because she (and also good part of her audience) believes that it's time for the modeling world to change some straight parameters. During the cycles, she and her team really makes fair deliberations, where the weakest go away and the promising ones have new chances to prove their capacities but must be fast to do that, otherwise they lose it.

Other very interesting thing is that Tyra also knows to decide who should or shouldn't win even when she's against people's opinion. She knows that whoever wins will be famous, but has a very few possibilities to truly be a worldwide recognized top model. At the same way she knows that, some times, the second place is more valuable than the first, because 1st place wins the title, but second doesn't gets the title stigma. Hardly she makes mistakes when she decides the future of any model during the show.

After 9 cycles the show is getting a little tired with some old ideas, it's time for Tyra to change some things and lines because it's getting boring and comparing to the firsts cycles we can see that she's getting bored too, so she needs to do that if she wants the show to live a little longer.

Anyway, the show explores the fashion and modeling world, but it's also entertaining for those ones that live outside all of that. It gives the opportunity for some girls and also the market, and also gives great tips for those ones from the audience who shares the same dream. As if reality shows like "American Idol" weren't enough, in which judges like Simon Cowell shoot razor-sharp barbs to contestants trying to make their mark on the music world -- barbs that many a time has reduced even outstanding singers to tears after what was deemed a "bad performance", now "America's Next Top Model" has for the past three years invaded the boob tube with its own version of "looking for the next big thing" in a business that values superficiality, concepts of beauty, and body dysmorphia.

A concept created by Tyra Banks, who is also a judge in the show, it gathers some fifteen contestants from all walks of life and has them submit themselves to innumerable "tasks" in which they must prove their "talent" in front of the camera and subject themselves not only to the now departed Janice Dickinson (self-dubbed "American's First Supermodel") but the equally catty Jay Manuel and Nore Marin who may at one point focus on one girl not performing well and blithely rip her to shreds like it was bad morning coffee. Like in many other reality-based shows, each week one contestant is voted off and must pack her bags and immediately leave (a thing that they are reminded by Tyra at every turn). Of course, there is the bitchy tension between several of the more type-A females, female bonding, tears, dramatic swells of music in key moments, and some truly breathtaking pictures that transform erstwhile ordinary, pretty girls into unattainable goddesses.

I'll have to admit, the show is a guilty pleasure. Maybe it's the state of mind I'm in, but I kept wondering where the vomitorium was in cases when the already thin girls would need to hurl to make the cut and look the way the judges and photographers and many fickle designers would feel was correct for the moment. Even so, it's drawn me in despite my previous paragraph, possibly because I've always had an interest in the fashion world and have always loved watching stunning women being made even more unworldly with make up and perfect lighting. But I wonder where are they going with these increasingly difficult photo shoots. It's as if they were competing with "Fear Factor". Shoots that look like re-enactments of fight scenes in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, shoots where the models have to pose underwater or in almost impossible situations, What's next: posing while tied to train tracks as an oncoming Amtrak roars upon them at 70 miles an hour? Or a shoot where they are underwater, chained, trying to set themselves free in record time while at the same time looking smashing in chiffon, and never, ever forgetting to smile their pearly whites at that camera? How about a "Pit and the Pendulum" version of a photo shoot?

In one thing the show has to be given some kudos, and it's in a way akin to "American Idol". With this I'm probably going to justify the harshness of both shows, and its abrasive judges -- and essentially go against my initial paragraph. "America's Next Top Model" is a show that is an extended audition, like "American Idol", and in it the girls will get the sort of test treatment they will receive in the real world, where prospective designers and photographers, as monstrously fickle as they can be, will crush them to bits at the drop of a hat if they can't sell themselves the way they're expected to, and where one is asked to leave, another will supplant her with the necessary requirements. Which makes it a wonder that any girl would want to get into such a difficult media, but that's what dreams are made of.

Going into its Fifth season it's been a major disappointment with the departure of Janice Dickinson; during her run she was a pretty tough barometer as to how the girls should walk, talk, emote, express themselves, and ultimately present themselves as a walking, living product that sells. With the cold addition of Twiggy I wonder where it will go from here -- Twiggy just can't replace the over-the-top temperament of Dickinson. So with Janice's absence the show has lost some of its edge and may even have signaled its slow demise, but in the meantime, it's still a catchy pleasure to watch, mindless entertainment on weeknights, if at all for the gorgeous visuals. If at all, it's the show that launched Adrienne Curry into the spotlight. Curry has made a name for herself due to facts that have less to do with modeling as much as her theatric love-affair with one time child actor Christopher Knight in their very own reality soap opera. Yes, I watch this show. Because my girlfriend watches it, of course. Well, at least, that's what I tell my friends. But as nobody here ever known me, I can say this; I love it! That's excellent trash TV.

First, there's the panel; Tyra herself, who doesn't miss a single opportunity to talk about herself, yet she is to be taken seriously, as she is quite the businesswoman. Then there's Jay Manuel, A sober gay guy, very serious and amazingly professional, and Miss Jay, an extroverted one, "queen" of the catwalk and a damn funny guy, and Nigel, self-styled as the only man on the panel.

Second, the show is an in-depth look at a shallow industry, and we've got to give it to the producers for showing us the inside view, which can be informative as well as entertaining.

Finally, the edition is great; there is just the right mix of everything; The girls living together in the ego-house, their impressions on sets, the competitions themselves and the judging. All of this slides smoothly with just the right beat. There are no lenghts.

Of course, there must be other factors that led to eliminations that we don't see in the shows; The panel is made up of capricious divas, extroverted and quick on the bitching; woe to those who offends them! But that being said, as long as one contestant does not step on their toes, their judgment is usually fair - I think.

So, give your brain a break; If you can't beat them, join them, and have a good time watching this bit of reality TV with your loved ones. It will make crave for more, somehow. This is ten times better than "Who Wants To BE A Super Model" on Bravo I think it is more true to the business. Tyra is strong and sensitive at the same time and is able to get the most out of each aspiring model. The photos look for depth in each of the models, in personality and beauty, strength and demure attributes, and the ability to endure and work for what they want. I enjoy seeing Tyra's personal experience brought into the photo shoots and on the runway. I don't always agree with the judges decision's or Tyra's comments and at least one of the winners, I feel did not deserve to win. But this is just a show and every girl on there is very lucky to have this chance. Having dabbled in the modeling industry (as a model), I watch this show with a slightly different view than most might. While I admit ANTM can be a fun, and entertaining show, as the seasons go on it seems to continue to drift from any reality.

The show seems to be almost pure publicity for its contestants, seeing that none of the show's winners (or fellow contestants) have made much of a name for themselves out from under of the show's umbrella. Maybe that's because the truth is any girl with real potential to be a high-fashion model shouldn't have too much difficulty submitting to agencies (you can do so via email or snail mail if distance prevents you from attending an agency open call), signing to an agency, and starting a modeling career. Yes, the process does not guarantee success, but apparently neither does ANTM. And participating in a reality show seems to offer less of a boost in the modeling business, than signing to a top or decent agency (which only one contestant each cycle has a guarantee of anyway).

Nonetheless, the show can't hurt, certainly can be amusing, and has a sort of magic that particularly works for teenage girls, I have found. Though, I must add, ANTM may become a tad tiring and dull, after watching several cycles, as it has become for me. And besides some unrealistic situations (each more outrageous than the last) the only other annoyance, is the overuse of "Tyra, Tyra, Tyra!" Tyra seems to genuinely want to guide these girls to success, but is it necessary for each of models' temporary digs to be covered in Tyra pictures; for virtually every panel and challenge to include a story or scenario that "Tyra" experienced and overcame? I think not.

In my opinion, take out a little Tyra, put back in a little more reality, and ANTM could be a 10 star show, instead of a 7. "Americans Next Top Model" is the best reality show! I was entertained 99.9 percent of the time watching it.I kept my eyes open the entire time. (well, I did blink) It can be sad, funny, or addicting.(mostly addicting)"America's Next Top Model" kept me wanting more and that's pretty much the point. It is also on more that one channel. Sometimes it's on MTV other times it's not. I hope it gets more fans and grows to be a hit series! It's great for pretty much all ages so every can enjoy it! :)

Also, if you watched the show before, haven't you noticed that Tyra has a different hair style each time in the judging room? She'll have it short and curly one week, and then long and straight the next. This is the best show ever no matter what you say!I have been watching this show since cycle 1.This show is never boring its wonderful how you see peoples dream come true of being a model.Tyra is trying her best to help young women not be ashamed of their bodies and make them believe that they are beautiful in their own way and that you don't have to feel beautiful by being anorexic.And just as Tyra says on the Tyra show so what if your curvy so what if you have a big round booty so what if you have a big nose so what if your not as beautiful as the people in magazines you are beautiful to her.SO WHAT............................... I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No. America's next top model is a good show, it helps people with their careers, but lately i have become bored with it.

cycle 1: yeah I'm happy Adrienne won, i wanted her to win from the beginning.

cycle 2: its too bad, i think Mercedes deserved it.

cycle 3: i did not like Eva, but i did not like most of the girls in this cycle.

cycle 4: Kahlen should have won. i don't know what they saw in Naima, but i definitely know what they saw in Kahlen.

cycle 5: like cycle 3, this was not a great cycle either. but out of all the girls, NICOLE as a winner? eww!

cycle 6: i liked Sara and Joanie, but Danielle is okay too.

cycle 7: Caridee definitely deserved it.

cycle 8: no, i didn't want Jaslene to win. i didn't like her. i saw other girls in that cycle with definitely more potential than her, although i did not see much of this cycle.

good show, I've just seen it too many times to like it much anymore :D This is a simple episode ad so far after watching all of the Season 11 episodes (with the exception of the Imaginationland trilogy) this is the one that made laugh the most, definitely is my favourite so far of Season 11. So basically Cartman sees at a toy store a kid who has the Tourette's syndrome and a new idea comes to Cartman. You can imagine, now Cartman has Tourette's syndrome and is great since Kyle once he knows about this is like "he's faking". Cartman is certainly on fire, saying whatever he wants to the teachers, to the principal, to anybody. On the other hand we have Kyle who now is the intolerant one, basically for saying that Cartman was faking he was taken to meet children with Tourette's syndrome just to let him see that Tourette's syndrome is for real and is great since Kyle is like "well maybe someone is faking to have Tourette's for fun", in short Kyle could not explain that Cartman was faking. Probably my favourite scene of this episode is when Cartman is with Kyle's family but right after this scene another kid fins that Cartman is simply faking, the kid with Tourette's who was at the toy store, Cartman basically said to that kid this: "isn't having Tourette's awesome". But to be saying whatever he wants and be for everybody a brave boy is sort of just the beginning for Cartman, his master plan: going on National TV to say anything he wants ("people will call it brilliant TV, they'll probably give me an Emmy"- fantastic, in this episode the word "s***" is used 26 times and certainly that's not all. South Park won an Emmy like a month or so before this episode aired). But here there's a twist, Cartman basically removed all the bricks of the wall, he says now everything without thinking so we hear from Cartman that he wet his bed last night, now is not fun for Cartman and he is like "I can't control what I say" and certainly the person who was with him is like "well of course you can't control what you say, you have Tourette's" so Cartman is like "my Tourette's has gotten worse, before I just blurted out cool stuff about Jews being lame and stuff but now it's gotten really bad". There is also stuff about Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator, actually what happened with a pervert here happens with a lot more perverts, Kyle and Thomas were behind that to stop Cartman, Kyle ends being Cartman's saviour! Fantastic!

TSA VOICES CONCERN Over "South Park" October 3rd Episode

On Wednesday, October 3, the cable network Comedy Central will air an episode of the animated series "South Park" in which one of the young characters, Cartman, "gets" Tourette Syndrome. Given the nature of this program, we fully expect it to be offensive and insensitive to people with TS and garner numerous calls and emails from our members and the TS community.

We have already taken some pre-emptive strikes, such as requesting that Comedy Central air our Public Service Announcement (featuring comedian Richard Lewis) during or after the show. In addition, once the episode airs and we are able to see exactly how TS is portrayed, we will be able to respond with specific issues and problems we have with the show to the writers.

"We are actually surprised it took the creators so long to use TS as comedy fodder in this program, since no disability, illness or controversial topic is off limits to them," said Judit Ungar, President, TSA.

"We always see portrayals of TS (good and bad) as an opportunity for awareness and education, and a show of this magnitude and popularity is certainly no exception and provides a way for TSA to spread factual information about the disorder," said Tracy Colletti- Flynn, Manager of Public Relations and Communications, TSA.

We will be posting an official statement on this site with TSA's reaction to the program after the show airs.

TSA RESPONDS to "South Park" Episode

Unfortunately, as has been the case with far too many media portrayals of people with Tourette Syndrome (TS), the season opener of South Park ("Le Petit Tourette," 10-3-07) served to perpetuate even further the outright myth that most of those affected by TS have involuntary outbursts of foul language. In point of fact, fully 85-90% of people with TS never experience this tragically socially stigmatizing symptom (medically termed coprolalia). For viewers less familiar with the symptoms of this neurological disorder, the misleading take away message couldn't have been clearer – unless you curse, you don't have TS.

Despite our pre-airing trepidations, we do concede that the episode was surprisingly well- researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed. The scripted input from parents, a neurologist, peers and the therapy session with the "TS children's support group" all served as a clever device for providing these facts to the public. "No doubt this South Park episode did generate increased national awareness about TS. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that school children with TS will be mocked and even bullied by insensitive peers who may have seen the program," said Judit Ungar, TSA President. "We realize that for over a decade the writers' satirical parodies have spared no group be they celebrities, the disabled or political figures. The fact that TS was the subject of a popular TV show attests to the fact that the public is so much more aware of the disorder. Obviously, this increased awareness we've worked too hard to accomplish can at times prove to be a double-edged sword."

TSA contacted the program's executives prior to the airing, and we will be in touch with them again. Perhaps we'll succeed in turning this into an opportunity for positive TS awareness. This was another great episode from season 11 of South Park.

Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome in order to be able to say whatever he wants without getting in trouble. He is able to swear at the other kids at school. Kyle tells the Principal that Cartman is faking it. But, she doesn't believe it. Chris Hansen is planning on having Cartman to be on Dateline to talk about Tourette syndrome live and uncensored. But later on, Cartman starts to get so addicted to be able to say whatever he wants, that he later on starts to accidentally say embarrassing stuff. This was a funny episode about Cartman faking Tourette syndrome. I Recommend it to any South Park fan. La Petit Tourette is a pretty funny South Park episode.Cartman is at the toy store one day and here's a kid swearing out loud but not getting in trouble for it.His mother then tells everyone that the kid has "tourette syndrome".Cartman loves the fact that he can swear without getting into trouble so he tells everybody that he has tourette syndrome.Kyle, however finds out that Cartman is lying and tries to tell people, but they think he is insensitive and is put in a "Tourette sensitivity training" type place.Cartman's tourette's eventually land him a spot on a talk show, however he finds that he cannot control his tourettes and starts saying embarrassing things that happen to him.Meanwhile, Kyle tries to sabotage the show in an interesting way. I tell you although it is funny how how this many swear words are in this one I'm sure the number of profanities and swear words in it would probably count up to about 200 because from what i last heard the greatest number of swear words on a south park episode is 165 counts of the word s**t but aside from that its so funny because in it there is swear words and also paedophiles shooting themselves in the head Watch this for your own survival also look out for a mention of cartmans father and also the annoying voice of Chris Hanssseeeen and also kyle has to save cartman from paedophiles (the catch a predator show is also on dateline) and they track a peado down and when they got there the peado "shot himself" Although, this episode was offensive to the Tourette Syndrome Association, others thought it was funny, while others thought it was a bad way to start the new season.

This episode was funny and just shocking. South Park has made history as being their first episode with the most cuss words, unless you count the movie as an episode.

I enjoyed how they made fun of Chris Hansen and his television show, to Catch a Predator. I didn't like the idea on how they thought Chris Hansen would do a show on tourettes and let a boy speak out and bash the Jews.

One thing I did not like is how South Park thought that people with tourettes syndrome would just blurt out bad language like that. I've seen people on television with Tourettes syndrome and they do not just blurt out bad words. Unless I am incorrect. One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.

Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.

Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.

No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?

Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.

Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.

Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.

To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.

And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy. Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.

The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.

The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.

In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.

This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt. Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his "mother of all epics" INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, "The Egyptian." Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.

The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question "why?" and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that "eye for eye" is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.

Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as "insane" Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!

The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, "The Egyptian" shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.

All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. It happens often, while growing up, a Hollywood movie impresses a youth. It not only lasts a lifetime, but inspire him to study ancient cultures as a career. Such was the case, with the 1954 film entitled "The Egyptian." Audience were awed with the sets, costumes and great acting of this film, so much so, other films soon followed in like vain. This is the story of a young Egyptian boy who was left parent less soon after he was born. With such a dubious beginning, it is not hard to wonder why he will spend his life, asking questions. The boy Sinuhe, (Sin-oh-way) which means, 'He that is alone'(Edmund Purdom) grows to manhood and continues asking why, even as he graduates from The School Of Life to become a physician. During his formative years he acquires a lifelong friend named Kaptah brilliantly played by (Peter Ustinov), and Horemheb (Victor Mature) who raises from a simple officer of the guard to Commander of the Armies. His life offers everything from a quick rise in social status to condemned criminal, to outcast, a wondering healer, and eventually to a station in life he never expected. Fine acting goes to Jean Simmons as Merit, Michael Wilding as Akhnaton, Bella Darvi as the temptress, Nefer, and John Carradine as a memorable Grave robber. Tommy Rettig, plays Thoth, the son of the Egyptian. In his final years, 'He that is alone,' finally discovers the answer he had been seeking all his life, which he bequeathes to his son, now in the care of his lifelong friend. Excellent Film! **** Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.

The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.

An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.

Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story. I first saw this movie around 1968 and if I don't see it once or twice a year, I'm surprised. I've always found it engrossing, well acted, and, for Hollywood, surprisingly accurate historically. I heartily give it 10 stars and recommend it highly! As a dedicated lover of all things Egyptian this is a classic piece from the 50's, along with my other favourite, Land of the Pharaohs". The sets and colours are just wonderful and everything seems so "neat" in the production quality. I thought Victor Mature was well cast and Peter Ustinov a real gem! The whole look of the movie (along with others made in this era) has an appeal that you just don't get with modern movies with all their digitized effects (I have yet to see the 1999 movie "The Mummy but am sure I will love it!).

Top stuff! Having been interested in Akhenaton for many years I was surprised to learn about this film via E-bay and bought a copy on DVD for 99p. I enjoyed the film, the twists and turns in the plot and that the file was mainly about the main character Sinuhe makes it more of a "family saga" rather than an action film. The costumes and attention to detail was remarkable for its time (1955). The back projection during the chariot ride now looks clumsy. My main interest was in the character of Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion. In this film he was portrayed as being "Jesus" like in his refusal to go to war with the Hittites even through they were invading Egypt and in his closing speech about the futility of materiality and political power. Initially one makes a connection between Sinuhe, who was cast adrift in the river Nile in a reed basket, and the Old Testament Moses. But this connection is not carried no doubt this will be fully explored in a new film wherein a Moses like character carries Akhenaton's monotheistic religion out to the wider world, if such a film will ever be politically possible to make. It is universally accepted that were women are concerned we man are stupid creatures but the relationship or lack of one between Sinuhe and Merit, the character played by Jean Simmons is hard to accept. And that Sinuhe, an educated physician, would be so smitten by Nefer the Babylonian "femme fatal" to the extent of giving her his adopted parents house and Tomb is not really believable, neither that his parents would even have a tomb. In real life Nefer (Nefertitti) was the wife of Akhenaton. And although Horemheb did become Pharaoh it was after a few others including Tutankhamen , who was the son of Akhenaton.

But of course this is just nit picking and the film is enjoyable to watch and that it is about Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion is a big bonus. Maybe following "The De Vinci Code" book and film this film be re-made with the central secret being the foundation of our current monotheism! I wait in great anticipation of such a film, there are already numerous books on the subject. Having read all of the comments on this film I am still amazed at Fox's reluctance to release a full screen restored version in DVD. Yes, the history may be a bit inaccurate and it is certainly not as powerful as the book, BUT it was the 2nd film by Fox made in Real Cinemascope and the production values alone merit a restoration and distribution. I saw this film in second grade and it triggered my lifelong interest in all things Egyptian, culminating in my visiting Egypt 4 years ago! Amazing the power of film on a child's imagination, eh? In high school I read the book and made a promise to myself to one day take that dream trip. Now, true this film was made in the "old school" style, meaning that Egyptians were portrayed by pink skinned and blue-eyed Brits. However, has anyone seen the current HBO series "ROME"? Everything old is olde again. One can't imagine why in this day and age we are still casting actors mincing around as Mayfair aristocrats in Roman drag. Not one actor on ROME could pass for an ancient Italian. That being said, the AMARNA period in Egypt is still one of the most fascinating events in human history. This film is immensely appealing ( to borrow a word from NEFER) for its historical information (BEER! BRAIN SURGERY! IRON!) and its gorgeous cinematography and score. I have a dreadful Taiwan DVD version which I watch over and over again praying that one day a true restored widescreen version will be available. For anyone else interested in this subject I highly recommend the historical novel "A God Against The Gods" by the author of Advise and Consent. If anyone of you film buffs out there knows how to contact Fox to urge them on, please let me know! I'll start off right at the beginning by saying "I like this movie." It's sweeping, it's grand, it's gripping and it's fun. Sinhue the physician,sits in front of his small stone hut writing his memoirs. And what a story it is! Taken from a river and reared by an elderly couple who doted on him, he becomes a physician to the poor. He befriends Horemheb who sees glory while Sinhue sees healing. And both run into the future pharaoh Anknaten (forgive my spellings), who endures an epileptic fit.

And this pharaoh has another "flaw": He believes in one god instead of a pantheon of gods. Back then, this was totally revolutionary. Sinhue and Horemheb grow up. One night, Sinhue sees a woman who makes him lose his senses. He gives up his practice, sells his parents' home and even their tombs just to spend a night with her. Does he? I won't tell. Meanwhile, Merit, a tavern maid played with sweet simplicity belying strength by Jean Simmons, falls in love with Sinhue. She falls under his spell and under the spell of the belief in one god.

Victor Mature overacts perfectly as Horemheb. Edmond Purdom is sincere as Sinhue the lost physician (does he find redemption? Stay tuned). Even Bela Darvi, the woman who steals Sinhue's heart isn't as bad as everyone has said. The fact that she was Daryl F. Zanuck's mistress had nothing to do with the casting - right? Yeah, right...still, she wasn't that bad _ I've seen worse. I think she did better in "The Egyptian" than many of today's young actresses have done in anything. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I like this movie. I recommend it. It makes you think despite some hammy acting. Have fun with this movie; it's worth it. This is not what one would term a happy tale. The titled leading character (Edmund Purdom as THE Egyptian) does not get the gal - although he does (?) evidently get the 'last' word, the otherwise principal tragic figure (Michael Wilding as the politically myopic Pharaoh) ends up tragically, and the wrong guy – even if it is Victor Mature, winds up winning-all the marbles. Peter Ustinov possibly had gotten the best part (Kafka) and arguably may have stolen some if not most of the movie except for top-billed Jean Simmons as the somewhat brighter-than–average barmaid (Merit) whom just possibly has more on the ball – intellectually and spiritually, than all of the rest of them put together.

The brooding and pessimistic Sinuhe the physician (…that's Purdom) is portrayed as a dark, cynical, tortured soul whom spends the entire plot – his lifetime, seeking the meaning of 'Life.' (Btw, and to paraphrase John Lennon, 'Life' is what happens while you're making other plans.) Pardon the lack of philosophical depth in the prior parenthetic comment, but eventually the plot unfolds to reveal just that !

And speaking philosophically, as if things aren't morose and negative enough, John Carradine (…as the un-named grave robber) pops-up in a cameo role in the middle of the flick espousing that 'Life' basically is meaningless and is only worth living as a poor alternative to the eventual ultimate disappointment.

So here we are over 200 words in and I haven't really had a kind word, so why the heck did I rate it so high ? Well there is a lot of Shakespherian tragedy and bunch of moral worth in it. There's ethical contrasts, true friendships, true & unrequited (almost) love, and - despite limitations of 50s production capabilities, it is very well (sound) staged, pleasing both the eye and ear, and very well/evenly paced . The acting is, for the most part, uniformly very good – given it's a 50s costume drama, and the interactions are believable right down to the characters' fatal flaws - which abound, and in that doing justice to the best of Greek tragedy.

There is some redemption, Sinuhe does discover and embrace his son – played by Tommy Retigg whom, despite Ustinov's best efforts, really needed Lassie to pull it off. A couple of other 'misguided' souls get their just desserts … the 'foreign' fleshpot Nefer (Bella Darvi) – apparently in Egypt on a carnal exploitation work-study visa, whom earlier cruelly even mercilessly spurned Sinuhe -\and\- the dyke'ish Princess Baketamon (Gene Tierney as Pharoah Wilding's sister) whom knew a deep dark secret about Sinuhe's ancestry, and then tried to use it to set him against his friend, her brother the Pharaoh – nice people, huh.

Purdom's performance is actually something to behold. He carries off the dirge well enough that somewhere before the end of the pix you want to smack him across the puss, grab him by the lapels, and say "look dummy pull yourself together, the glass ain't half empty it's half full !" …and then finding that you're personally disappointed in Horemheb - truly Sinuhe's best friend, (Victor Mature as Pharoah's Top Soldier) for himself having that flaw in his character that prevents him succeeding at doing something positive.

I wonder if the secret to the whole movie is that it very quickly achieves and then sustains the necessary "suspension of disbelief" and early on gets you understanding and worrying about the characters, caring to the point that you really feel sorry for them and their missed chances at happiness; a happiness that otherwise wasn't all that far from their grasp.

…can't understand why this one isn't already out on DVD and hope that gets corrected soon. Based on Mika Waltari's Book,This Second CinemaScope movie ever made is full of rich color,beautiful music and panoramic spectacle.The Plot sometimes gets muddled in contrite wording,But all in all it has a strong social content:Man is ruled by his emotions,and that every action has an equal consequence.But to truly enjoy this film,First see the movie,then read the book.Although different,it sheds light on a whole lot of things that were not seen on the screen,and gives breath to some more of the depth of Sinuhe. ...as valuable as King Tut's tomb! (OK, maybe not THAT valuable, but worth hunting down if you can). I notice no one has commented on this movie for some years, and I hope a fresh post will spark some new comments. This is a film that I remembered only snippets of from childhood, and only saw recently when I tired of waiting for Fox to honour its own past, and hunted down the Korean DVD (in English, but with unremovable Korean subtitles). I won't go through another long plot description - suffice to say that seeing it for the first time in its proper widescreen format left me agape at the vistas and the scope of the film. The matte paintings still hold up, and the palace sets are truly breathtaking. But it is the smaller scale details that lend this film its depth and richness, offering a glimpse into the lifestyles of Egypt's poor as well as its elite. The bazaars, hovels, docks, embalming houses, and taverns are as fascinating as Pharaoh's throne room. While errors abound on the large scale (most notably the dynastic succession), the details are more meticulously researched than the vast majority of Hollywood's films. Visually, it's not without its flaws - the interiors are often too overly lit and colourful to blend seamlessly with the exteriors. Nevertheless, this is a movie that should be credited for being as audacious in the small as it is in the large. Tedious? In parts, absolutely. Overacted? Underacted? Yes, both - though 'understated' might be a more apt description. Too long? Absolutely not. I wished they had spent more time with Sinuhe's experiences in the House of Death, and among the Hittites, and less with his 'romance' with Nefer, though. Historically inaccurate? Yes, that too, but so was Shakespeare. Nobody chastises him for it. I appreciate historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but ultimately it has to be remembered that cinema is theater, not a history lesson. When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.

There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.

The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.

Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is. The philosophical, meditative tone of this movie renders it one of a kind. I'd give it 10 stars for that alone. That being said, though, what hit me with particular force was what I take, possibly incorrectly, to be its Art Direction. Many of the interior shots feature a rich concoction of color blends seemingly based on very understated Munsell Color Model progressions and complementary juxtapositions. This makes the movie probably unrealistic to contemporary eyes, but, to me, very beautiful as an aesthetic work in itself. I think this movie is genuinely unique for this quality, and if for no other reason, earns it a full, careful, digital restoration. Fox, are you listening? I had the pleasure to view this film when I was 10 years old,(having an existing interest in Egyptology). I know that there are subtle mistakes to the art direction and costuming, but over all this is the best film, to date with the look of the 18th dynasty.

The film only approximates Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian", in plot. A good portion of the text never made it to film, as we have to consider the running length.

The music score by B. Hermann and Alfred Newman is beautiful!!! Performances as follows. The late Edmond Purdom gave an excellent performance as an orphaned child adopted by parents past their child bearing years. He states that he keeps to himself,has the best education available and lets' face it is a rather emotionally distant person, given his upbringing and high intellect.

Jean Simmons is fine as a humble tavern maid; honest loving and sincere. Bella Darvi, people complained about her accent, well she is a Babylonian. It is not that apparent in the film as to why Sinhue is so insanely obsessed with Nefer Nefer Nefer. Her correct name. In the book Sinhue is enjoying her carnal fruits and gets his revenge early in the plot by leaving Nefer Nefer Nefer's drugged body with the "House of the Dead's " workers.

Gene Tierney as Baketaten, is brilliant! When she tells Sinhue that he is pharoah, she looks like she could devour him (in his weakness). She is intense, brilliant and coldly beautiful.

Michael Wilding is heartbreakingly tragic in his mission to bring all people to know his one God. I believe that we are viewing Ankhnaten thru the lens of Egyptologist A. Weigall. A view at the time that had a pre-messiah feeling about Ankhnaten's vocation. Did his monotheism influence the Jewish people? Note Psalm 104. and other Egyption imagery in the psalms?

Mr. Peter Ustinov provided the alter ego to Sinhue. He is street wise and cunning a survivor. Excellent acting as always.

Mature never thought much of his acting personally, His Horemheb is fine as an ambitious "super patriot" who ultimately has Sinhue murder more than one person in his quest for power, (Walteri's book).

I felt that the ending to The Egyptian was confusing as Sinhue's personality changes too easily. He has a living son (Toth dies in the novel), power is handed to him through is half sister Baketaten, he world savvy now and has a grip on international affairs. So he became enlightened? He could have modified the Amon Priesthood as he was capable.

But NO! Sinhue gives everything up, everything including his son's future to become a ragged beggar preaching monotheistic love?

This change was too immediate and the major flaw in the script!

Again the look of the film,colour, most of the costumes(Nefer Nefer Nefer's gold dress was too over the top as she is more richly dressed than the royal family), music is beautiful.

I will watch this film again easily.

P.S. I know that you porbably know that Horemheb did not directly succceed Ankhnaten, but I could not resist stating this fact. One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.

I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.

So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians! This Fox spectacle was a big hit when released in 1954. Sumptiously produced, with great music and sets, intriguing cast, it moves slowly, but interestingly. Edmund Purdom is strikingly handsome as an Egyptian who becomes a renowned doctor, juggling three stunning women: a handmaiden Jean Simmons who passively adores him, temptress Bella Darvi who eludes him, and a pharoah's sister Gene Tieney who wants him as HER pharoah. The movie's popularity has not waned, since being re-shown on AMC (preferably in widescreen). Purdom is particulary great, his character apparently striking out with the women, and ending up never married and a "thinker." Darvi is amazing and tantalizing in her femme fatale role. Victor Mature, Michael Wilding, Peter Ustinov co-star. Check it out. It came before "the ten commandments" "land of the Pharaohs" "Ben Hur" and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books "the secret of the kingdom" (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land).

"The Egyptian" is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouhé's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!)

There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates "the ten commandments" by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in "modern " melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouhé an old man who's remembering.

This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding "faraon" (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz. I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.

I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10. "The Egyptian" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.

Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.

The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.

The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.

The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in "Spartacus", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a "comic servant" role.

Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.

Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the "ankh", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to "wind whistling in the desert" recalls John the Baptist's "voice crying in the wilderness" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.

At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question "why?" For all its faults, "The Egyptian" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7/10 There are many film now on DVD, but producers had forgotten some tittles of importance to many moviegoers. The Egyptian, along with El Cid and other favorites of the era of the wide screen, big budget epics had merit. Many people from my generation learn a lot about history of Egypt, medieval Spain and even the Incas, (The first time I heard from them was a very cheap adventure movie with Charlton Heston called The Treasure of the Incas), same happened to me with Egypt, or Rome seen many "bad" epics of the era. many production values, excellent use of color (The De Luxe color was more Brigit and sharp that the ordinary Technicolor), maybe the cast was wrong but in any case, the film did manèged to give us idea of the life in ancient Egyptin and was in a way the motor to go out and buy the novel, my Mika Waltari, one of the best, if not the best historical-novel ever published. Also oust anding was the superb score by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann. I saw this film many times when I was a boy, it was not the big box office hit that Fox studios wanted to afther The Robe enormous hit, in CinemaScope and Stereo was a wonderful eye popping sp4ectacle. I have the Lasser Disc version.m the only way to see Ito its wdisescreen format. Soon i Hope will appeared. I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, "The Egyptian" reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told. I saw this movie back in 1954 on a double-bill with "Valley of the Kings." These movies helped inspire a lifelong interest in Egyptology. (In 1975 I visited Egypt!) Seen today, "The Egyptian" suffers from flat dialog and a few gauche touches, but it's a glorious movie to look at -- the sort of thing Hollywood, alas, just doesn't do anymore -- and it has a great story... not just the usual boy-meets-girl or vengeance-is-mine affair. Too bad 20th won't re-issue restored prints of this to be seen on the Big Screen. This was the second Cinemascope spectacle that Fox produced after the Robe. Notice how some of the Roman sets are redressed to pass for Egyptian sets. The film is produced with all first class elements, beautiful photography, stirring soundtrack (Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann - see if you can tell which composer scored specific scenes). However, the principal acting is a bit weak. Edmund Purdom seems to have a limited range of emotions and is uninteresting to watch. The best performances come from Peter Ustinov as the one-eyed slave and Polish actress Bella Darvi as the Babylonian temptress "Nefer". I find this movie in general to be strong on plot which is rare for these large spectacles produced at the time. All in all, the film does an interesting and entertaining job of social commentary on what Egyptian society might have looked like. I'll bet I watch this film 4 or 5 times a year, and will do so more often, now that the Hollyweird moguls have seen fit to put it on DVD, because it's a Classic with a capital "C"! This film is timeless! How can people pay $10.00 nowadays to see the JUNK that comes out of Hollyweird with movies like THE Egyptian; THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; BEN HUR; CAPTAIN NEWMAN MD on tape; DVD; and cable movie channels; I could go on forever, but this film is so great, and for a relative unknown, Edmund Purdom carries the movie like Atlas carried the world. The story is wonderful, the acting is first-rate, and the graphics at the end are so powerful, you sit in your seat for a few minutes, just trying to let the words sink in! Really a knockout of a film. I'd give this one 15 stars if they'd let me! They don't make them like this anymore, But they should!!!!! Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light.

It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.

To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing … the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father … the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering … the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute … and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all time…but lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.

So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics … that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time … like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10! How do these guys keep going? They're about 50 years old each, and act as if they're only 30. They play 3 hours of music at every concert, and barely break a sweat. This DVD is their first concert in Rio, Brazil. Although the people don't speak English, they try to memorize the words to the most famous Rush songs, and try to sing a foreign language at the concert with their best friends.

From Tom Sawyer to The Spirit of Radio, this concert DVD will keep you in the chair not wanting to pause or move away from the classics that you've listened to when you were young. This is their 30th reunion tour (started in 1974). I went to their Scranton PA concert, and this was just as good, although in PA they didn't play Freewill, so I was upset.

They have Freewill, they have The Trees, they have YYZ, The Pass, Driven, Dreamline, Red Sector A, Limelight, Roll the Bones, 2112, and much more. 10 out of 10, because nothing else compares. If you never go to a Rush concert, then at least buy this DVD. This DVD will be treated with indifference by mllions of classic rock music devotees across the world because Rush just aren't cool. It is a shame that Rush have had to overcome sneering disdain from the majority of North American and British music journalists over their thirty odd year history as this has deprived many people the chance to get into a real band.Each of the last four decades are well represented here and what a catalogue of songs it is! We have the seminal "2112", the magical "The Trees" and the lyrical "Tom Sawyer" interspersed with the high-energy, genre-challenging pieces from their latest album "Vapor Trails." The musicianship is almost flawless, the stage show is spectacular and the Brazilian fans are just plain crazy (at one point they sing along to an instrumental!)Each band member plays at a level that defies belief-real craftsmen performing art.If you doubt this try out the instrumentals "La Villa Strangiato" or "The Rhythm Method" for size-and yes the latter is a drum solo (which has to be seen to be believed.)

Sound and vision production values are very high as befits the Rush experience and you also get a documentary and multi-angled set pieces to boot.

This is an astonishing performance and tribute to the Canadian rockers and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy. This much anticipated DVD memento of Rush's visit to South America in 2002 is possibly the finest rock video ever set down on disc.The picture and sound production values are amazing,even more so as they constantly battled the elements to bring this production off. All the tracks you would expect from the RUSH catalogue are here from Tom Sawyer to The Pass gloriously reproduced for the frankly,orgiastic Brazilian crowd.They actually singalong to YYZ-which is an instrumental, and gives you an indication of their fervour!The first disc is the concert and the second disc contains 3 multi angle set-pieces -la Villa Strangiato,YYZ and the awesome drum solo, plus a 30 minute documentary about the bands visit to Brazil. All in all this is a triumph and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy. A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.

The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.

I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.

Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.

Which brings me to my second and main reason "I hate it". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.

The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a "normal" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you. I have been a "huge" rush fan ever since "moving pictures" and this concert is simply and example to everyone who is a fan why Rush is so popular. They completely admitted to playing their biggest concert yet, and, despite the rain in a soccer arena, they still manage to give an outstanding performance from start to finish. A real example of this is during "yyz" the entire crowd start to sing along to it in a real classic manner, in perfect sinc. They really play all of everyone's favorite songs with a real powerful "lust" that rarely happens anymore. You get the best seat in the house for one of their best concerts given. The second DVD is a fascinating documentary of the band while they are in brazil and shows you a lot of the backstage things going on and it allows you to see them not just a musicians but as actual people in their everyday life. This DVD gift set is a must for any Rush fan young and old and is definitely a keeper for your DVD collection. Their is even a cd of the concert for those who just want to listen to the music. This DVD is worth it! "Rush in Rio" is, no doubt, one of the most exciting DVDs I have purchased. Although I am a biased Rush fan of almost 20 years, I found this performance to be flawless. The music is heavy and sharp (which sounds great on any surround sound system), the band is energetic, the crowd has a constant smile... it's like they were able to capture every concert I've been to. For any Rush fan, this DVD is a must; if anything, just to see the "Boys in Brazil" documentary (which reveals the travels of this rather isolated, personal band). For any non-Rush fan, this DVD is an enjoyable concert. Rush fans know the talent of these three Canadians. We have rather firmly stood by them for years. I've shown this DVD (or portions of it, anyway) to those who have never heard of Rush, or those who think Rush is less than good because they do not appeal to the pessimistic masses of rock (i.e., sex, drugs, and a drunken frenzy). The bottom line is this DVD is worth every penny and more than worth the time to view it. Having seen Rush live, I'm able to appreciate the awesomeness of this. Others may complain of sound problems, but it's sometimes over dubbed by the overwhelming screams of 60,000 Brazilians and it goes to show the band's territorial gain of attention I purchased this DVD recently and I was totally awed that Rush's songs sound the same as they did when I first listened to them in 1980. The lineup of Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart is so talented that I want to listed to them play again and again.

Songs I remember like Tom Sawyer, XYZ, The Big Money, The Trees, Freewill, Closer to the Heart, 2112, Limelight, and The Spirit of Radio were played and the 40000 plus fans there singing along and having a great time and I swear over half the audience was under 25!

Writers who put down Rush as far as Rush fans like myself are concerned are a bunch of jealous dunderheads who like to taste rancid sour cream mixed with lemonade in a taco.

Rush doesn't put on makeup, wear spikes, lip sync,wear lipstick, get in trouble with the law, and have a band member brag about how long they have been unmarried. All they do is entertain!

I give this DVD a 100 out of 100. Rush in Rio is simply an amazing DVD. This concert is one of the peak moments of the history of Rush and they deliver their music brilliantly and with more power than ever.

I was lucky enough to actually be in this concert, and not only that, I was in the very first row grabbing the gate that separated the audience from the stage!! It's the first and only time I've seen a Rush concert live and it was a dream come true for me. I have no words to accurately describe this experience but I can tell you it is one of the highlights of my life.

Some people complain about the sound of this DVD saying it is not very clear and polished, but the sound you listen is real, true to how it was in the concert. It is raw and powerful and so authentic that every time I watch it I go back and re-live that beautiful moment. Many artists record live shows and then they make a lot of tweaking, so the final product is far from what the actual concert really was. Sure you can achieve a very sophisticated and polished sound this way but you don't get the real thing. This is not the case with Rush in Rio, this is the real deal!! I admit that I enjoy those fancy sounding concert DVD's, I love music and the sound is a very important aspect, but it's refreshing to listen to a concert that is so honest. You listen to Rush just the way they sound in a live performance, no tricks, no tweaks. This is a real live concert DVD.

I highly recommend Rush in Rio, the set-list is fantastic and the performances by Geddy, Alex and Neil are mind-blowing. Not to mention the crowd, you can see how much they love Rush and sing along to every tune, even YYZ which is an instrumental!! I actually appear singing twice; in Tom Sawyer I sing "always hopeful yet discontent" and in Earthshine I sing "only reflect". It's just a few seconds but I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I saw myself in a rush DVD!! Awesome!! I hope you enjoy this magnificent concert from the greatest band on Earth. These guys are excellent and anything they put out to the public is first class. The musicianship of this band is amazing and we should all be very thankful we live in a world where Rush exists. Future generations will never be able to see such mastery live and in person. Get this DVD and you will enjoy it throughly!! I was recently able to see these incredible musicians play in Houston, TX and was blown away. I have not missed a show since power windows and I have to say that they are better than ever. Everyone should embrace these guys and teach others what real musicianship is! There will never be such a tight and well put together trio again in our lifetime. Lets just hope and pray that they do not retire anytime soon! After searching for 6 months, I finally found this DVD. All I can say is it was damn well worth the wait! "Rush in Rio" may very well be the greatest rock DVD in existence. I'm not joking. It's incredible! All the fuss about the sound being crappy is true, however it doesn't make the concert unwatchable. I find it makes you feel like you're actually in Rio watching the concert from the audience. That's one of the reasons I love this DVD. It makes you feel like you're actually there. Also, Geddy, Alex and Neil have never been in better form! Geddy's vocals are flawless, Alex's guitar playing is still incredible, and Neil - absolutely no words to say. The camera work on this concert was very good I must say. They gave us a good look at everything that was going on on-stage, and in the audience. Kudos to the cameramen! Anyways, enough of my raving! Go watch "Rush in Rio" for yourself. You will be amazed. I guarantee it.

10/10 Admittedly Alex has become a little podgey, but they are still (for me) the greatest rock trio, ever. I wholeheartedly recommend this DVD to any fan.

I was very disappointed that they canceled their planned recent Munich gig (logistics) and regret not making an effort to see them elsewhere. The DVD is a small consolation - the greatest incentive to acquire a proper DVD playback setup.

Naive perhaps, but I still don't understand the significance of the tumble-driers on-stage; I would be grateful for any clarification.

Cheers, Iain. This is a great concert which featured the best songs of the band's 30 year career. Lee, Lifeson, and Peart were animated and fun on stage and delivered a great show. That being said, I think the audio recording was botched at the mixing console and/or through the miking process. This is not the fault of the boys however. They even mentioned that the show was setup last-minute, so the band and their crew obviously did their best. They just shouldn't have put the show out for public consumption. Neil's snare sounds distant and Geddy's bass has good harmonic content, but no bottom end at all!! They should have held out on this concert and waited for a better occasion. Only buy this DVD if you are a hardcore Rushian. The quality is lacking in the audio department. Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence. In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications. I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his "death" acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.

This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch "An Ideal Husband" with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.

This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde. I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.

Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.

More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.

A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.

By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it? Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T". The problem with other actors cast in the rôle of Dorian Gray is that they either looked too old for the part (Hurd Hatfield, Helmut Berger, Josh Duhamel, David Gallagher, Ben Barnes) or that they were unable to pull off the English aristocratic manner without being stilted. Dorian is the perpetual 19-year-old (or so), all milky skin and honey'd locks, as described by Wilde, so the challenge is finding an actor that has the maturity and range for the part (i.e., who can portray the naivité, callousness, and manipulativeness), but at the same time looks like someone in his late teens. And Peter Firth pulls it all off in this excellent British TV adaptation.

Gielgud as Henry Wotton, while considerably older than what Wilde had in mind, does wonders with his scenes--Wilde's aphorisms have never sounded so natural and unforced. Especially George Sanders in the 1945 version was pretty feeble by comparison (and his costume didn't fit).

Finally, Jeremy Bratt plays Basil as the most masculine and at the same time the most gay of the trio, again a fitting interpretation. In general, the film includes enough gay subtext without turning Dorian himself gay--he's all things to all people and supposedly there's no drug or sexual perversion he hasn't tried in the 18 years covered by the story, but that makes him more narcist than homosexual. He seems to equally wreak havoc on both sexes here, as he should according to the novel.

Of course the budget of this production was not very large, so everything feels a little stagey. Particularly Dorian's encounter with Sybil's brother suffers from the obvious studio look. Also, the final shot of Dorian (a puppet I suppose) in his white toad-like make-up is more hilarious than convincing and Basil's death scene is inadvertently funny. (Also, as far as I recall, Basil should have been killed seated at the table.)

But all in all, this is a very worthy adaptation. I'm sure Wilde would have liked it. The only thing missing is the sensual side. Not so much sex scenes, but Wilde's decadent world of fragrant flowers, luxurious cloths, and precious gems isn't really explored here, i.e. the aestheticism is completely missing. But like "I, Claudius", the excellent acting makes one easily forget these shortcomings of production values. This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly a modern B-movie. The dialog is stilted and delivered with wooden rigidity, the premise is predictable (there are a few decent twists) and characters remain 2D for most of it. And yet there is a certain...charm. WWE wrestler Kane brings to life the sick, twisted monster of a man with a lot of pathos (though it is somewhat like his character that he's been playing around ten years) and so I'll find it quite amusing when people say it's "not much of a reach for him," but Glen Jacobs is, apparently, quite the nice guy, so actually it is. In any event, he's cast perfectly as the hulking brute and the deaths are suitably over the top (Jason would be proud), but I heard at least four applause breaks for four different kills scenes. Frankly go into this movie thinking that you'll have some fun and a gorefest, oh it is QUITE the gorefest. The R-rating IS richly deserved and I actually got a little nauseous during some of the more graphic times. In any event, a very, very fun, but fairly bad, movie. I was expecting this movie to suck, but what I got was a pretty good slasher/gore film. Most of the death scenes are adequately brutal. The teens are decent, with Penny McNamee definitely the best of the bunch. Rachael Taylor looks like a young Christie Brinkley, but doesn't bring much to the movie other than that. Kane was good as the killer, and is totally believable as a fearsome juggernaut. I saw the "twist" coming from miles away, but I still enjoyed the movie.

But what really stood out to me was the direction. Gregory Dark might actually have a career in legit film ahead of him. Aside from overusing the horror film "speed cam"(you know, where like the guy's face shakes all fast?), there's some good shots here. The camera angles and environments really emphasize Kane's size, making him look even bigger than he actually is.

If you're looking for deep story or characters, this ain't it. But that's not what slasher films are about. If you're looking for some good violence, or if you're into gory films, go check this out! So the WWE has done it. They have poured over into film;their first one being See No Evil, starring their very own Kane. I caught this movie and went in not expecting it to be a great film...It just seemed to cliché and looked like nothing new. To my surprise it actually wasn't half bad. A viewer stated above that it is good B-horror movie fun, and honestly thats the best way to describe it. Now the question I was asking myself was how was Kane going to hold up...Well let's just say he made an absolute bad ass out of the 'Jacob Goodnight' character. He sold the role really well, and really did look menacing. But what can you expect from someone who is almost 7 feet tall and weighs around 320 in solid muscle. The acting was decent, and the story was nothing new of course, but we all know that. The directing as well as the cinematography was done very well and the hotel backdrop really looked dilapidated and well done. Considering this was directed by a porn movie director, I was quite surprised. I'd recommend this movie if you're looking for mindless gore and killing and just some overall fun. Think of this movie as a modern day latter Friday the 13th film. And save room for the ending too, cuz it's a good one. And stick around after the credits too... A dangerous psychopathic killer Jacob Goodnight is holed up in the abandoned and rotting Blackwell Hotel,alone with his nightmares until eight teenage delinquents show up for community service duty along with the cop who wounded Jacob four years ago.When one of their own is kidnapped by the killer and her fate uncertain,the remaining petty criminals must fight for their lives..."See No Evil" was directed by the porno filmmaker Gregory Dark and it stars WWE superstar Kane as remorseless psychopath.The supporting cast is terrible and there are no surprises to be found here,but there is enough extreme violence and gore for slasher fans to enjoy.Overall,I liked this film and you should too,if you are into mindless slasher flicks.Sure,it's cliché,but who cares.7 out of 10. Well, I'm a few days late but what the hell....! Anyways, the word that best describes my reaction to "See No Evil" was....SURPRISE. The film is actually pretty good. There is definitely an ample amount of blood, gore & action in the film with a modest amount of suspense. It hearkens back to the good ole' slasher days of the late 70's & early 80s. Think "Madman" meets Leatherface with a dash of Norman Bates and you'll get a good feel for this flick. While SNE is thin on plot (most horror films are), it kind of makes up for it in the violence/methods of killing, the gore, suspense & the fact that Kane does a great job of playing the highly disturbed Jacob Goodnight. The title of the film comes from the fact that Jacob plucks out the eyes of his victims using just his fingers & stores them in big jars. Why?? You'll just have to watch it & see (pun intended). There are certain cinematic elements lifted from other horror films most notably Psycho, TCM, & Madman but they're not blatant. Finally, SNE really doesn't go into territory we long timers haven't seen before & granted, SNE is no "Pyscho" or "TCM 74" but it certainly merits a look imo.

BloodStone's Recommendation: Take in a matinée showing of "See No Evil" Bloodstone's Rating: 7.5/10 See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing. This Horror movie is definitely one of the best ones I have seen in my life and there are many reasons why. The storyline is really good it has lots of action and great horror sequences in it The actors are not very good but there are not that bad but Kane is definitely the best actor in this but he was always a good actor also The cast is very good such as Kane as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Michael j. Pagan as Tye, Samantha Noble as Kira etc. Also I just have to warn you that the killing scenes are very disturbing but They are very creative but that just makes it better and you can't have a horror movie without blood and gore Also they look very realistic. So I am sure that you will not be disappointed with see no evil because it is a really good movie. So make sure that you rent or buy see no evil because it is just so great.

Overall score: ********** out of **********

***** out of ***** Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap. There's a brand new killer on the loose, and he's doing God's work. Yeah right! This killer makes Jason Voorhes look like a chump, and Freddy Krueger look like a rag doll against this dude. He is Jacob Goodnight(WWE's Glen "KANE" Jacobs), a 7' monster who wields a Axe, and a hook and chain. Those weapons are nothing to him his real finisher is ripping out eyeballs from the victims sockets. That is totally methodical! When the encounter happened 4 years earlier, Jacob killed a rookie cop and maimed the veteran after putting a bullet in his head. How on Earth did Goodnight survive after 4 years? Now he's in the condemned hotel called Blackwell. And this hotel got a lot of stories to tell. I thought this movie was haunting as well as interesting. I liked the part where Goodnight checked out one of the girl's tattoo on her back. And Goodnight himself is really deranged thanks to his maniacal mother. If you think Friday the 13th was something, you better think again. This movie will leave you on the edge of you seat. And I think the eyeball rip was bone-chilling. This movie proves it point,and it wasn't a waste of my time. I enjoyed it. The title don't lie! Rating 2.5 out of 5 stars! Kane is a killer named Jacob Goodnight, he lives in this burned down old hotel, where eight teen convicts go to do some cleaning. Most of them die except for 3 of them. In my case it wasn't the best writing or the best ever. I still thought that the killing scenes were really well done. Like when the one girl go eaten by the hungry dogs. The best had to be when he shoved the cell phone down the Blonde Girl's mouth. Kane was a seriously great horror movie actor, he had this serious look the entire movie and it would never change. That was his only look the entire movie. Great action and killing scenes, I don't think I could give it a full 10 out of 10, but 6 seems good. See No Evil With Kane. The Movie Has a great storyline But it just wasn't a Hide my eye's, Scream Out Loud Horror Flick I thought it was going to be from watching the WWE Superstars on Monday Night Raw When The Movie First Came To Theaters. I Did ENJOY The Movie Though I Loved The Story It Played Out.

GREAT MOVIE EXCELLENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PART 2

It Doesn't Matter If Kane Gets Killed At The End

Or Not They Have Killed Off Other Horror Stars In Every Movie

They Have Out And They Still Comeback For More So a part 2 would

Be Very Interesting. This is one of the best horror movies i've seen in a while. An eerie abandon house, interesting characters, gore and a twisted plot. Who could ask for anything more in a horror movie? It is pretty predictable for the most part but then again most horrors you can figure out within the first 10 minutes so I won't hold that against it. The music, camera angles and so forth are excellent. The sets are well make and very convincing. There was pretty much no subplots however, it being a horror movie too many alternate plots only take away from what were wanting from a horror anyhow... To be scared... This one keeps it pretty simple and does just that. If I were to compare it to any other movie I would say it reminded me of the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Definitely a horror movie lover must see. I liked this a lot.

The camera angles are cool, it's not all jumpy like a Blair Witch. And I thought they did a great job with the Sound when we see things from Kane's point of view. Lots of fun. Plenty of people were shouting at the screen!

Kane did a great job with his various psycho emotions. He's a lot less one-dimensional than most horror heroes.

Kane is a lot less scary and more believable than most movie psychos. It was not clear to me how he would react to various situations. There are not many twists here, but it is clever and original in it's own way. Good, creepy, B-movie slasher fare. This movie was so cool! I saw it on a Friday night with a couple of my friends. While the first credits were rolling, we saw that Lionsgate Films had made this movie. They are the ones that made that stupid movie Wolf Creek, which was totally gay! When we saw this, we groaned. We thought it was going to be like Wolf Creek, but we were so wrong! The movie was not only better than Wolf Creek (which really isn't that hard) it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time! They really redeemed themselves with this movie. It was gory, smart, and scary, which are the combinations to an awesome horror movie. Kane is awesome as Jacob Goodnight, and Christina Vidal, Samantha Noble, and Luke Pegler did pretty good jobs as part of a group of delinquents cleaning an old motel. It had some gross scenes, and you actually kinda feel sad for some of the people who die. All in all, a great horror movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night with the lights off and with friends. Just don't watch it in a hotel. I didn't know a lot about this film going into it but I did find out that Kane was a wrestler, which didn't exactly thrill me but hey, I liked "Santa's Slay" and that had a wrestler in it, so what the hell. The story begins very strangely and promisingly but after a while becomes not much more than your typical teen terror slasher flick, although the settings helped some. A bunch of criminal young folks get rounded up and taken to an old hotel that used to be a luxury palace but is now a dump, to clean it up to prepare it as a homeless shelter. The driver is a man with a prosthetic arm, being a veteran of the opening scene of this movie wherein he encounters this big galoot that had just killed his partner and blinded another woman. The teens, all being punk smart-asses, all of course object to having to do any real work, but they're part of some unique co-ed work program, yep, what a great idea that is, of course. Little does anyone suspect that there is someone lurking there in the hotel that in his own little way will save the tax payers of that state some money. Of course, it's the guy that likes to collect eyeballs, and he's got quite a collection going. There won't be a lot here that horror fans haven't seen before but there's a few brutal scenes and sufficient gore to satisfy the hard-core fan. The setting of the old hotel makes a perfect spot for a slasher flick too, and there's little sub-stories, like the search for an alleged safe full of money and the search for babes, since this co-ed work crew is evenly matched. Most of the teens are deservingly killable too so that works well. Not great but far better than Silent Hill or When A Stranger calls, and perhaps better than some of the other crap that I wouldn't bother to see. 7 out of 10. Okay I marked this spoiler so don't be upset when I wrap this up. Now I went into the movie expecting to see a very predictable movie. And I was right, as almost every horror flick I have ever seen it was predictable but not as bad as most. What helped was the story, I did not expect there to be a "WHY" to Kane's madness. But there was and while somewhat foggy you still got the idea and understand the madness. Now of course if you like something that will scare you for nights to come this is not the movie your looking for. But if your a fan of Saw, or some other movies that claim their fame thanks to sadistic content this is a movie to watch. Now where I really throw in a spoiler for a second warning. I give this movie a 9 perhaps because I'm a fan of the WWE and a fan of Kane, but who doesn't like a movie a little bit better when it stars somebody we love. However this movie could have scored a 10 for me IF. . . (spoiler)----> at the end of the movie when it showed Kane dead on the pavement. While a dog pissing in his eye was "CUTE" it could have been classic with the Kane/Undertaker quick sit up and turn of the head. A perfect 10 would have been awarded if that would have happened. It was a perfect opportunity, but either the WWE didn't think of that or a future sequel will begin with that very sequence I mentioned. That's all. (9) My taste in films continues to astound me and probably infuriate readers of my reviews but to each their own and I have a weak spot for crazy horror, slasher flicks and See No Evil happens to be exactly that and more!! I think that the biggest mistake made by producers and film makers of this film is that they hype it as a WWE film and "starring" KANE. WWE might have a big following but it's a very, very specific group that follow the incredibly cheesy and (sorry folks) kind of trailer park "sport" and those who don't love it HAATTTE IT!! It would make them steer clear of an otherwise typical gory slasher flick that people would come out in droves to see. See No Evil doesn't break ANY new horror ground, it's exactly play by play typical horror with some over the top, horrific bloody scenes that honestly make your screen crawl. They really drive it home and go for gratuitous violence just cause. There is no psychological aspect exactly although being chased by this monster has some fear elements to it.

KANE (the wrestler) also known as Glen Jacobs plays religiously and physically tortured man Jacob Goodnight. He's the ultimate cross between Leatherface, and Jason Voorhees. He's not an original killer and even his kills don't really go for the unique or original with the major exception of choking a girl to death by forcing her to swallower her cell phone...yeeeeah!! He does a good job and the man is legitimately enormous!! He stands at 7 feet tall and without any special effects is monstrous!! Tiffany Lamb, Penny McNamee, Samantha Noble, Michael J. Pagan, Luke Pegler, Christina Vidal, Rachael Taylor all play the typical group of "think they are invincible" partying teens who will unwillingly become victim to the serial killer. The story is that in exchange for a month off their detention sentence for petty crimes ranging from theft to drug possession, they are sent to an old hotel to do "community service " by fixing it up. Turns out a serial killer lives upstairs and he's removing his victims eyes to cleanse them of their sins. Luke Pegler stands out as a scum bag who in the end becomes a hero of sorts even saving his ex-girlfriend who he used to beat up on. The rest of them all play their perspective roles quite well but it isn't a great stretch of acting ability.

Sadly Porn director...yes PORN...Gregory Dark, does a good job putting together the modern day slasher flick. He even goes into a bit of history with the killer and although his back story is not unique either, in fact it's a little stale it's still interesting enough. And in the few shots where the film goer is actually seeing through the killer's eyes, it's interesting to hear the voices and see things distorted like he does. He throws in the obligatory soft core nude shot, and the grotesque, blood soaked scenes and turns everything up a notch. It fits nicely and for a horror fan like myself it's entertaining. Kane's serial killer is horrifying and he stalks them all down with brutal intelligence and a silent horror. The film is being panned and crapped on and I don't blame anyone because it's pretty crappy but isn't that the point?? It's a horror film and I thought it was exactly what it should be. It made me jump, it made me cringe, it even made ME turn away at several parts...impressive by any standards. It's entertaining, with a decent story, and plenty of set up to serialize See No Evil until the 15th installment if they wanted to and I say bring it on!! It's true the film is full of plot holes, laughable details but the deadly gore and horror over rides it all. It all comes down to do you love horror films?? Really love them?? If yes then you'll think this is a terrific slasher...if not...you'll hate it...plain and simple. 8.5/10 Honestly, when I went to see this movie at the Rave theater in Plainfield Indiana, I did not expect much. I went to this movie only because I figured hey, it's a WWE movie it'll be good for a laugh. Then I sat down and watched it and saw why they chose Glen Jacobs (Kane) to play Jacob Goodnight. He is probably one of the freakiest guys on the big screen (much worse in my opinion than Freddy or Jason) and has one big advantage to other movies that attracts me to a horror movie. It shows Jacob Goodnight as someone who is human. He has a heart, no matter how twisted and creepy it is. He feels pain, something that Jason never does or appears to show. He feels sorrow and pleasure, though again both of them insane which you will notice if you see the movie. All in all, a different experience in my opinion than many slashers, and it surprised me in a few ways, as in who lived in the end. With Nurse Betty (2000), acclaimed indie film-maker Neil LaBute (In the Company of Men, Your Friends & Neighbors) makes his breakthrough into the big-budgeted (Betty's $24 million as opposed to Company's measly $25,000), mainstream realm -- and yet remains true to his roots. While his cast is now composed of A-list Hollywood names (Renee Zellweger, Morgan Freeman, and stand-up comedian Chris Rock), his material remains just as bizarre and quirky as his first two features, proving that he just may be the next big thing. Nurse Betty is one of the darkest comedies to be advertised towards a mainstream audience in years, and considering its moderate box office and critical success, perhaps moviegoers weren't as dumb and brainwashed as we though they were. The story follows (both figuratively AND literally) a naive waitress (Zellweger) who has fallen in love from afar with a handsome soap star (As Good As It Gets's Greg Kinnear) but is trapped in a loveless marriage to a slimy car dealer (Aaron Eckhart, who made his big-screen debut in Company). When her husband is gruesomely murdered by two hitmen (Freeman and Rock), she's sent into shock and obliviously sets out for Hollywood to meet her object of affection -- unaware that he's only an actor. When Freeman and Rock discover that the car she took contains 10 kilos of cocaine, they hit the road as well and outrageousness ensues. Fans of LaBute's previous work might have a hard time figuring out how this could possibly be the same guy who directed In the Company of Men -- a tragicomedy about two cruel sexist pigs who play a practical joke on a deaf co-worker --, but when you think about it, the connection is rather clear: in Company, a vulnerable woman is unaware that she is being ruthlessly taken advantage of. In Betty, a vulnerable housewife is unaware that the man she's chasing thinks her genuine adoration is nothing more than a joke. Some might begin to wonder if LaBute is really some sort of misogynist himself -- considering that his recurring theme involves the downfall of innocent women. But personally, I think he's coming to the defense of the fair sex and dealing far more harshly with the abusers in his pictures than the abused. One of the many charms of this film is that it's absurdity is full-fledged: most directors, when handling a script such as this one, would leave the story at two hitmen chasing a woman chasing a dream. But LaBute knows better, and has one of the hitmen (Freeman) fall obsessively for Betty as well. This was an interesting role for Freeman to take, because it allowed him to play off of his trademark `this-is-the-last-time' character (see Unforgiven, Se7en, and 1998's stinker Hard Rain); the supporting cast also includes the likes of famed weirdo Crispin Glover (Back to the Future), Allison Janney, and `Mad About You's Kathleen Wilhoite. The script, written by first-timers John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is deliriously over-the-top (honestly: have you ever seen a comedy -- or ANY movie, for that matter -- in which a man is scalped in his own dining room?). You could argue that the ending is a little too perfect, but it's really not worth denying everything that's great about the film for one trivial complaint. If Nurse Betty is any sign of what LaBute has in store for us next, you can bet that I'll be lining up for whatever he decides to follow it up with.

Grade: A- Nurse Betty is really an interesting movie. I guess we all know someone who is so convinced that the characters in a soap opera are real, that you can't explain them with any means that these are just actors and not real persons.

'Nurse Betty' isn't a nurse at all. In real life she is an ordinary housewife who works at a diner. To escape from her awful husband and the problems in her miserable life, she has become a very dedicated fan of a soap opera. After she witnessed her husband being murdered, she goes into some kind of a shock and she loses all grip on reality. She thinks she's in love with one of the characters from the soap opera, a doctor, and decides that she'll visit him and start a family with him. The hit men however think that she knows too much and go after her to kill her.

As I already said, the subject is quite recognizable (if you leave the professional hit men and the murder out of it) and the movie was funny. The story was well directed and the actors did a fine job. It had everything I always want to see when watching a comedy. I give it a 7.5/10. Neil LaBute takes a dramatic turn from his first two films, In The Company of Men & Your Friends and Neighbors, with this funny and original thriller/comedy/road movie. When Betty (Renee Zellwegger) witnesses the brutal murder of her no-good husband (Aaron Eckhart), she develops a bizarre sort of amnesia, and flees in his car, not knowing that there is large stash of drugs in the trunk. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are the hit men who follow her.

What Betty is chasing, besides a new beginning (although she can't remember the old life) is her beloved, Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Only problem: Dr. David isn't real, he's a soap opera character on the show `A Reason To Love' and he's really an egotistical actor named George McCord.

To say any more regarding what develops would be too much, but Nurse Betty is certainly original. Its hit men are, like the hired killers of Pulp Fiction, are violent yet philosophical, its take on soap operas terrific spoof material, and its acting is the best feature of all. This has to be one of the best cast films in recent years. Renee Zellwegger is perfect for Nurse Betty, with the constant gleam in her eye that pushes her in her quest. Morgan Freeman brings his constant state of grace to the role of a killer at the end of his career, and Chris Rock is his partner, a man of rage and great impatience. Greg Kinnear is at his comic best as the vain actor/soap opera doctor. There are also great supporting performances from actors such as Emmy-winner Allison Janney (The West Wing), Harriet Sansom Harris (Frasier's agent Bebe Glazer), and Kathleen Wilhoite (Chloe on ER). Actually, the supporting cast is a Who's Who of television best character actors.

A unique film that is funny one moment and chilling the next, Nurse Betty is a mix of great acting, casting, and a terrific screenplay. I'm not sure why I picked for a borrow from mom for "Nurse Betty". I think just because I had heard a little bit of this movie. But I'm glad I did. "Nurse Betty" is an original and clever movie that has humor and a darker side.

This was one of Renee's first big one's before hitting it major in Hollywood. I can see why, she is an incredible actress. The scene where she finally realizes what had happened and she's on the set of her favorite soap opera, you can see pain, confusion, fear, and embarrassment on her face. Just to let you in on the movie, she plays Betty. A shy and insecure woman who stands by her abusive husband, she's a waitress, and is in love with soap operas, especially one where a certain cute doctor, Dr. Dave Revell. When she happens to see her husband's murder accidentally in separate room, the murders she notices are two customers she just had, Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock. She then just looses her mind and leaves town after talking to he police and says she needs to find her former fiancée, Dr. Dave Revell. So, she travels along the country to California to find Dr. Revell, and wants a job as a nurse to work with Dave, she's seen the show so many times, somehow she's just awesome at being a nurse when she saves a woman's brother. Despite everyone telling her that she is delusional, she just looks at them like as if they were the crazy one's. When she meets the actor who plays Dave Revell, George(his real name) thinks she's just a crazy fan trying to get on the show. She just looks at him with confusion and believes that he and her belong together.

Renee was terrific, she was so believable on loosing her mind in the movie. She has come such a long way, and wither you want to admit it or not, she's adorable and a great actress.

Morgan Freeman plays one of the assassin's, Charlie, who is the father of the two. He is so charmed and smittened by Betty and while chasing her around the country, he becomes almost just infatuated with Betty to the point where he almost falls in love with her. He and his son Wesley must find Betty when they find out she was there at the murder scene and could give away their identities. When Charlie sees Betty and catches her finally, she's scarred at first, but calms down and they know they have a real connection. It was a beautifully played scene, my opinion is that Morgan gave a stronger performance. He's just great.

A surprisingly decent performance by Chris Rock, the son, Wesley. He is so "gun"-ho about just getting the job done in a rush and taking care of business. I loved his comedic performance at the end where he and the gang he's holding hostage by gun point are just watching the soap opera's together. Classic. "Nurse Betty" is a great movie that I'd recommend for a good laugh and just in all a nice honest little movie I think anyone could enjoy.

9/10 As Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) secretly watches her tyrannical husband Del (Aaron Eckhart) being murdered by the vengeful hitmen Charlie and Wesley (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), her bruised sense of reality becomes totally immersed in the fantasy world of her favorite soap opera. In a state of complete denial and delusion, Betty escapes both physically and mentally from her unsatisfied, small town life to search for "Dr. David Ravell" (Greg Kinnear), the handsome and loving hero of "A Reason to Love", a soap opera set in a hospital and produced in Los Angeles. Immune to reality, Betty arrives in L.A. and becomes "Nurse Betty" as she tries to belong in the hospital world of her dream lover. Meanwhile, the angered Charlie and Wesley track Betty down, convinced she is a dangerous witness who also knows about their compromising dealings with Del.

Nurse Betty creates comedy and suspense by contrasting its main character's extreme innocence and optimism with the evident hypocrisy and violence that surround her. By clearly defining the protagonist's difficult life, Nurse Betty justifies its character's tendency to turn away from reality. Thus, while offering a comment about the popularity of the soap opera within the film, Nurse Betty also makes a comment regarding the widespread addiction to television and its celebrities. In addition, Nurse Betty benefits from the effective manipulation of its protagonist's mental state, particularly in those scenes where she cannot distinguish between "Dr. David Ravell", the character, and George McCord (Greg Kinnear), the actor who plays him. Betty's incapacity to recognize George as an actor leads to funny misunderstandings, which stress the magnitude of her delusional state. However, in spite of these successes, Nurse Betty suffers from the troubling characterizations through which the narration evolves. For example, while Charlie and Wesley are consistently portrayed as a comical pair, the brutality of their actions undermines any sense of appreciation or acceptance the viewer might have initially experienced. Similarly, although the initial scenes establish Del as a detestable man, the humiliation and violence he experiences with his murderers surpass all the humiliation and violence he caused his wife Betty.

Finally, toward the end of the film, Charlie undergoes awkward transformations as he develops an obsession for Betty; an obsession which results in noble feelings of love, and which ultimately destroys him. Consequently, since the characters' roles as victims lack consistency, the story's victimization processes seem random and unsubstantial. All in all, Nurse Betty's indeterminacy --rather than creating suspense-- weakens its characters and pollutes its plot.

Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) lives her life through soap Opera "A Reason to Love" as a way to escape her slob husband and dull life. After a shocking incident involving two hit men (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), Betty goes into shock and travels to LA, believing that she is destined to marry the show's main character (Greg Kinnear).

Nurse Betty is that rare thing, a lesser known film with an all-star cast and a fluffy Rom-Com plot that surprises with it's terrific script and spot on acting. Indeed, such a plot makes one question the R rating, but it's warranted all right. The shocking incident that sends Betty over the edge is a tad too graphic compared to the light, amusing comedy that is to come and feels like something out of a different movie, but at the same time it is necessary to believably show Betty's transformation into the doe eyed, lovable nut job she becomes.

As we go along with Betty on her journey, director Neil LaBute works some extraordinary magic which makes the movie unique and high above your bog standard comedy of error. An example of this would be Betty's first meeting with her crush. She pours her heart out to him and he plays along, thinking she's auditioning for a part on the show. Even as we are aware of the ludicrous nature of Betty's ramblings, the music swells as she speaks, giving us, the audience, Betty's emotional perspective. We almost believe what she is saying, yet we understand that her mind is fractured. Whereas other filmmakers would try to accent the ridiculousness of the situation to wring every ounce of possible comedy out of the scene, LaBute is sensitive to his main character and treats her with the utmost sympathy and understanding.

The banter between the hit men played by Freeman and Rock is priceless, the excellent script doling out clever line after clever line for them to riff off of. Freeman in particular is excellent as always, pacing himself as his character slowly and blindly falls in love with his own ideal of Betty, not even truly knowing who she is or what has happened to her. Aaron Eckhart once again shows versatility in the thankless role of Betty's no-good husband and he is almost unrecognisable. The other revelation here is Kinnear, whose portrayal of the soap's star is not too overcooked. There's a tendency to lay on the celebrity bastard cliché as thickly as possible, and Kinnear resists, instead imbuing him with a pompous yet restrained self importance, despite simply being a soap star.

The soap opera is realised so well, it could almost exist. LaBute and co hit the nail on the head with this one and a good thing too. If the soap opera had been too satirical, a large part of the film would not have worked. To do a "Days of Our Lives" spoof as seen in Friends would have been the wrong move for this movie. The dedication to detail pays off, as the style and feel of the soap opera begins to bleed into Betty's reality more and more, while keeping with the overall unintentionally comedic aspect of the genre. The scenes on the set feel real, as opposed to some films in which the atmosphere feels so manufactured, you wondered why people who do it for a living can't get it right.

The neat resolution of the final act, while being a tad predictable, is wholly satisfying overall. It's a shame that after LaBute directed this wonderful film, the mainstream came calling for him to direct the abysmal remake of The Wicker Man, a fine example of a man so totally above the material given to him. Unfortunately, one cannot absolve him of all responsibility.

If you haven't seen Nurse Betty, it's something to discover. If you have, it's worth a re-visit. There is a charm to Nurse Betty that is infectious, even if it may not leave you thinking that much afterwards. A hidden gem nonetheless. Renee Zellweger is Betty, a Kansas waitress who wants to be a nurse, who is infatuated with a soap opera actor (Greg Kinnear), and who is married to Del, a cheating, stupid male chauvinist who's trying to sell some stolen drugs. Unfortunately for him, he gets brutally, bloodily murdered instead, while Betty secretly watches. It leaves her unhinged, believing that Kinnear is really the character he plays, Dr. David Ravell, and that she is his RN ex-fiancée. She heads for LA to find her lost love, not knowing the stolen drugs are in her trunk. Pursuing her are Charlie and Wesley (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock respectively), the hit men who inadvertently killed Del before they found out where the drugs were hidden. They pursue her across the country, while Charlie gradually falls in love with his image of her.

And in LA, things get totally bizarre, as no one realizes that Betty is delusional. Alternately funny and touching, this movie is almost perfect. Stop reading commentaries and go see it. Minor spoilers follow, but nothing you won't have learned from reading the back of the DVD.

Held together by a wonderful central performance from Renée Zellweger, Nurse Betty is a dark yet deceptively good-natured comedy.

Suffering from an emotional and mental breakdown after witnessing her sleazy husband's murder, already-troubled and desperately unhappy waitress Betty becomes convinced a character on her favourite daytime soap is her long-lost fiancé and sets off from Kansas to Hollywood to find him.

Instead of making jokes at the expense of Betty's mental state, writer John C. Richards is very sympathetic, with Zellweger portraying her as a lost innocent, not entirely helpless but tragically vulnerable nonetheless. Crucially she's never really a victim despite this and while she undoubtedly suffers horribly the motives of the characters who treat her poorly are all understandable - even Greg Kinnear as the object of her deluded affections may be an egotistical, blinkered, arrogant pig but he genuinely believes that she's merely a quirky wannabe actress with bags of talent rather than an insane stalker.

The farcical ending where all the main protagonists descend on the same place (in this instance Betty's house) at the same time to have it out is as old as cinema itself but it works quite well here, even if the shift in tone is unfortunate.

Zellweger is ably supported by Kinnear and Morgan Freeman both doing solid work, and it's especially pleasing to see Chris Rock show restraint in his earlier scenes.

Not nearly as cruel as you might expect, and not at all mean-spirited, Nurse Betty - while far from being a laugh riot - is a solid entertainment elevated to something considerably more by the lead actress. Renee Zellweger is a Kansas housewife whose domineering husband is mixed up in drug trafficking. Two professional hit men -- Morgan Freeman and his son, Chris Rock, murder the husband in his dining room. Zellweger, unobserved by the killers, witnesses this and undergoes a dissociative reaction, assuming the personality of a nurse -- the eponymous Betty -- who is a character in her favorite soap opera. Believing herself to be the TV character, Zellweger takes off in her husband's car, which has a load of dope in the trunk, and travels to LA where she hopes to link up with another character in this mindless afternoon drama, "Dr. David Ravell", Greg Kinnear. Not realizing she is being pursued by the two hit men, she drives to LA where she manages to link up with Kinnear and is actually written into the show as a nurse named Betty. A handful of men in the know, including the local sheriff, catch on to what's happening and also seek Zellweger in LA. The ending is believable and poignant.

If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. And it's the writer's responsibility, John C. Richards. The curious thing is that Richards and the director, Neil Labute, with considerable help from the performers, just about pull it all off. This isn't a plot that has been cast in a familiar mold. Nope. I give it bonus points for sheer originality. Somebody went out on a limb. Somebody took a chance on a movie that was NOT a copy or remake of something that had made money ten years or fifty years ago. I imagine the people involved, down on their knees every night, praying fervently. I don't know if the film was remunerative but it's mostly successful on its own aesthetic terms.

It's what might be called an "initial premise" movie. You start off with a single transformative event, in this case the murder of Zellweger's husband and her adoption of a genuinely new personality, and follow the resultant logical paths realistically. "Groundhog Day" is another, better and more intricately plotted, example. "Nurse Betty" has its logical cracks, where the incidents give up their plausibility. Eg., at a party in LA, Zellweger finally runs into Kinnear, the guy who plays her ex-fiancé on TV. She's stunned (because, after all, she thinks she's Betty, who lost her fiancé long ago). She approaches Kinnear and a couple of his colleagues and introduces herself as "Nurse Betty", the character. She addresses Kinnear by the name of his TV character, "David Ravell." The group are puzzled at first, then convince themselves that she's an aspiring actress who insists on staying "in character" during the conversation -- and afterward, too, after Kinnear has become fascinated by her and the others bored. Kinnear drives her home and even when she kisses him goodnight, she's still in character, leaving Kinnear wide-eyed with astonishment at the relentless way she captures the character of Betty. On the next date, Kinnear returns her love. That development, the relationship between Zellweger and Kinnear at this point, is a crack in the logic, the kind that's absent from "Groundhog Day." By the end of Night One, Kinnear, like any other person, would realize that Zellweger is a few clowns short of a circus.

The rest of the film, which includes many digressions, succeeds beyond expectations. The relationship between Morgan Freeman and his insolent, nihilistic son is marvelously spelled out. Morgan is flawless in his exasperation. He manages to fall in love with the image of Zellweger as he unearths clues to her whereabouts and activities, and at the end he can't bring himself to shoot her. She's too sweet to shoot. After her transformation into Betty, she left a note behind in Kansas. "I want to help all life, whether it be animal, plant, or mineral." Who could harm the author of such a preposterous connative statement? His admiration of her comes as an epiphany, as he stands near one of the floodlights at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Zellweger, dressed as Dorothy, or maybe the Good Witch of the East -- well, characters that, like Zellweger, are from Kansas anyway -- appears to Freeman and he embraces her and kisses her tenderly. It's a scene that's at once eerie, romantic, and a little spooky. I once stood at one of those lights and threw some shredded paper into the updraft from the dark canyon and found myself surrounded by a thousand swirling bats who had misperceived the fluttering shreds as moths.

Right. Where was I? Okay. I was trying not to run out of space. Zellweger's performance deserves plaudits. Everything she does, every movement, every utterance, is naive and tentative. She really IS a likable character -- and that despite the fact that she's no glamor girl by Hollywood standards. But -- what an actress. Compare her performance as the bumptious 19th-century hick in "Cold Mountain." Just the opposite. But then everyone is up to snuff in this enjoyable film. Allyson Jannings does a fine job in a minor role. Watch her when she tells Greg Kinnear that she's considering killing off his character in the soap opera in a drowning accident. Kinnear is one of those narcissists who wears the kind of ten-thousand dollar thin black leather jackets that were popular at the time. He chuckles and says, "Oh, one of those castaway deals, right? Okay, how do I get back?" Jannings doesn't answer. She just smiles at him with those enormous blue eyes and tilts her head mockingly.

Not a masterpiece of film-making but a good, original, professional job by everyone concerned. This is the story of a guy who went up to see a comedy and it turned out to be a horror movie. The true story of a guy who's infatuated with pictures and got scared when he identified himself unexpectedly with one of them. The unbelievable story of A GUY who got scarier when the female-hero was deluding herself as well as the male-villain. Gosh, is this what life made us be? People deluding themselves about the perfect face imagining how that face should be perfect inside? "Toto, I think we're not in Kansas anymore". If I'd only seen the poster for Nurse Betty, I probably wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But after I heard some positive buzz, and knowing it made some noise at Cannes, I decided to give it a try. What I got is a truly enjoyable movie, based on a very entertaining plot. Rene Zelleweger is impressive in her role as ‘nurse' Betty, a woman who is sent into a delusional psychotic episode following a traumatic experience. I also liked Morgan Freeman (no surprise) and was pleasantly surprised by foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock.

The film bounces continuously between comedy, drama, romance, and thriller. Yet despite this apparent identity crisis, it holds up quite well. I found my eyes glued to the screen from beginning to end always waiting for the next twist in the story. The entire cast is strong, if not spectacular.

My only real complaint is that director Neil Labute (who made a splash a few years ago with the very impressive and dark ‘In the Company of Men') relied much too heavily on many cliched Hollywood conventions. The mood-creating musical effects he crammed down our throats during each sentimental scene were unbearable! And he did the standard old "let's take some of the minor characters and pair them up at the end in an illogical and unnecessary romance" trick, just to make absolutely certain everyone goes home with a smile on their face. Why must directors and writers treat their audiences like idiots??

But the movie is still much too enjoyable to be dragged down very far by these annoying irritations. In a very subpar year for movies, 'Nurse Betty' ranks as one of the more pleasant surprises of 2000. 8 out of 10. I was mighty impressed with Nurse Betty all the way through. It has a great ensemble of characters, an origional plot, and an ending I shoulda seen coming but didn't and pulls at your heart strings.

If theres any one thing about this movie that got me the most it was Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock's interaction. These two are great and it warms my heart to see Rock isn't going to do crappy Big Hollywood fare like Lethal Weapon 4 for the rest of his life. Freeman is as always the man, really there shouldnt be any need to critique his work anymore. Hell, Kiss the Girls was watchable with him in it.

Renee Zellwegger does the best she can with her role, and Kinnear is good as her obession.

Sweet movie with a nice touch of gratuitous violence in it to satisfy the bloodlust of the male. 9 outa 10

Renee Zellweger absolutely shines as Nurse Betty, easily one of the most charming, off-beat, and lighthearted comedies of the year.

When soap opera obsessed waitress Betty Sizemore witnesses her insensitive husband's murder by two hitmen (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), she snaps and thinks the cast members on A Reason to Love are real. She decides to travel to Los Angeles to find famed heart specialist Dr. David Ravell (a character on the show).

As the two oddly paired Hitmen, the caustic Rock and the pontificating Freeman generate some very fun chemistry, and Greg Kinnear also has fun with his smarmy offscreen actor persona. Renee Zellweger turns in an innocent, candy-coated, and sometimes terribly sweet performance as Nurse Betty. She exudes goodness, warmth, and is irresistible. While the script sometimes feels like a sit-com, is filled with sometimes unbelievable characters and contrived situations, Zellweger is so likeable and so utterly disarming that it all comes together.

With just a few splashes of black comedy to keep things interesting, a winning performance from Zellweger, a great supporting cast and a competent script, Nurse Betty is utterly delightful.

7 out of 10 *spoiler* *spoilers* *spoilers* I found the film amusing.It was weird and I enjoy it,I laughed a lot so the bottom line is that I recommend the film.However I have problems with what LaBute wanted to say.The plot is very simple.Betty(Renee Zellweger), a hard life house wife watch her husband being murdered and while having forgotten everything she had seen,she follow her "true love" for a soap series character,Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Simple enough but not enough to hold a 95 minutes film. And here comes the big question.What is the film all about? The reference to "The Wizard of Oz" is obvious.Betty and Dorothy are both from Kansas however while Dorothy come at the end of that film to the conclusion that "there is no place like home", Betty doesn't come to any conclusion and by the end of the film we are left wonder what has she learned from her experience and the answer is simply nothing.It seems not to affect her at all.

Than is the film about the different between reality and fantasy? could be,but the scenes that are dealing with this subject are short and serve no more than a joke and not as a serious plot line that can take the film to other places.(and by the way "The Truman Show" dealt with this subject in a much better way).

The film could be about obsession.Betty is obsessed with the soap series and Charlie(Morgan Freeman) is obsessed with Betty.LaBute show two sides of obsession and he seems to forget that obsession,in any form is dangerous,and should be condemned.He seems to have sympathy to Betty's obsession because he sees it as a harmless one.

All a long the film we have scenes that in itself could have been a subject for a whole film,but are left for us to think about without that they will have impact on the characters.

The ending is simply a make -up that has nothing to do with what we saw before.It's a shame because the film could have been sharper if he would have concentrate in one or two subjects.As it is,it's about a lot but actually say nothing.

What we are left with is the feeling that we have seen a little film,amusing and weird that could have been much much more. Well, okay, maybe not perfect, but it was pretty close. This movie jumped from crime drama to romantic goofball comedy and back again so quickly all the way throughout that it seemed like two different movies that played simultaneously and then joined up again at the end. But they did it smoothly, and some in the theater found the bloody parts (like the scalping scene) to be funny as well. I just about threw up, but I guess that's just me. Greg Kinear is perfect as a soap opera actor. He has the ability to perform those over-dramatic soap scenes with just the right facial expressions and voice intonations. His scenes with Betty seem like something out of "Sleepless in Seattle" or some other romantic comedy like that. You almost forget that Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are searching Betty down. Morgan Freeman's fascination with Betty was rather creepy, considering that he could practically be her grandfather, but the scenes where he is conversing with her photograph are definitely worth a few laughs! Chris Rock's performance seems rather wooden, but he has his moments. Renee Zellweger is so sweet as Betty, the lovable waitress with the crude, unfaithful husband who treats her like dirt. It's very unlikely that she would have actually gotten a job at a hospital without any real credentials, but, hey, it's a movie, just go along with it! Her roommate, Rosa, shines as well, as a woman who cares about Betty, but doesn't quite know how to deal with Betty's sickness. And, lastly, there is Crispin Glover. As a fan of his, I, naturally, thought that the movie could have been funnier had he been in it more. No one else has the same style of acting that Crispin has, and the argument between Chris Rock, Crispin, and the sheriff about the soap opera is hilarious. I guess I'm saying that I liked this movie quite a bit! If you can stomach blood, violence, and a lot of foul language, it's worth the watch and will give you plenty of laughs! I have just seen a very original film that I would recommend to everyone including `the young & the restless.' However, I guess some of the profanity, violence, and sexual innuendo in the movie are not suitable for `all your children.' Anyways before the sand fills up the hourglass, let me tell you the name of the film: `Nurse Betty.' Renee Zellweger stars as Betty. She is a Kansas waitress who falls under a trance, and thinks she is a real life character of her favorite soap opera. Because of this, she goes on a journey to Los Angeles to reunite with her supposed soap opera character lover Dr. Rubell. To add fuel to the fire, she is also being chased by some ruthless `one life not to live' hitmen who think she has stolen their drugs. You could say that is how Nurse Betty spends `the days of her life' throughout the movie. This very `ungeneral' situation eventually leads her to the `hospital' set of her beloved soap opera. However, the only problem is that Betty thinks this is all real. It is like her mind is in `another world.' Ok! Enough! I will wipe off my mouth with soap and not mention any more soap names. I have already registered my vote for Renee as a best actress oscar nominee. Also, Greg Kinnear's performance as Dr. Rubell was as good as it gets in his acting biography. To sum it up, my final diagnosis is that everyone should call in for `Nurse Betty.' ***** Excellent Nurse Betty has that odd but winning combination of a repellent, unease-inducing plot with extraordinary characters. In the same way I loathed Fargo on first viewing, then realized I was still thinking about it days later and enjoying it somehow, I liked Nurse Betty a lot more the day after I saw it. Hard to understand, harder to explain. As others have said, it's quite forced in many ways, but that seems to be part of what makes it so striking.

Fair job by Greg Kinnear, great work from Morgan Freeman (although I worry that he's being stereotyped as the principled villain). Chris Rock was good but not a standout. Rene Z. is so natural it's unnerving -- i.e., unnerving to be "natural" playing someone not well in the head. Also liked the sort of "abrasive sparkle" performance from Allison Janney in a small part.

Don't go expecting as much of a "road movie" as you might assume from some synopses. (There is "road," but it's only barely relevant.) Rated 8/10. I've seen 'nurse betty' twice in september 2000 on the international film festival 'films by the sea' in vlissingen, the netherlands. It impressed me so much that I kept on smiling the whole day after I watched it for the first time and almost all evening again when I took the movie as the final taste of the festival. What I knew about 'nurse betty' was in short that renée zellweger would play a girl in love with a soap-opera-star. But what I saw was much more than that! Splendid roles for morgan freeman, chris rock ànd renée zellweger. A strange mix of romance, violence and roadmovie. And for all a story that takes other directions every moment you think you're on the track. Many soap-opera-lovers will love 'nurse betty' - the movie as well as the character!!! - but they can bring all there non-soap friends, 'cause they will enjoy the story even more for the hard and humorous lines - freeman and rock - for the cruel scenes, the thriller-aspects and for the beautiful pictures. And I'm quite sure that at the end everyone will love 'nurse betty' for her captivating and innocent charm!!! Goof: Factual error

When Charlie walks out of the room to commit suicide he takes his gun with a silencer. After a few seconds we hear a loud bang from the same gun being fired. A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?

The answer become less clear as the film goes on.

Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.

This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.

Chris Rock – though as foul-mouthed as usual – is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.

There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz' – then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, ‘Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having ‘a whole Doris Day thing going on.'

This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.

It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.

If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman. Flawless writing and brilliant acting make this unusually delightful and witty plot-twister one of the best American films I have seen this year. Neil Labute's terrific casting and cynical direction keeps this film from becoming too sentimental while Renée Zellweger and Morgan Freeman's authentic performances give it a soul. Violent, provocative and humorous at the same time with a truly wonderful ending. Chris Rock, Greg Kinnear Aaron Eckhart, Crispin Glover and Allison Janney all give uproarious, tongue in cheek performances. The greatest spoof of soap operas since the movie Soap, but better and smarter. 9 out of 10. This movie just might make you cooooo. The film was WELL worth the dark trip to town. Betty (Renee Zellweger)is the lone "acceptable" soap groupie out there. Her character is SO charming and SO convincing that you find yourself in forgiveness over her being such a goof. I might even allow myself to get lost in Bettys' adorable fantasy, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Ravell's real name is George... And speak of the devil; "looker" Greg Kinnear fills his role VERY well. While Charlie (Morgan Freeman) makes you wish for his wish to come true, Wesley (Chris Rock) makes you want to tie him to a chair. And Rosa(Tia Texada)takes you back to those luminous grade-school friendships. The sheriff encourages you to feed him donuts and loose his name. The remainder of the cast fits well. Never one to do the same movie twice, Nurse Betty is the exception. One of these long, cold, needing to smile about something winter days. Nurse Betty was definitely one of the most creative movies that's been released lately. It was funny, but it also had many touching moments. Zellwegger, Freeman, Rock, Kinnear, & the rest of the cast made their incredibly weird characters seem real. The story took such twist & turns that made it incredibly enjoyable to watch. If you're sick of the recent formula movies, see Nurse Betty for something completely different. Go see this movie in the theater or at least rent it when it comes out! After a summer full of retreads and disappointments, Nurse Betty is a breath of fresh air. The film is like no other I have ever seen. Director Neil LaBute proves that he can direct more then disturbing pictures of men and women and how they approach sex (his previous two films were the brillant In the Company of Men, and the almost brillant Your Friends and Neighbors). Renee Zellweger gives the best performance of her career as Betty, a waitress who, when she witnessing the brutal death of her asshole husband (LaBute mainstay Aaron Eckhart), and gets lost in a fantasy world. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock play the hitmen who killed her husband and are now on her trial. The trick to the film is that Freeman and Zellweger are really parallel characters. While Zellweger falls in love with the image of the handsome and polite Dr. Dave Ravell on a soap opera, Freeman idealizes Betty. Nurse Betty is a brillant film, full of life, humor, love and graphic violence. My Grade: 10/10. "Nurse Betty" is the kind of movie you can't describe on a poster or in a trailer or commericial. It's the kind of movie that you walk in to expecting a more mature "Dumb and Dumber" what with temporarily insane waitress goes on a cross country adventure while avoiding crooks trying to kill her.

The fact is, this film is a wonderful, heartwarming tale about two people chasing their dreams. The best part about "Nurse Betty" is it's unpredictability. Director Neil LaBute uses brutal violence to seperate dreams from reality, and along with the touching drama, and hilarious comedy, you can never tell what is going to happen next. This film, released in 1951, has the usual elements typical of the westerns released during the 50's; the cavalry needing to protect the territory from a murderous band of Indians, an officer determined to see that task through, and the men with him with various character flaws that he has to merge together into a cohesive unit. This small band must hold on to a fort located close to the Indian village until reinforcements arrive. The Indians know, all to well, that the small band is undermanned, and could be wiped out before the help comes. One major difference for this film, "Only the Valiant", is that it attempts to play out the usual storyline, but at the same time, deliver the message that duty is a paramount concern to be shared by all, even if they don't accept that charge.

Gregory Peck embodies the tight-lipped captain of the troop that has to prevent the Indians from breaking out into the territory. The troopers that he takes with him to the small outpost are the dregs of the troop at the fort; they, in turn, have gripes or weaknesses that cause them to wonder if the captain hasn't taken them out because of their general lack of devotion to a cause. Eventually, the captain and the small band confront the hostiles, and at the same time, each confronts his own flaw. The cast includes western stalwarts such as Ward Bond, Gig Young, Neville Brand, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Warner Anderson.

A sleeper of a film, and a good solid western for fans of this genre. This is a luminously photographed and unusually well-written western by veteran creator of "Rawhide" Charles Marquis Warren. Direcxtor Gordon Douglas is its chief help in this regard. Its strong plot line can be told in a few sentences. A hard-nosed by-the- book, Cavalry officer, Captain Richard Lance, captures a leader of the Indian enemy after a massacre at a fort. He insists on bringing the man back for trial, to be sent toTucson; his commander sends another man to try to take the prisoner for trial and the patrol is wiped out. This means the leader has escaped, and Lance must now lead a second patrol--and he picks the men the fort can most spare, a company of problems-- to defend the advance fort that had been wiped out and save the command from another attack by stopping up the bottleneck pass in that sector. As Lance, young Gregory Peck is quite strong. Other in the large cast of this film which really shows life at a cavalry outpost looking like an army establishment of heterogeneous and quarreling types includes War Bond powerful as a hard-drinking sergeant, Neville Brand and Steve Brodie as troublemakers, Warner Anderson and Lon Chaney Jr. as psychological troublemakers and Gig Young, Art Baker, Herbert Heyes as fellow officers with Nana Bryant as the Colonel's wife. Even Barbara Payton as the love interest gets by in a difficult role; Michael Ansara is the captured war chief, and Jeff Corey plays the Fort's scout. There are really two great scenes in this very-well-made western--the long section at the fort before the last patrol is sent out, and that long patrol to the doomed Ft. Defiant itself. Once at that fort, Peck gets to deliver a grand speech in which at the demand of the men he has lined up for orders, he tells them each why he took them along. reading them their shortcomings one by one; they then tell them why they think he sent his best friend to die in his place take the Indian in instead of going himself-- and he proves them wrong for the remainder of the film by winning his lonely battle through intelligence and courage. The music by Franz Waxman is good, the production qualities admirable; the argument about what would happen if Lance takes the war chief in happens to be true; other than this unsolvable mistake by the central character, this is is great western. it has been a favorite of mine for fifty years. Gregory Peck and Gig Young are competing for the same girl and after Peck sends Young on a very dangerous mission, they blame him for his reasons. Feeling guilty, Peck goes on an almost impossible task of defending a fort, where they are outnumbered by the Indians. Peck chooses for this mission soldiers which he considers to be the scum of the earth and the actors that play these soldiers, Ward Bond, Lon Chaney Jr., Neville Brand among others, are excellent. The script is derived from a novel by Charles Marquis Warren who was a specialist in westerns, as a writer, director and producer. The idea of using this type of men as heroes inspired many films that came out later including "The Dirty Dozen" made in 1967. ...I saw this movie when it first came out in France, in my hometown, 54 years ago, I was nine, and today I still remember each black and white frame, especially the black ones, because it was so tense, scary, those sneaking attacks through that dark pass in the mountain, the two soldiers, prisoners forced to fight each other by their captors, the last battle with the uncovering of the wagon with the Gatling in it firing away, the last fight between Peck and the chief, and the Happy End which let me take back my breath. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to see it again today, it was such a fabulous moment for the kid I was. On the whole one wishes this was a better film, but it has enough flashes of intense power to make it worth while. Peck made this film during the same period that he made The Gunfighter, before he apparently decided he was a monument rather than an actor. A pity! He was a fine actor, perfectly willing to tackle characters that were not very likable, and to do them extremely well. The character he plays here is driven and, when necessary, ruthless. Given the mission the character has been assigned, and the "men" with which to do it, those characteristics are essential.

Without being a spoiler, think of this film as an early, grittier example of The Dirty Dozen genre.

The dialog in this film is a bit ham handed but it is atmospheric and intense and definitely tells a story worth telling. It contains good work by all the character actors and even Barbara Payton turns in a credible performance.

This one isn't often shown on television so your local video store may be the only place to find a copy. Go ahead! Devote an evening to it. It is worth your time! "Only the Valiant" qualifies as a gritty good western. This Gregory Peck cavalry versus the Indians oater is a solemn suicide mission without a trace of humor. Veteran director Gordon Douglas has helmed a grim, harrowing outdoors epic with an ideal cast of tough guys under considerable pressure; even Lon Chaney, Jr., registers superbly as a powerful Arab trooper. Ostensibly, "Colorado Territory" scenarist Edmund H. North & "A Place in the Sun" scribe Harry Brown drew their screenplay from western film maker Charles Marquis Warren's taut novel about a group of die-hard cavalrymen cut off from any escape route who must prevent murderous redskins from launching a devastating raid against helpless white settlers. North and Brown stick to Warren's novel for the most part and the last minute revelation--when it seems that there is no way that our heroes can survive another onslaught of Native Americans—is a corker! This turn-of-the-century tale develops an effective claustrophobic feeling in the second half of the action. Douglas and company take studio bound sets and make them look convincing during the nocturnal hours. The crisp black & white photography of "Going My Way" cinematographer Lionel Linden imbues this western a grim look that accentuates its tension and atmosphere. Actor Michael Ansara, who later played the chief villain in "Guns of the Magnificent Seven," is extremely effective in a small role as the hated Indian leader Tucsos.

"Only the Valiant" opens with over-voice narration by Army Scout Joe Harmony. "This is my stamping ground. I'm a scout for the Army. Had my work cut out for me for a long time. Behind that pass there is the whole 'Pache nation. (There is a graphic of the territory with the Flinthead Mountains stretching across the screen with a bottleneck pass.) They used to come swarming out of the pass killing everything in sights. Then we built a fort—Fort Invincible. It plugged up the pass, just like a cork in a bottle. Things was fine for a while. But them 'Paches is pretty smart. One day the bottle blew the cork plum apart." We are shown the burning remains of Fort Invincible with a dead man pinned to a stockade wall and a lance sticking out of his belly. Captain Richard Lance (Gregory Peck of "12 O'Clock High") and his men boil in on horseback and capture Tucsos (Michael Ansara), and Joe Harmony (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") wants to shoot him on the spot. Harmony points out Tucsos is "the fella that started this whole business." Captain Lance intervenes, "The Army doesn't shoot prisoners, Joe." Predictably, Harmony is aghast at this prospect. "He's no common injun. He's just as near to a god as a fella can get. If you shoot him now, things will quiet down. Without Tucsos stirring them up, the rest of those Indians will get reasonable, just as fast as they can. You take him in alive, you'll have every 'Pache in the territory coming after him. We have had three years of this, you can stop it now." Just as predictably, Captain Lance refuses to kill Tucsos and Lance's decision to take the Indian back sets things into action.

Colonel Drum (Herbert Heyes of "Union Station") surprises Lance when he tells him he should have shot Tucsos. As it is, they need to get Tucsos to another post. Everybody from the troopers to Joe Harmony knows that taking Tucsos to Fort Grant is asking to die. The Apaches are poised in the mountains and the fort is under strength. Meantime, we are introduced to the daughter of Captain Eversham, Cathy Eversham (Barbara Payton of "Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye"), and young Lieutenant William Holloway (Gig Young of "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?") and they play a part in a major narrative complication. You see, Lance and Holloway both want to marry Cathy. Clearly, Cathy wants Lance. Colonel Drum refuses to let Lance take Tucsos to Fort Grant because Drum cannot spare Lance. Drum changes the orders and Holloway is given the mission at the last minute, and everybody is shocked. Lance has never changed an order. Furthermore, Lance saw Cathy and Holloway kissing in public, and everybody thinks Lance has reassigned Holloway out of jealousy. Indeed, one officer observes that rewriting orders is about a possible as rewriting the Bible. Predictably, Tucsos escapes and the surviving troopers and Harmony bring back a dead Holloway.

Although Drum expects a relief column of 400 troopers to arrive any day, Harmony points out to Lance that Tucsos will attack. Tucsos has seen the fort and knows their lack of strength. Lance requests to take 6 or 7 men of his choosing to man Fort Invincible and prevent Tucsos from assembling a war party. The bottleneck in the mountains keeps the Indians from riding through in strength; instead, they must come through one-at-a-time. Lance believes his men can thwart them until the relief column arrives. Drum gives him permission and Lance picks the worst men. All of them hate him and would willingly kill him.

"Only the Valiant" exemplifies the new breed of military western after World War II. This is not a gung-ho John Ford cavalry western. Indeed, Lance's own men want to kill him and this foreshadows the attitude of troops during the Vietnam War when they fragged their own officers. Lance bears the onus of all—except the few who know about the circumstances that brought about the change of orders putting Holloway in charge of the detail. The black & white photography enhances the dire nature of this western. "Only the Valiant" amounts to a last stand western until the last minute reprieve. Reportedly, Peck hated this movie, but then this is not a spit-and-polish western in Technicolor. If anything, "Only the Valiant" lives up to its Warner Brothers origins. It is small but significant and it is grubby with loads of drama and unsavory characters, virtually a "Dirty Dozen" western. I would suggest that Only the Valiant is one of the most original and intriguing and in some ways weird movies that Peck ever did; daring , surprising and one of his few best westerns (--no, no, of course, not a western really, but a military chronicle, which sometimes is better--). It's quite low—budget, but, oh, very original and striking. It's one of those treats a true buff sometimes gets; movies that no one yet told you they exist. You say—'that sounds intriguing, or interesting'—and it surpasses your expectations.

All in all, the script shows a level of maturity unusual for the westerns—and it somehow reminded me, obliquely, of ULZANA; it's also straight no—nonsense suspense.

Peck looked dashing as a young and tough, somewhat gloomy and stoic officer; and there are many unexpected touches—like the blonde babe kissing and flirting with the one she's decided not to marry, perhaps a feeling of hers for justice and retribution ….

Even genre—wise, ONLY … is so much more than a military tale—it is as well an action drama, a suspense movie, a commando/ action thriller—the weirdest combo imaginable; a bunch of soldiers in a special mission to counteract and stop a possible Native's attack …--the insane decision not to take all the available troops to the place where those Natives could be stopped—but only a handful of people …--and this plot never takes a crap route—as most would and did …. The interest for humans, for people and their reasons and actions never falters.

A due word about Peck himself; he performs with brio, and though I usually find his famous movies to be rather insipid and boring, in such small outings I find intact all Peck's somber and even chilling glamor. He was an unusual star.

I gladly recommend this extraordinary movie. And that's saying a lot. Rent this if you want to be staggered by oddness, blown away by one of the most bizarre scripts, direction, and casting in the history of films. I'm staggered. I can't believe I watched it. I'm a big Bernadette Peters fan, normally- but this tested my resolve. Don't read any more reviews here, it's best if you know nothing about the plot. Just rent it. You won't believe what you're seeing....... The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: "WANTED! Runaway Robot!" ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word "Heartbeeps" inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying "Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!" "So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?" THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.

During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would "load up on breakfast, and fast" during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style puréed food via tubes?

Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless "smoke" for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created "steam" around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke.

John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered "The Empire Strikes Back" score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say!

The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a "purpose" programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and "die." They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as "death," with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets "a purpose!" AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry.

At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their "bartender." Val's and Aqua's new "daughter," Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp.

There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better. Best Robot Romantic Comedy Ever, using the robots as the romantic characters, which leaves Short Circuit out of this category. This was Andy Kaufman's best effort. Bernadette Peters shows her versatility here with an amazing performance. While not a great movie in many areas, I'll award it a 9 on guts and quirkiness. Okay, where to begin. Did you know that the part of the lead robots were offered to famous mime team Shields and Arnez? Bet ya didn't. But they turned it down complaining about robot make-up. Then they faded off into obscurity. Now, this movie has everything. A crazed killer robot who thinks he's dirty Harry. Lots of cool robots. It's funny, it's touching, it's the perfect date movie for people who love sci-fi and romantic comedies. It's the first robot romantic comedy. Now of course very few movies are perfect and there are some character issues. But there are very minor and can be overlooked. I think couples will enjoy this movie and will want to watch it over and over again. 9 STARS. A beautiful reflection of life's desperation and misdirection of finding love. Tragic, while at the same time, absurdly entertaining. Most people do not give this film a chance- ignorance- just a mere reflection in itself. Until next time... OK, first, to all the haters: Get a life! I don't see why you even bother to post on these boards, when obviously you know nothing about cinema, robots, or people.

This movie has an important lessons for all of us to learn about gender, stereotypes, relationships, and DESTINY. Really, we are all robots, programmed to respond certain ways to certain stimuli without thinking. How many times have we seen a sunset and made some trite comment without even thinking about it? I say, THANK YOU Aqua (brilliantly played by Bernadette Peters) for making me stop and think about the awesome power of mother nature.

It's only when Val and Aqua begin to reject their programming that they begin to understand their true desire--to find love, and to flee the factory in search of a creative life. This movie should be mandatory viewing in prisons--just think of the dreams and hopes it could inspire in the inmates. maybe even they could overcome their "bad" programming and join the rest of us in a crime-free world.

We can all learn a lot from these robots. I am a better person for Heartbeeps. This movie makes you think. It shows how a woman's weaknesses can result in nightmares for others. Her physically aggressive behavior is more often seen in men than women, so it made me feel even more uncomfortable to see the way the lead actress behaved. I think that women might think about this behavior, but I don't think they act on it. The dark scenes added to the sense of evil that needed to be hidden. I was relieved when the prisoners escaped. I was hopeful that the end would bring a satisfying solution, but it did not. Maybe that is more realistic. Life seems to run in the same direction instead of creating a new river bed running up hill. I'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style. I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself. I'm not usually into dark/psychological thriller type things. However, SEIZING ME is really an amazing piece of work. The story, acting, filming, psychological themes, erotic quality and spiritual understanding are all really quite complex and compelling. Rose plays the complexities and shifts of a psychologically disturbed woman really quite accurately. My partner was particularly impressed with the sophisticated way the power exchange issues were handled. It was so intense for us to watch that we found ourselves leaving it three quarters through to "get tea" and I felt compelled to have a shower. The story was gripping but we were clearly unable to handle all the energy in one straight shot. (It delves into the gritty and grimy side of people, but doesn't leave you there). I thought about the characters and deeper meanings for a long time. I would highly recommend this one. Still be prepared for an experience you might not be expecting. ------ Spoilers----- Spoilers----- Spoilers--------just a few small ones

Saw this on Satilite channel, missed the first 30 min of movie, will keep this comment short and informative.

The movie is basically about 5 characters,The acting is very bad for afew characters. 1 girl with the help of another girl kidnaps 3 different people but it backfires and the 3 kidnap the 2. This is one of those types of movies where the script writers try to be thought provoking or philosophical, mysterious and ... you get the point; but do to their own, personal, lack in thinking they fall terribly short. Like one of the captives who is supposed to be some type of psychology nerd - looks the part but his tongue can't speak it. THe writers think that if the nerd uses a lot of 8 letter words amateurishly - unknowingly i believe - that the viewers will be ignorant enough to believe it. I wish i could give an example but i cant recall any - exactly as it was said. The ending was bad as well. But the one female captive acted her role as an old and relatively wise lady, although she, as well as the rest, had a lot of cliché s.

So Why would i give this movie a 7 stars if I thought all the above? Simple, I give the entire seven stars to LISA KELLER - one sexy a$$ momma. SHE is FINE lol. I am an appreciator of beauty, and she is exactly that. But don't get me confused because I'm not a pervert and this movie is NOT a porno in any way. their is somethin about her I cant explain, but i like it. I remember the scene where a captive has broke free and as he looks for a way out, bumps into Keller. She tries to get way but she doesn't have a chance. He throws her down, kneeling on the stairs and he pulls her pants down, no panties ;). Now, although she has an AMAZING ass - and the this shot leaves little to the imagination for a long 30 seconds i think - it was her facial expression that got me. she wanted it, and that look had me thinking i was behind that. I would have torn that booty up! After that expression, i jus couldn't look at her objectively anymore, I WAS IN LOVE. lol. I am glad to have seen this movie but if Lisa Keller wasn't playing the lead role, I would have changed the channel.. well... after i had seen the scene i mentioned above. I am a LISA KELLER fan know, but is seems that she isn't a consistent actor, seeing this 2003 movie is her latest. But i am lookin forward to another movie with her in it. I love to see a female protagonist, in this movie her name was Rose. Rose brought out a lot of interesting questions in her journey of fulfillment.Is is possible to attain peace and internal fulfillment through external means? Does our society teach this? Can one be a victim of memory which may lead to victimizing others? Is one responsible for being a product of one's environment? To what extent can one control or take control of one's environment? How is a "typical" human alike or different than Rose? Lastly, would the outcome or story change if it were from another country like France or Italy? I loved that this movie provoked all of these questions in me, while it entertained, stimulated, and kept me guessing to the end! Every time I've watched it, I have learned more about the film and myself. The best bit in the film was when Alan pulled down her knickers and ran the cut throat razor over her bum cheeks and around her bum hole. It was also brilliant to see Alan's bum going up and down like a fiddler's elbow later on in the film.

Alan was tough as hell in it like when he got annoyed and pushed the four eyed wimp onto the sofa.

I've been laughing for days about the cut throat razor bit. A brilliant idea by the script writers. Alan must be brought back into Eastenders so he can do the same to Peggy.

Alan is back, and this time he's armed with a razor. Watch out if you're a girl and he finds you and pulls your knickers down. "Stripperella" is an animated series about a girl named Erotica Jones (voiced by Pamela Anderson) who lives a double life as a stripper at a gentleman's club known as "The Tender Loins" and as a sexy crime-fighter known as Stripperella, a.k.a. Agent 69 who works for a government organization. As Stripperella, Erotica fights crime and the forces of evil such as a plastic surgeon who gives women breast implants that either explode or make them fat and Cheapo, a criminal who steals from 99 cent stores and makes his two henchmen share a gun. The creator of the character and the series is Stan Lee of Marvel fame (and creator of Spider-Man).

Back in late June of 2003, Spike TV (then known as The New TNN) premiered a Thursday night block of three animated shows. Those shows were "Ren & Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon"; new adventures of classic kids show characters Ren and Stimpy for adults done by original creator John Kricfalusi, "Gary the Rat"; about a lawyer who is turned into a human sized rat starring Kelsee Grammar of "Cheers" and "Fraiser" fame, and "Stripperella"; the adventures of a stripper who doubles as a superhero voiced by Pamela Anderson and created by Stan Lee. I remember seeing all three of the premiers. I was anxious to see Ren and Stimpy as I love the original show. I was a little let down. It was alright but it seemed to take things a little too far; seeing the two have gay sex together was a bit much. Though Gary the Rat wasn't bad, the best of the three was easily Stripperella. The animation was really good, it had an awesome intro song, it had some good talent behind it, and it was funny as hell! The show was just so silly, I don't even know how to begin explaining it! After four of five weeks (if not a little less) the animation block disappeared, which was weird because I know it got good ratings and it was advertised everywhere. I was disappointed to see Stripperella go but several months later I found out about new episodes that aired at like 1:00 AM. I only got to see one and though it was funny as hell and I was glad to see the show back after all that time, something seemed a bit off....

In the beginning of it's short run, "Stripperella" had great animation. It was dark, moody, realistic, and somewhat sexy too. The Stripperella costumed looked good too, the character was drawn well. After the long hiatus and during the rest of the episodes, the animation was very different. Instead of dark and realistic look it originally had everything was now really colorful and cartoonish. Stripperella received the biggest changes though. Before she had normal long hair, now she had hair bigger than Peggy Bundy's (Married with Children) if even possible. Also, the eye mask actually shows her eyes now; before it was just white you saw which was cool since it was more superheroish. Also, the upper part of her costume was kind of a vest-type thing with a collar and her costume was dark blue; that changed to her costume being a bluish-violet color and her upper costume being really crappy looking in comparison. In short, the show was a cartoon and very over the top silly beforehand, but the second-half it became more cartoonish looking and though still laugh-out-loud hilarious, it became more zany as well; for example, there was a later episode about a were-beaver...yes, a were-beaver.

Anyway, instead of complaining about the mid-series changes, "Stripperella" only ran one season but it was a very good show. Like the Tales from the Crypt film "Bordello of Blood", it may be really campy but it's really fun. As long as your not a prude you'll find yourself laughing repeatedly at this show. I haven't seen every episode because I haven't got the DVD yet for two reasons: #1. Paramount released and they have this screwed up policy about not including any extras on nearly all released TV shows, even though this was the entire show (I would have liked to see some commentary's maby explaining the animation change and interviews with Pamela Anderson and Stan Lee) and #2. the awesome Kid Rock song during the opening was replaced. Now I'm not a fan of his, but that intro sang WAS the theme for the show! If your not going to pay to have any extras at least pay to have the original intro song you jack-asses. The show also had a few interesting guest stars such as John Lovitz as Cheapo and Mark Hamil as the plastic surgion who hates models. Also Tom Kenny (SpongeBob) was on the show as the owner of the strip club in most every episode. Stan Lee has a cameo in one episode too.

The Breakdown:

PROS: Had a great look to it at first, FUNNY AS HELL, a very fun show, great voice talent for the most part, Chief Strogenoff (watch the show and see some of the stuff he does), and was easily the best of the three animated shows mentioned earlier.

CONS: The mid-series animation change and the crappy DVD described earlier. Aside from the fact that some of the humor could be kind of dumb at times I have nothing really negative to say about this.

OVERALL: Stripperella is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and it's a shame it only ran one season. It was a very funny, sexy, actioned packed cult series that I hope to see air on Adult Swim someday with the original intro intact and possibly give it another season like Family Guy. Check it out even if it is on the lousy DVD. You will laugh yourself silly.

Rated TV-MA: Crude and Sexual Humor and Nudity, Runtime: About 25 minutes per episode, Score: 9/10 I first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue ("King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is", which stands for "It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest").He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing. SPOILERS AHEAD------------------------- Mel has got it going on. From the opening credits to the ending credits this movie has straight laughs. Dave Chappel shows why he is a comedic force. Cary Eewes carries the movie most of the time, but the supporting cast fills in strong when the plot is drawn away from Robin Hood. Right from the beginning this movie proclaims it's self not to be taken seriously. If you took a time machine and gave the characters thoughts of modern day antics you would get this movie. What makes this movie special you say? Throughout the movie you see blinken and acuhu walk beside each other becoming great friends as Robin Hood's sidekicks. But, it Blinken is never told or fails to grasp that he is black, until the crowd says " a black sheriff", Blinken replays "He's black". That is a timeless scene. Simple one of the most enteraining movies of our time. This probably ranks in my Top-5 list of the funniest movies I've ever seen! I was not a big fan of Robin Hood, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but this movie was a lot different! It made fun of Robin Hood, and was HILARIOUS! I was extremely pleased with how well it was put together, and how well acted it was! Besides Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Houseguest, this was the funniest move I've ever seen! I especially love the song; "We're Men in tights!" If you have a good sense of humor, you'll LOVE this movie! This is my favorite Mel Brooks movie because it was the first one I ever saw. I was in the fourth grade when it came out and I watched it all the time. I saw The Producers second and then Blazing Saddles. This is a sentimental favorite because it was my first Mel Brooks movie. Mel Brooks is a great writer,director and actor, but once in a while even he can have a klinker. The beginning of this starts out almost basically just meeting one character after another.You have Cary Elwes who's charming and talented, but he can't do comedy. His expressions into the camera show that even he can't believe the inanities in the script. Richard Lewis looks bored and distracted throughout without much to do and Amy Yasbeck is stuck in high-school acting mode. Dave Chapelle shows great comedy range mugging and hamming for the camera and Mark Blankfield is mostly stifled in the role of the blind man, but then he does still manage to show great comedy range. Eric Allen Kramer doesn't have much to do, but the few scenes he does have are binding. The best roles are those of Roger Rees, Tracy Ullman, Megan Cavanaugh and Brooks for when he does appear. Dom DeLuise has a funny turn as a Mafia Don employing a Clint Eastwood lookalike, but on the minus side, some of the jokes aren't very funny while some of the really funny ones seem stolen from Mel's other movies. Mel Brooks has really outdone himself on this movie. No one can deny that Blazing Saddles was a classic, and a breakthrough in this style of comedy film, but Men In Tights has become the apex of his creative genius. This movie is a definite must-see. If you enjoy this movie, I would also recommend Space Balls and History Of The World. The same goes in reverse. If you have seen any of these movies, then Men In Tights should be next on your list. Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny. Mel Brooks really outdid himself with this hilarious stand-up of the Robin Hood story. The cast is perfect, and Cary Elwes does a fine job at his role. In my personal opinion (besides the fact that I'm a Cary Elwes fan) this movie is the best, and funniest, I've ever seen! It will have you laughing every time you see it! This movie is one of my all time favorites. I have watched it probably 100 times (literally) and it is still funny to me. It seems that every time I watch it, I see something different. Mel Brooks is definitely the all time King of side splitting comedy. I cant believe there are people out there that did not like this movie! I thought it was the funniest movie i had ever seen. It my have been b/c i am Mel Brooks biggest fan... I know almost all the words and get very discouraged when they censor them, when it is played on a Family Channel. :) this is one of my favorite movies, so i dont know why any one would disagree! thanks Kristina This movie needs to come out on DVD cause that's the only way I will buy it. I thought it was soo funny because there was no real plot to it. It was not suppose to be an oscar winning film. I appreciate those films. Cary Elwes was a very cute Robin Hood. I can't even think of my favorite part of the movie because they are all pretty good. Anyways peace out.!!!! How can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.

The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.

While "Robin Hood: Men In Tights" is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by "Real Genius"), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes. I was really surprised, that my mom watched whole movie without leaving to iron, clean or some other things like these. And I was almost shocked, when she said, it was very funny and very interesting. And I think so. I saw this film when it was released to the minor cinemas in the UK some 50 years ago; and the memory remains of a great musical score, and the tragedy of the storyline. I saw it again on video recently. The sound track was poor and the picture grainy; but it is one of two films that I saw again the next day, the other being Gladiator. The music theme is intensely tragic, and from the outset one knows that it heralds failure or death. Certainly one of George Sanders best performances; as a man working the black market to get pay back for what he lost in the war, but nemesis waits; Patricia Roc plays a refugee from Eastern Europe eaten with despair. He is attracted to her, selflessly wants to help her, and then falls in love with her, but she is too proud and hurt to accept help. Their love destroys him, and inevetably the girl and the doctor (Herbert Marshall), who brought the nemesis. The storyline is of complex intertwining destinies, where subsidiary characters are not who they appear to be. This is as a film, which diappointed the critics and struggled at the box office; but for the adolescent who saw it, and the retired gentleman who saw it again it is one of the greatest films (taking into account its age)whose story is more akin to an opera. Unfortunately, I've never seen the full version of this movie. I did see the 87-minute version twice, back in the 1950s. Even more floridly directed than is the norm with Julien Duvivier, this is a wonderfully out-of-the-ordinary piece, replete with sweeping tracking shots through, over and into Andrejew's magnificently atmospheric sets. Beautifully lit too by photographer André Thomas, Black Jack is nothing if not a connoisseur's delight. Reinforcing this imaginative visual style, is a script that allows a roster of our favorite actors, including Agnes Moorehead and Marcel Dalio, some brilliantly bizarre, full-blooded characterizations. George Sanders gives a polished performance, whilst an eccentric millionairess (who turns out to be a rival racketeer) is admirably played by Agnes Moorehead. Also realizing the most from her role, Patricia Roc. The film was made, on locations in Spain, in 1949. Utopia, made in 1950 in France, was the last film Laurel and Hardy produced. With the bad reputation the duo have for their post 1930's productions I was expecting this film to be awful. Although admittedly it isn't up to the standard of their "vintage" comedies I was pleasantly surprised. It's watchable, and in parts genuinely funny! And certainly the plot is of the same standard as you'd expect. Some gags are derivative from their earlier work, but when you consider this film was their first for five years after their last Hollywood produced film, "The Bullfighters", the routines are executed confidently as you'd expect from these professionals. Some scenes are not up to much, but the value of this film is that some scenes are funny, and as such, absolutely priceless. I particularly enjoyed the bedtime scene.

I felt sad at the end of the film. Our heros are left on their own desert island. It's such a metaphor for the real life truth. Hollywood and audiences of the time had consigned the stars to a desert island of memories, and that was to become last image they portrayed in film. Ollie died seven years later and Stan died fifteen years later. Stan turned down an offer to appear in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" in 1963. What a shame that was - a colour film, only two years before he passed. However, his health probably wasn't up to much.

These boys are probably the greatest comedy performers of all time, and although the movie is far from their true potential, it's still an honour to watch them appear in film for the last time, and touching on the echos of their towering talent. The movie is not halve as bad as people want to make you believe it is.

What is the reason why so many people hate this movie? Is it because it's Laurel & Hardy's last one together and it's not their best? Or is it because of the lack of Laurel & Hardy regulars? Or because it's not made by the Hal Roach studios or 20th Century Fox?

Definitely true that this movie is not a successful attempt to revive Laurel & Hardy and bring them to the '50's. It's also definitely true that the movie is far from their best but honestly, the movie still entertains well, making this movie also far from their worst. Not the most worthy 'goodbye' movie imaginable but an entertaining and suiting goodbye nevertheless. Both of them retired from movies after completing this one.

The movie still features some great slapstick moments and the chemistry between Laurel & Hardy is obviously still very much present. It also makes this movie better than most of their movies together from the '40's. Quite a surprise that the slapstick humor still works out as great as it does, considering that the days of slapstick comedy had been over, ever since the '30's.

The story is perhaps not as entertaining as it could had been and it features too many sidekicks and characters, with as a result that the movie looses its focus on the boys at times. A shame, because they are still the ones that really carry and make the movie.

Sad to see in what poor form Stan Laurel was at the time of making this movie. He really looked ill and old, which he also of course was. He was well over 60 years old already. But after a surgery he fully recovered and still lived for another 15 years, before dying in 1965, 8 years after his good friend Oliver Hardy.

An entertaining, though not perfect goodbye to the boys, Laurel & Hardy and the end of 3 decades of fun, humorous, quality slapstick entertainment of movies that are still being watched and loved by people all over the world.

7/10 Not since Bette Davis's 1933 vehicle "Ex-Lady" have I seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was! Most of the bum rap "Atoll K," a.k.a. "Utopia," a.k.a. "Robinson Crusoeland," a.k.a. "Escapade" has got over the years has come from the horror stories Stan Laurel told of its production. Given that he suffered a stroke during filming, looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two-shot of them together you'd never guess that Laurel survived Hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health), one can understand why Laurel didn't think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. Yes, it's flawed: the cheapness of the production shows through, the dubbing is awful and Laurel and Hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. But it's still genuinely funny, and Léo Joannon's story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian, sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like Chaplin or the Marx Brothers but never from Laurel and Hardy. The film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the Ealing Studios' classic "Passport to Pimlico," made just a year earlier, is pretty obvious) and for integrating the Laurel and Hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they'd used before. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly better than the eight dreary ones for Fox and MGM they'd made in the early 1940's. I suspect only the film's technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti-establishment baby-boomer youth the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup" acquired in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Please be aware that this film has nothing to do with the Radio City Music Hall! As an archivist re: the Music Hall..I know what is and what is not associated with the New York venue. The film's Theodore is just the "Music Hall." No Rockettes are in the film. Only wonderful ice skaters plus superb actors and fun. Just thought you would like to know. Truly a wonderful film. You will never guess who the 'murderer' is while watching this film....till the very end. What a superb plot and beautiful ice skating. One never sees that kind of performances any more. The Roxy Theater and the Center Theatres, in New York city, had ice skating performances on stage! Along with virtually every Republic Picture ever made, "Murder in the Music Hall" seems to have undeservably faded into oblivion. A shame, because this lusciously produced, expertly directed and written, and crafty mystery-suspense item spins an enticing whodunnit thriller against the setting of Radio City Music Hall. A murder in one of the building's posh penthouse apartments casts suspicion on the luscious Rockettes--among them, Vera Ralston (who besides giving an appealing performance of subtlety and vulnerablity, provides a few dazzling ice-skating production numbers), Helen Walker, Ann Rutherford, Julie Bishop, and several other delectable B-movie starlets of the '40s. Tall, blond and handsome William Marshall (usually cast in musicals) hunts down the killer as the complex and increasingly creepy plot unfolds, against the swankiest settings you'll ever see in a film noir. The ending is as much of a surprise as is this sadly forgotten, classy murder mystery. Well-worth restoring and reviving on cable-TV, VHS or DVD. Republic sank a hefty budget in this Grade-A production, and "Murder in the Music Hall" is as slick, unnerving, and immensely enjoyable as any of the major studios' films of its era. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Pay attention to the rhapsodic song composed by the victim just before his death. Then, amidst the showgirls' incessant chattering in their dressing rooms, try to pinpoint the one humming that fatal melody. You'll discover who the killer is just as William Marshall does. Grand fun, the kind of movie they truly don't make anymore, and what a loss--both to movie-goers and actors alike. If you are a fan of early Duke movies, this Lone Star oldie is a good one. What more could you ask for than Duke, Yak, and Gabby. Lots of good ridin' and shootin'!!! I found it amazing that Duke's singing voice was Bill Bradbury, who is none other than Bob Steele's twin brother. It has been reported that Bob Steele was a high school classmate and friend of Duke, so twin brother Bill may have been too. Anyway, if you like good, clean, early western movies don't miss this one. We don't have to wonder about hidden meanings or try to figure out underlying themes. Just sit back, relax and enjoy a western movie from a simpler day and time. It's called entertainment folks!!! An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.

The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as "Singin' Sandy" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!

Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.

Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al "Fuzzy" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue. This film had me spellbound this evening. Thanks to Fox Movie Classics for showing it uninterrupted. John Voight, this cast of little known black actresses and most of all, the children, made this a worthy way to spend a Sunday evening. How wonderful to see the early work of this seasoned actor, as well as Paul Winfield's excellent portrayal of Mad Billy. I can't see why anyone would say that Hume Cronyn is miscast in the role as superintendent. Who would they have chosen? The shrill character actor, Charles Lane? Although his career is laudable, an actor such as Lane would have cheapened the role. Cronyn was an excellent choice for the part. I will count this film as a true treasure to hold in memory. all i can say is that each time i see CONRACK, dir. Martin Ritt, DP. John Alonzo, i feel an utmost sense of inspiration and enlightment in what the power of cinema is possible in such a simple film.

the motion picture Conrack is set in 1969. It is based on a true story. It is a story about a white man (Jon Voight) who teaches a group of young black children how incredible the world is outside of their little South Carolina island.

The story places the job of a teacher as noble cause in changing children's lives.

I highly recommend it. This film launched my theory about films based on books: Instead of following the cliche "You've read the book; now see the film," if you are looking for a good book to read, try one upon which a movie you like was based, because it'll be 10 times better.

I saw this film on its initial release at the National Theater in downtown Eugene and liked it so much that I stayed to see it again. It's a perfect merger of the inspiring talents of one of my favorite actors, Jon Voight, with what became my favorite book, "The Water Is Wide," by Pat Conroy.

I can think of no better movie about the nobility of teaching and the ironic challenges of life. Two tiny caveats:

(1) The video suffers severely from pan-and-scan and deserves a letterbox version. (2) The title should be restored to the name of the book, a reference to one of the most touching, enigmatic songs ever written Martin Ritt seems to be a director who was always interested in social issues (as the son of immigrants, he had every incentive to be so, especially since he was blacklisted in the '50s). "Conrack" is based on Pat Conroy's novel "The Water is Wide", about his own experience in 1969 teaching a school of impoverished black children about the outside world, much to the chagrin of the right-wing superintendent (Hume Cronyn). What added to the movie's strength was the cultural and historical context: Conroy (Jon Voight) frustratedly tells another teacher how many of the children don't know about Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, the Vietnam War, or even where Vietnam is. He proceeds to enlighten them about all these factors.

Somewhere, I read a complaint that when Conroy played music for the children, he only played white music. The truth is, you can't blame the movie for that; it was based on Conroy's real experience. Either way, the movie's a real gem. I first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of "principle vs. pragmistism". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the "real" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, "The Water is Wide", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you! Pat Conroy's autobiographical book "The Water Is Wide" proves to be something of a Southern "Up The Down Staircase", yet despite the teacher-going-against-the-odds formula, "Conrack" really does move the audience with each little breakthrough and creative flash. These students (uneducated black kids on an island off South Carolina) are actually shown learning, and their collective wide-eyed innocence is remarkably sweet. The one actual actress in the bunch (Tina Andrews, an amazing performer) plays the "tough nut" Conrack has to crack, and once she falls under his charms, it all seems a breeze. But the story is not ready-made for a happy ending, and I wasn't prepared for the quiet simplicity of the finale. It's beautifully done. The script veers off course every now and then, but director Martin Ritt is very smart to always fall back on Jon Voight's solid presence. Scenes such as the one where he drives around in his van venting his frustrations over a loudspeaker don't add up to much, but the whole film is filled with episodes which spark emotion, and the actual ending is their payoff. **1/2 out of **** I saw this movie for the first time a little over a year ago. I've seen it 4 more times since. I had never heard of it before and I consider myself knowledgeable of classic cinema. A true, polished, diamond in the rough.

This gem of a movie revolves around Jon Voight (lead character "Conrack") as a young schoolteacher assigned to Yamacraw Island to teach the islands' children, all in one school. At first, the students reveal they know very little of the world beyond their island home. The heart of the movie is Conrack finding inspiration to awaken their young minds to the world around them. The students quickly reward their teacher with an eagerness to learn and a remarkable ability to grasp concepts that, only a short time before, had been foreign to them. Conrack uses unconventional and clever teaching techniques that happen to be, oh a little fun! God forbid. Learning AND fun? Together? Can't be, or so says the ones in charge. To avoid a spoiler, I shall just say that Conrack finds resistance with the boss man....and the ending is truly bittersweet.

I am a 35 year old white male with some teaching experience, so I should identify with the lead character, Pat Conroy (aka, Conrack, Mr. Petroy). But I don't, I identify with the black kids. As a kid, I was bussed to the school on the other side of town from the 4th to the 6th grade, circa 1979. These kids in the movie remind me of my classmates then. Luckily, in 4th grade as a 8 or 9 year old, one doesn't understand racism. I just remember we were all being kids, playing 4-square, kickball, hide-and-seek, and running relays.

This movie is very moving. There are delightful and poignant moments from beginning to end, non-stop. I found myself many times with tears in my eyes, then suddenly laughing out loud. It's a funny movie.

"Git away from that winda!!".... "Sir, if you're prepared to accept crap, I should tell you that rabbit just did it in your lap."..... "So, you the white schoolteacher, Mr. Conrack. My grands LOVE Mr. Conrack. You a good looking teacher, you a good looking white man."..... "wind 15 mph from the east. Small boat warning. Small boats beware. Big boats OK, don't gotta worry 'bout nothing.".... "not a fry cook, but Eleanor Roosevelt, not a share-cropper, but (something Latin)...that's Latin..hey wait!".... "Conrack sing like a frog....I sing good, whatcha talkin' 'bout?!".

It still mystifies me that I still hear nothing about this movie or that it has very little reputation or following. I intend to seek out more reviews, comments, background, and "making of" tidbits, if they are out there. What amazes me is the acting given from the untrained kids. One of the kids, Mary, I understand was an actress, and you can tell. However, the other kids have plenty of lines and genuine reactions. I wonder how they did it! I'm guessing that Conrack and Mary had precise dialogue to work with while some of the scenes unfold naturally or ad-libbed.

Conrack is a special movie. In my opinion, it is one of the very few movies that are so good AND so unknown. Others in that category are King Rat ('65), Dark Passage ('47 with Bogie and Bacall), Gods Must Be Crazy ('80), and Bad Day at Black Rock ('55). I recommend them all. But first, take a seat in the class of Mr. Conrack. I saw this film on TV in the UK some 25 years ago and it has resonated with me ever since. My interest has recently been rekindled by visiting Hilton Head - the next island over from "Yamacraw" (Daufuskie actually), and reading Pat Conroy's excellent "The Water is Wide". With the benefit of knowledge I have reappraised Conrack and consider it a masterpiece. Jon Voight captures the spirit of Conroy and the atmosphere of the film brings the book to life with some accuracy - a Hollywood rarity.

Three things still strike me about this tale: 1. The issues of educating the poor and disenfranchised and being inclusive remain the same. 2. Education is about more than reading and writing. 3.. These kids were my peers, I was 6 in 1969 when Pat Conroy spent his year on Daufuskie.

Why this has not made it on to DVD yet? John Voight plays the title character in this movie based on author Pat Conroy's (Prince of Tides) autobiography. A fine teacher film, it tells the story of a naive Pat Conroy, a young English teacher whose first assignment is in an elementary school on a rural island. The only white man on the island, he must battle internal and external pressures as he attempts to instill education and values in children who for generations have been systematically denied such things. A solid performance that really makes you think. Just watched Conrack for the first time. Although the last third of the movie leaves something to be desired, it is a very touching and heartwarming study of a man's evolution to overcome his youth and upbringing in a prejudiced south and a teacher's creativity in connecting with students despite different backgrounds and difficult circumstances. As an educator, seeing a teacher adapt to his students and prepare them for all of the challenges life has to offer, not just the lessons found in textbooks, is a valuable concept of which we all need to be reminded. The thread concerning the Vietnam war rings true even today. Well worth a look. I not only consider this to be the best film that Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Coming Home) has ever done, but a real tribute to teachers.

Despite incredible odds, Pat Conroy (Voight) managed to reach a group of students and bring them from nowhere to a basic literacy and awareness of the world. His methods made be criticized by bureaucratic dinosaurs like Mr. Skeffington (Hume Cronyn), but teachers like Conroy will always be winners.

Voight really showed that he had a love for teaching and that it was a natural high for him. he didn't overplay the role, and I found him to be totally believable. Voight is Conrack.

Besides a love of teaching, we also see another important point in this film. No matter how good you are at your job, if you rock the boat, the bureaucrats will get you. This movie is a piece of the time in which it was made..... Realistic. Movies were not candy coated during the late 60s and early 70s. The producers did not try to create some happy ending that didn't exist. The lack of a happy ending would create agitation in the audience that, hopefully would spur them on to action. At least that's how it seemed at the time. In today's movie world this movie would probably not be done. There would, definitely, not be this ending, however realistic. The sad fact is that the movie depicted a situation which could not be improved upon without action from the improvement of the relationship between the white southern traditional thinking and the progressive movements of that time. Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of? I'm going to make this short and sweet. It's not surprising that you had no use for this film. This is a story about the power, beauty and possibilities inherent in a meaningful education. Based on your pathetically composed comments I can see that your own education has been woefully neglected... or worse... completely wasted. Your comments are those of a truly ignorant person. I would advise you to do something about this condition... but in your case I feel it's probably too late. My hope is that you yourself don't intend to go into the teaching profession ( especially in Film Studies) because you could only do damage. Oh... one last bit of advice. In the future, if you intend to write more opinion pieces, you should really proofread your work. It will make people take you more seriously. I saw Conrack on a night I couldn't sleep and I was never so glad to have insomnia ! This story of a young white teacher who takes a position teaching poor black kids on an island in the Carolina's is a great advertisement for teaching , and for simply helping each other .Set in the early 60s , with the civil rights issues , Viet Nam and all that came with the 60s ,it is forgotten that the Peace Corps and many young people struck out to make a difference helping the unprivileged .Conrack with his open style of teaching is interested in these kids as people , and encourages an honest interaction in his class that scares the power's that be .The greatest part was that Jon Voight said they had a 20 year reunion and 18 of those kids became teachers !! Its enough to make you think we as humans may have a chance to survive ourselves ,maybe , hopefully .See this film . COMING on the heels of that 1970's "Blackploitation" Era, CONRACK (20th Century-Fox, 1974) offered audiences a low-key, sincere and everyday people sort of a drama. Offering a far different fair to its audience (which was far more general than those "Gansta" flicks); being a down to earth dose of realism that offered a lonely counterbalance to those shoot-'em-ups'.

REPLACING lead characters that were bad-ass detectives, super-flies and megs/macks/pimps (Take your pick in terminology), was a lone, humble and meek teacher. The academian we speak of is the main character, Pat Conroy; who is the one and only lone teacher hired to take on the responsibility of a sort of old time one room school house on an island off the coast of South Carolina.

"CONRACK" (Jon Voight), the name that the youngsters dub him finds conditions in the school terribly backward. In addition to the physical properties of this "Little Red Schoolhouse", any systematic and progressively graduated educational system was totally absent.

OH yeah, by the way, did we mention that further complications to any successful educational venture were manifested in two incontrovertible facts. Those were that Pat Conroy was both an outsider and he was white; with almost the entire population of this off-shore cay was black and very poor.

PERPETUATING these unacceptable and deplorable conditions were the agents of the local board of education; being the school's Principal, Mrs. Scott (Madge Sinclair) and the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington (Mr. Hume Cronyn). Between the two, we are made to understand that the teacher, being the low man on the totem pole, is powerless in most respects to affect any sort of meaningful, long-lasting improvements.

BUT don't you tell a 'Young Turk', such as Pat Conroy, that he can't. (Can't anything, that is). "Conrack" spends a year of unorthodox classroom performances and is making real progress; but alas, the strong-headed teacher won't give in and recognize the authority of his superiors. While he is, by law and unbeknownst to him, serving at thee super's pleasure; he disobeys Mr. Skeffington's specific order and prohibition to take his class kids to the mainland of South Carolina on Halloween for some Trick-or-Treating; even going to the brazen act of stopping with them at the Skeffington residence.

NEXT we see a Western Union Telegram messenger happily singing as he crosses from the Carolina mainland to the island; where he delivers the telegram to Conroy that bore the news of his dismissal from his position with that school and district.

NOT BEING one to take his being fired lying down, Pat files suit against Mr. Skeffington, Principal Mrs. Scott and the Board of Education protesting his dismissal as being unlawful. Impartially reviewing both the "offense" and the law, the Judge asks Skeffington if there are any lesser punishments that could be substituted for Conroy's being separated from the school system; to which he receives a negative response. Fittingly, the Judge dismisses the suit with his gavel pounding down while saying, "It's very simple!"

THE story is brought to a bittersweet conclusion as the 'Conrack'students see him off to the mainland bound launch, while a phonograph record provides us with BEETHOVEN'S 5th SYMPHONY; which had played an important part in the Conroy educational agenda, as well as our story.

IN THE HUMBLE opinion of this writer, the story (which we believe was at least semi-autobiographical, even giving the main character the name of its author), was much more than a tale of a localized happening. To both me pal Schultz and meself; this is a sort of depiction of a microcosm that represents the overall deplorable conditions that permeate the Government Schools throughout the entire nation. (Just an opinion)

AS FOR THIS film, it was just one of many movies portraying the stores of common folk; leading their lives of "quiet desperation" in the great hinterlands of the country, which lie outside the D.C. Beltway and the urban centers of enterprise and communications situated on either the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts.

IN ITS OWN small way, this is a fine film, which would soon be joined in the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox by such great works as NORMA RAE and BREAKING AWAY. (both being from TCF in 1979).

SEE it if you ain't yet. Recommended by both Schulz and his buddy.*

NOTE: * Why, that's me, of course!

POODLE SCHNITZ!! Superb story of a dedicated young teacher who sets out teaching minority children in an area off South Carolina.

Jon Voight is just tremendous as the headstrong, dedicated, idealistic teacher who faces this challenge despite a principal, who believes in stern discipline and has little regard for modern educational techniques as well as a crusty old school superintendent, played with relish by the late Hume Cronyn. Madge Sinclair is the principal who loves her babies.

As I'm a retired teacher, I could in some ways relate to this excellent film. The ignorance shown here as well as the lack of cooperation with officials is also quite apparent in urban areas.

Voight realizes that these children need far more than the traditional teachings of a classroom. He has them go out and experience life by themselves by learning outdoors.

The end is a definite downer but so true to life.

Amazing that such backward students had a zest for learning and were well disciplined. I guess that answers my question. The behavior was there and they were motivated to succeed despite their environment.

The ending will just tug at your heart. It was memorable and so well poignant. Forget about the plot of this movie. Forget about the fact that it is wonderfully acted by Vince Vaughn and Vincend D'Onofrio. Forget about the fact that it is one of the few movies starring Jennifer Lopez that I can stomach. Although the story made be impossible to believe and much of the dialogue seems contrived, the one and only important thing to remember when contemplating watching this movie is that it contains some of the most amazing and disturbing imagery ever put on film. It is as if Salvador Dali decided to make a crime drama. A must see for anyone seriously interested in cinematography and the use of the film cell as a canvas on which to display true works of visual art. I would have to give this movie a 9/10 for it's amazing visual display. 'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.

We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.

The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.

Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.

It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific. The last film that provided a vivid and disturbing look at what insanity is probably like was In Dreams. In that movie, you didn't see insanity, you were THERE. Now The Cell comes along with an updated and much more disturbing portrayal of the inside of the mind of a psychotic killer. The opening scene takes you into the seemingly innocent mind of a comatose little boy, and the things that Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) sees are first fascinating and then terrifying. The things that she later sees in the mind of Vincent Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) are amazingly imaginative and fascinating, most of this stuff has never been seen in film before.

The story of The Cell is not exactly something that is really groundbreaking. In fact, it is basically the same as the story in The Silence of the Lambs. You have a killer in custody and these people have to enter his mind to find a female victim who is currently in danger of losing her life. The only real difference between the foundation of the plots is that in The Silence of the Lambs, you have to enter the mind of a killer to find a different killer as well as his current victim, while in The Cell, you have to enter the mind of a killer to find his own victim. However, despite the unfortunately weak story, The Cell completely revolutionizes the genre of the psychological thriller. None that have ever been made even come close to it.

Also, the film had good direction and was extremely well acted. Vince Vaughn delivers another of his characteristically excellent performances (he was even good as Norman Bates in the pathetic 1998 re-make of Psycho), and even Jennifer Lopez puts forth the second good effort of her career (the other being the great Out of Sight). Nothing can be said of the cinematography in The Cell to give it sufficient credit, it was imaginative and fascinatingly done and is unparalleled by anything ever seen in cinematic history. The Cell is an incredibly well-made film, and it deserves to be recognized. This movie is definitely a case of style over substance but the style is good and certainly more than unique on its own to make "The Cell" a memorable and above average movie.

"The Cell" is beautifully looking with impressive sets, costumes and make-up. Yes, it's real eye candy to watch all. The movie has some perfectly 'dreamy' sequences that are certainly odd but also very beautiful and imaginative to look at. This movie is a perfect mix of an art-house type of movie and a typical Hollywood-thriller, that is accessible to both fans of the genre.

The story itself is pretty far fetched and doesn't always make sense. Because of that the movie isn't always pleasant and likable to watch but like I mentioned before, the style compensates for this. The style makes you keep watching till the end and provides the best moments of the movie.

Vincent D'Onofrio is unforgettable as the serial-killer with a twisted mind. Vincent D'Onofrio is really underused as an actor and this movie shows his talent once more. I'm not particularly happy about the casting of Jennifer Lopez. I know that she can act in some of her movies but she really wasn't suitable to play the main character in this movie. Her character wasn't strong enough and she was overshadowed by Vincent D'Onofrio and Vince Vaughn. Still I felt that Vince Vaughn was also miscast in this movie. He didn't fit the role well enough and no, I'm not saying that because I'm used of seeing him only in comedies now days. The rest of the supporting cast is good and still give the movie a certain degree of credibility.

The musical score by Howard Shore was also surprising good and was sort of "Se7en" like at times. It suited the movie well and gave some of the scene's some extra mood and atmosphere.

It's a far from perfect movie and the concept is far fetched and not always handled in the right way. Still "The Cell" is a perfectly watchable movie and perhaps even a bit of a must see, due to its style, originality and creativity.

7/10 Style over substance. But what a style it is. "The Cell" is the internal version of most serial killer movies. Unfortunately, the story hardly supports the visuals.

Psychotherapist Catherine Deane (J-Lo) goes into her patients' dreams via artificial means to discover and help them over come their phobias and obsessions. A new patient whose fallen into a coma, is brought to her attention by the FBI. He's a serial killer who drowns his female victims then poses their bodies in grotesque scenarios like mannequins. Deane must enter the killer's mind and navigate through his sick fantasies in order to find and save his latest victim.

Director Tarsem Singh has incredible visions and set pieces for this production. Each dream sequence is like a nightmare-ish painting in motion, from the landscapes to the costumes.

But the plot suffers from lack of history of its characters. Stargher is the only person with a thorough background and he's the last person you want to care about. Without him, you basically have a movie that moves in the present tense only, which is a shame since the movie is so visually stunning and genuinely scary. Lopez is wasted but she's not that amazing an actress anyway, though she's as gorgeous as ever. And Vince Vaughn? I don't even know why he was chosen. This is not his forte and he overacts to boot. He tried too hard to become his character and it showed. Stick to comedy, Vince! Even so, this movie is so visually frightening, I still watch this movie with the lights on and can never fall asleep right away afterward. What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10. "The Cell" is an exotic masterpiece, a dizzying trip into not only the vast mind of a serial killer, but also into one of a very talented director. This is conclusive evidence of what can be achieved if human beings unleash their uninhibited imaginations. This is boldness at work, pushing aside thoughts to fall into formulas and cliches and creating something truly magnificent. This is the best movie of the year to date.

I've read numerous complaints about this film, anywhere from all style and no substance to poorly cast characters and bad acting. To negatively criticize this film is to miss the point. This movie may be a landmark, a tradition where future movies will hopefully follow. "The Cell" has just opened the door to another world of imagination. So can we slam the door in its face and tell it and its director Tarsem Singh that we don't want any more? Personally, I would more than welcome another movie by Tarsem, and would love to see someone try to challenge him.

We've all heard talk about going inside the mind of a serial killer, and yes, I do agree that the "genre" is a bit overworked. The 90s were full of movies trying to depict what makes serial killers tick; some of them worked, but most failed. But "The Cell" does not blaze down the same trail, we are given a new twist, we are physically transported into the mind and presented with nothing less than a fascinating journey of the most mysterious subject matter ever studied.

I like how the movie does not bog us down with too much scientific jargon trying to explain how Jennifer Lopez actually gets to enter the brain of another. Instead, she just lies down on a laboratory table and is wrapped with what looks like really long Twizzlers and jaunted into another entity. "The Cell" wants to let you "see" what it's all about and not "how" it's all about, and I guess that's what some people don't like. True, I do like explanations with my movies, but when a movie ventures onto new ground you must let it do what it desires and simply take it in.

I noticed how the film was very dark when it showed reality, maybe to contrast the bright visuals when inside the brain of another. Nonetheless, the set design was simply astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if this film took home a few Oscars in cinematography, best costumes, best director and the like. If it were up to me it'd at least get nominated for best picture.

I've noticed that I've kind of been repeating myself. Not because there's nothing else to say, but because I can't stress enough how fantastic I thought "The Cell" was. If you walk into the movie with a very open mind and to have it taken over with wonders and an eye-popping feast then you are assured a good time. I guess this film was just a little too much for some people, writing it off as "weird" or "crazy". I am very much into psychology and the imagination of the human mind, so it was right down my alley. Leaving the theater, I heard one audience member say "Whoever made that movie sure did a lot of good drugs." If so, I want what he was smoking.

**** (out of 4) "The Cell" is a rather difficult film to classify. If you read the plot outline, "a psychotherapist journeys inside a comatose serial killer in the hopes of saving his latest victim", you might think it's a thriller with a touch of science fiction. But that doesn't really do this movie justice. There is a fantasy aspect within the sub-conscious minds that is stunning, with lavish visuals and incredible mind-tripping scenarios. There is drama as the aforementioned psychotherapist (played by Lopez prior to her becoming a solely romantic comedy component) makes contact with the child within and witnesses his terrifying upbringing. And there is most definitely a horror facet due to the sickening actions of the serial killer's evil persona. The movie attempts to function on many different levels and crosses genre boundaries at will. While I feel it ends up being a reasonably bizarre experience, I find it to be completely fascinating.

Right from the opening credits, with Lopez riding a horse through the desert stunningly clothed in a white dress, you will know that you are in for a visual treat. Every time the audience leaves reality and follows her into the sub conscious depths of her "patients", they are guaranteed a feast of visual and aural delight. The costumes are wonderful creations of angles and colour. The camera leaves regularities at the door and traverses a world where up and down are the same. The characters become rulers of their own domains and transform into creatures worthy of such stature. If you don't enjoy anything else about "The Cell", you will surely be impressed with the work put into these scenes.

The casting is top notch also. Jennifer Lopez is in her element here, utilizing her natural, compassionate and almost maternal sensibilities, while combining her own striking looks with the lush surroundings, makeup and costumes. She is incredibly sexy and I personally wish someone would find another role for her outside of the rom-com world she has been typecast into that would allow her to experiment further. Vince Vaughn is fairly convincing as an FBI agent that will do anything to save the life of a young woman. But it is without a doubt Vincent D'Onofrio that has the biggest impression here. It's an extremely difficult role as he is required to bring out multiple emotions within the viewer. We are disgusted at his actions, yet sympathetic towards him due to the trauma he has experienced during his life. He looks magnificently powerful within his realm, yet insecure and vulnerable within the real world. It's a great performance from an underrated actor.

While "The Cell" doesn't work as well on every level it ambitiously attempts (some of the actions of the characters are not believable) and while it is all based on some fairly flimsy scientific logic, it is an occasionally shocking, visually astounding head trip that rewards multiple viewings. I remember seeing the trailer for this movie when it was first released and it looked pretty cool. I never got the chance to see it though. When I went to Blockbuster to rent some videos, I figured I should watch it. After all I did love "Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en", and if you enjoyed those movies, you might get a kick out of "The Cell". The whole story concept is very interesting. Going physically into the mind of a killer, I can't imagine the world they live in. The acting is actually pretty decent. Jennifer Lopez is the only one I have to say that wasn't that great, but she does a believable job. I would recommend for a scary thriller.

7/10 A serial killer , Carl Stargher , has been kidnapping and murdering young women by letting them drown in a water filled cell . He is apprehended by the FBI , but is in a coma and his latest kidnap victim awaits in a cell timed to fill with water

Take a look at the above premise and you'll see that there's a very much seen it all before look to it . The magic of Mark Protosevich's script is that he changes a hoary old chestnut plot in to something quite different from what you're expecting . If I mentioned the plot involves a machine that allows a psychiatrist to enter the mind of Stargher then sets up a different film entirely

This wouldn;'t be enough to make THE CELL a different class of thriller but director Tarsem Singh creates a visually striking surreal thriller . The cinematography by Paul Laufer where opaque primary colours are to the fore is stunning but Singh doesn't let it end there , things like costume design where Stargher wanders around his idiosyncratic universe wearing opulent costumes does have a visual impact making this so much more than a run of a mill thriller

What stops THE CELL becoming a classic movie however is that you start becoming more and more aware that the whole movie revolves around the visuals rather than having a natural narrative . We see a third character , a FBI man enter Stargher's domain but this seems more like a contrived plot turn just to introduce the audience to more stunning but very disturbing moments

It should also be pointed out that this is a rather disturbing thriller with a atmosphere that is very depressing and that stops the film from being if not enjoyable , then involving . One scene where a FBI agent recounts a case where a paedophile beats a rap only to later cut out the heart of his victim will fill your heart with so much despair you might reach for the off button . You'll probably have to watch a massive amount of thrillers till you see another one as disconcerting as this one After you have seen enough movies, there is very little that doesn't remind you of other movies. Nevertheless this was a watchable if somewhat disturbing film. I had to shut it off from time to time and come back to it later. Like "Silence of the Lambs" it features the search for a serial killer who has abducted someone and has confined her to his chamber of horrors, Like "Flatliners" the main character explores a dream world through an experimental procedure. The surrealism of the dream sequences is what makes this film, as one finds the characters in a situation and landscape in which literally anything can happen. And beyond this continuity and "making sense" are not necessary, which makes it a film-maker's dream too.

The only thing that seems a bit off is the fact that in the end one hopes for the redemption of the serial killer or the exorcism of his demons. You actually feel sympathy for the little boy inside the man, but clearly the innocence of the boy cannot be separated from horrible deeds of the man. The focus swings as it must from saving the man to saving his victim. A crackling and magnificent thriller about a child psychiatrist, Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) who is desperately urged by two FBI agents, Peter Novak (Vince Vaughn) and Gordon Ramsey (Jake Weber) to use her therapy on Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Ofornio), a serial killer who (uses strange and horrifying torture tactics) is found in a coma by the feds. What Novak wants in return from Deane is whereabouts of Stargher's latest victim is and if she's alive. Once Deane gets into Stargher's mind, which has the appearence and atmosphere that resembles a colorful combination of David Lynch's "Dune" or "Blue Velvet" and Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street", the adventure begins. Deane sees a variety of odd people ranging from Carl as a youngster (an adorable Jake Thomas) to a Freddy Krueger-like man minus the razor claws. I don't want to give away the ending, but the movie is great altogether besides the dynamite performances, Howard Shore's creepy musical score and directing (by Tarsem, who shows here that he can direct). The Cell is weak on plot, filled with holes and has pretty lousy acting as well. but none of this matters, for, director tarsem singh has given us one of the most visually stunning movies ever. the whole plot is just an excuse to let tarsem fool around and take you into the minds of a serial killer, bringing the audience some shocking, pleasing, breath-taking and mind blowing images.

the images from this beautiful movie will stick with you for a long time to come. this movie is a perfect case for the "suspension of disbelief" theory. forget the silly plot, just let your senses be overwhelmed with the images. and J.Lo looks stunning enough to add to the rest of tarsem's work. the cinematography is harrowing, the music haunting & the costumes just stunning.

the movie is less of a movie and more of a work of art. its just that the medium is not canvas anymore, it is the big-screen and celluloid. one of the most refreshing movies of this decade. The Cell is a must watch. A bold new step in movie making.

an enthralling 8!! ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** THE CELL / (2000) **** (out of four)

"Do you believe there is a part of yourself, deep inside in your mind, with things you don't want other people to see? During a session when I'm inside, I get to see those things."

--Catherine Deane

And so do we. One of the most visually stimulating films of the year, "The Cell" is a love/hate movie-either you love it or you hate it. I can understand the reasons some people dislike this production. With a story that combines disturbing serial killers with mind-probing, "The Cell" is too much for some viewers; others will not understand the complex actions and emotions of the film. I think it's one of the year's most engrossing films.

Making his feature film screenwriting debut, Mark Protosevich creates an imaginative world of rich, colorful images and provocative characters. The filmmakers take advantage of every shot. Protosevich conceived ideas for "The Cell" in 1993 when he decided to combine two of his major interests, mind-probing and serial killers. He was reportedly influenced by such directors as Wes Craven, George Romero and David Cronenberg. They would probably be proud of such an imagination.

The film combines two major narratives, one about scientific exploration of the human mind, and the other about a psychopath who murders young women for his own sexual pleasure. Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), a child therapist, is part of a neurological study at the Campbell Center, a research clinic. Because of her empathetic personality, scientists chose Deane to enter the mind of a catatonic preteen in hopes to revive his brain into waking.

A sick, demented serial killer roams the streets. Within an abandoned rural farmhouse, Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) locks innocent female victims in a large glass cell where he then drowns them and performs sadistic sexual rituals with their bodies. The killer escapes from the FBI every time they draw near, until now. A violent seizure renders him comatose. The FBI captures his forever unconscious body. Unfortunately, he already prepared the cell with his latest victim. In forty hours, the cell will fill with water, and Stargher is the only man who knows the location of his victim.

The FBI takes this situation to Campbell Center, where Catherine enters the mind of Stargher, hoping to discover the location of his latest victim before the cell fills with water, sending the woman to a watery grave.

The science fiction portions of the story relied on both real science and theoretical fiction in the creation of the Neurological Cartography and Synaptic Transfer System. The premise takes a long time to develop, but it is worth the wait. It is far fetched, but that doesn't matter. The film makes us believe. Even if you don't suspend disbelief, however, the visual enticement provides an engaging setting to enjoy.

According to the film's production notes, Mark Protosevich was thrilled to work with the director, named Tarsem, because they both think visually. Tarsem Singh is known for his attention to detail, stunning art direction, and highly developed abilities to tell a story. "When I wrote 'The Cell'," explains Protosevich, "I surrounded myself with postcards or color copies of painter's paintings or photographs while I was working. So I'm thinking visually, and Tarsem is a highly visual director. Tarsem has a similar frame of visual references which made for a very smooth collaboration."

Vincent D'Onofrio provides the film with a backbone, and no actor could have accomplished his character any better. He delivers a mysterious, disturbing, and engaging performance. "I think that my character is, in a way, trapped in himself," D'Onofrio ponders. He also researched the psychology of serial killers to help get him beneath the surface of the character. His in-depth performance preparation pays off beautifully.

While the actors, writer, and director do wonders with their material, the real honor goes to the film's behind-the-scenes talent. The director of photography Paul Laufer, production designer Tom Foden, costume designer April Napier, special effects coordinator Clay Pinney, and visual effects supervisor Kevin Tod Haug. They bring the world of "The Cell" to life. It's is an extraordinary world worthy of several viewings. Some movies you watch, others you experience. "The Cell" falls into the later category.

When I saw this movie for the first time I was both surprised and a little shocked by the blatant vibrance of the story. It is a very artistic drama with incredible special effects, spectacular acting, not to mention a very excellent job in the makeup department. Jennifer Lopez has pulled herself out of past roles that dug into her career with this movie, portraying a very sensitive child psychologist who works with a team of engineers to enter the minds of comatose patients to treat them. Vincent D'onofrio played amazingly well. His portrayal of a sadist serial killer was perfect to a T. The sheer emotion conveyed by his performance is astounding. Vince Vaughn isn't my favorite, but still performed exceptionally well. The symbolism and artistry was intriguing and titillating, sometimes surprising, and other times shocking. Overall, I say this is a wonderful movie, with excellent acting and beautiful artwork. THE CELL (2000) Rating: 8/10

The Cell, like Antz, must be watched twice to be appreciated. The first time I saw this film I thought it was mediocre, but the film had such a lasting impression on me after viewing, I decided I had to rent it again. I did, and I found the film to be much more likeable. The Cell is not for everyone, but it divides its stories up with quality and is a visually intelligent film that dreams up images and plot ideas that could not be matched. The film's script can be clunky at times, as can the acting, but the visuals are ingenious and bring the engaging story to an exotic and intriguing life. The Oscar nominated makeup is also daring and careful, while the beautiful costumes and utterly brilliant set decoration went unnoticed. Tarsem Singh who has also directed music videos, goes totally crazy with his direction and it results well. He has major talent and this film has a lot of potential if you give it a chance. Overall, The Cell is a powerful, disturbing and avoids being too tacky which makes it a great, pleasurable watch. I do not want to go into a criticism of the movie which I think is - for a big budget movie - quite exceptional and daring.

I just wanted to remark that I am really fed up with the studios policies and the laws of different states which treat their viewers like children. In the database we find at least 4 different versions of the movie according to running time. But, of course, it is likely that there are much more different cuts.

The result is complete confusion and you can never be sure to talk about the same movie (unless you live in Argentina where the movie runs 115 minutes which sounds quite complete).

Later on DVD and Video, the studios try to rob us further by selling us a presumable director's cut (in Germany, there is already such a version around, running approx. 110 minutes).

It would be nice, if the studios would not only think of the cash they make with their movies but also think of their products as a work of art, even at the risk of an unfavourable rating, so that I as a viewer don't have to feel cheated and am taken seriously, not only as a resource of money. I went straight to the big screen to view this kicker. This is the only flick that I know of that Tarsem Singh has directed but boy was it intense. This movie was a total mind stimulant and one of the best special effects flick of this kind.

The characters were vibrant and and nothing short of beings created in your own mind or nightmare. This movie is scary and interesting and totally bombs the senses with fear and exhilaration. This movie compares to no other I have seen except for the level of being beautifully odd. In that respect it is a fairly large step above `A Clockwork Orange.' Definitely see this movie on the big screen and don't wait for it to come out on tape. It won't be half as good on tape.

This movie is not for the easily freaked out. It will mess with your mind and leave you with images that take a while to forget. But for those who like to be freaked out.....ENJOY! THE CELL fascinated me at first glance. I was a bit surprised about that fact, because the story of that movie is absolutely boring. If it had no story, the film would be better. Bunuels "Un chien andalou" comes to my mind- a film without story, but also with fascinating and sometimes disturbing images. But THE CELL is at first a Hollywood-Movie, and only second a piece of art. I'm very interested in Tarsem's next project. Hamlet on Indian could be very interesting, especially when it has the same looks as THE CELL.

For film music enthusiasts: Howard Shore's score for THE CELL is absolutely marvelous, but a hard listening experience, because of its very modernistic style. It must be said that the director of The Cell, Tarsem Singh, has quite handily established himself with his first feature, which happens to rank as one of the most visually astounding films in contemporary cinema.

The Cell is more of a visceral experience than a film. As a thriller, it rises above most of its peers, with competent editing and a chilling score effectively providing an exceptionally suspenseful atmosphere. However, it is ultimately Tarsem's skill for elaborate and disturbing set design and imagery that carries the film's jolting sense of terror.

As with several recent films, I have been shocked by the alarming hypocrisy among those who have commented negatively about The Cell; in defence of the film, I will address a few of these issues. The plot appears to be the main concern, and while it is not revolutionary and borrows heavily from The Silence of the Lambs, it was never intended to be the most important aspect of the film; the plot itself is a vehicle through which Tarsem's vision--simultaneously horrifying and wondrous--is presented to the audience, much in the same way that the plot of The Silence of the Lambs is secondary to the fascinating study of its two lead characters, Lecter and Starling. While The Silence of the Lambs is clearly the superior film, it is irrational for one to condemn the plot of The Cell, and in the same breath, praise that of The Silence of the Lambs.

My final concern is the mention of "MTV style" directing. It pains me to see the condemnation of directors who use innovative camera and cinematography techniques. A camera has the potential to be much more than simply a tool with which to record events; angles, pans, colour adjustment, and so forth, are all used to their full extent in The Cell with the purpose of creating the sense of a dream-like state that could not have been otherwise achieved. This is essential to the film, as the entire premise behind it is the visualization of a serial killer's subconscious. If you simply want a series of static shots, stick to stage plays and give up cinema altogether.

That being said, The Cell is thoroughly entertaining, terrifying, and breathtaking in both its pacing and design. Anyone who is able to look past the--perhaps uninspired, yet never dull--screenplay will find one of the best films of the year 2000. Despite all it's trappings of style and cinematic invention, this is basically another serial killer thriller, following the same sort of plotline favoured by such old favourites as Silence of the Lambs ? team of cops follows the trail of (particularly nasty) murders, someone else gets taken and they somehow have to find out where they are before it's too late. Only in this case, the only person who knows, the killer himself (powerfully played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is in a coma and we need psychologist Jennifer Lopez' sci-fi mind-meld machine to get into his head and force him to tell all. This is where the film gets all new and different, as we enter (via a 21st-Century CGI update of Dr Who's kaleidoscopic favourite, the trendy time tunnel) a kind of Hellraiser-y weird world of scary crazy stuff going on all over the place, ruled over by D'Onofrio, now a kind of superking overlord of his twisted mental world, inside his comatose body. The inside-the-mind sequences are well realised and often pretty stunning, all the leads perform adequately, the gruesomeness is to the max if you like that kind of thing, but the hype around the whole thing led to a disappointment for me, as I had expected something completely new and unlike anything ever done before, not this fairly successful blending of serial-killer and special-effect-horror genre staples. Sometimes horrifying, often pretty, a fairly gripping story told with care and attention by talented film people, but by no means the great leap into the unknown it has been marketed as. I had no expectations when I started to watch this movie. How surprised I was! This is a great, beautiful, twisted movie which will give your mind a good work-out! It's not simple. If you only enjoy Police Academy style, no-brains movies, this is not for you. The Cell is a deep, complex film with influences from movies like Cube, Silence of the Lambs and The Lawnmower Man, along with lots of completely new ideas. Wonderful, twisted environments, good acting and a compelling story makes this one of the best films I have seen in a long time! Be open-minded, and you will love it! This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.

Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..

Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays? I couldn't believe the eye candy from start to finish. Being a fan of movies directed by music video masterminds. I am happy to report that the photography in this motion picture is a splendor for the eye to behold. There are so many rich, full images that are put before me, that each and every time that I see this movie, I find something new that I had not seen before. As with previous movies that I have seen, such as Blade and Mystery Men, also by former music video directors, the use of color to capture one's attention is utilized extremely well. Though the characters could have been developed better, the action and costuming was well worth the price of admission. I recommend you buy this one for your DVD collection. Even if you haven't seen this on the big screen, you won't be disappointed. I know I wasn't. I give this film 8/10 overall. Visually, a great deal of it is nothing short of stunning: an art director's dream mix of Hieryonomous Bosch, Salvador Dali, Frieda Kahlo and Georgia O'Keeffe--and a valid testament to the power of film as a serious art form. Beautiful use of color, form, imagery, environment--and fabulous set decoration, combine with state-of-the-art computer graphics. So, 10/10 for that! Wow!

The plot line is, well, more predictable. You know they'll save the girl and get the killer in the end, but the story is still interesting and pacy enough to pull you in and keep you there. 6/10 for that.

Squirm factor...I won't give this a rating, but the film certainly made me squirm, and I was watching it on video on a tv screen. It would, of course, have a great deal more impact on a big screen. Graphic violence of a twisted, erotic nature in a surreal landscape--even if beautiful--is highly unpredictable. The world inside the killer's head is not--thank goodness!--my world. Because I watched this film on video, I was able to replay a couple of sequences and found much to admire the second time around when I wasn't so nervous about where the scene might be going, and I suspect the whole film would be worth seeing a second time, just for the "visual art".

General suggestion: don't take the kids or conservative grandparents to this one, but if you're keen on the visual look of films, like surrealist art, don't mind a bit of kinky gore, and just want to take a bit of a "mind trip", this one's a winner. Oh, and if you're keen on babes, Jennifer Lopez is pretty hot.

I just started watching The Show around July. I found it by mistake, I was channel surfing during a Vacation. It is a great show, I just wish it wasn't on so late at night. It's on at 12:30 AM. As a working person it makes it hard to watch all the time.

I read some comments. I did not agree with the late one about not growing up in the 60's and not believing that this stuff can happen.

I grew up in the 60's. I'm Hispanic and I had a "White" boyfriend plus we had black friends in High School. I believe people get along because of their interests and personalities and it has nothing to do with being a certain race or color.

I can't wait till the show goes on DVD so I can buy it. This way I can see it from the beginning. I loved this show. I was waiting for it to come out on DVD....it never has. Does anyone know how to get the show available on DVD? I have contacted Lifetime TV and a few others and nothing. Please let me know if there is a way we can have this series on DVD. Iwould be first in line to purchase it. I really got hooked on this show. I do not understand how a bunch of other TV shows are available on DVD but not Any Day Now. I am sure there are many of us out there who would love to have this series on DVD or even VHS. I thought of contacting the production company. Has anyone else out there tried to contact anyone for this information? This show was not only great human drama but portrayed racism in this country in a raw, all too true to life manner. When one show can be so witty and entertaining and yet so poignant and educational all at once, this is television in its highest form. The acting was phenomenal. The writing was exceptional. Not only did the show portray race relations in a straightforward manner that seems unmatched by any other television series, but its ability to depict this subject matter as it existed in the 1960's alongside how it exists in the beginning of the twenty-first century powerfully demonstrates the ways we have changed, and sadly, the many more ways we have not. I would give this television series a 10 plus if i could. The writers were "smack on" and I think the best actors and actresses were a bonus to the show.These characters were so real. One could tell that from the two main actresses Ms. Toussaint & Ms. Potts that their relationship on & off camera was genuine It didn't just end when you hear those familiar words "Cut" at the end of a "Take". The show has thought me a lot about life for e.g. Historical struggles, tragedies and triumphs,relationships,every day situations, every household have same situations no matter who the members are, it really came down to just being a wonderful family show that at the end of every episode, you can just sit on your living room couch and say to yourself "now what did i learn from this particular episode".

I must say I have taped most of the episodes and i find myself watching them over and over again.

Now you know why I gave it a 10+!! Wow this Wrestlemania took place from 3 different cities. This was the very first wrestling pay per view I ever saw and it's a good one indeed! There is a great steel cage match for the main event as Hulk Hogan takes on King Kong Bundy! Husband-and-wife doctor team Carole and Niles Nelson are doing modestly well in their careers, but Niles has a gambling problem. His luck changes when he (unknowingly) saves the life of a gangster from Joe Gurney's mob and gets a big bonus from the gangleader himself. Loving his change of fortune (and snazzy new apartment), Niles continues to receive payoffs for patching up other injured members of the gang. Unfortunately, his shady deals come to light in a police raid, which hangs a shadow over his wife's career as well.

At this point the plot comes into focus, as Carole Nelson has to rescue her career before her license is suspended. This involves bringing the gang to justice more or less single- handedly.

This is not a hard-edged gangster picture, but a plot that might have been comfortable on a show like MATLOCK or MURDER SHE WROTE. There is some tension, but the mood is kept light by Bogart's tongue-in-cheek performance of a stupid gangster who imagines himself as the "Napoleon of Crime." His other gang members also function more as stooges than hoodlums. And there's some snappy dialog between Bogart and Francis, especially when she's treating his injuries at his hideout. Of course, as in all gangster flicks, there's a big shootout ending, but with a humorous twist. This is a good short film showing Bogart on his rise to stardom. King of the Underworld features an early role for Humphery Bogart in one of his many gangster roles.

He plays Joe Gurney who uses a female doctor to treat his men and pays her for it. He follows her when she goes to live with her Auntie after one of Gurney's men kills her doctor husband who also worked for him. Gurney kidnaps an author on his way to find the female doctor and gets him to write his life story and he then plans to kill him. He finally meets up with the doctor and after she gives Gurney and his men a substance that makes them temporarily blind, she and the author, who have now fallen in love manage to escape just as police arrive...

Joing the excellent Bogie in the cast are Kay Francis, James Stephenson and John Eldredge.

Watching King of the Underworld is a good way to spend just over an hour one evening.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. The hurried approach that Lewis Seiler takes with King of the Underworld establishes a deeper plot, while still maintaining an efficient run-time. One of the clearest examples of this is the transition between poverty and wealth for the married medical couple. The audience is instantly transported from a shanty medical office to a luxurious suite at the city's most prestigious inn. This development is critical to understanding the position the doctors have been thrown into. The story suggests from the intro that these two people are generally happy with providing medical practice to those who are less fortunate. By abruptly cutting from this scenario to the morally conflicting occupation (the mob's personal physician), the viewer is called upon to experience this sudden turn of events. The Nelsons (Kay Francis and John Eldredge) are forcibly employed by Gurney (Bogart) without objections. This stylized notion of organized crime being too influential and powerful to overcome has become a standard component in every gangster picture. The one aspect of this film that raised some questions for me, ironically dealt with the pacing of the story, and that rate at which it was told. I think that character development and social identity can suffer when certain aspects of a story are not fully examined. This paradox happens to be a result of personal taste, in that I think that the movie going experience can be enhanced through rigorous character development. However, for the purposes of this film, I must admit that the rapid action contributes more dynamic flare to the impact of the film.

**1/2 (of ****) I bought this movie because of Raquel Welch. She was gorgeous in this film as she played the role of Harry (Mike Wagner) girl friend. Harry a robber down on his luck trying to make one more heist. Harry goes to a funeral where he meets Vittorio De Sica and takes him for a ride. When things don't work out on the ride they put there mines together to figure out the fastest way to get money. Harry and his gang decide with the help of Vittorio De Sica to from there on mob. Rest a sure that no matter what the gang goes after that the outcome is never the same and will keep you on the edge of your sit. The rest of the out come you need to watch for yourself. As far as Raquel goes if you're a fan of here then you need to watch this movie because she never looked better standing on the beach with a ****** on. I give this movie 10 weasel stars on Raquel Welch body alone. It's no wonder why she was the hottest actress back in the sixties. She was the sex symbol everyone one wanted and no one could get. Not only does she look good, she can act even better. If you like, Raquel Welch then you'll like this movie I don't go for that many "heist" comedies, and I might not care for this one if it weren't for the actors, when it was made, and when I FIRST SAW it (just a few years later). It's almost too similar to "The Happening" (even though it's obviously a much less serious comedy than that one) - Mafia figure takes over his own kidnapping, or rather, turns it in a different direction altogether. Of course, Raquel Welch didn't play the kind of sharp character Faye Dunaway did in The Happening, but that doesn't make it a sexist film either - she was practically playing a stock character, almost HER version of a "moll"! But, I'm completely biased - it's among the first films I ever saw with her, and at the time I saw it, you couldn't turn around without seeing a poster of her (luckily). I think Robert Wagner was really just right as the neither thoroughly likable nor dis-likable leader of the group, as were Edward G. Robinson (naturally) and Vittoria De Sica. And Godfrey Cambridge, an actor who always managed to be funny. I caught this flick on the trail end of a tape I had used to capture a movie I truly wanted to wanted to see again. When I saw Raquel Welch's name in the opening credits, I decided to watch it. It was actually mildly entertaining, and took me back "in the wayback machine" to the farcical movies that Hollywood churned out during the sixties, much in the same genre as the current Austin Powers stuff. Oh the acting was not superb, nor was the plot, but it was worth watching. There was some delightful scenery, although Ms. Welch provided the most pleasant of such. Tape it if you get the chance and watch it when you have absolutely nothing else to do. It is not a snoozer, but it won't have you rolling in the aisles wanting more, either. When I first saw this film on video in a department store... it intrigued me. Considering the fact that I thought I was in love and I was the same age as the youths in this film at the time (although I realize they are now old enough to be my parents), plus the soundtrack being written by Elton John & Bernie Taupin just before they "made it big" here in North America... I figured I had nothing to lose in buying it. I was not disappointed.

So far, I have shown it to many guys I have dated since, and to my current boyfriend... obviously, they didn't find it as lovely as I do... preferring to call it a "chick" movie... but I still laugh and cry. This film was vastly overlooked. It's good to see it's available to rent at one of the local video stores around here so that other people can share the magic.

So maybe it's a bit far fetched... but it gives you a lighthearted sense of innocence... and a renewed faith in love. First of all - I'm not one to go all sappy over movies. I saw Friends in the 70's when it was first released. I was about 17 years old at the time. Even now, at age 50, I still can remember some of the scenes. The movie is sweet and sad and may actually be too tame for teenagers today but I loved it. The story is about innocence, the purity of young love and the determination of 2 young people to make a better life for themselves then they had at home. At the time it was pretty risky to have a movie about a couple of young runaways who successfully setup house and have a baby on their own. I'm not surprised the movie and Elton John's soundtrack are almost unknown today. The music is beautiful. It was unforgettable. First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own. Well what do you know, I was painting my house today and an Elton john song came on the radio, which immediately took me back to this movie which i saw in 1971. So long ago and so far away. Ten years later i hitched hiked through the country side of France, and i sure would have been keen to see Michelle. The film is probably not very sophisticated by todays standards, more's the pity, but it seemed rather racy back then. A few years later a sequel was made with Michelle living in a high rise in Paris and Paul coming back to meet her, just like life they had moved on, the film was very downbeat. Still the original was fab, and if you can get a copy go rent it, just remember to give it its' due and treat it gently. I note Americans can be rather prudish, so take note, contains scenes and themes possibly upsetting to middle America. I loved this movie! OH MY GOSH! This movie rocked so hard! I found it amongst some old tapes and didn't know what it was and after having read the back of the cover to see what the summer had to say about it (Which btw, mentioned the fact that Elton John covered the soundtrack for the film more times than it mentioned what the film was actually about.), I thought it sounded interesting, and I was even more interested in seeing it because it was an older film.

"What controversy?" I thought to myself as I put the tape in the player, I was curious I get. And my expectations were certainly met. I loved it! I guess it is a really girly kind of movie, but it was so sweet and adorable! It was a beautiful romance, although at times the directing reminded me of the camera work in 'The Graduate', which I thought at the time of seeing it the director must have been on acid with some of the close ups they did.

OK, so it wasn't entirely conceivable for these two kids to run off and live on their own...but it could happen...in a fantasy...

But, the ending just sincerely ticked me off! I was so mad with how they ended it...it sort of leaves you hanging, and I suppose they may address what actually happens to them in the sequel...but at the same time, I'm almost hesitant to see that, since sequels are almost never as good as the first.

I totally recommend this movie to anyone sixteen and over! It's an awesome movie...Awesome! With all the dreck out there, this is a gentle movie about young love. Yes, it's true that young love often makes more out of something than it deserves, but why aren't people down on "Romeo and Juliet"? Paul and Michelle are models of good behave compared to them.

Yes, they run away, and set up an ideal life, but this is a movie, not real life. Paul is more sexually interested than Michelle, who has been come onto in a bad way. Eventually, they have sex, but no one is forced into it. The movie does let kids know that sex can cause babies.

One thing, there is nudity in the movies. The camera does not focus on it, but it is there.

The ending of the movie has Paul in good chance of being found out. In "Paul and Michelle", they separate for a time. If you don't like the ending of a movie, think one up yourself. Alternative endings are not just for DVDs. I saw the movie in 1972, and like other people who have commented on it here ... I went back many more times to see it over and over ... I think 9 times in all. Just great is how I would describe it ... I was taken by the sound track, the beautiful panoramas of the south of France, the life style the kids began on their own. An ideal way to live is what they had set up ... of course the powers that be have to intercede, but when I forget that part I find myself wanting to be in the movie and live like that! So good that it is available on DVD now ... it was not around for years!

TLW I can barely even remember what DECADE I saw this film. It was when I was a teenager, I think (I'm 37 now). I started watching it as a late night movie sometime in the mid to early 80s, and so much of it has stayed with me ever since. Seeing other comments, I had NO idea it was shown at theatres, or that anyone else even new it existed. I don't think I've even mentioned the movie to anyone else.

But half a lifetime later, I still remember much of the movie that I watched late at night so long ago. I think the innocence of the charactors, their situation, their mutual affection over a long period of time, left a long term imprint for reasons I don't quite understand. Maybe it is because I was a teenager at the time I saw it, and it touched me somehow..... I really don't know! I also REALLY wanted to know what was going to happen when the after the end of the film happened. Oh, the agony!!

I've not seen it before, or since, but I would love to. I keep a casual look out for it, but I now doubt it will been shown and it seems to have faded into oblivion. But I'd proberbly miss it in the TV guide even if it DID show up. Pssttt!!!

Reading the reviews here has renewed my interest. If anyone knows of its availability in Australia, by all means email me and let me know.

Oh, and Sean Bury... nice to see you make an appearance on the comments here. I've had a look at your movie history and noticed your last appearance in a James Bond film. What are you up to these day? Oh, and do YOU have a copy of the film? CHEERS!!! i really love this movie , i saw it for the first time when i was working a video store. when i went to buy it they told me it was out of print and i couldn't order it so i just today thought i would look. and then i found it they put it out in Spain on DVD under the name "Algo Mas Que Amigos" and you can buy there it is in English and Spanish on the DVD....hope this helps ..... i know how hard it is to find movies that we love that they haven't Released to The U.S Market. best of luck..oh For more info here is one place to look.... HTTP://www.zonadvd.com i think it going for 10 dollars usd on eBay as well. Most of these reviews are dead on, so I'll cut to a different chase and answer a couple of questions I've seen on here.

While the characters seem and look young (hence the controversy), the actor/actress themselves were 17 and 18 at the time and so obviously over the 16 barrier. Here in the USA, that's still somewhat controversial but the simplicity and innocence of the film does much to offset it.

I'm sorry not to have seen more by Sean; in this movie at least his expressions are demonstrative and obvious; you know exactly what the character is feeling whether he's angry, afraid, or confused. Anicee had a healthy career, who's life was cut unfortunately short by cancer in late 2006. She was a beautiful and talented actress.

VHS tapes of FRIENDS can be found at Amazon.com occasionally, but usually for a significant price; I've seen it as low as $60 or so and as high as $152 (as of this comment, there were two for that price). The sequel video PAUL & MICHELLE is not quite as pricey and can be obtained (when available) on Amazon for between $16 and $70 on average. A remarkable film, bringing to the surface all sorts of feelings I had when I was much, much younger. I loved it, and the Elton John music. I remember seeing in in the movies when I was a kid, and for some reason (limited release?) I've never known anyone else who saw this film when it was released.

The dreams it inspired in me from decades ago have never left me, and seeing the film again recently brought it all rushing back, I confess, however, that my kids (in their 20's) have not experienced a similar emotional rush. A generational thing?

Why is it not on DVD? I'm certain that people from USA don't know anything about the rest of the world, but I think they mustn't talk about what they don't know. And they must remember that the rest of the world is not as hypocrite as the USA. The only places where consented sex between teenagers are illegal are the USA and Islamic nations. In France, for instance, the age of consent is 15. In Brazil it's 14. In Spain it's 12. So the teenagers actors, 16 and 17 years old by the time of production, aren't doing anything illegal. Nudity isn't considered big deal in almost all civilized countries. And only a freak could consider a teenagers' love as child molestation. Well.....I wouldn't want to lecture anybody but I do feel the urge to say some things I consider important about this BEAUTIFUL film. I saw it for the first time in 1976 (I was 14) and then one more time a year later. That was it. The rest of it was the pink LP of Elton John's soundtrack getting the music and the story deeper and deeper inside my heart. How deep? A week ago my cousin gave me a VHS copy as a present. (No DVD's yet). Boy....was I surprised!! Poets have always sustained that deep childhood and adolescent experiences of beauty, love, God, idealist pursuits, stay with you forever. Since they occur mostly at the heart's level (no intellect yet!), they define your soul's contours like a sculptor would do with a stone. If sometimes we didn't tend to forget how right they are perhaps we would do better in understanding the meaning of every minute, of every decision, of every turning point of our lives.

So, I confess I feel nostalgia. But the fascinating part of this is watching the film again, and through this trip back in time, enriching that understanding of why we, people from the 60's, grew up as we did. The spirit of those times is all here: a Genesis created far from the official world of consuming and economic success, make love not war, the beautiful pop ballads, the poetry of the lyrics, a totally romantic view of adolescent rebellion with the awakening of sexuality carefully wrapped in tender and chaste love, these two lonely spirits still full of childhood innocence growing together as they learn mutual commitment and turning into "adults".

I showed the film to a group of school youngsters and they abounded with such simplistic and cynical comments regarding it as naïve and foolish. Guys, be serious!! Cinema is an art and as art it reflects not only human emotions but historical moments. And this is exactly what "Friends" does in a masterly way. It reflects an idyllic idea of rebellion and new beginning we all dreamt about when we were 15. I'm now a musician and I feel some of us, artists for that matter, still dream about it!! How else could we live? That's "Friends", that's "Brother Sun Sister Moon", that's "Hair". Those were the times, still alien to AIDS, alien to explicit and vulgar texts in pop songs with no melody, to pornography presented as "sexuality", to this barbaric new "world order" growing after September 11th.

What a heart warming experience to see Paul and Michelle again, timidly and tenderly exploring the new fantasies of their romantic world. What a trip back to the very core of our hearts: to Paris, to Elton John at his best, to that urban scenario surrounded by 2 CV Citroëns and the VW Beetles. What a fresh air from the peaceful cottage in Camargue, surrounded by fishing ponds and wild horses. They made us who we are, as did Serrat in Spain, Brel in France, Peter Paul and Mary, Joan Baez, Luther King, the Beatles, the early Bee Gees, Belafonte's Spirituals, Gandhi, the Gospel of Elvis.

People still hoping: get this picture. Start with innocence and grow from there. You'll find out what it's all about. And from there you'll have a solid and more truthful foundation; some ideals to look for in life, a way to handle personal and world affairs. We need so much of this today! Give yourselves the chance and maybe someday the time of cynics will end. (I have an extra VHS copy)

Santiago Zuleta. Bogotá, Colombia. I was in my mid teens when I saw this movie, and I was struck by the beauty of the young stars as well as the loving cinematography and the simple sweetness of the story. It amazes me to learn that Alvina has recently died, that Bury apparently has not worked in the film business for almost 30 years, and that both would be in their 50s.

The Elton John soundtrack is amazingly beautiful and supports the air of protected innocence the characters experience in seclusion. I have seen the movie poster, billing it as "Deux Enfants Quis'Aiment," which apparently means something like "Two Children Who Like Each Other"--the English language distributors were wise to abbreviate the title!

Paul, the ignored 15-year-old son of an English businessman living in Paris, meets Michelle, an orphan, at the zoo. The two take what they intend as a day-long holiday to Michelle's late father's rural cottage, but end up staying there for a year, isolated from the outside world. They fall in love, Michelle gets pregnant, and they have the baby alone at home. After the baby's birth, the police come to Paul's work place and take him away.

"Blue Lagoon" comes to mind as another film that almost captures the theme of innocence protected in an isolated paradise. So sad that "Friends" has never been released on DVD. Michelle, Anicée Alvina, was so nice, and I really fall in love with her. She died a few months ago! Friends? Really the best movie of my youth. The "seasons reprise" of Elton and his arranger Paul Buckmaster sings in my head forever... Please, if you know where i could find a VHS of the film, mail me!! My husband of 26 years & I saw this as Juniors in HS. Yes, he was my boyfriend then and still continues to be. I think we both cried our eyes out. I think possibly we were drawn to the movie by the Elton John music in it, but were then swept away by the teenage angst of it all. Paul and Michelle were just about our ages when we saw the movie- so very easy to identify with!! It is wonderful to hear that Sean is doing well, I am also in the "helping professions" (an RN). I thought his performance was good and very believable. "Michelle" came across as very sweet, fragile and vulnerable. I think the main theme is that if they didn't have to deal with the "real world" then they could be happy and continue to be in love. How many times have all of us wanted to just have a "Calgon moment". If we all had no outside worries and could just deal with our "basic needs" it could be somewhat easier. I have a 15 yr old daughter and wouldn't have a problem with her seeing this movie.. Kids see so much worse these days that this is very tame. For those of you who are trying to locate the CD my husband (a huge Elton John fan) was able to get a 2-CD set which came out in 1992. It is called, "Elton John-rare masters" Polygram studios. This has all the friends songs as well as many others. As far as we know this is the only CD with the "Friends" music. We also had the LP years ago and were thrilled to find the CD. Good luck. I recommend this movie for anyone who loves the "young love" theme. I only wish it was on DVD now!! My girlfriend and I saw this movie when it was originally released. The controversy that surrounded the original release (teen nudity, physical intimacy and unwed pregnancy) were subjects that never touched our view of the film. We were close to the same age as Paul and Michelle and were experiencing many of the same intense and confusing emotions. We were too young to get caught up in the simplistic (at times) acting and the corny (at times) emotional twists. This movie spoke to us in a way that an adult love story never could have. I still remember sitting in the movie theater with my girlfriend and holding her hand while she cried during the tragic (albiet syrupy) final scenes. I haven't seen this movie since it came out at a drive in theater, and I have been searching for it since. At the time I was 12 and the story excited me; and NOW, the ending eludes me. It was young love that engrossed me the most, not to mention John's vocals and Taupin's lyrics. The story (at the time) hit home to my psyche. I am a lover of sentimental movies and this still hangs in my head after 35 years- it is that good. Place yourself at adolescent age and let your fantasies run. If this movie didn't excite your curiosity, then you were just too old. I look forward to seeing it again (even at my age)! If nostalgia is in your venue, I'm sure this is an interesting movie to see. It's innocence is simply astounding and it's simplicity is so easy and enjoyable. Great Movie! The sound track is awesome! Very relaxing sound. Elton was ahead of his own time even back in 1971. Lewis Gilbert did a magnificent job producing and directing this film! The movie was romantic and a breath of fresh air. The sound tracks written by Sir Elton complimented the movie to a T. Rex Morris does a great job with the tenor sax on the song "Honey Roll" and poem "I Meant To Do My Work Today" by Richard Le Gallienne was incredible! Kudos to everyone involved with this fantastic film! It was no surprise that a lot of the people involved with this movie went on to become the best in their field. This film grabbed me right from its start, where a sweet-looking teen-aged girl is shown visiting a grave alone, then Elton John's powerful song "Friends" starts playing while she's shown walking alone through the streets of Paris, carrying a suitcase, naively unaware of the car theft and prostitution going on around her. The entire film is a beautiful, dreamy, romantic collection of scenes of young love, holding hands, living in the country, wild horses running around freely, fields of wildflowers, sunsets, toasts of wine, evenings by the fireside, having fun, and general innocence, all set to romantic music by Elton John. It's magical.

Somehow I missed seeing this film when I was growing up. I'm sure it would have left a strong impression on me if I had seen it then. I remember the radio advertisement for the movie in 1971, talking about how it was a special movie with music by Elton John, and with the chorus of the theme song "Friends" playing in the ad ("Makin' friends for the world to see..."), but I never heard anything else about it in those days, and never got to see it until I rented it 35 years later from a video store. By then it had been edited, censored, and all kinds of unhappy people with angry political agendas were using all kinds of ugly words to describe the film. What can I say? The world has gone insane since then.

The story is that a 14-year-old girl is forced to move in with her cousin in Paris after both her parents die. (It was their grave she was visiting in the opening scene.) One day while visiting the zoo alone she meets a 15-year-old boy, they hit it off, and agree to meet the next day. The next day while riding together the boy accidentally drives his car into a lake in a freakish solo car accident. It was his father's car, he can't bear to go back home to face his father's wrath, so the two teenagers begin living in the French countryside together, with the mutual background that they both hated their lives at home. They settle into an unoccupied cottage, the boy takes odd jobs to support themselves, their supposed friendship turns into romance, the girl becomes pregnant, and they successfully have a baby at home. All the while the boy's father has the police attempting to locate his missing son. On the 1-year anniversary of the couple's flight together, the police finally locate the boy's employer by an in-person inquiry, and are told they can see the boy the next morning when he comes to work. The next morning the boy is shown leaving his cottage to go to work, saying a sweet farewell to his girlfriend/wife, and happily doing cartwheels as the scene freezes on his girlfriend waving goodbye. At least that's how the video version I saw ends. It's an unexpected though well-timed ending, presumably depicting the last moments of bliss before the boy is taken back to his parents' home and his happy life with his wife and baby is shattered.

As beautiful as the story and images are, the plot is awfully unrealistic and highly contrived. I think it's better just to enjoy the movie as a young person's dream-come-true fantasy and to go no further in analysis, because all logic and believability quickly fall apart when the story is examined in more depth. Why would a fully furnished and stocked cottage be left unattended with the door unlocked and unvisited for a full year? What did they plan to do when the owners returned? Why would a girl trust a car thief enough to get pregnant from him? Didn't they think it was unethical to use other people's homes and food? How could they ever hope to get needed dental care or other emergency medical attention while living outside of society? How could the boy have a car accident on a country road with no collision and no other cars around? Where are there places anywhere near civilization where wild horses run free? How is it that a teenage male would not have sex as the primary thing on his mind when he picks up a girl at a zoo? (The Elton John song lyrics just don't fit.) Why would they take off clothes when sleeping outside at night when it's about to get cold? And so on. The scenes of wild horses are contrived to appeal to girls, as is the unrealistic theme of "friendship before romance," and all the back-washing and tickling scenes with their predictable outcomes, the running through flower fields towards each other, the haze filters, the scenes shot through wildflowers in the foreground, the baby ducks, and so on. It works, but it's definitely contrived.

Still, this is a movie about youth and freedom, and that ideal hasn't changed since the 1970s. Young people today are still treated as belongings or as lost pets to be recovered by the police instead of treated as mature human beings who have the same needs of romantic love and freedom as does the adult world, and the ability to be responsible when given that freedom. Therefore the message is universal. It's clear why a sequel wouldn't work: this story is about a magical, year-long reprieve from the real world. Such a situation could never have been extended indefinitely, assuming that it could even happen in the first place, and a story about real life afterward would lack the magical appeal of such an unreal state of existence. I really hope that no teenagers took the film seriously enough to try such a foolish stunt. But I hope equally well that teenagers who were impressed by this film in the '70s learned something from it, and have since then made attempts to make such a magical world a more attainable reality for others, instead of perpetuating society's various hatreds and repressions, especially on their own children. I was drawn to "Friends" by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called "Seasons", then I found the Elton John song "Friends" thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of "Friends" came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. "The Graduate" "Easy Rider") now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with "Last Tango in Paris". The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little "aged" now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. "Friends" is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today. I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a movie. I am in my 40s now and have 2 teenage kids and I would like them to see this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.

I have searched most of the stores that sell both new and old movies but have not come across any.

I bought some old movies like " Melody" in Hong Kong, who had quite a collection of old movie, but they did not have this.

I am also looking at the sequel, Paul & Michelle.

Can anyone please tell me how to get a copy of the VHS or DVD or VCD.

Really appreciate it.

Many Thanks. when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert My wife and I saw this when we were 17. The only good thing my father ever did (get us in). This is "our movie" and the music is "our songs". Michelle's song is "our" song. Yeah, nowadays, it's a crime to show naked children on the screen, but we were screwing at 16, why not these kids? The movie is- rich boy impregnates poor girl, then rich dad steals him away from her at the end, after she gives birth under impoverished conditions. She is left alone with child. It is a love story and a "growing up" story. The music is fantastic, and the story is one any person could relate to. May be someday this will be released on DVD. I too saw this movie when it first came out. I was a teenager at the time, and I saw it with my girl friend who later became my wife. I remember the movie made me feel it was possible to beat the odds. The cinematography was very well done if memory serves me correctly. The boy was a little much, but the girl character was very interesting. I thought it was very romantic and that might have been the intro to the first time with my then girlfriend. I have not seen the movie since and I wander why it has gone to the wayside. I would love to watch it again to see if it was as good as I remember. The Elton John sound track was excellent. I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. The music and scenery are beautiful. I purchased the VHS tape a few years ago and watch it frequently. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music. when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert Beautiful coming of age romance about an English boy and French girl who run off, and grow up.

I saw this movie as a teenager and loved it. I saw it again this year and loved again.

A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.

All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.

FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle. After seeing Meredith in "Beyond the Prairie" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on "Beyond the Prairie". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see.

This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.

I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie! I liked this movie. I wasn't really sure what it was about before I started watching it, but enjoyed it nonetheless. It was about a girl (Meredith Monroe) whose mom didn't want her to turn out like she did. She meets and falls in love with a boy (Riley Smith) who is town for a charity football game. It's a good movie. I just hope it will be on again or comes out on video. To sum this story up in a few sentences: A teenage girl (Amy) uses her hot body and "supposed" virginity to entice a young troubled guy (Matt) with a potential football scholarship to provide her a "Full Ride" out of town. Come to find out she has quite the reputation & has slept with many football players in the past hoping they would offer her the same deal. Both of these kids have come from troubled & dysfunctional homes. Matt's mothers a alcoholic who repeatedly embarrasses him in front of his friends & Amy's mother had a bad reputation herself & got pregnant with Amy at a a young age. Matt falls in love with Amy & tries to straighten out his life for her. Very predictable ending. The actress that plays "Amy" is actually 33 years old trying to play a teenager! The make -or-break of a love story for me is whether or not I like the characters and also if they click with each other. Matt is pretty unlikeable: aloof, braggart, seemingly lazy, and a misogynist. He's been hurt badly by his dysfunctional mom and this makes him a little easier to take. I guess I liked the details of his dysfunction--he was believable. He overcompensates by bragging that he'l nail Amy. He acts so cool around Amy that he strikes out twice. When they do talk he can't show her who he really is. She empathizes and then stonewalls him at just the right moments. She seems so mature and strong that the traits of hers that come out later didn't seem to fit. (For me.) I found her to be incredibly sexy and pretty, . . . girl next door pretty, I call it. So I was going to like this movie unless it really screwed up.

Funny things happen with the coach, but Matt's relationship with the other coach was inspiring. The football scenes at the end were perplexing. Matt doesn't carry the ball but seems to be a blocking back. Folks, he isn't the right size! He's fifty pounds too light for that position. But I thought his acting was skilled. I measure that by the way I wanted to wring his neck a couple of times during his scenes with Meredith Monroe. The film was all right. Meredith M was better than all right. A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.

All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.

FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle. After seeing Meredith in "Beyond the Prairie" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on "Beyond the Prairie". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see.

This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.

Back when in the States, I was like about 7 or 8, I always woke early, just to watch this, together with a whole bunch of other cartoons like HootKloot, The Road Runner Show, The Pink Panther. But this was perhaps one of the most memorable and funny animated works out there, and I still find it very funny today, I'll never forget the episodes, like the one where two aardvarks were fighting over the can of chocolate ant pudding? or the one where the aardvark is trying to reach the island where all the ants are at, and my personal favorite, the one where the ant, the aardvark and a dog end up in an animal hospital, which would later be the basis of a similar Looney Toon cartoon with Sylvester, Tweety and the bulldog. This is one of the most unforgettable cartoons out there in which anyone would love to revisit, I would. An excellent series. A wounded Tonto standing alone to protect three innocent lives. A devious woman masterminding a deadly plot. Racial tension. Smart Indians.

These are things we rarely if ever saw in the TV series, but this movie adds them all into the mix. While this is most certainly a Lone Ranger movie, it mixes up the formula just enough that those who grew tired of the series would probably still enjoy it. Definitely recommended for any fan. The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land?

Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre. This second full-length Lone Ranger feature doesn't measure up to the 1956 classic but is a fine film with enough rough and tumble action and moves along at a good clip. The Ranger looks into a series of mysterious murders which have a sinister pattern to them with peaceful Indians being the victims of a gang of hooded killers. There are more killings and violence usually associated with Lone Ranger adventures and the film has an undercurrent of racial insensitivity, the comments of which are sprinkled throughout the screenplay. The Ranger uses disguises as only he can to piece together clues and expose the outlaw band and bring them to justice. Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels star in a colorful presentation that shows the desert and cactus country of old Tucson to good advantage. The music score is good but the familiar William Tell Overture theme is nudged aside by vocals that are interesting but lack the flourish and beauty of the Ranger's traditional theme. Clayton Moore made his last official appearance on screen as the Masked Man in director Lesley Selander's epic adventure "The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold," co-starring Jay Silverheels as his faithful Indian scout Tonto. Selander was an old hand at helming westerns during his 40 years in films and television with over a 100 westerns to his directorial credit. This fast-paced horse opera embraced a revisionist perspective in its depiction of Native Americans that had been gradually gaining acceptance since 1950 in Hollywood oaters after director Delmar Daves blazed the trail with the James Stewart western "Broken Arrow." Racial intolerance figures as the primary theme in the Robert Schaefer and Eric Freiwald screenplay. Having written 13 episodes of "The Lone Ranger" television series, Schaefer and Freiwald each were thoroughly familiar with the formula, but they raised the stakes for this theatrical outing. Our vigilante heroes ride to the rescue of Indians who are being murdered by hooded white hombres for no apparent reason. The mystery about the identities of these assassins and the reason behind their homicidal behavior is revealed fairly early so that you don't have to guess what is happening.

Although the violence in this Selander saga appears tame by contemporary standards, the fact that the Lone Ranger shoots a bad guy to kill in one scene rather than wound and that a dastardly dame slays a double-crossing accomplice by hurling a tomahawk that sinks into his back between his shoulder blades was pretty audacious. The television series never went to this length, and when the Lone Ranger wielded his six-gun, he shot the gun out of the villain's fist rather than blow him away. The other discrepancy here is the Indians lynch one of the raiders and torture him for information, but they are never brought up on charges from abducting this henchman. Douglas Kennedy didn't have the villainous statue of Lyle Bettger who menaced the Masked Man in director Stuart Heisler's "The Lone Ranger," but he acquits himself well enough as a cowardly outlaw who kills one of his own henchmen without a qualm when the miscreant threatens to divulge his name and the identities of his cronies to a band of vengeful Indians.

"The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold" opens with a recap of the masked protagonist's origins as an ambushed Texas Ranger and his transformation into the Lone Ranger with Tonto serving as his sidekick. This opening two minute refresher is an excellent way to get a series-oriented character off to a start so that everybody, including non-Lone Ranger fans, is on equal footing. The primary plot about a gang of ruthless white wearing hoods and called—not surprisingly—the Hooded Raiders begins with them killing Indians and stealing medallions worn around their necks. The Lone Ranger and Tonto arrive too late to intervene, but they find a baby hidden nearby. Taking the baby and the dead Indian, they ride to a nearby Spanish mission supervised by Padre Vincente Esteban (Ralph Moody of "The Outsider") and turn the infant and body over to him. Initially, the Padre has to assure an Indian maiden, Paviva (Lisa Montell of "Gaby"), that the masked man means them no harm and is their friend. Padre sends Tonto off to town to fetch the doctor, Dr. James Rolfe (Dean Fredericks of "Gun Fever"), and Tonto promptly runs into trouble in the form of the paunchy town lawman, Sheriff Oscar Matthison (Charles Watts of "Giant"), who abhors Indians. Tonto tries to see the doctor who is treating prisoners in the sheriff's jail and Matthison's men start to rough him up when Rolfe intervenes and rides back to the mission.

Eventually, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are able to capture one of the Hooded Raiders, but an Indian Redbird (Maurice Jara of "Drum Beat"), and his fellow braves abduct the henchmen and take him back to their village. They stake him out and shoot arrows at him to loosen his tongue. Chief villain Ross Brady (Douglas Kennedy of "Hell's Crossroads") and his cohort William (Lane Bradford of "Devil's Canyon") ride out to the village and Brady uses his Winchester to kill his captured henchman. Little does Brady know that his henchman talked. The Lone Ranger and Tonto arrive not long afterward and reprimand Redbird for his perfidy. Redbird tells them what the man said before he died and the Lone Ranger decides to adopt a disguise so that he can learn more. He masquerades as a gentleman bounty hunter with a mustache and faux Southern accent.

Despite its concise 83-minute running time, "The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold" lacks neither excitement nor surprises. Selander keeps the action moving ahead at a full gallop. The dialogue is largely expository rather than memorable as Schaefer and Freiwald push the plot ahead more often than spring surprises, but there is one major surprise that ties in with the good Indian theme. There is also a scene where the Lone Ranger pushes his own credo about justice available for everybody under the law at a time when Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren had embarked on the high court's landmark decisions that recognized and mitigated against the conditions surrounding racial segregation, civil rights, separation of church and state, and police arrest procedure in the United States. One thing that differentiates "The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold" from its predecessor is its epic scale with flashbacks to the age of the Spanish conquistadors with a slight bit of science fiction involved in the form of a destructive meteor. Generally, Lone Ranger stories confined themselves to the 19th century without dragging in European history. No, the Lone Ranger wasn't the first movie to deal with Spanish conquistadors. Robert D. Webb's "The Seven Cities of Gold" (1955) concerned the Spanish searching the southwest for the eponymous places, but Selander's western beat Gordon Douglas' "Gold of the Seven Saints" (1961) to the screen. The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others.

Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times.

What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.

I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's "Son of Paleface", and I caught it again in 1958's "The Big Country" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.

Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.

Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson. This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw "capturing the friedmans" a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.

The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.

51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption. I always thought my father had a second life and was eagerly awaiting the development of 51 Birch Street when I sat down and viewed it for the first time. Amazingly, this movie's journey took me to places I had not expected and made me rethink assumptions and judgments.Truly a remarkable personal story told in clever but straightforward manner. I especially enjoyed the film maker's use of pulling out the type of his mother's daily diary - very effective. I read the previous comment and wish to note that the sound was fine when I watched this and suspect either the film was changed somewhat or the theater could have contributed to the poorer quality of sound for the other writer. In the midst of a documentary about his parents, the filmmaker's mother dies, but he continues making the documentary, discovering a story he did not anticipate. The result is an absorbing drama that has the quality of fiction in the best sense of that word, where a likable but unknowing narrator unwittingly privileges the audience. The narrative thus has a double weave, the story of the documentary and the story of the documentary-maker.

Our admiration is with the filmmaker, not only for doggedly pursuing his story though it risks his entire notion of his parents' relationship, but also for never giving in to sensationalism or melodrama. Although the stuff of Hollywood lurks in the details, Doug Block treats the story as he would everyday life. For those of us who have always speculated about our parents' life before we came on the scene (or after we arrived, but while we were too self- absorbed to notice they had a life independent of ourselves), 51 Birch Street gives fair warning: There are wondrous things back there in fatherland, but beware if you choose to enter there.

But that caution is for the audience to go slow wandering about in the details of their parents' past. It is not a warning for those offered a glimpse into the life of Block's parents. The film is a marvel at making the mother come alive as a vibrant and passionate yet introspective person who makes her own conscious decisions during the 50's. The filmmaker's particular success is to make the viewers actually see the young woman behind the elderly parent and grandparent. We all know our parents were once young and vigorous, but in 51 Birch Street, the mother is. The father who has been distant while the filmmaker and his sister were growing up ultimately remains distant in the film, but that is due more to his own elusive nature than to his portrayal. This biography turned autobiography is dramatic, intense, and unforgettable, sure to send viewers scurrying for a closer look at their own family albums but more hesitant about looking at the backs of those photographs. For those who still prefer films focusing on human relationships, 51 Birch Street is a must see.

By training the spotlight on his own family, Block covers terrain that is off-limits for most filmmakers. He explores a common but often unspoken family dynamic and does so without resorting to hyperbole or sensationalism. In fact, the film is deceptively low key at the outset.

In addition to providing a probing look at one family - and, by extension, every family - Block has also chronicled a very specific period in recent history. I don't know if this was intentional, but unavoidable due to archival content.

Highly recommended. This is a really great film! It gets you thinking about your parents. How we all have fragile relationships we all have with them, unless we really make an effort to know who they are as people. And just as important, we should remember to open up and show them our real selves, not just who we think they want us to be. Definitely see this documentary! IMDb is making me write more text before they will post my comment, how odd. Usually online comments need to be short short, and here I am being asked to write more! Well I went to see the film with my parents, I thought afterward they would want to talk about their parents, but my dad kept wanting to talk about himself and things in his life he feels he screwed up, which was unusual, my dad is not a reticent man, but I was surprised that he wanted to talk about mistakes he thinks he made. Mike and Kitty came to the film to do a Q & A and there was a hilarious moment afterward when my dad was talking with Mike, while my mom spoke with Kitty! Really just disregard my last few sentences to pad this comment, and just remember '51 Birch Street,' go see it! This film took me by surprise. I make it a habit of finding out as little as possible about films before attending because trailers and reviews provide spoiler after spoiler. All I knew upon entering the theater is that it was a documentary about a long married couple and that IMDb readers gave it a 7.8, Rotten Tomatoes users ranked it at 7.9 and the critics averaged an amazing 8.2! If anything, they UNDERRATED this little gem.

Filmmaker Doug Block decided to record his parents "for posterity" and at the beginning of the film we are treated to the requisite interviews with his parents, outspoken mother Mina, and less than forthcoming dad, Mike. I immediately found this couple interesting and had no idea where the filmmaker (Mike & Mina's son Doug) was going to take us. As a matter of fact, I doubt that Doug himself knew where he was going with this!

Life takes unexpected twists and turns and this beautifully expressive film follows the journey. It is difficult to verbalize just how moved I was with this story and the unique way in which it was told. Absolutely riveting from beginning to end and it really is a must-see even if you aren't a fan of the documentary genre. This film will make you think of your own life and might even evoke memories that you thought were long forgotten. "51 Birch Street" is one of those rare filmgoing experiences that makes a deep impression and never leaves you. The best news of all is that HBO had a hand in the production so instead of playing to a limited art house audience, eventually, millions of people will have a chance to view this incredible piece of work. BRAVO!!!!!!!! Watching this film caused quite an emotional reaction. This is what today's documentaries are all about. It's refreshing to watch something so personal, honest and real. Mr. Block's thoughts, opinions and disclosure are rarely seen these days and are incredibly well displayed here. It's a fine line to walk between personal truth and exploitation. This film treads very carefully and quite successfully.

One would think that learning about how a seemingly normal couple falls short of society's expectations would give birth to pessimism...but it doesn't. Quite the opposite: it made me feel good. I feel that I now know more about marriage...about women.

Definitely check this out, it'll make you think - exactly what a good documentary should be designed to do. This film is remarkable in how unremarkable it is. This is the true story of one woman and one man and their quest for happiness amid the dull, rote life of a housewife and "man of the house". It could be any couple, any family, in any town... but that's what makes the story so moving. It touches each of us in some way and reminds us of someone we know and love, or of ourselves. I laughed, I cried, I couldn't stop thinking about it... and what more could you ask for from a film, really? Especially a documentary. This is an excellent film and one that I highly recommended to anyone who enjoys documentaries, stories about families like yours, stories about love, life, parenting, loss, expectations, soul searching, yearning, wandering through life and finding your way, or not. Fantastic documentary. A movie within a movie. I'm so glad Block forged on after his Mother's death. Makes one wonder about the time and money spent in therapy. What might have happened if she didn't have that outlet? Did the therapist help her or just foster a dependency that kept his bank account flush? The audience needs to understand that divorce was less of an option in those days. She was a housewife - went to therapy instead of going to college or job training. She seemed to feel trapped by the situation. I wonder if the therapist ever tried to get her to think about what she could have done to change her situation and free herself? Meanwhile, wife #2 was just the opposite. She was out there, working with his Dad; ended her bad marriage, supported herself and appears to be a very confident, giving person. Whatever the state of the marriage, the Blocks did something right in raising 3 kids who could look at their parents' story, be OK with it and share it with us and maybe lead us to start conversations with our parents and spouses. A fascinating slice of life documentary about a husband and wife and their marriage told through the eyes of their son. We all like to think that our parents lived happy lives, that their marriages were full of fulfilment, love, and happy memories. Sadly many of us know this not to be the case of their own families and that of their parents. This wonderful little documentary is told through the camera lens and emotional perspective of the son of a family that has just experienced the death of their mother. The son being a documentary film maker has filmed his elder family for many years, for as he states "posterity". Three months after the death of his mother his father remarries his long time secretary. The suddenness of this occurrence stuns the family and pushes the son to dig into the past lives of his mother and father. What he reveals is a fascinating look into the lives of two rather ordinary people who like so many of their generation married early for the wrong reasons and found themselves stuck in a family life where they found they just had to "make do". A wife who found herself at times bitterly lonely and unloved and a husband who buries himself in his work. She and intellectual at heart, he a much simpler individual who seems to find most of his pleasures in the quiet solitude of work. They are obviously wrong for each other, this much is clear. Yet they stick it out, for what? Well that's part of the mystery, they clearly show affection for each other at times if not ever much love. You won't find any truly shocking disclosures here, aside from infidelity on both sides, which in good part is what makes this such a gem. You really feel that these could be your own parents if circumstances were different and indeed makes one question the lives of ones own parents. I saw this movie at the Philadelphia Film Festival today and enjoyed it overall. It is an interesting and adept analysis of the all-too-common revelation that our parent's marriage was more flawed and difficult than we originally imagined. In addition, this movie is an excellent example of process of discovering truths about our parent's lives after their death and the issues associated with that. However, i found the sound quality (recording and editing) to be relatively poor and annoying. *** It may very well have been related to the specific theater and projection conditions *** i am not a film maker / student or anything and claim no real understanding of the sound production process, but as a consumer, i found the audio portion of the movie distracting. Specifically, i heard very unpleasant lip smacking noises through out (especially one long interview with the younger sister) the film, and often the background noise level was higher in volume than people's voices (for example the scene when a small group was sorting through the mothers papers). has anyone else seen this movie, noticed anything about the sound... thanks This film was both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'd recommend it to everyone who wants to be moved and challenged. Great acting, directing - and it is Canadian to boot! It is a film that families can enjoy and serious movie lovers. The locations in Ontario evoked such a sense of nostalgia for the era. With so much garbage and superficial hype selling these days it is great to see that someone could back an independent flick. For any family that has risen to overcome a challenge or an obstacle - be it financial or illness - this film strikes a resounding chord! It approaches the idea of the afterlife in a contemporary way - without cheaply capitalizing on all the "gohst" and supernatural themes that have become staples in Hollywood and the TV networks. i first saw this short when i bought a random DVD of short films a while ago. this is the only short on the DVD i liked, but i don't just like it i love it... if you spend any amount of time with me, you will see it. it is beautiful, simple and passionate, no bells, no whistles - it could have been done with a sharpie (but don't get me wrong, the animation is elegant and insightful - this person clearly spent plenty of time with cats - but it is simply black and white) and then there is writing and the music... it is simply beautiful.

i eat chocolate, drink wine and watch it over and over again...

nothing else matters, i wait for Pedro Serrazina to come up with something else. I caught this as part of the Cartoon Noir package at the Clinton Street Theater in Portland, and it was simply brilliant; the saving grace of what was an other wise forgettable to just plain bad grouping of films.

A perfect use of deep black and pure white, with excellent, yet simple animation, this is simply a story of a cat chasing the moon. Funny, charming, and touching. A small piece of heaven for cat lovers, romantics, and any one else who appreciates how beautiful simplicity can be. If it's in your town, see it. This one short is worth the price of admission. Awww, I love this! The Tale of the Cat and the Moon doesn't really need an synopsis, as that's what it is... the cat chasing the moon, to a Spanish poem. It's the artistry that's interesting. In fact, there was this animated short called the Fan and the Flower that was an Academy Award winner last year (2005)... yeah, almost same thing, which leads me to believe it might just be a rip off.

But this is a really good short, with stark black & white shapes shifting and transitioning into beautiful motion and poetic seduction... If you believe cats are poetry in motion, see this and you'll believe it more.

Also, it has such a touching end.

--PolarisDiB This short was in part four of the "Short Cinema Journal"--a film I rented from Netflix but which appears to have originally been a monthly film series for people who like mediocre modern short films AND love to have the DVD chock full of commercials. I have so far tried two of the Journal's DVDs and felt enraged at the horrible way that a viewer needs to navigate the disk in order to see the films. Talk about an over-produced and overly complicated way of doing this! While I have and will continue to see as many shorts as I can, I really doubt if I'll bother with the Journals because of these factors.

Now it could be that because I disliked the disk so much that I was not favorably disposed towards this Portuguese animated short. This is definitely possible. However, even if this is the case, I feel that the other reviews were way too positive about this simple little film. Some of the artwork was indeed nice--I liked how the simple black and white drawings suddenly became 3-D environments as the camera went from a dull distant shot and dove into the city below. This was lovely and took some work. But as for the story about a cat who wants to go to the moon, it just did nothing for me.

IMPORTANT UPDATE--I saw this film again on a DVD entitled "Cartoon Noir" on 5/09. It was a pretty unappealing collection of art films. However, this time I saw THE STORY OF THE CAT AND THE MOON with an entirely different audio track and boy did it make a difference. Instead of Portuguese with subtitles, it had a French accented narrator who spoke English in a Film Noir style. While I usually hate dubbing, this time it really made the film. The narration of the Portuguese version leaves a lot to be desired if you don't know the language or understand the subtleties. Unless you speak the language, try looking for the other version (provided you understand English). I recalled watching this program as a young boy in Australia in the 60s, and enjoyed it on DVD again as a 50-year-old father of young kids. Although the bad guys are mostly shallow characters and there is a component of violence, I am very happy to have my 6- and 8-year old kids watch this because the central characters are deep, kind and honourable, the Japanese culture shines through, the violence is not gory, nobody glories in it, and the program is beautiful to watch. It does not promote nightmares, but instead it shows much of the culture that must have primarily influenced the design of Jedi knights in Star Wars.

The quality of the DVDs does leave something to be desired. Video perfectionists will not like this one. It is strongly reminiscent of something held on 16mm film and projected onto the wall in some basement... which it may well be. The soundtrack is also lacking in the quality we have come to expect from home theatre. However, my kids noticed only that it was not in colour, and I suspect they only noticed that because we had been talking recently about how old things are often like that. The beauty of Mt Fuji is evident even in B&W. Something about the 17th-century setting makes the quality part of the atmosphere, as if you peer into the past through some time window.

Overall this program is better than most things on the air, and a far better advertisement for Japanese TV than Pokemon, but you may consider it of marginal value if you did not have the experience of seeing it back in the 60s. My score of 8/10 takes its age into account. I am a new convert you might as well say. I borrowed the dvds from my local library. I have been interested in samurai since watching 'The Last Samurai.' My dad told me he used to watch Shintaro when he was a kid. He said that it was pretty good. We are up to series 3. I absolutely love it. It takes a little to get used to the dubbed English voices over the characters speaking Japanese but I really enjoy it all the same. It is a little strange to watch the slight pauses when the ninja stars are thrown at characters and they stick into a tree or wall. I was not used to this but I am now. But I suppose that's the technology they had in the 60s. I've noticed that Shintaro is kind, friendly, willing to help those in need, he's very humble, most of the time he doesn't big note himself (he only says he is better than the enemy ninja). I admire Shintaro for these qualities. It's really interesting to watch the swordsmanship that Koichi Ose has. It is amazing. This series is for anyone who are interested in samurai. This was a television show that I watched during the 1960s as a child and was captivated by it. In the many years that have passed, I have often thought about this show and how good it would be to watch it again, but being mindful that things of the past are not always as good as you remember them. This was a great show in the 1960s and has lost nothing, even now in 2007. Sure there are a few odd production mistakes that you see when watching old shows, and it takes a couple of episodes to get used to the dubbed voices, but having done that, I was as captivated now as I was back in the 1960s. The Samurai is played by Koichi Ose, who plays the role in a very humble manner. I remember during the 60s, due to the popularity of the show here in Australia, he toured performing sword play etc, and was overwhelmed by the interest in the show and in him. It was great that one of my all time favourite shows still held the magic that it did during my childhood. A must see series. I first saw Love in Limbo playing late on free to air TV about five years ago, and since then it's a movie I'll always remember warmly as one of those films you see and are forever influenced by.

For the uninitiated, Australian film has a long history of making off-beat comedies about lovable losers, and Love in Limbo is a sterling example of this. Whilst Russel Crowe is the only name actor in it (although these days he's all a movie needs), the rest of the Aussie cast is good- he still steals the show as a nervous, nerdy, virgin loser though.

The general premise is a lot like American Pie. A group of friends wanting to get laid and become men. As you'd expect, the entire movie focusses on this (with a sub-plot about the lead's mother and various other incidents), and is full of humorous situations that push it towards the inevitably sweet ending.

If you enjoyed American Pie, don't expect this to be the same- but expect the same conventions to make appearances. Love in Limbo isn't a gross out romantic comedy- but it definitely has its share of laughs, fist pumping moments when the good guy wins, and the situations every guy, Australian or otherwise, can relate to.

See it if you liked: American Pie, Almost Famous. Strengths: Good Aussie cast, easy to relate to, good perve value. Weaknesses: Predictable at points. My Rating: 8 out of 10 Cant believe it.... after all these years finally tracked this down.. it was meant to be named 'The Great Pretender' at production stage. I was living in Oz at time and through a friend was looking after one of the house locations through filming.... It was me that showed these guys how to speak Scottish and after all this time, I only realise now one was Russell Crowe !!! It has taken me all these years to track this down, was even unsure if it ever went to screen as I left Oz the following month after wrap up party. At that time Russell Crowe was not the demanded actor he is now and I had no idea it was him until I saw the previous comment then thought back to the days during filming..... amazing... Truly delighted with myself now !!! I came across this movie in an Australian hotel room at 3 am. My brother and I were channel surfing and who do we see but a young Russel Crowe. But not the telephone throwing Russel Crowe we had come to know and quasi-love back in the states. This movie, much to my surprise, was amazingly creative and hilarious. It stars a cast of awkward teens with hilarious stories of odd sexual experiences, including a slick salesman,prostitutes, and an unusual sexy mother. If you are lucky enough to come across this film I would strongly suggest picking it up. I have to say this movie was amazingly entertaining and I thank the fine people of Australia making it... Love In Limbo is my all-time favoirite movie. (set in W.A) It is hilairious and has an excellent cast including a group of three gorgeous actors, Russell Crowe (As Arthur), back in the day when he actually looked HOT with short hair and no facial hair. Aden Young (Barry McJannet), and Craig Adams as Ken Riddle.

Ken is a senior high school student obsessed with sex and becomes expelled for selling pornographic drawings to his classmates. He starts a new job at his uncles clothing factory and becomes close with another new guy Barry McJannet, who buys a car so that they can go out and pick up chicks. They become mates with the goody-twoshoes geek Arthur Baskin (Crowe) and the three guys drive up to Kalgoorlie to vsit a brothel and lose their virginity......

Watch it, its a classic!! For so long i have been TRYING to get a hold of a DVD or Soundtrack, anyone let me know if you've got em. This is a very sweet coming-of-age movie, very funny, and Russell Crowe is amazing! Those who know him only from Gladiator will be surprised to see the range of his acting abilities. Arthur Baskin (his character) is one of the best onscreen nerdy virgins I have ever seen1 Watch this movie--how can we get it re-released in NTSC format?

I am trying to find somewhere to purchase a DVD/VHS copy of the movie "Isn't it Shocking?" I was 7 years old when I saw this movie and I lived in the town where it was filmed. A couple of items from my family were used in the movie as props and a couple of my friend's homes were used in a couple of the scenes. The filming pretty well took place in the town and surrounding community. I have only seen the film once originally and I would like to get a copy so now I can show my family the film. I have done extensive searches online with not luck and I was wondering if anyone would have any ideas on trying to get a copy of this movie? This is a great TV movie with a good story and many comic moments thanks to the excellent cast.

The only problem this movie has is that it hasn't stood the test of time as well as it might have.

Despite this, it's definitely worth viewing, particularly if you are an Alan Alda or Ruth Gordon fan. My family and I normally do not watch local movies for the simple reason that they are poorly made, they lack the depth, and just not worth our time.

The trailer of "Nasaan ka man" caught my attention, my daughter in law's and daughter's so we took time out to watch it this afternoon. The movie exceeded our expectations. The cinematography was very good, the story beautiful and the acting awesome. Jericho Rosales was really very good, so's Claudine Barretto. The fact that I despised Diether Ocampo proves he was effective at his role. I have never been this touched, moved and affected by a local movie before. Imagine a cynic like me dabbing my eyes at the end of the movie? Congratulations to Star Cinema!! Way to go, Jericho and Claudine!! there's only so much that i can take of Filipino films, especially nowadays where the trend is sex, action and slapstick comedy(which i hate). the fact that Nasaan Ka Man made me think and made me gape during the movie was a big plus. It's got good cinematic scenes and editing was great, especially the cinematography. i think that Claudine deserves the best actress here rather than getting one in the movie Milan. the fact that there's only so few Filipino movies that i really like. i think Cholo Laurel did such a great job in this movie. i truly truly loved this movie, technically and character development wise; the plot was complex and that's what made it terrific. Having seen the uncut version, I thought this film was beautifully made. It captured my attention from beginning to end; the tension was wonderfully conveyed. Nasaan Ka Man portrays the typical Filipino family with accuracy in its presentation of secrets and lies. Even the religious culture, the human tendency to keep up appearances and maintain a pure reputation is shown with stark vividness in Gloria Diaz's character. There is not a little scene in this film that does not have a purpose- the cinematography is excellent and the writing brilliant.

Although the plot is great, I personally found that the twist at the end, the revelation to do with Jericho's character was not as much of a shock as it should be. But then maybe that's just me, because otherwise, Nasaan Ka Man is a very cleverly made film.

The casting was good to begin with, but Deither and Claudine's acting were the icing on the cake. Not one to miss if you're looking for a Filipino film that will surprise and surpass expectations. Thumbs up to the director. This was such a great series for Black folks at the time. We loved it so much. It was the only show about Black middle class families on t.v. at the time. Please release this on DVD. I know many...many people who still talk about the show. If it its released i am certain that many black youth will find this enlightening as well as interesting. The show addressed many topics from racism, intra-race discrimination, teen pregnancy, sibling rivalry, single parenting, peer-pressure and much more. The show ended in such an abrupt way and left it's fans speechless and wondering why it was taken off the air. Since then we have only seen a few of the actors and actresses. Please release it on DVD ASAP. This was an excellent show. It came on PBS back home in Chicago and I remember Cindy Herron (From EnVogue) played the teen aged daughter. The show dealt with subjects such as sex, peer pressure and puberty. IT was about a middle class black family who had a teen aged daughter and son who moved to a middle class neighborhood from Oakland or somewhere (I can't remember). I remember several episodes but the one I remember most was when their cousin got her period for the first time. I was probably 7-8 when I first watched it and I was able to keep up with the program. This was a great show. I can't remember the name of the guy who played the son on the show, but I always got him confused with Kevin Hooks. I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family This was a great show...I don't remember much about about it but remember watching it and loving it. I remember the mother and the father. I really like the Grandmother. She was like a grandmother you really couldn't appreciate until you became an adult. She was very knowledgeable and no nonsense. My favorite song on the show was Sardines in the Morning. (that might not be the title) I remember after seeing that show and hearing that song that I went to Cleveland Ohio to visit my cousins and me and my sister sang that song so much that by the time we left all of my little cousins were singing it too. I too would love to find this on DVD. Up And Coming was a very positive sitcom, which brought a tool/and or channel that opened the young minds of the Black Culture. The focus and outlook was a message of positivity for our people, and hope for change. I advise this selection for every American household to experience the struggle, and the reward. The show was never given the chance to blossom into the idea of middle-class Blacks becoming business owners of their own. The issue's were so compatible with real life situation's that impacted the lives of so many. I sincerely hope that the entire volume can be restored, and put on DVD for Americans to enjoy with their families.

Thanks. "The Honkers" is probably Slim Pickens best performance of all time. When we were shooting, everyone connected with the production figured that Slim was Academy Award material. Unfortunately, United Artists had a James Bond picture in release at the same time and did not devote much attention to "The Honkers". I personally feel this film was under-rated by most critics. Sam Peckinpaw's "Junior Bonner" was out at the same time and seemed to impress the critics more than our film. Also, Cliff Robertson had a rodeo film out a few months before our release and that might have hurt us, too. The picture is worth watching, if just for the rodeo footage--some of the best ever filmed--shot by James Crabbe. The director and my co-writer, Steve Ianat, died a few weeks after the picture's release, cutting short a promising career and leaving behind his lovely wife Sally, his daughter, Gaby, and newborn son, Stefan. Please give this movie a shot. I'm betting that you'll say it was well worth while. I thank anyone who has taken the time to read this. Stephen Lodge This is one of those movies that was never publicized and therefore was missed when it originally played in the theaters.

I came across it while switching TV channels and was immediately engrossed in this story of an aging rodeo bum whose recklessness and lack of responsibility hurt everyone around him. I've often wanted to see the movie again but couldn't even remember its name, and have never seen it in the rental stores.

James Coburn and Slim Pickens were excellent in their roles, and the rodeo footage was first rate. While being an action movie and having a western setting and theme it could be enjoyed by anyone regardless of their taste in films. The Hookers was to me a great everyday people story, Like someone you might have known. Just trying to make it, my big shot is right around the corner. Then Life's little temptations creep in, the spoiler, stumbled again. How much, can your love take, and give, to the guy who's really not so bad, after all, just Human. I liked it, I was also a paid extra in the movie. Played the drums in the bar shots, with the band, did several walking shots, my green 66' corvette was in the motel party shots. Wonderful cast and crew, first rate people, down to earth movie. I had lunch with James Coburn, on Mother's Day, what a wonderful man, just like I've known him for years, I'll never forget him. My father spent the day with Slim Pickens, and swapped horse stories, Slim also was really down to earth, love those guys, we really miss them. Real people making movies about real people, Thanks Levy, Gardner, and Laven. An extremely down-to-earth, well made and acted "Rodeo" Western. No gussied up stars needed here as all cast members were regular people telling a real life story about a rodeo hustler and his entourage in the 60's and 70's West. But hats off particularly to Slim Pickens for giving what I think was his signature performance, especially given the fact that he had been a rodeo clown in real life. His role went far beyond the mere clown role as he deeply dealt with all the "ups and downs" of the hard-nosed rodeo life and the psychological devastation that so frequently surrounds such a life style. He and Mr. Coburn teamed up extremely well as partners, not only on the circuit itself, but also in the real world outside the corral. Also, check out Anne Archer as Coburn's Native American love interest in the latter part of the movie. Must have been one of her first roles.

Not as flashy, perhaps, as "Junior Bonner", but equally heart rendering and impacting in its portrayal. Thanks to the Encore Western Channel for showing this true grit of an under-rated movie from time to time. I'm amazed that of all the reviews I've looked at nobody seems to have noticed one of the main points of this film, or at least how I saw it. It seems like one big homosexual fantasy, camp clothing, a glorified nude Ferdinand, a definite sexual tension between Ariel and Prospero, and as a final climax, a group of men in tight sailor suits dancing the hornpipe. This whole approach, once you get used to it, provides you with all sorts of fantastic scenes and images. The sight of an innocent Ariel being pulled towards a disgusting nude Sycorax in order to perform "her earthy and abhorr'd commands", is one of the darkest I've ever scene in a Shakespeare film. However by the end of the film I'd grown tired of the style and the final hornpipe dance was just too much to take. Still overall its an interesting interpretation of the play. The stuff dreams are made of. A complete retelling of the play as a dream of vengeance: will baffle purists, but will delight the open-minded. A superb effort: great cinematography, acting, and script. 11-stars...*********** The Tempest has been interpreted in many different ways ranging from more or less traditional views as dealing with Art to more post-modern approaches that like to dissect the play along post-colonial, feminist, gender or deconstructionist lines. The reason why Jarman's version left me fairly cold is that I didn't have a clue what he was on about. What is the underlying vision/idea/concept behind this rendering of Shakespeare? The previous reviewers do not get much further than revenge tragedy, punk show, but surely there is more to it, isn't there? This is not to say that there is no vision here, just that I was hard put to discover it. Be that as it may, there are still things to enjoy. The punk flavour is refreshing and funny. Toyah Wilcox as Miranda and Jack Birkett as Caliban are wonderful. I did not much care about Williams as Prospero ... not enough magic I suppose. The switches between the old monastery/castle and the (very English) world outside can be a little unsettling at times, but I guess that is intentional. All in all, interesting but not quite the success I had hoped it might be (particularly after seeing Jarman's Caravaggio). An amazing film, I've only just seen it and I already want to see it again. I'd never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw this film but now I am, I can't wait to see his others. The film takes a whole new perspective of Shakespeare's The Tempest, I'm sure he'd have appreciated it for Jarman's use of the the play's themes of love, magic, darkness and atmospheric tension. OK, OK there may have been a bit of nudity in the film which I hadn't really anticipated but it didn't offend me, it just surprised me and made the film more unpredictable. One Spoiler (for those of a nervous disposition: Fast forward the flashback scene with Sycorax & Caliban and Ariel as their slave, its pretty graphic. Overall, if you are starting to find Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare performances flaccid and monotonous then you need to see this film. Fantastic and surreal, it'll blow you away, but only if you let it. Have an open mind - and then let this film work it's magic on you. For me, the Tempest and its characters (by which I mean the admirable ones) are like old friends. Ever since I first began to experience the play through acting classes (I played Ferdinand) I found myself immediately caught up in the fantastic world that Shakespeare created. I can distinctly remember one student deciding not to play Ferdinand after all, and so I took the stage and had the honor of playing opposite an excellent Miranda.

One of the virtues that a great friend has is that you can never fully know them - there is always something you can discover about their character. A film production of the Tempest of quality is thus like a visit to an old friend, dear to one's heart: each visit presents one with new perspective on the memory we had of the work. With Prospero's Books, the ritual and the elegance of the play was emphasized, the exuberant celebration of art within the art. Here, we see a vision as esoteric mysticism, with lovingly crafted interiors full of candles and chalk diagrams on floors, more Aleister Crowley than Naples nobleman. It also made me reconsider - why was it that Prospero was cast out of Naples? His magical power is so palpable in this production that it makes one wonder whether it was just politics that doomed Prospero to exile, but rather the fact of his difference from his peers. So, in the real world, he suffered. Was cast out, powerless to change the wrong to the right. All of the villains in this play, whether they realize it or not, act in accordance to creating a more pain-filled, hell of a world - it is always in the interest of the oppressor to make life on Earth closer to hell. But Prospero manages to bring these terrestrial villains into his island, the realm where he has (absolute) dominion.

Shakespeare brings his audience to the theater, the realm where Shakespeare dictates the events, the words, the outcomes. Shakespeare is, of course, Prospero - but what this film adaptation does that really honors the text is to make Prospero so sympathetic such a figure of reason, despite the fact that he is surrounded by what society calls irrational (astrological texts, alchemical symbols, magical diagrams, etc.). Is it more rational to be a man of the cloth and murder, or to be a heretic and work towards the righting of wrongs? Prospero IS a heretic, for the reason he abandons his magic is not because the books will lose their value in Naples, but because they are not necessary anymore - the world itself - has become the magic of the books.

In Hamlet, Hamlet presents a play to his peers. The play accuses his fellows of conspiring against others for their own advancement. The reaction of the audience varies: while Ophelia is puzzled, Claudius reacts with stunned shock. This happens within the play, and then Shakespeare has this play performed for the men of his time. Did Shakespeare watch for their reactions? In the tempest, Prospero lives the play he is constructing, and we live it with him. How do we react? Do you react with simple delight at the happy ending? Are you upset and shocked by the strangeness of this production, which is entirely fitting given the source material? Do you feel sad at the fact that this little life, the play, is rounded with a sleep, as transient as it is eternal? The tragedy is that Shakespeare creates a paradise of reason and hope for mankind's life on Earth but man is weak, and unwilling to realize it in favor of petty power struggles. We have Claudiuses.

Like a good friend, this film is not without its flaws. I disagree with the choice to paint some scenes entirely in blue. The dance of the mariners is rather tangential. But at the heart this is truly The Tempest, and one of its many faces. I thought this was very "different" compared to most modern interpretations of Shakespeare and enjoyed it thoroughly. It would not be useful for those studying it at school etc. as it does not show the traditional Shakespeare character interpretations (i.e- Miranda is portrayed quite punky compared to your traditional Shakespeare lady) but for understanding of the play and for the basis of the story it is a very strong piece and fantastic to watch. It does not include also the correct format, as in the layout of acts and scenes as I am currently playing Miranda in a production and most of her lines had been cut and some scenes split and mixed around but it is very useful and I would definitely recommend it as a must-see even if just to say you've seen it! Shakespeare fans would love this! At first I couldn't tell if it was an art film or a documentary. The day after I had a unique movie after taste experience or perhaps a revelation. The film is a human quest to destroy everything that exists, including life on earth. The lead is clueless and cold. He is like all of us he wants to get rich, to laugh, to travel, to eat and be entertained. He moves from one place to another in a giant RV without direction or motive only to pass time and entertain himself. By the end it's too late. Since my first viewing of USA it had grown on me like a custom fit dream where life on earth is nothing but a weird experience. I am an artist and a Buddhist and this film communicated to my senses. It was an ideal embodiment of impermanence. This may sound strange but somehow this film was able to touch me in a profound way like no other. I recommend it. Almost four years after the Iraq war started and we're in a bigger hole than ever. That's right, so all those flag wavers who were so sure of the right and might of the American way are now chasing their tails, isn't that true? You bet it is. This movie said so from the beginning. It is kind of freaky how much the film,or should I say, filmmaker, knew what was coming. It is almost like going to a fortune teller and hearing what was going to happen in the future. There was a point when I felt the hairs standing up on the back of my neck as GW announced that 'major combat operations are over" on top of a visual of a broken down RV being towed away with the American flag waving in the rear-view mirror. You have to see it to understand what I mean. But even if you are apolitical or even if you are pro-war, this movie will have some kind of impact on you because it is so embedded in history. I saw it in Europe-plex. Great movie!!

This film is an exploration of the Spirit and the Flesh in modern times. Protagonist Jim Kirk, drives an unwieldy RV across America, stopping often to fill his gas-guzzling tank. He is middle-aged and confused . He fuels his thick, diabetic body with cups of coffee and radio chatter. He is the Flesh: agitated and sometimes spaced out, fairly oblivious to the growing tension around him but feeling it as twinges of discomfort.

The Spirit suffuses the film through speeches and other sounds, as well as what appears and goes by in the visual field. The Spirit eventually collides with the Flesh and Kirk goes down, unable to comprehend what has happened to him. He's been in denial about just how bad things have become due to he waywardness of all of us, because we are all focused on the needs and desires of our flesh. We're all in the same denial and so we, like Kirk are in danger of going down and being blown away by desert sands just like him. Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our "dead end road" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless. The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are "Blue". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen.

But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was "outsourced" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there "patriotism". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc.

I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there. A lot about USA The Movie can be summed up in its title. It draws parallels between the attitudes of this country in the face of war and a kind of Hollywood-like falseness that glorifies things that shouldn't be glorified. I'm not sure I agree with the filmmaker's take on recent events (although, truthfully, I can't always tell exactly where he stands) but I admire the unusual and artistic way of getting the point across. Audio tracks of speeches, radio interviews, poetry etc. play as large a role here as visuals. Most of the time the visuals of the story are accompanied by these audio elements to good effect. I'm kind of a radio buff so it was satisfying to hear the way that radio was integrated into the pace of the movie. In fact, most of the dialog takes place over the story rather than having characters talk to one another. That's not to say that there aren't "characters" (real people), but except for "Jim" the protagonist ( a kind of '60's drop out with an erratic state of mind) the others come and go pretty quickly. A few make a very powerful impression, especially a guru-like taxi driver who seems to be the voice of wisdom itself. When he breaks out into a spontaneous song of prayer while driving Jim to the subway, it is a very powerful moment. On the cover of the DVD is the quote "The danger is clear" which is taken from President Bush's speech that paved the way to our incursion into Iraq. In retrospect, hearing that speech at a climactic moment in the film brought home how we are living in a historically charged moment which will always be remembered. A lot about USA The Movie can be summed up in its title. It draws parallels between the attitudes of this country in the face of war and a kind of Hollywood-like falseness that glorifies things that shouldn't be glorified. I'm not sure I agree with the filmmaker's take on recent events (although, truthfully, I can't always tell exactly where he stands) but I admire the unusual and artistic way of getting the point across. Audio tracks of speeches, radio interviews, poetry etc. play as large a role here as visuals. Most of the time the visuals of the story are accompanied by these audio elements to good effect. I'm kind of a radio buff so it was satisfying to hear the way that radio was integrated into the pace of the movie. In fact, most of the dialog takes place over the story rather than having characters talk to one another. That's not to say that there aren't "characters" (real people), but except for "Jim" the protagonist ( a kind of '60's drop out with an erratic state of mind) the others come and go pretty quickly. A few make a very powerful impression, especially a guru-like taxi driver who seems to be the voice of wisdom itself. When he breaks out into a spontaneous song of prayer while driving Jim to the subway, it is a very powerful moment. On the cover of the DVD is the quote "The danger is clear" which is taken from President Bush's speech that paved the way to our incursion into Iraq. In retrospect, hearing that speech at a climactic moment in the film brought home how we are living in a historically charged moment which will always be remembered. The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are "Blue". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen.

But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was "outsourced" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there "patriotism". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc.

I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there. Thank God that there are films out there that don't follow the same old Hollywood crap formula. I think the digital revolution and the DVD revolution is actually making it possible for more interesting work to get out there even if you have to dig harder to find it. I love it when a film takes its time to draw you in deeper and deeper into its inner emotional reaches. It really was like taking a trip through the soul of America and that soul is disturbed and confused. What really blew my mind was the way they used Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam and references to his assassination in a way that hit me hard. I found myself choked up every time i heard his voice. I've heard him speak before, of course, but the way they used the speeches here made me feel like I understood his message in a way I'd never thought about.

What can you say about a movie that has heavy statistics about war, oppression and a plea for compassion at the end of it where a credits crawl would usually be? In fact, there's no credits at all in the film. You have to access them by selecting them in the features. Somehow that made me think a lot. All in all I can't say enough about this DVD. Brilliant. I like movies that show real people "Americans" and tell truth. The movie is simple and that seems to be the great thing about it. It played here in Norway fine (Amazon says above that it's USA/Canda but the box states "All Regions". I have to say it is not for the American viewers. It played in here in World Raw Views, a theater. I saw it and later I ordered it. The cut was different and much better. See it and you will like it or maybe hate it. Sorry Bush lovers but this movie is driving you crazy because it makes sense. Get angry and hate it. Disagree with everything in it but I for one stand by it. It's not for the empty minds. It is long and too hard to keep up with but by the second viewing it makes more sense. I loved Owen's words and the poem made me cry. It's funny because I read all the reviews on this page after getting this movie and it's either a love it or hate it reaction. You'll probably either love it or hate it too. I think the best films are the ones that divide people because obviously they have some kind of impact. I'm in the five star camp because this film did a real number on me and made me want to go back and find out more about Afghanistan and Iraq. I have to admit that I was pretty tuned out when all that was taking place. Especially Afghanistan and I feel guilty about that. The music through the movie was beautiful. I kept getting lost in it especially during some of the historical flashbacks. Personally, I thought the audio was great. It seemed to me that the soundtrack with speeches, music and the radio was put together so that you feel like you're in the RV with Jim, the main character, or in his head. Everything not on the radio was very clear and everything on the radio sounded like it was really on the radio. Anyway, this is a very amazing DVD which made me cry. USA The Movie is like this: You take a nap on a long hot Sunday afternoon. It feels great to close your eyes and let your worries drift away. Soon you're lost in one of those intense lucid dreams where you know you're dreaming but you still can't wake up--not that you want to. You go with the flow, and soon you're in a kind of weird Alice in Wonderland story complete with characters you didn't think you could dream up. They're telling you all kinds of crazy stuff about war and peace while taking you through a trip into the past and even the future.

The dream starts to get heavier and you feel like it's going down a path you can't control. Maybe you want to wake up so you try to open your eyes but you can''t . Now there's destruction and sadness and confusion and scary voices telling you what could be truth or could be lies. You're seeing images that flicker and change and then get clear, but do you even want to see what you're brain is creating for you?

Finally you're lost in a myth world and you realize the end has come. The end of the world and the end of the dream. It's over. What do you wake up to? What do you do next?

Maybe you'll write down that dream because you know dreams like don't happen too often-- and when they do you better pay attention.

Or maybe you'll crack a beer and forget the whole thing. Bad idea. Don't forget. Just see it! It's a smart movie but too hard to understand the first time. See it more than once. Everything that is seen or heard on the screen is intentionally crafted to evoke a feeling, sensation or tone. The clarity of certain visuals and the crispness of certain sounds are deliberately contrasted with blurred images or pops, crackles, hisses and barely audible sounds. The structure is non-linear and cyclical. Motifs recur as time runs both clockwise and counterclockwise. Expectations regarding "plot" and character" are broken signaling a non-traditional use of film to tell a story that is both contemporary and as old as humanity. This is a part of a review: "USA The Movie is emotionally intense, intellectually intriguing and profoundly disturbing, in surprising and unconventional ways." Dion Dennis, PhD In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: "The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided." This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds. I have wracked my brain for another film that reminds me of this one. I really can't come up with one. I think it's because most of the films that take on this topic (war, peace, violence) are in a fixed documentary style.There are some terrific ones out there, all of them better known than USA T.M., I'm sure, but they are intended to be informational and to bring your emotional response to the surface through intellectual means. This DVD, in some ways may seem more intellectual but it really isn't. It is philosophical, maybe, but it bypasses the information mode and goes directly to the same place that a piece of music does. It makes you feel but sometimes you don't even know why. You are just taken somewhere on a wave of feeling. When you watch it, notice how well it is put together. It may not be for everyone but it is for everyone who look for a rare cinematic creation that respects you. I have a little hobby of finding really cool pics out there that are pretty much unknown -and then letting people know about them This one is on top of my list for getting the word out this summer. This indie film (and I really mean indie--not Miramax, Fox Searchlight indie) might be easy to overlook in the big maze of celluloid, but if you want something completely different--you have to check this one out.

Basically, I thought it was totally great. I should have known from the DVD cover, front and back ,that this was going to be something totally different, but, they ALL say that their stuff is different to hook you. Well this one really IS totally different. It's in your face: beautiful and scary and unashamed to tell you to wake up. War, peace, 9/11, poetry, even a eerie sort of music video set to an old time "patriotic" song and a weird guy in an RV. Need I say more? Just see it. The Reader is a perfect example of what a short film should be. A poignant story, told simply through well written dialog, beautifully painted images, a score that seamlessly weaves it's way through the narrative, and characters portrayed with thoughtfulness and grace.

I saw this film at a festival where other interesting films and ideas were screened. But none of the other shorts had all the elements of great film-making coming together in one film as The Reader did. The Reader commanded the attention of every festival-goer in the room and for 10 minutes took us into the emotional lives of the characters.

Duncan Rogers has created a beautiful film and I hope to see more from this director be it more shorts or perhaps a feature length film. I saw the short titled "The Reader" recently and found that the movie was well planned and executed. I really felt for both characters that Morgan Hallett and Elizabeth Franz portray in this film. Elizabeth was able to show great range with her blind character and left me feeling emotionally connected. Morgan was able to sell to me that she was totally committed in keeping "Sissy" or Franz protected from the grief of losing her sister who had been living in Copenhagen. The great thing about the film was in the short running time and budget of only ten thousand dollars, Duncan Rodgers was able to make a very well made film that kept the interest of the viewer. Rodgers has a great insight into the actor's ability and transition great camera angles to showcase their talent. I always feel if a director can make a great film with a small budget then what can he or she do with a much larger one. Great job Duncan!! The Reader is an exceptionally well done and very sweet short. Every element of the piece assists in eliciting a pure emotional response to the script. Well acted, directed, shot and written. I was surprised to hear that there was no rehearsal before shooting, not even a read through. The performances stand as testament to some fine instinctual acting in response to a well written script. The actresses work was excellent and there was never an indication that their work would slip into the purely sentimental. Less is much better in this case. This film is a prime example of how these low budget contracts benefit actors as well as film makers. I saw "The Reader" at a film festival in Manhattan this week. It touched my heart in a way that few short films have done. In ten or so minutes, it tells a poignant two-character story that resonated deeply with me. Duncan Rogers has done a superb job capturing very real, tender moments on film. What I really admire about this film is that the director has chosen a story appropriate to the short format. These are genuinely interesting characters, and their story is told in the perfect length of time. This is no small feat. Haven't we all seen shorts that are simply longer stories squeezed to fit the format, or stage stories that weren't properly adapted to screen? I applaud "The Reader" for really doing it right, and I encourage anyone who is interested in film and in storytelling to look at it seriously. Worth every moment! I viewed The Reader at Sugar, which is not an optimal venue for viewing anything, and the movie was by far the highlight of the evening. The technical elements were well meshed and it was obvious that Duncan Rogers had chosen his designers and crew well. But it was the story and it's delivery that truly made this short shine. Duncan Rogers' tight script was just what this evening of "shorts" needed. It neither meandered, as several offerings did, or preached to us. The Reader was simple story telling in it's best form, well cast by Rogers and beautifully acted. Duncan Rogers is obviously a director with the ability to put all the pieces together, I'm looking forward to his next finished project. K. In the world of "shorts" (most of which aren't), this film is a gem.

A quiet, concise peek into the world of a young woman who's a reader for a blind woman, here the stellar Elizabeth Franz - this film bears the textures, layers and visual storytelling of a sumptuously painted still life.

The dialogue is minimal, the cinematography is stunning, and the direction sure, clear and compelling. I saw this film in a film festival held in a loud and crowded Tribeca bar - and within the first two minutes (and for the first time that night), the crowd fell quiet.

That says it all. Saw this last night at the 7th Annual NYC Home Film Festival -- a rather tumultuous venue that quieted down for this sweet and touching two-woman film.

The relationship between the two -- one, older and blind, the other, a twenty- something who helps her with her mail -- is established deftly, and its depth is readily apparent.

There are no car chases, explosions, or mind-boggling special effects -- just the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of humans reaching out toward each other to help and be helped.

See if it you can! I saw this film on the same night I saw 6 other shorts. This one was leaps and bounds ahead of the others in terms of quality of acting, directing, filming and originality of story. It comes together with a professionalism often lacking in short films.

This is a great short film for the following reasons:

1. Amazing performances. The 2 actresses are both compelling and believable instantly. Their chemistry is palpable; the depth of their relationship is conveyed, even though the film is 10 mins long. The acting and directing are very powerful.

2. Beautifully shot. The lighting, framing and general filming are striking. The 35mm film sets this movie apart from other shorts. And what a difference it makes. The filming is worthy of this film stock.

3. Strong story. Often short films try to do too little or too much with the time. Or they are trying to tell a predictable story. This is a good balance of telling you an interesting story, without drawing it out too long or leaving you unsatisfied. You wonder what will happen next, while at the same time, feeling you saw something happen.

Nice score, too. Compliments without overpowering.

If you can find this at a festival, make an effort to see it. Perry Mason: The Case of the Fatal Fashion finds Perry and Della Street in New York getting an award from the American Bar Association. An undefeated trial record ought to get some recognition I would think. Anyway a friend of Della's, fashion editor Diana Muldaur gets herself arrested for the murder of a rival, Valerie Harper and in fact Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale witness a confrontation between the two at a posh eatery.

These two rivals have a thing going that makes Hedda and Louella look like school girls. Of course Harper has a number of other people who loved her equally as much.

The same perpetrator also ran down a fashion designer who could have exposed the individual. This throws Perry with his trusty investigative lawyer, William Moses in an alliance with some mobsters. Seems that the designer was a cousin of a mob boss who wants also to mete out some justice in their usual manner.

One thing I could not get is when Moses and mobster Robert Clohessy track down the perpetrator I cannot believe that the police were also not vigorously pursuing the case. Of course Clohessy has some access to sources that the cops just don't have.

But the best part of this particular Mason entry is Scott Baio as the young rather full of himself Assistant District Attorney introducing himself to Raymond Burr saying how he studied all of his cases and looked forward to beating him. Foolish Boy.

In fact my favorite scene is Burr and Baio at a sidebar with the judge. Baio was wanting to reopen his case and add a witness and came ready and prepared with precedents. Burr catches him off guard and says he has no objection to the new witness and then proceeds to demolish the witness on cross examination. Absolutely priceless.

Scott Baio is the best thing in this particular Perry Mason movie and it should be seen for him alone if nothing else. John Ford paid the wagons his tribute of a special picture, 'Wagon Master' made after two big Indian-cavalry epics... It is a lovely poetic movie, full of romanticized reincarnation of the pioneer spirit... It didn't have to top the big ones that had preceded it...

Photographically, it is extremely simple... The camera moves only once or twice in the entire film, and never when a director would have made it move to underline a shot... Ford even resists the temptation to track his camera in the breathtaking twilight shots of the women wearily marching along in the dust behind their wagons... They come-and go-while the camera remains immobile and the audience stays a spectator to the march of history, not a participant in it... Of course, when Ford wants to involve his audience emotionally or dramatically, as in 'Stagecoach,' he knows just how to do it... But "Wagon Master" is a tender, nostalgic look backward...

Filled with traditional Western songs rendered by The Sons of the Pioneers, it tells of the trek West to Utah (in 1879) of a Mormon wagon train led by Ward Bond in the role of Elder Wiggs, and two young horse traders (Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr). And in a series of beautiful images, as the wagon train fights outlaws, Indians and nature in its struggle to reach the 'promised land,' the modest 'Wagon Master' manages to capture the history and legend of the West...

Ford himself has said that 'Wagon Master' (of which he wrote the original story) was among the three films of his which 'came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve.'

Ford's career as a Western director was astonishing... More than anyone else he was able to use the genre to protect his feelings about the family, society, and the American way of life... Ford saw the frontier as a land to be subdued by a special class of settlers and lawmen whose great sacrifices make the land safe from those who come after... These early westerners were giants who deserved the legendary status they earned, and the civilized townsfolk who followed must always hold them in fear and respect... Ford's Westerns often employ flashbacks that emphasize the historical authenticity of his approach...

In 'Wagon Master,' for example, folk songs on the sound track tell us of the hardships of the pioneers of a century ago, and Ford shows them to us in almost documentary fashion... In one sequence the train is camped in a circle and the settlers decide to hold a square dance... To fashion a dance floor they have to lay boards over the desert sand, and with this ritual celebration Ford shows the defeat of the wilderness through the metaphor of boarding over the land...

It's a lovely-to-look-at film, full of a marvelous lighthearted optimism, and it is easy to understand why Ford found it so satisfying… It never breaks faith with the mood and style set in the first few sequences… But one is left wondering whether the ultra-romantic best suits the chosen theme…

The wagon-train experience must have been one of the most physically demanding and nerve-wracking ordeals that man (with his womankind) ever set himself… It must have been riddled with doubts—was I wrong to sell up everything and come? How can we hope to survive? How will we contend the other end?—almost every other aching step of the way…

Yet none of this feeling really comes through in "Wagon Master." The journey—such is the general ebullience—does not strike one as particularly hazardous… It could be, of course, that the Mormons were so 'high' on religious spirit that this tended to act as an anesthetic… In other words their reactions weren't those of normal human weakness... If so, Ford was right and the doubters were wrong…

What is beyond doubt is the right and proper ebullience, especially at first meeting, of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. This is the essence of light-hearted adventurous youth, particularly one feels of Western youth of those extraordinary times… It's a remarkable relationship and it remains lodged in the mind… One of the most poetic narrative films ever made, WAGONMASTER is nonetheless a difficult film to immediately like. I love this movie, but I recommend seeing some of John Ford's other westerns before taking a look at this one. The first time I saw it I was 18 years old and I hadn't seen too many other westerns, and I hated it. I thought it was incredibly boring. I kept waiting for something to happen. It took several years for me to love this picture. First, I fell in love with westerns in general -- the traditions, characters, landscapes, ways of talking, etc -- and that made me realize when I saw WAGONMASTER again that a lot is happening in it after all.

I also was simply a more experienced moviegoer at that point and had learned to appreciate visual storytelling, and to listen to what each image was telling me. WAGONMASTER is a very visual movie by one of the most visual of directors working near the peak of his career.

The movie is a celebration of a way of life, and its subject matter is more emotional and interior than other Ford westerns. Actually, that's not really as accurate as saying that, rather, it has a lot less exterior action than the other westerns. (The other westerns have exterior action AND interior emotion.) It quite beautifully places its Mormon pioneers in the context of nature. There are many shots of animals and children -- not for any surface, narrative purpose, but for illustrating this idea. That is why the movie can be called a poem. It isn't about the surface story (which barely exists) nearly as much as it is about an emotional idea, and it gets this idea across through composition, editing, sound and music. In fact, one could argue that this is a purer form of filmmaking because the images directly express the emotional idea of the film, rather than having to first service a "story."

Give this movie a chance, and allow it to exist on its own terms, not the terms of other westerns or other movies. There's a unique place in the pantheon of John Ford films for Wagonmaster, Sergeant Rutledge, and The Sun Shines Bright. It was these three films with no box office names in them that Ford didn't have to tailor the film around the persona of a star being it John Wayne, Henry Fonda, or any of the others he worked with. Not surprising that Ford considered all these as favorites of one kind or another.

Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr. a couple of likable cowpokes sign on to guide a Mormon wagon train to a valley in Arizona territory. Along the way they are joined first by a group stranded players from a medicine show and then by a family of outlaws on the run named Clegg. Their stories merge and what happens is the basis of the film's plot.

Had Wagonmaster been done even 10 years earlier on the strength of the two performances turned in by Johnson and Carey, both probably would have had substantial careers as B picture cowboys. In the case of Johnson it would have been art imitating life. Johnson was a real rodeo cowboy and came to Hollywood with a string of horses for John Ford to use in Fort Apache. Ford was struck by his presence and the rest is history.

But the day of the B western was drawing to a close and Johnson and Carey had great careers as two fine character actors.

Ward Bond plays Elder Wiggs leader of the Mormons. Bond is a recent convert though and has trouble remembering to not use some four letter words. But he's the leader because of his strength of character, not his impeccable LDS theology. He turns out to be a wise and compassionate leader.

In portraying the Cleggs, Ford only had to reach back four years to his My Darling Clementine. They are the reincarnation of the Clanton gang and pure evil. In fact if Walter Brennan who after My Darling Clementine refused to ever work for Ford again was willing I could easily see him being cast as Shiloh Clegg the head of the family. As it was Charles Kemper did a fine job, this is probably the role he's most noted for. Shortly after this film was done, Kemper was killed in automobile crash. He might very well have worked for Ford in the future.

Ford makes the Mormons pacifists here and I don't recall that pacifism was part of LDS doctrine. Nevertheless it works here, the whole idea being that these people who carry no weapons are innocents when dealing with evil people like the Cleggs. It takes some gun toting cowboys to properly dispose of them. I think that this post World War II film is trying to say that pacifism isn't always the best policy.

Another carryover from My Darling Clementine is Alan Mowbray playing the same kind of role he did there as head of the medicine show troupe. Part of that troupe is Joanne Dru who's doing another turn as a woman of elastic virtue the same as she did in Red River. Dru used to do so many westerns that she longed to be out of gingham and into some modern fashions.

Wagonmaster is great entertainment and I'm willing to wager in the state of Utah it's a pretty popular film. Wagon Master is a very unique film amongst John Ford's work. Mainly because it's the only one that is based on a story written by John Ford himself, the story that was elaborated by Frank Nugent and director's son – Patrick Ford and turned into a screenplay, and because of director's personal opinion regarding it, Wagon Master is the film John Ford called the one which `came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve', to say so is not to say a little, but as Ford confessed once to Lindsay Anderson, his favourite was nonetheless My Darling Clementine and not any other.

Wagon Master has all ingredients one might expect to find in a John Ford's film. Wonderful cast delivering his best, thou not featuring any major stars, except the most `fordian' of all actors – Ben Johnson. Very peculiar small characters, who provide an obligatory comic relief, and Wagon Master has quite a few of them such as horn blowing Sister Ledyard (Jane Darwell) in her shot but very inspired gigs. And last but not least legendary Monument Valley with John Ford's fifth passage through it after Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

The film starts with two friends cowboys Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and Sandy Owens (Harry Carey Jr) being hired to be Wagon Masters or guides for a caravan of Mormon settlers who are headed to Silver Valley, a place that's for them like a promised land. On their way they are joined by a very peculiar Dr. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) with two beautiful women, who are supposedly his wife and daughter and who call themselves actors. They are headed in the same direction simply because they were recently driven out of the nearest town and have no other place to go. Nothing particularly unpleasant happens till they bump into Cleggs, a dangerous family gang consisting of father and his three sons who are on the run from the Marshal of the town where they recently committed murder and bank robbery.

Overall Wagon Master is no more nor less than one more precious pearl in a necklace of John Ford's wonderful Westerns. A must see. 9/10

It takes a while to get adjusted to the sound of Sons of The Pioneers , but then you thoroughly enjoy it. If the soundtrack would be played by an orchestra like Max Steiner or Dmitri Tiomkin it would lose its folkloric character. The music conducts the film, everything seems to follow its rhythm. The whole cast is excellent. Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. are the young men guiding the caravan. Ward Bond is the Mormon leader and Joanne Dru is a flirting actress. Ford was able to make of what would be an ordinary western, something totally different and original showing us the music, the dances, and most of all, the people. In Crystal City, a group of Mormons hire the horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) as wagon masters to lead their caravan to San Juan River. Along the journey, they meet first the broken wagon without water of the quack Dr. A. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) and the prostitutes Denver (Joanne Dru) and Fleuretty Phyffe (Ruth Clifford). Then the sadistic outlaws Clegg boys decide to join the Mormon caravan to disguise the patrol leaded by the Sheriff of Crystal City that is chasing them. When the Navajos cross their path, they are invited to visit their hamlet for a dancing party. When the wagon train is near to their destination, the Clegg boys threaten the settlers, forcing Sandy and Travis to take an attitude.

"Wagon Master" is another great western of John Ford. The sequences with the wagon train crossing the desert and the hills are impressive. The adventure of the group of Mormons is funny and very entertaining and the songs fit well to the plot despite being dated. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Caravana dos Bravos" ("Caravan of the Braves") This little picture succeeds where many a big picture fails. Because it was a little picture, John Ford was not harassed by the studio big wigs. He was happier with this film than any other because he was able to do it his way. He was also able to use his repertoire of gifted character actors that had played such an important role in his past successes. Some of them such as Ben Johnson had been discovered by Ford and given opportunity to show their talents. Johnson was recruited by Ford because he was an authentic cowboy from Oklahoma who usually did his own stunt work. Years later he would win the coveted Academy Award for his brilliant performance in "The Last Picture Show." Ward Bond even outshines Ben Johnson in this movie. He is not the wagon master, that role is played by Johnson, but because of this movie he was later given the role of wagon master in the classic television series "Wagon Train." Ironically one of the bad guys in "Wagon Master," James Arness, would star in the hit television series "Gunsmoke" on a rival network to "Wagon Train." Ward Bond plays the leader of the Mormons heading west who often backslides to his sinning days by cussing only to be called down by fellow Mormon Adam Perkins (Russell Simpson). When any bothersome situation arises Elder Wiggs (Ward Bond) yells, "Blow your horn, Sister Ledeyard!" The Mormon sister, played to perfection by Jane Darwell, then blows so hard and loud that even the devil must have been shaken by the sound. Darwell and Simpson were famous for playing Ma and Pa Joad in Ford's classic version of the John Steinbeck novel "The Grapes of Wrath."

Another of the great character actors in Ford's company was Hank Worden, who plays one of Uncle Shiloh Clegg's notoriously mean but not too bright outlaw sons. Worden would become famous a few years later for playing Mose in Ford's "The Searchers." Worden lived to be 91. He was still making movies when he died.

The wagon master Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and his partner Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) are horse traders who never take their job seriously, having a lot of fun along the way, especially with the local sheriff. They get mixed up with a Mormon wagon train heading west. Ford's beloved Monument Valley is the setting for most of the film. The main reason for the teaming is a redheaded Mormon beauty Prudence Perkins (Kathleen O'Malley) who catches Sandy's eye. Along the way the train picks up a hoochie coochie show which includes a charlatan doctor (Alan Mowbray) and two soiled angels (Joanne Dru and Ruth Clifford). Also joining up along the way is the Clegg family, wanted for murder and armed robbery. Ford shows how arduous a journey west by wagon was in those days.

The songs in the film were written by Stan Jones of the legendary Sons of the Pioneers. Jones' writing was almost as good as that of Bob Nolan, who had previously done much of the writing for the group. Jones' most famous song, not in this film, is the much recorded "Ghost Riders In The Sky." The Sons of the Pioneers do the background singing in "Wagon Master." This adds to the overall impact of wagons rolling west.

It should also be noted that the acclaimed Native American athlete Jim Thorpe from Oklahoma plays the role of a Navajo leader. This was his last film appearance. He died not long after "Wagon Master" was released. One of my favorite westerns and one of John Ford's best in my opinion. No major stars, but Ben Johnson shines in most everything he appears, and here he gets a rare lead as the title character. Matching him is Ward Bond as the crusty Mormon elder leading his people west. John Ford's stock of character actors, including Harry Carey, Jr., Jane Darwell, Russell Simpson and Hank Worden, provide ample support, as does eerily silent James Arness, a member of the outlaw Clegg clan that joins up with the wagon train. The Mormon trail into Utah was one of the most arduous and demanding enterprises ever undertaken. We can't really get the feel of that, but we do see ordeals that had to be overcome by pioneers on the way west; river crossings, long stretches of dry, waterless desert, encounters with Indians and the like, all set to glorious song by the Sons of the Pioneers. The Mormons actually did dig sections of the trail with picks and shovels, as depicted in the movie. My main regret is that it wasn't made in color, but I believe there is a colorized version. By the way, those craggy rocks featured in various scenes are called the Fisher Towers, located near Moab. Highly recommended viewing. Together with the even more underrated , The Sun Shines Bright, Wagon Master was one of Ford's favorite films. It is a western of exceptional beauty and narrative purity, well acted by members of Ford's 'stock company', including Jane Darwell, Alan Mowbray, Ward Bond,and Harry Carey, Jr.Like almost all of Ford's films,it is a meditation on freedom and community. It is also noteworthy for a much more positive portrayal of Indians than in most of Ford's movies. Ford, for all his faults, remains the supreme poet of American Democracy. Two horse traders arrive in a town and meet up with the leader of a group of Mormons who are bound for a valley where they can settle and live in peace. The scenes of the corral in the town where Ward Bond and Ben Johnson negotiate prices, and Bond introduces the idea of them (Johnson and his partner played by Harry Carey Jr.) leading the train to this valley, are some of the best in the film, as Johnson, a real cowboy, whittles a piece of wood while he banters with Bond. Once on the trail they come upon Joanne Dru, who maybe John Ford saw in Red River, and offered her a much better part in this film. In the Morman train are a number of notable characters. The Mormans are a peaceable group who are challenged along the way by a truly lowlife group of outlaws. In their case (the outlaws), in the case of the people on the train, and later a band of Navajos whom they encounter, and in the well written characters played by Ben Johnson and Ward Bond, the film completely evades stereotypes, while the camera seems to spend as much time giving the viewer the big picture of Monument Valley framing the train as it moves along with a few water crossings along the way, in stunning black and white and then coming back to what's happening in this rolling community, all to the accompaniment of the beautiful vocalizations of the Sons of the Pioneers. Travis and Sandy(Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr.)are horse traders coerced into selling their animals to a Mormon group and guiding them across the frontier to a settlement. What they do not expect is to encounter the notorious Clegg murderers, with their wounded leader Uncle Shiloh(Charles Kemper). Ward Bond portrays Elder Wiggs, the main voice for the Mormon group moving the wagon train to the Lord's destination. Along the way, they also encounter "Doctor" A Locksley Hall and his "Hoochey Koochey Wagon" and lend them help.

Lovingly directed by Ford who pays close attention to detail with realistic problems any group would encounter during a rugged wagon trail. The film has a wonderful cast made up of character actors with nary a true star in the film which is actually a blessing to see, if just not for a change of pace. Young Johnson and Carey, Jr. come off real well, but this is Bond's film to shine as he has the best lines. Johnson is the one who seems to understand ruffians and brutes like Shiloh and will certainly come in handy when certain conflict might develop as the Clegg boys ride along side them a piece.

I'd have to say this is one of his best and most least appreciated westerns and seems to flow very well. It has been recorded that John Ford made the "big, blockbuster" movies so that he could afford to make the "small" movies that he loved so well. Wagon Master, with a young Ben Johnson, is clearly one of his best, if not the best of his small movies. The location shooting, the wagons, the intricate work with horses, and the inclusion of the plains Indian are all trade marks of Ford. As in many of his other films, Eisenstein, the great Russian director's influence is seen in this film. The supporting cast including Ward Bond, Russell Simpson, and Jane Darwell are excellent as well as the many, minor character actors Ford used, including his brother (the one who plays the drums). While Ben Johnson went on to win a well-deserved supporting Oscar for The Last Picture Show, his co-star, Harry Carey,Jr. did not reach those heights. Although his father, Carey, Sr. became a western leading man in Ford's early films, Carey, Jr. spent most of his career in supporting roles. For fans of John Ford, and for fans of western films, this one is a must. Watching The Wagonmaster is not likely to result in deep thoughts, unlike many other great Ford films, like The Searchers, My Darling Clementine, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Grapes of Wrath among others, but it is likely to produce a feeling of awe and deep satisfaction. The story is very simple: two cowboys decide to help a wagon train of Mormons get to California. Along the way, they run into a medicine man whose mules ran away, a group of bank robbers, and some Navajos. There's a lot of adventure and excitement on the trail, and the film is imbued with fun and beauty. The music is absolutely beautiful. The scenery, again from Monument Valley, is as beautiful as it ever was. Plus, how can you go wrong with James Arness? The Wagonmaster might not be one of John Ford's better known films, but it is nonetheless a must-see if you get the chance. 9/10. although i liked this Western,i do have to say,it's not one of my favourite John Ford Westerns.for me,it just lacks a certain something that most of his other films(the ones i have seen anyway)possess)i'm nit sure what that something is.it's not something tangible.anyway,the gist of the story is about a Mormon wagon train which is being used by a band of outlaws as a hideout from a pursuing posse.Ford employs a lot of his regulars here.there are some interesting characters,some nice scenery,a bit of action,and excitement.it all adds up to a watchable experience.it's certainly not boring.just not quite up to the usual John Ford standard.for me,Wagon Master is a 7/10 The Western can be divided into many sub-genres. One of the broadest divisions is that between Town Westerns and Plains Westerns. Most Westerns are a mix of both, but at one end of the spectrum you have pictures like High Noon and Rio Bravo that take place almost entirely in a settlement, seldom venturing out into the real outdoors. At the other end you have ones like Wagon Master, where there is barely a homestead on view amid the wilderness.

Director John Ford normally thrived on the "bit of both" Westerns, shooting the interiors with an emphasis on their being small and confined, and then contrasting this with the wide open exteriors, which appeared both exciting and dangerous. Wagon Master has a typical Frank Nugent script, with some interplay between seasoned oldsters and green youngsters, but still it presents Ford with some fresh challenges. In this picture, the dangers do not come from the harshness of the landscape, they come from within the group in the form of the Cleggses. What's more, the absence of real interior scenes means the outdoors could lose its impact over time.

However, Ford was a real maestro when it came to manipulating space. He shoots scenes of the camp or the wagons so the frame is surrounded and we get that same sense of enclosure as we would in a genuine interior. Also, compared to his other Westerns, he does not in fact open out the space too much, having the wagon trail wend its way through canyons and passes rather than cross the stark and empty plains. One of the few moments where he does throw the landscape wide open is when the Indians are spotted and there is the possibility of a threat from outside.

Wagon Master features some surprisingly effective moments of comic relief, and some great contributions from the quirky cast. Harry Carey Jr. was shaping up into a fine actor like his pa, and this is one of his better early roles. Joanne Dru was disappointing in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, but she appears more at ease as a character with a bit of sass, and is actually fairly good here. Jane Darwell, who won an Oscar in the John Ford-directed Grapes of Wrath a decade earlier, appears here with sole function of performing a running gag in which she sounds a feeble old horn. Still, with her great timing and movement she makes the piece work. Francis Ford, in one of the many mute drunkard roles he played in his little brother's pictures, is at his cheeky best.

And now we come to lead man Ben Johnson. Although he was by no means a bad actor, he was never going to become a big star like John Wayne. And yet, with his effortless horsemanship and easygoing drawl, he was one of the most authentically "West" players around. And this brings me onto my final point. This was apparently one of Ford's personal favourites, despite it seeming fairly unassuming. Wagon Master has no grand theme or dramatic intensity, it is simply the genre playing itself out. I think this is what Ford loved about it. It's a picture for the Ben Johnsons and the Harry Carey Jrs, not the John Waynes or the Henry Fondas. Small in scope, but worthy in its class. A couple of cowpokes help a group of Mormons cross some rough country on their way to a new settlement. This low-key Western is unusual for Ford in that it lacks any big stars. Johnson gets top-billing but his is basically a supporting role, although he and Carey work well together. Dru is given little to do other than provide the love interest. The best performance is given by Ford favorite Bond, playing the leader of the Mormons. In fact, this role helped him land a starring role in the long-running TV Western "Wagon Train" before his untimely death at age 57. Featuring beautiful cinematography, Ford regarded this as one of his favorite films. Wagon Master (1950) Dir: John Ford

Production: Argosy Pictures / RKO Radio Pictures

John Ford brings the stock company out into the Utah desert to film a western and comes out with this minor classic. No John Wayne, no conflicted anti-heroes, no psychological exploration, no fireworks, just a gem of a picture.

This ensemble piece nominally stars Ben Johnson (as Travis) and Harry Carey Jr. (Sandy). They're horse traders who come into town to do some business just as a group of Mormons, led by Ward Bond, are being shown the exit. The group is about to embark on a trek to their own settlement, but they know the odds and the harsh terrain are against them. So they hire Travis and Sandy as wagon masters for their trip. Along the way they run into and take along a traveling medicine salesman and his two female cohorts (Alan Mowbray as the doctor, recalling his appearance in My Darling Clementine and Joanne Dru as his "daughter"). Tension is added when the murderous Clegg gang comes upon the wagon train. And there is also an atypical (for Hollywood) meeting with the Navajo.

Most of the story and humor is driven by the clash of ideals/cultures; first between Travis and Sandy and the Mormons, between Ward Bond himself (he's constantly trying to suppress his urge to curse and be a reformed man), between the doctor and his ladies and the Mormons, between the wagon train and the outlaws, and finally, everyone and the Navajo. There is also a classic Ford scene of a rowdy dance which expresses one of his signature themes of civilization coming to the frontier.

Again, no Duke here, but I've found Ben Johnson, especially the young, cocksure Ben Johnson, to have an engaging screen presence of his own. He comes with his own backstory, with that drawl and also when you see him doing all the stunt riding himself. He's great here in one of his early credited appearances. Harry Carey Jr., although having been around for a few years by this time, is still pretty raw at times, but he's likable. Ward Bond is his usual marvelous, blustery self. I've found Joanne Dru to be a drag in whatever I see her in, but here she's mercifully unobtrusive. Other familiar faces include Jane Darwell, Francis Ford and Hank Worden, playing 'dumb', like he will in The Searchers a few years later. It's not any more amusing here.

There is some absolutely spectacular b&w photography by frequent Ford collaborator Bert Glennon. Not only is there the typical masterclass on the landscapes and horizons, there is also some flourish in a handful of scenes with shadow and (sun)light. The soundtrack features the legendary country music group, The Sons of the Pioneers. Can't get more cowboy than that.

***½ out of 4 This film is about two horse traders who agree to escort a small group of Mormons across the desert. Along the way, they encounter a murderous family of thugs who menace the peaceful folks and put their pilgrimage in jeopardy.

WAGON MASTER is what I would term a "little" John Ford film, as it obviously did not have the budget or scope of some of his other Westerns. In particular, this film lacks the big-name stars like John Wayne but allows some of the usual supporting characters to take center stage. Long-time Ford stock character actors Ben Johnson, Harry Carey, Jr. and Ward Bond have been elevated to starring roles and perhaps the one who came of as "the" lead was probably Johnson--though the other two got nearly as much screen time and focus. This is not a bad thing, as the film worked just fine without the big star--and is well worth seeing.

Now this isn't to say I loved the movie. It was very good but certainly not perfect. In particular, as far as the music goes, you'll probably either love it or hate it. I found the Sons of the Pioneers' music a bit schmaltzy at times. It did evoke a nice mood, but seemed to occasionally dominate the scenes. I think a little would have worked much better. Plus, with their incessant singing in the background, I kept expecting Roy Rogers to pop out at any moment. Another minor problem is that the plot was amazingly simple and the ending was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

However, and I am glad to say there is a 'however', despite this being rather formulaic and sentimental, the film still worked well. This was primarily due to John Ford's nice, as usual, direction as well as Ben Johnson's exceptional performance. He was able to provide an excellent anchor for the film. Another plus for me is that I saw this in the same week as BRIGHAM YOUNG, another film about the Mormon migration. While BRIGHAM YOUNG was a bit silly and overly "saintly" in its portrayals, here the Mormons were less "perfect" and more like real people--with foibles and personalities. Oh, and speaking of BRIGHAM YOUNG, it seems as if Jane Darwell was the 'go to' girl for Mormon-themed films during this era, as she was a major supporting character in both films. Considering that she died in BRIGHAM YOUNG and it was set about 20 years before WAGON MASTER, this is some stunt!

Also, if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the famous Jim Thorpe, he's in a tiny role where he plays the impassive Indian dancing next to Jane Darwell around the camp fire. This film has to be as near to perfect a film as John Ford made. The film is magic, a masterpiece, the reason Ford was, well Ford. If you want to know why Ford was great this one explains it.

The photography of course is superb, black and white as black and white should be, wonderful shots, not an over the shoulder conversation in it, pure Ford, great moments, big and little. The famous ripped pants of Ward Bond. Apparently two dogs kept invading the set and fighting so Ford wanted to use them in the fighting scene, but instead of fighting one dog ran away and the other attacked Ward Bond and ripped his pants, which caused Ford no end of mirth. A whole scene around plaiting a rope. The way Ben Johnson burn then snuffs his rope, wonderful foreshadowing and anticipation of the final. Harry Carey's naive courting of Prudence. The usual ford line about being scared and not showing it. Bond's horse accidentally falling in him and its left in the film. Johnson and Bond are fantastic in that scene. Lord help any Ford actor who does not stay in character while the camera is rolling even when a horse falls on top of you.

A couple of very sweet romances, not intruding on the whole focus, two very likable leads, not to mention for the girls, the number of times the cameras focus on Ben Johnson's rather delightful backside.

Lots of old time stuntmen getting lines and roles, Cliff Lyons, Frank McGrath. Some wonderful character studies mostly of faces staring, all the villains and main stars. A set of villains to rival any group in any western.

Many many Fordian shots of faces, groups, children, women, small things happening, foals in the background (Ford seems to love images of foals), women in aprons, allowing the moment as wagons cross rivers and the camera lingers.

This is probably not a western as much as an artist's picture that happens to be set in the west.

Lucky the film was made in 1950 because it is impossible to imagine such a film could be ever made again, but then it is such a work of art that it would be a sacrilege to attempt it I don't think I really have any spoilers in here but since I do describe a couple of funny scenes, I'll check the box saying 'might contain spoilers' just to be on the safe side. Now...

I hardly know where to start. By now you know the basic outline of the story - horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) take the job of guiding a Mormon wagon train West to their 'promised land' and along the way encounter a variety of trials and interesting characters, most notably the outlaw Clegg family.

Anyone can enjoy this movie. You don't have to be a fan of Westerns to like this one. For one thing, Johnson and Carey are two of the most quickly likable characters you'll see in any movie. Carey in particular is animated and outgoing, almost like a big kid - while Johnson is a little calmer and wiser, kind of like an older-brother figure. I get a kick out of the scene where they sell the sheriff one of their 'gentle horses' for ten dollars; then inform him that the horse has "some peculiarities - you might say failings"... Travis elbows Sandy who lets loose with a shrill whistle, sending the sheriff's new horse off on a wild bucking fit with him in the saddle. The look on his face as the horse finally dumps him and gallops away is priceless.

Pay attention to the music... even if you never thought you'd be a fan of the Sons of the Pioneers, listen to "Shadows in the Dust" as the wagon train is shown in motion with some of the people walking along between the wagons. It's a truly beautiful song- too bad only half a minute or so of it is in the movie. I want to hear the whole thing sometime.

One thing that impressed me greatly about this movie is that much of it must have been almost as hard to make as the real situation it portrays. Teams of six horses pulling wagons up steep mountain trails, straining to make the top - this was no simple and easy film. It must have been risky for the actors, the stunt people and the animals as well. Fording rivers too, this movie has plenty of authentic-looking action involving the movement of the wagon train. It should be mentioned that both Harry Carey Jr. and Ben Johnson were extremely competent riders, both with many years' experience riding, roping, and doing all manner of cowboy-type things. Carey grew up on a ranch where his family employed many Navaho Indians and in fact he learned to speak Navaho before he learned to speak English. No rhinestone cowboys in this movie - "Travis" and "Sandy" were the real thing through and through.

Watch for the scene when Miss Denver throws out the pan of water from her wagon, hitting Travis's horse in the face... the horse starts bucking, eventually throwing him off it. Watch the look on Sandy's face when Denver tells Travis 'I'm sorry you fell off your horse.' Another favorite scene of mine is when Harry Carey Jr. (Sandy) gets into a bit of a tiff with one of the Mormons. They're working back to back getting their gear ready, and after Sandy gets disgusted with the other fellow, the two of them get into a rear-end bumping match that quickly turns into a rolling-around-on-the-ground fist fight. Even after the Elder (Ward Bond) stands them up and separates them, the two combatants continue trying to get at each other. The Mormon (named 'Jackson' in the film) gets one final kick in at Sandy so high it hits his shoulder. It's a really funny scene from start to finish.

I don't know what else I can say about this movie other than that it has a good story, very engaging characters, beautiful scenery and plenty of action balanced with humor and a bit of drama. Oh, it has been colorized, at least in the version I saw; not the most beautiful color film you'll ever see but I think I prefer it to black and white. I give this one a ten and I don't give out many 10's. One of my favorite movies, without a doubt. And, judging by the other comments, I have plenty of company in that assessment. By 1950, John Ford had already fully-developed the ideas and motifs that would form the core of his most successful Westerns. Always present, for example, is a strong sense of community, most poignantly captured in the Joad family of Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940).' Within these communities, even amid Ford's loftier themes of racism and the pioneer spirit, there's always room for the smaller human interactions, the minor friendships and romances that make life worth living. 'Wagon Master (1950)' came after Ford had released the first two films in his "cavalry" trilogy – 'Fort Apache (1948)' and 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)' – and it covers similar territory, only without the military perspective and, more damningly, the strong lead of John Wayne. Ben Johnson and Harry Cary, Jr. are fine actors, but they feel as though they should be playing second-fiddle to somebody, and Ward Bond's cursing Mormon elder, while potentially a candidate for such a role, isn't given quite enough focus to satisfactorily fit the bill.

In 'Wagon Master,' Ford seems so comfortable with his tried-and-tested Western formula that any character development is largely glossed over. Ben Johnson's romance with Joanne Dru is treated as an obligation more than anything else, and Harry Cary Jr's charming of a Mormon girl is so perfunctory as to be almost nonexistent in the final film, leaving one to ponder the survival of deleted scenes. Only in Charles Kemper's charismatic and shamelessly-villainous Uncle Shiloh does Ford try some different, and it works, even with his being surrounded by a troop of insufferably hammy slack-jawed yokels. Where Ford does succeed is in orchestrating the conglomeration of three distinct races of Americans – the values-orientated Mormoms, the easygoing horse-traders, the eccentric travelling showmen – into a cohesive community of pioneers looking towards a bright future. This apparent harmony is thrown into disarray by the arrival of Uncle Shiloh's gun-toting outlaws, who exploit the lawlessness of the Western frontier but ultimately lose out to the noble cowboys who "only ever drew on snakes."

Ford reportedly considered Wagon Master among the favourite of his films, and perhaps this has something to do with the absence of big names like John Wayne or Henry Fonda. Armed only with his stock selection of usual players, Ford is able to generate a sense of community by avoiding placing focus on any one character, though most of the Mormom travellers still remain completely anonymous. Despite being undoubtedly well-made, I can't help feeling that this film only does well what other Ford pictures did even better: the terrific majesty of the the Western frontier was presented more beautifully in 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon'; the romances and friendly squabbles among community members took greater prominence in 'Fort Apache'; the early relations with Native Americans, only hinted at here, were more thoroughly examined in 'The Searchers (1956)'; the bold pioneering spirit of the early settlers was explored more movingly (albeit by Henry Hathaway and George Marshall) in 'How the West Was Won (1962).' 'Wagon Master' is pure John Ford, but it isn't a landmark. This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with "The Sun Shines Bright" which he made a couple of years later).

There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in "The Last Picture Show". As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling. For my money, probably the best film - or at least the most purely cinematic film - director Ford ever made. The dialog is swift, clipped, to the point.l The story starts at the very beginning and only ends with the final credits. Ford uses a relatively small cast, but directs them and photographs them with a verve and a sweep of epic proportions. Grimly realistic, warmly amusing, brilliantly acted (hard to believe Johnsonj couldn't become a leading man after this), with the best photography and editing in any American black-and-white film. Owes an awful lot to Sergei Eisenstein's editing technique, but never as coolly detached or 'scientific' as Eisenstein could frequently get. And a great musical score. A magnificent panorama of an important and poorly understood episode in American history.

One little quibble: it's not clear why the film involves the Mormons, who, as far as I know, were never the pacifists the Quakers and Amish were. This confusion leaves a slightly bitter after-taste.

However, the rest of the film is such a feast, this is easy to ignore. In all other ways, a true masterpiece of American cinema that needs to be revived and looked at again (and again and again). Most of us kids growing up in the 40's or 50's were western buffs but this was one that had escaped me until seeing on the Movies for Men Channel today. I loved the film's story, cinematography as well as the superb casting of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. in the lead roles along with the ever dependable Ward Bond. Apparently this movie was the inspiration for the later television series 'Wagon Train' which featured Bond once again as the boss of the wagon trains heading west. Johnson steals the film with his horse riding skills and it's nice to see an actor doing his own stunts like Ben does in this movie. Other notables include the lovely Joanne Dru as Denver and an early non speaking role for James Arness who later became famous for his Marshal Matt Dillon role in 'Gunsmoke.' If you like films of this genre you can't fail to like this one. I first saw this movie on TV back in 1959 when I was eight years old. I knew nothing of westerns then but recognized Ben Johnson from the movie "Mighty Joe Young." What attracted me to "Wagon Master" were the great songs sung by the "Sons of the Pioneers." Merian C. Cooper, who produced the movie, was the first to commission original music to fit the mood of a specific scene and so created the modern movie soundtrack. Cooper hired Max Steiner to create the mood for his classic creation King Kong. Steiner would later win an Oscar for the theme for "Gone With the Wind.' Cooper was also the producer of "Mighty Joe Young." If you remember, music was important to the big ape which would only respond to the sound of Stephan Foster's "Beautiful Dreamer." In 1947, Cooper would partner with John Ford, who directed "Wagon Master." Of all of Ford's famous westerns, this one is my favorite which features his brother Francis and a sullen Janes Arness. What can you say about a short little film filled with secondary actors and no "stars", with absolutely no bad performances, not one poorly delivered line of dialog, and with the cold violence on one hand being balanced by the warm "heart" of the protagonists in the story?

It's a jewel, a diamond, a little valuable gem of a western that evokes the spirit and legend of the American West. A West not settled by grand heroes like Hickock or Cody or Masterson or Earp, but by the spread of the everyday man and woman, farmers and ranch hands, merchants and miners and lumbermen, whores and barkeeps, and entertainers of the day, some looking for riches, some for peace and quiet, some for religious freedom.

It is, perhaps, a very spiritual story, though not promoting any particular religion, for even the non-Mormon cowboys portrayed by Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. act in kind and noble ways toward everybody in the story, regardless of religious affiliation and beliefs, and go out of their way to promote tolerance and charity when the wagon train comes upon the stranded medicine show people. And in true biblical fashion, like David and Goliath or Samson and the Philistines, they are the guardian angels sent to the wagon train who eventually have to go head to head with the evil incarnate Clegg clan, likening them to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and regretting what it is they have to do afterward. It's a sweet folkloric tale of the West that hits every target John Ford takes aim at.

Nowadays I have a western Santa Claus whose red outfit is covered with a denim drover coat, whose red stocking cap is replaced by a brown Stetson, who carries a burlap bag of presents and a coil of rope. To my Santa I added a Winchester rifle with a sling to put on one of his shoulders and a Colt revolver to tuck into his waistband. When people at the office ask why my Santa has to carry guns, I simply reply, "Snakes!" After all, isn't the spirit of the Christmas season one where everybody should get what they deserve?

Fifty five years later, especially post-911, the philosophies and attributes demonstrated by the characters and story of this movie are still as relevant today as they were back then. The performances by the male leads make this long-hard-journey west interesting throughout. The soundtrack by the Sons of The Pioneers is one of the most beautiful I have every heard. The journey itself is somewhat episodic, and Joanne Dru is badly miscast. Overall, this is a very heartwarming and heartfelt western. The year 1950 saw two very different and interesting westerns: 'The Gunfighter' by Henry King, and 'Wagon Master' by John Ford. 'The Gunfighter' was historically notable as it clearly influenced Zimmerman's 'High Noon' (1951) and later revisionist westerns.

However, I personally find 'Wagon Master' superior to it's contemporary counterpart. Ford's minor masterpiece isn't much about storytelling; it should be conceived more as a poem describing conceptions of old west. Although optimistic and warm at heart, we are deserved from naivety because it's completely free from pretentious underscoring. Frontier scenery is well used as it supports the poetic narrative perfectly. Add naturalistic camera work and we are transported among the mormon travellers to witness western folklore told in cinematic means. George Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies "The Philadelphia Story" "Adam's Rib" "Holiday" Psycho melodramas "Gaslight" "A Double Life" a great semi western "Heller in Pink Tights" not to mention "My Fair Lady" or "Travels with my Aunt" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching "Rich and Famous" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with "Apartment Zero", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies. George Cuckor, known as a director of women, couldn't have hoped for two more talented and beautiful women for his last film. Itself a remake of Bette Davis' campy "Old Acquaintance" written by John Van Druten, this film is definitely dated, but still delightful.

Bergen and Bisset sparkle as best friends who compete at everything, but manage to remain friends. Liz Hamilton (Bisset) is a "serious" writer, intellectual, and elegant. She meets her lifelong best friend Merry Noel at an exclusive girls school and they begin a lifetime of not always friendly competition. Later in their lives, when Liz is a "promising" but blocked writer of serious fiction, Merry decides to try her hand at writing, which infuriates her pal because of Merry's casual approach to the craft she herself takes perhaps a little too seriously.

Much to Liz's chagrin, Merry's trashy novels hit pay dirt, and ultimately, her old friend Liz is judging her novel for the National Book Award. Bergen steals the show as the haughty writer of steamy bestsellers who schemes to bring together the broken pieces of her life in conjunction with her final literary triumph, but alas, things are never that simple.

The supporting cast includes David Selby, whom you might remember as the tragic Quentin Collins from Dark Shadows, Hart Bochner and, of course, a deliciously young and mercurial Meg Ryan in her first film role since leaving the soaps.

Rich and Famous is catty, campy, witty and wise. It culminates in a New Years fiasco that stresses the enduring nature of true friendship, and I never let a year go by without watching it on New Years Eve. Watch it and you'll see why. I finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of "Rich and Famous" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called "On Location with Rich and Famous" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD… Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros! I loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.

Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion. Recently I saw this movie again (after 25 years). In the original there is a scene in the bathroom of an airplane during the landing between Jacqueline Bisset's character and Michael Brandon's character. The rented version did not have this scene in it. Did I imagine this?

Or, is this part of the "clean up" of movies where some are altered to exclude portions some people think are not "appropriate"?

I love this movie -- it is exactly like the friendship between a friend and I and we've been friends for 25 years and saw it together. Her husband thought it was us as well.

Thank you, Joan Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... "how".

Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the "rich" and "famous" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.

Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the "teddy bear" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice "chick" flick! Both Jackie and Candice are terrific in this movie. They are well-suited to their roles and have several chances to shine. In particular, the way Candice pronounces the words "Puerto Rican" is very funny, as she is being kind as she can be but condescending at the same time. I had seen the original of this movie, called "Old Acquaintance", starring Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins. They allegedly did not get along, so because the movie is about female friendship, that might have been a problem. Here, the actresses clearly admire and respect each other. Hart Bochner and Meg Ryan have supporting parts and are both excellent, in particular Bochner, who never got many decent parts in movies, as far as I am concerned. George Cukor did not make another movie after this, so this was a good one to go out on. The Ghost Walks is a nifty little mystery with a great twist, snappy dialog, and best of all a pansy played to the twittery hilt by character actor Johnny Arthur which never demeans or denigrates his character. Mr. Arthur is great in his role of Homer Erskine bringing great comic relief as the secretary of the Broadway producer Herman Wood, played by another great character actor Richard Carle.

They play off of each other superbly.

Although the acceptable words of the time sissy and cream puff are used to describe the character of Homer, it is never mean spirited or meant as denigration, and are not spoken by the manly males of the film but by his employer, who fires and rehires him every other scene and who displays an almost exasperated affection for his devoted employee.

There is a great scene where Homer tells his boss that he has devoted the best years of his life to him and has been everything but a mother to him.

The mystery angle of the film is very entertaining, and the twist at the end might just leave you in stitches.

For a low budget poverty row picture, this film has superb set decoration and great costuming.

Director Frank Strayer ably handles his cast and this film holds together much better than some of his other low budget mystery attempts, but he had a great script to work with and some wonderful actors to carry it through.

This film is a must see for devotees of poverty row films, old dark house mysteries (they actually managed to work in the lines "It was a dark and stormy night)and it has the added bonus of being an early representation of a gay character in film where nothing bad happens to them in the end.

This movie is available for download in the public domain film section of the Internet Archive at archive.org. On their way to a country house to hear a new play being read a theatrical producer, his secretary, and the playwright end up stuck in the mud. They make their way to a nearby house, only to end up at the home of the playwright's fiance. If you can't guess that murder and mayhem are about to take place then you haven't been paying attention.

This is a a good entry in the old dark house genre. Not only does it have a good mystery, you also have some very funny one liners wandering through it. The cast is across the board excellent and they're more than willing to have a good time with what is good material.

I would love to say that this is one of the best of the genre, it should have been, but for me something happened on the way that made me down grade the rating to only seven out of ten. I can't tell you what it is, not for certain anyway. Perhaps its the sense that I knew where it was going almost from the outset, or perhaps its something else, I'm not sure what, but there was something that I couldn't shake that made me like this film despite wanting to love it. It just missed being great and somehow fell short.

That said I DO SUGGEST YOU SEE IT. It is after all a very witty film, that entertains fully, despite just missing being great. One of the genres that flourished during the decade of the 30s was the variation of crime fiction known as "the murder mystery", as the addition of sound to films helped to make a more faithful translation to film of what the audiences experienced in the original plays. And since horror films were very popular in those years, by enhancing the horror elements of the plots the murder mystery films experienced a popularity almost equal to what it enjoyed in the previous decade (in which the first movies of the genre were produced). Aspiring playwright Charles Belden saw in this renewed interest in murder mysteries a chance to make a name for himself, after Warner Bros. picked his three-act play, "The Wax Works", to create the 1933 horror film, "Mystery of the Wax Museum". Belden joined independent filmmaker Frank R. Strayer to keep making films, and "The Ghost Walks" was one of his best.

In "The Ghost Walks", John Miljan plays Prescott Ames, a young playwright who wants to impress a famous Broadway producer named Herman Wood (Richard Carle) with his new play. Ames takes Wood and his assistant Homer (Johnny Arthur) to his country house for a reading of his play, but his car ends up stuck in the mud during a terrible storm. The three men ask for refugee in an old Mansion which happens to be property of one of Ames' old acquaintances. Inside the house, Wood and Homer witnesses the strange relationship between Ames and the house owners, however, this is all a plan conceived to impress Wood: everyone in the house is an actor playing a role in his murder mystery. Unfortunately, the murder committed is done for real, and while Wood and Homer think it's all fake (after discovering Ames' original plan), the cast knows that someone inside the house is a real murderer.

As expected, Charles Belden's screenplay for "The Ghost Walks" features the classic elements of the murder mystery stories of its time, as we have the stormy night at an old dark house as setting, the obligatory group of suspects, and the touch of comedy. However, what's interesting here is how Belden makes the film a real spoof on the genre with the many twists he puts in his story to play with the clichés of murder mystery plays. The dialogs are excellent, full of wit and lighthearted charm, and while the plot certainly loses a lot of steam by the end (it follows the murder mystery routine anyways), it never fails to be interesting and entertaining thanks to its smart twists and specially its quirky characters. Interestingly, there's an obvious gay subtext that while stereotypical, it's never denigrating and it's genuinely funny at times.

By 1934 director Frank R. Strayer was already an experienced craftsman in the Poverty row side of the film industry, but his partnership with writer Charles Belden would give him a couple of his most interesting movies, and "The Ghost Walks" was one of them. While obviously done on a shoestring budget and the typical production values of independent films of its time, Strayer manages to take advantage of his set and makes an atmospheric movie that fits nicely the mood and tone of the story. The pacing is a little too slow at times, but Strayer knew that the power of his film was on Belden's script and makes the most of it, letting his cast to make the most of their characters with excellent results. Certainly the execution is a bit typical and unoriginal, but Strayer makes an effective albeit restrained work in this film.

As written above, the screenplay is filled with great lines that make the quirky characters shine, and fortunately, most of the cast play with this to their advantage. Veteran character actor Richard Carle is remarkably funny as cranky producer Herman Wood, adding a lot of charm to his character, specially in his scenes with Johnny Arthur, who plays the flamboyant secretary Homer. Arthur is the one who gets the most best scenes, and he gives and hilarious performance as the cowardly yet witty assistant. John Miljan is just effective as Presocott Ames, nothing amazing, but nothing really bad, and the same could be said about June Collyer as Gloria Shaw (the obligatory love interest), whom is just fine. However, Donald Kirke is really enjoyable as the malicious Terry Shaw, and it's a shame he didn't get more screen time.

As usual with Frank R. Strayer films, the low budget hurts the film badly, as while Strayer makes the best he can, the film still feels kind of plain at times. However, the main problem is problem the very slow pace it has, as even when the film is filled with sparkly moments of witty dialogs, it moves at a pace so slow that can become boring and tedious for moments. It also must be said that while effective in their roles, Miljan and Collyer are pretty dull and average when compared to Arthur and Carle, and one wishes the movie had been more focused on the comedic pair they make than on the main couple. Finally, as written above the ending is kind of weak and not up to the high standard of the first and middle parts, although credit must go to Belden for keeping creative plot twists appearing until the very end.

One could say that Charles Belden is an unsung hero of the murder mystery genre, as among the many horror and mystery films that came out the B movie studios nicknamed as "the Poverty Row", "The Ghost Walks" is easily among the best (alongisde Strayer's previous film, "The Vmapire Bat") despite its shortcomings. And even when it's definitely not a masterpiece of the genre, it's a nice way to spend a night enjoying the way it pokes fun at its own origin as a murder mystery play. A very recommended film if you like the genre. 7/10 I have this movie on a collection of inexpensive B-movies. It's not restored, in fact, the audio was difficult to discern for the first few minutes.

At first, it seemed like a typical haunted house film, and feels very much like the forerunner of Clue, Murder by Death, House on Haunted Hill, etc.

About a half hour into the film, the storyline takes a really interesting twist--and it goes from being a cliché melodrama to something entirely different, and far more entertaining than I had initially thought.

Check it out, it's a great deal of fun, even if the long clips and wider shots (and near lack of music score) make it feel a bit creaky by today's standards. The film begins with a cranky old Broadway producer (exceptionally well-played by veteran character actor Richard Carle) being driven by a man hoping to sell him a story for an upcoming play. However, there is a bad storm and their car becomes stuck in the mud and so they are forced to look for some place to spend the night. Fortunately, there's a mansion nearby though it seems pretty odd that the people inside know the writer and he says he didn't realize this was the home of a man he knew (and despised). However, while this seems like bad and contrived writing, it is not....as this is all part of an elaborate ruse by the writer to have a group of actors in the home act out his plot. However, part-way through the ruse, the producer and his browbeaten assistant figure out that the murder mystery taking place in the home is fake and think the whole affair is pretty funny. What no one realizes, though, is that an escaped maniac is loose and he is about to enter this contrived little plot--making for some wonderful twists and turns. So when it seems that there is a real murder, the actors are truly terrified while Carle and his sidekick are convinced it's all a hoax. While I have explained some of the plot, there are many more aspects of the film you'll just have to figure out yourself--and it's surely to keep you entertained and guessing.

Considering that this is a B-movie in the public domain, I certainly did NOT have very high hopes for this little film. However, I was thrilled when the film turned out to be a much better than average flick--with a very interesting and novel twist on the old clichéd plot about a dark and stormy night spent in a mansion. Plus, while the plotting of the film was very good, the dialog was even better--with lots of sparkling wit and a nice light-hearted pace. Full of pleasant surprises and well worth your time. There is a need for this kind of entertainment in our modern world. You can watch "Ma and Pa" with adults, with your family (kids any age or just by yourself like me. They are gentle, but gentle is so refreshing in a society of kids killing kids, a horrible war, inappropriate prime time television and poverty. We don't even get a hint of where all of those children came from! Give me modern plumbing and I'll gladly become a Kettle. Humor does NOT require offensive language. It is hard to follow conversations in shows where every other word is bleeped. Relax, take your shoes off, and climb in your recliner with a good old-fashioned glass of lemonade, and just breathe easy watching Ma sweeping the chickens off the table at lunch time! Pj The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle almost seamlessly picks up where The Egg and I left off. For the first solo adventure of the Kettles a new writing team and director is introduced. Leonard Goldstein, associate producer of The Egg and I, was producer of The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle. With many of the characters played by the same actors and actresses the focus from the MacDonalds to the Kettles works very well. There is a reference to Ma beating Birdie Hicks for first prize at the fair for her quilt, an import scene in The Egg and I. The prize money from the quilt contest was to be used to send Tom Kettle to college. In this movie Tom is returning home as a college graduate.

There are two plots intertwined in this movie. One is the comedy of the simple mountain family moving into a state of the art modern house. The other is a light morality play on how environment affects children as they grow up.

Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride) wanted a free tobacco pouch for entering a contest, and ended up winning a house. His disappointment at not getting the free tobacco pouch is played for laughs quite a bit. When Pa plays with dynamite he is totally oblivious to the explosion. Kilbride never flinched in the scene as the debris from the explosion fell around him. He played the part to perfection. In his autobiography, Jack Benny mentioned how impressed he was with Percy Kilbride's deadpan delivery. Kilbride took that comedic device to a high level of perfection.

Ma (Marjorie Main) and Pa move into the new house with modern conveniences that confuse Ma and Pa almost as much as they help them. Ma adapts far more quickly than Pa. Included with the modern conveniences is a television, a very new household item in 1949. Moving walls, hidden beds, and plumbing fixtures are used as comic props, but the attention is on Ma and Pa, never the props themselves.

Tom Kettle (Richard Long) meets Kim Parker (Meg Randall), a magazine writer who feels that hygiene and environment are essential for children to realize success as adults. Tom is a bright, self-made man who contradicts the theory that success can only come from a pristine environment. This subject is briefly discussed in a couple of scenes, but left to subside. It was also the only serious discussion in this otherwise whimsical movie.

Seeing the Kettles moving out of their run-down old house to move to a new house would almost be a disaster if it were not for the characters staying true to themselves. Ma was the practical one, just as she had been in the The Egg and I. Pa was the fish out of water that provided the best comedy. He never felt at home in the new house, but the actual location of a comfortable bed would never be of concern to him. The Ma & Pa Kettle characters were highly popular AND controversial. The films that featured their brood paved the way for television sitcoms that came after it and sought to emulate its winning formula. One obvious reference is 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' where the new home was bought with oil money, not having been won in a contest. You could even say the 1980s sitcom 'Newhart' borrows its idea of backwards rural characters from this series. Still, I wonder if Betty Macdonald, the Washington-based author who created these characters, didn't do more harm than good. Her portrayal of hillbilly characters makes them the butt of many jokes in terms of their alleged sloppiness and laziness. (The real life family that Macdonald based the Kettles upon, successfully sued...claiming they had been ridiculed and humiliated with these less-than-flattering references). Sure, it's comedy and the situations bring us a great many laughs and fun moments...and political correctness as we know it today did not exist in the 1940s and 1950s. But I think Macdonald could've still written these characters more sensibly and Universal International could've had its scriptwriters show them on screen with more dignity (there's such a thing as good taste). The more realistic moments are when the oldest son Tom is ashamed of his rural heritage but learns to accept his parents and siblings for who they are. For their part, the Kettles have to realize that they don't exactly fit into a modern world. That's not a joke...that's a sober truth. This as the first of the Ma and Pa Kettle flicks. Marjorie Main (Ma) steals the show in anything she does. Funny to see Ida Moore as Emily, the daffy old lady on the train.. god she was ALWAYS old; she was in "Desk Set" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". Their new house is also a co-star here -- its the house of the future with some really cool inventions that Pa doesn't care for. LOVE the painting gag. Keep an eye out for TOM... he starred in "Nanny & the Professor". Unfortunately he died real young... oddly enough, his last role was on the series "Death Cruise". weird. Directed by Charles Lamont, who not only directed several of the Kettle films, he also did a bunch of the Abbott and Costello flicks, so he must have known a thing or two about comedy. Fun story, plain, simple humor. Even the release date was April Fool's day, 1949. The story starts out by showing us what backward and country-folk they are (the neighbors are even Native Americans), but as the story progresses, we have sympathy and respect for them. One of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.

The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.

What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.

What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them. Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.

The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.

This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.

"Fata Morgana" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.

Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, "Fata Morgana" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: "Fata Morgana" is ... different. Successful films on metaphysical subjects are rare, but Fata Morgana is a good case. You can chalk up the large subject to the ambitions of youth, but Herzog does an amazingly good job. The movie's point is to show human beings, and even the world, from a non-human point of view.

The movie is in three parts: Creation, Paradise, and The Golden Age. The imagery of each is in counterpoint to the voice-over. Although the text of `The Creation' (from the Popol Vuh, a Mayan myth) refers to the primordial wasteland, the scene goes no further in illustrating the myth. It dwells on the waste, and on various specimens of destruction (fire, smoke, wrecked vehicles). The images from `Paradise' are anything but that, and `The Golden Age' is darkly comic – the highest culture is the strange roadside musical act.

The Popol Vuh suggests that mankind is the central object of creation, but the movie does everything it can to undo this notion. Its mythological framework has no referent in human historical time. There are no human characters to speak of. When a boy stands with a dog in an extended shot, the initial suggestion is of the boy's point of view; by the end it is much more the dog's. Likewise the lizard is a stronger character than the human who introduces it, and the turtle's partner barely looks human with his big flippers.

Animal stories and nature documentaries always anthropomorphize, but Fata Morgana has none of that. Certainly the dunes look like a female body, but the simile cuts both ways. Presumably only humans can distinguish easily between their creation and nature, and here airplanes and factories are presented alongside mountains, lakes, and waterfalls. People and civilization are all part of a broader natural landscape.

In 1979 Herzog put a new twist on the idea when he remade Nosferatu from the vampire's point of view. You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a "story." At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble? Fata Morgana is an absolute masterpiece. It's Werner Herzog's most unconventional film. It doesn't have a plot or story. Instead of a story, we're given a collection of images, words and music that work so wonderfully together. It's not a documentary either. Some of the people in this film are directed and given lines to read. It has some of the most beautiful and haunting images. Herzog shoots real mirages and we see cars and people floating around in the middle of the desert who aren't actually there but hundreds of miles away reflected like in a mirror. The use of music in this movie is so brilliant - from Leonard Cohen, Mozart, and the Third Ear Band. Imagine Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert; that's what this movie is like. This film is so hypnotic that it has the ability to make you feel as though your spirit has left your body. A must see. It will change the way you view films. Rating: 10 out of 10. Inarguably one of the most interesting filmmakers of the last 50 years, Werner Herzog has been pushing the boundaries of cinema perhaps more so than any other commercial filmmaker. I've been acquainted with Herzog for a few decades now and I've never not been impressed by both the man and his work. Last year I went to see Rescue Dawn and was somewhat surprised at how relatively mainstream the film was, yet couldn't help but imagine Herzog taking his actors and crew into the actual jungle to not only make the film, but to live it. No other filmmaker is as crazed about the purity of the film-making process and the subsequent lore from such productions as Fitzcarraldo has been forged into cinematic legend.

Today I sat down to Fata Morgana, a 1969 Herzog film that could be described as an allegorical filmic postcard. Without researching the actual locations, I'm assuming it was shot somewhere in Africa, both coastal and desert, a region that could have once been the cradle of infant man, infant civilization, infant life on earth. It is these origins, the biblical notion of the Garden of Eden and the Apocalypse that Herzog is concerned with, as is voiced by the narration dispensed throughout the 79 minute run time.

Watching FM I couldn't help but feel I was a passenger on a profound journey. In the opening sequence, the title is translated as "Mirage" and Herzog juxtaposes this translation with multiple repetitions of commercial jets landing on an airstrip. These images are perverted, their 3-dimensionality crushed flat by a long lens, piling layers of exhaust, heat waves and light aberrations all on top of one another. The effect left me to conclude: things are not as they seem.

FM is divided into 3 very distinct chapters: 1) Creation, 2) Paradise and 3) The Golden Age. Chapter One, opens with countless, languid images, where bleak, barren landscapes scroll by, dead animals rot, broken shells of crashed airplanes and abandoned cars slowly disintegrate in the desert sun. The people populating this inhospitable landscape are ragged, unsmiling and apparent prisoners of the desert. The narration talks of a time before life, a time where the canvas of earth was blank and all that existed were the heavens. While the narration hearkens to a simpler, purer era, a portrait of a young boy holding a fox-like animal by its throat evokes a chilling depiction of man's cruel, ruthless attempt to enforce a dominion over nature.

In the next chapter we are introduced to more of the same, yet the images and people are more animated and seem infused with a modicum of life and vitality. We listen to a goggled biologist talk about the difficultly a monitor lizard has hunting for prey in such a lifeless environment. As he holds the squirming monitor, its tongue flicking at flies, he also describes how difficult it to capture these creatures in the searing 140 degree heat. The parallel is duly noted and Herzog continues to explore this concept through repeated, candid portraits of individuals battered by the sun, the desert and the laborious efforts required to exist in this harsh realm. He also pushes forward the theme that if not in control, man asserts his control over his environment and not always in the most pleasant of ways.

The last chapter takes us out of the desert's blast furnace and into the more familiar Herzog territory populated by eccentrics and absurd behavior. No one seems to have a more effective symbiotic relationship with the oddballs of the world than Herzog -- possibly this is where he feels most at home. Much like Errol Morris, Herzog chooses to place his camera in as seemingly objective a position as he can before he lets the film roll. The subsequent flirtation Herzog has with his subject is the result of him being able to continue shooting well beyond the point when most directors would have yelled cut. As Morris does, this extended roll pushes past the "on" moment the subjects feel obliged to offer and through their discomfort of being pushed into overtime, their facade gives way to something real. The most humorous portrait in this chapter is of the 2 person band playing an odd, polka-like song that Herzog recycles throughout this chapter. The drummer of the band wears the same goggles as the biologist, as does another guy doing a magic trick, begging the question: what's with the goggles? They definitely add some levity to the film, but one has to wonder if they hold any deeper meaning or significance, or is this just another example of Herzog's playfullness.

The narration aside, Herzog utilizes folk and blues music as the experimental documentary's soundtrack. Leonard Cohen grabs the most screen time, two of his beautifully melancholic songs "So Long Marianne" and "Suzanne." perfectly accompany the scrolling landscapes, adding to the convincing feel that we are truly along for the ride. By the end of the journey, Herzog comes back to one of the many shots that recur throughout the film: the distant framing of a lone vehicle traversing the endless desert engulfed by a water mirage that fills the horizon. Despite the overall bleakness of FM, the crescendo of the film and the mirage motif leave you with a hopeful spirit, belief that against all odds, life will persevere and possibly even flourish.

Having finished writing this post, I referenced FM to discover that Herzog shot it in Saharan Cameroon only weeks after a bloody coup. True to his legend, Herzog and his crew were arrested, beaten and imprisoned. While imprisoned, Herzog fell ill with Schistosomiasis, a blood parasite. It's truly hard not to love such a hypnotic and austere film as Fata Morgana; knowing the filmmaker was willing to die to get it made only makes you respect it all the more.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/ Fata Morgana is, by far, one of the weirdest and most perplexing art films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a documentary because, while is does have elements of documentation of it's images, the images themselves are so unusual, so hallucinogenic, so unclear, that I wonder whether it was really worth telling this story just so that these images can exist. The film basically is the tale of the earth and the creation of the earth shot from the perspective of an outsider, be it alien or something otherwise indescribable, all taking place in the Sahara desert. The title of the picture relates to the illusion or reflection of images, both real and hallucinated, that people in the desert often witness. These are also known as mirages.

The film opens with a plane landing followed by the plane landing again and then again and again and again and again and again and again. With each plane landing shot, the actual architecture of both the location it is landing at and the plane itself begin to slowly dissolve into one another and grow less and less real and more and more reflective imagery. The imagery in this film only grows more intense and more unusual as the picture continues. The narration of the film tells of the creation of the universe as alarming sexual images of sand and landscape move past the camera. The shots go further and further into the desert and Herzog films whatever he sees and finds. The strangest reflections of the world are on display in the distance while Herzog meets some of the most pure and photogenic collections of outsiders that you are ever likely to see. When the Leonard Cohen soundtrack kicks in, you can be sure that you are in the world of a mad man who is in love with the universe.

I cannot say too much more about this film without ruining anything, but I will say that it is a sobering experience and there's really nothing like it. I love seeing films that are just in classes of their own. This film certainly is a good example of how Herzog loves to intermingle narrative storytelling and documentary film-making into an interchangeable form. Fata Morgana unfortunately does overstay it's welcome just a bit, but by the time it nears it's end the images will most likely be burned into your mind forever. Definitely a must-see for those who are obsessed with the nature and the origin of the universe. It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the "creation" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth", images he's been out for his whole career.

One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.

I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular "art-films" ever made. As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, "...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word "film"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a "2001" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.

Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding.

Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.

Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term "art film" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design. Fata Morgana, the 1971 documentary-like film by German filmmaker extraordinaire Werner Herzog, filmed over several years in the late 1960s, is one of those rare DVDs that should be listened to with the commentary turned on. It is a visual feast of North African (mostly Saharan) imagery that is timeless. You simply could not tell that it was made over thirty-five years ago. The soundtrack to the film, including German classical music (Mozart and Handel), and rock music by Blind Faith and Leonard Cohen, also lends its timeless quality. The narration by three different German narrators (German film historian Lotte Eisner, Eugen Des Montagnes, and Wolfgang von Ungern-Sternberg) is solid, and Herzog goes on and on of Eisner's import to this project, himself, and film history, but the English speaker of the translation, James William Gledhill, has a voice that seems downright deific, which lends itself far more perfectly to this project, even though much of the text- in either language, is rather superfluous. Yes, the faux Biblical sounds of the Popul Vuh Mayan creation myth in the film's first part, Creation, is interesting, but the text Herzog wrote for the remaining two parts (Paradise and The Golden Age), along with quotes from a German poet Herzog names as Manfred Eigendorf, almost seems a satire of the first part's somber tone…. The film, it seems was pieced together during the shooting of several other Herzog projects concurrently- the fictive Even Dwarfs Started Small, and the documentaries The Land Of Silence And Darkness and The Flying Doctors Of East Africa, but these projects' rejected material only add to the beauty of this film, such as aerial scenes of a flamingo mating lake from afar that give one an eerie unearthly sense, one which Herzog crows about in his commentary. This unearthly feel is present right from the film's start of several airplanes landing on a desert runway, with their images getting successively blurrier as the heat from the ground rises, and increases the distorting waves that mar the images. That this film was influential in the –Quatsi films of Godfrey Reggio is an understatement. But, whereas Reggio is content to just toss images at you, Herzog has an ability that only American filmmaker Terrence Malick also has: to make a wholly self-contained vocabulary out of the juxtaposition of images and words, and one dependent upon an emotion-first thrust. Analysis can fail when brought to such endeavors. Herzog often does not understand even why his art is great. The best he does often is wholly unconscious and mesmeric. This is why his contempt for the Lowest Common Denominator pap of Hollywood is openly stated on the commentary.

Perhaps the best illustration of this comes in a scene that, on the commentary, Herzog tells us followed a severe drought in Cameroon. It shows the jerkied carcasses of cattle, and Herzog describes the unbearable stench. Yet, the viewer can sense this all from the images, the blackness of the sun dried portions of animals, and the blanched bones. Yet, even in that commentary, Herzog focuses on the stench, not any deeper meaning. He is content to let you imbue and interpret what you will into and of his work, such as the almost erotically feminized shapes of sand dunes, which recalls a scene from Ingmar Bergman's Hour Of The Wolf, where Max Von Sydow, runs his hand over Ingrid Thulin's beautiful nude body's curves. But, the archetypal image in this film, which symbolizes much of Herzog's career, is of a mirage of a faraway car driving back and forth on the surface of what appears to be a lake. It is deep, hypnotic, illusive, elusive, supernatural, yet real, just as Herzog, the believer who came from a family of militant atheists, is. But, then, like everything else, it ends. After I've seen this movie I find it hard to understand why so many people seem to hate this movie. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 250 of all times, but in it's genre it is a great movie. I know, not many people find it amusing to see how a legendary story like 'Robin Hood' is turned into a comedy. Many people still seem to believe that some things shouldn't be laughed with ... they are wrong.

Mel Brooks has done an excellent job with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I have seen the original Robin Hood movies as well, but I never had such a good time when watching them as I had with this one. It's just one continuation of hilarious moments and parodies on famous people and movies (Winston Churchil, The Godfather...).

I recommend everyone who wants to have a good laugh to watch this movie. To those who think Robin Hood shouldn't be messed with, you're wrong, but you better don't watch it because you'll probably be offended by it. I give this movie an 8/10. I remember when I first saw this movie. I was babysitting for a friend of my mums, and one of the kids suggested we watch it. Thinking it was the frankly laughable 'Prince of Thieves' they were slipping into the video recorder, I was prepared for a few hours of boredom, What I got came as a shock, a pleasant one I'll admit, but still a shock.

Now, you all know the Robin Hood legend don't you? I shall explain a little. Robin Hood was a Saxon criminal, nicking money here and there and giving it to people who needed it, all the while seducing the beautiful Maid Marion, and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham and prince john. That's the basics! Now, on with the review.

This movie was released in 1993, and is a take off of the whole Robin Hood legend and a p--- take of Prince of Thieves in particular.

Loosely following the legend, Robin of Loxley is first encountered in an Arabic prison during the third century crusades, and together with a 'Moor' as they were called in those days, he executes a cunning escape with a cellmate, Asneeze.

After escaping, Asneeze beseeches Robin to find his son Atchoo, a foreign exchange student in England and look out for him. This Robin vows to do! Robin swims back to England.

He returns to his home, Loxley castle to find it being wheeled away on the back of the cart by Bailiffs, and goes through he sorrowful revelation that his father, dog, cat, and even the goldfish are all dead. Desperate for a familiar face, he finds the family's loyal blind servant Blinkin sitting on the toilet with a Jazz mag in Braille. The hilarity continues throughout the movie.

As with all Robin Hood stories, Robin must thwart the evil plans of Prince John and the sheriff of Rottingham, who are wreaking havoc and charging exorbitant taxes on King Richards's kingdom while he's away.

Those familiar with the movies Mel Brooks has previously directed will have some small idea of what to expect. After all, this is the man responsible for Dracula-dead and loving it and young Frankenstein. All the jokes, which range from visual gags to wonderful witty comments are in exactly the right places throughout the movie, with never more than a minute between laughs.

Cary Elwes (incidentally the only English man to play Robin Hood in a movie), who many of you will know from Princess Bride brings his cheeky grinning twinkle eyed presence to this movie, and does a wonderful job. From outlandish heroic posturing, to a wickedly sexy glance, he really is amazingly funny. And the man looks better in tights than I do!

Richard Lewis is hilarious as the whiny, arrogant Prince John with the ever-changing mole. He gets the sissy-boy behaviour down to a tee, and his whinging American vocalisations are great. All the way through the movie, a mole on his face constantly changes position: it starts on his left cheek, then over to his right cheek, then his chin, then his forehead, before going back to it's original place. This is a subtle joke based on the mole on Alan Rickman when he played the sheriff in Prince Of Thieves

Roger Rees as the sleazy sheriff of Rottingham is marvellously slimy and nasty, and has some great lines throughout the film.

There are some faces here you'll be familiar with from other Brooks films. For instance Robert Ridgely, playing the hangman in this film also played the hangman in Blazing Saddles, another film directed by Brooks. He likes to add subtle references to his earlier films too; with several in this film that die-hard Brooks fans will easily spot. Those who watched History of the World part 1 will recognise the music to the song 'Men in Tights'. Also, when Patrick Stewart arrives and snogs Marion, Mel himself (playing Rabbi Tuckman) utters the line 'it's good to be a king', one of his lines in History of the world.

The whole cast is wonderfully comedic, even those with only a few lines bring a great depth of warmth and humour to them

What makes this film so wonderfully warm and funny in my own opinion are all the improvised scenes. Although there was a script of sorts, some scenes were completely improvised by the actors themselves, such as the scene where Latrine (Tracey Ullman) prays for Rottingham in her bed, and he falls through the ceiling, landing right where she wanted him, which was totally devised and thought out by the two actors.

There are few special effects, and those that are there are small but fun moments of computerised camera trickery.

The soundtrack is memorable, with some very funny songs, and a couple of cheesy love songs. You'll be singing 'Men in tights' or at least humming it to yourself, for weeks.

The rating is Pg, to which I say BAH HUMBUG. There is no bad language in the film, except in the use of double entendre, and one utterance of sh!t, and violence is minimal. In fact I'd go as far as to say non-existent, apart from a few comedy fight scenes.

A great fun film that adults and children alike will enjoy! This is a funny film and I like it a lot. Cary Elwes plays Robin Hood to a tee. This is, of course, the usual good vs evil with Robin against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. The humor is sort of in your face stuff for the most part, but still works well. A comedy for a night when you don't want to have to think much, it's well worth a rent! This is definitely one of the better Mel Brooks movies, along with Spaceballs(although I will openly admit to not having watched many others, at least yet). It's very silly and thoroughly funny, there are hardly more than a few minutes throughout the entire two hour run-time, where you aren't entertained. Almost all of the gags have a great comical effect, few of them fall flat. I saw this movie right after seeing and reviewing Spy Hard, and comparing these two spoof movies, I realize exactly of how high quality this movie really is. It's funny from start to finish, none of the comedy is overdone or boring. The music is marvelous, as is the choreography of both dancing and fighting. The acting is pretty much what you would normally expect from this type of movie... Elwes is a great comedian, and makes a good Robin. The plot is typical Robin Hood, more or less everything from the legend is fit into this movie(and spoofed majorly). If you like Mel Brooks, or you're just a fan of silly humor, or you're just dying to watch a good parody of the legend of Robin Hood, this is definitely the film for you. The HBO First Look special on the film is also worth watching, and in that, you may want to keep watching throughout the credits, too. I'd recommend it to any fan of Mel Brooks movies, and to people who enjoy silly humor. 7/10 Cary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.

Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles

10/10 from me defiantly

'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent' Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) was a much needed parody from Mel Brooks. He has the assignment of spoofing the Robin Hood legacy and the couple of movie dealing with the mythical honorable thief of English folklore. Cary Elwes stars as Robin Hood. He's looking for a few good men who'll join him in his quest to topple the evil sheriff of Nottingham (Roger Rees) and win the fair hand of Maid Marian. Robin also has to deal with Prince John (Richard Lewis).as well. Tracey Ullman co-stars as Prince John's personal witch Latrine who has her eyes on the Sheriff.

Will Robin find his merry men? How far will the Prince go to throw his weight around in the absence of his father? Why does the Sheriff hate Robin so much? To find out you'll have to watch ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS!! Check out the hilarious cameo by Dom De Luise who plays the Duke of Jersey.

Highly recommended. Like many a child born in the 1980's, I grew up on the Mel Brooks films that weren't necessarily the 'racier' ones like Blazing Saddles and History of the World part 1 (I saw those, of course, though not as frequently as now), but the ones meant for the "whole family", Spaceballs, and this film. I knew at the time I wasn't seeing great art, but just a campy, goofy, though always laugh-worthy take on Robin Hood and/or adventure movies. But calling it a family movie in quotes means that a) adults really can enjoy it as much as kids, if not more because of the little in-jokes and silly vulgarities, and b) once a kid sees it, when he revisits it, as I have a few times, it's still as fresh but with some things not quite understood the first time around. It's a comedy that is not only filled with jokes at Robin Hood movies and other movies (Godfather of course, as well as little mentions for other movies of modern times), but one that references Brooks's own movies as well; this is a filmmaker who isn't above poking fun at even his own style.

Basic story- Robin Hood (Cary Elwes in one of his best turns) returns home from the crusades to see things are in peril with King Richard gone, and so goes forth to reclaim his land and to, naturally, rob the rich to feed the poor. Along the way he meets Achoo (Dave Chappelle), butts heads with Prince John (Richard Lewis) and the Sheriff, and of course still pines for the love of Maid Marian. This, of course, is the usual clothesline for Brooks to let the comedy run off into the scenes, and while sometimes a joke may not work or might become stale on a repeat viewing, so much of it sticks that it's hard not to chuckle. It also helps that a couple of bits are some of the best in any Brooksfilm, such as the Godfather bit (Dom DeLouise at his very best), Brooks's own cameo as the Rabbbi, Lewis and Chappelle's acting turns, and an endless slew of quotable lines and a couple of tongue-in-cheek songs. Some of it is obvious, yes, some of it just takes right from the pages of Blazing Saddles, sure, but is it a good time for the right crowd? Definitely- and for parents who grew up on the 70's Brooks work, it is a fantastic way to introduce the young ones to his work through this (even the suggestive sex jokes and such are not R-rated, all in good fun). Robin Hood; Men in Tights is worth watching, I recently watched it because I've just become a Cary Elwes fan, and this is one of of his lead-roles. Some moments really made me crack up so hard! I didn't expect them you know, it was so funny, Even the 2nd time around you'd still fall off your chair The cast is great, of course especially Robin of Locksley himself,Cary, but Blinkin and the Sheriff and Little John (Don't let the name fool you, it's veryy big! lol) and everyone else!

There were some moments of course, the film tried to make a comedic scene out of but you don't necessarily laugh at it,.... but OK.

This is the second time Cary Elwes and Patrick Stewart appeared in a film together by the way, they both worked on "Lady Jane" in 1986, and it was fun to see them, 7 years later, older, awwww.

It's definitely worth watching, quite hilarious indeed! I thought this film was amazing and I laughed so much that I had to see it twice to catch the bits I missed whilst bending over holding my stomach! The critic who reviewed this film for this site challenged anyone with an IQ over their shoe size to find this film funny, well my IQ is approx:135...I challenge this person to question me and then eat his own words! This film is brilliant and if the critic above wasn't such a boring idiot, he might smile for once in his life and take things as lightly as they're meant!!!

The musical numbers were so imaginative! EVERYONE when watching any film about that period of time will notice men in tights and realise how different it is to today's attire and how funny we would find today's male population if they wore tights day in day out! The idea of dedicating a song to butch men dancing in tights was so fresh how can anyone NOT laugh!!! (Plus also, seeing hip-hop rappers doing ballet is always hysterical-as a dancer also, I've done ballet and hip hop and danced with men who've had to do both....it still cracks me up each time!!!)

I love this film, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, don't listen to the critic above...watch it and then decide for yourself!!! This movie is Wonderful! I can watch it again and again. Robin hood is Perfectly cast, and Marian is beautiful. I personally think Marian's German man is the funniest character, along with Latrine and the Sheriff! While space balls got boring and stupid after a while, this one always keeps your interest! W O N D E R F U L This was a great film, and never gets boring. A great cast is in the roles, and it is spoofed perfectly, and makes so much sense, and can be watched again and again! You will love this film if you'll only watch it, except if you hate comedy, or does not think Robin Hood should be tampered with. But this old story gets boring, and this movie gives it a great new flavor! I Love this movie! I know some people might say that it was not a great movie, but I really disagree. The comedy is classic Mel Brooks style and the actors were superbly chosen. This was my first exposure to Cary Elwes, and Dave Chappelle and what a first impression they made. Cary Elwes shines as Robin Hood, the only British Robin Hood mind you. He has great comedic timing and the right attitude for this type of film. Dave Chappelle is obviously much bigger now, but at the time this was his first movie and he did an outstanding job as Achoo. The characters were all very well planned out and all added their own little quirks to the movie. I highly recommend that you rent this movie and enjoy it with a nice bowl of popcorn and some close friends! This movie was awesome, if you want a movie with non-stop puns and laughter then this is right for you. This movie was great because it took the serious Robin Hood and made it something the whole family can enjoy and get a good laugh at. I first viewed this movie when i was around 10, and got most of it. This movie is also great because it makes fun of everything involved, "By order of the kings financial secretary H and R Blockhead?"

Everyone needs a little Cary Elwes(Robin Hood)in life, whether or not its Liar Liar with the "Claw" or Saw.

This movie is worth watching "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" has received no respect whatsoever. It was hilarious! Cary Elwes was excellent as the "Prince of Thieves," and David Chappelle, Amy Yasbeck, Patrick Stewart, Richard Lewis and Mark Blankfield as Blinkin all did fine jobs. I will never understand the hostility toward "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," but I do know a great comedy when I see one.

"Robin Hood: Men in Tights" receives *** out of ****. Might contain spoilers.

This is just a good movie. Lots of good silly stuff to laugh at. However, do not watch the TV version, they cut to much out. Dom Deluise is rather awesome as the mafia Don who is hired to kill Robin. All I can say about his ten minutes: it's a long drive from Jersey. Also you gotta love them checking the script to make sure Robin gets another shot. Also: 12th Century Fox.

Any bad stuff? The rappers at the beginning and the end seem rather out dated. The songs were rather lame. One time while watching this movie, I could think out a few more times when they could have thrown in another joke or 2.

On the whole, however, an enjoyable movie experience. A must watch for comedy fans. I don't think I have ever seen a better movie parody. Mel Brooks is insane. EVERY time I watch it I find something new and it makes it even more funny than the time before. Cary Elwes is perfect for the role of Robin Hood. It has a great and unexpected ending that leaves you cracking up. Every character is great from Little John and Will to Maid Marian and Broomhilde. I laughed the whole way through and will never get tired of it. Watch it!!

If you liked Cary Elwes in this Movie, you must definitely see The Princess Bride. If you don't like Mel Brooks, you won't like this film. That's a given. Why anyone wouldn't like his films is unknown to me, but for those who can't see the light, just avoid it.

Everyone else: This is a classic. The entire cast is perfect: Carey Elwes is a dashing, clever, BRITISH Robin Hood, Amy Yasbeck overacts appropriately as Marion, Richard Lewis is his usual distracted, annoyed self, Roger Rees is a brilliant combination of fluster and violence as "Mervyn" the Sheriff of Rottingham, and Dave Chapelle, Eric Allan Kramer, Mark Blankfield, and the sadly underused Matthew Poretta are the perfect Merry Men.

There are similarities to Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles...and every other Mel Brooks movie. But why would you want him to change his style when it works so damn well? The pop culture references in this movie are old enough to be funny again...from the view of a 16 year old, at least. It's complete and utter parody, every second a play for a laugh. Some of them don't work, but most do, and well. I discovered new jokes the fifth and sixth time I watched the film!

Of course, if being barraged by constant visual and verbal gags isn't your style, you wouldn't like this. This isn't an Academy Award winner, it's Mel Brooks. You know what it is when you're getting into it. If you want nonstop laughter, surprisingly well-developed characters, and catchphrases to last a lifetime, watch this. There won't be one moment in this film where you aren't laughing. This is Mel Brooks at one of his high points, and Cary Elwes carries off the part of Robin with convincing humour. Every time you watch this film you will discover a new joke, but the ones you have noticed before will never grow old. Highly recomended! "Side Show" is one of the weirdest Horror movies ever made from Full Moon Pictures. Very gory in some places, but not as shocking as the Trailer makes it out to be (The Trailer for this movies shows all the gory parts). Also, the acting and visual effects are well done. I would recommend this movie to horror fans everywhere.

8 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Slumber Party Massacre, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section. I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.

Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.

This movie is certainly worth your looking at. This is a great horror movie. Great Plot. And a person with a fear of midgets will definately love the evil midget! This is a must see for any horror fan. Finally a lower budget movie with decent effects and a great cast! Highly recommended. I feel very strongly that this film was just like Waiting to Exhale with white females in the 1950's. As in Waiting to Exhale, all of the female characters got mixed up with men who were either married or no good. The only difference, besides the obvious, was that there wasn't much humor in this film. I would even say that it was tragic. Only one of the male characters seemed to be kind and sincere (Hope Lange's guy), but even then there was conflict in this relationship.

The story was about three young women who shared an apartment together and who had hopes and dreams of success. Unfortunately for them, romance didn't seem to come easy although they were young, intelligent and attractive. This movie could be called a tearjerker with the saddest part involving Suzy Parker's character whose obsession of an ex-boyfriend leads to tragedy.

This is a must see. I first saw this film in 1959 at the Hoyts Double Bay cinema in Sydney when fifteen years old. I loved it then and still do. The ensemble cast is great - in those days the actors acted "naturally" and you "felt" for them in the respective roles. A "glossy" film of the period -the relationships therein still relevant to today's world but now the sexes are on the same level, women would not or should not allow the type of treatment displayed in the past. The soundtrack music is wonderful and it is a delight that Film Score Monthly released the CD in January, 2005. Pity scenes were cut prior to release - even at two hours you want more! I have registered with Amazon for the DVD (they do now have a special page). To view this film in CinemaScope after forty six years of pan and scan will be great. Twentieth Century Fox, please look further into your catalogers of fifties CinemaScope productions for DVD - there IS a large market out there. I await arrival from US of March, 2004 Vanity Fair Special article on the film, which is said to be fifteen pages with many photos on set. Cheers. This working girls go to hell soap is a time capsule candidate, courtesy of its immaculate physical production, 50s costuming (look at all those bows and pearls), creamy Johnny Mathis theme song and oh-so daring (for its time) sexual attitudes. Rona Jaffe's novel, on which the film was based, keeps on being republished, and just a few years ago Vanity Fair actually devoted an article to this delectable bon bon of a movie. Take a look at the new DVD transfer and you'll know why.

The three leads - Hope Lange, Diane Baker and Suzy Parker - echo the girls from "How to Marry A Millonaire" or Carrie Bradshaw and her friends from "Sex and the City." "Gentlewomen songsters off on a spree..." Their romantic adventures and sexual entanglements are the stuff of paperback passion: empty caramel corn calories, devoid of nutrition, impossible to resist snacking on. Lange is genuinely touching in her neo-Grace Kelly way, Baker is properly dim and idealistic as a timid virgin who gets (gasp) knocked up by a (hiss) cad. It helps that the cad is played by Robert Evans, the throaty voiced, coke snorting film mogul who surely has lead many an innocent young lamb to the slaughter in his Beverly Hills bedroom.

Suzy Parker is fascinating in the first half of the film, all blithe self assurance and knowing remarks. She struts her stuff with the panache of the fashion icon she was in the 50s. Alas, she's not up to where the film sends her: into madness and obsession. But she exudes glamour and savior faire and her acting is at least adequate. One wonders why the critics loathed her, virtually driving her out of movies a few years later. Perhaps an aloof attitude on the part of a good looking woman is just too much to bear. It sank Ali McGraw's career a generation later, and, when you think of it, Ali McGraw and Suzy Parker were basically the same actress.

The film's only major flaw is a weak ending. It pretty much collapses into a romantic swoon at the end, rather than rising to a wham bang melodramatic finish, like the other famous soap opera from producer Jerry Wald, "Peyton Place," which had Lana Turner weeping and gnashing her teeth during a rape trial. Here, Hope Lange wanders out onto the New York sidewalk, spots burly, eternally hung over (but now, of course, sober) Stephen Boyd and they simply walk off together...into the sunset, one presumes. Otherwise, this is pretty much the definition of a guilty pleasure.

Oh Yes...there's also Joan Crawford, breathing fire at all the young girls and smoking cigarettes while she hisses to her married lover over the phone. And the titles are done in hot pink, with ribbon lettering that recalls the department store ads of the late 50s. Don't miss! A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).

The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating. Claire Booth Luce's "The Women" shows relationships with men through a woman's point of view in a play, (and 1939 film that also has Joan Crawford playing a bitch: a character who might have been Amanda Farrow 20 years before), that has no male characters. Here we see the male characters and what a bunch they are. They use women like toys and throw them away, leaving the women to suffer. Ironically, the women in "The Women", perhaps because they are all we see, are shown in a less than favorable light, alternately silly and scheming, with the only "nice" one, (Norma Shearer), growing "claws" by the end. In "The Best of Everything" we see the men for the cads they are while the women are largely innocent and vulnerable.

This is a film about women leaping from things. Diane Baker leaps from a car, (in perhaps the most absurd scene in cinema history, which is not in the book). Suzy Parker falls from a fire escape. The women in the film are leaping into the workplace, looking for success and love at the same time. Women would leap into the future and leave this type of soap opera behind in the next decade. But they would come back to it in the 80's and 90's through the novels of people like Sidney Sheldon and Judith Krantz, (although their trashier works aren't as good as this).

The best thing about this film is the way it looks. I love the glossy cinemascope films of the 50's and 60's. They look so much better than the pixel-challenged home movies we've been making since, especially in the letterboxed version we see on TV, and the DVD, with the picture so clear you could walk into it. The look of the bevy of young beauties in it is also memorable. This film probably has more beautiful women in it than any other. It has a supermodel, (Suzy Parker), a beauty queen, (Myrna Hansen, who was not Miss America 1954 as Rona Jaffe says in the DVD commentary but rather Miss USA 1953, per the IMDb: but so what), and a Playboy playmate, (June Blair, from January 1957). My vote goes to Suzy, one of the astonishing beauties of all time. Her acting here isn't as awful as people pretend: they are just reacting, as people did then, to the sight of a supermodel, (the first, really), trying to act. Nobody seemed to care how well she did. Her role, that of an apparently worldly woman who turns out to be the most vulnerable, is the most complex in the bunch and she does just fine.

The most touching thing about the film now is the age of the female leads at the time. Hope Lange was 27 when they filmed this in the spring of 1959. Diane Baker was 20. Suzy Parker was 26. Hope, who looked to be Grace Kelly's heir, never made it really big and wound up being Mrs. Muir on television and, per the IMDb, wound up living in a home with "crates for coffee tables" because she spent her money on causes she believed in before dying at age 72 in 2003. This film must have seemed a very distant and irrelevant memory to her by then. Baker, always a welcome face in 60's TV, (especially to Richard Kimble), and still active as an actress and acting coach, just turned 67. Parker found "the best of everything" with Bradford Dillman for 40 years before dying at age 70 the same year Lange did. But here they are, young, beautiful and ambitious for success and love, just like their characters. If this is not my favorite movie of all time, it definitely is in the top five. I love this. Everything about this is perfect--the clothes, the set, the lines--yes, they're not how normal people talk, but... Right down to the small scenes, especially at the beginning of the office girls changing their shoes, picking a wedgie, watering the office ivy plant, putting lunch in the fridge... Identical to what us office girls do today in the year 2005. I think all the minor characters are wonderful. If someone like Joan Crawford is over the top, it's all part of the package. If you pick out many things in the movie, it is very evident that this was the beginning of the sixties as women were starting to not "take it lying down," at least not if they didn't want to. As far as characters being contradictory, for instance, Suzy Parker's character acting like she's all for flings, but then getting too attached to Louis Jourdan's character, isn't that what many people are like--contradictory? They mix in real stuff with scenes like Diane Baker's character finding the love of her life after miscarrying her illegitimate baby in an accident--lying in the hospital with a big old bandage around her head. This is part of the package too, it's charm--glossy escapism. I like the mix of real stories pertinent today (the stereotypical career woman who only has affairs with married men, therefore doesn't have a family when she is older) with ones that make you wish, "ah, if only I could fall in love with a doctor and he'll love me even though he knows my sordid past, and saw me all messed up after the scandalous accident!!" Also, I just got the DVD, widescreen, it's yet even more beautiful than full screen... Yay! The Best of Everything is a high gloss large screen soap opera which follows the careers of four career women, Hope Lange, Suzy Parker, Diane Baker, and Martha Hyer at a New York publishing firm. What's the best for some women is not necessarily the best for all.

Presiding over this group of young fillies is wise old mare Joan Crawford who's been around the track a few times on screen and in real life. She looks right at home as the boss lady as well she should have at this point.

Around the time she was making The Best of Everything Joan Crawford became a widow when her fourth husband, Alfred Steele died. It was a particularly traumatic event for her, she woke up one morning and found him dead in bed next to her. She inherited all of his stock in Pepsi Cola where he was the board chairman and during the same period as The Best of Everything was being made, she wound up the queen bee at Pepsi Cola. Life does sometimes imitate art. So that authority as she barks out dictation and coffee orders to Hope Lange rings real true.

In fact all the women here with the exception of Lange are in for some rough sledding. It's rough for Lange too, but she literally makes the best of everything.

What a collection of stinkers the men are in this film. The best of them, Stephen Boyd, is a heavy drinker. The others Louis Jourdan, Robert Evans, and Brett Halsey, are as slimy a collection of rodents as ever gathered for one film.

I can't forget Brian Aherne either who's the fanny pinching head of this publishing firm. Half that office would have sexual harassment suits going today.

Some nice location shots of New York in the fifties make the film a real treat. Catch it by all means. Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) is just killing time getting a job. Her real ambition is to marry Eddie and have a baby.

April (Diane Baker) is too innocent to stay that way for long and falls in love too easily, a dangerous combo.

Greg (Suzy Parker) is a go-getter and wants to be an actress.

All three are doomed for dramatics in 'The Best of Everything', a 1959 soap opera/morality play/sometimes solid movie that is aging by the second.

Set in the cut-throat world of paperback publishing, its not as trashy as "Valley of the Dolls" but not as vanilla as "Three Coins in the Fountain."

The men in the mix - Brian Aherne, Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan and Robert Evans - are slick, well-dressed and no good, for the most part. Aherne is the resident sexual offender - will pinch anything walking by, and makes unwanted advances right and left. His character is offensive as hell, but its not played seriously at all. Harassment hadn't been discovered yet, I guess. Boyd works there, too, although you never see him actually doing anything. He's too busy being older, wiser and drunker. Evans is abroad just so Diane Baker can suffer in style - he's a rich kid who's gotten her in 'trouble' so instead of marrying her, as promised, he's taking her to get an 'operation.'

Jourdan is a director who mistakenly has an affair with Parker. They share a fight scene which is fairly no-holds barred, in a movie like this anyway, but the scene is ultimately ruined by Parker's histronics. She ends up nearly stalking him, and she really didn't deserve such a lousy fate, her bad acting notwithstanding.

Joan Crawford breathes fire as Amanda Farrow, the resident 'witch' who is automatically rude and dismissive of any of her legion of secretaries. Well they are younger, aren't they? Isn't that sufficient reason to hate a person? Caroline doesn't think so, as she admirably stands up to Miss Farrow every chance she gets. Crawford only gets to let loose once, when she tells her married boyfriend 'you can your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell' and slams down the phone. You never get to see the poor soul who dare crosses her.

Martha Hyer's 'storyline', as it were, is extremely weak, and she is painfully over-the-top as an unmarried mother. Short of wearing a huge "W" (for 'whore') on her cardigan, she walks around like a pathetic mess for most of her screen time. Even worse, she is not given the courtesy of having it all 'tied up', one way or the other, at the end. It won't matter that much, but still..

Its painfully obvious this all took place in a totally different world. People were nicer to one another for the most part and work was not a drag but something exciting, for a girl from outside NYC anyway.

One unconvincing drunk scene aside, Hope Lange helps it seem reasonably real as Caroline, who at least has more than one side to her character.

I admire that women are seen having an opinion, a chance and a choice. Not that its not wrapped in a nice bow, but it makes some points for equality. In 1959 that was probably noteworthy and possibly controversial. 7/10. This is a film that is far more enjoyable than its rating of 7 would suggest. In many ways, it's like a 50s version of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS--with much of the excesses and sleaziness of VALLEY polished up a bit for the audiences of 1959. Like this later film, both are about three young ladies who are on the fast-track to success--though this time it's in the publishing world instead of the entertainment industry (though one of the ladies in THE BEST OF EVERYTHING does have aspirations of Broadway).

The film begins with Hope Lange coming into the company for her first day of work. She's assigned to tough-as-nails boss, Joan Crawford, who is appearing in her first supporting role in decades. Despite how nasty Crawford seems, Lange is determined not to give in--to make it in this job. And, over time, she quickly moves up the ranks from secretary to editor. At the same time, her two new roommates also try to move up the ranks--one through the stage and one through a relationship with a rich playboy. Like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, all of them have their ups and downs (mostly downs) but by the end of the film there is some hope that at least some of them will make it--battered and bruised, nevertheless.

In this film, men are mostly pigs. The only guy who seems decent is played by Stephen Boyd, so naturally Hope Lange neglects him for a ne'er do well ex-boyfriend. As for the guys played by veteran character actor Brian Ahern and the rest, they are sexist scum and eventually you understand how Crawford became so bitter and nasty.

This film has it all--adultery, premarital sex, abortion, etc. and is certainly NOT an artistic triumph. However, thanks to excellent production values and a juicy script, this one is a joy to watch. Just don't expect Shakespeare!! I watched the first few moments on TCM a few years ago but stopped after about 15 minutes. I saw it listed on the schedule at the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, and I vowed I would make the 40 minute drive. The Stanford is an old fashioned movie house that starts each movie with the curtains still shut Yes, they have curtains. They opened as the Fox logo fanfare began to play. When "The Best of Everything" appeared in huge pink letters spread against the New York City skyline, I knew I was right for waiting.

I lapped this movie up. There were so many little moments that added to the look and feel of the movie: When Hope Lange walks into the publishing office for the first time, the titles of the magazines published there are etched on the glass (The Teenager and Elegance); Joan Crawford's swanky apron that she wore so she could serve her guests at her party without mussing her outfit; the way the camera tilted to indicate how crazy Suzy Parker was becoming (it was almost sideways at one point); how Hope Lange kept living at that dumpy flat she shared with the others even though she obviously was making a lot more money than at the beginning of the film (guess it was too scandalous for a single gal to live alone).

Hope Lange was so beautiful; so was Suzy Parker. And how about Mark Goddard in a non-speaking role. I fell in love with him when I was a kid watching Lost in Space.

Seeing this gem on the big screen prompted me to plan another trek down to the Stanford to see The Old Dark House. Incidentally, I bought a small soda and popcorn at the concession stand, and I was taken aback when the worker asked me for two bucks. Having grown up in the typing pool era and dealing with office politics and men who were apt to make a banquet of beauties into a delightful meal day to day, this movie hits the mark. Good afternoon fare. I understand that Louis Jordan wanted to work in this movie to play opposite the quintessential GORGEOUS Suzy Parker. Everyone wanted to be in and I believe it has done well and held up over time. Best on screen kiss between Hope Lange and the late Stephen Boyd.

It may not appear that anything of this is plausible but actually it was and probably still is even given the scare of sexual harassment. I thought the movie was well cast except the awful acting of Evans. What a grease ball but he found his niche someplace else. Other than that, all stepped up to the plate. This 1959 soap opera film takes us into the lives and loves of three young women in the publishing world as secretaries. This follows the same idea as THREE COINS IN A FOUNTAIN a few years before. This takes place in New York while COINS takes place in Rome, Italy. Our three beauties are Hope Lange, in her first starring role, Suzy Parker and Diane Baker. Lange does well and holds her own opposite some strong veterans in the business, namely Joan Crawford. Suzy plays an obsessive woman who has a hard time losing her beau. Hard to believe that anyone could reject this beauty for any reason, but Louis Jourdan, her heart throb, does just this. Sort of takes you back to Paul Neuman rejecting the gorgeous Elizabth Taylor in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, doesn't it? Diane Baker, the third damsel in distress, meets and dates Robert Evans, before he became the producer, and husband to Ali MacGraw, he is known for. Hope's boyfriend from home, played by newcomer Brett Halsey, is promising to marry her. She also meets Stephen Boyd, a fellow worker, who has interests in our Hope. All three ladies have their drama ahead of them. Crawford almost steals the film. Her presence and her usual strong bitchy self is fun to watch. Veteran actor Brian Aherne plays one of the bosses with a yen for pinching our leading ladies' back side. He's delightfully charming. Also in the cast is Martha Hyer, wasted in a thankless role never really explored. Too bad as I like this actress who never seems to get that one role to distinguish her abilities. She has a crush on a married man in the office played by Donald Harron, whom I had the pleasure to work with in a couple of Shakespeare plays in NYC. He is a distinguished actor that is wasted in this film also.

All in all it's great fun, in Technicolor and cinemascope, directed by Jean Negulesco. Although dated, this film is definitely worth a watch. I saw it about eight times as a teenager when it opened and it changed my life...I just HAD to live in New York. It has great opening shots of the Manhattan skyline with Johnny Mathis crooning "Romance is still...the best of everything..." that rival those of West Side Story. There is a rather stilted performance by the world's REAL first Supermodel, Suzy Parker (sorry about that, Janice D.), but it's great eye-candy! It also offers a bit of insight into late 1950's American mores--our obsession with (and repression of) sex (in the workplace, no less!), romance, and marriage before women's lib. It represents an era in which New York was at it's finest and a super-bitchy performance by Joan Crawford is just the icing on the cake. That's a bad, raunchy, predictable, tacky, salacious soap opera? "The Best of Everything" is just such a guilty pleasure for me, something along the lines of "Valley of the Dolls". I mean, "Best" has everything. Somebody gets pregnant out of wedlock (when's the last time you heard THAT phrase?), there are affairs everywhere, drinking, backstabbing, jealousy, and even a tragic but not altogether unexpected death.

Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) and Mike Rice (the delicious Stephen Boyd) are the centerpieces of the goings-on. Their chemistry is immediate and is the glue that keeps this film from becoming too fragmented.

Suzy Parker, the off-the-chart gorgeous ex-fashion model, appears as Gregg Adams, an aspiring stage actress, a role that, according to any biography I've ever read about her, was apparently not much of a stretch. But Parker does a surprisingly credible job here, more than holding her own in a couple of scenes opposite Louis Jourdan who plays David Savage. Jourdan probably took this role for the money and the special screen credit because he was clearly headed down the aging star/has-been road.

Diane Baker is fine as naive, gullible April Morrison, Martha Hyer as Barbara Lemont has a particularly juicy storyline, and film legend Joan Crawford chews her usual serving of scenery as Amanda Farrow, another role, like Jourdan's Savage, that Crawford likely took for the paycheck.

There is some obviously dated dialog and plot devices (this IS 1959), and the predictability of the soap opera genre. But if you like a good soap as I do, "The Best of Everything" will more than satisfy you. It's interesting to watch how late 1950's society is depicted in this film. Men are lecherous, chain-smoking boozers with one thing on their minds (time hasn't changed men all that much, but "sexual harassment" has) & women are in the workplace only passing time until they find a husband & settle down. Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy but yet it's charming in an innocent, passé way. I love the opening credits that show a romantic, exciting view of Manhattan with Johnny Mathis singing "The Best Of Everything" on the soundtrack. I want to jump right into some scenes, filmed on N.Y. streets, circa 1959 & experience a time I've only seen on film & in photographs. Some scenes in this movie reminded me of Melanie Griffith's "Working Girl". Especially when Hope Lange (who's a cross between Grace Kelly & Dolores Hart) gets bombed in handsome Stephen Boyd's apartment, he tucks her in & just watches her sleep (like Melanie, she wants to know if "anything" happened between them the following day). Joan Crawford is definitely comparable to Sigourney Weaver's horrible female boss except she was outwardly nasty (with a soft core), but Sigourney's character was sweet on the outside & horrible on the inside. I found it distressing how the Suzy Parker character (Gregg) started out as an independent woman with career goals to be an actress, who supposedly didn't need a man to complete her, ended up. She becomes a stalker/lunatic/nut-job when she lets the man she falls in love with drive her bananas after he's done with her. I loved the character Mary Agnes, the office gossip, with her thick New Yawk accent. If you enjoy films like "Valley Of The Dolls" you'll like this one too. Enjoyable film that gives you romance, women-on-the-verge psychodrama, work place sexual harassment, adultery, and fashion. It's all there. Typical characters found in corporate America. Joan Crawford is the usual long time employee bitch executive who feels the need to be such because she's with the big boys. Hope Lange is the entry level ambitious employee whose determined to get to the top by using her mind and not her body. Their personal lives is the subplot.

Wardrobe for the film is great but someone forgot to tell Stephen Boyd's hairstylist that "a little dab will do ya!" The amount of Brylcream in Stephen Boyd's hair is distracting at times. His character's relationship with Lange's character was never fully developed which I found disappointing. Overall the movie is enjoyable.

Rating: 8/10 A hugely enjoyable screen version of Rona Jaffe's best-selling pot-boiler about the trials and tribulations, (and, naturally, the loves), of a group of women involved in one way or another in the New York publishing business. Directed by Jean Negulesco, fairly fresh from the success of "Three Coins in a Fountain", and the prototype for the likes of "Sex and the City", except that here the sex all takes place off-screen.

The bright young female talents of the day, (Hope Lange, Diane Baker, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer), are all nicely cast while Joan Crawford pops up as a Queen Bitch of an editor who could probably eat Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly and spit her out; with absolutely no effort at all she steals the movie. The men include Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan, (if it wasn't Rossano Brazzi it had to be Louis Jourdan), Robert Evans, (before he decided, wisely, to go behind the camera) and Brian Aherne. There are more suds on display than you will find in your average launderette but if, like me, you enjoy "Desperate Housewives", not to mention Carrie Bradshaw and company then you will probably love this. A very guilty pleasure. You can't take this movie seriously.....the plot is predictable and trite, the acting often over the top, the dialog laughable; but it all adds up to great fun! Three "career girls" in the late 1950's find their way to the BIG city and all the evils and temptations their mothers probably warned them about: married men, alcohol, premarital sex, abortion, etc.

Then there's Amanda Farrell (Joan Crawford) who did succeed professionally, but whose personal life has been sacrificed for an office with her name on the door.

This movie may have been believable 50 years ago, but now it's just great campy fun! Rent/buy it and enjoy. Great period piece that shows how attitudes have changed in 40 years. Great production design, appealing stars, great lines ("Miss Bender, I don't care if you beat it out on a native drum!", says Joan Crawford's Amanda Farrow to Hope Lange when Lange incredulously asks how she is expected to read a summarize a large amount of manuscripts in a very short time). If you've seen this movie panned and scanned on TV and not in the letterboxed version on pay-TV or AMC (American Movie Classics) you haven't really seen it. Hopefully, this guilty pleasure of a film will be made available soon on DVD in a letterboxed version and with it's original 4-track stereophonic soundtrack. Great opening title sequence that really catches the mood of 1959 New York while Johnny Mathis sings the "Best of Everything" theme song in an echo chamber surrounded by a chorus of violins and another chorus of background screamers. Miscarriages! Insanity! Office romance! Bitchy cold-hearted bosses! Thwarted love! It's all here to enjoy. This is an engrossing woman's drama that men can enjoy. The plot follows a young woman (Hope Lange) who goes to work for a publisher after college. We can forgive her jump in position from secretary to editor (hey, it's Hollywood) and a few other flaws. Here is one of the few films in which once big time producer Robert Evans (here, beautifully depicting a rat with women) appears. It also features a mature Joan Crawford and terrific supporting cast. Check it out. Fun bad movie which should amuse. One of Joan Crawford's last performances as the driven successful editor vs. all those young beautiful eager beavers fresh out of the elite Seven Sister Colleges. Great '50's ambiance of New York. Wonderful period costumes and hairdos. Terrific art direction. Trite story, but rousting tearjerker. Interesting cameo by Robert Evans as a rich cad. The best of everything. Just what is the best of everything? It is different for everyone but for most of us it is love. But alas not everyone knows where or who to look to for real love. This story goes the whole gambit of looking for love. Sometimes in all the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons. But as the saying goes,"we are the captains of our own ships", and so it goes for our lives. We are responsible for the choices that we make in our lives. Once we make those choices then we must live with them. As we watch this story and as we see these women making choices that most likely change their lives forever, we wonder, would we make the same choices as these women or would we be wiser? Who knows? A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it! Watching this hilariously retro but very entertaining career girl tale, I was floored by Joan Crawford's first appearance. All I could think initially was, "My God, it's the same face as Michael Jackson in his notorious booking photo!"

About 34 minutes into the movie, Diane Baker and Hope Lange get out of a cab in Greenwich Village. As they walk down the street, you can see part of a sign in back of them for the Stonewall Bar -- scene of the epochal "riots" that are considered the trigger for the modern gay rights movement.

Speaking of Baker and taxis, I had to laugh when she gets into one and tells the cabbie, "56th and Sutton Place, please -- and be careful of the bumps." Can you imagine the reaction to that from a driver in today's Manhattan?! She says that, of course, because she's pregnant and doesn't want to hurt the fetus. But that doesn't stop her from JUMPING OUT OF A MOVING CAR when she finds out Bob Evans wants her to have an abortion! Well, they had to find a way for her to lose the baby (1959 and all).

Sue Carson is delightful as Mary Agnes. Why was this her only movie? There is no biographical information on her in IMDb. I just saw this wonderfully filmed movie that captures the essence of

high-brow NYC, or any big city of mid-century America. The colors, the

cars, the clothes and the coming of the Womens Movement. It reflects the

comf-cozy attitudes of relationships between men and women in the

corporate world. In some ways, things gave changed and in others, they

haven't changed at all. Women still want what men have today, but they

now have all sorts of laws and equality mandates to get it for them. In

my opinion, beautiful women will still THROW themselves at men in

pursuit of thier goals! The laws we have now against harrassment and

all, were passed by unattractive women who wanted an equal chance to

compete with prettier women who might be getting the positions soley

based on thier looks and puting out! The real competition isn't between

men and women, but women and women! I liked the look and feel of the movie but the world hasn't changed as

far as what real "Boy Next Door" is a hilarious romp through male neurosis. In just over fifteen minutes, the film takes us on a journey that most full-length features can't even match. Great performances, excellent camera work and editing---this short is a classic from start to finish. Kudos to Travis Davis for pulling double duty as both director and star. He's the funniest nebbish since Woody Allen. And what a treat to see Richard Moll back again. If you thought all he could do was play "Bull" the bailiff on "Night Court", think again. This gem of a film showcases the brilliantly funny writing of Stephen Garvey. Remember that name. Forget Charlie Kaufman, Steve Garvey is the true current king of quirky comedy. Had the pleasure to see this film at the Big Bear Film Festival where it won the Audience Award. And I have to say, it was well deserved because Boy Next Door is a very funny short film! The script is well written and keeps things escalating. It also has a great current of suspense coursing through it. You don't know what's going to happen next as the main character tries to deal with the realization that his new neighbor might not be the most ideal person to be living across from him. The jokes are quick and unexpected. The plot keeps us guessing. The dialog feels very real. I thought the direction was first-rate and the director Travis Davis shows a lot of potential for making it big in the world of studio comedies. Not small praise considering he also is the lead actor of the film, so he had to do triple duty on this, writing, directing and starring. If you get a chance to see this film on iTunes, it's worth the download. It'll make you laugh out loud a few times. And that's more than most shorts offer these days. When I watch a short like Boy-Next-Door, I find myself with a kind of bittersweet feeling. On the one hand, I'm happy. I'm watching something that has been well thought out, seamlessly executed and just daring enough to be interesting. On the other hand I find myself lamenting the level of comedy generally produced. TV and films are so consistently packed with easy, condescending crap that we find ourselves judging excellence within a scale of mediocrity. Then you see someone like Davis, who, without the "benefit" of studio notes or substantial budget; can create a really cool little comic gem. Producers and network suits need to turn to the Travis Davis' out there for material and stop awarding deals to people simply because their resume or agent may demand they should. Boy-Next-Door has, hopefully, gained the attention of the right people to facilitate more work from Davis. It's really fun and very well done! This twisted comedy is well acted and directed. Very funny and the production quality is outstanding. It is easy to see why this short film has been accepted into so many festivals and won awards.

Everyone can identify with Calvin having a bad day, bad week, bad life. Travis Davis plays the role superbly! Richard Moll as Tim brings darkness and foreboding that gives this film just the right twistedness. The old man adds to the humor of the story. And who wouldn't love the suicidal goldfish!

This short will bring lots of laughs. And don't miss the credits as they are playing at the end! "Challenge to be Free" was one of the first films I saw as a child. It was also one of the first VHS tapes that I owned. I hadn't seen the movie in years, so yesterday I decided to stick the tape in and watch it. Wow. The story is as powerful now as it was the first time I saw it. I think now that I am older I can better apreciate the values that are implanted in the movie. (Self-reliance, The value of Freedom, and the love of nature) It is a "B" movie, to be sure, but it's one that you'll remember for years, especially if you see it as a child. Director: Tay Garnett, Ford Beebe, Cast: Mike Mazurki, Vic Christy, Fritz Ford, Tay Garnett.

Based on the number of comments I see on IMDb, this seems to be a forgotten movie. This seems rather ironic to me because it is actually one of the first movies that I remember. My mom took me and my little brother to see this film at The Garland theater in Spokane when it first came out in the mid 1970's and I still remember it.

I am going by memory here but I believe this move is about a trapper who was accused of a crime which he did not commit and the law goes after him. I believe it to be set in 1800's Alaska. A narrator tells the story of the trapper played by Mike Mazurki. Really, this is a very good film with a great setting. It could be compared to the 1981 film Death Hunt with Charles Bronson. The two films have a very similar story line. The main difference between the two is Death Hunt is an adult orientated film whereas Challenge is a family friendly film.

Mike Mazurki and Tay Garnett were both rather old when this movie was made which I find rather impressive when one considers that this movie was filmed on location in the wilds of Alaska. This was the last film made by Tay Garnett before he died which was just a few years later. They both had been around since the silent era. This story has held a special place in my heart for the last thirty-one years. As a boy, I enjoyed stories of mountain men and the wilderness. Books like "Call of the Wild", "White Fang", "The Frontiersman" and "My Side Of the Mountain", influenced me tremendously. I wanted so much to live like a mountain man, but nothing inspired me more to do so, than when I saw this movie on television in 1975. I wanted to be just like "Trapper". However, as I got older I found I was just too domesticated to live like that. Nonetheless, I still romanticize about living that kind of life. I agree with some other reviews of this movie that the storyline has the simplicity that is quite prevalent in "Disneyisque" type movies, but if you can look past the mechanics in which it was made and see the heart of the story, the true themes, then I think you find yourself pleasantly touched. I make it a point to watch this movie once a year. After thirty-one years, I still get a chill running through me when I see torrent of snow rushing down the mountainside and hear the echoing, haunting laugh of the Trapper.

-Good luck old-timer and stay free-

PS If you want to read more about the true story, I found this link on the Mad Trapper of Rat River:

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/NWT/madtrapper.htm This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.

This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly. The most enjoyable pet movie since Scooby Doo and Garfield. The story revolves around a 23 year old inventor named Brian Foster whose systems at his boss's company seems to keep failing, Brian is also dating the boss's daughter named Casey. But Brian secretly invented a robotic dog named CHOMPS, modeled after his own dog Rascal. But CHOMPS is no ordinarily dog, he is as fast as a cheetah, he has x-ray vision, can leap about 6 feet, and has a strength of 20 men. The new invention impresses his boss, and makes his business a success. But when the company rivals hear about CHOMPS, they try to find a way to capture him. Can CHOMPS outwit them before its too late. This movie is a classic for all ages. Brian (Wesley Eure) works for a security firm owned by Mr. Norton (Conrad Bain). The Norton firm is in financial trouble for, unknown to the owner, he has an employee who is selling secrets to a rival firm's owner (Jim Bacchus). It's not Brian, as he is a loyal and faithful employee and a good inventor. But, Mr. Norton has no patience with Brian, in part because Norton's beautiful daughter, Casey (Valerie Bertinelli) has a thing for Brian and Norton questions Brian's motives for wooing her. However, Brian does come up with a great security device. It's called CHOMPS, which stands for canine home security system. The device, which looks like a dog, is actually a computer controlled animal with the ability to knock down walls and emit siren sounds to capture burglars. The rival owner sends two bungling spies (one is Red Buttons) to learn the details of the new invention. Will CHOMPS save Norton security? This is a fun family flick from the old school of good, clean entertainment. CHOMPS is, of course, a real dog, played by the adorable and talented Benji. In fact, Benji has a duel role, as Brian has a "real" dog named Rascal, too. Just watching this little dog in action is pure joy, as he is able to scale walls, "pull" trucks, and operate machine buttons to capture the bad guys. The human cast is also quite nice, with everyone giving upbeat performances that are infectious. Costumes, scenery, and production values are good, too. Although you may have trouble locating the film, it would be well worth the effort to secure a view for your closest loved ones. CHOMPS is a wonderful, wholesome diversion from the world's woes. I saw Chomps during the - approximately - 2 days of its theatrical release. It is a delightfully cute and funny movie in the spirit of 'Benji' though much improved and focused more on the actors than the dogs. The simple portrayal of life difficulties in a humorous way, followed by the bullies and villains getting their just deserts, is both sympathetic and heartwarming. It is also thought provoking. With deft subtleness this movie affects ones awareness of cruelty, personal behavior, and bullying. Movies have different genera's and different purposes. This movie, which is delightful to all ages, offers an interesting humorous look into our own experiences. Everyone will recognize personality and behaviors types of themselves and others. Everyone will see the humor. The humor makes the move enjoyable and brings understanding of life situations to a new level.

For lighthearted laughter and a 'feel good' movie Chomps is an excellent choice. Memorable. Eager electronics whiz Brian Foster (a likable performance by Wesley Eure of TV's "Land of the Lost") creates a computerized watchdog called C.H.O.M.P.S. (an acronym for Canine Home Protection System) for his boss Mr. Ralph Norton (nicely played by Conrad Baain), whose home security business is floundering. A rival company hires a pair of inept criminals to get their grubby hands on C.H.O.M.P.S.; said task proves to be easier said than done. Director Don Chaffey relates the endearingly dopey story at a constant brisk pace, maintains an amiably silly and lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the goofy slapstick gags with considerable flair. Moreover, the game cast mug it up with infectious aplomb: the adorable Valerie Bertinelli as Brian's sweet fiancé Casey Norton, Chuck McCann as klutzy crook Brooks, Red Buttons as McCann's equally bumbling partner Bracken, Jim Backus as evil CEO Mr. Gibbs, Hermoine Baddeley as nice old biddy Ms. Foster, and 60's AIP exploitation feature regular Larry Bishop as smarmy, duplicitous suit Ken Sharp. Best of all, the titular pooch is a cuddly delight: C.H.O.M.P.S. jumps through fences, walls and windows with amazing agility, performs acts of exceptional strength, runs faster than a deer, and even does a few nifty martial arts moves. A subplot about a hulking neighborhood hound named Monster supplies a few extra belly laughs (Monster is voiced by some uncredited guy with an appropriately deep, growly voice). The groovy animated opening credits sequence, Charles F. Wheeler's glossy cinematography, and Hoyt Curtin's funky, pulsating disco score are all solid as well. A cute little kiddie flick. This movie is a nice, cute family oriented film. If you don't like violence, this is the movie to watch. Only thing annoying about this movie is the tune (but it's a catchy tune) repeats whenever c.h.o.m.p.s. leaps in to action. Wesley Eure is young inventor Brian Foster, who's invented a new crime busting security device in the form of a robot dog, the titular "C.H.O.M.P.S." (It stands for Canine HOMe Protection System). C.H.O.M.P.S., who's been modeled after Brian's real dog Rascal, can do just about anything; he's got enhanced speed, strength, X-ray vision, and the like. It's just the thing to save his boss Ralph Norton's (Conrad Bain) security company. Naturally, a slimy competitor, Gibbs (Jim Backus) wants the edge so he tries to get his hands on the secret.

This is the kind of thing that's just too hard to resist. It's got plenty of slapstick (Chuck McCann and Red Buttons play a great pair of bumbling idiots), an upbeat attitude, an engaging cast, and enough good laughs to keep one entertained. The energetic disco-style music gets repetitive but is undeniably catchy; the story is straightforward, and the dogs themselves are absolutely adorable. In one thoroughly odd but side-splitting touch, there's another dog in the film (named "Monster") whose thoughts we actually get to hear; both his dialog and the performer doing the voice are priceless. In fact, he even utilizes some mild profanity and his last words end the film on a positively gut busting final note.

Eure and the cute Valerie Bertinelli are very likable young leads, and their veteran supporting cast plays the material with all the gusto they can muster. Larry Bishop, Hermione Baddeley, Robert Q. Lewis, and Regis Toomey also co-star.

A rare theatrical live-action venture for the cartoon-creating team of Hanna & Barbera ('The Flintstones', 'Scooby-Doo', 'The Smurfs', and so on), "C.H.O.M.P.S." is agreeably silly stuff. I know it left me with a smile on my face.

7/10 This was a pretty good episode. Though no "Trapped in the Closet" or "Cartoon Wars," it had a lot of things going for it. The character of Al Gore and that bizarre-as-hell "super cereal" thing was pretty darn funny. But, the scene that made me adore this episode was one I'm sure everyone will agree was one of the greatest Cartman/Kyle moments ever. When Cartman is superstitious of Kyle that he'll be stealing his gold(which of course is fake!), and he comes within inches of his face. Suddenly, Kyle wakes up, and they have that crazy conversation where Cartman tries to act like everything is completely fine. Cartman crapping out the treasure at the end, though predictable, was pretty funny. First of all, ignore the comment about how South Park should make fun of Republicans. Everyone is doing that now, why should South Park blindly follow what the rest of the media is doing? And what the Republicans are doing is more serious and less funny than Al Gore and his global warming hysteria.

But all that aside, this episode is just plain funny. Al Gore's portrayal has to be one of the best caricatures of a politician I've ever seen, it was original, and it was based on peoples opinions of the man. I don't want to give anything away, but it had me rolling on the floor.

There are also has some of the best Cartman/Kyle moments ever.

All in all I'd say that this is one of the best episodes the show has ever had, and I would highly recommend it to anybody. Alright so this episode makes fun of Al Gore. I'm sure it pisses a few liberals off. The thing is South Park makes fun of everybody, much like the Simpsons did. If you get offended that a politician you like is made fun of then maybe you need a better sense of humor and are taking the show too seriously. With that being said this episode is hilarious and one of the best. Al Gores portrayal is hilarious, Cartman's scheme goes terribly wrong and the results will have you rolling on the floor laughing. It is basically everything you would ever want out of a south park episode and it is easily one of my favorites. I'll won't comment too much further on the plot because I don't want to give anything away. ManBearPig is a pretty funny episode of South Park.It spoofs Al Gore and his speeches on Global warming, only replacing global warming with ManBearPig(a fictional monster who has parts of a man, a bear and a pig).He tells the boys about it in a school assembly and Stan feels sorry for him, so he and the boys decide to hang out with him.Gore eventually gets them trapped in a rock cave where he believes manbearpig to be and they are stuck for days.Meanwhile, Cartman finds treasure but wants to keep it all to himself.ManBearPig is a good spoof on Global Warming and overall a funny South Park episode.

8/10 Trey's favourite from the first run of Season 10 and also one of my personal favourites, Manbearpig features the adventure of Al Gore before going on global warming and before the movie, it was similar a adventure certainly, Al Gore was also trying to aware the world about something that can change the Earth, something really dangerous, this time about something that is half man half bear and half pig, Al Gore had only one thing in mind: to aware everyone of Manbearpig and to kill it! Al Gore here is more than hilarious, everyone who sees him feel sorry for him and yes he can childish, doing tantrums since nobody believes him but he is just a f****** demented bastard. Basically four kids are trapped in a cave because of Al Gore but certainly he don't have that in his mind, there's not space for any other subject, is just Manbearpig what concerns Al Gore. Those four kids are Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, basically Stan felt sorry for AL Gore and the four boys were just playing in Al Gore's game never imaging that Gore could almost kill them while he was trying to kill Manbearpig (hilarious scene- "they are just children, damned Manbearpig"). So at this part we have on one hand all the stuff with the rescue team who also feel sorry for Al Gore and on the other hand we have a little yet extremely hilarious Cartman episode and there are not surprises of the attitude of Cartman after he finds a treasure inside the cave, certainly the whole stuff with this treasure is fantastic and is great because you will see a sick Cartman in both senses, he is really sick for the boys and really sick for us. And in the end Al Gore does killed Manbearpig! This character is a fantastic one and I'm cereal! Terrific fun in this episode, a highly re-watchable one. 10 out of 10 I think that Mario Van Peebles movie Posse is a very important film. It is an excellent entry point film to a side of history many are not aware of. This is a story of early black settlers, cow boys and infantrymen returning from the Spanish-American War with a cache of gold. The main character Peebles is haunted by memories of his murdered father. The racism applied to the new black settlers and infantryman is explored in this film with excellent casting including Melvin Van Peebles (Marios father), Billy Zane, Stephen Baldwin and a wonderful performance by Big Daddy Kane.

One senses that Peeples strived to use as many notable black (and some not so notable - smile) actors as possible : ) Perhaps too many, some notable persons (Issac Hayes, Pamela Grier) are only scene in cameo, others briefly such as Tone Loc. The sentiment and efforts of Peebles efforts to expose these actors will be understood by some. The large cast (a feat for any director) work well and do a good job of telling the story in the classic "revenge and fight vs justice" western.

Most noteworthy was the wonderful narrative role of veteran actor Woody Strode (from Once Upon A Time In The West), who's own life was a barrier-breaker, within the context of a previous era not yet completed faded from memory. No other actor could have done this role better. Read the mini-bio on Woody Strode here as a primer: http://imdb.com/name/nm0834754/bio

The film does a good job of balancing action with a bit of sardonic humour. The dialog was excellent if a bit contemporary! And as others have mentioned the profanity was not accurate to that period. The sex scene was a bit much -- not really needed. There are some historical inaccuracies such as the seeming electronic branding of the cattle etc. But Posse is a good effort to hopefully open the door for more historical and creative works reflective of other untold stories and events. The actual photos of real cowboys at the end credits was very nice touch. Thank you Mario Van Peebles for informing us of not only the existence of black cowboys, but providing a compelling story that was easy to follow.

The plot, backdrop, music and talent were all top notch. It was great that you used so many African-American artists to tell the tale of the black cowboy. It was also good to see Billy Zane in this movie. Does he ever play a good guy?

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to broaden their way of thinking. This is an excellent movie and I feel privileged to have seen it. Hopefully, you'll feel the same. I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had there strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie! A good old-fashioned flight-and-revenge western, given a twist and a touch of gravitas by injecting a little black social history into its plot. Lead by Mario Van Peebles, who does OK, the gang of misfits on the run from Billy Zane's (seemingly unstoppable) army bigwig all acquit themselves well, their adventures plausible yet fun and exciting. There're some nice moody flashback scenes setting up the hero's character and backstory, a good shoot-out ending as our heroes defend the town from greedy white landgrabbers, and even Stephen Baldwin isn't bad in this enjoyable, quite powerful western. I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had its strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie! Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make "Posse", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with. I enjoyed this movie extremely. It was the last great Mario Van Peebles movie I know of. It had a hip-hop old west flavor to it. Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc had major parts. It shouldn't have won any Oscars, but it was enjoyable all the same. spoiler--

In 1993, African-American director/actor Mario Van Peebles followed up the tremendously popular urban-action film New Jack City with "Posse". The film was co-written and directed by Van Peebles, who also stars as the main character, Jessie Lee.

Plot: The film begins at the turn of the 20th century, when the United States was embroiled in the Spanish-American war. Apparently a time when the U.S. justice system could send convicts into military service, Jessie Lee finds himself an unwilling enlisted man, serving with an all-black cavalry troop in Cuba. Some of his compatriots include Little J (Stephen Baldwin), fast-talking Weezie (Charles Lane) and the towering-but-simple Obobo (Tiny Lister). They find a hidden chest of gold on a reconnaissance run and decide to keep it. However, the ambitious, bigoted Colonel Graham (Zane) finds out about the gold, and is apparently willing to kill Jessie Lee and company for it. A shootout between the Graham's forces and Jessie Lee's leaves the colonel blind in one eye, and his forces retreat. Jessie Lee's ragtag crew manage to smuggle themselves (and the gold) back to New Orleans, but it turns out that Graham isn't far behind. Jessie Lee and his allies are forced to go on the run, heading west, to a town called Freemanville. Apparently, Freemanville was founded by blacks in the years following the Civil War. Jessie Lee's father, "King David", was the charismatic preacher who co-founded the town. However, as is revealed in intermittent flashbacks, King David was soon brutally murdered by a white mob, in a parallel of the Ku Klux Klan terror campaigns that began around the same time. Jessie Lee and company eventually find their way to Freemanville, only to find that the townsfolk aren't exactly glad to see him—especially when Sheriff Bates (Richard Jordan) of a nearby white township makes it clear that he wants Jessie Lee and his partners—dead or alive. Carver (Blair Underwood) is the sheriff and de facto mayor of Freemanville—and his own agenda may not square with having Jessie Lee around.

Analysis The action sequences are all very credible, and Mario Van Peebles turns in a good performance as the brooding hero. In the aftermath of the success of New Jack City, it was almost expected Van Peebles would helm a sequel, or at least a similar urban-action follow-up. Instead, Van Peebles looked 100 years into the past, creating a mostly-black Western (effectively 'updating' the black-themed Westerns of the 1970's), and continuing the legacy of largely-forgotten black-themed cowboy films from the early 20th century. Unlike New Jack City, the film was independently financed, and originally released through Gramercy/Polygram Entertainment. Allegedly, execs at the major studios balked when Van Peebles pitched 'Posse' to them. Some of the more "curious" casting at the time involved rappers Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc as Father Time and Angel, respectively. In certain interviews, Mario Van Peebles has said that he often likes to cast against type; in the years since, the trend of casting rap singers in non-musical films would become almost commonplace. Keen viewers will notice several cameos by various entertainment personalities: Black-action film veterans like Isaac Hayes ("Truck Turner"), Pam Grier ("Foxy Brown") and Larry Cook ("The Spook who Sat by the Door") show up, as does stand-up legend Nipsey Russell, not to mention TV producer Stephen J. Cannell (who hired the junior Van Peebles to star in "Sonny Spoon" years earlier). The film is bookended with Woody Strode ("Spartacus") in a key role. I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.

I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!

Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.

Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.

This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around. "Two Hands" is a good addition to the Australian Film Catalogue.

It is that curious mix of real life, surreal life, comedy, tragedy and love the Australians have developed on their own.

Heath Ledger is basically a good if naive guy. Wanting to get on he falls in with a local "Big" Man Pando (Bryan Brown). But at the very moment he sets a first toe on the dark path to crime he meets Alex (Rose Byrne). Here is the cause of the error to change his life in ways unexpected. After getting on the wrong side of Pando accidentally, things get very bad very quickly and if not for a little otherworldly help this would have been a short sad film. Yes, Jimmy learns a few lessons in life and no one escapes uninjured in one way or another but at the end of it has a feel good feel to it. Although there is a lawless theme through the story, it is not glorified and helps to show how destructive crime can be on normal lives.

Heath Ledger is excellent as Jimmy, innocent and savvy at the same time, Rose is hypnotic as Alex and Bryan is marvellous as usual. This is a small ensemble of characters are believable and I found myself caring about the good guys and disliking the baddies.

This DVD is usually in the cheap aisle so I would recommend adding it too your DVD collection, it would be money well spent.

8 out of 10 Jimmy (Heath Ledger) is given a simple job by Pando (Bryan Brown) a underworld kingpin to deliver money to a particular address, but when no one answers the door Jimmy decides to take a dip at the beach to pass some time, but he notices that his clothes on the sand have been messed up and the 10 grand is gone. Jimmy rings Pando to tell him the problem, but he doesn't want to hear it. Pando and his boys try their best to locate Jimmy, meaning no more Jimmy if they get their hands on him. So now Jimmy goes into hiding to organise a bank robbery to get Pando's money back. Also throughout this mess he meets the innocently sweet Alex (Rose Byrne) and together they're in for one hell of a ride through Sydney's King Cross.

"Two Hands" is simply an engrossing pick-me-up film that's brisk, exhilarating and incredibly fresh. What you got here is pretty much an urban gangster film with a seedy backdrop and in-your-face violence… what, how's that fresh you ask? Well, because it takes us into the underworld where the Australian culture shines with criminals wearing thongs (flip flops) and footy shorts, done up cars and a can of beer in the hand… and don't forgot the Australian sense of humour, dry and sarcastic. You can say it owes a lot to the likes of "Pulp Fiction", "Goodfellas" (a fave of mine) and "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" for its inspiration, but for me it still stands on its own. The film has real mixture of light-hearted moments, but also a mean streak to it with some unexpected shocks and black humour that can actually be disturbing. You just don't know what's coming and it has a nice touch of snappy irony (especially the ending) and great timing with its humour. One scene involving a bank robbery will have you in stitches, I guarantee you. The plot's outline is really a coming to age story (or about the road not taken), with a punching love tale added and then the gangster element to finish it off. Most of the sub-plots were cleverly constructed and interlocked, well maybe it could've gone without the supernatural element involving Jimmy's dead brother, but in the overall context the diverse plot seems to all click together. Intense, natural and crisp dialogue filled the outrageously colourful script, with quick jabs of Aussie slang/twang - I'm fair dinkum!

What truly made the film was that of Bryan Brown's performance of Pando. He just gave his character such a deviously charismatic/nasty persona that when he wasn't on screen his presence was still felt. He gave his character two sides - one being a prick, but the other side is such a good bloke. A young Rose Byrne glows with her nervously sweet/quirky character Alex. She looked radially gorgeous and added a bubbly personality. Then you got Heath Ledger who fit's the buck as the naive Jimmy. Great supporting cast involved with the likes of Susie Porter, Tom Long, David Field, Steve Vidler and Steve Le Marquand. Such raw performances are achieved and from that you get riveting, fun and believable characters. Pumping rock soundtrack bursting at the seams with the likes of Powderfinger and Alex Lloyd provide a cool vibe. Also being shot on location in Sydney's King Cross really helped it stick out by holding a life of its own and showing the Australian way of life. Gliding camera tricks captured the city's backdrop superbly, especially the piercing nightlife. This was a film that when it ended I was totally satisfied with what I got. Overall, a slickly paced crime thriller that achieves what it intended to do... a fun, clever and crazy roller coaster ride of thrills and excitement.

I say, it's a successful Aussie take on "Lock, Stock and Two smoking barrels" by director/writer Gregor Jordan in his debut film. If you come across it, don't hesitate to it give it a go. The inspiration for this film was the fact that American Gangsters are well dresses, but the Aussies, well when you might kill a guy as soon as look at the blighter, then you can dress as badly as you want and people won't criticize you.

Jimmy is fighter, an illegal boxer, sometimes bouncer and is offered work by Pando, the local gangster boss in the cross (That is, Australia's notorious Kings Cross District, not the Cross of London fame as many a British backpacker finds out the hard way).

Due to feelings of love he stuffs up a job, loses a lot of money and has to get it to Pando before Pando and his heavies can kill him.

Lots of dark humour, interesting action, revelations about the Australia's underside and human nature. It is very centred in the Australian nature and explores the nature of Australian criminals (versus the American and British ones).

One problem is that each of the elements of the story don't have enough substance and depth, but it is a painting with broad strokes that covers a lot of area not covered previously, so as an overall package it is worthwhile.

Team it up with "Chopper" and "Dirty Deeds" for your Aussie Crime fest or "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Miller's Crossing" for an International falling short of the criminal gangs fest.

By the way, Bryan Brown is a great actor who has just done a huge number of really bad movies. Here is one of his great movies.

`

5 Years ago if you were to watch an Australian film you would expect to see crocodile hunters, stories of war, drag queens, kangaroos and koalas, and Australians in general being represented as nitwits living off the land, saying words like ‘cobber' and generally being the classic underdog.

Luckily Australian film has evolved over the last couple years and is churning out modern day ‘classics' such as Blackrock, Moulin Rouge, Chopper, Yolngu Boy and Sample People.

In this evolution of film we also find Two Hands.

Set in Sydney's Kings Cross, Two Hands is a black comedy about crime and survival in the rough end of town. Pando, played by Bryan Brown, is a Sydney Mob boss. He's the king of organised crime wearing thongs, carrying a stubby and helping his son with his origami. He's vicious, but real. As are his ‘mob', holding gun's to someone's head in one scene and then playing boardgames in the next. They are well respected and if they ask you for a favour, you don't say no.

Enter Jimmy, played by Heath Ledger. Jimmy is your average Aussie guy in his early twenties. He's a good guy who wants to make a name for himself without getting on anyone's bad side, so when Pando asks Jimmy to deliver $10,000, Jimmy accepts.

Things start to get exciting when 2 teenagers manage to steal the money while Jimmy is at the beach. So now Jimmy is $10,000 in dept to a major mob boss. From here we start to see all the interconnecting stories with Jimmy and his attempt at a bank robbery to recover the money, Jimmy and Alex (the love interest, played by Rose Byrne), Pando trying to find Jimmy and, of course, the two teenagers and their new found prosperity. The concept is deepened by the narrator, Jimmy's dead brother, Michael, who was killed by Pando and his gang years earlier.

In the end all the storylines connected really well with a surprise twist to shock and stun the audience. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Jordan takes us into the seedy crime side of Sydney, Australia, following the desperate attempt of nineteen year old Jimmy, (Heath Ledger), who bundles a job for a local gangster and needs to make amend before they get to him. The gangsters, (led by Bryan Brown), are a menacing bunch with a humorous streak in them. That's what makes the film work, because we always view gangsters as a rough bunch out to screw you badly. But this mob tickle your funny bone as well. A clever structured script by Jordan has characters crossing paths and getting caught in the web plot. A refreshing black comedy starring some of Australia's finest. In the same way that Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels captured the funny side of London gangsters, Two Hands rips through the Sydney underworld. It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so close to the bone.

An Australian classic. If Australia could pull more rabbits like this out its hat it might actually have a film industry worth keeping an eye on. It's hard to know what to make of this weird little Aussie crime flick - on the one hand, it's an enjoyable little film with a great sense of humour; but on the other, it just lacks a certain something that ensures the film never reaches above it's boundary that keeps it trapped within the merely 'interesting' territory. That being said, Two Hands is a well plotted film that excellently juggles several stories at the same time, which allows several small climaxes throughout the movie, and that in turn helps to stop the film becoming boring. The absurdity of the goings-on, the thick Australian accents and the bizarre set of characters all help to ensure that the film entertains also. The plot follows the story of a young doorman who thinks he'll go on to bigger things after accepting a job from the local kingpin. He doesn't; the job only lands him in trouble when he fancies a swim and stupidly leaves ten grand on the beach, which is promptly stolen by a couple of kids who have the time of their lives on a shopping spree. However, all is not rosy for our hero; who must find the money or face the consequences...

The film is made up of a cast of unknowns; at least, it was back in 1999, as nowadays Heath Ledger is something of a name. He doesn't impress too much here, however, as his performance is mostly of the one-note variety and he doesn't make for a very compelling lead. He fits the movie in that he's Australian and looks naive; but beyond that, he's not the best lead I've ever seen in a movie. If you ask me, Bryan Brown gave the best performance here. He might not have a great deal of screen time, but he steals every scene he's in and it's him that provides the movie with a lot of its humour. He's got nothing to do with the best sequence, however, which takes place in the form of probably the most hilarious bank robbery ever caught on film. On the whole, I can recommend this film to people that enjoy quirky crime films; as the weirdness is plentiful, and the way that events take a turn for the bizarre is enjoyable; but if you're not a fan of this sort of film, I can't really say that Two Hands will float your boat. It's not a must see, but if it's your thing and you get a chance to see it...you probably wont completely regret it. Based on its current IMDb rating as well as several plot summaries, I didn't expect much from 'Two Hands'. But how wrong I was.

From start to finish, you're kept deeply engrossed in a genre which has been continuously unoriginal for quite a while. Even in terms of mise-en-scene and cinematography, the director excels and creates a film consisting of great imagination. If you're looking for a film which is not only entertaining, but also provocative, compelling, and genuinely extraordinary, then make this the next film you watch.

I'm hoping Heath Ledger's tragic death will have lead to more people picking up this film. He was an incredible talent, and his performance in this is one not to be missed. Don't make the mistake of judging and discarding this amazing film before you've seen it. If you enjoyed films like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, you are going to LOVE Two Hands. It has the same type of black humor beat to it and will keep you entertained through the whole film. Like Pulp Fiction, it has the wacky scenarios that the characters get into and how they deal with them. Along with Gallipoli and Picnic at Hanging Rock, this has to be one of the best Australian films I've seen. It also stars a young Heath Ledger before he got real big in the states.

This is a terribly underrated movie that I believe is just as good as Pulp Fiction and those greats. You have to see it! This Aussie flick filmed in 1999 does an OK job of portraying a bunch of small-time crooks in Kings Cross, Sydney. The plot focuses on the plight of a young would-be crim who's life is in danger after botching a job for his future boss. Very well acted by Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown. The plot is fairly believable with some very humorous moments in one scene which revolves around a bank heist. The setting-up of various themes central to the story is quite well done. Eg. When one crim is searching for bullets for his gun. I personally have a dislike for gratuitous violence in movies, and in this regard, the movie did not offend. It attempted and succeeded in showing us the human side of the baddies such as Bryan Brown. The rest of the cast did an OK job, without any real stand-outs that I remember. The direction was very good in succeeding in making a believable movie that provided good entertainment. The main overriding feature that makes this a good movie is the acting and direction of Heath Ledger and his successful portrayal of a naive young man who makes stupid mistakes for short-term gratification, thinking he is indestructible and not realizing that there are sinister people waiting to pounce on any mistake. The director, Gregor Jordan, deserves special mention. Rating in my book - 7 (of 10). "Two Hands" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.

The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.

The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film. Many years ago I saw this movie (on television maybe?) and loved it. So I decided to rent it on DVD the other day to see whether it still held up in my estimation. It did.

Set in Sydney's notorious King's Cross district (where prostitution, drug abuse and sex stores thrive), it tells the story of "Jimmy" (played by Heath Ledger). Jimmy is a young man...maybe late teens or thereabouts, who hasn't had a stable family background. He is on the fringes of society, and works as a 'tout' for a sex club (encouraging people to enter the store). He is aware of an underworld figure called "Pando", who is a local bigwig in the Cross. It's Jimmy's hope that he will find himself on Pando's radar and get 'in' with him...a short-cut to upward social mobility, he hopes.

One night Jimmy meets the beautiful young woman Alex (played by the charming Rose Byrne). You just know that a love story will play out between them. On that night as well, Jimmy is first contacted by Pando (played by Bryan Brown). Pando has a 'job' for Jimmy. It's the 'foot in the door' that Jimmy has been waiting for!

To reveal too much more would spoil the many surprises that this movie has in store for the viewer. Stylistically, if you like Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie movies, you should be in tune with what to expect...twists and turns and black comedy.

What's so great about this movie is its very 'Australian-ness'. It's no mere knock off of Tarantino or Ritchie, but a genuine Australian contribution to the genre.

A fascinating aspect to this movie is how it all hangs together. Sometimes you are introduced to characters who you wonder what the hell they're doing there. In the end, all these 'loose ends' tie together beautifully. It's sort of like a celluloid Moebius strip.

A highlight of the movie is Bryan Brown's character of Pando. Pando likes puzzles, and it's fun to see him play games with his cronies. It's the little details revealed about him which are so enjoyable...his taste in music, for starters!

Of the Heath Ledger movies I have seen (The Dark Knight, 10 Things I hate about you), this is perhaps his best role. Wasn't taken with "10 things". If you are a Heath Ledger fan (Ledger recently died a tragic, accidental death), this is a chance to see him in his greatest Australian role, I think. There is great chemistry between Ledger and Byrne in this movie-so, on one level, it functions as nice love story.

This movie doesn't have some of the horror of Tarantino and Ritchie underworld movies, but it does have some adult themes...scenes that surprise you with their coldness and beauty. In that sense, it's not an ideal movie for very young viewers, but it's not a movie that gore-hounds will get excited about either.

Lastly, I have to say that it is great that Australia can make great movies like this. Usually the kind of movies my home country makes can be uniniviting. This movie has strengths where many Australian movies have weaknesses...i.e. it has a great story, great acting and a great script. We need more popular, quality movies like this to be made here in Australia.

Highly recommended. Other Australian movies I have loved include:

Breaker Morant (10/10) Mad Max 2 (10/10) My Brilliant Career (not reviewed here by me yet) Proof (nr) The Devil's Playground (nr) The Year My Voice Broke (nr) Bad Boy Bubby (nr. A great, dark comedy) The Dish (nr. A great, charming comedy) I had never heard of this movie, but I like Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown and the story sounded interesting, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I found it to be very enjoyable. Heath Ledger plays a 19 year old who works a kind of crappy job and wants to start making some serious dough, so he goes and asks for work from mobster Bryan Brown. I won't go into details but things go very bad for Ledger and gets into big trouble with Bryan Brown. From their on the movie just gets better and better, with one scene involving Ledger hooking up with a pair of bank robbers. And lets not forget the beautiful Rose Byrne, who plays Ledger's love interest. I would definitely recommend this movie. "Two Hands" is a hilarious Australian gangster movie set in really sultry Sydney. I bet tourists never envisage Sydney and Bondi to look like it did in this film: all sweaty bodies, oppressive nighttime and gangsters in nylon shorts and jandals. Heath Ledger plays an amateur boxer with an eye on becoming part of the local King's Cross boss's gang. He looked rather magnificent in his green wife beater and blue patterned budgie smuggler. A sweaty tattooed bod does become him. I always had him down as a "Home & Away" boy, and he has been in that soap, which is a little sweatier than the Weetbix-insipid "Neighbours". The film is really worth watching for its combination of sardonic humour and nasty violence - the drowning scene is expected to give me nightmares soon. Totty awards: Country girl love interest city brother and tattooed streetkid. This deceptively laid-back, low-key, casually paced Aussie crime thriller unravels with a casual ease and relaxed self-confidence that's a delight to behold. Eager beaver working class kid Jimmy (an appealingly feckless Heath Ledger) yearns to make something out of his unrewarding ordinary life. Jimmy gets his big break when local crime kingpin Pando (an outstanding Bryan Brown) assigns him an easy courier gig which entails delivering $10 grand to an old lady. Jimmy finds himself knee deep in serious trouble when he loses Pando's money. Writer/director Gregor Jordan's engagingly simple tale of how things aren't always what they're cracked up to be, young love, all actions having consequences and that hoary old chestnut about how crime doesn't pay works like a charm thanks to a wonderful wealth of well-observed minor quirky details, a strong subtext concerning man's duel capacity for both good and evil, a nice sense of unforced irony, the chillingly matter-of-fact way the violence is presented, and the marvelous grounding of the assorted complexly drawn warts'n'all low-life characters in an instantly recognizable and totally believable banal day-to-day reality (e.g., Panda is shown playing Scrabble with a flunky and at one point interrupts a business conversation with a fellow hood to talk with his son over the phone). Judging from his finely shaded and two-fisted portrayal of the cunning, not to be trifled with Pando, Bryan Brown undoubtedly qualifies as one of the finest actors to ever grace celluloid. A sturdy and satisfying little sleeper. So I turned on the TV today at 1:00 PM on a Sunday, expecting to see crap and infomercials, and this great movie was just starting, didn't know what it was but drew me in almost immediately. The movie was excellent.

there were a couple of things that didn't make sense for one I don't get why the dead guy was talking about doing stuff to get yourself out of your bad situation, but then Jimmy doesn't really do anything except the basic stuff to survive that anyone would do in his situation, in other words it wasn't his initiative that got him out of his bad situation it was just luck, second I don't get the thing about the girl killing the the gangsters at the end, because the whole thing was partly casued by the thief people stealing Panda's money, and then the other thief kills Panda at the end, so they steal his money twice, and kill him how is that good? Mild Spoilers

....and that's 'top ten of all time.' I stumbled across 'Two Hands' by accident (maybe that made it all the more special -- no inflated expectations) on IFC one night, and couldn't believe that I hadn't heard anything about it. Now that Heath Ledger is getting more famous in the USA, I'm sure it's more available. At the time, I was telling friends about the film, and no one could find it anywhere except the occasional IFC showing.

Anyway, in the black-comedy/gangster genre it fits in well with my other favorites, and everybody in the film really seems to end up with what they deserve. Bryan Brown is hilarious as the main gangster who makes origami with his small son and plays scrabble with his henchmen. Also hilarious is the quick-edit fate of a random car thief. Even Heath was pretty good in it. At the time, I vaguely remembered him from a short-lived series on Fox called 'Roar.' Hopefully Gregor Jordan will make another hit, but as far as I'm concerned, this is his best yet. Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.

The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.

It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.

I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?

So careful about which one you go for.

I went for both. Two Hands is a highly enjoyable Aussie crime caper, which ultimately succeeds by the way the film easily combines tense dramatic moments, with very funny characters and situations, to give the film the right balance and feel. The comedy of the film occurs naturally, and the laughs haven't been set up too elaborately & haven't been too worked at. It really is very funny, thanks to the fact that each character in the movie is excellently cast, and that each actor/actress recognises and can relate to the Aussie humor. They portray it very well and very realistically. Of course, they're helped out immensely by a fantastic script by writer/director Gregor Jordan. I was reading another review of this film by an American who had seen it, and he heavily criticised it, basically passing it off as a Pulp Fiction clone. I think that that's just rubbish. This film isn't trying to be Pulp Fiction, the feel and style of each of this excellent films are totally opposite. Without wanting to sound superior or arrogant, I think to fully understand this film; the humor, the sincerity, the characters, etc....you have to be Australian, or at least understand the culture, which the other guy obviously didn't have the faintest clue about. Some Americans, whose reviews of certain non-American films, seem ignorant to (and have trouble comprehending) anything that isn't an American product. It's a real shame, because this is a really great film. The love story featured between the main character and the girl is also portrayed in a very real, sincere and sweet way. I'm very proud to have this film in my collection. 4.5 out of 5. Brilliant film! I am sorry to say that it resembles to me a bit like Pulp F. but thats how it is with post pulp era. Many pictures get automatically likened to it for only being a gangster flick. But this one is well written, funny coincidences, ordinary gangsters who are family men, resemble something from Tarantino, which is a good similarity!

Anyway the film's about a guy bloke in Australia which is getting mixed up with a hard- core crime gang, and ends up in a debt and deep s*it. To his assistance is his deceased brother (anyone remember Val Kilmer in True R.?) to pay of his debt and escape from the gangsters who are on his trail. The gangsters are cold blooded, but take the time to play chess and focus on the upbringing of their children! They also get served tea from their granny while planning a bank robbery and have trouble what to do with their kids during the robbery. So a humorous gangster flick with Heath Ledger in good form (though I'm not a fan) , and Bryan Brown in great action as a gang leader. I'm afraid I must disagree with Mr. Radcliffe, as although he is correct in saying this isn't a comedy, it has many other merits. The plot is a little mad at parts, but I believe it it all fits together nicely, creating a satisfying, enjoyable film. The last scene was rather abysmal compared to the rest of the film, but the actual ending of the plot a few scenes previously is very interesting, showing just what someone will do under stressful circumstances.

I would recommend this film to fans of thrillers and action movies, but if you're a fan of gangster movies then as long as you don't expect expect something as deep as Goodfellas then you should still find it enjoyable. I saw Two Hands back in Sydney a few years ago and it instantly became one of my all-time favourite films. It's got action, adventure, comedy and romance all rolled up into one (and a bit of zen thrown in for good measure). Like much Australian film, the plot is easy to follow yet wonderfully engaging, and Jordan should justly feel proud of his work.

Anyway, it was on TV just now on Channel 4 in London, and my two favourite comedy scenes of not just this movie, but indeed any movie, had been cut out! So if you watch this movie, make sure it's the original version. Two Hands restored my faith in Aussie films. It took an old premise and made it fresh. I enjoyed this movie to no end. I recommend it to those people who like Guy Ritchie films. Bryan Brown was fantastic and just about perfect in a role tailor made for him. Ledger was adequtely dumb and his performance anchored a very satisfying movie for me. A good story, well-acted with unexpected character twists eg. vicious murderous gangster Bryan Brown teaching his son macrame. Although it succeeds as an action drama where you hope the good guy (Ledger) and his gilrfriend succeed, it also has some hilarious ironic black humour eg. the bank robbers who become radio competition "winners" and their reaction, the busker's revenge etc. Well worth watching. Before I start my review here is a quick lesson in australian slang which may help you with viewing the movie and understanding some of the other reviews from australia and overseas.

In australian slang "thongs" are a pair of rubber sandals (not to be confused with the same american word that pertains to butt revealing underwear), "stubbies" are a brand of australian short, a "stubby" is a small can sized bottle of beer, and a "stubby holder" is a foam insulator for a small bottle of beer.

If you love black comedies about smalltime criminals then you will love this movie, unfortunatley a lot of people on IMDB with weak stomachs and no appreciation of dark humour have reviewed this movie which unfortunately makes this movie appear to be more mediocre than what it is. A lot of reviewers have also compared it to Lock/Stock and Pulp Fiction, while it is the same genre, it is a completely different and original style.

A lot of reviewers have also panned this movie for using Heath Ledger's characters dead brother to open and guide the narrative for this movie, without watching the movie closely enough to realise that his brother was killed by the same villain that wishes to kill heaths character, this is explained midway through the movie but not clearly enough for most to understand.

This movie is also reminiscent of Lock/Stock and Reservoir dogs in that it is the Director/writers debut feature, and for a debut feature it rates as well as these two movies, as a matter of fact like Lock/Stock and Reservoir Dogs I rate this movie as a 10/10 for a director/writers debut, unfortunately unlike Tarantino and Ritchie Jordan fails to live up to expectations in his subsequent movies like Ned Kelly.

This movie is one that you should definitely add to your DVD collection and is one that holds up to several viewings quite easily. This movie gives you more of an idiea how Australians act. Even though The Castle is a great Australian movie, it's a bit out there. This movie is by far the best Aussie flick I have seen (haven't seen Dirty Deeds yet) and probably would be my favourite movie. The point is, if you haven't seen it, go see it. If a crime/action/comedy is your thing. A gritty Australian film, with all the elements for success. Two Hands represents the ability of Australian film makers and actors to produce top-quality, popular material. The film has a fresh angle, and uniquely incorporates drama, suspense and comedy.

I found this film thoroughly enjoyable on so many different levels - but can also appreciate that it might not be everyone's 'cup of tea'. The film carries a distinct Aussie humour, as it portrays the seedy underworld of Sydney, and explores the lives of a young man (Ledger) and young woman (Byrne), swept up in the local crime scene.

Two Hands deals with the theme of good and evil, both on an interpersonal and personal level and looks at the issue of consequences for 'our' actions.

The camera work is snazzy and the dialogue humorous. With Bryan Brown who plays Pando and Heath Ledger as Jimmy, battling it out on-screen in the most bizarre situations - this Aussie film is certainly not short of acting talent.

This subtle action/comedy has become somewhat of a cult favourite, and one of mine also. The movie is made in a style that resembles Lock, stock and two smoking barrels, with lot's of subplots, fancy camerawork, cool music and that great tongue-in-cheek Aussie type of humor you'll find nowhere else. How this movie has escaped the European and American audience is a mystery! Heath Ledgers acting in this film really bugs me, but overall its a great watch. Bryan Brown is excellent when i dont normally like him, but then his whole gang are a great piece of work. Jimmy is a hapless wannabe gangster who cant seem to do a thing right (SPOILERS: loses pandos money, ackos car and nearly bumbles a bank robbery) but still comes out on top.

didnt know what the two kids were in it for at the start but they ties some storylines together nicely.

all in all a damn fine piece of Australian cinema 9/10 I'm a fan of independent film. Dialogue driven, character study pieces are where it's at for me. Some of the other posts are right: "Wannabes" isn't going to rival "The Godfather" for best mob film ever. On the other hand, "Wannabes" is a well-written and well-directed picture that has surprisingly good performances from every actor/actress. My problem with one of the other reviews:

- Conor Dubin stands out as the only Irishman in a cast of Italians

- Dubin is a Jewish last name, and as such has a dark complexion, not a traditional ruddy one of an Irishman. He doesn't stand out at all, rather, delivers a great performance.

This didn't win many awards, but it is deserving of a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn. I found it for 7 bucks at Blockbuster and was pleasantly surprised to say the least! Highly recommended. Although it strays away from the book a little, you can't help but love the atmospheric music and settings.

The scenes in Bath are just how they should be. Although if you have watched it as many times as I have you notice that the background people are the same in each scene, but that aside, I like the scene where they are in the Hot Baths, but did the men and women really bathe together like that? You could see all the men perched around the outside leering at the women. It also seemed strange that they all had their hats on, but perhaps this was the style at the time. The ballroom scenes were very nice, the dancing and the outfits looked beautiful. I especially liked Catherine's dress in the first ballroom scene.

Northanger Abbey looked suitably imposing, but I enjoyed the Bath scenes better.

Schlesinger gives a good but not exceptional performance as Catherine Morland. Googie Withers gives the best performance as Mrs Allen I feel.

Ugh Peter Firth as Mr Tilney, he just talks a load of rubbish, and is not a clergyman as he should be, it's hard to think of him being in love with Catherine, but then the book never really gave that impression either.

General Tilney is played reasonably well by Hardy, and Stuart also gives a sort of good performance as Isabella. Ingrid Lacey did not give a good performance as Elinor Tilney. As for John Thorpe, well he gives the impression of a seedy and lustful man, perhaps not the character portrayed in the book, but I quite like it.

I can handle scenes being cut from a book adaptation, but when new scenes and characters are added it usually annoys me. The marchioness! I hate her. She is not part of the Northanger story and neither is her cartwheeling page boy.

some of the script is peculiar. When Catherine is asking Elinor Tilney about her Mothers death she asks "I suppose you saw the body? How did it appear?" What a silly thing to say! Elinor's calm response is stupid too.

anyway please tell me if you agree or disagree with me I got this movie with my BBC "Jane Austen Collection" (5 DVDs of old BBC adaptations) and didn't like it at first. It's completely different from the others and it lacks, or so I thought, one of the qualities that I enjoy in all other Austen movies: cheerful common sense. The nightmare scene in which Mrs. Richards apparently sews her fingers together was especially upsetting.

I still don't like to watch the finger-sewing scene but I do love hearing Mrs. R. saying, dreamily, while she sews, "My only acquaintance...tore my gown." This movie is now my current Austen favorite. I've watched it 7 or 8 times so far. The acting, to my mind, is incredible. The way I notice good acting is when I find myself looking up from whatever I'm doing (sewing, though not my fingers together, hopefully, or boondoggling or whatever) in order to watch the character deliver his lines. It's the turn of expression, the cast of posture, that make the words come alive -- that's what makes good acting, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I watch almost every part of "Northanger Abbey" because almost all the actors play their roles with such charisma. Peter Firth is amazing as Mr. Tilney, the perfect blend of Bathian fop and real, masculine hero - you're not sure until the end whether he's after Catherine's money or not. I love his touch of (Welsh?) accent. Mr. and Mrs. Richards are charming: the combination of their behaviors - especially Mr. Richards' high voice, lending counterpoint to his wit and wisdom - makes them so real. General Tilney as the hard-hearted father who may possibly be a murderer is fascinating, too. And Captain Tilney, the grinning rake who is so clearly enjoying himself... and the moneygrubbing sister and brother whose names I can't currently remember - the two of them are so perfectly, at once, smart and smarmy.

The other reason I love this adaptation is that it is the most romantic of all the Jane Austen adaptations. I know this was one of Austen's weak points (well, it is as far as I am concerned): even though all her novels are love stories, it's hard to feel that her heroes and heroines are really in love at the end. And if they're aren't really in love, then what's the point? All the other adaptations I've seen (other than the early Olivier/Garson one) have pretty cold-fish kisses at the end, if they kiss at all. I don't at all like sex in movies but it really is necessary to have a heartfelt kiss in the end. And the ending kiss in Northanger is a doozy.

The over-the-top approach to costumes, music, and lighting work very well as far as I'm concerned. And the script is extremely clever - the way we are educated about Gothic romance, highlife in Bath, Cathy's normal country upbringing, etc., is very well done, as they usually are in BBC productions. Also, I like the part when the little black page does the cartwheels. And the Marchionesse, I think, was an entirely appropriate and very clever expository device.

Some people have objected that this version is the opposite of what Jane Austen intended to do in Northanger Abbey - she meant to make fun of Gothic romance, not promote it. But I don't think she meant to put "Mysteries of Udolpho," etc., down. She was just making the point that you need to distinguish between reality and fiction. And this point is made when Mr. Tilney chides Catherine in his mother's room. Besides, General Tilney was a villain, albeit a prosaic one. That point was meant to be made, surely. I can't comment on the accuracy of this production, historical or literary, but I can say that I enjoyed it. If there is a God, the sound track will be released, Ilona Sekacz' work is truly enduring. Twenty years on I am still moved by the haunting themes of this production and return to it frequently.

The story surrounds the entry into society of Catherine Moreland. Somewhat awkward and possessed of an unhealthy interest in Gothic stories (early pulp fiction?), Catherine descends on Bath in the company of Mrs Allen where she meets Henry Tilney. She is invited to visit the Tilneys at Northanger Abbey, the seat of the formidable (and somewhat financially challenged) General Tilney, who has the unfortunate misconception that there is wealth afoot.

Where mutual attraction mixes with family finance, dispute is inevitable. This coupled with Catherines vivid imagination, leads her to fear for her safety. Her eventual departure is marred by accusations and counter accusations of deception and connivance.

But the attraction between Catherine and Henry stands these trials. He returns to provide a happy ending. This final scene is especially compelling, given the incidental music of Ilona Sekacz.

It may well be a "bad" production from the purists viewpoint, gaudy costumes and shaky performances not withstanding, but for me it's 88 minutes of bliss. I just checked out Northanger Abbey from the local library, and wasn't expecting much. Imagine my suprise at this gothic treat! Northanger Abbey is one of the most eerie places that you have ever seen, with empty passageways and ornate rooms full of hidden secrets. The glory of the movie is that it never reveals all: your imagination runs free, running with the imagination of the main character, one Kathrine M. She is a girl of wild imaginations, a reader of gothic fantasy that she brings into her (and our) real world.

If I were to use one word to describe this excellent movie, it would be surrealistic. Dreams are woven throughout the movie, enhancing the mood. Sometimes, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not; this is intentional, I believe.

Atmosphere reigns supreme. The music is not what you'd expect of a movie by Jane Austen: it is eerie, flute and drum based, high and haunting with an undercurrent of fear. If a soft, pleasant tune were playing in Northanger Abbey, it would be positively inviting. Now, it is foreboding, a grim and stark-walled palace of madmen. (But! The characters! You shall have to see them for yourself!)

If you are looking for a most enjoyable evening, look no further than Northanger Abbey. I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.

I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get? VHS - I have watched this over and over and LOVED every minute of it so much so I have now ordered the DVD I only wished the film could have lasted longer. I never worry about what other people think I prefer to make my own mind up and entirely disagree with the negative comments and will not let others spoil my enjoyment of the film whatsoever. Make up your own mind and don't let others put you off! I have all Jane Austen's BBC series but this is my FAVOURITE. I see there is to be a NEW Northanger Abbey released in 2007 which I will buy when it comes out but it will not stop me watching Northanger Abbey released in the 80's. Don't watch this movie expecting the Jane Austen wit, crisp dialog or clever social commentary. This time around, the premise of Northanger Abbey has been updated in a very sensual way!

In this version,Catherine's erotic daydreams are not just silly fantasies, but a connection to the world of adult sexuality she is just peeking into with her daylight adventures. By day she is very prim and demure, and her swain Henry treats her with the utmost courtesy. But as her own sexual nature awakens, her daydreams shift every so subtly from mild to steamy to lurid!

At the beginning of the story, Catherine's visions of sex are based entirely on the Gothic novels she devours in bed. It is both heartwarming, sexy, and provocative to observe the way her dreamy picture of handsome Henry "dissolves" into a lurid dream of being carried off and ravished by romantic villains! At the same time, it is wry and touching to cut back to her bed in the morning -- Catherine sleeping peacefully looks so innocent one would never guess what really goes on in that pretty little head!

Later, after being invited to Henry's castle, Catherine overhears a family argument and totally misunderstands its meaning. Jumping into bed, she covers herself up with the bedsheets and lies awake listening fearfully, her striking blue eyes the only visible sign that she is alert. Little by little, however, those pretty blue eyes droop and close as she drifts into another heated dream of innocent desire. This time, Catherine dreams she is in Elizabethan times, waiting fearfully outside the castle for the approach of the "banditi!" It's pretty clear she is more excited than terrified by the idea of being carried off by bandits. She all but shudders with excitement and anticipation! But then, after a shot of her running frantically to escape, we are back to the daylight world, where the maid is scolding her for having made a mess of her room before falling into a sound sleep. It's worth noting that Catherine's heavy-eyed yawning in the morning light is itself a rather sensual symbol of how passionate her dreams have been!

Ultimately, of course, Catherine's stern and unimaginative lover Henry divines the nature of her fantasies and gives her a stern lecture. It's interesting that Catherine's immediate collapse into tears symbolizes not a retreat but an advance into adult relationships. In the next scene, she tearfully burns her Gothic romance and throws herself shamefaced and sobbing onto the bed. Significantly, this turning point is also marked by Catherine falling into a deep sleep -- except that this time, there are no dreams of make believe passion. Presumably, Catherine has matured enough to be ready for the real thing.

Though Katherine Schlesinger has lovely blue eyes and a lively expression, and all her performance is charming, it must be said that outside of the heated dream sequences this movie adaptation is excruciatingly dull. I'm giving it 9 stars only because the truly romantic may enjoy it purely on a daydream level.

If you'd like to read a book about a genuinely strong willed young heroine who overcomes real darkness and danger in a real Gothic setting, I highly recommend THE PERILOUS GARD by Elizabeth Marie Pope. I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too "melodramatic" but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit "unusual".. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:) I have read all of Jane Austen's novels right the way through once a year every year since I was 9 years old and received the Modern Library edition of her collected works as a birthday present.

I loved this movie for its romance and for the music, which stayed, hauntingly, in my head. It was an interpretation of course, not an Emma or a Sense and Sensibility, but something quite different and something Catherine herself would have loved. And oh to be loved by this passionate Henry! This was the Henry of Catherine's imagination, and she is the romantic heroine she read about in her novels, and which was promised to us by the practical Jane Austen who tells us right at the beginning that the unlikely Catherine will indeed be one. I wonder if Jane was being entirely satirical in her novel. Perhaps, she too, could imagine such a Henry.

I haven't seen the film in many years, at least a decade. But, I have been yearning for it ever since. A film is beyond all expectations, an excellent insight into the human condition. What exactly drives Mila to have her ass painted. What could push a human so far that there only way to escape is to have there rear passage repeatedly painted by strangers.

This film is not afraid to stair squarley in the face of the ass painting issue. Simply breathtaking. Roll on the sequel or whatever comes next from the geniuses who made this. This is a truly great film, with excellent direction. The core plot element, the painting of mila's ass is captivating. I really can't express in words just how much I enjoyed watching Mila getting her ass painted repeatedly.

Connor Text Taken from 2001 Melbourne International Film Fest Guide.

fuckland The title is a pun based on the film's lead actor Fabian Stratas' deliberate mispronunciation of Falkland, a reference to the film's setting and a rather less than subtle allusion to the secret agenda of its protagonist.

Fabian is an Argentine national, an amateur magician passing himself off as a tourist visiting the Falklands soon after it is reopened to its people. His master plan is to win the ultimate struggle by seducing and impregnating the local females, commencing with the delicious Camilla,thus siring an entire generation of half Argentinians. Fuckland creates the illusion of a documentary and maintains a fish-eyed perspective that gives the film a voyeuristic flair and intimacy. (ARGENTINA) Fuckland is an interesting film. I personally love the Dogma movement. I wish it had lasted longer. It seems to have already died. Many critics tried their damndest to shut it down. I don't know why. It's the most interesting movement to happen in the cinematic world since the French New Wave. Besides Fuckland, I've seen the first three in the series, Festen, Idioterne, and Mifune. They were all great, Festen being a masterpiece, in my opinion. Fuckland isn't up to those others. I was just fascinated with the filmmaking. It's played as if it were a real documentary, with a real person who was so obsessed with his camera that he refused to put it down. At a few points in the film, it becomes clear that it is a work of complete fiction, but that illusion was protracted for an amazing amount of time. I wish that the filmmakers would have come up with something a bit more interesting to put onscreen. It is basically about this guy, Fabian, who is an Argentinian visiting the Faulkland Islands. Argentinians were only in the last couple of months allowed onto the islands, and Fabian plans to impregnate the women with Argentinian children. He sets his eyes on one, and most of the movie is spent on her seduction. The two actors are very natural. Camilla Heany only kind of hints that she is an actress. Fabian Stratas seems completely real. The politics of the film are somewhat confusing to me, since I have only an inkling of the situation surrounding the island and its recent history. I was 3, I think, when the Faulklands were invaded. The final bit of the film doesn't work at all. I don't get what the filmmakers were going for there. Still, Fuckland is an interesting Dogma experiment. It does break some Dogma rules, though, notably the no extra-diagetic music rule. There is a lot of that. 7/10. The Gilmore girls is about a mother who had a daughter when she was 16. Now the daughter is 16 (in season 1) and they live like sisters. Sharing everything, trusting each other completely.

I like The Gilmore Girls but I am not sure why. The mother, named Lorelai (Lauren Graham), and the daughter, named Rory (short for Lorelai, played by Alexis Bledel), are both very beautiful women, they are both funny and they are charming in their own ways. There are some funny supporting characters, such as Luke (Scott Patterson). He and Lorelai like each, may be even love each other, but neither of them really acts on it. They have their little moments. There are some other supporting characters, most of them very funny, and with their won touching moments.

What I like the most I think is to see the relationship between the young mother and the daughter who is becoming an adult. The dialogue between them is quick, sharp, funny and sometimes touching as well. The band they have is beautiful. The Gilmore Girls makes you feel good so try it. Gilmore Girls is my favorite TV show of all times. they only aired the first 2 seasons in India but i've watched the rest on DVD or read it online. it's very refreshing to find a show where the protagonist isn't sneaking around her mother's back but has an open relationship with her. the chemistry between Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who play Lorelai and her daughter Rory is really great. all the acting is excellent and the characters, though extremely quirky, are still believable. the residents of stars hollow show all the amusing bizarreness of small town life, which is contrasted by the endless snobbishness and social norms that make up the high society life of Lorelai's parents. on one hand there are dance-athons and firelight festival's while on the hand you have cotillions, DAR meetings and cocktail parties. all the character's develop a lot and there's a happy ending for more or less everybody. there are dramatic elements but also a lot of very witty humor. Rory's boyfriends are all incredibly hot as are her friend Lane's. basically it's a cool, funny, very satisfying show which encompasses all the aspects of life and gives you a feeling of -if you work hard enough and wait patiently, you'll get what you want even if it wasn't what you intended. This show is my absolute favorite. This show is intelligent, entertaining and always full of surprises. Lauren Graham is perfect as Lorelai Gilmore, a single mother who is Rory's best friend. Alexis Bledel shines as the beautiful and intelligent Rory Gilmore and Keiko Agena is one of a kind as Rory's best friend, Lane Kim. I love the witty dialog, it's what makes it unique about the show. Kelly Bishop is wicked great as Emily Gilmore and Edward Herrman is terrific as Richard Gilmore. Scott Patterson is a joy as Luke Danes and the band members are one of a kind to watch. The Community, Miss Patty, Babette, Mrs. Kim, Taylor Doose, Kirk and other's are always laugh out loud funny, quirky and interesting that always makes the snappy one-liners stand out. This show has changed so much over the years that it won't ever get old. Gilmore Girls is an original and clever show that keeps you watching. That is how good it is. I give this show a 10/10 rating. I absolutely fell in love with this girls. let me tell you something: I am from Romania and here is only the sixth series running bunt every other day that is on USA TV I check the internet and download it from there, so i am in line with the rest of the world. I can not believe how deep I am in this show. I become to know absolutely everything about them I looked on the internet what's Rory's car what are their middle names and stuff like that: Rory is also Leigh and Lorelay is Victoria. I can not understand why but my boyfriend does not like them and I try and try to make him see how wonderful they are but without success, but he does understand me and lets me be with my "obsesion" with the Gilmore Girls. I adore them. I really hope that if someone see's this will give them a try : You won't regret it I have been hooked on "GG" since midway through 2001-2002 (2nd season), when I tuned in to see "Smallville" 10 minutes early. Thanks to "Beginnings", I now have all but 2 episodes on tape, right up through last night (Ep. 4.9). I am a middle-aged straight male, and this is the ONLY weekly TV show I watch.

I love this series because: a) Lauren Graham is a damn fine-looking woman, and funny and smart to boot; b) the dialogue is extremely well-written; c) it is flat-out hilarious, putting overrated garbage like "Everybody Loves Raymond" to shame. Many current TV comedies have been heavily influenced by the highly successful and much-despised slime-pit known as "Married with Children", where the viewer is encouraged to deride and feel superior to the characters. In "GG", the characters have faults, but we can see our own foibles in them, and laugh with them, not at them. This is stimulating TV, where the writers challenge us to keep up with rapid-fire exchanges and out-of-left-field pop-culture/literature/current events references. I get immense pleasure out of watching these episodes over and over again, catching all the one-liners and references to previous episodes. Stars Hollow is its own little world, one that I will happily continue to visit as long as the series runs. Every time I watch this show I just want to turn it off and curse the makers for wasting my time week after week. The dialogs, or monologues rather, as everybody just rants on endlessly about nothing, are just becoming so tedious. For example, the episode I watched yesterday began with a seemingly unending rambling about how a particular dish (I forgot what it was, pasta with meatballs perhaps) always manages to turn the Gilmore family dinner into all-out war. And these were just the few seconds or so.

So it seems every time, lots of lines, with absolutely zero content. The scripts they use must be enormous.

But then every once in a while something happens. The babbling stops and suddenly there are these wonderful silent, emotional moments. For example, this week it was Lorelai's breakdown at the estate agent's. I just thought it was the best piece of TV I have seen for a long while.

Almost makes everything worthwhile. Obsessed!!!!! I have every season of Gilmore Girls and I think the reason I love it so much is because of how smart the script is, its not your average comedy show there isn't any pause after a joke it just keeps on, if you missed you missed it. And its not like a soap opera drama either because it doesn't use dramatic music and the actors never have those stupid cheesy surprise looks. I think Gilmore Girls is one of the bests shows on T.V. shows of its time. Its fun because they talk so fast you can't get everything the first time its nice to go back and laugh at the other jokes. Also they have so many references its amazing how smart it is.

And you can relate to the characters also their so real and there actors are superb from the witty Lorelai to the hermit Luke to the immature Kirk the show is just amazing. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to have a good time and spend sometime with there family this is definitely the show for them. There is only one word that can describe Gilmore Girls....CLASSIC!!!!!! I didn't catch Gilmore Girls when it first came out, so still doing some catch-up on the first season. I read through most of the users comments and For the negative ones, I have to ask, what show are you watching??

This show is a classic, great lines, characters and good acting. And best of all, NOT your standard formula show always with an occasional twist to the story. There are probably more women who see themselves reflected in the Lorelai/Emily relationship then in the Lorelai/Rory relationship. The people and storylines are not PC but they are real!!

If you find the dialogue annoying, I suggest you tape the show, so you can rewatch the parts don't understand. it's the best movie i have ever seen!!!!!! i just love them!! i watch it every day! i have the episodes from the internet! here in Romania is being broadcast the 6 season! i'm happy that i have seen the show from the beginning and i'm glad that through the internet i can see the 7 season. until now, season 5 is my favorite one :D i love it because Logan appears and the scene where they jump is my favorite. i have liked Dean too, but Logan is best. i would like Lorelai to remain with Christopher, because he is beautiful. this show is good for all ages and is worth to be seen. i really want the DVD's but i think that here in Romania will never appear, because i think that they don't even know that they have fans here. but, no matter what, i'll be watching it. bye!! i love this show! it is amazing...i can never miss an episode even if i've already seen it. the actors are perfect for the parts......i love Gilmore girls! i've gotten all my friends to watch it. even their parents watch it now. i watch it daily and i usually watch it more than once a day. i wish my mom was like Lorelei. my friends say that i talk and act like Lorelei. Lorelei and Rory have a wonderful mother-daughter relationship. it is a great teen show because they actually kind of learn from watching it. my vocabulary has widened from watching Gilmore Girls. Lauren graham and Alexis bled el are perfect for the parts of Lorelei and Rory. i think Luke and Lorelai should get married because Chris has left Lorelei and Rory way too many times. and has broken Lorelei's heart too many times too. This is definitely an excellent show. I don't have cable, so I started renting them, because my friend recommended it. I thought it would be a teen soap, you know, who's dating who, that kind of thing. But it was not. It is surprisingly deep. It is also very witty. It moves at a very fast pace, and there are more and more jokes you catch every time you watch it. It is a comedy-drama, which is rare when well done. It is about Rory and Lorelai's relationship. Instead of the classic mother-daughter relationship it is a story of the best friend relationship-- about a mother and daughter. The characters are perfectly cast and all do a superb job. It is definitely the best TV show I have very come across. The idea of young girl, who gets pregnant at the age of 16 is nothing new to the drama genre. But it is pretty new if you take a look at the comedy genre. There is this basic plot of Lorelai and Rory, mother and daughter. Lorelai comes from a wealthy background, got pregnant with 16 and ran away from her parents' house at 17. But this series does not start there, it starts when Rory is 16 and everything is just about the problems of a single mother, who has terrible problems with her parents and about all those problems you have when you are 16.

Okay, now again this sounds pretty normal, but there is this little thing called joke. The Gilmore Girls talk incredibly fast and they make like 60 jokes a minute. Even if you don't understand all of the jokes, since they contain hundreds of references to films, music, gossip, history, literature and politics. Sometimes you even get confused, but that really is the fun. And not only it is fast, it's smart and wonderfully sarcastic. In addition to that it is not only funny, it has great drama parts in it and you can take some lessons from it even home. Which is a thing that does not go for every single TV- Series.

So watch it! It'll lighten your mood and help you through hard decisions! honestly.. this show warms my heart, i watch it EVERYDAY on fox family and now that the new season has started i'm even more hooked than before.. the characters are so well-developed and their relationships are so real.. i would recommend this show for any woman or mother and daughter.. the Lorelei's are super fast talking witty girls that will, truly inspire you and the show is hysterical at times and never too too serious, but serious enough for it to be completely addicting.. it's an hour long which is a major PLUS because you can't ever get enough Gilmore! even in one hour.. Emily and Richard Gilmore are KICKS (loralie's parents, Rory's grandparents) they're you're average rich parents.. Emily president of the DAR and Richard a well known lawyer and Yale alumni st.. Rory is following in the footsteps of her grandparents and this could not make them any happier, of course, Rory's mother is so very proud of her but her whole life has worked on ultimately defying her parents and Rory going to Yale did not help her on that journey but believe me, every episode she does get closer ;) wow! i just have to say this show is super cool! i fell in love with the show from the beginning! the idea of the show is very original and very soothing! it's also a pleasure to watch the performance the two lovely leading ladies give, Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel! they're simply wonderful! i'm especially a big admirer of Lauren Graham! she's not just a pretty face, she's a "monster" of an actress as well! i'm not saying that Alexis isn't a wonderful actress as well... i just happen to like Lauren better! anyway it's a real delight seeing them on screen, "sparing" with words! in the words of the immortal Jim Carrey "B-E-A-UTIFUL!" this is a really great series. i love the show and i am so glad it isn't canceled yet. it has really good humor and shows the realistic bond between a young mother and her daughter. o yes for Gilmore girls! it is very awesome. they are such a sarcastic humorous bunch. they do everything together just like my mom and me. ya for Gilmore girls. um, i'm running out of lines. but i love how Luke and Lorelei's relationship is finally shaping up. they so needed to be together. and i absolutely just love Sookie St. James! she is so awesome . and the show wouldn't be anywhere without Michel. the whole show is dry humor, sarcasm, and life in a very small town where everyone knows each other....especially the Gilmore Girls. when the gilmore girls started in Germany i did not want to watch them because for me it was just something which was not unique. it was a series and i even did not know someone in it. later on, i realized that edward hermann is part of the cast of overboard (a movie, i absolutely adore). i had to watch it once with a friend and never stopped since. it's just fun. you have the feeling that it is okay to have sex before being married and it's okay to be a coffee junkie and to eat unhealthy stuff all the time. i do not do these things all the time but when i do these things i feel a little bit like a gilmore girl. even my boyfriend started to watch them and that tells something. from season to season it got better with the scripts and the stories. they have a open mind and by being different from every other show, you want to be like them. I have watched this show from the beginning, and I am a 45 year old man. To me, this is so much more that a show that appeals to women. This is the story of a family, possibly an unusual one, but a family none the less. It centers around a mother and daughter, Lorelei and Rory Gilmore, two bright, attractive, and in their own ways successful women. Lorelei makes her home in fictional Stars Hollow, CT, a small New England town with a sense of history, and a population of people that may be unusual, but acts as a dysfunctional family. The show also throws in the relationship between Lorelei and her parents, Richard and Emily Gilmore, old money DAR WASP people who do not approve of Lorelei's choices in life, though Lorelei doesn't care. The relationships story and through line are what makes this show, in my opinion the finest on the WB network (soon to be the CW). Watch this show! People need to give this show a chance. The people who write bad reviews (there are very few of them) are clearly people who haven't seen many episodes. One needs to really sit down and pay attention to this show to appreciate it. All of the characters are realistic because they have so many flaws. They make mistakes, but they are REALISTIC mistakes, which is an uncommon thing to see on television today. Also, for the most part the acting is superb. Lauren Graham has been snubbed of an Emmy for six years now. Someone needs to give this woman the credit she deserves. Same goes for Kelly Bishop who plays Emily Gilmore so perfectly. Also, it's nice to see a show that can have a young girl at the center of it, and not be filled with teen angst. Rory is a smart girl, which is also not seen a lot on television today. If only other shows could capture the wholeness of this show... This show is really great. It's smart.It's funny.It's great acting and writing. This show is really the fastest show I've ever seen. The Dialogues are really funny and well acted. Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel have a great chemistry.You really do believe they are mother and daughter. This show really showed that mother daughter relationships really don't have to be just mother and daughter, they can be best friends but on the same time it shows that it's really hard sometimes being more than just mother and daughter especially with Lorelai and Emily. Just watch this show I highly recommend it.It's great and definitely the best show on the air. Season 7 stars Tuesday September 26th, 2006, 8/7c on the new The CW Hands down, the best drama/comedy show on television. A cleverly written show about a young mother and her 16 year old daughter exploring life and finding things out not only about the world but themselves too. Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) struggles to find a way to remain in close bond with her daughter but steer her in the right path, which through-out the show is becoming harder and harder. Rory Gilmore (Alexis Bledel) caught in a world of books and learning is just beginning to discover boys and her own sense of rebelliousness, which surprises them both. With the help of Luke Danes(Scott Patterson) and Sookie St.James(Melissa McCarthy) and an enormous variety of other hilarious characters, this show easily remains one of my favorites. What really puts the show over the top is the complex yet, incredible and witty writing often using references from pop culture to the mink dynasty. Gilmore Girls is one of the funniest, most clever, sharp-witted, sarcastic and heart-warming television shows I've ever watched, (second only to my most favorite television show of all time, F*R*I*E*N*D*S). The quick pace and many pop-culture references can leave some viewers confused, but once you catch on to the ways of the Gilmores, you'll be hooked for life. Just some random comments, I recently (finally) began watching Season 6 and wow! It's one of my favorite seasons so far. I love the Luke-Lorelai thing and all the drama in the various episodes is (as always) exhilarating. The only thing I'm not so fond of is the surprising bad attitude and reckless actions Rory has suddenly 'adopted'. Unfortunately I don't find this very realistic and hope it's not just a way to stir up some more drama to keep the season going strong. All in all great season though and I can't wait for the next!!!

~ Ashly a.k.a. "Tookie Clothespin" I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just "fall in love" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you. Gilmore Girls is a hilarious show with never ending sarcasm, wit, and charm. At age 16 Lorelai Gilmore gave birth to Rory Gilmore. She left her parents house and got a job. Now, Lorelai and Rory have a relationship that many mothers and daughters envy. They are best friends. The girls have an extensive knowledge of movies, and TV shows, and are constantly quoting them. In the first season, Lorelai needs money to send Rory to Chilton ( a very highly rated high school), so she reluctantly has to turn to her parents. They are happy to give them the money, but in exchange, Rory has to come have dinner with them every Friday night. I highly recommend this show. I love it! I really like this show. It has drama, romance, and comedy all rolled into one. I am 28 and I am a married mother, so I can identify both with Lorelei's and Rory's experiences in the show. I have been watching mostly the repeats on the Family Channel lately, so I am not up-to-date on what is going on now. I think females would like this show more than males, but I know some men out there would enjoy it! I really like that is an hour long and not a half hour, as th hour seems to fly by when I am watching it! Give it a chance if you have never seen the show! I think Lorelei and Luke are my favorite characters on the show though, mainly because of the way they are with one another. How could you not see something was there (or take that long to see it I guess I should say)?

Happy viewing! Usually, Alan Alda plays characters that are too "soft" and overly verbal -- it's probably how he really lives. This time, he fits the character. Though he overacts when the verdict is being delivered.

The 1971 Attica Prison Riot and the State of New York's response is remembered by many of us as a terrifying event. Only a few journalists have told the true story. This film provides a quick look at the horrors and excesses associated with the Attica riot/revolt. Attica had a major impact on this country. Maybe the movie will stimulate someone to research the history.

I can't remember a feature movie made from the perspective of the prisoners -- though there is a great PBS piece with the actual Attica survivors/participants. The perspective of the guards held hostage is explored in "Against the Wall" with Kyle MacLachlan, Samuel L. Jackson, Clarence Williams III, and Frederic Forrest.

Back in the day, we shouted, "Attica! Attica!" It was nice to hear it in the movie. Brought back memories.

The worst part of the movie are the natural wigs Morris Chestnut and the other African Americans must wear. It would have been easy for these people to grow a 'Fro. The Killing Yard is a great film, although uneven at times. Morris Chestnut puts forth a phenomenal effort as a mentally wounded and judicially jilted prison inmate, and the presence of Alan Alda as his defense attorney is none other than genius. The emotion and raw reality portrayed in this film's "flashback" scenes have the ability of putting viewers directly into the midst of the events being pictured. I was not even born when the Attica riot took place, however, through extensive research, I find that "The Killing Yard" does the story all of it's fair justices. I would definitely recommend this film for viewing by any educational or activist group as a much needed learning tool. This film blew me away. I thought I knew a little about the Attica prison riot. After watching this, I see I knew nothing. The story is told through the relationship between the attorney and the black inmate. Both the personal story of these two men and the unfolding courtroom drama were riveting. The flashback sequences in the prison were awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't documentary footage it was so real. It was not only a great piece of drama, it was an incredible lesson in an important chapter in American history. I'm with Ebert and Roeper. I give it two thumbs up. I guess I wasn't sure to what to expect from this film, it had a good cast, an interesting story line, and a bunch of other things going for it, but I still couldn't shake a feeling of dread that I had in my stomach about what it would be like. I am glad to say that I was very pleased with the result and regret worrying about it all along. The films opening scenes were extremely intriguing and were enough to sustain early interest in the film. As the film progressed we were introduced to the characters of the film, as well as what happened in the prison riots. Like most reviews for this film, I have to admit that there is some unessecary cliches but it can't erase the overall power of this film that reads like a good novel. The cast are all great, particularly Chestnut and McGowan, and the film ranks as one of the better made-for-tv films of this year. Certainly worth watching if you are looking for a good courtroom drama. This short film (and the poem which is behind it) is one of the greatest metaphors I've ever seen!

The poem is beautiful! It describes exactly the feeling of a person that chases a dream and can't realize it… but it also tells how to fulfil it! I see the "Story of the Cat and the Moon" as one beautiful metaphor to the Human relationships, passion and love.

Technically it's done a good work too. In spite of being very simple, the animation, in black and white, gives a tone of allegory to the movie and to its message, but also of tenderness and nostalgia.

In addiction, the music also contributes to this poetic feeling.

"Nothing else matters! I will wait! She will come when she can, or when she wants to!" I watched this film during a special advanced preview in Reading, Berkshire.

The two main characters, Michael and Rory strike up a friendship, when Rory is introduced to the care home that Michael already resides. Michael is amazed to find someone who can finally understand him, as until now his cerebal palsey made people think that he couldn't communicate.

Rory introduces Michael to the life that he's missing. Rory is a feisty character, who doesn't let his condition (Muscular Dystrophy) get to him.

They bond and apply for Independent living, and find a lovely flat and assistant and have all the fun that they could ever dream of.

Don't go to see this film if you are after some "Entertainment". Do go see this film if you're willing to see something a little different.

The storyline is strong, the actors are fantastic and despite the sadness that comes with the film the mood is uplifting.

I thoroughly recommend it. Though if you are anything like me and prone to crying - take tissues, as you'll need them! I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun. Wow! An amazing, lost piece of Australiana AND a lost 70s glam-rock film rolled into one. This film warrants viewing simply to see what can be done with next to no budget but a lot of enthusiasm. As a retelling of the Oz story, the film borders on becoming too obvious but it is saved by it's eccentricities. The chance for a glimpse at how glam rock manifested in Australia will delight fans of the genre. This film used to be double featured with the Rocky Horror Picture Show, an indicator of the type of film that Oz is. While not as frivolous or well constructed as RHPS it's hard not to have fun with Oz.

Surprisingly, Oz has aged well- perhaps a by-product of how determinedly set in the real Australia of 1976 it is. The passage of history shows that many of the ideas being explored would eventually enter the mainstream. The willingness of the film to give prominence to gay characters is notable, especially as it dates to the 'revolution' period for the Australian gay rights push.

The performances range from flinchingly amateur to finely nuanced brilliance. The direction is lacking in subtlety and much of the dialogue may have benefited from an extra draft or two. Somehow, these flaws add to the appeal of the film which is mercifully unpretentious. Much like Australia in the 1970s this film has a certain naive charm.

There are several connections to the original Australian stagings of the Rocky Horror Show which will keep obsessives on their toes.

Oz is most certainly a minor classic and a potential cult favourite worthy of review. Laugh at the atrocious 70s fashion, swing along with the AusRock soundtrack, leave ANY expectations at the door and Oz is likely to delight. This film predates the Australian films Road Warrior and Priscilla of the Desert, and its influence on them is obvious: in the dialogue, locations, photography, direction and political philosophy. The photography is notably confident. The direction is stylish and for the most part well done. If you liked the early Australian films by Bruce Beresford, Peter Weir and George Miller then you'll love "Oz". The direction also reminds this reviewer of Edgar Wright's contemporary work. That similarity suggests that "Oz" was far ahead of its time. The critics of 1967 hated it and the public stayed away - 1960s Australia, like 1940s USA, was in some ways the sort of place where conformity was important, whereas this film is very different to what those viewers would have expected, especially after reading the promotional posters. This film will most likely have more appeal to contemporary audiences: it's still quirkily awkward and self-conscious, but in a contemporary European way rather than a 1960s Australian way. Joy Dunstan (who later appeared in the Australian TV series 'Prisoner') plays her role with less raw passion than her contemporary Jacki Weaver might have done, instead Dunstan's character in this film conveys some of the rather whimsical strength of Australian women most famously represented by Kylie Minogue playing Charlene Mitchell in the Australian TV series Neighbours and further developed in later roles in her career. Men will also enjoy this film, which presents various masculine issues in a different way than most other mid-sixties films from the USA or even Australia. In particular, Bruce Spence (who later went on to play Tion Medon in 'Star Wars III', the Trainman in the 'Matrix' films, and the chopper pilot in the 'Road Warrior' and 'Thunderdome' films) plays a central and sustained role which solidly supports the rest of the cast. This film is worth seeing for Bruce Spence's performance alone. 7/10 for some minor continuity problems. Great fun for an evening on the sofa. Don't expect Academy Award stuff with this but it will leave you with a smile. The performance by Bruce Spence is truly good. The soundtrack shows off some great old Australian talent. Check out this and other true Aussie films. Pity the poor reviewer who disliked / didn't understand this wonderful film. What a sad life he must lead!

This movie has more to say about life and relationships than most I've ever seen, yet it's not dark or preachy like the "ordinary people" type of film. It is mostly humorous, though not technically a comedy.

The whole thing feels a little like a fantasy, perhaps Shakespear's "Midsummer Nights' Dream." Beautiful, intelligent women abound, with wonderful cinematography and a non-insulting screenplay that doesn't miss a beat.

I look forward to seeing it every time this film is re-run on cable. It's like re-reading a favorite, treasured book. This movie has a lot to recommend it. The paintings, the music, and David Hewlett's naked butt are all gorgeous! The plot, a story of redemption, forgiveness, and courage in the face of adversity is also very interesting and touching -- and it's not predictable, which is saying quite a lot about a movie in this day and age. But, the acting is mediocre, the direction is confusing, and the script is just odd. It often felt like it was trying to be a parody, but I never figured out what it was trying to be parody *of*. And if it's not a parody, well, it remains a movie with great potential that it didn't live up to. This movie is great--especially if you enjoy visual arts. The scenery that the two daughters paint and photograph are beautiful. The story is also both funny and poignant at times.

People who like European films and "art movies" will like this movie. This is truly an art movie--it actually has a lot of art in it. Go rent it.

I've seen a few of Mr. Boorman's movies and didn't like much of them. Not that they are bad movies, quite the contrary are good movies, but not content I personally found entertaining. However I think Where the Heart Is, although made to cater to the less than art savvy American audience, is masterful as satire, and as social commentary of the times it was made in. I've had to replace this movie in my collection at least a half a dozen times, since every time I loan it out to someone I know could appreciate it's artistry on all its levels, my copy fails to come back home to me, lol. The last time took 7 years to replace it since it was out of print for VHS sales, has never been made as a DVD that I know of, and had to wait till one of the premium cable channels ran it before I could tape it again.

My favorite aspect after the nail-on-the-head social commentary is the paintings by Timna Woollard. I've searched for 15 years to find anyone or anywhere that could lead me to where her work is available for sale. Or better yet a copy of the paintings in the movie without the ending credits rolling over them. I have a room in my house that I dedicated to putting copies of her paintings in, and no one seems to know if it ever was released as a coffee table book, or video aquarium, or as a documentary of her work. If anyone does know of where I can acquire any sort of copy of Timna's work or where her studio is in England, please do not hesitate to contact me via email. This movie includes one of the best characters and dialog that Crispin Glover has ever played. Uma Thurman and Suzy Amis are also great in this movie, but Crispin makes it a great depiction of young people trying to make it in New York. This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany. Seeing this film, or rather set of films, in my early teens irrevocably changed my idea of the possibilities of human interaction and the range of potential experience. This monumental exploration of individuals, and their historical setting, reveals how full bodied and intense every human existence is. The people are portrayed as they are to themselves: their experiences of the smallest to the largest internal and external phenomena are detailed with the greatest of artistry and perception. Edgar Reitz displays a fabulous appreciation of human motivations and longings.

When these phenomena are set against the immense time allowed by the length of the work, one cannot help but apprehend the force and vivacity of happiness, defeat, lust, love, sadness, melancholy, that each person feels. When I saw these films I perceived my future experiences, how my life would inevitably twist and oscillate due to both intended and accidental events. I acquired a feeling of the longevity of being and what it meant to reflect upon past lives, memories and contexts. A masterpiece and a revelation. I only wish the BBC would screen it again.

If anyone knows where I can get a copy, could they contact me Absolutely, I agree with my previous commentator in describing this as a riveting,fascinating and certainly beautiful film. It's not necessary to see all the episodes,since the first ones are the best,while the last ones are a-bit tiresome,but for any person who likes German's and their good-natured ways,all episodes are worth seeing.In typical german fashion, values are constantly questioned,even it's murderous Nazi past is confronted in the last episodes, the rich dialogues are particularly interesting. These episodes are recommended for anyone who is about to live or travel in Germany,preferably in original language!!

In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.

Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a "midquel", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.

The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a "second home country", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.

Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: "The Beatles are much better than us!"), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).

Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid. I've just finished seeing the film for the first time in it's entirety (although I watched some parts when it was first shown in Britain in the mid-90's), I truly believe it to be a masterpiece of late twentieth century cinema. Undoubtledly a film of this scope raises lots of questions, like why are there some narrative differences between the 60's Hermann in 'Heimat' and Hermann in this film? For example, in the first film Hermann has a fairly significant relationship with his stepfather (he funds Hermann's electronic music), whereas in "Die Zweite..." there is little mention of his dad until the final episode.

One other point does interest me; reading up on Edgar Reitz I'm struck by historical similarities between him and the Stefan character, (spoiler coming) in the last episode it is revealed that Stefan has won a prize at the Venice Film Festival, (Reitz won an award for best debut work there for his film "Mahlzeiten"); Reitz's film company is called 'Edgar Reitz Filmproduktion' and Stefan's is also eponymously named. I'm interested in Stefan being an autobiographical character because aside from Helga he is probably the least likable of the friends.

Maybe Stefan's a red herring, I don't know, what I do know is that I loved this film and wish that more were made like it, with the exception of Michael Haneke's "Cache" and Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man" there's not enough ambition, audacity and passion of this sort in modern cinema. I can't wait to see number 3 now. I first saw Heimat 2 on BBC2 in the 90's when I was at art college living and moving among artists and musicians, hoping for future success. So 'The Second Home' - of friendships made after leaving the familial home, of striving for a professional excellence - strongly resonated with my living reality. I was captivated by the characters, the storytelling, the lyrical camera-work and above all by the music. In it I could divine the beginnings of German Electronic music, of 50's Stockhausen, Kraftwerk, Can, Neue, Faust of the 70's, the sound experiments of John Cage, Walter Carlos and the British electronic psychedelia of The White Noise. The soundtrack composer Nikos Mamangakis studied with Carl Orff of Carmina Burana-fame so I found its tastes contemporary to the Electronic Pop/ Sound Effects world.

I hadnt seen Heimat or Heimat 3 so I watched it as a whole in itself without a before or after. As someone else has commented, it is both epic and lyrical - historical and artistic. Many favourite moments including the wonderful voice of Gisela Muller (Evelyn), the Bach marimba of Daniel Smith (Juan), the piano-playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann) and the cello-playing of Salome Kammer (Clarissa).

I could write more but it's already been said here. Why can't British or US TV PRODUCE SUCH MASTERPIECES ? The Wire had the realism and politics and epic sweep of a city, David Lynch and Dennis Potter had imaginative tropes to their serialised TV work too but this is art-house and soap at its most cinematic and narrative sublime. It's never included in critics' choices of Best Films but it should be. Still as poetic and powerful as when I first saw it over 17 years ago. I watch the 3 boxed sets every autumn for their 'mellow fruitfulness'. Inspired and inspiring. "Jaded" takes on the complex question of abuse: the perpetrators and the victims. In lesser hands it would have degenerated into an erotic thriller made for direct-to-video. This director, however, has managed to pull off a textured multi-layered study with a decidedly different point of view.

Given the fact that the director/writer is a woman and the main detective and D.A. are also women, this could have turned into a very anti-male film. It is not. To be a sexual predator IS gender neutral. The nudity of this film is not erotic. The rape is brutal not sexual. We are looking at victims and not titillation.

The gifted cast rings true. For a film that is so little known, I was surprised at the quality of the performances. They are good. Carla Gugino and Rya Kihlstedt are incredible.

Somehow, this film got lost. Perhaps it is too smart for its own good. It is a "should see". Highly recommend. A thinking person's sexual thriller. -it has Carla Gugino *yay* and a crappy ending *boo*

-"Jaded" is a highly erotic story about a beautiful woman who arrives in a town trying to escape her past. Whiles there she meets up with two lesbians and after a couple of drinks the two decide to have some fun. But one of the girls takes things a bit too far and rapes her whiles the second girl holds her down. She is discovered on the beach where the incident happens the next day and is taken to a hospital. After that, we spend the rest of the movie watching her attempting to bring down the two girls and at the same time learn some new info about who she is and where she comes from and a bit about her past.

-Director and co-writer Caryn Krooth does an excellent job with this movie considering its uber low budget. It hand-held and sometimes looks like 16mm but it fits the movie since the story demands a harsh look to it. The actors all do okay jobs with what is given to them and there's not really anything to complain about it. The standout feature in the movie is of course Carla Gugino who bares it all in this movie. She is actually more nude in this movie than she is in "Sin City". Christopher McDonald is also in the movie but his character is really kinda pointless, but he is fun to watch. I didn't really pay much attention to the music since it doesn't really draw attention to itself but it gets the job done with what it's got. The movie is R rated and it's that for a very good reason. it's very sexual and very graphic at times. It's essentially borders on soft core at times but the sex scenes are necessary for the movie so it doesn't feel like it's just there for the sake of being there. Although there is one pointless scene where we see Chris McDonald getting it on, that scene was a tad pointless but it's not really much of a problem I guess. The only fault with the movie is that we don't get to see the court trial after all that we go through in the movie. It's like having sex and not having an orgasm or something

-It's a shame that the talented Caryn Krooth has never made a feature film since this. This is a highly gifted woman can do great things with a very little budget. I really hope that she gets back in the game soon because she is an amazing director. Jaded is not a masterpiece of erotic cinema, instead what we have is an enjoyable movie that shows a great director in the making.

-Hide the kids and close the curtains, you don't want people to think you're watching porn whiles watching this movie. "Jaded" should not be considered as en erotic thriller because the sex scenes are not for viewing pleasure unlike movies like "Indecent Behavior" or "Friend Of The Family".

"Jaded" is not an easy watch as it's story is difficult to conceive and it's not that common in society. From the beginning of the movie, with the first scene, you expect more strong scenes.

The raping scene wasn't (in my opinion) a well created scene. I think that the director didn't use proper camera techniques overall in the movie. That's why it looks sometimes dull and becomes boring almost near the end.

The performances are extremely good from all the five female characters. These women gave strong, intense, but believable performances that demonstrate the actresses' dramatic abilities.

The legal concepts helped a lot to understand the plot's difficulty because the legal term of sodomy is different from a simple raping. From the point of view of Meg's defense, sodomy needs to be penalized as a raping (a huge crime grade B) although it's a different crime. Pat and Alex's defense claims that Meg enjoyed and asked for it. This is where the movie turns interesting to see who is trying to tell the truth. The only thing for sure is that the sex scene fits into a legal definition of a crime.

Watch "Jaded" if you like legal issues that aren't very common in your society. If not, give it a try because it's a very good and strong drama. In December 1945 a train leaves the central station of Stockholm for Berlin. There aren't much left when it arrives. Not of the train and not of some passengers.

This is a black comedy directed by Peter Dalle and acted like they used to act in the 40s and also photographed (in b/w) like they used to during that period. The actors must have had lots of fun making it. They aren't much of characters, like they weren't in the 40s, but the story is well narrated and everybody has timing.

A deadly black and deadly funny film. See it, if you didn't think the Swedes were capable of humour. `Skenbart' is one of the funniest movies to not only to come from Peter Dalle but from the Swedish cinema industry itself. It is a movie made in black and white to get something of the atmosphere from the days before Christmas in December 1945, which it does very well. Almost the whole plot takes place on a train, non-stop to Berlin. On the train is a mix of homosexuals, nuns, deported refugees, murderers, alcoholics and the failure literature critic 'Gunnar' played by the, in Sweden, famous actor Gustav Hammarsten. The leading role 'Gunnar' is the type of person that, although his intentions are for the best, seems to drag everyone near him, in a extremely funny way, into disaster and to a living hell, especially for a from the Finnish war, homecoming, wounded soldier played by the extremely funny comedian Robert Gustafsson. On the train is also a doctor, who cheats on his wife, with his mistress. They have together planned to murder the doctors wife that is also travelling with the same train without any knowledge about her husbands intentions. Will the wife of the doctor elude the plans to murder her and will everyone else survive the unlucky fellow 'Gunnar'? Skenbart takes place in the 1940s, right after the second world war. Main character Gunnar (Gustav Hammarsten) quits his job to get a chance to "make a difference" in the bombed-out postwar Europe. He packs a book by his favourite philisopher, Ludwig Witgenstein, and embarks on a trip which will eventually prove Witgenstein's famous statement true: Nothing is what it seems.

There are two main plots, and several subplots, to this film, which takes place on a train bound for Berlin. Writer/Director Peter Dalle (also playing the role as the conductor of the train) has assembled an impressive cast including swedish legends Lena Nyman, Gösta Ekman and Robert Gustafsson. Overall, the acting is excellent.

Skenbart offers some rather twisted slapstick comedy combined with more subtle black humor (like the nun who loses her faith and starts cursing violently). It's like Killinggänget meets Peter Jackson (Braindead, Bad Taste) in Schindler's List. I laughed during most of the film, and when i woke up the next morning i laughed even more. An intelligent film for fans of Swedish comedy. First of all - I hardly ever watch Swedish movies, and this is actually the second time in my life I watch a Swedish movie on cinema! Therefor, I believe it's one of the best Swedish movies ever! The combination of thrill and humour is OUTSTANDING, and sometimes you don't even know if you should be terrified or just laugh! The plot is about this man, a writer who wants to go to Germany after World War II and help the Germans to start over. On the way to Germany, he is trying to help his friends on the train, which is however a bad idea. What a clumsy jerk! And poor Robert Gustafsson - the wounded soldier - always get in the way ... OUCH!!! But he still got his great mood. A positive guy. Robert Gustafsson have done some less great movies the last years or so, and this is really a relief. He is great in this movie. After all - this is one of the best Swedish movies ever, and Peter Dalle has made an excellent job! Congratulations! Very funny film with some of the best swedish actors. It's all filmed in black and white with the true 40-ish feeling. Most of the film you are aboard a train headed for Berlin in 1945 among a mixture of characters from refugees to 2 gay guys and 2 nuns. I truly recommend this film if you like to laugh. This thing works on all levels -- it's intense as a thriller, full of Lars von Trier homages, but also very much its own film -- and it does have a message: happiness comes from within, best personified in the wounded soldier who practically (and, believe it or not, humorously) disintegrates limb by limb throughout the film, all the while apologizing to others for imposing on them. You laugh at him, but you envy him as well. The central character is a well-meaning but clumsy writer who spends the whole film trying to help those he befriends on a train from Stockholm to Berlin just after World War II. He ties the parallel stories together, and really screws people up in the process. To say things go wrong is an understatement -- and structurally, the characters are all in perfect opposition to each other. It's like every one of them has an opposite -- just so tight, like watching anti-matter collide. You will not believe the sick stuff you end up laughing at. To say more would qualify as a spoiler -- all I can say is it is a shame this film has not been released in the US, not even on DVD. Some moron probably told them Americans wouldn't get it -- which is crap, because we not only "get" but produce things like South Park... If this film gets marketed in the US, it should be sold as a mainstream black comedy, because that's what it is. Over-the-top, sick and twisted, but fuuuuunnnnnyyyyy! This solid black and white slapstick comedy with a dark (but hopelessly contrived) plot is a true crowd pleaser that will have you howling with laughter (as well as rolling your eyes with disbelief).

It's the old psychopath on a train story but that is of no big importance as the thriller portion of the film almost seems to be merely a counterweight to the antics of the great comedian Robert Gustafsson. His hapless, nearly incurably optimistic soldier invokes both compassion and schadenfreude in a fashion that almost rivals Chevy Chase.

The thing about the film that appealed to me the most, however, is that wedged between the improbable and the hilarious are the accurately portrayed everyday joys and nuisances of train travel. They add a most welcome sense of realism and recognition.

This thriller comedy has admittedly borrowed most of its "suspense" from Hitchcock and should, in my opinion, only be watched for its comedy value (which is high indeed). Besides Gustafsson, Lars Amble's solid performance as a delightfully cynical misogynist is worth the price of admission alone.

Heartily recommend. ...and this movie easily exceeded my expectations. The fact that it is written and directed by Peter Dalle led me to believe it was in style with other films I'm used to (and bored with) seeing him in. Anyway, I grudgingly went along to see this flick and that I'm glad for. This stuff has humour and depth. 9 out of 10. See it! An interesting comedy, taking place on a train from Stockholm to Berlin, December 1945. One can't help to feel sorry for the poor writer/critic who quits his job and jumps on the train to Berlin. His ambition is to make a difference, and to participate in building the new unified Europe after the war has ended.

I like the black and white format of the movie, as well as the closed scenery of a train in motion.

Robert Gustafsson makes a classic "Gustafsson-role" in this movie. If you're a fan of him, this movie is for you!

The philosopher Wittgenstein, through his saying "One can never assume that anything is what it seems to be", is referenced several times in the movie. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is seldom a favorite of mine, said that everyone should see this film as it is something that can help heal the world....

It is one of the most poignant movies I have seen and delivers on Tutu's comments.... I have read many comments and while they range from good to average to comments on the choice of actors... The fact is that it deals with one of the most extra-ordinary events in our world. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission.... for the first time a country has opted to air it's horrific history, to find a way forward and to create a way for people to heal...

WHile the movie starts out with the White Policeman being offered a chance to absolve himself for brutal crimes and the Black guy is trying to ensure that he does not get away with it, it delves into the humanity of the people and the enormous need for healing that we all need....

Definitely a thumbs up..... To everyone involved.... Once again, I am proud to be a South African.....

An interesting comment can be found here: http://www.biz-community.com/Article/196/97/5223.html The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is a vital and probably unique human experiment. This movie does an excellent job of revealing the complexity of the task and the incredible challenges facing South Africa. I believe every one should see this movie as I think few people outside of South Africa understand its past and what is being attempted in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Almost every country has some part of its own history which is still a source of continuing hatred and bitterness. We all need to understand ways of dealing with the past. What's happening in South Africa should guide us all. I found it credible, moving and at times upsetting. There were no outstanding acting performances but this added to the strength of the narrative. Once again the BBC has been instrumental in taking a complex topic and turning out a top class movie. I saw this film at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival. I went in with the assumption that if it stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Hilary Swank it had to be at least decent. Well, after a kind of a slow start, I was far from disappointed. In fact, I was quite pleased with the final product.

I must admit the Afrikaaner and Xhosa(?) accented English of some of the actors were kind of hard to understand but like seeing "Waking Ned Devine", "Trainspotting" or any other film with heavy-accented actors I adjusted after about 15 minutes. And I was trying to figure out why Hilary Swank was supposed to be South African and sounded like she was trying to put on an accent but sounded very American... as if she was making a weak attempt at putting on the accent. But later in the film as more is revealed about her character and how she moved to the US as a teen you begin to understand how she might have lost some or most of her accent. So it began to make sense that only certain words might have a Afrikaaner lilt to them.

I know it's a little weak for one to use film as education but one of the great things about this film is that it was interesting to see a dramatization of a Truth and Reconciliation trial. I'd heard about the T and R process in South Africa after the fall of apartheid but I didn't really know how it worked.

The final verdict is that although some of the scenes felt a little contrived, this was overall a very strong film. The closing sequence where the "truth" comes out was the strong finish every film hopes for. A definite must see for anyone who cares about what happens outside their borders. Not knowing a great deal about the Truth and Reconciliation commission, I can only look at this as a piece of entertainment. I started watching it too late in the evening (recorded from BBC2 earlier this year) but once I'd started I had to watch to the end.

The down-side is that it's effectively a courtroom drama - never my favourite genre - but it's stunningly photographed (largely in super-saturated ochres) and well acted. Like a good novel, I couldn't put it down. All the way through, I wished I was watching it in a cinema to do the music and photography justice. What happened to its release in theatres? I'm an admirer of Chiwetel Ejiofor since I saw him in Dirty Pretty Things, and Hilary Swank looks terrific in this - very female and sexy for a change (possibly out of place, but she adds to the visual attractiveness of the film).

This picture deserves a wider audience than it seems to be getting. I was unsure of this movie before renting and did so on the assurance that Hilary Swank has always given excellent performances in her movies. She seems to rely on restraint to gain the emotional impact that she does. And she didn't prove me wrong in this movie.

However the movie also had fantastic performances from all other members of the cast both speaking and non-speaking. I have to single out Jamie Bartlett and Chiwetel Ejiofor - the two main protagonists - for their outstanding acting abilities and portrayal of true human feelings and failings. The whole movie ran almost like a documentary.

I must applaud Tom Hooper as the director and Avril Beukes as the editor for keeping a multiple layered story being revealed smoothly whilst keeping dialogue and action moving along in an understandable fashion. The opening sequence of the South African landscape was striking and I had to push the pause button to savour the photography.

Why can't a movie like this ever get nominated for an International award. It seems to me to hit the high-rating button on all counts. It was not just a film it was a true experience of life in a country coming out of apartheid. A life of poverty was all around but it celebrated the dignity of the human spirit. I haven't seen a film in a long time that moved me and gripped me in such a way; that I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I was busting for the loo; and I didn't even want to pause it because I was drawn right in. Emotive; powerful; very moving; horrific and heart-breaking. It gives you an amazing insight to South Africa; their struggles and their lives. The acting by the leads were mind-blowing and the script was incredible. Despite the terrible events that unfold in this film and how horrific the story is; I was captivated. I don't want to even try and explain the story; it's way too complex and I wouldn't do it justice. Please see this; you'll understand why when you do. Cheers, Hol POSSIBLE SPOILERS

No one is likely to pick up a DVD of Red Dust without knowing that it is about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Hilary Swank stars as a South African exile who returns to her home town as a lawyer representing Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofer), a member of the South African parliament who was tortured by a prison guard, Pete Muller (Ian Roberts), who is seeking to escape prison by testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They could certainly have found an actress who has or could imitate a South African accent; Ms. Swank makes no attempt whatsoever to cover her unmistakably American accent. Nevertheless she is the only well-known actor in the movie, and it would probably not have been made without her or someone equally well known. She does a passable job. However, Ejiofer and Muller (pronounced in the German way with an umlat over the "u") are outstanding as is Jamie Barlett as the chief of police, responsible for murdering Mpondo's comrade and fellow prisoner. The torture scenes are shown in brief flashes but they are vivid and believable. What is not believable is the Truth and Reconciliation process -- except that it actually happened. "Red Dust" should be seen for that reason alone because it was and is unbelievable that the ANC prisoners could actually forgive the torturers, and this is as close as we are likely to get to seeing the process in action. what was the quote by archbishop tutu at the end of the film about a person's past? this film was very disturbing to watch in the sense that it was a true story and to think that humanity is still so cruel after all these years makes me ashamed

everyone is human and everyone has the right to live their life in peace and harmony

live and let live

if anyone knows the quote please let me know Thank you

this film should be shown a lot more publicly as true events as horrific as these shown in the film should be known to all in the hope that things will change sooner rather than later. Where this movies differs from traditional Hollywood movie is that it shows a true depth of feelings. In Europe for example we've had years of war and though one nation could never eradicate the other, the old enemies always ended living next to each other or WITH each other at the end of the conflict. In the US, the immigrants white population exterminated the aboriginal population to near extinction. the US citizen never had to live with its enemy. This explains in my view the often simplistic nature of Hollywood movie when they try and explain a foreign country's strife. But in this movie, the director and screenplay did not fall into this cliché. It turns out everyone in the story has some right and some wrong. it's a great story of morality, hidden truth and compromise. ...and normally i don't like surprises!! Watch this movie by chance in a motel in South Africa second week of a three month motorbiking holiday in ZA. Apart from being well shot and acted it helped me in understanding the countries problems tremendously. Just watched the " Million Dollar Baby" and had to look up Hillary Swank since the name sounded somewhat familiar and her acting was superb. Didn't realise she was the solicitor in the "Red Dust". Well now i'm not to worried that she will disappear as so many other sidekicks of Clint before... Now i am being asked to write ten whole lines of comment which is rather ridiculous for i have written what i wanted to write. OK, here it goes: I think if you are from a western country, especially Europe, watching will help you to understand a little better why what is happening is happening down there! So this hopefully will fill ten lines. Police officer Dirk Hendricks (Jamie Bartlett) files an amnesty application Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

A member of the South African Parliament who cant remember the torture he once endured as a captive political activist.

South African born attorney Sarah Barcant (Hilary Swank), meanwhile, returns to her homeland to represent Mpondo.

As well as Steve Sizela, Mpondo's friend who was arrested along with him, and never heard from again.

This film is one of the best films to come out about the South African regime of Aparthied, in the past.

Everybody should watch it. We saw this film in Toronto at the Film Festival last year. It was a truly moving experience. I had heard of the Truth and Reconcilliation process, but as others have written, did not know much about the details of the process. This film demonstrated the process and the growth that can occur when people are able to face up to their pasts, understand the events from the points of view of others involved, and grieve together. Archbishop Tutu and the others involved in developing the T & R process deserve recognition for their understanding of human emotions. Seeing this film gave me hope for the human race. If we can do T & R, we just might not destroy ourselves. People will look back at T and R as the first step out of human adolescence and toward maturity.

As a film, of course there were flaws. I did not notice any major problems in acting, directing, or writing - but for the first time in years I was totally lost in a film, so perhaps I did not notice.

See this film. The audience in Toronto would not give up the stage for the next film, we had so many questions and comments for the stars and director. Tom Hooper, Jamie Bartlett, and Chiwetel Ejiofor went outside to the sidewalk to continue the conversation. People came by just to shake their hands and thank them for the film. It moved us all. Red dust is both well acted and well made but what the movie is about i think will bore many viewers as it did to me. There was a film that was out earlier called "in my Country" with Sam Jackson and it was not that well received and both films were about nearly the same exact thing, I do think Red dust was better because of the more interesting performances especially by future Oscar winner Chiwton Ejofor but the plot is just to lacking, it starts off pretty strong but then the film hits the viewers with countless un-interesting court room sessions, this could have been a great film if the writing was not so lacking. But see if for the performances. A warmly sentimental tale from the author of The Waltons. Were someone to pitch the material to me, I would probably reject it as too maudlin. But the dramatization here manages a tear without the expected embarrassment. No one in the 1950's was better at lovable hayseeds than Arthur Hunnicutt. His appeal here is put to consummate use as a mountain man doggedly faithful to a loyal hunting hound. Their fates are tied together as inseparably as any human bond. Good. I see a subtle environmental message here. All critters go to heaven, because how can we condemn any poor devil that merely follows instinct in order to stay alive. There is no deceit in the kingdom of animals, and yet how cruelly we often treat them. An oddly satisfying episode that confirms this important message. Of all the seasons and episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE, after seeing all the great, mind boggling, thought provoking stories, this one stands on top. That's right. This story, this one entitled THE HUNT tops the large number of the finest scripts in Television History.

True, there are no interplanetary space flights, no inexplicable cracks in time. There is no living nightmare, no sudden changes of setting. There is seemingly nothing out of the ordinary for our protagonist to deal with.

The main character, played by veteran character actor Arthur Hunnicut, sets out from his cabin in the hills, accompanied by his faithful hound, to hunt raccoon. Because the raccoon is a predominantly nocturnal animal hunt is by moonlight.

The man and dog soon encounter a large raccoon, who hops on the dog's back and attempts to drown the hound in a pond. The man jumps in to help his dog. There is a sort of almost black-out, after which the pair are seen on the shore, in a lying, almost sleep like position.

Calling his dog by name, (Rip, I think) the old man sets off to return home. When he arrives, he finds the wife weeping and unresponsive to his conversation. He also observes visitors coming and going to his house, paying respects and giving words to console his wife.

Still seeming puzzled at the strange reception and goings on around the Home Cabin, the Man and Rip take off on a long walk down the road, where He remarks out loud that he did not remember such a long fence in these parts. He eventually comes upon a rather large fellow, dressed in garb similar to his-overalls, hat, work shirt. They are at a gate, which leads to an area where a lot of smoke is freely rising up. The Gate Keeper is overly eager in his persuasive pitch in trying to get the man to enter. Rip sounds displeasure. The Gate Man tells the Old Man that he may enter, but the dog would have to remain outside, offering to watch the animal for him. The man will have none of it and the two continue on their way down the path.

After a little more hiking they come upon a second gated entrance where the Gate Keeper recognizes the man and welcomes him. When the Old Man reports what has happened down the road, telling him of how the guy at the other gate tried to separate the Man and dog, and added, "With no dogs allowed, that must be a Hell of a place!" The 2nd Gate Keeper stated that he was right! "That's exactly what it is!"

Our family had lost our 1st Dog, Lady-a mixed Lab, in October of 1981. About 6 months later, as good fortune would have it, the Wife(Deanna) and myself along with our 2 daughters (Jennifer 9 and Michelle 6) viewed this episode on TV, WGN TV, Channel 9 Chicago. Well, it all made perfect sense to us at that time.

We're certain that anyone who has had that relationship with a family dog, would agree. The episode still brings a condition of watery eyes to this now 60 year old writer. In this episode, a man and his dog go 'coon huntin' after eating dinner with his wife of 50 years. He's devoted to his wife and his dog.

While hunting, his dog jumps in the river after the dog and he follows. The man dies and doesn't know it. He tries to talk to his wife and his grave diggers to no avail.

What follows is a tug of war between heaven and hell for the man's soul and his dog helps make the decision. He's being tricked by the devil and won't go in to "heaven" unless his dog comes with him.

It makes you wonder if all the animal lovers have the right idea and want to go to heaven with them. Several weeks back I lost my beloved companion and friend of fourteen years, a golden retriever named Sasha. When I came home from the animal hospital, alone, after having made one of the most painful decisions of my life, my teenage daughter sat by my side. . .and we talked about this episode of the Twilight Zone. I could be wrong, but I recall a line that Arthur Hunnicutt said, when Satan was trying to trick him into hell, but his dog could not go with him. . .and his dog in turn was growling in defiance at the gatekeeper who was trying to trick the old hunter to "step inside,". . .that it would be "one helluva of heaven if dogs were not allowed," and the spirit of the old mountain man and his dog decided to turn away from the gate (of what they had thought was heaven, to wander eternity alone.) What a tearful moment when they meet a "good ole' country boy" on that eternal road, only to discover he is an angel, sent out to find 'em, and "sure neighbor, of course dogs are allowed into heaven."

I'll confess I cried as I talked about this with my daughter while we mourned the passing of our beloved golden. Rod Serling was truly a genius, a voice that in the early sixties spoke out against racism, hatred, "know-nothingism," and was a profound inspiration to me to become a writer. This episode, across forty five years carried a message of comfort to all of us who have lost a beloved friend. I urge you to get a copy the next time there is a one of the Twilight Zone marathons or purchase it. There will be some tears, but comfort as well. As always, thanks Rod, for all that you taught us. . .even now. One of the best! As being a fan of the civil war, I was very pleased with the first installment of the North and South trilogy. Patrick Swayze gives and extraordinary performance, as well as James Reed and Leslie Ann Down. In watching this fabulous story unfold into a time never forgotten, the subjects of love, passion, grief, shame, harmony, and cruelty come to life. I was first introduced to this series when I was in the eighth grade. Being a young boy, you would think that I wouldn't have been interested in this civil war soap. To be honest, this story stole the hearts of every one in my class, and this is just the first book. I bought the novel and studied the likes and differences and it was awesome. I am 17 now and still enjoy the story, characters, subject, and remember the times of the civil war. As a movie director of the future, I will always enjoy North and South: Book One. "North & South" the television mini-series is to the 80's what "Rich Man, Poor Man" (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.

It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842.

"North & South" is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.

The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War.

"North & South", along with "Rich Man, Poor Man" is overshadowed by 1977's "Roots" as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as "Roots". But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al.

The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate.

"North & South" Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets. I am a history teacher and overall I was pleased with the movie. My teen-agers enjoyed it over the holidays. Is it 100% accurate and is it a little sappy in places? Yes..but it took my kids away from the computer and play station to spend four nights watching it all.

The battle scenes were impressive and we met plenty of historical characters throughout. Lloyd Bridges as Jefferson Davis and Hal Holbrook as Abraham Lincoln stand out. We all thought Phillip Casnoff as Bent was evilly and charmingly brilliant. We all thought Charles stole the show from Orry and George.

We will enjoy the movie again! A story about love and hate, tragedy and happiness, and most of all, friendship set in the very interesting time of the American Civil War.

Gets you interested in history, gets you emotionally involved and makes you feverishly wait for the next episode.

Moreover, the casting was splendid. Many superstars appear in short cameos, the leading roles are played by a big array of talented mimes - Kirstie Alley and Terri Garber should be mentioned here - this is simply a superb example for a TV production as it should be.

Not to forget the sheer loveliness of Wendy Kilbourne portraying Constance :-) This was the one movie to see about the Civi War. My aunt actually played in this movie as an extra in the Justin and Madeline wedding scene, and my uncle was an extra on a horse. The script was genuine, and accurate. The costumes were tastefully done, the seqence was in order and even the accents were good. I dearly love Patrick Swayze and James Ried. They were the best 2 choices, and it even had a great supporting cast. The Civil War is my favorite thing in American History, and I love movies about it. I have seen quite a few, and this movie and it's sequal North and South Book 2 took the cake. If you haven't seen it, rent it. As soon as possible. It's quite an eduation. I was 13 when this mini-series (and its sequel North and South, Book II) first aired. I had already been captivated by the personal interest stories in/around our American Civil War, which is what interested me in watching this made-for-tv program.

I loved it. And now I'm 29 years old and I only love it more. It is full of history, beautiful costuming, real-life characters woven in and out of the lives of fictional characters, all of whom you come to care deeply about. There is intrigue, love, loyalty, betrayal, family, extended family, lust, battles, victory, defeat and reconstruction.

Even though I had the full set of episodes on tapes I recorded back when it originally aired, I purchased the full set of both N&S and N&S II from Columbia House some years ago when they became available. Once every few years I'll take a whole weekend and watch all the installments back to back - and am sad when the last episode rolls to an end, because I find myself wanting to continue watching the story of the lives of these characters.

I cannot recommend this mini-series more highly. I saw this movie when I was a lot younger but it captured me. I loved Orry and George's relationship so much. I was so enraptured in Orry and Madenline's love story. I am a hopeless romantic so it really got to me. I especially liked it when he first met her. I just wish he had more time with her and their baby. So you know in Book three I was so hurt that he died. I didn't really understand that because they had little time together. I just loved Patrick in this movie. I just bought all three books together and I can't stop watching them. My 12 year old son is stuck on it. He likes the fighting in the war. I cry every time. I wish I could meet Patrick and Madeline in person! It was a wonderful movie and cast! I absolutely ADORED this movie as a child and still do as an adult. To say that is even an understatement. My sister, brother and I watched it one year at our grandparents' house during Christmas vacation. They had taped it from TV. Our parents were glad it kept us occupied for the one night but they thought we would tire of it and be ready for outdoor activities the next day. Not so! We became mesmerized. They could not have unglued us if they tried. It became a cherished yearly tradition. We loved everything about it: the time, the romance, the battle scenes, the villains etc.

Come on, who can resist hating that psycho Bent with his constant SIR!? Classic! Moreover, who can resist cheering wildly when Justin falls off the balcony?! What a triumphant moment! I always had a special place in my heart for Orry and Madelaine. They were so romantic. The theme song alone can get me to tear up a little. This movie is incredibly moving and I challenge anyone to stick with it until the very end. It's worth it!! I watched this series on TV in 1990 and absolutely loved it (I was nine years old). I bought the first DVD box about six month ago and got the second a couple of days ago (thanks to my dear husband). Gosh...It was hard to get any sleep with all the thoughts in my head...what was gonna happen to Madeline and George etc. Slave issues and civil war has always fascinated me (a 25 year old Finn).I advise to read Slaves in the family by Edward Ball for those who want to take a peek in the past and try to understand what really happened.

I'm not sure if I want to see Heaven and Hell after so many people have told here that it wasn't really that good. I own the miniseries on DVD because I love this story so much. This is one of the best period pieces on the Civil War that I have seen that tells a story of friendship divided by the war. The costumes are great, the story lines are great, I love how the story jumps around from character to character to keep you guessing as to what's going to happen next in their lives. There is a great balance of good and evil. Some of the characters that are evil in my opinion are too good not to watch. Every time something more despicable than the last happens I curse the TV as if they can hear me. I love how this miniseries makes me feel engaged in it's drama. I would advise however NOT to watch the third movie in the DVD series. It's a let down compared to the first two movies and most of the original characters do not return. I don't wish to remember how the third movie ended, I prefer to live with the thoughts of the ending in the second movie. It makes me happy. I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment. Sweeping drama with great sets, costumes and performances – though some folks are channeling Rhett, Scarlett, Melanie and even Lady Macbeth. Patrick Swayze and James Read are excellent as two men trying to maintain a friendship despite the ties of family and location. Splendid villains – you'll want them all to come to a very bad end. Lots of strong female characters in this one – both good and bad. Secondary story lines also are well developed. Several cameos by major stars of past eras. Good representation of history and conflicts for those caught between friendship and politics.

Curl up on a rainy day with your DVD or VHS player and drink of choice with this one. A lap rug and a cat would be optional. This comment discusses "North and South Book I" dealing with 1842-1861 period

The 19th century history of the USA is mostly identified by people with the Civil War (1861-1865). This is a reasonable opinion because that was Civil War which put the Union under the severe test; that was the Civil War which made Americans realize how precious it is to live in peace; finally, that was this period which at last brought the end to the shameful system of slavery.

From the birth of motion pictures, there were people who adapted that time onto screen. D.W. Griffith, in the early 1900s, made his unforgettable BIRTH OF A NATION. Yet, the most famous film about the north-south clash is still, I suppose, GONE WITH THE WIND (1938). Unfortunately, fewer people know the magnificent TV series based on John Jakes' novel, "North and South." It is the very best TV series ever made and the time spent on watching it is really precious. I taped it on my video from Polish TV many years ago and have come back to it with great pleasure many times since then. Why?

Firstly, the entire story is deeply rooted in historical reality. The two families, the Maines from South Carolina and the Hazards from Pennsylvania, represent two entirely different ways of life. In spite of that, friendship unites them. Yet, what they experience is the struggle all people do: friendship attacked by "truth" of "political correctness", love attacked by hatred of "legal spouses", gentleness by strength of "social heroes". Orry Maine (Patrick Swayze) is my beloved character - someone who finds love and who is quickly deprived of her; someone who cares for friends but political fanatics step in the way and ruin much. Finally, he is someone who can see the tragic future for his land but there is nothing he can do about the south's inescapable fate. His friend, George Hazard, is similar in most aspects but sometimes he appears to have a stronger character. It is him who shows Orry that although there are tragedies, he must get up from despair and live since life is the most precious thing we have. Although they represent two different lifestyles, their friendship occurs to be stronger than any prejudice, politics or conflicts.

Other characters are also particularly well developed. There are villains, like Justin LaMotte or Salem Jones who are really wicked but most of the people are ambiguous as the nature of humanity has always been. Charles Maine is, at first, full of rebellion, prone to fighting, later, however, he learns to be a true southern gentleman for whom southern pride is not courageous words but foremost courageous deeds. Virgilia Hazard represents the most fanatical side of abolitionist movement striving to condemn slavery and punish the owners of "black breeding farms." Her marriage with Grady appears to be a symbol of equality but also a symbol of saying "NO" to the politics of the south. Two interesting characters are Orry's sisters, Brett and Ashton - sisters in whose veins runs entirely opposite blood. Brett, in her gentleness but also naiveness, believes in absolute fidelity. She marries Billy, even though he is a northerner, because she truly loves him. Brett is the representation of all that is precious in any young woman. Ashton, however, is a vamp, a tigress, a woman who does not hesitate to do the most wicked things. The clear picture of their world views clash is their chat about men and family...unforgettable moment and how universal! Most characters head for their values...yet, war breaks out and they'll have to put aside a lot...

Secondly, the performances... someone said that not all people act naturally. I wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that all cast do very good jobs in their parts from the main characters who are portrayed by younger staff to the guests that consist of famous stars, including Liz Taylor, Robert Mitchum and others. Patrick Swayze as Orry does a great job. I consider this role one of his best ones. Lesley Anne Down as Madeleine is also very memorable. Her part, perhaps, entails too much suffering but she manages to express all sorts of feelings really well. Kirstie Alley is very appealing and truly memorable as the abolitionist Virgilia Hazard. Phillip Casnoff is worth consideration as horribly ambitious Elkanah Bent as well as David Carradine as a monster husband, disgusting Justin LaMotte. And, in contrast to him, a mention must be made of Jean Simmons who is truly excellent as Orry's mother whose heart beats for the glory of family life and concord of union.

Thirdly, memorable moments of "North and South" leave an unfading trace in one's mind. Who can forget the first meeting of Orry and Madeleine - what charm, what gentleness there is in this scene! Or is it possible to skip the moment when Madeleine's father dies? I found it really powerful, there is a real drama in this moment, a drama of a woman being left by someone who really loved her. I also liked Churubusco sequence and George Hazard so worried about the life of his dearest friend, Orry. Then his meetings with Constance are terrific. Virgilia's speech in Philadelphia is a masterpiece of performance. And the final moment of the first part: although North and South may separate, their friendship will never die. Orry and George symbolically join hands as the train moves on. Simply, there are so many beautiful and powerful scenes that it's impossible to mention even half of them here. And these gorgeous tunes by Bill Conti and shot in brilliant landscapes. The music in "North and South" is very touching and memorable.

What to say in the end? "North and South" is a real must have on DVD, simply an amazing TV series about the victory of all that is precious in us: love, friendship, loyalty, honor, truthfulness, absolute fidelity. 9/10 For me, North and South (Books I&II) is the ultimate TV series of the 80's. Just spotting all those cameo appearances was highly entertaining.Gene Kelly, James Stewart, Elisabeth Taylor, Olivia De Havilland, Robert Mitchum, even Johny Cash¡ No series has come close to this achievement.Have you ever seen anyone looking like Lincoln? Dick Smith's prosthetics made Hal Holbrock's powerful performance even more so. The crafted costumes, the jaw dropping locations, everything. It's clear that nowadays there are excellent and bright TV series (Desperate Housewives, Lost,24) but North & South was, and still is, one of its kind. Don't miss it. Only David Carradine's portrayal of the ultimate villain (you may call him just violent husband) worths the viewing. Maybe some characters and situations are too stereotyped, I admit it but the positive sides clearly cast a shadow over them. I'm so glad that finally is available on DVD in Spain. Perhaps one of the best movies ever made. Orry and Goerge's friendship runs deep, and the War puts a strain on their strong friendship. As a Southerner, I can honestly say this epic is as accurate as it gets. Brothers fighting brothers. Can you imagine what life must have been living during those times? The best part of the movie, for me, was when The South surrenders; General Grant is urging President Lincoln to really stick it to the South, he says, "Mr. President, a lot of folks want The South to bleed over what they've done..." President Lincoln, turns to him and in a very tired voice says, "The South has bled enough...and so have we..." I burst into tears, and take a deep breath. What a President! It's like a father saying his son has been punished enough, and despite his anger he realizes his point has been made. This War was a very dark time for our young country, and it had to be fought. President Lincoln knew this. I'm urging everyone who reads this to watch this movie, and add it to your DVD collection. Then, thank God that our country was preserved. As Jesus said, a "House divided against itself cannot stand." Having just watched this with my mother (Who got it for Christmas) i was thrilled to find something different to the usual stuff i usually watch. All of the stories were detailed and you are able to feel strong emotion towards each character from the very beginning. Every storyline is followed through brilliantly, making you feel completely different things for every single character. The cast is amazing, my personal favourites being James Read and Lesley-Anne Down, as George Hazard and Madeline Fabray/LaMotte/Main. The whole thing is in depth and wonderful, making very compulsive viewing, i recommend it to almost everyone. Whoever cast this movie was a genius, every character in it is perfect for their part, and they all do an absolutely excellent job in their parts. This is a good glimpse of what life was before & during the civil war, the difference between the wealthy, the average whites, and the black people. The story gives you some insights as to the real issues of the era, and the difficulties that were inherent in everyday living back in those days. The storyline is compelling, and the drama keeps your attention through the entire movie. There are characters you will fall in love with, there are characters you will hate, and you will find yourself emotionally involved.

Both my wife and I loved it, and we will watch it again in a few years, I'm sure. This movie is VERY LONG, but totally worth splitting up over several nights. It has an all-star cast, and if you are a Patrick Swayze fan, this will get your heart to throbbing! :-) My mother is a Civil War buff, and a history teacher, and every summer we would watch this movie (we had recorded it off TV), over several, several nights until we got through the whole thing. We had every line in the movie memorized, lol. Pop some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the action and romance. It's a great movie for those that like action, war, blood & guts, but also for those with a soft, romantic side. The clothes the women wore were GORGEOUS! Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era, lol. Even for a 17 year old student who loves history and caught glimpses of emotion and excitement in his childhood years of this series, its coming to DVD was a blessing for all time. North and South truly is a series about friendship,love,honor... you name your own list of feelings you get from watching this series. I can still remember the first time I caught a glimpse of this series on TV when I was about 8 years old. I though wow this looks exciting. To bad I never had the chance to see book one and two on TV in the Netherlands. When book three was broad-casted as a late evening series in the Netherlands in the summer of 2004 I just knew I had to see the other two series. To most people book three was a big disappointment as far as I know. Well since I have seen book one on DVD, I must say that until now it is the best of the entire 3 books. To all youngsters who just watch the fancy movies like The Patriot "Oh America for freedom" there is a more realistic view to see for them here..... This is one of t.v.'s greatest mini-series! It comes to life almost as well as the book did. Also the cast was outstanding to play the roles. I'd recommend this movie series for anyone who likes the Civil War or the history leading up to it. North And South (1985): Patrick Swayze, James Read, Lesley Anne Down, Wendy Kilbourne, Terri Garber, Kirstie Alley, Genie Francis, Phillip Casnoff, Jean Simmons, John Stockwell, Lewis Smith, David Carradine, Inga Swenson, Jonathan Frakes, Wendy Fulton, Erica Gimpel, Tony Frank, Jim Metzler, Olivia Cole, Andy Stahl, William Ostrander, George Stanford Brown, Robert Mitchum, Morgain Fairchild, Johnny Cash, Hal Holbrook, Gene Kelly, David Ogden Stiers, John Anderson, Lee Bergere, Olivia De Havilland, Elizabeth Taylor, Forest Whitaker, Robert Jones, ....Director Richard T. Heffron, Teleplay...Paul F. Edwards, Patricia Green, Douglas Heyes, Kathleen A. Shelley.

Based on John Jake's successful paperback novels "North and South", "Love and War" and "Heaven and Hell", this was a mini series on television from 1985 to 1987. Its success owed more to the success of "Roots" a similar Civil War era/slavery soap opera televised about a decade earlier in the 70's. Patrick Swayze, at the beginning of his career and at the time he was doing many films like Dirty Dancing which would make him famous, stars as Orry Main, a plantation-born young man from South Carolina who sets off to West Point. Here he meets George Hazard (James Read) who is supposed to be the hated enemy, the Yankee North, but with whom he bonds closely. Soon, the Mains from the South and the Hazards from the North become friends despite the turbulent era leading to civil war. The theme of family, friendship and doing the right thing even when the nation was falling apart is at the heart of this otherwise soap opera full of action and romance. Clariss and Ashton (Jean Simmons and Teri Garber) portray sisters who become enemies when one of them marries Yankee Billy Hazard (John Stockwell. Garber's bitchy, seductive, manipulative, ambitious and evil Ashton is fun to watch on screen. Though the series didn't cover everything in Jakes' novels, what we see is a condensed version of it and they changed a few things to make it a sort of historical romance with history lessons attached. The characters find themselves in all the major Civil War scenes - Harper's Ferry where abolitionist and feminist Virgilia Hazard (Kirstie Alley) loses the love of her life, the ex-slave Grady, Fort Sumter, Vicksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, Appomatox and we are privy to the White House where we see Abraham Lincoln (Hal Halbrook) battle out the war in his conscience, we meet all the prominent players including Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson and Davis. Several veteran Hollywood actors from the Golden Era - Robert Mitchum, Elizabeth Taylor and Olivia De Havilland have cameos and it's interesting to see them. This is not historical fact, it's historical FICTION and purely dramatized entertainment. But it's got cliffhanger endings and beautiful cinematography, costumes and locations. It is like watching an epic movie that runs longer than Gone With The Wind with with war scenes in it! The script may be bad at times and the acting may not be the best, despite the good casting. Swayze hams it up as does Terri Garber but some performances, like that of Kirstie Alley, James Read (as George Hazard)and Leslie Anne Downes as the beautiful and strong Madeline are really good performances. They shot in sets and in Southern locations.The music is enchanting and this is a feel good film in which we root for the good guys and watch the villains scheme and ultimately get their comeuppance. All fans of Civil War movies and the Jakes novels should watch this. It's available on DVD and VHS. I agree with with of the messages on here that the book is not like the movie. I read the book as a sophomore in high school in Sumter SC. I instantly fell in love with the book and eagerly awaited the release of the mini series. As much as I liked the movie and thought it was very well done, I was disappointed that the movie did not follow the book. I was glad the Orry was not killed off like he was in Love and War or N&S II.

Having grown up in SC and graduating from University of SC, I fell in love with southern history because of this mini series and book. I had the honor of meeting John Jakes at a symposium in 1988 at USC. I stayed around afterwards and meet Mr.Jakes. Unfortunately, I did not get to ask him a question. But meeting him was honor enough. I majored in accounting but got my minor in Southern Studies. In addition, I patterned a lot of my mannerisms after Orry Main. Orry and myself are very much alike. I feel I was born 150 years too late. I am a southern gentleman and very proud of this.

Well I fell in love with 2 women in the movie....Genie Francis and Wendy Kilbourne. Man, did I have the hots for Wendy!!!! I never quite could find a real life version of her. I hope one day too!!! This is a great movie, all 3 were. The last one was not as good as the first 2 but it was made along time after and it was pulling at straws. But you want to watch it cause it tells the end of the story. Just not how we might think it should end.

These movies made me want to be there to be in all the hardship, love, tears, and laughter that the people in this movie go threw. It is one of the few movies that is good every time you see it no matter how many times that is.

There are some parts in the movie that the little kids wont understand and the older ones maynot be old enough to watch. but it is a great movie, spanning over 20+ years. I have 2 complete sets from time life, This is my favorite movies of all time. Love all the actors and actresses.. Awsome picture..Love Patrick Swazy..This is the film, that showed his true talent. But yet, he does not get credit for the display he preformed! Much credit has been missed in these films.Love the way they portrayed the dry and dusty monologs of the civil war..Making it into one of the greatest love stories of all time, and showing through all obsticals of life, what true freindship means..How 2 divided countries split.But yet all and all the freindship remained solid, even though the war divided kinships and freindships up.But through it all, till the very end, they remained and taught us the viewer, how true freind ships can still remain till present day! Simply the best..Gone with the wind doesn't compare to this film.Patrick Swazy at his best,.After seeing this movie for the one hundred thousand time. I became a big fan of Swazy..And have followed his career ever since..have all his movies after he made North and South! I first saw this mini-series as a child and though I am a child no longer, I still love it!!! Professional copies are hard to find, however, when it's on DVD, it's MINE!!! =]

Great casting, marvellous plots, and plenty of action, romance, and even quite a bit of well-placed comedy. I'm not a historian by nature, but I love this masterpiece of historical fiction! This is one of THE century's best tv-series ever with all the great suspense,story,and a cast of absolutely fantastic actors and love and grief that really gets you involved and captivated in front of your tv. If you have seen it once, you will go back to see it again. I have several times and still do it. The 20 th century's best drama. I really enjoyed North and South very much. I think it is one of the best and most lavish television series I have ever seen. The calibre of the cast is amazing, you have actors from "the golden age of cinema", people like James Stewart, Gene Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons with other actors who were the new faces of the 80's like Patrick Swayze, James Read, Jonathan Frakes, Genie Francis, Philip Casnoff and Lesley-Anne Down.

At the heart of the story is the friendship of two completely different men,there is Orry Main (Patrick Swayze) who is from the south and George Hazard (James Read) who is from the North. Throughout the series, their friendship is continually threatened with the differences in their backgrounds, particularly about the treatment of slaves in the South (especially at Orry's plantation) but when each needs the other, they will forget the arguments and go and help their friend. I really liked the chemistry between the two men and was really interested to see if their friendship could survive the war.

I liked how the series showed what life was like before the war so the audience could see what were the factors that lead up to the war, what was going on at the time, then the devastation of a nation that was being torn apart and then the nation having to rebuild the country again. The war scenes were very well choreographed and very realistic to me.

I think what is great about it, is it has so many elements running through it, romance, history, battles that would interest most of the audience, there is something for everyone. I particularly enjoyed the romance between Brett (Genie Francis) and Billy (Parker Stevenson/John Stockwell) especially when she stood up to her sister Ashton for the first time. The other romances were interesting as there were not all the same, each had something different to the others which kept me watching particularly the Madeline and Orry story strand to see if they would be together in the end.

It is one of the best American mini series that I have watched, the story had the right balance of romance and the more serious history side that was happening in the country at the time but it is paced just right. The characters are very watchable and the locations are beautiful and the music particularly at the start and end of the episode is so toe-tapping good and works with the mood of the story. North and South is a miniseries from the "golden age" of television miniseries in the 1980s, which was a time for long, sweeping epics with high production values and lots of star cameos. It is, for the most part, excellent for what it is, although I personally prefer the less soap-opera like elements of the story and the overall sense of history.

James Read and Patrick Swayze deliver excellent performances--especially Read, whose George Hazard serves as kind of an emotional anchor in the midst of the often melodramatic story. The series also contains top-notch work from Kirstie Alley, Wendy Kilbourne, Hal Holbrook, Lewis Smith, Genie Francis, Georg Stanford Brown and others. The costumes, filming, sets and music are all first-rate as well.

Don't take it as a history lesson, but take it for what it is--a well-made, sweeping epic from a bygone era. Book 2, which followed a year later, is also excellent, but I would advise viewers to skip Book 3, which came out 8 years after Book 2 and was not nearly as good as the first two parts. Books 1 and 2 are classics, though, even with their soapier elements, and they are well worth watching. This is the best movie I have ever seen. It has it all tragedy and happiness love and hate. And a deep friendship that not even war can destroy.

The most splendid casting I have ever seen. Patrick Swayze and James Read were top grade in this movie.

If you see part 1 you will want to see it all. Some of my friends watched part of the movie at my home then went out and bought the movie.

I am a civil war buff but this movie got my grandchildren interested in history. Any movie that can get children to learn history is great. I have Books I, II & III and when the girls come up from Florida each year they want to see North & South. After getting hooked on the mini series, "North & South," I could hardly wait for the continuation, "North & South II." Then years later, along came Book III, "HEAVEN & HELL - NORTH & SOUTH - BOOK III." FINALLY, the last installment came for the on-going saga of the Maine and Hazard families. I was so enraptured by this series that I taped each part off of TV and then managed to get family and friends hooked and I watched it AGAIN, each time someone new wanted to see them. My tapes are old and I crave this trilogy on DVD. If you missed Book III, you didn't get full satisfaction and you don't know how it all turned out. Do yourself a favor and demand this set on DVD! I just watched this movie on it's premier night out of curiosity and sheer nostalgia. I liked (not loved) "Mork & Mindy" as a kid, mostly for Robin William's zany energetic performance. This movie made me remember why. Was the original show great? Not really, but Robin certainly was. Which brings me to this movie.

I was pleasantly surprised, expecting nothing more than a paint by numbers chronological retelling of the show (which in a way it was). But, of course, the real focus was on Robin. It was interesting to see Robin's journey from struggling street jester to national t.v star, and how such a drastic difference affected him and his long suffering wife. And my hat is off to star Chris Diamantopoulos as he portrayed Mr. Williams with integrity, sensitivity, and heart; not just a cute impression, although it was even dead-on. (On an unrelated note, I noticed that Robin's struggles were in some ways similar to Andy Kaufman, who was under-appreciated by network t.v. and held back creatively, but that's the "Taxi" behind the scenes biopic.)

All in all, this was a very enjoyable flick, in which I felt I got to know a little more of the man behind the Orkan. The acting was solid by all- never melodramatic like I suspected- and the story moved along well. Performances that were particularly good were by those who played Garry Marshall and John Belushi (the scene in which Belushi heckles Robin was a hoot!). Not a great masterpiece by any means (I would have liked to have seen a tad more about Pam Dawber), but definitely watchable, especially for those Robin Williams and "Mork & Mindy" fans out there. Nanoo, nanoo! GREAT, Chris Diamantopoulos has got to be the best Robim Williams that I have every seen.. He acts it up, perfectly. This was like watching Robim Williams as he really was and is.. It almost made me cry watching him.

I had no idea that Robin was as close a friend to John Belushi as he was. The portrayal of this relationship was very good and could almost stand on it's own merits.. Very sad, what both of them went through.

I really felt for both Val and Robin during his rough times. I am glad that they ended it in a high note!

I hope Robin puts a $100 bill in this guy's hat !!

And it was great that it was filmed in Vancouver! I just want to say that Chris Diamantopoulos's role as Williams for that entire show, was Emmy worthy. It was uncanny how well he did. And to be as rapid-fire and as random and as creative as Robin Williams really is....WOW. There were scenes where Diamantopoulos had to say probably 20 rapid fire lines and do 15 different characters while delivering those lines, all while sounds as much like ROBIN WILLIAMS doing those characters.....well, that my friends is impressive acting. Its one thing to do a Robin Williams impersonation for a couple of minutes. Its another to do it for a whole TV movie.

I don't know how I felt about the whole show, and I don't know how much they played with the facts, but I do know that it was Chris Diamantopoulos that kept me watching. So for that, I give HIM a 10. I wanted to watch this, to get a inside look at the show. It told the story more of Robin Williams, then Mork & Mindy. Still, thought it was great. We got to see, Robin always being 'on', no matter what. The performance of Diamontopolous was awesome.

The introductions of the main players, seem so real to me. Roebuck as Garry Marshall was wonderful. He was so charming in this, which helped me get through all the Williams energy. The little behind the scenes pieces of his other shows (Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley), was enlightening. I also thought Richmond-Peck's Harvey was also a nice rock in the pond. (This is a good thing).

This movie told the age old story of Hollywood folks, going through the ups and downs of stardom. It kept me glued to my TV, and I learned to love Robin, well hell, mostly everybody seem to be the super people I sometimes think Hollywood is. Go figure.

I sometimes wonder why the network people are always played to be idiots. We never saw the head of ABC. Just heard him, like Charlie from Charlie Angels (I wonder if this way planed?). It seems so sad, that a show at number 1, could be so destroy by their own network.

I think this story could be told about anyone's life, as they climb the ladder of any job. Movie, and TV stars are always loved or hated by so many people, that you grew up with, you just want to reach back in their past, to remember your own past. I Remember watching the show, and always wondering what does happen in their personal lives.

Mork and Mindy, will always be part of me, and I got to see part of them. It may not all be the truth, it's also all not a lie, but in the end, it told me a wonderful sad, happy story. The premise is rather original and well thought-of, but unfortunately, siding a good story is very low budget that doesn't even allow for decent special effects. Jeff Fahey does his best amongst a poor cast, as does the always beautiful Linda Hoffman. They should make more movies together. The movie, while not worth much praise, warrants at least one viewing. I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.

In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.

*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth." I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's "running the show," so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending.

Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star "hated it" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!)

Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these "critics" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a "waist (sic) of time." Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase "altruism coefficient" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they "get it" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.

I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.

See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral "test" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion. Forget about Donnie Darko. I open with this because it seems that a good portion of the reviews I have read on The Box amount to the simple but weak argument that it doesn't hold a candle to Darko. It isn't that I disagree with that necessarily, I just feel that this movie is a different animal altogether and deserves its own analysis. There are points of comparison to be sure, but they are peripheral concerns when you consider that the key to the heart of each movie is different. In Darko, the driving force of the narrative is existential. In The Box, the driving force of the narrative stems from a moral dilemma. Believe me when I say that I understand the inclination to compare an innovative filmmakers'movies by looking for trends and patterns, but for me it is more important to approach each new film as a self contained entity first, and then broaden my gaze afterwards.

The Box is one of those films you get mixed feelings about because it seems to be in some sort of identity crisis. It isn't always sure what it wants to be. The twists are numerous, but easy to follow if not to predict. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a relatively believable pair of newlyweds who are in financial straits. A Box containing a "button unit" arrives on their doorstep and they are informed by a horribly burned man that if pushed the button will cause the death of one person whom they don't know, and they will receive one million dollars. One of the things The Box achieves is to conjure up this invisible fear that somewhere out there our actions have moral consequences. Before the button is pushed it has an eerie and seductive quality, alluring yet sinister. Once it has been pushed, events are set in motion that make the two leads question their own morality and deeply regret their fateful decision.

The notion that the Box is an experiment is interesting because for me it provides the movie with a paradox. If there are external beings developing an "altruism coefficient" based on data gathered by couples pushing and not pushing the button, then as the conspiracy unravels, we notice that ultimately it is a forced altruism: Be selfless or the species will be wiped out. I suppose the couples don't know the consequences of their actions when they are faced with making the decision, but they have no reason to suspect that The Box can do anything, so why would they choose altruistically? Is altruism devalued by the fact that we only care about it when presented with a problem in our own lives?

The psychological hurdles in this movie are everywhere. Push the button or don't, it's likely someone is messing with you. Take the money or don't, no one gives anything away for free. Search for the truth, the answers you find slowly reveal your demise.

I propose that The Box is an ironic work because it offers the false choice of free will while revealing that we are trapped in many metaphorical boxes. You can only choose to be free at the expense of another's life, is that freedom? No, it is only another box because then you become trapped in the consequences of your own morality. There is no escape for us because we live on earth and that is another Box. This is precisely why the external beings in the film are ultimately antagonists. They demand we conform to moral standards which rob us of our freedom. We made it to Mars, and we were burned for it and turned into slaves in a sick game.

The references to Jean Paul Sartre illustrate this point rather well. "You can only enter the final chamber free, or not free." Sure, but no matter the form in which we enter the chamber, it is a chamber nonetheless.

Trevor Nemeth The creator of Donnie Darko brings you a twilight zone themed tale of the oddest fashion. The film centers on a middle aged young couple living paycheck to paycheck in 1976. One day a mysterious box appears with a red button. Later on that day a spooky gentleman shows up and tells them that they have the choice to press the button and receive a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. It's a disturbing and provocative question suspensefully outlined in the trailer and TV spots. But let it be known that you just don't know what your in for until you see it. At times pretentious and a bit melodramatic the film is ultimately effective because of it's good performances and intriguing subject matter. It would be unfair to ruin any of the plot twists for you but lets just say the film will deliver on the aspects you expect it to and not completely fulfill others it begins to outline. There's a lot of apparent symbolism and subtext in the film which is both interesting and annoying as it wasn't so evident in his other superior film Donnie Darko. There isn't too much more to say without ruining the film for you. it's meant to inspire lots of cafe chatter afterwards. However, i'd also like to say It's shot well and has an appropriately aged look to it and it's worth a watch. Check it out. The Box is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. To explain my experience, let me use this word picture: Imagine that you have been binging on pixie sticks and paint fumes for the last month while watching nothing but Twilight Zone reruns. The resulting coma lands you in a hospital, where the nurse seems to get a kick out of shooting adrenalin into your IV. The dream that you have while in the coma will be something like this movie.

SUMMARY: A man shows up at the door of a couple. He gives them a box with a button on it. Press the button, they will get a million dollars in cash and a person they don't know will die. I'll try not to spoil anything, but from there things devolve into a plot so intertwined and complex and purely original that it will make you question your sanity. But hey, most of us have been sane for a while now, and change is good.

PROS: Amazing storyline, overall good acting, not a slow moment once it gets going. It asks questions of human morality that are rarely, if ever asked in popular culture. This movie is deep, it has meaning. Its not summer blockbuster special effects fluff (not that there's anything wrong with that); this movie had a relatively low budget and it showed in some places. But i think it is perhaps that very thing that makes me like it so much.

CONS: The first twenty minutes, before it gets going, are really quite slow. At the end of the movie, you will be so confused that you just have to sit down and think for a good half hour. I can guarantee that this movie will not get rave reviews from your peers or most critics; it is far too strange and there aren't explosions every three seconds. In fact there are no explosions of any kind in this movie (besides your brain popping from trying to understand exactly what the heck just happened). Personally I don't think this is a bad thing, but many will.

RATING: Easily a 9/10. I have never had an experience like watching this movie. The only reason I can't give it a 10/10 is that it is just too wrapped up in itself. There are several large things left unexplained at the end that are still bugging me as I sit here writing this. But overall, this is the best experience I have had in a movie theater in quite a long time. But be warned, you will not like this movie if you can't sit back, turn on your suspension of disbelief to about 150%, and prepare your brain to do some impressive acrobatics.

Visit www.thestuffblag.com for more reviews The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.

Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.

What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.

Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.

The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.

If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.

So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end – this is like an X-Files episode on steroids. Even for sci-fi this movie is movie is a little out there. Alright, more than a little... My first thought after watching it was that i had just lost my mind.

Don't watch this movie expecting another Darko. Darko fans are never going to like another Richard Kelly movie because of their freaky cult standards. Donnie Darko is a thing of the past, get over it.

Richard Kelly loves making movies that make you feel stupid for not understanding the 'Deeper meaning' the first time you watch them. To be honest I had to watch The Box twice before I liked it.

The deeper meaning- (to spare you a bunch of sociological psycho babble) Humans are self serving, we make decisions that can destroy our lives and don't open mail without a return address.

Summary: Creepy old man tells Cammeron Diaz if you push the button i will kill someone you don't know and give you a million bucks. Of course she pushes it and as promised by the creepy old gets a case of money. Then the movie takes a dive into the unusual. To spare my fingers the typing... For pushing the button, Diaz and her husband are cursed by supernatural alien beings, in an elaborate experiment to gage the morality of the human race.

I liked: The willingness of the movie to ignore the generic movie guidelines. Its different. Its intense. It has a deeper meaning (although its philosophy 101 material). It leaves you guessing. NOT A Hollywood ENDING!

I disliked: Why would any being with the technology to inhibit another life form devise such a ridiculous scheme? What god like alien has the patience for that? Diaz was good, but was there a need for the country accent? They live in Virginia.

I give it a 7 because Kelly didn't put as much attention to detail as with his other movies. Overall good flick. I wasn't sure on what to expect from THE BOX. I am a huge fan of Darko, but also saw the mess that became of Southland Tales, whether or not that was a studio botch up, who knows. With the Box I was pleasantly surprised. It was a throwback to classic sci-fi paranoia films that hint at much larger devious happenings, but center on an intimate character base.

The slow build, and creepy tension was very effective to the tone and theme of the entire film. Any change in such pacing, would have lead to the typical Hollywood or 'MTV' style, that just wouldn't have served this story's purpose correctly. Everything from the strange looking/acting extras littered throughout, to the low-end score, to the minimal explanation of what exactly was going on, added an entire focused thread of underlying dread, and the shrinking sense of hope for our greedy, though well meaning, lead characters. This was something well thought out and put into motion by Richard Kelly, from the first act through to the end. Richard Matheson's short story, which this was based on, NOT the Twilight Zone ep , which was another take on the story, was one of morality and greed which were still the central elements of THE BOX. Being only some 8 pgs long, expanding it into a feature with substance would have been no easy task, but was done so with style, originality and leaves the viewer with lingering thoughts about the film. Many have and will compare this to DARKO for whether or not it is as profound, but I found it to be an entirely different film, thematically and emotionally. It's tone is completely different, as are the messages and intents of this film. Where Darko left us with questions internally, THE BOX leaves the viewer with more external questions, involving the world around us. Such as, knowing human nature, would the test of the BOX ever come to an end? Decent acting, great creepy visuals, and looming atmosphere add to the slow chilling ride. Its not for everyone, but for those who get where its coming from, its a treat. I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find. There's nothing left undone about this Perry and Croft masterpiece - as good as any of the best episodes, thankfully it was still filmed in time before the late James Beck sadly passed away to be included in it to show his talent.

It shows right from the start, how the platoon is formed from the state of national emergency, showing the boys as inept under Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe) and Sergeant Wilson (John Le Mesurier) as they usually are through the series.

Along the way, Mainwaring does his usual longing to show authority but the chaps can't help but let him down at every turn, during wargames and suspecting an invasion. They have a chance in the film though to redeem themselves when they actually capture the Nazi airmen who take the church congregation hostage.

That was a nice finale especially as Mainwaring had been able to prove himself to the General, being given one last chance to shape up. A great film, plenty of good lines and laughs, it's another one for the DVD cupboard - I'm glad the BBC is repeating it - and on this day 2.8.08 they deservedly had 'Dad's Army Night'. Not to be missed! The second in director Cohen's trilogy of Second World War comedies (the others being ‘Till Death Do Us Part' and `Adolf Hitler - My Part In His Downfall') is a film version of the BBC's long running (and much loved) situation comedy. Like most transfers of television shows, this movie suffers from an absence of plot and is more a collection of sketches. Some of which work better than others for example the scene where a high ranking army officer floats down a river is a memorable, surreal moment.

The joy of this movie is it's representation of a past that probably never existed and an England which is defined by picturesque countryside and the chance it offers to see veteran scene-stealers such as John Le Mesurier given their biggest film roles. Arthur Lowe is superb as Captain Mainwaring, a bungler, who, when the chips are down, displays great courage and saves the day (the climax is probably the character's greatest moment).

Episodes of the television series are of course funnier but as an introduction to a British legend, you cannot find anything better. The 1970s are often regarded as a golden age of British television comedy, a period which saw numerous classic sitcoms as well as sketch shows such as "Monty Python's Flying Circus". The period was, however, emphatically not a golden age of British film comedy, and what worked well on television rarely transferred successfully to the big screen. The most triumphant exceptions to this rule were provided by the Pythons, but their best films ("Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian") were very different in conception to their TV show.

The main problem with adapting sitcoms for the cinema is that concepts devised to fit the BBC's 30 minute slots (25 minutes on ITV, which has to find room for commercials) do not always work as well when expanded into a feature film three or four times as long. Few people will remember the film versions of, say, "Up Pompeii!" or "Steptoe and Son" with the same affection as the television versions. In the case of many classic TV comedy shows ("Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em", "Yes, Minister", "Fawlty Towers", "The Goodies") no attempt was made to film them at all, for which we can be grateful. Characters such as Michael Crawford's Frank Spencer or John Cleese's Basil Fawlty can be hilarious in half-hour doses, but I doubt if they would remain as funny over two hours. One comedy programme (albeit a dramatisation of a comic novel rather than a sitcom in the normal sense) which might have worked in the cinema was "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", but any hopes of a film were dashed by the tragically early death of its star Leonard Rossiter.

"Dad's Army" was one of the few television sitcoms of the period which was turned into a decent film. (About the only other one I can think of was "Porridge"). This was possibly because it had an unusually large number of well-developed characters and derived most of its humour from the interactions between them. The original sitcom ran between 1968 and 1977 and told of the misadventures of a Home Guard platoon in the small seaside town of Walmington-on-Sea. (The Home Guard, initially known as the Local Defence Volunteers, was an auxiliary militia during World War II made up, for the most part, of men too old to serve in the regular forces). The film version is a three-act drama. Act I deals with the formation of the platoon and the recruitment of its members. In Act II they cause havoc during an Army training exercise. In Act III they succeed in capturing a group of Nazi airmen whose plane has been shot down.

The three key players in this drama are the platoon's commander, Captain George Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), and his two subordinates Sergeant Arthur Wilson (John Le Mesurier) and Corporal Jack Jones (Clive Dunn). Mainwaring, who in civilian life is the local bank manager, is a fussy little man, peering at the world through a pair of thick spectacles. It is he who takes the initiative in forming the Home Guard unit and who appoints himself its commander. He is pompous, officious, with an exaggerated sense of his own importance and of his own powers of leadership, the sort of man who does not suffer fools gladly. (And in George Mainwaring's world-view the term "fool" covers most of the rest of the human race). He does, however, have his good qualities. He is motivated by a genuine patriotic idealism and is capable of great physical courage, shown in his encounter with the Germans.

Wilson is Mainwaring's deputy at the bank. The two men are very different in character, something emphasised by a difference in appearance, Wilson being tall and thin whereas Mainwaring is short and stout. He comes across as being both more intelligent and better educated than his boss. (His accent suggests he may be a former public schoolboy). Nevertheless, he has ended up playing second fiddle both in civilian and military life, probably because he has the sort of passive personality which leads to pessimism and defeatism and an inability to take anything altogether seriously. Jones is an old soldier who now runs the local butcher's shop. (His promotion to Corporal is due mainly to his ability to bribe Mainwaring with black market sausages). His enthusiasm for his new role is matched only by his incompetence and ability to cause chaos. Although his catchphrase is "Don't panic!" he is prone to panicking at any given opportunity.

Several other members of the platoon are featured. Private Fraser, the dour Scottish undertaker, is even more of a pessimist than Wilson. (Catchphrase: "We're doomed, man, DOOMED!"). Private Godfrey is a gentle old man whose main concern is the whereabouts of the nearest lavatory. Private Walker is a sharp Cockney spiv and Private Pike (another bank employee) a spoilt mummy's boy. (Pike's mother is Wilson's mistress, although Wilson tries to keep this liaison secret from the disapproving Mainwaring). Two significant outsiders are the mild-mannered Vicar and the ARP warden, Mainwaring's detested enemy and quite his equal in pompousness and officiousness.

There are occasional bawdy doubles entendres ("Keep your hands off my privates"- Mainwaring is ostensibly referring to those soldiers who hold that rank), more so than in the television show which was surprisingly free of innuendo. (Its creators, David Croft and Jimmy Perry, would later go on to create comedy shows such as "Are You Being Served?" and "Hi-de-hi" which were notorious for suggestive humour). The film does, however, preserve much of the mixture of gentle wit, nostalgia and sharp characterisation which made the TV series so successful. 7/10 Overall, the Dad's Army movie is very funny, although the humour isn't quite as catchy and sparkly as in the TV and radio series. So where does this leave us, the viewers? If you've never seen Dad's Army then the movie is a good way of bringing yourself up to speed and getting hooked on the mad world of Walmington o/S. The downside is that you might not "get it" because, as I said, the humour in the movie is a bit on the stolid side.

For Dad's Army buffs the movie holds nothing new as the story is more or less a cutup of the TV series, but it's a unique chance of seeing your favourites in "high def" as compared to the shitty quality of the BBC video recordings.

The movie also features what must be the lamest holdup sequence in the history of the universe. I can't make up my mind if that's a positive or a negative, though. In my opinion dads army is thee best British sitcom of all time. I believe that if you just watch one episode of the show you cannot judge in completely on that one episode, (this include the movie) You must at least watch a series of this show, get inside the characters, become familiar with there surroundings and the situations which they are in. When you become familiar with the show then it will start appealing to you. Now the movie has a few changes to the series which is slightly disappointing, but it still works. Watch a series or two of the show first before you watch this. You'll not be disappointed. Good episode to watch is "No Spring for Frazer" This is surely British humour at its best. It tends to grow on you. The first time I watched it I couldn't quite figure out what it was all about but now I can watch the episodes over and over again and enjoy them every time. Often when TV series are transferred to the big screen, they lose their appeal. Not in this case! The historical accuracy in costumes, equipment and general art direction, like the TV series, is outstanding. A good example of comedy and farce, with excellent script and comedy actors in the right parts. Based on a classic TV series that stands alone in British TV Comedy history. 25 sitcoms had big screen spin-offs. Most of these came in the 1970's. Here is a list of all: Are you Being Served, Blackadder, Bless this House, Bottom, Dads Army, Father Dear Father, For the Love of Ada, George and Mildred, The League of Gentlemen, Love thy Neighbour, The Lovers, Man about the House, Nearest and Dearest, Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width, On the Buses (3), Please Sir, Porridge, Rising Damp, Steptoe and Son (2), That's your Funeral, Till Death us do Part (2), Up Pomeii (3), Whack-o, Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads and Whoops Apocalypse.

So there was a big-screen spin off of my all time favourite sitcom Dads Army. What the film focused on was when the men were enrolled. It showed the difficulties of getting a uniform and getting weapons. It was a big summary of the first series of Dads Army. At the end of the film they catch some German Spies in the church. The Home Guard come dressed as alter servers and had bayonets with them and defeated the Germans. The best bit in the film was when they were showing a HG lecture and a German lecture at the same time: German: Head office on the phone, would you get 10,000 bombs, (CUT TO HOME GUARD) GODFREY: Mrs Mainwaring on the phone, would you get 1/2lb of Brussel Sprouts.

This was probably the second best sitcom spin off movie, beaten only by Till Death us do Part (1969). It would have been better if at the start of the movie, it had already been formed, it was half way through the war. Though still an excellent movie, a good one for the family. Im a die hard Dads Army fan and nothing will ever change that. I got all the tapes, DVD's and audiobooks and every time i watch/listen to them its brand new.

The film. The film is a re run of certain episodes, Man and the hour, Enemy within the gates, Battle School and numerous others with a different edge. Introduction of a new General instead of Captain Square was a brilliant move - especially when he wouldn't cash the cheque (something that is rarely done now).

It follows through the early years of getting equipment and uniforms, starting up and training. All in all, its a great film for a boring Sunday afternoon.

Two draw backs. One is the Germans bogus dodgy accents (come one, Germans cant pronounced the letter "W" like us) and Two The casting of Liz Frazer instead of the familiar Janet Davis. I like Liz in other films like the carry ons but she doesn't carry it correctly in this and Janet Davis would have been the better choice. A lovely librarian, played by Playboy model Kristine DeBell, falls asleep and dreams herself into a strange world filled with extremely uninhibited people… These people love to sing and dance and fool around… Alice has a series of sensual adventures among these characters…

The film was originally shot as a poem to eroticism with few explicit sex scenes, which were eventually cut from its theatrical release… Videocassette versions, however, have had some of the original erotic encounters joined at the end with them…

For an extremely low-budget picture, the producers of this film did an extremely good job… The cinematography is full of life and energy, the dances and numbers quite professional, and the acting lovable… Without a doubt, it is one of the best adult fairy tales around… When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.

This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a "Porno" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.

The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.

I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was "dried" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).

The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was "orgy" based and we'll leave it at that!

When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.

Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.

I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.

***** out of 5. D. I saw this fine flick shortly leaving college. As I sat there happily watching Alice go from repressed virgin to sexual adventurer, I got to wondering why her sexual encounters seemed familiar. Then I remembered-- Intro Psych 101 Lecture! One of the lectures dealt with the Psycho-Sexual Stages of Developement, basically the shift over time on what part of the body and its attendant stimulations gets our main attention, as well as the changing emphasis on what gives us pleasure. Alice's first encounter is being bathed, with emphasis on the genitals and bottom. Her next encounter is an oral one with the Mad Hatter's dingaling. I forget the rest of the lecture and the order of Alice's encounters, but I do remember how well they matched. It's interesting to see a skin flick with some brains behind it, rather than the cliche "I'm here to deliver your pizza. Let's screw."

I don't see how Kristin DeBell's career could be wrecked by this film, as it was her first film. And Reagan's tiresome hypocrisies had yet to mar this land when it was released, but in a way he and his stooge Meese did affect Ms DeBell. When Meese was staging his anti-pornography commission (to distract people from his own criminal activities), Meese hired the services of an anti-porn activist named Judith Reisner. Reisner was obsessed with images she perceived as child pornography. She saw the "Alice" cover Ms DeBell did for Playboy and promptly announced she had scientifically proven that Ms DeBell was in fact a photo collage of parts from several grown women and the face of a ten year old. Yeah, right.... The first time I saw "Alice in Wonderland – an X-rated Musical Comedy", was in the early '80 in a Movie-Theater in N.Y. City with some friends. I remember we actually enjoyed it very much, although we were left wondering why all the "goodies" were covered by in various forms shaped colored patches and why the movie was suddenly jumping from one scene to the next one, leaving us guessing...what we just missed. Obviously it was the soft-core edited (chopped) version, which left me with the desire to watch it again soon, but in its original integral version. Well, more then 20 years went by, during which I forgot all about this movie and, only a few days ago, by sheer chance, I stumbled upon a heavily used VHS copy (which had seen better times: a bit washed-out colors, scratchy sound and a few flaws), but guess what? It's the original uncut version and, this time, I really had a ball! Humor, Musical and Porn may sound an awkward combination but, in this case, it really works and, unlikely the big majority of boring porn-flicks nowadays invading our screens, this is a really amusing and entertaining sex fantasy, which will not disappoint you. The direction is clever, the swift editing makes the movie fly like a bird, all the familiar characters are lovable or just plain funny, all the actors seem having a good time, the songs are catchy (worth mentioning the one about "growing up" sung by Alice at the beginning of the movie and the hilarious "What's a nice girl like you doing on a Knight like this"), the dance numbers are well choreographed and staged (amazingly energetic Terry Hall proves that she can "also" dance and dances enthusiastically her guts away...Don't worry, she also does what she was best known for...), the acting, the singing, the set, the costumes are of quality level and then...there is Kristine "Blue Eyes" DeBell, in the first starring role of her career and (oh boy!) she indeed has a few H.C. sequences! Personally I think they are absolutely not distasteful, on the contrary, they are spontaneous and quite arousing. She is young and (ohhh!) so very pretty; with the help of her new friends in Wonderland, she discovers her body and her sexuality so, she sings, she dances and...what do you expect? She is also experimenting sex! The closing sequence, when she finally makes love to her boy-friend, is exceptionally well photographed and directed and is the highlight of the movie. I think her "physique du role" (the innocent blue eyes and captivating smile) and her acting ability, make those explicit sequences more then acceptable and actually highly enjoyable. There is plenty of sex going on in (this) Wonderland and everybody seems eager to "get busy" with the first available boy(s) or girl(s), which means lot of hard-core action to be seen. On the other hand, some close-up shots, clearly "spliced in", just to make the "porn-hounds" really happy, are a bit redundant for my personal taste. In general, however, the sex-action is not offensive since handled with a great deal of humor and it blends almost seamlessly with the music, the dances and the comedy. If you think you and your partner can handle graphic sex, watch it together. Take my word, you will have an hour and a half of very good time (perhaps also an after-show extra action...) This is "Adult Entertainment" so be careful, don't leave this video around or among other kid's videos. If your 10 years old can put his hands on it, he might amuse himself, but you will be forced to provide embarrassing explanations about the reasons why "this" Alice behaves quite differently from the one he red about in Lewis Carroll novel or he watched on the Disney's video. I bet, you will not forget this "one-of-a-kind" very soon. It's a real shame that they don't mak'em like that anymore...! I give it a 9 out of 10. This is what porn used to be, this is a true classic. I mean, it is an x-rated musical based on an actual book! There is a real plot to it and how many x-rated movies can boast that these days? This belongs in an exclusive short-list of true pornographic movie classics, including Debby Does Dallas, Deep Throat, and Behind the Green Door. I think the problem with "pornographic movies" these days is that it's all about the "pornographic" and not about the "movie". Alice in Wonderland has graphic depictions of sex, sure, but it is actually telling a story at the same time. Not one of the typical "Oh, Mr. Police Man, don't write me a ticket" plots, this takes it another step further and makes it a musical! Fabulous! If you want to see an example of "good" porn, this is one of the best. Alice enters in a world of wonder... but not the kind of wonder that you remember as a kid. The Mad Hatter, the White Rabbit, the Queen and others (even Tweedledee and Tweedledum) show Alice some things about her body -- and other people's bodies -- that might be quite wonderful. A tale of love and lust the likes you've never seen.

Kristine DeBell appears as Alice. I must say, by 1970s standards, this may be the most attractive adult actress of her day. I believe this is her only film before moving on to mainstream work, but it was pretty much the best possible one she could have chosen (my love for all things Alice is no secret). Even better than "Fairy Tales" (which isn't really pornography, so, much).

The songs are cheesy, but fit the theme of the movie. One song, "What's a Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?" was pretty funny, and the others had similar themes going. The trial towards the end was well scripted, and fit very nicely into the world of Alice. The logic and humor were definitely accounted for.

What more can you say about a film like this? All I know is, for people who are used to adult films where it's just a 30-second lead-in to the sex, this one is going to overload you with plot and music. But, personally, I think there's something very special about this film and I hope it gets a nice DVD release with things touched up and special features (if that's even possible). I can see this being a cult film. Adult version of the classic Lewis Carroll tale is much better than you might expect. Here Alice is a virginal librarian who falls down the rabbit hole and learns to love sex and her own self image. Made at the time when adult films were creative endeavors with plots instead of just a series of sex scenes, this is a good looking little movie more akin to the low budget films of its day. Despite what you may think this film actually has a good script with funny jokes and good songs. Its an naughty little tale for adults. If you're wondering whether or not my recommendation is a good one or not consider that the film was pretty much only available in its non-hardcore version for the better part of the last three decades simply because the film stands up with out the sex, which is how I first saw the film years ago on cable TV. The relatively recent home video release on DVD put back the sex (in horribly grainy inserted clips) which makes it clear the removal of the shots was the best choice all around. If you're an open minded adult with a taste for something spicy I can heartily recommend this little film as a nice diversion. What can you possibly say? This is the uncut hardcore, musical Alice! It works too with a large energetic cast seemingly enjoying themselves to the hilt and whilst one could wish for a re-mastered version, I guess we are lucky to even have this video transfer. Pretty much a delight throughout. There are a couple of slightly off moments but this could have been embarrassing all through and it certainly is not. It also could have been and today would have been too camp. No, a very fine effort that is amusing, tuneful and just sexy enough. Fine performances particularly the Kristine DeBell in the lead and was that an unaccredited Richard Prior as the prone Knight being vigorously (if discreetly) ridden? I so much enjoyed this little musical fantasy I bought a copy to share with my friends. It is a pleasant and diverting change from our mundane lives..... I believe that we can all benefit from an active fantasy life, one of joy and indulgence, I heartily recommend it!

The performance is excellent, and the music uplifting! I only gave this nine stars instead of ten because i really don't approve of pornography all that much. pornography has a useful purpose in society(can't say i can always think of one)but it probably does.

personal viewpoints set aside, i really thought this film was pretty funny. i didn't buy this movie because it was pornography, i bought it because i am one of those 'Alice' obsessives who will watch anything about 'Alice in Wonderland'. i own just about every version there is on DVD so it was an obvious choice to complete my DVD collection with this. i must admit i was scandalized beyond my expectations, and the whole thing would have been thoroughly offensive if it hadn't been so damned funny. besides, the music is really good and i like musicals.

not everyone can make a good nudie musical. anyone that has seen 'The First Nudie Musical' knows what a stink-bomb that was. considering what a low budget Bill Osco worked with, 'Alice' is pretty remarkable as a musical(it's better than some musicals made on costly budgets).

the film can't totally escape the dirtiness of porn. I usually watch the XXX version for full shock effect and some of those scenes are scandalizing(scandalizing because we are talking about Lewis Carroll). i found myself feeling very uncomfortable and embarrassed during the scene where 'Alice'(Kristine DeBell) starts masturbating. it made me feel like a voyeur. and the gratuitous lesbian scenes with 'Alice' and the kitty-cats were a bit too racey.

the film has a great sense of humor about everything however. there is one especially funny moment during the Queen's orgy when one of the actresses gets up and says "who do i have to F---K to get out of this movie?". Hilarious.

i'm not sure i buy the whole sex is good for you ball your brains out philosophy here, but sex is human, and nothing human disgust me.(i don't know if i really feel that way, but i couldn't resist saying it)some people think everything should be about sex. i dunno. Jeez, just show some frick'in responsibility and decorum. this movie definitely scores points for the sex-minded, but i wouldn't push your luck, next time you might really freak someone out. i mean we are dealing with children's literature here. I remember seeing this movie for the first time with a friend while on vacation in Anaheim, California in October, 1976. While driving the tourist laden city streets , we saw a movie marquee advertising "ALICE IN WONDERLAND XXX." So before even checking out Disneyland's version of the Lewis Carroll classic a half mile away, our curiosity won out and we ventured into this cinematic threshold. I remember even before the movie began how surprised I was to see this kind of film appearing in staid, ultra-conservative Orange County.

Thirty two years later, I came across ALICE IN WONDERLAND at a local video store. I wondered to myself if this was the same film until I looked at the back of the jacket and saw a picture of lovely Kristine DeBell in the starring role and decided to rekindle some fond memories. Subversive Video, to their credit, has released two versions, X and XXX in the same package. As it turns out, the version my friend and I saw in Anaheim was rated X in spite of the original XXX advertising at the there. Seeing it the second time around makes me realize what a delightful romp director Bud Townsend brought to the screen. As an example of this man's scope behind the camera, in his salad days he directed two episodes of TV's DEATH VALLEY DAYS.

Miss DeBell, appearing in the April, 1976 cover of Playboy is ideal as Alice. She brings a fresh all American innocence to the role as a librarian in her early twenties yearning for a better life. When her boyfriend is rebuffed from taking their relationship to the next level, Alice reaches her turning point. This is a 'musical comedy' yet the melodies are quite catchy with appropriate strings and brass to offset the generally suggestive lyrics. Miss DeBell has a pleasant singing voice as she trills about wanting to be free. That's when the magic begins. The pacing of this movie is surprisingly fluid, given the genre and the supporting cast of Wonderland are there to enable Alice as she blossoms into womanhood. Special mention goes to TV veteran Larry Gelman as the White Rabbit who seems to be the only character not obsessed with sex as he is always running late for an appointment….or something.

Special features include comments from noted feminist advocate Lena Ramone who imparts how viewing this movie while attending college influenced her in choosing a career as an adult film actress after graduation.

What makes ALICE IN WONDERLAND such a delightful jaunt is its garden like setting. Partly filmed in the lush, natural splendor of Vancouver B.C.'s Stanley Park, the movie belies its pornographic roots. You don't come away feeling you've watched a sleazy skin flick. At this writing, I haven't viewed the triple XXX version. The extra sex footage tacked on afterward would, in all probability, disrupt the overall flow and remove the light, breezy atmosphere evident throughout.

Naturally, the Lewis Carroll version is the best way to curl up and explore Alice's adventures in Wonderland. However, for a time capsule representing 1970s' adult film archives, ALICE IN WONDERLAND is worth following that white rabbit for a ribald ride full of mirthful mayhem. This version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND is truly original. Equal parts porn, fairy-tale, and musical-comedy - this film is definitely a strange bit of adult-film history.

Alice is a sexually naive librarian who ends up following the rabbit into "Wonderland", where she meets all kinds of "experienced" weirdos like the Mad-Hatter (who likes to pull his dong out whenever possible), Humpty Dumpty (who broke his wiener along with his shell), Tweedledee and Tweedledum (a brother/sisters sex-crazed duo), and the bi-sexual Queen - among others.

This version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND is actually quite tame by the standards of the time - a time when a lot of porn was mean-spirited and nasty (as noted by the "roughie" sub-genre) - this one is actually quite funny and strangely endearing. It's the kind of thing you'd show your kids - if it weren't for the graphic sex. A little slow getting to the "good-stuff"...but genuinely entertaining. Oh - and some of the musical numbers are downright hilarious. If you're a drinker - have a few, if you're a smoker - roll a couple and give this one a shot. 8/10 Wonderful movie. Adult content. Lots of erotic scenes plus excellent music and dance scenes. My wife and I absolutely loved this movie and wish they'd make more like it. I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.

In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.

Pornographic? - Hardly!.

Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.

R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.

Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.

I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.

Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved. I first saw this on the big screen with my girlfriend. It was a fun romp with some cool music. Kristine was on the Playboy cover, and the centerfold, as I recall. She's really cute and perky and has lots of charm. The movie made me want to see more of her and so I kept a look out for her in other stuff. She's in Steven Spielberg's "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and Barbara Streisand's "The Main Event" and Bill Murray's "Meatballs", plus lots of TV shows like Night Court and TV movies. Me and my friends really enjoy her. But her starring role in Alice in Wonderland puts the focus right where it ought to be, right on Kristine as the center of attention, probably the prettiest, hottest girl I've ever seen in movies. I thought the movie was great. I thought Kristine DeBell was GREAT and was glad to see her move on into some more interesting roles. I even overlook the fact that the print I have wasn't quite put back together correctly. But, who cares? This movie was released originally as a soft "X", apparently with the explicit sex deleted. Later, the producers "relented" (smelled money) and re-released it with the excised scenes restored (apparently only about 3 minutes). I guess since Kristine was of age, it was held against her and her promising career came grinding to a halt. I guess its all in the timing (witness Pam Anderson's career)--but Ronald Reagan was in charge during Kristine's debacle (we had not heard about Nancy Reagan's affairs), Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were in full swing during Pam's "coming out".

The sex is just icing on the cake, both version satisfy. This naughty musical is way above similar of others that were released at the same time. I had no idea who Bruce Haack was before seeing this film. I had just seen the MOOG doc, which was alright, the only problem was Moog led a very content life, and the doc was well... content. Haack's story is filled with all the marketable tragedy people buy into these days, but it carries a great deal of heart with it. Though the film doesn't go into the tragic stuff so much, one can sense that Bruce accepted the price of making music his way. There are so many elements that make up his legacy IE. invention of the Peopleodian, where Bruce could actually play music by touching people. It must have been challenging to document Haack's 'scatter-brained' output, which pretty much fell into every musical category imaginable (even rap music), but the director cut the piece together very coherently and managed to capture the spirit. And the cast... what a group of characters Bruce surrounded himself with, but what do you expect from a telepathic guru, tripping with kids, fighting against the music industry. I recommend this film to anyone interested in music history, it's that mainstream, but that important. I want to start my review by thanking the makers of this documentary, it is obviously a labor of love and I think they did a pretty good job of putting together an enjoyable documentary about a person who has had so such little info available about him. It definitely has a fan worship feel about it, which is a good thing.

I had heard of Bruce Haack but didn't know much about him, and I found the start of this documentary frustrating because I could hear other musicians talk about him, but Bruce Haack himself was kept way too far off in the distance. I wanted to see this Bruce Haack guy!! I felt as though the makers assumed I already knew him as well as these musicians on the screen which I didn't, so I felt a bit left in the dark.

When Bruce was finally shown in action it was great and gave me a taste of who Bruce Haack was, but it was only a taste. We got treated to more musicians and I felt as though I was being told "Look - all these cool musicians are into him, so he must be cool!" I didn't really care much for the musician's commentary on Bruce.

I wanted to see Bruce, as a person. You know, the important stuff - more interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. More about his life, and yes, his use of drugs and other issues. I would of liked to know so much more about his "Hackula" project. I wanted to get inside his mind. Even if they did this via some "voice of god" commentary and photos it would of been OK.

The animations were good, but again I felt these were used as filler, they didn't really do anything other than allow me to hear his music and see some imagery based on the Dimension 5 records. I did think it was clever and creative, but again... I wanted to learn more about Bruce!

Maybe Bruce Haack was this elusive in real life?

Anyway - in the end I enjoyed this documentary and felt a sort of sadness that such amazing pioneers and geniuses such as Mr. Haack get forgotten as the march of time stamps ever onwards. I am glad that this film is around to educate people about Bruce Haack, even with its flaws. George Sanders playing the Saint for the penultimate time does a good job out of a good script - with the usual good RKO cast around. It's a non-Charteris story too, bristling with murders and good clean fun.

Thread 1: In New York, Police Inspector Fernack, Templar's friend is framed in a corruption scandal and disgraced - ST comes over from London to try to put things right. Nice and simple so far - but is there really more than $90,000 in the world? Thread 2: Another tale of a woman taking revenge on the people who murdered her brother, Wendy Barrie does well in bumping off some nasty men and having the Saint fall in love with her to boot. Including a baddie who was under their direct protection and in Fernack's cellar - there's a creepy shot of him (dead and staring) and them in a car when they're taking him back to where they'd got him. Paul Guilfoyle as Pearly Gates must have supposed to have been homosexual in this - witness the dressing gown at the beginning, and the later beguiling comment by ST that he was thinking of keeping him as a pet - and did too for "Palm Springs"! Fernack was played by Jonathan Hale as usual but this time with such a beaten deflated attitude that what he really needed was a good slapping from Templar to liven him up.

The Hays Office also made sure you got the picture right, all threads are tied up with no straggly bits. Well worth watching for all of us who like this kind of thing, but if Val Kilmer's version is your yardstick then don't bother. Excellent entry in the RKO Saint series with well-written original script, good camera work and transitions, good directing to handle some twists in the plot, good editing to keep the flow constant, and good acting. George Sanders is suave and witty. Jonathan Hale simply is Inspector Fernack. Paul Guilfoyle plays a mobster who goes straight (and drinks milk) because he cannot take the pressure. He will return in a later entry in the series. Story begins on an ocean liner headed to the U.S. where the Saint meets but cannot connect with Wendie Barrie. She eventually succumbs to the Saint's charms but she breaks his heart in the end. The Saint assists Inspector Fernack clear his name from a frame. A few bodies fall along the way. Good entertainment and above average for this type of film. Watch it. This is a better-than-average entry in the Saint series - It holds your interest and, as mysteries should, keeps you guessing until the end and has several suspects to choose from.

Many films from the Golden Age are not for all tastes, especially younger viewers. They date themselves by clothing, cars, settings, etc. Who nowadays asks for a highball? Or wears a suit and tie everywhere? And the legal process was so much simpler - must have been a dearth of lawyers back then. Frankly, much of value is missing from those days.

In any case, go with it and enjoy. It's good - in an old-fashioned sense. This nifty little movie demonstrates the rock-solid virtues of a time, place and kind of masculine strength that we no longer have or even aspire to have. The Saint is a paladin with only the best motives, to say nothing of a polished vocabulary and diction. No need to turn up the volume or read the dialog. George Sanders is so charming and, yes, low-key that all that talent, smarts, physical presence and above all, masculinity, seem, well, almost normal. Some normal! George Clooney can not begin to master the scene as Mr. Sanders does (and does without Mr. Clooney's mugging).He could play a sniveler (witness The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Rebecca) but when he was good, he was very, very good. Truly, a man for all reasons and seasons. The above summary really isn't meant as a slam against this film, as the series followed a very similar format. As usual, Simon Templar ("The Saint") meets a lady in distress and comes to her aid. He also comes to the aid of a police detective who was framed of accepting a bribe. Along the way, he meets some interesting supporting characters (this time, Paul Guilfoyle as "Pearly" Gates) and during his unraveling of this not especially compelling mystery (none of them really are), Templar is extremely erudite and just plain cool! George Sanders is once again the consummate sophisticated British do-gooder and he succeeds once again in making an excellent B-detective series film. Nothing particularly special, but a familiar and breezy product sure to please fans of the genre. "The Saint Takes Over" stars George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka "The Saint" in this 1940 entry into the series. It also stars Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale and Paul Guilfoyle. On board ship en route to the U.S., The Saint meets and tries to make time with a woman (Wendy Barrie) who gives him the brushoff. Simon is coming to New York to help Inspector Fernack, now thoroughly discredited due to a gangster frame-up; $50,000 was found in his home. The gangster, Rocky (Roland Drew), of course, was found not guilty at trial, and he and his fellow mobsters pay the bill for the frame and attorney representation - $90,000 in total. Today you need that to defend yourself against a parking ticket. This was a murder rap.

Rocky sends his bodyguard, Pearly Gates (Guilfoyle) to the lawyer's house to steal the $90,000 from the safe. The attorney catches him red-handed and sends him back to his boss with a message. Seconds later, he's dead. Rocky meets a similar fate. And on and on - who's killing this group of gangsters? The Saint has to get one of them to talk so that Fernack can be cleared - can he get to anyone before they're murdered? The woman he met on board ship reappears and figures prominently in the case.

Few actors have a way with a line like George Sanders, and his dry wit, good looks, smooth voice and depth as an actor suit Simon Templar perfectly. Paul Guilfoyle provides some humor as the nervous, milk drinking Pearly Gates, and Jonathan Hale is great as the sometimes exasperated but worried sick Inspector Fernack. Wendy Barrie, who appeared in many Saint episodes, is very good as the woman who captures Simon's heart.

Very enjoyable. These cartoon writers are unrelenting with their corny (and fun) puns. The first shot we see in here is an island prison with the following written above its big gates: "Alka-Fizz Prison - No Noose Is Good Noose." Inside the prison, the first sign we see is "Welcome: have a seat." They then show an electric chair.

Corny gives way to clever, however, as our favorite wolf is seen behind bars. With pen in hand, he literally draws a door next to him and then escapes through it! In no time, he has criss-crossed the United States, zipped up through Canada and is in the northern part of that country. It's there we see the Canadian Royal Mounted Police and, of course, our hero Droopy, known here as "Sgt. McPoodle." He has the assignment of catching the at-large criminal from Alka-Fizz. So, with his trusty little blue horse, he goes out in the heavy snow to track down the wanted wolf.

From that point, we get the normal story: Droopy always being a step ahead of the wolf, no matter what the latter does....and both characters are involved in some wild and very funny sight gags. Droopy even pops out of an eagle's egg on top of a mountain. There is nowhere the wolf can go - or do (plastic surgery!) to escape the intrepid "Sgt. McPoodle." Nobody, by the way, in the history of cartoons perhaps has more exaggerated reactions, either, than this wolf each time he sees his nemesis! His screams, facial and body stretched out in horror each time is a big part of the sight gags.

You'd think this one-joke cartoon would get monotonous but it doesn't. It's more good stuff from Tex Avery and the gang, just one of 24 cartoons in the "Complete Theatrical Collection" DVD with wonderful-looking restored visuals. Come on. Anyone who doesn't understand the greatness of this here cartoon should be kicked off any critic's panel. They should not be allowed to be heard, because they obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Anyone who does not love this here animated cartoon directed by Tex Avery should be chained to a chair and forced to watch "Huckleberry Hound" episodes for 20 years straight!

The takes and double-takes by the Wolf in this cartoon are the finest examples of this important past of comedy that have ever been captured on film.

Tex Avery should receive a posthumous Academy Award for this cartoon. It's the best. This animated short is a remake of one of Tex Avery's earlier shorts for Fred Quimby at M-G-M (Dog Gone Tired). An escaped convict (here just known as Joe)who just broke out of 'Alka Fizz Prison' tries to keep one step ahead of Droopy (known here as Sgt.McPoodle of the Mounties),but always manages to run into him,one way or another. This is easily one of the most side splitting,funny shorts that rolled out of the M-G-M animation studio. It manages to get most of it's laughs from the shocked reactions Joe has whenever he encounters McPoodle (including some equally deranged sound effects-i.e..car horns,screaming,elephants,etc.). As with any Avery M-G-M short,frantic,kinetic pacing is to be expected (along with some nice, surreal sight gags-i.e.Joe trying to run away from McPoodle & actually running off the side of the film). Pop this one into your DVD player & laugh yourself silly. Tex Avery's tenure as director of cartoons for MGM was in the 1940s and 50s was one of the brightest moments in cartoon history. His cartoons were exceptionally inventive and surreal with MANY weird touches that were later celebrated in the movie THE MASK. Eyes popping out when a guy sees a girl, impossible stunts and non-stop action were the trademarks of these films.

This is one of several Droopy cartoons that Avery was responsible for and it's among his best. Droopy is a Mountie and he is determined to get his man,...though in this case it's a wolf who has escaped from prison. Throughout the film, despite many insane stunts, Droopy keeps up with this crook until eventually the wolf gives up because Droopy is seemingly everywhere! Full of funny gags and loaded with laughs, this is a great cartoon. What a strange atmosphere is being created in the streets and on the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco in this exciting action picture. Although the characters and the story are in fact bad, it still has a certain cult-flair. I'm seen this documentary in its feature-form, in a movie theatre. And... wouah! The pictures are astonishing, one really wonder how by Jove did they manage to film those waves, those animals, those... is that a plant ? a predator ? a creature from the movie Abbyss ? Anyway, it's remarkable. Sure we've seen a lot of such documentary on TV, with weird animals and so on, but none with such a beauty, a precision, a deep emotion. The only downside is the commentary. In French it's narrated by François Perrin, usually good and familiar with beautiful documentaries, but the text is not good at all. Not enough informative of too much, innapropriatly anthropoid... The entire series, not just The Blue Planet, is nothing short of amazing. The best nature series we have ever seen. The episode on the deep is like traveling to outer space! We have watched this with our 10 and 7 year old boys and all four of us have not been able to pull away. We read a negative comment on this and could not believe it. There is so much new information that we never learned in school. Its also the best view we have seen from any television or movie into the delicate balance of our earth's eco-system. The amount of time and effort put into capturing these shots is very much apparent when you sit down and watch this series.

A must see for everyone. Everything I can say, is that it's one of the best documentary movies of the ocean ever seen. It impresses immensely by professional filming, scenery and idea! What I've seen during those 50 minutes cannot be compared to any other visions of the blue planet An stunning look at the ocean and the life in it.

The Good:

The camera work was absolutely phenomenal. Every shot is done beautifully.

It was interesting seeing all the different animals that I could have never even imagined.

David Attenborough has the perfect narrator's voice. No one could have done any better.

The Bad:

There were one or two different times where there was a reference to the Earth being 1 million years old ( I hold a different belief).

Overall a TV series anyone can enjoy. I highly recommend buying it. 10/10 stars. Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.

The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.

Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all. I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .

Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie "The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends," says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. "And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us..." And we're off on a first-class Gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money.

Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church?

Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us.

This BBC/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil.

At one point, Marian tells us, "My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them." Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura. Fate puts a pair of priceless items in Ernest's hands and he gets kidnapped and taken to Africa because of it. This was my first Ernest film so I can't compare it to his others, but I thought it was fairly amusing. Good stuff if you like slapstick humor and plain old clowning around. Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable. An Intelligent and well obtained film worth to export!

In this exiting and really intelligent movie filmed entirely in Bogotá, you can feel the total meaning of the word "Bluff"(although is a Colombian film, the title is in presented in English); !

The story is about Nicolas Andrade (Federico Lorusso), a photographer who find his girlfriend Margarita (Catalina Aristizabal) having an affair with his boss Pablo Mallarino (Victor Mallarino), owner of a magazine; after this Nicolas is left without girlfriend and without any job. Nicolas revenge to Mallarino consists in following him and obtaining photographs of him with his new affair Alexandra (Carolina Gomez) to blackmail Mallarino in order to obtain money in change for not showing the photographs to Margarita.

The story is really intelligent and well related, to the point that you'll understand fully the meaning of the title, the movie shows a thriller with a lot of a comic scenes and characters, resulting in a real pleasure to someone that enjoy the movies focused on a good script.

I stand out here that this film is different from the typical Colombian movies that show's some dark and violent image of our beautiful country, which is something really refreshing. Some critics say that this story don't show Colombian typical way of living, so it could be held in any part of the world, i disagree with this: (1) the movie is totally filmed in Bogotá, so you can see streets, and images of the real Colombian capital (i hope that some American people and movie producers watch this so they stop showing Amazonic jungle, or Mexican little towns in Bogota as on some Hollywood movies), (2) the characters, dialogs, accent (with exception from Nicolas that is from Argentina) are totally from here, Rosemary (Veronica Orozco) has an accent typical from Cali, (3) you can also see social and cultural differences from the common people in Bogotá. I hope that all this, plus an English title move people from other countries to watch this masterpiece of Martinez

Excellent acting of Veronica Orozco, Luis Eduardo Arango (detective Wilson Montes), Felipe Botero, outstanding as detective Ricardo Perez, and good acting of Mallarino, Catalina Aristizabal and Federico Lorusso.

A movie worth to export, that people from around the globe will surely understand and enjoy!, Don't miss this movie 9/10! I actually went to see this movie with low expectations since it was the only one that fit my schedule. And amazingly I found it really original. I have commented on other Colombian films before, and I agree that Colombian movies tend to have a similar scheme, and always try to make reference to the average vulgar people,especially trying to make jokes out of the continuous cursing. But let's face it, the language used in this film is not especially exaggerated. Unfortunately, this is how real people speak. The storyline and the pacing are brilliant, and it could be extrapolated to any country in the world The acting was great, and the script is to me one of the best ones ever produced in Colombian soil. I think that anyone around the globe can get a good one hour and a half of entertainment, with a beautifully well directed bluffing black humor comedy. It kind of reminded me of films like snatch, and others of the sort. I highly recommend it and hope it can be viewed by more people, since Colombian movies seem to have started to be more internationally focused since last year. Bluff I really think this movie is very good.

Is basic a different kind of Colombian movie. Is hilarious and the actors uses local expressions that are so much fund to listen.

It shows a different face o Bogotá and I think that's very important because Colombia is a diverse country and we need to show that to the world This is the first movie of the director Felipe Martinez and I really except this movie will be the beginning of a great career as a film director.

We need to continue support Colombian filming industry, because this movie and others good films are the beginning of something big. 'Bluff' has been showing for a good few months at movie theatres in Bogota, and today I finally got round to seeing it. I didn't really know what to expect at all, but was very happily surprised. It is a crime comedy of the same ilk as Snatch etc, and it manages to nicely balance elements of suspense with comedy. The style of the film is established early on with cheerful music and the Argentinean narrator who makes asides direct to camera -- odd the first time, but subsequently fitting naturally.

With my less-than-perfect Spanish, I still found the plot and dialogue easy enough to follow, and plenty of the comedy is situational. My Colombian girlfriend was laughing a lot at the various portrayals of people from different regions and social classes which did pass me by somewhat, but for instance a well-acted portrayal of a pompous idiot in a position of power is funny in any language.

I think it is to this film's credit that it has something of a global flavour: I wasn't often reminded that this was Colombia that I was watching. Yet it is important to note that many wealthy Bogotanos do live like some of the characters in this film, and it is not a mis-portrayal of Bogota or Colombian society in any way, just a *selective* portrayal -- as is any film supposedly portraying a 'real' situation/culture.

I don't know how much of the comedy would be lost in subtitles, but if it comes to your country definitely go check it out: it is a very slick and enjoyable movie with great elements of black humour. And all in a tightly packaged 90 minutes. This film is one to spend the short while, entertainment, but who then could be made in nobody country it does not have anything identifies "the Colombian". Who looks for the topics of the supposed Colombian or socially and politically correct cinema and what it is denominated "it jeopardize",it is better than it is not going to see this film. Some to the drug traffic, or the fight is no reference either farmer and worker, or wing guerrilla and to the kidnapping political.

The corrupt police is a personage who it could be Mexican, Russian, Italian or Chinese, and also the personage protagonist, an Argentine photographer, it could be Venezuelan, Peruvian or Philippine and the frequent "boludo" in its parliaments it could be replaced by another word of slang of any other country without the personage or history changes. The important thing is that it is a very decently counted history with images and right performances. Its quality almost is of TV movie but of the good ones. That if one film like this if it deserves or does not deserve the support with publics bottoms a little is a classic discussion "mamerta". Hallelujah!!!! …Finally, a true Colombian film crosses the border(s) to shows how Bogotá and Colombia really are! I am an American of Colombian and French heritage sick and tired of seeing Colombia so perversely and ignorantly portrayed by Hollywood and others.

How many of you are aware that Colombia is the second oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world (after the USA), or that it has a vibrant film and television industry (-to say nothing of Ugly Betty), that it's capital, Bogota (Pop. 9 Million) is the "world Capital of the Book," or that this beautiful city is host to the world's LARGEST International Theatre Festival? I hope that Doug Liman, Simon Kinberg (-Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Robert Zemeckis, Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) one day visit Bogotá, to see how wonderful it really is, and focus on Bogotá's cultural vitality and diversity, instead of myopically producing films such as Maria Full of Grace from which Joshua Marston profited greatly (for this terrific film) without ever thinking-through about the ontological damage his film would help to perpetuate upon the "unfairly tarnished image" of Colombia.

-Anyway, you will at least enjoy Bluff very much! -Oh, and thanks IMDb for your invaluable/great work!!! "When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spinoff of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy."

In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. - A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the "clue" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.

- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.

- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.

- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a "feel good" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill / Bud Spencer films. Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire. George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven. "When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spin off of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy." In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. My name is Evren Buyruk from Crestline California A gang of bandits lead by the shrewd, rugged, ruthless Monetero (a perfectly imposing performance by Gilbert Roland) steals $300,000 worth of gold coins during a daring train robbery. But untrustworthy member Bahunda (an amusing turn by Jose Torres) makes off with the coins and hides them. Unfortunately, Bahunda gets killed before he can tell Monetero where he stashed the booty. So Monetero has to join forces with cunning, cocky, enigmatic bounty hunter the Stranger (smoothly played by the handsome George Hilton) and cagey, corrupt banker Clayton (a delightfully weaselly portrayal by 50's teen idol Eddie "Kookie" Burns) to find the coins. Skillfully directed by Enzo G. Castellari, with a clever, complex and twist-laden script by Castellari, Tito Carpi, and Giovanni Simonelli, a playfully amoral and nihilistic tone (everyone keeps double and triple crossing each other with happily greedy abandon), a twangy, flavorsome, spirited score by Alessandro Alessandroni and Francesco De Masi, plenty of stirring shoot-outs and rousing rough'n'tumble fisticuffs, a wickedly sly sense of self-mocking humor, a steady pace, and a real doozy of a surprise ending, this giddy and often hilarious feature makes for an inspired send-up of Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Popping up in nifty secondary parts are the luscious Stefanie Careddu as Monetero's fiery gal pal Marisol, Ivano Staccioli as a hard-nosed army captain, and Gerard Herter as flinty lawman Lawrence Blackman. An immensely amusing and enjoyable romp. This enjoyable Euro-western opens with a scene that predates a similar scene that Sergio Leone wanted to shoot for "Once Upon A Time in the West" but couldn't persuade Clint Eastwood to appear in. Three tough-looking gunfighters ride into a town. One is dressed like the Man with No Name in a poncho. Another is dressed like Colonel Mortimer from "For A Few Dollars More," and the third is garbed like Django, except he rides a horse instead of pulls a coffin behind him with a machine gun in it. Our hero meets them in Main Street behind a wagon loaded with three coffins. "Any Gun Can Play" is a spaghetti western with an in-joke on spaghetti westerns since the hero here wipes out the three killers. Aside from a little too much comedy, especially in the acrobatic fight sequences, this is an above-average oater.

The notorious Mexican outlaw Montero (Gilbert Roland of "Barbarosa") and his gang of trigger-happy pistoleros rob an army train transporting $300-thousand dollars in gold coins across the frontier. Director Enzo G. Castellari of "Inglorious Bastards" stages the hold up from a variety of camera angles that thrust you into the forefront of the action. The bandits seize the locomotive along with the coach carrying the gold and separate it from the rest of the train that houses the U.S. Cavalry. While Montero and his gunmen keep the Cavalry pinned down, Pajondo (Pedro Sanchez of "Sabata") commandeers the locomotive, kills the engineer and his crew and trundles it away, leaving the other pistoleros behind to fend for themselves. Essentially, Pajondo double-crosses Montero and steals the gold for himself. Later, Montero catches up with Pajondo at the Rio Grande. Before the bandit can reveal the whereabouts of the loot to Montero, however, a Cavalry sergeant shoots Pajondo dead. Before he dies, Pajondo tells Montero about a medallion that serves as a clue about where he stashed the treasure. The irate Cavalry captain (Ivano Staccioli of "Commandos") imprisons Montero, but he cannot loosen the bandit's tongue even after he uses his whip on him. Infuriated by Montero's reticence, the captain threatens to have the Mexican shot if he doesn't talk. Meanwhile, the jailers let a priest speak to Montero, but he really isn't a priest. The six-gun toting Stranger (George Hilton of "The Ruthless Four") masquerades as a man of the cloth and rescues Montero from a firing squad. Unfortunately, before Montero is rescued, Clayton (Edd Byrnes of TV's "77 Sunset Strip") takes the medallion away from him and keeps it for himself. Clayton is the bank representative that was sent to safeguard the gold. He is horrified that the Captain wants to shoot Montero. Clayton's career at the bank hinges on his ability to recover the gold. The Stranger stages a fire at the fort to distract the firing squad and Montero takes the Captain as hostage and tries to escape, but the Stranger shoots him off the horse. Before the authorities can verify that Montero is dead, the Stranger claims the body for the handsome reward he will receive and he rides out with the Captain's gracious thanks. No sooner have they left the fort than Montero's men show up to rescue him from the Stranger. From this point on, the Stranger, Montero, and Clayton forge short-lived alliances among each other as they search for the gold. Castellari and scenarist Tito Carpi, who has penned a number of spaghetti westerns such as "A Few Dollars For Django" and another Castellari oater "Seven Winchesters for a Massacre," rely on clever humor and surprise reversals to keep the action fresh and fast-paced. One cool scene has Clayton seated at a table about to eat his meal when he hears some suspicious sounds from behind him. Clayton pours his drink on the table and sees the gunmen behind him with holstered six-guns.

"Any Gun Can Play" lives up to its title. In fact, many guns do play, and at least twenty or more corpses pile up before fade-out. This western isn't so much a parody as it is a knock-off of Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Mind you, bad guys and good guys fall as frequently as ten-pins in a bowling alley, but their deaths aren't depicted in the brutal fashion of a Leone western. "Any Gun Can Play" doesn't take itself as seriously as the aforementioned Leone masterpiece. The three leads jockey back and forth for supremacy. Each has a piece of the puzzle that will lead them to the treasure, but they refuse to share their information until the shoot'em up finale. Lenser Giovanni Bergamini's colorful widescreen photography is spectacular, especially the opening shots of the train chuffing along railway tracks with distant mountain peaks rearing up dramatically in the background. Another great shot occurs when Montero tests the Stranger's imperturbable calm. This scene happens after the Stranger has rescued Montero and the Mexican's minions arrive to save their chieftain's bacon. Confiscating the Stranger's six-gun, Montero takes aim at the poncho-clad tough guy and empties the revolver, placing his well-aimed bullets harmlessly in and around the unflinching gunslinger. Bergamini, who photographed Castellari's World War II thriller "Inglorious Bastards," frames the scene with the Stranger in the background and his pistol in Montero's hand in the foreground for a pleasing, three-dimensional style shot. Meanwhile, Francesco De Masi's lively orchestral soundtrack is as memorable for its own idiosyncratic melodies as Ennio Morricone's soundtracks were for the Leone westerns. The opening song is reminiscent of a 1950's Hollywood western with its catchy lyrics and guitar riffs. Although it isn't a major spaghetti western, "Any Gun Can Play" is always entertaining nonsense with interesting plot twists and good performances, especially the indefatigable Gilbert Roland who was 62 years old at the time! A train holding union soldiers is transporting $300,000 of gold, along with a banker Clayton, who's there to see it reaches its destination, but it's suddenly robbed by the bandit Monetero. However Bahunda nicks off with the gold and hides it, but when Monetero tries to get it out of him, he's killed by soldiers. The only clue is that of a medallion, but Monetero is captured and soon would be executed. A stranger dressed up as a priest comes by (who after the bounty of Monetero) and offers to save his life for half of the gold. In exchange Monetero gives him half of the medallion, but Clayton notices it and discovers something is up. Soon all three are crossing each other for the gold, but also the bank's insurance company and Monetero's gang are watching on, waiting for their chance to pounce.

Just watching the opening sequence you'll know you're in for a spaghetti western with a tongue-in-cheek style and a reliance of sprinkling many references (some nicely realised) from other films (largely the Dollar trilogy) of its sub-genre. Director Enzo Castellari's sprightly direction is sprawling and mostly lightweight, but there's potential in many of his grand, showy set pieces and smooth rhythmic pace. Largely there's a lot of tussles, fist-fights (and plenty of acrobatic stunts) taking place, compared with all-out vicious shootouts. However most of these stunts are very well done, and very enjoyable and when the guns are blazing there's energy to burn. The traditional story sticks close to conventional details, but since there's a lot of conniving and outfoxing going on, the spontaneous nature makes sure you're never quite certain how it's eventually going to play out between the three. This leads up to many effective suspenseful moments, clever twists, and plenty of wink, wink. The humour within the starch script is pretty sly. Worked in favourably amongst the light and zesty style, is Giovanni Bergamini's dynamically taut framing and Francesco De Masi's impulsively rousing music score. The performances are extremely well tailored and form a striking rapport. George Hilton's wry and scuffed turn is solid as the ambiguous stranger. Gilbert Roland brings class and intelligence to his formidable Mexican bandit Monetero. Edd Byrnes gives a poised performance as Clayton, that holds up well. Kareen O'Hara doesn't get much to do, but is a worthy looker. Gerard Herter, Pedro Sanchez and Ivano Staccioli provide able support.

A fun and worthy spaghetti parody/homage that throws one curve-ball after another and many fruitful down 'n' dirty antics. "Any Gun Can Play" (1967), directed by Enzo G. Castellari, is a very good pastiche of Spaghetti Westerns, especially Leone's. The first half is great, which, apart from the opening which is a direct nod to "For a Few Dollars More", with Monco, Colonel Douglas Mortimer and El Indio lookalikes walking into a ghost-town and then promptly killed by a Bounty Hunter called "The Stranger", is entirely serious, with great gunfights (especially the train-robbing scene), fast and furious action and nice performances from Gilbert Roland, George Hilton and (who manages well, considering that he is badly miscast) Edd Byrnes. But then, when the film reaches the half-way mark, there is a jokey fist-fight between Hilton and Byrnes. It isn't very funny, and is the weakest part of the film, but it throws everything you have seen previously in a new light. You realise that in fact the whole thing is a spoof of Spaghetti Western conventions, and in retrospect, the first half is so well done that you completely miss this spoof undercurrent. What now follows is a more obvious parody, with even some acrobatic jumping around from Brynes that predates all those seventies Circus Westerns. The ending, a complete send-up of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" climax, is very well done, as in other hands it could have been very silly. So, a pretty fun Spaghetti Western, that doesn't take itself too seriously. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Spaghetti Westerns. Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.

Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.

Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.

The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four. Based to some extent on writers, David Croft and Jimmy Perry's, own experiences as Butlins Holiday Camp entertainers in the UK during the same timescale the programme follows, "Hi-De-Hi!" epitomises the 'slapstick, postcard humour" of post-war Britain. Set in the fictitious seaside town of Crimpton-on-Sea, "Hi-De-Hi" chronicles the comedic goings on within the Maplins Holiday Camp - one of many dotted along the British coast owned by the mega-rich, but never seen (on screen) Joe Maplin.

Although the actual show began in 1980 with the pilot episode and ran until 1988 when the BBC deemed it too tame for it's cutting edge comedy department, seasons 1-5 focused on 1959 while seasons 6-9 spotlighted 1960 - a time when the old style British Holiday Camp began to fall into decline. During the first 5 seasons, Jeffrey Fairbrother (played brilliantly by the late, great Simon Cadell) was the camp's entertainment manager; a well meaning, yet slightly pensive ex-university professor breaking free of his upper class background and venturing into the "real" world to head his team of entertainment staff who were in stark contrast to his own laid-back personality. From season 6 onwards, Fairbrother was replaced by Clive Dempster (played by David Griffin when Cadell quit the show at the height of it's popularity), an ex-RAF war hero who, in many ways, was similar to Cadell's character in background, but more a scoundrel than a gentleman.

However, the real stars of "Hi-De-Hi" throughout the nine seasons were Ted Bovis (played superbly by Paul Shane), a stereotypical working class, ale drinking, bawdy comic - someone who could never resist an opportunity to fiddle the campers; Gladys Pugh (played by Ruth Madoc who's currently experiencing a career comeback with appearances in the hit BBC Comedy, "Little Britain"), chief Yellowcoat (what the entertainment staff were called because of their bright yellow jackets) and sports organiser - but more importantly, the one person who saved Jeffrey Fairbrother and Clive Dempster from embarrassment by covering up their inexperience in running a holiday camp; Peggy Ollerenshaw (Su Pollard), the slightly dopey, yet lovable lowly chalet maid with a burning ambition to become a Yellowcoat, and Spike Dixon (Jeffrey Holland), Ted's innocent protégé learning more about 'show business' than he hoped for.

As usual with a Croft & Perry production, the assembled cast of characters were a bunch of misfits played superbly by the actors involved. Mr. Partridge (played by the late Leslie Dwyer, who was in his 70's by the time he left the show), the alcoholic child-hating children's entertainer; Fred Quilly (Felix Bowness), a former champion jockey with a dubious past; Yvonne & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves (Dianne Holland & Barry Howard), the snobbish former ballroom dancing champions who were in the twilight of their careers; and Sylvia and Betty (Nikki Kelly and Rikki Howard), the two main girl Yellowcoats who were always looking for the type of fun Joe Maplin would never allow in one of his camps.

"Hi-De-Hi" typified the slapstick era of the late 50s with it's saucy and, to a certain degree, vulgar "tongue-in-cheek" humour (jokes about people sitting on toilets and anecdotes about 'women with big knockers' were the order of the day). But despite it's whiff of "Carry On" funniness, it was always so innocent and became something of recommended family viewing back in the 80's. Of course, the critics of the show remarked that the show had outstayed it's welcome by a good couple of years, but I disagree. While the early seasons focused mainly on bawdiness and slapstick humour, the latter series of "Hi-De-Hi" saw more thought put into the scripts and the main characters (especially Spike Dixon & Gladys Pugh) were able to grow with more sensitive story lines. That said, there were a few criticisms of the show. Clive Dempster was no Jeffrey Fairbrother, and the former didn't quite have the on-screen chemistry with Gladys as Jeffrey did (I personally think it would've been more believable if Gladys had married Jeff); five seasons dedicated to 1959 and four to 1960 caused more than just a few continuity errors (the disappearance of old faces and introductions of new characters weren't explained properly, especially with the Yellowcoats who came and went with much regularity; and the character of Gladys Pugh, who, in the pilot episode was made out to be a free-loving man-eater that was suddenly transformed into a naive virgin like character! Also to mention quite pedantically, most of the 1959 holiday season was covered in season one, so to stretch the rest of the year out in five further series was something bordering unbelievable. Still, the show wasn't meant to be meticulously looked upon, and the comedy more than outweighed it's flaws.

All in all, "Hi-De-Hi" was probably one of the last comedies from the BBC's golden period, and even if it never managed to rival such British comedic mainstays as "Only Fools & Horses", "Porridge" or even "Last Of The Summer Wine", "Hi De Hi" will be best remembered as a comedy the whole family could enjoy. If you haven't already checked it out for yourself, I implore you to do so. I get really fed up with sitcoms; you feel you always know what is coming so it ceases to be funny. On the other hand, Hi De Hi, you rarely know what is coming and it's laugh out loud funny. I have just purchased the second set of the series, (series 3 -4)and I am surprised at just how much I am enjoying it all - again. I have nothing but praise for the writers or the actors (or the many unseen crew members) because the entertainment they provide is well worth the wait. The gems that have come from this series and the respect that the actors achieved through it speak for themselves. Croft and Perry created some pure gold some of which shines through Hi De Hi. I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.

As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.

( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )

Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. "Hi-De-Hi!" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!.

One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.

I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: "Lies, Ted! All lies!".

As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated.

The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating!

With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.

The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.

Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'.

I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers! Having reviewed 3 of the 4 Perry and Croft sitcoms, I thought I would get them all done now. Dads Army, is my all time favourite sitcom, It ain't half hot Mum is also a classic as is You Rang M'Lord. I don't regard Hi De Hi as a classic, but it is still funny.

It's about a holiday camp, similar to Butlins, but instead of red coats, it's yellow coats. It is ran by Jeffery Fairbrother, a well meaning man, but has the personality of a sock. The staff include fun entertainment manager Ted, his sidekick Spike (he ended up being thrown in the swimming pool nearly every episode), yellow coat Gladys, careless maid Peggy who longed to be a yellow coat and the Punch and Judy man Mr Partridge who hates kids. Situations occurred mostly round the swimming pool, where someone would be thrown in every episode (with there clothes on of course).

Not a classic, but still funny. Jeffery Fairbrother left half way through, so this, a bit like Only Fools and Horses, outstayed its welcome. Jimmy Perry was actually a red coat at Butlins.

Best Episode: Peggy's Big Chance, series 2, episode 2. A cranky police detective suspects a French duke of being the infamous thief ARSÈNE LUPIN.

John & Lionel Barrymore costarred together for the first time in a motion picture in this intriguing crime drama. Alike and yet so different, they are the perfect counterpoint to each other. John plays his role with suave sophistication (when not in disguise) and Lionel is earthy & common in his portrayal, each obviously having a wonderful time trying to out act the other. Helped by a generous script, the outcome is pretty much a draw, with the viewer the clear winner.

Although upstaged by the two male stars, Karen Morley is intriguing as the mystery woman John finds naked in his bed. Tully Marshall gives a colorful performance as a silly nobleman with much to lose to the master criminal. Henry Armetta & George Davis are very enjoyable as two seriously inept security guards. John Miljan provides a sturdy presence in his small role as the police prefect.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Mischa Auer as a guide in the Louvre during the climactic scene dealing with an attempted heist of the Mona Lisa. Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When "Arsène Lupin" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. "Arsène Lupin" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.

John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.

Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In "Arséne Lupin", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.

SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!

Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.

Don't look for a good plot line here, but "Arsène Lupin" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10. A remake of the 1916 silent film, based on the 1909 novel by Maurice Leblanc. The detective series would be made into numerous plays, films and TV series in the UK, the US, and France over the years. This 1932 version starred the smashing Barrymore brothers John (as the Duke) and Lionel (as Detective Guerchard). They would also star together in Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and several others over the next couple years. Sonia (Karen Morley) shows up in the Duke's bed during a party in this pre-Hayes code film; first the lights go out in the bedroom, then they go out in the main ballroom, then the search is on for the crook and the missing jewelry, as well as other missing valuables... You can tell talkies hadn't been around too long, as they still use caption cards several times. Also watch for a new kind of safe that doesn't need a combination. Well-thought- out plot, no big holes, but no big surprises here either. Not bad for an early talkie film. Clever ending. John Barrymore plays a gentleman who is also the thief, Arsene Lupin. While no one knows for sure this is the case, the inspector (Lionel Barrymore) is sure of it but cannot prove it. So, Lionel spends much of the movie following John--hoping to catch this brilliant and slippery thief.

Although I liked the film, I really think I had higher expectations for it and thought it might be better than just a very good time-passer. That's because it paired John AND Lionel Barrymore in the film and since these brothers were such dynamic actors, I think I expected sparks and magic but instead only caught glimpses of it here and there. Now this is not to say this is a bad film--it certainly isn't. It just didn't rise to the level of being unforgettable or a film I strongly recommend you see. Thanks an adequate script, the film is pretty good but I was surprised to hear no French accents at all in the film even though it was supposedly about French people! Also, there just wasn't much life in the film until it was nearly complete. The ending was indeed excellent and entertaining--so good that it elevated the film from a 6 to a 7. It's nice to see it ended on a high note. Sure, it has its pretentious moments, it plays like art-house, live-action Fantasia, but it also has moments of deep beauty and humor. Omnibus films are always a problem, but I have always had a keen interest in them. I will now rate the segments individually.

Nicolas Roeg - "Un ballo in maschera" - This segment may very well spoil the film for some people, because it is absolutely the worst of the whole bunch. It is difficult to follow, mostly because it tries to adhere to a clear plot (a hackneyed one, at that). The photography is unaccomplished. The best thing about it is the bit of Lesbian homoerotica that it never does enough with. This segment made me VERY nervous about continuing. 2/10.

Charles Sturridge - "La virgine degli angeli" - an unclear segment, but it hardly matters. The film has the best cinematography of the bunch, mainly because it is in a stunning black and white. The segment is dreamlike and beautiful. 7/10.

Jean-Luc Godard - "Armide" - I chose to brave this much-maligned film for the Godard and Altman segments. With Godard, I was much more impressed than I thought I would be. I can't claim to have seen all that many of his films since he made so many that almost no one has seen, but, judging from what I have seen, this may be his best work since the 60s. It is the funniest segment in this film, and the most artistically accomplished. Bravo, Jean-Luc! 9/10.

Julien Temple - "Rigoletto" - a very funny segment, it is also quite predictable. Still, this story about a husband and wife who are cheating on each other at the same resort is wonderfully filmed with long, complex tracking shots that depend on precisely timed choreography from the actors. It also has a great self-referencing joke about omnibus films themselves. The final scene is very weak. 7/10.

Bruce Beresford - "Die tote Stadt" - this short segment involves too lovers in (I think) Venice. It is pretty, with some nice shots of doves flying about the city. It is slight, but nice. 7/10.

Robert Altman - "Les Boréades" - not one of the better segments, unfortunately, this is more of a music video than a concept short film. It involves the occupants of an insane asylum attending a theatrical performance. The music and images work well together, so at least I can give it credit for being a good music video. 7/10

Franc Roddam - "Liebestod" - somewhat unfortunate for Beresford's segment, this segment is very similar to it. As you might assume from my phrasing, this one struck me much more. It is about a young man and his girl going to Las Vegas on a fatalistic voyage. 8/10.

Ken Russell - "Nessun dorma" - maybe the most visually striking segment, it plays in a fantasy world more than in reality. It is a beautiful tale of a fallen angel. 8/10.

Derek Jarman - "Depuis le jour" - I have heard a lot about Jarman, and this is the first piece of filmmaking I have seen from him. Hopefully, I'll see more in the future. This one is also music-videoish, but it is better than Altman's segement. It mainly concerns an old woman remembering her younger days. The editing and the use of different film stocks to represent both time and emotion are very beautiful. 8/10.

Bill Bryden - "I pagliacci" - the sad clown, possibly one of the most famous arias (particularly memorable from an episode of Seinfeld), this serves as the material separating each segement and the finale. It is simple and effective. 7/10.

Overall, I give it a solid 7/10. It isn't anywhere near as bad as you've heard. I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.

I loved Ken Russell's "Nessun Dorma" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.

The Buck Henry/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.

The "Liebestod" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. "Depuis la Jour" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of "Vesti la Giubba" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex. 10 respected directors each shot a short film with operatic arias as the inspiration (and music). I'll do each one separately:

Nicolas Roeg (dir)--Giuseppe Verdi (music). A story about an assassination attempt in 1931 Vienna. Theresa Russell (Roegs wife) plays a man! Not bad--very beautiful and exotic. Russell is great.

Charles Sturridge--Verdi. No story but there is some haunting black and white imagery that fits perfectly with the music.

Jean-Luc Godard--Jean Baptiste Lully. Horrendous. Pointless, boring, no plot, no nothing. Filled with gratuitous female nudity. The worst!

Julien Temple--Verdi. Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo and Anita Morris star in this funny, if obvious, story about a cheating couple. Pretty good.

Bruce Beresford--Erich Korngold. Short, lush and romantic. Very good.

Robert Altman--Jean-Philippe Rameau. Dull. A yawner.

Fran Roddam--Richard Wagner. This has Bridget Fonda in her film debut. Beautifully done love story with a fairly explicit sex scene.

Ken Russell--Giacomo Puccini. Really strange but OK.

Derek Jarman--Gustave Chapentier. Lyrical look at youth and old age. Very sweet.

The last is by Bill Bryden doing "I Pagliacci". He has John Hurt (!) dressed as a clown lip-syncing to Caruso (!!!).

When this came out it almost got an X rating (for the abundant nudity and the sex scene). It was given an R with a strict warning attached saying the R rating would be heavily enforced. After the film bombed that warning disappeared.

The idea isn't bad and 6 out of the 10 segments were worthwhile. Worth seeing even if you don't like opera. Just avoid the Godard segment. I'm giving it an 8. Robert Altman, Nicolas Roeg, John-Luc Goddard--you were expecting a fun film the entire family could enjoy? These and other directors were obviously chosen because they have not followed the mainstream, but created it. For those that complain that they did not adhere to the original story of the opera--How often does the music in a film directly relate to what is going on in the film? It is the mood that counts. This is what I believe the directors of these movies were doing: creating a contemporary mood for old operas. For the most part they succeed wonderfully. With all these operas, who is going to like them all. We could have used more Beverly Sills.

Finally, what is art (even opera) without a few naked women? Definitely worth watching.

Ten different directors each present a segment based on their favorite opera aria. You don't need to be an opera lover to watch this film. (Although, of course, if you hate opera, you're really going to have a bad time with this!)

Not surprisingly the segments range from brilliant to only fair. Most of the fuss seems to be over Godard's contribution -- whether you think he's brilliant or pretentious, his segment won't change your mind.

Some of the pieces have a clear narrative; others are more a montage of connected images.

None of the pieces is more than 10 minutes or so; if you're not happy with what's on the screen, wait for the next segment, and think about how much culture you're soaking up.

Keep your eyes open for performances by Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo, Elizabeth Hurley, Briget Fonda, Tilda Swinton, and John Hurt. (The Buck Henry segment alone is worth the price of admission).

I saw this movie in the early 1990's when it had been out on VHS for a little while. At the time, I found it to be interesting, and was especially struck by the Ken Russell segment, with the visions of the accident victim in triage and surgery.

Last night, at a 2nd-run showing of the latest Indiana Jones movie, the vision of John Hurt prompted an unexpected flashback to "Aria", which I had not thought of in years, and the sudden memory of the Russell piece itself was enough to cause an outbreak of tears for a little bit.

If I can make this observation, I note with interest the love-hate reaction that people have expressed to the Russell segment, and I have found this interesting difference in other movies that delve into deep trauma and its aftereffects. Some GET it, others DO NOT, interesting.

I see by the comments and the rating that the overall work hit people in various ways. This is how it affected and affects me. Guess a few upscale film directors were sitting around sipping their absinthe, grappa, aramangac or jungle juice some night in the 80's during the Cannes or other film festival and one said "Hey, guys let's do a movie where each of us creates a segment around a world class aria." Welllll...it kind of sort of worked. Clearly someone was smart enough to select some of the best recordings of the arias chosen, for example Bjoreling's Nessun Dorma, so if you were blind and lying on the floor just listening to the DVD you got more than your money's worth. Not every director succeeded but more did than not and the flick seems to improve with each viewing over the years. My favorite is the eerily beautiful love duet from Die Todt Statd; okay a young naked Elizabeth Hurley is eye candy but her husband singing to her, his wife's ghost, is incredibly beautiful with the love music second only to Otello and Desdemona's "Gia nella Notte Densa" in all the operatic repertoire. Could the flick been better, sure, what couldn't not have been but it's well worth a view especially of you're in a hyper-romantic mood. When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time. What can I say? You expect only the best in drama from the BBC and MESSIAH is not an exception to the rule.

MESSIAH is a great thriller, a truly shocking and creepy tale about a serial killer who cuts out victims' tongues and replaces them with silver spoons. Police Officer Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott) and his team have the task of trying to solve the mystery of the seemingly random events, before more lives are lost.

But be warned - despite it's '15' rating (in the UK), MESSIAH is a bit of a gruesome film. Some of the murder scenes are similar to those in SE7EN, and one or two can be really stomach-churning. But if you can withstand that, sit back in your chair and enjoy... although you'll most likely be on the edge of it or hiding behind it.

Rated '15' by the BBFC for moderate violence and strong horror. The DVD release of this superior made for TV BBC drama is a more than welcome addition to my collection. Great acting, gripping story, and wonderful direction all add up to one of the best BBC dramas in years. I have to say when it comes to Book to Movie Adaptations the BBC rarely lets me down. Now regarding this mini-series. I love the Starling Novel, it's by far the best murder/mystery I've ever read. The Mini-series, it defiantly made my day when I saw it. The primary story was kept near perfectly intact. The characters match the ones to the novel very well, the personalities and mannerisms were spot on for Red and Jez. I thought Duncan was done very well as was Kate, Eric came off as too much of a simplistic character, he had a little more depth in the book, but they also altered his sub-story so that may have had to deal with it. Of course there are changes, but most are cosmetic, but some I found disappointment in, the sub-story with Eric murder charge was changed and that changed the whole dynamic between Red and Eric for the movie, and they cut out the Triathalon training Jez was doing. Some of the other events in the book are changed to be viewer friendly. Over all if you liked the book, you will like this, if you like the mini-series, then you'll love the book. I must say, this is the most accurate Book to Movie adaptation I've seen. Having read the other comment about this superb piece of TV drama I felt compelled to balance things a little. If you like you murders, to be signature and serial, and your cops to be British, and shout a lot, and the gore to be bloody and have a religious slant then this hits every button. Not quite enough 'gov'ing to put the shouting into the Sweeney's rarefied heights, but otherwise highly rated. Ken Stott is excellent as the 'cop on the edge' and the guest stars are also well cast, including Edward Woodward and Art Malik. Recommended. (In response to the earlier comments, although I accept that 'Red' would not 'normally' drive away from a hit and run, he had just witnessed his brother arrested for murder, and I am fairly sure he does not see the boy move.) I saw MESSIAH 2 a few months ago and didn`t get to see the original teleplay untill a few days ago and this is far superior to the sequel . Okay it`s not a million miles away from the plot of SEVEN but it`s still compelling . Much of my praise has to do with Ken Stott`s performance as DCI Red Metcalfe a policeman who seems to have led a very unlucky life and someone who has a terrible secret . It`d be easy for Stott to go over the top but he plays the role in a fairly subtle way . Likewise the murders are very shocking but - unlike the sequel where the murders are carried out onscreen in a rather OTT manner - there`s actually little violence shown .

My only criticisms are that the red herring was too obviously a red herring which meant I wasn`t taken in by the shock twist ( And you would probably see the shock twist coming so I won`t bother with a spoiler alert ) and that when the real murderer was revealed it seemed both slightly far fetched and caused a few plot holes to appear in the story . If I remember correctly the sequel had similar problems once the murderer was revealed so maybe it`d be a good idea not to make MESSIAH 3 Obviously inspired by Se7en and sometimes even more gruesome; more bloodshed and very graphic details (a bit too much for my taste). Great script and acting (I was especially impressed by Ken Stott and there were no weak points in te cast). Good cinematography and very realistic stereo-sound. One of the best thrillers I've seen since years. Although it was scheduled on BBC in three parts I watched Messiah on video in one take. One point of critic; the motivation of the villain was not very convincing. Messiah was compulsive viewing from start to finish. The story centred on apparently random murders of men in London in various gruesome ways. DCI Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott)has to find the truth which, to his surprise, is a little closer to home than he might think.

Gripping drama and Ken Stott was brilliant. Hopefully we have not seen the last of DCI Red Metcalfe. I saw the Messiah:- The First Killings and I thought it was absolutely one of the best programmes I have seen, ever. It was one of those programmes that you think that oh, no, I cannot watch the rest of this but you feel compelled to watch it just to see who done it. Jamie Draven was an absolutely amazing actor in it, to be able to switch between two totally, totally different characters one of which is the evil, nasty person that did it and the other person who is Jez Clifton, the cop. To be able to do that, well, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it, well not without cracking anyway. I really do love and care for Jamie Draven with all of my heart and I always will, until the end of time, I think that Jamie is the sweetest, cutest, sexiest guy in the world. I absolutely love Jamie in Ultimate Force also because he looks god damn sexy in the blacks that he wore. I love Jamie Love Paula Draven

-X- 1981's Just Before Dawn is one of the best tales of wilderness horror out there. It's one of the finest-made slashers of the 80's and it easily blows movies like The Final Terror, Don't Go in the Woods, or The Prey out of the water.

A group of young adults come to check out the mountain property that one of the group has just bought. However they are not alone in the wild. A hulking in-bred murderer, who seems to be in two places at once, is lurking and apparently hates trespassers.

Director Lieberman, who gave us such great B films as Squirm (1976) and Blue Sunshine (1977), does an excellent job with this smart thriller as well. The movie is nicely atmospheric, with a creeping sense of tension and some strong suspense. This film makes even the open wilderness seem frighteningly claustrophobic. The Oregon locations are beautiful and well captured by the crafty cinematography. The music score is a true original and awesome in contrast with the scenic visuals.

Deborah Benson makes for a great lead, her presence was captivating. Gregg Henry delivers a good performance as Benson's lover and Chris Lemon provides some occasional charisma. The supporting cast, especially veteran actor Kennedy, also does quite well.

A true gem of the slasher genre, that needs no gore to thrill. Definitely well worth seeking out for slasher fans and horror buffs alike. See it!

*** 1/2 out of **** Jeff Lieberman's "Just Before Dawn" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else? I'd been postponing purchasing this one ever since its DVD release – for one thing, because I'd been somewhat underwhelmed by this director's two other horror titles (SQUIRM [1976] and BLUE SUNSHINE [1977]), but also the fact that the film itself is said to have been slightly trimmed for gore on the Media Blasters/Shriek Show 2-Disc Set! I now chanced upon it as a rental and am glad I did – because, not only is it superior to the earlier efforts (at least, on this preliminary assessment), but I also found the film to be one of the better imitations of THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974). This factor, however, only helped remind me that I've yet to check out another such example – Wes Craven's classic THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977), whose 2-Disc R1 edition from Anchor Bay I purchased some time ago but, after all, Halloween-time is fast approaching...

Anyway, the film manages an effortlessly unsettling backwoods atmosphere (it was shot in the forest and mountain regions of Oregon) – with plenty of effective frissons throughout but, thankfully, not too much violence (even if the last of the villains is dispatched in quite an outrageous fashion!). The principal young cast here (one of them played by Jack Lemmon's son, Chris) isn't quite as obnoxious as those we usually encounter in this type of genre offering – despite freely indulging in the shenanigans one associates with teen-oriented flicks and which, by and large, persist to this day! George Kennedy appears as a sympathetic Ranger; though he doesn't have a lot to do, his characterization is decidedly enhanced by making him a lover of plant and animal life. Also notable among the locals is familiar character actor Mike Kellin in a nice role as the drunkard who first comes into contact with the murderous duo of the narrative – his warning to the teenagers, naturally, goes unheeded but he's later able to lead Kennedy to them.

The hermetic family the teens come across in the woods, then, is eventually revealed to be hiding a skeleton in their closet. While one of the girls displays genuine curiosity at the intruders' presence, the rest are openly hostile to them – and, in the case of the burly and uncouth twins, appropriately creepy (one of them is even prone to maniacal laughter during his rampages); at a certain point in the narrative, the Ranger even offers an interesting explanation as to the nature of their aggressive and generally uncivilized behavior. It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of "slasher" movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great "rare" film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films "Squirm" and "Blue Sunshine".

Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.

"Just Before Dawn" is noticeably more ambitious, "arty", and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.

There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour ("Ghoulies"), Mike Kellin ("Sleepaway Camp"), and Jamie Rose ("Chopper Chicks in Zombietown") round out the cast.

Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his "Terminator" theme) is haunting and atmospheric.

This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.

I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.

"That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read."

9/10 29 Sept 1990 marked a small but important milestone in my appreciation of horror flicks. This was the date that BBC1 broadcast (for the only time I'm aware of) Jeff Lieberman's super-creepy 1981 shocker Just Before Dawn, and it made a huge impression on me. Nearly twenty years later, I'm delighted to report that I've finally got my hands on the two-disc Shriek Show / Media Blasters special edition, and it's just as eerie and unsettling as I remember it, if not more so.

The plot, as is usual for genre flicks (and this was Lieberman's first film as a 'director for hire', though he did at least remove all the religious cult snake-handling mumbo-jumbo from the screenplay), is a bit thin - five likable twenty-somethings (including Chris Lemmon, son of Jack, in a pair of uncomfortably tight white strides) venture into the dense Oregon woodlands to do a spot of camping and to check out a patch of land that's been bequeathed to one of their number. But Just Before Dawn stands out from a crowd of imitators because Lieberman wastes no time in showing us just how deranged things are on this particular patch of mountain, with a complete innocent skewered and a drunk preacher's truck shoved down a hill and engulfed in flames within minutes of the film beginning. The youngsters come rolling into the picture in a snappy Winnebago, Blondie's 'Heart of Glass' pounding on the soundtrack, and before you can say "Texas Chainsaw Massacre!" they've clobbered an innocent deer with the front bumper and had their first taste of aggro from the heavy-set maniac responsible for the opening catastrophes. Forest ranger Roy (George Kennedy) warns them that things are likely to go awry if they go any further, but they go ahead with the trip anyway, refusing to give the sozzled preacher a ride even though he's understandably scared witless and finally pitching camp miles from anywhere. Needless to say, things go downhill from here.

Although this film's not short on bloody horror and well-handled action scenes, the standout moments for me are those where Lieberman lets his camera zoom out, long and slow, from apparently innocuous shots of the fun-loving kids larking around in the wilderness, or just lets it settle for a while on the dense, imposing, people-dwarfing woodlands. He makes the Oregon exteriors as threatening and as ominous as Kubrick made the Overlook Hotel's spacious interiors in the Shining, and Brad Fiedel's score (discounting the horribly distorted racket that runs over the titles) stays the right side of intrusive, underscoring the slowly escalating menace with subtlety and flair. There are plenty of surprises along the way, nods to Deliverance with the discovery of a backwoods babe and her freaky, disturbing family, and a truly bizarre kill technique deployed shortly before the film's end. I won't spoil it for you. I've said enough.

Quite why this undervalued horror gem fell through the cracks and became a cult item instead of a breakout hit is hard to ascertain, but hopefully it will be rediscovered and appreciated for years to come - it deserves to be. One of the many backwoods horror's that came out in the early eightes and fortunately this is one of the better ones. Yes it has a cheesy plot but I was pleasantly surprised at this film, because I thought it was really good and really entertaining, although the killer could have been made a bit more scarier he just looked like a fat slob.

First of all, we have the local sheriff or whatever the hell he is, who warns them not to go to those mountains as they are very dangerous. But when the teens arrive, it doesn't seem very dangerous at all, well according to me anyway. It's a shame that we don't get movies like this any longer, and if we do, it's usually some boring terrible film.

This movie more relies on tension and being scary than gore, because the gore factor is really low in this movie which I wasn't pleased with but other than that it's still a great movie.

All in all you'll have to search long and hard to find this movie and if you do find it, you will like it and also watch out for ending with the final girl and the killer it's totally not what you'd expect. This was a great 1981 film which had a great story about three men and two girls who go on a camping trip together and go through thick woods and high mountains with a great water fall. This group of people run into property owned by George Kennedy, (Roy McLean) who plays the role as a Forest Ranger and rides a white horse. Roy McLean warns these young people that where they are going is no area for camping and they should turn back. Of course these young people pay no attention and proceed to have a ball swimming in the nude near the water fall and playing great music and dancing by the fire and having plenty of beer and wine. There is an old wooden one room school house that draws the gals and guys inside and it is from that point on the film starts to get very scary. There is one occasion when a young girl has to climb a tree in order to get away from a human beast who desires her body and starts chopping the tree down in order to capture her. Don't miss this film, there is plenty of everything. This completely forgotten slasher flick is one of the best horror movies ever made.Very dark at times it reminds me a little famous thriller "Deliverance".Director Jeff Lieberman creates terrific atmosphere of dread and despair.All actors are decent and the climax is really exciting and memorable.So if you are searching for something creepy,try to find this little treasure.My personal rating:10 out of 10.P.S This one is even more chilling than "Halloween". Well, sadly, I can't help but feeling a little bit disappointed after my much, much, MUCH-anticipated viewing of "Just Before Dawn". Jeff Lieberman is a terrific filmmaker and he can undoubtedly do great things with a tiny budget, but I nevertheless expected to see a far more sadistic and gruesome early 80's slasher. But actually I'm beginning to think that Lieberman isn't the one to blame for this, but WE gorehounds are! It's more than obvious that Lieberman intended to make his take on the backwoods-slasher look like "Deliverance" and absolutely NOT like "Friday the 13th", which immensely popularized the sub genre one year earlier. The horror and constant sensation of menace doesn't mainly come from the demented maniacs with their machetes, but from the genuinely ominous and isolated Oregon forests where this movie was shot. In case the film seems slow and uneventful, this is only because Lieberman takes his time to introduce the dark woods and eerie mountains as extra characters in his film. We hardly ever see the killers in person, but there always appears to be someone luring from behind the trees or from underneath the mountain lakes. Bearing this in mind, "Just Before Dawn" becomes a highly admirable horror effort and actually a lot better than its contemporary blood-soaked colleagues. Amidst a nearly endless selection of gory and sickening slashers, Lieberman successfully puts the emphasis back on tension and character development. The plot revolves on five twenty-something friends heading for a camping vacation in the Oregon woods, where one of them owns a small piece of land. The woods are deserted and, naturally, the campers ignore forest ranger Roy's (George Kennedy!) advise to return back to civilization. Shortly after, they brutally encounter an inbred family of which the twin sons have murderous tendencies. All five main characters are surprisingly likable and convincing! No irritating stereotypes for which you don't feel sympathy anyway, like slutty girls or football jocks. As a result of this "natural" character, you automatically cheer for them, even when they eventually almost turn into savages themselves. The sublime camera-work supplies the film with an at times unbearable tension level and Brad Fiedel's chilling electronic score only adds to this effect. "Just Before Dawn" is a fine slice of early 80's horror, as long as you don't desire blood to drip from your TV-set. Taking its cues from backwoods classics Deliverance and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Jeff Lieberman's Just Before Dawn might not offer much very new in terms of plot—a maniac stalks and kills a group of campers—but still manages to be an effective shocker thanks to the director's deft handling of the material, great use of the stunning scenery, even greater use of women in hot-pants, a brooding synth score from Brad Fiedel and a nifty twist towards the end (although one that should be apparent to those who have been paying attention).

Thanks to solid performances from its capable cast—including Oscar winner George Kennedy as forest ranger Roy McLean—there is a sense of realism to Just Before Dawn that is all too often missing from this kind of fare. The film also offers a pretty creepy maniac (who sniggers like Dick Dastardly's dog Mutley and uses a nasty serrated machete to kill), and delivers a couple of very imaginative sequences which help lift it above many of its contemporaries: a topless woman (gratuitous nudity box well and truly ticked) in a lake discovers that the hand that has been groping her underwater doesn't belong to her boyfriend; and a shortsighted character makes out with his pal's girlfriend (as a joke), unaware that the person who is slowly approaching is not his friend but the killer. Five teens set out to do some camping in the Oregon wilderness, and despite being warned by the park ranger, they soon realize that something is lurking around in the backwoods waiting to strike.

When it comes to old horror movies, the only one that keeps popping up in every conversation is Friday THE 13th, so I took it upon myself to find those good old horror movies that fell short for simply being compared to Friday THE 13th, JUST BEFORE DAWN just so happened to be among the ones I found, and was really very impressive, it wasn't as bland as some of the stuff you find today, it was very sharp in terms of character development as it had quite a few likable ones, and it has this very casual pace, its not in a hurry to get to the hack and slash bits, it takes its time to set the proper mood and tone and is very atmospheric and builds some killer suspense by letting you always have that sense of dread like, somethings out there but you don't know where it is or when it will strike.

Where I live its definitely an overlooked gem simply because people never heard of it or won't give it a chance, but I'll state that it is not a Friday THE 13th rip off, the two concepts don't even go near each other, but in my mind, it is overall one of the more impressive slashers I've seen in a while. The mountainous woods, young happy campers, a warning by a park ranger and a lurking figure. The ingredients are there for a horror delight, and director/co-writer Jeff Lieberman does an adequate job at achieving it. It's formulaic woodland horror, but for most part the execution is at the top the game and the story (which is quite basic in a trimmed sense) is effectively told in certain realism. Maybe a little more exposition wouldn't have gone astray, but Lieberman's craftsmanship makes up for the material's flaws and typical details with rising tension, moody visuals and a smothering atmosphere created by Brad Fiedel's very ominously lingering score. Whenever that very creepy whistling was cued in, it painted a truly unnerving sense that settled in with the beautiful backdrop. Cinematographers Dean M. and Joel King do a striking job too. There's plenty of style abound, even with its minimal scope and the build-up is slow grinding. At times the pacing can become a stop-and-go affair. It's not particularly violent, but there's still a mean-streak evident even if some of it happens of screen. The latter chase scenes and escalating fear is well done, as it has the darkness coming alive with itS burly killer/s and you get actor George Kennedy riding his white horse in a slight, but wonderful turn. There's a likable bunch of performances; Deborah Benson makes for a strong, dashing heroine. Gregg Henry, Chris Lemmon Ralph Seymour, Jamie Rose, Mike Kellin and Katie Powell round off a modest cast of believable deliveries. The final climax is rather twisted, but the ending is one of those types that leave you thinking… "Is that it?"

A well-etched backwoods slasher item, which probably plays it a little too safe to truly set it apart from the norm. (WARNING: SPOILERS!)

Five young people ignore the warnings of forest ranger George Kennedy and hike up to the misty Oregon mountains where they are stalked and butchered by a pair of huge, deformed, in-bred hillbilly twins. When only two are left, Warren and his girl Connie, they resort back to their animal instincts to stay alive. The film ends with Connie shoving half of her arm down one of the killers' throats, choking him to death. A very powerful, if somewhat overrated, backwoods slasher flick thats effective use of lighting, sound and photography make it a cut above the usual FRIDAY THE 13TH cash-in. Lead by an attractive, likeable cast, especially Deborah Benson (where is she now?) and Gregg Henry, this nifty companion piece to director Jeff Lieberman's SQUIRM (1976) and BLUE SUNSHINE (1977) shouldn't be missed. Ignore the bad reviews on here, this film is awesome! "Just Before Dawn" is a great example of what can be done in a film with a minimal budget if you have a dedicated crew, decent script, and a cool idea for a film. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

I enjoyed it a lot more than most other 80's slashers because the killer is so unique. "Wrong Turn" ripped this movie off something fierce! There's plenty of blood and scares. My girlfriend was freaked out and she watches almost everything with me and doesn't flinch. It's got that creepiness to it.

I'd say that "Just Before Dawn" is the best early 80's slasher out there. I really enjoyed it.

8 out of 10, kids. Just Before Dawn came out during the golden days of the slasher film. The backwoods slasher pretty much started with films like Friday the 13th, The Burning, and Madman. Just Before Dawn is a step ahead of the typical backwoods slasher flick. The cinematography is gorgeous. The acting is top notch. The heroine of the film is not your typical 'final girl'.

Constance is a 'woods' girl, but when it comes down to the primal instinct of survival, she's a step behind. Not until it comes to saving the life of her and her boyfriend, does the primal notion of survival kick in. There's a subtle transition that gradually focuses on the final girls hidden sexuality - coinciding that alongside her will to survive.

Just Before Dawn isn't for everyone, but for the slasher fan, it's as close to perfect as you can get. The killer(s) are very menacing - Almost like it's a game to maim and murder anyone who crosses their territory. The end scene is a bit off kilter. For the first time viewer, it may be a little shocking. I'd recommend this to anyone who's a fan of the backwoods slasher. Even non-slasher fans will find something to like about it. The setting is eerie and makes one feel uneasy. The death sequences aren't particularly gory, but I'm not sure the film needed gore. See it! Just Before Dawn is one of those really good slashers that send chills down your spine every time you watch it! This movie has great suspense, great acting, very well done camera work (nice job Mr. Lieberman!) which makes a extremely well made slasher! Though low on gore for the 80s, it still has the effect on you after it is over. The opening kill (machete through the crotch) looked so real! And the fist to the mouth death left me stunned! Overall i give this lost classic 10 stars out of 10 stars! if you are looking for a gore-fest, don't look here. but, if you want chills sent down your back, see this one. There are 6 deaths and one of them you don't see but, it leaves you mind to think "how was she killed?" the stranded theme reminded me of 1977's the Hills Have Eyes, which followed kind of the same concept, but in the desert with canninbals. But, still slasher fans, give this forgotten gem, i promise you, you will be staisfied! for a movie like this little hidden gem to come out in the 80s, its shocking how not a lot of people know about it.

this movie is definitely worth a look. it has all the things you need for a horror movie. especially the good old chills.

i remember watching this movie for the first time about 15 years ago, but i couldn't remember the name of it, so i came to IMDb a few years ago to ask for help on finding the title. i eventually got the name of the title, and bought the movie. i still love it as much as i did all those years ago.

buy this movie!! Just Before Dawn really surprised me when I saw it by being far less of a gruesome horror adventure than I expected. Instead the director Jeff Lieberman conjures up a wonderfully evocative and disquieting atmosphere for great stretches of the movie, building the suspense constantly until I was really unsure about what was going to happen but wound up tight as a spring waiting for it. The lack of action in many parts gave it a very Deliverance mixed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kinda ambiance, and when the action really kicks in, its truly shocking and dramatic, without ever even really needing to be gory. The characters are about par for this kind of movie, though more sympathetic than some, and the bad guy memorably freaky. The photography and suspense are the real winners in this movie and they keep it from ever being dull (as has been suggested). I firmly recommend this one to serious horror fans. Don't expect gore, do expect a creepy backwoods tale with several awesome moments and a great dreamlike ambiance. A quick glance at the premise of this film would seem to indicate just another dumb '80's inbred/backwood slash-fest; the type where sex equals death and the actors are all annoying stereotypes you actually want to die. However, "JBD" delivers considerably more.

Rather than focus on bare flesh and gore (though there is a little of each- no sex however), the flick focuses on delivering impending dread/mounting tension amidst a lovely scenic backdrop. These feelings are further heightened by a cast of realistically likable characters and antagonists that are more amoral than cardboard definitions of evil. Oh yeah- George Kennedy is here too and when is that not a good thing?

If you liked "Wrong Turn", then watch this to see where much of its' methodology came from. I didn't have very high expectations about Just Before Dawn. I don't know why I keep buying these slasher movies when I know it's all the same every time. Maybe I'm a bit masochistic? Anyway, I'm glad I bought this one. Yes, it's all the same. No, it has nothing original. Yes, it's about a little group of teenagers going in the woods to camp, drink and have sex. Yes, they get killed one by one by a maniac. And you know what? It's just magic! It's one of the best experiences I had watching a slasher movie. The places where it's shot are so wonderful. You see mountains, waterfalls, rockies. It's just amazing. It takes a very long time (except for the opening scene) before the killer starts killing, but I didn't care! It was enjoyable to watch enough not to care. What I mean is, you won't be sitting there waiting for the murders to start because every thing that happens is enjoyable because of the beauty of the film itself. The ending is a bit weird, but I won't tell you anything more about it. You'll know what I mean. Another thing I enjoyed: you care about the characters. They're not just a bunch of jerks who spend their time bitching each other. Sure, they are pure stereotypes of usual slasher characters but, there's something special about them. Anyway, it's a great horror movie and I hope you have a pretty good time watching it because I really did! Just Before dawn is an excellent horror movie. It is atmospheric, filled with tension made of wonderful shots of wild nature, in which few young people meet their doom, in the shape of two crazed, fat bastards,who slaughter them. Jeff Lieberman is very talented and intelligent director,who is unfortunately underrated. He achieved to built tension, not with gore,but with showing menacing nature environment. Lieberman succeeds to built a tension in a very linear, simplistic way, which is also the best way, not to show to the viewer the gore, but to let him to imagine the worst thing that happen to characters.

Just Before Dawn was always compared to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Deliverance and Hills have eyes. It is as good looking as Deliverance, better than Hills, I mean scarier and better crafted,and it is creepy as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

JBD is one of the best horrors of past few decades, who finally lives on DVD! I've been waiting almost 25 years to see this hard to find horror thriller and I finally did since it's proper rebirth on DVD. Of course it didn't have the same impact on me as it would have if I had seen in it the 80s, but director Lieberman (his film "Squirm" is excellent) makes good use of the lovely Oregon location and takes the time to develop the characters, not just to have them dispatched in creative ways. A high note, Brad Fiedel's whistling music is really creepy and adds to the desolate proceedings making this great fun for genre fans. A must see if you like underrated horror films. To describe it would be an intelligent "Friday The 13th" sprinkled with some tasty bits of "Deliverance." With that aside, there are some really cool & original moments like my favorite when a couple are swimming in a lake and the guy disappears underwater to play a trick on his gal - just when you think it's the usual scare, she suddenly looks to shore and...I honestly can't spoil it -you just have to watch it for yourself. Also, the ending is just one of those that you just have to see to believe – it came out of nowhere and it's weird & wild! The DVD includes commentary by Lieberman. I was lucky enough to see the "Horror Classics" DVD version of this film before it was mysteriously removed from the 4 film DVD and replaced with something else. The picture and sound quality of the film on that edition was a nightmare in itself. Yet, that version is STILL superior to the one with the deluxe DVD treatment. The reason was stated in Brad Fiedel's interview segments on the Special Edition DVD. He had noted what I first found so striking about this film. This being the use of music at moments of inactivity in the film, but leaving the moments of activity in silence, thus giving the horror scenes a stronger feel. The problem with this reissue is it carries the extra film score used to fill in these intentional gaps in score. Fiedel complained of this and made it clear that the filler music was not his. The music actually sounded a lot like Howard Shore's work for Videodrome. Sad for me that I am also a major fan of that film and have to associate the two.

The film itself managed to add some interesting realistic elements to the genre horror film. A group of friends go up on a mountain one of them inherited. On the mountain they are confronted with a family with a nightmarish secret. The movie moves along at a great pace. In fact every time I have seen it, I still find myself shocked to see 45 minutes had passed before things started really going wrong for the campers.

While the Horror Classics version is filled with many gaps, the fact that there is no score accompanying the horror scenes is what makes this film intelligent and even superior to most slasher films I have ever seen. The Director Jeff Lieberman had made some unique horror films previous to this one making this one the most mainstream and yet, very different to the mainstream at the same time. It is a good fun film with surprising acting performances to boot. The new spiffed up DVD version is worth a rent, the now collectors item Horror Classics version, now OOP is worth the hunt. I first saw this one afternoon in the 80's on network T.V. I think I was like 9.(Picture seeing a violent horror flick nowadays on regular television). Anyway, I've seen it again years later and it's like I remembered,it's really good,scary flick. I think the reason why it might of gone unnoticed is cause it wasn't followed by a ****load of sequels i.e. Friday the 13th. But it's one of those movies that takes the original idea and does it better. Even though this is a killer in the woods flick like Friday,it has more in common with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.That's because the movie lays down a certain atmosphere and feeling of dread,even in broad daylight. And the killers feel more threatening than in Friday. There's also a good amount of suspense. I recommend seeing it now that it's being released on DVD in late July. I watched this movie for the first time around 1990 as a young kid and it scared the Jesus out of me. I loved it so much and I was dying to get my hands on it.

In 2002, I remembered that this movie existed but I had no idea what it was called, so, I went to the I Need To Know section on IMDb and explained what the movie was about and tried to get the name of it. Anyway, eventually someone on IMDb told me, so I researched and tried to buy the movie. So eventually i got a hold of it on DVD, and I now keep this movie as one of my most valuable horror movies. I really love it, and I think anyone who watches it, will be very scared in the woods the next time they go. 9/10. The cover of the VHS says it all: "Without doubt, the most powerful movie of its kind since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I'm a huge fan of 70's and 80's slashers and I have to say, I agree 100 %. The characters are believable, the actors have an excellent charm (especially George Kennedy as the forest-ranger). There's the twisted atmosphere, that only TCM has, an astounding soundtrack to reflect the emotions and the filming locations that are the most beautiful in the history of horror. This has to be one of the most beautifully shot horror films of all time! Jeff Lieberman as a director of this 1981 low budget film does and excellent job and with his other works (Blue Sunshine, Wrong Turn) added, he must be one of the most underrated directors in the filmindustry today. I remember years ago BBC1 used to show this movie in a very cut form. I tracked it down on video a couple of years ago and viewed it again. The film although slow and slightly odd (the mountain men look very strange) the atmosphere was eerily effective. It's one of my favorite slasher films and I have no idea where an uncut version can be found. Currently deleted everywhere (except the USA where it was accidentally put on a horror compilation!). It's a shame you cannot get this movie as it was meant to be seen. Wrong turn (the recent Stan Winston produced movie) owes a great deal to Just Before Dawn. One of the better 80's slasher films and deserves to be seen by a wider audience. "Just before dawn " is one of the best slasher films.It very realistic and atmospheric.It reminds me Tobe Hooper`s "The Texas chainsaw massacre " and "Deliverance ".Deborah Benson very good plays the heroine and director Jeff Lieberman created very creepy and dark movie."Just before dawn " is beautiful photographed and soundtrack is very disturbing.I never

liked slasher films or gore except with this one.Very impressive and convincing movie ( at least for me ) Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!! Ali G Indahouse has got to be one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time, and Cohen's portrayal of a British gangsta is hilarious. This film has cult classic written all over it, and it features some really great lines. Ali G Indahouse is a good-time party movie that will leave the viewer laughing literally from beginning to end. Definitely Vote Ali G and keep it real. As someone who usually despises Ali G, Ali G Indahouse was absolutely brilliant. When I was watching it, I was in a hysterical fit. Yes it is sexist, rude and extremely crude, and I loved it. As some comedies are only have one or two comical scenes, this movie was laugh-a-thon. I have never seen a comedy as original as Ali G Indahouse.For a comedy starring Ali G, this would be worthy of an 8 out 10. Absolutely Brilliant. Sacha Baron Cohen is a genius. And this movie is good! Although the film doesn't nearly reach the quality of the tv-show, it's still very funny and has some seriously wicked moments! I've liked Ali G since the first time I saw the material from the show. I think he's one of the best comedy characters of all time.. up there with say, Peter Dragon ("Action") and The Blues Brothers. Biggest surprise with this film was that they've actually got some serious actors to do it (Dance and Gambon). After this I will absolutely respect them even more, for having the good sense to take this chance. I have nothing really bad to say about this film, it's very funny. Very juvenile, but hey, so what?!

One more thing to mr. G: SEQUEL, PLEASE!

**** / ***** Ali G earned his fame on the small screen - though the big screen has not lost him any kudos either. Ali G Indahouse is a hilarious laugh-a-second fun fest - just like on the small screen. He has lost none of his character or stupidity at all, and behind all that - none of the film is brainless fluff either. A human side to Ali is revealed during the film, the idea of Ali G running for PM is a brilliant, fresh and funny one - and the incessant stupidity of Staines' gangster man is mixed well with the stern, harsh world that is politics. The film is also full of brilliant new characters - and instead of just interview after interview, we get a proper comedy film that never gets repetitive or boring. So why didn't I give it ten stars? Well, the ending was funny, but also botched and failed - none of it made sense. And in parts, the film became offensive in trying to be funny - but that's Ali G for you - if it isn't offensive, it isn't itself, and it is totally and utterly ruined. Ali G's big screen debut was a success in my belief, and should have got into the 6-7 average rating range on IMDb. But it could have got worse as well, and people are bound to have mixed opinions, especially on a film such as this.

On the whole, Ali G Indahouse is hilarious British comedy at its best - and funniest, and most clever. A great job! 9/10 The thing with Ali G is that he takes the mick out of himself and his character.

The humour is very much a 'like it or love it' brand of totally politically incorrect, irreverent and self effacing type.

Personally I totally love this film, and so has everyone i have met who has seen it. You can watch it several times and pick new gags up each time. The humour is both aural and visual, and the timing is impeccable. The humour is probably very English, and specifically London, so its possible that non-English viewers may not get some of the humour. Think of yourself as a teenager and you will love it - especially if the likes of Kevin & Perry Go Large tickled you! By convincing the Prime Minister to back the totally unsuitable Ali G as a candidate for Staines in the local elections, nasty chancellor David Carlton (Charles Dance) hopes to discredit his party's current leader, thus enabling him to seize power. To his surprise, however, the plan backfires, Ali is embraced by the nation, and Carlton is forced to find other ways to try and guarantee his political future.

Puerile, crude, misogynistic, and always outrageous: Ali G Indahouse, the big-screen debut outing for Sascha Baron Cohen's middle-class Berkshire gangsta, is all of these things and much more—meaning it's my kind of film!!

Obviously, there are those who are simply not going to get the joke, and there will definitely be people who find risqué jokes about oral sex, homosexuality, recreational drug use, hardcore pornography, and The Queen's nether regions offensive in the extreme (needless to say, they should stay well away!), but if you find such juvenile humour side-splittingly hilarious, are a fan of Baron Cohen in general, or just want to see hottie Rhona Mitra in her underwear (and you shud, cuz she iz well fit!), then I fully recommend spending an hour and a half in the company of Ali G and the West Staines Massive.

They iz wicked! Being American, I have not been exposed to this character before, which is good because some of you have been disappointed. I have nothing to compare it to. I have found no enjoyment in the mindless idiot humor in the American teen movies, and although this is a slightly similar type of humor, I couldn't stop laughing. I hardly ever laugh out loud at a movie. And usually a movie has a few funny parts for me, but this movie was funny from start to finish. My only disappointment was when it was over. I'm actually going to buy this on DVD when I find it. I don't see what the problem is with SOME people and their NEED for intellectual humor. You need to get your head out of your up-tight ass if you don't find this movie hilarious! If this isn't your "cup of tea", so to speak, then look at it for what it truly is- a damn funny movie. Maybe they DID set out to make yet another drugs/T&A movie, but in this case, they've truly hit the spot. It's especially funny for the Ali G fans, because he delivers everything we've come to love and expect from him. So I say BIG UPS to Ali G, and if it's not your thing, don't whine- BATTY BOY! Very intelligent language usage of Ali, which you musn't miss! In one word: (eeh sentence...) Wicked, so keep it real and pass it on! The Ali G character works brilliantly within the confines of a comedy show, but as a movie, it doesn't work in the same way.

Don't get me wrong - this is a very funny movie, full of biting, witty dialogue, that caricatures the modern British chav wonderfully well, whilst providing the viewer with a hilarious, if unrealistic story.

One problem with this film is that the script and content is either fantastically brilliant, or it's embarrassing to watch. When I say embarrassing, I don't mean funny embarrassing a la Office or Extras, but rather, you'll wish they hadn't included it in the final cut. One example of this is the inclusion of a music video after the film has ended, to the tune of, "This is how we do it." Whenever I watch the film, I stop the DVD when it says the end, and leave it at that.

Overall, Ali G Indahouse is a good film, worth watching a couple of times. The script is enjoyable to an extent, and there are no issues as far as acting goes. However, refinement is the key word here.

Ali G is a better television programme. Borat is a better film. Anyone who has seen Ali G before, should be well prepared for the full motion picture that is 'Ali G Indahouse'

Although I prefer Ali G when he is interviewing the rich and famous, his brand of completely off the wall comedy definitely entertains from start to finish on the big screen too.

Ridiculous plot, ridiculous characters and a ridiculous script, that all make this film a riot for fans of Ali G.

If you've seen him and didn't like him then avoid this film like the plague, because it's definitely just more of the same; for everybody else - watch it Aiiii! 7/10 i love this film!! maybe it is my generation but i can really connect with what he is talking about and means to do. it kept me laughing for the duration. duration of the film, the next day, and beyond. i think this film is not one to watch if you mainly care about the plot and character development. this film is pretty much only for the generation that will understand it. there are lots of things you just know being brought up in that generation that you wouldn't if you were say 40. i think Sacha barren Cohen was Very and i do mean Very good. he is a genius. and the reason h is such an idiot is because he can make people believe he is a complete idiot, and make it funny at the same time!!

Very good film. strongly recommend!!!! (not so strongly if you are over 30) The Ali G show was really something amazing - he was so stupid wannabe rapper, but no one he interviewed noticed that he was just pretending. Sasha Cohen is actually very intelligent guy, who pretends to be stupid, so he could get really honest answers from people... And it is very funny. So I didn't expect movie to be good, cause it was all acted - no real people or interviews. So the basic point of all show was lost. But I was wrong - I laughed all the time, it was one of the funniest films I ever saw. Sure it was stupid, but who cares if you can't actually brake in to safe with a car battery, like someone said? It wasn't supposed to be a realistic documentary... And it isn't like the show, it goes in totally different way, but that doesn't mean it is bad. When I finished watching I was totally impressed, but now when some time passed I realized that it was not that special anyway, But it still deserves a nine - well at least for what it is supposed to be. The way i found out about this movie was when i watched American pie 2, at the start it had a trailer for Ali G indahouse, i watched the trailer and it just forced me to buy the DVD, it looked incredibly funny! so the next day, i went to my local store and picked it up for £3.99 (Bargain!). The film is about Ali G, who is a "gangster" of the west staines massive crew, who's rivals are the east staines massive crew. Ali has a "Cub Scout" pack of children where he teaches them how to survive in the "ghetto" by teaching them how to swear and steal cars, after Ali finds out the government are stopping the money coming to the leisure centre where Ali teaches the kids, he runs for MP for staines and overthrows another MP in his attempts to get rid of the leisure centre to make room for an airport in staines. Throughout the film there are laughs aplenty as Ali gets up to some crazy stuff! Borat makes an appearance for a few seconds in the film too, this is a definite must watch film for all you Sacha Baron Cohen fans out there! No real plot, no character development, no Scorcese-level direction, but seriously, were you really expecting any of this? The only thing that matters is that this flick is absolutely hilarious, nearly on the same level as Borat. Sure, the ending drags a bit, but if Borat's cameo didn't crack you up, you must be the worst batty boy in the history of batty boys. Sacha Baron Cohen is possibly the greatest comedian ALIVE, and here he gets more laughs than Jude Law on a nude beach. I dare you not to laugh.

If you can pull the ten-foot pole out of your behind for an hour and a half and just enjoy some well timed and extremely stupid jokes in a stupid story about a stupid character, see this stupid movie. You'll be glad you did. Keep it real! If you like his show you might be a little disappointed. This movie has some very funny moments and the laughs are pretty constant but none are very memorable or as funny as the things on the show. The beginning sequence is really really silly and funny, and a great start. YEs! borat does make a cameo appearance.

if you are a fan then watch it! if you don't know him or don't like him then don't bother. 6.5/10 Alter Egos do not come funnier than the creation of Sacha Baron Cohen's Ali G. Completely misled by his delusional and non-existent sense of the Middle England Suburban surroundings that his social background consists of. He persists on living the style of a Los Angeles Gansta. While still living with his Gran in the London suburb of Staines, he keeps tight control of his Posse, the West Staines "Massiv".

Spending his spare time between Me Julie, his girl, the Posse and teaching local eight year old Scouts at "Keep it Real (advanced)" lessons at the Government funded John Nike Leisure Centre.

This is where the story takes off, being told that the Government funding has stopped, Ali G then proceeds on a one-man quest "In the struggle for Justice I iz willing to lay down me Life, just like Martin Luther Van Dross did". Being his reply to the local media crew when interviewing him on hunger strike while chained to a fence.

Charles Dance here plays David Carlton, the sinister and devious Deputy Prime Minster, who is "Even more eviller than Skeletor". Using Ali G, unknowingly, to lose the Prime Minster 18,000 votes three weeks before the General Election. Seeing Ali G as a bumbling idiot, his plan backfires. Ali G suddenly becomes an over night sensation and a saviour of the people, working directly with the Prime Minster. The story becomes more sinister and with hilarious consequences.

Ali G Indahouse is a great British movie that brings the hugely talented attributes of writing, along with Dan Mazer, executive production and acting of Sacha Baron Cohen. Charles Dance and Michael Gambon, as the P.M. play their parts with great seriousness among the gags and hilarity that is Ali G.

Ironically, seeing the parodies playing their parts in a World that really is real, and who are continually preaching "Keep it Real" from their own little World that is the West Staines "Massiv" is true comic paradox.

Directed by Mark Mylod, his first full length feature film since directing television work such as Shameless, Shooting Stars, The Fast Show and the Smell of Reeves and Mortimer to name a few.

Very Real and very funny. A Formula For Murder isn't a well known Giallo, but that isn't to say it's not a very good one! The film is directed by Alberto De Martino, the man behind cult classics such as The Antichrist and Blazing Magnums. The film was released late on in the Giallo cycle, but more than stands up to many of the films released around the 'golden' period in the early seventies. Despite a lack of logic in some areas, the film works mainly due to the competent way it mixes Argento style death scenes with some genuinely surprising plot twists, and a host of well defined characters. The film is, perhaps, not as exciting overall as many other films in the genre; but this is more than compensated for by the assured way that the central situation is fed to the audience, and the tension resulting from that. The plot begins by showing a fake priest raping a young girl named Joanna, before pushing her down a flight of steps. We then fast forward several years and the girl is now a woman, who is unfortunately in a wheelchair. She is being trained for a sports event by Craig; a man who also has romantic designs on her. However, his proposal isn't met with glee by Joanna's personal assistant, who also has romantic designs on her.

The film features a plot twist half way through that makes up the backbone of the movie, and while it's not exactly logical; it's good to watch and hints that you're in for an interesting movie. Director Alberto de Martino is clearly not afraid to show a few outrageous gore scenes, and the best of which in this film features a priest being battered to death by a spade - and I personally wouldn't hesitate to name that sequence as one of my favourite Giallo murder scenes! The plot can be a little uneven at times, but generally the action is very good. The director spends what seems like an eternity on the conclusion to the film; but it's absolutely packed with tension, and the way that it plays out is good in that it takes advantage of all the plot points that have gone before it. The musical score, taken from Fulci's The New York Ripper, works well in this film also and, breaking a Giallo tradition, de Martino's film also features some rather good acting performances from cult veteran David Warbeck and Christina Nagy, in her only feature film role. Overall, this film isn't one of the easiest Giallo's to come across; but its well worth tracking down and comes recommended to fans of this sort of film. A very suspenseful giallo from the director of "L'Anticristo"(1974),this one begins with a brilliantly-handled sequence involving a priest,a little girl,and a broken doll.However the main story is about maniac(David Warbeck)marrying a traumatized cripple to kill her for her money.The plot,whilst not original,is really suspenseful,the acting is good and there are several skillful and gory murders.The score by Francesco de Massi is quite effective,some of which can also be heard in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper"(1982).Highly recommended for fans of Italian cinema! The last film by underrated director Alberto De Martino ("The Antichrist", "The Killer is on the Phone") is a truly suspenseful but incomprehensibly neglected giallo, containing pretty much all the trademarks that makes this Italian horror sub genre so magnificent and addictive to the fans. There are some very disturbing themes (child abuse, phony priests…), loads of creepy moments, plot twists left & right, outstanding music and – last but not least – a handful of really sadistic murder scenes! Especially the opening sequence, which is some kind of prologue, is a powerful piece of horror! What is it about ordinary child dolls that make them so creepy? When the anonymous man, dressed up like a priest, assaulted a little girl and the broken head of her doll bounced down a flight of stairs, it really sent cold shivers through my spine! Years later, the young girl from the prologue is an adult woman bound to a wheelchair. She inherited a lot of money but uses her fortune to stimulate fellow handicapped people to practice sports and to remain positive-minded. She – Joanna – falls in love with her personal coach and they get married right away. Naturally, he's only after her money and starts terrorizing Joanna by making her relive the childhood trauma that crippled her. The repeated images of a sinister looking priest, guided by eerie tunes and a nursery rhyme, provide "Formula for a Murder" with a ton of genuine scares and Alberto De Martino's directing is very resolute. The acting is quite competent, with David Warbeck ("The Beyond", "The Black Cat") in a glorious greedy villain role. Due some plot holes and a lack of originality, this movie might not be able to compete with Italy's best horror efforts, but it definitely deserves more attention. Many formerly obscure and unknown Italian gialli received marvelous DVD-releases and, hopefully, "Formula for a Murder" will be given the same treatment really soon. In the meantime, good luck tracking this baby down! Due to its predictable, second-rate title, (the one it was distributed under in Italy, at least) I didn't expect much from this movie. Thought it'd be another cheap flick about a haunted house ("LA CASA MALEDETTA" means "The cursed house"). Well, I had to change my mind just after the very first brilliant scene! The constant presence of priests and the creepy atmospheres, reminded me a bit of The Exorcist and some of its decent Italian rip-offs, but this was going to be something completely different... This is more like Hitchcock meets Italian thriller! Very well written and directed, good actors, interesting plot... OK, I've tried not to spoil the viewing of "7 Hyden Park" for you, which I'd highly recommend to everyone.

P.S. Am I wrong, or when Joanna crawls or tries hard to stand (she's paralyzed from the waist down) her feet and legs move a little too much? (... And I'm not talking of the "bad dream" sequence.) This movie felt so real. I actually felt all of the emotions portrayed here during my life at various times - that of both Rory and Michael. I have Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy like Rory so what you see here is exactly what I've actually felt myself. Some won't believe there ARE disabled people like Rory, full of anger and rebellion. I know they exist because I'm one of them.

The story is great. For a drama, character-driven movie, the story moves fast. I was never bored, maybe partly because I was seeing stuff that is close to my heart. But I think most people, with intelligence, will be glued to the screen and care about the characters. The acting is phenomenal! James McAvoy is perfect as Rory O'Shea, who has Duchene's muscular dystrophy. He Steven Robertson deserves an award for his portrayal as Michael Connolly, who has cerebral palsy.

Michael's love isn't returned by a girl and Rory helps him come to terms with it. I've felt this many times and the question is "doesn't she love me because I'm just not the one or because my disability turned her off?" No matter what the girl says, we will always be skeptical as to the truth. It's just natural and it hurts either way.

A few parts made me cry a little because it is sad and I have to face the issues myself. People without a terminal disability just cannot begin to fathom how it can feel. This is a must-see film for everyone. Disabled people are everywhere and greatly misunderstood. This film brings a little light on some of the facts of life, which are so taken for granted by the able-bodied. We want to be just like you - to live on our own terms, to go out, to get drunk, to be loved. On the outside, we can't do much but on the inside, we're dancing! Michael (played by Steven Robertson) has cerebal palsy, and lives a quiet, and dull, life in Carrigmore Residential Home. When a newcomer to the home, Rory (McAvoy), befriends him, he proceeds to show Michael how to live past the disability. Despite, or maybe because of, Rory's crippling disability (unable to move all but his head and a few digits on his hand), Rory is fiercely independent, and extremely rebellious. His affect upon the quiet and reserve Michael is spectacular, and the two soon leave the care home to set up lives in the outside world, where they recruit the help of Siobhan (Romola Garai) as a care assistant.

This film is one of the gems of the year! Much like last year's In America, the film goes from being extremely funny, to distressing, touching, upsetting, and truly moving without once seeming saccharine sweet. Knowing exactly where to tug at the heartstrings, and where to simply let the story, and characters, do their thing, O'Donnell has crafted a wonderful film which tells us all to look past the surface, and see what lies within.

The true strengths of the film come in the lead actors. So convincing are their characters that you truly do believe that they are disabled. To further manage to convey humor and sorrow on top of the already great performances is amazing. The pair really seem close friends, and as their tale unfolds you care completely for them.

This is definitely one of the finest examples of film this year, telling a very relevant story in a simple way. If this film fails to touch your heart, then you must contain pure ice inside. I don't usually comment on films since I am in the movie distribution business, but I have to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting is fantastic and the script is even better. There were no cheesy speeches or exploitation of handicapped people to try and make this movie more "Hollywood". James McAvoy is such an outstanding actor, I could not look away from him if I tried. I was impressed with Steven Robertson as well. I cannot believe this is his first real film. Brenda Fricker plays a small role, but as usual, she is outstanding. This is a movie for everyone to see just how lucky we all are. If you like Awakenings and Mask, you will enjoy this story. You owe it to yourself to check this film out. I just witnessed a movie that by all rights should have been fodder for a second rate MOW on Lifetime...but trust the Irish to keep it from being anything but saccharine. The set-up all but SCREAMS "Here's a message concerning what's TRULY important in life" but the execution was way into the "Let's see just what we can get away with, here."

It helps to have two fantastic actors in the leads -- James McAvoy (as Rory) and Stephen Robertson (as Michael). While Rory is offered up as the near saintly one -- never mind the language and attitude, he's the "life force" in this piece and could easily have been insufferable in his ultimately "caring" attitude -- McAvoy keeps him sharp enough to keep him from being too sweet. But the revelation is Stephen Robertson as Michael. Not since Leonardo Di Caprio in "...Gilbert Grape" has anyone so perfectly captured a person with an affliction that I began to believe he really was an actor with cerebral palsy. And his eyes...my God, he can rip you apart with them.

This movie is, to paraphrase Rory, f****n' amazing. Go see it. Take a box of Kleenex and enjoy every well-earned tear...and laugh. Who could have thought a non-disabled actor could act so realistically and immensely powerfully as a disabled person in a film? Probably someone. But no-one, truly no-one, could ever compare their expectations with the amazingly emotive and powerful performance given by the two actors in this film.

Michael (Steven Robertson) lives in a home for disabled people. He has Cerebral Paulsy, and as shown to us right at the beginning, he has huge trouble communicating. So it truly is a lifeline when fellow disabled member Rory (James McAvoy) who can speak normally, understands him. Thus starts off a friendship that relies mainly on (ironically enough) communication.

In a hilarious scene, they manage to move out of the home into their own. After Rory had been rejected, good hearted Michael put forward an application to move into his own house. Rory, who already had a bad name with the "judges", was to be his interpreter.

But troubles soon come about. They begin good-heartedly stalking a girl who they met in a pub a while back, wanting her to be their assistant to do the little things that matter. She at first is reluctant; she does not know these men, but seems they could be harmless; so strikes up another friendship, but not necessarily a good one...

As well as being poignant, however, this film really does rely on the actors. But that isn't a bad thing. For a non disabled actor, you see Rory, though he can communicate properly, frustrated at the way he's completely dependant on other people, and has no real life of his own. But the real star for me is Steven Robertson. He acts with such emotion, yearning to fit in and sadness/happiness, that really sees him win over the whole entire film.

Excellent.

Overall: 5 out of 5 This film was amazing, it was extremely funny and moving. Damien O'Donnell and Jeffrey Caine have put together a great movie which will appeal to all ages. James McAvoy and Steven Robertson made this film brilliant. Their acting was excellent, there was this real lifelike feeling between them, that made you really believe they were the characters they were acting out. Romola Garai is amazingly gorgeous and brilliant in her role. The story of these two physically challenged people and their carer is well put over, and you really start to grow to know and feel for the characters as the movie goes on, it was especially upsetting at the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone that loves a truly heart felt movie, warning to the more sensitive viewer make sure you have tissues you will need them.

Again amazing film!! When I was 10 (currently 14), I vowed to never see a movie that I knew would not have a happy ending. And until a few weeks ago I had done pretty well, except for Shakespere for English class...etc...I was still only watching things that ended happy. But then I saw Ramola Garai in Havanah Nights, which was cute, not good but entertaining enough to watch. After seeing this a few times over the two or so years since I first saw it, I grew to like it, especially the music. So I did a search on her and found IMDb...I saw "Inside I'm Dancing" and assumed she had done another dancing movie, and over looked it. It was later on an image search(of Rory, looking for Gilmore Girls poster for locker) I picked up an image from this movie...I then searched for a trailer, I found the trailer and when I saw the hospital and heard Rory say "You've got the future" I remembered my vow and realized this would not be a good movie for me. But it just stayed in the back of my mind until we were at the video store and there it was for $5 used, so I went ahead and bought it. After seeing it I just wanted it out of my head because it was so sad. I still wouldn't go near it until I had cerebral palsy as a vocab word. Then I just had to see it again and this time all I did was laugh, even at the saddest parts I no longer felt depressed because I realized that over all this movie was happy and uplifting...I love it and it is now one of my favorites, I;m sure this is the worst comment you have ever read. But watch the movie it's worth it. In Dublin, the crippled rebel Rory O'Shea (James McAvoy) moves to the Carrigmore Residential Home for the Disabled, affecting the lives of the residents. Roy is able to understand the unintelligible speech of Michael Connolly (Steven Robertson), who was left in the shelter by his prominent father many years ago due to his cerebral palsy, and they become close friends. Rory convinces Michael to move from Carrigmore to an apartment in Dublin, and they hire the gorgeous Siobhan (Romola Garai) to assist them. Living together with Rory, Michael faces a new world, finding friendship, love and freedom and learning to survive by his own.

"Inside I'm Dancing" is a wonderful tale of friendship and freedom in a very beautiful story. The acting of Steven Robertson and James McAvoy are awesome and I do not understand how they have not been nominated to the Oscar with such magnificent performances. Romola Garai has also a top-notch performance and is extremely beautiful and sexy. The screenplay is touching, never corny and without redemption and the precise direction of Damien O'Donnell is very sensitive. Unfortunately the Brazilian title of the DVD is shamefully ridiculous, giving a wrong idea of this excellent movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Melhores Dias de Nossas Vidas" ("The Best Years of Our Lives") Okay. You saw the film and I saw the film. True? If not, there are plenty of plot summaries out there, and there is absolutely no reason for us to waste time on any feeble attempts of mine to create another.

The most stunning aspect of the film is unquestionably the performances by the two young men and the young lady in the leads. Their emotional honesty was as compelling, if not more so, than any performances I've seen in recent months. I found I laughed, cried and cringed right along with them, and that's saying a great deal because I'm often called a jaded and cynical jerk.

As one would expect, the story is rife with clichés and I suppose that's the Achilles heel of the picture. It's a story we've all seen many times before; we all know how it will end from the moment they introduce Rory. Though you may not know exact mechanics, you know there will be a transformative friendship, a bittersweet romance and a gut-wrenching conclusion. If it weren't for the strong cast and directing, this film would be nothing more than the soporific swill that comprises eighty percent of the Hallmark Channel's program schedule. Inside I'm Dancing (Rory O'Shea Was Here)is the story of two handicapped young men, Rory O'Shea, who is almost completely immobilized and confined to wheelchair, and Michael Connelly who is debilitated by MS and also confined to a wheelchair.

Set in Ireland, the film opens with Rory arriving at a assisted living center. He eventually befriends Michael but only after a few tense scenes where Rory rebels against the staff and other patients in the usual "movie way" playing loud metal music, using profanity, and general obnoxiousness. His budding friendship with Michael is cemented by the fact that Rory seems to be the only one who understands Michael, or is at least willing to try.

Eventually, through some trial and tribulation the pair petition, and are granted, the right to live own their own in specially adapted apartment. The apartment is paid for by Michael's father who had essentially abandoned him do to his disability. The two also hire an attractive assistant named Siobhan (played by Romola Garai)to help them with their day to day living. This is essentially where the crux of the film develops as both develop feelings for her. Michael is struck particularly hard. Unfortunately, for both, but Michael especially, Siobhan does not feel the same and it results in her having to leave. As Michael temporarily regresses and wants to return to the Asst. Living Center, Rory convinces him to continue to live on his own. The film ends on a sad note, that many viewers may have seen coming, but ultimately, we are left feeling that Michael has truly become independent and the future is his, as Rory pointed out to him towards the end of movie.

You know, I can't say that I've seen a lot of "handicapped films" and I don't know if they could be considered a specific genre. But there is a type of formula to them. One person is unwilling to live beyond his illness until some liberating force compels him/her to do so and Inside I'm Dancing is really know different. What works however, is it probably is more subtle about the peaks and valleys the two men go through then what you might expect. There are no intentionally gratuitous moments and no "stand up and cheer" manipulations. The sad parts are sad and the funny parts are funny. Some viewers might recoil a bit that Rory is the spiky haired punk type with the earing in his nose as the too perfect "rebel" cliché, but the actor, James McAvoy, somehow makes it real. The same can be said for Steven Robertson, who plays Michael. When Michael's heart is broken it doesn't seem to be invoked by a poor script trying to get the audience worked up, but rather a young man genuinely in pain over unrequited love. The kind of pain many can relate to whatever their physical condition. Again, these are the types of things that make the film work and make it poignant without being overbearing and enjoyable on many levels.

Recommended. Damien O'Donnell has a good track record and in this film he handles a very delicate topic with sensitivity but manages not to let the film turn into schmalz.

This is a fantastic film, its funny with sad bits and it makes you look at things differently. Tell everyone you know to go see it now- FANTASTIC!

The acting is excellent, and Dublin plays a starring role. This film will change the way you view people with disabilities and also give you a very entertaining night out in the cinema. I can't wait til it comes out on DVD. I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.

Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10/10.

The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.

From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.

There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.

If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again. Let's get it clear from the start: I am an asshole with the emotional sensitivity of cubic stone. Therefore I consider dramas of people with disabilities, social stigma or whatever ailments they have and cry on and on about it as stupid movies with poor taste. I mean, if you have a message, you can tell it without the help of sick or pitiful people.

However, I liked this movie. It is about people with incredible bad luck as personal health goes, but they don't cry about it, quite the opposite, they try to live and people try to "protect" or "take care" of them by actively removing them from real life. The message is live life to the fullest, even if the ending is as sad as possible.

My conclusion: as sick people dramas go, this one is a keeper. It is sad, yet hopeful. I like James McAvoy, even if he does seem to always play the arrogant rebel. I also say that Steven Robertson played very well. Either that or he really has partial paralysis. :) I think I was recommended this film by the lady in the shop I was hiring it from! For once she was bang on! What a superb film! First of all I was convinced James McAvoy & Romola Garai were Irish so convincing were their accents; and by half way through the film I was utterly convinced Steven Robertson was a disabled actor and pretty sure James McAvoy was also! When I watched the special features on the DVD and saw both actors in their 'normal' guise, to say I was blown away would be an understatement!!! I can remember all the acclaim Dustin Hoffmann got back in the 80's for his portrayal of autism in the film 'Rain Man' - quite frankly (in my opinion of course!)Steven Robertson's performance/portrayal blows Dustin Hoffmann's right out of the water - and he deserves recognition as such!! All in all one of the greatest portrayals of human friendship/love/relationships ever - and it was made in Britain/Ireland with home grown actors - stick that in yer pipe and smoke it Hollywood! Surprisingly effective British drama about two very different people who find common ground, and in particular the "flowering" of one of them. An embittered, "Spike"-type youth (McAvoy) with Deuchennes MD is placed in a home for the disabled and quickly makes friends with a youth (Robertson) with cerebral palsy. Robertson has never known anything outside of the home, but McAvoy has and he is bound and determined to get back into the real world. Together, they manage to do just that in this funny and heartwarming and often heartbreaking tale of inner strength overcoming physical shortcomings. The two leads are terrific, especially Robertson, who must surely have spent some time studying the disabled to pull off this tricky role. He appears in almost every scene, and acts up an absolute storm. To anyone who doesn't know, they might think he really has CB. Highly recommended. Until I saw this film, "life is beautiful" was my favourite film of all time. This film is everything a great film should be. Great script, unsurpassed acting and direction that neither approaches the sentimentalism the subject tempts nor leaves it without the emotional impact it demands. This film contains the taste that could not come from Hollywood and lacks the pretencion that would come from France. A wonderful movie even above the calibre I have come to expect when I see the handmade films logo come up. I need not go into detail as the previous posts encompass everything why this movie has to be seen by everyone on this planet. I've been looking forward to seeing this film ever since I first caught the trailer, and I'm so glad now that I have. It's truly a wonderful film. The actors are superb, the writing is fresh and real, the whole thing was just spot-on. I love James McAvoy in this, and I can't wait to see him in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" movie this December. Romola Garai is wonderful too. Be sure to check her out in "I Capture the Castle" or "Nicholas Nickleby," two of my favorite films. Overall, I think I liked this movie because it didn't chicken out. It's a difficult subject matter to tell a story about, in that you're very likely to offend a lot of people or mess up and make it into some overly-sentimental-sugary-sweet love fest. But they avoided doing that completely, and instead made a film that's real, honest, and touching, yes, but never over-the-top. Very well done. Amazingly well done. Go out and see it, and you'll know exactly what I mean. I went to the pre-screening of "Rory O'Shea Was Here." I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better. I got some free tickets via the Times to see this little know Irish movie called 'Inside I'm Dancing'... i didn't know a thing about it, so had no preconceptions before i went in.

The film is about two guys who are confined to their wheel chairs, and live in a home. Michael (Steven Robertson) suffers from Cerabal Palsy and Rory (James McAvoy) suffers from Muscular Dystrophy (please excuse any spelling mistakes!). They form a bond, as Rory seems to be the only person who can understand what Michael is saying. They eventually leave the home to live in a flat in Carrigmore by themselves. They immediately employ the help of an attractive girl (Romola Garai) to look after them. The two friends eventually both fall in love with the same woman. Thats the story in a nutshell, but there are lots of laughs and tears along the way... in fact... being unprepared as i was.. i found the tears were flowing way too often! In fact! I don't think i've cried so much watching a movie since The Elephant Man!!! This film is a HUGE drain on the emotions... both in the fun stuff, and the sad stuff. The acting is absolutely spot on! James McAvoy is my tip for greatness... he's a great Irish actor and i think he has a great future ahead of him. Steven Robertson who plays Michael was superb too... and it wasn't until today that i found out that he doesn't suffer from Cerabal Palsy and it was just some superb acting! Brenda Fricker is also in this film, and plays the part of the Home's Manager very well. The other great part has to be Romola Garai, she was wonderful as the love interest, and i reckon we'll be seeing more of her on the big screen in the near future!

The thing that makes this film work, is not only the synergies between the two leads, but the script... which is just so #### witty it literally is on fire! I still can't help repeating some of the lines in my head even now.

The photography is good, although very bleak, but then it is capturing a certain type of area of Ireland. The music is great in this film too, as well as the choice in Songs... the use of the Johnny Cash cover of the Nine Inch Nails track 'Hurt' is inspired!!

If i had to sum this film up in one word... it would be 'emotional'. This film is very very funny... and then on the turn of a coin its very very sad! I still can't believe that still two days after seeing the film, looking back on it i both laugh and almost cry! This film is amazing... and i hope it goes far! Although i can't see that, as its advertising budget is probably very small!

So go see it! I urge you... you wont regret it... This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed! If you want a film with the full range of emotion, look NO further; dramatic and funny, and scenes of wrenching emotion; I can safely guarantee VERY few will be able to view this warm and VERY human film without shedding a tear now and then. The acting by the two leads is hard to believe; you would swear the two young men really DO suffer from Muscular Dystrophy (Rory) and Cerebral Palsy (Michael); quite simply, two of the FINEST performances I have EVER seen; these are two very believable characters as well, and you never have the feeling things have just been "tossed in" for dramatic purposes or to evoke sympathy. In the DVD release as "extras" they have "deleted scenes" (including an alternate ending) and an "extended party sequence"; why these clips were not included in the final film is hard to understand, as they tie in with the rest of the film perfectly and are in NO way superfluous. But without reservation I can heartily recommend this film to anyone; one of the very best I have ever seen. It's rare that I get the opportunity to review a film for IMDb that relates to my own life in such a close way. However, as someone living with cerebral palsy (albeit less severe than Michael, one of the main characters in the film) I don't wish to give this film a 'free pass' just because it tackles a subject that's rarely approached; and when it is, is normally treated with po-faced seriousness. There WERE minor problems I had with the film; and I'd like to address those first, so that people are clear that it isn't my situation which has clouded my judgement of this overall excellent film!

* Parts of it I felt were unashamedly crowd-pleasing, at the expense of realism. If I had a pound for every time a well-meaning member of the public has mentioned electric-wheelchair racing to me, I'd be much the richer man; but speaking personally, that fits more into the public perception of how we deal with our disadvantages, rather than the reality of what actually goes on. Same thing with spending time watching disabled people go to the pub - it's not a big deal to those of us who actually do it, as much as it might be admirable for outsiders looking in. I appreciate that this is from the previously sheltered perspective of Michael; but I still think he'd be concentrating more on enjoying the experience, rather than reflecting on what a big deal it was that he was actually there, in the first place. As such, the amount of time we spend seeing them have fun felt like a bit too much.

* I felt that the terminal nature of Rory's illness was brought to our attention far too late; meaning that it was just used as a cheap sentimental device to come between the pair, rather than something everybody knew all along was going to have to be dealt with.

To balance those criticisms, I have to dish out a heap of praise, as well. Although I thought some scenes showing them getting to grips with normal life were a touch overdone; the script also ventured into some tricky places I wouldn't have expected, and comes out with a lot of credit for doing so. For instance raising the issue of love and relationships; and showing the daily apparatus often used to aid and assist the lives of non able-bodied people. Also, despite the blunt emotional shock tactic of death being sprung upon us, the movie as a whole is far less sappy than anyone has a right to expect these type of films to be.

Brenda Fricker can and has been performing variations of her role capably on autopilot for what seems like years; but Robertson and McAvoy share a special interaction that must be noted. Inside, I'm doing cartwheels that a group of people somewhere have finally made a film doing justice to the lust for life of many disabled persons. as a 'physically challenged' person (god, how i hate that phrase) i just happened to catch this on cable where there was absolutely nothing else to watch - overall, it was a fantastic movie. yes, i was a little disappointed upon finding out that neither actor is disabled, and yes, i was a little disappointed that more of the movie wasn't filmed from the 'true' point of view of the disabled (can you imagine what it's like always being the tallest person in the room and then having to live the rest of your life with a view of nothing but other people's asses and crotches? having to always wait for the idiot to stop reading the newspaper in the only handicapped stall, enduring everyone else's rude bodily expulsions while you wait?). and the scene with him driving the car was absolutely me! been there, done that, literally. but the movie was true enough to matter - while i've never lived in a home or assisted residence, there were plenty of times throughout the movie where i found myself nodding and saying to myself "yeah, that's true.... that's happened to me...." what impressed me is that some of the commentors on this board expressed the fact that the movie made them view life a little differently and with a little more insight as the lives of a silent 'minority' - can't ask more than that out of a movie, that it makes you think and view life differently, so by virtue of that alone, the movies was tremendously successful. should be required viewing of every kid in junior high school.

pretty much for every person that's severely physically disabled, independence is one of, if not the most important focus of our daily lives, from working to socializing to recreating. for those of you who felt the movie was 'cliched,' try living our life for a single day - you'll see that the movie was 'cliched' because..... it's true. the challenges the actors faced only skimmed the surface of what happens to us every day - if we're lucky, we experience the same emotional and personal growth that the three characters (including the girl) did. every day presents obstacles for us to overcome - it's just that there's no swelling, dramatic music to accompany our lives, unless it's in our ipods.... lol! I was surprised and touched by this emotional movie which moved me very strange. I was confused, sad and happy in the same moment. I guess that too less people will pay attention to this movie. But I hope that at least a few will see it and get something out of it. The story of two friends, linked by their suffers of bodily disability, whom (as a team) beat the medical well-fare system and fight for their rights. This movie shows a side which some of us would never understand, not too exaggerated but emotional presented. Hopefully this movie will help us to understand some of their desires better and realize how important it is to have a friend in the world, especially when you almost unable to express that fact. This is definitely a movie that will make you think about the everyday struggles a person can go through every day. Great acting by the two leading roles exemplifies this further, and you will not regret seeing this movie in any way.

It's a heartwarming tale of two new friends exploring the ups and downs of everyday life seen from the seat of a wheelchair. Their friendship is tested, as well as their spirits when they get their own flat outside the nursing home.

I recommend this film to everyone who likes buddy-pictures or just wants to see a wonderful and heartwarming film that steers clear of all the clichés and pitfalls and not once gets soggy. This is by far one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. Top 20 of my lifetime. I laughed more than I have since Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and cried more than I have since I saw The Notebook. If you are looking for a touching movie without the sappy edge...this is the one. It is real and powerful. See it and you won't regret it. I was reluctant at first and I only watched it because I had to do a school project about speech disabilities. But this movie is so much more than that. It is about life, free and independent from the way the world would have you held down. Its about the disabilities that each of us have that keep us from see ourselves and what we miss but letting everything else get in the way. A stunning film which brought into the open so much about disability that generally makes people afraid. It showed how minds can be captured by less than willing bodies and how difficult it must be to witness things happening to others that are wanted for the disabled individual.

Love, friendship, fear, frustration, joy, humour and so many others things were so well captured. The 2 lead characters were very well played by the 2 able bodied actors and invited your laughter, tears, concern, joy and dismay.

I approached this film with a mixture of interest and trepidation worrying that it might be too much a play for sympathy or dwell only on negatives. It was however a beautifully crafted story of 2 friends.

I loved it. Bring a box of Kleenex to this funny, engaging, and moving weeper. The two leading actors give tour de force performances - there was considerable debate afterward about whether they are really disabled (they are not.) I appreciated that for once the filmmakers dared to be politically incorrect by depicting people with severe physical disabilities as fully developed people, character flaws and all. As a result, their believability engages us and makes us grow to like them and care about their conflicts. The story structure is formulaic, and many of the secondary characters are merely types, but the two central characters are so riveting that it doesn't matter.

Interesting - the original title, INSIDE I'M DANCING, reflects the viewpoint of the character Michael, while the new title for USA release suggests that Rory is the central figure. This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed! This Oscar-winning short film (40 minutes), based on a short story by William Faulkner, takes us back to small-town Tennessee in December 1941. Two brothers, one about 18 and one about 8 are looking for birds eggs (obviously a huge collectors item for boys in the South around this time). Well, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and the older brother, Pete, decides to enlist. He gives his prize egg to his little brother, Willie and heads off wishing to show more emotion and tenderness to his little acolyte. Well, Willie isn't having any of it, if Pete can be a soldier so can he. He heads to Memphis, showing his stubbornness and determination as he gets the better of several adults along the way. After finding the enlistment center in Memphis, he demands to see his brother, pulling a knife on a lieutenant and wounding him in the process. We are shown the devotion and love of a little brother (Jonathan Furr). He delivers a impeccable performance as a stubborn strong-willed boy in the gentler times of yesteryear. The movie tries and mostly succeeds in showing how brothers can show devotion and the importance of family ties in one's youth. As the two brothers reunite shortly, the movie delivers a cathartic cry as the brotherly love envelops us all.

This movie is like a cold bottle of water. Maybe Dasani or Aquafina, good, clear water with a flavorful mineral packet, but not pure natural spring water like Evian. Still, it quenches your thirst and you don't doubt its purity and quenching effects. It is more run of the mill and less expensive than some, but gets the job done, leaving one refreshed and detoxified afterwards. 7/10 Although this was a film of only less than forty minutes, it is one of best directed and acted stories I have ever seen. It accomplishes in less than 45 minutes what most films cannot in more than 90.

It is the story of two brothers, one 18 and the other 10. They come from a poor farm family in Mississippi. Both are caught up in war and the conflict of duty verses love of family.

It brought tears to my eyes especially because the entire film is so well acted and directed, plus it tells the story of so many wars where one serves and the other left behind.

I can fully recommend this film as beyond superb ! William Faulkner was one of the American writers to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Faulkner mostly wrote about life in the South particularly during the depression years. Many of his stories have been adapted to screen. Short stories like Two Soldiers is an endearing tale of two brothers in December 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The older brother, Pete Greer, goes to Memphis, Tennessee to enlist like hundreds of thousands of young men, some who would never come home. His younger brother doesn't take his departure well. He manages to get a bus ticket to Memphis without any money to find his brother. He surprisingly becomes a soldier of another kind since he wants to enlist also at 10 years old. Ron Perlman does a surprising performance as the military leader who manages to take care and bond with the boy. This short film won an Oscar for Best Short-Live Action film which is well-deserved. If it was longer, it could compete with the longer films. Everything else like costumes, art direction, and recreating the era of America in 1941 is perfect. The film also shows the heartbreaking war at home as most Americans were surviving the great depression. The actors and actresses are not known but they do a first rate performances. If Hollywood would make more quality films, I would probably go to the cinema more. If Broadway had more quality shows, I would go to the theater more. Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.

The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.

The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film. This film was made right in the area where I grew up and now live. I know personally most of the property owners of the various locations used in the film. As a teenager, I worked in the fields surrounding the isolated road shown late in the film with Ron Perlman, Jonathon Furr, and the car. I am told that Jonathon Furr and Ben Allison are are natives of NC. I was fortunate to see it at a local showing. At that showing was one of the people who helped select locations and secure props, such as the bus (1938 Greyhound) used in the movie. The bus had no reverse gear and during filming, the driver missed his stopping point a few times and had to drive several miles to return to the proper point. Those details of the technical issues added to the enjoyment for me. The film accurately depicts life in this area during WWII. A well done film and I anxiously await the DVD availability. Mom should really be given a different title to distinguish it from all the other movies out there called Mom or with the word Mom in the title.

This is a vastly superior zombie movie to so much of the rubbish that gets churned out time after time and all end up much the same as every other zombie movie out there.

It is so different and refreshing it almost defies categorisation.

The kind old lady who takes in a creepy lodger, who just happens to be a flesh eater, who then infects the old lady who also turns into a flesh eating zombie, or ghoul, quite which exactly is not defined.

There is pathos in the story as her son realises what she has become and while at first horrified, attempts to help her by supplying 'food'. (I shall say no more about that, for fear of inserting a spoiler!) It is one of those 'quiet' movies as opposed to guns blasting, explosions raging, car chases, etc boring etc that makes so many movies all the same rubbish, but still with enough gory moments to satisfy horror fans, whilst also inserting sadness into the story, along with nice touches of humour as opposed to downright silliness of some so-called 'horror' movies.

There is a particularly nice atmospheric shot at the beginning of the film, where the old lady is sitting alone in her room with only her Christmas tree for company and looks so 'innocent', but, what she becomes!! Oh my!

A gem of a movie and even if not your thing, should at least be viewed if only once by any true horror fan. When his elderly mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) is attacked by her lodger Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) and turns into a cannibalistic monster, TV news reporter Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas Miller) struggles to keep dear old mom from satisfying her hunger.

Although the above plot summary conjures up images of trashy, over-the-top, 80s horror titles such as Flesheating Mothers and Rabid Grannies, Mom actually turns out to be a refreshingly original take on the werewolf/vampire/zombie mythos (exactly what Emily becomes is never really clear, but it ain't nice!), as well as a touching study of the close bond between mother and son: Clay's devotion to his mother leads him to abandon all of his other responsibilities, including his job and his relationship with pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough), whilst Emily's love for Clay ultimately drives her to self-destruction.

Technically, the film could be sharper, with more stylish direction and better effects (the shots of the creature are kept very brief, so as not to disappoint), and certain more experienced members of the cast frustrate with terribly cheesy performances (Yes, Brion James and Stella Stevens, I AM referring to you); fortunately, however, the strong emotional undercurrent in the well constructed story is enough on its own to ensure that Mom is an effective, compelling, and occasionally shocking tale—one which I have no hesitation in recommending to those looking for something a little different. Mom has to be one of the all time uncomfortable movies to watch. It features an elderly lady you would love to have as your Nanny who becomes the nastiest mother f***ing monster you would ever want to meet on a dark night!

This supper Nanny eats the inners of a young lady at the opening of the movie and it just gets sicker as it goes on. A cross between the howling and brain dead seem to come to mind when describing Mom!

A must for horror fans who have the stomach for it (if you have watched re-animator or brain dead, this will float your boat)and are willing to switch the brain off for an hour or so...Let the gore pour!...8/10 "Caribe" is not a masterpiece in any of its storytelling aspects. However, it delivers a perfectly enjoyable story, along with a magnificent cinematography. The narrative structure is set around two narrative axes, one of them embedding the other, each one having elements that relate and co-exist in excellent harmony. The story never loses the right pacing, and it shows a very good blending of the human figure with its natural environment (which is a character in itself). The acting is great, and for that we owe credit to the emerging director, Esteban Ramírez. Furthermore, the characters are very well written and masterfully complex; so, once you become familiarized with them, you can perceive their feelings without them even saying anything. I can't say I liked this picture because of all the hype it generated(in Costa Rica), but rather because of the way it really achieves in showing an interesting portrait of what happens when you interfere with the equilibrium of people's lives. Hopefully, Caribe will establish a reference for future projects in Costa Rica, as it is a very good example of nice movie making. I didn't have much faith at the beginning, but as a Costa Rica's citizen I can confirm that the movie shows the reality that we live day by day, and shows a lot of things of our culture, such as our way to speak, our music, our way of standing up for our rights without any fear, without any weapons.

I'm really proud of the job they did and of how they didn't forget along the movie the message they wanted us to receive, not caring for the money, but actually working with a short budget, letting us appreciate the beautiful scenarios and the great photography.

I strongly recommend seeing this movie, you will not regret it. It's 3:30am.

I just saw this movie about six minutes ago and it is fantastic.

A teenage girl has a night of passion with her mom's lover and it ruins everybody's lives. The really interesting thing about this movie is that you can't really place the blame on any one person.

Everyone performed perfectly, and the story was thought-provoking.

You should definitely see this movie if you can get your hands on it.

I give it a 10. This is one of the finest TV movies you could ever see. The acting, writing and production values are top-notch. The performances are passionate with Beverly D'Angelo superb as the older woman with a teenage daughter and Rob Estes simply perfect as the young stud boyfriend. However, the best part of this film was how it showed the consequences of sexual abuse instead of going for the usual happy ending. It showed that abuse can happen in good families; involve good people; and wreck lives. It is thought provoking and entertaining. Congratulations to all concerned with this exceptional movie.

Billy and Jade had a very close relationship that went to far one evening even though Billy was sleeping with Jade's mother. Jade has to deal with the fact that her mother may never know and that it will never happen again. Billy is played by Rob Estes who couldn't have looked better. Lifetime tv has made another movie that everyone is bound to like. So often these "Lifetime" flicks are one-dimension, with over-the-top characterizations and performances, and with contrived plot lines and climaxes which are intended to trade any semblance of reality for drama.

But most of all, many of these flicks provide characters where it's difficult to feel a trace of sympathy or empathy for even the "good guy/good gal" characters, much less the"bad" ones.

However, here the performance were all good, the characters realistic, and the relationships among the three leads (as well as the ex-husband/father and the two females) rang true throughout.

The mother's boyfriend was portrayed as being about halfway in age between mother and daughter, and the actors were age-appropriate to this in term of their actual ages. None of the characters was portrayed at an extreme - either all-good or all-bad - and all rang true.

Without in any way condoning his allowing the relationship with his prospective stepdaughter to advance to the level which it did - you can still feel some sympathy for him without retracting blame.

Neither mother nor daughter were perfect, neither good nor bad, but simply two individuals whose relationship seemed realistic and not contrived by the script writer.

Lifetime flicks - even those which begin with some semblance of normality - often end with a deranged character brandishing a carving knife or such. Other stories seem to need to provide the "everyone lived happily ever-after" close.

This film presented a realistic premise, story and resolution, from start to finish - a welcomed variation to the norm of this genre/ This Movie Is Excellent The passion between Jade & Billy is memorable and the acting was great, This is why you don't leave a 16 year old and a young man like that alone together! It shows why a single mother shouldn't date a younger man with a teen aged daughter in the house, cause he looked young enough to be Jessy's son.

I give it ten out of ten, The acting was wonderful and the movements between the actors was correct.

The age difference between Jenny and Rob was good too, because they were similar in age.

Overall, its a fun movie but i think nobody under 13 should watch this movie because of the sexual scenes. Jenny Lewis plays an awkward girl called Jade. She smokes and drinks. She doesn't have a lot of friends and she has a nagging mother(Beverly D'Angelo). Jade finds herself growing closer to her mom's boyfriend Billy(Rob Estes), maybe she is attracted to him. Of course, I don't need to tell you what happens after that.

This is probably my favorite TV movie. This movie shows that sometimes everyone is to blame. This movie also has the best acting that I have seen in TV movies. Beverly D'Angelo does a really nice job as a sweet and loving but neglectful and blind mother. She couldn't see what was going on under her own roof. Rob Estes is at his best here as the sleazeball. Jenny Lewis is the standout. She seems to be exactly like her character.

Everyone seems to love this movie! Without going into any details of a good...if a somewhat provocative...TV movie, there seems to be a consensus among the users that there is "no one to blame here".

I disagree. Yes, the young male lover of Beverly D'Angelo, played by Rob Estes may be young and horny (and good looking) because he's not getting as much as he wants from mom, that doesn't mean, he can climb in bed and have sex with daughter. OK, he can use the excuse he just wanted to watch TV with her, but I don't buy it. People have to take responsibility for their actions. Not only did he "cross the line" by having sex with a very vulnerable teen, when he was supposedly "the responsible adult",he said, "Your mom must never know about this." How responsible was he then? Yes, it's a good flick, but he got what was coming to him. Don't kid yourselves folks that what happened was "no one's fault". You know, people who make comedies so often forget it's really ok to be outrageous. Well, not this time. Unconditional Love has it all. Barry Manilow and a dwarf in a movie with Cathy Bates as the romantic lead...and it works. Not only does it work, it works very very well. In fact, I think it's perfect. I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself yet the main characters were all so human, so honest, and so very real. But isn't that where great comedies come from? Don't characters need real feelings, real emotions, and the ability to feel real pain? Well, they do in this movie. Unconditional Love is a movie you shouldn't miss, especially if you need a seriously good laugh, or you're at all curious about seeing the psychotic dwarf in the red raincoat. I found this movie to be extremely delightful.I am biased I suppose.I happen to adore Kathy Bates.I found her singing an added pleasure.She has a very nice voice.

Ms Bates plays Grace Beasley.The film takes you from her doledrums married life in Chicago to England,the home of her recently murdered singing idol Victor Fox.There she meets his three surviving uppity sisters.She also discovers that Victor leaves behind a male lover,Dirk Simpson.

The story leads you on to some surprisingly comedic and heartwarming situations as Grace and Dirk develop a true fondness for each other,after an initial rather rude rejection,on his part.They return to Chicago where they team up with Grace's pint-sized,hilarious daughter-in-law,Maudie,to find the serial killer who murdered Victor.

Everyone in the picture did a fine job.Particularly enjoyed Julie Andrews,Lynn Redgrave and Barry Manilow.This movie was fun.It makes you cry.The music is absolutely charming.

Other posters here who found problems with any parts of this movie,just don't have a clue.

My husband and I both loved this film. At first my husband was skeptical and asked how many points he got for sitting through this one. But after a few key scenes he was totally sucked in and by the end he was convinced it was one of the best movies going. Kathleen Bates has never been so wonderfully loveable and the rest of the cast is just simply fantastic. Thank you for this beautiful film. What a shame this movie was never released. (It is now playing on cable.) I tuned in based on my high regard for the stars and was rewarded by seeing a movie far better than the ones I've been paying to see in theatres recently. I like to be surprised. So often movies are marketed as "offbeat," but are in fact more of the same old recycled drivel. This movie is genuinely different, with the bonus of a heartwarming message. Jonathan Pryce sings like an angel. Even though he is required by the plot to sing some of the most mawkishly sentimental songs ever written, he does them so well one doesn't mind. Cathy Bates and Rupert Everett are well-cast and superb, but a newcomer in the role of Cathy Bates' daughter-in-law steals every scene she is in. Give this film a chance. But a great cast! Jonathan Pryce, Kathy Bates, Rupert Everett, Lynne Redgrave, Julie Andrews and Dan Aykroyd! And that's just the beginning.

I'm not totally sure that any description of the movie and plot are going to entice you to watch this one. Suffice it to say that it has something for practically everyone: death, singing, a sparkly suit, cell phones, a little person (nice looking woman, actually), a drawbridge (modern, not Medieval), a boombox, and a crossbow. Oh, and a psychotic. And Barry Manilow.

You will have to trust me when I say that 50% of you out there will hate this movie because of the lack of the Absurd Gene in your DNA makeup. It's not your fault; it's hereditary. The other 50% of you will probably want to change the channel after 20 minutes, but you HAVE TO KEEP WATCHING.

Even at that, at the end you may wonder why you watched... but keep in mind that absurdity thing. It should grow on you. It is a test. "Unconditional Love" starts with great promise. As directed by P. J. Hogan, the film works great up until the last third of the movie, when it falls flat on its face. The screen play Mr. Hogan and Jocelyn Moorehouse wrote showed a myriad of possibilities that fizzle at the end. It appears the artistic team behind the movie had great hopes for it to play differently. The reality is this is a film that is looking in different directions in how to bring it to a resolution that ultimately fails. Don't get me wrong, the movie is tremendously appealing and will resonate with a lot of its viewing public.

Based on the strong cast, we decided to take a look. The tremendously talented Kathy Bates is the perfect choice to play Grace Beasley, the woman who finds at the beginning of the film that all is not well in her marriage. Ms. Bates is an excellent actress who deserved much better, even when her character is not helped by what the authors have her do in the film.

Rupert Everett is always dependable into delivering. His role, as the late Victor Fox's lover is well written, that is, until Dirk is lured into coming to Chicago to find Victor's murderer. It's bizarre and it defies all rules of logic. Dirk doesn't look capable of hurting a fly, let alone hunt down a killer with the help of Grace and her daughter-in-law, the incredible funny, Maudey.

As played by Meredith Eaton, this little woman, Maudey, is one of the best things in the film. She's is brash and tells it as she sees it. Peter Sarsgaard, one of the best actors working in films these days has nothing to do in the picture; he is totally wasted. Dan Aykroyd also has nothing to do. We see him at the beginning and at the end of the film and his Max doesn't make sense. He appears to want changes in his life and his marriage, only to come back to Grace without any explanation, all things forgiven.

The English actors are good. Lynn Redgrave has a better opportunity as the hysterical Nola. Jonathan Pryce is seen throughout the film as a ghost singing bland songs. Julie Andrews makes a funny contribution in a couple of priceless scenes.

Ultimately the television show hosted by Sally Jesse Raphael is a turn off and doesn't add anything to the movie. The best part is hearing Kathy Bates singing. What a beautiful voice she has! In fact, Ms. Bates is the best excuse for staying until the end. I am a huge Rupert Everett fan. I adore Kathy Bates so when I saw it available I decided to check it out. The synopsis didn't really tell you much. In parts it was silly , touching and in others some parts were down right hysterical.

Any person that is a huge fan of a personality of any type will find some small identifying traits with the main character. (Of course there are many they won't, but that is the point)

If you like any of the actors give it a watch but don't look for any thing too dramatic it's good fun.

I might also mention you can see how darn tall Rupert is. I mean I knew he was 6'4" but he seems even more in this film. He even seemed to stoop a bit due to the other characters height in this. He is tall! I mean tall!!!! And for you Rupert fans there is a bare chest scene...WONDERFUL! Minor Spoilers

In Chicago, Grace Beasley (Kathy Bates) is a housewife having a twenty-five years marriage with the lawyer Max Beasley (Dan Aykroyd) and a hysterical and psychotic dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudey (Meredith Eaton). Grace worships the singer Victor Fox (Jonathan Price), who will present a TV show in Chicago and will give five spots on the first row in a TV promotion. Kate calls the show and wins a ticket, when Max simultaneously asks for the divorce, claiming that their lives are too monotonous. Grace becomes depressed, and when she goes to the show, the audience is informed that a Chicago serial killer, who uses a crossbow, killed Victor Fox. With a broken heart, she decides to fly to England to Victor Fox's funeral. There, she realizes that he was gay, and becomes friend of his former mate Dirk Simpson (Rupert Everett). They fly back to Chicago, trying to find the killer. This movie is a delightful, original and weird dramatic comedy, having bizarre characters. It has a huge potential to be a cult-movie, with the presences of Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow themselves and a joke with Nicolas Roeg's masterpiece 'Don't Look Now', when Maudey wears a red raincoat in Chicago's underground part of the city. The beginning of the movie, with Jonathan Price singing 'Hitchcock Railway', is wonderful. I have repeated it four consecutive times. The cast has a magnificent performance, highlighting Kathy Bates, Jonathan Price, Rupert Everett and the unknown Meredith Eaton. Indeed, this movie is an excellent entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor a Toda Prova' ('Love to the Proof') I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer. We loved this movie because it was so entertaining and off beat-- Not your usual Hollywood drivel.

My husband had a Blockbuster coupon and passed on a string of new releases of violent Hollywood stuff. He was about to walk out when he saw this and decided to take a chance. There was only one copy -- and with some glitches in the DVD that we finally had to flip to wide screen version and then back to the full screen version to make it stop stalling. But it was worth it. Cathy Bates is so good and she was so perfect for the role. And she can sing too!

If only Hollywood would learn from Independent film makers! Maybe we would go back to the real movies. But for now, we're sticking with off beat and really entertaining films like this one! Other examples we've enjoyed include: A Box Full of Moonlight, Pieces of April, Delivering Milo, The Celestine Prophesy. Most of the ones by Christopher Guest such as: Best in Show, For your Consideration, A Mighty Wind, and Waiting for Guffman This is a truly heartwarming film not just about love, but about learning about yourself and your values in life. Though the story is a novel starting point for a film, it is easily recognized by most people. It combines a wicked sense of humor with a subtle assault on homophobia. Not to be missed. Unconditional Love is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. It's an emotional roller-coaster. One of my favorite scenes is the pub scene. When Dirk tells Grace that he didn't want to go to the pub because the villagers don't like him, you expect the worst. When the old woman holds her glass up and says 'To the Memory of Victor Fox and the whole pub follows suit, I wanted to cry. The funeral scene is hysterical! Julie does it in her typical Julie Andrews style. Johnathan Pryce is excellent as Victor. Grace is one of Kathy Bates' best roles. Meredith Eaton steals just about every scene that she is in. Rupert Everett does some of his finest work in Unconditional as Dirk. The Kiss between Rupert and Meredith took me to another bout of hysterics. In this day and age of Gay rights being questioned, I think this movie should be seen by all. As a gay Man in my late 40's I have seen people lose everything when a loved one dies. So kudo's to all involved in the making of this film. Man, I had my doubts. I love Kathy Bates, but I thought, how good can this be, I had never even heard of this thing...! You know, it was one of those things, we gave it "20 minutes and we'll turn it off if it sucks" and we were locked in from the get-go. This is a very winsome, fun movie. It's quirky, you know? I mean, you've got a lounge singer, a murderer (and a believable one), you have farce, then Kathy Bates in all her acting splendor, Rupert Everett finally acting to his real potential, Dan Ackroyd, and a dwarf that will make you laugh out loud. I tell ya, you'll laugh/you'll cry.

Maybe I had a weird week, but I think this film is on the level of Fried Green Tomatoes. If you don't like that movie, maybe you won't like this, but I think it was a great movie. I went out and bought the DVD. I first saw this movie in a queer film festival. 10 minutes after the movie ended a gay couple walked up to me and asked me whether I needed help - I was still sitting, crying like a maniac. The movie is cheesy, it's bizarre, it's over the top, it's gay - but it is amazing. I do think that every character is plausible. Everett's character is mean to a woman who only tries to help, he brutally throws his (terrible) friends out, he does have a temper, he can harm a fly, the "fly" that killed the love of his life, doubly so. Bates is a miracle, she is perfect, just like a role. A woman whose love and admiration is so strong that she even loves the homosexual lover of her idol is to me the essence of true love. I even understand Max (the husband), he is bored with his life, he's got a midlife crisis. He moves out, tries to lead an exciting life, only to realise a) that he's the really boring part in the relationship and b) that he loves his wife. I love the fact that she comes back to him in the end because I think that it gives the film the right balance between dream and reality. For in the end he's her husband and he might not be as exciting as Victor but he's real, he is the man she loves in a very down to earth way. I've watched it about 50 times and I do love this film, everything about it unconditionally. BTW, just read Rupert Everett's autobiography and UL is the only film that he talks of as one of the best films he ever made. To me it's the best film he ever made. This movie is the most moving and funny movie I've seen in a very long time. As a housewife ( "homemaker") and a fan ( Rupert) I found it to be sympathetic . Anyone who misinterprets Dirk's angry outburst has it wrong. Kathy Bates is not really an actress I know but she is perfect , the whole cast is perfect for their roles. Julie Andrews had me in stitches .I am watching it after reading Rupert's auto-biography so the inclusion of her was even more fun. It is at times terribly moving .I am not really a fan of the type of music in the film but you get drawn in to the romance and find you are singing the songs for days .This movie deserves to be more widely available .Our favourite scene involves Dirk and a gun and his trousers , watch it and see ! What an excellent movie, made even more so by the fact that my wife and I stumbled onto it so serendipitously, channel surfing on a nice frozen day in North Texas. Kathy Bates is at her usual best leading a cast of very normal and human costar characters thru one of the most wonderful feel good movies we've ever seen. Why this movie wasn't given the attention it deserved on it's release in 2002 is difficult to understand. Why it was head and shoulders above so many of the boring pieces of trash released with greater fanfare and attention is evident in the viewing. It is obvious that we as a general public are being force-fed that which has been deemed "great and wonderful" by the powerful and influential while true gems such as "Unconditional Love" manage to shine thru all those pretenders to really enjoyable cinema. Rent or buy this movie.....you won't regret it! When I first bought this movie, I had my doubts about it, even though the cast was pretty impressive. But after seeing it, I really do not regret spending the money. In fact, I'd love to spend it again and again and again on movies like this.... An absurd combination of humor, drama, thrill and the big questions. This is exactly what makes it a Great movie. Okay, some might not enjoy what they see, and some might even turn it off after a little while. your loss. It's got a wonderful way of dealing with the issues we've all been through in one way or the other, and the characters you think you won't enjoy the company of throughout the movie, turns out to be the ones you really come to love after a short while. For anyone with an open mind, and a sense of humor and living - watch this movie, I promise you you won't be disappointed! I quote below words from my favor writer, Paulo Coelho, as the comment for this movie.

" When you really want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it"

It is too easy to forget who we really are and what we desire to do in life. Because there are always too many comments and advice surrounding us to tell safety. I had almost forgot what the passion feel like. Despite of the adventure will take me out of safety zone, I truely believe the fear is just the price that I need to pay for the coming brand new journey in life.

Thanks for inspiring me with this lovely story. It is the blessing for me to realize what unconditional love is. That is the most treasurable love from the light of soul. I also joined IMDB for the sole purpose of commenting on this film, but so that I can sing its praises. I had never heard of this movie (it's packaged so horribly that it's easy to see why it may get passed over) but a good friend suggested it to me and I'm so glad she did. It's a gem of a film. The actors are great (Kathy Bates and Meredith Eaton in particular) and look like they are truly having a fun time. Sure at times it was a bit over the top, but I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard or so many times over the course of two hours. If you love to laugh, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Highly Recommended. This is one of the oddest movies I have watched in a long while. Usually if they are this strange I bail out early and rarely regret it. Luckily, I held on for this one. While I can't say that this is a great movie (it isn't), I can say that watching it is rather like a good acid trip - only a few really awful moments and the rest filled with "did I really just see that?" wonderment. Lots of laugh out loud moments. A great cast of characters with Meredith Eaton outstanding as the dwarf daughter-in-law with an attitude. Keep an open mind. Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it. I absolutely adore this movie! I had never heard of it when I saw it at the video store. I saw Kathy Bates was in it, so I figured it had to have some worth, you know? I watched it the first time just shaking my head . . . huh? Then it was the last scene and I found myself aching from smiling so hard. I clicked "play movie" and watched the whole thing again. It is without doubt the quirkiest movie I've ever seen. But the more I watch it, the more I love it. It's absurd and crazy and sweet and dear. Kathy Bates is impeccable, but the rest of the cast is fabulous, too. What odd characters they all are! The midget is just too funny for words. And Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow are hysterical. It's just an all around funny, fabulous movie. I get cravings to see it again. Whoever is watching it for the first time, please stick it out to the end. It's well worth it! My partner and I had never heard of this movie and decided to give it a shot picking the title from a list of movies on cable without knowing a single thing about it. As it opened and revealed the cast, we thought, well how bad can it be? -- Kathy Bates, Jonathan Pryce, Rupert Everett, Lynn Redgrave, Dan Akroyd and more. As the story unfolded we became more and more tickled with our selection, and the film soon had us laughing out loud throughout. This is not a "great" film, but it is one of those rare films that has such a great combination of memorable characters taken through "truth is stranger than fiction" type surreal events that I couldn't help but love it. I had no problem "suspending my disbelief" at some of the wackier story elements because the intentions of the filmmakers are so warm-hearted while they still manage to poke fun at everyone involved. As others on IMDb said, this is a comfort movie and I too wouldn't be surprised if it became a cult classic. This little film is hysterical, full of stereotypes about gays, straights, dwarfs, British tea and pubs, American gun culture, divorce and marriage; yet, it manages to be sensitive to the issues surrounding each. Kathy Bates is "Amazing" Grace Beasley, and as a character actor of staggering range, she brings her considerable comedic talent to ground this somewhat unusual film as she did in Fried Green Tomatos. With the help of other comedic talents like Dan Akroid as Max, her ex-lawyer husband and the backdrop of downtown Chicago and rural England, the story is just intriguing enough to entertain. Jonathan Price plays Victor Fox, a closet gay singer murdered by a cross-bow killer in Chicago. His valet-lover Dirk Simpson, played by the stunning Rupert Everett, must overcome Victor's siblings, including Lynn Redgrave, who want to turn their home into a tribute museum, and teams with Bates and her dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudy Beasley, to find the killer among the homeless of Chicago.

The entire cast sing at various points in the pursuit, and are excellent, esp. the talented Price and Bates. This implausible storyline, both funny and bizarre, is one of the most off-center films. Cameos by Julie Andrews, Barry Manlow, and Sally Jesse Raphael should tell you just how bizarre this film truly is. Strange, funny, and off-center but with a good perspective about people with every kind of difference. Yes, at times "Unconditional Love" overwhelms as it bounces -- no, as it ricochets -- from one story element to another in the most unconventional use of thematic elements and characters. In fact, it wasn't until I watched the film for the second time that I began to understand what I think P.J. Hogan might have been attempting to do with this quirky, unconventional flick. Perhaps the entire film itself is a metaphor for the unconditional love for which Grace (Kathy Bates) yearns and describes in the later part of the film. Grace insists that unconditional love is just that, without condition and without qualification. So I watched "Unconditional Love" again with that in mind. I laughed much more than I did the first time, I became more involved with the characters, I began to understand the, at times, absurd turns the story takes. The performances are often over the top but no more than they need to be to fit Hogan's weird and whacky vision, a vision which moved me to tears, yearning and outbursts of side-splitting laughter. Yes, Hogan is asking a great deal of his audience. But I for one have come to truly love his film -- unconditionally. Ignore everyone else's comments for this movie and watch it on pay cable (like I did) or rent it. You owe it to yourself. This film is what movies are (supposed to be) all about. Hard to categorize (and God knows how this was pitched as a "high concept"!), but this is one for the angels. Check it out. What have you got to lose? UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is surprisingly entertaining. While the plot goes off in perhaps too many directions, making for an overlong movie, it never fails to charm and ingratiate itself. The several plotlines, one warmly reminiscent of SHIRLEY VALENTINE, provide ample smiles, laughs, wisdom and tenderness. It all shouldn't work, and at times it certainly bumps along, but forgive its inconsistencies, sit back and have a good time. It's a charmer! Too bad somebody did not have the smarts to release this movie to theaters. I had never heard of it when it appeared on cable. After the first shock of realizing this is not like any other movie you have seen since Bringing Up Baby you have to let it sweep you along and run with it. Not until it's over do you realize it covers issues that are not only subtle but significant. Alienation, denial, wish-fulfillment, for a start. Cathy Bates owns this movie, she's never been better. The whole cast has the feel of the plot and knows what they're doing without laying on gratuitous hamming, except where it's called for, as with Julie Andrews' bits or Jonathan Pryce's camp videos. If you're not open-minded you won't get it. (See Mark Adnum's bizarre review, which he devotes to adulation of Stephanie Beacham, her career and her brother's OBE for introducing vegetable oil or something to island natives.) Taking that as a cue, I might as well spend time eulogizing Amo Gulinello's stellar cameo as a TV station intern or Jack Noseworthy's shower scene. So, cast aside all previous concepts of film comedy and have a good time. I loved it. The film isn't perfect by any means but despite this it is very fun and amusing to watch. I am the first one to agree that Victor Fox isn't really that attractive and his music and style are pretty cheesy. I also agree that the film has some odd distractions and some scenes don't work well. So what? If it makes you smile and you enjoy it who cares? Does every film have to make sense? Does every film have to be perfect? No. A person could get razed admitting that they love this film. Again, so what? It's got lovable characters, it's well shot, the acting is mostly good, it never becomes too maudlin or dramatic, it's quirky. Look at how many people love I Dream of Jeannie. Is it perfect? Heck no! And while this is very different, I say check it out and you'll be in a good mood after you see it. I have watched my fair bit of Bollywood films when growing up - you know the typical plot boy meets girl, girl rejects boys, dakus (bad guys) take away girl, boy rescues girl by killing hundreds of dhakus and they happily get married (of course I've omitted an hour of musical style numbers).. Well going into watch Hari Om, I was expecting another typical Bollywood style movie; however, to my delight it turned out to be atypical and indeed quite comical. Bharatbala's Hari Om is what could be labeled as one of those 'off beat' Indian films such as the ever popular South Asian hits as Monsoon Wedding, East is East or Bend it Like Beckham.

Being of South Asian decent and having watched various classic Bollywood films, there was much humour and sub-dialogs which could be picked up that reminded me of the fun and charming side of Indian culture (e.g., the various Indo-pop numbers which were actually remade by Nitin Soni or the witty Indian slangs that were used). Hari Om can be enjoyed by all South Asians, and is also entertaining for those not accustom to the Indian humor as the characters and plot caters to all audiences.

In a cocunutshell, the movie is of auto-rickshaw driver (aka 'four-wheeler' for those of you who have traveled to India know) played by Vija Raaz (from Monsoon Wedding) who gets himself involved with a crook and ends up owing him quite a bit of money. To avoid selling his four-wheeler, 'Madhuri', he escapes serendipitously with 'Madhuri' and a very charismatic and lovely woman from France, Isa (Camille Natta), who herself is escaping the boredom of her boyfriend Benoit (Jean Marie Lamour who was in Swimming Pool). The movie is of their journey traveling across the beautiful landscape of Rajasthan – the land of love stories; through the humour you see the two main actors trying to find out who they are really are.

What made the night most memorable was having the director, executive producer, main editor and even the mother of Ms. Natta present at the screening. After speaking with Bharatbala (who actually has a Zoology background) many interesting tidbits of the film were uncovered including: having the film finished only 10 days prior to the Toronto International Film Festival and taking only 45 days to shoot, and having only five actors in the play (the rest were all first time real actors). Arriving home I realized two things from the movie - that there is always a human connection between any one of us despite our differences and secondly, as the director had put it 'Everybody has a love story'.

Its a Must SEE for everyone! Have you ever wondered what its like to feel FREE? I am sure that each one of us know the meaning of freedom and never seriously think of using it to our advantage. HARI OM shows the audience what freedom actually means. In this film freedom is described in the form of style represented by Isa's discovery of India. Isa discovers her inner true love when she is in a Rickshaw journey with Mr. HARI OM. She looks at life differently and portrays freedom that every woman restricts in herself when she is in a relationship.

This film is definitely "worth a watch", and I saw this the first time in Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF), and I left the cinema hall with complete satisfaction.

"Watch it"! I loved this film, which I have just seen at the Philadelphia film festival. In March 2005 I went to India with 2 friends, and this movie was very real. I related to everything, and savored every moment. The characters are believable, the story poignant and the ending realistic, but not sentimental. I also enjoyed the discussion with the director after the showing. This movie shows very well the blending, but not complete mixing of 2 worlds (East and West). The supporting cast was wonderful, depicting the life a tourist encounters in India quite realistically. The humor is subtle, and at times dry, and this makes it all the more realistic, as it is woven into the daily escapades of the characters. It is so easy to identify with each of the situations portrayed. "Hari om" is an Indian greeting and the compelling title character of the film bearing this same name(played by the wedding planner from Monsoon Wedding) greets you and takes you on a journey through the heart of southern India. There's no "Bend it like Beckham" backdrops and stereotypes, and only slight salutes to the music and dancing of Bollywood (however, the soundtrack is well worth procuring), but rather, the feel that you are seeing the real India permeates the film through the use of dozens of local residents in each scene to augment the performance of the five professional actors. Fortunately for us, Hari Om's companion is a young and beautiful French woman in search of a journey. With overtures of an "Y Tu Mama Tambien" trip toward self-discovery (without the sex and fatal disease), this beautiful film calms and brings the philosophic mind. Against the initial juxtaposition of the protagonists, all identify with traits of both and the cultural divide disappears as humanity steps in. Most succinctly put, the movie's central theme, "Everyone has a love story, don't let yours pass by" teaches us a great deal about love on a number of levels. Don't let this film pass you by! Was very fortunate to see the movie Hari Om at The Bermuda International Film Festival. It was the opening night and was such a delightful movie. It was shot beautifully around India and I want to go there now. The main actor..Vijay was absolutely incredible. He was the highlight of the movie. Apparently he was also in the movie..Monsoon Wedding. He was the total star of the show. Benoit's character cracked me up...was very funny. And the girl (forget the name) was great too. They were all great! There were many tremendous scenes like the one with the monkeys. And basically I just loved the movie. Everyone walking out was raving about it and it was certainly a high point of the film festival. Was my favorite from the festival. It really beautifully captured the liveliness of India and can't believe how beautiful India is. The feeling upon walking out of the cinema..was a real high. It is a delightful, happy film. I loved it!! I was so happy to learn that Hari Om will finally be theatrically released in 2007. I saw this film three years ago at the Vancouver International film Festival and have been waiting for it's release ever since so I could send everyone I know to see it. It's like taking a trip to India....colorful, magical, thought provoking. Aside from one rather strange Hollywood style auto rickshaw chase scene this movie is very realistic. This is not a Bollywood style song and dance movie but it does have drama and romance and humor. The interactions between the Indian taxi driver and the french tourist are a good reflection on the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western life styles and philosophy. The characters are a little broadly drawn but the acting was very good. Visually this movie is a treat as you really do get a sense of what driving through Rajasthan is like...dreamlike. Sometimes it's hard to believe everything you are seeing and experiencing is real...the movie has that same quality. Great soundtrack too! The opening night for the 'South Asian International Film Festival' (SAIFF) in New York was an event a lot of us were waiting for.

I would finally get to watch 'Hari Om' – I was tired of watching the "promo" on a loop and the lingering taste of the song Angel by Nitin Sawhney in the promo, left me begging to hear the rest of it. I was impressed by the visuals… and tremendously curious about how the rugged looking auto rickshaw driver would win the hearts of the stunning sophisticated looking French tourist! I remember being rather intrigued by the theme, when I'd read a line or two about it in the papers, ages ago! Especially so, since I'd personally been very fascinated a few years ago, by how flamboyant the rickshaws in Jodhpur were! The snow and the crowds outside the theater only set my anxiety rising.

Once inside the theater, I found that the SAIFF organizers only presented disaster. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed by how poorly the event was organized and found myself in a difficult spot, trying to explain and offer excuses to my friends (of mixed nationalities) whom I'd invited on the VIP guest list. I was hoping to prove to them that Indian cinema was not always about Bollywood… Eventually and FINALLY, the movie began sending some fresh air our way. Or so I thought… Hari Om … started with chaos and noise. Autorickshaws honking, traffic and a whole lot of chaos. I found myself smiling as I felt a sense of "home" filling up inside me.

Thus began the journey of Hari Om… an auto rickshaw driver in Jaipur – The director couldn't have made a better casting call with this character. From Monsoon Wedding to Hari Om – Vijay Raaz, despite his non-hero looks, carries this movie solely on his acting skills and his take on the character, replete with all the nuances of a rickshaw driver in Rajasthan. He's a winner all the way. But how and where he learnt to speak English even that fluently, is the question! However, his character portrays beautiful shades of humor and sensitivity. I love his innocent portrayal of a simple guy from a village– who has big aspirations of being famous some day… and yet knows when to cut away to reality.

Camille, on the other hand enters the movie wearing clothes that ANYONE wouldn't dare to wear in a place like that. It's funny however, that no one seems to really care too much about her dressed like that. She looks very very dazzling though! Especially in the latter half of the movie, when she changes to Indian attire. Her relationship with her boyfriend however seems very vague. It probably adds to the touch of reality of certain kinds of relationships.

The movie takes us through the most beautiful parts of Rajasthan … The surprising part is that none of the places have been portrayed anything other than what they REALLY are. You see the dirt, you see the primitive houses… you see Rajasthan exactly the way it is!! Yet – there's only one adjective that it leaves you with – 'beautiful'.

This is the first director who probably knows how to portray India exactly the way it is- with the dirt and the noise and all the negatives that India is attached to!– Yet making it look like one of the most beautiful places to be in.

Kudos! to him for that.

The only downside of the movie that I could possibly see, is the pace… I found it rather slow at certain parts – but rest assured that you will never be bored.

Nitin Sawhney's background scores add a classy international, yet very Indian flavor to the movie. The song "Angel" which plays at a very crucial time in the movie, blends beautifully with the visuals.

I've also heard that besides the main characters, all the other actors are actually just normal people who'd never ever faced a camera before!! That's commendable considering, most of our so called established actors – still can't portray realistic characters on screen.

All in all, watching this movie was a beautiful experience – It is a pot pourri of emotions. It's got romance, humour… realism… beautiful visuals and locations... , great music, a great cast – A PACKAGE DEAL! When I walked out of the theater - I felt proud to be Indian… A few days later, I asked one of my Bulgarian friends who had watched the movie with me, if he'd want to watch another Indian Movie – and his response was – " Is it better than Hari Om? If it is, then I'll go… if not, I think I'll pass. From now on, Hari Om will be the benchmark for every Indian Movie that I see." Mr. Bala, are you reading? In a word...magical. And SO incredibly real. Vijay Raaz is so incredibly raw, so incredibly vulnerable, that you just want his characters to succeed, in whatever he does. And he plays Hari Om impeccably- from his absolutely perfect "Bollywood e-shtyle" to his awkward, shy manner with a first kiss. He is a truly gifted actor and I wouldn't hesitate to see him in anything, because he brings it all to life and gives it a soul. Camille Natta is absolutely gorgeous. It took some time for me to warm up to her- possibly because she plays the role of an ignorant but fascinated tourist so well. Her transition really became her and she molded into her role very well. Even the man you love to hate, her boyfriend Benoit, was wonderful, though you never really like him for the scum that he plays, Jean-Marie Lamour enacts a perfect cad. The script- so real. I found myself turning to my friend repeatedly throughout the film to say, "that's exactly what happens in India! they nailed it!" Very real, very raw. VERY bittersweet but you certainly leave the theater feeling fulfilled. Music by Nitin Sawhney is wonderful and goes perfectly with the constantly changing moods. But Vijay Raaz...I find myself constantly coming back to him- because he is what MAKES this movie. He is the hero, the most charming, disarming rickshaw driver you will ever encounter- he's magical. A lovely, real, sweet, incredibly talented actor who I cannot wait to see shine and succeed in Bollywood, Hollywood or anywhere! Hari Om is about an impossible love between a French tourist and the auto-rickshaw driver who agrees to take her to a rendezvous with her indifferent boyfriend. A sort of third-world road movie, that careens from lush reverie to madcap comedy, it is distinguished by the stellar performance of Vijay Raaz, who has become one of India's busier actors after his appearance as the event planner in Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding.

In an interview, Raaz proves to be quite untouched by his success, responding rather carefully and pensively to questions. He discovered a love of acting and joined a major theatre troupe while in university, but for one with so much formal training is surprisingly inarticulate about his craft. He speaks of honesty and purity as the wellsprings of his approach, and the earnestness of his desire to communicate something authentic to the audience is clear. On screen, Raaz conveys an emotional integrity and dramatic assurance that lifts his characterization to an extraordinary level, and Director Bharatbala has cast and directed him perfectly. He has a wonderfully expressive face which the camera revels in; close-ups of that face are as compelling as shots of Camille Natta, who is gorgeous as the Frenchwoman Isa. Between sweeping, extraordinary scenes within a plethora of Indian locations and a plot which is Bollywood inspired yet grounded in reality, this highly moving film is a must-see for those who love a good romance/adventure. And by this, I mean "good", not a Hollywood or Bollywood easy and contrived happy ending. East meets West in a different take on the buddy film. The performances are inspired and brilliant, the cinematography epic and the plot entertaining, engaging and poignant without a trace of schmaltz or cheap tugging at heartstrings. HARI OM is a sweet film that won't rot your teeth. See it! On one level, Hari Om is a film using a familiar genre - the road movie - to tell a familiar story: curious Westerner explores the mysterious East. But at its heart, the film is about two people, a young French beauty (Isa) bent on experiencing life to the fullest and a motorized rickshaw driver (Hari Om) with Bollywood aspirations, from vastly different cultures, their slowly growing attraction for each other, and the beautiful mad chaos that is India today. The gap between them can never be bridged, but the director succeeds in bringing the two as close to the brink of an affair as possible without damaging the story's plausibility. India and its people are essential ingredients of the narrative, and except for the main characters, the roles are played beautifully and persuasively by locals recruited during the film's production while on the road between the Indian towns and villages that form the film's setting. One major negative for this viewer: a Keystone Kops chase near the film's conclusion as Hari flees mobsters bent on collecting a gambling debt. But the closing scenes where Isa and Hari bid farewell are poignant and unforgettable. I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival in a full house of avid movie buffs and Indian ex-pats. The film is amazingly beautiful and smooth flowing for a first film. The direction is self assured, especially with locals who were recruited on the fly for extras and bit parts. While the plot and story line is elementary to nonexistent, the pleasures of watching the performances and scenery offset the lack. The soundtrack to this film is a big attraction to world music lovers. If you want to see what can be done in 45 days, with a different location every day, check out Hari Om for inspiration. It was not disclosed in the Q & A, but I imagine Hollywood could take a lesson in budget film-making by learning from this director. A labor of love. Each frame is picture perfect and grabs you. Then the sheer emotion and story-telling take you through a dream that stays with you long after the movie. The director gets your heart and leads it through 100 minutes of visual poetry. You are a part of the emotional ride of the characters. I have seen this movie at 2 festivals and it got with standing ovations at every showing. The remarkable story-telling transcends nationality and language and I felt I was a part of the drama unfolding before me. The casting is as perfect as one can get. Vijay Raaz, Camille and Benoit each hold their own.

I strongly recommend this film to everyone who appreciates good cinema. I can't wait for the commercial release of this movie. I just saw this at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was the most wonderful movie - the best I've seen in quite a while. The enticing character of Isa is an open, exploring and (as remarked in the film) love-filled person - guilelessly portrayed by the beautiful Camille Natta. The accompanying music is soothing and transporting, a balm to the soul.

Each character seems to be conflicted in some way - and their interactions (w/ conflicts) make for a great story. The tale told by A.K. Hangal as the Old Man was most magically done - I wanted it to go on and on.

That Hari seemed to remember his "place" throughout added get power to the story - a refreshing change to the bubble-headed plots of many modern writers.

All and all, an excellent film. Go see. Sit back and let Director Bharatbala lead us into a visual and sensual voyage of the mind and spirit of India. When was the last time you could say you really enjoyed a movie? This movie has pace and keeps us moving in directions that may only exist in India. If you didn't want to visit India before this movie will surely make you want to visit it now. This movie has dancing girls, a chase scene, and the mafioso involved. But it has a lot more. Thanks, Bharatbala, for taking us on such a spirited and wonderful tale. I loved the ending. We women don't want illusions in life, we want reality. P.S. I was Carolyn's friend at the Sonoma Film Festival and met you briefly. Good luck with your distribution efforts and I'm talking up the movie a storm. Before I forget, let me say the artwork in here is outstanding. From garbage cans to the huge cruise ship, the drawings are beautifully done. If this wasn't animated, critics would be lauding the "direction" in here, because it's really good.

To the story: Sylvester is picking through the garbage at the shipyards but the pickins' are slim. While brooding at the dock next to a big ship, in a porthole he spots Tweety in his cage. Tweety spots him, too, and you know his first comment - the same one he always makes when he spots the cat. Anyway, Sylvester runs over, opens the porthole and says, "Hello, breakfast!" Tweety slams the porthole window on his face and says, "You bad old peeping tomcat!" The cat falls into the water.

The undaunted Sylvester quickly sneaks back aboard ship, tiptoes into Tweety's cabin, grabs him and is ready to leave when - wham! - there's "Granny" at the door with her umbrella. Sylvester takes a beating as the old lady protects her pet bird once again. But, "flippety gibbet," says Granny, "I've dropped my glasses. I can't see a thing without 'em. Heavens to Betsey, where are those cheaters."

Now Sylvester has the upper hand....and the normal cat-trying-to-catch-bird shenanigans are on again, like Granny's glasses. Sylvester's most clever act was to take her glasses and paint a picture of Tweety on them, so when she woke up and put them on, she'd see the bird and think it was okay.

Overall, a very entertaining animated short that was a lot of fun to watch. As you can tell by the quotes, I love the dialog in some of these old cartoons. This is one of those Tweety and Sylvester cartoons that made this legendary pair second only to Bugs Bunny in terms of Looney Tunes popularity.

Besides having all of the stock situations for this duo (Sylvester feeding out of garbage cans, the "I tawt I taw a putty tat" line, etc.), Tweety's S.O.S also stars Granny, who is one of those types of supporting characters that these Warner Bros. classics had in abundance to enrich the color and flavor of them. This time out the cat and bird are aboard an ocean liner and the gags that are extracted from this situation are creative and lively.

What a day that was in cartoon history when Friz Freleng decided to pair his Sylvester with the departed Robert Clampett's little yellow bird. People who say that some of what the Looney Tunes cartoons show is inappropriate for children have apparently forgotten something: they weren't originally intended for children. They were produced for the cinema, to be shown before feature films, and so they could show anything that they wanted. "Tweety's S.O.S." has that bad puddy tat Sylvester finding Tweety aboard an ocean liner and boarding the ship to try and get him. But two things work against Sylvester: Granny is vehemently protecting the canary, and Sylvester easily gets seasick (we don't see him throwing up, but with his green face, they make it perfectly clear that he was doing just that!). And then of course, the seemingly cute Tweety has a bad-ass streak.

It's just great to see how these cartoons weren't afraid to go all out; whatever they thought about showing, they showed. We need to understand that cartoons weren't always supposed to be cute entertainment for children. Really funny. In Tweety's S.O.S, Sylvester goes from picking garbage cans to being a stowaway on a cruise ship that happens to carry a certain canary bird-and Granny, his owner. Uh-Oh! Once again, Tweety and Granny provide many obstacles to the cat's attempts to get the bird. Sylvester also gets seasick quite a few times, too. And the second time the red-nosed feline goes to the place on the ship that has something that cures his ailments, Tweety replaces it with nitroglycerin. So now Sylvester can blow fire! I'll stop here and say this is another excellent cartoon directed by Friz Freling starring the popular cat-and-bird duo. Tweety's S.O.S is most highly recommended. Funny, yes. A Freleng classic! To watch Sylvester turn green is always a treat, and it brings us back to the days when cartoon slapstick was brave and geared for the adult mind.

Loved it! As I have said before, I am NOT a fan of Tweety. He's just so aggravating I wish Sylvester would just eat him and get it over with.

In this cartoon Sly is homeless once again and is back to feeding out of garbage cans. He spots a cruise ship leaving port nearby and decides to hop aboard when he spys Tweety is one of the passengers.

The ship provides an adequate stage for the following hijinks and Sly desperately tries to catch the annoying bird and avoid seasickness. If only for once he's succeed by chewing and swallowing, thus finishing of the irritating Canary forever. But, as cartoons starring Tweety go, this one is quite good, but it's ALL thanks to that brilliant cat. Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why. Based on the manga (comic) of well-known artist Masamune Shirow, this animated feature was a slight disappointment to me.

The story is good, but the animation is merely "OK" while it could/should have been mindblowing. The movie is IMO adequate, but seems somehow flat & uninspired, if you know what I mean. A wasted opportunity, if you consider that another work by Shirow, "Ghost In The Shell", is considered a classic in many respects. It set new standards for Japanese animation, and spawned, among other things, a brilliant series called "GiTS: Stand Alone Complex".

I consider this worth a rental, unless you're a fan of Shirow and want it all. Do check out the original manga, which comes highly recommended. The animation quality here is decidedly below par IMO, regardless of the age of the OAV. The plot itself makes sense, but the characters don't.

This might sound picky, but considering that the city of Olympus is almost exclusively populated by living machines, would YOU feel comfortable there as a human? Would any machine ever emulate human arrogance, short-sightedness and greed quite so effectively? I doubt it. There are some pointers towards this in the movie, but only when the team can be bothered to put them in, by and large the 'bioroids' (or whatever they are) are interchangeable with human characters. Seems sloppy to me.

The main characters seem to have some kind of emotional entanglement, though no light is shed on this. Little light is shed on the backstory at all, a great pity. The short length of the film coupled with the focus on mecha and the crime means that we don't see any character depth. The groundwork's all down, yet we're left with no finished product. A cropped version of this OAV would have made a great TV episode, once some character sub-plots had been established.

The highlights of this short film are the mecha designs and the action/espionage.

The flaws really start to show through once you've had a chance to digest all the goings-on, so I couldn't recommend this for owning, but it's certainly worth a watch or two! Whilst this review is mostly negative, I really do think it's worth your time to watch this, but it's not something to rush out and buy.

In a nutshell: A watchable wasted opportunity. If you are looking for a phony Hollywood action movie, this won't be one for you. If the Truth is what you seek, rent or buy this. From a true story, the movie attempts to capture the heart of what was/is happening in South Africa (and many other places).

For historical knowledge, this rates up there with stories such as "The Pianist," "Schindler's List" or "Nuremberg." Millions of people today have no clue what apartheid is or that it even exists. This movie may help them learn, and may even help them dig deeper. This movie, based on a true story of Gerrit Wolfaardt, is one of the best films I've seen on race relations in South Africa; a very good history lesson of the turmoil of 80's South Africa. I put it in on the scale of American History X as far as it's depiction of how a young man can get seduced by the Aryan doctrine and how the "certain" segments of the Christian church taught a false doctrine regarding race to justify an injustice.

It's strong message of forgiveness and redemption, is one of rarity in films today. The violence is well done as to show the severity of Gerrit's crimes and greatness of his transformation.

One word about Jan Ellis who played Gerrit Wolfaardt. He carries you through the darkness of Gerrit's beginnings to his enlightened transformation. He went to some dark places as an actor and is to be commended on his performance.

Another standout performance was that of Mpho Lovinga who plays Moses Moremi, one victim of Gerrit's crimes. He was able to pull from some places of pain that really touched you as you watched his performance.

Very good movie to show the teens. I know Gerrit. He presently lives in the U.S. This film is based on events in the lives of both Gerrit and Celeste Wolfaardt. It's a remarkable story. It inspired me to read "Cry, Beloved Country." The film is well-produced. The music is beautiful.

The story is told in flashbacks. You learn the stories of a white racist South African (Gerrit) and a black South African (Moses). Their lives intersect violently. The ending is not typical Hollywood -- it's unusually realistic and ends on a note that encourages you to think about the characters and the themes.

Be sure to watch through the credits -- you'll get to see footage of Gerrit in real life. Final Solution is a powerful christian film that shows the hate between the black and whites that was present in the days of apartheid. It shows how this hate was contrived and was groomed from generation to generation. Jan Ellis was taught that a black man was a plague. He was raised to be that way.

Then he meets a man who is on the opposite side of his beliefs, Pastor Lekota. will he change his ways?. The film is a powerful movie that shows the perceptions the different races had for one another, it shows these perceptions with quite a lot of accuracy. The movie shows the world of how apartheid affected the psyche of blacks and whites.

This is a great film that everyone should watch. The subject of this movie is disturbing. How could some otherwise intelligent, religious, hard-working, and sincere White Afrikaaners treat the native Blacks so cruelly for so long?

The movie answers this question, and also explains how some Afrikaaners are changing in a positive way. Well this was the WWF's last pay per view event of the millennium and it ended the year and millennium right. The huge story line of Stephanie and HHH started right here at this event when Steph turned on her dad. Vince McMahon had a great match with HHH and this event is very good I give it a 9 In Nordestina, a village in the middle of nowhere in Pernambuco, Antônio (Gustavo Falcão) is the youngest son of his mother, who had uninterruptedly cried for five years. When he is a young man, he falls in love for Karina (Mariana Ximenes), a seventeen years old teenager that dreams to see the world and becomes an actress. Antônio promises Karina to bring the world to Nordestina, and once in Rio de Janeiro, he participates of a sensationalist television show and promises to travel to the fifty years ahead in the future or die for love with a deadly machine he had invented. Fifty years later, Antônio (Paulo Autran) tries to fix what was wrong in his travel.

"A Máquina" is one of the best Brazilian movies I have recently seen. The refreshing and original story is a poetic and magic fable of love that will certainly thrill the most skeptical and tough viewer, in a unique romance. The direction is excellent; the screenplay is awesome; the cinematography and colors are magnificent; the cast leaded by Gustavo Falcão, the icon Paulo Autran and Mariana Ximenes is fantastic, with marvelous lines; the soundtrack has some beautiful Brazilian songs highlighting Geraldo Azevedo and Rento Rocha's "Dia Branco". If this movie is distributed overseas, please thrust me and rent it or buy the DVD because I bet you will love the story that will bring you into tears. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "A Máquina – O Combustível é o Amor" ("The Machine – The Fuel is Love") I rented this movie, but I wasn't too sure what to expect of it. I was very glad to find that it's about the best Brazilian movie I've ever seen. The story is rather odd and simple, and above all, extremely original. We have Antonio, who is a young man living in Nordestina, a town in the middle of nowhere in the north east of Brazil, and who is deeply in love with Karina. The main conflict between the two is that, while Antonio loves his little town and has no wish to leave it, Karina wants to see the world and resents the place. As a prove of his love for her, he decides to go out himself and bring the world to her. He'll put Nordestina in the map, as he says. And the way he does it is unbelievable. This is a good movie; might be a bit stagy for some people due to its different editing job, but I think that it's also that that improves the story. It's just fun, and it makes you feel good. Years ago I read the book 'A Máquina' (The machine). As I re-read this little book again and again, I could never stop getting more and more fascinated by the imagination of the writer and the richness of the Brazilian culture.

When I knew about the movie, I was really scared that someone would spoil one of my favorites books! Well, happily, my fears were unjustified and the movie is such a wonderful and delicate piece of art.

I can't recall of any other movie that could bring tears to my eyes due to the very beauty of the text. Also I can't recall such a powerful performance like Gustavo Falcão's.

You can see and feel how colossal his love for Karina is. You can realize that he'll move mountains and do anything for this love.

Do see this movie, watch it thru the eyes of the kid that lives inside you, enchant yourself! Very touching film, a great surprise to come up from Brazil, a country that usually exports features about social themes, violence, sex... Magical realism is a very hard task, and I believe João Falcão has made it wonderfully. It seems that he really didn't intend to make a realistic film, far from that. Although many people think the film was adapted from the play, he said in his interviews that he actually based the film on the book. Another mistake is to think that Falcão has been influenced by the series "Hoje é Dia De Maria". The TV series produced by Globo was made after the film, but aired before... Unfortunately.

The negative point is the photography, by Walter Carvalho. It seems that he didn't capture or understand the concept Falcão has created. The story is captivating and universal, in spite of taking place in a tiny little city in Brazil. That could take place anywhere in the world. A great movie, I strongly recommend. Let's be fair: there are no RULES for scriptwriting, so I won't say the movie SHOULD be something other than it is. I'll just state my opinion. OK, I really liked the script, the way things are told and characters are introduced. However, I think when a play is adapted to the silver screen, it could maybe try and fit this other media. Since this movie was directed by João Falcão, the same man who directed the play, it's not too much of a surprise that the film turned out a bit too theatrical. It's the man's first movie, for cryin' out-loud! What I'm saying is, there are parts in the film - like the city of Nordestina, which slightly resembles the set of "Hoje é Dia de Maria" - that feel like we're not at a movie theater. We're at the theater! Lines are spoken too formally, characters are moving choreographically, and the lightening is clearly meant for a stage. Sure, maybe that was the intention, but that's been done. On stage. Wonderful things have been made when adapting a play into a movie - the beautiful "Closer", for instance. When I went to see this one, though, I didn't feel like I was watching a movie. But overall, it was a good one, worth watching. It's a nice love story, funny at times and sad at others. My vote is a 7. The Duke is a very silly film--a dog becoming a duke! But it's a very fun movie. It has some of those corny pranks that many kids movies have, but (thankfully!) no bodily function jokes, as so many animal movies feel compelled to have! Mostly, it's just dogs being dogs and people being. . . well, people. The 'good guys' are likeable and appealing. The 'bad guys' are ridiculous, and of course, the pun of many jokes. But there is something dignified about this movie, for even though it is silly, it's not out for every cheap laugh like "Home Alone" and others.

Crocket, Simon and Copper do an excellent job playing Black and Tan Coonhound "Hubert" who becomes the Duke after his beloved owner, a real Duke, dies. For the most part, they just act like dogs, no 'talking,' or human-like emotions and attitudes. However, they do stereotype poodles, and Hubert does fall for her, just because she's a poodle. Come on! These are dogs--they have a different view of beauty!!!

Overall, charming, fun and enjoyable. it's a great movie for the whole family. i don't think many people have seen it cause i ask people and they say that they've never heard of it before. Sophie Heyman is my aunt's sister in law. my favorite scene is the whole movie i can't even pick a favorite scene. my favorite character is Hubert because he is a funny yet smart dog. if someone hasn't seen it they are missing out on a great adventure. i've only seen it cause my aunt is related to Sophie and she got a copy from her. if someone is reading this i suggest buy the movie and i guaranteed it won't be a bad decision. i've seen this movie about five times and every time it gives me the same message, dogs are as smart as people just give them a chance. I really enjoyed this movie about a dog who becomes a Duke. It would have been very easy to mess this one up, but along with the humor, the script was filled with warmth and even some profundity about nobility and class. It's a feel good movie that the whole family can watch.. even the adults! The "old dark house" sub-genre that dominated the early talkies rarely fails to disappoint when we re-view the oldies to-day. Here is one that provides so very many suspicious characters you have to wonder how they will be able to tie up all the loose ends in the 6 reel running time.

The Crooked Circle is a gang of counterfeiters and thieves who have decided to take revenge on Col. Walters (Berton Churchill) who has sent one of their ranks to prison. They decide he must die that very night. Meanwhile the Colonel's own group, The Sphinx Club, is determined to protect him at all costs. This does not sit well with Thelma (Irene Purcell) fiancée of club member Brand Osborne (Ben Lyon, late of the mega-budgeted HELL'S ANGELS (1930)) who wants him to quit the club and stop endangering his own life. Brand promises to resign after saving the colonel's life. Everyone heads off to Walters newly purchased mansion on Long Island to await the assassin.

The Colonel might be the new owner of Melody Manor but it's an old dark house complete with eccentric neighbours (like Raymond Hatton as a local hermit) and maybe even a ghost. Top billed Zasu Pitts is Nora, the housekeeper who expects to see a spirit around every corner. Throw in a cop (James Gleason) who is certain Brand is a criminal and we have a picture which is packed with action and surprises.

You will notice right away that the script writer was at a loss to come up with too much dialog because a lot of characters repeat the same lines over and over. Yoganda (C. Henry Gordon) a Hindu mystic (which movies of that time were loaded with) says "Evil is on the way." many times and I lost count of how often Ms. Pitts says "Something always happens to somebody!". There are many suspects and two characters (Mr. Gleason as the stereotype dumb cop and Roscoe Karns as Mr. Lyon's pal) who serve as comedy relief. The house itself is appropriately spooky looking (in fact I think the same set was used in THE PHANTOM (1931)) with lots of secret passages and violin music coming out of empty rooms but somehow you never really get a feeling of danger. Maybe it's because no one in the movie, and I do mean no one!, is entirely what they seem to be. It all comes out right in the end though; but to go into any more detail would spoil it for you.

Watch carefully for Robert Frazer (from WHITE ZOMBIE) and Frank Reicher (best remembered as Capt. Engelhorn from KING KONG) to pop up among the suspects.

THE CROOKED CIRCLE is a fun film. Some aspects of the plot are predictable and then again several others are not. I suspect you will enjoy it. 1930's comedy mystery about "The Crooked Circle" a band of hooded crooks who set about plotting the murder of some one who swore to oppose them. Enjoyable but really unremarkable little film, the movie works simply because the cast headed by Zazu Pitts and James Gleason (both of whom would later appear together in a couple of Hildegarde Withers films after Edna Mae Oliver dropped out of that series) and supported by a great cast of actors and actresses you know but may not know the name of (I don't hence the lack naming). A breezy hour long romp, the movie doesn't make a great deal of sense with mistaken identity, secret passages, ghostly music and people not being who they seem. Its the perfect thing for a dark and stormy night or a late night viewing when one is nostalgic for the late late show. If you've never experienced the thing that is Zasu Pitts, here is a Zasu zinger! In 1933 Mae Questel caricatured Pitt's voice for the character Olive Oyl for the Fleischer Studios animated cartoon version of the comic strip Popeye. Zasu (pronounced Zay-Sue) does her best "Olive Oyl" impersonation walking around whining and ringing her hands or attaching herself to the policeman's laynard. I kept waiting for her to say "ohhh myyyy", but instead it's "something always happens to somebody." The first time I saw this film I loved Zasu and found her character really funny. I've since seen her in other films where she does this same whining, uptight, fragile-flower routine. So, upon watching this film again I started getting a little annoyed with the constant whining and near hysteria over a piece of dust. But, there are some funny comedy bits here, and it's also a mystery movie as well. It's an interesting mix of mystery and comedy that actually works. The mystery plot holds together well through the camp of Zasu Pitts and James Gleason who plays Arthur Crimmer the policeman. The haunted House is fun with many a secret passage and even a skeleton in the attic! Well worth the watch. Read more public domain movie reviews at: http://pdmoviereview.blogspot.com/ I hope, from his seat on Heaven's comedic throne, Spike Milligan can see and can enjoy this film, as Terence Ryan and Ken Tuohy have taken a book that the author himself said writing it "nearly turned me mad" into a joy to watch.

The film tells the story of the Irish town of Puckoon and the problems befallen upon it when the partition between Northern Ireland and the Republic is drawn up, cutting its way through the centre of the village and, more worringly, through the middle of the churchyard. This causes some deceased, buried in the Catholic churchyard, to now be in the Protestant north - and so the local priest, assisted by a wide variety of eccentric locals, aims to move the bodies back undercover of darkness, and so avoiding the bureaucratic British border guards.

It was inspired work to cast the Irish comedian and poet Sean Hughes to play the part of Madigan. He brings an innocence to the part, especially in his to-camera pieces (which is normally where he interacts with the voiceover of Richard Attenborough, playing supposedly the writer/director of the film). Daragh O'Malley playing Father Rudden is also worthy of considerable praise; and the rest of the cast, from the household names like Elliott Gould and Griff Rhys Jones to people with what would normally be called 'bit parts' - such as Spike's daughter Jane who plays Madigan's wife give 100% The credit for this goes, in no small part, to the wonderful characterisations given by Spike in the original book.

I could argue that the film is slightly too long, or that Elliott Gould's Irish accent left a little to be desired, but those would be only minor points and take nothing away from the excellence of this film. Saw the film at the closing gala of the Ealing Film Festival in West London(England). Enjoyed it immensely. Although the Crow & the Chinese Policeman don't appear, and Dan Milligan becomes Dan Madigan (played by Sean Hughes (I)). The interaction between Dan and the Author (Writer/Director) voiced/played by Lord Richard Attenborough, works very well.

The rumour is that Lord Attenborough and Elliott Gould (as Dr. Goldstein) appeared in the film for just a pint of beer.

Spike was shown the film, on video before he died and by all accounts enjoyed it immensely. Spike Milligan's books and plays have defeated film makers over the years, and 2002's 'Puckoon' is sadly no exception. The novel, set in 1924, concerns the partitioning of Ireland, in particular its effects on a solitary community ( the 'Puckoon' of the title ). Due to a colossal blunder, half the village is now in Northern Ireland, the other half is in the Republic. Locals go to the toilets at the bottom of their gardens to find a barbed wire fence blocking their path. Drinkers crowd like sardines into a corner of the pub to enjoy a cheaper pint. A dead man has to have a passport made out in his name before villagers can reach the churchyard to bury him.

'Puckoon' is a sort of Irish 'Under Milk Wood' with comic characters and surreal happenings galore. The lead character, Dan Milligan ( renamed 'Madigan' in the film ) is impishly played by Sean Hughes, and has conversations with the narrator ( Richard Attenborough ). Also in the film is Milo O'Shea, Griff Rhys Jones, David Kelly ( from 'Robin's Nest' ), Freddie Jones, Joe McGann, and Elliott Gould.

Interviewed for the 'Making of 'Puckoon' documentary, writer/director Terence Ryan expressed undying admiration for the book. It shows on screen. But, alas, like the ill-fated film of 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy', a good book does not necessarily make a good film. The trouble with 'Puckoon' is that, like Milligan's other books, they simply do not work on the big screen. 'Puckoon' is essentially a collection of jokes in search of a plot.

No way can the film be compared to train wrecks like 'Sex Lives Of The Potato Men', 'Fat Slags', and 'Lesbian Vampire Killers', but then neither is it as good as it should have been. The last half-hour involves a lot of running around by the police, the British army, some locals who have stashed explosives in a coffin, and is really tedious to sit through. Ryan's decision to stick closely to the book is the main reason for its failure to work as a film.

The other problem is the total absence of charm. 'Waking Ned' had this in spades, while the 'Father Ted' television series was funnier by far. Spike lived long enough to see the film, and apparently enjoyed it. His daughter, Jane, has a cameo as Madigan's bride.

The highlight for me though was the quotation at the beginning: "I don't mind dying!", said Spike: "I just don't want to be there when it happens!". Incredibly hilarious mid-70's Italian Rootsploitation with lots of non-consensual S&M, lesbian sex, gratuitous racial cruelty etc...Few redeeming cinematic qualities, except for the fairly cool theme music with dubby "African" drums and flute. Brilliant sample dialog:

White Slave Owner (to White Plantation Manager): "You're so dumb, I'll bet you forgot to interrogate that n****r midwife!"

White Plantation Manager: "Not only did I interrogate her, I did it so well she died before I could get any answers from her!"

All the black actors have 70's afros, and say "yes, massa" in a high-pitched voice. The female lead has sex with everybody on the plantation. 10 Stars for fans of tasteless sleaze. Obviously made on the cheap to capitalize on the notorious "Mandingo," this crassly pandering hunk of blithely rancid Italian sexploitation junk really pours on the sordid stuff with a commendable lack of taste and restraint: The evil arrogant white family who own and operate a lavish slave plantation spend a majority of the screen time engaging in hanky panky both each other and their various slaves. Director Mario Penzauti and screenwriter Tecla Romanelli cram this fetid filth with a teeming surplus of sizzling sleaze: we've got nasty rape, interracial copulation (one white lady makes wild love to a muscular black stud while he's tied to a cross), copious female nudity, brutal whippings, vile degradation, lots of lurid soft-core sex, and a severely twisted tragic surprise ending that mixes elements of incest, murder and miscegenation in a questionable attempt at making a statement about the horrid inhumanity of slavery. Special kudos are in order for foxy brunette actress Paola D'Egidio, whose lusty and uninhibited portrayal of depraved and lascivious wicked bitch Rhonda positively burns up the screen. Moreover, Marcello Giombini's funky, throbbing tribal score hits the groovy spot. Maurizo Centini's fairly polished cinematography likewise does the trick. A satisfyingly seamy chunk of slimy swill. As is often the case when you attempt to take a 400 plus page book and cram it into a two hour film, a lot is lost. Here director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) takes on an extremely ambitious project and almost pulls it off. What we get is a charming and emotionally compelling film that seems somehow incomplete.

There is much about this film that is wonderful and fantastic. The cinematography by John Toll (Cinematographer for Braveheart and Legends of the Fall, winning Oscars for both) is splendid. Working with Madden, the choices for locations on the Greek island of Kefallonia are superb and the visual images that come from photographing these majestic locations in varying light are lush and beautiful. Madden also uses numerous Greek actors as the townspeople, giving the town an authentic feel. The soundtrack is also terrific and the mandolin passages and vocals by the Italian soldiers are marvelous.

Madden does an excellent job of bringing us the Italian occupation and the romance, which take up the greater part of the film. There are numerous sweet and funny moments throughout this segment. However, by the time the serious battle drama is ready to unfold, there isn't much film left in the reel and this component is extremely rushed and abbreviated. While the battle scenes are well done, subsequent to the battle it is obvious that increasingly greater compromises are being made to keep the film from running too long. By the time we reach the post war scenes, the treatment is merely skeletal. Another negative is that the DVD is particularly sparse on features.

Nicholas Cage is charming in the romantic lead as the sentimental Captain who seems to have joined the army to sing rather than fight. When fight he must, Cage switches gears seamlessly into a man of fierce principle and resolve and somehow remains believable in both personas.

Penelope Cruz, whom the camera loves, gives an uninspired performance as Pelagia. In part this is because Cage so dominates the screen, but Cruz just seems too placid in a part that should be emotionally torrential and dynamic. She allows the character to be objectified as Corelli's love interest rather than establishing her as a powerful character in her own right.

John Hurt gives a fantastic performance as the wise old doctor, who knows as much about human nature as medicine. However, Christian Bale seems a bit overwrought and stiff as Pelagia's fiancé.

I rated this film an 8/10. Despite some drawbacks, this is a touching film that is well worth seeing. The photography alone is worth the price of admission. Being Of Cephallonian descent, I was happily surprised when watching the movie. I have heard the true history from my relatives that still live in Cephalonia, but when watching the movie and reading the book the sketchy bits of history were filled. It is all true, the Italians would sing, the oppression and the earthquakes that rock the island so often. The earthquake in 1953 killed my great grandfather and the book and movie both portray the feeling of the era with great compassion. If you haven't seen the movie go and watch it and read the book, it is not only a love story, and yes, there were plenty of Italians in love with Cephallonian women, in fact, boat loads of Cephallonian women were taken to Italy after the war, it is a true depiction of history. I have to admit that I approached this movie with a sense of expectation and dread. Louis de Berniere's bestselling novel is one of my favourites and anyone who has read it will realise that there is no way in hell that any screen adaptation can be 100% faithful.

All the way through I found myself convincing myself that the movie was unsuccessful, and had stripped the book's plot back so far as to render it redundant. The ending, however, is much better than that in the novel, and I could not stop thinking about the movie afterwards. Still, the plusses (John Toll's magnificent cinematography, Stephen Warbeck's great score, etc) I felt did not outweigh my initial negatives (Cage's miscasting, a heavily diluted script).

But, two days later, I was queuing again to see Corelli, and although not perfect, I have to admit now that the movie is the best anyone could have expected. Cage is actually brilliant in a role that even de Berniere was concerned was not a fully rounded character: his carefree spirit which gives way to shattered remorse is spot on, and complements the superb double act of Penelope Cruz and John Hurt perfectly. David Morrissey is quietly effective as Weber, the Nazi officer trying to reconcile his feelings for his newfound Italian friends and his inbred superiority complex to those around him. And the fine Greco-Italian supporting cast bring de Berniere's sundrenched world of Cepholonia dazzlingly alive.

On leaving the cinema second time around, I finally let go my passion for the novel which prevented me from fully appreciating the story of WW2 Cepholonia in cinematic terms. My hat goes off to John Madden who, despite the almost expected critical drubbing he is receiving from the British critics (any director who has had a major success like Shakespeare in Love behind them is always a target for these moaning ninnies!),has managed to transfer a terrifically difficult book to the big screen with such heart, verve and humanity (the core virtues of the novel, in fact) that he has created another classic love story that will probably only be fully appreciated when the dust has settled a few years from now.

If you are a fan of the book, like me, it's hard, but try not to make the same mistake on your initial viewing. Try to erase the book from your mind for two hours, bathe yourself in the glorious Mediterranean atmosphere, and discover Corelli, Pelagia, Mandras, Dr Iannis, as if for the first time (pretend you're watching something made from an original screenplay), and I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

In fact, you'll be eagerly waiting to own your own copy of this delightful movie on video or DVD.

8/10 After a somewhat slow start I thought this movie about the Italian occupation of a Greek island during World War II picked up and became a quite enjoyable watch for a couple of hours, from primarily two points of view.

The love triangle is an interesting one and strikes me as believable, because I know it happened in various places under occupation. Penelope Cruz played Pelagia, a young Greek girl engaged to be married to Mandras (Christian Bale). I had questions about the depth of their love from the start, but their future was torn apart when Italy invaded Greece, and Mandras went off to fight. After German intervention, Greece is conquered and the island Pelagia lives on comes under Italian occupation, during which Pelagia meets and begins to fall in love with Captain Corelli (Nicholas Cage.) This, of course, was a dilemma that came to many young women in occupied lands. As they got to know their occupiers, they started to see them not as the enemy but as real people, and sometimes fell in love - often to the disapproval of their neighbours. I just finished reading an interesting book about the German occupation of Britain's Channel Islands in which this was a major issue. Once Mandras returns to the island, Pelagia is torn between them.

The second background issue is the Italian occupation itself, which I thought was quite realistically portrayed. First was the contempt with which the island treated their Italian occupiers. Greece defeated Italy (quite true from a historical perspective) and was really conquered by the Germans. The refusal of the town to surrender to the Italians and instead to insist on surrendering to a German officer struck me as something that could well have happened (and was quite funny in fact. I loved the line, "we would rather surrender to this German's dog than to you Italians.") The portrayal of the Italian troops also struck me as believable. The Italian Army was never enamoured of their German ally, and never enthusiastic about fighting with them. Although Hitler and Mussolini were close friends, their soldiers tended to treat each other with contempt. Here, the Italians are more interested in singing than fighting (which the German troops on the island simply can't understand,) and are ecstatic when Italy makes peace and withdraws from the war - until they discover that this may well make them prisoners of the Germans. It was all quite well done, I thought.

It falters a bit at the end with an all too predictable finish, but still deserves praise.

7/10 At first I didn't think I would like this movie, but as it progressed it became better and better. I love music and I was impressed with how well Cage could fake the movements of playing a mandolin. My son was with me and he also like the movie a lot for its music and the story and the way the story unfolded--- slowly showing how Corelli won the girls heart. The acting and the story were both well done and well directed. At first Corelli's bravado was irritating, but soon he grew on you. The twists in the plot were intriguing especially the relations with the Germans. I would like to see this again to follow all the side plots. I also want to buy the sound track to hear the music again. A beautiful, sensitive film that brings home the futility and cruelty of wars no matter what the so-called reasons. The performance of Cage and Cruz were quite impressive, but it is to the older Greek characters that go the highest praises. Irene Papas is as gorgeous as ever! Though some scenes seems a little long at times, this film will be a heavy Oscar contender. Once again John Madden has given us a magnificent film. A simple but beautiful story located in a real paradise and the music can't be better, Stephen Warbeck delights us once more, and good actings but.........why on earth is Penelope Cruz in this film? I asked myself that same question while watching this movie. Of course her greek accent is not believable, she's uncapable of acting decently not even in one scene. Not even at the end she did a good job, after so many events, after years she finally gets to see Corelli again and she couldn't change the same face of stupidy we had to bear during the whole film. Anyway, Cage was very good in one of his best characters; Hurt also is great in his and the rest of the cast all did a great job, so the final result is a movie that really is worth of watching. This is a beautiful film that not even Mrs. Cruz was able to spoil. So far I think it's Madden best work so no fan will be disappointed. Here's a well-made war story, nicely shot and well-acted. The portraying of the Italian and German occupancy of Greek island Kefalonia is well-done. John Hurt as Pelagia's father and the island doctor is superb, Nicolas Cage does a good job as the Captain from the title, Penelope Cruz does a good job of being beautiful and batting her eyelashes at Cage. There's heroics and humor, there's drama and romance, and it is all set on an idyllic island.

Oddly enough, a very similar, or should I say almost identical, storyline, with the same characters going through the same series of events, is told in a novel by the same title, written by Louis de Bernieres. This wonderful historical novel tells the story of beautiful Pelagia, daughter of doctor Iannis, and their life on Kefalonia during WWII. Pelagia's fiancee, local fisherman Mandras, enlists when the Italian Army invades northern Greece from Albania under false pretenses. When the Axis finally prevails, with a lot of help from the Germans, a garrison of Italian soldiers is stationed on the island, and Captain Corelli plays a big part in keeping the occupation a peaceful time. As Mandras joins the partisans, charming Corelli and his mandolin are quartered with the doctor and his beautiful daughter. Of course, this makes it a novel about love. But it is also a war novel, a summary of Greek history, a tale of Communist uprising in post-war Greece, a portrait of the madness of Mussolini, and, most importantly, an ode to island life on Kefalonia.

Some of these elements return in the movie, but in general, it is an impossible book to film. I am glad nobody ever tried.

The movie 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', however, is worth seeing. Just make sure you read the book *after* you see the movie. 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' is a fantastic film in itself. It is nothing like the book, which may disapoint its ardent followers. Yet, viewed on it's own, the film is a masterpiece. The views are spectacular and the acting isn't too bad either!! Nicolas Cage was brilliant-so different from his usual action hero type characters. Penelope cruz is superb and really holds the film together. I think that this film has to be judged as an indivdual project-not related to the book. Louis de Bernieres gave up rights to the film script, so the film is an interpretation of the director, john maddon. Go and see this film with an open mind-you'll love it; because underneath is the touching story of love and war. In my opinion, this film has wonderful lighting and even better photography. Too bad the story is not all that good and Mr. Cage sometimes loses his accent. But two thumbs up for lighting and the DP! Warning: If the Coen Brothers or David Lynch define your taste in film, disregard this review and move on.

Yes, I borrowed the "one line summary" from the book about President Ronald Reagan, but, among other virtues, this movie emphasizes the role that character plays in the lives of honorable human beings. This film is full of honest, decent people, and they have integrity to spare. In a word, they have "character."

A small nitpick: Unless you know the history of WW II, you probably don't know that, from Captain Correlli's arrival on the island to the fall of Mussolini, 3 and one-half years have passed. The average viewer might think the romance was of the "whirlwind" variety. That is not so. The romance develops slowly, which gives it both dignity and meaning. The film's deliberate pace may be the director's way of marking time.

Some reviews have criticized Cage's Italian accent. The Italian-speaking members of my family assure me that his accent is quite good.

The history was right on the mark. Yes, the Germans turned against their Italian allies, who, for the most part, were reluctant allies from the start. If you find that shocking, keep in mind that the French Mediterranean fleet was blown up by the British in 1940, just after France's capitulation, lest it fall in the hands of the Vichy government, or worse, the Nazis.

The depiction of the Italians as educated and cultured was a compliment to an educated and cultured civilization.

This film was beautifully photographed, and its story was lyrical. The script was not thought-provoking, nor was it clever, but here was a situation where confusion and cleverness were not needed, nor would they have been appropriate.

The story is tender, and the message is uplifting. The characters are honest, brave, earnest, sympathetic, and likeable. It's a nice little film. 8/10.



To say the truth, I went to see this movie only because Nicolas Cage is my favorite actor. Folks may not agree, but he makes equally good performances in bad and good movies. I haven't seen a movie with Penelope Crus before, so I was anxious to see whether she is a good actress. So, here's what I think:

The movie is good (I haven't read the novel, however). Some moments were really thrilling and... unexpected. Altogether you'll find the plot pretty simple. So the only thing that could save the movie, which (an experienced viewer will know that from the beginning) would either end tragically or happily, was the performance of both Cage and Crus. And it was GREAT, GREAT, GREAT!!! In the latter part of the movie I even liked a rather broad accent of the actress (Spanish, but for those who don't speak Greek that's OK, and she even looks like a Greek girl). Overall the movie is highly enjoyable and has a good deal of irony (fans of classical music will surely have fun at some moments:)

I give it 9/10. You should see it! Captain Corelli's Mandolin is one of Nicolas Cage's better films. He turns a fine performance as the title character. This is a romance set against the backdrop of a worn torn island. John Hurt's character gives his daughter, played beautifully by Penelope Cruz, some honest advice about love. This movie doesn't have the fault of being completely predictable. This movie also allows Cruz to turn in a performance as a strong woman who knows her own mind and heart. Once the film warms up beyond the opening sequence this film keep you focused on it. Again, Nicolas Cage did not disappoint. I really enjoyed this movie. During the movie, I felt that I wanted Pelagia and Captain Corelli to get together. I heard myself screaming: Come on, kiss her! The movie has a happy ending. Good movie to watch in the evening when you want to chill. Captain Corelli's Mandolin is no Oscar contender but it was pretty good. I have to admit Ms Cruz can really act. She puts on a very good performance. In fact she our does her boyfriend Tom in drama. John Hurt was great as usual. Nicholas Cage seemed to be enjoying himself. I bet he felt he was going back to his roots as an Italian. However, I did learn something. One more chapter in Horrors of Nazi Germany the many Italian soliders killed during the period of there surrender to the allies and Germany's eventual surrender. A nice and pleasant movie full of meditteranean sceneries (Cephallonia is a very beautiful greek island) that keeps many of the novel's characteristics. I think that greek sceneries add something special and magical to a movie. One thing i didn't like at all though, is that the main characters, like 'Mandras' and Pelagia's father weren't greek actors but foreigners. I mean the actors tried to express the greek way of living, but to me they didn't succeed and it was quite clear. Even their pronunciation when they were trying to use greek words was terrible and that was bad for the film's plot. Irene Papas was really great in her role, a typical example of a mother, living in a island during the 40's, who has lost her husband and tries to live a child alone. John Hurt, Pelagia's father, also acted great. He reminded me a greek in many of his reactions. Just exactly HOW director John Madden come to settle with Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz playing the roles of an Italian Officer and a Greek Villager in an honourable story: "Captain Correli´s Mandolin", just escapes me! Witness: a wobbly, inconsistent accent by Cage amid horrendous over-acting, with Cruz -- more adequately cast as a spoiled Latino opposite Johnny Depp in "Blow" -- in basically a repeat performance under the guise of a Greek nurse... ay, it was painful. But there were saving graces.

The story itself is thrilling-to-tragic, and Cage does have some (-- redeeming, this is !--) musical ability. Next, a superb performance by John Hurt (Cruz´s father, the village doctor) of Oscar Callibre, as well as by Irene Papas, each as village elders, as well as by Christian Bale (Papas´ son) among the village freedom fighters, go far towards counter-balancing awkward performances (especially at the beginning) by Cruz and Cage. Nicely, the last two seem to grow into their respective roles as the film progresses, but it´s teeth-gnashing early on. Finally, the scenery itself and the photography could garner a technical award, and such provides pleasant distractions when most needed.

John Hurt already has two Oscar nominations and this would be a third; I hope he gets it as his performance as the Doctor makes this film worth seeing. The true test of a supporting actor/actress is whether or not the film would be the same without the personage in question, and in this case, it would most certainly not be... not even close.

Entertainment value but for the aformentioned plus factors which do help raise the bar. See it if you haven´t. Rating = 3.5 stars (of five). These critics need to find a new job!!! This movie is based on a TRUE STORY, which has made history. It illustrates beautifully how even in the mist of war and tragedy love can conquer all. The breathtaking Chephallonia of Greece has captured my heart and soul as if I too were there. The Blue eyed Cage & the delightful Cruz were amazing! Together they perfectly portrayed how a Mediterranean couple can only become closer in the time of war. This movie will touch your heart like it did mine you must go see it!!!! This movie gives us some WWII history along with some touching romance, a little fantasy and meaningful emotion - and beautiful scenery. Nicholas Cage never fails us, and here again does a great job. And so do the other principle characters. One key charater, the physician/father played by John Hurd, delivers (to his daughter) one of the best definitions of love I've ever heard. Some of the events are a bit too coincidental to be real, but I excused that, knowing that this is partly fairy tale and fantacy. My wife and I really liked the film. And it is nice to watch people taking the risks to love the enemy. One man who left the theatre near us said to his wife, "Now that's the way to wage war!" I think you'll see what he means when you watch the Italian occupiers of this lovely Greek island. "Capt. Corelli's Mandolin" is an old fashioned Hollywood war romance but with sex and nudity, and supposedly no Americans. The story takes place on a Greek island during WW2. The Italians arrive to take over the island, but with German supervision. There is a romantic triangle made up of a Greek couple and the Italian captain. Nice performances by all the actors; Penelope Cruz's best work yet. Once you can get over Nic Cage playing an Italian soldier who loves opera and believes in making love, not war, you can get down to enjoying this beautiful-looking film. This could be used as an advert for tourism in the Mediterranean. John Hurt is great and Penelope Cruz isn't bad, as you might expect. Christian Bale's character is somewhat one-dimensional, which is a shame.

The main drawback of this film is the adaptation from the book - having been told subsequently the differences between the book and film plots, I feel cheated out of a much better and more convincing storyline. Forget all those people who tell you it's not as good as the book. So what? This is a film after all. It is a sheer joy to watch, made entirely on location in Cephallonia, gorgeous photography but with dark, disturbing moments as well. The only problem I have is with the obvious miscasting of Nicolas Cage as captain Corelli. Apart from that the film was a very pleasant surprise. Captain Corelli's Mandolin is a beautiful film with a lovely cast including the wonderful Nicolas Cage, who as always is brilliant in the movie. The music in the film is really nice too. I'd advise anyone to go and see it. Brilliant! 10/10 i did not read the book. nor do i care to. the movie was a beautiful romance, and i think women will enjoy it. no, it was not a "10" film, but it was enjoyable. women, if your man is bored as mine was, then watch it yourself. hurt is wonderful as the philosophic doctor who delivers a thoughtful monologue on "in love" and "loving."

also, if you like nick cage, he was terrific and funny. i enjoyed watching the developing romance.

also, if you like Christian bale -- do see him in equilibrium. this is a "10" sci fi movie.

do see this film. ignore the previous user's comments.

one -- especially the ladies!! also do visit my website at my name as one word and a "dot" com. This movie is a love story set in the backdrop of war. Everything about the movie was perfect. I just saw the movie yesterday and I want to get my own DVD asap and watch it many times over. The story ends as it started I was very happy that he came back and I was proud of her for becoming a doctor and fulfilling her father's dream. She honored her father, boyfriend-husband, and her lover. The character had many shades. Christian Bale is also an phenomenal actor. Some stories do have happy endings. Aside from the love story angle I thought about how a beautiful, serene and peaceful island had been affected by war and it made me realize the true devastation war can have on its people...government makes the decision whereas the people suffer. Her father was a very educated man and wanted more for his daughter while she had regular dreams. I loved the scene where she is complaining about not getting a dowry and I also loved the scene where both lived through the earthquake. They were survivors. What I enjoyed most in this film was the scenery of Corfu, being Greek I adore my country and I liked the flattering director's point of view. Based on a true story during the years when Greece was struggling to stand on her own two feet through war, Nazis and hardship. An Italian soldier and a Greek girl fall in love but the times are hard and they have a lot of sacrifices to make. Nicholas Cage looking great in a uniform gives a passionate account of this unfulfilled (in the beginning) love. I adored Christian Bale playing Mandras the heroine's husband-to-be, he looks very very good as a Greek, his personality matched the one of the Greek patriot! A true fighter in there, or what! One of the movies I would like to buy and keep it in my collection...for ever! David Attenborough brings his fascination of wild life, this time the creatures under the sea, in this extraordinary 8-episode trip to all the animals under the sea!

The cinematography is astounding, bringing to the screen truly breathtaking footage of those whales! But the best thing about it, as well as seeing each episode, is how they made it! Whether it is making models of creatures, or those impressive shots of the whales, they explain to you in about 10 minutes how they did it!

2001 had some great tv shows to our screen. But, in contrast to this documentary gem, they make them pretty lame! But to even boast this documentary series as the best tv series of 2001 just does not sum up the sheer brilliance that this series provides in quality entertainment!

Overall, this is the best TV series of 2001, with no competition, and, maybe, the best TV series of 2000s! The BBC'S Blue Planet is simply jaw-dropping. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it contains some of the most beautiful sequences ever captured on film. From familiar creatures on and near the surface of the ocean to some more unrecognisable and just plain bizarre ones in the murky depths, next to nothing is left out. Weighing in at a hefty 8 hours, some people may want to check out the edited highlights brought to you in the form of the film "Deep Blue" but I would heartily recommend you give the series a go. I don't think it will disappoint and if your kids enjoyed the aquatic world brought to them by Pixar's Finding Nemo I'm sure they will love this too. I just wish all television was this entertaining. As a SCUBA diver, I can appreciate the incredible physical strain the cameramen must have endured to get the shots underwater. This series is MUCH more than that, though. The narration is perfect, the scenes bordering on implausible and the subject matter enthralling. The day to day struggle for life taking place out of the view of we terrestrial dwellers is mind boggling. This DVD set has open my eyes to another planet right here on Earth. I urge everyone to watch this series. I admit to being in awe of the Sea and have spent a number of years in the Navy, so I am somewhat biased on this one. I missed this documentary when it first came out but nagged various people to buy me it on DVD this Christmas (2002) and I got it! Some of the film is amazing and I have a lot of respect for those who make these kinds of documentaries, to see 200 ton Blue Whales 'cruising' through the Sea is an incredible sight, they looked like submarines. I like the level of information and facts conveyed through the narration, it is just right, I don't want to know a load of science just some of the basics, to see these things is enough for most people. The BBC has a knack of putting things at the right level for the intended audience.

A really great documentary, up there with 'The World at War for' me, the DVD is of excellent quality. If I had a minor criticism it would be some of the obviously added sound effects here and there, I think they detract from some of the scenes. But well done to the BBC and Discovery. This is without a doubt the most stunning and amazing documentary I have ever seen! The images that are shown are absolutely breathtaking and stunning. On top of that, it is a wonderful learning experience. I'm not one for educational documentaries, but this one grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until the end. You'll be so hooked and entranced by what you are watching that you'll forget your at home watching TV! This series is available to buy on DVD and I HIGHLY recommend picking this one up! With all the evil and death in this world, this documentary series gives us proof that life is beautiful and worth saving and preserving. This series has a lot going for it with beautiful footage of the some of the most impressive underwater environments on this planet. Being a staggering five years in the making, one would be hard-pressed to expect any less. I did get the impression that some scenes from the first episode where repeated in the latter ones, which is naturally only a minor gripe.

David Attenborough is great as a narrator and comments are informative, leaving enough room for one's imagination, and well spaced out, so that viewers get plenty of time to reflect upon the breathtaking imagery. If you get the opportunity try not to watch a translated version of this series.

A definite must-see for anyone interested in the intricacies of our blue continents and easily the best documentary on this subject I've ever seen. The Blue Planet series is, without a doubt, one of the greatest documentaries ever made on the ocean. For five years, filmmakers worked tirelessly on the series, getting footage that has never been seen by anyone (i.e. in the title, The Deep.)

I highly recommend you watch this series. To see the angler fish outside of the small pictures shown in textbooks is truly a treat, but only a needle in the vast haystack of the sea that Blue Planet covers. From the open ocean to tidal pools, coral seas to the deepest darkest part of the ocean itself, the BBC takes the viewer on an almost magical journey through the ocean.

I have to admit, one of my earliest dreams in life was to be a marine biologist, and after seeing this series, the dream was revived. I have studied the oceans of this world for years, and have seen countless documentaries on coral reefs and dolphins, whales and crustaceans. But in all, no one has managed to capture the life beneath the waves quite as well as this group of people.

Watch the 'Blue Planet' series in it's entirety, I promise you won't regret it. full of surprises, beautiful, cruel at times. just like life itself. leaves one asking for more. the best parts are of course the action scenes and chases. have to really wonder how much work these guys put into making some scenes (whale chases, polar bear hunts, etc). it is a wonderful experience and not to be missed by anyone who dives, surfs, or goes to the beach once in a while. the music is enticing and the narration is superb and extremely well paced. definitively one of the best documentaries ever made and worth not less than a very respectable 10 (for its kind). some of the footage is very cruel and might not be recommended for people with weak stomachs (every killer whale footage is cruel). I think that this short TV series, was absolutely wonderful, and gave both a in-depth and clear explanation of everything that was on the screen at the given time. This was by far David Attenborough at his best. I personally thought this was one of the best documentaries in the past decade. This is definitely worth peoples money!

I also found the bit about the abyss and deep water the most fascinating and interesting part. It was incredible to find out that the 'Blue planet' team discovered more than 10 new species of underwater life!

In this documentary Attemborough almost certainly lived up to his high reputation.

This was a masterpiece and will always be considered to be one of the best modern documentaries

Many congratulation's to the 'Blue planet' team. Words can hardly describe what Blue Planet brought to life in all of its hours of runtime. Matching up with Walking With Dinosaurs, this documentary stands as one of the best. We can only pray that the BBC and Discovery Channel come up with even more outstanding ideas that could possibly even level with this one. *May Contain Spoilers*

The first time I saw this movie was when it was re-released on video when I was around 8 years old. Now I am 17 and still watch it whenever I get a chance to. "The Aristocats" was a cute heart warming film that I immediately fell in love with. I loved the songs on it especially the one the kittens sing by the piano. In fact I even sang it in a talent show with my sister and friend since I loved it that much. All three kittens are so cute and their mother is one of the prettiest cartoon cats I ever saw. The Ally cat had a great voice!

My favorite part of the movie is when the kittens are playing the piano. That part is adorable. I also enjoy their journey home. It's incredible. This is one of the best Disney films I ever saw and one of my favorites. Everyone should see it. I give this film 10/10 stars. Engaging characters, nice animation, dynamite songs...all this and cute kitties, too. There's a lot of excellent humor, but no real menace, so don't worry about your little ones. The two farm dogs steal the show, even though they only appear in two scenes. The artwork has a linear quality that may put off some people, but I find it charming. I really enjoyed this movie and I usually don't like animated pictures. But I thought the cats were appealing and the story line was charming. There is a good song called "Everybody wants to be a cat," that is a lot of fun. It has some comic moments and is an interesting adventure. I think it helps to be an avid cat lover to enjoy this film. "Balance of Terror" is still one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made. It was inspired by the film "Enemy Below" (starring Robert Mitchum), a movie that deals with a cat-and-mouse game between two captains during World War II. In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew play similar game with a Romulan vessel. This is the program that famously introduces the war-hungry Romulans, who are distant relatives of the Vulcans. It is an incredibly suspenseful episode, tightly constructed for maximum effect. It is also interesting to see how the episode contains a series of subplots that add extra layers of meaning to the story. Mark Lenard makes his Star Trek debut as the Romulan Captain (he will later play Spock's father Ambassador Sarek). A must-see episode! When the Romulans come, they will not be bearing gifts; no, they bring with them war - war and conquest. As any familiar with this episode know, it is a redux of the war film "The Enemy Below" from the fifties. The obvious difference is that instead of a battleship and a submarine (or an American Destroyer & German U-boat) engaged in lethal war games, it is two starships in outer space. In Trek history, about 100 years before the events here, according to this episode, Earth fought the Romulan Wars. After about 5 years of conflict, a stalemate brought about a treaty and the institution of the Neutral Zone, a boundary between us and the Romulan Empire. Now, on this stardate, the treaty appears to be broken, as our outposts are being attacked and destroyed by some weapon of immense power. Yes, the Romulans are back, testing their new war toy, and Kirk must now earn his pay: he must make decisions that would affect this sector of the galaxy, such as figuring out how to avoid a...oh, I dunno - an interstellar war, maybe?

I think what makes this episode so effective is that it doesn't shy away from the grim aspects of war, as one would expect of a mere TV episode from the sixties - especially an episode from a science fiction show. It's all very tense and gripping, like the best war films, such as when Kirk sits down with his key officers for what amounts to a war council. The writers and the actors aren't kidding around here: this is all preparation for a ghastly conflict, potentially the beginning of another years-long battleground. In the final analysis, Kirk's aim is to keep this battleground to just the two ships - but even then it's an endeavor fraught with peril and probable casualties. In fact, I believe this episode holds the record for ship casualties by the end of it. Right at the start of the episode, we see the devastation such battle can produce, in that supposedly well-protected outpost. Then begin the cat-and-mouse war games between the Enterprise and the Romulan ship - it's as exciting as any conflict we've seen on the big screen. Of course, if you're not into war films, you'd have to look for other things to admire in this episode.

What elevates this episode even further is the revelation of just what and who the Romulans are - it's an electric shock of a sort. Now we have even further inter-crew conflict on the bridge of the Enterprise - war does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Due to still nasty attitudes about race in this future, the tension is ratcheted up even further - Kirk has his hands full in this one. I suppose the one weakness in the story is the convenient relenting of the bigotry issue by the conclusion. On the Romulan side, actor Lenard makes his first appearance in the Trek universe as the Romulan commander; he's terrific in the role, the flip side of Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pike, take your pick, done up to resemble Spock more than a little. Surprisingly, his character is not war hungry as we would expect, another eye-opener for this episode. The actor would next return to this universe as Sarek, Spock's father, so he's nothing if not versatile. It's also telling how the first appearance of such characters as the Romulans is usually their best shot, as it is here. They showed up in "The Enterprise Incident" next. This has to be one of my 3 favorite Episodes from the Original TV Series.

What makes it great is the battle of wits between The Romulan Commander and Kirk, as well as the top-notch acting from Mark Lenard, who later went on to play Spock's father in other TV Episodes and movies. This is a case where those around rose to the level of the talent around them, and Shatner, Nimoy, and the whole cast deliver an outstanding performance in this episode.

The writing and plot are also excellent, and I love the direct approach used to show us the characters, and the feelings and thoughts of those characters, and how freely they are expressed by the actors.

This very entertaining episode ranks 10 out of 10. AWESOME!! Desert-Buddha Despite all the hoopla about THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES episode, THE BALANCE OF TERROR might just be the best episode of the series. And, while I have always loved A PIECE OF THE ACTION because it is so much fun, I really do have to cast my vote as this Romulan episode as being the very best.

The movie, interestingly enough, is really like a WWII submarine movie in that it bounces back and forth between the cloaked Romulan ship and the Enterprise as it seeks to destroy the Romulans before they sneak back across the Neutral Zone after a raid on Federation outposts. In so many ways, the show is much like the film THE ENEMY BELOW--where the American Captain (Robert Mitchum) and the German Captain (Curt Jurgens) are shown in counter-point as they both try to outwit the other--and in the process develop a grudging respect for their foe.

Interestingly enough, only a short bit of the beginning of the episode takes place on a planet--and this is amazing because an episode on board ship could easily have been static and dull. But, because the writing was so fantastic and the main characters written and acted so well (Shatner and Mark Leonard as the Romulan leader). Oddly, for the die-hard Trekkers out there, they'll recognize Leonard as the same actor who later played Spock's father.

The bottom line is this is simply a great and extremely engaging episode that will keep you on the edge of your seat. This is one of the best of the early "Star Trek" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the "Star Trek" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like "centurion" and "praetor." The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in "Spartacus." Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of "Gladiator." A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans. I agree that this is ONE of the very best episodes of the entire series--my only detraction would be the somewhat jarring appearance of Mark Lenard as the Romulan Commander. My reasoning is this--if you were not around for the first run of this episode, then you know Mr. Lenard as Sarek, Spock's father. And for the 2nd generation Trekkie (or Trekker--your preference) it takes you out of the scene at first. Yet he's an excellent commander as well as opposite for our captain and this episode is strongly written and well-acted by all. There are excellent points made by both sides about the cost of war vs.the price of peace and certainly does remind one of some of the best of the WWII and later era movies. Those are not my favorite genre but I certainly would recommend a fan of such to view this episode through that filter. You'll see it holds up. I'll never understand why Sci-Fi gets so little respect--the best drama comes out of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.

The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.

This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.

None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle "Let That be Your Last Battlefield").

Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.

This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.

Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below. Undoubtedly one of the best episodes ever, Balance of Terror is 45 minutes of well executed suspense, with intelligent real-world parallels (the title refers to a situation very similar to what was going on between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War), spot-on characterizations and the introduction of Star Trek's second most important hostile alien race after the Klingons: the Romulans.

After receiving a distress call from a Federation outpost, the Enterprise is dangerously close to the Neutral Zone which, if crossed, would lead to open conflict with the Romulans, although no one has ever actually seen them in the flesh. Soon enough, a Romulan vessel appears, carrying a new weapon and a cloaking device which makes it nearly impossible to defeat. Facing the threat of imminent annihilation, Kirk must engage in a battle of wits with the Romulan Commander (Mark Lenard) to ensure the survival of his crew. Unfortunately, the task is made more difficult when one of the men accuses Spock of being in league with the enemy, due to the physical resemblance between Romulans and Vulcans, two races that are, in fact, distantly related (a fact that is quite ironic with hindsight, given Lenard went on to play Spock's father Sarek starting with Season 2).

Always very critical when it came to the subject of war, Star Trek enjoys one of its finest hours with its most gripping and tense take on the topic. Although the Romulans aren't actually based on the Soviets (the name is actually taken from Romulus, the founder of Rome), the scenario is quite obviously inspired by the very vivid fear American and Russian citizens had at the time that either nation might be able to destroy the other with nuclear weapons (that fear gave birth to the titular concept of "balance of terror"). But even without the subtext, this remains an essential episode, due for the most part to the intellectual battle between the two adversaries, which translates into a thesping duel between Shatner and Lenard. No need to say who wins... I just thought I would add another observation, here. While there are a couple of visual sub-references, in this episode, to the possibility of unexpressed feelings between Jim Kirk and Yeoman Janice Rand; there is a special, physically tender, moment, toward the end. When the Enterprise is reversing at emergency warp speed in an attempt to outrun a possibly fatal Romulan plasma ball, Janice, perhaps fearing that their life is about to come to a dramatic end, seeks comfort by placing her head on Jim's sympathetic shoulder as they observe the aproaching instrument of their impending doom on the main viewer. I thought it was sweet (and Janice, of course, is gorgeous!).

(P.S. Goof:- Several times, while supposedly firing phasors, the film shows photon torpedoes being launched) To start off, this happens to be my favorite of the ST OS.

In addition to StuOz's critical comments I'll throw in some more: Getting technical, when the Enterprise fires it's photon torps at a blind target, they'd have to be mighty close to direct hits (I believe) in order to cause any disturbance much less damage to the Romulan vessel with the vacuum of space to contend with.

I had somewhat of a problem with the Romulan commander questioning his faith in the Romulan "protocol" or their leadership, unless it has to do with attacking vulnerable targets (outposts in the neutral zone) that are not at war. Also, I don't think commander would fall for the basic, or simple tactics that Kirk played, such as "playing dead," or falling for the ploy that the subordinate puts on him about whether or not to attack the Enterprise when it is playing dead.

On the Enterprise: I'm surprised that after seeing the Romulan vessel's method of attack earlier, that Sulu would say, "Are they surrendering?" when it attacks the Enterprise the first time.

Funny how Spock can only get the repair done on the weapons control right when the emergency is over.

Also in the final attack, I thought the Romulan vessel was uncloaked too long (so long that Spock could run down a couple aisles and back to the weapons room and activate and fire the photon torpedoes. I would have used phasers at this point, but I'm sure it had to do with the technicians and budget).

On the positive side: It's a good drama played on the Romulan vessel, in which to introduce us to the Romulans. Great scenes with Stiles telling a good deal of the human knowledge of the Romulans. Also his conflict with Spock is right up there. I wished Stiles' character would have stayed on the show for a while, if for nothing else than the energy he added.

It's only in fun that I point out the negatives and goofs, (I'm sure there are more). But for me this is as good as it gets!! "Balance of Terror" is always the one I place at the top in my ST rankings. I viewed the original Outer Limits in real time, when first broadcast and have since viewed the entire original series again and again in re-runs and complete on DVD. I find the New Outer Limits WELL MORE than just a remake of old retread episodes, as some of the more adolescent commentators have suggested.

With seven (7) years of programs versus just the two (2) years of the original series, the producers and writers have certainly added considerable new original stories and philosophical lines to a much longer running and very well produced (cable) TV series. Plots are intelligent, scientifically accurate projections of the unknown possibilities of the sometimes frightening and imminent future.

While most producers and directors in Hollywood ignorantly view Sci-Fi as indistinguishable from Horror and Fantasy, this series returns to the origins of Science Fiction in the logical, moral and philosophical projections of current new technologies into their possibly fearful near term realizations. This series does this very well and remains unique in its avoidance of the "shoot-em-up" video game monster mentally of much of the current generation. It has brains, history, a message and good entertainment. It is an adult series without unbearable teenage know-it-all fantasies. Hurray!

Now, if we can only get MGM to release the entire New Outer Limits series on DVD instead of just the six poor teaser discs and the 1st season now only available. What can I say about the series dubbed the NEW OUTER LIMITS...Hmm.... Only that this was one of the best TV series ever assembled!! You have actors of all ages, The actors that are somewhat known and that time forgot. Everyone playing their part to exact perfection! These shows always have some type of moral story to them which most of the time (if not all the time) is very true! You can feel that the man whose voice is dubbed over the credits and in the beginning and ending believes what he is saying wholeheartedly! Not only do these shows have great story lines, they also throw you into them, get your mind racing, and your blood pumping. The original outer limits was a black and white in the 60's right, These shows made a triumphant comeback the likes of which I have never seen! The new twilight zone with Forest Whitaker was fun to watch, but the New OUTER LIMITS is where it's at! If you have not seen: I implore you to please check these episodes out, and you will see exactly what I mean! LONG LIVE THE NEW OUTER LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!! No, I have not seen the original series and I won't compare the two if I had. This series is filmed in Canada in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia. The series is well-written in a different story each week. Some are little out there but most of the time it is the quality of the story telling. I loved the Afterlife episode with Clancy Brown and Barbara Gerrick and the Deprogrammers episode with the irresistible Brent Spiner as a Deprogrammer in a world where humans have become slaves to a lizard reptilian species. It's funny how the lizards and reptiles are our favorite evil aliens like V but anyway he has three days to program a man who is totally brainwashed in serving the alien species on earth. The stories are usually a little out there but very entertaining to watch. When the new Outer Limits first started, the episodes were quite optimistic and challenging. As the series began to wind down, most of the episodes became just plain ugly and devoid of any entertainment value. The six episodes here reflect the very best, and worst, of the series.

Since The Outer Limits always preaches a moral. I would like to offer my own. Starting with the most entertaining to the flops.

1. Afterlife: As an institution, The U.S.A. military-industrial complex is both evil and paranoid, not to mention plain stupid. However, individuals with great integrity do serve our country, and they will obey their conscience even at a mind-boggling cost! In the end, the aliens don't need to say a word. Those without a conscience are fools who are to be held in utter contempt!

A truly subversive episode! One that should be shown on prime time television for all to see! This might be a revelation for some, but folks without a conscience should not be allowed to serve in our military! Nor do the ends justify the means!

2. Relativity Theory: A good person may be forced to make a split-second decision between good or evil in order to save the lives of defenseless intelligent beings, and at great cost to one's self. What makes this decision all the more difficult is the stark choice: Being marooned with exotic alien strangers who you can't even communicate with except through gestures, or going along with a group of people you think will keep you safe from unknown dangers even if they are ruthless, and devoid of compassion!

This episode is brilliant! What fuels this depravity is good old fashioned greed. This episode is one of the most scathing indictments of capitalism, transnational corporations and raping the environment, I have ever seen in my lifetime! Unlike real life, justice here is served - and swiftly!

One of the most memorable lines is when the ruthless corporate thug said something to the effect, "We did the same thing in the Amazon Rainforest War." Alluding to the killing of Amazonian Indians who were attempting to protect their rain forests from being strip mined, as justification for killing again literally in the name of the "survival of the fittest." Something Darwin never meant to be taken literally!

3. Alien Shop: Tremendous power can be used for good, even from an exotic alien. This power can be used to heal instead of destroy. Mere mortals can learn from their mistakes! Even a criminal can see the light if given enough opportunity to do so.

Sometimes it takes strong medicine, but we all can wake-up and change our self-destructive ways!

4. The Grell: An alien can be a Christ-like figure! In the distant future, slavery can be justified, once again, in the name of expediency! Basically good people can be corrupted. Sometimes a person needs to be experience great shame in order to see the evil he/she is committing. Children are closer to the truth than adults. Those with political power have tremendous responsibility! Another work of genius! As a species, "Do human beings learn from history?"

Flop Number 1: Quality of Mercy: Loose Lips, Sinks Ships! When in war kindly keep your mouth shut about important military plans. Gee, did I really need to watch an hour-long soap opera in order to figure this out?!! I wonder, did the makers of The Outer Limits run out of ideas, or did corporate pull the plug? Dark and ugly, serving no purpose, but despair!

Flop Number 2: Beyond The Veil: So bad there is no moral but this: When locked-up in a mental hospital, use some common sense, please! This episode is so bad it disgusts. What an X-Files rip-off! Don't waste your time on this one! You'll thank me later!

It's a sad commentary that The Outer Limits went down the tubes toward the end of its run. Subversive episodes, like the first four, could not last forever! It was a miracle they were made at all! Hopefully, someday, other brave souls will follow the subversive Outer Limits tradition into new territory!

If you happen to be such a daring person, a good place to start is with one unique book: "Anatomy Of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction," edited by Neil Barron! As far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive book ever written on the subject. Ah the Outer Limits. I love that show. It was surpremely creepy, or down-right mysterious. I loved all the genres of the show, from horror, to thriller to mystery, whatever the genre, it was good. I guess I must have started watching way after it got canceled, when Sci-fi showed it as re-runs, or played marathons of it. It was a really good show, I don't know all about the seasons and everything but I do remember that every time I saw the screen freak out and the voice on the TV say: "There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture" I would squeal with delight. It was a good show, and I enjoy watching it if it would come on. I give it a healthy 8 out of 10. "Think like a Dinosaur" was an well-produced & executed show of the -Outerlimits- series. The actor (Enrico Colantoni as Michael Burr) plays an impressively well and convincing protagonist-role. You can actually identify yourself with him and his 'introspective' feelings on what to do to the girl whom he has fallen for (because, he's been alone and disappointed for 2 years and feels hopeless until "Kamala" comes to his life with a timid fear of performing the task of being transported. He then consoles her and let's her know it's all going to be alright; which ends up being an deception to both of them. More so something bad occurs and she (prototype) comes back....and her (clone) is sent to the other inhabitant planet. Although, the -Dino- and "Micheal" have yet to find this out, when they do it's up to Michael to decide to either kill her or to let her live. Yet what happen to him prior upon meeting her (kamala) was very much related to what happen to his wife, his wife died similarly. This show professes irregularity and sorrow thru-out most of it. After the show you're left pondering...about what SHOULD have been done and you're stuck with the 50/50 of what's right from wrong. Hence, The "balance" equation being solely there is no one.

10/10 Highly recommend watching this show. I caught this show a few times when I was young and it was playing tilt, My parents loved it and now in syndication I feel what they feel. This show did what the original limits and twilight zone (new and old) couldn't do. This show used some old ideas and some truly original ideas.

I still cannot believe Jonathan Glassner and brad wright did this. Those guys were producers on stargate sg-1. The show kept the audience entrenched in the story and set a truly scary atmosphere. This is what was not there in the new twilight zone. Rod serling coming in added to the scariness, forest coming in lightened the mood.

The ending whether good or bad made for a scary time. You could never predict what was going to happen. I am still trying to find the seasons on DVD. I first started watching The Outer Limits back in 95 when I was 10, and it just blew my mind every week with each episode, every episode had a twist and each week I couldn't wait for the next. How the writers managed to do every episode so well and make it different from each over a course of 7 seasons is beyond me. This show manages to teach us about life, robotics, Alien and human encounters, and an insight into more of the paranormal, and how it affects the people. What really makes this a good show are the characters in each episode, they really show emotion and are really good actors. What you'll also notice each week is an actor/actress you'll know from a past show which is pretty neat in its own way.

If you wanna chill out, and sit back with a good Sci-Fi show, then the Outer Limits is for you There's no point in comparing this with the original series. Though different in look and content, both are true to the original idea. That is, an SF/horror anthology series. Due to indifferent scheduling in Australia, I've only managed to catch a small number of episodes spread over the first few seasons. The very first episode really did give me the creeps (nightmares at my age ...!) but a number of others did fall flat; generally when the stories moved into horror realms and away from SF. I only hope the DVDs reach us eventually. The Outer Limits is a brilliant show that for the most part leaves me with very strong emotions. There are, undoubtedly, some stinker-episodes, but it's essentially an old pulp-comic turned into a TV-show, so that can be expected. For the most part it's excellently done, well produced and directed, and often featuring some big-name talent who seem to enjoy working in a solid translation of short fiction to hour long television format.

The Outer Limits tends to focus on rather large ethical/philosophical/moral questions and rarely ends without the voice-over intciting serious thought.

From time-to-time, the themes are hammered in a little bit too heavily for all but the most thick-headed viewers. Additionally, while a certain level of distrust of the Government is conducive to an effective democracy, you can unluckily catch several episodes back-to-back that border on the absurd with regards to distrust of the Army/CIA, etc. One further note is that any large group with power (the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelicals, The People's Republic of China, and so on) are cast in a bad light in frequency ranging from once to often.

While the show can beat a dead horse if it's watched enough, the overall quality is astounding, and I'm grateful that Sci-Fi has decided to continue airing it until they produce a season-by-season DVD set (and I can afford it. This film held my interest enough to watch it several times. The plot has holes, but the lead performers make it work.

Catherine Mary Stewart (Julia Kerbridge), does a great job as a woman of 37 who has sacrificed everything else to become a physician. She worked years to earn the money to go to medical school. She is performing brilliantly in her residency and is just about to take her board exam and realize her dream.

Meanwhile, Julia's sister and brother-in-law are murdered and as the nearest living relative she is compelled to take in her niece Amanda (Arlen Aguayo-Stewart) to avoid having her become a ward of the state. Amanda is about 7 years old from her appearance. Amanda is so traumatized from her parent's murder that she has become mute. Needless to say, Julia's 16-hour days get longer caring for Amanda.

Rob Lowe plays Kevin Finney, a charming neighbor man in their apartment building who works his way into the lives of Julia and Amanda. He is always there with a trick or a joke to help Amanda deal with her distress. Amanda really starts to warm up to Kevin as the film progresses, perhaps more than to her aunt. Julia starts to rely on Kevin to take some of the load of caring for Amanda as she attempts to handle her case load and prepare for her board examination. Kevin is always there whenever some crisis erupts for Julia.

The chemistry between Rob and Catherine Mary was great. You keep watching to see them get together before the end of the film. The chemistry between Rob and Arlen was good as well. Arlen managed to convey quite a lot without the benefit of words. The plot had Julia and Amanda gradually warming up to each other. You can see them working out a relationship as the film progresses.

We discover that Julia's sister and brother-in-law (the Meyers) were involved in industrial espionage. They stole an extremely valuable prototype microchip from their employer. They had three associates who intended to share the proceeds of the theft. Julia discovers that the Meyers were planning to skip the country under assumed identities. The plot is unclear whether the Meyers intended to double cross their associates or were themselves double crossed.

In any case the Meyers are murdered in their home by 2 of their former associates. The killers make no attempt to extract the location of the microchip from the Meyers before killing them. The killers search the home and fail to find their prize. They leave a living witness to their crime, Amanda. The killers then spend the remainder of the film making clumsy attempts to extract the microchip from Julia and Amanda who have no idea where the prize is located. Eventually, the killers kidnap Amanda in hopes she knows something about the microchip's location.

Eventually Julia discovers the truth about Kevin. He is an investigator hired to recover the stolen microchip. After some rough moments in the relationship they manage to rescue Amanda and dispatch the bad guys. The predictable ending has the three forming a family and moving happily into a future together.

What struck me about the plot were major holes. Kevin moves into the same apartment building as Julia and Amanda the day after the murder of the Meyers. How does he know that the microchip is not already in the hands of the killers? The killers blithely leave fingerprints at the murder scene, with no concern for concealing their identity. The killer that pretends to be a psychiatrist is revealed to Amanda by the remnants of red paint from the murder scene on his shoe soles. He was not shown in the murder scene at the start of the film. There are other weaknesses along these lines too numerous to mention.

The film could have been a lot better if the script had been refined more before filming. Filling in the plot holes would have added little expense and greatly improved the effort. It's amazing what you can do with little money. DEAD SILENT being a low budget movie delivers its promises.

Too bad we don't see Rob Lowe more often on the silver screen. Lowe is at its best in this riveting thriller . No wonder he went from DEAD SILENT straight to the TV mega hit The West Wing .

DEAD SILENT 8 out of 10

Sputtosi Toronto. i saw this before 'bubba ho-tep' at the fantasia film festival in montreal. everything about it is either tipping the hat to (or completely ripping off) tim burton. i enjoyed it nonetheless, even if it is extremely derivative. what most impressed me was the quality of the visuals given the obvious shoe-string budget. the set design and the props were inventive and original, although the script definitely was not. Obviously the previous reviewers here are not fans of this genre, but I think this one is done quite well.

It's twistedly cute clever & dark. This story brought back memories of the types of girls I was in love with as a child.

Also, it makes me want to check out some of Nadia's other movies, many youtube comments about how hot she is in this video.

Sure there is some Burton influence here, but I wouldn't say this Brad is trying to rip him off.

He is just jumping in & adding his talents to a genre that I can appreciate. I like what he does & he does it well, nuff said! Let's start from this point: This is not a movie intended for the common audience. Utterly bizarre, somehow incomprehensible, totally unpredictable, it just keep you stoned watching at the screen trying to figure out what will happen next. If that by itself doesn't make you agree it is an excellent movie, then go back to your "family" movies and forget about MOTORAMA. It has material to be considered a cult movie, it can be placed in the same category with movies that win awards in Cannes or other intellectual film festivals, but, sadly, Hollywood already let if fall in oblivion, simply because it is not commercial. The performance of young Jordan Christopher Michael may not be Oscar material, but he gives the right touch to the story. Even the genre is difficult to describe; it is not a comedy in the proper sense, you don't know if you are supposed to laugh at the strange situations in which Gus gets involved. It is more like an impossible adventure that some kids may wish to have, but don't let them watch it either... it is not a movie for kids. So, if you like Disney movies or are looking for a "Home Alone" style, this one is definitively not for you. But if you enjoy reading Edgar Alan Poe or the works of Tim Burton, then you will like Motorama. So, jump in your red Mustang, get a tattoo spelling "Tora" and cruise Strangeland with Gus. I'd like that... Little Gus is a ten year old delinquent. He runs away from his parents and decides to go on a road-trip. Reaching the petal is somewhat tough for him, so he creates a device to help him. His goal is to win a gimmicky lottery type card game called Motorama. He has to find all eight letters in order to spell M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A. Dark laughter follows as it turns into the road-trip from hell. He runs into some deranged Lynch like characters. Most memorable is the gas station attendant, who puts his picture on a kite in hopes that God will see it. Later Gus gets a tattoo and an eye-patch for his injured eye. He becomes one of the most rebellious bad-ass 10 year olds you may ever witness on screen. This is no kid's flick! Look for cameos by Jack Nance, Flea and Drew Berrymore. Be warned although Drew is on the front cover, she only appears in the film in a dream sequence for a couple seconds. Also the film gets confusing towards the end reaching David Lynch territory, you may want to watch it a couple times. "Motorama" was written by Joseph Minion, most well known for his screenplays for "After Hours" and "Vampire's Kiss" So enjoy this depraved surreal road-trip of fun! DON'T EVEN TRY to figure out the logic of this story. But do ride along with 10-year-old Gus on the most bizarre road trip ever witnessed. More weird characters and implausible situations than a Twin Peaks reunion! Nothing makes sense, yet it's impossible to stop watching Motorama! Now, where can I find that 'R'???? This is a great, dark, offbeat little film, a modern day adaptation of the quest for the Holy Grail myth. It's a sleeper if there ever was one. I saw it on cable some years ago and taped it. I've loaned it to many of my friends and everyone loved it. This is an entertaining surreal road movie. It was written by Joseph Minion, who also wrote After Hours, Martin Scorsese's excellent surreal film. The film follows the adventures of a ten-year-old kid named Gus, who drives a red Ford Mustang across some fictional states with names like Tristana (A tribute to Luis Buñuel's film, perhaps?), Essex & South Lyndon, in search of eight elusive Motorama game cards from various Chimera Company gas stations. The film has a surreal feel to it because a lot of the things are unusual, like the money for instance, which is like blank paper with numbers on.

Most of the characters are nasty to Gus on his trip. They tattoo him, punch him, but this doesn't stop the kid on his relentless quest. Some oddball actors like David Lynch incumbent Jack Nance, Meat Loaf & Flea also make appearances. Jack Nance plays a motel owner, who when he first meets Gus tells him, "If you see any squirrels, give them to me". This is a movie where a man and his wife abandon their young children because the man owes Gus $100; and a mother encourages her son to raise his voice louder while speaking rudely. If you're a fan of Twin Peaks and surreal movies, you'll like this. An odd little gem of a movie. I loved this movie, I saw it when I was about 8 years old and almost seven years later, this evening I got to see it again. I really thought it had an interesting idea, they only thing that upset me was the ending which I felt was a cop out. 'Round here it's hard to find this movie and I was lucky enough to have seen it on BRAVO. I also expected to see more Drew Barrymore in here too! This movie may be the best ever if you like watching movies and laughing and then subjecting your friends to watch those movies too. If you're anything like me, and you probably are, you'll be laughing for years to come at the jokes in this movie. One of the funniest parts is when Gus sharks some money off a guy with kids and then the guy takes those kids into the forest like Hansel and Gretel then he and his wife go home with them. The soup scene kitchen is rife with comic genius of buffoonery: "Inspection officer -- Here!" and the lines to follow will stay in my mind forever probably. When I have shown this movie to my friends, they usually say "What was that?!?" so if you're in the mood for one of those types of movies, yippee! This movie is so OOP it's not funny anymore, so probably the easiest way to get it would be online auctioning. The first time I saw it was from a rental. Motorama viewers should already by keen on other offbeat b-grade desert-based films such as Bagdad Cafe or Repo Man (which more or less takes place in the desert). It also models some of the bizarre humor (and especially eccentric trail of characters) of writer Joseph Minion's comedy, 'After Hours.' In a sort of desert roadtrip fantasy, a metaphor of temptation and redemption, Gus (played well by Jordan Christopher Michael), a clever 10 year-old boy cashes in his piggy bank, steals a Mustang, and runs away from his grossly neglecting parents. It begins as a trip through salvation (which is apparent in the scenes with John Diehl), but once he becomes hooked on a scratch-off game called Motorama, he becomes easily tainted by temptation and looses his childish innocence. He travels from one crazy fictional state to another concocting ways of getting Motorama cards from participating gas stations, just enough so that he might spell out the prize winning word M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A and be eligible for the $500 million cash prize.

Along the way, he is embattled with dozens of strange characters such as Flea who plays a high strung busboy, Meatloaf who plays a crazy biker, and Mary Woronov and Sandy Baron (a Seinfeld regular) as two violent kidnappers.

The DVD rerelease can be very deceptive, as have previous attempts to sell this film to the non-cult market first with taglines comparing it to Home Alone and Thelma & Louise. The newest calling it a love story with the tagline implying that the film is about Jordan Michael Christopher on an adventure to meet the girl of his dreams...which, despite the size of her picture on the DVD cover, is actually only about a 1 second cameo by Drew Barrymore as the fantasy girl that Gus dreams about. Why didn't they just market it for what it was? Thought it may seem totally bizarre on first viewing, it is actually a well-designed narrative.

Motorama is great material for fans of strange b-grade comedies. This was quite an interesting story, and particularly because of the strength of its lead actor--Jordan Michael Christopher (who unfortunately has few other screen credits of note)--and the clever metaphor inherent in the plot. Hopefully its re-release on DVD will make it an easier find for cult fans. the first time I saw this movie, I just thought "what the hell?" a 10-year-old kid driving around bizarre places, meeting bizarre people, going after a game called MOTORAMA! Hell yeah! I enjoyed this movie a lot!

Jordan Christopher-Michael is a brilliant young actor! It's a shame he stopped act. He interprets very well his character Gus on the movie.

Gus loses an eye, got tattoos and go at the most weird cities acting with Flea, Drew Barrymore and Meat Loaf! Want more?

OK, don't even try to understand the story, but why this movie needs one!? Just open your mind and let Gus drive you into this journey.

"Motorama Gus, you won Motorama" Although this film never attained commercial notoriety, my experience has led me to conclude that many well-done pieces of artistic expression often do not gain mass appeal. The story line depicts a young boy stealing a car and embarking on a surreal, dream-like adventure with very little basis in our conceptualization of time and space. Therefore, anyone who attempts to view this film from the perspective of its conformity to reality will likely be disappointed; it is not intended to be "realistic." It is, however, intended to be metaphoric with extensive symbolism apparent to those with superb attention to detail. In addition, the symbolic representations are left open for interpretation, which can be said of much great artwork. Don't be fooled by the cover (if you happen to rent or buy this film)-- the movie is not what it might seem to be on the surface. This has got to be one of the most magnificent things I've ever seen on film. I don't know if it's as serious as it seems to try to be, but that hardly matters. This film is extreme, absolutely wild and surreal. The packaging and the marketing only make it more so because you *know* that ever so often some mother has to reprogram her kid to accept our reality after he checks this out from the video store expecting something completely different. Look at the roadmap, for one thing! And where else in America can you see a ten year old kid swear as much as this one does and then get his eye ripped out by pervert the rival of Pulp Fiction's Zed? And that food inspector scene is the best! The amount of well known to vaguely recognized actors in this film is one of the best things about it: Soon, much sooner than you realize, you too will find yourself saying, "Is that Meat Loaf? Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that the holideck doctor from Star Trek: Voyager? Is that Flea? Is that the sawmill owner from Twin Peaks gassing squirrels with car exhaust? And isn't this guy from the new Rob Zombie movie? He looks an awful lot like Shrek." I think my favorite scene is at the very end, with Phil in a full body cast. I mean, please, why aren't more movies like this shown in airplanes? This director hardly has anything else to his name higher than Return To Salem's Lot, but he displays true stumbling man-child genius in this creation! If you're an intellectual looking for something to p**s away your evening on, I highly suggest this film for satisfaction. This movie's plot is all too ridiculous, but imagine it taken out of context: *boy arm wrestling an over aggressive Meat Loaf, who seems hell bent on taking out his anger at not being accepted into Guns N Roses, looks over his shoulder and sees the doctor from Voyager enter the bar* Can you imagine what any half brained channel surfer active through the last six years would think of seeing that? Now imagine if you actually cared about Meat Loaf or Voyager to begin with! Or imagine if you're a Flea fan. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, this film contains notable music, mind you, but its soundtrack is more plasticine than Mad Max 3. What does that entail for you? This is the retarded, inverted mongoloid cousin-sister-mother-puppy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. How about when Gus' sleeve flies back onto his arm in an act of cable-access special effects quality mastercraft? When I saw this film, it was on the suggestion of my cousin who had watched half of it in a fit of half-aware childhood in the early half of the nineties and who has since been haunted by vague memories of it, I myself had not slept in three days. It made me laugh! Of course, it's also an anxiety movie. The music doesn't encourage the suspense but it eventually gets to the point where it's been fully established that the American Censorship Committee has obviously missed this film entirely and absolutely anything can happen in it and probably will any time Gus turns a corner or the view so much as changes camera angles. I found myself obsessing over the possibility of those cards flying out his window at any second. Watch this movie. Awesome! (Some spoilers included:)

Although, many commentators have called this film surreal, the term fits poorly here. To quote from Encyclopedia Britannica's, surreal means:

"Fantastic or incongruous imagery": One needn't explain to the unimaginative how many ways a plucky ten-year-old boy at large and seeking his fortune in the driver's seat of a red Mustang could be fantastic: those curious might read James Kincaid; but if you asked said lad how he were incongruous behind the wheel of a sports car, he'd surely protest, "NO way!" What fantasies and incongruities the film offers mostly appear within the first fifteen minutes. Thereafter we get more iterations of the same, in an ever-cruder and more squalid progression that, far from incongruous, soon proves predictable. Not that it were, on the other hand, literally believable-- but it were unfair to tax Motorama in particular with this flaw, any plausible suspension of disbelief having fallen precipitously on the typical film-maker's and viewer's scale of values ever since "Raiders of the Lost Ark" became a blockbuster.

"Hallucinatory": How do we know what a hallucination is if part of having one is not knowing that we are having one? At any rate, some people know that they enjoy "hallucinogenic drugs"-- but if Motorama typifies the result of doing so, then I'm at a loss as to why anyone would take them more than once. There is, of course, the occasional bad trip. The movie must be one of those, pun and all.

"Juxtaposition of words that was startling": How many times can a ten-year-old startle you by uttering "Oh, my God!" when he likes something, or "Damn!" when he doesn't? These two interjections are about par for the course with this script. Sadly, any sense of the surreal in what passes for dialogue could only reveal, in direct proportion, one's naivete regarding the speech patterns of the rising American generation.

"A world completely defined and minutely depicted but that makes no rational sense:" Motorama's world indeed makes no sense, but it is about as completely defined as a cartoon in an elementary school newspaper. The numerous guest stars in the cast all have cameo roles even less intelligent than our little hero who exclaims "Damn!" in the blink of an eyelash but needs several seconds to concoct the lamest lie. And even *his* character, despite appearing in nearly every scene, gets no significant development. Here's scant reward for any viewer who sympathizes, as I must, enough to wish to know him better and understand 'where he's coming from.' One vaguely senses a far better story and protagonist struggling to get out.

"Fully recognizable, realistically painted images are removed from their normal contexts and reassembled within an ambiguous, paradoxical, or shocking framework." No, we see a succession of stereotypical and ever more dilapidated billboards, filling stations, greasy-spoon eateries, cheap hotels, and their lowlife habitues along country highways, exactly where they stereotypically belong.

"Largely responsible for perpetuating... the traditional emphasis on content." There is little content, moment-to-moment, in Motorama.

To sum up: Picture British millionaires dressed as clowns or pirates on the way to a posh costume party, sitting serene and mute as cautious chauffeurs inch their Rolls-Royces like fragile skiffs through a roiling sea of desperate humanity, Chinese who implore them through the windows and smear the glass with blood. Or imagine a stadium full of abandoned antiques, limousines like those above now rusting, and white pianos tinkled by ghosts. Into this detritus wander an exhausted boy and an ailing woman to whom he clings as mother-figure becoming girl-friend, who fall asleep side by side on the grass. He is awakened-- on the Feast of the Transfiguration, "white and glistering" day 1945-- by a brilliant flash on the horizon that is not the rising sun. Finding that his consort has become a corpse, he first believes that he has witnessed her soul going up to heaven. Later he explains only a little less innocently, 'I learned a new word today: atom-bomb. It's like God taking a photograph.' Now, *there* are just two samples of cinematic surrealism, surrealism whose ironies ripple out far enough to invade its film's very title: Empire of the Sun. If you seek surreal, *please* don't miss it. Alas, however hard he treads on the accelerator to race his chariot through and beyond the desert, no scenes so exquisitely strange, rich, subtle, or gorgeous await Motorama's poor little Gus in his quest.

None of the above necessarily constitutes a thumbs-down on this film. Though somewhat disappointed, I can't dismiss it, in view of the respectability of another genre that it does exemplify-- one influenced, to be sure, by surrealism, but also by expressionism, existentialism, and Franz Kafka's pessimism amidst omnipotent power structures. Let's try on for size: Theater of the Absurd.

Turning to E.B.'s article on this style, I am amazed by how, to the extent that Theater of the Absurd is a valid artistic style, the above objections to Motorama vanish like a puff of smoke. I'm tempted to quote the entire text as support of the identification.

Theater of the Absurd attempts to show "that the human situation is essentially absurd, devoid of purpose... humankind is left feeling hopeless, bewildered, and anxious.": Having instantaneously achieved his purpose of getting away from a depressing home life among bickering parents, Gus finds himself purposeless until he drives past a glittering billboard reading "Motorama" and decides to win the lottery that it promises. As others have already revealed, this ambition proves illusory: although the game "never expires", the sponsoring corporation has no intention that anyone should ever win, and has ways to trick, confuse, and leave crestfallen any aspirant to the reward. He, like others, is ultimately disappointed in his dream.

"Absurdist playwrights, therefore, did away with most of the logical structure of traditional theatre. There is little dramatic action as conventionally understood; however frantically the characters perform, their busyness serves to underscore the fact that nothing happens to change their existence... a timeless, circular quality emerges." "Language in an absurdist play is full of... repetitions... repeating the obvious until it sounds like nonsense." Underneath a sometimes "dazzling comic surface," we find "an underlying message of metaphysical distress." Gus's obsession with a silly game, his inane language, the plot device wherein he divines a bleak future and/or returns to an earlier moment and takes a different but still bleak turn-- so much fits now. While an admirer of the surreal would do better with some films, anyway, of Spielberg, admirers of Motorama as it really is should find fellow-travelers-- not instead but addition-- in the works of Beckett, Ionesco, and Genet.

But one can't quite stop here. After his disillusionment with the game, Gus returns to "Phil" (i.e., Love), the first attendant he had met and the one person who had treated him decently, although he had also scolded him-- at a service station advertising "Be full-filled!". Under Phil's tutelage he learns a life of waiting for cars. We might note here that the absurdist playwright Beckett had entitled his most famous play "Waiting for Godot," and that for Godot we should read "God." God is one of Phil's preoccupations, too. Furthermore, as the indirect result of his previous encounter with Gus, Phil is badly maimed and goes about in a cast with his arms straight out horizontally. In the last scene, Gus, now Phil's protege, says that he wants to hear music. We hear none, but we see Phil wiggling his fingers at the end of his outstretched arm, beckoning Gus closer, and Gus responds. The End.

Finally, on to an author whom I happen to be reading currently, the Anglican theologian William Stringfellow. If this rebel-lawyer is not acknowledged as an architect or undergirder of Liberation Theology, which is more a Roman Catholic than an Anglican movement, perhaps he should be. Police brutality and corporate greed are a cliche in cinema and literature, including Motorama, but Stringfellow supports and illuminates such sentiments with impressive warrants from scripture, tradition, and reason.

His most significant work is an expose of the earthly activities of those fallen angels whom the Bible refers to as principalities and powers. Principalities, wrote Stringfellow, are behind all of our popular three I's: Images, Institutions, and Ideologies. All of these commend themselves to our worship by making false promises. The more deeply involved with an image, an institution, or an ideology any person becomes, the more his own personhood becomes "depleted" and be becomes a slave to them. Promising power, control, and immortality, they inexorably deliver helplessness, chaos, and death. As essentially fallen, defeated powers, they can do no more than that. Yet they beguile humans with that "dominion over the earth" promised by God in the book of Genesis, while in fact no one of us controls an image, an institution, or an ideology bent inevitably on its own hegemony and self-preservation. They take on lives of their own. "Dominion" happens to be a mistranslation: a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be "stewardship." But this is a quibble beside a more fundamental problem: Most of us neglect to notice that God had delegated this power to Adam *before* the fall. We have no reason to assume that we, his descendents, still exercise it now: on the contrary, it should be obvious that demonic forces have stolen it from us.

One might add two observations of C.S. Lewis: First, that "man's conquest of nature" is a mere illusion, and a ruse to cover the fact that one is really talking about the conquest of some men by other men with nature as the instrument; and secondly, contrary to popular belief, Satan is no kind of good-time Charlie. He may dangle out pleasures at first, but he is very niggardly with them and will withdraw them from any human firmly in his thrall, perhaps leaving his prey sitting in front of the fire feeling miserably sorry for himself and seething with resentment.

Now, applying these insights to Motorama, we seem them mirrored remarkably in Gus's experience. He is, if not nice, at least a pretty little boy prior to falling victim to the Motorama game. The first signs advertising it glisten glamorously. The longer he continues, however, and the deeper he journeys towards the sponsoring corporation's headquarters, the more shabby they become. He's lonely, meeting no one else who plays the game. The stations giving out the cards have either fallen into ruins or are staffed by zombies. The people he does meet along the way are more and more ugly, deceitful, and hostile. (The fact that the principalities answer to a common dictator does not mean that they can abide one another). Gus's humanity is leached out of him as he becomes not only totally self-centered and oblivious to the needs of others but partially blinded... disfigured... prematurely aged while infantile in the literal sense of linguistically challenged. Eventually even his precious Mustang is taken from him in a crash, and he must continue in a dead man's wreck. Yet at long last, having done everything he thought was expected, he presents himself to the principality in its proud tower to receive his prize. Using the biblical power to confuse wielded by those who have built such monuments to their own vanity, its agents evade him, disappoint, insult, and finally throw him from the top floor. He FALLS long and hard, landing, finally in a body of water. In other words, in classic symbolism, he DIES. He has met the inevitable bad end of anyone who has put his faith in such a deceiver.

But this fate proves to be only a warning look into a mutable future. He repents and returns to Phil, and upon seeing him performs the very first generous, selfless act we have seen from him for almost an hour and a half: noting that Phil is now handicapped and hardly able to insert a hose into a gas tank, he asks, "Can I help you with that?" Then, seeing the "help wanted" sign, he decides to apply for the job, explaining to the motorist with whom he was hitch-hiking that he reckons he'll get out here, because it doesn't look like too bad a place to work.

This interpretation is conjectural, of course, and it may surprise or even outrage the film's "cult classic" aficionados who see quite different points in it.

If Motorama isn't quite my cup of tea, I'm at least convinced now that it's hardly the worst film ever made. While I rather enjoyed this movie, I'll tell you right now that my mother wouldn't. It's out there. Really warped little dark comedy that reads like a fairy tale gone awry. >

Neat treat with all the cameos too. If you want something "different", look no further. I saw this movie on late night TV out of Buffalo about 30 years ago and I'm dying to see it again one more time before I... well.. you know. The interaction between the main characters after the Tiger (Eli Wallach) "captures" his prey (Anne Jackson) in a botched kidnapping attempt is absolutely hilarious. Charles Nelson Reilly's portrayal of a neurotic university dean(?) or department head is priceless. How many films can you name which are able to illuminate humanity's struggle for meaning and fulfillment by making you laugh from beginning to end? This film reminds us that we are all in that same struggle regardless of class, race, sex or religion. And who can forget the scene of the suburban homeowner on his hands and knees attacking those few tiny weeds that have dared to appear overnight on his perfectly manicure lawn! It's up there with Where's Poppa, The Groove Tube, Putney Swope. It memorializes the NY city mind set of the period, a wonderfully strange man with a bizarre plan, hoist by by own petard, and at last retreating into the bed of his adoptive parents. Totally absurd, its the life one sees through the magic glasses, seeing things as they "really are"... I don't think it is ever shown anymore. If so, surely someone would Tivo the thing and put it out there. A kidnap goes awry: mixed up in a rain storm, dashing in and out or storefronts, our hero tosses a raincoat over his prey and tossing her into his bicycle powered ice cream wagon spirits her off to his basement apartment in the village. He is amazed, surprised, and incredibly disappointed when the wraps come off: instead of a luscious lady, he has captures a middle ages suburban housewife who talks and talks and talks. The film is full of vignettes of the commuters life, the suburban life, the city officials, and all the attitudes so dearly held. It pushes the limits of comedy, such as magical reality might push a drama, much as Daffy Duck is able to draw on imaginative scenes to demonstrate his plight or desires, all at the very edge of plausibility. All of it is humorous, nobody is mean. In this era when almost everything makes it on to DVD (I'm expecting to see the My Mother the Car collection any day now) this film has been unfairly neglected. There are innumerable stupid comedies from the 60's as well as many other eras that have received at least a cursory DVD treatment. This one wasn't even released on VHS to my knowledge, despite the talents involved in the making (Arthur Hiller, Eli Wallach, Anne Jackson, Murray Shisgal (notable later for co-writing Tootsie), even Dustin Hoffman in his debut). It's obviously a product of the sixties but so is just about everything else from that era. All films reflect the tastes and customs of the times in which they are made. This was released the same year as The President's Analyst, another absurd masterpiece. That film was finally released on DVD and has developed a cult following. This film has many memorable bizarre, goofy, wacky moments. Sure, it's painted in broad strokes and has silly go-go music throughout but that's part of its charm. It creates its own absurd universe. If whoever is in charge of DVD production for Columbia Pictures releases (I believe Columbia released it) takes polls for new releases this gets my vote. I rarely write reviews but this film simply demands more attention than it gets as it contains the most hysterical kidnapping gone comically wrong sequence ever filmed.

I have only seen this once and found it to be the funniest film I had ever had the privilege to watch. I laughed from beginning to end. It is such a shame it is not out on DVD or video.

You can only compare its cinematography with that of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or Promise her Anything. Only this storyline isn't nearly as complex as Mad World.

I hope in the near future this film is released as it would be a shame to lose such a comedy gem amongst the dregs we have nowadays. Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens ö, spelled almost like "booné aww" is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.

Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.

The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.

All this said, Barnens Ö is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...

This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.

I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.

Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens Ö was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: "Men are Pigs". He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.

Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.

In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show. The very few reviews I could find online of Barnens ö really do not do it justice. I read them all before ordering the DVD, but for some reason I ordered it anyway. I regretted it almost immediately, but the order had already gone through so I couldn't cancel it. I'm very glad now that I couldn't. It's an extraordinary movie.

I won't give a synopsis of the plot, because other reviewers have already done that. But I will say that I don't understand comments that it's bleak, shocking, weird, clinical, depressing or pornographic. It is certainly very unusual, which I suppose could make it seem weird to some people, but the other criticisms must reflect the reviewers' own issues, because I didn't see any of that in the movie I just watched. I'm not attracted to boys, so the nudity didn't seem pornographic at all to me--it's just a kid trying to figure out who he is with no help at all from the irresponsible adults in his life. And it's Sweden, not Utah, so topless women are no big deal.

But what surprised me most is how positive the movie is in its depiction of this gutsy lost kid who goes on a sort of Odyssey through all sorts of strange experiences, looking for--and ultimately finding--himself. It's fascinating, thoroughly original, and deeply satisfying.

I'm not at all surprised that Barnens ö won three major Guldbagge awards, for best film, direction, and actor, but I'm absolutely astounded that the actor who won was not Tomas Fryk, the kid whose fearless performance as Reine must be one of the most remarkable ever filmed, but Ingvar Hirdwall in the relatively insignificant role of Stig, Reine's mother's sleazy boyfriend. I don't understand that at all, but it doesn't alter the fact that this is a great movie. In reaction to the dullness of the films of actual combat in that time, the wartime public increasingly turned to humor as escape from monotony and anxiety…

Charlie Chaplin feared that his great "Shoulder Arms" would offend people, but it became his greatest hit… In it, Charlie, by luck, courage, and devilish ingenuity wins the war singlehanded and brings a captive Kaiser in triumph to London…

The chief difference between this hilarious burlesque and some of the serious war dramas was that in Charlie's case it all turned out to be a dream… In these modern times (as subject known quite well to the director of the short film that this German count is going to talk about…), politically correct films are the "leitmotiv" of the modern young filmmakers' projects. "Shoulder Arms" directed by Herr Charlie Chaplin during WWI (the film was released only a few weeks before the armistice) is an obvious example of why the early cinema pioneers were a very bold people, certainly! To direct a humorous film inspired in the terrible, bloody First World War was a complicated matter that only few directors with those dangerous and daring ideas could be allowed to do… to venture upon such delicate enterprise and with success was reserved only to geniuses.

As this German count said, "Shoulder Arms" was made during WWI, that time in where definitely the whole world lost its innocence (fortunately not the German fat heiresses of this aristocrat…) and it is a hilarious, inventive social satire about that and any war. The film it is full of great gags and entertaining film continuity for a story in where that tramp will live though risky and courageous adventures in the front …whether a hero for the allies… or not.

To mock the war trenches, the unhealthiness, the frontal attacks and the Germans (how you dare!!... by the way, there are a lot of inaccuracies in the film … the German soldiers by that time had moustaches and longer beards not to mention that the Kaiser lacks many medals in his uniform…) in an elegant, funny and delicate way it is even today a film miracle impossible of being surpassed. Keeping in mind those terrible wartime circumstances, the difficult task is only possible thanks to a lot of creativity and talent. Obviously Herr Charlie Chaplin had very much of it.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must go back to the Schloss trenches.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/ Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp or Little Man character wins World War I, called The Great War at the time, single handedly, even capturing the Kaiser, something the entire Allied armed forces were unable to do. Too bad it all turns out to be a dream, which is somewhat of a cop out and the weakest part of this mesmerizing silent short (almost a feature film at 46 minutes).

There are inventive gags galore including Charlie having to put on a gas mask to eat Limburger cheese sent from home, then using the cheese as a weapon against the Germans; Charlie sleeping underwater in a flooded trench next to a soldier he continues to annoy; Charlie disguising himself as a tree--one of his best sketches ever--and Charlie pretending to beat up his friend who has become a POW, then hugging him when the enemy is out of sight.

One amazing feature is how much Charlie, when he is behind enemy lines dressed as a German, resembles Hitler over ten years before Hitler and his Nazi thugs rose to dominate German politics. Obviously Hitler patterned his appearance after Charlie's from this film. The big names in film tried to do their part for the war effort, and Charlie Chaplin was no exception. This patriotic and propagandist picture is part of his contribution, although the war was nearly over by the time of its release. The tramp goes to war, humorously accomplishes acts of heroism and kicks the Kaiser in the bum. It's a very funny film, although I don't think it nearly one of his best. It's with 'A Dog's Life' as his better output for First National before he made his early masterpiece 'The Kid.' They are his first three-reelers, which contain sustained, more elaborate gags than he could usually orchestrate in his two-reel shorts at Mutual.

It can be difficult to balance a pro-war message with slapstick antics and scenes of burlesque on the front, but one wouldn't think so watching 'Shoulder Arms.' It's also preferable in many respects to a "more serious," dramatic work with a similar message, such as Griffith's 'Hearts of the World.' Chaplin had become a true virtuoso of screen comedy by this time; he makes it look effortless. He knew very well by now that a film with fewer gags--with more elaboration, refinement and careful timing--could be better than any knockabout, Keystone-type farce with a dozen pratfalls a minute. The sequence where Chaplin is disguised as a tree is a pertinent example. Even with wars raging, Chaplin can lift the spirits of millions. Considering all of the comedies with a military situation that have been done in history, someone had to be the first. One could make a case that in Shoulder Arms, Charlie Chaplin invented the genre.

Hard to believe that back then this was a daring move. When you consider that some of the best films involving such people as Bob Hope, Abbott&Costello, Laurel&Hardy involved military service and made during war time, it's just something you accept and laugh at.

In the First World War Chaplin along with fellow stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford went out on bond tours. He was a great supporter of the Allied cause, unusual for someone of his left wing views. It would seem only natural that the Tramp would be drafted and unfortunately would flummox around and wreak havoc on all.

A lot of things you'd see in the service comedies of World War II got their start in Shoulder Arms. Chaplin had no more imitators because within a few weeks of the film's release, the war was over.

But a comedy art form had been established by one of comedy's greatest geniuses. In one of the best of Charlie Chaplin's lengthier short films, he places the Little Fellow in the trenches of WWI, where he brings his intolerable politeness and endless patience to the drudgery of trench life, where troops lived for months at a time before finally going over the top to overtake the enemy, and usually to their deaths. It takes someone of Chaplin's skill as a comedian to make something as dreary as trench warfare into such a brilliant comedy, but the irony that he uses in the film makes even the most uncomfortable conditions highly amusing.

Like all of the best of Chaplin's films, short films and otherwise, this one is packed with brilliant and memorable scenes, such as the scene where he marks off kills with a piece of chalk on a board in the trench, erasing one when he gets his helmet shot off, the scene where he and his fellow soldiers are sleeping underwater, the opening of the beer bottle and lighting of the cigarette, and of course, the overtaking of the enemy. All of these scenes are show-stoppers, reminiscent of the most wonderful Chaplin scenes. This one should not be missed! SPOILERS BELOW

`A Dog's Life' was most noteworthy for its excellent comic timing. In Charlie Chaplin's other movie from 1918, `Shoulder Arms', the silent film genius focuses on an entirely different brand of humor. His war comedy specializes in surreal, exaggerated set pieces in which Chaplin demonstrates unprecedented creativity and mastery of composition. When the soldier's bunker gets flooded, the water level reaches just the right height so that Chaplin can execute his gags most successfully. In a later scene, the soldier dresses up as a tree, a disguise that belies Chaplin's much increased ingenuity and goofiness. Naturally, when the enemy discovers his ruse, the soldier darts straight for the forest. The ensuing chase is a visual marvel: Chaplin not only hides the soldier from the Germans, but he uses the forest to mask the soldier from the audience, as well, such that the camouflaged soldier stands unblocked in the middle of the frame yet somehow remains invisible. All the while we thought our little hero was pulling a fast one on the German army; to our delight, the joke is on us, too.

Rating: 8 This is one of Chaplin's First National films from the period between his glorious Mutual shorts and the more mature United Artists features. More opulent than the Mutual films, it continues Chaplin's quest for perfecting his comic expression. Most people forget that the film is actually a dream that Charlie has while awaiting being sent off to the front.

There is plenty of slapstick via the Limburger cheese being used to gas the enemy, and Chaplin's foray into enemy territory dressed as a tree.

By this stage in this career, the great man had become so immersed in filmic expression that his films give the impression of making themselves. Doubtless this was not the case, but still, it gives as convincingly realistic view of life at the front as I can remember, albeit from an ironically humorous perspective.

As far as I am concerned, familiarity with the entirety of Chaplin's work should be a prerequisite for all cinephiles - do not delay! This film as it is now is far shorter than it was when released in 1918. In fact, it is now more available with two other medium sized silent Chaplin features (A DOG'S LIFE, and THE PILGRIM) that Chaplin re-released in the 1950s. In it's day SHOULDER ARMS was a big hit because of it's humor in uniform approach. It still is very funny (Chaplin in disguise as a tree, spying on the Germans, is so ridiculous it's hysterical), but it suffers from being set in it's own age. Charlie's dealing with World War I, a hideous conflict that killed 20 million people, but not the worst war (horrible to say) of the 20th Century. Chaplin would live to see that war too, and would spoof it's main architects in THE GREAT DICTATOR. But the latter is more accessible to modern audiences because that movie is a talking picture. Also, Hitler as a target seems more important to audiences in 2008 than Kaiser Wilhelm II and his general staff.

SHOULDER ARMS was to take us through the drafting of the tramp, his training, his getting use to trench warfare, and his actual fighting against the "Huns" on the Western Front. Much of this is now gone - one segment (when Albert Austin is a Doctor examining Chaplin in his office at the draft center) is still in existence and was shown completely in the documentary UNKNOWN CHAPLIN. This is unfortunate, because the film is now roughly forty five minutes long, and there seems to be gaps that these scenes filled out. What remains is first rate but one leaves wanting more...and feeling a trifle cheated.

Sydney Chaplin and Henry Bergman do well in supporting parts, especially Sydney as Wilhelm. He had done it before in a short with Charlie for the sale of bonds, giving a militaristic speech before being clobbered by the tramp with a huge hammer labeled "War Bonds"). Here we see the tramp succeed in capturing Wilhelm and the general staff at the conclusion. It was only topped by Stan and Ollie capturing the German army with a tank and barbed wire in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES.

The funny thing is that Chaplin actually had a major crisis as a result of his wartime activities. He was not a naturalized American - not in 1917 or in 1952, when Attorney General McGranery publicly announced that Chaplin could not return to the U.S. because he was an enemy alien (Chaplin and his family were in Europe on a trip - in anger Charlie settled in Switzerland for the rest of his life, except when he made A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG and when he went to Hollywood for his special career "Oscar" in the 1970s). Because he was not an American he could not be drafted by the U.S. So he sold (with Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Mary Pickford) U. S. War Bonds. But in Great Britain tens of thousands had perished in World War One battlefields, and the public there was upset at Chaplin, who they considered a "slacker" and a coward. Chaplin eventually did overcome this, but remnants of the resentment followed him until he died. This does not detract from the success of SHOULDER ARMS as a film, but it does suggest why Chaplin did not do another modern war film until 1940, and a worthier target. Charles Chaplin's 'Shoulder Arms' of 1918 was his longest film to date, though, at just over 45 minutes in length, it was not quite a feature film. With World War One just drawing to a close, many popular entertainers of the time were doing their part to inspire their native troops, and Chaplin was no exception. And so the lovable Tramp went to war! The film begins with the Tramp in training, and the character is hilariously inept at even the simplest military drills, including marching and gun-slinging, much to the disgust of his drill sergeant. The Tramp then finds himself in the trenches, faced with a more formidable foe, though the Germans eventually turn out of be infinitely more incompetent than even he. The uproarious moment when the Tramp declares that he single-handedly captured thirteen German soldiers by "surrounding them" had me in stitches.

There are plenty of other great moments in this film. Chaplin awaking to find his sleeping barracks underwater and being unable to literally find his own feet is hilarious, as is his ingenious use of a tube from a record player to sleep beneath the surface.

However, the most memorable scenes in the film undoubtedly involve Chaplin skulking behind enemy lines disguised as a tree. The reactions of the bumbling German soldiers, unknowingly just metres from a sworn enemy, as they are single-handedly disabled one-by-one are highly amusing, especially when one soldier grapples an axe with the intention of cutting down a tree for firewood.

This is a very enjoyable film, and one of the best of Chaplin's pre-1920 efforts. Highly recommended. I described Woody Allen's Manhattan as perfect to someone the other day, and she thought that it was an odd way to describe a movie...

I have seen only a handful of movies that I would call perfect. Manhattan is one, McCabe & Ms. Miller by Robert Altman is another and Once Upon a Time in the West by Sergio Leone is also another film that I think achieves perfection. There are a few others, but aside from the fact that I find no faults in the three I mentioned, I must also admit that all three directors are acquired tastes.

If there is one film that I could stand behind and bet the house that anyone I would show it to would find it flawless it's Shoulder Arms.

City Lights, The Great Dictator, The Gold Rush and even the Pawnshop are 10's but not only did Chaplin do everything right in this film, everything he did is hilarious and touching to a level beyond explanation. Fantastic Chaplin movie with many memorable moments as Charlie joins the army to fight in WW 1.

At first he goes to boot camp, where he has to learn how to handle his rifle and how to walk in line. That's a really funny scene as the tramp is not used to keeping his feet straight!

Next thing you know he's in France in a trench. Hilarious scenes here include a starving Charlie eating the cheese of a mousetrap and reading a letter from home over someone's shoulder.

When Charlie goes to sleep he finds his bunker all flooded and his roommate snoring. This is such a funny part! I can't really describe it, just watch the movie. When Charlie wakes up his legs feel numb so he tries to 'wake them up'. It had me rolling on the floor when it turns out his second leg still feels numb... while Charlie actually rubs his roommate's foot!

The movie then turns a bit grim, as Charlie shoots a couple of Germans from his trench (although it's done in a very funny way) and him personating as a tree to get close to the enemy, saving a friend of his from a death squad.

Last part is him getting a french girl in trouble by hiding in her house. He then has to save her and while doing so he captures the german kaiser as well. To do so he impersonates a german kolonel or something. I love it when Charlie is asked something in german and he's like nein nein nein. The soldier looks at him in a funny way so Charlie changes his mind: ja ja ja! The kaiser gets captured and Charlie is the hero... but then he wakes up again in bootcamp, it was just a sweet dream!

Charlie did one of those 'dream-sequences' before (The Bank comes to mind) but who cares, this movie was so funny it had me laughing all the way. Chaplin also has something to say with this movie (as his later work became more of a social comment to several mishaps in the world) and is explained best in the last sentence of the movie: 'Peace on earth, good will to all mankind.'

In short: a Charlie classic, very funny, timeless. 9/10. Chaplin enters the trenches of WWI in this spirited comedy that never belittles the horrors of war. The rain, the mud, the explosions - all these things are present but Chaplin seems strangely oblivious to them all. He's in France for one thing: to fight the Germans, something he does with unbelievable success.

It almost seems like an extended ego trip for Chaplin - a very funny one, at that - until the final minute when it rises to a new level of poignancy and everything makes sense.

Perhaps it's what all soldiers dream of before the go to war. Pretty funny stuff. Charlie was still working towards his peak when he made this rather daring short about soldiers in the trenches of World War One. Daring because, after all, the war was still going on and this was a comedy about a serious business.

The gags are amusing without being either hilarious or tear jerking. One successful scene follows another, as Chaplin and his comrades try to sleep in a bunker that is knee deep in water. (That's where we got the term "trench foot" from.) Probably the most ludicrous episode has Chaplin disguised as a tree and foiling any number of German soldiers as they try to execute an Allied soldier caught behind the lines. Edna Purviance, Chaplin's main squeeze at the time, is a woman who cooperates with the Americans and is saved from execution too.

Chaplin would go on to do funnier and more ambitious things but this is better than most of his shorts during this early period. Chaplin is a doughboy in his final film of 1918, a doughboy who can not seem to get the marching down straight. He spends time "over there" in World War One trenches. Several gags stand out: Limburger cheese as a makeshift grenade for one. The cramped quarters of the barracks in the trenches and when Chaplin and his mates are washed out of their bunks by flooding are highlights. Chaplin ends up capturing several German soldiers single-handed, and he spanks the German commander for refusing a cigarette. When asked how he did it, Chaplin replies that he surrounded them. Chaplin hides behind enemy lines as a tree of all things, and those scenes are very very funny. He escapes to a bombed house where he meets up with a French girl played by Edna Purviance. He's tracked down by German soldiers, escapes from them again, and Purviance is arrested for assisting him. Chaplin is able to pull a fast one by bopping a soldier and using the soldier's uniform. He ends up saving Purviance of course and capturing the Kaiser in the process. Along the way, Chaplin employs some sight gags and slapstick in turning back the German soldiers. With this film, Chaplin explored the location possibilities in filming while maintaining the audience's attention for closer to feature length time, something his contract with the Mutual Film Corporation disallowed him. The film also allowed him to poke fun at the enemy, something he would again do to greater effect in The Great Dictator. *** of 4 stars. This film was one of three that were later combined by Chapin into a compilation that was released to theaters in the late 1950s under the title "The Chaplin Review".

This was an odd film in some ways because later in life, Chaplin was anti-war and his movies stressed peace and brotherhood. This film, in contrast, is a propaganda comedy meant to bolster the US efforts in WWI. It's truly odd to see Charlie as the "super soldier" who single-handedly captures 13 Germans, casually and coolly shoots several Germans in mere seconds as a marksman and then goes behind enemy lines to try to capture the Kaiser himself! Truly, this was a major departure for the Little Tramp, though it was, at the same time, very very entertaining and funny. The film is exceptionally well-paced, well made and I'm sure did a lot to bolster support at home for our troops (too bad it was such a pointless and costly war). Mark Blankfield played Jekyll and Hyde.

Michael McGuire was the dad.

Tim Thomerson was the plastic surgeon.

Did you even see this movie? I doubt it!

Blankfield was fairly popular at this time for playing the pill-popping doctor on Fridays. Thomerson has been funny in anything he does, from movies to series to stand-up comedy. If I ever find this movie on DVD I will definitely buy it. I recorded this movie off of HBO back in '82 and have pretty much worn out the tape. One of the funniest takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme ever.

Of course. with all the cocaine references in this movie, it'd be panned as being way too politically incorrect today, as would Cheech and Chong. Too bad, because it is FUNNY, FUNNY, FUNNY! This is sweet. The actress who played the nurse with the gonzongas is the same actress who plays Elvira mistress of the dark. Another little tidbit is the actress who played the nurse who would give her wedding ring was the landlord lady of Roy Munsin in King Pin. This is most glorious story ever to be told. It should sell more copies than the bible. My parents played a part in suggesting the release of this movie to a local movie theater. The movie ran for a week and we were one of 4 families to see it. The lady who gave the go ahead (friend of the family) was let go by the theater. I was 3 years old. I have burned through 4 copies on VHS and finally had it converted to DVD. It's beautiful. I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it. I Loved this movie. Mark Blankfield was perfect for this role. More Classic sci/fie/Horror films should be remade to this comedy level, which is at the very top of the line in my opinion. A no drink movie, you laugh so hard you will spill it all over yourself. Can We expect more? Let's hope so. I would like to suggest many movies for this type of remake. Mel Brookes made some remakes of classic films.He made some very strong contributions. A Picture of Dorian Gray would be a good suggestion. I hope some producer or director can get into the idea and bring us new comedy to our screens. we are needing a good insurgence of comedy to keep our level of laughter higher than ever before. A good Comedy FIX. So it's a little dated now, it's almost 30 yrs old. Amazingly enough I have this on BETA tape and it still plays just fine. If it came to DVD I'd snap it up in a heartbeat.

The drug humor is not appreciated nowadays as it was back then. Then it wasn't as 'harmful'. Much like driving without airbags, seat belts and child seats. I can remember my father crying he was laughing so hard watching this. I had coworkers in the 90's who'd seen it and I could bust them up by getting on the intercom and saying "Iiiiiiiivvvvyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy".

Great lines, great spoof of the original, and funny to me anyway even three decades later! So it's not an award winner, so what? Have you ever wanted to see a film that was just silly? "The Villain" and this one could top the list.My husband says that "Jekyll and Hyde Together Again" is one of those movies that if "you've been there and done that" you'll think this spoof on the 80's cocaine culture is a riot. I think the whole film is just fun. Nothing is sacred; hospitals, plastic surgery, Howard Hughes.... There are ongoing gags that you have to watch for to appreciate. To say that the film doesn't follow the book would be true, but then a lot of really good films take liberties with the published word also. I recommend this movie to all the old "stoners" among us. We may be smarter now, but we will still recognize and laugh at many folks we knew (ourselves?) back in the old days. This is one of those rare comedies where try as you might, you can't help but giggle, chortle, guffaw and yes, even laugh out loud. The lead actor's performance as Hyde is pure manic genius. See if you can keep a straight face when he does his transformation. Good luck. :) On the downside there are times when the movie does bog down. It seemed longer than its 90 minutes. A mix of 70's drug humor along with parody of medicine and classic story line. As I've often said about this flick - if you don't get it - you're way lame..... Classic lines such as (parapharsed) "I've got this erection and it won't go away no matter how many times I do it. You're a nurse, what can you give me for it?" Nurse replies "all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring..." Great sound track.The classic "Hyde's got nothing to hide". Stays surprisingly close to the original plot - not that the original stays in the way of a joke..... Haven't met anyone with an IQ over 115 that doesn't find it hysterical.

Uproarious no-brainer comedy in which comedian Mark Blankfield portrays Jekyll as an uptight doctor deeply committed to his research. Once he's snorted his experimental formula, he's turned into the scenery-devouring Hyde, causing no end of problems for everybody around him.

I was pleasantly surprised by this one. It has a truly insane, madcap approach; it's full steam ahead with one outrageously stupid yet undeniably hilarious joke after another. Funny lines and sight gags are in abundance; Blankfield plays each role for all it's worth. One highlight has Hyde bursting into song; "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hyde" is quite catchy and even now I can still hear it in my head. The climax even goes so far as to spoof old b & w horror films.

The supporting cast is quite spirited as well, with Bess Armstrong as the ditzy fiancée Mary, Krista Errickson as the spunky Ivy, and Tim Thomerson as flamboyant fellow doctor Knute Lanyon. I do wish more could have been done with Thomersons' character, as I'm a fan of the man, but it's always nice to see him in something.

A large array of familiar faces parade before the camera: Cassandra "Elvira" Peterson, Peter Brocco, Liz Sheridan, George Wendt, Michael Ensign, John Dennis Johnston, Art La Fleur, Lin Shaye, and George Chakiris in a cameo as himself.

It goes without saying that if you prefer highbrow, intelligent comedy, you'd better avoid this one at all costs. But for those who enjoy a zany, politically incorrect, gleefully raunchy good time, this just might do the trick.

One of the best bits is saved for last.

8/10 Better than it has any right to be, this movie died a quick and painful death at the American box office. At times sophomoric, at others, bitingly satirical and witty, Jekyll and Hyde is mostly just a near perfect reflection of the times, laden with drug and sexual humor, reminding one at one time or another of everything from the Woody Allen of "Everything You Always Wanted To know About Sex" to the Mel Brooks of "The Producers", Saturday Night Live to Monty Python, Carlin to Cheech and Chong. Watch it, listen carefully because some of the jokes go by really quickly, and remember a time when comedy was allowed to be offensively hilarious. Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the "Busty Nurse" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.

If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.

Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.

It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!! Coming from the "druggie" generation, I thought this movie was hilarious. It definitely brought Jekyll & Hyde up-to-date, so to speak. My husband and I laughed all the way through it. Would love to have the movie in my collection. I told my two teenagers about the movie and they would love to see it. They aren't into drugs but they know enough about them to understand the comedy in the movie. It's been so long since I've seen it I can't remember but a few things. I would have to say the funniest part was when Dr. Jekyll dozed off on his lab table and inhaled the straw, while snoring, then snorted up the powdered drug he had invented. Funniest thing I'd ever seen in a movie. It took me a while to find this movie since they don't have it yet on DVD (and my VCR is not worth hooking up again). I guess all the referencing to drug use is too much for some folks. But I found a decent bootleg on Ebay and I must say that anyone who takes this movie too seriously is just retarded. It is a slap stick spoof in the vein of "Airplane." I must say that when I watched it on Showtime or Spotlight growing up in the 80s, I enjoyed the humor a whole lot more then, than I do now. But it's definitely worth watching just to see what they(i.e., movie makers) were able to get away with before the "Just Say No" hypocrites unleashed their propaganda. sing..."We are all on drugs" hahaha It's a silly film and worth the $10 I paid off of Ebay to get it on DVD just don't even think about comparing it to the original - that's just plain stupid. What are you high? Some said that this was a nose candy glorification flick, but short of the original Dr. Hyde's concoction, no drug has yet been developed that can provide THIS effect. If Viagra was the slime mold stage, that white sparkling powder is the Stephen Hawking evolutionary rung (or at least the pharmacist idiot savant branch). This reality show is really about the sacred cows of medicine, seen as was the emperor without clothes. Few of us want to question the health field; both because most of us would not have lived to our current age had we been born before "modern medicine", and because our subconscious hopes that we will continue to live on if we have faith in the helping professions. So the geniuses who produced this movie made jokes out of those Calcutta Bessy's, giving us the sugar that allows us to swallow the modern institution of medicine. The timing was right, and many were able to see the business side of the healing companies behind the curtain of Oz. A decade before, when George C. Scott ranted through the movie The Hospital, my wife and I were sitting in the packed premiere in Oklahoma City. Just as in Jekyll & Hyde's remake, we were almost unable to keep from falling out of our seat, and laughed and howled uncontrollably for the duration. The hundreds of other audience members were deadly silent. They were shocked that doctors, nurses, & the hospital institution were being mocked. It was as if the Pope, Billy Graham, and Gandhi were were sitting in the Animal House, beer stained tee shirts and all, competing to see who could tell the funniest God knock-knock jokes between belches. Had The Hospital been a slapstick comedy rather than a satire, they might have been able to see what was being shown to them. Unfortunately they were like Republicans at a screening of Michael Moore's 9/11. Perhaps smaller golden parachutes would have been given to the corrupt medical corporation leaders, health insurance companies would have had a tougher time denying medical care, and health providers would have been demystified earlier, if George C. Scott had tap danced in a tutu while delivering his terrible truths. But--forget everything I just said. Watch the movie, be consciously made as happy and joyful and full of laughter as the best ever Saturday Night Live skit, and let the subconscious soak in the documentary of the underlying reality. Just don't blame me when "Got to Got to Got to Got to" becomes one of your sayings, or when "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" occupies that portion of your brain now paralyzed by "Its a Small World After All". Or when you start calling your local hospital Our Lady of Pain and Suffering instead of Our Lady of Eternal Construction. Even Oklahomans were changing their favorite terrible boss wishbone winner entreaty from "Piss on him and leave him for dead", to "Body in a pit, you in it....." The smell of death...it's gone! Chicken sushi! Mary. MARY. MARYEEEEEEEEEEEEE! I love this movie a lot. I must get this on DVD. I have 2 VHS copies, but the quality is so poor that you can't read one written joke over the door of the ward. I'm forever amazed that Blankfield did almost nothing afterward. He made both Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde totally believable.

The movie is plagued by it's low budget. (One atrocious edit jumps into mid-word and was described on, "Siskel & Ebert".) But, there are a thousand jokes, sight gags to subtle references, that more than compensate. I often find myself quoting lines (or, singing, "I've Got Nothing to Hide") and, from time to time, completely describe a scene which matches some conversation. There are, at least, six scenes which are among my all time favorite comedy bits.

Viewers with no history of cocaine use may miss a lot of gags.

"Here, take it." * Visual of driving while waving butt out the window.* "I said, 'Is this seat taken?'" "Nice Burn!" Visual of chaps, headdress, jockstrap, & swim fins. * "Yeah. I'm right handed." * "Me! Me!" says the woman trying to sell 'nads. * "Bernie's going to love these." * "That's my feet, Jack." says the black feet. * "Why should we tell you?"... "SHE'S AT THE SUPERMARKET!" * "Ivy!" on supermarket PA. * Loading whole shopping cart into ambulance. * etc. In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was "The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time. "Pearl Harbor, buddy." This movie is brilliant! Sure it doesn't exactly flow like an multi-million dollar comedy does, but the jokes that are constantly thrown in are unbelievable. I'm one that goes for silliness, much like "Dumb and Dumber", "Airplane" and "Wet Hot American Summer" and I have to say this easily ranks up there. Movies just aren't written with this kind of sporadic comedy anymore. Too many jokes in this are such a surprise to the viewer that it's honestly amazing that more don't know about and praise this slapstick masterpiece! When watching this, you will easily find over 20 quotes from it that you will find yourself quoting after-wards... and after to watch it again you'll find even more! Mark Blankfield (from the old late night TV show "Fridays")plays Dr. Daniel Jekyll, a mild-mannered surgeon who invents a powder that turns him into a drug-crazed party animal. This was not, of course, his intent, he had higher aspirations, but he goes with the flow. This is actually a fairly stupid movie, but it's also pretty fun. Of course, once the good doctor realizes what he's done, he's ashamed, but he's also not above doing it all again & running through Hollywood as a crazed sex machine with frizzed out hair & gold chains. There's a few subplots like Jekyll's fiancée, who is the daughter of the head doctor at Our Lady of Suffering and Pain, Jekyll's employer. And there's Tim Thomerson as a plastic surgeon with seemingly few "real" parts and a taste for men, and a rich old man whose situation is a parody of Howard Hughes, and who is going to make several people rich with a complete set of organ transplants, including testicles. Yeah, the humor is raunchy and silly, and overall the whole thing is fairly tasteless, but if you're not above a quick wallow in the gutter, you'll probably like it just fine. Now available on DVD too, for the first time! Woohoo! 7 out of 10. The "all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring..." scene was a riot. I also guffawed at the scene in the bar where Hyde snorted the horse radish and flipped the bird to the Japanese guy and said "Pearl Harbor buddy". I think my IQ is higher than 115, but I'm not sure because I can't count that high.

Funny thing, this 10 line requirement. Seems as though they would bash you for making your comments too long, not too short. I hope I don't make it to 1,000 words before I get to line 10.

I'm still two lines short. Pardon me while I think and drink, or drink and think. It depends on whether my hands are faster than my mind. Good, I think I've made it to the 10 line limit. Thanks for reading! What a surprise. A basic copycat of the comedy classic 'The Nutty Professor' only naughtier. Funny guy Tim Thomerson (who steals the show as Blinkin in Robin Hood-Men In Tights) is downright hilarious as the anal retentive Dr. Jekyll and the sex crazed Hyde.

The one scene that is really funny is when Dr. Lanyon (Mark Blankfield) catches Jekyll in bed with his daughter and says:

"how dare you take advantage of my innocent daughter."

Jekyll replies, "but sir, I'm going ahead with the operation."

Lanyon replies back, "oh. Well in that case fu** your brains out!!!" I absolutely love this film and have seen it many times. I taped it in about 1987 when it was shown on Channel Four but my tape is severely worn now and I would love a new copy of it.I have e-mailed Film Four to ask them to show it again as it has never been available on video and as far as I know hasn't been repeated since the 80's. I have had no reply and it still hasn't been repeated. The performances are superb. The film has everything. Its funny,sad,disturbing,exciting and totally takes you back to school days. It is extremely well paced and grips you from start to end. The scene in the shower room is particularly horrific. I also cannot hear the song Badge by Cream and not think of this film. This film deserves to be seen by a much larger audience as it is superb. Channel Four please show again or release on Video or DVD. I've only seen this film once when it was shown on tv but I can still remember it 15 years later so that must say something about it. I thought it was an intelligent look into schooling, friendship, bullying and the influence it can have leading into adult life.

The title really refers to how being good or bad at sports can either make you the lowest of the low or you will be tolerated by the cliques within school and even later on into adulthood if you're good at it- this is set in a private school in England but it could be anywhere.

The main character is bad at games, seeks revenge in later life which all culminates in a climactic confrontation on a cricket pitch. I must admit I was gutted by the ending - it was powerful and saddening. Thanks to the helpfulness of a fellow IMDb member I've just managed to watch this film for the second time in nearly twenty years, and I can honestly say it hasn't lost any of its kick. I can't believe that Channel 4 have let this one vanish without a trace as it is an extremely powerful, moving and moralistic take on the consequences of misplaced loyalty.

It focuses on a clique of friends over the course of ten years and their relationship with two 'outsiders' from school; specifically how they use one and mercilessly torment the other. As events from both the past and present unfold the tension gradually thickens, not dissimilar to Shane Meadows' excellent revenge-chiller Dead Man's Shoes. The acting, writing and direction are very bold for 1983 and still pack a wallop today in spite of the upper crust accents of the central characters. Yes, it might be set in public school but it's worlds apart from anything put out by Merchant Ivory; I got a state education and can still draw countless parables from the story.

This is a film that you'll remember for a long time if you see it - except you probably won't, because Channel 4 (or FilmFour) have chosen to bury it. On their own official website they describe it as "an inexplicably overlooked gem from the early days of Channel 4" - overlooked by who? This was one of the very first Channel 4 films (which would later go on to become FilmFour thanks to the success of films like Trainspotting), so somewhere someone must still have the master print. In these days where you can get extended collector's issue DVDs of more or less anything it's a bit moody that they can't give a film this good the promotion it deserves.

So, if one of the Channel 4 production flunkies is reading this, stop making programmes that showcase people humiliating themselves in the hope of securing a tabloid deal, chase up this film and sort out a nice special anniversary edition disc or something, please! I remember seeing this film when I was fairly young & being quite disturbed by it. I found the storyline very distressing and can still remember the various bullying techniques used. One in particular was when the other school children spat in his soup before he could even taste a spoonful. They also bound him and shaved his private parts. This was all because he was unpopular. Why was he unpopular? Because he was bad at games. I have a feeling though that even if he was good at games he would have been bullied because it's hard to decide what makes someone popular. To me, he is the type of person who would always be picked on because that's how children operate. Popular children are popular because they are in some way 'cool'. Popularity is a hard thing to define. So, even at the end when he is successful in his career it makes no difference & he is still left feeling tormented. I found the ending quite distressing as there was no resolution. here in Germany it was only shown on TV one time. today, as everything becomes mainstream, it's absolute impossible, to watch a film like this again on the screen. maybe it's the same in USA, or especially GB. The Message is a brutal truth : Find friends to make your ideas come a bit closer to reality, or you become a loser, if not an asshole instead.

The whole film is not particularly as simple, as it may seem here. Every little scene, every sentence, every behavior of the characters show a sharp look at what could happen, when one person is not accepted in a sadistic crowd, which calls itself normal.

Very well played by all this is a must seen. Who is the main character? John (not Cox, folks, remember ;-) ore Niles (who still is Bimbo) Decide and you will get the plot as it is intended.

A bitter look at what society becomes in a repressive system. Kind of Salingers Catcher in the rye and Goldings Lord of the flies thought to the very end.

The Final maybe change your own mind. Word The main reason I loved this movie is because IMx (formerly Immature) were in it. They were in House Party 3 when they were 11, but they are all grown up now! I was a little shocked at some of the things they were doing in the movie (almost ready to tear my hair out), but I had to realize that they were not my little boys anymore. I think Chris Stokes did a pretty good job, considering that is was his first movie. I liked it better than House Party 2 & 3. The cast was hilarious and cool at the same time. Chris Stokes, who directed the film, has a very humorous cameo in it as a car repairman; look for his mom who plays the lead character, John John's grandmother. And you can hear her rap the title song "Down to the Last Minute" at the end of the film as the credits roll. She's very funny and a really good actress, as well. The young actors who star in it (the main trio), and who in reality are part of the music group IMx, did a superb job. Before this film I had not paid much attention to this r & b group. Now I'm a fan. The music number in the House Party scene alone is worth checking out the movie. I was pleasantly surprised. I loved it. I remember this film of old. It's a great, chilling, atmospheric horror picture about a man who moves into a Scottish castle, only to discover that there are strange goings-on in the corridors at night. And there are even stranger events taking place out back, in Hollywood's most familiar hedge maze. Yes, this is the maze you've seen in every feature-length film that ever involved a topiary puzzle, up to and including "The Shining." But the punchline to this story is about the last thing you would guess. I certainly didn't see it coming. This is a fine example of how good and convincing a movie can be even when the premise is utterly loopy, bordering on laughable. I'd recommend it to anyone. A woman and her aunt go to Scotland to locate her evasive fiancé. This is a much-maligned film because of its denouement, but up to that point, it's interesting, well-acted, eerie, and with fine set design (by William Cameron Menzies, developed for 3-D projection). Veronica Hurst is captivating and genteel, sort of a chic British Marilyn Monroe, still in love with Richard Carlson, who is hiding a family secret in his forbidding castle; there are even bats in the belfry! It moves leisurely until the final extraordinary set-piece, when Hurst and her aunt (Katherine Emery, also the narrator), sneak out of the castle in the night to venture into the maze and find what they're looking for in its center. As a kid, I always remembered this sequence - there's nothing scarier (or claustrophobic) than not finding your way out of a 10-foot high maze of hedges. Naturally, the two women get separated, setting the stage for engrossing suspense with horrific music. The final result is mildly disappointing really, since Carlson's epilogue at the end makes some sense to all the goings-on, even provoking sympathy. Worth seeing. Is this a good movie? It's hard to say -- but in 1953, for many people, it was a remarkably effective movie, suspenseful, scary and then, amazingly, actually touching when "the old gentleman" meets his unhappy death at the end of the movie.

Yes, what lurks in the Maze turns out to be something of a surprise and, for a lot of people, a hilarious one. But the basic idea (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) was a very real one at the time the book was written, and does have some basis in fact. Not that it would ever result in what we see in the movie, of course.

But working on what must have been a very low budget, one of the greatest production designers -- and the person for whom the term "production designer" was invented -- creates a very eerie mood that was strangely compelling. At times, of course, the movie is very silly, but it has its moments. I recently saw this film at a 3-D film festival in Hollywood. It was in polarized 3-D (Gray glasses not red & blue) It was so much fun to watch this film with an audience, the print was excellent and the 3-D perfect. The performances were over the top and that added to the fun, the surprise ending (that we aren't supposed to share with fellow movie go'ers, at least according to the movie trailer and poster) had people howling with laughter. By today's standards this is probably more comedy than horror but with the added dimension of 3-D (complete with cobwebs and bats coming out of the screen) this film was an entertaining romp into 50's horror. Gerald (Richard Carlson) and Kitty (Veronica Hurst) have just finished celebrating their engagement announcement in France with family and friends, when he receives a letter asking him to visit an ancestral castle located in Scotland. Gerald's uncle reportedly has fallen ill and has requested Gerald, the sole heir, be present. Gerald goes off to Scotland, leaving his future bride behind. A few weeks pass and he doesn't come back. Concerned, Kitty sends out telegrams but doesn't hear back from her fiancé. Four more weeks pass and Kitty finally receives a weird response from Gerald, calling off the engagement and telling her to move on with her life. Not ready to give up on her relationship and looking for answers, Kitty hops on a plane and decides to pay Gerald a visit. Accompanying her on the trip is her level-headed aunt Edith (Katherine Emery, best known for her starring role in the classic chiller ISLE OF THE DEAD). When Kitty and Edith arrive at the MacTeam estate they immediately suspect something strange is afoot. For starters Gerald seems to have aged twenty-years in a matter of weeks. Secondly, this once nice and charming guy has turned into a complete jerk who repeatedly demands they leave the castle and never come back. When Edith comes down with a mild cold, Kitty uses it as an excuse to stay there to try to get to the bottom of things.

Why is Gerald being so cold and cruel to the woman he was just about to marry? Why is Gerald so opposed to having company? Why do the house rules state that guests must be locked inside their bedrooms at night? Why are guests forbidden to enter certain areas of the estate, such as Gerald's bedroom and a large hedge maze out back? And what's making those strange dragging noises every night? These are just some of the questions THE MAZE poses. The movie actually does a fine job building up mystery and intrigue. You genuinely become interested in what's going on and patiently await the resolution to explain the weird events that are taking place. And then IT happens... I definitely don't want to ruin the finale of this film because you're better off not knowing, but it takes one of the most unbelievable and jaw-droppingly strange turns I've seen in any movie. It's wonderfully ludicrous in a way, but it also takes a pretty solid little b/w mystery and sends it straight into Z-Grade schlock territory. And yet, this ending seems so out of place, you're not likely to forget it once you see it.

Despite the ending (or maybe even partially because of the ending), I really enjoyed this odd bird. It's extremely talky and slow moving for the duration of the run time, but it managed to keep my interest throughout. Director William Cameron Menzies (who made the much more famous INVADERS FROM MARS the same year) is best known as a two-time Oscar-winning art director and his set designs here are also really interesting. There's almost a silent movie feel at times, with model work for some of the exteriors, some painted backdrops and sparsely decorated interiors with very high ceilings. As with any good castle set there are also secret passageways and long staircases. This one also throws in a few rubber-bats-on-strings for good measure.

A few of the actors are a little stiff and awkward, but I liked most of the cast. Hurst is one of those obscure and mostly unknown actresses who unfortunately never seemed to catch on despite being both beautiful and talented. Emery, who also gets to play narrator in framing shots at the beginning and end of the film, is decent enough as the overly mannered and cautious aunt. My favorite however was Michael Pate as the silver-haired sinister servant who does this hilariously upright zombie walk every time he ascends the stairs. Also on board in smaller roles are Hillary Brooke (who played the title role in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE WOMAN IN GREEN) and Lilian Bond (Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE). Of course Carlson also starred in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and some other horror flicks, so you've got yourself a pretty decent cast for genre fans right there. I say check it out! Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;). Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere), a successful surgeon, has his wife leave him, his son (an uncredited James Franco) not respect him and looses a patient he's operating on. Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) has two children and discovers her husband has cheated on her. They both need to get away. She watches over a beautiful oceanside inn in Rodanthe at the same time he books a room. They're all alone together. You can pretty much figure out the rest.

This is what's known as a weepie or a woman's film. It's beautifully shot with a romantic setting and lots of quiet scenes. There's tragedy, romance, more tragedy and an uplifting ending (sort of). The great acting by Gere and Lane helps disguise the fact that this film isn't really about much. Every single bit of the plot is predictable. I rolled my eyes a lot at some of the events. Also it's far too short--I didn't believe the romance between Gere and Lane for a second. If comes out of nowhere and moves VERY quickly. Still the movie does work. The inn itself is absolutely gorgeous and I was in tears by the end along with most of the audience. So it's a predictable but gorgeous movie with some wonderful acting. It doesn't deserve all the criticism it's getting. I give it a 7. Oh yes! Hollywood does remember how to use the good old formula, and when lightning hits, it's a rather wonderful feeling. Rarely Hollywood creates a masterpiece because lately, there seems to be more concern with hurrying up and getting the most rewards in a hurried manner, or there is the matter of too many cooks in the mix. Usually good screenplays are the result of a talented writer who is in full control of his/her property, understand his material and is a good writer. Then, there is a little important part, often neglected by the marketing geniuses that so often lack creativity and vision: a good actor.

A good actor can make the difference between a mediocre, half-cooked try, and a fully realized film that might not be an important and relevant movie, but one that contributes to its genre and might eventually become a classic of its type. We get very few romantic comedies, and we are people who are starved for them. Buried in the sexy humor of "Sex in the City" is the romantic, yet stormy relationship of Big and Carrie, and people flocked to "Mamma Mia" because it had some romance, skillfully played by Streep and Brossnam. It could have a silly musical, but it did touch us because it was played with intensity and conviction. "Nights" offers us more of it, with the amazing talents of a woman who does magnificent work in romantic films, Ms. Diane Lane. Ever since her days as a child actor, we could appreciate how her talent, combined with her appreciative soul allowed us to see into the hearts of the story's protagonists. A few years back, she teamed up with Mr. Gere, giving us a tormented, romantic, and sexy performance as the wife who is not too sure of her actions' consequences in "Unfaithful", work that should have garnered her at least an Academy Award. She is back, doing more formidable work in this romantic gem as a woman who has given up on her romantic prospects, and suddenly she realizes there might be another chance around the corner.

Ms. Lane makes this film pulsate with intelligence and passion. Her facial expressions communicate volumes about the different emotions her character undergoes. We can read frustrations, yearnings, desperation, anger, hope, loss, and a range that is way out reach for a lot of the marketable types that Hollywood constantly push down our throats. Here is a mature performer who has the gift to project real emotions and allows us to connect with the material in such a way that we are moved as we become part of the experience.

Ms. Lane is such a triumphant joy to watch as she goes through transformations from the first scenes of the film until the very end. Her discoveries become ours as we celebrate with her the power of hope and love. She is able to bring back the unsurpassed joy of a person in love, much like a teenager does, and yet she never lets you think of her character as silly or irresponsible. Her eyes are expressive gems that can move even the cynical in the audience. She is one of the stars that can do wonders with just one look. In her the classic feel of those grand movies of yesterday are back. Her work recalls the passionate and intelligent work of Hepburn, Davis, Garson, women who played everyday types and made them memorable because they created complete characters.

We admire those superb actresses who recreate real life legends and are rewarded for it. Half their work is done by the mystique of the figures they impersonate; however as much as anyone might make you think, it is the roles such as Lane's in this movie that are a more impressive achievement because they are created from scratch, given a personal imprint and are able achieve heights without any previous theatrical material support, such as plays, and the background of a famous legend whose life is paid tribute on the silver screen. Lane's character is one woman whose experiences could be any of us. She represents our dreams and emotions with much quality, class, and just the right amount of sentiment. It is quite a remarkable achievement, and we should be grateful that we are still able to find such a remarkable performance nowadays.

There are a few adjectives I could use to pay tribute to her work, but I can only say that in my humble opinion every single frame of her work in this film is testament to one of the greatest performances ever put on celluloid by a living performer. Thank you, Ms. Lane. Ever since they first came to the Outer Banks and filmed the movie (I have lived here my whole life), I have waited for this movie to come out. And I mean waited and waited and waited over a year and a half for this movie and to me, it was worth it.

The movie is different from the book but in my eyes, it's still a beautiful piece of work as is the book. In both I cried, there were moments that tore me up. I laughed and I smiled just as much. It's a great movie with a great story line.

It's about never giving up on finding that one, the one that will change you forever. The one that will shape your soul and awaken you to a whole new view of life.

I have to say that it is possible to meet someone and have them change your life forever, which is what Gere's character did to Lane's. I met the love of my life and at once was completely captivated that I never forgot him or how smitten I was with him until I 'met' him again a year later. For me I could relate to this movie with my whole heart. I think that if you listen and watch the movie with your heart and your hopes you'll see what I'm talking about. It's never too late to find your true love, great work Ms. Lane and Mr. Gere! NIGHTS IN RODANTHE brings back to the screen two talented actors in Diane Lane and Richard Gere in a simply beautiful story of a man and a woman hungry for something more in their lives than they have at present. The chemistry between Lane and Gere is magical from the first scene in the film to their last embrace. The locations, beauty of their attraction for one another when it unfolds when they first meet, and the story that follows, and as they begin to know each other with the attraction they feel towards each other is real, is romance that is projected to an audience with tender care. James Franco in another micro role is just the right casting, and the elegance of Lane in combination with the beach house, is a true Fall 2008 film to remember forever, as was THE NOTEBOOK. Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.

Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.

Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.

Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.

By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.

Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.

Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.

It will also ask you to bring some hankies.

8/10 That's right, we've got a 2008 film using themes of "Brief Encounter," and "The Bridges of Madison County." It's basically the story of lost loves, redemption and a triumph of the human spirit.

The performances by Richard Gere and especially Diane Lane are very good. Gere gives the kind of restrained performance here as a doctor who is searching for meaning, after a patient dies on the operating table. Lane is the mother of a rebellious daughter and a nice young son, who has split from her wandering husband and has also sustained the loss of her father in the same year.

Scott Glenn steals the show in a one scene meeting with Gere. He is the heartbroken husband and he recounts his love to his departed wife, it will bring tears to your eyes.

Fresh from her triumph as an acquiescing mother in "Doubt," Viola Davis appears as an understanding friend in the film and literally hangs her hair down in a rather benign performance. Eichard Gere & Diane Lane back again in another romantic love story. They are an excellent team,BUT somehow this film will not be among there best,

The director George Wolfe using a screenplay by Ann Peacock & John Romanao, for Nicholas Sparks novel, does a capable job. This is yet another tale of 2 strangers meeting & falling in love,then they go on there way,then when they are about to meet again & start a life together.

SPOILER but not really. Tragedy happens, one of them dies.

How many times have we seen this already.

Those who never saw tearjerkers like this will hopefully like it more than I did. This story has about every cliché there is.

The only reason this has the ratings I will give it. is because of the fine acting & excellent production . The cast besides our 2 stars, includes Christopher Meloni, Viola Davis & Scott Glenn. they all give real good performances & do the very best with the material they were given

There is a good but not over done storm sequence, The sex scenes are well done, no nudity & next to no foul language,

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 out of 10) I think this show was right on the money for me. I watched it over the plane but there were parts in the movie that made me control myself from tearing all over the place.

The chemistry between Richard gere and Diane lane was very believable (fantastic acting on both parts)! I loved how Diane lane's daughter acted in the show too. She displayed maturity and how she transformed throughout the show was easy to believe as what a teenager could possibly be like in real life.

I loved this show from start to end. Definitely recommended for the romantic people out there! Despite the fact that there were aspects of this film that I felt were not developed enough, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to others. Richard Gere and Diane Lane are great in their lead roles. The basic premise of the film is that both were in the wake of broken marriages when they meet. Both, also, are searching for healing. Unexpectedly, they find that they can help heal each other. There were aspects of the film that I wished I'd seen play out more-- where simple flashes merely suggested themes that my mind had to fill in the blanks on, such as the apology to the bereaved widower, and how Adrienne goes from feeling guilty about having slept with Paul to feeling okay with it soon after. An opportunity for a tremendous love scene was lost when it was merely suggested they were going to make love with the hurricane coming. But in the end, the film left me feeling deeply appreciative of the relationship that my wife and I share. And there were moments that moved me to the verge of tears. So, I have to say it is well worth viewing. Being a middle aged mom myself, I very much appreciated seeing a romance between grown-up people that weaves in the many issues that effect us.

Diane Lane beautifully portrays Adrienne and the sacrifice and conflict that a mother goes through, wanting to do what is right for her children, but still have a happy life herself.

I am not a big Richard Gere fan, but he always does a good job with the guy who is sort of jerk, but learns something about himself.

Criticism of their romance as unrealistic is hardly justified when compared to most other romantic movies. When Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall in love riding across Australia, with barely a conversation between them, its considered high romance. We get so much more here with Rodanthe. She redeems him. He sets her free. Its beautiful.

The intimacy they create by sharing their deepest insecurity, fans into a flame of passion. How long it takes is irrelevant. Perhaps the movie was a bit too subtle in the point that it was the letters they shared over the following year that deepened their relationship- again another real-life time-honored way to get to know a person.

As much as I enjoyed the plot and themes, the dialogue was not consistent in quality. Some lines rang so true, and other lines were embarrassingly trite and flat.

I also enjoyed the relationships with Adrienne's teenage daughter and her best friend, reminding us that there are many types of love, not just romantic love.

This is not a lighthearted romantic comedy, more a romantic drama. It does have a very relaxed pace that some might consider too slow.

The beach house is a work of art- fabulous. Look for the driftwood bench on the porch in the first pan-over the house- very beautiful. I also enjoyed the music and scenery, which combined to create the effect of the location as being the third main character. It was this place away from their regular lives that allowed them to see themselves and each other in a different light.

If you are old enough to appreciate these themes and are in the mood for a good cry- get out the Kleenex and enjoy this movie. Hey look, you don't watch this movie to change your life! But if you are female especially and have always had a little thing for Richard Gere; this movie is right up your street. Diane Lane and Richard Gere have on screen chemistry going way back. 'Nights in Rodanthe' is not a Oscar winner movie and it will probably be forgotten sooner rather than later but if you want an atmospheric, beautifully shot love story between MIDDLE AGED good looking people (they don't make your stomach turn and even when Gere is 'on top' he does not look too jowly) then this is the movie for you. I loved the theme of the story and it was quite relevant in many ways. Of course the whole thing was presented in a superficial way, glossed over and not really dealt with.....I mean I would have liked to know more about the father/son relationship between Gere and James Franco, but the story was really about the idea that a great love can CHANGE you for the better; whether it is a lover, a child, a friend etc. The theme of the film is about love and its mysterious ways. I was kind of surprised that James Franco took such a small part in this film but he is always good even for a few minutes screen time. I really liked this film because it was moving and sweet. I am a guy, so i was very hesitant to watch the movie because i know that Richard Gear likes to be in tear jerker movies. I would rather watch action/adventure/sci fi. I was right, the movie is definitely a tear jerker. Diane tended to over act a few times, as did richard, but they brought it around and made it work. The daughter was a suppressed teen with huge attitude, so you started out hating her. The movie is way too predictable, but for entertainment purposes, it was a masterpiece. Go rent it, see if you don't shed a tear.lol If you like the notebook, you will love this one. The beach scenes were immaculately shot. even though the hurricane scenes were a little off sequence, it was still a bit panicy to watch them react to it. WTF!! Do any of his books/movies end in a happy ending?? The Notebook was good...but sheesh, enough with the depressing endings already. I'm told that he writes about realistic situations that people deal with in real life. Understandable...but sometimes it's nice to see people who have sacrificed their whole lives to only get to a mediocre unhappy time in their lives - to finally find the true meaning of happiness and are able to live it out for the rest of their days. Don't we already know what really happens in real life? Can't we - for one moment (an hour and a half) live vicariously through a movie that ends on a happy note - that gives us hope for our own futures???

Yeah - wah. I know. But for real, I think we need to preface movies that end like this one with a warning. "Beware: No happy ending." I saw this today with little background on what to expect of the storyline. I go to the movies as an escape, to leave everything behind and enjoy a "story". I found this to be a good movie, not great, but good. It was worth my money and my tears :)

Diane Lane was wonderful as always, Richard Gere isn't an over-actor. He held his own and has a certain presence that we always come to expect. He brings his own style to the movie.

I think it was the kind of love story that doesn't always get told. It was messy and they had other priorities, but they wanted to be together and wanted to wait for each other.

I'd definitely recommend it! Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland. I thought Besson's film managed to do without words what few films have been able to do with them; Capture true human emotions. The main character's struggles, triumphs, set backs, hopes and desires are all so honestly shown that you wonder if he is acting at all. The film has a low budget and is obviously made without the glitz and glamour afforded to most Hollywood productions but that minimalism is what allows this film to transcend the stereotypical Sci-Fi labeling and become a true drama. However calling this film solely a drama would take away from the fantastic post-apocalyptic plot. True this type of movie has been done been before but I think this one captures the joys and sorrows of that type of world possibly better than any other one does. I still can't describe what to feel when I received this by the fnac site. Such a rare movie, so little spoken and known, is difficult to find, even to fans, but the contrast betwen past and present is devastating: now I hold a DVD of the movie, with the finest quality possible. As I did in Atlantis, the other rare Besson movie I bought by the internet, I saw this one at home, with all the lights of my dvd and tv turned off, and marveled at the experience. I didn't know what to expect. Wickedly, I always searched some kind of disappointment when I saw a film by Luc Besson I never had seen before. But it never came. This movie was no exception. From the start, I understood that the person who makes a film like this as a first feature is destined to be big in the future. And so it happened. This won several prizes (including the highest prize in a film festival of my country, which makes me proud) and it shows that this movie is preparating many bigger things. This may be the most original after-the-war movie I have ever seen, beating Mad Max in originality and artistic feel. There is not a problem with this movie: its cinematography is genius, as well the perfomances of the actors. I am also proud to say that finally I saw all the movies of my favorite director, and have a copy of almost all of them (Joan of Arc is still waiting for me to buy the DVD). This movie is most of all a work of style and dedication, which makes clear why Luc Besson is a director of my choice: good taste, beautiful framing, excellent use of music (I also marveled at Eric Serra's first feature-length score) and the promise of great achievements. Gaumont did well to bet in its boy-genius, the man who would later change the face of France's and Europe's relation between movies and their public. Let's hope Besson starts working in a new directorial project. I will be the first to cheer it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anyone who need to learn a lesson of how good movies are made with little money. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, which, by its black and white cinematography, suggests us an even more depressed view of the world after the holocaust. This movie works by the sheer magic of movies: showing in pictures what we can't explain by words. And I'm with all the people who wrote comments to this movie and liked it: good choice! A great hug to everyone who sees this and feels that a little of their lives were changed. It's hard to use words for this movie, since it contains none itself.

But the images it conveys, both powerful and sweeping, are ones which remind us why we watch movies. And you might be saying "Well, Leonard Maltin doesn't like it, it can't be that good.." But you're wrong. See this movie. French cinematic brilliance en ensemble. Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on. Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with "the Fifth Element" (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, "le Dernier Combat" reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).

There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.

The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: "Force Majeure" (1989), "Simple Mortel" (1991), "ma Petite Entreprise" (1999) or "Filles Uniques" (2003). I don't believe it... Luc Besson is not only a genius now...he has always been one... this film is for everyone who likes real good deep films...just perfect! A poetic examination of the human condition performed without dialogue. The anti-hero, The Man builds a contraption to escape a band of marauders, out of the wastland of what was once a civilization, to the ruins of the city to scavenge for his survival. There he crosses pathes with The Brute, brilliantly played by Jean Reno, of "The Professional" and "Mission: Impossible" fame. The Man is rescued by a crazy old genius who lives in a fortress of his own design. By using their wits, The Man and the old genius are able to keep the Brute and his ilk at bay, but they realise it is only a matter of time before their defenses are compromised, so they make a break for it. This is a strongly understated tale of the desparate struggle for life, with excellent action scenes and clever humor. Of all of the movies of its kind, like "Road Warrior", "Omega Man", and even "Ultimate Warrior" (featuring Yul Brenner as a buff knife-fighter), "Le Dernier Combat" is the most artfully crafted. Copies of the video are hard-to-find, I would give my left eye ball for one. If your local art house ever has a revival of this film, I heartily recommend that you break any engagement to able to be able to see it big. I am a long time fan of Luc Besson's work, and for about as long as I've known his name, I've also looked for this movie. I tried looking for this movie all over California for over four years. this past summer i took a trip to Europe, one of my missions on this trip was to at least see this movie. long story short, I bought it and watched it in France! I was blown away, it completely made my trip and i finally feel content that i have seen Luc Besson's first work. absolutely amazing character development, very thought provoking, great acting and the ultimate concept movie. if you are a concept movie fan this is one of the most original and classic. I feel as though it is a rare treat to see a movie like this one, its risky, its unorthodox, and ultimately its just downright unique. if you are a Luc Besson fan, its indeed a must see, however, whether your a Besson fan or not, its definitely an important work, overall a great contribution to the immortal art of cinema. If you expect that this movie is full of action and grabbing you from the start then don't watch it. But if you like those kind of meditative movies which stick in your mind for a while, until you get the details, then you will love it. Now don't get me wrong there is action and there are things going on just not in the usual way.

Basically the plot is in a post-apocalyptic world where anyone fights in his (or their) way for survival. In this fight they lost the ability to speak... I don't want to write more to not spoil the movie for you, but trust me if you like SF-authors like Lem or Capec or even some from Orson Scott Card you will love this movie. Belonging to the subgenre of post-apocalyptic future films, it is a stylistic and very very intimate installment. The most noticed element of the film is its silence; no one speaks. I don't think Besson, despite what is evident in most of his later work, meant it as any kind of cool gimmick. I think what makes it so clever and so effective is the fact that with no other way of communicating, everyone has to read each other based on intuition and conveying of emotion, no matter how slight. Though I wasn't glued to the screen, upon reflection I see that it's a very touching and sensitive perspective on human nature. Its vehicle is the stylized sci-fi movie. Part of its reflection on the nature of the human world is that each of its humans is not necessarily played as a perfect human being: The hero, a lone drifter in the desolate new world, is taken in by an older recluse, who refuses to keep his part of an exchange of food between him and a husky, brutish character played by Jean Reno, and so Reno tries everything he can, predominantly using brute force, to get what he wants. So, the antagonist is right, though not a good person, and the protagonist and his sympathetic foil are both wrong, though they are both good people.

It's shot in a clear and crisp black and white, edited and captured in a low-key yet spry and small-scale approach, and its actors are very real. How can they not be? They, like their characters are left with the bare necessities of communication. This is one of the few truly good films that Luc Besson has written. His earlier work is almost always better than the fluff he churns out now. Although compared with "Mad Max", this film is in a league of its own. Set in post apocalyptic Paris, this film is about man's struggle for survival, he has lost his ability to speak, and there is a remarkable shortage of women. CONGRATULATIONS LUC BESSON! This is an example of what film school lecturers would call a good debut movie. It follows all the rules. Short scenes, to the point, cheap to shoot, guerilla-film-making, no sets (just disused buildings) and possibly an empty hospital wing. Also, even the black&white film-stock was a stroke of genius, probably selected more for its low expense rather than film effect, but it worked.

Reno was amazing as the Brute. Everyone's acting was brilliant. The plot was simple and effective and no flabby bits left to distract you. A tight, well-crafted, cost-effective budget movie.

Released in 1983, this would've been made just before the art of big-budget action spectaculars became refined by the Hollywood movie-making engine, and movie-making was more exclusive and therefore more difficult and more in need of the right people in the right places than today's internet-enabled world, so Luc Besson would've had to do quite a bit of negotiating and promise-keeping to achieve this result, which makes the end-product all the more remarkable.

But, then again, the French movie-industry has always maintained an excellent reputation (yes, I know Luc Besson is Belgian, but the movie is a French production) and has been the source of many Hollywood remakes.

If I have one criticism, it's that the cover-picture on the DVD (and possibly the original sales poster) bears no resemblance to the movie whatsoever and appears to be a rather bizarre image rather than representative of any of the movie's themes - at first glance, it appears to be a man in post-apocalyptic armour on a swing, but on second inspection reveals a man in armour with a lance on an office chair with his legs on a desk in a reclined, self-confident posture. This never happens in the movie once.

It's black-and-white film-stock, zero dialogue, physical acting, tight scenes and brilliant actors makes this movie one worth adding to your private movie collection. A superb movie. Remember that this came out before Gulf War I, which gave us Werner Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness".

Le Dernier Combat is not "Sci Fi". It's more like Judgment. I've watched it at least a dozen times. It really is a fitting companion to Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness": "And in that time, men will seek death, but they will not find it, for death will flee from them."

That someday, alas, may be today, in Iraq.

But, back to Le Dernier Combat, make sure to watch thru the very last second of the film. I wouldn't call it a "surprise ending", but it is something you'll miss if you just assume the end won't be anything more than what you will already have seen. Pierre Jolivet plays a Don Quixote character, unable to speak, living in a world incompatible with modern life. He trusts to his homemade weaponry - helmet, sleeves, and spear - made out of hubcaps, seat cushions, and discarded office furniture. Just as Don Quixote rode Rocicante, "The Man" rides his contraption (literally) transcending the lost lives caught up the harsh and demeaning modern world - soaring above the earth, away from the plight of modern man. Both characters ride in search of adventure in an effort to right the wrongs of the world. Both characters are guardian knights of values unfamiliar to most of the other characters in the story.

Unlike Cervantes's tale, in this movie we identify more directly with the anachronistic ideals of the main character. We can only compare this alien and forbidding landscape to the lush and beautiful world we live in. Our frame of reference is the fantasy realm which the lone knight perhaps remembers. Our vision would be one which expects the main character to triumph, to vanquish, to change his world (for the better) back into a world of plenty that no longer exists.

We look at this movie and see a true knight among a world of humans-as-animals. Don Quixote considered himself a true knight among animals.

With Cervantes's tale we can only see the dreamer, without really understanding the scope of his anachronistic displacement. In Besson's and Jolivet's tale we see the new world from the eyes of Don Quixote, because we value the same visions and ideals as the crusading main character. Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful perfomrance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages. Based on a William Faulkner short story, Two Soldiers is a top notch short film, a movie that has enough story, emotion and great cinematography for a feature film and definitely leaves you wanting more in the end. The story involves two dirt poor Mississippi brothers, one only a kid, the other old enough to volunteer for the war effort shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The younger brother, played brilliantly by newcomer Jonathan Furr, doesn't want to let his older brother go, and he sets out on a quest to enlist in the Army himself. Ron Perlman gives a gruff but touching peformance as the Army Colonel who decides to help the kid.

Because it is only 39 minutes long, this gem will be hard to find (it will most likely be confined to the festival circuit for now), but remember the name Aaron Schneider--this picture marks him as a director to watch. Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful performance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages. A beautifully photographed and paced short film. It evocatively captures the feeling of this family and much of the country during the period just prior to and after Pearl Harbor.

I appreciated the visual look of the film -- naturalistic and simultaneously poetic. Great work by a great D.P., David Boyd.

Though a family film, the story never becomes maudlin or saccharin. We understand and believe the motivation that propels the young boy on his odyssey. I understand the love of the younger brother for his older brother and do not question why he sets out to do what he does. I understand that he is driven by a deep desire to be with his brother in this time of crisis. The kid is tough, and the performance by Jonathan Furr is superb as is the veteran performance by Ron Perlman. Diora Baird is absolutely hot as hell in this movie. But really all the characters are amazingly fun to watch.

(MINOR SPOILERS) As per usual, the main character, B, is the sane one of the bunch. B has this crazy idea to make up his own college when he's rejected from all colleges he applies to. He's known for making fake IDs. so an acceptance letter is no problem.

Because B's dad is a hard @$$ and suspicious of this university he's never heard of, B gets his friend Sherman to design a website for the university. Sherman has been accepted to a great college and is in fear of being arrested for fraud. He's very quick with witty lines but his flaw is he wants to be accepted socially too much.

Glen, Hands, and Rory are the three stooges that follow B along. Glen got a zero on his SATs and has no thought process. He's constantly proposing battle royals, but he's very good at making smoothies, which gets him a lot of hot girls, somehow. Hands was a great football player who didn't receive the scholarship he was counting on, and turns to crafts to cover his lack of athletics. Rory was preparing to go to Yale since the 1st grade, and was not accepted. She spends her time meditating.

Uncle Ben was my favorite character. Picture Lewis Black playing himself. If you have no reason to see this movie, then see it for Lewis Black and Jonah Hill. They're amazing.

Monica is a B's love interest. As most of these stories go, she's more popular than him and doesn't even notice him until half way through the movie. Unlike many other stories though, B actually gets her and keeps her until the end. Monica is actually a good character on her own, but of course she's primarily there for B to adore.

There are more supporting students at the made-up college who are fun to watch. A.D.D.'s name is self explanatory, and funny enough he ends up in the meditation class. Kiki is a hot ex-stripper who falls head over heels for a chance to go to school and eventually gets a crush on Glen. Maurice is an ex-military idiot who got his G.I. bill and wants to study rock n' roll in college. The final guy is only known as Freaky Student, who thinks he can blow things up with his mind. Ye who have little faith in him wait until the end of the movie.

Of course the villains are the Dean of an opposing university, his university's student body president, the president's girlfriend, and their circle of friends.

Every character is lovable. I believe this movie has a good plot and is well done, despite what a lot of people say. Even thought the overall story is predictable, the characters keep you guessing and make the movie great. Go see this film. I give it 9 out of 10. Accepted...let's see. The only reason why i had chosen to see that movie was the hot dog shown in commercials when Shrader(sp?) said, "ASK ME ABOUT MY WEINER". After that i HAD to see that movie and i watched it with a couple of my friends...and WOW amazing. One of the best films of the year. THe entire movie i was laughing like crazy! The plot in this story is that Bartleby (Justin Long) doesn't get accepted into any of the schools he applied, so he makes another fake college for him and his friends so that he can fool his parents that he DID make it into college. So he makes the finishing touches and he fools his parents...until, more students look at the website and see the clicker (ACCEPTANCE IS ONE CLICK AWAY) and all these rejects come to this school. They face many problems and they just cant seem to get anything right 10/10 LOVED IT NOW WATCH IT if i had watched this movie when i hit rock bottom i probably would have sunk into the deepest depression of my life, and may have been nearly desperate enough to try it, the only thing is in the real world, when you rob millions of dollars from unsuspecting individuals, everything doesn't come up roses (unless you are an investment banker or government affiliated) so how does that matter? i had been rejected from school after school, and it stings, so it is a brilliant topic for a movie, and when you give yourself over to the imaginary to let yourself watch this movie without applying real world ramifications, it can truly touch someone in that situation, and let them know they are not alone. overdone soliloquy completely tears apart the established educational system as we know it. really, all i can say is that as i am in college now, looking back on where i was, and watching this movie, i can truly appreciate it in a way i never would have been able to otherwise. it is juvenile and contrite yes, but it is an emotional and uplifting fantasy about freedom, and i cant think of a better way to end my night. When the trailer for Accepted first came up, many people began to get excited about seeing it... really excited. Who could blame them, it looked like fun. But that's exactly the thing. People went into Accepted looking for a good movie, but if you think about it, Accepted isn't the type of film destined to be a good movie. It's meant to be a film that pleases its crowd without too much effort being given. That being said, for those of you who expected a great film, you need to think about what could be made of a comedy like this one. Think that, and you will truly enjoy the film (because you'll rid yourself of your idea that the movie will be fantastic.) BOTTOM LINE: Watch the movie, and have fun, but don't look for anything groundbreaking. This movie possesses something most other movies of its genre do not: intelligence and good messages. Accepted, is the story of a kid named Bartleby (Justin Long) who gets rejected by every college he applies to. His parents are incredibly strict, frustrated and disappointed. So, Bartleby and a few other students who face similar problems start a fake college, to pawn themselves off to their parents as college kids. Not everything goes to plan, and the movie is about them winging it. But behind this plot which sounds ridiculous, there are good messages, morals and a new outlook on the American educational system. The college they create "South Harmon Institute of Technology" accepts those who did not get accepted anywhere else. The message is that you do not need "money, tradition, or fancy books- you just need a desire to better yourself." they are a completely unorthodox school, but what the movie teaches is that thats still OK- and different (whether its a person or a school) is not necessarily bad, and that every one no matter should be given the chance to better themselves- despite whether they are 'weird.' its a message of non-comformity and has traces of anti-authority sprinkled in as well. But not only are messages great- its hilarious! haha i laughed very hard. the humor can be subtle but can also be blatant as well, and is a great mix. Fraternities beware. This is a funny, clever film and well worth your time. In my opinion it is much better than American Pie and other films of the same genre that seem to get knocked out all the time. I hadn't heard of this film, so I guess it didn't get much press, which is kind of a shame. It doesn't take itself too seriously but at the same time delivers a serious message to people about life and life experiences and what is important...As opposed to a film about a bunch of desperate guys trying to get laid for the first time and one dude sticking his d**k in a pie, but in the end everyone gets laid and whoop-de-do... One thing that impressed me was that the soundtrack was pretty awesome and not the usual cheesy American pop-punk...They actually had real punk from back in the day like the Ramones...That in itself made the film better! To be honest I wasn't expecting much from this film and I was pleasantly surprised at how good a comedy it is. this is a teen movie and while u watch it expect some nonsensical stuff added here and there but overall the movie is effective very effective it makes you question and leaves you thinking the story is kinda far fetched but is believable and makes you feel good in sequences, its not like its the usual done and tried path. the characters are pretty well defined and are convincing. Justin long stands out among all the others and watch out for his speech in the end he will convince anyone with that speech he is simply brilliant in that speech. he needs to take on some more serious roles, he is worth more than just teen movies. etch this movie and get liberated Let me clarify that. This is not a "good movie", but I am so glad it is out there, I am so glad I saw it, and for the role that it plays in my DVD collection, it is sublime. It is the ultimate PG-13 romp, it is college as we imagine it will be when we're freshmen in high school, it requires so much suspension of disbelief that it may as well be taking place on Mars. It is so wholesome that even when it tries to be dirty it wouldn't make your grandmother uncomfortable. Watching it requires so little sophistication, (in fact, thinking too hard about what's happening will get in the way of your appreciation of this work), it makes me feel like I'm 12 again. And that kind of experience is worth more than $9.99.     Film auteur Stephan Woloszczuk explores the depths of love, passion, and brotherhood and the devastating results of loss in his latest film BLINDSPOT.

BLINDSPOT'S diegetic world is exploding with suspense and takes the audience on a twisting  journey to the core of the human soul.  As a director, he manages to draw the human spirit from the performances of his actors.   With superb editing, especially in the flashback scenes and beautiful cinematography, BLINDSPOT is a thought provoking suspense from beginning to end.  A thriller which leaves much to the minds' eye.

What an  astounding accomplishment for Stephan Woloszczuk.

  Cheers Stephan! Angela Sander Films belonging to the "film noir" genre usually contain similar elements: a "deus ex machina" plot twist that drives the main character headlong into bedlam, a pretty but psychotic girl, a handsome but psychotic thug, lots of money, lots of brutality, and usually a denouement in the desert. Think "High Sierra" or "White Heat."

There is plenty of hard-boiled bad film noir out there. But when film noir is good, you can't take your eyes off the train wreck of human lives.

It is this latter tradition that "Blind Spot" belongs to. The film follows Danny Alton, a troubled teenager (superbly played with depth, grace, emotional integrity and downright plaintiveness by James Franco, who throws himself completely into this role) who has fallen in love with the rough-edged streetkid, Darcy.

From the beginning, you know this is going to be bad.

Darcy invites Danny to his house. But the house is empty and for sale, and a bloody check for thousands of dollars is on the floor. Danny is robbed of his clothing and possessions, but uses the check to track down the suicidal April -- Darcy's other lover. When they reach Darcy's real home, they find Wayne -- a thug hunting Darcy down for the money he's stolen. Together, the three manage to locate Darcy in a dusty, run-down motel in the desert. But that's only the beginning of the tale, as plastic explosives, drugs, gun-running, a creepy funeral home, bisexual assassins and a lonely half-finished house in the desert bring events to an explosive head in an alley outside a tattoo parlor in Los Angeles.

This film contains some of the best noir cinematography I have seen in years. In one scene, Danny races on foot through the desert to the half-finished house in the desert where he believes Darcy may have been taken that evening by mobsters. A very long shot with sharp lighting effects shows Danny -- arms and legs flailing, palpable fear etched on his face (visible even at this distance), dust cloud trailing behind him as the wind whips in his direction -- racing across the desert flats toward the house. The loneliness, the desperation, the despair Danny feels is shocking depicted. There are many such scenes in this film, wonderfully crafted by the experienced Maximo Munzi. This is Oscar-winning material.

The editing, too, is just astounding. The film contains little moments where the characters gain insight into themselves or their situation. Bits of time, where memory and feeling come flooding back. At these times, quick montages of images flash across the screen. This is superb editing by director-writer-editor Stephan Woloszczuk. In one early montage, Danny describes the wondrous feelings he has now that Darcy has entered his life. Quick images of Danny's diary flash across the screen: the words "4 life," "lucky" and "safe" stop momentarily, while page upon page of words, the contents of a human heart, race across the screen -- out of focus, too quick to read. It's like the flood of emotion Danny himself feels.

The flood of images reveals something else about this film: Just how beautiful Nathaniel Waters' production design is. Darcy's quonset-hut home is the perfect match of high-tech and slob (a tribute to the attentiveness of set decorator Kimberly Foster). The stunning desert house scene is just outright creepy. The ruined motel where Darcy hides out can be found in any abandoned small town in America. The creepy (and astoundingly lit) funeral home where the plot takes a horrific turn mixes starkness with the pall of death hanging over the entire film. (It's too bad the film's lighting director is not credited.) This film has a superb production design, one that enhances every single frame and every actor's performance.

That's the fourth element of this film which makes it grab you and hold on to you: The acting. James Franco is a superb actor. Even in "Spider-Man" -- where he was given practically nothing to do -- Franco showed that he understands human emotion like no other actor of his generation. He's no pretty-boy coasting on his good looks like Brad Pitt. Franco portrays deep emotion with full force. His performances contain pure human heart. Consider the scene in the phone booth outside the funeral home, where Danny collapses after telling April and Wayne that Darcy is dead. Lesser actors couldn't carry off the complete emotional breakdown of a human being. Franco does.

Shawn Montgomery, in her first film, simply blows you away with her performance as the suicidal April. Deeply in love with Darcy, suffering from massive depression after having to bury alone her unborn child (after the fetus spontaneously aborts) in a perfume box in the woods, her life of luxury and perfection now a shambles: April is one of the best-drawn characters on film that I have ever seen. While Danny's relationship to Darcy is slowly teased out during the film, April's nervous breakdown is revealed only to the audience. Neither Danny nor Wayne seem particularly interested in her as a human being. April's despair when she realizes Danny has also been Darcy's lover is poignant and potent, even if it is truncated by the character's complete inability to feel any emotion for very long now. Montgomery brings to April a pathos that puts your heart through the wringer.

Mark Patrick Gleason is given the hardest job in the film: Having to make something human and real out of the thug, Wayne. At first, Wayne is simply one of any number of violent, foul-mouthed, obsessed drug-pushers/gun-runners that appears in any number of films (from "Kindergarten Cop" to "Beverly Hills Cop 2"). Gleason does very well with what he's given, but he doesn't quite get to where you feel much for Wayne. It's difficult to say whether this is Gleason's problem or the material's. There is one moment -- where Wayne (who is Darcy's brother, although neither Danny nor April know this) reads Danny's diary and realizes the sexual and emotional link between the two men -- where you just know that Wayne is going to go homophobic on Danny's ass. But the explosion never comes. (Thank god! Trite plots are death to film noir.) Once the revelation about the siblings comes at the film's end, the audience is fairly astounded to realize the depth of love and compassion Wayne truly felt for Darcy -- so deep that Wayne accepted Danny's homosexual love for his bisexual brother. But this all happens off-screen. Gleason is never given a chance to act out Wayne's feelings. It must have been very frustrating for the performer.

The story is rather inventive, although the smuggling device seen at the end of the film is likely to remind viewers of "Diamonds Are Forever" (yes, James Bond). A traditional narrative voice-over (which proves Franco is as great a voice talent as he is a physical actor) provides terrific atmosphere, although it does tend to flow over into schmaltz a few times toward the end of the film (providing some unintentional laughter). Terrific locales play key visual roles in the film. Kudos to the location scout for finding such astounding buildings! The end of the film struck me as a bit rushed; not pat, but a little too firm for my film noir tastes.

Now, I've seen audiences either hate or love "Blind Spot." Modern film audiences, exposed to the most extreme brutality and violence, often have little appreciation for the subtleties of film noir. My suggestion is to take a small group of friends who don't see despair, emotional collapse, desperation or depression as laughable. Take them to a small theater, where they can glory in the spectacle of the film's vision, but where their viewing won't be ruined by a crowd of people who won't recognize good film noir. Get them some popcorn (trust me, they'll be so engrossed they won't finish it), get them a soda, and let them be overwhelmed. Go some place bright and cheery afterward, to wash the grime and awfullness out of your soul. Because this film is so good at making you feel, you'll need that restorative. "Blind Spot" one of my festival favorites. I was totally intrigued by the idea of three strangers searching for a mysterious man who has loved and betrayed each of them in different ways. The cast is great. James Franco is particularly amazing as the broken-hearted boy from Los Angeles. His journal entries, which we hear in voice-over-narration, work well with the visuals and are quite intense. The film has a powerful style. It pushes elements like the road movie and revenge-drama in new directions. It also plays with time and perspective in ways that capture the frightening ambiance of lost love. There is a dreamlike quality to several sequences and the images are saturated with an eerie sense of tension. Strange. Suspenseful. Beautiful to look at. Definitely worth seeing. I really would like to see it again. Periodically I check to see if Blind Spot has been distributed. I can't wait to see the film again in the cinema or on DVD.

Davide Pepe 13/08/2005 Bologna - Italy I had the chance to watch Blind Spot in Barcelona and I enjoyed it tremendously. I thought it to be one of the most captivating movies that I'd seen for a long time. One of the best points of the film was to meet new fresh faces and great actors behind them in unexpectedly and brilliantly filmed great locations. The three heroes share a chemistry on screen that runs all across the film making it so thrilling. They are set on outstanding landscapes spotted by such an original eye (the DOP's work is just great) that makes you feel like you are discovering them for the first time. The mood of the desert floods everywhere and even the scenes filmed in the streets of Los Angeles or San Francisaco seem to be a natural extension of it. The story rides you smoothly through all these beautiful settings to lead you to a bitter-sweet ending, being the perfect climax for this perfect journey. The construction of the film itself is a master craft. The skilled use of innovative resources (like stills stitching Danny's memories into the film) will compare to those hand-made pieces of work so rare and so enjoyable. Blind Spot achieves to capture the essence of the desert taking you to an universal common ground where anyone of us can feel being both discoverer and native. I recently saw Blind Spot in Coyoacan, where it drew a huge crowd and some pretty intense discussion. I really admired the story and visual approach. The action is frightening and the mood of loneliness that the film projects is amazing. There is much beauty in the melancholy that surrounds these three misfit heroes. Not just in the desert but in the city too. My best scene was after the boy discovers his friends in the apartment and then rides his skateboard through all the remarkable lights of the city. You really feel for this guy. I never heard of the actors before but I liked all three very much. I think they did a terrific job on their journey to self-discovery. All in all, this is an amazingly cool and suspenseful suspenseful film. I still carry many of the images in my mind. When I saw this film at a festival years ago I was very impressed and I started to looking for it. Nothing to do, not in the cinemas, nor on DVD neither on Blue ray. Absolutely nothing!!! How it's possible this could really happen??? The direction is IMPECCABLE, the story is intriguing and has been filmed in a very original way the music it's perfect and James Franco is hot as hell!!!

Please release this master piece and allow it to have it's proper life!!!!!!!!!! This is really a very great movie that people should see and it deserve another chance!!!!!!

Edvard James Franco is totally cool in this movie. Not just handsome and charismatic but genuinely open and vulnerable in a sincere kind of way. At the Tristan screening some folks were on his back for being pouty and sullen and doing the whole James Dean thing but I don't think this true. Blind Spot is proof positive of his tremendous talent. In this film he carries himself with a different sort of weight entirely. It's a unique performance. Bittersweet and really moving. The lines from his journal cut you like a knife. You sense a sharp intelligence of observation behind his words. The tone is everything. He carries it through the action and suspense as well as the grim bits of gallows humor. I like the other two actors a great deal too. The blonde girl is totally gorgeous and the man is hysterical in his twisted tough guy stoicism. Some of the thugs seemed a little sketchy but this is a mini-point really. The film is totally solid and Franco is way cool all around. Blind Spot's images are great. The action draws you in completely, even though the movie is a bit long. By the end credits all that you can think about are the film's positive high-points. The lead actors have the most incredible screen presence. The story is heart-wrenching. The film score is nicely understated . Completely moving in its own powerful way. Not your standard melodramatic cuing. Trance-like moments add poetic resonance to the engrossing narration and terrific visual compositions. Hope you get a chance to see this film. It delves into some dark territory but you come out of the tunnel seeing nothing but white light. It reaches the minds and feelings of everyone driving them deep in the black desert. A brutal but beautiful world that is explored through memories and edgy layers of sound and score. The landscape develops its own persona, paralleling the inner geography of all three characters as their stories unfold. The stark void of lost love, the fear of the unknown, and then transcendence of emptiness through the very openness of this desolation. Three misguided souls fighting to find something absolute and positive in all that negative space. The drama is compelling. James Franco and his co-stars deliver deft performances. Naive schoolboy, suicidal blonde, embittered car thief -- all converge with unexpected twists. Together they create an explosive portrait of fractured love -- one that unwittingly conspires to mend amidst the hardest forms of adversity and illusion -- the blindness of human emotion. I can't get this flick off my brain. It's definitely totally different than anything that's out there. I've seen a ton of movies over the holidays and while some are okay nothing really rocked my world the way BlindSpot did. There is just something way cool about the actors and the way that they put the film together. It's like there is really scary stuff mixed with with some pretty f****ing hilarious black humour. Franco is great but the older rough dude steals the show in a few scenes, like when he punches the kid out in the dirt grave. I guess some politically correctos won't appreciate the vibe (don't bring your grandma) but it is totally awesome. The thing that's best is the kaliedescope style. There is some really serious stuff mixed with super interesting footage of the road. The movie really makes you sad and scared in parts but it also spins your head with what is happening and the way it is filmed. WTF is up with the world? Sooo many critics are raving about all these supposedly revolutionary ground-breaking films and when you see them they're boring and predictable and not-all-that. I don't get it because there are a lot of other better choices. Blind Spot is really kinda great because it gives you thrills and chills and major upcoming star power but does it in a way that is completely fresh and definitely totally rad. scarlet coat like most revolution flicks wasnt well received but is nears perfection in the art of movie making. a great character study of john andre the heroic redcoat who is revered by both friend and foe for courage,,, scarlett coat also probes the duality of the undercover agent ,,, as a counterfeit traitor maj bolton befriends andre and undertakes a high level penetration of british intelligence yet he defends andre in andre's courtmartial ... the film captures the moral ambiguity of the spy

how much of the spy's world is real ,,, which reality does he belong to the reality of his mision or the reality which the cover story creates

andre's capture and courtmartial is a success for bolton in his mission beyond that whch wahington would have ever demanded ,,, the mission was merely to identify the traitor in us ranks ,,, bolton has knocked out enemy intelligence as well ,,, yet bolton mourns the death of the man he was sent to destroy

ann francis plays a stock american character,,, compliant with the british but willing to engage them in a war of wits

a movie well worth revisiting One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the "Tories" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.

In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.

In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.

One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human "props" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.

This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.

The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.

Hope it runs again soon. the scarlet coat is about bendict arnold betraying his country but he really isn't in the movie too much the main focus is on major Boulton (cornell wilde) and major Andre (micheal wilding)Wilding steals the movie as a officer and a gentlemen also as a freind to Boulton. As Boulton tries to uncover who is gustavus the man leaking secerts to the british.Wilde has to deal with the british the suspisous Dr o"dell(George Sanders)who watches his every move and love intrest Anne Francis this is a very enjoyable movie The weakness of this comes from the confusing storytelling, plots often coming out of nowhere. But it really didn't matter because I still enjoyed it to it's full length. Once you actually accept that this movies not to be taken too seriously then you'll enjoy it even more. It's basically a love story, a confusing one at first but as it evolves it really is something worthwhile. Sure it's been done so many times before but the complicated version of this is quite inspiring and touching.

The over the top fantasy and cgi was overwhelming at first but I still enjoyed its purpose. And people quit whining about how it borrowed from other movies!! Guess what we know!! And it doesn't really matter because its purpose was to humour and entertain. Sometimes people has to stop being so critical and think for a moment before they start yapping about. Comparing this to Hollywood standards is utterly stupid and ignorant, It's a totally different style and target audience. As far as I'm concerned some the best films I've feasted my eyes upon are from eastern producers and directors. There's your Police story 4,shaolin soccer, kung fu hustle, dragon tiger gate, fist of legend, hero, crouching tiger etc...I for one like this movie and haling from the Philippines, US, england, Libya and now Australia, I'll always be interested in these types of films. Now try and judge my perception, but I warn you I do see things from from the point of view of those 5 countries I've lived in. So you better be as experienced and open minded. Another go round with the monkey king going west....sort of.

Beginning in the middle of some action the movie just goes from the first frame onward.

A monk and his three disciples go to a town to get the sacred suras that will bring peace to the world once they are translated and spoken to the world.But an evil force has intervened and kidnapped all of the children of the town. The evil force wants the monk because if you eat him you will live forever. The retainers battle the forces of darkness before forcibly sending the monk off for safety (The monk thinks he can win simply by reasoning with the bad guys). The monk ends up with a bunch of lizard imps who plan at some point eating him... however the bad guys arrive and he's off an odyssey with the ugliest of the lot.

Can a movie that starts off the rails go off the rails? Don't get me wrong I really liked this movie but its so scatter shot and all over the place that plot and logic simply fall away as some scenes simply pick up mid action with no way of knowing how we got there (The final battle to rescue the disciples is completely out of left field). This is one of the messiest movies I've seen in a while, but it made me laugh and smile like no get out. The movie starts and you have no idea where things are and then whats on screen is either interesting or funny and you just go with it. How do we get from thing to thing is often beyond me. Its full of odd asides and strange references as we go from heaven to the ocean to space to the rib cage of some mythic beast to god knows where. This movie floats all over the place which helps keep it fun since you don't know where it will end up (and is the reason"m keeping details to a minimum) And its funny. Very very funny at times.

And the action is very good, even if a good chunk of it is unabashed CGI animation (which provides for some cool images, the golden staff, the spider attack formation, the angel in flight...) And its very touching. Action and comedy aside this is actually a wonderful love story. Its the story of an ugly imp and a monk who end up falling in love (and having other complications). Its a interesting look at the nature of love and what is true love. You will be moved.

However much I enjoyed it I was still annoyed by its scatter shot construction. The films inability to hold its ideas together and to tell a complete story really hurts the film and takes away from the enjoyment every time we get to a bump in the road. the bumps take you out of the movie itself and make you realize how much is being cribbed from other sources.

Absolutely worth seeing since it does have many choice moments, just be prepared for some bumps and you'll have a good time. STORY Chinese Tall Story tells the story of righteous monk Tripitaka, who, along with his guardians Monkey, Sandy and Pigsy make their journey west on a quest to recover ancient Sutras, finally, they reach the final leg of their journey in Shache City But all is not as it seems when the city is attacked by evil tree demons. Monkey tries his best to battle them but is overwhelmed, knowing his master is in grave danger, he uses his trusty golden staff to thrust Tripitaka to safety.

The monk ends up being knocked out when he land and when he wakes up he finds himself in the presence of a young lizard imp named Maiyan who takes quite a shine to our young hero, after many verbal misunderstandings Maiyan becomes convinced Tripitaka loves her, so when the monk decides he must rescue Monkey and the others, she insists on accompanying him. So the mismatched pair begins their adventure together.

REVIEW Okay, so, it's another Journey To The West movie, which isn't a bad thing to me since I love the story and the characters associated with it, so I was a little excited to get my hands on the DVD. So I think I'll start off my review with the story, which is all over the place, at first it was your standard fantasy film, then it became a ridiculous comedy then suddenly became full blown sci-fi, if the director Jeff Lau was experimenting with mixing genres then he did a pretty scatological job with this movie. I think it's a pretty unique approach by having the story centre on a character other then the infamous Monkey King, especially taking a character as pacifistic as Tripitaka and then putting him into what is at it's core a love story. So overall, I liked it.

The acting is for the most part solid, with leads Nicholas Tse and Charlene Choi putting in some really good performances, though Ah Char does spend most of her screen time behind some rather ugly make up. The supporting cast is nicely put together, it includes all the usual EEG main stays so Boy'Z and Isabella Leong make appearances, one actor I'd like to mention is Wilson Chen, who plays the Monkey King, he did a good job with the limited material he seemed to have been given, he played a version of the Monkey King who was subdued yet arrogant, I had a feeling he'd be retreading Twins Effect II territory but fortunately that's not the case here. I hope he gets to do a follow up to this with himself in the central role, since the film does leave itself open for a sequel.

Okay, so let's get down to the directing, which again is kinda all over the place, Lau gives too much time to the Stephen Chow-esquire nonsense comedy, which includes a scene where Tripitaka in order to toughen himself up, dresses up as Spider-Man, which I assume lead to many a head scratching moment since the film is meant to be set in Ancient China. He does create some really nice and tender moments between the two leads and does delve into sappy territory but this reviewer does enjoy a bit of sap on occasion so it didn't bother me in the slightest.

Right, now onto the CGI, which for the most part is quite bearable, there are a lot of moments which probably belong on a PS2 like many other reviews have stated but there are some cool moments particularly the scene in which Monkey battles a flying minion. A lot of the CG gags are provided in the form of the golden staff which turns into a range of different things, ranging from a giant fly swatter to a mech suit straight out of The Matrix Revolutions. So yeah, it sounds crazy but I guess you'd have to see it to believe it.

Right, so in closing A Chinese Tall Story isn't a movie without it's flaws but it keeps itself together long enough to be able to entertain and generally be a overall enjoyable movie. If all of the above doesn't swing you to see it how about I put it this way, it's much better then Twins Effect II. Right this may be the wine talking but this could be the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Granted I spent much of the first half an hour wondering what the hell was going on but once I had accepted that I would never understand everything from the subtitles I was able to enjoy the film.

Can you really hate a film where a staff turns into a flock of birds that defecate over the enemy? What does character development matter when faced with a lesbian alien princess whose people built the pyramids? Why does Buddha wear seriously blinging diamond earrings? Does any of this matter when faced with the sheer sumptuousness of the visuals and the sly humour of the characters. Any battle for my heart was won once I saw the main protagonist dressed as spider-man - awesome! Many people will complain about a lack of story cohesion but for a fun movie to laugh about with a bunch of mates you can't do better, especially if you do an alcoholic shot every time someone says "I will love you 10,000 years". This film was adapted from the well known sutra on Journey to the West where a monk with his three students seek out to find a long lost book with regards to the teaching of Buddha.

Though this movie is not as solemn as the previous films made according to the legend, it did however, managed to bring in romance and fun-filled humorous scene.

This real objective of this movie revolves around more on the monk who were primarily saved from being eaten by demonic flying creatures. One of his student, the Monkey God managed to get him out from the battle in the nick of time, but were in turn captured by the demons and cast into the deep throat of a dragon, locked up in that particular dungeon.

The monk awoke in a small village where he found Mei Yan (the so called ugly serpent daughter) who fell in love over him at first sight. Though ugly, she did not let her appearance be casted aside from getting to him. However, a quest for rescuing his three students soon turn out to be filled with obstacles and each of which turned out to get worse with Mei Yan following the monk. Problems crept deeper and this is where conflicts between the relationship gets worse.

The rest of the tale would be left at your own disposal, but suffice to say, this film does not depict the typical storyline of the book, it is more for those who wants to seek out for a funny and light picture of what Journey to the West and the love obstacles really mean.

Towards the very end, the whole summary could be described with only one word, and that is love. The monk went to show the Heavenly Gates, the Celestial Palace and Buddha himself how love can overcome even the worst fear of all and deemed fit as the most powerful weapon that can be used against any enemy of superior powers.

A wonderfully created and funny acts awaits those who buys this ticket. There would be of course, no regrets, at least from my side and those who were with me at the cinema that day watching the same film. are you crazy or what? this movie has talent who are you to criticize a movie that was made by famous directors and producers? i mean you must be watching some crappy version because if you had a proper version you wouldn't think its some low resolution game graphics..

this movie is for people who enjoy hongkong cinema the other side to what Asian people enjoy watching.. you are such a sellout.. hongkong cinema is totally different to that of Hollywood, hk cinema is in a class of its own...

so if you don't enjoy watching movies from hongkong producers don't go and ramble on about how its a waste of time to watch.. just let other people enjoy the movie..

and personally I've seen this movie and i love its story and the way it was made.. Exclusively for Coop's lovers, though Clint Eastwood very strong though unobtrusive presence is a great asset of this very good documentary film. It is a biography of Gary Cooper, based mainly on his filmography, but also on more private archives, which show him as a child, as a young man, as a family man, with some of his friends (Picasso, Hemingway, etc.), as an older man, finally as a sick and close-to-death man. After "the end", I did not have the feeling that I knew the man any much better. But I have spent a very good moment, re-viewing many of the best moments of his movies; and my respect for the very talented actor and great professional was increased tenfold. The film shows, most interestingly, how the career of Cooper can be paralleled with the evolution of USA society before and after WW2. Two of the great moments are the time when Cooper has to answer justice about communism in the movie world; and when James Stewart (a very great one, too) received an Award for Cooper one month before his death. I'm not a weeping pot, but... that was a close one! Watch it, if you can: it is so much worth while. ... If you love Cooper, that is. Or an older America... Richard Schickel's 1991 documentary about Gary Cooper - "Gary Cooper: American Life, American Legend" gives us a look at the tremendous, all-American star through his films and his life. Narrated by Clint Eastwood, the theme is definitely "Gary Coooper, American" as we are taken through fast clips of his many appearances in westerns, and scenes from "Meet John Doe," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and "Sgt. York." The best part of the documentary is the home movies of Cooper and his family as well as his childhood photos, showing him as a beautiful blonde kid with the sunny smile he would have his entire life. There is also a hilarious clip of Cooper on "The Jack Benny Show" doing the comeback on the number "Bird Dog" - and Benny loses it. The documentary also takes us briefly through his tumultuous affair with Patricia Neal, which nearly ruined both their lives.

There's a certain cohesiveness missing from this bio/retrospective - it jumps around a lot and has no footage of Cooper being interviewed, which would have added a lot. Also, Clint Eastwood's narration was described as unobtrusive. What it was, was boring and monotone. Given that Cooper himself tended to be the strong, silent type on screen, we could have used a little animation.

On a personal note, Gary Cooper was one of the handsomest men who ever lived - there were some looks at him in his early films, but not nearly enough for this fan. That smile, those lips, that bone structure - he was handsome throughout his life, but in films like "Morocco" and "Desire," he is devastating. Instead of sitting through a scene from one of his worst performances, as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead," giving a speech that he admitted to the author he did not understand - a young, suave Cooper in a tux would have been a nice touch. This documentary, alas, was definitely produced by a man. I was really surprised to see that unlike most documentaries, this was written, directed and produced by a film critic-- Richard Schickel. Most of the times I know of where film critics had major involvement in films, the films turns out to be bombs (Rex Reed starring in "Myra Breckenridge" and Roger Ebert writing "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" are prime examples). However, in this case, the critic's powers are used for good and not evil--and the results are better (though this isn't saying much, as the films I just mentioned are among the worst films ever made).

As for the documentary, it's narrated by Clint Eastwood (a pretty good choice) and manages to discuss his long career--from his silent days until his death in the early 1960s. The only negatives, and they are slight, are that the film is awfully short (as are most film documentaries) and there is very little about Gary Cooper as a human being--you really don't learn all that much about his life. However, as a nice overview of his films, it works very well. I never realized what a fabulous dancer Lana Turner was until I saw this movie. She was only 19 years old and gorgeous. What a pleasure to watch her dance with George Murphy. The story line was typical for its day but the dancing was really special. I never tire of watching Fred and Ginger but Lana Turner in this movie was just as terrific. I always thought of Lana as a so-so actress who tended to over act. She should have done more dancing and less of the Maddam X and Peyton Place roles. I had a new appreciation for her after seeing this movie and her wonderful dancing. Too bad the "Academy" doesn't give an "Oscar" for dancing. The revelation here is Lana Turner's dancing ability. Though she was known privately to be an excellent nightclub and ballroom dancer, Miss Turner rarely got the opportunity to demonstrate this ability on film.

So, viewers take notice! Here, MGM were clearly still trying to determine in what direction they would develop the still young starlet, and were, therefore, consigning her to everything from Andy Hardy to Doctor Kildaire.

In "Two Girls on Broadway," however, she is given an excellent opportunity to display her native rhythm and ability to shift tempo in the lavish production number, "My Wonderful One, Let's Dance." This number, is conceived and filmed, as a sort of hybrid between a Busby Berkely style extravaganza and the sort of routines Hermes Pan was designing for Astaire and Rogers at RKO.

Thus, the number opens with George Murphy and Miss Turner depicted as bar patrons (with full chorus) before a curtain of black lame wherein Mr. Murphy croons the number to Miss Turner. Then the camera, (on a boom) pulls backward in a remarkable crane shot to reveal an enormous stage, and a rotating set equipped with steps, columns, enclosures and sliding walls.

From this point on, Murphy and Turner execute a fast stepping variety of moods and attitudes, including lifts, spins, soft shoe, and ending with an electrifying series of conjoined pirouettes that concludes with Murphy both lifting and rotating Turner with thrilling speed to a racing orchestra.

All told a dizzying feat that proves Miss Turner was fully capable of more than holding her own as a dancer, though I daresay most of her admirers would balk at relinquishing her from her throne as the queen of melodrama. Lana Turner proved that she could really dance up a storm in this 1940 charmer about the ultimate sacrifice that her sister (Joan Blondell) makes for her.

When both sisters come to New York, they follow Blondell's beau, a wonderful George Murphy, in this film.

As fate would have it, the director of the show is impressed with Turner but sees nothing ahead for Blondell except a job as the cigarette-girl. Not only does Blondell miss stardom, boyfriend, Murphy (Eddie) falls for Turner as well. So as not to hurt her sister, Turner is ready to marry the producer of the show, a wealthy womanizer who has wed 4 times.

The story concludes as best as possible with Blondell taking a fast exit back to Nebraska. Look for Paul Ford, as a gossip columnist in the film. He is hard to recognize due to the date of the film and the fact that he is much thinner. The film leaves you with the question of whether Ford and Blondell could ever get together.

Blondell, as the devoted sister, sacrifices both career and love, for her sister. This film is sentimental and might have worked better if it had been shot in Technicolor.

Few realize that George Murphy, the future Republican senator from California, was quite a song and dance man in his day. I'm not sure why this film is averaging so low on IMDb when it's absolutely everything you could ever want in a horror film. This is the definition of being a horror film. I consider myself to be a big horror fan and I must say that this house delivers the goods. House of wax Is the story of a group of college kids on their way to a football game whom decide to camp out for the night and have a run in with a local weirdo. Upon waking the next morning they make a gruesome discovery and decide to go into town for a broken car part. The town is creepy and I'm just gonna stop there. Because thats when the truly gruesome mayhem begins. trust me when I say if your looking for a horror film go see this you will love it. It's wonderfully diabolical and inventive with it's killing scenes, the story is interesting and the characters are decently drawn with the actors giving them gobs of personality. Paris Hilton included whom does quite well with her part. the film lies a little on the shallow side but it's so much fun and who cares. This movie should eat up the box office and all horror fans should have part in it. Go see House of Wax the film that features skin being peeled, super glued lips, dead animal carcasses, hot wax sprayed on a still living person, a finger being cut off, a decapitation, a pole through the head and much more. I was lucky enough to witness this film at the Tribeca premiere and all the actors were on hand to promote the film. And boy do they have something to be proud of House of wax is the scariest roller coater ride of the year! 9/10 A lot of people are flaming this film for the presence of Paris Hilton, but this is not a fair reason to object to the movie. The reality is that Paris has a fairly minimal part, she spends the vast majority of the movie off screen. The film also makes fun of her on several occasions, usually involving a camera and at least once in night vision. For those who enjoy Paris Hiltons stage presence, this may be a movie to see at home when its released on video, because at the screening I was at, we all laughed at her misfortunes through the movie and she is portrayed as a "woman of questionable values".

The movie itself was pretty good (unlike the recent flood of weak horror flicks), it has everything a good horror should; a creepy villain, excessive violence, acts which make that average person cringe...this movie hit all the bases. It is definitely worth a watch. I saw a sneak preview of this Tuesday night with a group of friends and we had a blast! After seeing sneak peaks for BOOGEYMAN (Horrible! 3/10) and Amityville Remake (so-so 6/10) I enjoyed this a lot more! As seen in the trailer, one knock I had was believing that a whole town could be "forgotten" but this is a cheesy popcorn horror movie so I accept it for what it is.

My only major complaint is I assumed Paris Hilton would touch wax or get dipped etc. and moan "that's hot" but they didn't do that (how could they resist???).

There is NO nudity from the 2 girls although Paris looks great in her lingerie! I'm surprised they didn't put a 3rd "hot token victim" in the movie for some needless nudity which is the norm for this type of flick! I won't list any death or plot spoilers BUT I will say that Paris & Eliza both get roughed up good!

The characters are developed decently and are somewhat likable (not like Cabin Fever where you wanted them to die) and the movie has a decent pace although nothing happens in the 1st 30 minutes like most horror films.

I give it a 8/10 as it delivered good scares and gore and I had low expectations going into it. If you go with some friends that like cheesy horror movies you'll have a good time.

Noah I do not think I am alone when I say that 2005 has not been particularly kind to the horror genre. While "Cursed", "Hide and Seek", "The Ring Two", and "The Amityville Horror" all showed glimpses of interest and potential, there have been more misses than hits. For proof, see: "White Noise", "Boogeyman", "The Jacket", "Mindhunters", and "Alone in the Dark". Imagine my surprise when "House of Wax", tightly written by siblings Chad and Carey Hayes, turned out to be... well, a surprise.

Carly Jones (Elisha Cuthbert) is a young woman, traveling with her trouble-making brother, Nick (Chad Michael Murray), and boyfriend, Wade (Jared Padalecki). They are, along with Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri'chard), and Dalton (Jon Abrahams), hoping to score tickets to the final football game of the season. Along the way, they run into some car trouble, and are forced to enter a desolate town where nothing is what it appears to be.

Upon hearing of this, a remake of the classic Vincent Price B-movie, I rolled my eyes. I did not even want to think about what disaster freshman director Jaume Serra had cooked up for his audience. In a time when most high-profile horror films are disappointments, latent with bad writing, static direction, and amateur acting, I consider myself lucky that Serra and the Hayes brothers took it upon themselves to make a good, old-fashioned, spook fest. Unlike the disappointments that I named before, this flick pulls no punches, and uses every cinematic trick in the book to give everyone exactly what they came for.

I am happy that the Hayes' actually took the time and effort to create likable and believable characters, thus making the events that much more urgent. It also gives the young actors portraying them something grip on. As she did in "The Girl Next Door", Elisha Cuthbert proves to audiences what a skilled actress she really is. In the 2003 remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", Jessica Biel silenced naysayers by delivering a raw and emotional performance, one that put the viewer right there with her. Here, Cuthbert does the same. Chad Michael Murray ("A Cinderella Story"), in one of his first more mature roles, is no slacker as Nick. Murray exudes charisma and a hard edge, as well as some impressive athleticism on top of it. Murray and Cuthbert gel perfectly, and have tangible, familial chemistry.

More so than anything else, the press and the American public have made a field day about Paris Hilton's major acting debut. As I expected, Hilton does not embarrass herself. In fact, she is just as good as anyone else in the movie (do with that what you will). Like Cuthbert and Murray, Hilton has screen presence. She is sexy and playful. I cannot think one of reason why she's gotten the worst of the film's harsh reception, other than they are simply picking on her. Jared Padalecki (TV's 'Gilmore Girls') memorably manages to overcome his underwritten role. Robert Ri'chard (TV's 'Cousin Skeeter') and Jon Abrahams ("Meet the Parents") do not have much to work with, but get the job done. With only one scene, Damon Herriman ("Soar") makes an unforgettable impression, and his presence hangs over the rest of the film. Finally, Brian Van Holt ("Basic") is superb and threatening in a dual role.

Once more, kudos must go to the screenwriters for avoiding clichés whenever possible. Despite popular opinion, "House of Wax" is quite unpredictable for a majority of its running time. Take this for example: It seems as if the killer is down for the count and Carly bends down to retrieve something from his pockets. What do you expect to happen? See the movie, and you will understand what I mean. It is also refreshing to see a horror film in which the characters show even a modicum of good sense.

Unlike most horror scores, John Ottman's exhilarating work never distracts. However, as with Dark Castle's other releases, the visual aspects of "Wax" are award-worthy, and lift the film above its genre trappings. The talents of cinematographer Stephen F. Windon, production designer Graham Walker, art director Nicholas McCallum, and editor Joel Negron highlight the ghoulish imagery. Speaking of imagery, I believe that the gore hounds will be thrilled with the many makeup effects and tricks in store here. Each death scene is more stomach churning than the last. Considering his past in music videos and commercials, it is obvious that Jaume Serra has a great eye for style. His "in-your-face" approach is a great asset to this film's success. Just when you think the camera will turn away, it does not. He is also particularly good a building thick layers of dread and atmosphere. One standout shot is our introduction to the killer, as he slowly emerges from a trap door.

In a case like this, I would usually admit when I am in the minority (Shut up, okay? I liked "House of 1000 Corpses"!). In this case, I firmly that the detractors have gotten it wrong. I am not sure why people are so hard on this film, considering it's much better than recent genre entries. Maybe they're afraid to admit that a horror flick starring Paris Hilton could possibly be worth watching... Who knows? This is a horror film, and a commendably stylish and effective one at that. As a lifelong horror fan, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed "House of Wax", in all of its lurid and sadistic glory. I safely consider it a great accomplishment in modern horror, as well as (along with "Sin City") the first completely satisfying release of 2005. I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, "Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares". It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo! While HOUSE OF WAX will never be mistaken for Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE or HALLOWEEN, it does try and ultimately succeed in being a worthy addition to quality horror film making. There is enough tension and enough implied gore in here to please the young audience of today and there is also enough explicit gore to please some of the purists of yesterday. Overall, it is quite a well done film that should do okay on DVD.

Six kids on the way to a football game get stranded in a DELIVERANCE like setting and what ensues actually looks like it may have been taken out a discarded Deilverance sequel and the backwoods hicks seem to taunt the group. Eventually the group has to break up and half of them head into the desolate town to get some car parts. The other half of the group stays behind at camp and this sets up the second half of the film.

House of Wax has many strengths. The first is that it is blessed with a very likable cast. Paris Hilton is fine in her role but she is far from the focal point. Chad Michael Murray, Elisabeth Cuthbert and Brian Van Holt are three very charismatic actors and their presence in the film adds some panache, some credibility and some flair. I had never really heard of Chad Michael Murray, only that he was a pin-up type teen heartthrob. But he has a presence to him. He imbues an intangible to him that seems to translate into his performance. He is instantly likable and he possesses a strong character trait. I enjoyed his performance much more than I figured I would and when he was on screen, the film flowed.

The question now becomes, "Is this film a worthy horror film?" And the answer to that is a resounding YES. As I mentioned off the top, it is not in the same class a NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, or even THE RING, but it is relatively tense, quite graphic and there are some very inventive death scenes. This is not the HOUSE OF WAX that your parents told you about. Vincent Price is nowhere to be seen and when you start seeing fingers being cut off and hot wax covering comatose bodies, you realize this film is a little on the edge.

I'd like to see an uncut director's X rated version. I bet there is one out there somewhere that would be much more violent than this one. Be that as it may, this is a very good entry into the horror genre and it is heads and shoulders above weak films like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and DARK WATER and a few others. It is definitely worth a look.

8/10 I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best "teenager" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless "Saint Ange".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.

With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.

The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; "How can two people build an entire house of wax?", "Where do they get all the wax from?". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.

So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now. I've never seen the original "House Of Wax" so I really didn't know what to expect when I went to a sneak preview of the new film. After a somewhat wobbly start introducing our young characters, "House Of Wax" shifts gears and becomes an extremely effective horror outing.

The plot really doesn't matter too much here - I think most people know upon seeing this that these stranded kids are going to meet up with a nasty killer and find some awful things in the titular house of wax. It's all about the special effects here, and they are top notch. Viewers who like their horror movies with lots of blood will be satisfied here, but there are other ghoulish effects as well. The production design and sets are excellent, and the cast makes the most of their under-written roles.

Of course, many people are probably wondering just how Paris Hilton's performance is. To be honest, Hilton acquits herself quite well, and she doesn't portray "herself," as so many people are predicting. Her character is sexy and sweet, and I think her good work will hopefully change a lot of people's opinions about her. Elisha Cuthbert is also good, moving up from her previous movie, the atrocious "The Girl Next Door." Her character is put through a lot, and Cuthbert proves to be a feisty heroine. Chad Michael Murray, like Hilton and Cuthbert, is pretty to look at, but unfortunately is not very convincing as the "bad boy" of the group.

I predict good things for "House Of Wax," as the audience at the screening I attended hollered, screamed and clapped through out many parts of the movie. Congrats to the cast and crew for a job well done.

And a congrats to Paris Hilton for proving a lot of people wrong. Like she always says - "That's hot." **1/2 Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton and Jon Abrahams. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra.

Yet another classic horror film remade with dunder-headed teenage acting despite grizzly and creative deaths. Based on the 1953 Vincent Price film House of Wax where a maniac kills unsuspecting teenage hooligans and turns them into priceless wax figures. Still with the fantastic set design to make the whole house into wax the movie is a typical classic horror remake like Tobe Hooper's 1974 classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre later remade, despite creativity and so-so acting the movie was still just a gore picture. Director Serra showed mild enthusiasm with his directing but still worth watching. My final rating 7/10. My college theater just had a special screening last night of this film. I have got to say that I think everyone was impressed with how good this movie was. Though, my roommate didn't care for it but he's not into horror movies anyway and just went to see if Paris Hilton can act. By the way, if you're worried about that, don't be. I'm not exactly one of her fans, but I must be honest and say she was pretty good and she has the best death scene. Overall, all the actor's were very good. I'm not gonna go into detail for the plot since I'm sure you know about it. Surpirsisngly, the characters are pretty engaging and you actually care for them, especially Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray's characters. We meet them as rival siblings and end with them having to work together. Another plus is that it does not have the sleek look of Amityville Horror or Texas Chainsaw Massacre and feels almost documentary-like rather than a music video (Don't get me wrong, I loved Texas Chainsaw and enjoyed Amityville).

Now for the death scenes. In most slasher movies, whenever a character is stabbed or killed, the scene immediately cuts away to another scene,but not in this one. When a character is about to die, they die pretty gruesomely. But the filmmakers don't stop there and add a little something extra each time for each victim. I won't say anything about the death scenes and will let you see them for yourself.

While this is a great slasher movies, it does have the flaws of almost all slasher films (exploring a creepy house when you shouldn't be, getting a ride with a suspicious character, splitting up, and screaming so the killer can hear you). Also, there is a kinda stupid plot twist that was unnecessary and didn't add to the film at all. You could tell it was just added in at the last moment and if you took it out, it would not have affected the movie at all.

Basically, if you are a horror film fan, see this movie. You will not be disappointed. It's got all that's needed to make it a great slasher film, possibly the best of the year even though it's kinda early. The suspense is felt and it is at times a funny movie. If you hate horror films, chances are you may like this one and if you are divided, I encourage you to give it a shot. OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.

Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.

The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about "these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'" but I could safely say that "Wax" was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.

In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look. I recently saw House of Wax and must say i really enjoyed it.

it's been one of the better Horror/Thriller films in the past few years, if not one of the best and most entertaining.

i've heard a lot of people bashing the so-called slow start and character development which takes up the Films opening 45 minutes.

yet if the film dived straight into the deaths, audiences and critics would have criticised the film for not having decent characters who they couldn't care less about.

well as for the character development, i think it worked amazingly well.

taking into my own response and others (from reading posts off the message board), a lot of people ended up wanting the characters to live, one of which i've noticed many people mentioning being Paige Edwards (Paris Hilton). taking into consideration Warner. Bros. have been marketing her death, its a surprise turn around that many audiences ended up cheering her on for survival.

speaking of the chase/death scenes, they were some of the most inventive and suspenseful i've witnessed in a while, and enjoyed each one very much.

the acting in the film was absolutely fine, i couldn't fault any of them, especially Paris Hilton, i thought she was very decent and i was hoping for her the get more than a mere 25 minutes screen time in a 120 minute film, yet her chase scene made up for that, and believe me when i say Paris can act scared, (Watch the scene where she's hiding in a car from Vincent and he walks past her .... the look of terror on her face comes across as VERY real).

Overall i give House of Wax maximum stars, for entertainment value and suspense and even gore ...... only criticism is i wish that during the marketing for the film, they hadn't revealed the death list and who dies and who survives, as it would have been ten times better not knowing if the character being chased was going to live or die and horrible death.

can't wait for the DVD, but go see it at the Cinema while you can, it won't be the same in your own front room, yet if you do wait for the DVD, watch the film in the dark with no interruptions, trust me you wont be disappointed. Carly Jones (Elisha Curtberth), her bad boy brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki), and her friends Paige (Paris Hilton) and her boyfriend Blake (Robert Richard) and Dalton (Jon Abrahams) travel to another city to watch an important game. They decide to camp in a field halfway and proceed their journey on the next day. However, the fan belt of Wade's car breaks and he stays with Carly to buy a new one in a close town, where there is a house of wax. When they arrive in the place, they realize that the place is a ghost town, and two deranged former Siamese brothers have transformed people in wax statues.

I liked this "House of Wax", indeed a worthwhile teen horror movie. The story follows the standards of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and other slash movies, and it is well made, has a good team of actors and actresses and special effects and the death scenes are amazing. Even if the movie were not good, watching the sexy and delicious Paris Hilton is worth. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa de Cera" ("The House of Wax") Admittedly, before seeing House of Wax, I assumed it would simply be a second tier low quality teen slasher film following in the footsteps of such movies as The Darkness or Amityville Horror. After catching an advanced showing at my college campus, I can honestly say that the people at Dark Castle have done an excellent job with the task of making a slasher.

Starting with the usual staples of a teenage horror film such as the small group of friends departing on a road trip, coming across an odd detour taking them through country back-roads, meeting creepy locals, after the slow but mandatory back-story this movie really reaches a fast clip. Paris Hilton appears in this film as many already know, but I really have to give it to her for her ballsy performance. Clearly her acting wasn't worth an Oscar, but the filmmakers use her appearance to its fullest by squeezing two blatant satires of her, let's just say, less noble media appearance into this film. Ms. Hilton also claims the title for the greatest death scene in the movie, and not simply because it was her death scene.

This movie is full to the brim with jumpy moments and cheap scares, but Jaume Serra has definitely created quality suspense and tension between the characters. The causes for the horror are in part based on making the audience care for the characters, which we do. By making the usual buildup followed with a loud noise and jerked camera some other scary moments. These standard movie techniques adopted from many movies past are almost perfected with this film, and provide many good scares. In fact there isn't a slow moment after they get to the small town where the dreaded House of Wax museum is.

This film owes a lot to many previous movies of this and other genres, though I'm not too sure how much came from the original 1953 movie of the same title. References to such movies as both Texas Chainsaw Masacres, Saw, and even Titanic, (see Paris Hilton's big death scene and you'll know what I mean) are common, but in the end the payoff will leave you scared and fulfilled if you are looking for a good scare with a few laughs. Not bad. probably the best horror movie in 5 years.. there's been lame remakes, attempts to make you scared (when all they make you do is walk out of the theater) and movies that just shouldn't have been made. but this one is worth it. the only reason i didn't give it a 10 is because Paris Hilton is in it (but her death scene makes up for it, believe me)..

..so here they are.. the SPOILERS of all the death scenes in the movie..

1. my favorite death scene ever - Paris Hilton's! after finding her boyfriend Blake laying on the ground with a knife sticking out of his neck, Paige starts to run. well, speed walk is more respectable. she finds this like garage with all these cars in it. then (one of) the killers cuts her ankle from below (this whole time shes holding a HUGE metal spike)so she drops it and runs and hides behind this car. the killer picks it up and as she looks through the window he throws it through the window and it shoots through her forehead.. I've NEVER BEEN SO EXCITED OR LAUGHED SO HARD IN MY LIFE.

2. Paige's boyfriend Blake gets a knife stabbed into his neck and then the killer walks up to him (while hes on the ground) and steps on it pushing it farther into his throat.. then he dies.

3. Elisha cuthbert (carly)(one of the hottest chicks EVER) doesn't die PHEW but she does get her lips super-glued together, punched in the face, and gets part of her index finger chopped off (yeah, i felt like heaving) 4. Carly's twin brother nick also survives, but not without getting his ass kicked and a stab wound to the leg.

5. nicks best friend Dalton gets thrown down a flight of stairs, and then is decapitated. his body is dragged away and we see his eyes blink.. then he gets covered in wax.

6. wade (Carly's boyfriend) gets his Achilles tendon snipped by a massive pair of scissors, and then is attacked by the same scissors. he doesn't die, but hes covered in wax, and on 2 occasions his skin is accidentally removed, revealing his nasty bloody flesh. YUMMY.

..so there it is. Definitely WORTH YOUR MONEY. I usually give horror films around 6/10, but this one caught my eye. House of Wax was by far the best horror film I have seen... Even better than the Amityville Horror.

Paris Hilton was quite good in this and I must say, has a good future ahead. Her death scene was probably the coolest. I'll just say how she dies...

She gets a giant pole right between her eyes and they close-ups on and everything. Gory, eh? Brian Van Holt was very good as both the killers, Bo and Vincent (Vincent had the long hair). Usually he plays a mean cop or soldier, but he did very well in this.

Eliza Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray also acted very well as Carly and Nick Jones. Nick took the spotlight in the first half of the movie, then Eliza stole it back by enduring a lot of pain in the second half like getting the finger clipped off, ripping her lips apart after they got glued together, and getting a straight forward punch in the face by Bo.

Overall, I give this movie an 8/10. Fans of horror films MUST see this. This is one of the best horror / suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way! This was the greatest movie I have ever seen in my life, the action was great, and i was so scared, there was a lot of gore WHICH MADE It GREAT, i would see it 1,000 more times, and Paris Hilton, D*MN she fine in that movie. But anyway, i would recommend it to anybody, even kids(like me) Adults like it to. You would probably have nightmares at night though, but beside that, IT IS AWESOMe, I CANT STOP BRAGGING ABOUT IT. EVER SINE AUGEST WHEN I HEARD ABOUT IT I BRAGGED AND BRAGGED and in school i gave out flyer's saying may 6 house of wax see it. i got my whole school into it. But anyway, i would definitely saySEE IT may 6 house of wax, be there It be slayed. OK so Paris Hilton sucks in it (typical Malibu Barbie) but the rest of the actors are just great! I watched the film last night and it totally kept me going thru out the whole film. Chad Michael Murray IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT and he's just a ace actor. Total hero man. The main girl who is the sister to nick (chad) is such a brilliant actress. Thumbs up. I think it's so different to films out their these days, most of them to go with psychopath's, possessions, ghosts but here you have a theme about wax! I totally got creepers out by the wax models in the house although they looked so real. I still haven't got the story with the twins at the moment, i am just waiting to get the DVD then watch it all over again. Thumbs up to such a great film! 11/10. All those people who don't like it, please don't bother 2 criticise my opinion as mostly everyone thinks its cool to do so. Also i think the Paris scene when she strips to her underwear is totally inconvenient. Why not just get a dog shagging some cat.. be more entertaining then that. When Paris death scene came up, i thought it was poor as she still kept running although a knife just went up her foot. Hmm.. interesting.

!CHAD ALL THE WAY! I saw this movie on it's opening night, and enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been sitting by my father. My father saw the original (unfortunately, I have not seen it yet) and kept talking through the whole thing. He kept saying that the movie sucked, and that it was stupid. The thing is, he didn't understand that the creators were slightly making fun of the horror genre with the film. In every horror movie, there is always a certain character depicted. If they weren't in the movie, well, you might not really like it too much. The trademark characters are:

"The Lead Character": Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) "The Lead Character's Boyfriend": Wade (Jared Padalecki) "The Lead Character's Sibling/(Soon-To-Be)Reformed Jerk": Nick (Chad Michael Murray) "The Annoying Sluttish Character": Paige (Paris Hilton) "Characters Who Are Just Around To Look Pretty": Dalton (Jon Abrahams) & Blake (Robert Ri'chard)

With those characters, it makes it slightly predictable who will die and who will live. Obviously, you know who will with what I just typed. The movie may be predictable (in fact, I had a pretty good idea who would die just by watching the trailer), but it was still enjoyable. It may seem stupid (why is there a sugar mill in the middle of a deserted camp-site that wasn't there in the beginning?) at times, but it is very easy to watch. The comedy and gore were the perfect amount for weak-stomached movie-goers it does get gory, don't get me wrong, (less than "Final Destination 2) but it works very well. So in conclusion, this movie wasn't as hot as the fire the set went up in, but the temperature could still burn the "Wax". PEOPLE ARE STUPID.You shouldn't cheer when Paris gets killed in the head with a pipe! It is plain rude!What did Paris do to you? What if that was you? You wouldn't want people cheering for your death!Anyway it was really gory, which I liked and it was cool when Elisha's finger gets cut off.It was weird with that twist that they didn't have 2 sons they had tree and all, It makes way for a House of Wax 2: Ressurction or something.Paris was great acting in the chase scene.Elisha and Chad chemistry is great, they deserve an Oscar.My friends and I were cracking up when that guy said that's hot when Paris and the guy from Cousin Skeeter making out.Lol.K bye. I think that anybody whose dumb enough to risk being a wax dummy just so they can go to a football game or they don't want to leave their car "to get stripped" deserves whatever happens to them.

The guy, Wade who "went to a barbershop and asked for the He-Man haircut" wasn't my type, but there's this really cute scene of him having his eyebrows and facial hair waxed. That's a little too high-maintenance for me.

Also fun, but not my type is the fat guy in the big sunglasses who looks "like Elton John only gayer," but that whole plot goes nowhere!

Blake was hot,I could see myself with him if he wasn't so into his girlfriend, who is a phony Paris Hilton in a bad wig (no Chihuahaua in her handbag,though but that would have been really precious). I don't think girls who look like that go to football games anyways. Nick the car thief is the sexiest! One of the best parts is where a football lands by him, and instead of throwing it back, he chucks his cigarette down and it burns the football. See, that's just the kind of guy he is. He has a sister who looks dumb borrowing his white wife-beater. Her bra straps are showing for, like 1/2 the movie!

Mostly you will just want to wax your legs and not ever go to football games after seeing this. This is the ultimate of horror movies this year. "House of Wax" is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. This version really puts the Vincent Price version of the movie to shame. I only know a few of the young cast in the movie. The ever troublesome Paris Hilton; the pain in the you know what seems to be more seductive than ever. At least, she didn't try to copy her infamy. Well if she likes to do horror, she's better than "Wheel of Fortune's" Vanna White. She beats Vanna HANDS DOWN! And the scene of where "House of Wax" was made was no joke. The house was made of wax, and the victims were able to get out of there before the get waxed like their friends. Those two twins Bo and Vincent(the deformed twins) were maniacs from the get-go. The parents raised them well, except for Vincent. And I think they became equally warped. How come the the one in the other pick-up happen to be creepy, but not as bad as the other two. That's another story in the book. I guess he had to follow his heart, and not the other twins who turned Ambrose into a tourist "trap" for unsuspecting victims. This movie is like "The Phantom of the Opera" meets "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". And this movie is one of the scariest one in 2005! Rating 4 out of 5 stars. I loved this film!! I have been waiting for this film to come out so I could see it. I saw it opening night and loved it, Some people told me that this film wasn't any good and to stay away but I thought it was great. The actors did great and it was scary and made me jump. Paris Hilton did a great job for her first film, everybody is giving her a hard time when she did great and she didn't even have that big of a role. The set was great has it was made of all wax and how it was made. The two brothers did a great job and the death sense were great. The killers were really scary and made me want to close my eyes and not look at them. I can't wait until this film comes out to Video so I can get it and see it over and over again. The over view of my review is go see this film if you like Hororr films and you will not be sorry I loved this film. I give this film a 10 out of 10 IT ROCKS!!! I've heard a lot of different opinions about this film and then to find out that Paris Hilton was in it as well didn't give Me the best impression of the film .... then to be dragged to the cinema by a group of my friends and sit there expecting a pile of pants i was shocked to find that i was scared stiff all the way through the film ... it was predictable yes but the build up of the deaths and the whole atmosphere of the film made it REALLY scary for me ... i was watching through my fingers the whole way through. So i say go watch it and decide for yourself and if the fact that its a scary film doesn't convince you to go watch it then it also has Chad Michael Murray in it which can't be bad to watch for a couple of hours eh? I thought this movie was pretty good!OK, so maybe it had a few scenes that could make people think of other horror movies, but i have seen a lot more pathetic movies that got much higher ratings than this! Many movies nowadays are remade to a more modern version and there's nothing wrong with that, it keeps the story alive. i don't think this movie was pathetic at all and i'm not just saying that because i'm a major Chad Michael Murray fan, but because i enjoyed it. i was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie and my friends and i really enjoyed it and we were talking about it the whole way home! I would tell my other friends to watch this movie. i'm not saying it's the best movie that's ever hit the box office but it's a lot better than some people are describing it to be. Everyone has their own opinions so if you really want to know whether it's good or bad, watch it and then decide. This excellent movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery is long overdue for release in DVD form. The same can be said for her earlier, also excellent movie, A Case of Rape. I can only hope that my comments spur some enterprising soul into placing BOTH Elizabeth Montgomery movies on one DVD to be made available to her many fans. I for one believe this excellent actress's role was unfortunately stereotyped by her role on Bewitched and, as a result, more serious acting roles were not made available to her. I am confident that if these two movies, perhaps even a trilogy with The Legend of Lizzie Borden, were released in DVD form, her fans would set the record straight on how highly they regard her serious acting abilities. I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven. I remember watching this movie when it came out as a t.v. movie of the week in the early 1970's.

Although I haven't seen this movie in over 30 years I remember how creepy it was...the sister's dead body in the basement, the storm raging outside, the creepy house with no electricity and a killer still on the premises.

They just don't make t.v. movies like this one anymore. Elizabeth Montgomery was a very underrated actress and I liked her in not only "Betwitched", but several of her post-Bewitched roles, such as this one and 1975's "The Legend of Lizzie Borden".

I really wish that someone would come out with a DVD that has several of the 1970's t.v. movie of the week on one DVD. Wouldn't it be awesome to watch "When Michael Calls", "Bad Ronald", "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", "Crowhaven Farm", etc., all on one DVD? I know there is a market for a DVD like this for all of us baby boomers who grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Maybe, if we are lucky, someday someone will offer us a DVD with a great selection of t.v. movies like this. i remember watching an elizabeth montgomery movie when i was maybe 5 years old (if that) and to this day i can remember this movie (in just bits and pieces). it was the movie i remembered all throughout my life because i was sooo scared. I think i remember the story part of it and the house constantly being dark. the main part that was the most freaky to me was Elizabeth walking around the house all dark and then there was someone in the field outside. At the time I thought i was an old witch but the memory of it is now way hazy so i can't really remember who it was but it was someone definitely in a field outside lurking...and that part is what freaked me out the most. i really wish i could see this movie again. if anyone knows how to get a copy please email me at valid908@yahoo.com I first saw The Victim (aka Out Of Contention) well over 25 years ago when I was very young. Being a passionate fan of Bewitched since I was a child, I loved to watch anything that starred Elizabeth Montgomery. This movie was (and still is) a real treat - whether you are a fan of Miss Montgomery's work or not. Elizabeth always shines in her roles, such as her portrayal as the rape victim in A Case Of Rape and as the suspected murderess in The Legend Of Lizzie Borden. Her performance in The Victim as Kate, a terrified woman trapped in an isolated house during a storm, with a killer after her is brilliant. If you like exciting suspenseful thrillers than this is one movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat till the end. Another great performance well worth mentioning is that of Eileen Heckhart who plays the eerie and suspicious housekeeper. Unfortunately like most of Miss Montgomery's movies, The Victim is not available on DVD and I believe that although it was released on VHS some years ago, it is a rarity these days. I was lucky to have taped it when it was aired on television some ten years ago and so have a nice copy of this very good movie. A must see! After learning that her sister Susan is contemplating divorce, Kate decides to travel to the distraught woman's remote country home and spend some time with her. When Kate arrives, however, Susan is nowhere in sight. That's because someone has murdered her and stuffed the body in a trunk in the basement. As a storm rages outside, Kate tries to figure out where her sister could have gone and places her own life in great danger...the killer is still on the premises! In her first post-BEWITCHED vehicle, Elizabeth Montgomery gives a solid dramatic performance. Merwin Gerard's teleplay is based on a short story by McKnight Malmar. Malmar's tale was first brought to television in 1962 as an episode of Boris Karloff's THRILLER anthology series. THRILLER stuck very closely to the story, which is kind of a pity, for it could have used a little punching up. Granted Malmar wrote a moderately creepy number, but Gerard (creator of the ONE STEP BEYOND show) adds several clever ingredients that heighten the tension and suspense. Co-scripted by William H. Macy from, arguably, Donald E. Westlake's best and hardest to find novel, "A Travesty". *Very* faithful to the story, the movie stars Macy as a hapless man who gets in way too far over his head after attempting to cover up an accidental death. Costars Adam Arkin and James Cromwell in good supporting roles. The strength of the movie is in the intricate twist-after-twist storyline and in the acting, particularly by Macy who routinely and delightfully breaks through the 4th wall here and gets away with it every time. A good storyline with much dark humor, this one engaged me enough that I've watched it three times in the week since it came out. Prepare to shelve your critical faculties and emit a loud, bipartisan "wheeeeee!". This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it.

Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty. William H. Macy is brilliant as Everyman caught in a desperate situation. Starts off with a bang and never lets up. Twists and surprises are fresh, unpredictable. Use of film noir clips and frequent quotes and references to 30's and 40's flicks makes this a delightful "must" for movie buffs. William H. Macy is terrific in this Alfred Hitchcock-esque film. Macy stars as a film critic who accidentally kills one of his girlfriends. The characters that ensue are hilarious. James Cromwell gives a terrific performance as a blackmailing private detective. As always, Macy is incredibly funny and gives a phenomenal performance. See this movie whenever it is on t.v. and check your video stores because this is one you don't want to miss. "A Slight Case of Murder" is an excellent TV movie, which is defiantly worth the price of a rental. William H. Macy is great as a movie critic who accidentally kills his mistress, and then has to try to conceal the crime. Although that may sound dark, the film is actually quite light hearted and funny, with many memorable lines ("Acting is harder than I thought- you ever see BODY HEAT? I think I owe Bill Hurt an apology" and my personal favourite "For next week answer these two questions about film noir, What do these people do during the day? and Why is it always raining?). The film has a great supporting cast including Macy's real life wife Felcity Huffman, James Cromwell and Adam Arkin. A must see for Macy fans! Just as in "Columbo" we see the fatality occur right at the beginning. What follows is an escalating web of lies, sex, blackmail, and murder. The investigating officer, Adam Arkin, is even somewhat of a fumbler, not unlike "Columbo". It is William H. Macy, as the movie critic suspect who carries the film. Constantly twisting and turning, the plot sends Macy deeper and deeper into the quicksand of his "perfect crime". William H. Macy fans will enjoy "A Slight Case Of Murder", as will those who like crime capers with all kinds of delicious possibilities. Add some well timed comedy, and this is very similar to a fine episode of "Columbo". Highly recommended. - MERK William H. Macy always gives a good performance. He never looks lazy and never seems like he'd rather be somewhere else. In short, he's what more actors should be like. "A Slight Case of Murder" is directed by Steven Schachter, who went on to do two more great films with Macy (Door to Door, The Wool Cap).

Television movies have long been a dump of overdone acting, poor cinematography, and sub-par scripting. That's why it's so refreshing to see a TV movie that does exactly what it's sort of film was created for. To tell a small story (not a simplistic story) that does not require viewing on the big screen.

"A Slight Case of Murder" is light, entertaining fare, and an great watch.

7.6 out of 10 I can not say this movie was a hilarious, but I must have had a grin on my face the entire time. I like this darker kind of comedy; "very bad things", "8 heads in a duffel bag" or "coldblooded"

The way the main character tries to get away with murder is a lot of fun to watch. To me it was not much of a surprise what the ending would be, but the way that ending came about was. Another thing that sticks out, is the way they have managed to involve the audience. The way Terry looks at us is hilarious, you can almost pretend you're his accomplice. This one was a surprise and better than most films I've seen recently. Highly enjoyable from start to finish, this is a film that will surely satisfy 99,9% of movie fans worldwide. Great acting from everyone, great script, great story and fantastic plot and twists. Try not to miss it! Not a stunner, but a good movie to see once or twice. Bill Macy shows he can do more than just act; his writing was pretty darn good. Great supporting cast, especially Jamie Cromwell as the extortionist private eye.

The movie's greatest strength is the work of Macy, who reminds us of his Jerry Lundergaard role from Fargo. He has numerous scenes where he is extremely funny as a slimy, manipulating and deceitful character. It's enjoyable to watch him be a weasel, and for a while I was happy that things were turning out well for him. *** out of four. I saw this last night at a screening for a marketing company. It is Fargoesque, and was a lot of fun to watch. It held my attention all the way through and did not seem to lag at all. I'd recommend watching it when it airs! Turner and friends are closing in on HBO for the top spot among made-for-TV movie producers. This is a nicely paced, contemplative thriller of sorts. William Macy is stellar, as always, and Adam Arkin offers one of his better performances. A bit more lively than classic Hitchcock but not as in-your-face as typical movies of its type, A Slight Case of Murder eases you in and never lets go. (Note: I saw a preview copy, which means I didn't have to wait through commercials. Those interruptions may hurt the pacing, but you know this will be available on video sometime Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.

Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.

When I say it is a wonderful "small" film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so. Any movie that offers Bonnie Hunt, Sarah Silverman and Amy Sedaris in the supporting cast has to be well worth watching, and comic actor Jeff Garlin takes advantage of the terrific talent he recruited for his 2007 directorial debut, a sad-sack comedy about an overweight man who feels out of step with the world around him. Familiar as Larry David's manager Jeff on "Curb Your Enthusiasm", Garlin plays James, a still-struggling, 39-year old Chicago actor who still lives with his widowed mother. His self-esteem is so low that he can't meet women, but it's the comical way he views his single status that makes his dilemma involving. If the storyline sounds a bit familiar, that's because the film is partially a tribute to the 1955 Ernest Borgnine classic, "Marty", about a lonely Bronx butcher living with his meddlesome mother. In fact, Garlin uses "Marty" as the play which James is desperate to do since he is so empathetic to the character's situation.

Naturally there is a love story of sorts in this new millennium version, and Silverman plays Beth, an off-kilter, sexually voracious ice cream parlor server who takes him on an underwear shopping spree. Their best scene together is in his favorite convenience store where they improvise different characters in different aisles. Hunt plays a lonely elementary school teacher who shares a passion with James for jazz musician Ben Webster. They meet accidentally in a record store and then again at a career day at her school where he hilariously exposes his sexual neuroses in front of a classroom of first-graders, including his best friend Luca's pert daughter Penelope (played by Dakota Fanning's look-alike baby sister Elle). In a wedged-in cameo and looking quite a bit like Jerri Blank, Sedaris plays the school's counselor who speaks to James after his inappropriate monologue. David Pasquesi plays Luca, a retirement home manager, and his scenes with Garlin have an easy rapport that makes their friendship easy to believe. Almost stealing the movie is character actress Mina Kolb, who plays James' pixilated mother with pluck and heart.

There are also unexpected cameos from teen idol Aaron Carter and Gina Gershon (don't ask…but the set-up is funny), as well as sharply played bits by director Paul Mazursky (as the snaky director of a candid-camera-type show, "Smear Job"), Tim Kazurinsky (as the unsuspecting victim of that show) and Dan Castellaneta (as the tough-love convenience store owner). With his rueful bouts of insecurity and self-loathing, Garlin's comic sensibilities resemble those of Albert Brooks, and the casual dialogue at its best reminds me of "Modern Romance" and "Defending Your Life". The one persistent problem I had with the film is pacing as some scenes dragged out longer than necessary. The problem is more evident in the first half when Garlin is trying to establish the right tempo, and the lack of real conflict adds to the sluggishness. Regardless, what he does well is capture that gnawing sense of desperation one feels upon the revelation that life is not what it is supposed to be, that a significant other may be out of reach, and that a steady diet of junk food eaten on a car hood is the only sure thing when it comes to gratification. My original title for this review was going to be, "Ending disappoints, Film triumphs." But I actually thought about this one on the way home. It is not the fairy tale most of these films are, it takes turns that are different and while its ending is at first disappointing, it slowly sinks in and hits the core on a satisfying tone.

The plot follows a man named James Aaron(Curb Your Enthusiasm's Jeff Garlin, who also wrote and directed) a struggling actor who lives in Chicago with his mother and deals with both his obesity and his inability to find someone to love.

Yes, it sounds corny, but it experiments with elements that make it somewhat unpredictable, and actually makes you wish it were longer. The ending came kind of abruptly and had me saying, "that's it!?" But once it starts to take it's toll, it really makes you smile.

It does have many tones of seriousness throughout, but fear not, for it is also very funny. Some scenes offer huge laughs, and those who have seen Jeff Garlin's stand-up will recognize a couple (Primarily when he gives a speech at career day for his niece's kindergarten class and bombs). It begins on somewhat of a serious note that you do not expect, but what follows is very funny, entertaining, and quite poignant as well. It is the kind of movie that you keep watching and always enjoy. And as I said before, while the ending may seem absurd at first, once you take time to think about, it is a true joy. Garlin is unquestionably a comedian's comedian and a comedian to anyone looking for a good time. His first film, which is entirely his own creation and production, tells the story of a struggling Chicago actor James Aaron with whom Jeff obviously identifies. He wonderfully juxtaposes James to Paddy Chayefsky's "Marty" and to Jackie Gleason's Poor Soul as he exposes James' dilemmas with an array of actors that in real life are Jeff's friends, many who are fellow Second City alumni.

He delightfully uses Sarah Silverman's diametrical cuteness and scathingly absurd humor to exemplify how despite common sense and talent, life's contentment can too often belie unyielding frustration. Bonnie Hunt gives an endearing performance as a romantic interest.

Don't let a simple story mislead you, the characters and conflicts are well thought out and ring true. Those that follow Garlin's career and understand that his humor is based on telling reality humorously, not necessarily creating fiction which too easily can be contrived, will appreciate his dialogue driven story.

We surely will see Garlin working much more as director and writer with other talented intelligent comedic actors who undertake the great challenge of making life funny. Garlin outdoes himself as writer-director-actor in his indie production about a big guy (Garlin) wandering around Chicago with an eye for every woman he sees. The laughs keep coming almost every minute. It's a somewhat dramatic and serious story about a man looking for love, but done with great comedic writing and acting. The supporting roles are also very well done and very funny and really make the movie rich.

Rose Abdoo is hysterical in her receptionist role taking you right into the mood of the rest of the film. Sara Silverman is awesome with some of the great bits she does with Jeff. Bonnie Hunt is classically great in her role. I only wish there was more of her in the film, as I think most will agree. It's certainly refreshing to see her in a tight leather outfit.

David Pasquesi was the aloof detached sidekick, and voice of reason. Mina Kolb plays Jeff's mother who he lives with. There were numerous other cameos, all of them done very well.

At the premier Jeff mentioned his inability to do more with Bonnie due to production issues. Still, it's good to leave you wanting more. I think it's that indie thing of keeping some things ambiguous to let the audience do some thinking for themselves to fill in the blanks. The wordy title should clue you in to this.

Jeff said some of the basic characters were based on his past relationships. This explains why they work so well. Real life people are always unusually colorful and makes great characters. He departs quite a bit from what you might expect, having seen Curb Your Enthusiasm and some of his other work. It's one of those break out things where an actor takes some risks to do something they maybe always wanted to do but couldn't.

I think it's noteworthy that Garlin's improv Second City background, and Hunt's for that matter, set the style here of acting being the focus of the story and the directing. It's perhaps a new innovative hybrid of improv meets indie film-making. Has the proliferation of relatively high quality shows on the proliferating TV networks made it possible for people to produce, direct, finance and/or star in their own films who might otherwise not have been able to? Is that a good thing?

This film does not answer the latter question either way, but it does appear that without Curb, Jeff Garlin would not have been able to make I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With.

Like most new producers/directors, Jeff Garlin's independent piece heaves a heavily more sensitive sigh than the vehicle he is primarily known for (Curb). And yet, is it a sensitive guy film? He isn't really a sensitive guy. Likable, sure. Relatable, indeed.

What this film really is about is a bit hard to say, I can only relate what I took away from it.

I rented the film because of the trailers, particularly the scene of a counselor portrayed by Amy Sedaris informing James Aaron (Garlin) that a particular woman is interested in him mainly because she is a "chubby chaser." I just about fell out of my seat. Based on that scene alone, I ran to my computer to write a note to myself to rent this movie. The reason - I thought the school counselor (Sedaris) was talking about Beth, portrayed by Sarah Silverman. I imagined a lightish romantic comedy between the foxy Silverman and the fat Garlin. I didn't think the story would be anything original, but that the dialogue would be snappy and the scenes would move along at a satisfying pace. In short, I thought it would be a comedy.

It was intriguing that the film started out that way but then took a much much more realistic turn when Beth gives James the heave ho because "I've never really been with a fat guy before." That is how brutally we live life, and it was completely realistic. I applaud the decision. It just meant that Beth has now left the building and with her, the one snappy person in the film.

James's relationship with his mother was also interesting. That part made me wonder if the whole concept did not start out as a play. It had that intricate feel to it. (The whole "Marty" movie within a movie thing was utterly lost on me, as I have never seen that film.)

There were serious doubts I had about the character of James Aaron, though. Is it really possible that at 39 he had not had a serious relationship? And he is an actor? That did not really square with me. To me, his persona was less actor-y, and more corporate. I could not really buy his ordinariness either. No doubt he was extremely disappointed that things with Beth did not work out. We felt that. But then, did he really care?

Another thing - how in the world can both he and his mother afford to move out at the same time? Hasn't he just lost his job? The last one he had? That was one reason he did not seem ordinary to me. Where's the funding for his life coming from?

And yet, I have read reviews that talk about the realistic portrayal of urban loneliness, so there is that. Yes, it is very realistic, the way we must be satisfied with what we have because it is all that we have. The way we sort of disappear from ourselves and each other in interactions (James and Stella), some kind of self-effacement that takes place just to move on to the next moment. That, contrasted with the possibility of defining ourselves through our moments, our thoughts the way James had with Beth, it's really crushing.

Very well done. Jeff Garlin's film is filled with heart and laughter. As in Curb Your Enthusiasm, his screen persona is hilarious; but in addition we get to see both warmth and a sense of emotional vulnerability that makes the story universal. While the film chronicles his character's dreams of love, performing success, and weight loss, it will appeal to anyone who dreams of a better life. The supporting cast brings the frustrations and joys of his life to the screen in funny and heartbreaking ways. The simple joys of food, friendship, and trying once again once life has disappointed us are all themes. The use of music is creative and adds to the many pleasures of this film. Any fan of Jeff Garlin's TV appearances must see it! James Aaron, a chubby actor living in Chicago, is a man that loves to eat things that are no good for him. That is made clear early on, as Dick, a friendly store clerk, advises him to stay away from junk food. Aaron, an actor working at Chicago's Second City, is a loving man with not much luck in the love department. He still lives with his mother, a spunky lady who encourages him to go out and enjoy himself. James has another job in a sort of gross "Candid Camera" where people are set up for unusual situations, such as surprising a mechanic and telling him he is the father of a daughter he never knew about.

On the day he meets his friend Larry he gets to know about the casting call for the remake of "Marty", his favorite film. Being a large man, he clearly identifies with the character in the movie. In many ways, James' own life parallels that of the Paddy Chayefsky's creation in the picture. He wants to try for the part because he knows he can do justice to the role.

One day he meets Beth at a soda fountain. James takes a liking to the woman, who one day invites him to go shopping with her for intimate apparel. He ends up having sex with her, thinking they have a nice thing going, but Beth has a another surprise coming when she tells him the reason they went to bed was because she had never done it with a fat man. After being disappointed, James stumbles into an attractive elementary school teacher who seems to share his love for jazz. At the end, we watch James fulfilling his long dream of starring in a theatrical production of "Marty" in a nursing home.

Jeff Garlin, who is an affable character man, shows a talent for the type of comedy associated with his friend Larry David. Although both men differ in acting styles, his take on James Aaron is right on the money. As a director, he has done it before, although this is an original concept that he should pursue.

One of the assets of the film are the people involved in the project. Sarah Silverman makes an impression for her take of Beth. Bonnie Hunt underplays her role of the school teacher to good results. Mina Kolb, is seen as his mother, a role she has played in "Curb Your Enthusiasm" with excellent results. Director Paul Mazursky is at hand also in a minor role. Joey Slotnick, Tim Kazurinsky, Richard Kind, David Pasquesi, Larry Neumann Jr, Gina Gershon, and the rest of the cast make valuable contributions.

Jeff Garlin is a talented man whose next effort will be welcomed by his fans. In an early scene, Luca (David Pasquesi) and James (Jeff Garlin) are walking down a neighborhood street in Chicago, admiring the bucolic architecture, when a woman, angrily arguing in French on a cell phone, passes by them, prompting James to remark, "There's nothing hotter than an angry French woman." A few blocks later, they pass an old Filipino woman, also angry, also arguing on a cell phone, and Luca remarks, for referential effect, "There's nothing hotter than an angry, elderly Filipino woman."

The humor in Jeff Garlin's I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is best characterized by the word quotidian. The film is a conversation. We might as well be eavesdropping. Rather than go for antics, the film relies on character flaws and human curiosity to deliver laughs. While it's not innovative, it is far from banal, and even if James views himself as being rather jejune, we know that he is fairly average, and this endears him.

Self-betterment is the primary theme of the movie. Sarah Silverman, who plays Beth, is excellent as the catalyst of change; she revitalizes James, and so reminds him to live a better life. Even so, achieving some idyllic dream is not the end of these characters, but rather something simpler: that they might pick up what pieces there are of the life they love, just to keep for themselves at least enough to carry on.

A movie about life lessons can be overwrought, as it can forget to connect with its audience. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is subtle and winsome, and while its moral may not be inspiring, it is still resonant. This is low-key comedy, but it will stick with you. For those out there that like to think of themselves as reasonably intelligent human beings, who love film, have good attention to detail and enjoy indie movies with funny, smartly written dialogue then this is a film for you.

For those with a poor attention span, high expectations and no brains.. well.. um.. you may get bored and find things dragging at times.

This is a charming, modest and well paced movie with the actors bestowing a real sense of depth and warmth to their roles. I chuckled to myself pretty much the whole way through..

This film is a little gem. I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again. He did one at Christmas to try and bring back a number one song, and now the terrific Justin Lee Collins wanted to reunite the cast members and maybe some crew of one of his favourite TV shows as a kid, The A-Team. The only member he wouldn't be able to get was the late great George Peppard who played main character Col. John "Hannibal" Smith, but he did get some kind of psychic to try and help. He did manage to reunite all members including Dirk Benedict (Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck #2) who went to Celebrity Big Brother in 2007, Dwight Schultz (Capt. H.M. "Howling Mad" Murdock), Melinda Culea (Amy Amanda Allen), William Lucking (Col. Lynch) and Lance LeGault (Col. Roderick Decker, the only member of the team to die). He did talk to Mr. T (Sgt. Bosco "B.A." Baracus) in an anticipated interview, but he was unavailable to turn up at the reunion. It was really fun watching him trying to find them, and talking to them, even though they probably didn't want to, and the reunion of course is the great climax. Very good! Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about. Bring Back The A-team was a hour- long special screened on Channel 4 in the UK of last year and hosted by presenter and comedian Justin Lee Collins, the show attempted to track down and reunite the fellow cast members of the A-Team together, for the first time ever on TV. This has been something which has never been attempted before by anyone. Well, not by anyone that I know of, that is.

Justin makes a great presenter, and his eccentric personality and humorous banter shone throughout this programme. The attempts he makes in getting hold of the cast members is ever so funny, but also he was very persistent and eager to fulfil this task too, which is a credit to him i'd say. Mind you, he is great on TV anyway- be it by presenting a show such as this, or the Friday Night Project with his co-host, Alan Carr.

There were appearances and interviews with Dirk Benedict- the Faceman himself, Dwight Schultz- aka Howling Mad Murdock, Marla Heasley who played Tawnia Baker, Jack Ging aka General 'Bull' Full Bright, the creator of the A-team, Stephen J Cannell and the big man himself, Mr T aka BA Baracus. They were just fascinating to watch and hear what they had to say about the programme that became a global hit during the 80s, as they reminisce and relive the good and bad moments of the show: both during and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, no George Peppard but of course he is already in heaven, understandably and strangely enough no Melinda, who played Amy.

I just didn't understand why she wasn't featured in the show. Okay, she was axed after 3 seasons or whatever, but she was the first and original female member of the A-Team- only to be replaced Marla's Tawnia and so it would've been great to see and hear her side to the A-team story, in addition to the other cast members.

All in all, Bring Back The A-Team was a great documentary style of show. Perhaps, this could've been spread out more by means of which this could've been a six-part documentary. But nonetheless, this was a great effort on the part of JLC. Recommended The A-team is still repeating every day on Dutch television (RTL7, around 1800hrs) and I still watch it! I don't like the A-Team... I absolutely adore them!! It is just great to see Justin chasing the former members of A-Team. Brings back memories from the old days, when I was young an sweet. I would have given you a 10 for excellent, but Justin looks like he is chasing the former A-Team members all by himself. Of course, that is the only bad thing on this documentary. Too bad Justin does not look for Melinda Culea ("Amy A. Allen"). But it is great to see Mr. T. back into action. Too bad for him, he does not show up at the party, at the end. But that party is too short to laugh again and to see everybody in action again. I saw Borderline several years ago on AMC. I've been looking for it ever since. It was haunting: visual, textural, sensual. This movie took me somewhere like a dream and I didn't care where. I will never forget the curtain blowing in the breeze. I still remember the way it made me tilt my head. I remember my facial expression when I saw it. I didn't know what had happened when the movie was over, but I find life is that way. It didn't bother me. The unfairness of the ultimate rejection of an innocent character strikes me as sadly real. I loved the faces, the way the camera dwelt upon them. The camera gazed at the set with the unfocused eyes of a daydreamer. Borderline was real to me in a way movies aren't. It was exactly the lack of explanation, color, sharpness that made it enter my consciousness like a thief in the night. I love this movie. Someday I will own it. "Back in the Day" is an interesting, but flawed effort. Ja Rule stars as Reggie Cooper, a honest but sad man trying to cope with the death of his father. He meets his old friend J-Bone (Ving Rhames) who tries to force Reggie into a life of crime. Reggie also falls in love with Alica (Tatyana Ali) who is the preacher's daughter. Now he has to choose: Love Or Crime.

Ja Rule does a competent job as Reggie. At least he's trying to act. Ving Rhames is perfect as J-Bone. He brings a lot of energy and menace into the role. Joe Morton as the preacher is his usual excellent self, but he doesn't do much. The same problem for Giancarlo Esposito as Reggie's Dad. He needed more screen time. I don't want to say this, but Pam Grier is pretty awful as Mrs. Cooper. She overacts every scene and brings the movie down. Tia Carrere and Frank Langella are in it but don't do anything substantial for the plot.

In the end: You should see it for the skilled performances of Ving Rhames and Joe Morton and the grittiness of the writing and directing. I watched this movie out of a lack of anything else on at the time. Quickly the movie grabbed me with the depth of the characters and subtle plot. I was quite surprised to see that the rating given by my satellite provider did not show any stars.

I will not give any spoilers to the plot-line or outcome but most of the characters had at least some redeeming value. Until the very last minute I did not know how it would turn out. Frequently, you can pick-up the formula and predict a story direction. I could not do that with this film.

I would recommend this as one of the finer films of this genre. by TyNesha Mells. In this drama, Ja Rule, who stars as Reggie, struggles with the loss of his father. His old friend J-Bone, who is a cold-blooded thug recently released from prison, helps Reggie find who murdered his father. A week after his dad died, a preacher, Reverend Packer, came up dead. Reggie was suppose to be the one to kill him, but did he? Did Reggie kill Reverend Packer or was it some type of a setup? Back in the Day also has a couple of romantic scenes. See, Reggie falls in love with the preacher's daughter and J-Bone doesn't approve of his love fiend. As J-Bone tries to destroy what they have, Reggie learns that love is about forgiveness. But what J-bone is doing, does it work? Do Reggie and his girlfriend break up, or does it bring them closer together? I like this movie because it leaves you wondering what's going to happen next and did this or that happen. I like movies with suspense! It kind of makes you want to be in the movie so that you could detect things. I also like this movie because everything falls in place, if you really pay attention to it! Frank Langella steals my heart in everything he has ever been in! I love watching him!! i was 10 yrs old (1979) when i seen him for the first time.i eagerly await each and everything he'll be acting in. hopefully one day i can see him in person. he's very hypnotic and mysterious and that voice is commanding and strong! he is very attractive, even now at 65 he is absolutely stunning!!!! In my opinion he is the greatest actor iv'e ever seen! i adored him in "Dracula" ( along with a lot of other girls out there) and in "god created woman","house of D","Jason and the argonauts" and many more. i thought he was genius!!!!!! can't wait to see him in "good night and good luck" The animation is still the slightly rougher style of the first episode, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, but already, with this first regular episode, Bart the Genius, the humor is beginning to be more "layered", quicker and greater depth of characterization is already appearing.

This episode firmly establishes Bart's "slacker" personality, and more subtly, Lisa's intellectual superiority to the whole family. Although that's the main theme of the whole episode (there's also a nice secondary theme of Bart and Homer's father/son relationship), it's given to us first in a nutshell as the episode opens with the Simpsons playing Scrabble. Lisa comes up with "id" for her word--short, but something you have to be well educated to know. She has to read the definition to the rest of the family from the dictionary, which has been serving as a way to prop up the couch. Marge can only come up with "he". Homer has "oxidize" already sitting on his tray in order, but doesn't recognize that it's a word, so he presents "do" instead. Bart comes up with "kwyjibo", which he insists is a word. Similarly, in the main plot line of the episode, Bart cheats on his IQ test, which leads to his being put into a special school full of gifted kids. We know that's not likely to last long.

"The Simpsons" has always had a lot of fun playing with varying degrees of intellectual abilities among people through its characters, and more importantly, they way that people with vary degrees of intellectual abilities fit into (or not), are accepted (or not) and are perceived in society. Aside from beginning to present Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge's place in this context, this episode already starts respectfully poking fun at nerds and geeks outside of the Simpsons family. Via some of the dialogue from the students at the special school, as well as some of the other references, including purely visual ones, this episode also shows that "The Simpsons" isn't going to pull any punches by means of writing or talking down to its audience. It may be just a cartoon, but it's a cartoon that intellectuals, geeks and nerds are going to understand more than anyone else. And that fact, aside from it just being a very funny show, is the key to the show's longevity. Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.

For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.

On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.

Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.

Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world. The Simpsons of course started off with Christmas special "Simpson's Roasting On An Open Fire" which had basic drawings and not laugh out loud jokes, but this episode has probably the first laugh out loud joke in it and from here the show just gets better and better. This episode centers around Bart who in this episode swaps on a test from Martin and gets into a school for the highly gifted, this leading to Bart mending his friendship with his Dad and losing all of his mates. The Episode is very humorous and shows what was to become the greatest show ever to come out. Overall fans of the show will love this episode as it features the character's exactly as they became 20 years later. So watch this episode in a pack of Season 1 and enjoy early Simpson's doing what it was meant to, Making people laugh. I rate this episode 73%. SPOILERS

I love the Simpsons, and I have seen every single episode that had ever come out. I must admit, season one is by far the most underrated season, and this is the most underrated episode in season one.The episode begins with the family playing a game of Scrabble to get Bart ready for an intelligence test he needs to take at school. He says the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play it, but he needs to. He spells out a word that angers Homer and he chases Bart around the house. The next day Mrs. Krabappel reassures the class that the test isn't part of their grade, just a test that would tell them what their future would be like. Bart can't answer one question. He thinks fast. He quickly switches test with Martin Prince, the smartest one in class. Later that day Marge and Homer are called to go to the Principal's office to discuss Bart's behavior. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the school psychologist comes and tells Skinner and Homer and Marge that Bart is a genius and should go to a special school for the gifted. Bart agrees to go since he wouldn't need to do any homework. The next day Homer drives Bart to the new school. He is introduced to everyone and everything. Unluckily, his day isn't very good. The smart students take his lunch smartly, he can't read any comic books, but he does anyway, and he is criticized by his fellow students. Luckily for Bart, he and Homer start to have a great time together, but Marge bought tickets to an opera. They go to the opera, and make fun of it. The next day he goes to his old school but is made fun of by his friends. They call him a point dexter. While at his new school, Bart is told to do a Chemistry Experiment. He does it wrong and blows up the school, leaving himself green. Bart is told by the psychologist to tell him why he did it. Instead, Bart tells him he wants to go undercover and go back to his old school to observe other kids. The psychologist is intrigued and he asks Bart to explain it on a piece of paper. He finds it too hard and instead writes a confession that he really isn't a genius. He gives it to the psychologist. All he cares about is that he spelled the word confession wrong. That night Homer bathes Bart and Bart tells him that he really isn't a genius and that he cheated on the test. Homer gets angry and chases Bart around the house as Lisa and Marge look at them casually.

Overall, this is a very underrated season one episode.

8/10 AristoCats is such a terrific Disney classic that I just loved so much as a kid. Still to this day I can't resist watching it, it's just such a wonderful and charming film with great animation and lovely songs. I really miss the animation films like AristoCats, they had perfect voices not to mention the hand drawn animation that makes it perfect for the family. AristoCats is also very witty and clever, the story was just so wonderful. This film is just beyond irresistible, I think the most memorable moment for me was the cats playing the piano learning the appecio's, lol, it was just so cute with the piano playing and painting.

Douchess and her kittens are very pampered in their huge mansion, mainly because their lady is very rich and treats them like they were her children. But when the lady feels it's time to make her will, she leaves everything to the cats and not to her butler. The butler gets angry and takes the kittens on the road and abondons them in the middle of no where. Douchess and the kittens wake up and with the help of a smooth street cat by the name of Thomas O'Malley, they head back home to their lady, but learn the coolness of being a skat cat.

The AristoCats is just a perfect Disney movie that I feel is a bit over looked. I would always highly recommend this movie for kids or families, it could be enjoyed by anyone. The songs and story is just memorable. I will always join in for the movies best song "Everybody wants to be a cat", such a great tune. I also love those dogs that guarded the farm where the cats were abandoned, they were just so cute. This is a terrific film, please watch it, you won't be disappointed.

9/10 No. I'm not kidding with this one. He was a guest reviewer for Entertainment Weekly and gave this movie positive marks. And who can blame him? This is a charming, upbeat, and rather funny Disney movie. Who doesn't love kittens? The music in Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat is jamming. It makes me want to snap my fingers or something. Only years later when Cats Don't Dance came out have I seen a movie that was that musically fun. What Aristocats lacks in animation and story, it makes up for in charm. Plus, everything moves at a relaxed pace, and even the villain isn't all that scary. It's perfect for the younger set while not being so sappy that adults can't like it. If Snoop was here, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Yeah. Dig those CRAZY cats, man. Set in Paris in the year 1910, a retired old rich opera singer decides to give her fortune away to her beautiful cat Duchess ( voiced by Eva Gabor) and her kittens, but the jealous butler Edgar comes up with a plan as he kidnaps the cats and leaves them in the countryside. Luckily for them with the help of a streetwise and independent tomcat named Thomas O'Malley ( voiced by Phil Harris) helps them get home especially meeting some of his good friends like the swinging' Scat Cat ( voiced by Scatman Crothers) and try to foil Edgar's plans.

Very entertaining and edgy post-Walt Disney's death animated movie with a couple of nice jazzy tunes like the memorable "Everybody wants to be a cat", good voice acting and some terrific animation for it's time even in these times of computer animation. Not one of the greatest Disney animated movies but a cult Disney animated fave and one of the few gems of it's day that works well, highly recommended. The 20th animated Disney classic is often criticized by many people as "mediocre" or poor in quality, but it is a great movie.

Too bad that "The Aristocats" doesn't get the deserved credit. I personally see it as one of my favorite Disney classics.

Despite being extremely underrated, it is one of the funniest Disney classics. It is full of hilarious (some of them, hysterical) moments.

Edgar, the greedy butler, is the villain of the movie but he is a perfect comic relief. He's one of my favorite Disney villains because he is so funny.

Every scene with Edgar and the hound dogs Napoleon and Lafayette chasing him are among the most hilarious you'll ever see, especially the one when Edgar drives his motorcycle into the river and around the bridge, with the dogs chasing him. That is hysterical!

But the classic humor doesn't just come from Edgar or the hound dogs. Other characters have their moments as well.

About the quality subject, it isn't perfect, but remains on a high level. Even after Walt Disney's death those artists knew how to keep faithful to Walt's spirit and "The Aristocats" is one of those examples. They don't make them like this nowadays!

As usual, legendary Disney actors voice the characters. In this case, we have Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway, Paul Winchell, Eva Gabor and Pat Buttram.

The characters are cool in general: Thomas O'Malley, Duchess and her 3 kittens, the mouse Roquefort, the alley cats, the English geese, the hound dogs and the horse. The human characters are included as well: the eccentric and kind retired Opera singer Madame Adelaide Bonfamille, the comic Madame's old lawyer Georges Hautecourt and Edgar himself!

About the soundtrack, it has some nice and catchy songs such as Thomas O'Malley's theme (but I can't remember its name), "Everybody Wants to be a Cat" and "The Aristocats" (sung by Maurice Chevalier), for example.

This movie takes place in Paris (France), in the year of 1910. Above all, this is a joyful, nice and very pleasant movie. A timeless classic which is often underestimated and forgotten, but very worthy.

This should definitely be on Top 250. This is NOT the masterpiece that is Snow White, Cinderella, or Bambi, but it IS a very sweet, enjoyable, romantic, well-done Disney animated feature.

There are, of course, lessons included herein for the kiddies, and some very appropriate kiddie-cheek, but there is plenty herein for the adults, as well.

While this is somewhat of a regurgitation of the Classic Disney RomCom Adventure, it still holds some elements, which solely belong to the AristoCats. O'Malley is the "tramp" and Dutchess is the "lady," but Dutchess has several kittens and they are all trying to get home.

Phil Harris is our tomcat O'Malley. You may recognize his voice, as he also furnished the voice of Baloo the Bear in the Jungle Book, and Little John in Disney's Robin Hood. Eva Gabor lends her silky sweet voice to Dutchess.

Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, who directed, or worked on, every Disney animated film worth mentioning until his death in 1985.

This is among my very favorite of the Disney animated feature films, and belongs in any Disney collection. The 2-Disk Special Edition Is Due Out This Summer (2007).

This rates an 8.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Since cats have nine lives, I'll give you nine reasons to see this movie:

* The kittens Berlioz and Toulouse playing the piano together (so unbelievably cute!) * The car-chasing dogs Napoleon and Lafayette * Toulouse jumping like electrified every time he wants to be like a tough alley cat * Marie sighing romantically while alley cat O'Malley seduces her mom * Scat Cat and his jazz band, singing "ev'rybody wants to be a cat" * Stupid but proper and nice English geese Amelia and Abigail who make the cats walk like geese * O'Malley obtaining the "magic carpet" which puts the Cheshire cat to shame * Roquefort the brave mouse's journey to ask help from alley cats * Edgar the butler chase scenes and transition from a nice guy to an insane cat hater due to cat riddance plan gone bad The first Disney animated film without the strong involvement of Disney himself, this film suffers from the fact that the story is not particularly original or interesting (this is, I believe, the only animated Disney film since the 1940's which is NOT based on an earlier book or other work, but is rather an original story). As others have noted, the plot is essentially a cross between the romance in Lady and the Tramp and the kidnapping/journey home story in 101 Dalmatians.

But to overcome this flaw, the filmmakers have successfully used many of the better features of most of the Disney animated films of the previous 10-15 years: Phil Harris (from The Jungle Book) voicing one of the main characters, follows his duet with Louis Prima in the previous film with another here with Scatman Crothers. The quality visual look of this film is virtually carried over from "Dalmatians" (with some nice nods to French Impressionism, it appears), and the villain here (the butler) is strongly reminiscent of the henchmen in that film as well. (This is probably one of Disney's least memorable villains.) The main story goes back and forth between the cats, and the butler's ongoing difficulties with two rural hound dogs (with great voice work by Pat Buttram and George "Goober" Lindsey"). The various animal characters are similarly familiar to those who have seen "Tramp" and "Dalmatians." The cats' owner, while bearing a striking visual resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Sleeping Beauty, bears none of that character's nasty traits and comes across as very warm and generous.

The real strength of the film is the voice work; after first going toward the use of mostly familiar actors in The Jungle Book, the tactic is continued strongly here with Disney veterans Harris and Sterling Holloway from The Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor (who would do a very similar character in the later film The Rescuers), as well as Crothers and Nancy Kulp. All are excellent here, particularly Harris and Gabor in the leads. The character animation is as excellent as one would expect, showing a variety of emotions well.

Smaller children may be upset by a few brief episodes (an escape from the path of a speeding train, a near-drowning by one of the children), but these are not presented in a particularly frightening or dark manner and are over very quickly. Overall, there's very little of the type of more frightening scenes found in many other Disney classics.

One minor oddity is the way some visual aspects of 60's culture are depicted among the jazz-performing cats in supposedly 1910 Paris; one can't help but wonder why the story wasn't set solidly in the present, other than the great deal Paris had changed much of its appearance in the intervening time. It really would have made more sense that way.

The songs, while being pleasant and sometimes very enjoyably performed, are not particularly memorable. Nonetheless, the general energy applied here, the excellent voice work and fine animation all contribute to overcome the relatively few and minor weaknesses. Far from the greatness of classic "10"s such as Pinocchio or Aladdin, and not quite up to the "9"s one might give to Sleeping Beauty or 101 Dalmatians, this is probably a rather marginal 8 of 10; perhaps a 7. As the mom of a 3 year old and a 2 year old, I adore AristoCats. It is a movie that contains no double-entendres, no almost-swear words like heck or darn, no parents who are functional idiots, and no crotch-smashing or flatulence jokes that are so prevalent in even the "best" kids movies these days. The story line is sweet and interesting. The music is great. The love story is quite romantic. The kittens are adorable, and the various other characters are unique and attention-capturing. The action is simple and not overwhelming or confusing. The characters are quite well-cast as well. I love listening to Eva Gabor's velvety voice, and there are so many others that are familiar from childhood and also fit the characters so well. It's really a movie about love, tolerance, good manners, and faithfulness. Who doesn't want their kids exposed to these values? It is a movie that I don't mind watching over and over, unlike Happy Feet where I couldn't watch the whole thing even once because it was so irritating. I wish production companies would move toward making movies more like this one. The Aristorcats is a hilarious film that not many people have seen. Clearly not that many because it only got a 6.8. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It's my favorite of the Disney classics, which have tons of fantastic films already made. Like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and Peter Pan. The reason why The Aristorcats is so high on my list is because of how funny the film is. I hate to say this, but I don't blame Edgar for what he does. I probably would've had them taken care of too. I'd be devastated of some old bag who I'd been working with for so many years just decides to give her will to the cats. I'd of killed them also. I don't even like cats, so I wouldn't give a damn. I think that The Aristorcats is so funny and cute. There are many characters that are hilarious, like Edgar. The Aristorcats is my favorite of the Disney classics, and that's final. The Cat's out of the bag.

The Aristorcats: ****/**** I must say one big reason why I thought the AristoCats was so great is because I love cats!!!!I love cats,which probably gave this film a big score from me,but not only that,it was definitely a good movie as well,and I love where they make the setting of the film take place.This is one of my favorite animal films,although it's animated,and I really love how the actors\actresses didn't sound so unprofessional behind the animals' voice's.To me this film seems like a classic,but I guess to IMDb it's not,because it has,yes I THINK too low of a rating.You take a peek at all the other "ORIGINAL" Disney films and they have a much higher rating than this,but nonetheless AristoCats is one of the best animation movies there is and I could enjoy it over and over again!! There are a select few cartoon films where animals or something "not human" is portraying human beings and I think that this film is one of them. Apart from a few points of the plot and the characters - this film could be changed with all people rather than mainly animals. Although - it's good someone did not - I feel the cats are jolly good in this film portraying humans! :-)

This film also focuses on quite a lot of adult issues - which is rather odd for a Disney film. It mentions alcohol*, shows a dog teaching another dog how to attack "tresspassing" humans and it shows a male cat called (Abraham Delacy Gieuseppe Casi Thomas) O' Malley, fancying a female cat, in a surprisingly human and adult way.

As a cartoon film - or just a film in general, I feel this is pretty good quality - the storyline and characters are especially good. The film (in general) is set in France and you meet a family of cats - the mother Duchess and her kittens Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz. You also meet the kind (rich) old woman who adores the cats, the butler Edgar and an old man (who has CLEARLY lost his marbles) called George. The kind old woman discusses her will with George and Edgar overhears that what he receives from the will he will have after the cats have it. He is INCREDIBLY cross with this - and has an evil scheme in mind...

A very cute film for every age - enjoy "Aristocats"!

*Not including "Basil the Great Mouse Detective" and a few others maybe which I cannot think of at the moment. This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number "The Aristocats" as well as "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness. This movie is great I really enjoyed it.

This movie is about a cat mom named Dutchess and her 3 kittens.T Dutchess and the kittens love music.They have to practice the piano everyday.But the butler named Edgar tries to kidnap Dutchess and her kittens he tries to make them sleep. But he fails. Them Dutchess meets a cat named Thomas O Maily. Thomas falls in love with Dutchess. The cats break into song. With the song everybody wants to be a cat. Thomas gets to love music like the other cats. Thomas and Dutchess really like each other.

I loved this movie and i like the cats to! Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.

This is a charming film. The songs, including "Everybody Wants to be a Cat", are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10/10. Plot in a nutshell - Duchess (voice of Eva Gabor) is the well polished single mother cat of three little kittens. When their owner, the wealthy elderly woman known as Madame Adelaide, realizes that her time is running out she decides to write up her will, leaving everything she has to her cats, which will then go to her butler Edgar when the cats pass on. Edgar overhears this and is deeply offended by the idea that the cats would get everything before him, and plots to destroy Duchess and her kittens; he drops sleeping pills in their supper one night and then leaves them stranded in the French countryside. Out of their element, Duchess and her kittens befriend a street smart stray cat known as Thomas O'Malley (voice of Phil Harris who did the voice of the big bear Balloo in the Jungle Book); after making a pass at Duchess, unaware that she is a single mother, O'Malley decides to escort them back home, with Duchess genuinely falling for O'Malley as the usual codependent surrogate family bond develops; chaos and mayhem ensues, culminating in a violent clash between O'Malley, his brother cats from the streets and Edgar. Also features appearances by British geese, American southern hound dogs (what they were doing in France is anyone's guess), a mouse who sounds a lot like the rabbit from "Alice In Wonderland" (he was in fact voiced by the same guy who voiced Winnie the Pooh) and a horse.

Sometimes slow paced but still enjoyable Disney venture. Features the memorable "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat" musical piece sung by the late Scatman Crothers (better known to 1980s fans as the voice of Jazz on Transformers). Of course, if this was being made now, it would probably be a dark social commentary on class division represented by the divide between well bred & well fed Duchess and the street born O'Malley. Oh my gosh!! I love this movie sooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so incredible......I loved it as a wee babe and still love it as an adult. It is my favorite Disney movie of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll time! You should watch it, watch it and love it. My friends and I watch it a ton.....It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I recommend it to anyone who is a child or a child at heart. My favorite part is the song and dance number with all of the strays and Thomas O'Malley. The writers/producers/director completely nailed this one.....yeah, nailed it to the wall.

xoxo~Wolly~xoxo I'm not a massive Disney fan, but my 7 year old son is starting to get into them, so we've built up quite a collection, and this is one of my favourites. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago and we must have see it half a dozen times since! OK, as others have pointed out, not the most complex or inventive of plots, but there's more to a film than that.

Great characters, Phil Harris stealing the show as Thomas O'Malley, but Edgar the butler not far behind. The music is superb - my disabled son always insists that I lift him up and dance with him to "Everybody wants to be Cat" this says it all. And "Thomas O'Malley" is just as enjoyable.

I'm not sure why some people have such a downer on this film other than a dislike of cats! And yes, it does take a few of its cues from "101 Dalmations", and maybe "The Lady and the Tramp" (It's been a long time since I've seen that, so I'm not going to compare them), and while "101 Dalmations" is better in some ways, for me "The Aristocats" is far more enjoyable. Isn't that what these films are about?

Apart from "Peter Pan" (now that is a 10/10 film), this is my favourite Disney film. My 7 year-old son loves it, his grumpy 41 year old dad loves it, so you can't ask much more of a family film.

Superb! "The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.

Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.

"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.

Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories. The Aristocats is really quite charming, and is rated far too low on IMDb. The songs aren't as memorable as the ones in the Jungle Book, but they weren't bad at all. The animation is really lovely, the best sequence being the landscape of Paris in general. It looked beautiful. This is probably Disney's most relaxing animation I think, and as another reviewer quite rightly said, who doesn't love cats? Another great piece of animation was O' Malley looking into Duchess's eyes, as their romance was so believable while not obvious.(a good thing)The plot(about a greedy butler and a fortune, reminds me of Bailey's Billions) was a little unoriginal, but worked very well, and the script was really funny, especially the fights between the kittens. They remind me of me and my brother and 3 sisters, always fighting. My favourite scene was the chase of Edgar with the two dogs, who were always fighting about who was the leader. The voice talents were a delight, most notably Phil Harris, whom I recognised from the Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor, from the Rescuers. The supporting characters, namely Scat Cat, were also well done. In conclusion, a really pleasant film, that is definitely underrated. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox Walt Disney's 20th animated feature was the last one to be greenlighted by the great man himself (he died in late 1966) and is not generally considered to be among their very best output. The main problem is that, on the surface, the film seems merely to be the feline version of either LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) or 101 DALMATIONS (1961) both of which are certainly more beloved by fans Even so, being both an animation and cat lover, I dug this reasonably bouncy concoction in which a pampered female cat (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her three little kittens are thrown out onto the streets of Paris by a wealthy lady (Hermione Baddeley)'s greedy butler. Luckily, they meet a streetwise alley cat (Phil Harris) who guides them on the journey back and are further aided along the way by a feline jazz band (led by Scatman Crothers) and two helpful and amiably dopey dogs; meanwhile at home, Edgar the butler celebrates his supposed inheritance and the mouse and the horse do their bit to help their fellow feline pets. Legendary entertainer Maurice Chevalier was whisked back from retirement to sing the title song (which includes a verse in French) and Scatman's band indulge in a breezy number "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat". A group of cats look to find their way home after being kidnapped by a greedy butler.

The Aristocats is regarded as one of Walt Disney's finest 2D animations with its charming script and cool characters, but it doesn't quite have the magic that created Snow White or the Jungle Book.

The slow opening will have younger viewers raising their eyebrows but once the cats become established into the story does the fun and entertainment begin.

The young cats create the most enjoyment with a charming young hearted rivalry, the special kind of bonding any brother or sister of any age can associate with.

Not the funniest Disney picture out there but there are some great comic moments, especially involving the Cats and the Dogs. The representation of the gangster cats is very impressive and equally amusing.

The story, after the boring beginning, is consistently entertaining and exactly what a family film should be. There are hardly any lapses and no dull moments. The journey to find home is interesting and you get a sense of exploring, not to mention two very strange British swans.

With Disney, you always get a strong meaningful message. With the Jungle Book it is where you belong, with Beauty and the Beast you explore the importance of inner beauty. However with this 1970 picture there seems to be something missing. The film has the importance and relevance of home but is not cemented enough; it seems very far fetched and irrelevant.

My sister and I found it very strange watching this as some of the central characters were voiced by the Jungle Book cast.

Despite the bad beginning and the confusion of its preaching message, this is a consistently fun family film with a good music score and some cool crazy characters that viewers of any age can relate to. When "Madame" decides to let her cats inherit her it spells trouble. The snobbish Butler Edgar who is next in line to inherit decides to get rid of the cats. Thereby the story can begin and the cats can go on an adventure that would otherwise have been impossible. An adventure that lets them meet the charming, but not altogether trustworthy cat O'Malley. He helps them through many dangerous and funny situations until the inevitable happy end.

The force of this movie is in its humor and music. Edgar is simply hilarious as the insulted butler who is out to settle the score and of course he himself takes some serious beatings. One of the best scene contains him being chased by the two dogs Lafayette and Napoleon. The score is great and like in "the Jungle Book" you have scenes that is almost "musical" in the sense that the story doesn't progress and the focus is to let the protagonists express themselves via dance. And of course we like, that the score is quite Jazzy.

And of course it's not only me but also my children who love this one.

Regards Simon Duchess and her three kittens are enjoying the high life with their devoted human mistress until the wicked butler Edgar, with his eyes on a big inheritance, decides to dope them and get them out of the picture. How can these fragile creatures cope in the unfamiliar countryside and the meaner streets of Paris? Only by meeting the irrepressible alley cat O'Malley, a rough diamond with romance in his heart. After they get a taste of the wide dangerous world, he guides them home, and Edgar gets his just desserts at the wrong end of a horse. As always, it's really the voices rather than the animation that are the heart of the Disney magic: Phil Harris is brilliant as O'Malley, Eva Gabor as Duchess is... well... Eva Gabor; but perhaps the most memorable turns are by Pat Buttram and George Lindsay, who turn the old hounds Napoleon and Lafayette into a couple of bumbling Southern-fried rednecks. Their scenes with Edgar, and the musical numbers with Scat Cat and his cool-dude band, are classic. Most striking about seeing The Aristocats now is how deeply Disney's style of animation has changed since this was at the cutting edge in 1970. Perhaps the nostalgic, dated feel are just a result of being plonked down in Belle Epoque Paris, but the illustrations are fussier (a pity) and the animation and overall pace much less frenetic (sometimes a relief) than in more recent efforts such as Aladdin. After seeing The Aristocats: Special Edition in a two pack with The Fox in the Hound, I decided to buy it since both of these films were childhood favourites.

The Aristocats is a classic, definitely. It might not be a five-star classic, but it is a fun film and makes a good evening's entertainment. It is somewhat a light refreshment from the darker, more serious Disney classics. The Aristocats tries to be a light-hearted musical comedy, and I think it just about succeeds.

The storyline doesn't really make much sense and I don't think the plot is particularly strong, but it is certainly not weak. The animation and backgrounds are a bit scratchy in places, typical of Disney's 70s films, but it does have a rustic, old fashioned charm about it.

The Aristocats strongest points are the characters, the music and the humour. The music is very memorable - try getting 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' out your head in a hurry! The songs are written by the Sherman Brothers, who also did the music for The Jungle Book. There was one song called 'She Never Felt Alone' that was going to be in the film, but sadly didn't make it into the final feature. It is a shame, because I think it would have fit in very well.

The characters are unforgettable. Thomas O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris, and is basically Baloo in a feline form. Eva Gabor gives Duchess this warm and maternal feel and the kitten's voices actually sound like children, and not an actor imitating the voice of a child. The secondary characters are here by the dozen and yet you still end up understanding their personalities. Edgar, the 'villainous' butler plays a similar role to Cruella De Vil, but he's more comical than scary, often ending up in funny situations. Even though he's the bad guy, he's still lovable all the same.

The two British geese - Abigail and Amelia really had me cracking up, along with their crazy (and drunk) uncle. I also like the dogs, who tend to argue over who is 'the leader.' I could go on, but I won't spoil it. But I can tell you, The Aristocats is funny and will entertain everyone without having to resort to rudimentary toilet humour.

The bottom line - The Aristocats might not be Disney's crowning achievement, or even their strongest film from the 70s (that award is a tie between The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Whinnie the Pooh). But it is an enjoyable romp and is sure to entertain. If you are looking for a dazzling work of art, you might be better off watching Bambi. But if you want a fun night in, The Aristocats is the way to go. It is a charming and lovable film and it's impossible to dislike. Enjoy! (And besides, it's good to have a film where cats aren't seen as the villains). Following the release of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937),' Walt Disney Productions has continued to produce quality animated feature-length children's film, many of which I still haven't had the pleasure of seeing. 'The AristoCats (1970),' directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, was the twentieth film in Disney's official canon, and is a romantic musical comedy revolving around a family of aristocratic cats living in Paris, France in 1910. In the mansion of the elderly Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (voiced by Hermione Baddeley), her loving feline pets – including Duchess (Eva Gabor) and her three young kittens – are the most important residents. When the bumbling butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), learns that the cats stand to inherit the old lady's entire fortune, he sets about disposing of the pets, dumping them in the countryside far from the big city. Lost and confused, Duchess and her children strike up an acquaintance with a sweet-talking alley cat, Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris), who agrees to show them the way home.

Animation-wise, 'The AristoCats' isn't anything particularly notable, with much earlier Disney films such as 'Snow White…' and 'Fantasia (1940),' demonstrating a similar, or even superior, visual style. However, the story is interesting and exciting – particularly for younger audiences, I'll wager – and the musical numbers {which I wish were more numerous} are terrific. For the sake of trivia, I'll name my two favourite songs as "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and "Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat," the latter of which is a psychedelic throwback to the late 60s, with a swinging jazz band and delirious flashing colours, led by a trendy feline called the Scat Cat (Scatman Crothers). The family's journey back to Paris is eventful and adventurous, and we meet such friendly characters as Amelia and Abigail Gabble {two talkative geese}, Uncle Waldo {the pair's drunken relative}, Georges Hautecourt {Madam Bonfamille's ancient but sprightly lawyer} and Napoleon and Lafayette {two dim-witted hound dogs with a hunger for the butler's rump}. I have seen this movie only once, several years ago. But I remember liking it a lot.

**Spoilers ahead** An old famous opera singer is retired and she decides to give all the money she has to her cats. Her butler hears this and plots to get rid of the cats so he can have the fortune. He puts knockout drops in their milk. When they wake up, they find themselves miles away. They must journey back to their house before it is too late. With the help of an independent-minded tomcat and other animal accomplices, while evading the butler and foiling his plan.

Could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse.

My Score: 7/10. This is one of my favorite films, ever. The story is just so fantastic and the characters are so good. Unlike the other Disney films of the age, this film never bores the audience. 101 Dalmations, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, they were all good, but lack what we have here. This is funny, creative, and always on target. This movie just has an extra something that you can't learn in books. However, this is not the best animated film ever made. That title belongs to the BRILLIANT Toy Story. But this is a respectable second, immediately followed by The Lady and the Tramp.Just see it and enjoy what one of the cinema's greatest achievements. And by the by, I'm not a little kid, this is for the older audiences wanting to recapture their childhood. An absolute must! I was about 14 years old as I saw the musical version of Lost Horizon. I loved the film so much as well as the songs that I went several times to the cinema to see it again and again. My mother bought the LP and I learnt the songs off by heart, just as I did with "The sound of Music" (which people hardly know in Austria). I think the problem with some of these self-appointed critics who's comments get published is that they don't have a romantic soul and didn't see the film through the eyes of a young teenager. Maybe he is an Ingrid Bergman fan but I was happy with Liv Ullman. Could Ingrid Bergman sing and dance? What was so great about her? Perhaps the critic did n't appreciate it because he needed new glasses or contact lenses since he sees a close resemblance between Liv Ullman and Bill Clinton. It was the idea and story behind the film, the philosophy, which was the most important and interesting factor and a musical in colour just made it more entertaining and enjoyable without damaging the intellectually appealing aspects. It's a shame that many other films with so called great actors and actresses with unimportant themes / stories are utterly boring in comparison. The 1973 musical version of LOST HORIZON is the most wonderful endearing and campy musical films of ALL TIME. The 1973 musical remake of the James Hilton novel about mythical SHANGRI-LA! is a real special gem. Music by BURT BACHARACH and lyrics by HAL David. A strange mixture of straight drama, adventure and musical sequences. It has the distinction of being the ONLY anti war musical fantasy ever filmed.

This film was a critical and financial disappointment in the United States, but made a lot of money overseas. Only in America did it fail. Highly different and unique in it's approach as a film musical, it deserves far better credit than it's given. As a story, LOST HORIZON is an incredible adventure and both the 1937 Frank Capra film and this 1973 musical are faithful adaptations of the James Hilton novel. What I like about the 1973 version is the freedom in which the musical numbers are presented. The film has a prestigious cast and a gifted director and cinematographer. This is a BURT BACHARACH Shangri-La and it's a wonderful place. Songs like THE WORLD IS A CIRCLE, SHARE THE JOY and LIVING TOGETHER, GROWING TOGETHER evoke a happiness that Hilton wrote about in his novel. Why shouldn't Shangri-La be a slightly goofy place? The two love songs, I MIGHT FRIGHTEN HER AWAY and the deleted I COME TO YOU are the sensitive spots in the picture. There's a peacefulness and soft spoken quality in both these songs that is very much keeping with the philosophy of the story. Moreover, THE THINGS I WILL NOT MISS is a good duet with a strong melody. It's a nice exchange of different types of perspective and who can fault with Olivia Hussey and Sally Kellerman stomping, singing and dancing on tables? They're a wonderful team and the number is well staged.

I always found it interesting in this story how the High Lama kidnaps someone from the outside world to take his place in Shangri-La. The character of the High Lama is a gentle soul but somewhat radical in his view of mankind as a whole. He has no hope for the world outside of Shangri-La. If this film were to be remade today, it would be interesting to see more emphasis put on the leading character, RICHARD ONWAY'S conflict with what he left behind in the outside world as opposed to what he's found in Shangri-La.

Of course, for the film to be believable, the character of RICHARD CONWAY must be presented as suffering amnesia at the end, like he was in the book. Neither film versions of LOST HORIZON were faithful to the novel in that regard. Did Conway find Shangri-La or was it imagined? Did they all die in the plane crash? Every man has his own idea of what his Shangri-La would be. The conflict with Conway wanting to believe in Shangri-La and returning to his old life in the outside world is powerful. I like the melancholy on the faces of Kellerman, Kennedy and Van as they watch their friends leave the mystical valley. Interesting how Conway doesn't want to leave paradise, but is being pressured out by his brother. Both versions of LOST HORIZON work in different ways, but both are successful in probing James Hiltons ideas of a hidden valley where money has no value and moderation is the rule. So in a sense it's anti capitalism in it's theme where as money and materialism is not the motivation. Human kindness, decency, compassion, courtesy, etiquette and living harmoniously with each other is the rule.

LOST HORIZON has a much stronger story than most musicals. It attempts to answer the basic fundamental questions of life and one can hardly fault it for not succeeding. One has to remember that LOST HORIZON in 1973 was post CABARET. It was no longer fashionable for characters to break out in song in a musical, much less to be dubbed by other singers. LOST HORIZON was an easy target for jaded critics. The expectations for it were high, almost unreasonable. There were two targets to be hit, the producer, ROSS HUNTER and BURT BACHARACH and the critics were out to get both of them. Ross Hunter had enjoyed decades of financial success as a producer and LOST HORIZON was his follow up film to his 1970 blockbuster AIRPORT That film was Universals biggest moneymaker up to that time and the success of that picture triggered a decade of disaster films. For years AIRPORT was the most watched film ever to be shown on television. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture. At the time, Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the most successful songwriters in the country. The unabashed sentimentality of LOST HORIZON hardly had a chance in the wake of the breakdown of censorship in films like EASY RIDER, MIDNIGHT COWBOY and THE GODFATHER. Sex and violence was a new frontier in the late 60's and early 70's Audiences were flocking to films with content that they were not use to seeing on the screen. Lavish musicals were no longer well received no matter how well they were made. Today LOST HORIZON can be enjoyed and appreciated on several levels. It's the ultimate escapist film with a strong story, wonderful music, an expensive budget and some quirky humor. It's unconventional in the sense that the music is not introduced until 45 minutes into the film. It changes course mid way when the mystical valley is introduced and why not? LOST HORIZON '73 is a heavenly film that deserves rediscovering. A lost and legendary treasure deserving far better than it's reputation. I have to offset all the terrible comments. I love this movie. I own the movie and the soundtrack. I watch it whenever I need a pick me up. Granted it's not like the Sound of Music but it's as much fun if picking at movies is not your thing. I adored the late (and great) Bobby Vann, and James Shigeta has always and will always be a favorite. I saw this when it first came out in the theaters. I'm a big musical fan and this one is 100 times better than Twiggy in "The Boyfriend". It's a modern musical and shouldn't be judged by all that went before. It's just the best for dreamers like me, who wish they could find this place - no illness, no wars, no drugs, all the bad things in life are gone. This is nothing more than a feel good movie. That is what all movies should be about. Shaun Phillips title song is superb and explains the entire feel of the movie. If the acting isn't the greatest-who cares. I love the idea of the movie. Peter Finch, a very stiff actor, Liv Ullmann, gorgeous as ever, Sally Kellerman, surprisingly good voice, Michael York, typical, and Olivia Hussey, stunning, all convinced me they were normal run of the mill people. Not one of them acted like actors in a movie. They acted like real people, the same way I would act if I found this place. Torn between going home and staying there, in awe of everything. Yes, there are flaws in this movie, but get over it, it's not Citizen Kane, it's a feel good musical! I recently purchased Lost Horizon on ebay, having vivid memories of the Things I Will Not Miss number from childhood (I am an ancient 29). I also recently finished the novel upon which it is based. I was so pleasantly surprised to find a genuine hidden treasure. A wonderful cast brings such warmth and depth to a beautifully simple and elegantly told story, subtly updated from the original film (and by now quite a separate entity to the far more intellectual and thought provoking book by James Hilton). Sally Kellerman in particular has a radiant presence as the suicidal neurotic Sally Hughes, who gradually warms to the charms of Shangri-La. Only Liv Ullmann flounders in her wooden portrayal of the schoolteacher (a role far more suited to a Julie Andrews type. The fact that Finch, Ullmann and Hussey are all dubbed isn't important as it is almost impossible to tell. The songs DO vary in quality, the music being far superior to the lyrics but it is still a vibrant and engrossing film that really deserves a proper DVD release and a lot more recognition. The movie is excellent. Acting, cinematography, direction and music are spellbinding. It seems to me that the reason so many give the movie a low score is because of the devotion they have to the original, 1937 version starring Ronald Coleman. That movie - for good reason! - engendered an unbelievable level of commitment. From talking with people who saw the original when it first came out, I believe the impact was something akin to the first "Starwars" movie in modern times. I have seen it. It was and is wonderful. But that does not mean that this version is not also worthy. From the first scene the 1973 version grabs you. The noise and tumult are fantastic, especially in they way they prepare you for the peace of Shangri La. And Burt Bacharach's music is beautiful. So - by all means enjoy the 1937 version. But do not let it detract from your enjoyment of this 1973 version any more than you would let the 1935 King Kong destroy Peter Jackson's of this year. I've seen the 1973 movie Lost Horizons and read many of the reviews for this movie. I agree the move had many opportunities for improvement but unlike all those who are looking for the perfect movie with the perfect songs and the best acting, I was looking for something a bit different and this movie gave it to me. I watched this movie not as a critic but as a person looking for a little hope, a little cheer, a bit of a release from my everyday life, and this is what I got. You can be critical of the acting the singing, and dialog but that't not what I look for when I go to a movie. I look for a little release from my daily life, a little time where I can sit back and imagine a better life, where people love another and help another. It's a shame we can't we enjoy a movie for what it tells us and quit picking it apart like an English teacher reading a fifth grade essay. This may be very simplistic, but really, wouldn't it be nice. Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to "Showgirls" or the two most recent "Star Wars" films, "Lost Horizon" is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party ("Family")?

Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another ("Every Little Thing You Do")? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system ("Question Me An Answer")? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film! Like a few people I know, I came in late on 'Stingers'; not until 2000. Three years later there is no way I'd miss an episode. The show really is that good and has, for a better word, maintained its integrity, unlike 'Blue Heelers', for example. The crime is the thing; personal lives are there but only wheeled out when affecting an investigation! When Gary Sweet was brought in, some fans seemed worried, but he's really fitted in well, which didn't surprise me. Gary could measure up to any British or US actor in a similar series. The cast changes occasionally but each change brings something new and fresh. With arguably Australia's finest crew behind the scenes, 'Stingers' will continue to remain a cutting edge drama series. Like some people here, I love/loved Stingers! In Norway it got aired a lot later. That also means that we are in the 176th episode. (yea, that's right) I have to say that I really love Stingers! It can make me cry, laugh, smile and so on. I think I'm going to die the day we reach episode number 192. Stingers might be the on series(except from Grey's Anatomy) that I really watch! The actors are amazing! Especially Jacinta Stapleton! Personallly I think she is one of the best access we have! I know he is not like SUPER-known, but she is really a great actress! Stingers makes me want to be a cop! I LOVE IT!

P.S: Do you know if you can buy the episodes? TV churns out dozens of true-crime movies every year. You can see 3 or 4 every Saturday on Lifetime, and Court TV can be relied on for a few every weekend. So I started watching The Morrison Murders thinking I knew very well what to expect: a more or less competent retelling of a real-life family murder. What I got was a subtle, beautifully acted drama that engrossed me from start to finish.

Both the brothers were totally convincing, and Jonathan Scarfe was perfect in the challenging role of Luke. The look and feel of Georgia was in almost every frame. If I had any complaint, it was Gordon Clapp as the sheriff. He just doesn't look or act like a small-town Southern lawman named Byron Calhoun. He looks and sounds like Medavoy, and Medavoy is not right for this part.

But this is a minor quibble: The Morrison Murders is well worth watching, and not just on a rainy Saturday afternoon. If you're going out, tape it. You won't regret it. I don't usually like this sort of movie but was working at home and wanted something to halfway watch while I did. I got so engrossed I gave up working to just sit and finish watching the last half hour uninterrupted. And I sure don't usually shed tears over this sort of show, but I was crying at the end. A lot of emotional nuance. Great acting, and good southern feel. John Corbett is one of the most talented actors out there, and the guy who played Luke was really good too. Highly recommend. I thought the movie was good, but I like to read the real story behind the "based on a true story" movies. Does anyone know the names and locations of the real characters the movie is based on? I have done a complete internet search and cannot find any information on this case. All I get is the movie information and the fact that it is based on a "true story." I find it hard to believe that a judge would change his sentence rendered immediately in the courtroom, even after such a heartfelt speech by the brother (gorgeous John Corbett), but overall the story was very gripping. Anyway, if anyone knows the real "real story", I would appreciate you sharing it! I caught this on local Mexican television at 2:00 a.m. and I decided to give it a chance since it's based on a real life case that deals with the murder of the typical All American family (a dad, a mom, and a young son).

On the beginning the hints point to Walker to be the murderer as he had strong differences with his father. Shortly after, when Walker and Luke are taken to the Sheriff's dept. to being examined by the lies detection machine, things turn out to be very different...

Also, when Walker and Luke attend to an appointment with their father's lawyer, they learn that Luke would receive $200,000 and Walker is out of the heresy. Luke immediately buys a convertible.

Anyways, this is an excellent mystery movie that deals with betrayal, ambition, feelings, and cold , very cold blood.

I know the real names were changed but still the experience is the same. Give this movie a try. I know there are HUNDREDS of "based on real murders" or events of the like, but this one is truly worthy. Pure quality on acting, direction, and plot. I taped The Morrison Murders on Lifetime Movie network and I watched The Morrison Murders on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. Jonathan Scarfe and John Corbett did a great job of playing Luke and Walker Morrison. I am glad that Walker got his brother Luke to confess of murdering his parents and their brother Bobby. I enjoy watching True stories on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. The Morrison Murders is a good movie to watch. Next time The Morrison Murders is on Lifetime, Lifetime Movienetwork or Courttv I am going to watch The Morrrison Murders again because My favorite actor John Corbbett is in The Morrison Murders. I give The Morrison Murders a ten because it is a good movie about Walker who tries to find out who killed his parents and his brother Bobby and at the end Walker discovers it was his brother Luke who murdered his parents and his brother Bobby. As an ex Merchant Seaman I was really interested in this movie : I personally have been involved in a stowaway search on leaving Kingston Jamaica where one person was found. We managed to get him ashore though as we were in territorial limits. On another ship I was on the stowaway was found and we could not land him anywhere due to passport/nationality issues. In fact he stayed on for a year as an almost "honorary" crew member and worked for his keep. Africa is notorious for stowaway pickups. There is a great scene in the beginning of the film when the bulk carrier enters the African port : her size dwarfing all. The crew pop ashore for a little intercourse and inebriation. So far normal. The drama starts when the stowaways enter the vast cavernous holds of the ship. Joss Ackland is brilliant as the Captain with a drink problem being harassed by his Nemesis Suchet right on form as the Companys representative on board. The stowaway search is classic but we did not have guns. I question the use of guns in this film. This ship seemed to have a vast armoury. In my experience guns at sea are severely restricted due to customs regulations., also having a dog on board was odd.Anti Rabies laws especially in Europe restrict carrying of animal severely. Anyway Pertwee is brilliant as the embittered Mate. The horror which follows the discovery of the victims is unbearable : the grim metallic background of the ships holds and a feeling that there is no where to hide adds to the drama.Some of the freighters crew are not into the murder and those who get involved are gradually sucked in to a world of violence from which there is no escape.The chase through the ship especially the engine room scenes are "edge on the seat" : the feeling of extreme claustrophobia abounds. The feeling of metal pressing in and death being only a gun barrel away. The film is brutal : my girlfriend had to give up watching it during the shooting and beating scenes. While this goes on Suchet in the comfort of his well appointed cabin gets drunk unaware of the mayhem 3 decks below. Its a tense film, flawed in parts but the real message is that we can all get sucked into violence like this. Slowly and surely. Think of the train drivers who took Jews to Auschwitz, the clerks who worked out those train timetable. I always remember someone who had visited Dachau concentration camp at the end of the war and he said that one of the S.S. Guards had put a bird-table outside the camp crematorium. This film is like that : ordinary people suddenly finding themselves in a world of unstoppable violence! If you are interested in learning more about this sort of thing happening in modern civilization, there is an excellent book called "Outlaw Seas" or "The Outlaw Sea", and it describes, in story after story, how these things do happen. The lawlessness of the high seas is a reality for a number of reasons. One, many of the world's freighters are of questionable registry (nationality) and it's difficult to impossible to enforce international laws when the ships owners don't have an office in a real country. Two, many ship lines employ crews from dirt poor third world countries. The crews are often (like illegal immigrant workers) threatened and bullied into complying with questionable or illegal practices. Three, there is often a language barrier, not only between the officers and the crew, but also between the crew members themselves. The crew are rewarded for their compliance and their silence. Four, once committing an illegal act, the ships are able to hide in plain sight with little more than a fresh coat of paint. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.

Horrifying story, excellent movie. Does anyone else notice how HBO seems to make the best and most important movies? Hollywood has trouble releasing enough Oscar worthy movies in any given year, so that several of the top 5 contenders usually come from Britain. Jerry Bruckheimer = the end of quality cinema.

I loved the thoroughly evil performance by Sean Pertwee. I also, as usual, loved Omar Epps. This searing drama based on a true incident concerns several ambitious African nationals who decide to temporarily leave their families by stowing away on an outbound ship. They think that if they successfully make the voyage they can better their lives by making enough money in New York to send for their families. Unfortunately for them, the ship that they select is a rundown Russian freighter which has already been heavily fined at a previous port for harboring stowaways. The captain and the first mate are determined not to let this happen again as their jobs are on the line. The group of blacks begin their harrowing voyage in the cargo hold and are eventually discovered, forced out of hiding and murdered by the ruthless mate (an outstanding performance by Sean Pertwee.) A few (convincingly terrified leader Omar Epps among them) manage to temporarily escape and are mercilessly pursued through the ship with their lives forfeit if they are caught. Altogether a riveting film which will have audiences biting their nails and gritting their teeth wondering how such dire events could take place in modern civilization. I absolutely hate the idea of made for television films . For me TVMs usually involve Jane Seymour or Jaclyn Smith as the mother of a sick child who is dying of a difficult to treat disease all done in such a sugary manner that the audience doesn`t need tissues it needs insulin . So when DEADLY VOYAGE a made for TV film by the BBC and HBO based on a true story I vaguely remembered from a couple of years previously turned up on the TV schedules I sat down waiting to be bored senseless . I was surprised.

No strike that last sentence , I wasn`t surprised I was shocked . Here is a TVM that grips you tighter than a great white shark , in fact DEADLY VOYAGE doesn`t deserve to be relegated to the TV schedules it should have been made and distributed by a top Hollywood film company due its absolutely terrifying premise and what`s more it`s - unlike PAPILLON and SLEEPERS - completely true

For those who don`t know the story !!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AS TO PLOT !!!!! sometime in the early 90s a bunch of Africans stowed away on an Ukrainian freight ship bound for France in order to work there. Of course it was an attempt at illegal immigration but the crew of the freighter had already been fined for allowing illegal immigrants onto their ship from a previous journey and not wanting to get into anymore trouble with maritime and immigration authorities the crew murder the Africans after discovering them hiding in the hold. All except one African , Kingsley Ofusu , who manages to escape from the firing squad but who must try and survive aboard the ship , but the problem is the crew are hunting him and France is still several days voyage away .

Just typing the above paragraph reminds of how good DEADLY VOYAGE is . What a remarkable story , and once again it is - unlike many stories that claim to be - totally true . It`s very well written , directed and acted , especially by Sean Pertwee ( Why isn`t that guy a big name star ? ) , and most of all it`s a tense claustrophobic disturbing thriller that I can still remember vividly six years after seeing it for the one and only time . I look forward to seeing again .

But you`ve got to ask yourself how can a TVM be better than most of the Hollywood action blockbusters that came out round about the same time ? Oh hold on , I`ve just had a disturbing thought about Jerry Bruickhiemer doing a remake with Tony Scott directing and with Denzil Washington playing Kingsley , Brad Pitt playing Pertwee`s role , massive artistic licence taken with events etc. Let`s keep DEADLY VOYAGE a superlative TVM rather than a poor blockbuster I was watching an NFL game and started surfing during a break and found this on one of the HBO type channels. I missed the beginning but when I started watching Deadly Voyage the clicker was put down and not even thought of until the credits rolled. You will find yourself rooting against the villans and on the edge of your La-Z-Boy throughout this one. If you get the chance take the time to watch it. Every once in a while I think about having the cable company take off my Movie channels but when you stumble across great ones like this you know why it is worth paying extra for them. Happy Holidays to all from Cape Cod !!! Several stowaways get on a Russian ship bound for France. They were going to get off there and make new lives for themselves. After being discovered by the First Mate and his henchmen, they were held captive. Then things got very bad for them. Good show based on a true story. I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy. I don't care what some of the reviews said, this movie was funny. The thing with this film is that you can't expect anything else except to be entertained. This is not some intellectual comedy, this is a clever popcorn movie. The three main cast members are great and work very well with each other. Shatner is a standout in the supporting cast as himself, a former TV cop, brought in by Russo's character to coach the cops on how to be "TV cops." Those are by far the funniest scenes. If you want to be entertained and just sit back for a laugh, then watch this movie. I went to see this movie not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by the teaming of Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy. It was a fast paced movie and the hour and a half went by fast. This one certainly won't win any Academy Awards but it was a change of pace for Mr. De Niro. He is good in comedy. Overall I enjoyed it. This is a funny movie. The Bob & Eddie Show feel of it could lead to a sequel but I doubt it will make enough money.

Deniro proves he can be a great Straight man again with some hilarious and spontaneous moments. Eddie was fun to watch working with people instead of CGI animals and rodents. Rene Russo- well she's just fun to watch anyway and she's played her part excellent.

Some wild and unusual stunts, especially the garbage truck scene. This was worth seeing in the theater. We needed a good laugh and got many from the movie and the great out-takes at the end. DO NOT LEAVE at the start of the credits!

At least a 7. If you've seen the trailer for this movie, you pretty much know what to expect, because what you see here is what you get. And even if you haven't seen the previews, it won't take you long to pick up on what you're in for-- specifically, a good time and plenty of laughs-- from this clever satire of `Reality TV' shows and `Buddy Cop' movies, `Showtime,' directed by Tom Dey, starring Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy.

Mitch Preston (De Niro) is a detective with the L.A.P.D., and he's good at what he does; but working a case one night, things suddenly go south when another cop, Trey Sellars (Murphy), inadvertently intervenes, a television news crew shows up and Mitch loses his cool, which results in a lawsuit by the television station that's going to cost the department some big bucks. Except that they may be able to get around it, thanks to Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), who works for the station and likes what she sees in Mitch-- enough to pitch an idea to her boss for a `Reality' cop show, that would feature none other than Mitch Preston, whom Chase sees as a real life `Dirty Harry.'

Her boss likes the idea and gives Chase the green light. Now all she has to do is convince Mitch to participate, which shouldn't be too hard, since the station has agreed to drop the lawsuit if he will do the show. But Mitch is a cop, not an actor, and he wants nothing to do with any of it-- that is until he has a heart-to-heart with his boss, Captain Winship (Frankie Faison), who puts Mitch's future into succinct perspective for him. And just like that, the show is on. Oh, yes, there's one more thing; for the show, Mitch is going to need a partner. And who do you suppose they're going to come up with for that? Let's put it this way: Trey Sellars is more than one of the usual suspects.

This is Dey's second film as a director, his first being `Shanghai Noon,'-- also a comedy-- and he's definitely showing a penchant for the genre. From the opening frames he establishes a pace that keeps the story moving right along, and he allows his stars to make the most of their respective talents and personal strengths, including their impeccable timing. With stars like De Niro and Murphy, Dey, of course, had a leg up on this project to begin with, but he's the one who keeps it on track, demonstrating that he knows what works, achieving just the right blend of physical comedy and action, and employing the subtleties of the dialogue to great effect.

There isn't a more natural actor in the business than De Niro, and he steps into Mitch's skin like he was born to it. And after years of doing hard-edge, cutting drama (in which he turned in one remarkable performance after another), with such films as `Analyze This,' `Meet the Parents' and now this one, he has firmly established his proficiency for doing comedy, as well. Mitch is not an especially complex character; he is, in fact, something of an `ordinary' guy, but therein lies the challenge for the actor-- to make him believable, to make him seem like the guy who could be your neighbor and just another member of the community. And on all counts, De Niro succeeds. He's Mitch, the guy you run into at the grocery store or the bank, or say `good morning' to on your way to work; who likes to watch the game on TV and has a life, just like you and me, who happens to make his living by being a cop. It's the character Mitch has to be to make this film work, because it makes the `ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances' angle credible. It's one of those role-- and work-- that is often wrongly dismissed out-of-hand, because it looks so easy; and, of course, this is what makes De Niro so exceptional-- he does make it look easy, and he does it with facility.

As Trey Sellars, Eddie Murphy turns in a winning performance, as well, and it's a role that fits him like the proverbial glove. Trey is a cop, but also an aspiring actor-- and a bad one-- and it gives Murphy the opportunity to play on the over-exuberant side of his personality (reigned in enough by Dey, however, to keep him from soaring over-the-top into Jim Carrey territory), which works perfectly for this character and this film. From his melodramatic take on a part during an audition, to his throwing out of one-liners-- delivered by looking directly into the camera (which as far as he's concerned isn't even there) while filming the `reality' show-- Murphy's a riot. And he has a chemistry with De Niro that really clicks (which is not unexpected, as this is another of De Niro's many talents; his ability to connect with and bring out the best in his co-stars, all of whom-- evidence will support-- are better at their craft after having worked with him, including the likes of Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken and Ed Harris, just to name a few). Most importantly, this is a part that allows Murphy to excel at what he does best, and he certainly makes the most of it.

Russo makes the most of her role as Chase, too, a character who isn't much of a stretch artistically, but whom she presents delightfully, with a strong, believable performance. And William Shatner (playing himself) absolutely steals a couple of scenes as the director of the show.

The supporting cast includes Drena De Niro (Annie), Pedro Damian (Vargas) and James Roday (Camera Man). Well crafted and delivered, `Showtime' is a comedy that's exactly what it is meant to be: Pure entertainment that provides plenty of laughs and a pleasant couple of hours that will have you chuckling for some time after. It's the magic of the movies. 8/10.





It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done. I've read a lot of reviews about Showtime on IMDb and many seem to miss the mark. I've noticed a lot of reviewers calling this the typical "buddy" film. De Niro is in no way Murphy's buddy throughout most of this movie. In fact, part of the comedy of this film is De Niro's reluctance to be friends with anybody.

Murphy really shines in this one. He is back at doing what he does best, acting like a complete ham. He is a cop who wants so much to be an actor and enjoys being in the reality show. De Niro is perfect as the straight man who thinks the entire thing is stupid. I thought the two of them had great chemistry and were a perfect casting choice. Rene Russo is also great as the TV producer. Of course, she loves everything Murphy does and tries so hard (along with Murhpy) to get DeNiro going too.

A lot of reviewers have touched on the hilarious scene with William Shatner, reprising his role as TJ Hooker to train Murhpy & De Niro how to "act" like cops. But, my favorite scene involves Murphy in the "confessional" hoping he could get a Wesly Snipes-Like cop to team up with instead of De Niro. Man, that was hilarious! Comedies often depend on your personal tastes. Sure you could poke holes in the plot, most often you can with a comedy. I was psyched to see the pairing of Murphy and De Niro...I think it brought out the best in Murphy, which was nice to see him at the top of his game again. I can only imagine it was a great honor for Murphy to be paired with the great De Niro. Rating 8 of 10 stars. Despite of all the negative criticism I really enjoyed this movie. I am not saying this lightly. I love movies and am fairly picky about them (my home DVD collection is over 9,000 movies - some are great, others are OK, a few I do not like at all). And, to all those with criticisms: this is a comedy. I simply love this movie. It is light, funny, and very restful. I am aware of all (or most) of the deficiencies but I love it. The comedic talents of Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro are tapped (fully - for this type of movie). Do not compare it to other movies with these star actors, simply enjoy it. The cast is great and, I believe, that the purpose of this movie was fully accomplished. If you want a really "easy-going" and very restful night - watch this movie. DeNiro and Murphy simply had fun making this movie, so should we (watching it). And, please, do not be so negative. Do not expect Godfather performance or Meet The Parents from DeNiro, do not expect comedy blockbusters performance from Murphy... It is a completely different genre, and it made me relax after a hard day work. Your sides may not split from laughter, but it is still VERY funny. Contains Spoiler The movie is a good action/comedy but i don't know if the director cut too many parts but it seems that the bad guy die too fast. The end of the movie come, the bad guy dies and that's it.

The special effects are good and i don't regret paying to see it at the theatre. At one time `Buddy Cop' movies ruled the box office. It seemed that every summer flocks of Beverly Hills Cop wannabes descended on our nation's theaters. Not any more. Lately the gusher has dried to barely a trickle. The drought has eased a bit recently with the release of Showtime, a movie that is a genuinely funny and consistently entertaining example of the genre.

Mitch Preston is a dedicated cop. He's not a Dirty Harry type by any means. He's just incredibly focused professional who's completely intolerant of anything that gets in the way of the performance of his duties…like, say, a T.V. cameraman. Mitch deals with the cameraman in a socially irresponsible way and so falls into the clutches of Chase Renzi, a producer looking for a killer hook for her `reality T.V.' cop show. She thinks that Mitch will give her the `edgy' boost it needs to be a hit but feels he may be too unlikable to carry the whole show by himself. Enter Trey Sellars, a patrolman-cum-actor who's watched way too many Police Story re-runs. Of course Mitch and Trey mix like oil and water and much merry mayhem ensues.

We know that Mitch and Trey are bound to become best buddies by the end of the movie. That's the way buddy-cop movies are suppose to work. In fact, it has to be said that Showtime rarely deviates from the time-honored clichés as writ by Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash. There's a high tech McGuffin to get the ball rolling (in this case an automatic rifle that fires rounds big enough to stop tanks.) There's a slick foreign baddy with an accent of undetermined origin. There are chases, shootouts and explosions. We all know this going in and we have a pretty fair idea how it's all going to turn out. You know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, we know the well-worn bases are going to be touched but the fun here is the trip, not the destination. Showtime doesn't strain to be original. Instead its energies are funneled into its characters and humorous situations. As a result, Showtime does a competent job with the action sequences but really shines in its comedy.

Robert De Niro is dryly funny as Mitch. In the past I've thought De Niro to be a cold and unexpressive actor given horribly to mugging when called upon to do comedy. Lately, though, he's grown on me. He seems to be injecting more humanity into his roles. Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Trey. The best way to describe his performance is that Trey is what Murphy would be if Murphy weren't so talented and hadn't hit the big time. Rene Russo has a droll time playing motor-mouthed show biz shark Chase Renzi. She stalks through the movie chasing high Nielson ratings with awe-inspiring determination. In her zeal she re-vamps Mitch's life to make it more camera friendly. She even calls upon T. J. Hooker himself, William Shatner, to show Mitch how be a more `authentic' cop. Shatner is funny, playing himself precisely as we expect him to be, loud, oblivious and slightly obnoxious.

I have to admit I was really looking forward to Showtime and I wasn't disappointed. Ten years ago this movie would have been a guaranteed hit. Today it's doing moderate business at best. That's a pity because Showtime is a whole lot of fun. "Showtime" is a funny film starring funnymen Robert DeNiro (Meet the Parents,A Bronx Tale) and Eddie Murphy (Shrek, Dr. Dolittle). The story is this: In the beginning of the movie detective Mitch (Robert DeNiro) and another detective go into a tv store trying to bust some criminals. When the cops arrive, Tray(Eddie Murphy)a cop, tries to arrest Mitch not knowing he's a cop. During this scene loads of funny things happen which catch the eye of tv producer Chase Ritz. She is so excited about their adventures together, she decides to make a tv show called "Showtime" starring Tray (the cop) and Mitch (the detective). But that's just the funny part. The rest is strictly suspense and action. There is a foreign man who is selling and making extremely dangerous guns. While playing LAPD on the show and doing it in real life, DeNiro and Murphy have quite an adventure in this story. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a seven or 8. I'm not going to go into too much depth, but Showtime was a pretty funny movie. There wasn't any slapping-your-knee funny scenes (that I can remember), but it had it's moments. The cast is pretty good, Robert De Niro is good as usual and Eddie Murphy pulls off a pretty funny performance. Rene Russo was just fine in the film, no complaints there. There were two characters in the story that I liked that they didn't explain much at all. The first one was Trey Sellars' (Eddie Murphy's) buddy at the gym played by Ken Campbell. I supposed he was just a friend of Trey's, but I wanted to know more about him. The other character that I liked was Mitch Preston's (Robert De Niro's) fellow cop/partner played by Nestor Serrano. I guess he was just another cop working with Mitch Preston, but I wanted to know if he was his partner or what not. I think maybe I'm putting too much thought into a movie, I mean after all, it's a comedy...who cares about the characters? I guess I do though. I was really pleased to see this was directed by Tom Dey, who also directed Shanghai Noon. Ever since I saw that movie I was looking forward to his next work. I think he did a pretty good job with this film, and I again look forward to his next work.

All in all, it was a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend paying full price for a ticket unless you're a die-hard Robert De Niro/Eddie Murphy/Rene Russo fan. It was worth seeing in the theater, but not for full price, I'd recommend seeing it at matinee price.

Also, here's some movie trivia for ya. The guy who played the camera man, played by Judah Friedlander is the guy in the music video "Everyday" by Dave Matthews band. He was also the clerk in "Meet The Parents", also starring Robert De Niro. ...And on top of that he also played Derek Zoolander's brother in "Zoolander" (both Zoolander and Meet the Parents star Ben Stiller). Just some useless trivia for ya.

I hope you enjoy the film. Thanks for reading,

-Chris "Showtime" falls somewhere north of what some critics have been saying, and a little south of what I expected months ago when I first heard about Eddie Murphy and Robert Di Niro teaming up for a comedy. Overall, it was pretty good! As "real life" crime or cops go-- and plot, for that matter-- it is pretty illogical, but DUH--- this is a comedy. Also, while the special effects, chases, aerial shots, and skyscrapers blowing up were present but lower key than a Schwartzenegger movie, I found it a bit tiresome and overdone. 9/11 sensibilities aside, for myself, all that pyro-techno hyper-effect stuff had been getting really old these past few years. It seemed a lame substitute for characterization, story, and engaging emotions. I hope the lesser quantity of it in "Showtime" is an indicator of a trend in Hollywood. A trend downwards, of less use of the silly, less use of the exploding building.

Di Niro and Murphy are two of my favorites. Their screen presence and charisma-- and even their character depth-- have been "a joy to behold" for many years. That can't be dismissed here--- they are engaging actors, and entertaining and appealing in this movie. I can't put my finger on it, but perhaps the explosions, the excessive FX, and all of that diminished the final product??? Perhaps, or perhaps it was something else, or a combination of factors that gives one the sense that the movie didn't achieve its highest potential. Whatever it was, "Showtime" was entertaining-- I probably will buy the DVD when it comes out-- but I had the vibe that it nonetheless wasn't all it could have been. At least not all I had hoped for.

Very good movie, but not a great movie. I gave it an 8 out of 10. As many of today's movies are guilty of, the plot isn't exactly stellar, the movie doesn't move anyone, and certainly this won't warrant any award (outside of Blockbusters' perhaps)...but then again, who really cares.

Eddie Murphy and Robert De Niro team up to produce a very funny, at times hilarious, movie that I really enjoyed. Russo and Shatner played their small parts well as well. Man, I hope in the future my wife ages as well as Miss Renee has.

Moving along, this "buddy" cop-flick produces high laughs in a reasonable amount of time. The movie is enjoyable enough to avoid the wait for video/dvd release and instead to go ahead and check it out.

Eddie Murphy is at his usual top-form and is downright enjoyable to watch. De Niro has molded into this type of role perfectly.

I really enjoyed this movie and think that any true movie fan in need for a good movie or just a good laugh will really enjoy Showtime.

Top Performance: Murphy. Hilarious. Enough said. Directing Job: Nice. Nice action scenes, used Murphy and De Niro together like a charm, Russo fed off in a nice supporting job.

My Rating: 7 out 10. It's not going to move you or anything...but it's an extremely enjoyable movie.

It's Showtime...was a great success. Dad (78) and I (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. For a guy primarily known for serious roles, De Niro is a heckuva comic actor. Of course, it helps to have his past film images to play against. Consider that one of those roles, 15 MINUTES, was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media, and you have an interesting set of compare/contrast performances.

Murphy plays another of his Axel Foley sort of characters. Shatner plays a burlesque of himself, a parallel world self who was best known for TJ HOOKER and not STAR TREK.

It's interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in TV and film. Shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood; De Niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. Ironically, as the film progresses, De Niro's character begins to incorporate the illusions of TV-cop reality into the real world case he's working.

The film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources, so one could make the comment it is derivative. Well, so what? Satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. And besides, the film does have quirky moments of originality. For example, I'm reasonably sure the method of the villain's death has never been done before.

One quibble about the reality of the weapons involved-- shouldn't those guns have had some kind of recoil? In order to penetrate steel, those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. And any bullet's highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. So.... firing a volley of these tank-killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. Oh, what the heck... it's a satire. Maybe the guns' lack of recoil is itself a satire on the B-F-Guns used so casually in thrillers.

SHOWTIME is a mess, but it's an entertaining mess. The plot is forgettable, the satire is lightweight and the action sequences, though well-staged, aren't that exciting. But I laughed. A lot. Credit goes to the inspired pairing of De Niro and Murphy. They have great chemistry. Murphy delivers the one-liners, De Niro cracks us up with a look or grimace. This movie will get a RUSH HOUR-like reception from the critics. Don't listen to them. If you're a fan of De Niro or Murphy, you're going to enjoy this movie. Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy, what a team. While Rene Russo, William Shanter, and that guy from the Everyday video are alongside for the ride. This is a funny and a great movie. Not only is it that, but it's a good buddy flick.

Tom Dey (Shanghai Noon) directs this hell of a movie. From start to finish, it was a masterpiece. No slapstick humor here. But good old time laughs. Making fun of all other cop flicks (to name a few Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, Fifteen Minutes, and etc...)

If you want to see a movie, see this one. You'll love it. It has a wonderful cast and crew. So, get off your a** from watching "COPS" and watch "Showtime" for a cop film. And remember, they'll be protrolling your neighbor at um...um...oh! At Friday nights at 8:00 (man, everyone says I'm a bad writer). This is actually great fun. I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together!. All the characters are cool, and the story is pretty good, plus Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy are simply amazing in this!. Rene Russo is excellent in her role, and there are plenty of laughs to be had throughout (especially when Deniro spoofs Clint Eastwood and Danny Glover's lines), plus the finale is just great. Yes it's just another run of the mil "Buddy Buddy" cop film, but it works due to the fantastic chemistry between De Niro and Murphy!, plus it had some great car chase scenes as well!. It's nothing that great really, however I found it to be great fun, and a perfect way to pass the time!,however the main villain was very weak and wasn't very good at all. This is far from being the best "Buddy "Buddy" cop film, however it's still a very entertaining one, and I thought it was pretty well made and written as well!, plus the ending was quite funny!. This is actually great fun, I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robrt De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Tom Dey does a very good job here with great camera work, cool angles and keeping the film at a fast pace. The acting is a lot of fun!. Robert Deniro is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is hilarious, very likable, had fantastic chemistry with Eddie Murhpy did his usual awesome stuff, pulled some really funny faces, seemed to be enjoying himself,had some funny lines, and had a really cool character! (De Niro Rules!!!!!!!). Eddie Murphy is also amazing here, he is hilarious, like De Niro did his usual funny stuff, obviously loved being in front of the camera, and while he can do this stuff in his sleep he was still a lot of fun to watch! (Murphy Rules!!!!). Rene Russo is fantastic here!, she had a cool character, and while she didn't have much to do, she added a lot of screen presence, and made her character interesting always, she was just great! (Russo Rules!!!!). William Shatner is funny here surprisingly and didn't overdo it, and brought some good laughs into the film. The main villain is OK, but kind of weak and rather bland, still he did what he had to do adequately. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 It's Showtime! Showtime is simply a bump in Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro's careers. It's an entertaining movie and a guilty pleasure but not quite up to the actors' standards, especially not Robert's. Showtime is directed by Tom Dey and features some small roles from guys like William Shatner and Mos Def.

Showtime is about two very different cops, Mitch Preston (DeNiro) and Trey Sellars (Murphy). One takes work seriously in a low profile, quiet manner while the other is more easy-going and wants to have more fun than felons in his back seat. They are both after the same felons behind a huge caper of televisions, VCRs, etc. They then cross paths and a TV station wants a new reality TV show so they fight crime while they are on TV. Mitch hates the publicity while Trey loves it with his line, "It's Showtime!" Their TV antics and methods are shown on TV and they are the new "Cops" show. The fun begins.

Overall, Showtime is a fun action comedy. A good film but not quite up to the actors' expectations and standards. However, it's rolls along as it treads and parodies reality TV shows. A good break from shows like Cops. Truly at the end, just a guilty pleasure.

My Rating: 7/10

Eliason A. I first saw "Signs of Life" on PBS as an American Playhouse presentation. It's a wonderfully written, ensemble production with terrific performances by Michael Lewis as Joey and Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Daryl. Arthur Kennedy, in one of his last roles, is also excellent as an aging shipbuilder whose family business is about to close. The rest of the cast which includes Beau Bridges, Kathy Bates and Mary-Louise Parker give remarkable clarity and substance to their characters.

The direction is subtle and effective. I've watched this movie several times over the years and would very much recommend it. A beautiful piece of filmmaking. It's not real flashy, but this movie does a great job of developing a large cast of characters, and letting you know their hopes and desires, while still managing to be both funny and bittersweet. A very sweet movie. Fun, also, to see Vincent D'Onofrio and Mary-Louise Parker so early in their careers. I saw this movie on PBS the first time. Then I bought the video and watched it countless times. Every time I watch it, I can get something else out of it. It's a real testament to wanting to hold onto a life that was good, but now the world is changing. But you don't have to be older to hold onto the past, even the young characters, like Charlotte don't want things to change. The overall tone and mood is excellent. The cast is outstanding with all-stars like Kathy Bates, Beau Bridges and Arthur Kennedy. And its fun to see the upcoming stars before they hit more recognizable feature films, like Kevin J. O'Connor (The Mummy) and Vincent D'Onofrio (Men in Black and Law & Order: Criminal Intent-one of my favorite shows). Its just one of those movies that stays with you. As with so many modern US films, there has to be a supernatural element to the plot, but if you just let that go, this is a tale with heaps of charm and a kindly heart cased in a crab shell.

We are presented with a scene of a town in an economically depressed area struggling to find anything to be happy about. Beau Bridges' character is really up against it with a family on the increase, a nil bank balance and a brother-in-law who's sold out to a big business chain which he secretly hates, but in which he is willing to rub Beau's nose. D'Onofrio finds his rather surface Bubba lifestyle cramped by having to look after his 'blessed' baby brother, Joey, and is itching to escape the shackles of this dead hick town. Their boss's business is closing down (much against his will) because of a lack of new customers and he is haunted by memories of his father as he builds up the tension towards his own attempt at self-destruction.

Joey, who had seemed to personify the curse on their lives, is lost at sea - believed drowned - in a freak accident. His miraculous restoration to them by the Portuguese trawlermen whose boat they had just built and launched (perhaps symbolic of an angelic crew), is the sign they've been waiting for and they all decide to give life one last throw of the dice.

There is a beautiful brooding mood throughout this work which excelled in holding our attention as brilliantly as 'The Shipping News'. There are other parallels with the later work, too, which lead one to suspect a touch of a remake. I like 'Signs of Life' for its simpler, less contrived story and star performances from actors working at their craft rather than to be noticed as stars. A boat builder in a sleepy town in Maine is going out of business, and the lives of all of the (soon to be ex-)workers and families are disrupted. The biggest disappointment is that the two stars--Bates and Bridges--have only bit parts.

Interesting, but not something you would see twice.

Back in the mid/late 80s, an OAV anime by title of "Bubblegum Crisis" (which I think is a military slang term for when technical equipment goes haywire) made its debut on video, taking inspiration from "Blade Runner", "The Terminator" and maybe even "Robocop", with a little dash of Batman/Bruce Wayne - Iron Man/Tony Stark and Charlie's Angel's girl power thrown in for good measure. 8 episodes long, the overall story was that in 21st century Tokyo, Japan, year 2032-2033, living machines called Boomers were doing manual labor and sometimes cause problems. A special, SWAT like branch of law enforcers, the Advanced Police (AD Police for short) were formed to handle the boomers, but were mostly ineffective, prompting millionaire scientist Sylia Stingray, the daughter of the scientist who made the boomers, to create four powered combat armor (hard suits) to be worn by women to fight the boomers and fight the evil corporation that produced the boomers, GENOM. That group becomes known as the Knight Sabers, and in addition to ring leader Sylia, her rag-tag band of rebel women included Priss Asagiri, a struggling rock and roll gal with a passion for motorcycles and a disdain for cops, Linna Yamazaki, an aerobics instructor with an eye for money and a tendency to blow through boyfriends, and Nene Romanova, a young officer of the ADP and expert computer hacker (the first in a long line). GENOM, meanwhile, is represented by Quincy, a tall, gaunt old guy who happens to own the company, his younger assistant Brian J. Mason (killed in episode 3) and an annoying boomer man named Largo. Other characters included Leon McNichol and Daley Wong, two AD Police detectives (Leon appeared in a spin-off/prequel anime, "AD Police Files" which I heard was very dark), their balding, overweight boss Chief Todo, Sylia's younger brother Mackey, and a funny little mechanic known as Dr. Raven, who apparently helps Sylia with maintaining the suits. Aside from the overall Knight Sabers & AD Police VS GENOM storyline, there was also another storyline involving a friend of Linna's who was apparently a daughter in a big crime family, the annoying Largo trying to usurp GENOM, and various Priss-wants-revenge-for-a-minor-character story. Oh and did I mention that there were hints that Sylia herself might have been a boomer?

Well, it was a great watch, full of chaos and mayhem and even some very nice pop songs, but it was not without its flaws, some of which, unfortunately, were due to the fact that the series was discontinued after episode 8 when it was originally planned for 13 episodes in all. So some of the storylines, like Largo's scheme (or schemes), the family of Linna's ill-fated friend, and Sylia's origins, were never resolved. Another problem with the series was that at the time Priss was the most popular character, so a good portion of the series focused on her, and unfortunately, most of the Priss oriented episodes basically focused on Priss self-righteously seeking justice/revenge for some secondary character who had never appeared before but happened to be a friend of hers, yet she rarely went out of her way for her the Knight Sabers, who were always bailing her out of trouble and for some reason cared a great deal about her well-being (just to be fair though, she did go to rescue Linna in episode 7, and her boyfriend got killed by a boomer and the ADP acted wrongly in the investigation). This meant we didn't really get to focus on the more interesting back story of Sylia, or even the day-to-day antics of Nene and Linna. Linna had two episodes oriented around her, which pertained to her friend with the mafia family, while Nene managed to snag the last episode for herself, which showed her eternal good cheer was genuinely good spirits and not ditziness. Nene also got to put her computer skills to good use quite a bit, or she sometimes just acted like a lovable goof, which put her screen time and character development a few notches above poor Linna, who was often thrust into the background with only her greed and her tendency to eat up boyfriends to get her any attention. Don't get me wrong, I like it and I love the overall concept of it all, but it did irk me a little bit. Also this is one of those runner-ups for "worst English voice dubbing of all time" features, meaning you'd better stick to the Japanese. Some of the voices were okay (some really did match their characters personas) but others were just flat and passionless or, in the case of Priss, really overacted.

Well, Tokyo 2040 comes along and pretty much tosses all that out the window. Set a few years ahead, the story here is that after earthquakes shattered Tokyo, GENOM's boomers rebuilt the city into a big old paradise, except the boomers still have a tendency to fly off the handle, which prompts the AD Police to be formed followed by the Knight Sabers being formed. So the overall story is the same, but the backstories of the characters and the look and attitudes of the characters have changed a lot.

1) Originally Sylia had short purplish black hair and brown eyes, was usually dressed like a stern, proper business woman and was distant from others. 2040 Sylia has more of a super-model look to her, dressing more provocatively and possessing white hair and blue eyes that seem to change color depending on the light (runs the gamut from blue to purple to silver and eyes occasionally looking purple or gray), and also 2040 Sylia is more of an emotionally unstable woman who flies off the handle when she's not in public, and possibly keeps even more secrets than before. Sylia also doesn't take as much risk on the battlefield, as she is more of a stay-in-the-mobile-pit type here, but she does do battle when she has to.

2) Originally Priss was a short woman with an Afro and a really bad temper, always picking fights with people who offended her, always biting off more than she could chew, etc. 2040 Priss, however, has gone the way of the Clint Eastwood loner - very cold, very stoic and emotionally distant (more like the original Sylia you might say), so she's not really attached to anyone. Also her hair is more stingry and cat-like (a big improvement) and she is clad in leather like Trinity from "The Matrix" (although much less annoying than before, unfortunately, the writers screw her in the end when revealing her reasons for hating the ADP).

3) Originally Linna had this big black hair going for her, but now her hair is shorter, browner, and, well, more 90s like. 2040 Linna is also an office lady who has bad luck with being sexually harrassed. As if to apologize for the way she was treated by the OAV writers, the 2040 writers actually dedicated the first 6 episodes to Linna, writing her as a country girl new to the city but determined to meet the Knight Sabers and win a spot with them, which she eventually does.

4) Originally a short red haired girl who was often the victim of ridicule and ate a lot of candy, Nene is now a short blonde haired girl who likes to tease and take pot shots at ADP detective Leon McNichol (revenge for him toying with her in the OAV?) and other characters, even her surrogate big sister Linna and Mackey, Sylia's "brother", whom she becomes infatuated with. Cockey and arrogant, she still eats a lot of candy and is a master hacker, but she is eventually deflated and grows beyond her comic relief status.

5) Nigel Kirkland is a new character, a tall, stoic, ruggedly handsome man with long black hair (he looks like Adrian Paul from TV's Highlander), he replaces Dr. Raven from the old series and now serves as the man who gives maitenance to Sylia's hard suits. Nigel is also Sylia's lover, but you wouldn't know it by his demeanor. He's kind of the father/big brother/mentor figure to Mackey.

6) Leon and Daley are back, but of course differently. The original Leon was a tall pretty boy built like a baseball player with slicked back brown hair, blue eyes, a black leather jacket, tight blue jeans, and always carrying a revolver that could magically pack more whallop than a howitzer if necessary; while he wasn't really a bad guy deep down, he was kind of a jerk, but he served mostly as comic relief, as he tried to pursue Priss romantically (exactly what he saw in her is a mystery) but occasionally he and Daley served as information guides to important plot points. Also the original Daley was a fairly muscular red head who dressed in pink/purple suits as he was a flamboyantly homosexual character who was always hitting on Leon when not providing important information. In 2040, Leon is no longer a pretty boy but more your typical rugged tough guy type, with spiked black hair, brown eyes, tall and sporting big muscles, a brown leather jacket and blue dockers (he actually looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger a little bit, or maybe a pumped up Colin Farrell, or Hugh Jackman), and he still carries a revolver, a BIG one, but it's not as powerful as before. Although 2040 Leon still has a bit of an attitude probelm (especially in approaching Priss), he's not nearly as much of a jerk as he was in the old series, but he does have a bad temper and he is easily annoyed by Nene and Daley (also he drinks way too much coffee). Oh, and Leon is still after Priss, but he has a lot more luck this time around. Daley, meanwhile, is now a taller (but not as tall as Leon) more pretty boyish looking guy with red rimmed glasses, a white suit, green eyes, and light brown hair, and he carries a big machine gun (he actually looks like James Marsden from the X-Men films); Daley is a lot smarter and more assertive in 2040 than the OAV and, although it's not completely clear, his homosexual tendencies have been almost totally disappeared, save a moment of what appears to be jealousy when he hears about Leon inquiring about Priss's e-mail.

7) Brian J. Mason (what does that "J" stand for?) is back, and so is Quincy, but Mason is much more the main villain here, with Quincy as co-villain, as he is no longer a towering figure of terror but a vegetable with a bunch of batteries and wires plugged into him. Mason now sports slicked back brown hair instead of black hair as he did in the OAV (he actually looks like OAV Leon in a suit) and he is very much from the Alan Rickman school of villains.

8) Though a pervert in the first series, Mackey is no longer a pervert in 2040. Of course, there are lots of things different about Mackey in 2040, but they won't be revealed here.

9) Sylia now has a companion, an Alfred-the-butler type named Henderson, who worries about her and the gang.

10) In the original series, boomers were like the Replicants in "Blade Runner", armed with their own thoughts and feelings and ambitions, but in 2040, they're more of the dumb-monsters-on-the-rampage type. Most of the time they're just big robots who do whatever they're programmed to do (heavy labor, combat, clean up, etc) and they have this tendency to "go rogue", which means try to evolve and become a monster in the process.

What does stay the same is the theme of humanity VS technology (do machines have souls?). Sadly, this series, though well animated and well written, only runs 26 episodes, so it moves by faster than one might like, especially those of us who are used to more than one season of our most beloved characters, and unfortunately it still ends on a cliff hanger with unresolved storyline bits (which I will not discuss here. What saves this show and makes it what it is, however, is the characters, a colorful cast of screwballs they are, ranging from stoic loners, psycho women, genocidal mad men, rough neck cops, sardonic intellectuals, wise old sages, and loveable innocents, much more diverse than before and with a lot more to play off of, they're enough to make you wish this show had gone longer.

It's not great, but it's a good watch. Also the English dub (by ADV) is quite good, though not without a few flat spots, but certainly better than the dub on the original. When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean. This is a remake of the anime classic from the 80's, and this one is even better. Sylia, Nene, Linna, and Priss are all back as the Knight Sabers in their hard-suits battling the robotic boomers. The animation is crisp, the characters are well-developed, and the action rocks. Priss is a singer in her regular job, so the series features some wonderful songs as well. There is a fair amount of violence, but most of it is against robots, and there is some fan service, but nothing too racy. The DVDs also have many extras, including commentaries, which really enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the show. A must-have for any anime fan.

Also recommended: Burst Angel, Armitage III I have probably watched the movie 4 or 5 times. Every time, i get more and more impressed by how far the wish of a young heart can go, and the strenght of both Kai and Gertha to struggle for what they believe in.

And the whole story is presented in such a way, you just get transfered into the plot and before you know it, you are there. you can see... yeah, there's Kai... working hard on the mirror... a little jump.... there's Gertha, fighting for her love..... and there's the Snow Queen...

it's just a wonderful mix of love, adventure, tension.

it's brilliant 10 out of 10 This is possibly one of my favorite films. It tells the tale of a girl named Gerda (Chelsea Hobbs) who lost her mother at a very young age, so has been bought up by her father. She falls in love with the bell boy named Kai. However, on her birthday the snow queen (Bridget Fonda) comes the the hotel which her father owns and kidnaps Kai. Gurda then goes after Kai, and follows him through the four seasons in an attempt to rescue him.

I thought that this was an excellent adaption of the story with great performances from all the cast. It has wonderful special effects and the story fits together very well and is easy to follow. I think that it is a great film for all the family to enjoy. I have watched it every time t has been on since it came out and have never tired of it which is why I have given it a 10! Complete entertainment! Although there are many strange things in the movie that the fairy tale itself doesn't have them including the autumn characters (mother and daughter) the general concept rocks. People comparing this movie to big blockbusters like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix will inevitably be disappointed with the way this movie turned out. Although it lacks in the big special effects department and there are no battles with hundreds of extras, there is still a masterful amalgamation of two old folk tales here. The acting talent, although not A-list, is still great and the interaction between the characters is perhaps more sincere than in a larger movie with an A-list cast. My particular favourite from this movie is Bridget Fonda, whose performance as the Snow Queen herself was quite moving, assisted enormously by a stupendous wardrobe and makeup. She injected humanity and a sense of pathos into the character of the fallen season corrupted by the devil's evil magic. Fonda aside the acting was not what we have come to expect from Hollywood, which I think is a good thing since Hollywood seems to have run out of ideas on how to train its acting talent to portray roles and so they have become stale and reliant on CGI and other special effects to take us away from the actors who all use the same tricks on us. Instead it shows new ideas some real thinking on the part of the actors about how they can find new variations on the the old themes of love and danger. I thought the movie started out a bit slow and disjointed for the first hour. However, it became more absorbing, fascinating, and surprising in its last two hours. So, while it starts out like a cheap horror film, it evolves into a beautiful and wonderful fantasy film.

Bridget Fonda stands out as the Snow Queen. This was her best performance and it is sad that this apparently was her last performance, as she has not acted in the last 7 years. She absolutely personifies both the beauty and coldness of Winter.

My daughter, age 14, found the film a bit frightening, so if you are showing it as family entertainment, please stay with your child and reassure her or him that it is just a fairy tale fantasy and not to take it too seriously.

It is really one of the best fantasy films that I have seen in a long time, slightly better than "Eragon" or any of the "Lord of the Rings." It is about as good as "The Golden Compass". Enchanting. The best time to see this movie is sometime when unhappy or sad. It's all just so cute, all, even the way that white bear loves the Queen in secret and gets Her in the end, also the achievement the two young actors of Gerda and Kai gave. It's music is also very nice. The two of us will always be one combined with sad piano tones in some places gives a very touching result and if one watches both parts at once, he'll see the Snow Queen is not so bad. She only tries to surround Herself with love in the wrong way. The evening this movie was on here (first part) I only watched it, because I was bored, but I loved it a lot more after and was very angry, when they didn't show the next part because of the Pope's funeral... Yeah, that was terribly sad for me. But when they said it will be on next week, I was so happy, that I recorded it and now I'm glad to have done so. First off, I can remember vaguely being told this story in primary school, about 6 or 7 years ago so I am sort of familiar with the story.

A lot of that has changed however, and there are many differences and mistakes (sometimes unnecessary) in the film that die hard fans will not appreciate.

However as a whole I really love this film. I first saw it near Christmas about 2 years ago (well the 1st part) then caught the whole thing again last Christmas probably on the same channel.

I was very impressed, at times it may be a bit overdrawn and long, but with an engaging story, decent acting (especially from frosty Fonda and Hobbs) and beautiful scenery, costume and little touches of magic make this a really special film - which for me really reminds me of Christmas.

Despite differences from the book, I think the film does well to incorporate new themes and ideas (the seasons with Autumn, Winter etc. with I think a new thief character to represent Autumn) throughout the imagery once you notice is quite startling and brilliantly executed.

I live in the UK so have waited a long time for the DVD, and luckily enough I saw an advert showing a series of free DVD's being offered in the Daily Mail newspaper which I don't normally get, so I got yesterdays issue and finally have my DVD. If you missed it and want this rare DVD for region 2 I suggest you collect the tokens from the Daily Mail and send them off as your DVD will then be delivered by Christmas.

So for a bit of escape into the Christmas season this year, put on your fire, get cosy and watch this as you and kids probably will really enjoy this great film. If you don't have it, it will probably be repeated on Channel 4 this Christmas, so record it! I know the girl who did the figure skating for the lead girl. She once dated my brother and she was always really nice! I also live in Cranbrook B.C, about 15 or so minutes from fort Steele. Haha i used to go there for field trips when i was in elementary school. It was kinda weird seeing it in the movie. I also had the chance when the movie was filming to be an extra because there was a casting call for them at the mall.But i didn't feel like going to it at the time because i wasn't interested in acting. Now i totally wish i did. This was such an awesome movie that i bought it off of Ebay. It never came out here, (which is kind of weird seeing it was partially filmed here) so i was excited when it came. I really loved the story line and the poler bear was kinda cute.But if anyone has a question about Fort Steele, just ask away:) This is a wonderful movie, and I still love it! It just so magical and it is fun for the whole family! I recommend it to people of all ages. I promise you will not be disappointed! The characters are always so engaging, so real, you will just love them! The story of Gerda and Kai falling in love will really amaze you and put that little spark of magic into your life.

I don't see how anyone would care if the movie matched the book, I mean the movie was amazing! I haven't even read the book, and guess what? I don't care. In fact, if the movie and book are so different, then you can just call them two separate stories and be happy with it.

I thought the acting was bloody brilliant! Bridget Fonda plays the Snow Queen, so evil, and so cold - you just have to hate her. Chelsea Hobbs plays Gerda, a love-struck girl who is determined to find her love no matter what it takes, and goes on a wonderful adventure. And I just love all of the Snow Queen's sisters (the Spring Witch, the Summer Princess, and Autumn Robber)they are so fun and different in many ways.

I haven't seen this movie in awhile, so forgive me if I make a minor mistake.... but there's no doubt that I will always love this movie. I really enjoyed this film. I'm not usually one for fairy tales or make believe storeys but this film captured my attention.

I first saw this film on the UK channel Hallmark...which usually shows afew tacky films...but then Snow Queen came along...and I was loving it! I really really admire Bridget Fonda in this movie...she plays the snow queen brilliantly and glamorously.

I won't explain what the story is about as other people have already done so, so there is no point repeating.

I would just suggest that if you want to watch a fun fairy tale journey...get this film...but if you want to purchase it and you live in the UK, you might have a hard time. I've bought it from South Korea brand new (english edition of course). "Snow Queen" is based, of course, on the fairy tale of the same name, collected in (at least) Andersen's Fairy Tales - and, unlike many other recent productions based on other fairy tales, this one retains the spirit of Faerie, an accomplishment not easy and not well understood by many, especially among Americans. Talking animals, arbitrary prohibitions, appearances of goblins, dragons, and demons, are not to be questioned in a fairy tale; they are as natural an element of Faerie as, say, gravity is in the scientific world, and the reason or explanation for them is completely beside the point of the story. Nor is the story bound by modern Hollywood rules of composition: direct, often to the point of being grotesquely linear in lesser works, and obvious (in retrospect, at least).

With this defence against the common criticisms of those who do not understand fairy tales, "Snow Queen" is a delightful movie with wonderful visual effects, skillful acting, and great sentiment. The only flaw in the movie was, I think, not that it was too fantastical but that certain parts of the dialogue were too glaringly modern in slang and expression, a mar on its otherwise timeless nature. The Snowqueen is one of the best love stories I have ever seen: much better and deeper than Luhrman's Romeo&Juliet or Spielberg's Titanic. Gerda's love impresses me every time, her search, her battle is exceptional. Gerda becomes a strong, loving woman throughout the movie. Kay is the poisoner of dark forces: the temptation. This story encourages me to fight like Gerda for the ONLY ONE, for the love of my life, for Mister Right. Patience is one of the keywords of this movie. I cry every time when I realize all the suffering of Gerda and Kay. And I wish that it ends soon... Snowqueen tells although my life, I deeply identify with the story and the characters. Thanks at least for Hans Christian Anderson and the director. I thought that the storyline came into place very well. I liked this movie a lot. If you're going to rag on a Bridget Fonda movie, you can just rot. I thought that ragging on movie stars was a bad idea. Apparently somebody doesn't think so. I rather enjoyed the movie. I'm even thinking of buying it. I want it to be my very first DVD for my room. That's how much I like it. I rather would not start an online argument with someone I don't know & have it be over a movie. If someone could kindly retract what they said about the storyline, I would be more than happy to retract my insult. However, if they feel that I am not worthy of a retraction, I might just feel that they are not worthy of one either. But I can't control their actions, I can only encourage them in the right direction. Hey, they don't have to make a retraction, but I would greatly appreciate it. "D.O.A" is an involving and entertaining little picture from start to finish. Dennis Quaid is at his caustic best; and Quaid is sadly one of the most underused talents in Hollywood. His then beau Meg Ryan also appears with him, but as is usually the case, doesn't really make much of an impact.

The film is stylishly directed throughout, drawing on a number of influences to capture its 'seamy' feel. Would you credit that it's actually directed by two people? The answer is no. The whole thing is superbly slick, from its innovative camerawork to its unabashed use of black and white photography. All these elements help to keep proceedings fresh.

Really the greatest thrill here is to be had with the dialogue, it's snappy yet intricate, doesn't waste a word and yet still manages to be entertaining. The screenplay for this is like a pocket work of art.

This went unnoticed by me for ages before I finally caught it late at night. If this is the first you've heard about it, don't leave it like I did! Catch it soon, it really is top-notch... !

If you're in the mood for a solid genre flick that manages to surprise at every turn, this really fits the bill.

Those wishing to see film noir remakes, should not see this as as a remake, you will always be disappointed. Instead, enjoy a gripping performance from Dennis Quaid and visual imagery to commend. The colour drains from the film (literally, not metaphorically!)) as the plot gathers pace, and the dialogue is crisp and gritty. The opening dialogue is clever, and the viewer is carried along by a sharp screenplay and a real, original film noir feel, OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original "D.O.A." is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.

The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after "The Right Stuff" made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.

This is more of an "update" of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before "Home Alone" made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.

The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end.

I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film. For all those people who believe the dialog is worth something, and who appreciate a farce that is clever enough for you to take it seriously, this movie will surprise you. It is not a 'whodunit' for people who can't aren't able to follow the verbal exchange of our hero, Professor Dexter Cornell (Dennis Quaid).

Cornell teaches in Southern California, near the tar pits. He has not published a novel in four years, his wife is divorcing him, he drinks a bit much, and is blessed or cursed with caustic wit, which he freely dispenses to his students. He has recommended a friend for advancement, and one bright young student has submitted a manuscript to him as an independent project. Cornell doesn't even want to read it, so gives it an "A", and pushes it to the side. Leaning back with a drink in his office he stares out the window, when the bright young student falls past his window on the way to meeting the sidewalk in a splat encounter.

Hal comes to talk, and they chat, drinking some more. The Cornell realizes that he HAS to read the manuscript, now. When he goes home, his wife is waiting with divorce papers. He drinks some more. She leaves, and he goes to a faculty affair, only to find her there. He drinks even more. And when his wife learns that the student is dead, she swoons, and he learns that she had been having an affair with the student. This of course prompts him to do some more serious drinking. The next morning he wakes up to find himself in the dorm room of one of his students, a freshman named Syd (Meg Ryan).

He feels worse than a hangover, goes to the doctor and learns that he has been poisoned, it is irreversible, and he has 24-48 hours to live. He doesn't have much time to find out who killed him, and there are sub-plots, motives, relationships and surprises at every turn, although everything makes sense at the end. All his discoveries and exchanges are adorned with sarcasm, dry wit and keen observations. Let's just say that this movie will give new meaning to the adage "publish or perish".

There are no bad performances in this movie. There are recurrent images, and symbolism used at careful intervals. Watch for the cracked glass, and images distorted through glass. Some of the camera shots are revolutionary for 1988, and some of the violent action is carefully and skillfully choreographed. The music is unobtrusive and appropriate, although occasionally it makes it's own statement, in song lyrics. The visuals in this flick are impressive.

If there are any failures, it is that the opening 20 minutes move a little slow, and nearly puts you to sleep. But the pacing picks up quickly, with just the right amount of exposition in between action segments.

There are no explicit sexual encounters, although there is violence and some bad language.

This is a writer's movie, and is best appreciated by those who have a sense of humor about their own success or failure. I do think if you take it seriously, you're already in big trouble. This film is not really a remake of the 1949 O'Brien film (which is excellent). It borrows the main premise--a man has been poisoned and spends the rest of the film trying to find his killer. But I like that the writers chose an English professor, instead of a private dick, as the protagonist. The plot is also quite original. In general, the film moves along fast enough to keep you awake. But what mars this film is a strange dated quality about it (probably due to the horrendous 80's original music score)combined with an affected "noir" feel. Dennis Quaid grins inexplicably throughout the whole film at odd moments, but he's still compelling in a general way. Meg Ryan is fine as the student helper/love interest. When the film gets sort of bad is when Dex (the prof) meets the British bodyguard/chauffeur and their duels are pretty laughable. The bodyguard works for the rich widow (played by lovely Charlotte Rampling), but those scenes are too self-consciously "noir" to help the film along, even though the family "plot line" is rather interesting. Dex also keeps showing up at the same place and finding this bodyguard, which is rather coincidental. In the latter part of the film,a man is shot by a window, and from the outside you see him jump out of it--that was pretty bad direction. But aside from some of these obvious flaws, I think it still holds OK. I certainly didn't predict the ending, so that was good--there is a twist, and although some posters here think they were misled, I thought it was a fine and believable ending. Dennis Quaid, with his weird smirks and black eyes, is more likable in The Right Stuff, Great Balls of Fire, Inner Space, and Cold Creek Manor. But here as Dex, he's supposed to be somewhat of a jerk, so he did fine. Fairly decent movie. This is a whodunnit in the Hitchcock tradition. You are kept in the dark as suspects come and go. Dennis Quaid is supurb as Dexter, a man doomed to die and Meg Ryan excellent as his babe. There is not much not to like in this little suspense and all the pieces fit neatly together the way they should. You won't be sorry you watched this one if you like suspense. Always enjoyed "DOA",1950,which starred Edmond O'Brien and was very curious about this film. Dennis Quaid,(Dexter Cornell), was a professor who loved his wife and finally found out she was having an affair with one of his students. Dexter gets involved with Meg Ryan(Sydney Fuller), who was a student in his college class and at the same time had a big crush on him and wound up having a one night stand and in some ways loved him deeply. Dexter learns that he received a drink which had bad contents and would cause him a great deal of health problems! If you like Dennis Quaid and love Meg Ryan you will enjoy viewing this film, Meg gave an outstanding performance and kept this picture worth watching! This movie is an awesome remake of the original by the same title. The movie was cool,despite the fact, I hate new ones! All of the cast was awesome . It has great cast and an awesome plot!! The main plot is a man is poisoned and he has to solve his own murder , neat eh?!Dennis Quaid is the man who is "D.O.A"(in other words Dead On Arrival).He finds help with his friends, but everyone is now a suspect!!Dennis's character has several hours to find out who poisoned him. The movie is quite fast and full of action. You can see two other big stars in Meg Ryan(City Of Angels,Courage Under Fire) and Daniel Stern(Home Alone, Very Bad Things,Bushwhacked) in supporting roles in this awesome ,cool remake of a classic movie!! We saw La Spettatrice last night @ the Chicago International Film Festival & we were both immensely moved by it. This is a haunting tale of loneliness & missed connection in which the longing for intimacy conflicts with our fear of revealing too much about ourselves to another. The three leads (Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo) are all excellent and the dynamic between them is very surprising.

After all the movies which devalue older women, it's wonderful to see Flavia (who is a law professor at a university in Rome) presented as beautiful & sensual as well as seductive & powerful. We're conditioned to believe that when a younger woman enters 'the mix,' the older woman will become jealous of the younger woman, the man will leave the older woman for the younger woman, etc, etc. In this film, however, emotional truth is considerably more complex. Highly recommended. Valeria, an elegant and pretty young lady lives in a world surrounded by the walls of her shyness and depression. Although she may have a one-night lover or if someone lives with her, it makes no difference of being completely alone. Valeria is also a passionate woman who can take actions to approach that special man, Massimo, and at the same time the fear that allows her to answer his questions only with a "yes", "no" or "I don't know". The way to accent the loneliness of the character is magnificent. An example would be the distance of both, Massimo and Valeria taking a coffee in the same room, separated by subtle divisions and not seeing each other. I could mention several sequences, however, it is better to see the movie. It is impressive to watch that not a single detail is out of control by the director. Although all actions are performed in slow movements, no shouts are necessary not special effects, but only great acting and a touching well written story. I loved it. We saw La Spettatrice at the Syracuse International Film & Video Festival & liked it.

This film delved into the fear we all have. Fear of rejection, fear of intimacy and most importantly fear of our own inadequacies.

The three lead actors, Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo are match well to their roles and are excellent. It was a joy to witness the dynamic between the three of them as it seemed real.

I believe Barbora Bobulova is a stand out. I hope we see much more of her in the coming years.

This film doesn't take the easy way out. Thumbs up to the Italian team who put this film together. Highly recommended. Barbora Bobulova's portrayal of Valeria in this story was entirely captivating and heart wrenching at the same time. It has been a long time since I have seen so much hidden passion and mystique presented by any actor simply by utilizing her facial features and the use of her eyes and mouth the way Barbora does with this character. She was entirely believable as Valeria and I was swept away with her characterisation of this role. All at once the film was real life and fantasy, the clever use of what was limited dialogue left me spellbound. I was compelled to read between the lines and each of the key players utilized the art of body language and emotional intent to convey a strong story line. Barbora in particular was visually stimulating in an almost asexual way and at the same time in a sexy way. This comment can relate easily to each of the many emotions brought forward by her performance. Understated in terms of dialogue but powerful in terms of presence. I have been captured by this actresses delivery and shall eagerly seek out much more of her work. Somehow, this film burrowed it's way into the soft spot of my heart. Don't ask me how it happened, but I suppose having the film feature Ed "I'll Sponsor Anything" McMahon as a tail-chasing crack hustler had a bit to do with it.

Frankly, I was disappointed with Slaughter's first outing in 1972. Nothing more than a quick throw-together to follow Shaft-mania. How does the sequel get away from this? Big Jim Brown seems stronger as Slaughter here than in the first. Perhaps this is due to the fact that one year later he had something to work from, instead of his simple "Be like Shaft" motivation before.

The most outstanding part about the film is the soundtrack provided by pimp-daddy number one, James Brown. Almost every scene is graced with a touch of funk by the Godfather. An excellent period film, for the music, wardrobe, vehicles, lingo, and hair. I should also point out this film is also an excellent period film to represent a time in motion picture history when Jim Brown and Ed McMahon could actually GROW hair.

Double the chicks, double the blow, triple the body count, and factor in Ed McMahon and James Brown. You'll be in for one hell of a 70s action flick, and one that outshines it's predecessor no less. For my money, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off can play ball with any Blaxploitation film ever made. Even Shaft. Chances are you'll disagree, but Slaughter's Big Rip-Off has it's own distinct feel. Something the original was lacking. Brown returned to his role from the year before (in "Slaughter") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role. Of the two Slaughter movies, this is the better and even though its hardly a Schindlers list in complexity it is bloody funny. All the men are the goodies or the baddies and the women are all just Hos and emotionally needy, eg Slaughters Girl. It is also bloody funny and The Pro has got to be the funniest movie pimp of all time, you just can't get enough of those hats, purple suits, gold chains and jive patois forever. The best bit is where he has the Harem around him going "DO YOU BITCHES UNNASTAN". Everything about him is larger than life and it is reminescent of Morris Day in Purple Rain. Jim Brown also proves hes a private dick for all the chicks and again he kicks whitey ass in every direction. The car scene is very unrealistic that they survive it unscathed, but hey this is the movies. Definitely the finest blax flick and it surpasses Shaft (1971). Even the first movie is pretty good. Hey all you jive hustlers, you stone foxes, you mean dudes. Watch out cause Slaughter is back in town! If you are looking for a bad-ass, funky film to watch some night, this is just right. 'Slaughter' is back and trying to take it easy n' relax after his adventures down in Mexico. But if you are a narrow-minded gangster like 'Duncan', you are bound to seek revenge. Why, I don't know. Was 'Hoffo' in the first one his brother or what? Any who. The movie starts off with the old "assassination from a plane" routine. We all know that that is THE most effective way for taking out one guy in a picnic, full of people. Needless to say Slaughter survives the ordeal, but Cmndt. Eric Lassard, sorry George Gaynes I mean isn't that lucky. SMACK!! Also Slaughters best friend Pratt is killed. This is the start of a grand adventure, filled with the hippest, funkiest music James Brown himself has to offer. That's right 'The Godfather of Soul' has put his trademark up on this bad-boy. In addition to Jim Brown in the lead part, this movie is filled with some of the biggest names the blaxploitation scene has to offer. How about Scatman Crothers, Dick Anthony Williams, Gloria Hendry and Brock Peters. In other parts we see none other than Judith M. Brown and last but definitely least the fantastic Don Stroud as the evil henchman. Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a "blaxsploitation film". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.

For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist!

Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.

Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.

The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a cliché and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs. An interesting movie based on three of Jules Verne's novels. Considering the special effects and computer enhanced animation of today, this movie stands as an historic marker of cinematic resourcefulness and imagination. Karel Zeman has brought to life the lithographic images of the original Jules Verne texts. this is a must see for classic science fiction and history buffs.

I give this movie 9 out of 10. Enjoy!! The movie is based on a Jules Verne book I actually have read once, about ten years ago. I remember I liked the book a lot, and this movie does a good job in telling the story. The most important thing in this movie isn't the story, however, but the highly original visual look it has.

The visuals are absolutely beautiful, and they are apparently achieved by a clever combination of animated drawings combined with live actors, stop-motion animation and sets that are painted so that they look much like from an animated movie. Combined by Jules Verne's own unique versions of airplanes and submarines and Karel Zeman's good directing results in a very well done and convincing visual style that manages to effectively hold one's attention until the end of the movie.

There are some problems as well, one of the underwater scenes at the end takes maybe needlessly lot of time for example, as the story in the first part of the movie is rushed through quite quickly. None of this matters much though since the movie is always highly enjoyable. A gem that deserves to be more well known for today's audiences as well. A recommended movie for the whole family. Truly unique and stunning film of Jules Verne's "For The Flag" by the Czech master director Karel Zeman.Although the story is enacted in a rather understated late Victorian style, the visuals are a knockout. Zeman uses animation, graphics, painted sets, model animation combined with live action to create the atmosphere of Verne that the reader associates in his mind. The style resembles the steel engravings of Dore and Bennet and Riou that illustrated these stories with a healthy dose of Georges Melies added.Photographed in beautiful black and white the animation is of the highest order and not of a Saturday morning variety. There are underwater sequences where the fishes swimming about are so accurately drawn they can be used in a field guide.There are images of ships ,submarines, flying craft, castles,and machinery that are drawn in such accurate detail that one must have a freeze frame on his VCR or DVD to pause the scene and study the remarkable detail that went into this production.The late Victorian atmosphere is designed to look like this world that never was and delight us in the magic of science that made Verne the great father of the genre. If this is not enough, there also is the film score that probably is one of the best ever created for a fantasy or sci-fi film.Truly a forgotten classic, this one is worth hunting down and buying. Always one of my favorite films of all times, it is sure to be one of yours too. And remember- this was done decades before CGI or computer animation. Kudos to the great artists who obviously put their heart into it. It shows. Jules Verne himself would be proud of this movie.A film that deserves to be better known, but those who have seen it love it-and treasure it. An outstanding achievement , this remarkable film just gets better every time you watch it. A true cinematic work of art from a visionary director. ***Spoilers ahead*** My late childhood had two cinematographic icons: Star Wars and this film by Czech genius Karel Zeman. A Jules Verne encyclopedia where XIX century illustrations come to life in exquisite black and white photography, combined with stop motion and conventional animation. Verne's spirit of adventure is fully present throughout the film, as well as a very modern questioning on the moral limits of power and advanced technology. In fact, it brings atomic energy into Verne's universe in a very elliptic and elegant way. Also elliptic and elegant is the demise of the villain, with a (probably nuclear) explosion sending his hat flying over the sea. The resolution of the film is symbolic and very satisfactory, something very rare today, when a lot of films don't seem to know how to end themselves.

I was fortunate to catch this gem in reruns on local TV in the late 70s: it enhanced my enjoyment of Verne's fiction and of cinema.

10 out of 10 for Karel Zeman, under-appreciated master of imagination. These days, you rarely come by a kid's show that does not involve 1) a preteen/teen pop star who is as amusing as watching paint dry 2) involve a plot about finding the perfect date with a different guy/girl every time 3) revolves around erratic yelling and unintelligible humor. About 95% of shows on Disney, Nickelodeon, and Cartoon Network fit the listed criteria. To put in simpler terms, they all lack good acting, originality, and good story telling. It as if producers and writers think kids aren't smart enough to understand character development and plot detail. They couldn't be more unaware. Sure kids enjoy a good laugh and erratic behavior (if it's done to a conservative level and done right), but as they also want to enjoy a story, see drama, and see people being challenged. They don't want to see people living in a flawless world where they get everything they want. They know this world isn't all fun and games, they know it's not perfect. Everyone has problems, and we all must learn to work around them. This show revolves around that kind of stuff. Alex Mack is an average teenage girl who seems to have everything going for her genius sister, Annie. Her Mom works at some office but is sometimes a stay at home parent. Her dad, George, is a top scientist at the Plant, a chemical corporation that employs most of the town they live in, Paradise Valley. Alex is unpopular and picked on by most of her peers. Her only friend is Ray (but she gets more friends as the series goes). On her first day of Jr. High, Alex walks home not too happy about school, but a truck delivering chemicals from the plant crashes into a fire hydrant trying to avoid running her over, dumping a strange chemical known as GC-161, where the chemical mixes with the water, covering Alex in it. Soon after, she starts to develop strange powers such as morphing into a puddle, shooting lasers out of her hand, and moving things with her mind. She also glows constantly when nervous (though we never see much of that later on). Aside from her sister Annie and friend Ray, Alex decides to keep these powers a secret from everyone, even her parents for fear of being kidnapped by the Plant, whose corrupt owner, Danielle Atron has her head of Security, Vince, search for the mysterious GC161 kid. Every episode then deals with Alex trying to live a normal life as kid at the same time learning to live with her strange powers. The series may seem like a girls show, but it's not. As a boy, I liked watching this show because of its awesome effects and drama. The producers successfully add some elements of science fiction with the elements of teen drama. In fact, some episodes were quiet violent and a little eerie. The unfounded plant manager Atron and Vince make good antagonists for the series, for the writers really do establish them as a threat and give you that dreadful feeling every time they come on screen. Also, smart move adding David, driver of the truck that spilled the GC-161, as Vince's bumbling assistant in the hunt for comedic effect but also you get to love him towards the end. It was interesting to watch little Alex try to live as a normal kid but struggles to perfect her powers. At times, you forget that these are kids who are battling a giant Adult run institution, because you are drawn in to the story. The show does a good job of relating to kids by showing Alex that she may have super powers, but she still is a kid, and must be careful. Even some episode you'll find yourself distraught at Alex's calamities. My favorite episode where Alex wishes she was never born truly demonstrates most of these elements. As I said, the producers never hesitated to add in some laughs whether they come from Ray's one liner or George's strange habits or David trying to be a nice guy. Of course you come across corny moments and an entire episode that really has nothing to do with the series plot, but what good series doesn't? All in all great show. 9/10 Oh I remember watching this show at 4:00 p.m. during my junior high days. It was not a pleasant experience because I remember watching it when I made my homework.

Still, the show caught my attention when Alex displayed her special powers and dealt with the typical junior high problems.

But the show wasn't all about adventures and special powers; it was more of an educational effort for a younger audience in order to get more interested in school and biology overall.

The lead actress (can't remember her name and I'm too lazy to copy and paste from the main details) delivered a fantastic performance. She made the show watchable.

They just don't make shows like this one anymore... This is probably my favourite TV show ever. I love all the characters, especially Alex, who is the PERFECT woman! Always makes me laugh and feel good when I watch this show. There is just something about it that is amazing, hard to describe.

It seems some or all of the episodes synchronise with music albums as well. Here are a few examples. (The episodes start again when they end - but DON'T play end credits until the very end, but always play the opening credits. With most the episodes the album plays once and the episodes play twice, but some go on further.)

RADIOHEAD, PINK FLOYD, BOB Dylan.

2.02 'Double bogey' Kid A / OK Computer (episode plays at least 4 times)

2.14 'Saturn' Kid A / Meddle / Shot Of Love

2.19 'World without Alex' Kid A / Wish You Were Here / Pablo Honey(episode plays at least 4 times)

There are clues in the episodes which tell you which albums synchronise. Kid A may synchronise with EVERY episode! I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it pretty well. If you ask me, it was a pretty good show. Anytime I think about it, I don't remember the opening sequence and theme song very well. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I'm not sure if I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. My favorite show of all time! Yeah, I thought this was so cool, and Larisa Oleynik was the first crush I ever had (AAAAWWWWWW). It was well written, funny-except when it it wanted to be serious, and just a great show overall. But since we couldn't afford to keep Nick, I couldn't see any episodes after Feb. 1996, and maybe that makes me think more of the show than I should. To me it's more the epidemy (now that doesn't look spelled right!) of having to say "Goodbye" to someone that you love, and KNOW you'll never see them again. And I still think that, because as far as I know, there are no plans to release this on DVD any time soon...yeah, life is mean! I've found that out for sure (though you can find an odd episode every here or there...but I never liked the bootleg copies of things much either).

So enough of my sad life:(....Most kids in 7th grade don't NEED powers like Alex gets to get them through life (unrealistic--for sure) but then again, how many towns have a super-evil chemical plants that is willing to do anything for "Progress at ANY cost"? Gee this show was fun to watch! Though I'd agree the diaglouge is a bit over developed (and even a little Politically Correct sometimes). My favorite parts were when the kids would have some reason to break into the plant (a video tape or something like that) like a kid's version of "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" (which years later I got hooked on that game series for probably the same reason) almost! Then you've got the plant's "security" team who are trying desperately to find the "kid from the accident"...very mean dudes (at least when I first watched the show...they seem more sympathetic to me now). I feel rather sad for Larisa Oleynik, not sure if she minds this role type-casting her.....but it's what I'll always remember her by.

Oh and BTW, the actor that plays Aaron Peirce from "24" is on here too as a school coach or something....too cool! Maybe he can get the producers of that show to get Larisa in next season of "24". I only bring it up 'cuz Jack Bauer is my other TV hero and I'd just love to see cross-over things, lol:). Both are set in California, so I'll just keep on dream'n...I can see it now, "Let me alone with that suspect for a few minutes....no, I don't need a car battery!" Most of the criticism of "Attack of Show" is from people who are unfairly comparing it to an old computer TV program called "The Screen Savers." People are upset because G4 decided to cancel the "Screen Savers" and replace it with the pop culture based "Attack of the Show." To compare the two shows is like comparing apples to oranges!

"Attack of the Show" is a unique hour long program that covers current Generation X/Y culture. It features segments on movies/television, panel discussions, video games, new DVD releases, sex advice, new gadgets (MP3 players, cell phones, etc), comic books/graphic novels, magazines, and internet fads.

It's a fun show, definitely worth checking out you are in your 20s or 30s. I give it an 8 out of 10. I watch the show every day and it is very entertaining. It provides updates of tech news, video games pretty much everything geek. They are also the official broadcasters of E3 and Comiccon. If you are a geek, gamers or anything really, you will enjoy this show. They have definitely upped their game since the guy below me's review (2006). It's the only place that I get my tech info. Kevin Pereira and Olivia Munn work beautifully with each other and the show always has segments referring to things in the game, movie, comic... Universe. If you know those universes you will understand the jokes. Long story short, aots is a hilarious show that gives me and anyone all the news about anything and everything that you care about. I'm watching it right now as I type this, they are 'in' San Diego covering the red bull air races. Sweet. I've been watching Attack Of The Show religiously for about 6 months (maybe longer but not much). I was very infatuated with Olivia and I found Kevin to be very witty and the repertoire between them very good. Lately though it's starting to wear thin due to many factors for me. First my favorite segment is the first 15 minutes called Around The Net, that shows 5 video clips that you would find on a site like Youtube, that are generally funny, or of people getting hurt inadvertently (some intentionally). Umm, this when watched 4 to 5 times a week shows again and again the same stuff, I really haven't seen anything that good and I can only laugh at people actually probably breaking their necks and being paralyzed so many times. The show is like a Late Show wanna be/Colbert Report wanna be with it's politics also, if you do not live in a blue state and are not an automatic liberal, this humor gets old also, McCain is old, yeah yeah, whatever. Libs have no guts to make fun of themselves because they are not smart enough to realize that would endear themselves as having a sense of humor that they can laugh at themselves, so it's almost every show bash McCain or Palin, sheesh. So we get the same old vids of people getting hurt that we are supposed to keep laughing at and then some leftist political humor that never laugh's at itself out of it's own weakness. I'll keep watching since I watch at work and it's all that's on, hoping that I'll be entertained but it is getting somewhat old. I did like the fill in host's of Chris and Alison though, they were actually a good change of pace; maybe this show could do a rotating host thing. Olivia who I thought at times in the beginning was really funny has resorted to this constant pouting response and it's getting old, lol. 7 of 10; it will keep you in a young mindset which is good if you're a younger Baby Boomer like me (mid 40's). Maybe a cartoon of the day would be another segment they should do, there is a ton of stuff available they could use. I cannot hate on the show. When the old (and better) tech TV had to hit the bricks, the channel was reformatted and new shows stepped in. "Attack of the Show" is the replacement for the Screen Savers, with 3 co-hosts in the beginning. They were Kevin Rose, Kevin Pereira and Sarah Lane. Brendan Moran came to be something of a co-host as well, but he mostly did prerecorded pieces for the show. Kevin Rose decided to leave the show, and eventually there was a contest to see who would be the third host, but that didn't pan out for some reason.

Eventually (I just learned this from this very IMDb messageboard) Sarah Lane and Brendan Moran moved on because (hey, this is what I read) the two got married. That was a big secret to me! Now there is a new female co-host, the not-as-hot (my opinion) Olivia Munn. She's hiding something in those tops she wears, while Sarah Lane had a perfect body and she wasn't afraid to show it.

AHEM! Sorry.

"Attack of the Show" deals with everything young people want to know about. It's music, movies, comic books, the internet and television. This is what's great about the show. If you don't want to bother with scouring the net or waste time watching MTV, you can get all you want on AOTS. Some segments and bits they do are funny. They have regular guests and contributors who are in the industry, as well as guests who range from insignificant internet stars to actual big names.

Even though the hosts aren't as geek as I'd like them to be, I still have found "Attack of the Show" to be entertaining, even with its latest lineup. First of all i want to say Ang Lee Did a very good job on this one! I watched it yesterday and i was presently surprised. The story is very good, but all the ignorant people would say "This sucks people cant fly!" to them i say IT'S FICTION and that it is. This is not to be taken as a film about reality you could say this is a "fairytale". And a very pleasant to watch Asian fairytale. The image's can actually blow your mind. Because there so artistically filmed , Ang Lee has a very (unapreciated u might say) big talent. The fight scene's are very cool and beautifully brought to the viewer. But it's sad but this film didn't get the appreciation it should have gotten. But Ang Lee did fortunately get the attention he deserved with his blockbuster broke back mountain. So even for viewers who are not interested in the story the images are entertaining enough! First of all, around the time I wrote this comment, I had already read what kittiwake-1 had written about this game and was confused. This is a video game and not an actual movie. I mean, I myself would choose a good Deniro movie or playing a video game any day. But, dude, what are you talking about? Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on, shall we? The video game adaption of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, as you may have guessed, based on the movie of the same name. What's stranger is that this was released three years after the film was released. Whether that's due to a slow development time or just plain laziness, no one really knows. At least, I don't.

The game allows the player to play as the four main characters of the movie: Jen, Shu Lien, Li-Mu-Bi, and Dark Cloud (Whose story is a secret bonus that is unlocked for separate gameplay.) All four of these characters have fighting styles based on how they fought in the movie. However, the real eye candy is the evasion moves that allow each character to avoid the blows of an enemy's attack in the most impossible and gravity defying ways that were first showcased in the movie.

The story is obviously based on the story told in the movie. The story in the game is told using CG movies and spoken in a subtitled Mandarin language (A nice little touch, considering I preferred the foreign language track of the film over the dubbed one.) The story goes to expand on what might've happened to the other characters during the film and even (No real surprise since pretty much all video game movie adaptions have done this) alters what officially happened in the movie to make the game have more action. I never thought Jade Fox would go so far as to actually go and get hired goons.

The real bonus for the story is the ability to decide how the game ends. What if Jen had all the ingredients to cure Li-Mu-Bi in her possession? What if Jen had not gotten back her comb? What if Li-Mu-Bi had not gotten the green destiny back for the second time? Your actions will decide the outcome of these scenarios and the destiny of the characters in this game. This is truly the best feature of the game.

Yet, for all it's strengths, it also showcases some flaws. The enemies often tend to become a nuisance after a while and the camera angle tends to be fixed on the most unhelpful of spots. Not even the special features (Which are unlocked after beating the game) are good enough to even forgive such hardships that are forced upon the player.

If you loved the movie, you may enjoy the game. However, this game is the only way you're going to be able to immerse yourself into a playable version of such a beautiful and amazing movie.

Of course, you could have just picked a Deniro movie instead. I know a lot of people have said don't bother with this movie because its not a good fighting flick and hard with the subtitles. That is a really lazy way to think of a movie. If you want to focus on that part of the movie you should go find something else, and also learn to to respect cinema as a form of art, this being a masterful piece of work. If you want to watch this, its not about the fighting really. There are good fight scenes sometimes that are filmed rather well with good camera work, but the story itself is what holds the story together and is the important part. This is not the basic Kung-fu movie. The story is really the central focus and not the fights, and the combination of the two make an excellent movie thats well worth watching, and is even better in the original language with subtitles. Wow, What a wonderful film-making! Mr. Im has done it, again!

His last work, ChunHayang (2000) was a great film, but this one is even greater. Selected as an official feature film in the Canne Festival for the second time in a two-year row, this 66 years old director is getting better and better at what he is making of with a Korean culture.

Simply, Chihwaseon is about a great Korean painter, '(Ohwon) JANG, Seung-Up' who was considered as a prodigy in the late Nineteenth century. The basic story of this film tells the life of Jang, Seung-up, and the historical background of his time. He was an orphan, but in his teens, he was picked up by a noble man, called, Kim, Byung-Moon. This Mr.Kim becomes a mentor of Jang as well as life-long friendship, and continues to support his great talent that he knew in the first place. With Jang's great effort and natural talent, his fame grows faster and faster as the strength of his country, Korea falls down.

Jang's personality portrayed in the film is very complicated, and one of the best actors in Korea, Choi, Min-sik goes deep inside of Jang's soul. Suffering eyes reveal the struggle of a great artist's life. He is very serious sometimes, but all of sudden, he changes to a wild maniac. He drinks like an alcoholic, and sleeps with courtesans anytime. Even, he said in the movie, "without an alcohol and a woman, I can't draw. (An alcohol and women are my only inspirations)" In the peak of the fame, to develope his own style, he travels all around the country, and never gives up his pride as an artist for the authority or money. I don't want to give out every details, but I think you surely did get some ideas about the film.

The most amazing thing about this film is a cinematography. It is just so breath-taking how they captured every beauty of landscapes. Yes, each scene is like a work of Jang's painting. And the script is perfect, too. It mainly deals a deeper meaning of what makes a true artist. For example, Kim advices to Jang in the movie that 'before one holds a paintbrush, one has to set an aim in life'. This is very moving and inspiring line, and there are many more.

Go See this Film if you are going to be in the Canne Festival.

Chihwasun will be the greatest film ever made that deals with the life of a painter in film history. Chi-hwa-seong (Painted Fire) recounts the life of Korean painter Jang Seong-ub amidst the changing political landscape of late 19th century Korea.

However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.

Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.

Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.

The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.

The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.

I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and/or censorship I cannot comment.

Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over. The fire gives all...

This is one of film's most masterful meditations on artistry. Set in 19th century Korea it tells the story of the famous painter Ohwon, but rather than stick to saucy anecdote, melodrama, or psychological egg hunting, it portrays a series of episodes throughout his life, all of which are beautiful works of art in themselves. It gives no interpretation of these episodes, but leaves them for the viewer to ponder along with the paintings of Ohwon himself. In this way, the viewer enters into the same sort of contemplation as Ohwon, and minus his talent can "feel" their way into the inspiration of his paintings.

Part of why this is so effective is the utterly masterful evocation of 19th century Korea and the musical/artistic world that Ohwon moved in. There are so many gorgeous shots of the world outside the paintings that we get a mirror effect where we see the beautiful world inspiring Ohwon, Ohwon living and looking in that world, and the works of art he creates, all mirroring off one another.

The story is told with extreme economy. A feeling evoked is hardly ever lingered with or explained, it just appears quickly then is gone for the next one to appear. As an analogy it is a sort of Mozartian work of art (endless and quick succession of great ideas) rather than Beethovinian (Obsessive lingering on one great idea). It has a classical restraint, much like Ohwon's paintings. There is really no music hinting how to feel except a few classical Korean pieces used with great effectiveness in several scenes (and mostly played by characters in the movie). One haunting image, if I remember correctly, is of a flock of birds soaring away over the blue mountains while a female singer croons

"This life is like a dream, and only death will awaken us"

One telling line of advice in the film, from one of Ohwon's teachers, is that "the painting lies between the strokes." The film follows that attitude as there is so much matter *between* what is spoken and described in the film. I have seen it twice and it was very rewarding on the second viewing. A very terse film, with little in the way of obvert explanation, one could see how it is Im's 96th film. It is an artistic masterwork. Like Ohwon's great friend and mentor tells him in describing one of his paintings, "Not a single stroke is wasted."

I compare it to Andrei Rubylev in quality, though in style it is very different. It is much easier and more directly entertaining to watch, but classical in form where Andrei is gothic.

All in all highly recommended to almost anyone except appetite junkies. Both times I left the film I felt a wonderful spiritual renewal.

One point of Ohwon's life that intruiged me was that his mad drinking and raving began suddenly after visiting the noble who told him that "Good art can come only from great knowledge and learning." The next brief scene Ohwon was very angry, and the next blasted drunk as he often remained for the remainder of the film. I am curious why the nobles words effected him so much and drove him to the drinking that dominated the rest of his life. Or was it just a coincidence? What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film! This movie could be a bit boring for some people, but I find this film

very interesting in terms of an attempt to reveal a tradition.

The director, Lim, has made two films about traditional music in Korea before this film. The film before this one was showing the music throughout the film, and this film is trying to achieve similar things by having backgrounds in the movie just like a painting.

Another thing is that, the story is written by both director and a philosopher, Kim who is well known scholar in Korea (holding a lot of degrees - including doctor at Havard) I'm not saying that educated people make better films but that philosopher is an expert in traditional culture in Korea, so it gives more credit on this film. Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than "overly arty") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike. inspite of many movies dealing with great artists or a genius, chihaweseon pointed out the real dilemma in which an artist is capted...

the decision whether to ease the demands of the popularity or to create something new and to define ones' own style.

Chiahweson's desperate seek for inspiration and broadening his conscious led him to live the way he did, restless, outrageous, and yes very drunk!

But still he defended and retained the most important ethical rules for an artist: respect to his Master, respect to the nature and the gradual seek for improvement and to perfection. It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm Kwon Taek at the time it was. He examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.

Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.

Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast.

What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic.

The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion.

He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him.

But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known.

It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift. This film, winning Im Kwon-Taek the Best Director at Cannes in 2002 (tied with P.T. Anderson for Punch-Drunk Love), is about a 19th century Korean painter with a commoner's roots and significant impact on Korean painting. One of the strengths?of the film is that Im tries to help us see with the eye of a painter, so we see multiple scenes and objects which help our drunken painter friend, Jang Seung-up (Choi Min-shik),?receive inspiration.

The costumes and the art direction are all impressive and the acting is even along being good. It's not a movie that moved me, but it was one that made me think about art and what it means to find your own voice in it. That's pretty cool. It's also interesting to see a version of Korea during those times right before the turn of the century, where Chinese and Japanese powers are both in Korea and the Chosun kingdom is coming to an end. More than one revolution and political ideology are gathered in the film, but are never the center. It's firmly on the painter.

In the end, it's a well made film about the life of a painter. But it doesn't exactly have the regular three-act structure plot, so you have to be able to take a non-standard Hollywood story to watch it. Yay for art! 8/10 It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.

Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.

Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast.

What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic.

The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion.

He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him.

But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known.

It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift. That's right. Ohwon (the painter and the main character) is an exceptional person. What strikes me most is the message this film might address to all of you people there. And the message is sad. It says that, it's very difficult to do anything that's amazing or maybe even genius without having to obey the governments, establishment and other VIPs of this world. And even if you try, you might not be able to bear it. It is about the battle of a single person with a system. With many systems.

A great film of this wonderful Korean director. Please see it if you do have an opportunity. Warning--this film has some amazingly graphic images and should never be seen by kids.

The artist who this story is all about was indeed a fine Korean painter who rose up from the lowest depths to become their greatest painter. Unfortunately, in so many ways, this guy was also a jerk in so many ways. Some of this was the artistic temperament and what may have seemed annoying was just his demanding nature when it came to art. But, other times he was simply a drunk jerk--especially when he was on his way to becoming a great artist. Late in the film, his being annoying, abrasive and needlessly cruel seemed to have diminished. While all this didn't make him a particularly nice man, it is important to capture on film so we understand a lot about the nature of the artist.

I really found the movie fascinating and loved how the artists actual works were shown throughout the movie (like in LUST FOR LIFE). I really wish I could show this to my students (I teach at a school for the arts), but can't because there is just too much adult material. Yes there is nudity, but even more problematic for any audience (particularly younger ones) is when he,....hmmm,...I don't think IMDb will even let me describe what occurred, but it was very graphic and involves bodily fluids. Not only a nasty and disgusting scene that did NOT need to be seen, but a reason to keep junior from watching this otherwise wonderful film. It's a real shame. First off, I absolutely loved this movie. As a Billy Crystal fan, I must say that I was expecting more comedic situations than I actually got. However, it was nice to see him in a role with more depth and emotion. His portrayal of talent agent Sammy was brilliantly performed and uniquely him. In addition, Gheorghe Muresan (as Maximus) was superb in his first film role. When Sammy goes to Romania to visit his client on location he has his world turned upside down. He never expected that he would accidentally find the one person who could change his life. Sammy and Max's journey is unique and moving, and even humorous at times. Plus, the location in Czech Republic where parts of the film were shot, was absolutely beautiful. I have to say, this dramatic comedy had me feeling a variety of emotions. I thought it was excellent and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone. I always liked this movie, I have seen it so many times but I always enjoyed it :) the story is interesting and special. But the only thing I have to disagree with is that I don't think Max lived in a Romanian monastery or what was that :P They don't look that way in Romania.. Anyway, back to the story, Ghita Muresan played pretty well but as someone said before me, his English needs to improve.

And there were some funny moments and some tragical/sad parts too. It worths being seen, I thought it was sweet that the giant wanted to find his love. I recommended to you all. It's not the best movie ever, but it was nice! i totally disagree with the person who first commented about this movie. to me, this storyline is about a man with growth hormonal disorder trying his best to look for the love he is yearning for. Trying his very best to fit into the society who doesn't seemed to accept him.

He then met someone who treats him with best friend's love and was shown the way to receiving the love he always wanted to have. the man who created all that happiness in returned received something important from the giant, which is family and spouse love.

and the comedy, it's just part of making the audience feel some laughter bugs at certain part of the shows.

and i must admit, it made me tear a little. Containing Billy's famous humor, this more modest comedy with heavy bittersweet overtones is a big departure, pleasantly unexpectedly so for Billy Crystal. This movie has different tear-jerker, dramatic, serious underlying themes (particularly with a scene with Steven Seagal). This movie was both entertaining and serious, a movie about lost love, about relationships with father-son, husband-wife, about friendship and values with a good dose of humor thrown in, especially at the beginning. The balance between drama and comedy isn't always maintained as with the new classical genre of this type, but the real message and motivation for this movie remains solid. The discovery of Billy Crystal's talent scout/agent character in Romania of a giant human is revealing and the behind the scene's view of movie agent is fascinating. Yet the focus remains on sensitive ties of both love and learning about one's self. Eight out of Ten Stars. This is a brilliant film. The story starts off in Romania,where Billy Crystal stars as an agent who can talk anybody into doing anything. There is a really funny scene here, where Crystal is a child, and talks his father, who is a rabbi into eating pork (you filmophiles may know that this is a parody of Crystal's religion). He is mainly a talent scout, and he's trying to find a suitable villain for his latest movie. After finding out that the whole film has a terrible crew, he accidently falls into a small river. Believing he is dead, some huge hands come out to reach him. HE later thinks he is in heaven. He finds out that he isn't, but that he is in a monastery. Believing God saved him, he becomes a monk, searching for who saved him. He later finds a 7 ft 7 in man, who he casts as the perfect villain (he also recites Shakespeare!). See the film and find out the rest! This is a little film with a big heart. Excellent acting throughout and directed with love. If you missed it in theatres (and who didn't?), catch it with someone you love. Frankly, I cried! And I'm a guy, for cryin' out loud! This is the greatest movie ever. If you have written it off with out ever seeing it. You must give it a second try. I just wanted to say that. I love Gheorghe Muresan, so I automatically loved this movie. Everything else about it was so-so... Billy Crystal is a good actor, even if he is annoying. But the thing that made this movie was- at least, for a basketball fan- seeing Gheorghe Muresan act. This movie turned out to be better than I had expected it to be. Some parts were pretty funny. It was nice to have a movie with a new plot. I don't think I've yet seen a movie in my whole lifetime about a high school kid creating his own college, just to impress his parents. Nowadays, movies are either remakes or sequels, or plots that have been used in many different films. This one has an original story line and to follow it up by making it a comedy films only lightens the deal. With this well thought out story and with laughs mixed in, this is a good movie. Now I've seen better, but upon going into the theater I was thinking another drug/beer/frat party with some sexual innuendo tossed in (aka an "American Pie" flick) but I was surprised. To sum it up, I enjoyed the film and the next time your shuffling through the paper for movies, look for show times to "Accepted". If you want to laugh out loud, that is. This is what movies should aspire to. Funny without being totally stupid, a little sexy without having every female in the cast show her boobs, biting without resorting to 'f-bombs' every line. I've been seeing Justin Long pop up in a lot of films over the past few years, I figured with the right role he could break out. (Mac commercials not withstanding.) This film just might put him on a fast track to the A list. The rest of the cast also did their jobs perfectly, this is an excellent little film with a nice message. (But you don't need to buy the message to have a good time.) Lewis Black is, as usual, hilarious, and Blake Lively is a fresh faced beauty.

Take a couple hours and see this film, they will not have been wasted. I for one was very anxious to watch this movie.

Though I knew it was going to be another type of movie in the style of Revenge of the Nerds, I was still impressed.

There is plenty of truth to the fact of this type of learning and believe very strongly that it should be allowed in a "new style of schooling".

Conventional teaching methods do not always teach students what they need to know or should know or want to know.

This approach to teaching should be further sought out in true academic courses.

While there still was too much of the partying scenes, it obviously had to be thrown in there - for Hollywood's sake of making a comedy about college...even though we all know that life isn't really like that by any means.

A touch unbelievable, still funny and with a killer ending.

Awesome ending. Crucial to the entire story and very surprising.

Without the final scene, the movie would have been half as good.

I liked this movie and it didn't have to have overly amounts of swearing or nudity or gross out jokes for it to be good.

Great crew and cast, story and even the generic typecasting of the obligatory "Hampton frat members" was well done.

American Pie 1, 2 3 and American Wedding or whatever clones it makes doers not measure up to this by 1/3.

Far better than most comedies about first year College with no demeaning stupid jokes to make somebody throw up with.

I liked it, even though it was simple...it was interesting and even had heart...my only regret for watching this movie is that it wasn't longer. A great movie. The movie was even better then the commercials put on. And believe it or not it was very very inspirational. I really think anyone who walks out of the movie at the end will be inspired one way or another.

It was kinda corny at the very beginning, but quickly picks up. I laughed. I laughed very hard on some parts. The acting is basically above average, nothing special, but better then average. I can safely say it was the second funniest movie to come out this summer (1st funniest being CLERKS II). So after all of that I give it a 7/10 (a high seven, but not quite an eight). Contrary to what many may believe as this movie being an "against the system" type of movie and attitude. It is an excellent portrayal of the "system" in question and how ridiculous it truly is. The funny parts in the movie are in fact funny because they speak the truth about the world around us. Anyone who finds this movie to be unrealistic is simply denying the self evident truths about life. And that is to learn what you enjoy. That is what college should be about..

I come to find that a comment must have at least 10 lines. I think I have given my opinion on the matter. So I now write a couple more lines just as filler. I hope you have been entertained during this time. I encourage you to go see the movie. It is well worth your while so long as you follow it and immerse yourself in the movie. I saw the trailer and read some reviews, and I had low expectations for this movie. I was pleasantly surprised. While the plot is a little off-beat, everybody in the making of this movie pulled off a pleasant flick good for many a laugh. The writing and jokes are far more literate than I have come to expect. Better yet, they are delivered with aplomb by unknown actors doing a good job, all of them.

The main reasons I wanted to see this movie were Justin Long and Lewis Black. Long is from "Ed" and the new Apple computer ads. He was just coming into his own as an actor in "Ed," and he was excellent here. He's a natural in front of the camera. Lewis Black is a social commentator who pulls no punches. He's on "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central about once every two weeks, but he really shines in HBO's "Red, White, and Screwed." I regularly catch him on XM Radio's uncensored comedy channel. Give Black an idea and let him improvise. Whether his rants and lines here are scripted or improvised are no matter. He's priceless delivering his thoughts on middle class angst. One thing about Black's delivery, his hand gestures are not those of a comedian. It just seems like he's having a conversation with you, and I think that makes him unconsciously more effective. The best thing from the American Pie "bakery." I found the humor and the plot to be far more engaging audience than any of the American Pie movies to date. .Also concerning the appropriateness of the content I found this to be acceptable to a much larger audience than any of the previous American Pie movies. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie experience. When the movie first came out I read a number of negative reviews and ended up not going to see it while it was still in the theater...I now regret that decision. The movie far exceeded my expectations in terms of plot, dialog/scripting, and overall quality. I give it two thumbs way up! (Synopsis) Graduating high school senior Bartleby "B" Gaines (Justin Long) finds himself without a college to attend. He has been able to talk and con his way out of every problem he encounters, but he hasn't been able to charm his way pass the college admissions board of eight colleges. His mom and dad are very disappointed that Bartleby hasn't been accepted into college. His parents think that if Bartleby doesn't go to college, he will have no future. Several of Bartleby's friends are in the same situation of being rejected by all the colleges they applied to. To satisfy their parents, Bartleby comes up with an idea to start his own college with an internet site. They convert an abandoned psychiatric facility into the South Harmon Institute of Technology. They will be the only students. However, the web site states that we accept anyone. On the first day of school, they unexpectedly have a large number of accepted students that were also rejected by all colleges. With a million dollars in tuition money, Bartleby must make his fake college into a functioning one. He hires Uncle Ben (Lewis Black) as the College Dean. The fun begins when they design their own curriculum, make their own rules, and party all night.

(My Comment) The premise of starting a college without a teaching staff is a little off the wall. Since it was a fake college, Bartleby really didn't need a staff. The movie reminded me of the classic movie "Animal House", the college setting, the fraternity, lots of gags, and pretty young women. These new college freshmen had a different notion of what the college experience was all about. The movie not only has lots of humor, it also has a good message for life. People should reach for their dream and create a passion for what they want to do in life and not settle for what other people want them to do. The ending was a little unrealistic, but it is only a movie. The movie was made for the young crowd to have a little fun. (Universal Pictures, Run time 1:32, Rated PG-13) (7/10) I went in to this thinking another gross movie with gross humor. Telling from my first sentence I don't like that humor and this movie had it's moments but I loved it. Justin Long has really never done comedy like this, where he's sarcastic and clever and I loved it. Lewis Black....enough said. The ending I really did love because It had to take itself seriously I mean how else would you end it? Yes it's another underdog story but not in your typical format and the movie wasn't their ups and downs, it was people coming together for one common goal, To go to college where they were accepted. The cast was amazing and yes I did laugh at loud when I didn't think I would and the laughter lasted longer then I thought to. The parents and sister played their roles well but their characters are put in when necessary. The movie was not focused around them but at the same time they showed up when you expect and not expect them to. They played in to the story very well, and I loved the familiar faces Anthony Heald(Boston Public), Jeremy Howard (I) (Galaxy Quest with Justin Long) Ross Patterson (The New Guy)and Sam Horrigan (Brink). Blake Lively added her certain something to the movie which made it even more enjoyable, as well as B's Friends. I recommend this movie to whoever hated those gross comedies of the last 4 years and really want something with humor and an actually story line!~! From the creators of Bruce Almighty and Liar Liar! The film took a while to pick up from the start, at least for me seeing as I expected this was a run-along America Pie flick. But it was slightly different-- a fun-loving slacker who finishes high school and makes his OWN college, running it accordingly. As you can expect, there's a lot of parties and hot girls in bikinis but this film tried harder than your average teen flick. Bartleby Gaines (Justin Long) encourages his students / peers to learn through freedom of expression and ultimately 'shove it to the system.' The humour was varied which I loved. All the cast delivered fantastic performances-- hire this one out with a friend, it's a bloody crack up! On the face of it, any teen comedy runs the risk of being sophomoric and obvious, and fair enough, most of them are. There are a few that have risen above the usual banality of the source material (Bring It On, Eurotrip), and they give me hope that others can join that depressingly rare crowd of teen comedies that are actually funny and not just an excuse to flash some starlet's boobs or be a vehicle for some never-was like Tom Green.

Enter Accepted, directed by John Cusack pal Steve Pink and led by the likable Justin Long (the smart nerdy kid in Galaxy Quest and more recently featured in Apple computer ads), about a bunch of kids who don't get accepted to college and decide, as disclosed in the trailer, to fake a bogus one to get their parents off their backs. When they go a little too far with the website and other kids end up enrolling, the kids have a few problems to solve.

Okay, the set-up is obviously preposterous, but most comedy lives or dies in the execution, and here, Accepted does pretty well. Long's Bartleby Gaines (mostly shortened to 'B') is accompanied by enough well-meaning comically acceptable friends to help him share the load, but probably the best supporting character is 'Dean' Lewis (no doubt named as an homage to Rodney Dangerfield's Dean Martin), aka Uncle Ben, Lewis Black, who is wisely restricted to short spurts where he can rapid fire his unique brand of cranky observational humor. Black is terrific here, frankly telling the kids what life is really like (his expletive-laden final line is hysterical) and providing the adult face to the bogus university for the parents.

But Long has to carry most of the film, and he does so, in spades; Bartleby is easily identified with and we take to him almost immediately. A nice twist was provided by Columbus Short's character Hands, an athlete who loses his scholarship due to an injury and ends up becoming the de facto art faculty at the fake college. Also noteworthy as Bartleby's hyper-intelligent and sarcastic little sister is Hannah Marks.

Yes, the film does feel familiar in some spots; there's a debt here owed, of all places, to Revenge of the Nerds. Those who are rejected by everyone else find a home with Bartleby and his cohorts, and of course the villains are steroid-enhanced conformist Master Race types who run a fraternity (well, okay, frats are evil) and seek to humiliate and bury the oddballs for the – gasp – crime of being different. But that aside, Accepted has fun with the material, and even asks a few decent questions about the expectations on college kids and the course of higher education. Not that it's a brain teaser by any means, but Accepted isn't just another mindless teen comedy (or Owen Wilson vehicle). It's a funny, clever 90 minutes that, while not a great departure from its genre, is intelligent and creative enough to be very enjoyable.

There is at least one moment of unadulterated brilliance in the film, when Bartleby checks out a nearby college in an attempt to harvest ideas for his own school's curriculum. When he sees that the kids are all stressed out at the other school (several refuse to even talk to him during class for fear of missing something), he shakes his head, thinking that there must be a better way. As he moves to leave he is met by a stream of kids going the other way, one person moving against a human tide, while in the background, the opening lines of Eleanor Rigby play. Perhaps an unplanned moment of brilliance, but brilliance none the less. Accepted is one of the best teenage comedies I have seen in a long time. It has an original script, talented cast and it delivers an hour and a half of pure unadulterated fun.

It tells the story of a high school graduate Bartleby "B" Gains (Justin Long) who is not accepted in any of the collages he applied to, so to avoid his parents' disappointment he creates a fictional collage. In the attempt to fool his parents completely he creates a fake website and turns an old psychiatric hospital into a school. Everything goes smoothly until a lot of other "accepted" students turn up on his doorstep. Now he and his friend have to figure that collage thing out not only for themselves but for the others too.

Justin Long as a lead man is absolutely brilliant, his character is as natural as he can be and the supporting acts are outstanding- Jonah Hill as Sherman Schrader, Columbus Short as Hands, Maria Thayer as Rory, Adam Herschman as Glen and Lewis Black as Uncle Ben.

The humour is fresh and simple and most importantly funny, right from the start to after the credits .The plot develops so easy that by the time you stop laughing at the last joke you start giggling at next other. Along with all the fun the movie brings a very common subject to our attention i.e. the collage education. If usually the students in the movie are united against the school government, in this case they are united by the mutual desire to go to school and learn.

Yet the movie doesn't brand all other schools as wrong, it just shows that there is another way. You what they say "If there is a will there is a way.And may be sometimes the children know better what they need than their parents.

This movie is an unmissable little story about the great opportunities in life wrapped up in the best format possible. Accepted is a 2006 teen flick that stars the guy from the mac and PC ads. The movie is about Bartelby .B. Gaines a guy who has rejected from all the colleges he has applied for so decides to make his own college and invites all the other people who did not make it, problem is hundreds of people sign up to his school. The movie is hilarious and I was lucky enough to buy it for $5.00 at a sale and I have always watched it since. Overall this movie is a must watch for fans of all comedy as it is funny, witty and just a good movie all up. I rate this movie a very fair 78%. GO ACCEPTED MAKE A SEQUEL GUYS BUT MAKE SURE IT IS NOT CRAP. When I saw this movie i expected it to be a cheesy American movie done on the cheap with appalling actors. I was really surprised to find that i was totally wrong. The movie centres around Bartely or B who has been rejected from all of his colleges- the actor who play B is very natural and makes his character seem real- and decides to create a pretend school so his parents stop harassing him. However loads of people see his fake website and join. Feeling their sorrows B can't turn them away much to the chagrin of his best mate. The college is the ideal place with you learning what you want or doing nothing. The school faces opposition from the proper college which ends up closing it down. The film ends on a high and i recommend you watching it. Its does have it flaws but it is a feel good cheerful film with a few unpredictable twists. The success of SCREAM gave birth to a whole new horror flicks wave. I'm happy with that, as a big fan of horror, and I liked most of those new horror films. BOC is a one big pack of horror. Colorful, fast paced and original. I see this movie more like the opening of a new trilogy (much like Episode 1 and Aliens: Resurrection) since it comes up with a new twist. Instead of focusing on the little boy-killer doll relationship we have here a twisted movie about couples. We have the sweet young lovers in contrast with the killer crazy doll-sized lovers. Very inventive! I'm warning you -- this movie is not scary. If you're a horror movie fan, especially a Child's Play fan, you'll think it's incredibly funny, but you won't be scared. It's not a bad movie, but it's not scary. This is the funniest sequel I have seen in a long time it is much funnier than the other three and not a bit scary. It has some very gory pieces in the film, but not bad enough to make you sick. In this one he has a female doll companion, hence the name. If you liked the first three then you'll love this, go watch it! It's unbelievable but the fourth is better than the second and the third. After the third that was awful, it's incredible how they could have an unexpected sequel with new ideas. Chuck is the same nasty doll of the previous movies. Interesting the final that lets know that a fifth can be done.... I know this movie isn't for everyone, and I won't push my opinions on you, but what I have to say is the truth about how many people feel about this movie...It was the best I have ever seen!!! It was soooooooooooooooooo funny, and even though it wasn't the scariest movie I had ever seen, it kept me on the edge of my seat, because I didn't know what was gonna happen next. If you like funny scary movies, you have got to see this one! The movie was surprisingly wonderful especially considering the last sequel. The third was dark, and semi-interesting but it wasn't nearly as fun or enjoyable as this. It is filled with comedic lines about Martha Stuart, doll's anatomy, masturbation, and it was actually done effectively during gruesome and disturbing images. The movie wasn't scary or suspenseful and I'm sure that it wasn't the director's intention. It was fun because of the silliness, Jennifer Tilly's over the top and sexy performance. The puppetry of the dolls were so well handled, the movement of mouth, lips, tears in eyes, knife in chest, and the costumes. The dolls were just marvelous and it made the gruesome deaths more enoyable considering the fact that they were done by wonderful dolls. The new Chucky look was great and Tiffany was very cute. A few scenes with Chucky hugging the human Tiffany even made my father smile. Jesse and Jade were surprisingly well- very attractive and the special effects were cool. The ending was so unsuspected and the fact that they could make another as good is quite unlikely. It may not be as suspenseful as movies like Halloween H2O or Urban Legend, but it is certainly more fun!!!! In this 4th Child's Play film, Chucky gets lucky. It's very funny and there are some enjoyable parts. Very good direction. Not as bad as it could be. The best one in the series since the first. Three stars out of four. It's just that. Chucky 1 was good. Chucky 2 was better. Chucky 3 sucked. Now, the 4th in the series which is, in my opinion, the best out of the series. Jennifer Tilly was just great in this movie. For dolls, they were better than a few actors that come to mind (Freddie Prince Jr, for one) and funnier than many comedies I've seen in the past.

The plot wasn't great, but I really didn't care about it. Just to see Chucky and Tiffany bicker and fight each other. And the ending leaves it wide open for a 5th sequel (which I hear is in the works). Idle Hands premiers next week and looks to be another horror/comedy, but I doubt it'll top this one. I will be honest, i rented this movie solely on the fact it was part of the "Child's Play" series. I was expecting a boring dull 4th part too the series, but i was surprised. This movie was surprisingly good, and i found it to be quite funny. There was a lot of dark humor, and the idea to have two dolls was a good way to spice things up. The two dolls worked well together and added a bonnie and clyde type fell to the movie. Overall it was very good for a 4th movie in the series, with some gruesome death scenes (just watch the marilyn manson type get killed at the beginning, not to mention john ritter getting a face full of nails). Applauds to the writers for spicing things up, and the ending although i found it a bit strange leaves room for yet ANOTHER sequel...maybe "son of chucky"!!! Jimmy Wang Yu, an authentic Asian superstar, directed and wrote this film which I have only seen in a dubbed videotape version. The widescreen (Shaw Scope!)shape was lost and the original actor's voices absent but this is still good to watch. The story is the usual martial arts school fights villains from Japan plot with our young hero winning out in the end by beating up loads of assorted thugs.

The combat gets better as the film unravels. Early in the film it looks stiff and dull but later there is a great scene where Wang Yu fights hordes in a gambling joint then walks out into a snowy scene and takes some more villains on with knives, sword and fists. That part is very exciting.

Quite good then but it would be interesting to see a non dubbed widescreen version if there is one. I must have been around ten years old when my uncle took me and my brother to see this martial arts movie at the " DRIVE IN " at the circle drive in in Long Beach. The Title was " HAMMER OF GOD " from which i can never forget for some reason, but what i do remember are the different scenes that have left an imprint on my mind forever.

My brother always reminds me of the movie although it has been forever it seems since we seen the movie. From time to time throwout the years i would look for it at the rental stores and from time to time i would check on the web and for some reason it appears like it is never available or no one knows what movie I'm talking about.

If i only knew if and were it was available i would love to purchase that movie. If anyone is aware of its availability please inform me. It's always a good feeling when a movie delivers the goods when you weren't expecting it. The Dead End Kids/Bowery Boys found themselves in a lot of uneven films, and usually did better when in a support role, as in "Angels With Dirty Faces". Here, their presence as a backdrop to the story of a boxer framed for murder gives them a lot of screen time without distracting from the main action.

John Garfield is light heavyweight champion Johnny Bradfield, a southpaw hitter who's a lot different from the image he portrays to the sports world and the press. When a newspaper reporter inadvertently learns that Johnny's a party loving womanizer, his plans to spill that information in a column is interrupted by a whiskey bottle to the head from Johnny's manager Doc Ward (Robert Gleckler). In turn, Doc talks Johnny's girlfriend Goldie (Ann Sheridan) into running off with him to avoid the legal hassle of dealing with the reporter's death. As both flee, a police chase winds up in a fiery car wreck, and Doc's body is misidentified as Johnny from the gold watch he was wearing.

Claude Rains adopts an Edward G. Robinson sneer that doesn't quite work as a detective who's been reassigned to morgue detail after a bad arrest years ago. His character is Monty Phelan, and he has a pretty good hunch that the body in the car crash wasn't Johnny. He pesters his boss to hand over the closed case to him, and is given the assignment to get him out of town and out of the way.

Meanwhile, Johnny looks for advice from his lawyer, and winds up being screwed even worse when he gets conned for most of his ten thousand dollar savings. Making his way cross country, Johnny winds up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm in Arizona, run by a crusty Granny Rafferty (May Robson). The farm is the legacy of Granny's brother, a deceased priest from Brooklyn, and is now the home of a band of rag tag street boys (The Dead End Kids) who work the farm. Billy Halop is the nominal leader of the boys in this one, and his sister Peggy (Gloria Dickson) becomes the romantic interest for Johnny, now going by the name of Jack Dorney.

I get a kick out of the historical perspective offered in these pre-War era films. When Johnny and the boys take a joy ride in the farm's truck, they fill up at a gas station for a $1.28! Tommy (Halop) gets the idea that a gas station on the farm would be a good way to earn some extra money, and with that thought, Jack Dorney decides to take on a barnstorming boxer offering $500 a round to anyone who can stay in the ring with him. The clichéd premise is turned on it's ear somewhat when Jack gets knocked out in the fifth round, but by then he's earned enough to give the fruit farm a fighting chance of it's own. Maybe Grandma Rafferty should have been in the ring, she just about took out everyone sitting around her at ringside. As Johnny/Jack comes around in the locker room, Detective Phelan is on hand to take him into custody. Knowing that he can redeem his reputation with this collar, it's a toss up as to whether Phelan follows through on his arrest - you'll have to watch the film to find out.

I like the Dead End films where Leo Gorcey's in charge, but he doesn't have a lot to do in this one. However he does a great film flam on the ticket taker at the gate of the boxing match. Another thought - wouldn't it have been great if the ever present picture on the wall of the priest had been that of Pat O'Brien?

All in all, this is a pretty good entry in both the John Garfield and Dead End Kids filmography, and an entertaining way to spend an hour and a half. If there's one downside, it's not enough screen time for pretty Ann Sheridan. The film might have wound up even more satisfying if the roles of Sheridan and Gloria Dickson were reversed, as the on screen chemistry between Dickson's Peggy and Jack seemed more forced than natural. They Made Me a Criminal is a remake of an earlier Warner Brothers film, The Life of Jimmy Dolan which starred Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as the prizefighter on the lam.

Even with the restrictions now upon production by the Hays Office, this remake actually turns out to be better than the original. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., is horribly miscast as a pugilist. John Garfield with his background and style steps into a part he was born to play.

They Made Me a Criminal was directed by Busby Berkeley who Jack Warner believed in keeping busy in between musicals. Berkeley in fact would soon be leaving Warner Brothers for MGM.

Berkeley does do a fine job here, keeping the action flowing at a good pace. I particularly like the scene where four of the Dead End Kids and Garfield are swimming in a water tank and get stranded there when the water level goes down. They get it out of it quite narrowly and with some good ingenuity.

Other performances besides Garfield and the kids to remember are May Robson who runs the summer camp for the kids and Claude Rains as the obsessed detective on Garfield's trail. This is breezy highly entertaining drama with an excellent cast. Garfield is fine as a boxer hiding from the police with that motley crew the Dead End Kids. Most notable of these is the beautiful Billy Halop who has some very moving moments. Gloria Dickson, who in real life died very young in a house fire, is strong and very attractive as Halop's sister, and in the early scenes Ann Sheridan, on the brink of stardom, is a knock-out. May Robson is very funny as a crusty old granny, but Claude Rains proves here that even a great actor can flounder if mis-cast (whoever thought of casting him as a tough New York cop?).

Busby Berkeley proves here that he was a fine director with or without musical numbers. The film moves at a terrific pace and the water tower sequence is very suspenseful and well photographed. The ending is contrived, and the plot nothing startling or original, but I still found this a highly enjoyable experience. A beautiful film.John Garfield's character is a distant relative of "Les Miserables"'s Jean Valjean while detective Rains recalls Victor Hugo's Javert,the ruthless arm of law.

Like in many films noirs,the city epitomizes evil whereas the country and the nature represents sanctuary,redemption,and a second chance for those whose life seems forever doomed.But even in the luminous daylight,danger may appear suddenly,as the excellent scene at the reservoir shows.John Garfield -an actor who,as Leonard Maltin points out,should be rediscovered:I've never been disappointed by any of his films except for his supporting part in "gentleman's agreement " but it was not his fault-gives a heartfelt sensitive performance and the audience sides with him as soon as he is unjustly accused (the first sequence shows a rather unkind hypocrite person,but all his trials redeem him and how do we feel for him during the last scenes with detective Rains.Colorful characters (grandma and the kids ) add a lot of joie de vivre which is necessary .Humor is also present in the strip poker game as the Dead End brats fleece a rich kid.

I recommend this movie. The young John Garfield turned in a fine performance in the 1939 "They Made Me a Criminal." Celebrating a ring victory in a jammed locker room, boxer Johnnie Bradfield emotes about his love of mom, rejection of booze and clean living style to fans, including cops, who eat it up. Later in the evening he's plowed and tussling with his bimbo gal while his manager, in on the con, shares the evening. And the whiskey.

A problem develops when another couple arrives. The guy is a newspaper reporter and he says he'll expose Bradfield's phony life on the front page. The manager kills the reporter and he and the floozy depart. The murder discovered, cops, later, are on the lookout for the now somnolent boxer whose car is driven by the manager with his new girlfriend-Johnny's now instant ex. A police chase ends with a fiery car crash. Manager and girl are dead and unrecognizable.

Johnny discovers that he's supposed to be a killer. But he's also presumed dead. Seeking advice from a lawyer, he entrusts the counselor with the key to a bank deposit box holding his sole savings, $10,000. The lawyer later gives Johnny $250 and tells him that the balance is his fee for giving him professional advice: get out of town, fast, and go far away. (I would never charge a client more than $5,000 for such pithy, succinct and wise direction.)

Johnny, now a freight train hopping hobo, winds up conveniently passing out at an Arizona date ranch where he's nursed back to health by beautiful Goldie West, Ann Sheridan, a fine actress whose career was in the ascendancy. Taking Jack Dorney as his moniker, the pugilist loses some of his rough edges as he falls in love with Goldie. He becomes a mentor and pal to - The Dead End Kids. Familiar screen characters to pre-war moviegoers.

A chance to make money arises when an exhibition boxer shows up challenging any suckers to last several rounds in the ring with him. It's a natural temptation for Bradfield/Dorney but there's a fly in the ointment. Who should show up but New York detective Monty Phelan, the laughing stock of the department? He's been on morgue duty for ages because of a slight mistake early in his career that sent an innocent man to Old Sparky (we all make mistakes, don't we?) Phelan recognized Bradfield from a news photo and he's there to watch the fight and make the pinch. Claude Rains is the cop who's endured slights and barbs from his fellow officers for years.

What follows is predictable but it's well acted. I hope this was a main feature when it was released-it's too good to rank as a "B" second on a marquee.

Busby Berkeley, best known as an outstanding choreographer, directed "They Made Me a Criminal" and Max Steiner, one of Hollywood's all-time prolific score composers, wrote nice but not extraordinary music for the film.

Now available on DVD from Alpha Video, the movie set me back a mere $4.99 and gave me real pleasure. I'll view it again.

8/10 ***SPOILERS*** Even though the movie "They Made Me A Criminal" is nowhere as good as the later John Garfield anti-hero classics like "Body & Soul" in 1947 "Force of Evil" in 1948 and his last and very underrated "He Ran All The Way" in 1951 it's the film that defined his career from that point onward until his untimely death on May 21, 1952 at the young age of 39.

Garfiled plays the part of light Weight Champion Johnnie Bradfield and later the fugitive from the law Jack Dorney who's innocent of the murder that he's charged with, even though he's been declared officially dead. Jonnie's manager Doc Ward, Robert "Doc" Gleckler, who during a drunken victory party killed reporter Charles McGee,John Ridgely, who was going to expose to the public his fighter Johnnie Bradfield lies about him being a one women guy as well as non drinking momma's boy. Doc Gleckler smashed a bottle over McGee's head killing him as Jonnie was almost dead drunk with a number of women partying in his hotel suite.

Doc was later killed in a car crash with Johnnie's girlfriend Goldie, Ann Sheridan, but Doc burned to a crisp and with Johnnie's watch on him was mistaken for Johnnie. Told to stay dead and buried by his lawyer Malvin ,Robert Strange, who took $9,750.00 of the $10,000.00 of Johnnie's money that he had for this great piece of advice. Malvin told Johnnie to take on a new identity and call himself from now on Jack Dorney and get the hell out of the state of New York; talking about sleazy shysters. Johnnie now Jack Dorney travels the rails from New York down to Arizona ending up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm where most of the film takes place.

If it wasn't for John Garfield in the lead role as both Jonnie Bradfield & Jack Dorney the movie would have long been lost and forgotten. Garfield who was only 26 at the time brought the best out of everyone in the movie. Even the transported Dead End Kids, I guess we can call them The Arizona Kids here, acting were notches above what you would have expected from them and they came across as real and sensitive persons not a bunch of slap stick clowns like in almost all of their movies. All that due to being on the same stage, or filming location, with John Garfield.

"They Made Me a Criminal" is a good story that has the undercover champ acting like anything but not to draw any attention on himself and end up not only behind bars but in the electric chair. In the end Jack showed just what kind of man he is by not fighting the big fight and against all the odds dramatically winning at the last moment but by going four brutal rounds to get the money for his new found family at the date farm including his girl Peggy, Gloria Dickson, to open up a gas station with it.

Giving the European champ Gaspar Rutchek, Frank Riggi, the fight of his life and getting $2,000.00, thats $500.00 a round, for doing it Jack showed everyone who looked up to him like the "Arizona Kids" that sometimes taking a punch is far braver and more courageous then throwing one.The fact that Jack could have easily clobbered Rutched but didn't in order not to expose himself to the police, as on the loose killer Johnnie Bradfield. But instead went as far as he could taking everything that Rutchek could throw at him to help out his friends showed more then all the fights that he won in the boxing ring put together.

I for one didn't find the ending of the movie contrived at all but fitting right in with the story. The cop Morty Phelam, Claude Rains, who came to Arizona from New York to arrest Jack had to live with for years the fact that he once sent an innocent man to the electric chair. We were told all this right at the start of the movie. Why knowing that Jack/Johnnie was innocent of the murder that he's charged with and not knowing for sure if he'll be found innocent of it in a court of law would he want to make the same terrible mistake again? I can easily see this happening in real life why not then in the movies. Another enjoyable Warner flick. I really liked John Garfield in this, though I'm wondering why Cagney wasn't in the role. Perhaps it was too similar to ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES? I mean, it's another Dead End Kids story of sorts too, but I really appreciated them here and this film had a lot of nice comical touches along with some good serious drama. The boys work great with Garfield. A nice sequence was the whole "swimming" scene which starts out with no cares but winds up coming too close to disaster.

One negative comment: Claude Rains was grossly miscast. As the detective, the fine actor seemed as out of place here as a nun in a whorehouse. The early films of the Dead End Kids (before they were re-christened "the Bowery Boys") were all very entertaining and well-produced films from Warner Brothers. Despite their being rather formulaic, they still had excellent writing, acting and hold up well over time. Do NOT confuse these with the cheap Bowery Boys films from Monogram Pictures--despite the presence of Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, these films were several notches below the earlier films in regard to quality.

The film begins with tough-guy John Garfield winning the lightweight boxing championship. Unfortunately, shortly after this he's on a drunken binge and is blamed for a murder he really didn't commit. The problem is that he was so loaded that he wasn't sure he didn't kill the man, so he runs away and lives the life of a hobo. Eventually, he meets up with feisty May Robson and the Dead End Kids--as well as a lady you just know will become his girlfriend given time.

Where the rest of the film goes was not all that surprising, but because of the quality of the film, it doesn't seem to matter. Garfield and the Kids are at their best and this is a film sure to please all but the pickiest of viewers. I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film, so I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it and found it to be most noteworthy. It's noteworthiness is mainly due to the talent and appeal of it's star, John Garfield.

Garfield plays Jack, a boxing star who is framed for murder. He must go on the run, and ends up out in the sticks with Gloria Dickson and the Dead End Kids. Here is offered a chance for redemption, yet will the past catch up with him yet? Garfield was an actor ahead of his peers. Before the term 'Method' was even coined and before Brando ever screamed 'Stella!' he brings 'natural' to the screen. His earthy quality and amazing acting talent dominate this production. Also interesting is that his role here as a boxer has shades of that 'Golden Boy' role he so desperately wanted to covet on screen. Garfield looks the type and goes the distance as a boxer, proving his acting worth.

Ann Sheridan is here in a small role at the beginning as Jack's trampy girl Goldie. I haven't ever thought much of Sheridan, but I liked her here. She plays well off Garfield. Dickson's' performance is a little tired and she does not share good chemistry with Garfield. The Dead End Kids are here, and Garfield seems their natural idol (even more so than Cagney). Claude Rains is miscast, and he looks uncomfortable in the role in many a scene. Strange, as he always was such a reliable actor.

Also interesting to note is the director- Busby Berkeley, best known for his early musicals with dancing girls and kaleidoscope images, directs a different genre here with remarkable ease. He maintains a gritty atmosphere throughout admirably.

A very good film that deserves greater attention 8/10. As a fan of old warner brothers gangster movies i had to check this out,its the 2nd best movie in the adventure classics DVD set that also had one of my favorite movies;Scott of the Antarctic on it.this was made in 1939 a good year for a lot of warner brothers movies,it boasts a great cast;John Garfield,Claude Rains,Ann Sheridan,and the dead end kids,who would be later known as the Bowery boys at monogram pictures. well a boxer(Garfield)gets framed for a murder he did'nt commit and is on the run and being tailed by a tough new york detective(Claude Rains) he ends up at a fruit picking place run by a pretty woman(Gloria Dickson)and the dead end kids(Huntz Hall,Leo Gorcey,Benard Punsley, Billy Halop,Bobby Jordan,Gabreil Dell)he later returns to boxing but tries to keep a low profile.this was directed by famed director Busby Berkley who directed timeless classics like 42nd street,goldiggers of 1933,and 35,footlight parade and many others.i would like to give a shout out to platinum DVD/video for putting out a lot of good budget priced DVD's like adventure classics(see my Scott of the Antarctic review)i give they made me a criminal 10 out of 10,great movie. ill have to point out that i have only seen 2 john Garfield movies,this one and body and soul.i thought he was a very good actor. Very good 1939 film where John Garfield plays another boxer who becomes a victim when everyone thinks he has committed a murder. Trouble is that the killer and Garfield's girl, Ann Sheridan, in a brief but good performance, get killed while trying to elude the police.

A crooked attorney persuades Garfield to flee N.Y. He lands in Arizona and meets up with the Dead End Kids.. They've been sent there by a funding program to keep them out of further trouble.

Of course, Garfield finds a new love interest but must conceal his identity as everyone thinks he was not only the killer but was the victim in the car crash.

May Robson is fabulous as the grandma type running the place for the wayward youth. Claude Rains is also effective in the role of the detective who suspects that Garfield is still alive and pursues him when a picture is snapped of him in Arizona.

The film really deals with Garfield's relation to the boys. While the ending is good, you want to see Garfield go back to N.Y. to proclaim his innocence. Whoever plays the part of J. Douglas Williamson in the strip poker scene does a wonderful job. He apparently received no credits. Too bad.

All the Dead End Kids do their jobs beautifully in this 1939 entry. It is odd to watch them in a Western setting with their Brooklyn accents ( I guess that should be Bowery ). They even show some swimming abilities.

I think there are many special scenes that can stay with the viewer of this boxing/love/crime story. My favorite right now is in the fight scene near the end of the film. Busby Berkeley shows his dance movie expertise when John Garfield shifts his feet and as we watch that move, the camera moves up to his face. I will not give away why or when, but the look on his face at that point probably brought the 1939 audience to its feet in the theaters.

Some will think John Garfield looks a lot like Frank Sinatra in many scenes. Just his face. Actually Frank was not yet making movies so maybe Frank looked like John. The boxer named Smith in the movie looks like a clone of Ed Begley, Jr.

Now I must tell you something that is not a spoiler, but if you watch the movie, watch Grandma's hands. May Robson does her part well. She seems to have hands that wander a bit. In a scene where she and a crowd go into the boxer's (John Garfield) dressing room, watch where she touches the reclining John Garfield while he is wearing only his trunks.

A great ending. Lots of wonderful characters.

Best line might be at the gas station, "...eight gallons, that's a dollar twenty-eight..." Tom Willett I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie. After winning a championship fight, boxer John Garfield (as Johnnie Bradfield) celebrates with a drinking binge, which leads to the manslaughter of a pushy reporter. Although his manager killed the man, Mr. Garfield is blamed. When the manager dies in a car crash, wearing Garfield's stolen watch, authorities think the boxer is dead. Still a WANTED man, Garfield changes his identity to "Jack Dorney" and moves to an Arizona ranch. There, Garfield meets "The Dead End Kids": Billy Halop (as Tommy), Bobby Jordan (as Angel), Leo Gorcey (as Spit), Huntz Hall (as Dippy), Gabriel Dell (as T.B.), and Bernard Punsly (as Milt).

Garfield bonds with the young "Dead End" lads, who were sent to stay with sweet "Grandma Rafferty" (May Robson) as an alternative to reform school, courtesy of her brother, deceased priest "Father Rafferty". Garfield falls in love with Halop's sister, pretty "Peggy" (Gloria Dickson), who is there to keep any eye on the kids. Of course, Garfield's past comes back to haunt him…

"John Garfield and The 'Dead End' Kids" make beautiful (Max Steiner) music together, thanks to effective direction and photography, by Busby Berkeley and James Wong Howe. The story is predictably comfortable, with the Warner Brothers support team in fine form. Garfield and the "Dead End" kids are a winning combination; although Garfield made no further movies with the "East Side" gang, the studio had him re-team with both Billy Halop and Bobby Jordan, almost immediately, for "Dust Be My Destiny".

The boxing scenes are nicely staged. But, the most exciting sequence has Garfield and four of the New York "Kids" (Halop, Jordan, Hall, and Punsly) climbing into a giant water tank for a swim - which unexpectedly puts their lives in danger. Other, more brief, highlights include floozy Ann Sheridan (as Goldie), boozy Barbara Pepper (as Budgie), and young Ronald Sinclair (as Douglas) losing at strip poker.

******** They Made Me a Criminal (1/21/39) Busby Berkeley ~ John Garfield, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan This is one of those films where it is easy to see how some people wouldn't like it. My wife has never seen it, and when I just rewatched it last night, I waited until after she went to bed. She might have been amused by a couple small snippets, but I know she would have had enough within ten minutes.

Head has nothing like a conventional story. The film is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. It could be seen as filmic surrealism in a nutshell, or as something of a postmodern acid trip through film genres. If you're not a big fan of those things--psychedelia, surrealism, postmodernism and the "acid trip aesthetic" (assuming there's a difference between them), you should probably stay away from this film. On the other hand if you are a fan of that stuff, you need to run out and buy Head now if you haven't already.

Oddly, the film has never received much respect. That probably has a lot to do with preconceptions. After all, it does star The Monkees--Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork--and The Monkees were a musical group of actors put together by producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider to be a kid-friendly, bubble-gummy Beatles for a television series. In their era, they had as much respect as, say, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, The Spice Girls, and so on. As a fellow IMDb reviewer rightly notes--"Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see (Head)".

The Monkees and Head have never been quite able to shed that negative public perception. It's a shame, because there was a lot of talent, both musically and otherwise, in The Monkees. It's probably odder that Rafelson, who directs here and co-produces with Schneider, and Jack Nicholson (yes, _that_ Jack Nicholson), who wrote the script and also co-produces, decided to take The Monkees in this unusual direction. It's as if New Kids on the Block suddenly put out an album equivalent to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma (1969) or Atom Heart Mother (1970). In fact, the songs in Head, written by The Monkees and frequent collaborators such as Carole King and Harry Nilsson, have a Floyd-like quality, somewhere between the Syd Barrett era and the immediate post-Barrett era. This is much more prominent than any Beatles similarity. Some people have complained about the music in the film, but to me, all the songs are gems. For that matter, some people dislike Barrett era (or other) Floyd, which is just as difficult for me to empathize with.

But what _is_ Head about? The basic gist is just that The Monkees are taking a trip through various film genres--there are war scenes, adventure scenes, horror scenes, comedy scenes, drama scenes, western scenes, sci-fi scenes, romance scenes, and on and on. Except, in the film's reality, this turns out to be happening primarily (if not exclusively) on a studio lot. At root, we're watching The Monkees shoot a film. Of course all of the scenes in the various genres have something surreal and self-referential about them, and they, and individual shots within a scene, tend to lead to one another using dream logic not dissimilar to the Monty Python television show. As a dream, Head tends to vacillate between a good dream and a nightmare, while often being one that would cause you to laugh in your sleep (something that I frequently do, by the way).

Technically, Rafelson uses a wide variety of techniques to realize the above. There are scenes with extensive negative images, there are a lot of very fast cuts (including a great sequence that features Davy Jones and Tony Basil dancing alternately in a white and a black room, wearing a combination of white and black reversed in each, that occasionally toggles back and forth as quickly as two frames at a time), there are a lot of bizarre segues, there is an animated cow mouth, there are odd editing devices, and so on. For my money, I wish this stuff wasn't just a relic of the psychedelic era. This is the kind of artistic approach I relish. It seemed like a good idea back then and I still think it's a good idea. I'd like to see films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou using (2004) using these types of extended techniques. Now that would make that film surreal.

Interpretationally, some folks who aren't so in tune with the acid trip aesthetic have complained that it's basically b.s. to offer meanings for something intended to not have any. I disagree with such a pessimistic/nihilistic view; Head was intended to have a lot of meaning(s), and it's not just films without conventional plots that have multiple interpretations. Nicholson, Rafelson and Schneider have a lot of interesting things to say about The Monkees--the film postmodernistically comments on their manufactured status; pop stardom--way before Pink Floyd, Head conflates pop stardom and violence, from images of war to images of fans cannibalistically dismantling their idols; and naïve U.S.-oriented ideas of international perceptions and respect--well-armed foreigners in a desert surrender to Micky Dolenz just because he's an American, then later they blow up a Coke machine (again in the desert) for him because he's thirsty and can't gain access. The film comments on many other topics--from big Industry to police, surveys, spectatorship (especially in relation to tragedies), and on and on. Head is full of ideas, appropriately enough, with intelligent, multifaceted things to say about them.

Head deserves to be considered a classic--it's basically shooting for the same vibe as The Beatles' Yellow Submarine. Both premiered in November of 1968, interestingly enough, and both were intended as something of a summation of the psychedelic aesthetic. Yellow Submarine wasn't quite successful. Head is everything Yellow Submarine should have been. "Head" is one of those films you'll have a lot of trouble convincing your friends to see, but once they do they'll fall in love with it. I don't know how many times this has happened to me. This film is just so funny and bizarre, really a deconstruction of everything the Monkees had been up to this point in their career. A lot the credit goes to Bob Rafelson who pretty much ended the Monkee's career with this film. My guess is he wanted to get out of directing the TV show and get into features, which he did in a big way after this one. Micky Dolenz is absolutely hilarious. I can't believe he didn't have a second life as a comic actor after this film. This film has a lot of great cameos and a lot of wonderful psychedelic nonsense. I feel like the reputation of this film is continuing to build and it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes a full on cult classic "I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.

Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."

You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.

So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.

"Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.

Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.

Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.

The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.

Match, cut. You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.

There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.

I give it 7 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time. If a feature movie flops at the box office, the consequences can be dire for all concerned. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.

Unfortunately, "Head" came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they would not have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image.

Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkees juggernaut had just about run its race when they started work on this project. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they "wanted out" and they were going to say a few things before they left.

History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.

"Head" probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles "Hard Day's Night" but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retrophiles who have the ability to appreciate its significance.

Enjoy! I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.

However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.

It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.

Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about "Head" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled "Head" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?

The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, "Can You Dig It?" and "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"

This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.

I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.

And one finale note:

One could compare this to The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, "Head" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid. The Beatles had just done 'Magical Mystery Tour.' There was the general feel that performance, peace and drugs went together naturally. In LA, there was a film subculture that knew something was up. Nicholson was in several of these gangs.

Before he decided to seriously become an actor, before 'Easy Rider,' before 'Pink Flamingos,' before 'Day for Night,' there were several experiments with what to do about this. An important one is 'Saragossa Manuscript.' This is another.

Jack writes. He plays with circular narrative, self-reference, film reference, performance self-loathing, the pain of creation, all on the outskirts of safe kiddiepop. You must see this, if only to know something about Jack.

Certain actors act by digging into themselves. It is a common technique. Some dig deep, but after a while, they become boring because they are incredibly shallow people. There isn't just enough stuff in there to sustain a career. Think of DeNiro and Hackman.

Others are pretty interesting people, who seem to become more interesting over time. When they dig into the barrel, they put stuff back in because of the pain of the digging. Think Sean Penn and Jack. At the bottom of Jack's barrel, at the end of the thread he spins, as the base of every character is this experimental, risky writer/filmmaker.

Who cares if it is a bad movie? It is bad because it took risks. Watch when a tear is wiped from Annette's cheek by the director. It is a loving goof on the whole Brando thing, something that I heard Marlon laughed about. That is one of the richest moments in Hollywood film history.

There's another reason to watch this. Music in film is has a strong root in dance. Revolution in film often relies on music. Whole cultures are thus swept along.

An unsung giantess in inventing how billions now dance is Toni Basil. She was as influential in pop choreography as the Beatles were in music. She was already well into her career when called upon to work on this. But this is one of her earliest screen appearances. You can see her work throughout and she herself in the pretty cool 'Daddy's Girl' segment, over one of Nilsson's better songs. (Followed by the Frank Zappa cameo.) McCartney would reference this scene in his TeeVee special years later.

A third reason to watch is early (about 6 1/2 minutes) in the film: a character named 'Lady Pleasure' kisses each Monkey in a long continuous shot and then dismissively departs. She is credited as I. J. Jefferson but is really Mimi Manchu, Nicholson's lover at the time and LSD partner. Red hair, psychedelic demeanor. Lovely. That scene says it all for me, about how Jack feels about the boys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching. Forget Easy Rider - Head is THE film about the 1960s.

Almost laugh: as the Monkees reduce their entire career to a one-minute TV commercial about dandruff! See: the 50 foot Victor Mature try to figure out what the heck he's doing in this film! Hear: Frank Zappa (with his pet cow on leash) tell Davey Jones "Your music is awfully white"! Experience: the Monkees' only live performance as a real rock band play the honest-to-gosh first-ever real punk-rock song (Circle Sky)! Listen: as Davey Jones sings a Harry Nielsen song about having a transsexual father! Be confused: be very confused, as confused as Terri Garr is when Mickey Dolenz makes sexual innuendos about her in her film debut! Witness: futile protests against the Vietnam War leap out of nowhere and just as quickly disappear! Watch: Mike Nesmith spit on Christmas while wearing a velvet Victorian smoking jacket in a cobwebbed Gothic horror-movie sound-stage! Let yourself drift: into the karmic bliss inspired by a comic-book version of Indian mysticism delivered by a hammy white character-actor in black-face, while Peter Tork pretends that he knows how to play a guitar! Discover: Academy Award winning director Bob Rafelson's first feature length film, as written by Academy Award winning actor Jack Nicholson! Pretend it's not happening: when the Monkees commit group suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge! Take drugs - take a lot of drugs: take as many drugs as the cast and crew evidently did while making this film!

With Head, the Monkees revealed themselves as the angriest, snottiest entertainers in Hollywood history, bar none. It is bewildering to discover that they blamed the failure of this film on bad promo. To be sure, the promotion was virtually non-existent; but did they not recognize how angry, how down-right depressing, how self-destructive this film actually is?! I mean, this film is a trip - on bad acid - to the suicide ward of a mental hospital. The only film I know to be this depressing is Terry Gilliam's Brazil; and like Brazil, this film reveals why life in the later 20th Century was almost unbearable - if you were lucky. It's not simply that Western culture was suffering from serious information-overload, but the information itself was just bad, bad, more bad, and dismal. In fact, it was the overload effect itself that kept people going, since this allowed people to keep distracting themselves with one crisis or another - if news from Vietnam became too much to bear, they could turn the channel and watch a documentary on the rising unemployment rate.

The "positive" response to the reality revealed in Head was Woodstock - three days of peace and love and nudity and mud and bugs and bad food and dirty drink and poop and pee and bad acid and Peter Townsend almost killing Abbie Hoffman. All taking place behind a steel fence, under the lovingly watchful eyes of a veritable army of NY State Troopers - meaning that the "freedom" of Woodstock Nation was as illusory as the song John Sebastion thought he was singing while so strung out he could barely speak. "500,000 assholes too stupid to come in out of the rain," was one critic's judgment on Woodstock (I think it was Andy Warhol).

The one good thing occurring there was Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner. Two years previously, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had gone on their first National tour of America, as the warm-up band opening for - the Monkees.

See, it's all connected somehow.

You owe it to yourself - nay, you owe it to your unborn children - to see the real 1960s, only to be found on film in this bizarre, miraculous, and utterly absurd tribute to one of the more interesting capitalist scams of the later 20th Century. This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.

They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge.

For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells "cut!"

The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.

At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around!

In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.

This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.

Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens.

Peter realizes: "It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that "the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is "valid" by some abstract definition.

When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the "real" you is just a pointless waste of time.

I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just "that geeky, creepy nerd girl" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.

For decades, I've watched "Head" and wished I could thank Pete.

Was this a good movie?

Uhh, how about, like...

==< YES >== The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both "Breathless" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with "Easy Rider". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. "Head" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.

The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic / Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10/10) I can't believe this isn't a huge cult hit. Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see it. That cynicism probably covered it from sight ever since. Don't make this mistake. _Head_ is an amazing film that most open minded people will appreciate. It is very funny and very intelligent (and very trippy). To experience Head you really need to understand where the Monkees were when they filmed it.

This was as their series was coming to a close and the group was near break up. Their inventive and comedic series (sort of an American Idol of their day) took four unknown actors and formed a manufactured supergroup around them.

This is their take on their "manufactured image" and status as the 2nd tier Beatles. They always felt they were in a box, trapped, and unable to find credibility despite their talents.

It is also a hell of a musical-trippy, inventive (I have the soundtrack) and full of surprises.

See it with an open mind. Sadly, this movie is relegated to 'curio' status it seems. Many people that I've asked "Did you know the Monkees made a movie?" usually answer 'No.' That being said, if you are one of that large number, I recommend you see it, but with the following caveat(s): If you expect Monkey style humor, it is in there. It's just not all over the place like the TV shows.

Yes, they are trying to break their TV mold a bit by poking fun at it like a bunch of no-longer-teenagers who have been on the short end of a lot of sticks.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to enjoy it.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to understand it.

If you like classics, you'll love the interspersed clips throughout.

If you like the psychedelic era, you'll love some of the cameos.

If you are a Monkees fan, you might recognize some of the jabs they are taking at the heavy commercializing of the band.

In the nigh-immortal words of one of my best friends after seeing 5 minutes of it: "This is a weird movie, man." In fact it might be better if you don't try to understand it, just sit back and react to it. It's weird, it's funny, it's a bit surreal, it's experimental (still)...it is many things. Overall, it is an experience. A very weird, psychedelic, esoteric, (and did I say weird? :) experience.

But on at least on one level - it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It bridged the gap between the silly, manufactured, Hollywood look at teen pop idols that was the Monkees TV program and the adult, musically growing and evolving, and yet still a little silly Monkees of the '70s and beyond.

The most important line in the film is Mike Nesmith's, "If they think we are plastic now, wait till they see how we do it." That the Monkees were tired of all of the negative comments about their image and their work is a matter of record. They said it over and over in interviews. They needed to re-make themselves, and what better way that to de-bunk and hilariously lampoon the very machine that created them. And at the same time, they commented on our whole society (news, movies, art, everything) and said, "Hey, why pick on us - isn't all of this stuff manufactured on one point or another." These are the Orwellian "proles" (the Monkees represented the persecuted "everyman" even at their silliest in the TV series)pulling down "Big Brother's" pants and kicking him in his very deserving butt.

Loved the ideas, loved the music, loved the effects, loved the movie! But then, as Peter Tork says in the movie, "But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?" :) Pity the Monkees. People always accused them of being manufactured (which they were) or being nothing more than a American knock-off of the Beatles (Again, which they were) but to the kids of the time they were real, they were important, they were legitimate. Discussions about who were better The Monkees or The Beatles were common on school yards but the critics, well they never quite bought into it. Despite recording some very catchy, classic pop tunes, the Monkess did not receive much respect for their albums. Sadly a similar fate was met by their one movie vehicle despite the fact that it stands as the best band film ever. Beatle fans may argue that "Hard Days Night" was better and I am sure that many of the kids think "8 Mile" was superior but none of these films were as daring and inventive as "Head" and that is probably why it failed.

If Head had told a direct A to B type story perhaps it would have appealed to the bands young fans but by pushing the envelope and using the movie opportunity to mock their own image they really sabotaged the film with their fans. Could you imagine Eminem turning to the camera and actually talking about how sad it is that he is the best selling guy in a genre in which only 5% (and I am being generous) of the acts are white. If you can picture that than you have an idea how daring it was for the Monkess to sing "Hey, Hey we are the Monkees. You know we like to please. A manufactured image, with no philosophy". When you have a film in which Frank Zappa tells Davy that he should focus less on the dancing, and more on the music its clear that there is a lot more going on then you expected.

The story, what there is, concerns the boys trying to flee their manager, who at one point forces them to play dandruff in a commercial, but every time they run away they end up inside a box. I don't think you need to be Fellini to figure out the symbolism of that bit. Some neat little comedy bits follow with Davy as a boxer who has to give up playing the violin to take a dive in the big match and Peter refusing to throw away a ice cream cone he does not want because there are starving children so its wrong to waste food but the real selling point to this film is the music and its some of the best the band ever recorded. Even if you are put off by the story, you can sit back and enjoy some terrific music.

Any film that begins and ends with Mickey attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge (at the end the band follows him) is never going to be a mainstream classic but if you are a fan of either the band or experimental cinema of the era than you will enjoy this film. I just can't understand why people are surprised this movie makes no sense. It was never supposed to make sense. (Duh! The writers were completely wasted on Frodis at the time.) It was just supposed to entertain and mock, and it does both wonderfully.

The Monkees are good actors. They wouldn't have been hired if they weren't good actors. Mike has a thing for deadpan and darkness, Micky is the best at sheer psychotic comedy, Davy is a Broadway veteran, and Peter actually had people believing he was that dumb in real life. Don't tell me they can't act, because they most definitely can.

They can also write. Sure, Jack & Bob get the sole credits, but in reality, they got a big helping hand on that script from the Monkees, who were also in that smoke-filled room.

(it is absolutely impossible to spoil this film) Head is very highly symbolic. Among the more memorable elements is the black box, which was actually based on 2 things: the Monkee image that the boys were bound to, and the real black box on the Screen Gems lot where the band was kept between takes. There's so much more symbolism in the movie that I'll just let you watch it and figure it out.

The music is awesome. "Circle Sky" is one of Papa Nez's best tunes ever, and "Porpoise Song" & "As We Go Along" will have you enthralled. If you'd rather be weirded out, then "Ditty Diego", "Can You Dig It?", and "Long Title" should be satisfactory, great songs that they are. And then there's "Daddy's Song", without a doubt a homage to Davy's Broadway days, and the editing/color scheming for that sequence is superb. (At least for '68.)

Oh, For those of you who won't watch a 'PG' film, you're missing out. Especially since Head was originally rated R in 1968. The rating was lowered about TWENTY years later!

Now where was I? Ah, yes: "We were speaking of beliefs. Beliefs and conditioning...." This film, like much of their music, is either underrated or unnoticed by the casual observer. It is terrific and, in many ways, ahead of its time.

The images are funny, disturbing, and at the very least, engaging.

The music is amazing.

This is not the "candy pop" sound they are unfortunately associated with. This is the sound of a band in exploration and revolt.

HEAD, alone, should put The Monkees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Can anyone tell me why these guys are not in there? When I first saw this movie,I also expected "our boys" to be cute,and more like an extended version of the TV show. I didn't "get it" back then. But,years later,at a party YEARS later,at a 70s' type PAR-TAY,where certain substances had been smoked,inhaled,and with plenty of tequila,"HEAD" was on late at night.We watched it,and finally realized what "HEAD" was all about. It spoofed their own show,as shown in one song that called themselves,"a manufactured image". As Davy Jones wrote in his autobio,"They Made a Monkey out of me",he openly admits that everyone in the film,had been up all night smoking weed.They made fun of themselves,society,everything! Great film! Tho,as a 52 yr old granny,I no longer "induldge", I STILL watch this film when I want a good LOL!!! This film starts as it ends and ends as it starts. What is in the middle is a collection of comedy, philosophy, music, observations, commentaries, mini stories, colour and lots more. It looks at the world and our lives and tells The Monkees story from the view of the group members themselves. It also looks at television and film and makes a visual commentary. It shocks also, with scenes of war and shows how we are just pawns in a big game. It says all this and much more, but if you don't look at it objectively you won't see much more than scenes strung together to join up the music. It's the sort of film that can never get boring because it's so cleverly done. Try to look for another movie that is such a trip without having a story or plot and you'll be hard-pressed. HEAD is a masterpiece of non-linear non-structure, surrealism and experimentaion. In less than 90 minutes, it manages to be not only a time-capsule of an era, but also a full-length experimental feature that defies time,space and convention in a way that only underground films of the sixties could.HEAD is a reflection of those films. No matter how one feels about the Monkees, this is a film every filmmaker should see because it cracks wide open the endless possibilities of film as an art medium. Had it not been for the film's unorthodox ad campaign (and the fact that by the time it came out the Monkees so oversaturated the media that the public had become weary of them and every critic was ready to pounce on them) this could have had a much greater impact. Studying how the film was edited is much more important and exciting than what's actually in the film -and yet there are some great things in it (great songs, great cinematography, etc.) . Should be seen after midnight for maximum effect because of it's overall dreamlike feel. 1968 was a time of social unrest and a call for change (thus the film's working title "Changes") and HEAD perfectly mirrors that time. That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy. For a long time, I, a fan of "The Monkees" TV series, refused to watch "Head" because it was not about the TV show characters, who were warm and wonderful. "Head", instead, was said to be a cynical, dark movie. Finally, curiosity caused me to cave in. I didn't, of course, find a new episode to the TV show, but a fascinating movie that appeals to my dark side.

I have always been fascinated by dreams, and "Head" was very much like watching someone else's dream, with incomplete hints of stories, and a small detail at the end of one scene causing the film to segue off in a new direction, very much in a dreamlike stream of consciousness manner. The unfinished stories really make my imagination run wild, time and time again!

The film also features very striking, beautiful cinematography, the epitome being the black-on-white, white-on-black look of "Daddy's Song". The music is haunting, especially the lush arrangement of "The Porpoise Song". ("The Porpoise Song" is the favorite song of my dark side, while my bright side prefers "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah".)

In the end, I think the TV series could have used some of "Head"'s drama, intrigue, and intensity. But "Head" could have used some of the TV show's warmth, humor, and friendship. Head should have been a proud moment not just for its stars (The Monkees and Victor Mature), or its director/co-writer (Bob Rafelson), but also its other co-writer (and brief cameo) Jack Nicholson. As it stands, most of them seem to shun it, and to outsiders the movie is regarded, at best, as a curio.

While the T.V. series was famously based on the antics of the Beatles' 'Help!', this film is also judged by the same accord. Yet far from the trite and painfully overrated Beatles films, and even the dated Monkees T.V. series, Head has a layer of depth. An undercurrent of man's darker nature is at work here, and while that may sound like a bizarre thing to say about a manufactured pop band, the use of certain themes and images (hitting women, laughing at cripples and real-life footage of a Vietcong POW shot dead at point-blank range) give the film an edge that many 'serious' films would not dare to aspire to.

There are also the fun moments, which range from James Bond parodies to 'Big Victor' and my personal favourite, Mickey Dolenz under beseige by Arab soldiers on horseback. (One of them turns to Mickey and hisses 'pssst!', only for the 'pssst!' to appear in subtitles!) The group are aware of their manufactured image in the film ('I'm the dummy, Mickey… I'm always the dummy', claims Tork, neatly summing up his one-dimensional foil role of the series), meaning that their characters – they play 'themselves' acting and not-acting here – are opened out more, and consequently are less generic and irritating than they were in the series. This level of parody and self-awareness even takes on their fab-four origins, with subtler takes on the Maharishi and out-and-out acknowledgements with a waitress who asks: 'Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight-year-olds… are you still paying tribute to Ringo Starr?' Also listen out for Tork whistling 'Strawberry Fields Forever' while in the bathroom.

Then there are the songs, of course. Six of them here, slightly more psychedelic than usual, which may have alienated their fanbase, and even a Frank Zappa cameo wouldn't have turned on an adult audience to their charms at this point. Probably the best is the charming 'As We Go Along', though the first, a Carol King-penned 'Porpoise Song', interestingly talks of the desire to live while time is ticking remorselessly away and death gets ever nearer. On a lighter note, its refrain of 'the porpoise is laughing' seems to be a direct mickey-take of 'I am the Walrus'.

Constantly inventive with direct references to silent film and drug culture, perhaps Head's finest feature is its narrative structure. Not the only – but the most important – reason why it improves with multiple viewings, the story goes left, right, forwards, backwards, circular and through several levels of reality. In essence a series of sketches hung loosely together, its cohesion is tightened by the space-time defying plot which hangs its internal logic together by means of flashback, dream sequence, prison of the mind and remote control channel changer.

With a perfect beginning and end, this intelligently-written, knowing film was not what The Monkees' pre-teen audience was expecting and subsequently suffered a negative critical reception. Now those expectations have gone, this one is in dire need of serious reappraisal. "Head" is a film that has held up well since its original release date in 1968. The movie is a complete contradiction of the Monkees image. It presents the Monkees in a way their fans never perceived them; men with real thoughts. Totally controlled by their producers, the Monkees were given the opportunity to tell their side of the story. The film pokes fun at their image, the entertainment industry, and corporate America. The soundtrack contains some of their best music. It's a movie well worth seeing over and over again. The Monkees, surprisingly, are a big favorite of mine. Yes, they might have been the original manufactured rock band; a gimmick that certainly has reached overkill in the 21st century. However, their music holds up as some of the best the 1960's had to offer. Last Train To Clarksville, Daydream Believer, I'm A Believer, (I'm Not) Your Stepping Stone, Valleri and Pleasant Valley Sunday are great songs, written by good songwriters such as Boyce/Hart, Neil Diamond, Goffen/King and John Stewart. While they weren't great musicians or songwriters, they had a likable screen presence and plenty of appeal and some of their own stuff was actually decent. Their T.V. show is dated stuff in 2007 but I still watch the show on occasion as a time capsule to life in 1966-1968; that magical and dangerous time in U.S. history.

However, as we all know, as a portent of things to come for the likes of Kelly Clarkson, The Monkees didn't want to be considered manufactured and just puppets for their recording company. Despite their average talents, they wanted to write their own songs, produce their own albums and call the shots when it came to tours. Sadly, this turned out to be a disaster; especially when Peter Tork's choice of Jimi Hendrix as an opening act was nixed due to his stealing of the show and heavy sexual suggestions in his music compared to The Monkees G-Rated content.

However, the final nail in the coffin for the Monkees (until 1986) was the infamous motion picture Head. Head was written by Bob Rafelson and Jack Nicholson while they were allegedly high on the Mary-Jane. The film received poor reviews and only made $16,000 in the box office. Today, the film is a cult classic, ahead of its time and delivers a message of what was on the minds of the youth in 1968, the Summer Of Anger.

Head really has no plot. Basically, one to four of The Monkees lurch from scene to scene without any rhyme or reason. They go from eating in a diner, to seeing Davy Jones getting bashed by Sonny Liston, to a Western, to being sucked into a vacuum, to performing at a concert and so forth. The film basically offers up oblique opinions of what was wrong with American society. The Monkees bash commercialism, the war in Vietnam, American policy, censorship, the Establishment and greed. You have to read between the lines to see what the targets of derision were.

The Monkees spend a lot of time boxed up at certain junctions of the film, symbolizing how they felt their record company saw them; as nothing but toys for them to play with when it was time to record another hit album. A scene where they are outnumbered 16-4 in the Western scene could be a symbol of them against the session musicians, songwriters, record producers and whatnot who controlled their careers and the cannon they fire at them is their way of saying "Begone!".

The film is truly a psychedelic trip to behold. The flashy tie-dye colors, the hypnotic concert and belly dancing scenes and the druggy imagery is everywhere. The acting is actually very good but that's being biased as I like The Monkees T.V. show. A small soundtrack features "The Porpoise Song" and three songs written by The Monkees themselves.

The film actually has some hilarious scenes on occasion; although maybe they weren't supposed to be. Mickey Dolenz beating up a Coke Machine that didn't give him a soda or his violent punch-ups in the boxing scene (I mean, he was a wiry guy who probably weighed no more than 135) had me laughing it up.

All in all, this movie is an absolute must-see for any Monkees fan. I think a lot of people will feel this movie is indeed "over their Head" but for those obsessed with the 60's and society at the time will find it a great time capsule. What can I say about this movie that has not been said by all the other comments here, they pretty much sum up everything, the people who love it cherish it, the people who hate it... well, they loathe it. This is the movie equivalent of Marmite.

I personally have committed every second of it to memory, it is cyclical, claustrophobic, introspective, magical and stands as being one of the most unique films ever made. Despite what many have stated, I believe this truly is a cult movie, it is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered, once unearthed it's fantastical psychedelic visuals and incredible soundtrack will be unforgettable, which is an achievement in itself. One of my friends who watched it likened it more to a musical, and in many respects to those who do not fully appreciate the context in which this film is made, would probably get more out of it to view Head as such.

I was always fond of the Monkees, especially the T.V. show back when it was repeated during the 80's. My mum had recorded Head for me when it was shown on T.V. late night, as she knew I liked them, I watched it a day later and it lodged in my memory until I was able to find a copy on DVD about 2 decades later, what I would love now is a special edition, it would be fascinating to get a greater insight into the making of this masterpiece. We can only hope. There are two ways to regard 'Head'. Either it is a dazzling, mind-blowing collage of music, old film clips, psychedelia and T.V. sitcom-style comedy, or a plot less, pretentious, rambling mess. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is also one of the best movies of all time.

'The Monkees' - Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz, and Mike Nesmith - had just finished their hit series, and wanted to do a movie. In collaboration with writer Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson, they made 'Head'.

It begins at a bridge opening ceremony in San Francisco, where the Monkees gate crash the proceedings. Mickey jumps over the safety rail, plunging hundreds of feet into the water. Mermaids rescue him to the accompaniment of a gorgeous Jerry Goffin & Carole King composition called 'The Porpoise Song' and visuals that make the Stargate finale of '2001' look drab by comparison. By now you will either have switched off in puzzled disgust or be completely captivated.

More bizarre happenings unfold; Mickey uses a tank to destroy a Coca-Cola machine in the middle of the desert; the entire Italian Army surrenders to him; the group are hired to play to play the dandruff in Victor Mature's hair for a television commercial; an overweight waitress insults the group, describing them as 'God's gift to the eight year old's'; a surprise birthday party for Mike goes wrong; the group are sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and to cap it all, are driven away inside a giant glass tank.

You will either hate this or love it. I found it a refreshing change from mindless pop musicals of the 'let's do the show right here' variety. The songs are good too; 'Daddy's Song' is superbly choreographed by Toni Basil ( later to appear in Rafelson's 'Easy Rider' ) and boasts wonderful editing, with Davy's clothes changing colour at lightning speed. 'As We Go Along' is a lovely Goffin & King number whose accompanying images carry a strong environmentalist message.

Frank Zappa, Annette Funicello are just two of the guest stars to crop up. Did Victor Mature read the script before agreeing to do this, one wonders? He's hilarious in it though.

So mad there just has to be real genius behind it, 'Head' is a little '60's gem and one worth revisiting time and time again. Shame it did not find an audience at the time. If only 'Spiceworld' had been like this! Symbolism galore, great tunes, this film crushed their "soon to be no more" target audience's expectations. These monkees and the naturally selected members of the group, were witnessing a subtle yet in your face, kiss goodbye to each other. The message rings true today, the cage you escape from and the bridge you want to jump off of, are the next generations own disappointments, there will always be new kids on the block replacing those who break free from the chains. The film can be frustrating at times, because the themes the film attacks are so blatantly apart of the American way of life, a thinking and reasoning person cannot help but stare at their own reflection in the scenes of Head, and question not only their personal motives for continuing the madness of everyday American life, but the motives of those who want it to continue for the sake of madness. The final scene, similar to Don Quixote's chivalric daring of the caged tiger to exit for battle, represents just how delusional and impossible most dreams are. Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you! My friends and went through a period of time when we would rent movies that none of us had ever heard of. The only good that came from it was this movie, "Take it to Limit" Right as the movie started, we could tell we were in for a true classic. The music is probably done by rural white boys from Colorado, but it sounds just like early 90's rap. The star of the show, actor Leo Fitzpatrick, plays the bad-boy so well, especially sporting a big zit the entire movie. This movie is based on climbing, and I'm not a climber, yet even I think it's hilarious when they have the climber struggling to climb and there's a guy in the background who is basically walking up the 'cliff'. You don't want to miss this movie, you'll get to see the same clips over and over again. You'll get surprises at every turn. You'll find yourself quoting the unforgettable lines. I highly recommend this movie to anyone. Take it snow. Disclaimer: This movie is poorly done, but that is what makes it great Wow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.

This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.

I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.

Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1 The title of my summary pretty much covers my review.

This is to me what Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was to someone 5 years older. While I missed out on that little pop-culture wave, I embraced the toy line and t.v. series that was Mighty Max with both arms.

You wanna know how into this I was? I went as Mighty Max for Halloween.

Thank God for the internet. Thanks to Demonoid, last week I was able to watch this great show from my childhood for the first time in over a decade.

I'm watching this right now, having just been blown away by recognizing Rob Paulson of Animaniacs, and am also loving the celebrity humor in "Tar Wars". 4 minutes in, and they have already mentioned, By NAME: Clint Eastwood, Governor Arnold, Dustin Hoffman, John Wayne, AND Ace Ventura. Hells yeah.

Damn, it is only upon writing this that I realize there is NO WAY IN HELL I can give this series anything less than a perfect score. Any imperfections have been lost in the fog of time.

This Is My Childhood. This Is Awesomeness. This Is The Mighty One. A surprisingly great cartoon in the same league as Batman:TAS and its ilk, I enjoyed it in my youth and recently had been able to watch them all again, great voice acting from Tim Curry, Richard Moll, Tony Jay, and Maurice LaMarche in various roles. The only qualm I had was Rob Paulsons voice seemed a little too old for the title character, but that wasn't a big deal as the stories were great, and the fact that the whole thing has a great time loop twist ending. Some people say it was a cop-out, but I found it refreshing compared to many series that just leave things hanging. Hopefully one day they put this series out on DVD, unfortunately it came out at a time when DVD's weren't yet prevalent and the cartoon probably only served to sell a particular type of toy, which I never found appealing despite the entertaining cartoon. All the characters in this cartoon were hilarious. Norman the Viking guardian had some memorable phrases and the skull master, the bad guy, would always be vowing to kill Max with some insane cackling. The writing is the best.

I was glued to the set when this would come on when I was younger. If they came out with a DVD of all the episodes they made I would be forced to buy it. This and a Conan the Barbarian cartoon are the ones I miss the most from childhood. I think these cartoons are the most unappreciated out of all the great cartoons. I used to watch these cartoons on channel 13 in the Los Angeles Area.

I remember the owl was always afraid, warning Max that he was in trouble and that he was the chosen one. Max didn't believe that he was the chosen one and always gave the owl trouble. Norman was less talkative but his simplicity was funny. He would say things like "I eat monsters for breakfast" when he was battling them. And then when he was battling zombies he would say "I eat zombies for...nevermind." Classic cartoon comedy and action.

I vote that they re-air Mighty Max. I'll make this brief. This was a joy to watch. It may or may not have been more effective if the characters had resembled their real life counterparts, but aside from this minor observation I found the fantasy animal characters to be most enjoyable. The visuals were most stunning except for the second-rate CG scenes, which could have been left out. I dislike computer generated animation anyways, it defeats the purpose of a biopic such as this one. Watch it, you will appreciate it too! Spirit and Chaos is an artistic biopic of Miyazawa Kenji, a Japanese poet and writer who was active in the early 20th century. The film captures and interprets his artistic method ('sketching' poems), his inspiration (the spirit of nature and its fantastic beauty) and his struggles to accept a harsh reality in the face of his idealist imagination.

The film integrated excerpts of Miyazawa's poems into the plot beautifully. His relationships with his students was powerful, especially in one scene where he offers everything he has to a student who has just been caught stealing materials from the classroom. Miyazawa's selfless compassion for the farmers in his village, his sister and other unfortunate people can serve as a lesson to us all. Furthermore, Miyazawa's devotion to science was also nicely portrayed. In a time when Western ideas were still met with skepticism, especially in provincial towns like the one where Miyazawa grew up, he understands its usefulness in helping his fellow villagers and is inspired by its elegance. The way the film presented moments of artistic passion and disappointment in the writer were truly intense and well interpreted.

I felt that the CGI integrated into the film, while groundbreaking an innovative, clashed with the more organic animation. It could be argued that this was intentional to represent conflict within the main character, but I found it rather unaesthetic. I also wish that the film had discussed Miyazawa's Buddhist influence, but it worked fine without it.

I though this film was very well done. I give it a 9/10, with the one point being deducted for the CGI. Otherwise the animation, plot and dialog were all wonderful and heartfelt. I haven't seen any other films by Kawamori Shoji, but after seeing this one I will be sure to give them a chance. I never thought I'd say this about a biopic, but there is a near over-abundance of characterization (especially concerning Kenji Miyazawa's emotions) and too little on the literal occurrences in his life--by the end, I'm not sure if he dies (he's supposed to), or if his sister finally dies (she's supposed to), or if the director spent a little too much time on the Galactic Railroad (that's an inside joke, in case you missed it--Miyazawa wrote a children's book called Night on the Galactic Railroad). However, this glimpse inside the mind of a writer who "sketched poetry and fairy tales from his imagination" is very intelligent, creative, entertaining, and emotionally powerful.

All this despite the fact that everyone is animated as animals (like in many of Miyazawa's stories).

Some of the visuals are truly astounding, especially considering that it was a made for TV movie. Seriously, some of them (like the sequence with birds trailing blue light) rival parts of Fantasia. However, I still can't stand computer animation when it is mixed with cel animation. The CGI trains are horribly obvious--even more so than the Anastasia train.

8/10 Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).

Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release "The Golden Door".

The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.

I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.

First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.

The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.

Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.

Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.

Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effrontée.

Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.

The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.

Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.

Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.

And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.

All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed! Enhanced by the expressive cinematography of Agnes Godard (Beau Travail), Golden Door is a visually striking tone poem that follows the journey of a peasant family from their primitive home in Sicily to Ellis Island in New York at the turn of the century. It is a surreal, enigmatic, often strange, but ultimately deeply rewarding experience. Interweaving dreamlike and symbolic imagery with gritty realism, the latest film by Emanuele Crialese (Respiro) is like an impressionistic painting - a cinematic artist's rendering of what the immigration process may have been like for our parents and grandparents. Crialese's "magical, mystery tour" came about as a result of his visit to the museum on Ellis Island, the looks on the faces of the immigrants depicted in photographs he saw, and his research into the harsh policies and procedures used during the admission of immigrants.

Guided by letters he read of immigrants sent to relatives who remained at home, Crialese identifies with those impoverished immigrants who were able to see the positive side of things beyond their ordeal. To Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his older son Angelo (Francesco Casisa), America is a distant dream that they know nothing about. After climbing a rocky mountain to pray to the saints for a sign, they are rewarded when they are shown post cards by Salvatore's younger son, Pietro (Filippo Pucillo), a deaf mute, that depict the new world as a land where they can bathe in rivers of milk, sit under a money tree, or harvest giant onions and carrots.

After disposing of their animals in exchange for shoes and suits, Salvatore, his two sons, and his elderly mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) set out on their adventure with more hope than trepidation but the equation soon shifts the other way. As they board the boat and settle into their crowded third-class steerage compartments, the most-talked about scene in the film takes place. Using an overhead camera that shows masses of people standing, as the ship pulls away, the frame is divided into those aboard the ship and those waving goodbye from the dock and the way they are separated implies they are being torn asunder from everything familiar.

Aboard the ship is a mysterious English woman named Lucy (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Crialese does not reveal her past or the reason she is traveling to America but she seems to stand for the onset of the modern world they are entering. Though they eye each other cautiously, Lucy becomes interested in Salvatore and asks him to marry her in order to allow her to enter the country. The voyage is treacherous with a violent storm buffeting the ship. Shot in almost complete darkness, passengers in steerage are tossed against the side of the boat and, afterward, bodies lie tangled and twisted on the floor as if in a macabre Totentanz. The rite of passage through immigration processing at Ellis Island does not become any easier and Crialese attacks the way illiterate peasants, in the name of preserving "civilized" society, are forced to put puzzles together, perform mathematical tasks, and undergo humiliating medical examinations to prove they are "fit".

A marriage brokering ceremony feels like an auction block and the young women look despondent when they are matched with overweight middle-aged men. This is the only way they can enter the "Golden Door", however, since single women are rejected unless they have partners, ostensibly to prevent the threat of prostitution. Through the fog the immigrant's can barely see the land of milk and honey and there is no Statue of Liberty asking for the tired and the poor, the humbled masses yearning to breathe free. In their imagination, however, the river is still flowing, waiting for them to jump in. Though the ending is ambiguous and one door opens on to a blank wall, another door symbolizes a rebirth of the soul and the passage we must all take from the old world to the new. This is Christmas time! A nativity in terms of rebirth, or at least this is what can be hoped regarding the Italian cinema. It was something like 30-40 years that the Italian cinema didn't craft an art piece of this size. This is an absolute contemporary film that can be also regarded at the same level of quality as the Italian masterpieces of the past, needless to quote any name. And finally this is also a big production for Italian standards of the time. In this movie there is a rare balance of different elements, all of them understandable and enjoyable at different levels of fruition. Real poetry, real humor, real tenderness, real drama, real beauty. No rhetoric, no easy surreal shortcuts, no typical touristic Tornatore-like picturing, no over acting, no director autoreferentialism. There is also a cool use of two heartbreaking Nina Simone's songs, whose music, I reckon has never been used in a proper way for a score. So if this will not be a real reviveing for the Italian cinema it is an extraordinary evolution for Emanuele Crialese after his 'Respiro' another definitive beautiful film. 'Nuovomondo' is not to be missed, it is that kind of 'medicine film' helpful to enjoy movie-making, movie watching, helpful to enjoy and understand life. Francesco Cabras THE GOLDEN DOOR (NUOVOMONDO) is for this viewer the finest film of the year to date. It is a masterpiece of concept, writing, directing, acting and cinematography. More importantly, this radiantly beautiful film is a much needed reflective mirror for us to view the history of immigration of 'foreigners' into America at a time when the very mention of the word 'borders' is a political fuse. Writer/director Emanuele Crialese has given us not only a deeply moving story, he has also provided a touchstone for viewers to re-visit the history of each of our origins: with the exception of the Native Americans, we all entered America as 'foreigners' at some point in our histories, and it is humbling to view this film with that fact in mind.

The film opens in turn of the century Sicily as poverty stricken widower Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his brother Angelo (Francesco Casisa) climb a rocky hill to present their tokens to the cross to ask for a sign as to whether they should continue to struggle for existence on the island or go to America, the land of dreams. Mancuso's deaf mute son Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) runs to the top of the hill with postcards he has found with images of America (money growing on trees, fruits and vegetables larger than people, etc), and Salvatore accepts this as the sign that he should move his family to America. After convincing his reluctant mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) and his sisters Rita (Federica De Cola) and Rosa (Isabella Ragonese) to make the trip, he sells his only possessions (two donkeys, goats, and rabbits) and the man with the boat arranges their trip, giving the family shoes, appropriate clothing, and instructions to board an ocean liner as third class passengers. As the Mancuso family prepares to board they are asked for a photograph, and as they pose behind a painted set, an Englishwoman Lucy/Luce (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walks into the photo as though she were part of this peasant family. Lucy cannot board the boat for America without male escort.

The voyage begins and Luce in her gentle way identifies with the Mancuso family, finally solidifying her safe passage by proposing to Salvatore to marry her 'for convenience, not for love' when they arrive in America. Through a violent storm and living conditions that are appalling poor, the multitude of third class passengers survive, bond, and eventually arrive at Ellis Island, believing their dream of America has been fulfilled. But everyone must pass harsh physical tests, de-lousing, and even intelligence testing to determine if they can enter America: the officials let them know that America does not want genetically inferior people entering the new world! Each woman must be selected by a man to marry on Ellis Island before they are allowed admission. The manner in which the Mancuso family remains united until a somewhat surprising ending is the closing of the tale.

Few of us understand the strict rules and harsh treatment immigrants face (or at least faced at the turn of the century) on Ellis Island, and if we do we have elected to submerge that information. THE GOLDEN DOOR presents the case for immigrants' struggles in a manner that not only touches our hearts but also challenges our acceptance of current immigration legislation. But all political issues aside, THE GOLDEN DOOR is first and foremost a film of enormous beauty, exquisite photography, deeply felt performances by a huge cast, and a very sensitively written and directed story. The is a film that deserves wide distribution, a movie that is a must see for everyone. Highly recommended. Grady Harp I just had the opportunity to see 'Nuovomondo' (hitherto known in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door'), and was very impressed by both it's dreamy & occasionally surreal tale of a family that immigrates from Sicially to the U.S. in the early days of the 20th century. It also worked as a (proverbial)middle finger jammed into the eyeball of Homeland Security (preferably all the way up to the 3rd knuckle),in it's depiction of the ill treatment of foreigners who just want a better life than they were getting from their original mother land. The (mostly) Italian cast, with a few exceptions works well. This is a quiet,understated film that is lovely to look at (the occasional,but tasteful use of surrealism is always a pleasure),while the screenplay is well written. This is a film for those who are sick & tired of mindless escapism from Hollywood that serves little more than to sell popcorn (not that I have any burning issues with popcorn,mind you!---I actually love the stuff). You would do wise to seek out Nuovomondo/The Golden Door (or whatever it's being titled in your area). This film is an impressionistic, poetic take on the immigrant experience, a reflective look at the turmoil and fear which might be associated with emigrating. These are aspects not often considered in movies about emigration to America in particular and to to any country more generally and the film vividly and convincingly depicts the nervousness and enthusiasm, if ignorance, that poor, illiterate Sicilian immigrants have in anticipation of their emigration to the United States.

They have some fantastic, unrealistic notions about the United States which are disseminated on the trip over. One is that the rivers run with milk, an image which is depicted in the movie to poetic, impressionistic effect. The film is devoid of sound and the silence seems to reflect the uneasiness of the ignorance the locals have about life in America, or if not ignorance of it, a vision significantly colored with superstition and fantasy.

That said, the movie depicts with jolting realism, the boat ride to the United States and the intake process which arrivals at Ellis Island had to undergo. The boat ride is imagined as rather dull which surely it was much of the time. The quarters in which the incoming residents sleep is depicted as extremely crowded with beds spaced four or five inches from one another and lacking much light, which it was surely the case below deck.

Again, the film is not supplemented with undue music or excessively bright lighting and the effect is to create a fairly realistic imagining of what it was truly like for people emigrating to the United States. The villagers may not be worldly, but they are quite reasonable, and the interaction with the eldest of the emigrants, Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) with the immigration officer who insists on particular results, are quite bittersweet inasmuch as they are not diluted or softened for the benefit of a syrupy conclusion and one sees the melding of the realism of Sicily with the extensive regulations which guide life in the United States.

The immigrants and their story are very interesting and the combination of cold-eyed realism and the magical fantasy of peoples' imaginations make for a persuasive vision of the beliefs held by Sicilians, or any people, with little formal education moving to the United States. The acting is similarly barebones; it is not at all demonstrative or showy, but seems the more realistic for it. That said, all the main performers, in particular Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato), the clear leader of the group is excellent. While never smiling, his character's actions speak much louder and it is clear that (thankfully) the other members of the group, his two sons and the above mentioned elder Fortunata, the boys' grandmother, have faith in his leadership abilities and respect his clear leadership. Amato imbues his character with great decency and forthrightness and it is a testament to his abilities that his character appears so capable and confident while his character betrays very little emotion.

One oddness of the film is a chance encounter with a mysterious Englishwoman (the excellent and fittingly mysterious Charlotte Gainsbourg) who speaks Italian and, during the entire film, we wonder why she is going to the United States or what connection she has to the otherwise unanimously Sicilian emigrant group. At the end, this is finally revealed and the revelation is done typically realistically and does not seem particularly melodramatic or showy.

The film is directed by Emmanuel Crialese who has a firm grasp on the realistic, if sometimes superstitious world view his characters inhabit and presents it competently and confidently. It is in fact fantastically confident given how awkwardly the realism and superstition might have combined in the film. It is a worthy examination of the immigrant experience. Some days ago, in Rome, a young Romanian man with criminal precedents assaulted and tortured to death a middle-age lady coming back home after an afternoon of shopping. A Romanian girl, who had seen everything, reported what happened.

Therefore, it started a debate about the too much intense flow of immigrants from Romania, generalizing them as criminals, everyone, indiscriminately.

I'm only 15, but I thought: what idea of affluence does Italy give to these poor people? How ever do they regard us as the Land of Plenty? Yesterday evening I finally saw NUOVOMONDO, and my question had an answer. When you have only a donkey and some goats, those propaganda postcards showing United States as a land with milk rivers and huge vegetables, makes such an impression.

NUOVOMONDO is really a must-see film. It balances an ethereal symbolism (milk rivers, glances' play, hard and rocky mountains, the name and character Lucy/Luce) and a cruel realism (the mass of hopeful people on the ship, the procedures at Ellis Island). There's a mixed cast, going from the angelic Charlotte Gainsbourg to the realistic Vincenzo Amato, till a bitter and smashing Aurora Quattrocchi as the mother. But was it really so hard to enter in the New World? "Nuovomondo (2006)" (shown in the U.S. as "The Golden Door") was written and directed by Emanuele Crialese. This film is different--and, I think, better--than most movies about impoverished people who leave Europe and come to the United States.

The film begins with scenes in a poor, rural region of Sicily. We always hear that Sicily is a rocky island, but you won't really understand the implications of that phrase until you see the first half-hour of "The Golden Door."

The middle section of the film is devoted to the long voyage to the U.S. Most immigration films show us ten minutes of people in the third-class section becoming seasick, and then show us the Statue of Liberty. Not this movie--we get a sense for life below decks, and it isn't charming. (We never actually see the Statue of Liberty, either.)

Finally, the typical movie will give us another ten minutes of Ellis Island, and then the immigrants are walking through New York's Lower East Side. Not here--the Ellis Island experience occupies about one-third of the footage.

Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as Salvatore Mancuso, who is bringing his two sons and his mother to the new world. Charlotte Gainsbourg is equally good as Lucy Reed, a mysterious Englishwoman who also speaks fluent Italian.

There are some strange touches in the movie, especially the sound track with songs by Nina Simone. There must be some symbolism there, but I couldn't make sense of it.

Another reviewer has already pointed out that this film will do better viewed in a theater rather than on DVD. Still, large screen or small screen, it's worth seeking out. The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.

The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.

As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: "Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.

The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish. "Nuovomondo" was a great experience. Many filmmakers tell their stories to a big extent via dialogue. Emanuele Crialese directs his film very visually driven. For everything he wants to tell, he finds powerful images that are able to stand for themselves. Thus, he understands film as a medium that primarily tells its stories over the pictures on screen. Particularly European cinema is often very dialogue-driven (and many of the young US-American directors are strongly influenced by that). Crialese's opposite attitude was really the point, that made this film special for me. It has also a very interesting topic that is wrapped up in a quite unusual story and told with humour. Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as family head Salvatore, as well as the amazing Charlotte Gainsbourg, who I enjoy watching in every single one of her movies. There are many great sequences in this movie. Just to pick one: When the ship leaves Italy and the people just quietly stare. This scene is great, particularly if you consider the pop cultural references that go with it (Titanic!). This is a film notable for what is not shown as much as for what is. What IS shown is the incredible poverty in Sicily as the 19th century gave way to the 20th, a life style that made people dream of the 'New' World of America. The Mancuso family live in a place that is not even a hamlet, just a stone cottage set amid the harsh, unyielding stones of a country that cannot offer even a single blade of green grass. An opening sequence sees the Mancuso males scrambling barefoot up a craggy hillside, stones in their mouth to offer at a shrine at the top in exchange for a 'sign' that they should set out for the New World or remain where they are. It further shows life aboard the liner, huddled masses indeed, yearning to breathe free, and conditions in Ellis Island where, their journey still not over, they are interrogated and examined to prove their 'fitness' to enter America. What is NOT shown is the ship in Longshot, or indeed ANY shot that would identify it as a large, ocean-going liner; what is also not shown is anything that would identify America, no cliché view of New York Harbour and the Statue of Liberty, so that Ellis Island could be anywhere in any country. Perhaps the most remarkable shot is the one from a Camera Crane looking down on hundreds of people jammed together; slowly, almost imperceptibly two thirds of the people at Screen Left begin to separate from the third at Screen Right and we realize that those on the left are actually aboard the ship and those on the right are on the dock, a powerful statement of society being fragmented. There's a strong documentary feel throughout as though we were following an actual ship full of immigrants even though it has been carefully scripted and is clearly an amalgam of typical families/conditions at the time. With almost nothing happening in dramatic terms it's not for the popcorn brigade at the Multiplex but for the rest of us it's a very fine film indeed. This film played in Lexington KY for 7 days. I saw it on the last day of its run & regretted that I could not recommend it to others because this is a film that cries out for the big screen experience. The aerial shot where the crowded ship pulls away from the equally crowded dock is a masterpiece as is the scene where the two lead characters flirt on deck--almost a ballet and sexier in its suggestiveness than so many more explicit films these days. I just cringe to think that more people won't have the opportunity to see this fine film in a theater; the DVD experience will not be the same. Here's an idea: if you live in a college town, see if you can lobby for it to show up in a campus film festival. This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of "the white man's burden." I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of "America", not the "United States"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical. This review is in response to the submission wondering how factually correct the movie was...

Saw this movie last year and found it inspiring that hopeful immigrants, like my Italian grandparents who came through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century, would subject themselves to all manner of invasive inspection just to enter America.

It was certainly eye opening, since my grandparents never spoke of anything terrible while there. My grandmother was 5-years old and my grandfather 18 when they arrived.

I just returned from a trip to New York where I had the pleasure of visiting Ellis Island and the museum actually walks you through the immigration evaluation process - The filmmaker obviously did his research, right down to the medical exams and equipment, questions and puzzles. They are all there at the museum. Even the wedding pictures and the review board room -- Factually correct! Anyone who has immigrant grandparents should see this movie. Inspirational to say the least. An interesting look at the immigrant experience, told as a fable with some very weird imagery.

I got drawn to this movie because it tells of immigrants from Sicily who traveled to America. I imagine much the same as my Grandfather did at that time. Travelling in steerage to provide ballast for the ships, I cannot imagine it was very comfortable, as shown in this film.

Laws restricting immigrants existed. I would guess that these laws were more strict on those who came from the Mediterranean and Africa. Immigrants had to be free from contagious diseases or hereditary infirmities. In the film, we see physical and mental exams, the latter because of the view that low intelligence is heritable. Single women could not enter the country, on the presumption that they would become prostitutes, so most married single men already in the country, as arranged beforehand, at Ellis Island before entry.

This is the story of a British immigrant (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who arranges to marry a poor Sicilian (Vincenzo Amato). He is trying to get his family through with a son that is mute and a mother (Aurora Quattrocchi) that is considered feeble-minded. She was fantastic in the role, by the way.

You will also see character actor, Vincent Schiavelli, in his next to the last appearance. I don't know if his last film has been released. He plays a matchmaker, and is also very good.

It was a strange, but enjoyable film. It's not for everyone, as I imagine those who don't have some interest in the immigrant experience would find it rather slow. This is a good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience. Where do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the cliché scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a cliché)

Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.

Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.

The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.

The film is a near miss.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10) if filming is about vision and real life this movie is quite perfect: NUOVOMONDO talks about immigration in the USA from Italy the beginning of '900, but it speak also for now, when emigration/immigration is still a focus .

It doesn't to be rich to be a visionary film.

Acting at extra level, Charlotte Gainsbourg a star. A good challenge for the Academy Award 2007

After first Crialese's attempt, "Respiro", an emotional but too intellectual movie, this one has learned Fellini's and Taviani's lesson, to name just two Italian masters.

Plot is arguing, directing accurate, maybe just a little less melodrama would be more effective.

If VOLVER ( challenging for Academy Award next year ) by Almodovar is a mature movie by an always brilliant director, NUOVOMONDO deserves it more, because of his good effort to be a European movie for the American scene.

And this is it! I always liked listening to Buddy Holly and felt a real loss when he was killed at a young age in an airplane crash. He wasn't in the old rock 'n roll class of , let's say, Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis, but he wasn't far behind. Who knows how big his legacy would have been had he sang for decades. Almost every single he put out was a hit.

So, I was very pleasantly surprised how good a job Gary Busey did at playing him and at imitating his singing voice. He did Buddy proud, as were the actors (Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith) who played Holly's backup group, "The Crickets."

Music-wise, there are some of Holly's better-known songs in the beginning of the film and its really good with a strong finish at the end as Holly and the boys are shown in Iowa in their last concert ever. Busey not only sings like Holly, he's a dead ringer for him in the looks department. Some thing was the actor''s best performance ever, and you get no argument from me.

I'm also glad they ended the film on an upbeat note with that Iowa concert, instead of dwelling on his tragic accident. The ending could have been a real downer, but they didn't let it be. I was fortunate enough to be an extra in this movie when I was about 13 during the roller rink scenes. My junior high school drama class was invited to participate. It was a fantastic experience.

Gary Busey, Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud played the music live, all day! As a musician, I can appreciate the tireless work and dedication these guys put in to their roles. They must have played those songs 20 times. It's very difficult to maintain consistency and energy under those conditions. This is visible during a cut to a close-up on "That'll Be the Day," but fortunately the unsuspecting public probably wouldn't have picked it up.

Skating around all day, getting the day off from school and being transported back in time was a incredible thrill. I also had my first "date" on film. I had to walk a girl up to the ticket booth. Woo hoo! Even with an out-of-date haircut and hot lights melting the vaseline in my hair, it was still worth it. Fun stuff.

The movie is top notch and is highly satisfying as a whole. Busey delivers his best role ever and the supporting cast is superb. I'm glad to have participated in a great film of the day. To think I could have been in Corvette Summer or something. Not.

A funny ironic ending to this is that years later I was in a video store in Malibu looking at the movie the week it was released on video. Gary Busey walked in and stood right next to me. I showed him the cover and babbled on how great he was and how I was an extra and whatnot. Pretty weird, but very cool, for what it's worth. The Buddy Holly Story opens on a shot of a yellow neon moon on the roof of a roller rink in 1956 Lubbock, Texas. As the credits start, the camera moves down from the moon to the parking lot, into the roller rink, past the concessions and across the rink to a small bandstand where a small band is doing their sound check. It's a tracking shot Welles and Scorcese would both appreciate. It cuts to Buddy Holly's bespectacled face peering down in rapt concentration as he grips the headphones and talks to a man putting this band on the radio.

A young Gary Busey plays Buddy Holly and his performance is key. He has to somehow show the passion that Holly had for his music to make the film work. This is a rock and roll story without lines of coke chased with shots of heroin and a fifth of whiskey. This isn't about a man with several women to choose between in a sex scandalized, brood abandoned lusty tragedy. This is a film about a nice Texas boy who respected his parents and went to church and had the same girlfriend for 5 years and fell in love with rock and roll. Busey finds that spark and ignites it, his passion is clear and infectious. He really plays the guitar in the film and sings, its not overdubbed with Holly's recordings. Busey was a young guy in Hollywood in the seventies, a struggling actor and as much or more so a struggling rock musician as well. Thus, he gives a great performance, because although he isn't Buddy Holly, he's in a similar situation.

His first song is the old Les Paul classic, "Mockingbird Hill" and he has the country twang to nail it. Next a kid calls out for some bop, and against his two band mates (in reality the Crickets were 3 guys, but the down-sizing works fine for the film's limited narrative)he leads them wailing into "Rocking with Ollie Vee". The kids love it and the parents hate it. The DJ at the rolling rink tapes it and it is later released in New York without Buddy Holly even knowing it was ever recorded. This leads to the funniest scene in a film filled with humorous moments. An amped-up disc jockey from Buffalo calls up Buddy at home. The DJ has been playing "That'll be the Day" for 12 hours and is going for 24. The cops are banging on the station's barricaded door. Holly is confused, but when the dust settles, he is quite thrilled. He tells the boys, and their meteoric rise begins. Dan Stroud as the drummer and Charles Martin Smith as the bassist round out the band nicely and have good chemistry with each other. There are problems but not overblown drama thats found in most rock (all?) biopics. The movie doesn't manipulate you either. Your emotions soar, but they're not manipulated. When the Crickets step onto the Apollo stage in Harlem, the first white group ever to play there, then rip into an electrically charged performance of "Oh Boy" and win the audience over, my rock and roll loving ass got choked up and cried. Next, Busey and the boys make "It's so Easy" sound funkier and more soulful than I would have believed possible.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Buddy Holly's story will know where this movie will end. Holly died in a plane crash with Richie Valens and the Big Bopper way too young. We, as the audience know that, yet the movie is so well written, directed and lovingly acted that we forget it almost immediately. The movie isn't about his death, it's about his life and his place in rock and roll history. The film ends with his last performance and it's a good fifteen minutes of Busey rocking out possessed by the ghost of Buddy Holly. I was happy to hear him end it on "Not Fade Away", my favorite of his songs. The film freezes before the end credits with the information about the plane crash, but I hardly noticed it. I was still thinking about how good that last song was. I turned 13 when Elvis hit the big times in 1956 with his first RCA hit. A year later Buddy Holly stepped in to give the King some competition. One of Buddy's major talents, besides his unique singing style and his songwriting ability, is often downplayed. Buddy was also a skilled lead guitar player, developing a unique rockabilly style all his own on his Fender Strat. Gary Busey attempts to capture this aspect of Buddy's persona. There were other contemporary master guitar rockers of equal caliber, such as Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, and Eddie Cochran, but Buddy's talent is often overlooked.

As noted by others, Busey is the driving force behind the success of "The Buddy Holly Story." Not only does the script play with the facts of Buddy's life, but it even interjects several anachronisms for the two years of Buddy's popularity, basically 1957-1959. One that comes to mind is the scene where Buddy and Maria are watching a 3-D movie. Buddy is disenchanted with it all and tells Maria that it'll never last. It's just a fad. In reality there were no 3-D movies in circulation at the time. The heyday for 3-D was in the early 1950's. By 1955 the fad had already faded. Yet another example where just a little research would have sufficed to make the story more believable.

At times it is difficult to separate what really happened from urban legends surrounding Buddy's career. The story about how the Crickets got their name may or may not be apocryphal, but it certainly did not take place the way it is presented in the movie. Another problem with the film is how Buddy's parents are depicted. Certainly Buddy's parents were supportive of his musical career. "Maybe Baby" is credited to Buddy's mother and she did have input into the writing of the song.

It's good that Buddy's biggest hits were used in the movie, but I miss hearing one of my favorites, "I'm Looking For Someone to Love." I'm proud that as a result of this movie, Buddy's music was reissued for a new generation to hear. His legacy is one of the very best from the early days of rock 'n' roll. Rave on, Buddy, rave on. This film set the standard for all rock biopics to follow. It accomplished this through the energetic performances of the leads, the steadiness of the camera-work (avoiding 'rock-video' clichés that were actually invented for the Beatles in their first two films), tight editing, and a non-judgmental presentation of the star as human being rather than symbol or god (or demon). Yes, there are minor holes in the plot, and incidental details that are a little unnecessary, and there will always be debate between families of those personally involved as to specifics. But the issue here, as in the much more recent "I walk the Line" or Carpenter's famed TV Elvis biopic of the same era, is whether the meaning of the performer's life, in its time and place, as a catalyst for fans' ideals and appreciation, is made manifest in the performance, and this is clearly the case here. We come away from this movie understanding not only how Buddy Holly became a star, but why. I don't see what else one could want from the film. What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation? Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume. The Buddy Holly Story is a great biography with a super performance from Gary Busey. Busey did his own singing for this film and he does a great job. It would be unwise to judge that that either narrative or documentary to be more authentic than the other. Both formats have an underlying form of fiction and are never a true reflection of reality as producers seek to reconstruct and narrate stories in their perspectives. As both formats usually leaves some issues undiscussed due to 'complexities of subplots' and screen time, it denies viewers the opportunity to open up debates and to further investigate and construct the real truth. Adding to the viewer's inability to evaluate sources (eg comparisons with written history) and the logics behind arguments, history may be open to distortion through narrative and documentary.

To most people, documentary may be seen more truthful as it usually involves actual participants' testimonies and real-life footages. However, these visuals are selected and edited, to be arranged in a way that allows producers to present their version of realism to the viewers. In The Real Buddy Holly Story, Paul McCartney seeks to establish the Buddy Holly as remembered by family and friends and how Buddy had influence the rest of the music world. The testimonies may have been distorted as memories may not be accurate and emotions have evolved to make a legend out of Buddy. The documentary did make corrections to the film version and cover other events, such as there were 3 members of Crickets and that Buddy's music was actually heard outside of USA at that time (he had to embark on a world tour!). However, it did not go into deep discussion about what happened to Buddy's wife after his death. Criticism and/or negative discussions may have been left out of the documentary as the producers seek to present a Buddy that the world should have remembered. Eventually, we don't manage to construct the whole truth as we only restrict ourselves to the past 'realties' that the documentary tells us.

Personally, I prefer a narrative film because it provides rich visual imageries, which helps us to reconnect with the collective memory of that era. It gives the audiences a more constructive structure of the story, and this leads to better memory retention for the audiences when they retell the story. There is also an element of flexibility which allows film-makers to express their thoughts and views on certain issues. In The Buddy Holly Story, racial issues were highlighted and viewers can certainly relate to these issues with respect to current situations.

Movie-goers consistently seek to revisit certain emotions when watching a film, and using these emotions, audiences can choose to make personal connections with the applied meanings that a film-maker wants to deliver. In most stories, people are more likely to selectively remember the struggles, the inspirations and the way the story ends. Through The Buddy Holly Story, we do remember the struggles Buddy and the Crickets had, how Maria had been a source of encouragement, and that Buddy Holly was a great performer until the day he dies. I first saw The Buddy Holly Story when I was about seven years old. I had no idea who Buddy Holly was, nor can I remember what it was that made me sit down in front of the television, tuned in to HBO, and watch this engaging biopic. What I remember was realizing that it was a (somewhat) true story, about someone who actually lived. I recall the music, great songs that I still love today (I can't believe Gary Busey sang his own songs and so well - What a stud!) Then, came the end. He died. He freaking died. I couldn't believe it. I had no warning, no prior knowledge like most coming into this film. It taught me a harsh lesson about life and how it doesn't follow the rules that most movies teach us. I just watched the film again tonight and was engaged all over again... and a little saddened.

8 out of 10, but I'll admit to a little bias. I've got to say it. Gary Busey saved this film. If it were not for his fine acting talents this film would have been sub par. I recommend the film but just barely.

The biggest difficulty with the film is its broad disregard for historical, geographical and physical accuracy. For example, why is Lubbock green and hilly? How come Buddy's producer Petty ignored? Where are the daily trips to the Clovis, New Mexico studio? Why is Nashville treated as a racist hate camp out to destroy the Holly sound? Why was Buddy's two week courtship to Maria treated as a complex, taboo, race mixing stereotype? Why are Buddy's tile boxes as light as feathers? Finally, why are the Crickets portrayed as trouble making roadblocks to Holly's talent?

Taken on their face these inaccuracies should spell doom for any film proclaiming itself, "The Buddy Holly Story." However, Busey does deliver a stirring portrayal as the man whose death eventually led to the day the music died. Gary Busey did a splendid job playing the rock-n-roll legend Buddy Holly(1936-59). He does have a spitting image to the man. Being a garage band in the 50's is sure different from today's. Having a group of three is usually simple back in those days. I bet that Buddy Holly(Busey) was a much better musician than most of what I heard. Since he lived in Lubbock, Texas, it was only a quiet country town back then. His parents were Christians, though his mother was a strong supporter of her son's work. That's one of the reasons he didn't act like Elvis. He stuck to his kinder ways. That really makes him good! When he went to Tennessee, he saw how bad the producers were. They hated rock-n-roll, that turned Holly off big time. Getting used to the different atmosphere was a challenge to Holly and his friends. He got to tour with Sam Cooke, went to the famous Apollo, which the all-Afro-American audience quickly accepted them, I liked that! And Sam Cooke made sure Holly and his band got some service. That's what I call tolerance. It's sad that he, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson had their music careers cut short by a plane crash in 1959, at least their memories will live on in our hearts. I don't what inaccuracies were in the movie, all I care is that Buddy Holly overcame the obstacles of music and politics in that time, and the music is nearly-perfect. For Gary Busey, he was perfect in the role, and making the music as well. GOD BLESS YOU GARY BUSEY! 5 STARS! Considering it's basically low-budget cast, this is a surprisingly good flick about the life and death of rock pioneer Buddy Holly. Gary Busey stars as Holly, who was one of the first to use an electric guitar for pretty much all his music. Backed up by his Crickets, Holly had a string of hits and became a bona fide star before his death in a plane crash along with Richie Valens and The Big Bopper. The film follows his rise to stardom, marriage to his sweetheart and eventual death. I like this film and believe that you will too. Charles Martin Smith also does a great job in this film. Gary Busey is superb in this musical biography. Great singing and excellent soundtrack. The Buddy Holly Story is a much better movie than La Bamba. From reading other comments, there may be some historical inaccuracies. Regardless, it is a fun toe-tapping film, and a good introduction to Buddy Holly's music. Buddy Holly was a pioneer and victim of the early days of rock 'n' roll. The young singer/songwriter from Lubbock, Texas left his mark on the template of modern music. Inspired by Elvis Presley, Holly would spend a lot of time fighting the system in order to get his rock-a-billy sound recorded. Before his untimely death, he was mixing lush strings with be-bop rhythms. Holly would take his place with Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Ricky Nelson as the voices of teenage angst.

This easy to watch bio is not without flaws. Some situations, events, places and even names were not correct for various reasons. What makes this movie so believable is that Gary Busey did his own singing in the part of Holly. A well produced soundtrack became a multi-million seller.

Busey was nominated for an Oscar. Other stars of note are Don Stroud, Conrad Janis, Charles Martin Smith and Maria Richwine. The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.

As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.

Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I. "The Buddy Holly Story" shows the famous singer's beginnings in the dunk Lubbock, Texas, to his rise to stardom, to his tragic death in a plane crash. Strengthened by the fact that Gary Busey, as Holly, plays his own instruments, this movie is the biopic in its purest form. There are some things that seem a little hackneyed, namely the people of Lubbock considering rock 'n' roll to be the devil's music, but the masterful performances outweigh any weaknesses. If there's only one thing that's for certain in this great big world of ours, it's that Buddy Holly's music will never get stale. Whether it's "That'll Be the Day", "Peggy Sue", or another one of his songs, they still sound great after all these years. He remains one of the greatest singers in history.

Just to show what Lubbock really thought of their most famous son, they didn't name a street after him until 37 years after his death! What a bunch of ingrates! This is one of those movies where I just want to move my feet and dance around the house. It's a very positive and happy type of music. The movie has some sad parts but mostly the music is what makes me happy. Gary Busey did a great job as Buddy Holly. Buddy Holly kept on going even tho his pastor, his parents and the Nashville record producer told him no. Buddy Holly didn't give up on what he liked. I didn't know much about Buddy Holly until I watched this movie. I've been to the Surf Ballroom where he last played but didn't give much attention to it until I watched this movie. It's an incredible movie with lots of fun so get on your feet and see this movie. It occurred to me while the final scene of the movie froze to reveal the scant detail of Buddy Holly's death that there are still people alive today who were at that venue in Clearlake, Iowa who remember it vividly. That has to be a haunting memory, lent even more poignancy by the lyrics of "American Pie", as it pays tribute to the day the music died. The world lost some tremendous talent that day, lives cut short way before their prime, and one can only wonder what might have been if the trio of musicians who perished that day had survived to create an even greater musical legacy.

I watched the film today some thirty years after it's original theatrical release. Thirty years, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around that. I had forgotten a lot of it, while remembering some of the little things, like the cricket in the wall who became immortalized with the band's name. But most of all, I remember the music. It's hard just to sit there and not begin tapping to the beat of "Oh Boy" or "That'll Be The Day", and one has to wonder just where the threat to our morals might have actually come from with those tunes. I'm with Buddy on that score at least, how could they be jungle rhythms if he came up with them? Funny how each successive decade brought it's own threat to the fabric of society - The Beatles, Motown, Disco and a whole host of other musical forms. We're still listening and dancing to the beat, so I guess they couldn't have been all that bad.

There was another takeaway from the film I had forgotten about. This is where I learned to bang a phone on the table when the person on the other end wasn't seeing things my way. I've done that a number of times over the years, but by now had forgotten the source. Well, I should be good for another thirty years or so now.

You certainly have to give Gary Busey credit for his portrayal of Buddy Holly. Seeing him today, one could never imagine him as the slimmed down rocker with the horn rimmed glasses, but it was a tour de force characterization and performance that earned Busey an Oscar nod. Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith are competent as Buddy's band members, though their characters take a back seat to much of the story. I enjoyed the subtle ways that other musical legends were segued into the picture, names like Sam Cooke and King Curtis, without ever dwelling on their presence.

I'll always be a fan and follower of music from the Fifties and Sixties - 'oldies' they call them now. I guess that makes me a bit of an oldie too, but you can't replace the experience of growing up with the music history that now makes it to the big screen. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that I'll keep on enjoying the music until, well, the day I die. I saw this (video 2000) years ago and would love to see it on DVD. A good film, but I would have loved it even more if it had included the legacy of The Beatles and The Hollies etc.

I also don't know exactly how true the story is - were some changes made to dramatize the story?

I was only 3 when Buddy crashed, and didn't wake up to his music until the late 70's. Much later I found out our family moved into our new house on - yes, February 3rd, 1959.

Well ehelhell little things you say and do... His songs will always be remembered - always... First, I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan. I grew up knowing who he was, and I knew all about that fateful plane ride that extinguished three incredibly bright flames just like that. But I had never truly listened to his music. I had heard much of it, yes, but not until I sat down with the intention of getting something out of it did I truly come to see the real Buddy Holly. And let me tell you that my world is a different one now because of him.

Because of this adoration for such an incredible man, I bought The Buddy Holly Story without ever seeing it previously. I'm torn on my views of this film. Perhaps it's because Buddy feels so alive to me that I just couldn't bear seeing Gary Busey in this role. I'll admit that he did a nice job acting, but his singing sounded so forced. It seemed to me as if he knew he didn't sound a bit like Buddy himself and therefore was using far too much energy to make an attempt at a similar sound. In some parts of the film, he succeeded. But others.. ouch.

The movie spanned a period of several years, but I feel that portraying this time span could have been handled much better. I had a difficult time distinguishing at what point in Buddy's life certain events were happening. I also had a serious problem with some of the historical inaccuracies. I think the worst one was the portrayal of the Crickets. I understand how their real names couldn't be used, and how for simplification there were only two of them in the movie.. and maybe this was a good thing. Because the film's background vocals were cringe-worthy, and I disliked the way they were portrayed as a hindrance to Buddy's career. Something else that really made no difference to the film but irked me was Gary Busey's teeth. They wore me out! Buddy Holly had much better teeth. I don't know why I noticed it.. but I did.

I'll end this review on what I felt was the best part of the movie: Buddy's last performance. His final phone call to Maria, the Big Bopper's performance, bringing him and Richie Valens to the stage, followed by the still frame ending. It startled even me, and I feel that it effectively shows the audience how at one moment Buddy Holly was so alive and energetic, and that his flame was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. It was a beautiful way to portray this horrible tragedy I think.

Good movie, despite the obvious problems.. 7/10.

Some obvious flaws, could use some work... but not bad. This film biography of early rock and roll star Buddy Holly (1936-1959) is a tour de force for Gary Busey. The movie's highlights are Busey's stage performances where he plays guitar and sings Holly songs. He brings such energy to the performances that Holly's own filmed performances almost pale in comparison. Busey's infectious toothy grin lights up the screen, he creates a totally believable and winning personality and his Oscar nomination for best actor was well deserved.

The film follows Holly's career from growing up in Lubbock, Texas, to stardom and New York and his untimely death in a plane crash. One thing I found interesting, if true, was Buddy's driving ambition--he had great plans to go beyond recording and performance to producing. As young as he was he was already establishing himself as a shrewd businessman and definitely wanted to take things to a higher level. We will never know if he would have ultimately catapulted his early success into a business brand like The Rolling Stones.

The lyrics of many of Holly's songs are pretty adolescent; read the lyrics for "Peggy Sue" or "Oh Boy!" and you will see what I mean. Maybe to a great extent this explains his popularity with adolescent audiences, but his instrumentation and stage performances surely account for his influence on groups to follow--both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles have acknowledged his importance.

Clearly some liberties were taken for dramatic effect. For example, I doubt that Holly ever punched out a producer in Nashville or that the audience at New York's Apollo theater was so immediately responsive as to be wildly dancing in the aisles. If you are interested in getting closer to the truth, see the documentary "The Real Buddy Holly Story" (1985) that is produced and hosted by a very relaxed and engaging Paul McCartney. This contains interviews with Holly's family, friends, and band-mates (Holly's musical brothers are not even mentioned in "The Buddy Holly Story"). Members of other bands like Keith Richards and Don Everly also offer opinions and stories and there is footage of old Holly performances. The McCartney production can stand on its own, but it makes an excellent companion piece to "The Buddy Holly Story" and perhaps should be required viewing for anyone who watches the fictionalized story. Even after nearly 20 years apart, the original members of Black Sabbath have not lost a thing. In this concert, they perform their best songs from their heyday (1970-1978), including "N.I.B.", "War Pigs", and "Paranoid".

Also included is priceless backstage footage with interviews and retrospectives into their days as the top hard rock band on the planet. The comments of Ozzy, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward are just as interesting and intriguing to watch as the fabulous onstage performances.

A must-see for all Sabbath and Ozzy fans. This is at least very close to a perfect video publication. Messianic metal group, dinosaurs of rock n' roll, biggest and most influential heavy band in the world plays their hit songs and reminisces band's past - what more do we need?

Video starts from "War pigs" and ends to "Paranoid" and in the middle all the greatest and most significant classics of the original line-up are included: "Electric funeral", "Sweet leaf", "After forever", "Iron man", "Children of the grave"...and of course my personal favourite "Into the void", I'm glad they didn't leave it out. Well, how could they?

Still, this video is more than just the music. Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward goes over the group's colorful history. Only thing that slightly bothers me is when a live song is being interrupted with bits of interview. For example, is it that necessary to inform how the song "N.I.B." got it's name, right in the middle of it - one on top of the other? I doubt. It's still a small flaw so it's not too big deal.

Band members also laze around in chairs and chat together: pleasant material for a sabbath fan! I admit I have difficulties of following what Ozzy Osbourne is muttering but it's just amusing. I had a privilege to participate when "The last supper tour" entered Finland and for me personally this video is an ideal way to recall that magnificent show. Just about every commentator has mentioned the way that some of the interview footage is superposed over the concert footage in places. This is true, and is the biggest flaw of this film. However, it isn't so often, or so bad, that one shouldn't see this video. If you are a Black Sabbath fan, you have to see this. Aside from having seen Black Sabbath in the Sevnties and early Eighties, I saw them in 2005 or 2006 when they also headlined OZZfest just like in this video. The concert was amazing, and very much like this, which was why I rented this in the first place. It's just about the best geezer-rock out there. Check it out. George Saunders is a forger who steals a rare copy of Hamlet, killing a guard in the process. Months later an associate of his is selling forgeries of the book for great sums of money. One of the forgeries is sold to a man working for the Nazi's. Not happy at being taken the Nazi front man insists on getting his money back, at the same time an investigator working for one of the other swindled clients shows up. The middle woman in an effort to keep herself safe begins to play all sides against each other and sets up a meeting at the New York public library between various parties, however as people begin to die, the library is locked down and more murders (and perhaps some rare book larceny) seem to be close to happening. Complex murder mystery is a good little thriller with a great cast (Saunders is joined by Richard Denning and a cast of solid supporting players) If there is a flaw the film is almost too complicated with plots with in plots and everyone pretty much out for themselves. The layers of theft, forgery, murder and war time intrigue (this was 1942) are almost too many for the brief 70 minute running time. Still its an enjoyable little film with a darkness and sense of inescapable doom for some of the characters that clearly marks this as one of the first film noirs. Until Denning shows up we're down among some charming thieves, whom we like, perhaps even more than the hero, but its clear from word and deed this is not going to have a completely happy ending, and they know it, even if they fight it. A good little film that's worth searching out. This interesting film noir features three very good performances: Sanders, Patrick, and Blackmer. The scenes between Sanders and Patrick are particularly outstanding. Demming, as the detective, is unfortunately not nearly as good. He lacks the intelligence, strength, and cynical world view of a Bogart. Had Humphrey played this part, we could have had a classic.

Pace, location (a library), and atmosphere are all good. But there are a few plot holes. Sanders strongly fears Blackmer and the ruthless organization (Nazis) he represents. Yet after mistakenly killing Blackmer, Sanders seems to experience no anxiety or remorse. Sanders then seizes the library and its occupants by using the ruse that he and his men are detectives investigating the murder. However, Sanders' hit man later tries to kill Demming by shooting him (without a silencer), even though the many other detainees could have been expected to hear, and become alarmed by, the noise. Finally, Sanders' hit man tries to kill Roberts, who has discovered the truth, but when she faints, he inexplicably does not.

What bothered me the most, however, was that the chance for a great and unexpected conclusion was wasted. Throughout the film Patrick is portrayed as a smart, hard-as-nails sociopath fearing nothing. Yet at the end, she flees panic-stricken from the last surviving Nazi, a brutish thug. By the time the cops find him, he has killed her. And she ends up being just another weak, stereotypical victim. What should have happened is this: the cops find the Nazi thug, but he is dead. She has cleverly killed him, and then vanished -- to continue her evil ways. It was a terrific movie! I like to watch it again and again. The actors were awesome. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat. I would recommend this movie to anyone. I wish Lifetime would put this movie on DVD. I would most definitely purchase a copy. This movie just proves that you should be very careful about who you get hooked up with. You may think you know someone, but you never know. My daughter watched the movie with me. She thought it was great. All I know is, I will watch this movie every time Lifetime airs it. It's the kind of movie that keeps you glued to the t.v.I wish Lifetime would redo the movie, but use the same actors, and bring it to the big screen. I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend. I really enjoyed this film, it definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat. It was very well directed. I think it was important that they showed the other couple's life as well as Terry and Bobbys and show them as people with emotions. As this film needed to show Bobby as a cold and vindictive person.

I agree with another review it was sick love, not true love. He didn't need to go to great lengths as murder to give his wife a baby. He should have been honest with her and told her that he was sterile and decide to adopt a baby together. Some reviews say that she was naive, I think she was when it came to the adoption, however best actors all round. Great movie to watch!! Much better than it is generally given credit for, this version of "Lost Horizon" not only had great music and beautiful scenery, but also some stunning mountain photography. A special edition laser disc was released some years ago which added more than 30 minutes of previously deleted material, extra music, and lots of bonus material. So why isn't this on DVD?! Hard to figure the studios out sometimes. Certainly the roles could have been given to people who could sing better than Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, George Kennedy and Sally Kellerman, but what do you want in a movie, good acting or melodious pipes? Song and dance man Bobby Van is great fun, Michael York is a suitably tragic villain, and seeing Sir John Gielgud decked out as Chang may sound silly but actually works very well on screen. Trust me, you need to check this movie out - if you can find it! While the songs and dance numbers, in general, aren't as strong as many would have them be, the film's storyline and message are still there and ring out loudly above the simple 70s-style musical numbers.

Keeping in mind that this film was made after the Hollywood Musical had nearly died out (with few exceptions being rock musicals), the audiences that went to see it new didn't appreciate the fact that it was a brave attempt at something that hadn't been done to date. Audiences that see it today will tend to judge it against the films and musicals of today and, perhaps, the huge all-star casts of musicals gone past. But to do that to this film, or any for that matter, is an injustice to the film itself.

There are some good musical moments in the film. The first is that of Bobby Van. Mr. Van took his role of Harry Lovett just after closing a 2 year Tony nominated (for best actor) run of the Broadway revival, "No, No, Nanette." He is a song-and-dance-man from way back and, honestly, the only one in the cast that was truly talented and experienced for musicals. He never misses a step in his "Question Me An Answer" and rightly so ... he was totally at home as Harry. Other pleasant numbers are done by Olivia Hussey when she welcomes the new visitors and while the lyrics are weak, James Shigeta shows his strong voice in the "Family" song, as well as a nicely done staging of the full piece.

View the film for what it is ... a fantasy about a place where you never grow old, hidden in the ice and snow covered mountains of Tibet, found by a group of unsuspecting modern-day people wrapped up in the strife of any modern culture. Take this and compare it to reality and you get a film that falls short of a goal. But ... take this film for the message of love and peace and tranquility and brotherly love and you get a warm and refreshing message and a positive one at that.

To some this film may seem corny to others a welcomed release from the hectic pace of reality. To the first, try to not judge and just enjoy the message. To the second, you have discovered the secret of Shangri-La! I was 19 or 20, years old at the time and living in Salt Lake City, Utah and I still remember the new dome theater, called the century 21. Layback chairs that rocked and a new sound system, large screen and huge open space between the screen and the packed theater. We felt all the excitement of a new preview screening of a film. Ta da da daa da ta da dada dada... I can still hear the opening music ringing trumpet and the crash of cymbals. I loved the interplay of characters and the filmed vistas. I know Peter Finch and Luv and Sally had some trouble with the lip-sink but hey, this was a feel good, go feel better about things film! What I regret is the way they cut the meaningful heart out of it, showed the cut version and then called it a flop. I saw the cut version and I can see it lost its view of the vision it had in the preview edition. Yes I wince a bit at Peter's effort to make love through music but, you know I didn't see it that way when I left the theater. when they surveyed us as we left I regret any comment I made that may have altered the original. I liked it then and still see it while I listen to the music on my LP. Most of my family has heard me sing much of the sound track and I can use the films monologues in our games of "what movie is this". I wish a director's cut on DVD was available. It is available on VHS but its not quite the same. I would particularly like a full serious lord of the rings style commentary about its origins, struggles and triumphs. Picky people should leave things well enough alone. Bring it back!!!! This musical has a deep meaning which is appreciated by only a few. The wise can see the wisdom contained in what most call folly.

This music may well regain popularity as world consciousness rises. It is about a land "far away from it all" where "living things have room to grow." Its people are "living and growing together" mentally and spiritually faster than in biological age.

The lyrics help us recognize the relativity of this "world that is spinning around" and to "look inside yourself; that is where the Truth always lies." The absolute level of consciousness is more real than the ever changing world of the senses.

I have been searching for the video for years . When I find it, or it comes out in DVD, it will help "share the joy" of being in "Shangri-la" again. Burt Bacharach's music and Hal David's lyrics made a masterpiece in turbulent times that is just now ready to be fully appreciated.

May this CD inspire you to find your own "Lost Horizon" or recognize it when "peace of mind" has found you. - LostHorizon.org Ross Hunter's musical remake of the 1937 fantasy, based on James Hilton's enduring bestseller, was written off by critics and audiences almost immediately in 1973, sounding off a backlash against musicals in general that gave the genre a bad reputation in Hollywood for years. Group of disparate British and American individuals end up on an emergency flight out of a war-torn Asian country, but their plane is hijacked and crashes in a snowy mountain terrain; a rescue party arrives and leads the group to an isolated community called Shangri-La, where the sun is always shining and most of the residents are youthful and blissfully content. Some of the performances by the classy cast aren't so classy (the effervescent mood of the piece, the lilting Burt Bacharach-Hal David tunes, as well as the lightweight direction all conspire to make the performers look just a bit silly). Peter Finch is the international peace keeper who becomes involved in a somewhat constipated romance with resident Liv Ullmann; Sally Kellerman is a malcontent who spits out lines like, "I got tired of taking pictures of people with their heads blown off, so that people with their heads STILL ON--and usually under hairdryers--could get one last kick before turning to the latest recipe"; John Gieguld "as Chang", an Asian who learned to speak English while attending Oxford, is humorously self-amused (but why no songs for Chang?). Hal David's dopey lyrics are sometimes jaw-dropping ("On the Good Ship Lollipop/how did Christopher Columbus/sail across the sea?") and the pacing gets bogged down with all that chatter about the outside world and how nothing is more pitiful today. However, the production is lush and the general handling strangely affecting. The two-dimensional characters are so overly serious they actually become endearing, and the movie's silliness is infectious. It ends up being a lot of fun. *** from **** A huge cast gathered for this remake which sadly was a box office failure notwithstanding a great sound track. I can't say it was riveting entertainment, nor a cure for insomnia. Nevertheless I enjoyed the film - it provided the escape I was after one afternoon. A good look for those of us looking for the ideal life, albeit a fantasy. Expect some corny moments, few thrills, and an occasional laugh. I don't see that much wrong with this movie. Granted, the principal singers might not be Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas, but they can certainly carry a tune. Burt Bacharach and Hal David are talented songwriters and I happen to love their songs, especially "The World Is A Circle", "The Things That I Will Not Miss", and "Question Me An Answer". Some people claim that Hermes Pan's choreography is ghastly and that the snowy mountain sets look as if they were made of plastic; I disagree on both counts. I've seen powdered snow before and the snow in those mountain scenes looked realistic to me. And most of all, in this film's defense, it is appropriate for a family audience (at least I remember it being that way when I saw it on Christmas Day a few years ago.) With all the outcry over sex and violence in the cinema these days, I find it refreshing to note that this film deserves its G-rating. And they don't say that naughty "F" word every ten minutes like some films I've seen. Thank God. So although this film may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does have some redeeming value and I give it ten points out of a possible ten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. This was one of my favorites as a child. My family had the 8-track tape soundtrack!! It took us years (until I was in my 20s) for us to get a video of the movie (my dad taped it from HBO or something). Every summer when we go to the beach (my mom, brother, sister and I) we lay on the beach and sing all the songs from this movie!!! LOVED IT!!! I went to the cinema in 1973 when the film was released, I was 11 at the time. I remember how much I enjoyed it and wanted to live in Shangri-la, that's how naive and young I was. I recently came across a video of the film I had recorded off television some years ago. I watched it again and am not ashamed to admit I still enjoy it as much now as I did 29 years ago. I also enjoy listening to the words of the songs, because it makes me think that one day we could live in a place where the sound of guns don't pound in our ears and if we look at our reflection - we should be happy with what we see. This is what I call a "feel good" film because I feel happy after watching it. Maybe I am still naive but it makes me happy and I'm sure it will make you happy if you watch it with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is - a good, family film. I must be one of the few people who has this film on VHS PAL video - and DVD (self-made). I recorded it on DVD as the videotape recording from TV was starting to wear thin. I still watch it from time to time. The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own "Lost Horizon". It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like "Leonard Maltin" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it. It amazes me that production companies will sue because of reproductions they will not supply. I've been looking for this movie on DVD for a while and VHS for years. One can get all sorts of movies on line...old movies, new movies... but it all targets a particular group. This movie is very nostalgic for many. I'm not sure why I can't get a copy. Maybe if enough people will write in, the copyright holder will get a clue. It's about time for this to happen. Yes, it's date, but so is The Wizard of OZ. It doesn't seem like this should be so difficult. So, for now, I'll keep seeing those illegal copies on search engines like many others. I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy. The retelling of a classic story is set to the music of Burt Bacharach and lyrics of Hal David. The actors seem like real people in this fairytale of the outside world meeting with mystical Shangra-la. It is a joy to watch Bobby Van, whose acting puts me in mind of Red Buttons, and, as always, George Kennedy (Cool-Hand Luke) who always manages to carry gravitas in his roles.

The surprise here is Charles Boyer as the elder High Lama. Who would have known?

All-star cast including Michael York and Olivia Hussey makes this work a keeper for those of us who cherish people. As a film buff, I obviously had read all the excruciating reviews and funny, sarcastic comments about this film (my favourite being Woody Allen's quip "If I had my life to live over again I wouldn't change anything ... except for seeing the musical remake of Lost Horizon"). Therefore I've never been able to watch it without smirking at the choreography/set/songs etc. Just recently I came across a widescreen DVD and watched it for the first time in years, along with a friend who had never heard of the film's reputation. HE really enjoyed it, and - after trying to block out all the negative prejudices I obviously had about the film - so did I. There is nothing especially bad about Lost Horizon, and it is far more enjoyable and watchable than many other early 1970's movies. It isn't even especially camp. The lyrics to some of the songs are rather repetitive and simplistic, but this isn't really apparent when hearing them for the first time or having the flaws pointed out in advance so you are ready to scoff at them. As for all the reviewers who claimed the cast cannot sing in tune, this criticism falls apart since Liv Ullmann, Olivia Hussey and Peter Finch were dubbed (brilliantly too, as the vocals match their speaking voices perfectly), and Sally Kellerman has a really lovely and totally unique singing style. Vocally, Kellerman's duet with Olivia Hussey on "The Things I Will Not Miss" is excellent. Special mention should be made of the legendary Hollywood star Charles Boyer's brilliant performance as the High Lama - and his comments about mankind destroying itself are chillingly apt to today's fractured world. I wouldn't claim for a second that Lost Horizon is a masterpiece (The things I wouldn't miss about it are the uninspired choreography, and Bobby Van's "Question Me An Answer" number, which could easily have been cut), but if you haven't even seen Lost Horizon, or haven't seen it for some time, try watching without that "Oh boy, let's have a laugh at this pile of junk" attitude, and you will be surprised at how enjoyable it actually is. Really, This movie should be released to DVD. I just got a bootleg copy of what I think was a studio film and I was utterly pleased!!! It was on my list of films to own simply because of the cast. Three of my PEOPLE, Michael York, Olivia Hussey. Both having been in Romeo & Juliet, and also John Gielghud. sorry about the bad spelling, were in there so on that alone I thought that for the small amount I was spending it would be fine. Boy was I right. I'm not going to give any of this one away, you may already know the story anyway, but I'll just say if you can get yourself a copy in ANY format...Do it!@ you won't be sorry. JPC I saw this movie when it first came out in 1973 and loved it. Since then I've searched for a video but never found it until now, 33 years later, when I ordered it from Moviehunter. Sorry to say it doesn't hold up. This glamourized version just can't rise up to the 1937 production level. I love Burt Bacharach's musical score, that is if listend to by itself, and I even bought a CD of it, but for my taste it doesn't lend itself well to this mysterious and compelling story. Just doesn't fit. Michael York is lost here. Sally Kellerman tosses off a fine performance but Olivia Hussy is just ridiculous and not worth lugging through the Himalayas. The best performance is Charles Boyer as the head Lama. I really loved this movie and have spent several years trying to get it. It is just not available and it has not been on TV for many many years. I enjoyed it and the songs because it had something different to say and made you think how every person looks at something from different prespectives. Also we often don't appreciate something we have till it is no longer there.

My 12 year old daughter just discoverd the music and is entranced with some of the songs. Someday I hope to get a copy of the film so she can have an opportunity to view it. (Oh would I love to see it again too!)

This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time! I did not know what to expect when I decided to watch this documentary. I knew it was about an ex-Viet Nam POW in Laos who escaped, but I didn't know much else. In reality, I wasn't expecting too much. Oh what a surprise! The story of this man's life is very interesting in itself, but what sets this film apart from other biography-type docs is that Dieter himself tells most of the story himself. Dieter is very comfortable in front of the camera. His personality really shines. He tells his story about his life growing up in Germany during WWII and the hardships. We are there with him in that same small town as he describes his family, inspirations, and struggles. We follow him to America and his path to fulfilling his dream to be a pilot. Then later Dieter describes his story of capture, escape, and survival in the Laotian jungle. We are again with him in that very jungle as he describes and re-enacts his imprisonment and path to freedom with great detail. We see the same primitive huts, villagers, and forms of detainment he dealt with that really hasn't changed for 30 years. We see the thick jungle, mountain terrain, and rivers Dieter faced during his escape. It helps us to understand his emotions, pain, and plight. I enjoyed the man, the story, and the style. Job well done! Little Dieter Needs To Fly is another in the remarkable body of Werner Herzog's filmic work that is without peer. Having recently rewatched it on DVD, nearly a decade after its initial US release in 1997, it has lost none of its power, and one can see its influence on documentaries as diverse as Herzog's own recent Grizzly Man and Errol Morris's Academy Award winning The Fog Of War. Like the former, it details, in its far too brief 74 minutes, the life of an interesting American. Like the latter it gives a peek at a side of war that few see. Yes, we see the violence and the heroism, but as The Fog Of War brought us into the mind of one of last century's foremost warmongers, this film allows us a peek at the life of a grunt who is captured by the enemy, tortured, and ultimately triumphs. Except, in no way, shape, nor form, is the film as simplistic nor upbeat as my brief description of it. Nor is Little Dieter Needs To Fly's titular subject, Dieter Dengler, and immigrant German who survived the depredations of the Nazis (we find out, as example, that in his hometown, Wildburg, in the Black Forest, his grandfather was the only man not to vote for Hitler, and suffered brutally for that stand) post-World War Two Germany, and his own imprisonment at the hands of the Vietcong, when his Air Force jet was shot down over Laos on February 1st, 1966…. While the title of the film, and the idea of Dengler's passion for becoming a pilot, stirred by the impression Allied fighter planes made on him when they razed his town, as a child, make one believe that Dengler is the central subject of the film, this is not true. The subject is Dengler's survival, or, more precisely, his human will, all human will. The details of Dengler's romantic life are too Hollywood and staid an aspect to interest Herzog. Nor is the fact that he won a Purple Heart, Medal of Honor, the D.F.C., and the Navy Cross. That thing which pushed Dengler to survive so much, and remain such a relatively upbeat man (although there are glimpses of darker sides), is what is at the center of this film, and all of Herzog's canon. Dieter Dengler's 'distant barbaric dream' of his past is fully ripened Herzog Country, and the use of a Madagascan chant, Oay Lahy E, during many jungle scenes, among other excellent touches in the score, show Herzog is, perhaps along with only Martin Scorsese, the best manipulator of image and music in film. Long may he merge! I think it definitely is. The writing is of such a quality that beginner students of the English language should model their conversations after its dialogue. For example, the exchange between Paul Kersey(Bronson) and Ms. Kathryn Davis(Deborah Raffin) (more about this character later) is extremely clear and to the point: Ms. Davis says, "I hope you like chicken. It's the only thing I know how to make," to which Kersey deftly responds, "Chicken's good. I like chicken." If that's not English Grammar 101, I don't know what is.

Another thing about this Ms. Davis character: Kersey sleeps with her on the second date after she practically throws herself at him and tells him she wants to see him "one last time"(this being only the fourth time they've ever met) before she moves to her sister's house in Binghamton,NY to get away from the creeps; then he really doesn't even bat an eye while her corpse is burning in the street only minutes later. Kersey never even says her first name through the entirety of the film. Not once. Never a "Get over here, Katy," or a "That's a nice dress you wearing, Kathryn" or a "Be careful, Katie, or the creeps'll get ya!"

And while this 'love' is developing between the two, Fraker(Gavan O'Herlihy) keeps his ever-watchful eyes on them. It's almost as if Kersey is using her as bait to get to Fraker, much as he uses the camera or the car. Sure enough, when Fraker bites, Kersey bites back hard...in the most incredible sequence of events ever caught on film! The final fifteen or so minutes are possibly rivaled only by the final thirty minutes of Delta Force in their brilliance. And that's giving Delta Force a lot of credit. In what other film can you see Ed Lauter take out Alex Winter in order to get Charles Bronson's back, a troubled gang leader seemingly calling a hotline to summon neo-nazi bikers to come to his aid, and nimble Broadway dancers wearing mesh halter-tops posing as street punks, all laid down to a soundtrack written by none other than Jimmy Page. If that's not the highest of high comedy, then nothing is funny.

Truthfully speaking, there are a thousand ways to state the unintentional comedy of Death Wish 3, but the only way to truly understand it is to watch it and judge for yourself.

Oh my word!! I have never seen a film so lacking in any kind of moral judgement or consideration for anything other than the death of the scum! Michael Winner here makes a valid observation of human desires in displaying a gung-ho troth world of deep and damaged execution. Not only does he spoon feed us with utter hell on earth seen through the face of the moustached Bronson, but he also shows us the spoon he's feeding us with and says "look at what your watching now look at your self and ask the question: Are you enjoying this?" And even though you'll tell yourself NO IT CAN'T BE!!!! You'll know that deep down inside you'll know...it's a masterpiece Charles Bronson is back in his most famous role. In my opinion, this is by far the best film of the series and my favorite movie ever. This movie doesn't take itself seriously, because the filmmakers knew that all the social commentary that was necessary was put across in the first film. Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works. DW3 has been unfairly criticized as "trash" and "a weary entry in a worn out series." These statements would be true if the film was made to be taken seriously or to spread a statement, but it wasn't. If you take it as what it is, DW3 is just a fun, action packed romp, with Charlie doing to street punks what we all wish we could do. The action is non stop, the atmosphere is great, and the movie is just out and out the best Bronson flick ever made. You can tell that the penny pinching Cannon group spent a lot of money on this one. It is believed that Bronson thought this film was too violent, and that was the reason why Winner didn't direct any of the following entries. I can understand his concern, but as is always the case of sequels, you have to push the envelope even further to pass a previous entry. In any case, this movie was no more violent than any other movie made during this time. What makes DW3 the best of the series and my favorite film ever (not the best, just my favorite), is the action, Charlie's presence, memorable villains, and it's ability to get the viewers to jump on the bandwagon. The first film may be the most technically well made, but this one is the most fun. For once, Charlie actually has some clever lines (although he doesn't say much)and a halfway interesting story, photography, action, and direction to back him up. Charlie has never been more intense or super cool than in this one. Yes, it's exploitive, maybe it does promote stereotypes, and maybe it is the same story as before, but Bronson's films always have and always will stand for defending the common man and giving his audience what they want to see. Many argue that the DW series manipulates its' audience, my reply is that the movies don't manipulate us, the fans are the ones in charge. We demand that Bronson blow away deserving scum, and in turn Winner and Co. deliver the goods. And for those of you who still want to put it down, remember a few things. DW3 was the #1 movie in America when it came out and was among the viewing favorites of millions of people on video and television because they realize that not all films have to be epics, they just have to be fun. **********/10 You can't get any better. John Batchelor Most critics seem to have dismissed this film, like so many other Charles Bronson vehicles, as just another patchwork of mindless violence. And while there is a fair amount of mayhem, DEATH WISH 3 is not that awful of an effort, particularly for fans of the series and its star.

This time out, aging Charlie's Paul Kersey is let loose by a police chief desperate to clean up a rough part of New York City. The trigger-happy vigilante moves into the heart of gang territory, where he once again becomes a one-man army in an urban war of good versus evil. Bronson, at least the "older" version, is truly at his best.

I'm not saying DEATH WISH 3 is a classic. Indeed to the discriminating eye it has a plethora of imperfections. The characters are generally made of cardboard. The violence is over the top. A man well into his 60s outruns and outspooks dozens of young punks. But in the tradition of the original DEATH WISH and later films such as FALLING DOWN with Michael Douglas, it has a definite crowd-pleasing charm. Who doesn't want to see gangbangers get their due? There are also some great cheesy moments and one-liners so common in 1980s films. When a tenant of his apartment building sees Kersey setting up a booby trap, for instance, the vigilante lightheartedly says he's "thinning the herd." A line only Bronson can truly make work.

So you see, the key to enjoying DEATH WISH 3 is to accept it for what it is. It ain't Spielberg and it ain't art. So throw the popcorn in the microwave and have fun with it. This movie is truly a classic 80s movie! A must have in any '80s' movie collection! Guns, Bad Guys, CREEPS, Gangs, CHARLES BRONSON and more CREEPS!!!!

In my opinion, this is the best Death Wish movie. Tons of non-stop action!

And keeping with the classic 80's "bad guy vs good guy" movie - this movie is about anything but the norm and all about guns and CREEPS! We see Bronson mowing down thugs and CREEPS with a 30 caliber Korean War heavy machine gun! A HEAVY MACHINE GUN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! When Charlie runs out of ammo for the Heavy Machine gun, he runs back to his crib and takes up arms with his long range high caliber pistol! This pistol can stop a freakin ELEPHANT and Charlie is putting holes the size of hub caps into bad guys with it! And if that is not enough, Charlie is also packing an anti tank grenade launcher, which by the way, is only good if he can get the CREEPS clumped together.

The acting in this movie is "ha ha" great and a lot of off the wall actors (mainly playing CREEPS) appear throughout the movie! The film is loaded with memorable one liners and scenes! Heck, my favorite scene/line is where the CREEP leader confronts Broson in Jail and calmly explains to him: "Tell you what I am going to do ...I'm gonna kill a little old lady ...just for you! ...catch it on the six o'clock news".

Is this film violent? Heck yes! But, you'll laugh and cringe all the way through!!!! One of the most magnificent movies ever made. The acting of Charles Buchinski (later known as Bronson) is simply outstanding. This is the crown on the career of director Winner, who himself was often quoted saying this was his masterpiece. The plot has been copied many times, but it's never been topped. Wildey J. Moore, the gun manufacturer, many times claimed his brand's growth since the mid 80s can be fully credited to DW3, and rightly so. This is not just a movie, this is art that many generations will admire and appreciate. Although this movie has never been fully appreciated in the USA, it has found a huge following in Europe and Asia, where the movie is regularly shown at film schools and it is still a popular hit in student cinemas all across Europe. All in all, a true classic. This classic has so many great one-liners and unintentionally hilarious scenes that I don't even know where to start. If you want advice on dating, its here. Just totally ignore the person you want, and then spout out classic lines like "Chicken's good...I like Chicken", and before you know it you will be having a one-nighter in a basement (it's a NICE basement) with a woman who is 35 years younger than you. Bronson does it all in this film. He buys a car for no good reason just so he can murder two gang members...paying with "CASH"......chunnng.... He buys an ice cream, simply because "this is America, isn't it", and ends up wasting someone named "the giggler - he laughs when he runs" just because he stole his camera. By the way, this "giggler" is so fast that Bronson's regular pistol can't even catch up to him, he needs to order a special one just to get this elusive creep. He gets cleaned up just so he can eat a REALLY smelly meal (stuffed cabbage) in a rat trap with a couple of old people who like to wear heavy clothing in 90 degree weather. He goes into the dentistry business. He always seems to find a crow bar when he needs one (and its the same one!). And last, but not least, he always seems to have a rocket launcher at his disposal just in case he needs to blow away Richie Cunningham's older brother Chuck who is now strung out and in dire need of a makeover. Anyway, this will all make sense once you have seen this classic...all I can say is enjoy! "I owed you that one DUDE" The Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH 3 is very far removed from the Paul Kersey of the original film . If you remember the 1974 film then you will remember Kersey was a " Conchie " during the Korean war and that he was physically sick after he committed his first execution . Ten years later Kersey seems to have learned unarmed combat and how to handle anti tank weapons in his spare time . But I`ll overlook that gaffe because DW3 is the best of the sequels , lowlife scum bags get shot dead , burned alive , their teeth smashed , and thrown to their deaths by middle aged housewives armed with sweeping brushes . Yeah I know the gang members are multi ethnic and for that they deserve some credit but even if they`re not racist they`re still murdering scum who deserve all they get from Kersey and the innocent citizens . Who needs Mayor Rudy when you`ve got Paul Kersey , an anti tank rocket and a bunch of old age pensioners to reclaim the streets from the criminal creeps . Paul Kersey I salute you sir LOL.

The mere fact that I start off my review with 'lol' says it all. I used to watch this movie all the time as a kid; and even then I sensed the silliness of it all. The low budget, horrible acting and lame script was ever apparent back then. I watched it again yesterday and just couldn't stop laughing. It's so bad it's actually good lol. Like another reviewer said, it doesn't take itself seriously. There's no way one could look at this movie and say that the makers did so. The soundtrack is so funny, I laugh every time I hear it. The 'climax' is just a laugh riot. It's an all out war zone in New York, full of explosions and total chaos...so ridiculous you can't help but chuckle at the sight of it.

Other hilarious moments:

- The scene with Kersey and the cop running side by side like 2 cowboys against the whole Wild West was so cheesy it was funny.

-It killed me how the bad guys could be shooting at Kersey and he could even drop down on one knee taking ever-so-careful (and slow) aim and not get hit LMAO. Of course, with him it was one shot-one kill with his elephant handgun LOL.

- Another hilarious scene was the end when he finally killed the leader of the gang....with a ROCKET LAUNCHER lol...destroying the whole side of the apartment building with it.

- It's apparent that Kersey is all but used to losing loved ones...when his new girlfriend is quickly disposed of after only a few dates. The acting is so bad that you can't blame anyone that could only think that Kersey is mad at the destruction of the car lol....he runs down, looks at the carnage and just walks away.

Again, so bad, it's good.

*** out of **** stars. This movie was great. It had everything a true action fan could want. Plenty of people getting shot and/or maimed, minimal romance involving sex, a hero that can be identified with, violence at many intervals instead of pointless plot storing up just one scene at the end, and villains that are just asking for it. Bronson appears to be at his lowest level of tolerancy in this film and it shows. Ed Lauter makes a great cop and was seamlessly worked into Bronson's plot without stealing his spotlight. The movie doesn't involve a plot so boring or over-consuming that you watch this film once and never again. Rather, you want to see Kersey in action and the storyline just juices it up. This is great stuff. I had never seen the original Death Wish in the book either Death Wish I (film). However, Death Wish 3 was the very interested film. The well-known vigilante, Paul Kersey tried to visit his friend, Charlie but he only visited him for a couple of minutes before he died, because of Charlie didn't pay the protection to the huge and infamous underground gang leaded by Manny Franker. After some altercation during his time in jail, Kersey learned that Franker, who he fought with in jail had his own agenda to make the New York City in the hellfire (and also his influence) by sending his henchmen to set the crime every time, everywhere and everyday. Due to the chance given by Insp. Richard Shriker who know his profile well and like him very much. Kersey decided to set the war with Franker and his gang.

I accepted that Death Wish III was one of the most straightedge and extreme violence action film which I had seen from the past. This movie used the very straightedge way to tell the story. No ponderous story-telling and less unnecessary scenes which was the one merit of the movie. On the next issue, Violence was used pervasively in the film. I believed that many of viewers could like the action scene of Death Wish III because it showed the crude, extreme and blast of action for every minutes of the movie, especially the climax scene of the movie and the death of Manny Franker which I thought that it was the maximum action scene.

For about the cast, I think everyone was good and get through their role. Charles Bronson made everybody believe that he still be great as Paul Kersey. He didn't look like the "big old cat", but the great vigilante. Gavan O'Herlihy also did his job very good. His main villain role in the movie made him look nasty and look like the big bad guy. However, the role of Kathryn Davis in this movie was pathetic. She didn't look like the main character. I thought that she was appeared only two or three scene before she was killed by Franker and his follower to make a heat on Paul Kersey. She could have more role to appear.

For my comment, the straightedge style and extreme violence made this movie great for extreme action film fans. Fast-paced with back and Forth style made this movie very interested to watch. Nevertheless, this movie had some silly scene and some plot hole. First, the scene when Insp.Shriker faced Paul Kersey for the first time. It was very corny because you attacked your favor guy before you want him to help, it similar to how you punch some guy before you try to borrow him some money. Haha! that's like a joke! Although, I liked the plot twist when Insp.Shriker was shown later that he helped Kersey because at first, Shriker looked like the villain very much due to his act to Kersey, but when the movie went to the climax, everything was cleared that he had no hidden agenda with Kersey.

In another case, the ending scene of the movie set back me. It stumble on everyone's feeling because it ended too easy. Franker's gang members looked unbelievable after they found that Franker was dead, before his girlfriend and other followers decided to escape. Finally, Insp.Shriker allowed Paul Kersey to fly out from his town before the police caught him. I thought that this style of ending scene could be found in many Cannon Film's movie, but I dislike it.

For the summary, I am OK with Death Wish 3 due to my explanation I typed first. The cast, and the action was very good and so extreme, even it had some scene I don't like. Straightedge and Extreme of Violence could be the best short description of this movie. This is one of the best sequels around and a very good movie too even there were some mistakes but still I enjoyed it. This time, Charles is not just fighting one or two muggers but a whole army of them. Death Wish 3 has a lot great action scenes and I enjoyed it every single second of it. Director Michael Winner knows how to direct a good action movie like this and Jimmy Page providing the music, with producers Golan and Globus still doing there thing and Charles Bronson is still acting good for Paul Kersey. This movie also made it look like that Michael try to end the Death Wish series and I can't blame him and I love the Gun that Charles uses. Death Wish 3 is one of the great movies of 1985 and can't get any better than this.

I gives this 9/10 Death Wish 3 is exactly what a bad movie should be. Terrible acting! Implausible scenerios! Ridiculous death scenes! Creepy, evil-for-no-reason villains! The last 30 minutes of this movie just might be the best 30 minutes ever put on film, especially in the scene where the decent, hardworking citizens string chains across the street, knocking down the evil bikers and then shoot them, only to be joined by the neighborhood children (!!!) in celebration. And how can I forget the elderly woman with the broom? She's sweeping out the scum! And if that's not enough, let's not forget how quickly the punks give up after Fraker is killed. I'm laughing just thinking about it.

I also love the death scene of Kersey's girlfriend. He just *walks away* after seeing her get blown up. It's little things like this that make Death Wish 3 such a bad movie. And I'm not even mentioning the bizarre soundtrack.

I watched this movie because of Martin Balsam, who I seriously think is one of the finest character actors ever (and who's own "getting beaten up by the scum" scene is hilarious) and I walked away with a new favorite movie. Thank you, Death Wish 3 for making me laugh so hard.

Some other things I forgot to mention: 1. The weird sound effect after Kersey says "Cash!" when buying his used car. Ha! It's so evil sounding. 2. MANDY Fraker. Mandy! Did the writers run out of tough guy names? 3. The fact that the gangs apparently have a "lend and lease" thug exchange program: "I need some more guys." And that Mandy has a working phone line in an abandoned building. 4. At the end of the movie, after Kersey blows up Fraker: is it just me, or does it look like the street gang is about to break into choreography as they're giving up? Just watch how in sync they are after the female punk gives the "stop" signal.

I love this movie. Nothing cheers me up like Death Wish 3! While I agree that this movie lacks any real substance and should not be taken seriously, its primarily directed to fans of the series who are looking for a quick fix. Bronson (Paul Kersey)once again takes to the streets (given a license to kill by the chief police no less) and moves into his friends apartment (who you guessed it) was killed by a street gang that has taken control of the neighborhood (which looks like Beruit). It's funny that people who associate with Bronson have a habit of getting killed. Bronson systematically kills them off one by one as the people in the neighborhood are used against him. There are some dynamics between Bronson and Fraker who leads the street gang, you can tell they both enjoy their work. At one point in the movie after they scuffle in the city jail, Fraker say's, "I'm going to kill a little old lady just for you, catch it on the 6:00 news." The "Giggler", a purse thief who laughs as he's committing his crimes is also enjoyable to watch. The movie was made in 1985 and most people probably could identify with the stereotypical urban gangs that are cast in the movie. It's enjoyable watching Bronson (Paul Kersey) rid the streets of these thugs. Watch for the appearance of the Wildey Magnum, a serious piece of hardware that Bronson wields. I also really liked the soundtrack to this movie. This is an incredibly fun action/exploitation 80s rocker. Charles Bronson rules as Paul Kirsey. The villains are hilariously bad. The soundtrack, by Jimmy Page is laughably bad. Alex Winter (Bill of Bill & Ted) is great as one of the street punks who gets wasted by Bronson and crew. Crew? Oh, those are the downtrodden townsfolk who team up with Bronson to win back the streets. The whole movie is enjoyable, with the last half hour or so exploding into non-stop action and mayhem. 9/10 The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as "Nothings to good for out friends" and "Its collection time Charlie collection time." I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. "They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler" "They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it." The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me. I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by "coldshitaction" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy. This movie is true action at its finest, It doesn't get any better then this. This is one of those movies that you can just kick back and watch some real good non stop shooting and killing plus there are some excellent lines to go along with all of this. My favorite is there is a one bad guy who is breaking into this old couples home and he is stealing a TV or something and he goes right up to them and yells "I will come in here anytime i like!!!" and right before he jumps out the window he yells "Anytime!!!" I mean this is just classic stuff all the way around so you got a choice, you can watch that crappy Will Smith try to go an action film or you can watch one of the Masters Charles Bronson!!!! "Death Wish 3" brings back Charles Bronson as one time vigilante Paul Kersey,now retired.yeah,right.before long Kersey is back to his old ways.but this time,its not just a few muggers at a time,its a gang who have taken over a run down part of the city(New York again,by the way.)this time its war,so Kersy Hauls out the big guns(literally) for this.the body count int his one rivals anything Stallone or Schwarzenegger have come up with.this movie is actually somewhat fun to watch,particularly for a few one liners and of course bad guys die,or get severely injured in creative ways,which is always a good thing.the violence is not as personal in this one,its,obviously on a much grander scale,sort of like bombing your victims from afar,rather than one on one combat.this movie is lighter in tone than the 1st 2,making it easier to watch.there's not much import to this film,its more escapism than anything.its also cheesy at times and pseudo-inspirational,but hose scenes fall flat. they should have left the original "Death Wish" on its own without sequels,but since they didn't,they should have stopped here. 8 /10 This is probably the second best of the Death Wish movies. Death Wish 5 is the best one.

Death Wish 3 reminds me of "West Side Story" with a new twist. Not even the recent flick "Gangs of New York" can measure up with one New York neighborhood in Death Wish 3 which is plagued not by two rival gangs---but one big gang. A gang that is willing to do things like cutting a person to death with an ax if he trespasses on its set.

Deborah Raffin, who plays a public defender, plays gently in this action-packed movie that is filled with a lot of shoot-em-up violence. So, like Geri Nichols in Death Wish II, Death Wish III scores with its gentle, romantic moments as well as its violent moments. Only the James Bond love-interest scenes would do much better.

And, in addition to his .38, Kersee plays with this new gun called the Wildey .475 Magnum. It reminded me of the Dirty Harry movies when Callahan used his .44 Magnum in Magnum Force, Sudden Impact and Dirty Harry. The Wildey gun packs a big punch and when Kersey kills with it, he doesn't care if the gun has a big kick in it.

And that antitank missile that killed off the main gang leader? Well, that is something. Kersey would not use an antitank missile as his regular vigilante weapon....that is way too military for him. After spotting the boat at the end of the previous episode ("Three Minutes"), the survivors are shocked to find out who the occupant is. With the use of the boat, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront "The Others". However, when Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley follow Michael to "The Others", Jack is forced to reveal Michael's deadly secret whilst they are in the middle of nowhere.

Meanwhile, Locke decides that the time has come to find out the time has come to find out what will happen if "the button" is not pressed. However, Mr. Eko's resolve to continue pressing "the button" is surprisingly strong. So, when Locke concocts a plan to lock Eko out of the hatch with the help of an ally, Eko goes to surprisingly desperate lengths to stop Locke from making what he believes will be a big mistake.

This is a classic episode of Lost, full of secrets, suspense and very few answers to the many questions it poses to its viewers. However, some of the secrets this action-packed episode reveals will be truly shocking to the fans. There is also a trademark end-of-season cliffhanger, which achieves the feat of being both shocking and extremely confusing. One thing is guaranteed, it will keep you guessing right to the very end, and you will still be frustrated with more mind-boggling questions as you wait in agony for the Third Season to begin. Jack, Sawyer and Sayid swim to the boat and find a completely wasted Desmond. His traumatic past experience before sailing to the island is disclosed through flashbacks. Sayid plots a plan with Jack to surprise "The Others" in case Michael is double-crossing the group. John Locke convinces Desmond to invade the hatch, which is protected by Mr. Eko, and not press the button of the computer to see what will happen.

This episode is one of the best of the Second Season. Unfortunately, we lovers of "Lost" can see the lack of respect the producers of this stunning series have with the fans. In the USA, the air date of this episode was 24 May 2006. Therefore, along this period, fans have to wait for the Third Season in a very suspenseful situation, with Jack and his group surrounded by "The Others" and finding the truth about Michael and the death of Ana Lucia and Libby; John locked inside the hatch without the intention of pushing the button and Mr. Eko in despair outside the hatch. I hope the fate of "Lost" be better than "Angel" and its very disappointing conclusion (or lack of conclusion) after five seasons. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Not Available What's the point of this messages if not to discuss and share thoughts about the next season... Here is my forecast: 1. The hatch was indeed blown, but somehow everybody inside survived. Buts lets see about that. 2. The episode at the end with the tent is an observation team monitoring the tracking device installed on Desmonds boat by Penny. Now that the magnetic shield around the island was lifted, the signal was picked up by the observation station and they are going to send a rescue mission. 3. After the destruction of the hatch, the island is not isolated any more, and other ships/airplanes are going to arrive 4. The others are finally going to share their secret with us poor observers

Was it actually confirmed that there are going to be 4 seasons of LOST?

Cheers Mike It was Libby talking to Desmond in the flashback, and if anyone is confused about her past (like how did she end up in the same hospital Hurley was in) then you should know that despited Libby dying in season 2, the character will be explored more in season 3 and we will get answers to questions surrounding her.

BTW, great episode. It had a really great cliffhanger and some interesting questions...like what happened to Eko and Lock and what about the four toe statue?

I cannot wait till season 3, Lost just rules!!! I hope all the unanswered questions will be answered. I loved how they explained why the plane actually crashed. Desmond did it when he did not manage to type in the numbers in time. 4 8 15 16 23 42 Lost has been one of the most mesmerizing and thrilling experience I've ever seen. Not only it's the mother of coincidence, but also every time that you think you can set up the whole puzzle in your head, the story takes a completely new direction.

Take this casualty for example, The US marine, whom gives Sayid the way to become a Torturer, Is Clancy Brown, playing a character named Joe Inman. In the last episode, he is playing Kelvin Inman, the Desmond partner in the Hatch. Destiny, uh? Yeah Right!

I guess that all of us will have to wait, to see what's next in the life of the wonder people in that strange island, in the middle of nowhere. Knowing that several of my favorites characters, Desmond, Sayid and Mr. Eko, have an unclear destiny

I believe that along with 24 and The Shield, this is one of the best TV shows ever, of course, keeping Twin Peaks at a special place. First of all, I just have to say that I'm a huge LOST fan. Everyone who makes the show, I love 'em. It's got everything in it, really.

I'm glad that they have great people making it, for instance Jack Bender is the greatest director, well, maybe after J.J. Abrams. And of course, full credit to Damon Lindelof & Carlton Cuse. They're geniuses.

Anyway, the season 2 finale is definitely one of the best episodes of LOST ever!!! Live Together, Die Alone focuses on Desmond David Hume's story of getting to the island, and Henry Ian Cusick is so great playing that character! The makers of the show would have been very stupid if they would've let old'Des die on us.

So, in LOST, the plane crash survivors have been there for 65 days.. 65 days, man. Whileas Rousseau has been there for SIXTEEN years, and the Others have been there for God knows how long. Referring to Jeffrey Lieber, Lindelof & Abrams. Anyway, I hope we'll get the answers we need, in season 3. Can't wait! My vote is nine. Woaww Is it only now that you notice the links between all the characters ?? Of course it's Libby ! And for the guy in the hatch with Desmond, any deja vu ??? Yeah !! He was the "same" guy that gave money to Sayid after he's killed or tortured the other soldier in the episode 14th of the 2nd season : One of Them. Well actually it's not completely the same guy, he's named Joe in the 14th episode and Kelvin in the last 2 episodes. Twins ?? :) Who knows ?? JJ Abrams ... mmmm I'm not even sure of that :) There are hundreds of links like this one between all the characters.

But that was just in response to the Libby comment.

I found those 2 episodes far more interesting than the whole season 2. During all that season I felt that there was lots of things I've missed and very few things I've learned. Especially at the very beginning, the 1st episode of the 2nd season is excellent, and then the 2nd one is a kind of flash back of the 1st one ... I found that disappointing even if I'm pretty sure that everything in Lost tend to have a meaning. That was just an example of how I was frustrated watching those episodes.

Let's go back to the last 2 episodes. I think we've learned more new things in those 2 episodes than in the entire season. But all we learn are little pieces for the next puzzle, like the involvement of Desmond's "relatives" (sorry if I spoil too much, believe me or not I'm trying not to) for example. So lots of things evoked in the past 2 seasons are still unclear or have been developed once then nothing. And still, there's new material as if all the holes in the picture were not enough. We all want to see the big picture of all of it of course, but I think we'll have to be very very patient. I hope there will be only 3 seasons. I'm not sure I will watch more than 3 seasons anyway. There was also lots of actions in the very last episode. And a good cliffhanger at the very end.

So basically, yes I loved that last episode ... and yes I want to see the third season. This episode so far is the best of the series. The story was told perfectly. I especially liked how the writers made it a Desmond episode; it was his best performance to date and he definitely deserved the Emmy for his performance.

We had some of our questions answered in this episode, but since the show is called Lost we know there will be more questions brought up too. First the answered: Walt is reunited finally with his father Michael, second, Michael's betrayal is exposed to Jack, Sawyer, Kate, and Hurly and because of this betrayal Kate, Jack, and Sawyer are all taken captive by The Others. This was a great way to end the show.

On the other side of the island we see Locke going through a mental breakdown with the button. This leads to another answered question about how the plane really went down. However there are some unanswered questions: first, what happened to Locke, Eko, and Desmond when Desmond turned the failsafe key and what was the deal with the scientists in the Arctic searching for electromagnetic annamolies. Guess we'll find out next season, however great ending to the best show on TV. The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.

A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job. *Could contain spoilers, read only after seeing last episode season 2* Think about it. The guys on the north pole? Center of the earth? Looking for abnormal magnetic behavior? They also said something about: "did we miss it again?" So there was another abnormality? Of course that was when the plain crashed! I think this whole Island is a setup. Set up by her daddy. She found out about it and is looking for her Desmond. How else can she know what to look for.

So basically it's an Island in a magnetic shield. All of it is fake. All the signs are there. Fake beards, fake doors, fake medicine, fake observations stations, with fake air shafts that lead to nothing. It's a project indeed, and because of the final scene in the season 2 finale I know it has to do something with Desmond, his chick and her dad (and probably Libby, she's weird, maybe she actually has something to do with the plane crashing, OK now i'm drifting off).

Also in this episode, Henry Gail tells Michael to go to some coordinates, and he'll find rescue their. This is probably some sort of door in the magnetic shield. "once you're gone. there is no way back".

I think it's pretty obvious, despite of the numerous questions I still have and hope to get answers for in the next season. If you think back on what we've learned in season 1 and 2, I'm sure we'll get loads of answers in season 3.

Can't wait.

Can anyone agree on this theory? Hope to hear from you... "Live Together, Die Alone" is divided into three main story lines, and each one of them alone would have been enough for a great episode. So when you put all of them together, you have a great ^ 3 episode. It was a daring move to give the flashbacks of a season finale to a character (Desmond) who had only appeared in 3 episodes up to that point, but it worked: his backstory is absolutely fascinating to watch, both informative about the past of the island & the Swan station itself and honestly moving. Desmond and Penny seem magically connected to each other, even when they are on opposite ends of the world, and both characters are beautifully acted (it's hard not to cry when Desmond reads Penny's letter). The action inside the hatch is edge-of-your-seat tense, as Locke is determined not to allow the button to get pushed again, convinced it was all just a psychological experiment, Desmond gradually realizes the consequences of this decision, and Eko is locked outside and tries desperately to get back in. The melting of the clock and Locke's "I was wrong" are unforgettable moments. The outside action has Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley captured by the Others due to Michael's betrayal (after they make a puzzling discovery connected to the Pearl), and "Henry Gale"'s game-changing return as the Others' leader. Even the least important plot line, Sayid, Jin and Sun sailing to the beach where the Others are supposedly camping, contains one of the greatest mythological mysteries of the show, the giant statue that's almost entirely missing except for a foot with four toes. In short: emotion + history + mythology + adventure + suspense + the threat of annihilation + a ray of hope = a classic LOST episode. ***1/2 out of 4. a very good episode, although not as devastating a finale as the end of season 1. The idea to make it a Desmond flashback worked very well, and Henry Ian Cusick was fantastic, perhaps putting in the best performance of this entire series, but my only complaint would be the Michael plot line felt very much like a subplot, and after three minutes the previous episode, i thought it would feature more. But the strength of Cusicks character and performance pulled it through. the plot developments, as always, left more questions then answers, like who are the others, something we still don't know, and where are they taking jack, Sawyer and Kate. What was the white light, what impact has it had? Are Locke, Eko and Desmond dead? as the hatch destructed around them. If they are it would be a major mistake, because these three are the most interesting characters and the series would suffer without them and Terry O'Quinn has been fantastic throughout both series as Locke. A fitting finale to a better series then the first. Watching the last 2 episodes i remembered a TV add from my childhood. It showed the wild west, very dusty and dry, and there is a small saloon, a man enters the bar/saloon, he is thirsty as hell, lips cracked etc...., he has just walked through the Nevada Desert and hasn't drunk water for days. He croaks to the bartender "gimme a packet of potato chips" While he is eating it we can feel how thirstier he is getting, we hear a voice in the background saying.... "Keep building that thirst, build it till you cant hold it any more............. then blow it away with TEAM" The man drinks TEAM (a soft drink) It feels like a few dozen bags of potato chips the thirst is so intense that i cannot hold it any more, Season 2 has even more twists and turns then season 1. The ending answers a lot of questions but asks many many more questions hopefully we will know the answer in season 3, but i doubt it because i feel LOST has the momentum go a lot further then 3 seasons, if the people behind the camera keep up their good work.

I for one will keep watching.

From Pakistan with Love Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3. The show start out with the boat. Desmond was i it. Then they went to try to save Walt. And Lock things that the button pushing is a big joke at the same time Desmond found out that hes the one that crashed the plane. Eko tries to open the door that Jhon locked on him, and Charlie helped him find the Bomb. While Sayid and Jack plan is that, Sasyid is to find the others first and see who and what the other are. And find if there armed and have any weapons.

Micheal takes Jack, Swayer, Kate, and Hugo in a trap. And they get caught.

After the show there were more questions then answers, but that what makes the show great. And can't wait until Season 3 For me this is a good series. I am kind of disappointed that Ana Lucia and Libby died but more upset that Micheal lied to everyone about who killed them. And if any one can answer this what was that guys name who was supposedly "Henry Gale" he was like the leader of the others (or was that Ms. Clue??) anyway if you know his name cool. Well trying to think of what can possibly happen next after they finally didn't press the button. Does that mess up the whole DARMA project thing and i personally thought it was cool how they had that key thing underground that Desmond used to shut off the magnet thing, yeah and what was the whole point of that? I am just glad they didn't press the button finally, but what happens to the people in the hatch? Like Mr. Echo, John, Charlie and well Desmond probably died but what about the others? I think they survived, I forget? well this is just my little thing on what i thought about this season finale!!! NOBODY (1999) is a fantastic piece of Japanese noir. It's about three salarymen who get in way over their heads when their innocent, drunken cheapshots p*** off three OTHER guys one night in a bar. When these three mysterious strangers, who are up to much more deviant no-goodness than even the film allows us to know, beat the living daylights out of one of our "heroes", the trio decides to return the favour in kind - only they accidentally KILL one of the other guys! The remaining two baddies then begin the systematic destruction of everything these poor schmoes hold dear, including their fast-dwindling sanity. Phaedra Video's DVD sleeve features a critic quote calling the film "A paranoid street crime freakout!" or some such, and the term more than applies here. Brooding, tense, very violent and low-key (but still pretty slick), shot largely at night with many deliberately vague moments and character motivations that keep the audience guessing right along with the besieged protagonists (who, to some degree, deserve everything they get!). I give it a 10. it's a good watch if u have time - deals with three friends who get into a needless bar fight, and get into serious trouble. they find themselves fighting some shadowy people, and can't deal with. very, very disturbing portrayal of japan, the arbitrariness of modern life... some intense scenes, but a bit of a potboiler

the spoiler was that the plot is not too clear based on English sub titles. obviously, i don't know Japanese.

the only other Japanese movies i've seen were kurosawa, who is a different and far loftier than this modern genre. so, can't really compare. otherwise, it compares better with most Hollywood "blockbusters" for story plot and buildup.

taptieg24 Nicely filmed, a little uneven, "Nobody" is a good evening's entertainment. The plot is simple enough--three yuppies get into a scrap with a group of strangers in a bar, and it turns out to be much more than they bargained for. The acting is decent, and there are a few unexpected twists. Watch for the completely unbelievable (like the 10 shot revolver, and 25 shot semi-automatic handgun). A unique blend of musical, film-noir and comedy - with a few sex scenes thrown in for good measure. The only other film I can think of with a fairly similarly wild and madcap mixture of themes and clichés is the French movie Billy Ze Kick - but that has a more surreal and quirky approach.

Not that this film would not be surreal or quirky. The humour is at times quite subtle, at other times blatantly in your face - and often crossing the border to offensiveness. To give an example: in the post-coital chit-chat with a prostitute our hero Max Müller encourages her to reveal who was responsible for a recent murder, using the words "Schiess los!". Literally, this phrase means "Shoot!" in German, and that is exactly what a hidden assassin does in response. In other words - this beautiful lady was sacrificed for a pun.

Müllers Büro is also one of the very rare examples of films with funny sex scenes. Larry's romance is accompanied by the song "Ich will mehr" (I want more) - while the song perfectly underpins the action, the meaning of its words changes a couple of times, hinting at the end at Larry's inability of providing any further service. The film's main love scene between Max Müller and Bettina Kant lacks such subtlety - this is jaw-dropping stuff, especially when Bettina's singing slowly transgresses into moaning, of course all in the rhythm of the music.

Unmissable, unless you are one of the easily offended. If you haven't seen this film, do it. Its a genremix as i've never seen another. Some very surreal scenes, some hilarious funny stuff, a film noir felling, musical numbers with a swing, sex scenes (The 2nd best played orgasm on Film, bested only by Sally), a pitch of Orson Welles blended together into a work of art. As an work of art it hasn't to be logical at the end, at least not logical for everybody ;-). I owned an tv copy on VHS but loaned it to an ex-girlfriend and now i can't get it back. But the film should be out on DVD in Austria on 10.06.03 and be sure, I will buy it. "Müllers Büro" is a movie which many will watch and enjoy until the end, while others will stop watching it within five minutes. It is a parody of detective movies with all the twists and turns; the action takes place only at night in the dark corners of a city which resembles Batman's Gotham City (look carefully at the streets, buildings, the police car chasing the criminals, etc.). It is also a parody of musicals with its really funny characters such as Müller's secretary and Vitasek's (the actor playing Müller's assistant) lover who do their best to sing, albeit not very successfully.

The spaces occupied by the characters have their own presence in the film such as the decadent Blue Box (there is a real club with this name in Vienna) where one can see a sailor hitting on a girl in the background, Müller's apartment with the black paint smeared on the walls and the dirty kitchen, Müller's bureau with the sweet picture of his assistant, etc.

The humorous moments in the movie are many and include "flat in the face" type of humor such as Müller farting in his assistant's face, the prostitute charging Müller extra for orgasm, the ridiculous outfits of the female thugs of Montana, etc.

A legendary film from the 80's especially for those interested in Austrian or German-speaking cinema. Do you liked "Dead Man don't wear Plaid"? What about "Top Secret" and "A Chorus Line"? Well Müllers Büro is a fantastic Melange of all three of them, as unlikely it may seem. Very Funny "tongue in Cheek" Movie Noir hommage with stunning Songs and great Dancing. You have to have a little odd humor for this movie, but it is very well worth seeing it. I've voted it a nine, If the end would be a bit more logic it would have gotten a ten. Thats how Good that Movie is. This Columbo is unique in that we don't really know the exact outcome until the very end. Our favorite dark horse detective suspects a pair of identical twin brothers of killing their rich uncle; each points the finger at his brother. In a mystery series in which the crime is shown at the beginning of the drama, this twist could reasonably be used only once or twice, and this was Columbo's time. Other than that wrinkle, this episode fits in well with others of the series. It has a lighter tone than some, with a very funny performance by Jeanette Nolan as the fastidious and loyal housekeeper who takes an instant dislike to Columbo. Double Shock is one of the many good Columbo episodes which reaches the level of a good movie.

It has all the elements we like in the Columbo episodes. We get the laugh when Columbo makes something clumsy, and it happens more than once in Double Shock. I can almost guarantee that you will laugh several times if you decide to watch this episode.

We also get the riddle as usual with an almost perfect murder, but something about the murder troubles Columbo. The end is the usual, we get the story about how Columbo solved the mystery.

This is another good Columbo-episode, and I will rate it 7/10. It is close to 8/10.

"Just one more question" - The acting? Peter Falk is very good as usual. This is my favourite Columbo. Martin Landau (excellent!) plays twins, one of whom may have committed a murder. This Columbo is unusual because the usual murder scene at the beginning doesn't give you any clue to which one did it! Peter Falk is on form as usual in this episode written by Steven Bochco (who also wrote 'Murder by the Book', my second favourite episode). The supporting cast are great especially Julie Newmar (very under-rated) and Jeanette Nolan as the house keeper that Columbo just keeps on upsetting. The surname of Martin Landau's characters in this is 'Paris'. That was the surname of Leonard Nimoy's character in Mission Impossible. Coincidence? Or a Steven Bochco joke? What a cast of actors and actresses in this Columbo episode, beside Peter Falk, you have Julie Newmar, Jeannette Nolan, Martin Landau as twins. Anyway, the old uncle dies mysteriously and it looks like a heart attack on the bicycle discovered by his fiancé, Julie Newmar, who plays the role so deliciously. Jeannette Nolan plays the other woman of the house, the housekeeper who prides herself on her talents and chides Columbo's sloppy and often typical behavior with his cigar. Martin Landau plays identical twins in this one. Each who accuse the other of murdering their uncle for money. Well, you'll just have to watch and see the outcome but I can assure you that it's always worth watching this one for the cast and the crew. This is a well directed Columbo episode, with also some good character but the story just doesn't really know to interest enough and doesn't appear as well layered and constructed as was often the case with a Columbo movie. This also goes for the killer's plot to kill his uncle. It's quite simple and doesn't seem as well thought out. Perhaps this movie didn't really took itself serious enough, since the atmosphere of the movie is mostly light. At least when compared to different Columbo movies.

For instance the movie features quite a large amount of comical relief, mostly coming from the Columbo character himself. It makes the movie an enjoyable one to watch but it also gives you the feeling they sort of overdid it times, also mostly since it doesn't correspond with most other Columbo movies.

The characters are good and it helps that it features Martin Landau in a double role. It's always funny to see how much different he still looked as a young man, while for instance a person such as Peter Falk hardly changed any over the years, he only got grayer. The movie also features Julie Newmar among others, who is best know for playing Catwoman in the '60's "Batman" life action series. It's funny how she still moves like Catwoman in this movie. Intentional or is this just her way of acting?

It's an enjoyable and good to watch Columbo movie but it also gives you the feeling that it all could had been a lot better with a better thought out script.

7/10 This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.

The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.

Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade. This is a stunning movie. Raw and sublimely moving. It felt like a very gripping, intelligent stage play (but without the overly theatrical feeling one actually gets from watching people on a stage) which plays on everyone's terror of a white lie escalating to monstrous consequences. All of the main players are mesmerising. Tom Wilkinson broke my heart at the end... and everyone else's judging by the amount of fumbling for hankies and hands going up to faces among males and females alike. Julian Fellowes has triumphed again. He's a national treasure. Gosford Park, Vanity Fair, Mary Poppins... and now this. Can he do no wrong?! GO AND SEE IT! This is a film for real grown-ups. Nigel Balchin's maze-like novel 'A Way Through the Wood' has been adapted by Julian Fellowes who also directs this 'terribly British' drawing room suspense piece. It is a film whose effect relies on the cast portraying the varyingly benign/malignant characters and it is here that Fellowes' directorial choices are superb. The story has a linear line that is easy to follow, but the beauty of the film is the metamorphosis of each player as a single incident ignites a minefield of disasters.

James Manning (Tom Wilkinson) is a successful business obsessed solicitor in London, married to Anne (Emily Watson) who needs more in her life: the couple being childless live in the country in a beautiful estate, assisted by their long term 'cleaner' Maggie (Linda Bassett). They attend social outings and meet, among others, William Bule (Rupert Everett), the passively lazy wealthy neighbor. Anne decides they should entertain their neighbors and against gruff James' protestation Anne proceeds with planning: James arranges to 'not attend due to business'. On the night of the party there is a hit and run accident in which Maggie's husband is accidentally killed by someone in a Range Rover (she observed). When James returns home he sees a scratch on William's Range Rover and suspects William to be the perpetrator. Anne discourages James from going to the police with the information -'what possible good can it do but ruin Bill's life as a socialite and father and son of an important scion?'. From this first 'lie' the virus spreads: James confronts Bill who talks James out of going to the police, Anne confesses it was she who was driving Bill's Rover and is the one responsible, James convinces Anne to keep it quiet because it would ruin his reputation, Anne confesses she is having an affair with Bill, and the three of them concur that they will stick together on their big lie for the sake of the greater good. Anne eventually succumbs to the guilt of not telling her beloved Maggie that she is the one responsible and Maggie, herself guilty of a previous theft whose life was saved by Anne's mercy to hire her anyway, is the agent who draws the story to its surprising conclusion. Lies begat lies that begat lies, et cetera.

The major impact of this intrigue is the manner in which the isolated tragedy impacts each of the characters involved. Each changes in a dramatic way. Tome Wilkinson gives the finest performance of a career filled with brilliant performances: he is able to say more with his posture and facial expressions than about any actor before the audience today. Likewise the gifted Emily Watson adds yet another fine role to her repertoire as does the surprisingly smarmy Rupert Everett who, despite being yet another wealthy British 'gentleman', gives us a man both arid of spirit and yet ultimately needy. And the always-fine Linda Bassett takes a small role and finesses it making her character quietly central to the chaotic web of lies.

The cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts and the musical score by Stanislas Syrewicz add immeasurably to the multiple atmospheres the story encounters. This is ensemble playing at its finest, which always means that the director (Julian Fellowes) has a fine grasp on the piece. The interplay of these fine people makes the dodgy story work very well indeed. Grady Harp SEPARATE LIES is such an elegant, intelligent and thought provoking film and I could have watched Tom Wilkinson forever on the screen. The locations in the English countryside, the marvelous London locations, the interiors, smart wardrobes and of course, the writing and dialog made SEPARATE LIES a thrilling adventure.

With that said, and perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, as the British are so much more sophisticated in handling sexual escapades, I found it hard to watch Tom Wilkinson just stand by, as his wife goes merrily on her way in a sexual journey that really brings her very little joy, creates much despair for her husband, with the cad that is Rupert Everett. Yes, I saw the failings of Wilkinson's character-his aim for perfection, the desire for everything in its place-but in Emily Watson, she should have looked deeper into his true character and solid goodness, to realize what she has thrown away.

Tom Wilkinson makes SEPARATE LIES into a powerful film by watching him experience all the pain, embarrassment, and despair on the screen as his wife goes off with another man. And he himself makes the journey in SEPARATE LIES by understanding his faults, embracing his wife, despite all that has gone on, and leading her back to London. Bravo, Tom! I wish there were more films about middle aged people. The intellectual journey and the twists and turns of life's moral highway make interesting viewing. There seems to be a different standard of judgement on women who have extra marital affairs than on men. Amy Watson's hurtful and humiliating behaviour towards her husband seems to pass without comment. Reverse the roles and one could expect a torrent of condemnation towards the man. If she found her husband boring and judgmental she could could have told him so, left and waited for a no doubt large financial settlement upon divorce. The country and London scenes are wonderfully authentic and rich while the autumnal weather adds to the melancholy background superbly. The ending is perfect, so in tune with real adult life. Well, what's wrong with the title "Separate Lies" (accused elsewhere of not being "exciting"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called "Separate Lives", which are alluded to here.)

But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an "in-your-face" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out.

American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe.

Maybe we're not so "exciting" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public. A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready! Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of "A Way Through the Wood", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of "Gosford Park", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.

James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.

The third person in this ménage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.

The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same. Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing. An old man is riding his bike down a village road when a car comes out of nowhere, strikes him down dead, and keeps driving. The rest of the film is spent discovering who hit him, why he was hit, and what consequences this murder will have on the rest of the village. Separate Lies is a very British movie indeed. I'm not saying that hit-and-run car accidents are a particularly British phenomenon, but the way everyone reacts to this tragedy is very British. Tom Wilkinson plays James Manning, a hard-working, respectable citizen with a "stiff-upper-lip" attitude towards tragedy. His wife Anne (Emily Watson), who is twenty years younger than her husband, is more emotional, more impulsive, and more prone to drama.

The man who really spices up life in this sleepy village is playboy millionaire William Bule, played by a deliciously devilish Rupert Everett (most American audiences will eternally remember him as Julia Roberts' gay friend who completely stole every scene in My Best Friend's Wedding). In Separate Lies, Everett is cruel, cold, and selfish, but he's an absolute blast on screen. No, it's not that exciting of a movie title (Separate Lies – how did they end up with that lame and forgettable title? Did they just not have a marketing team? Did they just now care about getting people to see this film?), but beyond the title is a heartbreaking drama about the power of forgiveness. Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. "Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life." How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred.

The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong.

The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film "Where the Truth Lies" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship.

You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in "Separate Lies," yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss.

Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002.

Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney.

Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in "My Best Friend's Wedding" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in "An Ideal Husband" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV.

Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in "East is East" 1999. Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.

SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:

The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was "It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance." For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her

Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me.

Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.

She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.

Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.

It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.

The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters. Can the intensity of a husband's love for his wife lead him to cover up a crime,despite betrayal on many levels? Tom Wilkinson is no brutal Othello, in the setting of modern day England. So, gradually a web of deceit begins to be woven. And, we witness cycles of jealousy and drunkenness and guilt and fornication. And so the web of "separate lies" begins to fail and then hold together again. And life (and death) goes on, despite the bright flame of the husband's love and the deep despair and guilt woven into so many lives. How many webs of deceit are to be displayed in this growing tapestry? The impulse is to prop up sterling reputations and careers and relationships in this most civilized corner of the world. Wilkinson gives an emotional performance, full of grace and discretion and decorum, and yet humanity, of those who have much to hide. Those who desire clarity and openness on the way to justice will be disappointed with the wickedness of so much deception. And yet, who among us, has not something similar to hide about his loved ones? Nevertheless, the viewer may wonder if this web is fated to crumble some day. If we could have "Separate Tables," why not "Separate Lies."

This becomes somewhat involved. A housekeeper's husband is killed when he is hit by a car while on a bicycle. The culprit turns out to be the woman she cleans for. The latter was having an affair with a friend and was driving the car with the lover in it when the accident occurred. To complicate matters further, the housekeeper once worked for the guy's parents and he had her jailed for stealing. Therefore, people will hesitate to believe that it was his car that caused the accident. Sounds like she wants revenge.

This all becomes convoluted. When our housekeeper discovers that her boss was driving the car, she recants her testimony much to the dismay of the officer who is working on the case.

As if this isn't enough, several months later, our lover (Rupert Everett) becomes terminally ill and our lady (Emily Watson) leaves her husband (Tom Wilkinson) to care for him.

The acting is quite good here despite the never-ending "Peyton Place" like theme. Tom Wilkinson, is a solicitor, who tries to protect his wife.

The film is a good one, but we could have done without the terminal illness. O well, the marriage ended anyway. Now this is the sort of film we used to get weekly . Now-a-days it is rare to see a drama that depends on the cast talking to each other.

There are no explosions, car chases or any chases,there are implied sexual situations.This is not film for the younger crowd, It is for those that appreciate people talking to each other,They do argue a lot as we have married couple having mid life problems.

Emily Watson & Tom Wilkinson are seemingly a very happy middle aged loving man & wife. Now living in this same small London suburb, handsome, Rupert Everett returns home to visit his wealthy father.

He of course meets Emily Watson, It would be easy for anyone to be smitten by Emily. I say no more, except that as the credits begin there is a fatal accident,the rest of the film is about the repercussions of this accident & all the lies the various characters tell..

The acting by this trio & the others is excellent.

Julien Fellows wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Nigel Balchin. He also directed, this was his first directorial attempt & he did very well. The entire production is first rate.

The film had a few month theatrical run in late 2005, is under 80 theatres. This to me is a shame, Stupid comedies open on at least 2000 screens but real good drams as this & many others open in only a few.

By the way there are some very funny lines regarding certain situations.

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10) Years ago when I first read John Irving's The World According to Garp, I was astounded that most of the younger adults with whom I had contact didn't like the book when I loved it. I began to understand that it was an age and experience thing. I experienced somewhat of a déjà vu when reading some of the comments on this site that were clearly written by younger viewers. Fully enjoying Separate Lies is surely an age and experience thing.

In this film the viewer sees a seemingly happy upper middle class couple - he a successful lawyer - she the perfect wife of a successful lawyer. They have a townhouse in London and a home in the country. All's well until there enters the "villain" in the guise of the son of the richest man in the village. This guy appears to be a cad from the word, "Go." He is disdainful of everyone and everything including his own children. In the traditional form of nice guys finishing last, the lawyer's wife engages in an affair with the bounder. You see the lawyer really is a nice guy but with the marriage killing trait of an organized perfectionist. Even though he truly loves her, he is boring his wife to death. The bad boy is far more exciting.

All of this is entangled with the hit-and-run death of a man in the village in which all the facts point to the cad being the driver of the vehicle.

It's easy to determine that this movie doesn't build to a happy ending, however, it does lead to a very satisfying ending in that the man and his wife learn and grow from their experiences and probably will be able to conduct their personal lives in a more successful manner.

Three excellent actors play the main characters in this film, and it is there performances that make the whole thing a pleasure to watch. Tom Wilkinson is perfect as the husband. His portrayal shows us a kind man who has so much control over his emotions that he has lost touch with the world. Emily Watson shows us a woman who has become so trapped in the role of perfect wife that she has almost lost her knowledge of passion. That passion is reborn by the character deftly played by Rupert Everett.

If you have reached that point in life in which you understand that everyone has feet of clay and that everyone - even with the gifts of intelligence and opportunities - makes many many wrong decisions, then you will probably enjoy watching these excellent actors creating the lives of three such people. This is a beautifully acted and directed adult film about realistic adults. Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates "Separate Lies," a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. "Oh, f___ Bule," James says. "Well, that's just it," Ann says. "I am f___ing Bule." James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.

Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.

There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.

Brilliant film. There are so many more complexities to the plot of this wonderful thought provoking movie than just infidelity and cover-up of responsibility for the accident. I was struck by the initial seeming goodness of husband Wilkinson who wanted the driver, when he thought it was Everett, disclosed to the police, and the change of heart (and morals) when he learned it was his wife. As well, was he indeed good, and/or was he attempting to redeem self by allowing her to go with Rupert. Then, things switchedand SHE decided the right ting to do was admit that she hit him. Most importantly the theme of redemption (for the accident - for the infidelity - in her own odd, flawed way)is strongest in Watson's sickbed care for Everett. I believe that is why she undertook that effort.

This seems to be a common theme in modern British novels: Brideshead Revisited, The End of the Affair come to mind. Love it. How on earth can people give this movie a low rating. Unbelievable. The performances of Wilkinson and Watson are so full of merit that I can only imagine that these detractors were weaned on blockbusters and porn. (If this sounds bad-tempered, it's because I just wiped my original 400-worder just now) I was so impressed by Tom Wilkinson. All hail the guy. This is a performance of considerable subtlety and massive skill. His development as an actor from The Full Monty to this masterpiece of a performance is amazing; one of the best things to happen in film-making in the last ten years.

Emily Watson is somewhat less commanding, due to that glint in her eye that says 'see me? this cheeky woman, here? You can't guess what I'm going to do next because I don't know either!' It seems to be something she can't help showing us in every role, but still, she's an actor of terrific ability and presence. She is very sexy here, as she needs to be, and fair play to her for this: this is a screen quality that normally, for me, she doesn't have in previous films.

As you might expect, Rupert Everett, required to play an upper-class late-30 something who could give tutorials at Phd level in How Not To Give a Toss About Heading to Hell On Account of Total Selfishness, delivers. He is so thin here, throughout the movie, however, I'm worried for him. Linda Bassett's housekeeper is also excellent: a smallish role but with a major plot twist to deliver, she makes you ponder how much talent we have in Britain in terms of character acting. I want to see more of her.

The narrative arc is fine; it's an interesting enough plot, given that no-one in film-making seems to be trying to convince Joe Public that there's nothing new under the sun, though it does stray towards 40s melodrama in the last 'reel.' But never mind that - this is a terrific 80 minutes worth of anyone who has half-a-brain's money. Congrats to Julian Fellowes on his first directorial effort: o how we need more films of substance like this. He shows a lot of skill in terms of adapting the original novel, telling a story with much effectiveness and subtlety. And congrats too on conjuring an immense display of the film actor's art from Mr Tom Wilkinson. What a geezer.

T. I gave it a seven only because the acting is good. And of course by that I mean Wilkinson. The other two principals were "decent". But the characters themselves...what on earth was so bad about the character Wilkinson played (James Manning)? I didn't see him behaving like the martinet Emily Watson accused him of being. Bill Bule, on the other hand, was an insufferable jerk who I was praying would meet an extremely brutal and prolonged demise. Who was I kidding? Tom Wilkinson isn't Paul Bettany after all. So what on EARTH did Emily Watson's (Anne) character SEE in him???? She herself admitted he was pretty much a piece of offal in his treatment of her. Why would she even want to be in the same TOWN as him, to say nothing of the same "room".

I noticed some other reviews, one person said she "cried" at the end, to witness James' tragedy. ??? WHAT tragedy? What, you mean losing an imbecile who finds someone like Bill Bule AMUSING???!!! Give us a break. I really liked this movie.

Everyone has something to be blamed for, everyone is real. No paperboard heroes or cold, omnipotent, know-all characters.

I read many others viewers here complaining about Anne morality and about James will to maintain his love for her, despite her cheating on him, but I don't agree.

I found Anne (Emily Watson) absolutely wonderful and I felt love for her.

She was a heavily repressed woman, her actions were not planned: once she started to break free she was in confusion and did many errors. But so it's in real life, when you gain freedom you are likely to do errors (expecially at the start point).

Was she a little too ungrateful? Maybe. But we must remember that she is running with her feet for the first time. She knows that James after all is a good man, maybe a little too stiff, serious and work centered; but she also feels the urge to live the life as herself.

Is she to blame more than him? I think no.

But the turn happening into their lives generates some changes.

James instead of letting his wife go out of his life (as other viewers suggested as the right choice) bites the bullet and waits, hoping for the better. He starts to understand that what he superficially though was OK (his marriage) in reality was a control game played by him on his wife.

This is not a story with characters having over-emotional and precarious nature (i.e. the usual clichè Latin American or Italian jealous guys), this is a story of men and women that use both heart and brain.

It can be very painful but if you really love a person (women or man) and if you are not a terribly unstable nature, you are likely to forgive his/her cheating and let him/her go. Unless you are a jealous, prehistoric, crime-of-passion inclined, possessive and mentally instable individual.

A really good movie. The last scene, when James - despite all the things happened before - goes with Anne to the train station is really moving: She is free and He understood what freedom means for a person.

Guido Those who dislike this film seem to think that a loved one somehow 'belongs' to them and must be discarded if they go off with someone else. Fortunately, human nature is much deeper than that; loving someone deeply inevitably brings suffering - though if we are fortunate only on their death.

This film is true in setting, atmosphere and dialogue to Nigel Balchin's original novel ('A Way Through The Wood'), and by pinpointing a seemingly irreconcilable dilemma captures the quiet desperation that lies behind many seemingly idyllic lives (and the depiction of English upper class country life is very accurate).

I loved the film and hope it will appear soon as an UK-compatible DVD Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10 I have to admit I have a particular penchant for the humor and story telling style of British movies, though not all of course, succeed.

This film made me think, and left me in the end with a quiet smile on my face. Its about character development and relationships, truth and lies, and whether love is sometimes simply not enough. Some very nicely understated acting from all the participants, especially the two leads, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson.

There was a lot of fuss made about Gosford Park, but with this piece I feel Fellowes has actually produced a better movie, though it has not been a mainstream release.

An intelligent mature story about real people who are undeniably flawed, but also capable of acts of genuine graciousness. My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment. I just saw this film and I recommend it. It has a very good plot, it holds your complete attention, the acting is superb, Tom Wilkinson was fantastic and Emily Watson was also very good. A very good film indeed, about great and unconditional love. Tom Wilkinson's character is a man who is not prepared for the ordeal that is about to begin, but he takes the matter in hand as the story progresses, and this great actor gives a performance that makes you feel the character's anguish and suffering. Emily Watson's character is very strong, and she has only to give a quick glance and you understand everything. I won't say more because it is better for you have to enter the story as it unfolds. As a local performer, I thought that "Grease" showcased what Broadway producers are looking for and it highlighted a small bit of the acting population. Although my favorites did not win (but came in second), I enjoyed comparing myself to them and seeing what I liked and where I could improve as a performer.

They brought in Olivia Newton-John because she is the obvious link between the Broadway production and television audiences.

They sang songs from the movie ("Hopelessly Devoted," et al) because these songs will be included in the new production.

I agree with the earlier comment made that the B'Way cast looks so much older, but you must bear in mind that these are people who have been on Broadway and worked their tails off to be there. If the entire cast was green and fresh then I believe that would have compromised the casting process by which producers choose their talent. This show really is the Broadway American Idol. It has singing, the British Guy, A guy who's sometimes nice, and a super-nice woman.

Of course it is different because there is a sing-off, and there's dancing and some acting (we just don't see some of the acting).

I gave this show a 7 because there are a couple tweaks that I know a lot of people (including me)would make if they were working for the show. The first thing that really needs to be changed is the judges deciding who goes home. I know they want to find the right Danny and Sandy, but America should have the power to decide who does home. There's really no point to the sing-off. The person with the lowest number of votes usually goes home anyway. Another things I'd change is to see them actually act on the show. What's Broadway without the acting? The last thing that need to be changed is the song the eliminated people sing at the end. The eliminated Danny always sings the same song and the eliminated Sandy always sings the same song as they exit. Since they sing it every week those songs eventually get annoying.

I admit to not being a fan of the movie, Grease, but for some reason I am hooked. This show is very underrated. It has so many memorable performances and moments. I love the TV contest. Hate to see it end. There are so many talented contestants. It's a shame that only 2 will be picked. I love watching the judges also. At times they are as entertaining as the contestants. I have been watching the show faithfully every Sunday night. Wouldn't miss it for the world. It's the best reality show that's ever been on television. Good luck to all the contestants, though I have already chosen the two who I would like to see play Danny and Sandy on Broadway. I am anxious to see if my decisions are correct. I am not aware of how long the contest will go on until a Danny and Sandy are chosen but I will keep watching until the end. Great show! About time a reality TV show comes along that closes generation gaps. Contestants range in ages, some seem old enough to have watched the movie when it first came out. And others, looked so young that perhaps parents or teachers handed down the movie hoping it would touch their lives the way it once touch them. Grease has truly become an American icon. Grease is a fun and entertaining movie in which the young and old can relate to. "You're The One That We Want" is sure to gain even more Grease followers. The only thing I wish there had been more of is character history, then again it is kind of nice to leave some of it to the nostalgic imagination of the 50's. Cant wait to watch the next show...and then on Broadway!!! I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their "mid 20's" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work. As an English teacher, I appreciate films that do more than tell a story. Good films, like good literature, cause one to think, reflect and predict. This film made me do all three. Mr. Jansen takes risks and uses foreshadowing, symbolism and interesting turning points for many of his characters. I also likes the fact that despite the choices the characters make in the film, their choices do not seem as adolescent or felonious as other films I have seen. The acting is pretty good and the actors seem to share a good chemistry with each other. Excellent soundtrack, with songs you don't hear on the radio. It is a reconciling with life/spontaneous road trip film that deserves more than just a second glance. where do we go from here? that is the overriding question of this film. And make no mistake, 'mainly ETC.', the 2003 effort from director john jansen, asks far more questions than it answers, but none so poignantly or so powerfully as this one.

much of the the film plays like a running conversation between you and your college drinking buddies, and I'm sure many of the questions raised by the main characters you'll recognize from your own evenings of drunken debauchery. however, one of the many beauties of this film is that we are rarely given an answer. Questions are raised – everything from the mundane to the profound – but jansen skillfully forces his audience to examine and answer these questions ourselves, with little to no help from the characters.

side 1 opens with an increasingly complex and beautifully orchestrated arrangement of non-linear segments to introduce us to the main characters. We meet them on the morning of april 8, 1994 – the day kurt cobain committed suicide. And it is the death of cobain, and the journey to his wake two days later in seattle, that serve as the backdrop for the film. In exploring cobain's life, music, and death, the characters attempt - with varying degrees of success - to understand and come to terms with their own lives.

there are some aspects of the film that are what you might expect from a low-budget indie film: the performances range from decidedly mediocre to outstanding, with the strongest performances coming from jessica scott (holly) and noel wood (daniel); some of the dialogue is admittedly a bit stiff, but never completely strays into the unreal; and there are some minor sound problems, particularly once we get on the road, that make it difficult at times to follow the action on screen.

but despite its shortcomings, 'mainly ETC.' is a solid, deeply affecting piece of cinema. amid moments of haunting poignancy, laugh-out-loud humor, and intimate turmoil, jansen deftly weaves all of the character threads together and illuminates their own struggles while at the same time making them accessible and engaging for us. and because we can see reflections of ourselves in one or more of these characters, we can identify with the questions and issues they're struggling with, and we're able to look back and remember where we were on that day in 1994 when for many people the world changed.

while jansen takes credit for the writing, editing, and direction of the film, kudos must be given to his photography as well. With an uncanny eye and amazing ability to capture and draw us into each of the characters' worlds, jansen managed to produce shot after shot after shot that stuck with me long after the credits rolled.

And no review of this film would be complete without a nod to the amazing soundtrack. the music in this film is used to amazing effect; at times subtly underscoring the action, at other times taking center stage, but never getting in the way or deteriorating into kitschy music video. the soundtrack plays like the ultimate greatest hits, though i suspect that label would probably not sit very well with the director.

the new double DVD archive edition offers some deleted scenes, trailers, music videos, and a cobain documentary. the deleted scenes offer some insight into the making of the film through alternate opening and closing sequences, and it's certainly a treat to have the rare and beautiful Raining Kind video. the cobain documentary is fine, if a bit worse for wear, and certainly more extensive documentaries are available for the hardcore fans. conspicuously absent is a director commentary, and i can't help but wonder if jansen has plans to re-release this at some point with that tasty tidbit attached.

suffice to say that the next time you're looking for a strong piece of work from a talented filmmaker, I recommend you get on board. I especially liked the ending of this movie--I really felt what the characters must have felt, which I think is a mark of good directing. I was tickled with how the new hire at the record store turned out--great character development there, even though his "role" would probably be considered minor.

I was also impressed that the entire film, while dark in its subject matter, was free from gratuitous nudity, profanity, and violence. Sadness, sexuality, and darkness can all be communicated (often better) by what is left unsaid, but it seems that this is often unique to really "classy" films and actors. Kudos to the film-maker for that. I watch tons of movies and had no idea this would be as good as it was. I was looking forward to it after reading the plot (even though I find Nirvana overrated). It sounded like it would be tons of fun but it was more than that. Jansen puts in little touches like the books (Kubrick book among others), movie posters, etc. I like when I see a director takes his time and put his heart into a film. And you can really feel that in this. There are tons of scenes and moments that I love, I am trying to think now of some other films that are like this and I would say the only thing I can think of are Cameron Crowe films. Takes little moments and makes them stand out and special. The soundtrack is amazing and each song works perfectly with the scenes and feel of the film. This film is amazingly shot, and the editing is outstanding. I could really go on and on about the film. I cannot recommend this enough really. If you want a fun story with great tunes from a director who clearly put his heart into his work then check this out. This is a film that everyone who lives in Sweden should watch. The film shows the political riots who took place in Gothenburg in 2001 from a new perspective. It features interviews with those who were convicted where those people gets the first chance after the riots, to tell their side of the story and why they think the world can be a so much better place to live in and be a part of. I react emotionally when I see this, since I just feel so mad about how those people were treated both during the riots but also after the riots.

I hope as many as possible gets to see this movie, as it really gets your mind thinking: Is this possible? In Sweden, a democracy, in 2001? At times, the mainstream news media seems to be driven by a bunch of no-brain reporters. In that they just listen to each other and report what others report.

This documentary shows what can be found if some more effort is put into the task of reporting about something.

True journalism should be about providing the people with different perspectives on things that happen so that they have a fair chance of creating an own opinion.

This documentary together with mainstream media reports, will help you with this. At least for me, it provided a lot of relevant information regarding the purpose/motivation behind the nowadays frequent world-wide protests at different political summits. This documentary focuses on the happenings in Gothenburg 2001. In swedish media the demonstrators where pictured as criminals that stood for anarchy and violence. This movie shows that there not, actually they are intelligent, articulate people that has something to say - And says it by the force of bricks. They believe in a better world, a world where people can think and say what they want - without being aimed at. But are their beliefs of having the possibility of changing the society realistic? I think not.

This documentary gives us enlightenment in the issues of greed, capitalism and the future it might bring. It is a great documentary that is not propaganda, because it is not shown as what they say is right. Everything it shows is what some individuals think and it is up to the viewer to decide if what they do and stand for is right or wrong.

I have heard many people that labels this a propaganda and therefor chooses not to view it, I think they are making a bad decision because even if you sympathize with the police or the demonstrators belief, all you get is more facts to rely on, for example the kid that got shoot says that he thinks that it is good to throw a brick through a McDonalds window because it is the step between thinking and acting as you think.

Overall this movie freaked me out because you cannot really dismiss the facts that the few policemen, that fought violence with violence, did not get convicted or even detained in custody even however the proof of them throwing bricks at the demonstration march (and in some cases beating people with truncheon, even though they are lying on the street without making resistance) where as good as it gets.

Rating: 8/10 - Very good, but not best! Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.

The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses. Certainly one of the most hilarious films of all time. Excellent original music, clever, heady...it's hard to be articulate about something this good. There isn't one character that you don't instantly love to watch- Myronex "Putney, there's trouble in the black room!" "My name is Rufus." The lines, thrown away left and right, are classics themselves, recalling Slapshot, Caddyshack, Anchorman, Repoman, Dolemite, any comedy whose dialog is not of the formulaic set-up punchline variety. "Putney, Myronex called you tasteless!" "My organization is pro-integration..." "Where's Lopez? 'He's in my head'" They don't sound brilliant until you hear them in the context of the scene. ...This movie will eat your brain, it's too good. I've read reviews calling this film racist, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Every scene is gold, from the Etherial Cereal commercial to the Brothers In the Black Room meeting to that haunting trumpet in the closing scene. One word - genius. Putney Swope is the story of a token black man on the board of directors of a large advertising firm who is accidentally voted Chairman of the Board when the owner of the firm keels over while trying to stutter out an idea that he was apparently quite excited about. Putney, of course, takes his new role to heart and fires most everyone in the agency, hires a new crew (all black except for a token white guy) and proceeds to crank out the most offensive and non-PC commercials one could ever ask for. Now it's a rather motley crew he has and despite that they somehow manage to be successful while raking in the cash. I rather like the scene where potential advertisers are being relieved of bags of cash and then told to "get out". And their commercials will follow later, like them or not. The story is good but of course the highlight here is the nasty commercials themselves, especially the one for "Face Off" acne cream. This is rather dated, but still a fun movie, and full of hilarious moments. Robert Downey Sr. was working for an ad agency doing experimental ads at the time and I guess this was his middle finger to Madison Avenue agencies. Very good and pretty damned funny. 8 out of 10. This movie shows that the free enterprise system and the quest for the almighty buck transcends all racial and ethnic barriers. Ultimately the market place determines the message that is sent to the public. This movie dramatizes that point. A conservative white-collar advertising company is taken over by a group of street-wise African Americans chaired by a no-nonsense black man who wants to make a buck and believes he can sell products by telling the the truth. But the movie shows that no matter how hard he tries to do something different, the market place and the political system demands that he conform, rendering him no different than his predecessors. Interesting, off-beat movie. This film had about everything one could wish when viewing it originally, at the end of the 1960's decade. It was immensely entertaining, and provided a contemporary view of the many changes which had occurred during that period - and were still ongoing - in terms of the Black Power movement, Vietnam, and the volatile movement which followed the quieter, preceding postwar 1950's.

All of this and one of the funniest films, then or now.

Viewing it for the second time recently, I was surprised to find it as engrossing as when seen originally. Its humor is as funny, and its message as strong.

And in viewing it now, you get all of this, while at the same time gaining the added enjoyment of its being a "period piece," and a superb chronicling of its this historic, turbulent time. Made at the height of the Black Power movement, this movie portrays African-American Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) getting made CEO of a corporation after the white CEO dies (the white executives all hate each other and can't decide who should succeed the previous CEO). Once in power, he decides to turn it into a militant organization.

I don't know how Robert Downey Sr did it, but he did it! "Putney Swope" is the ultimate jab at America's power structure. It's the sort of thing that seems like it would have come out of Richard Pryor's mind. This is a comedy classic in every sense of the word. A real masterpiece. Hilarious. I can't say how many times that one line has made me laugh or how often I've described that scene to folks not familiar with this film. I saw it the year it was released, I was 19. I don't think there were a dozen people in that East Village theater that night. For years I thought we were the only ones who saw it. Nice to see here that others found it as hysterical as I had, and see it's lasting value despite the time gone by. Rent it, buy it or steal it.... a must see. If you get a chance to get a hold of this lost (for many years) gem, I doubt you will be disappointed. PS has an odd blend of social satire and ultra-cool blaxploitation-- even hints of slapstick, but it's so odd that it was not only ahead of it's time, nothing has been seen like it since.

I strongly disagree with people who say that the film is dated, especially with Spike Lee's "Bamboozaled" (SP?) a few years back which was a misfire of trying to capture the same message. (Good filmmaking, disjointed script.)

Robert Downy's direction is brilliant, allowing many of his actors to improvise, the film gets better as it goes along and the jokes swagger from hit or miss one-liners that are as forgiven as those found in a Mel Brooks comedy, to sheer non-PC 'I can't believe they just said that' fun.

Favorite parts, the commercials. The film switches from gritty black and white depictions of the ad agency to beautiful (perhaps 16mm) color and gets away with it.

I refuse to hint at any spoilers, but if you get the chance to see the DVD version be sure and watch the Downey interview (but leave it until after the movie.)

My vote 10/10-- most underrated film of the late 60's, early 70's. Thank you Prince. I thought I might be disappointed viewing this film again after so many years. On the contrary, I was more impressed now than in my callow youth with its honesty and brave humour. In 1969, the transition among African-American groups from a predominant policy of conciliation and integration to one of confrontation and self-determination was still quite new, and more than a little controversial. It took courage and finesse to portray both the Establishment and the Anti-establishment as the caricatures they often closely approximated in real life. Special mention should be made of Arnold Johnson's performance: he successfully avoided having his character lapse into either sociopathy or buffoonery. I'd rather watch this than "To Sir With Love" any old day! I saw this movie in its brief run in "art house" cinema in '69. I found it so funny that I literally spent part of the movie on the floor, having laughed so hard I fell out of my seat. In retrospect, years later, I thought it had been done by Melvin Van Peebles. When I mentioned it to a friend, he said that a friend of his, Downey Sr., filled virtually every non-acting role in the flick: Director, writer producer, etc. He was right of course, and my memory was wrong, except that this WAS one of the funnies movies ever made. The part of "the Arab" was particularly priceless. When someone refers to the independent cinema realm in the United States it's often inferred that it means the filmmaker or people behind the project had much more creative freedom and did what they wanted. This, today, is not really always the case unless someone is a solid "auteur" and creative freedom still comes with the caveat that one has to find distribution with one of the independent divisions of major studios or by getting picked up somehow for some kind of low-level deal at a worthwhile film festival. But Putney Swope, Robert Downey Sr's film about a tough-as-nails African-American accidentally promoted to head advertising guru at a production company, *is* independent cinema, the kind of work that went right along with the likes or Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Cassavetes Faces at the same time of getting no real typical studio distribution but causing waves, kicking ass and taking names in the cinema world. For all its moments that are rough and crude, it's unforgettable.

It's also a film that is funny, very and excruciatingly funny. Sometimes the sense of humor is just so ridiculous it's nearly impossible not to laugh, from the mere appearance of the President Mimeo with his wife to lines of dialog from the advertisements Swope's team puts together like "I can't eat an air conditioner" in a real "soul" voice. It is as smart as the audience it is aiming at, which is anyone with two brain cells to put together who can see that this work isn't offensive or *too* shocking because it's meant to rattle the cage, and it does this pretty well in the first five minutes. Once that's past Downey Sr goes on his blitz of sorts as far as being a filmmaker with nothing to lose: his protagonist is part Fidel Castro, part Isaac Hayes circa 1972 (and yes it's 1969 in the film) and part hard-assed ad exec with a firing streak to make Mr. Spacely on the Jetsons look kind. And don't forget those side characters, dear God.

There's so many memorable lines and moments that it's hard to keep track. From maybe the most hilarious botched assassination attempt in any movie to the one ad for "Face-Off" skin cream that includes lines that would give South Park a run for its dirty-mouth money, to just little asides with the one guy from Jack Hill's movies playing the Muslim who keeps giving lip to Swope and that one boy with the the nun who curses up a storm and impresses Swope in a swift stroke. It's a pretty direct message about media and advertising, but there's also a lot of powerful moments where it just hits the nail on the head about racism in America, sometimes without having to do more than a gesture and sometimes with doing something HUGE like having black panther types going this way and that around Swope's advertising regime. And for a low-budget production (I mean super low, hence the comparison to Night of the Living Dead and Faces) Downey got some really good actors, all non-union, and it's hard to imagine that some of them might have had their first time on camera here.

It should be mentioned that Downey's style doesn't make it perfect: it is crude and sometimes too crazy and dated for its own good, and I'm sure I didn't get some of the underlying humor of a couple of the ads since I'm from a full generation after these ads were aired (albeit the "Miss Redneck Jersey" was definitely not lost on me). In general though this is one of the finest of its time period, a satire that stings and a feature with a predominantly black cast that is all too knowing of what comes from an excess of power, regardless of skin color. It is, as someone might say, "good s***." 1969 was the year. New York City was the place. Putney Swoope was the second Robert Downey film to achieve some recognition. The first was Chaffed Elbows (1966). Putney Swoope achieved a much wider release. Pound (1970) and Greasers Palace (1972) were even more profane and obnoxious. Those 2 films were mean spirited to the point that they actually stalled the Prince's feature film career for several years.

The subject at hand is Putney Swoope. And it is a mad farce/satire that has to be seen to be believed. I'm not going to go through the plot here. What Plot?? People looking for a plot are going to be scratching their heads. Keep Scratching!! This film is not about PLOT! One could compare this to a Mel Brooks movie; only without the Hollywood parody party that Mel always threw. I also see a little bit of Monty Python in this. By the way: This film was shot before Monty had debuted on the BBC!!!

I notice that the Gags and Lines that are drop dead hilarious DO NOT transfer well by word of mouth. You have to see them within the context of the film. There are some flaws in the film; but even the flaws are unique. For instance: Actors often repeat the SAME LINE over and over again; and somehow it works. How Many Syllables Mario? Putney Says the Borman Six Girl Has Got to Have Soul! etc...

The B/W photography is outstanding. The Sound/Score is even better! The editing is only so-so. The acting is above average. The script is priceless. The jokes are as un-PC as you can get: MR. Bad News says "Sonny Williams just got caught in a motel with a 13 year old girl" Putney says "Well at least He's not superstitious" Uptight conservatives beware. The Anti-Establishment mindset of this film will drive you straight out of the room. Nothing is sacred.

There are many things in this film that pertain to today: NO SMOKING!!! Reverse Racism; with African Americans treating Caucasions like trash. The manipulation of Mass Media over the masses; Madison Avenue, Deroit, Hollywood intentionally pedaling something that any 8 year old can tell is pure garbage; The Internet, I'm talking about "the drum"; Interracial dating; I could go on and on....

I should also mention that there is about 8 min of this film that was shot in 16 mm Color. These are the commercials shot by Putney's agency. The spots work fairly well the first time around. They get tiresome though on repeated viewings. The real magic here is within the B/W sections of the film. It's the non-scenically lines they stay with you: "Rent Yourself A CHORT Schmuck". "I love You, I Love You, I love You... did you take your pill?". "anything that I have to say would just be redundant". And a host of others. I also really like the bit with the mounted minnow up on the wall: "The game warden wanted me to throw it back... I put up such a fight, I decided to have it mounted!"

Standouts in the cast include Buddy Buttler as Putney's bodyguard #1. He should have been a much bigger star. Antonio Fargas as the Arab. He did go on to stardom on TV and in Films. Arnold Johnson has the right look as Putney Swoope. Robert Downey used his Own voice instead because Arnold couldn't remember some of his lines. Also Downey realized that He could fill in any additional dialog/jokes later on if he dubbed his Lead actor.

The film does have some shortcomings. The short run time is one. I wish the beginning with the White board members would have been extended. Stan Gotlieb and Allen Garfield are outstanding. The ending seams to have been thrown together as if he just couldn't think of any more gags. All in all, this is one of the Best low-budget independent films of it's time. A time when very few indys' played outside of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and L.A. Anyone who loves satire and comedy should see this at least twice. Downey's Putney Swoope is Ahead of and Beyond it's time. This movie got better with time. I can't believe that it has been forty years since I saw this at the age of 15. Yes, that's right. Movie ratings were not yet a reality, so any teenager could walk into any movie. Imagine what it was like for a kid my age to see both Midnight Cowboy and Putney Swope in the same year. Imagine the times. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King has just been killed but the following summer had a man walking on the moon and Woodstock. Putney Swope was the Woodstock nation's chance to stick it to the man. You'll see where Robert Downey, Jr. got his sardonic brilliance. His old man was an instant hero to kids like me. No punches are pulled in this classic, and aging hippies will rejoice when they relive this era. Hopefully, new flower children will be emboldened by it, and this current era of fascism will come under the same scrutiny my era was subjected to. "Putney Swope" is a unique, low low low budget gem from the late 1960's which probably would have been forgotten in time if it hadn't been for two things: Paul Thomas Anderson (who named Don Cheadle's character in "Boogie Nights", Buck Swope, after the eponymous hero of this film) and the limited DVD release. Watching "Putney Swope" is like listening to hardcore punk rock: it may not make a lot of sense (at least to me it didn't upon watching it for the first time), but you have to respect the film for its passion and unabashedly rebellious message. I didn't understand a lot of things about "Putney Swope", but for the most part, I liked it. The more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me.

The film is advertised as a parody of New York's Madison Avenue, best known in the 1960's as the advertising capital of the world. Members of Generation X and Y may be lost on this concept, but fortunately "Mad Men" is on TV to provide us with this otherwise lost piece of U.S. History. What you need to know before watching this movie is that these ad agencies were largely male, and even more largely white establishments.

With this premise in mind, the movie opens up with an ad agency board meeting. The members are predominantly white except for Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dick Gregory in this film), the token African-American on the board. The board members are so self-absorbed and soulless that when their chairman falls dead in front of them, their only concern is who will become chairman next. Without even removing the body from the boardroom, they begin a paper ballot to elect the next chairman.

Putney Swope is elected by a landslide, but not because the other members think Swope is qualified. Voting for Swope was an ill-fated attempt for these board members to sabotage any other member's chance of being elected chairman. With their plans backfired, Swope takes charge and "sink(s) the boat", firing all but one of the original members and hiring all people of color in their place .

After this point, the film became (for me) very weird and hard to follow plot-wise. There may not have even been a plot, really. The whole idea of the film seems to be a "what if" scenario, with the result being that the new "Truth and Soul Inc." firm would be unconventional, but successful nonetheless. The firm ends up making so much money that the members build a huge glass case to keep the cash in for unexplained purposes. It could be because Swope doesn't trust banks, although that point is not touched upon or explained in the film. It could also be metaphoric in some way, but who knows.

Most of the movie takes place inside the ad agency, with occasional scenes in the White House with a president who, for some unknown reason, is a midget. My assumption is here that some political joke was being made, but I can't figure out what. Were the filmmakers saying that the president is a small, insignificant part of American life? Were they saying that the latest elected officials (Nixon at the time) were insignificant candidates? I don't know. I found it a bit eerie, however, that the man playing the president bore a striking resemblance to future president Ronald Reagan. It is funny to make that connection 40 years after the movie was made.

What this film may have benefited from is showing how consumers outside the ad agency reacted to the new ads. Of course, the ad footage possessed a strange, funny appeal for its unconventional creativity, but did these ads convince people to buy the product? If so, how? The movie hinted on the idea that the new ad campaign was successful through client interaction and the calls from the White House. However, it would have been revealing to see average people, since that demographic has always been most profitable for advertisers.

Although the parodies and political messages this film may have made probably didn't stand the test of time, this film still had a lot of unique qualities. Arnold Johnson had a magnetic X factor to him that benefited him greatly in this film. Swope's rough voice was actually director Robert Downey, Sr.'s voice dubbed in, sometimes poorly, but fit the character so well in being an authoritative outsider. He hires and fires workers at random, but earns the respect of all but one of the employees for revolutionizing the ad agency and seeking out new ideas.

The premise of the film was, and still is, incredibly risky, especially since the film was written and directed by a white man (Robert Downey, Sr.). However, this film declines to fall victim to negative black stereotypes which would lead to the rise and fall of the blaxploitation genre years later. Although some of the sex scenes may be a bit off-putting for some viewers, the main message is that a black owned and operated business can thrive through innovation and risk taking. Many people may not take a positive message away from this movie, but I just did.

"Putney Swope" remains an overlooked movie from a strange era, and Downey, Sr. (even despite his son's recent comeback) never quite got the recognition as a director he deserved. However, if you find a DVD of this movie, buy it and watch it. If it's on Netflix, ditto. It's a movie that can be confusing at times, but is worth watching for its gusto, ambition, and its non-conformist stature even by today's movie standards. Sure, the film is full of black militant stereotypes and much of the jargon of the time. In that sense, the movie has indeed dated. But as a satirical look at America's number one parasitical industry, advertising, it's still on target. But just as important is the counter- message, namely the effect of big bucks on those who would make the industry more socially responsible—no promoting war toys, alcohol, etc. Thus, the movie's also about the allures of capitalism. Note, for example, how Putney's garb suddenly changes to resemble Third-World revolutionary Fidel's, just before he pulls out of the firm. For a moment, it looks like Swope's mini-revolution has succeeded among his staff, and he's moving on, maybe to spread the movement. But then, the former militants succumb to the allure of big bucks and he departs shaking his head, perhaps to hijack a plane to Cuba. Downey's final word, however, is an ironical one as the Arab (I believe) burns down the money tower leaving the metaphorical structure of (advertising, capitalism) a smoking ruin. To me, this looks like change can only succeed as a cleansing act of destruction and not as a process of reform—a message consistent with the radical spirit of the time.

Whatever the subtext, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially with the commercials that play as well now as they did then. Those who compare the anarchic style to that of the Marx Bros. make a good point. The throw-away lines fly thick and fast along with the outrageous set-ups. Forty years later, it's still a hard movie to get a consistent handle on. Despite the crudities, however, the film remains a work of daring originality with some genuinely telling moments. I have to admit I had never heard of this movie. I caught it last night on TMC. I thought it was hysterical. I laughed so hard and loved the ending. Image what a Marx brothers movie would like if they collaborated with Salvadore Dali and Malcolmn X and then all dropped LSD.

Funny and edgy are two overused words these days, this movie sure has that plus about 200 IQ points of most comedies today and surrealistic to boot. I had to be up at 6:00 am and watched it until 2:30. I over slept and missed my obligations. Still worth it. I would not recommend renting it, I would recommend owning it. It was that good.

The only warning I have is that so of the references are dated and might not be gotten by younger people. Bare with it and use your head.

I would have to put it in my top comedies of all time. A twist of fate puts a black man at the head of an old-school, white-bred advertising firm. And he intends to make a few changes...

One very strange piece of cinema. You'll either love it or hate it. Either way, you've never seen anything like it. The movie starts with a board meeting at a major advertising agency. Putney Swope is on the board for no other reason than the fact that he is black, and the agency needs a "token" on the board. Swope is ignoring the meeting, reading Jet magazine at the big table, and everybody is ignoring Swope... Suddenly, the CEO croaks on the spot. No time is wasted. A janitor is called to haul off the corpse, and the board immediately and unceremoniously tackles the business of electing a new CEO. And as the votes are tallied one by one, the tension is built up and then finally snapped in a hilariously ironic climax to the vote, that gives the viewer a delicious dish of logical implications to savor for the rest of the movie. If you've ever talked back to some stupid television commercial, you'll like seeing this movie. Too bad there don't seem to be any real Putney Swopes in the world. remember back when this movie was made by robert downey senior. a very good entertaining black awareness feature, which, was an underground hit in california-los angeles, and new york at the time. a hippy loved classic where, changes which occur in the business world are striking, refreshing and interesting comedy.non compliant, not like basic society at the time of 1969 now watched, is still very good,but today's life in america totally diferent from 69. good for the baby boomers. "Bride of Chucky" is one of the better horror movies to come out in the past ten years and could be one of the best horror films of the 90's.

**SPOILERS**

Chucky's girlfriend, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) manages to find his battered remains after being sucked into the fan at the end of part 3 and brings him to life in her trailer park. Her neighbor, Jessie (Nick Stabile) and his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) are being tormented by her uncle. (John Ritter) Tiffany upsets Chucky when he refuses to marry her, so she buys a doll for him to play with. Chucky kills Tiffany, and then transfers her soul into the doll she got him. In order for them to be placed back into human bodies, they have to travel to New Jersey to retrieve an amulet to do so. Jessie sees this as an opportunity to escape from Ritter, and they set out on the journey, but not before Ritter is killed by Chucky and Tiffany. Along the way, several bizarre incidents force them to stop at a bed and breakfast. When several more people are killed, they call up their best friend (Gordon Woolvett) to straighten out the situation. They convince him neither one of them are the killers, as the police have began to solve the crimes. He finds Ritter's body in a trunk in the back of the van. Thinking he has been set up, he confronts them about it. Chucky and Tiffany then turn real to prove they did it, which gets Woolvett killed. The group steals a motor home and arrives at the cemetery. Jessie and Jade get Chucky and Tiffany to turn on each other, giving them enough to escape. Chucky recaptures Jade and forces her to get his amulet. Chucky and Tiffany restart their feud, which gives Jessie and Jade enough time to kill the both of them as the police arrive and clears them of the crimes.

The Good News: I have to give the most amount of props to the FX department, as Chucky and Tiffany as dolls look completely convincing. The scenes with them together are the movies main highlights, including a hilarious conversation where Tiffany advises Chucky on how serial killers in the 90's work. That being said, the amount of one-liners in this movie that are actually funny is incredible. Chucky gets the most of them, but Tiffany cracks a few gems as well. It is actually funnier than what Hollywood calls comedies these days. The gore is plentiful and shockingly realistic. Several deaths in this movie are actually original and creative. Turning Ritter into a new form of Pinhead was a totally brilliant scene. The honeymooning couple was a nice death scene, as well. For teenage love, the pairing of Stabile and Heigl works great. They have a great chemistry together and actually behave like a normal couple. I also have to admit that the first time I saw this movie, I did jump during certain scenes, and that shows what an incredible job director Yu did. He learned enough, apparently, to do the same thing with "Freddy vs. Jason." He knows how to stage set-ups and pay-offs, and here he shows some great skills that have a Hong Kong influenced look and style. He could be the next great horror director if he keeps filling up his resume with films like those two. Nice soundtrack, too, like "Freddy vs. Jason."

The Bad News: For fans of cheesy movies, this will be a great find. However, this film has a high cheese factor that may prevent the serious horror movie fan from having a good time enjoying this film. The film knows it is a cheesy movie and revels in it, making a serious fan turned off because of things like the one-liners. It isn't all that bad of a movie, but it has to be watched in the mind frame that it is a cheesy movie, and that the cheesiness of certain scenes add to the movie, not to take it away. Remove yourself from that state of mind and you may find yourself enjoying this movie.

The Final Verdict: Fans of cheesy movies and the other "Child's Play" movies will find a lot to like about this movie. For serious horror fans, take a look at it, but keep in mind that it isn't a serious movie and that the cheesiness is supposed to be there and you might find yourself liking it.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity on a doll, a shadowy puppet sex scene, some drug use, and numerous drug references. Bride of Chucky starts late one night as Officer Bob Bailey (Vince Corazza) sneaks into the evidence room at his police station & amongst all the horror film in joke props he steals the remains of the Chucky doll that serial killer Charles Lee Ray possessed way back in the original Child's Play (1988). He drives the remains to an isolated area where Ray's ex girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) slashes Bailey's throat & takes the remains back to her trailer. There Tiffany stitches & staples Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) back together again & using a 'voodoo for dummies' book brings him back to murderous life. Thing don't go as Tiffany had hoped & Chucky turns out not to be the man of her dreams after all so she locks him in a play pen at which Chucky is less than happy. While Tiffany takes a bath Chucky escapes, electrocutes her & using that book brings her back to life in the shape of a female doll dressed as a bride. Neither want to be stuck in plastic bodies & have to work together to get to a cemetery in New Jersey where Ray's natural body had been buried with the amulet needed to switch their spirits back into human bodies. The bodies of Tiffany's neighbour Jesse (Nick Stabile) & his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl), who are both on the run from Jade's corrupt uncle Chief of police Warren Kincaid (John Ritter), will do nicely...

Directed by Ronny Yu I love Bride of Chucky. The script by Don Mancini is great fun, very fast moving, highly entertaining & references plenty of other horror film with good affection. From the opening sequence where we see Jason Voorhees hockey mask from the Friday the 13th films, Freddy Krueger's razor blade glove from the A Nightmare on Elm Street series & Michael Myers mask from the Halloween franchise. To the clips used from Bride of Frankenstein (1935) when it virtually recreates the same scene. Bride of Chucky never takes itself seriously which is just as well, there are lots of one liners, self referential gags that Scream (1996) made trendy a few years earlier & it doesn't seem afraid to poke fun at itself & the horror genre in general. I love the scene when Jesse & Jade are having a clichéd slushy romantic conversation that Chucky hears & he makes funny derogatory comments & gestures throughout. That's not to say that there isn't a damn good film in there as well because there most certainly is. Director Yu manages to create good atmosphere & a real sense of fun, both human & plastic sets of characters are likable & shine as each pair suffer their own sets of domestic problems that the trail of corpses that they are leaving behind would obviously cause. Technically Bride of Chucky is great for the most part & has that big budget polish about it & at about $25,000,000 I should hope so. The only thing that I will say is that some of the puppet effects by Kevin Yagher are a little stiff & unconvincing, I can't remember any CGI scenes in Bride of Chucky either. Thankfully the film doesn't neglect the blood & gore with a cool slit throat, nails blasted into someone's face in presumably a Hellraiser (1987) homage, people impaled on shards of glass, someone being bloodily obliterated by a huge truck, a ripped off lip piercing & various stabbings & gunshots. The acting is pretty good & Dourif as Chucky is very funny as he spouts the one liners out. I also like the scenes with Tiffany at the beginning & find her very sexy when she's wearing all that fetish gear, I can't be the only one surely? I personally think Bride of Chucky is a fantastic film, total entertainment from start to finish, great humour & horror in equal measure & at only 85 minutes long it never becomes boring or dull. A personal favourite of mine, watch it as soon as you can! Chucky (the murderous doll from "Child's Play" and 2 crappy sequels) is dead. But his ex-girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) gets his remains and (using "Voodoo for Dummies") revives him. Then, through circumstances too convoluted to get into, SHE is killed and has her soul put into another doll! Together they fall in love and kidnap a nice couple (Nick Stabile, Katherine Heigl) to take them to Chuck's coffin to get an amulet to make Chucky and Tiffany real people again...

A lot better than it sounds. After the last two sequels to "Child's Play" (both of which were horrible) I was expecting the worst, but this actually was lots of fun. The movie doesn't take itself seriously for a second (seriously--how could it?) and the lines and situations are actually quite funny. Also there are a few VERY gory murders thrown in to satisfy us horror fans and the film never stops moving. The movie also has a few things usually not found in a horror movie--a gay best friend (Gordon Michael Woolvett) who is intelligent and not played for laughs and a sequence in which Stabile has his shirt off just to show his muscular body. John Ritter has a nice cameo too as a sheriff.

The acting is good--Stabile is young, VERY handsome and likable; Heigl doesn't have much to do but pulls it off and Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky) and Tilly are hilarious as the murderous dolls. My favorite part is when the dolls have sex (don't ask) and she asks for a rubber and he responds, "But I'm MADE of rubber!" The special effects are good (no lousy CGI here) and this is one of the few horror films to mix humor and violence in an entertaining way. Well worth seeing. I give it a 9. Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes.

This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy.

I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!

"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!" Chucky

We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.

6.8/10 from...

the Fiend :. This is a good film for die-hard Chucky fans. Okay I'm sure it's not as good as what the Child's Play movie were like, but this can get really funny and enjoyable, Chucky's laughs are hilarious.

(SPOILERS)

Now not one doll, but two, meaning double the impact, Jennifer Tilly played the part really well and definitely pulled off the best kill of the movie.

If you have seen the Child's Play movies this would be a worthy film on your Chucky collection, but if you've never seen the Child's play movies before, this'll will be a new start. Of course you'll not have a clue on how Chucky got into his current state (cause I'm not telling you) but you'll figure out why Chucky is very popular.

Overall a very enjoyable movie. GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10/10 This is a 100% improvement over the dross of a third movie and it's one hell of a good time. This is a John Hughes movie meets The Devil's Rejects. I really enjoyed this movie and it really stands out as the savior of the series. I thought Jennifer Tilly played Tiffany really well and Brad Dourif in Chucky's shoes once again really makes this movie shine. Actually they're the only good parts of the movie. I got rather bored with Katherine Heigl and Nick Stable's scenes. It's as if they were thrown in there as a sidetrack and someone to save the day. But Chucky and Tiffany were great to watch and I really liked the black humor to it. I thought it made the movie stand out more. If you want one hell of a good time then be sure to check this out.

7/10. Sexy murderess Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) still yearns for a life of wedded bliss with ex-boyfriend, crazed killer Charles 'Chucky' Lee Ray. After getting her hands on the mutilated Good Guy doll that last played host to his spirit, and doing a spot of repair work, she conducts a satanic ritual that returns his life to the toy.

Unfortunately for poor Tiff, the reanimated maniac shows no interest in marriage, and so she traps him in a cage, with a bride doll for company. Eventually, a rather angry Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) escapes his confines, electrocutes Tiffany in the bath, and traps her soul in his 'bride' as retribution.

Realising that they are now both in the same predicament, the plastic pair put their differences aside and decide to head for Hackensack, New Jersey, where they can lay their hands on the magical amulet that can relocate their spirits into human hosts. Tricking trailer park hunk Jesse (Nick Stabile) and his tasty girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) into taking them to their destination, the psycho dolls embark on a murderous rampage, with their unwitting companions copping the blame.

Although the idea of a kid's doll being possessed by the spirit of a mass murderer has always been rather comical, it wasn't until the fourth film in the Child's Play series that the makers fully embraced the sheer lunacy of the premise, opting to plays things much more for laughs than for scares (although there is still plenty of OTT splatter for us gore-hounds to enjoy).

Talented Hong Kong director Ronny Yu oversees proceedings, deftly translating the witty tongue-in-cheek script into a slick and thoroughly enjoyable cinematic ride. Similarly, the excellent cast handle the camp material perfectly, with Stabile and Heigl making a likable couple, but smoking hot Tilly stealing the show as blonde, buxom, pouting, PVC-mini-skirted temptress Tiffany. Kevin Yagher's impressively expressive doll effects also go a long way to making the film such a success.

Overall, this film is unlikely to find many fans amongst 'serious' horror aficionados, but those who enjoy the odd spot of mindless popcorn entertainment, full of twisted, black humour, crazy death scenes, and magnificent cleavages should have a blast. I would say 'Bride of Chucky' is a "return to greatness" but the series was never really great. Very good #1 was, #2-3 were throwaways, and I think this 4th installment is equal to or even better than the first movie. And it contains the best subtitle/tagline: "Chucky Gets Lucky." So he does, in the role of Jennifer Tilly, who thoroughly rejuvenated this series as Jeri Ryan did for 'Star Trek: Voyager.' Tilly didn't just create a presence; she added much needed humor, back-story, drama, tension and a great little sidekick/play-thing for Chucky. And as much as I liked her in the feature, she can't get all the credit: the props (watch the first 1-2 minutes for horror-homages), the writing, the inside jokes (again, the opening + Pinhead) and Chucky lines were great ("In fact, if (this) were a movie, it would take 3-4 sequels just to do it justice," among others.) Mercifully, Chucky and the series has given up on Andy the "Hide the Soul" quest, and just settled for a new way out of his body. He teams up with his ex (Tilly) whom he transfers into a "Bride" doll and a couple of Bonnie & Clyde teens (Really, Heigl?) to regain this pendant buried with Chucky's human corpse. This is for any Chucky fan, 1980s slasher-horror fans or even to those who's never seen any of the previous 'Child's Play' films. It's funny, dark, harmless, gory – but not over the top and despite Tilly's literal 20 minutes of screen time, it's always great to see her. After all, you barely see her play poker anymore. (Side note: of course, I picked up on the Superman reference – Hackensack, NJ.) The movie doesn't take itself seriously, and if you follow its lead you're going to have a lot of fun (as long as you don't mind your murders served up really bloody, and your horror topped with extra cheese)!

This film winks an eye at every horror fan, and then gives them the finger. It knows it sucks, and because of that, it's far and away the best of the "Child's Play" series.

It plays up the "stoopid humor" angle so well, you find yourself doing more than just laughing AT it, but WITH it. And, trust me, the whole time you're laughing, it's laughing back atcha.

I've commented once on this Chucky great, but I had to do it again to say some things about the film, when I first saw it in a great balcony in a great theater. The film was a lot of fun in the theater and my first Chucky film ever in a theater, and that was a special moment for me, because I cherish Chucky. The other horror villains are referenced with GREAT COOLNESS!!! And the gore was shockingly great! The scene where the gay kid gets nailed by the truck was amazingly cheerful! That was a great gore scene!!!!! And the ending was so bizarre and shocking it made me s*%@ my pants. The idea of having the Seed of Chucky was very, very bizarre and shocking! When I left the theater I just loved it and I could'nt believe it was real. The bizarre and different qualities of this Child's Play installment for some reason made me mark it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Child's Play series. It just had that intensely shocking, bizarre and different quality that reminded me of Jason Goes To Hell. A sure ***** out of *****. Here's how I rank the series : 1,4,2,3. I loved it but not quite as much as Tom Holland's original Child's Play classic. I can't wait for Seed of Chucky! Bring it on! Chucky is back but this time he is not scary (a lot) - but he is funny!

When Chucky is brought back to life (in the doll, of course) by his old trailer trash girlfriend, Tiffany, he promptly kills her and transforms her into a doll, too. Tiffany and Chucky are now on the case of 2 high school graduates - eekkk!!

Don't miss this film - it is a whole lot of fun. It is scary, funny, weird, wacky and stupid all in one!

My rating : 9/10. I´m from germany so please excuse my style of writing. As I´ve seen Chucky 4 for the first time I was a bit surprised, I knew Chucky as a usual 80s scarymovie, but Bride of Chucky was very different from the old ones. First there is the artwork of the very good director Ronny Yu, who we still have in mind from A chinese ghost story. His visual style is in a wired kinda way comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Also the voices of Chucky an Tiff are very impressive. I´ve also liked the screenplay very much, especially the scene in which Tiff throws the Champaignbottle in the ceilingmirror.

I give it a 9.0 vote for funny, gory and progressive entertainment. If you have any comments on my opinion, just send me an E-Mail. MFG Schawez the first Child's Play was an original and effective little horror movie. as expected though, the 2 horrible sequels seemed to spell the end for this franchise.

well, when i heard they were making a 4th one called "bride of chucky" i just rolled my eyes and muttered a "...when will they ever learn."

but when i heard that they had gotten a great director, Ronny Yu and a solid cast including the awe inspiring Jennifer Tilly my interest in it perked up.

this film is extremely well done. it has a great sense of humor, highly stylized graphic violence, great cinematography and the stunningly sexy Jennifer Tilly strutting her most impressive stuff during the first half. (i should add that she is also a fantastic actress as well.)

it keeps it's tongue firmly in cheek without veering into campy territory. the doll effects are great and the verbal interplay between them is priceless. it's more of a horror/comedy than straight horror but the humor is welcome and well integrated.

i've already heard that they're planning a Son of Chucky. if they can match the quality of this film, than maybe this franchise will have made a legitimate comeback.

rating:8.5 Seen all 4 installments, this one is by far the best of all. I did'nt have much expectation when I got the DVD(3rd was such a drag), but to my delight this one was fast paced with some slick punch-lines.

Don't miss this one. I was expecting this to be just like the others, tries to be scary- ends up looking silly. Somewhere along the line the writers must have realised this and so took the film in a totally different direction basically ignoring the other films. This feels like a different film rather than the fourth entry in the Child's Play series. The new idea works making this the best in the series by far. The Child's Play series isn't a favourite of mine, but Bride Of Chucky is actually an okay movie. This time we have two dolls Chucky and his former girlfriend (when he was human) Tiffany. Together they go on a journey to find an object. There are a few interesting scenes through the movie like the guy getting hit by the truck and literally exploding, the sex scene between Chucky and Tiffany and the ending which allows for another sequel to take place. Wasn't really a straight forward horror, it mixed a lot of comedy and was a sort of spoof of the horror genre. This made the movie better like comedy does do with many horror movies. All up even if your not a Child's Play fan give this one a go. This movie exemplifies a certain brand of comedy horror of a strictly adult kind but quite different to the Troma movies (with which it shares certain qualities). The humour is rough and ready but fast and furious. If the idea of hideous dolls with evil powers and twisted minds don't make you shrug with boredom, reach for the six-pack of beer and enjoy the best "Chucky" film yet. This is a great installment in the Child's Play series. It brought back some bang to the series. Great comedy, boy this movie is funny. Also there are awesome homages to other horror celebs. Beautiful cinematography. Great ending! Bring on Seed Of Chucky! This new installment to the Child's Play series has not one scary scene but tons of hilarious jokes such as a stoner witnessing Chucky giveing him the finger and saying "rude f--king doll" and lots of references to the series: "you can kill me but I'll come back. I always come back". The movie's title was probably thought of before the script and was written around it. This is totally different from all other films in the series. It doesn't even have Andy, the central character for all the previous ones. Chucky seems to interfere with characters from another movie, a soap opera about two teens running off together to get married. There is one cool elaborate death scene involving broken glass and water spilling everywhere. The movie is very gory, very funny, and has pop culture references from Martha Stewert to Jerry Springer. DO NOT SEE THIS ONE BEFORE YOU SEE THE OTHER THREE,. It will really ruin the effect since the first one is truly scary. Lots of guilty pleasure fun and silliness.

Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story. I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.

I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.

Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.

Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.

The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing. My opinions do not flow with the majority in most cases. I tend to lean toward the artsy, imaginative, and different. This movie was reminiscent of Frances Ford's "The Black Stallion" wherein a fantasy situation is created to showcase the beauty of a magnificent creature who's not readily available to view performing at its peak except on these multitudes of documentaries ala natural. Unlike those nature films, this offering utilizes the finest movie making techniques the industry has to offer fit for a diva creating one of the most sensual super stars (the cat) on the screen.

This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.

The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.

This movie is beautiful in all ways. It is visually stunning, and this is a good thing since the dialogue would only take up a page or two of paper. The acting is superb; it is subtle, passionate and intense. Ben Daniels does a fabulous job of turning himself into an animal, and mixing that wild nature with a man's overbearing passion and honor. There is not one flaw, not one mistake or wrong moment to be found anywhere. It is completely perfect, but only if you understand what you're going to experience. It isn't a movie for anyone who wants normality. An excellent story well told by the film maker. The interactions between the man and the leopard brought many questions to the viewers mind about just who was being humane. The humans killed for no reason the animals only to survive. At the end of the movie you were left wondering just who the real "hero" of the movie was. A well told story. The human actor did an excellent job but the leopard stole every scene it was in. What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more "evolved" one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes.

Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality. The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares. A film about the relationship between a man and leopard that's very reminiscent of "The English Patient," even down to a scene similar to when Ralph Fiennes' character carries the body of his lover across a desert-rock cliff. In "A Passion in the Desert," the main character carries the body of the leopard across a desert-rock cliff but in the opposite direction (calculated decision or unconscious contrast?). Historically expanded from a very short Balzac story, the film is not perfect but a treat no less. Final shot will haunt me for weeks. (8 of 10) I love this movie, though I don't like how they picture Egyptians, being an Egyptian citizen myself! that's why it earns an eight out of 10.

The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.

A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction..

All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac. a mesmerizing film that certainly keeps your attention... Ben Daniels is fascinating (and courageous) to watch. This is another film where the cinematography is the best thing to recommend it. That would be fine if the film were a travelogue, but as a dramatic exercise in cinematic artistry, that is not good enough. The theme of inter-species respect and co-operation ventures timidly into the forbidden world of inter-species love, but its approach is stereotypical, indicating a lack of understanding of the behavior motives of either species. As with many films, one always wonders what could have been achieved by a more innovative director and a more creative screenwriter. Alas, we probably will never know. Lucio Fulci, later known for his graphic horror films like The Beyond and Zombie, was years earlier a master of the Italian giallo (in the company of Argento and Bava) with films like A Lizard In A Woman's Skin and his masterpiece, Don't Torture A Duckling. This film has all the elements of the Italian mystery/thriller genre known as the giallo, but really pulls the viewers in by having each key character with a skeleton in his/her own closet. This keeps you doing as much detective work as the detectives in the film itself. Who is killing the young boys in town? The young rich woman who is so bored that she sexually taunts the eventual victims, the reporter who likes to tamper with a crime scene to get a better photo shot, the townswoman with a mentally retarded daughter, the local witch, the town idiot....the list goes on, and you have to keep mental notes like a true game to play and solve. The themes in this film are very daring and done with that perfect Italian style in the early 1970s. It is certain that no American studio would have even considered making a film of such strong content, and that is precisely why this is such a satisfying film (despite some unusual accent choices for the dubbing) and will definitely have people discussing its meanings long after viewing it. As the saying goes, they don't make them like this anymore, so get a copy and cherish an important film like this one! As far as I know I've seen most of Lucio Fulci's films, with the exception of some later ones that are popping up on DVD now, and I would have to say this was his best "pre-zombie" offering. In fact it beats out his later movies hands-down. This is a tale of superstition and suspicion in a small Italian town out in the middle of nowhere, where young boys are dying mysteriously. It's no mystery how they died, I guess, it's more who's doing it. Is it a woman that the townspeople have always considered a witch? Is it a young woman that lives in a fancy modern house on the outskirts of town, who used to do a lot of drugs? Is it the village idiot, who gets nabbed early on because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You'll only know if you watch, and watch you should, for this is a top-notch mystery thriller, or should I say, a "giallo". I've seen this before but it's been a long time and upon a second viewing it was still as powerful as the first time. For those of you that only know Lucio Fulci for his zombie flicks, well, open your minds to this because it's well worth seeing and while the "monsters" in this are human, they're as nasty as anything dredged up in his later films. 9 out of 10 stars, see it! Please.... This is Lucio Fulci at his best. If only all the films he made after were like this.

This extraordinary film is as intriguing as Dario Argento´s "The bird with crystal plumage"...

If you´re an Argento fan but you don´t like Lucio Fulci films, like

"The Beyond", "Manhattan Baby", "The House by the Cemetery", etc. this one has nothing to do with the others... this is what the Italians call "giallo"... that would be something like a "who-done-it" movie in a nutshell.

You won´t know who the killer is until the last moments of the film.

But apart from that, there´s the plot: some maniac living in a small village starts killing little boys... A journalist (Tomas Milian), a sexy young woman (Barbara Bouchet), a priest (Marc Porel), his mother (Irene Papas) and a witch (Florinda Bolkan) are the main characters in this tangled, bloody story.

Talking about the actors, I want to say that Tomas Milian is superb (like always), and Florinda Bolkan is terrific as the village witch...

Do you want to know who is the killer?...

I cannot tell you... but I can tell you that you must see this film!.

(10 out of 10)... of course! I tend to get furious when hearing about Lucio Fulci's reputation as a director. Too often he's categorized as a no-talented filmmaker, only out to shock and disgust entire audiences with images of pure gore. True, his films contain more explicit filth and sickness as your average mainstream American production, but his films always are of wide range and the plots are gruesomely morbid. Don't Torture a Duckling is yet another story! This film is a pure gem of the Italian shock cinema! I easily dare to call this film a masterpiece…it's an old-fashioned giallo that includes all brilliant aspects of genuine horror. The film shows the search for a inhuman serial murderer in a small Italian mountain-town. The bodies of 3 young boys are found, horribly mutilated. There are quite a lot of pseudo-madmen in the town but every trail leads to nowhere. Among the suspects are a greedy bum and a scary woman, obsessed by witchery and voodoo. Like a true mastermind, Fulci knows to find the right creepy tone for his film. He portrays the small town as a claustrophobic and inescapable setting of macabre happenings, supported by a giddy soundtrack. Fulci also develops himself as a genius storyteller here. The script always is one step ahead of you and the complex plot will mislead you more than once. In other words, this is a unique giallo (horror slash murder mystery). The gore isn't presented as grotesque and explicit as in Lucio's later milestones (among them are the legendary Zombie 2, The Beyond and the New York Ripper), although there still are a few nauseating and hard-to-watch shock-sequences shown.

Don't torture a Duckling is the most compelling and effective achievement Lucio Fulci ever brought forward and it easily ranks among the greatest Italian horror movies ever made. Right next to the masterpieces made by Mario Bava and Dario Argento. The film is fascinating from start to finish, some plot aspects are alarmingly realistic and the tension is adrenalin-rushing at all times! A must see for horror fans and an absolute priority for Italian shock-lovers! Sporting a title seemingly more suitable for a Looney Tunes featurette than a grisly giallo, "Don't Torture a Duckling" (1972) is nonetheless a Grade A thriller from horror maestro Lucio Fulci. In this one, someone has been strangling the preteen boys in a rural, southern Italian village and, typical for these gialli, there are many suspects. There's Barbara Bouchet (Patrizia), looking more scrumptiolicious than you've ever seen her, a rich girl hiding out after a drug scandal; Florinda Bolkan (Martiara), the local epileptic voodoo woman; her witchcraft-practicing beau; Giuseppe, the local idiot; the sweet-faced priest; his dour mother; and on and on. The film features some unusually violent set pieces, including a chain whipping of one of the main characters in a graveyard (one of the most realistically bloody sequences that I've ever seen) and a nifty dukeout when the killer is ultimately revealed. The film's bursts of violence compensate for the fact that there are no real scares or suspense to speak of. Still, this giallo fascinates, with its unusual rural backdrop, unsettling child murders, oddball characters, and freaky score by Riz Ortolani. The film has been beautifully photographed in what I presume to be Monte Sant'Angelo, near the Adriatic in southern Italy (at least, that town's police force is thanked in the closing credits). And while subtitling would've made this fine-looking DVD work even better (the American slang doesn't convince in this rural Italian setting), Anchor Bay is to be thanked for another job well done. Oh...that title DOES eventually make perfect sense, too! DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.

The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10 I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here. In a small, picturesque Sicilian village, someone is brutally killing young, sexually curious boys. The local police force keep busy trying to track the killer and whittle the list down to five or so main suspects, including voyeuristic village retard Giuseppe (Vito Passeri) and an elusive, grungy, voodoo doll-poking backwoods witch named Maciara (Florinda Bolkan). There's also Don Alberto (Marc Popel), a handsome young priest who runs the local boy's school, Andrea (Tomas Milian), a journalist helping to aid the police, and the beautiful Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a gorgeous, but seriously screwed-up drug addict who seems to have a thing for very (I mean, VERY) young boys. As typical with the giallo subgenre, the plot won't be fully revealed until the last few frames, but if you can hang in there long enough, this film pays off. The script (written by Fulci, Gianfranco Clerici and Roberto Gianviti) keeps red herrings to a minimum and will keep you interested and the story is ably supported by excellent location work, cinematography (by Sergio D'Offizi) and musical score (by Riz Ortolani). The acting, particularly Bolkan, is also very good. Fulci fans who were weaned on his 80s grotesqueries like THE BEYOND and ZOMBIE will find more artistry and less gore on display here than they might anticipate, but they'll still enjoy a particularly nasty chain whipping scene in a cemetery (bizarrely, yet effectively, set to singer Ornella Vanoni's ballad "Quei giorni insieme a te") and a long tumble down a rocky embankment that Fulci liked so much that he reused it in his film THE PSYCHIC (1977). Scenes of the children being killed is mainly kept off screen (except for a brief strangulation), but the camera doesn't hesitate to linger on their corpses. The film was not released theatrically in America and, presumably because of some anti-Catholic elements in the storyline, received only a limited theatrical release in Europe. Lucio Fulci's "Don't Torture a Duckling" paints an exceptionally unflattering portrait of small-town Sicily plagued by series of brutal murders of young boys.This surprisingly well-directed film(especially in comparison to later Fulci's gorefests)is distinguished by overall atmosphere of perversity,nastiness and two truly grotesque scenes of brutal violence.The soon-to-be-dead children are depicted as casually cruel and budding peeping toms;Bruno's near-seduction by the naked Patrizia(Barbara Bouchet)really has to be seen to be believed.Highly recommended-especially in pair with my another cult favourite "House with the Windows That Laugh"(1976). DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).

Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, "Don't Torture Donald Duck", literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.

The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.

Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Joël Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.

When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire.

Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).

Camera Obscura --- 8/10 Being a seasoned fan of Italian thrillers and directors Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Sergio Martino and Aldo Lado, I thought of Lucio Fulci as an overrated hack. I had seen The Beyond which I think is totally overrated, I found The New York Ripper to be simply appalling and I didn't particularly like The House By the Cemetery. These three movies left me to conclude that Fulci is the least interesting of these Italian filmmakers. But my stubbornness prevailed and I had to check out more of his films. City of the Living Dead was a film I found very interesting but Don't Torture a Duckling is very nearly a masterpiece.

Set in a small town in the Italian countryside in a repressive religious community where young boys are being murdered. The authorities are clueless as to who's behind these crimes, especially after their prime suspect has been cleared. An eager young reporter along with a rather slutty girl (who seduces young boys) investigate and eventually get to the bottom of it.

Brilliant atmosphere combined with a good story and a good cast (not always the case with 70's Italian thrillers) make Don't Torture a Duckling a crackling good thriller. The plot is well constructed, not easily figured out and the end conclusion is very satisfying. Fulci creates a dynamic atmosphere of repression and guilt in a very unforgiving and ignorant community and creates some very strong visuals, particularly in a scene where a woman gets beaten to death by some local townsfolk. Fulci's social commentary concerning religion and innocence are quite edgy and every aspect is well handled. When thinking of his zombie flicks and his ultra violent giallo New York Ripper it's amazing how well he balances his critique with explicit violence and makes an even stronger point. So far I haven't seen any Fulci film made as professionally as this one.

While not a traditional giallo film, Duckling has many of the genre's trademarks. Fulci displays complete control over the format, only once going overboard with an unconvincing gore-moment, but overall he seems to be even better at making mysteries than full blown gore epics. The extreme scenes here are much more powerful and really pack a punch.

So far Don't Torture a Duckling is Fulci's best film by far in my opinion. Edgy social commentary combined with explicit scenes of violence and a crackling good mystery to boot. If you like who-dun-its, you will like this film, considered the best Italian detective story (giallo), Fulci has done.

It's not Mickey Spillane for sure. There are scenes designed to disturb anyone.

Many would be offended by a local beauty trying to seduce a 12-year-old boy. She was joking, but she was naked nonetheless, and he would have jumped at the chance to jump her bones. She also tries to tempt the local priest.

Young boys are turning up missing, and there are several interesting suspects. You have to watch carefully to discover the killer. Can you? Don't jump on the first guy, it's way too early, and he is too obvious.

Anyone familiar with Fulci will be able to guess the killer, who died a violent death at the end. What crazy reasoning he had. The name "Lucio Fulci" congers up images of graphic death and mutilation in the minds of may fans. Thanks to movies like "Zombi 2", "City of the Living Dead", "The Beyond" and "The New York Ripper", Fulci has a reputation for being one of the goriest directors in history. And although many of his later movies certainly justify his reputation until the release of "Zombi 2" in 1979 Fulci's films did not contain anywhere near the amount of blood and guts he's know for, in fact they were for the most part gore free, instead relying on more traditional shocks and disturbing imagery to work. "Don't Torture a Duckling" hardly contains any gore, yet ranks as his best.

"Don't Torture a Duckling" is set in a small Sicilian town where superstition rules instead of logic. The townsfolk are very distrustful of outsiders as well as anyone different, often shunning them. After a series of child murders though many people descend upon the town, including Andrea Martelli (Thomas Milan) who tries to uncover the truth about the murders while they continue to happen.

This is a remarkable film. It's very well made with an excellent cast filled with many favorites of Italian exploitation cinema. It also contains a solid score as well as many creative camera movement courtesy or Lucio Fulci. But the real draw of "Don't Torture a Duckling" is the disturbing nature of the movie. Little kids, around twelve years old are shown mocking retarded people, visiting prostitutes and being propositioned sex by an older woman. It also contains some very biting commentary on the middle class and the Catholic Church. It is for reasons like this that "Don't Torture a Duckling" was blacklisted throughout Europe when it was first released and never was shown in the United States. Still, "Don't Torture a Duckling" stands as a monumental achievement in giallo cinema as well as Lucio Fulci's best work. I really can't recommend this one enough, check it out. If you are one of those people that think Lucio Fulci is all about gore, guts and zombies, you have to watch this (and "The Psychic" too, for that matter). Even though the film does include some quite brutal scenes of violence, and a unsettling subject matter, it's not the main thing here. This is a truly impressive, story and character-driven murder mystery that might well be the director's masterpiece. Here, he proves that he's a real craftsman, creating a memorable, disturbing yet strikingly beautiful masterpiece, filled with creepy Catholic imagery and interesting social commentary. It also has a great cast, including the gorgeous Barbara Bouchet, as well as Tomas Millan (from Beatrice Cenci) and Irene Pappas in a small but important role. Still, it is Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan (who also stared in Fulci's bizarre "Lizard in a woman's skin") who steals the scene in the role of Majara, giving an excellent performance of a woman driven insane by her superstitions, and her vicious murder scene is particularly heartbreaking. The second star of the movie is Sergio D'Ofizi's cinematography who, along with the melancholic Morricone-esquire score by Riz Ortolani, help bringing the "secluded Italian village with a dark secret" setting to life. I have to admit thought that the dummy head hitting the rocks kind of pulled me off, but nonetheless, this is a definite Italian horror classic - a moving, sad and ultimately thought provoking work of genius. 10/10 for me. If you liked this one, I recommend watching Alfred Sole's "Alice, Sweet Alice", as they are somewhat similar, and are both underrated gems. Set in and near a poor working class town in the mountains of rural Italy, it's a story of madness. The landscape may be quite picturesque, but there's madness herein, concealed behind the mask of a person who seems outwardly normal. This person kills little children.

In style and tone this film resembles Dario Argento's famous Italian giallos, those fascinating whodunit horror films, except that Argento's films are much better looking. Still, the visuals in Fulci's "Don't Torture A Duckling" are competent, with some interesting compositions and lighting. Lightning and thunder on a rainy night enhances suspense in one sequence wherein one of the "ducklings" is vulnerably alone.

In one sequence the gore is a bit overdone. But this is no slasher film. A legitimate theme undergirds the story. And that theme is that madness can take many unexpected forms, not just the obvious delusions of people who practice voodoo or black magic.

Plenty of red herrings render the puzzle solution difficult if the viewer doesn't assume an agenda on the part of the director. Don't dismiss someone who might not seem to be a suspect. The twist near the end provides good misdirection. However, in one scene midway through, a line of dialogue could have been added to clarify the relationship between two characters, one of whom is the murderer. The film's finale takes place on a beautiful mountaintop with the wind whistling in the background. We see flashbacks to clues and get insights into the killer's mindset.

I don't care for the film's widescreen projection. But background music is effective, and ranges from jarringly creepy at the beginning to low-key jazz, to indigenous Italian songs. Acting is generally average, though in a couple of cases, it's a bit overdone.

Though not as visually brilliant as Argento's giallos, "Don't Torture A Duckling" nevertheless is a fine film, one that contains a thematic storyline and enough of a whodunit puzzle to interest most viewers who like thrillers and murder mysteries. In this early Fulci work the director shows his most mainstream side as well as a talent for compelling storytelling and more than reasonable elucidation for the genre. Personally I think he has been unfairly maligned throughout his career as an aesthete of gore. It's a pretty capable procedural and surprised me with its subtextually rich narrative that shows his distrust for small minded small-town mentality and the inefficiency of the police, as well as the twisted ideals of the Catholic church, the last of which seemed to have cut this film at its knees when it was first released and could have possibly given the director another direction so early on. The comparative lack of gore in the film shows a more urgent and psychological imperative to this film in its prevailing "mystery" but the gore and puppetry he does utilise is put to good use here most notably in the scene where a falsely accused murderer is senselessly lynched by a mob of men in a graveyard and left for dead in a show of vile and antiquated vigilantism, expertly choreographed to the modern tunes off a diegetic radio.

Another example was the final scene (which was indeed awesome) in which a strikingly handsome priest falls from a cliff and the puppet used is markedly showed in a medium closeup which accentuated its demonic appearance and evident ugliness. Curiously, considering his later works, Fulci also invokes the idea of modernity seized upon the hamlet holding on to its anachronistic superstitions and ignorance when the idea of black magic is just that, a quaint idea of supernatural evil that never really ends up manifesting from the voodoo dolls while making its witch nothing more than a disturbed woman. Another thing I liked was that he adds to these character layers by making a bourgeois city girl into an ambiguous figure - is she the corrupter the priest fears for his wards and perhaps more tellingly, for himself? This giallo does lend itself to becoming one of Fulci's more personal and substantive films, in that we actually get a fair influx of ideas from him. Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the "Godfather Of Gore". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" aka. "Don't Torture A Duckling" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! "Don't Torture A Duckling" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.

Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...

The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.

"Don't Torture A Duckling" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece! I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of story and character development. Fulci was a master at creating horrific atmosphere using inventive camera work, vivid cinematography, and yes - wonderfully explicit gore.

This film is no exception, however, compared to his later films (The Beyond, Zombie 2, City of the Living Dead, House by the Cemetery, etc.) the characters here are extremely well developed and the emphasis shies away from the supernatural and is more on the suspense created by a classic who-dunnit amongst the lush hills of Italy. The scenery is at moments reminiscent of cherished folklore and then immediately contrasted by mud and blood-soaked terror shrouded by crumbling ruins. The gore in this film is not quite as prevalent and seems restrained compared to Fulci's later films however, splatter and giallo fans will most likely be satiated by a few close-ups of oozing wounds and the last 5 minutes of the film.

Overall a fantastic and mature film from one of our great Italian horror directors. This film shows a serious side to the often thought of as gore-fest works of fulci. Not a lot of blood and guts here , but a fine tale about murder and the lives affected by it.

A real find, considering it was made in 1972 and will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Check this one out, but be warned it is hard to find!

Ron I saw this movie five times and never get tired of it. This features traces of the "giallo" genre, but also with a vivid Italian countryside setting, where ignorance and superstition are deadlier than any serial killer. Featuring excellent location (reminiscent sometimes of Fellini, sometimes of the Taviani brothers), good characterisation and some of the finest genre actors (including the great Tomas Milian and Ida Lupino in an unforgettable role), this is NOT euro-trash, just a masterpiece that should be discovered generation after generation (It recently recieved great acclaim at the Paris Cinematheque at a double-feature tribute to Lucio Fulci) First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like "Tenebre" and "Phenomena". But after I saw "New York Ripper" by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.

I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.

Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is "The Beyond", a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.

I give "Don't torture a duckling" a 7 out of 10.

Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, "Don't Torture a Duckling" is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's "Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "New York Ripper", "Don't Torture a Duckling" dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery! What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.

The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence.

What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that. Don't Torture a Duckling is an absolutely stunning giallo diversion for Lucio Fulci. Unlike other subgenre heavyweights like Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Fulci takes a decidedly gritty, grounded, and socially perceptive approach to the giallo narrative in this film. There is nothing glamorous about the child murders and borderline pedophilia (a gutsy subplot for 1972) going on here, and Fulci wisely shoots with a staid and lugubrious eye, avoiding flash, melodrama, and directorial histrionics. The proceedings are punctuated by gory and instantly mind-searing set pieces that are bolstered even further by Fulci's jarring sense of realism— the deeply disturbing "witch killing" scene in particular, with its bald-faced brutality, feels like a snuff film. Composer Riz Ortolani bookends these carnage-filled scenes with ferocious reverberating string blasts.

The film is capped by a simultaneously lyrical and violent conclusion wherein theology, morality, fanaticism, and superstition collide. It is a deeply effective ending that has the capacity to leave the viewer in a befuddled and disarmed torpor.

Fulci couldn't have picked a better location for this film. Don't Torture a Duckling was photographed in and around the ancient city of Matera, Italy. As Matera continues to modernize to this day (highlighted by its shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial one), it is grappling with its UNESCO-sponsored reputation as a receptacle for mysterious paleolithic ghosts. The anxieties of the real-life Materani are reflected by the characters in the film, who, wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, fretfully confront any exotic fringe tradition (namely witchcraft) that strays outside of the norm.

Interestingly enough, Matera was also used as a stand-in for Jerusalem in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If anything, this adds even more potency to Fulci's message. Catholic guilt and grisly slayings are such a resonant combination. "Don't Torture a Duckling" is one of the coolest Italian horror films I've ever seen, and I've seen my share. To call it a giallo is a little misleading because it's not really a typical murder mystery. It's more of a straight horror movie.

Complete with one of the most brutal and gory scenes ever in a movie this old, Fulci's twisting and turning film oozes with a creepy ambiance and an old school Italian feel. The setting is perfect: an old Italian village. The music is ridiculously perfect. The finale is genuine and original.

After seeing "Don't Torture a Duckling" you really have to wonder how Fulci's later stuff got so off beat. I like all his stuff, but he strayed. Maybe he figured he already did it...Because with this film, he hits the bullseye.

I'd recommend this film to anyone who thinks that Dario Argento owns the giallo genre. Fulci beats him with this one.

10 out of 10, kids. I'm not a huge fan of Lucio Fulci's films. Most of his 80s gore films had their moments, but often came across as second-rate Dario Argento imitations. With the exception of the entertaining "Zombi" (which was a George Romero imitation), I didn't really enjoy them. I know Italian horror often disregards the plot, but the storyline and characters in his films were just far too thread bare even by the standards. This is why "Don't Torture a Duckling" surprised me. Its actually a very well made film with an engrossing murder mystery. Its possibly the best giallo ever made, only seriously rivaled by Dario Argento's entries into the genre. And unlike Fulci's previous giallo "A Lizard in a Woman's Skin", this never drags.

Fulci's direction here is quite good. He keeps the story moving at a good pace and maintains the viewer's interest throughout. Also, the conclusion to the mystery comes as a complete surprise to the audience. Plus, he adds some clever touches, such as the upbeat soul music during a particularly disturbing graveyard beating sequence. Overall, the violence here is restrained and only used when necessary for the story. The acting is good for the most part also, full of familiar faces from 70s Italian exploitation cinema. Both Thomas Milian and Barbara Bouchet are super cool throughout. The only weak link is Florinda Bolkan, whose performance is just far too over-the-top. Its the only laughable aspect of the film. "Don't Torture a Duckling" definitely comes with my recommendation and may be a good introduction to the giallo subgenre as a whole. (8/10) This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema – a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.

Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!

Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.

Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though – like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.

Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani – particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema. Lucio Fulci made a lot of great films throughout his career and the way that many of them featured a bucket load of gore lead to him earning the title 'The Godfather of Gore'. While Don't Torture a Duckling was made before Fulci became well known amongst gorehounds, and isn't all that gory; it's certainly a gritty and nasty little thriller, and for my money - the best film that Fulci ever made! Don't Torture a Duckling really is head and shoulders above a lot of the Giallo genre in terms of production values and unlike many of Fulci's later films, everything about this Giallo is great. The plot focuses on a small rustic community where dead bodies have began turning up. The murders are even more shocking because the victims are just young boys. Shortly after the police convict an innocent man of the crimes, a reporter named Andrea Martelli arrives in the village and decides to start investigating the murders on his own. Martelli soon encounters various suspects, including a sexy young lady named Patricia, a sinister priest and a local witch who enjoys making wax effigies and sticking pins into them.

While this film may not feature loads of gore, it does have two of Fulci's nastiest sequences to make up for it. The nastiest involves a woman being brutally slaughtered by a group of men in a cemetery, while the image of a man falling from a cliff and hitting any number of rocks on the way down is liable to turn some stomachs. Don't Torture a Duckling features an absolutely great Italian cast. Barbara Bouchet (a personal favourite of mine) is incredibly sexy in her role as Patricia, and gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in many later films. Tomas Millian is excellent as usual while the rest of the cast is well fleshed out by likes of Irene Pappas, Florinda Bolkan and Marc Porel. The cinematography on display is stunning and Fulci really gives the viewer the impression that he puts a lot of care and effort into every scene. The story plays out slowly, and it's always interesting as Fulci never allows the film to stray too much from the central plot line. There isn't a great deal of mystery towards the identity of the murderer; but Fulci almost manages to keep us guessing right up until the end and Don't Torture a Duckling does climax on a high. Overall, it's a shame that Fulci didn't make more films like this. Don't Torture a Duckling is his out and out best work and I insist that every Giallo fans sees it! Documentaries in which sons and daughters seek to understand a parent and, by the process, their own lives are not that uncommon. Also not uncommon are results that reflect lack of talent, a failure of introspection, an abundance of narcissism and, perhaps, an unsubtle quest for publicly-splashed revenge for countless past hurts, real and fantasized. What is unusual is a brilliant, fair and engrossing portrait of a fascinating parent and "My Architect: A Son's Journey" is that rare achievement.

Louis Kahn emigrated to this country as a child, his face irreparably and brutally scarred by an accident. He and his parents settled in Philadelphia where the talented youngster loved art and music. Soon he became enamored of buildings and decided only an architect's career would answer his creative abilities.

Kahn became an architect but as this film shows it took a long time before he attracted the attention of the leaders in his field. One architect suggests that he was a victim of the "yellow armband," that anti-Semitism that along with bias against women was long a disreputable aspect of the American profession of architecture.

When he did achieve notice, he was seen, clearly accurately, as a self-assured, workaholic prophet exclaiming unyielding demands that his vision and only his vision be realized. That inflexibility was the reason that while he drew wonderful plans for many buildings he built but a few. The interview with an aged gentleman who fired Kahn in Philadelphia because of his unacceptable dream of a transformed urban center where people left their cars on the perimeter and walked into the city is hilarious.

Kahn was a born teacher and some of the extensive archival footage here shows him with students, his voice steady but passionate, their gazes respectful and intense.

Many architects were interviewed by director, writer and project honcho Nathaniel Kahn, the architect's only son. Some are world famous - I. M. Pei, Robert A.M. Stone, Moshe Safdie, Frank Gehry and the still active nonagenarian, Philip Johnson. Their comments paint a vivid picture of this idealistic but in the end financially unsuccessful designer of buildings that blended the castles, fortresses and grand buildings of past centuries into designs for the present. Kahn's buildings are shown, among the most impressive being the Salk Research Laboratories in La Jolla, CA. To me his style has a neo-Romantic air deadened by too much blank space that repels rather than attracts human interaction.

But Kahn's son was after more than the story of his father, the architect. For many years Louis Kahn had three families: a wife with whom he had a daughter and two long-term relationships, one of which produced a daughter, the other the son. Kahn visited his son at the mother's home often but at the end of an evening mother and son would drive Kahn back to the marital home. Nathaniel clearly wanted to know about this unusual set of relationships but he doesn't appear to be scarred by what was certainly a strange affair for a little boy.

When Nathaniel was a young boy Louis Kahn died of a massive heart attack in the men's room of New York's Pennsylvania Station after returning from India where he had pitched one of his massive projects, another one that was never built. At that point his Philadelphia firm was at least $500,000 in debt and had he lived a trip to the federal bankruptcy court was probably in the offing.

Kahn left several monumental structures of which the government building in Bangladesh is clearly the biggest. A teary local architect hails Kahn for having created a building where democracy may (and hopefully will) flourish.

Fellow architect Moshe Safdie opines that there might have been something fitting in Kahn's suffering a mortal heart attack in a train station given his incessant globetrotting. I disagree: it's sadly ironic that Kahn should die in the faceless replacement for one of America's true architectural gems, the old Pennsylvania Station, wrecked to make way for a sterile replacement with no character and no continuation of civic memory.

There are a number of emotional moments filmed during the younger Kahn's journey, including with his half-sisters and his mother, but they're genuine and moving, not maudlin and staged. Historians of architecture will always study Kahn. His son found reasons to remember him as a flawed but very iconoclastic and ultimately private man.

9/10. My impression, having seen this documentary, is that Nathaniel Kahn ended up with more questions than he had before he made the film.

He took five years to make it, a labour of love and longing. I can only imagine the turmoil of the editing process, what to leave in, what to take out.

His father, the renowned architect Louis Kahn,comes across as a man too selfish and self-absorbed to be emotionally available to even one wife not alone three. But like many men of his character, he attracted women who were spellbound by the remoteness and entranced by the creativity.

One of his mistresses said he was "accessible" but that is never explored. Other comments by people who knew him well suffer the same fate. A pity.

The tension between the three half-siblings in the room of a home Louis designed is also palpable. The unsaid hovers over the conversation. The only tracks that his father left were in the buildings he left behind, some great, some not so great.

I was captivated by the music ship and the Salk Institute. Saddened by the baby mothers who got caught forever by his callous impregnations never more exemplified than what he said to the director's mother upon being told of her pregnancy - "not again!"

8 out of 10, beautifully filmed, genuine.

It appears, in this case at least, the son is not the father of the man. My Architect is a great film about Nathaniel Kahn's search for himself via the legacy of his famous Architect father, Louis Kahn, dead since 1974. The film builds slowly, but perfectly, and what starts out as a seemingly lost fortysomething's identity crisis unfolds into a beautiful tale with much deeper meaning with regard to the importance of love, loss, family and perhaps more importantly, our life's work.

I had never heard of Louis Kahn prior to this film, although I was vaguely familiar with some of his work. Through the words (both good and bad) of Louis Kahn's colleagues, you get a very good sense of what Nathaniel must have felt as memories are recalled and stories retold. Sometimes it seemed as though these people were telling Nathaniel how to feel about his father. As I listened to each recollection, my own opinion of this man would range from beautiful to horrible, sometimes in the span of a moment, so you get a good feel for the rollercoaster that Nathaniel's emotions must have been riding.

The final sequence in Bangladesh totally made the film for me. The reverence of which the people of Bangladesh spoke of Louis Kahn's work tied all the loose ends together nicely for me, and, hopefully, for Nathaniel.

I think Nathaniel Kahn finally found what he was looking for. What a tribute to his father! He set out on a quest to learn more about a man whom he knew little of, and by the end of the journey, I believe Nathaniel Kahn is content with what he learned and personally felt. The film is 5 years in the making, and a quarter of a century after his death, Louis I. Kahn's total commitment in his work - consistent strong desire to build buildings that are meaningful to humanity and timeless to the whole world, with insight into his life is proudly depicted by his son Nathaniel in the documentary "My Architect: A Son's Journey".

The film is by no means an anthology of Louis' work. There are plenty of books and archived materials that have records of Louis Kahn's projects and buildings. This documentary works like a mystery, writer-director and co-producer Nathaniel Kahn was searching for the man whom he briefly knew as his father.

The film is in chapters. In "Heading West," we're at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies at La Jolla, California. It's a sight worth beholding - Kahn's integral concept of building and environment, optimizing light for the scientists at work is amazing. From a former colleague who worked with 'Lou' 35 years ago, we hear about his meticulous attention to detail, also how 'rambunctious' he could be - certainly didn't mince words in his criticism. A memorable scene is when the camera pulled back wide and we see Nathaniel skating around at the plaza area of the Salk Institute - a tiny figure, like a child happily playing in the bowl of his father's hands.

The "Immigrant" segment brought us to meet Anne Tyng, the architect who collaboratively worked with 'Lou' and also bore him a daughter, Alex. Now at 80, Tyng's return with Nathaniel's film crew to the Bath House project at Trenton, New Jersey, was nostalgic. In "Go to sea," we get to see the Barge for American Wind Symphony Orchestra - all made of steel, and meeting Robert Boudreau, who was surprised by Nathaniel when he finally told him he's 'Lou's' son. Boudreau was touched, he said he had seen Nathaniel when he was six, with his Mom (Harriet Pattison), and he was not to tell anyone that Lou had a son. It was a 'chokingly' emotional moment of reunion.

Like his father "The Nomad," Nathaniel traveled to Jerusalem, and learned about the Synagogue project that his father began but not realized. He visited the wailing wall, and seeing his yarmulke kept falling off/being 'breezed off' his head gave me a sense that he need not be 'totally' Jewish to be his father's son. We continue with sitting down with his two half-sisters at the "Family Matters" segment. We also hear him conversing with his Mom at Maine, and from talking to previous office personnel at his father's office, we come to know how his father intensely worked and practically lived there, sleeping on a carpet on the office floor, weekends and all.

"The End of the Journey" brought us to Ahmedabad, India, to the Indian Institute of Management building. Talking with architect B.V. Doshe was a revelation. In the end, Nathaniel found a very much alive Louis Kahn, his father - his spirits live within him. This documentary is very much a tear-jerker for me. I was teary-eyed most of the time - it was very touching and am in awe of the man, the architect and his son, and the women in his life besides his famous works and buildings. Louis I. Kahn wanted to give his love to the 'whole world,' juggling work and three families (you might say he has three women in his life to keep his inspiration going). As Shamsul Wares, the architect at the Capital of Bangladesh complex (completed 9 years after 'Lou's' death) so poignantly noted: Louis Kahn has given the people of Bangladesh a lot, spending time at Bangladesh, understanding the culture of the place and people - as well as giving them democracy through what he has achieved, and for such a dedicated man, usually the people close to him he'd often miss seeing. It seems the price of being great comes with inevitable personal sacrifices.

This film reminds me of King Vidor's "The Fountainhead" 1949 (good dramatic story in B/W with music by Max Steiner), based on Ayn Rand's novel, with Gary Cooper as the uncompromising architect who stands by his own ideals, and Patricia Neal as the parallel supportive woman in his life.

Nominated for best documentary feature at 2004's Academy Awards, My Architect follows filmmaker Nathaniel Kahn in his quest to find out about his father, the legendary architect Louis I Kahn. Lou Kahn died in 1974, when Nate was 11 years old, leaving behind an incredible but limited body of work, unpaid debts and three separate families all living within a few kilometres of each other.

My Architect follows Kahn's life through chronologically examining his buildings, and interspersing their beauty with the story of a charismatic, but selfish and emotionally immature genius. As the son which Lou never publicly acknowledged during his lifetime, Nate has delicately placed himself in the story without overpowering the main focus.

When examining the magnificent Salk Institute in California, Nate evokes his father's mythic use of space and light in his buildings, making it a peaceful and fascinating experience for viewers. The shot of Nate rollerblading in Salk's smoky white central meeting place emphasises the building's harmony with nature. It's breathtaking. My Architect also covers the difficulty Louis Kahn had with getting his designs accepted. Several fantastical buildings exist only on paper, dismissed by more practical architects and property developers. It wasn't until Louis Kahn went to the East that his visions were enthusiastically embraced. In India, where he built the Indian

Institute of Management, a former co-worker describes him as a guru. In Bhangladesh, where he built the magnificent National Assembly Building, citizens consider him a father of democracy.

Watching My Architect is a wonderful way to begin or continue learning about architecture and the importance of space. But it's the irony of Lou Kahn's egotism combined with the transcendence of his work that will inspire you. 4 stars. When Nathaniel Kahn embarked into this voyage, he hardly knew who his father really was. By the end of the film, he found him and comes to terms with the strange life he lived as a child.

Louis Kahn was the father. He was an architect's architect. His designs were perhaps too complex, as he tried to create buildings that didn't conform with trends popular at that time. It is ironic that he never achieved the fame that came so easy to some of his contemporaries. He had a vision and he never strayed from it. We can see characteristics of his unique style in the buildings he left behind as a legacy to humanity. Every one of his creations are unique in that they don't imitate works from other architects.

Louis Kahn's life was rather complicated. He was married, yet he had affairs with two of his assistants that produced a girl and a boy, besides the legitimate daughter he had with his wife.

As a boy, Nathaniel Kahn's life was lived in a secluded area, away from his father, who only visited late at night. Louis Kahn never recognized these children, although it is very clear they all knew about the others existence.

It is tragic that Louis Kahn died alone in Grand Central Station when he was returning from a trip without making peace with the women and children he never acknowledged as his own by his side. He probably cared a great deal about all his children, but he remains an aloof figure throughout the film. We never get to know the man, although at the end, Nathaniel, in his quest to discover his father's life, finds most of the missing pieces of the puzzle.

This is a personal account on the life of an artist. Thanks to that son, who has the courage to tell the story, we are almost prying into the lives of Louis Kahn and his extended family. This is a profound and moving work about the creation of art, that which is uniquely human and cannot be produced by nature, the cost of genius and the search for transcendence and what in the end constitutes family, i.e, all of us. I was very much moved by the family discussion that Nathaniel had with his sisters about the shortcomings of their father as it was set in a beautiful home that seemed to radiate warmth that Lou had created. And although Esther seems so cold in her discussion about Lou's inability to make money you can appreciate how she at many points in his life must have been a counter-weight to his impulses. Nathaniel did a great job of showing how all of the people in Lou's life fit in and completed it and became as much a part of his work as his own genius. Yes even, or maybe especially, our failures make us who we are. And of course there are the buildings. I had only known Lou Kahn by name and did not really connect his name to his work, they are evidence of grace. Perhaps someday there will be a building where we will all fit, and it will certainly resemble a Lou Kahn building, perhaps the unbuilt temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps there is salvation On March 17, 1974, a man is found dead in the toilets at Manhattan's Penn Station. Although well-known, he cannot be identified because he scratched out the personal information in his passport and his body lays unclaimed at the city's morgue for three days. It turned out to be the body of what many consider one of the greatest American architects of the twentieth century, Louis I. Kahn. He died at the age of 73, on his way from India, where one of his greatest projects, the Institute for Management in Ahmedabad, was nearing completion.

One of the most influential post-war American architects, Louis Kahn's architectural legacy includes the house of parliament in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, the Yale Art Gallery, the Salk Institute in California and a kind of mobile "music boat", designed to give concerts in harbours in various cities around the world.

While celebrated as an architect, very little was known about his private life. In addition to his wife Esther, and their daughter, Sue Ann, Kahn was survived by two mistresses, Harriet Pattison and Anne Tyng, and their two children. All three families lived within miles of each other in suburban Philadelphia, but their paths never crossed until the funeral. His son, Nathaniel, the director of this film, was only 11 years old at the time, and had only a few memories of his father's weekly visits at Harriet Patterson, Nathaniel's mother, in Philadelphia. Twenty-five years later, he sets out on a journey to confront his father by visiting Kahn's buildings, talking to relatives and colleagues and visiting the places that played a role in Louis Kahn's life.

One of the most moving confrontations is when Nathaniel asks his mother, a landscape architect and mistress of Louis Kahn, why she kept up with playing second fiddle to his wife and never confronted him with this. Tears shed her eyes, but she has no regrets. "It was worth it." It's such an intensely sad moment. She's obviously shattered, treated as an outcast at his funeral, which she was forbidden to attend, it's almost as if she led a substitute life. It all feels strangely unreal. Another interview with Edward Bacon, Kahn's architectural nemesis, who was in charge of the rebuilding of his native Philadelpia in the fifties and sixties, almost suffers a stroke on the spot, when he is reminded of Kahn's unsavoury ideas about architecture. His son, Nathaniel, listens uncomfortably when a very senior Bacon literally screams with anger whenever Kahn's name comes up. The final scene is reserved for Kahn's grandest creation, the Capitol in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It took 23 years to complete, a vast and extraordinary building, of which the Bangladeshi are extremely proud. It's one of the very few national symbols with stature in this impoverished nation. Some of the interviews with the locals brought tears in my eyes, especially when they find out they are talking to - God forbid - the architect's own son!

The film is as much a personal journey as it is an account of Kahn's grand architectural legacy and is above all about the fruition of the film itself and film-making in general. Perhaps Louis I. Kahn faltered as a father, but these shortcomings in his personal life make for an all the more interesting portrait in this extraordinary film.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10 After visiting the Kimbell museum in Forth-Worth, Texas, USA, enjoying the art and the architecture (also of the adjacent Modern Art Museum), and having a delightful conversation with the knowledgeable bookstore lady, I purchased this a propos DVD with rather high expectations… and was not disappointed in the least.

The thematic approach, dramatic tension, revealing interviews, archival footage and stunning architecture are also mixed in a coherent whole to explore the life of the late iconic Louis I. Khan.

The documentary begins: contemplative classical music plays, archives are scanned with a reflective shadowy face superimposed, blurring letters symbolically referencing a train window passing a backdrop landscape — a journey —, focus and out of focus, the search eventually culminates to an article in a newspaper. Nathanial Khan reads from the front page of the New York Times where his father is simultaneously praised as the best American architect alive and his death announced.

"When I first read that obituary, I have to admit, I was looking for my own name. I was his child too, his only son. I didn't know my father very well. He never married my mother and he never lived with us (…) He died when I was eleven."

So years later, this illegitimate son is still haunted by unclear fragmented thoughts and feelings about his father who seems to be a great professional and public figure, but who's secretive personal life escapes him and affects him to the point where he intends to do something about it.

"For years, I struggled to be satisfied with the little pieces of my father's life I've been allowed to see, but it wasn't enough. I needed to know him. I needed to find out who he really was. So I set out on a journey, to see his buildings and to find whatever there was left of him out there. It would take me to the other side of the world, looking for the man who left me with so many questions."

So the documentary is two-fold, by a slow systematic discovery of the world-renown architect, we get to know: 1) his ideas, buildings and the architectural perspective and 2) his families, coworkers, people's life he affected and the human perspective

The DVD also offers added insight with a Q&A with the writer/director and additional footage that includes such great Louis I. Khan quotes as "Everything that everybody says is the truth. It's their truth. It might not be factual." and "A good idea that doesn't happen is no idea at all."

This movie is a journey of discovery. Self-discovery and discovery of a man, a great man, yet a human, imperfect like all of us. We get to know him through the eyes of an admiring and slightly bitter son, but with the openness and objectivity to really explore without making easy conclusions and without judging.

By key interviews with people who interacted with him in various capacity. We slowly put some pieces together until that final interview with this man from Bangladesh who really seems to bring it back home with visceral and sensible comments.

Brilliant architect, brilliant documentary. I never heard of architect, Louis Kahn, until this documentary. In this almost two hour documentary which goes very quickly, his son, Nathaniel Kahn, explores his father's life from Estonia to the slums of North Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia where he studied and taught. He travels to Bangladesh, Israel, Connecticut, Trenton, and La Jolla, California as well as New York City to explore his father's creative genius. Personally, Louis Kahn had three families including his wife, Esther, who refused to give him a divorce and their daughter Sue Ann. Nathaniel includes his family members. Louis also has another half-sister Alexandra Tynge from his father's previous relationship with Anne Tyne, a fellow architect. Louis' passion was his art. Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.

This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.

I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.

I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack... I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.

More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.

The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.

That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.

As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics. i think the title of the movie describes it well. if you are looking for a documentary on louis kahn and his work, you'll have to look somewhere else. although some of that is covered in this film.

of course, i eat up pretty much anything i'm fed, and i don't know much of the family history revolving around this case. so i believed what i was told about nathaniel and his father, etc.

for what this movie was, i thought it was pretty good. a little slow and grabbing for attention at time, i wish that nathaniel would have focused a little more on his father's work than his family drama (although much of the history was interesting, louis was a bit of a player).

this really is a journey through someone's life, and i was happy to tag along for the experience. a learning experience for me, and so it seems, for the filmmaker as well.

oh, and the footage of some of kahn's work is *stunning* An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.

Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat. Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow

My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7

What a thing to be fatherless. "My Architect: A Son's Journey" follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.

Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.

We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret.

To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but "architect" is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.

Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.

The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.

Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.

In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.

It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.

April 28, 2005 I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.

We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end.

His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.

Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie. Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael! I've been a fan of Rachael's since the beginning of 30MM on the Food Network, so I have seen her grow over the years. The minute I saw her interact with Oprah, I predicted that this show would happen, because I saw how taken Oprah is with her, and with good reason: she comes across as very natural, and willing to laugh at herself, which is very engaging. The set is appealing, and there are some fresh ideas (I love the lazy Susan that the audience sits on). There's just enough of a celebrity segment, and she stays away from controversy and debate (there's enough of that on daytime TV). The show is a lighthearted escape, and she hasn't moved away from her strength (cooking), which is very good planning. I know there are people who hate her and hate her show; that's OK, you can't please everybody. And somehow, I think Rachael knows and accepts that. So just turn the channel; I don't think she'd mind. Rachael Ray appeals to viewers of all ages and backgrounds, beginner cooks or "seasoned" veterans. You'll be dazzled with a variegated presentation of delectable yet time-efficient dishes, jazzed up with her unique brand of spunk and candor. Most importantly, this hip chic keeps her audience drawn in by stimulating all five senses. Let me explain. Her program provides enlightenment to your visual sense, auditory sense, and sense of feeling through a rich, luminous ambient backdrop, light-hearted, casual, yet engaging topics, eye-pleasing, appetite wrenching meals, and her hearty smile and laugh, which will simmer down anyone's nerves.(Sense of smell and taste are rewarded when you test out the recipes in your own kitchen and among your own family and friends). Check out her show guys. Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. OK, so I loved Rachael Ray before, but now, I ADORE her! How innovative. I love that she has a cooking section- I admit that occasionally I skip that part, only because it makes me WAAAY too hungry! But I also love that you can get the next day's grocery list on her website. I love that she has regular helpers and that she's made some of her viewers become her regulars. I love how personable she is and how creative she is. I also like how she does her Mystery Guests. She just seems so much more genuine than so many other talk show hosts. She still gets a little starstruck occasionally and I love that. I love that she talks about her personal life on there and reminds people how happy she is. She's even mentioned tabloids before and it's so funny! She also has the funniest stories! Anyway, I'm a fan for life. Even my 2 year old knows who Rachael Ray is and he loves her too! Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.

What I got from this was the same as what I got from "The 400 Blows" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny ("I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.

The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word "gay" or "hustler." What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie "getting used" to the job.

Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.

The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, "woteva," and continues.

You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), "So...can you help me out?" The man says sure. "I don't mean my pants!" 10/10 I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.

Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.

Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!

The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).

Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.

FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".

As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat") In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful "acting" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly "innovative"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look "cool". Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.

The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.

There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.

Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.

Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.

At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul. A heap of human flesh lies asleep on a red pillow. This is the hunk of naked meat that is "Little Joe", a New York hustler who lives with his bisexual wife and baby child. The film follows a day in his life, after he's woken from sleep by his wife demanding that he go out and do the traditional male thing - be a breadwinner. But the use she wants to put the bread to is to pay for her new girlfriend's abortion. We certainly aren't in the traditional family unit here...

After playing with his child, Joe hits the streets to cruise for johns. The clients come thick and fast: the ordinary gay man who wants to meet him again because they "work well together", the old English classical scholar who pays $100 to see Joe pose like an ancient Greek athlete; the female topless dancer who blows Joe then boasts about being raped; the ageing gym bunny who doesn't think that what he and Joe do together is queer. After a hard day's work, Joe returns home exhausted, only to be put down by his wife and the girlfriend. He goes back to sleep as they harp and undermine him.

Flesh is fascinating as it takes what is a traditional classical mainstream structure - it has an inciting incident (the money for the abortion) and set-up, a confrontation and a resolution (albeit a very downbeat one), even a protagonist with a strongly motivated goal, and then proceeds to concentrate on the details of the day to day routine of these people who are perfectly ordinary to themselves but extraordinary to most "mainstream" people. It all seems very authentic and natural - it's hard to see the acting, the actors are so fully being their roles - but yet the whole thing is a piece of cunning artifice - a beautifully drawn portrait or an intricately carved statue. Director Morrissey carefully plants every incident, every encounter around his theme of human flesh become packaged commodity but with such cunning slight of hand that you almost don't notice him doing it. The wife "packages" Joe's sexual organ, the old Englishmen laments a long gone order of classical beauty which created art and poetry from human fleshly beauty, the transvestite friends of the stripper package themselves as women whilst reading a Hollywood magazine in which "real" women are packaged as products; the gym bunny buys Joe's friendship and affection, thinks artificial porn is real and can't tell, as we can't, that Joe is performing his friendship and intimacy for the cash. The film itself presents itself as the ne plus ultra of cinematic realism but what we might as well be dealing with here is fine art or an early example of concept art.

The genius - a word not lightly used - of Morrissey was to find a way of taking Warhol's arty pretensions to film-making, which were interesting sure but boring as hell, and making them into saleable products which remain amongst the most intriguing works of cinema art ever made - commercial cans labelled "Flesh" and "Trash" and "Heat" with a product label - "Andy Warhol" - which sells an idea about the product as much as the product itself. Yet just as you reel from Morrissey's cynicism, you are spellbound by his ability to still maintain the highest of standards and depth of meaning. The constant what seem like camera flashes continually draw attention to the filmic nature of what one is witnessing, yet you get drawn into the illusion all the same - Flesh is surely one of the most extraordinary pieces of cinema magic to ever spellbind an audience. "Flesh" is hard to describe with a solid summary because, well, there basically isn't a plot. The film pretty much just shows the day in the life of a hustler named Joe (Joe Dallesandro, who is in the underrated Louis Malle picture "Black Moon") as he makes his rounds, sleeping and modeling around to cash in the bucks to pay for his wife's lover's abortion.

Not much, and since the film is quite a lengthy eighty-nine minutes, you would think that "Flesh" would be a slow-moving and boring hour and a half. You think wrong. The film is made up of improv, no screenplay and the angles of the film are pretty on-the-spot as well, yet there is some kind of truth beneath every frame that gives the film its dementedly entertaining vibrancy. Everything makes sense and serves purpose in what happens to Joe in this one day. He meets a regular john that is obviously lying when saying he wants to see Joe again, a photographer who talks so much that it bores Joe to tears, two drag queens who read out of tabloid magazines as Joe receives head from a mousy-voiced addict who mumbles on later about how she wants to get a breast lift, an old friend of Joe who reads male-on-male rape stories to him, and then a final scene with his wife and her lover that eerily echoes the scene at the start of the film (one of the best openings to a film I have seen in quite some time) – and tells completely what the film is overall philosophically about.

It's astounding how the film's messages and styles feel almost timeless, even though it's set in 1960s New York City, in real time, in real place, and is filmed like an obvious independent flick from that era. It's certainly not a film that could be made today, which adds on to its delicious mystique.

Fueled by unexpected jump cuts; and absent of a score to advance its images – "Flesh" is about as raw, gritty as a film about male prostitution in the 60s can get. I was delighted to see this gem of a film available on DVD. Despite being a 'TV Movie' and shot on 16mm, it provided a wonderful insight into the different types of people who wanted to become a 'London cabbie', along with their foibles and family commitments. Even the most hapless of candidates, 'Titanic' with his uncommunicative wife, it was possible to see how Jack Rosenthal was able to craft an often funny and sometimes tragic snippet of London life into an entertaining 90 minutes.

Originally premiered as a vehicle for Mick Ford (pun intended), the quality of the acting from an ensemble cast including Michael Elphic, Nigel Hawthorne, Jonathan Lynn, Lesley Joseph and Maureen Lipman (Mrs Rosenthal) meant Mick may have had top billing, but he had to work hard in the face of such competing talents.

Even 15 years after its 1991 release, it is still as fresh as ever! Just to correct something in a previous review here, I don't believe this film is only for people who know London, it's a case of a very specific situation being used to make universal comments. Jack Rosenthal says in an introduction to the published script that it was meant to be about characters who, by going though this gruelling Knowledge test, gain some measure of self-knowledge.

I think it's one of the most perfectly-written dramas I've seen: technically it's supremely adept at conveying quite complex details but it's also joyous in how it involves you. At the start you know no more about this London Knowledge test than the main characters but you get scooped up right along with them until it's vitally important to you. You become tremendously proud of those characters who succeed, and you are crushed for those who don't. Especially one whose downfall, without giving anything anyway, will make your hands fly to your face.

Also just as a point of fact, Nigel Hawthorne's character, Mr Burgess, is called the Vampire, not Dracula. You don't need to know this, I'm not saying it's crucial, but it's a measure of the drama: once you've seen this, you will want everyone to and you will evangelise about its every detail.

I hope you get to see it.

William I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it! I first saw "The Knowledge" during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.

That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.

I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy. As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched "The Knowledge" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.

Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).

As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.

All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of "The Knowledge". The Knowledge is a typical British comedy for the period. To someone who is not familiar of the process of becoming a London cabby the film is bound to seem very average with a few laughs from a few old faces.

The Knowledge however comes into its own for Knowledge boys like myself or their wife's who know what these poor individuals are going through. And find yourself comparing incidents of your own to that of the characters. Thank goodness for the Coen Brothers. Their success has brought them bigger budgets,but hasn't rid them of their creativity. I had planned on seeing another movie, but it was sold out so I went to this one instead. By the time it began, I had forgotten what movie I was there to see. I was surprised in more ways than one. This movie is hilarious, but they don't make any cheap jokes just to get the laughs. The writing is brilliant, and delivered with great skill by George Clooney (after this, nobody can say he's just a pretty face) and the rest of the cast. It can be appreciated on many levels, whether you remember the Odyssey or not. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was this clever. I've seen others I would describe as beautiful, intriguing, funny and charming, all of which also describe "Oh Brother," but this movie reminded me of older seinfeld episodes where all the subplots came together in the end. You can feel that their journey is building up to something, but you can't tell what. And the Coen brothers do not fail us, the end is certainly not disappointing. It's surprising, and ties up all the loose ends neatly, without wearing the story out. The Coen Brothers have truly outdone themselves in this wonderful saga of three escaped convicts. Though it is based on "The Odyssey," the ancient work of Homer, you do not have to have read "The Odyssey" to be able to follow the story. The brothers Coen have woven a tapestry of celluloid and aural delights! The soundtrack is intrinsic to the film, indeed it is as though the soundtrack is the product and the film is wrapping paper. Each character is wonderfully exploited and harkens back to the days of old when films were rich with character actors whose very appearance in the film adds richness, texture and authenticity. George Clooney is magnificent as the grease haired Everett Ulysses McGill, a honest con on the run whose pompous linguistics and vocabulary are comical and endearing. O Brother, Where Art Thou is easily the best Coen film to date as well as Clooney's best effort. Clooney is good enough to warrant a best actor nomination as is Tim Blake Nelson's portrayal of the dimwitted friend Delmar, while the film itself is deserving of a Best film nod. Not being a fan of the Coen Brothers or George Clooney, anyone can see the skepticism I took into the theater. Once again, someone in Hollywood dares to create something different. This time it was those zanie (for a temporary lack of a better word) Coens doing "their thing" to one of the great works in literary history. Who would've ever thought Homer had this in mind? I don't know where this film is going to fit in the history books of Hollywood, but it will be in both mine and many others DVD or VHS library. It is one of those films that you can watch over and over. The story is brilliantly written. Clean and entertaining, with a couple of Gumpesque brushes with fame, great performances by Clooney, Turturro, Nelson, and a brief but hilarious Holly Hunter. Being born in Mississippi and raised in other parts of the south, I wish more people would poke a little fun at us like this. They even invoke a soundtrack fitting for the rural south. You are NOT doing anything better this weekend, go see this movie!

I have walked out of a Coen movie before and not quite known how to feel. The two best examples of that are The Big Lebowski and Fargo. Lebowski was so ridiculously original and so filled with strange humour that I had to like it. On the other hand, there were some unnecessary reveries with flying people and killer bowling balls that just didn't seem to fit the mold of the film. Still, I liked the film and now own a copy of it. Fargo made me howl with hysterics, sometimes I wasn't sure why I was laughing so hard that it made me cry, but nonetheless I was. There were many seemingly strange characters in Fargo, but upon further investigation, they were really just real people talking about real situations. That is why the man with the shovel ( or was it a broom ) was so side-splittingly funny when he was telling the police officer about some funny looking man down at the bar the other night. And that is also why the theater erupted in laughter when he then says that there are some funny looking clouds coming in. (I own a copy of this film too) The Coen's have a way of masking their film and their characters as being somewhat eccentric and perhaps a little off the wall. But if you look closer at some of those same characters that seem zany, you will always find that in some strange way, they all ring true. That is what is quite exceptional about O Brother Where Art Thou? This is a film that is out there. I mean it is not even in the same ballpark as a traditional film. I reviewed the film Shaft this past summer and in it I said that Shaft was an okay film that I have seen a thousand times before. But you can not say that about a Coen Brother's film and you most certainly can not say that about this one.

This film has everything in it from a jail break, crooked southern politicians, muses, references to what I can only assume are historical figures, riverside baptisms, bank robberies, violence towards animals, singing flocks of religious fanatics, KKK, lynch mobs and so on. There are obviously many references to Homer's Odyssey in here as well, but I wouldn't know that because I have never read Homer's Odyssey or even knew one thing about it. Every other newspaper reviewer seems to know all about it and they think that this cynicism and almost spoof-like quality towards it makes the film that much better. Well coming from a guy who doesn't know anything about it, I can tell you that it is still an entertaining film. There were times when again, as is usual for a Coen film, I wasn't sure why I was entertained or laughing, but I was.

This is a road picture where three men travel along the way to find a hidden treasure that Clooney says he has hidden to his two other cell mates. He has to take them along because they were also chained to him when they had their chance to escape.

I like all the principal actors in the film and many of them are Coen cronies. It was nice to see Goodman again. It was nice to see Hunter and especially Turturro who seems to have a place in every Coen film. It's too bad they didn't find a place for Steve Buscemi but that is a different story all together. But back to Clooney. The man just has charisma. He is a one hell of an actor as well and here he is not quite as zany as the others but even he has his own idiosyncrasies. His work here is quite awesome and I really hope this shows that he is capable of playing any range of character.

Now after heaping all this praise on the film, let me just say this as well. I didn't really enjoy the film at first. I found it to be quite tedious and a little boring. There were too many ideas in here and not enough care went into harnessing them for all what they were worth. But then the film began to grow on me. It took a while but it did grow on me. I don't think this is their best film, but it is still a good one and I am giving it a 8.5. But the reason that I do recommend this film is for one reason only.

Every day you can go look into the paper and look at the films that are playing and say to yourself, seen it, seen it, oh, seen it last year, that is the same as this film and that is the same as that film. Most films have been recycled in some form or another. Not the Coen's films. They have not been recycled and if they have I don't know about it. That is reason enough to see something that they put out. Originality counts for a lot in my books. The Coens are original and they are good. And that is not common in todays cinema. Enjoy them while they are allowed to make films. Because you don't get vision like this in many films, so when you do, enjoy it! Having seen most of the Coen Brothers previous films I expected something different and slighty off centre. OBWAT is certainly those things, but it also has a heart as big as..well..as big as Mississippi. It is one of the most plainly enjoyable movies to have come out in recent times, intelligent, well-crafted, clever and superbly acted.

Characters are delivered in their myriad shades by a group of marvellous actors. George Clooney winning me over completely with his Clark Gable-ish looks and character. Having only ever seen him in Three Kings and his Thin Red Line cameo, I am now a fan. More comedy please George.

John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson ably assist, especially Nelson. If ever "The Simpsons" is made into a movie then he must be a natural to play Cletus the slack-jawed yokel. I don't think there is a performance that falls short of excellent from the entire cast. My special favorite is Stephen Root as the blind Radio Station Man.

Great old-timey music, a jiggy type dance by Clooney that I am trying to learn, and a feel of depression era southern US enhanced by sepia-like photography make this the best movie I've see so far this century. The only drawback to the film is that it has almost sent me broke buying the soundtrack, the DVD and a DVD player to play it on....it's THAT good!

This was the best film I saw in the year 2000. The Cohen brothers have never let me down before, and they certainly didn't this time either.

It's one of those rare movies these days - it's witty, intelligent and vastly entertaining. I left the cinema with a warmth in my heart. Of course, there's lot of Cohen stuff in there - odd characters and peculiar gadgets, well-developed plot and magic camerawork. But no Cohen film is resembling any other Cohen film, if you overlook the general quality of them, of course.

The big surprise for me was that Clooney is so good. But the true master performance in this movie comes from Tim Blake-Nelson. But the rest of the cast is superb too.

A film that is lightweight comedy with a musical touch that evolve it's story round rednecks and old time country music - dripping with wit and intelligence. Thats a very unlikely combination. But it's exactly what this picture is. I was into the movie right away. I've seen the other Coen movies, with the exception of Raising Arizona, and I've noticed that each of their movies has a color. Fargo is gray/white, Lebowski is bright orange, and this movie is a pleasant yellow.

The bright pleasant qualities of this movie start right away. Soon the look is accompanied by the great, great music. It's the old folk sound, the kind of music that was written during a time when music was enjoyed as a part of day to day life. Enjoyed by everyone, chain-gangs, church choirs, and even prison escapees.

Now, about the prison escapees. I don't know what crime their characters could have possibly committed, as they are a very very friendly group of guys. Clooney is fantastic, completely nailing his role.

Go see this as soon as possible. I believe that it can be enjoyed by anyone at some level. For some reason, the theater I was in was full of old ladies and old men, and they loved it.

You'll love it too, I promise. I was compelled to get my hands on the soundtrack right away. The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson/introduction to bluegrass music.

Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.

Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is. My husband received DVD of OBWAT for Christmas and it was the best gift we received! We watch it every time we need to laugh and so far we have viewed it 12 times!The scenery in this movie is beautiful and the music is outstanding!We also purchased the soundtrack and we play it in our vehicles and at home when ever we need a pick me up and that too is daily!If anyone needs a suggestion for a good gift for movie lovers this movie is it!The characters are hilarious , charming , and their facial expressions are too funny to describe!I have always been a fan of George Clooney but now I am also a fan of Tim Blake Nelson(Delmar ) and John Turturro (Pete)and am now looking for them in other movies! You gotta see this movie!!! This film makes Clooney. All his films combined before this have all been based on the same character. This film he transcends his previous body of work and proves his capability as a top notch actor. The soundtrack defeats most one-handedly. The brothers have truly made a classic. One to own and watch repeatedly. The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure. About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like "O Brother". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)

PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun... I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale.

I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.

I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors. I originally saw this several years ago while I was sitting on the couch and got stuck watching it on HBO. With the remote out of my reach I decided to go with it and was awaiting a miserable movie that I had been avoiding for a year. So it started off and I wasn't very optimistic about it, but after about ten minutes I found myself laughing. The complete opposite as I was expecting. The comedy was smart, the acting pretty good considering, the cast worked very well together, and the story (though slightly awkward and fake) was actually quite entertaining.

Three convict brothers manage to escape their sentence and eventually go in search of their fortune. The movie is set in the 1930's. So along the way, they encounter a number of funny and interesting charatcers. All have a different story or achievement they are striving for. Really the majority of the movie may seem random. Some may say it was pointless and boring, but if you look for the smart comedy (and occasionally stupid) that is integrated into the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one.

I liked the performances given by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson. All of them did very well in their roles, an they worked great together. But to finish this off, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a smart, funny, and a movie adventure that I wouldn't let pass up. I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10 They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.

This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from "Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame" to "I don't understand, Big Dan." Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.

Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing. This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :) I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.

I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).

There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.

Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris The Coen's strike again. I had no presuppositions going in and I was amazed at the bizarre telling of a good-bad guy story. Although Clooney is easily replaceable in this, his cornball style is welcome. Turturro and Nelson are dead ringers. And I loved "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" as performed by the "Soggy Bottom Boys". Catchy tune...

8 of 10 'O Brother, Where Art Thou' is a gleeful retelling of Homer's 'Odyssey', set in 1930s Mississippi and rampant with splendid quirkiness that is the trademark of the brothers Coen. Three hapless convicts make their escape to find treasure--and more than their share of adventure--in this delightful film. George Clooney is in fine, ingenuous form as the chatty, amiable leader of the trio; but the real acting kudos go to John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson as his goofy but lovable cohorts, dubbed the 'Soggy Bottom Boys' by Clooney's character after they receive baptism by full immersion in a river. The three cut a record under that homespun nom-de-plume for the cash, and unwittingly become overnight sensations with veritable 'rock star' status. The film is accompanied by enough music and songs to almost qualify it as a musical. And there are some incredible feats of film-making here: the scene at the KKK rally is a real doozy, and is so similar to the scene when Dorothy's friends rescue her from the witch's castle in 'The Wizard of Oz' that it almost amounts to cinematic plagiarism. And what an amazing work of plagiarism it is! Without giving away the ending, I must say the climax of the movie is one of the most breathtaking sequences put to film in recent memory (on a par with the spectacular finale of 'Magnolia', another one of my favorites). 'O Brother' is a must-see, a perfect 10! This has got to be the best movie I've seen. You definately have to watch it more than once to find all of the humor and twists. I'm no fan of George Clooney, but he shines here. The real performance comes from Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro as Pete and Delmar. One of the few movies that I own. After seeing the 'oh so acclaimed' Fargo and thinking it was nothing more than average, I was wandering if it would be a good idea to rent another Coen 'masterpiece'. This time I was much less disappointed than I was with Fargo and I must say that most of the credit for that goes to the good jokes and the good acting of George Clooney. Well done Mr. Clooney, make more of these and less 'Perfect Stormish' movies. You can act and you showed it here.

7 out of 10 It started off weird, the middle was weird, and the ending was weird, but I really, really liked it. A modern day version of Homer's Odyessy but that is really irrelevant. Interesting story and casting. Clooney was great and I applaud him for taking on such an adverterous role - so unlike anything he has done or ever will do again. Lots of surprise stars - why isn't Holly Hunter in more. Do something different tonight and watch this really different and unexpected flick. It takes a rare movie to get better each time you see it. O Brother does that and then some. The first time I saw it, I have to admit I had never seen anything like it. Then I wanted to see it again, and now I'm up to double digits with this great movie, the Coen brothers' finest movie they've ever done, with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy coming in a tight second and third for me.

George Clooney gives the performance of his career playing Ulysses Everett McGee, a fast-talking know-it-all escaped convict who really doesn't know that much at all. Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro are the perfect sidekicks for Clooney, particularly Nelson and his portrayal of Delmar, a loyal albeit uneducated fellow escapee. John Goodman is my favorite bit character as Big Dan, perfect. It reminds me of his part in Raising Arizona, he's just a perfect actor for this role. Coen brothers' favorites Holly Hunter and Charles Durning also provide memorable performances.

Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their trade. It's not like they try to win Academy Awards every time they make a film, they just try and tell a story that they want to tell, and it's entertaining. It's a loose adaptation of the Odyssey, and I mean loose for all of you Homer fanatics. It's just great.

The most amazing part of this movie though is the coloring. I've watched how they got the dusty feel to the movie and I am still in awe just thinking about it. The coloring does become an important part of the movie. Great great movie. This movie was sooooooo good! It was hilarious! There are so many jokes that you can just watch the movie over and over and not get tired of it. John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson were awesome as Pete Hogwallop and Delmar! I love those guys! I love the adventures they went on, too. I definitely recommend this movie.

Also, the music in this movie is terrific! I love singing along with all of the songs! I can't say I enjoyed this as much as "The Big Lebowski" or "Raising Arizona," and felt a little slighted, but "O Brother" is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal.

Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or "The Dukes of Hazzard" or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like "A Bronx Tale." When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for "The Perfect Storm"--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).

Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song "A Man of Constant Sorrow." The DVD also contains the music video for that song.

Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out.

My score: 7 (out of 10) It might be a stretch saying this as a die-hard Carlin fan, but the material, both written and as performed, in It's Bad for Ya is some of the best late-era material yet. At 70 Carlin bounces back from the level of despair (and some of the stumbles in the act itself) from Life is Worth Losing to a special that is firmly structured but loose and playful- or as much as the "old f***" can get- and is continuously, ceaselessly, funny. And funny as in reminiscent of what some of us had going on when watching Back in Town or 'Diseased' the first time. The material, even if sounding at times a tinge of the previously done (i.e. the whole bit on children in school and camp like the Children segment in Diseased), is always fresh and with such a sting of truth to everything that it scalds the mind while (here goes) tickling the funny bone.

Going from the topic of death (how long to wait to scratch off a name from the book? six weeks, unless if on the computer scheduler), the facets of communication, looking down from Heaven, spots of God (naturally), kids, and just troublesome gestures involving hats in religion and if people really have "Rights" make up the bulk of the special, centered around the premise that what's bad for you, plain and simple, is BS. Total, complete BS, which as we also learn (or if you've really learned it you're like the kid waiting at the street corner for a week following dropped off not-quite randomly by the parent) holds the country together. Carlin isn't necessarily angry though, even if disdain seems to spout out at most turns, even just to observe how horrifying children's teeth coming in look. It's skepticism tinged with the feeling that everything is NOT going to be "fine".

What it comes down to is this: Carlin is to dirty, witty, cautionary stand-up comedy what Yoda is to Jedis everywhere, which is a small spark of hope via crystal clear wisdom in a world where it's pretty damn hard to get any. At the least, we get classic GC - outrageous lines and bits from the man's 13th (or is it 14th) comedy special, including as far as an eyebrow-raising observation on people who play Mozart music during a birth! It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up. Mr. Carlin left our common forum in June of 2008, shortly after going to the hospital for pains in the chest (he had a history of heart trouble). The media, and comics everywhere covered the loss more than I or he would have EVER expected ... but, he was the Grandfather of observational comedy.

THIS recording was his last production and contains a large section dedicated to the topic of death and the prospects of life thereafter. Filming of the project occurred shortly after his seventieth birthday, which he was happy to have attained (observed?). I have followed Carlin's career from the days of fuzzy black and white television, and enjoyed his topical record albums.

It is a privilege for ANY Carlin fan to at least see (if not own a copy) of this particular show. He was still fast moving, and with great timing, even at 70! As he would say,,, he is NOT "smiling down from Heaven on you". If he's doing anything at all it's not taking harp lessons; perhaps he's looking up!!! This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his "best" work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.

Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.

If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert. My brother got me hooked on Carlin back in the 70s. I always loved his observational humor. That is, looking at every day things and finding the humor in it, like asking the question,"Have you ever tried to throw away an old waste basket? You can't do it! They keep bringing back to you!" And asking questions like why is the word kill more acceptable then the "F" word, while making prefect sense with the discussion.

However, during the 90s his stuff was less funny, and more angry. What he seemed to be doing was holding a mirror to society's face and say 'take a look!' At this point, his shows were less of a comedy show, and more of a gripe session. But in all fairness he always made a tremendous amount of sense. He really made you think.

Here was Carlin old and new. He starts out about the fun one could have by getting old, and later slamming the the state of the world. Again making perfect sense.

This was his best since "Jammin' in New York", and as it turns out his last.

I think what 'The Shootist' was to John Wayne, or 'A Prairie Home Companion' to Robert Altman, 'It's Bad For Ya' is to George Carlin. A fond farewell to a true great icon. Love him, or hate him, I think he will be remembered. For those of you who like stand-up comedians you must have heard about George Carlin. He is really one of the best comedians alive so you must know him.

But he died already, God rest him in peace. Or Hell. He didn't believe too much in religion so he might as well chose Hell to live eternity. HAHA, just joking, don't take it serious!

It's bad for ya!, it's one of the latest works of George Carlin, before his death--

believe me, one of his best works, a must for any fan and an almost best-of of all George Carlin's jokes. It's not a best-of... but it's really amusing.

It has less political and religious jokes. It's only to have a great time!

Editing is very good. It's not a concert, so, it shouldn't have quick changing of shots... the slow fading to other shot was well done. Fading is the best option in terms of editing! George Carlin is probably my favorite comedian. I have seen so many of his specials and even had the opportunity to see him perform live. He had a certain cynicism that always appealed to me. His last 2 specials (Life is Worth Losing especially and Complaints and Grievances) have lacked a certain spirit and content. George appeared overweight, old and tired (not to mention coming out of rehab). "I SAID NOT TO MENTION IT"! Anyway. Life is Worth Losing was especially tragic as he was overweight, disgruntled, coming off of rehab (there we go again...) and extremely unfunny. If there was a way to feel sorry for a comedian without heckling him off stage, George achieved it with Life is Worth Losing. It is as if the New Millennium and Post 9/11 America was trampling George's spirit. The bs had become too large to manage.

The comeback is partially successful with It's Bad for Ya! This special is the transmutation completed. George is no longer trying to rekindle his glory days. He is in full acceptance of his age, being old and dealing with the looming prospects of death. He has accepted being a crusty old SOB and is relishing in it. This is better than his previous specials, yet far from Jammin' in New York. It is a little tragic. His observations are not cutting edge anymore and seem more Andy Rooney than Lenny Bruce. George isn't George anymore. He is no longer criticizing us but is the man in the high castle pointing out how things were and how dissimilar modern life is.

This is an improvement over the previous two specials, but George does not, as of yet, recoup his old glory (if ever). He has been reduced from critical social and political stinging commentary to mostly personal peeves. When he goes political, he still has something to say. It is heavily derived (especially if you have seen any of his previous work), but it still works somehow, as opposed to his random rantings which lack a certain relevance outside of the baby boom generation. The last 25 minutes is the best this special has to offer.

For now I will worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci that George can recreate himself as a cutting edge septuagenarian. It's a 50/50 chance. Life seems to have become more tedious for George and his "art" is now his life. This is a step in the right direction from his previous 2 specials, but is far from his old self. Where does he go from here? He may never recoup but maybe he can further metamorphosing/refine this new ornery old man routine. Heres to hoping for 7 more words you can't say on TV or at least a windmill he can handle. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of "Cabaret" can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of "Cabaret" follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in "Cabaret"), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if "Cabaret" had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same. I have just seen this delightful classic again after many years, the next to last film directed by Henry Cornelius, who died three years later at the age of only 45 (the same age at which the film's male star Larry Harvey was also to die in 1973). Three future directors were in the crew: Jack Clayton (Associate Producer), Guy Green (cinematographer), and Clive Donner (editor). This film is based upon the autobiographical story 'Goodbye to Berlin' by the well-known British author Christopher Isherwood, which was first turned into a play by John van Druten, then made into this film, then turned into a musical, 'Cabaret', and finally filmed as 'Cabaret', which brought the amazing Liza Minelli to world attention, with her voice which can shatter a glass at the distance of a mile. Isherwood appears as a character in the film under his own name. He was gay, but in those days that was illegal and could land him in prison, so he disguises his proclivities under the description of being what he calls 'a confirmed bachelor'. This is the key to his Platonic relationship with the wildly eccentric, wacky, promiscuous, ever-cheerful and thoroughly unique character whom he calls Sally Bowles. The portrait of Sally Bowles in this film is a tour-de-force by the young Julie Harris, who sweeps every scene into a magical and captivating web of sparkling personal charm. What a vehicle for an actress with plenty of charm of her own! It is one of the great cinematic performances of the 1950s. Isherwood is played to perfection by the young Lawrence Harvey, in a finely-judged performance which never allows the comedy to go over the edge, and even the moments of farce bordering on slapstick remain somehow 'almost believable'. Larry is so funny at portraying a wimpish hypochondriac. What an irony, considering the total lack of hypochondria shown by his bravery and stoicism in the last year of his life as he died from terminal stomach cancer and behaved with such dignity and lack of complaint. I knew him well in the last three years or so, and he was a generous, warm, and modest person. He adored his little girl Domino, now alas also tragically dead.This film was his finest early performance, to be followed by his spectacular work in 'Room at the Top' (1959), 'Summer and Smoke' (1961) and 'The Manchurian Candidate' (1962). Larry was often undervalued in his lifetime because he was too handsome, was often cast as a cad, and glamour boys are not always accepted as good actors, but many of the finest actresses played opposite him, and they were in no doubt of his abilities, and he was a strong lead in many of the most important films of his time. If he had lived beyond middle age, he would have gone from strength to strength and become a 'grand old man' of the screen. Sitting in his house in Hampstead one day, he gave me a glass of his usual white wine from a huge barrel which he had brought from some foreign cellar. I said he always gave me such delicious wine, what was it? He proudly answered that it was a Sancerre which he had chosen himself at the vineyard in France and had shipped over specially. He then added with extreme wistfulness: 'You know, I've been waiting for four years for someone to comment on it and ask me what it is, and you are the first person who has ever done so.' What mattered to him was to be recognised for having taste in wine,and his more glamorous friends had denied him that satisfaction. In this film, Anton Diffring gives a touching early performance as an earnest young man (later he was to have to play Nazi officers far too much, poor fellow), and the young Shelley Winters plays a rich German Jewish girl, in her usual noisy but effective manner, but it was not too difficult, as she was a noisy Jewish girl herself anyway. This film has such an air of joie de vivre about it, that it is pure delight. This British film version of the stage play I AM A CAMERA is based on Christopher Isherwood's "Berlin Stories." This is the source material for the famous musical CABARET.

Julie Harris, a major stage actress of her day, reprises her 1951 Tony Award winning role as Sally Bowles. She's a far cry from the Liza Minnelli character but the basic "Sally" is all here despite the various film codes that would have blocked this story from being filmed in Hollywood. Harris is perhaps stagy but she's also quite good as the madcap and maddening Sally. Her singing number is obviously dubbed (by Marlene Dietrich no less) although Harris apparently sings for herself in other moments.

Laurence Harvey (with the very ugly hair) plays Isherwood with zero charm and can't even make the character interesting. Shelley Winters does little with the role of Natalia (Marian Winters won a supporting Tony for the play), and Anton Diffring is OK as Fritz. Ron Randell plays the caddish Clive but seems a tad loud. Lee Seidl is funny as the landlady.

Yet despite the overall staginess and cheap look, Harris takes center stage and she is amazing. This film was released the same year as EAST OF EDEN in which Harris gives a glowing performance as Abra. Comparing the two performances gives a good look at the talent Miss Harris possesses. These two characters couldn't be more unalike. Harris' Sally preens and prances about and growls out a very lascivious laugh. She also acts circles around the boring Harvey.

Without the music and with a familiar storyline, many viewers may find little here to recommend this film, but it's a great chance to see the great Julie Harris repeating what was probably a very shocking role in 1951. Turning Isherwood's somewhat dark and utterly brilliant novel into light comedic romp could easily have been a recipe for disaster, but somewhow it wasn't . The story moves at a zanily rapid pace and the black and white imagery is gorgeous, as are Harvey and Harris as they ham their way through a wacky Weimar Berlin. Fun! Yes, this movie was just hilarious and the acting was top notch from the whole cast. Except Shelley Winters German accent wasn't that great but then that doesn't matter as she is hardly in the film. So if you're a fan of hers beware! The two main stars of this film are Laurence Harvey and Julie Harris. Now before this film, I'd only see Miss Harris in East of Eden with James Dean and I own an audio tape of The Glass Menagerie that she did on stage with Monty Clift and Jessica Tandy, so I wasn't sure how she'd be in this role and BOY, did she impress me. How hammy was she? I love ham! ;-) Mr. Harvey, he tickled my fancy! I am now a full time Laurence Harvey fan! That hair!!! *cackles* OMG! It's almost like Burt Lancasters, that crazy messy look, it doesn't get better than that. He is young and so innocent in this film. SEE IT NOW! It's definitely in my top ten! :) I am SO glad I found a copy that is all mine! Unfortunately this movie is out of print and very hard to find on video. :(

Btw, watch out for the hospital hotel room scene!!!!! It's one of the best parts! Or when Mr. Harvey has convinced himself he's ill and he's trying to get his knee to kick, you know how Doctors do with that little rubber hammer ;-) Well he does it himself and his leg kicks and it kicks the table *squeals* Check out the look on his face, so innocent!!!! I can't describe it but to all those people who say he couldn't act very well and other cockamamie comments, see this film and you will see what a GREAT actor he really was. You'll be bowled over! If you aren't, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you, you're hopeless. ;-) (Some Spoilers) Early 1930's educational movie about the horrors of contracting a social disease and the consequences that come along with it: blindness madness loss of ones abilities to function as well as infecting other people with it, even one's unborn children, and finally death. "Damaged Lives" is far ahead of it's times in educating it's viewers about the dangers Venereal Deasise. viewed now over 70 years after it's release back in 1933 is as good, if not better, then the many films about that subject made back in the 1940's 1950's and even 1960's.

Donald Bradley, Lyman Williams, is a top executive of a major shipping company who's been going study with his girlfriend Joan, Diane Sinclair, for some time. both are finally planing to get married and raise a family. Out at a party one evening Donald meets Elsie Cooper, Charlotte Merriam, and together they have one drink too many and before you know it end up spending the night together in Elsie's home.

Thinking nothing of his one night stand with Elsie Donald later marries his long time love Joan and they both plan to have a child, or so they thought. At the office Donald get a panicked call from Elsie telling him to come over to her place right away about something very important. Rushing over Donald finds out, to his horror, that Elsie has a sexual infection that she got from her boyfriend Nat, Harry Myers, and that she may have given it to Donald, and he in turn may have infected his wife Joan. Telling Elsie that she's wrong about him being infected and that she should seek medical attention Elsie shoots herself as Donald is just about to leave.

Getting over Elsie's tragic death Donald gets another surprise later when his doctor Dr. Bill Hill, Jason Robards Sr, comes over to his office telling him to immediately come with him to the hospital to talk to Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Vincent Leonard, Murray Kinnell, about his wife Joan who's just been admitted there. The terrible truth about Donald and his wife Joan hits him like a bolt out of the blue and leaves him speechless, just like it did Joan earlier. Both have been infected and the infection is the dreaded and unspeakable,back in the 1930's, infection called Venereal Disease.

Told by Dr. Leonard that it would take some two years of treatment for both Donald and Joan to be completely cured it leaves Joan in a state of dangerous suicidal thoughts. Later in the film Joan, feeling that she has nothing to live for, closes all the windows in her and Donald's apartment and turns on the gas stove, full blast, in order to kill herself and Donald who was asleep at the time.

Honest film about the ravages of Venereal Disease and the damage that it does to those who are infected by it, both psychically as well as mentally, and how it could be cured if given immediate medical care instead of hiding it from one's doctor and keeping it hidden, for fear of shame and embarrassment, until it's too late. I consider this a breathtaking but deceptive film because it seems so simple and straightforward: a Vietnam survivor tells his harrowing tale and some of the story is reenacted on location. Reviewers sometimes even claim that Herzog's presence in the film is minimal, but how wrong they are. We know that all documentaries are "mediated" to some extent and this one has Herzog's subtle hand all over it, most notably in the stunning music, the unbelievably expert selection of archival footage, and the management of cascading images. The evocative power of this film is astounding, starting with its title, the opening title card from the book of "Revelation," and the initial voice-over. This is a movie that one can watch repeatedly with increasing wonder, not a simple commodity that is gulped down with one's favorite beverage on the way to the evening news. This is one of those movies that can resonate with you for a lifetime. This film is excellent! Fear of watching documentary movies? Cancel your shrink and watch little Dieter's story. You won't believe how captivating this fine piece of film making is until you have experienced it. I'm eager to say that it even out goes almost any Vietnam war movie, including Apocalypse Now. It's a real story, it's a personal story, a story about the love for flying, the dream of being a pilot and the nightmare of being shot down above enemy's territory. All is shot in a "return to..." style - at location, Herzog asking the questions, Dieter answering them in a memorable German-English accent, and with fine remembrance pointing out what happened where about 25 years before. There is this part that I told friends over and over again: bailed out from his US Navy plane, Dieter becomes a POW of the Vietcong. Blindfolded for the greater part of the days, he is being dragged through the Southeast Asian jungle for miles and miles - on bare feet. Tortured, insulted, disorientated, hungered and covered with infectuous wounds, they arrive in a small, friendly village to spend the night. The next morning, after walking for several hours, Dieter discovers someone stole his wedding ring from his finger. That is it. He can take no more. He starts to cry, as a result of complete exhaustion. The Vietcong men react surprised. Dieter manages to explain what happened. Immediately, the group returns to the village and starts searching for the person that stole the ring. They find the man, immediately chop of his finger and return the ring to Dieter. - The movie is full of these mind boggling and surprising situations. The immense cultural differences, the clash of East and West, the fear of the unknown (i.e. all that stands for America on the one hand, the Asian jungle and his secrets on the other) can be sensed the entire movie. Back problems? That's because you sat at the edge of your seat for two hours and didn't notice. Little Dieter Needs to Fly was my first film during the 1999 edition of the Göteborg Filmfestival. As I was extremely tired that evening, I was hesitant to see it, but the raving overall score of 9 here at IMDB made me go there.

It was 80 minutes of pure life-force! Experiencing Dieter Denglers life through his own telling was enchanting.

SEE IT! And if possible... see it at a cinema! I had the opportunity to see this last evening at a local film festival. Herzog introduced the film and did an hour long Q&A afterward.

This is a brilliantly done "documentary"; Herzog explained afterward that he does not consider his films to be true documentary since facts sometimes camouflage the truth. Instead he scripts some scenes and ad-libs some to introduce a new element that may have been missed if he followed the original story outline.

Little Dieter, unlike Timothy Treadwell, is a real person that you fall in love with; you cheer for him, you feel the anguish that he feels. You admire the sense of humor and joy for life that he exhibited here 30 years after he was taken into captivity by the Viet Cong. You are disappointed to hear afterward that Dieter passed on not too long ago.

As in most Herzog films, the imagery is breathtakingly beautiful with a wonderful choice of background music. Especially a scene of battle taken from archives of the Viet Nam war but fitting the story line of Dieter.

The core of the film has Dieter return to the hellish jungle where he was a POW and he re-enacts his journey with some locals. Harrowing for us to watch, I can't imagine what he felt as he was bound again.

One of the better films to depict and discuss the nightmare of the Viet Nam war. It should serve as a lesson to us all. Wow.this is a touching story! First i saw 'Rescue Dawn'.I didn't 'like' it. And now i have seen the person , Dieter Dengler , about whom this story is being told by Herzog.Very Impressing.Dieter is a driven human being who encountered the most opposite emotions in his live on this earth.what an extraordinary life this person has led. His tale about the capture by the Patet Lao/Vietcong and thus his suffering is horrifying but what's most impressive is his incredible will to survive.How could he find the strenght ? In a haunting way , Dieter is telling us in full flowing sentences about his terrible ordeal during his captivity... he is a great storyteller and Herzog does him the justice this brave man deserves.

In my opinion.'Little Dieter needs to fly ' tells it all ! , leaving nothing to the imagination , thus making ' Rescue dawn ' a superfluous film. The horror doesn't get more real than in the words of Dieter Dengler himself.He totally succeeds in painting the picture. We see at the beginning of Little Dieter Needs to Fly Dieter Dengler, the subject of the film, an obsessive-compulsive. Or at least that's what he seems to be by way of constantly opening/closing doors and with his large stock-pile of food in the cellar. In a way director Werner Herzog sets up a central question, in a manner of speaking, to why Dieter is like this. Well, in fact, he's not necessarily obsessive-compulsive as he is just, well, prepared. And why shouldn't he be after the life he's lived? Aside from the juiciest, most dark and exhilarating and frightening and just downright haunting story of survival that's the core of the picture, the back-story to Dieter is fascinating too. Dieter's own childhood, for example, was already a slog from the start, being in post-war Germnay, poor in a family without much food or prospects, eating wallpaper for "the blue in the walls". But enter in a passion, an un-yielding desire (which, of course, is part of Herzog's bread & butter and love of man in his films), which is flying, and for Dieter there was nothing else but to fulfill this. What it ends up leading to, after becoming an American citizen, is more than he could've bargained for.

Dieter is one of Herzog's most compelling, quirky, and compassionately observed figures in his whole career, a man who's memory is scarred by brutal memories of his time being a Vietnam POW, though at the least it provides for some of the most compelling storytelling in any documentary of the last 20 years. Ironically, the storytelling comes through- unlike in The Wild Blue Yonder- mostly in lots and lots of exposition from Dieter on some of the most minute details of his time in the different prison camps (the torture tactics, the bugs, the brutal, wretched violence and threats like with the wedding ring tale), and leading into the most interesting and sad portions with his best friend Duane. They escaped the prisons together, but found that their journey to reach Cambodia would not be so easy. Now, through most of this, the talking does something that is enthralling, which is that as Dieter goes through his stories and occasionally does re-enactments (in fashion Herzog could only do, with Dieter already middle-aged being led in handcuffs et all through the jungle), one can picture all of this in the mind. It all becomes even more vivid to try and get these little details and the intensity of it all together into a form of reality. That Herzog keeps these portions simple, and knows when to hold Dieter back in his answers, makes him all the more a key figure of interest. He's not ever totally 'normal', but unlike a Timothy Treadwell, you wont think ever really about laughing at him either.

So, along with his hero (whether of war or not is hard to say, as Dieter disputes that claim as saying the ones who died were the real heroes, typical but perhaps quite true), Herzog stylizes his film with a mix of old stock footage when detailing Dieter's early life (the period footage of WW2 scenes and post German rubble is always a captivating sight, and with Herzog gets up a notch in his timing and assemblage with music), and in capturing the footage of Vietnam in aerial viewings of jungles and fields. Herzog is also very wise at not injecting politics much at all into the proceedings, there's no 'I was used by the Americans' or whatever thrown into the mix. There's even a sense that Dieter doesn't hold too much of a grudge with everything that happened to him, that it's just what happens in time of war (and, of course, he WAS dropping bombs on people from his plane). Now, through much of these harrowing- and even in the smaller bits involving what went on in prisons, bathrooms and the scraps of food it's always harrowing- luckily Herzog keeps a level of humor in check as well. One of my very favorite scenes in the film, where Herzog breaks away for a moment from Dieter, is when he shows a 'trainee' film used for American soldiers meant to show what should happen in case they get abandoned in the jungle alone...with all of the gear that they could possibly have including a knife, a flare gun, and a very fast helicopter to come around (and this is put to hilariously dead-pan voice-over work).

Yet even the moments where one laughs only brings to mind the moments of absurdity in a time of absolute crisis, and how one can't ever really imagine what it's like to be alone in a foreign territory surrounded by people who will do anything to keep said person as a form of collateral in war-time. Dieter, aside from knowing that flying and airplanes are the only way of life he would ever want to have (and Herzog ends the film on a wonderfully somber, elegiac note where he flies over a large field of airplanes), knows what it is to have to survive at all costs. But yet, as well, as in many of Herzog's protagonist driven films, there's the near unalterable spirit that will keep on enduring if one's strong enough, even through horrid moments (the fate of Dunae) and problems all the way up to the rescue by the helicopter (is he American, or a spy, they ask on the chopper). Dieter is such a man with a spirit, and he's given via Herzog a fantastic, tragic, creative, well-shot, albeit maybe too short, tribute to his life. And, of course, it pumps me up even more for the upcoming dramatization Rescue Dawn. This film stands as one of the most amazing examples of compelling and artful film-making I've every seen. Herzog seems to capture the almost transcendent tragedy and beauty of Dieter's story, as well as his endearing personal character. By the end of the film, I was left wishing that I'd had the opportunity to meet Dieter before his passing.

On a technical note, the cinematography is intimate and astoundingly beautiful. The narrative is intricately woven, with great awareness of the subject and his capacity for reliving and reenacting traumatic events. Few documentary directors have so strong an ability to so thoroughly invest the audience in the character. This film is a must see!!! With documentary films, the question of realism always crops up. How much of the film is real and how much is manipulated by the film maker? In LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY, Herzog is far too absorbed in telling the story of a man telling his own story to even address the question of realism versus formalism. From the beginning, Herzog's role as storyteller is obvious. Luckily, he is a master storyteller. LITTLE DIETER is the finest, most engaging documentary I have ever seen. Dieter's story is enthralling, and Herzog's efforts at reenactment, putting Dieter through the paces of reliving his story on location while it is being filmed, are very effective. The story that Dieter tells is real, but Herzog is ever-present, wrenching absurdist commentary from the realism. This film is a must-see for any students of documentary film and/or of Werner Herzog. What attracts a man to military service? What prepares a man to survive brutal torture as a prisoner of war? What desperation leads to the planning and execution of an escape into the jungles of southeast Asia? How does he cope with the ghosts and memories he returns home with? Herzog tries to answer these questions in his documentary of Dieter Dengler, German emigre and U.S. Navy pilot shot down over Laos in 1966, who was taken prisoner, tortured and starved, but ultimately escaped to be haunted by the experience for the rest of his life. A powerful and personal first-hand account of the man, his life and experience recounted through the seemless integration of interviews, archival footage and new footage. You will never forget this story--or this man. Werner Herzog again explores the psyche of a man. In "Little Dieter...", we meet an effervescent, brilliant man who survived the war in Bavaria seeing starvation and strange sights, moved to the U.S. and fulfilled his dream of being a flier. War, food, death, survival, hoarding, planes, heads coming off... how one American is born. Herzog again sees madness as plane of existence and the surreal blends with the poignant as Herzog himself narratives this psychic travelogue of a German becoming an American who flies prop planes in a late 20th century war where the culmination of technology, pilgrimage and eating out of garbage cans with spoons is melded with constant optimism into a man redefined into American. As always with Herzog we are faced with florid madness, brilliance and what is man in the face of his own excesses, societal and personal. We laugh and cringe and are amazed at this man. Where else for this man but America? Although perhaps not as entertaining as some of Herzog's work, Little Dieter is another fine film by one of the world's greatest film artists. Departing from Herzog's usual themes, Little Dieter is a fascinating and uplifting character study about a brave man and his efforts to go on living after a life-alteringly traumatic experience.

Dieter Dengler wanted to fly from a very young age, and the Viet Nam war gave him that opportunity, but instead of spending the war soaring in a cockpit, he spent most of it grounded as a POW. Dieter tells most of his story eloquently and passionately, with occasional help from Herzog. Herzog does very little voice over this time, but contributes a lot of subtly powerful soundscaping and visuals - which should be no surprise to those familiar with him.

Dengler is a fascinating and extremely likable person. As human and as alive as they come, I found the story of his life and his incorrigibly upbeat personality to be inspiring. Thanks to Herzog for (re)introducing him to us.

The scale of the film is not as sprawling, and the drama is not as fierce as many of the early films that made Herzog a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this to his fans and to those who enjoy documentaries. It's a very interesting and well executed film. The questions and answers of the human spirit are all here in this masterfully crafted historical documentary. The shear beauty and horror of one mans walk through life, are revealed in totality. Dieter and Herzog are combined and connected through a mental maze that has been transformed into a single straight hallway which the walls have been plastered with images created by one mans characterization of himself by the vibrations of his own vocal chords. This film, for about 80 minutes, have discovered a new dimension of storytelling. What do I call this apparently new sense. Only God knows, after all, isn't a MIRACLE something that God does for us, but chooses to remain ANONYMOUS?

This is a requirement to see. If you like to experience the lovely horror of war, this documentary will cleanse your soul to the marrow. Warning: Herzog is a filmaker, and as such tends to be a bit overly dramatic. So obsessions about closing doors may or may not be a real part of the character's life, but a filmaker's dramatic embellishment - or so both agreed at the premiere in San Francisco. But Herzog's usual fascination with character, dreams and perseverance are well suited by this story first published in Soldier of Fortune, and now a full length autobiographical book. (The Soldier of Fortune comment brought loud boos from the politically correct SF audience, and both filmaker and main character had to ensure the audience who had just seen the film, that SOF's interest was misplaced - so warning, this is not Rambo, just survival.) The best thing -- and that's pretty good -- about The Black Castle is that it's a black-and- white Forties' Gothic grabber featuring a murderous mad count which was somehow made in 1952. The star ostensibly is the British actor Richard Greene, a capable leading man who reminds me of an earlier version of Roger Moore. The villain is a mad count played by Stephen McNally, who does a credible job except when he's called on to laugh maniacally. Skulking around in the shadows is a long-gowned Boris Karloff in a decidedly secondary role of an aged doctor who may or may not be the salvation of our hero.

It's the middle of the 18th Century in Austria and Sir Ronald Burton (Greene) is determined to find out what happened to two close friends. They disappeared in the vicinity of the castle belonging to Count Karl von Bruno (McNally), deep in the Black Forest. It seems that Sir Ronald and his friends had been instrumental in defeating a brutal plan of von Bruno's in Africa three years previously involving slavery and ivory. The Count was left not only with failure, but with a scar on his face and a black patch he now wears to cover a ruined eye. von Bruno vowed revenge, and it seems he might have been partially successful. So under a false name, Sir Ronald arranges for a hunting invitation from the Count, and off we go by carriage through a dark journey of storm and howling wolves to the Count's castle. It's a hulking mass of stone turrets and corridors, shadowy stairways, huge fireplaces...and creepy passages that lead to dank dungeon cells, a torture chamber and a great pit filled with snapping, thrashing crocodiles. It also is filled by the Count's lovely, blond, sensitive wife, Elga (Paula Corday, who sometimes is billed as Rita Corday), and by the Count's two close friends played by those two actors we know from the Fifties who specialized in being slime in costume, John Hoyt and Michael Ansara. There is a dangerous leopard hunt, forbidden kisses, knuckling servants, wooden signs creaking and swaying in the cold wind and poison in a cup. Not the least, Doctor Meissen (Karloff) has a special vial filled with a drug which will so slow the bodily functions that death will seem to have occurred. The risk is that...well, when the person awakes ten hours later, he'd better hope he's not already nailed shut in his coffin.

Surprisingly, for all the clichés, The Black Castle keeps moving merrily along. The movie takes itself seriously, but it's competently enough made to keep our interest, even if we wind up sitting back with a smile while we watch. It's even reassuring in a way to realize there are strong echoes of The Most Dangerous Game. When Burton realizes just how crazy von Bruno is, he becomes even more determined to bring von Bruno to accounts. And, naturally, he has fallen for Elga. von Bruno, crazed by vengeance yet crafty and capable, is a man who loves the hunt and is engorged by the kill. Hollywood's second creative rule has always been, "If you're going to steal, steal from the best." It's first creative rule, of course, is "If you're going to steal, steal from the best and then turn it into liverwurst." The Black Castle is a nice bite of Austrian braunschweiger. This is the ultimate, and I mean the ULTIMATE, ADVENTURE CLASSIC! The plot is good versus evil. There have always been an abundance of films that depict gray areas, and not enough on the basic good against evil to account for the real cases of good against evil in the real world. Only recently have film makers tried to even the odds. In real life well over half of situations are black and white, but only a fraction of movies make it seem that way. This movie is the best example of a back and white look. It is best seen in black and white. The hero is in the worst situation. He is in the territory of a man who wants to murder him, and among various enemies. The movie gives the feel that he is hopelessly outnumbered, and can't count on help. His enemy (The count), has numerous resources. The count's wife was forced into marriage with him, and she knows from his past history that sooner or later he will kill her as he does all his wives. She and the hero become allies and fall in love in away that could win over anyone watching (unless that person just wants to be a contrary brat). Anyone who helps them is killed. They have no escape. The situation is hopeless. So will they survive in the end? You won't guess unless you've read spoilers. The movie also has a lot of great atmosphere, adventure, and intrigue, along with Lon Chaney as a bad guy, and Boris Karloff in his best role ever, as a decent guy. Usually cast as a bad guy, Karloff was at his best when presented with more complex roles such as this one. Chaney was rarely given a complex role, although he strutted his stuff in a few movies such as "Of Mice and Men." This is little more than a cameo for him. Still, the tension never stops. There is suspense and danger throughout. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, and perfectly directed. This is what a movie should be-pure escape, pure adventure. When I saw Lon Chaney, Jr. and Boris Karloff in the cast, I was expecting to find a typically "schlocky" 1950's style horror movie. The opening scene (a graveyard with a wolf howling in the background) seemed to confirm this. Once I began watching it, though, what I discovered was a nifty little mystery about an Englishman (Richard Green) seeking to discover what had happened to two of his friends who had disappeared in the Black Forest and, if necessary, to take revenge against the evil Count (Stephen McNally) who ruled the territory. Chaney, as the voiceless Gargon, had a rather limited role (one which reminded me of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, actually) while Karloff had a somewhat more substantial role as Dr. Meissen. In fact, Meissen was one of the more interesting characters in the movie, and it was difficult to know until the very end whether he would be established to be a good guy or a bad guy! The castle set was magnificent, and even the limited depiction of the Black Forest was real enough. It certainly didn't come across as low-budget, compared to other movies I've seen anyway. The only disappointment, I thought, was Rita Corday's performance as the Countess. She seemed somewhat dry and didn't seem to put much passion into the role.

That aside, I found that this movie held my attention throughout, and there was enough suspense about how this was all going to turn out to make it well worth the watching. Definitely recommended, with a 7/10 rating. The Black Castle is one of those film's that has found its way into a Boris Karloff collection and is mistakenly expected to be an outright horror movie. Whilst some horror elements exist within Nathan Juran's movie, this really is a multi genre piece that's tightly produced and effectively portrayed. Joining Karloff, in what is a small but critical role, are Richard Greene, Stephen McNally, Lon Chaney Jr, Rita Corday, John Hoyt & Michael Pate. It's produced, unsurprisingly, out of Universal International Pictures. The plot sees Greene's English gentleman travel to the castle home of the sinister Count von Bruno {McNally}. He's following an investigation into the disappearance of two friends, an investigation that is fraught with danger and surprise at every turn.

This has everything that fans of the old dark house/castle sub-genre could wish for. Genuine good and bad guys, a fair maiden, dark corners for doing dark deeds, devilish traps, ticking clock finale and we even get a good old fashioned bit of swashbuckling into the bargain. The cast are all turning in effective performances, particularly Greene and the wonderfully sneering McNally. Whilst Jerry Sackheim's writing is lean and devoid of the pointless filler that has so often bogged down similar film's of this ilk. A very recommended film on proviso that Karloff fans understand it's not really a Karloff movie, and perhaps more importantly, that horror fans don't expect blood letting to be the order of the day. A fine atmospheric story with a sense of dread throughout, The Black Castle is a fine viewing experience. 7/10 A good x evil film with tastes of "James Bond", "Romeo and Juliet", and, maybe, even "Star Wars".

The evil count Von Bruno receives an English gentleman as a guest for a very dangerous hunt. Elga, the beautiful simple and well intentioned lady that was forced to marry the count provides the love triangle. The count missing eye points to a terrible past. The Englishman is not what the count thinks and is a terrible treat to him. There is also the terrible hunchback, crocodiles and even the side appearance of some torture instruments.

Boris Karlloff, here in a support role, makes an strong, but somewhat stiff, presence. The other actors (and direction) are the symbol of an era the strong representations of black and white movies. Since the beginning there is no doubt of who is the evil guy, who is the good one. Even traitors and stiffs can be identified somewhat easily. There's no other word for it...Fox dumped this out, with NO marketing of any kind. Nobody in the country, other than those who have been looking forward to this film, know anything about it. All the red flags have flown. It has to be a mess, it can't be anywhere near as good as Office Space, right? Wrong. Though Office Space it ain't, this film definitely has satirical bite and wit. It's a misfire on certain levels, but who's to blame is left to mystery.

Based on what is currently showing in theatres, I can say IDIOCRACY is a good movie. It's funny, sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. It's effective, sometimes ingenious. What it isn't as far as I can tell, is finished. We will see something come of this film again, whether it's an extended cut or reshoots. Alone it can be hilarious. It's ballsy at times.

Leaving the theatre, looking around at the mall, I was surrounded by advertisements and billboards, commercialism and stupidity. It's not quite as damning a dystopia as 1984, but this movie paints an ugly future for our culture. And there doesn't seem to be much anybody can do about it. Anyway, go see this if you can and try to find out what happened that it was so specifically buried. This movie was quite a pleasant surprise. I had anticipated it for a long time, and was afraid going in that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectations.

It exceeded them.

I adored this movie.

Hilarious from start to finish (stay until after the end credits!), it is absolutely remarkable how a movie about dumb and annoying characters can be so intelligent, witty, and engaging.

With it's obvious matte paintings, the movie's future Earth recalls the Planet of the Apes series and other Sci-Fi movies of that era.

In fact, this movie is essentially Planet of the Apes, but with people who are the mental equivalent of apes.

It moves at a fairly brisk pace, and Luke Wilson carries the movie quite well, with a character that recalls the one he played in "Bottle Rocket." (There's even a not-so-subtle nod to "Bottle Rocket" in an early scene).

Maya Rudoulph is also surprisingly good as a former "painter" who was frozen as well.

Despite all its strengths, "Idiocracy" has the distinct feel of a movie that was taken away from the director/editor before it could be fine-tuned.

I cannot for the life of me understand why a movie this funny would just be dumped into a few theaters with no advanced screenings, no trailers, no marketing whatsoever.

It's as if the studio decided they were not going to spend any more on it and just walked away.

Or maybe they thought the movie had the makings of a cult classic, and the only way for it to become a true cult classic was to set it up to fail?

Whatever the case, it is a shame, because Mike Judge and this film in particular deserve better.

I predict this movie will have real legs on DVD, and word of mouth will propel it to the success it deserves.

Perhaps the Fox Executives saw themselves in the characters, were confused, and thought it was a documentary? Let me start by saying that if you're expecting subtle humour, you're in the wrong theatre. It's low-brow and heavy-hitting. But he's not out to tickle your funny bone. He's got the sledgehammer out and he's drawn a bead on the side of your head. But fear not. As movies go, this is a fairly gentle education. Oh, also, heavy on the swearing, but once again, Mike Judge, not Fred Rogers.

Was this movie called 'intelliocracy'? F*** no. The gem, the essence that is Mike Judge is that he has the ability to make people laugh at themselves. Beavis and Butthead was most popular with teen-aged boys, the very people at which it incessantly poked fun.

With that in mind, I don't think the humour in this movie is aimed at the super intelligent. Maybe you are all too smart to get it. But he's not aiming at you. He's aiming at your average Joe. And he's got a message: get your act together and for god's sake, study botany! It is a little disjointed and the narrator gets to be a little irritating after a while, but once again, this movie is meant for people who need a lot of narration ;-) It's funny. It has a message that it wants to make sure that we all understand.

I question the casting of Luke Wilson in the role of a man with a 100 IQ. Sometimes, he's not able to play down (what's he got, like, a 104?) to the level of his character. Slightly forced at times.

Kudos on Dax Shepard in this one. I remember seeing him in Zathura and thinking, "This guys looks like an idiot." In this movie, he makes a great idiot. Maybe I'm psychic.

It took a while to warm up to Maya Rudolph, but I gave her a little leeway. After all, she did have to play straight man to an entire planet. But once she got a little screen time, she made a solid contribution.

Terry Crews played the same psychotic, aggressive character he's played many times before, but he makes a first-rate president none the less.

Another bonus is that the place was practically empty. Counting my girlfriend and I, there were literally six people in the theatre. We could've had a barbecue pit and a mariachi band. So, no annoying people talking, as appears to be the norm in the 'talking-to-the-tv' age.

All in all, a good premise and a competent delivery, given the intended goal. Lots of laughs sprinkled throughout.

What made this movie scary was the fact that when we walked out of the theatre, it was sort of like the movie was still playing. We saw a lot of idiocy in the people immediately around us, maybe made more apparent by the dose we got in the theatre....

They're all pods, all of them! Shame on Fox for dumping this movie. It was a total riot and I only hope that it will find a second life on DVD and cable.

This is a hilarious satire. It takes the "What if" situation to an extreme and it doesn't pull any punches (or kicks to the groin). It makes you think... what is to become of this empire once we've gotten totally to lazy and stupid? Everyone gets hit in this one esp. a number of major corporations, and even Fox News takes a punch(which is probably why the movie never had a proper release - other than the marketing department over thinking the campaign and not knowing how to market it "so we'll just give up!") Some may find the movie sophomoric, due to the groin kicking, and farting, but the movie is much more than that. You either get what Mike Judge is saying, or you don't. Most of the negative reviews I've read seem to come from people who just don't get it or are film snobs.

It'll probably play for one week in the selected markets so if you miss it, keep an eye out for the DVD, it'll be worth the rental and I will eventually have it in my collection.

Good Job Mike Judge, it's a shame that you got screwed, but you made me laugh out loud and I look forward to the next movie you do. I'm not sure why there are no articles or posters or anything about this film because I just saw it and thought it was AWESOME. I guess it's not for everyone because it's basically Kafka's "The Trial" meets "Beevis and Butt-Head", which is a pretty tough combination to swallow. Still, I thought it was great. If you're going to see it because you want a sequel to Office Space you're probably going to be disappointed. But if you want to see one of the most brutal, acid-tongued, and hilariously honest looks at where our society is headed you're in for a treat. I just saw the 8pm show opening night in Los Angeles and there were only 12 people in the theater, which means the film will probably be gone in a week. That's really a shame because, in its own way, Idiocracy is one of the best satires to come along in quite a while. But then again it's basically making fun of the people who make up about 99% of the movie-going audience so I guess it's no wonder the studio panicked and tried to dump it. As social satire, Idiocracy is just as good as Office Space, but with a wider scope. To criticize this film as too puerile due to potty humor is to kind of miss the point, I think. There are certainly fart jokes etc., but they're not really intended to be funny to the audience - they exist to define the state of "culture" in the world of 2500 AD visited by Joe, as a background to the bizarre state of affairs in which he awakes. The real humor of the film lies in the many sight gags and attitudes present in this future society that are just a shade off of what we encounter in our daily lives, and which should serve as a warning. My personal favorite is the depiction of Fox News. The subtle brilliance in the film lies in the fact that it also digs at "smart" people, and average Joes like the protagonists. Note the times in the film when Joe and Rita almost subconsciously conform to the idiots around them, and you realize that Idiocracy is not created to pick on any group of people in particular, but on the culture of idiocy in general. I don't know what to say about the "made for conspiracy theory" behavior of Fox in releasing this film, but if it's not playing in your local theater, demand it. We all need to see this film, if not for the social commentary, at least for the fart jokes... A lot of things in this futuristic satire are more theoretically funny than actually funny (though it does have some laugh-out-loud moments) but a lot of that is because it seems to have been cut by the studio to better appeal to exactly the idiots it's mocking. Many situations aren't allowed to develop, there's obvious overdubbing of expository material, and worst of all a narrator explains EVERYTHING (most of which needs no explanation), probably because some preview audience didn't understand what was going on. In other words, a movie about dumbing down has been... you guessed it.

One hopes that a longer, better version of this comedy will eventually surface on DVD, and it will become the cult fave it deserves to be, but even in this mutilated and somewhat comic- spirit-diminished form it's one of the more memorable films of the year-- a screech of disgust against our culture and all the ways it's become trashified, stupidified and uglified in the name of appealing to the yahoos. I watched it right after Land of the Dead, George Romero's latest milking of the single idea that consumers = zombies, which is basically the same point Judge is making; yet where Romero's counterculture viewpoint (now zombies = underclass that needs to revolt against the rich) seems hopelessly out of date, Judge's take is fresh, dead-on and far more disturbing. Just listen to the yahoos in your movie audience whooping it up for President Camacho's State of the Union just like their counterparts on screen, and you'll know that we're all doomed. I've never seen a movie get a worse release then this. And that's a shame, as this is the funniest film of the year! You would think an ad with the line "From the director of "Office Space"" would be enough to warrant a big release! But there are no ads, no posters, no website , I doubt the stars even knew it came out this weekend. What is 20th Century Fox thinking? Mike Judge's Sci-Fi comedy is set in 2505 but it could come true in about 10 years (if things continue as they are.) Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph get frozen in a top secret army experiment and wake up in a future full of consumer zombie inbred retards. The film reminds me of Woody Allen's "Sleeper" ,"RoboCop", "Planet of the Apes", "Blade Runner" and "Network" and the late great "Futurama". Try to see it before Fox burns all the prints! "Idiocracy" is the latest film to come from Mike "Office Space" Judge, and it certainly follows a similar theme of that film in the fact that it is an observation of stupidity and how mediocrity can overcome adversity... relatively speaking. It is a story about Joe Bauer (Luke Wilson), who is, quite literally, the most average guy in existence. Joe, and a prostitute named Rita (Maya Rudolph), become the test subjects for a military project of a hibernation chamber. They were to remain suspended for only one year, but due to lack of oversight, Joe and Rita are forgotten about and accidentally wake up 500 years in the future.

Here's the scary part: This film explains, in a very realistic and plausible way, how the entire population of 2505 became absolutely retarded. With no natural predators, the evolution of the human species does not necessarily favor the quickest, smartest, and strongest people for progression of genes... just the people who breed the most. Unfortunately, those people happen to be welfare-sucking, trailer trash idiots who breed like rabbits. This abundant reproduction of the stupid people has caused an adverse effect on societal growth and now Joe and Rita are the two smartest human beings on the face of the planet. If it helps, imagine the entire population as just a hybrid of rednecks, jocks, cholos and hoochies. Seeing this nightmarish dystopia, Joe learns of and attempts to track down a time machine to see if he and Rita can get back to when they came from, and that's basically the whole plot.

But despite how one-dimensional I may make it sound, this movie is higher brow than you can fathom. Nuances are everywhere and anyone can see glimpses (warning signs, if you will) of modern day dumb-ciety permeating facets of everyday life and turning it into the train wreck on display in "Idiocracy." The film has some truly awesome showcases of realistic retardedness put on a pedestal. I don't want to give anything away and ruin jokes for you, but let's just say that it is pretty thorough. I can see how some would say that it is just a lot of toilet humor, but it, odd as it may seem, has a purpose; to show how dumb and crass these people are.

This film, unfortunately, is destined to see the same fate as its predecessor, "Office Space"; no one will see it in theaters, but everyone will brag about discovering this awesome/funny movie when it comes out on video. My only complaint for the film would be that the flow of the narrative sometimes gets broken so they can do a Hitchhiker's-Guide-to-the-Galaxy type exposition on how things got to be where they are, but it is a necessary evil and is implemented better here. Other than that, good characters, funny jokes, and better-than-average social commentary wrapped up in a funny bow.

Final Note: If seeing our youth becoming gang-banger wanna-be's, acting like redneck/ ghetto trash and being proud of it... if you are educated and cultured in anyway and can see how our country is spiraling out of control into an abyss of stupidity, for god sakes, watch this movie. First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.

In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.

Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.

There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.

I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene. This movie is "the" stupid comedy of the year, and quite possibly the best thing from Mike Judge since "Office Space". If you are a Mike Judge fan, or enjoy shows like Futurama, then you are doing yourself a grave disservice by skipping over this little known, limited release. Although the DVD touts very few "bonus features", this film is certainly funny enough to make up for it's perceived "lack of value".

This movie is about an army grunt by the name of Joe Bowers (played by Luke Wilson) who is part of a top secret Army experiment designed to preserve Army personnel in peace time so that they can be thawed in war time to fight for our country. However, things take an interesting turn as the general in charge of the operation is busted in a prostitution ring and the experiment is all but forgotten. Bowers, and his sidekick Rita (played by Maya Rudolph) both find themselves awake in the year 2505, where through the course of natural selection, the population of America has grown increasingly stupid. Now Joe and Rita have to find their way to a time machine to get back to the year 2005 with the help of Frito (played by Dax Shepard).

What I really enjoyed about this movie was Mike Judge's comedic satire on the course of US History over the last 50 years, and how mankind progresses over the subsequent 500 years. This is most evidenced by the advertising in the movie, which has become a staple of the American culture. With shows like South Park in the mainstream media, it's easy to see how conclusions could be drawn that in the future, profanity has become a marketing tool. This is portrayed in the film humorously with subtle things such as "Fudd-Ruckers" changing their name to "Butt-F###ers", and a billboard which displays the advertisement "If you don't smoke Tarryltons... F### You!". I also cannot stop laughing at Carls Jr.'s role in this future, with their slogan "F### you... I'm eating", and their automated kiosks self-advertising their "Extra Big-A## Tacos". (with more molecules)! This film contained everything I go to the movies for. Excellent, sharp, witty comedy, as well as an engrossing plot make this DVD one for the ages. Be warned, however. If you are not a fan of Mike Judge, did not care for "Beavis and Butthead", or do not have a sense of humor, then this movie probably isn't a good match for you. Otherwise, I would say this is probably the funniest movie to come out of 2506... I mean 2006. There is a lot wrong with this film. I will not lie. I will say that most of the problems feel like they stem from a budget that was chopped out from underneath the flick, and some bad hack job editing.

This is not Office Space. Do not go in expecting Office Space levels of comedy. It is very funny though. It is a mess, but very funny at the same time. A funny mess of a film. In the way that Caddyshack is funny. A mess of unrelated funny scenes filled with some very annoying unfunny scenes.

It works as a whole though, and it certainly deserves a wide release. This is the best commentary on the Wal Mart/ Starbucks/ MTV nation you could hope for. The very fact that a film is exploring the idea that dumb people are breeding at an alarming rate while the intelligent people are not, is great in my book. Not very politically correct but worth at least some debate. We just saw this movie in Austin Texas at the Alamo South Lamar yesterday afternoon. It had me laughing out loud many times! The scene about Albert Einstein's thoughts on humanity hit me over and over and I couldn't stop laughing. It's too bad it's not in more theaters, I know a lot of friends that are dieing to see this movie! "Welcome to Costco, I love you." ... great work to all involved! Also, if you see it, make sure to stay until the end of the credits as well! I'm going to take my family to see it again this weekend for sure! If you're a fan of OFFICE SPACE and BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD then you have to go see this movie. It's a classic and no one knows that it's out! So if you're in the mood to see something funny this weekend, definitely check it out. Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over. Mike Judge's Idiocracy is an interesting film, and one that his fans will undoubtedly track down and see.

Before I start the review, I would preface it by saying that if you get a chance to see it, definitely do, as it IS worth watching, and isn't the easiest film in the world to track down.

Let's start with the premise - Luke Wilson is Private Joe Bauers, an Army librarian who is deemed to have absolutely no outstanding attributes or glaring flaws, making him totally average in every way. This, along with the fact that he has no living relatives, makes him a standout candidate for an experimental cryogenics procedure. Also frozen with Joe is a Prostitute named Rita who was pimped to the project by Upgrayedd, her abusive pimp. Unfortunately, a few days after they are frozen, the top secret project is abandoned, and they are forgotten about.

They wake up in 2505, and find that with the dumbing down of society following the trends of recent times, everyone on Earth is only slightly more intelligent than a chimp. The way that "everyman" Joe Bauers talks is seen as being "faggy", much as someone speaking like Shakespeare would ridiculed now, and a former professional wrestler is the President of the United States (actually, this one probably isn't that outrageous really). The best show on TV is called "Ow! My Balls!", which admittedly sounds pretty good, and not only is everything spelled wrong, but signs seem to have run out of space for the wording, leaving them to be bunched up at the end.

It's a funny premise for film, but this is the problem - Aside from the initial premise, not that much in the movie is truly funny. What I mean by that is that the ideas that come to mind from having read the premise of the film are probably about as funny as the film itself. Obviously, it's not terrible, but it probably could have been funnier.

There are some winners in the script, such as Starbucks now offering "happy endings", and people placing their blind faith in the universally misunderstood "electrolytes", but they are just too few and far between, so unless you are going to laugh hysterically every time one of the idiots of the future slurs out a slack-jawed, profanity laden sentence with little to no logic and/or intelligence, then the laughs might be pretty well spaced.

It's unfair for everyone to be comparing it to Office Space, because it's a very different film, but as a film, regardless of what came before it, Idiocracy is a funny concept that will probably have you laughing a lot more in the opening 15-20 minutes than in the rest of the film.

I give it 5 out of 10 because it is enjoyable, but doesn't do enough to raise it above middle of the road. You can read all kinds of references into the world of Idiocracy. A futuristic world populated by pampered, self-indulgent morons spoon-fed by the technology of a bygone era: this idea has its precedent in H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" amongst other satires.

Early in the film, a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years, but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. Most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission, and the resulting complaint that the world isn't "realistic". As if "realism" has ever been a necessary quality of satire. Is "Brazil" realistic? How about "Futurama" or "Transmetropolitan"? Hell, how about "Gulliver's Travels"? I thought not. "Idiocracy", while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre, hits the same notes and generally does so successfully.

Besides, I didn't find the futuristic technology to be a problem. It is pretty easy to figure out that Mike Judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces, so that even total idiots can use them. As in "Brave New World", the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self-sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now-extinct 'smart people' in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace), leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst, most selfish impulses they can come up with, and grow even stupider. The film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity, as everything begins to fall apart for good. It may still be "unrealistic", but if so, it's a remarkably well-presented brand of unrealism.

The stupid people take up most of the screen time, of course, but they're just the victims -- they don't know any better. Mike Judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins, but who are very much alive right now, in the 21st century. People like scientists who chase "hair growth and prolonged erections" for no other reason than the possibility that they'll turn a profit on their snake-oil treatments. People like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the FDA and FCC. People like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity -- who enable the destruction of all culture, morality and health to make a quick buck.

After all, who is really to blame, the Morlocks or the Eloi? The Paris Hiltons of the world, or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on TV and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there? This is all implicit in "Idiocracy", though. A line here, a hint there (witness the hilarious auto-doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). It's one of the few aspects of the movie that's NOT pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. It's just there for the viewer to pick up, or not, but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that's much smarter than any other comedy of the year.

Pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it's just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. Not that that stuff isn't funny too, and maybe it IS a little pandering. But in "Idiocracy", it's just not as simple as it seems. This movie is BRILLIANT.

I don't remember this movie even BEING in theaters, so thinking it was a "straight to DVD" I have fairly low expectations, even though I am a big fan of Mike Judge. It has some of the same kind of comic future satire as "Brazil" and "Demolition Man", but taken to the next level.

Then I saw the cast; Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph and Dax Shepard, who were all brilliant in their roles.

Needless to say, this movie won me over in the first 5 minutes, where it shows above-average people having fewer children and the poorest, stupidest, trashiest people having lots of ignorant children, and how this is leading to a kind of reverse evolution. It takes that concept, and then shows where we are headed with this pollution of the gene pool.

Sadly, I don't think it will take the 500 years as depicted, but probably only about 50. I already see the shocking rise of "mild retardation" in the general populace, media and culture. People who like classical music and art are ridiculed instead of respected. The lowest common denominator seems to rule, especially in Hollywood and on TV (eg, "Jackass the Movie" and any reality show where they make you eat something disgusting or humiliate yourself for money).

All of the political/social satire aside, this movie is also just LAUGH OUT LOUD funny! And I don't say that lightly; few movies make me actually "LOL", but this one did.

A lot of the best jokes are word/sight gags in the background, so you really have to pay attention to get some of them. I even had to pause and zoom in for a few of them (like when Joe got his government ID and for "hair" it said "yes" and for "eyes" it also said "yes"). Also, the prison has engraved on the front "House for Particular Individuals", since the cops in the movie (much like real life cops) call everyone "individuals" instead of people, etc. Again, this was on the screen for just a moment...this is one of those movies you can watch again and again and dissect it to get through the layers of funny.

Also, I normally watch movies with the subtitles on, and that clued me in to some jokes that might pass by your ears in the dialog mix, for instance, the police constantly talk about people "excaping" instead of "escaping", and there are many other mis-pronunciations that just cracked me up. But again, I might not have picked up on them just by the dialog mixed with music/sound effects; it is very subtle but still hilarious.

Additionally, the special effects were REALLY GOOD for a sci-fi/social satire.

I could go on and on, but overall, I think this is one of those movies that if you DON'T think it's funny, it's probably making fun of YOU! I plan on recommending this to many, many people! I am rating this an 8 because of the premise of the film. The acting was fine, there wasn't anyone that stood out as amazing or appalling. It is disturbingly true that intelligent people are having less and less children, or choose to have none at all...whereas dumb ass "W in '04" supporters are procreating like rabbits. And, though I don't believe the earth will actually exist in 500 years, I can see Mike Judge's parodied prophet coming to be, as life imitating art. The world is being run by idiots, and it will get worse as the intelligent free-thinking people become the minority and the "git 'er done" fans outnumber them. The proof is our farce of an election.

But I digress. If you are fortunate enough to have this playing in your city, go see it. I have paid my $7.50 plus popcorn to see FAR WORSE rubbish than this (Date Movie or Napoleon Dynamite anyone?). There are laughs, there are cringes, but overall this is entertaining. If you have half a brain, you will think to yourself how this movie, though funny, is spot on (accurate) and a *tiny* bit uncanny. I'm not surprised AT ALL that this movie is almost completely unknown, as Fox was the one distributing this, and they wouldn't want any of their sheep to see this and think "maybe I WILL read a book, and not watch 'Next', or 'Cheaters', or 'Ow my balls'." If our society doesn't stop the dumbing down of everything,and the bastardisation of the English language (ahem, Mr. Bush), then this really is where we are going. I had never heard of this film when a good friend recommended it. I trust this friend's taste, so I purchased the DVD. My wife and I sat down to watch it with no knowledge of what it was about. I thought it was the funniest film I have seen in a long time, mainly because I saw the truth in the satire. I strongly recommend this film to all my friends.

This is not a film for everyone. Some people will see the crass humor and aura of stupidity, and find Idiocracy to be one of the stupidest movies they have seen. What these people don't seem to understand is that the crass humor is there, not to amuse the audience, but to show what appeals to the morons in the future.

Luke Wilson is well cast as an "average Joe." He is mainly there to be a foible for the biting commentary about society that is spread throughout this film. Many of the funnier bits are in the background, so it is easily worth seeing several times. What makes the movie even funnier, and more scary, is that I see elements of it in every day life, in people I meet or on the media. Then, I go back and re-watch Idiocracy, and realize how good it is.

The few people who have seen and enjoyed this film are able to be part of an elite club. I'll see an advertisement for some product with some breakthrough new ingredient, and turn to my wife and say, "It's got electrolytes!" She knows exactly what I am saying. This must be the dumbest movie I've ever seen and therefor it deserves a special award. OK, so it begins pretty good, logical, humor and then rapidly changes to complete and utter uh f@rt,@ss, föck stupidity that makes total sense. The strange thing is that i hardly laughed at it, though i guess it is supposed to be funny, with a very serious message. After a moment of thought why i didn't laugh, the answer was pretty clear... this movie is a lot more realistic then i would like it to be. So it is extremely dumb, yet very wise if the object was to reach people which aren't 'blessed' with a whole lot of neurons and synapses and electrolytes (huh, electrolytes?). This movie might actually be understood at some level by a big audience!

Although they probably just laugh.

Ah well, nice try...

I am now editing (well adding to) my comment, cause i read some of the other comments. First i noticed some people see racism in this movie. Well, that did not at all cross my mind when watching it. However, i can imagine if you are looking from that perspective, you will see some. We could of course debate the link between intelligence and race, but i think this is not the place to do so. I wonder, if we were to rate the Huxtable family here, would you complain about them all being black? I don't think so, but i guess you could... (aside from that, from the 2 wisest people in the world, half, the woman, doesn't seem totally caucasian to me, so 'what the problem is?')

Secondly the movie gets very mixed ratings; from 1's to 10's and everything in between, but a lot of polarisation there, which means the movie does its job very well! It stirrs people up, makes them want to speak about it and judge it. That means it is a good movie, whether you like it or hate it. After 5 minutes it becomes very predictive and boring even, yet you keep watching this utter crap. I guess you keep hoping that it isn't so. Or maybe it's our sick way to look at terrible accidents. Well, this is one for sure. Yes, I know that this movie is meant as a comedy! And the humor is over the top! But the theme about people getting less intelligent in future time might not be so far fetched! I cannot say that it will happen,but if we don't take proper care of our educational system than this could be a possibility! I have noticed that some schools aren't teaching facts anymore! (Like history,geography,basic stuff). The focus is more on learning practical abilities! The theory behind most subjects may be boring but is essential in understanding how things work! In the movie there is this ridiculous example of people growing crops with Gatorade in stead of water! Well,we can laugh about it! But if you never been taught that water contains minerals necessary for plants to grow so how would you know! To me this is a scary notion! So now you understand why this subject isn't funny anymore! It could be that Mike Judge is making fun but at the same time is warning people for a real disaster if education doesn't improve fast! Am I taking this movie too seriously! Yes of course! To each his own fun! I loved Mike Judge's work (Beavis and Butthead and Office space)! In these he was able to be critical and funny at the same time! In "Idiocracy" I missed this! Most of the events are too absurd and as I said earlier very scary! I do think if you are in the mood you will like this movie! One cannot help but admire Mike Judge for his hands on "I've experienced that" approach. With "Office Space", almost anyone working a job could associate with the characters. "Idiocracy" has exactly the same feel to it. One can easily appreciate the 505 years later experience of our heroes, because again, the director has tried to put things on a very human level. Somewhat similar to Woody Allen's "Sleeper", this movie is very funny. Do not miss the deleted scenes as the "Museum Of Fart" is a classic. Imaginative comedy is a rarity, and "Idiocracy" is wildly imaginative, extremely funny, and a solid 8.0 movie experience. - MERK I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch "King of the Hill" for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon "Futurama" because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter. This movie is funny and sad enough I think that it is kinda true. If you love Office Space then you will love this movie because it is another Mike Judge hit, but it is nothing like Office Space. I told every one to see this movie. I only wish that it would have been in more theaters so it would have gotten the recognition it deserved. I love this movie and would love to see more from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson is also what makes this movie what it is. I am so glad that I will not be alive in the year 2505, because if this movie turns out to be true we are all in for a lot of trouble. I just hope more people see this movie because I know that they will fall in love with it too. I like Money! I stumbled on this brilliant film in a local video store last week. Wasn't sure what to expect. Brought it home, set up the player and then my journey in to stupidity began. The first viewing I did a lot of chuckling, no laughing out loud really. It wasn't until the second viewing the movie really started to take a hold on me and the humor was that much funnier. It reminded me of Austin Powers, first viewing it was all right, then the real fun began telling people about it, just talking about each scene and the set up. I'm making all my friends watch this movie, everyone I know. This movie may very well be one of the most accurate "Future" movies ever made. This movie is more then just 84 minutes of entertainment, it's a warning to the future of our civilization. Mike Judge, the fantastic mind who brought us Office Space has brought us a vision of life in the automated future. Luke Wilson's dead pan humor as "Average" Joe enhanced the movie that much more. Watch this movie then once you're done, READ more! WRITE more! THINK more! For the futures sake if not for your own! This movie deserved better. Mike Judge's satirical wit brought to light something too many in this country are trying to deny... we're getting dumber as a society.

Could the 24-hour-a-day Anna Nicole coverage be any more proof? Mike Judge paints a frightening future, where the dumb survive and thrive. Makes you stop and think, and laugh. Can you look at the world and not ask are we getting dumber? Are we being overtaking by the human trash as well as our own trash? (Beware of landslides).

The movie is really funny. I'd tell you more of the plot but I don't want to spoil it.

So why release this film with ZERO promotion? Could it be that the stupid are already taking over? I recommend Idiocracy to everyone. Luke Wilson is very funny, the movie is insightful and made me laugh so hard I had tears running down my face several times. Until the end, when I took a breath and realized just how close we are to Mr. Judge's vision of tomorrow.

Keep an eye out for a cameo by the guy from the Mac commercials (Justin Long)as Dr. Lexus. I found his performance Oscar-worthy, especially considering what Oscars have been handed out for in the recent past...besides, he's cute.

In short, Idiocracy is a fatally funny glimpse into a possible future where people are named after product brand names (the president's middle name is Mountain Dew), hospital visits cost $5 billion dollars, there are mountains of garbage because no one is smart enough to figure out what to do with it all, and nobody cares about anything but money. All because only stupid people are breeding. Sounds familiar to me, somehow. Oh, yeah; it's what I think of when I see professional wrestling...

Seriously, watch this movie. It's a good laugh and it will make you think. I was one of the few who went out of my way to see this in the theater. I've thought about it frequently ever since. After two DVD viewings I'm glad to say it held up perfectly. Like any great comedy, I laughed more on each viewing, both in anticipation of gags, but also after catching things missed before.

Mike Judge does very well with creating insanely comedic characters and fitting them into their world so they make sense. In Office Space, the environment make the characters believable. Idiocracy's future gives him liberty to write unbelievably dumb characters and make them work. I'll be waiting to see if they release a better DVD with some actual features before buying it. But this movie deserves the support on DVD not offered to it at the theater. I would have to say this is a great movie.

Mike Judge has an eye forseeing things that nobody would ever notice hence Office Space. Hemakes a statement about the dumbing down of society and that survival of the fittest is mere pipe dream in 500 years. That pop culture and mass marketing by wealthy companies tend to rule the day. Yes there is a lot of potty humor in it and it is to get the story moving and his point across. But the genuine frustration on Private Joe Bowers face is priceless and some cases we can all relate to it at some point in our lives.

If you do not enjoy the humor then look at it from a different point of view and watch it again. It took me watching it twice to really appreciate this film for what it is…And with said after watching it twice…I am going to read a book now. Idiocracy felt like Mike Judge took my thoughts on society and put them into film. In fact, the movie is a social commentary. Almost feels like a documentary at times. Luke Wilson did a good job playing a boring average joe (Like in most of his movies).

Of Course Idiocracy was an extreme of the current state of society. But that's what makes most comedies funny, a extreme of any situation. Fiction isn't that much different then reality.

With kids praising materialist Hip-Hop culture and taking pride in being ignorant. When people feel useless in life, they breed. Giving them a purpose in the world. And it seems only the worse people breed the most. I can understand how others don't like it. It doesn't help most of the jokes were 2nd grade bathroom humor. Not much different than a Kevin Smith film.

Idiocracy throws away logic, reason, any intelligence (For good reason).

Mike Judges comeback was a knockout. I have seen this movie since I was a little girl, and being from New York and remembering how people lived back then brought back a lot of good memories. This movie is not just about wanting a fairy tale ending but understanding the struggles of becoming a better person, woman, and provider Claudine attempted to be. It was about the welfare system putting women in a binding situation. It was about the injustice of a system that invaded and put demands on a family to stay afloat. Diane Carroll was nominated for an Oscar for this role, and it was well deserved. If you want to experience a strong family with conflicting but wonderful bonding moments, enjoy Claudine. Your goal as a viewer is to keep an open mind, and understand the overall frustration. If this film is examined closely, it's a bit sad. It is detailed enough to touch upon very real problems children, who grow up in poor, dysfunctional environments. Yet, it retains it's comedic value, with spirited performances by Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones. The sadness lies in the struggles and dysfunction of the mother (Carroll), who cannot truly help her children, not because she doesn't want to, or try, but because, it's obvious she doesn't know how. Remember, this is a comedy, but if you've never seen this, or if you have, watch this film and see the humanity, in the characters. Good film. Caught this recently after noticing James Earl Jones name on the title. It was better than I expected. Of course it's pretty old - made during the early/mid 70's but it actually is a decent drama. It runs a quick 90min or so and showcases good performances from James Earl Jones and Diahann Caroll. The plot is conventional in general but told through the perspective of a single black woman on welfare who has 6 children and trying to deal with all the problems that persist. This makes for an interesting view.....also in the fact that the script wasn't too sentimental or overdramatized - it's almost like looking at a slice of the past. All the 70's styles are out in abundance. The ending is kind of kooky though....probably would've done better without the theatrics. Claudine was one of the very first movies that gave positive role models for both Black men and women. I appreciated this movie even more as I got older. This movie shows that men didn't always turn away from responsibility. An excellent movie I'd always recommend for anyone who appreciates a good inner city love story. I LOVE this movie....one of my all-time favorites!!! This was the first big screen movie my mom took me to see when I was 9. I highly recommend it to every african-american. This story is about love, trust, challenges, and everyday life of a black family. All the actors worked well together. I wish it was on video, but as of yet, it is not available that I know of. I caught it on television a few years ago, and recorded it, so whenever I get the urge to watch it...I have it! The soundtrack is awesome too! A must-see! Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection. I went to the movies to see Claudine and loved every minute of it the cast and the soundtrack as well. Diahann Carroll was never better than in this role. We saw Ms. Carroll downplayed her looks barely saw her naked,smoked a cigarette, drank beer and oh she cursed. Whenever this movie was shown on TV and finally cable I would call my friends to watch it. Just the soundtrack from the very beginning of the movie is awesome all thanks to Gladys Knight and the Pips. We saw a black woman struggling to raise her children, dealing with teen pregnancy and everyday life meets a man whom she learns later on has issues himself. Finally this movie made it to DVD and well deserving. The 1970's saw a rise and fall of what we have come to know as "Blacksploitation" Films. The term is a reference to kind of broad catch-all, rather than a true Genre of Film. In short, any comedy, drama, adventure, western or urban cops & robbers shoot-em-up, that are so constructed and so cast as to appeal to the large Urban Black population of the Mid 20th Century. That indeed could embrace the widest type of films, as long as the had a slant toward the inner-city black population.

It appears that the idea of producing these films of particularly keen interest to Black Americans had its genesis with the Eastertime Release of 100 RIFLES (Marvin Schwartz Prod./20th Century-Fox, 1969). In it, former Syracuse University All-American Footballer and Several Times All-Pro Fullback for the Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown, had a Co-Starring Billing. Having appeared in a number of films already, as for example, RIO CONCHOS (1964),THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967), (ICE STTION ZEBRA (1968)* and others, it was beginning to make more sense to the Studios' "Suits" that Jim was a hot property.

Now this 100 RIFLES brings record numbers of Black patrons to the Big Cities' central business districts on Easter Sunday to view Mr. Brown. Why not start to film more of these adventure epics and other types of film with more Black Players and Stars? Why not, indeed.** So we saw a succession of Cops & Robbers, Bad-ass Private Detective Films, Comedies, all going the route. Along the way, we eventually got to some more family oriented, wider appealing films. The movie goers were treated to SOUNDER (1972), THE TAKE (1974), CONRACK (1974)and, ultimately, CLAUDINE (1974).

In CLAUDINE, we find no stigma nor easy classification as being "Blackploitation", as the story is universal, and could easily have been done as a story about people of any descent, any where, and not just in the 1970's USA.

That the story was done of a SINGLE mother, Claudine (Dianne Carroll), struggling to keep a family together after "....two marriages and two almost marriages.", is a far cry from a shoot-em-up Harlem Style. The problems that plague the everyday citizens of our nation are confronted and examined under the ol' sociological microscope.

But we also consider Claudine's psychological and physical needs as a female. For "Woman Needs Man and Man Must Have His MATE",***and we do concede this point. (That's S-E-X that we're talking about, Schultz!) Claudine meets up with a very masculine, broad shouldered, athletic type in Private Scavanger Garbage Man, Ruppert B. Marshall (James Earl Jones) and they go on a date.

The Great Welfare State intervenes with the Couple as Claudine's Welfare Case Worker, Miss Tayback (Elisa Loti), comes snooping around to see just who is this unattached Male, who is suddenly paying so much attention to Claudine's family.

After a humiliating experience with the Welfare Bureau's auditing and "deducting" binge, which would be the norm for the family, the two decide to get married with or without the blessing of Big Brother.

Meanwhile, Claudine's elder son has gotten involved with some big talking but little doing Black Activist group. But, with Ruppert's help, he and they all come through it A.O.K.

It ends on a Happy, Upbeat and Hopeful note. We know that it may not be exactly "...Happily Ever After!", but rather the'll make it all together! If there is a single criticism that we must state it is that sometimes in a movie like this, a misconception is spread to a large portion of Urban Blacks. And that is, the apparent implied myth that all Whites are wealthy, having none of their kind ever in need of a helping hand, out of work or suffering any disabilities.

Well, folks, it just ain't true! NOTE: * At one point, Jim Brown's career was a real hit as a rugged actioner. He was even being tauted as "...The Black John Wayne." NOTE: ** The idea of producing films with All-Black Casts, filmed for All-Black consumption was not a new idea. In the 1920's, '30's and '40's, we saw productions from people like Noble Johnson, Spencer Williams, Jr. and Rex Ingram.

NOTE: *** That's "As Time Goes By", you know, Schultz, it's from CASABLANCA (Warner Brothers, 1942). Face it, folks-- "DK3" is more challenging, innovative, and clever than its predecessor. Challenging-- its levels are ridiculously difficult for a considerable amount of time. One especially difficult level is called "Lightning Lookout," in which you may be struck by lightning at any given time. Innovative-- it opened a lot of doors. Too bad the SNES died out not long after this title. And clever-- the level names range from trademark plays-on-words ("Lake Orangatanga") to witty references that the game's targeted audience won't get for many years to come ("Bleak's House").

What irks me about most people's criticism of this game mainly comes down to two words: Kiddy Kong. He is a worthy "little-buddy" successor to Diddy Kong, and certainly does not deserve to be referred to as "that retarded monkey." "DK3" will remain a classic until the end of time. Sharpe's Honour for the uninitiated, is the fifth entry in a series of TV movies focusing on an English army rifleman during the Napoleonic wars and based on the books by Bernard Cornwell (which I strongly recommend reading). If you were to start by watching this particular one though, you'd get the impression that Sharpe is not so much a soldier as the very centrifugal force which the rest of the army revolves around. Should that be the case, I'd recommend starting with earlier chapters like Sharpe's Eagle or Sharpe's Company, but this is a worthy choice for a second viewing.

The story this time is all about the espionage side of things. With the French army retreating in disarray from Spain, Major Ducos, the slimy spy master spots an opportunity to turn the situation round. By pinning the murder of a Spanish Marques on Richard Sharpe, hero of the British army, the fragile British/Spanish alliance will start to crumble and things will turn around again. When the Spanish nobles come to Wellington crying for Sharpe's blood though, the English general is less than willing to hang his best soldier so fakes his death and soon, he's off on a secret mission behind enemy lines to find out who masterminded the plot. Surprisingly enough for a Sharpe film as well, there's a gorgeous woman to be rescued along the way, fancy that.

What this results in of course is a more adventure style approach. The concentration is less on the workings of the English military with Sharpe as the figurehead and concentrates more on his escapades in the countryside, dodging French patrols, hob nobbing with the Spanish guerrillas and getting involved in daring escapes from fortified military positions. Sergeant Harper, his loyal right hand man accompanies him naturally but the rest of the riflemen remain in the camp unaware their leader is still alive. Strangely enough though, they actually receive more attention than usual as they wind up in their own subplot involving the delivery of Harper's baby.

This slightly different approach makes for an intriguing episode but is only a good thing in the long run. And should anyone be worried that there won't be the standard battle at the climax fret not, because once again the poor old French get a right kicking. Furthermore, Ducos makes a fantastic successor to Obadiah Hakeswill as the bad guy you love to hate. He is a duplicitous, malicious and absolutely evil son of a female canine and is also strangely reminiscent of that guy in black from out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Elsewhere, Hagman stands out quite prominently as he gets the chance for more screen time and comes across as the sort of man you'd want to deliver your first born, even if he does look like a member of Iron Maiden who got catapulted backwards in time by accident.

In short then, another strong chapter in the Sharpe series. Sharpe remains as heroic as always but considerably more bitter and angry this time given the events in the previous film. It's not the best introduction if you've not seen any of the other chapters but it does show a side to Sharpe that we don't normally get to witness: the action hero rather than the professional soldier. And if that's not enough to get you tempted, it's also worth watching just for the rather surreal sight of an enraged Sean Bean swinging a live chicken at a group of nuns. This is one of the most satisfying of the book to TV adaptations. The actress who make us believe that a Borg could be sexy makes us believe that a spy and traitor can have some redeeming qualities.

The TV plot line does not follow Cornwell's story exactly but is both exciting and rewarding as a retelling of a darn good yarn. If you have a yen for romance in uniform there is a lot of sexual energy sparking between our man Sharpe and the lying hussy. Made me wish her role was closer to that in the books. But no matter there is enough hero wronged, hero redeemed, hero in rage, hero in flight and hero in battle to keep you clued to your DVD play. The banter and humorous rescue scene help to make this one of my favorites of the 14-movie series. Wonderful acting, great cast. And this movie contains one of the few oft-noted facts about Sean Bean's career. The part where he and Alice Krige fall off the horse into the water was not scripted but was left in since they both went right on acting after it happened.

This is a good follow-up to the intense ending of Sharpe's Enemy. Sean Bean returns as Napoleonic hero Richard Sharpe in Sharpe's Honour, the fifth movie in the series and as always Patrick Harper and the rest of Sharpes chosen men are all along for the ride, but this time Major Sharpe is in serious trouble.

Under the influence of Sharpe's sworn enemy Major Ducos, a mysterious lady by the name of La Marquesa has accused Sharpe of rape. Her husband arrives at Sharpe's camp to challenge his wife's attacker to a dual.

The dual is discovered and stopped by the authorities, and as a result Sharpe becomes the prime suspect when his opponent is murdered in the middle of the night.

As no-one in the British Army other than Wellington and Major Nairn consider Sharpe anything but a rough commoner with little or no honour, he his given a shambolic trial and is sentenced to death by hanging, and Harper and the chosen men have no choice but to look on as their beloved commander walks slowly to the gallows.

However, convinced of his innocence Wellington and Nairn hang another convicted prisoner in Sharpe's stead and release him and his chosen men to find the real killer and La Marquesa herself, to not only prove his innocence but to find out her reasons for framing him in the first place.

Daragh O'Malley, Micheal Byrne and Hugh Fraser co-star with brilliant performances by Alice Krige as La Marquesa and Féodor Atkine as the villainous Major Ducos, in what is another exciting, swashbuckling instalment through Sharpe's eventful journey through the Napoleonic Wars. As it turns out, Chris Farley and David Spade only made three movies together ("Coneheads", "Tommy Boy" and "Black Sheep"), but this was truly the "Citizen Kane" of their pairings. Farley plays Thomas Callahan III, the dimwitted heir to an auto parts company. His father Big Tom (Brian Dennehy) hires mild-mannered Richard Hayden (David Spade) to look after him. Big Tom is getting married to a "ten" (Bo Derek), so everything has to be in order. After Big Tom suddenly dies, Tommy and Richard have to try to sell half a million auto parts to save the company from bankruptcy. From then on, the movie is pretty much an excuse for Chris Farley to do what he does best: make a mess of everything.

When this movie first came out in the theaters, I saw it with my grandfather. He figured out early on that the Bo Derek and Rob Lowe characters were hiding something. But you can completely ignore that and simply luxuriate in Chris Farley's antics. Nothing is safe around his stomach, and hell hath no fury like his happy-go-lucky attitude. The scene where he sets the cars on fire, and later the deer scene, make for a pure laugh riot. Chris Farley and David Spade were truly the John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd of their era. It's a pleasure to always be able to think about "Fat guy in a little coat" time and again. I saw this film knowing absolutely nothing about both it and its stars, Chris Farley and David Spade, and I have to say that this film is a comic classic. It is so stupid at times that it can only be hilarious. Farley is brilliant as the bumbling idiot who takes to the road with his dad's right hand man (the equally excellent Spade) to find the funding to save the families 'auto parts' business. Relax, put your brain on auto-pilot and soak up the fun. A great supporting cast features film favourites such as Brian Dennehy (Cocoon), Rob Lowe (Wayne's World) and Bo Derek ("10"). Highly recommended for a good laugh. This movie has everything! It has a good storyline, good acting, great scenery, adventure and some brilliant gags! Chris Farley plays Tommy Callaghanhe mega successful company 'Callaghan Auto Parts' has to go on the road to stop the company going under after Big Tom dies. The trouble is that Tommy knows nothing about break pads and needs the help of Callaghan Auto Parts worker Richard (David Spade). From the moment the two dorks hit the road, the movie is just so much fun. If you love slapstick with a great storyline you'll love this because the gags keep coming thick and fast and the movie will just make you laugh out loud! It was so sad about Farley's untimely death in 1997, but a credit to his genius is 'Tommy Boy'. Get it, chill out and enjoy this brilliant slapstick! A kinda remake of PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES in a lot of ways.i think,i think it's such a bad and sad coincidence that both John Candy and Chris Farley left us When they still had a lot of stuff to do.God bless them both,i think the plots of 2 movies are really similar,Road Trips of two different poles of characters,and a lot of unlucky consequences because of the Chubbies, This movie can not be Planes trains and Automobiles but its a really entertaining movie especially with the great performance of Chris Farley, The missing part in this movie is the touchy stuff if we compare it with Candy&Martin Classic,but i think its better this way During my trip in a youth leadership forum, I was channel surfing until I found "Tommy Boy" on TBS. Since I have never seen this film before, I wanted to check it out. My roommate, who have already seen this, told me, "This movie is a classic." After seeing the whole movie, I came to the conclusion that he was right.

"Tommy Boy" is constantly funny from beginning to end, thanks to the comedic duo of Chris Farley and David Spade. Farley is a riot as the title character, a spastic doofus who just sails through life as if it wasn't important. His slacker-esqe ways soon come to a halt when his father (Brian Dennehy), a wealthy "Break Pads King", dies of a heart attack on his wedding day. This leads Tommy, with the help of his sarcastic childhood friend Richard (David Spade), to hit the road to sell enough break pads to save the company.

The main reason "Tommy Boy" works are the funny performances from the lead cast. Farley is the funniest person in this movie, the second funniest person being Spade and the third being Rob Lowe as the film's villain who has bad luck. Another funny guy is Dan Aykroyd as Ray Zalinsky, a well-known auto parts extraordinare.

Another reason the movie works is the large amount of jokes. Chris Farley has hilarious slapstick moments, and David Spade has funny snide comments and one-liners. The gags in the movie (some which involves a deer and a airplane bathroom) are laugh-out-loud funny, thanks to director Peter Segal (Naked Gun 33 1/3), writers Bonnie & Terry Turner

(3rd Rock From the Sun, That 70s Show), and the cast.

"Tommy Boy" is a really funny movie, although for some unknown reason most film critics (including Roger Ebert) find it horrible and unfunny. (I wonder when their sense of humor died.) I recommend "Tommy Boy" for those who are great fans of comedy. Thank you very much, roommate. This film is hilarious. Brilliant comedy, but only because of one actor. Chris Farley. The best 'comedy-actor' I have ever seen. It's something special about him. He is just so funny.

What a shame he is not with us anymore. He will sorely be missed.

Excellent ! I have to think back a *very* long time to find a film that's made me laugh quite so much. The writing is top-notch, the story is satisfying, and the entire cast is excellent - Chris Farley has never been better. One of the very best comedies of the 90s. Well, on the day that Rob Schneider plunges himself further into the black hole of notoriously bad movies by starring in the absolutely not-at-all-wanted "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" (hmmmm....wasn't there a film called Roadtrip which was followed by a sequel called Eurotrip? And now there's Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo followed by sequel Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.......I smell a pattern. Perhaps soon there will be Spiderman: European webs are Hotter.....or not) I am writing about this much maligned (at time of release) film. I was one of those maligners, I must admit. I turned my nose up at it even while Chris Farley shoved cocaine up his nose and the SNL cast struggled through one of the worst seasons in their history in '94-'95, the Norm McDonald anchorship notwithstanding. Films like Happy Gilmore, Tommy Boy, and Black Sheep came out in the couple years after this period and we realized there was a dark future for the caliber of Spade-Farley-Schneider-Sandler films. However I watched this film the other day, ten years after and 8 years after Chris died and could not stop laughing. Yes it's not particularly sophisticated. Farley does what Farley does (not unlike Manny being Manny) but his "Van Down By the River" motivational speaker shtick in which he laments that while he may not "wash enough" or "wear well-fitting clothes" or "use deodorant more than twice a week" translates well here as the ever self-effacing character who realizes he's not the brightest, not the best-looking, and could stand to lose a few pounds. All the same, he's trying his best to do what he's supposed to. And David Spade just tosses off his snide one-liners as he did for "Spade's Hollywood Minute" and basically stings Farley's self-esteem. There's really not a whole lot more to say than that. I love the one scene when Farley catches Spade spanking his monkey and then makes a couple quips about it. Can't remember what the first one is but the second one, they're lying in their hotel beds and Farley says to Spade, "Do you like baseball?". Spade mutters something inaudible in response and Farleys says, "the New York YANK-ees?" Anyway Farley does his awkward, painfully sensitive, frat-boy shtick. If you like, you like it. I couldn't stop laughing. Peter Segal's 1995 commercial hit & now cult-classic 'Tommy Boy' is a hilarious film, an evergreen entertainer. Chris Farley is a talent which we'll never ever forget!!!

'Tommy Boy' is a simple story, told in the funniest & zany way possible. Farley & Spade take a journey which is filled with unstoppable laughter, even the Rob Lowe portion is damn funny. As a kid, I remember watching 'Tommy Boy' again and again and again. It's been of my childhood favorites, and it will always remain to be. Even today when it comes on T.V. I stick to it as a die-hard fan. I am quite possessive about this film.

Segal's direction is super. Chris Farley might have died in 1997, but remains alive for me, at least. What an actor! Watch his work in 'Tommy Boy', he's so much at ease. He delivered fantastic performances later on in films like 'Berverly Hills Ninja' & 'Almost Heroes', but his work in here remains as his best to date! Love you, Farley! Spade, on the other hand, is as good as ever. He's an excellent actor in all respects!

'Tommy Boy' rules.... 100 thumbs up from this writer! I've watched this movie on a fairly regular basis for most of my life, and it never gets old. For all the snide remarks and insults (mostly from David Spade), "Tommy Boy" has a giant heart. And that's what keeps this movie funny after all these years.

Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) is the son of Big Tom Callahan (Brian Dennehy), master car parts salesman, and has ridden on that all his life. But after his died dies on his wedding day, Tommy learns that the company is in debt, and about to be bought by Ray Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd), the owner of a huge car parts company. So in order to save the company, Tommy has to go on the road to sell the company's new brake pads. Along for the ride, though not by choice, is Richard Hayden (David Spade) a former classmate of Tommy's who was Big Tom's right-hand man.

The movie rides on the chemistry between the two SNL stars (and real-life best friends) Chris Farley and David Spade. The duo has enough comic energy going between them to power the world. It's the big, dumb guy versus the smart little guy. It works, and some of their scenes are unforgettably funny. Farley and Spade are actually decent dramatic actors as well. Although the film is primarily a comedy, it has its fair share of drama, but Spade and especially Farley are just as good there as when they're making the audience laugh.

Forgive me, but I have to talk about Chris Farley a little more. I read his biography ("The Chris Farley Show: A Biography in Three Acts," for anyone who cares), and understanding who Chris was in real life made this movie more special to me. Chris Farley was a genuinely good person who struggled, and ultimately failed to conquer his addictions. Although this was the first movie he had a major role in, it is his best film. It really showed who he was, and just how much talent he had. Knowing Chris's story adds another layer to this movie, although it doesn't make it any less funny.

Farley and Spade are matched with a good on screen cast. Rob Lowe is suitably slimy as Tommy's "new brother," and Bo Derek is solid as his step-mother. Brian Dennehy is great as Big Tom. Dennehy makes it easy to believe that they're father in son. Big Tom is just as crazy as his son, although he's smarter and more mature. Dan Akroyd gives one of his best performances as Zalinsky, giving Tommy the hard truth behind advertising. Julie Warner is also good as Tommy's love interest, Michelle.

For me, Peter Segal is one of the great comedy directors. He keeps the pace quick and energetic, but most importantly, he knows how to make comedy funny. He doesn't belabor the jokes, and he understands that funny actors know what they're doing and he allows them to do it. But Segal goes a step further. He gives "Tommy Boy" a friendly, almost nostalgic tone that both tugs the heartstrings (genuinely) and tickles the funnybone.

Critics didn't like "Tommy Boy." Shame on them. A movie doesn't have to be super sophisticated or subversively intellectual to be funny (God forbid Farley and Spade were forced to do muted comedy a la "The Office"). This is a great movie and one of my all-time favorites. This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. "Tommy Boy" is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before. This movie literally had me rolling on the floor (well at least on the couch) laughing. I didn't think I would like it, but it came on cable TV one afternoon, and I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Since then, I've also seen Black Sheep, which was pretty good, but not as non-stop-funny as Tommy Boy. The primary plus for this movie is the combination of Chris Farley and David Spade. This was the first film in which this comedy duo displayed their Laurel-and-Hardy-esque brand of humor. Farley's obvious physical comedy skill is perfectly augmented by Spade's sarcastic take on every situation they find themselves in.

This movie stands apart from other comedy movies. Tommy Boy ranks in with Blues Brothers as a comedic work whose individual scenes and bits stem from the plot, rather than serve to break up the storyline and give the film a disjointed feel as so many other comedic films do. Thanks to excellent direction by Sagal, every scene is tight and immediately foreshadows or acts out the story being told. He is as much to credit for the film's hilariousness as Farley and Spade are. The acting of Dennehy, Lowe, Ackroyd, and many others (see the gas station attendant 22 miles from Davenport) strengthen the film.

The film warrants multiple viewings because there are many fine nuaces to the film that may be overshadowed by Farley/Spade.

I believe this film is very well-made and is THE funniest movie I have ever seen. Out of the many films I've seen, Tommy Boy is a rare film where I can watch it over and over and it's still funny. David Spade and the late Chris Farley do their best in this film and is a must-see by anyone who's a fan of the Spade-Farley duo. Well, of course the critics hated it. This isn't a movie that's going for the big-time critical acclaim. But the fact is that it's really very good.

Sure, if you don't like that Chris Farley brand of physical comedy, or the exceedingly dry wit of David Spade, you're not going to like it. But for the rest of us, the movie has many hilarious, and for that matter quotable, sequences, and the plot isn't half as dumb as that of "Black Sheep." The parts that aren't meant to be humorous are actually done well, not what you'd expect from a movie of this ilk, and the acting is really pretty good.

"Tommy Boy" is without question Chris Farley's best movie. I give it an A and suggest you give it a view. This movie probably isn't the funniest I've ever seen, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have much redeeming value. In fact, it is really nothing more than a collection of vignettes tied together by a loose plot. However, this "make-it-up-as-I-go-along" attitude actually works to the film's advantage. "Tommy Boy" succeeds as a comedy for the same reasons that the SNL skits Farley and Spade starred in succeeded: their well-timed extemporaneous silliness and mayhem makes them humorous despite their immaturity. For fans of Chris Farley, this is probably his best film. David Spade plays the perfect cynical, sarcastic yin to Farley's "Baby Huey" yang. Farley achieves strokes of comic genius in his monologues, like the "Let's say you're driving along the road with your family..." bit, the "Jo-Jo the Idiot Circus Boy with a pretty new pet, (his possible sale)" speech, or the "Glue-sniffing Guarantee fairy" brake pad sale. The sappy moments in the film contrast sharply with Farley and Spade's shenanigans. Even after many viewings, it's still fun to see Farley pour everything he had into the role. "Richard, what's HAPPENING to me?!?!" Farley and Spade's best work ever. It's one of the all-around funniest movies I've ever seen. Watch it once and you'll be hooked and soon have all the lines memorized. No sleepy for Tommy Boy! The one-liners fly so fast in this movie that you can watch it over and over and still catch new ones. By far one of the best of this genre. One of the funniest movies made in recent years. Good characterization, plot and exceptional chemistry make this one a classic This is one of my most favorite movies of all time. Pretty pathetic you say? Well, yeah it is. But Chris is incredibly, incredibly funny. His innocent brilliance comes out in this film more than in any of his other films. Look at both motel scenes, when Spade gets caught with his zipper down, and the other: "JUST GO AWAY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!" I don't know why all of the critics say this was a bad movie, this is one of my all-time favorite movies. Tommy (Chris Farley) and Richard (David Spade) are a great match. Tommy is the stupid one who spent seven years in college, finally passing with a D+. Richard is the smart kid who was hated by everyone in school. How can you not laugh when the two of them are singing "Superstar" by The Carpenters passionatly and all of a sudden the hood pops up? In all this is a great movie, I recommend it. For only doing a few movies with his life the Late Great Chris Farley. Farley died at the end of 1997 and will be missed mostly by his co actor in Tommy Boy, David Spade. From the lame Police Academy 4 Spade really has done good with his career in films. Tommy Boy is a classic and we will always remember Chris Farley when we watch it. From appearing on Saturday NIGHT LIVE to doing Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverley Hills Ninja, Almost Heroes, Billy Madison, and Dirty Work. I think Chris Farley had a short and successful career. Tommy Boy was his best in my case and I would watch over and over again and laugh at the same part each time. Thank you Chris Farley. This is one of my favourite comedy films. Chris Farley is hilarious as the accident prone moron and David Spade is perfect playing the straight-man to Farley.

The dialogue between the two of them is brilliant. The scene where the two of them are in the car singing along to Superstar by The Carpenters is a classic.

Chris Farley was a great comic actor who had amazing potential - he will be sadly missed.

Holy Schnikey! This Movie rocks! The duo of Chris Farley and David Spade are great together. My Favorite parts are "Fat Guy in a little coat, Oh my gosh, Room service and more scenes that will be remembered for years to come. This movie has a huge cult following, I wonder why, which proves that even eleven years after Chris Farley's tragic death and he still is popular. He plays Tommy which will make you laugh every time you still watch it. He is a great comedian and is missed. Mr. spade reminds me of Dan Akyroid while Chris Farley reminds me of John Belushi. They done more than 2 movies together. This Movie is a must buy and should be in every Snl fan's collection. I guess I do not have too much to add. I found the comedy to still be funny after more than ten years since it came out.

The one thing that I did notice was the music during the dialogue to be distracting and often made the movie very hook than it should have been. The use of songs is fine during the movie but the orchestral background is too busy, too contrived and if the movie was ever to be edited for DVD, I would seriously recommend that the background music be toned down to an almost inaudible level. It has cheapened the overall feel for the whole film and I can see subconsciously why a lot of people have passed it up.

The film had a lot of levels working for it on the script, plot and comedy level. It is too bad that the producer and director felt they needed the musical schlock to enhance the mood. Now knowing this, I find it hard to watch and I quietly curse whoever was involved with the musical editing in the film. It had all the subtlety of a jackhammer. I think every critic who panned "Tommy Boy" when it was released in 1995 ought to go back and watch it and learn it is not a bad film at all. Every critic panned Chris Farley and David Spade's movies. Yes "Coneheads" was funny but kind of had a one joke premise and "Black Sheep" I agreed with the critics is one of the worst movies ever made. But "Tommy Boy" does not fall in the category of "Coneheads" which could have been a little funnier and "Black Sheep" which is a piece of tripe. It is very funny and entertaining. I do agree with the critics that Chris Farley was no John Belushi or John Candy as he claimed to have idolized those guys and those guys had a genius for comedy but Chris Farley was very funny and I wish he were around longer to prove to critics that yes he was no John Belushi, or John Candy but he was very funny. The scenes between Farley and Spade as nemesis are side-splitting hilarious and the premise is also laugh out loud hilarious. It is very sad that Chris Farley is no longer here to make us laugh but we have movies like "Tommy Boy" to remember how truly funny he was. "Tommy Boy" is one of the 1990's best comedies. this movie may not have seemed like much to some people but it had everything i look for in a comedy. fall down funny moments accompanied by a moment or two of seriously moving scenes, great actors, and pretty much everything a good movie is supposed to be like. despite David spade playing his usual snobby character he made this role into an unusual performance which i don't think he had ever exceeded until he hit the screen with Joe dirt. regardless of whether or not some people were not Chris Farley fans i saw this film when it came out and my friends and i still talk about it... 11 years later. this movie was what finally told me that Chris Farley was the real deal. he is the best comedian i have seen in my life. in the words of some he could be clumsy, clever, funny, serious, crazy, sober, and moving or depressing at the same time. not the same words but the message is all that counts. one of the true great actors of our time, and one of the true great comedy's of all time. along with good acting, good story, hilarious moments, serious scenes that at times brought me to tears. this movie stands atop the hordes as a movie that marked the beginning of a brief reign at the top of the comedy world by the late great Chris Farley. no actor before or since has captured my interests in a movie since. because no actor before or since has put so much into his movies. this movie is worth the time, if you haven't taken the time to see it do so the next time you rent a movie. The 13th and last RKO Falcon film starts with the mutual injunction by Tom Conway as Tom Lawrence alias the Falcon and Ed Brophy as Goldie of "No dames!" whilst they prepare to go on vacation. While you're still wondering what they're going on vacation from as they hadn't had a job since the beginning of the 1st film in 1941 (with Sanders as Gay though and Jenkins as Goldie) they bump into a woman and get dragged into a seedy industrial espionage caper.

They promise to help her when her uncle is murdered, by taking an envelope containing the details of a formula to make substitute industrial diamonds to his business colleague in Miami. Suspect everyone here except the cops here who are after Lawrence – and Goldie for the murder. To console himself Goldie keeps paraphrasing travel brochures: "On the coldest day you can always enjoy the warmth of a nice cosy electric chair" for one. Some nice languid atmospheric nightclub scenes rub shoulders with some especially bad behaviour from the baddies. Favourite bit: the dignified game of hide and seek/hunt the thimble the imperturbable and suave Lawrence has with the baddies on the sleeper train. Least favourite bit: the most embarrassing scene in the entire series in the alligator wrestling hut – definitely thrown in for the kids!

All in all not the best in the series but yet another entertaining outing, with an overall satisfying plot and many episodes even in this that make me wish they could have gone on for just a few more years as Columbia did with Boston Blackie, although RKO were churning these out faster. Absolutely no sex, not much violence (in fact none at all by today's high standards), and positively no message all make this type of film anathema to serious people who can only regard movies as an art form that must depend on these three pillars.

Three Diet Falcon's were made later with John Calvert in the title role, I don't mind them but could never bring myself to count them into the main series, which Tom Conway had made his own by this time. Sad also that it was all downhill after this for Conway, who moved into TV, voice overs and even played Norman Conquest in Park Plaza 605 rather well in 1953. He also developed serious eye and alcohol problems – I don't know if they were linked – wound up poverty stricken and after a spell in hospital in 1967 was found dead in his girlfriend's bed. For us folk that want to at least we still have his 10 entertaining Falcon's plus a number of other worthy, even classic RKO movies from 1942 to 1946 with which to remember him by. This film is a fun little private eye detective story like they aren't made any more. It's all there: Tom Conway is the suave detective called The Falcon, Goldie Locke (what's in a name) is his wisecracking bumbling sidekick, Louisa Braganza is the damsel in distress, and of course there are the damsels maid, the professor with the secret formula, the bad guy that wants the formula, and the police inspector who's after The Falcon. There is a murder, and The Falcon gets implicated. The scenery is night clubs, expensive hotel rooms, a luxury train, the suburbs, and beautiful cars. Go watch this little gem when you see it pass by on afternoon TV! This is the thirteenth Falcon film. Tom Conway has lost none of his humour and style, and is not showing signs of getting tired. The film has a very satisfying story, with lots of red herrings, suspects, and dames. Madge Meredith is the good girl of the story, she plays it adequately but by no means sets the screen on fire. Myrna Dell is a bad girl, and she puts on an excellent face of stone, with eyes of agate, and you are just waiting for her to kill as many people as possible to cheer herself up. Edward Brophy is back as Goldie the sidekick, but surprise surprise, his manic over-acting has stopped, and he is actually under control. This is a fine tribute to the directorial skills of William A. Berke, who had done so many Westerns he probably was not prepared to take any nonsense from a Brooklyn dummy. The result is that for the first time, possibly in his career, Brophy was toned down enough actually to add something to a film rather than try the viewer's patience with the irritating behaviour of a retarded but unruly six year-old. It all goes along very well, and is thoroughly entertaining. How many reviews of this film will I have to write before I get it right? Tom Conway fully inherits the mantle of the Falcon from his real-life brother George Sanders with this entry. Decked out in beautiful double-breasted, single-buttoned, drape-style suits and cruising in gorgeous, 110%-steel cars with huge fender skirts and suicide doors that come up to your armpit, Conway travels from New York to Miami to keep a formula for industrial diamonds from falling into the wrong hands. His "client" is lovely, virginal Louisa Briganza who has got gorgeous hair but will let you only kiss her for the first two months. Along the way he runs into the type of colourful array of characters only a B movie could provide. His sidekick in this outing is perhaps best among Falcon sidekicks Edward Brophy as Goldie Locke who is given some really funny lines. He runs into sinister dish Doris Blanding, the type of '40's chick that you know puts out. Her cohort is Benny played by Steve Brodie who, twenty years later, was a Presley punching bag in two Paramount King movies. They both work for cold fish and yachting-cap-wearing Kenneth Sutton, ready to do what it takes to get the formula as he cruises his yacht to Brazil. Saddled with the stoniest Falcon-pursuing cops ever, this entry still reigns supreme. Forget those 120 minute melodramas, give me a 1 hour Falcon movie any day. I got a wife and two kids - who's got time for a two-hour movie? Shake up some dry martinis and forget your troubles with this great Falcon movie. But if you didn't tape it off local TV in Toronto like I did 17 years ago, you're out of luck. Murder Over New York is one of the better Chan mysteries and I've just seen this for the first time.

In this one, Charlie Chan is visiting New York to attend a police convention. At the same time, people who are involved with aircraft plants are being murdered and he decides to help with the investigation, along with his Number 2 son. These murders turn out to be the results of sabotage at the aircraft plants and Chan helps to identify the murderer...

Charlie Chan is played well by Sidney Toler and the rest of the cast includes Sen Yung as his Number 2 son and Marjorie Weaver.

I rather liked this mystery and is worth having if you like this sort of thing.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5. "Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.

When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.

There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.

As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".

Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.

Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.

Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.

Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense.

For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.

The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims. "Murder Over New York" is fun, but not as good as most of the other Fox Chans. This film would have been better named, "Charlie Chan in New York", the film's working title. This is Toler's chance to play Chan in the Big Apple. There is a lot to like here, though, including guest star Shemp Howard of the Three Stooges.

This has one of my favorite Chan sayings, "Coincidence like ancient egg--leave unpleasant odour." Toler and Yung are good in this one and so is the supporting cast. But there is little or no mysterious atmosphere which I look for in these films. Still, it is good to see. taking into consideration the Chan films that would follow, this isn't bad. Plenty of stereotypes beginning with the Black man in the beginning and when the police captain orders that "every Hindu in town" by rounded-up. A parade of stereotypical characters enter the scene including Shemp of the Three Stooges. Charlie seems to move quickly around the city going from Sutton Pl. to the W. Village in a flash.The ending is silly. An obvious toy airplane is used as it climbs through the sky and then nose dives. Ed Wood couldn't have done it better. The final scene is absurd as the murderer will obviously incriminate himself in his attempt to quiet the one person who knows his identity. Overall, it is worth watching. This is my fourth review of a Charlie Chan movie in series chronological order on these consecutive days. This is also my first comment of one I've seen previously though it's been about 24 years since then, so I didn't remember much of it. In this one, the Honolulu detective is investigating an espionage ring that was initially tracked by a former Scotland Yard acquaintance who has turned up missing in the Big Apple...This is the best of the Chan entries I've seen so far in current memory with every clue being connected (though, of course, if I look at them at closer examination, there could still be some holes though I can't think of any right now). And "No. 2 Son" Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) is somewhat of a help when he first identifies the poison that results in some murders early on, though, of course, he blunders a little later. Among the returning supporting cast from the last Chan film-Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum-are blonde Joan Valerie as June Preston and Stanley Blystone, who's brother John G. helmed a lost Chan one called Charlie Chan's Chance, as a fingerprint expert. Nice intrigue especially with an exciting climax aboard a bomber plane. Oh, and watch for a certain Stooge at a police line up... Chan is in New York and he gets involved with an attempt to sabotage a new aircraft design.

The war was over a year away from reaching America but the second world war was already raging everywhere else in the world and so it colored everything since most people probably realized that war was coming. Here the War isn't mentioned but the fact that the film deals with the production of planes at the very least alludes to it. The mystery itself is pretty good, it the notion of plane sabotage lends itself nicely to a couple of rather tense moments. To be certain we are talking about Charlie Chan so we can be certain that he would live to fight another day, but there was no guarantee what condition he would be in, not whether anyone around him would survive.

I really like this film a great deal. Its not one of the nest, and far from the worst. It is one of the truly rare things, a truly enjoyable one. Definitely worth a look or six. This film is about a deadly poison that is contained in small glass globes that is used to kill. This is apparently done to hide an espionage ring intent on stealing plans for a new American bomber. Now much of this plot was repeated in other Chan films, THE JADE MASK and THE DOCKS OF NEW ORLEANS. Additionally, it was first used in MR. WONG, DETECTIVE--all had the exploding glass globes--a plot element that obviously has been overused. It was interesting in MURDER OVER NEW YORK, but by these later films it was rather passé.

Fortunately, the rest of the film was fresh and the plot worked out very well--with a nifty conclusion where, of course, the culprit reveals himself. However, no plane could fly the way this one did--especially in 1940. Such extreme dives and rapid ascents were pretty silly out of this already obsolete plane.

By the way, in a small role as a porter you'll see Frank Coghlan Jr.--the same actor who played Billy Batson in the CAPTAIN MARVEL serial. According to IMDb, Mr. Coughlan is 93 years old and retired from the film industry. I recently was lucky enough to see "The Kite Runner" in a small theater, surrounded by seasoned movie-goers who knew how to enjoy a masterpiece of such sophistication. With all the controversy surrounding this film's central scene these days, I was expecting a piece both crude and violent. But the way Mr. Forster handled the delicate subject was touching and really, deeply moving. Even though the film's credits indicated China as the main location for the shoot, I could have sworn I was seeing Kabul throughout the scenes which are meant to be taking place in Afghanistan. The acting, by non-professionals as well as professional actors, is excellent and the casting is magnificent. So, this is a movie I would see again and again, because though it is undeniably sad in its subject, the masterful way it has been made awakens a whole new hope in modern cinema. I just watched this film at an advanced screening. I had not read the book, and knew nothing of the story, but went because the book was voted "Book of the Year" by two local colleges. So I cannot compare the book with the movie as others have done.

In short, I thought this was an incredibly moving story. The acting was believable, and the insight into Afghan culture and political history was both interesting and shocking. My oldest friend is Iranian-American, and so I felt an affinity for certain Middle Eastern values and traditions that were portrayed in the movie, as they reminded me of the times I spent with his family.

The themes of friendship, family, human values, and courage under fire are universal, and are well developed in the film. I won't list the plot details, as these can be obtained elsewhere. But based on the film's technical aspects, the acting, and, above all, its heart-wrenching story, I would definitely recommend this movie. The Kite Runner should win an Oscar! It's perfect in every sense, the story, the script, the acting, the cinematography... One would never guess it was filmed in China. The story of two childhood friends and what follows in their adult lives will leave a lasting impression. The depiction of life in Afghanistan under the Taliban is all too real and horrifying. I have not read the book, but I have seen comments that put down the movie because "the book is always better"... It doesn't really matter. No one put down "Gone With The Wind" because it wasn't true to the book! As a matter of fact, it won the Academy Award for best picture and several other Oscars. I think this movie is brilliant - BRAVO to the writer and director, and the actors! Amazing, Astounding, Brilliant, Superb. Those are the four adjectives that prop up in my head when I start describing "The Kite Runner". Khaled Hosseini's book adaptation had already captured many minds, in fact it is rumored that he himself broke down in to tears after watching the premier. I must say before I even start that I had read the book before I saw the advanced screening of "The Kite Runner". So my judgment and views may be slightly biased.

Firstly, let me say it, that even though in my opinion the book was better than the final product of the movie, it is by no means a bad adaptation. I mean for a two hour movie it's got the deserved response. Things do appear a tad fast in the final twenty odd minutes, but apart from that it has succeeded what the book did. It has captured the minds and imagination of millions all across the globe. The magic woven by Khaled Hosseini, to give us a sense of remorse of joy, of sadness, of pain, of loyalty is astute in this adaptation. Especially in the very first scene, when young Hassan says, "If you tell me to eat dirt, I will. but I know you won't ask me to." Such a touching line, is bound to capture the hearts of many. The two young actors were brilliant, absolutely superb. Especially the boy who played the innocent but loyal Hassan, a boy, who refuses to give up a kite he caught because he promised his best friend that he would bring it to him, only to be abused by large bullies who beat him up and use him sexually, and then to be rebuked by his best friend as a coward. The entire act is so touching that it cannot but wet your eyes.

The entire movie is well placed save the last bit. The point when Amir learns of his true relationship with Hassan and reads Hassan's first and last not to him, when he breaks down in tears feeling helpless, lonely and remorseful, that appeared a bit rushed and felt that Amir was behind a facade. In the book, Khaled Hosseini had dedicated some 10-12 pages to describe Amir's state of mind in that position. But that his made up for in the penultimate segment of the movie, when Amir stands up for Hassan's boy, his nephew, Sohrab in front of his commanding father-in-law. The ending was well deserved and I am sure will be well appreciated. It felt witnessing the torch pass down from one generation to another.

Coming over to the technical aspects. First of all, the acting. Just one word-Superb. From start to finish, young Hassan and Amir, their father, his friend Rahim Khan. Everyone has been superb, especially young Hassan. Second, the direction was amazing, coupled with some brilliant camera work. The background score was also impressive. Right from the start credit track to the end credit, and I especially loved the one when Amir is in the mosque in Pakistan the western and Islamic fusion, made that extra special.

All in all, this is definitely one of the better movies, and it's a welcome break from all those Iran inspired movies that we have floating all over this year. 9/10 !!! I know that to include everything in the book, the film would have to have been several hours long, so I think they did their best to include things that were crucial and pivotal to the story. I thought the casting was great, the children who played Amir and Hassan were very good actors. And the guy who played Amir as an adult was great! The scenes between him and Baba were especially touching. I thought the locations they used were interesting... scenes set in Afghanistan were shot in China, and one scene that took place in Fremont, CA (the graduation scene) was actually shot on Treasure Island in San Francisco. I worked one day as an extra on "Kite Runner" and it was that day, the day they shot the graduation scene. We reported to Treasure Island in the morning, they checked everyone's wardrobe to make sure it looked like the late 80s, an then we took our places in the audience. They shot the scene over and over again until they were happy with it. It was cool to see the actors up close and also to see the book's author, who was on hand as a story consultant. I thought this book was excellent and I recommend both the book and the movie to anyone. This is a moving story about friendship, love, guilt and eventual redemption. "There is a way to be good again." The Kite Runner was beautiful, poignant and very moving. I particularly loved the two child actors in the film as well as the actor portraying the father. It really made me want to go back and read the book again.

The music was a wonderful part of the fabric of the movie. If there is a soundtrack coming out for the film, I will buy it to accompany my second reading of the book. It is also a visually stunning film. The cinematography was gorgeous and really added to experience.

The Brazilian word 'saudades' is very descriptive of how I felt at the end of the film..."it is a deep feeling of longing for someone or someplace, which is very sweet but also tinged with an inescapable sadness" (definition provided years ago by Antonio Carlos Jobim).

Saw it at a small cinema here for an advance screening. I would love to see it again on a really large screen with a tricked out sound system.

Can't wait for the formal release. I will definitely recommend the film to friends. I just saw it at an advance screening I haven't read the book, but heard many good things about it.

The movie was absolutely fantastic, very moving. With a roller coaster of emotions you totally connect with the characters. Shaun Toub was great, it was a complete departure from his usual roles, and his acting for those who understand Persian/Dari was incredible.

One thing to notes it that Khaled Hosseini actually loved the film which is unusual for book adaptation movies. Even after seeing the movie several times "he was sobbing".

Also the animation from the intro was exquisite, with names displayed as if it were Persian calligraphy, very unique! At times the translation was not clearly conveying the message efficiently, but all in all this was a great movie. "The Kite Runner" is one of the most controversial films of the year, and it's not just one of those controversies invented by PR people to sell tickets. No, this is a film that was actually pulled from release because the producers began to fear for their safety of their actors. That may give you an idea of just how sensitive and topical some of the material is. "The Kite Runner" is an important film for our modern world, because now more than ever, we need stories that show the reality of war, not just action movies that glamorize the violence. It was adapted from the best-selling book, and some critics have charged that something was lost in translation, but if you don't bring the baggage of the novel into the screening, you will be very moved. It was AMAZING. As a librarian and an attendee at the New York Library Association's Vitality Fund Event on Thursday night, October 18, I was privileged to see a pre-release screening of the new movie, The Kite Runner. The release of the movie has been delayed because of concerns about the welfare of the child actors involved. I am grateful that the NYLA event was allowed to go on as planned.

Regarding the movie, I feel it was masterfully done. It had as much impact on me, I think, as Stanley Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange, even though it is much less graphic - MUCH less. There is no comparison between the horrendous, shocking violence and rape shown in A Clockwork Orange and the small amount of violence actually shown in Kite Runner; only the subject matter and the implications for the human psyche are comparable. (I have written more details about the violence and child rape and how it was handled on my MySpace blog.) My overall impression was that this film was fantastic; one of the best-made films I have seen. The depiction of the Afghani boys flying their kites captured some of the beauty and grace of an art form unknown to most of the world. The subject matter is intensely serious, and the movie carries the emotions of the audience into that subject matter without many jarring "Hollywood touches" which have ruined other movies. Although the overturned cart of pomegranates was an obvious bit of symbolism (to me).

Finally, I must mention the excellence of the sound track. The recitation by the boy of poetry by Rumi as two main characters are fleeing the country during the Russian invasion - under terrifying circumstances - truly showed the power of those poems. I urge anyone watching to disregard the subtitles in that scene to the extent that you can, and just listen to the beauty of the language. I don't even know what language Amir is quoting, whether his normal Dari Persian dialect is the same as Rumi's original Persian dialect. Also, please note the sound heard every time a kite line is cut. I found it a profound, distinctive sound, though the librarians who were with me did not notice it at all. I can't help but wonder if kites actually make a sound like that when they are "cut", or if it gives a sense of the vibration/sound experienced by the kite flyer during competition. Greetings again from the darkness. Based on the mega-best seller from author Khaled Hosseini, the film provides us a peak at the ugliness of post-Russia invaded Afghanistan and the terror of the Taliban. Director Marc Foster adds a gem to his resume, which already includes "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland" and "Stranger Than Fiction".

The story of young friends Amir and Hassan and the unknown bond they share into the next generation. This is a story of honor and courage and loyalty and is an unusual coming-of-age tale. Some great scenes of the boys when they are kids and then a couple of truly amazing scenes as Amir returns as an adult to find Hassan's imprisoned son.

This is tight, compelling story telling with a message. The acting is solid throughout, with no one actor stealing the screen. Although not a pleasant story to watch unfold, it is certainly meaningful and heart felt. Plus a quick shot of Midnight Oil playing in the pool hall is a welcome gift. In the 70's in Afghanistan, the Pushtun boy Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and the Hazara boy Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), who is his loyal friend and son of their Hazara servant Ali (Nabi Tanha), are raised together in Amir's father house, playing and kitting on the streets of a peaceful Kabul. Amir feels that his wise and good father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi) blames him for the death of his mother in the delivery, and also that his father loves and prefers Hassam to him. In return, Amir feels a great respect for his father's best friend Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), who supports his intention to become a writer. After Amir winning a competition of kitting, Hassam runs to bring a kite to Amir, but he is beaten and raped by the brutal Assef (Elham Ehsas) in an empty street to protect Amir's kite; the coward Amir witness the assault but does not help the loyal Hassam. On the day after his birthday party, Amir hides his new watch in Hassam's bed to frame the boy as a thief and force his father to fire Ali, releasing his conscience from recalling his cowardice and betrayal. In 1979, the Russians invade Afghanistan and Baba and Amir escape to Pakistan. In 1988, they have a simple life in Fremont, California, when Amir graduates in a public college for the pride and joy of Baba. Later Amir meets his countrywoman Soraya (Atossa Leoni) and they get married. In 2000, after the death of Baba, Amir is a famous novelist and receives a phone call from the terminal Rahim Khan, who discloses secrets about his family, forcing Amir to return to Peshawar, in Pakistan, in a journey of redemption.

I am not familiar with the Afghan culture and I did not read this novel in spite of the recommendation of my daughter, and yesterday I decided to watch this movie on DVD. I found a good story of loyalty, cowardice, betrayal and redemption, with a brief insight in the recent history of Afghanistan, from a peaceful period in the 70's to the present days with the Taliban. The actors and actresses have great performances, giving credibility to the realistic story. The arid locations in China recall the images we see in television from Afghanistan. In the end, I found "The Kite Runner" a good movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Caçador de Pipa" ("The Kite Chaser") I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.

Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.

And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.

Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen. I have read both the book and saw the movie today. The storyline is so powerful that almost any script or screenplay would have done justice to it. So nothing much there. However, this is still a beautiful movie because it makes one think and feel, just like the book. Watching it is not like watching a documentary on a failed state and feeling sympathetic towards people suffering under an oppressive regime, but is like watching any other common man's story unfold, across generations, across continents. Amir's cowardice, his guilt, his dilemmas and finally his choosing a way of redemption could have been a story of any of us. There isn't a single infallible character to look up to and idolize but all of them are gray, just like all of us.

Another important observation is that the movie does a great job of chronicling the lives of Afghans through the twenty some years of turbulent political scenarios. The vibrant, care-free childhood represents Kabul before the Russian invasion and the desolate, shattered remains of the city echo what the Taliban has done to it.

The child actors deserve 'thumbs up' all the way. They can put any matured actor to shame.

If you have not yet seen the movie or read the book, just walk into the theater keeping in mind that you are going to witness a multi-layered story woven on a multi-colored fabric of human emotions and sentiments. This movie is not meant to stir anti-Soviet and anti-Taliban feelings but to feel the trials of human existence.

I read some of the external reviews linked to the site and I must confess I do not see the point in writing reviews that summarize the storyline like a distant spectator and point out technical details about amazing cinematography or something similar. At least for this movie, one should try to connect to it rather than judging it objectively. Watching Stranger Than Fiction director Marc Forster's The Kite Runner is the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because this art-house epic rated PG-13 is good for your movie-going diet. No, this isn't the kind of movie that I like to slouch on the couch and eyeball at the end of a tough day. The Kite Runner isn't your typical mainstream movie designed to entertain you and make you forget about your troubles. First, no celebrity stars appear in it. Second, nothing is cut and dried, black or white, or so outlandish that you don't believe an image that you see. Third, The Kite Runner lapses into subtitles when the characters occasionally speak in their native tongue. Fourth, Forster's film isn't a romantic trifle about boy-wants-girl, boy-loses-girl, and then boy-wins-girl back. Fifth, this foreign language film may make you feel uncomfortable and challenge your assumptions about life, friendship, and survival. The chief themes here are cowardice and redemption. The protagonist commits a cowardly offense in the first half of the action that he must atone for at the cost of his own personal safety and integrity. Right, The Kite Runner is about redeeming oneself for the sins of the past. We're talking about personal accountability, so don't rent or buy this wonderful movie for a boy's night out celebration or something to take the bad taste of the day out of your system. Based on Khaled Hosseini's bestselling novel, this culturally enlightened melodrama about right and down initially looks like one of those light-hearted friendship movies about adolescents in the vein of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Sandlot. About a half-hour into its 127 minutes, this escapade about two youngsters who fly kites in Afghanistan turns dark and unsavory. Nevertheless, if you can handle the remaining hour of the plot, you'll emerge gratified, relieved, and perhaps even entertained.

The Kite Runner opens in San Francisco in the year 2000 as our protagonist, Afghan émigré Amir Jan (Khalid Abdalla of United 93) and his wife Soraya (Atossa Leoni of The Florist) receive two boxes of published copies of Amir's first novel. No sooner has Amir had a chance to bask in his triumph of a life-time as a storyteller than the phone jars him from his reverie and he is drawn reluctantly back into a past that is best left forgotten for him. Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub of The Nativity Story) calls Amir from Pakistan to make a request. Rahim was a servant in Amir's household back in the 1970s when Amir lived with his wealthy Pashtun merchant father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi of A Taste of Cherry) in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. "You have one more chance to be good," Rahim informs Amir without sugar coating his request. Basically, Rahim wants Amir to fly to Pakistan and then enter war-torn Afghanistan and rescue Rahim's young grandson Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhty Ari) who is being held a prisoner against his will as a sex slave for Assef (newcomer Abdul Salam Yusoufzai) a cruel Taliban chieftain and Amir's once dreaded adversary.

The Kite Runner shifts from San Francisco in 2000 to an extended flashback set in Kabul in 1978 when life was idyllic. Twelve-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and the son of his father's servant, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) love to watch movies, such as John Sturges' western The Magnificent Seven, when they aren't flying kites. Incidentally, this is kite flying like you've never seen kite flying. Not only do the kids fly them, but they also compete with other kids to see who can cut the strings of another kid's kite. The kite fighting flight scenes generate the same kind of excitement that the dog fighting scenes had in Tony Scott's Top Gun. Hassan is Amir's best friend but unlike Amir, Hassan belongs to the reviled Hazara minority. Earlier, young Amir and Hassan had a confrontation with young Assef (Elham Ehsas) and his two flunkies. Assef was about to beat them up, but Hassan pulls out his slingshot and threatened to use it on Assef. Assef had no choice but to back down. Meanwhile, Amir was prepared to suffer the hand fate had dealt him. Amir's father Baba laments his son's lack of spine and fears that he will grow up half of a man because he is a coward, unlike the plucky little Hassan who bails Amir out of predicaments. Anyway, Amir and Hassan emerge from the showdown with Assef without a scratch. Later, after Amir sets a new record with his kite flying and fight skills, Hassan runs after a kite to claim it. Hassan is the eponymous character referred to in the title. Hassan claims the fallen kite but he finds himself at the mercy of Assef and his two minions. Assef lets Hassan kept the kite, but his minions pin Hassan spread-eagle, belly down in an alley while Assef sodomizes the youth. Worst, a traumatized Amir watches the assault from nearby but lacks the courage to intervene on behalf of his friend who would have intervened for him.

Aside from the extraordinary aerial scenes with the kites, The Kite Runner is down-to-earth, straight-forward stuff. When Amir returns to Afghanistan to rescue Sohrab, he masquerades as a Taliban fighter but he doesn't carry a firearm. The rescue scene in The Kite Runner is rather like the escape scene from The Midnight Express. While Forster doesn't explore the local politics or plunge us into the ethnic and cultural issues at stake here. Indeed, Troy scenarist David Benioff had to eliminate some parts of the book and the racial and ethnic prejudices aren't clearly delineated so you have to accept some things on faith. Forster lensed the film in nearly China to give it an authentic look. Forster deserves credit for making this two hour plus epic fascinating. The performances, especially by the children, stand out for their believability. The Kite Runner is a film that you won't easily forget. Guilt and redemption are two of the staple emotions and plot elements of the heavy, powerful dramas that the Oscars love so much (which is kind of funny since "The Kite Runner" was only nominated for Best Original Score-the lack of nominations was perhaps unjust). While most film adaptations of books (or any other means) are usually inferior to their literary counterparts (and "The Kite Runner" is NOT an exception), Marc Forster's film adaptation is a good one.

Most people are familiar with the story, the book having been read by millions, so I won't go into the plot except to say that the book stays pretty faithful to its source. That being said, if you don't know the plot, see the movie, or better yet, read the book.

The best thing "The Kite Runner" has going for it (other than its story) is director Marc Forster. Forster is a director with epic scope and unique vision that is perfectly utilized in bringing Khaled Hosseini's book to the screen. A small part of me worried that he would use the same dreamy images that were included in one of Forster's earlier features, "Finding Neverland." Don't get me wrong, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful film, one of my favorites actually, but the visual trickery he used in there doesn't have a place here. Fortunately, Forster understands that, and the brilliance of his direction shows his versatility. Though the lack of a Best Director nomination for his work here is not exactly a travesty, I see a number of statuettes in store for him down the road.

Also of note is the screenplay adaptation. It remains faithful to the source, but it leaves room for Forster's vision to interpret the material. The dialogue is not dumbed down, and it. along with Forster's direction, moves at a solid pace. Like Forster, the lack of recognition at awards time for the screenplay was not an outrage, but I wouldn't have complained if it was at least nominated.

The dividing line here between this film being great and outstanding lies with the acting. Most of the performances are solid, but there are some that don't quite make the cut, and it hurts the film. The most notable weak performance comes from Zekeria Ebrahimi, who plays the young Amir. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not as effective as it could be. He just can't translate the guilt that consumes Amir to the audience. In fact, I think I might have been a little lost at this point in the movie at this point had I not read the book because of this. He looks somber, and at times resentful, but we can't feel his emotions. This is a difficult part to portray, and for the most part young Ebrahimi holds his own, which is especially surprising since this is his first film role.

The best performances come from Khalid Abdalla, who plays the adult Amir, and Shaun Toub, who plays the wise Rahim Kahn. Abdalla may not be a known name (though he was in Paul Greengrass's "United 93"), but his work here is amazing. He's a quiet, modest man, and he emotes perfectly when needed to. A lesser-capable actor could have made the character of Rahim Khan into a cliché, but Shaun Toub uses enough subtlety and care in his performance that he creates what the clichés are trying to portray.

Forgive me if I go on a rant here, but this is something that I must address, and that is the film's PG-13 rating. The fact that this film received such a low rating is outrageous. There is no justification for it. Some could argue that the rating was bent because of the need for everyone to see it, like the gore in "Saving Private Ryan," which some say should have earned the film an NC-17 rating. But that exception cannot be applied here. The only purpose the scene serves is to tell the story. Forster (probably at the behest of the producers) tried as hard as he could to tame the film's most painful and disturbing scene to allow the film to sneak by with a PG-13 rating, but the subject material is too disturbing to be depicted in any way and get less than an R rating, regardless of if how "tasteful" is may be portrayed. Worse, this editing robs the scene of much of its power, and by trying it make it less disturbing to get the lower rating is insulting. Furthermore, some scenes of violence are incredibly disturbing as well. In terms of how much time these scenes take of the movie, it doesn't add to much, but what is there is well deserving of an R rating at the very least. The MPAA, whose system of rating movies has always been corrupt, has sunk to a new low by giving this film such a low rating.

But one shouldn't fault the film for this. The film is a solid film that is well-worth seeing, especially if they are fans of the book. THE KITE RUNNER is one of those modern epics that one is occasionally graced with. Spanning two continents, multiple family generations, and many decades, this film touches on a myriad of items including friendship, love, loss, and, ultimately, redemption.

It's prime mover is young Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi), a native Afghan boy who often plays with the hired help; mainly young Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), a Hazara boy who's family is supposedly inferior to the ruling Afghans. But the two form a bond of friendship based on education (Amir teaches Hassan to read), closeness in Amir's house, and, of course, kite flying.

But bad times are on the way for the city of Kabul. The communists are invading and Amir and Hassan have separated due to an impossibly brutal act of prejudice by an Afghan boy against Hassan. The two may never see each other again.

Amir's father races to get himself and his son out of Afghanistan, eventually finding their way to America. Here the two set up a gas station and live hand to mouth by selling at niche markets. And as Amir's father gradually becomes ill, a new revelation will strike to the heart of Amir; one that he cannot ignore and requires his return to his beloved Kabul.

A study of friendship, war, and reconciliation, The Kite Runner is truly a fantastic piece of cinema. The story is never inappropriately spoken in English whenever we're in a foreign country, and only broken English whenever we're in America. This was refreshing and lent itself to a sense of realism.

The acting was on-par with the best you'll see, too. Particular note must be made of Homayoun Ershadi who plays Baba, Amir's ailing father and strong patriarch. Also lead Khalid Abdalla as the older Amir is played well, especially when returning to Kabul to find it in ruin; quite the contrast from when he'd left.

The cinematography of Afghanistan during Amir's escape and ultimate return are nothing short of breathtaking, with snow-capped peaks that will cause your mouth to slacken (I'm not sure exactly which mountain range they used in the film, but wherever it was I want to go there and film it myself!) But it isn't the cinematography nor the acting of one or two people that makes this film a success. It is a simple story told very well that makes it worth any movie watchers' while. Highly recommended. Can a film be too faithful to the book upon which it is based? Judging from the time-spanning 2007 adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's huge 2003 seller, the answer is rather ironically "yes". Like many, I was enthralled by the book, an impressive first effort by the Afghan-American writer/physician. So obviously were director Marc Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction") and screenwriter David Benioff ("Troy"), who pay meticulous attention to the most significant details of the story within the film's 127-minute running time. Yet, the seamless tapestry of heartfelt events in Hosseini's novel often comes across as episodic and truncated because Forster and Benioff are sincerely trying hard to remain true to the full scope of the story within the time constraints. Part of the challenge is how Hosseini carefully used symbolic acts to provide literary, then-and-now symmetry to what is essentially a three-act story, a technique that can come across as somewhat contrived on screen.

However, the filmmakers do the most important things right, specifically giving the viewer an intimate look into a hidden culture heretofore conveyed through CNN news reports, ensuring authenticity by having characters speak in the Dari Persian dialect of the Afghan language, and capturing the emotional entanglements of the complex narrative. The first part of the movie is set in 1978 Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and the eventual takeover of the Taliban. The focus is on the relationship between Amir, the son of an affluent businessman named Baba, and the devoted Hassan, the son of his father's servant. Connected by their mutual love of kite running, the two are thick as thieves until a tragic event separates them irreparably. Unable to find the courage that comes so naturally to his father, Amir is crippled by guilt for not having rescued Hassan from an unspeakable act performed by a trio of local bullies. Forster makes especially palpable the ethnic tensions between the Hazara and the Pashtun in Afghanistan.

Upon the 1979 invasion by Soviet troops, Amir and Baba flee to the U.S. where the story picks up their story nine years later in Fremont, California, a suburban enclave of Afghan émigrés. Baba is reduced to working in a gas station and operating a flea market kiosk. Amir meets a local Afghan girl and marries. This is the film's least interesting passage since Benioff's treatment gives short shrift to ancillary characters like Amir's wife Soraya and most critically, Amir is portrayed by necessity as a reticent young man with a downward cast toward his self-esteem. The final section flashes forward twelve years where Amir, upon publication of his first book, is summoned back to Taliban-dictated Afghanistan to rescue Hassan's son from the Taliban, as a means to atone for his cowardice years earlier. There is true suspense and fear generated in this portion of the story as shocking revelations and old acquaintances come back to haunt Amir during his journey.

A British actor of Egyptian heritage, Khalid Abdalla (the lead hijacker in "United 93") has the central role of Amir as an adult, a challenging role since he has to convey a constant sense of shame and diminished self-worth until the end. The other professional actors fare better - Shaun Toub (Tony Stark's savior Yinsen in the current "Iron Man") as Baba's business partner Rahim Khan, who holds the key to the truth; Atossa Leoni quietly affecting as Soraya; and best of all, Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi who brings pride and dignity to Baba. Three young non-professionals were recruited from Kabul's school system to play the key child roles, and all are quite good. Zekeria Ebrahimi is up to the challenge of the toughest part as young Amir, and Ali Danish Bakhtyari is poignant as Hassan's nearly catatonic son Sohrab. But it's the sad-eyed, moon-faced Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada who will break your heart as the young Hassan, especially in the devastating pomegranate-throwing scene. It's fair to say his performance is on par with the young Enzo Staiola's in Vittorio de Sica's classic "Bicycle Thieves".

The technical aspects are well done, in particular, Roberto Schaefer's clean cinematography (western China convincingly substitutes for Afghanistan), Alberto Iglesias' evocative score, and even the CGI effects showcasing the kites in turbulent flight. The 2008 DVD has a solid set of extras beginning with an insightful commentary from Forster, Hosseini, and Benioff, although some of their dialogue seems rather forced. There are two featurettes included - the first is the 14-minute "Words from the Kite Runner", which focuses on Hosseini's connection to the story and the development of the novel, and the second is the 25-minute "Images from the Kite Runner", a more standard behind-the-scenes look at the production. Rounding out the extras are the original theatrical trailer, a few previews, and a PSA from Hosseini on how to help the Afghans during their current time of need. This is absolutely one of our favourites of 2007.

The tale of two boys who come from different worlds but are as close as brothers is brilliantly told.

Beautifully shot, and scripted - from childhood to the adulthood it never falters.

A brilliant insight into a lost culture, and a very good way to understand Farsi cultures and traditions this is also an exceptional tale in its own right. It is both compassionate and thrilling, uplifting and filled with immense sorrow, joyful and depressing.

With excellent performances from the cast and great technical skills behind the camera this really is film at its best.

Highest recommendation: a real slice of life that uplifts and informs. I have no read the novel on which "The Kite Runner" is based. My wife and daughter, who did, thought the movie fell a long way short of the book, and I'm prepared to take their word for it. But, on its own, the movie is good -- not great but good. How accurately does it portray the havoc created by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How convincingly does it show the intolerant Taliban regime that followed? I'd rate it C+ on the first and B+ on the second. The human story, the Afghan-American who returned to the country to rescue the son of his childhood playmate, is well done but it is on this count particularly that I'm told the book was far more convincing than the movie. The most exciting part of the film, however -- the kite contests in Kabul and, later, a mini-contest in California -- cannot have been equaled by the book. I'd wager money on that. I read the book before watching the movie and it left me emotionally drained but I felt that it truly transported me to Afghanistan, a culture I know very little about. I had great hopes for this movie and it did not disappoint. I watched this with someone who didn't read the book and he also enjoyed it. They had to shorten some things in the movie but it was a well acted and well shot film. It leaves you thinking about the movie long after it is over. You feel for the characters and their plights. I highly recommend this movie to those who like emotionally draining drama and want to experience Afghani culture. There are some disturbing scenes not suitable for children to watch. It is a heavy drama depicting the horrors of life under a restrictive regime. This is a film that left me breathless........ wanting to learn more of the Afghan history and traditions. With todays "evil doer" mantra clouding reality, it was inspirational to experience the beauty of the people and their beliefs.

Casting was impeccable, the scenery simply marvelous. The acting was first rate and the fact that the Academy overlooked this (except it's music) is unforgivable.

The script is wonderful and such and emotional journey. Provoking an "ugly cry" from this watcher.

A film worth watching a second and third time. Based on the best selling novel by Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner is a story of friendship, betrayal, and the struggle for redemption. Set in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion of 1979 and later in the days of Taliban rule, all of the elements are present for great drama but, under the direction of Marc Forster (Finding Neverland), the film lacks the kind of searing emotional impact that makes for a memorable experience, though it is entertaining, well acted, and occasionally moving.

Set in 1978 in Kabul but filmed in Kashgar, China because of the dangers in Afghanistan, the friendship that opens the film between two young boys is very real, though they are miles apart in social and economic circumstances. 12-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) lives in posh surroundings with his wealthy and educated father Baba, played by the great Homayoun Ershadi, although his wealth seems a bit incongruous in one of the poorest countries in the world. Though Baba is a loving father, he confesses to Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), his friend and business associate, that Amir is too soft and that there is "something missing with that boy". The family has a servant, Ali (Nabi Tanha) who dotes on his every need and whose son Hassan (Ahmed Khan Mahmoodzada) is Amir's best friend.

The two are separated not only by class but also by ethnicity. Amir, a burgeoning writer, is a member of the Pashtun majority while Hassan is a Hazara, a minority sect (10% of the population). Though we learn little about their traditions or social situation, they are bound together by their love of kite flying, a popular sport in Kabul and by Amir's reading Afghan folk stories to Hassan who is illiterate. The annual kite-flying competition to the boys is a big event in their lives and the CGI effects are breathtaking. The kite strings are covered with glass particles and the winner is the one whose kite string can cut down the other kites in the sky. Hassan is the kite runner who has an uncanny ability to locate the fallen kites and bring them to Amir as a trophy. After Amir wins the important contest, however, a sad event occurs that will shape the rest of his life.

Bullies, led by the older Assef (Elham Ehsas) who later appears as a ruthless Taliban leader, attack Hassan because he is a Hazara and brutally rape him (off camera) while Amir is too frightened to try and prevent it. Unable to confront his perceived lack of courage (though one must wonder what if anything he could have done to help Hassan), guilt becomes the driving force in his relationship with Hassan and their friendship becomes strained. In one incident, Amir throws pomegranates at Hassan as if begging him to fight back and punish him for his passivity but Hassan doesn't take the bait, continuing to be loyal in spite of his friend's cowardice. When Amir urges his father to dismiss the servants and accuses Hassan of stealing his watch, Hassan admits to the theft even though he is innocent. Eventually, circumstances force Ali and Hassan to leave out of shame. When the Russians invade Afghanistan, Baba and Amir also leave, fleeing to Pakistan and then to Fremont, California where the story picks up years later.

Baba is forced to work at a gas station and to sell trinkets at an open-air market while Amir (Abdul Salam Yusoufzai), seemingly going through the motions of living, studies to become a writer at the local community college. After he falls in love and marries Soraya (Atossa Leoni), the daughter of a Kabul general, Amir finally publishes his first novel, A Season of Ashes and things look very positive. When Amir receives a call from Rahim Khan asking him to visit him in Pakistan telling him "there is a way to be good again", the specter of guilt that has haunted him all of his life beckons Amir to go home. He returns to Pakistan and, with great risk, goes back to an Afghanistan now controlled by the Taliban to confront the demons of his past and to discover a startling secret in the process.

The Kite Runner is a sensitive film that deals with the internal pain that comes from knowing that you were not true to your best instincts and allows for the possibility of moving beyond shame to a new level of responsibility. It also does not hide the pain caused to Afghanistan by wars and revolution, a pain that is perhaps represented by the suffering Hassan. Unfortunately, it reduces complex situations to the level of good guys and villains and distorts what actually happened, exonerating the U.S., who engaged in anti-government covert operations within the country, from any responsibility for the disastrous war that left over one million dead and millions more disabled. Though we are inspired by the outstanding child actors and moved by the freedom that kite flying represents, The Kite Runner relinquishes its power when it attempts to substitute melodrama for history. one of the best and most inspirational movies about a different culture I've seen in years. tragic and touching. worth the watch. maybe a few times. We all know how brutal children can be. I know from my own and my brothers experiences as children and this movie hit the nail on the head. perfectly! The Kite running is amazing and I need to do research on the validity of that event. even though It is done in cgi it is still amazing and very interesting. to maneuver a kite like that with a single string seems impossible but they make it believable. anyway this movie has many twists and turns that are, I'm sure to many, probably easy to figure out but they hit me before I could. which makes a great movie for me! when you figure out the whole movie in the first 10 minutes it kind of ruins it. but this one does it so smoothly that it's hard to guess it even when it happens...I'm a guy and I don't mind saying that the tears were flowing at more than one point in this movie. I have not read the novel from which the film is based on. So I cannot comment on what is missing or if there were changes made.

As I stated above, I had a wonderful experience watching THE KITE RUNNER.. I find that when I see films about other cultures than ours here in the USA,I learn how other peoples live & exist.

The actors in this movie are from Afghanistan & other countries in that area. There are 3 young children in this near epic movie in there first roles, They were marvelous.

The scenes that was supposedly in Kabul were shot in various parts of China, I assume that the area is similar to the actual places in the book.

Mark Foster directed & he did FINDING NEVRRLAND, he has created the same magic here.

All aspects of production are first rate.

I found this a better movie than those nominated & won Oscars.

The film is sub-titled , it is very clear to read. It has a proper PG-13 rating. SPOILER ALERT--- The child rape scene is very well handled.

I cannot however give this a 4 star rating as the general plot & story line we have seen many, many times, Non-the-less this is a very worthwhile movie to watch..

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10) OK I haven't read the book…… And maybe the book was better…….WHO KNOWS???// But I loved the movie. It was entertaining, not a bit boring, enjoyable and most of all heart wrenching. The friendship between the two kids was so pure and innocent. These kids acted so well, especially the son of the Servant. Oh my GOD that's like the form of GOD on the face of EARTH. ARGHHHH he steals our heart so easily. *********Spoilers************* The other Friend the rich guy is a Kid and his confusion and frustration can be understood. BUT I did get angry when he Abandoned and ignored his friend in the time when he needed consoling. Anyways he was just a kid and a bit stubborn to. I wish the movie would also have shown the older version of the poor kid. Arghh it pains to just think of the ending. This movie is sad. I felt terribly sad during the ending. Tears dropped down my eyes. Yes the background scores are fantastic, the scenes are WOW. The Kite scenes are Fascinating. And well it gets a bit of an adventure in the middle. Wonderfully acted and superbly cast. The kids acted so well. GREAT Direction. don't know why this movie failed to WOOO the Critics. But it sure did WOO me. 10/10 Must-See……… Two young friends grow up together in Afghanistan. The events of their lives drive them apart and one of them has now been living in the USA for a good number of years. As he receives a phone call it is clear that he has to return, for there is trouble in the air.

This is a film about life lasting friendships, mistakes and making up again. But also a film about darkness, pain and endurance. From the pleasurable young days of growing up and playing games to the falling apart, back to the playing of games. This is a slow film, but not too slow.

It plays on emotions and that is quite right for a drama, but it does so a bit too much for my liking. This makes it too much of a tearjerker, loosing it a bit of the quality it carries. It is still good, but not fantastic.

7 out of 10 kites ran aground kite runner is undoubtedly one of the most amazing books i have read in the recent past. i perhaps had very high expectations from the film, but none the less the movie was good, the entire setting seemed realistic. nothing was made to fancy. the dialogs were not very attractive or powerful, they were just right. The movie was not a bad experience at all, especially at the last 15mins ,where it got real emotional and even the hardest man would probably cry.but my imagination was far better than the movie...i cried more upon reading the novel than seeing the movie. but overall a good movie to see for those of u who are not readers. but the readers- the novel would be a better experience,so if at all u want to see the movie, read the novel first and then compare it to the movie. For those curious, this episode is based in theme upon Pirandello's play, "Six Characters in Search of an Author" and Jean-Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit" (as indicated most obviously by its title), but, of course, with a Sterling twist.

Five very different individuals find themselves in a round room with no idea who they are other than the indication of their attire. A bell intermittently rings (perhaps also a Hemmingway allusion?), increasing the agony of their incarceration. The newcomer to the group, a Major, is determined to escape, while the others are resigned to their fate.

Unlike Pirandello, these characters don't even have a story. They have nothing other than the experience of the room in their consciousness, and no one to author their nonexistent story, so their position is even more hopeless than the characters in Pirandello's piece. Unlike both Pirandello and Sartre, there is no relationship involved between the characters and therefore no real conflict between them, though the theme of personal responsibility versus apathy is prominent in this story.

Though this diverges significantly from the storyline of the authors alluded to in the title, themes of Sartre and Pirandello (and many other authors of the twentieth century) come through with absolute clarity. This is very obviously a piece which addresses post-modernist perspective in the context of the Cold War era. There is also an emphasis upon issues of personal insignificance.

This is easily one of the best episodes I've seen, and still exceptionally relevant to current experience (as are Sartre and Pirandello). Exactly what makes a good piece of writing into a classic. While researching Susan Harrison (The Ballerina) in reference to a Bonanza Episode, I was reminded of this gem.

This episode is the inspiration for Dylan's "All Along the Watch Tower" (Hendrix's cover is probably as well know and is one of his best) which is one of HIS best.

Thus this episode is responsible for several 'bests' - not bad for approximately 22 minutes of television.

But this is "The Twilight Zone". Further comment of the series is unnecessary.

'5 Characters' is typical Serling. Intense, dramatic, barreling toward an end that is as inevitable in hindsight as it is surprising the first time you see it.

This episode is spoiled in one sentence and is too good to spoil for any who have not seen it.

But you will feel ambushed. And you will never listen to Hendrix with the same ears again. I will never forget the utterly absorbing effect this show had on me when I saw it for the first time. From the moment that the Major is startled by the Clown, to his anguished attempts to make sense of the situation ( " We're alive, we're people, we must have memories!" inexact quote but close), to his clever attempt to improvise a means of escape, this is riveting drama.

Little touches stay with the viewer for a long time after watching it. The moment when the lovely ballerina dances for everyone, to the off key, screeching bagpipes of the Scottish musician; the Tramp's wistful remark, " A miss is as good as a mile", the Major's shaken conclusion that they must be in Hell.

This is a brilliant episode, beautifully written and acted. The breathtaking beauty of Susan Harrison adds to the memorability of the strange, touching story. "Five Characters In Search of An Exit" clearly has to be one of the more clever and better "Twilight Zone" episodes ever made because of it's abstract ideas and thoughtful plan where the characters have to search to discover identity and it ends as a surprise. You have a military major, a female dancer, bag pipe player, a clown, and hobo who all awake together in the bottom of a wall and none know how they got there and they don't know who they are. So the episode starts out with very interesting drama and suspense from the very beginning making it so soul searching for the viewers interest to want to know the characters true identity and backgrounds. Plus the episode even adds more intrigue for the fact it places different types of characters with different views and lifestyles all with one goal in common to escape and find identity, and peace that's very compelling for the viewer. Only in the end I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen a surprise fall happens! Proving that many times you might want to stay where you are away in your little sheltered world and be away from the masses of other people's world as you will see the characters are loved in a different way by people in a much different form. Really great and cleverly done a real shock twist surprise that makes the viewer see the unexpected and cruel fate that happens sometimes when you search and seek. This is one of the classic TWILIGHT ZONE episodes, where with the simplest of situations the viewer was drawn into a seemingly symbolic conflict, only to find the solution surprising and strangely acceptable. Five figures are inside a container/prison: a Major, a ballerina, a bagpiper, a clown, and a tramp. They are certainly an odd choice of types to be in this isolation chamber, but they are all in it (nevertheless) and they are trying to figure out why they are there. What have they in common? None can figure it out. But gradually the Major organizes them into working to bet out by standing on each other's shoulders. And the Major, going to the top of the line of figures does reach the entrance, and .... I'll leave it like that, although one of the other critiques on this thread actually gives the story away.

The title seems to be suggested by SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR, Pirandello's famous play. Whether the actual purpose to the show was to spoof that play is questionable: Pirandello's characters analyze their roles and relations with each other. But the five characters here, while they try to understand their situation, are totally in the dark - they are not in the situation of the six characters in Pirandello who know their current situations. This uncertainty of what is going on allows the viewers to think it is an abstract drama.

The actors, William Windon as the Major and Murray Mattheson as the Clown in particular, give good accounts of themselves. And the conclusion, whether planned as a spoof or not, is quite effective. It seems there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that "Five Characters" is one of the best episodes in the series and those who are so cool that they know it sucked because they were so clever and already predicted the "lame" twist at the end (which apparently, in their small minds, is the only reason the Twilight Zone exists: to come up with twists).

There are plenty of lame episodes in the series and I'm not one to rate all TZ episodes ten. But this one is certainly one of those that merit such a rating. It is claustrophobic and colorful. The suspense is built up and we cannot wait for the reveal of the secret at the end. But whatever that secret is, what these people are, it doesn't really matter. Most of the beauty of the episode is to lead up to that. It would be just as powerful if we never find out what these strangers in a strange place really are. During the Sci-Fi TZ marathon of January 31, 1999, this episode was the last one aired in the 20th century in my time zone(Eastern). It was New Year's Eve, and when the clown starts singing, "We're here because we're here, because we're here, because we're here..." I realized that this was TZ's clever nod to it being New Year's Eve because that tune is also the tune to Old Lang Syne. Coincidence? We will never know.

I love this story for the little touches: The tear on the ballerina, the antics of the clown, and the hit-yourself-in-the-head ending. This and the Art Carney Santa TZ are the only ones that are about Christmas.

My personal top five episodes, after Five Characters...: 1. The Hunt 2. The After Hours 3. The Hitchhiker 4. The Lonely 5. Little Girl Lost I guess by the time I saw this episode, I had seen enough Twilight Zones to have it figured out ahead of time. There is this odd assemblage of characters who find themselves at the bottom of a cylinder. They are fine until an overzealous soldier shows up in their midst. It is his prime directive to escape and so he garners the forces and puts them to work to reach the top of the cylinder. There is much discussion about purpose and reason and speculation on their pasts, but no one can remember anything. They represent different jobs: a piper, a ballerina, a clown, a man in a tattered hat. Why are they there? It leads to an adventure and is resolved at the end, but I guess I had a pretty good idea before it all happened. Odd but wonderfully original movie. Genuinely frightening, creepy and ridiculous in equal measures. The setting of a high rise red brick apartment is a perfect backdrop for the haunting action. The thought of a secret sealed room in a place like this is good enough but when the lead naive couple start cleaning up the old bed they find in this room the scene is set for some classic chills. The cast is fantastic. Tanya Dempsey really gets to chew some scenery after being undervalued in other Full Moon films. Joe Estevez proves why brother Martin Sheen is so much bigger in Hollywood - his rolling eyes during the making the bed scene are really hilarious. Charles Band co-produced with Stuart Gordon and this really is an exceptional Full Moon/Darkwave release. Danny Draven also directed Hell Asylum with Dempsey. It's one of the best movies that I have seen this year ! I don't agree with the person who said it's boring. Of course some people may find this movie not frightening at all, but personally I spent a very good moment. This movie alterns very well sex scenes with frightening scenes. There is also a nice touch of humor. For example when the wife tells her husband that in her childhood she was abused by her father, and then her husband says "how can someone abuse someone like you", and then he attempts to attach her on the bed for sexual games :D Very funny ! I recommend this movie to everyone, and by the way, sorry for my poor English (I'm from France). This movie was thought to be low budget but it turned out to be awesome. I just rented it from blockbuster and i loved it. The acting was very good, hot women and some scary parts. It is plain and simply worth the money to pay for. Passion In The Desert exemplifies spatial grander. It is a visual narrative, illuminated by the magnificent cinematography. Passion was filmed on location in the deserts of Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Namibia, and Tunisia.

We are in Egypt, 1798. Augustin, a Napoleanic soldier, is escorting writer and artist Jean-Michel Venture De Paradis on an official mission to document, measure, draw, and paint the cultural landmarks of the Egypt: its dunes, stupendous ruins, and mysterious people.

But, can you truly "document" majestic sandscapes, fractured edifices, and wild Bedouins? Can you truly capture the essence of Egypt, nature, man, and time?

Jean and Augustin become lost in the mesmerizing glittering, gold desert, whose vastness overwhelms their senses.

"You can't get lost in Egypt! There's the Nile, and there's the sea!", says the dehydrated Augustin, and soon he discovers an ancient, winding cave that leads to a palatial ruin.

Delirious and near-delusional, he attempts to rest; a perplexing sound rouses him; his eyes, body, and emotions become hypnotically locked in time as he stumbles into a sensual, sensory experience....

A wild, sleek female leopard stares back at him, and their love affair begins....

A daring love affair, a daring film. I recently stumbled across a TV showing of "Passion...." (having missed the opening scenes). Ms Currier in to be praised for having the vision and courage to bring such a strange de Balzac tale to the screen. I am grateful to the entire cast and crew for their parts in producing such a thoroughly fine motion picture. It must have been arduous shooting so many scenes in the desert. And I cannot comprehend how her trainer coaxed such a fine "performance" from the leopard, Simoon. (This adverture calls to mind another suspenseful adventure, "Naked Prey"). Why isn't this film more well-known?. Hope I can find it on video. Honore De Balzac's genuinely bizarre short story on which this was loosely based gets an unsettling, albeit breathtakingly filmed, treatment here as a sort of forbidden-love blossoms over a period of time between man and beast in the early part of the nineteenth century. Thin and very blonde English actor Ben Daniels plays the role of a young soldier during the Napoleonic wars who gets lost whilst escorting an exiled(?) french painter across the rugged, dangerous landscapes of the Gobi Desert. After literally going around in circles the two men give up ever trying to reach civilization again, thus each decides (against better judgment mind you) to go their separate ways with the promise of both returning to the same exact spot when and if a water source is actually found. This is of course how Daniels' character comes to encounter the creature (a wild and untamed female leopard) and eventually form a seemingly unbreakable bond, or rather love, with it that both saves his life and nearly destroys it by film's end. The exquisite cinematography, minimalist dialog, somewhat demented story which arguably hints at possible bestiality in about three scenes are what ultimately lead professional critics to pan the film as pretentious and overlong rubbish. While it is a film that isn't exactly for all tastes mind you, I find it to be a subtle, though decidedly left-of-center mixture of fantasy with a surreal and sumptuous atmosphere, highlighted by the fact that for more than half of the flick actor Ben Daniels is forced to perform opposite a wild animal (four leopards were actually used as opposed to just the one), which plain common sense and a slight knowledge of theatrics dictates that it must have been a maddening and very difficult job that he managed to pull off quite brilliantly if you ask me! Overall, I think that "Passion in the Desert" takes a while to warm up to, but if you're a patient person who is willing to give it some time it does in fact cast it's uniquely original spell over you in spite of everything; and unlike most platonic human and animal relationship stories it need not require a talking pig, monkey or shaggy dog to keep your interest throughout. (***** out of *****) When I began watching I thought I was watching some pro-Koresh amateur documentary. However, I had never seen 3/4 of the footage they used. They interviewed people saying that the FBI/ATF instigated all these things, which sounded so far fetched, but then followed in up with FBI video and testimony. I was amazed. The documentary followed up with the senate investigation after the fire, and after seeing the interview and video footage you will be shocked at how the Senate and Attorney General turn their backs on Davidians basically to cover up the aggression by the FBI/ATF. If you start watching this you must finish it. Otherwise you will think it is propaganda of something like that. I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.

The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.

For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.

It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the "cult" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.

The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the "truth," as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.

It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.

Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.

The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.

It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of **** Excellent documentary that still manages to shock and enlighten. Unfortunately, times haven't changed much since this was made and it is thus an important piece for all freedom-conscious Americans to see. If you value your freedom!

I first got seriously interested in The Branch Davidian debacle after reading an article in UK journal "The Fortean Times." Wanting to learn more, I rented this documentary and after watching it, I was stunned at what I saw. This film peaked my interest in the subject and I have read several books on the subject since then. This film is a must see for people who only know the facts as reported in the so called "mainstream" media. The baldfaced lies, double talk, and contradictory statements made by officials and politicians shown in this film will make you think twice about calling people who question the governments actions in this fiasco "nuts" "loonies" and "kooks."

Whats scary is that I know some people who consider themselves open minded "intellectuals" and freedom loving "liberals" who are still convinced that the government did the right thing at Waco and refuse to watch this film or read any of the books on the subject. They continue to insist its not worth their time because its all propaganda from gun loving, Clinton hating, religious fanatic,right wing anarchist nuts. One publication from an organization comprised of many so called "great minds" that claims to be dedicated to promoting "reason","common sense" and "rationalism" condemned the film claiming it would poison peoples minds and strongly suggested this film should be suppressed. They even hinted the Davidians had it coming. I won't mention its name since I'm a coward. If you are one of those reading this (of course you probably would not be reading this anyway), I can only say its a shame you won't open your mind. Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the "cult leader" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!!

This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video! After reading about this documentary, I rented it and watched it with my teenage children. It was amazingly well-balanced, showing each side's perspective and leaving many questions unanswered. This is as it should be. I don't watch a documentary to be told what to think. I watch it to learn and to draw my own conclusions.

Afterward, we took a trip to Waco and visited the Branch Davidians at the site of the conflagration. This was a potent lesson in seeing for yourself. And it drove home the basic underlying honesty behind "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." If you just open your eyes and look, the facts can speak for themselves. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. An eye opening documentary about the 1993 siege of a religious sect compound near Waco, Texas. Seventy-six people, including sect leader, David Koresh, perished in a flaming inferno that destroyed the compound. There is still heated debate over how the fire started. Homicide or suicide? Can you still trust government ethics?

Chris Noth plays a maniac who wrote a children's book as a young lad, posing as a doctor who menaces a community in order to push his sister's son into the position as his school's genius. The only man that can stop him is a cop who plays by his own rules, and is forced to go undercover with the help of his mute father who communicates via oujii board. Will Rick Springfield find out whats up? Or will somebody sabotage his recording studio! Does the mentally retarded boy who operates the book mobile have clues? Watch to find out! I'm not making this up! This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.

Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully "wooden" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.

Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.

I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison. Patricia Arquette plays American doctor Laura Bowman, who takes a holiday to Burma in an attempt to heal her spirit after the murders of her husband and young son. She is left behind in Rangoon during a military crackdown and leaves the city with an aging man who works as a "tour guide." But he is no simple tour guide; he is a professor who introduces her to the life outside of the tourist traps ... the two of them get caught up in the political upheaval and Laura sees with her own eyes how the government betrays and oppresses its own people.

This movie is one of my favorites because of its themes. First, it's informational (describing some of the injustices that are occurring in Burma). Secondly, it's about a woman's struggle to find meaning in life after an incredible loss. Thirdly, it's about compassion and sacrifice, and people coming together - without even knowing each other - to endure pain and fear.

Just about every beautiful scene in this movie is important; nothing is wasted here. It's an earnest and moving film. There is also a very emotional score composed by Hans Zimmer which complements scenes nicely.

A definite recommend, especially to people concerned with human rights ... and people who want to know, "What purpose can I serve?"

Never had I seen such a powerful true story movie. I discovered a city, a country, a lost revolution and even a Nobel prize winner thanks to this masterpiece of cinema.

If you haven't seen this movie, you can't say you've seen anything .

A great lesson of courage, humility and life.

I haven't seen anything as good since.

T.E. Saturday, January 9th, 1999 This movie was working toward two goals: to make a political point and to tell a scary adventure story. It's often difficult to do make a political point and still tell a good story (consider the highly political but rarely-entertaining final season of Ellen). Beyond Rangoon finds a good balance between politics and storytelling.

I already knew that Aung San Suu Kyi had won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, and knew something about the oppressive political situation in Burma, so the political message of the movie was mostly a dramatization of what I already knew. But I thought the movie did a good job of telling about Aung San Suu Kyi and the mostly-faceless dictators who have for years tried to silence her. The device of presenting an unfamiliar setting through the eyes of a character that viewers can identify with is fairly common, but it's quite well done in this movie.

Of course, the real measure of the movie was its entertainment value. Arquette was excellent as a young woman whose sister took her to a distant, unfamiliar place to shake her out of her depression over the violent deaths of her husband and son. She is convincingly detached and depressed. Her grieving condition gives her a clear reason for her distracted wanderings into the thick of a dangerous situation she does not understand, something she'd otherwise be much too intelligent to stumble into.

Once the dangers become so obvious that she can see through them even through the cloud of grief, she's trapped, with no easy escape. That sets her on a path of adventure where she needs her intelligence to survive. The writers deserve much credit for making her intelligent and resourceful enough to deal with numerous dangerous situations, while still finding a plausible reason for her to be foolish enough to get into trouble in the first place. The directing is strong also, keeping up the tension throughout the race to escape the forces of the dictatorship.

This movie had additional impact on me and my wife because of other events of the same time period. We were preparing for a trip to India, and heard news reports of Western tourists who had been taken hostage by a terrorist group in India. Avoiding isolated terrorists in a peaceful democratic country is quite a different matter from escaping an oppressive dictatorship. But the movie and the news shared the element of avoiding danger in an unfamiliar country. That common characteristic gave the movie meaning beyond the strength of its own skillful storytelling. The movie illustrates the international tourist's worst nightmare. While the movie has its flaws, it brings to light some of the problems that come with living in a country that has no democracy. It makes you empathize with the people under such a government and makes you want to learn more about their lives, their struggles and a potential leader Aung San Suu Kyi. It makes one wonder why our government will interfere places we are not wanted yet ignore those who ask our help. This film should be seen by as many people as possible as it concentrates on the human rights problems in Burma. When I first watched this film in the mid 1990's it totally changed my life. I knew very little about Aung San Suu Kyi or her democracy movement. It effected me so I wanted to understand more about the situation. Any film that has the power to make you want to learn more has done its job properly. Patricia Arquette is superb as the American lady who due to personal tragedy has become reckless with her own life decisions and gets caught up in the ensuing conflict. It is a powerful film about a subject matter which deserves more publicity. As the film itself says the 1988 massacre of Pro democracy activists was not televised and therefore largely went unnoticed to the world. I implore everyone reading these comments to take the time to find out more about the current plight of the Burmese people.

It is about time this film was released on DVD. Can anything be done? Beyond Rangoon is one of the most emotional and intense films ever made. Superbly directed by John Boorman, and intensly acted by Patricia Arquette, this film can easily be called one of the best films of the 90's. The story and vivid characters just grab the audience from the very opening, and never lets go. After seeing the film, the viewer will never be able to forget "Beyond Rangoon". The film made little money at the box office, and is little known, but should be high profile. Watching it, you can tell that it was meant to be seen by a large audience. It is a very important and moving film, and should be seen by everyone.

"Beyond Rangoon" is simply marvelous. From the traumatic opening to the uplifting ending, you will be amazed at how well put together this film is. Patricia Arquette amazingly portrays Laura Bowman, who we meet as a shut-down and quit despondent young doctor, unable to deal with her grief over the loss of her husband and son. Throughout the course of the film, as she is trapped in Burma, witnesses the Democratic uprise and massacres in the capital city of Rangoon, flees for her life, and saves her tour-guide's (U Aung Ko's) life, she is regaining her will to live. This may seen contrived or heavy handed: it is not. John Boorman, a master at spiritual and emotional conflict, paints the film with broad strokes, and often uses symbolism to capture Laura's emotional state, and physical predicament. Patricia Arquette, as usual, gives a wonderfully convincingly and believable performance as the emotionally wounded Laura. What Arquette does amazingly, in any role that she plays, is give us a window into her character's heart without words. Every time she is given a close up in the film, the audience is given insight into her character. She does not need to speak to convey emotions, or be over the top. Some critics were harsh on Arquette's performance in the film when it opened on August 25, 1995, deeming that she was "flat" or "dull" in the role. I found her characterization dead-on, staying well away from the melodramatics that typically are part of an actor's performance when having a personally tragedy take place. She is on shock and is reserved about her feelings: that is just as normal as screaming lashing out at those around you. I am hoping that Warner Brothers releases this title on DVD very soon. With Arquette's hugely successful NBC drama" Medium" bringing her to household name status, not to mention an Emmy win and now 2007 nomination, it would be in the studio's best interest to do so. Hopefully there will be extras, with the alternate ending. Do not by pass by this film. It is one that you will certainly not forget after seeing. It was high time a movie about the situation in a largely ignored Asian country like Myanmar had to be made and Beyond Rangoon is Hollywood's answer. Initially I thought Hollywood would dramatize the events of the 8888 uprising and add in the traditionally Hollywood spice of Titanic-type love between the lead heroine and the Burmese male lead who happens to be an old man. Thankfully, nothing of that sort was in place - which may also explain why the film was not financially successful.

Anyway, the film was honest-to-God and I was glad at the accuracy of events portrayed. Apart from the fact that filming was done outside of Myanmar in Malaysia & Thailand and that I missed the exotic Burmese locales, I could not find much fault in the film.

You cannot blame the film for the desperation of the people and the resulting overwhelming actions. It is after all, real events of a civil war. The music by Hans Zimmer is definitely the USP of an otherwise adventurous tragedy for people who have no connection to it.

I was only a year old in Rangoon (now Yangon) during this tumultuous time. When I heard a movie was made on my real-life experience which I was too young to absorb, I had to get the DVD and needless to say, I could hardly have any complaints about it as it is an eye-opening wonder for me. This is a great film in many different ways...perhaps the most important is that it introduces Western audiences to the remarkable, tragic story of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight for freedom and democracy. Wonderful acting, gorgeous cinematography, breathtaking action and suspense: "Beyond Rangoon" has everything. I've seen this movie several times over the last ten years and each time it means more to me. Not everyone will like it (hence the relatively low rating on IMDb), but that's because it is not conventional Hollywood dumbtainment; rather, it challenges the viewer on several levels. I've never watched it without sobbing at the end and promising to live a more meaningful life. I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated. Based on an actual story, John Boorman shows the struggle of an American doctor, whose husband and son were murdered and she was continually plagued with her loss. A holiday to Burma with her sister seemed like a good idea to get away from it all, but when her passport was stolen in Rangoon, she could not leave the country with her sister, and was forced to stay back until she could get I.D. papers from the American embassy. To fill in a day before she could fly out, she took a trip into the countryside with a tour guide. "I tried finding something in those stone statues, but nothing stirred in me. I was stone myself."

Suddenly all hell broke loose and she was caught in a political revolt. Just when it looked like she had escaped and safely boarded a train, she saw her tour guide get beaten and shot. In a split second she decided to jump from the moving train and try to rescue him, with no thought of herself. Continually her life was in danger.

Here is a woman who demonstrated spontaneous, selfless charity, risking her life to save another. Patricia Arquette is beautiful, and not just to look at; she has a beautiful heart. This is an unforgettable story.

"We are taught that suffering is the one promise that life always keeps." I came across this movie on TV. I hadn't heard of it before and almost changed the channel, but it quickly hooked me.

The story of the struggle of the Burmese people against a military dictatorship was provoking. The level of brutality that some are willing to use to hold onto power is hard to believe. It makes me thankful to live in a country where the Government isn't likely to shoot people in the streets.

The story of Laura Bowman was a good thread to hold the story of political struggle together. A powerful movie that has recovered much of its meaning in this second half of 2007 after the new desperate movements of the Burmese people against their tyrants. I felt a complex mix of feelings about the people there, something like compassion and admiration at the same time, together with a bit of rage because I feel that no one, neither the countries of the world, nor themselves, is doing anything effective to end this shame. I think these feelings became directly from the movie, and that they were intended when it was made, so it is a successful movie. The desire for peace, the quest for enlightenment, the respect for life sometimes leads to subjugation. In fact it is the Buddhist Burmese culture who has left the doors wide opens to their dictators. But, how can you feel angry about these poor people? I always wanted to see this film and when I finally got to I knew I was in for a nice surprise when John Boorman's name appeared on the screen. Known mostly for his epic films (he directed the first Conan and wrote Apocalypse Now) put together in the classic Hollywood structure, this one fits nicely with his catalog.

I also can't express how perfect the timing was considering that Myanmar (Burma) is once again experiencing an uprising by monks and students against the military "junta" run government which is the very same one (there has been a change of leadership since but it's essentially the same) depicted in the movie from 1988. Now more than ever this film needs to be aired on television (caught it on IFC) because of recent events. I am afraid I will have to add my name to the long list of people who remain flabbergasted that this film has STILL not ( sept 2007 ) been issued on DVD. It's one of those mysteries that makes the mind boggle, especially when you consider the amount of DVD's available today containing material that should have been binned years ago. Still I have an excellent digital VHS copy in English with subtitles and Nicam Stereo so my qualm is more one of principle than a frustration at not being able to view the film. As to the film itself, this is an excellent all-rounder with good picture quality, more than satisfactory soundtrack, lively plot involving suspense, emotion, sadness, frustration, feeling good and exotic surroundings ( for a European ). How true the film fits in with the reality in Burma I have no idea, indeed, that is less important, the essential thing is that entertainment-wise, it is a success. One soon becomes attached to each of the main characters and I admit to having my heart in my mouth during the final crossing-the-river scene. It's a shame we hear so little about countries such as Burma and this film at least gives some insight into the country. Has the situation changed since 1995 ? The events which are to occur later this month seem to answer this question with a resounding "No" and the regime in place seems to be as brutal as ever, not even sparing the lives of monks, let alone women or children ! Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do. Certainly this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Patricia Arquette is what she is promoted to be: An ACTRESS! This is undoubtedly her finest moment of Acting and she certainly deserves the credit for her work. Never in any of her other movies, with the possible exception of Holy Matrimony, has she been totally believable and authentic.

PLot: A young woman finds herself in southeast Asia and is suddenly thrown into the political havoc of the countryside. She witnesses mass murder and totalitarianism and escapes.

It is one movie that you MUST see or you have not seen all of Hollywood's finest. I rank it 58 in the top 100 films of all time.

Thanks Bob My ex wife and I saw and were intrigued by the trailer for this film. We waited for it to come out but when it did it didn't stay in theaters very long. Several years later I bought it on VHS and I am transferring it to DVD so I can preserve it.

I found it to be very moving. It is about real events in a real country. BURMA got such a bad reputation for the political oppression it created that they changed their name.

I find women with little make-up on to be very sexy. Patricia Arquette is in this movie. Frances McDormand and Spalding Gray are in it only briefly.

After coming home to find her young son and husband brutally murdered Laura (Arquette) is afraid of blood. A bad trait for a doctor. Her sister (McDormand) talks her into going on a vacation to Burma. While there she witnesses a peaceful demonstration and has her passport stolen. In a bold (or stupid) move she asks a tourist guide to show her something off the tourist track. Her guide is injured by soldiers and she spends the rest of the movie trying to get him and herself to safety.

Every time I watch this it reminds me that we in the United States forget that to a peasant living under military rule, SOCIALISM, where at least eating is virtually guaranteed, looks pretty darn good. I would give this movie a good strong 7. While it definantly isn't the greatest movie, or even one the best movies of it's kind (The Killing Fields is better) it does at least attempt to tell a necessary story.

I think the method of introducing Laura into Burma was a bit contrived. First of all, Burma isn't exactly the easiest country to visit, especially in the late 80's. Secondly, if you did make it Burma, your passport would not get lost. A sane person would make darn sure they knew where their passport was at all times. With that in mind, I'm sure the screenwriter knew that was weak, but needed something. Patricia Arquette's performance was understated, and I just didn't buy that she was a doctor. However, at least she didn't overact the role, which often happens in movies like this. U Aung Ko was good, but also understated. The end is hard to follow, since most of the dialogue is in Burmese, with people translating for Laura. It would have been difficult for Laura, and is difficult for the viewer as well. Another plus is the strong SE Asian scenery in the film, which was enjoyable to see. I first was made aware of this film when I saw a preview before another movie. I was intrigued but it didn't get to see it before it's short run in theaters was done.

It is not an easy movie to watch multiple times. There is much violence inflicted upon unarmed civilians. There are lessons to be learned here. One of Patricia Arquette's lines sums up on. "To Americans if it didn't happen on TV it just didn't happen" There is a lot of truth to that.

Another is that at one point she thinks that just because she announces she is an American Citizen that soldiers will part and let her pass. It doesn't work that way.

The scenery is beautiful. The acting is all decent. THE PROFESSOR is especially good. Mainly though I care about these characters. Francis McDormand and Spaulding Gray are fine but their appearance is short, so they don't matter much. Patricia has guts. In the hands of a lesser actor this could have turned out very badly. As it is love or hate the movie you should still come away with the idea that there still exist military dictatorships in the world in this century, and until one of our own is hurt we ignore their oppression.

Aung San Suu Kyi, is the female political leader in the movie. In real life she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She was only recently released from house arrest. The W. Bush administration, as of the date I write this, is attempting to pressure the military government to engage in talks with her and re-form the government. The Burmize government was under such scrutiny that is changed the name of the country to the Maynamar Republic. The U.S. Government has yet to recognzie the new name.

If you don't wnat a message in your movie don't watch this one. If you don't mind a little educations with your entertainment then it's a fine one. I got a chance to talk with the co-creator, Rebecca Cammisa at the 2002 High Falls Film Festival in Rochester, NY. She said that her style is to be completely open and uninhibited in filmmaking but was very happy to be so severely constrained in the tight quarters of the group home. The narrow hallways and small rooms were expertly shot with a realism that would have been lost with more controlled and deliberate camera work.

Sister Helen herself is a remarkable character, coming from tragedy in her own life to being an unusual combination of caring, tough, and street smart. The way the film introduces us to her past is excellent, spending only a few carefully selected minutes sprinkled throughout.

In all, I can't begin to correctly heap on praise for this film. It really is a treasure of cinema and the subject a treasure of humanity. This is truly a documentary of love about a fascinating character, her outlook on life and her extended family. The filmmakers spent three years taping Sister Helen at her halfway house and managed to capture so much wonderful material that you can not help but feel you know Sister Helen and her "boys." The house holds 21 recovering addicts each with a story almost as involving as Sister Helen's. The ending scenes are particularly involving and emotional.

Sister Helen's story of marriage, addiction and loss reveals a very complex character who's tough love is at all times funny, touching and endearing.

The film is a amazing in the way it tells its story in wonderful slice of life sequences which develop into a story that is almost as clear as if each scene were scripted and acted by the best. The honesty (and obvious dishonesty) of the "clients" is very involving as you learn of their fears and watch their attempts to grow.

You will never forget Sister Helen, Robert, Moe or poor Ashish(spelling?). I went into a screening of "SISTER HELEN" at the Sundance Film Festival and did not know what to expect.

I was riveted by the people in this documentary. Sister Helen is an incredible character!!! The filmmakers captured the essence of Sister Helen's amazing soul and took me into a world unknown. I was thoroughly satisfied by the journey and was completely caught off guard by this film's ending.

This film speaks to those who desire a second chance at life. Oh so beautiful, oh so tearful and so gut-wrenching.

Makes everything seem so superficial, so pale, so meaningless in comparison.

Sister Helen is not a real saint.

She is a real human - flawed, raw and blunt, but passionate and with a heart of gold.

What I found most interesting is that this handful of wretched, miserable people found meaning and laughter.

What I loved most is how the documentary portrayed the polarity of human nature. This tearful movie about a sister and her battle to save as many souls as she can is very moving. The film does well in picking up the characters and showing how Sister Helen deals with each.

A wonderful journey from life to death.

"Sister Helen" is a superb documentary about a rigid, intolerant, foul mouthed, bitter, oblate (civilian) nun who runs a shelter for drunks and dopers in a very rundown neighborhood in the south Bronx. All but one of the 21 residents are gutter drunks/addicts. Robert, the only middle class representative – he had a real job, house, and even a BMW – regrets she died before he could tell her off. Why?

Robert, like six of the residents, was on parole. He complained that Helen wielded a huge stick over him and constantly threatened to turn him in if he didn't cow-tow to her. In an "extras" interview he said Helen ran the center to compensate for the deaths of the three men in her life – her husband and her two boys.

The husband was an alcoholic who died of a heart attack at 55. One boy died of a heroin overdose and the other was stabbed to death at 15. Helen was left with one daughter, who she abandoned to run the center. The daughter was not pleased. She wanted her mom

What's fascinating is how little Helen changed. Outwardly it seems she made a huge sea change. But after seeing this riveting and disturbing video a few times -- once with the directors narrating -- it became clear that Helen substituted 21 male addicts to boss around to replace her three dead males.

Helen admits she ignored her kids and spent every day in bars. But her bossiness, intolerance, and sharp tongue didn't emerge at age 56. Living with her must have been extremely difficult. Even Robert says he stayed clean in spite of Helen.

The film opens with Helen abusively demeaning a man who wants to live at the shelter. Supposedly she is showing off her street savvy. Another time she publicly demeans Mel, her "assistant" for not bathing for a year. Then she waves his filthy pillowcase in the air. The film is viscous with Helen threatening and demeaning people. Her signature song is "My Way." Her favorite phrase is, "I'm going to be totally honest with you." Often, people who use such phrases, turn out o be the opposite.

The residents are really down and out. Only Robert has any marketable skills beyond pushing a broom. They all desperately need a roof over their heads, and Helen, since she runs the place on her own, has the power to admit or evict whoever she pleases. She has no governing board to answer to and gets no public funding. It is her show.

Helen believes in the cookie approach to sobriety. She stopped drinking cold turkey and that means everyone else can too. She blames substance abuse on the drug or booze, and not the underlying issues that drove the men to drink and drug. She's no therapist, just a landlady who dyes her hair, wears a habit, and wields complete power over her tenants, and stopped drinking.

Helen also lords it over her inmates by demanding urine (ureen she calls it) tests on requests. Twice Major, a very solid and respected long term older resident -- who she trusted -- failed his tests. Helen was furious and evicted him. Major stood his ground and said the results were wrong because he never did heroin. Helen didn't yield and failed to consider a mistake could have been made. This was especially troubling since she knew Major for a long time. Yet she discounted her relationship with him, assumed he was a liar, and relied completely on the results. Major eventually discovered the codeine in his cough syrup showed up as an opiate. Helen never apologized publicly, but supposedly made up with major privately.

Helen also had a very tainted reputation in her old neighborhood. She tacitly admitted to Robert she once stayed up very late one night to slash someone's tires. The person wronged her and certainly deserved to have his/her tires slashed. She was not a nice woman. So eventually, she decided the only way to keep the Travis name (her last name) alive – since the three male Travises died – was to start the Travis Center.

For some of the residents it was a great deal. They complied with Helen and in exchange received a cheap, safe, sober, and structured place to live. One however, said he preferred jail. Addicts and drunks don't all need to be treated like children. Helen employed "old school" techniques which have been discredited. However, no one was forced to remain at the center and for some, it was definitely a positive experience. The Travis Center is not a treatment center. It is a residence for alcoholics and dopers who what to straighten out their lives.

To receive the full Sister Helen experience, see all the extra interviews plus the audio version in which the two directors share their experiences living with Sister Helen and her guests. I have some great memories watching "Robin of Sherwood" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from "Robin of Sherwood", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s "Robin and Marian". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again! As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.

The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters – all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people – rather than of good and bad people – something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies – Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault – who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. "It's a wedding, not a celebration!" is just one of their many timeless "pearls of wisdom" which seems to follow one through life :-).

20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television – and apparently not with a great deal of money – in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors – many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show – this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film. Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).

These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.

It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.

However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).

The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)

All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.

The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).

The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)

So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!

Alex This is one of my favorite series, all categories, all time.

I was fortunate enough to get a hold of the whole series on VHS a few years ago. I loved it when I saw it back in -91 -92, when I was about 12. I love it as much, or more, today, which is remarkable considering my (hopefully) improved film appreciation and criticism skills. Most of the movies I liked back then I'm not that fond of today, besides for the nostalgia factor. That factor is present here as well, but there's so much more to Robin of Sherwood than nostalgia.

There are only a few bad things about this series. First, the picture and sound quality is so-so, at least in the first couple of episodes. Fortunately, it gets better. Secondly, you could have wished for a bit more blood and realism in the fighting scenes, although I know that was not an option in this case.

So, on to the good things! And there are a lot of them. First of all, Michael Praed IS Robin Hood. I don't think I have seen him in a single role since then, which only strengthen this fact for me. He delivers such a believable performance as Robin. Jason Connery had an impossible task replacing him. The fact that Michael Praed hasn't become a bigger name as an actor is unbelievable. Or perhaps that was his fate, to do this one role perfectly, then disappear.

I love Nickolas Graces Sheriff of Nottingham. He is really not a complex character, but totally rotten. The relation between him and Gisburne is just hilarious. Actually, just looking at de Rainault sitting in his throne, bored, glaring, makes me laugh even before he has said anything. Another actor that deserves extra praise is Ray Winstone as Will Scarlet. You can really feel the sadness inside of him as well as his hate for the soldiers who killed his wife. Winstone is an actor that finally has gotten his well deserved Hollywood breakthrough (in films as The Departed and Beowulf). There are a lot of other great actors here, too.

I love the portrayal of the Robin gang. They are having fun, playing, laughing, you really get a feel of the camaraderie between them, the closeness that comes from a tight bound group such as this. Those bonding scenes are so important.

I think that it being UK produced with British actors really made it better, compared to for example the -92 feature film version with Kevin Costner, that just feels fake, fake, fake. (Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, come on..) The cast being able to speak English with British accent makes it more believable, and I get the feeling that the actors, as well as the director and writers, behind the series can put themselves much more into the shoes of the Robin Hood gang than an American crew could have. The music is wonderful, Clannad is perfect for the feel of the series. The music is another of those things they just nailed.

An exciting addition also is the fantasy and magic spice that is put in there. It's not over the top, but believable and just makes the whole thing better and more interesting. I also love how nicely the mix of comedy, adventure and drama is blended.

Those are a few of the things that makes this series so alive and so genuine. It's by far the best Robin Hood version I have ever seen. I won't wrap up with the "Nothing's forgotten" quote. But one thing that never will be forgotten, for me, is this fantastic Robin Hood retelling. See it. To quote Jason Connery and Mark Ryan on one of the many DVD commentaries, that "wobbly music" over the HTV logo was enough to get me jumping from whatever I was doing to glue my face against the screen for an hour. The individual stories contained within the series were excellent and the character development was wonderful. Robin of Loxley goes through a very convincing journey over the two series he appears in, even though his departure from the programme was unplanned. Marian also develops her relationship with both of Herne's sons very well.

After languishing for many years in TV wasteland, I re-encountered the series on Sky 1 in the UK in the mid nineties and was even more impressed that the series seemed even better than I remembered. This is no children's television programme, it deals with witchcraft, treason, rebellion and injustice. And, it manages to do it without showing too much blood. As far as I can recall, you only see a bit of the red stuff in the Pilot film (Episodes 1 and 2 on the DVD set). The DVDs are great, containing a wealth of extras including cast commentaries on Series 3 only (the Jason Connery Robin) and crew commentaries for Series 1 and 2. The picture quality is very good and the remixed and remastered surround sound is amazing.

The idea of freedom is important, freedom prevails. Nothing's forgotten. Nothing's ever forgotten. By mistake, I ordered a series from the BBC, their new version of Robin Hood. Very disappointing in comparison with RoS. Terrible costuming and backgrounds. While I enjoyed the Sheriff, who took cues from the Nick Grace character, the rest of the cast left much to be desired. As a "for instance", Marion's costuming looked suspiciously like it came from Walmart. And Sir Guy, well, he looked a bit like a character from an outer space movie! RoS has stolen the spotlight, probably forever, in the telling of this tale. Cast, costuming, story lines, scenery, filming and soundtrack by Clannad are all superb, as is evidenced by all the continual feedback some 26 years on. RoS is a timeless classic. My thanks to all who made the series. This HTV series is beautiful. I strongly recommend watching the movie. It has got everything it should: remarkable script, strong characters, beautiful scenery and exceptional atmosphere. Add some ambient score from Clannad and you receive unforgettable picture. I love every adventure movie from HTV I saw: Return To Treasure Island, Smuggler, Adventurer, but Robin of Sherwood beats them all. I would like to thank the whole HTV production team and Richard Carpenter in particular for giving me plenty of adventures and excitement. I have got the DVD release in my little movie collection. I regret very much movies like these are not made anymore. Some people don't appreciate the magical elements in ROS,but they are what sets this series apart, that and the fact the producers actually decided to dress the actors in proper period clothes and armour--not anachronistic feathered caps,multi-coloured tights and plate armour!

But I am really writing to comment on an earlier poster's article. Um, Michael Praed did not leave ROS to do Jules Verne! There are 15 years between these two series. Yup, I agree and Michael might well agree too that leaving ROS was not a good move--but it was a coveted Broadway role that tempted him in '84 and then Dynasty with its megabucks paychecks.... I have some great memories watching "Robin of Sherwood" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from "Robin of Sherwood", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s "Robin and Marian". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again! Used to watch this when i was very little, then used to watch my videos. Now i watch the DVDs, i love this. Ray Winston is 'The Dude', the rest of the cast is all good and even with the changing of Robin Hood it all works. Great stories, twists and the way it was shot - to the untrained eye (not that mine is trained) can be miss-interpreted as being ropey but it adds to the films absorption of the audience. With the green hillsides and the contrast of the lush sunny lit forest to the dark corridors and dungeons of the castles - Its great. Personally the definitive interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. I cannot stress how much i think you should watch this, if you get a chance then YOU MUST WATCH IT. I remember watching this series avidly, every Saturday evening. It was the highlight of the week. I loved everything about it, the location, the costumes, the actors and the wonderful music by Clannad (I still have their Legend album). I loved the way they solved the problem of Michael Praed leaving by creating another Robin, this time the Earl of Huntingdon. I believe there were legends of several Robins in medieval times. Another thing I loved was the fact that it was filled with young actors, I'm sure Robin and his men would have young, after all people didn't live that long in those days. Other Robins always look too old (Kevin Costner with his ridiculous accent looked like Robin's granddad). The only sad thing was the ending, it's a shame they couldn't at least have done a one off special to tie up all the loose ends and give it a happier ending. Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.

The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.

Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.

I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever! I watched this series on PBS back in the eighties and still watch the old tapes every couple of years or so. Very atmospheric and creepy sometimes. This is a very good show as the characters are all well defined and acted. You are drawn into the plot and come to care for these people. The villains are almost laughably evil, especially the Sheriff of Nottingham. Man, I would love to beat the s--t out of that snotty little bastard. Nicholas Grace does an excellent job and must have had a great time being the Sheriff. His whipping boy, Sir Guy, is equally hissable but is also pathetic. Lots of murder and mayhem in this series, along with tons of black magic and Devil worship and things of that nature. I noticed it got an award for children's television which is surprising. If I had kids, I would not let them watch this. Outstanding use of locations in this show also. It is now on DVD, so go out and buy it. The greatest compliments to the other commentator here at IMDb who asked himself why this series didn't "get stuck" in its time to last a lot longer like many other series in the 80s did.

It is not true the series would have gotten worse if further continued.

I will at the end of this my comment post some thoughts about the other movie realizations, rather: attempts of the Robin Hood legend.

First of All, Robert Addie (Gisburne), you are among us all, you live forever.

Nothing is as fun as the entire two, if one wants, three seasons of this absolutely unique series. And at the same time absolutely agreeing with the mostly new and revolutionary findings of Terry Jones' history documentations about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Konstantinopel, the Goths and Barbarians, and the middle ages and crusades (...yes, THE Monthy Python-Terry Jones):

If you have seen those brilliant and funny Jones-Docs you will better, much better understand all the historical background stuff Carpenter, the writer of the Robin of Sherwood-series (which happens to be the brother of John Carpenter, who made "The Thing", their third brother makes music), intended to tell us.

The writer of "Dick Turpin", "Catweazle" and the first two seasons of "Robin of Sherwood", called "Kip" Carpenter, is my movie overlord. He's better than all those others who criticize his "sword-and-sorcery" element or "defectiveness" (taken from the Robin of Sherwood Webring) of this series (that I can not see) or have other non-fundamented criticism of which there existed a lot back then and still now.

That's why, when you get to know this "Robin of Sherwood" better, you'll be severe. You will at first loathe the third season. Not only that: I did myself go thru this, and on top of it, I have only taken up the first two seasons into my deepest heart - DESPITE the fact that Praed, the actor of Robin, left this series, because after the series had enormous success, he was offered a probably better paid role in an absolutely ridiculous Canadian series called "The new Adeventures of Jules Verne" - already the title reveals the emptiness of the whole project. Praed went for money, and not for fame, he didn't stick with his gang and kin, I mean: as actors.

Actors who personally represent the afterwards "really", in our present time famous and legendary faces and characters of the Robin-Legend. The potential of this series could and should have been let blossomed a lot more without any degrading niveau of content and historical message and rebellious accuracy regarding current political issues.

Again, obligatory to say: A change of the main role was forced by Praed's stupid decision of leaving Robin of Sherwood for a silly remake-series of the Verne-tales and brilliantly woven into the filming of the story. Still it is in some aspects a catastrophe.

Anyway: If one is informed about this, and that Connery was maybe really advertised by his father, but that the young Connery DID NOT AT ALL "chase Praed away", how I prejudicially thought in the first place, then one can absolutely enjoy the 3rd season. Sad here is that the script was not anymore written by Superman Kip Carpenter, so we don't have anymore that critical and free-thinking historical background like i.e. in "The Witch of Elsdon", or in "The King's Fool", two episodes of the first series that is A) funny, B) historically educating and C) brilliantly acted. ===

"Don't trust the Lion!"

Unlike many other characters that wished him dead for the sake of their own gain of power, Richard Lionheart, as shown in RoS and as in real history, was a greater authority than John or others, but used it only for his wicked idea of the crusade and the war against Normandie in France. He slaughtered and had slaughtered much more than tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the "wholy" crusades, and his soldiers even devoured the children they slayed out of hunger or poverty. On top of that, after his capture by the Saracens (muslims) in the crusades, Britain was squeezed out for his ransom, 100.000 marks (at that time, 11th century, comparable to approx. 30 Billion - 30'000'000'000.- Dollars of current value), to get him safely back, and then he just visited England for a month to return to Normandie (in France, where the Norman Invaders went first) for the crusades (one learns that in the episode "The King's Fool"). For this new crusade, possibly kind of a revenge for his capture, Richard Lionheart again "drains the country of money" (cited out of Clive Mantle's mouth, when he lectures Robin in being critical with even the King). Robin criticizes this warfare unsocial ruling of Richard's, he addresses Richard himself, telling him "The poor gave everything to set you free, how CAN you ask more of them?" - Richard: "...Give me your courage and strength, not your words!" ...Later, in private, Richard orders the assassination of Robin...

So, the crusaders were the real "barbarians".

P.S: Already when I watched Kostner in 91, I got upset, because after-wards, I found out in history course in school that Richard was not that good just man as displayed by Sean Connery in his appearance at the end of "Prince of the Thieves". Well, as Terry Jones would put it: It is a lie, a treacherous lie!" Sean plays humorist and charismatic, and his son does a better job than expected in the third season of "Robin of Sherwood".

Again: Praed is, according to my info up to now, the one who left Sherwood for a stupid Verne-series nobody with brains will EVER remember or want to remember. A few years ago I saw this remake of the sixties classic with the Mini Coopers for the first time and I remember liking it a lot. Now, about two years later it was shown on television and I just wanted to know whether I would still like it as much as when I saw it in the cinema. Well, the answer is yes.

The movie is about a team of robbers that will do one final job in Venice, Italy. The plan is flawless and the execution perfect. They escape and won't have to work for the rest of their lives. But there is one problem they didn't take into account: Someone within their own ranks doesn't like to split the loot, but wants to keep it all for himself, even when that means he will have to kill the rest of the crew. But all but one survive and they are out for revenge. One year later, in Los Angeles this time, the surviving team members create a smart and devious plan to steal back the gold and get their revenge on the traitor...

The story on itself is of course not very original, since this is a remake of the original 1969 movie, but it has plenty of goodies to offer to make you forget about that. This is a typical heist / action movie but it certainly is one of the better ones in its kind. The action is very nice, the landscapes and Venice are real eye-candy, the story is OK and the special effects are stunning. Even the acting is very good, something which you'll not often see in an action movie. I must admit that I really liked what I saw and I give this movie a well deserved 7.5/10. Over the last few months, I have seen a lot of reviews for The Italian Job, many of them negative. The gist of almost all of these pessimistic criticisms is that, for all its modernistic bravado and high-budget technology, the film doesn't have much substance where it counts. Look, people, it's just a fun movie. This is the type of picture where you're supposed to sit back, relax, and just enjoy the steady-moving pace of the film. Like Ocean's Eleven (2001), you can concentrate on the characters and the plot at the same time without having to do much thinking (lucky for some of us). Granted, "Ocean" is a better movie, but who cares? The plot may have some holes (there's a huge one about 3/4 of the way through), the action may not be as gratifyingly gratuitous as the trailers made it out to be, and some of the dialogue may seem pointless and cheesy, but again, who really cares? Cool characters, Mini Coopers, big explosions, Charlize Theron. What more do you want? I think it's time to drop the fake Roger Ebert meets Gene Shalit act and enjoy yourself for once! Oh, and another thing, whatever you do, don't compare it to the original because, to reiterate what F. Gary Gray has told the press a million times, THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!! My advice- if you're interested in nit-picking your way through a good-humored, fun flick, don't even bother seeing The Italian Job. But, if you don't have a severe inferiority complex and/or want to see Ed Norton get jacked by a bunch of Ukranians, go ahead. The Bottom Line, my fellow moviegoers, is: Lighten Up and Have Fun, Dammit. I enjoyed the movie very much. Everything in The Italian Job is simple. An explosive guy, a safe-cracker, a computer genius, a wheel-man and a man with a spectacular plan of stealing 35 million without using a gun. This film is entertaining although it has no central idea. It is a non-stop movie with lots of actions. All the stunt work is gorgeous. From the speedboat chase in Venice at the beginning to the chase on the busy roads in Los Angeles involving three mini coopers and even a helicopter. The best boast chase I have ever seen. I like the mini coopers. The expert thieves used mini coopers for the getaway cars. The chase between the mini coopers and the motor-bikes is amazing. They chased underground. I can say there was not a moment I was bored. Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Left Ear) and Edwin Norton (Steve) really did a good job. I like the actors in this film. I have seen a lot of heist movie but The Italian Job& is one of my favourites. A great Hollywood action movie without a drop of blood. After all, I do love this kind of movie. My reaction to this remake of "The Italian Job" is probably hopelessly mixed up with the events occurring in my life when I saw it; This is the first movie I saw after I had just landed a job after 8 months of unemployment and going back to school for retraining. Money was still tight, but I no longer had to choose between seeing a movie in the theaters and paying bills (or eating lunch), and the sense of relief and gratitude I was feeling at the time was enormous. In consequence, my enjoyment of "Italian Job" was probably far out of proportion to its actual worth.

Still, I picked it up used on DVD a few weeks ago and watched it again, and I still enjoyed it immensely. I have never seen the original (though I have heard it is an absolute classic), but its modern day counterpart is eminently watchable if you have a taste for modern day production values applied to older films plots and themes.

What initially won me over to this movie was the soundtrack - IMO Don Davis writes some of the most supple, textured and aurally pleasing soundtracks around. IJ opens with a sly, witty, pulsing arrangement that combines strings, guitar harmonics, brush work and quiet moments - it won me over completely from the opening seconds. And the whole movie is like this - I haven't heard this kind of ringing, chiming, pulsing soundtrack music since Stewart Copeland left the Police and started doing soundtracks for movies like "Rumble Fish". There are at least a dozen irresistibly scored motifs in here, along with some pop song remakes that range from "all right" to "inspired". For people to whom the soundtrack is important, this movie is a delight.

On to the movie: I can take or leave Mark Wahlberg, but he's okay here as the leading man, and the movie doesn't ask him to do anything he can't do well. He's the weakest "major" actor in the film, but that's because the rest of supporting cast is so strong, especially Donald Sutherland in a bit part. Mos Def, Jason Steadham, Ed Norton, Seth Green and Charlize Theron all turn in solid, fat-free performances. Norton seems to mostly be phoning it in (rumor has it that he didn't really want to be in the film), but he's still a natural even at 1/2 power. My one quibble with the casting and acting is with the character "Wrench", who seems to be a male model pretending to be an actor. His part seems to be shoehorned into the movie, and he has little chemistry with the rest of the cast (although you can blame some of that on the size of the part and the "late walk on" nature of the character). If I were a cynical sort,I would wonder who the actor slept with to get put into this movie in such a supernumerary role? Nah, never happen...

Production values, camera work, stunts, plot...everything cooks along quite nicely and Gray and his production crew pull things together pretty seamlessly (with the exception of the "Wrench" character, see above).

The dialog has a nice, light touch that rewards your indulgence, and there are several satisfying major and minor plot payoffs along the way. (My favorite moment - when Norton's character tells Wahlberg's character that he's just lost the element of surprise. Wahlberg proceeds to cold cock Norton with a right cross, and then asks him, "Were you surprised??" Hmmm, maybe you had to be there...)

Of course the movie requires a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" to work, but if you just relax and go along with it (and don't think too hard about the mechanics of cracking a safe underwater, or the likelihood of anyone being able to successfully hack and manipulate LA traffic via a laptop, etc), you'll have a fun ride.

"The Italian Job": it's lightweight summer fluff, but it's very good for what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything else. It isn't good enough for an "8" but I'd give it a "7.5". The Italian Job is a real blast to watch. It's a genuinely entertaining film, something you watch just for the sheer enjoyment of it. It's not heavy with drama or emotional hand-wringing, it has no cosmic statements about life, and it's not violent or profane. It's just a fun movie. Between watching the little Mini Coopers fly around the crowded streets of L.A. and the great bits by stereotypical computer geek-turned-crook (played gleefully by Seth Greene), I had a lot of fun watching this film.

Special kudos to the background music. They truly set a masterful tone for such a movie, so subtle yet keeps you on the edge when needed. Apparently a lot of artists contributed to the music, I found it to be the classiest part of the film.

8 out of 10. Not awe-inspiring but a great film to watch at the end of a lousy day at the office.

Barky If you are looking for a film that is quick witted and won't bore you then this is the place. It is fast paced and funny with some decent acting comeing from the characters. It is always hard for me to see Mark Walhberg as anything except Marky Mark. That image is burned in my mind forever. As an actor though he is pretty good. This movie is a must see for action fans who like to see a few little twists and turns. I will have to pick this movie up one day and buy it. -surprisingly enjoyable movie

-A group of thieves lead by Mark Wahlberg rob a gold safe in Italy and thankfully for them the heist is successful and they get away with it without any big problems. Before the group can celebrate however Steve played by Ed Norton decides he want the gold all for himself and pulls a Cout De' Ta on the group and shoots one of the members. He and his accomplices leave thinking that the group is dead but luckily the group is not dead. A year later we get back into the story where the group has tracked down Norton and decide to steal the gold back and spend the rest of the movie coming up with plans to steal back their gold and settle a score.

-This was a surprise for me, it had all the makings to be a typical forgettable summer movie but it was actually memorable and really fun to watch. What I like is how smart and well thought out the plans in the movie are, and how the movie feels realistic. Watching the trailer would make you think it was some mindless action movie but in fact there are only two action scenes in the movie and they are all really well done. The latter action scene is a very long 20 min. scene that has one of the best car chases ever done. I like how real the chase is and how everything is done old school style without the aid of CGI. Me personally I enjoyed this car chase more than the CGI filled chase in "Matrix 2". I remember watching music videos by director F. Gary Gray and always noticed how well made they were and thought he'd make a great filmmaker, turns out I was right as always and he proves it here. Can't wait to see what he does with the sequel.

-The actors do a decent job too with Seth Green being my favorite of the group. The other thing I loved was the excellent score by John Powell, ever since I heard his score for "Robots" this year I've been a fan of him and paying close attention to his music and the man is really good. He does a great job of avoiding all the typical summer action movie musical cliché's and provides a very well done score. I haven't seen the original that this is based on so I can't really say how well it stacks up to that one.

-So yeah this is a great popcorn movie that actually has a brain unlike most of the summer movie crap that comes out. Has great characters, is funny as hell and has a amazing score by John Powell. If you love heist movies then you'll love this one

-you know if I was in the group they'd call me handsome mike I wonder how many MINI Cooper automobiles were sold thanks to this movie? It couldn't help but add to the sales of this little car, which is featured in this film, along with an attractive cast.

This is a very, very entertaining heist-and-chase film. It features a "cool" cast with Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Seth Green and Jason Statham.

The best chase scene is right at the beginning with a boat pursuit in Venice, Italy. The film doesn't overdo the violence, has a pretty intelligent script (with a few short exceptions). features interesting characters and is nicely firmed. The cat-and-mouse game between Norton and Theron's characters is suspenseful and fun to watch.

Once again, however, we are manipulated into rooting for criminals portrayed as "the good guys." How many times has this happened since the days of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" in the 1960s? It's twisted Hollywood, for you. In here, one of the criminals (Norton) stole and killed the leader and father figure (Donald Sutherland) of the gang, so he's the worst of the bunch and the film's villain. Also Theron's character is in the typically overblown-feminist mode of Hollywood in which women can do all things (including driving a car) better than a man. A third minor irritation is Seth Green's smug, smart-ass attitude which we also are supposed to go along with because it's hip and cool.

Despite these hindrances, it is an extremely entertaining movie and it also doesn't overboard on the profanity or sex....and, yes, those little cars are cool. Everyone I've talked to who has seen this film, enjoyed it. I went to see THE ITALIAN JOB with mixed reviews in my head. I was pleasantly surprised with an entertaining close to 2 hours. I thought the cast was just great and so were the special effects, with the safe and truck just dropping out of sight. If you like fast paced action movies, this is the one to see. One of the perks of my job is that when things are slow, I can watch the movie in our downstairs theater (I work in a little 2-screen theater) in the cry room and still keep an eye on the concession stand. I have seen Italian Job probably 20 times, and I'm still not tired of it. The atmosphere reminds me of Ocean's Eleven, although the acting isn't as good. Mark Wahlberg is ok, Charlize Theron appeals to the guys, but Seth Green is AWESOME in this movie. I thought Edward Norton did a very good job playing a dirtbag, although a lot of people disagree. I also enjoyed Mos Def as the explosives expert that's afraid of dogs. I highly recommend this movie, and will continue to watch it whenever I can! I enjoyed this movie. More than I expected. It has enough action, intrigue and locations to make it worth your while. While I can't quite yet see Mark Wahlberg as a leader, he's gotten good enough to be a credible manager and that's OK.

The superhero of the movie is the Mini Cooper. It's shown to have the speed, dexterity and muscle to pull off any job. And to handle a maniac driver like Charlize Theron's character. I went to see this movie with a lady freind of mine, who doesn't like heist movies. But she enjoyed it. I missed bits and pieces of the movie all the way through It is a story about Edward Norton and a crew stealing some gold, and Norton deciding he wants it all to himself. Then the people he betrayed want to get back at him. It is a well put together, intellegent, funny, and action packed film that I need to see again... the whole way through. One of my top movies of the Summer so far.

A big help to the entertainment factor is Seth Green. I dont know anyone who doesnt like Seth Green, and he adds to the flavor. He plays a guy who says he created Napster, and his roomate stole it from him. He is a computer genious who is a wonder to watch.

It was said that Norton didn't want to do this film.. but If I were him, I would have wanted to sign on.

The only problem is that it is very predictable. Any movie go-er should be able to say in their own mind what is happening, before it happens.

My biggest complaint with the film, is Eddie Nortons choice of facial hair. The thick, yet thin mustache, and a small pike on his chin... he looks like an 80's porn star for gods sake. I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.

I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.

7/10 The film is really good, it doesn't use violence or sex etc to sell itself like other films but instead just uses a really decent plot(based on the original by Michael Caine) and some great actors to make a fun, action packed film which i thoroughly enjoyed. One thing which made me enjoy this film even more was that it had some actors which i really like such as Edward Norton(who i last saw in 26th hour, which i enjoyed also), Jason Statham(transporter, enjoyed that also) and Seth Green who i think is great, his role as Shawn Fanning's roommate dubbed "The Napster" is hilarious and his hacking skills play a great part in the main heist which centres around a large traffic jam in LA. The car chases are really decent and the high tech equipment used by the thieves is interesting and very impressive. I haven't seen the original so i can't really compare the too but i liked this a lot and would highly recommend this film to everyone, it isn't a film where you need to like that specific genre, it will suit everyone, i felt good after this movie, it had a really good ending and was overall really fun to watch. I give it 8/10. Go watch it! The intricate plot, great visuals, the world's greatest car chase ever make this movie a lot of fun to watch. The beautiful Charlize Theron adds to the enjoyment. The sound score is outstanding. Add to all this an energetic cast that also seems to be having a lot of fun making the movie. Not the film to see if you want to be intellectually stimulated. If you want to have a lot of fun a the theater, however, this is the one. Lots of snappy banter(and some really cheesy banter, too). Mos Def and Seth Green are very funny as the comic relief. Exciting and creative heists and chase scenes. Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron(sexy)are appealing leads. And Donald Sutherland! Here's another pleasant surprise. Whenever I hear a movie is being remade, I cringe. Movies such as Gone in Sixty Seconds, and The Day of the Jackal, get remade and the results are less than stellar. So, when I heard that "the Italian Job" was getting remade, I expected it to be bad.

Well, I had the opportunity to calm down, read some reviews, and finally see the movie, and was proven wrong. Granted, it's not original, and predictable, but it's sure fun. From beginning to end, you are taken on one very fun ride. The scenes with the Minis are great, and the characters actually enjoy themselves.

So, even if there are some flaws, who cares as long as it's fun?

Overall, 8 out of 10. The only points lost are, maybe, the a few details and a slight lack of realism. But, you'll be having so much fun you won't even be given a chance to stop and notice. Especially after watching THE MATRIX RELOADED!! *SPOILERS*

After seeing the Matrix with all it's ridiculous fantasy make-believe-robotic characters with their super powers, it was refreshing to see an action movie with real people in situations that involved actual risk! I cared about these people, and even though some of the stunts seemed a bit much, it still left me feeling like "it's possible" verses "what a stupid video game" (like the Matrix)

This movie isn't brain surgery, it's very straight forward. Some things are predictable- like knowing that someone is going to be a back-stabber and that someone early on is going to die. Pretty obvious, but SO WHAT? The first 15 minutes sets up our reason, our motive, our main objective.

I like that Theron and Walhberg didn't have any make-out scenes. I am glad that they didn't go there. They kept it about funny dialogue ESPECIALLY SETH GREENE. That guy IS FUNNY!

This is a movie that I would buy when it comes out on DVD. It's fun, fast and entertaining. The only thing (and I guess it's a big thing) is that we are really - rooting for the bad guys. This group of protaganists are already on the wrong side of the law. Not a good message for the kiddies - parents, please explain this to them.

The Italian Job requires daylight hours and no experience is required. This is a great matinee and a good afternoon at the movies. The plot is good, but the actual playing out of the plot is very simple and requires no thought process. It's car chases, explosions and all for the simple purpose of defeating "the bad guy" played by Edward Norton. For Norton, it seems he is content to portray the exact same characters as in his previous films such as "The Score". Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron deserve better scripts. Warning: If you've seen the trailer, then you have seen the movie. If you're looking for entertainment at inexpensive prices then you need The Italian Job. *SPOILER ALERT!! PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED!!*

I was originally planning on seeing this movie this past weekend, but my plans ended up making me unable to have time to see it. So me & my friend made plans to see it after school today. Boy, are we glad we did. The movie starts off in Italy, with a planned heist with a group of guys (Charlie Croker [Mark Whalberg], Steve Frezelli [Edward Norton], Lyle, also known as "Napster" [Seth Green, you'll get the nickname later], Handsome Rob [Jason Statham], Left Ear [Mos Deaf], & John Bridger [Donald Sutherland]) plan a heist to steal 32 gold bricks. This leads to the whole opening, which is a good 10 to 15 minutes, and involves a boat chase, which opens the movie up right. While driving away in their get away van, Steve Frezelli turns on the group, steals the gold, and kills John Bridger, who is pretty much the (retiring) leader of the group. Fast foward to a year later, where where Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter, is one of the top safe-crackers that anyone can ask for. Charlie Croker (who was actually indirectly responsible for her father's death, as he called him out of retirement for the heist) says that they've found Steve (who has gone into hiding), and want to get back at him for what he did. She at first declines, but later agrees, and the teamgets back together, along with getting the help of Wrench (Franky G), a mechanic, to carry out the perfect heist, while creating one of the largest traffic jams in Los Angeles history. This movie is a perfect mix of action with funny bits thrown in throughout. There's an on-running joke about Seth Green's character, Lyle, creating Napster and how Shawn Fanning (who makes a cameo) stole it while he fell asleep, and eventually Lyle will only answer if refered to as "Napster". There's even a funny line in the movie by Seth, who goes "He said in an interview he called it Napster because it described his hair, like it was nappy. He callled it that because *I* was napping when he stole it!" The begining and ending sequences are pure genius, and everything in between fits perfectly. The only negative thing I can think of with the movie is that Edward Norton's acting was a bit weak. He wasn't a big, tough bad guy. He acted like he was being paid and just doing the bare-minimum (which is a fact, as he was forced to do this movie due to contractual obligation). But, even with that problem being the only real gripe with the film, the movie is still very enjoyable, and I definetly recommend seeing it. And even if you're not interested in the actual movie, go to see Seth Green shine in the comedic role. He's perfect. Rating: **** out of ***** As a movie, THE ITALIAN JOB is ok at best; good (not great) acting,

nice visuals and pacing, a mediocre plot, but nothing bad enough

to walk out on. But as a car commercial for the new breed of MINI

Coopers, this film is spectacular!

*SPOILERS*

Ok, it's a typical heist film with the odd twist (the underwater safe- cracking was nice, if not improbable), and the cast was fairly solid

(with the exception of a putrid Wahlberg), but when it all came

down to it, the real "stars" of this picture were the three MINI

Coopers, in all their high-flying, speed-racing, ramp-jumping,

bullet-taking, gold-lugging, shiny new glory. The audience I was

sitting amongst actually "ooed" and "aahed" when Theron's little

red number first hit the screen (strangely enough, neither she nor

Wahlberg garnered the same reaction).

The film starts out promising. Mos Def, Seth Green, Donald

Sutherland, Edward Norton and Jason Statham all begin as an

interesting and humourous band of characters, with the only real

uninspired performance being that of the usually good Mark

Wahlberg. Why he claims this is his best film I can't imagine; his

character is completely one-note, and he plays him so blandly it

was as if Mr. Rogers came back from the dead and was inhabiting

his body. Charlize is fine as Sutherland's daughter, though

nothing magical. Seth Green's character is perfect and the

running Napster jokes (including a cameo by Napster founder,

Shawn Fanning) are hilarious; he and some of Mos Def's early

lines add some much needed sparks of humour. Unfortunately,

Edward Norton and Donald Sutherland don't get near enough

screen time.

You can see most of the plot coming from a mile away, and the

dialogue is rife with bad one-liners and give-aways, but I doubt the

filmmakers were out to re-invent the wheel here, so taken as a

typical action/suspense flick it comes out alright. Worth seeing on

cheap night I'd recommend.

7/10. Not worth it's weight in gold, but makes for nice fillings. Under the assured direction of F. Gary Gray, "Italian Job" never loses its grip on being cool and fun. Although the material is rehashed and average, the film itself is masterfully executed and is satisfyingly good. The tone could easily have been much heavier, considering the murder-revenge plotline but F. Gary Gray keeps the tone light by good humor, snappy dialogs and pulsating music. It is a pleasure to see these would-be-bad guys form a great bond and stick to eachother through deceit and murder, while never forgetting to have fun. This one is 7/10. **Warning! Slight Plot Spoilers Ahead!**

"The Italian Job" is not the best movie you'll see all year, or probably even this summer. But it is a worthwhile two hours because it colors within the lines, knowing its limits and not attempting to exceed them.

What carries the movie is the work of the cast. In a movie about a crew of thieves, the individuals must have a good rapport with each other. Without that cohesive feel, the audience doesn't believe in the characters collectively or individually, and the movie never has a chance. But from the first scenes, in which the men joke around and rag on each other while infiltrating a Venetian palace, the proper chemistry is in place.

The characters themselves aren't anything novel; they're your basic gang of criminals, containing about half a dozen players, each with a specific and defining skill. But each actor brings the proper goods to the table for his or her part. Mark Wahlberg's understated acting and humor fits well with his part as the mastermind planner. Edward Norton provides attitude and twirls his mustache well in his dark role. Donald Sutherland is the father figure of the crew, and he looks the part of the suave and old-fashioned thief, who is still mentally spry. Jason Statham, Seth Green, and Mos Def don't do much beyond their character's abilities, but they each nail those parts. Statham as the smooth-operating driver; Green as the tech whiz geek with a chip on his shoulder; and Def as the demolitions man. Charlize Theron slides in well in a part that doesn't ask too much of her. She is primarily asked to to drive fast and look good. That she does. None of the characters are that deep or three-dimensional, but in this familiar sort of movie, two dimensions are all that is required.

As the title implies, the movie has a European feel to it, a la "The Bourne Identity," in part because it was shot on location in Venice, along with Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Also contributing to the Euro flair is the rhythmic, bouncy music, which adds to the upbeat nature of the flick and complements the rapport of the cast. The look of the movie is also a perfect match. The bright colors of all locales enhance the mood and add to the attitude. The Minis not only provide a fun variation on the car chase, but also work as a necessary plot device.

The plot is more or less straight-forward. There are a few surprises, but they are more of the swift-and-smooth-turn variety, as opposed to the drop-your-jaw hairpin curve. Even with those, the movie speeds along. Once the foundation is laid by the first act, everything continuously progresses. Thankfully there are no breaks in the action for a romance, something the movie wisely avoided. There aren't even any breaks for 'real life.' The story has its purpose and runs that course without distractions. The lack of character depth prevents "The Italian Job" from being more than a good popcorn movie, but with all the complex details of the heist-planning, such superfluities would have dragged down the pace and quality of the flick.

There are a number of implausibilities that I thought of both during and after viewing. But the movie is so enjoyable that I didn't and don't care. In the real world, most of the movie probably couldn't have gone off that cleanly. But "The Italian Job" doesn't take place in the real world. It occurs in a stylish and light-hearted criminal world that appeals to the rebel in all of us.

"The Italian Job" is a movie, in the true sense of the word. It has no pretenses of Oscar and contains no deep moral message. It provides pure escapism entertainment and does so quite well.

Bottom Line: Maybe the best popcorn movie of the year so far. 7 of 10. Well I just discovered IMDb from my twin sister, Carol. Carol and I played the "Fat Identical Twin" in Midnight Madness. We didn't have to prepare much for the fat part, that came with us, and well and the rest was natural. ;) It was our first major film role and we had a blast making it. We were 21 at the time and lived about an hour and half from The Disney Studio in Burbank and the Hollywood, California area. We grew up in front of the TV and probably some of the first generation of latch-key-kids. Twenty years later, we still have lots of fun and are still 'heavy' or what ever is politically correct these days. We don't pursue acting any more but have been know to 'come back' when the right opportunity arrives. Carol is a Chiropractor in our home town of Southern California and I am in the Information Technology field in Georgia.

I maybe bias, but I thought the film was cute, clean and fun. We knew it wasn't a master piece or an Oscar nominee, however, it was and still is a movie the whole family can watch and have fun together. It's nice not to have to worry if your young children can watch a video without having to fast forward certain parts. And no one was more exited when it was released on video as Carol and I were. Carol found it at Kmart for $6.99! Now that's an inexpensive way to capture one's memories and share it with others.

Sincerely, Betsy Lynn and Carol Gwynn; The Thompson Twins They don't make movies like this anymore – though some may say that's a good thing. Although this was amongst the first of Disney's PG rated films, it has more of the feel of the G films their studio turned out in the‘70s (i.e. "Freaky Friday," "The World's Greatest Athlete") than the PG films that came out in the early ‘80s (i.e. "Watcher in the Woods," "Tron," "Something Wicked This Way Comes"). Because of Disney's backing, "Midnight Madness" obviously had a large budget. A huge cast and a ton of diverse locations go to show that. But zaniness, a madcap scavenger hunt, and spectacular visual style weren't enough to save the film from being an enormous flop... A failure at the box office, most of us were introduced to the film on HBO in the early ‘80s, back in the days when the same films would be shown 29 times a week (Oh, wait – they still do that!). Essentially HBO did for this film what CBS did for "The Wizard of Oz" – they created an enormous cult audience for a sugary-sweet mega-flop....

The biggest problem that makes this a "bad" film is that there's too many characters and very few of them are fleshed out – Eddie Deezen's "squad" don't even have names! The blue team, although they're the villains, are the most endearing and have the most work put into their characters (with the exception of the girl, who can't act & doesn't have enough to do). Harold, perfectly played to the hilt by Stephen Furst, is really the only one whose character is fully realized in the film. The other standout character is goof-off Melio, played with tons of charm by now-director Andy Tennant. Although then-Dr. Pepper spokesman David Naughton was supposed to be the star, his character often comes off obnoxious, particularly when pitted against his brother Adam, Michael J. Fox. While everyone has favorite characters, I don't think anyone who loves the movie could disagree that Furst and Fox are the only two characters that you really learn anything about.

Despite the film's many flaws and bad actors (most of whom fell off the face of the earth after this movie) it still works because the actors appeared to be having fun -- and fun on the set equals fun on the screen. Come on, what college jock doesn't dream of floating around in a beer vat and what zoftig girl doesn't dream of stealing the show at the local discotech... er... I guess it would be at a rave nowadays... Campy, squeaky-clean fun for anyone who was young in the ‘70s & ‘80s, it's only fitting that this has finally gotten the massive video release that it deserves. But where the hell's the widescreen DVD release with the commentary, trailer and the full version of the song that plays in the disco? WEEE this is still jolly good fun! As with most of my friends, we had seen this movie on HBO when we were young, and then had been searching ever since for a copy of it. When they finally rereleased it a few years ago, we had a Midnight Madness party... and the movie held up well. Sure, it's pure cheese, but it's still a lot of fun. If you didn't see MM when you were young, you might not appreciate its value today. I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David "Makin' It" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A "genius" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the "bad guys". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! "Johnny's Obese Male Child?" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE! Somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain cells a song plays in my head. I can't forget it no matter how hard I try. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS and it's gonna get to you! Wish i could find a copy of this on a 45rpm record. Five disparate teams head out one night in L.A. for a scavenger hunt for clues instead of physical objects. An unkempt game-master with two gorgeous assistants is the mastermind of all this insanity that's about to be unleashed on L.A. All the teams are stereotypes (this movie being from 1980, before political correctness screwed everything up): the "good guys", the "nerds" led by Eddie Deezen, the dumb beer-loving "jocks", the "we-don't-need-a-man-type ladies", especially the redhead. The giggling twins are a scream, too. And finally, the "bad guys" with Stephen Furst as the leader. Furst is hilarious as the overweight slob Harold, whose attempt to use a computer to decipher the various clues leads to a gooey mess. Movies like this aren't made anymore. These days, movies have to have an "edginess" to them with some dark characters and other nonsense. Go back to the days when the "good guys" led by David Naughton were still good and not hopelessly conflicted. So dump all serious pretensions and go back to 1980. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS . . . I had completely forgotten about "Midnight Madness" until just now when I found it while surfing the IMDB. Now, it's all coming back to me....

It was one of Naughton's first movies (as well as Fox's) and sharp-eyed connoisseurs will also pick out Kaplan (Henry from TV's "Alice"), Fiedler (he does the voice of Piglet in the "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons) and Blocker (son of Dan "Hoss" Blocker from TV's "Bonanza").

But the two that stand out in my mind are Furst (from "Animal House") and the superdude himself - Eddie Deezen. Furst plays a baddie this time out and has one of the best scenes when he asks his dad, "Why can't you just accept me for who I am?" His dad looks over his obese, slovenly frame and gives a simple, one-word response - "Yuck!"

And Deezen... well, he's a show in himself. As a latter-day Jerry Lewis he stumbles around, wades through mini-golf ponds, puts melon halves on his ears and ends up having Maggie Roswell fall for him. My hero.

As for the film, it's typical early-'80s stupidity with college kids staying up after curfew and going on a city-wide scavenger hunt to prove which division of students is the best on campus: the jocks, the nerds, the rich kids, the feminists or the group made up of a little of each.

Who wins? Who cares, you'll have a lot of fun watching Disney Pictures' first foray into PG territory before creating Touchstone Pictures.

Seven stars. Catch "Midnight Madness" any way you can!

Long live Leon! What can i say about this movie that hasn't been said hundreds of times before? It's an American Classic. It has spawned dozens of imitators. Or none. Midnight Madness is one of kind. From the ridiculous opening montage/music to the Bonaventure HOtel, I was hooked. Leon made us all feel so young and carefree. One question though, how did he have those two hot hookers with him all the time? And how did have the time/money to arrange such an event? The cast is top notch. David Naughton is at his best here. His tight yellow sweatshirt is disturbing. His little brother Michael J Fox(in his first starring role), is a real brat. There is also Naughton's love interest and a dork and the obligatory black dude in a fisherman's hat on the yellow team. Michael J Fox does bad things like try and steal cups of beer at the Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery and runs away to Flounder's van. Flounder's team gives us the most comedy. What exactly is the deal with the blond on that team? Is she dating Flounder? Or Melio? Or Blade? Yes, the Mexican gentleman's name is blade. The other guy on the Flounder team has the best lines of the movie, i won't pomp them here. The Meat Machine team is a bunch of drunks. My personal favorite is Armpit. But the silent black man is great too. The other two teams are 4 nerds and 4 lesbians(two of which are 450 lb twins).

You know the ending from the start. But that doesn't matter. This is the 80's me-genre at its finest. Don't rent this one, BUY it. and Buy it now. A rather silly little film you just may love.

Although rather corny and cliché at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy "knowing yours is the best team."

Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper "Be a Pepper" commercials and before his major 1981 hit "American Werewolf in London". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.

Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love. Twenty years after watching this, I still find myself quoting things from this movie like "Look between the two giant melons", or I'll start to sing the "Pabst Blue Ribbon Theme". On the other hand, 20 years later, I can now make sense of the "Meat Machine", as there's still a lot of the stereotypes like this out there that they used for this movie. Those are signs of a good movie to me. I could say this movie stands the test of time, which I can't really say for a lot of 80's movies. I continue that this movie is still on a list of a lot of people's favorite movie as a kid growing up in the 80's. If you like games, and have dreams of becoming a "Game Master", or find yourself dorking out over these 80's movies to relive your childhood, you need to watch this. Also, it's sometimes sarcastic, and funny. But one thing's for certain about this movie, if someone ever invites you to a "Great All-Nighter" they don't mean an X or acid trip party, they mean, get ready for some Midnight Madness! Oh, You'll see. Everyone will be dying to play! hehehehheh. I would love for members of the cast and crew to sit down and do an audio commentary on this movie! All of the different places that they went to film this movie! Should provide for some very good anecdotes! Fans of this movie would love to know:

What kind of permission did they have to get to film at certain locations?

Were there any memorable outtakes?

Were there any scenes that were deleted?

What challenges did the cast and the crew face?

Did any actors have stunt doubles?

What was it like to work with other members of the cast?

Were any of the scenes ad libbed?

What are members of the cast and crew up to now?

What locations are still there, and what locations are no longer there, or are now a different business?

It is one thing to read trivia about this movie on this site and other web sites. But there is just no comparison to getting it straight from the horse's mouth!

Come on, guys! Get together and do a commentary! Never walk away from a challenge! Go for the gusto! Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play." Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play." Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play." This is my all time favourite movie ever!!!

I remember seeing this when I was younger and since then I have been in love with it. I used to rent it so often from this one video store that used to carry it, and when we moved I couldn't find it any where so I kep going back tot he far away store just so I could watch the movie again!

Finally i found it for sale and I bought it and watched it over and over again.... great movie!

Since then though it was my very first DVD that I got after I got my DVD player... OK well I got them at the same time, the quality on the DVD is way better I couldn't believe it! You Gotta see this one! I would hope so and how can I get involved?

This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!

What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?

A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!

David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the "yellow team," a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.

His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the "blue team," played hilariously by Stephen Furst of "Babylon 5" fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.

Pit these two against each other and throw in a "red team," a "white team," and a "green team," an unbelievable "view" at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!

Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.

The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.

I own this movie and can never watch it enough!

This is my favorite movie of all time. I just love all the trouble all the teams get into! Its great. Michael J. Fox looked so young.. but then again i guess he was!

The teams are so stereotypical you just have to laugh. This movie typifies the early eighties as well as FUN!! I remember watching this movie on HBO when I was little, and it was my favorite movie. Since it was a while ago, no one I had ever met knew what it was. Then, about the time my roommate had said she had seen it too, and that it was her favorite, they started to print it again!! Luckily, I have a copy now!! If anyone ever wants to see the greatest (cheesy) scavenger hunt that was probably the beginning ideas of hazing for frats, this movie is it!!! (Watcher - has to have a serious love for cheesy 80's type movies!!) twenty years later, this movie still remains as entertaining as when you first watched it. In a movie market overrun by toilet humor, graphic violence and foul language, it's refreshing to be fully entertained for two hours by such a clean movie. This is basically a goofball comedy, with somewhat odd pacing due to some dramatic elements. For Michael J. Fox and Paul Reubens, it was their first film(Fox had previously been in a short lived TV series and a TV movie).

Since the movie is basically a race/scavenger hunt type movie, like "Cannonball Run", "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World", or more recently "Rat Race", there are no main characters. Instead there are groups of characters, splitting the screen time and allowing for tons of mini-plots. Usually these kind of movies are a way to cram the maximum amount of stars (or semi-stars) onto a film.

This one has teams, with one being the primary team which Fox belongs to, who are the only characters to be developed. Their plot is more of a stereotypical Disney affiar, about a college boy not paying attention to his younger brother, who he thinks of as a lazy punk. Since they are forced on a team together, along with the older brother's girlfriend, they are forced to work together. Since this is the main plot it gets the most screen time.

Some of the other silly plots stand out. The Blue Team is about an overweight rich kid whose dad just wants him and his misfit friends out of the house. They end up with a cool custom van which had an on-board computer (in 1980!) to instantly solve the riddles, plus play video games with the time saved! One member, Stephen Furst, went on to play Dr. Axelrod on "St. Elsewhere", and later was on "Babylon 5". I'll also admit that I still laugh when Barf, while trying to unscramble a word a'la Scrabble, comes up with, "Fagabefe?" This is much funnier than Bart Simpson's "Qwyjibo", in my opinion.

The other three teams have plots that are somewhat linked together. The green team is a bunch of frat boys, with mostly beer jokes which climaxes into a breakdown for one when the hunt leads to the Pabst Blue Ribbon Brewery. They get a chance to harass the red team, with two feminists and two fun-loving twins. The white team of nerds are lead by Eddie Deezen, who was previously in "Grease" but went on to play a critical computer geek role in "Wargames" and later Tim Conway's sidekick in some of the "Dorf" series.

If you grew up in the 80's, then there are some classic moments in the movie that bring back memories. The early video arcade, from back when they were cool is always a plus in my mind. Look for Paul Reubens and his quarter-shooting guns. There is also a miniature golf course and a roller disco.

The movie is actually an okay family movie simply because profanity is almost non-existant, and the small amount of sexual humor is completely innocent. The odd pacing thanks to the yellow team's cheesy dramatic moments will put parents to sleep while their kids can giggle at giant melons at Fat Burger (oh, they actually have a special melon platter? That must be it, right?) i taped this as a teenager in the mid 80s based upon the synopsis in the cable guide (the scavenger hunt aspect appealed to me), having no knowledge or expectations of the film. what a pleasant surprise when i viewed it! this was such a fun film and i remember watching it repeatedly. i thought that the concept was well executed, i enjoyed the harmless competition between the different groups, and i thought that the scavenger hunt itself was quite clever. sometimes it seems that people have far too great expectations for movies. not all movies are going to have a weighty "message" or stellar acting, production values, or special effects. sometimes movies are just meant to entertain and be fun, and this one succeeds on both levels. it was so nice to read the comments from the actors who played the twins. i haven't seen this movie in years, but if i did i think i'd have just as warm and enthusiastic a reaction to it as i did as a teenager. even as i type this, snippets of the cheesey yet appropriate theme song are running through my head: "when midnight madness starts to get to you...it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do...!" For a movie that was PG, this is one fun film. I grew up on watching this film over and over. Its really fun, I don't know how today audience would react, but if you grew up on it, or loved the 80s, then this is a great film. Stephen Furst is great as Harold, who, I think, is one of the best characters in the film. Paul Ruebens also pops in for about 10 minutes. I love nostalgia. Midnight Madness is a movie that is unfortunately highly underrated and unappreciated. With a flood of classic "edgy" teen/college movies, this one was forgotten. As a child I would watch this movie over and over again, luckily I had it on video. This movie shows a more tame, but most exciting side of the eighties. In the cynical society we live in this day and age, with drug abuse being the "coolest" thing, it's good to see, once in awhile, a fun, innocent movie that is Midnight Madness...that is if you can find it. Still funny after all these years. Midnight Madness is good entertainment for all ages. It introduces Michael J Fox as a typical 15 year old trouble maker. Melio and Blaylak are by far the funniest characters in it and Leon is perfectly cast as a wierdo game master. The budding romance between Adam and the girl couldn't have been any cheesier. Fagabeefe!!!! As many of the other comments I have read have noted, I fell in love with this movie when I was a kid. My sister and I had a copy of the movie on Beta (before VHS) that we wore out. Of course it didn't help when our parents sold the BetaMax at a garage sale. Since then we have been trying to find a copy. I, like another commentator, did eventually locate a rental copy at a local video store. The owner would not part with the copy after any number of attempts to beg, bribe, and cry my way to owning the tape. GOOD NEWS! I bought a brand new, newly released, VHS copy of Midnight Madness for $9.99 on Amazon.com two days ago!!!! Finally, Disney has wizened up. Now, if they'll only rerelease Song of the South... If you love the movie, grab it. If you haven't seen the movie, it's worth a check - totally stupid humor but a lot of fun (Stephen Furst is hilarious). midnight madness is the ultimate scavenger hunt movie for all time. michael j fox and paul reubens make respective pre- fame appearances. laughs abound everywhere and the intrigue of who will emerge victorious at the end of the great all-nighter will keep you on the proverbial edge of your seat. a true must see! I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series. A classic 80's movie that Disney for some reason stopped making. I watched this movie everyday when I was in like 6th grade. I found a copy myself after scouring video stores. Well worth it though. One of my all time favs There is no denying that this is a bad movie. The acting isn't great, likewise the script, acting and direction. Still, I cannot wait until its 2/23/99 video release from Anchor Bay. Everyone knows there are several bad movies out there that have a tremendous appeal to them. This one tops my list. If you're a "child of the Eighties" like me, you probably remember this 1981 Disney movie--one of Disney's first PG-rated films, and Michael J. Fox's screen debut. I can remember watching this film over and over on HBO when I was on middle school, and I only recently found a very old copy of it, since Disney stopped producing the movie several years ago. Needless to say, this is a real fun movie to watch. Five college teams decipher clues in an evening race around Los Angeles, trying to reach the finish line first. Watch for the cameo from Paul Reubens. From the cheesy music to the disco scene with the fat twins, this is a quintessential 1980s fun film that you'll love. Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play." This is a charming little film, which like many of it's kind, derives it's charm from the circumstances involved rather than the actual dialogue.

Glenn Ford (as always) shines through in a great comedic performance as the penniless Air Force officer, married after just one day to gold-digging showgirl Debbie Reynolds.

After the one initial wedding night of passion and a life changing move to Spain, the two quickly realise that apart from the strong sexual attraction they feel for each other they have nothing at all in common.

However when she decides to give their marriage a go, it is on the understanding that it for one month trial period only and sex is most definitely not on the cards.

Ford is also falling foul to his new $40,000 Lincoln Futura Concept Car (the future Batmobile) which he wins in a raffle the same night he meets his new wife.

The car is bringing him unwanted attention from the Air Force, who see it as a vulgar display of American wealth and is bringing suspicions of corruption and embezzlement etc. It is also putting him in the 80-90% tax bracket and as penniless as he is he now faces a tax bill of over $17,000. Not the kind of money you should be owing when your wife is the kind of person who spends over a $1,000 on one shopping trip.

Even when he tries to sell it it brings him misfortune as selling so much as a cigarette or a pair of stockings to the natives is punishable by court martial, so you can imagine that a $17,500 transaction practically has the firing squad polishing their rifles.

His potential purchaser is also causing him problems as he is a disgustingly handsome Bull-fighting Spanish nobleman, who's interest in the car has lead to a stronger interest in Ford's wife, made worse by the fact that a rich jet-set lifestyle is being offered and is what she has sought for so long.

With Ford's sexual frustration rising and jealousy in his love rival mounting, coupled with Reynolds' materialistic attitude and flirtatious behaviour around the enamoured Spaniard serving to drive the wedge deeper between the two, it seems that their whirlwind relationship is destined to end.

But can whatever love and attraction that threw these two love birds together in the first place, shine through and keep them together?

Not the best example of this genre of film, but due to the watchable performances by it's principles and the enjoyable plot line, it is certainly a fine one. I think that this film is one of the funniest films i have ever seen. I think Debbie Reynolds is hilarious and the chemistry between her and Glenn Ford is perfect. There is not a dull moment in the film and Debbie looks beautiful as always.

The story is about a showgirl Maggie(Debbie Reynolds) who meets a penniless soldier Joe (Glenn Ford). She takes an instant dislike to him but after he accidentally tears her dress, he returns it to her on the condition that she goes on one date with him. They end up getting married the night they have their date after just one kiss. Joe and Maggie move to Spain and find they have nothing in common but physical attraction, so Maggie proposes that for one month they live but not as man and wife which means that Joe is not allowed to kiss or sleep with Maggie, much to Joe's frustration.A hilarious plot and a wonderful film. Not to be missed. I think this film has to be one of the most moving, and heartbreaking films of recent times.

The film basically starts off with a suicide in a school toilet. U don't see who it is, then from there it goes to the beginning of the day, and we get to know 6 characters, and they are going through some pretty heavy things, anyway eventually one of them will commit suicide.

I've been teaching Physical Education in schools for 8 years now, and never in a film have I seen such an accurate portrayal of what 'really' goes on in school life.

The film is shot beautifully, and sounds incredible.

The ending is so shocking, and so what one would not expect, it is something that will haunt me for days to come.

This is Definitely one to watch.

I think the fact that the Director/Writer was in school only a few years ago is a major contributing factor to the raw honesty expressed in the film.

The film is shot in two separate 'modes' if you will. Firstly there is the smooth observation style where we get to know the characters in their school environment as they go through their drama, but the stunning part of the film is in the interview sections, where we get to know the characters back stories, and their deepest, darkest thoughts.

You keep wondering, who is it going to be (who commits suicide) and as the drama unfolds you keep changing your mind, until bam, it hits you in the face in the final five minutes. I am all over the place in my writing, but I've just seen it at a Media screening in Australia, and I am still in a bit of shock.

It's one of the best Australian Films I have seen in recent years. Well... What to say.

I think i shall start with a confession. I have cried 4 times in my life. once when my dad died, twice due to a girlfriend in high school, and at the end of this film. This film deals with the real confronting issues of 6 school kids, forcing them quite uncomfortably into the open for all the world to see. i have never seen a film that deals with the human emotional condition as well as this. everything from incest to incontinence is covered here and i doubt there are many people who are safe from the sting of familiarity with at least a couple of scenes.

It starts off with a suicide. at 2:37pm. then without letting you know who it was that died, the story begins to be told from the start of the day. it follows the lives of 6 school kids up until 2:37pm. it interchangeably, and edited with personal interviews of the 6 teenagers, lets you know everything about their lives. their loves, hates, dreams, desires, secrets, shame, false confidence, self loathing, corruption and arrogance. the overall outcome of which is a sort of "whodunnit" trying to discover the identity of the suicidal before it is revealed at the end of the film. without spoiling anything i must let you know. do not feel cheated by the ending. it contains a very important lesson.

And now a warning. this film is definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Many people actually walked out of the cinema half way through when i saw it. Disgusted by some of it's content. Or perhaps it's that it's sometimes hard to face the cold hard truth of reality. This is what high school is like for many people. i'm sure most would agree. It was riveting. I just could not look away. As the movie rolled on I started to feel that it was powerful and confronting, but i had no idea how much more intense it would get.

The movie gives an insight into what unfortunately is everyday life for a lot of school kids. Some of us live outside that environment and would walk by and not know what is happening.

Parents need to see this film in particular, just to see a glimpse of what their kids go through. Often parent dismiss their kids problems as trivial, but unfortunately to a high schooler they are massive. And unfortunately the problems can escalate into a tragedy.

Definitively a must see for all. At 2:37pm in a bathroom at an Adelaide highschool a student takes their own life and the different worlds of six teenagers are changed forever.

2:37 is a brutal, honest and breathtaking film centered on the pain of being a teenager. The film follows one day in the lives of six teenagers, all intertwined, all dealing with their own personal dramas. While there are a couple of stereotypes in the mix – the beautiful would-be popular girl dealing with body issues, the over-achiever obsessed with his grades, there are several horrors that are as far from main-stream as you can get, including a social outcast dealing with a brutal illness and a young girl trying to make sense of a devastating event in her past.

The movie is mixed with documentary-style interviews from the characters, which some viewers may find a little out of place in the otherwise seamless narrative. The pace is also a little slow, but it fits with the feel of the movie. The young Australian actors are all stars in their own right, in particular Theresa Palmer who's heartbreaking performance earned her an AFI nomination.

The film is very well shot, with terrific direction. Some scenes are a little hard to watch – in particular the five-minute-long suicide scene, but overall it is a film that leaves a big impact on its' viewers. It draws you in right from it's shocking opening scene and keeps you guessing as to which of the six main characters is going to be the one to end up in the bathroom. Ultimately, it's a beautiful made, but slightly disturbing look at teenage life. 2:37 succeeds admirably at showing us what Australian teenagers feel and don't say. These are the stories of real kids and I think we would be naive to think otherwise. The only new thing 2:37 really brings us is an Australian point of view. We often watch troubled American children but often fail to link the same problems to our own teens. Executed with clever and artful cinematography, I did however (upon immediate recognition of the disappointing final song) find the musical direction lacking in sophistication. I applaud the fabulous casting of this film. These are regular looking Aussie kids who invite plenty of sympathy because of this. Great performances all round and you can't top Gary Sweet, this film made me remember why sometimes high school sucked and unless you're squeamish, or you like to leave with warm and fuzzies, go and see 2:37. I had the pleasure of witnessing this brilliant film at a preview screening in Sydney. Although it was a pleasure to see it. Pleasure is not the emotion you are left with as the credits roll.

2:37 is a film that tackles not just one stigma felt by young individuals but all of them. Chief of which is isolation. It is not just to place the films final galvanising scene on a pedestal above the others, but rather it is important to see it as the culmination. And from that, it is important to realise what it represents to both you as the viewer and to the people directly effected by it.

2:37 is not a soft picture but the manner in which Mr Thalluri handles it's subject matter with a profound dignity and it's no holds barred approach acts as credit to it's message.

I do not believe films such as 2:37 should be scaled by votes of favour. Rather it should be recommended to those looking for purpose in their viewing.

A brilliantly crafted portrait of innocence lost. And a master stroke for a as of yet untaped talent.

Not to be missed. 2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.

The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.

On the characters from 2:37, we can find clichés from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful "princess", the clumsy "nerd", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his/her road to maturity.

2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie. First of all, i must say i really enjoy watching this movie. The way we follow the different people at the same time works perfectly, and its one of those movies that really makes you think.

Spoiler!!!!

The fact that the the girls who kills herself, is the one you don't notice, That fact made me wonder abit, since thats why she commits Suicide in the movie.. The Director impressed me with that, making a movie that shows the plot to the audience and also deliver the message that not a lot of people would have seen it coming. Some people might start talking about why no one did anything to stop it before she did it, but no one noticed her, just like no one who watched the movie did either... Don't know about you, but i did not guess that it would be her who committed Suicide.. Did you ??

Regards Jan Many other viewers are saying that this is not a good movie to watch since they feel that it isn't "realistic." How can it not be considered realistic. They feel that say the incest part isn't easy to relate to, that it isn't common. i can guarantee you that you have met more people than you think that have had an incest act occur. Many of them aren't going to come out and say it, and mostly these are victims. Also, many people are Gay, and are still in the closest, because no matter how much they would like it to be, they know they will be ridiculed and possibly even abandoned. And tell me, how many kids have you went to high school with that has ended up being pregnant or had an eating disorder? i bet a lot, and although pregnancy isn't from incest most of the time, its still easy to relate to. Who can't relate to being an outcast or being bullied? that happens all the time. and many viewers are probably concerned with there education such as Marcus. being a stoner seems to be quite common these days to. so there are a lot of things to relate to. More than the rest though, no matter how popular you may get, sometimes you feel invisible or alone, not noticed, or overlooked such as the suicide victim, how can you not feel like you can relate to the movie? I find that the movie may have seemed pointless to others, but i would like to think of it as important. It an interesting way of showing that suicide happens, and to be aware. it comes from the people that don't show their unhappy thoughts, its very surprising. The people who show there problems do commit suicide sometimes to, but when you hear of suicide, who would have guessed is usually running through most peoples minds.

The ending surprised me, i wasn't expecting it to be the girl that until the end, was mostly an extra in the scenes, not even introduced. the story, even in its description, says its about 6 teenage lives, when in fact it was 7. My only real disappointment was that it wasn't one of the characters that we got to learn about, it merely at first seems like the movie was pointless to watch if the real victim is just some random chick. until i thought more. it made perfect sense for being a huge surprise, since thats what suicides are like. plus, who was to choose who any of the other students had more of a reason than the other.

though this movie has some bad points, most movies have a few, but i would recommend this movie, as long as you can deal with watching the tragic moments of watching the suicide, and violence and profanity shown in this film. Yes, 2:37 is in some ways a rip off from Gus van Sants Elephant. It's about some students who are dealing with their problems leading to the suicide of one of them. Yes, it's full of clichés, but that's life. You just can't deny that creepy nerds, disabled persons or popular students who, despite their popularity, do have problems are existing in the real world.

But that's not, what this film is all about. It's not about life in Highschool. It's not about the misery of life itself.

If you look beneath the surface, beneath the soap-like social relationships that are shown, you will find some gripping, thought-provoking criticism of our society.

Why are people committing suicide? Do we really understand their motives? Or are we just trying to understand, after its already too late? And why is it always someone, you would never have expected it to be?

This movie doesn't answer this question, but it raises it. And it does so in a very intense way. All the way it keeps you guessing, whose blood it might be, that you see at the very beginning. You are following the paths of some students, all of them having a more or less good reason to end their lives, just to be forced to watch the gruesome act in the finale.

Did you know who it would be? Or were you caught by surprise, like in real life?

The message is verbalized by one of the surviving kids in the end. We are always so fixed on our own problems, we forget to see those of others. There might be someone, a colleague, a friend, who does not want to live anymore. But, if you don't open your eyes, you'll never know until its too late.

This movie delivers well. It might have some flaws, but they don't matter anymore, when its over. Either you see a reflection of society, or you are blind for reality. All those that identify this as a simple rip-off of 'Elephant' - are there no other comments that you can make towards the movie on its own merits as an individual film (regardless of its apparent similarities to other movies).

All those that question the validity of the movie - in terms of its stereotypical characters (the obligatory gay, the jock, the disabled kid, etc) - I'm not sure how long it has been since you were at school - but regardless of how amateurish the acting may be - the happenings that go one are surprisingly close to what may actually happen.

And all those that disregard the film as being so simple: just six teenagers with the regular teenage angst that pushes one over the edge... did anyone stop to think, and take notice that the girl who took her life wasn't actually one of those six!! As one comment points out - she had screen time of maybe 2min max (excluding the final scenes). I think the point of the film is not only to make an issue of teenage angst, and how far it can take someone - but also that it is no apparently obvious who is always in danger of committing such an act (suicide)... I saw this movie tonight in a preview showing and it was fantastic. It does well in portraying issues that the average High School student is subjected to.

I left the movie feeling stunned and saddened and yet grateful that this movie will have a chance to raise awareness through its audiences regarding these issues (bullying, rape, suicide and depression).

Its a Fantastic Aussie Film.

Go see it.

Support it.

Learn from it. Being featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and gaining quite some fame, this movie appears to be another modern and profound school drama.

It's about a bunch of adolescents who get through a revealing and desperate day at school. Everything's circling around a suicide - shown at the very beginning to some extent - that happens at 2:37pm. The characters are somehow all connected with each other. What moves them is described via short interview sequences, strictly shot in b/w. The characters are well written, the acting is intriguing (especially Teresa Palmer as Melody and Frank Sweet as Marcus are discoveries).

Let's stick to the movies' technique. That's what really impressed me. There rarely are cuts, most of the time the camera follows one of the protagonists like in Gus van Sants' Elephant. Some scenes are presented more often than once, but each time from a different point of view (here: character). This surely evokes a slowly developing, but grabbing atmosphere that drags you inside literally. The colours are vibrant, somehow unfitting considering the tough plot - but that's nothing less than a clever contrast, a disturbing 'everything's fine thing'. The use of lighting is adequate all the time, underlining the characters' actual mood. And finally, there are decent placements of music.

2:37 somehow itches you from the very beginning. It does not compromise nor does it serve laughter. It rather strings together what psychologists would define as terror moments. This movie substantially focuses on emotional precipices. There ain't nobody who's not to handle some kind of neurosis, even the depicted minor parts (e.g. the teachers) seem to be in some state of disorder. And that is what keeps this movie from being really good. Its summing up of piercing tragedies is unrealistic to its very bones. There is no: friendship, love, smiling, truth, passion. There is: faking, humiliation, despair, sickness and beating up. It's like being hit in the face real hard all the time, but you are numb after the first hour. This flick keeps on hitting you, until it reveals something quite instructive in the end.

For being sensitively and superbly acted: 9. For being technically innovative and original: 9. For being unidimensional: 3.

Makes a solid 7 out of 10. I have to confess I fell into the cynical trap of believing that Australians couldn't make drama unless it meant a lot of crying, and I am an Australian. Sad, isn't it? While this movie does involve crying, its not dramatic crying, its honest emotion shining through.

Also, this film is a whodunnit. I knew what the final outcome was going to be when I started watching this, so I tried to guess who it was that was going to do it. I missed by a mile.

I was stunned when I found out the director, Murali Thulluri was only around 21 when he made this film. I would love to shake his hand. He knows how to make a movie. I hope he has more coming.

All of the characters we meet before the main title credit (about 12 minutes in) is an anti hero. All of them troubled in their own way and all of them as selfish as the next one. Even when they are sympathetic.

The saddest scene in the movie, and there are some that are difficult to watch) is the final scene where We're formally introduced to the real main character and we're told of their nephew. That scene made me cry.

My faith in Australian drama has been restored. We're masters at comedy, but I was getting bored with comedy.

Murali, if you happen to check this out, you touched my soul and for that I can only thank you. At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.

After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.

With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.

2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.

The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.

Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film. I saw 2:37 at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and was blown away by it! A scene of panic opens this film, at 2:37 pm set in an Adelaide high school. This scene is left unresolved as we revert to the beginning of the day, and are introduced to the teenagers getting ready to go to school. The audience becomes intimate with each of the main characters, and explores the day-to-day issues facing teenagers - including drugs, promiscuity, being gay, bullying and violence. Each scene is played again and again from different teens' perspectives, and is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's Elephant. This is a remarkable film by first-time director Murali K. Thalluri. It was made with non-professional student actors, and work-shopped through an unprecedented 76 drafts of a script. It features stunning performances by a number of the student actors, particularly Teresa Palmer in the role of Melody. This coming-of-age film is both intimate and thought-provoking with a surprising and disturbing ending. In this flame of emotion we are introduced to several different high-school youngsters during one eventful day at school. All of them struggle with belonging,finding them selves and keeping their painful secrets from being revealed.Has the feel of a coming of age documentary focusing on students inner landscape and their way of dealing with everyday challenges.Gets of with a powerful opening and develops like a hymning requiem.Thalluri moves the camera with great skill and invites us slowly into the youngsters minds and hearts. A fictional reconstruction that enlightens us all and reminds us of the frailty of youth.One of the most important films of today. every teenager should be given the opportunity to see this moving piece of film. Good grief sethrp-1, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The girl was only seen briefly specifically BECAUSE she was the one who was going to kill herself...everyone else was so wrapped up in their own stories they didn't notice her, nor did we. As one of the other students says at the end - we're all so wrapped up in our own problems we don't notice what's going on for someone else.

The director himself said if he had killed off one of the others, it would've suggested their problems were worse than someone else's. The whole point of killing Kelly was that she was unnoticed by all of us. Get it now?? A powerful debut film from Murali K. Thalluri that explores events in the life of a group of high school students, each of them in crisis in one way or another. The film starts with the discovery of the body of one of the students, then traces the lives of the group over the previous hours, leaving the audience in suspense until the last minutes as to the identity of the deceased. Each of the main characters is facing major stressors which we could see as potentially precipitating a suicide. The cast of unknowns provide performances full of power and emotion. Fantastically well done, especially considering the youth of the writer/director who was 19 years old when he wrote the script. This is a prime example of uninhibited filmmaking at its best. Richard Greene (who does good in the role) search for his two missing friends takes him to the Black Forest domain and castle of one-eyed Count Bruno (Stephen McNally), a past enemy of his whom he has never seen face to face. Incredible film has so many awesome elements combined (for once) into a single film--a crocodile pit; a hulking mute (played by Lon Chaney, Jr.); a crafty doctor (played by Boris Karloff); a leopard hunt (VERY well done and VERY atmospheric); a love story; a castle; a swordfight; a sadistic, one-eyed count and his two evil accomplices (played by John Hoyt and Michael Pate!!!); an intriguing background story which makes the film even more interesting; and more!. Jerry Sackheim's script doesn't allow itself to be bound in--making a film that comes extremely recommendable to anyone who is into unlimited filmmaking with a touch of horror and atmosphere to it. The British noble Sir Ronald Burton (Richard Greene) decides to search his two best friends that have disappeared after visiting Count Karl von Bruno (Stephen MaNally), an evil and powerful man who lives in the Black Castle. Sir Burton travels undercover with another identity, since he fought against Count von Bruno in Afrika with his two missing friends and the count lost one eye in a battle. When he arrives in the castle, he is invited to hunt in the Black Forest around the castle with the count,.while he looks for evidences that the count has killed his friends. Later, he and the count's wife, Countess Elga von Bruno (Rita Corday), fall in love for each other and with the support of Dr. Meissen (Boris Karloff), Sir Burton and the countess try to escape from the claws of Count von Bruno. "The Black Castle" is an excellent movie from a romantic time, with action, romance, mystery and even horror. The story is gripping, and is a great entertainment for any audience. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Castelo do Pavor" ("The Castle of the Fear") All Boris Karloff fans will love this classic film, where Karloff is the castle physician and gives his patients excellent attention. Sir Ronald Burton,(Richard Greene), an eighteenth-century English adventurer, believes his two friends have been murdered by Count Von Bruno,(Stephen McNally) on his Black Forest estate. Arriving at Von Bruno's castle to accumulate evidence, Burton learns Von Bruno's unhappy wife Elga (Paula Corday),. and Dr. Meissen(Boris Karloff), the castle physician, are virtual prisoners. Suspecting Burton's motives, Von Bruno and Gargon (Lon Chaney Jr., ) a giant, mute scarred henchman, discover the Englishman was responsible for their being captured and tortured. You will definitely have to view this great Classic Karloff Film to enjoy the ending. Universal studios. The name conjures up so many memories to horror fans of beautiful matte paintings...er...landscapes, fog-enshrouded countrysides, full moons, howling wolves, taverns and torch wielding mobs. Yet, it is quite strange looking back on those films, how little the era which produced the true classics lasted. The '30's had it's masterpieces, but those were mostly from the same directors and many of their films are mostly of historical interest today. The '40's produced more mindlessly fun matinée films than it did high art, and most fans agree that the classic era of the Gothic horror films ended in 1945 with 'House of Dracula', bumped around with the Abbott & Costello comedies, and was officially dead by the 50's and the coming of the Atomic Age.

So it's strange that perhaps one of Universal's finest Gothics was made in the '50s! That alone makes the film an oddity, since costume dramas were on their way out EVERYWHERE. It may not be comparable to the all time classics like the James Whale films and 'The Wolfman', but damn does it condense all the fun elements of those films into one delicious treat! Get ready for nothing but pure entertainment! Since various social mores had changed, the film also indulges in violence that would not have been allowed in earlier eras; there's no blood, but we see characters shot and stabbed directly, and there's even a burning torch to the face!

The film may not really be a horror film, but it sure has the atmosphere, look and feel of one! It begins in the dead of night with howling winds(and wolves) as two men seal the tombs of two apparently dead young lovers, BUT WAIT! One of them is not dead, but he can't move! He's trapped, but talking silently in his own mind, unable to communicate! What is his story? Now THAT is how you start a horror film....

English businessman Sir Ronald Burton(Richard Greene, giving one of his best performances)sets out under the alias of Richard Beckett to investigate the disappearance of two friends of his who disappeared at the castle of one-eyed Austrian Count Von Bruno(Did Sacha Baron Cohen see this?). It seems many years ago Von Bruno posed as a god to the natives in Africa to steal ivory, he was exposed by Burton's men, and the natives disfigured him. Now he is lusting for revenge.

The film has all the clichés, a Jonathan Harker-style ride to the castle, an inn full of wary villagers, death traps, and a hulking manservant(Lon Chaney Jr.). The torture chamber scenes are genuinely suspenseful, including a panel in the floor that activates a dungeon door(which makes for an ingenious getaway scene later on), a hunting expedition involving an imported panther(!!!??)and even an alligator pit! And then there's the Romeo & Juliet-style fake death that leads to the film's prologue....

The plot is cliché and the world-view is black and white. But it's still incredibly entertaining, with director Nathan Juran making every scene pile on the atmosphere and seem fresh and new. there are several plot-holes, too. Why does Ronald attempt to leave the castle so early? And he never does solve the mystery of what happened to his friends even though it's obvious, but he doesn't know that when he gives up, and he seemed so sure earlier. Weird.

All of the actors are great. Despite being a rude upperclassman, Richard Greene makes Burton one of the most likable protagonists I've ever seen in a horror film. Rita Corday is excellent as the Count's 'peasant wife' who becomes Burton's love interest, she may have the stereotypical 'falling in love with just a glance' problem of all film heroines of this era, but her portrayal of a long-suffering woman in a loveless marriage to a sadistic monster is very convincing, she also shows a suspicion and wit few film heroines of this era do, even seeing a forced attempt by Burton to quiet her(And to paw at her necklace, although it is simply to analyze it as it has an important clue) as a rape attempt, yet she never seems nasty in her paranoia, the audience sympathizes with her. Even though he fails to make Von Bruno seem truly foreign and otherworldly(he is a villain in a horror film after all), Stephen McNally gives a truly chilling performance as the sadistic nobleman. When he reveals his burnt eye, and laughs maniacally, it is truly scary. Lon Chaney Jr. is also great as his mute henchman Gargon.

But the best performance is undeniably by Boris Karloff as the mysterious physician Dr. Meissen. He has little screen time at first, but steals every scene he is in. It is a performance that is both creepy, sad, mysterious and ultimately, heroic. As he leers evilly as he applies leeches to one of Bruno's henchman, spies on our hero and speaks in that famous 'You know I'm up to no good' voice only Karloff could make, you wonder whether if he is a hero or villain, always skulking about. And although he does function as the main agent of our hero's escape, he still shows human frailties such as greed and fearfulness for his own life, even cold-bloodedly poisoning a man for Burton's benefit before he even gets Burton to agree. His plan to help our hero & heroine escape also puts them directly in the clutches of Von Bruno as he arranges an amazingly sadistic(If unbelievably flawed)death for them that had to have inspired similar scenes in Corman's Poe series. He may not have much screen time, but this is easily one of Boris's best performances.

While the ending may seem abrupt and anti-climatic for some, half the fun is getting there, and there's much excitement to be had. Kick back and relive the days when Heroes were heroes and Villains were villains. It's no masterpiece, but it's escapist fun at it's best. There are moments when you don't want those deep drama-series. When you don't want series with heavy stories or a must to watch every single episode to be able to hang on. There are moments when you just want to watch a simple series, with lots of action and cool characters. For those moments, you have Cleopatra 2525.

I was one of those who actually enjoyed Charlie's Angels. Critics said it was to superficial and silly. But the thing is, that's the point! People who can't relax and expected a serious movie hated it. It's exactly the same with Cleopatra 2525. It is superficial. It has silly and unrealistic characters. And that's why I like it. It isn't like any other series.

The first season wasn't very good. The character Cleo was irritating and a little too much. The story was a little lame, and you didn't get to know the characters very much. But hey, they only had 20 minutes in every episode.

In the last 5-6 episodes of Cleopatra 2525, they finally gave the series full 40-minutes length. And it was here I started to love it. The series finally started to grow into a very qualitative series. Too bad they had to cancel the series. Because the last episodes of Cleopatra 2525 actually was very good. I will never forget Hel, Sarge and Cleo. Unique characters that only the creators of Xena could have created! Cleopatra 2525 is a very funny, entertaining show. You shouldn't take all the show seriously, but if you wanna have fun, that's your TV show. Being made by the producers of Xena is a quality guarantee, and Cleopatra 2525 isn't that different from Xena. The female warriors formula is brought to the future, where they don't have to fight warriors or gods, but dangerous robots which dwell in the surface, and the humans are forced to live underground. Along the two seasons of Cleopatra, they develop an interesting and funny underground world, and we get to know the three main characters: Cleopatra (Jennifer Sky), Hel (Gina Torres) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt). They all are different, but as a team, they work really well. The three main actresses appeared previously in Xena, like most of the regular/guest cast (there are some known faces from Hercules too, or from both shows). I specially liked the character played by Danielle Cormack (Ephiny in Xena), which is very different from any of her roles I previously knew. So if you liked Xena and Hercules, you'll love Cleopatra 2525. If you don't know them, try it: I'm sure you'll enjoy it. First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.

Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of "them." Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered.

While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this "oversight" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand.

Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about "Fargo") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.

Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of "a mistake" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka "Meatloaf") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.

The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.

"Focus'" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses. Most people attending this film will have no idea of the great novel by Arthur Miller that is the basis of it. It's a novel that should be read by more people to see how prejudice affects and alters peoples lives.

At the beginning, Lawrence Newman is an ordinary man. The eyeglasses his boss makes him get change everything he has worked for and his whole world collapses around him, little by little. There couldn't have been an actor better suited to bring this intelligent performance to the screen than William H. Macy. Not only is he a talented stage and screen actor, but he projects honesty behind every character he plays. He is an everyday man caught in his own insecurities. His anxiety intensifies when he takes a stand and walks out of his job. Suddenly, he has to confront the issues he has tried to avoid all his middle class existence in the Brooklyn of the 40s. Is he Jewish, is he not? The cinematography in this brilliant and atmospheric film, directed with sure hand by Neil Slavin, kept reminding me of some Edward Hopper's paintings, especially a sequence at the beginning of the film when Newman steps outside a building and the night shot when he and his wife are being followed with long black shadows behind the couple, menacing and anticipating the confrontation with the bullies. Laura Dern, David Paymer, and especially Meat Loaf, who infuses incredible depth to the bully-next-door, are excellent, but they all pale in comparison with the stellar turn of William H. Macy (H must stand for HONEST..) If you haven't read the book, I would sincerely recommend it because no one has written more truly and convincingly than Arthur Miller has. This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it?

Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very "white" little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.

I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands. The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their "target" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.

A friend of mine suggested I should see "The Wave" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.

Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.

The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of "freedom".

That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.

This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by "reasonable" people who are just extremists in thin disguises. I don't know if it was the directors intent to make sure the sky was almost always sunny and beautiful in this film. Perhaps that is the romantic image many Americans have of the time this film is set, as it is in the middle of the War, Macy has returned from the war (His neighbor asks "Hey, is it true you got a Fritz over there?") and is trying to get on with his life but one day he gets a new pair of glasses (hence the name) and sees things clearly as the surrounding situation reveals itself to be one of rabid anti-semitism, and Macy and Dern could wrapped up in it. Funny how neither is Jewish in this film but the accusation is made. Also it is historically accurate, as the labor union Democrats of this time wrapped themselves in the flags of America and God. Macy is continually pestered to come to the "meeting". His presence brings unexpected results.

Applying this time frame to today is a study in contrast. In 2005, has undergone a complete reversal, with average citizens who have taken patriotism and religion as their unifier supporting the Republican Party and viewing organized labor as part of left-wing 'unpatriotic' America.

A great picture to watch, if you care to see the friendly, timid and meek Macy (played beautifully by him) get caught in the carnage of race and hate in the mid 40's in NYC.

A tough, emotionally charged film. Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) "but you KNOW what my background is," along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to "confirm" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others.

If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost. I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).

Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but "Jewish-looking" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.

Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.

The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.

Wow. The first reviewer is right - In this movie we see ourselves, snuggling up to the majority, being agreeable, trying to stay out of trouble, just trying to live our lives, and we see how easily these very human traits, so fundamental to the functioning of society, can lead us to become complicit in a great evil.

The story is set during World War II, with the radio, newspapers and movies reminding us of Hitler's attacks on Jews to underscore the irony of the same kind of violent anti-semitism taking place in America. At times that seemed a little heavy-handed to me.

It feels more like a play than a movie, but it's so thought-provoking that such quibbles mean little. Perhaps less trivial is the fact that the entire plot hinges one one little fact that struck me as rather implausible. Larry has lived an uneventful life until middle age; yet all it takes is his beginning to wear a pair of spectacles for everyone - EVERYONE - to, at the first glance, take him for a Jew. I willingly suspended disbelief because the plot kept me moving forward, but the implausibility did bother me throughout the film. (And, quite frankly, I didn't understand why his wife was also taken for a Jew. Larry seemed to think so because her name was "Hart." And later when he married her, I don't know why his neighbours assumed she was Jewish.) For the first part of the film I wondered if there were going to be elements of fantasy. Larry's unassumingness seemed exaggerated, almost to the point of the grotesque. Why not call the police on seeing the rape, even if the attacker was a neighbour? And I thought the lighting seemed to suggest something slightly unreal - the red of the houses seemed too red, Gertrude's entrance seemed deliberately overlit, generally the colours were almost crayon-like in their intensity.

In the credits I see that it was filmed on Campbell Avenue and Wallace Avenue in Toronto, so I plan to drive down there (near Bloor & Dufferin) today to check out the colours. Really :) It was good to be reminded that the clergy at that time were often leading the evil of racism. (Remember how the pope refused to speak out against Hitler, seeking only to get protection for the Church? It was the same pope, by the way, who, when Rome was about to be liberated by American troops, requested that the first soldiers to enter the city not be black. Check your history.) I don't recall ever hearing of this movie before. That's a shame. It certainly is of great interest to every thinking person, to everyone interested in American history or racism; it's one of the clearest illustrations I've ever seen of Bertrand Russell's dictum, "Do not go with a crowd to do evil." Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf. This is a movie about a man everybody thinks is Jewish.This is a movie about Lawrence Newman, who lives in Brooklyn in the 1940's, at the time of WWII.One day, when he gets himself glasses, people start thinking he's a Jew.And that only, because he looks like one.And he lives in a very antisemitic neighborhood.So some people start treating him like dirt.They make that judgment, being a Jew, of Larry's fresh wife, Gertrude Hart, too.That makes their lives unbearable.Neal Slavin's Focus (2001) is a fairly good look at the antisemitism.That's a problem that won't go away.The movie is based on Athur Miller's novel, which, I admit, I haven't read.But the movie is really good, so I'm sure the book would also.The actors do good job.William H.Macy is always good, and his work as Larry Newman is brilliant.Laura Dern is Gert Hart and she's magnificent.Meat Loaf is almost scary as the neighbor who wants to keep Jews out by any means necessary.David Paymer's character as the Jewish shop-owner Mr. Finkelstein is the most sympathetic in the movie.Paymer is the perfect choice for the role.One of the greatest scenes is in the end when Mr.Finkelstein and Newman fight against those Nazi-like people with baseball bats.They join together to fight the evil.The Christian and the Jew. I'm a huge fan of legendary director Elia Kazan . His movies often deal with people trying to overcome their weaknesses. Be it obsessive love in 'Splendor In the Grass, poverty in "A tree Grows in Brooklyn" or racism in "Gentlemen's Agreement." While looking for other movies made by Kazan, I stumbled across a movie that was based on a novel by Arthur Miller. The movie called "Focus" stars William H.Macy (who happens to be one of my favorite actors) and Laura Dern. It deals with anti-Semitism in a very realistic way.

Macy's character seems to go along with the bigots in his neighborhood and on his job, until it affects him personally. That's the key here... the reason he acted wasn't because he knew it was wrong and he wanted to take a stand, he acted because he was now considered an outsider, and he began to experience the same looks, the same remarks, and the same brutally that Mr. Finklestein (David Pamyers)experienced .

The movie is very well written and well acted. Meat Loaf does a awesome job of playing a dirt bag! Both Macy and Dern's performances are outstanding! It's easier in life to go along with, instead of going against. Sometimes in order for people to take a stand things have to impact their lives, or the lives of their loved ones...Only then will some find their moral compass. Focus is an engaging story told in urban, WWII-era setting. William Macy portrays everyman who is taken out of his personal circumstances and challenged with decisions testing his values affecting the community. Laura Dern, Macy and David Paymer give good performances, so also the good supporting ensemble. MPAA Rating PG-13

My Rating: 10 and up

My * Rating 9.5/10

William H. Macy delivers a stunning performance as the role of Mr. Neuman. He makes you feel sympathetic and scared for him simultaniously. The story starts out as a comedy and slowly but steadily becomes almost like a horror film with twists and turns that Macy effortly masters. I couldn't take my eyes off this film even after it ended, and I couldn't beleive it ended when it did. A MUST TO SEE.

THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER BY SOME

After you watch the film, look at the plot this way: The Neumans are the United States as a whole, and the charactor Meat Loaf Aday plays is the people in the United States who are anti-Semetic.

This was a very enjoyable film and would reccomend to anyone I saw in the street. I had to call my mother (a WASP) to ask her about this. Was it really that bad in the 40s in New York? Surprise, she couldn't remember. So I told her to see the movie. Arthur Miller, in not a screen play but a NOVEL for a change, was 30 when he wrote this in 1945. It is a painful depiction of anti-Semitism. Yet oddly enough, there is a tender story of human relationships (Finkelstein, the Jew, with Newman, the non-Jew, primarily) underlying the cruel story. The acting is competent and the cinematography is very good.

The only reason I can think of for this not making it big in the theatre is that it's >>aaagh<< controversial.

I actually give it ten of ten. Maybe a bit high, but it's so worth seeing. Arthur Miller certainly knows. His stories give a clearer picture of what it means to live in the United States in the 20th century than any other writer I can think of.

Focus, based on one of his novels, is no exception.

William H. Macy and Laura Dern give fantastic performances here. Emotionally bruising but ultimately rewarding, this movie is excellent. Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal "nice guy with something to hide". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.

Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.

The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is. Without question, film is a powerful medium, more so now than ever before, due to the accessibility of DVD/video, which gives the filmmaker the added assurance that his story or message is going to be seen by possibly millions of people. Use of this medium, therefore, attaches an innate responsibility to the artist, inasmuch as film can be educational, as well as entertaining, which dictates that certain subjects should be approached accordingly and with a corresponding sensitivity and sensibility. A film like Spielberg's `Schindler's List,' for example, is important, in that it keeps alive the memory of that which must not be forgotten, and as history tends to repeat itself, Spielberg's film can be viewed as a valuable tool in preventing a recurrence of that tragedy. In that same vein, this film, `Focus,' directed by Neal Slavin, is important, in it illuminates the problematic reality of anti-Semitism, which for years beyond number has affected millions of people, is still unimaginably prevalent today, and like any manifestation of bigotry, will perpetuate itself if left unchecked or ignored. Born of a xenophobic strain, it's a disease infecting society which, unabated, could be terminal; and with it's penetrating insights into the condition, this film is an effective vaccine that just may at the very least help stem the proliferation of it, and hopefully may act as a step toward eradicating it altogether.

Lawrence Newman (William H. Macy) served his country in the Great War, and has since lived a quiet, conventional life in New York. He's had the same job as a personnel director for some twenty years, and owns the house, located in an average, middle-class neighborhood, in which he lives with his mother (Kay Hawtrey). Lawrence is the kind of guy who gets by just fine by minding his own business and refusing to involve himself with matters that are not (he feels) his concern.

All of that is about to change, however, as with the advent of World War 2, Lawrence, along with the owner of the corner market, Mr. Finkelstein (David Paymer), inexplicably finds himself a target of the neighborhood xenophobes, who have aligned themselves with the `Union Crusaders,' a national organization currently taken to channeling their fears and hatred upon Jews, or anyone who even `looks' like a Jew. And suddenly Lawrence finds that he can no longer just stand on the sidelines and watch the game being played; because now, he IS the game, whether he wants to be or not.

Working from an intelligent, well written screenplay by Kendrew Lascelles, which he adapted from Arthur Miller's novel, Slavin presents a chilling scenario that incisively examines the effects of bigotry upon those against whom it is leveled; and when one considers the fact that this is not merely a hypothetical situation, but a depiction of reality, it becomes all the more disquieting, even unnerving. And what makes the film so effective is Slavin's obvious grasp of his subject, and his studied presentation, which is thought-provoking in it's subtlety. In the opening scene, Slavin establishes Lawrence's `character,' and very soon afterward reaffirms it in another scene, which affords the audience the opportunity to observe and assimilate how Lawrence's mind actually works; the thought processes that direct his life. With that in place, then, Slavin is able to take his audience along with Lawrence as his problems gradually begin to unfold. By so doing, he effectively illustrates how the problem evolves, rather than merely stating the problem and addressing it head on, which heightens the viewers emotional involvement, and ultimately enhances the impact of the film.

Slavin makes an important statement with this film, which is not only an indictment of bigotry, but carries a cautionary message about apathy, as well. And to his credit, he never hits you over the head with it or engages in subjective finger-pointing to make his case; instead, he proceeds carefully, taking great pains to be as objective as possible with all that he is submitting for your consideration. His approach is that of a cinematic diplomat; and it's an approach that serves Slavin-- and his film-- quite well.

As Lawrence, William H. Macy-- one of the best character actors in the business-- gives an amazing performance, establishing the credibility and believability of his character with a sensitive, honest and introspective portrayal. He never attempts to circumvent the personal flaws of Lawrence's nature, but uses them, instead, to create a character that is decidedly three-dimensional, which not only makes him convincing, but serves to reaffirm the integrity of the portrayal. What makes it so compelling is Macy's ability to convey the process by which he examines his own conscience, which successfully enables the viewer to share in the experience of his personal epiphany. In the final analysis, it's the strength of Macy's performance, more than anything else, that makes this film so significantly distinct.

Another of the film's strengths is the performance turned in by Laura Dern, as Gertrude Hart, a portrayal that effectively complements Macy's work, as well as that of Slavin. Dern lends tremendous substance to her character, capturing her physically as well as emotionally, and her colorful zeal crates a striking contrast to Lawrence's reserve that works extremely well, for her character as well as the film itself.

And just as Sean Combs recently (in `Monster's Ball') made a good case against dismissing out-of-hand the acting endeavors of an established `rock star,' Meat Loaf Aday gives a powerful performance here, as Fred, Lawrence's next-door neighbor. It demonstrates, too, that a true artist will produce, regardless of the kind of canvas he's given to work with.

The supporting cast includes Michael Copeman (Carlson), Kenneth Welsh (Father Crighton), Joseph Ziegler (Gargan) and Arlene Meadows (Mrs. Dewitt). The kind of film that makes a filmmaker proud of his craft, `Focus,' offers a memorable experience that hopefully will prove to be enlightening, as well, to those unaware that such conditions have existed, and still do-- even in this, the land of the free. 10/10.



A very good movie about anti-semitism near the end of WWII. The scene that really speaks loudly of the ignorance of these people is the meeting at the church when the priest is giving his speech against the "international money grubbers and communists". It sounds amazingly like the speeches that Adolph Hitler used to force down his peoples' throats, yet none of the meeting attendees seem to make this comparison. Did this gem go direct to video? Fabulous art direction. Mood that never misses a beat. The Truman Show meets Metropolis. An excellent cast. I've never seen Laura Dern better, and Bill Macy is always fabulous. Same said for David Paymer, and Meat Loaf. This is just an incredible film. Being relatively young, I didn't know how bad anti-Semitism was in Brooklyn, where my family is originally from. This movie absolutely horrified me. I've seen many movies about prejudice, racism, and anti-Semitism, but this seemed to hit me harder than most.

This was definitely one of the best indie films I've ever seen...I had to travel 45 minutes to see it, and it was well worth it. Nearly everything about the movie was great. Sometimes it was a little slow, but that didn't really bother me because the movie was very atmospheric. It took place in the 40s, and it really did look like it was the 40s. The acting was great...William H. Macy as always was wonderful, so was Laura Dern, and I was pleasantly surprised by Meatloaf's performance, playing the vicious anti-Semite neighbor.

9/10

Headlines warn us of the current campaign to demonize drug users, note the nostalgia for Mussolini in Italy and remind us of our wont to profile likely terrorists. "Focus" reminds us of the evils of rampant fear and distrust and the anti-Semitism disguised as pro-Americanism of the WWII era. What goes around...

Lawrence Newman (William C. Macy) becomes the unfortunate victim of hate crimes after he is mistaken for a Jew and these attacks increase when his bride, Gerty (Laura Dern) highlights the look. Newman rails against the false accusations when they cause him direct harm but he minds his own business. We see the rise in anti-Semitic attacks through his myopia, a condition not completely cured by eyeglasses.

Macy's typical everyman role is featured again and the long road to realization that we are all connected nearly costs him his life.

What is it about the character Macy portrays to us? We can't choose to ignore the violence, hate, and bigotry because citizenship forces us to take sides. Newman's dilemma is that he has no alternative but to side with the mistreated and goes through hell to see it. And our sadness is that most of us need to be beaten up to realize the dangers surrounding us.

Let's focus. The most striking feature about this well acted film, is the almost surreal

images of the era and time it was shot it. I could sense the time and moments were stark and very real. Even the language was so well chosen. It's all too often when colloquialisms of today's world are carelessly used in movies about

another time and place Look...I've come to expect this level of acting from William Macy...the guy just keeps putting in terrific performances...but MEAT LOAF? Just when did His Loafness decide to leave Jim Steinman behind and throw his decidedly lower weight around in the wonderful world of Stanislavsky? Well...what can I say? I'm duly impressed. To paraphrase an old adage: "It ain't the meat, it's the emotion"...and the Loaf is quietly buffing up his acting chops of late..

Laura Dern carries off the 40's look perfectly here...great job by the costume and hair departments...David Paymer is typecast but right on the money. Solid camera work throughout the flick. The plot line is reminiscent of "Gentleman's Agreement" (post-WWII anti-semitism). Well worth your time...particularly for the growing legions of Bill Macy acolytes.

This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed. We'll never see this movie broadcast by HBO in the near future if at all. If anyone somehow comes across it in a video store just grab it before someone else does, because I doubt if it ever will be re-released again.

An unbelievable and timely movie about the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and how the government agencies who's job it is to identify and stop terrorists from doing harm and damage to American citizens and American property completely fell down on the job and unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Bone chilling since we all know now that the terrorists who were apprehended at the end of the movie weren't going to be the end of our nightmare that resurfaced on September 11, 2001.

The film brought out everything that went wrong back in 1992-93 that allowed that first tragedy at the WTC to happen. Still it took another eight years to realize that we should have learned from that first WTC attack to be more vigilant and ready to prevent the second and far more devastating assault on the World Trade Center to happen. I found this movie harder to watch after the events of 9/11 then the video of the attacks of 9/11 themselves.

All I can say about this film is don't watch it alone. The very ending itself is so powerful as well as prophetic that it would leave you in a state of shock in knowing what we know today and possibly in need to have someone who's with you, but not watching the movie, to call for medical attention. I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.

Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.

This film is 100% true

In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. "Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down." This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.

This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.

I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented. I watched the premiere of "Path to Paradise" way back and was stunned by it, dramatic license and all. I lived in NYC (Brooklyn) a few years and kept in mind. Today, given the links to groups such as Al-Queda, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad, I see it as a warning not recognized by our government. For that I place the blame on our bureaucracy and leaders. 9.11.01 was a new tactic to behead two of our branches of gov't and there is no excuse for our gov't to prevent it, period. "Path to Paradise" was but a dramatic view of the '93 preview, and no one cared. Now, nearly 3,000 deaths later, and years behind, we struggle to find an answer that is decades to resolve. Based on the true story of the FBIs hunt for those who were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center Building. A very good film that delves into the FBIs use of informants and how, possibly, the tragedy could have been avoided 7 of 10 This film is bone chilling in a way that is hard to describe. While it is fairly accurate in its description of the events leading up to and the subsequent investigation regarding the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, seen now post 9/11, it is almost unbearable.

It would be a mistake to call this film prophetic, but it certainly makes the common playground wisdom of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" come alive.

Our government learned nothing from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center and subsequent readings of the 9/11 Report show that many of the mistakes that led to the bombing in 1993 were repeated.

Some people have criticized the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution as being partly responsible for the Islamic terrorists being able to carry out their evil plans, but that is wrong headed in every possible way.

Surely the people making this argument are not supporting a ban on Free Speech, a free press or freedom of religion? I certainly hope they are not supporting our government officials being able to break into any person's home or office to search without cause or without a warrant.

The fact is, the FBI, the INS and even the local police could have gotten warrants based on the information they had in their possession, but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. Besides, no matter how distasteful or ignorant it is, it is not illegal to speak badly about America or its leaders. Likewise, it is not illegal to either own guns or to pray toward Mecca.

Consider this, until Lee Harvey Oswald actually fired his rifle at President John Kennedy, he wasn't really breaking any laws. Living in a free society has its drawbacks.

Still, Path To Paradise is a must see film that I am afraid will never be seen by that many people. As far as I know, it is not on DVD and 2007 is its tenth anniversary and there are no known revivals of it.

I'm not really surprised, people don't like to document their failures and this film certainly shows that the various agencies that were supposed to protect us did not do their jobs right and for the pettiest of reasons, like jurisdictional squabbles and a refusal to share information.

This is a shame as Path To Paradise is well done and gripping and as many have stated before, the final scene where Ramzi Yousef (played by Art Malik), the bomber who built the truck bomb that was used in the first attempt at destroying the two towers is flying past the World Trade Center after his capture and extradition simply says "Next time we will bring them both down", is a film moment that froze me in place for several minutes. Having finally been able to get the DVD of this 1997 HBO film, is at down to watch it. By the time I finished it the old saying "those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it" was echoing in the mind. First shown four years after the first bombing of the twin towers (and four years before the events of 9/11) Path To Paradise reveals the series of close encounters, blunders and official in-decisions that led to the first bombing of the twin towers and the lessons we should have learned from them.

Path To Paradise features a nice cast of believable actors. Peter Gallagher and Marcia Gay Harden lead the cast as FBI agents John Anticev and Nancy Floyd who face not only the threats of terrorism but the lack of official interest from their superiors along with their NYPD counterpart Lou Napoli (Paul Guilfoyle). Art Malik, Andreas Katsulas, Shaun Toub and Tony Gillan are among those who plan and carry out the attack all of whom play their roles not as potential clichés but as real living people and make the film all the better for it. Of special mention is Ned Eisenberg as Emad Salem the man whom, if it had not been for skeptical FBI officials, could have potentially informed on the plot.

The film is also well produced. Despite being made for cable this film doesn't feel like a low-budget film at all with its production values particularly in its sets and New York City locations. The film's fascinating cinematography gives the film an almost documentary style at times. When all of these elements are combined with the script it all helps to give the film a sense of reality which makes the events taking place all the more disturbing.

The most disturbing thing about he film is its script. The events of the film are true (minus some dramatic license which is always necessary) and in hindsight are made even more shocking then they must have been when the film was first shown twelve years ago. The film reveals just how a group of men were able to smuggle a bomb into the World Trade Center. They did so thanks to the lack of Arabic translators, government agencies failing to pass information to each other, the FBI ignoring leads from a source and police departments being unable to pick up on clues. Worse then investigators inabilities to connect dots is the fact that many of these same things not only allowed the 9.11 attacks to take place but in some cases (such as the lack of translators) are issues that continue even today. Even more chilling is the ending which really did happen and looks all too prophetic today.

Path To Paradise is a film that should be essential viewing today. The film is not only well acted and produced but teaches us a lesson we should have learned sooner. The lesson of the film? That those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it. If you can find this film then watch it and learn from it. Wicked Little things was a really good movie.I will say at some parts it seemed really unbelievable, and others it seemed as if there just wasn't enough thought put into the actions of the characters, but overall it was exciting and entertaining.I don't understand why this movie's rating is so low.Nor do I not understand why all the Afterdark Horrorfest film's ratings are so low.These are B-Movies people, and nothing more.They provide great entertainment and most of them don't have many flaws at all.This is definitely worth a look, because you won't be disappointed with the outcome.Wicked Little Things is one of the best 1st Annual Afterdark Horrorfest films, and compared to a lot of other films in the series, this is one of the best overall. This is definitely the biggest surprise of the festival so far and without a doubt the best the festival has had to offer. I went into this film with little to no expectations after learning that the director was responsible for the awful vampire flick The Forsaken. and I left pleasantly surprised. The film stars Lori heuring of In Crowd fame as a young mother whose husband has just passed. She moves into an old family home in the mountains with her two daughters next to a mine that is a gravesite to overworked children back in the day. Unlucky for them the children return with a vengeance killing and eating everyone in their path. The film works on many levels. It's well done, suspenseful, it has spots of good cinematography and capable performances by Compton especially. The atmosphere is spooky yet slightly underwhelming, the score is decent and the makeup effects are gruesome and simplistic. The film keeps up a creepy and unsettling tone and the kids themselves with pale skin, torn up lips and hollow eyes are pretty scary and unrelenting. The film is original and inventive without being to artsy or complicated. I can't see this film making it into a wide release without some trimming and slight fine tuning. But they definitely have a good product on there hands and should pursue some type of theatrical distribution. However the theatre in which i saw it in was horrible. The sound was dreadfully messed up which i felt took away from the film majorly and it stopped in the middle because they couldn't center it on the screen which killed the mood a bit. All in all though it was the most satisfying of horrorfests entries maybe because it had the least expectations but nonetheless was a welcome addition to genre films. 'Wicked Little Things' really separates itself from other zombie movies.First off, all of the zombies in the movie don't exactly starting biting at you and tearing your flesh apart with their bare hands.They kill you with either a pickax or shovel and eat you after wards.Second, they can't die.In most zombie movies, you can shoot a zombie in the head and kill them, but these simply won't die.Third, which is the biggest reason why this movie separates itself, all of the zombies are children.How did they die exactly to become zombies? They were working in a coal mine when suddenly they were all killed in a collapse.Now they wander the forest carrying their pickaxes and shovels, waiting for someone to come by so they can kill them and eat them.Oh, they also come out at night.Yep, only at night.That makes the movie even more fun then it would be if they came out in the morning.Despite all of the violent and gory mayhem in this movie, 'Wicked Little Things' is a great choice if you're looking for a movie about zombie children.Don't expect anything great like 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Land of the Dead', but do expect lots of gore and violence that makes this movie a real zombie fan pleaser.Everyone give Scout Taylor-Compton from Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' a big hand for delivering a great performance like the one she did in 'Halloween'.She really needs to start starring in more horror movies. This work is pretty atmospheric, with a couple of surprises a few really creepy elements. I found this work more rewarding than I first expected, given the rotten reviews this receives here at IMDb. The dialog comes across as natural and honest (given the circumstances), although the overall run of the film goes from predictable to cliché with the heroines falling down when they should be running, and investigating strange noises when they should be locking their doors. Typical horror movie fare.

The local characters are some of the worst clichés, depicting Appalachian natives as in-bred developmentally challenged freaks. The characters of the children and the principals are GREAT! The development given is adequate, and Scout Taylor-Compton seems to be developing her talents quite well.

Now, I'm not going to say that this is entirely original or the best thing since sliced bread (which isn't all that great by the way), but this IS interesting and I do not long for my 107 minutes back. I would not say this is an awesome movie by any means, but there are some really good horror elements herein. But there are also some really slow spots where plot/character development seem superfluous to the director's (or the film editor's) whim.

All in all, this is good for a rainy night, but not so good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing.

It rates a 7.6/10 from...

the Fiend :. May Contain Spoilers!!! In no way, shape or form does this movie break the horror movie mold. Not by a long shot. However, it does deliver a creepy atmosphere, believable enough characters and gore.

The story is simple and doesn't bother to unfurl itself anymore than it needs to. A bunch of kids are killed in a mining accident back in the early 1900's. Since then, they have stalked and killed the residence of their sleepy little PA town in the mountains.

Simple: they want revenge on the man that caused their death years and years ago. Naturally, his great, great, great grandson is in town and he's a real prick.

Along with that, a mother and her two daughters inherit a run old house after the husband dies. The eldest daughter is rebellious, obnoxious...a typical teen. The younger is curious, bright-eyed and gets in with the ghost children.

The creepiest part of this flick is the sheer emotionlessness of the children and they hack their way through victim after victim. Excellent acting. It was so spooky! I mean, the Children of the Corn flicks are one thing...but this topped any of those (as for the creepy kids).

Worht a look. I bought it before seeing it and I was not unhappy. But I'm a horror fan through and through. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Other than the mother being a complete moron on a few occasions and the youngest daughter being idiotic enough to go out at night, into woods that scared her in the daytime, this movie was pretty good. Had the director had the sense to treat us as if we had brains, maybe he'd have given us a movie where the people didn't have to behave idiotically, but still manage to get into danger. It worked for the plumber and the fellow in the trailer, but apparently the teenagers and the mother needed to be idiots, for the director to get closure in ending this film.

Atmosphere was great, scenery was awesome and the undead kids scared the crap out of me... I live in a wooded area, so taking out the trash will creep me out for quite a while. The movie works for me accept for what I already mentioned. Raise the mom's IQ a bit and I'd give it a ten... From the acting to Cardone's direction, this new twist on the familiar ghost's been-done-wrong theme, will keep you glued to your seat. Slow at times because it builds this 'what's gonna happen' tension. Medium-well on gore but what there is nicely nasty. Spoiler: The death of the jockhole and subsequent feast is a highlight for gore hounds.

The writers crafted an old story but added twists and re-imagined you typical haunting. Cardone brings it to life . . . er . . uh death.

Lori Heuring, Scout Taylor-Compton and the ever fabulous Ben Cross are real, no signs of acting here. Everyone in the cast is committed and truly isn't that what any director strives for. The actors believe, so we believe.

Along with the traditional ghost story surprises the film is loaded with tons of atmosphere, from the mine, Hank's house and the Tunny home, there's a creeping fear from the first frame to the last.

Horror fans, do yourself a favor and enjoy what amounts to be one of the true horror movies out there today.

I end with a big kudo to Boaz Davidson (story) Ben Nedivi (screenplay)for without inventive writers Hollywood would be nothing but an ugly reality TV party. I saw part of this film on the Sci-Fi Channel, but missed the ending. I bought the DVD to see the whole movie, and I'm glad I did.

A young mother and her two daughters move into a house out in a backwoods area that they inherited from the husband, who died from an illness. It's very run down, but the three women make the best of it. The teen daughter (Scout Taylor-Compton) is warned by a local boy about the zombies that come out at night. She ignores him, but since he has a cute friend, she joins his group. Meanwhile, the younger daughter (Chloe Grace Moretz) makes a friend in a zombie girl her age named Mary. It turns out that Mary and several other kids died in a mine in 1913 while working as child labor. Now that they are zombies, they attack and kill anyone who's not a blood relative.

This movie was directed by J.S. Cardone, whose previous films include The Slayer (1981) and Shadowzone (1990), two movies I didn't like in the slightest bit. This is why I was surprised that I actually enjoyed this movie. The film is deliberately paced, which I liked. This allows you to get to know the main characters, most of whom are likable. Child zombies have been used at least since George Romero's 1968 classic Night Of The Living Dead. Still, I found the tool-using child zombies in this movie interesting. It would seem that Cardone finally found the right script and cast. Only the stereotypical scenes of the teens smoking, drinking and making out in a parked car were boring to me.

Taylor-Compton also appears in the Halloween remake. Moretz appeared in The Amityville Horror (2005) and the horror film Room 6 (2006). I honestly found Wicked Little Things to be a very cool and fun horror film.My friend had given this to me, and I really saw it as nothing but a crappy low class gory horror film.Then after I watched this I was wrong it was very cool and very good and while Ill say it seemed a bit unnecessary at times, and while it may not be the best horror film ever its still good.I thought the acting was very good especially from the girl who plays the mother(she seemed very believable and to me very likable).And while it is a little cliché'e and over the top its good.Overall I gotta say if the Afterdark Horror Fest films are not your style then you should have no business watching this, but if you like horror films, or a wicked little time than check out Wicked Little Things. 8.0 out of 10 stars This has no relationship to Virtual Encounters 1, so it's not really a sequel. The two videos just share the general concept of people having simulated sex through a virtual reality machine. So if you were really blown away by the story and dialog in VC 1 (yeah, right), and expecting a continuation in VC 2, just be warned. All the actors and actresses are new, but it has the same excellent director, Sybil Richards.

But like VC 1, you get lots of beautiful women and a lot of great sex scenes that push the envelope of soft core just about as far as it can go.

If you have VC 1 and you liked it, you'll like VC 2. If you don't have either, but like really good softcore sex, get both. Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.

It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!

W/the exception of James Cameron's "Aliens," Francis For Coppola's "The Godfather Part II" and - of course - the Zuckers' "Airplane 2," this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it.

It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods.

Shame on you, Hollywood!!! This film is really, really full of sex. Hot sex. I watched it (of course) on Cinemax; and I liked it of course; those virtual fantasies are played out so much in great style, and I kind of enjoyed the story line. But one must know that when a soft porn film director sets out to make another soft porn film; all he/she wants to do is film good sex scenes. And I got nice sex scenes, full of skin. Yet another reason some people call soft porn Cinemax films "Skinemax." What often threatens to turn into a soppy and soft-headed drama about misunderstood middle-class youth ends up a surprisingly shaded and subdued movie by John Frankenheimer (his first, though he had started in television, directing among other things an earlier version of this script).

We are still in those semi-mythic ‘50s when teenagers drove jalopies and jeans were still dungarees. James MacArthur (adoptive son of playwright Charles and actress Helen Hayes, and later to enter pop culture as Hawaii 5-0's Danno) gets involved in a minor incident in a movie theater which escalates to his throwing a punch at the manager (Whit Bissell) and being booked down at the police station. His dad (James Daly), a big-shot movie producer gets the call, doesn't listen to his son's version of the story, and pulls strings to get him off.

But MacArthur keeps carrying a chip on his shoulder, which even his sympathetic mom (Kim Hunter) can't knock off. Things worsen in the Coldwater Canyon homestead until MacArthur, trying to vindicate himself, stages a reprise of the original incident....

The movie doesn't quite avoid the attitudes – and cliches – of its time, but presents them with considerable nuance: Every character gets an honorable hearing; every point of view has its merits (and reactions to the movie will depend on what viewers bring to it). There are flaws (the word `crummy,' a standard rebellious euphemism of the era, is used about 30 times too often) but they're outweighed by strengths. The movie benefits from a strong cast (most notable among them the excellent character actor James Gregory, as a police detective) and a resolutely non-exploitative way of telling its story. From a vantage point in the new millennium, the hot water MacArthur finds himself in may seem a little tepid, but The Young Stranger remains honest and honorable.

Riding high on the success of "Rebel Without a Cause", came a tidal wave of 'teen' movies. Arguably this is one of the best. A very young McArthur excels here as the not really too troubled teen. The story concentrates more on perceptions of delinquency, than any traumatic occurrence. The supporting cast is memorable, Frankenheimer directs like an old pro. Just a story of a young man that finds others take his actions much too seriously. The world is going to miss John Frankenheimer. This was his first feature film and it was four years before he directed his second, but don't let that dissuade you from seeking it out. Frankenheimer's direction is assured, and he gets some compelling performances out of his cast.

Someone else has already pointed them out, but I also want to talk up James Gregory and Whit Bissell in two key supporting roles. Both would work for Frankenheimer again -- Gregory most notably as the bumbling senator in "The Manchurian Candidate" -- and they do good work for him here.

If the whole thing seems too simple in the end, that's merely because Frankenheimer and writer Robert Dozier chose to tell a simple story, and they do it well. Keep a lookout for it -- Turner Classic Movies just might show it again. This eloquent, simple film makes a remarkably clear statement about a teenager and his father. Though a theatrical release, it has a "made-for-TV" quality. We can attribute this to the director, John Frankenheimer, who learned his craft in the early days of live television in New York City. Indeed, he directed the teleplay on which the film is based, "Deal a Blow," on the CBS drama series "Climax." "Young Stranger" represents his Hollywood debut. After a hiatus of four years, during which he would do more television, he returned to direct "The Young Savages" with Burt Lancaster and, a year after that, "All Fall Down" with Warren Beatty and Angela Lansbury.

The casting is competent with James Daly and Kim Hunter (particularly good) playing the parents of the title character performed by James MacArthur (his first theatrical film) who played the same role in the television version which was his first appearance on the small screen. Look for James Gregory and Whit Bissell in supporting roles. ***SPOILERS*** Well made and interesting film about the alienated youth of America back in the 1950's. Back in those days many parents caught up with making big bucks and living high on the hog forget that their children, especially teen-agers, needed a lot more then a car and and hefty allowance in order to feel part of the family. They also needed love and attention, to their growing up problems, which is what 16 year-old Hal Ditmar, James MacArthur never got from his successful movie producer dad Mr.Tom Ditmar, James Daly.

Never really connecting with his dad Hal grows more and more distant from both him and his caring mom Helen Ditmar, Kim Hunter, as well as from society. After his dad put Hal down about him wanting to borrow his car, a late model luxury sedan, he and his friend Jerry, Jeffery Silver, drive in Hal's beat up and barley operational 1930's jalopy to the local treater to catch the latest western flick.

Feeling like striking out at the world Hal acts like a real first-class jerk sticking his smelly feet almost into the faces of a couple, Eddie Ryder & Jean Corbett, sitting in front of him and Jerry trying to watch the movie. This leads Hal, as well as his friend Jerry, to not only be kicked out of the theater but with him belting the theater manager Mr. Grebbs, Whit Bissell. It turned out that at least Hal was willing to leave the theater, without even getting his money back, but when Grebbs tries to grab him Hal wheeled around and belted him right in the kisser.

Hal now in real hot water, he's charged with assault and battery, put's on his "James Dean" act, at the local police station, making like he's either too cool or just plain stupid to realize what he's done; almost knocked Mr. Grebbs teeth out. It's when Sgt.Shipley, James Gergory, tells Hal that his dad is coming to pick him up when he finally sobers up to the fact of what he's done.

The rest of the film has Hal try to straighten himself out but is unable to do that because the low esteem that his dad has of him. Begging his father to understand that what he did, in belting Mr. Grebbs, was in self-defense Hal's father acts as if he's been there, at the theater, and saw the whole incident with his son Hal acting like a street thug instead of of a young man being grabbed and pushed without provocation.

Not excusing what Hal did, in laying out Mr. Grebbs, he in fact was willing to admit his hooligan behavior but he wanted both Mr. Grebbs and his dad to at least treat him with an iota of consideration; Gebbs in the fact that he provoked Hal and Mr. Ditmas in not even bothering to hear him out! Feeling like a wanted criminal without anyone, but his mom, to really turn too Hal slowly loses it only to later have both Sgt. Shipley and Mr. Grabbs agree to drop the assault charge. You would think that by now Hal's has finally learned his lesson but the real lesson, more then a stretch behind bars, that Hal's so desperately needed was a lesson that his father totally ignored! Being there when his son needed him most and in that Mr. Ditmar failed with flying colors.

Things do in fact straighten out for everyone in the movie only after Mr. Grebbs gets belted, ending up with a butte of a shiner, again by Hal who, going back to Grebbs theater, tries to get him to phone his dad and tell him that Hal was only defending himself when he first, not the second time around, clobbered him. In the end Hal learned a real lesson in getting along with people an not letting his problems become other peoples problems. But most of all Hal's father Mr. Ditmar learned the most valuable lesson of all in how to understand his frustrated and alienated son and act like a father toward him instead of a combination jail-keeper and a sugar daddy. Like the song says "All you need s Love" to get things on the right track and it was both love and understanding for his son Hal that Mr. Ditmar, until the very end of the movie, lacked the most off. The late Director John Frankenheimer directed his first feature film, The Young Stranger, after starting out directing live television dramas in New York City. This film came on the heels of the success of Rebel Without A Cause in 1955. James MacArthur made his feature film debut as a troubled teen with a movie producer father, played by James Daly, who doesn't establish enough of a relationship with his son. Kim Hunter plays the mother, who tries to bridge the gap between her husband and her son. The film uses the popular juvenile delinquent angle of the time to tell its story. MacArthur gets in trouble at a movie theater with an overzealous theater manager played by Whit Bissell. MacArthur, in turn, has to deal with a police sergeant, James Gregory, bent on teaching him a lesson. The material could easily have turned exploitative, laughable, and sensational, like any number of others of the period did. However, under the sure-handed direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a sensitive portrayal of teenage and parental dynamics. The dialog is realistic and most of the scenes hold up surprisingly well. Some of the scenes with Bissell, as the theater manager, and Gregory, as the police sergeant, are a bit heavy-handed and dated. The performances are uniformly good though, which is necessary for a film of this nature and about this topic to succeed. This is an impressive feature film debut both for MacArthur and Frankenheimer. *** of 4 stars. Not high art, not even exceptionally innovative, but a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Funny, fresh, intelligent - there are still people out there who don't need millions of dollars to hide that they're out of ideas.

When you compare this to your average Hollywood action flick, you're comparing a homemade meal with a big mac. If you're familiar with the work of auteur Johnny To and his band of filmmaking cronies over at Milky Way, you know what to expect with this latest production. All the familiar elements are in place: the strong camaraderie between two characters: usually a cop and a baddie, the coincidences and chances that turn on a dime and pay off handsomely in the end, and the humor that arises even in the most dire of situations.

Andy Lau plays a man who has 72 hours to live and decides to rob an insurance company. Lau Ching-Wan (also brilliant in other Milky Way films like "Longest Nite," "A Hero Never Dies," and "Where A Good Man Goes") portrays a hostage negotiator/cop who is on the robber's tail, even as the robber sets up a series of tricks and clues that he must follow in order to get his man.

Funny, poignant, and cool while being subtle, "Running" is actually one of the most entertaining Milky Way films to date. Don't miss the performances by the two leads, esp. Andy Lau, usually considered an average actor who has rarely been this natural and fun to watch. This film is one to go out of your way to see. I've recently seen An zhan. Not because it was a Hong Kong film, but because I was looking for a change from the films being produced here in the US. In my humble opinion, I believe the film could easily compete against the action thrillers being produced here, except for the traditional idiocyncracies of Hong Kong film. The one that still bothers me was the chief inspector character. I still don't understand why there has to be a complete-idiot-comic-relief-type character even in the serious films that come out of Hong Kong, but I can live with it when the movie is this good. The characters are believable even if the situations they are in are not. The story is fast paced and really sucks you in to it. The real cincher scenes for me were the two bus rides that the thief character takes. Overall, a really solid film. This film is a refreshing change of pace from the mindless Hong Kong triad movies I have grown so tired of. There are no spectacular gun fights. No car chases. And practically minimal action to speak of. The audience is kept in suspense for the most part, though certain aspects of the so called "ploy" by Andy Lau are quite obvious.

The film has been hailed as a departure from the genre of violent triad films, and as an "intelligent" crime film. To an extent, it is. But, to some extent, it still fails the "believability" test. One can hardly picture any triad member to be dumb enough to not see through the female disguise of Andy Lau in a second. It also seemed to have fallen for the "if someone was seriously ill, the said someone will be coughing up copious amounts of blood regularly" thing Chinese films seem to go for all the time.

The subtle relationship between the two lead characters is a refreshing change.

All in all an enjoyable film, even though the concept is not new and there are few surprises. > I just purchased An Zhan (Running out of time) on DVD and it was an excellent film I must say. Not really action-packed, in terms of gun play, but definitely exciting and witty. I do not think I have seen Andy Lau in better form. And the editing on this film was very well executed. Go watch this now if you are a fan of Lau or HK thiller/action film! Running Out of Time rests somewhere in the middle of Johnny To's cannon, in the "solid good" category. As a crime thriller it's not terribly original or overwhelming and the action scenes will not blow you away but it has something else going for it. It's a Johnny To film after all, it has to.

Andy Lau has 72 hours to live. He decides to play a strange cat-and-mouse game with a hostage negotiator of the HK police, played by Lau Ching Wan. That's the plot in a nutshell. On top of that To piles layers of twists and turns that keep proceedings interesting throughout. It occasionally becomes too convoluted for its own sake but never lets it get the best of it. However, just as Johnny To is about to hand over a slick and well-made crime flick (which, let's face it, are dime-a-dozen), he slips in bits and pieces that bring Running Out of Time alive as a full emotional experience, providing the soul and heart to the well-oiled skeleton.

The concepts of synchronism and minimalism (staples in his work) are explored in great effect here. Always subtle, letting the images speak for themselves, giving them time to develop with long takes and slow tracking shots, exemplary cutting to the score, it's all here. A small love story in a bus between Andy Lau and a girl is among the highlights of the film and part of the "heart" I'm talking about. So simple yet so powerful. Ditto for Lau's and Lau Ching Wan's car scenes and the bowling-room showdown.

However something stops me from claiming Running Out of Time is a masterpiece. To has all the ability and craftmanship down to a notch but he can also be too workmanlike or bland at times. When he's good, he's REAL good. There are even isolated moment of pure brilliance that are just TOO good for their own sake, leaving a bittersweet aftertaste for the rest of the movie. I'm convinced that if he puts his heart to it, he can make a really great film. As it is, this is another one of his films that is flawed but enjoyable. Underneath the slick HK style, it's the black humour and heartfelt drama that makes this a compelling film. Worth watching, definitely. Having seen 'only' about 200 Hong Kong films in my time, I have to say this film is among my very top favorites. Not only is the plot engaging (and in some ways surprising, which these days is rare for any movie), but the chemistry between the two lead actors is superb. Top notch casting! And while often even the most serious HK films tend to insert quite a bit of humor in between all the drama and action, often spoiling the mood a bit, here the jokes are kept subtle and woven into the plot, even improving character relations. The music is also very well done, and the two main themes are very beautiful. With the release of the HK special Edition, they've even cleaned the picture (first release was grainy) and the subtitles, even if the quality of the translation is still lacking (nothing new there). All in all, if you have to see a HK film that isn't directed by John Woo or have Chow Yun Fat in it, this should be at least on your short list! A truly fascinating and entertaining watch! Andy Lau and Lau Ching-Wan are both superb in Johnny To's tautly directed crime thriller which puts most Western efforts to shame. Think of it as the Hong Kong 'Heat', only better! Everything about the film screams class; from the performances to the soundtrack, the cinematography to the script. The tone remains serious throughout, but the film has a nice line in black-humour, friendship and romance at it's heart. Sure, it gets a little preposterous later on, but it would be a hard-hearted viewer who didn't find something to love about this movie. Thank God, Hollywood hasn't (yet) re-made and ruined a classic. Do yourself a favour and see this film! Terrific, deeply moving crime thriller starring Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan.

From the dizzying opening sequence to the extremely satisfying conclusion, this cat and mouser hardly misses a beat.

Johnny To, again working with ace composer Arthur Wong, constructs another operatic actioner that grots in the face of its contemporaries.

To's images are strong and moving. His cutting, combined with the extraordinary music cues, is exemplary. You are in the hands of a master cinematician.

The two sequences in which Andy Lau "hides" from the cops on a bus by pretending to accompany a lithe beauty (Ruby Wong) are testament to To's unique directorial skills.

Lau Ching Wan is strong and commanding as the harassed cop while Andy Lau is dynamic as a dying man avenging his father's death.

This is superb movie-making, only mildly compromised by some bad English dubbing in one scene with criminal Waise Lee. The one thing that can be said about RUNNING OUT OF TIME is that it's an immensely clever film. It's interesting to note that the film's writers are French, which may explain the movie's "out of the norm" vibe, as it doesn't really fit in with what is commonly called "Hong Kong Cinema".

The movie concerns a thief who plans revenge on some criminal types using the assistance of an equally clever cop. But first he has to convince the cop to join his personal crusade, and so begins a series of games where the thief manuevers the cop into his plan.

Quite a clever movie.

7 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie or full-length reviews of other foreign films) Running Out of Time is probably as close to a perfect film as you're ever likely to see out of Hong Kong. All the elements click: a terrific script (by French writers Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud) that even manages to subvert the odd cliché, reliably imaginative direction by Johnnie To, and excellent central performances by Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan, the latter displaying his great comic timing to wonderful effect without ever crossing the line into parody (especially in his exasperated reactions to his superior's abysmal negotiating skills). The supporting cast is fine too, with Yo Yo Mung making a strong impression in a tiny role, and even the often histrionic Waise Lee (looking remarkably, and very aptly, like a bald Andy Lau) reining it in to good effect. It's best not to know too much about the plot going in beyond the basic set-up – with only a few weeks to live, Lau engages in a criminal game with Wan's cop with no easily apparent motive – and just sit back and enjoy the ride: it's certainly worth the fare. It also has one of the most perfect love stories in recent movies, and played in a mere three scenes (the second bus ride is one of the most magical moments of film-making I've seen in ages). There's also a fine score by Raymond Wong as well. The most fun playing cat and mouse at the movies in years. you know I've seen a lot of crappy hong kong movies in terms of production and were good. But Running out of TIme was great.

i guess what made it so good was the fact that Andy Lau and Ching Wang, have such great chemistry. The film at first is really fast paced but slows down not enough to even notice which is also good, we don't want to have a heart attack,lol. In terms of plot their is enough of other things going on to keep you interested. Lau has some pretty good moments as he uses make up to impersonate people from the underworld. Also the movie has the best oriental supporting cast since "house of Flying Daggers".

The movie is great because its so unpredictable and leaves you wondering at every corner. Definitely a good rental with tons of comedy, action and thrills pact in to one, 8 out of 10 Octavio Paz, Mexican poet, writer, and diplomat, who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1990, said about "Nazarin": "Nazarin follows the great tradition of mad Spaniards originated by Cervantes. His madness consists in taking seriously great ideas and trying to live accordingly". A humble and spiritual priest (Francisco Rabal in a wonderful performance) attempts to live by the principles of Christianity but is cast out of his church for helping a local prostitute by giving her a shelter after she had committed a murder. Nazarin wanders the country roads of the turn of the 20th-century Mexico, offering help to poor and begging for food. His two followers, a murderous prostitute Andara and her sister Beatriz who is a failed suicide desperately searching for love, consider him saint but it does not prevent him from hatred and humiliation from both the church and the people he meets on the road. He ends up beaten in prison and begins to question his faith for not be able to forgive his attacker.

Bunuel tells the story in a manner of a Christian parable masterfully and uniquely combining admiration and irony for the main character and strong criticism of formal religion and hypocrisy. The film is simple and profound as well as beautiful, ironic, and heartbreaking.

I consider Bunuel one of the best filmmakers ever. I've seen twenty of his films and they all belong to the different periods of his life but they have in common his magic touch, the masterful combination of gritty realism and surrealism, his curiosity, his inquisitive mind, his sense of humor, and his dark and shining fantasies. With great pleasure I am adding little seen and almost unknown but amazingly candid and touching surrealistic tragic-comedy "Nazarin" to the list of my favorite films. Nazarin is some kind of saint,he wants to live in life exactly how Christ taught man to do.But it's too late:now the Catholic Church is between the hands of a wealthy bourgeoisie,the bishops live in luxury and don't give a damn about the poor and the sick.That's why our hero can't follow the way his hierarchy asks him to follow.So he divests himself of everything,and on his way to purity,he's joined by some kind of Mary Magdelene and a woman who's attracted by him sexually (the scene between this girl and her fiancé is telling).In Spain (it was the late fifties),they thought Nazarin was a Christian movie!Knowing Luis Bunuel,it was downright incongruous:all his work is anticlerical to a fault.Comparing Nazarin and his "holy women" to Jesus is a nonsense.On Nazarin's way,only brambles and couch grass grow.His attempt at helping working men on the road is a failure,he's chased out as a strike-breaker.All his words amount to nothing.At the end of the journey,he's arrested and offered a pineapple by a woman(Bunuelian sexual symbol). Thanks to "Nazarin" ,Bunuel was allowed to return to Spain (where the censors had not got a clue ) and to direct "Viridiana". "Nazarin" directed by Luis Bunuel presents an extraordinary view of religion in Mexico. As written by the director and Julio Alejandro, his notable collaborator, this was a film that put Mexican cinema in the international map after receiving the Grand Prix in Cannes that year. It's a disturbing film because Mr. Bunuel delves deep into what's wrong with the church.

Nazarin, by all reckoning, is a saint. This young priest is seen living a life of poverty in a seedy pension of a city. He doesn't have enough for himself, but he doesn't mind parting with a coin when a beggar appears by his window asking for help. At the same time, he takes into his small room a prostitute that has been hurt in a fight with another woman. Andara, the woman repays his kindness by burning the room and the whole building! Nazarin is seen taking to the countryside begging for food. Andara and Beatriz, two prostitutes from his old town follow him. Nazarin's life parallels that of Jesus. In fact, this saintly figure makes a case for humility.

Of course,Mr. Bunuel had no religion in mind when he and Mr. Alejandro took it upon themselves to create this film. It's ironic how Spain welcomed him after this film was released because they saw it as showing Christian qualities, when in reality, this is an acerbic satire on the catholic church and its ministers.

Francisco Rabal, the Spanish actor, makes a wonderful Nazarin. This was one of his best roles. Mr. Rabal worked extensively in his native country, but also in Mexico and Argentina. Rita Macedo, as Andara, is also excellent. Marga Lopez also makes a valuable contribution with her portrayal of Beatriz.

A great film by one of the cinema's master film makers: Luis Bunuel. This movie is a fascinating example of Luis Bunuel's storytelling abilities. This is a comedy that is not a comedy, and a social drama that is not a social drama. Even though I don't think it was particularly funny, it made me laugh. Also, despite the fact that you can never take Bunuel too seriously, the movie made think about religion and its importance in some people's lives. Bunuel tells the story of a Catholic priest, devoted to his faith like no one else and the viewer witness what happens when the priest's undying commitment to serve others is put to test. As usual, Bunuel's target is Catholicism, but I don't think he tried to mock the church as he often does. At least I didn't take the film as a mockery of the institution. I think he is trying to make an interesting point about how religion could be a nuisance in today's modern society. Not because faith in itself is bad, but because people always mange to bastardize the concept. Message aside, I think this is one of Bunuel's most clever works. Francisco Rabal is superb as the priest. Definitely, one of the filmmaker's best movies. When you look at Mexico's best movies you will more than likely find that the Photography was performed by Gabriel Figueroa. He is recognized in the world as one of the best that have ever existed. His master control of the cameras gave an added asset to the movies he was part of. If added to his participation we add the direction of Luis Bunuel, you will never find such a pair of aces anywhere else in the world. This story, Nazarin, was written by Spain's greatest writer besides Miguel de Cervantes(Don Quijote de la Mancha). The story in itself is superb: Nazarin a priest that lives by his beliefs tries to live a very Christian life, but as always there are people that do not accept this. He wanders through many places preaching his Christianity but finding, most of the time, people that do not accept him. But besides the splendid story, it is always interesting to try to interpret the enigmatic messages that Bunuel sends us throughout the picture in scenes that make you shiver. I love the absurdity and biting humor of Buñuel's surrealist films (such as "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and "The Exterminating Angel", to name two). Other, earlier works (like "The Forgotten Ones", about juvenile delinquents from a marginal neighborhood in Mexico) are more serious and provide a strong social message.

However, I believe it is "Nazarin" which most successfully shoots for the heart of the viewer. While it's true that it's brimming with irony, it nevertheless reveals an aspect of Buñuel which would appear to be intrigued by the beauty and solemnity of the spiritual quest. Here, while the director (quite typically) throws countless jabs at the Catholic Church, he also appears to show, surprisingly, a sense of admiration for genuine Christian thought and its practice of selfless love.

"What?? Luis Buñuel unabashedly praising a Jesus-like figure??" I always thought of him as a completely cynical artist without a trace of faith in human virtue... that is, until I watched "Nazarin". My appreciation is that he satirically exposes the difficulty of following Christ's example in a society infested with meanness, ignorance and sin; but he also presents the hero, Father Nazario, as quite the beacon of light amidst a sea of darkness. Without a doubt, by the end of the film I was looking up to him and not down on him!

Some would argue that Father Nazario's doubts regarding his faith point to the loss of his saintly values. (Alas, if he can't do good in this world, who can?) But I would say that this "flaw", his frustration, precisely makes his character all the more heroic, because it shows how human he is and how challenging his struggle within must be. And who says the priest couldn't eventually emerge from that "dark night" and regain his confidence? Perhaps we've only been presented with a difficult part of his spiritual journey. The elegant, open ending (in which he desperately accepts the fruit offered by a female stranger) allows us to imagine ourselves the final outcome of the story.

I recognize in Buñuel the aggressive, self-professed atheist endowed with brilliant wit and social consciousness; but after having watched "Nazarin", I also sense from him a certain warmth, a depth and maturity that's not so evident in his other work.

For the sake of contrast, I strongly recommend watching afterward his short film "Simon of the Desert" (also made in Mexico, several years later). It deals with a similar subject matter -- the abandonment of the ego in the face of temptation --, only it does so in a hysterically funny and totally irreverent style. Spanish director Luis Buñuel career spanned almost 50 years, from 1929 to 1977. Arguably, his best films were those he made during his exile in Mexico - from the late forties to the early 60s. There he had to deal with very cheap budgets, and work in an industry interested mainly in churning commercial movies to unsophisticated audiences, yet he somehow managed to make interesting, thought provoking movies that have stand the test of time. This movie is based on a novel by Spanish author Benito Perez Galdos - and the adaptation is quite faithful, even if the setting is now early 20th century Mexico instead of early 20th century Spain. The protagonist, Nazarin, is a priest who tries to live a life that is as faithful as it can be to the one prescribed by Christ. The question many would ask is whether such endeavor would be possible, without incurring in the hostility, incomprehension and mockery of your fellow human beings. As it happens, he suffers a lot of indignities, yet he remains stubborn (until the controversial final shot) to this objective. I think Buñuel wanted to show Nazarin as a somewhat ridiculous figure, but perhaps inadvertently, his stubbornness (at least to this viewer) comes out as admirable. In any case, a great film. Luis Bunuel has always been a filmmaker whose work was obscure to me. My first experience with him was The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie, often considered his greatest work, with which I became so frustrated and bored that I eventually shut the tape off. Likewise Belle de Jour, which is almost certainly his best known film and also generally considered one of his many masterpieces, didn't interest me very much at all. I didn't hate it like I did Discreet, but I didn't like it. Third, I saw L'Age d'Or. Finally, I had gotten somewhere. Fourth, Los Olvidados, also good. Still, neither L'Age d'Or nor Los Olvidados blew me away. Great films, but not masterpieces.

Nazarin is my fifth Bunuel, and I like it just a tad more than those other two. It is about a priest from Spain now in Mexico who refuses to live in the kind of luxury most priests live in. He wants to be more like Jesus, leading the meekest life possible. He's also willing to forgive everyone for anything, and to suffer without protest. I'm pretty sure Bunuel does not sympathize with the character, and sees him as rather self-righteous. However, I only assume that because of my knowledge of the director, whose most famous quotation is "Thank God, I'm still an atheist," which he apparently said in an interview over this very film (I get this information from John Baxter's book about Bunuel, if you're interested). The interviewer who dragged those words from Bunuel's mouth must have been himself confused about Nazarin. One who was more predisposed to believe in religious conviction, who also knows nothing about Bunuel, might see the priest as a heroic figure. This is especially true if that viewer has his/her own criticisms of organized religion. The priest may be somewhat self-righteous, but he seems to be basically a good man. When he harbors a violent prostitute in his room in order to protect her (and, presumably, to save her soul), people begin to find out and assume that their relationship is sexual. His superiors assume the same and punish him for it. Later on, he suffers even worse punishments from clerics. The topic of religion in Buñuel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Buñuel in "La Voie Lactée", "Un Chien Andalou" or in "L'Age d'Or". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like "Nazarin", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Buñuel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Buñuel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.

This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Galdós, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.

If is the sweetest Buñuel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Buñuel against the power of church, we see a Buñuel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his "Voie Lactée") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. "Nazarin" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.

The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in "L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.

Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Buñuel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any. A blackly comic tale of a down-trodden priest, Nazarin showcases the economy that Luis Bunuel was able to achieve in being able to tell a deeply humanist fable with a minimum of fuss. As an output from his Mexican era of film making, it was an invaluable talent to possess, with little money and extremely tight schedules. Nazarin, however, surpasses many of Bunuel's previous Mexican films in terms of the acting (Francisco Rabal is excellent), narrative and theme.

The theme, interestingly, is something that was explored again in Viridiana, made three years later in Spain. It concerns the individual's struggle for humanity and altruism amongst a society that rejects any notion of virtue. Father Nazarin, however, is portrayed more sympathetically than Sister Viridiana. Whereas the latter seems to choose charity because she wishes to atone for her (perceived) sins, Nazarin's whole existence and reason for being seems to be to help others, whether they (or we) like it or not. The film's last scenes, in which he casts doubt on his behaviour and, in a split second, has to choose between the life he has been leading or the conventional life that is expected of a priest, are so emotional because they concern his moral integrity and we are never quite sure whether it remains intact or not.

This is a remarkable film and I would urge anyone interested in classic cinema to seek it out. It is one of Bunuel's most moving films, and encapsulates many of his obsessions: frustrated desire, mad love, religious hypocrisy etc. In my view 'Nazarin' is second only to 'The Exterminating Angel', in terms of his Mexican movies, and is certainly near the top of the list of Bunuel's total filmic output. Luis Bunuel's "Nazarin" will always be remembered as a great film because it is absolutely honest in its presentation of comical assault on religion.It is one of those outstanding films which must be shown to all people especially young children in order to familiarize them with the notions of good and bad,sacred and evil.The toughest question asked by "Nazarin" is about the strengths and weaknesses of organized religion.It has been tackled by involving numerous ordinary people who are not at all above petty affairs in their mundane lives especially sins.Bunuel scores tremendously by showing us that various questions related to class differences deserve frank,honest and reliable answers. Nazarin appears credible as it has been made in a light,comical vein.This is the sole reason why it can be said that the story of an ordinary priest appears absolutely true to life to all audiences.It is amazing how Bunuel approaches quest for true love issue in his film. This black & white gem was shot marvelously by Gabriel Figueroa,one of Luis Bunuel's favorite cameraman.Film critic Lalit Rao saw "Nazarin" at Trivandrum,India during 13th International Film Festival of Kerala 2009."Nazarin" was introduced by eminent Indian cinema personality Mr.P.K.Nair as part of a special package called "50 years ago".This is a film which should be with any discerning DVD collector. Nazarin by the acclaimed surrealist Bunuel is ovbviously an attack on the Catholic Church and its loss of values. It is not a visual film and I think it would have played better on the stage. Bunuel takes us through this man, the nazarene that lives like Christ lived; a true follower i.e. in poverty, and without a care for property and what the next day bringeth. Some might call it a parallel to Christ's story but any follower and practitioner of the word, life should be like Christ in a way. But in essence Bunuel also inquires into the ogle of man's selfishness and need to sin and how goodness may save us all. It is a bold statement to make that may enliven, or recite to memory the movie for some. Truth, be told the Nazarene is also selfish because he gives without wanting in return or asking for it. His selfishness is his folly and the two women who follow him represent the sides of a coin;with the same face on each side. Lots of people represent sides of a coin in this movie, all with both faces the same. But the movie isn't exactly memorable once it ends and one could attack many of its ethical perforations and effusions within the movie's own doctrine. Not top-notch Bunuel but a "surreal" dream sequence that bunuel stages whithin where the message of the movie is framed and is worth noting for it shows you the capability of the director, Bunuel. Every time this movie used to re-air on late night TV in the late 70s and early 80s I would always make time to sit in front of the TV and watch it. To see the lovely Kate Jackson, handsome Richard Long, the "great" Polly Bergen whom I've never seen anywhere else except for this TV movie, the endearing Tom Bosley, and another "great" whom I've never seen outside this movie, Celeste Holme. This is truly the love boat on a cruise to murder and mayhem and boy was it ever good!! And every time I would watch it I would always forget who the real murderer was.

As expected, someone here is already criticizing the movie as if that really is a big help to anyone. This is a great TV movie and worth watching each and every time. I can't say that about half the movies I've seen this month.

If you ever get a chance to watch it on TV someday, which isn't likely, watch it. In light of "The Girl Most Likely To" finally coming out this year on DVD, maybe there's hope for a DVD release of "Death Cruise." I saw this when I was twelve. It was the movie that made me understand what a good mystery really was. I had read the entire Happy Hollisters children's mystery series and they were about a family of child sleuths who always got their man. But we the readers were not in a position to solve the mystery along with them. This movie showed me that a good mystery is that which makes the viewer/reader, at the end, say, "OH!!!!! OF COURSE!!!!!!!" I happened to catch this on community TV a few years back and was pleasantly surprised how enjoyable a film it was.

While a bit corny in certain ways, as its prime function of being a mystery thriller it works superbly, thanks to a script that concocts an ingenious plot; it kept me guessing throughout and the resolution is inspired.

The cast is a star-studded one, containing a mixture of those at the end of their careers (indeed Richard Long died the same year this was made), or those who were on the verge of stardom in hit TV series (Kate Jackson, Tom Bosley). They all do a good job, with the exception of Cesare Danova who sleepwalks through his role.

Strongly recommended. It's About Time "Kate Jackson" got her credit for this film.., i can remember watching it & trying to understand it on TV.., my grandmother lay in bed dying from cancer & i was barely 15. i didn't find out till years later that Richard long had died tho.., i miss him on the other shows/movies he was in.

I have a copy of the VHS tape still but it's NOT "CC'd" or Closed Captioned for the Hearing Impaired & thats the ONLY flaw in the movie that i can remember or know of to date.., i haven't been able to find a DVD or VHS copy that has sub-titles in English even. If someone out there knows of either copy on VHS or DVD thats CC'd or has English sub-titles please let me know.

thanks - Cofffeenut Steamboat Willy was not the first cartoon to feature Mickey Mouse. The first film to star America's friend was "Plane Crazy". "Plane Crazy" was released May 15th 1928 in Hollywood California,in the silent movie format. "Steamboat Willy" was released November 18th 1928 as a SOUND movie (it was also released July 29th 1928 as a silent film). Thus making "Steamboat.."the first SOUND film of Mickey but NOT the first film for the little American Mouse. While many game shows have used the question: "What was the first appearance of Mickey Mouse?" The true answer is "Plane Crazy" not "Steamboat Willy". These dates can be checkout on IMDb under "release dates". A Walt Disney MICKEY MOUSE Cartoon.

STEAMBOAT WILLIE, a mischievous little rodent, neglects his pilothouse and frolics his way into cinematic history.

On 18 November 1928, a struggling young genius debuted the world's first successful cartoon with synchronous sound. There would be no looking back for either Walt Disney or his alter ego Mickey Mouse. Financial struggles would remain, but essentially the world was their oyster bed and Mickey would eventually rival Chaplin as the most recognizable cultural icon of the century.

As entertainment, STEAMBOAT WILLIE is still fun to watch, featuring fine work by animator Ub Iwerks and showing a Mickey with all the passions & indifference of a small child. He must deal with a tyrannical skipper (Pete, without his peg leg; he had been appearing in Disney cartoons since February of 1925), a wisecracking parrot (in a few years it would be a Duck) and a cute little Mouse named Minnie. Together the two rodents rather callously make music on the live bodies of a goat, cat, goose, piglets & cow (a precursor of Clarabelle) - all of whom happened to be conveniently on board the steamship. Audiences howled for more and the pattern was set for the subsequent Mouse cartoons of the next few years.

******************************

Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by pictures & drawings. As a lad in Marceline, Missouri, he sketched farm animals on scraps of paper; later, as an ambulance driver in France during the First World War, he drew comic figures on the sides of his vehicle. Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters. Always the innovator, his ALICE IN CARTOONLAND series broke ground in placing a live figure in a cartoon universe. Business reversals sent Disney & Iwerks to Hollywood in 1923, where Walt's older brother Roy became his lifelong business manager & counselor. When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality. The happy arrival of sound technology made Mickey's screen debut, STEAMBOAT WILLIE (1928), a tremendous audience success with its use of synchronized music. The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable. Mickey's feisty, naughty behavior had captured millions of fans, but he was soon to be joined by other animated companions: temperamental Donald Duck, intellectually-challenged Goofy and energetic Pluto. All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films. Against a blizzard of doomsayers, Walt persevered and over the next decades delighted children of all ages with the adventures of Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi & Peter Pan. Walt never forgot that his fortunes were all started by a mouse, or that childlike simplicity of message and lots of hard work always pay off. This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. It was based on a silent movie called "Steamboat Bill, Jr." starring Buster Keaton. Back in this early Mickey short, Mickey did not talk nor did he have gloves. He could just whistle and play music. The song that he played was "Turkey in the Straw" using several barnyard animals as musical instruments. He plays a cow's teeth as a xylophone and he plays a nursing sow's teats like an accordion keyboard. Captain Pete, however, is very mad and makes Mickey peel potatoes in the galley. Pete's parrot flies up to the window and orders him to peel the potatoes. Mickey throws a half-peeled potato at the parrot and laughs, thus closing the cartoon. I was able to get this cartoon on tape and I really like it. I think the Disney shorts are much better than the feature length movies. While in one country, Spain, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali combined forces to create the benchmark of short-subject, cinematic surrealism, Un Chien Andalou, Walt Disney and his collaborator Ub Iwerks in America worked on Steamboat Willie, the most prominent of the early synchronized sound cartoons (it was revealed that this was not the first, contrary to other reports). It's also one of the more successfully simplistic and funny of the Mickey Mouse shorts (still in a silent-film way- the only sounds are little irks and bleeps from the Mickey and the animals). It also goes by fairly quickly for its less-than-ten minute run. But in these minutes one gets the immediate sense of how much fun Disney has with his characters, and how the newfound use of sound changes how his creation uses the animals as musical tools. There's no story to speak of, just random things that happens and occurs because of Mickey (err, Steamboat Willie) on this boat on a river. And like the better Mickey Mouse shorts, his lack of speaking acts as an advantage. It's a must-see if you haven't seen it as a kid, but if you have it might still be worth another look. This era was not just the dawn of sound in cartoons, but of a cartoon character which would go down in history as the world's most famous mouse. Yes, Mickey makes his debut here, in this cheery tale of life on board a steamboat. The animation is good for it's time, and the plot - though a little simple - is quite jolly. A true classic, and if you ever manage to get it on video, you won't regret it. This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. In the cartoon, Mickey does not yet wear gloves. He does not yet speak either. All he does is whistle and play music. The song that he plays is "Turkey in the Straw" using several farm animals as musical instruments. For example, he plays the teeth of a cow like a xylophone and pulls nursing piglets like an accordion keyboard. I taped this cartoon off of the Disney Channel and I think it is wonderful. It was based on a silent film starring Buster Keaton entitled "Steamboat Bill, Jr." Mickey Mouse is now 75 years old. He was created by Walt Disney, a famous creater, producer, director etc: I love the Disney Movies because it is great fun watching the cartoon movies. Altogether Walt Disney i think is the king of the creations, Everyone has got to love this creations and the movies by Walt Disney. Thank you Walt for all the classic characters you made. STEAMBOAT WILLIE is an amazingly important film to our cinema history. This second appearance of Mickey Mouse (following the silent PLANE CRAZY earlier that year) is probably his most famous film--mostly because it was so ground-breaking. This is because it was the first sound cartoon. While you don't yet hear Mickey speak, there are tons of sound effects and music throughout the film--something we take for granted now but which was a huge crowd pleaser in 1928.

Now if this were just an important historical film, it would be worth seeing--especially to lovers of animation. However, after seeing the short again after about 25 years, I was amazed at how timeless the film actually is. While Mickey and Minnie behave a bit odd compared to the characters we have grown to love (thanks mostly to the kooky mind and talent of animator Ub Iwerks), there is an infectious charm about the film. It's just adorable seeing Mickey playing "Turkey in the Straw" in a highly imaginative (if occasionally cruel) way. Clever and a real crowd-pleaser--this film still ranks among Mickey's best films even after 80 wonderful years. This 8 minute gem is not only timeless, but it is a cartoon milestone. It is Mickey's third cartoon, and one of his best ones too. It is a cartoon milestone because it was the first one with sound. And my goodness, even after 70+ years it is ever so good, and gives real additional weight to the narrative. The black and white animation is excellent, and the character features are convincing enough. The music is wonderful, I love the soundtrack, it does add to the fun the cartoon has, no matter how thin the story sometimes is. And the cartoon is funny! So many memorable moments, like the cow's teeth being used as an xylophone and its udder as a bagpipe. The characters are also engaging, Mickey and Minnie two landmark Disney characters are well voiced by Walt Disney, and Pete serves well as "the villain of the piece". All in all, "Steamboat Willie" is just a timeless gem that everybody should see at least once. 10/10 Bethany Cox Created in 1928, and originally named Mortimer before Walt Disney changed his name (because his wife convinced him), Mickey Mouse has become the staple of the Disney brand. I always thought this cartoon was the first ever cartoon to feature Mickey, it is in fact his third, but it doesn't matter, for a six minute animated short it is enjoyable. The story sees Mickey piloting a steamboat until Captain Pete takes him off the bridge, stopping to pick up cargo, and Minnie Mouse missing the boat. Being lifted on she drops her music sheets and a goat eats them, Mickey helps her crank it's tail and play the tune, and getting some other animals to be percussion, until Pete comes along again to stop him, making Mickey peel potatoes. Mickey Mouse was number 53 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 31 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good! 'Steamboat Willie (1928)' is often erroneously touted as the first Mickey Mouse film, though that title actually goes to 'Plane Crazy (1928).' The source fuelling this common misconception is probably an episode of "The Simpsons," which places the origin of Itchy the Mouse in a 1928 short called 'Steamboat Itchy,' obviously a parody of this cartoon. Interestingly, 'Steamboat Willie' was itself a parody, spoofing the latest Buster Keaton release, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928),' though the connection stretches little beyond the title and the general story setting. In this Walt Disney short, Mickey Mouse takes charge of a river steamboat, much to the annoyance of Captain Pete the cat, who spitefully casts him aside. But Mickey is not to be outdone in nastiness. Far removed from the pleasant, wholesome Mickey that more recent generations enjoyed, this little mouse cares only for numero uno, inflicting pain and displeasure on a series of farm animals in order to provide music for his own amusement.

First there's the laughing parrot, which cops a bucket and a large potato to the head. Then a goat is cranked by the tail to provide music ("Turkey in the Straw") from a guitar it has swallowed. A cat is swung around by its tail, a goose throttled about the throat, and a piglet viciously booted. For a children's cartoon, 'Steamboat Willie,' directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, certainly has some mean-spirited humour, though I also noticed similar elements (though not quite to this extent) in some later Disney shorts, like 'Gulliver Mickey (1934).' Let's not forget Minnie Mouse, of course, who suffers treatment for which she could today sue for sexual harassment! The jokes may be crude, and the animation perhaps even more so, but this cartoon delivers a bucket-full of laughs, and it's easy to see why this little rodent became one of the most beloved characters in cinema history. If you're a fan of Mickey Mouse, or Disney in general, this is one steamboat you can't afford to miss. No doubt about it. This is the animated short that put Uncle Walt on the map of success. When Walt's older brother,Roy suggested that the next Mickey Mouse short should include sound, Walt jumped at the chance. The result:Steamboat Willie was a runaway hit for 1928. It was, after all, the first animated short subject with a synchronized sound track (mostly music & sound effects,as dialog was minimal). Not to sound like a wet blanket, but the short is far from perfect. Animation prior to 1935 was creaky & rather herky jerky (but once equipment made improvements,and better artistic techniques came about,the rest was smooth sailing),and the sound was primitive (Disney wanted to use the then well known RCA Sound System,or the Western Electric Noiseless sound system,but was refused by both firms,prompting Disney to use the Photophone system that P.A. Powers was experimenting with at the time). The plot (there's an actual plot line here?)concerns Mickey (as the aforementioned Willie)is the pilot of a steamboat, that is terrorized by Black Pete (Captain Pete to you),and decides to have a jam session on ship, using the various animals on board as musical instruments (ASPCA, take notice). If you don't think too much about the technical shortcomings, Steamboat Willie can be eight minutes of fun (and a piece of history). ... But it is also Minnie's and Pete's too! Yes, the grumpy captain may not look like Pete, but it is! Mickey and Minnie are the best characters, both of them are very sweet and likable. Interestingly, Minnie is more of a lady in this than what she usually is today and Mickey is less than considerate in this than he is now. Pete is still the same old meanie, but he looks a bit different.

In this famous episode, on board a little steamboat, Mickey, Minnie and some side characters have a great deal of fun and a great deal of annoyances. Even in their first appearances, the three main characters are very developed.

I quite like this episode, although overall I prefer the Mickey Mouse in the future. I like the animation, the steamboat and music theme, the clever gags - and of course, Mickey and Minnie!

Like many early cartoons, this is very random, Walt came up with a very basic plot and just added gags to "gear" it along. There is also a parrot side character who is very annoying and rather unnecessary. These are the things I do not like about it.

Another interesting thing about this episode, that a colour version has not been made for it (or if it has, I've never heard about it)!

Anyone who just enjoys Mickey Mouse and Disney will enjoy this. SPOILERS

As you may know, I have been commenting on a lot of silent short films in the past months. Now, I have no idea why I am commenting on Steamboat Willie, I guess I was just desperate to comment on anything, so I watched this, and now I am commenting on it. This, or course, is one of the very first cartoons, and I believe it is not the first cartoon with sound.

Here is the plot. Mickey Mouse is driving a steamboat when Pete throws him off and he drives it. When they stop for cargo Minnie Mouse tried to get on but failed miserably. Mickey gets her up by a crane. Then a goat eats her sheet of paper with Turkey in the Straw on it. They use the goat to make the song. When I say that I mean that they used the goat as a Victrola. Mickey plays the animals on the steamboat for instruments to the song. Then an angry Pete throws Mickey in a potato room and Mickey is forced to peel potatoes for the rest of the day.

Overall, this is yet another groundbreaking silent short film. I mean, this is the third Mickey Mouse cartoon. Yes, the third. Also, this is not the first cartoon with sound. I believe there were two more before this one. Either way, this film is really, really groundbreaking. Mikcey was also more violent than he is mow. I mean, he throws a potato at a bird and may have brutally slaughtered it.

9/10

Recommended Films: Plane Crazy. It's the 1920s. And a man named Walt Disney was on a mission: to satisfy the families and children all over the world with one thing: entertainment. What did he do? He made cartoons! Whoo!!!!! And he made a character that is as great as a mouse...Mickey Mouse. Ha ha! Oh boy!

Two films were drawn out by Mr. Disney himself: "Plane Crazy" and "Steamboat Willie." This review will focus on the 1928 feature, "Steamboat Willie."

Ever since I learned about this movie as a little boy, I've always wanted to see this movie. Well, in 1997, I rented an ancient VHS that had lots of old Disney cartoons on them, starring the Mouse!!!!! Mickey Mouse!!!!! And guess what? That short was on there, and I loved it!!!!! Shortly after I took the tape back, this was playing on the old Disney Channel (note: the "Old" Disney Channel) early one Saturday Morning.

Yes, this is a great cartoon; this paved the way for more great Disney stuff from 1928 to 2002!

10 stars, indeed!!!!! The first ever fully synchronized sound cartoon, Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse makes his screen debut in the exceptionally entertaining cartoon short subject "Steamboat Willie". Mickey is a worker on a steamboat under the supervision of captain Peg Leg Pete(or Pete as he would later be called). Mickey boards his long time companion Minnie Mouse aboard the train as they frolic about, while Mickey attempts to impress Minnie. This short was wildly fun and positively entertaining. Animators Ubbe Iwerks, Rudolph Ising, and Hugh Harman assisted Walt on the creation of the short."Steamboat Willie" essentially marks the beginning of the success of the Walt Disney Company. just can't watch this bit too many times, it's full of true enthusiasm and cleverness Mickey Mouse had in his first 30 years. Nowadays' Mickey is an smart ass little whiner when compared this. Steamboat Willie always makes me smile, at least the ending where Mickey laughs after hitting a parrot with a potato. Animation is very nice and although steamboat Willie has no dialog, the music is enough for it.

IMHO if this bit doesn't deserve 10/10 then any cartoon doesn't not only because it's a true classic, but also because it's so full of joy and it's always fun to watch. 'Steamboat Willie' is the first cartoon with sound. Mickey Mouse is working on a steamboat. On board he is making music with all kind of tools. Most of those tools are farm animals. This first one with sound is one of the better and funnier ones. It has some very clever moments. A short classic. It is now clear that the true golden age of American film was from the mid-60s until just before the release of Star Wars. Before then, there was too much Hays Code-constricted pap. With Star Wars, the green light was lit for most films to be directed at children and morons, a practice which continues to this day. THE SEVEN-UPS, truth be told, contains a couple hackneyed lines of dialogue -- "We can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way" is one -- but I'm damned if I can find anything else wrong with it. (In fact, that line may not even have been stale when this film was made.) THE SEVEN-UPS demonstrates all that was right with the best films of the golden age: sparse dialogue, realistic acting, real locations (winter in a dirty New York has never looked better/worse), propulsive stories, and, yes, the best car chase ever filmed. Bill Hickman is the driver Scheider is chasing (you will recognize him from Bullitt), and the structure of the chase is fairly similar to the McQueen one, but I prefer Scheider's facial intensity here, the pacing, the terrific close-ups of the schoolchildren, and the shattering conclusion. (That VW bug going about 2 mph always bothers me in the Bullitt chase.) A stringy, screechy score by Don Ellis sets the perfect mood. THE SEVEN UPS: bleak, grim, action-oriented, grown-up. This is a film that couldn't be made today; there's no "gimmick" for the kiddies or preposterous ending. Thank you, Philip D'Antoni, Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco: for as long as cop films are watched, THE SEVEN-UPS and its 1970s brethren (e.g., THE FRENCH CONNECTION), will set the standard. One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me.

This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.

And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in "Bullitt", and surpassing the chase in "The French Connection". I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did "Bullitt" and "The French Connection" as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.

Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months. What you saw in BULLITT and THE FRENCH CONNECTION is nothing compared to what you have here. The chase goes on for nearly 15 minutes and is the best you'll ever see. This movie has become a classic crime drama from the heyday of 70's film-making. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of the mean streets of New York City. Featuring one of the slickest wise guys ever put on screen, Tony Lo Bianco's behavior in this movie is cool as ice. He's ripping off his own associates and making it look like the police are responsible. His childhood friend, Roy Scheider, is a street detective who becomes puzzled by the disappearances of the mobsters. You can tell that Lo Bianco's enjoying the game throughout the movie. At times though, the film gets dull, but then right when you feel like giving up on it, something big happens and it pulls you back in. The score by Don Ellis sets the tone of the cold, gray wintertime in New York City and to top it all off, my man Joe Spinell shows up in an early role as Toredano the garage man.

Score, 7 out of 10 Stars I'm not much for "cop" movies, but this one is supposedly a classic & when I found it cheap I bought it and stuck it on a shelf, only to finally get around to watching it yesterday, and I LIKED it! Now, you can have New York City, but as a setting for a film like this, in the winter months, it's perfect. Roy Scheider is a member of an elite police task group called The Seven Ups, which are 5 guys that fight crime undercover. In an opening scene they recover a shoebox full of money from an antique store by distracting the crooks with a "bull in a china shop" routine. But that's only the beginning. Seems that there are two guys, posing as cops, that are kidnapping mob types and holding them for ransom. Richard Lynch happens to be one of these sleaze-bags, and he's as creepy as ever. When one of the Seven Ups, who is posing as a limo driver at a funeral, gets his cover blown, he's beaten and stuffed into the trunk of a car, which then leads to perhaps one of the most exciting car chases I've seen. Amazing though, how light traffic in NYC is for chase scenes, but still this is rather amazing as Scheider follows the two kidnappers through what I'm guessing is the Bronx and then onto a turnpike and then eventually, Scheider's car comes to a screeching halt in one of the most heart-stopping finales to a chase scene that I've ever witnessed. Anyway, since the cop ends up dying, Scheider and his men are under suspicion because the police commissioner knows so little about their activities he wonders if THEY'RE on the make by kidnapping mobsters, so of course this kind of thinking needs to be nipped in the bud & Scheider is relentless getting to the bottom of things. Overall a decent cop action/drama, not really my thing but I liked this one. Look for Joe Spinell (Maniac) in a small role. 7 out of 10. I think the filmographic lineage may run like this. Pay attention, please, because I had to look this up. In 1967 Peter Yates, an ex auto racer, directs the English caper movie "Robbery," the most thrilling part of which is a car chase through the streets of London, down alleys where there are crowds of children playing and all that. It's a success.

A year later, Yates directs "Bullet", starring Steve McCool, I mean McQueen, featuring another even more spectacular car chase up and down the San Francisco Hills, with dumbfoundingly authentic engine sounds that seem to include double clutching, full race cams, no mufflers, twelve-cylinder engines under forty-foot hoods, supercharged, superdupercharged, and all five-thousand horsepower running at full tilt. Lots of shots of McQueen's gum-chewing visage scowling with concentration as he tries to bump another car off the highway, though a passenger in the other vehicle totes a shotgun. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Bill Hopkins drives the criminal vehicle.

A year or two later, sensing a good thing, Bill Friedkin directs "The French Connection," featuring a chase between a commandeered cop car(Gene Hackman) and an elevated train in New York City. Lots of shots of Hackman's cursing face as he wrestles the battered car through the streets. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Academy Awards follow.

Sensing a good thing, a year or two more brings us "The Seven Ups," featuring a chase between a car driven by Roy Scheider, with lots of shots of Scheider's cursing face as he tries to bump the other car, which is driven by Bill Hopkins, off the road, although the criminal car, to be sure, carries a shotgun-toting passenger. No hills in New York City, just bumps, but they are still sharp enough to elevate the cars a few feet. The pursued car screeches around a corner and dashes down a street on which a dozen children are playing. Shots of the screaming kids as they scatter off the pavement and allows the car to zoom through. But once is not enough. The children immediately run back into the street and must repeat the retreat for the pursuing cop car carrying Scheider.

I once witnessed a pursuit at high speed on the streets of Philadelphia. Both the criminal and the cops drove through the streets at about 25 miles an hour, coming to rolling stops at each Stop sign and red light -- very dull stuff compared to this movie.

Speaking of this movie, it's pretty good. "Robbery" and "Bullet" were cool. Everyone dressed neatly. But the New York movies are filthy. There's garbage all over the place and the subway cars are covered with graffiti. Shoot outs and beat ups take place in vacant lots surrounded by crumbling brick buildings, or in disposal dumps for industrial-sized freezers.

The acting is pretty good too. Roy Scheider seems whippet sleek. The other actors have faces made for the camera, especially Richard Welsh. And the story is engaging, if not entirely unfamiliar. What's best about the film is the way it captures New York City in its almost total indifference to human depravity and nobility. At a funeral, the limo drivers stand around with their collars up, butts hanging out of their mouths, kicking their cold feet together, utterly bored at the ritual goings on. The film wants us to believe that The Seven Ups are an elite group of untouchable cops who stop at nothing to get the job done, and here it's a bit of a sell out. They always seems to be threatening to do something unethical and illegal -- beat hell out of a suspect or physically damage a hospitalized and helpless hood -- but they always manage to avoid doing it. (If they actually did it, their characters would become lifelike and ambiguous and we'd rather have our heroes and villains of a more Biblical nature.) Very enjoyable, even if you've seen it before, and you very well may have in one or another of its previous incarnations. I love the other reviews of this movie. They mirror my attitude. I am a 70's sort of guy, minus disco and "Star Wars" childishness. There was nothing great about this movie, except for a chase scene. That is why it was good, because it was tough, basic and economical. Roy Scheider carried the movie, which was based on the crew, the 7 Ups, that backed up Gene Hackman in the "French Connection". The people in it were believable and average, who burned themselves pouring coffee, showed fear in chase scene and almost lost it after a close call crash.

Maybe it would be easier to tell you what it lacked. There was no fancy weapons, just basic revolvers and crude sawed off shotguns. There was no tough guy philosophizing, ala Tarantino. There was no kung fu or samurai nonsense and no fancy trick shooting either. There was no clever guy who carries out some complicated scheme based on hundreds of things going just the way he planned including everyone else's reactions. The criminals were bad guys but they didn't shoot people for the hell of it. As a matter of fact, there was a body count of just three. something that the average movie these days would pass in the opening credits. It could be a G movie today! No bus load of orphan school children were kidnapped nor were terrorists threatening to kill half of the city. There were no high tech hijinks, nor were the crimes themselves very moving or ingenious, the highest tech thing I saw was a touch tone ATT wall phone. It had no subplots or amusing character developments. Also, no sex or women, except for one mobster's wife who did some screaming as the Buddy our hero had her menaced.

It was some little undertaker who exploited his connections with the local mob and the police to kidnap local mobsters for some easy payoffs. The undertakers. Vito, was played by Tony Lo Bianco who did a great job, as good as Roy Schneider, Buddy the head of 7 Ups cop, whom he informed and exploited. What ever happened to Tony Lo Bianco, he seemed like a Pacino shoe in, good looking and talented? What it did have was a great NYC backdrop to a simple crime story. Locations that were bleak and dehumanizing without being a sociological study. It had a simple plot that involved this kidnapping scheme where one of Buddy's cop got accidentally involved, literally accidentally dragged in then accidentally shot dead. Since Buddy and his 7 ups are a hot dogs unit, both the NYPD Brass and mobsters thought he was involved, since the kidnappers masqueraded as plain clothes cops to lure the mobsters into compliance. Obviously the mobsters figured they had lawyers and rights to protect them from normal police. Even the mobsters were plain, old and ugly, no Godfather royalty or Soprano hipness here.

It is a good basic movie with a standout chase scene between two 70's d Pontiacs. Even the cars were plain and economical, not even a GTO or a Trans Am, like the acting and the story. In the days of Batman uber-hype or "24" levels of intensity doomsday scenarios, this movie reminds us that less is better. It should be shown to movie screen writers and directors as a caveat not to dazzle, amuse then ultimately insult us with stunts, gadgets and clown psychotic behavior galore. ****SPOILERS**** Buried under a mountain of medical bills and his funeral business not being able to dig him out from under them undertaker Vito Lucia, Tony Lo Bianco, came up with a plan to make a load of cash with the help of his two crooked pals Moon & Bo, Richard Lynch & Bill Hickman.

Vito getting close with his boyhood friend Buddy Manucci, Roy Scheider, as a mob informer to win over Buddy's trust and have him tell Vito what's coming down on the streets of New York in regard to mob activities. Buddy is a cop who works in a sub rosa unite of the NYPD, the Seven Ups, that does things "their way" to clean up the streets of New York of criminals.

Vito gets information from Buddy and makes it look to Buddy that he's really giving him tips about the mob and what it's up too and uses that information to tip off his hoodlum associates, Moon & Bo, to rip the mobsters off of their weekly take as well as kidnap top mob loan sharks and hold them for ransom.

Everything is going well for Vito & Co. until the mob decides to retaliate and mistakenly grabs beats and kidnaps a member of the Seven Ups Ansel, Ken Kercheval,who was working undercover thinking he was one of the hoods who was kidnapping and ripping them off. Later Ansel was accidentally killed by Moon when he blasted out the trunk of the car that Ansel was locked in thinking that there was a suitcase full or cash, ransom, in it.

Fast pace and exciting movie with that gritty and grimy photography of New York City that was so effective in the movie "The French Connection" which also stars both Roy Scheider & Tony Lo Bianco who are in this movie too. Incredible car chase that started in downtown Brooklyn and ended up in the wilds of New Jersey some 15 to 20 miles away with Buddy almost ending up decapitated for his heroic efforts.

Roy Scheider who is not a big man is as tough and effective as any big action actor I can think off like Clint Eastwood would have been in the same movie. Scheider reminds me a lot of, he even looks a bit like him, former welterweight and middleweight champion Gene Fullmer who beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight championship back in 1957 and acts like him too in the movie : tough durable and destructive.

Tony Lo Bianco is very good as Vito the undertaker the lowlife heel who plays off Buddy and the mob to the point that leads to Buddy's partner Ansel getting killed. Even though he's trash you can't in a way not help feeling sorry for Vito since he only wants the money he gets from the ripped offed mobsters to pay his sick wife's Rose's hospital and medical bills. Even the fact that Ansel was killed due to his actions Vito never wanted anybody to get hurt but like they say when you play with fire you end up getting burned. In the end Vito have a lot of explaining to do to the not so sympathetic and caring mobsters.

The movie "The Seven Ups" has the late Bill Hickman doing the dangerous stunts with the car chases as well as act in the film. Hickman was also the stunt man in both great movies that had him doing the driving on the roads streets and highways of New York City and San Francisco "The French Connection" and "Bullitt". He plays straight but with a quiet intensity that makes him one of the top cops in movie history. Roy Scheider stars in a poor man's French Connection that has a little of the same gritty appeal. FC is a better movie, but I prefer watching this one because 1) I think Scheider is great and this is his best movie, and 2) this has the best car chase EVER, one that makes Bullitt look like a cable production (thanks again to Bill Hickman, who actually plays the driver). It doesn't hurt that Tony LoBianco stops by (again) to play a baddie. Please enjoy. I was born in '68 with not much parental guidance as far as what I watched on TV (as a kid in the 70's). I always loved this movie (and the French Connection) and would always try to catch it whenever it was on (checking the Sunday TV guide ahead of time). I bought it on DVD a few years ago and have watched it twice since then and I must say, I STILL LOVE IT!!!! Roy S. was a great actor from the 70's (Jaws is one of my all-time favs, Marathon Man etc) and although the 7-ups is not an Oscar-worthy film, it puts you precisely in a time a place (NY, early 70's, as did French Connection) and gives you some tough characters and a glimpse of life as a cop at that time. And yes, the car chase is one of the all-time best. Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like "The Seven-Ups", or its kindred spirit, "The French Connection", always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, "This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.". A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time. "The Seven-Ups" seems like a replay of "The French Connection," which was released two years prior. Both the late Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco make appearances, as well as stunt driver Bill Hickman.

But we aren't dealing with French drug baddies; instead, we are dealing with a war against assorted hoods and criminals after a cop is brutally killed by a hoodlum. We get to see unpleasantness and a pre-1990s New York City.

I love watching this film because it is exciting to see the action, and it is a reminder of a cooler time. That said, when one compares the car chases, Mr. Hickman had involvement in the three most compared: This movie, Bullitt and The French Connection. Each chase scene has its own qualities, and this one is simply superb.

And I am glad this title has seen the light of day on DVD. A team of tough rogue New York cops led by the rugged, hard-nosed Buddy Manucci (superbly played by the always excellent Roy Scheider) go after a group of nasty mobsters involved in a kidnapping ring after one of their number gets killed by them. Director Philip D'Antoni, the producer of "Bullet" and "The French Connection," ably creates a potent, gritty, starkly amoral no-nonsense tone, maintains a steady pace throughout and stages the action scenes with considerable rip-roaring vigor. Don Ellis' rousing string score further pumps up the raw'n'rattling intensity while the scrappy Big Apple locations and Urs Furrer's rough, grainy cinematography both greatly enhance the overall grungy realism. Moreover, the fine line distinguishing cops from criminals gets chillingly blurred in this picture: the titular squad use harsh, brutish and morally dubious strong-arm tactics as a means to an end for enforcing the law and there's certainly no code of honor amongst the thugs and thieves who populate the seedy urban underbelly that's vividly depicted in this movie. Nice supporting performances by Tony Lo Bianco as wormy, sniveling snitch Vito Lucia the Undertaker, Richard Lynch as vicious psychotic hoodlum Moon, Bill Hickman as Moon's equally coldblooded partner Bo, Jerry Leon as funky flatfoot Mingo, and Joe Spinell as a parking garage attendant. An extremely wild and exciting protracted heart-in-your-throat mondo destructo car chase qualifies as a definite highlight. The climactic shootout likewise delivers the stirring goods. A real bang-up little winner. Buddy Manucci(Roy Scheider, solid in a chance leading role)heads a secret undercover police squad called the Seven-Ups whose tactics don't necessarily follow the exact ways of the law. They get the job done in their own way without anything being leaked to the press, and this gives them a freedom to expand their means of getting to the criminals most working detectives and policeman just can not nab. Buddy has a pal from childhood named Vito(Tony Lo Bianco)who swaps information with him regarding mob types and shysters working the streets in NYC. What Buddy doesn't know is that Vito is hatching a scheme using names from Buddy's "check list"(he has this book open taking down notes provided by Vito, but doesn't know that his friend has copied those very names written within his mind)to set up mob families in a series of mob kidnappings eliciting cash thanks to two cop-posers, Moon(the always-villainous Richard Lynch)and Bo(Bill Hickman)working with him. When this scheme goes awry, with one of the Seven-Ups being killed, Vito becomes fearful because he knows how Buddy can be when he's doggedly after someone..especially when one of his own is murdered.

Extremely underrated cop flick has thrilling car chase through New York City as Buddy follows the kidnapping cop-imposter's trying to get them after killing his partner. The film isn't overly complex after the plot is set-up and we realize who is the ring-leader in the scheming of mobsters. Scheider has never been given the credit he deserves as a fine lead actor. He has emotional range and we see how losing his cop and friend takes it's toll on him. The film is briskly paced with good action sequences and sets up an interesting plot of betrayal between friends as greed comes before that childhood friendship and how what seems like a smooth crime-spree against evil mob families can get cops killed. this movie has a great chase scene, if you listen to the soundtrack when the cars are chasing each other , it sounds very much like the soundtrack from the movie bullet, you'll hear the shifting of a 4 speed and they'll show the brake pedal in Roy Schneider's car, it's an automatic brake pedal!, i think one of the funniest moments in the movie is when the bad guy Richard lynch is looking at the driver of the car they are in, like the guy is nuts!.........the crook who runs the garage is also the guy who in the the first rocky movie, rocky's boss. good movie! also when the door gets ripped off you can see the guy sitting in the car just flinging the door open, the guy who helps him out of the car kind of looks like Mr Brady from the Brady bunch doesn't he? While both this movie and the signature car chase have been shown a lack of respect by many critics, both are way above average. Roy Scheider does an excellent job playing his best type; a tough, courageous cop who works hard to get the job done in spite of the desk drivers and politicians who should be supporting him rather than hindering. (He played a suburbanized version of this same role as the tourist town police chief in Jaws. Not nearly as gritty, but the same "get the job done despite the politicians" and gutsy approach. If a man who can't swim and is terrified of everything in the water going out on an old boat with an Ahab wannabee and a nerd, to confront a huge killer shark, isn't gutsy, then tell me what is...).

Tony Lo Bianco is good as a surprisingly complex villain; most of the villains, in fact, have some depth and complexity. This is one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings. Overall, it captures the atmosphere of parts of NY City: gritty, unglamorous, often dangerous, but filled with energy. The story is spare, tight, and subtle; it gets the job done without extraneous elements. It may not be one of the all time greats, but it is an exceptionally good movie.

Everyone has an opinion about car chases. Mine is that this one is right up there with the Mustang vs Dodge Charger chase in Bullitt. The Pontiac Ventura/Chevy Nova was similar to the Mustang in being a compact car chassis with beefed up suspension and a powerful small block V8 stuffed into an engine bay meant for an insipid 6. The Ventura/Novas got little respect off the drag strip, but with the proper suspension mods, they made affordable performance cars that could handle on both the road and the track. The bawling of those GM V8's as they wind up is music to the enthusiast's ear. I've heard this chase criticized for "imitating" the Bullitt chase. The truth is that they are two works by the same master, Bill Hickman, who also choreographed and drove for the French Connection chase. Besides driving most of the car chase scenes, he created a brooding, malevolent presence and a good match with Richard Lynch as a pair of coldly evil killers.

Yes, the chase has "realism errors" often noted, like the use of 3 different NY roads to represent the Palisades Parkway, the ending of the chase in a crash with an 18 wheeler on a roadway for passenger vehicles only, and the miraculous timing that allows all pedestrians to escape harm. That's beside the point. Let's face it: movie car chases are "unreal" by nature. In Bullitt, The French Connection, and The Seven Ups, however, Bill Hickman and Phillip D'Antoni crafted chases far more realistic, and therefore more exciting, than the flying, rolling, exploding vehicle fantasy chases so common in recent films. This movie is not about the soda nor is it quite the French Connection.

The Seven Ups are a group of elite policemen that use tactics not in accordance with protocol of the NYPD. Scheider heads the group with his posse or regular looking joes. They are running surveillance on a local costra nostra cartel and things go awry when a cop's wire is found out.

Meanwhile, Richard Lynch, the most evil looking man in film (Invasion:America, Little Nikita) and his partner end up killing the cop by accident and escape from Scheider in the coolest chase scene I've seen, Bullitt and French Connection are not as good as they one up the West Side to the George Washington and onto the Palisades Parkway in New Jersey.

The stunt drivers are terrific and Lynch makes it away free though he looks scared witless from the dangerous trip. Roy Scheider is nearly killed when his car slams into the abutted rear of Mack truck ripping the roof of his vehicle off.

Things come to a head and one has to keep watching to follow up on such a sequence. Quick moving and intense, fresh for a thirty years. The Seven-Ups is a good and engrossing film. It's packed with credible performances by Scheider, LaBianco and an effective scary performance by Richard Lynch - although most of the characters are card-board cut-out tough guys. Character development does not evolve at all on the screen. The only thing we know is the good guys are the good guys and the bad guys are bad. Deviating from the crime story norm, The Seven-Ups manage to throw Scheider and crew into the middle of a building plot in a unique writing twist. Onsite locations of New York City and an excellent choreographed car chase highlight the film. The only downside of the film is the slightly confusing plot line in the beginning. They give the viewer little evidence that the men being kidnapped are mob related (until later in the film). Had someone blindly started watching the film may be slightly confused on the story. Otherwise, The Seven-Ups is a gritty, testosterone-filled enjoyable time. This film is a classic seventies cop flick that for some reason has been sadly overlooked. It is basically French Connection meets Bullit.

Roy Scheider plays the head of an elite group of detectives, known as the "Seven Ups"

One of their men is discovered during an undercover op and is killed.

Scheider and his team must find his killers. They become involved in a battle with the mob.

The highlight of the film has to be the car chase, obviously included to cash in on the success of Bullit. However, this car chase outshines Bullitt due to its length, speed and sheer excitement.It's a breathtaking roller-coaster ride that ends rather unexpectedly and spectacularly. Don't miss this little gem !! How did they get that cinematic shot of the car colliding with the back end of the semi? And then Roy sits up -- great! Looks like the DVD is scheduled for May of 2006 - about time!! Watch this on a large screen or film revival in a theater if possible in order to fully appreciate the full aspect ratio. My other favorites in this category are: Original Italian Job with Michael Caine; Bullit with Steve McQueen; To Live and Die in LA with the CSI guy when he was young; French Connection with Gene Hackman; Ronin with Robert Deniro; Vanishing Point with Barry Newman; Enemy of the State with Hackman again -- What are your favorites? I recently got THE SEVEN-UPS on video and I must say it was a very enjoyable movie. Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco are great as the cop and crook respectively and a young Richard Lynch is great as psycho henchman Moon. The late Bill Hickman is pretty good as his associate Bo and sets up a brilliant car chase sequence which will have you on the edge of your seats. The other three members of the Seven-Ups team are pretty bland but that's only to be expected.

I'm glad that a lot of people on this site have supported this movie. I think it should be a film that should be released on DVD and not just forgotten. I certainly enjoyed every minute of it. The final scene between the two leads is excellent as the bad guy must face the consequences of his actions. THE SEVEN-UPS does not disappoint. This is a good enough movie and you probably won't be disappointed, but it again has Roy Scheider, right after he did "French Connection", playing a cop with the name 'Buddy'. They also use the same too-memorable wheelman from "Bullitt". At first you'll think you've seen the car chase before if you have his face still in your memory. The car chase is a great one, but as in many car movie scenes, it has some technical and editing errors. Check "Puppet on a Chain" and "French Connection II" for some other good, long, intense chases. Roy Scheider is not Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood but then who is? The Seven-Ups is one of the better cop movies, even today, and is second only to McQueen's Bullitt and the Dirty Harry series, which isn't bad company. There are three things that seem to make a good cop movie: Believable script with great acting, great car chase scenes, and some heavy action. This movie has all three and the car chase scene is better than that in Dirty Harry. Scheider plays the head of a group of cops out to get NY's bad guys sentenced to seven years or more; hence the name Seven-Ups. Overall, not quite up to Dirty Harry or Bullitt but far better than all of the cop movies made since the Dirty Harry series. 9/10. a compact crime drama with a good amount of action. The unique NYC location shots adds to this tough little film.Technically well done with good direction and acting. Needless to say,the wild car chase that seems to begin in downtown, extends through the upper west side, Washington Heights, across the George Washington Bridge and into NJ has to be one of the best ever on film.All around a fine flick that for me gets better with time.8 out of 10...easy Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still "Hot" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few "jumps" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York. Things that are only just now "news" were taken as a given in this shocking documentary. I fear that as the investigation proceeds, the producers of this film will be vindicated in spades.

The producers show us the Davidians, the government agents, the investigators, with all their faults and all their humanity. Nothing any reviewer can say could approach the impact of watching and listening for yourself. Pieces of evidence -- Congressional testimony, 911 tapes, news footage, expert commentary, interviews, photos and home videos -- are seamlessly woven together and tell a disturbing tale.

Do not wait. See this film and tell your friends. Rules of Engagement is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It is well constructed, superbly pieced together, and provides excellent footage to back up the assertions that it takes on. The movie's best quality is that it is not based on being sympathetic to the Dividians as much as it enlightens the audience to the blatant governmental mistakes and lies that surrounded the entire situation. I'm left with feelings of disturbing anxiety and extreme anger over the way that the government handled and then covered up a tragedy of this magnitude. The cover up is what left me really fuming. It is one thing to make a mistake in an operation and admit guilt, but another to look the American people squarely in the eye and lie to them. I guess it shouldn't surprise me with the history of our beloved country that has seen the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and other significant events that smell so bad of a cover up that you have to hold your nose every time you drive through Washington D.C. The footage from an airplane with special heat sensing technology and the autopsies on some of the bodies clearly show that the FBI is lying to the public. One of the things that I try to stay aware of when watching a documentary such as this is that I am usually only receiving testimony from one point of view. But again, that is without a doubt one of the brilliant successes of Rules of Engagement. It presents its evidence in such a concluding fashion that even if you were presented with statements from the FBI how could you really believe them. I remember clearly when the standoff was taking place the way the media presented the Dividians as this crazed group of cult rebels with David Koresh, the self professed reborn Jesus Christ, as their leader. None of this was truly factual but rather story spun from bits and pieces of facts. They were simply standing up for there rights to bear arms and practice their religion as American Citizens. If you were the ATF and you wanted to search the compound is attacking the building with a unit of men who are armed with rifles and bullet proof suits the way to go about doing it? If you are the FBI why engage in psychological warfare and offer little in actual negotiation to help solve the situation? Why pour gallons of harmful gas if you want to save children? Why open large holes within the compound structure when you know the possibility of starting a fire? Why lie about not firing weapons when it can be clearly shown on video? Unless. Unless you wanted to see the situation end up the way it did. The scene at the end when the Dividians Star of David flag blew off the flagpole into the fire and the ATF's was shortly thereafter raised up was an emotional climatic scene that made my head shake in disgust and my stomach turn uncontrollably. The filmmaker William Gazecki deserves one my highest congratulations. It takes a lot of guts to make a movie like this and I am sure there have been many repercussions from the government for it as well. Because of people like him the public can be shown real truth rather than crap that gets filtered through a media that presents information that can hardly be considered genuine. When I think back to how I felt at the time toward the Dividians because of the media's representation of David Koresh and how I felt after seeing this movie it is truly amazing. It reminds me of the line from the bible of a man who was healed by Jesus and asked by the elders how it happened "before I was blind but now I can see" he kept telling them. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You may have to look for it but it is truly something special. After watching "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" I was just sitting in disbelief of what I was witness to. A big cover up by the FBI, a massacre by gung-ho/trigger happy government agents? I clearly remember the Waco standoff, I was 17 years old at the time and watched it all on CNN. I remembered reflecting about all the children as I watched the Mount Camel compound burn in April 1993. I remember feeling sorry for the children, but clearly felt that it was the fault of their evil leader David Koresh and the other Davidians. Gazecki's film shows clearly and beyond doubt, even though it is biased, that the FBI lied over and over again. I think that this film was a big contributor to the reopening of a new investigation of the incident in 1999. The outcome of this new investigation was in some sense predictable, the judgement relied on fact that was just as grey as the facts that the Davidians presented. I was very disappointed about the verdict, because as far as I know it didn't take into account all the lying, misinformation and evidence cover-up by the FBI and other officials. Why have no one be prosecuted for hampering the work of the Texas Rangers investigators? Why were they allowed to contaminate the crime scene and bulldoze the compound shortly after the incident? These are questions that I haven't been given answers to by the government. Most importantly, what about the children? In this new investigation I haven't been informed about who was responsible for spraying the CS flammable tear-gas into a compound with many hazards for igniting this gas and I haven't found any answer to whether the children's muscles contracted due to the effects of the gas, while they were alive. If they did, I would surely think that the Janet Reno or who ever was in charge of the raid should be indicted for mass-homicide or manslaughter. The question that was raised by Gazecki, but not mentioned is; Was is a direct plan for the people in charge and their tanks to cut holes and burn the building down with intent? (a plan that would have been accomplished with 112% efficacy) or were the officials in charge so incompetent, that their were unaware of the consequence of their actions? Both are equally frightening. Even if the Davidians set fire to the compound, the officials in charge surely provided them with the opportunity to do the job. If the officials in charge knew, as they claimed, that the Davidians would set fire to the compound, why the f… did the tanks cut all the holes in the building making it into a furnace and why didn't they have plans to deal with the fire that they knew would occur? Dark questions that still won't go away The final and most relevant issue of this film, is the way that the Davidians are demonized by the government through the media, who just feeds it in to the public. I clearly remember the resentment I felt for the evil Davidians that I saw on CNN in 1993. Now that I'm older I can see a clear line of communication coming out of the government every time they are gearing up for a massacre of civilians along with the intended targets. Demonizing people with words like; "they have different unlawful values then us" "they don't enjoy freedom" and "they are a threat to our freedoms and way of life" makes them so much easier to kill…… There have been many documentaries that I have seen in which it appeared that the law was on the wrong side of the fence - The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost come to mind first and foremost. But this is the first film that had me seething with anger after I saw it. It seems blatantly clear to me from the evidence presented in this film that what happened at Waco was at the very least an unprofessional and sloppy mess on the part of the FBI and AFI, and at the very worst an act of murder. Like most people, when the siege at Waco was occurring I assumed that David Koresh was a completely evil madman who was leading a violent cult. After seeing this, I think that Koresh was more likely a slightly unbalanced and confused guy who inadvertently caught the attention of the U.S. government through his eccentric actions. Sure, there were lots of weapons at the Branch Davidian compound. But none of it was illegal. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the video footage of the people inside the compound, all of them seeming to be very nice and harmless. And it was angering to see the callous testimony of the men in charge of the government forces on the Waco site, the clueless testimony of Janet Reno, and the partisan defense of the attack on Waco, a defense led by a few of the committee Democrats. Standing out most in my mind was NY representative and current U.S. senator from NY Charles Schumer. I voted for the man when I lived in NY state - I'm a Democrat, pretty left-leaning too. After seeing his actions on this committee, I wish I could go back in time and vote for D'Amato instead! For anyone remotely interested in the government, this is a very crucial film, a must see. I even think this should be shown in classes - it's that important. If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to "un-popular" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, "What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think." I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion. Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you. Waco: Rules of Engagement does a very good job of not drawing conclusions for its viewers. It simply presents interviews, footage from the standoff, footage of the Congressional hearings, phone conversations, expert testimony, etc. and allows you to draw your own conclusion.

I hardly intend to imply that the data presented here was done with 100% objectivity but it is very convincing. You won't like Koresh any more after you see this than you did before, but I tend to think that you will come to believe, as I now do, there is much that we were not told about what happened before and during the standoff. The film someone had to make.

Waco: The Rules of Engagement dissects the evidence behind the standoff in Waco, Texas that led to the destruction of the Branch Davidian homestead and the alleged government cover-up.

The first thing you need to know about this film: you will see brief but disturbing photos of the victims bodies. This is not done for shock value, but to illustrate points about the way they died, as if you were present at the coroner's inquest.

The second thing you should know about this film: at two and a quarter hours, it's pretty ponderous - especially if you already followed the events closely at the time. If you are unaware of any of the events other than what was reported in the mass media, or if the only side of the story you are familiar with is the official government report, this may be essential viewing. If, on the other hand you want a more concise (albeit unapologetically one sided) version of events, you should see "Waco: The Big Lie".

In summary, this is pretty much the definitive documentary about this tragic event, and is very sobering, but as a work of film-making, could test your patience, especially if you have a short attention span. And it's at times superfluous for those who watched the CSPAN hearings and the 60 Minutes reports.

Perhaps someday someone will make a documentary that covers some of the stranger aspects of this story, such as the bizarre chain of events that led up to the ATF raid or the psychological warfare tactics the FBI used blasting rock music at the sect, and their charismatic leaders (all rock musicians themselves) picking up their instruments and turning their massive amplifiers outward to blast their own music right back at them. I am very impressed with the acting in Comanche Moon. Before I started watching this, I wasn't expecting it to be as good as Lonesome Dove. I couldn't believe how well the actors were chosen to represent all the characters. It blew my mind how well they played each role! This was in my opinion almost as good as Lonesome Dove. Its hard to compare any film to Lonesome Dove. If you don't make that comparison, I would give this a thumbs up. It was very entertaining! I don't post many comments on this site, but I just felt I had to get my opinion out there. Amazing! I don't want to go off naming every actor who was brilliant, because I would probably have to list every single one. My favorite was Steve Zahn. He hit the nail on the head playing Captain Gus. His mannerisms were perfect. "Comanche Moon" had everything going for it. For starters, Simon Wincer's back, a man who's name is synonymous with high-quality TV westerns. Unfortunately, the problems with "Moon" are something even the most talented director couldn't solve: A poor script based on a lackluster novel.

Forget historical accuracies -- as any reader of the novels can tell you, the biggest travesty in "Moon" is that it's not even consistent with information from the original "Lonesome Dove" masterpiece. So many wonderful, rich moments in the miniseries and, to an even greater degree, the book, are completely missing in "Moon." Considering the fact that most viewers of "Moon" are probably coming with at least some sort of "Dove" background, the lack of character-driven and emotional backstory is downright painful.

That said, "Moon" is one instance where the adapted version could and should have been altered to make it more suitable for the screen. For example, the novel "Moon" focuses largely on the Comanches themselves. To its credit, the miniseries tries to service the Comanches, but in the end it gives them just enough that the viewer just gets a sense they're missing out on some important part of the story. Similarly, Val Kilmer's Scull loses out here too -- the role should have either been expanded so Kilmer (and Rachel Griffiths, for that matter) actually had something to do, or the roles should have just been reduced to smaller, supporting parts. Instead, Kilmer gets top billing for a character that just leaves you scratching your head after his appearance in the completely bizarre final act.

There's strange moments throughout the film that just make no sense to those who haven't read the book (a killer parrot? what?) -- further, there isn't a single scene that shows us that Call and McCrae are anything near the amazing Texas rangers they claim to be. Not a single one of their expeditions in Moon (or "Dead Man's Walk," for that matter) ends successfully, and Call and McCrae just seem to blunder their way through one pointless mission after another.

Frankly, Larry McMurtry should never have been given the job of writing the script, and only did so because of the praise surrounding that other cowboy movie, Brokeback Mountain. McMurtry can write good novels (although there's some dissension over the consistency of that statement), but he's never exactly established himself as a scriptwriter. This production would have benefited from not only bringing back director Wincer, but original screenwriter Bill Wittcliff to adapt the novel to screen. Witcliff doesn't exactly have a mountainload of material to his screen writing credit, but no one can deny he did a fantastic job at whittling down the original "Lonesome Dove." With all this said, "Comanche Moon" is almost a brilliant production, aided by a terrific cast that unfortunately just aren't given enough to do. Steve Zahn's portrayal of Gus McCrae -- or rather, his portrayal of Robert Duvall as Gus McCrae -- is dead-on. And while some have criticized Karl Urban as Woodrow Call, saying his performance doesn't imitate the quiet, stoic Woodrow of the original movie, all I can say is: blame McMurtry, because McMurtry is the one who -- both in the "Moon" novel and now the miniseries -- turned Woodrow from socially inept, awkward, but natural leader, into some emotionless character whose lines are just dull and whose character motivations are only clear if you've seen them portrayed far more adequately in the "sequel".

Still, it's the cast that sparkles in "Moon," to the degree that I left the miniseries with that same feeling of melancholy I felt watching the original "Lonesome Dove" -- this time because I realized it's probably the last time we'll see these characters appear on screen for a long, long time to come -- and quite honestly, this cast could have done so well in a well-nurtured, full-blown network TV series.

All in all, aside from wasted opportunities with the cast, the biggest travesty is that the original Lonesome Dove novel contained so much rich backstory for the characters that would have been fascinating, utterly fascinating, to see translated on screen. Unfortunately, all that has been tossed aside in favor of McMurtry's tedious, inconsistent and ultimately irrelevant, prequel. Too much added with too much taken away from a great western that was written by McMurtry about the Texas Rangers vs. the Indian. This screenplay takes that away only to fill this mini series with a lot of warm fuzzy relationships that in truth were secondary to the main storyline. It ends with a totally unbelievable and detached ending not written in the book that makes you question how we are to be transported to Lonesome Dove.

The series main characters were in truth cast very well, the filming locations were excellent, but this mini series should have stayed true to what is a great book. It's also the best book I've ever read. Karl Urban and Steve Zahn are great together. It had drama, adventure and sweetness and sadness. I laughed. I cried. It's hard not to laugh when Gus is talking. I wish Gus would have smacked Clara like he did Inez. Clara just lead Gus on all those years with no intentions of ever marrying him. She just liked playing with him. It was sad that he spent his whole life pining for her. It would have been nice if Woodrow had married Maggie but she would have just died on him anyway. Woodrow was a man that could not express his feelings and kept them bottled up. It was obvious that he loved Maggie after the raid on Austin when the rangers got back and he ran to hold her. Val Kilmer is excellent at playing odd characters. I loved his portrayal of Captian Inish Skull. I loved the whole Lonesome Dove saga. Comanche Moon is the best of the bunch. "The Violent Men" marked the finest collaboration of Rudolph Maté with Glenn Ford in an intensely satisfying drama of rugged primitive justice…

Ford is John Parrish, a former Cavalry captain who is itching to get married and start a new life… His fiancée Caroline Vail (May Wynn) is desperate to move east, and to see him selling his spread to Lee Wilkison (Edward G. Robinson).

Parrish is not even much of a cattleman… but he do understand that there is something big building up in the valley… In the Army, they used to call it 'enemy pressure.' First, Cole Wilkison (Brian Keith) comes back from Texas to help his brother run Anchor… Then a tough kid with a fancy gun (Richard Jaeckel) shows up on the Wilkison payroll… Then all the small ranchers are forced out, getting the same kind of offers… Parrish saw himself either running like they did, or stand and fight…

But can he easily deals with a man who sends six killers to shoot an old man in the back? Can he easily argues with a man who started with a few acres of land and now owns practically the whole valley?

All that grass and sand ever meant to the ex-Confederate Army officer the past three years… It was a place to regain his health… Out of habit of taking advice, Parrish affirms: "What happen in this valley is no concern of mine." And much to the disappointment of the remaining ranchers and farmers, who pressure him to stay on, he decides to accept Wilkison's offer to fulfill the promise he made to his fiancée…

When Lee's younger brother Cole made the wrong move, trying to push Parrish make up his mind by lynching one of his ranch hands, Parrish got mad and warns the two brothers that he is going to stay and will fight them for the privilege of being let alone…

Brian Keith plays the traitorous brother who's behind the killing... He dreams to have position and respect in running one day Anchor…

Lee's ambitious wife Martha (Barbara Stanwyck) secretly hates herself and her husband… Stanwyck plays the part of a loving wife who can't bear the touch of her husband's hands…

Edward G. Robinson is good enough as the Anchor's crippled owner who promised the whole valley to his wife, unaware that she is having an affair with his younger brother…

Dianne Foster is too sensitive as the unsociable adult daughter well aware of her mother's burdens…

"The Violent Men" uses the wide-screen technology to emphasize the scope and power of this harrowing action-drama, making it a perfect example of the genre's most enduring classics… One type of western I greatly enjoy is when the apparently weak, which is reluctant to fight and answer the challenge of the strong, finally decides there is no other way. There is a great moment in this film when John Parrish (Glenn Ford) goes into the saloon and decides to stand up to the gunfighter Wade Matlock. It is the type of scene that makes the audience applaud. In my opinion The Violent Men is a great western, I would rank it among the best. It makes great use of the wide screen, a spectacular scenery of the mountains. The women have a crucial part. Caroline (May Winn) is engaged to Parrish, but you feel that she is only using him as a means of getting out of there and moving east. She wants him to sell the ranch no matter what price. Martha (Barbara Stanwick), is tired of helping her crippled husband Lee (Edward G. Robinson) but she will do anything to have an always bigger ranch and more power. Meanwhile she is betraying her husband with his brother (Brian Keith). Her daughter Judith (Diane Foster) is seeing all that happens but feeling impotent to react because she does not want to hurt her father. Parrish unites all the small farmers and uses the strategy he learned in the army to go against the Anchor ranch. Like he had warned Lee, "Don't make me fight because you won't like my way of fighting". This is yet another western about a greedy cattle baron looking to push out small ranchers and farmers. It's certainly all been done before and since. But The Violent Men is something special.

What makes it special is Barbara Stanwyck playing the role of vixen as she often did in her later films. She's married to the crippled Edward G. Robinson who's the cattle baron here, but Robinson is crippled and there is some hint that his injuries may have left him impotent. No matter to Barbara, whose needs are being met by her brother-in-law Brian Keith. That doesn't sit well with either Dianne Foster who is Robinson and Stanwyck's daughter, nor with Lita Milan who is Keith's Mexican girl friend.

The infidelity subplot almost takes over the film, but Glenn Ford as the stalwart small rancher who is a Civil War veteran come west for his health manages to hold his own here. He's every inch the quiet western hero who people make the mistake of pushing once too often. I almost expect those famous words from Wild Bill Elliott to come out of Ford's mouth, "I'm a peaceable man." Would have been very applicable in The Vioilent Men.

The Fifties was the age of the adult western, themes were entering into horse operas that hadn't been explored before. The following year Glenn Ford would do another western, Jubal, one of his best which also explores infidelity as a plot component.

There's enough traditional western stuff in The Violent Men and plenty for those who are addicted to soap operas as well. This was a very good 1950s western, one of the better ones I've seen in a decade which featured that genre on screen and on TV. It certainly had three big actors on the marquee: Glenn Ford, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. It turns out that Ford was the star of this film while the other two stars were in supporting roles. Ford had the bulk of the dialog. He also was the "good guy" while Robinson was the "bad guy" and Stanwyck was twice as bad as Robinson. She played the real heavy in this film and the character she played was a little too contradictory at times.

Ford handled his starring status very ably, as he usually did - especially in westerns. He played a nice guy who didn't want to fight, was a peaceful man......but if you pushed him.....look out!

The story had a nice mixture of action and lulls, not overdoing either. It had an expansive western setting which was put to good use with the CineamaScope widescreen. It also featured realistic people in a realistic setting. That credibility with the characters, especially the supporting players, was most impressive. The men way out-shined the women in this film, acting and character-wise. Dianne Foster and May Wynn were weak - the only negatives of the production. It's easy to see why these two actresses never became stars.

Even though it is over 50 years old, this western is one you'd still find fast-enough moving to enjoy, no matter how old you are or what you're used to seeing. For classic film fans, this is almost a must with this cast and good story. Highly recommended. A western through and through. As the title character portrayed by Glenn Ford says, "No, I don't want to fight, but I will if it's forced on me." This movie is about being intelligent, strong, and fighting for one's beliefs. With courage, never stop striving for what you feel is right. Great action and mostly quick paced. Good to see Brian Keith in this role and Edward G. Robinson as an older western man. Glenn Ford lives up to his western image. Thoroughly enjoyable film includes strategic non-military warfare. Of course it's violent, like the title states, but not too graphic like in the computer-generated era films. It's mostly about strong personality clashes. The Violent Men is pretty good western that certainly benefits from its excellent cast.

Edward G. Robinson is the big rancher trying to squeeze out the smaller ranchers one of whom is Glenn Ford. Ford is ready to sell to appease his fiance (May Wynn) until Robinson's ambitious brother (Brian Keith) murders one of Ford's hands. Then you know what happens next.

Barbara Stanwyck is along as Robinson's scheming wife the kind of role in which she specialized. Dianne Foster plays their daughter who comes to admire Ford.

The Violent Men is nothing more than a "B" plot with an "A" movie cast but it is very well done. Extremely entertaining mid-1950's western that packs a whole lot into just a 96-minute running time. Most viewers will quickly get drawn into this story and will find the experience quite enjoyable. More than just a B-Western but not really an epic, the budget was modest and the cast affordable despite several big names. Glenn Ford was the only box office draw at the time. Edward G. Robinson and Barbara Stanwyck were past their primes and looking for work, Stanwyck was 10 years away from a new popularity in "The Big Valley". Brian Keith and Dianne Foster were just starting out.

Ford plays John Parrish, a small rancher who decides to sell out when the sympathetic sheriff is murdered by the big rancher's (Robinson) hired gunman. Parrish is a former Confederate officer who only moved out west for health reasons.

Robinson plays Lee Wilkison, who already owns most of the valley and intends to acquire the rest, making good on a promise to his wife Martha (Stanwyck). Lee was crippled in a land war he fought 12 years earlier; his brother Cole (Keith) has come up from Texas to help him run the huge spread. Lee has been turning a blind eye to obvious hookups between Stanwyck and Keith but sensitive daughter Judith (Foster) is understandably upset by what is going on in their home.

John Parrish has promised his fiancée Caroline (May Winn) that he will move back east. Caroline, who is modeled on Grace Kelly's "High Noon" character, breaks off the engagement at the first sign of trouble and simply disappears from the film. This leaves the way open for a John and Judith romance to develop.

The violence starts early and continues throughout the film, with Parrish able to apply military tactics against an enemy who underestimates his ability and determination. He has a very original confrontation with the main gunfighter about midway into the film. Ford plays one of his standard characters; the modest guy who disarms everyone with a self- deprecating manner, who is slow to take offense but brutal when finally provoked (very much like his role in "The Sheepman").

Robinson is likewise excellent as a man who maintains his personal integrity even though physically just a shadow of his former self. And he gets enough lines and screen time to adequately develop his character.

Stanwyck has the most difficult role and she is simply not convincing as the classic two-faced woman, a seemingly loyal wife who is scheming to replace her husband with his brother. In part this is because she is not allocated enough time to do anything more than superficially convey either side of the character. That said, a talented actress could have done a much better job even with these limitations.

Dianne Foster is a pleasant surprise. She should remind viewers a lot of Carroll Baker, both physically and in acting style. Although required to play Judith according to 1950's convention (she is allowed to be tough but then required to break into hysterics after each major confrontation), Foster shows a nice range. She conveys a growing attraction for Parrish but does it so subtly that it is only in retrospect that the various clues click into place.

The real problem with "The Violent Men" is that it tries to be both an action western and a character study morality play. Because so much has to happen on the screen much of the action is rushed and many of the characters get only a cursory treatment. This is neither fatal flaw nor a reason to avoid the film, but it could have been significantly better with another 20 minutes of running time or the absence of unnecessary characters like Caroline.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Stanwyck at her villainous best, Robinson her equal - as ruthless land barons in this fairly ordinary western.

Some good action scenes, strong use of location, colour and Cinemascope. But why the obvious use of stock footage in the stampede scene?

Ford is dependable as always and Foster is strong as Robinson's daughter, but it is the baddies' film. And it's not just Stanwyck and Robinson - Brian Keith makes a surprisingly dashing villain as Stanwyck's lover, and Richard Jaeckel is unforgettable as a cold-hearted killer.

See it for the camp value. John Parrish is an ex Union officer who plans to sell his ranch and land to the Wilkison's over at Anchor. The trouble is that the price being offered is way to low and when they start to bully Parrish and his workers, he has a change of heart, particularly when things take a brutal turn for the worse.

Originally after watching this one i had a sense of frustration, chiefly because of the cast that was involved. When you got Edward G. Robinson, Glenn Ford and Barbara Stanwyck in the same movie, you hope that they get a story and script from which to excel. Sadly they don't get chance to produce a Western classic worthy of multiple revisits, or is that my over expectation is doing it a disservice?. Well i slept on it and decided to ponder further about the picture. I think yes it's fair to say that the actors in question deserved a better story from which to work from, it is, when all is said and done, a plot that has been milked for all it's worth, and then some. But The Violent Men is still a very rewarding film regardless of the missed opportunities evident with the production.

Glenn Ford as Parrish is as cool as an Eskimo's nose throughout, and it's always great to see Babs Stanwyck playing a bitch because she's good at it. While Eddie G, when one gets used to him being in a Western, is fine in what is an under written part. Robinson, who stepped in at the last minute when first choice as Lee Wilkison, Broderick Crawford got injured, is the one who is short changed the most by the makers, even supporting characters such as the devilish Wade Matlock {a grinning delight from the reliable Richard Jaeckel} and Judith Wilkison {a radiant Dianne Foster} get something to leave an impression with. But for what it is, Robinson's crutch toting "bad" guy is at the least memorable for all the right reasons.

Not shy on action and gun play, it's with the twists and almost Shakespearean tragedies that Rudolph Maté's film rises above the mundane, with all of it gorgeously framed by Burnett Guffey's stunning cinematography. Lone Pine in Alabama has been used on many a Western picture {see Seven Men From Now for another glorious use of it}, but here Guffey really excels and manages to dazzle the eyes at every turn. The Violent Men isn't a great Western picture, and perhaps a better director than Maté could have really given Donald Hamilton's {The Big Country} novel an adaptation to be proud of. But for every niggle and irk i personally had with it, i found two more reasons to actually really like it, so that it be, it's recommended, for sure. 7/10 I really enjoyed this movie. I have a real sense of justice and 'an eye for an eye', and this movie delivers that in spades. Glenn Ford is offered a very low price for his ranch by the big rancher in the valley; then one of his ranch hands is beaten and shot 'to help him make up his mind about selling'. When the ranch hand dies, and the sheriff refuses to do anything, Ford seems at first reluctant to do anything, cautioning his men to not take things into their own hands. But, that's just what he is about to do. I knew this movie was about to catch fire when he went into the saloon and faced the guy (Richard Jaeckel, one of my very favorite bad-guy character actors) who had killed his ranch hand; after a gentle exchange of dialog with him, Glenn Ford slaps his face and shoots him dead. Kind of a neat added bit of justice, he kills this guy with the gun that had belonged to his murdered cowhand. In short order we're treated to Ford letting his ranch be burned, so his men are justified in ambushing the crew from the other ranch; then Ford and his men stampede all the horses and cattle of the big bad guy's ranch; then they show up and burn the outbuildings and the big fancy house to the ground. Talk about getting even big-time. Lots of action in this movie. There's more to the story than this, but I'll just recommend you watch the movie. Glenn Ford was someone who showed time and again what can happen when you misjudge someone, and I really enjoyed watching him get justice the old fashioned way. This is the classic western. The good, Glenn Ford, the dashing hero, the ex-soldier, the man who would not hold a gun again. He eventually has to stand up the the evil land baron, Edward G. Robinson, who owns most of the valley and wants it all. Then,there's Barbara Stanwyck, the real ruler of the roost. Edward G. Robinson's wife, who will allow no one to get in her way, even making Edward G. Robinson look weak. She is so evil that everyone else pales next to her blind ambition and ruthlessness to rule the valley and everyone in it. The gleam in her eye as she sees people face death for her is unnerving. It is worth waiting for.Throw in a young Brian Keith and a few others and you have a drama that stands on its own. With the requisite stampedes, shoot-outs, ambushes and close-ups of hard riding cowboys and you have a heck of a western.Without giving anything away, there are enough twists and turns within to make this not just a standard cowboy shoot-em-up. It's always interesting to catch a line in a film that winds up being somewhat prophetic for the future of an actor. In this case, I was intrigued by Edward G. Robinson's statement to Barbara Stanwyck - "I promised you the Valley", as he discusses the lone hold outs to his attempt to control all the land in Logasa. Ten years later, Stanwyck would star as the matriarch of the Barkley Family on "The Big Valley". Somehow I thought she might have looked older in the earlier picture; I guess all those bright gowns and fancy riding outfits have a way of bringing out one's youthful side.

As for my summary line above, that's Lee Wilkison's appraisal of John Parrish (Glenn Ford), one of those hold outs mentioned earlier, shortly after Parrish uses his knowledge of military tactics to take out a number of Wilkison hands after they raid his ranch and torch his home. I liked the way the film explored his character, starting with the way he dealt with foreman Wade Matlock (Richard Jaeckel) in a calculated showdown. The set up for the ambush was also a clever maneuver, diametrically opposed to the strategy of rushing the bad guys head on with both sides fighting it out to the last man standing. For that, Parrish also had something to say - "Never meet the enemy on his terms".

"The Violent Men" is a good title for this film, and was probably at the head of it's class in the mid 1950's, though by today's standards doesn't come close to the blood letting one will find in a "Tombstone" or "Open Range", where the bullets exact a nasty savagery. But it's shaped by fine performances from the principals, with a sub plot exploring infidelity that seemed almost ironic considering it was Stanwyck's character who was cheating. This Is one of my favourite westerns. What a cast! Glenn Ford plays his role In his usual mild, controlled but firm manner. Ford plays one of the smaller ranchers In the shadow of the mighty anchor ranch that wants to swallow up the whole territory. Edward G Robinson plays the crippled patriarch of the anchor ranch and Barbera Stanwyck plays his sly scheming wife. There Is plenty of action In this western that Is quite Impressive, the scenery Is delicious and the letterbox scope photography Is breath taking and the soundtrack Is stereo! I would say that this western had a size-able budget It looks expensive. One of a series of great Glenn Ford westerns. The Violent Men is a good western. Perhaps the story is not an original one -big ranch owner dedicated to run out small competitors out of a valley he needs for his increasing cattle- but the film has many ingredients that raises its level and makes it worth seeing.

The cast is a highlight. There's the reliable Glenn Ford (John Parrish) as a former army officer and now one of the small ranchers, who tries to stay out of troubles until he is pushed to hard. Edward Robinson (Lew Wilkinson) is as good as always as the crippled big man and Barbara Stanwyck (Martha) plays his treacherous wife in one of her usual mean woman roles she deals with easily (others were in "Double Indemnity" and "Blowing Wild). Brian Keith (Cole) does it perfectly as Robinson's gunman brother, an ambitious man trying to take over his brother's big ranch no matter what. Regular 50's westerns villain Richard Jaeckel (Wade Mattlock) is there too and ends as usual (no surprise there). Dianne Foster (Judith Wilkinson) plays Robinson's daughter who does not approve his father, mother and uncle's way of handling things with their neighbors.

Rudolph Mate brings a standard but acceptable direction, perhaps helped by beautiful and wide open scenery and a fine and appropriate music score helps too.

The inevitable final showdown between Ford and Keith is one of the best in western movies. Each man in his own dueling style (notice Ford's shooting with his straight arm and aiming at its target in the military way) settle their differences then and once and for all.

This is for sure one of Glenn Ford's best western appearances, second only to the classic "3:10 to Yuma" he made two years later. It's probably the cast that puts the film as an "A" rate and, as for me, it enters the top 10 list of the genre. This is a great Western story with outstanding veteran actors who made this film great entertainment to view and enjoy. Glenn Ford,(John Parrish),"Midway",'76 tries to play low key after having experienced battles in the war and plays the peace maker role for the time being. John Parrish decides the town is entirely too rough and tough and goes to visit Barbara Stanwyck,(Martha Wilkison),"Crime of Passion",57, who is the wife of Edward G. Robinson,(Lee Wilkison),"The Red House",'47. Lee Wilkison, offers John Parrish Fifteen Thousand Dollars for his ranch and John turns down the offer. Lee Wilkson decides to have his son, Brian Keith,(Cole Wilkison),"The Wind & the Lion",'75, change his mind in more ways than one. There are romantic scenes between May Wynn,(Caroline Vail),"The Caine Mutiny",'54, and John Parrish and some hot encounters with Dianne Foster(Judith Wilkison),"Three Hours to Kill",'54, who hates her father Lee. If you like Edward G. Robinson and Glenn Ford films, this is a film you will want to view and enjoy from beginning to end. Brian Keith as Cole Wlikerson and Richard Jaeckel as Wade Matlock make excellent villains. They just love intimidating the locals in the most brutal way possible, and sneer sexily at any suggestion that there might be a more humane way to achieve their ends. It's a pity that goody-goody Glenn Ford gets in their way. This is a great Italian shark movie probably not a full action type of shark movie but it has a great story about a native American in the form of a killer shark that attacks a small beach community. the movie has actual scenes of real sharks and some not but how they made it is pretty good the cast are not that brilliant of acting in this shark film but it it shows better acting in some other Italian shark movies such as (e.g cruel jaws,last shark)they show some pretty bad acting but most Italian shark movies are good which means this votes best as the best Italian shark movie ever , some scenes in this movie show violence/gore which makes this film good that it shows it so i would say this is the best film for all shark-movie-fans. Deep Blood... Its one of those movies you here about and you say not another Italian Jaws ripoff! Well, Deep Blood is far from that. It is a cheap as film making can get and on the other side it is creative as well. In Jaws and all the other shark films we all have seen or herd about they all use fake made sharks, well in Joe D'Amato's film he takes a new approach by using all stock footage for his shark scenes. This is one of the many reasons I like Deep Blood so much is because it didn't use stock footage.

In Deep Blood an ancient Indian spirit terrorizes a beach town in the form of a bloodthirsty shark, in Joe D'Amato's Shark classic Deep Blood.

It seems that a Native American elder once warned a group of youngsters about this great evil in the sea, and years later, the friends are forced to face their fears when one of them is killed by a shark in a series of attacks along their coastline. Now it's up to the remaining few to make sure that this monster is killed, even if it means heading out to sea to do it.

Joe D'Amato Directed and Produced this film under his company the Filmirage. Released in 1989 and was later used in Bruno Mattei's Cruel Jaws: Jaws 5, along with many other shark films. Joe D'Amato's shark entry is a great film and any Joe D'Amato fan of shark movie watcher should give it a try. It has been almost 50 years since I saw "Jennifer" for the first and only time. I did not know the name of this movie until I looked it up on this web site, but I have told many people (especially my grandchildren) how movies do not have to include graphic details in order to frighten you and leave powerful impact. The story skillfully introduces you to concepts which if true put Ida Lupino in a very dangerous situation. Each time Miss Lupino discovers a new "fact" she draws the viewer into her confusion and fear.

This movie has such impact on me that almost 50 years later I still list it as one of the most frightening movies that I have ever seen. Yet this movie does not contain the blood and gore which became popular shortly after this movie was made. It's amazing what impact a good story and great actors can make. The movie Jennifer with Ida Lupino and Howard Duff is film noir magnificence.This is a mostly unknown movie that all film noir fans should see.Jennifer was filmed with the most unusual camera angles for that time, which made the movie have a surreal like quality at times. I love the stark black and white film noir movies.Film noir in color is not as good.The cast and script is excellent.The rather creepy music is fun to listen to.Ida Lupino is one of the best and talented actresses to ever grace the screen.I have never seen a production that she was in that I did not like.She was not only breathtakingly beautiful,she was a fine actress.The first movie that I remember seeing Ida Lupino in was Roadhouse with Richard Widmark and Cornel Wilde.I never forgot the movie,or her. I saw her last films like Food Of The Gods and Women In Chains, and even though the movies were not her usual fare, she was still delightful in them as an actress.Howard Duff is always terrific to watch.I highly recommend this masterpiece to everyone.I have this movie on VHS tape. I first caught up with Jennifer years ago while out of town when it showed up on TV in the middle of the night; I fell asleep before it ended but it stuck with me until I had to track it down. Its appeal is that, though there's not a lot to it, it weaves an intriguing atmosphere, and because Ida Lupino and Howard Duff (real life man-and-wife at the time) display an alluring, low-key chemistry. Lupino plays a woman engaged to house-sit a vast California estate whose previous caretaker -- Jennifer -- up and disappeared. (Shades of Jack Nicholson in the Shining, although in this instance it's not Lupino who goes, or went, mad). Duff is the guy in town who manages the estate's finances and takes a shine to Lupino, who decides to play hard to get. She becomes more and more involved, not to say obsessed, with what happened to her predecessor in the old dark house full of descending stairways and locked cellars. The atmospherics and the romantic byplay are by far the best part of the movie, as viewers are likely to find the resolution a bit of a letdown -- there's just not that much to it (except a little frisson at the tail end that anticipates Brian De Palma's filmic codas). But it's well done, and, again, it sticks with you. Extra added attraction: this is the film that introduced the song "Angel Eyes," which would become part of the standard repertoire of Ol' Blue Eyes. I wish I could have met Ida Lupino. When people ask who you if you could have 6 extraordinary 20th century persons over for dinner, well, for me one person would be her. I think she is now one of the great unsung and unprofiled personalities in the film industry. Her life story would make a great tele movie (Hey, Mr Bogdanovich........). Ida Lupino has been the driving force in many fascinating noir films of the 40s and 50s. I can remember being saddened at seeing her reduced to a horrible part in a ghastly AIP film is the late 70s. She was bitten by a big worm at the kitchen sink. Ugh. I should have contacted her then as she died not long after.. more from the part than the worm too. From High Sierra, Roadhouse and the extraordinary RKO thriller On Dangerous Ground, Ida Lupino was often the producer and the lead actress. Later, with her husband Howard Duff they produced many now timeless noir dramas that are still very engrossing today. One of them is JENNIFER which I think is the last film with a Monogram Pictures copyright. Monogram changed the company name formally to Allied Artists in 1953 and JENNIFER has both company names on the opening credits. This is a superior haunted house thriller equally as scary as both The Innocents and The Haunting made 8 years later. Really chilling and very creepy, this tiny film is exactly the sort of really good film Ida Lupino made and was responsible for. Try and find it...you will always remember it and as I feel, much admiration for this great and almost forgotten actress/producer. This is a video version of a stage production, with extra shooting for the video edition. The result gains both the drama of the stage with the impact of well produced film. The set by George Tsypin, with sculptures and masks by Julie Taymor are superb.

Jessye Norman is terrific, and one gets to hear (and see) the young Bryn Terfel. This production is stunning, emotional and majestic. If you don't see this you have missed out. The music is by Stravinsky (and not by stupid incompetent Philip Glass) and was written ten years before glass' unfortunate birth. The staging is simply extraordinary. The narrative in Japanese adds a threatening quality and intensity that the Latin version does not have. cf. Terzieff's version. The giant heads and hands are totally justified by the mythic aspect of the tale. The props and make up used for the plague are simply spot on. It's Taymor's best work. The singers are very good, especially Terfel. Langridge is quite moving and clean, and Norman finds the right expression, and her beauty is magnified here and finds its right place: larger than life. Simply a must. This film is a tour de force from Julie Taymor who directs and does the stage design and masks. No-one comes near to matching her imagination on the modern operatic stage. Since making this film in 1992 she has had much success in film-making and in directing musicals. One can only hope that she can be persuaded to return to opera one day. I would love to see a Ring cycle directed by her. The current Rheingold at Covent Garden has giants with over-sized hands just like the characters in this film. The current Butterfly at ENO uses Japanese puppetry. Coincidence maybe, or evidence that Taymor's influence is pervasive.

Taymar uses fantastical costumes, masks, puppets, and origami birds to recreate the story of Oedipus on a stage set on stilts above a lake. Red ribbons are a recurring theme. They are used as an umbilical chord when Oedipus is born, they hang down from Oedipus's eyes after he has blinded himself, in a breathtaking effect they are used to make a crossroads when Oedipus's slaying of his father is reenacted by puppets.

This neo-classical opera-ballet by Stravinsky enjoyed justified obscurity until this film brought it to life. The music is uninspired but inoffensive and Philip Langridge, Jesse Norman and a very young Bryn Terfel make the most of it. The singers are fairly immobile, in accordance with Stravinsky's wishes. Min Tanaka is the dancing Oedipus to Langridge's singing Oedipus. This creates some slight confusion towards the end when dancing Oedipus pokes out the eyes of singing Oedipus.

The libretto is in Latin but do not worry if your high-school Latin is a bit rusty. There is a helpful narrator who introduces and describes each scene in Japanese. This focuses around the lives of four women, all good friends, and their male companions. Each has a story, the men as well, everything links everybody to everybody and everything is being brought to a quick change after a trip the girls take to Palm Springs.

Basically, the film is no different from other of the genre, but I liked the details. Brooke Shields is a divorcée that fears loneliness, therefore she bangs just about everybody to get to have a "warm body" next to her in the morning, but then can't really commit. As a man, I find these women are a blessing :), but she is not a happy person. Everything else that happens revolves around this crazy woman, but in the end we get more clarity over life and relationships, which is good.

I can't tell if the acting was bad. It didn't seem to me. The script was a little inconsistent, but not more than any romantic comedy. It's a bit more depressing than most, which is good, because you don't get dreary romantic comedies every day :)

It's worth a watch with the missis, especially if you have cheated on her or plan to ... Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed. I really wanted to write a title for this review that didn't come off as corny or gushing but still described my feelings for this show. I can see now that it is not possible. "American Family" is one of the best shows I have ever had the pleasure of watching on television. Several reviewers here on IMDb have mentioned the word "beautiful" when describing this show. Never has a word been more fitting. The cinematography for this show is stunning. Every scene and shot looks like a masterpiece. The lighting, camera moves, scene composition and colors...I have to keep reminding myself that I'm watching a TV Show and not a Motion Picture masterpiece. The score by Lee Holdridge and Nathan Wang brings tears to my eyes. And most importantly, the acting by the all around amazing cast is honest and sincere. I do not feel like I am watching performances...I feel like I'm watching real life. If only real life could be this beautiful.

"American Family" has indeed raised the bar for quality entertainment on Television. I highly recommend this show to anyone who is willing to watch it. I could easily chide CBS for passing on this show, but I have to say that it doesn't matter to me who airs it. I'm just glad it's out there for everyone to see. So I do thank PBS for not allowing this show to disappear into nothingness.

I have to give special recognition to the way each season's finale ended. The first one was pure creative brilliance and it moved me to tears. I was waiting to see if season two would also end in a creative way, and sure enough it did. Again, tears.

My thanks to all of those involved. You really have made a special piece of art with this show, and I sincerely mean that. It is a shame that we only got two seasons, but a miracle we got anything at all. Okay, here's the deal. There's this American pilot who's flying along, minding his own business, when suddenly he's outnumbered by evil, cowardly non-American fighter planes (they're Middle Eastern types, but suffice to say they don't like apple pie or Elvis Presley), who proceed to shoot him down. Now this American pilot was doing nothing wrong, but those evil non-Americans didn't care and before you know it he's banged up in a foreign jail and sentenced to death!!

Now, what would normally happen here is that the US Military would carpet bomb a couple of nearby towns until the pilot was released, but not this time. Those evil peace lovin' types probably got involved and managed to stop any kind of retaliatory massacre. As you can imagine, this doesn't please the pilot's family and the evil foreign dictator has this smug, contented look about him. He'll make those Americans pay, oh yes indeed!

But He didn't reckon on Doug Masters, the captured pilots 16-year-old son. You see Doug has been able to fly a plane longer than he can drive a car, (which can't be that long) and decides to fly into that evil, foreign country and get his Dad back. So with the help of his friends, Doug and his wingman, retired pilot ‘Chappy' Sinclair, Doug launches a two man air raid on the foreigners.

Now you'd think that this plan would be bound to fail, but you'd be wrong. Sure, those Middle Eastern types might be all veteran pilots, but Doug's got an ace up his sleeve, he listens to rock music when he flies! After shooting down a dozen or so enemy planes and blowing up an oil refinery, Doug lands at an airport and gets his now wounded dad onboard the plane. Understandably, the evil, not quite so smug anymore, dictator gets quite annoyed at these antics and takes to the skies himself, in bid to shoot down Doug. But the young lad listens to some more rock music and blows the villain out of the sky. HURRAH!

After Doug and Chappy have shot down 90% of their air force, the foreigners send up their last few planes in a rather poor attempt to shoot Doug down, but in the nick of time, a flight of US F16s turn up and scare them away.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It was the first ever videocassette movie that I brought, and until I was twenty, I kept hoping that my dad would get shot down over a foreign country so that I could rescue him. But he's doesn't like flying, so it didn't happen. I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun. I think that this movie is actually entertaining, although it lacks some features essential for this kinda' films. First of all, when Doug and Chappy start their mission, they take off with F-16B, and during the combat scenes, they are piloting F-16A. The second thing I dislike of this film is the ever-repeating F-16 rolling to its right to escape from missiles...why chaff and flares haven't been shown in any movie yet? Third of all, once you see the F-16 almost empty of ammo, it appears again plenty of missiles... the models used to simulate the destroyed aircraft ain't good either. However, I think that using IAI Kfir as opponent planes was really good, far better than the F-5 shown in Top Gun (but this movie isn't as good as that masterpiece).

A funny movie, I love planes and I've seen it more than 3 times. OK, yes its bad, yes its complete fluff, yes it makes dobbin the mule look like an Oscar winner but look at it like i did i was 13, special effects were pretty much non exsistant in 90% of films, back in the good Ole days when films needed a story line.. OK so even the storyline is a bit dodgy.. but wow did i get into this film as a kid in the 80s. cheesy rock, bad special effects, but airplanes an aerial fights and it had queens one vision on the soundtrack.. see even the worst things have a silver lining.. all in all if you want a bad film to show a 12 year old who hates computer effects (if there is such a film) this is the ideal choice This was a pretty good movie. I love fighter jet movies, and this was the best one I've seen lately. It was made using real planes, so that made it an even better movie. If you like watching U.S. F-16s blow the living daylights out of their enemies, this is a great movie for you. Maybe I'm biased because the F-16 is my favorite fighter aircraft - although the F-14 is probably second or third - but I liked this movie. The sequels (Iron Eagle II and III) don't measure up acting and plot wise, but the first one - along with Top Gun - have excellent flying and music, along with reasonable plots and acting. II and III clearly have much less of a "flight budget", but their main drawback is plot and acting. I suspect the relative fame and popularity of Iron Eagle compared to Top Gun is almost entirely a reflection of the fame and popularity of Jason Gedrick compared to Tom Cruise. Another plus (for me) is an all too brief appearance by Shawnee Smith. 7/10 In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. "Do we get to win this time" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall "we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie... Lou Gossett, Jr. is great as 'Chappy Sinclair', a super U.S. Air Force pilot who comes to the rescue of a nice but undisciplined 'Doug Masters' (Jason Gedrick), the son of a captured pilot who is determined to borrow a couple of F-16 fighters to use in an attempt to save his Dad from a dictator (David Suchet) of an enemy overseas country.

Better than 'Top Gun', this Air Force aviation film has excitement and lots of explosions - you know, all that cool stuff you'd want from a contemporary military adventure film.

Cool music including Twisted Sister's Dee Snider belting out 'We're Not Gonna Take It' and King Cobra's excellent 'Never Say Die'.

Aim High! Air Force! I really like the movie's opening, when Col. Ted Masters realizes on his fighter radar that four enemy aircraft were approaching from about 10 o'clock. The good news is that the movie does not mention at the very beginning that the colonel, along with a wingman fighter who was a lieutenant, was trying to do a "freedom of navigation" exercise along the eastern Meditteranean Sea, but went a little too past the restricted air space zone reserved for a rogue Middle eastern nation as they accidentially fly past it.

I also like all of the intercutting on the colonel's fighter radar readouts and computer displays as the enemy aircraft aggressively picks the two American fighter pilots into an engagement for violating their airspace. That first dogfight immediately reminds me of the famous fighter pilot movie, "Top Gun." From the waxing of the enemy bandits to the enemy aircraft's thirty-milimeter rounds that struck the colonel's jet engines and forcing the plane down, forcing him to eject, all of this reminds us of one thing...dogfight fighter techniques can keep you alive...but one false move can cause you to be shot down.

The only problem in the movie was the "snake sequence" scene. It was a little bit too long. Yes, the movie's opening was great when you see the conflict...which was the dogfight engagement. Only when one boy tells Doug Masters that his father was shot down after the Cessna planes landed in the "snake" race, forces us back to the time the conflict already started. I guess the snake sequence in the middle should be interrupted a little bit by Col. Masters being dragged in handcuffs in the middle of the Bilyad desert on his way to the detention center...while the music sequence for the "snake" continues. The film does not do it...if it were, the conflict's details would have been smoother at that point. Still good otherwise.

When word found out that Col. Ted Masters trial for high treason (violating territorial air sovereignty) was over and he was condemned to be hung on the gallows in three days, Doug Masters decides to go into action. With the Air Force having futile attempts to save the man, Doug decides to pull his friends and Col. Sinclair (played by Louis Gossett Jr.) for a plan to rescue Masters. Risking a high chance of facing a court martial and spending more than a year in a military stockade, he goes against Air Force policy and makes a plan to rescue Masters without consent of the U.S. government.

Doug and his friends sneak into several classified areas of the base to get plenty of stuff on the area where Masters is held for the upcoming hanging, and the surrounding area around Bilyad (which turns out to be a fake Middle Eastern country for the movie). One plan included shooting off firecrackers outside the Air Force darkroom area as a diversion to get classified photos and maintenance stuff on the fighter aircraft, fighter base, intelligence, and all of the other military stuff around Bilyad.

When all was said and done, and Sinclair studied all of the intelligence, he almost rebuffed at that plan because Doug was way too cocky. Not until they get the two F-16 planes and tried a dry run across a firing range that I realized what they were going to do overseas. I realized that Doug's fighter shooting and bomb dropping is not good until he hears rock music. I can remember when he dropped one Mach 82 bomb on a horizontal target and the bomb missed by 20 feet....I realized that Doug is unusual. He likes music when he fires the fighter ammunition.

The last part of the conflict, the final dogfight action in "Iron Eagle" was better than Top Gun's climax of the hostile dogfight sequences. I liked the way the final conflict unfolded, especially when Doug Masters faces off with an Middle-Eastern ace fighter pilot who actually ran the trial against Ted Masters. Short but sweet when Doug took the enemy fighter out after a second try by a side-winder missile. Looks like this Bilyad colonel was akin to "Darth Vader" in Star Wars....in the air, he can be very evil, because if you have seen Star Wars, Darth Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker, who was an ace pilot in space. Unusual connotation for this but still works! not too much top's the classic "top gun" or "independence day" when it comes to fighter jet excitement. Yes, the movie top to bottom is based on a truly fictional example of how anyone can pull off a rescue but it is cool because it breaks all traditional rules. The kid doing what he wants to do in a jet the way he wants to do it.

I can't really put my finger on just what I love about this movie but others I know that saw the movie feel the same way about it I do. I think its just basically a lot of fun but maybe a little too unrealistic for some to buy into.

Again, regardless, I loved it, people who I know saw it, loved it so its definitely worth seeing to make your own decisions about it. Put it this way, I thought that Top Gun was one of the best fighter pilot movies ever and I like this movie just as much if not more than Top Gun. Don't miss out, do see it, a truly inspirational movie. Iron Eagle may not be the most believable film plot-wise, but the characters are well written and very well acted. If you cannot believe the characters, the film is a flop.

I believe the photography, especially the aerial photography is superb. I believe it is far superior to Top Gun to which it is endlessly compared. It is one of the best pieces of aerial photography I have seen. The soundtrack by Basil Paledouros (forgive the spelling)is great, and juxtaposes well with the rock tunes. I wish that portion of the soundtrack were available.

Jason Gedrick does well as the teenager who suddenly has to grow up in a rush and and the realities of life, death, and responsibilities. Lou Gossett is fab as Chappy, both hard-bitten and yet human as he recalls pilot deaths.

There are lots of movies out there that you watch once and don't care to watch again. Then there are those movies that get you for one aspect or another and you can watch it again and again! Iron Eagle is that kind of movie! This was an awesome movie with flight scenes that were incredibly realistic! I have seen it multiple times and it has kept my attention throughout every time. I myself am a big fan of the Air Force and love to watch any movie where I can get a glimpse of an F-16 flying. If you like Top Gun, then I guarantee you will love this movie also. Except for a few mild curse words, this is an excellent movie for the whole family. It has a great plot and does not have a dull moment throughout the entire movie. Every second is action packed and keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. So once again I HIGHLY recommend this movie!!! Iron Eagle has always been one of my favirote films for a long time now. It looks like Topgun but with a different plot and (a lot of people will disagree with me here) in my view it's better than Topgun.

This film has some amazing dogfight scenes when the fighter jets are zooming through the air. It also has the Queen song "One Vision" thumping in the background, which in my opinion is a fantastic song.

To be honest, Iron Eagle was very good but it's sequels were rubbish.

Compared to the competition, soul calibur 3 is a god amongst games- a true piece of art. However, compared to its 128 bit predecessors, the latest in namcos superior slash em up series is over ambitious- its attempts to improve on perfection isn't quite successful.

There are new modes and game play tweaks that I commend for trying to elevate the series to new heights-but they just complicate things . Examples? Well, the character creation mode is a great idea in theory, but in actuality is full of restrictions and is no way as customisable as that found in the wwe games for example. The chronicles of the sword mode is fun and thought provoking for a little while but eventually drags on and feelslike a chore to earn money rather than a genuinely fun game. Also, the tale of souls mode which is basically the arcade mode with little bits of inconsequential story and shenmue style QTR bits thrown in really feels slow.

" OMG !!!YoU Don't kNoW WhAt yOuR SaYiNg" is probably what the more overzealous of you are thinking , but don't get it twisted-I don't hate this game-this game is great! Its still got that classic game play (although some characters moves have been needlessly changed) , absolutely stunning graphics and that epic soundtrack that the games are known for. And also on the good side of things are the new characters ( particularly zasalamel ), who are all cool in their own way (except setsuka-yes i know I'm nitpicking).

Its just that compared to soul calibur 1 and 2 it feels like its trying to be much more than it actually is. That doesn't mean that its not a classic , it just means that compared to its own high standards it falls a bit short despite having more characters moves stages and better graphics than ever.

Still, soul calibur 3 wipes the floor with 95% of games out there though - and that counts for something! Oh and all those who mark this review as "unhelpful" clearly feel hurt that i insulted their darling setsuka. Well listen up fanboy/girl : SHE Ain't REAL ! And even if she was ,she wouldn't be caught dead with you. Soul Calibur is more solid than it ever was... with the new character creation, and the bad-ass chronicle of the sword mode on the home version.

The arcade version is more complete, even though the character roster is smaller than the home version, this version is definitely the more pretty of the two, eliminating all of the "goofy/unrealistic" fighting styles found in the home version. If you were in any way disappointed with the home version, or perhaps thought it was "too much," you might find a much more likable and straight forward game of Soul Calibur in the arcade. Think you have what it takes to become a Legend? Soul Calibur has always been my favorite fighting game series of all time. And SCIII is my favorite one of the series.

The graphics are very well done. Much bigger improvement over the choppy polygons in Soul Edge/Soul Blade. The characters have facial expressions, hair blows in the breeze and they even blink.

Soul Calibur has always been known for it's interesting plots and characters and SCIII is no exception. Each character has his/her background story that is detailed and well done. My favorite character is Chai Xianghua. She's cute, she's funny and she's a strong female character. Yeah, I know she wears pink and has a boyfriend (who she ends up saving BTW), but there seems to be more to her than that. Xianghua, like all the other characters, have flaws and upsides to their personalities, so no character is perfect, not even the good guys.

The music is beautifully composed for a fighting game series. It doesn't sound kitchy (the Vampire series) nor does it sound like old school porn film soundtrack (Mortal Kombat). The characters have their own themes and a lot of the themes are done to match the culture of that certain part of the world. I don't think there is a song on this soundtrack I don't like.

Another cool thing about this game is to create your own anime-like character (Create a Soul). You could make him/her look as cute or as sexy or even ugly if you like. However, if you found a character customization that you like, remember to take notes, or else you won't remember how you created that character. I found myself being very addicted to CaS.

Overall, I think Soul Calibur is my number one fighting game series of all time. It has everything I asked for. What more could I want? The Story line for this game is very jerky where it appears the game writers have tried to find ways to justify how a character appears in certain areas of the world map in Tales of the Soul. That being said, this is the only gripe I have about the game.

The beginning FMV is spectacular with breath taking sceneries and interesting new devices such as the ability to create and design your own character and their own Martial Arts discipline. There's even a second story mode which makes up for the awkward Story design of Tale of the Souls.

Parts of the FMVs during Tale of the Souls is also interactive where you can decide the fate of your Character to a certain degree which is an interesting feature.

With the many combinations of Characters you can create, the varied paths you can explore in Tales of the Souls and the Chronicle of Swords story mode, this game will keep any Beatem up/RPG fans amused for a while! This game was one of the main reasons I actually got a PS2. I remember playing Soul Edge (Sometimes called Soul Blade) back in the day and I was hooked on it.

I did play the original Soul Calibur but I never got a chance to play it for a huge amount of time. I did however buy the Gamecube version of Soul Calibur II and that was what truly got me hooked on the series and I was ecstatic when I heard of Soul Calibur III. This game still gives us the classic characters such as Mitsurugi, Cervantes, Nightmare and Taki. However, it also adds several new characters such as Zasalamel, Tira and the unplayable Night Terror. (The TRUE boss of Tales of Souls) The strategy based "Chronicles of thes Sword" mode is a new feature which I really like, it can be quite challenging in the later chronicles but it's a good addition to the series.

The Soul Arena mode has several missions in which you must fight a certain enemy under certain circumstances. (The exception is "Final Battle" in which you simply must defeat Night Terror) It's another fine touch that makes the game all the more fun.

In some scenes in Tales of Should you will be made to press certain buttons in order to get a different result, this can be in order to dodge/block an attack or to get a better ending. (Every character has two endings) All in all, this is an excellent game and I'd recommend it if you're a fan of fighting games. When I played the first Soul Calibur on dreamcast I thought it was great. When I played the second I was hooked. And finally when Soul Calibur III was released, I bought a playstation 2 and the game.

This can really keep you up for hours, with a huge amount of characters, loads of unlockable content, and not to mention a GREAT fighting system, this really is the greatest fighting game to date.

The games strong points is foremost the vs. gameplay, were two human players battle each other, either playing as one of the main characters or as a created and customized character. The Create character option is vast, and allows the player to make thousands of different combinations.

The only thing that bothers me is that if you create a character that uses the fighting style "Grieve Edge" (only kicks) has to wear those ridiculous shoes. ^^

This is absolutely the greatest fighting game one could wish for. Now, I'm just hoping the planned movie won't be crap. This happened to be just starting on TV when I opened it, and as I felt too lazy to change the channel, I ended up watching it. Man, was that fortunate.

This film is more of a fairy tale than a demanding drama, and at times openly sentimental one. It is definitely what one could call a feel-good movie, and I usually find such either boring or irritating. Yet this film is so very well done I could not help but love it. The script will not twist your brain; it is conventional, but flawless. The actors are brilliant, every single one is a perfect fit for the role. There is not much of a score, but the bits of music enhance the movie beautifully.

If you can appreciate other things than expensive pyrotechnics, vicious murders or saving the world in a movie, do watch this if you ever have the chance. 5/5 BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles. This is a great movie to watch with a good friend, boy/girl friend or family. Basically one of those feel good movies you want to share with your loved ones....without all the girlie crap you find in a lot of American feel good movies. This movie is light hearted but makes you think, and will make you laugh.

Just a really simple but universal plot. Would think most people could relate in some way to this movie. The characters in the movie are amazing and the actors do a great job in sucking you into the movie. And the movie is topped off all along the way with hilarious true to life Jewish humor. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and now I want to own it. :) Over the years some of them most enjoyable films have been about dysfunctional families.

Bonjour,Monsieur Sholmi is such a film

This is an Isreali film about a Moroccan Jewish family.

This could be about any family, in any culture. We all know or would want to know people like those in this comic gem.

This 2003 delight was written & directed by Shemi Zorkin. Let us hope he a long career.

The movie is seen through the eyes of the 16 year old son,who seems to be concerned with everyone in the family. Heis brilliantly played by Oshri Cohen (he was 18 when he made the movie.

He has been in a few since & I know I will hunt them up. Hopefully this young man will become an international star.

The entire cast is magnificent,I do hope I see them again.

I loved every person in the cast to some degree.I think all who see this will agree.

It has been nominated for many international awards & has won 8, It deserved every one.

Now being a film in a language besides English it had a very limited run in the USA, which I feel is regrettable.

Rent this film you will be glad you did.

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points(out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

NOTE: Since the story is not new, this is as high a rating it can get. One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.

Great great movie. before watching this movie my thoughts were like "another israeli typical movie" but i was suprised to watch i great israeli drama. the plot is really good and the actors act great. one of the best isreali movies i saw... so at the bottomline i really recommend this movie. :) This is a great flick! It is funny for everyone, even adults. We got Jason Voorhees/Leatherface like killer in this, along with other wacky characters. Very funny flick, for children of all ages. Must of rented this every time we went to the video store! Buster and Babs make a good pair, and gotta love the duck. He is probably my favorite character! I was never big on the TV show but this movie just brings back so many great memories. Must see for families, fans of the show, or anyone! Enjoyable no matter how small or old you are! RENT IT NOW AT YOUR LOCAL VIDEO STORE!

P.S. NEEDS A DVD RELEASE! How I Spend My Vacation puts closure to the television series that aired from 1990 to 1992. I've always enjoyed the series for what it is. I've never compared the series to the Looney Tunes of the old days. The video release was split up in four or five episodes (I can't remember as I'm writing this) for television and it's included in the episode list of the series. What's good about this series is that All the main characters of the show have a major role in the story. We see what they all do during their summer vacation in different parts of the world. Elmyra is with his parents in a Safari, Plucky and Hampton crossing the country with Hampton's parents, Fifi is in some beach, etc. The climax is very good and at the end all Tiny Toon characters reunite for the start of a new year in the "Looniversity", thus practically ending the good run of this tv show. When I was a kid, I loved "Tiny Toons". I especially loved "Tiny Toons: How I spent my Summer Vacation". I thought it was laughs on the floor funny. A few years later, my friend had the video. And I figured I'd watch it for the good old days. I was still on the floors laughing. My opinion, the Plucky and Hampton skit is the best. They decide to go to "Happy World Land". And they end up having a crazy adventure to get there. All the skits are funny. I'm still looking for the video. So, if anyone has any tips. Please write me.

This is one of the funniest cartoons I have ever seen.

10/10 It is in the opinion of this reviewer that the best time to be a child was in the 1990's, a period when cartoons were not heavily censored and talented and creative minds were responsible for some of the best family entertainment to hit the air-waves. The best producers of Saturday morning animation were at Warner Brothers Television, who experienced a major Golden Age with the dream-team of Steven Spielberg, Tom Ruegger and Paul Dini. Along with serious and dark series like Batman, they also revived zany, outlandish cartoons made famous by the Looney Tunes. Animaniacs was the biggest hitter with its dark adult humour and homages to the celluloid of yesteryear and today, but Tiny Toon Adventures was equally popular by re-inventing the Looney Tunes for a new generation, while still keeping that crazy cartoon violence and intelligent comedy that can hold onto any age group, no matter how old. Even when the Tiny Toons were stretched to a feature-length with How I Spent My Vacation, it did not feel like a longer episode of the television series, a curse that so often plagues other feature-length adaptations of popular animated shows.

The Tiny Toon Gang are young off-springs of the classic cartoon characters who made audiences laugh back in the 1940's and 1950's and are currently learning cartoon comedy to "earn their Toon Degree." Summer Vacation has started and each character has their own idea of what to do. Buster Bunny (Charles Adler) and Babs Bunny (Tress MacNeille) start a water gun fight which ultimately leads to Acme Acres getting flooded and them both sailing down the Mississippi. Plucky Duck (Joe Alaskey) joins Hamton Pig (Don Messick) on a cross-country car trip to the Happiest Theme Park in the World, but Hamton's family proves to be more difficult than he imagined. Meanwhile, in other stories scattered throughout, Elmyra Duff (Cree Summer) tries to find a cat to hug and squeeze, Fifi Le Fume (Kath Soucie) attempts to go out on a date with her favourite skunk star and Shirley the Loon (Gail Matthius) goes to the cinema with a loud-mouth Fowlmouth (Rob Paulen).

While the premise sounds thin for a feature-length film, the many directors and screenwriters make all the stories work well together. The best of these is Plucky's unfortunate road trip, which utilises a golden comedic opportunity very well: feeling pity for somebody, while also laughing at their predicament. Plucky's annoyed reaction to all the bad things that happen to him are a perfect blend of script and animation, all in the confines of a small car stuffed with pork. Elmyra's story definitely ranks second just to see how a little, almost innocent girl can cause fear into so many jungle animals. The aforementioned cartoon violence definitely comes to the fore-front with Buster and Babs' story, which makes us smile not only due to the hilarity of the outcomes, but also nostalgically, since Ruegger and company would probably not be allowed to show half of what they do in that segment. Practically half of that segment plays as a parody and homage to Deliverance, including a clever twist on the dueling banjos scene, featuring the unforgettable Tiny Toon Adventures theme song.

Part of the universal appeal of the Tiny Toons is that the humour proves to be very intelligent as it targets subjects with a ferocity that proves that it does not at all deserve the title of "children's fare" that people seem to slap it with. An entire segment featuring Fowlmouth's poor etiquette at the cinema pokes fun at yappers in a note-perfect way, along with an additional jab at Lucasfilm's THX logo. That scene is done so perfectly that it should be featured before every cinema showing. There are also a couple of moments that poke fun at Disney World, cinematic plot holes and even Warner's legal department. The fact that today's cartoons are bland and un-creative makes those intelligent moments even more treasuring as there probably will not be another animated series that will come close.

After watching How I Spent My Vacation for the first time in many years, I can say with all certainty that they do not make cartoons quite like they used to. With the ongoing censorship that today's family entertainment receive, one wonders whether anything like this will ever be made again. This review is not only a recommendation of a truly smart film, but also a plea for Spielberg, Ruegger and Dini to team up again and bring forth a magical creation to our minds once again. Lord knows that the children of the twenty-first century is in need for something with the intelligence of Tiny Toon Adventures. This is not a simple cash-grab, it is a wonderful film with full of spirit, madcap mayhem and hilarity. Tiny Toons:how i spent my vacation, has always been my favourite animation movie and loved it since i first watched it when i was 7 or sumthing,now i'm almost seventeen and i still love this wonderful work of art..

I really like the idea how we track what each of them did in their vacation, and there were really some funny quotes said, that really made me laugh a lot...

In this movie u'll never get bored and once u see it u'll want 2 c it again and again, because believe me it's really wonderful and it's suitable for all ages.. This was one of my favorite movies from childhood. I watched it so many times,eventually my tape wore out. I was a huge fan of this show and still am.The thing I love most about this movie is that it appeals to so many people, both young and old. I watch this movie now and laugh just as hard as I did the first time I saw it. I am now able to appreciate all the adult jokes that I never got as a child. My favorite characters are Elmyra and Foulmouth. Almost fifteen years later, my dad (a huge fan of the movie as well) and I are still quoting lines from this movie. I love the part where Foulmouth and Shirley go to the movies. "You save the seats, Shirl and I'll snag the dadgum snacks." I also loved the storyline of Plucky and Hampton and his family going to Happy World Land. Wade Pig reminded me a lot of my dad. I love the part when they finally get to Happy World Land and all they do is ride on the monorail. This movie is hilarious and appeals to children and kids. The animation, jokes and everything about it are top notch. If you have not seen it, rent it. You won't be sorry. Tiny Toons is the first cartoon I remember watching as a child and I loved every minute of it. When I was four or five my parents purchased the video How I Spent My Vacation. I watched it over and over again until I new every word. Well a few days ago my three year old cousin came over and I had to entertain him. I decided to show him this old relic of my childhood.

I new he would laugh but I was surprised how much I laughed. Like every Tiny Toons film and episode the humor is based more on wackiness and slapstick humor and succeeds tremendously. Bugs, Babs, Plucky Duck, Maton Pig, and Fifi all endure amazing adventures from Bugs and Babs white-water rafting with a little help from Superman, Plucky Duck and Maton pig travel to the greatest amusement park only to ride the monorail, and Elmyra goes on an odd quest to find cute kittens in a safari land.

Some of the classic humor stands in this Tiny Toon Adventure and is some of the best wacky comedy I've ever seen. My favorite gag had to be the monorail thing when Hamton and Plucky arrive, ride the monorail, and leave )much to Plucky's dismay). No matter what your age you'll laugh yourself to tears while not having to deal with language and nudity.

Tiny Toons Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation. Starring the voices of: Charles Adler, Tress MacNeille, Joe Alaskey, and Don Messick.

5 out of 5 Stars. CAUTION: Potential Spoilers Ahead!

"Steven Spielberg Presents Tiny Toon Adventures" was always one of my favorite cartoons growing up (heck, it still is). And this movie perfectly captures everything I love about the show and puts it in full-length form.

Beautifully animated by the Tokyo Movie Shinsa studio (WB outsourced every "Tiny Toons" project, and this was the best studio to handle the show), the movie starts at the end of the school year at Acme Looniversity, the renowned cartoon college where Buster and Babs Bunny (no relation) and their teenage toon peers learn from the masters of animated lunacy, the Looney Tunes. After the final bell, the movie splits off into five different plots. Buster engages Babs in a water gun fight that culminates with a bursting dam and a tidal wave, sending Buster, Babs, and Elmyra's dog Byron downriver on an overturned picnic table in search of adventure in the deep South. Plucky Duck talks Hamton Pig and his family into letting him come with them to HappyWorldLand, "The Happiest Place in the Western Hemisphere", but he has to put up with an excruciating car ride and the threat of a chainsaw-wielding hitchhiker. Elmyra's cat Furball finally runs away, but she isn't daunted...not when there are plenty of "aminals" to play with at the Acme Safari Park. Fifi la Fume devotes her summer to hunting down her heartthrob, movie star Johnny Pew, in the hopes of getting an autograph. Of course, the hotel he's staying at is nearly impenetrable. And Shirley McLoon sets up a fortune telling booth on the Acme Acres Boardwalk...and lets her guard down on her day off when Fowlmouth takes her to see the horror flick "Skunkophobia".

All these story lines are sidesplittingly hilarious, and some of them even overlap in the end. The only complaint I have with this movie is that it doesn't make full use of the Tiny Toons roster - Dizzy Devil and Mary Melodie have only one scene, Gogo Dodo only appears at the beginning and end of the film, and Montana Max, Sweetie, Calamity Coyote, and Little Beeper are nowhere to be found. Still, they're excusable flaws in an otherwise perfect film. This movie is pretty rare today, since it's over 12 years old and has never been released on DVD to my knowledge, but I highly suggest you track it down - anyone who's a fan of Warner Bros. animation, either classic or contemporary, NEEDS to see this movie. I love this movie... it can make me laugh! =^_^= Which is kinda hard to do. This movie is one of the best cartoon adaptations ever. It doesn't warp the characters like other movies out there. Everyone is in character and has a role to play!

The movie focuses around Buster and Babs going down river after a flood (courtesy of Buster), to Plucky going on a trip with Hamton (hilarious stuff), Elmyra running around torturing animals (as usual), Fifi following her crush around for an autograph, and Shirley and Fowlmouth going to the movies.

In my own personal opinion, I didn't like the Buster and Babs segments that much, although they had some notable dialogue and jokes. I have got to say the Plucky and Hampton 'Vacation' parts were the best! Hamton's family is HILARIOUS! I especially like Uncle Stinky. Fifi in the hotel was also hilarious. I love the actor cameos during this scene. :D

Probably the most famous part in this movie, again IMHO, is when Fowlmouth and Shirley are in the movie theater... LOL! You've got to see it to appreciate it! And when Hamton and Plucky go through the tunnel to make a wish... :)

Although this movie moved slowly during the Buster/Babs parts, the rest is pure gold! I rate this movie 8/10. Show this to your kids one day... or even adults yourselves - WATCH THIS MOVIE! You won't regret it. You don't have to be a fan of the cartoon show to enjoy this film. I watched it for the first time when I was nine, having been a fan of the T.V show, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did. It is done in the classic style of Bugs Bunny cartoons from yesterday, and considering todays vulgar cartoons, I would think anybody would appreciate a cartoon movie that relies more on "wackiness" then on vulgarity, to get a few laughs. While not the first movie I've purchased for myself, this is almost certainly the one I've watched the most. The animation is well-drawn by the experts at Tokyo Movie Shinsa, and the animators frequently made use of clever techniques such as having the sun cause "lens flare", having the camera get soaked (and having the "camera operator's hand" clean the lens!) etc. While the film avoided becoming a an "animator's gadget-fest", the judicious but generous application of such techniques gave the film a much more "realistic" feel than the typical cartoon.

The story has many interweaved plots which don't seem to have much to do with each other until everything comes together at the end, in a manner even the writers self-effacingly admit is contrived. Each of the major plot lines has its own musical theme, ranging from "Pop goes the weasel" [Hamton & Plucky], to the love theme from "Romeo and Juliet" [Fifi & Johnny]. The transitions between plotlines are slightly varied, but consistent.

Truly a wonderful film; there isn't much original music, though the new lyrics to "Spinning Song" are clever and enjoyable. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I watch this movie at the start of every summer, and it never ceases to amuse me. Here the jokes are packed in near every line of dialogue, giving you more bang than the average Simpsons episode. Some of the jokes fall flat or will only elicit a slight chuckle, but others will leave you rolling and then there are those that stick in your brain... "The audience is now deaf."

The video knows it's a video, and makes no pretensions about being anything else. It's easy to sit back and let the bombardment of humor begin. A good mix of slapstick, pop culture, and tongue-in-cheek comedy ensures there's something for everybody. I was in sixth grade when I first saw this video, and I have to admit I still find it as hilarious now that I've started college.

This is a good movie to watch over the summer, much in the way you might watch "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas or "Ten Commandments" at Easter/Passover. More than that, it's just funny as hell. As a big fan of Tiny Toon Adventures, I loved this movie!!! It was so funny!!! It really captured how cartoons spent their summers. This is a classic animated film from the cartoon series! Most of the major characters get alot of screen time plus do extra characters aswell! The film`s focus is on the superstar characters vacation and each one has his/her very unique summer fun! Its very funny from beginning to end! It has excellent color, great music and believe it or not I have seen this more than any movie. Its that great and in MY opinion its perfect! When I first viewed the trailer,I have to decide if this series would be perfect for my collection. But after hearing about it,I decided to buy it. When I bought the entire collection in a box set,it was absolutely what I wanted to see. It was very funny,and the characters were pretty cool. Favorite characters in the show are:Marion,Carrot,the Haze Knights,Big Momma,and Dotta. I also liked the opening and ending theme songs. The show also has some great voice talents from Tiffany Grant,Jason Douglas,and others. But however,this show is one of the greatest. So if you want to see something cool. Then this show is the one. To be honest fellow IMDb reviewers, I enjoyed this show a lot. The reason? Well, it didn't try to be more than it is; I mean, a sitcom with regular expectations, with a well known and repeated plot, funny and talented actors, and clever jokes oriented for a post college audience.

This is what Grown Ups is all about: trying to be mature but in a funny way.

Jaleel White is funny as always and delivers some witty, and hilarious sex oriented jokes. The humor is very 90's without taking in account the tendencies of the new millennium and that's the main reason in my opinion why the show didn't have success. It got stuck in the 90's.

Oh and Mrs. Ribisi was really funny and perky.

My favorite show has to be the one that deals with Karma biting the ass! Not a cult classic but I'm sure it's part of regular early 2000's nostalgia. I gave this show a chance because of Jaleel White, not for his Urkel character, but mainly for the Sonic the Hedgehog voice XD So anyway, like I said, I gave it a chance, and I was very fond of it. I never cared for the Urkel character, so I was pleased to see Mr. White in a role other than the ever-so-annoying nerd. And his Calvin J. Fraiser (first called Calvin, but come the second episode, everyone started calling him "J") was very entertaining and interesting.

I think my favorite episode was when J was dating the ex-Cowboys cheerleader with the snobby kid. ("Don't you talk that way 'bout my momma!" "This is grown-up talk, you stay down there!") The only beef I have is that the show was suppose to have 3 main characters, but Mr. White's character always seemed to have the most attention and the other two (who are married) always had the back stories... It isn't exactly a good thing when a story about those two possibly being pregnant takes backseat to J. having to babysit his girlfriend's dog.....

Other than that, I really wish this show could have lasted a little longer. Unfortunetely, it seems that people weren't interested in Jaleel White as something other than the God-Awful annoying ass nerd known as Urkel....

Hope they at least put it out as a DVD box set. Though for most of us, sexiness is a variable quality, I cannot recall a movie that did for me what this one does. It transported me into an awfully familiar realm of longing and desire. All the compulsive attraction, uncertainty over the outcome, the palpable fear and excitement so attendant to that state of arousal were brought to fever pitch by this flick. So French and what I consider daring! No matter what your orientation, I think that the danger of chasing your desire is brought full-front and center here...much more so, say, than with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut". L'Homme Blesse is not for an impatient, adventure-seeking audience. There are no explosions nor is the drama straightforward. Like the films of Lynne Ramsey, the director is working more deeply with mood than with storytelling in a manner that is effective and incredibly moving. Because it does not rely on gratuitous nudity, or superficial pop-cult. story lines, this is quite frankly one of the best gay foreign film I have seen (also, see Francois Ozon, Pedro Almodovar). Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" gets a lot of bad press because it is sold as a horror film. That film, like L'Homme, is more than what the box might lead you to believe. If you are in the mood to sit back and be absorbed by the subtle, transformed powers of cinema, you'll love this movie. When this showed at the Seattle Int'l Film Fest I was the only person standing and clapping and cheering. The rest of the crowd booed or was silent. It is a well played small film that reaches deep into the reality of a young gay man's humanity. It is about a real man; and does not play to the insipid hyper-buffed muscular "gay paositive" that passes for the genre of non-porn Gay cinema (and that is why so much of contemporary Gay genre movies are so dull). This movie is Intense Passsion and Great Tragedy. The acting and directing and cinematography is fantastic; it all keeps the film clastrophobic and tense and passionate. Don't miss this if you can find it. A fine performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno and a masterful one by Jean-Hugues Anglade adorn this stange tale of lust, desire and alienation in France. The work of the two lead performers is striking--subtle, intense and passionate. Alas, the script is deliberately turgid and sordid, and the overall effect leaves one with a downcast spirit. Still, those who can appreciate fine quality acting will be able to savor the courageous work of the leads in this often difficult film journey of Gallic low life.

You've got to think along the lines of Last Tango in Paris for this one because the mood and emotion runs along the same lines and maintains the same heights - the difference being that in this exceptional, intense and torrid depiction of love among the ruins of a Dostoyevskyian dispossessed the setting is a gay-subcultural milieu - perhaps even one that is set to vanish in time, and not the equally arresting but heterosexual context of Bertolucci's own film.

The last third of this film depicts a passionate love never seen in gay cinema. To talk of pornography or gay self-effacement misses the point and intelligence of this work. This film, though on first impression appears to take us into the familiar & often depicted underworld of gay street-life, then precedes to subvert the rules of this genre by exaggerating it to a super-real degree. The result is a hyper-charged emotional heightening - an exceptional strategy that elevates the drama to one of big universal themes and giant gestures.

This film snatches the high ground because of the brilliant performances by it's actors, notably a young Jean Hugues Anglade and the directing. A tour- De -force of cinema. Outstanding in ambition and it's unceasing plummet into the depths of human emotion. As a contribution to gay cinema, this film conquers this difficult ground and makes it it's own triumph. Warning,contains spoilers!

This is one of the best Italian sleaze films I've seen.

The plot has a teenage girl who is interested of occultism and has supernatural powers.Her mother is a member of satanist group and is afraid what influences it'll have on the girl.No need to worry, the girl knows just what to do and there's no return,she belongs to Satan..

During the film odd things happen in typical italo way,there's not too much logic,but that's only good thing.It's amazing how entertaining these films are.. On the final battle we see her and her mother fighting each other (nude off course) and doing some mysterious rituals,you might guess who wins... The films final pictures leaves your mouth open and wandering why can't there be more films like this?

There's superb music through the whole film and the actors are quite good,better than usual in these type of films.Specially Anne Heywood looks and acts good.It also has some unusual camera angles and stuff like that, so it's not boring at all.My rating is 10.

Hopefully someone releases this on dvd. "Four Daughters," a sentimental story of a solid middle class family with four sisters, was notable in one respect: into this romantic, idealized milieu enters Mickey Borden… Carelessly dressed, with an uncompromising attitude to all bourgeois values, he really sets the hearts of the sisters aglow… His criticisms are not only directed towards those about him but also towards himself…

One day Ann (Priscilla Lane) discovers him passionately playing the piano… "That's beautiful," she says… "It stinks," he replies… He falls in love with – and marries – Ann but eventually, realizing that their basic incompatibility is leading their marriage into disaster, he takes the equally uncompromising step of causing his fall…

The role was superbly played by John Garfield, and it brought him not only stardom but also, and perhaps more important, won for him his place in cinema history as the screen's first rebel hero…

Garfield was born in New York's East side of Russian immigrant parents, and spent his adolescence as a delinquent, a real life role that he only relinquished when he began to portray the rebel on screen… He continued, however, throughout his life to question and reject certain traditional values… He was occasionally suspended by the studio and maintained a cynical view of Hollywood…

Finally he ended his career and his life as one of the victims of McCarthy's witchhunt… He was blacklisted by Hollywood because of his suspected left wing sympathies and friends claimed that being banned from working contributed to the heart attack' that killed him at the early age of 39… Story about a widowed father (Claude Rains) bringing up his four daughters. Emma (Gale Page) is loved by big hunky Ernest (Dick Foran). Thea (Lola Lane) is romanced by an old but wealthy man. Kay (Rosemary Lane) wants to become a singer. Ann (Priscilla Lane) is a romantic. Drop dead handsome Felix Deitz (Jeffrey Lynn), a business associate of their father, comes to stay with them. All the sisters fall in love with him. Then tough cynical Mickey (John Garfield) enters the picture...

Very entertaining movie was a big hit and nominated for five Academy Awards. It's beautifully directed by Michael Curitz, has a pretty good (if predictable) script and a VERY attractive cast (especially Lynn). Also this was John Garfield's first film and made him a star. This was so popular there were three or four sequels (which I never saw). This is an engrossing, entertaining, big budget soap opera--well worth seeing. What starts as a homespun comedy-drama and then halfway turns into a melodrama made a major star of John Garfield - and justly so. But Jeffrey Lynn is not to be dismissed as the object of affection of the four daughters. Lynn is very handsome and is so charming it's easy to believe that all four daughters could fall for him. Although Garfield received most of the kudos, Lynn became a major leading man at Warner Bros. as a result of this film.

Michael Curtiz insisted on location shooting for the picnic scene, making it the highlight of the film. Throughout, the craftsmanship is enough to inspire awe. A soap opera by Fanny Hurst has been turned into a cinema masterpiece. Directed by Michael Curtiz, Four Daughters is about four musically gifted sisters, their suitors, and their father, a minor conductor.Playing sardonic, quick talking Mickey Borden is John Garfield in the role that made him an instant star.The movie also stars Claude Rains as Adam Lemp and the Lane sisters, Lola, Rosemary, and Priscilla, and Gale Page as his spirited daughters.Its definitive scene takes place in the Lemps' living room. Cigarette hanging from his lips, Borden is playing one of his own compositions. Priscilla Lane's Ann Lemp tells him the piece is beautiful. But he says, "It stinks." He continues: "It hasn't got a beginning or an end, only a middle." Ann urges him to create a beginning and an end. Borden replies, "What for? The fates are against me. They tossed a coin--heads I'm poor, tails I'm rich. But they tossed a two-headed coin." Audiences loved the way Garfield, in his tough city voice, said It stinks. That scene created Garfield's screen persona as the eternal outsider. Four Daughters is a slice of Americana with Garfield, in a compelling performance, supplying more than a hint of darkness.

"Four Daughters" introduced John Garfield to audiences, and that is what is remembered most about this film today. Unlike some actors who appear in several films before their screen image gels, Garfield established his immediately, with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and talk of the fates being against him.

It's actually the story of four girls, their widowed musician father (Claude Rains) and their various suitors, one of whom, Felix, is played by handsome Jeffrey Lynn. He's the one they all have a crush on, but he's in love with Buff (Priscilla Lane). Then she meets ne'er-do-well Mickey Borden, who falls for her as well. When Buff realizes that one of her sisters is in love with Felix, she leaves him at the altar and marries Mickey.

This is a fairly formulaic story given life (and sequels) by the acting. Garfield has already been mentioned, but Priscilla Lane was by far the strongest of the daughters, the most interesting, and the best actress. Jeffrey Lynn was a fresh and good-looking leading man, and this film got him off on the right foot with Warners. However, true stardom was not to be. Like many others of the era, he went into the service, and when he came out, he had a Bronze Star but not much of a career. He later went into television and real estate. Claude Rains is warm and wonderful as the patriarch.

So popular was "Four Daughters" that it inspired "Four Wives" and "Four Mothers," as well as reuniting much of the cast again in "Daughters Courageous" where the actors played different characters.

Very enjoyable, a nice remembrance of simpler and probably happier times, and a chance to see John Garfield in his first film. While John Garfield seems to get the bulk of attention, the true star of Four Daughters is Priscilla Lane. Her performance is the glue that holds the large cast together.

Her ability to interact equally well with John Garfield and the more carefree Jeffrey Lynn is at the core of the success of Four Daughters. "Four Daughters" begins as just another clone of "Little Women" type melodrama. A single father with four musically talented eligible daughters has his hands full trying to keep them in line and guide them in their courting rituals. What turns the film around is the sudden appearance of a new Hollywood star, some critics say the first anti-hero long before James Dean graced the big screen. From the time the dark, foreboding figure of Mickey Borden (John Garfield) appears at Ann Lemp's (Priscilla Lane) gate splashing his self-pity and doomed philosophy on the rest of the cast, "Four Daughters" becomes much more than just a chick flick.

Though Garfield is the main reason to watch "Four Daughters," there are other flashes of brilliance to enjoy. Hungarian-born director Michael Curtiz, later responsible for such gems as "Casablanca" and "Mildred Pierce," pinpoints certain images with his camera (aided by cinematographer Ernest Haller of "Rebel Without A Cause" fame) that sticks in the viewers mind, for example the screeching gate that Ann's first suitor, Felix Deitz (Jeffrey Lynn), swings on so merrily becomes symbolic of the shifts in moods and affections by those who use it.

That Garfield delivers the standout performance is obvious, but the rest of the cast keeps up with him most of the way. The underrated Jeffrey Lynn plays his role to perfection, as the neglected suitor whose love for his cherished Ann never falters even when she's with another man. Claude Rains, somewhat miscast as the father of the four coming-of-age young women, gives a fine portrayal of a set upon doting family head who gets lost in the shuffle. The three Lane Sisters, already famous for their musical abilities, turn into accomplished actresses, playing their parts well. A raft of supporting actors, including Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, May Robson, and Eddie Acuff, makes it all believable.

How opposites attract is part of the ploy for touching the quick of the viewer's imagination. Ann is the eternal optimist, even when she and Mickey are down and out. She always looks on the bright side and like so many caught in the pliers of the Great Depression in those days, she saw prosperity just around the corner. Mickey recites an entire list of bad things that have happened to him seeking company in his misery from Ann, which Ann refuses to do. Mickey expects to go out with a bolt of lightning striking him dead as he rounds the corner of life. Mickey has meager talent as a composer; Ann has talent to spare as a singer and musician. Ann is big on beauty; Mickey is big on personality in a warped sense of a way. And the differences go on and on. How all this is reconciled in the end is an important part of the movie, not to be missed.

See "Four Daughters" for John Garfield's doozy of an acting debut on the big screen. The only time he was better came seven years later when he again mesmerized the film goers with one of the greatest screen performances ever, as Frank Chambers in "The Postman Always Rings Twice," opposite the equally charismatic Lana Turner. But also watch "Four Daughters" to catch important elements that may be missed if too much concentration is placed on the star of the show. Lovingly crafted and terribly interesting to watch Garfield's gritty, breakthrough performance (introducing a new kind of rebellious acting style that would carry over to the Brandos and Clifts and so on after the war) but all that sisterly affection is a bit suffocating. Priscilla Lane is a bright, engaging performer but the other sisters don't really register (though they're all allowed to be tart and witty) and I just had a hard time buying any of the other male characters besides Garfield. Jeffrey Lynn is a pleasant enough actor, but he lacks the movie star weight to match up with Garfield's hard luck Mickey Borden and that throws the film a bit out of whack. (Imagine a Jimmy Stewart or someone in the part.) Also, I was not convinced that Garfield would make the pivotal (to say the least) final decision that he made. The film needed another half hour of running time to better explain that action; it feels awfully rushed and under-motivated.

Still, it's not hard to understand how anybody who grew up with this picture would remember it fondly. It falls short of being a classic, but it does contain a few classic moments. The two gate swinging scenes are pure movie magic. Although a "woman's story," I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.

Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than "Ann's" (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's.

With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.

In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.

Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success. One of Warner Brothers best and highest grossing films during the Thirties was this charming family drama about a widower who lives with his maiden sister raising Four Daughters. But not four every day type daughters. All of them have been trained by their musician father on instruments and one as a singer. They do make some beautiful music together even if it is for the long haired set.

You can watch the infinite variety of roles that Claude Rains played over the years and still marvel as he shows you yet another aspect of his creative personality. The opportunistic Vichy Captain in Casablanca is as different as the scientist gone mad in the Invisible Man, as the patient and wise Job in Mr. Skeffington. All the same man and all so incredibly different.

Here he raises the four girls with love seasoned with a little grouchiness at their willingness to accept modern music. The Lane Sisters and Gale Page may know Beethoven, but they're hep cats as well and can beat daddy eight to the bar every time. And if Rains gets a bit too testy than Aunt May Robson can put him in his place.

With Four Daughters unmarried at the time you know that's going to change. All the sisters develop romantic interests in Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, Jeffrey Lynn, and John Garfield. Of course the mating process does get a bit complicated and one of the sisters suffers a tragedy, but it does promise to work out as the film ends.

Four Daughters is also known as the debut film of John Garfield. Other than a tiny bit part in Footlight Parade years earlier, Garfield had no other film roles. But he'd been acclaimed on the New York stage for his performance in Golden Boy and Warner Brothers signed him and found the perfect film debut role as the cynical musician who just can't quite get a decent break in life. It earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination in 1938, but he lost to Walter Brennan for Kentucky.

This film was so popular that it practically spawned a small cottage industry for Jack Warner. Sequels with cast members like Daughters Courageous, Four Mothers, Four Wives all cleaned up at the box office before World War II. And Warner Brothers remade it with Frank Sinatra and Doris Day playing the parts that John Garfield and Priscilla Lane originated. Now those two made some beautiful music.

Still a timeless mold was created in Four Daughters and the film holds up 70 years after it was first seen. This movie was made 20 years before my time. Its introduction of John Garfield in the supporting role of Mickey Borden makes it a classic. He slumps onto the screen and your eyes are glued. Garfield was an original and his portrayal of fate's whipping boy is a must see. A tight-knit musical family, cranky-benevolent father and four vivacious adolescent daughters, is up-rooted by, first, the appearance of Felix, a dashing young composer, and, secondly and most profoundly, Mickey, his insolently attractive orchestrator friend.

It takes a while for Michael Curtiz to get this piece of Americana floating. The first part looks almost like a paraphrasing of a cereal commercial, not without a certain quaint, highly bourgeois charm, and then John Garfield enters the scene as the doomed Mickey, making his first appearance in motion pictures, with mussed-up black curls, sleepy, hung-over eyes, rude and disheveled, the absolute opposite to Jeffrey Lynn's smoothly persuasive, madly charming Felix. Garfield is in complete, and DIRELY needed, counterpoint to the rest of the household ("Nothing I would do would surprise me", he muses), and suddenly the movie becomes interesting, although I agree with critics that find the plot-turns insufficiently motivated.

The four sisters are rather blandly played and seriously underwritten, but Claude Rains as the pater familias has his moments.

Watch it for Garfield, though, he is the only really lasting thing about it. The film was apparently spawned from an idea one of the writers had when he 'saw' one of his creations in a supermarket. The inhabitants of Royston Vasey head into 'our' world to persuade the writers not to stop writing about them and thus destroy their world.

If that sounds a bit too serious, don't be put off. Within the first few minutes we get: Bernice (the vile female vicar) letting rip at an unfortunate penitent during confession; Chinnery (the vet who inadvertently destroys every animal he touches) attempting to collect semen from a giraffe; Mickey (thick beyond belief) being, ah, thick; and Tubbs (inbred sister-wife and local shopkeeper) being sweet as ever - but still disgusting.

Some of the regular characters are missing, but a new idea by the Gents introduces some 16th-Century characters - and we have the Gents themselves in the action too. If you're new to The League of Gentlemen, this is an easy introduction and a lot of fun. If you're a long-standing fan, this has everything you've come to expect - including the joys of Jeremy Dyson spotting.

All told, it's got the same faintly surreal humour that's the hallmark of the series, plus some moments of quite touching 'introspection'. Herr Lipp, for example, maintains a gentle dignity on learning that he's regarded by his creators as a 'one-joke character'. While most of the characters stay as they are, some develop in unexpected ways that are perfectly natural when they happen.

This film is a 'swan song' for Royston Vasey, but it's also a showcase for the Gents who prove that (gasp!) they can write other stuff - and it can be very funny. (But you knew that anyway.) There are two ways to turn a TV series into a film.

The first, most common, and least successful, is to basically make a feature-length TV episode- see the disasters of the Steptoe & Son movie. The second is to do something else- something quite different, à la Monty Python.

Thankfully, the creators of the cult TV series have gone for the second option, and they've come up with something unique, clever and funny- it couldn't feel less like a TV episode.

Try to get your head around this- the writers, playing themselves, are confronted by their Royston Vasey alter-egos, played, of course, by them, and told to continue writing the series, otherwise apocalypse will befall the village.

High-concept, contrived and easy to screw up? Yes, but somehow they managed to pull it off. Not for every taste, perhaps, and the ending does drag, but fans will be delighted, and it might even win over the uninitiated. Just saw 'The League of Gentlemen: Apocalypse' at a special screening in Manchester, with Mark Gatiss and Reece Shearsmith of the League in attendance.

At the back was Peter Kay (who has a brief cameo in the film) affectionately heckling at the back during the Q & A session after the film.

The film was complicated (in a good way) and very very funny. It follows Geoff Tipps, Hilary Briss and Herr Lipp as they try and save fictional Rosyton Vasey from the disinterest of their creators.

The League play a wide range of their characters and themselves (or character based on themselves) and are ably supported by the cream of British character and comedy actors such as Bernard Hill, Victoria Wood and David Warner.

Warner is a particular stand out reminding me of his smooth and cutting turn in 'Time Bandits'.

The film swims in and out of various realities and allows some of the denizen's of Rosyton Vasey some space to grow beyond their usual limits of their comedy shtick.

Steve Pemberton's Herr Lipp has a great Bretchian moment near the end of the movie and has to make a decision about his purpose and meaning in life which brings a lump to the throat at an unexpected moment and surprises you with its tender affection for the characters.

This echoes something Mark and Reece said in the Q & A afterwards, that the plot of the league being tired of their famous characters is spurious and that the whole film is really a love letter to them.

For a format that started as a radio character-based sketch show, these guys have really evolved the idea so far as to sustain a movie which takes you on a journey through fiction, 'reality', comedy, tragedy and a pleasing journey for two of the less obvious characters to carry a long form story from their 70 odd existing creations.

The fans of the show will love it. It pays off dedication and attention to detail in spades, the uninitiated may be a little lost, but the joy of the LoG was always the ability to almost instantly tune into their acutely observed characters and take the stylistic leap into farce and expressionistic movie homage.

There are homages a plenty in this one including 'The Shining' and 'La Belle et la Bete', to name but two I spotted and they ably demonstrate their love for cinema and history with a segment in 1690's England that makes perfect sense when you're engaged with the movie.

What can I say, I marvelled, boggled, emoted and snickered throughout and they have definitely pulled off what many have failed at. A successful British TV comedy to cinema translation.

If you've watched and enjoyed 'The League of Gentlemen' in the past, go see it; you will enjoy.

If you haven't, rent/buy a DVD and then go see it.

Well done guys and thanks for the charming and humorous Q & A. For many the hit series was ten years of pitch black humour loaded with affectionate parodies of classic films and a hilarious assortment of over a hundred characters with instantly recognisable catchphrases. Few shows have survived transition from radio to TV to stage show to film but The League of Gentlemen have achieved it with suitable aplomb.

The talented writer/performers had initially envisioned a Monty Python style medieval adventure, but as soon as writing began they soon realised that the characters they have lived with had become very real and deserved better. With that, the Royston Vasey folk realise their very existence is under threat as the writers decide to disregard the fictitious town and work on a 17th Century romp instead.

With the exception of Michael Sheen playing much unseen League member Jeremy Dyson, The League play pretty unlikeable caricatures of their real life personae as well as the familiar faces of Tubbs ("I made a little brown fishy"), nightmare inducing sexual predator Herr Lipp, butcher Hilary Briss and an unlikely hero - irate businessman Geoff Tibbs. New faces appear when the third reality appears, it's here we are treated to charming and funny cameos from veteran actors and popular TV stars. For many this will be a really enjoyable 90 minutes.

'Apocalpse is not going to please everyone though. Working on this level of post modernism has been done a few times before now and may seem all too familiar to audiences raised on irony drenched teen successes kick-started by the likes of Wes Craven having a New Nightmare. It also takes a lot of confidence in an audience to keep up with a high concept story so there are moments of exposition and dialogue that serve only to confirm what most in the audience already know. Comedy as a genre is formulaic but it's now unheard of for a British film not to fall back on the huge back catalogue of TV stars to fill short amounts of screen time. It's also hard to believe the creators ever wanted their offspring killed off, which is perhaps why some of the role reversal doesn't always quite hit the mark. Would Hilary Briss have wanted to try save Royston Vasey in the series?

However, while the show's deliciously dark vein has almost all but disappeared but is arguably more accessible for it. Much will be said about the character development and efforts to humanise the likes of previously one joke incarnations like Herr Lipp. It is here an impossible level of depth can be found along with a harsh streak of biting satire and throwaway put downs. Sentiment is there with a lump in the throat but not sugar coated thickly enough to intrude on the action. The music is good, performances exemplary and the animation is wonderfully seamless; a nice throwback to Terry Gilliam and Ray Harryhausen's work. In short, there's a lot to like about the Apocalypse. Like so many TV to film transfers it was never going to be easy finding the line between preaching to the converted and introducing the uninitiated to the League's slick and distinct voice. But no matter what your preference is, this last trip to the town which 'You'll Never Leave' is oddly lined with hope and ultimately very, very touching. I have to admit that when I first heard about the Apocalypse film it was a worry.

I mean, they have a lot to live up to, don't they? When they first did a stage show they won the Perrier award and when they did radio they won a Sony award. When they ventured onto our telly's they won a Bafta award, a Royal Television Society Award and the Golden Rose of Montreux.

When the first series aired in January 1999 it was mind-blowing! A real breath of fresh air in British Comedy, and when the second series aired a year later it built on that foundation and sealed the shows cult status around the world, our web stats show that we have received visitors from every single country on the planet! The 'Local show for Local People' showcased the Gents talent for live performance and opened doors for the gents to do more live performing such as 'Art' in the west end.

The fans favourite has always been the Christmas Special, less of a sketch show and more a tribute to classic horror films yet still wrapped up in the delicious League style.

And then of course there was the 'difficult' third series, still a hit with the loyal hardcore fans of course, but maybe a little bit ahead of its time for a mainstream TV audience.

As I say, a lot to live up to.

So now we have the film and...Well a film is different isn't it? It will be seen by much larger numbers than the radio or TV shows and with the third series in mind I was worried.

Well as you know I was lucky enough to get to see the film yesterday at a press screening in London and all my doubts were blown away (literally) in the first few minutes! I am not going to give plot lines away as some reviewers have done, nor am I going to tell you the catch phrases (although there is really only one) but I will try to tell you what they have managed to achieve with this film! Leaving the cinema on Monday night I could only imagine writing 'Oh my god, it's brilliant, its amazing, its the best thing they have ever done, better than the first, second and specials all rolled into one!' Of course I owe my visitors a much better explanation than that! So, why is it brilliant? This is a film for everyone, the casual fan, the obsessive fan the occasional fan and even for someone who is sat in the wrong cinema! You don't have to have watched the series to enjoy this film; it works on so many levels.

This film reminded me why I am a League of Gentlemen Fan! You can tell that filming was a true labour of love too; the attention to detail is incredible. The sets for the TV show were always detailed but I am going to have to watch the film again just to look at the background! The story moves at a swift pace, the action carrying us from Royston Vasey to the real world where we meet the 'Creators' who are of course the League themselves! Along the way we manage to bump into favourite characters from the show but always within the central story unlike the TV sketch show.

I was glad that the film was dark in places, a little scary and a little strange...only fitting for The League of Gentlemen. The Gents also managed to get their revenge on the BBC censors, not as much slipping in the word 'Mongoloid' as screaming it from the roof tops! Some may think the Gents portrayal of themselves a little indulgent but that's the joke and with that comes my only worry, the in jokes I mention below may puzzle some viewers and they might come over a little too clever...but I shouldn't worry, there is always a poo joke waiting just around the corner and speaking of jokes, they come thick and fast, and in a mixture of clever references, wig jokes, bum jokes, visual jokes and cock gags! I haven't laughed out loud in a cinema since...well, I can't remember! The fans that have been 'with' the League since the beginning are rewarded with loads of 'in' jokes, some that work on two levels, a mainstream audience may laugh at a reference to a compact disc for one reason whilst fans of the Local show will laugh for another reason altogether! The cameos are genius! Peter Kay and Simon Pegg form the strangest double act you have ever seen, Simon getting one of the films biggest laughs just by making a noise! I was a little worried about the 1690's aspect of the film when I first heard about it but as a story within a story I was just getting into it when...but that would be telling! All I need to say is that it fits wonderfully and adds to the overall feel of the film! I am not a professional reviewer of films, so I am finding it difficult to put into words how much I enjoyed this film but for now I will just say that if the supposed benchmark for British Comedy films in recent years was the excellent 'Shaun of the Dead' then I am sorry but a new benchmark has just been set by the inventive, hilarious and sometimes a little scary...The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse.

Jason Kenny 2005 After three outstanding BBC television series' and a Christmas special, the bizarre and grotesque (yet perversely lovable) characters of bleak fictional town Royston Vasey make the jump to celluloid, along with their creators - The League of Gentlemen.

Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are the more familiar three-quarters of the foursome, with the central roles shared between the trio. In an added twist, the final member of the team - Jeremy Dyson - is portrayed by actor Michael Sheen.

Where to start? Dyson (Sheen) is in conversation with his writing cohorts, when - horror of horrors - he is paid a visit by two of his grisliest characters. Both Tubbs (Pemberton) and Edward Tattsyrup (Shearsmith) are unhappy at The League's decision to kill off the Vasey inhabitants. "You're not real!" screams Dyson in vain, as the local shopkeepers from hell exact their revenge. Mayhem ensues, as reality and Vasey converge with the vast array of characters entering our world to save theirs.

Confused? You will be, as the camp, innuendo-ridden Teutonic, Herr Lipp (Pemberton) is forced to take on the daily guise of Pemberton (Pemberton), while Pemberton (Pemberton) is kidnapped by cannibalistic butcher Hillary Briss (Gatiss) and Geoff Tipps (Shearsmith).

With shades of an even more demented Misery, Briss attempts to force Pemberton to rewrite the film - thus continuing his life - but leaving Geoff in charge is never a good idea. The erstwhile comedian becomes embroiled in The League's latest, post-Vasey adventure - The King's Evil - entering a typically twisted 17th century England, complete with cameos from Victoria Wood, Peter Kay and David Warner. Known as George of Asda (due to his select line of clothing), Geoff saves the day and is treated as a hero, but for the denouement of the film, he joins characters old and new at the Church of Royston Vasey to meet with their makers.

For fans of the series, the film is a must-see. And yes, it does feature Papa Lazarou (albeit a little too fleetingly). Pen-loving Pauline, Mickey, Barbara and cursed vet Matthew Chinnery are some of the other favourites on show, and The League's portrayal of themselves (plus Sheen's as Dyson) is also a fascinating insight.

The League of Gentlemen are the Radiohead of British comedy - they are ambitious, groundbreaking (witness the excellent Series Three) and not happy to rest on their laurels. They also divide opinion accordingly.

Certainly, their macabre sense of humour is not for every palate, and while not written exclusively for 'fans', a grasp of the storyline would benefit those who have previously viewed the series. Nevertheless, Apocalypse is a film in its own right and The League will no doubt manage to attract a new breed of fan, as well as appeasing and pleasing existing ones. The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff. I never saw any of The League's work until early last year - although when channel hopping one night I caught the end of one the series three episodes. But last winter I fell in love with the show and its dark, eccentric and sometimes downright sinister characters. So when I learnt they had made a film in which the show's lovable creators met their own characters, I couldn't order the DVD fast enough and near on tore it from my postman's hands when he delivered it. I was so excited to see what the Gents had done and how they'd done it.

And it was excellent! From the beginning where Jeremy (Michael Sheen) is terrorised by Edward, Tubbs and Papa (Dyson, why didn't you play yourself? He's perfectly capable as viewers of the infamous Highgate House of Horrors know!), to Bernice berating yet another one of her flock, to Geoff, Herr Lipp and Hilary discovering that THEY are characters, which is a great scene. The scenes set in 1690 are very enjoyable, with the Gents turning their hands to yet more characters and an all new plot. David Warner's turn as Doctor Pea is fantastic, slightly camp and very funny.

The League have always been brilliant at blending humour with sadness and emotion - and the climax of this film, where Herr Lipp is struggling with the idea that he and the other Vasey residents are just fictional people who will never be able to change who they are or their purpose - and to witness how it's breaking him down, is really sad and beautiful to watch at the same time and that really shows the Gents' talent - something for which they are terribly overlooked for to this day.

And then you have that rather clever ending - where you sit in wonder - with Joby Talbot's beautiful theme music playing. And you know you've enjoyed a very clever and funny film. As an American fan of The League of Gentlemen I had to wait months to finally see this film when it came out on DVD, but it was well worth the (excruciating) wait. "Apocalypse" is fantastic- funny, freaky, clever as hell, full of in-jokes and cryptic references to the television series; basically everything you'd expect from the Gentlemen.

The plot has already been discussed in other reviews, so I won't bother re-capping it, although I will say when I first read it I was a bit hesitant. Obviously this device- fictional characters entering the real world to confront their makers- has been used before, notably in Wes Craven's underrated "New Nightmare" and Stephen King's "Dark Tower" books (where King himself was a character). The Gentlemen have fun breaking the fourth wall, though, and even add a new element: a second fictional world ("them days"). Soon all three realities have weaved together, and the result is exhilarating: Geoff Tipps being knighted in the middle ages (and trying to court Queen Victoria Wood); the real League of Gentlemen in Royston Vasey, being confronted by characters like Pauline and Dr. Chinnery; David Warner summoning an homunculus outside of Bernice's church. I've heard that some people disliked the "King's Evil" sub-plot, but I found it hilarious, especially Reece's character (who seemed to be channeling Judith the "Witch" from series three).

Speaking of the characters, I was relieved to find that, although Hilary Briss, Geoff, and Herr Lipp were planted firmly in at the film's core, other, more familiar characters were given their due. Bernice's confessional in the beginning was hilarious, hearkening back to the quicker, more sketch-oriented feel of the first series. Pauline and Mickey have cameos (no Ross though- strange), although I would've loved to've seen more of Ms. Campbell-Jones. Papa Lazarou is accounted for, as are Tubbs and Edward. All three are used very sparingly, giving their meager screen time an almost magical feel (and just what the HELL did Papa hack up, like an obscene hairball? According to the DVD commentary, a "wad of greasy pubic hair").

The film looks incredible, but then, what's new? The music, as always, is breathtaking. I was thrilled to hear Joby Talbot's new interpretations of the theme music, and his slight re-working of the majestic, lovely piece that closes out both "Apocalypse" and the last episode of series three.

I have some minor complaints- it would have been nice to see more of the old, familiar Royston Vasey, and I felt the stop-motion creatures (beautiful, by the way) were a bit underused. Both of these issues, however, can be justified by the film's budget, so they're understandable. Still, as much as I loved Bernice's new church, it would have been cool to see the final battle in the high street (the Gentlemen's original vision, according to the commentary).

Overall, "Apocalypse" is astounding, especially if you're a fan of the series. I can't recommend it highly enough. 10/10. I originally watched this because I thought it was going to be the sequel to the League of EXTRAORDINARY Gentlemen and this movie is a whole different thing entirely going on here-a comedy! However, I loved it anyways!

The League of Gentlemen is apparently some British TV series with some rather odd characters and some sharp humour. This is British comedy so it revolves around being very silly, dressing up in costumes and making lots of fun of Germans and french, homosexual references- in short it's very very funny!

THe plot revolves around the writers of the TV show deciding to cancel some of the characters and the characters coming out of their dimension into the writer's dimension to stop that from happening. It's a fun twist and there's plenty of great scenes in this idiotic adventure. I laughed out loud numerous times and applauded the brazen style of humour. This makes Mr Bean look like the watered down wimp he is.(Rowan is much better in Black Adder series btw)

This is not Monty Python, but you can never escape the comparison when you are talking British humour, and there are a few similarities but not so many as to keep it from being it's own thing and being fresh. It leans more towards the young ones and Guest House Paradiso in its' comedic style.

If you liked this, check out The Young Ones series and Guest House Paradiso movie, and of course, I assume the TV series League of Gentlemen must be rather funny as well. I am an addict of the TV show, the live shows and everything they do. And this was the last piece of work they have done on TV/film as 'The League of Gentlemen'.

If you love the series then you will absolutely love the film. It is a nice ending to their TV series.

It is clever and funny.

Although it does not focus on some of the most popular characters, it is still great to see all the characters together and with the writers. A must see for any League of Gentlemen fan.

Watch it! Whether you're a fan of the series which inspired it or not, there's no denying this is a patchy piece of work. But in the best possible sense. Keen to get away from the trappings of old sitcoms which made an uneasy transition to the big screen, Messrs Pemberton, Dyson, Shearmsith and Gatiss have gone down a different road, addressing the problems of dealing with their success along with adding other creations and, inevitably, rehashing some of their best-loved characters. It's a pity they didn't stick to just a more consistent League of Gents movie because as inventive as including themselves in the screenplay is, it weakens the finished movie. Well worth renting though. Okay, I'm not sure if this counts as a spoiler so i just ticked the box anyway to save the hassle.

I've noticed that the opinions on this film seem to be a fair split. Personally, i loved it, although i must say that i think that some of the cameo's were there for the sake of having a cameo. (Peter Kay?) Personally, i am just thankful that it wasn't the Edward, Tubbs and Papa Lazarou show, and that they chose the 3 best characters in the series to headline the motion picture, especially Sir Goeff Tipps arguably the funniest of the bunch.

Actually, this is less of a Summary more of a fairly obtuse blog-like thing, but what the hell, the film was awesome, and i guess that's all that counts. Having only seen five episodes of the show before this, (I've been watching the repeats on BBC Two) I haven't really had much experience of the League, but as a fledgling fan as well as a massive fan of British comedy, I can say this film is hilarious. Seeing Herr Lipp, (who I had not seen on screen before the film) Briss and Geoff on the big screen was a great comedy experience. Being on screen is something that the League take full advantage of, with heads blowing up, (it'll come as a surprise who it is) and gruesome murders with random Middle Ages style battles all the way.

Geoff is easily the funniest character of the three protagonists in this film, because he has the best one liners and overall behaviour, just like in the series. One of my only disappointments with the film was not hearing Geoff shout "Well now I've got this gun" even once, (even though there is a build-up to it in one part of the film.) The film itself overall is, to use the phrase everyone else does, Pythonesque and it's very reminiscent of films like "Life of Brian." Appearances from Tubbs and Edward were welcome, but Papa Lazarou's line "Hello Daves" cracked me up more than anything said by them, (Lazarou's probably my favourite Vasey character after Tubbs and Edward.) It's got quite a poignant ending with one of the main character being killed off and I can only hope this is not the League's last on-screen Vasey venture. With Gatiss mentioning the possibility of another series or film, I'm now very excited. This is a film I will see again, partly because the projector died towards the end, leaving out 10 minutes or so of the film, but mainly because it's inventive and hilarious. I'm not really bothered if it's not as good as the TV series, because I loved it.

One thing though, if you've never seen the League, you'll still love it, but Dave knows what you'll think about the people who make this stuff up. As Tubbs or Edward might put it, it's a local film, for local people, and a precious thing at that.

**** out of ***** (4/5) Now I myself had previously seen a few episodes of the Leauge Of Gentleman which I found hilarious. When I brought the film I was not sure if I knew enough about the series to get it, boy was I wrong. This is one of the best comedy films I have seen ever and the clever acting of the Leauge makes the film. It has a very good and funny plot as well as using only a few characters at any one time helps because it doesn't make it too confusing which would have wrecked the film. Even If you have never seen The Leauge Of Gentleman get this film it will make you laugh and this is a film that can be watched more then once and is an excellent film to watch with your mates. It truly deserves it review a definite 10 out of 10. league of gentleman has been the most disturbing British sitcom to be on t.v and how can a funny movie be so bad rated,they just have no taste this film will make you want to watch over and over again and still find it funny.

it is surprising that it has done bad but it is British the cinema do crap most of the time but this time it (in my words) a boost with comedy with a giraffe spunks over Lady's, this is a top British comedy and better than dodge-ball, so by this and it won't prove you wrong as i don't really laugh through films but this film was amazing through comedy with the best characters but i was a bit disappointed of how much Edward and Tabb's were in there for back to typing buy this film and it won't disappoint you. OK, why complain about this movie? It's fiction. Deal with it. If you want to see the biography, go watch it. This is an original, fictionalized version of what happened in Wisconsin. People who are obsessed will complain about this, as they do every other deviation of the facts. Sad but true. I think making Kane Hodder the man in which the film is named after was a great idea. I thought it wasn't so good at first, I'll be honest. But that just made it even scarier. If you like Kane Hodder, Ed Gein or movies based on real events, I think this is a good movie. But if you're obsessed (like some other people) stay away from this movie and all others. Finally!!! A good movie made on the most demented serial killer in history. For those less familiar with Ed Gein, he was basically the madman who was known for grave robbing and skinning his victims (which most horror fans ripped off). Shot in a period style that reflects the bleak plains of Wisconsin perfectly, this is easily the most atmospheric horror film yet to depict Gein and his gruesome killings. Kane Hodder (Jason from Friday the 13th series) and Michael Berryman (Hills have Eyes I & II), deliver chilling performances in this serial killer opus that easily leaves behind the lackluster former Gein attempts. So far I'd say this is one of the better horror films released this year (Turistas = 0). I'm not into reality shows that much, but this one is exceptional because at the end, the viewer gets something useful out of it besides entertainment. I don't have children but SuperNanny's lessons will be a great help when (and if) I ever do! My only complaint is that the show has been watered down since it has been in the US. I prefer the British version, with the sterner nanny approach. Is it just me or does anyone else find the US version to be a bit soft... now it's the "kinder, gentler" nanny? I guess we Yanks need a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down after all?! Still, nothing wrong with a sappy happy ending, is there? Supernanny Jo Frost, in each episode, gives a family the benefit of her hard-earned experience. But when she's gone will they succeed in sticking to her tough disciplinary rules or do they face a life dominated by unruly children.

Following in the vein of British documentaries "Wife Swap" and "How clean is your house" Supernanny gives an in depth look into the private family lives of average people, but with the added benefit of practical advice on ways to raise your children.

Jo advocates a tough love style of child care and the now infamous 'naughty step' has come into the popular vernacular in many British homes.

In just three short weeks the families featured were turned from a disorganised house of; sibling rivalry, screaming, kicking, biting kids and fighting parents, to a tranquil calm oasis of family love.

The series when aired gathered huge ratings and critical acclaim and is currently in talks to be reversioned for America. For anyone who has trouble with naughty, mad or troublesome kids this is an essential programme to watch. It is just the best behaviour documentary programme, not just for tips but for the transformations. The quite attractive Jo Frost is Supernanny, with fifteen years of nannying experience she now has a programme where she shows a family where the kids are misbehaving very, very badly. Frost is the nanny who does not let the kids win. Every episode they have young kids who are mad and very, very naughty, e.g. throwing things, constantly swearing, hitting relatives and parents and many other horrible experiences. But every episode by the end of the show the kids are transformed by the parents (with the help of Frost) from little monsters to lovable children. It is just wonderful when the transformations are successful, Jo Frost is an excellent Supernanny. It was nominated the National Television Award for Most Popular Factual Programme (twice). It was number 15 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. Very good! There I was on vacation when my host suggested we take in this B-Movie festival in Breda. I was resistant, as I hadn't gone on the trip to sit in a movie theater, but I've got to admit that I don't regret a second of this one (especially with Stephen Malkmus' contribution). It probably helped that I had no idea what to expect.

SEA OF DUST starts out like a typical costume drama. We've got a young medical student going to help a doctor whose town is being destroyed by a crazy plague (which somehow involves exploding heads). On the way, he stops to visit his fiancé and gets thrown off the property by her father. Traveling on, he finds a girl lying on the road, another plague victim, and takes her along to the doctor's. Yawn, I thought. It all seemed pretty predicable.

And then everything went crazy and it suddenly turned into a completely different film. Tom Savini shows up looking like Dracula, characters begin traveling to "the other side" of reality, and the dialog gets increasingly humorous.

And just when I thought it had settled into a groove, the picture changes again, becoming really dark and bizarre. I won't spoil it for first time viewers, but there's an amazing sequence about hollow people, lots of chat about the abuse of religion by society, and some over-the-top gore effects. And did I mention Stephen Malkmus? This isn't a perfect movie (in case you haven't figured that out from its appearance at a B-Movie festival), but it's well worth the time for adventurous viewers. Great visuals, cool soundtrack, lots of interesting ideas. The acting is a little zany at times, but I think that's the point.

Funny I had to go to Breda to see find an American picture that looked like a British horror movie. You figure that one out... I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.

Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.

The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket. I also attended the RI International Horror Film Festival and I can easily see why this film won best of show.

SEA OF DUST is a wild romp of Horror, Comedy and beautiful scenery. A back in time tale of strange goings on. An increasingly wide spread illness with an overwhelmingly irritating side effect of people's heads exploding, brings a young Professor's apprentice; Stefan, to investigate. Along his travels, he decides to briefly detour and once again ask for his long time love's hand in marriage, only to once again be sent packing by her extremely stubborn father… Along the way "out of town" he comes across an ill girl in the road and delivers her to Dr. Maitland, (brilliantly played by up and coming Vincent Price like actor: Edward X Young.) Who fills Stefan in on the Evils a foot. Only the Dr. is insulted that he had called for the Professor and only received a boy in training…None the less, Stefan turns out to be much more than a common bystander. Horror Icon; Tom Savini portrays the ultimate religious torment monger; Prester John. Scream Queen; Ingrid Pitt comes out of retirement to give a stellar performance as Anna. Many beautiful and talented supporting actors seamlessly held the story together and helped to effectively move it along to the climax.

Dark Religion and over the top, but fun and sometimes very original, gore scenes play heavily in this Hammer tribute flick. This stylish movie goes back and forth between flashbacks, surreal worlds, dreams and the character's reality.

Horror and Gore aside; This is also a very Funny movie! Slapstick, tongue and cheek humor and dark comedy raise their heads among the dark story line. Like others have stated; this really is like three great movies in one. Very Entertaining and Original. I watched SEA OF DUST at the Rhode Island Horror Film Festival in Providence. It was the Festival's featured film and won Best Picture out of I think a couple hundred entries. The director and a few of the stars answered questions after the showing. One star, Suzy Lorraine, was even hotter in person than in the film, and she was an eye catcher in the movie.

This film is independent, yet it has a lot of cinematic touches that give it a quality feel. It even has an original classical style musical score.

I am a Savini fan and he's the star villain here, in black cape, he's more of an evil force than a real person I think. He is sucking the souls out of people and using them as soldiers in a twisted attempt to establish his version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. In his view, Christ was all about suffering and Savini intends to make everyone suffer.

The main story line that holds your interest is about a young doctor, Stefan, who is sent to investigate the strange events Savini is causing in an isolated town. He proposes to an aristocrat chick on the way but her SOB father tells him to get lost. Then he meets up with a strangely possessed but alluring country girl. I think she falls in love with him, but she also tries to kill him, as do a number of hot women in the film.

I found the scenes shot in the woods to be the creepiest and most eye catching, with strange people along the road (the evil little twin girls scared the hell out of me).

The film has a lot to it, too much to list. There is a lot of blood, torture and gore. Hot chicks licking blood off of guys' fingers. A terrified girl's head explodes. That was unexpected. Throats get slit. Some brutal stabbings.

Then they play it for laughs sometimes, poking a bit of fun at the whole evil black forest genre.

If you're a fan of Hammer films and Ingrid Pitt, it is fascinating to see her in this movie. She offs one of the leads by plunging a cross in his skull. Excellent. The guy who played "Multiple Miggs" in Silence of the Lambs is great in an axe fight.

The movie is surreal and with the ending, I'm not sure the events happened or if they were in Stefan's head because of his rejection by his would-be fiancée. He returns in vengeance and that scene is brutal.

The director also talked about the theme of religion being misused to back wars and killings. I can see that for sure, Savini's view of religion was scary.

This was a strangely exceptional movie with some stars like Savini and Pitt, a lot of good supporting cast including hot babes, great gore scenes, action, and all the time you're wondering what the hell is going on and what is going to happen next.

This deserves ten stars because it's an excellent independent film effort, I don't think it was low budget but it had to be way less than a big studio budget, and yet they managed to make something really attractive, unique and thought provoking. The first movie at the Fangoria Festival in Vegas and the most challenging. It's not a movie for everyone. A number of the films that followed used predictable classic horror formulas to tell predictable stories. This picture seemed determined to do its own thing.

Tom Savini showed some comic chops as the over the top villain. He dominated every scene he was in, flipping his cape about like Leslie Neilson playing Dracula. It was great to hear his explanation after the film. He had such a good sense of humor about the role.

I was glad I didn't have too many preconceptions going in, because the movie offered a lot of surprises. The story was funny and profane and unusual. There was a lot of love lavished on the look. Most important, it had a weird edge to it. Unlike many of the movies that followed and tried to use a similar classic horror style, this was a movie that used its look for a purpose.

There were a lot of movies at the Fangoria Festival with bigger budgets, but none that dared to be this different. Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.

I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the "Black Forest." He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.

On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.

On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset. This is more of the same thing that made this cartoon popular.....but who's complaining? It's always fun to see the poor coyote try various contraptions to get the Road Runner, and then get pulverized by every one of those inventions.

The underground cave chase was different from the normal fare and was clever. It gave us an aerial view of the chase in a maze-like structure. I didn't say it was hilarious; just different from the normal above-ground antics.

This one, along with some other Road Runner shorts, are featured on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 and the transfers of them are spectacular. The colors are magnificent. I think I am some kind of Road Runner fan. I don't care how predictable it is, I laugh anyway. 'Beep, Beep' is predictable most of the time, although it is pretty ingenious at the same time as well. Of course the Road Runner is chased by the Coyote and of course the Coyote fails to catch the Road Runner with every new attempt. The plans the Coyote comes up with are very funny. You see exactly where it will go wrong and you will not disappointed. Well, one time you are sort of disappointed, what you think will happen does not, but it makes the joke even funnier.

If you like the Road Runner shorts you will love this one. The predictable gags work and the animation is great and pretty original at times. OK, so in any Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner cartoons, we know that WEC is going to set up all sorts of traps for RR, but always maim himself in various ways. That certainly happens in "Beep, Beep". Predictable? I guess that it is, but when you think about it, these cartoons show how the more you try to harm someone else, the more you get harmed; sort of like how Daffy Duck always tries to undermine Bugs Bunny's integrity but Bugs sees around it.

Overall, this is another classic from the Termite Terrace crowd. Sometimes, I think that if we really had wanted to ease Cold War tensions, we could have just let the Soviet Union see Looney Tunes cartoons; I'm sure that they would have loved them. Another great one.

PS: I learned on "Jeopardy!" that Wile E. Coyote's middle name is Ethelbert. This cartoon documents the second encounter between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, and is definitely better than their first meeting in Fast and Furry-ous (1949).

If measured by aesthetic value, then this cartoon would not rank among the top 5 or 6 of the year 1952. Regardless, this is a very funny short. Coyote (Carnivorous Vulgaris) chases the Roadrunner (Accelerati Incredibilus) along the road and gets completely tired out. The ingenious scientific "Latin" names of the characters are very original, and has been mimicked before in other un-related cartoons. The coyote collapses and puts on a wonderful expression of- I don't know -boredom. Such Jonesesque expressions make this cartoon provide more than its fare share of laughs in seven minutes. Then he has an idea, and another laughable expression is worn. The slapstick jokes are all hilarious, and mask the fact that it is truly evil to inflict such pain on a poor, helpless, GENIUS coyote. Everyone knows, but who cares?

The old rocket gag is present, too. Coyote straps himself to a rocket, which should produce enough oomph for him to catch up with Roadrunner and grab him. Instead, the rocket shoots up into the air and becomes a firework in the distance: Eat at Joe's. This classical gag originates from this cartoon; though obvious, it still makes people laugh.

The highlight truly is the chase through the mineshaft. The two wear helmet-lights, and we see the tunnel through which the two are going, with only the lights visible. Here, the comedy reaches a peak. A must-see sequence, maybe even the best sequence in the early days of Roadrunner. The final touch is provided by the writing of Michael Maltese, as Coyote's light goes out and he unknowingly lights a match in a room full of explosives, the surface is shown where a bunch of cactus jump and spell out the letters "YIPE!" after the blast. Such small things make you laugh all through a mere seven minutes, and as soon as it starts the fun's all over. The rocket skates are another good idea, as is the free drink of water and the anvil on the tight-rope (a sequence that appears in Space Jam [1996]). To give the results of those away would be useless. The free drink proves to be a problem for Wile E. at the end of the second-last sequence: namely the rocket skates.

This classical cartoon is littered with fine animation, except for the characters. Though they are animated very well, the two characters are very primitive; which might be an understatement. Though at first it may seem weird, the humor of the ensuing sequences makes one forget.

If you like vintage Jones, watch this. If you LOVE Roadrunner, get this on video. Excellent entertainment (Rating: 8/10). Chuck Jones's 'Beep Beep' (so called despite the fact that the Road Runner clearly says "Meep Meep") is the second of the exceptionally popular Road Runner series and is a vast improvement on its predecessor, the historically important but lacklustre 'Fast and Furry-ous'. While it features several predictable quickfire gags, 'Beep Beep' also expands on that initial cartoon with more ambitious, longer sequences. Chief among these is a fantastic, extended chase through an old mine in which we see the Coyote and the Road Runner represented by two small lights. There's also a very funny longer gag involving some rocket-powered roller-skates. 'Beep Beep' also sees a great improvement in the representation of Wile E. Coyote. Not only does he look more handsome than his scraggly prototype in 'Fast and Furry-ous' but he also draws the audience into the cartoon more with a greater amount of looks to the camera to indicate the brilliance of his idea or his fear of imminent pain. Although it's a little slow to get going (too many lingering shots of blueprints hinder the pace in some of the early gags), once 'Beep Beep' arrives at the mine shaft sequence it's clear that Jones was beginning to get a real handle on these characters and the greater possibilities of what he could do with them. There are better Road Runner cartoons than 'Beep Beep' but there's a real feeling of triumph about this cartoon, as if it were the confirmation that there was a series to be milked out of this scenario. This second pairing of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner is a great as the first. Predictable maybe, but I don't care and still laugh so much whenever I see it. The Wile E./Road runner shorts always had the most special place in my heart. So knowing that the second disc of the Golden Collection would not only feature 11 of this, BUT they would be in chronological order (2 through 12, the first episode was on Volume 1), made me get misty eyed. I LOVE this stuff. This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2. It also features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: A+ As I have said before in previous comments, some programmes are there to be 'Light entertainment'. So I get somewhat frustrated when commentators seem to be expecting a program that will reveal the meaning of life, you will not get that from Cleopatra 2525 and it does not presume to offer it. What you get is a girl who was frozen and is brought back to life some 500 years later and her adaptation to this new life is realistic. She does not settle in within 10 minutes as what happens with other time travelling adventures and neither is she the female equivalent of James Bond ready to take on all comers.Cleopatra is overawed by her new surroundings and frightened by some of the weaponry on display as most of us would be. However it is light entertainment, the stories have a beginning a middle and an end in quick time and their are some surprisingly good moments of acting. The episode when there is a double of Cleopatra is particularly moving and Jennifer Sky I think gives one of the best performances of someone dying for a long long time, and being a film and television buff I know what I am talking about. Finally to prove my sincerity I have purchased all but four of the episodes and I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. The only reason I do not have the complete set is because I purchased the other episodes before realising that there was one complete box set. Victoria Pratt and Gina Torres complete the trio creditably and for light entertainment Cleopatra 2525 certainly entertained me. ya know the concept of "guilty pleasures"? yeah, you have 'em, like admitting you watched - and enjoyed - goonies, battlestar galactica AFTER they reached earth, v the series, charlie's angels, starsky & hutch, the 1950s version of superman, or godzilla movies.

here's the ultimate in guilty pleasures. coupled with jack of all trades in a sam raimi action packed hour, this half hour slot is fast paced, easy to follow, and loaded with fun-to-watch scanlity-clad babes.

the man that brought us evil dead, xena, hercules, and the adventures of brisco county jr does it again with this 2000 update of charlies angels. we got charlie (voice) an unknown being that has the knowlege and the time to find people who need help, bosley (mouser) the gadget man, and three gorgeous babes that kick a** for a living.

and oh what a living! I picked up a DVD at the 1€ discount, having no idea what it's about (but at that price I can't resist..) In brief: I was positively surprised.

So much that I did quite some research. On the German DVD (part 2 of a series of 3), episodes were recombined into two 85 minute parts, and out of order. Here are my results, based on Wikipedia's episode list:

"Doomsday" is In My Boots + The Voice (final episode).

"War of the Machines" is Hel & High Water (1, 2) + Pod Listener + Juggernaut Down.

Well, what can I say. Underdressed girlies are of course interesting for older men. I never watched Charlie's Angels so much, so I can't compare, but the more I watched, the less I looked out for bikini tops and their fillings. Instead, the characters (both m and f) became more interesting. I can imagine feminists have their fun with this, too. All in all, maybe a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure it was :^) This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched. Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in "Ernest Goes to Jail", most of the gags relate to electricity. I really liked the whole vacuum cleaner sequence early on. Overall, the point of the movie is just to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. This is possibly the ultimate movie that you watch with a bud. It's quite safe to say that Jim Varney will truly be missed. Knowwhaddamean? FYI: the only other cast member whom I recognized was Randall "Tex" Cobb, who played Lyle. You've surely seen him somewhere. If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.

All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. "Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.

And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right. The last good Ernest movie, and the best at that. How can you not laugh at least once at this movie. The last line is a classic, as is Ernest's gangster impressions, his best moment on film. This has his best lines and is a crowning achievement among the brainless screwball comedies. I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10! This movie brings back so many memories for me! I was very young when it came out but I remember the first time I saw it! My dad and I would always watch the "Ernest Movies" together. We hadn't seen any of them in several years and I found a couple of them really cheap. We watched them and could not stop laughing. I love all of the "Ernest Movies," but this one is my favorite.

Spoiler part!

The part I remember most is the "magnet" part. My dad still does the electric chair scene!

End Spoiler!

This is a very cheesy movie...but a great one! It's perfect for families (it isn't like a lot of the trash out there) but at the same time adults can laugh too! If you like physical humor (like facial expressions and the way people move) then this is the movie for you! This is a really good flick with awesome humor. Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie. In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well. I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it. Good directing, good script, worth renting. Ernest P. Worrell comes through with his third movie presentation. Jim Varney not only plays Ernest, but doubles as the evil Mr. Nash. From start to finish this movie has some solid laughs and makes a good family film! Rated PG for comic book violence. This is an excellent movie. There were several parts to the movie I liked. This movie is very funny! Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc. I highly recommend these for family movies. All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie? In my opinion there are actually 2 Ernest Goes to Camp and Ernest Goes to Jail. So if you have never seen Ernest P. Worrell its time to go and see him. You will find him quite satisfactory "no what I mean"? This was easily one of the weirder of the Ernest movies, especially in regards to the production design. What was up with the pink guard uniforms? Sadly, this film probably destroyed the Ernest series, turning the series into a straight-to-video series. However, Jim Varney gave one of his better performances by playing Nash, his criminal alter ego. A misstep in the series, but wasn't too bad in most regards.(the Electro Man routine was classic) This is a good film. This is very funny. Yet after this film there were no good Ernest films! If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).

In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.

A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it! Thirty years after the 1939 classic film won Robert Donat an Oscar and made Greer Garson a star, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" overcame a multitude of problems before stumbling to the screen in this musical version. Original stars Rex Harrison and Samantha Eggar were replaced by Richard Burton and Lee Remick, who in turn were given the heave-ho in favor of - thankfully - Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. Andre Previn's score was rejected, and the one eventually used was composed by - unfortunately - Leslie Bricusse. First-time director Herbert Ross was handed the monumental task of transforming a simple love story - that of a man for both his wife and students - into a big-budget extravaganza. That it succeeds as well as it does despite the many obstacles in its way is a testament to its two stars.

Arthur Chipping is a Latin teacher at Brookfield, a boys' school in suburban England where he himself was educated. Introverted and socially inept, he is dedicated to his students but unable to inspire them. Prior to summer holiday, a former student takes him to a London music hall to see an entertainment starring Katharine Bridges, the young lady he hopes to wed. The post-performance meeting is awkward for all, and Chips - as he is commonly known - sets off to explore some of Italy's ancient ruins. Unexpectedly, he runs into Katharine, who has booked a Mediterranean cruise to allow her time to mourn a failed love affair and ponder the direction of her career. In the time they spend together, she discovers a kind and gentle man beneath the befuddled exterior, and upon returning to London pursues him in earnest. When the fall term begins, Chips returns to Brookfield with his young bride, and the two settle into a life of quiet domesticity. Complications arise when aspects of Katharine's past surface, and again when World War II intrudes in their lives, but Chips is bolstered by his wife's support, and his new-found confidence makes him a favorite among the students.

Aside from a couple of musical interludes - the delightful music hall production number "London is London" and Katharine's declaration of love, "You and I" - most of Bricusse's songs, some of them performed in voice-over as the characters explore their emotions, are easily forgettable and in no way enhance the film. Eliminate the score entirely, and "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" works quite well as a drama. Terrence Rattigan's script retains elements of the original while expanding upon it and updating it by a couple of decades. He has crafted several scenes between Chips and Katharine that beautifully delineate their devotion to each other, and infused a few with comic relief courtesy of Katharine's friend and cohort, over-the-top actress Ursula Mossbank (delightfully played by Sian Phillips, O'Toole's real-life wife at the time). He also captures life at a British public school - the equivalent of a private academy here in the States - with unerring perfection.

Ross does well as a first-time director, liberally sprinkling the film with breathtakingly photographed moments - the opening credits sequence, during which the school anthem echoes in the vast stone hallways of the school, perfectly sets the tone for the film. Costumes and sets are true to the period. The students, portrayed by non-professionals who were enrolled at the school used as Brookfield, handle their various small supporting roles well.

Highest praise is reserved for Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark in the lead roles. O'Toole was long-established as a first-class dramatic actor, so his Academy Award-nominated performance here comes as no surprise. Clark, a veteran of some two dozen B-movies in the UK and the previous year's "Finian's Rainbow," is absolutely luminous as the music hall soubrette who forsakes a theatrical career in favor of life as a schoolmaster's wife. Her golden voice enriches her songs and almost allows us to overlook how insipid most of them are, and she more than matches O'Toole in their dramatic scenes together. The chemistry between the two is palpable and leaves us with no doubt that this is a couple very much in love.

This version of "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is no classic like its predecessor, but hardly the disaster many critics described when it was released. Ignore the score, concentrate on the performances, and revel in the atmosphere Ross has put on the screen. It's a pleasant way to spend a rainy afternoon with someone you love. When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its "Roadshow" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!

Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as "Chipping", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.)

Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.

Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.) I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and "the boys" in that school. It was an English "public" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for "his lads", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a "dance hall girl"(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to "dance hall" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely "lower class". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she "leavens" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the "British Invasion"...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like "Chips"...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story! Caught this 1969 film on cable TCM one night. I remember when I first saw the film in Hong Kong, I really enjoyed the songs and performances by Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. I love Clark best in Francis Ford Coppola's "Finian's Rainbow" (1968) opposite Fred Astaire, Don Francks and Tommy Steele. Simply ecstatic to learn that finally, this delightful Irish-flavored pot of gold musical is released on DVD! Ah, "it's that old devil moon (in your eyes)."

Peter O'Toole as Mr. Chips - yes, he did sing - quite a deliverance. He may not be a veteran at musical like Rex Harrison, but he inhabited the role marvelously. The scene of him running across the lawn in his cape a-flying reminds me of the PBS series, "To Serve Them All My Days" - a lovable schoolmaster and loving man, he is, 'Mr. Chipey.' Clark and O'Toole somehow gave us just the right mix of spunk and circumstance. The songs and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse are catchy as usual. The tunes of "You and I" and "Walk Through the World (with Me)" stayed with me the most all these years. And there's "What a Lot of Flowers," "And the Sky Smiled," "Fill the World with Love" - not syrupy at all. Sometimes I think if the world is immersed in Bricusse's songs and words, we would overcome all strife on earth and 'lovely' will be all our days! Yes, "Talk to the Animals," too. ("Doctor Doolittle" 1967)

Musicals are a blessing to the world of moviegoers, they are somehow larger than life. Like the music and lyrics by the Sherman Brothers (Richard M. and Robert B.) who gave us "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (1968) and "Mary Poppins" (1964) - who wouldn't feel absolutely delighted simply uttering "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? I was tickled by even just one featured song & dance number in the Spanish film "Km.0 - Kilometer Zero" (2000). My all time favorite is French filmmaker Jacques Demy's "Young Girls of Rochefort" (1967) with colorful cast of Catherine Deneuve and (late sister) Francoise Dorléac, Jacques Perrin, Michel Piccoli, Danielle Darrieux, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris singing, dancing to Michel Legrand's music. Long live musicals. Yes 1939/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole! Peter O'Toole, one of our finest actors, is magnificent as a reserved school master who is dedicated to teaching young boys. He meets a show girl and falls in love. The story is one of love and devotion. Petula Clark adds spirit and sensitivity, not too mention a remarkable voice. You will enjoy this film even though the ending might not be a happy one. I enjoyed it. I saw this film when it first came out, and didn't know what to expect exactly. What followed the Overture was one of the most pleasurable filmgoing experiences I have ever had. A lush score of songs and music by Britisher Leslie Bricusse (of Doctor Doolittle & Wilie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory fame as well as making his mark on the Broadway musical scene), and scored by the incomparable John Williams. There's not a bad song in the entire film. Plus some of the most exquisite cinematography, costume design and filming locations I have ever seen in one film. Not to mention the Academy Award nominated performance by Peter O'Toole, and the equally strong performance, in my opinion, by the wonderful Petula Clark. Now, given that Peter is not the same caliber a singer that Petula is, he still manages to sell his songs to the audience, and that, after all, is what it is all about. This is a faithful adaptation of the excellent book by James Hilton, and deserves to be treasured for generations to come. I recommend this film for family viewing, though most men will consider this a 'chick' flick. But if you like a truly great film musical, then this film is for you. But be warned that a standby box of Kleenex is just as important as popcorn for your viewing pleasure. I wish I was first exposed to this in a movie theater when it was first released, as some of the commentors had been. It really is a treasure. To be fair I have not seen any other version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips and neither do I want to. To me this stands as a perfect version. I first saw it on TCM years ago and never forgot it. I had the pleasure of watching it with my girlfriend yesterday, although I had recorded it from TCM days earlier. There were portions of the movie in which both of us were teary-eyed, it really is a moving movie.

And shouldn't that be what movies are all about?

The music is beautiful, the film was shot wonderfully. The acting is top notch. And the story is delicate and timeless.

One of my favorite movies of all-time. I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD ("but one day, one day..."). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable ("When I Am Older," "You and I," "Fill the World With Love," "London Is London" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film. Peter O'Toole is Arthur Chipping a Latin Teacher with strict adherence to detail and thoroughness in helping young minds grasp the meaning and definition of Latin words and phrases. He is seen as being cold and unfair and not in touch with the times. But upon meeting Stage Actress Singer Katherine Briskit (Petula Clark) not only at a late supper after a performance of London is London but at an Amphitheater in Greece his closed minded world starts to open up.

Goodbye Mr. Chips is an MGM musical remake of the 1939 movie also from MGM. During this time musicals were out and the Hollywood studio system was in total shambles. When it premiered in New York Los Angeles and London the musical numbers were left intact but when it came to the local main street theaters world wide it was sans songs therefore making the movie shorter and gaped to the max.

Thanks to MGM/UA Home Video under Ted Turner in the late 1980's early 1990's when VHS and Laser Disc were the main home video formats of choice the musical numbers were re-instituted and the gaps closed. Laserdisc though was the only format chosen to view Goodbye Mr. Chips in the Widescreen Letterbox Format.

For awhile now the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack was only available on the original out of print Vinyl and Cassette Tape and can still be found today on Ebay.

Thanks to the wonderful people at Film Score Monthly.com in 2006 the soundtrack has been digitally remastered and remixed into a 3 CD set featuring the completely reconstructed score, the original 1969 general release album score, and narrated sequences source music and interviews a plenty. You also get 1 unused song which is a real lost gem, "Tomorrow with Me" by Petula Clark which would have been chosen in place of "You and I" before hand.

This movie is both a classic musical and a real tribute to educators everywhere. I most certainly would buy this movie if Warner Bros. MGM and Sony would put their money where there mouth is and get this film restored from all master film sources and put it on both DVD and Blu Ray with all the bells and whistles put back into place with all the extras you can find and stuff into a release. I love this movie because every single element of it is nothing less than excellent. I will quickly praise a few of them. Peter O'Toole gives us one of his great performances as he becomes the definitive Mr. Chips. Petula Clark, has a beautiful voice and is perfect as Katharine. The director was able to bring the story to the screen in a fresh new way. Combine that with the fantastic and creative cinematography, editing, writing, etc., and you have a film that shows the fine quality of its production. I can't praise the well-planned camera work enough, it moves us up and around, zooming in and out, giving us the best views of, and letting the locations become part of the scene. Petula Clark's last song 'YOU AND I' is just 3 beautifully composed long takes, and in this era of 2 second takes, I can appreciate the extra care that everyone involved had to give to get those long scenes perfect. The music is great, and the songs move the story along just as they should. Leslie Bricusse is one of my favorite composers. Listen to these songs, how could anyone not like them? This is a very romantic story between two people nearing middle age that find each other, bring out the best in each other, and it lasts till the end of their lives. Excellent production values, acting, camera work, and music, make this movie well worth watching. "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to "show biz" numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. "Where Did My Childhood Go?", "Walk Through the World With Me", and "You and I" are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film. "Chips" is an excellent blend of music, light comedy and drama with a picture perfect performance by Peter O' Toole and and effortless romantic supporting performance by Petula Clark. O' Toole is able to show the shy, uncommunicative teacher that wishes so much to be loved by his students and is only able to express his love when he married Katherine (Clark). She brings him the world "What a lot of flowers" and he is forever changed. He becomes the beloved headmaster of Brookfield through tragedy but knows he could only have achieved his goal through Katherine's love. The songs (with the exception of the Music hall number) are all "thought-songs" coming from character's emotions and thoughts and, the more you listen to them, the more beautiful they become - "Walk through the World with Me" and "You and I". O'Toole's finest moment is the final speech he gives to the students (it was the reason for the Oscar nomination). As a teacher, we question what "book" learning ever gets through - but, as Chips says, we did teach them how to behave with each other and that is what really counts. Beautifully filmed, perfectly orchestrated by John Williams and one of the most moving films about love and how it can change you. "Did I Fill the World with Love?" the boys sing their school song. By the end, Chips realizes he was able to do it - but only cause Catherine was there. Great acting is best rewarded by pairing with a melodramatic script which truly elevates the human spirit. To all those minions who toil each and every day, take heart! your patience is virtuous. Your forbearance and decency will evidence, in ways you will never anticipate. This is your Great Story. I do not believe you can watch through to the end without a wisp of moisture in that hardened eye. Or, can you? For me, it would not be so... the story is relentless! The idealist, denied his due. Will anyone speak up? Ah! but you will need to see the show yourselves! observe the schoolmaster in his prime, without the notice and peerage the observer would certainly expect. And why does he continue so? Yes! you must watch O'Toole's performance for yourselves! I can only wish it were still 'in print' to purchase, then present to my friends as my evidence of respect for their faithful lives. Great story, great music. A heartwarming love story that's beautiful to watch and delightful to listen to. Too bad there is no soundtrack CD. Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, "Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys." Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion. 30 years after the original film, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" was made over as a musical. Peter O'Toole and Petula Clarke starred in this wonderful remake of the beloved schoolteacher, Chippington, who is referred to as Chips by his beloved wife.

O'Toole was excellent here and received another Oscar nomination. You have to wonder what Peter O'Toole has to do to win an Oscar. He has lost the coveted award 8 times now. You also have to wonder that he lost in 1969 to John Wayne for "True Grit," which was really a testament to Mr. Wayne's long career and popularity. This year was also marked by great performances by Richard Burton, "Anne of the Thousand Days," as well as Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for "Midnight Cowboy."

Surprised to see Petula Clarke cast as Mrs. Chippington. However, as this was a musical, a beautiful voice came well through and she did a nice piece of acting as well.

Who can forget the scene when Chips carries on in the class despite the news that his beloved has been killed in a bombing. He never got to tell her the wonderful news of his pending promotion.

The beautiful cinematography and music only enhanced a truly memorable experience. This is a truly wonderful love story. I liked the songs, however even if you do not, you have to love the story. Peter O'Toole is at his best and Petula Clark is doing fine as well. I first saw this when I was about 13 and loved it then. Now in my forties, I still enjoy it, probably even more. Still makes me cry and laugh and feel good. It is a movie to watch only with a new age guy or by yourself as it is a chick flick. But whats wrong with that. Need a little romance and maybe a little cry, try this movie.

Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).

This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film. Nothing dull about this movie, which is held together by fully realized characters with some depth to them. Even the hooded torturers have body language. Jannings' performance is brilliant, all will, want and need. A Henry VIII as he must have been. Henny Porten is, maybe, nobler and purer than Anne Boleyn, but she plays the part as written: A victim caught in the jaws of a big (huge) baby.

Sparkuhl's cinematography is gorgeous in the restoration, the tints sensuous. Lubitsch lets these characters breathe and reveal their corruption down to the tiniest of meannesses. He takes his time, which can try the patience of an audience accustomed to being carried away by action, but the time is worth spending. Slow your heartbeat and watch this minor miracle of German silent film. Continuing with the exclusive film programme about complicated relationships in some European courts, last night in the Schloss theatre was shown "Anna Boleyn", a film directed by the great Teutonic film director Herr Ernst Lubitsch. The film depicts the terrible story of the Queen consort of the British King Henry VIII. She was executed by her husband ( well, not exactly, the King ordered the executioners to do his dirty work) not to mention that this marriage caused an important political and religious historical event, the English Reformation.

The film stars Dame Henny Porten, Germany's first screen superstar during those early years and Herr Emil Jannings, Germany's fattest actor in that silent era. Both play their characters in a suitable way; Dame Porten as an innocent aristocrat who becomes progressively interested in the power that the court offers her and Herr Jannings as the unscrupulous, whimsical and womanizing British monarch, a character very suitable for this German actor who overacts appropriately, given the extravagance and excessive personality of the character himself.

In the early film period Herr Lubitsch was known for his outstanding costume films, colossal productions with big budgets ( "Anna Boleyn" cost about 8 million marks, a fortune even for this German count ) taking great care in magnificent decors as can be seen during the coronation procession in Westminster Abbey scene which employed 4.000 extras ( idle Germans of that time were used, causing revolutionary workers to create a fuss when German President Friedrich Ebert visited the set during filming).

Besides the spectacle, one of the most important aspect of this and every film of Herr Lubitsch, even during his epic period, is the complex relationship between the main characters. We experience a game of different interests, double meanings, and the complicated art of flirting but what is treated lightly at first ends in tragedy. The importance of those historical facts is brought to bear in an effective way but Lubitsch is really more interested in the changing relationship between Henry VIII and Anna Boleyn.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take care that one of his fat and rich heiress doesn't lose her head for this Teutonic aristocrat.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/ Though, short lived "The Amazing Spider-Man" was one of the best made for TV versions of a famed comic book hero. Only "Wonder Woman" (Lynda Carter) (the best of the genre and "The Incredible Hulk" (Bill Bixby, Lou Ferrigno) were better.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" outclasses the 1966-1968 "Batman", because the high camp elements of the latter often ruin the adventure. "Spider-Man" outclasses all three television interpretations of "Superman"- "Lois and Clark", "Smallville", and of course the George Reeves "Superman" which brings up the rear.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" was an action drama, during the late 1970's, the pre-CGI era, when stunts had to be performed by stunt men, not in the database of a computer. "Spider-Man" had its own very talented stuntman to perform the death defying daredevil acrobatics. His name was Fred Waugh, who donned the spidy suit for the action sequences. Nicholas Hammond, better known as one of Julie Andrew's children on the all-time movie classic "The Sound of Music" was Spider-Man during the dialogue scenes. Hammond's Spider-Man also had his own secret identity as Peter Parker, similar to Christopher Reeve- Superman/ Clark Kent, Adam West-Batman/Bruce Wayne, and of course Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince.

It's unfortunate that the series only had thirteen episodes. Because when the first episode hit the airwaves in November of 1977, the entire country was watching it on CBS that Wednesday night. In all fairness, CBS should release this pilot episode as well as "The Deadly Dust", the "Captive Tower" etc. on DVD shortly. "Spider-Man" was short lived, but did have a cult following, and in my opinion was a heck of a lot better than the movie interpretation of the famed comic book hero starring Toby McGuire.

CBS might be hesitant to release these episodes for two reasons. (A) There might not be a broad market for them based on the lack of longevity of the series and a generation of children and young people who weren't born when the series originally aired in the 1970's. (B) One of the early "Spider-Man" episodes dealt with a terrorist with designs on the World Trade Center, which was attacked twice many years after this show went off the air, in 1993, and of course the devastating attack against this country on 9/11/01 in which the towers were destroyed and many innocent lives were lost.

However I don't think that it would be in bad taste to release this "Spider-Man" episode even if the show was adventure, derived from a comic book, and camp in nature. The live action "Amazing Spider-Man" doesn't have a large following but it has a cult following. If and when CBS releases it out on DVD this cult following could be explained along with the episode in which Spiderman saved the towers in 1978, but how in September of 2001 real life proved to be different from the movies. I like to follow the news, but I also like Science Fiction/Fantasy. Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the release of "The Amazing Spider-Man on DVD". When I was a kid I remembered this show but thought that now as an adult the show might be a bit dated. Well yes it is but for me that makes the show more retro (and the musics very funky).

This show is mostly well written. I do think its a travesty that this show was cancelled after one season especially when this show was more popular than the Incredible Hulk.

I think fans should overlook the poor special effects and enjoy the stories.

This next sentence contains spoilers: My favourite episode as a kid was when there were two spiderman that battle against each other interestingly a similar idea is concocted in Spiderman 3 the movie. I liked the ideas in this TV show some will hate it. I believe Stan Lee wasn't a fan. Some people think this was a rather bad TV series, with cheesy effects. (considering it was filmed between 1977-1979) but really, look back at those years and think, "We didn't have computers back then." so if you think about it, it's a rather good TV series.

I always figured bad ratings killed the show, but no. the network did. they canceled out their theme as "The superhero network" and abandoned a short lived spider-man series. if it had gone on, it probably would have run well into the 80's, and if it was really lucky (And i mean really lucky), the early 90s.

And no one wanted to pick this series up.

Anyways, Jolly old (or young) Nicholas Hammond, of The sound of music fame, is brought to the TV screen as peter parker, the Secret identity of the amazing spider-man. along the series, peter deals with a clone, a beautiful girl from a foreign country, and a corrupt politician.

while the series is way out of timeline (being that peter is already graduated from university, and thats when he gets bit, and uncle Ben is already dead,) The audience is treated to action, suspense, and the attitude that the characters have towards peter and his alter ego, spider-man.

While it's also slightly disappointing that Robert. F Simon looks nothing like J.J.Jameson, it's not so disappointing that Betty grant isn't Betty grant, but a hot African American girl (who reminds me of Halle berry, who is one of the hottest women on the planet) so really, this one wasn't so bad.

but considering the time, and how much drama they packed into this one, it kind of foreshadows what bad TV is today. either way, it's entertaining, even for today.

8/10 Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show. I saw the movie yesterday and was shocked by it, but even more shocked by some of the comments I have read here. One person wrote that it was ambiguous if the victim of the torture was guilty or not--therefore... One person wrote that since he wasn't an American citizen, therefore... Some people comment that the people in the Middle East hate us and want us dead, therefore... So are we saying then that it is right to torture someone who is guilty of a crime? Are we saying it is right to torture someone who is not an American Citizen? Are we saying that it is right to torture someone who may hate us and want us dead? Are we saying that, as is written in the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States that "torture is wrong, but some torture is less wrong than others?" When does it become "right" to torture? THAT is why this movie is powerful-- it is ambiguous, but not about torture. Torture is always wrong, and if we are willing to do it, even in the name of justice and "National Security" or "freedom and democracy" then we are wrong and we are evil; we are doing exactly what we are accusing our enemies of doing (and we are calling them "wrong" in the same breath.) My favorite line in the film was "if you don't want to compromise join Amnesty International." Right on. Rendition presents a very topical matter in the form of a very tense thriller. It's a gripping, and not a preaching, movie. Seeing it in an Arab country with a mixture of Arabian and European audience gave it an extra level of atmosphere. The audience was totally gripped by the film and gave it a loud applause afterwards. The story of an Egyptian, married to an American, picked up on the suspicion of links to terrorist organizations and shipped to a friendly (with US) Arab country for "enhanced interrogation (as Meryl Streep's character states in the film: "we have no torture in the US") seems to be from the front page of todays news. There is a very neat link between the various characters which appear in the movie and the pace of the film never drops. The movies'message seems to be (as stated by Jake Gyllenhal's character in the film) that by abducting and torturing suspects you create many more terrorists. The acting is uniformly excellent with Streep and Reese Witherspoon the stand outs. Not to be missed. I think this was the most outstanding edge-of-your-seat thriller that I have seen in a long time. The research for the film was thorough, the writer Kelly Sane has left no loose ends. The cast was seasoned (fantastic performances all round). Omar Metwally was outstanding.

The cinematography is poetic, music enchanting and the overall effect highly satisfying.

Rendition goes into territory that even the media fears to tread. It is really a wakeup call for those involved with espionage and the legal web that is the "War on Terror".

A woman walked out of the theater and asked me "does this really happen"? That in itself speaks of Gavin Hood's masterful achievement. Imagine you have just been on a plane for 18 hours. You have been on a business trip to South Africa. You are a high-paid professional. You've lived in the US for 20 years. You are in your thirties, you have a wife a little boy and another baby on the way. One thing, even though you have a green card, you are still Egyptian. On transit you are asked to come with 2 security guards, next thing you know you are overpowered, hooded and chained and after a brief ( but still reasonably civil) interrogation you are to be rendered! This is what happens to Anwar el Ibrahimi at the beginning of the movie. His is a story of pain and ( literally )torture. It's one of several story lines. One follows his wife's attempts to get more information. One follows the (cold) bureaucrats behind the rendition. Another story deals with the family of the man who leads the interrogation of Anwar el Ibrahimi. There are some other stories too and by the end they all neatly come together. Though the more famous actors like Reese Witherspoon ( as the distraught pregnant wife ) Jake Gyllenhaal ( as the CIA rookie forced to watch the interrogation in Northern Africa) and Meryl Streep ( as CIA hotshot Corine Whitman) it is really the more unknown actors that carry the story and give it it's heart. For me the actor playing the unfortunate Mr El Ibrahimi ( Omar Metwally ) was the heart and soul of this movie. His portrayal of a man in distress was shockingly well done. It's almost as if he was being tortured for real! Also Israeli actor Yigal Naor was very impressive as the part worried family-man and part extremely cruel chief of torture. Hard to watch and not exactly fun, but still very worthwhile. I liked this movie. I saw it to a packed house at the Toronto International Film Festival the day after the gala opener which must have gone over well. The director, Gavin Hood was supposed to be present for today's screening, but alas his twins were born just hours before, so he had to jet on a flight back. '2 birthings in 24 hours' was how he joked about it.

Rendition refers to 'extraordinary rendition' -- a term whereby suspected terrorists in the US can be sent, without the legal consent of their parents nations, to prisons abroad to be questioned and detained.

It's fairly predictable -- innocent Egyptian-American man wrongly accused of being a terrorist 'goes missing' while en route from South Africa to Washingon DC. He is sent abroad, while wife at home (Reese Witherspoon) fights to find him and free him. But what makes this movie special are some nice choices in story-telling: 1) a human-touch story of what is going on in the locale where a suicide bomb-detonated; 2) the humanity of a CIA agent trying to understand and be honest with what is really going on; and 3) the chronology of story-telling which makes it a tight, taut tale that moves and jerks at the right moments. Ah -- relief! And a mix of emotions that swirl around as the story fights for an ending.

All-around strong acting with Meryl Streep as a standout vixen. In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's "Rendition" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.

The term "rendition" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.

On the negative side, "Rendition" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's "interrogation" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a naïve "boy scout" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He "goes through the motions," but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.

What makes "Rendition" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.

Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.

Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of "civil liberties for all" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say "enough is enough," even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).

Thus, to reject "Rendition" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. "Rendition" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing. "I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything." This Shakespearean line from The Merchant of Venice is echoed again in the new film Rendition which introduces the viewer to the "enhanced methods of interrogation", renditions, which began in the Clinton Administration and have become more commonplace since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The film features an all-star cast, with Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and Reese Witherspoon, as well as Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Omar Metwally. Supporting roles filled by unfamiliar actors deliver as well, sucking the audience into the plot, and showing how many people can be affected by overseas terror attacks, and our means of investigating them.

Rendition follows an Egyptian born terrorism suspect (Metwally) who is taken by U.S. officials following his flight from South Africa to Washington DC to an undisclosed prison overseas. His pregnant wife (Witherspoon) ventures to Washington DC to find out about his disappearance through a family friend and Senator's employee (Sarsgaard). Gyllenhaal plays a young CIA analyst at the overseas detention facility who monitors the violent interrogation.

This film follows the emotional plights of the torture victim (Metwally), and those involved in obtaining the supposed information from him. Some, like the CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal), are visibly shaken and horrified by the methods exercised, while others, the stern Senator (Streep) and foreign interrogator (Yigal Naor), see it as necessary and effective.

The film may be described by some as a political piece, but is ultimately an emotional one. Metwally's performance as the tortured prisoner is Oscar-worthy. The film does not intend to preach, but rather to question and inform the audience on a topic that does not often have a human face put on it. Renditions have been known to work, but have also been known to produce false information from innocent prisoners. The film simply depicts the emotional struggles of those involved in such grave business, and does so in a way that will affect every viewer differently. The film will keep your interest, and have you engaged in each of the character's plights. The film tackles the here and now horror of "rendition" with a multi-cast trans-global account of all involved. No-one gets off lightly because we see the blindness of the players as they carve out their own slice of the worldwide game piling hatred and misery on their "enemies" and themselves in equal measure.

The interplay between the sympathetic Senator's Aide (played in scintillating style by Peter Sarsgaard) and the real Washington power-mongers is electrifying. Meanwhile out in the field, new CIA man (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes through a sea change in his attitude to the USA's new found cosiness with torture. Sudden though his rejection of what he initially tacitly condoned is, one has to ask why on earth would anyone who calls him or herself civilized stand and watch anyone be humiliated and abused in this way? The film has few heroes - perhaps Gyllenhaal's flawed and vacillating CIA man is the exception and a necessary indulgence to make the film offer a sliver of hope.

The sad fact of course is that this film isn't fiction at all, but a wake up call to those with a shred of decency left in them. The awful truth is that we in the UK and USA have lost the moral plot and this film shows how low we are prepared to go. All this in the name of freedom! There's a wonderful line in the script that says that torture is a sure way to swell the numbers of our enemies. This is already happening in real life and we should listen to the message that this film delivers and start using our might and money much more intelligently!! The message seems to be that any of us who claim that rendition, torture and the abuse of basic human rights are necessary to protect our way of life are as wrong-headed and stultifyingly stupid as the Jihadists and suicide bombers.

All praise to the sensibilities of a talented South African director with a eye on the gross unfairness of how power is exercised, and a cast of principled mainstream actors from the US and beyond. Oh, and by the way, the film has a sting in its tail with the ending a clever and thought provoking surprise (which I won't give away).

I saw the film in an early London preview so it has not yet been widely written up but I'm glad to say that the tide of less than glowing reviews seems to be turning. The BBC review has been very strongly in support and they (and I) suspect that much of the negative comments come from those who see the world through the simple specs of Hollywood - where the good guys and the bad guys are cardboard cut-outs. Hence the reason that many of the truly great films of the year are increasingly indie and/or non-US pix. Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars. Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.

Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.

Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.

Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.

Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations.

Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities.

What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)! The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.

Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US.

Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all.

Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence.

There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building. Some films are designed to just entertain you, others to make you laugh, or cry, or uplift, others, like this, aim to provoke, to make you think, and to make you angry. I was angry during this film, not at the film, but at the fact that it was true, that America, the free, does torture in the illogical view that it is doing it for the greater good. The torture scenes in this movie were harrowing, the indifference of people was shattering, the film was compelling in its argument, and showed just how wrong it is to torture people. Of course now that makes me a "bleeding liberal" labels shoved on people by others who shut their minds to the facts that this does happen and should not. People who don't realise that as the movie said, for every person tortured,you get ten or one hundred people rise up to perform acts of vengeance. You get an ever increasing cycle of violence. This film did not make me hate America, although I can see how it could do, but it made me hate the way that America has reacted in its post 9/11 world. There is a significant quote in the film, just after we have learned that 19 people have died and seventy five were injured in the bomb scene, the quote is "one American is dead" - that makes the difference. You cannot kill an American, America can kill thousands but you cannot kill a single American, or they will do whatever it takes, including torture to enact justice. This is the American way apparently. Call me a liberal, call me naive (although I think the people who think torture is fine are naive) call me deluded, call me anything you like, but this film is a brilliant example of what is wrong in America and the west today. I wish this film would be shown to all school students, at a minimum. This film will stay with me a long time, part of me wishes I could forget it, because I wish this type of thing never happened, but I know it does, the other part of me wishes I would never forget, because we need to remember these shameful events to prevent them from happening again. Whatever happens to me, this film will be with me for a long time, and I will be telling everyone I know to watch it, not to be entertained, but to be provoked, because sometimes we all need to be provoked. CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) gets to see his first secret location interrogation when Anwar (Metwally) is accused of having contact with a known terrorist bomb maker. Anwar's wife (Witherspoon) is frantic regarding the whereabouts of her husband .

Don't you just hate it when the title of a movie sends you to a dictionary? I must have an old edition as this Rendition is not a musical piece. No, it's the government's way of legally taking a resident or citizen somewhere to interrogate him and possibly use some torture to get the desired information.

While watching this movie I was reminded of a similar story line in the Crossing Jordan TV show (now off the air), and I expect we will see even more of these story lines. It's inevitable. The events of 911 are the catalysts.

This is a tough one to watch because we don't like to see people tortured and our government not telling the truth about things. We like the idea that no matter what happens or happened that we can go somewhere to find answers, but when that door is closed to us, we are truly lost and without hope as Anwar's wife was.

Performances by all were first class and it's possible we may see more of Igai Naor (I have no idea how to pronounce it) because he resembles and can act like Telly Savalas. No kidding.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes Extraordinary Rendition is a frightening practice authorized, surprisingly, under Clinton, that allows the U.S. government to seize and hold anyone suspected, seemingly for any reason, of being a terrorist against the United States. This is a touchy issue, especially after 9/11, because supporters of the practice will always criticize the opposition as withholding vital power from the U.S. that it needs to effectively fight terror. Fanatic supporters will label the opposition as terrorists in themselves.

But like a recent film that lent a similar level of humanity to the death penalty, The Life of David Gale, Rendition shows us a story of the misuse of extraordinary rendition, or at least the ease with which it can be exploited and falsely applied. The story involves Anwar El- Abrahimi, an American chemical engineer born in Egypt who is seized on his way back to America from giving a lecture in Egypt. The cause given is that he made phone calls to a known terrorist. No proof is ever given (or needed) that it was Anwar that made the calls, that his phone was never lost of stolen.

Meanwhile, Anwar's extremely pregnant wife, Isabella, is back in the states frantically trying to find her husband, who got onto a plane to Chicago but apparently never got off. The flimsy explanation that he was never there evaporates when she discovers that he made an in-flight purchase using his credit card.

Lately I have been researching modern Chinese history, particularly that of the astonishingly selfish and brutal dictatorship set up by Mao Tse-tung, and it is more than a little frightening to see the similarities between extraordinary rendition and some of Mao's brutal scare tactics, including his public executions (which the people were forced to watch), and extensive use of torture specifically used to extract "confessions."

It is pretty disturbing to notice that Mao specifically did these things to create an environment of fear in order to achieve obedience from the Chinese people. To say that the Bush administration has not created an environment of fear and continues to milk it for everything it's worth would be naïve in the extreme, and although extraordinary rendition was not created under Bush, it is clear that it does more harm than good.

Adding to the thickness of the film is Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who works behind a desk for the CIA and has little field experience, until his boss is assassinated and he suddenly finds himself supervising the torture of a man that he quickly comes to doubt has anything to reveal. Fatima's (Freeman's boss) daughter also plays a pivotal role, as does a senatorial aide played by Peter Sarsgaard, who might have the most satisfying role in the movie. Meryl Streep is also suitably cold and clinical as a chilly senator with a dogmatic support of the necessity and practice of rendition.

As a political thriller, the movie is remarkably well-crafted and paced. But the scariest thing about it is that this is all real. The movie's goal is to get people to really think about the things done in America's name, especially when they claim to be done to prevent those same things. Conducting terror in the name of preventing terror will win no sympathy for us, nor will extracting confessions through brutal torture, which is the basest form of criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, we are gradually heading in that direction, of doing these things more rather than less. The frightening question is what is the event that is going to take place at some point in the future to convince us to stop and head the other way, toward civilization and peace, or will we just keep heading toward a military dictatorship until we finally get there? I'm Egyptian. I have a green card. I have been living in the US since 1991. I have a very common Arabic name. I'm married (non-American but non-Egyptian, non-Arab wife). I have children who are born in the US. I have a PhD in Cell Biology from the US and I travel for conferences. I make 6 figure income and I own a home in the Washington, DC area. I pay my taxes and outside 1 or 2 parking tickets I have no blemish on my record since I came to this country in 1991. I look more Egyptian than the Ibrahimi character but my spoken English is as good as his.

A couple of months ago I was returning from a conference/company business in Spain through Munich Germany to Washington, DC (Home). I was picked up in Munich airport by a German officer as soon as I got off the Madrid plane. He was waiting for me. He was about to start interrogating me until I simply told him "I have no business in Germany, I'm just passing through". He had let me go with the utmost disappointment. That was nothing compared to what happened at Washington, Dulles airport (Which was not nearly as bad as what happened to Ibrahimi in the movie). The customs officer asked me a couple of questions about the length and purpose of my trip. He then wrote a letter C on my custom declaration form and let me go. After I picked up my checked bag I was stopped at the last exit point (Some Homeland Security crap). I sat there for 3 hours along with many different people of many different nationalities. I was not told the reason for my detainment. I was not allowed to use my phone or ANY other phone. I was feisty at first asking to be told of the reason or let me go but decided to suck it up and just wait and see. I asked if I can call my wife to tell her that I'm going to be late but was told no. When I tried to use my phone and as soon as my wife said "hello", an officer yanked the phone out of hand and threatened me to confiscate it. When I asked about needing to call home because my family is waiting, they said "Three hours is nothing, we will make contact after 5 hours". When I asked to use the bathroom, an officer accompanied me there. It toilet was funny; I guess it was a prison style toilet that is all metal with no toilet seat. Finally, they called my name and gave me my passport/green card and said you can go. I asked what the problem was, they said "nothing"!! I know it was only 3 hours but I was dead tired and wanted to go home to see my wife and kids.

As for the movie, it was very well made. Unlike most movies that involve Arabs and use non-Arab actors who just speak gibberish, this movie the Arabic was 100% correct. I assume the country is Morocco (North Africa). Very good political thriller regarding the aftermath of terrorism and the using of political torture to obtain one's objectives in flushing out the terrorists.

The story is interwoven where two families are adversely affected by the terrorist events.

This is one of Meryl Streep's best roles in years. She plays a cold, calculating, cunning director of the CIA who allows these things to go on. She is out of the George Bush-Dick Cheney school of handling the war on terrorism. Had her part been expanded, Miss Streep certainly would have been up for an award at Oscar time.

Jake Gyllenhaal is our hero. A CIA agent who really can't take what's going on.

We have a terrorist who actually has a heart and it costs him his life in this well directed, finely paced film.

Alan Arkin appears briefly in the part of a conniving senator. Mr. Arkin seems to get better with age. To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own. This was an excellent movie with good acting and it keeps your attention through to the very end. Maybe people are either tired or uncomfortable with the subject matter and that's why it's being trashing so much. It could also be too deep for many of the viewers out there who give movies like the American Pie series higher ratings.

Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst, not an agent, who is to observe an interrogation of an Egyptian man by Moroccans, not Egyptians. He's not supposed to be a hardened agent and so comes off as naive of the interrogation techniques used. This is more believable than if he were to come across as being an "old hat" at it.

The story jumps around a bit and can be confusing, but it also makes you stay focused on whats going on until the end when everything comes together as the puzzle falls into place. The supporting actors did a good job of helping to carry the movie. I found the movie to be powerful and thought provoking. The reviews for RENDITION generally haven't been favorable, so I waited until it moved to the local discount theatre to see it. The film tells the story of Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an American-Egyptian scientist who is plucked from his international flight and hauled in for interrogation after a strange coincidence links him to a recent terrorist attack in an unnamed North African country. Not as bad as I'd feared, it's an interesting and thought-provoking entry in the "ripped-from-the-headlines" thriller genre.

The film ultimately asks tough questions concerning U.S. methods of prying information from political prisoners: Is crossing the formerly-uncrossed line of (openly) employing torture on suspected terrorists something our country should be doing? Does it yield useful information that helps save lives? If so, at what cost? What sort of monsters do we create when innocent people are taken prisoner and tortured? By sanctioning the use of torture, what sort of monster do we as a country become? It's always disappointing when a film with such provocative material is sloppy with some of the details that make good films great. For example, I'd like to have empathized with Anwar's wife, who spends the entire film trying to track him down, but the only identifiable personality trait she's given is an advanced state of pregnancy. RENDITION also seems to imply that Arab women who don't go along with their fathers' arranged marriages are only asking for trouble, and there's a poorly-conceived scrapbook kept by another of the film's main characters that too conveniently spells out in great detail all the information his love interest just happens to be in urgent need of at that particular moment. I laughed out loud, when the moment should have been filled with dread.

The film features a good central performance by Jake Gyllenhaal and strong (but too brief) appearances by Hollywood veterans Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin, as well as impressive turns by Omar Atwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi and also by actors Moa Khouas, Zineb Oukach and Yigal Naor, all of whom I would much enjoy seeing in future films that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Good luck to them. The five or so stories RENDITION follows are woven together nicely, until the filmmakers insert a slight-but-effective twist that finally alludes to the never-ending cycle of carnage that violent attacks of terror beget. Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses. Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the "suspense" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience. I came out of "Rendition" with a list of flaws a mile long, so how is it that my overall impression is that it was a pretty decent movie? It's definitely a film whose sum is better than its parts.

Those parts include a cast of big name stars, not one of them giving a memorable performance (Omar Metwally, a relative unknown, is the one you'll remember); serviceable if undistinguished direction; and a screenplay that's both too complicated and too simplistic at the same time. Metwally is an Egyptian-born American citizen who gets kidnapped by the U.S. government's rendition program, otherwise known as the process by which America tortures suspected terrorists into confessing information whether or not it's remotely true. Reese Witherspoon plays his pregnant wife, who calls in the favor of an old college friend (Peter Saarsgard), who works for a senator (Alan Arkin) and helps to track her husband down. Meryl Streep plays the head of the rendition program; Jake Gyllenhaal is a young agent assigned to the interrogation and whose conscience gets in the way. Meanwhile, a whole parallel storyline follows the daughter of a top Egyptian official who is allied to the American rendition program and her boyfriend, who's in training to become a suicide bomber.

Ay-yi-yi that's a lot of plot to pack into a two-hour movie, and I was about to wash my hands of the whole thing, especially the Egyptian Romeo and Juliet subplot that felt like nothing more than a distraction. But then near the film's finale, a twist of chronology brings all of the plot strands together in a way that makes you want to reassess everything you thought you knew about the motivations of the various characters, and makes "Rendition" a much more interesting movie than it seems like it's going to be.

Witherspoon, Gyllenhaal and Sarsgaard all look like high school students playing adults twenty years older than they actually are -- Gyllenhaal in particular, usually a fine actor, looks so bored that you wonder if he's going to muster the energy to deliver his lines. And the screenwriter should be arrested for having an actress as good as Meryl Streep at his disposal and giving her nothing more to work with than this one-dimensional dragon lady. The movie of course strives for relevancy, but instead of addressing the tangled web of arguments surrounding the national security issue, it charges right down the middle of the debate in a predictable fashion. There are moments when you think maybe the film will veer off in an interesting direction -- what if Witherspoon did actually begin to doubt her husband's past, for instance? What if Metwally actually had been in contact with terrorists, as his interrogators accuse? But no, the movie takes the path of least resistance.

But, like I said upfront, I recommend this movie. I know I've done nothing but list a bunch of its faults, but it's got its head in the right place, and it is entertaining, or at least as as entertaining as a movie about torture and interrogation can be.

Grade: B+ RENDITION is a film not to miss with solid writing from Kelley Sane and with the direction of Gavin Hood that takes us on a story which is a ride through a man's journey through hell. Once again, Meryl Streep in a convincing role of the CIA today and great performances from a cast of superlative actors in Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhall and Alan Arkin, along with actors of Middle Eastern descent who add to the reality of the story.

In RENDITION you see how "terrorism can breed terrorism" and as the film progresses tying the story to what is playing out in the Middle East is reality brought to the screen. The external shots add to the intensity of the story and Peter Sarsgaard does a brilliant job of playing an Assistant in the "ass kissing" way of how American politics are conducted. Too bad there has not been a larger audience for this film, as along with THE VALLEY OF ELAH and LIONS FOR LAMBS, RENDITION plays an important role in showing an audience how the fight for and the protection of democracy can go seriously astray. An Arab American man is kidnapped from an American Airport and flown to "somewhere in North Africa" where he is tortured. The reason? His cell phone received a call from a known terrorist. The CIA decides to avoid legal means to determine whether the phone call is implication of guilt or just a mistake. After watching this movie we can only but pray some terrorist doesn't accidentally punch in a wrong number!

In addition to the rendition there are several related side stories. One involves the daughter of the chief of intel (secret police?) who is torturing the suspect, and her involvement with her lover who happens to be in night school for suicide bombers. This story is way too contrived, but nevertheless intriguing, especially when we see it's outcome. The Director uses a neat time line switcheroo to hook the audience.

The second side story is the attempt by the suspects wife to find out what happened to her missing husband. She gets an old lover to help. He (a muted Saarsgard) is aide de camp to a Senator (Alda) and soon gets cold feet when he realizes that his job isn't worth uncovering the truth. Witherspoon is wasted in this role. All she gets to do is look forlorn and pregnant, with one brief rage attack. Streep is good and cold and stereotypical as the govt. (CIA?NSA?Homeland Sec?) official who seems to be a Cheney clone.

Gylenhall also is wasted as a minor analyst pushed into in area he's over his head in, although he gets to do the "right thing" in the end.

I found the movie engrossing, if somewhat languorous, but thought it added little to the subject. It is certainly not to be viewed as definitive, and it certainly has an axe to grind. Like "The Kingdom" it scratches the surface of a very complicated subject.

The movie tries hard to give us an idea about rendition, but can only end up by being a "cautionary tale" about one botched one. The whole point of rendition is not to "torture" but to get "terror suspects" to give intel by avoiding legal (therefore obstructive) barriers. Torture, for sure, may be employed, especially if the rendition is out of our hands - although we are obviously not guiltless in this matter - but intel that can save lives is vital in this "shadow war." We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says "The United States does not torture" it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply "snatch" you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him.

Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast. When going to see Rendition, I was expecting an exciting film on a controversial topic with big-name actors. I was not expecting a film that was so engrossing, exciting, poetic, and sad that picked me up from the very beginning and didn't let me go, even after I left the theater. A word of advice to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't let your politics come in the way of enjoying (or not enjoying) this film. Take it for what it is. I saw this with my conservative Jewish family (I'm the black sheep, the pseudo-liberal college student) and I thought they would write it off as "liberal propaganda". Instead, they said it was a great film with excellent performances (they like to fancy themselves film critics).

It's sad that a movie like this has to be marketed by its Oscar-affiliated actors, while leaving out the constantly underrated Sarsgaard as well as new talent like the truly excellent Metwally. The entire cast gave good performances, with some standing out much more than others; my only problem with it was that there was a lot going on which didn't allow for much screen time for each of the characters. In fact, I felt like the "sub-plot" with Fatima and Khalid was just as prominent on screen as Anwar's part of the story.

The characters all have the potential to fall into stereotypes, but the actors do a good enough job to give them depth with the little screen time they have. Streep is truly terrific, as a heartless senator, and as much as I don't want to see the actress in such a terrible role its impossible not to believe her. Gyllenhaal, who will probably be one of the Oscar nods for this movie, seems a bit unsure in his role at times. H's trying to portray his inner conflict but usually just comes off like he either forgot his lines or he doesn't know how he should feel. Sarsgaard gave an excellent performance; his unforgettable confrontation with Streep is easily one of the best parts of the movie. Metwally, again, was terrific, and I hope to see him in more mainstream films. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal with probably get nominated before him. Yigal Naor, as shown on IMDb, has been is some films already but he is a newcomer in my eyes. He, along with Mohammed Khouas and Zineb Oukach, all gave great performances.

The story of Fatima and Khalid was not given any credit in commercials, but it brings a sad humanity to the story. The narrative was interesting as I was trying to really connect the two story until it was plainly told to us at the end. I've read some comments on here that say the love story was useless, but I disagree. I think it definitely shows another side to the controversial issue as well as humanity in general. Khalid was the real terrorist, but he was doing it to avenge his brother, and even though he is responsible for the attack, you see a humane side to him through the story with Fatima. Not that I think we should feel bad for actual terrorists, but I think the "we are all people" theme was definitely relevant.

Whatever your feelings on terrorism, politics, etc. leave it out of the theater. The bottom line is this is an interesting story with a message we all need to hear. This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played. Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.

The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do. "Labyrinth of Passion"--with the possible exception of "Matador "--is Almodovar's best film. It displays his unique personality at its best and least-censored, before he started going more mainstream. Almodovar is just about the only modern director that can approach Preston Sturges' wonderful brand of lunacy. It's pointless to try and explain what the movie is about, the real point being Almodovar's willingness and skill in taking his situations to the outer limits of sanity, and sometimes of plausibility and taste as well. I was delighted when I saw that my husband rented "Labyrinth of Passion". I love Almodovar's films. We both loved the movie. We both couldn't stop laughing. We especially enjoyed the scene in which the transvestite is shooting a photo novel, and while supposedly being menaced by a killer with an electric drill, is told to answer the phone and say, "I can't talk to you right now, I'm being attacked by a sadistic serial killer. If I survive I will call you back". (That would make a great answering machine message come to think of it). We also loved the lady telling her new found beloved, "I went to an orgy after the concert but I couldn't stop thinking of you." (I'm waiting to use that line on Twitter). "Labyrinth of Passion" is a rollicking farce with plenty of high jinks, hilarious dialog and eye candy for everyone. The film has aged well: the 1980s costumes and hairdos add to the wackiness. I would give it a 10 out of 10 rating but I am giving it a 8 for two reasons. The first is the scene which involves laxatives which includes a shot of a lady soiling herself: totally unnecessary, and it brings down the tone of the film to Hollywood gross-out comedy for a moment. The second is the suggestion that Queti is sleeping with her father: shocking, yes, but again, it ruins the tone of the film. Still, I would recommend the film to anyone who wants a sophisticated, spicy, and fun time. Up front, if you're tired, the first hour could be slow. The set up of the story has a natural leisurely pace, unhurried - giving us time to appreciate the kind of everyday life and situations the main characters are in. Once you arrived at the climatic segment of the storyline, the turn of events will keep you hooked: how will things turn out, what will happen to our precious Fanda (portrayed to utter quiet perfection by the veteran Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský), how will his wife (wonderfully played by Stella Zázvorková) treat him, what happens to Fanda's dear friend Ed (played by Stanislav Zindulka - a matching sidekick to Brodský), and Jára the son with selfish hidden agenda, blind to the kindness of his parents (sigh!)

Vladimír Michálek sensibly directed the film with sprinkles of humor, preserving the insightful script by Jirí Hubac. Thanks to clear subtitling, I was able to notice for every 'complaining' phrase Fanda's wife utters, there's a hint of 'caringness' showing/buried in between the lines - and so did the judicious lady judge observed. Fanda is '76 going on 80' and the affection of their enduring (endearing) marriage manifests even in their bantering arguments. His playfulness can be infectious.

This is 'Growing Old Together 101' for (at least) the beyond fifties, and lessons learned to sons and daughters not to take parents for granted. One may need to rethink if assuming 'home for the aged' is a means to an end, so to speak. The film is gently shouting to us to live life to the fullest while we can. (Hint: there's joy in staying on and watch the end credits roll.)

We're fortunate to be able to see an occasional Czech film. The Sverák ("Kolya") father & son's 2001 "Dark Blue World" was revealing with pathos. It's good to take it slow now and then and appreciate a foreign gem - its subtitles, scenery, melodic score and an engaging human story with elegant performances. "Autumn Spring" (aka Babí Léto) is available on DVD. Enjoy! As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy. Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's "Divided We Fall (2000)", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see. This is a charming movie to say the least. The main character, Fanda, is an old man who refuses to be among the living dead by which he is surrounded. He and his accomplice go around pulling pranks and getting into trouble all over town. Meanwhile his family is up in arms about what to do with him. From there you see Fanda's relationships with his wife, best friend and son develop. It finally leads up to one of the best movie endings I have ever seen.

The characters in this movie are rich and deep. They develop well through the course of the film. The movie has quite a range of moods. It goes from light and funny to grim and dark. Any slow parts for you in this film will be made up for in the end.

Autumn Spring carries a similar message like a lot of other European movies do -- don't lose sight of the small pleasures in life. If you enjoyed Amelie, The Eighth Day or Life is Beautiful (all great films BTW), you will probably like this movie.

8.5/10 To qualify my use of "realistic" in the summary, not many old folks I know go around pretending to be famous maestros, blind people, etc. -- nor have I ever been elderly. Those minor issues out of the way, the relationships between the characters in this film and the emotions expressed therein were completely realistic and genuine. In fact, though we're not yet 30, I could see many characteristics of my relationship with my wife in the interactions between the main character and his wife. For those that don't die young (there's a great line in the movie about this, when the two best friends are talking about dying young, and one of them says--and I'm paraphrasing, we missed our chance--we'll just have to stick it out), we'll all be where these characters are some day. I know many movie-goers would prefer to be swept *away* from reality as opposed to being *faced* with it, but even they might enjoy the sweet reminder of our mortality--and the importance of living life to the fullest--that this film is. This is a FANTASTIC film. Hána is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his "irresponsible" behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodský brilliantly played Hána at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If Hána can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part. Not much to say other than it is simply a masterpiece. this film contains a myriad of messages that all should take to heart. especially- women do not squelch your man's dreams -honor them -that's why you loved him in the first place! Those who plan for death will live in the grave. Those who carpe diem will awaken those who live in fear. Even our Lord spoke of this when he chastised the the one who buried his talent in fear that he might make a mistake and displease the Master. Take a risk, get out of the boat and you will walk on water. Life is a journey that does not end in the grave but in our minds and souls. This film just won the best film award at the Cleveland International Film Festival. It's American title apparently is Autumn Spring. The acting is superb. The story takes you into the life of an elderly man who takes what life deals him and spikes it up a little bit. Abetted by his best friend (and partner in not-so-serious crime) he puts people on at every opportunity but still often reveals his heart of gold. His longsuffering wife has come to her wits end and makes a life-changing decision which is heartbreaking to watch. The resolution of the story is beautiful. "Autumn Spring" tells of the misadventures of a dapper, walrus faced, 78 (approx) year old Czech man who haplessly befuddles and bemuses all who know him with his mischievous ways while his wife meticulously plans her funeral. Centerpiece Hana (Brodský) shows us how to get babes to kiss you when your 78 and how to cop a feel in an elevator and get thanked for it as he pranks his way from day to day in this warm and glowing look at old age and one man's creative, amusing, but socially unacceptable ways of enjoying life while refusing to be relegated to the old folk's home. "Autumn Spring" is a plodding, subtle comedy with messages for all ages which will have the greatest appeal with more mature foreign film buffs. (B+) I found this film to be one of those great heart-warming gems. The story line is tightly woven and the character development throughout fantastic! I am a big fan of non-US films anyway and this is right up there with: "Happenstance," "The Closet" even "King of Hearts." Vlastimil Brodsky as Fanda, is fantastic. It is a love story in the true sense of loving life and the twists and turns it takes to get the viewer to understand/enjoy Fanda's view of life (which nearly costs him

more than he is prepared to give) are wonderful. His co-star Stelle Zazvorkova is unforgettable as his fed-up wife. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family--my children loved it. The main cast:

Vlastimil Brodský .... Frantisek Hána Stella Zázvorková .... Emílie Hánová Stanislav Zindulka .... Eda

Director Vladimir Michalek gives this charming story of elderly folks enchanting twists that make the characters appealing, really universal.

Frantisek Hana is retired and on a pension, his previous occupation unknown. He lives in a very nice apartment with his wife of forty-four years, Emilie. His son Jara covets the spacious apartment as a problem-solver as he needs to house one of his ex-wives and several of their children. The son isn't a vicious schemer, just a guy with one past spouse too many and a blind eye to the attachment his dad has for the flat (which he moved into after relinquishing a previous residence to the son).

Hana and his also elderly close friend, Ed, spend there more than ample free time doing small con jobs not for money but for the pleasure of putting one over on easily duped folks like estate agents. A favorite ploy is for Hana to act the part of a retired divo of New York's Metropolitan Opera returning home in need of a sprawling mansion. Ed is his companion as gullible realtors fall all over themselves proffering chauffeured limousines and fine French restaurant meals in hope of a lucrative sale.

When not engaged in well-planned scams, the duo engage in quick ploys such as pretending to be railroad security agents so as to snatch kisses from breathless and ticketless teens trying to sneak onto trains. Chaste kisses, that is: there's no lechery here.

Hana's long-suffering wife is obsessed with saving enough money to insure that the couple, individually and jointly, have a grand funeral, an event the life-loving Frantisek is in no hurry to experience.

Disagreements about money and Frantisek's promiscuous disposition of marital funds lead to a crisis whose resolution rings both real and endearing. Michalek fishes for the viewer's emotions but he does it openly, honestly and effectively.

"Autumn Spring," subtitled of course, is a product of an increasingly vibrant Czech cinema. It wasn't shown widely in the U.S. but its availability on DVD will, hopefully, bring this affecting flick to a wide audience. Sadly, Brodsky recently succumbed to cancer so this movie is a valedictory to a fine actor who imbued his character with a passion for life's pleasures that must have reflected the actor's own values.

9/10. The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, "Fanda laughs at funerals and death." In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed.

The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him.

It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy.

Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, "a living corpse." The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like her—a zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing.

I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with death—be it literal or figurative—people awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others. 1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta. Possibly the best John Travolta role ever. Saturday Night Fever was a great movie & role, but a LONG time ago. I can't think of many of his movies or roles I've even liked, and it's easy to think of rotten ones. He can do meanies like in Pulp Fiction, but he makes the perfect funky angel, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing a better (equally slobby) job with it. Plot summaries are available everywhere, but the plot isn't the point. Just go for the ride and enjoy the cleverness of the little funnies along the way. There is nothing to dislike about this movie, unless one is searching for something profound. I wish there were more movies like this. We need a break from deep or awesome or grisly or complex or hysterical. Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended. John Travolta was excellent as "Michael" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very "human angel" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times! This is one of my favorite "Capra-esque" comedies. This movie is just meant to be enjoyed, not deconstructed, microscopically analyzed. It's not religious commentary. It's fun. It's fantasy. The surprisingly negative comments (IMHO) reflect a level of expectation that professional film critics have led us to think must be a part of every movie.

Others have described Travolta's role (it's the reason you'll watch the movie over and over) and the excellent supporting cast (including Sparky!).

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a movie is just fun.

Enjoy! Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it.

John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.

Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.

So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun. This is another of John Travolta's "come back" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.

This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in "Dogma." (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)

Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.

I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.

It rates a 7.3/10 from...

the Fiend :. Continuing his comeback, John Travolta played a mildly twisted angel in "Michael". He may be a messenger of God, but he's not the nicest guy, as reporters Andie MacDowell and William Hurt discover. When I first saw this movie, it was before I had started watching "All in the Family", so I didn't recognize Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker. Now that I recognize her like that, I try to imagine Archie snapping at her for harboring an angel (whom he would probably rank alongside blacks, Jews, etc).

I know, that doesn't really relate to the movie. But I just like to associate things that way. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting movie. Also starring Bob Hoskins, Teri Garr and Richard Schiff.

What John and Paul said... Michael is probably too cutesy for most action movie fans and too Hollywood for the intellectual crowd but I found it both extremely funny and very touching, despite it being both cutesy and formulaic.

When three skeptics are sent to investigate a man claiming to be an angel they end up escorting him on a grand tour of the mid-western country side only to find that it is each of their own hearts that need investigation.

When taking this film apart, as with most films today, there isn't a lot of new material but when taken as a whole it has a refreshingly original approach and is off-beat enough to entertain one all the way through.

While not being a "Family" film it is suitable for all ages and a good film to share with the whole family or that special someone.

"Michael" isn't a great film but it certainly is a good film, a touching film, and well worth seeing.

KWC Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.

The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.

So after a long day at work, stick "Michael" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :) Chicago reporter Frank Quinlan decided to go to Iowa to confirm the existence of a so-called angel. He was not alone. His partner Huey Driscoll and new colleague Dorothy Winters also joined him. When they arrived at the destination, they found that the angel Michael was quite different from what they expected. However Frank still persuaded Michael to go to Chicago with them. So an interesting journey began.

Although Michael did not look like a saint, he was a kind and funny angel. In fact Michael owned irresistible charming for women. Even due to jealousy of other men, he was involved in a riot. The climax appeared in the pizza restaurant. Dorothy sang lively country songs for Frank. That was just what Michael wanted to see. But the next day Huey 's dog was crashed to death by a running car. Michael was asked to save it. That would be used to verify whether he was a real angel.

Andie Macdowell shined in this comedy. She also showed her singing ability. John Travolta proved his comedian talent again. Of cause Pulp Fiction still was his typical work.

A comedy that will warm your heart. 8/10 As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes!

Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted.

Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy. That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.

Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting. I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.

There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun. honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.

it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all. I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.

Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog. An off beat but very delightful performance by John Travolta sets off this very funny comedy. His interpretation of the archangel is as a scuffy, womanizing, overweight, ladies man. And, he certainly has a mesmerizing effect on the women he encounters on his trip to Chicago. John Hurt is very low keyed in his role as chief reporter for Chicago Tabloid owner, Bob Hoskins. Angie MacDowell plays role much as she did her role in "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Maureen Stapleton is neat in a cameo. Her comment, "Michael doesn't suffer fools," is just one of many memorable moments. Bob Hoskins is the only one of the lead performers who fails to connect, a little to off the wall. Mainly you're there to see Michael take on a bull, mesmerize the waitresses and lady dancers at a western style restaurant, and fully demonstrate that he is complete free soul. It is a memorable comedy that is worth more than one viewing. Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent. I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."

Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights

He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.

These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta. Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. "Michael" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.

*** out of **** This movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I'm sorry that IMDb is not more positive about it. I hope that doesn't keep those who have not experienced it from watching it.

I've always loved this movie. I watch it about once a year and am always pleased anew with the film and especially the stellar performances by entire cast.

I've always wondered whether Jean Stapleton actually did the ending dance with Travolta???? If anyone knows this piece of trivia, please leave a comment.

Thanks and ENJOY! Why would this film be so good, but only gross an estimated $95,000,000 and have NO award nominations? John Travolta knows what he's doing. He knows he's Michael, a cigar smoking, womanizing, magical arch angel that came down to live with a dying lady and is now in a car with the staff of "The National Mirror" and their dog, Sparky, on the way to Chicago. It then turns into a road trip that's both horrible AND great. I don't even think the death scenes (3 to be exact) make this a tearjerker. The soundtrack is the best with "Heaven Is My Home", "Up Around The Bend", and "Chains Of Fools". I have very great expectations about this and I say that it should have had a little more respect in the 90's. Read my comment. Bye! It's a movie with a theatrical message blended with some clever moments. Films like these are the stretching grounds of great actors, they enjoy tossing the ball in open pieces like these. The Angel that wasn't what we see in old books and churches is quite a nice change. It is echoed in Kevin Smith's piece, Dogma, almost in the same slapstick vein.

-=0) Watch this film for a good day after you suck it all in. Could it be that so many films are trying to be complicated that we forget the simple movements of films like this? Possibly one of the most fun pieces I have seen in a while, I ran into this one on VHS in a trash can because someone's basement was flooded this summer, and I grabbed a handful of tapes.

Whether in a trash bin, or on the silver screen, mild comedies like this are fun, you just don't have to tell everyone at a hip nightclub that you like it, or a swank political party. Just keep it for yourself, and I'll bet plenty of people will borrow it from time to time. What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?

Some people here have called High Roller "disgusting." Some have called it "extraordinary" (as would I, actually).

Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.

High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.

And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad. stuey unger was a card playing legend. he was quoted in an interview as saying, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me." there's a gin rummy scene in this movie that is so amazing you could have plopped it in 'X-Men' as a showcase for a superhero's mutant power. that's how incredible this man was.

i have a few minor problems with this movie. as dark as this movie was, stuey's real life was darker. poker pro todd brunson said, "During the last World Series of poker, Bob Stupak, Mike Sexton and I had a drink and talked about Stu. Mike told us how he could barely talk, hadn't showered in weeks and how his fingers were burned black by a crack pipe." in the film, michael imperioli looked far too healthy to be stu unger in the final years of his life. when stuey won his last wsop he looked like a skeleton, but let's face it, this production lacked both the time and the "deniro" to make that kind of transformation. my other problem was that i wish there was more poker playing, with actual hands and situations. sure it might have bored the average non poker enthusiast, but it would have been nice for the hardcores. too bad the movie wasn't 6 hours or so longer.

i watched the movie with 3 non poker players and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. just like you don't have to be a former member of the colonial army to enjoy Gibson's "the patriot", you don't have to be a poker player to see this gem. can't wait for the DVD. (8 out of 10) This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.

This movie is worth renting. This movie has a "big production" feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience. By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive.

Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.

Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).

What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. "Aha! How derivative," people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!

Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the "Seventh Seal." (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says "We can play a hand of cards for, ya know"... Death says "Never much good at cards.." Damn great last line.)

No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.

Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.

9/10 The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.

STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.

This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.

There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.

Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.

Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.

The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!

'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.' I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one! After watching the series premiere of Talk Show with Spike Feresten I took a moment to really think wow there are actually good shows on after 12 besides SNL and I was also sad to see that it was only 30 minutes long. His great writing skills helped this show overcome a series lack of money and helping hands. Electronic Lincoln was hilarious and I really think this will be a good Dark Horse Talk Show.

I was very happy with the way he handled it and gave Andy Richtor some good lines to work with. As you would have suspected it was a little shaky but for that kind of time slot it was very good.

Overall if you are not someone on weed or even if you are and you don't have something more important to do than watch this great piece and have a fun time doing it. I say remember where and when you saw this show because I believe if Fox gives Talk Show a chance Spike will be right up there with Conan in a few years because like Conan he is incredibly funny and seems to be just grateful at having his own show which adds to the humor.

The funniest bits Spike has had so far are The Idiot Paparatzi and Comedy For Stoners and if your not high and get CFS what does that say about you.

In summary this show is funnier in 25 minutes than SNL in an hour so lets hope Talk Show gets the attention it deserves such as an extra half hour, more money and a band. This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!! Spike Feresten is a comic genius. 'Talkshow' demonstrates a fresh take on the kind of odd ball irreverence that have made shows like Letterman and The Daily Show successful. His likability is palpable. He seems to find the unique angle of the joke, not the predictable sitcom path...thank God. His comedy is reminiscent of the award winning Arrested Development (cross your fingers that 'Talkshow' has a longer life span). The topics he highlights tend to be those things that pass by unnoticed by everyone else, yet when he creates a joke around them out you wonder how you missed it the first time around. I particularly enjoyed the sketches..."Unfair Target" will be a cult classic in no time. Set your Tivo's people...this is a show not to be missed. I am appalled and dismayed that the Network has canceled Talk Show with Spike Feresten !!

What is wrong with The Fox Television Network, Canceling Talk Show With Spike Feresten and replacing it with Wanda Sikes? For those at the Network with a short attention span, Wanda At Large was canceled because the audience grew tired of her nasty insults that would make the audience cringe, and Wanda Sykes spewing out her very own brand of vindictive mud slinging jokes is not humor, it is nasty and repulsive.

Apparently The Fox Television Network has rewarded Wanda Sikes because she has garnered a self important appearance front of President Barak Obama. There is no doubt that Wanda's recent ill tempered in front of the President of The United States are not funny and the audience laughter was only to patronize and please Barak Obama.

Talk Show with Spike Feresten has a genuine sense of humor and has never deliberately or vindictively insulted any guest or performer. Spike's well rounded personality always gleefully, poked fun of life and himself.and his Filed Pieces during the first two seasons with AFTRA Actress Mary Mae Atwill, as the Mae West of the 21st Century were absolutely hysterical with Spike Feresten's skits:Judge Joe Brown, Trading Spouses and Last Season's James Kyson Lee Episode where Spike chats with Erica via the Internet on the show.

Despite the Network's budget constraints for elaborate field pieces and the Second Season's WGA Strike, Spike Feresten did not waiver his sense of humor or show integrity. Talk Show with Spike Feresten always had up in coming new talent and his Comedy for Stoners spoofs of Nanny 911 and Idiot Paparazzi were considered cutting edge and had excellent production value.

On a professional level, Spike Feresten, was the best Executive Producers, and Set Producer, Brett Webster along with his fabulous production crew were one of the best production teams that I have worked for in my AFTRA Career .It would really be very foolish and sad shame to cancel Talk Show with Spike Feresten.

Unfortunately, its success could conceivably be taken to Comedy Central or another Network and Financially speaking, that would become a valuable revenue loss for FOX Television..

On behalf of the late night Saturday Fox Television audience, supporters of Talk Show with Spike Feresten, including all cast and crew, we beseech the Network to retain the Talk Show With Spike Feresten Franchise and give the crew a second opportunity to become a successful Fox Show. Talkshow with Spike Feresten is one of those shows that will definitely polarize audiences. Either you like it or you don't. Personally, I find most of the bits hilarious, but it does have some "huh?" moments.

Staples like "Idiot Paparazzi" are always good for a laugh, but my all-time favorite bit has to be the one-off "Hollywood Douchebag". "Comedy for Stoners" is the only regular bit that generally leaves me confused (which is part of the point!) Spike and his team of writers manage to churn out loads of fresh comedy time after time so the show never feels stale. Feresten's brand of humor may not be for everyone, but it's definitely worth trying.

The masses have spoken! We like this show and want more. Please note I am not a friend of or affiliated in any way with Spike Feresten, "Talkshow with Spike Feresten" staff, or Fox network and affiliates. It's just plain funny! I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful. This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.

I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!

Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness).

I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".

Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.

I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).

God willing!

Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford. "Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!" [Harry Crystal]

Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).

With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!

Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... "You're hooked, kid!" [Harry Crystal] I originally saw this film while I was working as a musician doing musical theatre in summer stock. If you've ever done any work in theatre - especially at a summer stock theatre - you'll really enjoy this film.

Yes, there are some moments of really bad writing in the film, but overall it's a lovely tribute to the theatre and why people love it. And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.

Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.

And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?

PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph! The warmest, most engaging movie of its genre, Those Lips, Those Eyes, made me smile and cry as it reminded me of the work it takes to pursue a dream and the pain of disappointment. Hulce and Langella are superb and the story seems to write itself. A brilliant screenplay by David Shaber (one of my favorites! - see The Warriors and Nighthawks for more...) and beautiful sets filmed on location (I think) at the actual summer theater in which the story takes place. You can't see this movie and not want to drop everything and get into the theater! Please check this video out if you can find it. I must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.

It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.

All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early! There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.

I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.

I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.

This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.

If/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show. What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.

It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.

Fans of the western, rejoice! I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.

"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."

The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..

The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.

Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.

One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."

Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.

Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes. I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so. Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters. Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows. Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.

For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.

Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope. John Wayne's first starring role just blew me away. Televised letterbox style on AMC, I had to check and make sure I had the right date. Sure enough, this 1930 film was made using a 55 mm wide-screen process. Aside from that, it features some of the grittiest, most realistic footage of the trek west I've seen. Wagons, men and animals are really lowered down a cliff face by rope. Trees are chopped by burly men -- and burly women -- so the train can move another 10 feet. The Indians are not the "pretty boy" city slickers who portrayed them later; they're the real deal. A river crossing in a driving rain storm is so realistic, it has to be real (In fact, I understand that director Raoul Walsh nearly lost the entire cast during this sequence). I could smell the wet canvas. Each day is an agony. The various sub-plots are forgettable but the film as a whole is not. I can't think of another title that can beat The Big Trail in evoking a sense of living history on the trail to Oregon. Bravo. I just saw The Big Trail in Vienna's Filmmuseum for the first time. Immediately I was astonished by both the pictures optical high quality and unusual format and by its beautifully detailed story. Who has ever seen such a documentary style western with John Wayne? And there is so much time, you can actually look around on the screen, there is so much to see! One is ever grateful that the scenes are often static, because every single shot is so well composed and you want to take it it. Even the acting is good and fits in well. The long running time of the picture is wonderful, you don't want to miss a minute of it! A heroic young trail scout leads a large party of pioneers along THE BIG TRAIL to the West, with Indian attacks, natural disasters & romantic complications all part of the adventure.

As sweeping & magnificent as its story, Raoul Walsh's THE BIG TRAIL is a wonderful film, as entertaining as it was more than seven decades ago. With very good acting and excellent production values, it lives up to its reputation as the talkies' first epic Western.

John Wayne, pulled from obscurity for his first important movie role, looks impossibly young, but he immediately impresses with the natural charm & masculine authority he brings to the hero's role; he quietly dominates the film with the attributes which would someday make him a huge star. Marguerite Churchill is fetching as a lovely Southern belle who slowly warms to the Duke's attentions. Dialect comic El Brendel is great fun as a Swedish immigrant beset with mule & mother-in-law woes; his appearance in a scene signals laughs for the viewer.

Looking & sounding like a human grizzly bear, Tyrone Power Sr., vast & repulsive, makes a wonderful villain. Slick cardsharp Ian Keith is a sophisticated bad guy. (His famous physical similarity to John Gilbert is very apparent here.) Silent movie character actor Tully Marshall is impressive as a wily old mountain man who helps guide the wagon train. Corpulent Russ Powell, as a friendly fur trapper, puts his vocal talent for making nonsense noises to good use. Sharp-eyed movie mavens will spot Ward Bond as one of the Missouri settlers.

What will surprise many modern viewers is that THE BIG TRAIL was filmed in an early wide screen process, called Grandeur. More than living up to its name, the picture looks marvelous, with Walsh showing a mastery of the new technology. He fills the screen, every portion of it, with action. Notice during the crowd scenes, how everyone is busy doing real work, which adds so much to the verisimilitude of these sequences. Walsh deserves great credit for being one of the first directors to use wide screen. In addition, the film is blessedly free of the rear projection photography which blights so many older films. It should also be stressed that it is only natural that the soundtrack sounds a little primitive; talkies were still in their cradle. That Walsh was able to use a microphone at all, with most of the scenes shot out of doors, is more kudos for him.

THE BIG TRAIL was not a box office success. In 1930, William Haines' comedies were the big money makers and the public was looking for fare other than intelligent Westerns. Most of the cast slipped into obscurity, including Wayne. It would not be until 1939, when John Ford rescued him in STAGECOACH, that John Wayne's legend would begin in earnest. And despite its grand & sweeping vistas, it would be another 25 years before wide screen caught on with Hollywood, largely as an answer to the economic threat from television. John Wayne is one of the few players in film history to have failed at his first big break and then succeed on the second time around. Of course everyone knows the second time was the classic Stagecoach with John Ford directing.

But we're here to talk about The Big Trail. John Ford's fellow director Raoul Walsh spotted this tall kid on the set of one of Ford's films and thought he had potential. He wanted to make him the lead in a big budget western that Fox was planning to do. The film as planned would be an homage to the famous classic silent western The Covered Wagon.

In watching The Big Trail I was struck by how similar Wayne's character of Breck Coleman here is to the Ringo Kid in Stagecoach. Both characters were likable young cowpokes, but both were also on a mission of vengeance. And of course both films were done on location and show the expense in making them. No studio product here with a backlot western set.

I also don't think that it was an accident that Wayne got this break at the beginning of the sound era. Raoul Walsh, I'm guessing looked around Hollywood and probably didn't think a whole lot of movie cowboys would have staying power in sound. That's something else Walsh spotted in Wayne.

According to what I've read The Big Trail flopped because after spending all that money to make the film in an early wide screen process, some genius at Fox realized that their theaters weren't equipped with the wide screen to show it. And when the Great Depression hit there would be no money to widen those screens at Fox movie houses. So The Big Trail got a limited release, even in what we would call a formatted version, and lost money big for Fox films.

Marguerite Churchill is fine as the crinoline heroine who Duke wins, loses and wins again from Ian Keith. Keith, Charles Stevens and F. Tyrone Power are the trio of villains Wayne has to deal with.

F. Tyrone Power is the father of the famous movie legend Tyrone Power. He was a big burly man with a grand background in classic roles on screen and on stage. I wouldn't be surprised if his son who would have been 15 at the time might not have been hanging around the set.

Also look for Ward Bond though you might have trouble spotting him under a big bushy beard.

Watching The Big Trail now it is interesting to speculate where John Wayne's career might have gone if The Big Trail had been a big hit. I have really nothing to add to all the other comments, save this: To me the film looked like a silent film slowly being adapted to sound. The text boards bringing the story along reinforced that impression I suppose. Along the way the actors were allowed to leave the stilted, theatre-like acting; Marguerite Churchill very much looks like a typical early silent movie heroine at the beginning of the film, but at the end is allowed finer expressions. Gus, the Swede?, reminded me of the comic characters of Shakespeare plays, and Windy sounded to me like an early Donald Duck.

It truly amazed me that it was all filmed outdoors, on location, and even though the dust of all the wagons, horses and cattle obscured the view it must actually have been like that for the real settlers! It also was clear to me that many of those Indians must have been real, and I didn't detect any overt racism towards them. And John Wayne looks so incredibly young! As someone who became a real Wayne fan through the cavalry trilogy by John Ford, and thought that Stage Coach was Wayne's first as a leading star, this film was a revelation. The plot is very simple, again reminding me of a silent film, but the grit is very real indeed! An amazing film to have been made with that technique and under those conditions in 1930. What some mistake for stilted dialog and/or dismiss as archetypal characterizations accurately represents how people talked, lived and were before World War II, let alone in whatever years "The Big Trail" represent on film.

The movie took my breath away the first time I saw it years ago. Reading the boards here helped me understand why it missed at the box office and why movie goers got the benefit of Wayne in B Westerns for another ten years. Wayne was in my opinion better in "The Big Trail" and the years of Bs than most of his star turns after 1939 with Ford's incredible cavalry trilogy, "True Grit" and "The Shootist" being Big time exceptions.

What a shame theaters missed the boat on this in 1930. Had this movie hit we might have enjoyed more movies with more realism and less hokum. In my opinion this is not only one of the finest westerns ever filmed with accurate dialog and accurate character realization, but among the finest representations of a passage of any kind ever put on film.

It still takes my breath away. Especially the dialog and accurate characterizations of types that simply don't exist any more. Some celebrate the surface homogenization of our culture that in fact hides the largest cultural degradation (into 'people like us' and 'people like them') and political divide (corporatists vs Main Streetists) in US history, but for me "The Big Trail" represents a time when our surface differences were more obvious but underneath them most folks wanted to work out the nation's failures and most folks aspired to build a great culture and a great nation.

"The Big Trail" is an epic of the melting pot in motion toward the American Dream. Certainly the finest film on that path I ever saw. that subject ever filmed. I just recently bought "The Big Trail" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation.

There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstacles—both natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.

Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life.

The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.

I've read much criticism of Wayne's performance—some even going so far as to blame his "wooden acting" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in "Stagecoach". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After "The Big Trail", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When "Stagecoach" came he was ready for it and "The Big Trail" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.

I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.

All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made. i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8/10. Sweeping and still impressive early Talkie Western of pioneering days; other contemporary films in the same vein include THE COVERED WAGON (1923), THE IRON HORSE (1924) and CIMARRON (1931) – none of which I've watched, though I do have the latter on VHS. It was simultaneously filmed in the "Standard" fullscreen ratio and in an experimental Widescreen process called "Grandeur", but only the former has been released on the bare-bones Fox DVD; one can only surmise how it would look in a wider ratio, but the careful framing – not to mention the splendid cinematography – is evident enough even in the "Standard" version.

Young John Wayne is surprisingly commanding in the lead (a role which, however, didn't lead to the expected stardom – as he'd languish in 'B' Westerns for the best part of the next decade, before John Ford came to his rescue with STAGECOACH [1939]!); anyway, he and Marguerite Churchill (from DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936]) make a nice couple – despite her somewhat tedious character. Supporting characters include a variety of stock types: veteran westerner, comic-relief sidekick (with a penchant for making noises with his mouth!), burly and uncouth villain (played by Tyrone Power Sr.!), his two slimy cohorts (a Mexican and a Southerner, the latter also filling in as Wayne's rival for Churchill's hand), etc. Also among the members of the wagon party is a timid Swede (full of optimism for the promised land, but who's continually put down by his irascible mother-in-law) and later Wayne regular Ward Bond.

The episodic narrative resolves itself into a number of alternately cornball, lyrical and action-packed vignettes – as we see the prospective settlers combating the elements, the Indians and themselves; the film, however, has a completely authentic feel to it which smooths over its essentially dated and static quality. Also, the editing is somewhat choppy (particularly during the second half) – little wonder, since the DVD edition of the film is only 108 minutes long against the complete 158-minute "Grandeur" version! If one overlooks the technical problems of this early (1930) sound movie such as the sound quality and the occasional stiffness of John Wayne, one will find this movie to be an epic that is more realistic than almost any movie made since. Beginning at the Missouri, a large caravan of Conestoga wagons, people, and animals head west. The wagons are pulled down huge cliffs and cross a flooded river with considerable risk to the riders in the wagons. Indians meet with Wayne, and allow the train to pass through their land. Later, Indians gather west of the train to combat them. The wagons form a huge circle with horses and cattle in the circle, and fire their rifles creating with the circling Indians a veil of smoke.

When the battle ends, the dead are buried on the spot and the people and wagons depart. This scene is remarkable, as the camera stays with the dead as the living depart. It is unique in the way it links the viewer with the dead and separates the viewer from the living. The wagons encounter a major thunderstorm with torrential downpours and mud everywhere. They finally arrive at their destination near a redwood or sequoia forest in Oregon. The film is done in 70 mm widescreen at about a 2.0:1 ratio (in 1930!).

I haven't mentioned the plot because it is secondary to the scenic grandeur and the enormous amount of work involved in making this film. Moviemakers will never work this hard again to make such a movie or any movie. Given the technical limitations of the sound, the music is at times moving, such as when Wayne leaves his girl to hunt down his friend's killers and at the end.

While all the critics rave about The Searchers and Wayne's psychology, racism, short temper, and complex characters, The Big Trail gives us a story of simple people encountering extraordinary hardships. One of the best westerns I have seen. The precise text of an ad (except the word Chinese, as in Grauman's Chinese, at the end, should appear in caps but IMDb's racially sensitive formatting won't let it), as published in the Los Angeles Times of October 2nd 1930, reads as follows (with " / " denoting the break between each line in the ad):

GALA WORLD PREMIERE / Tonight / 8:30 PROMPTLY / TONIGHT all Hollywood and Los Angeles boulevards become THE BIG TRAIL to Grauman's Chinese Theatre...the rendezvous of all that is beautiful and brilliant...the gathering place of stars...celebrities...the great and the famous!

Thousands will fill every seat...many thousands will line Hollywood Boulevard to watch the gala festivities attending this world premiere!

Tonight all Southern California pays homage to the great American Epic, which faithfully depicts the thrilling, soul-stirring romance of the American Pioneers..who won the West and left us a heritage of Peace..Liberty..and Happiness.

Raoul Walsh's / The BIG / TRAIL / Story by HAL G. EVARTS / FOX MOVIETONE PRODUCTION / SHOWN ENTIRELY IN / GRANDEUR / Cast of 20,000 featuring / JOHN WAYNE MARGUERITE CHURCHILL / EL BRENDEL / Tully Marshall Tyrone Power / David Rollins / Frederick Burton, Charles Stevens, Russ Powell, Louise Carter / William V. Mong, Dodo Newton, Ward Bond, Marcia Harris / Marjorie Leet, Emelie Emerson, Fran Rainboth / Andy Shufford, Helen Parrish / Production Manager Archibald Buchanan / Settings by Harold Miles, Fred Serren / Chief Grandeur Cameraman Arthur Edeson / Sound Engineer George Leverett / Chief Film Cutter Jack Dennis / ADDED FEATURE: / Fox Movietone News Exclusive Interview with / GEORGE BERNARD SHAW / Direction Carli Elinor / GRAUMAN'S / Chinese / Direction of Fox West Coast Theatres / Twice Daily Thereafter / 2:30 --- 8:30 P.M. One of the myths of the early sound era is that they couldn't make Westerns because they had trouble recording sound on location. In fact, it was the financial restrictions of the depression that temporarily killed off the genre, at least in the "A" budget bracket. However, in the period 1929-1931, before the economic downturn had really kicked in, the "A" Western flourished, notable examples including The Virginian, Billy the Kid and Cimarron. The Big Trail was perhaps the biggest of them all – a gargantuan pioneer Western shot in an early widescreen process appropriately titled grandeur. Thanks to a recent DVD release we now get to see the widescreen version alongside the fullscreen that was shot simultaneously.

The director was Raoul Walsh, a man for whom the spirit of adventure lay in vast outdoor vistas, and thus in many ways a perfect choice. He makes great use of the wider frame to show off the Western landscape at its most breathtaking. Very typical of Walsh are a number of shots towards the beginning, such as the one where a woman is chopping firewood. Most of the screen is tightly filled by the wagons and other clutter, but in one corner we see the wilderness stretching out invitingly. When the wagon train gets going, the open plain is gradually revealed to us, with wagons pulling away like stage curtains. These shots are not so effective in the fullscreen version, yet on the wider canvas Walsh's expression of the outdoors was never better.

But there's an unfortunate flipside to this. When it comes to dialogue scenes, Walsh's tendency is to place the actors in the middle of the shot, as if they were in an imaginary fullscreen box. The extra width becomes just that – extra. It may seem logical at first, because it means that height-wise we see as much of the actors as we would in a fullscreen picture. However it makes the players look small and insignificant within the frame, while all the background business dominates the shot – and there is a lot of background business in the Big Trail. When widescreen formats re-emerged in the 1950s, many directors would make the same mistake, before eventually realising that in talkie scenes it is better to frame actors from around the chest up, losing some of their height but allowing them to fill the screen.

It's a pity, because The Big Trail is a particularly well-balanced and finely scripted effort. The romance and revenge subplots are simple but well defined, and do not threaten to overbalance each other or the pioneer story. It could have been a great intimate epic, but it loses dramatic weight because every time characters start talking to each other we get distracted by herds of cattle, drifting wagons or whatever else is filling every spare inch of frame. Still, Walsh's sensitivity to deeply emotional romantic moments is still on display, and he manages to make the final scene effective and memorable. There are also some nice comedy touches, largely courtesy of "comical Swede" El Brendel.

The Big Trail is also notable for being John Wayne's first lead role. While Wayne is another victim of the distant framing in dialogue scenes, we do at least see his strong physical presence and hear his warm but assertive vocal delivery. He betrays his lack of experience, but the potential is clearly there. Sadly that potential wasn't widely realised at the time and he spent the rest of the decade slumming it in B-pictures before he finally hit stardom. Also appearing in this picture is Wayne's buddy (and later prolific character actor) Ward Bond. He's not credited, but you can spot him in a number of scenes, most prominently around the 80-minute mark where he is stood to Tyrone Power's left.

The Big Trail is a glorious epic that manages to defeat itself as a drama. And it was this stupendous scale that would put the Western (and widescreen) to bed for some time. And although the 40s and 50s are now regarded as the golden age of the Western, it was by then a changed genre, with stories of individual adventure and heroism in an established West – no better or worse, but of a different form. The early talkie period was the end of an era in which Westerns could be truly gigantic. I never expected such an old film to be as impressive as this 1930 western turned out to be. The scenes of the pioneers heading west in their covered wagons, encountering storms and mud, river crossings, Indian attacks and every manner of trial and danger, are astonishing in their rugged believability. Much of the film was shot outdoors, and the movie has a truly epic feel about it. The actors must have experienced much the same conditions as the original pioneers did, and the results are astounding. The wagons, the clothing, every single detail looks and feels right. The characters are simple but believable, with a straightforward story ,that travels like the wagon train to its destination.

John Wayne is slim and youthful in one of his first roles, as the scout leading the wagons, and he does a fine job as the idealistic young frontiersman. He's up against a marvelously scurvy trio of villains, including Ian Keith as a slick gambler, Charles Stevens as a Mexican sidekick and Tyrone Power, Senior, as the growly, bear-like trapper. Power's bearded, snarling, larger than life portrayal is both comic and menacing. I keep picturing him with a bandanna, gold hoop earring and black eye patch, with a parrot on his shoulder, as he grunts and growls various threats and insults. His character could easily be transferred to a pirate ship with no difficulty at all. He nearly steals the whole picture.

Tully Marshall is delightful as a wily old frontiersman who is Wayne's best friend. The lovely Marguerite Churchill makes a spirited heroine, whose initial meeting with Wayne is a hilarious mix-up, resulting in a long running courtship consisting of insults and feigned indifference on her part, to aw shucks persistence on his. The results are quite humorous and one is glad to see them finally get together at the end.

The scenery is amazing, with the wagons crossing real prairies and having to be lowered by ropes down cliffs. Indians who are clearly the genuine article, and not white actors in makeup, appear as both friends and foes, and are treated with dignity. Wayne's character tells an admiring group of young boys that the Indians are his friends, who taught him everything he knows about survival in the wilderness.

The Big Trail is an uncomplicated tale told well by a talented cast and crew. It will probably appear naive to many modern viewers, but there is a quiet dignity about it that never lets it become corny. There is a great deal of intentional humor, including a rowdy rascal of a pioneer, who makes loud animal sounds from hiding , every time the smooth gambler Ian Keith tries to con the beautiful heroine into marrying him. His flowery speeches about the plantation he allegedly owns are interrupted by very realistic imitations of yowling cats and quacking ducks, causing the would be seducer to look around in annoyance for the unseen creatures.

Highly recommended, both for western fans and lovers of old movies in general. This is truly a classic film for the ages. This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.

The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.

Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone. My giving this film a score of 8 is relative to other feature-length films from 1930. By the standards of films made just a few years later, this film might receive a score of only 6 or 7--mostly because the sound quality was so poor. Now it is possible that the film sounded better and the Fox Movie Channel did show a degraded print (it DID have a lot of lines and scratches), but I assume the sound problem was always an issue. That's because sound in movies was still a novelty in 1930 and many of the Hollywood talking pictures of 1930 sounded terrible--with background characters often drowning out the leads, characters huddled together to make sure they are picked up by the microphones or inconsistent quality (such as what was seen in THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, HELL'S ANGELS and other films of the day). This was all made much worse in THE BIG TRAIL because most of the film was shot outside--something unheard of at the time. Quite an innovation but also something that really stretched the talents of the sound technicians! So, while the film was very hard to listen to, I realize that they had to start somewhere, so I can forgive this--especially since the outdoor scenes are breathtaking--a major innovation for 1930.

The plot is rather similar to CIMARRON--a Western that came out the following year and which captured the Oscar for Best Picture. Unfortunately, CIMARRON isn't all that great a film and I actually like THE BIG TRAIL more due to the scope of the film. While some might balk at THE BIG TRAIL's slow-moving pace, I saw it as a great history lesson about the hardships endured by those traveling West on wagon trains. Plus, the whole thing just looked so beautiful, as director Raoul Walsh went to significant trouble to film on location and THE BIG TRAIL looks almost like a film version of some Ansel Adams prints.

As for the acting, it was pretty good. This was a major break for young John Wayne--as his previous screen appearances were, at best, minor and unremarkable. Here, he was given the lead and did a dandy job--though he was obviously young and a little less "John Wayne-ish" than he was in later films, as his screen persona was not yet firmly established. Another interesting part was played by Tyrone Power II (Tyrone Power's father). He looked nothing like his extremely handsome son and looked and sounded almost exactly like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons! He made very few sound films--dying just a year after making this film--so it's a rare opportunity to see and hear this once famous actor.

Overall, the film is well worth seeing despite some sound problems and a few overly long scenes here and there. For 1930, it was a remarkable achievement--more so than the much more famous and award-winning CIMARRON made the following year. Much of the reason THE BIG TRAIL didn't win an Oscar most likely was because ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT came out the same year and it is truly one of the great films. The details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.

The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.

Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.

The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.

Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like. Best Cinematography I have ever seen…Considering the year the movie was made I was absolutely amazed and thoroughly impressed with the amount of attention dedicated to the scenes and with what appears to be authenticity. Though I am not particularly a western movie buff….every single scene is given the utmost detail, and it is haunting. There is a sincere connection with nature. At times I am overwhelmed with the amount of action passing through the scenes, but I am never bored. I feel as though I am truly peering into a time machine and looking back into the old west. I recommend this movie to anyone who is studying set design, location planning, and for that matter photography in general. It can be a humbling movie to experience with regards to the visuals considering this era of digital touch-up that we now experience. I first saw this film in video form. Even on a television screen, the vistas were impressive. Seen on the big screen in its full glory, it must have blown people away.

As one or two other comments have pointed out, the story of the early pioneers and how they got around the problems of terrain etc on the road to Oregon is as authentic as any film can be. It therefore shows that it is totally unnecessary to take liberties with the truth - something that today's film makers should take heed of - reality is enough.

The plot relies on the struggle of man against the elements and hostile natives. Subplots are few and simple. But the basic plot is enough. Elsewhere I have reviewed Paramount's rival to the big trail, Fighting Caravans. In spite of having a more sophisticated plot, and having better actors, Fighting Caravans lacks the breathtaking scenes.

The Big Trail should be compulsory viewing. The movie I received was a great quality film for it's age. John Wayne did an incredible job for being so young in the movie industry. His on screen presence shined thought even though there were other senior actors on the screen with him. I think that it is a must see older John Wayne film. No one said that in "The Big Trail" and I thought it would be a natural. Nevertheless, this was one of the best Westerns I have seen and I am a big fan of horses and gunsmoke movies. The scope and feel of this picture is simply staggering and, as someone mentioned in their comment, it does have the feel of the 3-camera triptych of "Napoleon" (1927). Nowadays the cost of the production and, especially, the cast of thousands, would be prohibitive, but Raoul Walsh got it done.

The cast was excellent, although John Wayne was better when he had no lines and just swaggered around. In particular, Tyrone Power,Sr. was a perfect villain - I had never seen him before and this was his only talking picture. Ian Keith was a snake, but El Brendel is an acquired taste as the comic relief. He can be funny or annoying, but mostly the latter - and he shows up at the most inappropriate times.

It is a bit too long and it took a while for the Indians to show up, but this is as close to a documentary on Manifest Destiny and as true to life as you will see and a must for movie fans regardless of genre preference. By the time the settlers got to California I was exhausted. Raoul Walsh's mega-epic, stunning filmed in an early widescreen process by the great Arthur Edeson, can be slow and static in the early talkie manner, but this classic wagon train journey across America to the NorthWest is thrilling as a sheer physical production when seen on the big screen. On t.v., the lack of close-ups and distant sound reproduction may prove daunting. Young John Wayne scores easily in his first starring role with a natural delivery the rest of the cast can't command. Amazingly, the film flopped and Wayne spent most of the following decade in Grade B Western fodder. It's quite revealing to see this today and appreciate how far we've come along in what we expect from movies, and at the same time appreciate how many bedrock notions were established.

Here we have a full-fledged narrative talking film - the audio and the visuals are pushed to their period limits. The framing is limited to about belt-high and up -- no face close-ups.

The compositions are remarkable; there's an early over-the-shoulder cross cutting scene to showcase the dialogue; there's a treacherous descent into a canyon with some harrowing perspective angles; a sun-bleached skeleton lies in the dust as the wheels and legs march in the upper portion of the frame; the tension in the showdown between the hero and the bad guy is visually captured by filming above the long axis of a large tree that lies between them; and on and on - early visual treats abound.

Today, it's unsettling to see the young Wayne carry a film, unencumbered by ego or mannerisms.

I have to wonder if Walsh recognized the self-reference: the subject is the journey of a disparate group of pilgrims; those who appear on screen are a disparate group of stage actors, vaudeville comedians, shell game artists, and, probably, carny barkers and ten-in-one show veterans. They all journey together to blaze a trail for how movies would be made.

This is worth at least one viewing to appreciate the source of so many visual ideas borrowed in later movies. If we consider three films with a similar subject, which are this one, which was made in 1930, 'The Covered Wagon', made in 1923 and 'Wagon Master' made in 1950, the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'The Covered Wagon' is only 7 years whereas the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'Wagon Master' is 20 years. This is amazing because it shows how much movies evolved in those 7 years, and how in the next 20 years the changes were slow to come. 'The Big Trail is technically close to 'Wagon Master', but ages apart from 'The Covered Wagon'. The story is about the pioneers going from the Missouri to the west in Oregon. Tyrone Power Sr. is the man leading the caravan, he is a rough and mean guy. John Wayne is the good guy and the film makes too much of a point of his good looks, not giving him a chance to be the Wayne that we are used to. Marguerite Churchill is such a proud lady that you wonder why Wayne just does not forget her. Raoul Walsh was a master at showing caravans and cattle moving through the west, he directed 'The Tall Men' in 1955, which has a lot in common with 'The Big Trail'. 044: The Big Trail (1930) - released 10/24/1930; viewed 4/5/06.

BIRTHS: Richard Harris, Harold Pinter, Robert Atkins.

DOUG: In Hollywood, Raoul Walsh unveiled his latest film, The Big Trail, a western about the trek west across the frontier, starring up-and-coming 23-year-old actor John Wayne. In 1930, we are seeing many "firsts" but few "bests." Besides the first John Wayne film, we have here the first widescreen film (although we only watched the full-frame version). Interestingly, the decision to film in widescreen was essentially the same reason that widescreen became popular later: to compete with television, which hadn't yet appeared commercially but was still an emerging curiosity. All the same, this film was extremely good, giving us a harrowing look at the trek to Oklahoma. The opening title cards let us know that this is a western of the most traditional kind, about America, about the land, who should live on it, etc., and is an excellent demonstration of that. Walsh gives us some astonishing visuals of the wagon company out in the wilderness (when they reach a cliff, they must rope each wagon down one by one), and we also get a revenge subplot involving Wayne pursuing the man who killed one of his friends (I seem to recall something similar in Stagecoach). Wayne's tough cowboy routine is at least partly there, and would surely evolve further in subsequent films. Since this film is representing all of Wayne's early 30's work for the Odyssey, we will not see his face again until Stagecoach, but once we do, we will keep seeing him to the end of the Odyssey and beyond.

KEVIN: Ah, our first sound western, and John Wayne's first starring role. It's Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail. This review will be short, since it's been weeks since I watched it. I enjoyed this movie, but it was far from a masterpiece. The mostly predictable adventure had a few surprises, like when the brains of the bad guys, Red Flack (Tyrone Power Sr. in his last role) is killed half way through; I thought he would be the boss at the end, but that ended up being Bill Thorpe (Ian Keith). I remember that I didn't like the way Breck (Wayne) kills Thorpe and exacts revenge at the end. I understood that that's what he was meant to do in the story, but I really didn't like his reasoning when he tells Ruth why he has to do it. I think he had a far greater responsibility to the hundreds of settlers he was leading through the harsh west.

Last film viewed: Animal Crackers (1930). Last film chronologically: Soup to Nuts (1930). Next film: L'Age D'or (1930). "Father Hood" is an overlooked little gem of a "road movie". Fine performances by Halle Berry, Sabina Lloyd and Brian Bonsall, two really fun "over-the-top" ones by Diane Ladd and Michael Ironside,

and a downright outstanding one from Patrick Swayze. The movie is helped by an unconventional storyline, but badly undercut by it's flashback framing which results in a formulamatic, abrupt ending. "Father Hood" would have worked MUCH better without these "bookends". Nevertheless, the movie brings up important issues of "family responsibilities" and the consequences of state intervention. As long as the foster system rewards state institutions for NOT placing children, such abuses will exist.

Pick this one up. It's worth the "ride." Father Hood is an entertaining tale of an unwilling Father who is definitely a HOOD! Patrick Swayze plays Jack Charles who is a hood always on the look-out for the one big "score" that is going to put him on easy street. His wife died while he was is prison and his two kids were put in foster care. When he "got out" he thought they were probably better off in foster care – besides he still had to score his fortune. His daughter Kathleen Charles (played wonderfully by Sabrina Lloyd) breaks out of a foster care institution that is abusing the kids and misappropriating money that is suppose to be being spent on the kids. She hunts down her father; tells him about how bad the place was and that her brother, Eddie Charles (played by Brian Bonsall) , "just a little 7-year-old kid" was being moved to the institution that she had just broken out of and convinces her father to kidnap him. The three start off on an adventure across country, all the while Jack keeps telling himself that he has to get rid of the kids! Patrick Swayze is really good in this comedy, playing a "hood" (probably a little understatement for this criminal character) who is similar to his Johnny Castle character of Dirty Dancing except Jack is appropriately funnier in this comedy and more optimistic than Johnny Castle. Swayze is funny and rally does comedy pretty well! Halle Berry plays Kathleen Mercer who is a reporter trying to get at the truth of the foster care system who becomes Sawyer's ally. Diane Ladd plays Rita the con-artist mother of Jack Charles. Father Hood

I can understand why a lot of people hate this tale of a father kidnapping his two children and carrying them across America, but I've seen much worse, and--when I saw this years ago--I didn't think it was particularly awful. Patrick Swayze is the worried father who takes his kids on the run with him for personal reasons, and Halle Berry is the cop chasing them down.

Overall a decent way to spend a couple hours of your life. You could certainly do worse--ever hear of the film "Pod People"?

** 1/2 out of *****

Rated PG-13 for some traumatic scenes, adult content matter, violence and language. I don't like boxing, don't understand the attraction. I did like this movie. Positive portrayals of Latinos, with no drugs, sex or street violence. The plot actually showed stable, loving families. The fight sequences are violent, as is boxing, but not as over the top as Rocky films. Nothing wrong with attempting familiar themes with a different angle and ethnicity. It's a good rent. (Some Spoilers) Facing a mid-life crisis and fed up with his marriage to Cindy ,Teddi Siddall, who seemed to have more say in what he did and where he stayed then the Air Force,USAF elite Red Beret Sgt. Major Davis Bay, Gary Cole,decided one morning to just walk away from in all and start a new life as a civilian.

David first got this idea when he met at a Halloween party sweet and adoring Alyson, Karen Sillas. Keeping his background secret from her by telling Alyson that he's in a top secret military outfit was the perfect cover for him. Back at Jackson AFB outside of Austin Tex. David starts to review his life's options with Cindy and the USAF and decides to change his identity by running away from it. David then calls Alyson, who only met him once, and makes a date with her. Before you know it David, now using the name Haywood,is engaged to be married to her.

Faking his death in a bicycle accident Dave purposely leave his wife and kids out in the cold and deserts his military obligation to his country.It didn't take long for Dave to find out that civilian life just doesn't appeal to him. It's now too late for Dave to go back to his first wife Cindy and his two boys with him facing the brig and a military court-martial if he comes back to the USAF. Dave takes up the only job that he could do to support him and Alyson and their infant son Chris: using his skills he learned in the Red Berets to rob banks.

Based on a true story "Lies He Told" has Dave Bay/Haywood living three, not two, different lives. One of a hard working family man one as a ruthless bank robber and yet another one as a dead and highly decorated, by the President of the US and Prime Misnister Of GB, All-American hero. Gary Cole is very effective as both Master Sgt. David Bay&husband David Haywood. Davids actions are, even though unforgivable, understandable in the case of his depression over his marriage to Cindy. The pressure of her nagging him got to the point where he just wanted to get lost and away from her and the kids. But he should have sought professional counseling from the US Air Force, which he would have been gladly provided with, instead of choosing the easy way out. Which in the end lead him straight into Levenworth Ferderal Prison. It may have been that the overly macho Dave thought it would have been a bad mark on his career, as well as his ego, to get help for his problems.

Karen Sillas as Alyson is the glue that keeps the film together with her at first going along with her new husbands explanation of his frequent disappearances, some for as much as two weeks, as him doing covert action in keeping the country safe from domestic and foreign terrorists. The real reasons for his long absences were the result of him casing out planing and robbing banks. Which was the only way he knew how to earn a living given from what he learned, in subversive actions, all those years in the elite Red Berets.

Alyson tracking down Dave's mom Carolyn Bay(Linda Goranson), who he told her was dead since he was a small boy, in Portland she finds out the truth about the double, or triple, life that he's been leading since he married her. This lead to Alyson finding out about his marriage to Linda and the two sons that he had with her as well as his faked death, and now AWOL, from the USAF. Being that it's a true story the ending was anything that you would have guessed it to be in a standard Hollywood, or made for TV, movie. That's what makes the film "Lies he Told, a lot better then what you would have expected it to be. He is very good in this role as a disaffected and bored husband, a decorated air force officer, who becomes bored with his predictable suburban life and decides to make a radical change.

One evening he meets Karen Sillas, an attractive woman younger than his current wife. A relationship develops, and Cole decides to take it to the next level.

Not only does he have an affair, he fakes his death to escape his family obligations. Lies become increasingly more of a pattern as he begins to rob banks to keep his new wife (Sillas) happy, and to project the image that he is a success. A fictional delusion, apparently.

This was also based on a true story which makes it all the more intriguing. Cole is believable and excellent in these roles. Recommended. 8/10. I thought it was an excellent movie. Gary Cole played the role of a military man who feels trapped and unhappy with his wife who fakes his death fabulously! Over all, I thought the movie was great, definitely not a boring plot line! It's sad to say, but I think lots of men might feel this way. I think he should have just gotten a divorce and asked to be transferred instead of the extreme he went to, but he felt there was no other way out so he faked his death. I thought it was neat that Cole's real-life wife played the wife he was unhappy with in the movie. I think what the guy did was alittle extreme, but the movie was great nonetheless! Definitely recommend it! This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch. This is one of the best TV movies I have ever seen! The title makes it so obvious and predictable but come on, all TV movies are like that!

The story is fantastic. It may seem ridiculous but it is based on an incredibly true story. Gary Cole plays a military man named Dave who feels trapped in his marriage. He abandons his wife and kids and then fakes his death! All so he could be with Alyson (Karen Sillas). How far will Dave go to keep his secret?

The acting is top notch for TV movies. Gary Cole especially keeps the movie together as a charming, smooth-talking sociopath who has an answer to everything when his wife gets suspicious. Karen Sillas does the best she can as a wife who discovers that her husband is a LIAR and doesn't know what to do about it. Teddi Siddall, who I believe is Gary Cole's wife in real life, plays her part well especially when she cries about the "death" of her husband. Wendy Makkena adds a nice touch as Alyson's sister. Linda Goranson is great in her small role as Dave's mother.

Predictable but the acting and the story take this movie up several notches. The only reason I decided to view this film is because of the great acting talents of Karen Sillas,(Alyson Haywood),"Bad Money",'99, who is deeply involved with Gary Cole,(Dave),"Cry Wolf",'05, who is a great war hero and has all kinds of ways to make money and never seems to stop telling LIES. Alyson and Dave are trying to rebuild an old home and restore it to comfortable living conditions. The relationship gets troublesome and Alyson decides to find out what is going on and the plot gets very mysterious. If you are a big fan of Karen Sillas, this is the film for you. I only wish Karen would appear in more films, I miss her great talents. This is a film that I keep coming back to, for a variety of reasons. As a testament to the suffering of the ordinary soldier on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, it is a powerful one. There are a number of very powerful scenes in the film which help to capture the horror of war, such as the tank battle for instance. Furthermore, from what I can see the experiences documented in the film are by and large 'true' - if you read A. Beevor's book 'Stalingrad' you will know what I mean. The film is also successful in the sense that it doesn't allow character or plot to dominate it - it is simply a tale of survival, that attempts to depict the battle mainly from the ordinary (German) soldier's point of view. I've read somewhere that the original screenplay had to be toned down, which doesn't surprise me at all - if they tried to really show what the battle was like, it would have been almost impossible to make I'm sure. Even so, there are still some moments that are difficult to watch - this was made before Private Ryan but is possibly even harder-hitting in places. Just one word of caution - don't buy the dubbed 'English' version, it's pretty awful and spoils the film - try to get a copy in the original (German) version with English subtitles, it's far more powerful. You may need to buy a Region 1 DVD of the film in this case, as I did. For the main criticisms of the movie... The love story: that wasn't a love story. Those were two people distraught coming together trying to find humanity in ANYone. The same thing happened with soldiers and the Russian boy. It added a feminine touch, but come on look at American movies...no where close to love story. There was no storyline: does war have a storyline? I think that is a silly criticism. The storyline is this. They start with 400 men and the movie narrowed down to show the lives of about 10 men and how each did their part and died. Death is the ultimate end to any story. Just because there was no happy ending doesn't mean it has no storyline.

There was a horrid truth in this movie. I wouldn't necessarily call it "anti-war". It had a political statement of course, but the movie wasn't all about the politics. In fact, except for a few occurrences when the Captain? showed up, there was never a stifling air of Nazi Germany. They were far enough out of the reach of the main Nazi party. The fat cats weren't gonna go into Russia!

Maybe not completely accurate and not a Hollywood hit, but it exhibits a fine knowledge of the common soldier (I'd say exactly of almost any nationality and war)and what they must go through. It was a losing battle, of course the movie is going to be depressing. And to the person who said that it was gutsy (and silly) to even portray Germans as victims: there are victims on all sides in every war (any real soldier will tell you that).

This movie is a fine balance between movie and documentary. A few problems with it when arguing for just one, but it instills the best of both worlds. Watch it as such. Beware however because it is a hard movie to watch if not graphically, emotionally.

I'm waiting til they make a movie about Iraq. It will probably have many of the same themes and will be very controversial, I want to see who has the guts to do it first. (Jarhead doesn't count) The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to.

The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.

After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.

“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.

As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.

In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking. This film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book "Stalingrad".

Unlike the better known "Enemy at the Gates" where the plot diverts into a sniper/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, "Stalingrad" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood "war" products seem to be.

The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in "Stlingrad" are of the highest caliber.

It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of "Fuehrer". The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.

The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.

Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II. If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.

"Stalingrad" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.

In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some "superior" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.

This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR? Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have. Apart from the low budget, there never seems to be more than 50 Germans in one scene at any one time, plus the same 2 half tracks, this film is absolute top class. Everything is accurate. That is the point, I think, from the uniforms to to the horror and the disillusionment.Everyone is as grey as the field grey uniforms. Grey men with the life drained out of them. Forget US made Gung ho rubbish like Blackhawk down and Private Ryan. This is one of the best war films ever. Only Cross of Iron beats this for tension and story. Please could we have a proper Un-dubbed German language with English subtitles version in the UK ? Without having to pay ridiculous import charges from Europe. Most other DVD's are multilingual. Why not this one ? I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.

1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.

This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians.

A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.

Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like. This movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it. A movie like this doesn't come along too often. I'm surprised it took 9 years to finally see it. Politicians and civilian hawks should view this before making decisions on how the destroy peoples lives, I watched this the day after viewing the TV version of "Uprising" about the Warsaw ghetto. Even with this fresh in mind I felt sympathy for the German Soldier. I felt sympathy for all parties that this tragedy could happen. It will take awhile to thaw out from this one. I'm surprised they have not made a movie based on "The Forgotten Soldier" by Buy Sajer. This movie shares the cold with the book. Both will haunt me for the rest of my life. This movie tries to run away to the typical 'I'm fighting because I'm obliged to defend the fatherland. The NAZI's are all bad guys, I'm against them' (typical of German war movies). How? By not talking too much about it, and just referring the war and the POW's. Nevertheless I would like to see a German movie which would be something between the extremity of Come And See and the "bad NAZI's" Das Boot. I say this because, excluding this factor, the German movies are the best depicting 2nd world war and the German side. You easily see some of the German hierarchical relations, very different from the ones in US army.

This is a movie which tries to get a real sight of what was Stalingrad, and I was not there, and I doubt most people were there now, but if I would choose one movie depicting this battle, for sure would not be the all American Enemy At The Gates. Why do I say this? Because even the best soldiers are not hero's, and given the conditions they may regard their own lives instead of the fatherland. This goes for all the ranks, and in the end you see von Paulus giving the example. Bloody marvelous. Recommended by a friend who knew I liked Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist and Downfall. I loved the flow of the narrative - how the characters moved from hope and ideals of valour through shock, fear, disintegration, desperation and utter annihilation. A first rate anti-war movie that must have created quite the stir in Germany. Not a proud moment for anyone and the study of a generation lost. This movie was excellent at conveying the remove of the command from the ground troops and in pounding the utter futility of trying to control untamed nature and the Russian psyche. If I didn't know I would have thought it was a Russian movie it was so fatalistic. What an uncompromising ending. A pieta. This film does for Infantry what Das Boot did for Submariners. If you appreciated Das Boot then that is all you really need to know.

This is a well done piece of cinema. On a par with Das Boot. Basically it follows a Company of elite German "Stormtrooper" infantry who leave garrison duty in an idyllic Italian seaside town and are immediately thrust into the chaos of the disintegrating Russian front.

A good war movie illuminates both the senselessness and brutality of war and at the same time gives us insight into the experiences and essential humanity of those who fight. This movie does that. The film is full of drama and action and so is entertaining on that level as well. Stalingrad is a terrific movie, well acted and directed, and rather down to earth in it's approach to the various bizarre aspects of warfare and it's politics. This is, together with "Das Boot" one of the best war movies (together with the Finnish "Vinterkriget" ("The Winter War", in English, I believe)). It depicts the ordeals of some of the German soldiers that fought --- and died --- in and around Stalingrad during World War 2. No big time heroics, no over bearing emotional fuzziness, only the fear of every day death in war. The mood of the movie is similar to the one in "Das Boot", and that should give you some hints on what to expect, I guess. So, if you enjoy realistic, non-Hollywoodish, war movies: Rent it, buy it, just make sure you see it! Finally, a film buff's note: for some of the previous reviewers information, I only want to add that "Stalingrad" isn't directed by Wolfgang Petersen (who made "Das Boot")! From a military historian's standpoint, nearly everything in this movie is historically accurate. Beyond that, it is an enthralling story that leaves you depressed at the end but quite glad you took the time to watch. This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.

It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.

The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.

The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.

The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.

All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.

7/10 One of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The "problem" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why "Stalingrad" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: "This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad. Describing Stalingrad as a war film may be a bit inaccurate. Sure it centers on the longest and bloodiest battle in world history, in the most expansive theater of the most costly war in terms of lives, money, and matériel that has ever occurred. Yes it contains action scenes depicting bitter battles and terrible destruction. The visceral storytelling and harsh images though make it something more than a war film, even more than an anti-war film. Stalingrad is instead a film about absolute and undeniable hell.

The film is fraught with visual descriptions of the worst kind of war, one that is intensely personal and close, where days are spent in taking one city block, only to have it re-taken in a surprise assault. The early form of modern urban warfare that the Germans came to call Rattenkrieg (Rat Warfare) is depicted in brutal and uncompromising terms. The characters war in sewer tunnels, rail yards, and from building to building in the hellish bomb-scape of ruined Stalingrad, only to be defeated by the unforgiving Russian winter.

The film deals with the issue of Nazism and the vilification of Germans in that period in the way that many other films from both Germany and the rest of the world do. Its characters are a group of soldiers swept along by the winds of war and simply attempting to make it out with themselves and as many of their comrades as possible alive. The characters do not fight the Soviets out of any ideological hatred between National Socialism and Soviet Communism, not for any grand dream of Grossdeutschland or racial superiority. They fight only because if they do not the enemy will kill them, and if the enemy does not then their own officers certainly will for refusing to fight. This portrayal adds another layer to the suffocating envelope of trapped hopelessness that pervades the film.

A sort of ground based companion to Das Boot, Stalingrad frames the epic struggle of World War Two in a personal light and from the unexpected perspective of the ordinary German soldier as a sort of hero made tragic by circumstance and a brutal government that would pervert his sacrifice. Having majored in Western History when I was a student in college seeing the views on World War II are quite discomforting and in a whole completely wrong. World War II was the most graphic and bloody affairs to ever occur in world history. While the Axis Powers conducted many crimes against humanity which is still the view today and the correct many people forget that not every German soldier was out to exterminate the Jewish population, not every Japanese soldier swung a samurai sword around and flew kamikaze missions, and not every Italian soldier was a Fascist. Most of these soldiers for the Axis powers were normal people like you and I caught in a terrible conflict and just happened to be fighting for a country they loved.

The Battle of Stalingrad was arguably the most lethal battles in world history with over 1,500,000 casualties sustained over the course of the battle. The film Stalingrad follows a German platoon and its leader Lieutenant von Witzland as they are reassigned to the Eastern Front to battle the Soviets at Stalingrad. Von Witzland acts as sort of the main character with two other men, Rollo and Fritzi. They all are normal men and seem to be completely unaware to what is happening back in Germany and Poland.

The film follows the course of the battle. The film is overall very bleak when it comes to its portrayal of combat and a soldiers life during the battle. We are shown numerous gruesome battles and intense violence outside of the battles (including a firing squad sequence). Overall the battles are the earliest examples that I know of that portray the loss of limbs and overall in your face death sequences and violence. Much of the inspiration for Saving Private Ryan's battle sequences seem to have come from this film.

The film does not aim to make the German's completely innocent of everything in the film. Several of the higher ranking officers of the army are portrayed in the usual view most people are use to, evil. Most of the soldiers are just normal people who often speak of home. The film makes it clear quite quickly that not all Germans were responsible for what happened during the Holocaust, most of the country and army was entirely oblivious to the fact that genocide was taking place. The film makes it clear that the soldiers in the Germany Army was simply fighting for a cause they really didn't understand and most wished just to return home rather than freezing in negative degree temperatures in Russia.

The film really shows how hellish war is, especially World War II. The battle scenes will shock you with its gritty realism and the story is quite easy to follow as you are simply following a platoon during the battle. As with most war films do not expect much happiness after seeing it. It will leave you in a bit of a depressed mood just from seeing the life most of the soldiers on the Eastern Front faced. Not recommended for children.

4/5 stars I found the movie very real just as much as Saving Private Ryan and gave an upfront account from the German perspective. The graphic action and individual characters gave this movie much to keep me interested through the whole movie. Stalingrad was very brutal battle and the scenes gave this movie that stark reality of this battle. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in military history. This was my second viewing of this movie in a few years and was captivated by it's realism again. The weapons, uniforms, and hearing it German while reading the subtitles gave it much credit for a good military movie. In fact, this being a German perspective of the battle, I was rooting for the Germans, even though they were the agressor and ultimate loser of the war. The magnitude of the Stalingrad tragedy is concisely presented in the end note of the movie: "In the battle of Stalingrad, more than one million people were killed in action, froze to death or died of starvation: Russians, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Austrians. Of the 260,000 surrounded men of the Sixth Army, 91,00o were taken prisoners, of whom only 6,000 returned to their homeland, years later.

What the story does not tell was that Fieldmarshall Paulus, who surrendered, did not share all the hardship of the captivity of his men. He had a special treatment as the highest ranking prisonner taken by the Soviet army. When, during his presence at the Nuremberg trials he was asked about the fate of the 91,000 prisoners, he declared that they were fine. He was freed after the war and died in the East Germany.

The film only presents the first part of the tragedy, the actual battle of Stalingrad. However, for an entire picture, the fate of the 91,000 prisonners should also not be forgotten. Naked City: JWAB does a pretty good job of balancing its two A - B stories, eventhough I'm not all that fond of multiple plot movies. And Scott Glen and Courtney B. Vance make a great on screen dual. However, I'm not sure what kind of message a movie sends when two flat-foot country girls can get off scott free with murder, grand theft, and to top it off, win a free flight home (in first class no less--at least from the looks of their attire anyway). Gee, I guess that blue wall of silence is still rather think!

Rating: 8 This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.

Well worth a look, as is its sequel. The essence of this film falls on judgments by police officers who, fortunately ethical and moral men, act on situations within situations in a city with a super-abundance of violence and killing. Good compound interacting story lines and above-average characterizations. I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.

Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.

I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.

Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline! This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. At the center of the story is a climatologist(Tom Courtenay) a climatologist who tries to save London from the effects of giant wave , trying to convince the authorities that the town dike was unsafe, furthermore a marine engineer (Robert Carlyle) and his ex-wife Samantha(Jessalyn Gilsig) . They are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. The movie packs impressive flood scenes brought to life by the breathtaking computer generator special effects, better than the classic of the 70s , such as 'Earthquake, Inferno Towering' and similarly to 'Armaguedon and Day after tomorrow'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.

And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :) The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.

Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.

Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.

This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it. Rosie Perez is the lead in this very engaging affair, cast as Mercedes, a young woman from Brooklyn who has resolved to become a film actress although not favoured by her circumstances, living in East Los Angeles and struggling with a series of fruitless auditions for any sort of part at all. Mercedes has hooked up with a married and washed-up actor, Harry Harrelson (Harvey Keitel), who at one time had performed in a television Western series during the 1970s, and seldom since, accepting him as her lover, in part from loneliness, and as well from a hope that film parts will be coming her way because of his "contacts", but these latter are of small consequence as Harry is simply self-delusional in his attempts at recovering what he perceives as past cinematic renown. In order to adequately support herself financially, Mercedes toils as a taxi dancer in a downtown Los Angeles Skid Row dance hall/bar while she continues carrying on her efforts to succeed at the motion picture business, and it is while there at the dance palace that a young immigrant from Mexico, Ernesto (Michael DeLorenzo), falls in love with her and the largest portion of the narrative depicts his efforts to please the object of his affections, even if they may mean losing her altogether. This essentially tradition rooted melodrama is given only a moderate budget, despite the presence of a goodly number of well-known players, including Steve Buscemi, Anthony Quinn, and Stanley Tucci, and was kept in the can for about a year before its rather desultory distribution and leaden marketing efforts on its behalf, more's the pity as its solid production characteristics are firmly complemented by Alexandre Rockwell's admirably controlled direction, a consistent virtue of his work, and on display in this film from its very opening scene, frames that form a montage behind the credits, featuring Perez at Skid Row's Fifth and Main Streets. Rockwell has often demonstrated that he operates very closely indeed with his cast, and this holds true in this instance as he allows his actors to create their roles while any ad libbing is neatened nicely via the editing process, resulting in an artistic success for the director, despite negative comments from some mainstream evaluators. The film's scoring is aesthetically spot on with a good deal of it contributed by Tito Larriva, who also plays as band boss for the taxi dancers. Acting honours here must go to the ever vital Perez, although nary a sub-par performance is turned in. A fair test for any film's quality is given when a viewer will watch it twice within a brief period. Sitting through this undervalued work will be considered a keen pleasure for many. I saw FAREWELL TO HARRY at the Plaza Theatre while in New York city and was quite taken. The performance of William Hall Jr. is tremendous. This is a movie for the classic movie goer. Garrett Bennett's direction reminds me of early Barry Levinson and Robert Redford's work. The movie seems to transcend the typical independent film. It has a soul and a visual power that is quite unique. I saw this with a small audience (400) who were captivated from the moment of the first credit to the last and although I wasn't out and out crying (like the lady next to me) I do have to admit I had a little watering in the eyes...

I just watched the movie tonight and i found it brilliant. It doesn't have special effects that blow your mind, and it's not violent or bloody, no terrorist or aliens but it's brilliant. It's just plain nice, sweet and it brought me to a whole different time, a much simpler time, where people could take their time to walk down the street and look out at the ocean. I think it was beautiful and I for one recommend it. Nick was a great character and his friendship with Harry was one of the highlights of the movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i believe everyone should watch this, mostly when they feel down, or when they want to share something nice with their friends. This is a quiet movie. It's a simple story about a writer who cannot write his story coming back to his home town to get started but instead he gets involved in a friendship with a weird older man whose life externally represents perhaps the internal state of the writer - it's a museum of unfinished ideas, outdated equipment and "useless" people.

There are no extraordinary circumstances or any big movements in the plot. It's a movie about internal changes. Being stuck in their lives which are not developing much, the principal personages get to help each other to transform, stop leaving in dreams and achieve something or at least get a change and give their lives the desired and long-awaited new direction.

On the film-making side I can think of only one weakness which could also be considered as a feature - we do not get much of characters description or inner world insights. It's very narrative on the side of thoughts and events and we have to guess about their true feelings which are rather hidden but still you can see them, and this is what makes your own mind work, trying to figure them out, to understand the impressions made by those people, and it's not empty underneath - the actors definitely hold well some inner states proper to their characters. It's close to the real life where you mostly never know someone well enough to understand them completely, and this turns us around and puts in front of our own feelings and choices.

What's most important for me is that this simple almost flat story leaves you pondering afterwards, about your own life, about your own dreams and achievements, are there any or are we caught up in the routine and pleasures, leaving at 100% or only dreaming about it, could we do more and move somewhere we'd rather like to be than just leaving feed ourselves and others the tales like "I'll do this one day"- not moving one finger to make this actually happen, or "I'm fine where I am" because it's easier to go by the habits than to actually make a change? At least that's the impression it left me with and it was very timely for me, which adds to my appreciation of this far-from-famous movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who likes the movies meant for the heart but those who need events and actions should stay away. Seeing Gary Busey in a G rated film was a first and a nice one at that. I don't know much about the director, but he obviously knows how to spend a few dollars and get the most out of them. Where did Jillian Clare come from? My kids love her! The only thing I remember Christopher Atkins doing was Blue Lagoon. Disney needs to see this film and put him to work. The wife thinks he is very cute. I liked what he did with his character. He seemed so real. What we liked most was the message this film sends out. Greed sucks and faith, love and family wins! This is the first low-budget DVD we've bought that had so much stuff on it. The producers made this one for kids and the kids loved it. They liked the music and all the extras on the DVD. The director probably won't stick to family movies, but I hope he does - cause he really knows how to get the most out of kids, animals and stars like Gary Busey. The dog was great and seeing Gary Busey act like a dog was even funnier. There wasn't much we didn't like about this one. It hard to find a family film without all the crude humor, and Quigley was a delightful surprise. My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies. Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though... The GREAT NEWS is that this film is now AVAILABLE on DVD from http://treasureflix.com for all those who wish to own it as well as on video.This is good news as it is one of my favourite films!

I watched this film for the first time in the 80s and it is compulsory holiday viewing. Living in the small market town called Tewkesbury, picturesque and with its own traditions,of reenactments,and traditions we are also a cosy tight community. We are now also faced with large housing developments which threaten to destroy the Community and you can see why I love this film First of all-and most important, there are LASHINGS of snow!!!! Then there is the lovely legend of the Christmas Tree and also the Christian denouement as all the community cough up the money to help the destitute farmer save his farm and stay in the community. The evil developers-only after the money are sent packing as the whole town pledge their money to help protect what they have , which is very special. I love the way the whole community send their message to Santa via the post office which is misunderstood by the hero . He and his daughter have a long journey to make after the death of the wife and mother of the family. (There is a likely candidate for this)-even a sleigh ride and most heartwarming of all is that the taxi driver, whose engine is broken is mysteriously given a new one on Christmas morning and no-one had engineered it! There is a lovely moment where Denver sings a lullaby and an exciting search. Great gentle film for everything Christmas is really about. This is an excellent movie and should be presented every year during the holidays @ Christmas! Beautiful with great acting. John Denver at his best, i,e, sincere, kind, talented, and natural. The town is Georgetown, Colorado and every bit as lovely as in the story. I just finished watching the movie tonight and I truly loved it. John Denver didn't play a pastor, but it was the reverend of the little town who decided to leave the floor for John Denver to speak. It's a really great movie with a wonderful Christmas message. It was also fun to watch. My Santa Lucia Choir was chosen to be in this movie. All 100 plus. When it came time to film the movie I was asked to chose just 10. Oh my goodness. We had a little gal who went early to have her tonsils out because she wanted to be in the movie. The choices were hard to make. The people of Georgetown are just a lovely as the people that they show in the movie. Gracious, kind, believers. The town sponsors an annual Christmas Market the first two weekend in December every year. I was there this year and it was wonderful. The town is lovely and the people work hard to make it magical. The town appears today as it did when the movie was made. Much credit goes to the Historical Society there that work hard to maintain the historical value. The principal of the school that has been turned into a Charter School was given an award by the Governor of Colorado for Volunteers. Even if I had never seen or heard of Georgetown, CO, this would be a sweet little movie. But my dad was born and raised there, and those are my uncle's horses you see pulling the sleigh! So this movie is very special to me. A lot of the interiors are shot in buildings and houses I recognize, and are very realistic. The story is a little hokey, but Georgetown is that kind of magical place where things like that COULD happen. John Denver was a better actor than a lot of people give him credit for. Mary Wickes plays the kind of "common-sense lady with a lot of sass" she played so well in many other films, most notably "White Christmas". I usually don't get to go out there in the winter, so I like to see this movie at Christmas time to "tide me over" until my next trip! It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood. Just watched it on the Hallmark Channel. I was surprised to John Denver! This movie was full of clichés, but that is to be expected (a made for TV Christmas movie- come on!) The acting is as good as any other '80's made for TV movie. The story is, as I said before, predictable and cliché, but still good. If you are looking for a campy Christmas movie, it will certainly scratch your itch.

I was also pleased when I learned that it took place in Georgetown, Colorado. It is a real mountain town west of Denver. Very cool as this is my home region.

I was never a big John Denver fan (I always found him to be pretty foney) but he was a decent actor. He is very good as the good old boy like he played in this film.

If you get the chance to watch it, than do. I'm sure it will be on again in 2007. This movie is my families favorite Christmas movie because it is a beautiful picture of what Christmas is really all about. These days living in a big city which I hate, I love to watch movies about the life I've always dreamed of having. The town that this movie is set in is my dream come true for the life I've always wanted and the true feeling of community that has been lost in todays society. I truly don't feel the true spirit of Christmas anymore but watching this movie helps to find that feeling again. My family taped this movie long ago of TV and now our copy has been worn out so I would really like to buy a few copies on DVD for my family and me if anyone can tell me where I can buy some copies please just post the info here and I will keep checking. Thanks. The joy and tragedy of the Christmas Season lies in the fact that it mostly revolves around family. That is why some people call it "the children's holiday." As we age, natural attrition and progress removes the people and the things that gave us our special memories. John Denver, in one of his sweetest roles, plays George Billings, a successful NYC architect and new widower who lost his wife about a year earlier. His life is focused around his 9 year old daughter, Alex; both are still grieving their loss. George is trying his best to make this a special Christmas for his daughter. Enter his boss, Thomas Renfield (roguishly played by the wonderful Col. Flagg of M*A*S*H guy, Edward Winters), who sends George to Georgetown, CO to explore a possible real estate deal. Lying to his daughter that the purpose of the trip is a vacation rather than work, George and Alex fly into town, where they're immediately met by a collection of loving generous but somewhat eccentric group of characters whose main eccentricity is that they all believe in Santa Claus. Georgetown is a picture book community we'd all love to live in and we'd love the people for neighbors. George soon meets a love interest in Susan (Jane Kazmarek.) Were it not for the grinch (Renfield) it would be an ideal time. But the fact is, he is in town to find property for Renfield to develop, and there is a nice ranch near town about to be foreclosed, and the dark edges of the movie revolve around the impending foreclosure and the reactions of the townies, the rancher, and the outsiders. I won't spoil the ending for those who've never seen the movie. It's a typical happy Christmas ending, but it's handled in a fairly subtle and believable way that shows the best in the human spirit without being too syrupy. All in all, this is a most pleasant way to spend a couple of your Christmas TV hours. John Denver and Jane Kazmarek have nice chemistry and Gennie James as Alex does a real nice job. I've always loved the work of Mary Wickes, a recognizable character actress, and all of the other cast members do a nice job with less meaty parts. This is a regular Christmas fare for my family; I rate it 4/5. My Wife and I saw this movie once in 1989 and enjoyed it so much We wanted to see it again. It was so moving that I was calling it a tear jerker. The mystery that Billings was sent to report on is really no mystery at all. Angles!! It seems that ever time He turned around something happened to him, all good, and I believe it scared George a bit, considering that he did not realize what He had gotten into. It just goes to show that even the cold hearted can change with the right attitude around. If only We all could treat each other the same, the world would be a better place.To date we have been searching the net for a copy of it, now I finally have a connection to it, as soon as I can find a copy to buy I am going to grab it. This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD. I've already seen spin-offs of cartoons such as The Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes and most of them are great.

When I saw the All Grown Up pilot in 2001, I thought it was interesting to see how the Rugrats would look in their pre-teens/teens and it contained things that would usually happen during that time of life such as going to a concert, going to school and being grounded.

The actual TV show is better because the Rugrats seem to wear different clothes in each episode and Angelica doesn't get punished as much as she did in the original Rugrats series. Tommy and Susie get punished in this series.

I've also noticed references to Rugrats in this show and even flashbacks of how the Rugrats looked in the original series. They actually talk to the adults in this show because they're 10 years older.

This show is aimed at a slightly older audience than the original Rugrats. Viewers of the original show may like this. The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says "Last night I had a dream", you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.

Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from "all this crap", her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to "a very important business meeting", an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that "all human communication is miscommunication". People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.

You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself "living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor". Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers "original and different works" outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more? A short review without any spoilers follows.

I saw this movie yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival. My initial reaction is one of wonder and happiness. I'm so happy films like this are being made in our age of blockbusters.

Roy Andersson's new movie "You, The Living" is nothing less than a complete masterpiece. You, The Living is composed by some 50 vignettes filmed with a static camera. I will not give away the content of the scenes here, because I hate when people spoil even the smallest details. But, yes, most of the scenes made the 1000 people in the Claude Debussy theatre absolutely baffled and amazed. When the film was over we applauded for several minutes, we had no other choice.

So what's the score with "You, The Living". Hm, Andersson isn't afraid to take on the heavy questions; History, guilt, gand The Holocaust during WW2 are big subjects (and these themes work very well together).

The images created are brilliant, the depth sometimes surpasses "Songs from the Second Floor".

Well, sorry for this ranting, praising review. Look out for the Flying House in the beginning folks!

10/10 stars - A Masterpiece (I never throw this grade out). "With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?" – Mia

A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.

You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.

The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.

There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot." There is no plot. There are no central characters. There are no moving cameras or close-ups. In fact, this film does not follow any of the conventional storytelling techniques used by mainstream film. However, Roy Andersson's Du Levande is a remarkable piece of cinematic storytelling. It is a touching look at the human psyche.

Comprised of a series of vignettes, Roy Andersson gives us an intimate insight into what makes us all human. In perfectly framed static shots, added with the perfectly in tune, yet quirky, music, Roy introduces us to a host of characters as they undertake their daily existence. Some bordering on tragic, others hilarious, we are taken on a Nordic journey like no other.

It is a journey into the little things that make us human. Instead of over-the-top storytelling or visual techniques, everything is stripped down to the bare minimum so that our sole focus is on the characters themselves. It focuses on the insignificant points of our lives that make us who we are; our dreams, our desperation. It's through this simple observation of others that we can accept who we are as individuals.

The washed out colours and deathly-pale makeup of the characters only seems to emphasize their individual stories and remind us that unlike them, we are all alive. There is no happy ending or light at the end of the tunnel in this film, yet you walk out of the cinema with a sense of life. Much more accessible than his earlier film, Songs from the Second Floor, Du Levande, is a truly inspiring piece of cinema. I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.

The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's "The Silence" in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform!

Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.

This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life!

From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.

The shooting of "You, the Living" is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.

Perhaps the best film I've ever seen. This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.

It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.

It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.

Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.

If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.

It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this "life" thing, over and over for as long as we must.

Tomorrow is another day. Roy Anderson's film 'You, The Living' comprises a series of fifty-odd sketches, snapshots and vignettes set in a Swedish city. Some characters are on screen for just a few second, whilst others appear in numerous scenes and are sometimes seen loitering in the background while another story unfolds. Many scenes are drawn from the dreams, nightmares and fantasies of the strange but believable characters inhabiting this world. It is a fascinating approach: each of the scenes could be enjoyed in isolation, but together they contain a powerful portrait of what it is to be human.

For the first half hour or so, 'You, The Living' is gloriously funny. Much of the humour centres on the members of a brass band, whose music practice infuriates the neighbours in their apartment block. The comic highlight, however, is provided by a dinner-party track gone horribly awry. After this hilarious introduction, however, the mood of the film darkens considerably. The dinner-party dream turns grim when the hapless protagonist is put on trial for his life, setting a mixed tone of absurdity and despair for the rest of the film.

In the subsequent scenes, the unhappiness of the cast of characters becomes increasingly apparent. Theirs is a world where people are unable to connect with one another, where talk of dreams, nightmares and fantasies is widespread, but where no person can be comforted, even when others reach out to help them. The despondent woman with the 'nobody loves me' refrain and the young girl with unrequited love for the rock guitarist, Micke, are archetypal characters.

The world of 'You, The Living' is also blighted by selfishness. An elderly professor is called away the warmth of a vast banquet to answer a phone call from his impetuous money-grubbing son; a thief steals the wallet of a ruthless executive; an arrogant and impatient businessman insults a Muslim barber and receives his comeuppance. In the film's bleakest moment, a woman in church recounts the long list of human sins as her fellow parishioners shuffle out at closing time.

And yet, for all dark moments in this film, the shared refrain of 'tomorrow is another day' points to the ability of people to go on living in spite of many miseries. The soundtrack provided by Benny Anderson (of ABBA fame) seems inappropriately jovial at first but makes more and more sense as the film realises this human capacity to persevere.

'You, The Living' has an extraordinary visual style. The same washed-out, pale-green colours recur throughout, and there is nary a shadow in sight; this makes the characters appear exceptionally pallid and creates the sensation that human life is being laid bare for examination. Almost every scene is captured in a static camera frame, as if these are photographs being brought to life. The few occasions where the camera does move are all the more extraordinary; the contrast between the life and movement of the great banquet form a startling contrast with the deadness of the cloakroom scene. In the most intense moments of longing and despair, the characters transfix the viewer by directly facing the camera – they know that they are being examined and have a few moments to pour out their hearts to us, the viewers.

This is a wonderful, human film. Minor Spoilers will follow.

This movie is even more odd and unconventional than "songs from the second floor". There is no main character we follow around. There is no "plot" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't "get it" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from "songs" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.

So be kind to your fellow man, because after all "we are the living", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away.

And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's "Bicycle Thieves". A very warm and humanistic film. You can't really call Roy Andersson prolific, (6 films in 37 years). Nor can you accuse him of being conventional; he doesn't do 'straight-forward', at least when it comes to narrative. "You, the Living", his first film in seven years, is like a surreal documentary in which a large number of characters are observed doing nothing very much and if that sounds off-putting, let me assure you it isn't. This is a funny, accessible and surprisingly warm-hearted movie, a slice-of-life far removed from that which we normally see on the screen.

Of course, 'slice-of-life' is hardly the proper moniker to apply to this movie since most people's lives are unlikely to be anything like this. The incidents on the screen run the gamut from the almost terrifyingly ordinary to the downright wacky and while characters may flit by, sometimes never to be seen again, others to reappear as if anxious for approval, Andersson bestows on them all a kind of benign affection. That, and some rollicking music, ensure the time we spend with them is time well-spent. The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter – do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, "You, The Living". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development. I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats. You, the Living (2007)

Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.

But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians.

I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely.

The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience. Roy Anderssons "Du Levande" is not totally original as it is counter piece to Anderssons previous movie "Sånger från andra våningen". Still the movie has aura of total originality. Some conventions of movie making are still thrown away: most of the actors look nothing like what you would expect in movie and the shots take long time. Most of the time camera doesn't move but people move around it. The shots start from somewhere and many times the scenery builds up in amazing proportions. W.G. Sebald comes to mind in literature with same technique. Because of the time invested in every shot the suspension is really high in many of the scenes. There is a story and isn't - it is left for viewer to build up in his or her own mind. This movie is positive. It is determined not to see this all in negative way and at the same time will not pass the social injustices. One of the messages I got from it was that maybe all failures and accidents are not fatal after all. Great movie. This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.

Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.

Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a "harpy;" the rug salesman spouse (Pär Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric Bäckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.

Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.

Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.

But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.

Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.

An Italian reviewer called this "a small, great film," and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes "Un Certain Regard" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them "the best commercials in the world." It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.

"Schadenfreude" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us. I enjoy the National Anthem. I enjoy the National Anthem if for nothing else then, just before the Midnight News, I imagine I'm playing the cymbals in the band. Not as easy as you may think! One, two, three, four; One, two three, four; but then what? So I have sympathy with the practising bass drum player in Roy Andersson's wonderful film, patiently waiting for his cue listening to a very 70s cassette player.

The 70s motif seems to continue throughout, with some classic, soulless furniture. Moreover, every scene has an eerie jade wash which emphasises the minute nuances of the subtlest of acting.

Which brings me to Jessika Lundberg's outstanding purple boots. Boots which otherwise would have inspired a Silk Cult advertising campaign.

But then the difficult bit. Someone asked me what it was about. Well there is a scene where the opening line as "I don't have that length in green" Brilliant. Straight out of a Gary Larson carton.

I can't say what it's about. Go see yourself.

Ron Plasma

Hmm. Larson! Sounds Swedish

(Viewed 15Apr08) Roy Andersson has managed to craft something that defies nearly all conventions of what a film should be, a piece of art that is both beautiful, funny and evocative at the same time. The end result is a moving, if somewhat fractured tale about humanity in its simplest and most honest forms.

This is unlikely to appeal to everyone, in fact the humour is so finely tuned that many are unlikely to get on its wavelength. The almost absurdly long takes, awkward silences and consistent medium shots will most definitely put off even the most willing of audiences. But it is within these disjointed tales and unconventional thinking that Andersson shapes a world where every character seems to take centre stage in their own absurd way. Each scene is absorbed by the desolate environments, with the characters seemingly left alone in their own oddity Its a difficult piece to watch at times, not least because like many of its scenes, it requires patience. But whilst some may hail it upon an artistic throne, others will simply look on in confusion. Its a film that blends understated humour with own brand of heart I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farväl Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna Märta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10. This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece. My family (two 40-somethings, an 8 year old and my 71 yr old mother) saw this at a sneak preview on April 29th. We all enjoyed the movie very much. The story was a good one, and knowing it was based on real-life events made it that much more enjoyable. Luke Wilson was a hoot (pun intended) to watch as was Tim Blake Nelson. And seeing Neil Flynn play something other than "the mean janitor from Scrubs" was nice. The kids in movie did well and I'm sure they will all appeal to a certain demographic on the heartthrob level. The visuals were just lovely and the Jimmy Buffet music added to the "Florida feel". OK, maybe the story was a little too neat and well packaged for some adults, but hey, who cares? I can't compare it to the book, I honestly hadn't heard of it until the movie came out.

It was just a NICE movie and it had a good message. Plain and simple. It is great to see a film starring kids whose idea of "acting adult" is not engaging in sensuality. Instead, these kids see a problem in their community and take responsibility for helping to solve it. Hoot is a film aimed squarely at families looking for a fun day at the cinema. The production values are good, especially sweeping shots of Montana and Florida. The soundtrack by Jimmy Buffet is a perfect fit. The young actors are spirited and refreshing.

The plot, about a trio of kids who work together to save some burrowing owls from death at the hands of an unscrupulous pancake house empire builder, will engage kids. So many films make children appear powerless, it is nice to see a movie that shows children working hard to make a difference. And even though parents are absent or temporarily distracted, it was pleasant to see kids who want to follow in their parents footsteps and try to right injustices.

If you are tired of all of the self-indulgent story lines about children that fill the cinema, give Hoot a shot. Then take some time to talk to your kids about the adventure of serving others and caring about the world they live in. A positive message from a positive film. what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can "hook up" with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed. In 'Hoot' Logan Lerman plays Roy Eberhardt, the new kid in school who has just moved from Montana. But Florida is a lot different from Montana. Despite is troubles in blending in, Roy discovers a bigger problem. A new franchise restaurant is coming to town and families of burrowing owls are in trouble. Can the new kid, a tomboy (Brie Larson) and a runaway (Cody Linley) stop big business from destroying these owls' home?

This movie was pretty good. The kids (Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Cody Linley) are the real stars of this film. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko) is okay, but really does not have a very big part. Neither does Robert Wagner (Mayor) or Jimmy Buffett (Mr. Ryan).

Nevertheless this was a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. For a first time producer, I thought Jimmy Buffett put together a quality piece of work. Plus the owls were really cute. If you read the book by Carl Hiaasen, the movie follows pretty much true to form, with a few minor changes for Hollywood. In my opinion this is a great family movie. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko)pretty well steals the show from an all-star cast that includes Robert Wagner and Jimmy Buffet. The kids in the movie do a great job led by Logan Lerman, Brie Larson, and Cody Linley.

Brie Larson is maybe a little too petite to play Beatrice. I pictured a bigger girl, maybe 6 foot, 175 lbs, in the role of Beatrice. This might have made her more believable in her role of beating up Dana. They should have developed her "tough girl" character more, and had her bite through a tire, or kick a soccer ball through a person. She is very pretty, and I understand why she was cast, she is a box office attraction.

This is about as PG as a movie gets these days, no sex, and very little violence. This movie is a parents'dream come true, a movie with a strong environmental message, with kids that have deep appreciation for the beauty of Florida and its wildlife. It shows how adults have fallen short in the stewardship of our planet, and that our children can demand better. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Mullet Fingers says, "Florida could use some mountains like Montana. Florida is so flat there is nothing to stop developers from clearing it coast to coast". Also, the photography of Florida wildlife spoke volumes without dialog. As a family movie with kids ages 5-15, this is a great movie! As a bonus parents' will be entertained, especially if they're "parrotheads". I took my younger niece to an early showing and she LOVED it (I enjoyed it myself as well). I don't need to explain the plot, since the movie remains completely true to the award-winning, top-selling book by famed author Carl Hiaasen. The movie takes the popular book and layers it with beautiful cinematography (I want to go to Florida now!), humor (thanks to funny-man, Luke Wilson and some new-comers), and Great music! I have to get to get a Jimmy Buffet CD now! I know a movie is good when I get goose-bumps in the end. Overall, it was great family film that I felt comfortable taking my younger niece to. I'd recommend it to any and everyone. I took a group of young people who were the same age as the protagonists and it appealed to us all. I agree with the other post, the Wilson guy worked a thankless script into a great minor character. It is good to have a movie for a certain age demographic (too old for PG, too young for R). It also shows how they think and maneuver in junior high school. You had to love how well Jimmy Buffet did as the cool teacher. He kept us adults awake. The level of kids questioning authority was kept reasonable. Their motives were specific and not like some A.D.D. rebel. The setting and music were beautiful. Overall, if you enjoyed Holes, this is really similar. Hoot is a nice young person's film about a group of middle school kids that try and keep a pancake house chain from bulldozing a plot of land that is home to some endangered burrowing owls. The acting is pretty good and the fresh faces are nice to see. Many well known comedians are in this film and keep the humor going almost nonstop. It is a film for the young crowd, perhaps 5 to 11 years of age. I thought it was a nice change of pace from the adult films that pervade the screen these days. There is no realism here or accuracy about life in general for adults or kids. It's just a bunch of fun with a constant message about saving the beautiful places in this country from becoming over developed. If you can remember back to the day when you weren't fight for a buck you may remember that money isn't everything. Not many people over 12 are going to enjoy it unless they really have a soft spot for the old after school special series. I read the book in a summer book club, and all of us there loved it. My friends from that club agreed not to watch the movie, lest the book be ruined. I didn't agree, and watched it recently with my younger brother and my parents.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was very true to the book, without losing it's own spirit. The 'new kid' theme was shown just enough so that we get a feel of it, but that's not what the story's about.

The acting wasn't the best I've ever seen, but it was still good, and the kids especially had a lot of energy. The characters were interesting, and the plot was cute and not too overstated. It was a kids movie that works just fine for adults or teenagers, too.

I wish there had been a bit more tough-girl attitude from Beatrice, but she was still a great character. Mullet Fingers was quite a bit like I had imagined him, except his hair was a little obviously dyed, with blonde hair and dark eyebrows. Roy worked very well as the little guy and the new kid, especially interactions with his parents and friends.

The message and the ending (which I won't discuss other than I liked it) teamed up to make a great cheer-up movie for a rainy day. All in all, this was a great film that you can watch again and again whenever you need reminding that the world isn't a horrible place after all. HOOT is about these three teenage kids who try to save a bunch of burrowing owls. now to me i thinks that right they stand up to whats right and whats wrong. in this film a kid name Roy Eberhardt ( Logan lerman)moved from Montana to Florida. and once he gets on the bus a bully name Dana Matherson starts bullying him finally the next day Roy punches the bully and runs off the bus chasing the mysterious running boy. after all that Roy finally meets the Running boy who's name is Mullet Fingers ( Cody linley) well actually his nickname his step-sister Beatrice ( Brie Larson) gave it to him because he can catch Mullets with his bare hands. anyway Mullet Fingers and Roy becomes friends and they join together with Beatrice to stop the construction of a new pancake restaurant. Mullet Fingers is the one behind all the vandalism's that happened there and also later he gets bit by one of the dogs that put there to guard the construction site. so they stood up to the muckle that was driving the bulldozer and everybody got to see the owls it turned out to be a great movie because it showed where kids can make a difference in life by standing up to whats right and whats wrong. thats what is great about this movie. it teaches a lot to everyone about wildlife and how important it is. I highly recommend this movie to everyone. My son and I read the book first and then saw the movie. While the book was better (in my opinion) the movie was still great. My son and I agree that while we like the book version the best, we liked the ending of the movie better than the book ending. The scenery is just tremendous and the soundtrack is a must have. The fact that Jimmy Buffett has a small role and provides music is an added plus. Luke Wilson does a decent job in his role of Officer Delinko and is pretty much what I had mentally imagined Delinko would look like when I read the book. I'm surprised that this didn't do better in the theaters, and I'll be waiting for the DVD to come out. This is a delightful gem of a movie, unfortunately pigeon-holed as "just for kids." The plot revolves around a young man, Roy Eberhardt, newly arrived in southwest Florida from the Montana mountains. Trying to fit in with the other kids at his middle school, Roy discovers a brother-sister team trying to protect endangered burrowing owls at an illegal construction site. Look for Carl Hiassen, the author of the book upon which this movie is based, as the male secretary to the evil boss at corporate headquarters. Writer/director Wil Shriner is also the clerk at the Public Records Office where the intrepid teen-detectives discover that the incriminating Environmental Impact Report is missing. Luke Wilson nearly steals all the crucial scenes from the charming teen actors who have most of the best lines. Wilson is the bumbling police officer, in his three-wheeled electric police cart complete with blue light and funky siren. As Officer Dave, he tries so hard to do well, but usually ends up falling in the muck, literally! Several times! Jimmy Buffet is pretty low key as the tacitly supportive science teacher. But, young actors Logan Lerman (Roy), Brie Larson (Beatrice the Bear), and Cody Linley (Mullet Fingers) are superb as the teens who finally put Officer Dave on the right track, following the paper trail left by the evil corporate boss. I hope you come away from this movie feeling as good as I did. Just plain fun! One small complaint, though. I hope all non-Floridians realize that not everyone from Florida is as surly to newcomers as depicted in this film. We're really a friendly bunch! Just ask Carl Hiassen and Jimmy Buffet!! In "Hoot", Mullet Fingers is engaging in sabotage to stop the pancake house. The problem is that the builders just start over again, and he has to take more drastic measures. When he is confronted with the dogs, he scares them off with snakes, not before he is bitten by a dog and has to go to hospital.

Roy at bedtime asks his father, who works with the Department of Justice, how he deals with crooks. His father says it involves the tedious steps of looking through papers, because sooner or later, they all slip up. You can see this with Enron and WorldCom. Roy looks at documents relating to the pancake house, and finds a suppressed document (he does have to break in to the company trailer), so when the police see it, he has the law on his side. Unlike when he evaded the police.

Mind you, as mentioned before, Roy is not always law-abiding, and when the company man is killing owls (illegally), Mullet Fingers takes direct action. He can't wait for the law (Mullet Fingers is in hiding). The movie does suggest that one should work in the system. I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences! Hoot was terrific. The owls are adorable and the movie highlights an interesting environmental issue I didn't know existed. Florida is full of so many fun characters and the film does a great job of bringing that to the screen. My kids particularly loved all the different animals, from snakes, to owls to alligators. It's really a simple story, but also one that they need to hear at this age. When kids are young that's when they really develop their sense of values, and yes one of those must be caring for our environment and all the creatures that live in it. I think it was great that the film even sparked a conversation with them on the ride home about animals and how to help them. It was just truly sweet and enduring to hear my little girl talk about how she wanted to save the baby birds. Anyway, overall it was really a great time and I'd recommend the movie to anyone looking for something entertaining AND meaningful. Saw the movie today and thought it was a good effort, good messages for kids. A bit predictable. The book was better, gave more plot details, ore about the environment and how the kids uncovered the conspiracy. I think Hiassen's warped humor comes across better in the book than the movie, but there were lots of funny moments in the movie as well. It is probably a bit too slow paced for kids under 6 yrs of age. Loved the casting of Jimmy Buffet as the science teacher. And those baby owls were adorable. I wonder how they managed to film them. The movie showed a lot of Florida at it's best, made it look very appealing. Am I imagining it, or did the author Carl Hiassen make a brief appearance? Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9/10. I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like. This is a good family movie with a few laughs. I wish it didn't have too much of the school stuff like the bully in it to fill the movie up. Also, it seems a little too easy to save a piece of land from being built. I mean, the it just flowed too easily. It does make you aware of the wildlife. It had a cute way of introducing the piece of land which the fast runner but a little too slow for me. A little too hokey for me and it reminded me of going back to school. Oh, the DVD is chock full of goodies so don't miss out. 7 out of 10 for the movie 10 out 10 for the DVD with the extras that is well worth to watch. Well worth your time to see this! I saw the movie "Hoot" and then I immediately decided to comment it. The truth is that NATURE needs protection from us because we are the dominant specie of this planet. Some people think that if they have money, they can do whatever they want to, which probably is like, but if they think about the future more then they think about themselves they would do something useful! This movie is not just about kids, this movie is showing us that the kids are usually the ones that care more about it then the adults do. When I was twelve, I saw some waterlilies and I knew they are protected by law and didn't even dare to touch them not fearing of the law, but fearing that I might harm them actually. (I am currently 15) What so ever, the acting was great, the 3 main characters are well interpreted and we all have to learn from them. I hope you all think about what you saw in that movie!!! and Enjoy! In "Hoot", a new kid arrives to Florida from Montana. He first faces the usual problems of blending in and dealing with the local bully. Soon, though, he becomes aware of a bigger problem: a franchise restaurant chain is trying to build a site in the town, right where a number of burrowing owls live. This movie has the look of a family film, but it is pretty more radical than it seems, as it shows sympathetically how Roy and a couple of friends do not shy away from lawbreaking (including vandalism of private property and briefly kidnapping the manager of the chain of restaurants) in the name of environmentalism (to save owls, no less). Now, one might agree or not with those actions, but at least the movie has the courage from not shying away from its convictions. A good, solid film, all in all. The story is incredible, it begins with a new kid in town named Roy, while on the bus to school, he notices a kid running with no shoes, and on that same day he breaks the big bullies nose who is trying to fight with him. Roy soon discovers that kid is a runaway, and he and his step sister are trying to mess a construction sight, that could kill all the beautiful owls that live there. Roy decides to help them him there fight, Can they win this fight before the smart but bumbling cop Dave Delinko(Luke Wilson) Stumbles on to them. An enjoyable film, funny and adventurous. I do admire Luke Wilson for taking this role. I don't think his brother Owen would even take this role. i read the book before i saw the movie i knew the movie was going to be good because the book was great i seriously recommend you see this amazing fantastic movie. i know you will like it. when i went to see it i was there with my sister and there was nobody that was with us i was a little disappointed but nobody that i know has gone in to that movie and came out saying that was a horrible movie. nobody can it is so great i think everyone will like it (to bad nobody wants to see it) anyway i hope from what you have heard about this movie from me will make you want to see this movie i guarantee you'll like it as much as i do (im obsessed) literlly i am Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.

Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!! Logan Lerman & Dean Collins III of Jack & Bobby Fame provide a nice touch of familiarity as friends in this even if not maybe as close as they may be on Jack & Bobby but the expressions of young students taking their stand for a good cause is very well expressed in this movie.Logan Lerman may be seemingly typecast in roles of being "different" as thusly seen from here as is seen in this as well as in Jack and Bobby.The Movie also opens up with a very nice tune coined as a lost 45 "And I'm Wondering where the lions are?"A song which I'd Always heard on the speaker @ my old Job of ChristmasTreeShops and got it played on my local radio show of The Lost45s hosted by Barry Scott but the last time of which I suggested this with this movie as it's dedication but the dedication was left out.Environmentalist demonstration is well expressed in this movie too for the protection of the ground owls as seen in this movie too.What a hoot too this movie is.Hoot,Sogive a hoot in the tradition of the Woodsey Owl Commercials of the 1970s too. Truthfully, Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a."Ste". This film was not great cinema, but definitely a good film to see with your family, especially children from 10-15. There are good topics of discussion brought up in this movie, such as bullies, the environment, and working to make things right. Jimmy Buffet's music was a plus, and the scenery was wonderful... The young actors were excellent, and this is a movie I would expect to see on the Family Channel or the Hallmark Channel. Except for a few words in the dialog, a middle school could show this film to start discussions in the classroom. Hopefully it will be shown in Drive-ins this summer so that more people get to see it. It did follow Carl Hiassen's book well, and it was fun to see him in a cameo performance. I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see "Stick It" -- I think this was MUCH better! This totally odd-ball feature is a typical and prime example of satanically shocking 70's horror. The events are thoroughly confusing and it takes up quite a while before you figure out what the hell is going on, but the brooding atmosphere sucks you in immediately. Right from the indescribably bizarre intro, showing a couple of eerie children turning toys into real-life war machinery, you just know this become an uncompromising and gritty shocker. "Brotherhood of Satan" soon appears to be another installment in the alleged & unofficial "creepy little town hiding a dark secret" sub genre. A young widower, traveling with his new yummy girlfriend and 8-year-old daughter, stops in a remote little town to report a car accident they witnessed on a nearby highway. The villagers behave very hostile and insist the visitors on leaving right away. The town clearly bathes in an ambiance of fear and panic, as local children vanish inexplicably vanished and unnatural forces maintain everyone within the boundaries of town. Hillsboro is in the grip of a satanic cult, apparently ruled by the elderly members of the community. I really liked "Brotherhood of Satan" a lot. The story reminded me of a novel written by John Saul, but I can't remember the title. It also dealt with a cult of elderly people abusing youthful villagers for their own greedy merits. The film mainly relies on creepy scenery (like dolls and witchcraft relics) but a slightly more involving and coherent screenplay would have been nice. The subject matter often raises a lot of issues and questions, and director Bernard McEveety can't always provide us with answers. The climax is terrific, very seventies (meaning shocking) and unforgettable. Beautifully shot film, too. The '70s were a great time for horror movies. The Brotherhood of Satan is yet another overlooked gem. It's full to the brim with great surreal, unsettling scenes. It's also great to see Stother Martin and L.Q. Jones (who also produced) in decent roles.

Some of it is a little dated and cheesy, but The Brotherhood of Satan kicks butt over Race the Devil and many other '70s Satanism flicks. A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.

The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7. Ben (a fine Charles Bateman), his young daughter K.T. (a cute Geri Reischl), and his new girlfriend Nicky (the extremely attractive Ahna Capri) are on their way to a birthday party for K.T. They unexpectedly get waylaid in a remote Southern town where no-one is able to leave, and with the exception of Ben, K.T., and Nicky, no-one can get in either. To top that off, children are disappearing and adults are being murdered at an alarming rate. Ben helps some of the locals - Sheriff Pete (L.Q. Jones), Tobey (Alvy Moore), and Jack (Charles Robinson), the local priest, try to solve the mystery.

This early 70's devil-themed horror movie actually predates "The Exorcist", and combines a "Bad Day at Black Rock" type plot of a rural town with a great big skeleton in its closet with horror elements, for interesting results. It actually sent a few chills down my spine this viewing, as it inexorably moves along its ominous path. The moody and solemn atmosphere is established quickly and holds for the duration; the ever-growing sense of panic gives it a real kick. Some memorable set pieces include the bizarre opening of a toy tank turning into a real one and squashing a car flat, not to mention Nickys' twisted nightmare, vividly and stylishly realized by director Bernard McEveety and crew. Jaime Mendoza-Navas' music is subtly sinister and gives it that extra sense of eeriness.

The steadfast and professional cast does some fine work, especially the ever engaging Strother Martin as the affable Doc Duncan, and producers / actors L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore.

Just the fact that the whole plot is right under the noses of our heroes makes it that much more scary. Jack the priest starts leading them in the right direction, but will they be in time to put a stop to things? It's an enjoyable little chiller worth re-visiting; just speaking for myself, I was able to appreciate it a lot more after giving it a second chance. I can say now that yes, it is indeed under-rated, telling a good story in an interesting, unconventional, and effective way.

8/10 Not everyone likes this movie. It is still one of the best "you have to be thinking" movies about Satanism ever made. The fact that it doesn't have MTV-era jump cuts or gore every seven minutes is irrelevant. Also, speaking as someone who actually KNOWS Satanists, the (spoiler warning!) portion of the film where the Brotherhood exchange their old bodies for those of preadolescent children, it has some genuinely scary scenes. The section where (second spoiler alert) Strother Martin orchestrates the changeover is almost hyper-real in that it uses very few special effects, a hallmark of this film. McEveety was seldom given a big budget but was often effective. It worked in this case, too. One of the best lesser known occult oriented horror movies of the seventies. It's gritty, exciting, scary, surrealistic here and there and at moments even very smart, which can't be said about many of the movies this kind. I can't help seeing some stinging symbolic and metaphoric points at the seventies society and generation stuff of the time this movie was done. The scriptwriter has obviously been cooking while delivering also some good old "from the crypt" kind of scenes. With a job well done from a creative director the result is entertaining and thought provoking. The simple, yet effective ending specially shows how these things are treated right by those who can.

The excellent cast were mostly unknown to me, except L. Q. Jones as the moody but funny sheriff and Strother Martin as the town doctor. Martin, not surprisingly, always ends up stealing the movie. With that voice and skill he is one of the greatest loonies in movies, for me anyway. What an actor!

So, it is a little bit of mystery to me why this movie has not gathered far greater recognition. I think it would deserve almost equal place in the occult horror canon alongside Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. One helluva movie! I was 10 or eleven years old when this movie came out, and it has stayed with me for 35 years since. When the movie came out, all of the theaters in the St. Louis area distributed, as a 'lure', a pack of flower seeds that had the movie name, etc. on the front. On the back of the pack it read, in so many words....plant these seeds at midnight. If a white flower grows, you are saved.....but if a red flower grows, you are doomed!!! Suffice it to say, that for an eleven year old kid, I did not plant the seeds for fear of what may pop up. Here is the spoiler: As the movie starts out, you see a small toy tank moving about in the dirt. On a small road a family is leaving town, and suddenly the camera turns to the tank again, and it is full size. It rolls over the car, and you see bloody limbs protruding from the wreckage, then, just as sudden, the tank is small again.

The reason this movie stuck with me for that long, was because I had a exact toy tank as the one in the movie!!!! Unfortunately I don't know what happened to it, but I did keep a wary eye on that thing ever since!!!

Turn out the lights, put in the DVD, make a sandwich, and watch this movie. It is very good!!! A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of "I Dismember Mama" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones ("Devil Times Five" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner. The first time I saw Brotherhood of Satan I was 12 yrs old I saw it in a little town in central Washington state it played before Tales from the crypt which we left early because my sisters were already scared from the Brotherhood of Satan. All in all I thought it was a pretty good movie. The beginning was good we had just sat down and that tank did a number on that station wagon.

What struck me about the movie was the scenery around the town in which it was filmed it looked almost like the area around Chelan WA where I saw the movie especially when they were driving towards the town of Hillsboro which is the location of the movie a small town in SW New Mexico. I have always liked LQ Jones and Strother Martin and also Charles Bateman who was on Get Smart another show I like. I gave the movie a 7 and later on when I did get to see Tales from the crypt I thought Brotherhood of Satan was better. A wonderfully thoughtful and involving movie that leaves an imprint well beyond it's initial liftoff. Based on a true story , one of the many "small" stories prior to WW II , that lend an understanding to the mindsets of the majority of common man cultures, impacted by others perceived as former enemies and perhaps future foes, with the darkening of war clouds on the horizon. Viewed at the Stony Brook Film festival, the film was enthusiastically received . Well written and expertly cast. The characters were most believable and drew one in to experience their trials and tribulations. I saw this at the 2004 Stony Brook Film Festival in NY and it was very warmly received. In this pre-WW2 film, a pair of German rocket scientists are working on the Scottish Isle of Scarp as war looms on the horizon. The characters encountered on the island are priceless in their creation and their portrayal. Shauna MacDonald is particularly memorable

After getting up to speed on the "Scootish" accents, the viewer feel right at home with these folk who watch with amusement as the Germans work to link their isle with the mainland via a rocket-based mail delivery. As implausible as it seems, this film was based on an actual story.

All in all, a memorable film that will stay with you for some time thanks to its casting, its story or its scenery. An excellent film for those who simply need to switch off and enjoy the beautiful scenery of Scotland. Based on fact, the film takes you on a journey of love amidst spectacular scenery. The cast are 'dressed down' for the parts they play, so no glamorous costumes or coiffured hair in this film where acting is superb, gritty and down to earth.Each character is believable giving a convincing portrayal of island life, beliefs and culture of the time A definite for those who have even the tiniest drop of Scottish blood..... as it will tug at the heart strings and stir the soul. Something that can be shared with the family and watched time and time again..................a real classic, one that I am sure will walk alongside some of the great films that never die. Set just before the Second World War, this is a touching and understated romantic story that is loosely based on a real event.

It concerns a German rocket scientist Gerhart Zucher (Ulrich Thomsen) working in Britain in the advent of the Second World War. Fearing Hitler may recall him to Germany to assist him preparing for war, Zucher and his slippery assistant Heinz (Eddie Marsan) are evacuated by the British authorities to a remote Scottish island. They are given the task of building a rocket post box that will enable the islanders to communicate with the mainland.

Mocked and bullied by the islanders, they set up home with local girl Catherine Mackay (the stunning Shauna MacDonald), with whom Thomsen begins an affair but complications arise when Germany comes calling...

The central romance between Zucher and Catherine is subtle and sincerely played and the supporting cast is a colourful bunch with an array of respected Scottish character actors including Gary Lewis and Clive Russell.

Fine cinematography and a brilliant central theme song sung in the local dialect round out this movie.

Intelligent but undemanding, it is good for a quiet evening in. This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film. I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres.

Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.

The animation is – as expected – superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.

Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score.

The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co. Being a "Wallace and Gromit-fan", I was looking forward for this full-length movie. Surprisingly I saw it at THE world-premiere in Vlissingen (NL), at the Film by the Sea festival. A wonderful feeling to be one of the first to see this very amusing and merry movie. It's about Wallace and Gromit (whom I believe don't need an introduction) having their own pest-control company in the city which is hosting a giant-vegetable contest in a few days. Everyone, including an eccentric baroness, is hoping his or her giant carrot or melon will win the Golden carrot. Unfortunately the town is plagued by lots of hungry rabbits. This is where W&G come in. The have their own cracking contraptions to control these cute creatures in a human way.

It's a very funny and colorful story. Anyone who liked the three proceeding short movies of W&G (which are more than great!), will love this full-length movie. Nick Park really delivered a wonderful and original result with a great sense for humor. Like in Chicken Run, it truly amazes me how he can capture so much story and emotions in just a few frames. "Job well done, lad" ;-) Oh yeah: The music was fantastic! It really completes the ride. Enjoy! This first (and hopefully not last) Wallace & Gromit feature lives up to expectations. There are plenty of jokes (some a bit cheeky) as well as some great tributes to past Science Fiction movies. With the barrage of awful and formulaic movies being spewed forth from Hollywood it's great to see such a great film like this that's enjoyable for almost everyone. If there is any justice it will be top of the box-office and be at least nominated for best animation at the next Oscars. The animation is wonderful; the characters are remarkably expressive and their adventures are great fun. This is one of those films that the whole family can enjoy. Charming, clever, fun and well made, what's not to enjoy? Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes "A Grand Day Out," "The Wrong Trousers," and also "A Close Shave" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.

5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.

Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.

In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.

Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: "It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!"). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit "Fight Club") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in "The Wrong Trousers," Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the "cursed" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.

Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as "The Wrong Trousers", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100. When Wallace and Gromit burst onto the scene in their academy award winning short, "A Grand Day Out," they created a fresh new look at claymation. After two more shorts, Aardman's dynamic duo returned for this thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining movie. It has an excellent Voice cast, humorous jokes and good animation as only Aardman could do!

In this movie, Wallace and Gromit run "Anti-Pesto," a rabbit removal company. When word gets out about a "Were-Rabbit" eating all the vegetables in town, a frenzy ensues. Of course, Victor Quartermaine, the town's handsome, toupee-brandishing huntsman, wants to get his hands on the rabbit to impress the lovely Lady Tottington...but can our favorite Aardman duo save the day before chaos ensues?

The jokes, I should say, were hilarious. One point, the villain, Victor Quartermaine's, booty-crack was showing, prompting a character to cry out: "BEWARE...THE MOON!!!" Vintage Aardman!

The characters are crisp and hilarious. Our favorite Aardman team of Man and Dog entertains us as only they could do, earning them their second Oscar (remember "A Grand Day Out?"). Helena Bonham Carter was terrific as the lovely Lady Tottington, Wallace's love interest. Ralph Fiennes was especially funny and foreboding as the cunning, toupee wearing hunter Victor Quartermaine. But the one who really stole the show was the priest, whose antics proved to be some hilarious comic relief.

Hats off to Aardman for creating another Wallace and Gromit masterpiece! What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say "ol' bean"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.

While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as "tourist trappus." If you've ever been known to say, "I can really relate to Kevin Federline," or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.

The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.

I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke. I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, "The Dukes Of Hazzard" or "Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit." It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen "Few" as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in " Dog Soldiers." Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well.

The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.

I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked "Shrek" and "Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10/10 There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.

Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.

Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.

Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.

There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.

Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.

So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.

Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.

There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.

Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.

I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.

The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.

There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of "this bit was really funny" and "there's a bit when...", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent! WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) **** (Voices: Peter Salis, Ralph Fiennes Helena Bonham Carter)

Fantastic Feats of Clay: Wallace & Gromit Save the Day! Crackin' Good Entertainment!

Nick Park, the creator of the animated team of Wallace & Gromit, is a genius. His painstaking art in the form of Plasitcine claymation is a unique process involving literally thousands of hours (it takes roughly an 8 hour work day to contribute 3 minutes of action to a film; this foray into feature length storytelling took 5 years!) in making his lovable master & loyal dog team take form is finally on the big screen in the duo's first full-length motion picture and it's cracklin' good (to coin a phrase from Wallace's usual reply to all things good!)

Park, who co-directed with Steve Box and co-wrote with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, sends up the horror genre in this rollickingly funny and swift paced action comedy with the geeky inventive Wallace (voiced by British vet thespian Salis) and his mute yet loyal (and sharper-minded) mutt Gromit (all furrowing eyebrows and mouth-less insouciance) have devised a service to their community: pest control ("Anti-Pesto" as they are known) for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Festival that has the entire town in the mood for all things vegetative a gigante and the biggest pesk are troublesome rabbits eating the crunchy goods. Wallace's inventive mind has created a vacuum container that is quick, efficient, and more importantly harmless to the cute vermin that plague the estate of Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Bonham Carter, making a fast-break to be the first lady of stop-motion animation what with her earlier turn in "Corpse Bride" a few weeks ago), who is housing the competition and is a love interest for the nerdy Wallace.

The only fly-in-the-ointment is vainglorious, bombastic loud-mouth and jerk Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Fiennes, his first attempt in the animated arts coming across as a Patrick Stewart lunged braggard with hilarious results), a badly toupeed wearing macho moron who is plotting to marry Lady Tottington for her riches while he is a chief competitor to W&G's humane attempts by resorting to his trusty guns and nasty bulldog.

To add insult to injury the duo are facing a terrible plight in the form of a huge were-rabbit (the titular monster a nice nod to both Universal and Hammer horror flicks) that is terrorizing the village and devouring every veggie in sight. The two set out to trap and dispose of the creature but there is more than meets the eye as things progress.

Relentlessly funny and with such amazing elastic, and kinetic energy to his wonderful clay counterparts, Park and Box have created a truly magical and highly entertaining film with so much amazingly detailed production design to their little world that it may take more than one screening to absorb just how much effort in their blood, sweat and tears have gone into making this instant classic for children of all ages.

Wallace, the cheese loving balding inventor, could easily be Homer Simpson's UK cousin with his rotund body and constant knack for getting things wrong while attempting to do the right thing; his heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. His sweet crush for Lady Tottington (resembling a pre-plastic surgery Carol Burnett) who is a head taller than our hero will perhaps remind those of their first unrequited love with a smile of awkward admission. His Rube Goldberg-like gift for making the complicated into ease is inspired lunacy that fans will recall from the earlier shorter films "The Wrong Trousers", "A Close Shave" and "A Grand Day Out".

But it is in my opinion the wise, silent and long-suffering Gromit, his poached egg eyes of slow-burns and disbelief at what is transpiring, is one of the best animated characters ever created with such an amazing arsenal of exasperated, mouthless expressions and subtle nuances that most live-action actors would kill to accomplish in the attempt of conveying dismay, concern, grief, genuine surprise and relief. His final chase – a signature of the immensely popular comic team – is ingeniously set and quickly improvised especially his literal dog-fight with the equally soundless bulldog with tenacity, wit and a Chuck Jones fueled smartness that would have Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger green with envy.

Wallace and Gromit match the best of Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello and any other classic comedy team that comes to mind; here's hoping their longevity continues on screen for just as long as their predecessors. The waiting is most eager. Having just come home from my third viewing of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, I decided to jump on IMDb and see what others thought. I noticed a lot of Brits loved it, while those in America just didn't get it. That really doesn't come as any shock, as America doesn't get what "English" is.

Wallace and Gromit are very English. Middle class English, in fact, with a hint of eccentricity throw in for good measure. The film is a lot like our two heroes; simple and unassuming. It has a nice and gentle plot so the children don't get lost, yet there's enough beef there to keep the adults amused too. There's some light innuendo (which seems have to have offended the evangelic - oh noes, drama!) but there is nothing more rude than a bottom for a brief moment. When people get offended by a plasticine anus, you know the world's messed up...

One quick note to those (all American so far that I have seen) who think Chicken Run is a better film: Chicken Run was made to pander to your sense of humour, and I think it suffered because of it. Curse of the Were Rabbit is witty, English, and intelligent. Thomas The Tank Engine's film was ruined because it was made to please the Americans and I'm glad Nick Park did not let that happen to another Great British institution.

To sum up: You can keep your Chicken Runs, your Shreks, your Madagasga's - that kind of crude, crass, slapstick comedy just doesn't compare to the wit and grace that is Wallace and Gromit in Curse of the Were-Rabbit. English to the core, and long may Wallace and Gromit stay that way. This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.

The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball "Wallace" and his silent-and-smart dog "Gromit." Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in "Best Of Show."

My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times. In 1989, Aardman Animations introduced the two heros in The Grand Day Out. In 1993, they fought an evil penguin in The Wrong Trousers. And in 1995, they had to rescue sheep from an evil robot dog in A Close Shave. In 2005, they're back and they are going to fight something that used to be cute and cuddlely in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In this full feature film, Wallace and Gromit work in Anit-Pesto, a pest-control business. There's going to be a Giant Vegetable Competition, but rabbits keep eating the neighbors vegies. Wallace and Gromit takes care with that problem. But Wallace had an idea. He will brainwash the bunnies with his machine. After doing that, something suddenly eats all of the vegies in the neighborhood and it's big. It's up to Wallace and Gromit to save the day. As a fan of these two characters, I was impressed. It kept what the 3 previous chapters had and instead adding a lot of Hollywood actors for voice-overs, they put a no name cast to the job and boy, they did a fantastic job. Wallace and Gromit has not changed. Wallace is still the cheese-loving freak like he always was and Gromit is the silent newspaper reading dog. Also, the script was not too shabby like other family movies were. There is a twist of who the Were-Rabbit really is. The direction from Nick Park (the director of the 3 previous chapters) does a really good job with the storyline. Instead of adding the Hollywood formula in it, he just took the style of the previous chapters and adds a bit of a dark fantasy twist in it. Well done, Nick. The rabbits are also funny and adorable, but the funniest rabbit in the movie is one who has the mix of Wallace in him. The characters were not bad and they weren't annoying, but they'll never top Wallace and Gromit. The animation is indeed fantastic and wonderful. I've never seen a clay-animated movie that is so amazing since Chicken Run. Overall, fans of the two knuckleheads (including the teens) will love this fantastic film. It is a well done film that should get an Oscar next year. Hooray, Wallace and Gromit. 10/10 My only problem with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that the movie does not take the time to properly introduce Wallace and Gromit to those not familiar with Park's short films. Strangely, "A Close Shave" manages to do this with a lot less time to spare. Still, I loved seeing the boys back in action and loved all the new characters, human and otherwise. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes voice as the scheming Victor Quartermaine. It is also interesting to see the series on the large screen. The workmanship with the clay characters really stands out. It's a hoot, and great for the whole family! I buy very few DVDs but I have every Wallace and Gromit and will happily add this one. ''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.

aka "Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais" - Brazil Imaginative, quick-paced, satirical! Americans do 'zany', but the Brits do 'witty' -- and they love to poke fun at themselves (ahem: unattractive teeth, large lips/nose, 'veddy' common or 'veddy' snobby, obsession with the 'gahden'). Inside jokes for the older folk in the audience, lots of action for the kiddies. Subtle use of devices from other classic films (watch for 'Back to the Future', 'Indiana Jones..', 'Harvey', 'Tremors'.. and more). Also, a nifty 'buddy' film (Gromit is a quiet, but resourceful sidekick). Add brilliant voice work by Bonham-Carter and Fiennes (is it true? the best acting these days is being done in animation?) - enjoy! I saw it with the grandkids. fun time for all. - canuckteach This film is what most of the industry has forgotten how to make: FAMILY entertainment, meaning something which is enjoyable to people of all ages. This particular Wallace & Gromit can be enjoyed by everyone from toddlers who like the colors and cute bunnies to their grandparents who understand the adult references.

This film has direction as good as any I've ever seen, and I mean that literally. It is also packed with tiny bits of humor, and each scene has so many humorous details in the background that I'm going to have to buy it, if only in order to read all the signs and handbills in W & G's world.

I plan to see this movie at least twice more in theaters, then buy it on DVD. You too should see it. Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.

I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.

O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.

Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.

Well, needless to say, I liked it. There was something about the original three films that made them so special and delightful - probably the length of them. Unfortunately this lacks the charm, but it still ends up being a fun film.

The bright, shimmering side is that our favourite plasticene figures are still doing a cracking great job, there is good plasticene animation used, there is a silly, but well-structured and entertaining plot, an exciting, fun adventure, a good plot idea (a were-rabbit and a giant vedgetable competition) and good new characters!

As well as lacking the original charm, the only other slightly gloomy side of the film is that the humour, though good, is slightly overdone, especially compared to the original films.

The popular Giant Vedgetable Competition is drawing near and Wallace and Gromit are helping control rabbits from eating any vedgetables, now they are Anti Pesto. They are doing a good job, but soon, there is danger afoot. A were-rabbit is nearby...

Recommended to all Wallace and Gromit fans and to people who like plasticene films, enjoy "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Wererabbit"! :-) The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on!

A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny "ho-ho" not funny "ha-ha" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.

It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV. Wallace & Gromit have been around for some time, but this was their first foray onto the silver screen. Fans of the British TV series, like myself, were eager to see them and the film did quite well in the theaters. Much of the reason is that the film is fun and quite original. In a world of CG movies like SHREK and TOY STORY, this stop-motion film is a nice alternative to the trend in children's movies as well as being totally unlike a cartoon. Plus, compared to much earlier stop-motion films (such as KING KONG and the Ray Harryhausen films such as SINBAD), the quality and movement of the characters are light years better--looking very fluid, natural and more alive.

Apart from the quality of the animation, this movie also deserves kudos on every other level. First, the voice actors do a great job. Second, the script is very simple but also very cute and enjoyable--with a few double-entendres that should probably go way over the kids' heads. Third, they manage to make this not only a movie for kids but people of all ages as the film is neither saccharine nor aimed solely at the younger crowd. In particular, I was captivated by incredibly cute the film was--and especially the adorable bunnies. I especially liked them in the closing credits--which made me very happy I stayed to watch the entire film.

The bottom line is that unless you are a real stick-in-the-mud, you will enjoy this film. It's fresh, funny and amazingly clever. I hope we see a sequel--and this is saying something, as I usually hate sequels. Going into this movie, I was a bit cautious. I have always been a bit iffy about claymation movies. I've always enjoyed decent animated movies, but claymation was always different to me. But this one caught me by surprise. Wallace And Gromit are extremely lovable characters, and it's a great story with jokes for all ages. There's the silly burp/fart jokes for the kids and the subtle, but over the head of young kids, jokes for us older people. Very neat claymation and while the story had holes, it kept my interest beginning to end.

It's so rare to find pure and uncorrupted humor these days, this movie was all the more refreshing. Wallace and Gromit go doing their normal thing, which is exterminating HUMANELY the buggers that ruin people's vegetable crops. But this time they find themselves fighting some form of a freak huge rabbit that their humanely built traps can't even keep under tabs. Great laughs and a great hour and a half of fun. If you have not exposed yourself to Wallace And Gromit, I highly recommend this movie.

The only reason I rate it a 7 and not higher is because it's still a family movie and I don't have kids. I enjoyed it, but if I had been watching it with some little rug rats and my wife, it'd be at least a 9 for sure! Give it a shot! This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the "Were Rabbit". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a "Brain Manipulator" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit? I was extremely amused to read some of the bad reviews on this movie. First, many have said that they have taken their 4 year old daughters and granddaughters to see this and they did not enjoy it. First, I don't believe that this is a kid's movie, at least not a movie for very very young children, not 4 at least. It has very subtle humor, but it is not meant to offer quick amusement as seen in Tom and Jerry or something like this. Many people have also complained that it goes very very slowly....I guess those people are all used to "quantity" over "quality". While I have a small quality problem myself with this movie and that is that the movie was not as detail oriented as the short movies, I still believe that it managed quite well for a full feature film. And how can people complain about the jokes?? The jokes were sensible, timely and well thought out, never rude insulting or "in your face". Wallace is extremely smart, yet cautious and Grommit is the most adorable, smart and cute character that could be. This was a beautiful movie and the theme was very appropriate...for adults that is....especially with the increase of obesity and metabolic disease in the world, there's nothing wrong with promoting vegetables and fruits for once...and this was accomplished in a very tasteful manner in that ...while people are concerned with the aspect of vegetables that doesn't necessarily mean that the are healthier or that they eat more of them...but just that they temper with nature, which is in fact what caused the legend of the were rabbit to come true. And for those out there that complained about the religious jokes, I say...came on! are you for real? Many villages revolve around the local church, and legends/premonitions etc. are normal themes, no harm done. This movie was absolutely amazing, yet some people had negative comments on it and I find this absolutely absurd!!! If you haven't watched the movie yet, but you do like comedy, go out and buy or at least rent it! The fact it won, the animation Oscar, is not a coincidence! I haven't watched many other Wallace & Gromit movies (in fact, I think I only watched one other), but the humor is very distinctive ... and some would also say very British. In a good way of course!

The story will only be an excuse for all the jokes to come, but although it's not the most elaborate one, it still works (by the way, my niece did guess see one of the big surprises coming, I didn't, Kudos to her ;o) ). I do think, that after you watch this one, you'll go out and seek the other W&G movies, that are out there. Have fun! A great animation movie that really gets up to the level of oldies like "The Lion King" .

I went to see this with one of my best Belgian friends who also watched the series on TV . I was lucky because I didn't know people in Belgium were aware of "Wallace and Gromit" .

When it started and that good old theme started it started to bring back memories of me watching it when I was 5 .

The humor itself was very funny . Some nice sitcom style scenes , some wordplay or just plain jokes . The animation isn't as impressive if you have know the series but it is still fun to watch is you realize how it gets done.

My Conclusion : Not only can it keep my happy and entertained , some of the humor can easily appeal to older people so I say : Go and watch "Curse of The Were-Rabbit" as soon as you can . Although it isn't half as hilarious as "Chicken Run," the new Wallace and Gromit comedy "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" (*** out of ****) yields more laughs than most live action comedies. British director Nick Park, who created the Wallace and Gromit characters, and co-director Steve Box rely on the old-fashioned, stop-motion method of animation--known best as claymation--to create several visually adorable characters in more than enough side-splitting scenes about a monstrously mutant hare out to devour every vegetable in sight. Amusing as its whimsical storyline is, the heart of the hilarity lies in the imaginative way with which Park and company have painstakingly constructed characters and gags out of a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine. Basically, every shot that you see in "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" required patient souls that made minor alterations in the clay characters for a series of individual shots that merge into a veritable montage of merriment. Hollywood pioneered claymation as a form of animation as far back as the silent movies of the 1920s, before the industry turned its back on the complicated process. Aardman Studio animators managed to crank out a mere three seconds of usable footage per day. For the record, "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" took five years to make. The lumpy looking characters, with thumb-prints clearly visible in their respective clay complexions, look incredibly funny with their ping-pong ball eyes and over-biting mouths. Interestingly, Gromit emerges as the funniest character, a lovable mutt with no mouth but an expressively inexpressive face who says more than most of the talking characters.

Wallace and Gromit are respectively master and pooch. As the human half of the duo, Wallace is a homily looking moron without a clue who somehow manages to construct machines that do some rather incredible things. One of the funnier scenes shows master and pooch awakened by a system of chutes, hatches, and spring-operated contraptions that dress and feed them. Meanwhile, Gromit is the animal half. The running joke is that Gromit shows more common sense than his genius of a master. As good as his ideas and inventions are, Wallace could not succeed without the loyal Gromit giving him a hand. Our heroes run a pest protection business called 'Anti-Pesto.' Essentially, they must protect every vegetable patch for miles around using an ungainly looking device called a Bun-Van 6000 that literally sucks rabbits out of their ground and into a huge glass container. No, Wallace and Gromit don't kill the critters. Instead, they keep them as pets, and Wallace experiments with an invention—Mind-O-Matic--designed to convert hares into carrot-haters. This "Frankenstein" meets "The Fly" approach plunges poor Wallace into deep trouble when he swaps bits of his brain with that of a rabbit. Not long thereafter, a mysterious towering terror stalks the vegetable patches on full moon nights and creates chaos for everyone as the village's 517th annual Vegetable Contest approaches.

Initially, Wallace and Gromit appeared in Park's Oscar-nominated, film school project "A Grand Day Out" (1989). Since then Aardman has released ten other animated shorts, among them "Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave" (1993) and the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers" (1995). "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" differs not only because it represents the duo's big-screen debut, but also it runs a whopping 85 minutes. The first two-thirds of "Were-Rabbit" contain better gags than the last third, but Park and company never miss a chance to slip in an adult joke that kids won't get but attentive grown-ups will appreciate. "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is hare-raising fun. Arising from characters previously developed in a series of much-lauded shorts, THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is about as far from run-of-the-mill "family fare" as you can get: beautifully crafted and with witty dialogue and clever concepts, this really is a movie that will appeal to almost every member of the family.

The story concerns Wallace and his dog Gromit, who live in a village obsessed with growing large vegetables for the annual fair and who operate "Anti-Pesto," a humane solution to all those pesky rabbits that torment passionate gardeners everywhere. The business is a great success--but Wallace proves a bit too clever for his own good. When he tries to "rehabilitate" rabbits from their vegetable-crunching ways, he unexpectedly unleashes an ancient horror of legendary proportions: the Were-Rabbit! And suddenly no vegetable in town is safe! The movie is full of crazy inventions, unexpectedly smart dialogue, and references to everything from KING KONG to THE WOLF MAN--more than enough to entice even a jaded teenager--but the real charm of the thing is in its characters. The amount of personality the artists and animators can wring from bits of clay is amazing: they seem as fully alive as any flesh-and-blood actor. The DVD release (and I recommend the widescreen) includes a number of informative and entertaining extras as well. Greatly recommended! GFT, Amazon Reviewer The first full-length film featuring the Aardman characters Wallace and Gromit manages to bring in elements of all the previous half-hour show which aired on television.

Wallace runs a company to humanely capture rogue rabbits from people's vegetable gardens, and has the bright idea to try out his invention on the hapless bunnies once they're caught. Of course, as in other Wallace and Gromit films, things don't quite work out as planned.

Similarly to A Close Shave, there's a love interest for Wallace, in this case the village Lady Posh, and a big mean villain with a bullish dog. Gromit is beautifully animated with a wide range of expressions making the character laugh out loud funny. And of course Peter Sallis provides the voice of Wallace again and is a perfect fit.

And as in A Grand Day Out, cheese features heavily to great comedic effect as the film moves along.

On the negative side this film is a little on the long side. There are great effects, and some pieces which make you sit up and watch, but perhaps this story would have worked better as another short subject rather than pushing it to feature-length. Following on from the huge success of Nick Park and the Aardman team with the Wallace and Gromit short animations we now have the first (hopefully of many) feature with the plasticine characters that so many love. The DVD of the movie has proved to be the most durable and best used of my two children's many Christmas presents by a long way. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough but the beauty of the W & G films for me is the background gags. There are plenty of up front gags and slapstick for kids and adults to enjoy but the background is the killer for me. All in a classy addition to an already classy filmography for Nick Park etal and I would recommend fans and new watchers to see this film....often. Simply delightful claymation feature from Nick Park and company spoofing such film-greats as "King Kong" and "The Wolf Man" has Wallace and Gromit as rabbit security finding it difficult to solve a major problem in their village..a giant were-rabbit is feasting lavishly on the vegetable crops of the citizens! What makes this even worse is that the great vegetable festival is about to commence and the citizens have all prepared dutifully to win the top of prize. What makes the situation even worse is Wallace is the reason behind the whole vegetable-eating rampage..he was testing out a new invention regarding taking his brain waves in an attempt to brain wash captured rabbits into disliking vegetable crops. What occurs is catastrophic as some sort of hybrid were-rabbit is created in the process..and it has more to do with Wallace than he could ever imagine. It'll be up to his loyal(..and startlingly intelligent)and fast-thinking dog Gromit to save the day.

This is a clever and imaginative effort from the crew behind other Oscar winning claymation features starring Wallace and Gromit. Seeing good ole-fashioned claymation is refreshing considering the CGI boom that has featured rather lackluster fare here recently as the industry spits out more and more mediocre product. Here, we get a full feature with witty humor and some wild stunts featuring marvelous animation, not to mention gut-busting sight gags. Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to jail for the murder of an autistic kid. When pressured with the question 'Why?' he doesn't have an answer. While in jail he meets Pearl (Don Cheadle), his teacher, who decides to take matters into his own hands and helps Leland figure out why he did it. Throughout this film we learn all about Leland's troubled life, including his ex-girlfriend Becky(Jena Malone), his famous father Albert(Kevin Spacey)and his whole sad life.

This film is Matthew Ryan Hoge's second movie, and it is spectacular in nearly everyway. This is one movie which will leave you thinking in the end, and wondering about how it all works. The movie is quite dark, but if you can handle that then you will realize just how good a film it is.

In this movie, there is no bad guy. There is no one you can blame for anything that happens. There's no stereotyping, and the audience does not try to prove Leland guilty. Instead, we sit back, relax, and watch this boy's life unfold throughout the corse of the movie. All the problems depicted in the story are very real. Drug addiction, parental expectations, overwhelming sadness; they all exist in our world.

Ryan Gosling gives one of the greatest performances of his career in this movie, as the depressed teenager Leland. His father lives in Europe and doesn't really care much about his son. The only person he loves is Becky, but she has problems of her own. He knows exactly what he did, but as he says in the film, 'You want a why, but maybe there isn't one. Maybe this is something that just happened.' There is a why, but we don't find out about it until the end. As you watch the movie, the audience finds themselves amazed that such a young person could know so much about the world. Leland notices things that people tend to ignore.

A particular thought-provoking scene which really affected me was during one of Leland's conversations with Pearl. Pearl just cheated on his wife and when Leland asks why, Pearl replies that he's only human. Then Leland says something which never really occurs to anyone: "Why do people only say that when they've done something wrong?"

Another fantastic acting job was provided by Chris Klein. In the film he plays Allen Harris, the boyfriend of Becky's sister Julie (Michelle Williams). Although he is not one of the main characters, I found myself amazed at how deep his character was. You can relate to Allen a lot. You know how much he cares for the Pollard family. It's as if they were his own flesh and blood. By the end of the movie, you realize just how far he would go to help them.

Overall, this movie is a masterpiece which has been overlooked by quite a few people. If, however, you take the time to watch it, you will most likely see that everything I've mentioned above is true. And once you're finished watching it, you'll never look at the world the same way again.

9.5/10 Don't let any reviews (critics, IMDb users or mine) influence you seeing this movie. I read only the plot premise and became intrigued. After watching, this movie, in my opinion, is definitely worth seeing. It gives a perspective on life that many have probably not contemplated. Its is not however, as Leland himself says, a movie that "can be wrapped up in a neat package with a bow and everything." Other user reviews on this website claim to have a psychological background and imply that the story is not feasible. Quite obviously they missed the entire point of the movie, which is disappointing. to say the least.

In short, it is a well acted, well directed movie. The story is not a feel good one, but I feel if you don't come away from the movie feeling good, you may just have missed something. To characterize it as "art house" is unfair, in my opinion, but as our society likes labels, this is probably the one that fits. If you find you know everything there is to know about the world... I'd suggest skipping this one. If you feel movies should be a form of escape "from the world"... you won't find it here. But if you do watch it... you just might find something in yourself. Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) has committed an unspeakable crime, the stabbing of the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone). No one, least of all Leland himself, can explain why he's done what he's done, whether the act was premeditated or spontaneous, done out of hatred or love.

In the detention center, Leland meets Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a onetime novel writer who sees in Leland's case a second opportunity. But Pearl also wants to understand Leland's motivation and takes him under his wing as a confidante in the prison.

The film jumps from the past to the present several times, often allowing the past to act as a context to the present, and vice versa. Writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge shows how Leland's crime - and the events leading up to it - affect the people in his life, from Becky to her family to Leland's mother (Lena Olin) and estranged father (Kevin Spacey) to Allen (Chris Klein), a young man who is staying with Becky's family after the death of his own mother.

The chief asset in the movie is Gosling, who is perfectly cast as the 15-year-old pseudopsychopath. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Gosling's Leland just exists; he shows little emotion during the film, but instead his expressions belie an ocean of guilt, sadness, love, and rage.

Each of the main actors offered perhaps their best work to date, save Spacey (who's not exactly a novice). Special praise is due to Malone and Klein, two young performers who are better known for lighthearted comedy fare than the heavy drama of this movie.

Another huge benefit in terms of the story is that none of the characters is flawless; none are heroes out to save the day. This is simply not a black-and-white movie. I was looking at the external reviews (Ebert, etc.) for this film and they were all pretty much negative. However, after reading many of them, I noticed that they all made the same point. Critics were upset that the film centers around what appears to be a senseless murder of an autistic child. Certainly, this is a disturbing image. Critics like Ebert want a traditional detective story that uncovers why the killing happened and squarely places blame on the guilty. They want blame to be cast and resolved. Well, that status-quo theme is kind of what the movie is parodying. Just like society, the critics wanted a very quick resolution so they could move on to their next tragic opera. Perhaps there is no simple question to be answered here? There is a whole lot more to what happened then what is on the surface. The film does not seek to rationalize what happens, but rather understand the why. What also steams me so much about these inane reviews is that all they look at in the way of performances is Spacey and Cheadle, who were both great (and generally are). But there are other great performances at work here other than just the two current icons of Hollywood. Gosling gives an incredible performance that really only somebody of his extreme talent could deliver. Somehow, Gosling is able to make the killer of an autistic child sympathetic. This irritates many, I am sure. However, if one watches the film, they see what Leeland's motivation is, it is wrong, but it is not evil. Malone is also on top of her game as yet another confused young character. Basically, the killing of the child in this film is not the main theme of the movie. The main theme is life itself and how people go about dealing with it, the highs and lows, and how they attempt to sometimes help others deal with their lives (which does not seem to work out very well). There is a lot of good and bad in this world and how we handle each has direct impact on how much more good and bad will take place, and sometimes a confused attempt at doing good, can lead to a whole bunch more of bad. I think this is one of the more memorable films in sometime and has an ending that is as touching as anything in recent movie history. I strongly believe people should view this film, with an open mind. I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about. Before I saw this film, I read the comment of someone who wasn't very fond of it. This I must admit made me apprehensive to dedicate 1 hour and 48 minutes of my life to it, but I'm glad I did. Ryan Gosling is a fantastic actor, I especially loved the Believer. Don Cheadle was also fantastic. The film presented an interesting view on life and death. It was very touching and very sad, yet it kept me interested, which most touching stories cannot do. It is a film that reckless of whether or not you like it, you should see it. It was unique,and I don;t think that anyone will ever be able to duplicate it. All of the young actors did surprisingly well given the subject matter and the emotion that must have gone into it. I was pleasantly surprised. There are subtleties in this film that I think a lot of people may miss if they're not careful. You really need to follow what Leland says and read his character to figure out the intended "why" the movie presents at the end. Nothing it solid, it's not definite, it's about what the individual viewer takes out of it. I think that was the plan from the get-go, people aren't meant to all understand it in the same way, it's almost about forming your own personal relationship with Leland in order to maybe feel him a little better.

The storyline is interesting but its summary could never explain what the movie really is. It's dramatic and thought provoking, a lot of heavy ideas, but the pace of the movie is almost soothing, even with its more intense scenes with yelling. I think it's probably Leland, he's just calm and almost serene, even for all of his sadness. The movie personifies Leland in a way.

Of course it is captivating and draws you in if you let it, but there are some recycled ideas. I mean, Leland has a lot of impressive dialogue, he is anything but typical, but he's not a prophet. Everything he says is not a revelation, many people I know have mentioned things he mentioned, even I have observed a few things he's observed. Leland is the unique and attractive character he is probably mostly for Ryan Gosling's portrayal.

In the end the acting is all exceptional, there are no real bad guys, there is no way to psychologically evaluate Leland, only to maybe understand him and life a little better.

Comparable to Igby Goes Down I think, not comedic, but similar in its general outlook on life. Every role, down to the smallest, has been cast and acted with bravado.

The extraordinary Jena Malone never takes a misstep. Her two co-stars are equal to her in this film. Ryan Gosling may be the best actor of his generation. Chris Klein gives his best performance to date. This is a thought and conversation provoking film that should be seen by teens and young adults. You'll think and talk about this film for days. Highly recommended. This is a movie that really makes you think about your life, our culture, family structures and situational actions. I will not give the plot in this post, I think others have beat me to it already. I hope that despite reading opinions on this site, you will take the chance and see this movie for yourself. I went to see this movie with my husband and a friend and I must say, after the movie was over there was total silence in the theater. After a few minutes I looked behind me and everyone in the theater was staring at the screen, lost in thought. This will make you delve deep into your psychological abyss to ponder several things:

How much does society influence my life and the lives of my generation?

How long does someone have to pay for mistakes that they have made?

If there is a second chance given, is it ever realized?

Is it better to live in a box or to not live at all?

My questions are not intended to show my approval or disapproval of Leland's actions. I do not want my opinion of them to in any way dictate what you will take away from this film so I am not giving it. See it for yourself. I am still lost in thought, attempting to answer my many questions from the film. I enjoyed it greatly and hope that you will too. This film is not trying to answer questions, condone any action or promote any punishment. This movie is trying to make us all evaluate our lives and take off the rose colored glasses that most of us view the world through.

Great movie. 9 out of 10 stars One wonders about the state of a society that produce a father like Albert T. Fitzgerald, who we first meet on a plane, as he is heading toward the place he abandoned a long time ago, and where he left a wife and a child who is now accused of murdering a mentally challenged boy. When we first see him, he has caught a headline in the paper the woman in front of him is reading. Rather rudely, he asks her if he could have the newspaper, and the lady offers other sections. Well, that's not what he asked, what he wants the woman to do, is to give him the front section she is reading.

Matthew Ryan Hoge wrote and directed this disturbing film that reflects, in many ways, our society as it is today. In fact, Mr. Hoge is pointing out exactly at what is wrong with it.

The film presents Leland, a teen ager who can't even differentiate between fantasy and reality. It's evident that killing a human being, even the sweet and innocent boy who hasn't done anything to deserve it, will have fatal consequences, not only for himself, but for his own family, and the family of the slain boy. In fact, Leland seems to have no idea about what motivated him to commit the crime for he does not show any repentance about it.

It's obvious Leland has been traumatized by his parents divorce. His own father is an aloof man who couldn't care less about him. It's Pearl, the teacher in the juvenile detention center who sees the turmoil inside the young man and wants to help, but unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance.

The best thing in the film is Don Cheadle, a great actor who always delivers. The ensemble cast does good work under Mr. Hoge's direction. Kevin Spacey has a good opportunity playing the egotistical father of the accused murderer and makes us detest him for being an arrogant idiot.

Although a bit long, the film leaves us with more questions than what it answered. I noted that the official IMDb review refers to Leland as a sociopath. I believe that this diagnosis is manifestly and profoundly incorrect.

This is a movie about sadness, and about the ability of one particular teenage boy to see sadness in daily life, as it lies in wait around every corner, in advance of the unfolding of the lives that it impacts. A sociopath is a person who cannot empathize with others, and who, while understanding the difference between right and wrong, does not care about this difference. A sociopath is a subject who places himself or herself at the center of that subject's universe, with total disregard for the impact that the subject's actions have for those around him or her. One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is that a true sociopath lacks the ability to feel empathy -- lacks the ability to feel that which others feel, and does not correlate changes in the moods of others as the result of that sociopath's actions with those actions. A sociopath CANNOT feel the pain of others, or understand that the pain of others is the result of the sociopath's own actions. A sociopath is a person who is not completely formed. A vital chunk is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of a true sociopath, rendering the sociopath immune to "talking therapy" and other treatment modalities that involve human interaction and the exploration of personal feelings. Sociopathy is devastating, even when the subject is treated and placed in a highly structured environment aimed at containing the damage that the sociopath can do to others. Many sociopaths function more or less normally and never raise a blip on the radar of the criminal justice system, although they tend to leave a trail of emotional debris in their wakes.

Leland Fitzgerald is no sociopath. He is a person who is blessed (or cursed) with the ability to foresee what he considers to be the inevitable consequences and outcomes of human interactions. Leland literally sees sadness written into the eyes and faces of people around him, as he slowly assimilates and internalizes the philosophy that life is about loss, and that people slowly succumb to the inevitable and inexorable fact that, for want of a better metaphor, things fall apart. People who fall in love and who kiss and cuddle today turn into "pathetic" elderly couples. The electricity in the eyes of Leland's "mother" (a wealthy New York socialite who loves Leland and who invites him into the home that she shares with her family when he arrives in New York City, alone and determined to remain in the city at the age of 12) fades as she explains to him, on the last of his visits to New York City, that she learned that her husband had been cheating on her all the time, that she got a divorce, that having one's heart broken happens to everybody, and that such loss is an inevitable part of growing up. Her eyes still reflect light, but the electricity that once illuminated them is gone. This scene -- this explanation, late is it is in coming -- is crucial to understanding why Leland commits a seemingly savage, senseless crime (killing the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend). Leland knows what lies ahead for this little boy -- a lifetime of unattainable goals, of being taught only words that signify danger, of never knowing the love of another human being, of never feeling such love, and of never connecting with another person. More than any other character in this movie, this little boy personifies everything that Leland sees as being inevitable and horrifying about the world. Leland's act -- killing this little boy -- is, for Leland, an act of mercy, committed because this was the one thing that he COULD do in a world in which actions cannot change outcomes. Whereas a true sociopath knows that actions can and do change outcomes but does not care about the harm inflicted on others by those actions, Leland does care. What most people view as a barbaric and horrifying act is, in Leland's eyes, the only decent thing that he can do to alleviate the suffering of just one person.

It would be comforting to be able to present this as an explanation of Leland's actions -- comforting, but incomplete. For in the end, "blame" for Leland's actions lies elsewhere. As is so often the case, there are no easy explanations and no balm to apply to the outraged soul. Why did Leland not learn something that even the most pessimistic people usually acknowledge -- that sometimes -- just sometimes -- people DO remain in love, and that relationships DO succeed, and that even the saddest lives ARE transformed? For Leland, there is no middle ground, no inner core to which he can retreat and regroup. There is only pain and sadness. One is tempted to blame his arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant father -- the brilliant writer (played by Kevin Spacey) -- for not being there at critical times during Leland's development, but given this man's thuggish nastiness, that may have been a blessing.

In the end, this viewer was moved by a tremendous sense of sadness. Why was Leland doomed to view the world through a veil of pessimism and depression? There is a maturity to Leland's character -- present, for example, when he repeatedly insists that nobody was to blame for his girlfriend breaking up with him -- that is both stoic and heartbreaking. Stoic, in that it is absolutely genuine, notwithstanding the heated denunciations of Leland's teacher. But heartbreaking, in that it is born not so much of understanding as of despair. Leland's indifference to his fate is merely a reflection of the utter certainty of his belief that nothing really matters. Nothing that he does can change his fate.

This is not sociopathy on display. This is, if anything, its polar opposite...... Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not – Leland admits to it, straight away – but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do – not necessarily the easiest ground to till.

And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.

Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly – occasionally too slowly – burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.

In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein – these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.

Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant – this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity – for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.

Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing – some might find it too slow or too odd – but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it – with the above caveats – if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft. I remember seeing the trailer for this film and I absolutely knew I had to see this movie. It looked like something that would be right up my alley.

"The United States of Leland" is a terrific movie. It is not one that will leave you with a nice, pleasant ending, but with a sad, empty feeling instead. And when I say it will leave you with an "empty" feeling, I do not mean that as a bad thing. I believe that you are meant to fill that empty feeling with your own thoughts about the characters and human's general motives and how they act as parts of society.

Ryan Gosling is perfectly cast as Leland. He is intelligent, yet stoic. I like the way that he narrates the film with his journal. The supporting cast is terrific as well. Kevin Spacey is very good, as always, and Don Cheadle is amazing as Leland's teacher and mentor.

This was a great story and is very smart and thought provoking. I highly recommend it. This has to be one of the most powerful message-sending movies i saw lately, it was absolutely flawless all the way, amazingly original and thought provoking. Story is unusual and original, and the characters make this story very very powerful. It's about a guy who kills his ex-girlfriend's retarded kid brother, and as he is sent to juvenile prison, through many memory flashbacks you get a grip on a story and you don't let it go until the very end. Murder he commits changes the course of life for every member of his family and the family of deceased, and as you watch and realize that everyone has its own story and its own dark side you just appreciate this movie even more, it's a total tour de force, cause those actions cannot be described by simple words. His motive of committing murder is left incompletely explained, and it makes viewers think. Acting was pretty much flawless, and the cast was very good, it contains many familiar faces. If you like the movies that are thought provoking and that just make u think during them(e.g. 'Donnie Darko', 'Mulholland Dr.') then 'The United States of Leland' is an excellent movie choice for you, otherwise you should pass this movie and watch it when you're in the mood for serious thought provoking movie.

10/10 This movie was a masterpiece of human emotions and experience. I think that a lot of people get caught up in Leland's apparent mental illness as the storyline, but I was drawn into the relationships of many of the characters and what they reveal about the force of human emotions. Much of the message of the movie is that we never know the good without the bad, which is a little cliché, but what makes this movie so good and so original is that it very eloquently portrays the crushing and devastating force that the bad can have, whether you see the bad everywhere like Leland, or are experiencing the utter helplessness of unrequited love or a relationship that just isn't going to work no matter how bad you want it to. This movie captures how helpless relationships and emotions can make you feel better than any movie I've seen, and it is as depressing a movie as it is good. My God, Ryan Gosling has made a lot of deep characters in his career, this is one of his wonderful acting jobs. For me this is a very deep movie, needs a lot of concentration, not because is difficult to watch, just because you understand it if you put your shoes in this kid, even though has everything and has famous father that is a writer, has a deeper mind, you don't understand why he kills this poor kid, until you really heard what he has to say and you start to think, at least to me, that a lot of things that he says is true. Simple kid, sweet, very gentle, in a way normal like any teenage, but inside of him suffer because he start to look at the world in a different way, then you understand why he did what he did. I recommend this movie for those who likes deep drama. I enjoyed, appreciated, will view this movie again because I am sure There are subtleties that I missed. Wonderfully cast, no over acting or Cliché performance or plot. Uses a tragic event to reflect multiple Relationships, how those involved in each relationship are connected (Or disconnected) and perceptions of life, what position each one Occupies in the relationship, in life and how they cope with the Confusion, joy, hurt and disappointment of discovering that things are not what they perceived them to be. At first I thought there were "Observers" and "the observed", but that is not the case, we are all connected somehow and our perceived separation is only in small degrees. I recommend the movie to everyone especially those in teaching, social work, religious counseling and every other person that breaths. i loved catcher in the rye, it happens to be my favorite book. JD salinger, the author of catcher, has the rights to the book and made it so not one person can make a movie about it with his permission.

with that said, heres "united states of Leland." Beautiful movie with much meaning and depth in emotion. but a lot of it reminded me of catcher, almost too much reminded me of catcher. the few stories that Leland told in the movie such as visiting new york and his adventures were very similar to those of holden's in catcher, and the way Leland views people and emotions is also similar to Holden's, they both are simple and true to themselves and others. superior acting credited to don cheadle and Kevin spacy. great editing, all falls together perfectly, and loved the story all together. recommend as a buy or at least a rent. good movie.

the only thing that it does drag at some points but makes up for it in the long run. give it time and appreciate a good movie. After stabbing a retarded boy, the fifteen years old troubled and pessimist Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to a juvenile detention. His teacher and aspirant writer Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle) gets close and tries to understand him, first with intention of writing a book, and later becoming his friend. Leland slowly discloses his sad vision of world, showing that he is a sociopath.

"The United States of Leland" is a depressive and interesting study of a character. The low paced riveting screenplay discloses pieces of the story like a puzzle; there are excellent lines and dialogs; the performances are great, although the twenty-three years old Ryan Gosling does not convince as a fifteen years old teenager; but it seems that a part is missing to complete the puzzle and make "The United States of Leland" an unforgettable movie. The disappointing clarification of the "why" for the violent action of Leland against Ryan Pollard is not convincing or touching, indeed shows that this character is a totally deranged sociopath with a weird and sick sight of world. Further, the way Allen Harris gets Pearl's knife is ridiculous. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Mundo de Leland" ("The World of Leland") The title comes from an alteration an adolescent inmate in a correctional facility makes on the front cover of his school book on government, titled "The United States;" he adds "of (his name)."

Many characterizations in this movie work well -- the scenes between Leland (Ryan Gosling) and Becky (Jena Malone), Pearl (Don Cheadle) and father Fitzgerald (Spacey) as well as with Leland, Becky and sister Julie (Michelle Williams), among many others.

But the central thread of this movie -- the fulcrum on which everything hangs -- is the character and motives of Leland. He's a somewhat shy, passive, nice high school student who daringly introduces himself to Becky whom (we find) is going to an alternative school because of a past history of drug problems. In Becky's family, she has a sister, Julie, who's just graduating from high school and preparing to go on to college; Julie's boy friend, Julie's age (and whose parents' had recently died) is also living with them.

Leland lives with his mother; his father (Kevin Spacey) and mother have long been divorced and his father is a famous novelist. Leland is very perceptive. The young boy in "The Sixth Sense" saw dead people; Leland sees teenage lovers and recognizes that years later they will divorce, that pain is going to follow many people's present experience of happiness. BUT, for reasons that are never made explicit, his prescient gift seems to operate some times, for some people, some relationships, and not for others. ???

Parts of the movie feel a bit like a derivative quilt -- borrowing from "American Beauty," "The Sixth Sense," "The Graduate," and possibly some others I didn't recognize. That wouldn't be bad if only the character of Leland worked.

I think Gosling did a great job of playing Leland but the script and the story imposed limitations. Would such an observant, meditative young man ever be homicidal? Even for altruistic reasons? Nothing in the film gives a reason for this. I'm a retired therapist with much experience working with families and teenagers; while many of the reactions shown in the film work -- this part, this most essential element certainly does not.

And there is at least one other element which, in my experience, would not fit with real life although it's not as critical. The reason for the differences between the sisters, Becky and Julie, are never hinted at but that's okay. Once two sibs begin occupying different roles (one the all good girl, the other the troubled one), the roles themselves can begin driving each other to more extreme positions. For the troubled one, Becky, it's kind of, "what do I have to do to be loved around here -- give up being me and become Julie?" And the pressure to live up to being the All-Good, parent-pleasing child, is no less intense on Julie. So, why would she break up with her boy friend of long-standing and of whom her parents so obviously approve?

Don Cheadle was good as Leland's teacher; all others were good in their parts. 98% of the scenes were good. What was missing was that crucial slip in understanding human nature.

Good acting; flawed story and psychology; worth seeing; not a total loss. -only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT Maybe people do like having the devil around more than God. Maybe we like that safety net of a reason; making a mistake only to blame the devil for the pain and suffering in the world. There is so much hardship, spilling out into the masses, that it is difficult to not see the sadness on the faces of all you pass. Leland P. Fitzgerald understands all of this; he knows that maybe everything won't be OK, and maybe helping someone leave this Earth to avoid the pain their life has waiting for them is a risk he needs to take for someone he loves. Credit goes to screenwriter/director Matthew Ryan Hoge for creating a lyrical prose about two suburban families who have crossed paths in good times and bad. Just looking at the cast of almost all A and B list actors shows that the material really resonates with its audience. Emotions don't need to be worn on one's sleeve to exist. Sometimes all we want to do is end the suffering.

Ryan Gosling brings an understated performance to the table here that encompasses the inwardness of his character Leland's emotions. He is a very passionate and intelligent young man, cutting through the BS of life, knowing what he sees and accepting the worse with the better. The film is a catharsis for the souls of those affected by the horrific event of Leland killing his ex-girlfriend's mentally challenged brother. In the confused mind of this teen, he goes into the incident knowing full well what he was going to do, he was going to stop the pain that he sees everywhere, but most of all on the face of young Ryan Pollard. Almost immediately he realizes that he has made a mistake, that maybe playing God is not a job he has been put on Earth to do. Whether or not this is true will soon be put to debate as the murder begins a chain of events, which finally bring meaning to many people's lives as they wake up to the tangential fragility of life. This boy has opened their eyes to both sorrow and rebirth.

With haunting ballads sung by former Sunny Day Real Estate frontman Jeremy Enigk, the movie goes through a journey of small vignettes of two families' lives in the aftermath of tragedy. The acting is superb throughout with special mention to a few. For someone who plays the naïve lug in most films, Chris Klein actually does well with much the same material here, yet also with an evolution into a man of purpose. His aloofness is effective when utilized in the right part, similar to his success in Election, and I am interested to see if directors will be allow him to expand his talents and sink his teeth into something more substantial. Jena Malone is effective in much the same effect as well, playing the role of troubled youth as she has in Donnie Darko and Life as a House; Don Cheadle is a stalwart of professionalism giving us a different take on the compassionate therapist from the one he did in Manic; and Martin Donovan is brilliant as the grieving father trying to keep his wits together and eventually realizing he must keep his family from falling apart as well. Also, it is great seeing the beautiful Sherilyn Fenn in a small but important role.

When tragedy hits, people band together to get through it all. As Leland astutely points out at one point, you see men and women helping others out and hugging when they see the pain and suffering surrounding them, but after a couple of days everything goes back to normal. Cheadle's character extrapolates the optimistic viewpoint that at least we get a glimpse of people's true nature of wanting to help and be good to each other, only to be shot back at with the retort, "well at least we do during tragedy." Maybe we don't want to think we are good natured because it does make us feel we should be good all the time, and that when bad, must have in-turn meant to be so. By being flawed we allow ourselves to rebound and try again. Leland's mistake lets him see the love he had for those close to him as well as opening the eyes of others to wake up and not let their loved ones drift any further from them. One can't focus on the sadness of others when they must first come to grips with their own. Hoge has crafted a parable for this and a truly effective piece of film-making with hopefully many more to come. this is what confuses me about critics and their opinion. i usually do take in, what the critics say about a film, on most occasions before i see a movie.

however, i saw this one, without knowing anything about it. mainly because of the cast. kevin spacey and don cheadle are two of the most acclaimed and in my opinion best actors alive. and ryan gosling is on a fast escalating journey up there as well. his reality and humanity which he exudes in most of his portrayals, makes the audience truly believe in the character and whats happening to him.he's really my favourite actor of my generation. i've always found jena malone pretty cute,ever since donnie darko, and if she chooses to keep doing similar roles then heck i ain't complaining.

back to my point. this movie really moved me. i believed it. the acting was top class. as one would expect. the actually movie left the audience with the ultimate aim of a good movie; reflection and pondering which ensues after the final credits roll. i think i must watch it again to decipher how this movie was critically mauled. i know that their reviews must be taken with a pinch of salt. at least i know now. The United States of Leland was an amazing movie. I kept passing it on the guide on my TV not knowing what it was and never having the chance to sit there and get into it. Then one morning when I woke up early, I saw that it was just about to start. So I decided to watch it. I had the time and interest to watch it. When I saw that Ryan Gosling was in the movie and then that he was the main character, I was immediately sucked in and could not move from my couch. The struggle that Leland goes through is such an inspiring story. Everyone has to deal with the same type of thoughts throughout sometime in their life whether it be a small minor detail or something as big as what he's going through. I have to sit and watch the movie again just to catch all the stuff that I may have missed the first time around. As a general comment... I would recommend this movie to anyone who is a Gosling fan or anyone who just likes a good movie with a real good story. The fact that there are so many other big stars who all also had great performances is just an added BONUS! So do what you can to take the time to check out this movie, I can almost be sure it won't be a waste of time. This is a superb film and was immediately put in my top ten (trust me I know films!). It's one of the movies that really makes you think, not necessarily about the storyline but about yourself! The film is about a fifteen year old kid (Leland Fitzgerald)who kills an autistic boy. he is sent to juvenile hall where he meets Pearl Madison, his teacher. His relationship with Pearl slowly grows and eventually Pearl decides to write a story on Leland and his peers but as he gets closer to finding out Lelands motive he learns he must deal with his own issues first.

This is a great film and a must see with great music by the pixies and a fantastic score! Watch it! Whenever Hayao Miyazaki does the "tri-fecta," (writes, directs, and animates a movie) he makes a classic film for the ages. He has done it again with Gake no ue no Ponyo.

The story is about a girl fish who is kept on a very tight leash along with her younger sisters by her father, a bitter ex-human wizard named Fujimoto. The fish escapes from her father and rides a jellyfish to shore, where she is caught up in a dredging operation and finds herself stuck in a bottle. This underwater sequence must be one of the most elaborately drawn animated scenes ever undertaken and stands on its own as a reason to search out the theatrical release. Miyazaki, who shows no fear of having a busy scene, has outdone himself. There were literally hundreds of individually-drawn sea creatures of every imaginable size all in motion at the same time.

When the fish escapes the dredging operation while still trapped in the bottle, a five-year old boy named Sousuke spots her in the water and is able to break the bottle, saving her. Since she is the result of her father's magic, she is capable of magic herself--and her father actively tries to retrieve her. The boy names the fish Ponyo. Just when Sousuke learns that Ponyo can speak, her father successfully retrieves her back into captivity.

After a war of wills with her father, Ponyo manages to escape again with the ability to change herself into a human. She meets up again with Sousuke in a storm and the story continues from there in many interesting ways. There is a cuteness factor in this film rivaling and arguably surpassing that of Tonari no Totoro. Joe Hisaishi, once again, provided outstanding musical support.

The story itself is simple--as are Miyazaki's films in general--and should appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. While I haven't viewed it enough to be sure, the film doesn't seem to be one which will keep scholars in long discussions as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi did. Nonetheless, this is the ultimate feel-good entertainment movie. I gave the movie a ten out of ten rating. As a long-time fan of Studio Ghibli and especially Hayao Miyazaki films, I went to the film right on the opening day. When I went out of the theater I had this strange feeling that something was missing, this "magical" feeling I was experiencing in all Miyazaki films before, but I couldn't say why it failed this time. After I thought about the other Ghibli movies, I may know the reason: this film had most of the elements of a great Miyazaki anime: cute characters, wonderful key animation, a great soundtrack composed by Joe Hisaishi and the warm story telling giving you the feeling of watching a high quality Japanese animation film. However, two elements were lacking: a deep story and dramaturgy. The purpose of this film was obviously to entertain small children with a simple story line as in case of "Totoro", so a complicated story as been told in "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke" is not really necessary, but on the other hand, this story was simply too superficial. I could not connect to the main characters, because there was no character development, dramatic scenes were only limited and did not last very long. I really hate to give only 7 stars for a Miyazaki film, because I would give 10 stars to all previous movies right away, but this time it was simply not this wonderful "ghibli experience". Hayao Miyazaki's magic continues with this absolute crowd pleaser Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, his latest animated film, which turns on the usual sweetness to charm your socks off. I thought that the trailer featured its song which was quietly hypnotic, and I didn't have to wait for an invite to make sure I got my ticket for the sneak preview of the movie, scheduled to open here next week.

For fans of Studio Ghibli films, you'll probably know what you're in for, as Miyazaki has yet another winner in his filmography, that will win new fans over. I'm embarrassed to say the least that I've so far watched only My Neighbour Totoro (eyes that pile of Ghibli DVDs) and love it to bits, but I guess this would serve as a final push for me not to continue missing what would likely be animated films that I would enjoy.

Ponyo (voiced by Nara Yuria) is a magic goldfish that yearns to know what is life beyond the sea, with her constant forays in a bubble to the surface of the water to sneak a peek. Nonetheless these ambitions do not bode well with her humanoid dad Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji), who harbours some hatred toward the human race for pollution, and briefly touching a subplot on environmental protection / revenge by Mother Nature as well. An accident one day sees Ponyo being washed ashore, and picked up by five year old boy Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) who lives on a house on the said cliff with his mother Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko), while dad Koichi (Nagashima Kazushige) is mostly out to sea since he's a sailor. And you can expect some moments of throwback to the likes of The Little Mermaid, or Splash made for kids. Saying anything more would be to spoil the fun.

The artwork here is still simply astounding even though it's in 2D glory, knowing that each cell is painstakingly worked on. There are so many things going on at the same time within the same frame, that you'll probably be game for repeated viewings just to spot them all. This definitely beats any 3D or CG animated production any day given its beauty coming from its simplicity, and not only from the artwork department, but on its story too, despite complaints coming in that it took a leaf from the Hans Christian Andersen classic. While there are avenues to make this film extremely dark, it only suggested certain dark themes, but opted instead for a film with more positive emotions, suitable for both kids and adults alike.

At its core, its about love, that between the family members of Koichi, Lisa and Sosuke, and especially between mother and son. More so, it's about the love between the boy and his new pet fish which he christened Ponyo, and I tell you Ponyo herself has enough cuteness in her to beat the likes of Bolt, WallE and Eve all hands down. Characterization here is top notch, and it's hard not to fall in love with Ponyo, in whichever form adopted, especially when she's such a playful being who doesn't hide her emotions - if she's upset with you, either she turns away or you could expect a jet stream come spewing from her mouth into your face!

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is a definite shoo-in to my top films of this year without hesitation. And the next time I go to Tokyo, I'm sure as hell going to make my way to the Ghibli Museum to bask under the magical world brought to us by Hayao Miyazaki. Highly recommended film, so don't you go missing this on the big screen! Quite simply, i was tickled pink watching this in the movie theatre and grinned from ear to ear; eyes wide open whilst trying to take all the details in that are at the same time insanely simple, fresh, yet incredibly sophisticated, breathtaking and in imaginative.

In terms of audience age range, it is probably pre Totoro. The plot works because of the pure heart of 5 years olds who are focused in what they want and conscientious in their pursuit. They lives in a world that is unspoilt by cynicism and cultural learning of how everything is 'suppose' to work. While most critics might disregard this film due to the lack of a 'message' or 'plot' film (Although it is in there somewhere), it is precisely for this reason the film should be cherished. Too often our judgement are impeded by our own limitations of cinematic and cultural standing. Like most of Miyasaki's film, each is totally unique but undeniably Miyasaki. Ponyo may at times feel so unique and fresh, it may feel alien like.

The viewing experience provide a wonderful change from all the generic children's products that are generally commercialised to please the adult demographics (ie/ Animals that talks like their human counterparts, Eddie Murphy in Shrek.) It is perhaps comforting to know that good old fashioned hand drawn cells still work so incredibly well in this digital era where Toystory/WallE/Shrek/Cars generally triumph. It therefore feeling rather nostalgic at the same time makes the film feels timeless, a bit like how Totoro and Jungle Book hasn't really aged.

The subtleties of each character's expression and body language is captured in such nuanced interpretation that digital films like Wall-e can never compete on, or if it does, it would be a very expensive process. It would be a big pity for Wall-E to win over this one at the Oscars, and it probably will this year. Yet it might be quite unfair to compare the 2 mediums, as it is really the craftsmanship and the story telling that wins at the end of the day. For this, Miyasaki is a true master of This is the latest Ghibli movie and it is also a MAJOR departure from the studio's established style. First of all, this film was obviously aimed at young children, much more so than any of their previous films. It lacks the depth of the other films and features a brand new far less realistic style of animation… and yet it is ever so entertaining. Even though there is nothing put in to attract adults, I still found myself drawn to the screen and fully immersed in the story. The movie's secret is brutal honesty with regard to the plot and the characters. The story and the characters are very upfront with their feelings/intentions etc. but that makes them all the more endearing. Special attention was also paid to the soundtrack which is absolutely amazing despite being way different from previous Ghibli soundtracks. I find myself singing the cute theme song all the time as will anyone who sees this movie! While Hayao Miyazaki's movies have always been hit-or-miss with me with regards to story, they are unequivocally gorgeous to the eye, with characters of simple animation against a backdrop of artistic images. Ponyo sticks to that formula, with a lead character so adorable I want a plush doll of her and scenery so pretty it wouldn't look out of place framed up as a picture on a wall.

The story, on the other hand, I didn't enjoy quite as much as his last two wide-releases, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. It was just a tad too juvenile, coming across as more for kids and leaving adults to just enjoy the animation.

I was also disappointed that the score done by Joe Hisaishi, who also the scores for the above-mentioned two movies, wasn't nearly as memorable this time around. While I can't quite recall Howl's score now, I still remember it being one of the most beautiful I had ever heard. Ditto Spirited's - though I only remember it being very complementary to the movie. Maybe it's because Ponyo is more juvenile fare that the score isn't quite as haunting. In any case, this movie is still a must-watch for fans of anime or Miyazaki. Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories.

The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish "Ponyo" and takes it to the daycare/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger.

Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.

Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke.

During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki).

As with his past films, Miyazaki's "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.

Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.

Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as "Lisa" rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).

80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme "Umi No Okasan" by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi "Geke No Ue No Ponyo" theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like "Die Walküre".

The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.

Like "Kiki's Delivery Service/Majo No Takkyubin", "Howl's Moving Castle", "Princess Momonoke/Momonoke Hime" and "My Neighbor Totoro/Tonari No Totoro", "Gake No Ue No Ponyo" is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come. I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it.

the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together.

The story follows "Ponyo" a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke.

the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ?

I feel the movie was inspired by "The little mermaid" and at the same time similar to "Tonari no Totoro"

the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short.

I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well I have a strong feeling that what you think of this film will strongly depend on your frame of reference. If you've never seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will probably confuse the heck out of you. If you have seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will still probably confuse the heck out of you....but you won't really care! That's because I found that the first time I saw one of his animated films, I tried too hard to figure out what was happening and why--and it impacted my enjoyment of the film. Now that I have seen just about every Miyazaki film, I see the bizarreness and just take it all in--enjoying the beauty of it all. In many ways, these films (at least to Western audiences) is like drugs--lots of strange and beautiful images that don't always initially make sense but sure feel great to see!! Of all the Miyazaki films, this might have the most unusual and incomprehensible story line--even more so than SPIRITED AWAY and PRINCESS MONONOKE or MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO. But, like these and many other Studio Gibli films, if you just sit back and watch you are rewarded with a fabulous tale. But, because it is so hard to describe (and others have already done so), I won't even go there.

As for the artwork, it's very typical of one of these Japanese films, though there was one noticeable change. There was a very extensive use of what looked like colored pencils for the backgrounds. This was NOT a bad thing at all--the lovely pastel-like look was very pleasing and unique. In some ways it looked like a tiny bit of Bill Plympton's art style was infused into a typical Miyazaki film. With a high frame-rate, exceptional character animation (which imbued them with tons of personality) and a great "wow-factor", this is an exceptional film for all ages. Though clearly designed more for younger audiences (the TOTORO fans especially), it is a bit scary here and there (during the storm segments) but there is plenty of great stuff for adults. As an adult (at least chronologically so), I loved the cute stuff and applaud the other-worldliness of the film.

A great film--among Miyazaki's best. I don't give it a 10 because I am hesitant to ever do that--plus I did like a few of the studio's other films a bit more (particularly TOTORO). But that DOESN'T mean you shouldn't rush out now and see it--do it and do yourself a favor. Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli shows his wonderful touch animating, infusing life, in every little action of the characters in Ponyo. When Sosuke puts down so carefully his little boat to reach for the red fish you know that you'll have a very good time watching this movie.

The characters are interesting and you really care for them. They recall visually other stories, Riisa seems a grown up Nausicaa with a son, an old lady in wheelchair remembers the witch in Howl's Moving Castle.

The presence of the elements, wind, rain, and the sea with its great, powerful waves, is so strong that I think it has never been evoked in such a way in any other movie. It is a simple story, loosely inspired by "the little mermaid", and it reach for the very heart of the audience, just like Totoro, the other Miyazaki's true masterpiece.

An instant classic, with a great soundtrack and a catchy song during the ending credits. Don't miss it. Said to be inspired from Disney's The Little Mermaid, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is Japanese animation master, Hayao Miyazaki's next big work after the well-received Spirited Away in 2001 and Howl's Moving Castle in 2004. In Ponyo, his signature style of animating fantasy realms and children characters are on display once again.

Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), the boy lead in the film discovers a 'goldfish' trapped in a glass jar while playing by the seaside below the cliff. He stays with his mum, Lisa (Tomoko Yamaguchi) above and atop it. Sosuke shakes the jar forcefully to try and get the 'goldfish' out but the little 'goldfish' is stuck. He then tries to pull it out but it just cannot come loose. Sosuke then place the jar on the ground before smashing a small rock onto it, breaking it into pieces instantly while suffering a small cut on the finger. He then checks inquisitively to see if the 'goldfish' is still alive. As he observes it, the 'goldfish' reacts by licking the blood off his finger suddenly. Excited, Sosuke quickly rushes back to the house and put the 'goldfish' in a small bucket of water in hope that it will survive. It did and he named it 'Ponyo'(Yuria Nara).

The above scene would signify what is to come for the remainder of the film. It is of the interactions between Sosuke and Ponyo. And it is one that Hayao Miyazaki did meticulously well in portraying. He must have a keen sense of observation and understanding of how children behave before he depicts this chemistry of communication between the two main characters. The behavior of the children would also extend into the rest of the film in their further encounters.

The affection between Sosuke and Ponyo grew as the film progresses from the moment Sosuke brought Ponyo to school in Lisa's car. The best moment came when the two were reunited after a brief separation when Ponyo's father, Fujimoto (George Tokoro), a magical sea dweller recaptures the errant Ponyo before encapsulating her in a magic bubble with kind intention.

Fujimoto who was once human has grown to refer humans with disgust for polluting the sea and stealing its life. But all Ponyo wants is to be human and be with Sosuke so for a second time she escapes, accidentally emptying his father's precious store of magical elixir into the sea, creating a storm of tidal waves and engulfing the small town in the process.

What follows are the adventures of Sosuke and Ponyo in the flooded town.

Is there a happily ever after in this one? Would true love prevail? You find out.

Looking at the art in Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, there appears to be a deviation from Miyazaki's past works in terms of rendering. It looks unfamiliar because the environment apart from the characters at play in every scene is not colored in the usual fashion as in Spirited Away (2001) and Howl's Moving Castle (2004). The aesthetical appeal is discounted from what appears to be color penciled drawings. The objects and characters are also not as detailed as before.

This is peculiar if taken on face value but from the way the story is written and told, the possible explanation is that Miyazaki is allowing the audience to view the film with a child's tint, yet allowing the adults to reminisce on a Japan when they were younger. This move could have prevented prospective moviegoers, new to Miyazaki's work to see it. The trailer did nothing to promote Ponyo as well. Taking the case to Japan however would be a different story as Miyazaki's credential far than exceed any marketing technique.

In summary though, the whole did not equal to its parts. Aside from Miyazaki's ability to cast vivacious and animated characters, the film lacks elements of thrill and wonder when measured against previous works, resulting in a deficit of big screen presence.

The sparks of Ponyo and Sosuke failed to light up the film in a big way but moments of warmth, kindness, and love can still be found in recognizing the film as one that is not made for the kids, but of the kids who everyone is or once was. It has been widely agreed that Hayao Miyazaki is a master at his craft when it comes to combining rich animation with thoughtful story lines and similarly imaginative characters. His movies, from NAUSICAA, TOTORO, KIKI, LAPUTA, and MONONOKE to the recent HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are all not only gorgeously rendered in terms of art, but in terms of movie-making as well. Can this man do no wrong? Not really, but it is impossible to expect everyone of his movies to always be five star marvels. His newest film, PONYO, an unashamedly family-friendly tale of a "goldfish out of water", is as lushly animated and alive with interesting characters as you would expect... and yet this is the first film of his which treads into "lesser" territory. Don't get me wrong, PONYO is not a bad movie by any means. As mentioned, it is a sight for the eyes and is as charming and adorable as TOTORO and KIKI. The problem is that the story doesn't stay afloat to satisfy anyone eager for another engrossing, in-depth plot.

For its opening hour, PONYO is Miyazaki storytelling at its finest, in which a rowdy and overeager young goldfish (who later becomes named Ponyo) makes a forbidden trip to the human world where she is subsequently adopted by a boy her own age named Sosuke (modeled, interestingly, after the director's own son). This does not please Ponyo's father, a mysterious wizard named Fujimoto, who is very angry at the humans for their destruction of the sea (this environmentalist theme is not much different from Miyazaki's other films)... a problem he very much intends to rectify by creating jellyfish from the prow of his submarine. He separates the pair and tries to talk Ponyo into staying underwater with him. The goldfish, however, has already tasted both Sosuke's blood (healing a cut on his finger) AND some of the human food (ham, which she becomes inexplicably addicted to), and of course steals into her father's forbidden potions, transforming into a hyperactive young girl (who is the spitting image of Mei from MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO). This triggers a dangerous tsunami which threatens to engulf the entire world with water. Conspiring with his wife, Gran Mamare, a diaphanous sea goddess who alternatingly shifts from super-sized titan to human-size form, Fujimoto decides to test the two youngsters' love for each other. They do this by elevating the sea to the level of Sosuke's house, prompting the youngsters to set out across their now ocean-infested world in an over-sized toy-boat (made possible by Ponyo's own magical powers).

It is at this point where PONYO begins to run out of steam. Although Ponyo and Sosuke are adorable and the scenes involving them are funny and cute, they slow down the film. Where the film really takes on water, unfortunately, is at the climax in which Sosuke must prove his love to Ponyo, presented in a way which is strangely anticlimactic and rushed, bringing an otherwise charming tale to an abrupt halt. This will likely underwhelm viewers expecting another instant masterpiece from the man who has delivered far more interesting finales for many of his other movies. Remember the destruction of Laputa? Satsuki's search for little Mei? Kiki's rescue of Tombo? Porco Rosso's fight with Curtis? The rescue of the Forest Spirit's head? Or even the test between Chihiro and Yubaba? All those resolutions were far more satisfying and felt more complete than this one.

On a technical level, PONYO cannot be faulted. The animation is absolutely gorgeous to look at, produced entirely without a single shot of computer-generated-imagery, and naturally Joe Hisaishi provides us with yet another breathtaking musical score; the best moments being the rousing sequences underwater, accompanied by a chorus and a soprano voice. And the backgrounds are lovingly painted and detailed as any other Ghibli movies.

Having proved themselves worthy on translating and dubbing Ghibli's previous movies into English with top-quality results, Disney Studios and Pixar once again provide an English dub complete with a mostly capable cast of actors. Frankie Jonas is surprisingly good as Sosuke, sounding very natural and believable throughout. Noah Cyrus as Ponyo, on the other hand, sometimes goes overboard in shouting her lines before eventually settling down toward the end. Leads aside, the rest of the cast includes Liam Neeson as the overprotective Fujimoto (who manages himself unsurprisingly well in the character), Cate Blanchett as Gran Mamare (in an omnipresent tone which is not much different from her Galadriel in LORD OF THE RINGS), Matt Damon as Sosuke's constantly seafaring father Koichi (who is good but nothing to write home about), and Tina Fey as Lisa. Of them, Fey is the best voice in the entire cast, imbuing the character with just the right amount of spirit and personality. Her scenes with Sosuke show real chemistry. On the other hand, Cloris Leachman, who was spectacular as Dola in CASTLE IN THE SKY, is disappointingly wasted as one of three handicapped elderly women (she barely has ANY lines!), who are also voiced by Betty White and Lily Tomlin. Of them, only Tomlin's character, a cantankerous woman named Toki, shows any real personality, but if I were casting the movie, I'd switch Tomlin with Leachman. Probably the only really jarring drawback of the dub is a blasty techno-remix of the film's catchy (but ridiculously repetitive) title song, which thankfully doesn't occur until midway through the closing credits.

On the whole, PONYO is a good film; a fine piece of animated work which is perfect for youngsters and family audiences. Due to the loss of momentum toward the end, though, it falls far short of classic status. Since Miyazaki at his least is still better than a majority of other animated films, though, I'll be generous and give PONYO a full star recommendation, because any feature of his is still very much worth watching, particularly on the big screen. (Be sure to catch it in the theaters while you can.) I had heard news about this film from anime-legend Hayao Miyazaki, and I SO wanted to see it. But I was lucky enough to the film online at YouTube; after watching the film, I knew that it is another Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli classic.

This film, inspired by my favorite fairy-tale "The Little Mermaid," is about a 5-year-old boy named Sosuke, and his relationship with a goldfish princess, whom he named Ponyo, who longs to become human and be with Sosuke. I won't give you anymore details, you'll have to see the film for yourself. So overall one of the best animated movies ever made, with plenty of fantasy, adventure, and humor...I loved it! Ponyo is a beautiful animated film with some dark undertones. It features a kid-sized story of longing and love with ecological implications, but it is not preachy. Hayao Miyazaki has fused Andersen's Little Mermaid with Japan's native myths and his trademark steam punk flights of fancy, and the result is very rewarding. There are some scary moments of oceanside storms and flooding, but they are thrilling, not horrific.

If you've ever wanted to run with the waves along the shore, ride on a jellyfish as an elevator, completely transform yourself, or make a friend for life, Ponyo is a fable for you. Perhaps not Miyazaki's best work, but I couldn't help but love it to death. A five-year old boy finds what he thinks is a goldfish stuck in a bottle. He saves its life and keeps it in a bucket as a pet, but it really is a magical being, the daughter of a human wizard and a sea goddess. Ponyo, as the boy names her, is taken back to the sea by her father, who tries to discourage her from returning to land and becoming human, but she gets into his magic elixirs and does what she wants to do. The story is simple and cute. Where the film really comes alive, though, is in its tremendous artwork. The drawings are more child-like than in any of Miyazaki's other works, but there's beauty in its simplicity. As with all of his films, Miyazaki creates this world of imagination that I was just so in awe of. Seeing it in the theater brought back memories of what it was like when the opening notes of Jo Hisaishi's score for Princess Mononoke washed over me and gave me goosebumps just short of a decade ago (the score here is equally as wonderful). I wanted to live in this world and never leave it. Like the 5-year old protagonists of his latest opus, Hayao Miyazaki's "Ponyo" enchants with its unbridled innocence as though the anime-meister has become a child himself in weaving a narrative that relishes in its simplicity and emits an infectious charm in the process. Miyazaki, recalling his earlier works, paints a brightly-colored world obviously geared for the younger audiences and the raw effervescence gleefully strips off the grim thematic elements that distinguish its immediate predecessors.

Ponyo (voiced lovably by Yuria Nara), a fish with a young girl's face (making her look like a cuddly child in a pink overgrown Halloween costume), escapes away from her underwater home and her school of siblings to explore the surface. Stranded ashore, she is rescued by Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), a five-year old boy who, along with his mom Risa (Tomoko Yamaguchi), resides in a house on the nearby cliff. This initial encounter and, eventually, friendship, has a profound effect on Ponyo who now wishes to become human, but by becoming so inadvertently tips nature's balance and unleashes a maelstrom on land. With Sosuke's help, Ponyo must pass a test to lift this curse and completely become a human.

Despite the plot lacking the philosophical sophistication of, say, his most recent "Spirited Away," "Ponyo" is nothing short of an astounding follow-up, characterized by the extremely diligent attention to detail and masterful balancing of the real and the fantastic, and of the simple joys and great fears. It's a straightforward tale that, though at times stalled by its tendency to ramble like a toddler, keeps in tune with its youthful pedigree to magically enthrall. "I will protect you," Sosuke tells Ponyo matter-of-factly, a childlike assertion not unlike the manner in which Miyazaki endows his story with artful spirit. I have been reading a lot of different opinions and reviews of this movie, and I understand why a lot of people get mixed feelings about Ponyo, whether it be the story line, animation, dialogue, and so forth. And I believe the most simple way I can answer to this, is that it's a movie for a much, much younger age bracket. An age bracket much younger than that of Tonarino Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro).

Being a Miyazaki fan like the majority of the surfers on this site, I expected the wonderful animation, music composition, complex story telling, the great steady development of characters, how the story intertwines with today's society, etc etc etc of a typical Miyazaki film that we grew up with. And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite understand what the hell this story was supposed to be about or what the hell was going on until an hour and twenty minutes (with twenty minutes left in the movie), that this movie is NOT for the deep thinkers and hard core Ghibli-ists, but for the toddlers and youngins' and happy go lucky Japanese people. Also, I believe this movie is based on simplicity and creative animation; straight-up grass roots Ghibli Studios style.

The fact that a villain is not present really surprised me, other than the father and maybe that crazy-ass typhoon. But other than that, this movie is just plain fun; to stimulate a young one's mind, and to make happy good time feeling. That's all.

The animation goes back to the old-school mid-80s early-90s era of Miyazaki's films, where very specific detail wasn't a big focus, unlike Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke) and the latter. I admire the simplicity which kind of created some small nostalgia when I first watched Ghibli movies like Tonarino Totoro when I was a child. The reaction and movement of the children are all very similar to that of kids, and a lot of Studio Ghibli's body language is very noticeable. Studio Ghibli added some creative moments and sceneries that they can only do with it's wonderful animators, but it probably won't take the ritual Ghibli-ist in awe.

The Japanese dialogue also sounded very child friendly and a lot of scenes and dialogues are very, very relative from what Japanese kids and mothers would say and act. The music if very hoppy and "fluffy" I guess you could say (similar to Totoro) from beginning to end. Even the darker scenes didn't seem assertive.

In the end this movie is one of a kind. Just about every aspect of this movie is for children. And I waited a whole 80 mins to realize that. Quite frankly, I have never seen a movie told or shown it the way Miyazaki did. It's refreshing to see that Studio Ghibli can still tell a story for a wider, and much different scale of audience, and still keep that trademark Ghibli impression. For readers who have already seen one of Miyazaki's films: he is still in top form and made another worthwhile experience. Okay, you don't need to read any further now.

I already guess most readers are older than the two protagonists of this picture, so I should say Ponyo is not so much a family film as a chance to remember the feeling of being a small child: discovering the world as you wanted to see it, making up your own rules and boasting an exuberant enthusiasm at doing things on your own for the first time. Ponyo swerves away from many of the problems that all-age films tackle. It never condescends, all the characters have good genuine hearts and believable problems.

The two main characters may be two of the most believable children I ever saw put on screen. They are not simple minded, arrogant or naive, just curious, enthusiastic and learning the ways of the world. They are so easy to love, but even more easy to identify with. Many films regard children from the outside, as the adult looking into a world only a child could enter. Ponyo brings everyone back to that world. In Ponyo, there lies the first time to learn and choose what you care about most, which the film values with high esteem. It is worth it to remember, to feel it again. Hayao Miyazaki has captured the imagination of audiences young and old across the globe, and his most recent cinematic work of art is "Ponyo," a children's fairytale borrowing on story elements from The Little Mermaid. Of course like other Miyazaki classics such as "Spirited Away" and his last film, "Howl's Moving Castle," "Ponyo" is full of a creativity that can only be truly appreciated by adults, but this it is distinctly more a children's story than those recent efforts. It's a magical story best described as beautiful and lovable, aiming for charm instead of conflict.

"Ponyo" is the story of a bug-eyed childish-looking fish of the same name, the daughter of an undersea sorcerer, who longs to escape the sea and become a little girl. When she does, she quickly befriends a young boy named Sosuke. In the process she gains a strong magic and unknowingly throws the world out of balance between land and sea, and a giant storm drowns most of the cliff-top town where Sosuke lives with his mother, and it threatens to end the world.

Like "Howl's Moving Castle," Walt Disney picked up "Ponyo" for an American release and dubbed it over with an impressive selection of Western voices, even choosing homegrown products in the youngest siblings of Disney band the Jonas Brothers (Frankie Jonas) and Miley Cyrus (younger sister Noah) to voice Sosuke and Ponyo, respectively. Also voicing characters are Liam Neeson (Fujimoto, Ponyo's father), Tina Fey (Lisa, Sosuke's mother), Matt Damon (Sosuke's father), Cate Blanchett (Ponyo's sea goddess mother) and a trio of hilarious elderly women are played by Betty White, Cloris Leachman and Lily Tomlin. The effort is definitely there to make this film appeal to American audiences and Disney is getting close.

But voices are of little significance in a Miyazaki film, which is all about visual creativity. A fan of transformations and animating liquid and fluid motion, creating a fairytale taking place partly underwater must've been a joy for Miyazaki to work with and maybe even his entire motivation for choosing this story. Among the highlights are droplets of water that Fujimoto sends after Ponyo that move like living waves, as well as a variety of other magnificent sea creatures and breathtaking storm scenes make "Ponyo" as awing as any other Miyazaki film.

As a children's story, however, "Ponyo" concentrates its efforts on being adorable. The discovery of true friendship and love between Sosuke and Ponyo is heart-warming, even if Noah Cyrus shouting childishly when Ponyo excitedly embraces human life can get a bit annoying. But as delightful as many of the imaginative elements and loving relationships are, there's very little antagonism or danger. Past Miyazaki films have clear villains, but the conflict in "Ponyo" actually shrinks as the story goes along. Sosuke believes he's lost his mother at one point and in the background is the idea of the world going out of whack and that humans should be ashamed of polluting the sea, but "Ponyo" is mostly tension free. Most glaringly, its climax is uneventful despite how overall likable all the characters are.

"Ponyo" will surely satisfy Miyazaki's fans in every way with its imagination, and newcomers will still be smitten by his simple yet visually ambitious storytelling, but this is distinctly more of a children's movie, best for families and others who love fantasy regardless of its form or target audience. It's not quite what you'd expect from Miyazaki considering his recent work, but it's sure to be remembered as another of his beloved stories. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.

(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's "amazing" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)

Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.

That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the "star power" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was "of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!," a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the "cuteness" of the child characters.

And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, "Ponyo" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like "The Little Mermaid"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.

But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination.

Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.

In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will "remember him fondly." And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical "bad guy." Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a "bad person." All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters.

And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like.

In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family. My husband dragged me to this film as I had no interest in seeing some Anime cartoon. I was absolutely delighted by the simple story and amazing animation. In a digital world where effects are computer generated it was refreshing to see gorgeous, imaginative hand drawn animation. The world of Sosuke and Ponyo is a vivid fantasyland intermixed with minimal reality. I haven't seen animation like this since I was a child and it is wonderful to see it endure and succeed.

The actors supplying the voices in the English version were fabulous. The length of the movie was PERFECT, especially for children who tend to get squirrelly in films. Overall a delightful experience worth the very expensive ticket prices we have nowadays. Even from the very commencing title of this movie I really love the artwork and canvas layout of one of the national islands of Japan. We see some great rolling green hills and some oriental houses of a coastal town. Instantly we are looking at the Pacific beauty on the widescreen of the theater. And to prove how great this film is, I have to say that Charles Darwin would be proud. Teachers of evolution classes and school sciences such as biology would fantastically favor Hayao Miyazaki's brand new movie entitled "Ponyo". The title character, as you will see, may be the perfect animation icon of media to be represented in all classrooms and auditoriums alike.

Besides the scientific aspect of all this, let's dive into the blue waters of this exciting story. We have a skinny, old and powerful sorcerer named Fujimoto who lives in a submersible and is cynical of the urban expansion of mankind and their pollution of industrial waste. He wants to have complete control of the seas and the cute looking peaceful aquatic life including fish and organisms. Fujimoto, whose blood is composed to be half-human and half-amphibious, resembles both an ocean loving anti-hero and antagonist; similar to the James Bond villain Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me who operates an Atlantis-dubbed underwater city.

His daughter, whom he treats like an over-cared-for pet, is named Ponyo. She is a large goldfish who already looks like a pretty red-haired girl. The father bans her from the real human world, claiming it to be dangerous and too much for her to handle. But quite frankly, Ponyo's exploratory curiosity is as strong as her amorous nature. Eventually with building strength, similar to wonderful scenes from Nick Park's "Chicken Run", she breaks free of her father's rocky and fossilized aquatic city and swims to the water surface of Japan, and to her luck and joy, falls into the caring hands of a youngster ship tanker captain named Sosuke.

Living in an ocean front house at a neat looking beach (or boulder filled beach), Sosuke has two overworking parents, a senior home working mother Lisa and the first mate of a tanker barge Koichi. Lisa seems to be angry at her spouse for being away on a ship and leaving her with all the housework. Even more so, the black magic that is exerted by Ponyo causes an apocalyptic chain of events to occur: the moon approaches the Earth too closely and waves surge from the unbalancing of the tidal interaction forces, and humongous tsunami waves rack the peaceful but evacuated town. However what seems to underestimate this curse and seems literally more powerful than supernatural might is the love and tightly embraced friendship between the childish Captain Sosuke and the adorable red-headed Ponyo, who wants to be a sensitive human than just a preserved fish. Much like the frizzly haired and free-spirited hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, Ponyo grants me a slight reminder of that.

I could write on and on about this amazing animated film, the best since "Coraline" which was in theaters in February. And right now, Hayao Miyazaki, feast your eyes on another 10 star grade from your animation fan, Graham Abraham. The year 2009 may be filled with dozens of animated films; however, Ponyo is the most towering film of many environmental beauties and should be dedicated as a new wonder of the world. Ponyo, written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is a little tale that speaks of respect for the ocean, respect for humans young and old, and respect for cultural differences. It is a new tale of a little goldfish wishing to be a girl, rather than a retelling of Disney's Little Mermaid. Miyazaki has animated by hand, a whimsical, magical film for the young and the young-at- heart. The film begins with a slow undulating blue-green palette of sea anemones, jellyfish, and scores of little fanciful goldfish with childlike faces. There isn't any need for narrative, the motion of the creatures and the music of Jo Hisaiahi tell the beginning. Released last summer in Japan, Ponyo won the Japanese Academy's award for Best Animation Film and Best Score (Jezebel.com). The fanciful little goldfish, Brunhild, leaves her ocean home on a jellyfish. Upon reaching the surface she is caught up in a fishing net full of other fish, garbage, and sludge. She is propelled into a jar, which is rolled to shore where five-year-old Sosuke (voice by Frankie Jonas) retrieves it. He cuts his hand when breaking the jar open to free the little goldfish. Brunhild tastes his blood, which heals Sosuke's cut, and puts in motion her transformation to a human, at the same time throwing nature out of balance. Sosuke puts the little goldfish in a green pail and names her Ponyo (Noah Cyrus), meaning soft and jelly like. Sosuke's mother, Lisa (Tina Fey), lets him take Ponyo to school, which is right next door to the nursing home where she works. Lisa's crazy driving down the picturesque winding road, past a dry dock, through the bustling fishing town, and up a tree-lined road to the nursing home is representative of Miyazaki's wonderful sequence of action and illustrates perfectly a parent's hectic morning. Miyazaki has created another strong, independent, female character in Lisa. Making her a loving, sensible, modern mother both to Sosuke and Ponyo. Lisa's telephone conversation with the not-coming-home-again husband, Kiochi (Matt Damon) because the ship he captains must make another run, is a typical wife's reaction. Later that evening Sosuke intercedes using a signal lamp to speak to his father as the ship passes the cliff their house sits on. Lisa refuses to acknowledge Kiochi's apology and jumps up and signals "Bug-off, Bug-off, Bug-off," it is a hilarious scene. But, when Sosuke takes the signal lamp and tells his dad "Good Luck, Love You," Lisa hugs him and tells him he has a good heart, it is a very poignant scene.

My personal favorites are Miyazaki's elderly, granny-type women in wheelchairs at the nursing home, Yochi (Betty White), Noriko (Cloris Leachman) and Toki (Lily Tomlin). Their interchange over Sosuke's little goldfish is wonderful and reminiscent of the bickering between the Witch of the Waste (Lauren Bacall) and Sophie (Jean Simmons) as they trudge up a long flight of stairs in Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo's magical sea-god father, Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) resembling the wizard Howl arrives to take Ponyo back to her ocean home. Fujimoto uses one of his elixirs to try and put nature back in balance, but magical little Ponyo escapes again upsetting more elixir in the process, and causing a tsunami. Running on the backs of giant dolphins to get to Sosuke, this redheaded, little girl reminds the audience of the stubborn, adventurous little Mei in My Neighbor Totoro. Ponyo is just as adventurous and curious as Mei. When Fujimoto realizes what Ponyo has done he calls for Gran Mamare (Kate Blanchett), the Goddess of the ocean, to help with the situation. This wise, calming Goddess arrives in a blue flowing garment that never ends. She has a private talk with Lisa discussing the future of the young children, which helps the audience understand Sosuke and Ponyo's relationship is not that of lovers, but of brother and sister. The life-goes-on quiet simple ending is typical of Miyazaki films leaving the audience full of hope. My first exposure to Japanese animation director Hayao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli production company was when an English-dubbed version of Spirited Away was released about 7 years ago. What a wonderfully creative and unique film experience that was! So on that note, I managed to get my movie theatre-employed friend to see this new film of Miyazaki with me especially since he loves all things Disney (this movie's U.S. distributor). Once again, all I can say is "Wow!" What awesome visuals concerning the way water is depicted as the ocean...and what about the title character's transformation from a goldfish to...and seeing how some characters' demeanor changes...and, well, watch this movie if you want to know what I'm talking about. Oh, and the voices being used for this American-dubbed version: Tina Fey, Betty White, Liam Neeson, Cloris Leachman, and Lily Tomlin. Good choices all. Does everything make sense? No, but that's part of the childlike charm that permeates throughout. There's plenty of funny scenes concerning Ponyo and the boy and many other people they encounter. Oh, I think I've written too much so I'll just highly recommend Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo. It's rare for a film to sweep you away within its world and leave you wanting more once the credits roll. Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is such a film.

The film is the story of a young goldfish named Ponyo who wishes to become human. She swims to shore and is found by a young boy named Sasuke who promises to take care of her. Course Ponyo's father, an ecologically obsessed sorcerer named Fujimoto, tries to keep Ponyo from becoming human in order to maintain the balance of nature, which is eventually upturned when Ponyo finally transforms into a little girl, causing a massive typhoon.

Ponyo is a very rich film. It is full of wondrous fantasy, lovable characters, and genuine heart. What director Hayao Miyazaki has done here is tell a simple little story, and while so doing creating authentic movie magic.

Ponyo is an enchanting experience. The love between Sasuke and Ponyo is very pure and true. As well the environmentalist within Miyazaki is still as evident within this film as in all his previous works. Miyazaki shows the filth and grime that fall into the ocean in an almost startling light, not to mention Ponyo's father is on an obsessive mission to clean the world's oceans. While the story is simple, Miyazaki manages to add this extra layer to provoke thought with expert proficiency.

The film is a beautiful work of art, each hand drawn cell looks like a wondrous pastel painting. The film looks very different than many other Studio Ghibli productions, but the artistry is still just as spectacular as ever before. The scenes underwater are simply beautiful to watch, Fujimoto's fortress under the sea is highly inventive, and the sequence where Ponyo runs across the jumping fish within the typhoon to reach Sosuke is iconic.

Course it is thanks to its wonderfully executed characters that makes this film such a memorable experience. Sosuke is a young boy who acts older than he actually is, and the energetic Ponyo is a laugh a minute. Every character is just so enjoyable and highly memorable.

Overall Ponyo is a wondrous experience, enchanting in every single way. While the film may be sold as a children's fairy tale, I believe many adults will be swept away within its fantastic world along with their children. While the film may lack the density of some of Miyazaki's previous works, here he keeps it pure and simple, being true to himself, delivering a film that is funny, heartwarming, and entertaining all in one. This is a magnificent film.

I give Ponyo a perfect 10 out of 10! Gake no Ue no Ponyo is a beautifully animated film and a relief from the many heartless soulless CGI movies being made. The pastel and color pencil backgrounds were a surprise after Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi(Spirited Away) and Hauru no Ugoku Shiro(Howl's Moving Castle) being so similar stylistically. The style worked well for the film and was done exceptionally well. The time and effort put in to animate this is greatly appreciated as it gives the characters so much more life, the detail and care it takes makes the movie turn out so much better. There are several great scenes throughout the movie that have lots of movement and action. The greatest to me being a scene were Ponyo's sisters transform into massive wave like fish while she runs on top of them. The story is simple but fairly well written and played out. The plot stayed focused around character relationships and while it wasn't played out as well as in Tonari no Totoro(My Neighbor Totoro) it is still great. I felt that each character had the an appropriate amount of screen time unlike Spirited Away which was so jammed with distinctive characters that it could have been stretched out into an entire series.(The Radish Spirit. There was a another whole movie right there!) My only real problem with the movie was the end. The way its worded in the English version at least makes it seem like there's going to be some great test given to Sōsuke which turns out to be just him promising Ponyos mother that he will love Ponyo. Though putting more thought into this leads me to think that translation may not be that accurate to the actual meaning in that the test is the promise and that deep down he really means it. The movie did seem to end abruptly though. Other than that the movie was great and I highly recommend it. Obviously, Ponyo can be seen as just not another stupid animated movie that a studio might put out to simply survive. It is far from it, and it can be easily described as a captivating, beautiful movie experience.

Miyazaki has indeed another masterpiece. Now, to many, this has been said to be the least of his achievements in film-making, due to in part of his "certain weirdness factor" not being there. That is true-the morals and insights that are not quite so evident in his previous films are very up front in this picture. Ponyo is not too difficult to understand or comprehend. His idea, I believe, was to make a children's movie that was just as suitable for adults as their kids, and for it not to be too complicated. He accomplished this perfectly, and he also didn't lose any substance along the way, which is the reason it gets a 10.

Besides that, the film itself is so engrossing from the start, and the way its presented is so beautiful, it left me in awe at times because I remembered how they were all hand-drawn by Miyazaki himself. I haven't been so enlightened and happy after seeing a film since I saw Once a while back (another film not to be missed). Everything about Ponyo was absolutely stunning and breathtaking; even the music for it was pure perfection. The only bad thing I have to say about it was its English dubbing. Don't get me wrong, they were good, too, but I had seen Ponyo about 2 weeks before it came out nationally, and I believed that, in some parts, I wish it had kept some of its Japanese dialogue (not all of it, though; did enjoy the "English way" too). All in all, everyone should see Ponyo; it's absolutely flawless and in another league of film-making altogether. Finally, and don't hold me to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ponyo got a Best Picture nomination, as there are now 10 films that can be nominated for it. It's just that good. Miyazaki has been doing his mojo since the 70s and it's only been recently that his movies have made it American shores via Disney and fans fawning over his great talent. Ponyo is no exception. Although some of his other movies have been a bit more accessible to US audiences, some may find this one a bit on the fence being sort-of "Japanese" in its presentation. For the same reason Pom Poko is VERY "Japanese" and doesn't make much sense to US audiences, so too are *some* elements of Ponyo. This should not detract you from watching this fun film of growth, hope, and friendship.

What does come across well is Miyazaki's very elaborate and magical animation and story that has elements of wonder and fantasy. That coupled with his characteristic use of character development and often using girls and women as main characters. He steps out of his zone a bit with Ponyo as the main character is a little boy who lives in a small village by the sea with his mom while his dad is away at work on the high seas. Although not lonely, Sosuke is just like any other curious boy who likes adventure and allure of the sea. Similar to Spirited Away, we see the different worlds of the humans and the sea creatures and I feel that Miyazaki may be trying to draw the viewers attention to the vast and undiscovered nature of things that live beneath the sea and our acceptance of them and thing that are different.

I managed to watch the subtitled version of this last year and was pleased by the story and plot. Miyazaki has claimed that "this is my last movie" for many years but shortly after Spirited Away, he gave us Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo is certainly proof that Miyazaki has not hung up his spurs and continues to delight, innovate, and pioneer the most creative animated movies of all time. Watch Ponyo with an open mind and a tip of the hat to childhood fantasy and imagination and you'll be transported back to when catching Fireflies and secret hiding places were more important than boring grown-up stuff and eating your vegetables. Rendered in beautiful water colors, Ponyo At The Cliff is definitely a sight to behold, vaguely remembering the trailer, witch i didn't find that impressive, i was surprised at how beautiful and detailed it was. This film just washed over me with its purity.

At the center is a young boy that comes into contact with a sea creature, and its their relationship that carries the movie. Miyazaki is a master both at creating memorable imagery and showing young ones interacting in a believable way with their little quirks intact.

There are a few parts that didn't sit well with me. It would be an understatement to say that the music during a particular scene "resembled" Ride Of The Valkyrians, its a shame because such a precious film as this cant afford to take liberties and it hurt a otherwise truly great scene. The antagonist and its back-story never interested me either, but i guess it served more as a background then anything else.

Anyway, great film. The boat trip scenario with all its imagery and sea-creatures stood out me thinks. Pure and magical. And yes, handrawn artwork is more intimate then computer animated, I'm really pumped for Princes And The Frog now. I absolutely, positively loved the movie. I just saw it and can't wait for it to come out on DVD. It is a beautifully, well-drawn masterpiece. I am always amazed with the intricately drawn work of Ghibli studios.

Others have commented on Sosuke calling Risa by her first name. He never calls his Father by his first name unless he is speaking about him to someone else. I didn't get the impression that Risa was his mother. It was never even mentioned or implied by anyone. It is quite obvious that she is his step-mother. That is why he makes her promise to come home and why he gets so upset when he finds her empty car. His mother must have died when he was an infant because he mentions being nursed by Risa. This coupled with his father being out to sea a lot is why he has abandonment issues. Everyone also talks about how mature he is. This usually occurs when a child loses a parent. Okay, if this film had been made much later in the history of cinema, it wouldn't be particularly worthwhile. However, in 1898, films were in their infancy and they were almost all rather dull and had no real story to tell--instead just showing normal everyday folks doing everyday activities. If seen today, almost all of them are hopelessly dull and very, very short--often less than one minute long! And so in light of this, this short clip of a movie is pretty swell stuff and might just make you laugh. Two guys, a miller and a chimney sweep bump into each other--falling and throwing flour and coal dust all over each other as they tussle. THAT'S ALL--the film is over before you know it. A fine ironic visual gag takes place in front of the spectacular backdrop of a twirling windmill. But who are those people who rush across screen at the end: customers? relatives? One of the earliest enigmas in cinematic history perhaps. Well worth a minute of your time. THis is a bewildering, Absurdist Short. A miller, dressed in white, makes his way towards us from a windmill in a desolate landscape. Although the image is pared down, there is an obvious logic here. However, he is stopped by the sweep, all in black because of his work. They start pummelling each other for no particular reason - did the snooty miller insult the sooty sweep? Is this class war?

Whatever, he pelts his adversary with bags of grain which fly all over the fight, making redundant everything he had done prior to the fight, making redundant the windmill, so that all becomes as pointless as the fight. The miller's grain whitens the sweep's blackness - later Westerns wouldn't be so subtle, heroes and villains being colour-coded. Is there a racial tint here?

If this wasn't marvellous enough, the fighters are chased off the screen by a crowd of people who came from nowhere, an appropriately Kafkaesque ending to an odd story (or are they just the social conscience rising up against a fight that negates order and purpose?), and very unusual in the days of early silent cinema. This mix of comedy, surrealism, and the Absurd is an obvious forerunner for BUster Keaton, while the windmill reminds us of one of the great thrillers, Hitchcock's 'Foreign Correspondant'. The answer.....No, sadly not. Though miller and the sweep has to be hailed as a most whimsical cinematic treat.The drama, suspense,romance and the unidentified crowd at the end all add to the films complex storyline which must have been too much for the audiences of 1898. A enlightening experience, one for all the family! The phenomenon Helge Schneider defies easy description or quick categorization. Yet, for the international audience not acquainted to him, one could say he's something like a crude mix of Weird Al Yankovich and Andy Kaufman, adding a foible for Jazz music and 70s outfits. While his stage performances already are eccentric, his movie works are simply hilariously outrageous.

"00 Schneider" is, in my opinion, Helge's best movie. He stars in the two leading roles - police detective "Kommissar 00 Schneider" and murderer-villain "Nihil Baxter", and also in a precious smaller role as physician "Dr. Hasenbein".

In the opening scene, we see how modern-art-loving Baxter accidentally kills the circus clown Bratislav Metulskie, from whom he has bought a malfunctioning used Jaguar, when a beloved sculpture slips out of Baxter's hands, fatally hitting Metulskie. Upon reading about the incident in the newspaper, 00 comes back from retirement to investigate the case with the support of his loyal sidekick, Lt. Koerschgen, who is played by an elderly actor bearing the same name. They pick up Baxter's track quickly, and interrogate him at his weirdly decorated mansion (one of the movie's best scenes!), but initially fail to gather any proof. The story winds through many turns, with several scenes that don't always really contribute to the progress of the plot but are hilariously funny, such as a daydream by 00 (including the most unusual view on a running man's brief-clad crotch in movie history), a police-department party during which Koerschgen gets into a row with the chief and has to be hospitalized, and a visit at the already mentioned Dr. Hasenbein's. Baxter, then, is finally caught attempting to escape to Rio de Janeiro on a plane.

Always worth special mention is Andreas Kunze who in this case plays 00's wife, as he's usually appearing in drag performing women's roles in Helge's Movies.

So all you folks out there looking for new laughs, I strongly recommend this movie. The catch? You have to understand German (as I doubt there's an English version around)... Helges best movie by far. Very funny, very surrealistic. If Bunuel made a movie starring Buster Keaton as Krusty the Clown it would look like this.

Brilliant performances by the cast we already know from other Schneider movies, especially Helmut Körschgen as the sidekick of 00Schneider. (Andreas Kunze who once more plays the wife in this one is a bit annoying though). And of course Helge himself as Nihil Baxter is absolutely incredible.

P.S: if this movie had a proper merchandising i would really like to buy a replica of that "Holz ist" painting. i consider this movie as one of the most interesting and funny movies of all time. It has so much highly intelligent thoughts in it, that anybody who thinks the movie is awful did not get it and is not able to recognize really deep philosophical themes, which are in it (in all the 3 Schneider movies) without a doubt. Several universities in germany and throughout europe have made studies on Schneider's way of seeing things. By the way, Helge Schneider is a very intelligent and sensitive person and on of the Jazz-musicions in germany (maybe europe). He is mostly inspired by the great M.Davis and T.Monk. So if you do not like him, it is ok, but please do not try to convince others that he might be stupid, cheap, boring or not funny. Because if you had to face this opinion in a discussion and if you are willing to really look into the art of H.Schneider you would have to "surrender". I'm impressed that 'Hail the Woman' was made at all; released just one year after American women got the vote, this turgid drama makes an earnest plea against the sexual double standard which judges women's sexual behaviour more harshly than men's.

SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD. A prologue, set in the Plymouth colony in 1621, shows a Pilgrim girl sentenced to the ducking stool for flirting with a boy; the boy is not penalised. Now we come to Flint Hill, New Hampshire in the present (1921). Oliver Beresford (Theodore Roberts) is a bombastic bible-thumper: what we call in Britain and Australia 'a God-botherer'. Beresford is determined that his son David (Lloyd Hughes) become a preacher, regardless of how David feels about it. As for Beresford's daughter Judith ... well, Beresford is confident that women aren't important enough to be anything more than wives and mothers. Apparently, God told him this personally.

David's evangelical career is compromised when he impregnates Nan Higgins, the stepdaughter of the local odd-jobs man. (Tully Marshall's character is identified in the credits solely as the 'Odd Jobs Man', but a close-up of a cheque reveals his name to be Jake Higgins. The prejudices of 1921 require that he be merely Nan's stepfather, not her biological parent.) To save his son from scandal, Beresford buys off Nan's stepfather with a cheque. Nan goes off to the big city, to melt into oblivion as one more unwed mother.

Judith is naturally dismayed by the limitations imposed upon her by her gender. (Or rather, by other people's perceptions of it.) She meets Wyndham Gray (excellent performance by Edward Martindel), an author who encourages her to transcend sexist stereotypes. But Judith is informally engaged to local lout Joe Hurd, who won't put up with such nonsense. Hurd is played by Vernon Dent, a burly performer now remembered solely for comedy roles (as a second banana to Harry Langdon, and as a villain in Three Stooges movies). He gives an excellent performance here, in a role outside his usual range. Sadly, in real life Dent spent his final years in poverty and total blindness due to diabetic retinopathy.

Eventually, Judith ends up working at an orphanage. This being 1921, I expected the orphanage to be whites-only, so I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to include one Chinese boy. (And unpleasantly surprised when he's used as the butt for a racial joke.) The movie makes one odd error here. In a Christmas sequence, we see the orphanage mistress reciting 'A Visit from Saint Nicholas' ... but (in a dialogue title) she credits Santa Claus with SIX reindeer rather than eight. This is followed by a brief animation sequence, showing Santa with six reindeer hitched to his sleigh. I assume that the animators (either by accident, or to save money) left out two reindeer, and the title card revised the poem to match the error.

Lloyd Hughes was generally a bland and unimpressive actor. His most famous performance is his role in 'The Lost World', where he's easily upstaged by a rampaging brontosaurus. For his climactic scene in 'Hail the Woman', Hughes gives a memorable performance as he finally rebels against his father's tyranny. In his performance as the gospel-shouting father, Theodore Roberts has been accused of overacting to the point of making his role a caricature. I disagree: sadly, decades after this film was made, I continue to encounter 'holy' fools exactly like this man ... willing to destroy the lives of everyone around them, and firmly convinced they have God's authority to do so.

In the central role of Judith Beresford, Florence Vidor gives a sensitive, realistic and intelligent performance. I normally dislike Vidor, who tended to be cast in glamour roles but wasn't pretty enough to justify them. Here, her character's physical appearance is less relevant than usual.

This entire film is impressively directed by John Griffith Wray, a director who deserves to be much better known. Sadly, Wray died at the onset of the talkies era, in his mid-thirties: had he lived another ten years, he would surely have helmed several early sound classics. In 'Hail the Woman' there are several extremely beautiful screen compositions: I was especially impressed by a scene in the New England forest, when Vidor and Dent have a quarrel in front of an enormous uprooted tree. (I wonder where this was actually filmed.) 'Hail the Woman' deals with unpleasant subject matter, but it deserves to be much better known, and I'll rate this ambitious drama 9 out of 10. "Hail The Woman" is one of the most moving films I have ever seen in my entire life. I watched it twice in a row and sobbed my eyes out.

This silent film masterpiece deserves a much wider viewing audience; unfortunately the sole surviving print is so badly scratched that most people won't watch it all the way through, and they will miss the gem shining underneath the rough. This film could use a digital restoration, to help bring out its beauty, but I doubt it will get it from anyone, since its main theme is Spiritual restoration before Christ of the family unit, and this is not politically correct these days. However it remains a powerful theme for those whose hearts are hurting from the pain of broken family relationships.

The cast is magnificent, especially Florence Vidor, who literally glows as Judith, the daughter; ethereal Madge Bellamy as Nan, the poor girl who gets pregnant and is cast aside; Theodore Roberts as the crotchety old domineering father who destroys everyone around him through pride; and handsome Lloyd Hughes, as the son David, afraid of his father, but really of life itself.

This is a nice film to watch at Christmas, especially. You will not regret being patient and viewing it in its entirety despite its deterioration. Vidor shines as Judith, the only truly strong and compassionate member of a strictly patriarchal family. Her brother, David, is so downtrodden by their father that it's a surprise he's able even to tie his shoes, rather than asking Dad to do it for him.

Other reviewers have already outlined the plot, so I won't rehash it; I will, however, point out that Nan, who is pregnant by David, is also married to him. This is not an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which would have been horrific by 1921 standards. The two are secretly married, but Nan's father, having been paid by David's father, tears up their marriage certificate.

Nan's death scene, with Judith in attendance, is a truly heart-rending experience, and highly charged with emotion. This scene alone is worth watching the movie for, but there's far more to the plot than that; why on earth aren't modern movies made with the same attention to the story? Florence Vidor stars as the daughter of a strict bible toting father who throws her out of the house when gossip taints her name. In the big city, she finds the dying wife of her own brother (the two had secretly married) and raises their child on her own. Years later, she goes back home to confront her family.

This old melodrama is heavily larded with fascinating feminist themes (circa 1921, but sounding remarkably modern). Some of it is laid on with a trowel (as the father, Theodore Roberts gives his eyebrows a real workout), but it's well put together dramatically and lovingly composed and shot by cinematographer Henry Sharp. As a veteran screen writing instructor at Richland College in Dallas and a former MGM screenwriter back in the days of decent films, I am thrilled to have accidentally clicked on Channel 33 in Dallas tonight and watched this enchanting film in which Betty White is GORGEOUS and makes one yearn for the good old days of truly good movies before Hollywood started banging out all this crap for the teenagers. If a producer is listening, I'd like to state that there are enough of us over 60's who will happily pay a buck to see a movie that has no guns, no killing, no special effects, no sex and violence and just a good touching tale of human relationships that leaves you with a good warm feeling, as this film did for me. This is one of my favorites. Betty White and Leslie Neilson sparkle in this romantic comedy. One is a business executive who re-evaluates life based on the expectation of her death within a year. The other is a playboy who has tired of gold-digging young women and seeks a relationship with a vital, mature woman. If you've got silver in your hair and/or romance in your heart, microwave the popcorn, curl up with your honey, and prepare yourself for a treat. Most of the comments so far have nailed this one right on the head. Viewers under "a certain age" and with IQ's of three digits should avoid "Chance of a Lifetime" like a George W.Bush appointee facing a Congressional grilling.

The cast is composed largely of veterans who know their way around a well-written script. Is the premise wildly original? No, but the movie stands out like a lighthouse at midnight in the current and non-ending glut of movies/TV geared to the most-desirable audience demographic of teenagers and "young adults"

In addition to Betty White and Leslie Neilsen in the leads, the cast also has ever-reliable veterans like Elaine Stritch and William Windom. The sharp dialog is effortlessly and effectively delivered by these pros.

"Chance of a Lifetime" is definitely not a movie for the Will Ferrell/Adam Sandler/"Saw" slasher gore-fests, "American Eye Dull," and ninety percent of the rest of the sludge ground out by Hollywood and TV. A terrific comedy-drama about the powers of friendship. Despite it's a remake of a 1939 film of the same title, it would probably be compared to Sex And The City. I would not compare to it totally. The story starts with Mary(Meg Ryan) who seems to the life most women would envy, she's happily married, has a good daughter, great friends, and a great home. But Marys perfect life isn't what it seems, when she discovers her husband is cheating on her with Crystal(Eve Mendes) from Zach's. Mary is puzzled and doesn't know what to do. But her four good friends, Sylvia(Annette Bening), Edie(Debra Messing), and Alex(Jada Pickett Smith) try to be there for her in anyway they can. I really don't want to give anymore away. But I found this enjoyable, and I'm a man. Meg Ryan is great, it is nice to see her in on the screen again, after a series of flops. And the rest of the cast are also great including Eve Mendes as Crystal. Just an enjoyable lighthearted comedy. I am a 58 year old man.On a rainy afternoon my wife suggested that we go see The Women. After reading the reviews I thought it might lead to an afternoon nap. Wrong- this movie held my interest from start to finish. It was great to finally see Meg Ryan looking super again. Let's face it Meg looks much better with long hair. Annette Benning looked different to me in every scene she was in. Candice Bergen is showing her age as is Carrie Fisher. The daughter, Molly, was exceptionally acted by young India.I was able to understand the dialog which is tough in many current films due to rapid speech. Cloris Leachman and the woman from Finland were terrific as the housekeepers who extend their regular duties. The NYC scenes were nice to see. Oh, and Bette Midler had a short role but as usual was terrific. So I gave this chick flick a 9. Guys- Go see this even just for the eye candy like Eva Mendes. It won't disappoint. The people who don't like this movie seem to have some academic vendetta against it -- those of us who don't hold the original can totally enjoy it.

My husband who had never seen the original said "I don't want to see a girly movie." I assured him that "the women" is just a great movie, not a girl movie. He had a great time. He was very glad to have gone and enjoyed it more than the "boy" movie we saw the day before "burn after reading."

SPOILER: I even think the new ending is better. Maybe not quite as fun, but it was beautiful. At first I couldn't understand why they had made certain changes to the plot

but when I got the end and Debra Messing gives birth and brings the first male into the movie, I cried. That's one thing to love about men – they are our sons. Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a rich woman discovers her husband is cheating on her with a younger woman (Eva Mendes). She doesn't know what to do and friends Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing) and Alex Fisher (Jad Pinkett Smith) try to help.

OK--there was no reason to redo the 1939 movie. That's a true classic and doesn't need to be updated and redone. Naturally it WAS done. This has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for a motion picture. I love the original and have seen it MANY times--I was constantly comparing it to that. Now this isn't a classic but it's not that bad.

**MINOR SPOILERS!!!** First the bad--the story is old and was (badly) updated. Really--a man cheating on his wife is hardly shocking today. Meg Ryan (a wonderful actress) is pretty terrible here. Her face seems unable to change expression! I couldn't believe how bad some of her scenes came over. Eva Mendes is bad too--but it's not entirely her fault. Her role is badly written and she has to compete with Joan Crawford from the original. Smith's character (a tough lesbian) goes to pieces in an operating room. It IS funny...but it's showing that a strong woman instantly goes to pieces when confronting an emergency. Also the script inserts some clumsy passages where Ryan talks to her daughter about being yourself. In those moments it seems more like a Lifetime movie than anything else.

Now the good--this movie retains the originals' decision to NEVER show a man on screen. This movie is about and for women--men aren't needed (BTW--I'm a man). Bening is just great as Fowler--whenever she's on screen the movie makes a great leap. Also Smith is just wonderful--she doesn't overplay (or underplay) her lesbian character too much. Messing is good too but she's not in this much. Bette Midler is just hysterical in a small role and Cloris Leachman pulls off the nothing role of a housekeeper. The direction is good too--especially during a fashion show sequence. I heard director Diane English purportedly had a lot of trouble directing her first full-length movie but it doesn't show in the final product. Also there are some clever references to the original (mostly certain lines) that were inserted with no fuss.

I saw this in an audience full of women (there were a few guys but not many) and they loved it. The movie ends on an operating room sequence that had everybody howling. So--this wasn't needed but it's not the disaster people are saying it is. Also--people are saying we don't need a movie with all women. Well--why not? I see plenty of movies with all guys in the cast and no one complains about that! Ignore the complaints and bad reviews and see this. With a better performance by Ryan I might have given this an 8 or 9 but, as it is, I can only give it a 7. I will freely admit that I haven't seen the original movie, but I've read the play, so I've some background with the "original." If you shuck off the fact that this is a remake of an old classic, this movie is smart, witty, fresh, and hilarious. Yes, the casting decisions may seem strange, but they WORK.

I'm a staunch feminist, and I wasn't offended in the slightest by this movie--despite what other women might be saying. This is NOT a movie for men to see (so please, ladies, don't drag your guys to see it with you, that's just cruel); women will get the jokes, the situations, and the relationships.

I was pleasantly surprised by the depth that Annette Bening brought to her character...she did an excellent job. Debra Messing was adorable, and Candice Bergen was fantastic. I was less impressed by Meg Ryan...she brought emotion to the table, but her comedic take on it was less strong. The all-female cast is strong, and it definitely a laugh-out-loud sort of comedy. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and fully intend to go see it again with my mother. Women will understand. Yes, this film is another remake. Yes, this film can be considered a chick-flick. And yes, this film is not perfect. The Women is however a clever modern update on the social behaviors of all women, with an impressive cast of A-listers including Meg Ryan, Debra Messing, Annette Benning and Bette Midler.

The film revolves around four main characters, Mary (Ryan), her best friend, editor-in-chief, Sylvie (Benning), Alex (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Edie (Debra Messing) and the out-of-this-world female creature who is responsible for most of the film's drama,named Crystal (Eva Mendez). Mary is trying to deal with her cheating husband (who's never actually seen in the film), by following the advice of both her friends and her mother (Candice Bergen).

Aside from Mary, there's Sylvie who's torn between her social life and her professional life. She has decisions to make that test her moral and ethic values. Then there's writer Alex who's a lesbian, with a lot of spunk, but knows her way with words. And finally Edie with four girls and another baby on the way, who loves children and has a heart of gold, with a hidden secret revealed at the end.

Together the women live for revenge, rely on each other, and give each other life lessons. But it's the cameos by Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Cloris Leachman, Carrie Fisher, and Debi Mazar, that show the cruel and usual behavior of women. Bergen plays Ryan's mother, she's tough, silver-tongued, experienced, and yet feels she could have become what her daughter does later. There's Fisher who shows how to blackmail and test the boundaries of selfishness, morals, and betrayal. Mazar, the gossip girl, that shows no mercy for what she says and whom she says it to. Leachman who plays Ryan's sassy housekeeper, she knows her place, when and where she's needed, and how to deliver a good one-liner. Finally there's MIdler, who plays Leah Miller, a crazy eclectic but wise Hollywood agent. She's the one character who gives Ryan's Mary an epiphany on who she truly is by discovering "what do I want." Despite Midler's scene stealing performance and memorable quotes, she was underused.

But back to the film, together the women show the audience what it means to live in the 21st century without knowing exactly what you want until the time comes when you answer that very own question. It tackles feminism, what it means to be a woman (fierce, ruthless, bad-ass, tacky, smart, sly, clever, shy, proud, ashame, self-conscious, careless, beautiful, strong, independent); and also what it is that women want, why are women the way they are. It's funny, modern and by all means not a masterpiece. But the Bottom line is, it's worth the money and time to see veteran and younger actresses teach us all about women. The Women is a cute movie about women at all ages (but mostly 30+) and their issues in life. Not just men and infidelity, but also about relationships with friends & family, making time to connect with others, problems with image, compromising your values, accomplishments in life, and finding what will really make you happy.

It's also about being true to yourself. A lot of times, people will give you advice but not really follow it themselves. Sometimes they have created a delusion for themselves, and should you really follow in that same path or react based on your feelings now? I really liked this movie. Granted, it was trying a bit to be like Sex & the City at times, but that probably helped me like it. The difference here is it's kind of like the discoveries after the stage in life that the Sex & the City stars were in -- here, most are married or past the point of trying to find a man. Now, they are trying to find happiness in their marriages and lives.

Obviously it's not an Oscar contender, but it is entertaining and serves its purpose.

And for the men out there, there were an equal share of men and women in the movie theater (most were with their wives/girlfriends), and the men were in fact laughing. :) My sisters and my cousin(female) forced me to see this chick movie. Its not the kind of movie I would prefer to see, but it really wasn't that bad. I wouldn't want to see this movie, but after watching it I couldn't say it was bad, just not my kind of film. It was very accurate in acting out what woman really talk about and do in certain situations. As a guy, I wasn't TOO amused by the jokes, but man the women sure were. They related to the movie and yeah it was funny to see themselves on the big screen. "OH EM GEE I DO THAT TO HAHA" I've never seen the original, nor would I care to. If you are a girl, this is a must see, but maybe girls would say this movie sucked, probably. I don't see a 13 year old going, "Wow I remember going threw that when I was 30."

No man would have this in there collection, but I can't say it was horrible, so meh. This movie was funny from START to FINISH. Everyone in the cinema was laughing out loud throughout the film!! The best characters were Alex Fisher (Jada Pinkett), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing, the girl from Will and Grace) and Tanya the manicurist (Debi Mazar). They had the best lines, the best attitudes etc. Jada Pinkett playing a lesbian was really funny, she really played it well and was very convincing. The only bad thing about the film was the fact that the other two main characters weren't as funny even though the movie focused around them........ All in all, this is a great movie to go and see with your girls (yes guys, it's a girlie movie through and through!). Enjoy!!! I had my son for the weekend and my parent's called me up and said that they wanted the two of us to meet them at the movies. When I got there, my mom said that she really wanted to see "The Women" and asked if my son and I minded due to it being labeled as a chick flick. I reluctantly agreed thinking this was going to be another "First Wives Club" type movie. I gotta say that I was very surprised to find myself really enjoying the movie from the opening scene to the credits. It was a great production and the cast was perfect in their roles. My son and I found ourselves laughing through entire movie and we are glad that we saw it. It made for a great Saturday afternoon movie and I highly recommend it to anyone, man or woman. The lament and almost unbearable melancholy of Amalia Rodriques' music goes to a place in the soul that only music can stir. In her voice and magical presence, lies the exquisite agony of the Fado, an art form of which I was unaware until seeing this film.

For me, the success of this beautifully and lovingly crafted documentary lies in the fact that the filmmaker resists the temptation to editorialize and simply allows us to share in the magnetism and elegant passion of this icon. There seems to be an inevitable corrolation between the Portuguese Fado and American Blues.

Documentary filmmaking at its best, transports us to a previously unknown reality. and having been allowed this glimpse, we are transformed.

Abrigado, Sr.de Almeida Reading some of the other comments, I must agree that some of the (very few) shortcomings found in this brilliant documentary about one of the 20th century's divas (up there with Billie Holliday, Bessie Smith, Edith Piaf, Judy Garland and Mercedes de Sosa) are justified. Because initially this was a 6-hours-plus TV documentary about her career("ESTRANHA FORMA DE VIDA" (V) 1995/1999). Far more encompassing and with greater insight into Amália's inner world. As for the subtitling her songs, I'm all for it! Though the music, the voice and the performance may be - are! - universal, there is so much poetry in the words just begging to be translated. I think this was a conscious choice by the producers. They were aiming at the 200 million Portuguese speakers in Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, France, East Timor, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Canada, the US, South Africa, St. Tome and Principe, Goa, Daman, Diu, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Germany and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking diaspora worldwide. As for the Lady herself, she did not live to see this particular shortened DVD version of the documentary, but she was given a preview of "Estranha Forma de Vida". And it seems to have been to her liking. Very much so. This is an excellent documentary about Amália Rodrigues. I enjoyed it very much; it's very well put together and very informative. If you want to know who is Amália Rodrigues. I highly recommend you see this film, "The Art Of Amália Rodrigues".

This is an extraordinary film musically. It made me feel awful that Rodrigues died in 1999, before I had a chance to see her live. To know that she performed a marvelous Lincoln Ctr. concert in 1991 & that I might've been there, but wasn't is painful beyond words.

I just purchased my first Amalia recording. While the musical recording is fantastic, being able, in this film to SEE her face & its tremendous expressiveness & passion as she sings these songs of terrible sadness is wonderful. Sort of like seeing the face of Mary as she cradles Jesus in her arms in the Pieta. Watching her on film, reminded me of being witness to a similar extraordinary concert performance by Mercedes Sosa in the mid 1990s at Lincoln Ctr. As I sat listening to Mercedes sing, I felt I was in the presence of a tremendous spiritual & musical force that contained awesome primal power. Some of "The Art of Amalia"'s musical segments are touching, such as Caetano Veloso paying tribute to Amalia & singing one of her songs solo in front of a packed concert hall. The musical segments also convey the incredible international sweep of her musical repertoire & the bonds she created w. fans throughout the entire world. There is one segment in which she claims that she has played in every single town in Italy that has a stage!

In another section, Amalia talks about her bout w. mouth cancer & how she came to NYC to commit suicide in a hotel. Yet, through watching Fred Astaire film videos she gradually persuaded herself that life was worth living & turned away from killing herself. Amazing! Later in the film, she quite bravely & directly admits to the interviewer that though she might've conquered the world musically, her personal life was one of pure sadness. She admits that she has never been happy. This is unbearably sad to hear, but perfectly in keeping w. a singer steeped in the fado (which she translates as "bad destiny" or "bad luck") tradition. Also, one longs to hear more about her personal life: what was in that made her so sad? what were her disappointments?

"The Art of Amalia" is a little disappointing in other major areas. My quibbles: to show 20-30 full songs in the film yet to only provide an English translation for the very last one seems a waste (unless the film was only intended for a Portuguese speaking audience, which I can't imagine). To see the profound pain on her face as she sings & not to understand the lyrics is a let down. As for the other minuses: there is almost no biographical material about Amalia's family background. There is one 20 sec. snippet w. her singing w. her mother (it's absolutely grand). There is one short reference to her parents moving fr. the countryside to Lisbon. I would've loved to see film footage of the village she came from. The interviews such as they are are almost solely w. Amalia herself (& a few close friends). She is a good, but not great subject. There are no interview subjects who are experts on fado or Portuguese culture & society, so we get no depth of understanding of her musical roots.

In short, this is a wonderful film that everyone interested in Amalia should see. But it's not a perfect or definitive work on the subject. With the fairly recent release of Carlos Saura's 'Fados' in the United States (albiet a limited art house only release),it's high time for a re-release of this fine documentary on Amalia Rodrigues. This film is a treasure chest of vintage film clips of Amalia on Portugese & American television,as well as various other film clips,including one of her & her Mother that could easily reduce the most macho man to tears. I first saw this fine documentary a few years back,when it received the unjustified "art house" release (it deserved far better). Fortunately, various recordings exist of Amalia's best recordings on various "budget line" recordings (which are generally available in places such as K-Mart,or Best Buy),or if you do a little searching,one can fine some of the original releases,either on E-Bay,or one of those distribution services that specializes in pricey European imported CD's. There are at least two versions of this documentary in circulation (the original Portugese version,with no English subtitles, and the U.S. version in Portugese with English subtitles,except the European version cannot be played on most U.S.DVD players,due to the PAL colour line system). Not rated by the MPAA,but contains nothing to offend. A very different Jerry Lewis film, not like all those more famous films that everybody knows. Lewis deals with the difficult task of WW II and National Socialism in Germany in a rather unconventional way. But even more interesting and important, he does it in a very un-American way. And as with so many things in the world and especially in the film industry un-American means more sophisticated, more subtle, more intelligent or simply better. That is the reason why the film was no success in the US but a very great success in Europe.

All in all, Jerry Lewis has proven by this movie, that he is able to do much more than simple slapstick comedy. For some inexplicable reason, Jerry's movies often seemed to come in for diatribes from certain quarters although they were rarely box office disappointments. It's one of life's great mysteries to me because his films have always had a 'feel good' factor about them for me. But this film is not only not bad: it's an exceedingly good and clever comedy. To those who may be tickled by 'modern' crude or cruel humour, don't see this film: There's nothing in it like that and you'll be wasting your time.

I've only seen this film once on the television. I've waited ever since to see it again and that's been quite a few years. You'd think the idea of an arrogant millionaire businessman heading off to win the war against the Nazis with his own small private army of subservient employees would be boring wouldn't you? Well only Jerry Lewis would dare try such a plot for an out and out comedy and it works, I have to say, brilliantly.

I think that, as with 'The Nutty Professor' and most of his other films, this movie is testimony to his comic genius, both in concept and execution. I think Buddy Love might have said, "You know, true comedy can not only make a six year old hysterical, it'll do that for his Dad too." Maybe a few nutty Nazis generals with monocles and a limp would dislike this movie, honestly. If you only see one more comedy in your life, see this one. Be careful though, you might die laughing. And I'm not joking! Written by brilliant Monkees' TV writers Gerald Gardner and Dee Caruso,WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT was the last of the "Jerry Lewis" movies until "Hardly Working" almost a decade later. Jerry's comedy is evidently an acquired taste, and admittedly he can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he helms as producer/director--but even in the dreariest of his films, there are always moments of brilliance.

WHICH WAY manages to be amusing,entertaining and yes,quite funny. It is somewhat unlike any of the typical Lewis films.The pace is very upbeat and ther are lots of excellent supporting players--a kind of JERRY DOES HOGANS HEROES.The whole thing looks kind of like an unsold TV pilot and you will either love it or hate it---but hopefully YOU VILL LAUGH 'In the Line of Fire' is one of those Hollywood films that shows up on tv quite a bit, but although I've seen it a few times, I usually end up sitting through the whole thing again. Why? - It's GOOD! Clint Eastwood is great as usual, and the character he plays is interesting and more fleshed out than usual. The character, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan, is haunted by the fact that he was on the detail that failed to protect President Kennedy in Dallas, and now he's forced to match wits with a professional assassin that is openly declaring that he will kill the president. However, the film doesn't make him a depressed, brooding, and obsessed character. He's charming and personable, and is realistic as a guy that has experienced a lot in life and is comfortable in his own skin. He's even quite convincing when he flirts with the pretty younger agent played by Rene Russo. The killer, played by John Malkovich at his best, is cerebral, deliberate, and enjoys playing high stakes games of life and death. He even goes by the name of another presidential assassin, John Booth.

The film is consistently enjoyable, and it delivers all the goods - suspense, action, romance, and drama - all in their proper amounts. It's a fun film that is really helped by the great actors in it! In The Line of Fire gives us a great game of cat and mouse. Clint Eastwood is plagued by John Malkovich in this riveting film. Malkovich says he's going to kill the president, and he purposely calls Eastwood, and pushes his buttons. He questions Eastwood's ability to protect someone. Malkovich brings a cold, but very intelligent mindset to his character. Everything he does, he does for a reason, and he's not shy about killing. Eastwood has to overcome the suspicions of his superiors in order to catch Malkovich, but no one wants to listen to him. The result is a film that crackles with suspense that escalates to a tense scene in a ballroom at the Bonneventure Hotel. Wolfgang Peterson ratchets up the tension and we feel every turn. Quite simply a well-made, well-written and wonderfully acted movie. Eastwood is classic as grizzled Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan and Rene Russo

holds her own as partner (and love interest) Lilly Raines. But the movie's

greatness rests on the shoulders of John Malkovich as "Booth". He captures

this character's rage and hatred, as well as his humanity oddly enough.

Personally I think this was his best performance and should have received an

Oscar for it (But I loved Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive as well that year). Overall a great movie to see you want to peek into an assassin's mind and be

on the edge of your seat the whole way through. Enjoy!! Clint Eastwood scores big in this thriller from 1993.Teamed with an absolute master of edge of your seat suspense,Wolfgang Peterson, Eastwood delivers as only he can.Also,John Malkovich goes on my list of most effective screen villains in the history of cinema as the demented assassin.As for Rene Russo as Clint's love interest,I think Kirk Douglas said it best when he said,referring to his own career,"I keep getting older,and my leading ladies keep getting younger".This film is a very effective thriller with enough plot twists and surprises to keep you going.Eastwood and Peterson should team together more often. Top notch movie. Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is a secret service agent plagued with guilt over the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, while he was on duty. Thirty years later and the current president is entering a re-election campaign, but he is receiving death threats; and Horrigan has been called in to assist in what should be a routine research operation. John Malkovich plays the professional assassin and master of disguise who is tracking the president, and using the past he begins to torture Horrigan in a psychological duel of cat and mouse.

Malkovich, Eastwood and Rene Russo all give wonderful performances in this top notch thriller. The direction is excellent and the entire picture is charged with tension and intrigue throughout.

A must see for thriller fans 8/10 A great performance by Clint Eastwood and particularly John Malkovich in my opinion his finest one to date. Malkovich had this one nailed right down to the floor it's incredible. Eastwood is Agent Mike Horrigan, an aged and cynical Secret Service Agent who is finishing out his career busting counterfeiters and chasing down routine assignments. But one assignment which appears to be run of the mill at first turns complicated and deadly serious. Horrigan and his new partner Al are sent to investigate a threat on the President by a "wacko". As fate would have it Horrigan has stumbled not upon a delusional nut but a professional lone wolf who has a big bone to pick with the White House. As Horrigan dives deeper into "Booth's" world he attracts the bad guy's unwanted attention and unbridled admiration for him. Horrigan was JFK's top agent and present in Dallas, Texas when he was assassinated and blames himself for what happened. Now he feels it's up to him to stop the current Head of State from joining the list of dead Presidents. But this killer has turned the tables on Horrigan and now he's the hunted one in a life or death cat and mouse game. Who will win? Who will die? It's a race against time to save the Pres from a chameleon-like enemy who can get to anyone. My favorite Secret Service movie and as good a nail biter as any. This is another of Eastwood's many movies mixing intrigue, action, and a dollop of romance, along with "The Gauntlet," "Firefox," and so forth. Clint's acting range by now is pretty familiar. In this one, he's taciturn and a bit outrageous, especially with women and superiors. There are no surprises in his performance. But the film itself is something of a surprise; it's above average.

Clint is Frank, a Secret Service agent who, perhaps in a moment of doubt, failed to catch the bullet that killed JFK. He then took to drink, which drove his family away, and now plods along in the bureaucracy until he is contacted by John Malkovitch, calling himself "Booth," who strikes up a sort of skewed relationship with him based on their shared, disillusioned conviction that everything is meaningless except the impulse to escape dreariness and predictability. Now, this is rather an anfractuous set of attitudes for a performer like Clint to project, but he does rather well, less robotic than usual. And he does seem to carry around with him, like a burden of stone, the memory of that moment in Dallas. He's tested again halfway through this movie. He is hanging from the roof of a tall building, grasping Booth's hand, and he pulls his pistol and points it at Booth, who asks him if he is really willing to shoot. If he does, of course, he saves the president from an attempted assassination by a CIA-trained murderer, but he does so at the cost of his own life. Booth twits him about the situation as they hold hands in midair. And Clint even has a short speech, talking to Renee Russo, about his failure to save the president in Dallas. "If I'd have reacted quickly enough, I could have taken that shot . . . and that would have been alright with me." It's underplayed, but his voice chokes slightly, his eyes water, and his lip trembles. It's one of the few scenes in any of Clint's films that might properly be called "moving." We know from his newfound resolve that given another chance he would take the bullet this time. (The irony is that he doesn't like the current president. Who could? He gives pompous speeches in Colorado about how they "carved a nation out of the wilderness." Didn't they do the same thing in Las Vegas?)

It's often said that a movie is only as good as its villain. It isn't true, nothing is that simple, but an argument could be made for its truth value in this case. The reptilian John Malkovitch with his Tartar eyes is marvelous.

Talk about disillusioned. Okay, he can ham it up a little, sniffing with disdain even as he plugs two innocent hunters between the eyes, but he's fascinating on the screen. Renee Russo has little do to. Fred Thompson, as the chief White House aid, is now back in politics, a relief for movie-goers. If Clint's acting range is limited, Thompson's is something less. In every film he's been in, he wears the same solemn and dissatisfied expression, as if constantly plagued by some form of volcanic digestive disorder.

The direction by Wolfgang Peterson is as good as it was in "Das Boot," which is pretty good. There is a great deal of the usual suspenseful cross-cutting in the final shootout. And when Clint and Russo fall into an impassioned embrace in her hotel room and scuttle backwards towards the bed like two weasels in heat, Peterson playfully shows us their feet along with a succession of objects dropping to the floor -- not only the usual garments but handcuffs, guns, beepers, palm pilots, Dick Tracy wrist watches and other impedimenta. Interrupted, Clint lies back on the bed and sighs, "Now I have to put all that stuff back on again."

Well written and worth watching. IN THE LINE OF FIRE, in my opinion, is an excellent, suspenseful, and edge-of-your-seat action/drama/thriller! I thought that Agent Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) and Agent Raines (Rene Russo) looked good in the attire they wore at the presidential dinner. As for Leary (John Malkovich), he was a sick man who loved to toy with Frank by phone. He looked good in the tuxedo he wore near the end of the film, though. One thing that surprised me was the growing attraction between Agent Horrigan and Agent Raines. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the entire cast and crew did an outstanding job, I loved the setting, and I couldn't get enough of it. Now, in conclusion, to all you Clint Eastwood fans who haven't seen this excellent, suspenseful, and edge-of-your-seat action/drama/thriller, I highly recommend it. One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission.

The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?

Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!

I have seen quite a few action thrillers in my life and this is clearly one of the best ever! There are very few films which I even consider watching several times and this is one of them. Everything in this movie is just right: Clint as the superb leading actor, Rene Russo as his non-stupid female partner(this is a very rare combination - sad,but true!). Of course, John Malkowich deserves a lot of praise for his excellent villain but let us not overlook Eastwood`s initial buddy, played by Dylan Mcdermott, who in my view fits the role perfectly.The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic - but sadly never released on an original soundtrack CD (shame on the producers!). The plot makes sense and there is no loss of pace, the audience is kept in constant excitement of the outcome of the duel between Eastwood and Malkowich. I give this one 10 Stars! I was watching the Perfect Storm, and thought about another Wolfgang Peterson film which is much better--this one. Although certainly not based on a true story, In the Line of Fire is how a movie should be made. It has a terrific story with a great cast. Malkovich won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance as the creepy killer with a grudge against the government he served all too well. Eastwood is good as the tortured Secret Service and Russo is easy on the eyes. If you haven't seen this, definitely rent it or buy it as I did. Definitely one of the best crime thrillers of the past decade. 9/10 Wolfgang Peterson's In the Line of Fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white-knuckled ride, even if once or twice we might feel like we've been down similar roads before. How could one not when Clint Eastwood, right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy, likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (don't count Blood Work in there). But there's more than that because Eastwood's character, here a hard-bitten, demon-ridden and hard as nails secret service agent, has a slightly charming side to him, even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. There is some complexities going on here that don't rely on just the usual swagger, and it's note-worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (didn't save Kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona, which more than likely hides his wounds- most of the time. Eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film, however, and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him.

But there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the 'Harry' type scenes of him being smarter- and as smart-ass- over everyone else in the room, and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass, here a chief of staff), including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. Even the romantic sub-plot, which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs, would make the picture a little sub-par if the other quasi-Dirty Harry aspect didn't come into the picture: an indelible villain. This time there's some extra Hollywood suspense, however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves), with the "John Booth" character, played in an Oscar nominated performance by John Malkovich, as someone who's described more as a predator than an assassin. There's ways this could go wrong with the Eastwood character, but Malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un-collected (there's that devastating, cringe-worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate), and as his past is revealed, there's still that element of 'what the hell is with this guy' that keeps the audience and Eastwood's agent guessing and extra paranoid. It's a classic Malkovich performance, quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism.

It's also, aside from the conventional points, just a sleekly made picture from Peterson and company, and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of Don Siegel. But Peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times; anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to Vertigo- jumping from rooftop to rooftop, hero dangling from the ledge, the 'twist'- it still provides some shivers down my spine. There's also the phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game, probably another kick in the ribs to Hithcock. But in the end, even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax, it's also a characters picture in some ways throughout, and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over, at least in the suspense-movie sense. Eastwod's a great lead, Russo plays the female possible love-interest sincere and mature, and Malkovich is top of the pops. There's also a few notable supporting roles too, and a fine studio score in there. One of the better films of 1993. Here's another entertaining Clint Eastwood action-suspense film. I am not a particularly fan of his but I have to hand to him: he knows how to make entertaining movies. This is one more example. It didn't hurt, either, to have John Malkovich as his co-star. Now there is an intense actor! In this story, Malkovich plays an assassin, and he is fascinating to watch, thanks to his different disguises and the terrific dialog he was given. He also has a interesting voice.

Rene Russo is fairly low-key (for her), but that's fine and Eastwood plays the usual loner-cop role, not appreciated by his superiors but showing them all up in the end. I guess he couldn't stop playing the "Dirty Harry"-type figures, but he played them well.

There were some negatives this film, however, namely: credibility in parts as there were a couple of times, had this been real-life, the killer would have done away with Eastwood. The climatic scene, in particularly, had too many holes in it. There also were too many abuses of Lord's name in vain in here.

Overall, however, this is good, escapist fare. Back when I was working person, I remember having a really obnoxious client to deal with who insisted on making everything on a personal basis. I was telling him things that my agency could do and could not do and he firmly believed I was personally out to do him out of what was rightfully his. I swear but I was thinking of this guy as I watched John Malkovich and Clint Eastwood in their battle of wits.

In The Line Of Fire casts Clint Eastwood as a veteran Secret Service Agent who was on the job in Dallas as a young man when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He's had his doubts ever since and been given to drink and his life at one time was a real shambles. He's gotten back on the White House detail now and when a potential assassin's landlady rats on her tenant to the Secret Service, it's Eastwood and partner Dylan McDermott who draw the case.

But the assassin is no ordinary crank case. He's a professional at his job, trained by and used by the Central Intelligence Agency. John Malkovich earned a deserved Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He lost that year to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive and I'm not sure, but that I thought Malkovich was better.

Oddly enough Malkovich might have been better off, but he saw Eastwood as the agent in charge breaking into his apartment while on the job and he insisted on making the whole thing personal. He calls Eastwood throughout the film and taunts him. And after a while what Malkovich says and does causes Clint to get real personal.

The presidential assassins we've had in our history have been lucky amateurs, unless you believe in some of the conspiracy theories about some of the assassinations. A guy like Malkovich, a professional with a real or imagined grudge, is the most dangerous kind of foe.

Others to note in the cast are Fred Dalton Thompson as the White House chief of staff (and would be president in real life), Rene Russo as another agent who falls for the Eastwood masculine charm, John Mahoney as the Secret Service head, Gary Cole as the White House head Secret Service guy, Gregory-Alan Williams as another agent and Jim Curley and Sally Hughes as the President and First Lady.

But when Malkovich is on he owns In The Line Of Fire. The climax with him and Eastwood is unforgettable. 'In The Line Of Fire' tells the story of the game between an old presidential bodyguard and a former-government assassin turned psycho. The secret service agent/bodyguard (Eastwood) is on defense and the assassin (Malkovich)is on offense. The stakes? The president's live.

I really like this movie...I've seen it numerous times on TV and have recently bought it on DVD. Yet, it's not an excellent movie. The plot is way too thin and the attempts to thicken it are downright ridiculous. The whole love-story isn't very plausible and the way they brought an extra character into the story, just to be able to kill it off is kind of insulting to the more or less intelligent viewer. Though I feel these mistakes can't be forgiven, I can easily look past them to Mr. Malkovich exquisite performance. I've always deemed him to be a great actor but in this movie he's really on fire. There's a reason why he got an Academy Award nomination. Rene Russo and Clint Eastwood were okay, but I don't deem their performance to be memorable. They're never at the best of their abilities.

If you don't expect too much, you'll certainly like this movie. It's no masterpiece but John Malkovich is really extraordinary and I don't think anyone can't enjoy his performance. Really worth the watch... I am a huge fan of big, loud, trashy, completely stupid action movies such as The Rock, Con Air etc. All of these are great fun to watch but, when you think about it, extremely silly. IN THE LINE OF FIRE tells a story and it tells it well. With plausibility as well as excitement and suspense it also addressed several important moral questions that really make you think. The last shot of the movie is Eastwood and Russo sitting together on the steps of the White house watching the pigeons to gentle, peaceful music and I felt a deep feeling of satisfaction. This was because I cared about the characters and I was happy for them that their story had come to a happy conclusion. It felt like a true story. As the aging secret service agent tormented by the fact that he failed to protect JFK on that fateful day in Dallas, Clint Eastwood is fantastic. He brilliantly conveys his paranoia and his personal need to stop his adversary. On the other side of the spectrum is John Malkovich, as the creepy predator who tortures Eastwood about what happened in 1963 by openly telling him of his plan to kill the current president. This Oscar nominated performance really gets under your skin. Throughout the movie, Malkovich talks to Eastwood as if they are friends. He doesn't threaten him, he doesn't lie to him, he doesn't laugh at him, but he tortures him with his unbearable friendliness right up to the last moment. As well as this thrilling main plot, there is a charming love story involving Rene Russo, another agent and Eastwood. Despite the age difference, they have superb chemistry on screen and the director wisely does not let this dominate too much but keeps it as part of the backdrop which works nicely. To sum up, I love this film because it has a mind. I just saw this movie for the first time last night. Wow! What a movie! This is the kind of movie you want everyone in the world to see because its just so cool and so interesting.

I do not want to give a single word about the plot because I think it would be better for people to go in cold. DO NOT READ THE PLOT SUMMARY before you see the movie! All I'm going to say is that Eastwood, Malkovich, Peterson, and the screenplay by Jeff Maguire are top notch. I wish all thrillers were more like this one. "In the Line of Fire" is one of the best thrillers I have seen, it builds and builds to a great climax. This film really draws you in your heart is beating and you are out of breath from the action. The cast turns in strong peformances, particularly Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. This film is expertly directed by suspense master Wolfgang Petersen. Thrillers don't get much better thn this, don't miss it. Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is being harassed by Mitch Leary (John Malkovich), a bomber terrorist who literally believes he will not be caught. In the opening is everyone's favourite modern serial killer, "John Kramer" (Tobin Bell) from the Saw series. Through clever planning and influence, Frank is able to make the arrest of Mendoza (Bell).

From thereafter, its a series of cat and mouse chase. Malkovich is a tremendous actor and incredibly versatile. Once again showing a different role in this film, he astounds me with his ability to interchange his characters with the next film.

I've watch Malkovich play in Con Air as a menacing insanely smart Cyrus, in Of Mice and Men as the tragically challenged bunny lover Lenny, to name a few. He plays a very smart bomber terrorist who is very sane but is deluded into thinking he can elude his captures.

Clint Eastwood is no one special me. He's too old to really do much action in films so the only thing he can really astound you with is his ability to create dramatic scenes. The characters he plays are simplistic and one-dimensional.

Rene Russo plays Eastwood's love interest in the film and captivates me with her supporting actually being a bigger role, to me, than Eastwood's.

While this might seem like an action blockbuster, it's relatively slow paced and plays on anticipation. You have to wait for the build up and the ending and it will pay off in the end. Along the way, you'll be mesmerized by Malkovich and Eastwood's chemistry and their scenes of cat and mouse. I really love action/adventure films and this is one of the best. Of course, we love the stars of this genre, Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest, but its the story that really counts. The best are somewhat feasible but we can tolerate those that are a little "over the top" as in the comic book style of action. The more twists and turns, the more dire situations the heroes are involved in and the more shocking moments in the film; the more we action/adventure fans enjoy them. "In the Line of Fire" has ALL the elements required for a rip-roaring action thriller. It has Clint Eastwood as a near-retirement Secret Service Agent whose one bad moment of failure haunts him. It has one of the most evil, despicable, maniacal villains in John Malkovich, the type in which you can't wait to see him, "get his due". It has Rene Russo as the 'love interest.' It has twists and turns, an occasional shock and even a touch of warmth and humor. It is extremely well paced by director Wolfgang Petersen and even has a score by the great Ennio Morricone. This one is a real roller coaster ride of a thriller! Don't miss it! An assassination thriller in the mould of Day Of The Jackal, In The Line Of Fire has the added twist that Eastwood's old-timer bodyguard Frank Horrigan is troubled by past failure on the job. The chase becomes personal as John Malkovich's reptilian assassin Leary taunts him over this neurosis - with the rather clunky exception of the love of a good woman (Russo's Lilly Raines) nothing's going to set Frank's mind at rest than taking Leary down personally.

Malkovich is a volatile presence - not simply combustible on screen but often a changeable actor too. This is one of his good films, focused and playing director Petersen's game. Eastwood is too old but a) the audience don't care, cos it's him and b) his age is written into the script, not only in the narrative but also as a recurring joke. Pretty much as you'd expect but well-handled. 7/10 This is s superbly crafted top-notch Washington thriller directed by the talented Wolfgang Petersen with hotshot screenwriter Jeff Maguire (who seems to have done very little over the years, so maybe he tends his roses). The film has Clint Eastwood as an ageing secret service agent and John Malkovich as a vengeful assassin pitted against each other in a massive test of wills and ingenuity, where the President's life is at stake. Unnecessary secrecy and competition between rival security agencies almost dooms the President, which is an authentic touch. This film was made when both Eastwood and Malkovich were at their peak. Probably Eastwood has never done a better job than he does here, and it is all so effortless for the old pro. There are some wonderful sound effects of him huffing and puffing as he runs along beside the President's car as a bodyguard, for which he is too old. I wonder if anyone else noticed the humour of those noises having been added. My 'guardian angel', whose name is Vigil, enjoyed this movie even more than I did, but then bodyguard movies are very much his thing. Rene Russo was a perfect choice for the female agent who falls for Eastwood, as she is so unobvious but so talented, and she shines. The tension is taut every inch of the way in this story, and the psychological struggles of Eastwood to redeem himself from an earlier protection failure are beautifully shown by his typical understated acting. With Eastwood, if he lifts an eyebrow by a millimeter, watch out! Of course, he is the master of the super-cool. Malkovich has the opportunity to indulge all the creepiness he could wish in the paranoid character he portrays, and he captures the man's central vanity to perfection. What a good 'un. This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.

It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.

Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over. This is one of the few movies of this type I have reviewed, and enjoyed. While Clint Eastwood is his usual self, the overall story works well, even in the limits of Washington D.C.

The theme: An assassin is tracking the president, and there is only one person who may save him.

It cannot be easy to make a film which audiences enjoy these days, involving this arena. This film succeeds on several levels. Eastwood is his usual underplayed hero, wanting to save the President since the Kennedy era. He does well in this role, as does his foil, Reneee Russo ( an FBI agent) Overall well-done and suspenseful with extra stars for Malkovich. 9/10. What I've seen of Wolfgang Petersen's films has been pretty good. He knows how to direct action, create suspense and get you interested. Eastwood tends to be great, sometimes excellent. This goes for both his acting and his directing. They both hand in solid work here. The concept isn't bad, and the cat-and-mouse game works well. Malkovich performs rather well, and his and Eastwood's playing off each other adds to the film. I suppose this won't introduce anything new, really... but it never really claims to, nor needs to. It's two great actors, each playing a basic type of role that they have proved at other points in their careers that they can manage remarkably well, and with a magnificent director at the helm. Really, it's entertaining, well-done, and it just plain delivers. Editing and cinematography are good. Acting and character writing is, as well. The film manages to be suspenseful and intense, and if you let yourself, you will probably be entertained and engaged, even if there are superior films out there. The pacing is pretty much spot-on. I recommend this to any fan of the principal actors, the director and/or this type of film. 7/10 Wolfgang Peterson directs this thriller that has Clint Eastwood playing Secrect Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who matches wits with a clever psycho(John Malkovich) in a cat-and-mouse game involving the the protection of the President. Mitch Leary(Malkovich)keeps in touch with Horrigan teasing the agent with discouraging remarks about his abilities, as well as the Secret Service's protection of the presidents in the past. Agent Lilly Raines(Rene Russo)tries to keep Horrigan grounded; but he is head strong in stopping Leary from carrying out his threats of assassination. Very good FX and fast pace sustains the plot. Eastwood and Malkovich are superb. Russo has a way of getting your attention. Rounding out this strong cast are: Dylan McDermott, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Mahoney and Gary Cole. Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, Air Force One) gives us an exciting film where the accolades go to the supporting actor, John Malkovich. His criminal attempting to assassinate the President was first-rate and credible.

That is not to diminish the efforts of Clint Eastwood and Rene Russo, or even Fred Dalton Thompson, who plays a real jerk of a White House Chief of Staff. Eastwood was great, and I love any film that Russo is in.

The movie feature original music by five time Oscar winner (Malèna, Bugsy, The Untouchables, The Mission, Days of Heaven) Ennio Morricone. That alone makes it worth your time. Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.

Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).

We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.

The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids). To those of you who've made comments on this film earlier and hoped to see it again, I hope you did. It was broadcast today (Nov. 28th,'04) on Lifetime movie network. I subscribe to Dish.

Karen Arthur directed William Petersen and Barbara Hershey in this southwestern Gothic-like tale, expertly. The lighting, editing and dialog contributed greatly to the film and Hershey and Peterson were perfectly cast for the roles, both playing sensitive, bold and intuitive characters. The screen play was excellent, as well the supporting cast.

Not having known ahead-of-time, I guessed correctly the story was based on truth, and now that I know it I must make the sojourn, as Santa Fe is a hop, skip and a jump from Tucson.

As an engineer, I was fascinated with the theme of the unique construction of the staircase and the man who designed and built it (who was he? an angel?). But the storyline, and it's several plots, of how it came to be is what most captivates you. You certainly get a strong sense that God in His heaven was in every detail of this entire drama in history. For you who have seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I won't spoil a minute of it...

Bon holiday,

Bob Shank Jr, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ I am from Texas and my family vacationed a couple of years ago to Sante Fe with my brother. He suggested we go to see the church with the staircase. I was absolutely blown away by the miracles that took place there. The movie is great - Barbara Hershey and William Petersen were perfect for the parts they played. It is amazing, absolutely amazing. If you have not seen the staircase in person, it is worth the trip to go see it. The wood is beautiful and the architecture is astounding. Just being in the chapel gives me goose bumps! To read about the history of the chapel, and then to see its beauty is breathtaking. See the movie - it is GREAT! Then see the staircase in person! And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting.

However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character.

The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie.

It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.

**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.

7/10 Almost no information is available about this movie, or its air dates. After an ongoing and exhaustive search I found the DVD to be available for 3.99!-release date February 28, 2006. Try yahoo/DVD and video. In order to get this information posted I will continue to state that this is a well made film with a true and fascinating story about a mysterious carpenter who builds a very unusual staircase in a church. It is a chance to see William L. Peterson before C.S.I. turned him into a star. Equally featured in the story is the venerable Barbara Hershey - does anyone remember when she was Barbara Hershey Seagull? I have to keep writing to get this posted. Thank you to the previous commentators for taking the time to recommend this somewhat obscure TV film which obviously leaves a lasting impression on many. I have not seen it since 1998 and yet I STILL can't get it out of my head or stop recommending people to find it so that shows what an impression it made.

Just a wonderful story.

I just hope to see the stair at least once in person...

I didn't know much about Mr. Petersen before this movie as I hadn't seen any of his previous works but his subtle acting in this impressed me and I think his portrayal of Grissom on CSI just shows more of the same. He knows enough to let the character shine through instead of the actor shining through which makes him just that much better of an actor.

I can't remember enough about the "poor accents" to comment but I must say I have always enjoyed Barbara Hershey in all of her roles as well and I thought she also did a phenomenal job in this movie. I saw this movie when it aired on Lifetime back in 2004. I have never seen it since then, but have thought of it often. It left such an impression on me I've been searching for it lately. I found it finally and realized it was made just for television. The movie is fabulous- filled with great writing and acting. William Petersen is perfect, as always. This movie left me speechless and in tears. It's a wonderful story of faith, love, and compassion. Does anybody know how I can obtain a copy of this movie for my home? Is that possible with television movies?? I really would love to see it again. This is a must-have among my collection!! Excellent story with supperb acting by all of the cast. The warmth and insight into who Joad represents moved off of the screen and into the heart of this viewer. The frustration's and tenacity of Mother Madalyn in her quest to do HIS work till her last breath was also done with excellance by Barbara Hershey. The intertwining of the personalities of Joad and Mother Madalyn grew throughout the story line with a breath taking crescendo in the final scene. I have just returned from Santa Fe. NM. I visited Loretto Chapel. As I looked around this building, which has been acquired by a private owner, I relived the movie version of the staircase. It is an overwhelming mystique that occupies this building. It is about what can happen if you really have faith. The bookstore there has a narrative on the subject, which is the story of the staircase. I read the narrative in its entirety. I was absorbed by the ambiance surrounding the people therein. It was like we were totally enclosed in a time warp, all with the same thoughts and awe. When we departed, the hush was overwhelming. Everyone should visit Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe. NM. Captivating tale of backstabbing behind the curtains. The movie follows the plight of David Letterman and Jay Leno as they struggle for the elusive Tonight Show spot. Letterman led by his desire for the coveted time slot and Leno led by his agent and little-devil-on-the-shoulder, Helen Kushnick.

Kathy Bates (Kushnick) is excellent in this movie, alienating herself from such top dogs as Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield, and Howard Stringer. Towards the end of the film you are so entranced with how she handles every situation from guest bookings to delayed taping, that you find yourself wanting more.

John Michael Higgins (Letterman) plays his part to the tee. At times I found myself wondering if he was any relation to the real Letterman.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in entertainment or the world of corporate negotiations. as a former TV editor, I can say this is as authentic as it gets. It even led to Letterman's producer (thought to be a source) resigning (eventually) in real life. Letterman was outraged (OK, so one goofy thing is it has him throwing softballs at a tire swing on his estate; total fabrication) but the main information is hilariously true, from the silly bidding war for Letterman once he decided to leave NBC to Leno's problems with an agent who was not ready for big time, but who he let run the show (almost to a disastrous exit) out of his famed loyalty. If any of you kids don't grasp the idea of why Letterman is jealous to this day, see this tape. Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.

The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.

Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie. THE LATE SHIFT was an interesting made for HBO movie that took a detailed look at the power struggle that ensued between David Letterman and Jay Leno when Johnny Carson announced his retirement and both wanted to replace him. This struggle is now part of Hollywood folklore, but for those who don't know the story and are aware of where Letterman is now, it might be interesting to learn that David Letterman wanted to replace Johnny Carson as host of THE TONIGHT SHOW more than anything in the world, but Letterman found his dreams being derailed as frequent guest host Leno had one of Hollywood's most powerful agents, Helen Kushnick, in his corner and working tirelessly to get her client the job. It's not often that we get to see behind the scenes Hollywood machinations recreated for entertainment value, but for fans of these two late night superstars, this movie provided a fascinating look at a very turbulent period in late night television. According to this movie, Letterman was practically promised the job by Carson himself while NBC had promised the job to Leno and that's where Helen Kushnick came in. The movie presents Leno as sort of a milquetoast who allowed his career to be manipulated by Kushnick and feigned ignorance to some of Helen's strong-willed manipulations of some of NBC's biggest power players and it presents Letterman as this smart and savvy businessman who, despite having Carson's support, was railroaded by NBC and Kushnick. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck credibly recreate Letterman and Leno, respectively, but it is the razor-sharp performance of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Helen Kushnick that keeps this movie bubbling. Bates commands the screen in one of her best, if not so well-known performances as the venomous Hollywood agent who eats television studio executives for breakfast. There is also a wonderful turn by impressionist Rich Little as Johnny Carson, but it is primarily a fascinating story and the powerhouse performance by Bates that make this one worth checking out. Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection. The Late Shift is a great book, I read the book several years ago, and I was transfixed at the cutthroat debauchery that went on when Johnny Carson retired and Jay Leno and Johnny Carson tried to grab his spot. When the movie came out, I snagged a VHS copy of the movie, and having reread the book recently, it's hard to say which I enjoy more, because they're quite equal in the amount of information conveyed. The two lead actors, John Michael Higgins, and Daniel Roebuck, two actors I never heard of before, and haven't heard of since, play Leno and Letterman convincingly, despite Letterman's dismissal of his portrayal as being poor. They play the parts quite well, despite a lot of people looking for an imitation of the two. I wasn't as interested in that. The story is what counts. And that brings me to Kathy Bates. Kathy Bates, playing Helen Kushnick, IS this movie. She plays this evil bitch of a character so menacingly you realize how on earth can this woman control herself, much less a national TV show. Yikes! There should be a sequel!! Over the years I've watched this movie many times from seeing it on "HBO" and I now own a copy on DVD. I must say it's very memorable and entertaining in the meantime it's interesting and educational too. As any TV fan can relate to the time of the early 90's when the time came up to replace Johhny Carson the TV living legend of "The Tonight Show" who's it gonna be Jay or Dave? This original film from HBO "The Late Shift" stays true to form and depicts the real events very well showing the behind the scenes battle between networks heads of NBC and CBS and even ABC they were all fighting for the services of Jay and Dave. The acting makes it seem real as very little actual TV footage is shown with real life people as the actors portraying Leno and Letterman make it seem so real. I haven't read the Bill Carter book so I don't know if it stayed true to the pages, but I have highly enjoyed this film over the years. From the moment when it starts showing CBS entertainment heads watching Leno sub for Johhny and they decide they want to get in on the late night game. Yet when Carson announces his unexpected retirement NBC wants to stay loyal with Leno yet conflict arrives when Letterman wants a crack at the slot at 11:30 too. It was fun to watch the wacky meeting with Michael Ovitz(Treat Williams)who makes all networks want to consider Letterman for a show. It was interesting to see the scene of Johhny telling Letterman by phone in a direct way to walk from NBC and consider CBS. And by the way Rich Little was terrific as Johhny Carson his portrayal couldn't be matched. And plenty of tense moments were provided by showing the bickering and firing of Leno's talent manager Helen which NBC heads pressured him to do. Overall great film that showed what TV is really like and it proves that networks are power and money hungry while showing that's it's a cutthroat business. Clearly there's no business like show business. Great work from HBO very memorable and a watch anytime it showed the true story of the late night wars. I think this movie actually has a lot of nice things to say about a lot of people (Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel), and it shows that Letterman and Leno actually liked and respected each other a lot. Treat Williams as the half-Kung Fu Master, half-Godfather-like Mike Ovitz is terrific. The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes). ***SPOILERS*** This film depicts the brutal bloodbath caused by the retirement of Johnny Carson to determine who would succeed him. The impersonations of David Letterman and Jay Leno are performed in a satisfactory way by John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck, though the performances weren't great. Reni Santoni is the best-performing of the "execs" (he plays John Agoglia of NBC), and Warren Littlefield (played by Bob Baliban) is a close second. I was shocked at the way in which Littlefield eagerly discussed dumping Johnny Carson. This was Johnny Carson! This scene evinces the cut-throat, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of television. Kathy Bates delivered the best performance of the film as Jay's agent, Helen Kushnick. Another commenter asserted that Leno was portrayed as a simpleton in the film. I respectfully disagree. The relationship with Kushnick bordered on something akin to domestic violence. She orders him around, and, when he rebels against her at the end, she tries to play the sympathy card (mentioning her dead husband and son); however, when Jay terminates their relationship, she turns violent again, screaming "Don't you leave me, you two-faced bastard!" before smashing a picture on the floor. Overall, the movie is hilarious, and I wish that it were shown more often. I read the book written by Bill Carter on which this movie is based many years ago. The book is certainly stronger than the movie. It provides more detail than a movie can possibly provide, the end result being that I thought the movie seemed a wee bit sketchy on a handful of items. All things considered, though, and given the limitations of the medium, the movie provides a wholly entertaining and informative account of the battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman in the early 90's to host "The Tonight Show" after the retirement of Johnny Carson.

The highlight is clearly the performances. I can think of no more difficult performance for an actor than to play a character who is still alive and well-known and on TV on a regular basis. John Michael Higgins nailed the part of Letterman perfectly. Watching him really was like watching Letterman. Daniel Roebuck tried valiantly to be Jay Leno, but somehow didn't pull it off as effectively. His whole "look" seemed fake, and he just didn't seem natural in the role. In a less central role, Rich Little not surprisingly nailed the voice of Carson, although the look was a bit off. In the book, the most interesting of the central figures was probably Leno's agent, Helen Kushnick. In the movie, Kathy Bates was perfect in the role, although not quite as out of control as Carter's portrayal of the woman in writing.

In the end, this is light and entertaining viewing. The subject matter isn't especially important in the overall scheme of things, but it's a fun behind the scenes look at a memorable time in the entertainment industry. 7/10 I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night. TV movies generally do not receive as much recognition or credit as great films - and it is usually for good reason but the 1996 HBO movie The Late Shift is easily one of the best TV movies ever. Based on Bill Carter's revealing book, The Late Shift is about NBC's handling of late night talk show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno when it came to filling the vacant Tonight Show seat once held by Johnny Carson. We see what happens in front of the camera - author Bill Carter, director Betty Thomas, and HBO show us what happened when the cameras were turned off.

Unfortunately we can never really know for sure what really happened when it came time for Johnny Carson to be replaced by either Letterman or Leno - but The Late Shift gives us an interesting possible reality. While simply being a very well made film, The Late Shift also does a really good job of portraying all the sides fairly equally - although you wonder if the film makes Letterman and Leno out to be too nice of guys; especially Leno, who seems a bit too saintly.

The performances are also very good. In a very deserving Golden Globe-winning performance, Kathy Bates plays Leno's extremely pushy manager Helen Kushnick who, according to Carter and the book/film was very problematic for the studio and Leno (the real Kushnick actually suited Bill Carter for libel over this portrayal!). John Michael Higgins breaks out of his usual gigs of getting small quirky comedy parts and gives an excellent performance as David Letterman - giving an excellent impression of Letterman but also creating a dimensional and relatable character. Daniel Roebuck gives a good performance as Leno but does not quite measure up to some of the other talent in the film - Roebuck probably did the best anyone could have done, it is just looks hammy whenever anyone tries to do an impression or portrayal of Leno. Bob Balaban (a squirrelly Warren Littlefield), Treat Williams (a magician-like Michael Ovitz), and Ed Begley Jr.(a pompous Rod Perth) also give memorable supporting performances.

The Late Shift certainly is one of the best made-for-TV movies I have ever seen. I suppose if one has not watched David Letterman or Jay Leno, The Late Shift might not be for them but it is an interesting film for those who get into the late night politics - something that has recently reared its ugly head yet again with the 2009-10 Conan/Leno/NBC debacle. Good movie, great story, great characters, I enjoyed it immensely, enough to buy the DVD when it came out.

The real life story it purports to tell is more fascinating and engrossing than anything the fictionalizers could ever come up with. My friend who is in the media business said they shouldn't show insider dealings like this, it gives the business a bad name. As if.

There are a few problems with the DVD though: First, the sound volume is awfully low so you have to run up the TV volume to watch it. I notice that its also like that when HBO runs it so its in the original production copy. Second, for about the first five minutes the left side of the video is cut off, that is the picture is cut off about one inch short of the left side. After the five minutes it fills the screen properly, left to right. Sloppy technical production like that is very amateurish and I don't know why the director and producer let such sloppiness slide by.

Still, even with the technical flaws, its an enjoyable story, one of HBO's best I think. This is a clever and entertaining film about the backroom battling that went on to choose a successor to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. However, the movie's ultimate thesis, that David Letterman's superior comedic talents were overlooked because of his controversial nature, and the show diminished by the enthronement of an inferior Jay Leno in the leading comedy program on television is simply untrue, as anyone who has watched both Leno and Letterman perform can see for themselves. The hard and simple truth is exactly as one NBC exec stated in the film "Jay Leno is the funniest man in America." And David Letterman is not. Once you realize this, then much of the machinations in the film become irrelevant. Ultimately, the whole film amounts to little more than sour grapes by Letterman fans, who just cannot accept that the better comic was chosen by people whose business it is to know these kind of things. The final proof is that despite Letterman's early lead, possibly because of the hype that emerged from the battle for Tonight Show succession, Leno's show has consistently proved to be the more popular, thus, in my mind at least, refuting Letterman's claims to be unfairly robbed of his rightful inheritance. I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.

I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.

The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.

They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.

Guess I should read the book...

Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.

I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing. Now, I'm a bit biased, since I'm a big fan of late night television. I've been a loyal fan of Jay Leno for about 6 or 7 years, and think he's one of the funniest, most talented comedians out there. And David Letterman is one hell of a comedian as well, though I only watch his show (unless Jay's a repeat) during commercials or when he has a better guest than Jay on the show. Daniel Roebuck and John Michael Higgins are both fine actors and they very much resembled Jay and Dave, but did they disappear into the characters? Nope. Roebuck barely nails down Jay's voice and expression, mumbling at a high pitch, sounding like a castrati Marlon Brando. Higgins nails down David's facial expressions (for example, his trademark squirm) but he doesn't nail down Dave's voice. Those who aren't big fans of late night TV might be a lot less biased. There's a couple comedians who can do dead-on impersonations of Jay. Why couldn't they have selected one of them for the part? And the same goes with Dave. I'd rather they had Norm McDonald play the part. Norm doesn't look a hell of a lot like Dave, but he did a great impersonation of him on SNL. "Hey...you got any gum?" That was so hilarious!

However, I learned a lot about the late night wars which I had very little knowledge of at first. I never watched "The Tonight Show" prior to when Jay Leno was host, so I didn't know about the struggle to finally replace Johnny Carson and the countless negotiations that finally convinced Dave to move to CBS. I knew very little about what happened behind the scenes and found the film very enlightening. And Kathy Bates gives a knockout performance as the foul-mouthed former executive producer of "The Tonight Show." She basically steals the film.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Leno talks through his punch lines. This spoils the joke, for those of you who haven't figured it out. His show is held in a micro sized studio for a reason, or two reasons -- the small amount of laughter will be amplified, and few want to see him. Letterman's set is the polar opposite -- Ed Sullivan would be proud and the balcony is always full.

NBC, tacky NBC, will never get it. Founder David Sarnoff's megalomaniacal enterprise continues to be all about the money. At least CBS has a bit of a family feel to it.

Leno collects cars, or is it stamps, while Letterman races cars. The difference is informative.

When I chatted I used to ask other chatters to email me if Leno _ever_ said something that was funny. I never got a single email. Letterman has superb timing. He also can re-use the most unfunny joke in such a way that it becomes one of the funniest things in that night's show.

Letterman has built other careers. Paul is now well known and respected in his own musical right. Even Paul's other band members get recognition and career boosting. Biff Henderson has become a name America knows of. Even the businesses in the same block as the Ed Sullivan theater get a boost. What has Leno ever done for anyone else? Personally, I am glad that Dave moved and Leno got the Carson gig. I never watched NBC shows before and had no reason to after.

The Top Ten list is an American icon. So is Letterman. Leno is a caricaturist's dream, nothing more. "Man of the Year" tells the story of Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) a political comedian (like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert) who has his own television show. On his show he talks about all sorts of things but his main focus are political issues which he is very opinionated about. One day on his show, a fan from the audience raises the idea that Dobbs should run for President of the United States. After that episode aired, millions flocked to the web to create various petitions and voice their opinions on why Dobbs would make a great candidate for the President for the United States. A few weeks later, Dobbs decides to run for President and low and behold wins the election. Everything seems to be going as planned until a woman by the name of Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) shows up and starts some controversy regarding his position. A funny yet serious political thriller ensues…

Man anyone walking into this film expecting to see a brainless comedy will surely be disappointed. I always wonder how some people are film marketers when I see how misleading their marketing campaigns. "Man of the Year" is a great example of bad and misleading marketing, because everything from the poster, to the trailer, to the online advertisements makes this movie look and feel like a comedy. I would honestly have to say about 1/3 of the film is funny while the rest of it plays off as a political thriller that makes good arguments and allows its audience to think. I kind of wonder in this case if the marketing was done on purpose since this film addresses pretty serious issues in-between its comedy routine.

But enough about marketing, lets get down to the film itself.

I really liked "Man of the Year" even though I was expecting to see a comedy instead of a serious film. One of the many things I will give this film credit for is that the film does a decent job switching between comedy and drama even though at first it seems a little awkward. I really think that after you figure this out that the movie is going to be more of a political thriller than a comedy you get comfortable with it. Some may not because they are lead to believe that they are seeing a comedy and don't understand what this film is trying to say in the end but for those people they can blame the marketers for not advertising this film right.

"Man of the Year" talks about a lot of things and seems to have a very strong opinion. As Tom Dobbs speaks he is saying things that need to be said and isn't about candy coating them. I also think the whole political subplot, while most critics say hurt the film probably again because of the misleading marketing, was very good. The idea of computerize voting has been tossed around the last few years and with all the problems computers have the issue being addressed in this film could surely be realistic. Also the control big businesses have over voting also gets addressed.

As far as acting goes, I think everyone involved did a good job. Robin Williams had a chance to be funny yet serious at the same time by playing Tom Dobbs. Some say that Williams has overstayed his welcome as a comedian but I personally still think he is funny and he's a good serious actor as well. This is probably one of the few occasions though that we get to see him go back and forth from serious to funny and I think it works well. Also it's nice to see Lewis Black co-star in a decent film. Again I like Black when he appears on "The Daily Show" and does stand up however most of the films he has been in were awful. This was a good movie for him because I think his political views fit in with the story that director Barry Levinson was trying to convey. Laura Linney is a fine addition to the cast and proves once again that she is a very good actress and lastly Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum both do a very good job as always with this roles handed to them.

"Man of the Year" was written and directed by Barry Levinson, the man who has brought us such films as "Rain Man," "Good Morning Vietnam," and "Wag the Dog." Levinson does a fine job writing the film and directing it. Like I said I know a lot of critics didn't like the whole political thriller aspect of the film but I thought it fit in nicely. It was actually nice to watch a mainstream movie that allowed me to both think and laugh at the same time. Barry Levinson did a fine job with this film.

In the end, don't go into this film expecting to see the movie that the commercials are selling you. It does have laughs but at the same time it plays off more as a political drama. It's not as stupid or silly as the marketing campaign leads you to believe. I really liked the fact that this film that this film wasn't a typical Hollywood film. It tried to be a comedy and a serious drama at the same time and worked at least for me. I like the fact that the film didn't really tone down any of the issues it addressed nor did it have a typical Hollywood ending. I was trying to call the ending from the get go but surprisingly it didn't end the way I thought which made me happy. It's a movie that will make you laugh but then a few minutes later allow you to think and wonder what's going to happen next. I think its a good movie that will be hurt by its bad marketing. I completely disagree with the other comments! I too saw this film at an early screening and found it quite enjoyable. Robin Williams is in top form. True, the tone is familiar, but it is Williams of Good Morning Vietnam: smart, funny, on point. After too many dark turns, Williams is finally back to what he does best. The supporting actors give great performances, especially Laura Linney and Chris Walken. Chris plays himself, as usual, but as the "agent" to the next president he was a delight each time on screen. Lewis Black plays only himself basically, but he is wonderfully well used here. There is also a fun turn by Jeff Goldblum. The movie is more than what the trailer suggests, as well. The movie is funny, but it is not a pure comedy as suggested. It has a bit of a thriller line, which everyone should seriously consider, especially if you pay attention to the newspaper. When taken as a whole for its ideas and dissection of the current 2-party system and political process, I think this is a great film. Granted the movie was not the comedy I expected, but once I got over that this film really made me think. So much of what we see and hear in regards to any election is such a joke. There is in particular a debate scene in this movie that I felt was a masterful critique of our political debates and how policies are "discussed" at them. I encourage anyone who thinks our process is fine to go see this film. If you want something to laugh at however, Robin Williams and Christopher Walken are not their usual selves. In this movie they show us that the truth hurts, not that the truth is funny. This movie was advertised as a comedy but was far more serious than the trailers made it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but was expecting more laughs. Great performances from Robin Williams and Laura Linney. Worth seeing, but don't go expecting to be rolling on the floor. The movie left me wondering what it would be like if Robin Williams character was a real person that was running for president. Would we elect a comedian? I doubt it, unfortunately. That kind of stark honesty is something greatly lacking today. This is a movie that I will be adding to my DVD library as soon as it comes out on DVD. The movie has heart. A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. "Man of the Year" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with "Good Morning, Vietnam". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like "Scary Movie 4" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - *** Robin Williams is a genius. One of the best comedians in the world. He really shows off in this one, cracking jokes left and right as the talk show comedian Tom Dobbs. From the previous this looked like it would be a side-splitting laugh fest. And it was funny. But there were a lot of serious parts in the movie that I was not expecting. I would describe it as a drama/comedy. But it's still worth the money to see, and I still found it to be almost everything that I expected. Robin Williams is at his best, along with the famous Christopher Walken. They play a very good team in this movie and I was actually shocked to see how well the two were able to work together. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a light-hearted movie. The movie is more of a mockumentary of corruption in the whole American system. The correlations of those who vote who do not matter is so proved in the machines that end of voting a comedian to the oval office. Politicians are such a joke that we almost need a comic to represent us as we have been laughed at for years around the world. Bushism's have become a way of life for Americans and will be the only thing left after he leaves office none to soon. Oddly the only person of honesty is someone not even elected to the position and tells the truth in the end. The story is very subtle and if you go to it for laughs, it ain't happening. Leaves a lot for thought. Overall I enjoyed it. Over the years, I've come to be a fan of director/writer Barry Levinson and he didn't let me down with this very funny look at politics. Popular TV comedian Tom Dobbs(Robin Williams)has enlightened the nation with his scathing jokes about the state of the country and elected politicians responsible. Night after night, he has his fans rolling in the isles; then the question is proposed that Dobbs run for president himself. His manager Jack Menken(Christopher Walken)says go for it. Dobb's flippant truisms flames a grass-root movement that puts him on the ballot. Comedian to President-Elect. Meanwhile, a young woman(Laura Linney)finds a flaw in the computer system that will count the ballots coast to coast. My favorite sequence is Linney's meltdown in the coffee shop.Williams is absolutely hysterical with his rapid quips. Others of note in the cast: Jeff Goldblum, Lewis Black and Rick Roberts. This film was really different from what I had imagined but exceeded my expectations nevertheless. This film has the exactly right mixture of comedy, drama, political criticism and satire (not necessarily in that order). Without being patronizing or wisenheimer it reveals the open and subtle problems of our capitalist democratic high technology society. It makes you laugh instantly and remain in thought afterwards. For those of you who liked "wag the dog" and wished to have humane and manlike politicians this film should definitely be the choice!

"politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons." Actually I'll admit I'm a political junkie, so this resonated with me, but the erratic nature of Ms. Green (yes I know what they did to her), but the ending was such a copout and totally inconsistent with the film itself.

Why can't Barry L and crew just left us wondering what he was going to do? Let us debate it.

Instead they have this "oh I'm not worthy" bullshit ending and it just shows that when the chips were down it's better to leave the table instead of doubling down. Stop the Disney ending and putting a bow on it. Life isn't easy, they should have had the courage to give the main character some backbone.

We had to listen to the rhetoric the entire movie... and then it turned sniveling and the stupid, inane behavior by Ms. Green (when the crap was out of her system) just made for a ridiculous near end of the movie that was icing on the cake. This film is a great comedy drama. Christopher Walken is tremendous in his supporting role as manager, and his commentary will keep you laughing. Robin Williams plays a great role as a quick wit "Jon Stewart" and will amuse you if you are fans of Comedy Central. The show is good, because if the viewer has half-a-brain, they will see it as a very needed sub-cultural attack on the policies of the current Republican Government and a criticism on the American Democratic Process..., not to mention the means by which most politicians get elected.

I was amused at the sub-plots and found the film to be very fast paced and entertaining, without any of the usual "oh-brother's" I would agree the film is less comedy than marketed, however, without question better than 90% of the garbage in theatres at present. Just my thoughts...Don Robin Williams shows his stand-up talents and boosts up his status as a comedian in this movie of "what's wrong-in American politics and how can Hollywood try to make an influence without boring people". Of course Hollywood uses movies with hidden or not-so-hidden agendas. I think this movie is for people who likes stand-up and political discussion. And the trailers of this movie were for everybody just to make sure as many people as possible will see this. Everybody knows Hollywood is more liberal/democrat than the bush&co so they have to make these movies every now and then...but this one was perhaps too obvious, at least I thought so, for making any real change.

Still, great stand-up and fresh political issues and talks...I enjoyed it and thanks to IMDb.com ratings I was positively surprised when I walked out from the movie theater, and yes, I laughed many times. Sometimes you just have to let it go and forget all the seriousness....see this movie if you like good and clever stand-up or politics and you will not be offended by the several references of how things are not good right now. Rent it if that doesn't match you. Not every line in a comedy is funny. This movie takes a serious subject, the disenfranchisement of voters and holds it up to the light while telling jokes about it. It's the movie The Daily Show would have made if they wanted to turn it into a movie. I found Robin Williams to be much funnier in this movie than he was in RV. And while my wife and I share a few opposing political views, we were both doubled over in laughter for several parts of this movie. The script writers here could give Fox News some lessons in fair and balanced. Lewis Black was okay for his part, but never really seemed to be able to bring out his particular brand of comedy for his role. Christopher Walken was also good, playing his fairly common subdued supporting role, pushing a story along. I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense. This movie reminds me of great movies that temporarily wake me up with the realization that the Emperor is indeed naked. Our election process is unclothed and dismal. My awareness is heightened and I want to see the world change. After a short while I am lulled back to my little complacency and "bubble life." In the best sense of film this work will ferment into an edible stew for me and like in "Network" I want to be convicted to say'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' But to whom? My vigorous youthful idealism has been slowly reduced to concerned parent with quiet convictions or rather "beliefs." "Man of the year" reveals how much I yearn for honest and sometimes humorous takes on our current political situation. Dobbs' line " I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell,it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'" was refreshing or would've been when Clinton was President. Why can't politicians be honest and set that tone for debates? We people must realize how much veneer is being put forth as real? I am sick of this election process already,anyone else? Let take off the veils and set an agenda for our elected officials and take them to task (not re-elect) when they continue with evasion and non-representation of citizenry. This movie can inspire us to increase our expectations of politicians that spew rhetoric. Great Film! This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable.

Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career.

He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election.

Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election.

Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs.

The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend.

It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7/10. Robin Williams is a national treasure, specially when he cuts loose and puts aside his maudlin approach to drama. He manages to liven up the usual restrained pacing of Barry Levinson, and there are moments in this film when he truly shines.

As the funny elected American president in "Man of The Year" Williams recaptures the hilarity and outrageousness that used to be associated with him. What makes him so appealing is his humanity and likability. Here is a man who can lash at his audience but truly loves them, too. His humour is like barbed wire, and yet it is cathartic. It is what makes him very appealing to the people in the film and in real life.

Laura Linney is once again portraying an intelligent woman in distress. She is a fabulous and very talented performer, but I think she has boxed into a stereotype and unfortunately, it would have been more interesting to have a less recognizable performer in this case. Walken pretty much walks through his thankless role, and the climatic scene in the SNL skit barely floats above water.

Go in for a few hilarious moments, and those are priceless. Enjoy Williams and forget some of the deep moments that slow down this otherwise entertaining movie. if you are going to see this movie, by all means don't go into this movie with the expectation of this movie will be absolutely hilarious because you will be let down. yeah sure its funny at times but i would consider it a political thriller masqueraded as a comedy. the performances are very good especially by jeff goldblum as the head of the election company. even though he has limited screen time he makes a lasting impression. of course robin williams is excellent.laura linney is very good too what a surprise. she is one of the finest actresses in Hollywood and one scene in particular shows this. this film makes you think. what if a comedian ran for president and actually won? would the country be better off or would the country shatter into a million pieces? This is a masterpiece. 'The Big Snit' is a crazy, weird, hilarious and eventually touching look at an old married couple and their quiet life, who argue over sawing and scrabble while a nuclear war rages on outside. Everything in this great animated short stands out as memorable: The eye shaking of the wife, the vacuuming binge, the husband's saw fetish (keep an eye on those backgrounds!), the very verbal cat, the demented game show, the "informative" news anchor, the "beautiful" accordion serenade and the moving and memorable ending. I am so glad I found 'The Big Snit', which is hands down one of the greatest works of film ever produced. 'The Big Snit' came into my life complete by accident and has left an indelible mark on my soul. A scar of love, destruction and pointlessness that will forever be a part of my life. This is tale of beautiful futility. We are helpless without each other. We are helpless against governmental wrong-doings. We are helpless as to the choices we all try to make when in love. Deaf to the mutterings and goings on of an world outside the window. Blind to an inevitable apocalypse. Dumb of the hatred and greedy opinions of an over-indulgent society. This is a tale of personal commitment and triumphant love defeating the ideologies of war. Their petty bickering is a sublime observation of human nature and of how love comes with it's pains and darkness Everyone has some irritating aspect to their personality and this is observed by the makers in the most simplistic and fantastic way. We travel only a short distance with the two main characters but are left wanting to complete our own journeys with a some of their simple,loving, honest philosophy in tow. I am so very glad that i exist in this 'our time'. Another 20 years either side of my birth date, and i would not have seen and felt.... ....The Big Snit. William White. Sheffield. This film is all about humans. This film stayed as my all time favorite short cartoon for years.

Isn't it the simplest things that make life so much more interesting?! We humans are so soft, compassionate, funny, caring to each other one moment -- we invent the most beautiful and amazing machines to kill as many people as possible with the least effort the next. In our short lives, we destroy our world, each other and often, our own lives, than spend the rest of our lives trying to fix what we've destroyed. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix!

This film can entertain, educate and even help us realize what is wrong in our lives! Life is short and can be even shorter! The ending is way too optimistic I am afraid.

I love Richard Condie's mind and what he makes happen with it!

Enjoy

H.K. Richard Condie is a Canadian marvel, and one that should be shared with the world. Be it for gut-busting early work such as "Getting Started" and the Oscar-nominated "Snit" through "The Apprentice" and the digitally made "La Salla", Condie is a treasured local hero. But no singular piece of work puts a stamp on his career quite like "The Big Snit". And did I mention it was nominated for an Academy Award? Darn tootin'.

"The Big Snit", although clearly a dated message-bearer from the 1980s (the short revolves around Cold War-esquire nuclear annihilation, but don't worry – it's hilarious as hell), carries with it a larger meaning, as is most of Condie's work in an understated sort of way. While the planet scurries for cover from Armageddon, a couple bickers over each others' annoying habits (in true Condie fashion, he hacksaws the furniture while she shakes her eyes – literally). And don't forget to watch it again and again, 'cuz there's always something to look at. Condie loads this fella up with countless visual gags and memorable catch-phrases.

I strongly encourage this incredible piece of animation be tracked down. In Canada it's usually spotted in a National Film Board video that includes other stellar shorts (including fellow Winnipegger Cordell Barker's equally funny "The Cat Came Back"). Americans will just have to dig a little deeper, but keep at it – the reward is worth the toil. Richard Condie's utter maddness insanity cartoon 'The Big Snit', is a trip through qwerkyness, madness, hillarity, enjoyable backgrounds, melting characters, and a conclusion that nearly brings me to happy tears everytime I see it.

This short I have seen over and over AND OVER and I NEVER TIRE of it (luckily having it on tape from a broadcast on TV)!! It never stops to make me burst out in laughter uncontrollably, and then reach down into the depths of my spirit, highlighting the greatness of the human condition.

Cause when someone says, 'Come on, let's finish the game' everything is alright in the world and the troubles that we face everyday we suddenly realise are all petty fleeting things not to fight or worry about anymore. This film at first seems just like a simple exercise in cartoon slapstick humour, but it is far more than that. This film hits a greater sense of spiritual meaning with mankind in the wake when everything seems to be so bad and trivial.

It is flawless... in every way. AND DAMN FUNNY TOO ;)

Rating 10 out of 10. ...the world may never know. (The film that did take the "best animated short" Oscar that year, "Anna and Bella", is very good, but it's no "Big Snit". Both are available on Expanded Entertainment's "World's Greatest Animation" compilation, in case you'd like to compare.)

"Snit" and its director, Richard Condie, have attracted so much attention that there's little for me to add. I'd like to note, however, that the film contains one of my very favorite single "shots" in an animated short, the one where the man opens the door to let the cat out. I don't want to give away the actual events depicted here, but the first time I saw the shot I was whipsawed from one mood to another, then seconds later to still another. That shot has never failed to affect me that way since. For this shot, and for the way Condie builds up to that set of moments, "The Big Snit" deserves the tag of "masterpiece". I have only seen this once--in 1986, at an "artsy" theater in Minneapolis...but I remember it like I saw it a thousand times this morning. Hilarious ("Sawing for Teens", playing Scrabble with all "e" tiles), beautifully animated (taking off her eyes, shaking them back into position, then putting them back on), and poignant (the end of the world, the pettiness of a snit)...

Required viewing for the human race. Calling this simply a cartoon is like calling THE GREAT GATSBY nifty typing. This is a very strange little short film that initially didn't impress me. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the animation here certainly ain't pretty--though after a while you notice that the simple and silly drawings do possess a certain odd charm. That's probably because with the script as screwy as this one, the animation works.

The film shows an older couple sitting at the table playing Scrabble. At the same time they are fixated on this game or other bizarre pursuits (such as the husband's compulsion to saw things--even the chair and table)! And all of this stuff occurs as the television warns of pending atomic annihilation--Armageddon is definitely here! Naturally, the neighbors are screaming and running amok--during which time the couple obliviously continues with this idiotic game. Heck, even their cat knows the end is coming as the couple begin bickering about who may or may not have cheated--leading to a very surreal ending indeed!! The film deserves kudos for both being unique as well as very funny. While it did not win the Oscar, it was nominated for Best Animated Short--which it richly deserved. This hugely entertaining short is considered one of the best shorts ever, and I certainly won't argue with that. Even in a country where top-notch animated shorts are created with regularity, this film still manages to stand out. If you ever get the chance to view this film, please do so. It's only ten minutes long, and yet it contains a man who is obsessed with saws, a woman who vacuums the bathtub, and a nuclear war. What more could you want in a film? Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called "Sawing for Teens" with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie... Man am I stoked I can leave feedback for this 10 minutes romp. I love it.

After not seeing it in years, I happened upon it the other day and watched it over and over.

'Stop shaking your eyes' and 'shake a rock and roll band' and 'stop sawing the table' are freaking classic lines.

The art is delightfully raw. The dialog sparse and wonderful. Just find it and love it. Cannot recommend this enough.

Thank you high school art teacher Mrs. Kogan for showing us this over and over. Thank you NFB for letting it be made. Thank you MTS for showing it (for free at the moment at least).

I want a Big Snit t-shirt now. I'd love an animation cell, but at 440.00 a pop, that won't happen.

Find this flick, and watch it. This short was nominated for an Academy Award, losing to Anna and Bella. Not since Doctor Strangelove has nuclear war been so hilarious! Condie takes a situation and turns it on its ear and then gives it a spin for good measure. Visual gags abound in Condie's work and I always see something I missed before every time I watch this. On The World's Greatest Animation, well worth seeing for thisand many other shorts. Recommended. It's a shame that by garnering a restricted rating, perhaps the audience that would find this film the most useful won't likely see it.

Imaginary Heroes follows the life of a teenager after his brothers' suicide. Not, of course, the most original story in the world, however it does spend a great deal of time humanizing their parents, the 'imaginary heroes' that failed in their sons' eyes.

For teenagers, who tend to put responsibility for their failures on their parents but yet refuse to accept any real responsibility on their own, the movie sends a powerful message, that in the end we all have our own troubles we need to deal with, and that we all make our own paths.

But, unlike other movies that tend to urge youth independence, this one resolves the issues between parents and child, and they become a stronger unit for it. That the eldest child committed suicide is regrettable, but not overlooked later in the film, and the responsibility by all parties for the tragedy is thoroughly explained.

Although the subject matter has been covered before, it hasn't been covered quite this way -- the film pulls very little punches. Now, why this earned it an R rating is confusing -- you're unlikely to get across to a teenager in this era without being realistic, but yet providing realism restricts that very audience.

Were my junior high-school class have been shown this film, two suicides may have been prevented. In this case, the censors seem to have exercised extremely poor judgment.

8/10 Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively "uplifting" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of "Ordinary People", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations. This film is chock-full of little surprises, many of them funny. The fact that it's written and directed by a 24-year old blows my mind. Some of the scenes where the high school kids are using ecstasy made me very uncomfortable because I have a kid that age and I could picture her using it. As parent of a teen, I found the depictions of the parent-child interactions to be dead-on accurate.

I enjoyed the film's many little jokes, and I enjoyed the fact that not everything made perfect sense and not all the issues were resolved by the end. To paraphrase Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is required to stick to that which is possible, while truth is not.

This is a film which plays with the viewer, allowing us believe that people are what other people think they are, only to allow us later to realize that the folks we assumed were right were completely ignorant of the real situation. One of the film's strongest scenes, a scene about which we feel very relieved and sympathetic about what the character is doing, turns out to be based on a completely wrong assumption, and the character, while admirable, is totally wrong. It's very subtly done, I think. Very realistic.

I liked the score a lot -- I thought it really aided the film, really helped set the mood -- the film has a couple of screwball moments, and the background music helps establish that.

The valedictorian speech is a hoot and a half -- got a big laugh! The movie is really in my head right now -- saw it this morning. Will try to see it again, time allowing. Tens are hard to come by, but a solid nine in my book. This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.

Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.

In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.

Clearly a 10. Well done! Wow. When I went to this film at the Toronto film festival I had no idea what I was in for. This movie takes you on an emotional roller-coaster in the best sense of the term. Sigourney Weaver was better than I've seen from her in years; Emile Hirsch was great and Jeff Daniels broke my heart. I can see how this won't be every person's cup of tea, as at times it deals with some pretty harsh things that can happen to a family. Don't get me wrong -- it's really funny too -- at my screening the audience burst out in applause after laughing over and over again. I just think if you're open to examining your own life, Imaginary Heroes will sincerely touch you. I can't wait until it comes out in theaters. Imaginary Heroes is clearly the best film of the year. It was a complete and utter joy to watch. I was riveted. The whole audience up at the Sunset Five was riveted, when the film ended no one moved, spoke, nothing. I think this film is a perfect example of the of the power that drama has. Especially in so much as it sets an example of the quality of drama/ work of this younger generation.

There were moments in your film, many, like at least seven, where I was struck by such a great amount of beauty, emotional beauty, that I actually couldn't breathe for a while. And for a catharsis junkie like me, that's about the best censorial experience I could ask for. It is the result of powerful, masterful storytelling and direction. Like heavyweight stuff, like Burtolucci and those guys.

Each element of the film fit tightly together. There were no missteps at all. The cast was amazing. I have been a huge fan of Emile's and Ryan's for a long time, and I thought they have never been better. I was/am/will be continuously stunned by this film. And I promise I will drag every person I know to see it. It should be seen. It should win awards. It is hard to judge 'Imaginary Heroes' without referring to the fact that director and script writer Dan Harris is only 25. You can hardly believe seeing this film, which is not only a mature piece of work, professional and deep, but also with some of the defects of routine specific to older directors.

The setting is the American suburb, too familiar from 'American Beauty' or 'Desperate Housewives'. As in 'American Beauty'the film turns around a suicide, but here it happens at the beginning of the movie, and we are left watching a mid-class family coping with the death of the gifted sportsman brother and son. Emile Hirsch plays the younger brother, Sigourney Weaver is the mother, both are excellent trying to cope with the loss, to find the reason and motivation to survive. Harris drives his actors with a sure hand, and the first two sections of the film (there are four in total, as the seasons of the year) build a wonderful tension, with credible dilemmas and real questions. It is the second part of the film that disappoints slightly, it looks too tired and conventional, and I suspect that the producers may have interfered in the work of the young script-writer and director, trying to bring him closer to the Hollywood convention. That's how this film fails to be a somber version of 'American Beauty', with a different focus. I am sure however that we will hear a lot about Dan Harris in the coming years. The Kinks warned about media heroes. Outside the movies, most heroes are also "Ordinary People." Society demands some role playing, but what happens when that extends to the parent-child relationship? Do some parents try to improve themselves through their children rather than vice versa? How do you provide a role-model but not a role? A brilliant swimmer who hates to swim; a brilliant musician who won't play. Offbeat, funny (despite depiction of "serious" problems), very good multi-dimensional acting by everyone. Lots of plot twists complement the emotional tension. Celluloid heroes never feel any pain. I don't recall ever being disappointed in a Sigourney Weaver film (I even liked "The Village"!). It occurred to me while watching "Imaginary Heroes" that any screenwriter attempting to make a drama about family relationships should seriously consider killing off a kid or two in the opening reel as a way of getting his characters to open up and reveal themselves. There must be something to this storyline, for it seems as if every other family drama that comes down the pike uses this device in one form or another ("Paradise" and "Moonlight Mile" are just two of the more recent examples that spring immediately to mind, although one could reach back to a golden oldie like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to make the point as well). It's not that the death of a child is an illegitimate subject for serious films to explore. Far from it. It's just that, like any topic, it can be so overused that it becomes just another movie cliché, a convenient bit of narrative shorthand to get the ball rolling and to give the characters something to grapple with for the remainder of the time we get to spend with them.

The latest such work is "Imaginary Heroes," a film that borrows heavily from what is one of the earliest and, perhaps, best known examples of the "family coping with the death of a child" genre, the Academy Award winning "Ordinary People." Like the characters in that earlier film, the Travises seem, on the surface, to be the ideal suburban family, until, one fateful day, their oldest son, Matt, who is the "golden boy" athlete and, thus, the apple of his father's eye, kills himself with no explanation (one minor difference is that the son in "Ordinary People" dies as a result of an accident, not a suicide). It is Matt's younger brother, Tim, who winds up finding the body, and who assumes the role of protagonist in the film. Each of the remaining family members copes with the tragedy in his or her own way. Matt, who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother, becomes more and more estranged from the father who has virtually ignored him all his life and begins to turn to drugs for surcease. Ben, the father, becomes swallowed up in feelings of remorse and guilt, turning away from both his job and his family. His wife, Sandy, is the most complex character in the film, a free-spirited child of the '60's who feels oddly adrift in the role of mother and wife as she endures a basically loveless marriage in sterile suburbia. She spends most of her time after the tragedy trying to reconnect with her pot-smoking past.

As written and directed by Dan Harris, "Imaginary Heroes" emerges as a wildly uneven film. For every scene that feels real and authentic, there is another that comes across as arbitrary and inauthentic. One sometimes has the sense that Harris would like to cram every possible life situation he can think of into his screenplay, an admirable goal, perhaps, but one that makes the film unnecessarily melodramatic in the process. Instead of identifying with the characters and being caught up in their plight, we often find ourselves thinking, "Oh, come now…what next?" For teen suicide is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the hot-button topics covered in this film; the screenplay also touches on drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual identity conflict, life-threatening illness, even inadvertent gay incest. It is this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality in the writing that robs the movie of much of the credibility it needs to really make us care.

That is not to say that "Imaginary Heroes" is a bad or unrewarding film. Much of what it has to say about familial relationships and values in the 21st Century is insightful, original, pointed and profound. Prime credit for its success goes to the actors, Emile Hirsch, Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels, who deliver incisive, sensitive performances in their respective roles. It is they who triumph over the narrative excesses to stimulate our brains and touch our hearts. Moreover, Harris, in his direction, achieves an effectively melancholic tone throughout, but one that is frequently augmented by some badly-needed flashes of daring dark comedy.

"Imaginary Heroes" may appear unfocused and derivative at times, but its fine performances and subtle mood shifts make it a film worth watching. As Salinger's "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" ends with the suicide of a prodigy, this movie opens with the death of the star high school swimmer legend, Matt, who shoots himself in the head with a revolver after in the opening scene. But the death of Matt Travis serves as a key to unlock the door of another prodigy, his brother, Tim who never in his life seriously bothered with the question, "What am I going to do?"

When he finds his brother dead, his head broken like a dropped watermelon, the Travis family starts vomiting out its secrets one by one. The film focuses on Tim. He is a victim of bullying, domestic abuse, family alienation, heartbreak, issues of sexuality and friendship.

Tim reveals his wounds by physical bruises, but these are not the only injuries to his person, as we slowly come to realize, as the script painfully unveils the origins and outcome of Tim scars. Everyone who loves him hurts him. Hirsch plays out the character quite well, revealing frame after frame in the visual expression of his body, a host of conflicting emotions inside the soul of a kid whom no one seems to listen to or know very well, unknowing and unaware of his depth of soul and prodigious talent.

Two siblings sharing a doobie, curled up on a red, spinnable playground saucer, Tim asks Penny, "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?" The scene is framed in a familiar, recurring image of the film: the comfortable playground where Tim obviously feels at home, filmed from a bird's eye view, because with every character Tim feels comfortable to share a part of himself, and we view these intimate moments he shares in the red, spinnable playground saucer, complete with childish graffiti carved in pencil, from above. After advising him curtly to pass the joint, Penny tells him, "Tim, well, the secret to the success of life is to find something you love. And you have to do that for the rest of your life … And you better hope to hell that you're good at it because if you're not then you'll probably fail." This simple line of advice from Penny serves as the movie's central theme, the responsibility of talent and the possibility of failure. Why does one person have a talent he cannot stand, like Matt, who hated the attention his swimming fame brought, but no one notices Tim's talent – no one – because no one bothers to ask him? Not even us. The film makes us aware that we ourselves do not know Tim as well as we thought we did when we first meet this handsome, sad, guy; in our intimate understanding of Tim, as it progresses, we are reminded that not everyone is as they seem to be. This is the other side of the film, the failure of those who should – parents, friends, teachers – whoever – to notice and see the gifts of the people they claim to love. Not even his mother Sandy, played by Sigourney Weaver, sees Tim's gift, despite her love for her son. Weaver does a deft job of a middle-aged woman grappling with her own inner demons as she haphazardly tries to play the roles of domesticity and support. When Tim is found to be bullied at school, she storms the boy's trailer, threatening his life, "You can tease, torture, punch, drive drunk with me, I can forgive you. Hell I can understand it, I'm a good Christian, you know, I can forgive and forget, but you mess with my kid and may God himself descend from heaven to protect you because as long as I live – and I will outlive you all – I will wake up and go to sleep at night just dreaming of ways to make your petty insignificant lives into hell on earth." After flicking a paper cup into the mother's face, she looks around the trailer, and looking at them both, the kid and his stunned mother, comments, "nice trailer" and leaves as quickly as she came. Weaver scores in her ability to match gusto with visceral wit that is acid and witty. And Tim's father, played by Jeff Daniels, is blind to who his son is, treating him like a stranger, not telling his family that he took time off from the office, spending his days in the city park, listless, a carved out soul, and sleeping in Matt's bed, tucked in with his high school letter jacket. Jeff Daniels does a superb job of making us believe that he can be both a bastard and lovable because, we grow to see that even an inept father can show his love for his son. In an emotional scene, Tim confronts his father. Just when you think his dad is going to hit him, he grabs for him to embrace him. Not letting him go, he tells Tim, "I am your father and you're are my son and I'm here okay but you've gotta talk to me. I don't know how to do this by myself". It is here at this moment in the film that a father tells his son, you have to tell me what's going on inside of you, you have to tell me who you are; I want to know who you are. It is in this scene that the film reaches a cathartic moment, the visual movement from Tim, angry and alone, to his father embracing him as he breaks downs and weeps, revealing the emotions hidden beneath his shell. Tim experiences this moment of cleansing with his dad as a catharsis, especially when you consider the mistreatment, manipulation, disregard, violence and betrayal he has been dealt in the long year the film encompasses. I recommend this film. Another slice of darkness and denial hiding beneath the surface of American suburbia, Imaginary Heroes chronicles the lives of the Travis family, all recovering following the suicide of their eldest son.

The pair at the center of the film is mother and son Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) and Tim (Emile Hirsch), both acting out in different ways as a result of the death. While Tim experiments with prescription medication and his own sexuality, Sandy regresses to her former self, smoking marijuana and coming to terms with an old act of infidelity.

The relationship between Sandy and Tim is explored well, especially when references are made to both of them being outcast from their own family: Sandy due to her affair and Tim, initially, due to always being in the shadow of his more successful older brother. Considerably less time is allowed for Sandy's husband Ben (Jeff Daniels) who, in a devastating depiction of denial, orders Sandy to make an additional plate of food for his dead son and place it in his old spot at the dinner table. Michelle Williams' older sister Penny is underwritten and could easily be taken out of the film.

Despite its long runtime, Imaginary Heroes doesn't explore its many subplots as much as the individual stories deserve, while some of the movie's black comedy doesn't translate as well as writer/director Dan Harris may have liked. And the depiction of a disturbed family dynamic isn't depicted as strongly as the many other films out there with similar ideas. But despite some issues, the central performances from Weaver and Hirsch are stunning, and easily carry the film to its successfully subdued conclusion.

Rating: B- "Imaginary Heroes" is a 2004 film starring Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, Emile Hirsch, Michelle Williams, and Kip Pardue.

The story concerns a dysfunctional family that becomes even more dysfunctional when the oldest child (Pardue) commits suicide.

"Ordinary People" has been mentioned often in relation to this film; it's sort of "Ordinary People" with a role reversal. The mother in this case, Sandy Travis (Weaver) is more accessible than the father, Ben (Daniels) who is clearly devastated and unable to cope. Like "Ordinary People," the younger son Tim (Hirsch) is the focus of the film.

For me, the film was absorbing enough to keep watching but has a curious detachment about it. There were some wonderful interactions - mother and son, mother and neighbor, brother and sister (Williams) and some good offbeat moments. What never clicked was Ben being any part of that family or having any chemistry with Sandy. This seems to have been the goal of director/writer Dan Harris. In one scene in a grocery store, the checkout kid assumes Sandy is "about 30" and gives her his phone number. In almost the next scene, Daniels asks Sandy if she wants plastic surgery for her birthday. Weaver was 55 when this film was made, actually probably 54, and looks phenomenal. So what is Ben looking at? However, there's something askew about Ben's complete detachment because the viewer doesn't really see how Daniels ever WAS attached to that family.

The end has a couple of twists and also some very touching scenes. Everyone is very good, with Weaver and Hirsch being the standouts.

There's not a tremendous amount of dialogue in this movie and lots of stares. The script could have been sharper. But "Imaginary Heroes" is a good effort. This film does not have the outstanding visuals that American Beauty or The Ice Storm offered and because it was made after those films, it cannot be marked as very original either: the music, though subtly brilliant, sounds very much like that of American Beauty.

The story has some similarities with The Ice Storm in particular (as well as Sigourney Weaver). Without intent perhaps, the film seems to try to recreate the success of the two aforementioned movies too much. At times, the story tends to stay a bit more shallow than it's bigger, more successful "brothers" by having too much going on, or by not delivering the most effective dialogs. Here, the writing cannot measure with that of American Beauty. But that can be said about most movies ever made, even the best and there is still a lot to like: said music score and (expectable, given the cast) effective performances. Of note is Emile Hirsch who would shine a couple of years later in the outstanding "Into The Wild".

Overall I can recommend this film if you like suburban dramas though it's not the first one on a list of must-sees, which would be topped by: 1 American beauty 2 The Ice Storm 3 Little Children.

After you've seen and liked those, check out this one. Have just seen this film, in Australia on satellite. As i have been avoiding the news more so than usual over the last week coming from the US of A regarding gunmen, well to be absolutely blunt, this film is a prescient gem. A big bravo to all involved. i had only a small idea of what the film entailed as is most often the case for good effect and this certainly came up with cinematic goods. the setting of the scene is effective in the truest sense of the word, with all the hairy confronting subjects of today's world in relation to one's own faltering family, albeit suburb. The first forty minutes sets such a professional theater i was not ready for the out loud laughs when they came. Although the cathartic moment built via comedy and character as the family and neighbors came together in an extraordinary way.

All in all a foreseeing of who and what we are. A most meaningful film and a must see.

please note the date of this review. so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.

Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.

NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.

There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.

So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen. Before Barton jumps all over my remarks, let's all just keep in mind that opinions are like asses, we all have them.....

I loved Sigourney Weaver & Jeff Daniels, I loved the dialogue and thought the acting was sublime. Downplayed just perfectly and understated. Unlike some others, I did NOT find this @ all predictable.

I found Sigourney's role refreshingly humorous and realistic, especially her scene confronting the bully in the trailer.

I found it enjoyable and wasn't anticipating recommending this to all and sundry. This is why there are different flavors of ice cream, something to please everyone... Imaginary Heroes, the remarkable work of the then 24 year-old Dan Harris, is tag-lined "People are never who they seem to be". Perhaps this is wisely chosen as a stratagem of marketing; yet, I rented this movie in spite of the tag-line, rather than because of it. And, I'm glad I did. I found the move an insightful examination of tragedy. I personally found it to be a movie about coping with dreams: particularly those which are lost. In the case of one son, "loss" requires deep examination of what he had, and didn't have, in his life. Yet, the central tragedy of the movie, while posing enticing questions in its own right, acts primarily as the backdrop against which different coping styles are set into relief. I believe the film inquires into an important question: how do we cope with our dreams, particularly where heroes become imaginary? IMAGINARY HEROES is one fine little film! Written and directed by Dan Harris this story is classic theater, weaving comedy and tragedy together so tightly that the climax of the film takes your breath away.

The Travis family is an odd bunch: no member is who each appears to be. Beginning with a suicide of the reluctant 'hero' child swimming champion Matt (Kip Pardue), the father Ben (Jeff Daniels) falls apart and isolates himself from his family and himself while the mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) turns to pot and rage and sarcasm, the daughter Penny (Michelle Williams) returns from school repulsed by her family's behavior, and the remaining son Tim (Emile Hirsch) takes the brunt of all of the above by avoiding his classmates, girlfriend, and teams with his neighbor Kyle (Ryan Donowho) to leap into drugs and sexual experimentation. Throughout the film Tim tries to hide bruises on his body that have a secret all their own yet lead his girlfriend to feel rejection, his mother to rage against the trailer park trash bully she believes is the cause, and finally open the window to the deep scars this family has suffered for years. Secrets and lies, here, and the resolution of them is painfully dramatic.

This may be Sigourney Weaver's finest role, although Emile Hirsh, Jeff Daniels, Ryan Donowho, and Kip Pardue (despite the brevity of his role) all contribute top-notch performances. The story begins slowly and seems to meander and that fact may lose some viewers' attention, but stay with this little powerhouse film and the impact of the work will stun you. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp Enjoyed this film which deals entirely about an average family, so it appears. Ben Travis, (Jeff Daniels) plays the role as a father who is only interested in one son who is excellent at swimming and wins many trophy's, however, he hates it very much and even his father. Ben has very little to say to his other son, Tim, (Emile Hirsh) and even his daughter, Penny, (Michelle Williams) who is fortunate to be away in college. The mother, Sandy, (Sigourney Weaver) tries to hold the family together and even she is completely ignored by her husband also. A very tragic event happens in the family which changes everyone's personality, young and old start using drugs, smoking pot and drinking all the time at parties. There is even a homosexual scene and at the same time there is even room for comedy and of course there is a very dark secret that Sandy Travis finally tells her son Tim. Some may think Imaginary Heroes is a movie exactly like "Igby Goes Down" but it isn't. In Imaginary Heroes, the director lets us feel for the Travis family and the people around them.

The movie itself is great, and the acting is extremely well done. Weaver's and Hirsch's acting is believable and helps make the movie what it is. The actors, director/writer, Dan Harris, has made a movie that many people should see. Don't think this is just another teen movie, it is a movie about a family and their problems.

I gave this movie a 10/10 because I believe it isn't the best film, which no film can be, but its the closest it can get to perfect. This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie! I'm not going to tell anyone what happens in the end, but it did not fit with the movie. The rest of Imaginary Heroes, though, portrayed a realistic family going through realistic issues, such as death, drugs, relationships, and high school. I could have sworn that they were my own family, no joke.

Emile Hirsch was completely believable as a teen struggling with his brother's suicide, and Sigourney Weaver plays a mother trying to keep the remains of her (slightly) dysfunctional family together.

Although this family may take their issues to the extreme, anyone can relate to what they go through, whether it be graduation, living up to expectations, or being a parent. A throwback to the "old fashioned" Westerns of the 30s and 40s (such as DODGE CITY), DALLAS has a number of things going for it: Gary Cooper at his coolest, blazing Technicolor photography by Ernest Haller (GONE WITH THE WIND) and a pulse-pounding Max Steiner (KING KONG, GWTW, DODGE CITY et al.) score. In addition, there is a masquerade, mistaken identity, a faked death and more hair-breath escapes than a Republic serial. As always, Cooper defines what it is to be a man under pressure. Forget the 50s angst Western... this is pure entertainment! Gary Cooper and a marshal change identities, since they both agree Cooper would be more efficient facing the outlaws. What is remarkable in this film are the costumes, both the marshal´s and Steve Cochran´s who is the bad guy. Cochran wears his guns backwards, probably to be able to crossdraw. The film starts quite excitingly with a showdown with Wild Bill Hickok. Ruth Roman, looking very pretty is the marshal´s fiancee. There is plenty of action, never a dull moment, but you have to concentrate, because the story is a bit complicated. Good entertainment. Dallas stars Gary Cooper, Ruth Roman, Steve Cochran, Barbara Payton & Raymond Massey. It's directed by Stuart Heisler, photography is from Ernest Haller & pen duties fell to John Twist. Produced out of Warner Brothers, Dallas is vividly filmed in Technicolor out of the Iverson & Warner ranches in California. Very much a film with its tongue firmly in cheek, the film is a throwback to the Westerns of yore that exist without pretensions or deep penetrative meanings.

The plot sees Cooper's Civil War renegade, Blayde "Reb" Hollister, fake his own death so as to kill off his reputation and to free himself for the pursuit into Dallas of the brothers who massacred his family. In essence a routine plot, Twist's story is perked up along the way by many a fun and exciting diversion. There's role reversals, dandy fashions, horseback pursuits, shoot outs, a love triangle, vigorous dialogue and deft little twists to keep the piece purely from painting it by numbers.

Cooper seems to be enjoying himself too, which further enhances the feel good factor on offer. It's true he isn't really asked to do anything more than be a laconic dude on a mission. But when called on for action duties, he delivers the goods that his fans have come to expect during his successful career. The villains entertain {particularly Steve Cochran's vile and dopey Bryant Marlow} because each have their own little peccadilloes to keep them from over familiar blandness. The two ladies of the piece look gorgeous and hold up well in amongst the machismo, while the high production value allows Haller to really treat the eyes with the lush Technicolor and involving camera work around the locations.

It has ideals to being an A list Oater does Dallas, something it just can't quite attain. But it's not for lack of trying and the end result is one of pure entertainment, that, in truth, should be enjoyed on a cold winters day when the viewer needs a pick me up. 7/10 Gary Cooper is a cool headed guy. Always liked his easy going level headed characters. As some others have commented, there are some oddities in the script, such as a US Marshall who got his job and can't even hit a barn with a pistol. A rancher with about thirty hands but can't seem to keep his cattle from being run off.

But there is plenty of the quick thinking, straight shooting Cooper to keep you entertained.

This movie was made in 1950. People in their 20's and 30's have trouble understanding those movies were made for entertainment not Oscars.

To expect Oscar material does this film injustice. It is about the good guys finding a way to round up the bad guys.

So rent, borrow, or buy this movie, pop some corn and enjoy the Coop one more time. If you like Gary Cooper, this is one of his best roles. His gentle intensity to right a wrong is what made his career. "Blayde Hollister" comes to Dallas to take revenge against Will and Brian Malowe, who burned his Georgia farm and killed his family. Inept Marshall gets in Hollister's way, attempting to arrest him when interrupted by a street shootout between Hollister and Wild Bill Hickock. The shootout is staged to get the law off Hollister, & he takes the "back East" Marshall under his wing to keep him alive in Texas, as they switch identity.

That was a great beginning, and the picture holds up all the way through. Action may be a little "slow" by today's standards, but it is one of my top 10 favorite movies. I may differ from many people on this board but I enjoy watching Mind Of Mencia. The reason I like Mind Of Mencia is the host is not afraid to speak his mind or exploit stereotypes. Carlos Mencia does what we all do with our friends but are unwilling to admit and then some.

Mencia has no problem doing jokes about any race, religion, sex, or orientation. While he gets a lot of flack for this it is a breath of fresh air in these politically correct times. Mencia does not care if he offends anyone but he is not a racist and even does jokes about his own race.

The typical format for the Mind of Mencia goes like this: there will be an open skit making fun of a person or recent event. Mencia then comes out and does a 5 or 6 minute stand up where he talks about various issues. The show then has 2 separate skits divided by commercials. In these skits Mencia does a variety of things such as making fun of people, giving his personal opinions with a funny twist, or simply doing parodies of people, events, or movies. At the end of the show Mencia comes out for a minute with either one final skit or something else to say.

People criticize Mencia for exploiting stereotypes and say his statements are overly offensive. Carlos only does what everyone else thinks of certain races but are afraid to say. As for Mencia being offensive he is only speaking his mind. I find nothing wrong with that.

The show is not perfect. The skits can be not put together the best and sometimes Mencia does go over the line in his jokes. For the most part however it is a show where the comedian says what is on his mind no matter what the consequences and presents in in a humorous matter. So if you aren't afraid to laugh at stereotypes and see someone speak his mind and often say what you have wanted to say then watch Mind Of Mencia. However if you are easily offended you should not watch this show because you will be offended or worse yet you might even laugh. What is your freaking problem? Do you have nothing better to do than sit on your fat asses and blog about about how you find something in bad taste? Here's an idea:Go outside. That's right: Walk outside your mom's basement that you've been living in for 13 years and GO OUTSIDE. "But I can't leave! Star Trek is on in 30 minutes and I still haven't married that avatar on World Of Warcraft!" Oh my God, in that case, stay inside! Alright, I might have gone overboard there. I mean, Star Trek is okay but I don't really watch it that much anymore. Either way, do you really have to write crap about Mind of Mencia. It's A GOOD SHOW. Maybe you're just venting your anger because that girl dumped you on World of Warcraft. Or you're constipated. Try putting fiber in your diet. I saw "Heaven-Ship" ("Himmelskibet") at the 2006 Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. What a great movie! This Danish steampunk saga is the stirring tale of the first trip to Mars, in an era when wireless telegraphy hasn't been perfected. The spaceship hasn't got a radio, and the heroes are brought back from the landing field via horsecart. Even the intertitles are delightful ... some of them written in rhymed couplets in the original Danish.

The actors' performances are laughable, largely hand-to-brow histrionics. But the sets are astonishing, easily surpassing anything done by Georges Melies a decade earlier (or in "Die Frau im Mond" a decade later). Of course, the plot is simplistic. The spaceship's crew consist of seven thin guys and one fat slob. Guess which one cracks. Interestingly, everyone in this movie (except the dubious Professor Dubius) ardently believes in God. Even the Martians.

Impressively, the scenarists have the sense to acknowledge that a trip to Mars is no doddle: the title cards establish that it takes the scientists two years to build their spaceship (which has an airscrew) and six months to reach Mars. During the construction sequence, there's one extremely impressive set-up which must have been choreographed: dozens of workers all hustle through the worksite in different directions, with no hesitations and no collisions. The Danish scientists christen their ship "Excelsior" ("packing materials"?) and set course for Mars, even though the Moon and Venus are closer. When the ship (which flies horizontally, not vertically) lands on Mars, it is greeted by "Marsboerne" -- Martians -- who turn out to be Nordic blondes, all highly-developed pacifists and vegetarians. (As a highly-developed meat-eater, I resented that part.)

Conveniently enough, Mars turns out to have an atmosphere just like Earth's, as well as equal gravity. In an exterior shot of the Martian landscape, the Sun's apparent magnitude when seen from Mars is the same as it is when viewed from Earth. I also couldn't help observing that all the wise elder Martians are male. In fact, female elders are thin on the ground here: both the Earth-born hero and the Martian maiden are motherless. The Martians speak a universal language, wear ankhs on their robes, and greet the Earth visitors with a globe of Earth ... which of course they hold with its North Pole upward.

That Martian maiden is Marya, played by an ethereally beautiful Danish actress. (Waiter, I'll have some of that Danish!) We see a Martian dance of chastity which might have been twee or ludicrous but is actually quite touching and beautiful. Also, the Martian funeral scene features one shot which reminded me of a sequence in "The Seventh Seal". I wonder if Ingmar Bergman saw this film.

"Himmelskibet" has a few flaws, but its production design and its other merits very far outweigh its drawbacks. The Ole Olsen who is named in the credits (and who appears in a brief prologue) is no relation to Chic Johnson's vaudeville partner from "Hellzapoppin". I would give "Himmelskibet" a 12, but the scale tops off at 10 ... so, a full 10 out of 10 for this delightful trip to Mars, the blonde planet! I saw this film from 1918 recently at our local Helsinkian film archive. It seems that the Danish Film Institute has reconstructed it in 2006 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Nordisk filmcompany, which was one of the largest in the world in the early 20th century. I believe there are several copies with English translations circulating around Europe at the moment.

I found the film fascinating and the trip to Mars well thought out. The plot line is certainly original, but I really don't want to reveal any more of it at the moment, as now the danger of spoiling things for you really exists ;-).

The film is also available on DVD, query the Danish Film Institute (Det Danske Filminstitut) web pages at dfi.dk with 'Himmelskibet' to get more info. Bwana Devil is reputedly the first major studio, full length feature filmed entirely in the 3D process. Supposedly producer Oboler went to Africa to shoot a different movie, but after hearing the tale of two man-eating lions, terrorizing railway builders, decided on this one. It's a good story too, almost Hemmingway-like; fear, redemption, the great white hunter and all. It's the telling of the story that seems to drag, almost as though filming in the new process was too weighty for the crew. The action scenes are stiff, almost too staged. But these technical problems appear small in light of the film's dramatic conclusion. Bravestarr was released in 1987 by the now defunct American animation company, Filmation on the back of He-man: Masters of the universe and She-Ra: Princess of Power, in 1983 and 87' respectively. The plot of the cartoon was about a Native American cowboy named Marshall Bravestarr, who possesses the strength of the bear, ears of the wolf, speed of the puma and eyes of a hawk, and his trusty sidekick, a talking horse named Thirty- Thirty, who carried with him a gun aptly titled, 'Sarah Jane' and with the help of Deputy Fuzz and Judge J.B serve to protect New Texas from the evil Tex Hex and his band of outlaws.

Set in futuristic Texas, this was and still is to this day, one of the very few cartoons set in a particular city, in the US- hence in the South- thousands of light years ahead in the future. Considering this was made in the 80s, the creators did an impressive job trying to recreate the wild west look but from a Sci-Fi based outlook. Bravestarr didn't just evoke morality and good verses bad, as well as teaching children lessons about life, but it also highlighted themes of culture and community and that we shouldn't take things and life for granted. And despite the fact that this was an action adventure cartoon, many of the story lines, themes and issues it addressed resonate with children and adults in a way that makes sense to them. In addition, Marshall Bravestarr was one of the very first major cartoon characters from a (ethnic)minority background, to make an impact on TV.

The sound effects were amazing, the music was great, the theme song equally memorable and the animation was wonderful. The characters were well designed and the stories were diverse and taught kids morals and the importance of what is right and what is wrong. Something of which the same cannot be said about today's cartoons, sadly.

Whilst Bravestarr was overshadowed by the success of He-man, it is still a personal favourite for many 80s cartoon fanatics. Suffice to say, I preferred Bravestarr over He-man because of the diversity of the story lines, characters and that the depth of the situations and problems that the characters faced themselves, were more what I would say realistic and identifiable in contrast. For some reason, they resonated more with people because like for instance,in 'The Pledge' where a kid dies from a drug overdose, the fact that there wasn't a happy ending was important- in the sense that when kids watch that episode, well, in fact anyone who watches that episode, will realise for themselves the devastating consequences of drug usage and that no one should underestimate the dangers of drugs.

Bold, brave and at times thought-provoking, Bravestarr is definitely that- bold, brave and thought provoking. A cult cartoon classic for many years to come, it dared to take some risks, but it had well and truly paid off in the end. It will be remembered by many cartoon fans as one of the most interesting as well as best 80s cartoons ever, and rightly so

8 and a half out of ten Man! I remember this show with nostalgic... I really dug Bravestarr because he wasn't the conventional hero. He was more than a futuristic Texas cowboy. The man had the strenght of a bear, the vision of a walk, and the agility of a ... I can't remember that one.

The action sequences were great! I remember that Bravestarr would always use his bazooka named SARAJUANA (translated to Spanish) anytime he was in big troubles.

This was a quality action cartoon. I loved the characters, the dialogs, the music, and of course, the opening credits sequence! Bravestarr! long live to him. A cult classic in my opinion and a must see. "Brotherhood of Satan" is one of the most underrated horror films of all times.Why it hasn't achieved a cult status is beyond me.This is a chilling tale of terror and witchcraft which contains one of the most powerful and disturbing climaxes in the annals of screen horror.In the small American town some children have disappeared and their parents been violently murdered.What is the cause of hysteria?The film is really eerie,some scenes are genuinely unnerving and definitely not easily forgotten.The suspense never lets up,the acting is really good,and the climax is bizarre and disturbing.Check out this forgotten gem of satanic horror.Absolutely recommended. Every great once in a while, you stumble upon a movie that exceeds even your wildest expectations. Given the IMDb rating of 4.0, I wasn't really expecting much with The Brotherhood of Satan. I hoped that at a minimum it might be cheesy fun like The Devil's Rain or any of the other early 70s similarly themed Satanic horror films. I couldn't' have been more wrong. What I got instead was an ambitious and intelligent film with a cast I really enjoyed. Speaking in broad terms to avoid giving anything away, the film's style and structure are much more experimental than the straightforward storytelling so prominent in the early 70s. The Brotherhood of Satan doesn't beat you over the head with plot points and explanations. A lot is left to the viewer to fill in the blanks. As a viewer, you know something is amiss, but for the longest period you're just not sure what it is. The unknown helps make for a far creepier atmosphere than most similar films. The ending is effective with its surreal imagery. I sat in amazement as the final credits began to roll. Those wanting a big slam-bang finale will be disappointed with the ending's simplicity. A lesser film would have tried to pull out all the stops and would, most likely, have failed miserably.

There are moments in the film where it's easy to forget the director, Bernard McEveety, had primarily worked in television before The Brotherhood of Satan. There are a few scenes that are so well set-up, lit, and shot that even the most accomplished of directors could learn a thing or two. For example, I've seen enough films over the years to realize that directors can sometimes seem to have trouble shooting widescreen shots indoors. Not here. The scene where the men are discussing their plan of action in the sheriff's office is amazing. We see all five men at once – each doing their own thing as in real life. In a lesser film, we might see all the men at once, but each would be motionless, quietly waiting their turn to deliver their dialogue. It's a small scene, but it looks so natural and is so beautifully shot that it's one of my favorite moments of The Brotherhood of Satan.

Finally, I mentioned the acting in my opening, so without going into a long-winded speech, I'll just say that The Brotherhood of Satan features Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones. Any film with these two guys is almost an automatic winner with me. This is one creepy underrated Gem with chilling performances and a fantastic finale!. All the characters are great, and the story was awesome, plus i thought the ending was really cool!. The plot was great, and it never bored me, plus while the child actors were bad, they gave me the creeps!. This happened to be on the space channel a while ago, so i decided to check it out and tape it, i read some good reviews from fellow horror fans, i must say i agree with them, it's very creepy, and suspenseful, plus Strother Martin, was fantastic in his role, as the Satan worshiper. It has tons of creepy atmosphere, and it keeps you guessing throughout, plus all the characters were very likable, and you really start to root for Ben and his family!. It has plenty of disturbing moments, and the film really shocked me at times, plus, it's extremely well made on a low budget!. This is one creepy underrated gem, with chilling performances and a fantastic finale!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Bernard McEveety does a very good job here, with great camera work, creating a lot of creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. Ther is a little bit of blood and gore. We get a severed leg,lots of bloody corpses,bloody slit throat, slicing and dicing,decapitation, and an impaling. The Acting is excellent!. Strother Martin is fantastic here! as the Satan worshiper, he is extremely creepy, very convincing, was quite chilling, was extremely intense, seemed to be enjoying himself, and just did a fantastic job overall!. Charles Bateman is great as the Dad, he was very caring, very likable, and gave a good show!, i liked him lots. L.Q. Jones is awesome as the Sheriff, he was funny, on top of things, looked very young, had a cool character, and just did an awesome job overall!. Ahna Capri is good as the girlfriend and did what she had to do pretty well. Charles Robinson overacted to the extreme as the Priest and didn't convince me one bit!, and that laugh of his was especially bad. Geri Reischl is actually decent as the daughter, she was somewhat likable, and only got on my nerves a couple times, i rather liked her. Alvy Moore was goofy, but very likable in his role as Tobey i dug him!. Rest of the cast do good. Overall i highly recommend it!. ***1/2 out of 5 I had no idea what I was going to see when I decided to view this film and to my surprise its just an extremely well made horror film that is easily one of the best of the 1970's. Film is of course low budget and this is an excellent example of how the story and style of a film creates chills, not special effects! Strother Martin is one of the great character actors of all time and he has a rare starring role here and the film also stars Martins good friend L.Q. Jones and "Green Acres" Alvy Moore. Jones and Moore helped produce this film as well. TV veteran Charles Bateman is the star and "Enter the Dragon" beauty Ahna Capri is his girlfriend. Capri is in a bikini at the beginning of the film and she's just gorgeous to look at! Film does a terrific job of staying with the story and not adding a phony feel good ending and I really liked the way the film ends. Great atmosphere, interesting story and well directed by Bernard McEveety. Martins performance is top notch also as he doesn't hold back at all and really throws himself into the role of Doc. Good and underrated film! I would probably say this was on a par with films like "Devil's Rain" and that sort of film, although this is probably a bit better made. I love 70's horror and this has most of the elements that make up other movies I like so it was pretty easy to enjoy. A family on their vacation stumble across a small town where the people seem to be gripped by some sort of hysteria. Seems like the children have been disappearing. After an initial attempt to flee this place, the family is somehow stopped on the edge of town and find their way back, but not without first finding a house where the kids are gone and mommy and daddy are dead. Seems like we have a different kind of twist on a senior citizen community center in this town, they're all Satan worshipers and they need the kids to renew their lives so they can continue on in their service, I guess. Not that anyone seems too keen on giving up their kids for this enterprise. This is fairly classy considering that it's scary and creepy without buckets of gore or the loud startling events that try to make people jump in films today, which seem to have replaced actual scares. We have Hank Kimball (Alvy Moore) from "Green Acres" as Tobey, a sheriff's deputy that reads UFO magazines, and LQ Jones as the sheriff, and a very familiar character actor as the dad of the stranded family. And Strother Martin plays the doctor who seems to be doing double duty unbeknown to his fellow townsfolk. This is pretty good stuff but a tad on the confusing side sometimes, but overall works pretty well & is recommended for fans of 70's horror. 8 out of 10. I had been interested in this film for a long time, especially after reading a couple of online reviews of the DVD edition; however, I kept postponing its purchase because of the excessive price-tag and utter lack of relevant supplements. When it went out-of-print earlier this year, I finally gave in - but the entire order (which included a number of other highly-desirable titles) got lost in transit!; luckily, the DVD has been re-issued at bargain-price - and I'm sure glad I picked it up!

Anyway, this is one strange film, and a genuine sleeper: initially confusing but striking occult tale which manages to hit bullseye with respect to both its forbidding small-town atmosphere and the inherent eeriness of the sinister goings-on. A small cast responds perfectly to a terse, absorbing and intelligent script: lead Strother Martin, in particular, makes the dialogue sound better than it actually is with his nuanced performance as the town doctor/head of the witch's coven; L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore (both of whom also produced the film!) offer solid support as the no-nonsense sheriff and his comic-strip aficionado assistant.

The plot merges elements of various earlier films dealing with witchcraft and the supernatural, and not only the obvious titles: the fact that the town is held under a spell which can't at first be identified, for instance, brings instantly to mind the similar affliction of one specific bourgeois household in Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)!; the 'possessed children' angle was borrowed, perhaps, from VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960); there have been many films - especially of a recent vintage - where the satanic rites of a witches' coven are shown: from THE CITY OF THE DEAD (1960) to THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (1968) but, since the proceedings take place in modern-day America (albeit in remote surroundings) and revolve around elderly witches (seeking a 'renaissance'), the film they recall most of all is ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968).

The occult scenes (accentuated as much by foggy exteriors as by the shadowy lighting of the garishly-decorated house where the diabolical events take place) are presented in a completely matter-of-fact way as to make them unsettling and extremely effective - particularly the opening sequence involving an army tank crushing a car(!), the rampage of a devil-doll (a concept which has been done to death over the years but, here, it raises an undeniable frisson), a surreal dream sequence (set inside the ice chamber where all the victims are kept, since they can't be buried!), a sequence where the witches attack a doubting member of the coven, a beheading committed by a horse-riding medieval knight(!) and the lengthy 'black mass' finale (with the witches, accompanied by the respective child they will be 'taking over', all dressed in red - except for a black-clad Martin presiding over the ceremony) which culminates in ritual mass suicide!

The film also has the guts to deliver a downbeat 'curtain'; it's so refreshing to come across a title (albeit a low-budget production) from a major Hollywood studio, Columbia, that contrives to go so completely against the grain (like, I said, the film is quite weird - extending also to the editing and the score)! It's odd, too, that such a classy - and cinematic - horror offering {sic} should come from a TV director most often associated with Westerns and other family fare! By the way, the same theme was dealt with almost contemporaneously in the nth Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing collaboration NOTHING BUT THE NIGHT (1972; which Lee produced himself!) - a film I foolishly missed out on some 20 years back when it was shown on local TV, and which has been M.I.A. ever since!!

P.S. This review of THE BROTHERHOOD OF Satan will certainly contain spoilers but, then, the synopsis and artwork featured on the DVD cover manage to give everything away anyway! I rented this movie for two reasons. The first was all of the good things that I read about it. I definately was impressed, and couldn't agree more with all of the reviews I read. The second reason is because I know these guys. I don't know Mark as well as I do Mike. He hasn't changed much from the years we knew each other. I know him as "the reaper" from a local Milwaukee radio station (WMSE). The way he is in this film is genuinely Mike 100%. He once gave me a table that he made. It was a little one, about 15" high, that said Metallica on it. The odd thing about it was it only had two legs. Sometimes it's the thought that counts, and Mike always has thought about others first. I'm proud to say I'm a student at UW-Milwaukee, where parts of the film were shot. Yep, I recognize Mitchell Hall, where I took a film class, possibly the same course as fellow student Smith.

That's where I learned about "American Movie." Our professor told us about it shortly before its release. To be sure, I was intrigued, but for some reason, I put off seeing it for several months(it must've done pretty well if it was still playing, at least in Milwaukee).

When I finally got around to seeing it, I thought it was an entertaining documentary. It's not a masterpiece-it goes on a bit too long-but I find Mark's passion and commitment inspiring. I hope this film signals the beginnings of bigger and better things him. Maybe his forthcoming "Northwestern" will propel him to fortune. Who knows?

Rating: *** (out of ****)

108 min/Released by Sony Pictures Classics My companions were astounded to find that this movie was a documentary. It was so funny, it seemed scripted, yet it gives a stirring picture of real life in the indie film life. We felt moved to purchase Coven and wanted to meet Mark and Mike. As college students, this film gave us a much needed glimpse of real life. Anytime I'm not giving 150% to my dreams or my goals I think of Mark Borchardt, the real-life subject of "American Movie". Mark's dogged persistence at having his first feature film produced and shot is so captivating that it will have you laughing, shaking your head with sadness and rooting for him.

I haven't seen a documentary this honest since the movie on R. Crumb. The supporting "cast" (Mark's real-life family and friends) are all great. Give this movie a chance and you'll see a great film and a wonderful portrait of the stuff that the American dream is made of. The subject matter of this film is potentially depressing: a man about thirty, with no job, little education, three kids from a failed relationship, living in his parents' house, but with a dream of directing feature films. But about a half-hour into the movie you realize that Mark Borchardt has a bottomless supply of drive and ambition--it's just that it's all channeled into his need to direct movies, and nothing else will make him happy. The movie jumps all over the emotional spectrum, but in the end you come away feeling happy, because you've just gotten to know some wonderful people. Go to see this--you'll end up wishing it was longer. This documentary is such a wonderful example of what an entertaining and amazing experience a documentary can be, if done so well as this. The subject, Mark, is smart, funny and very driven, and this story of his personal fight to live his dreams will be inspiring to anyone who knows what it is like to harbor an "impossible" dream. See this mov American Movie is a wonderful documentary. It follows the trials and tribulations of a very determined independent filmmaker as he struggles to finish his first film.

The raw footage and insightful content of this film is an excellent example of how documentaries should be produced. I also feel that the film can very inspirational to those of us that want to be filmmakers ourselves. Chris Smith's American Movie is an insightful examination of the American dream. The movie focuses around Mark Borchardt, an independent film maker from Wisconsin. Mark has dreamed of becoming a great writer and director since he was a teenager and had an out of focus hi8 camera. The movie follows Mark through his attempt to make his dream feature film, Northwestern. There are a number of hilarious scenes in the film as Mark goes through pre-production of Northwestern and later his short film Coven (pronounced co-ven, the correct pronunciation, Mark says "Sounds too much like oven,") which he plans to use to raise money to complete Northwestern. This film's insight and humor is on par with Roger and Me, Michael Moore's great film. I first viewed it at a chaotic Sundance Film Festival screening that brought out the spirit of the movie- a giant air duct fell from the ceiling at the beginning of the movie, hit seven people and caused a twenty-five minute delay; half way through the film the sound started fluttering and the projector had to be stopped to fix it, and in the last twenty minutes the projector stopped and the film burned up. Despite the delays, the audience stayed through the movie and gave it a standing ovation. American Movie also won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the end of the festival. I highly recommend this fine film, worth sitting through any hellish screening. Let's face it, lot's of bad movies are made all the time. For those people who work in film, you have probably poured a lot of time and effort into many of these plot less wonders. Sometimes, and this is my opinion, it is the act of merely making the movie that is important to us. To tell a story, (no matter how simple and unrealistic). Also, the collaborative process is one key characteristic that is unique to film and theater. To put on a production of any caliber, requires the talents of a varying amount of people, depending on its scale, to bring its story to life. The most intriguing part of American Movie, however, is not the movie being filmed. It is the movie maker himself, as a character of his own life, which demands our attention. None of them serve as models of the filmmakers we know and have worked with. But, I will argue, they are archetypes of small parts of us which try to be a part of this cult activity of independent film-making. (Alright a very small part of us) These are the people who live under the rocks of their own lives and just so happen to be snared by the romance of cinema. This leads me to my next argument. American Movie captures the raw spirit of independent film-making. Bad stories told on (nowadays) digital film with sloppy effects and horrible performances- because this IS the best they can do with a budget of a couple thousand dollars rather than a studio budget of several million dollars a day. That is the difference between low low LOW end productions and studio productions. The independent filmmaker just wants to create a linear or even a nonlinear story to shoot as well as he can with the money he's investing in himself and the resources around him in order to see a finished product on his rundown TV. Rugged Individualism materializes in every art form. I find this film to be a brilliant document of truth for many filmmakers. And no, I'm not full of myself. Man, these people are hilarious. Their problems seem hilarious, their characteristics are hilarious. Best line of the movie: "It's alright!. . . It's okay!. . . There's something to live for!. . . Jesus told me so!!!" Said a million times by a funny old man. Hat's off to Tom Beach. Chicago Rules. Chris Smith is a superior filmmaker with the seldom-seen talent for spotting a good story, then getting the hell out of its way. Smith's "American Movie" is the true-to-life record of filmmaker wannabe Mark Borchardt, a loser intent on milking his elderly uncle for cash to complete his horror short. But never, under any circumstances, to pursue gainful employment or support the children he's conceived.

Such is producer Smith's skill that Mark appears more sympathetic than otherwise. Even as he entices Uncle Bill with sugar-spun dreams and executive producer credits, it is his desperation to be somebody, to have his name coupled with the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that touches us.

"American Movie" also belongs in that rare, often attempted but seldom achieved sub genre that successfully blends hilarity with horror. The humor comes from Borchardt's Ed Wood-style belief in his own genius. From his appalling attempts at acting, from his substituting his less than film-savvy mother for a missing cameraman and from his employing sweet but brain-damaged friend Mike whenever he's short an actor or crew member.

The horror comes from seeing what Borchardt cannot: It is this very American attitude--I Want, Therefore I Am Entitled--that keeps him from seeing just how much he has to learn about his chosen craft. He is so confident he can't fail that failure is guaranteed. David Lynch shot his first film, 'Erasurehead', over several years, adding new scenes each time he managed to raise a little bit more cash. Kevin Smith made 'Clerks' at work, while working as a clerk, and Robert Rodriguez has boasted that 'From Dusk Till Dawn' cost precisely $30,000. But $30,000 is still a hell of a lot of money to raise if you work as a cleaner in a cemetery. And what if an aspiring film maker not only had such a job but also had all the ambition of such luminaries, and all the dorkishness of Smith, but absolutely none of the talent. Such a figure is Mark Borchardt, the subject of this hilarious documentary which chronicles his attempt to make a pair of movies over many many years. Borchardt combines his lunatic dreams with flights of depression and a fatal inability to call it a day; one senses he almost prefers the endless labours of searching for an impossible perfection to an accommodation with the reality that he's simply (on the evidence presented in 'American Movie') not very good. And like a modern day Ed Wood, he surrounds himself with an epic crowd of fellow losers, his genuine affection for whom is his greatest redeeming feature. The collection includes his warring parents, his best friends (one a criminal, the other a reformed drug addict), his own hapless children and best of all his aged Uncle Bill. Bill may live in a trailer park, and just about have given up on life, but he is the owner of a small fortune ($280,000 to be precise) and the touching but potentially exploitative relationship between the two men lies at the heart of the film. Borchardt manages to enlist a few actors to perform (alongside himself, of course) but in the main he is wholly dependent on friends and family to complete his work (even Bill has a role on camera). On British TV, the BBC brilliantly scheduled a screening of 'American Movie' back-to-back with 'Lost in La Mancha', the story of Terry Gilliam's ill fated attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. In that film, one was impressed by the huge amount of professionalism on display (inadequate as it was to the task in hand), and just how damn difficult it is even for experts with millions to spend to make a film; whereas Borschadt is not only penniless, but also such a clown that he can't even pronounce the name of his own work ('Coven') properly. Ultimately, Borschadt is human enough for you to want him to succeed, but awful enough for the viewer to still be able to laugh at his failures. If this film was fiction, you'd dismiss it as unbelievable; but as it is, it's one of the funniest documentaries you're likely to see. The story itself is routine: A boy runs away from home and ends up in a struggling music school for kids. He convinces a famous violinist to sponsor the school. The film is a splicing of shootings over 11 weeks, and leaves many amusing holes which the observant viewer may find for him/herself.

However long the whiskers of the plot might have been, the movie is justified by its music and acting. There is plenty of music, featuring classical works played by Heifetz and by The Meremblum Orchestra, one of the leading youth symphonies of that day, and said music is excellent. By itself, it would make the picture worth viewing. The conducting and scoring duties were put in the best of hands: those of Alfred Neumann.

The acting is a study in contrasts. The kids in the orchestra, most of whom had little or no acting experience, must have driven director Archie Mayo crazy, looking into the camera, overacting the parts that they had, and overstudiously following directions given to them. But the spontaneity that results from their lack of training adds an interesting charm to the picture. The veteran actors were marvelous with the material they had to work with. Walter Brennan was perfectly cast in his role, one that he emulated in real life. Joel McCrea and Andrea Leeds were ideal fits for their parts. And the supporting acting was a veritable Who's Who of character actors: Marjorie Main, Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, , Charles Coleman, Perry Ivins, and Porter Hall in his typical role of the heavy---all ideally cast. And the bit players: Jessie Arnold, John Hamilton, Marjorie Wood, Jimmy Flavin, Dulcie Day, the gravelly voiced Lee Phelps in his usual role as a policeman and many many more. If you're a fan of character actors, this movie will bring back a lot of memories.

Overall, the picture is very enjoyable and is recommended, even if you aren't a fan of classical music.

tvcat For many years, Samuel Goldwin tried to bring his friend Jascha Heifetz to the screen. One evening when Goldwyn and his wife Frances were having dinner with Heifetz and his wife, silent screen star Florence Vidor, Goldwyn proposed that Heifetz star in a movie. After some persuasion, Heifetz agreed, on the condition that his acting be kept to a minimum. And the movie, originally titled "Music School" was born.

The story itself is rather stock: A streetwise boy (Gene Reynolds, who is best known as the producer of "M*A*S*H"), runs away from home and ends up at a financially troubled music school run by Professor Lawson (Walter Brennan). While attempting to raise funds for the school, the boy and some other kids happen across Heifetz at Carnegie Hall. After much ado, Heifetz ends up appearing at the school concert and sponsoring the school.

The story, while predictable,is surprisingly well written, although the film contains several minor gaffes where different scenes were patched together, the most obvious being the young cellist who is sent out of the orchestra room on an errand and is seen sitting in the orchestra a few seconds later.

What is not surprising is how good the acting is. As was customary for studios then, the studio surrounded the inexperienced star with veteran talent: Brennan, Joel McCrea, Andrea Leeds, Porter Hall, Marjorie Main (later of Ma and Pa Kettle fame), Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, and a Who's Who of character actors. Actress Diana Lynn and singer/actress Kaye Connor made their (uncredited) debuts in this film, as did longtime Nelson Eddy singing partner Gale Sherwood (as Jacqueline Nash). Child veteran actors Reynolds, Walter Tetley and Terry Kilburn also appear.

Goldwyn hired the Peter Meremblum Symphony, a highly regarded youth orchestra from the Los Angeles Area, to appear in the film. Most of the kids in the orchestra weren't actors, but they were excellent musicians, as good as professionals (which many of them later became). Many of the kids in the orchestra went on to noteworthy careers: Kaye Connor and Diana Lynn both starred in the theater and movies, Richard Berres was a producer and director, Mitchell Lurie founded a well-known music supply company, Elliott Rapaport went on to be a prominent cardiologist, Lewis Elias was a band leader, Thomas Facey a conductor with different symphonies, Channing Robbins a prominent instructor at the Julliard School, his sister Joyce Robbins an instructor witn SUNY Stonybrook, and many of the kids in the orchestra pursued musical careers with major symphony orchestras.

While Heifetz's acting was kept to a minimum, his salary wasn't. He commanded $70,000 for seven weeks. When some scenes had to be re-shot at a later date, he got an additional $50,000 for another four weeks. What thankfully wasn't kept to a minimum was his musical output. Composer Alfred Neumann (who was once a Meremblum Orchestra conductor) handled the scoring. Heifetz performs the "Introductionne and Rondo Capriccioso" by Camille Saint-Saens, his own arrangement of Manuel Ponce's "Estrellita" (with an off-screen Teddy Saidenberg accompanying), Dinicu's devilishly difficult "Hora Staccato" (from a Vitaphone recording, with Emanuel Bay at the piano), an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's "Melody", an excerpt arranged for violin solo from Tchaikovsky's well-known "Adante Cantabile" from his opus 11 string quartet (played during the opening credits at the beginning of the movie), and the final movement from Felix Mendelssohn-Barthody's E Minor Violin Concerto. During all of these performances, there are many closeups of Heifetz's performing, including some very close shots of his fingering and bowing, something that would be of value to violinists desiring to study his technique.

The Meremblum orchestra also shines here, performing the arias "Caro Nome" by Verdi and "Casta Diva" by Bellini, (both with Sherwood singing ), an arrangement of the overture from Rossini's "Barber of Seville", a short excerpt from Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", and the previously-mentioned Mendelssohn concerto (with Heifetz). Diana Lynn can be heard in the background of one scene, performing part of Chopin's Nocturne in B-flat Minor, and a five year old Mary Ruth performs Chopin's popular "Minute" Waltz.

All in all, this is an excellent movie. AMC showed this regularly up until early 1992. I haven't seen it on television in recent years, but copies of it are not difficult to obtain. If you have the chance, I highly recommend that you view the movie. I think Samuel Goldwyn was trying to accomplish two things in this film. First the film is a homage to Jascha Heifetz, considered to be the best violin virtuoso of the past century. Secondly having brought to the screen the Dead End kids with his film of the same title and seeing them sign with Warner Brothers, he was trying to create a second gang of appealing urchins.

Though the film was good there certainly was no demand that the kids from this film be reteamed for another feature.

Leader of the gang is Gene Reynolds who at one time played the violin, but now leads a street gang of disreputable urchins. His stepfather, Arthur Hohl, breaks the violin his late father gave young Reynolds and threatens to send him to reform school over the feeble protests of his mother Marjorie Main.

Young Reynolds happens to stumble onto a music school run by the old music maestro himself, Walter Brennan and his daughter Andrea Leeds. They take him in, but they have their financial problems with a lot of creditors led by Porter Hall.

This film is mostly to be seen today because it's a chance for classical music lovers to see and hear Jascha Heifetz who as you gather is the solution one way or another to everybody's problems. Joel McCrea is in this film also, but has a rather colorless part as Andrea Leeds boyfriend.

Besides Heifetz, one thing the film does do is touch on, albeit gingerly on the topic of child abuse and battered spouses. Arthur Hohl is one mean man and Marjorie Main is very clearly a much battered wife.

The kids in the cast do well, Reynolds, Tommy Kelly, Terry Kilburn and a young girl under the name of Jacqueline Nash who grew up and performed as Gale Sherwood, nightclub partner to Nelson Eddy. She had a nice soprano even as a child.

But it's Heifetz you see the show for. A bright youngster interested in "serious" music (admittedly a vanishing breed--who'll play the fiddle when no one can play the violin??"--could find this an interesting fiction about street kids and great musical stars. Heifitz was indeed the greatest violinist of his generation and the film gives him a rare on-screen chance to display his technique. The kids, especially Gene Reynolds, are fine and, all in all, the pic is a good example of first-rate studio family fare of the late 30's. It doesn't hit the top of the great '39 list, but it's a nice way for an intelligent family to spend a rainy afternoon with AMC or the Video Store--- good luck at Blockbuster!!!! Although many audio recordings of great musicians like Jascha Heifetz survive, the cinematic or televised record is limited indeed. This is why musical offerings like "They Shall Have Music" are such rare gems. While, with modern eyes and ears, one can quibble about the plot, the perceptive viewer should put this film's unique delights in their proper perspective. The plot was designed to appeal to both young and old audiences of the era, but it remains enjoyable to this day. A important aspect of the experience of watching classic films is to see them through the eyes of the moviegoer of that era.

I must take issue with reviewer who complains about a film that is in black and white, or who feel obliged to report that their students express such reservations. These are juvenile complaints which reflect a limited historical perspective. For the teacher, this should offer up an educational opportunity to explain the unique qualities of black and white photography and its place in cinematic history. Color can, in fact, get in the way of a good storyline, or the music. For example, the black and white photography of John Ford's "Stagecoach," is, like the still photographs of Ansel Adams, an artistic masterpiece.

As for Heifetz being wooden, I could not disagree more. If you want blatant emotional posturing, go to a rock concert. The role of a classical musician like Heifetz is to move the audience, not him or herself. Heifetz's emotion is conveyed through his playing, not through his body language. He had a rare ability to extract every emotional nuance out of the music and transfer it to his listeners. It is the listener who should be moved, not the artist.

Incidentally, one reviewer asked about seeing Heifetz on YouTube playing the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, with Frank McHugh in the audience. This is from the 1947 film "Carnegie Hall," not "They Shall Have Music" "Carnegie Hall" is an even greater treasure of many great classical artists in their prime. We are blessed that there were film producers who, at least in these limited instances, chose to showcase these artists. In was still an era not totally overwhelmed by the lowest common denominator tripe we get today. I really enjoyed this movie, and I'm not a classical music fan. The story of the tough street kid discovering classical music and changing his ways was great to watch, without being sentimental or too unbelievable, although some details had me scratching my head (Frankie and his dog can live in the basement of the school without any of the students or teachers discovering him? Where did he eat? Bathe? Did he ever get a change of clothes? What did he feed his dog? The owner of the school didn't think it was important to notify the police about finding a missing boy, but let him live in the basement indefinitely? :-) ). But we can let such unrealistic details slide and just enjoy the touching, fun, and slightly suspenseful (for me, anyway) story and wonderfully talented children.

I loved the scene with the mothers standing shoulder to shoulder on the steps barring the policemen from entering the school: I doubt they would get away with that nowadays. And I liked the nice touch about the boy Frankie stole from turning the tables on him (although that never really went anywhere), and Frankie's friends helping him out in the end.

All in all, a great movie for everyone! As you can tell from the few comments posted here - mine may very well be the last you'll see, unless there is a big DVD-release or TCM plays it again ! - this is a kind-of "Our Gang" movie with a bunch of different kids. MGM certainly WAS the musical studio - if the musicians, dancers and singers weren't under contract, they were on tap. Heifetz was one of the most expensive.....that does it for a little charity work !!! The fee he received in that era was unheard of. Another musical film with Jose Iturbi (Mexican pianist) featured about 100 kids playing some simple tune on 100 pianos......so, those skeptics who think young children aren't musical are mistaken: I was one.

As all write, "Frankie Smith" - good-ole American name - (Gene Reynolds) was the bad-but-good kid who is taken-in from the streets by the owners of a music-school. Can you believe that Walter Brennan ("Prof. Lawson") of all those western movies was the man running the school? Joel McCrea ("Peter McCarthy") and Andrea Leeds ("Ann Lawson") were the bigger stars in "They Shall Have Music", with a host of well-known extras (many of whom went-on to become stars in their own rights). As others have commented, almost all of the kids in the orchestra (actually, The Meremblum Symphony from Los Angeles) made big successes of their lives, either as musicians (for the studios) and other businesses.

Sad to say, there aren't that many young-people's orchestras today - a sad mistake. Parents with children in school are usually so busy trying to keep their heads above water, and many don't even know what is happening to the kids in school. Musical instruction can get to be pricey, and almost EVERYONE would rather had a football-team.....

This is the cheapest concert by Jascha Heifetz you'll ever hear is contained in this movie.....in those days, a quarter. His playing is brilliant, even if he looks like he'd rather be someplace else.....emotionless. By contract, any concert by Yo-Yo Ma is so joyful, it makes you want to run right out and buy a cello.....this guy is having a good time....like the kids in the "street" concert, when they hoodwink Heifetz to play at their school.

All of the orchestral numbers were played by "the kids," and they make it sound easy. I love this type of movie - their plots are so simple, it doesn't take you two days to figure-out if you enjoyed - or understood - the movie, at all. We need some new movies like this - can't do anything but inspire younger kids to play other instruments than guitars.......Bravo! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie...and I watch it from time to time still. I've used it in my music classes at the school where I teach. The kids seem to enjoy it, although, they wish it were in color.

The best thing about this movie is, for me, who grew up after Heifetz had died, is the chance to actually see the master violinist work his craft! I was surprised at how "up to date" the story line is. Although, references to "reform school" are outdated. A boy, whose father had died, and is being raised by his mom and stepfather....most of our kids today are being raised by stepparents, although the movie makes it seem like most stepparents are cruel. I get VERY angry when his mother doesn't take his side and defend his actions against the step-father.

Also, the musical selections are difficult to believe. I find it unbelievable that a child, who looks to be about 8, can play the "Minute Waltz", or that a 13 year old girl could sing an aria from Rigoletto.

Other than that, it's a really fun, feel good movie and I do recommend it. I wish it would come out on DVD. Hal Hartley entry into a European film series is one of his two or three best efforts to date, and, lucklily, one of the few available on DVD. At only 63 minutes running time, my only quibble would be with Hartley I always leave wanting more, but never so much as this time. Martin Donovan is astonishing as Jesus. PJ Harvey is beautiful and interesting as Magdelena, but the high point for me was Thomas Jay Ryan (Henry Fool) as Satan. Hartley gives him excellent dialogue and a chance to use his resounding voice to full effect. Look for three scenes in which a microphone awaits him, as if a poetry slam is about to be won by the devil. I have read other comments on this film and had to add mine because there is not enough praise going around. If you like Henry Fool, Martin Donovan in anything (Opposite of Sex), and/or very clever comedies based on biblical ideas, get this as quickly as possible. One of the many speculations about Y2K was that the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999. In `The Book Of Life,' writer/director Hal Hartley takes a look at the possible ramifications of a new millennium Armageddon, beginning with the return of Jesus to Earth on New Year's Eve, ‘99. The story examines the task of the Son of God, who must open the remaining three of the seven seals contained in the Book of Life (now contained in a Mac laptop computer), in which there is also the names of the one-hundred and forty-four thousand good souls who will be spared on the last day. Jesus (Martin Donovan), along with Magdalena (P.J Harvey), arrives in New York City to make the preparations necessary for carrying out his Father's will, but he begins to have second thoughts; must he judge the living and the dead? Do they deserve what must befall them? It is a cup He would prefer not to embrace at this particular moment, which gives encouragement to Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan) who fears that the fruit of all his hard labor is about to be washed away at midnight, for he can only continue his work so long as there are people around who cling to their pitiful hopes and dreams. An artistically rendered, high concept film, Hartley presents the story in an intelligent, thought provoking manner, taking great care in dealing with the sensitive subject matter so as to make it inoffensive even to the most ardent fundamentalist. The dialogue between Jesus and Satan is intriguing and stimulating, as is the effect of their presence upon those they encounter during their corporeal stay in the city. It's an engrossing meditation on the spiritual side of Man's fragile existence and a contemplation of that which has been prophesied in the Revelations of St. John in the Apocalypse, the last Book of the New Testament. And there is logic in Hartley's approach to the Second Coming; he maintains the aesthetic of the contemporary setting while employing altered film speeds which visually give the film an ethereal quality. Christ inconspicuously wears a suit and tie, effectively blending in with the populace, while Satan's attire is a bit more casual, his appearance somewhat scruffy; he sports a bruise above his left eye. Donovan is well cast as Jesus, lending a benevolent mien and a sense of restrained urgency to his character that is very effective. It is, of course, a unique portrayal of The Saviour, and possibly the best since Max von Sydow's in `The Greatest Story Ever Told.' He successfully conveys a feeling of inner peace and tranquility, of serenity, that is the essence at the very core of the character. And Ryan is thoroughly engaging in his role of the Prince of Darkness; he has a distinct manner of speech and a resonant quality to his voice that make him absolutely mesmerizing to watch. His eyes are darkly penetrating, a trait he uses effectively with furtive glances and captivating stares. He's the guy who could sell you anything in exchange for your soul before you ever knew what hit you. It's a memorable performance that contrasts so well with Donovan's portrayal of Jesus. The supporting cast includes Martin Pfeffercorn (Martyr), Miho Nikaido (Edie), Dave Simonds (Dave), D.J. Mendel (Lawyer), James Urbaniak (True Believer), Katreen Hardt (Lawyer's Assistant) and Anna Kohler (Hotel Clerk). In his own, inimitable style, with `The Book Of Life,' Hartley has crafted a perspective of the last days that is interesting, entertaining and truly unique. He has a way of capturing life as it is just off center, a method which works especially well with a film like this. Comparatively short for a feature film (running time of 63 minutes), it nevertheless is one of Hartley's best, and more than worth the price of admission. It's a film that will stay with you and perhaps make you think about some things you may have tucked away in a corner of your mind for later. And that is part of the attraction of this film; it makes you realize that `later' most likely is now. I rate this one 9/10. Hartley on low-key form: Martin Donovan, born to play Jesus, comes as Messiah to millenial Manhatten; P.J. Harvey is excellent as sidekick Magdelena. A slight film, but drily amusing, short and sweet. This is my favorite Hal Hartley movie. All his movies are small gems. I love independent movies and I hope Hal Hartley never goes mainstream or sells out. What if the Lord Jesus did come back and loved his people so much that he could not open the final book and destroy the unbelievers? It was nice to see P. J. Harvey in a movie since I am a fan of her music. Don't watch this if you are a fan of cookie cutter Hollywood movies, you will be disappointed. This 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.

If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.

Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond. One of my favorite Hartley movies. (As if there could be a "bad" one.) Although, this may be a bit more on the religious side of things than we would normally expect. Nonetheless, it still maintains that Hartley slant to which we've all become accustomed.

First picture Jesus and Satan discussing their ideas, opinions, hopes and regrets about the impending end of civilization. Now imagine the entire conversation taking place over a few drinks in your neighborhood bar. And as an added conversational (not to mention visual) distraction, let's toss in PJ Harvey as the sultry companion (aka Magdelena) to Mr. Chist. Then, just for grins, in the background, an ever present Salvation Army Band (played by Yo La Tengo) to serve as an added diversion. The road to moral justification has never been such a pleasure.

Quite possibly more questions than answers, but therein lies the fun. And Mr. Donovan is subdued brilliance, as always. Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.

This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)

Hilarious film about divine retribution. Camera work stinks (shot on digital video) and looks like early MTV videos. Turn the other cheek by looking past the visual and concentrate on the story. Laughs galore for those with a well-developed sense of irony. The Book of Life was rather like a short snack, whetting the appetite for Hartley's next full length movie.

This movie doesn't need to be seen on the big screen, watch it with a few friends who are Hal Hartley or Wayne Wang fans, or better still, try to convert some newbies. While the camerawork was certainly "funky" - perhaps one dutch-roll short of "stoned" - the premise of the film was fantastic. It really took a scathingly satirical (in the true traditional of Hal Hartley) look at God, Jesus and Devil. The interaction of Jesus and Satan provides some hilarious scenes... Even the monologues of Jesus were great - this was by far the best Jesus I've even seen. So laidback, Zen-like, Son-of-God-ish but still such a nice guy. On one level this is a very general look on the paradoxes of Christianity, but yet there is still a personal level, where you can relate to Jesus Christ without having a God-Complex (thanx to Martin Donovan and Hal Hartley). Hal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming. The promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly. In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.

As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film.

The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and "urbanity." Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn--people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques--but anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film (if they can get a chance to see it, that is). It's hard to say what it would be like on video. In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.

As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video. In this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.

What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity! This film is probably Hal Hartley's best one. The subject, of a unusual originality, is treated (that's usual with Hal Hartley) with great humor. This characteristic isn't at all the only quality of this film: the fussy frame composition (everything is parallel, until the smallest details), shooting angles, lighting, giving a more supernatural dimension to these blurred images (Jesus' coming down couldn't be filmed in a conventional way), the falsely "poser" acting, are qualities that make this Bible re-reading, carried out in the form of an apocalyptic delirium, essential. Race Against Fear has to be one of the most moving TV movies I've seen for a long time. All of the performances from the main actors were superb, especially that of Ariana Richards (Mickey Carlyle), William Bullimer (Coach Kurt Ansom), and Susan Blakely (Margaret Carlyle). Ariana in particular put on an extremely emotional performance, with facial expressions to match. She portrayed the emotions that Mickey was feeling perfectly, and you could easily believe that she really HAD been raped, so realistic was her performance.

RAF is an incredibly realistic movie, due to the moving performances from the cast. Bullimer came across as a rapist incredibly well, and you hated him more and more as the movie progressed. Blakely also put on an emotional performance as the mother of the raped girl (Mickey Carlyle), and you felt increasingly sorry for the Carlyle family because no-one believed them about the rape.

All in all, RAF is a great movie. It is both moving and full of suspense, as you are continually unsure if Ansom would be prosecuted for the rape, due to the lack of witnesses, evidence, and belief in the claim. I thoroughly recommend seeing this movie. Broken Silence or "Race Against Fear"1998): Starring Ariana Richards, William Bumiller, Susan Blakely, Tracy Ellis Ross, Teryl Rothery, Scott Vickaryous, Marissa Rudiak, Ken Camroux, David Neale, Bruce Dawson...Director Joseph Scanlan, Screenplay Sara Charmo, Jean Gennis, Phyllis Murphy.

This is another Lifetime channel film, made exclusively for television, released in 1998, directed by long-time TV series director Joseph L. Scanlan. Inspired by true events, it's a lot like the majority of Lifetime movies, a cautionary tale for women, raising awareness of the predator lurking within the family (a mother, father, wife, husband) and mentor (teacher, in this case track coach). The young and little known actress Ariana Richards (she played the small girl in Jurassic Park)delivers a highly convincing performance as high school track athlete Mickey Carlyle, who is raped by her coach, Kurt Ansom (William Bumiller) and must suffer in silence as no one believes her story, except for, of course, her own mother (Susan Blakely). Together, mother and daughter fight to put Kurt Ansom behind bars. The film drags on quite a bit, is ultimately predictable, at times far too melodramatic for the sake of drama itself, but is genuinely powerful in the end. Ariana Richards' performance is of the daytime soap kind, but she is the strongest in the entire cast. Her facial expressions, body language and overall acting is realistic in terms of how she, as an aspiring athlete, idolizes her coach, is in turn violated by him and must now live with the shame, trauma and further, fight him in court. William Bumiller plays the part with a nasty sort of duplicity, though he is far from subtle. He has abused other star athletes before, who have remained silent and made it to the top, and appears outwardly innocent. William Bumiller, a lesser-known actors like the others, has has never done a role like this but but he does a believable and strong performance overall. It's especially disturbing to see him in this role because he is a sexy lead actor in everything else he does including some lesser known films and on the soap opera "Guiding Light". The only real problem I had with this film is the manner in which the film is structured. As the film opens, we watch Coach Ansom about to rape Mickey, letting us know right away that this guy is no good. But this makes for weak character development and story. If the first scene had instead been the sequence with the opening credits in which we see Mickey running/jogging in the city across a lake, we would have better character development because we don't know that Coach Ansom, while seemingly interested in the success of his star athlete, is really a nasty piece of work and we would have seen Mickey idolizing a person whom she thought she knew and then received a rude awakening when she realizes she was wrong about him. Director Joseph Scanlan is no stranger to drama for TV (Knott's Landing, Star Trek, Quantum Leap, The Outer Limits, Lois And Clark, Earth Final Conflict and movies like La Femme Nikitta. In 1996, Scanlan had directed another Lifetime movie, similar to this, "Stand Against Fear" (1996). He manages to convey the gravity of the event. We are genuinely disturbed by the coach lurking around the showers where he rapes his own student. These scenes are graphic and ought to be viewed by mature audiences, but its message is clear: sexual predators and rapists are not always a stranger and can assume different forms, and their preying grounds can even include a high school. This film supports the cause of fighting to prevent violence against women and urges women who have been silent victims to testify and fight so that rapists will cause no further harm to others. Despite other negative reviews, this film does a great job in expressing its message and ought to be given to mothers, daughters, high school students (including both male and female). As bad as rape is, staying silent when it happens is even worse. Yikes! and we all thought Joan Crawford was THE horror Mommy Dearest...well Laura Hope Crewes as Mom in this stinging 4 character film delivers (and cops) the goods in this cracker of a marital Mommy mangle.....THE SILVER CORD is a genuinely sensational pre code drama from RKO made in 1932 released in '33 from a 1929 play. So astonishing, frank and honest is each startling verbal exchange between one son's wife (IreneDunne) along with the other's fiancé as these two younger girls together go to war - gleefully angrily unwrapping the clearly incestuous hankerings of Mom towards her hunky eldest son played by virile Joel MacCrea and her younger 'beau'/son payed by delicate and beautiful 25 year old actor Eric Linden. I would think this film played to many howling appreciative audiences in huge theaters in 1933 and offers viewers even in 2005 a very fruity melodrama enlivened by crackling dialog not afraid to call Mother exactly as she is. This film would have been impossible to make after the censorship code came in after 1934. Other viewer comments on the IMDb support my reaction and you will find almost everyone lucky enough to see (and tape) THE SILVER CORD will agree it is an unforgettable and pungent script in a superbly produced film. It would have played like the VIRGINIA WOLF of 1932. Laura Hope Crewes must have kissed the sound stage at RKO for this role of a lifetime..even more than her fluffy turn in GWTW. Irene Dunne is as gorgeous and casual and believable as ever, fighting for her husband yet again, and it is well worth seeing The Divorcée made in 1929 as a companion piece to THE SILVER CORD. Joel MaCrea is certainly in the same league as Cary Grant and Randolph Scott in the handsome and lovable stakes. I had never seen Eric Linden in a real acting role before (he played the leg amputee in the hospital horror scene in GWTW) and here he is startling and youthful with an excellent role as Robert, the younger and more sensitive son. Some verbal barbs leveled at him again would not get past the Code office if made later. This is a really good film, and if the viewer forgives some of the creakiness of its time and settles in for a sparring match of unequaled pungency for a 1932 movie, you will be well rewarded. At first I thought some of the throat clutching melodrama of Mother was dated until I realized it was a set up of the excellent screenplay to make the viewer laugh at her as though she is a weak little old lady......NOT..... but nor are the other two women in this powerhouse play on film, hence the fantastic retort dialog. That ocean-liner seen in reel one is THE LEVIATHAN the monster ship the US won from the Germans in WW1 that was so huge and unwieldy that crews were nervous wrecks trying to wrestle with it upon the Atlantic. It is infamous for ploughing headfirst up a colossal wave in a storm and shot over the crest at such an angle the spine along the bottom cracked and the ship split vertically between the funnels. It limped to port with rattling steel panels and winking rivet holes...and mentally shattered crew and passengers. It was scuttled in 1935 after being cursed and plagued with horror mechanical problems all its existence. Not such a war prize after all.

Anyway, the dialog in THE SILVER CORD is enough excitement for one night: eg: "Mother! the Doctor said there was nothing wrong with you, in fact he said it would take a stick of dynamite to kill you". Whammo! Terrific acting by the 5 stars makes this one a must see.

Based on a stage play, THE SILVER CORD is about "mother love" at its worst. The film was very controversial for its implied homosexuality of the younger son and the mother's unnatural "romantic" feelings for both sons.

Irene Dunne stars as the new bride (and biologist) who travels with husband (Joel McCrea) to visit the family before heading off to New York City for their new jobs. But something seems wrong.

The mother, Laura Hope Crews, seems rude to the younger son's (Eric Linden) fiancée (Frances Dee). But Dunne puts such thoughts aside and ignores a few of the strange things the mother says. Then she finds out "her" room is down the hall from McCrea's, and his room adjoins mother's room.

Later she walks in as "mummy" is tucking in McCrea and kissing him (on the lips) good night. Mummy has also been working on Linden and getting him to doubt his feelings for Dee. Everything blows up and with Dee running into the snowy night toward the frozen pond. As the boys run after her, mummy shouts from the window for boys to come back and get their coats! Dee falls through the ice and is rescued.

As the girls leave the house the following morning, Dunne lets mummy know what she thinks of her and her attachment to the boys. But mummy has a tight hold, faking illness and forever boasting of her sacrifices. The girls leave but the boys stay behind.......

Crews is magnificent as the voracious mother (repeating her stage role); it's a part few actresses would dare play. The sexual overtones are incredible for a 1933 film and Crews take advantage of her best film role. Dunne is also excellent as she tries to maneuver the course without losing McCrea. Dee has some excellent scenes after she gets dumped by bewildered Linden. All 5 stars are terrific in this drama that is bizarrely underrated and unknown.

A neglected gem for anyone who likes great acting...... I really felt the movie was ahead of its time. The one potential daughter-in-law was such a strong, career oriented woman. She knew what she wanted and was diplomatic but firm with the over-bearing mother-in-law to be. The mother's role was played extremely well (you just loved to hate her). Her need to control her son's lives was neurotically evil. If you've ever been in a relationship where you've been judged and found lacking (and everybody involved knew it) this may hit too close to home. It's been years since I saw this movie and I remember thinking that this plot and dialog would work in a 50's or 60's movie. It is difficult to watch because of the mother and sons' dynamic but I would love to watch it again. I keep hoping to find it on one of the old movie channels but so far no luck. Attempts to buy it were also futile (I don't believe it's on tape or DVD). This story of the troubles caused by an over-possessive, overpowering, domineering and unscrupulous mother (Laura Hope Crews) for her two grown sons, and their girls, is a strong vehicle for stellar performances by Irene Dunn (the new daughter-in-law), Joel McCrea (the number-one son), Eric Linden (the number-two son) and Frances Dee (fiance of number-two son). Here's the show of the pure tyranny of mother's jealousy and possessiveness run amok as four good people find their owns lives damaged, their plans changed and their own identities in jeopardy. Irene Dunn is stellar in her role. Joel McCrea's performance is open and clear and Laura Hope Crews is masterful as the mother.

Yet this reviewer finds Frances Dee's performance the best of all. Hers is the first character in the story to show the strength of her inner feelings. Her portrayal in her heartbreak broken-engagement scene is gut-wrenching, and even raw. Dee yanks the viewer around and drives you into her pain without even showing her face !

Frances Dee, like Laura Hope Crews, has been too long overlooked, and is now almost forgotten as the magnificent actress that she was. No actress who started in film after WWII has had anything to speak of on Frances Dee.

If you're lucky enough to see The Silver Cord, which was never released for TV, you'll find this "old fashioned drawing-room drama" to be an outstanding film that shows very well 74 years after its 1933 release because it is filled with superb performances. Who won the best actress Oscar for 1933? It should have been Laura Hope Crewes for her magnificent portrayal of the most monstrous mother ever. She truly is one of the great character actresses of all time. She played the frivolous Prudence Duvernoy in "Camille" (1936) and her best remembered role is Aunt Pittypat in "Gone With the Wind".

Irene Dunne was the "official" star of the film but her scenes with Laura Hope Crewes were dynamite.

David (Joel McCrea) is in Heidelberg when he is offered a job in New York. His wife, Christine (Irene Dunne) can continue her studies at the Rockafellar Centre. Their first stop in America is a visit to David's mother, Mrs. Phelps. To say that Laura Hope Crewes dominates every scene is an under-statement. From her first entrance - in a frantic burst of effort to greet her "big boy" - all attention is on her. Even sitting around the tea table, when she forgets Hester's existence, even forgetting how she takes her tea, you know something is not quite right.(Hester has been living there for a while.)

Frances Dee is completely sweet and so right in her role as the adorable Hester. Her performance in this film, especially the scene where she has hysterics and the aftermath proves how under-rated as an actress she was.

All the young cast are excellent. Eric Linden is superb as Robert, the younger son who comes to the realization that his mother is horrible but can do nothing about escaping from his mother's spell. Joel McCrea, at one point says "painting roses on bathtubs - that's more your style". There is a very subtle suggestion in the film of Robert's sexuality.

Irene Dunne is excellent in whatever film or genre she tried. I think Crewes did her evil part very well she should have won an award. Anything that Dunne is in. is salvageable because Dunne is a great actress and can pull anything off, even a weak script. Therefore I WOULD recommend it for this reason alone. This movie may have been a little ahead of it's time, the plot might be more acceptable these days.

During the golden age of Hollywood movies were meant to entertain or teach, mostly to make us feel good or cope with the times. This plot seem to deviate from that profile. Yet, again I must say what ever Irene Dunne was in, at least, was "good" because she made things so believable! The only other actress I can say made me think this way was maybe, Deborah Kerr. Watch Silver Cord if you get the chance for the "acting" if nothing else. This may not be regarded as a review on any film, but just a comment on a film I saw when I was a youngster. I remember coming home of an evening all full of wonder at what I had seen. I tried to retell my parents part of the story but they listened without understanding well what was so strange about two kids stranded on an island who fall in love and grow together and have a son. As you must have guessed by now I'm referring to The Blue Lagoon (1949) which has kept me bewitched and bewildered through the years (almost 50) and now wonder full of anxiety and disgust who or what has prevented the film from being available in cassette or DVD or whatever. I've spent a lifetime chasing the opportunity to get hold of it one day and nobody knows anything about it. What a waste indeed! Sorry if my English is not at all technical or scientific, but my mother tongue is Spanish. I'm doing my best to make myself understood. Thank you, My name is Juan and I'm writing from Uruguay in S.America. For the record, the 1949 version of "The Blue Lagoon" is not the original film, as many have stated.

This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.

Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.

Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 "Blue Lagoon", I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to film. This movie appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible.

Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today. I saw this film as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories... I saw this movie as a child and i am longing to see it again. has it survived? I discount the 1980 version entirely as being fluff. I am sure that there are many that don't feel it is necessary to preserve these films. It is so unfortunate to discover a lost gem after it is gone. Young people today don't realize the hallucinatory quality and the impact on one's life a film seen in early youth can have in later life. This film, "the blue lagoon" had that effect on me. How many of us have wished to find ourselves in a place removed of the fears and chaos of the modern world. This was an idyllic story of a boy and girl castaway on a tropical island. there are troubles to be sure but in the end they fall in love and the have a baby. Life should be so simple and beautiful. I too remember seeing this film as a youngster at a local small theater that presented foreign films each week. It was the daring adventure of it all that stayed in my memory ever since.

Especially impressionable was the scene with Noel Purcell as the old seaman, Paddy, who drank too much, saw or heard apparitions and died of fright in a cave. I always kept track of Noel's career even decades later due to my seeing him then. There's also a youngish Cyril Cusack as the leering boatman, James, with designs on the lovely Jean Simmons, shown as Emmeline grown up.

Would very much like to own a video of this haunting film and refresh my memory of it. Where do I send my request? Not many television shows appeal to quite as many different kinds of fans like Farscape does...I know youngsters and 30/40+ years old;fans both Male and Female in as many different countries as you can think of that just adore this T.V miniseries. It has elements that can be found in almost every other show on T.V, character driven drama that could be from an Australian soap opera; yet in the same episode it has science fact & fiction that would give even the hardiest "Trekkie" a run for his money in the brainbender stakes! Wormhole theory, Time Travel in true equational form...Magnificent. It embraces cultures from all over the map as the possibilities are endless having multiple stars and therefore thousands of planets to choose from.

With such a broad scope; it would be expected that nothing would be able to keep up the illusion for long, but here is where "Farscape" really comes into it's own element...It succeeds where all others have failed, especially the likes of Star Trek (a universe with practically zero Kaos element!) They ran out of ideas pretty quickly + kept rehashing them! Over the course of 4 seasons they manage to keep the audience's attention using good continuity and constant character evolution with multiple threads to every episode with unique personal touches to camera that are specific to certain character groups within the whole. This structure allows for an extremely large area of subject matter as loyalties are forged and broken in many ways on many many issues. I happened to see the pilot (Premiere) in passing and just had to keep tuning in after that to see if Crichton would ever "Get the girl", after seeing them all on television I was delighted to see them available on DVD & I have to admit that it was the only thing that kept me sane whilst I had to do a 12 hour night shift and developed chronic insomnia...Farscape was the only thing to get me through those extremely long nights...

Do yourself a favour; Watch the pilot and see what I mean...

Farscape Comet Somehow, I missed many of the early Farscape episodes, so I'm seeing them in all sorts of orders as they are repeated on various channels. I first caught it - entirely by accident - whilst lounging in a hotel room. The first 10 seconds had me completely hooked - THIS is what SF is all about.

The characters are strong; and Moya/Pilot the living ship is what Lexx should have been. The plots vary in quality, but none falls below excellent in my opinion. And I have to mention Rygel - what a gloriously irreverent character! None of your smarmy sugar-coated Star Trek aliens here, this is the real deal - cynical, self-serving and replete with disgusting personal habits, Rygel is the creation of a genius.

Last week the SciFi channel showed "Out of their minds" (the body-swapping episode). A true classic, I couldn't stop laughing from start to finish...

Long may Farscape grace our screens! This is perhaps the television series with the greatest potential of any series around. The production values are in a class of their own. The characters are rounded and interesting. This is entertainment at its best. Some of the aliens are quite grotesque, but there is an underlying humour which makes it unmissable. I hope that this series goes on for many years and will have many spin-offs. Science Fiction has had its bad press, some justified, but this is truly a flagship science fiction series and I thank Henson for it. Top marks. Well how can I categorise Farscape without resorting to gushing superlatives? Ok, here goes! The scripts are fantastic, with each episode offering so much entertainment, drama, humour and sheer watchability. The casting is perfect especially that of Zhaan (the blue lady) played by Virginia Hey, each character has a depth that just isn't there on the Star Trek series.

I think having an Australian spin on the show makes this for me, Australia has been knocking out quality films for years and Farscape is no exception.

I have only seen the first four episodes in UK order and they have a quality that makes each 45 minute show (in the UK) stand out more like a film than a weekly TV series.

The episode that really does it for me is 'I, ET' which turns the alien concept around where Moya (a living ship, even the spacecraft has a great character) is forced to land on a planet that has yet to make 'First contact' and is surprisingly earth like and Crichton meets a radio telescope operator and *he* is the 'little green man' to them. Gripping stuff.

In short the effects are great, the scripts are top quality and the main characters (not one of them really given any more importance than any other) are interesting, not always 'good' and well just excellent.

Roll on the second season! I heard about this series in 2001 which a friend of mine was recording off the television each week. I never bothered to watch though I became acquainted with the series through the magazine which I looked at every now and then in bookstores. I recently purchased series one on DVD and have become addicted to this fascinating and original series. The characters at first seem unlikeable but it is amazing how fast they grow and develop into a united force. As they begin to care for one another it becomes easy to care what happens to them (bearing in mind that this is only a TV series and they are fictional).

However it isn't the PC world of Star Trek and so whilst every character shows a good trait they each have their own flaws and demons that they must deal with. Indivual story lines mixed in with an overall multiple story-arc make this one of the most complex and rewarding television experiences I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I absolutely enjoy watching each of the characters interact with one another.

This strange new world we are introduced to is brilliantly portrayed through the eyes of astronaut John Crichton and as he learns and adapts to being on the other side of the galaxy, strange alien creatures, different cultures, being hunted by a character that wants him dead and being treated as inferior by his comrades we can easily relate to what he must be feeling. As he becomes used to his surroundings so do the viewers and his compassionate, strong-willed and brave character is a joy to watch.

I have watched only seven episodes of Farscape season one and look forward to continuing through seasons two-four and the mini-series. Maybe one day we can all enjoy a season five. Highly recommended viewing and well worth setting time aside to watch. Buy and enjoy! 10/10. I think that FARSCAPE is the best scifi since Babylon 5 and is one of the best sci-fi television series of all time (ranking up there with Dr. Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, MST3K and the aforementioned B5). I find the characters and races of Farscape are much more interesting and imaginative than the typical "humans-with-birthmarks" that are found in many series. The effects are quite good and the stories engaging. Despite missing the bulk of season 2 and some of season 1, I find the character development very well done. i happen to love this show. Its a refreshing take on some older sci-fi feels and styles. they aren't afraid to shoot, and when they do people tend to die. Far too many show's are afraid of this and end up just pointing the guns and then having it be a standoff. Farscape also comes complete with a large amount of heartwarming characters. They all grow on you till the point where it confuses you to hear them discuss taking some of the animatronic ones out of their box's to make the mini-series. From beginning to end farscape leaves you with a feeling of hope, and dispair, as new and unexpected things happen and then people live and die, surprising you every time. Worth a watch even if you don't have the time. I remember ignoring the TV series when it first debuted because of its 'look' with the Jim Hensen muppets. However, recently a friend let me borrow his Farscape DVDs, and I am just now realizing what a terrible mistake that was.

As with any TV series, there are episodes that shine and those that don't. I ride the adrenaline and emotional rush during the great episodes and suffer through the lackluster ones. However, I endure regardless because of the core storyline that ties all the episodes together. What I'm talking about is the growth of the main characters and their love for each other. Let me warn you, it is something that is absolutely irresistible to watch. I cannot recall any other TV series (Babylon 5, Buffy, Angel, etc) that smartly and intelligently put together such a heartbreaking (at times) and suspenseful ride.

I think that at the end of the fourth season, things were finally becoming tightly focused and I am shocked at the decision to cancel the series. I wait anxiously for the release of the miniseries and invite others to discover this incredible gem. After 2 years of using this site for movie reviews, I finally registered with IMDB just so I could give Farscape a "10." The show's writers, cast and crew have proven themselves the unambiguous masters of the science fiction genre. Even those who do not normally appreciate sci-fi should be encouraged to give this exceptional series a chance!

Farscape's virtues are simply too numerous to list, but one of them stands out above all; the quality of the writing is amazing. I haven't heard dialogue this good since "Blake's 7." In fact, Farscape feels a lot like a "Blake's 7" with good special effects and a bit more romance.

Everyone, enjoy! Not since J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5, has a television show captured the wonderful art of applying a story arc to a television show. This is easily the best thing on TV right now! The characters are likable and one can easily get attached to them and care for their well-being. The villians are the type you love to hate and leave you wondering what they're up to next. And Brian Hensen's puppet work is the most innovative out there. Kudos to Rockne S. O'Bannon for a job well done! Having watched the show for about four weeks, which is enough to get a feel for the show, I think it shows potential. Whilst much is borrowed from other shows (what sci-fi doesn't these days), and the characters are stereotyped, I like what they are doing with the stories. There is some continuity with plot development and character interaction/relationship building, despite the essentially modular nature of each episode. There have been some science related topics explored as well as character secret/weakness revelations. These have also added some comedy to the show, something I would gladly see more of in "serious" sci-fi. In all, this makes for good balance, such that can appeal to larger groups of people, unlike the Star Trek vs Babylon 5 debates I've been numerous participant and witness to. The visual aspects of the show are more than adequate, and well budgeted for a first season. The acting is acceptable, and I am curious to see how well the actors manage to grow their characters out of their scripted stereotypes. I see enough positives and potential to remain interested in seeing where the show wants to go... I'll admit that the first time I managed to catch Sci-Fi's "Sci-Fi Prime" was last week, but despite the fact that I was a huge Sliders fan coming into the experience, Farscape is now easily my favorite of the four shows.

Unlike most modern Sci-Fi shows (including, regrettably, the two new Star Trek series), this show manages to be fun without coming across as fodder for MST3K. I must admit, at first I was worried about Farscape. The opening segment was not very strong, and I began to worry about what was to come. However, once it set in to familiar Henson territory with the wry sense of humor, the unique and enduring characters, and the compelling story combined to create an excellent piece of science fiction. The story follows John Crichton (played by Ben Browder) a scientist who has developed a spaceship and theory that rely on slingshot propulsion. However, during the first test, his craft encounters an unknown magnetic field, and he is propelled into an unknown galaxy, where he finds himself in the middle of a struggle between escaping prisoners (on the starship Moya) and the Peacekeepers (human enforcers). He is quite literally drawn into the prisoners ship, and after many twists and turns finds himself united with the prisoners (Ka D'argo, a Luxom warrior; Pa'U Zhaan, a Delvian priestess; Rygel XVI, a deposed ruler; and Aeryn Sun, a Peacekeeper who has reluctantly joined the crew). With excellent special effects, moderate make-up, and puppets and robots that exceed the Henson standard of perfection; as well as a very well written story, and character driven plot, FarScape looks to be a fantastically original, creative, and clever science fiction series. Watching this series will probably make you feel like how our parents felt when watching Star Trek for the first time.

This series has it all. The kind of stories that makes you forget how to blink, the kind of characters that makes you want to jump into the TV to join the action, and the kind of atmosphere that makes your hair curdle in awe and endless admiration.

In short, we start out with John Chrichton, an astronaut, who gets shot into a wormhole and ends up with a gang of prisoners on the run from the badguys in black, ironically known as Peacekeepers.

Other colorful characters consists of D'argo, big dude with a short temper and a sword/laser-rifle. Aerun Sun, former peacekeeper and a Ph.D in buttkicking. Zotoh Zhan, who's a plant. No really, she is. She's also a priest, but with a mean streak. There's also Dominar Rygel XVI, an fat lazy bastard who farts helium and generally does more harm than good.

Later in the series we meet the most sexy alien that has ever been on television, namely Chiana. A young and seemingly chronically horny Nebari. She is played by Gigi Edgley, which is a name you should remember.

One of the many things I love about these series is that since John Chrichton ended up in this part of the galaxy by mistake, he keeps giving references to "Real Life". Namely, when John is having a bit of difficulty accepting the fact that he will be frozen as a statue for 80 years, one of his many complaint is that when he returns, Buffy The Vampire Slayer will be dead.

So Frell all the other series, get your Dren together and spend an Ahn on one of these episodes. I can assure you, Sci/Fi as you know it, will change forever.

This series has it all. It's sexy. It's actionpacked. It's hillarious. It's Farscape When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with "Premiere". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. "Premiere" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.

The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is "shot through a wormhole" and winds up in "a distant part of the galaxy".

After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.

The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In "Premiere", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.

The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.

The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In "Premiere" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.

The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in "Premiere" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is "irreversiby contaminated" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in "Premiere", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.

The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, "Premiere" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, "Premiere" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4 Farscape - is the one Sci-Fi Show which restarted the Interest in Science Fiction in me.

But Farscape is so much more then plain and simple Sci-Fi. Comedy, Drama and much more :) The Acting is very good. Luckily Farscape survived also it's cancellation and showed with Peacekeeper Wars that it is not dead yet :) I hope there is a future for Farscape :) In my opinion it is also not problematic that some of the characters in the Show are muppets. You have to look behind that and you will see what a beauty Farscape is.

Farscape set a new Standard in Television and i think it will be truly hard for new shows to prove that they can be equal or better than Farscape. I love this Show :)

SaphirJD This series is vastly underrated. Like many others, I came upon Farscape after the series had been cancelled. Bought Season 1 and was surprised to find a smartly written drama infused with a balanced mix of suspense, romance, wit and, of course, sci-fi. Right off the bat it got a 10 for being the first series or movie to satisfy us how our hero - and every alien with whom he comes in contact - speaks English! Okay, a few others have skirted the issue, but Farscape did it the best. The point is, the writers pay close attention to detail to make the show as believable as possible.

With so much bad programming out there, it's a shame that balanced, entertaining series such as Farscape don't get enough exposure and recognition to stay in production. While we enjoy the four seasons and, thankfully, the four-hour miniseries, maybe we can make enough noise to convince the producers to continue the show. I have to tell you I've been a fan of Star Trek TNG since i was a kid.

Well, sometime ago i gave a friend of mine some DS9 episodes and i asked him

"hey man, what are you watching lately because I'm done watching all TNG episodes" He said. "Well, i got these episodes of Farscape". I said: "Ok, let me try it" I was pretty sure at that time that i wont like it because i was just finised watching TNG and found it great."

I had 3 episodes, viewed those but the show didn't impressed me very much, i found it childish initially and i thought its just another TV show, nice adventures but regular. Music was a little bit different, neat special effects though and i had the vague impression that the actors didn't fully get into the characters skin.

I watched another 3 episodes thinking that 3 eps were not enough to decide i like or not since. Then the show started to get me, i got a good grasp of the action and wanted to see what happened next to the poor Crichton....the rest is history.

I think i mostly like the freedom of the characters in the context of the action unlike Star Trek where everybody slept when they were supposed to do and way too much high tech bullshit.

The show got better with each episode, very interesting story line.....what can i say, this movie its like poetry.

I highly recommend it!!! The other reviewers are way WAAAAY off as to why the Farscape show has been (temporarily) put to rest. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows 'slacking'. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. They kept getting better and better! :) I have seen every episode and when you simply watch them in order you really become in awe how much cooler it gets as they move on and on, and the wormhole & Aeryn subplots are really very interesting and gave it MORE vibe, not less. Before it was sort of chaotic, slow, and rather aimless. They spent like the first two seasons running from this foe type, but in the second two they were actually trying to DO something :) Also I have never seen such a great fun blend of sexy gals and attitudes in Sci-Fi. The blue girl - Zahn - was cool, but not 'sexy'. They literally got to the point where the gals were running around in leather corsets and high heels blasting aliens - now tell me, what could be cooler than that??? :))

The real reason Farscape went off for a bit is because it was costing too much - and that is a GOOD thing for the fans, because the show, watched end to end, is really like a 60 hour long epic movie, with all the cinematics of the blockbuster stuff (ok ok they do use similar sets a lot, but the CG is great and the gals are sexxxy).

Blah blah - the real reason is because TV shows are about PROFIT. It is a BUSINESS, and the Sci Fi channel or whoever was not getting as big a return on this expensive Farscape show as they could with junk shows like 'Stargate'. Lexx was actually cool until they got rid of the hot German girl and replaced her with this bizarre fat-lipped oddity.

Anyway yes, remember this: Farscape kept getting better and better, until it was really like a little real movie each week. Then the networks decided 'hey people will watch any old piece of drek we shove on the air as long as it is the only sci fi thing on at that hour, so why are we spending all this money on Farscape, let's shove cheesy low-budget 'Stargate' down people's throats and call it a 'hit series' because it's like all we play every darn night LOL :))

That's the way it goes. Also I gotta tell ya that Claudia Black is a really cool actress. After she got her facelift (got the baggy eyes tightened) she was looking really cool - one of those dynamic types like Judy Davis, and sometimes hot looking, sometimes ugly - like a roller coaster ride. I'd par Claudia Black with Lucy Lawless in style and substance - both VERY fun to watch - not just Chrichton :) And yeah you may say the pregnancy thing was cheesy, but how many sci fi shows have a BELIEVABLE and DEEP romantic subplot that actually goes somewhere and progresses?? It was legitimately cool as a romance story - the actors on the show are great. It really is a shame the show is in limbo for now, but I hope it comes back in more episodes soon and movies as well, because I will deffinately buy them! :-D One of the greatest crimes made against Sci-fi television was the cancellation of Farscape. One of the most well-written, well-acted and over-all best shows ever to grace the airwaves, it set new standards for Sci-fi television. Once the flagship, highest rated, critically acclaied show of the Sci-Fi Channel, it defies explaination as to why shows like Buffy, Tremors: The Series, and even StarGate: SG-1 have lasted as long as they have. Yes, even Buffy. But I'll save my Buffy bashing for another time. Farscape was poorly treated by the Sci-Fi channel, continually tossed around in scheduling, reruns rarely shown and never really advertised. But while the show has been cancelled, all those involved in the production of the show want to bring the show back (even Henson Company CEO Brian Henson). There is also an extensive fan-based movement to bring the show back . Overall things are looking far from dark, and hopefully, fans will get their season 5. Having just borrowing the Series one DVD collection from my somewhat obsessive brother, I was expecting to get through the first couple of episodes and handing it back. I have just found myself yelling at the screen for ending the first season on a cliff-hanger - a mere week later and I've watched the entire season. Where I found the time for this I have no idea.

This show is great. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it has likeable characters who are well acted, and the special effects (ignoring the odd tacky puppet here and there) are "special" enough to give it that polished feel. At first, I didn't realise it was filmed mostly here, and it seemed odd to hear so many Aussie accents on a Sci-Fi show - it was most amusing for the main character (John) to land back in Sydney midway through the first season.

I believe this show's biggest strength is the vision that the creators of the show obviously had. They have gradually introduced new aspects of the characters that have explain previous actions, and the continue to smatter John's conversations with slang in an amusing and unforced way. On top of that, having watched the entire Voyager and Next Gen series, I see little plot rip-off - so it has managed to maintain a sense of originality throughout the entire first season. I hope the rest of it is as good.

Farscape is not like any other Sci-Fi that I've enjoyed in the past. I heard that the fourth season wasn't as good as the first three, and I am now quite annoyed that they cancelled it before the 5th. I hope that they revive this show - with the same actors in either a movie or another series. It would be a shame to leave so many plot lines unfinished as I imagine that with a show that's had so much thought put into it, to have it axed without adequate warning will leave me feeling robbed.

Gotta go now... heading back to my brother's place to snaffle the 2nd season.

V. An astronaut gets lost in deep space and finds himself traveling through unknown territory on board of a living spaceship accompanied by a group of alien-outlaws. This incredible plotted and enjoyable TV-installment comes along as a positive birth-fantasy. The individual characters, in conflict at the beginning of the series, have to learn to get along with each other and evolve into a powerful group at last. Most of the action takes place inside the womb of Moia, the living space-ship (who even gets pregnant and gives birth to another ship!). While science-fiction-stories are usually interested in negative birth-fantasies (watch the 'Alien'-movies for example, especially the fourth part 'Resurrection') this comes as a surprise. Also enjoyable is the absence of military hierarchy on board of the ship and the positive attitude towards sex and the human (and alien) body. One of the female characters who is actually a plant experiences 'photogasms' while being exposed to sunlight. The crew even has to go to the toilet. Wouldn't that be impossible in 'Star Trek'? Farscape is the best sci-fi show period, for one main reason, everything the show attempts, it does very well. From a technical aspect, the music is original and perfectly fitted to the show. The special effects are abundance and higher quality then almost any thing else that you will see on your tv. The acting is also great, too many shows nowadays use only the American market of actors for their shows. Remember the first time you saw The Matrix and you said, wow where did that Agent Smith come from? Its the same feeling that you get watching Claudia Black, Anthony Simcoe, Lani Tupu, Virginia Hey, and especially Wayne Pygram. These Aussies are great and it comes through in this great show.

The plot is second to none. The next closest thing I can think of is Babylon 5 during the shadow wars episodes, but this tops even that. Its a real treat getting to watch all the episodes sequential again, the intricacies of the interpersonal relationships of the characters are well scripted and performed. The overall plot is both original and thoroughly entertaining. I am always itching for the next show.

The comedic episodes are funny, the drama episodes are touching, and the action sequences are tense. The beginning of the second season had some great comedic episodes which had me laughing aloud, something that rarely happens while watching television that is not South Park, Sealab 2021, or Seinfeld. The drama is even harder, whether Crichton is meeting his mother or the characters face thier mortality, all is done with heart and intensity. Lastly it goes without saying that the action is tops. This is sci-fi.

If you are a fan of science fiction in the slightest, if you enjoy good television at all, if you like good serialized plot, you owe it to yourself to watch Farscape.

Oh, and Ben Browder owns. Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.

Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel/company that made it all possible in the first place.

Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape! Farscape totally rules! In my opinion it's very close to Babylon five although there are only 7 main characters in the series (spaceship included). The humour is excellent and the writers manage to keep the show interesting though pretty much everything happens on the ship.

What I really love and appreciate in Farscpae is,that they don't use CGI for the alien characters or if they do, it's unnoticeable. They use those lovable, crappy rubber animatronic puppets very similar to the ones used in the original Star Wars.

Farscape is something you definitely want to look into, if you already haven't. Faqrscape is truly one of those shows that just has it all, great acting,great cast,great writing,sets,chemistry,muppets...it's got it all and then some, except a home. This fantastic series it's seem has it all except and ending. TPTB seem to think this is a series that is consecutive single set shows, when anyone who watches know this is an ongoing ,one epic, love story, that has an end that must been seen. If you have never watched Farscape do youself a favor and check it out on DVD when the Season 1 will be released in October....and Season 2 is the best there is! Watch the reruns on the SciFi channel to catch up and then the new season starts in January through March when most shows are going in to hiatis and be sure to watch. If all goes well we will get our ending! Great characters, great acting, great dialogue, incredible plot twists in plain language one of the best shows I've ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and watch this show, you won't regret it. This show re-writes the book on Sci-Fi! I have watched Farscape from first episode to now, and I will continue to watch it! The setting and the characters are amazing and the plots are great. The show really keeps me on the edge of my seat and when the show goes off after an hour I keep hoping it will be another hour! I liked this show from the first episode I saw, which was the "Rhapsody in Blue" episode (for those that don't know what that is, the Zan going insane and becoming pau lvl 10 ep). Best visuals and special effects I've seen on a television series, nothing like it anywhere. This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor. The Pickle was the most underrated film of the decade. Despite my best efforts at home, it is still seen as a bad movie. I say to hell with everyone on this. Every one doesn't understand that it is in part a comedy with a dramatic twist at the end. Danny Aiello plays a burnt out director with perfection and conveys a sad depressed man. the scene when he is trying to record a last message is quite good. The interludes of Stones movie are absolutely funny. "This is Harry Stone and today I become a man!" In all a fine and sadly misunderstood movie. Plus a great cameo by Little Richard. Hilarious! I hope that more people see this movie because 202 people is not enough for a consensus.

-Silence Dogood Lauren Himmel's debut movie is well directed with a nice polished feel to it. There's a strong storyline going on with a meaningful point to it all even if at the end nothing is resolved hence the name Treading Water. The storyline revolves around a Lesbian couple and their battle with ones mother for acceptance. 7.5/10 Treading Water is a very beautiful movie. I would put it straight under the wonderful short movie : Cosa bella from Fiona MacKenzie. It's not only about coming out but also about tolerance and acceptance in general. I am looking forward to seeing more of Laurel Himmel's work in the future. The actors, Angie Redman and Nina Landey are quite good. The main characters relationship could have been strenghtened a bit as we understand there is a very strong bond between them but maybe this could have been explained a bit. I am surprised that Angie Redman doesn't appear much in other movies. A great first step as a director for Laurel Himmel, I am sure there's more to see from her skills. This movie just felt very true to life. I liked the ending which seemed to resolve naturally without any big moments but with a lot of little moments coming together. You could tell it is an honest love story. It doesn't matter what the 'sexual orientation' of the main characters are, it still a story about love and understanding.

There were a lot of scenes that involved the family. The setting is during what for some people is a very stressful time. Namely "the holidays." Christmas to be precise.

Like most good films, this one addresses issues of love, fitting in, expectations, and can't-be-overcome biases. In the end Alexandra and Casey make a choice for each other, knowing that love is difficult, and about giving. Well done. it was a very well written movie, and the actors had a very exquisite way of portraying all the character. but as the movie came to an end i felt as if there was more but they forgot to put it on the dvd. maybe they are planning on making a sequel...well even if they don't it's a good movie and a good rental, but even a better purchase. Time does extraordinary things. It's the ultimate judge. Time has granted "Married To The Mob" an extra doses of freshness. There aren't any dead moments or cheap shots. It's more of a delight now than it ever was. Michelle Pfeiffer creates a mafia widow that it's as far away from a caricature as anything she's ever done. A true original creation touching or hinting at the stereotype just to guide us through but her Angela is quite unique. The legendary Dean Stockwell presents us with a a mafia boss that it's just as menacingly real as he is hilarious. And Matthew Modine? Why did I think back then that he didn't have any chemistry with Pfeiffer? I was wrong. They are wonderful together. They reminded me, this time, to the Barbara Stanwyck, Fred MacMurray of "Remember The Night" I'm writing this comment now to entice you to visit or revisit this Jonathan Demme gem. This is a romantic comedy, so it's really a fairy tale, but an unconventional one. Cinderella, rather than living in the ashes, lives in an overdecorated castle in the suburbs with a good looking husband who's no prince. She does find her prince, but he's not that handsome. Instead of a castle, at least initially, she gets a tiny walk-up in Manhattan.

Pfeifer, Stockwell and Ruehl lead a cast of fully realized, if a little over-the-top, characters.

Demme reaches the highest level of movie-making in my mind. He creates a world I want to move into - a Manhattan neighborhood and street life teeming with life and community.

I wish IMDb linked to reviewers' other comments. I'd like to know what other movies the people who panned this one hate. I am always looking for a lot of laughs and for nice places in which to "live" at least for an hour or so. This is a fun movie with subtle intention. Its off-beat comedy is hilarious to me, unfunny to my friends. The soundtrack is perfect.

I own this on VHS and I have watched it many, many times, because it's simply a fun and funny love story with great performances by all the principals (though using Joan Cusack solely as a perch for big hair was a waste of her talent. I know, I know, she was still young...).

On a sad note, I decided to check out the DVD last night (instead of watching my VHS tape), and was SHOCKED to find many crucial scenes cut. And on the copy I watched, there was no special feature of deleted scenes: it was as if the deleted scenes never existed!! I am so glad I bought the used VHS at a flea market.

It is clear there was a great deal of choreography in this, which is another reason I love it so much. It takes great skill, talent, and genius to move around the scenes like Mercedes Ruehl, Dean Stockwell, and Matthew Modine do from scene to scene (Note the scene when the grocery carts converge, the rolling on the floor during the shoot-out in Miami, the Chicken Lickin' debacle, the foot massage, the salon hair-washing.) There is a very "theatrical" feel to this film, which may be the turn-off for so many whose poor reviews follow: I know some viewers who don't quite understand this style mistake the exaggerations and over-the-top performances for poor acting and worse direction. Not so. Jonathan Demme does a great job bringing to life the entire company and their respective roles.

The opening credits and first scene rank among my all-time favorites, as well (another favorite opening credits/first scene: Fly Away Home).

Too bad Matthew Modine so ardently skipped out of the public eye; I really like him, and found his casting PERFECT in the role of Mike Smith. Actually, this film is well-cast from soup to nuts: everyone is believable and true to his role. As for the question of expecting audience to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians - why not? I thought they pulled it off perfectly well.

Charming, fun, exciting... what is there not to like? If you want a little fun, watch this quirky, colorful adventure-mob-love story. If you are looking to learn more about organized crime and families, tune to HBO's The Sopranos. Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Modine are a joy to watch in this screwball comedy. Alec Baldwin, who was an up and coming star when the film was made, is a hoot. Dean Stockwell, in a sendup of John Gotti, is hysterical. But Mercedes Ruehl, as the paranoid and over the top Connie steals the movie.

Jonathan Demme, previously known for wacky comedies like "Something Wild" and "Melvin and Howard"-proves once again that he is a genius. I was not surprised at all when he went on to win the Oscar for directing "Silence of The Lambs." The performances he evokes from his actors in "Married" are inspired, and the audience is taken along for a wild and wooly ride.

One of the cutest, most endearing films of the 80's, it stands head and shoulders above many of the satires of its era. First, don't be fooled by my family name. My mother was full blooded Italian, so I really know Italian families, and I LOVE mobster movies, even the funny ones like this.

For those people who have bad rapped this film (you know who you are) you should have your movie privileges taken from you because you don't know what good is. This is a damn funny and well-styled film. The fact that almost nobody is Italian in it is part of the joke, so far as I can see. And what red-blooded straight male could complain about spending an hour and something with the likes of Michelle Pfieffer? Puh-lease! When I saw this film it won me over with the opening song by Rosemary Clooney who was as Irish as one can get, but her pronunciation of the Italian words in "Mambo Italiano" is flawless and sets the tone of what is to follow perfectly. (Hell, I even bought the record the next day because of it.) Just the look of every garish thing in the apartment that I have personally seen in my relatives houses, though not in the same place (which I found hysterical) sold it for me.

This movie is like Goodfellas on laughing gas. I just wonder why there are no Burger Worlds and what happened to the food these guys were supposed to get? My guess is the crew ate it. "The Fries are crispy. The shakes are creamy." My mouth is watering almost as much as it is thinking of the gorgeous Ms. Pfieffer. (And I never trusted clowns anyway.) And the three best things about this film are Mercedes Ruehl's achingly funny mob wife spurned, Dean Stockwell as her philandering husband Tony "The Tiger" and last, but DEFINITELY not least, the great mugging by Oliver Platt who should get more comic roles. And note to myself: find out where that black chick went. Ouch! Why does she work so infrequently? This picture is right alongside the great mob movies as it should be. What happened to Ava Gardner in the 1940s and Marilyn Monroe in the '50s also seemed to take place for modern-day actress Michelle Pfeiffer in the '80s: Her remarkable good looks got in the way of her being taken seriously as an accomplished, superbly talented actress. Anyone looking for validation of Pfeiffer's dramatic abilities need look no further than her work in 1991's "Frankie and Johnny" or '92's "Love Field" (a personal favorite of mine); those looking to see what a splendid comedic actress she can be, when given the right part, should check out 1988's "Married to the Mob." In this one, she plays Angela Demarco, the widow of a recently "iced" Mob hit-man, who moves from her garishly tacky Long Island home to start a new life for herself and her son, while being pursued by Mob boss Dean Stockwell and FBI man Matthew Modine. While this movie has lots going for it (a very amusing script; offbeat characters; sudden sharp turns to unexpected violence, as in director Jonathan Demme's previous effort "Something Wild"; and hilarious yet menacing performances by Stockwell and Mercedes Ruehl, as his jealous wife from hell), Michelle steals the show easily. Notice how perfectly she nails Angela's undereducated, Long Island Italian accent, and the many fine mannerisms that she brings to the role to really flesh out this spunky and surprisingly bright character. Once upon a time, long ago, Oscars were handed out to actresses for comedic roles such as this one. Had this film been made 60 years ago, Michelle mighta been a contenduh... I'm not a fan of this brand of comedy - stereotyped characters over-acting their way through a cops and robbers farce. But there are enough likable characters to sustain interest. Michelle Pfeiffer is adorable, but the person really carrying the film is Dean Stockwell, who steals every scene as the head mobster (named Tony, no less).

Stockwell's performance is the reason I'm writing this review (and the only reason I'd recommend it), in fact. You'll be tickled by his screen time. He's plays the mob boss perfectly, with comedic touches in the right places, managing to avoid becoming an overbearing cliche. In fact, Stockwell's a complete delight to watch - a master of the 'double take,' and a real 'looker' in those classy suits and fedoras.

Meesa Says: A good film to watch while folding laundry or eating leftovers. Michelle Pfeiffer is ideally cast as the frustrated mob widow in this colourful black comedy. Matthew Modine plays a clumsy FBI agent who has taken a fancy to her. Dean Stockwell steals the show as the big shot who keeps on pestering Pfeiffer; Mercedes Ruehl is dynamic as his jealous wife. It's all very eighties, but that just adds to the fun. A nice little flick, though not for every taste. If you're looking for a not-so-serious mob movie, with a female as the lead, you're in the right place. Pfieffer has acted much better than this. You can see she has matured beyond this picture.

When I first picked this movie up, I expected Pfeiffer was poorly miscast, however, she plays her mob wife role to the hilt. Not a bad performance from Baldwin, either.

If you don't pay attention to the hair, you might enjoy this movie. But don't take it too seriously... I just wanted to write a quick response to all those people who give this film a bad review because they think it isn't funny or that it's boring.

Here's the trick --- the film is not meant to be just a comedy. It's got some depth to it. Like many Demme films it deals with people living in some of the odd corners of our society who are trying to work out how to put together a fulfilling life for themselves.

Unfortunately, the movie and home video industries don't deal well with subtlety and drop this in the "COMEDY" bin. It IS funny, but a lot of the humor is off-beat. However, the heart of the movie is not about the humor but about the people in it.

It may not be one of the greatest films in the world but it is solid and entertaining.

And the cast is one of those that shows why casting is an art unto itself. Michelle Pfieffer is great and this may be the film that showed she had some acting chops to add to her beauty. Mercedes Ruehl is a big hoot and gets to chew the scenery in the way only she can, in a role which requires it. Throw in Oliver Platt, Joan Cusack in smaller roles and the talented Dean Stockwell ... and even Chris Isaak and you've got a great cast throughout which here, as usual, makes a great difference.

Matthew Modine is fun, but more important, he's a major hottie in this movie. Hot, cute and sexy.

Sit back, expect the unexpected and let the movie take you where it wants to go and you should have a great time. The only problem with Married to the Mob is that it is not funny. It dresses up exactly like a romantic comedy, but almost nothing that happens is funny. But if you can look at it as a film where almost nothing funny happens, then you'll have a really good time. It's a glitzy mob film, too, as per the title. Extremely glitzy. But the director, Jonathan Demme, is one of the few prevailing cult directors who fully and completely embraced the 1980s in his work from that decade rather than understandably pretending it was still the 1970s.

The opening credits combine 1980s animation, Italian-Americanism and mise-en-scene lathered on top of each other at once. From there, despite 1980sness, it feels about right. The lighting by Demme's frequent cinematographer Tak Fujimoto and jukebox soundtrack rife with widely varying pop and alternative jams are gaudy and that is indeed controlled and nuanced as part of the atmosphere. Demme is good at colorful instant characterizations in his visual and sometimes seemingly impetuous composition of a fun mix of styles, a plot that could've gone any which way, where a smooth FBI agent, played by a very bland Matthew Modine, trying to infiltrate a mafia family, sees a chance when a gun moll, played with come-hither allure by Michelle Pfeiffer, tries to leave the criminal lifestyle after her trigger-man husband, in just what you would hope for in an Alec Baldwin performance, is wacked.

The way it goes works for awhile, because Demme seems to have a firm hand on the wheel. He knows the significance of showing us the very subjective and relatable life-at-home scenes with Pfeiffer, as well as her cares and longings as a morally conflicted mom, although her relationship with son Joey is taken a bit for granted. What mobster's son is listening to party-pooper mom when dad's boss, played with Dean Stockwell's trademark naturalness and by far the scene-stealing stand-out of the cast, is giving him such awesome gifts? On the whole though, Demme's lathered-on stylizations are easily viewed as a novel take on a fun crime thriller tale.

Ultimately, though, we find we've been going the wrong way, because inevitably, Modine and Pfeiffer have to fall in love. That's not inherently bad, and every here and there it actually feels bearable, but as a romantic subplot, it is not handled interestingly, or well, hardly at all because it hopscotches across various sundry clichés, which fulfill the initial expectation of a cheesy 1980s date flick, and for that audience, I think it has just the right impact. But for someone who has found themselves genuinely interested in the story and the aesthetic approach, it is a let-down into state of tedium.

So it's a decent movie with huge missteps at certain points, but as a date movie or a nostalgic piece for those who grew up in the '80s, perhaps saw a lot of date movies in the '80s, the entertainment value is not as likely to fluctuate, except for said deficit in true laughs. There maybe a few scoffs, and it's very broadly tongue-in-cheek, but I wouldn't leave the comedy aisle with the high hopes with which I'd have initially entered. Whatever the case anyway, there are additional joys in bit roles by great character actors who have by now begun to fade, like Nancy Travis, Joan Cusack and Oliver Platt. Married To The Mob was one of the first VHS tapes that I had along with Coming To America and Grease. I still have fond memories of this film after all these years. Hell, I still have the VHS of this film in good condition.

The story: Undercover cop Mike Downey(Matthew Modine)is sent to spy on Angela De Marco(Michelle Pfeiffer) the wife of the slain mafia member Frank "Cucumber" De Marco(Alec Baldwin). He later falls in love with her after he realizes that she is innocent in all this. Angela not only has to deal with the unwanted advances of mob boss Tony "The Tiger" Russo(Dean Stockwell), she also has to deal with his jealous wife Connie Russo(Mercedes Ruehl).

Married To The Mob is funny and still keeps your interest when its not trying to be funny. I like the little jabs it takes at mafia life(the jealous mafia wife, the mob boss that doesn't realize that he is not a chick magnet etc) and you like the characters of Angela De Marco and Mike Downey. It was the last of the funny phase of Johnathan Demme before he got serious and gave you gems like Philadelphia and Silence Of The Lambs(best thriller of all time). If you're in the mood for comedy, Married To The Mob is a keeper. Its better than the rubbish that passes for comedy nowadays(Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet The Spartans, Disaster Movie etc). I'm surprised with the amount of negative reviews on this film. If you don't like this movie for what it is - a silly, over-the-top, mob story - then you are simply reading too much into it. This film is a classic tale of a mob wife trying to escape "the life" and the troubles that follow her. Michelle Pfeiffer is terrificly 80's 'jersey, who is an uncertain, uncomfortable mob wife while Matthew Modine is an anal retentive-like mob tracking cop who falls for her. The plot is mostly predictable and cutesy and Mercedes Ruel steals the show as the Queen of Mob Wives. If you aren't looking for something too dynamic and complex, this movie is absolutely entertaining and an 80's cult classic. You won't be able to stop watching if you start. Strange but acceptable mob comedy that has an undercover FBI agent (Matthew Modine) flirting with a mobster's concerned widow (Michelle Pfeffier) to tie two murders on a elusive mob boss (Dean Stockwell).

The movie shows that it doesn't have to go over the top just to be funny and director Jonathan Demme ("The Silence of the Lambs", "Philadelphia") keeps the movie from looking like it being was restrained. That's good and it avoids being predictiable, too. Nicely done evil little comedy pitting the FBI against organized crime with a nice lady caught in the middle. The actress who played the jealous wife of the mob boss 'Tony the Tiger' almost stole the show with her raging tantrums. 3 stars Michelle Pfeiffer stars as a mob widow who seeks a normal life but has her hands full with the new boss and an undercover agent. A lighthearted Demme film with some good laughs and Pfeiffer in a comical role that she has fun with..on a scale of one to ten..8 It is not always certain that by mixing comedians together you will produce laughter. The comics involved have to actually like or admire each other, or be willing to put up with each other's crankiness. GO WEST with the Marx Brothers had Buster Keaton write the script as a gag man. Groucho did not think too highly of Keaton's ideas, and embarrassed him at a script meeting. And though some of Keaton's gems still appear in the finished film (such as the gun that turns into a brush that turns into a gun) the film was one of the weakest the Marx Brothers ever made.

A better film, but also affected by dueling comic egos, was W.C. Fields and Mae West in MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, which jettisoned the script for a series of duels of one liners between the leads. But the one liners were equally funny, so the film remains a success.

But SIX OF A KIND is an example of six film comics who worked well together. The reason is simple: it is really three comic teams working together: Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland, George Burns and Gracie Allan, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth. Ruggles and Boland were paired in about half a dozen comedies during the 1930s, usually with Boland as a somewhat bossy wife, and Ruggles as a nervous wreck of a husband. Fields (usually a single act) was paired three times with Skipworth (TILLY AND GUS and IF I HAD A MILLION were the other two times). Skippy always figured out how to control or counter the larcenous activities of her man - it the present film she takes action into her own hands with the stolen money that is being searched for (she knows that the local sheriff, Fields, is not the one to trust with this). As for Burns and Allan they manage to effortlessly involve themselves with the put upon Ruggles and Boland on their cross-country trip by car.

Ruggles quickly gets to realize what a mistake it was to agree to travel with Gracie - at one point she manages to cause him to fall off a cliff, and dangle from a branch. He is relatively helpless when she insists on 1) photographing him on his perch, and 2) correcting his grammar. The presence of George and Gracie's humongous dog ("Ran Tang Tang" is it's name) does not make travel arrangements easier for Charlie and Mary.

Fields has some choice moments. When he insists on shouting at the quartet, he says he's allowed to do so - he's the sheriff! He also explains, during a pool game, the improbable story of how he got his undeserved moniker "Honest John". You have to listen carefully to the tale, as it is interrupted with his attempts to play pool a few times (once getting accidentally beaned by a billiard ball), but it does show that there were items that even Fields would have had no reason to steal.

Oh, in the "Summary Line", I mentioned a forgotten actor named Bradley Page - he was the man who is responsible for the trouble that Charley Ruggles is suspected of. Bradley has to have a reason to leave town in order to catch up with the unwary Ruggles and Boland, so he telephones his girl friend. He tells her to call back his job and say that he has to leave town because somebody has died. There is a pause as he apparently hears a question shot back by the girlfriend. "ANYBODY!", he says - clearly annoyed. Although the bulk of the humor in the film is carried by the sextet of performers, Mr.Page happened to have the most amusingly unexpected line in the film. That was one of the lines in a trailer about this film and for once the publicists did not exaggerate. All six of the featured players here are on the screen 99% of the time, so they have to be good.

It's always fascinating how certain plot premises can be worked for either highballing comedy to a deadly serious situation. Mary Boland of the ditzy and Charlie Ruggles of the henpecked play their usual characters who are planning to motor all the way to California. To share expenses they advertise for someone to share the ride. They get Burns and Allen and a monster of a dog. That same premise was a deadly serious one several generations later in Kalifornia.

Of course if you're traveling with Gracie Allen you know you're going to be going absolutely nuts trying to figure her Monty Pythonesque reasoning about the whole world. And if that ain't enough you get to run into W.C. Fields, part time sheriff and full time pool hustler who's living in sin with Alison Skipworth. But back then we didn't delve into such things.

A real classic comedy from the thirties, not to be missed. Three zany couples, all SIX OF A KIND, become entangled in a madcap search for stolen bank loot.

This is a lively, hilarious comedy, with the six stars - Charlie Ruggles & Mary Boland, W. C. Fields & Alison Skipworth, George Burns & Gracie Allen - all heartily engaged in doing what they did best: getting laughs.

Ruggles & Boland make another of their film appearances as husband & wife - this time rather more amorous than usual. They were a perfect team - she the strident lioness, he the nervous rabbit - and they dominate most of the screen time here. From beginning to end, they are a delight.

Burns & Allen continue the patter they originated in Vaudeville, perfected on radio & would eventually take to television, with George the perpetual straight man & Gracie the eternal fool. At times in the film she tends to go a bit over the top, but it's difficult to dislike her. Her heart was obviously made of solid gold.

While Skipworth is given rather short shrift - only fragments of her formidable personality flash through - Fields is in his element as the disreputable sheriff of Nuggetville, Nevada. Whether explaining how he got the nickname ‘Honest John' or skulking about at night looking for the missing moola, he is never less than wonderful. Best of all, he gets to perform his entire classic pool routine, preserving it forever for a grateful posterity. Finally, he executes the near miraculous - he gets Gracie to shut up.

Paramount was so pleased with the success of SIX OF A KIND that they wanted to hurry the principle players into another comedy. Only Fields demurred. He felt he had now arrived at the point where he no longer needed to share a movie with other celebrity comics. The Studio finally agreed and began preparation of Fields' first solo starring feature, YOU'RE TELLING ME (1934). I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10. But George and Gracie's are not among them. The movie is fun and the pool table scene with WC Fields has to be among the funniest I have ever seen but Gracie and George are more irritating than comical in their roles, partly from script deficiency and partly from their interpretation. I gave it a 7 out of 10 for the rest of the cast, WC is a treasure of comedic timing and energy in this one. The gimmick, as it were, of this 1934 Paramount comedy is the six comedy performers, paired off into three man-and-woman teams, who all appear together. W. C. Fields and his frequent screen partner Alsion Skipworth appear in the second half of the film and shine in their roles as a small-town sheriff and innkeeper. Fields seems to have been given the latitude to inject plenty of his own one-of-a-kind brand of misanthropic, surreal comedy into his part, and it works wonderfully, especially where he is allowed to do his famous pool table routine, a digression that is totally welcome since it is hilarious.

At first thought it might have seemed like a mismatch to conceive of a film to be carried by the subtle domestic comedy of Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland next to the broad, jokey Vaudeville patter of the great husband-and-wife comedy team of George Burns and Gracie Allen, but here it works perfectly because of the parts George and Gracie are given in the script. They are there are freeloaders hitching a ride to California on Ruggles' and Boland's honeymoon trip and consistently find ways to annoy them at every step, including, brilliantly, while they are each holding on to the side of a cliff for dear life.

Making Burns and Allen comic annoyances to two sympathetic characters turns out to be a perfect way to fit their far-out, larger-than-life comedy characters into a real world setting -- the comedy of people reacting to them in a believable way turns out to be as much as a gold-mine as Gracie's famous naive delivery itself.

Charlie Ruggles deserves special mention for his performance as the fussy banker "Pinky" Whinney. He's marvelously subtle and underplayed, and draws laughs from lines that in another actor's hands might not even have been heard.

The script is wonderfully witty all through, and most of the way it's a perfectly extended comedy of frustration in which our sympathies are with the poor Whinneys who can't get a moment alone, and the extra bonus is that what frustrates them is just more first-rate comedy material from Burns and Allen.

For the pre-code watchers out there, there is some rather suggestive material in some of the most amusing scenes, as Whinney tries to get across to George just WHY he and his wife want to be alone for a while.

There are a few signs of a rushed production here -- the occasional jump cut, one of the most obvious drop sets you will ever see in a movie (right up there with W. C. Field's own short "The Golf Specialist"), and the knot in Field's tie is constantly changing in shape. These don't bother me, though, and they shouldn't bother anybody who is enjoying the film.

"Six of a Kind" is a real little-known gem and one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while. If you're thinking about whether to watch it, the answer should be yes. The title refers not to a questionable poker hand, but to six comic players. They come in twos: Charles Ruggles and Mary Boland as a couple driving to California for a second honeymoon, George Burns and Gracie Allen as another couple who go along to share expenses, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth as a sheriff and a hotel-owner in a tiny Nevada town. No attempt is made to fashion a coherent narrative—it's a collection of comic bits strung together. All the first couple want to do is spend time together, but Burns and Allen's characters aren't married, so the men bunk together, as do the women. There is a bit of a plot: a bad guy plants $50k in the suitcase Pinky (Ruggles) is taking out of town, but because the expedition is being guided by Gracie, the loot cannot be found. The bad guy shows up in Nevada and Fields accidentally captures him. A bunch of pleasant bits, Ruggles' confused expression, Gracie's batty, breakneck talk, and Fields playing billiards with a corkscrew cue and doing a fluttery, craven, backwards-stepping double-take when he's threatened, and his wonderfully distinctive way of lingering over words. And trying to remember the name "Gracie," he tells Skipworth, "Hmm. Starts with a K... McGonigle." She answers, "Oh no, no, no, no..." "Mmmm. Wangahanky!" "No, no, no, no no. Oh, Gracie." "Yes, that's right." The working title was: "Don't Spank Baby".

Wayne Crawford went on to become a successful producer, films like Valley Girl, Night of the Comet and others, even though he wasn't too terrific in this little Gem. And little known Abe Zwick should have gotten tons of work from this film but didn't. Filmed at Moberly Studios in Hollywood Florida, on the same lot the early Tarzan movies were filmed. This film is definitely for those who appreciate the abstract. The movie was originally shot with some nudity and much more graphic slasher scenes. For reasons only known to Tom Casey the Director, the bloody slasher scenes were given a tab of LSD, and the nudity was removed. Even though this version is worthy of a look for those so inclined, in my opinion, the original version would have packed the punch needed to make this a full on Slasher 70's Cult Classic. Haha, what a great little movie! Wayne Crawford strikes again, or rather this was his first big strike, a deliriously entertaining little ball of manic kitsch energy masquerading as a psycho killer movie. It's actually a **brilliant** satire on post-hippie American culture in flyover country, though the movie was actually filmed independently in Miami. It defies any kind of studio oriented convention or plot device that I can think of: SOMETIMES AUNT MARTHA DOES DREADFUL THINGS may not be a very technically adept movie, but it is a wonderful little slice of Americana, made on the cheap by people who were honest, ambitious, imaginative and had balls made out of steel. It took guts, nerve and guile to make this movie, which amazingly appears to have stood the test of time. This movie is fresh, vital, alive, unforgettable, and charmingly weird enough to recommend to just about anyone with a sense of humor.

I dug up last year during a period of time when I was fascinated by "star" Wayne Crawford (here billed under his pseudonym Scott Lawrence), a maestro of what can only be called regional film-making, usually of the B grade variety. He's a writer, producer, director, and actor all in one, probably best known for the 80s teen apocalyptic favorite NIGHT OF THE COMET. Here he plays Stanley, the pants wearing half of a couple of truly marvelous characters, apparently homosexual spree killers on the lam after knocking off some old lady in Baltimore for her jewelry. Unsung screen legend Abe Zwick is completely convincing as Paul, who poses as Stanley's Aunt Martha, the cross dressing brains of the outfit who has conned Stanley into thinking he's committed murder to ensure his loyalty. Martha looks about as feminine as the sailors from SOUTH PACIFIC's supporting choir in their coconut bikini tops, yet somehow nobody seems to notice -- or care? -- that she is a he, has no visible means of income, seems to spend all day fretting about where Stanley is, and scurries around the neighborhood in her bathrobe carrying a butcher's knife. Only in America ...

As the film opens the two of them have just arrived in Florida and set up residence in what looks like Ward Cleaver's old house, a garishly lit & designed television home that is so cliché as to be surreal. During one memorable scene Martha and an unwelcome house guest sit on the couch, talk problems and drink cans of Budweiser in what is one of the most mesmerizing, subversively ordinary sequences I've ever seen outside of a John Waters movie. Then there's Stanley, always getting into trouble as he is a mop topped hippie with an STP patch on his vest who drives a psychedelic painted van that's about as subtle as the Batmobile, drinks his milk straight from the carton, snorts drugs with blond bombshell bimbos, and hoards donuts in an old cigar box for a quick snack. Opposites attract, I guess.

But Stanley also has a thing about not liking it when the young ladies he gets stoned with try to remove his pants, and it always seems to be up to Aunt Martha to get him out of the trouble that inevitably results. The bodies pile up, a nosy junkie blackmails them into using their house as a flop, Stanley's birthday cake gets squashed, and everybody meets down at the local pizza shop before heading to the wood shed on the back property for a hookah hash party where the girls dance in their underwear. Things get out of hand when one of the neighbors tries to get a bit too chummy with Martha, who naturally prefers to keep people at an arm's length when they rudely invite themselves over for a nice chat. And this is a woman who carries not just a butcher knife but a loaded .38 in her slip. Eventually the strange duo find themselves stuck with a body, a baby, and no place to go, and end up taking refuge at an abandoned movie studio where no doubt the technical crew borrowed the equipment used to make the film. I just hope they politely asked for permission first and cleaned up after themselves.

A word of course must be said about Stanley and Martha/Paul's relationship, since to dance around the fact that the two are at least suggested to be a homosexual couple would be to miss the primary gist of the plot. We never see the two of them get intimate and indeed even though Stanley mockingly refers to being "balled" in one scene, their relationship is more symbiotic than sexual. It certainly isn't a "gay" movie, with abundant female nudity and an air of 70s misogyny that cannot be denied either. Stanley & Paul never consummating their implied sexuality on screen, even though the movie certainly would have had the guts to do so if it were important. It isn't, the story isn't about their sex, it's about the bond they share, and how weird it is. Not their being gay, but their being the distinct individuals they are, who are two of the strangest movie creations ever to inhabit my TV set.

The film is unique. It was made for only a few thousand dollars on what look like borrowed studio sets, the occasional location work, and an couple of public locations they managed to sneak a camera crew into when nobody was looking. The dialog is completely bizarre, mundane and delightfully esoteric. It's a movie that will take you by surprise, not everyone will like it but for those with a taste for low budget American horror/thrillers like THE NIGHT GOD SCREAMED, HELP ME! I'M POSSESSED, BLOOD & LACE and CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, you've got yourself a winner here.

8/10: Usually I'd say something like "Deserves a DVD restoration" but somehow I think doing so would ruin the movie's tacky ambiance. And Wayne Crawford, you, sir, rule. Abe Zwick perfected the one-off, beautifully. He never made another film, but created a brilliant portrait of homosexual self-hatred in this film that is both caustic and affecting. He commands the screen, presenting the crumbling debris of a man breaking down under the strain of an increasingly meaningless life.

Paul (Zwick) is an aging queen who's somehow convinced Stanley (Wayne Crawford), a doe-eyed idiot with no sense of the future, to follow his star. He's a petty thief who's seething hatred has escalated recently. He's been forced to skip town and move to a suburb in Miami. As a disguise, he dresses up like a dried up old blue-stocking with as much seething sexual torment as the Church Lady. He tells Stanley to tell his friends that he lives with his "Aunt Martha". Paul himself has no friends, spends far too much time alone in the house, and has to deal with Stanley's dissolute lifestyle. It would be enough to make any man cross the line into transgendered homicidal mania.

Again, Zwick portrays Paul as a tragic figure who has utterly lost any understanding of how to relate to other people. Nevertheless, there is a certain poetry in his anguish, which burns slowly over the course of the film. He's tragic, but also elegant. This is, ultimately, a very sad film. It certainly has many hilarious moments, but there is such an undercurrent of hopelessness and despair, that the humour is bittersweet. This film is worth watching for the performance of Abe Zwick. He could have really built his career on Martha. She's quite a gas, once you get to know her. Just make sure you cut your hair and stop your horsing around. She really hates that! A man named Jerry comes into possession of an ancient Aztec doll.However this creepy little figure is possessed by an evil spirit,which takes over Jerry's body and pushes him to spill the blood...I have seen two other horror movies "The Dorm that Dripped Blood" and "The Kindred" made by Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow and I must say that "The Power" doesn't disappoint either.The plot is slow-moving,but there are some effective human goo effects and a little bit of gore.The scene of a female tabloid reporter being attacked by arms that come ripping out of a mattress is a hoot.I liked this low-budget horror movie and you should too,if you are into 80's horror genre.8 out of 10. Look, this is a low budget horror film that suffers from all of the problems that go with low budget movies. But you must see this just to watch Lisa Erickson as Julie. She is SMOKIN' hot and a great little actress to boot! These types of horror movies often unearth a rare gem and The Power gave us Lisa Erickson! Nothing I enjoy more than sitting down in my studio apartment with a Coke and putting in this film. My friends Bob, Bill and Dennis agree.. Lisa is not only brilliant, she is a hottie. The movie itself often plods along and the rest of the actors are not very helpful in that regard. But as soon as Lisa hits the screen, things really start hopping. The others are clearly not in her league. This is not the Exorcist but as I said, if you want to see a fun little movie with a hot little actress, this is the one to see! I saw this movie on my local cable system under the title of 'Beyond Redemption'. I was searching for new material to watch, since most of the reruns one Saturday morning didn't interest me. I've always been a fan of Andrew McCarthy and Michael Ironside, so I chose this movie. I was pleasantly surprised.

Personally, I enjoyed the film. Rich Roesing, who posted a comment about the film being spoiled for him by seeing scenes from the movie on the back of a video rental box, are well justified. I did not have the disappointment of knowing beforehand anything about the film. This led me to rate the movie higher than the average score listed on the page.

I like suspense movies, and this one was no exception. The movie kept me guessing until the very end. I was surprised by the ending!

The moments of reflection and remembrance of past experiences by the main character during the film only added to the suspense. His reactions to those remembrances gave the film a sense of the humanitarian, yet conflictual, side of police work. The struggle with his faith is also a welcome addition.

If you like suspense films, but also like films that expound on the character's feeling, personal inflection side, this film is for you.

Should you find this movie on your local cable or satellite system's guide, watch it!

However, if you are looking for a rental video, follow Rich Roesing's advice and have someone get the video for you before watching it. This film was different. It took a sort of typical thriller story and reached for a more interesting, in-depth look at an individual character's struggle with faith. Of course, it helped that the main performance, by Andrew McCarthy, was quite excellent. The other performances were also quite interesting, although not as consistent. The ending was a bit of a let down, but there were lots of good moments. The film-makers tried something different here -- they didn't just go for the obvious chills and scares. This is a dark film (not for everyone) but if you want to be entertained and not talked down to, try this one. I enjoyed the film, and the fact that it aimed rather high in dealing with some sophisticated material. I saw the film in a preview screening, and it wasn't ruined by any silly video boxes that spoiled the ending. The performances were quite good, especially Andrew McCarthy in a more mature roll. I also enjoyed the look of the film which gave it a mysterious, forboding air. I also enjoyed some of the "twists" in the plot, and don't want to give too much away in case other countries' video boxes don't give it all away! The script was a little over the top at times, but I appreciated the fact that the film-makers weren't afraid to challenge the audiences with interesting and puzzling questisons regarding the roll of faith in our world. And, while some might find the ending a little too open-ended, I appreciated the fact that the movie refused to tie everything up neatly with a bow. That's not how life works. Andrew McCarthy played the role of an atheist very well. I liked the plot of the movie. It gave something to think about other than a comedy. It had a very twisted mind and a good cop versus God. A very well used plot line. A lot of people give this movie a lot of crap, and all of it's really undeserved. People give this movie a hard time either because it's such a sick subject or they harp on some technical aspect of the movie no one else observes when they watch it. If, just by looking at the cover, you think this movie will make you uncomfortable...DON'T WATCH IT! However, you'd be missing out on one of the better cinematic experiences of the late 1990's, despite what anyone else says.

Dee Snider is wonderful here as Captain Howdy, the depths of insanity he plumbs to play this character has to be beyond words, and is much farther than any one of us would have to be willing to go. The acting here is wonderful. The film itself beautifully shot. The subject may be a bit too much for many to swallow, but it's still well worth your time. If you haven't seen this movie, check it out. Strangeland seems to have a love/hate relationship with many of its viewers. I personally loved the movie, and everything about it.

The acting in some places could be improved upon, but the filming adds to the atmosphere where the acting can't. In some areas, the dialogue is a bit cheesy and over dramatic, but really, what do you expect from the late 90s? Over all, Dee did an amazing job in writing what I believe to be one of the most terrifying thrillers I've ever seen. It plays on the fears of many age groups--adult, parents, and children. Every parent fears that their children will get too involved with chat rooms and will meet strangers from the internet. And it *does* happen in the real world. And every child and adult fears being kidnapped and tortured against their will; that happens too in the real world. Which is what makes this movie such a sensitive subject for many.

My only warning is if you *know* you are sensitive to things such as strong violence, visible torture, and gore, then you do *not* want to see this movie. If you are unsure about if this movie will entertain you, then read as many reviews as you can, ask people you know who have seen this movie, and be prepared to turn the movie off at any time should you become disturbed. Honestly, this is one of the BEST horror movies I have ever seen. I was captivated by the story, petrified of Captain Howdy and on the edge of my seat for the whole ride. I do not really understand all the negative reviews.

The set up has already been discussed in depth; Captain Howdy is an on-line predator who sets up meetings with teenagers, abducts them and introduces them to his favorite pastime of body modification and piercing. Dee Snider is Captain Howdy and he is one of the scariest psychopaths ever created; maybe the scariest because he is so human and you get the sense (especially if you are into body modification at all) that there are really people like this in the world.

But the biggest reason I liked this movie and the reason it is so horrific is that Captain Howdy becomes the hero. At the beginning of the movie, the roles are clear-cut; the victims are innocent, the cop is the good guy and Howdy is pure evil. By the second act, however, things have changed a little. You want Howdy to be evil but it turns out that he is really just a victim of circumstance and maybe the good and the bad are not obvious. It is terrifying to find yourself cheering for the "bad" guy.

A couple people have mentioned that Strangeland should have been broken into two separate movies. To be sure, there are definitely two separate "acts" but this movie works so well because the two acts are back to back. The first act is the typical psycho-thriller but the second act is the most disturbing because of the viewers reaction to the situation. I do not think it would have worked quite the same if the second act were expanded and turned into a sequel.

As a big horror movie fan, I highly recommend this film. It is the first horror movie EVER to give me nightmares. Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote/directed/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!! I didn't really think this movie was bad. Sure, the detective kinda sucked at what he did, and he usually happened upon Capt. Howdy by accident, but he got the job done. Capt. Howdy himself was pretty scary. The make-up artist did a great job. I really liked seeing Dee dressed up all geeky. I laughed so hard when I saw that. I personally don't see how someone can sit through crap like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and call it a great movie, and then watch Strangeland, which is more disturbing because a lot of it could actually happen with the internet being so popular, and call it bad. I personally think that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was loads of crap. Probably one of the stupidest movies that I've ever seen. I enjoyed Strangeland. It was a very disturbing movie because almost all of it actually happens. This thriller is one of the few (film) surprises I've had in quite some time. Everybody - and I do mean EVERYBODY - I talked to when it was in the theatres said it was awful...but then I got to thinking...none of these people really understand horror/thriller films or metal rock - so WHY DO I LISTEN TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE????? This film kicks ass - but ONLY if you are able to comprehend and enjoy this type of entertainment. In short (too late) - see it with an open mind and it might just open your mind. ...the soundtracks great too... I don't understand where these bad comments are coming from. The movie had you on the edge of your seat and made you somewhat afraid to go to your car at the end of the night.

The part that gets you is that this could all happen. Not to the extent perceived in the movie, but the whole idea is reality. This movie took that reality and twisted it into a Dee Snider nightmare.

Three thumbs up (the third one is from the dead body in my freezer). Everyone told me this movie was downright not good, and sick etc. so I finally rented it and I was amazed . I thought the torture was gonna be much much worse, but it did get shocking near the end but that was about it. I wouldn't call it a horror movie, maybe a mystery or something under the category of Silence of the Lambs and/or Kiss the Girls. It did get stupid at times, but the rest of the movie kept me on the edge of my seat. 7/10

Rated R - for strong torture, violence, language, and sexuality This off-beat horror movie seems to be getting nothing but bad reviews. My question is; why? I think this movie is pretty good. Dee Snider did very well for his first (and only) time directing. He also plays the antagonist, Captain Howdy (Carelton Hendriks). This movie seems to have a view of the future. Although it came out back in 1998, it seems to be about modern issues. Internet predators seems to be the underlying plot here. Although taken to another level, this is an issue which we still face today. I'll admit, the story fell short a few times, but that doesn't make this a bad movie at all. Robert Englund is even in this movie, that automatically makes it better. THe acting wasn't bad, the characters were pretty good as well. Hendriks was a pretty good antagonist I think. I give this off-beat horror a 7/10. Recommend for fans of Saw. many people have said that this movie was not a good movie, at a horror perspective i agree, it was not very scary, it did have some gruesome ways of torture yes (hooks going where they shouldn't) but not scary. but it was a good movie at a comedic stand-point, i thought it was hilarious, such bad acting from dee snider with his stupid theological questioning and every second word he said came out as "what is____, define______", then the angry mob at his house with one of them holding a sign saying "we're not gonna take it" (which is a song from his band twisted sister. but i think the part that made me laugh the most was the one guy's wife that was dead and dee snider was holding her up and making her dance, when i saw that i broke out in tears... so i would not recommend this for avid horror lovers, but for those who love horror for its comedy i recommend this movie 100% A sick man Carleton Hendricks (Dee Snider), cruises the Teen Chat lines as Captain Howdy. He poses as a teenage boy and invites other teens over his house to party. He instead knocks them out, strips them, sews their mouth closed and tortures them (mostly with needles). He captures the daughter of cop Mike Gage (Kevin Gage). He finds him, arrests him and he's institutionalized. Four years later he's released...totally cured. But a lynch mop (led, amusingly, by Robert Englund) attack him and hang him. He doesn't die but he snaps and Captain Howdy is back...

A very sick, disturbing, twisted horror film. Captain Howdy enjoys pain and torture and is trying to show the kids he kidnaps how to enjoy it also. The torture scenes aren't that explicit (you hear more than you see), but what you do see is very very sick. There's no humor and the (muted) screams of his victims sound way too real. I was cringing away from the TV during most of the scenes.

The acting varies. Kevin Gage isn't that good as the cop--he's not terrible but he could have been better. Dee Snider is very scary as Captain Howdy--his attack scenes are not pleasant.

All in all, not your typical horror film. I'll probably never see it again (this film really gets under your skin) but I recommend it to all horror fans--at least those with strong stomaches. I give it a 7. I think this movie is the most misunderstood film in Jerry Lewis career. It's little slow starting, but after it gets going is very funny & Jerry's use of irony like never before in his earlier films..., ie, Who's Minding the Store, The Nutty Professor, etc., the idea, is clear, it's a mock of the Dirty Dozen, instead of getting soldiers on death row to do a suicide mission as in that film, you have 4, 4-f's & 2 tag alongs. Including the Former L.A. Dodgers all-star Centerfielder, Willie Davis as Linc! HILARIOUS! Love that Movie! iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : ) i had been looking for this film for so long before i found it, i had seen it when i was younger and loved it, after my second viewing i still loved it and i still do.

this is a love/hate film, if you like bottom, young ones, the comic strip, then you will find this funny. If you don't like that kind of humour then don't bother. I love this film and have grown up with these comedy programmes, for me this film is simply placing their comic genius on the big screen.. It is not an award winner by any means but if you just want good wholesome slapstick then this is it!

the film lacks the quality of the TV series and this is usually the case with films but it still has enough material to keep you laughing even if a lot of the jokes are pretty similar to their previous work.

yes, the humour is a little childish and not to everyone's taste but sometimes you just need that in a film. Bottom has been my favourite sitcom ever since i saw it on t.v and the movie is even better if your a bottom fan i say this is a must buy!!! the plot is that Eddie and Ritchie run a hotel named guest house Paradise but not all goes right for them as customers leave until a famous actress come to stay they try there best to impress her but not all well go right this is a upbringing to British cinema so buy this and you will wet yourself with laughter. also starring Simon Peggi (shaun of the dead) and also bill neigh (love actually) it might of not done good in the box office or by the looks of it on this website but don't listen to them buy this and i swear you will love it Okay, this may not be the most sophisticated movie you'll ever see. Actually, there isn't a bit of "sophisticatedlyness"* in it. It's puerile, adolescent, inoffensive, idiotic..And utterly hilarious. Basically, Richie and Eddie run the worst hotel in Britain. Cue some ridiculous antics with the guests while they beat each other up, try to get the rent money out of the only resident who is daft enough to stay, have an all night drinking binge with the boys from the power plant next door...And fall in lust with the beautiful actress who comes to stay to avoid the press. Give it a try if you're a fan of Rik and Ade and their work. If you're not...Don't get the movie. Simple as that.

*I'm not being thick, this is a word from another one of Rik's fab jaunts into the movie world ^_^ This is a gem of a film, Slapstick violence a-plenty, Simon pegg and Green Spew.

A suspicious looking power plant and an incontrollable motorbike add to this stonker.

If you haven't seen this I can highly recommend it, maybe not quite as good as bottom but not far short.

If you have never seen a man impaled by the nose on two hooks then what are you waiting for buy this film.

I didn't even see the twist at the end coming when it turns out that Ritchie and Eddie are both ghosts.

Feeb - 1 boiled egg. I own this movie on DVD and I have watched it about 10 times and it's still funny. The jokes will never get boring and I often burst out laughing at inappropriate times just thinking about them. The premise is that Richard and Eddie of Bottom fame own the cheapest hotel in Britain next to a nuclear power plant. They are desperately in need of cash and when a film star in hiding comes to stay their luck just might be in.

To watch this movie and not become utterly bored or disgusted you first need to like the humour. Some would say that only hardcore fans really enjoy watching it. But overall it's a great movie. My God, this is funny stuff. Yes, it's puerile in the extreme, but also rather witty ("Here's the page with all the wines on it." "It's a little early for us, I'm afraid." "Well, what are you doing up then?") and the fight sequences are second to none. Despite what you may have heard, the laughs *do* keep coming, and at a surprisingly generous rate. The sheer comic abilities of Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson help keep it riotously funny. wringing every drop of comedy from the script. I can only compare it to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" - you either find that film hysterical throughout or not at all; the same applies here. It's probably the funniest British film since "Withnail and I", but to say it's an acquired taste is something of a gross (sic) understatement. I cant see how some people cant find this film funny i saw the end of it on Sky Movies in 2001 thought i would by the DVD since then i have laughed my balls of with lines like Rik Mayalls laugh "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" and Eddies "Hello night porter" when they never get any phone calls overall i think this film is very very funny. I can't even begin to imagine why everyone hates this movie so much. It had me literally crying with laughter several times ("I trust you slept well?" "actually, we had a bit of a rough night." "ah, the perils of adultery.").

admittedly, the ending is a little flat, but still has its moments (the booger ball's obvious fake spalsh as flew into the ocean, "beach house paradiso").

personally, i think this is the funniest movie i've ever seen.

10/10 I am a Christian, and thought this movie was pretty good! :) While the acting wasn't Academy Award caliber, I thought it was good, considering the cast has had limited acting experience at the time this movie was made.

The Gospel message and the transforming power of Jesus Christ was explained wonderfully. The message that the director was trying to get across (which is THE important thing, not how the characters dressed!) definitely got through. The theme of having the main characters involved in illegal drag racing was a good idea, too (cool muscle cars, btw). I think this movie will definitely reach out to a lot of young people.

I would definitely recommend this movie, it is a great witnessing tool! :) Id just like to say that the film was good and touching. The film explains to you the real meaning of being saved or born again and is very well set out. The acting was quite good but could do with some improvements. The story Board is catchy and when my church had youth service and we watched it,8 people gave there life to Christ. Id just like to say too anyone who is reading this, give your life to Christ and repent from your sin. PLease visit www.lifeofacristian.piczo.com Thank you Andrew

The word of God will not turn Void. So Get saved and repent from your sin! This movie was amazing. I was in tears by the end of the movie. Okay, I know the acting sucked but that's not what was important. The message came through loud and clear about God's love for us and Jesus's sacrifice. The movie was realistic and showed actual human feelings whether it be Pete's anger of the blond girl's sneers or the guy that asked questions. But it also showed the joy that comes from a true relationship with Christ. The cars were awesome and the actors were very hot and that attracted my eye. But what I liked most about this movie was the clear Gospel message. The mother and pastor supported Ben in his new walk with Christ and tried to be a godly example to others. Nicky D showed that no matter if you have all the world has to offer, without Christ, it doesn't matter. Nina showed how a misguided but good person can easily miss the mark. I loved this movie and think that it will bring many teenagers to Christ. This is a very "right on case" movie that delivers everything almost right in your face. I'm a Christian and liked the film in one way. It had some average acting from the main person, and it was a low budget as you clearly can see. It can be a bit long-winded, but the film has some quite nice cars that rescues it from a lower rating from me. As a Christian film it was quite good, but maybe a bit right-on in the message. The film works best on a big screen. *SPOILERS* The fighting scene with the two brothers can remind you of the fighting scene between the two brothers in the Christian thriller "Mercy Streets" starring Eric Roberts.*End of Spoiler* I give it a 7/10. A young man discovers that life is precious after he is seriously injured in a street racing accident. His father is a pastor who changes his outlook on life and he spends the whole movie sharing his new-found love for others in this shocking and heartwarming movie. The theme is built around street car racing and it is an excellent movie for people who are into that and movies like 'the fast and the furious'. This shows how people can overcome their problems and gives the general message about the meaning of life in a new and exciting way! On seeing this movie, I didn't expect much. I was delightfully surprised. Although the writing was unpolished, as some of the dialog seemed drawn-out and contrived, the script did have shining moments. (My favorite line, "Life is like a rich meringue, an-and I'm diabetic, so I can't enjoy it...".) The plot was new and refreshing as opposed to some of the newer more "main-stream" horror that most of us are (sadly) growing used to. I do believe some of the scenes could (should) have been longer (and maybe some shorter). The superfluous use of blood was campy but seemed to make sense in the end....Ah, the end. The end would have been a little better if they had explained why what happened, happened. (I don't wanna spoil it.) It might have also added to the movie time, which is in the area of "it's only an hour long, how good could it be?" Answer- Quite good. Right, here we go, you have probably read in previous reviews on this film that it is awful, badly acted, avoid at all costs. Well i suppose in some ways this is true, it is fair to say that you couldn't write a spoiler in this comment as there is no plot to spoil. However, there is a fine line between plain awful and absolutely hilarious and believe me this film is the latter. The acting is so bad, the plot so non existent and the ending so completely baffling it will have you laughing the whole way through. There are scenes in this film that take comedy to a new level. Do not expect an Oscar winner but believe me for the small price you will pay for this disaster, it is worth every penny. Forget Samara/Sadako and Jason...

Horror has a new name : GRANNY. The plot is simple but efficient. The actors are good (two thumbs up for "Michelle" and the killer) and the dialogs are even quite clever. From the beginning to the end, the action will leave you breathless, you just can't escape it... There is blood, awful murders, funny moments, and a sense of perversity that goes far beyond any rule. "Deja vu" ? Surely NOT : "Granny" is not another slash movie, it's truly a classic of its own... It deserves the success it had and there's even more success to come with its re-release. Congrats! GRANNY IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER Ganny is the best movie i have ever seen. the plot was like nothing ever seen or done before these people are truly blessed with a talent no joke i love this movie. i need to buy it but i cant find at any place. it is a dream for me to go and meet the actors and try and do a granny 2.i rented GRANNY at Broadway video and kept it for a week longer than i should have and asked them if i could buy it off of them they said no a big disappointment and an even bigger one the week after i returned it i wanted to go and rent it again but come to find out Broadway video was out of business. if anyone has the movie or knows where i can buy it at then please tell me write to me at iloverot@aol.com My partner and I sat down to watch this film over a bottle of wine last Saturday and although we initially had our reservations once the story got going it was in actual fact rather gripping. The scene in which one of the characters in brutally murdered by knitting needles was particularly shocking and echoed the work of Korean new wave auteur Park Chan Wook. The weapon of choice was a particular masterstroke and allowed us to see into the psyche of 'Granny', heavily altering the connotations of a loving, warm Grandmother into a murderous hag. The dialogue was incredibly moving and lyrical in expressing the innermost paranoia the protagonist. Pavlosky's selections of mise en scene furthermore enhance the unnerving and manical atmosphere of the nights events, combining with the Oscar worthy performances to create a chilling and thought provoking masterpiece. The ending, which I won't spoil for you here, reminded my partner and myself of M Night Shyamalan's institutional masterwork The Sixth Sense for it's mind altering twist that has left me thinking weeks after viewing. Definitely one to watch, repeatedly! Let me just say that GRANNY was extremely well made with the horror violence and sure suspense moves!!!!!! the best indie horror movie I have ever seen that is only 58 minutes long...It is my 5 out of 20 most favorite movie of all time. You people should love this. I give it a 10 out of 10!!! Paul Naschy as a ghostly security guard in this is scarier than most of his fur-and-shoe-polish werewolf guises. The story is not unfamiliar, a bunch of kids going to party at an abandoned school. The thing is, that one of these kid's fathers did the same thing years ago but he's now deceased, and the latest group of kids seem to be reliving an event from 23 years ago. This is fairly well done for films of this type, and there's an air of mystery to what's going on because apparently what happened to the kids before is somewhat of a mystery and perhaps the truth wasn't revealed. So no, not just your standard slice and dice. This moves along at a fairly good clip and doesn't let you lose interest like a lot of films do, and the oddball story is compelling enough to keep you interested too, and there's some suspense which is lacking in a lot of films these days. The ending is rather abrupt and I suppose is left mostly to your imagination, but then again it doesn't out-stay its welcome either. 7 out of 10, check it out. A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.

This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clichés, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . "Have you seen Scream 3?", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and/or atmospheric horror.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.

- Sex/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.

- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.

- Scares/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.

- Mystery: None at all, really.

- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.

- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.'

Final verdict: 7/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.

-AP3- Why has Ramón(Carlos Fuentes)brought his five college mates to a spooky abandoned school building which used to service the black sheep children of wealth? That answer might just lie in a diary in his possession supposedly written by his dying father. What they come in contact with is in fact a relived episode involving another group of six, with five of them presumably meeting graphic fates at the hands of a sadistic security guard(Paul Naschy)which occurred 20 some odd years ago. But, as they seek out a way to escape from this place, terror awaits them as that horrifying moment in time replays as the group run for their lives, often in states of panic as the killer begins to hunt and destroy them in a various bloody ways. Will Ramón and any of his pals survive this night of horror or becomes ghosts forever repeating the very same night like those before them?

Stylish Spanish slasher has that professional gloss and potent, shocking violence to match. Some witty exchanges between the characters..layered in their dialogue are pop-culture references to American horror films which might annoy some viewers. A demented Naschy is really ferocious with the kiddies as he attacks them gleefully..quite a bloodthirsty maniac who carries out his violent acts with relish. I found the loud musical cues a bit annoying and the filmmakers often use flashbacks from previous events in the film as reminders to the audience. I don't think these tricks are necessarily needed, but felt the director wished to communicate in depth with the viewer hence the use of cues and flashbacks. A minor diversion for this film's plot keeps moving and the camera follows the pace of the characters and how they react to the chaotic situation presented to them. Your enjoyment of this film may ultimately come down to your acceptance of the paranormal supernatural aspects of the plot. Moments in time relived and a killer who continues his work seemingly from the grave. The twist does seem a bit jarring and abrupt, but this might(..or might not)work considering how the story plays out regarding why Ramón's father is shown amongst those ghosts re-enacting those grisly events two decades prior. I will say that this film probably wouldn't hold up if scrutinized in detail, but as a slasher flick, it's a breath of fresh air. Six teenagers go to an old remote abandoned school where 27 years ago a horrible massacre took place for a night of fun and pranks. Instead the kids run afoul of the vicious crazed security guard (excellently played with supremely creepy menace by Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy) who committed the nasty killings. Director Carlos Gil relates the intriguing story at a brisk pace and does an adept job of creating a compellingly spooky and mysterious atmosphere. The witty script by Tino Blanco and Mercedes Holgueras offers a clever and inspired blend of slasher and supernatural elements that keep the viewer guessing to the very end. The slick cinematography by Fernando Arribas makes expert use of light and shadow. David San Jose's moody score likewise does the trick. The attractive and appealing young cast all contribute lively and engaging performances, with especially praiseworthy turns by Carlos Fuentes as ringleader Ramon, Olivia Molina as the panicky Maria, Zoe Berriatua as obnoxious joker Jordi, and Carmen Morales as spunky goth chick Sandra. The murder set pieces are every bit as bloody and brutal as they ought to be. Terrific whammy of a surprise dark ending, too. A solid and satisfying shocker. Bit of a curate's egg, this one. I started off hating it, with it's predictable' Old Dark House' set-up, it's constant references to recent US horrors and regular trips up and down dimly lit corridors.

But it does get going and has it's moments of originality.

I began to wonder , once the killing started, how they were going to last out with only a cast of six but then we get flashbacks to a previous visit to the building and see a whole slew of gory killings which is pretty effective.

Naschy is fine and by the end it's been an enjoyable enough movie. It just does not jump up and grab one, hard enough. I cannot believe someone gave this movie a 1 rating!!! and it is only a 3. average... What is not to love about this film? It is original, it has lots of scare scenes that actually made me jump out of my seat, and it has some great special effects. The story is fresh, there is some nudity, and it is very campy. The killer was scary in his own demented way and the end is very unexpected. I must admit that I really love this film, one of Spain's best horror films ever. If you consider yourself a true horror fan you need to get out there and try to find this film. You will be pleasantly surprised to do so. The Elegant Universe brings to light many ideas of the universe and existence. After watching this documentary, one can't help but take a step back and rethink their view on the existence of everything. There is a large cast of scientists, mathematicians and others on both sides of String Theory. It is continually brought into question as untested, untestable, and possibly dead wrong. The closest to proselytizing that anyone does is to explain that Quantum Physics, the set of mathematical ideas that give extremely good approximations of what happens to sub-atomic particles, has never made an incorrect prediction. Not so with String Theory; no one is willing to say, on-camera, that String Theory is the truth, and in so doing, the piece retains a certain respectful distance from the subject. My local PBS station WHYY Philadelphia recently showed "The Elegant Universe." After three hours of watching it, besides having my brain hurt, I learned all about wormholes, quantum mechanics and parallel realities and alternate universes.

The last hour of the show was about "String Theory" Physics, a semi-new branch of physics which makes many of the the ideas of science fiction not only possible, but PROBABLE. With the "String Theory" it sounds like wormholes, alternate realities and alternate timelines ARE possible and it could just be a matter of time until we get the knowledge to use them.

Although it may not have given new information to someone familiar with the topic, I found the show VERY interesting and informative. It was very understandable to anyone who is just being introduced to this subject. This program was quite interesting. The way the program was displayed made it all the more interesting. String Theory is also very interesting to listen too. The whole three hours in my opinion were well worth it. I enjoyed listening to the ideas given by the physicists. Extra dimensions really boggle the mind. If you have the chance, watch this amazing documentary. Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.

This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.

We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.

But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.

It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.

For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.

When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in. Ladies and gentlemen: the show begins with this documentary film. It's structured in three chapters, each one chronologically arranged. The first presents the classical physics and links to Einstein. The second studies in depth the quantum physics and enters in String theory. The last reveals the Everything theory... The difficult concepts used here are introduced in a very simple way, with daily objects; although you must believe them without checking by yourself -if you are not a scientist- (and even if you are a scientist!!). The film is not a masterpiece by its fabulous technique or the way it's produced; what really imports is the story, and WHAT A STORY!!! I myself am a physics student, and I have to say I think this is one of the best 'popular' introductions to string theory that's out there. The Elegant Universe manages to make the entire topic of string (although it's actually M) theory accessible to a wider audience.

Some 'popular science' programmes feel that the best approach is just to throw the audience in at the deep end, throwing technical jargon at them without so much as an explanation, and presenting the theory in a boring, stale style. This programme goes through concepts such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, and explains the issues that need to be resolved between the two so we have a coherent theory that can be applied to the universe on both a large and small scale.

I suppose some could say it's slow and takes too long to get to the interesting stuff like extra dimensions and wormholes, but the thing is: that's against the point. Explaining string theory from the start is nigh on impossible without at least mentioning the physics at its base, and the way it's explained in The Elegant Universe is clear and entertaining.

Whether you'll like this program really does depend on if you're willing to perhaps be initially dumbfounded by some of the ideas that Greene presents: extra dimensions and warping of spacetime aren't exactly prevalent in everyday life, are they? But, if you persevere with some of the more exotic concepts in this programme, you'll find that it will give you an insight into the research that drives the world of physics today. And if you're studying physics, well, it's great entertainment as well as you'll be likely able to follow this and appreciate it even more! OK. On the whole, this three part documentary will bring most interested people up to date with going's on in the world of physics, and the last 300 years of discovery of our universe. If you have read Stephen Hawkings brilliant book "A Brief History of Time" and understood it then you might benefit from the visual description of certain concepts..which i did to a certain extent. Greene is bearable, but obviously for the sake of the masses, tends to explain things in a slighty patronising way. This is of course deliberate and will be perfect for almost everyone who watches this series.

The guest scientists were good. (no Hawking, but i suppose he has his own DVD(s) ) I kept waiting for him to appear but they rotate through the same ones for almost 3 parts... (very American weighted here, with a few Brits and one antipodean) I bought the Nova 2 Disc edition (NTSC) and there were a few inclusions that really detracted from the overall experience.

1. The "this is brought to you by.." at the start of EACH part was a necessary evil for the first part, but seeing it 2 more times before It was over was very ordinary.

2. Can't be helped I suppose but there is quite a bit of overlap at the start of 2 and 3 which had me reaching for the FFW button a few times.

3. This disc set was straight from TV..(ie ads, what happen last show for those that missed it, and frequent "goto pbs.org for more ...." )appearing throughout the presentation. (quite unlike BBC material which is unmatched for presentation..Planets, The Blue Planet, etc) My 7/10 is based on content alone. The niggles were there but I got over them. If this had have been done with that classic British accented presenter( you know the one) it would be a perfect Disc set in my opinion.

If you have seen this and want more...then I highly recommend Hawkings book " a Brief History of Time"... I wish it was a movie too.

Happy viewing. The Elegant Documentary -

Don't watch this movie ... if you're an egotistical know-all student of physics. This much less than one percent (miniscule fraction) of the population may find that this show just tells them what they have already learned and already know.

Do watch this movie! - If you're one of the massive majority of people that fall into the greater than 99% of the population that does not study or already have a sound knowledge of the theories of physics including Relativity, Quantum, String and M-theory.

What a brilliantly architected documentary. Starting with some helpful historical background you will be lead step by elegant step into a Universe of pure magic - and dimensions beyond. I have always had a huge appreciation of Mathematics. This movie can easily give you an insight into what an exquisitely beautiful language mathematics is without making you feel like you're about to fail the grade.

The show is repetitive at times as the original format was a mini-series split over three shows. It therefore makes sense to give us polite little reminders of the principles being presented. I found this immensely helpful as it kept reminding me of the multitude of questions and possible answers that make up this amazing tapestry of our very existence.

We are all (and everything around us) is vibrational-energy with a natural tendency towards harmony. This movie may blow your mind - or at least help you realize that the universe is far far bigger than that which we see around us (even with the Hubble Telescope) and far far smaller than the protons and neutrons within the atoms we learned about in high-school. M-theory holds many magnificent magnitudes of 'possibility'.

It just seemed so appropriate that all of this elegance should by it's very nature move (by admission by the many brilliant scientists presenting) out of the realm of Science and into the realm of Philisophy.

You do not have to be religious at all to feel like this movie brought you one step closer to God.

Bravo Brian Greene. Well done indeed.

P.S. If you're interested in feeling even more comfortable and at home in your place in the Universe and would like some more insight into the 'possibilities' Quantum mechanics blended with Spirituality (of all things) can bring then I highly recommend that you also watch "What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole". Yes I know they make a few silly mistakes by suggesting a Shaman may not be able to see a boat if he hasn't seen one before (my eyes process light reflections just fine - I see things everyday that I've never seen before) and brain cells are cells in the body that actually don't divide. But if you can get over these little hurdles and put down the things you don't like and hang on to those that you do - there is a lot to like about this film.

Then watch "The Secret" (2006 documentary about The Law of Attraction - search for IMDb title "tt0846789"). This information just might change your life profoundly - forever. If you search deeper you might even find the Universe is talking to us with thought (if you'll listen) - and some are - and that is truly incredible. There is a modern day Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha (those, among others, that history suggests have communicated with the non-physical) alive today and she lives in Texas. I know some of you know what I'm talking about.

I do not consider myself religious by any traditional definition but I have never felt more at home or as comfortable in the Universe as I do now. In the wake of my personal research into the pending "end cycle" time of 2012 presented by the Mayan calendar system, I believe this movie should be seen every bit as much as "What The Bleep Do We Know?" While some may believe that matters of top level science should only be communicated in doctorate level "speak," "The Elegant Universe" breaks such barriers. The visuals and the select dialog make it easy to comprehend this walk through the history of physics. There are numerous messages in this movie, the least of which is that academic science must always be ready to revise what's being taught. True, pure discovery science is beautiful because there's always something additional and exciting to bring to the fore if we have the courage to seek it out in the face of "established" science. Tempo Di Uccidere (Time To Kill) by Guiliano Montaldo is a bit of a strange film, but it's good in it's own way.

I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a "Once Upon a Time in America" way- only shorter.

Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.

The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.

I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.

The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.

So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot. I have always been fascinated by silent films. There is something about seeing actors and actresses from 100 years ago performing. Jaded by today's high-tech special effects, I always try and imagine what it was like to watch a particular film at the time of it's original release. It helps to appreciate the crudeness of early cinema.

"The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ" is a very charming production from Pathe, originally filmed in 1902, but expanded and finally released in 1905. Imagine a series of famous religious paintings coming to life, separated by title cards, and you will have a pretty good idea of what this film is like. For example, the scene in which Mary and Joseph rest as they are escaping to Egypt, is almost identical to Luc Olivier Merson's 1879 painting "Rest on the Flight to Egypt", right down to Mary sitting on the famous Sphinx. While some might find these "living paintings" an unimaginative cop-out, I found them to be very charming, and very nostalgic.

The sets and costumes appear to be right out of a stage production of the life of Christ. Possibly from and elaborate passion play of the day. The make-up on the cast is very theatrical, so much so that a close-up of Jesus is almost comical. Again, where others might be bothered by the cudeness of them, I was quite charmed.

Having been filmed over a period of 3 years, the continuity isn't too bad. The biggest flaws are in the casting changes made over that time. The characters of John the Apostle and the 12 year old Jesus change in mid scene, much to the audiences surprise!

The best unintentional humor, of the film, is in the Birth of Jesus scene. The baby LITERALLY appears, as if by magic, in the manger between Mary and Joseph. Maybe it was simply my frame of mind at the time I viewed it, but I laughed out loud! If only child birth were that easy!!!! To top it off, the actress who plays Mary looks bored through the whole scene (actually, through the whole movie), as if this sort of thing happens every day! My, how times have changed!

As simplistic as this film is, compared to today, it's really a wonderful window into the past. I recommend it!

Definitely not a film to revolutionize the industry or introduce any new techniques of film-making, this is a very handsome and solid production. It's miraculous that we can today enjoy it in superb quality on DVD - probably most of the viewers about a 100 years ago saw a black and white copy, as the stencil tinted de luxe edition was available only at the very best theaters. Even if you are not fascinated by this film or the subject of it, you can't but marvel at the copy released by Image Entertainment (together with another gem, From the Manger To the Cross, 1912). It's virtually impossible to see a film that is over a century old but shows so little damage. The process of stencil colouring was a very effective one and, compared to the occasionally blurry and smeared images of hand coloured film, the colours are crisp and well defined. Filmed within the limitations of the film-making as known back in 1902 when the filming commenced, the static nature of the scenes can today be considered almost intentional, meditative and solemn. The tableaux keep moving at a steady paste, so the film never gets tedious. You might not be fascinated by this film as a work of cinematography, but it sure is handsome as a work of academic, picturesque art. If you are a religious person, the fact that you are watching anonymous, long since departed people playing long since departed characters, adds to the mystery significantly. A proper viewing for Christmas or Lent.

P.S: I've ticked the "contains spoilers" box just for fun. As you can see, I haven't revealed the ending. John Leguizamo's one man shows are hit or miss: Mambo Mouth showed off his intense characterizations and great timing but the material was average, Spic-o-Rama accomplished the former as well but this time the material was funny, Freak is a classic followed by his disappointing Sex-o-holic. But his stuff in Freak showcases his genius and when he's in the spotlight he's without peer.

Freak's semi-autobiographical look at the journey of a young man has power and resonance I don't think even it's creator knew about. By allowing us the chance to see his soul, Mr. Leguizamo gives us an opportunity to project our own life onto his and there can be no greater gift a performer can give. The willingness to drop 'the Wall', expose and share is too terrifying for most actors-they use characters to hide behind-but JL goes full-throttle and gleefully smashes any pretenses. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor were our best cultural observers/comedians/actors because they spoke from their heart about whatever they noticed in society and the truth provided slashing humor. Combine that with a great actor's gift of mimicry and being in-the-moment (not to mention a sense of humanity) and you'll see John Leguizamo has the power to do the same. At least in Freak he does.

From birth to his first big break and every life altering moment in between, a viewer sees our host and other characters in their most private moments all the while experiencing the pain, hope, and humor that comes with. Looking drained and lean muscled-tight JL is ringing with sweat by evening's end having offered up his crazy life for an audience; Spike Lee's fluid camera work captures the actor's nuances down to the last lip curl and slow blink. The scenarios range from drinking with his machismo-fueled father (when he was 9) to seeing A Chorus Line with his gay, deaf uncle; his first girlfriend's vicious humiliation when he strips naked, eager to have sex. A nightmarish first sexual encounter with a large German woman in the back of a Kentucky Fried Chicken follows an unsuccessful attempt to pick up a "drunk lapsed Catholic" in a bar on St.Patty's Day. Climaxing in a serious showdown with his mother and father, it's here that he shows his true genius: he plays a scene between these two characters and himself and his brother with such a strong dramatic/humourous intensity, you forget you're watching only one person. There's no costume changes, bad wigs, lighting tricks, or makeup. Just an actor giving his all. It's simply amazing.

Other actors/comedians that stand out right now are Eddie Izzard and Chris Rock but they don't dive into themselves as deeply as John Leguizamo does; that's not a criticism, not by a long shot. I love their work but Freak is different. It's moving in a no-b******* way. It's the best one man show out there and no one will be able to touch it for a long time. After seeing this routine by John Leguizamo, I finally realize why he is such a talent. I enjoy great stage work, and this is stage work at its best. I cannot label it as a stand-up routine, because Leguizamo is so intense when playing the different characters. The only time he breaks character is when it is necessary for him to complete his part in which he does so coolly, that you cannot help, but appreciate his talents. I wasn't really sure how I felt about him as an actor, but Freak solidified my appreciation of him. For those out there that have not had the opportunity to see this show, I feel for you. Definitely check it out. It is one of the nest routines I have ever seen. Ranks with Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby and Chris Rock. Four stars and more. I never saw any of John Leguizamo's stand-up before I watched Freak, and after seeing it again on HBO comedy recently it was better, more enlivening and with things that, at the age of 14, I couldn't understand quite before. Spike Lee did a wonderful job directing, keeping the visual angle up to par with Leguizamo's theatrics and the style of personal storytelling; it's substance and style merging together but unobtrusively. We get Leguizamo's rants about race and sex (the bits about sex are classic), but a lot of it is about family, and what sticks still fresh in my mind is about his father. Even when things get dark in some of the stories, there's something fresh or crazy or random that Leguizamo pulls out to get a laugh, and it works more often than not. If something does fall flat (for me at any rate) it might be his personality tics here and there. But overall, it's the kind of fun material that isn't heady, but is so true to itself that it stings. Find it if you can! This was very energetic and well played show. I saw it back in 98 and my friends and i still joke about it. Each time I watch it's always as funny as the first. I also love the way that everyone can relate to it in their own particular ways. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of John's own scripts and productions.

Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere for sale, and I've done quite a lot of looking. If anyone knows a website or store to refer me to, I would very much appreciate it as I am looking for his other live performances as well. Please send me a message if any of you have info on the subject. Thankyou. John has made two One man shows. Spic O Rama and Freaks, and neither one has shown up on DVD... John!!! Why do you this to me john?? Put it on DvD John, so the people can see,they need to see John!! :D... Just in case anyones keeping a watchful aye!! After watching John preform this one of a kind show, I had to share.....It was really something to watch a grown man portray himself as a child. I like the fact that with every character he "became," you could picture what they looked like. It is more entertaining when you can understand the individual. "Freak" is what real "stand up" should be. John is REAL talent. This one man show may be the most fantastic show I've ever seen. To call this simply a stand up act is to do it a great injustice, there is a definate reason that this was a Broadway show. John Leguizamo is a master of making people of every culture feel at home listening to his story of growing up and dealing with his family and life in general. I would reccomend this show to anyone, as long as they can handle the language. John Leguizamo is a great comedian and storyteller. Every time this has been on HBO I've had to stop and watch it. John tells the story of how he grew up (probably some fact and fiction) and adds hilarious stories in the midst. If you like John's comedy I would have to say this is probably his comedy at his best. John Leguizamo's one man show is both funnier and more involving than most movies you'll see. A number of devices, such as slide projectors, are used to enhance the story, but this is essentially good old-fashioned performance art. In particular, check out his hilarious rendition of "I Will Survive". *Highly* recommended. John Leguizamo's "Freak" is one of the funniest one-man shows I've ever seen! I recommend it to anyone! Well, anyone with a good sense of humor.... This is by far the best stand-up routine I have ever seen. John Leguizamo's one man show tells the supposed story of his life in a barrage of lines and situations. By far better than any other comedy out there. "The Student Nurses" is an excellent film that deals with four women bonded by friendship and career. For the first time, one is able to see a realistic portrayal of relationships inside the work place, outside the work place, the risks of those relationships, and the consequences. This film also offers a rare chance to see veteran stage and television actress Katherine "Scottie" MacGregor as the nurses' instructor, "Miss Boswell." Ms. MacGregor is best known for her performance as "Mrs. Oleson" on the television series "Little House on the Prairie." The direction, music, and print color are very good as well as the opening theme song performed by Clancy B. Grass, III. This film offers a rare opportunity for those who enjoy themes centered around the late 1960s and early 1970s, which offers a "softer side to life" while appreciating the beauty of the female sex. Four lovely young nurses in their last year of nursing school experience all kinds of turmoil and excitement in their lives: sweet Susan (winsome brunette Elaine Giftos) tries to comfort the bitter, terminally ill Greg (a moving performance by Darrell Larson), eager, but neurotic Phred (lovely blonde Karen Carlson) romances handsome gynecologist Jim Caspar (affable Lawrence Casey), free-spirited hippie Priscilla (the stunningly gorgeous Barbara Leigh) gets impregnated by laid-back drug dealer Les (the solid Richard Rust), and compassionate Lynn (nicely played by Brioni Farrell) helps out angry Mexican revolutionary Victor Charlie (the excellent Reni Santoni). Despite the fact that this film was made for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures, it's anything but your standard mindless piece of leering soft-core schlock. Instead, it's a very pleasant, charming and even often thoughtful time capsule of the social and political upheavals of the groovy early 70's (the subplot involving Lynn and the revolutionaries is especially potent and provocative). Special kudos are in order for director Stephanie Rothman, who brings a welcome and refreshing intelligence and sensitivity to the material. Moreover, the four attractive and appealing female leads all turn in sound and praiseworthy work. Scottie MacGregor likewise impresses as wise supervisor Ms. Boswell and ubiquitous 70's trailer voice guy Ronald Gans supplies the off-screen voice of a psychiatrist. Stevan Larner's polished cinematography, the fantastic rock soundtrack, and the flavorsome folksy'n'funky score by Clancy B. Grass III are all up to speed. A real sleeper. THE STUDENT NURSES is not a typical sexploitation movie. Sure, the nudity and sexual openness is there, but it's not all for laughs. Stephanie Rothman scripted a socially compelling, well-written tits & ass movie which confronts the topics of racism, socio-economic inequalities, rape, abortion, medical ethics, public health issues, human rights, the Vietnam war, free love, LSD and drug experimentation. Four sexy college roommates are taking their nursing internships at the same time. Sharon (Elaine Giftos) is assigned to the terminal care ward, Lynn (Brioni Farrell) to public health administration, Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) to gynecology and Phred (Karen Carlson) to psychiatry. These four beauties have ample opportunities to disrobe and fornicate, of which they take advantage, much to the delight of male viewers. These are liberated women at the height of the sexual revolution, after all, and are as intelligent as they are horny and beautiful. Visceral yet low-budget action sequences are interspersed throughout. There's a very bloody gunfight at the resistance movement headquarters in which two policemen are shot and killed, along with several members of the group. An anti-(Vietnam) war protest consisting of spookily-dressed young people of all races painted like skeletons becomes violent, with cops beating protesters. The effective trip sequence on the beach consists of beautiful, weird and confusing sensory and memory montages with hyper-sensual overtones. In short, THE STUDENT NURSES is a thoughtful and compelling reflection of the times, expressed through real women's perspectives (since it was written and directed by a woman). But, it's still fun and titillating, despite its sobering treatment of subject matter. As a long time resident of western Pa I have an intimate knowledge of this topic and found it REGFRESHING to be so authentically captured on film! Kudos to the producers of this epic!!! And what a great legacy to the school children for years to come.

The attention to detail and realistic depiction of this complicated web of events make it a one of a kind production.

Viewers will find themselves mesmerized by the storyline and captivated by the storytelling.

Grahame Greene is magnificent as the presenter.

BRAVO!!! When I tuned in to my local PBS station last night to watch "The War That Made America". I was expecting a dull documentary, instead I got a very good and believable reenactment of the major events of the time. Now I see the reasons for the American Revolution, and the part the Indian wars played. Larry Nehring IS George Washington, and he is perfect for that part. The narrative to the camera, also work fantastic. I'm looking forward to next week, to see the rest. It's good to see PBS really using the HD format to bring the 1700 right in to our living room.

I hope Larry Nehring is seen more in the future, since he is such a talented actor. This is a great compendium of interviews and excerpts form the films of the late sixties and early 70s that were a counter movement to the big Studio Films of the late sixties. Directed by Ted Demme, it is obviously a labor of love of the films of the period, but it gives short shrift to the masterpieces of the times.

Many of the filmmakers of this period were influenced by Truffaut, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and of course John Cassavetes. Unfortunately the documentary logging in at 138 minutes is too short! The film is rich with interviews and opinions of filmmakers. Some of the people interviewed are: Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdonovich, Ellen Burstyn, and Roger Corman, Bruce Dern, Sydney Pollack, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight.

Bruce Dern has a moment of truth when he says that he and Jack Nicholson may not have been as good looking as the other stars that came before them but they were "interesting". This summarizes the other areas of this period of film-making in American history.

The filmmakers were dealing with a lack of funding from the Studios because they were expressing unconventional attitudes about politics, sex, drugs, gender and race issues, and Americas involvement in overseas conflicts like the Vietnam War.

There is a great interview with Francis Coppola saying that he got the chance to make "The Conversation" because the producers knew he had been trained by Roger Corman to make a movie with nothing so they bankrolled his film.

Another interview is with Jon Voight who was directed by Hal Ashby in "Coming Home" a clear anti-war film about a crippled soldier immersing himself back into society after his facing battle. Voight talks about how his working methods helped him achieve an emotional telling point when Ashby said that they were doing a "rehearsal" take and it ended up being the take used in the film- it was better because it was so un-rehearsed and not drained of its freshness by being over-rehearsed.

There are also many fine excerpts from Al Pacino's break-through film "The Panic in Needle Park", and interviews from Dennis Hopper on the making of "Easy Rider", and interviews from Sydney Pollack about making films.

All in all the documentary is a fine jumping off point for any film lover who wants to see great examples of what the new voices in film were like in the Seventies. Many of the Sundance Folks, where this film made a big splash, are unaware of just how much the Independent Film Maker today owes to the films of John Cassavetes, Milos Foreman, William Friedkin, and Roger Corman.

Rent it from your favorite shop. It will at least perk you up to some films you may not have seen before and can enjoy today. Amazon.com has it for as little as $11.50, if you want to buy right out. The 1970s opened the door to the largest, most diverse era of film in the history. Some films were great ("The Godfather", "The Conversation", "Mean Streets", Chinatown", "The French Connection", "Five Easy Pieces", "Jaws", "McCabe And Mrs. Miller") Others were not so great ("The Getaway", "The Outfit", "Badge 373", "Joe", "The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three", "Brewster McCloud", "Castle Keep") And others were barely worth the price of admission.

Yet every one was a fresh breath of air compared to today's Corporate Hollywood. Where every film is given a Big Weekend to recoup its cost. Or go straight to HBO and rental.

What "Decade" does so well is to relate the sudden and rarely experienced sensation of freedom to be given money to make and direct a film. Perhaps personal. Perhaps not. Sometime with a clutch of extras. Sometimes, in the middle of a busy street before the cops show up. Long before the Corporate Overseers, Suits, Committees and Lawyers ever became part of "The System".

The commentaries are superb. Especially Julie Christie and Dennis Hopper. Though as you listen, you'll slowly discover just how many Big Directors today (Coppola, Scorsese, Ron Howard, Dennis Hopper, Peter Bogdonovitch) got stated as "Roger Corman Commandos". Working long hours with short pay. Shooting a film in under a month. Learning all the steps and tricks of the trade by doing it themselves. Turning in product that was on-time and under-budget.

See "Decade" for its message. And for a long and varied list of films to watch made through those wondrously turbulent years.

Though, I would not complain if IFC decided to devote another documentary solely to that most under-rated Grand Pioneer of film, Roger Corman. In retrospect, the 1970s was a golden era for the American cinema, as demonstrated and explored by this documentary directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese. This IFC effort serves to illustrate and clarify the main idea of what that time meant for the careers of these illustrious people seen in the documentary.

The amazing body of work that remains, is a legacy to all the people involved in the art of making movies in that period. The decade was marked by the end of the Viet Nam war and the turbulent finale of those years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

One thing comes out clear, films today don't measure against the movies that came out during that creative decade because the industry, as a whole, has changed dramatically. The big studios nowadays want to go to tame pictures that will be instant hits without any consideration to content, or integrity, as long as the bottom line shows millions of dollars in revenues.

The other thing that emerges after hearing some of America's best creative minds speak, is the importance of the independent film spirit because it is about the only thing that afford its creators great moral and artistic rewards.

This documentary is a must see for all movie fans. ...and my reasons for which are simple- there are so many great films presented and discussed here (most of them by their own directors and stars), so many clips of infamous moments in 70's movie history, and in fact a number of films I have yet to see, that it wouldn't be fair to grade this work. By this logic I shouldn't have given grades to other movie documentaries like Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy. But while those films were on the basis of one man's view of cinema, narrating through most of the way, Richard LaGravanese and (the late) Ted Demmes' A Decade Under the Influence lets the films and the creators speak entirely for themselves.

What makes 'Decade' worth at least one watch for film buffs, or just anyone who likes the films of the late 60's-70's in America, are the levels that it goes to, that in the uncut version (three hours, not the theatrical version, which I have no comment on) plenty of ground is covered. Interviews include the likes of Scorsese, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Julie Christie, Jon Voight, Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Schrader, Pam Grier, Bruce Dern, Peter Bogdanovich, Roger Corman, Dennis Hopper, Robert Towne, etc, and there's a constant flow of insight from start to finish. The way the clips and directors/actors pop up, edited together in a flashy and quick style, is also fascinating.

The one down comment I have on the documentary is that most of the information presented has been reported on in various books, like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, and though I haven't seen the movie version of that book yet I'm sure it would have covered many of the films and directors and incidents as here (in fact, the book of that is one of the best I've ever read. HOWEVER, this documentary serves as something special for film buffs and occasional movie goers of the future- they can look at this and learn not only about such well known pictures as Easy Rider, The Last Picture Show, Annie Hall, Coming Home, and lessor knowns like Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park, The Landlord, Joe, They Shoot Horses Don't They. They can also learn about who influenced them (new waves of Europe and Asia), who they served as influences for, and how the subject matter that created controversy after controversy still serves as intriguing and chancy material for the contemporary crowd. Seek this out! A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here. What a wonderful documentary - I sat down thinking this would be a rehash of the bitchy stories told in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but it is, in fact, a clear-eyed, glorious celebration of a strange and twisted era that spawned some truly great movies. What struck me was the lack of bitterness apparent in the director interviews, given that now the movie business sucks in a large fashion - instead, folk like Friedkin and Coppola's eyes seem to positively glitter recalling their glory days. The footage of an audience coming out of a daytime screening of the Exorcist was priceless. 'It was - traumatic,' one guy says. A great epitaph for the late Ted Demme, a thrilling film, I just wish it was longer - I could have sat through a three hour cut of this. This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, "We blew it." In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.

Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her", before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.

Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses "there's a lot of real crap in there too". Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was "not a good time for women". But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.

The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. "We weren't handsome," muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. "But we were f****** interesting." I swore I would never allow myself to devolve into to the bogus authority figures of the sixties who told me things were better in the "good old days" – the current Australian Prime Minister is a sordid example of just such a mind set.

But I switched over to "A Decade Under the Influence" because I found watching the much-heralded "Sneakers" documentary on the other channel such a dispiriting experience. I found the values expressed by the "Sneakers" interviewees too ugly to accept as reasonable. So materialistic! So devoid of any sense of outrage at a society that can countenance killing someone to steal his very ugly shoes! So lacking in any worthwhile purpose that they can report without distaste the exploitation an audience by haranguing them to hold those shoes above their heads to lock in a sponsorship deal for themselves with a company of cobblers was just too much to continue watching.

"A Decade Under the Influence" depicted a completely different response to the fruit of stupidity, corruption and concupiscence in high (and low) places.

I have noted the change in film-making that accompanied the exposure of America's disastrous foreign policy debacles in Vietnam and so many less reported places in my www.peterhenderson.com.au website. "A Decade Under the Influence" documents the precise moment at which that change took place.

Before the seventies, the armed forces were depicted in American films as an invincible fighting force comprised of decent human beings who transmogrified into conquering heroes on the battlefield. After the seventies they are generally portrayed as a dispirited rabble misled by a bunch of bureaucrat clowns in the Pentagon Before the seventies, the FBI agent and the honest cop tended to be depicted as your friend and protector. After the seventies, the FBI agents were all incompetent and the best a cop could aspire to was to ignore their foolishness and his superior's corruption and uphold justice in his own idiosyncratic manner.

Before the seventies, the archetypical American "little guy", the "average Joe", the Jimmy Stewart type would face down the problems encountered and thereby gain some insight into underlying wisdom of his elected leaders and justice of the "American Way". After the seventies, Kevin Costner usurps that role, but now he is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness for evil to be exposed, or accepting his lot and making out the best he can.

And now those "old time religion" mindsets have been stripped of any honesty and righteousness and portrayed (with a certain amount of justification) as sanctimonious bigotry and self-serving hypocrisy.

"A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it was. "A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it is now. It depicts the redemption of the American film industry from the hands of the artistically, morally and intellectually bankrupt studio moguls. It shows the storming of the Hollywood Bastille by the independent film makers who promised to get a disillusioned and tired audience back into the cinemas. The fact that their failures were numerous, and at times disastrous, merely underlines the greatness of their achievement. An achievement reflected in the adventurous and questioning attitudes of the big box office stars such as Clooney, Daman, Affleck etc and the directors and producers who provide the vehicles for their talent.

As I am a teenager, I have about one hundred years of movies to catch up on. I try to see a mixture of classics, mainstream, art-house, and other movies. The 70's is one of the most important decades for films: it's when the average, common, classical films changed into full of messages and anti-social behavior. It became like nothing anyone had ever seen before. What A Decade Under the Influence basically shows is how important all of the movies from around The Graduate to about Star Wars.

Richard LaGravenese and the late Ted Demme are the primary interviewers in this documentary, which interviews such people as Dennis Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Jon Voight, among others about how those few years changed cinema forever. It's a very professional, polished documentary, and it's even financed by IFC films. However, as this is a very professional one, I would think that they would at least edit out the noise of someone behind the camera laughing. To me, that took out a lot of how neat and clean the whole thing was.

On the other hand, it's a very interesting documentary, about film by the people who make it. Of course, they aren't bashing their own films or anything of the like, but they're portraying honesty on what they thought of the films and what they meant. I don't know much about film (but I want to be involved around it when I become an adult), so I feel like to someone like me this movie is a huge asset. I have seen a good number of movies that they mentioned, like Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but a little more insight into those movies were very informative.

The main reason, however, I didn't love Influence is, as slickly as it was edited, it seemed to take its time in the beginning and be quite relaxed, therefore not having enough time to get to everything that they wanted to show. They crammed in Star Wars and Jaws in the last few minutes, when they were two of the most important. It seemed like they tried too hard to show lots of clips, and that's fine, but some of them were unimportant, such as an extended one from Network.

Overall, though, Influence is a very enthralling, informative documentary that helped me, at least, learn more about a second `golden age' in American cinema.

My rating: 7/10

Rated R for language, and images of sexuality, violence and drug use. While many people found this film simply too slow and simplistic I really connected with it. There is no plot as such, rather the film takes the form of a human survival story about three people trapped up a tree with a man eating crocodile lurking somewhere in the water beneath them.

Personally, I thought the acting was mostly very good, despite the roles being quite demanding at times, and I felt a sense of warmth for the characters. The situation they were in was quite terrifying and I really felt nervous for them. I found the whole film quite nerve wracking because of the sheer helplessness of their situation and the constant threat to their survival.

The crocodile effects were handled surprisingly well for such a low budget film, and believe me, I have seen my fair share of dodgy croc movies. The creature moved well and had real menace and, although the audience I was with didn't seem too keen on the film as a whole, they still jumped and gasped whenever the crocodile appeared.

Script-wise, I would have made a few changes, particularly towards the end, but this was not a major problem. For fans of slow-burning survival horror set within the realms of reality this will be an engaging film but unfortunately I think for many audiences seeking a thrill ride and higher production values from their cinema experience the point will simply be missed. BLACK WATER is a thriller that manages to completely transcend it's limitations (it's an indie flick) by continually subverting expectations to emerge as an intense experience.

In the tradition of all good animal centered thrillers ie Jaws, The Edge, the original Cat People, the directors know that restraint and what isn't shown are the best ways to pack a punch. The performances are real and gripping, the crocdodile is extremely well done, indeed if the Black Water website is to be believed that's because they used real crocs and the swamp location is fabulous.

If you are after a B-grade gore fest croc romp forget Black Water but if you want a clever, suspenseful ride that will have you fearing the water and wondering what the hell would I do if i was up that tree then it's a must see. WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

This movie was on the shelf at a movie store and since I had seen a handful of very corny horror flicks there I had really low expectations for this one. Well, I put it in, and almost immediately I was sucked right in. While watching, I got deeper and deeper into the story and pretty soon I was staring in complete interest. This movie is surprisingly spectacular and I loved every second. The story is about a boat ride down a river in Australia. It seems safe enough until their boat is ambushed by a croc who's ready for some food. When I looked at the back of the case I thought that this movie was going to have crappy visual effects like in Lake Placid 2 and a lot of others, but when I first saw the crocodile it looked amazingly real! Don't laugh when I say this, for I am being serious, but this is one of the most creepiest films I've ever seen. It really knew how to build up nail-biting tension and suspense with it's intense situation, I mean, think about it; Your stuck, in a tree, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide with a hungry predator in the depths of the water below. You can not tell me that doesn't freak you out just a little. It even managed to give me a few chills down my arms, like when Adam was taken by the croc and Grace and Lee are left baffled. This is a very appealing movie. There were maybe 1 or 2 parts where I found myself SLIGHTLY uninterested but other than that, I would say this is my favorite animal attack film that I have seen. While on vacation on Northern Australia, Gracie (Diana Glenn), her husband Adam (Andy Rodoreda) and her younger sister Lee (Maeve Dermody) decide to take the Blackwater Barry tour in the swamp for fishing. Their guide Jim (Ben Oxenbould) uses a small motor boat and takes the tourist along the river to a remote spot. When they stop, they are attacked by a huge crocodile that capsizes their boat and immediately kills Jim. The three survivors climb a tree and when they realize that help would never come to rescue them, they decide to try to find a way out of their sheltered location. However, in the muddy water, their boat is flipped and the crocodile stalks the trio under the water.

"Black Water" is a tense, realistic and dramatic low-budget movie and in accordance with the warning in the beginning, based on a true event. The acting of the unknown Diana Glenn, Maeve Dermody and Andy Rodoreda is top-notch, giving credibility to this simple but scary story. There are many similarities between this movie and "Prey", but in different environments. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Medo Profundo" ("Deep Fear") "Black Water" is one of the most tense films I have viewed in a long time. The story moves fast as it follows three tourists (all great actors) into a swamp on a tour with a butch tour guide on a small boat. Soon after dropping anchor in a remote area of the swamp, they are flipped over by something huge in the water.

Hastily, the three manage to make it into a tall tree nearby as they realize that a crocodile has attacked them. Throughout the next two days, they have to desperately try to escape from the crocodile's evil watchful eye, and he doesn't seem to want to go away. The movie drags just a tad bit, but what can you expect from the setting and the limited budget? It's so much better than "Primeval" and other recent crocodile/ underwater predator thrillers. The tension is heavy, and all three leads give terrific performances. Truly chilling, this movie struck a deep chord of claustrophobic fear in me. Apparently based on true events. This low budget crocodile movie really delivers the goods. The fact that it was inspired by true events would mean little if you wound up with a fake looking crocodile, bad C.G.I., or an obvious studio setting. Fortunately none of the above are involved with this terrific, very realistic film. The crocodile is real, there is no C.G.I., and the on location filming takes place in an actual Australian swamp. The actors were obviously inspired to create as much realism as possible in their performances, and they succeed. You can place yourself in their predicament, which is testament to how realistically "Black Water" translates as entertainment. Highly recommended. - MERK As a kid I loved the song "Never smile at a crocodile", and if I found myself in this state of affairs, which is actually inspired by true events. Smiling would be the last thing on my mind. From the opening set-up, I've never been so entrenched, caught up and finally exhausted like I was when watching this limited budget Independent Australian horror film, about three people in Northern Territory trapped in a mangrove swamp with a very conniving crocodile waiting in the water below them. What really brought the film alive, was how realistic it managed to be in transporting the fear and uncertainty of the characters' situation to the audience. Semi-documentary camera-work with a disquietingly eerie backdrop and authentic performances effectively take you out of your comfort zone. What we get is a patient survival tale than just a bloody, all-out creature feature onslaught. Think of "Open Water (2003)", where its budget and time restraint made sure it would stay low-key, but this minimal barrier enhanced the experience.

The slow-grinding story might be black and white, but it never seemed to become disposable, or succumb to formulaic patterns. Well not largely, and the connection between the characters were emotionally engaging even with a bare, straight-forward script. Although you can say "less is more", with the actions and expressions illuminating the lingering thoughts plaguing their minds. The ordeal is utterly terrifying, because the threat is very alive and never seems to loosen up. This is what drives the film's chaotic adrenaline, and in which it lasts (even when its kept buried) through to the very end.

Writers / Directors Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich's economical guidance alienates and smartly strings along the viewer with its taut pacing and harrowing psychological traits. In certain patches the notch goes up, with pressure induced suspense and startling images. The way the night sequence is executed is immensely chilling and pulsating. The menacing crocodile manipulative toys with its fresh-meat in a distressingly suspenseful approach. Sure some moments felt unlikely, but never does it get in the way or distract. Sound FX is the key, and at times the lack of any just eats away at you. Rafeal May's musical score is unassuming and doesn't really enter the mixture much, but when it does it builds an organic sounding quality. The cinematography of John Biggins is beautifully devised, and rapidly aggressive when the mood changes. It was always on the move and claustrophobic, but none of this jerky movements. The editing was sharply handled, and the effects were professionally catered by superbly combing live crocodile footage.

Something like this production would also have to rely on its cast to sell to the story in a believable manner and they do it. Diana Glenn, Andy Rodoreda and especially Maeve Dermody are persuasively good. A lot of the responsibility falls on Dermody, and she strongly delivers with an inspired turn. Now this item might cop some comparisons with another killer crocodile film "Rogue (2007)", but the two couldn't be any different in what they want to be and how they end up. If I had to pick though, I'm leaning more towards this outing for its sheer involvement to snap at you.

A remarkable effort on all fronts, with everyone involved showing potential to really look out for. Gore hounds beware...this is not your movie. This little nail bitter has very little blood and guts. Its basically a version of Open Water that is effective and worthwhile. But what sets it apart is that we actually like the three leads (unlike Open Water) who find themselves up a tree when a crocodile flips their fishing boat and munches up their guide. We don't want any harm to come to any of them. SO when they start getting into dangerous situations...we actually care.

Now I like killer animal flicks but I haven't been too impressed with Lake Placid up to Primeval (although I'm still waiting to see Rogue and hoping it is somewhere as good as this one!) but this little bugger did the job and did the job well. It's scares are creative and it only lapses into the run of the mill frantic crying sobbing and arguing for brief stints of realism so I never got annoyed.

I remember reading the true story that inspired this where three guys went fishing and two ended up in a tree while their buddy was killed by the crocodile . But the thing that always impacted me that gets left out from the film was that the crocodile didn't eat up the buddy. No. For hours and hours he swam around the tree and shook the dead body still in his mouth at the friends in the tree. Seeming to stay, if you come down here this is what will happen to you. I'd never heard of this Aussie horror prior to Michael Elliott's enthusiastic review; in fact, after having read it, I decided to check if the DVD was available at my local rental outlet and it was (albeit a German edition i.e. sans the R1 extras), so I opted to check the film out immediately.

While I wouldn't go so far as to give it full marks – only a select few titles get them from me, let alone an obscure modern flick – I have to say that I was quite impressed with BLACK WATER. Rather than looking back to previous crocodile movies, such as ALLIGATOR (1980) and LAKE PLACID (1999), it evokes the memory of two which saw a small group of people who go on a trip, get lost and find themselves at the mercy of the elements and the creatures inhabiting the place – namely LONG WEEKEND (1978), itself a little-seen but impressive Australian production, and OPEN WATER (2005).

The compact, simply-plotted film involves a couple and the woman's younger sister who decide to go fishing in a remote and forbidding part of the Australian wilderness, known as crocodile territory; very soon (in fact, before even 15 minutes have elapsed!), their boat is capsized and the guide killed by an alligator – so our luckless adventurers take refuge up a tree. The DVD Talk reviewer believes the film suffers from spending too much time in this one location – with the three arguing about what they should do, attempts to retrieve the boat, seeking a way out of the jungle through the trees (only to be met with nothing but water) and the occasional attack by the monster. However, I think the makers take the situation as far as it will go without slipping into tedium: this is due to the palpable suspense and, as Michael said, the believability of the characters (particularly the two women)…but also the fact that the crocodile here makes for one of the scariest and most memorable in recent memory (I wonder how they got it to 'perform')!

I also agree with Mike that the film contains some really effective shock moments – the alligator leaping out of the water to take a bite at the petrified heroes; its head suddenly emerging in front of the women as they're making for the boat; even though one of them does reach the vehicle, the monster manages to lift its massive weight and get in the boat with her!; towards the end, as the same girl manages to find a gun (on the mangled body of their guide), loads it and lies in wait for the alligator to appear, the latter sneaks up from behind her (incidentally, the creature is bestowed with the craftiness of the shark in JAWS [1975]). With this in mind, the finale is just as crowd-pleasing (though on an obviously smaller scale) as that of the classic Spielberg blockbuster – even if it has a downbeat follow-up. Another definite asset is the film's sparse score – which is generally rather lovely, but becoming unnerving at just the right moments.

At the end of the day, BLACK WATER emerges as a breath of fresh air in the face of the demoralizing slump into which horror cinema has fallen of late; for this reason alone, it deserves greater exposure so as to remind us that there's hope yet for our beloved genre (without the real necessity of resorting to the gimmickry of a CLOVERFIELD [2008] to command attention)… This movie sets out to do something very particular, it also sets out not to do certain things. In short it has a definite premeditated trajectory - to deal with the idea of facing death (with very few choices and all of them bad) as grave and real rather than something casual or amusing. In search of that realism it has eschewed certain conventions such as obvious character arcs and hooks. It not about the characters so much as about the human condition. Never mind what the actors would do... what would YOU do in their situation?

Open Water may have been a starting notion for this movie but it goes a lot further. Unlike that film it doesn't cheat the audience in the end when you find out there aren't really any sharks to speak of at all. This has a real monster, not just the idea of a monster and not just an animated stand in. It also has fine production values given what these very resourceful filmmakers had to work with. And again in contrast to that other film it has some exhilarating and brilliantly rendered action at it's climax. And let's not forget the, shall we say 'dazzling', screen presence of its youngest star. She may prove to be quite a discovery. Black Water, co-directed and written by David Nerlich and Andrew Traucki, is very simple in its execution yet effective. The film is a low-budget Australian movie that will unfortunately not get the recognition it deserves because as far as creature features go, this is one of the best out there. The setup is rather basic; Grace, her husband Adam and her younger sister Lee are touring some mangroves in the Northern Territory when a saltwater crocodile flips their boat and leaves them stranded in the trees. The whole movie is about their survival while the crocodile is lurking below waiting to strike.Unlike Greg McLean's Rogue (another killer croc movie released earlier in 2007), Black Water is not about the audience having fun guessing who's gonna be eaten next, it is about hoping and praying that the three people will get out safely.

The three unknown actors do a great job with pretty demanding roles, considering it was filmed on location with a real crocodile instead of CGI. The characters act realistically in the situation and the dialogue seems natural and not forced. Suspense is built up throughout the entire film, we do not see a lot of the creature but just knowing it is near is terrifying enough. This is edge-of-your seat stuff and highly recommended if you enjoy original and (most importantly) scary horror films.

4/5 I live up here in croc territory and remember well the true events that inspired this movie. Our guts fall out each time we hear of a croc attack. BLACK WATER is, quite simply, the best croc movie I have ever seen. While I loved ROGUE last year for all its effects and splashy scenes, it was the local scenes that captured our audience. We laughed in ROGUE more than anything. BLACK WATER, however, really resonated with the eeriness and fear that you can experience when you are alone in the mangroves (you guys call them swamps or bayous - but they're mangroves). Every tourist should see this film before heading to the Northern Territory. The ending was a bit of a letdown after the rest of the film, but I'll be adding this one to my DVD collection when it becomes available. So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the "Jumping Crocs" tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.

Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent.

V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick.

Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well.

Loved it! One of the best horror/suspense movies I have seen in a long time. Wow, it was a big surprise and stunning at how good this movie was, sometimes a gem like this will surface but is rare. I expected a popcorn monster flick and a mildly diverting way to spend a late night but instead a very well made and directed movie with great acting and made with passion and heart.

This is a movie that makes you feel for the characters and what happens to them, and it is filmed like you are there and it is really happening. I know some people in other reviews compare it to "Open Water", but I disagree because I thought Open Water was quite boring and mediocre, while this movie was the opposite, although superficially they are filmed in the same "realistic" style.

The actors are unknowns, at least to me, but they all are very effective and convey the dire situation with frightening intensity and realism. The story is well done and flows smoothly, the plot is logical and appears to be something that could happen, all the actions and thoughts of the characters are quite what a person would do and think about. Very believable and this makes the movie more real because of it.

I had tears in my eyes at the end. I must say a movie seldom has this effect on me, this is how powerful and emotional this movie was done and I am suitably impressed by the director and actors of this great movie. I've read many unflattering comments regarding this film, and the only things I have seen that they all have in common are: "boring" and "unrealistic".

First of all, they used real frickin' crocs! How much more realistic can you get? No CGI, no animatronics, no miniatures. Just a croc and a piece of meat. Have fun, fellas!

There is no question that this film gets off to a slow start. Character development, what little they had, anyway, does take a bit of time, and I think this is primarily where this film lacks.

However, when the film gets going, I found the action picked up dramatically. I don't mean to say that there is a lot of action. If anything, there are more moments where the croc can't be seen at all, and the people are just waiting. However, we know that there isn't going to be any relief, and that the croc is just biding its time. This had a similar eerie feel to other films that achieve their horror through non-action, such as Open Water (another film that has been criticized by some viewers as being "boring"). Personally, I think that viewers who find themselves incapable of feeling the suspense have had their attention spans surgically removed at birth, but that's just me.

Finally, the characters feel real, and the situation is such that it really could happen to anyone in the right circumstances. Furthermore, the deaths are completely real, and at times, it's a little tough to watch.

All in all, this one's a winner. I put this movie on not expecting much, other than a B movie gore fest. Thankfully I was presented with a very well made film, that built up the suspense and managed to maintain it throughout its run time. This was an impressive achievement. The acting was solid, creating characters that you cared about and related to; and although some may find the film slow, it did force you to think about what you would have done in the same situation. Added to this there was some fine camera work and the directors pulled it all together admirably. An excellent effort then, that is well worth your time if you prefer development and suspense over gore. The basic plot of this film has already been detailed in several other comments so I won't bother. I'd like to first commend the producer, cast, directors and crew for creating a wonderfully engaging film on a meager, $1M budget, a small fraction of standard Hollywood fare that doesn't LOOK cheap. These people have a drive to make something new and entertaining while not spending a fortune doing it. This is essentially art for art's sake. I know, I know, some of you will decide that this is not art but something less and that's fine. I for one am glad that people like these will continue to put forth the time and effort for our benefit without expecting huge multimillion dollar payoffs.

Now to the criticism. I feel that the scenario presented is credible to a point. It's wonderful when everything works out and the hero/heroine saves the day and all's well that ends well. What gets me is the blatant manipulation of events so that blind luck is responsible more than courage and strength.

When lee was attacked but not severely injured, somehow she washed up on a mud bank right next to the dead guide. Then, miraculously, his loaded revolver is still in his holster and it actually works (after some cleaning and fiddling). Finally, when Lee is attacked on the mud bank and jumps in the water, once again the croc fails to kill her. She ends up with her hand in his (her?) mouth and manages to repeatedly pull the trigger, ultimately to blow the croc's brains out (literally).

I came to the conclusion that having Lee go hand to mouth with the croc was just a way to end the film with the human in triumph. Based upon what I have seen, the croc's attack and continue to hold on until the prey stops struggling. Croc's will spin around and around to dismember and drown the prey. That happened to the first 3 victims but not to Lee. She had teeth marks but they were not deep.

I think that the ending would have been better had the croc won, frankly, thereby proving his dominance of the mangrove, his territory for millions of years. But then, how many of us would have been upset or disappointed that the pretty girl didn't get out alive? Like most, I thought 'another crocodile movie'. So far we've had Primeval and Rogue in the last 12 months, what can they do that's new? Where both those films were about action and violence, this one's about fear and tension.

The performances aren't Oscar-worthy when there's nothing going on, but in times of distress or terror, these people suffer so much it's like torture. There are holes in the plot and maybe crocs don't really behave like this as others have pointed out, but the fear is so effective it's a stretch to say you'll enjoy this movie. It'll leave you feeling as uncomfortable as The Passion of the Christ. Went out with my friends and saw this movie last weekend here in London. We didn't know what to expect, the poster gave some of it away, and I won't say any more so as not to spoil the plot, but we found it to be an excellent film with great acting, convincing plot and scary as hell! Having done some research on the making of the film I have to hand it to those guys, the filmmakers, actors, writers, etc., for having put together such a film with such limited resources. Post-production very well done, too. For all of that I give them a 10 out of 10, and I hope they will continue their fine work. Keep it up, guys. You rock! BLACK WATER has to be one of the best Australian movies I've seen in many years. My girlfriend and I sat gripping each others hands, jumping in all the right spots. This is as much a crocodile film as OPEN WATER was a shark film. In other words, the creatures are merely part of the dilemma, the trap in which people find themselves through circumstances. How director's Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich wring as much suspense and terror from such a modest situation is amazing to watch unfold. And when I say terror, its not overblown, artificially constructed squirm moments, but more little touches that when you ask yourself "how would I feel in that situation" lead you to conclude "scared witless". Performances were great, the pacing and gorgeous cutaways to other life in the mangroves were excellent and the ending moments of the film felt very right. This is a fitting feature debut for two directors who should rightfully by very proud. Go and watch this very beautifully shot and acted suspenseful film. When I read the synopsis - 3 people lost in the wild battling against a huge crocodile - I wasn't exactly drawn in. It sounded like the typical yawn-movie horror formula of a bunch of people stalked by a monster - except in this case there are only three of them, so we wouldn't even get the macabre 'joy' of watching them get picked off one by one.

However, I watched it (couldn't sleep; nothing else to do) and it turned out to be much better than expected. The acting is great, the atmosphere tense and you really get that rare sense of a low budget winner.

Horror as it should be done. First-rate film-making. It's not perfect but it's well worth seeing. I give it a 7. If you've ever seen Open Water , this is the same kind of gritty, edgy, indie style of film. i liked the action, suspense. the slow building of it all,, i just hope they don't do to this one what they did to Open Water, with that sequel.. but anyways,, the one thing i didn't like was the annoying younger sister,, i was rooting for the croc the whole time.. film starts out pretty much like it should,, kids packing up for a trip,, they hire a guide who mysteriously left 5 mins. before they got there,, so i guess his assistant takes the two sisters,, and the boyfriend out on the water , now mind you this is the second day of their adventure,, curiously enough the first day they spent at guess ,, hmm a crocodile farm.. so they are out there and all is good for a little while,, then bang,, crocodile time... very intense,, you know something in this movie you don't see the crocodile, a whole heck of a lot,, but when you do,, gosh it is very scary,, i love the croc's snout and eyes,, and the shroud of fog that seems to enshroud the croc every time he raises his head above the water,, very very creepy, but good,, overall this is a great film,, if you can get past the annoying little sister. "Black Water" is a movie that in a way surprised me, and definitely exceeded my original expectations. "Black Water" is truly a very well structured, unpredictable, thrilling, well directed, and well creepy movie. The plot is actually somewhat original, and will definitely keep you intrigued with it. One thing I love about this movie is the direction, because mainly on how it surpassed my original expectations. My original expectations of "Black Water" was that it was a crappily made, acted, directed, paced, and boring movie. It really wasn't. Well the acting is nothing to praise because there were times were I feel they didn't show enough emotions, and there are some lines that feel just so scripted. However I love the direction because all of it's shots seem predictable, but arn't. Like when watching it say the camera gets a slow shot of the water, and it goes quite, you're like the croc's about to attack. However the croc's attacks are very unpredictable(which was bad for me who doesn't handle films like this all to greatly), and this does make you jump. Plus I just love that it's one of those horror movies that don't rely on the sudden big sound blast to make you jump, but instead the actual movie. I also like how the story is about people who are trapped in these trees, it made it seem very real, and definitely kept your eyes on the screen. I must say I didn't think the opening 20 so minutes were done well, and I think they made the boat a little heavier than it would have been in real life. Plus I didn't like how they tried their absolute best to make the characters situation seem entirely hopeless when it really wasn't. Also again I just don't think some of the characters actions were realistic. For example I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the water knowing their was a crocodile in it, let alone a killer one. However these problems really arn't that major, and I was still able to enjoy the film. Overall as far as movies go, I've seen better, but as far as animal attack horror films(a genre I get easily scarred at) it's one of the better ones you'll see. And sure it's not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth a shot. The movie starts out with three people on a play it by ear holiday who decide to first visit a crocodile farm and then go on to a little lighter activity, a "fishing" tour.

You pick up some interesting information about crocodiles during their visit to the farm and the information adds just enough to increase the suspense later during the movie as you recall what was told earlier on.

The action in the movie is well timed and not over done. Suspense is built through the "what ifs", the "unknown", and the sometimes gut wrenching decisions the characters make in the movie.

I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in the same boat, no pun intended.

The film quality was really good and the effects where realistic, believable and not over the top or cartoon looking and out of place, the way you sometimes get with CGI.

As a horror movie buff I watch just about every horror movie I can get my hands on, in just about every genre, and this is one of the best "crocodile" horror movies, if not the best I have seen.

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed. **SPOILERS** Looking for a little more excitement then seeing crocodiles being fed at the local game reserve sisters Grace and Pat, Diana Glenn & Maeve Dermody, together with Grace's boyfriend Adam, Andy Rodoreda, decide to take a trip upstream in the desolate and deserted, of human habitation, Australian Mangrove Swamps.

With their swamp guide Jimmy, Ben Oxenbuld, at the helm of his motorized boat the four get upended by a giant saltwater crocodile who quickly grabs and drags a terrified Jimmy down to the bottom along with him. Grace Pat & Adam end up stranded on a tree in the swamp with Pat hanging on for dear life on the capsized boat. The rest of the film has the hungry and determined crocodile play a cat and mouse, or crock' and human, game with the trio that ends in a showdown at a mud bank just where the dead and dismembered body of jimmy finally came to it's rest.

Both the director and actors in the film take full advantage of the swamp making it at times far more scary then the giant crocodile swimming in it. We get to see the killer crocodile just about a half dozen times in the movie but everyone of them hits you, and Jimmy Grace Pat & Adam, right in the gut.

Alway there were kept in suspense by the giant reptile always doing his damage from beneath that comes so unexpectedly that it, the crock attacks, has far more effect when you don't see them coming then, like in the last ten minutes of the movie, when you do. You wonder right from the start who in the end would survive the crocodile attacks and eventually live to tell about them. The ending with the crocodile vrs human confrontation was about the weakest and most unrealistic part in the film.

The crocodile who was both so cagey and effective in the earlier scenes seemed to have punched, or swam, himself out not having either the strength or speed to grab, with his deadly jaws, and finish off the sole survivor of the expedition. In fact the killer crock was so ineffective that even after he gabbed his victim, or victims, he just couldn't hold on to them. This in the end turned out to be fatal on his part.

A lot like "Jaws" the film "Black Water" has the killer crocodile, like the great White Shark in "Jaws", more interested is killing his human prey then eating them. With all the food available in the swamp and rivers that he inhabited the crocodile was only after the quartet, Grace Pat Adam & Jimmy, for invading his watery domain that he felt was the grand ruler of. And for daring to do that they were to pay with their lives! I found this film rather brilliant. Initially I wanted a "when animals attack" flick along the lines of "frankenfish" or even "rogue" but was delivered a truly horrific ordeal that was not devoid of humanity. Having been to the areas this was made (including the croc farm at the start of the movie, even sharing the same guide!) it added to the fear factor. Those crocs really are everywhere up there, though I don't think they had the "attitude" of this beastie. Yes there were some melodramatic moments but they contributed rather distract from the whole atmosphere. I genuinely cared for the characters and shuddered contemplating "what would I do?" in their boat. Not knowing where your enemy lurked or the sound of the croc chowing down at night was genuinely frightening. I would argue that this flick is one of the best horrors I have seen in years (coming close to the descent). I give it four alligator handbags. This film is a sleeper because Rod Steiger's is the only big name in the credits. Yet, all of the supporting actors fit well with his character. It was fitting that in his last film, Rod Steiger reminded us once more of his inventive power as an actor. He portrayed a grandfather's impulsiveness, stubbornness, and acceptance of the end of life in a characteristically individual and convincing performance. Because his character was close to death, the story brings us closer to the most precious things granted to us: the privilege of life, relationships with family members, and the empathy of those who care for us. His search together with his grand daughter for one of his sons provided enough suspense to keep me waiting, expecting a highly-charged climax such as the meeting of two long-separated elderly lovers who were also on the cusp of death in "Forever Young." I wondered how the meeting would be staged and how tightly my emotions would be wound by the time he and his granddaughter reached the end of his quest. I was delighted to find that the story brought more than I expected. The delightfully satisfying climax brought for me a greater appreciation of the value of the precious gifts of life, love, and family that are enjoyed today by me and by all of us. I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack. A wonderful film - a charming, quirky family story. A cross-country journey filled with lots of interesting, oddball stops along the way (& several very cool cameos). Great cast led by Rod Steiger carries the film along and leads to a surprise ending. Well directed & shot - a really nice movie. Simply one of the best movies ever. If you won't get it - sorry for you. I believe that someday people will include this one in their all-time top 10's. Not now, but in the far future.

Giorgino is a strange, dark, obsessive object; the casting is impressive, the plot is powerful, reminded me of Edgar Poe's tales. Probably not a masterpiece, but it does leave us with the remembrance of strong images, fine music, fear, sadness, confusion, and a sentence that says it all : the wolves are coming. GIORGINO is quite forgotten now, and when it was released nobody seemed to appreciate it. That's a shame. If you ever have a chance to see this, well... give it a try. Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful. That's certainly not the best film ever. But that's certainly worth seeing for people with a special kind of mind. So the one who loves sadness and depression, and scary fairy-tales at night, and wolves and real madness - welcome! If you find a copy, of course:) As for me, I could stand it only once... But since that the Wolves, and Saint-Lucy, and children's drawings, and a headless Christ live in my nightmares. I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare "dark" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become "grown": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, "Be like children" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying "grown" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's "Hunters in the Snow". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence? Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it. How to summarize this film ? it is simply impossible. Why you should see it ? maybe for the story, very probably for the actors (Giorgio, Catherine...), above all for the universe and the poetry. This is a tale. Sad, sometimes dark, but a tale. I LOVE this film !!!! Just waiting for the DVD !! Thank you mister Boutonnat. I finally managed to see this movie...after so many years of expectancy...

I was so curious to see if this movie it is as bad as some people say..

And my opinion is that this movie it wasn't bad at all,on the contrary it was AMAZING...

I enjoyed every second from it...from the beginning until the end...

The actors were great they sent me the feeling that i was living the story at the same time as the movie was playing...

The landscapes were so beautiful were the film was shot...and it did charmed me.. Also the music was extraordinary and i have nothing

to reproach..

I think that the plot was very original i don't think that i saw a movie like this...

It is a shame that it isn't recognized all over the world..to bad for those who didn't get the chance to see it. i give this movie 10/10 Although it has been a failure in movie theaters because mainly Mylene Farmer, one of the 3 top stars in France had not the first role. Fans had changed their mind after that and were waiting for it on DVD. When it has been released on DVD this year it has have a tremendous success ! The others fails was the slow pace and the incredible length (3h) at that time (1994) that have annoyed critics. But the melancholic story makes mandatory that slow pace and long time. The moral of the film is you cannot escape from the death you are destined for. It is the same theme than in the movie "Final Destination" and makes it a Gothic tale. The atmosphere is very melancholic. During WW2 in the Philipines, Japanese soldiers are starving, dying, growing weak, and becoming more and more insane. A small group of soldiers, trying to stay alive, have eventually resorted to cannibalism. This film perfectly portrays the insanity that overtakes people under extreme conditions. There are a few humorous parts in this movie, but the majority of it is just a very slow moving and realistic film. It follows these soldiers from one painful moment to another, and eventually to death. A very interesting film, showing the death, and the horror, of what may have been the worst war the world has ever seen. This is one of the most anti-traditional war movies about was I have seen. Instead of the typical films that stress glory and perhaps super-human characters (like John Wayne), this film is the exact opposite--stressing the de-humanization that ALSO happens in war. The story concerns the Japanese who are stranded in the Phillipines after the US returned in late 1944-early 1945. By the time the movie begins, the Japanese have clearly been beaten but because of the insane logic of Bushido, they cannot allow themselves to consider surrender. At one of many poignant moments, the lead character is told at the beginning of the film to report to the hospital since he isn't capable of fighting due to his TB. The problem is that the hospital won't accept him, so his commander tells him to once again go to the hospital--and if they won't accept him he should blow himself up with a grenade! Well, this happens just in the first five minutes of the movie--a lot worse things befall this soldier and the few stragglers because they won't surrender. Plus, there is a case in the movie where a soldier DOES try to surrender but is gunned down. This happened a lot later in the war because so often the surrendering Japanese soldiers booby-trapped themselves to blow up when they came near. In addition, the film shows the most vivid depiction of starvation and the accompanying madness of any film I have seen. In addition, cannibalism, cowardice and betrayal all accompany this very gritty, realistic and depressingly realistic film. You simply couldn't have made a better film of this type. Horrible but great. This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.

The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!

Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.

The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as "monkey meat", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.

In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).

FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective. Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. "Fires on the Plain" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as "monkey meat." The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima? A harrowing masterpiece on the sheer madness and despair of war, Fires on the Plain (Nobi) is not going to be to everybody's taste: this is a war movie in the truest possible sense of the term, one that resorts neither to flag-waving patriotism nor saccharine sentimentality. Nobi cuts deep, it's ugly, tenebrous and bleak as few things ever committed on celluloid will ever be. This is war behind the cannons, with no triumphs or heroes, no moral victories or defeats to be had, just a handful of gaunt and terrible-looking men strewn across a land ravaged by war like penitents fleeing a great disaster. The characters defy moral judgment because they are creatures beset by a great woe, a woe that does not permit questions of a moral nature. War and survival. Pitting one's will against the other's in a battlefield arena. The loser is simply removed from existence.

Tamura, soldier in the Japanese Imperial army, is discharged from his platoon and ordered to report in a nearby hospital on account of him coughing blood and being disliked by the rest of the platoon. He's told to never come back and instead commit suicide by hand grenade in case the hospital rejects him. Which it does. The hospital is nothing but a shack made of wooden planks and the hospital surgeon simply tells him that if he's capable of walking he's just fine. It is in that shabby excuse of a hospital that one of the most harrowing scenes of the film takes place. As the area is carpet bombed by American planes the doctors and those who can walk and sustain themselves flee from the hospital and into the woods. Moments before the hospital is blown to pieces, the gaunt and crippled figures of the sick and injured crawl out of it in every manner of posture, dressed in their sickly white robes, as if the building is some kind of beast spewing viscera and filth out upon the earth.

That is Nobi's greatest success; the stark and brooding depiction of the suffering of war in simple but evocative images, without melodrama or pseudo-heroism. Soldiers cross a marsh, wading knee-deep in mud, move across the opposite bank and into a field only to discover enemy tanks hiding in the woods, their lights shining like malignant eyes as they scan the dark. A procession of injured soldiers, dirty and half-mad, crossing a road, dropping to the ground on the sound of enemy planes. Buzzards feasting on a pile of dead bodies. An abandoned village. A mad soldier that believes himself to be Buddha sitting under a tree, covered with flies and his own excrement, offering his arm to be eaten by Tamura when he's dead. These are the images Kon Ichikawa conjures for our eyes, merciless and unflinching in their poignancy but honest and raw.

Nobi doesn't rush to get somewhere. It is content to follow Tamura's travels through the war-torn land as he tries to reach the regrouping center of Palompa, and observe the madness and obscenities of war. The movie wades through the sludge of the horror of war, slow and brooding, just like the characters it follows. The final thirty minutes with Tamura taking refuge with two deserters who feed on 'monkey meat' are the closest Nobi comes to adhering to conventional narratives and they're no less powerful for that matter. Strikingly photographed in black and white, with great performances from the cast, and Ichikawa's assured direction, Nobi is not only among the best war movies to be made but also among the finest of Japanese cinema. "Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.

Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.

"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.

Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.

I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.

Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.

Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.

This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.

Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.

Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.

We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.

Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."

When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.

It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.

After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?

If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.

Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation. The main achievement of this film is that though racially unipolar, the film still manages to carve out a tableaux of war portrayals that leave a lasting identification with whoever may view it, and whoever was present at this time. Though good films may have the ability of universalizing their subjects, which is often a hard thing to do; great films have the ability of universalizing their unipolar subjects, which is what this film does.

Instead of carving a context of unity, the film depicts the Japanese in the sick finality of the Phillipines war-front in February, 1945, making signs for pacifism or war, but rather making signs of the feelings, death, destruction, victory and sickness of war with the bloody hands of the defeated.Far different, and superior, to films such as Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, both which needed a satirical methodology of trivializing and depersonalizing the American troupes, and using all races as one struggle, which is fine, yet not as grand as a film that uses one race and view, which would look fascist if created in America, to convey the horror of war and show what it is really like.

The only way the main character makes it through this movie to the end, is by being sick, thence inedible; hence through this character, through his sickness, his saving face, we see the end of WWII in the Phillipines in February of 1945, and the way in which the Americans, Japanese and Phillipinians came together in bloody acts of warfare where you live to die.

The film is patently influenced by a neorealist way of filmic portrayal, which is original and beneficial to a viewer, whether then or now, for the neorealist techniques it employs conveys all the horrors of war in pictorial form, whether a showcase for pacifism or 'militaristic responsibility'. Like Germania Anno Zero, by Roberto Rossellini, a story emerges from the environment and the conditions associated with it.

The film's opening, with the two-way discussion between the two Japanese soldiers, prefigures and reechoes the events. Through this opening we feel that the struggle is human against human, and human with human; it shows that they relied on each other to face the enemy in the past battles, but now, in this opening, or 'pivot' of the experiences of the Japanese in the Phillipines, new information is relayed to the main character Tamura, giving a presentiment of a cannibal reliance on one another if they wish to survive.

The jungle is gritty, wet and thick, and the sky is not infrequently cloudy and pouring. We wade with the stragglers though puddles and marshes, as sick as the land around them. Nameless cadavers are strewn everywhere. Every now and then one can not tell if they are bodies, rocks or corn. Apparently there is no difference here, all is dead and sick. All is dying. All they have lest to feed upon are rare monkeys and dead bodies of fallen comrades and/or nameless enemies.

Often Tamura meets a fallen other near death. Though crushed in spirit, and crushing his, some offer up their bodies for him to eat, but he refuses; he still, like Hiroshi Kawaguchi as Nishi in Giants and Toys, will not droop into the death of dignity and Japanese morals; for this is all he really has to hold up for his survival, a dignity of self. Hence, when Nagamatsu is dissecting a soldier for consumption, he shoots him because of it. Tamura may be used to the killing, but to the sickness of killing and pillaging he can't decipher. He is neither a good man or a bad man. He wishes to survive, but will not go the extra mile beyond simple straight-war-killing. His self belonged dead on the battlefield, he isn't happy here to wade and wipe the weak for his survival.

The sickness he carrys he sees everywhere, in everyone; and sadly he lacks the ethical rationale of thinking either thinking entirely about others, since he can't give up his body for them since of his contagious malady, or thinking entirely about himself, since he sees the sickness in everyone, though still killing them even if they do no harm. Seen in his attack on the two Philippians's in the hut. He can't see anyone. No one can see anyone. The only see an aversion from malady and an adversion to health, the heart of survival instincts.

Often, an arm appears pointing to the left of the screen, towards what must be hope, for there, in that far Thule lies their freedom. Yet it is blocked by American soldiers, leaving the Japanese stragglers to slowly die in this disconsolate dirt. Even a church tower appears, reflecting the light off an unseen sun. But on closer inspection crows flutter wildly about it; religion too is an air of poison.

Nobi, the Japanese title of the film, gives more evidence to the themes, or feelings of the film: the servitude to fate, the heaviness of existence under leaders and lives controlled by others. Its proper Anglophone translation has a subject of heavy debate among historians, as non-Koreans translate it as "slave" and "slavery", while many Koreans argue that nobi was not a slave system, but a servant class system that does not meet the criteria for slavery. A way to typically to escape wrenching poverty. This improves upon the war theme, and symbolism of soldiery.

Isn't it important at the time period to ask ourselves what the purpose is of what will become our won history? Should we be comfortable of letting it unroll without conscious effort for change? Is it not who we are fighting, that age old history question, but rather why are we fighting? Fires on the Plain is with Eiji Funakoshi, Osamu Takizawa, and Mickey Curtis; based on a novel by Shohei Ooka. In Japanese with subtitles. This film is a knockout, Fires on the plain referred to is, (the burning off at the end of harvest time) A happy memory for Tamura, He relives this in his mind many time's,and at the end of this bleak film, Like a man dying of thirst, he believe's he is home and this last illusion is all he has left. Billy Wilder's The Big Carnival (Ace in the hole) is the only film (that comes to mind)that is as bleak as this little masterpiece by Kon Ichikawa. While I think the whole film is brilliant Two scenes that come to mind are when a platoon of Japanese soldiers trying to escape (Crawling on there belly's)are ambushed by Americans and massacred,True Horror, And as an American soldier and a pretty Philippine Girl soldier are having a cigarette on the side on the road, she smiles as she flits with the yank,then her face Changes to rage as she see's two Japanese soldiers trying to surrrender, she grabs a gun and kills them with joy, The American soldier attempts to stop her but has no chance , to me this speaks volumes at the atrocity's committed by the Japanese in the Philippines, all in all a great film if you have the stomach for it. Fires on The Plain (1959) ****

You don't see films like this anymore. 'Fires on the Plain' is an incredible depiction of the lives of the soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army. Kon Ichikawa's masterpiece follows Tamura, a soldier with Tuberculosis as he wanders around the Philippine landscape in the last year of the war. He is sent away to the hospital by his commanding officer only to be refused treatment and so he is sent back. His CO tells him to go back and if they refuse him again then his last order is to kill himself with his grenade. He is refused again, but meets up with a band of squatters sitting outside the hospital. The next day they are shelled by American troops and Tamura flees, choosing not to kill himself, and from there he wanders from place to place trying to get to Palompon. He discovers that some men have been eating human flesh in order to survive, while others trade as much tobacco as they can for whatever they can get back.

The film is filled with a quiet sense of desperation and desolation, with a hint of insanity. Everyone we see is skin and bones, covered in dirt wearing torn and tattered rags. Ichikawa uses his camera to catch some beautiful shots of the destructed landscape and the Japanese soldiers who walk it. Kon Ichikawa was famous in Japan for making many comedies and satires, and there are moments in Fires on the Plain that are bitingly hilarious. Take for example a shot of what appears to be a dead man lying face down in a pool of water; a soldier walks but and asks himself aloud if that is how they will all end up, to which the man lifts his head out of the water and replies "what was that?" and then drops his face even deeper into the puddle than before. Another hilarious sequence involves one man finding a pair of boots along the trail. He takes the boots, replacing them with his old ones. Another man walks by and sees that pair of boots and switches up for his old boots. The scene continues until finally Tamura finds the exchange spot and examines the boots left without hardly any sole. He looks carefully at his own and at ones on the ground, and deciding that they're both kaput he removes his own and goes barefoot. The film is filled with incredible scenes, one after another. Like Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, Ichikawa knew how to use his camera to paint beautiful and stunning pictures. There are many stunning shots of men in barren empty plains surrounded by nothing but smoke in the air and dead or dying bodies on the broken earth. There is another incredible scene where dozens of Japanese soldiers attempt to cross a road guarded by Yanks in the middle of the night, all crawling on their hands and knees as the camera watches on from above.

The film gets its name from the columns of smoke rising up from fires on the plains seen throughout the film. They represent to the soldiers life a little more ordinary; the lives of Japanese farmers back home burning husks of corn. Their beacons of hope for the normal life however are in hostile hands.

The film caused a stir in its day with its graphic content. Much emphasis is placed on the horror of war, not just with the enemy but within your ranks and yourself. Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plains is an incredibly authentic and moving, and somewhat disturbing, portrait of the horror suffered by the men making up the lower ranks of the Imperial Army. Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima, while it is a very good film, comes nowhere close to realizing the horror of war depicted in Fires on the Plain. (Eastwood was no doubt influenced by the film, seeing as he claims to be such a classic Japanese film buff.) Many war films show that war is hell through the eyes of the winners. In Fires on the Plain, we're shown that war is even more hellish when you're on the losing end

4/4 I saw this in 1993 on a VHS tape but have been unable to find it at any source since. This is a very bleak and uncompromising look at the last days of the Japanese Army in the Phillipines. Anyone with an interest in the Pacific war would do well to view this film and see what conditions the other side fought under.From what I can tell, this is historically accurate, and depicts how easily men can descend into complete barbarism. I understand the Japanese Army was completely cut off from any re-supply in the Phillipines by 1945, so there is no doubt many of the horrific incidents depicted here happened. I might not have been able to identify with the film's characters, but I appreciate their humanity and struggle to survive. If I had to compile a list of the ten greatest war films, this film would be on it. See it if you can get it. An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.

Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves.

Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.

Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema. Kon Ichikawa had lived through world war two, and saw what its effects it had on his people in Japan. But so did novelist Shohei Ooka, whose book was the inspiration for Ichikawa's film, Fires on the Plain. It's a film about the men in this war, or perhaps more universally in wars in general, who lose their humanity. The soldiers trudging along through these fields and jungles of the Philippenes in this story are almost completely without hope, if not already just that. It makes Stone's Platoon look like a picnic: at least they had certain things, like food, after all.

They have little to no reserves or supplies or ammunition, no back-up, no sense of anything going their way in this combat that they've been thrust into. They can't even get some proper hospital care, unless if they can no longer walk at all or have lost limbs (for example, say, if you have TB, you're on your way). But its really through the prism of one soldier, a private Tamura, that we get a full sense of the futility of war, both in its bleak scenes of nothingness and boredom and decay, and those flashes of intense and brutal violence.

In the film Tamura just wants to get some medical care. This is right at the start, and his told by his superior officer- already he is with eyes that stare off and an expression that has been drained by years of battle- that he will die if he doesn't find a hospital. He doesn't, really, but does end up in with some soldiers: at first with a platoon that seems to sort of have their act together, but is really led on by a power-hungry brute who just wants Tamura's stash of salt, and then later with two other stray soldiers who are part of a group that had previously been ambushed while crossing a road at night.

The story isn't entirely a straight line, but it doesn't need to be. Tamura's path in Fires on the Plain is told in vignettes, little stories like when he comes upon a seemingly deserted enemy village. Two of the populous comes back to get some supplies, and Tamura sneaks up on them. It's an excruciating scene, since so far with Tamura we haven't seen him do anything outright *wrong*, but he does so in this scene, not even so much out of evil but out of fear and desperation (this is also, without spoiling it, how he gets a stash of salt). Little scenes build up so brilliantly and with devastation, like a simple task of finding a pair of walkable shoes, which there seem to be none. Or when Tamura, later in the film, discovers his teeth are becoming torn apart and falling out from lack of total hygiene. So much for food, so it goes.

It should also be mentioned that this is a hauntingly realized film from Ichikawa, shot in a stark black and white view of the fields and woods, the cinematography filling everything we see in black-blacks and white-hot white. Ichikawa also makes sure to get everything authentic from his actors, not simply emotionally but with their own emaciated look and looks of desperation right on them. It's as if Ichikawa has to have them all surviving the film as well as characters surviving out in the wild; by wild, by the way, I mean also cannibalism. The shock of this is two-fold; first is the way that a soldier says half-jokingly early on about eating other soldiers to Tamaura, who asks if it was true and only in response getting a "don't ask" word of caution, and the second with the depiction of cannibalism itself, from the crazy starving man on the hill who pulls out guts out of his lap and says with a straight face to our hero that "You can eat me when I die."

This makes thing especially more brutal when it comes to the director filming the brief 'action' scenes. These are, I would argue, more brutal than 'Private Ryan' in their depictions of violence in battle, the carnage that is completely random. A scene I would point to, and that contains just a shot that is excruciating to watch, is when from a high angle we see a group of about twenty soldiers walking slowly along, a hail of gunfire comes that kills only four or five, but it just happens so fast, and the soldiers just keep walking along at the same crawl. This isn't the only shot of horrible carnage that's shown - when needing to be bloody its there, but splashed across the screen like something completely of the macabre - but it drives the point completely.

All of the acting is staggering (Funakoshi especially, who looks to be both most at peace and most horrified by what he sees in the subtlest of looks most of the time), all of the major set-pieces provide something else to the gruesome experience, and it all amounts to the ultimate question with an anti-war film: how can, or why, do people fight in wars like these? It's almost too depressing to put into words, and so Ichikawa pushes our noses right up into the muck and filth and blood and demands for us to take it in, so maybe, some day, it will never happen again. Or one can hope this, by the end of such a bleak and great film as this. My first Ichikawa in many years, and the first of his war films that I've seen, this was gripping and brutal from the very get-go. In the very first scene, nominal hero Tamura is told that he can't continue on with his unit, to which he has returned from the hospital. He apparently has TB – but he is not sick enough for the hospital to take him given the quantity of war-wounded they have. But his old unit won't take him back either; his CO gives him a grenade, and tells him that if he feels truly hopeless to blow himself up…it's the honorable thing to do.

The Phillipines, 1945, and the situation really does seem hopeless, for PFC Tamura and everyone else. Nobi is an odyssey through hell, or rather hells – denuded forests, dead rocky plains, and the dead and dying Japanese soldiers hoping just for an end, through peace or death. Ichikawa's film is photographed in stunning B&W scope which serves to highlight both the desolation felt by Tamura and those he meets on his journey towards his doom, and to show how truly small and naked they all are amidst the immensity of the mountains and the forests….this small affair of humans will end soon, the earth seems to be saying, but I will survive and barely notice it.

Tamura travels back towards the hospital, but is (not surprisingly) rejected there, and spends the rest of the film trying to stay alive, stay human, and get out of danger. He doesn't manage to do very well on any account, slowly starving and eventually committing some fairly repellent acts. Eventually he hooks up with two other desperate men who have lost, or survived their units, and have resorted to cannibalism…and in his weakened state facing other armed men, finds that the only way to live is to break with everything that he believes in.

Ichikawa's film is as brutal, uncompromising and intense as any war film I've seen. There are moments of humor and tenderness, but they are fleeting and don't stick in the memory such as the scene with the man on the mountaintop who practically begs Tamura to eat his flesh…the recurring black-comic bit with Tamura exchanging his ragged shoes for the better leathers of a fallen comrade….the degradations that humans will endure to survive….the truth that this is any war, all wars, all mankind as long as we continue thus. A masterpiece that I probably won't watch again for a long, long time. Watched via the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD. This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008. I got this movie out a week after the death of Ichikawa Kon - I suppose if there is one way to mark the passing of a great director, its to raise a glass of wine to him while watching one of his greatest movies. Ichikawa had one of the finest careers in Japanese film, but as he never had a distinctive style or theme he often seems to be overlooked compared to his near contemporaries such as Ozu and Kurosawa (he was a little younger than them, but not by much). He is one of those directors who defies auteur theories - its likely that his wife (who wrote the screenplay for this and many other of his movies) was as much responsible for the quality of the movies as he was. But at his best, he was as good as any Japanese film maker at the time. In particular, he had great technical skills, allowing him to tell complex stories in an accessible manner. But in terms of theme, this movie could hardly be simpler - war is hell. No really, its seriously hell.

Fire on the Plain doesn't follow the normal war genre rules. There is no real beginning - we start as the wretched Tamura, who is a regular private (although it is implied he is more thoughtful and educated than most of the others - at one stage it is shown he understands English, but he clams up when the others ask him how he knows it) is ordered to hospital, as his unit is already in an appalling state. The soldiers are defeated and starving to death. They are no longer an army, just a rag bag group of refugees - hunted by the locals, and pretty much ignored by the Americans, who have bigger fish to fry. Hunger and despair is driving the soldiers to the edge and beyond of madness.

In typical Ichikawa style, its not all just grim - its oddly funny in parts (a very black humour of course).

The high points of this movie to me are the outstanding performances from the leads and the vivid photography. The characters, in all their humanity, but also their complete loss of humanity, are all too believable. This is that rare film - one which will refuse to erase itself from your head, even if you want to forget it. The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.

The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.

Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.

Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.

What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.

Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.

Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.

Definitely worth a look. Fires on the plain directed by Kon Ichikawa and written by Shohei Ooka and Natto Wada is a World War two movie which is finally not showing the allies fighting the axis powers, but the Japanese fighting and struggling for their lives on the Philippines. The main characters name is Tamura , played by Eiji Funakoshi, and he is a soldier leaving his regiment because of him being sick. All he has on him is a hand grenade, his gun and some potatoes. Like this, he is trying to make his way to the hospital in order to get a doctor and a cure for his disease. But since the hospital turned him away and gets destroyed, he begins a long walk. Throughout the whole movie, Tamura remains a bit cowardish, but very civil, when the other soldiers become more like animals by using their basic instincts for survival Tamura is still remaining human and would not degrade. A scene which has influenced me a lot to think positively and different about this war movie is, when Tamura comes into a Phillipino village which is completely deserted. There, he fights a dog and finds a lot of corpses of Japanese soldiers stacked up in front of a church. This makes Tamura think and even more scared than he already is. That shows that the soldier is not a brave killing machine, but a servant to higher beings and human most importantly. After he turns away from the corpses, two Phillipinos (a couple or brother and sister : very close relationship) return to the village in order to get their stash of salt back. The main character of the movie wants to be friendly at first, although he walked up to them with his gun, but shoots the woman once she starts screaming. Her brother/boyfriend/husband then runs away in fear and after a moment Tamura follows him and shoots wildly at the fleeing Filipino. He does not hit him. After Tamura picks up the bag of salt , something very precious , he drops his gun into a river. This gesture is very important in order to understand Kon Ichikawa's/Shohei Ooka's profiling of Tamura and the war. Comparing this movie to other World War 2 movies, it is not typical at all. Of course all movies have suffering heroes, but their heroes are more heroic than Tamura. He expresses everything that is human: he is getting manipulated , he is weak , he gets scared , he has hope. This is typical for Japanese World War two movies and for Japanese society. Since World War two is not a discussed theme in Japanese society, Japanese are likely to put Japanese in the second World War in the role of the victim. This victimisation is also very visual in this movie. One of the examples is Tamura, another one the piled up bodies of Japanese soldiers in front of the church and another important one is, when the Japanese soldiers are trying to cross a street and the Americans are already waiting there for them and shooting all of the Japanese soldiers which have worse equipment and are fed worse and have no health equipment or anything alike. In my personal conclusion I have to say that it is worth seeing this film in order to finally see a movie from the other side than usual. It also has no nationalistic propaganda which could've been easily built in. Once you have watched the movie fully, you will be able to see the horrors of the second World War to its total extent. They are hunted and starving. They are completely demoralized and yet they press on through sheer inertia. This film tries to answer the question "How far will human beings go to survive?" Hopelessness emanates from every of this film and like so many japanese films of this time, it condemns the blind military loyalty that pressed the japanese people into war. This depiction of forlorn Japanese forces in the Philipines is a tour de force in the utter meaninglessness of war. It is an effective representation of Japanese pacifist views after WW II. In the movie, Japanese soldiers have been left to fend for themselves in the jungles of the Philipines. Faced with impending starvation they resort to cannibalism and gradually lose what little humanity they have left. To call this film depressing would be something of an understatement. The viewer is left with an utterly despairing sense of life's lost value in modern combat. The final scene is almost too nihilistic but the film is a worthy statement none-the-less. Highly recommended. Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film. This documentary is the most hypnotizing film I have seen in a long while. I must have had it on for an entire day. The selected material included in the piece flow amazingly well and develop three characters that are impossible to ever forget. The different layers of these people peel back to make an oddly moving film about perseverance, loyalty and determination. These characters ended up suprisingly fascinating and the film is unforgettable. Looking for proof that real life is more entertaining than fiction? You just found it. This superb documentary about an aspiring feature filmmaker (Mark Bortchart) who refuses to admit defeat is the funniest film I have ever seen -- probably because it's also one of the most tragic. Oddly enough, the more I watch the film the more inspired I become. For me, the best & most memorable movies are often those which on first viewing I know nothing about. American Movie is a perfect example of just such a gem. Watching TV late one evening, I spotted the one & only good review among the dross - thankfully I settled in for a real treat. American Movie is a documentary following the unforgettable Mark Borchardt (pronounced "orchard", I believe), a highly articulate & charismatic Wisconson lad, as he struggles to write, direct and produce "MidWestern", a gritty, low-budget Horror movie on which he has been working for years. In Mark we discover a young man filled with contrast. His appearance is of the classic trailer-trash stereotype - skinny, bum-fluff mustache, '80s heavy metal styling, mullet hairdo, etc. To camera however, Mark reveals startling wit & insight as he philosophizes upon life, love, movies & the American way. As the movie unfolds, it sadly becomes clear that Mark's lack of discipline & heavy drinking are relentlessly sabotaging his creative efforts. American Movie is a charming watch, filled with hilarious moments & vivid characters. Chief among these is Mark's lovable buddy Mike Schank, a soft-spoken reformed stoner who, having conquered an addiction to scratch cards, is now dependent on soda pop. I absolutely loved American Movie. It generates real empathy between the viewer & principal characters, and provides hilarity without feeling exploitative. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone. When we are young, we all pick out an ideal occupation for ourselves: artist, actor, writer, rocket scientist, etc.. While most of us grow out of our pipe dreams, the main character of American Movie, Mark, has yet to let go of his(and at a thirty-something age too): to become a wealthy acclaimed director. Despite the fact that Murphy's Law won't leave Mark alone and something always seems to go wrong, Mark is able to persevere during each deterring incident with an even greater drive to reach his goals. His desire to be a director so controls his character that he sees any person or thing in his life as something to exploit to reach the goal. While I noticed other IMDB commenters are lambasting Mark's selfishness, I think it's an almost justified sort-of selfishness because for Mark, not becoming a famous director is equivalent to death. He talks incessantly about leaving some kind of mark on the world, and he sees filmmaking as a way to do this.

Unfortunately any viewer of this movie picks up early on the fact that Mark has a near-zero chance of ever achieving his dream. Is he aware of this? No, not in the slightest, and none of his family or friends want to let him in on the secret(in fact even some of them believe in him). Strangely enough though, the disappointing future the viewer feels is sure to occur for Mark doesn't impede the ability to find humor in the film. This is a very very funny documentary. Most of the laughs come from when Mark is filming scenes for "Coven". There's a scene where an actor has to have his head break a cupboard, and it's just not working. Another scene has Mark's very old uncle Bill saying a few lines to the camera; needless to say, after 20 takes of a lot of headscratching and line-stumbling Bill finally decides he's had enough. A lot of humor sadly comes from Mark himself. His screenwriting, which he seems to think is worthy of a Pulitzer, is laughingly bad: "It's alright, it's ok, there is something to live for; Jesus told me so."

"American Movie" is, contrary to what people might think, a documentary that anyone can enjoy(even though my sister, who watched some scenes, seemed to think it was downright bizarre). The fact that Chris Smith can successfully bring to the screen a film that inspires both sadness from Mark's depressing lifestyle to hilarity with scenes with Bill(who unfortunately passed away before the film was released) says quite a lot about him. I wonder how the dreamer Mark regards this documentary. Does he realize that it casts him in a bad light? Or that it sets up to show him as a fool in many scenes of the film? Or does he see it as something that will be shown prior to his own A&E Biography segment? It's an intriguing subject of wonder, and I hope the latter comes true for him some day.

I highly recommend this movie: 9/10. What gives this movie its personality is the knowledge, in the end, that it is all true. While it is a compelling and humorous documentary that does border on mockumentary in some parts (are they staged or is it really happening humorously?), it does seem to get a bit long towards the end.

This movie is funny in places it needs to be, and flows relatively well. Reminiscent of Christopher Guest's movies, if you liked those or Adaptation then I recommend you keep a look out for this one.

B+ I enjoyed this one, because I can relate to it.

At one time in my life I was trying to make films, and experienced many of the same problems Mark Borchardt did in trying to make HIS film. And I also went through a protracted period of self-absorbed arrested development, where I refused to grow. But then, miraculously, I got married, and had kids. I realized that being a struggling filmmaker was, in all likelihood, not going to feed my family. So I got a decent job and did what I felt I needed to do to make that happen. That is what an mature, responsible adult does.

Mark hasn't faced up to that reality as yet, and so, in that sense, he is a retarded adolescent. For this reason, there is a hopelessness about him. Like Don Quixote, he seems so inept and self-deluded that he doesn't realize how bad off he really is. The viewer feels a sense of superiority and pity for him and his circle. Mark has kids and an ex-wife and bills to pay, but the film depicts him caring basically only about pursuing his "artistic vision".

Despite this, Mark comes across in the film as a likeable individual, surrounded by a very interesting family and group of friends. Unfortunately, Mark lacks many of the things necessary to be successful both in life and in a career: maturity, responsibility, education, knowledge, life experience, prioritization, financial clout, etc.. Yet he trudges on, much like Ed Wood, apparently without any semblance of a clue.

I guess we are supposed to feel encouraged by the spectacle of the "never say die" attitude of this noble individual, struggling against the odds. And man, what odds there are! Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Hanks, Tori Spelling and Angelina Jolie are all offspring of big-time film or TV people; no doubt, they will all want to direct some day, if they aren't already. How much room is there for an independent like Mark? It's like watching a guy hit himself in the head with a board, over and over again. Come to think of it, that is pretty close to what happens to one of Mark's actors, with the kitchen cabinet door, in one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in any movie.

Despite these misgivings and seeming criticisms, I truly enjoyed this movie, and would heartily recommend it to anyone. Uncle Bill is amazing. I have a friend who met both Mike and Mark and he told me that, in real life, these guys are just exactly the way they appeared in the movie. This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject.

As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.

And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.

The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him.

Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured. As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.) With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than "It's a Wonderful Life", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done. The movie features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.

Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the "rough cut" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like "the children's hour". So many great talents were utilized in "The Best Years of Out Lives", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had "wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under." There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of "The Road to Rome" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee "couples" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that "all was well with "America"". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B/W. This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.

My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.

The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended! Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no

longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate

post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and

those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated.

The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful

love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and

Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946.

I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous

veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of

the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they

took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times. This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed. I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.

All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!

Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 10.

So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!

NO objectionable material a good family film. I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.

Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 11.

So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it. While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me "Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art. This superb 40's post war classic, tends to be overlooked these

days. When it was released in 1945, it cleaned up at the 1946

Oscars, mostly at the expense of `It's A Wonderful Life.' Both films were up for best film , best

director, and best actor, all won by ‘Best Years'. Frederic March ,

and Dana Andrews along with an amateur actor Harold Russell ( a

real life soldier,who lost both hands in an explosion,) play the

returning soldiers, finding life is very different , from what they

remember. Myrna Loy is superb as March's wife, who has to keep

the family together while he has been away.The tear jerking

scene where March and Loy are reunited is magnificent. All three

men find that they have problems readjusting to post war life, not

least Russell coming to terms with artificial hands, and his finance

(Cathy O'Donnell ) trying to be too helpful. Sam Goldywn is quoted that he doesn't care if the film makes no

money at all, as long as everyone in America sees the film ,so they

will appreciate what these men went through. If any film is worth 10 out of 10, it is this one. Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.

1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger.

2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror.

3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance?

4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor.

5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).

6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."

7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.

***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful. This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.

The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.

There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.

I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.

Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.

Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.

The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points. What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit. The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever. I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen. This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him? This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.

I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again. I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.

First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. "What?" you may ask. "It's not a war film!" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.

We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.

Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)

Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen – a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry – exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.

The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a "popinjay". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, "Was it very bad?" He cannot answer. She says: "Well, you're back now." But his softly-spoken reply – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…" – is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort – straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front – are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.

***SPOILERS***

The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.

The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage.

"Well, you're back now." – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…" Having been familiar with Hartley's "The Go-Between" for a good while, both in its original book form and in its disappointing Pinter-Losey film adaptation, this was interesting stuff. "The Hireling" proves almost a mirror image at times; set in a slightly less distant period for the main part, featuring exposure of the British Class System, and containing a set piece sports match (boxing takes the place of cricket) that reveals rather a lot about .

This refreshes in its small-scale, character focus. You do not exactly get to 'know' Lady Franklin and Leadbitter in the novelistic sense, but this distance is appropriately played out in telling body language and inflection from the actors. Your distance from ever fully sympathizing with any one true character mirrors the dormant 'difference' that so dooms the central relationship. Miles and Shaw are wonderfully subtle, and we see more in their 'less'; never once are these actorly, showy performances. They are fittingly Stanislavskian interpretations that create the impression of these characters having life outsides the confines of the film. All other parts are very satisfactorily handled, though they are far smaller in this film than I presume in the novel and compared indeed to "The Go-Between", a stunning work about disillusionment.

The disillusion at the centre of this film is so sadly and movingly conveyed in the late scenes where Shaw kisses Miles and is rejected, and then where a drunken Leadbitter confronts Cantrip and Lady Franklin. It's a howling shame that what would have been an incredibly poignant ending of spoiled, desolate lives at either side of the screen, is 'embellished' with a decidedly odd little coda. One is entirely bemused by the jump in tone, as Shaw's Leadbitter goes beserk and ironically sings "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the Queen" as he crashes his car into things. The political point is heavily over-egged by this bombastic, rather dingily operatic ending. All sense of subtlety, so effectively conveyed hitherto, is lost, as the implicit point is heavily and noisily made. Agit-prop surely has no place in this sort of delicate period drama.

Overall, however, one cannot be too harsh. While this absurd end-piece is a major flaw, the rest of the film must be praised as a sensitive, evocative film, of sadness and detailed observation about the way British society was in the past. Hartley's languid but crystal-clear touch is very much in evidence throughout. It's just a shame that we don't end on the shattering conclusion to Shaw's drunk scene. The tragic, deluded figure of Sarah Miles' Lady Franklin is abruptly denied her place at the epicenter of the film, as the excellent human drama bizarrely slips into the realms of political point scoring. Shaw also - that most dry and yet deeply feeling of actors - is betrayed by the out-of-character excess that closes the film. Thus; a fine, small-scale triumph is sabotaged; but we ought to remember the many good points.

Rating:- *** 1/2/***** When I was very young, my mother had a series of four Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts on tape and I watched them all several times. A Coy Decoy was one of these shorts, and I was truly shocked to read in another comment that it had been banned. When I was young I probably did not even understand the Black Beauty gag to begin with. Still this is probably why it was banned, though until I watched this on a video site, I did not even remember the gag. Upon viewing the video I did remember certain shots - in particular the shrinking of Daffy's hat and Daffy's eyes becoming clockworkish as the decoy circled him in The Lake. I was not bothered by the gag that was most likely the reason the gag was banned. Instead I was flooded with childhood memories of watching this short. Because of how much I liked this short as a child, I rate it 7 out of 10. There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.

Aside from this point, "A Coy Decoy" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.

For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy "A Coy Decoy"!

Available on YouTube. I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again. I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was "The ultimate frontal lobotomy". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said "My son will probably love it." and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the "corck screw" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red "button" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the "weapon" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this "gem" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this. This movie is possibly one of the most creative works of horror ever. It has everything you could want... suspense, drama, comedy, confusing subplots, native americans, brain eating... If you're looking for the be-all, end-all of brainsucking movies, look no further. The story of a man, bent on revenge. And how better to get it? "I know, I'll suck out their brains!" With great sound effects, and impressive special effects, I can't recommend this movie enough. Barbet Schroeder's "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock is solid work, though not particularly compelling. I am a big Sandra Bullock fan, and she is effective here as forensic detective Cassie Mayweather, who is not very likable and a broken person too. However, there is a sense of detachment inherent in the story structure. It's about the perfect murder executed by two spoiled sociopath teenagers, Richard (Ryan Gusling) who is the cool one, and Justin ( Michael Pitt) who is the sympathetic geek. Basically, Richard and Justin kill a young woman, because they have nothing better to do on a school night. They are very smart and very arrogant which is normally not a bad thing, but it just doesn't work here. Tony Gayton's script does a great job of detailing the investigation of a puzzling murder, and it is truly by the numbers. We have these two punk kids flaunting their superiority, and we just want them to take a fall.

This is not a great exploration into the dark side, like Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" about Claus von Bulow. There are interesting turns in "Numbers". The movie is not so much a thriller, but rather a character study of Cassie. Sandra Bullock balances the bravado of Cassie, her fear of letting people get in with her, and her secret past. Bullock brings courage and strength to a suffering character. Her partner and sort of love interest, Sam (played by Ben Chaplin), is more a plot unconcealing than a real character. Though Chaplin does the bewilderment thing very admirably. The other nice touch is having Richard and Justin involved a strange sexual attraction. The most interesting thing about "Numbers" are Pitt and Gusling.

There are many entertaining twists and turns throughout the movie. Everything is done very competently. I saw the movie about a week ago, and in retrospect I like it a little more than I did when I saw it. However, it is just not inspired work. Sandra Bullock and Barbet Schroeder deserve a lot better, and so do we. "Murder by Numbers" stars Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two rebellious high schoolers who are content on the perfect murder for the sake of overcoming their shattered self-esteem. Sandra Bullock plays the heroic thorn in the way of their plans as Det. Cassie Mayweather. This is nowhere near the traditional finger-pointing murder mystery as the film graciously reveals the killers to us (Gosling and Pitt). What the film does instead is concentrate on the purposes of their killings and if they have what it takes to commit the perfect murder.

The title itself is a rightfully chosen one for various reasons mainly being that the "Numbers" in the title is the most vocal. The angle focusing on the reasons behind the heinous killings, although will haunt you with its chilling dialogue (especially from the callous boys), it doesn't fully live up exploring the origins of what lead them to their killing frenzy. The characters are riveting you have the good-looking rich kid Richard (Ryan Gosling) and the intelligent but socially awkward Justin (Michael Pitt). In school, they pretend that they despise one another, and even share a liking towards the a classmate name Lisa (Agnes Bruckner), but off-school they are allies and collaborate in a ritual in which murder is an escape to free the mind.

Sure the story involving the boys seems exciting, but it's pushed in the background to a more mundane subplot involving Det. Mayweather (Bullock) who assumes their murders was because of discrimination (hence the arrogant looks of Gosling) and unexplained characteristics but manages to get it right. At first, the audience may despise Cassie's character due to the fact she's very headstrong and not very supportive. She displays dominance and control over her junior partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin). Even as he tries to reason with her, he knows it's a battle he surely won't likely win.

The reason behind her tyrant behavior stems back in which Cassie was the sad victim of a crime that has left a permanent mental scar on her. This side-story does not have much of a place in this movie partially because it doesn't offer anything riveting with the main plot (the boys' murder spree). It also offers some development to Bullock's character in the movie but it's only a half-assed job and not very fulfilling. I would've liked it if they the diabolical students had a side-story. The resources were right there in front of them for the perfect crime foil, the creative schemes for the boys to manipulate the cops with their phony evidence and lies just to get out of a potential life-sentence in jail.

Despite the lopsided sub-plots and the pointless "real killer" ending, "Murder By Numbers" sports a strong performance by a great cast. Sandra Bullock was convincing as the tough verbally remorseless cop who tries to shift her inner pain to a more positive light. Ben Chaplin shows his strength as the young detective who tries every way to understand his partner and is able to fend off her occasional tyrannical put-downs. But the scene stealer's are the devilish duo of Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling as they keep you glued to their seat waiting for what they're going to do next. The chemistry of the boys is reminiscent to Matt Damon-Jude Law in "The Talented Mr. Ripley". this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending. I can get very tired of murder mysteries with the exception of a few really excellent TV series. Otherwise, there are just too many of these murder plot themes. I don't like the theme of the two over-clever, selfish youths killing as an intellectual exercise, I've no interest whatsoever in Hitchcock who appears to have been associated with this in some way I don't intend to find out about. But don't misunderstand me, the theme is in itself excellent, the whole movie is so well done, and of course Sandra Bullock is superlative as always.

Sandra's character is (as in Miss Congeniality) not rated by the male team she works with in spite of her obvious skills, and the boss mostly ignores her ideas, eventually forcing her aside and giving the case to her male partner. Of course Sandra works out what's going on and nearly gets killed in a very dramatic denouement. It's intriguing how the boy who worked out the murder plot can't allow her to be killed by his colleague - he has a conscience of some sort and perhaps could be "saved, while the other is a true psychopath.

Sandra's hard shell is caused by misery in her past that's tied in poignantly with the murder case. Her colleague, realising that Sandra's solving this case in spite of being balked by the dense superior, finally discovers what happened to Sandra herself in her teens, that she must now face up to and exorcise and the last scene shows her starting - we hope anyway - to do just that.

I can see from the few other reviews I've had time to read that this movie would attract a broadish group - those interested in the two spoilt boys whiling away their time with their grisly philosophical determination to trick the police and get away with the perfect murder, the relationship between them that's so cleverly depicted, the ghastly links to the heroine's past, a police theme, and some smokes and mirrors - as well as for Hitchcock fans.

For those who've queried why Bullock's character has to have a problematic past, really I think this would be a far less interesting movie if she had been just a detective trying to fathom what was going on, with a willing sidekick helping out and a male-chauvinist boss. The link between the murder victim and the detective is necessary to show the detective becoming too involved or otherwise how would she lose her arrogant boss's confidence and thereby nearly lose her life? That's hardly an original theme, in fact it's usually an extremely irritating theme as this male chauvinist boss brutally tells his frustrated but obviously inspired operative to get off the case and leave it to someone who clearly doesn't have quite the skills to solve it nice though the sidekick is. I was getting very worried towards the end re what might happen to Sandra's character as her emotional involvement in the case and special sympathy for the unfortunate victim of the crime dangerously drove her on with this case by herself.

I wasn't disappointed re the relationship between Bullock's character and her sidekick. That goes along interestingly and at times very poignantly.

The relationship between the two boys is definitely intriguing, if that's what you were interested in watching. I felt it was kept low key in some ways either because the movie-makers didn't want to get into boy-boy friendships too much, or because we weren't supposed to think emotion ruled their relationship. The movie cleverly makes you wonder which boy's in charge of the situation and there are some twists and turns and the boys show their underlying immaturity at various stages.

There one thing I wish had been clarified and that's what happens "after the movie ends" when Sandra's character arrives at the Court.... you need to see to movie to know why she's there.

Very well acted by all. I certainly can't agree with those who complained against Bullock's acting - she was superb. The part suited her very well indeed. The story is gripping even if murder mysteries aren't your thing and they aren't that often mine. Murder by Numbers is a pretty good movie. Even though the plot rolls along at a snail's pace, what with Sandra Bullock's character getting all mixed up with her partner and the movie flashing back to a previous trauma situation she had been in, it does succeed in keeping the viewer involved in the film.

Having said that, I do think that it does a good job in setting that eerie sort of "who done it" type atmosphere. It keeps you guessing at which one of the boys really was behind the murder, if not both of them. I think Ryan Gosling and that other kid (lol) do a good job of selling that bully versus dork relationship. Not sure about Gosling playing a bad-ass, but for a guy who would later star in a movie like The Notebook, he did a pretty good job. Once the movie gets rolling, though, I really found myself involved in the story, sort of asking myself, "Oh My God, what would I do if I were in that situation?" Like I said, a good CSI type movie, maybe not for the EXTREME crime drama movie junkie, but a good all around flick.

8 outta 10 I knew little of this movie when I entered the theatre for an advance screening. I gathered from the ads that it was a thriller.

What we have is like "Compulsion" meets "Matlock". Two teens decide to commit a perfect murder. A victim is selected at random and then carefully executed so that no traces of the actual murderers is found. Then a bunch of false leads are planted that point to an innocent bystander. (Innocent of the murder anyway)

Enter Sondra Bullock as the investigating officer. (IMDB says that she's FBI, but I don't remember that. I thought that she was a regular cop) She's frustrated by the inconsistency of the killers profile ("The profile doesn't fit the profile!") and by the power and influence of the father of one of the boys.

She's also has demons of her own which figure prominently in her decicision to become a cop. But this is the only character that is really more than one-dimensional. All others are pretty flat.

For a thriller, there are really no big thrills. It's mostly a cat-and-mouse game like an episode of "Matlock" (which she's watching at one point in the film). The twist is that there are two involved in the killing. Just who is the real murderer, Justin or Richard? It'll cost you eight bucks to find out. Now, I know that Sandra Bullock produced this film, but she needs to learn that sometimes you need to make certain sacrifices in order to advance the story...like not trying to make the whole movie about her character!

The story is about two high school students (one rich and popular, the other smart and anti-social) who formulate a plan to commit murder and follow it by the number...just to see if they can get away with it. Enter Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin as detectives trying to solve the case. The boys have planted evidence, created alibis, and cleaned up after themselves so well that the cops fall for the whole act. But Sandra has a feeling that all is not as it appears to be.

This movie could have been a great little Hitchcock-style thriller, but the movie spends too much time on getting to know Sandra's character rather than focusing on the actual crime itself. You see, something happened in her past that keeps haunting her throughout the film. And we get to know all about it...ALL about it. It just gets rather tedious after a while, especially when you are right in the middle of an intriguing murder investigation and then have to stop that investigation to hear about what happened to her in the past.

Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the real winners in this movie. They play their characters convincingly and with just the right amount of malice. If the script had spent more time focusing on these characters, and kept the detectives there to just do their jobs, this could have been an immensely entertaining thriller. With the way it is, most of the thrill is lost. They should have cut out all the stuff with Sandra's character and made that a separate TV movie for the Lifetime channel. But, I digress. It's still an entertaining movie, nonetheless. I do recommend this movie...but wait for the video/DVD. Cassie (Sandra Bullock) is a hyper-serious police detective. As an ex-boyfriend once tried to kill her and, indeed, left her grievously wounded, she is determined to bring those who harm others to justice. As the result of her near-death experience, also, Cassie favors one-night stands and trusts no one. One day, a woman is found dead in the woods near Cassie's community. She has been murdered heinously, beaten severely and left to die alone. Naturally, Cassie will stop at nothing to find the murderers. Assigned to help her is fellow officer, Sam (Ben Chaplin). He soon discovers Cassie's relentless attitude and all-consuming instincts when she asks him to pick up a sample of vomit that has been left at the scene for analysis, among other actions. The trail soon leads them to two high school students, Richard (Ryan Gosling) and Justin (Michael Pitt). Could these teenagers really be responsible for the planning and execution of the perfect "joy" killing? This is an intriguing film, but viewers should be warned that the subject matter is grim indeed. Killing for the "sport" of it is seldom the topic of films that are of the "all sweetness and light" variety and this one is no different. That said, the cast is great. Bullock, without a hint of her talent for comedy, is terrific as the police officer whose own past compels her to lock up the evil folks of the world. Chaplin, too, is quite nice as the detective who is both attracted and repelled by the forceful Cassie. As for Gosling, he gives a most memorable performance as a brilliant mind with a satanic soul. The production values for the movie are good, too, with appropriately fine costumes, settings and photography. If you are a fan of Bullock's looking for a laugh, this is not the one for you. But, if you adore mysteries, even those with the grimmest of plots, you will find this tale enthralling. This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in "The Lake House" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy "scary" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!! I find it hard to believe this could happen at all. We do not know if Justin and Richard were troubled or had committed crimes in the past. The movie seems to imply that they were not in and out of trouble. So the first crime they commit is murder? Just to play and jostle with the cops? How do they pick up any girl and just say you are it? Also Richard seems to strangle the woman with little or no effort nor does the women seem to struggle. Hmmm. This whole concept is really hard to believe. That said let's move on. I found myself really hating these punks and would love to have been present with my shot gun with police tactical ammo and see what their plastic suits do then. As for Cassie who was a victim of Carl Hudson has a horrible time trying to survive. The memory of having been stabbed 17 times by Carl leaves her in an emotional mess. Sandra does a superb acting job. She sure made me believe she was one angry cop. As for solving the crime, I thought it was great. This movie kept me planted in my chair. Loved the acting of all but Sam. He had no get-up and go. The one thing this movie did not need was the love scene or should I say the rape scene. Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt.

I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English?

He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline.

The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'.

Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there. Rating: 7 out of 10. Directed by Barbet Schroeder. If you like Hitchcock's `Rope', then you will like this movie. `Murder by Numbers' stars Sandra Bullock as psychologically troubled yet brilliant police detective Cassie Mayweather. Her partner is Sam Kennedy, a non-discriminatory detective played by Ben Chaplin.

The teenage killers are high school students Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt). These young psychotics are out to prove their superiority by committing the perfect murder and getting away with it, but the nearness of capture is exciting and thrilling to at least one of the killers.

The supporting characters include a police chief, an assistant district attorney, and the high school janitor that the killers pin the murder on. The movie reminds me of various `Hitchcock' movies crossed with the TV show `Law and Order'. We see a fair bit of police work and it is really interesting to see which clues the detectives follow and which ones they don't.

The other plot in the movie relates to Cassie Mayweather's past and incarcerated ex-husband. Most viewers found this aspect of the movie unnecessary and slow moving, but I found this to the most intriguing part of the story.

`Murder by Numbers' is a nicely crafted movie if you are looking for safe, or should I say dangerous, murder mystery. For more thrills and suspense, try `Se7en' or Hitchcock's `Dial M for Murder'. This multi-leveled thriller kept my attention throughout. It is disturbing and informative to see how perverse human behavior can be. It is also instructive as to what past wounds can motivate present behavior. No one, save Sandra Bullock's partner, is very likable. However, all are believable. Sandra did an excellent job. Her character, Cassie, comes alive with all her pain and fear and defenses. She is a survivor and so her life experience finally brings her to a healing moment. I enjoyed this movie very much. Tom Landers This thriller has so many twists and turns it had me on the edge of my seat. I saw it on video, some of the landscape at "the bluff" might have been a bit more spectacular on the big screen. Cast has Sandra Bullock, Ben Chaplin (from "The Truth About Cats & Dogs"), Michael Pitt (Henry Parker in "Dawson's Creek") and Ryan Gosling (???). Not bad but could be loads better, also seems to follow a staple diet for crime drama. You've got Sandra Bullock as the cop who finds it difficult to work with others, you've got her placed with a new partner. There's a closed case but a cop who works on it anyway, and there's so many corney lines in the film it makes you want to scream.

However, if you can look past the formulaic elements there is a good film hiding underneath. It's gripping and the subplots worked for me. Well worth a rent but maybe not a purchase. I liked this movie. Unlike other thrillers you learn to know the killers very well. You also get to know the two detectives hunting them. The killers are two high school kids. They are very intelligent and want to prove they are smarter than the police so they plan the "perfect crime". We all know this crime will not turn out perfect. What we don't know is if they will be caught, or may be just one of them, or even none. In a way I kind of hoped they both would get away with it, although I don't know if this was the movies intention.

The story is told in a nice way. You are starting to get to know the people involved. The character of Sandra Bullock is likable but has her own secret, which works against her. Ben Chaplin is pretty good as Sam and the two kids are both great. The scenes between them are the better scenes in the movie.

I think you can say the movie is pretty good and not as predictable you would think. For a nice evening with a movie, 'Murder by Numbers' is a good one. Okay, so I've read most of the reviews on this movie, as well as comments left by visitors to this site, and the feeling I get is that most people who wrote reviews really didn't like this movie. That's why I'm writing now-I represent the minority because, I did. I admit, I went to see the movie because I am very impressed with Ryan Gosling's compelling abilities, and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. He is an amazing actor. That aside, I wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me... why? Because it's a whodunit where you know `whodunit' from the start, and that's kind of unusual.

As the plot goes, two teenage boys endeavour to commit the "perfect crime" because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free-the uninhibited, and let's remember, guiltless, acting out of one's will. The relationship between Richard and Justin was complex, hinted at homosexuality, and was brilliantly acted by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. Gosling was the manipulating, controlling smooth-talker, and Pitt was the extremely book-smart, socially awkward outcast. Enter Sandra Bullock's character, who it seems most people didn't particularly appreciate. I think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self-glorification thing. I didn't see that as the case here. Without "Cassie's" personal history about the ex-husband that nearly killed her, who, not surprisingly, shared similar traits with Richard Hayward, she never would have pursued her instincts about Justin and Richard. The case was seemingly airtight against Ray, the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. Even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither Bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other, and the vomit Justin left at the sight. Therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing, the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom,' ended up working against Justin, who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). Without that crucial piece of evidence, they almost had a "murder by numbers." And to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as I have, I looked in to it and found that something done "by numbers" (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. There's also a song by Sting called "Murder By Numbers", but that's beside the point. :)

Many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between Cassie and her partner, but I think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. Like it or not, her history does play an important role in this movie because without it, she would likely have never followed her instincts about Justin and Richard. Yes, it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned, woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life' plot, but I think without the depth of Cassie's character you have just another movie about teenage killers, and they just may have gotten away with it. There's no movie there.

And to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously didn't commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning, can I remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed, and totally traceable shoe prints. The boys wanted to be involved-it was a game. They were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. What they didn't expect was that Cassie Mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. A little unbelievable? Maybe. But many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. However, this is a MOVIE!

I saw this movie in theatres about three times, and each time it revealed a little more to me, and I liked it a little more. The more I watched it, the more I was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth Richard Hayward-there are people really like this. My main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had Justin and Richard's interactions a little more central (because, let's face it, there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization-each character was very distinct and interesting in his/her own way. It was very well acted, although I would have given Ben Chaplin's character a little more depth to work with (he's a good actor) and maybe pared down Bullock's character a smidgen.

I think everyone should keep in mind that for a Hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the "whodunit" at the beginning, it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. I think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout, slow revelation of the different character dynamics, and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are, we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie, if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. Especially Richard Hayward. Not that I'm biassed. :) Oz is set in Oswald State Correctional Facility. It tells the story of confrontation, cruelty, violence, hate and survival at any cost. in a place like Oz, you have to have eyes in the back of your head.

This completely original, intelligent and compelling drama tells of how warped life becomes as soon as you step through the gates of Emerald City.

What is supposed to be a state of art correctional facility is in fact far from being such. The show brings to light some of the many flaws in the prison system, the underestimating of the humanity that cold hard killers are capable of still retaining, and the one true fact: The prisoners are the one's who control the prison.

This magnificent and somewhat surreal show teaches about the importance of every life and helps give an understanding to the reasons that most of the prisoners are there. This show may seem shocking at first but to truly tell it like it is, such a thing is necessary.

Oz is a great depiction of hell on earth and how such a place teaches you some of the most important lessons you will ever learn. Oz is a great series, one of televisions underrated shows. It has a certain relationship to soap opera in that something evil is always happening, and it is the unfolding of each instance of evil that fascinates. From my discussions with people who are actually in prison, it rings true. Every interaction has some machination working in the background. Behind every action, there lies a scheme, a plot to do someone else in. I like this series so much that it is one of the few TV shows I have bought completely, on DVD.

And, yes, I agree with the writer before me who commented that there are elements of satire in it. The character in the wheelchair who offers his jaundiced view of life does so with a certain bit of ironic humor. Oz was a fantastic show, as long as frequent male nudity doesn't turn you off. There was WAY too much frontal male nudity in this show, more than any other show you'd see on a porn channel. Minus that, it was the best show on TV, and a previous commenter said "better than Prime Suspect". Prime Suspect is Tom and Jerry vs The Simpsons. No contest. If you have DirecTv they are now re-running it from the start on Channel 101, they're at Episode #3 now. Highly recommended. The creator Tom Fontana also did Homicide, which was an AWESOME show. But why all the male nudity? We all know that stuff happens in prison, but did they really need to show it as often? That was the only thing that turned me off the show. If I want to see naked men, guys getting raped, I'll kill someone myself and witness first hand. Otherwise I like my TV shows free of black penises every Five minutes. OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD! Tom Fontana's unforgettable "Oz" is hands down one of the greatest television series ever created. Brilliantly written, acted, and directed it is as close to perfection in any art form (film, television, literature, music) as it gets. Haunting in it's extreme brutality it creates a prison world filled with diverse characters that range from compassionate to flat out terrifying. It is a show that no matter how brutal it is get through, one cannot take its eyes off of. The combination of professional trained theater actors with film and television actors allows for a range of diverse and all original performances.

And while the show is universally praised and has/had a loyal fan base, one cannot feel that it was under-appreciated during it's television run because of other HBO dramas such as "The Sopranos", "Sex and The City", and "Six Feet Under". And while all those shows are fine and borderline masterpieces in their right, many people forget that it was "Oz" that was HBO's first entry into one-hour television drama series. It was a brave, risky first entry and with it HBO hit a grand slam with it. This is as good as it gets. I can't stand people who comment on this program or other HBO programs as "too graphic" or "unnecessarily graphic" or that they contain "gratuitous nudity/violence/sodomy etc".

Guess what? Prison life isn't PG-13. The "gratuitous" graphic content is TRUE TO LIFE of this situation. Prison contains inmate rape/killings/drug deals and showers. If you don't like it, then don't watch the program. I'm certainly no fan of prison rape, but if it was left out of the show I'd be surprised and lend the show less credibility. If the prisoners didn't curse, it would just be silly. Sure it's gratuitous language, but that is REALISTIC.

The show is good, some of the viewers....not so much, I guess. I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show. Oz is without a doubt my favorite show of all time! the best word to describe it is "genius"! the writing, the acting, the story lines .. everything about this show is absolutely amazing!

I just discovered the show and I became addicted to it right away and I was really surprised that it hasn't gotten the recognition it truly deserves. It is violent, and most of the characters aren't meant for you to like them, but the show is written in such a brilliant way that allows you to look past the violence and the criminals and see them as real people. They are the lowest forms of scum, but it still finds a way to allow you to understand a lot of the characters and even care about their stories.

The violence in the show is necessary for it to be as realistic as possible, but the show isn't about the violence like some people might believe. It really is a work of art and I'm sure who ever gives it a chance will love it just as much as I do. In relative terms having watched a lot of disgustingly bad tele Tom Fontana & Levinson are geniuses for creating & delivering In this writer's book the greatest ever TV show. Oz was treated horribly In this country, the finale went out well gone 3 In the morning, before that It was strictly considered alternative viewing for those oblivious to prime time garbage.

I first caught Oz towards the end of the first series and from then on It was an unmissable watch. My man Adebisi possibly the most Intimidating villain ever, Beacher the perfect anti-hero, Eammon Walker's Saeed an acting class In evocation. There was the hardcore stuff of course - some plain evil but essentially Oz had soul. Augustus narrates the unfolding plot with pearls of Insight while the struggles of Beacher, Mcmanus, Saeed, Rebedahl etc are better than any soap opera before or since. Compassion violence wisdom tragedy Intelligence pain joy brutality love & heroism Oz went through the spectrum of human emotion - all Inside a max security prison!

I can honestly say those Thursday nights with the great Vids to follow Oz series 2/3 way back In 99 were the best TV I'll ever see. Beacher assaulting Vern In the gym Is a moment I don't need a video for - a small screen classic I'll never forget.

Imagine what Oz would have done with the same push as the Sopranos given a 10 pm timeslot and all the promos??? Fine I'm over that now, for those that caught It consider yourself privileged for those who didn't TV is shite.......and you deserve It. Harrowing series about life in Oz--an experimental prison where they try to rehabilitate prisoners. There's gay sex, rape, torture, mutilation, killings, humiliation, tons of male nudity...all in your face and going full force.

It also is easily one of the best written dramas ever put on TV and almost all the actors are just great. Since this was on cable there were no restrictions on what they could say or show. There's plenty of racist comments flying in here but it's for all races. In fact the white characters come off pretty badly (especially the Aryans) and the black characters come off better (the peace-loving Muslims). The Hispanics don't have a strong role and there are NO Asian prisoners at all. All the prisoners seem to be back-stabbers and willing to kill anyone at a moments notice---but you still find yourself sympathizing with some of them. Even the guards, counselors and doctors at the prison have serious issues.

I heartily recommend this BUT rent it--don't buy it. I have the whole collection and, to be totally honest, I don't think I ever want to see it again. It's incredible TV but so grim, dark and depressing. Guess I gotta sell it all online.

I give it a 10. This is a hard show to watch. It's not something to sit back and relax to. It kept me on the edge of my seat for several seasons. People get screwed over, raped, tortured and die like flies. There are male organs everywhere, there is excrement, puke and blood. Oz is a brave show. It brings up issues like racism, homosexuality, prisoners reality and most of all; -capital punishment. It is, in my opinion also successful in doing so, unlike for example, the single-tracked "Medium".

It bored me sometimes. It had some weird story lines and they spent to much time on characters that just didn't interest me. Strangely enough, I found season 1 to be quite boring. If I had watched it while it aired I think I wouldn't have continued to watch it. I love seasons 2 - 4. Season 5 and 6 are watchable, (although I think it shouldn't be allowed to utter the words "Cyril" and "Death Row" in the same sentence)

There are so many marvelous characters to root for. The old guys Bob and Busmalis, who I absolutely fell in love with from day one. Said, Adebesi, Pancamo and Schillinger, four very strong and charismatic leaders in their own way. Augustus Hill, who's monologues tied the episodes together so efficient. The staff with people like Sister Pete and Ray Mukada-also brilliant. Also minor characters that was only in for a couple of episodes or a few seasons, but left a good impression as well.

My favorites are the O'Reily brothers. Their relationship was the most gut-wrenching and warmest I seen on television. If there is anything I will always remember about this show it's them. There will never be another "pairing" or what to call it, that will make me ache so much. Thats why, when the ends come for them as well, it almost hurt to much. I wish it would never have happened. I wish I had never watched it.

But good one Fontana. I do recommend it. Hi To read the entire plot around "OZ" just look at IMDb here to find it.

**WARNING SPOILERS INSIDE THIS REVIEW !** Oz is the a series that has not only moved me but also shows a small bit. Of the American prison system, but i have to say (judging on discovery channels program over jail) it is not really realistic.

Although i got to say, there not shy, rapes,shanking (stabbing) happens allot. Still it is television, so for you ppl out there that think this is realistic wrong.

There is a good degree of violence in it, and some here and there overdone scenes (plot over plot over plot) that can get pretty boring. But remember the series is almost ancient by now. So times do change as well i believe i should judge this in the time line as it came out.

As the season prolonged up to season 5 it was pretty good!. Until one of the cons wins a lottery ticket of 2 million dollars, because he talked to god it struck me as "ok this is getting to the point i do not want to see this series no more" Still i proceeded! And now i just seen the episode 3 of season 6. This is were cereal gets his brain zapped and then his "mom" hold him after, while he is drooling. Then you see O Reilly cry as well seeing his bro like that (RL BROTHERS As well) Now thats by far the best scene out of the entire "OZ" series, that was real to me! Still do not read this wrong that I'm trying to crash and burn it. It is a really good series! And even now 2010 well worth a watch ! I give it a 7 because of the storyline that weakens with the season. But still a golden glove. Oz, was the first original television show that HBO put onto its channel (in the 1 hour forma) and it remains to this day the very best... The story is simple... Oz is a surreal look into the lives of high maximum security prisoners at Oswald, primarily focusing on "Em City." Now there are many things to compliment this show on from the writing (which in my opinion was the best on television when this show aired), directing (top notch), acting (best of the best), and the characters... This show just literally blew my socks off... This show was a critically acclaimed gem until The Sopranos bowed, after that critics were salivating over that epic tale of trust and family to notice this compelling drama... Oz to me is a better show than Sopranos overall and it's a shame that i never won any major Emmy's... =/

kudos to all who were involved in this magnificent, gut - wrenching, show...

KUDOS OZ is an old TV series released by HBO. It shows the life in one security prison called Oswald, but the main plot is focused on Emerald City, which is one of the prison levels.

Oz have an amazing plot and an outstanding cast! There are many of characters and almost all of them are very interesting. Basically they are divided in groups (gangs), the Sicilians, the Black people, the Aryans, the Gays, the Latinos and many others who doesn't have any specific group, but deal with many others like Ryan O'Reily (The Irish).

The plot is very well built, there are a lot of conspiracy inside, a lot of fight for the power. But all of this is not just exposed in form of violence, all is very intelligent and smart, nothing happens without a reason, all is connected and very interesting to guess! I really love this series, and who wanna see something intelligent, very well produced with a very good cast and performances, MUST see OZ! I admit that I almost gave up on watching TV shows. Why? Because most of them are about doctors, forensics or some girl/boy, who can predict a murder by sitting on the toilet seat. But I must say I was wrong when I watched the first episode of Oz, one of the most brilliant shows on TV until today. Oz is a show about maximum secure prison and shows episodes in life of every cell - mate inside the prison and their frustrations. What I like about this show is the fact it has the courage to show the real life in prison without any annoying characters, stereotypes and unrealistic dialogs. Even thought the characters in the show are not supposed to be heroes, you became quickly attached to them and their life. Sure, their is a lot of violence in this show and some disturbing images of rape and taking drugs, but that's the point of this show; to present how brutal and frustrating can be life in prison... heck, you can't show life in prison like a "clean environment" with "likeable characters", right? Oz is perfect in every way, the actors are doing an excellent job and the whole hour of this show is going threw really really fast. The only thing that I didn't like in this show was the last season of the show, I think it became too weird and brutal and the finale was not satisfying. But overall Oz is still my favorite show on TV so far, it surpasses Sopranos and million CSI and Dr. House crap with just a main title. Brilliant show which has the balls to show what other shows are taking away from us; realism. One of the best TV shows out there, if not the best one. Why? Simple: it has guts to show us real life in prison, without any clichés and predictable twists. This is not Prison Break or any other show, actually comparing to Oz the show Sopranos look like story for children's. Profanity, cursing, shots of explicit violence and using drugs, disgusting scenes of male sexual organs and rapes... all this and more in Oz. But this is not the best part of Oz; the characters are the strongest point of this show; they're all excellent and not annoying, despite the fact we are looking at brutal criminals. The actors are excellent, my favorite are the actors who are playing Ryan O'Reilly and Tobias Beecher, because they're so unique and changing their behavior completely. And most of all... the don't have no remorse for their actions. Overall... Oz is amazing show, the best one out there. Forget about CSI and shows about stupid doctors... this is the deal... OZ! Yes, this show had a lot of male frontal nudity and yes, over the years the plot lines became over the top, melodramatic and very unrealistic, however, it didn't matter because the show is great. You really get involved in the characters and every character, no matter how minor or major, is perfectly cast.

I can't imagine anyone else except JK Simmons play the neo-Nazi racist rapist leader, nor anyone else playing Tobias Beecher except Lee Tergesen. The transformation of his character from season 1 to season 2 is amazing. However, the character that MADE Oz OZ was CHRIS KELLER (played by Christopher Meloni). He didn't have relations with anyone else in prison except Beecher (well, except Ronnie Barlog, but that was only to get Ronnie to stop playing around with Keller's lover boy, Beecher). Their relationship transcended sexes and Tom Fontana actually made us care about those two and want those two to be together.

I loved Vern's soft spot for his kids in the show and how Fontana made sympathetic characters out of all these heinous criminals that we grew to adore, even Simon Adebesi.

However, some plot lines were totally unbelievable and unrealistic: * A guy building a bomb in oz * Guys standing in a spotlight in their windows in their pods looking at other men plotting something in their mind - too over the top. * Drugs getting in oz * Everyone in the rehab group used or sold drugs and sister Pete never helped anyone in six years. * People getting killed in the gym, supply closet and kitchen. * No one hurting Ryan's mom * No one fighting Cyril outside the boxing ring (except Vern of course) * Two inmates with tools being left alone in the elevator shaft and one of them dying with no investigation. * Karl Metzger (guard) gets killed and no one investigates. * Governor holds all his press conferences at the prison * All an inmate needs to do is say "i want to see Glenn" or "i want to see mcmanus" and they are taken to them no questions asked. * People die every week in Oz * On the outside, people kill someone and get 20 years, up for parole in eight, but if they kill someone on the inside they go to death row almost immediately * There is no on site paid staff in the kitchen or mail room - inmates run both departments no questions asked * Aging drugs for inmates to substitute as time served * Ryan has no friends or associates but he never gets hurt, killed, maimed, raped or beaten. * The guys NEVER flush the toilets when they go to the bathroom or throw up. * An NBA scout comes TO the prison to recruit for an NBA player (yeah right)

However, with all these flaws, this show is still awesome. It's gruesome, brutal, sexy, edgy, raw and innovative. Dean Winters, Scott William Winters, JK Simmons, Christopher Meloni, Luiz Guzman, Adele (the guy that played Simon Adebisi), Eammon Walker, Lee Tergesen, Terry Kinney, mUms, Male Alexander, LL Cool J, etc, etc, etc. All are awesome and made the show worth watching.

I highly recommend renting this on DVD. Season six comes out 9/06 (next month). First five seasons are on DVD - watch them and then watch them again with audio commentary. I loved the director's commentary with Chazz Palmentari. The sequence with Andy Schillinger running down the cafeteria tables and then falling into the hole was an awesome, top notch shot!!!! Kudos! And Kathy Bates directing Family Business and the famous wrestling scene between Beecher and Keller - simply amazing!! Brilliant!!! That'd have to be so weird for Meloni to touch Tergesen's private part in front of an icon like Kathy Bates in that one scene!! Wow! Pulled that off beautifully, pun intended!

I'm waiting for Oz: The Next Generation!!!! (like with Star Trek, etc.) C'Mon!!! Let's get it started!!!! What a great show! A very underrated dramatic show. It is great how there are no main characters and every episode some other character(s) are the main character(s).I think the best character on the show is Vern Schillinger. He is a tough, bad guy and an Aryan on top of that which makes him a true bad guy prisoner who there are many that are known to be. This show has many murders, I think it is a little over exaggerated for the killing on the show, but I have to admit that is one of the reasons why I think the show is so great.I think some characters were killed off a little early, but some sure still made their mark. You can't compare things like Prison Break to this show, they are totally different. I think some of the actors on the show are also very good and underrated and should what is due to them. A great show, my favorite's. A show that should be considered of the the greats for years to come. This show has everything you could ever want from a prison drama. There are twists and turns all the way till the season finally. The characters are very strong, and it gives the show a lot of power. When watching the show you feel for not only the prisoners, but the prison staff. The actors who play prisoners on this show have done a very good job portraying a prisoner. Also if you like law and order svu or law and order criminal intent there are many actors from this show that appear in those shows. The only problem with Oz is that it was not long enough. This show could of easily had nine to ten seasons without getting old. Even after the season finale i sill find myself watching Oz all the time on DVD. This show is easily one of the best shows on television. Don't be a fool, go watch Oz. Oz is the TV show which is intensive non-stop adrenaline. Its a show which is not aimed at a large audience but a specific one as its themes are very adult orientated. It obviously did not achieve mainstream success as this was an impossibility but had much fame with its audience and many famous actors either guest starred or became part of the show.

Oz is a series of fictional stories based on a prison located somewhere in the New York state. There are many different ethnic groups which play a somewhat equal role in being represented. These groups are the Muslims, Homeboys, Aryans, Bikers, Italians, Latinos, Irish, Christians, Gays and Others. Some have some form of affiliation with each other such as the Bikers and Aryans whilst the Aryans are the enemy's of numerous groups such as the Muslims and the Homeboys.

In Oswald Penitentary (Its official name) there is a policy that not too many members from any one ethnic group may be allowed. It is the maximum security prison and the regular prison where sometimes prisoners are sent to or from in the show is called "general population" or "gen pop". The main character of the show is Augustus Hill who also narrates the story before and after the main segments, crossed between a documentary type and a biographical one. Hill is bound to wheelchair usage as a consequence of his unknown past. He is part of the "others" group which features individuals which don't fit into the other prison gangs.

Of the many groups it is the smaller ones which are able to keep themselves avoided by trouble most of the times as the larger ones are busy in conflict with one another. Are few of the most noteworthy characters are as follows: 1)Ryan O'Reilly is in charge of his fellow Irishmen and somehow always voluntarily gets himself involved in lethal activity for the weakest link. 2)Miguel Alvarez is the watched Latino who has constant struggles with coping with his popularity within his own gang and with others. 3)Simon Adebesi is the Nigerian who was the former leader of the Homeboys gang. Hes also very physically quite large and solid. These two reasons are why he is one of the most powerful inmates inside of Oz. 4)Karim Said is the Muslim and Black nationalist who is a very defined in his opinions and desires. He fights for the rights of his people on many levels through the show, from his own Muslim group, to his wider Black group and even fighting for all the groups against the unjust rules of authority. He character seems in some ways identical to Malcom X, the famous Black rights fighter who was also Muslim.

All in all, for its genre Oz is possibly the greatest (fictional prison show or show based on ethnic relations). If it doesn't sound as if your own type of series it probably shouldn't be tried out, but if it does interest, then it is definitely worth viewing. The biggest problem with the show is how it is addictive, some may feel wrong viewing a lot of this kind of material. Researchers argue on whether it is harmful or not but in the end it is just a reflection of the society of the world we live in today. This means that it is as an informant and an indicator of the world than an aggressor. HBO created this show for purposes of making us see the most realistic view of prison possible and they did a hell of a job. Oz was created by the creators of Homicide who wanted to show a raw version of prison. This show is what launched the idea of every other HBO Original Program such as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Arliss, Deadwood, and Six Feet Under amongst others. Oz is the nickname for the Oswald State Penetentiary, a fictional prison in some US state which is never stated (Though with the accents, crime scenes, and racial distribution NY is assumed). The main prison unit looked at on the show is Emerald City, a seemingly ideal prison unit with more privlages than others thought out by a liberal unit manager named Tim McManus. Overall this show shows us what it is really like if one wishes to survive in prison.

There are about 10 gangs shown on Oz. First we have the Muslims, a group of blacks who wish to destroy the injustices of the criminal justice system and help improve living conditions for blacks everywhere. They are led by Kareem Said a black militant minister who wishes to destroy everything racist about the judicial system. As a group they are not so much anti-white but rather anti-injustice. Our second group of blacks is the Homeboys who are essentially the street blacks who wish to keep all the bad ghetto behaviors up and run the drug trade. Their leadership varies mainly because they are always losing members due to violence. In this group, one character who is acted terrifically is Simon Adebisi. Adebisi is an African inmate who is essentially the most frighteningly evil character alive. This gang as a whole gets side help from the Irish at times and is always in conflict with the Latinos and Sicilians for drug distribution purposes. Being that Oz is mostly black, the Homeboys have the most soldiers of any gang inside.

The Latinos and Sicilians, like the Homeboys have varying leadership due to violent deaths that occur throughout the show. The Sicilians pretty much have the most substantial say in how any illegal activity gets conducted in Oz. The Latinos make their presence known so that they can at least be coasting well if they are not in control. Unlike the Homeboys however, these gangs do not have as much internal battle for power and are usually more stable when it comes to drug usage. The Irish who are mentioned above are a smaller gang led by a manipulative and snakelike Ryan O'Reily. O'Reily always manages to stay in good graces with all the drug powers and manages to manipulate things in his way whenever he wants. They are in no illegal control but they are at least on good terms with all those who are.

Amongst the whiter inmates, we have the Bikers and Aryans. The Bikers are merely a bunch of tattooed drug users who help the Aryans out most of the time. The Aryans are the most hated and hateful gang to most any viewer of Oz. They are led by Vern Schillinger who is amongst the most racist, sickest, and sadistic characters one will ever see. Both gangs control nothing illegal, they just merely let the darker skinned inmates see that they are a substantial threat to anyone who thinks all white inmates are soft. We also have the Others. The Others is a gang of outsider prisoners who are not necessarily a problem to any other inmate. In this group we see Tobias Beecher, a lawyer who accidentally killed a young girl whose life is forever altered by prison. We also see Augustus Hill, a black man bound to a wheelchair for killing a police officer who narrates the show and introduces the audience to every inmate. The character's crimes are shown as they are introduced and Augustus lets us know how long they will be in prison. Finally amongst gangs, there are the Christians and Gays. The Christians merely stay religious to keep from going mental and the Gays are a bunch of cross-dressers who are often raped by other inmates.

This show gets in depth on a lot of issues dealing with the criminal justice system and is more explicit than any movie about prison. Since language is unedited, we here more racial epithets and cuss words than we would on any other TV show. Augustus Hill's commentary provides a good way for us to truly understand each and every issue involved with Oz. This show as good as it is is not at all for the light to medium hearted. It explicitly shows drug use and distribution by any means possible, prison rape, murders, fatal stabbings, and general gore than anything anyone else has seen. In my opinion it is the most influential and greatest show ever created but I can see at the same time why other people would be disturbed by this show. If you are at all interested by shows and movies about prison, Oz is a must see. One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.

The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.

It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.

I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side. Oz, is one of the most mind-blowing and addictive TV experiences ever.

Having caught pieces of this on SBS, I was at first skeptical, however, having finished now the 4th season, I sadly know that that this brilliant show is approaching its end, (6 seasons), and yet I still can't get enough of OZ.

Want something that will push your senses and your stomach to the limit...Oz fits the bill, hands down.

This isn't kid's stuff, folks, its violent, brutal, and not pretty. Why, its a experimental unit inside a maximum security prison.

Tom Fontana's Oz is brilliant in all the right departments, the actors, the writing, and directing.

HBO's Oz site is also highly recommended, for newcomers, for info about this series. This was the first one-hour show, produced by HBO, and it proves what a master-work it is and that others would follow.

Thank-You HBO Oz is by far the best show ever to grace television. Better than The Sopranos, yes, ER, yes, CSI, absolutely. Uncompromising, daring, and utterly disturbing yet profoundly moving. Oz took us past any image of prison that anyone had ever conjured up on television. Tom Fontana truly did a brilliant job with the writing. No topic is taboo. Rape, drugs, murder. Oz is evidence of just how good TV can be. It follows characters of all different backgrounds and all different races, but always comes back to your everyman Tobias Beecher, in jail for vehicular manslaughter. We see what we don't want to see, pain, death, mayhem. Oz will disturb you, make you cringe, make you look away, but most of all it will make you think. To see Oz is to see a truly magnificent television production This light-heated (for Cassavetes)love story is pleasantly conveyed by two wonderful performances by Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassell. Rowlands was never more beautiful as a repressed, damaged mid-30's woman who meets her match in Seymour. Cassell is a powderkeg of energy and romantic notions (on his terms).

There is a great supporting performance by Val Avery as Zelmo Swift and an unusual (as always) Timothy Carey that's worth the price of admission. Made between Husbands and A Woman Under the Influence this is Cass' most accessible film that should touch the heart of anyone (especially the Cassavetes haters) who claim his films are too long and ponderously heavy at times. Made my Top Ten that year and not seen by enough people. An 8 out of 10. I feel as though I know these people and have known people similar to them. These days, though, people are discouraged from showing such passion about anything especially love and loneliness. It has a slow beginning, but then look out! If you love romantic comedies, but would like to see one that had some basis in reality for a change {or at least did have back in the 70's}, then you should see this movie! Life is crazy. You're crazy, I'm crazy, we're all crazy. We're all a little bit Minnie, and a little bit Moskowitz. Sometimes it does seem best to be sensible...but then what might you be missing out on?

You gotta be you. You don't have to park cars and semi-randomly yell at people, but you can't hide yourself behind a veil (or dark sunglasses) and pretend and act like everything is okay. And sometimes, you really do have to throw caution to the wind, because why else are you alive?

I'm not going to 'rate' this love compared to Cassavetes' other movies, because they are all absolutely 100% unique works and each their own individual act of expression and exploration of our lives. In that sense they are all great, and comparisons are odious. For sure, this movie has that one crazy, sometimes maddening, but ultimately wonderful and freeing quality that all his movies have- you never know what's going to happen next, and you never know what the characters are going to think, do, or feel next. Neither do the characters themselves- and do we really want to live our lives any other way? Unlike Moskowitz, you can have a great job and judiciously sock away money into your IRA, but still live the life of an adventurer inside- in your feelings, your spirit, and your very experience of life. Yeah, we can have it both ways, that's what Cassavetes shows us. Thank God somebody did. Minnie and Moskowitz is the most pathetic and ungraceful love story I've ever seen. Between Minnie, a disillusioned museum curator whose abusive married boyfriend dumps her and leaves her even more uptight and confused than she already was, and Seymour Moskowitz, a parking attendant so desperate for attention that he spends his nights going to bars and restaurants aggravating people, there is a chaotic and disenchanted match from the start. Just like so many pairings that we see every day.

In nearly every love story, there is a man and a woman, the man being confident, funny, either classically hot or attractive in his own way, whose shortcomings are charming, and the woman a wounded soul who could have any man she wants who chooses this guy because there's just something about him. These movies make everyone feel so good because the characters embody what every man and woman wants to be, not what they are. Minnie and Moskowitz, instead of indulging in any hint of fantasy in the realm of romance, depicts people who may just be more common than the attractive, confident people with so much experience playing the field. What's the story behind the love affairs of the ugly, alarmingly awkward man with no life and no job that we all run into, or the woman so crippled by insecurity that it's difficult to talk to her?

This film is not as fascinating as Cassavetes's Faces or Opening Night, but it has that riveting quality that Cassavetes always fought so hard to render, which is an unbridled depiction of people underneath the ego that hides behind itself in nearly all other films. Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, delivering startlingly pitiable people, are hardly likable. Moskowitz nearly drives us mad, let alone Minnie. He imposes himself so forcefully in her life, the dates are an explosion of the inner voices of ours that respond to the screamingly inept uneasiness on dates we've all been on, rejections we've all swallowed, and arguments we've all had that we know were our own faults. I admire a film like Minnie and Moskowitz because, as the trademark is with the films Cassavetes helmed himself, it identifies with us in 100% honesty. Our egos play no part in company with his characters, thus a tremendous achievement per performance by actor. real love. true love. mad love. beautiful love. ugly love. dirty love. sad love. happy love. silly love. smart love. gorgeous love. dumb love. love love love. minnie moore understands that what she really needs is a man who trust her, trust her and love her madly. of course when this man comes along... she tries to run away but seymour, wonderful seymour, he trusts her, he believes in her so he is going to fight for her against her. i want to be like seymour moskowitz. i want to be that kind of man. a man willing to love without been afraid to fail but willing to fail. that's a kind of hero. that's my kind of hero... and minnie moore is my kind of woman. long live cassavetes and all his lovely bunch! Although it may not be Cassavetes' best work, Minnie and Moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. The plot is whimsical and charming, and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion -- much more drama than comedy, contrary to IMDb's profile. Yes, the story is whimsical, but not arbitrary; it succeeds as believable, albeit a tad forced -- which I will come back to. All of the artistic aspects are of true Cassavetes form: the cinematography and camera-work are delights, and the soundtrack -- albeit barely there -- is complimentary. Plus I believe I noticed some nods to Godard and such in the editing -- as I have in a few of Cassavetes' other films -- (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene), which are interesting.

I feel the plot is built up nicely, with the first half being particularly enjoyable. Seymour's conversation with Morgan Morgan (Timothy Carey) in the diner, for example, is wonderfully funny and fascinating, and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. This philosophising -- a tradition in Cassavetes' films -- is what made the film for me. Seymour's amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp -- though his character is curiously similar to that of his in Faces (1968). This tipped me, however, (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against Cassavetes' best work. I gained an affection for this film that I lacked on first viewing.

There are, sadly, several aspects that make this film imperfect. I find the plot to be unbalanced. As I said before, it builds up nicely, but it wanes a bit here and there, particularly towards the end. Because of the spontaneous style in which Cassavetes worked, and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise, the quality of his product can easily go either way. In this case it's inconsistent. I assess that most of this film was improvised, and most of it beautifully. But one or two scenes, unfortunately, just don't work. In particular, the scene after Seymour fights with Minnie's work associate outside her house. During what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film, Cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue -- presuming some was planned beforehand. This, I believe, was a mistake. One gets the impression Cassel doesn't quite know what to do, as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech, often not making sense, and overacts; all of this damaging the scene and the character development. I understand Seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool, but Cassel's attempts here are misapplied. Why does he cut his moustache off? These flaws are resulting from: a lack of direction on Cassavetes part; a lack of understanding and forethought on Cassel's part; a lack of rehearsal and preparation; etc. Evidently, Cassavetes didn't learn from his mistakes, as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) -- the committing scene, and ending.

The flaws I mention are not minor, but they do not ruin the film. They simply make some scenes cringe-worthy and unrealistic, spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. However, I am very, very fond of Cassavetes and all of his actors, particularly Cassel, in spite of the faults I mentioned. This is a very enjoyable film, although it proves the precariousness of Cassavetes' style. I would recommend this for anyone who is an admirer of the late John Cassavetes. And for those who have never known of Cassavetes. It is an excellent film. I really don't have the time to go into the details of why this is my opinion, but if you're looking for something gutsy, with lots of scenes to mull over, then this one is for you. The cinematography is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the film, as well as the story itself. This "review" does not do the film justice. It is an experience one must view for themselves. LOTS OF CHARACTER. VERY GENUINE. Possibly John Cassavetes best film to date, and definitely his funniest. Seymour Cassel plays the young Moskowitz smitten with real-life wife of Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, excellent as usual. A must see gem of a film, if you can locate it. This was my first look at this short-lived British TV horror series, but I had seen a couple of Hammer horror films (Horror of Dracula, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter) and thought highly-enough of them to give this a look.

This first episode was a shocker - not for the horror but for all the nudity. Was this "regular" TV in England in 1980? If so, it showed a lot more skin than what we see in North America. There were three separate scenes showing naked women and their breasts, one scene where a guy put his hand on one, and another scene with man a top of a woman faking intercourse. Hey, I'm not complaining.

The story is a simple one: a witch who had disappeared in the 17th century comes back to her old house and makes life tough for the married man. The latter, Jon Finch as "David Winter," wasn't much of an actor, but his wife wasn't bad and was a really beauty. She was be Prunella Gee as "Mary." The husband suspected her, rightly so, of having an affair and that plays a part in this story.

Patricia Quinn was entertaining as the laughing witch "Lucinda Jessup," who comes back with a mean streak in her and has a good time tormenting the couple until things go wrong at the end. As a man, I'd say it was particular fun to see the two women going at it! This starts off slowly but once "Lucinda" starts stirring up things, it gets very entertaining. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios and enthusiastic watcher of their Gothic Horror films, I wonder what took me so long to start watching their TV-series "Hammer House of Horror", which only ran for one season in 1980. Now that I've seen the first four episodes of the show, I can say that it easily satisfies my expectations so far. While this first episode "Witching Time" is maybe not the most imaginative Horror story ever told, and doesn't quite deliver the marvelous Gothic atmosphere that I love Hammer's films from the 50s to the 70s for, it doubtlessly does accomplish to tell a surprisingly spooky tale and create some genuine creepiness within fifty minutes. Film score composer David Winter (Jon Finch) is tormented by the 17th century witch Lucinda (Patricia Quinn)... While he story may be simple, but for a running time of less than an hour, it is effective and delivers many creepy moments. Northern Irish actress Patricia Quinn, who is probably best known for her role in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975) as well as the fantastic Monty Python comedy "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" (1983), is wonderfully malicious in her role which fits her like a glove. Jon Finch is also quite good as David, and while Prunella Gee, who plays his adulterous actress wife, may not be the best actress ever, she is definitely nice to look at. The episode is accompanied by a nice score which plays along well with the atmosphere. Overall, "Witching Time" is a very entertaining episode with several truly creepy moments, and decent opener to the series. Hammer House of Horror: Witching Time is set in rural England on Woodstock farm where stressed musician David Winter (Jon Finch) lives with his actress wife Mary (Prunella Gee) & is currently composing the music for a horror film. One night while looking for his dog Billy David finds a mysterious woman in his barn, calling herself Lucinda Jessop (Patricia Quinn) she claims to be a witch who has transported herself from 300 years in the past to now. Obviously rather sceptical David has a hard time believing her so he locks her in a room in his farmhouse & calls his doctor Charles (Ian McCulloch) to come examine her, however once he arrives & they enter the room Lucinda has disappeared. Charles puts it down to David drinking too much but over the next few day strange & disturbing things begin to happen to David & Mary...

Witching Time was episode 1 from the short lived British anthology horror series produced by Hammer studios for TV & originally aired here in the UK during September 1980, the first of two Hammer House of Horror episodes to be directed by Don Leaver (episode 13 The Mark of Satan being the other) I actually rather liked this. As a series Hammer House of Horror dealt with various different themes & were all unconnected to each other except in name & unsurprisingly Watching Time is a sinister & effective little tale about a witch, the script by Anthony Read benefits from it's slight 50 odd minute duration & moves along at a nice pace. The character's are pretty good as is the dialogue, there are some nice scenes here & I liked the way it never quite reveals whether David & Mary are going crazy or not. I think it's a well structured, entertaining & reasonably creepy horror themed TV show that I enjoyed more than I thought I would.

Being made for British TV meant the boys at Hammer had a lower budget than usual, if that was even possible, & as such there is no gorgeous period settings here as in their most well know Frankenstein & Dracula films although the contemporary English setting does give it a certain atmosphere that you can relate to a bit more. Another TV based restriction is that the exploitation levels are lower than you might hope for, there's some nudity & gore but not much although I didn't mind too much as the story here is pretty good. It's well made for what it is & Hammer's experience on their feature films probably helped make these look pretty good, the acting is good as well with genre favourite Ian McCulloch making a bit-part appearance.

Witching Time is a good start to the Hammer House of Horror series, as a 50 minute piece of British TV it's pretty damned good, now why don't they make show's like this over here anymore? Years ago, with "Ray of Light," Madonna broke through to a truly amazing level of musical artistry, and since then she's occasionally transcended even her own standards. This concert production, with its hypnotic editing, amazing dancing, hallucinatory lighting effects, and trance-inducing arrangements, blows away all previous efforts. Madonna's apparent ambition -- to single-handedly bring about world peace through music and dance -- may seem hubristic or absurd to some. But hell, somebody's got to do it! Thanks to her assemblage of the remarkable talent of everyone involved in this production, "Confessions Tour Live from London" places her once again among the top ten artists working anywhere in the world in any medium. This is a spectacular production! I have seen the show live twice in Chicago and my only problem with the production was the fact that I was able to perceive only fragments of what was going on. The stage consisted of three giant catwalks and the platform and as the action moves from one part of the stage to the next sometime you loose track of what is going on no matter where you are located. As always, this is a thought-provoking sensory overload, skillfully captured in high definition with 15 cameras! The footage was Masterfully edited, one of the best concert DVDs of all times in my opinion! I only hope and wish that they will release this on Blu-Ray of HD-DVD so that we can re-live this extravaganza over and over again. Well I have to say I had the chance to see this show here in Philadelphia,PA sometime in June of 06.And I really loved it.my all time favorite Madonna look was the 1990 Blond Ambition tour era.this to me is "MADONNA".now that she is a mother of 3 she has to change some things to suit motherhood.and I totally agree.this is a classic Madonna concert.I wish "live to tell" wasn't edited.we saw body's falling from buildings on 911,we can see a woman on a cross...any way I'm looking forward to the release of this tour on DVD and hope it is the entire show unedited and with a bunch of bonus footage.she is a artist of all time.the best out there...and still at the top and going strong.long live MADONNA ! This concert is the type of concert that only comes around every twenty years or so, Madonna's Confessions on a dance floor era will certainly be remembered as one of the high points of her career. She's 48 and she looks simply divine, she keeps up with the dancers that are almost twenty years her junior. I am also very glad to report that all the songs were sung live, which is good because she actually sounds better live. Each song was so unique, the visuals where stunning. The performance of 'Live to tell' was fantastic and had me awestruck, 'Isaac' was exotic and gorgeous and was rich with political symbolism, the Arabic horn, the American eagle set free. I particularly liked the rockin performance of 'I Love New York', i almost stood up in my lounge room and cheered when she told her critics to suck George Bushes ****. And then again i was impressed by the 70's inspired music (inferno remix). This Spectacular decedent Concert made a fan out of me.

Verdict: Highly Recommended with a Capital H. The show was amazing and very professional. Madonna is a non-stop, dancing and singing for 2 hours. The opening was pretty good when she came out of the disco ball and also jump was a really good performance. The entire show was full of energy so it's kind of hard to say which were the highlights because every song had something special and unique. I saw live couple of her previous tours (Drowned world and reinvention tour)they were good but you can't compare with this one. The dancers were fantastic, the lights and the whole show were just perfect. Madonna still looks very good. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you to see it. You'll enjoy the show from the beginning to the end. Madonna is still the dancing queen. Madonna has been rocking the boat for over 20 years, and with that comes a lot of experience -obviously- and a lot of knowledge. She was never the one to think about yesterday, au contraire, she seemed to know what is going to be popular tomorrow. She bravely takes all the new trends, technologies, and incorporates them into her own acts. Her world tours have never been 'average'. When Madonna performs, she gives 120% - everything is bigger, better, theatrical and meaningful. She takes inspirations from East, West, and makes then unique. Everything is given a deeper meaning, and The Confessions Tour is not different. From the very beginning, you find yourself sitting on the edge of the chair. She starts with bang, then she does brave circus poses on a horse high up in the sky, she does everything she can to entertain you. She remakes her own songs, giving them a modern feel. She sings on a disco cross, she almost comes in the middle of the stage, and with her amazing dance crew that know no dimensions of fear, the show is absolutely more than you bargained for. It's a spectacle, an audio-visual orgasm that cannot be put in words. Lucky are the ones who actually experienced seeing Madonna on stage. Pushing fifty, she is still in an incredible form. Recent Sticky and Sweet Tour is even more ground-breaking, which proves nothing else, that Madonna was, is, and ever be the one and the only queen of pop. This show was so exhausting to watch and there's only two numbers Drowned World (Substitute For Love) and Paradise (Not For Me) were you can sit down and just contemplate it all. The opening of this show will go down in history as the most visually thrilling, as Madonna enters the stage via a gigantic Swarovski crystal ball that comes down from the ceiling and the huge screens from behind it show images of horses galloping. Horses play a role in this show due to Madonna falling off one. The infamous scene of Madonna on the crucifix is in this show as a huge screen counts to 12 million, the number of how many African children are orphaned due to Aids. At the end a website address comes up for anyone interested in donating. We then go into the theme of the environment and again images of politics and religion are shown. There's an interlude and then the show starts again to the music of I Love New York and Ray of Light this part of the show is one of my favorites with the dancers doing there funny hand movements. Towards the end there's the Music number with the song Disco Inferno mixed in with the song and the dancers make more of there presence known. The ending again is full of energy as the show wraps up to the tunes of Lucky Star and Hung Up and hundreds of golden balloons fall from the ceiling at the end the message "Have you confessed?" comes up. The DVD is worth buying and when it came out the soundtrack for the show was added as a bonus. Jonas Akerlund did a great job with the footage for this show keeping it consistent with the style of the tour. I have to admit that when first saw Madonna performing Holiday on Top of the Pops many years ago I said to my wife "another American one hit wonder getting the whole thing wrong!!" Well she was wearing a fright wig and was appallingly dressed. I have never grown to love her the way my daughter does but I have to eat my words. I do like some of her stuff and sometimes enjoy her filmed concerts. This Confessions tour film is great,even if the music is not(and its not). I was impressed by the staging and concepts. Madonna's own performance was enhanced by the incredible dancers she chose to support her. My daughter was at the London gigs and was crazy about it. The lady (Madge) has proved my initial assessment of her so very wrong!! This was alright. It was one of those We Gotcha But We Don't Have Enough Evidence Yet storylines. In the couple handfulls of movies I've seen her in, I've never really though much of Stephanie Zimbalist. A professional TV actress she is but nothing really outstanding. Here in this she was definitely above average as the former fed (or was it fed on loan?) profiler. Her character got along well with the motley bunch of Special Investigation Unit cops she was assigned with. There wasn't really a goofy character you'd roll your eyes at and just despise which was good. Also good is it takes awhile to know who the murderer is... but when I found out I wasn't that surprised. Oh well. One more thing that was good was the Los Angeles locations. Quite possibly if this was made today they'd use Toronto or Vancouver but here they really shot in downtown L.A. Like that a lot (even though I semi-despise L.A.) Liked the movie, too. I don't know if I'd ever watch it again but it wasn't too bad. My grade: B- The Captain and Tennille have released a very good 3 DVD package with minimal editing. Unlike most variety show releases these shows have not been hacked to bits. The musical and dance numbers are included with the skits just as they were when first broadcast. I suspect that some musical numbers on the DVD may have been edited into shows in which they did not originally appear but have been unable to verify that suspicion. I've noticed a few inconsistencies between what is on the DVD and program information I've found on the net. I've been unable to verify whether the net information is inaccurate or if the musical performances have been edited into the shows on the DVD. Whatever the truth may be, I'm very appreciative of the efforts made by the production company. I wish every variety show released would show the same respect for the format. I would guess about half the shows broadcast are included. I believe they ran into rights problems on the shows which weren't included. Hopefully those issues can be resolved and a Volume 2 can be released sometime in the future. There are some individual music videos along with a dance rehearsal among the extras. I recommend this DVD to any C&T fan. It is difficult, today and in the US, to understand this movie. We have nothing, really, to compare it with. Here is an attempt at comparison: It is as if during the last years of Saddam's rule, a filmmaker in Iraq were somehow able to make a film, which, for the first time ever, showed life as it really was lived in that country. The life of ordinary young girl, with all the terror and the repression full blown. Then the film was exhibited freely in Iraq. If you could imagine that unlikely event, then you might have an idea of what went on with this film in the last few years of the Soviet Union. Prior to this film, Soviet cinema was highly censored. Soviet movies would only show an ideal life in the worker's paradise. Then suddenly this. The alcoholism, the random sex, the ugly wasteland that was the Soviet city, the choking pollution, the proletariat victimizing each other and themselves, the utter hopelessness - it is all there. People were stunned. Soviet women would often weep during the showings. Many would say that this is the story of their lives. It was a cultural earthquake the like of which filmmakers only dream of accomplishing. It undoubtedly hastened the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Reading the reviews here, I can see that few understand this film. One says it was groundbreaking because it contained real sex. To the Soviet viewers at the time, the sex was a minor event compared to fact that it portrayed reality for the first time in Soviet cinema.

Others compare it to current films such as "As Good as it Gets" Might as well compare Homer's Illiad to the latest John Grissam novel. They simply do not compare. This is not just a film, this is was a social document, and a transforming social force. It needs to be viewed that way or you will not understand the film.

Other reviewers see it as a film about a dysfunctional Russian family. One even says that it is difficult to feel sorry for Vera because she keeps coming back to her family. The point is that Vera and her family are symbols for all of Soviet life. There was nowhere else to go, because the family down the block and in the next town were the same. This was life in the Soviet Union for most people.

This is a film that can be viewed on many levels: as a drama it traces the landscape of despair, as a social document it shows the living conditions of the time, as a political document it shows the attitude of the people and many of the reasons for the break-up of the Soviet Union, and as a moral document it shows the evils of a dictatorship that is out of control, and the cruelties that victims will practice on each other.

Little Vera clearly shows the human toll that Socialism eventually takes on its victims, despite any good intentions that system may have. In doing so it helped end the Soviet regime thus contributing to one of the major changes in modern history. This film achieves what only a few films have ever accomplished. It is not only an stunning representation of history but it also become a force in that shaped history. One of the major aspects of "Malenkaya Vera" (called "Little Vera" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one. The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for "faith", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system. And as the movie shows, there's not much faith to be had in it. The opening scene shows the bleak industrial town of Zhdanov, nearly a hell on earth. When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.

Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters. For example, there's Viktor (remember that "victor" means winner). All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing. Really good. In Russia, the ordinary teenager Vera (Natalya Negoda) lives a leisured life with her drunkard father and her simpleton mother, without working and waiting for the calling for a technical course of telephone operator. Her brother Victor (Aleksandr Negreba) lives in Moscow with the family of his own and occasionally visits his dysfunctional family and Vera, being always motive for arguing. When Vera meets the student of university Sergei (Andrei Sokolov), they fall in love for each other and decide to get married. Sergei moves to Vera's house, but lives in conflict with her father. This relationship leads the family to a tragedy.

I have just seen "Malenkaya Vera", and I liked a lot this deep family drama. I am not familiarized with the life style in the former URSS, but there are some unusual behaviors that I found very interesting. The first one, when Victor tells Vera that she was conceived not because her parents wanted to have her, but because they wanted to move to a larger apartment. Another one, when the family goes to the beach in a truck. Many difficulties of Vera's family and their friends, the repression in the park and other situations pictured in the movie are common in Third World countries. This low budget movie is very well-directed, and the story is very profound and real. The cast has great performances and the actress Natalya Negoda is very beautiful. In the cover of the Brazilian VHS, released by Sagres distributor, there is information that Natalya Negoda was the centerfold of Playboy magazine. I am not sure how precise are the subtitles in Portuguese, since many long sentences spoken in Russian are limited to short translation in few words. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Pequena Vera" ("The Little Vera") Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol. And her prospects for the future are not much better. She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.

Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies. This is the Real Deal: people are passionate, vibrant, and present in a way you'll never see in a drama from the West. A gritty presentation of the decay of family values and human dignity in the wake of Soviet communism, Vasili Pichul's 1988 film Little Vera is a landmark film of modern Russian cinema. Pichul's brutal drama marks a strong departure from the images of sanitized idealism promoted in Soviet times (as in Aleksandrov's Circus), brashly moving the social chaos of his time into the public spotlight. A contemporary Ukrainian setting further intensifies the effect, first by the immediacy of the film to its time period, second by its utilization of a locale not only struggling for identity in lieu of a Soviet system, but also as a nation distinct from the Russian idiom that had dominated the U.S.S.R.

Vera, the film's title character and protagonist, is a rebellious adolescent girl with a "dysfunctional" family including a hard-drinking father and a mother care-worn. Rejecting her would-be beau Andrei, Vera begins a destructive (and primarily sexual) relationship with a college student named Sergei. Despite her parents' dislike for the lazy Sergei, and despite Sergei's rude contempt for her parents, he moves into their cramped apartment. Tensions escalate until Vera's father drunkenly stabs Sergei. Vera must decide if she will stay loyal to her intolerable family by testifying her father acted in self-defense, or continue to support and defend the ever-detached Sergei.

Unbearable in almost every imaginable way, Little Vera masterfully captures and communicates the inescapable void left in social life after the collapse of communism. The sexual aggressiveness of the film (it was the first film to show explicit sex) combined with the unrelenting presentation of social reality (a marked distinction from the socialist realism demanded by Stalin) effectively confronted the conditions of former-Soviet life. Most interesting, however, was public reception. While many wrote hate mail to the director and star, the film was wildly popular. Here the double-edged nature of "film as social criticism" emerges: if done correctly, the film will make the audience uncomfortable. Because no easy solution presents itself, some viewers will hate the film and filmmakers for "bringing up" the issue. Many films come to mind as somewhat comparable in this regard: Larry Clark's Kids, Harmony Korine's Gummo, even popular movie's such as John Hughes' Breakfast Club.

I recommend this film to those viewers for whom the prospect of nearly two hours excruciating domestic conflict and social miasma is not overly daunting. The film is absolutely beautiful, and incredibly challenging. Despite the difficulties of watching the film, some moments within it are profoundly beautiful. Of course, the socio-historic and cultural significance of the film cannot be overlooked, and in fact operate as an even more assertive reason for watching this film. Little Vera is the story of a Russian teenager, her family, and her attempts to find meaning and value in a life sliding increasingly into decay. In her search for meaning, she falls in love with a more intellectual and rebellious Sergei, whose hatred for her deeply flawed parents quickly spirals out of control.

Little Vera is shocking and disturbing in nearly every way. The drinking of the father, the enabling and lack of understanding of the mother, the casual lies and misdirection of the brother, and Vera herself forgiving them all their flaws are all shocking and slightly disturbing to watch. However, the raw honesty of the film somehow manages to become even more shocking than the plot or characters. Set in cramped spaces and vast urban decay, Little Vera presented a vastly different view of Soviet life than had ever been seen before. In fact, Little Vera is a portrait of the collapse of Soviet society painted in shades of pain, desperation, and rust. It is the implosion of a family set against the implosion of an entire social order.

Although painful and desperately unsatisfying, the film itself is definitely worth seeing, if only to understand the feelings and cultures still reshaping Russia today. There was a lot about Little Vera that was strange to me. All in all I did enjoy this movie, but a lot of the way the characters behaved was not what I was used to. For example the environment that Vera's family lived in was very tense. Almost every time the family was together they were either drinking, fighting or yelling and frequently it was a combination of the three. After I had viewed the film I felt tense because of all the confrontation that took place during it. I was however very interested in watching the story if this middle class Russian family. Throughout the entire film we are reminded of the industrialized state of Russia because of the repeated shots of a train passing by the screen. It gave the viewer a sense of a mechanically lived life. The characters seemed to be focused on living their lives through work and drinking after work. There was not a feeling of happiness throughout the film. The only time a character was not yelling was when Vera first fell in love with her fiancé Sergei. This was very short lived because the viewer later discovers (after Sergei locks Vera's father in a bathroom and Vera lets him out after which the father proceeds to stab Sergei) that he is abusive. Another time Vera is told that the only reason she was born was so the family could get a larger apartment. It is very interesting watching how both Vera and the family were able to cope with each other's behavior. The film was definitely worth watching because of its depiction of how life could be in areas of Russia. This movie was groundbreaking in the former Soviet Union because it was the first movie released there that contained a real sex scene. However, the movie can be considered great for many reasons, not the least of which is its true, gritty portrayal of disillusionment and pain in the family of a working class Soviet family. I would definitely recommend it. First of all this movie is a piece of reality very well realized artistically. Some kind of combination between "American Beauty" and "As Good as it gets". And of course something specifically to all Russian movies ( of course the valuable one, no dirty propaganda !) : the problem of loneliness of man ... Especially recommended for the people which really want to see beyond all vomitive propaganda about communism ( both positive or negative propaganda ! ). A movie about common people, their problems, lack of satisfactions - especially for young ones, fear when touch the real and too dirty face of the society ... and about the fake "solutions" : alcohol and violence ... and probably the only real solution : true love ... Of course it's very well "located" in the space and time of "Russian perestroika" but it's valid for all the society ( except a perfect one, but don't worry - not possible to find this on our Earth !). For the last time - definitely recommended ... This documentary was my first introduction to Peak Oil theory. A fascinating concept that has a lot of frightening consequences if it turns out to be correct. I had absolutely no idea that the effects of oil depletion would come so soon, it literally took my breath away. This movie will probably open your eyes as to how strongly the American way of life is dependent on the "abundance of cheap oil" - a term used throughout the film. A lot of the topics are plain common sense, and they don't go into a huge amount of depth about any of them. But you've probably never put all the pieces together like this movie does. The interviews with the authors and energy experts are all very interesting. I don't think this film is meant to scare people. It's merely meant to inform people about what to expect in the years ahead, and maybe to encourage you to think twice about commuting 100miles to work and leaving your lights on all day long.

After watching this film I was no longer able to look at the cars and buses zooming by quite the same. Great documentary, everyone should see it. I always knew the day was coming. We all knew. There's only so much oil in the ground, and one day we'll run short. But isn't there supposed to be enough coal to use instead? And wind power, or something. Things for future generations to worry about.

Then this documentary hit me smack between the eyes. Oil makes the fertilizer that is the reason for the first time in world history practically no one lives on farms. When the inevitable oil shortages hit, a lot of things -- air travel, many drugs, plastics, life in the suburbs -- will become impossible. But the craziest insight from the documentary is this: oil gives us so much energy with so little effort, that without it our lives must change. Even if substitutes and conservation are implemented immediately, at best they'll smooth our landing into a strange post-oil world which (the documentary claims) could be starting NOW.

Despite its gloomy message, the documentary is often highly entertaining. It contains fabulous historical footage (sober images of dark urban factories, and campy funny stuff from the 1950's) which reminds us of why we moved to the suburbs in the first place. It also offers hope that a massive effort started now could both ease our transition from oil and make the world a better place.

My only complaint about the documentary is that it does not spend time on the mystery of why we are finding this stuff out now. How can this be a big emergency all of a sudden? We knew in the 1970s we should be preparing for a post-oil world -- and we started to prepare with alternative energy research and smaller cars. If our failure to follow through on President Jimmy Carter's initiatives 25 years ago has doomed us to a hard landing in a post-oil world, why was no one shouting about it on soapboxes?

In the end I found the documentary highly persuasive; and it left me with the terrible chill of being dragged out of a very lovely dream. This is must viewing for everyone not afraid to face a very likely near future that we still have time to do something about.

- Charles I have the good common logical sense to know that oil cannot last forever and I am acutely aware of how much of my life in the suburbs revolves around petrochemical products. I've been an avid consumer of new technology and I keep running out of space on powerboards - so I know that even the energy crunch associated with Peak Oil will change my life appreciably.

The End Of Suburbia shows, in a rational and entertaining manner, just how much my whole family's lifestyle will have to change in my lifetime. I am particularly concerned for the future generations who will have to pick up the tab for our excesses, however the film-makers do offer a glimmer of hope in that they acknowledge human resourcefulness and determination - and the sense of community that tends to be engendered by shared hardship.

There is no point in trying to pretend that Peak Oil is baseless propaganda - or in treating it like the approaching radioactive cloud in "On The Beach" (i.e. with suicide pills at the ready). Even with our best efforts, times will get harder all over, and I'm hoping there's enough compassion and humanity to go around. The End of Suburbia neatly collects many of the concerns with the coming "Peak" of the world's oil supply. As the world population grows, so does demand for oil and power. As we extract oil and power, we come to a "peak" in production. More oil is demanded, less oil is generated. The inevitable outcome is conflict, and major change.

This film will be disturbing, and alarming if you're new to the topic. You may react at first with anger and denial because the implications are so grim. It should be required viewing. Beyond politics, beyond optimism, the math is undeniable.

Suburbia is the focus, because our suburban living areas will be the communities most impacted when the price of energy skyrockets. While intuitive logic would tell you that the big cities will be the places to avoid during a time of crisis, the spread out nature of suburbia will make it difficult if not impossible to maintain an efficient community without our vehicles to transport us.

Peak oil is no longer a topic for discussion by survivalists and backwoods crazies. This issue will be at our doorstep sooner than we think. This film is a lucid, coherent look at it. I own a Video store with hundreds of documentaries. I have seen loads of them and love all of the great info out there. Only a small handful though even come close to offering info as important as this one. I have been reading through other peoples reviews of this film and can't help but notice that the main things people are criticizing are irrelevant. Such as "It is very one sided" Such a pathetic criticism, every where in society that you look you will see the other side, and if you still need help go to globalpublicmedia.com. "It is the same people over and over" Uh one might be led to believe that these people are the experts, so maybe they are the best people to interview. "filming style is all the same, head shots with few exceptions" If you want flash and dazzle watch Micheal Moore if you want info watch real docs such as this one. As you can plainly see none of these complaints have any relevance to the information contained. My guess is that these people are just missing the point and don't wanna give up there SUV's.

My recommendation: Watch it. Learn from it, and continue your education about such subjects. It is very important stuff for EVERYONE. A truly scary film. Happening across curmudgeon James Kunstler's rants led me to recently-formed web logs like Life After the Oil Crash (LATOC), Energy Bulletin, and The Oil Drum, and the data behind the theory of Hubbert's Peak. Like this film, LATOC and Kunstler paint a grim picture of die-off or die-back. I hope they're premature, but in mid-2005 rising gasoline prices, rising oil prices, Chevron's Will You Join Us campaign, BP becoming Beyond Petroleum and even T Boone Pickens lend credence to the idea that we are at or near a peak of oil production.

After copious research of limited data, oil investment banker Matt Simmons has suggested that the Saudis may no longer be able to increase production in their immense, but aging fields. In the face of increased demand (primarily from the US and China), the Saudis have not responded with higher production, despite previous assurances. Stated world production from 2000 and 2004 indicates that light, sweet crude has indeed peaked. which means that refining will become more costly.

The film seems aimed at baby boomers, but younger people, our children, also need to understand the implications of an energy-depleted future. The End of Suburbia is an important documentary about modern dependence on cheap energy and the coming peak in world oil production. The film is an excellent introduction to the peak oil phenomenon, and includes interviews with experts like adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. Mathew Simmons, author Richard Heinberg, "Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World" and author Michael T. Klare, "Blood and Oil - The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.

"Economic growth is predicated upon more electricity. Electricity is predicated on hydro-carbon energy. Period. And Mathew Simmons made a very clear statement, he said: "Future growth is not possible". And for a guy from his background to say that was one of the most.. that's like the catholic church saying the earth is round before Galileo" - Michael C. Ruppert

"The peak has happened. And now, instead of being prophets, we're now historians." - Kenneth Deffeyes The End of Suburbia, as it should appeal to general citizens & mass consumers alike, is likely to become of cultural reform status. The film uses super-cynical analysis by authors, policy makers, and social philosophers on the paradox created by Suburban-Style living--mainly in the Post-War era.

What we have created in America is a place with "none of the amenities of country life, and none of the amenities of urban city life." This is the prescription that is laid out for suburbia, and the film focus's on the singular idea of "Oil". Basically, in the most general sense, that the world is nearing or at it's peak oil production, and when we realize this in full, major lifestyle changes will be in effect, whether by our best interest or forced violently upon us by a quality of living even the slum-dwellers of Calcutta couldn't describe to us.

If nothing more, the end of Suburbia will siphon the viewer flush in their gut, creating a sickening feeling. This is bound to happen. It's a bleak outlook on our inherent way of life. The ambivalence lies particularly in each respective viewers critical analysis of the film. I foresee many unprepared viewers slandering the film as smug liberal propaganda--like a Michale Moore film. What they fail to consider is that a reaction like this is all too normal when such a message hits so unbelievably hard to the lifestyle of the vast majority of the masses.

This is the truth, and as a student studying City Planning, I can tell you that we better get prepared now, because what slim chance we have of maintaining quality of life in this dwindling cesspool of tampered resources is fading faster than a race of people stricken by the black plague. The End Of Suburbia (TEOS) is a very useful film. It's also important and provocative. There seems to be no middle ground with either the film or its main source of entertainment, the anti-sprawl Meister, James Howard Kunstler.

While I am not a big fan of the New Urbanism, my criticism of it is because of its small vision. In the case of New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe - another talking head - you finally hear what's somewhat obvious in and amongst the special added TEOS out-takes... Calthorpe just doesn't understand peak oil.

I've used this as a teaching tool in economics classes to get at the importance of land as a factor of production - a fact long diminished by Neoclassical Economics - and also as a vehicle for educating about: peak oil, our wastrel land use, global warming, our threatened food production, public transit our compromised future

Move over South Park! .... Made by Canadians from Toronto for $25,000 and released in May 2004, this video sold over 24,000 copies by October 2005. One major DVD rental vendor recently ordered almost 400 more copies.

The End Of Suburbia sales were actually climbing 1 1/2 years after its release and it has also been available on one of the major online video services since September 2005.

A sequel, Escape From Suburbia, is in the works with a possible release by August 2006. I have been most fortunate this year to have seen several films at my university's art museum. On occasion, well, more like half of the time, I am unable to watch the films there. I have systematically attempted to view each of the films that I have missed. So far Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea and Who Killed the Electric Car? are the other films that I have had to watch this way. The film covers an intriguing subject matter and is well-theorized (emphasis on this later) but not as successful as Plagues and Pleasures, but far superior to Electric Car.

The film's thesis concern's the future of the American concept of suburban living. It questions the feasibility of such a practice as oil prices rise. So, the film discusses the origin of the suburb, and it's evolution until the early 2000s. One theme the film discusses at length is the alienation the suburb creates among its inhabitants. While several people may live together, they do not "know" each other as we define the word. This, to me, represents the strength of the film: its appeal to actual human emotion. We are able to understand the filmmakers' argument so much easier because they do not have to convince us of their argument's legitimacy. This is also one of the reasons Salton Sea is such a wonderful documentary.

Unfortunately, Suburbia loses its message in firebrand explanation in support of its central argument. As those interviewed speak, their arguments become progressively more akin to those made by militant environmentalists. We are told that oil production will hit its peak in this decade, but are given no scientific evidence (professional reports, statistics, graphs, etc) in support of this claim. We are given little information as to how this date was calculated. Fortunately, this was the only significant flaw that I was able to detect in the film's argument yet it's a glaring one nevertheless. Another less-important discrepancy I noticed was the liberal (political) bias which could polarize some viewers. However, this bias is revealed thorough clips of various events and not the filmmakers themselves. The clips, especially those from the 1950's, seemed a tad unnecessary to me. The film was no better with their presence, and would have been more concise in their absence.

As I thought more of this film before composing this review, I thought about why I found its argument more convincing than other documentaries that I'd recently viewed. Finally, I realized that the filmmakers actually offered analysis to the suburban problem. They propose a decentralized village-system where pockets of people would live together. They posit this practice would lower the necessity for fossil fuels and reduce wasted space. They define wasted space as the long stretches of parking lots between shopping areas, for instance. What is incredible about this supposition is that it's actually conceivable. Most documentaries vaguely state that some problem should be ended but offer no method of doing so. Thinking more about the film, I decided that this analysis is what saved the film for me and why I give it a favorable review.

While neither perfectly convincing nor fluid in presentation, The End of Suburbia is a worthwhile investment of one's time. It not only addresses the contemporary problem of sprawl, but it also provides realistic insight on how to amend it. The audience can also enjoy the high production value with various clips from the 1950's spliced with the modern arguers. People living in Atlanta, Georgia or the Triad region of North Carolina will particularly enjoy this documentary as sprawl is the most established there. I'm giving this film 9 out of 10 only because there aren't enough specific scientific references to the amount of energy it takes to produce food to satisfy the science haters. mdixon seems to believe the admittedly biased commentators are making this stuff up, but even an elementary understanding of resources and the laws of thermodynamics will indicate that at the very least, they are on solid scientific ground when they state that we cannot continue to depend on oil, we must transition to different types of energy, and do not have a plan that will replace the amount of energy we get from oil. Other civilizations have refused to face the facts of life, and have perished. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" which is a popular book, or any elementary Ecology or Earth Science textbook and you can verify the basic premise of this movie. Go ahead, fiddle while Rome burns! A good documentary reviewing the background behind our societies oil addiction, the problem concerning our present energy usage and finally discusses the effects of the coming energy deficit originating from the peak oil production problem.

This movie should be educated to all students as part of their education. Show it to your children, parents, relatives and friends. They will thank you eventually.

After reviewing the contents of this documentary and comparing its mentioned sources I would say that the facts in this movie are well scientifically supported. Well someone who enjoys traveling down the highway at 120kmph, eating McDonalds, and running the air conditioner twenty four seven, and watching Fox News non-stop, I found this documentary interesting. One thing I picked up, when they being they talk about North America, I assume this documentary was Fabrique Au Canadie. For the Canadian bashing I will leave that to Bill O'Reilly.

The consequence of the depletion of oil will affect everyone, especially those who live in big countries of Australia, Canada and the United States. I am sure that Green Peace are cheering no more gas, means no more SUVs, without realizing people who live in the sub zero temperatures could starve to death.

As someone who has studied economics, I know for a fact we are living in a world of finite resources. I will give the documentary props for trying to present a balanced point of view about the depletion of oil. However I am studying a degree in journalism, this documentary is full of loaded messages - Republican as warmongers. What the Democrats didn't send troops to Vietnam?

If you are going to present a documentary about economics and resources, it is best to leave the political bashing to one side, because it could cause a potential audience member to totally shut down. Concentrate on the issue of finite resources. At the end of the day, it is best to open the minds of the mainstream, as it is no good preaching to the minuscule choir.

I really do enjoy watching documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911, and End of Suburbia not for their political bias, because they do remind us the world isn't so safe. Sure I like to shop, and consumer junk food like there is no tomorrow, but if the world is going to end tomorrow I would rather die rich and consume the living beep out of it.

For the potential documentary makers out there, just give the people facts, and let the viewers make up their own minds. If you are trying package your political views as a balanced documentary the people are going to smell a rat a mile away. This film broke a lot of ground and receives on the whole a lot less credit than it's due. It touches on a topic that is ever-present in our daily lives, but which is seen as a phenomenon so common that it does not merit discussion. This phenomenon is that of caregivers (be they doctors or, as in "Broken Promise", a senior social worker) who abuse their position in order to harm those they have been charged to protect.

In Broken Promise, Patty Clawson and her family are abandoned by their parents; but are soon picked up by local law enforcement. Faced with the certain prospect of foster care, Patty begs a young social worker to keep her and her brothers and sisters together. This social worker approaches a senior member of another department, but his request is denied.

The children are parcelled off to seperate homes, thereby following the prevailing opinions of the day and ensuring a "clean break." But it is this event, the "broken promise" which gives the film it's name, which causes the dramatic tension that is to continue throughout the film. Angered by the Young Social Worker's apparent betrayal, Patty Clawson runs away from the foster home she has been sent to.

Faced with the daunting task of finding her family in a climate where the ideal is seen to be a complete separation from the past; she does the only the thing she can to ascertain their whereabouts and breaks into the Senior Social Worker's office to steal the casefile.

Apprehended soon after she finds she has made a dangerous enemy. Furious at the embarrassment this little girl has caused him and his department, the Senior Social Worker decides to use his power and authority to destroy her; something that legally he is quite capable of doing.

---------------

This topic, of the harm of caregivers to clients, is relatively taboo. It certainly has been touched on very little in films as few directors wish to tread the path that would imply that caregivers cause harm.

I think that this film plays a very important role in making the public more aware of this sort of thing. The case portrayed is not only plausible, but has probably happened many times before to many other children all over the world. This film is critical to changing public opinion in order to get rid of the laws that protect harmful people like the Senior Social Worker in "Broken Promise".

I strongly recommend Broken Promise. It is especially appropriate viewing for trainee social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and other caregiving professions. It is a lesson in avoidance that should be taken to heart.

-----------

In terms of the acting in "Broken Promise." Melissa Michaelsen plays a superb part as Patty Clawson. Especially in films such as this believability is critical. If the viewer did not identify with the character of Patty, the whole message of the film would be in jeopardy. It's unfortunate that Melissa doesn't still act in films today, as her performance in "Broken Promise" shows her to have had exceptional talent. I saw this movie, when it first came out. Patty didn't want to be separated from her siblings. However the Juvenile Justice system don't care. When Patty looked at the case file, the judge sent her to a Juvenile detention facility. He claimed she violated the rules of privacy, by looking at private files. She just wanted her family together. I couldn't blame her. The parents were not even fit parents. One of the smaller children had to have a restroom. The father stopped and let them off. He drove off him and left the children stranded, at the service station. Patty had to take authority to protect them, since she was the oldest. They were placed in foster homes. The good part is that the social worker got them back as a family. The head social worker, kept telling him to butt out and not interfere. He was power crazy. He was the one, who had Patty placed in the Juvenile facility. Why didn't they go after the Father, who was released from Prison, for abandonment. Yet the children are caught in the middle and made to feel insecure. This movie from what I remember was such a great movie! I watched it on television when I was 11, and couldn't remember the title of it. If I remember correctly, I do believe that it was a Christmas television movie special. One of my friends at work and I were discussing it several years back, but neither one of us could remember the title. But we did remember almost the entire movie. No one else at work remembered ever seeing it! Thank goodness someone at a TV movie website answered my post! Now I have the fun job of locating a copy of it! It's amazing what you can remember as a child, but this movie definitely remains vividly playing in my head... even after 28 years. And I do believe I only watched it once. Maybe it was because I am the oldest sister in my family, or maybe because I babysat and worked in day care centers, that it stuck with me that long. Regardless of the real reason, it has remained one of the movies that I have been really wanting to watch lately!!! If anyone knows where to watch it online, or has a copy, please let me know. I would so love to see it again!!!! Thanks so much! Seriously, I tried to post this and it says my comment isn't long enough. So, apparently I have to type more, did you know that Melissa Michaelsen is the sister of Peter Billingsley who starred in A Christmas Story? I know I'm not the only fan of this movie, so if anyone has any idea on where to find this I would greatly appreciate it. Hello, I was wondering if anyone has a copy of the movie Broken Promise?? I loved this movie growing up and watched it every time it was on. It has been YEARS since I have seen it and would love to get a copy. I have checked all of the internet and have been unable to find it. If anyone has a copy to trade or sell em please email me at NoelGypsy@Yahoo.com... Thank you and have a great night!! Christine --------- The "broken promise" was made to eleven-year-old Melissa Michaelsen, whose parents have deserted her and her siblings. Taken in by the County, Michaelsen has had to watch helplessly as her brothers and sisters are split up and farmed out to different families. One of the kids is even institutionalized. Juvenile court officer Chris Sarandon joins Michaelsen in her struggle to reunite her family under one roof. Broken Promise was originally offered as a "General Foods Golden Showcase" presentation. It was first telecast May 5, 1981. This movie I watched back in 1981 when it came out. Although I missed the first part of the movie what I did see was great. this movie is hard to find but if found you must see. The acting is great. very believable sad movie. If I ever find me a copy I definitely will buy me a copy to treasure. This zany film rivals the Ghost and Mr. Chicken as one of Don Knott's finest film performances. Knotts is an accountant for a Podunk city hall that is good for swindling the citizens. They fire the "three competent bookkeepers and keep the dumb one" (Knotts of course is the dumb one). When his garbage collecting cohort accidentally empties the wrong trash can, Knotts finds himself wrapped up in a bizarre trap set by the city council for him. Funny moments in the movie include the Bowling Alley Restroom scene, and the cemetery scene is absolutely hilarious. Typical Knotts, the nervous ninny act is well used, and as usual he is surrounded by lots of crazy character actors from the sixties. Such actors as Frank Welker, and Pitt Herbert add to the mayhem. As one may expect Knotts's armed with a big car, a pretty girl, and no real clue of what he's doing. Fun for anyone, especially nostalgia buffs, but just about anyone will love it. This outing of Knotts includes one of his best sidekicks ever, Frank Welker. Welker makes the film. Knotts and Welker compete for the laughs and both receive plenty. Knotts works for a small "no where" town where the city is being run by some of the most ignorant officials. When things go wrong the city fathers, allow Knotts to take the fall. Frank Welker's character befriends Knotts and together they stumble together to clear up the mess and Knott's good name. This film shows the usual Knott's scared to death character that made him famous for years on television and film. This may have been Knotts' last good outing. When you have an extra 90 minutes, get a good old fashioned laugh a great icon, Don Knotts. If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level. A sign of what to expect in this film came when I spotted that this was the first (and probably the last) film to have in its credits a "Vomit Technician".

In what is a couple of hours of silly gags, hilarious violence and excellent slapstick humour.

This film was just what you'd expect from the Bottom boys, and it is great to see them back in their best form after Rik Mayall's life threatening accident.

Richie (Mayall) and Eddie (Edmondson) are too similar to their Bottom characters, if we can have any criticism at all, and Edmondson does a surprisingly good job in directing the film also.

This film has already spawned the predictable comparisons to Fawlty Towers that just aren't there, and the Guest House Paradiso itself is hardly Torquay!

Watch out for some excellently crafted dialogue amongst all the violence and mayhem.

If you don't like Bottom you'll probably hate this - but I loved it. I saw this when it first came out, and found it to be a work of some genius; but I must confess I was clearly in the minority at the time.

For me, the progressive lunacy of the proprietors of Guest House Paradiso just gets better and better throughout the film, with one of the most hilarious climaxes to a film ever.

But I wouldn't recommend it to Mother.

Lovers of gross-out comic book style humour will appreciate this movie; there are subtle jokes hidden away, but they are usually quickly flattened by a comedy frying pan. Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson are superb, and the deadpan, unsuspecting guests are also excellent. This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen - from start to finish it was perfect in timing, atmosphere, punch lines, background music, fighting sequences and every other possible aspect you can think of. To be absolutely honest i find this movie as funny as their (Rik & Ade's) sitcom "Bottom" - maybe even funnier. I laughed constantly throughout the whole movie and can only recommend seeing this film... However, if you watch it without knowing (or liking?) the type of comedy Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson has done before, you might not think it's funny at all - but I REALLY can't understand those who dislike it - THIS IS HUMOUR FOLKS!!! (People getting hit with frying pans, guys running around wearing red rubber lingerie, green vomit filling the hallways, guys getting kicked in the b******s and getting candlesticks in the eyes - HOW can this NOT be funny???) 10/10 While possibly the stupidest, most tasteless, and violent slapstick comedy ever made, Guest House is also a very funny one. Don't listen to the critics, they have no sense of humour. While the climax runs out of steam (but not vomit), it's still a funny party movie. Seven candles in the eye out of ten. bottom at its absolute highest perfection. who ever says slap stick comedy is dead and boring is completely wrong. not that this film will only appeal to those who are of a masculine nature. this is another quality British dark comedy with many many jokes not violence related, but it helps if you can let your senses go and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all.

this is a true example of thriving British ingenuity and homegrown talent hats off to them. on a performance level it reminds me very much of the early works of the marx brothers where the same level of enthusiasm and devotion are present in their acting styles, resulting in a performance where the audience can really engage the innate human desire to see others suffer, yet to be detached and still feel safe, much like the principle many TV chat shows operate on. a truly marvelous bit of manipulation leaving all parties feeling better off. It may not be Oscar material, however this was a very funny film. I was always a fan of Eddie (Edmondson) & Richie (Mayall). "Bottom" & "Young Ones" were legendary TV series', and it was about time they made a film. Some of the stuff they get up to is brilliant, from the pencil is the rear-end, to the rubber sex-pants, as well was the infamous line that Richie says when he falls and a candle he is carrying goes into his eye. He says to Eddie "Candle In The Eye, Candle In The Eye", and Eddie been the simpleton that he is, sticks the candle he's carrying into his eye. Can't forget when Eddie is on his motorbike, and he needs to urinate.... It was a great comedy, not to be taken seriously at all, but the film lacked with an ridicilous ending.

Overall, a exellent comedy, full of laughs, and lots of fake green vomit. A 9/10.

I haven't written a review on here in ages but rewatching all of bottom TV show, live shows and this I felt I had to make my views on this movie known! It is, I feel, the perfect comedy movie. It lacks the lovey dovey story lines(I wouldn't really call richies enfatuation with Gina Carbonara love would you? Or him and eddie going up there naked... not love) that make the rest of comedys go from good to crap, it lacks the usual dilemmas that one must overcome in most other comedy movies... unless you count the fact that they poisoned the guests and must escape from the guests green vomit as a dilemma thats similar to other comedy movies..... No, this movie just sets out and succeeds in doing one thing AND ONE thing only: Making one laugh. What does one require from comedy movies? Laughter. This movie just piles on laugh after laugh without stuffing up the laughs with serious crap like other comedy movies! Thus I call it the, so far, only perfect comedy movie ever made and I will never ever stop watching this beautiful movie! I appluad rick and ade on such fantastic genius! The first bottom movie was an absolute laugh from the beginning. Excellently made and thought out. I will definitely take my hat off to the production team and the actors. The Bottom actors attempt to run a hotel. If you look closely this film was most probably shot in the Isle Of Wight, near my home. This film had some very funny moments. The aforementioned feeb sketch for starters.

The parts where Rik tries to act dignified in front of his guests, looking down at them through his nose. Very subtly done, especially as the guest was a toffee nosed adulterer himself.

The scene where Rik finds out that Gina has a fiancé, "Ahhh. She was stringing me along all the time, the brazen hussy." with his 2 candle eyes. Like as if she really fancied him. But he believed it. That's why it was so funny. Great moment.

Gino was also excellent. He should have been used more as the bad man. "Where are the whores I ordered!" he bellows. Brilliant stuff. Why did I vote 10/10 for this movie that is just completely off guts*? Quite simply because if you just let yourself find it funny, you can just laugh until you choke. Some people might find that it goes too far, it is certainly not for everyone, but whenever I'm down and just need something really really stupid to laugh at, chuck on Bottom or GHP and I can forget all of my troubles and be transported into a magical dark and weird world.

*"completely off guts" is an Australian expression, it has no literal translation. and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.

As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.

I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.

I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it. I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. "Annie" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The "Phantom Of The Opera movies" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my "keepers." Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie. *The whereabouts of Al Capone

*Who shot JFK?

*Cynthia Gibb lands the part of "Gypsy" in the TV remake

These are some of the great unsolved mysteries of the 20th century. How else can I say it, except, I thought she was unredeemingly awful. Mannequin mannerisms, poor reactionary acting (ie: that blank, stoic stare while he co-star in the scene speaks)and a singing voice that most voice coaches would rate "mediocre". But she is stunningly gorgeous and after all, wasn't that what the Gypsy character is all about? Cashing in on her looks cuz' she didn't cut the mustard in the talent department?

As for the rest... Bette is fantastic. Whether or not she's playing herself or playing Mama Rose, it works either way, and I for one thought Rosalind Russell was as exciting as drywall in the original. Peter Riegart as "Herbie" is the perfect understated foil to Bette's over-the-top Mama, and he's the medium-temperature porridge between Midler's hot dish and Gibb's stone cold mush. Riegart is juuuust right.

One final holler to the man responsible for decades to come of Cher jokes: Bob Mackie. Drag queens would kill for the glitz and glamour on display here. Everything's coming up sequins and bugle beads!

After clocking up five seasons on the small screen from 1976-79, 'George & Mildred' transferred themselves to the big screen in mid 1980. Instead of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke retaining their roles as writers, Dick Sharples was brought on board as the writer. Sadly, this film adaption just did not seem to hit the spot with the public. Shame. I liked it, better than the series itself in fact. It was a guilty pleasure.

'Mildred Roper' (Yootha Joyce) is keen to ascertain whether or not her slovenly husband 'George' (Brian Murphy) has remembered their wedding anniversary. Obviously, he hasn't, but to try and convince his wife otherwise he books a table at the restaurant where he proposed marriage to Mildred several years ago.

Upon arriving at the restaurant, they find out that the place has changed hands. Eventually seeing through George's lies, Mildred insists that they celebrate their anniversary at a swanky hotel. Upon arriving at the hotel, George is mistaken by crook 'Harry Pinto' (Stratford Johns) for a ruthless hit-man, who wants a rival to be exterminated!

Not an outstanding comedy as such but a good natured piece of fun all the same. Plans to revive the series after the film's showing were sadly terminated when Yootha Joyce died on 24th August 1980 of alcohol poisoning.

Funniest moment- George talking to his favourite garden gnome. His neighbour, Tristram creeps up behind him and says ''I think its time we had a chat''. George, thinking it has developed the power of speech, drops the gnome in shock!

Merry Christmas to fellow IMDb users, in particular 'AdamFontaine', 'Cyril Blake' and 'TheLittleSongBird'. Have a good one! Swift's writing really has more in common with Kafka and Orwell than with fantasy-adventure writers, so it's curious that Gulliver's Travels has been deemed a children's novel. Lucky kiddies!

The same applies to this movie. There have been some really awful versions of this story, which must be why people are reluctant to look at this version. I mean, it's a TV-movie and it comes from muppetteer Jim Henson, so how should we expect anything but cuteness?

Look again - beauty turns up in the oddest places. Children love this movie enough to sit through all three hours of it, but it also takes the time to get Swift's dark vision right. I hate special effects, but here they are used to carry the story forward instead of just dazzling us. Please note that the producers took the trouble to recruit classical actors like John Gielgud and Peter O'Toole who perform their eccentric roles with perfection.

Dramatically, the romance between Gulliver and Glumdalclitch is rendered touching and poignant, as well as funny (she's a little girl, but twenty times his size). The frame-story has a theme about absent fathers that many children will relate to. And the part about Gulliver in the asylum introduces an element of horror dealing with the abuse of authority (apparently deriving from Val Lewton's "Bedlam" [1946], another forgotten masterpiece).

The VHS is always turning up in the bargain-bin for a few cents, which is an insult to the many great artists who put this thing together. I encourage audiences to recognize a good thing by getting this movie and inspiring others to watch it. Although it has a lot to offer children, grown-ups will find that it stands up nicely to such classics as Aguirre, Brazil, 1984 and other serious fantastic works. This film is wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction. We all know bits and pieces of Gulliver's travels. Tiny people, yeah, sure. Liliputians. Giants too, some of us may recall. Some might remember the word yahoo comes from here. That's were it stops for most people.

Swift's book is omnipresent in school libraries. That's were i first read it, and there's were a lot of people read it for the last time. It is treacherously lightly written, like many of the old adventure books. Children can read it. Still, it's dripping with satire, black and uncompromising. That's something I think most screen writers forget when they adapt this movie.

This movie remembers, however. Our hero, Ted Danson, gives a credible and serious performance as the world-adjusted man who's thrown to mysterious countries so like our own. Gulliver's travels criticizes everything. Theists, scientists, government, commonfolk, ethnicity, humanity itself. Few are spared, and most of the satire is just as fresh today.

While very faithful to the story, the movie also dares adding new angles, all which work very well. The screen writer deserves all credit for managing to balance so well between time and activity(it's not boring, that is).

Production values are way beyond a TV movie. With some marketing this movie would have done well at the box office. All of the fantastic worlds Gulliver visits are well-made, explained in detail and often very funny, much like Swift's book.

Actors are all pros, since this is a British production. Mary Steenburgen stands out, along with James Fox's Dr. Bates, the chillingly cruel doctor who, much like nurse Ratched, only wants the patient's best.

So, a modest proposal, if you ever get the chance to get this movie, do so. It's a real treat. Ted Danson was a great choice to play Gulliver. Even though his background was mostly comedy, he shows here that he can do drama just as well or perhaps even better (though there is a lot of humour in this). Hard to turn a blind eye to his American accent especially since his character is supposed to be English but that's just a minor thing.

All the villains are equally well cast: James Fox, Edward Fox, Peter O'Toole, Warwick Davis, John Standing, etc. Despite the fact that most of them are either tiny people or giants, they are 100% believable in everything they do and their motivations are very clear e.g. the Lilliputians' unremitting suspicion of Gulliver, Grildrig the (giant) dwarf's hatred of him for usurping his position as court jester, Dr. Bates' attempt to have Gulliver proved insane so he can marry Mary.

Mary Steenburgen is great as Mary Gulliver (another 17th Century English character with an American accent but never mind). She is a deeply tormented character because she has been waiting nine years for her husband to return home and when he finally does, he is talking about tiny people, giants, a flying island and talking horses! Mary, despite the strong fantasy element in the story, is a very believable character.

The special effects are breathtaking especially when you consider that it was filmed on a television scale at a time when CGI was in its infancy. It looks very realistic when we see a 6 foot tall man walking through a city filled with people who are 6 inches tall.

The cameos are great as well: Omar Sharif, Richard Wilson, Sir John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ned Beatty. All great actors who create a strong supporting cast that complement Danson's superb acting ability.

The Houynhnhms and the Yahoos are probably the most effective element of the story on the satire side of things: a society of talking horses who do not possess any of the vices that humans have while the Yahoos are primitive, disgusting humans who mate forcefully and appoint their leader depending on how disgusting he is. Gulliver and Mistress' study of them is also very well done and displays the differences and similarities between humans and Yahoos.

The best version of "Gulliver's Travels" by far and one of the best mini-series ever. Excellent story-telling and cinematography. Poignant, biting social commentary.

Superb effects. Well-filmed and acted.

However, the parallel action between the present and the travel adventures (though very well done) at times drags on a little too much (about 3 hrs), and over-interrupts the flow of the story.

I first read the book as a child, and enjoyed the parts about the giants and the tiny people -- but the book lost me when it got to the floating island and the land of the "yahoos"! Well, although the adventure plot may sound like a children's story, it's in fact a very adult story, full of symbolism about the moral decay in England at the time of Jonathan Swift, the author of the novel that the film is based upon. I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.

Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.

It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.

I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland. This production was quite well done for a television original, providing a very appropriate original slant on Swift's work. To make the frame story work well the film begins with Gulliver arriving home. Everyone who has read the book knows that will happen anyway. The frame story of the book has Gulliver's crazed confusion in sections. For example, he is horrified that he will trample little people in England because he has just returned from a land of giants. But the film has all the book sections within one long voyage. When Gulliver narrates his travels the editing cuts from England to the travel are very effective. I confess I found them intrusive and irritating at first, then they became natural. By the end, moreover, they have become a welcome addition to the story. As he tells his adventures to a larger and larger audience, more and more people listen to his compelling fantasy even though they doubt its truth. For example, his hatred of filthy Yahoos and admiration of pure logic from the fourth section comes across well when he is defending his own sanity. The intercuts between events in England and similar events or scenes in the tale is very effective. For example, ripping the cloth from the table to suggest the motion of towing a group of ships is inspired filming. The addition of Gulliver's family threatened by the lecherous doctor works well. Swift only hints at this by having the long-suffering wife protest against further voyages. It becomes a natural part of this story. The casting and acting were competent throughout. Some roles were exemplary. Omar Sharif's mad magician is superb. O'Toole's little emperor is doddering delightfully toward senility. Many specific complaints made by other writers here strike me as simple personal preference, which, after all, is what we are about here. I read the abridged version several times a year from fourth grade on. I may have escaped the complete version until a college class but have read it a few times since. And I had to start it again as I began reading about this film. While the Danson version is superior to any previous film, it does not replace the book. However, I think it will bring many readers to the book. If you have not read the book, enjoy this movie then go to the source. If you appreciate the satire in it, find Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and his "Drapier's Letters." Both are satires attacking the wretched treatment of Ireland and the Irish during Swift's time. The drapier protests cheap, inflated copper coins being dumped on Ireland. These were Wood's light weight coinage, not good for face value in paying taxes and official debts. The outcry from Swift's satire caused the coins to be sent to another mistreated British territory, the American colonies. The universal satire in Swift's book and this movie just poke fun; they cannot change human nature. Give Danson's torturous experiences a chance. I think you will find them thought provoking and entertaining. Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.

Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.

Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this. I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level. This was a truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.

Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in "Cheers" and "becker," was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.

Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.

This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary. Lemuel Gulliver (Ted Danson) is a doctor who goes missing at sea, leaving pregnant wife Mary (Mary Steenburgen) behind. Eight years later, he turns up, disheveled and seemingly mad - babbling about his adventures in the lands of the tiny Lilliputians, the giant Brobdingnags, the floating island of the intellectual Laputa, and the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent, talking horses who have to deal with the Yahoos - a race of bestial humans - among many other adventures. The not-so-good Dr. Bates (James Fox), who has designs on Lemuel's wife, has Gulliver incarcerated in a mental institution, and Lemuel, Mary, and son Thomas (Tom Sturridge) must find a way to prove his sanity.

A splendid adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical novel, this film is a magnificent adaptation on so many levels: the story, the satire, the characters, the visuals, the brilliant cast. It's simply a treat to watch, and it's almost amazing considering that it was a made-for-TV film.

The film does a brilliant job of capturing Swift's vicious satire, which cuts like a hatchet through British society of the time, but still resonates today. The wise Brobdingnags and the Houyhnhnms are almost perfect individuals who find it virtually impossible to understand why Gulliver speaks with such pride of the vices and corruptions of his society. The scenes where Gulliver struggles to prove himself different from the Yahoos are perhaps the best, with biting satire in describing how they pick their leaders ("they seem to pick the worst among them. . . who rules until they find someone even worse"), go to war ("We only go to war for a very good reason - such as they are weaker than us, or we want all of their land"), etc. The scenes involving Laputa are also effectively done - the intellectuals are so wrapped up in their specialized fields that they have no time for anything else, and really possess little common sense. And the addition of the asylum plot line enhances the story greatly - Dr. Bates is truly nasty character, and when he gives a speech to the inquiry on Gulliver's alleged vices, it's quite clear that he's describing his own faults.

The film makes use of beautiful, and fairly convincing CGI effects depicting the very diverse settings of the novel with great effect. The contrast of sizes is done in a very skillful way, and all of the worlds depicted in the story are convincing in their own way. The cinematography (particularly that concerning the asylum) and the costumes are brilliantly done. The editing of the present with Lemuel's memories is a device which could be awkward, but works very well.

The cast is truly wonderful; a veritable who's-who of British and American talent. Ted Danson gives an excellent, multi-layered performance as Gulliver, showing effectively his transformation from a person bewildered by his strange surroundings, to the lunatic state he was in when he reappears, to his rational, intellectual personality at the end. Most well-known for his work on sit-com, Danson shows that he's more than just Sam Malone with this wonderful serio-comic performance. Mary Steenburgen is effective as his wife, and James Fox is absolutely repulsive as Bates. The rest of the cast is made up mostly of cameos, with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Warwick Davis, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Chaplin, Alfre Woodward, Edward Fox, and Sir John Gielgud being the most memorable - but even the smallest parts are very well-played.

While not 100% faithful to the book, "Gulliver's Travels" is a triumph of story and images. It's not to be missed.

9/10 Gulliver's Travels is, at the beginning, a satiric novel written by a great misanthropist called Jonathan Swift. So it is not recommended to judge of this movie, just by itself. We must go deeper into Man's conscience to get to the point where Swift would have lead us. Gulliver has lived a voyage of truthfulness, of solitude, of apprehension of what may be his true life. We cannot just sit and watch that movie, saying it is so cutie or so boring. The matter is far beyond that and I would like everyone to expect that. This is the greatest movie ever, as far as you can feel the truths that emerge from Ted Danson's character: the unforgettable Lemuel Gulliver. Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after "well"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where "yahoo" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.) At first i didn't like they way the director was constantly switching from the past (gulliver's travels) to the present (gulliver in the insane asylum). But it really is the best way to film the story even though it took some getting used to. Danson is outstanding as the title character and edward fox makes a wonderful villain. Worst part is mary steenburgen as gulliver's wife. She never has been Hollywood gorgeous and in this film they make her look downright dowdy for some reason. I'll never understand why directors make a woman ugly when it adds nothing to the story! Plus you want to strangle her for being so damn stupid in believing the lies bad guy Bates keeps telling her. Even her son can see thru the bastard. Still a good show and i rate it B+. This version of the Gulliver stories is definitely bizarre. The production adds a frame story (that's what it's becoming famous for) of Gulliver returning to his wife and son. In one vieweing, incredibly overlong and sometimes fails to hold attention throughout, but the odd images and diverse cast will keep you looking. Mary Steenburgen does the best job of the cast. Danson seems a bit out of place with his American accent. The whole asylum thing is awfully disturbing often, but is nonetheless interesting and holds the journeys of Gulliver together well. Danson's character really does seem insane, however... he should have worked on being a little more believeable to everyone, in my opinion. Also confusing is going from present to past. Anyone else think the Yahoos are the ugliest things ever to grace a television screen (or in line for it)? Confusing, sometimes boring, but still highlighted by some good acting, overall wonderful visual effects, and a few enjoyable parts. NBC's first of many event films from Robert Halmi, Sr. See it for yourself to decide how it goes for you, however I give it * * * 1/2 (out of 5 stars). I guess I have to write something here, although I think my one summary says it all. I'm not a huge Ted Danson fan... nothing against the man, just hasn't "done it" for me. This covers the sides of Swift's novel that were never covered before. You can tell the cast was having a wonderful time filming this.

This film has some really impressive action scenes. The humor and action are blended well, though the intensity of the film does not sustain itself till the end. The last scene is a slight anti-climax in terms of action quality and astonishing explosiveness of the scenes preceding it. The humor doesn't seem to be so ridiculously clumsy as in many other Hongkong movies, and this film is of totally other class than most American action-comedies of recent years. Lau Ching-Wan acts as a typical, intuitive police-hero who scoffs at invalid orders from incompetent police superiors. The dialectic of the film is built on the superhuman coolness and ruthlessness of the drug gang, humiliating the police force while providing a serious dose of lead poisoning with a variety of machine guns. Leaving plenty of corpses in it's wake. Yu Rong-Guang is especially impressive as an ultra cool, merciless gangster in this Woo-like piece of action where tough guys are truly die-hard. I'm slowly ploughing through as many Hong Kong action films as I can get my hands on and came across this gem - mainly due to Ching Wan Lau who is one of my favourite actors.

Its a great action film although not as OTT as the title might suggest. It moves along at a great pace and is truly enjoyable.

The biggest surprise of this film was the soundtrack. It would appear that Rob Dougan - the guy who did the 'Clubbed To Death' song which was popular in 'The Matrix' has lifted the soundtrack from Big Bullet and compiled it into one of the tracks on his 'Furious Angels' album; the tune in question is called 'Im not driving anymore' and is also the opening tune for the TV series 'Law and Order' AND the opening track on the 'Matrix Reloaded' DVD menu teaser! That really surprised me, due to the sheer conincidence! One of the two Best Films of the year. A well filmed, well written, well put together film with an outstanding cast. Lau Ching Wan and his friends (Dayo Wong Chi Wa, Anthony Wong Chau Sun, Francis Ng Chun Yu, Jordan Chan Siu Chun, Cheung Man Tat) had great chemistry before the film and their friendship shows in their performances. Theresa Lee plays her comedic role well (Though much like a female version of Michael Wong, her gag seems to be the foreign born Chinese surrounded by native HKers.), and I found myself cheering for innovative explosive scenes, something I haven't done since 1. the fan boys took over alt.asian-movies and 2. John woo's Hardboiled. Sure the ending was expected, but I feel better cheering for cops than a bunch of young gang members. Highly enjoyable. Romuald et Juliette is one of those French romantic comedies where they seem to break all the rules, rather like Trop Belle Pour Toi. The gorgeous Daniel Auteuil learns about true loyalty and love when his life threatens to crash around his ears. The film isn't a preachy morality tale, but a wonderful story that will keep you hooked until the last. Firmine Richard (as Juliette) is a heroine that women will cheer - her laughter is my abiding memory of this warm and witty film. The down-to-earth way she has of including all her children by their different fathers - particularly the birthdays - gives the film an edge that lifts it above your average romantic comedy. But its always the French that seem to show us how effortless this all is! This movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way "Gosford Park" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 9/10 This movie came out about the same time as Pretty Woman. While the general theme is the same: wealthy man meets and learns to love a poor working class woman, the characters of Romuald and Juliette are much more lovable and worthy of our time with them. I have never forgotten them and consider the movie superior to Pretty woman in so many ways. Juliette is a remarkable woman and the clever ways she helps her boss overcome his problems will make you cheer. The final scenes contain some of the most memorable lines in romantic comedy. The efforts Romuald makes to win the love of Juliette surpass the puny climbing scene of Pretty Woman a hundred times over. See this movie, it will warm your heart. I love foreign films and this is among the best. I tend to not see this as a comedy as it is listed and find it a commentary on how we see others around us. Firmine the lead in the film is not regarded must as she is a domestic in a large firm and people say and do things around her all the time that they otherwise would not say in front of others.

This leaves her with a bevy of information that can make or break the mere mortal. :) This actress is wonderful as this character and it is a poignant tale. There is an underlying tale and almost many stories within the story in this film. I just hope that if someone does decide to make an American/English version of this film it is not the vein of Three Men and a Baby that would definitely do a disservice to this FILM, A must see..... This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time! The director did a wonderful job showing the contrasts between social classes, a situation that is very pertinent in France today. All the characters are lovable, especially Juliette and her family. The development of the romance is, while not entirely realistic, at least plausible, and does a wonderful job showing how much people will change for love. I found this to be a heart-warming Cinderella story - but one in which Cinderella is a powerful woman in and of herself. I laughed through this entire film, and absolutely loved it. I recommend Romuald et Juliette to anyone who enjoys unique characters, comedy, and nontraditional romance. i was glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.

i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight! I would not compare it to Le Placard, which IMHO had more comic moments, but Romuald & Juliette while being a slow starter certainly kept your attention going throughout the film, nicely paced and reaching a heart warming conclusion :) There were many marvellous comedic moments, some brilliant pathos and realistic situation acting by all actors.

It was a typically French film, in which while confronting prejudices and phobias, which in turn the made the viewer confront his own shortcomings! I am certainly pleased to have this in my library, and will no doubt watch it time and time again, which to me is a mark of a great film. This movie is a gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss.

I have been keeping an eye out for years for the DVD of this and to see a previous comment about it being released in Sep 2007 raised my hopes. Alas, I cannot find a DVD, does anyone know if there is/was one? This is one of my favourite films; a delightful comedy; so I was thrilled to learn it is about to be released on DVD in the UK, September 2007.

Romuald, played by Daniel Auteuil is a rich company president of a dairy firm. Juliette, played by the excellent Firmine Richard, is a cleaner of the company's Paris offices.Juliette, a black mother of several children, discovers a plot against Romuald who initially ignores her attempts to warn him. Slowly he grasps what this charming lady from the Parisian underclass has been trying to tell him. 'he seeks shelter in her crowded apartment as his marriage and career fall apart. An unlikely love blossoms. Cultures clash in what is a truly delightful light-hearted comedy. In the Belarus of 1942, two Soviet soldiers are captured by Nazi-friendly Belarusians. In captivity, the attitude of the two men toward their fate differs greatly. One of the soldiers manages to find an inner strength and spirituality, incomprehensible to the other man. Larisa Shepitko's last film is one of the most beautiful war films in cinema history. The cinematography, by Vladimir Chuchnov, is incredible - particularly in the opening sequence, where long, slow, tracking shots depicting the solitude and almost desperate nature of winter landscape in rural Belarus set the mood perfectly. It is easy to draw comparison to Tarkovsky's films, even more so since Tarkovsky's alter ego Anatoli Solonitsyn has a small but important part in The Ascent. The acting is overall brilliant, especially by Boris Plotnikov, in the part of Sotnikov. The film reveals an old-fashioned belief in the strength of religious passion, which feels related to characters such as Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin, or Tarkovsky's Stalker. However, this is not a weakness of the film, but rather one of its greatest strengths. The religious content seems so honest, and human, that it is impossible not to be moved. The emotional richness of the film cannot be overstated; the answer is not as simplified as a short summary of the plot would make you think. The slow development of the characters, and the emphasis on their complicated relationships to each other, are somewhat reminiscent of The Commissar, another great Soviet film. The Ascent deserves a second watching, as well as a third, and a tenth. It continues to provide interesting ideas, beautiful images, and emotional complexity. A stunningly harrowing account of two soldiers plight in WWII. Set against a freezing backdrop of, not only the fight against the Nazis and traitors in Belorussia, but the harsh natural elements, this film tells a tale of two soldiers of polarized morals, one who survives, but finds it somewhat impossible to deal with his own circumstances, and one who dies, having done all that can be done in the face of intimidation and everything possible to break one's spirit, in fact, the "ascendant" of the title. A film that should be seen by all, particularly for the phenomenal performances of the main characters, and shuddering set pieces (the incarceration and hanging scenes, in particular. An absolute must see. This is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).

I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.

Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.

The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.

As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen it. Larisa Shepitko's THE ASCENT (1976) is an extraordinary, gruelling account of the partisans' fight against the Nazis in German-occupied Belorussia, The Ascent reflects the Russian obsession with the horrors of the Great Patriotic War, but unusually is both steeped in religious symbolism and ready to acknowledge the existence of the less than great Russian collaborator. The true battle is not with the Nazis, who hover in the background as mere extras, but between the Russian Nazi investigator and Sotnikov, the captured partisan who finds the spiritual strength to go to his death unbeaten. With its many references to the Crucifixion, the story takes on heroic proportions glorifying the sufferings of the martyr and his influence on future generations. A remarkable piece of work. Shepitko is the wife of Russian filmmaker Elem Klimov, who directed the more commercially known 1984 film COME AND SEE, generally regarded as one of the most realistic war films ever, bar none, notable for its searing poetic intensity, but I believe it lacks the inner complexity of this even greater Russian film, which examines not just the graphic outer horrors, but she finds truly inspiring images focusing on individuals or small groups of characters that reflect the absolute insanity taking place inside these human beings, the ending of which is simply awe-inspiring. Bullets are flying and bodies are dying in a gun skirmish over the opening credits, where the intensity of the film never lets up throughout the duration, focusing on grim faces, worn out soldiers with next to nothing to eat, a terrified population under occupation, starving children with petrified mothers, all cast in an immense landscape of endless white snow. Like CRANES ARE FLYING (1957), this features a Russian army in retreat, a traumatizing shock early in the war when they were nearly wiped out. The Russian countryside has been overrun by German Nazi's who are terrorizing the citizens, stealing what food they have, forcing them under duress to become their informant eyes and ears. What Russian soldiers are left hide under cover of forests, but are forced to send food expeditions to neighboring farms. This film follows two soldiers that from the outset are on a near impossible mission, as there's little food left anywhere in the dead of winter. One is healthy and fit, Vladimir Gostyukhin as Rybak, while the other, Boris Plotnikov as Sotnikov, is slowed down by a tubercular sounding cough and eventually a bullet in his leg that nearly leaves him for dead, but his partner heroically rescues him. As they step through knee deep snow drifts, crawling at some points with insufficient protection against the harsh elements, like so many other Russian films, nature itself becomes their toughest foe.

Spoilers!! Everything is reduced to a matter of survival. When they reach their destination, the farm has been demolished and left in a state of rubble, pushing forward into German occupied territory where the next farm is manned by an elderly Soviet collaborator who fears Nazi retribution. The partisan soldiers think him a coward but move on, where they are eventually captured and brought to a Nazi camp in a nearby town and held as prisoners, along with a proud and protective mother (Lyudmila Polyakova) who helped hide them. Tarkovsky stalwart Anatoli Solonitsyn appears as Portnov the interrogator, a Russian teacher from a nearby academy turned Nazi sympathizer. Russians torturing and executing fellow Russians is the depth of war depravity and Solonitsyn is brilliant in the despicable role he's perfectly suited for. From what we can see, as Nazi officers chat jovially in close proximity to one another, he is an outsider even among this group, seen instead as a kind of gruesome black-cloaked undertaker who routinely sends men to their graves. The audience is not spared from witnessing acts of torture on Sotnikov, who offers nothing but contempt, while Rybak speaks freely, hoping to save his life, but both are condemned to die, though Rybak is offered a chance to serve the German Reich as a police agent. The mother, the elderly collaborator, and a child are added to this group, spending one last night together alive where together they discuss the merits of a soldier's mission, of being a patriot, a mother, a coward, or a collaborator. Each seems individually driven by a desperate need to survive, but Sotnikov offers himself as a selfless example, attempting to confess his guilt to spare the others, where the aptly chosen title reflects his spiritual redemption.

By the next morning, Portnov seems mildly amused, mocking them at their sudden willingness to talk, but spares no one except Rybak, who changes sides to keep his life, rationalizing in his thoughts that if he's alive, at least he has a chance to escape. But there is no escape—not from this torment. What happens is shown with exquisite delicacy and poetic grace, as we witness the treachery of war without a single shot being fired, as the execution by hanging is turned into a public spectacle, where the villagers at the point of a gun are forced to witness. The pace and harrowing intensity of this film is relentless, as there is never a moment without impending menace, gorgeously shot by Vladimir Chukhnov (who died in the same car accident as Shepitko), featuring perfectly composed landscapes and plenty of camera movement, much of it at close range using portraitures, especially that of a fierce young boy at the end who eyes the condemned men, who makes a surreal connection to the next generation without any words being spoken, accentuated by the psychologically horrific music of Alfred Shnittke which resembles the transcendent yet furiously disturbing monolith music from Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968). The sound design of this film is highly advanced and uniquely modern, where the use of off screen sound continually exposes the raw nerves of each moment, dogs barking, wind blowing, bullets firing, nearby Nazi's chattering in untranslated German or laughing sadistically at their helplessness, which only ratchets up the hideous tension to insane heights. In many ways resembling Dreyer's THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928), utter insanity is exposed here, the relentless realization that you have no choice, yet you are forced to make one anyway. The nightmarish inner thoughts at the end are expressed wordlessly, where the nobility of the dead speaks volumes, where voices continue to reverberate inside the heads of the living like an explosion of neverending echoes, yet only silence fills the crisp wintry air with a mournful reverence and a profound sense of loss. Having just seen this, I find it hard to believe that it is not better known. This and the slightly-better-known, but almost-as-shamefully-neglected COME AND SEE (Klimov, 1986) must be two of the greatest war films. They are meaningful, powerful, incisive. THE ASCENT is also gifted with a sparingly-used, but brilliantly trenchant score by Schnittke. Even if Voskhozhdeniye was your favorite film it would only be possible to watch it, at most, every ten years. Its just too emotionally strenuous.Widely regarded as Shepitko's finest film, THE ASCENT is the story of partisans operating in the Byelorussian forest in the dead of winter in German occupied Soviet Union.

While assaulting the audience with the sheer physicality of the wartime experience, particularly the privations of cold and snow, the actual struggle for survival against both nature and the fascists, there is always a subtle, barely inferred sub-text of moral judgment and the question about whether a man can be moral or immoral in one context but otherwise in another.

A partisan group hiding in the woods is attacked by a German patrol and loses their food supplies. Two men, Rybak, who knows the area, and Sotnikov, a Jewish schoolteacher, are assigned the task of going to a small village for food. They find the village burnt to the ground with nothing edible and nothing more than charred timbers and foundations in which in one cubby hole there's a children's mirror hidden. The overwhelming feeling is that whoever brings the brutality of war to a land and a people become truly cursed. I thought of the war that the Americans and British brought to Iraq and about how bringing the horrors of war to people is the act of a degenerate nation.

The two move on to a nearby larger village where they obtain, under duress, a lamb from the collaborator headman. The German's arrive and the two partisans escape under fire. Sotnikov is hit in his foot and holds off the German's as Rybak gets away with the lamb. Sotnikov becomes so desperate that prepared not to be taken alive he removes his boot in order to put a bullet into his head. Just then Rybak returns and drags Sotnikov out of the line of fire.

Rybak drags Sotnikov through the forest, bloody meter by meter all done in one long take. Each meter is an agony and yet he still pulls him through deep snow, up ridges, across depressions, over black bush stumps which crack as they snap under the weight of the men. There are several similarities to the cinematic vocabulary of Tarkowsky here - the long takes documenting a process, the effect of using repetition, and the resulting emotional stress which builds the longer the shot goes on. In the background, unnoticed because of the action, there hangs a question- did Rybak commit an immoral act by going back for Sotnikov? Whether under the moral standards of Marxist-Leninism or merely the common imperative of the survival of the group, wasn't his duty to get the food back to his starving band and leave Sotnikov to cover his escape? To sacrifice one man in order for the group to survive? Which leads to the question - Can a man who is immoral under one philosophical system be expected to be moral under a different moral system? The partisans come as if another curse of war to a farm house containing a woman with three small children. She is embittered by the scourge of war and barely hanging on with her three children. They are barely rested when more Germans show up. They make their way to leave and are directed to the loft to hide.

Sotnikov's cough gives them away. When a German pops his head in to have a look and no one responds he threatens to fire across the loft and Rybak's nerves break and they are captured. Now who has the moral responsibility here? Sotnikov for coughing or Rybek for cracking? The two partisans and the mother are trussed up and taken to a nearby town passing ominously under a wrought iron arch at the entrance. They find the headman and a small girl already in custody. They are interrogated by a turncoat Byelorussian played by Tarkowsky favorite Anatoli Solonitsyn. Sotnikov keeps his head during interrogation and torture and only asks what the interrogator's prewar profession was? He doesn't answer but from his ease standing behind a desk the likely answer was 'schoolteacher'.

Rybak on the other hand begs for his life and even offers to join the police. The previously unnoticed character defect, making a 'wrong' moral decision, the ambiguity (sentimentality) of which disguised it from judgment, now becomes obvious, unsettling and very ugly.

The five sit in a dark cell. They are all scheduled to die the next day. From here the elements of a Christian parable become stronger. Genuine Rembrandt lighting and compositions are used as other Old Master poses of Christ are represented. He decides he can save everyone if he takes on the guilt for everyone. He must be kept alive until morning so he can save everyone. He asks the mother for forgiveness and the headman knowing what is taking place doesn't feel such despair at dying uselessly as he did before.

Morning comes. The Germans don't care if Sotnikov takes on all of the sins of his companions or not. They will all be hung. They trudge up a steeply inclined street which is a virtual Via Dolorosa. A bench is taken up to the site of execution which is the gateway to the town. Five ropes hang from it. The bench only stands three, so Sotnikov stands on a tree stump which Rybak kicks out from under him. They all are hung.

As Rybak descend the road with the Germans, someone in the crowd calls him a Judas, an unnecessary allusion, Shepitko's only misstep. Rybak imagines several times being shot in the back trying to escape, dying an honorable death and tries, unsuccessfully, to hang himself in the shithouse, but leaves with the Germans as the beaten dog he is. However if Rybak was morally right to go back and save Sotnikov's life, is he wrong to try to save his own life? I saw this film many years ago (along with another of Shepitko's films, Wings) as part of a Soviet film series at a local film archive. But none of Shepitko's films, as far as I can tell, have ever made it to video or DVD in the United States. Ascent is a great film by any standard, with stunning black and white photography, hypnotic direction, and actors so deep into their roles that you have no sense of them merely giving a performance. Although the period details of Russian resistance to (and collaboration with) German occupation are very telling, the story is timeless. Two Russian partisans are captured by the Germans, and the interrogation tests their integrity as well as their courage. I suspect the reason why it has not been released on DVD by the Russians (here comes the spoiler) is that the Jewish intellectual (and not the tough Russian peasant) is the partisan who resists both threats and temptation, goes serenely to his death, and sets an heroic example for the villagers. This greatest movie gives us clue to the depth of our souls in most deadly moments of our lives. My heart is shrinking every time I saw the scene of hanging. I have no words any... You must see this brilliant picture. The Ascent (1977)

Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.

Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.

The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.

The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.

Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.

The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak. I agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.

There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the "basement" scene, the "ascent". All stand out like jewels in a necklace.

For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.

There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life. Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see. If you have a chance, see this Russian(how should I call them: gems, masterpieces,hidden treasures?), war movies like this one, or The dawns here are quiet, or Proverka na dorogah... And , right after that, watch again the American war movies, or the international productions, those one with the allies and the Germans,etc. Or, even worse, watch the Italian war movies. Everything from the west will seem shallow, contrived, ridiculous, in comparison with the Russian movies. I am sooooo stunned by the quality of the aforementioned Russian war movies that I cannot find the words to praise enough their shattering superiority over Anglo-Saxon war movies. It comes as no surprise that Larisa Shepitko was married to Elem Klimov, who would later direct the most harrowing war film ever made, 'Come and See (1985).' 'The Ascent (1977)' – Shepikto's final completed film before a premature death – is built in very much the same mould. Set during WWII, the film follows a pair of Soviet partisans who try to secure food for their starving army while evading the occupying German forces. The first forty minutes are agonisingly tense, as the two men drag themselves though the harsh, snow-covered landscape, the world around them completely sapped of life, warmth and colour (indeed, so monotonously drab is the scenery that it literally took me this long to realise that the film was shot in black-and-white).

Following the partisans' capture by German soldiers, the film becomes a cold meditation on loyalty and morality. Whereas Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) refuses to betray his army, even under extreme duress, the less resolute Ryback (Vladimir Gostyukhin) attempts to save himself. Is he wrong to do so? Ryback's betrayal is disheartening, but the film doesn't immediately condemn his actions are treacherous; instead, the viewer is forced to consider what their own response might be in such a situation. Shepitko pities Ryback as the Bible pities Judas. Both men betrayed their allies to the enemy, and were forced to watch them executed. However, whereas Judas committed suicide by hanging (at least according to Gospel of Matthew), Ryback finds even that option closed to him – in an excruciatingly taut climax, the belt around his neck becomes unfastened.

'The Ascent' draws its emotional power from Shepitko's astonishing pursuit of realism. I have no doubt that the two principal actors spent days on end clambering across the snow-covered earth on their hands and knees, and, indeed, so convincing is their misery that I actually developed a cold while watching the film (seriously, I did). Interestingly, the film interjects on this reality on several occasions, as Ryback imagines himself making a bid for freedom, and then being gunned down by his German captors. This device, though unusual, works well with its Biblical allegory; Ryback is facing a trial of his worthiness, and, faced with a new dilemma at every turn, he consistently chooses the selfish alternative, his own life the only deciding criteria. At film's end, he is still alive, but the nightmare of war and guilt persists. Reading the comments I am struck by the obvious effect this wonderful film has on viewers. But, how can you watch this movie and not reflect that the artful dialog was a subtle and oh so daring rebuke to the authorities "in control" in what was then the USSR at that moment in history? It wasn't the souls only in the time and place of the action being revealed. The questions, superficially asked, are nakedly provocative when directed to the here and now. Who are the real "collaborators"? I marvel that the writer stayed out of prison. I read somewhere that great stress can be a catalyst for producing great art. This film is a masterpiece of misdirection, apparently pointing one way, while asking the audience to "look over my shoulder, at what I'm really talking about." What courage. During World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white "foreign" films, you may still enjoy "Voskhozhdeniye" (retiled in English "The Ascent"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.

After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded "Rybak") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.

******** Voskhozhdeniye (4/2/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn I missed the beginning of the film. I came in when the partisan's were in the farm house. I can truthfully say that it was horrifying. The moral ramifications are staggering.

My fear of pain and torture leave me unable to see myself other than cowardly. I see the Christ like ability that was depicted by the brave patriot, and I can only pray that I could or would have the moral turpitude to follow his example.

I see that a main theme of the film is to show the weakness/strength of the tortured, but what a dismal decision to have to be confronted with. All because the soul of man can be distorted in such a way that, pain and suffering being brought to bear on a fellow human being is in some way satisfying. Be it mental or physical.

I found the film very thought provoking. THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness. Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.

The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as "Frogland" or "The Frogs Who Wanted a King." A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.

Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.

Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: "News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom." When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is "Let well enough alone."

Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made "Frogland," but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. "Frogland" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke. The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here! Wladyslaw Starewicz was a Russian-born animator living in France who did incredible things using stop-motion. I've seen a couple of these films before and they feature his favorite subjects--insects, frogs and various animals. They are extremely realistic and lifelike and even today are amazing to watch--the quality is simply fantastic.

This one stars lots and lots of frogs. They appeal to their god, Jupiter, to give them a king. Why do they need a king, wonders Jupiter--their lives are perfectly fine now. So, to teach them a nasty lesson, he makes an Egret the king and one by one it starts eating its subjects! Then, the frogs once again appeal to Jupiter, who states the obvious moral that it's best to be happy with what you have!

While the animation quality is incredible, this is a very creepy film for kids. I would think this would terrify them both by how real the animals look as well as the story itself which is not for the faint of heart! One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high "croakers" feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but "political timber." Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original "croaker" is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: "let well enough alone." This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding. Excellent exercise on multiple plans:

- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France

- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people

- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!

The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.

Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.

Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?

Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come. This is probably one of the best French movies I had seen in a very long time! This "pastiche" or parody of spy movies is very well made and is going to make you laugh from the beginning to the end. Some references to today's world are very subtle. The whole Maroccan context of the movie is to be understood in light of today's French culture/environment. That said, all the jokes and - seemingly - shocking remarks that could have been understood as such because of this context, are permitted and accepted because this is a parody.

I was told by my sisters who had already seen this movie that I should go too and assured me that I was going to have a great time, and indeed I had! If you liked the old 007 movies with Sean Connery and also like movies like Airplane or Hot Shots, you will be delighted. I just hope this movie is released on DVD in the US... Wait and see. Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (à la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies! Seems like M.Hazanavicius is back!The man behind "la classe américaine" comes back with a really fun and clever sequel to those old-fashioned OSS-117...Whereas directors tend to "over-actualize" sequels of old classics (remember the avengers,urk), Hazanavicius chose to work on a really cheap hero, OSS-117, a kind of low-budget french 007, and decides to do it in a old-school way...The photography, the body attitudes, the fights choreography and the FX, everything is like an homage to the way films were made back in the 50s.And it works, as the tone and jokes of the movie are really good! Jean Dujardin embodies perfectly this stupid-arrogant-macho-selfish french spy, lost in a country he understands only in terms of folklore and inferiority.Yes, that's it, just the way the occident uses to consider its colonies back then (and, oh no, I won't say it has anything to do with what happens nowadays in the very same area...ah ah)...He just looks like an unfrozen Lino Ventura, with something like 40 pounds less, which is perfect for the role.The other members of the cast fit perfectly as well, with all you can dream of Russian spies, Egyptian independantists and former Nazis.And of course, the women, as there has to be "femmes fatales" in any good spy-movies... The plot is good (maybe not brilliant but really good enough...), taking place between actual historical facts, and remembering us in a funny way how France (and the others) treated its colonies back in those days. It all starts in 1955 with a British spy disappearing while tracking a Russian cargo full of weapons in Suez.Then France sends his best friend, agent OSS-117, to discover what happened to both the shipment and the agent... The fact is that this agent is really as dumb as can be, and he slips through the story without even understanding it, solving it in a very clouseau-esquire way. I have to say I had a bad feeling about the movie, as the publicity made around it was quite frightening, and as french humor tends to be quite populist and flat (forget about les bronzés 3 or camping...) but I was really surprised, and in the good way! I highly recommend it, whether you want a good parody of Bond-esquire movies (much more fun than in D.E.B.S. for example, but less skirts) or you're a fan of that genuine and candid way of filming they had back in the 5Os. Yes, that's it clever and (really!) funny, you've got the point once again Mr Hazanavicius! I just saw this film last night, and I have to say that I loved every minute. If taken in the spirit of a parody of Bond-esquire films, it's truly superior. The true comedy of the film is in its blatant disregard for political correctness. The misogyny, cultural insensitivity, and almost laughable macho-ism of the films of this genre are used for major comic effect. It also calls the illogic and formulaic elements to task, with Agent OSS 117 constantly learning difficult things insanely quick (such as Arabic and how to play a traditional instrument) while missing some pathetically obvious clues. Some of the lines from the film left me laughing for hours after the movie was finished...and I have to say I have learned some...interesting...French vocabulary that would probably have my Professors quite exasperated with me were I to use. All in all, I thought this film excellent. Intensely funny and the first film I've ever seen that truly parodies all aspects of the spy film. I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it ended up as one of the audience favorites. This is a spoof on the french cottage industry of OSS 117 films of the 50's and 60's. The first OSS 117 film based on the novel by Jean Bruce was brought to the screen in 1956, long before the first James Bond film, staring Ivan Desny as Hubert Bonisseur De La Bath and six subsequent action adventure spy films were made up to 1970 with Luc Merenda, Frederick Stafford, Kerwin Matthews and John Gaven all taking turns as Oss 117. Jean Dujardin is in the title role in this comedic take on the series. As the film begins set in 1945 he has a french mustache and resembles Desny but as the film begins it's setting of 1955 he really looks like Sean Connery. Jean François Halim wrote this hilarious screenplay of a spy sent to Egypt to investigate the murder of a friend. It borrows on the silliness of Naked Gun, Get Smart and the Pink Panther and uses fresh humor on current events in a delightful combination that international audiences will enjoy and I am sure this will be the only the first of more to come of a revived OSS 117 reworked to comedy adventures. Michel Hazanavicius directs. I would give this a 7.5 and recommend it. That's how I'd sum it up! There were other who said, Naked Gun meets James Bond. I think mine is more accurate, but I'm not neutral on that point ... ;o)

This movie is kind of a blast from the past. It reminds you of the old movies (from the '50s & '60s) and that's not only because it plays in that time period (1955 to be exact, with the Flashback exception), but it's the mood the movie is made in and it shows on screen! The main actor here (who is as I've been told very popular in his homeland France), is perfect in his role here. He's the spy with the number 117 attached to him. There is one character who sums him up in the movie, by asking a question, about if he's good or not ... you'll see when you watch the movie!

Very funny indeed this is and if you like your spies mixed with comedy with old school flair, but not taking itself or anything else for that matter seriously, than you need to watch this! :o) As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Béjo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can. Jean Dujardin gets Connery's mannerisms down pat: the adjusting the cuff links when entering a club as all the women turn to admire him, the nonchalant straightening and smoothing down of the tie, the swaggering, steely gait. It's uncanny, and you come to realise just how much of Bond in the Sixties was Connery's creation and not really Ian Fleming's character.

The cinematography is a nod to those early films, the movie takes off From Russia With Love and Thunderball mainly. The main joke is how chauvinistic the hero is, not just in terms of sexism but nationalism and colonialism, and how he puts noses out of joint when he is sent to Egypt.

It's not perfect - about 20 mins in it seems a one-joke movie and bits of it remind one of spoofs of the day, of which there were plenty. Morcecambe and Wise's The Intelligence Men had suspect-looking men in fez's following their heroes around too, and that's going back a bit. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau or Baron Cohen's Borat, Dujardin doesn't give his character that layer of realness or genuine pathos - he is too busy perfecting his Connery mannerisms. It doesn't do enough with the credits or a big song, and there's no funny or serious villain, like Mike Myers' Dr Evil or Ricardo Montalban's Naked Gun nemesis, for the hero to go up against.

But the scene where OSS117 wakes up in Cairo one morning had me laughing out loud in the three-quarters empty cinema, and the whole thing looks wonderful, plus you'll never get a chance to see Operation Kid Brother on the screen, and the women are ace crumpet, really hot. It's a Bond spoof without falling into the mad scientist/Ken Adam sets or funny gadgets routine. Throughly recommended. OSS 117 was fun from start to finish.

It's difficult to define why one film touches or connects with you or not, and I won't try to analyze such perfect comedy, so politically incorrect that even academic papers should be dedicated to it :)!

Everything is old fashioned here, from women's clothes (sigh!), Mambo dance, the "hero singing"... ("Bambino" sounds like an Italian canzonetta sung in... arabic :)!).

Hubert is physically imposing, but dumb as hell. From all the 007s, he looks like Sean Connery, but is definitely more sympa because he's... silly, speaks his mind all the time, giggles, even has some homoerotic fantasies and there are rumours about him. In short, as an anti hero, he rocks :)! Sometimes he only raises his eyebrows or frowns, and that's all it takes to make you laugh.

Bérénice Bejo is the true queen of the film. Graceful, treacherous but with ideals. Aure Atika, to the contrary, is reduced to a femme fatale of sorts. It's surprising to see her that "sexy bomb", thou.

You just can't compare it with "Austin Powers"! I agree with Amazon's D. Hartley (Seattle, WA) on it being respectful to the genre.

Which is your favourite scene? One of my favourite scenes is the "fight of the chickens" with the masked villain. But the truly perfect one is when chatting at the cocktail with his contacts, how they all mutter platitudes with confidence... This scene alone makes the comedy genre worthwhile. I loved this film and recommend it to anyone who like a good spy spoof and who thought Johnny English was an embarrassment. This is the film JE should have been. But it's based on an old French films series so it's not really Bond related.

The production is brilliant, you'll almost believe the film was shot back in the 60's. It even has that same pastel kind of colouring films had in those days. Jean Dujardin plays his part with just the right amount of dumbness and naivety, not with ham fisted pantomime silliness like Rowan Atkinson And even if you don't like the film, you will want to see it for Berenice Bejo. Ooh la la! She is the hotness ... This is the latest entry in the long series of films with the French agent, O.S.S. 117 (the French answer to James Bond). The series was launched in the early 1950's, and spawned at least eight films (none of which was ever released in the U.S.). 'O.S.S.117:Cairo,Nest Of Spies' is a breezy little comedy that should not...repeat NOT, be taken too seriously. Our protagonist finds himself in the middle of a spy chase in Egypt (with Morroco doing stand in for Egypt) to find out about a long lost friend. What follows is the standard James Bond/Inspector Cloussou kind of antics. Although our man is something of an overt xenophobe,sexist,homophobe, it's treated as pure farce (as I said, don't take it too seriously). Although there is a bit of rough language & cartoon violence, it's basically okay for older kids (ages 12 & up). As previously stated in the subject line, just sit back,pass the popcorn & just enjoy. Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117. The two new OSS 117 movies has a kind of humor which is both intelligent and dumbed-down at the same time, which I find extremely amusing. It really reminds me of the classic Pink Panther movies with an almost as good leading man as Peter Sellers in Jean Dujardin. And unlike Steve Martin completely ruining Clouseau, Dujardin is quite brilliant.

The comments regarding the movies' being anti-semitic, are obviously a case of a complete lack of humor and therefor understanding.

Whether you will enjoy or hate this movie really comes down to what kind of humor you have. I can't wait for the sequel! Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one César and was nominated for four more.

Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.

All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.

OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid. Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job.

Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.

Before the movie started, a trailer for "Get Smart" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles. It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!! If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who captures perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it. What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France I must I was a little skeptical when I entered the cinema to watch OSS117 : french comedies tend to be so self-satisfied nowadays that only the most stupid ones score high at the national box-office. But I was surprised that though the humor does not always reach the level of the Monthy Pythons, the many references to the French's vision of the world in the 1950, which OSS117 represents, are hilarious et the director managed to recreate film-making style of that time with an astonishing fidelity. To put it short, a bit of a good surprise, not to mention the excellent performances from various secondary actors. And at least for once, Jean Dujardin's style (which can get on many people's nerves) complies perfectly with the character he plays. Admittedly, there are some scenes in this movie that seem a little unrealistic. The ravishing woman first panics and then, only a few minutes later, she starts kissing the young lad while the old guy is right next to her. But as the film goes along we learn that she is a little volatile girl (or slut) and that partly explains her behavior. The cinematography of this movie is well done. We get to see the elevator from almost every angle and perspective, and some of those images and scenes really raise the tension. Götz George plays his character well, a wannabe hot-shot getting old and being overpowered by young men like the Jaennicke character. Wolfgang Kieling who I admired in Hitchcock's THE TORN CURTAIN delivers a great performance that, although he doesn't say much, he is by far the best actor in this play. One critic complained about how unrealistic the film was and that in a real case of emergency nothing would really happen. But then again, how realistic are films such as Mission impossible or Phone Booth. Given the fact that we are talking about a movie here, and that in a movie you always have to deal with some scenes that aren't very likely to occur in real life, you can still enjoy this movie. It's a lot better than many things that I see on German TV these days and I think that the vintage 80's style added something to this film. Psycho criminal pure by Carl Schenkel, who is active in Hollywood, like Mrs Soutendijk. Goetz George and Hannes Jaenicke are stealing the spectator's last peace of snugness. They are too able, how can I get calm into a lift next time ? This was essentially a remake of "Diagnosis Murder" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.

Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and enjoy Dick and Barry Van Dyke. If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.

This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a "face" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.

I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover! I have enjoyed both of the Van Dykes over the years and was glad to watch them again.

Just as cute and funny and easy to watch and enjoy.

Dick was good when he was younger but I enjoyed him more as he got older.

Son Berry has been a great one to follow in his fathers footsteps.

Together they make a great team and work well together.

I am disappointed that I have not found another Murder 101 listed anywhere.

I have seen both of the ones that have been shown. I am hoping for more as it is really an enjoyable duo to watch.

You can sure tell Berry follows in his dad footsteps, they talk alike and have the same mannerisms.

Would enjoy anything they do separately.

Will be sure to watch anything they do alone and together. The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.

It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.

The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.

Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.

The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.

The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.

And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.

So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21. A respectable royal rumble event

1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels

7.5/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....

2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH

7/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.

3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH

7.5/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.

4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH

6.5/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.

5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter. Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.

Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.

Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.

The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.

Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans. The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection. This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.

HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.

Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10 Probably the best Royal Rumble in years.

Match 1 sees Edge battle Shawn Michaels in a good but very long match. Next up one of the worst wrestlers on the roster - Heidenreich takes on The Undertaker in a boring casket match. Match number 3 sees Bradshaw defend his WWE title against Big Show and Kurt Angle in a surprisingly good contest. The next match up sees Triple H defending his 10th heavyweight title reign against Randy Orton in a great match up.

Next up the Royal Rumble takes place in which 15 Raw superstars and 15 Smackdown! superstars hit the ring to try and win the rumble and face the champion whoever that may be at Wrestlemania 21. Highlights included Tough Enough 3 winner Daniel Puder getting his ass kicked by Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly! All of the superstars beating the crap out of Muhammad Hassan, and Raw superstars vs Smackdown! superstars!

Not a bad PPV at all.

Edge vs HBK - 8/10 Taker vs Heidenreich - 4/10 JBL vs Angle vs Big Show - 7.5/10 Triple H vs Orton - 8.5/10 The Royal Rumble match - 9/10 This year's Royal Rumble wasn't really bad, but last year's was definitely way better.

FIRST MATCH- SHAWN MICHAELS VS. EDGE Even though this match did take a little too long, it was still alright. Edge wins after using the ropes to pin Shawn Michaels. 4/10

SECOND MATCH- UNDERTAKER VS. HEIDENREICH IN A CASKET MATCH Now I don't really like Casket matches, this match was boring & sloppy but in the end it picked up it's pace as Undertaker nailed the Tombstone then rolled Heidenreich in the casket for the victory. 4/10

THIRD MATCH- JBL VS. KURT ANGLE VS. BIG SHOW IN A TRIPLE-THREAT MATCH FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad triple-threat match. Too bad JBL wins again to retain his title after nailing a Clothesline From Hell on Angle for the win. 5/10

FOURTH MATCH- RANDY ORTON VS. TRIPLE H FOR THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP Great match by these two men, the match was a bit sloppy but it was still good & it picked up pretty towards the end. Even though Orton lost the match was fast paced & great towards the end. HHH nails the Pedigree on Orton for the win to retain his World Title. 5/10

FIFTH MATCH- ROYAL RUMBLE This was a cool Royal Rumble {Every Royal Rumble is good}. After all 30 men entered, the last four remaining superstars in the Rumble were Cena, Edge, Mysterio & Batista. Edge was able to spear Mysterio out, later Batista & Cena clotheslined Edge out together. It was now up to Cena & Batista. First after reversing an F-U, Batista went for the Batista Bomb but suddenly both men crumbled on the outside at the same time. After a controversial decision & Mr. McMahon making his way to the ring to settle the matter. The match was restarted again as Batista & Cena battled it out, but Batista got the better out of Cena, nailed a spine-buster & threw Cena out to win the 2005 Royal Rumble & go on to Wrestlemania 21 to face the Champion in the mainevent. 10/10 This was a very good Royal Rumble, but last year's would always top every Royal Rumble in history.

Overall: I'll give it 8/10 & B+ If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that. "The Spirit of St. Louis" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...

As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane "Spirit of St. Louis."

Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...

No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...

Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...

From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...

The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...

Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...

Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway... I have watched this film several times over the years and always find it an entertaining experience. As a retired airline pilot, I am interested in most aviation movies and this is one of the better ones. I know that Lindbergh was only 25 years old at the time of his historic solo flight to Paris and that James Stewart was almost 50 when making this movie but I can overlook that fact because Stewart has always been one of my all-time favorite actors and does one of his usual outstanding performances as the "lone eagle".

There is a good mixture of comedy and drama throughout the film and a good use of flashbacks. It also helps that James Stewart was a pilot in real life both in the military and civilian life. The word impossible has led many to select a particular view concerning any incredible task. In 1927, it was believed no man could fly the breath of the Atlantic Ocean. Many had tried but failed and some even gave their lives to the effort. Nevertheless, it had to be done as every challenge needs to be met with equal determination. Such then is the heart of this movie called "The Spirit of St. Louis." The actor chosen for this historic film is none other than America's own James Stewart who convincingly plays Charles Lindbergh. Although there are many facets of Lindbergh's life, the segment featured here is his efforts to be the First Man to fly across the Atlantic. The story is an interesting one and for Stewards' fans compelling to say the least. Seeking enough funds to build a special aircraft, to the fateful decision to began the journey on a gloomy day in May 1927, 'Luck Lindy' as he was christened, endured enormous risks, which are featured in this superb film. Other notables which helped make this film believable are Murray Hamilton who plays Bud Gurney, Bartlett Robinson as Ben Mahoney, Arthur Space and Charles Watts as O.W. Schultz. The sum total of this now famous movie is that despite poor endorsement on its debut, it has since become a Classic in it's own right. Well done! **** Every year there's one can't-miss much-anticipated red-hot big-budget title with the right combination of star, director and subject matter that fails miserably at the box-office. This year it was Superman Returns. In 1982 it was Blade Runner. In 1957 it was Billy Wilder's The Spirit of St Louis, a film that had everything - top director, huge star, best-selling true story about an American hero - except enough of an audience to cover its costs. Maybe the public still remembered Lucky Lindy's anti-Semitism and his loud admiration for Nazi Germany's achievements before the war (neither covered in the film, which ends with his arrival in Paris before the legend got too tarnished). Maybe because they thought they knew the story or that it was just going to be one guy stuck in a cockpit for two hours. Certainly Wilder and co-writer Wendell Mayes are aware of the dramatic pitfalls of Lindbergh's relatively uneventful flight, alternating between a well-executed flashback structure to key points in his life and the build-up to the flight itself. Once the film is airborne, it's both surprising and suspenseful, finding genuine drama in his attempts to stay awake and to navigate without proper instruments.

It also builds up a quite remarkable sense of dread that's unlike anything else in Wilder's filmography, allied to a real sense of the epic: shots like the ominous storm clouds over the hanger the dark dawn before the flight carry a real chill of foreboding to them. Even the typically muted and problematic WarnerColor adds to the film rather than detracts from it. Along with the superb use of CinemaScope, there's a remarkable score from Franz Waxman: majestic, soaring but filled with understated menace, and cleverly used as part of the fabric of the film rather than mere musical accompaniment. The film does lose points for implying, though never actually saying outright, that this was a race to be the first to fly the Atlantic - in fact, Lindbergh was the third man to fly across the Atlantic after almost completely forgotten Brits Alcock and Brown's astonishing flight eight years earlier - but it's still a remarkably tense and engrossing adventure story that deserved the success it never found. 1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all. A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a "feel good" movie.

See it. You won't be disappointed. Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good. This is a great story. Although there are some Jimmy Stewart cornball parts, for the most part it is a compelling tale about an individual with a compelling drive, vision and sense of adventure - to say the least. The bottom line is it is one of my favorites to watch and I've done so probably dozens to times -- that is until someone stole it our of a bag I brefly left on a plane on a flight to California!

Some have commented about too many flashbacks but I don't know a better way to keep a long flight interesting. For those of us who actually fly, flight can be hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. I wouldn't have wanted to see the flight shortened at all. The oppressive need for sleep and the drone and surrounding loneliness is part of the story.

There are many parts that I particularly like including the takeoff from Long Island and landing at night in Paris (Wow, things have really changed with us and the French since then!). The airplane building scenes and the record-breaking flight from San Diego are interesting as is the incident over the Atlantic in ice (which I understand is not completely true but did happen on the San Diego flight).

One gets the sense that one of Lindbergh's biggest assets are his enlightened supporters as well as his persistence.

Some of the lines that ring in my head now and then include "Pull the chocks!" on the takeoff scene and "I hope I don't have to use it that way" when describing the submarine-like "periscope" to the lady who lent him a mirror so he could better see his overhead instruments.

This movie is not for everybody but it certainly is for me. I hope they make it on DVD soon so I can replace my stolen version! "In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".

Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.

In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10 This film recreates Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic while touching on episodes in his aviation career through flashbacks. Stewart was about 20 years too old to be playing the young flier, but his fine performance, particularly in the solo flight sequences, makes this a minor quibble. Waxman's rousing score is a big plus. Despite the long running time, Wilder manages to make it quite exciting and is able to sustain the drama even though the outcome is known. What a year 1957 was for Wilder: besides this, he also wrote and directed "Love in the Afternoon" and "Witness for the Prosecution." And his next two were "Some Like it Hot" and "The Apartment." What a run! Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.

While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.

One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.

Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.

Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General. It's a thoroughly successful example of a 1950s biopic. It has the stalwart and handsome young hero -- well, not so young anymore on screen; superb, if unlikely, direction by Billy Wilder; a stirring fully orchestrated musical score of uplifting scales and, when required, heavenly strings by Franz Waxman; strong supporting players; a gripping story; stunning photography by Hitchcock favorite Robert Burks; and a narrative about a singular historical event.

The film begins with Jimmy Stewart as Charles Lindbergh trying to get some sleep in a Long Island hotel before his epic solo flight across the Atlantic, from New York to Paris. And he can't sleep.

The flight itself is filled with flashbacks to Lindbergh's personal history and the purchase and construction of his unique high-wing monoplane, The Spirit of St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, is the home of the partnership that sponsored the flight. (Even in 1927, money talked.) Anyway, the movie HAD to have multiple flashbacks and Stewart's narration. What's the alternative. Observing the unities? Thirty-three hours of watching Jimmy Stewart sitting silently at the controls of his noisy airplane while days and nights come and go? I found the script and the direction impressive for their time. Unpleasant things are of course left out, so as not to introduce more ambiguity than the contemporary audience might manage.

My bet is that the howling mob that surrounds Lindbergh at Le Bourget ripped the airplane to pieces for souvenirs. And of course nothing about the pilot's relief tube, though it would have added more opportunities for humor. Some of today's viewers will find some incidents corny if they think too much about them. Aloft, Stewart chats with a friendly hitch-hiking fly that, in its own quietly concerned way, wakes him up by landing on his cheek at a critical moment. Later, the St. Christopher's medal that Father Hussman gave him taps gently against the glass crystal of one of the instruments just as Stewart is desperately trying to land. The atheist Stewart is saved twice -- once by a fly and once by God.

But never mind that. It's an impressive film. That landing at Le Bourget, with an exhausted Stewart behind the joy stick, confused by searchlights, sweaty with fear and collapsing with fatigue, is really convincing. "I'm going to tear this airplane up," he tells himself, and we can believe him.

Flying a light plane is not at all like driving a car. There is no smoothly curving highway to tell you where to go, no lanes to provide guidance. You're busy every second. You must watch the instruments, check each wingtip to see that they touch the horizon, ditto the airplane's nose, and constantly watch up, down, and sideways for other traffic, although that last wouldn't have been much of a problem for Lindbergh. He was all alone over the ocean.

Why? In one of the movie's folksier moment, Stewart and Murray Hamilton, two gypsy barnstormers of the 1920s, are lounging near their airplanes in a Midwestern field. "What is it? What makes us love flying so much?", asks Hamilton. (No answer.) Later, his financial backers try to talk him out of the flight. Five other aviators have already died trying it. "But don't you understand? It HAS to be done," says an impassioned Stewart.

Well, that's not much of an answer either. Why does it have to be done now, and why by Lindbergh? Why NOT wait ten years and stop wasting lives in the meantime? The answer, dear Socrates, lies partly in our glands. Pilots are a placid and confident lot, given to occasional arousal jags. Their chief problem may be an addiction to an internal rush of adrenalin. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are pilots. Still, Lindbergh must have been quite a guy. He deserved to be treated as a hero. Not just because of the flight itself but because of his later demeanor -- quiet, modest, a family man. We can easily forget his admiration for Hitler, since he more than made up for it by testing Corsair fighters in the Pacific and advising the Navy on how to tweak the airplanes and get the best performance out of them.

See it if you have the chance. If nothing else, it's a history lesson told with visual splendor. From director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot), I can see that this is a bit of an under-shown and underrated film, one to be seen. This is the biographical story of Charles Augustus 'Slim' Lindbergh (James Stewart), who in 1927 wanted to be the first man to cross travel solo flight from New York, crossing the Atlantic ocean, to reach Paris, in a small cockpit. The first half hour or whatever is seeing Lindbergh getting permission to do it, and the construction of the plane, named "The Spirit of St. Louis", and making all necessary preparations. Then of course the rest sees his perilous journey crossing the journey, overcoming tiredness, near fuel loss, and moments of losing sense of direction, but he was successful. Also starring Murray Hamilton as Bud Gurney, Patricia Smith as Mirror Girl, Bartlett Robinson as Benjamin Frank Mahoney, Robert Cornthwaite as Harry Knight, Sheila Bond as Model/Dancer, Marc Connelly as Father Hussman, Arthur Space as Donald Hall, Harlan Warde as Boedecker and Dabbs Greer as Goldsborough. Apparently Lindbergh was a bit younger, so Stewart was a shade too old to play him, but then again, you can't think of anyone else that could do better. It is a witty and emotional drama, with Stewart (as always) being fantastic, great music score by Frank Waxman, and good direction from Wilder, a good little known gem. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Special Effects (the only award it was ever nominated). James Stewart was number 12 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 13 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good! What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me.

Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.

---Spoilers---

It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land. Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927! This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the "Spirit of St. Louis". Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in "The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later "Dick Van Dike Show" and Robert Cornthwaite of "The Thing from Another World" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.

Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500. Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.

Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.

I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel. Everyone knows that Lindburgh succeeded in the first transatlantic flight. So how can there be any suspense or intrigue in this film? Well, there is. Don't ask me how, but there is. Partly due to the director's expert telling of the tale but mostly due to Jimmy Stewart's thoroughly engaging performance, we are drawn into the story as if it were unfolding for the first time right before our eyes. Despite the fact that half the movie is filmed in a cramped cockpit, it is as dynamic as any action flick out there. So if you are apprehensive about seeing this movie because you think you know the story already, give it a shot. I think you'll be impressed. Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching.

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best. Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree. I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the "Spirit of St. Louis" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.

Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel. In a genre by itself, this film has a limited audience and narrow appeal coupled with a subtle undertone which permeates the entire production. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable piece of cinema which is as timeless as a rare work of art. Capturing a time in Québec rarely seen in movies, Mon Oncle Antoine's strength lies in the depth of its characters and the richness of the settings. Duplessis' Québec, parochial and feudal, is brilliantly cast as the backdrop which could not possibly be achieved by anyone other than a pure laine Québecois.

It would be far too easy to resort to stereotypes, clichés and single-minded myopic statements in this story. Yet the director chose to skip the forced imagery and instead, focused on the essence of life in rural Québec of the time. That makes this film exceptional in its authenticity while not being pretentious in its presentation. If only more contemporary cinematic endeavors would do the same, the viewing public might not be forced to choose between the over-hyped Hollywood Pablum that passes for 'Must See' viewing.

Mon Oncle Antoine is - in every sense of the word - unforgettable. It will leave a lasting impression on anyone who has ever lived in - or visited - Québec. A classic. **********************************************

Follow-up: 10 May 2008

After reviewing some of the comments, it's worth noting Mon oncle Antoine is NOT - and probably wasn't MEANT to serve as standard Hollywood/American cinema for mass market sales. A coming of age story, yes, but far more than simple memoirs of adolescence in 1940's Québec. Viewers who're looking for sheer entertainment at the expense of complex development of the characters will be sorely disappointed. Go watch action/adventure/romance/comedies to be amused. Watch Mon oncle Antoine to be drawn into a seldom seen, but absolutely remarkable society that has been overlooked and ignored for far too long.

The Grapes of Wrath is hardly an edge-of-the-seat thriller, yet the story and characters are what makes this American classic an enduring film. Mon oncle Antoine is in the same genre. Don't be fooled by the nostalgic aura that surrounds "Mon oncle Antoine," because like the best of Canadian films darkness lurks just below the surface.

Set presumably in 1940s rural Quebec, the story explores the developing consciousness of young Benoit as he learns to deal with both sexuality and death.

The look of the film is astonishing, especially seeing as a high proportion of criticism towards Canadian cinema by the general public surrounds aesthetics. Beyond this, the unassuming Benoit is a seductive protagonist for the audience, looking at his corrupting community with fresh an innocent eyes.

I recommend reading Jim Leach's critical essay on the film in Canada's Best Features for anyone looking to place the film into a historical context while also dissecting the form of the film. Definitely check this one out. Mon Oncle Antoine observes the craggy face of a homespun community from various angles, slowly, taking its time through the beginning, as it should, until we emerge from shattered (but banal) hopes and expectations, into swirling ecstasies of dreams and a heart-stopping revelation about the terrible enigma of mortality.

Aimless pans and zooms across the snowy mountainside comfort the mind and hypnotize the viewer. This restless camera work is personified in a fringe character who is equally the drifter, quitting his job at the coal mine and leaving his family to cut lumber, then quitting again and returning to the stark humanity of his boy dead.

A fetching old woman cheats on her husband and a young boy dies. Old things become new and new things die. Throughout is the snowy whiteness, as wonder-stricken as the history of cinema. I saw this film when it first came out and have never forgotten it. My Uncle Antoine is much, much greater than the sum of it's parts. The movie, loosely, is about a pre-adolescent who is sent to live with a relative in a small town in Canada. There are adventures that seem more or less typical but underneath there is a current building. MUA has a leisurely pace but have patience, the reward is coming. I believe the film was sub-titled and as with all non-English speaking movies I've seen it is well worth avoiding any dubbed version. Inevitably dubbed movies reflect the attitudes of a new director and actors, with the additional necessity of lip-synching lines that don't quite fit. The English speaking Amarcord is a travesty, for example, while the sub-titled version sings. My Uncle Antoine is well worth the time to find and watch it in French. This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen "The Bicycle Thief", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this. Everyone agrees about the technical excellence of this film by Jutra (whose life ended short so tragically). As for the content, of course it makes a difference if you're a Quebecker, and this explains some of the divergence of opinions. For me, it is to cinema what Vignault's "Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays" is to song. In addition, Jean Duceppe was himself a part of legendary Quebec.

This film can be contrasted with "CRAZY", a current Quebec release that is successful enough to be showing here in Spain and is also about the 1960s. Urban Quebec (Crazy) vs. rural Quebec (Antoine). But also a film that must be something very different for foreigners and for people who know Quebec from the inside. In 2004, I wrote the following statements on an IMDb message board when a user wondered if The Best Years of Our Lives was a forgotten movie:

***** To me watching this movie is like opening up a time capsule. I think in many ways "The Best Years of Our Lives" is probably one of the more fascinating character studies and it holds up extremely well as a look at life in the US in the mid-1940s after WWII. I believe "Coming Home" and "The Deer Hunter", both released in 1978, were the most recent films that were closest in capturing the numerous issues of military men returning from war that were brought up in "The Best Years of Our Lives".

What really impressed me was watching the movie in its entirety when I was in college around 1980-81 and many if not all of the college students applauded at the end of the movie.

This movie still packs a wallop and I'm very happy to read in other posts other users feeling of a movie that will definitely stand the test of time. *****

I'm very happy to see the movie ranked near the top 100 movies on IMDb and AFI. Also, though it was in competition with what eventually became a Christmas classic, It's a Wonderful Life, arguably, The Best Years of Our Lives' Oscar wins, including Best Picture, were very well-deserved.

I've just seen the film again in 2005 and after almost 60 years, The Best Years of Our Lives is still a powerful, beautifully acted and well-crafted motion picture. I watch this movie every time it plays on TV. A simply brilliant film. Three men return home from war and try to return to civilian life with great difficulty. All three led opposite lives during the war (Executive Banker became an army corporal, a soda jerk became an Air Force Captain and the High School Football hero loses both his arms in battle)and now each must reconstruct his life and connect with a new reality. The homes they return to, with grown children and independent, working women along with a depressed economy, only add to the strife. It's the scenes just off camera and the unspoken dialog which resonates the most loudly, however. The awkward intimacy of Frederich March and Myrna Loy and his struggle to return to his place as leader (both at home and at work) are heartbreaking.

Dana Andrews is riveting as the handsome, decorated Captain who struggles to keep his life together without the uniform.

The film is filled with honest characters and each is portrayed by a gifted actor.

This film, however, took on a whole other level after seeing, "Saving Private Ryan." The reality and magnitude of what these men lived through for love and country......and obviously it didn't end on the battlefield.

This is an essential for any collection.

This American masterpiece came as near perfection as popular art contrives to be, from its beautifully equivocal and suggestive title to the magnificent performance elicited by William Wyler from the nonprofessional amputee Harold Russell…

The film epitomized both the dream and the reality of the postwar world… This intimate engagement with the psychological facts of American life gave it an almost universal audience… But, unlike contemporary and preceding "message" pictures, it was not a preachment… It showed Americans as they are, presented their problems as they themselves see them, and provided only such solutions—partial, temporary, personal—as they themselves would accept… The picture's values are the values of the people in it…

William Wyler, an outstanding director, triple winner of the best picture Oscar, adds an air of distinction to melodrama, epic and Westerns... With his distinguishing visual style and his taste for solemn material, he gained a reputation as a meticulous, serious artist... Wyler's most adept use of deep-focus reveals the real commitment to emotional content...

The film tells the story of three men coming home from war to a small middle-American community, and find it variously difficult to pick up where they left off... The three heroes are: a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), magnificent as the devoted family man who succeeds in breaking the ice with his family; an incisive Air Force captain (Dana Andrews) returning to an unfaithful wife; and a tormented sailor (Harold Russell) who has lost both hands in service, replaced by hooks in real life...

Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, "The Best Years of Our Lives" is eloquent and compassionate, a deeply personal motion picture with touching wordless homecoming scenes:

- The first words of the sergeant's loving wife when he arrives home unexpectedly: "I look terrible! It isn't fair of you to burst in on us like this."

- The involuntarily sob of the sailor's mother when she first sees her son's mechanical hands... She blurts out: "It's nothing!"

With her dry-martini voice, Myrna Loy combines charmingly her wifely qualities with motherly ones; Teresa Wright is lovely as the sergeant's nice daughter who falls in love with the pilot; Virginia Mayo is harsh as the disloyal flashy blonde wife whose first loves are money and high life; and Cathy O'Donnell is wonderful and sensitive as the sailor's fiancée...

The situations and even some of the characters seem a little obvious, but this is a superb example of high-quality film-making in the forties, with smiles and tears cunningly spaced and a film which says what is needed on a vital subject... Very glad to see that this excellent film gets such high marks from the users of IMDB. The Best Years of Their Lives remains the finest cinematic statement about veterans returning from war that I have come across. Easily the finest performance by the often overlooked Frederick March. In fact the entire cast shines, including music legend Hoagy Carmichael who treats us all with a subtle version of his classic Lazy River. I would recommend this excellent film to anyone who loves movies. One of the great things about The Best Years of Our Lives that even though it dates itself rather firmly in the post World War II era, the issues it talks about are as real today as they were on V-E or V-J day of 1945. The problem of how to assimilate returning war veterans is as old as the written history of our planet.

And while we don't often learn from history, we can be thankful that for once the United States of America did learn from what happened with its veterans after the previous World War. The GI Bill of Rights is mentioned in passing in The Best Years of Our Lives was possibly the greatest piece of social legislation from the last century. So many veterans did take advantage of it as do the veterans like Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell who you see here.

All three of those actors played archetypal veterans, characters that every corner of the USA could identify with. They all meet on an army transport plane flying to the home town of all of them, Boone City, Iowa.

War is a great leveler of class and distinction. Bank employee March, soda jerk Andrews, and high school football star Russell probably would never meet in real life even in a small town like Boone City. But they do meet and war forges indestructible bonds that can never be broken.

March is the oldest, a man with two children and Hollywood's perfect wife Myrna Loy. He settles in the first and the best. He has some wonderful scenes, getting cockeyed drunk on his return and later with a little bit of liquor in him, tells the bank officials at a banquet off in no uncertain terms.

I also love his scene where another returning veteran, a sharecropper wants to get a bank loan for his own piece of land. Watch March's expressions as he listens to the man's pitch for money. You can feel him read the man's soul. It's what got him his Second Best Actor Oscar for this film.

Harold Russell was a real veteran who lost both his hands during service in the Pacific. He got a special recognition Oscar for his performance. Because of that it was probably unfair to nominate him in the Supporting Actor category which he also won in. His performance, especially his scenes with Cathy O'Donnell as his sweetheart who loves him with or without his hands, is beyond anything that could be described as acting.

Dana Andrews is the only officer of the three, a bombardier in the Army Air Corps. Of the group of them, maybe he should have stayed in. He also comes from the poorest background of the group and he was an officer and a gentleman in that uniform. That uniform and those monthly allotment checks are what got Virginia Mayo interested enough to marry him. The problem is that he's considerably less in her eyes as a civilian.

While Mayo is fooling around with Steve Cochran, Andrews has the great good fortune to have March's daughter Teresa Wright take an interest in him. They're the main story of the film, Andrews adjustment to civilian life and adjusting to the fact he married the wrong woman. Not all veteran's problems were solved with GI Bill.

Myrna Loy gets little recognition for The Best Years of Our Lives. My guess is that it's because her role as wife was too much like the stereotypical wife roles she had patented over at MGM. Still as wife to March and mother to Wright she really is the glue that holds that family together.

The Best Years of Our Lives won for Best Picture for Sam Goldwyn, Best Director for William Wyler and a few others besides the two acting Oscars it got. It was a critical and popular success, possibly the best film Sam Goldwyn ever produced. It remains to this day an endearing and enduring classic and will be so for centuries. It's almost three hours in length, but never once will your interest wane.

The best tribute this film received came from Frank Capra who had a film of his own in the Oscar sweepstakes that year in several categories. In his memoirs he said that he was disappointed to be skunked at the Oscars that year, but that his friend and colleague William Wyler had created such a masterpiece he deserved every award he could get for it.

By the way, the film Capra had hopes for was It's A Wonderful Life. The Beat Years of Our Lives can't get better praise than that. Thirty years prior to THE DEER HUNTER came this movie, an excellent meditation on the effects of war inflicted on the American family as seen from both the war heroes and their wives. A truly ironic title, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is anything but since those times have vanished into still images and all that is left is an uncertain future for those involved.

Truly an ensemble cast despite the top-billing of Myrna Loy, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES focuses more on the stories of the men. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) comes back to a household that has irrevocably changed as his sons have grown although he finds support from his doting wife Milly (Myrna Loy). Fred Derry, upon returning, cannot find a decent job despite being a war veteran and is trapped in a marriage that he does not want to Marie, a happy-go-lucky girl who wants more out of life and who increasingly comes to hate him. Homer Parrish, on the other hand, has greater problems due to his loss of hands at war and feels the entire world -- including the girl he loves and her family -- thinks he is a freak of nature.

At almost three hours of length, the film never seems long and drawn out. There is so much emotions happening even in small moments that the plot breezes by; nothing seems wasted or placed on screen due to a lack of editing. Not a performance rings false, though the standouts are those of Dana Andrews as Fred Derry, Harold Russell as Homer Parrish and Virginia Mayo as Marie Derry. Even then every character has his or her moment on film, and the time was right to talk about all the pain and suffering that until then had not been seen in American films (including the ones made around World War One, which did not dabble in such topics). While there is never any overt violence, it's all there, in the haunted expressions of the three male leads' faces, in the lot where the planes now reside, ready to be turned into junk (and therefore, forgetfulness), in the cynicism of the store owners who couldn't be bothered to employ these shell-shocked men who had seen battle or even worse, to goad them into wondering what was it all worth for. This is the film in which COMING HOME and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY are indebted to. At a time when America fled from war films, to come up with this when the end of the Second World War was still fresh was a necessity in order to make a more honest film-making. Blue ribbon banners, stars and stripes forever, decorated generals, and unconditional surrender from the enemies which required tons and tons of radiation, this was the summon substance of the United States victory in World War II!! The celebration on Times Square as well as everywhere else in the United States suggests a national zenith!!! America is on top right!! one thing, one agonizing and painstakingly perverse thing..The period of adjustment!!..The actual celebration ended when the bottle of champagne was finished..Now everyone needs to get on with their lives...only one problem though...they have to get new lives...the old lives are gone forever...Polite and pleasant smiles had a fragile facade with a longevity of ice cubes in boiling water!! Everyone of the characters in the movie is paraded by primal doubts, and unable to masquerade a pretense about how nothing was seriously wrong, for the simple reason that it was not true!!! Once sergeants, and generals, and their wives, and daughters, and sons and virtually all other Americans touched by World War II, were exposed to disabilities, nightmares and recriminations of World War II and what it really accomplished as well as negated, nobody was the same!! For now, social and moral issues had a self serving interest...Frederick March and Myrna Loy had to start over!! Dana Andrews realized that he should never have been married to Virginia Mayo in the first place!!! Theresa Wright has become painfully aware of the fact that she is constructively selfish!! Las but not least, the character, Homer, is about to get married and he thinks that everyone around him is as devastated by his injury as he is, basically in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to cope!!

The reason this film is so fabulous is because a happy ending was attained the hard way, once everybody recognized the new beginning of the new United States and the new world overall, tragedy from WWII was recognized, and things that were emotionally torn asunder were taken in stride, and dealt with accordingly!! Frederick March and Myrna Loy need to go back to chapter one in their marriage, Homer has apprised his new bride as to what it takes to be married to him (i.e. half the times, she will feel like a nurse) and Thresa Wright's involvement with Dana Andrews means that her entrance into adulthood has resulted in partial responsibility for breaking up a marriage...This is tantamount to learning how to drive a car to get your driver's license at the Indianapolis 500...The characters in the movie are the typical post WWII Americans in that they are stalemated by the rude awakening of coercive changes to their lives...Happiness no longer is afforded the luxury of the adjective cop-aesthetic...it is now about formidable conditions, and good winning out over evil by way of the less ugly choice!!...World War II did not just happen!! It will henceforth dominate the social patterns of American living!!!

The aggregate catastrophe of World War II has mirrored most Americans' feelings of personal human inadequacy as well!!I loved this film and so did AFI, probably for the reason that it brought out issues that were at one time unjustifiably taboo!!..Bottom line, see this movie!! Nightmares about combat, dilemmas about marital unhappiness and/or readjustment, coping with your life when stricken-ed by a disability and just basically acting human are portrayed constantly in movies and television today, HOWEVER!! this is 1946!! Very new to Americans then....REMEMBER THAT!! Director William Wyler has illustrated how Americans feel about the aftermath of WWII in the days when the movie industry has left him with one hand tied behind his back!!! Take that into account and you will probably realize just how sensational this movie really was!! Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them. Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free.

What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters.

We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called "battle fatigue" at the time.

We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line.

Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks.

BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society.

What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife.

The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious.

In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after.

In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the cliché I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen.

Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is cliché and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again. WWII veterans return home and find it hard to adjust to civilian life. This superb drama is expertly directed by Wyler and beautifully filmed by famed cinematographer Toland. Despite its near three-hour length, it does not drag for a minute. The script by Sherwood features very human characters and great dialog. Andrews has perhaps his best role as a man struggling to make ends meet. Also good are Wright as a love-sick young woman, Mayo as Andrews' trampy wife, and real-life veteran Russell as a man who lost both his hands. However, top honors go to March and Loy as a long-married couple facing challenges while getting reacquainted with each other. The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently.

I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought.

I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington.

Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well.

No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help.

The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens.

The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife – standard fair for 30's/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems.

Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are.

All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves.

I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege. In a film as successful as this, it is difficult to single out any one factor. All departments work in perfect union to create on of the most moving human dramas ever put on film.

The production is a tribute to the ensemble efforts of the writers, producer, cast and crew. To name but a few, the magnificent score of Hugo Friedhofer is a subliminal marvel, the subtle yet striking photography of Greg Toland, and the unbelievably effective direction by William Wyler all combine with an ideal cast to create an American classic.

The DVD format version is a special treat to view. What a pleasure to see "The Best Years of Our Lives" so beautifully preserved for generations to come to enjoy. I was surprised to read the comments of the person who so disliked this film. It really is quite funny. There are definitely a few laugh out lines that my boyfriend and I quote to each other. Some of the situations might be unsettling (bisexuality, drugs, a particularly strange child's view of sexuality) but believable at the same time. It's about communication and miscommunication between men and women. I like the earlier description of this movie as a life poem. I caught this totally at random on the Movie Channel last night, and was captivated enough to stick with it the whole way. There's really just a toally unique voice to the film, a poetry of narration that's meaningful without straying into pretension. There's also many hilarious moments from Wirey's middle-school days that are crude without being potty humor. It's sad that this movie is so low-rated. The fact that there are so many 1's makes me think the numbers are cooked- I can't see how anyone could see the movie as that abysmal. Sure, this is by no means a typical romantic comedy, but it is a very unique viewpoint of a very unique life, of a man whose very appeal comes from his detachment, a detachment he must overcome before it destroys him. Give this flick a chance. It came out of nowhere for me, and I feel the richer for it. Though several scenes of Wirey Spindell can be described as "over the top". I thought that it was refreshing to see something that was willing to go to a level of near-taboo twisted comedy.

Wirey Spindell is a great film with great dialog. I wouldn't say that this film is for everyone, but the film is on my top 10 list.

If you can look beyond it's occasional offensiveness and watch it for the film that it is, I would hope you could see it in the same light that I do. I hadn't planned on seeing this movie, however I wasn't disappointed when a friend dragged me along. Although there are no real surprises here, the guys do reasonably well with their obviously modest budget.

If you've seen the trailer you probably know what to expect from this type of movie and there's a pretty constant stream of jokes here, with a couple of classic moments, with the highpoint probably being an excellent flashback to what the guys were like in the 1980's. Also, I've read elsewhere that the ending was a disappointment, but I found it refreshingly different from what I had expected from this genre.

Overall, this movie wont change your life, but it's got enough laughs there to keep you entertained throughout. William M. Thackeray once said "A good laugh is sunshine in the house." When I watched Take Away, I must say that the sun did shine in my house. This film was superb, the opening was very cleverly done, the story held together well, in a nutshell two fish'n chip shop owners who normally enemies are forced to form an alliance of sorts to engage in a David and Goliath struggle against a fast food chain which builds a restaurant on their street. The ending was hilarious even though I have found many who disagree with me on that one.

The film was though very discreetly, portraying contemporary Australian ethnic stereotypes, in particular the collision or culture clash if you will between the traditional Anglo Australian and Italo Australian stereotypes, and how they found a sort of "unity though adversity", very nice.

I found Vince Colosimo's performance as "Tony Stilano" an Italo-Australian Fish 'n Chip shop owner in his thirties to be first-class, his acting was very genuine and convincing, through his performance he managed to really bring to the surface the essence, or I should say the soul of the Italian Australian stereotype, which in reality is not too Italian but not too Australian either, Colosimo found that balance, breathed into its lungs and gave it life.

The Cinematography could have been better, more shots of the local area would've been nice, from what I can see it was in Melbourne, but where in Melbourne? to me it looks like somewhere between Ivanhoe to Bullen, though I am not 100% sure on that one.

I don't know why so many people are comparing this film to "The Castle" though they have similar themes running through them, Take Away stands in a league of its own.

I think the film was Excellent with a capital "E" it has everything, it's funny, the jokes are great, it deals with contemporary issues facing Australian society, the story holds well, I loved it! I highly recommend it. I watched this on tv in 1989 and regretted not taping it. I was very intriguing and suspenseful. It is amazing as the events unfold and this man's past catches up with him.

The acting is first rate and the story is exactly what the title claims... "twist of fate"... but no one could run away from a life that this man had at the beginning of the movie. I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast. I have been looking for this mini-series for a very long time. I saw this movie when I was living in back in Russia many years ago. I'm curious if somebody who has the recorded copy of this movie can send me the copy. I'm willing to cover all the expenses and pay for the extra tapes or DVDs. This is one of the best TV series that I have ever watched. I would recommend it to anybody who is somewhat interested in Israel History and World History after WWII. I'm also trying to find a book (I have heard that its even better than the movie)however the new one costs around $50 on amazon and I have never purchased a used copy. my e-mail address is yurets777@hotmail.com Thank you very much for you help. Like most other reviewers, I really enjoyed this TV miniseries. I didn't see it when it first came out, but my grandfather - a big fan of mysteries and war films - happened to record it in 1989. I remember watching it at my grandparents' cabin one night and I was completely drawn into the story! It has a very intriguing plot and a good mix of drama, romance, and espionage. I've seen lots of films that are set during WWII, but none with a twist like this! Thankfully, I was able to make a VHS copy of the film several years ago. I've watched it several times since then and I still enjoy it. I would love for this film to be released on DVD. It would be so much easier to view with chapters. Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something. I stumbled upon this movie by chance. I was traveling a few years back and this movie was on some channel on cable at the hotel late one night. Not much else on and figured I watch it for about 20 to 30 minutes until I decided to go to bed. Needless to say, I stayed up and watched the complete movie. The plot was very interesting and does make you wonder if there had not been SS who did this or at least thought of doing it. I have been looking all over for this movie. I even sent and email to the production company, but the weren't sure that it would ever make it to DVD, but said there was always hope. If anyone finds this movie drop a note here where you found it, as I'd sure like to get a copy some day. I watched this movie "miniseries" on television back in 1989 and it was an amazing movie. I would love to track down a copy of it just to watch it again and again. It's been 15 years since I watched it and it still sticks out in my mind.

From the beginning, it draws you in. The characters and plot line keep holding you. The ending was superb. The feeling and rage that the son displayed when finding out the truth about his father are unforgettable. The suspense on how it will turn out and how he will confront his father is really intense.

If you can get a copy of this movie, you will thoroughly enjoy watching it.

Then, email me and tell me where I can get a copy. This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.

(Possible spoiler)

Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.

It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.

my rate: 7 "Pink Flamingos" is a cult classic.The plot of this film revolves around the throwdown challenge to Divine's supremacy as the filthiest person alive."Pink Flamingos" contains some memorably repulsive scenes like a sex scene with a chicken and the scene where Divine eats fresh dog feces.Yes,the movie is shocking and funny at the same time,but the biggest laughs come from the actors' lines.Check out especially this line from Divine:"Kill everyone now!Condone first degree murder!Advocate cannibalism!Eat s***!Filth is my politics!Filth is my life!".On the whole,I really enjoyed this film.Still its tagline "An Exercise in Bad Taste" should be taken to heart and even those used to the gross out movies today may find this gem hard to stomach.Highly recommended. Like those who listened to radio reports about the attack on Pearl Harbor, every one who has ever seen PINK FLAMINGOS can tell you exactly where they were when they first saw it--and some thirty years later the movie is still one of the most unspeakably vile, obnoxious, repulsive, and hilariously funny films ever put to celluloid, guaranteed to test the strongest stomachs and the toughest funny bones.

Filmed with a close-to-zero budget and some of the shakiest cinematography around, PINK FLAMINGOS tells the story of two families that compete for the tabloid title of "The Filthiest People Alive." Just how filthy can they be? Plenty: the film includes everything from sex with chickens to what I can only describe as a remarkable display of rectal control to a heaping helping of doggie doo, and I guarantee that you won't want to eat an egg for at least several weeks after seeing it.

The cast is either wonderful, atrocious, or atrociously wonderful, depending on how you look at it. The star, of course, is Divine... and to describe Divine as the BIGGEST drag queen on the planet would the understatement of the year. She is a mammoth creature given to BIG eye makeup, BIG orange hair, and BIG expressions--she is the Charleton Heston of drag, and whether she is almost running down a jogger, pausing to use the bathroom on some one's front lawn, or startling real-life shoppers by taking a stroll along a Baltimore sidewalk she is both unspeakable and unspeakably funny. Others in the cast include Mary Vivian Pearce, Danny Mills, and the ever-appalling Edith Massey as members of Divine's family; and Mink Stole and David Lochary as the white-slaving, baby-selling couple who challenge Divine's status.

It should be pretty obvious that PINK FLAMINGOS is not exactly a movie that will appeal to just every one, and viewers who know director John Waters only through such later films as HAIRSPRAY and CRYBABY will be in for a major jolt. But if you want to see something so completely different that even Monty Python couldn't imagine it, this is the movie for you. Just make sure you eat before you see it, because you probably won't want to eat afterward--and you might want to keep a barf bag handy just in case.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer My 10/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In "Pink Flamingos" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.

*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus! A very strange, disturbing but intriguing film. I don't think I ever needed to see what a human being can do with his butt, and I doubt if I'll ever want to see it again. That said, there is much to be amused by, like Divine's take on Jayne Mansfield's classic walk in "The Girl Can't Help It" and putting slabs of meat between her legs in a grocery store. A gritty feel very much like a Russ Meyer film. Generally poor acting, with the notable exception of Divine. What's there to say about "Pink Flamingos"? It is beyond criticism or even explanation because it doesn't really aspire to be like any other movie you've seen. You will either get it, or you won't, laugh at it or roll your eyes in disgust (or both). John Waters is an odd filmmaker (putting that mildly), mixing both innocent, childlike humor with shockingly offensive moments intended to...well, who knows what his intentions were. It is like a form of assault, albeit a funny one.

The thing that makes Waters's humor so infectious and effective is that his characters inhabit a world that can seem both alien and completely familiar to the viewer, like the petty rivalries that form the plot of "Pink Flamingos". Surely everyone has experienced this kind of thing at some point, but almost certainly the matter at stake was not the title of "The Filthiest Person Alive." What makes the movie compelling viewing for me is the way that Waters creates giddy, self-contained environments and doesn't let you in on the joke right away. The people in his films are completely in tune with one another. For instance, when Cotton tells Babs that she doesn't want to accompany her into town because Crackers is bringing his "lady friend" out to the trailer, Babs reacts with a knowing smirk and says to her, in a conspiratorial aside, "That little shed's just PERFECT..." At this point, we do not know yet that Crackers plans to take his "lady friend" out to the shed to thrust live chickens at her naked body while Cotton watches orgasmically through a window, but this weirdness is totally commonplace and understood by the characters in the fictitiously degenerate world that Waters creates.

Another example would be the conversations between the girls in the basement and Channing, the Marbles' deviant butler. The first time we see them, Waters cuts jarringly from a scene in Connie's cozy office to Channing descending into the basement, where we see that there are two women down there, one dead and one very much alive and p***ed off. Susan is not a cowering victim, but is enraged and abusive to Channing, leaping up to launch a full-scale verbal attack on her jailer. They both have a weird understanding of the bizarre situation, and she is not so much intimidated by her kidnapping as she is violently insulted and righteously furious. She does not let up for one second while Channing is in her sight, and the two scenes that feature their delirious banter are two of the comic highlights of the film. Later in the film, when Divine and Crackers break into the Marbles's home and discover their crimes of keeping abducted women in their basement, it represents the total lack of support that Divine and her family have for the brand of depravity that the Marbles are pandering--here is something Divine is unfamiliar with, a corruption devised by her newfound rivals, and she despises it. Furthermore, while kidnapping does not seem like something Divine would think twice about, she is indignant that the girls are being held down there and happily sets them free, relishing the revenge that they take on Channing.

At the other end of the filth spectrum, Waters occasionally reminds us of the line between his twisted fantasy world and the "real" world. The first time we see Connie, she is belittling a minor character named Sandy Sandstone, who has never heard of Divine. Cookie, on the other hand, reacts with a hilariously matter-of-fact evaluation of Divine's title as the "filthiest person alive", revealing that she inhabits this world of unspoken and understood lunacy as well.

Something also must be said for the way the players are in touch with their respective roles, especially Divine, who doesn't miss a note. Not once does he falter in the ridiculous garb and character he's been given, and it takes "Pink Flamingos" to a new level or weirdness. People actually believed Divine was like this in real life, and it's easy to understand why, because while watching the movie, you're not really thinking about the movie, you're thinking about these people who made it. Since they're really doing the outrageous things in the script, you start to think that maybe this is not a story but a bizarre documentary.

But even more so, "Pink Flamingos" is not so much a movie as it is an event, or something that happens to you. Even though its shock value is mostly gone for me now (I say mostly because the a**hole scene and the chicken scene still make me wince), I still find this film to be hilarious and habit-forming. Babs Johnson (Divine) lives in a trailer with her son Crackers, her daughter Cotton and her mother Edie (Edie Massey). She's in competition with a couple named Connie and Raymond Marbles (Mink Stole, David Lochary) to be named the filthiest person alive. The film shows their attempts to outdo each other.

This film is very much NOT for everyone. It's a in your face no holds barred assault in bad taste. Crackers has sex with a woman with a live chicken between them while his sister watches; the Marbles pick up female hitchhikers, impregnate them, keep them chained in the basement and sell the babies to lesbian couples; Divine and family have a party which includes cannibalism etc etc. It's disgusting but, in a way, not unwatchable. It's SO over the top and is so unapologetic about it that it's kind of fascinating. As director John Waters might say, it's bad taste done well. Also it's kind of amusing to watch--the acting is so wretched (especially by Massey) that you just watch it in disbelief. A friend laughed out loud at how bad Massey was (she improved in later pictures).

This is NOT for people who are easily offended. Even though it's over 30 years old it's STILL shocking. However if you have an open mind and can take a lot of extreme behaviour this is a must-see. The only part that really was too much is what Divine does at the very end. You know the saying "Curiosity Killed The Cat"? Well, I have heard so much about this film, from a magazine that named this one of the most shocking movies of all time, my 1001 movies you must see before you die, my sister who saw this at a film festival, and the I love the 70's show on VH1. I just had to see this movie since it was named the grossest movie of all time, and well, after viewing this film last night, I have to say that it really did live up to it's title. My God, this movie was so weird! I thought I really did see it all with some of the sickest movies and TV shows I've seen, some things I guess will always still feel like a shock.

Well, Babs Johnson, aka Divine, has been named the filthiest person alive and a jealous couple named the Marbles are competing for that title. They want to take Divine out and be named the filthiest couple alive by kidnapping women, raping them, impregnating them, and selling their babies to lesbian couples. But it seems like Divine and her family of well... I don't know, seems to keep the title by having sex with chickens, butt lip syncing, eating dog feces, stuffing meat up their skirts, incest, and it just gets grosser and grosser.

Pink Flamingos is horribly acted, horribly made, and well, just plain horrible. The reason for the 10 rating I'm going to give it is due to the fact, well, how could you rate this film? I always rate, so I just figure what the heck? Through the grossness of this film, you have got to give John Waters some credit, who the heck would ever think of this movie over 35 years later? To the cast and crew who worked on this film, you guys are just plain nasty!

10/10 I grew up in Baltimore, so I was exposed to the films of John Waters, since I was way too young to watch them. And if you're knowledge of John Waters is limited to Hairspray or Cry-Baby, or other family friendly movies, then you must prepare yourself for Pink Flamingos.

Explicit sex acts, incest, an old lady who eats nothing but eggs, and unsanitary acts with chickens are just a mere portion of some of the depravity in this movie. The film ends with Divine, Waters' 300 lbs. cross-dressing star eating dog excrement.

The premise is about two families: One a pair of inbred trailer trash, which includes Divine and Edith Massey as the egg lady; and the other is a rich, swinging couple. Both families are competing for the title of "Filthiest person alive." Enjoy John Waters' finest movie, but only see it if you're an open-minded individual with a strong stomach, because some scenes in this movie will gross you out. For me, Pink Flamingos lived up to it's reputation as being the shocking, disgusting, repulsive, trashy film I was expecting it to be, that really contains everything but the kitchen sink. We are treated to almost two hours of nastiness that never lets up: rape, sex, sex with chickens, transsexuals, castration, murder, cannibalism, and a horrid display of singing out ones anus. It is about a strange couple who begin a competition with a trailer trash family, trying to steal their title as the "filthiest people alive". Divine (a fat guy in drag) is an unbelievably vile human being, who actually becomes painful to watch. Trust me when I say that this film is not one to be quickly forgotten, especially the end scene in which Divine eats dog crap off the sidewalk. I have always thought John Waters was over-rated and I cannot say I like this film, but it is an experience if you ever get a chance to see it. More entertaining than all the gay orgies in "300" combined. More heartbreaking than a Shakespearian tragedy. More poetic than even the most melodramatic poems about lost love and blah blah blah. And on top of all that, the greatest trash ever made.

A black comedy testing the limits of the human senses, John Waters's cult movie "Pink Flamingos" is a story about the conflict between two families that ends in humiliation, death and of course the eating of dog feces (yeah by the way that is not actually the humiliating part). No no, this is not about the impossible love, there are no Romeos or Juliets on these 90 or so minutes. This movie is about the battle for prestige if you could call it that. The battle for the title - Filthiest person alive.

On one side we have Divine (played by the cross-dressing Waters regular... umm... Divine) a caring daughter, good mother, cannibal, murderer, pervert and current owner of said title. She loves her son Crackers a bit way too much. Crackers himself sports a sexual attraction to both chickens and young ladies sometimes mixing them up in threesomes. Family friend and loyal accomplice Cotton gets her satisfaction from watching Crackers during some of his... acts involving the mentioned earlier objects of attraction. Last but not least Divine's mother and grandmother to Crackers, Edie. A 400 hundred pound woman, sleeping, eating and basically living in a baby cradle. She is addicted to eggs and loves the egg-man (the man who brings the eggs...lol).

The four of them live peacefully in a caravan outside the city until the moment when they become a target for the Marbles. Exhibitionists, manipulators, cheaters, very evil people actually. Their main source of income comes from the kidnapping and impregnating of young women. For the impregnating part they use their trusted and loyal cross-dressing butler to provide the semen. After that they sale the birthed child to the highest bidder.

It was the Marbles's envy towards Divine and her title that will lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two families. An Epic battle of filth, perversion and violence.

"Pink Flamingos" is an unsurpassed masterpiece in the trash-movie genre. Loaded with oddities and strange acts, John Waters's movie is loathed and hated by traditionalists, critics and the average movie-going audience. But for the few that remain unscratched by these generalizations the Flamingos is an unforgettable experience. Funny and sick, violent and poetic. It truly is an exercise in poor taste Out of any category, this is one demented and over the edge film, even in todays standards. Filmed entirely in crap-o-rama, this film will blow your mind (and something else too!)

The amount of hilarious bad taste and sleaze is astonishing. The dialog is breathtakingly fast and campy. You'll either love or hate this film, but give it go. I've seen it 4 times and absolutely love it. Divine is in the quest for being the filthiest person alive, but so are her rivals too in this obscene and disgusting (but funny) and stylish little film.

Divine was phenomenal, and "she" will always be missed greatly. Edith Massey does the unforgettable performance as the "egglady" and don't forget the energetic Mink Stole!

Über crazy s**t!

Recommended also for you sick little puppies;

Female Trouble

Desperate Living

Polyester The film that gave us John Waters is one of the funniest films ever. Yes it may be gross but it's filled with hysterical moments that nobody has done since. The infamous dog-scene has to be one of the highlights of cinema. not a film for the easily offended it's one of those movies where you always see something new. Divine's performance is worth the reputation. Mink Stole is hysterical. This is the film responsible for the Farrely brothers and the entire Gross-out comedy genre. I know that sounds a bit extreme but think about it. Before this comedies were very run of the mill and almost identical. After this movie comedies became strange and weird, but in a good way. I'd give it 15 out of 10 if I could. I loved this thing. The most wonderful thing about Pink Flamingos is that it strives desperately to be in horrible taste, but has really gained a cult following world wide. Says a lot about us (us being people) doesn't it. Pink Flamingos succeeds because Waters made the film he wanted to make. A film need not be disgusting to succeed, but it may be. When you watch this film, you see things that are disgusting, but are ultimately brilliant because they are freely displayed. What we have here is an honest piece of personal creative expression. Everyone who ever cares to succeed as an artist, be it in film or any other media, should watch this film. Rating-10 Classic Waters! One of his best and most shocking films! Divine is THE most filthy person ever! Mink Stole also delivers a superb performance! For all viewers out there who have slammed John Waters for creating a film like Pink Flamingos, just stop. It's getting you nowhere. Has anyone ever cared to stop and think about the ambition and dedication Mr.Waters possesses. To gather your best friends up and to create a movie just to gross out thousands of viewers all over shows this man has a great deal of ambition inside himself. Just read his biography Shock Value. It discusses the lengths he went through to get this film finished. Maybe it wasn't just the fact that John made this film to gross people out, it was to prove that there can be something such as good bad taste> A brilliant film by the great John Waters. The characters are unforgettable. The acting, script, and camera-work only enhance the overall greatness of this film. Perversion as an art-form. A must see for all. Easily a perfect 10! Well, I can safely say I'm human, Wong. And I didn't throw up. I laughed. And laughed. If this movie made you puke, there is something wrong with you. But this movie is incredible. I bought it four days ago, and have watched it 5 times already. The animal cruelty gets my heart, but not long enough to be guilty. The movie is shocking, disgusting, and vulgar. The acting is horrific. What else do you want from a movie? I am a die-hard cult film maniac. Pink Flamingos is awesome. It makes Rocky Horror, as someone has said, look like the teletubbies. Pink Flamingos is a movie no word can explain. It was just as good I thought. It expands films. Starting with a "multiple" beginning, and ending with a shocking, but clever ending, Pink Flamingos is one of the best films of the year. Don't miss this opportunity to see a great film. Rent it on video or see it at a late midnight showing like I did. But just see it. I was first introduced to John Waters films by seeing "Female trouble" on IFC. I was disgusted but for some sick reason i enjoyed it. Then, i picked up the Pink Flamingos DVD in the John Waters Boxed Set. The movie is about Babs Johnson "The Filthiest Person Alive" who lives in a trailer in Maryland with her obese egg obsessed mother,and her deranged son "Crackers". In the movie you will see such sick sights as sex with chickens, drag-queens, people eating feces, torture, and all other sorts of random humiliation. The film has a soundtrack from 60's rock and roll artists. The only problem is that some parts of the film seem to drag on and can get a little boring. I found "Female Trouble" a little more fun. Rated NC-17 for Explicit sex, violence, and disturbing images. Enjoy. "Pink Flamingos" was revolutionary for its time, and even today it's still hard to watch. Not that I didn't enjoy the film, it's hilarious; but it's very repulsive and Jonh Waters pushes the envelope as far as it can go. The story concerns Babs Johnson (Devine), she's the filthiest women alive. She lives in a trailer with her son Crackers and daughter Cotton. Not to mention the overweight Edie who's obsessed with eggs and sleeps in a crib. Then there's Connie and Raymond Marble, two filthy perverts who are jealous of Babs. They long to outdo her in being the filthiest person alive. This means having their janitor impregnate kidnapped women and selling the babies to lesbian couples, flashing people in public, and even sending Babs a turd in the mail. Babs fights back to prove she's the most deranged person alive. Which even includes incest, murder and eating dog crap and other sick sexual acts. It's a film that's fun for the whole family. (well depending on where you live?) Watch "Pink Flamingos", but don't forget your barf bag. For more perverse, weird sex and bodily functions also see "Sweet Movie". After watching Desperate Living, I was hooked on John Waters films. I heard about Pink Flamingos and had to watch it and boy was it worth it! Believe what you hear, it is trash! It is packed with everything filthy which is actually the main plot of this film. It contains the following: Incest, cannibalism, rape, chicken shagging,nudity (like you never seen before- beware of baby's birthday party entertainers),poo eating,arson, trailer trash, perversion, transexuality, egg fettish, cross dressing...... you get the picture. Above all, this is a definite must! Just beware of the birthday party entertainer and Divine wondering around the park! The story of dirty fat filth-like middle-age woman who lives out of society be knowing as the filthiest woman ever lived. Can someone take her the crown? There is one couple ..... The nice film for people who don't like ordinary pieces of comedies and don't mind some disturbing sense of humor.I was very surprised seeing some scenes and love theirs pungent kind.

Pink Flamingos: A Representation of Society's Past

Pink Flamingos, a film directed by John Waters in 1972, is a very disturbing portrayal of the negative impact a traumatized childhood can have on future life. Babs Johnson grew up in a very non-typical home. Blatantly, you can see the impact this had on society through her actions up to the ending where she engulfs dog feces. Was this film just some sick and twisted perversion of endless gut-wrenching occurrences, or was it symbolic of something much deeper? To side with the first would be the easy way out and to the side with the latter might seem demented, but possibly true. The film does have some credible resemblance to actual events of our societal past. Every leader that we as people view as `horrible' displays similar characteristics to those of Babs Johnson. Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Staling all had `troubling' childhoods. Babs Johnson had a troubling childhood and therefore is associated in the same class as all of the previous mentioned rulers. That is why a great deal of her actions throughout the film can be seen as disturbing. However, were her actions her own fault or society's for letting her grow up the way she did. Furthermore, each character in this film represents either a past leader or event. Another coincidence is Edith's obsession with eggs. With an open mind this can be tied into the genocide and Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. Some view Hitler as a genius, others a mad man. John Waters must have seen him as a mad man because his representation Edith was indeed mentally ill. Edith's son Crackers and traveling companion Cotton are symbolic of what was wrong in our own backyard, slavery. Both names, are slang terms that represent a time period that most of us would rather forget. Theses characters are crucial in terms that it points out that in some times, our society in America was no better than what we often view as horrendous acts of social onslaught in other cultures. The chicken f**king scene is the epitome of what was wrong in our society in this time period and is still wrong. Chicken, is a 1970's slang term for woman. Therefore it might be possible that John Waters were trying to bring out the subject of rape through Cotton and Crackers actions. The antagonist family, if a single antagonist can be determined in this film, was the Marble's. Marble is often mentioned in association with wealth. Therefore this may be symbolic of the struggle between the poor and the wealthy a fight that still continues on today and will probably continue on forever. Pink Flamingos is a monumental film for its disturbing scenes but should also be noted for its camouflaged political agenda that Waters displayed so affluently throughout its entirety. Boasting the title for the sickest film ever made, PINK FLAMINGOS is an undisputed classic. Sure, the camerawork is shaky and off-center, the story is muddled and slow-paced, and every single character in the movie is repugnant and despicable, but PINK FLAMINGOS has a certain playful charm and brilliant satiric wit that no other movie can match.

While this film is indeed an offensive one, reading descriptions of what goes on in the movie is much worse than actually seeing it. Only John Waters can succeed in making rape, murder, sadism, cannibalism, coprophagia, and just about every other form of human debauchery known to man seem absolutely hilarious. This movie must be seen to be believed. Margaret Colin stars as the principal figure in this story; as I watched it, I remembered her bit part in Adrian Lynes's "Ünfaithful" as Diane Lane's neighbor in a tony NY neighborhood.

This movie was surprisingly good, and Diane Stillman deserves credit for an accurate portrayal of class, crimes, and misdemeanors, which actually occur in upscale neighborhoods (perish the thought!!!).It is real but not over-dramatized; the audience lives through her accident, the pain it has caused;denial; and the ultimate resolution.

It is more than just a question of "what is a good person" as Colin speaks to her husband....is a person's character defined by one single act; and should they be condemned forever because of their action?? The questions are pertinent; It is also amusing to see several cinematic references to Martha Stewart (i.e. the fussy, bothersome mother);Colin is reputed by her sometime friends to be a "perfect hostess, with perfect genes"....(gag); and a scene wherein Colin is confronted by police;(the "friends" also betray her, later)....

The denial and facades of American society are addressed; (Oh, murder doesn't occur here; similar to the theme in "Ä Season in Purgatory", by author Dominick Dunne, about the true murder of Martha Moxley; in Greenwich, Connecticut); Colin is aware of her crime; but consciously finds herself perpetuating the facade, until she finally breaks down;rent or buy this film; she is an underrated actress who does quite well in these roles. This is such a great movie to watch and all the actors put together a great film which would be enjoyed by everyone! It is very emotional in parts, so when you watch it grab a box of tissues to keep you company!! This movie doesn't deserve a rating below 10/10! The main point of the movie, IMO, is the fact the Joanna's whole life has been nothing but a series of facades. The movie opens up with her secretly dying her gray roots, and hiding the used kit in an empty tissue box. What is strange is that she is hiding this from her HUSBAND. If she has to hide mundane things from her loved one, one can bet that she is hiding even bigger things from others involved in her life.

When Joanna accidentally hits Cory, she leaves the scene to call the police. By the time she returns, the police and ambulance are there, as well as people from her community, remarking "What kind of person hits a child then just leaves her there?" Well-respected in her community, she makes the decision to keep quiet about what she had done. But, she never realized how difficult it would be the keep up her facades...

Great movie-I have seen it many times! (There are Spoilers) Driving down a lonely country road one rainy afternoon Joanna Kndall, Margaret Colin,is distracted for a brief moment and runs down a little girl riding a bicycle on the side of the roadway. Doing what she can to keep the injured youngster comfortable Joanna goes to call for help at a local service station. Before she can give her name Joanna hangs up the phone in order to get back to the girl and see if she's all right; it's then and there when the nightmare begins for Joanna.

Heart-wrenching drama that can effect any one of us when you try to do the right thing but are influenced by the words and feelings of those around you. Getting back to the accident site Joanna sees it's cordoned off by the highway police. Before she can tell them what happened, and her involvement in it, Joanna starts to have second thought about turning herself in.

What would at first have been a tragic accident turns out to be a hit-and-run with Joanna facing time behind bars, if caught. Even far worse she has to live with herself in what she did seeing almost every day the family of the little girl she ran down Kelly Corey, Dallas Deremer, who goes to the same school as her two daughters Mindy & Holly, Gretchen Esau & Kira Posey. Joanna's life starts to come apart as she tries to keep the truth from her friends and family, not to mention the Eaton Police, of what she was involved with in little Kelly's accident.

You can easily see how the words of her friends and neighbors as well as her husband Doug, Drew Phillbury, about the hit and run, effected Joanna. It was those words that had Joanna unable to bring herself to admit what she did not just for her own concern but her two daughters and her husband as well. Feeling that they'll be shunned by the people that they knew as friends as well as neighbors for years.

Joanna on the verge of losing her mind tries to implicate her friend Nancy Grayson, Sherry Hursey, in Kelly's hit-and-run accident by trying to plant her earing, that she lost in Joanna house, at the accident site. It's then that she realizes what she's doing and suddenly stops,keeping her from making an already bad situation even worse, not wanting to have Kelly's accident but also innocent Nancy's freedom and reputation on her conscience as well.

Margraet Colin gives a stunning performance as the guilt ridden Joanna Kendall and you can really feel for her seeing how she's being eaten up inside and not knowing just what to do. Wanting at first to turn herself in to the police a series of miscalculations causes Joanna to become a fugitive from the law. When she eventually did Joanna became the most hated and despised person in Eaton.

Not being herself, when still at large, Joanna's husband starts to feel that she's either back to smoking or even having an affair. Never in a million years would Doug have thought that Joanna was the person who ran down little Kelly and left her to die on that rain soaked road! The look on his face, with his mouth quivering, when he found out the truth said it all.

The last few minutes of the movie took a lot out of you knowing what Joanna was going through, not to downplay the suffering of the injured Kelly Corey and her parents, and how she now has to face the music for what she did and have to live with it for the rest of her life. Just watched this film on TV and it was awesome.

had just planned on watching it whilst doing some work however i ended up watching the whole film with out doing work as it was so good!

Actors my not be very well know but the story line makes up for it. the fact that the actors make are less well known only makes it more believable that the events could occur. i did not feel a biased towards one character as i have no judgement of the types of character as i have never seen any of the actors in a film before which made it even more enjoyable.

would recommend watching it. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Wow, what a predicament Joanna has found herself in. After accidentally running over a young child, she goes to call for help, only to return to the crime scene amidst a group of very angry onlookers. Understanda- bly, this is too much for her to handle, and she flees the scene. Luckily the child didn't die, but is seriously injured and in a coma. So starts the biggest struggle in Joanna's life: should she keep quiet or speak up? At first she doesn't, but eventually she realises that it's torture living with such a horrible secret.

At one point she even joins a search party to help find the culprit. And gradually a detective starts to question this woman's behavior. She wants to tell the truth, and she never meant to run away from the crime scene, but is it worth telling and having the whole town hate you for it?

The thing about this movie is that you don't choose sides. Joanna is very much a good role model, even though she's made some wrong choices. You feel for her, even though you know what she did was wrong. Her journey is a good representation of what any human being would go through if something like this were to happen to them.

Margaret Colin is an absolutely brilliant actress. She was amazing in the TV series Now and Again and great in films like Independence Day and The Devil's Own. Her performance here is so realistic and unforced that she carries us singlehandedly through the entire film. In the end, I wanted to see more of her. Lisa Vidal also provided some good supporting work as the gentle, resourceful detective.

To wrap it up, if you wanna see a movie that will make you think long afterwards, one that will say "This is reality", then you won't want to miss this one.

My rating: 9/10 Spoiler Alert I worked as an extra on this Lifetime TV movie (filmed in Seattle). It's really interesting when you take part in the production of a movie, because usually, they are still in the process of either still writing parts (as was the case here) or making editing cuts and major changes from the final parts.

My husband and I both worked as extras in this movie, and I recall them discussing on the set how it was yet to be determined whether or not the little girl dies in the end. Frankly, I never thought Margaret Colin's character really got adequate punishment for her crime of hit and run, lying to police, covering up, etc. Could you imagine how the ending would have had to change if she had ended up killing the hit and run victim instead of her ending up coming out of her coma okay? Just something to think about.

By the way, I play a police detective you can see for a split second and my husband plays another detective you can see quite often (we've counted four times). Margaret Colin was great to work with and very down to earth, although Lisa Vidal (now a Lifetime regular) was aloof.

Overall, the movie turned out to be about a 7/10, but like another poster commented, is still a real tear-jerker and makes a great Saturday afternoon cable flick. "Hit and Run" is a shattering story starring the always wonderful Margaret Colin as a society lady who "has it all" until she hits a child with her car and leaves the scene. Hence the title. The tragedy is that she goes to call for help and returns, but is frightened away by angry passers-by who think the hitter abandoned the scene. This was made in the days when not everyone had a cell phone or there wouldn't be a story.

Colin's guilt and anguish are palpable and cause her to act so strangely that a detective gets onto her right away. Her lies sink her deeper and deeper into a self-loathing hole, causing her to make a bad situation worse.

This is a very thought-provoking story, and one can't help but to feel this lady's pain, wishing throughout that she would simply come clean.

As a TV movie, thanks to Colin and a strong script, this is a well above average TV movie. It's all there: Two classic anti-hero buddies, a headlong chase through beautiful swedish scenery, guns, violence, sex, and a Butch Cassidy / sundance Kid - style finale.

Add a touch of surrealism and some distinctly danish humour, and you've got this excellent road-movie. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is about true love and friendship. About turning your life around and doing something good for someone else. Thomas Bo Larsen may play the same role he has done in so many other movies, but recently we have seen him in other roles which he does great too. But so what if he plays the same role that he has done in other movies – he's perfect for that role. Ulrich Thomsen does a great job too. These two criminal "low-lifes" are the best friends ever. They share everything and they do everything for each other no matter what the costs are. When they find out that Peter's daughter is being abused they put everything on hold (things you can't put on hold unless you have to make even more criminal acts) and takes her to a better place. They do the best they can – these two men are not masterminds but they have their heart in the right place. All I can say is that Peter and Carsten are my Biggest Heroes too… This must be one of the funniest Danish movies ever made. Ulrich Thomsen and Thomas Bo Larsen are hilarious, as they drive across Sweden. I don't know how Ulrich Thomsen does it, but somehow he can manage to play insane in a very sane way. BUT if you don't understand Danish (I am not referring to your pastry here) don't waste your time on this – I don't think it would work with subtitles. The biggest heroes, is one of the greatest movies ever. A good story, great actors and a brilliant ending is what makes this film the jumping start of the director Thomas Vinterberg's great carrier. In a style reminiscent of the best of David Lean, this romantic love story sweeps across the screen with epic proportions equal to the vast desert regions against which it is set. It's a film which purports that one does not choose love, but rather that it's love that does the choosing, regardless of who, where or when; and furthermore, that it's a matter of the heart often contingent upon prevailing conditions and circumstances. And thus is the situation in `The English Patient,' directed by Anthony Minghella, the story of two people who discover passion and true love in the most inopportune of places and times, proving that when it is predestined, love will find a way.

It's WWII; flying above the African desert, Hungarian Count Laszlo de Almasy (Ralph Fiennes) is shot down, his biplane mistaken for an enemy aircraft. And though he survives the crash, he is severely burned. To his great good fortune, however, he is rescued by a tribe of nomads and winds up in a hospital. But existing conditions are governed by circumstances of war, and Almasy soon becomes one of many patients being transported via convoy to a different facility. Upon reaching Italy, he is too weak and ill to continue on, and a Canadian nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), volunteers to stay behind with him at an abandoned monastery.

Hana soon discovers that her charge is something of a man of mystery, as Almasy remembers nothing of his past, and not even his own name. Thought to be English, the only clues pointing to who he is are contained in a book found in his possession after the crash, but even they are as cryptic as Hana's patient. Slowly, however, under prompting from Hana, Almasy begins to remember bits and pieces of his life, and his story begins to unfold. And his memory is helped along even more by the appearance of a mysterious stranger named Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who suspects that Almasy is the man he's been looking for-- a man with whom he wants to settle a score. But, burned beyond recognition, Almasy may or may not be that man. Meanwhile, Almasy's memories continue to surface; memories of a woman he loved, Katherine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas)-- as well as memories of Katherine's husband, Geoffrey (Colin Firth). And, crippled in mind and body as he is, those memories become the only thing left to which he can cling with any hope at all, even as his life seems to be slipping farther away with each passing moment.

In addition to directing, Anthony Minghella also wrote the screenplay for this film, which he adapted from the novel by Michael Ondaatje. The result is an epic saga presented in the tradition of Lean's `Doctor Zhivago' and `Lawrence of Arabia'; a magnificent film that fills the screen and the senses with unprecedented grandeur and beauty. Simply put, Minghella's film is genius realized; crafted and delivered with a poetic perfection, watching it is like watching a Monet come to life. From the opening frames, Minghella casts a hypnotic spell over his audience that is binding and transporting, with a story that has an emotional beauty that equals the engagingly stunning and vibrant images brought to life by John Seale's remarkable cinematography; images that virtually fill the screen as well as the soul of the viewer. In every sense, this is a film of rare eloquence, with a striking emotional capacity that facilitates an experience that is truly transcendental. Nominated in twelve categories, it deservedly received a total of nine Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress (Binoche) and Cinematography.

If one had to choose a single word to describe the `essence' of this film, it would be `excellence.' Even an extraordinary film, however, does not receive nine Oscars without performances that are extraordinary in kind; and the performances given by Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas here transcend the term `Oscar worthy.' Nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Almasy (Geoffrey Rush was awarded the gold for `Shine'), Fiennes has never been better, achieving an emotional depth with his character that is nearly palpable. Private and introspective, Almasy is not by his very nature an individual to whom the audience will be able to form an intimate connection; Fiennes, however, finds a way to open that emotional door just enough to let you in, enough so that you taste the honest passion welling up within him. And it works. Almasy does not seek your friendship; he will, however, gain your compassion.

Kristen Scott Thomas, too, received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (Frances McDormand received the award for `Fargo') for her portrayal of Katherine, a woman whose stoic countenance masks the emotional conflict raging within her, born of the forbidden passion that enslaves her and yet to which she gives herself willingly, casting off her shackles of repression to embrace a love so strong it threatens to consume her. The reserve Katherine must maintain evokes the empathy of the audience, as Scott Thomas successfully mines the emotional depths of her character to the greatest possible effect. It's the kind of performance that draws you in and holds you fast, taking you as it does beyond that curtain of hypocrisy that dictates what must be if only for the sake of appearances, and allows you to experience a true sense of unbridled passion. Understated and shaded with subtlety, it's terrific work by Kristin Scott Thomas.

Binoche gives a stunning, affecting performance, as well, as the kindhearted nurse, Hana; it is her humanity, in fact, which defines love in it's purest sense and offers a balanced perspective of it within the context of the film. Her relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews) affords us a glimpse of passion of another kind, which contrasts effectively with the intensity of that between Almasy and Katherine. `The English Patient' is a film that will move you and fill you emotionally; one you will not want to see end. 10/10.





'The English Patient' is a love story set in Europe as World War II ends... It is a wartime romance mystery epic, like 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour,' 'The Sweet Hereafter,' and 'After Life.' Anthony Minghella weaves extravagant beauty around a central character whose condition is grotesque, and puts emotional barriers between the characters and the audience...

This adult love story is an intimate portrait in the tradition of 'Casablanca' and 'Dr. Zhivago.' The film sweeps gracefully attaining a level of eroticism and emotional connection that many similar films had missed... Told in flashback, it is a masterpiece of intimate moment and spectacular largesse...

Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, Count Laszlo de Almasy, a Hungarian cartographer of few words, who works for the British government, and is stationed in the North African desert...

Count Laszlo is the unidentified survivor of a plane crash turned over to the Allies, taken into custody by a medical convoy in Italy, and essentially left to die in peace, in an isolated monastery in Tuscany, under the care of an inspiring pretty nurse who injects him with morphine, and reads to him a book, considered his great treasure, and his one surviving possession...

Hana seeks to stimulate his touching memories, wrapped up in his head, released in lost pieces from his disturbed mind...

Fiennes gives a haunted, pained performance, playing the young man whose veneer of charm cannot plainly cover his heart's capacity for passion... He makes us sympathize with the character in showing self-doubt and weakness... As a badly burned man, he has only cherished memories... His joy and heartbreak are completely clear and visible in his eyes... He remembers falling under the spell of an attractive English married woman... He remembers the way this turns him from a harsh abrupt wanderer into a man willing to betray everything for love... His tragic love affair forms the heart of the motion picture...

Kristin Scott Thomas matches Fiennes' work with a radiant sensuality... She is captivating as the married European woman, conveying the audience with the energy and enthusiasm for life that the Count finds irresistible... Their different world, despairing and hopeful, menacing and resilient, is simply beautiful... With intense passion and intelligence, this attractive blonde burns the screen as the different wife...

Juliette Binoche seems to shine as the French-Canadian nurse full of life and energy... This vibrant young woman has a heart of gold, kissing wounded soldiers, but she thinks that she is a curse as anybody she ever loved tends to die on her...

Colin Firth is good as Katherine's husband... He is a British spy flying into the tough desert in a yellow biplane to take aerial maps of the whole North African continent... He quickly becomes friend of the Count, yet when he realizes that his wife has committed adultery, his face reflected a peaceful fury...

William Dafoe plays a double-agent spy who covers his anger with a strange charm... He is a crippled war veteran who has a hidden agenda... This cunning Canadian man seems to know of some dark secret in Almasy's past... He believes the 'English patient' is partially responsible for the mutilation of his hands, and is busy seeking revenge on everyone even remotely involved...

Naveen Andrews is Hana's ardent lover… He is a handsome Sikh, and an explosives expert with a dangerous job… There's a scene that is stuck in my head because it literally had me on the edge of my seat for what seemed an eternity… In this particular scene, the military sapper has to cut the wires on a bomb that has been hidden on a bridge… It's on a timer and he only has a few minutes left… The scene cuts back and forth between his tense face, the wires and his dirty fingers as they try madly to figure out how to untangle and cut the wires without detonating the bomb…

All the conventional elements of the genre are at peaks of excellence in "The English Patient." John Seale's cinematography is breathtaking, and Gabriel Yared's majestic music is dreamy, and romantic… This is a rich motion picture with ambition and style, a fever dream, lyrical and complex… We are almost able to feel the heat of the desert, the pain of the burnings, the intimate flush of humanity that becomes the most haunting element of this epic love story... I've seen a few movies in my time, but this one is exceptional. You'll have to watch it more than once to truly appreciate it, it is emotionally very complex, it explores love and passion at it's most extreme and it's cinematography is just breathtaking. The character of the Count is intensely passionate and tragic without him having to raise his voice or indeed leave his bed, the film is perfectly cast and perfectly acted. The film has a sort of mathematical precision and perfection to it which is rare these days. It combines action, love, tragedy, drama and politics all in one. This movie is unmissable, all the hype surrounding it and all the awards cannot begin to do it any justice. Hats off to Michael Ondaatje for writing the incredible book on which it is based. as can be read in many reviews here it is a movie you love or hate - apparently not so much space for opinions in between. I for one think that is a good sign.

I always appreciated this movie, although the genre is not my typical style (I never watched Titanic for instance, and am not planning to).

The English Patient grips because it shows how people can be different when they are in an exotic environment as opposed when they are 'home' (Katherine), it shows how destructive love can be in a slow, strong and utterly painful way, it excites because of the extremely passionate affair, the pain of the one(s) who leave behind, how pointless one can feel to move on.

The photography is just stunning, not to mention the play of the actors. The pace is slow, but timely, and that does justice to the book, the timeline, and the depth/development of the characters. To put this in 110 minutes (as some seem to suggest here) would amputate the multi-layeredness of this movie. People tend to have difficulties with the pace of movies... as if they are in a rush to get to work.. hey - get a life ! ;-) enjoy...

I give this movie 4.5 out of 5. I like this movie above all others. It is "multi-layered"; there is so much to see and appreciate. Every viewing brings a new appreciation of the story-line, the plot and the characters. Faultlessly acted and extremely enjoyable if you take the time to watch it and appreciate it. I love the interaction between the players; the subtle relationships; the period atmosphere. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly cast as the brooding lover and Geoffrey the wronged husband is beautifully underplayed by Colin Firth. The scene in the sand storm where Catherine & El-masy are discussing the different types of sand storms is one of the high-lights of the film and where the affair really starts. The other relationship between Hanna & El-masy is yet another "layer" of the movie which is totally enchanting (and heart-rending). A worthy winner of so many awards. TEP is like a long cool drink of water after crawling across the Sahara to classic film buffs who have been too long deprived of that certain cinematic magic! Not only is it beautifully photographed, but the characters are perfectly portrayed. If you're looking for the film to be a mirror of the book, you will be seriously disappointed. Instead, it is an excellent "companion" to the book, and I think that is what Anthony Minghella intended. Ralph Fiennes is probably the most beautiful man in the world; not to mention a brilliant actor. Juliette Binoche is the posterchild for vulnerability and childlike enthusiasm. And, of course, I'll go see any film in which Kristin Scott Thomas is featured. She simply must be THE best actress since the likes of Deborah Kerr. So much was promised with this film, and so much is delivered! Count Laszlo (Ralph Fiennes) has just been transferred to a hospital in Italy during World War II. He is horrifically burned from an ambush. His nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) tends to him, body and mind, for she fears, quite rightly, that he may be a very troubled soul. In the course of his care, the Count starts to tell Hana of his recent past. It seems he worked in a government capacity in Africa, where he met a beautiful married lady named Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). Although they tried to avoid each other, they fell in love. After a brief affair, Katherine called it quits, leaving the Count desolate. Even so, the two would meet again, under heart-wrenching circumstances. Meanwhile, Hana herself falls for a Sihk man in the British bomb squad. Yet, the war is raging relentlessly. Can love exist when the world is in turmoil? This is a tremendous film, based on an equally fine but complex novel. The plot has many story lines that are woven together beautifully, each of them poignant beyond description. The script itself is elegant and contains many memorable lines. Fiennes is magnificent, both as the burn victim and as the man who thought love was a myth. Scott Thomas is also quite fine as the woman who fights against her passions. As for Binoche, she richly deserved the Oscar that she was presented, as her nurse is a shining example of hope in a hopeless situation. The scenery is utterly gorgeous, as are the costumes, the direction, and the production. If you have missed out on viewing this film, rectify that soon, very soon. The English Patient will remain one of the greatest achievements in film for centuries to come. 'The English Patient' can rightly be compared to the films of David Lean, whose sweeping epics such as 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Bridge on the River Kwai' must have inspired the director Anthony Minghella. The film is beautifully photographed, and like 'Lawrence', is set in Northern Africa, but during the second world war. The story is complex, but it boils down to a forbidden love between an opinionated and often difficult archeologist played by Ralph Fiennes and a married woman played by Kristin Scott Thomas.

The story, based on a novel by Michael Ondaatje, is told in flashbacks by Fiennes' Count Laszlo de Almasy - the titular character. The fact that his name does not sound like he's English plays a key role in what unfolds. He has been badly burned in a plane crash, occurring just as the film opens, and is being cared for back in Europe by Hana, an army nurse played by Juliette Binoche. What makes this story epic is the vast sweep across place and time, and the development of characters beyond that of the two ill-fated lovers. The film makes clear that true love and passion, even with dreaded consequences, can make life worth living, or worth dying for. If you're a romantic at heart, and can appreciate a film without the standard happy endings and simple moral codes, you may find that 'The English Patient' speaks directly to you.

It is a strangely powerful and moving experience to see "The English Patient" again after Anthony Minghella's death. Most of his body of work is dedicated to one shattering point. The endless moral struggle of those who, consciously, walk a very thin line. In "The Talented Mr Ripley" Minghella moves away from Patricia Highsmith's amoral Tom Ripley to give the murderer a conscience. In "Breaking And Entering" Minghella gives Jude Law's character the need to confess and the rewards are chillingly moving. Here, in "The English Patient", the characters in love are never too far away from their corroding feeling of guilt. Ralph Finnes and Kristin Scott Thomas are extraordinary. They strip their characters from every pretense in a compelling complicity with us, the audience. Juliette Binoche is, quite simply, spectacular and her scenes with the wonderful Naveen Andrews are filled with a "Minghellian" sensual innocence. Anthony Minghella gave us films that were,one way or another, that elusive mix of art and commerce. He was true to himself but thought about his audience. He knew how to push our buttons without betraying his own. There is something clear, honest and startling about Minghella's opus. I miss him already but I'm grateful for the reflection of his soul he left behind. Anthony Minghella's 'The English Patient' is a film that takes us back to the golden years of Hollywood. It is grand and impressive in scale, and yet so heartbreakingly intimate in its portrayal of human love and suffering. At the 1997 Academy Awards, the film owned the night, taking home nine awards from twelve nominations, the most decisive cleansweep since Bernardo Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' in 1988. Based on Canadian author Michael Ondaatje's 1992 Booker Prize-winning novel of the same name, 'The English Patient' is a touching meditation on life, love and loss, tracing the history of a critically-burnt man in the aftermath of World War Two.

During the war, a man (Ralph Fiennes) is discovered in the burning remnants of a crashed plane. With his face scarred beyond recognition, and with the man seemingly suffering from amnesia, he is assumed to be an Allied soldier, and is simply referred to as "the English patient." After the war, in the mine-ridden hills of Italy, a kind nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), who has apparently lost everybody close to her, remains in a ruined monastery to look after the dying man. Over time, she comes to learn more and more about her "English patient," who is actually revealed to be a Hungarian geographer, Count Laszlo de Almásy. Rather than losing his memory in the plane crash, we learn that this scar-ridden man has perhaps chosen to forget his past, both to protect himself from persecution and to cure himself of the tragic memories of his past love. Via numerous flashbacks, we learn of Almásy's former exploits in the Sahara desert, and his romantic liaison with a married woman, Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas).

It's certainly easy to see why 'The English Patient' was so successful at the Oscars. It is such a beautiful film, blending the quiet beauty of the Italian countryside with the endless golden sands of the desert. Cinematographer John Seale captures the landscape to perfection; not since David Lean's magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' has a film shown the desert with such beauty and grandeur, making particularly good use of sweeping aerial shots from Almásy's plane. Even in the film's more intimate moments, excellent use of close-ups and lighting capture the emotion of the scene, coupled, of course, with the brilliant performances from all the cast members.

A long-time favourite actor of mine, 'The English Patient' might just contain Ralph Fiennes' finest performance, and, considering his history includes such films as 'Schindler's List' and 'The Constant Gardener,' this is not a complement that is to be taken lightly. His Count Laszlo de Almásy is initially a very sympathetic character, but, as we slowly learn more about his past, his likable qualities are eroded by his less-admirable tendencies towards others. "Ownership" is a major theme of the film. When asked by Katherine what he hates most, Almásy replies with "Ownership. Being owned. When you leave you should forget me." However, as the relationship progresses, and Katherine perhaps tries to distance herself from him, Almásy reveals a hint of arrogance, insisting that his love for her somehow entitles him to have her whenever he likes: "I want to touch you. I want the things which are mine, which belong to me."

Juliette Binoche, who received an Oscar for her performance here, is excellent as Hana, the lonesome nurse who fears to love because of the tragedies that have always harmed those close to her. After some time of caring for Almásy alone, she is joined by a dubious Canadian thief, David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who lost his thumbs during the war, and who suspects that it was Almásy who betrayed him to the Germans. Hana also strikes up a tentative romantic relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews), an Indian bomb-diffuser in the British Army. However, due to her past history, Hana is afraid that becoming involved with Kip will doom him to death, particularly considering his very dangerous line of work.

At 160 minutes in length, 'The English Patient' wonderfully evokes memories of the classic romantic epics of old, successfully finding a balance of mystery, love, joy and tragedy. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and sorrowful, but also uplifting in its own way. Whilst some romantic relationships are doomed from the very beginning, others have a very good chance of bringing happiness. Nevertheless, in every case, it is always better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. I won't go to a generalization, and say it's the best love story of all time, as some have said. That's fine, people feel very deeply about this film, you either love it I believe...or you simply hate it. I don't want to say, the best of all,because that is simply too 'broad' for me to make a statement like that. However, I feel very passionately about The English Patient, as well as millions of other people do.

The awards say it all.

I don't agree with critics, on many levels, however, the ones that picked this one, I couldn't agree more.

9-Oscars.

41-wins.

37-other nominations, makes this love story,on the top of the bunch.

From the director, Anthony Minghella, the story that bursts onto the screen and as Mr. Peterman (from T.V.s Seinfeld) said, "Elaine, I simply can't take my eyes off of it!" In this instance, I don't agree with Elaine's response. But the story builds and takes the right time, needed to make it's case beautifully. The cinematography,(John Seale) won multiple awards as well, as it ought too. I have not really paid much attention to Juliette Binoche, until now. Well, not entirely true I loved her performance in "Sabrina" Lovely story of a somewhat complicated relationship, next to Harrison Ford. But this was simply an incredibly differing character for her, and as deeply talented as she is, she simply shined in her own subtle and graceful way, she was just what this film was looking for, I'm truly glad that it was her performance and not another actress. Ralph Fiennes, was also spectacular in portraying Count Laszlo De Almasy. I had a new respect for his ability, after seeing this one! What can you say except, see this picture again. (*****) I watched this movie when it was released and being really young and not too much into cinema it was one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I ever had and it really left a mark inside me.At first I didn't quite understand the story and probably failed to make the necessary correlations between past and present as the movie presents them to the viewer.

Years after I first watched I managed to watch it again and this was the time that I fell in love with 'The English Patient', it touched me so deeply and for me it became the best film ever made.

Anthony Minghella made an absolutely stunning film, all the locations are amazing and through his camera he manages to create unbelievable emotions inside you.

Of course, the music of the film is such a big part of the whole emotional journey of the characters and the film would not be the same without it.

But personally the best thing was the fragile performance that Ralph Fiennes gave in this masterpiece. He plays so well the man that falls in love slowly but so deeply with Katherine Clifton,opens up his heart and dives into this prohibited affair.

The most heart-breaking scene for me will always be the one where hurt Katherine is carried by Almasy towards the Cave of Swimmers and she wears the thimble that he bought her.She says 'I always wore it.I always loved you' and at that moment he starts crying with such pain flowing from inside him.

Juliette Binoche is also amazing in her performance and really deserved the Oscar she won.

Overall, this is a film that anybody who proclaims himself a cinema lover should watch in their lives. One of the most charming and, for me at least, the most powerful elements of Anthony Minghella's enthralling Best Picture-winner "The English Patient" is that, in the mid 90s, when Hollywood was in the initial stage of having lost its nerve for grand new projects, a film was created that brought back traces—very powerful traces—of the sweeping, wonderful majesty that crafted movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Ten Commandments" (1956). "The English Patient" contains very much of what made those films so powerful. It has that glorious feeling, a stretched running time that hardly seems long at all, and fascinating characters with pasts and stories.

"The English Patient", based on a novel by the same name by Michael Ondaatje, is like "The Godfather: Part II" (1974) in the sense of how it's constructed. It's a blending of two stories: the past and the present and it all revolves around the titular character: an English patient in the post years of World War Two. Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, who has been scarred for life by a plane crash, and being taken care of in an isolated church by a single nurse played marvelously by Juliette Binoche. Apart from bonding with her raspy-voiced, troubled patient, Binoche comes to learn about his past when a stranger (Willem Dafoe) arrives and the two men appear to know each other.

That's just one of the two beautifully crafted stories that shape this film. The other one, told in flashback, is the patient's past, before he was scarred and dying in a bed. The story of the present mixed with the patient's past and his love affair that tragically changed his life forever.

To be blunt, "The English Patient" is a love story blended with a sweeping epic sensation and it blends magnificently. What I really admired about the love story between Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas was how passionate, how obsessive, how enchanting it was shown on screen. Usually in love stories, such as Minghella's later "Cold Mountain" (2003), the romantic elements seem far more lustful than obsessive to me. Some of the love scenes feature elements that may tend to be associated more with lust than love, but still, because it is so well developed and not rushed and not exploited out of proportion, we can believe that there is a sure, true love between these characters. It reminded me a lot of "Vertigo" (1958) in how well the filmmakers and performers convinced us that these were two actual human beings who truly fell in love with each other.

Performances all around were great. I was especially enthralled by the performance by Juliette Binoche, who took home the Oscar for her performance the following year. I also liked Willem Dafoe playing the sort of cynical, questionable character that he's always quintessential at playing. And of course I can't leave out Fiennes and Scott Thomas and their portrayals of two very passionate lovers.

Despite my enormous enthusiasm for this epic, I would be dishonest if I were to describe it as a perfect film. There are two flaws that I cannot glance over. Number one, it is a little too long and the reason for this is my second complaint, there are a few unnecessary subplots. I was not enchanted or particularly interested with the second love story between Binoche and a bomb specialist played by Naveen Andrews. My research has led me to assume that this plot element comes from the original book and I'm sure it worked perfectly in there, but in the film, it just seems a little…distracting and the relationship between the two characters didn't fascinate me. I was far more interested by Fiennes character and his relationships with his two leading actresses.

Nevertheless, these two flaws are easily forgivable even if they do slow things down a bit. Those put aside, "The English Patient" is an extraordinary achievement of film-making. To me, it was sort of like an insane mix up between "Casablanca" (1942) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962), two remarkable and better films, and this effective blend proved to be well worth my time. It is a real shame that Anthony Minghella has left us. For he was a truly gifted filmmaker. This is all the evidence anybody needs. A sweeping and deeply moving love story featuring powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes,Willem Defoe and Juliette Binoche.

It tells the story of a badly burned man(Ralph Fiennes) who gets pulled out of a plane wreak during World War Two and tells his nurse(Juliette Binoche)his story.

Just before the war he fell in love with the beautiful Katherine Clifton(Kristen Scott Thomas)however she is married to Jeffery Clifton(Colin Firth)and the two begin a passionate and forbidden affair.

A very haunting and tragic story of love and desire set against some absolutely gorgeous locations in the desert.A must see especially if your a fan of Anthony Minghellas work but be prepared to shed a lot of tears its very moving especially at the end. I can never figure if this is the Artiest Soap Opera ever produced, or the Soapiest Art Movie. No matter, John Seale's cinematogaphy is utterly ravishing. Ondaatje's novel is not reduced, but for once, elevated to film. If there is a fault, it is in the original novel, not in Anthony Minghella's beautiful movie. Anyone who has a problem with it's length almost certainly has not read the book, and probably cannot read. I do not like repeating adjectives, but ravishing serves the purpose.

Apart from the storyline, the players excel. But it is the Australian sense of light and shade that ultimately triumphs. Like some antipodean Dutch Master, Seale uses a blast of light, where Van Rijn would have used shade. One could weep for cinematography this magnificent. The book is better than the film mostly because of the writer Ondatje's prose. Before I saw this film, someone who had seen it, told me the love depicted in this film isn't real. After seeing this film, I can see how her suspension of disbelief in this regard could've been distracting to other movie-goers as well. Frankly, some of the intense displays of love were laughable and seem to be on the edge of parody. But by the end, everyone should realize this is a big message piece of art. It is not specifically about love at all, it uses "love" to dialectically reveal the human divide or the arbitrary borders of countries that help justify wars and hatred. It is about misunderstandings and the blind following of the things that supposedly separate us. The critical scene for the real theme of this movie is when the hero or antihero's pleas for help for his stranded lover in the desert is ignored and disregarded for the reasons shown in that scene. This film is also about hope and forgiveness, the hope epitomized in the interracial relationship between Binoche's recovering character and the Indian minesweeper (echoed in the Sikh's buddy-buddy relationship with his white coworker who ends up dying nonsensically) and the forgiveness epitomized in the Caravaggio character's first hunt and then forcing out of what he thinks will be the hero's confessions for his war "crimes" (betrayal of country). I think the film could've been made even better than it is. I don't know if a more realistic portrayal of the circumstances of love would've made the real themes and points of this film even more obvious or not, but I agree this film is not about realistic romantic love, as the people behind this piece of art or film imply in an early scene when the eventual lovers first meet. The hero talks about how a new car, broken-down car, fast car, etc. (I'm paraphrasing) is still just a car no matter what adjective you put in front of it. She replies but parental love, platonic love, romantic love, etc. are very different kinds of love. This is ironic because this film is really about the one love all humans should want which is the love of (or for) peace (not materialistic things which are usually the real reasons for wars, epitomized in something most of us want such as "cars", let's say). Otherwise, we may be left stranded to die in a cave in a vast desert with ancient wall art/drawings of swimmers, suggesting that the seas and life-supporting waters which were once there have all but disappeared. I believe "The English Patient" won the Oscar because of these big messages not specifically for its depiction of romantic love. Awards tend to go that way. The relationship of the hero and heroine was necessary to draw the audience in, unfortunately this view of love may be antiquated in the age of divorce and so many singles who can't seem to get together on so many levels, so ridiculous versions of mythic love are hard to get into, even in daydreams, which film love has always been, especially in good old Hollywood. The film may fall short of what people expect but a 7 out of 10 movie worth seeing, regardless. In World War II, a badly burned amnesiac known only as "The English Patient" is found in the African desert and is transported to Italy, where he joins a convoy of medical troops and others at an abandoned monastery. Among them are Hana (Juliette Binoche), a Canadian nurse whose lovers generally meet unpleasant ends; Kip (Naveen Andrews) and Hardy (Kevin Whately), two explosives experts who search the monastery for bombs; and David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a Canadian soldier-of-fortune who knows the identity of the English patient and has a score to settle.

Through flashbacks we learn the story of the Patient: he is Laszo Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian explorer who, in the late '30s, falls in with a group of British cartographers, including Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katharine (Kristen Scott-Thomas), while mapping the deserts of North Africa. After Clifton leaves them on government business, Katharine and Clifton fall in love with each other in the desert, resulting in an affair that, naturally, has a less-than-happy ending.

If one is able to overlook the illogical parts of the story line (such as, why would a patient found in Africa be sent to what is essentially the front line of the war in Italy?), then you can appreciate "The English Patient" as a throwback to the intelligent, layered, sweeping epics of David Lean in the '60s. Much more than "Titanic" or other epic romances of late, this movie puts one in mind of "Doctor Zhivago" and "Gone With the Wind" - an epic love story set against a huge historical backdrop. You shouldn't expect a war film, though there are some striking (if all-too-brief) scenes of violence that stand out more than the romantic sections, as is usually the case (Caravaggio's interrogation by a sadistic SS officer (Jurgen Prochnow) in particular).

The movie is very ambiguous, in regards to pretty much everything. The central question of the film is: How far are you willing to go for love? As critics of the movie are fast to point out, Almasy is, on the surface, a far-from-likable character - he has an affair with a married woman and betrays his country by giving maps and intelligence to the Germans, causing the death of his friend Madox (Julian Wadham) and the torture of Caravaggio, and actually killing a British soldier who has him under arrest at one point. The fact that Almasy is in many ways reprehensible is kind of the point - he's in love with Katharine, and sees the world narrowly in terms of his love that loyalty to country (or anything else for that matter) is secondary; as Almasy says, he hates "Ownership. Being owned." The two engage in a rather bold love affair (shagging within ear shot of hundreds of people at a Christmas party) and it's clear that Katharine is more drawn to the mysterious, exciting Almasy than the comparatively boring Geoffrey.

The 1944 subplot is somewhat shaky and seems superfluous; the romance between Kip and Hannah is never completely believable, and I feel the film could have done without it. But those sequences do add an interesting texture of mystery and complexity to the film, so I won't complain too much.

Like the epics mentioned above, the film is able to convey time and place through simple devices like crowd scenes, strategically placed posters, and military presence. We do not need to dwell on the fact that it's 1938 in Cairo, but it's helpful to know. The direction of Anthony Minghella and the desert cinematography by John Seale are absolutely gorgeous; the sand dunes, sand storms, and haunting caves of the desert are captured in beautiful detail. Gabriel Yared's score is haunting and atmospheric.

The acting is generally solid. Fiennes gives a very layered performance as a character who is mysterious, complex, and haunted. The difference between the Almasys of 1938 and 1944 are remarkable; one exciting and somewhat carefree, the other haunted and reflective. Kirsten Scott Thomas is effective as Katharine, the female explorer looking for adventure, and Colin Firth gives one of his best performances as Geoffrey, who realizes early on that he's no competition for the exciting Almasy. Willem Dafoe does nice work as Caravaggio, the shifty, hunted thief-turned-spy driven by revenge. Jurgen Prochnow gives a performance reminiscent of Jose Ferrer in "Lawrence of Arabia" (and a similar character too): very brief, but more memorable then some of the major characters. Some of the 1944 actors are unremarkable: Juliette Binochette is nothing special, while Naveen Andrews is good but unremarkable. Kevin Whately, as Kip's ill-fated partner, does what he can with a rather smallish role.

"The English Patient" is not a perfect movie by any means, but the vituperative attacks on it by much of the movie-going public are not deserved at all. Maybe it's a show of how film sensibilities have changed since the era of the Leans and Kubricks, or maybe people were expecting something simple to understand. Complex to fault, brilliantly directed and shot, "The English Patient" is a wonderful modern-day epic.

8/10 There have been several comments already on the site focusing on the "prestige" feel of the film - and there is a lot of heavy-weight talent on show: from Fiennes and Scott-Thomas to the magnificently rendered design and scoring, to the masterly direction. No wonder that Andrew Lloyd Webber's acceptance speech for "Evita" at that year's Oscars began "Well, thank God that "The English Patient" had no songs in it." Writing of Oscar winners takes me to Juliette Binoche, who, in a stellar cast, gives a beautiful performance. It is heartening to see that the dynamics which seem to influence the award for Best Actor (often going to showy pyrotechnic display) aren't at work in the female categories. Just as Emma Thompson's hugely well-deserved Oscar for her portrayal of Margaret Schlegel in "Howard's End" proved that one of the hardest things that an actor can do is make the portrayal of "goodness" involving, so Binoche's win proved that it could be that - and seriously sexy. Her performance in this terrific film is a thing of beauty. Was curious to know the name of the Tuscan village where the filming in Italy was done. I know the villa's name: Villa San Girolamo, however, would like to know the exact location in Tuscany. The cinematography is excellent and it would be wonderful to visit that area. I would also be interested to know what the location of the desert shooting is as well. Travel extensively in Europe and Africa and would am interested in visiting the areas that the book and film were about. Please e-mail me with any information on the sites that any one might have. We would be very grateful. And if any one knows if the villa in Tuscany is still habitable, that would be awesome as well. I await any information and I thank you in advance for your time. Even after all these years, this remain "a perfect movie" for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip "invites" Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church. The English Patient is one of those films that mostly deserve all the highest praise. I say, most, because this movie, albeit very serious, intense, deep and really thoughtful, still suffers some drawbacks. First and foremost, why, oh why are the modern films so long? This one lasts for more than two hours and from time to time it becomes really hard to concentrate and follow the extremely serious plot. I say, if the film were an hour shorter, that would serve it only good. However, we have what we have. The winner of several Oscars, The English Patient is still very good. It is a deep, insightful treatise of human soul, love and betrayal, war and cowardice, violence and bravery. Ralph Fiennes is a smashing superb actor. His hero, neurotic and silent, is an enigmatic person, ready for everything only to save the life of his lover. He is great, even though half the time he is a deformed cripple. He is the strongest link here. Juliette Binoche is as usual very convincing and sweet. She adds a lot with her excellent play and the love story plot with that Sikh officer. Willem Defoe, Colin Firth, Christine Scott Thomas are all here, all enormous and all very strong. And then there is desert of Egypt, then there is deep, cloudless sky, green groves of Italy. The nature is here, even when people die, bombs roar, land mines explode. War is here, too. It is obvious, terrible, and bloody. Then, there are corpses, horrible gory bodies, then nude bodies, adultery and all. I do not know what to say. So much of a splendid actors' work, so much of realism, so much of brutality that war brings. This is not a film for relaxation. It makes you think. From 1996, first i watched this movie, i feel never reach the end of my satisfaction, i feel that i want to watch more and more until now, my god i don't believe it was ten years ago, and i can believe that i almost remember every word of the dialogues. I love this movie and i love this novel, absolutely perfection. i love Willem Defoe, he has a strange voice to spell the words "black night" and i always say it for many times, never being bored. I love the music of Szararem, it's so much spiritualistic, made me come into another world deep in my heart. anyone can feel what i feel and anyone could make the movie like this? i don't believe so. Thanks Ondaatje thanks Mingela. In a critical scene, as Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas) lies in the Cave Of Swimmers, she writes something read aloud by Hana (Juliette Binoche) in which she proclaims that "the light has gone out now, and I'm writing in the darkness..." A sentence of such poetic beauty could not be more perfect for the cinematic brilliance of the far from tiresome The English Patient. With such a dramatic sweep that keeps one firmly on their feet, and a strength about the film that doesn't let up, this film proudly celebrates the mysteries and romances of World War II, taking elements of Casablanca and Lawrence Of Arabia along with some independence in the form of Tuscany.

The English Patient unabashedly pulls the heartstrings and takes us through a mysterious first act, a romantic second act, and a beautiful... beautiful final act, and it isn't just the wonderful pace and setting, it's the performance of Ralph Fiennes, who keeps us sympathetic even when Count Almásy, from the very start, proves to be a thoroughly unlikable character. Usually typecast as a villain, he shows tainted, but ultimately human colours as a man taken in by a desperate love that he must fulfill.

Many will criticize this film based on its so called "glorification of adulterers", but those who do know nothing. The contrasts between the two periods (before and after the plane crash seen at the start) are spectacular, as the patient is the regretting man who suffers because of what he did, the evil that was once in him now absent, whereas the man of before the crash is an individual like anyone else. He wants this woman but he cannot have her, Fiennes brings the human-like qualities out of Almásy in a way absolutely NO OTHER actor could. There couldn't have been a better actor for the job.

So please, take these comments to heart, see the film, those who call it "boring" or "despicable" know nothing, and should be ashamed of such a one-dimensional view on the film, a view that they have neither studied nor corrected, and probably don't plan on correcting. The English Patient is the best of every film to have ever won the Best Picture Oscar, and for so many reasons, hidden in their poetic triumphs. I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence.

I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence.

Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks. A wonderful story...so beautiful told..so intense so whit no keyboard to describe I think...,go see it feel it...,it tell's a story about love ,romance ,war,and be trail so wonderful so full of romance if you love romance see it ,if you don't love romance ,drama well skip it that's all I can I vote 10 out of 10 stars wonderful... I chose "The English Patient" for a history extra credit assignment. I thought that this movie would be incredibly boring. Instead, it has become one of my favorites. It portrays life in WWII quite accurately, and the love story is amazing. The love story made the movie so incredible. I felt this interesting feeling, of passion or something. It made me want to watch the movie over and over again. Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes are amazing actors and the way they played their characters is amazing. The look wonderful together and actually seemed to be in love. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie to watch as a leisure activity, or for an assignment. THE ENGLISH PATIENT not only has it all (doomed romance, tragic war, great characters) but it has it in a way that no other movie does. It is a spellbindingly tale told through flashbacks featuring amazing performances by all involved, somptuous visuals, characters we care about, and the most rapturous love story ever told. A cinematic landmark, the best film of 1996 and one of the very best of the 1990s. Have just seen the last episode, No 32, (though the site says only 30 episodes were made) and I must comment on the fact that this series was really very good and I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone who enjoys crime/cop stories. Supposedly all 32 were based on fact with information at the end of each episode of the court sentences imposed on the perpetrators of the crimes, this has at times been a gritty, well acted, believable and dare I say, entertaining series. The fact that the powers in Denmark decided to disband the unit was almost unbelievable as they did their work so well and in the series at least, never failed to "get their man"! It's a definite 10/10 for me. We've just watched the last of the series shown on the SBS network and will miss our weekly dose of Danish Delight. My wife and I picked up the show after the Swedish show "The Eagle" finished and it seemed by comparison to be a very poor substitute for our then favourite show on TV. Week by week, however, the show grew on me, and whilst not as glossy as the Swedish show and definitely grittier in terms of their investigations of everyday crimes, it certainly provided a very satisfying weekly viewing meal indeed.

Prior to these 2 shows I had not really been a fan of the cop genre and can't say I am now but the 2 Scandinavian shows really provided us with an insight into life in those northern Euopean countries through the eyes of their special policing units. First off, I'm an American -- I haven't seen any comments on IMDb about this series yet from a U.S. viewer. Secondly, I work in the television business in development. So I wallow in much of the sludge that comes out of American broadcast programming. "Unit One" is an example of television that's a throwback to what I would attribute as '70s-style scripting, feature-wise. Namely, those films made by young autueurs who had free rein to make the dramas feel more realistic and to allow for organic character development. It tacks more along the lines of stellar British dramas like "Cracker" and "Prime Suspect" as well as Australia's brilliant "Underbelly." "Unit One" features stand-alone cases that are committed, then solved, each week. The mysteries aren't extraordinary or particularly byzantine. They usually center around one single twist, clocking in generally at the 40 minute mark, and resolution is neatly wrapped up in the 15 minutes thereafter. What makes this series a breath of fresh air is that it features main characters that you are hooked on and find relatable by episode 2. These are real, breathing, alive characters that have personal baggage, yet it's not a talky, batty type of baggage that American flotsam such as "Grey's Anatomy" or "Desperate Housewives" spoons out. These are realistic individuals whose backstories unfold leisurely over the course of the series, as if you work with them on a daily basis. After the mindless decade of "CSI's," "NCIS's," and "Criminal Minds," along with their subsequent spawns, it's refreshing to actually sit down to watch friends you want to spend time with, as is the case with "Unit One." The quippy banter, the unemotional wooden dialogue, and the over-the-top jeopardy that those American series I mentioned bludgeon us with each week are absurd compared to the nuance and the quiet resonance you get with this remarkable Danish series. I'm on episode 7 of the first season, but I've already bought all four seasons and am in for the long haul. If you need explosions and farcically-hopped up testosterone, along with music by The Who and fast-cutting, neon-lit, jittery palsy-cam action with cipher-like main characters as your main diet of television drama viewing, I suggest you stay away from this series. If you are an adult with a hunger for subtle, poignant, thoughtful and, yes, sometimes straight-forward procedural crime dramas, I urge you to check this show out. This is one of the best Non-English series I have seen. It weaves interesting single and double episodes of crime-solving together with a personal aspect that you just don't get in CSI. The individual characters all have personal lives that combine well with their day job and occasionally interfere. Additionally the characters all manage to naturally evolve throughout the episodes.

The casting is superb and it was taped all over Denmark, giving a good example of the highlights that majestic country has to offer. Unfortunately only 32 episodes were made, however they are top-notch television. Here's hoping they consider making some more episodes of the same caliber. This production, build on real danish crime stories, is a experience through excellent directing, acting on all levels and has a nerve not often seen in crime series. Every episode is a thrill because it's seems like the hole team believe that "this is my life right now - this murder or murders are MY responsibility to solve" and the output is brilliant.

As a viewer, you just have this wonderfully filling of being entertained cause it feels like their focus, on purpose or not, lie on that they WONT you to have a good time...:o) Don't miss this one, it's just right under 'Band of brothers' quality and is a "must have seen" experience - What a wonderful crime time ! 'Rejseholdet' is one of the best new danish tv-series that i have watched.

The series is about the danish police force's Unit 1 - a kinda FBI-style team that help solve murder cases all over the country, and the cases they work on, plus the influence that their jobs have on their personal lives, and the price they sometimes has to pay to be a part of a top police team.

I didn't expect much when I started watching this series - I was pleasantly surprised, the series is exciting, sometimes fun, it's got both drama and suspense, I love it. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced but for the time it was the most accurate portrayal of Marines ever shown on the big screen.

I was at Camp Pendleton undergoing infantry training when Webb brought his crew down to film some outdoor scenes and our company was asked to participate. It took about two or three days as best I can recall.

Webb and Don Dubbins were serious and businesslike.

During the filming of our short scene--which seemed to take forever to an 18 year old--Webb was very conscientious about getting things (Marine things) right and he did a good job with one exception--that scene where a recruit was wearing sunglasses. Never happen for a host of reasons.

I have a video of the movie and will bore my grandkids anytime I can make them sit still for a few seconds as I show them their Papaw when he was a young stud and part of the world's greatest fighting force (no brag, just fact).

What amazed me then was how well the real Marines carried out their acting roles. That was before I realized that DIs have to have some acting genes to get their job done.

The only film I've seen since that is the equal of the DI is the first half of Full Metal Jacket and that part is superior only because of the foul language. When the DI was made, cursing wasn't allowed on screen.

Despite the lack of profanity, it's still a great movie to rent.

Ooooo-rahhhhhh!!!!!

Semper Fi, Do or Die Jack Webb is riveting as a Marine Corp drill instructor in the D.I.. Webb play Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough but fair Marine whose job it is to prepare young teens for possible combat. No one could have played this role any better that Jack Webb. As a former Marine,I can assure that this is the most accurate film dealing with basic training in the Corp. Extremely entertaining! I had the good fortune to be at Perris Island in the fall of 1959. The DI showed one evening at the outdoor theater directly in front of our barracks, Plt 162, B Co, 1st Bn, 1st ITR.

Although we hadn't been there long enough to even think about seeing a movie, we could hear those that were laughing. It's one of the many indelible memories of my thirteen weeks at PI.

At some later date, I got to actually see it in a theater. I'm still convinced that, to date, it remains the most realistic portrayal of the experience in the late 1950's ever done. No one has done it better than Jack Webb... THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in "Full Metal Jacket" or "An Officer and a Gentleman". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note "Dragnet" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song "If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff! I was a Marine at Camp Pendleton when the D.I. came out (1st Marine Division, 11th Marine Regiment, 3rd Battalion, I-Battery). I still remember standing in line with a bunch of other Marines to see the movie at the "Star" theater in Oceanside, California.

We did not remotely expect the movie to portray everything we experienced in boot camp but we were all pleasantly surprised at how well done the movie was. The idea of using real Marines in the movie was a great idea (I believe they were all real Drill Instructors too). As good an actor as Jack Webb was, he just couldn't "call cadence" like a real Marine Drill Instructor.

All of us got a laugh when the "problem" recruit's mother came to boot camp to talk to the Captain. Never in a million years would this have happened, but that's Hollywood, and we didn't let that episode keep us from enjoying the movie.

I went through boot camp at MCRD in San Diego during the summer of 1956, and at that time there was virtually no limits as to what the D.I.'s could do to you. The "Ribbon Creek" event at Parris Island had not yet affected boot camp, at least not at MCRD - San Diego.

I agree with what a lot of the other reviewers have commented on concerning Sgt. Moore's "stiffness" around his girl friend. I believe this was just Webb's acting style, and although they could have deleted this part of the movie, it didn't really hurt the production that much.

One minor note, the character (uncredited) of "Pvt. Rodriguez" was played by one of my Drill Instructors, Sgt. Peter J. O'Neill. Sgt. O'Neill used to tell us that some day he wanted to be an actor. We secretly laughed at this, but he surprised us all. He was a great Drill Instructor, and I thought he did well in his bit part. Also, he really did enjoy throwing knives. He often demonstrated his skill to us that summer in boot camp. I have often wondered if he is still alive. Well as you can see, I got to this party quite late but, have the advantage of reading all the previous entries before making my comments. I found this site by happen chance, when I was looking for other Marine Corps films. So, let me start by telling you that I played a Marine Boot in the movie, Pvt. Labarsky, and was stationed at MCRDep, San Diego at the time. Jack Webb and his crew selected 15 Permanent Personnel, of which some of us had the speaking parts, and another 15 Marines that had just completed Boot Camp. That made up the Platoon and the Marines who portrayed the various "DIs". To the best of my recollection, The Capt. and Pvt. Owens (Don Dubbins) were not in the Marines. We spent about three weeks up in Hollywood (Studio City Film Lot), CA shooting the section of the movie that we were involved with, and then they completed the other shots after we left.

So as I ramble along here, let me clarify some of what has been questioned in previous entries as best I can. "Cuff Daddy" was commenting about the ability of our Platoon to yell "Yes Sir" without moving and etc,, Yes we did the yelling for the Sound Guys, and it was while shooting the scene. As you fellow Marines remember, when the DI or who ever started to ask a question and before they completed it, you had already taken your breath of air enabling you to yell at the top of your lungs the proper response. That is how it was done.

"74Sooner" commented about walking through the same building at Paris Island, however, as I mentioned earlier all the scenes were shot in Studio City, CA . They were built from photos taken at Paris Island and from on site trips and Marine advisers from Paris Island. Sorry, you were in the real buildings, not the sets.

"schappe1" brought up many good points, but, about the incident with the platoon at Paris Island at the time all that jack Webb said to us was, "The movie came about because of the accident, and the Marine Corps didn't want to put out anything that would impact any of the family members of the Marines that died that night. Although, the Marine Corps would provide any Marines and assistance needed for a movie answering to the public why a Marine DI does what he does".

As mentioned by a few of you, I also at the time we were shooting the scenes caught my self thinking this dialog has been cleaned up to much and obviously isn't how it goes down in real life. Back in the 50's,that is how it had to be done.

One story I would like to pass on is about the interaction that occurred between us Marines and the Movie Crew, and between the Movie Crew and Jack Webb. From the start by custom the Marines replied "Yes Sir" to anybody that moved. Going into the second week it was getting more common to hear "Yes Sir" coming from all directions. On stage someone would bark out a request for something to be done with the lighting and from out of nowhere up on a catwalk above the set a reply of "Yes Sir" would sound out. To all of this at one of our informal gatherings, Jack Webb stated. "If I had known that I would have gotten this much respect from this crew, I would have brought you guys up here years ago." There was a Lt. brought up from San Diego to play the role of the DI from the other platoon and the one Jack Webb fights with, but during one shooting secessions He was up to take number 32, and still Webb kept trying to work him through how he wanted it done and didn't show any lack of patience with him. The next day they used the Paris Island adviser who was a DI Sgt. from Paris Island and He worked out fine.

At the time I was somewhat of a camera buff and got to know the Still Camera Man to get some pointer from him and as it turned out He would give me still shots and some of the 35mm film of the daily shooting that were not going to be used. Those film strips I cut up and made slides out of them. After the movie came out in VHS tape (The DI, 11706 B&W/106 min.) my kids and the grand kids have a blast when they try to se who can find me the most times on the screen. I first saw this film in the late 60's, and try to see it every time it comes on TV, which, unfortunately, isn't often. Now that I have TCM and FMC, I hope it will be on at least once a year. Like Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman, Jack Webb delivers an unbelievably great performance as a Parris Island Drill Sergeant with the classic screw-up recruit, and the story line in this one, though dated, is touching and very well acted. And having real jar-heads in the cast certainly helped in the realism of the film as well. It's a great film with top-notch acting and a superb story. See it if you have the chance-It's well worth the time! I would purchase this and "Thirty Seconds Over Toyko" today if available. I also saw this movie after seeing large billboards of Jack Webb in his Dress Blues on the highway at the age of 12.Always admired Jack Weeb as a John Wayne type and American all the way. Almost became a Marine just because of this movie but served instead in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve for 32 years. Have not seen this movie on TV at all and would love to own it on DVD. At least if it was on TV I would copy it to VHS and use it until available on DVD. I also have a large collection of WWII and Korean War movies and always look for new releases on DVD. I served as a Corpsman at Parris Island in the late 60's, a little over 10 years after "The D. I." was shot. I was in some of the barracks where they filmed some of the indoor scenes. I knew a lot of Drill Instructors and a lot of recruits. I think the movie is as close as any movie to showing the life of a recruit and that of a Drill Instructor. Without a doubt, I think it is the best thing Jack Webb ever did. If you have been in the military, you need to see this movie. This was the way it was. It shows how important it is to take a bunch of raw recruits and turn them into men ready to defend our country. One feature I found fascinating is that most of the characters are played by real Marines, not actors. I have seen this movie and anybody who has every been with the Marines or any branch of the service can appreciate the accuracy of this movie. It is a must have for any collection. Jack Webb does an excellent job as the hard drill instructor. My father went to Marine boot camp at Camp Penelton and says this movie is so accurate that he feels like he is back in basic training. There is a line in the movie where Jack Webbs character gets mad at a boot for killing a sand flea. Well let me tel you there are nothing but sand fleas at the camp. I have been there and can appreciate it. As a matter of fact the exit to the camp is Las Puljas which in English means city of the fleas. you must watch the movie to appreciate what I am saying. Anybody who is into WWII movies, all the battles start right here with the drill Sgt. A must have for you collection Having been a Marine, I can tell you that the D.I. is as accurate a portrayal to date depicting Marine Corp boot camp and how boys are turned into men. Jack Webb is excellent as Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough, but fair drill instructor in Paris Island North Carolina. The film centers on one recruit who doesn't seem to "get with the program." A more recent film, Full Metal Jacket, also shows life in basic training and is well worth viewing. Semper Fi! I saw "The D.I." in 1957. Two-and-a-half -years later I joined the Corps.

Web and company got it as right as they could in '57. Boot, in '59, was more like, in fact, exactly like, the Boot Camp shown in "Full Metal Jacket" - Yes. A black recruit, in my training platoon, was called "Snowball." I was called "Stick," because I was skinny as a rail. Every recruit had a nickname, some rather vile, that stuck with him through his service in the Corps. Getting smacked, or knocked on your ass, when you screwed-up was SOP. "Drop, and give me fifty," got to be ho-hum. Then, it turned into,"Drop, and give me two-hundred!"

The D.I.'s were a bunch of sadistic bastards, but it was a controlled sadism, and with a primary purpose of keeping us stupid MoFos alive when we hit combat. 200 years of experience was ingrained in that "sadism," and everything the D.I. did, or said, had a purpose geared to his mission.

A bad D.I. gets grunts killed. A good D.I., though seemingly the world's biggest asshole, keeps 'em alive. You can't kill the enemy if you're dead.

In case you didn't know, the Marine Corps has one primary mission: Kill the enemy. PFD.

Everything else is pure bravo sierra.

MstGySgt WHT, USMC (ret) I saw this movie on TV back in the 60s and it still stands up well even after brilliant performances as a DI by R. Lee Ermey, Lou Gossett and even Frank Sutton (in a comic vein) on Gomer Pyle USMC. I wasn't in the service but my brother had a recording of a Drill Instructor in the Air Force and it was scary. Others in the family who were Marines told me that Ermey and even Sutton were pretty spot on in their roles. The only thing missing in "The D. I." is the language. In 1958 they couldn't yet use profanity on film, yet Jack Webb came across pretty damned tough without it. I think it's his best role ever. In Dragnet he was quite stiff I'll admit, though not as bad as George Raft, but he used it only to effect in "The D. I." You never forget the funeral for the dead flea! The romantic part was just to stretch the movie, but didn't really interfere with the basic plot. Don Dubbins was pretty good to but he never surpassed this film in his career. As far as patriotism, Jack Webb was TV's John Wayne. He carried it a bit too far in some Dragnet episodes, but not in "The D. I." After 40 some years I hoped the film could stand up to the likes "Full Metal Jacket" and others; and it did! By today's standards The DI might seem a little hokey. Lee Emery's version is more accurate. I graduated boot camp in Parris Island, SC in 1964. Jim Moore is as close to the real thing as you could put on the screen in 1957. I can't comment on the plot but I thought the ending was unrealistic for MCRD. PVT Owens is like many who found himself in a lot more difficult situation than he bargained for. Like so many he joined the Marine Corps for all the wrong reasons. My Drill Intructors were more like GySgt Hartman than TSgt Jim Moore. A lot more. The DI is more Korean Era and Full Metal Jacket is more Viet Nam Era. Today's movies allow that sort of thing on the screen. I have the DI in my collection. I only recently found it on DVD. Jack Webb's portrayal of the Marine drill instructor shaping new recruits in basic training requires no interpretation. Straight forward, direct, up front, are all applicable to this classic. In a time when parsing the statements of our leaders is a necessity in order to understand what they are saying, this movie that plays no games with our language or our moral fiber. Right and wrong are clear and easily defined. If you like clear, well understood dialog in a disciplined military setting, this movie should suit you. Hey there Army Sgt. I'm sorry dude but being a SGT in the Army and being in the Army National Guard does not make you qualified to comment on a Marine movie. You are not a Marine and just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean you can relate to being a Marine. We simply are the best, we have the hardest training, yes we have big heads about ourselves, but hey when you are the best, you like to strut your stuff. I was in the Iraq invasion and in Fallujah. I fought next to soldiers. You are not "qualified" to say anything about my Marine Corps. I hate to be the one that starts the whole "which branch is better", but you have no right to say you are qualified to judge a Marine movie. Oh yeah......we are Drill Instructors.......not Drill SGT's. That's the biggest clue you have no idea about what you are talking about. Yeah we do not "curse" at recruits anymore. Tell me, how is cussing at someone going to make them a better Marine? How will me hitting someone make a Marine a better Marine? Yes it is a kinder boot camp from what I went through. But we are dealing with different times and people. We are training people who are over all smarter than our generations recruits. We want smarter recruits, not meaner. And anyone who signs up to be a Marine in the first place, has a dedication to be the best his country has to offer. We don't have to reinforce that in Bootcamp. Marines come to Bootcamp wanting to be killers. We don't need to teach them that by demoralizing them by swearing at them and beating them. At least that is how I feel.And yes, I am "qualified" to say that. I have been on the battlefield numerous times and I have trained Marines and Recruits who eventually ended up on the battlefield. But then again, what do I know. I was just there, done that, got the t-shirt. SGT of the Army.......get a clue! Jack Webb's movie 'The D.I' came about from the real life investigation into the deaths of several trainees in a swamp in Paris Isle in the 50's. As always, Webb, being the patriot that he is, came to the defense much like all the rest of his shows. I actually found this movie tame by 1957 standards. I served in the Army and can understand the intensity of the training at Parris Island (Camp Death by some)so this movie can never come close as does 'Full Metal Jacket'. I think this is a good movie which is more patriot than it is actual. But again, think of the time period it was made (1957) and what could be allowed and said on film at that time. I have always found Jack Webb to be clean cut and very loyal. I know many have criticized the film as one-sided and government propaganda. If you feel this way, watch 'Full Metal Jacket' with R Lee Ermey. I am a Webb fan and enjoy the movie for it's merit, not accuracy. As I have said, Webb believed in this country and held institutions to high moral standards (LAPD-Dragnet,Adam 12, Emergency etc). Just sit back and enjoy this one from a very strict moral time period in this country. Don't be too judgemental of Mr. Webb. Mark Lockwood Lubbock Texas.. I went through boot camp at MCRD Parris Island in 1953 and this film is about as accurate a depiction of what boots went through in that era, even to burying that danged sand flea. Many of the "actors" in the film were active duty Marines. This film may be more entertaining to Marines than others, but I feel the film itself is very well done, and Jack Webb made a "good DI". Semper Fi! Misfit recruit private Owens tests drill instructor Sgt Moore's (Jack Webb) skills. No explosions or bloodshed or hip soundtrack or sex. It is set at the USMC's Parris Island S.C. boot camp and most of the cast were actual Marines. Memorable one-liners abound, and the closing credit's "dedicated to..." is intense. With such strong male and female characters, this movie could not be made in today's touchy-feely world. I haven't seen this fine movie in 50 years but I'm entering a comment on it anyway.

While JACK WEBB'S movie was no doubt intended purely as an entertainment --- showing Marine basic training at Parris Island in realistic terms as a tough character-building exercise -- it was said the military was afraid the movie would discourage recruitment's. It did not work out that way. The movie showed that entering the Marines was a greater challenge than most young people ever realized, and (guess what?) being offered a king-sized challenge was exactly what many guys wanted. I personally knew lots of guys that joined the Marines shortly after seeing THE DI. Lines at recruitment centers were suddenly so long the Marines had more recruits than they could handle.

So it goes. America will always have youth seeking to make themselves into the best --- while the slackers and born-losers limp along to nowhere.

What we DON'T have in 2007 is any films that inspire patriotism, devotion to duty of any kind, positive values, et cetera. What we DO have is films that inspire the airhead-ed to be airheads, the beer drinkers to guzzle beer, other negative values. Exhibit #1 is that the airhead teen travesty and beer guzzling epic SUPERBAD is now #81 in the All Time Great Films list. Values? What'cha mean, values? Jack Webb finally gives something besides his usual wooden indian performance. He played the epitome of the jarhead, brainwashed, storm the beaches, semper fi, bonehead military idiot. The Corps before all else, even humanity. This great film showed the idiosy of boot camp to it's fullest. 4 stars. Elizabeth Ashley is receiving phone calls from her nephew Michael--he's crying, screaming and asking for help. The problem is Michael died 15 years ago.

This film scared me silly back in 1972 when it aired on ABC. Seeing it again, years later, it STILL works.

The movie is a little slow and predictable, the deaths are very tame and there's a tacked-on happy ending, but this IS a TV movie so you have to give it room. Elizabeth Ashley is excellent, Ben Gazzara is OK and it's fun to see Michael Douglas so young. And those telephone calls still scare the living daylights out of me. I actually had to turn a light on during one of them!

A creepy little TV movie. Worth seeing. One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings...... This is another of my favorite Columbos. It sports a top-notch cast, including John Cassavetes, who was never handsomer or sexier, Anjanette Comer, Myrna Loy, and Blythe Danner. Now here's something I've always wondered - had Gwenyth Paltrow been born when this episode was shot, or was Danner pregnant at the time? Thanks to IMDb, I have my answer - she was five months' pregnant. Now I can really feel ancient.

Cassavetes plays a brilliant conductor whose marriage to Danner was apparently to use the social connections of her mother (Loy). He has a mistress on the side, Anjanette Comer, a prominent pianist, but she announces she wants more. She's sick of being back street. On the night of their concert, he gets rid of her and makes it look like suicide. Columbo picks up a few problems immediately. One thing he notices: "You have a beautiful woman here - bedroom eyes - she has money, a body, and a career. Where's the man?" It's wonderful to see Falk and good friend Cassavetes together. There's a very funny episode at the vet with Columbo's Bassett. Everyone in the cast is great.

This is one of the episodes that made Columbo the classic series it became. Alex Benedict (John Cassavetes) is an orchestra conductor having an secret affair with his pianist. When she threatens to expose him and create a scandal if he doesn't leave his wife, he sees he has no choice but to murder her and make it look as if she had committed suicide. Too bad for him our rumpled detective, Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk), is on the case.

Stephen Bochco has written another razor-sharp episode for the series, following marvelous detail with marvelous detail. We watch the villain commit his murder and set up his alibi for about twenty-five minutes, and we're completely engrossed. Then when Columbo appears on the scene, it gets even better.

We first see Columbo after the murder (as per usual). This time he's at the vet with his new dog. Scenes of purely comic relief are usually the weakest ones in the show (think Columbo's discomfort over the nude model in "Suitable for Framing"). Columbo is hilarious when he's dithering or bumbling deliberately in order to trip up his quarry; but too many writers make the mistake of showing him in a ridiculous light when he's with non-suspects. Bochco, by contrast, shows Columbo a bit awkward with his new pet in a handful of low-key scenes that are funny and artfully integrated into the story. (And I'm grateful he didn't strain for a punchline to Columbo's quest to give the dog a name. As far as we learn, the dog remains nameless.) Bochco gives Columbo some of his best moments in this episode, and Peter Falk makes the most of them. He's particularly good in a monologue where he expresses disbelief that anyone could kill herself, much less this brilliant and beautiful young pianist. And he's even better in his scenes playing cat-and-mouse with Cassavetes. That these two long-time friends and collaborators would play off each other brilliantly is to be expected; and that's what we get. Notice how Alex Benedict can't help but admire the deceptively dimwitted Columbo, even as the brilliant detective is tightening the noose around his neck.

Bochco makes the most of every situation in his script. When Columbo goes to question Benedict's snooty mechanic, of course – of course! – he asks the man to look at his own beat-up heap. And when Benedict finds Columbo at the Hollywood Bowl before rehearsal, of course – of course! – he's on the piano playing "Chopsticks." And what should our audacious lieutenant bring with him but the victim's typewriter with the phony suicide note still in the roller.

Columbo also has good scenes with a precocious little girl (Dawn Frame) and the lovely Blythe Danner, who plays Cassavetes's wife. It's nice to see Myrna Loy show up as Danner's mother, though she does little with her minor role.

The director Nicholas Colasanto (who also acted, most notably as Coach in "Cheers") does a perfectly creditable job, though he follows the lead of nearly every other "Columbo" director by adding one or two silly flourishes. Scenes end by going out of focus and begin by coming into focus. Then there's that bit where Cassavetes sees the carnation he dropped at the scene of the crime – and we see a zoom-in shot of it reflected in his sunglasses. There's also one scene with Myrna Loy and group of old fogies that is atrociously performed by everyone except Cassavetes.

These are quibbles, though. This is a splendidly entertaining episode, the kind that made me a "Columbo" fan. My first 'Columbo'. Rather enjoyed it. Great format, and Peter Falk's character extremely good...wonderfully quirky, he can take his place next to Poirot, Miss Marple, and also the likes of Marlowe and Rick Diamond. I can see why this series has such a following.

As a professional musician, I HAVE to say a few things. First of all, a conductor who merely produces these pedestrian performances of the most basic examples of the repertoire (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Strauss Waltzes, Beethoven...) is never going to have a house like that or fame like that or cars like that, much less be called a genius. And the conducting that the actor does is so bad as to be laughable. No orchestra would take him seriously.

There are several little things too, such as his rehearsal of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (why rehearse it when they've just performed it for TV? Any orchestral musician would be able to play it in his or her sleep anyway...). His instructions to the ensemble are downright nonsensical, and when Columbo asks Blythe Danner what 'quasi fantasia' means, she says it's 'Latin'. It's Italian, as are the vast majority of musical instructions.

And finally, no two great musicians would EVER have the following interchange: "Play something." "What should I play?" "Chopin". Music is their job and passion, they know it well. Something far more specific would be asked for, and offered!

I know. I should get out more... This Columbo episode is one of the better and perhaps one of my personal favorites. The cast includes Rosemary's Baby John Cassavetes as the maestro, his wife played by Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mom) and his mother-in-law played by Myrna Loy (one of America's greatest leading actresses in film of our time). Anyway I disagree with anybody who criticizes against this film. This episode is one of my favorites because you have an excellent cast who do a superb job in performing. I love watching Columbo with his beloved dog who he never names in the series. This time, the episode focuses in on classical music at the Hollywood Bowl, one of L.A.'s attractions. Of course, Columbo becomes as interested in classical music as he does anything else involving a crime. After repeatedly saying how brilliant so many Columbo episodes are, it's time to honour an episode with maximum points. "Etude In Black" is not 100 percent perfect, but it's certainly more than 90 percent...maybe 96 or 97!

Last week I reviewed "Just Married" and compared it unfavourably to "Meet The Parents". Well here's one of the parents, Blythe Danner, in a much earlier role as the wife of famous orchestral conductor Alex Benedict, played by the legend that is John Cassavetes. Alex has been having an affair with Jennifer Wells, a girl in the orchestra (not his first affair, one suspects). She is blackmailing Alex to leave his wife, but as his wife's mother holds the purse strings for the orchestra, Alex doesn't think it'd be such a smart move to destroy his career and marriage overnight. Instead he hatches a plot to sneak out of the concert hall before a performance and murder his young lover while making it look like a suicide.

Enter Columbo and guess what? It takes him about two seconds to realise that homicide is more likely than suicide. It doesn't take much longer for Columbo to connect Alex to the victim, and soon he's following him around wherever he goes. Even though Columbo is certain Alex is his man, it actually takes quite a while and a few false leads (none of which Columbo really swallows) before he has the vital piece of evidence.

Along the way there are some top-notch extra characters, ranging from the precocious young neighbour of Jennifer Wells and the English mechanic who sounds like he would be more at home on Coronation Street, through to the bedraggled looking brass player who nearly finds himself fitted up for the murder (he had also been seeing Jennifer Wells, the busy girl!). And there's even a brief cameo from Commandant Lassard from the Police Academy films. As with Leslie Nielsen in "Lady In Waiting", it's impossible to take him seriously (I bet you're thinking of that speech he made at the podium, aren't you?!)

But it's Blythe Danner, John Cassavetes and Peter Falk who steal the show here. Blythe is absolutely divine as Mrs Benedict. From the moment she spots Alex dialling Jennifer Wells' number from memory, she feels deeply troubled by exactly what their relationship was. It's a masterful performance as she struggles to trust Alex despite her intuition telling her something is very, very wrong. Columbo doesn't help matters by interrupting her game of tennis to ask her impertinent questions about Alex's relations with members of his orchestra.

As for John Cassavetes, well it's a shame he didn't make any repeat appearances as Columbo villains, because he could have been up there with Jack Cassidy and Patrick McGoohan as one of the all-time greats of the show. But this performance is superb! He's another one who falls into the "highly irritated" category, losing all patience with Columbo rather than befriending him and indulging him. Despite this, when the game is finally up he does grudgingly acknowledge Columbo's genius.

Well it's a really, really fantastic show. It loses a couple of very small points for its rather sledgehammer view of classical music, as highlighted by many of the posters here, but none of these have any bearing on the logic of the story or the characterisations. And at least the music is good, dramatic and exciting!

Finally, if you haven't come across it, there is an absolutely amazing clip of John Cassavetes and Peter Falk on the Dick Cavett show from the early 70s. I'm totally convinced Steve Coogan watched this clip and based Alan Partridge on it. Everything about the clip resembles Knowing Me Knowing You, from the cringeworthy introduction to the total humiliation of Cavett by his guests. Even the orchestra get in on the act, playing circus music while Falk, Cassavetes and their friend Ben Gazzara fool about and ridicule the host.

It might not be strictly relevant to this review, but the Cavett show clip gives a nice insight into the deep friendship and professional relationship between Peter Falk and John Cassavetes. It's clear to see from the quality of "Etude In Black" just how well the pair worked together! Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.

Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series "Cheers", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.

So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.

But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.

But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.

The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies.

A great Columbo movie to watch!

8/10 Being a self confessed slasher addict means that it's very rare that I get the chance to review many bigger budgeted movies with creditable casts. Aside from James Mangold's successful box office draw Identity; there have not been any big name entries since the Scream trilogy once again put Wes Craven's name back on the Hollywood map. That's why Mark Malone's The Last Stop – a mystery thriller with blatant slasher overtones, instantly intrigued me. With a decent line-up including Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow and an intriguing soundtrack that even finds space for Lynn Anderson's Rose Garden, I must admit that the initial signs were very positive for this claustrophobic feature. To the best of my knowledge there have only ever been three other snow-bound slashers, unless of course you consider Demon Possessed to fit in the category. The first slice and dice on the ice was the bone-dry Satan's Blade, then came the Lisa Loring cheese-feast that was Blizzard of Blood and the enjoyable Shredder followed some fourteen years later.

During an extreme blizzard, state trooper Jason (Adam Beach) battles through the snow to reach a remote lodge in the Colorado Mountains. His task is to inform the guests that the road is closed and they must stay for at least one more night until a path can be cleared through the hazardous conditions. This news doesn't go down to well with the suspicious bunch, which includes two troublemaking brothers (Callum Keith Rennie and Peter Flemming), a truck driver that really doesn't want to hang around (William S. Taylor), a randy couple of lovers (Winston Rekert and Amy Adamson) and Jason's ex-girlfriend Nancy (Rose McGowan). The motel owners (Jurgen Prochnow and P. Lynn Johnson) aren't overjoyed by the news either, but they offer rooms to the stranded guests and attempt to calm the tense situation. Things take a turn for the worse when Jason finds a mutilated body and a bag full of stolen cash lying in the snow behind the cafe. Just like a chapter out of an Agatha Christie mystery, the lodgers begin dieing at the hands of a masked assailant that seems intent to re-claim the money. With so many dodgy characters to choose from and no way of leaving the crime scene, Jason has to attempt to stop the maniac before he kills again…

A good mystery needs at least a handful of shady suspects who each have a credible motive, a remote location that no one can escape from and a smart protagonist to help unravel the clues. Fortunately The Last Stop provides each of those essential ingredients in a thriller that has its equal moments of brilliance and downright stupidity. The film kicks off superbly as the dubious personalities clash in a claustrophobic environment that manages to keep the tension running high throughout the runtime. Malone keeps the interest levels raised as each character unveils their own reasons to attract some of the suspicion, and to be fair the essential twist isn't one that you'll guess easily. In fact I found myself watching the movie through once again to see if I could pick up on any hints that I missed first time around. Unfortunately when the maniac is revealed to be an over the top psycho that wisecracks like a comic book bad guy, The Last Stop forfeits a huge amount of credibility. Thankfully all is not lost when an unexpected and brilliantly orchestrated plot twist salvages the film's finale.

Similarities can be drawn with the excellent Identity, as the two plots are almost interchangeable. James Mangold's effort has to be the better of the two mainly because of the star billing of John Cusack and the ever-reliable Ray Liotta. With that said though Adam Beach does a good enough job in the lead, while Jurgen Prochnow, Amy Adamson and the brilliant Callum Keith Rennie add some credible support. Rose McGowan acts as conceitedly in this role as she probably does from day to day in reality and Winston Rekert started fantastically before going completely overboard with the film's climax. If you're a die-hard slasher fan that's watching this for some bloody killings then you're going to be disappointed. The balaclava-wearing psychopath only pops up once and the rest of the murders are committed off-screen. But as I said earlier Malone's directorial talent means that the suspense is never too far off the boil and you can forgive the few flaws because the positives just about triumph.

The Last Stop is well worth a look for slasher addicts and movie fans alike. Yes there are a handful of negatives, but overall this is a solid example of emerging Hollywood talents. If you liked Identity then certainly give this a try… I also saw The Last Stop at the Moving Pictures Film Festival in Prince George. I have to confess, the only reason I went to see it is because I am a huge Callum Keith Rennie fan. And he didn't let me down. He gave a good performance of a rather unsympathetic character and provided about the only comic relief in the whole movie.

The movie itself is the usual 'lots of bad people trapped in a snow storm together' storyline, but it did have a couple of twists that kept me guessing. The characterizations were strong and the whole cast performed fairly well. The only problems I had with the cast was Rose McGowan. She was so cold throughout the movie that we didn't get any idea of her character's personality or motivations. Other than her and a few small problems with continuity, this was a well-written, well acted thriller. What makes this low budget production one of my favorite movies? Not kidding, i was watching it already 10 times or so and did not get tired. Is it the tender melancholia throughout the whole thing? Is it the similarity to classics like "Niagara"? I was thinking a long time about that. And figured it out: I guess it is: there is no hero, there are only people. Some try to be good. Some gave up trying to be good. Some are hopeless cases but carry still the spunk of being human inside. It is the story of a catastrophic night in a motel at the end of the world. One way the catastrophe is nothing but the end of a chain of coincidences. The other way this night reveals the logical consequents of this peoples lives because they are in a certain constellation cut off the rest of the world. It has something of a Dostoevsky tale. This movie is a little slow in the the beginning, for about the first 10 minutes or so. But once it kicks in you can't turn it off. Adam Beach and Rose McGowan play the best parts and are great at their acting job. You would never be able to guess who the killer is. I gave this movie a 9, because at some parts Adam Beach needs to speak up a little so you can hear what he's saying.

9/10 I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.

The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some "Oscar-worthy" acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.

If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie. I was fortunate enough to see The Last Stop here where I live at the Moving Pictures Film Festival (for those of you that don't know, the Moving Pictures Film Festival is a tour of Canadian made film in Canada). I was told just before the movie started that it was the world premiere and that it was on the verge of getting an American distribution deal which added to my excitement.

I'm a big horror movie fan, and yes, I love the Scream trilogy as well. So when I found out that Rose McGowan was doing a Ten Little Indians type of movie I knew that I was in for a treat. Rose McGowan was the biggest name actor/actress at the entire festival.

The best way I can describe it without giving away too much of the plot is that it's not quite like Scream. And it certainly is worth seeing. It's set in the middle of a snowstorm (it was filmed in Vancouver, B.C., Canada) at a mountaintop motel, which adds to the suspense. Rose McGowan puts in a great performance as the-girl-next-door(?!) along with the rest of the cast. And as for what happens at the end, well, the only thing I'll say is that you'll never guess the ending.

Sadly, it probably won't make it into mainstream North American theatres because the only decent money maker in it is Rose McGowan. But if you get the chance to see it I would recommend you do. And if worse comes to worst, there's always video.

I gave it a 9 out of 10. I came across The Last Stop one day at a video store and they were selling it for only $2. I decided to give it a try and bought it. It was pretty good, i enjoyed it. The story is about several people all caught in a cabin somewhere in nowhere because of a raging blizzard. There is a police officer, nancy,his ex girlfriend, two brothers that just got out of jail, a older man and his lover, a black man and the couple that owns the cabins and their retarted son that never speaks. Suddenly someone is found to be murdered and a bag full of cash is found. Everyone is a suspect. The Last Stop is a pretty good thriller, i would give it 8/10 The plot starts out interesting, however, towards the end too many die in too short a time, turning the thriller-mystery aspect of the story into a slaughter.

The only true highlights were Adam Beach and Jürgen Prochnow, who were once again their excellent selves. Nice try with an inappropriate last third, though a good ending. I own this movie and I love Canadian Movies but hire an actress like Rose I don't understand.She is completly useless in this movie just a name that's all.The rest of the cast is good,good enough to make this little thriller work.I was surprise by the plot which is not the first time it was used.But those unknown actors did very well even Jergen,I'm not a big fan of his but I liked him in this movie.If you got the chance to see it go for it. This is the best version of Gypsy that has been filmed.Bette Midler is simply superb as Mama Rose.She has the voice,the gestures,the look,and most of all,a supreme acting ability to carry the role off and to make her character come alive.Her singing is,simply put:MAGNIFICENT! She especially shines in two numbers-"Everything's Coming Up Roses" and "Rose's Turn". The other actors are also fine,particularly Christine Ebersoll as Tessie.Also good is Peter Riegert;his portrayal of Herbie is acted with great style and believability.The direction of this movie is very,very good.There isn't a false note or gaffe in the entire production.This film is a vast improvement over the Roz Russell version filmed in 1962.Since viewing it again,I can state that the three greatest Mama Roses are:Ethel Merman,Bette Midler,and Angela Lansbury. See this movie.You'll be glad that you did. If you want to see what could be classed as the 'stage' version of GYPSY this is the film for you.

If you enjoy(ed) listing to the MERMAN recording of GYPSY then you really enjoy watching MIDLER as Gypsy's mother, ROSE. It's my opinion that Midler has the volume, vibrato and presents that Merman once had.

It's not often these days, when listening to update versions of musicals, that I get that tingling sensation that makes the hair on my neck tingle but Bette Midler certainly shows her talents in this movie -see how you like them apples.....

I know you may not like it, but for me Ms. Midler is the definitive "Gypsy". Too often screen adaptations of musicals compromise, but this is one of those rare occasions when every ingredient, perfect in itself, comes together and harmonizes perfectly. Midler was born to play this role, and her performance will most likely be remembered as definitive. She is supported by an ideal cast, and the direction and design are tops. It doesn't get any better than this. This is one of the best TV productions of a musical ever. I have heard the Merman cast album, the Angela Lansbury album, I have seen Tyne Daly live, and I've seen the Rosalind Russell movie countless times. I think Bette is if not the best, then tied with the best. She captures not just the bravura, but also the pathos of Mama Rose. I was never a Natalie Wood fan, so I really enjoyed Cynthia Gibb, in what is arguably her best role. Everything from the costumes to the sets to the supporting performances is wonderful. The three strippers, led by the always-dependable Christine Ebersole are hard to top. There was supposed to be a TV production of Mame a few years back, with Cher, but I think Bette would be the best bet (pun intended) for Auntie Mame. This is easily one of my favorite musicals of all time. Bette Midler comes as close to real magic on screen as anyone has in her turn as Gypsy Lee's blustery, bosomy, brave and very scary mother. She evokes a sense of desperation that is at times both comic and tragic but always genuine and quite beautiful. Such charm and grit she is indeed a pioneer woman without a frontier. That frontier is discovered for the children. Who in turn must forge their own in a world ruled by their domineering mother.

This particular version is, as I understand it, in it's entirety including the brilliant choreography of Jerome Robbins, as well as the original stage directions. "Gypsy" is possibly the greatest musical ever written, so it's too bad that it's film version was such a disappointment. To make up for that, we have this re-make which, if not flawless, is an enjoyable and well done adaption of the musical. The script is completely accurate, all the songs included, and the staging remains close to the original Jerome Robbins' staging. Bette Midler is a deft choice for Rose, her singing and personality Merman-esquire, and her acting splendid. Peter Reigert is a fine Herby, if not a great singer, and Cynthia Gibb is a straight forward, natural Louise. In truth, a live taping of the 1989 revival with Tyne Daly might have been a better idea, if only because "Gypsy" is simply more exciting on stage, But this film is a fine translation of a great musical. Watching this on Comcast On-Demand.

Every time I see this musical, I am amazed at the songs...one show-stopper after another.

This interpretation is, for me, magical. The songs sparkle...the vocals, orchestrations, and choreography are amazing for a "made-for-TV" movie...better than many stage versions I have seen.

The debate over Bette just doesn't make sense. She is Mamma. Her voice is brilliant and yet full of the pathos of the stage mother living through her daughters. I still get tears at the end when she finally has her moment of glory, no matter how faded that glory is.

The Tulsa/Louise duet/dance is on now. Fabulous.

Stephen Sondheim is the King of musical theatre. His lyrics just roll off the tongue like silk...Styne's music is perhaps the best ever penned for the stage/screen.

Thank God we have this masterpiece of the American Musical Theatre captured on DVD. Based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, who painted a much more affectionate picture of their mother than did her sister, actress "Baby" June Havoc, in her autobiography, "Early Havoc" on which "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" was loosely based. I saw Ethyl Merman in the original Broadway production of Gypsy, and she was great as "Mama Rose" but certainly more "Merman" than Rose. I was disappointed with Rosalind Russell's portrayal in the 1962 movie version. An otherwise excellent actress, Russell was a very wooden substitute for Merman. Bette Midler, by contrast, was better and more believable than Merman and I'd recommend her performance as the definitive one. This film, Blade Master, may be cheap, clumsy in appearance and it is sometimes, but it shares thoughts on problems that are way beyond the era this film is set in. Ator is the chosen one that has to protect the earth against a terrible weapon, that is compared in an unforgettable and unpredictable way to the atomic weapon. He goes through obstacles as a witful character who is just more than muscle power, although he has quite is lot. I would say this aspect of the movie makes it surpass a film like Conan the barbarian, which is the least I can say, quite brainless. It doesn't diminish in any ways the great adventure movie that is Conan, but it gives Ator his wholesomeness that he shares not with the barbarian. For a lower budget movie, this film does good in terms of setting and the fights are most of the time believable. Zor, the villain, has with is prisoner throughout the film one of the most interesting psychological confrontation that gives tension to the movie, even if Ator seems way too fit for the task to loose.

What gives this movie that little extra are those scenes that may look quirky, but worth of mention. The fight with the serpent god, even though he is a gigantic puppet, is well handled as the snake, with good lightnings, remains a silhouette and the fight is quite convincing. The movie climaxes in a most unusual way, quite anachronic, but breathtaking : the deltaplane sequence. The scene itself is not introduced properly, read not at all, where did Ator get that machine, it's pretty unconvincing, but it leads to a really poetic and beautiful midair sequence, that standalone, is the culminating point in the movie, elevating Ator in a place where few human fantasy heroes have been.

If Blade Master is not among the great fantastic movies of all time is no surprise due to its lacks, it's a bigger surprise, considering the philosophical way it chooses on the confrontation between good and evil, the truth it speaks and the heart it shows, that this movie is so unwlecomed. I suggest it for every fan of the genre and try take it seriously as an intelligent movie that's to be taken more seriously than it seems. The Ator series is a shining example of what B-movies should be. They fail in every aspect, but in such a hilarious way that they are funny rather than sad. "Ator l'invincibile 2" aka "The Blade Master" aka "Cave Dwellers" shows us Europe's favorite Conan clone, Ator where we left him in the first movie- after showing us a lengthy recap of all the events of the first film. This time the world must be saved from "The Nucleus", a kind of bomb, represented on screen as a bright light (I guess they couldn't afford a prop). This one features invisible attackers and samurai. As with the first film, lots of stock footage is used (including one rather obvious bit from "Star Wars"). Thoroughly laughable and unforgettably bad- this is an exception B-movie. Blademaster is definitely a memorable entry in the Swords and Sorcery category of movies. I found Blademaster along with Quest for the Mighty Sword at a thrift shop attended by mentally handicapped people and was very happy to pay 2.00 each for them. Believable sets and costumes, good sword fighting and a beautiful female warrior, Mila make this an enjoyable watch. A few problems though, there were a lot of details in the plot that didn't quite fit, like the cave men for one. I didn't understand their purpose. Also, this movie could have really benefited from some more monsters. The snake was cool, but I guess it does borrow a little from Conan. However, any primitive sort of movie where someone winds up with a hanglider is OK by me (see Yor and Battle for Endor). I think Ator is cool! Oh, and was anyone else reminded of Gallager by the villain or is it just me? I give blademaster a 7/10 God bless Joe D'Amato...I love Italian horror, cheese (movie-wise ;)), sci-fi, etc.

This one, admittedly, was a bit harder to watch, but another fun BAD movie.

I like how people preface a negative review with "I normally enjoy bad movies, but..." No buts, this was a bad movie FOR people who love bad movies. It's one of my top bad movies.

Miles O'Keefe was a poor man's Conan, but oh what fun. Who can't have fun with a primitive nuclear bomb, a hangglider and a cheesy rubber monster? It's fine to hate this movie if you only like Hollywood drek like "Titanic" or "Pretty Woman" but if you truly, I mean TRULY love bad movies, check this one out.

This is one of those movies that are fun to rent for a beerbust or when you have a couple buddies around and looking for a little mindless fun.

My rating 8/10. A very sweet movie about a young Chinese man enamored of western technology and an Englishman trying to make his fortune showing movies in China. It's a very interesting story that is presumably based on true events, although I'm assuming it's more fantasy than real. It's got a fairy tale quality you rarely get in real life, and it's also got 8 people credited for the script, so they must have been making up stuff right and left.

This is a very likable movie that conveys how magical film was to people who had never seen it before. It is not an especially deep movie, touching briefly on the loss of tradition and the encroachment of western culture but mainly just being a pleasant little movie. It's actually a movie I enjoyed very much that is already beginning to disappear from my mind 15 minutes after seeing it. Light as a soufflé, but I enjoyed every minute. Gentle and genial film seems to have been overlooked as a triviality...and to be fair the narrative is a bit tenuous and lightweight as drama....but I feel the simple wonder and joy of the scenes depicting the first impact of a new art on an alien and sceptical society have a radiance and naturalness which capture the century long romance between cinema and audience better than any film in years. Immensely sympathetic performance from Jared Harriss (who seems to have inherited all of his fathers charisma...hopefully without poor Richards penchant for hellraising and haminess)....and charming offbeat cuteness from costar Yu Xia combine to make this a real heartwarmer. Radiant location photography (including glowingly beautiful scenes at the great wall) and sensitive direction by Ann Hu give film added impact. In short a must for anyone ever enchanted by a shadow flickering to life...and making magic in the dark. This film is about so many things. Most obvious is the hold that film can have over an audience and how capturing life on film can be a kind of magic. There is also the tense relationship between China and the West as many Chinese saw (probably rightly so) the "Barbarians" as trying to take over and pollute their way of life. Liu even seeks to preserve their way of life on film because he sees that it will one day disappear. Their is also Liu's internal conflict between the loyalties and traditions of China versus the self-determination philosophy of the West. All these themes are woven quite skillfully into a coherent and enjoyable whole by Hu. A very enjoyable film. A beautiful film about the coming of early silent cinema to China. SHADOW MAGIC deftly combines a love story with the drama of the cultural clash between China's ancient traditions and modern Western culture in the form of film. An amazing first film by Chinese director Ann Hu. If I correctly understood Ms. Hu's comments at the 2000 Sundance festival, this film was produced as an American film with co-funding by the Chinese government, and shot in China. SHADOW MAGIC reminds me of films like IL POSTINO and CINEMA PARADISO - not necessarily in theme or plot, but it has a similar feel. A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD). Unlike some movies which you can wonder around and do other things, this movie kept me in front of the screen for the entire two hours. I loved every minute of it.

However, I have to say that the story is not very believable. Especially when the foreigner was expelled by the government, and then later on, actually sent a package to the guy who helped him. Xiao Liu is a very good actor, he shows his emotions, and he shows his silliness, and his love toward that girl. This is a beautiful, funny, vivid film. It's even better than "Nuovo Cinema Paradiso" -- which it parallels but doesn't replicate. The story completes a full circle and had the theater beaming as the credits rolled. A hundred years after this story takes place, we're just as intrigued by flickering images in a dark theater. `Shadow Magic' recaptures the joy and amazement of the first movie audiences. It also shows the power of film in its ability to bring the world a little closer, overcome cultural barriers and to preserve ourselves for generations yet to come. Certainly, anyone who truly loves the art of the motion picture will enjoy this film. It's a great first effort by writer/director Ann Hu, who will hopefully have many films to follow. Malcolm McDowell diagnoses Megan Gallagher's daughter and she as having a form of illness, when they believe they are seeing "The Huldre", troll-like creatures which live with "the rocks and the roots" (to quote the movie).

Basically a family moves into an older house, which has a smaller doll-house in the backyard. The daughter (well played by Sofia Vassiliova) starts to befriend the creatures, until they become vindictive. The family cat also disappears.

There are a few good scenes with Megan Gallagher ("Millennium") and Malcolm McDowell as the psychiatrist. There is also something strange which occurred to one of McDowell's patients.

If you enjoy this type of story, you may also like "Bad Ronald", which had a similar odd theme, and the house is haunted by bad Ronald (Scott Jacoby) only that movie is from the 70's. 7/10. This little flick is reminiscent of several other movies, but manages to keep its own style & mood. "Troll" & "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" come to mind. The suspense builders were good, & just cross the line from G to PG. I especially liked the non-cliche choices with the parents; in other movies, I could predict the dialog verbatim, but the writing in this movie made better selections. If you want a movie that's not gross but gives you some chills, this is a great choice. *Minor Spoiler*

Inhabited isn't scary, but it is creepy. It is an interesting 'little' story with good acting and great special effects makeup.

Basic plot: A little girl blames the strange things going on at her family's new house and accompanying playhouse on her faerie friends.

The movie doesn't waste time getting moving, though the ending could have been more involved.

I don't recommend this movie to those expecting/wanting hardcore horror, but I do recommend it to those who want a chiller and not necessarily a thriller. Okay, this wasn't the greatest horror movie I've ever seen in my life. Despite the fact that it's lower budget, it's a pretty decent movie, though. The monsters are unique and believable. Heck, they're even kind of scary in the scenes where they show them briefly wreaking havoc on this poor family. Although, when you finally do get to see the monsters completely, you really think "WTF!? those itty bitty things are after them?!" The only part that really disturbed me is when *sniff* they killed the kitty! Not the kitty, noooooo, why? Seriously though, if you are looking for hardcore violence and gore, this is not the movie for you. Go rent The Hills Have Eyes or something along those lines. If you have small children, I wouldn't recommend watching this with them though; probably would give them nightmares about trolls in their room. The movie " Inhabited" is about a family of four moving into a new house not knowing that dangers are lurking.The daughter befriends the dangerous creatures as they gain her trust. When they do they use it against her. A man who use to live there as a child or a teen, knows about the creatures and try's to warn them. The creatures steel and take shiny objects to make new stuff out of them , mostly weapons.They has a cat and it murderously disappeared. The man that tried to warn the little sister was tricked by them and end up into a Psyciatric ward. She then help them defeat the creatures and destroy the man one. After they do they leave for good with nothing but each other and something happens to the doctor The slasher sub-genre has been pretty much exhausted - in fact, even by 1979, just one year after the supposed 'first slasher', Halloween (which was released seven years after Bay of Blood), was released; the sub-genre wasn't far from being exhausted; but Tourist Trap represents one of the more original outings. The film follows the same basic formula as most slashers - i.e. madman murders a load of kids, but draws its originality from the fact that madman is shown from the beginning (as opposed to an unseen assailant or a man in a mask) and we actually get some insight into his character. The fact that this killer also has telekinetic abilities, including being able to control the wax dummies that fill his house, adds to the originality. We kick off with a great opening sequence, which sees a young man fall foul of having a flat tire after finding himself in a gas station of terror. The scene is amazingly creepy, as the wax dummies taunt him and things fly from the shelves - and it gives the audience a great insight into what is to come; namely, a very creepy horror film!

The acting credibility is as non-existent as you would expect from a seventies slasher, but to be honest; it's not all that bad. The girls look hot, the boys don't really matter; and Chuck Connors is more than adequately creepy in the role of the psycho. He's not exactly Anthony Perkins; but still, good enough. It's not the acting that's the star of the show, however, and as you might expect - the creepy atmosphere takes that prize. Wax models, as proved by the likes of House of Wax (Vincent Price version...) are very creepy; and the film makes best use of that fact. There are very few things in cinema that can be frightening by simply being there - but wax statues are definitely one of those things. The killer's special ability could easy have gotten in the way of the atmosphere, but the film makes best use of this fact, even, by having various things fly off shelves and it goes well with the rest of the movie. On the whole, this is a very good film. While Tourist Trap might not be absolutely essential viewing; it's well worth seeing and I can recommend it. "Tourist Trap" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including "Crawlspace","Puppet Master" and "Netherworld".Still "Tourist Trap" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.9 out of 10. Don't you just hate them slashers that never seem to get started? It sometimes takes them a full hour of lame red herrings before some real action takes place. "Tourist Trap" isn't like that! If it's typically gruesome slashing you want...than it's typically gruesome slashing you'll get! Plenty of it AND constantly from start to finish! This movie contains what is probably the greatest opening sequence in 80's horror cinema when a teenager, on a stroll after engine trouble, is trapped in a deserted house and assaulted by a creepy collection of wax statues. Four other lambs to the slaughter arrive at the house and encounter an utterly insane maniac that looks somewhat like a mixture of Leatherface (from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") and one of those mad sculptors from old wax-museum movies. "Tourist Trap" is exciting horror entertainment, with some genuine suspense, grisly images, ultimate weirdness, morbid humor and terrific make-up effects. The plot twists aren't always original and the acting is pretty lousy but, seriously, who cares? The fast pacing and the groovy killer-icon caused this "Tourist Trap" to earn a spot amongst my 5 favorite slashers. A bit surprising is the total lack of nudity, though. Too bad, because all the girls look ravishing and after only 10 minutes, the obligatory line "Who needs a bathing-suit?" is spoken. 1979's Tourist Trap is a clever, unique B thriller that stands out as one of the best of it's kind.

Travellers stop at a lonely wax museum where the owner's mannequins are a little too life-like for comfort.

While the film has hints of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Tourist Trap is mainly a creepy psychological thriller worthy of The Twilight Zone. Director David Schmoeller gives this movie an atmosphere of darkness and mystery, that reaches nightmarish proportions. Also, Schmoelloer adds the occasional touch of comic relief to the bizarre happenings.

Venteran actor Chuck Connors is the best of the film's decent cast. Pino Donaggio's music score is excellent, having both lyrical and solemn themes that are perfect to the movie. A number of the film's sequences are quite memorable.

For horror and thriller fans alike, Tourist Trap is an unforgettable must-see film.

*** 1/2 out of **** I love this movie! When I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid,it scared the hell out of me.Probably because mannequins give me the creeps too.Jocelyn Jones(Molly)is an excellent actress.She uses her facial expressions,especially her eyes,at playing terrified.Chuck Connors is great as Mr.Slausen.I was happy to see him play such a different roll.The other actors in this movie are great too! Tanya Roberts(Becky)and Robin Sherwood(Eileen) are great actresses and I hope to see them in future films,especially Jocelyn Jones!

So if you love scary movies but are tired of seeing the same old thing,check this movie out! One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, "Tourist Trap" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying "anything goes" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.

Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across "Slausen's Lost Oasis," a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.

Director David ("Puppermaster," "The Arrival") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, "Tourist Trap" is well worth visiting. Slausen's Lost Oasis. . . a place for food, fun. . . and MURDER! After a guy disappears on his way to a gas station, a group of her friends head out on a trip to search for him. They come across a wax museum where they think their friend might have ended up. Unfortunately for the friends, however, the owner of the roadside attraction possesses the power to control his wax mannequins and use them for evil. One by one, the tourists are stalked down and killed by Slausen and his legion of wax dummies. Can the friends escape or will they fall to the same fate as their lost friend? Following in the footsteps (and twisting them around) of the great classic wax films (House of Wax, Mystery of the Wax Museum), Tourist Trap takes the slasher genre to a whole new level of strange and fascinating with its bizarre story and style. As far as character development, action, dialogue, flow, etc., it seems to be just a basic slasher flick. But, it goes far beyond that as the director takes control of the plot and moves it to the supernatural thriller it is. The acting ranges from acceptable (from the main cast) to very good (from backwoods-showman Mr. Slausen (played by Western-legend Chuck Connors)). The writing moves well and the dialogue is well structured, but there are some flaws in logic as the film moves deeper into the story. Also, some scenes are a bit silly, like the moaning-mannequin attack on Becky. It's nothing, however, that would detract from the effect of the film. As one would expect from a film about wax dummies, it is full of the endless creepiness supplied by the mannequins. It's strange that a (mostly) inanimate object can just sit still and somehow be so unsettling. . . perhaps it's the human likeness, or the blank stare, or the fact that you know it's about to spring an attack. . . whatever it is, the dolls are extremely spooky and that effect is used very well throughout the entirety of the film. As far as slashers go, it's one of the best, and it stands as one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence/Gore: The film is full of some cool deaths. The gore isn't excessive, but it's done well and leaves it as being realistic.

- Sex/Nudity: There is an extended skinny-dipping scene with the very attractive lead females (though 'very attractive' barely begins to describe the ravishing future-angel Tanya Roberts) but it's all a tease as the girls remain mostly underwater. They do remain scantily clad throughout the film, however.

- Cool Killer(s): Creepy is just the beginning of Slausen and his mannequins. One of the best killers in the slasher subgenre.

- Scares/Suspense: From the opening scene on, the film maintains a great blend of the creepiness of the mannequins, jump scares from the attacks, and a strong level of suspense in the stranded situation. . . it's all very well done to make for a genuinely scary film.

- Mystery: Well, mystery wasn't really the point of the film. . . just the meaning behind all of it is what matters.

- Awkward Dance Scene: All these cute girls and not a single dance. Shame.

Final verdict: 8/10. See this creepy slasher!

-AP3- OK...i have seen just about everything....and some are considered classics that shouldn't be ( like all those Halloween movies that suck crap or even Steven king junk).......and some are considered just OK that are really great.....( like carnival of souls )........and then some are just plain ignored............like ( evil ed ) or ( pumpkin head and brain dead "the bud Cort one" ) then some stick in your head once seen and never leave...........that's what this did to me........and for my money this is much better than last house on the left............last house was great till the ending...then it blew chunks.....what kind of dummy is gonna give a blow job to someone who just killed their kids ????.completely stupid ..go find the movie "bully" or even "funny games" if ya want realism and to be creep ed out.........but this damn thing stuck with me for years.........one cause chuck Connors always was scary.........two Tanya Roberts is the best female victim ever........three the chick being smothered in plaster still is one of the all time worst killings on film........and 4th the telekinetic powers thing blew my mind and came totally unexpected.......not to mention the dummies wax figures puppets etc.......it should be right there with psycho,last house,Texas chainsaw,etc....... it's a classic..............and deservedly so........... "Tourist Trap" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including "Crawlspace","Puppet Master" and "Netherworld".Still "Tourist Trap" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.

Rated PG for Brief Nudity, Violence and Profanity. "Tourist Trap" is an odd thriller that came out in the 70's, it's about 5 friends Molly (Jocelyn Jones), Jerry (Jon Van Hess), Eileen (Robin Sherwood), Becky (Tanya Roberts) and Woody (Kevin McDermott), who stumble upon a cloesd down museum SLAUSEN'S LOST OASIS, a curious and eerie roadside museum. This goldmine of decaying, but strangely life-like mannequins is run by Slausen (Chuck Conners), an eccentric, but seemingly harmless has-been. Slausen has one warning for the youngsters: Stay away from Davey, Slausen's reclusive and disturbed brother.

The youngsters' curiosity gets the best of them and they go exploring. The trap is sprung! Amidst flying objects, slamming doors, scarves that strangle on their own, empowered by some hidden force, the trap slowly closes in on the group. The "Creature" Davey and his army of murderous mannequins make quick and brutal work of the friends, until only one remains.

Although not a Slasher movie "Tourist Trap" still contains elements of slasher movies such as the chase scenes and the stalking and the fact the killer wears a mask.

The seemingly telekinetic abilities of the killer to lock bolts and animate the wax dummies, is used to great effect. Perhaps the scariest thing about this movie are the mannequins, which are admittedly scary enough to start off with, but are rally spooky here. The film succeeds despite, or perhaps because of, an obviously meagre budget. These wax figures are blatantly plastic shop dummies- but this only goes to serve as even more eerie when their eyes move with an incredible human The acting is actually pretty good, Chuck Conners gives a well rounded and creepy performance as Mr Slausen, Jocelyn Jones is great as the female lead. This is the single greatest movie I have ever seen. Davey/Mr. Slaussen is simultaneously:

1) Tortured about his talents (e.g., "I can control it; I can! I shouldn't have to hiiiide it! It feeeeeeeeeels good!");

2) Desperate to make friends, e.g.,

"How's the soup?

"The soup is very good."

"Would you like some crackers with your soup?"

"I'd like some more crackers, please."

"How's that?"

"Yes, the soup is very good."

3) Proud of his accomplishments (e.g. "Pretty neat trick, huh?")

4) A ladies man (e.g., "You're so pretty. Why don't you like me?"); and

5) Sometimes, very, very angry (e.g., "You can't get away!")

Connors should have received an academy award for best actor for this movie. I mean, who was possibly better?! Tanya Roberts rocketed to the stratosphere following her performance in TT. It's a wonder not all of the stars of this masterpiece did not go on to have brilliant careers. I highly, highly recommend this film! It's available on amazon.com. Everyone should own it. Make a night of it and have a bowl of soup while you watch. "Tourist Trap" is a bizarre, great horror film from the '70s. The film is about a group of young adults, Becky, Jerry, and Molly, who are traveling in a jeep through a desert area. Their two other friends, Eileen and her boyfriend Woody, are in a separate car. When a wheel goes flat, Woody takes it to a nearby gas station - and meets a grisly fate to some bizarre telekinetic mayhem and some creepy mannequins. The friends get tired of waiting for Woody and go to a local "tourist trap" mannequin/wax museum. In front of the entrance, the car randomly breaks down, and the girls find an oasis area to go swimming in, where they are approached by Mr. Slausen, who runs the roadside attraction that is now closed down. He takes them up to the old western wax museum, and the girls stay behind while he and Jerry go to fix their car. Eileen, the curious of the two, wanders to an old house nearby, where she also falls to the hands of a mysterious masked killer and a bunch of life like mannequins. After awaiting for Eileen, Becky and Molly go to look for her. That's when the real horror begins, and the telekinetic (can move objects with his mind) masked brother of Mr. Slausen begins to kill off the teens one by one, while controlling his large amount of human-turned mannequins.

Sound similar to the 2005 "House of Wax" remake? Well, it is. I'd heard of this movie but never seen it when I saw "House of Wax", but now I can see the striking similarities the two movie share - "Tourist Trap" was obviously a big contributor to the "House of Wax" remake. The mannequins in this movie are scary to begin with, some with moving eyeballs, some with no eyes at all, and some with dropping mouths that sing too. The singing was extremely creepy if you ask me, and the mannequins were eerily designed. Mannequins are creepy to begin with, they're so lifelike yet they really aren't. The movie tightly blends elements from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (the masks the killer uses are similar to those of Leatherface), with a little bit of the original "House of Wax", and the telekinetic powers that are displayed in "Carrie". The result is quite satisfying. The telekinesis was a nice touch to the movie, it made the killer all the more menacing and inescapable. The masks were terrifying, and the plastering scene was really disturbing.

The score for the film was really well done, if not a little overused during some scenes. The acting may not be particularly on key, but it really wasn't that bad. Chuck Connors was really good as the shadowy Mr. Slauston, giving the character a shady but friendly feel. A young Tanya Roberts is also in the film, she's most known for her role on "Charlie's Angels" and more recently the sitcom "That '70s Show", playing Donna's mother. Robert A. Burns serves as the art director, he did a phenomenal job on the original "Texas Chainsaw" and does a good job here as well, creating a cluttered, musty atmosphere to both the rundown museum and the old house filled with mannequins. I found it a little odd that the original rating for the film was PG, it seems a little too scary to have such a tame rating, but the film really isn't too violent.

Overall, "Tourist Trap" is an eerily unique, fast paced, extremely under-appreciated horror classic. Full Moon gave it a decent 20th anniversary DVD release, the commentary was interesting and the picture was clear and crisp for the most part, better than the video versions. If you enjoy older '70s slasher-horror films, "Tourist Trap" is an underrated retro gem. 8/10. A group of young travelers that just ran out of gas go into a weird wax museum called "Saluesen's Lost Oasis" owned by a strange man named Slausen (Chuck Conners) as the dummies are controlled by some mysterious force and a madman with special powers wants them dead.

One of the most under-appreciated horror movies of the late 70's! This Charles Band (producer of "Re-Animator")production has became one of the scariest and most unique low budget horror productions of it's day combining some psychological themes along without having to result some gore like the usual slasher movie. The movie keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats with tension and some scares, the movie has became a cult diamond in the rough for the genre since then and this is well worth watching.

Also recommended: "Pin", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( 1974)", "The Hills have Eyes ( 1977)", "Maniac ( 1980)", "Magic" ( 1978), "Dolls", "May", "Just Before Dawn", "House of 1000 Corpses", "The Devil's Rejects", "Sleepaway Camp", "Mother's Day", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday The 13th", "Halloween 1 & 2", "Puppet Master", "House of Wax ( 1953 and 2005)", "Jeepers Creepers", "High Tension", "Evil Dead II", "From Dusk Till Dawn", "Waxwork", "Nothing But Trouble" and "Psycho ( 1960)". This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and I used to think it never really got its due. That is until I read the glowing reviews here. It seems many feel the same as I did when I first saw it.

It's a damn creepy film, and I've spent most of my life watching creepy films. I've always found dolls, mannequins and such damn creepy! Check out the dolls in "Beyond the Door" and of course the great "Trilogy of Terror". And what about the magnificent Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll". Hell, dolls are creepy! And Tourist Trap has some moments that will make your hair stand on the back of your neck. All aided by an excellent soundtrack that just makes Connors' performance even more heart-pounding.

I remember seeing the trailer to this film on late night TV and thing, "Wow, I gotta see that!" It was memorable. And it's one of the only trailers I remember seeing as a kid that creeped me out. Took me years to see it, but it was a treat.

Stephen King also mentions this film in his "Danse Macabre" book, and gives it a glowing recommendation. Pretty good company.

This film will always be high on my list of must-sees. It's a real solid addition to the genre of the time and deserves place alongside the best of the 70s schlockers. This is fantastic! Everything from the Score - to when the final credits role. This movie is a Masterpiece. It's genuinely creepy and its effectively hysterical setting is enough to give anyone the creeps. It is apparent that the movie was NOT rushed, and that David Schmoeller (Who would later work with Fullmoon on the Puppet Master Series) had a clear and concise image of what he is trying to direct. The professional aspect of the movie is astonishing considering it's relatively low budget. It relies on scares without effects (Mainly due to budget restrictions) but still creates a tension filled atmosphere.

Stephen King stated that this was one of his favorite movies and I seriously cannot blame him! It's one of my favorite horror movies and always will be. This is my favorite Fullmoon Movie and has been ever since I first purchased a good few years ago.

Money Well Spent! I own both VHS and DVD versions.

10/10 Despite a silly premise,ridiculous plot devices and low budget,Tourist Trap

manages to be striking. An inventive ,beautifully scored film,a must see. You have to throw rationality out the window to fully appreciate what the director was trying to do If you can manage that,you will be in for a pleasant surprise. Also take note that this is one of the few semi-classic horror films that wasn't spoiled by numerous sequels. Like one of the other reviewers (might have been @ Amazon), I was first introduced to Tourist Trap by the beloved, decrepit old WOR-9 in NY, around January 1983. Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell, which I'd been waiting to see since it debuted on Halloween 1978, had just ended, and I thought I'd had my horror fill for the day (quit laughing - that three eyed "Borgost" (sp?) monster Ike Eisenmann draws up in his room is scary).

For as much as I still enjoy Richard Crenna wearing his made-for-TV horror hat, it was the first 10 minutes of Tourist Trap, following Devil Dog that day, that really left a mark - and months later, it ended up being the first movie I ever taped off TV. WOR used to play this fairly frequently, often as the Saturday afternoon Million Dollar Movie, as others have observed. It's one of those offerings that delivers a powerful horror punch up front, a veritable left hook - and then practically starts over with the rest of the cast, dances and jabs, putting the opening scene a larger context along the way, then moves on to the real climax (see Night of the Living Dead, Re Animator).

Two paragraphs and I haven't mentioned a single mannequin. Face it - the damn things are scary enough, without the music and the script. I, too, can remember some scary dress dummies and the like in various relatives' attics and basements, and say what you like about how relatively straightforward Schmoeller and Carroll's approach is - no one, before or since, has played it this well. In real life, a good mannequin will make you do a double take - and here, that's about the last thing you're likely to see, if you happen to be stuck at Slausen's defunct wax museum and roadside stand. Yes, there is a point ("I loved her very much"), where Chuck "Slausen" Connors is trying to pass for Vincent Price. Yes, the plot might have taken up all of a paragraph in the early stages; I can't see the script being all that thick. It doesn't matter. From direction to competent acting (Meryl Streep's emphatically not in attendance, and here, that helps instead of hinders), to another useful and effective Pino Dinaggio score (see Carrie and various other de Palma movies), to various lighting, film stock, use of varying sound levels ... I could go on - every element of this low budget production comes together and you get a work very much greater than the sum of its parts.

Did I mention it's scary as Hell? Stephen King talked this movie up in Danse Macabre a year or so after its release, and with good reason. Like much of his work, it may not be great art, but it sure does tell a scary story, and does it well. The rest of the cast may be relatively unknown (wasn't Jocelyn Jones in that Texas car chase movie as well?), but Chuck Connors and Tanya Roberts were and are, just familiar enough to audiences, to make you think - Stephen King style - that this could happen to you, or people you know.

Comparisons to Psycho (plot) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (overall look and feel), even if they aren't the first associations in my mind, are valid. I only wish I could comment on the DVD, which I look forward to buying, as Tourist Trap has become notoriously hard to find on video since the near-complete extinction of independent video rental outlets, where it had a home aside from WOR and cable in the 1980s (though TMC/Showtime appear to have picked it up and play it regularly now). No, no spoilers here, I'm afraid, no plot breakdown - go see it yourself (all right, there may be a tiny little one below, so scroll away if you like - better safe than sorry). The mannequins are damn scary and I'd rather show than tell ... :)

For the record, Tourist Trap is also chock full of great lines, from "we are going to have a party! How do I look, huh, how do I look?!", to "you're so pretty", "you can't hurt me", "I shouldn't have to hide it - it feels good!" (listen for that Vincent Price inflection again there), the inevitable "you're crazy!" (delivered at the right moment, and in the right tone) ... and try - just try - to keep the hair on your arms down when you hear the mannequin's head screaming "Molly!" - especially once you realize whose head it used to be ... :)

P S ... Charles Band was the producer on this, I believe, and likely owned the rights to Dinaggio's music. Band, from what I understand, was the brains behind Full Moon Entertainment, which might explain both the music's subsequent use in Puppet Master, and, well, the 40 commercial approach has characterized Full Moon throughout, from the enjoyable Puppet Master and Subspecies franchises, to, uhhh ... Trancers and Bad Channels (sorry, BOC). Some films just fade away, but Tourist Trap has withstood the test of time and has justifiably become a cult favorite. Though not completely original--it owes much to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it holds its own with a sense of humor, genuine creepy moments, a brilliant score by Pino Donaggio, and the fun performances by Chuck Connors and the cast. Don't let the PG rating keep you away, this film proves that gratuitous gore and nudity are not needed in every horror film to make it entertaining. Those elements are usually used to cover the lack of thrills in a film. Here, the scares are merited and effective. Plus, only Chuck Connors could carry a scene in which he has to share soup with a mannequin! A classic scene indeed. Now more accessible on DVD in widescreen, this film is a must for fans of '70s horror fare. This is a bizarre oddity, directed by the guy who edited "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Chuck Conners gives a hilariously over-the-top performance as the owner of a roadside "wax" museum which our doomed teenagers happen to break down near. The wax figures look "so real," one of the teen's points out. Heh, heh, heh...Not so much a slasher film as a weird mix of psychological horror and old fashioned "House of Wax"-style terror. I can think of many, many horror films that are worse than this one. Let me just start out by saying that Tourist Trap is a better movie then 99.9% of the horror films that have come out of Hollywood lately. If you don't believe me see Darkness Falls or They. And it is certainly better than any of those crappy direct to video releases like Stab, Bleed, The Pool, and so on. One of the big problems with the film Tourist Trap is that is never really found an audience. When the film opened in 1979 it was given a PG rating by the MPAA. Anyone that knows horror films knows that a PG on a horror film is usually the kiss of death for the film. (Director David Schmoeller talks about this problem on the DVD's commentary track.) There are exceptions though like Poltergeist, which had also received a PG rating. However, there are big differences between Tourist Trap and Poltergeist. Tourist Trap was not a big budget Hollywood film like Poltergeist nor was it produced by Steven Spielberg. That alone was enough to guarantee Poltergeist success. (Still for those of you that have seen Tourist Trap, you will even scratch your head as to why the MPAA rated this film PG. The 'heart burst' scene alone should be enough for the film to be slapped with and R rating. Or how about the pipe in the back with the blood running out of it.) I have to admit though that when I was young I looked at a copy of Poltergeist in the video store shelf, picked it up, saw that it was rated PG and put it back on the shelf in favor of an R rated film instead. Years later, I finally saw Poltergeist and realized what a great film I missed out on for not renting a PG horror film. From then on I would never judge a film based on it's rating again. This is most likely what happened to Tourist Trap. People, like me with Poltergeist, will probably overlook it in favor of the R rated film. Most likely it would be a teenager too, which most of these types of films are targeted at. Friday the 13th was no masterpiece either but did extremely well at the box office due to the fact it was rated R and was heavily advertised by Paramount at the time. It found its audience and made enough money to spawn several sequels. When you look at it folks, Tourist Trap is just as good as Friday The 13th. The same thing could've happened to Tourist Trap. We could have seen Tourist Trap 2, 3, 4, and so on. As far as the film goes, Tourist Trap is an entertaining horror film made on an extremely small budget, but it is well acted, well directed and well made on many levels. Chuck Connors is a riot as Mr. Slausen and gives the best performance in the film. Special credit must be give to composer Pino Donaggio, whose score for this film really is what sets it apart from others and gives it its creepiness. The music in the scenes involving the mannequins is especially creepy. Donaggio worked on the horror film Carrie and many other film scores since Tourist Trap. He has done exceptionally good work in film and continues to score films to this day. The weakness with Tourist Trap is that there really is never any explanation of Davey's powers. Maybe that is how it's supposed to be. He just has them, and we should accept that in order for the movie to work. We do accept it to a point, but then the screenplay has incidents like how Davey makes the phone ring in the store while he's in the basement of the house. In that case, is Davey limited in using his powers? Can he make a phone ring in Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles? What is his range? Those are things that people that didn't care for this movie would most likely to point out as flaws. Others would accept it as a mistake. I accept it. There is not enough of those type of questions generated by this film to make me hate it. This is a horror film. We should not be required to read too much into it. Many people have called this the 'killer mannequin' movie. I assure you that no mannequin kills anyone in this film. The mannequins are controlled by the power of Davey who uses them as a weapon. This is a common misconception about this film. Some people have a problem with the mannequins and some have even said they are just downright silly. I think they add to the overall creepiness of the film. Overall Tourist Trap is a good fun rental.***(out of 5) Slasher movies started may be 30 to 35 years before this movie but believe me this one among those pearl that will stay longer after you turned of TV set. Especially if you are a person easily scared this is the movie for you for which you wouldn't have stomach to take it full. Even after so many years the movie hasn't lost its charm and thrill.

No blood no gore but the thrill will for sure chill your spine out. the movie starts with the bang and it stay with the same pace till its end. BGM is nerve cracking and i remember this was the one copied in many Indian movies those days. Kings favorite? No wonder why... thats the only reason i wanted to see this and it didn't let me down. "Don't turn off the lights"... coz you wont find Enrique but may be a smiling doll sitting right behind you! beware. not for the lite hearted...

Two thumps up and i am going with 8 out of 10 which is pretty low but still i preserve my ratings for Dramas... After a group of young friends experience car trouble whilst travelling off the beaten track, they accept an offer of help from lonely local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors), owner of a nearby museum full of historical wax mannequins. Once at the creepy roadside attraction, the friends are stalked by a mask-wearing lunatic who can bring the museum's dummies to life through the power of the mind.

Tourist Trap's bad guy is a demented cross between The Texas Chain Saw Massacre's Leatherface and Anthony, the scary kid from the classic Twilight Zone episode 'It's a Good Life', whilst the plot is a blend of elements from the aforementioned TCM, Hitchcock's Psycho, and House of Wax. The atmosphere and execution of Tourist Trap, however, is so totally off-kilter that, in this respect, it's virtually impossible to draw comparison with other earlier movies.

Director David Schmoeller's continually inventive and unpredictable treatment of his own script gives the film a distinctly nightmarish quality, and with a brilliant left-field performance from Connors, an impossibly creepy score from Pino Donaggio, a collection of truly unsettling mannequins with detachable jaws, and the presence of super sexy Tanya Roberts, who spends the film in (and briefly out of) tiny denim hot-pants and a figure hugging boob-tube, Tourist Trap is a totally unforgettable and ultimately one-of-a-kind horror experience well deserving of its cult following. Perhaps one of the first slasher film that came out after Halloween (Although made from Irwin Yabalans from Halloween), I must say I honestly found "Tourist Trap" to be scarier and funner. "Tourist Trap" is one of those remarkable treats you find every now and then, and are left with the most enjoyable feeling of surprise. It was destiny I tell you, but one night I was at my local Blockbuster (One or Two months before it went out of business), and had nothing to get. Then I stumble upon this movie, I think huh seems like a laughable B-Movie, I rent it and took it home, boy was I in for a good scare. "Tourist Trap" comes off as a bad movie, it definitely has it's cheesy moments,but in the end you're having to much fun with it to really care.

The things that impressed me the absolute most, and the things that made this movie one of the scariest ones I've seen, is number one the setting. A horror movie without a good setting isn't very fun, not here. I just love love love the location, it feels like we can relate to it, it almost feels like we've been there before. Which makes it creepier. Next is the characters, non of them are really stereotypical, and they all have a real personality. For example they're not stoners, alcoholics, or even Sex obsessed people, they feel like normal young adults. Plus they look realistic enough, and then their is Chuck Connors. Who gives a great performance as Mr. Slausen who we all take an instant liking too because again he's so real, he feels like that nice guy grandfatherly figure we adore. The last, and probably most important thing that makes this movie scary is how they make us (the audience) jump half way out of our seats, and turn on the rights, for the right reasons. For example most of the time in horror films we mainly just jump because of a sudden change in the music pitch, but in "Tourist Trap" prepare yourself, that's not the case. With it's perfect use of lighting, mannequins, and weirdness you feel utterly creeped out. Plus I love because although they may go a bit over-the-top with some things you still feel like this could happen. Which is exactly what a horror movie who takes such a ridicules premise should do, and that is make us (the audience) feel unsafe and terrified.

Overall as far as any major problems go, I have none, only that it's weirdness may get a little too weird at times. However in the end "Tourist Trap" holds a place near and dear to my heart, for being one of the few horror films to make me turn on the lights and feel unsafe about traveling. I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now cliché plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.

In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.

Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.

I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.

I give it a 9 out of 10, kids. "Tourist Trap" is among my favorite late 70's/early 80's horror flicks. A group of young people are heading somewhere, one pair in the car ahead, & that car has a flat, and our film opens with the young man, Woody, pushing the tire along looking for a service station. He finds a seemingly abandoned place, and yet hears voices and investigates, and ends up with a piece of pipe through his stomach for his efforts. Along comes the rest of the young folks (in a VW Thing) and they pick up Woody's girlfriend, and find this very same place, Slausen's Oasis, or some such thing..and then Mr. Slausen happens along while the girls are enjoying a dip in the stream. Of course, the VW Thing has mysteriously died at that point, so odd Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) offers his help. Mr. Slausen has a museum, with lots of wax figures, and he lives in the museum but behind is a big house, where he says Davey lives. And who is Davey? Why, Davey Crockett, he says...but if it were Davey Crockett, they'd all probably be safer. The girls are left alone while Slausen goes to help with fixing the car, but of course curiosity gets the better of one & she goes to investigate, and finds the house full of creepy mannequins and one rather animated one named...Davey. What follows is a rather creepy night of terror as one by one, they're taken prisoner by Davey, who says he's Slausen's brother. One girl (kidnapped earlier) is treated to a plaster facial, which results in her death when it covers up her air supply. At any rate there's somewhat of a twist to this and kind (but weird) Mr. Slausen is not exactly what he appears to be. A good, creepy late 70's horror flick, and lots of mannequins make for a very creepy atmosphere. 7 out of 10. A group of young adults get stranded in the back of the beyond, where the only place in the vicinity is a museum full of wax dummies, and the only form of help is affable local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors). As night falls, the kids get picked off in record time.

An odd, freaky B movie that combines the creepiness of backwoods settings with the plot device of all-too-lifelike mannequins (making this a good update of the "bodies in the wax museum" genre), this is an intense shock fest along the lines of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre". (It should then come as no surprise that TCSM art director Robert A. Burns repeats that duty here, and his eye for great set decoration always comes in handy.) Pino Donaggios' score is downright chilling; accompanied by the murky photography of Nicholas von Sternberg, it drenches the film in oppressive atmosphere.

Plot twists vary in level of success; there was one that I saw coming a mile away, and one that actually took me by surprise, and I was all the more happier for it. One of the best moments is shared with us almost right up front, as the first chump victim is trapped in a room with objects flying at him of their own volition. The capper is a great impalement by pipe with blood dripping out of the end.

Star Connors offers an engaging performance as our down-home good ol' boy antagonist, while the younger co-stars, predictably, can't perform at the same level, although Jocelyn Jones is a likable enough and certainly winsome lady who has enough appeal to rate as a sympathetic damsel-in-distress. Co-star Tanya Roberts (a brunette in this film) is okay in support. (If I had one problem with this film, it's just that the victims are a little too stupid. Then again, that doesn't make this much different from many horror films of the 80's.) Future notable names among the credits are future directors Ted Nicolaou, who was the editor here, Ron Underwood (who made a great debut almost a dozen years later with "Tremors") as the assistant director, and veteran makeup artist Ve Neill, who's done many films and won three Oscars since.

Although some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of nudity and sexual elements, this is otherwise a nice little surprise that debuting director David Schmoeller delivers with conviction and gusto. Recommended.

8/10 A group of friends break down in the middle of nowhere (one had a flat tire, the other's Jeep mysteriously won't start). One of them takes the tire to a run down service station and that is the last anyone sees of him. When the remaining foursome go in search of their friend, they come across nice Mr. Slaussen who offers to help fix the jeep and offers cool drinks and refuge from the heat in his equally run down, hermit-like house, which happens to be occupied by very realistic looking mannequins. He goes with the one guy in the bunch out to work on the car and leaves the 3 girls in the house. Before he goes he warns them not to leave and go up to the house behind his shack; he warns them about "Davy", his brother who is lurking about and isn't all there. Of course, one of them decides to venture out in search of a working phone and is never seen again. Is it Slaussen? Is it Davy? The mannequins?? Tourist Trap has the usual horror requirements (jiggly big boobed girl, goody two shoes girl, curiosity getting the better of people and never working out!), but it stands apart from the rest of the 70's genre in it's twist of an ending. I started to feel sorry for Slaussen (Chuck Conners is a terrific, creepy, over-the-top performance)at a point in the film, and you almost see the character of Molly doing the same. This is a gem if you can find it; I had taped it off of cable when I was younger, and walking through a used video store I spotted a VHS copy that was totally overpriced, but well worth it. Fans of Tanya Roberts won't be disappointed either. Best part of the film for me was the scene with the soup (and crackers!!)

I gave it a 7 because some of the movie was and still is hard to explain. i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.

but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.

yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8/10 Tourist Trap (1979) is an entertaining horror movie from the late 70's, the movie is about a bunch of young friends who get stranded on an old deserted lane by a creepy old waxwork museum.

The owner of the museum seems like a strange but harmless old man, but things take a very nasty turn when members of the young group start getting killed off, who is responsible for the murders, is it old man Slausen or is it his collection of creepy mannequins who seem to be alive and hungry for blood!!!! This film was good stuff, it was fast faced, the performances were very good from the actors/actresses (Tanya Roberts was very sexy) and the film was never boring, and like i say, it had some very creepy scenes, so be prepared to hide under the covers! Definitely recommended to horror movie/ghost story fans! I give this film a highly respectable 7.2 out of 10. I actually had seen the last parts of this movie when I was a child. Thanks to the search feature of plots I was able to find out the name of it. For years I did not know the name, but the movie stuck in my mind. The ending left hope that the main character would get back to Earth eventually. It was a shame it did not make it to a series. This movie reminds me of Journey to The Far Side Of the Sun. Also known as Doppleganger. If you liked this feature the other one is worth a watch. It was done before The Stranger, but shares a similar plot. Yet different. I just picked up The Stranger off of eBay on VHS. Hope they make a DVD, but it is doubtful unless it comes out on Dollar DVD. A few pilots are making it on the budget DVD's and maybe this one will. I suppose it depends on when one actually sees the movie for the first time that their impression is formed the way it is.

I saw it as a child on TV back in 1973, when it was "The Stranger" and I loved it. Such was the time when the space program to the moon was a reality, when shows like "Search", "UFO", and "6M$ Man" were showing a child of 12 of what the world could hold in their future. Adventure and technology.

You got to see shows only once and that was when the network aired them. The only way people could slash your shows was by making their own parody of it; they didn't get to take your show and add in their own comments over it.

I did not know what this concept of a "pilot" was. I saw the movie and was hoping thru out that Stryker would get home; did not know that there was a possibility of it continuing beyond two hours.

Back then, would I understood what so many people hate about the movie now? I doubt it because I don't remember it as such. Do I understand now? Not really for to understand the story, one must not see it from their perspective but rather from that of the characters in the movie.

If one is watching as an American, it might be humorous about the lack of security in a police state.....but if one is a subject in that state, then compliance could be expected and security can be less. When things are suppose to be perfect, perfect to an extreme degree, perfect that one is not suppose to doubt, then one is not likely to question as quickly when things are out of order.

The subplots of the movie are interesting such as the old man who remembers the time before but watches his words since he suspects that there are spies everywhere. Or that the police state values knowledge to some extent for they are careful about how they control or harm their brain power.

These days, one is likely to know exactly what the movie is about before they see it, so much of the suspense, surprise is lost. But the duet between the astronaut and his doctor at the beginning of the movie is a perfect exchange if one considers that this movie was made well into the Cold War and the astronaut's biggest fear is that he has crashed in the USSR. One gets quite a distance into the movie before it becomes apparent that such a possibility is the least of his concerns.

This is the primary difference between "The Stranger" and "Doppelganger". The latter can be considered timeless since any comments it has about the USSR are comparatively minor and lost early on in the movie. In the former, those links are through out the movie, supposedly directly in the beginning and then as a theme variation after wards.

All that said, despite my fond memory for the movie, it is rather easy to see that it would not have made it as a series. Each week, Stryker would make friends, Benedict would chase, Stryker would get away. Eventually, Benedict's society would get rid of him. Someone else would pick up the chase. A rut would develop. There might be a jab at something new such as perhaps another crew member from Stryker's mission showing up, but it probably would not be enough to keep the show going.

If one goes in with the knives that others have used to slash the movie, odds are they will slash it as well. But if one remembers that this was made during the Cold War and what fears and estimations of the other side were during that time, of what the popular environment contained for the viewer, then they may find some entertaining and intellectual themes in it. An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program. A wonderful film in the best Scandinavian eldritch magic tradition, with very far sighted analysis of much of the big issues we are just starting to face.

Should be compulsory viewing for all politicians.

Take your pick from privacy, nuclear sustainability, global climate change, quality of life.

Reminiscent of Thoreaus' Walden, but with modern twist, and considerable humour.

I'm not Finnish, although I've travelled there and have good Finnish friends, but I found it totally accessible, and also culturally informative. All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like "Jäniksen vuosi" and "Loma" are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.

Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.

It's nice to see that idea of "Jäniksen Vuosi" still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) "Jäniksen Vuosi" Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankylä, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :) Jäniksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.

Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.

Still the thing that makes Jäniksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes Jäniksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving. This enchanting movie is based on a novel by Arto Paasilinna. The bestseller is one of the best books I've read. Here's the story:

One day journalist and photographer Kaarlo Vatanen decides to leave his past behind, and starts a new life wandering across the Finnish forests and countryside. With him he has a companion, a young hare hit by a car. Vatanen has to take care of the hare, because it's leg is wounded, so they start a journey together taking care of each other.

In the course of their adventures they get almost shot by hunters, get caught by the police, meet many people and finally get to lapland, where they live peacefully, until a group of foreign tourist disturbs their privacy. The hare falls ill and they must return to Helsinki to see the vet.

Vatanen has found an ideal way of living, but the modern society tries to tie him back to his duties and taxes. In Helsinki Vatanen took to drink, gets even engaged and imprisoned, but finally he and the hare flee. My favourite story from 'tales from the crypt'. Brion Jones was born to play the part of the maniac lumberjack,axe swinging madman Steve Dixon.Having seen him before in Tango&Cash I can state this actor never got the proper credit he deserved. A jealous husband takes offence in his wife showing an interest in a hunky young worker he's just employed.And you know when Dixon finds out there's gonna be hell to pay!The young worker Ted(Billy Wirth)receives an almighty beating from Dixon leaving him blind.Now how is a blind lumberjack supposed to work? A tribute to black humour if there ever was one! The co stars do a pretty good job too supporting Ted when Dixon when he has his initial suspicions about his wife desiring another man.Dixon's behaviour making the bond stronger closer between the colleagues.One even stated he became a changed man when he got married.Though Ted should have done the wise thing and left when he could! Every episode I saw when I was an innocent child was stupid. There were some funny looking puppets called "The Mitts" who would always discuss childhood things. They would play this song before "The Mitts" part of the show that goes like this "Let's join the Mitts..." There was a Groucho Marx puppet that told jokes. Before the session, this man would sing "Hot Fudge! Right On!" There was a green puppet with teeth that was called Seymore. We would always see more Seymore. He would crack jokes and sing every episode. There was always a moral in every episode. One episode, a man sang "Liars are losers!" Another episode he was singing about sharing and caring. Seymore said tell me about those two little girls "Sharon and Karen." The Hot Fudge Holey Moley part has this man doing weird stuff and they played weird music. This educational show focused on emotions, interactions, and relationships. It was produced at Detroit's ABC affiliate and syndicated in 90 markets nationwide. This past week, Detroit Public TV had a 1-1/2 hour clip show as part of their pledge drive. Wow, the memories that resurfaced! While I remembered the show, there were segments that I'd forgotten about but remembered instantly a soon as they'd begin ("Hot Fudge HOLY MOLEY!", Detective Tomato and the pies in his face).

For more on the Public Television special, do a search for "Hot Fudge Comin' Atcha Concert" In the spirit of the Great Space Coaster, but a few years earlier.

Hot Fudge was one of the psychedelic kid's shows that I grew up on. Seymour was a big, fuzzy, green puppet, with a crescent smile of enormous teeth which nearly split his head, I recall him wearing a variety of Elton John-type shades.

He "played" piano, and had a Jesus looking dude in a white tux, sitting next to him. They would have a moral discussion and then do a song about it.

Don't remember much else except the opening theme, Seymour and the Hippie.

No one else I know remembers it at all. I grew up in Jersey, so if it was produced in Detroit as a previous post said, it wasn't just local. Seymour reminded me a lot of Sherlock the Squirrel from the Magic Garden (another psychedelic kids show if there ever was one.) People always talk about LSD's effects of music and movies of the 70s, but it seems kid's show writers got a dose as well. This is a wonderful look, you should pardon the pun, at 22 women talking about breasts-- theirs, their mothers', other women's, and how they affect so many aspects of their lives. Young girls, old women, and everyone in between (with all shapes, sizes, configurations, etc) talk about developing, reacting, celebrating, hiding, enhancing, or reducing their breasts.

It's charming, delightful, sad, funny, and everything in between. Intercut with documentary footage and clips from those famous old "young women's films" that the girls got taken to the cafeteria to see, the interviews are a fascinating window for men who love women & their breasts into what the other half has to say when they don't know you're listening. Let's get this out of the way, so the ones checking out this page looking for info on anything related to the word "Breasts" (and you know who you are, googlers) can move along: this is not in any way pornographic. On the contrary, if this has any value as masturbation material then, frankly, the filmmaker didn't do a good job since the aim is to keep it on subject and on the experiences of women and their bodies and images of themselves and society and health and so on. Indeed, I would be a little circumspect of one who came across this on DVD or, if it ever plays again, late night on HBO or Cinemax and used it as a means for pleasure. You might as well go to the supermarket and pick up a pair of ripe melons and take them home and squeeze them and uh, well, you get the idea.

No, this is semi-serious film-making meant for premium late-night viewing, but it shouldn't have to be just for the late-night types. This is intimate in setting but not in tone. All of the women, in all their variety of shapes and sizes, and races, and even with one man thrown in with fake breasts, have something of value to say, from life experience in the most straightforward way. If I say semi-serious it's due to the several little segments that the director feels she needs to throw in, with the archival footage of old "how-to" videos about puberty and sex and breasts and super-rare cartoons with the knockers flying about. This isn't a problem but an asset: we need a few little visual seg-ways to go between these interviews.

Nothing is held back, and we see it as feminism in a liberating form: they don't need to cover up, and even if they choose not to take their tops and shirts and bras off they're still open as can be about a natural part of their body that is an object of sex, surprise, comfort, discomfort, curiosity, motherhood, and, sadly, cancer. In that last part, there's another brave step taken as we see a woman who survived her cancer with only one breast. You know you've become mature and an adult when you can see this woman who has somehow gone on to live a semi-normal life with one breast (the most bittersweet moment is when she says if a fairy godmother said she could have one wish to have two full breasts she would have to think about it), and you don't snicker or go "eww, gross." That's the test, folks.

It's not shot under the best of circumstances, but then again for TV it's edited with a tight pace. It's never dull for a moment, and we never feel like anyone is holding back, especially when a man might hear the hard truth like that breasts may not really be erogenous, or that a flat chest is very attractive to some men. Breasts: A Documentary is about deconstructing myths with real faces and breasts and minds and hearts laid bare. If that's worthy of a "I was alone" session, then, well, more power to you, I guess, though it's not the intention. Supercarrier was my favorite movie in the later part of the 80's when it came out. My Dad taped it for me & I watched it all the time until my step-mom taped Oprah over it & my heart was torn. I would love to know if or where I can get it from. I have been looking for it. I believe they even came out w/ a Supercarrier 2. It wasn't as great as the 1st, but I would like to have all of them if I could find them. I do not think @ all that it was a bad movie. It was a very interesting movie with a lot of action yet it had somewhat of a love story plot to it. The actors/actresses in the movie were great. It also helped me to understand that this is not just a man's world, but it is also a woman's world & many women can do the same things if not more than what a man can do & women deserve much respect for their duties as well. When I first saw Colleen Moore it was in the excellent series about silent films called "Hollywood". There she was in 1980, her hair defiantly bobbed as it was in the Twenties, a sparkling, witty and charismatic elderly lady - the very definition of "presence". Then I saw her fabulous silent comedy work in films like "Ella Cinders" and "Orchids and Ermine". Then the disappointingly sombre talkie "The Scarlet Letter". And now here she is in "The Power and the Glory" giving a performance of staggering power, working expertly alongside one of the talking cinema's finest actors - Spencer Tracy.

I found the movie a little lack lustre story-wise, but Moore and Tracy give such brilliant performances that the story hardly seems to matter. Both actors age from youth to old age in the course of the film - and this is done mostly through acting alone with minimal make-up and hair changes. Moore is almost unrecognisable as the elderly wife, and the scene where she finds out her husband is seeing a younger woman is one of the most magnificently performed scenes I have ever seen. She does most of the scene without dialogue, which is where her silent acting experience gives her the edge, even over Tracy. Contrast this with her delightful comic playing in another silent sequence when she is a young woman and Tracy is struggling to propose to her. Astonishing! What this film reveals more than anything else is how shameful it is that Hollywood let this remarkable actress slip through its fingers and spend most of her life in retirement. The story of Tom Garner opens with his grand funeral and is told through a series of elegant flashbacks narrated by his faithful lifetime friend Henry. Henry and his wife debate whether Tom was a great man and a genius or an utterly worthless scoundrel. The film is beautifully written, acted and directed, and I highly recommend it.

Tom was the fabulously rich and successful owner of a large railroad, dominating his board of directors and his competition, terrorizing his employees, slaughtering strikers. Tom's ambitious wife Sally was responsible for all of Tom's success. When he met her, he was illiterate and entirely content with his work as a trackwalker for the railroad. Sally teaches him to read and takes over his trackwalker job while Tom goes to school. He starts to rise one step at a time through the railroad hierarchy until he eventually takes over as president.

But as Tom becomes a business tycoon, his marriage to Sally gradually falls to pieces. His spoiled son despises him, and he takes up with a much younger woman (the aptly named Eve), with predictably catastrophic consequences. In his business life, Tom is a total success; in his personal life, a disastrous failure. Much like the Hearst figure in "Citizen Kane," Tom symbolizes the best and the worst of the capitalist system.

Spencer Tracy is terrific in the role of Tom Garner and the business scenes ring with authenticity. Colleen Moore is also excellent as Sally; both of them age beautifully in the multi-generational story. The film was written by Preston Sturges, but is nothing like the screwball comedies for which Sturges became famous. Preston Sturgis' THE POWER AND THE GLORY was unseen by the public for nearly twenty or thirty years until the late 1990s when it resurfaced and even showed up on television. In the meantime it had gained in notoriety because Pauline Kael's THE CITIZEN KANE BOOK had suggested that the Herman Mankiewicz - Orson Welles screenplay for KANE was based on Sturgis' screenplay here. As is mentioned in the beginning of this thread for the film on the IMDb web site, Kael overstated her case.

There are about six narrators who take turns dealing with the life of Charles Foster Kane: the newsreel (representing Ralston - the Henry Luce clone), Thatcher's memoirs, Bernstein, Jed Leland, Susan Alexander Kane, and Raymond the butler. Each has his or her different slant on Kane, reflecting their faith or disappointment or hatred of the man. And of course each also reveals his or her own failings when they are telling their version of Kane's story. This method also leads to frequent overlapping re-tellings of the same incident.

This is not the situation in THE POWER AND THE GLORY. Yes, like KANE it is about a legendary business leader - here it is Tom Garner (Spencer Tracy), a man who rose from the bottom to being head of the most successful railroad system in the country. But there are only two narrators - they are Garner's right hand man Henry (Ralph Morgan) and his wife (Sarah Padden). This restricts the nearly three dimensional view we get at times of Kane in Garner. Henry, when he narrates, is talking about his boss and friend, whom he respected and loved. His wife is like the voice of the skeptical public - she sees only the flaws in Henry.

Typical example: Although he worked his way up, Tom becomes more and more anti-labor in his later years. Unions are troublemakers, and he does not care to be slowed down by their shenanigans. Henry describes Tom's confrontation with the Union in a major walk-out, and how it preoccupied him to the detriment of his home life. But Henry's wife reminds him how Tom used scabs and violence to end the strike (apparently blowing up the Union's headquarters - killing many people). So we have two views of the man but one is pure white and one is pure black.

I'm not really knocking THE POWER AND THE GLORY for not duplicating KANE's success (few films do - including all of Orson Welles' other films), but I am aware that the story is presented well enough to hold one's interest to the end. And thanks to the performances of Tracy and Colleen Moore as his wife Sally, the tragedy of the worldly success of the pair is fully brought home.

When they marry, Tom wants to do well (in part) to give his wife and their family the benefits he never had. But in America great business success comes at a cost. Tom gets deeply involved with running the railroad empire (he expands it and improves it constantly). But it takes him away from home too much, and he loses touch with Sally. And he also notices Eve (Helen Vinson), the younger woman who becomes his mistress. When Sally learns of his unfaithful behavior it destroys her.

Similarly Tom too gets a full shock (which makes him a martyr in the eyes of Henry). Eve marries Tom, and presents him with a son - but it turns out to be Eve's son by Tom's son Tom Jr. (Philip Trent). The discovery of this incestuous cuckolding causes Tom to shoot himself.

The film is not a total success - the action jumps at times unconvincingly. Yet it does make the business seem real (note the scene when Tom tells his Board of Directors about his plans to purchase a small rival train line, and he discusses the use of debentures for financing the plans). Sturgis came from a wealthy background, so he could bring in this type of detail. So on the whole it is a first rate film. No CITIZEN KANE perhaps, but of interest to movie lovers as an attempt at business realism with social commentary in Depression America. A precursor to "Citizen Kane" in its analysis of the life of a just deceased tycoon, here reviewed by his faithful secretary in a series of interlocking flashbacks. In Spencer Tracy's 15th film he already looks middle-aged even in the scenes where he is meant to be young!

A little silent-screen type emoting is understandable given the vintage but this is a most enjoyable, well-written drama. Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with "Citizen Kane": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of "Kane" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated. A real sudsy soap opera here as Spencer Tracy tackles the role of an illiterate until the age of 20. He marries the woman who teaches him and her ambition and his drive leads him to success.

Success but no happiness here. A n'eer-do-well son and a faltering marriage leads to disaster and tragedy. Tracy buys a railroad and succeeds only to be subjected to a disastrous rail strike and the death of 406 workers.

The film appeared at the beginning to be uneven but is rejuvenated thanks to the excellent use of flashbacks here.

A double separate suicide here. We know that riches can't buy happiness but this is a little too far fetched. Nonetheless, we have riveting performances by Tracy and Colleen Moore. Ms. Vinson, as the 2nd wife, is also quite effective. This is an extremely involving series that is well casted and portraits a sensitive subject with great splendor. We follow Michael Ealy as the undercover FBI agent Darwyn, set to infiltrate a terror cell lead by Farik (Oder Fehr). The series is very well written, and has enough plot twists to keep you sitting at the edge of your seat waiting for whatever happens next.

Michael Ealy is by my definition one of the best actors I've seen portraying an undercover agent. Icey cold on the outside, but still a good human being underneath trying his best to keep his head afloat in a highly emotional roller-coaster ride that FBI has had him embark on. Oder Fehr on the other hand comes off a guy that pretty much could fit into any social scenario. Big and strong, but yet able to disappear into the gray mass if so needed. Highly authoritative and extremely cunning. The way the two communicate on screen is nothing short of spectacular.

The way the story develops, and the level of detail that the script offers makes the whole story extremely believable, and also very true to life I would imagine. It is of such magnitude that you're left with the feeling of being insecure, not knowing what might happen next in real life. We read about terror every day, and here we are given a good sneak peak into an underworld which most of us know very little about.

It's a series that will for sure have you coming back for more, sitting there at the edge of your seat just waiting for next weeks episode to come on. It's a sure winner in my eyes, and I have no problems stating that this series is on my list of all time best. I watched Sleeper Cell with a bit of trepidation worrying over whether the terrorists would be glorified. This mesmerizing series not only handled the subject matter responsibly, it created depth and substance to almost every character. Oded Fehr just gobbles up the screen in every scene he's in—and even though his character is the charismatic leader of a jihad terrorist cell, he still has hypnotic appeal. Michael Ealy held his own well, though in some scenes I wondered why he wasn't shot on the spot because of the scowl he wore on his face.

The pros of the series are the two leads, Fehr and Ealy, the well written characters--all of which were believable and tragic, and the disconcerting issues addressed in the story. Having been married to a Muslim myself, the atmosphere created was quite realistic. The cons, for me personally, were that the female T&A was overkill—most seemed gratuitous, as well as some of the sex scenes. Despite that, it is a raw gripping series that will make you think. Somebody give Fehr more juicy roles like this one and let him run with it. He's got incredible screen presence and a strange kind of innate power emanating off him. Has the drama, suspense, and character developments you would enjoy if you like drama that engages you and entertains as well as educates.

The writers know their material and it shows. The direction is always engaging and not blase, and the acting terrific. Why this show didn't win any awards tells me the "powers that be" in Hollyweird don't know drama or much else for that matter.

There is a plot twist in this episode at the end was a complete surprise and was very well played out. I'm glad it wasn't used as a shock scene for any climatic end to this series which would have been more typical and dull. Rent this series at once! Let's hope its brought back from celluloid extinction. I enjoyed this series, but felt that the whole thing was let down by the sound recording/mixing.

For whatever reason, they've had to employ an awful lot of what's called ADR, where the actors replace the original location sound with a re-recording of it in a sound booth.

The reasons for doing this are usually due to problems at the location, or because somebody screwed up somewhere in the sound production chain.

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADR was done well, but at times it's just plain distracting. It's not just the ADR that's the problem - the sound mix just doesn't match up to the quality of performances and the pictures.

I'd be curious to know what went wrong. I don't understand why this show didn't go on there could've been various ways to continue on the line of Darwin and Farik after season 2, obviously Darwin couldn't have been the UC agent infiltrating cells and sabotageing them from the inside, but still they should've given this show at least another season.

The show is well casted, believable, and views the Islamic religion from both the normal and the extremist point of view. It touches controversial subjects in detail and it has a dramatic meaning that can be said of very few shows nowdays. I'm actually sad that i didn't know about this show until late 2007. Sleeper Cell is what 24 should have been. 24 is a cartoon. (I watch 24 but feel cheated with every stupid episode, all four or five seasons so far. Who can keep track as they are all the same. Jack gets in trouble, Jack gets out of trouble and then immediately gets back in to trouble and then...) Sleeper Cell is really well done and is far superior. Unfortunately they blew it with the ending in season two. I can think of a half dozen better endings off the top of my head that would have worked better for the writer's obvious goals and not been so contrived. Shame on the writers for wrecking what had been up to that ending a really good series. *BE WARNED OF POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

A friend told me to check out this series, and I'm glad I took her words for it.

I read the synopsis on the DVD cover and I was immediately intrigued. The main protagonist is Muslim? No way, this is a first! It's about an FBI agent who is under deep cover to penetrate a possible sleeper cell in LA; and get this - he is a practicing Muslim. I was a little skeptical at first, half-expecting some hero or the antagonist to spout maybe silly, gratuitous and mindless holier-than-thou fanatic drivels... let's face it, a lot of shows have been guilty of this.

But then I watched the first three episodes, and I thought: Okay, this is good. It wasn't until episode four ("Scholar") when I was well and truly impressed. I would like to commend on the great writing and also, superb performances from the actors. I just love how complex every one of these characters - they're not straight out two-dimensional cardboard cutout good guys/bad guys. Michael Ealy gives a wonderful and believable performance as the Muslim FBI agent Darwyn Al-Sayeed, treading the fine line between being the good Muslim and being a man with flaws. Oded Fehr gives his character Farik an interesting depth - Farik is not the typical oily Middle Eastern stereotype, but simply someone who truly believes in his cause and doesn't see himself as a fanatic but a man willing to do whatever extreme measures to justify his beliefs. He's very charismatic and authoritative. But I would say that it was Alex Nesic's performance that clearly left an impression in me in "Scholar". His portrayal of his character's emotional struggle was amazing - torn between the softly spoken words of a Muslim scholar encouraging him to return to the non-aggressive way because it is the only acceptable way in God's eye and Farik's persuasion to believe otherwise.

I'm looking forward to watch more shows like this, and not some ridiculously high-octane one man show series. It's clever and open-minded. I'm not sure how this could have been better, so I gave it a 10. The acting was excellent - the main woman was so HOT - the chap who played Darwyn was a smouldering, pensive character who showed the inner turmoil he was suffering (the truck driver's death is one example)excellently. The storyline was believable and the series length was just about right (i.e. I love Lost, but will it ever end?). As a Brit i tend to think of Yanks as gung ho. The LAPD were in their ill advised attempts to arrest him, but the other agencies were portrayed positively. My main thought about programmes like this (and the also excellent 24) is - could it happen? Would it happen? Is it happening now? Possibly, probably.

I hope they do another series, but after reading some of the previous comments, it would appear not.

To summarise - If you haven't seen it, make sure you do. If you watch this series you will get an interesting 10 chapters about a sleeper cell's story and each characters. And more intense with a FBI's infiltrate.

Nice story, nice characters and performs, but something is wrong (for me, of course). The final is wrong. You wait ten chapters hoping a great final (it doesn't matters if they fulfill its objectives or not) but.. well... I think is not enough. Its a small final for a big series. Also I hoped more definitions about characters stories.

But, I repeat, it's and interesting miniseries. If you don't want to wait with large series (22-24 chapters), watch it. I give 7 of 10. Smartly written, well acted, intense and suspenseful. This show lives in the real world, not as fantastical as is "24",(and I am a huge fan of 24,incidentally). It has believable characters and in many ways is much smarter than most in this genre. It tries to present both sides of Islam. So far, I have watched the first 4 episodes and find the story to be more evenly balanced. The terrorists are more complex and not one dimensional. And as a result of that balance, the terrorists become more frightening than the typical villains being portrayed in film and on television. Last but not least, the hero is truly heroic without being a cartoon. I recommend this show for anyone who is a fan of 24 and the like. imagine "24" completely uncensored, given free license to explain the situation in any detail needed and showing how and why both protagonists do what they do to kill/prevent and you have an idea of how good this TV series is. People in the US have known for a long time that Showtime is the new HBO, they are making far better cutting edge, powerful shows and this is no exception. The show takes the viewer all the way through the creation of a sleeper cell to when an attack is attempted, taking in important facets such as faith, religion, funding, means and needs. To the uninitiated, there is much to be learnt about the Muslim faith here. Unlike on mainstream shows like "24" where the terrorists are merely nutcases who the good guys shoot, their purpose and reasonings here are fully examined. What gives the show more credence is the latest technology the cell/FBI uses and the authentic shots in europe, the US and the middle east, no expense is spared to tell the story accurately The cast are relatively unknowns but the acting is superb with the aid of a tautly-written script that constantly keeps the viewer on edge with many unexpected twists and turns. This show has not got the credit it deserves and ironically is a bit of a sleeper hit itself, must see for anyone at all interested in this genre I have found this show by accident and was surprised to find out that nobody I know has ever heard of it. This was by far one of the best shows I have seen in months if not years and I cannot wait for more episodes to come out. Sleeper Cell portrays a psychological struggle of an undercover agent inside of a terrorist cell who has to constantly make difficult decisions in order to maintain his cover while staying true to his real cause. This is an extremely well done show. It keeps you intrigued from the first episode till the end and though progressing slowly, is fast enough for you to feel on the edge. Quite realistic and humane, it touches on important topics and every episode presents an interesting question to ponder about. This show is not 24 or any of the cop shows on TV and is not trying to be anything either. It is genuine and unique. It is a show about a human being, his difficult choices and his life of struggle where a simple mistake can cost him everything.

I gave this show a 10 for great storyline, good progression, excellent cinematography, excellent music and realistic characters each with a story to tell. a scarily real drama, there isn't another drama out there that has scared the crap out of me like this has, the characters are not your typical Islamic terrorist, you have a blonde haired, blue eyed guy who is as dumb as he looks, he is a converted Muslim. A well respected business man, who pretends to be Jewish and a Frenchman who has converted to Islam, but has clearly taken the word of the Koran to a whole new level. The hero of the plot is Darwyn, who is an undercover FBI agent who has infiltrated the terrorist cell, and has to do all sorts of god awful things to prevent himself from being detected. The first episode is a small taste of what's to follow. Although it is about Islamic terrorists the drama has a unique way of pointing out that not all Muslims are extremists, which is comforting to those concerned with racism, considering half the terrorist cell are Islam converts, it makes you think that maybe they are the ones to be afraid of. The most chilling drama I've ever seen. The reason its so chilling is cause you never know who your friends, your husband or your neighbours really are. Terrorists can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. The problem with this series is that it is too real. I am watching it on Amazon "Unbox" and having just finished episode 2 I hate, absolutely hate, Fark, the leader of the Cell. I cannot recall any television series ever having this emotional impact. Remember the old tag line for horror movies "Just keep telling yourself its only a movie"? Well I find myself repeatedly reminding myself that its "only TV". But of course it isn't only TV is it? The possibility of a cell such as the one portrayed here actually operating in the United States is certainly within the range of plausibility. That's what gives this program its vicious authenticity. And that's why I hate it so much. Nice description of the situation in the US, it explains different kinds of Islam, not just show terrorist and extremist. Islam can be other thing that killing, they show why some people become terrorist and how to be Muslim without being extremist. It is a great series that Muslims and no-Muslims should see. Now we hope that other series or films will be done to change the idea of all Muslims are terrorist and all Americans want to destroy Islam. It gave me the interest to discover what Islam is exactly and what the US and also European government do to help cohabitation between people of different religion. To be completely honest, I completely intrigued by the original concept of 'Sleeper Cell.' Having watched the best part of the series on FX Channel (UK), my Sky got broke meaning I missed the crucial finale. But what I DID see of it, I assumed it to be a great story line, good acting and as I don't watch '24' I thought it was great, AND it's been confirmed for a second season...

One of the best TV programs I have seen. Much more realistic and believable than "24." Excellent character development and plot line. Does not bash Islam, but gives a thoughtful and considered approach, showing the difference between radical terrorist Islam and true Islam. Everybody should see this show!

Stringy xx Sleeper Cell attempts to swim both sides of the pool (terrorism/patriotic Muslim Americans), and it does neither very well.

I had put off watching this show for a very long time, because I had a feeling it would be too predictable, but after a year in my netflix queue, I finally moved it up to the front.

The show is about an undercover Muslim man working for the FBI in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist cell operating in the United States. The undercover agent in the show actually is a Muslim, so we see his conflict/resolution between his Patriotism and his Religious beliefs. Personally I would have rather watched a drama about a Muslin American family living in the United States, but it is doubtful that an America TV channel (cable or network) will ever produce anything that shows Muslims in a flattering light.

I am not a Muslim, but I have a lot of Muslim American Friends, and I can honestly say that none of them are terrorists and they all love America.

Sleeper Cell comes close to busting stereotypes of Muslims, but it also focuses on the worse Muslim stereotypes. In the first episode we see an "honor killing," which is a very poor portrayal of Islam, but in the 3rd episode we see a very respected moderate Muslim scholar teaching the viewer that the real Jihad is actually a personal struggle that is not meant to incite violence towards others.

If only the Moderate Muslim scholar had been the main character of the show.

Americans need to learn a lot more about Islam, Sleeper Cell helps a little bit, but it comes up far short of giving the America audience what it really needs to knows.

That said, the acting in this show is superb, and the drama is extremely engrossing. If only they had made this show about Islam in America without the terrorism, it would have been first rate.

There is something about seeing a movie in a good, old-fashioned movie house that adds enormous appeal to every picture. I, fortunately enough, was able to see at Film Forum in New York City a pair of Ernst Lubitsch comedies during their three week tribute to the legendary director. The double feature I attended was a screening of Lubitsch's 1938 comedy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife and the pre-Code classic Design for Living, neither of which I had seen before. Everything I read of Design for Living praised the film, but I could not find a good review anywhere for Bluebeard's Eighth Wife. Leonard Maltin disliked it.VideoHound, too, gave the comedy a low rating.its IMDB score was not complimentary.and Pauline Kael (not a great surprise) blasted the film in her scathing review. So, when I went into the city that day I was expecting to enjoy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife only slightly and love Design for Living completely. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (which was showing first) began, as the eccentrics who populate the cinema took their seats and the thirties music subsided. `Adolph Zukor presents Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper in Ernst Lubitsch's Bluebeard's Eighth Wife,' the title card read. Then the picture opened with a hilarious scene: Cooper wants to buy a pair of pajama tops, but he doesn't want any part of the bottoms! He gets into a squabble with the clerk, who seeks the help of his higher bosses, and their seems to be no end to the argument. Enter Claudette Colbert, one of thirties cinema's most beautiful, charming, and talented personalities. `I'll take the bottom,' she kindly intercedes. And there you have perhaps screwball comedies finest `meet cute' ever. The film kept my interest wonderfully.I found myself laughing almost constantly. When Colbert discovers, just before a family portrait is taken, that her groom-to-be has been married seven times, the entire theatre broke into histerics. When she bargains for money immediately after she gets over her shock, the laughs (which still haven't ceased) intensify. And Edward Everett Horton milked some hilarious reactions out of the script as well. When Cooper takes inspiration from Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in disciplining his wife by slapping her in the face, I could not control my laughter when she slapped him back. And the drunk scene with the scallions is one of Claudette Colbert's funniest comic scenes. The greatest comic moment of the film came when Colbert highers a boxer to `teach her husband a lesson.' In pure screwball fashion, he knocks out the wrong man, instead putting her friend David Niven into a cold sleep. He awakes as Cooper is arriving. In order to cover up the situation, Colbert herself, in a moment of strong sexiness, puts her fist up to Niven, asks: `Where did that man hit you? Here? Right here? Right here?' and then BAM! knocks him out again! The film was wonderful, from beginning to end it was a perfect delight. I loved Design for Living, too, though I dare say I think for sheer laughs and entertainment Bluebeard's Eighth Wife was the better and more enjoyable film. There is some charm of seeing a vintage film on the large screen. And in the presence of others laughing, one feels more comfortable doing so himself. That is, perhaps, why I felt the way I did about Bluebeard's Eighth Wife. For some perverse reason best known to themselves these IMDb boards seem reluctant to credit the great Billy Wilder as co-scriptwriter on at least two (this one and Ninotchka) of his early classics when any buff can detect the Wilder hand at work. As it happens this represented the first time he was teamed with Charles Brackett (who DOES get a credit) and it was a great start. One commenter has noted how satisfying it is to see these type of films in old-fashioned cinemas and I couldn't agree more. In Paris one of the smaller Revival houses shows in one of its salles a more or less continuous Lubitsch retrospective and I'm pleased to report that this played to a very appreciative audience right across the age spectrum though I doubt whether any were actually alive when it was first released in 1938. The famous Wilder schtick the meet-cute is particularly tasty here when millionaire but-careful-with-it Cooper attempts to buy half a set of pajamas in a department store on the Riviera and meets with sales resistance until Claudette Colbert turns up and agrees to buy the other half. The gag is milked even more when, having exhausted the chain of command at the store itself the manager places a call to the owner, who is in bed and leaves it to reveal that he, too, is only wearing the top half of pajamas. The film is full of sight-gags like this balanced with verbal wit which makes it just about perfect. Claudette Colbert is only terrific and gets great backing from Edward Everett Horton as her impoverished titled father. David Niven in fourth billing has some funny 'business' as does Franklin Pangborn and if Gary Cooper is not up to his role lacking as he does the verbal dexterity and sophisticated persona that Wilder scripts called for at this stage of his career well, you can't have everything and what you DO have is darned near perfect. Years before pre-nuptial agreements became a regular thing, Ernest Lubitsch made a screen comedy on which they are the basis. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife involves Gary Cooper as a multi-millionaire living on the French Riviera who's been married seven times and now marries Claudette Colbert for number eight. But Cooper's a good sport about it, he always settles with his ex-wives for a $50,000.00 a year as per an agreement they sign before marrying him. Sounds like what we now call a pre-nuptial agreement.

Of course Claudette wants a lot more than that and she feels Cooper takes an entirely too business like approach to marriage. She'd like the real deal and is willing to go some considerable lengths to get it.

Bluebeard's Eighth Wife has some really funny moments, the original meeting of Cooper and Colbert in a men's store where Cooper is insisting he wants only pajama tops and Colbert looking for only bottoms. And of course my favorite is Colbert trailing and blackmailing the detective Cooper sends to spy on her. Herman Bing has the best supporting role in the film as that selfsame, flustered detective.

I've often wondered how back in the day Hollywood could get away with casting so many people who are non-French in a film like this. Of course Cooper is an American and Colbert of the cast is the only one actually of French background. Though David Niven is charming as always, having him be a Frenchman is ludicrous, he is sooooooo British.

Nevertheless Bluebeard's Eighth Wife is an enjoyable film and a great example of what was called 'the Lubitsch touch' back in the day. Ernst Lubitsch gave us wonderful films like Design for Living, Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, To be or not to be, and other wonderful films. But People usually put Bluebeard's eighth wife as one of Lubitsch's weakest films.

But I consider this film as an important film. This film began the collaboration of Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch wrote the screenplay for Ernst Lubitsch's Ninotchka. Of Course, Lubitsch worked with writers in the scripting process. After that, Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder worked together. They together wrote the screenplay for famous films like The Lost Weekend and Sunset Blvd.

There are lots of funny moments in the film. I thought "The Taming of the Shrew" was very funny. There is a famous expression called "Films are slices of Life." And Here is a great example from Bluebeard's eighth wife (1938).

At the first session of the scripting process, Lubitsch posed this question: how do the boy and girl get together? Billy Wilder promptly suggested that the opening scene should be the men's shop of a department store. "The boy is trying to buy a pajama," he extemporized glibly. "But he sleeps only in the tops. He is thrifty so he insists on buying only the tops. The clerk says he must buy the pants too. It looks like a catastrophe. Then the girl comes into the shop and buys the pants because she sleeps only in the pants." Ernst Lubitsch and Charles Brackett were enchanted. It wasn't till months later they discovered that Billy Wilder himself is a tops-only sleeper and that he had been nursing the idea for months waiting for a chance to use it.

I got this information from a book. I think this film can be considered as the return of Ernst Lubitsch. Right after this film, he made wonderful films like Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, and To be or not to be.

I thought Gary Cooper's performance was good. I think Lubitsch casted Gary Cooper probably because Gary Cooper played Long Fellow Deeds who inherited the fortune in Frank Capra's Mr. Deeds goes to town. But this is just my opinion.

As for me, I highly enjoyed the film. I rate this film 9 out of 10. Lubitsch films are different, because his films are slices of life. This film reappeared on channel 13 in the 1990s when they did a series of comedies from Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, to the tune of "The Jolly Fat Policeman", they had a montage of scenes from the films to introduce the series of people laughing, including one of Gary Cooper chortling when watching a film in a movie house - a sequence from this film.

It all begins innocently enough when Cooper, a millionaire, goes into a fancy department store in France to buy pajamas. But he only likes to sleep in the tops. The clerk (Tyler Brooke) insists that he cannot sell half a pair of pajamas as Cooper wants. Claudette Colbert hears the argument and offers to help - she only likes to sleep in pajama bottoms. What if Brooke sells them each half? Brooke has never had such an offer before, so he goes to the floor walker (Rolfe Sedan) and asks him if this can be done. He is disturbed too - the request is quite unconventional. Eventually they contact the store's owner (Charles Halton). Halton is in bed, and gets out - his skinny frame supporting only a pajama top (if a suitably long one for the sake of censorship). Can they sell the two customers one set of pajamas (half for each)? Properly horrified, Halton answers, "No, of course not! That is Communism!!". So the sale is not allowed. Apparently nobody thinks that Cooper can buy the total pair and sell half to Colbert.

Lubitsch's BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE has had a reputation of falling flat, most viewers not liking it because of a misreading of Colbert's character. She is seen as quite mercenary towards Cooper - selling herself to him on her terms.

Actually Cooper's character is the nastier, as he is rich and figures that everything has a price. He is correct most of the time. Look at the way Colbert's aristocratic pauper of a father, Edward Everett Horton, sees his new son-in-law as a golden goose he can use. Cooper's willingness to marry Colbert somehow includes an agreement that if he is hesitant or chooses to not marry her he has to pay damages. Horton, when he realizes this, takes out a watch, and (in a most reassuring voice) says to Cooper - "Take your time my boy!", to come to a decision. Later we see Horton's wardrobe has gotten more modern and fancier.

The film, script by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, compares well with their script for Mitchell Leisin's MIDNIGHT (also with Colbert, but with Don Ameche and John Barrymore). There Colbert is willing to sell herself for a money marriage to (to Francis Lederer), but it is complicated by a fictitious marriage to Ameche. She really loves Ameche (a taxi driver) but she explains to him in an unexpectedly realistic moment that her parents married "for love" but poverty made them grow to hate each other. This is not found in BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE, where Colbert does not have a background like that (she is, after all, the daughter of a Marquis). Her mercenary plotting is to teach Cooper a lesson about his standards.

The film has some nice work by the supporting staff, including Herman Bing as a private eye who turns out to be hiding things that Colbert learns about, and a young David Niven, who has a set of choice moments as a stand in punching bag and as a willing ear to Cooper. Coop tells Niven about his problems with Colbert, and how she is so infuriating. Niven listens respectfully. At the end, Cooper is touched by his willingness to hear what he had to say. "Albert, how much do I pay you?", Cooper asks him. Niven thinks and says, "Thirty five francs a week sir.". Cooper looks deeply into his soul, and says (shaking his head), "That's fair!" The Lubitsch's Touch is more than ever in this film. Humour at anytime and very subtle. The plot is simple but turned in a delicious way by the director. The film cut is very clever and add to the comic effect. A real piece of comedy that isn't getting so old for a XXIst century spectator. The character are finely acted by Gary Cooper and especially Claudette Colbert so smart and mean with this poor Micheal in the movie. She avoid every traps from her husband and turn the situation to her advantage, very funny. And no problem, with Lubitsch, there is always an Happy end. A film for men too confident with women. Don't let your girlfriend watch this movie... Gary Cooper, (Michael Brandon) played the role as an American millionaire who had seven bad marriages, but always divorced his wife's with plenty of money to live on. Michael is in Paris on business and goes into a French Department Store to buy a pair of pajama tops and the sales people refuse to sell him just the tops, he has to buy the bottoms or there is no sale. Nicole DeLoiselle, (Claudette Colbert) listens to this conversation and offers to buy the bottom of these pajama's. Michael becomes very interested in Nicole and they have occasion to meet and go on dates. It is not too long before Michael proposes marriage to Nicole and she is very taken back with his request for marriage since she really does not know him very well. However, once she finds out she is going to become the Eighth wife of Michael she begins to change her mind and this story becomes quite entertaining and funny. Don't miss this film, it is great entertainment by great veteran actors. Enjoy. It's all about getting what you want when you want it. And the message of Bluebeard's Eighth WIfe is to be careful what you wish for, until what you wish for wishes for you.

Most men have heard the stories about what happens when your sexual frustration isn't relieved and a certain part of your anatomy turning blue. Misogynistic pirates aside, Cooper plays a very wealthy man who is very accustomed to getting what he wants whenever he wants it, learning only too late that it wasn't what he expected and never learning his lesson until he runs into the feisty Claudette Colbert. Through a twisted (in soul and in practice) business deal, he ends up marring/buying her with the intent of bedding her, but she will have none of it (literally) and frustrates him at every turn, and corner, and room, and tourist attraction.

The film has definite French sensibilities which means it has strong double-entendres and boudoir humor for the day and a sharp edge you're not accustomed to (and may not enjoy seeing) in either Cooper or Colbert. The whole reason I watched the film was because they are "likable" actors, and the whole point of this movie is that they're unlikable people, or at least likable people who have developed unlikable traits to protect themselves, they think, from the world.

If you can accept it on its own terms you'll find satisfaction in this witty and sophisticated film...and satisfaction, as we said, is what it's all about. Such a movie with such a cast only comes around, after all, once in a...ummm...blue moon. planktonrules comments must've been written on Topsy-Turvy Day, because everything stated by that simple life form is the opposite of real truth!

'Bluebeard's Eighth Wife' is hilarious in every scene, in every way -- the chemistry between Colbert and Cooper could not have been finer...supporting cast is superb.

Writing and direction are magnificent!!!

Like so many other comments on this board again I lament, "Why can't films be like this anymore?"

This is classic Paramount 1930's screwball comedy at its best, folks! I absolutely loved this movie. Great, realistic looking combat footage for one thing and a touching, genuine story also. The calm, understated manner of the lead character, Franta, makes him very likable. The human relationships in the story seemed so very typical and possible of what you could expect in war time. The bond between Franta and Carel shows the loyalty wartime comrades can have for each other and that is often described in books and interviews with veterans. The subtitles do not detract from the story at all and actually serve to underline the problems the Czech pilots had in the RAF. The postwar storyline is a great reminder that for many the suffering of WW2 did not end in 1945, especially in Russian occupied countries. The cinematography was also very good. Wish I could have seen it on the big screen. Centres on Czech WW2 pilots – the older Frantisek, the boyish impulsive Karel and in the background the quiet piano-playing Honza. As the film opens, it is 1950, the war is over and Frantisek and Honza are imprisoned in a former monastery. In their now Soviet-controlled native country they are 'enemy of the people'. Honza is severely maltreated by his Communist countrymen and dies.

In 1939 many pilots manage to escape German-occupied Europe and make their way to England where they join the RAF. Notwithstanding their high motivation and experience they face RAF reluctance and British stiff upper lip. Finally they fight gallantly in the Battle of Britain. However, Frantisek and Karel find their friendship severely tested when they both fall for the same woman.

In terms of romantic sub-plot, this is very similar to the Hollywood production Pearl Harbour. However, given the context of the film and Frantisek's eventual fate, it is also possible to read the English woman's treatment of the two men as symbolic of British treatment of the Czech and Polish RAF pilots: conveniently forgetting them once the war is over.

In addition, the film is a lot less cliché than Pearl Harbour and the characters are more fully realised. Dark Blue World also scores in terms of its stunning aerial dogfights, which were seamlessly created using a mixture of models, actual live-action aerial filming and out-takes from the 1969 epic The Battle of Britain.

In short, Dark Blue World is a well-made, moving, thought-provoking and exciting drama that puts the likes of Pearl Harbour to shame. Highly recommended. I'm Czech and soldiers (not only pilots) who escaped Czechoslovakia after Nazi's invasion in 1939 and fought against them abroad are true heroes and bravest men in our history for me. This movie from director of Academy Award winner "Kolya" (1996) is a tribute to these men. It's first big-screen movie about Czechoslovak WWII soldiers since "Nebesti jezdci" (1968). I think "Dark Blue World" is a good movie - good acting, good special effects, nice music etc. Movie is half in English and some actors are Britons. But greatest thing about this movie is it's pure existence. It's great chance to show people all around the world (and to many people in Czech Republic too...) that Czechoslovak role in WWII was not only as occupied country but as an active member of allied campaign.

Leading characters are older and wiser Frantisek and young Karel. They escaped together from Czechoslovakia, they are flying in the same squadron and they fell in love with the same woman... Maybe it's a cliché but fortunately this storyline is not so aggressive and is in good balance with other scenes (including great dogfights). I don't want to compare "Dark Blue World" with "Pearl Harbor", someone will like PH more and someone will like DBW. But if you like happy ends, DBW is not for you. So, I think it's very good movie for everyone who likes this type of stories and very good movie who wants to get to know something about this chapter of Czechoslovak history.

BTW, main theme "Dark Blue World" is from Czech 30's and 40's composer Jaroslav Jezek. He wrote this theme when he lost his eyes... This is a brilliant, lavish Czech film from the Sverak father and son team, all about two Czech pilots who flee to England to help the RAF in the Battle of Britain but who also fall out over a woman (the beautiful Tara Fitzgerald). Features some excellent and incredibly realistic aerial combat scenes – probably the best ever and much better than Pearl Harbour or even the film Battle of Britain - and a number of interesting general themes such as love, war, romance, comradeship, loss and servitude. Also, the trials and tribulations of moving abroad and learning a foreign language (though made easier here with the great stalwart Anna Massey).

The film has some great little motifs such as the world famous RAF bullseye device, shown throughout and at one point nicely reflected in the black vinyl record, spinning around cutely (music is another theme of the film, of course). Plus, all of the traditional icons of English life: dimpled beer glasses (unlike the post-war straight glasses used in Pearl Harbour), tea in a nice china tea set in an English country garden (though shot in the Czech Republic?), the mascot dog, a vintage bottle of HP sauce, even a darts board!

Of course, the airfield and surrounding countryside is ridiculously unlike anywhere in the south of England, though the virtuouso aerial sequences make up for this, showing Eastbourne and the Seven Sisters, always synonomous with southern England and the Battle of Britain. But best of all is the sensational musical score from Ondrej Soukup, as good as anything from Hans Zimmer yet all in the tradition of the late, excellent Ron Goodwin who scored the original Battle of Britain film amongst other classic English war films. There's even a nice little cameo role for the – apparently – famous Czech musician and actor (and Kevin Kline lookalike) Oldrich Kaiser, who plays on the piano the title theme song, Dark Blue Sky. Excellent!

It's got a few smutty yet funny little Freudian devices too, such as always showing an inflated condom floating by the ceiling whenever Karel (the callow but brilliant Krystof Hadek) is stuck at the airfield while his love rival and fellow pilot Frantisek (Ondrej Vetchy) is with Susan.

Another great English actor in this film! Charles Dance is of course fine as Wing Commander Bentley.

Highly recommended and well worth watching/hiring – get the DVD with special features (stuff like how they created the dog fights and stuff). Probably the only film ever to combine subtitles with characters speaking English, German, French and Czech all at once. I was "turned on" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic "Pearl Harbor" and up there in rivalry with the famed "Battle of Britain" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111.

As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by "us" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies.

But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.

Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica "warbird" P-51 Mustang "Gloria Ann" I missed it at the cinema and have rented it on DVD. If you get the chance I would recommend it as it´s better than nearly everything I´ve seen at the cinema or on DVd this year. That isn´t to say it´s one of the best films ever or anything, it´s just I´ve seen a lot of rubbish :)

Can´t really add to what´s already been said except 8/10 A beautiful film, cleverly shot with an eye to war-era detail, and (considering it is set during WWII) minimal violence.

A small cast weaves an emotive journey through the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the separation from loved ones as the pilots depart for England (the separation from the spaniel will touch hearts), spitfire scenes, love, friendship and betrayal. The theme of betrayal runs deep through the movie, from betrayal of love, to betrayal of friendship, and finally the betrayal shown by the communist regime to former RAF pilots post-war.

A desperately sad film, all the more so because it is so factually accurate. I would recommend it to everyone. I've been a devoted IMDB visitor for a few years. This is the movie that finally compelled me to write in a review.

I caught this movie by chance (the opening credits happened to be scrolling past when I turned my TV on one morning). I thoroughly enjoyed the film for many reasons, all of which have been well covered by other reviewers -- the moodiness, the forgotten history of the Czech pilots, the subtle charm of the supporting characters, the fatalism of the main characters, and the first person view during the battle scenes.

But the element of "Dark Blue World" that really stood out was the lack of dramatic effects, especially during combat (and this is a good thing!). While the pilots were flying in battle no musical score accompanied them, no manipulative shots of worried spouses/girlfriends were interwoven, every little aerial maneuver did not elicit trite patriotic cheers, and viewers weren't asked to swallow unbelievable James Bond-esque pilot heroics. Instead the audience is allowed to feel the melancholy, fear and isolation of these single pilot fighters while they try to stay aloft during combat. As comrades are shot down we are spared tearful howls and the typical (but audience pleasing) revenge based heroics. Instead the other pilots sadly and quietly observe their fellow pilot's fate -- in reality they still need to remain intensely focused on their own safety and objectives at that very moment. We only briefly experience the pilot's breathing and the background roar of the engines as we, the audience, witness a friend spiral quietly down to his death. And then immediately 'we' need to jump back into combat mode and focus on survival.

Too often in Hollywood we're spoon-fed the emotions we're supposed to feel and no room is left for the viewer's imagination. "Dark Blue World" maintains a sparseness that captivates and involves the viewer, allowing us to invest in the movie and fill in the gaps and spaces using our own thoughts and feelings.

Excellent film, well worth seeing. This is a beautifully-made film, finely balancing the fragile human stories (both before and after 1945) and the indiscriminating combat of war. The use of outtakes from Battle of Britain (a film that does not nearly so well portray the 1940s!) enhances, rather than detracts from the whole. A deeply impressive work, this lived in my memory for the 2 years since I saw it, and I have just bought it to explore the making-of extras.

I highly recommend this film (movie). Like "Aces High", it alternates between viscerally exciting (or scary) air combat sequences, where the viewer might experience actual loss of characters they'd come to care about, but also unpredictable interactions on the ground, where skillful writers and real-life experiences inform some involving and moving events. This also underlines the fact that for many people, 1945 marked not just the end of one conflict but the beginning of another, and even today we still don't recognise the loss, bravery and sacrifice of so many nameless heroes, or even worse we venerate them from a distance without allowing them to be human beings with all the emotional weaknesses that entails - making their sacrifices all the more valiant.

Watching this movie is an experience which will take you from the heights of friendship to the depths of jealousy, and back to love that endures even beyond death. If all war films were like this, we'd never have to fight again.

Did I mention it's worth watching? ;-)

10/10 Since growing up in Czechoslovakia I was following history of RAF pilots and crews in WWII Great Britain, their stories and tragic ending either in the combat or in communist prisons and camps. This is without any doubt more than dark chapter in our history, although the fact that those brave men we're able to go through all this and recover afterward is amazing. To all people who want to see great movie...this is the one! During recent visit of Czech Republic I saw this movie three times in three days (they we're just playing it for three days...otherwise I will go to see it even few more times!!! It's worth of it!) I hope you will enjoy it, although it requires a little more thinking and knowledge of background information behind the story, pretty much same way that the movie "Kolya" was. It's not a simple movie because of it's deep story, and the way its told will most likely make you crying...it did to me three times in row... Zdenek Sverak did as always a great script, his son Jan made a great movie and the cast? Without doubt all of them did great job, I was amazed by Ondrej Vetchy, by great role played by Oldrich Kaiser and all other actors which made this movie simply GREAT!!! If this is not an Oscar nomination I think that I will be on strike in Holywood. Being advertised as the most expensive movie ever made in the Czech Republic, it automatically makes the you think it will be over glorified and clichéd (out of fear of the budget). However with a budget of 8 Million and half the movie in English it was not exactly a big budget, high risk movie.

What we have a grand epic tale centered around the friendship of two people, the younger Karel and the older Frantisek . As pilots in the Czech air force when the Germans invade before the beginning of world war II they escape the country to England to joined the RAF.

Their friendship becomes strained through the love of the same woman. However there is a bond of friendship that goes beyond merely being friendly. Their friendship is an elegant metaphor for the attitude of the Czech people and their country. Remember they were not the winners, the defeated the Germans only to be invaded by the Russians.

Funny, exciting, intriguing, beautiful, sad and illuminating this movie is one of my favourite war movies. Most of all I like the way they make fun of the British in a way that is amazingly affectionate and gives an amazing insight into the way the British military fought WWII.

Forget the recent American efforts (Peal Harbour, Saving Private Ryan), this is the best WWII movie for a long time. I came out of "Dark Blue World" feeling (sigh) 'so sad' yet it was definitely a film needed to be made, and it's truly well done from Czech Republic. It's entertaining in spite of the 'sad' premise. It is full of feelings, the bonding and undeniably true friendship between the two lead characters - one mature lieutenant pilot (Ondrej Vetchý as Franta) and the young & ever-so-eager budding pilot (Krystof Hádek as Karel), the inevitable love triangle, and the now and then reminders of the grim prison situations in Czechoslovakia in the '50s. It's all in one film put together, by the father screenwriter and son director team Zdenek and Jan Sverák (previous achievement being the lovable "Kolya").

It's not as long as "East-West" (French "Est-Ouest") 1999, which was heart wrenching, multi-layered story about a returning Russian doctor and French wife's ill-fates after WWII in Russia. The plot of "Tmavomodrý svet" (title in Czech) is quite straightforward and has sprinkles of light humor. Music, songs of WWII England sung in Czech, modest special effects of pilots and air crafts in the sky - not elaborate like Hollywood - there's no need to be bing, bang, boom all the time when showing air battle scenes. The sadness was explained up front in the beginning (two paragraphs in English) and wrap up with follow up paragraphs. The film is not totally subtitled, only when translating the Czech conversations - the rest are in English, be it very British or in Czech accents. (So it's a foreign film with English language and includes British actors.)

The three lead performances, especially of the two Czech pilots, were wonderfully delivered. There are nuances between the two of them, even though it's the steadily mature vs. the eagerly young. I always appreciate Tara Fitzgerald: yes, there's "Brassed Off" 1996 opposite Ewan McGregor and Pete Postlethwaite; remembered her from "Hear My Song" 1991 opposite Adrian Dunbar and Ned Beatty; opposite Hugh Grant in "Sirens" 1994 and "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain" 1995, besides her appearances in PBS Masterpiece Theatre mini-series.

'So sad' - the fact that heroes defending one's country can be so ill fatedly treated and for so long (40 years). Thank goodness for worthwhile memories and the imprints of friendship unforgettable. Hence the pause for a ray of sunshine through a stain glass window (ironic or coincidental that it's of a church where the hard labor took place) - symbolic of hope, never give up…

Other recent films that have stories needed to be told: "Kandahar" (with Nelofer Pazira as Nafas the Canadian from Afghanistan taking a journey to Kandahar with a personal 'mission' in mind) more than meets the eye behind a burqa by Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. "Everything Put Together" (with Radha Mitchell as a new mother facing SID - sudden infant death) insightful film by Swiss director Marc Forster, and his much talked about controversial film "Monster's Ball" (I've yet to catch) with Halle Berry, Billy Bob Thornton and Peter Boyle. See the films without prior expectations or comparisons to films before. Just see it. If you want to see the true, vile nature of Communism, watch the movie DARK BLUE WORLD. (Tvamomodrý Svet) It recounts how the brave Czech pilots who refused to surrender fled to England to join the fight against the Nazis. After the war, the Communists feared they had picked up dangerous Western ideas about freedom. So, they had these heroic Czech pilots thrown into a nightmarish prison, where some of the guards were the same Nazis they risked their lives to defeat.

If Hollywood wants to understand why so many of their movies fall flat, they should compare the character drama portions of "Pearl Harbor" with this movie. In Dark Blue World, you really make a connection to all the characters. In Pearl Harbor, everyone is like some slick cartoon version of a real person.

There are innumerable instances of brilliant writing in this movie. One funny scene that sticks in my mind is when the character Karel is being taught English by a rather formal Englishwoman. When he can't pronounce a word, he ridicules the lesson. In typical stoic English fashion, the teacher calmly but forcefully confronts Karel, and shames him into behaving.

The aerial battle sequences in this movie are amazing, and they help to keep the movie lively. I read that it cost $11,000 an hour to rent the planes, but it was worth every penny.

Ladies, you are expected to cry at sad movies, but guys.... beware! This movie would make General Patton weep. And if you are a dog lover, you'll use up half a box of Kleenex. Don't say I didn't warn you. It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.

The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.

Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.

The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.

This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not. Compared to Battle of Britain, this is a real film, with real characters and a real plot. Battle of Britain is basically a documentary with the occasional Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, but the real protagonists are the Spits, the Hurricanes, etc. Here, on the other hand, you have two well-wrought characters (actually three) and a real plot. I strongly recommend it to anybody, even to those who are not particularly fond of war movies. It's well filmed, and I wonder what the director might do if he had the big capitals behind him. And I do not think that it's over-sentimental. It's only that in the fighters you have real people, with real feelings and a real life--as real as any fictional life in any great film. Absolutely one of the best aviation movies of all times on so many levels. Hardware junkies will drool over the largest single massing of flyable Spitfires outside of a Battle of Britain reenactment. No less than eight flying Spits are on hand for very accurate ground and air sequences.

Those that marvel over the lore of flying and get misty-eyed reciting High Flight will identify with the central characters' reverence for the freedom of being fast, free and high in their Dark Blue World. Be warned: romantics and even dog lovers are treated to a very emotional ride in this movie. The core message is one that is shared by many war vets, in that their finest hours, their period of life when they felt most alive, was in fact during the war when everything else is sad and gray.

The plot concerns Czech pilots who escape from their country when the Nazis invade and join the RAF Free Czech Squadron. There are a few subplots, all of which are worth careful attention. This is just a plain old excellent movie that even the most ardent anti-hardware romantic will love (keep the Kleenex on hand). Beautiful photography, first-rate acting, accurate details of RAF life during the Battle Of Britain. Easily a candidate for any aviation enthusiast's personal DVD collection. A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel "The Hunters" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp). This is one of the best Czech movies I have ever seen. The director did excellent work, there is great camera and the actors are really great. I like war movies so I really liked this one. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know something about Czech pilots during 2nd World War and their life after the war, in communism. This is such a beautiful movie! Not only does it portray war, it also has friendship & love. The life of Slama is filled with sadness, every aspect of his life fell apart. I can only imagine how he would feel when his friend make the ultimate sacrifice.

I see a slight similarity to 'Pearl Harbor', which is also about two pilots falling in love with the same woman. However this film is much better made, because this does not portray the woman to be unfaithful & easy-going. The friendship between the two men is also much more convincing & well built-up. I definitely recommend this movie to all people. Nothing short of magnificent photography/cinematography in this film. The fact that you keep seeking and hoping for more flying sequences, tells you that they have just enough. The acting is fantastic, the stories are seamlessly woven together, and the dogs are splendid.............

A must rent, view, or see.

Don't be afraid of subtitles........

its worth a little aversion therapy

10/10

Engaging entry from Europe about Czech fighter pilots flying for the RAF during WW2. It's always interesting as an American to see a new point of view on familiar events in history. There's nothing terribly original or revolutionary about the style in which this is filmed or the romantic love triangle that anchors the narrative. Still, it is compelling all the way through. There is a good balance between drama, romance, humor, action, and symbolism that is understated beautifully by the director and cast. This is a breath of fresh air after sitting through overblown and boring Hollywood epics like "Pearl Harbor." A solid production all around. This is definitely worth your time if you are a fan of foreign cinema. Along with having minor flaws to it, this film is a masterpiece, and most definitely the best war film I've seen. Not the mention it's one of the best films I've seen in all genres. I might have written this for No Man's Land before, but now I think this one's better. It's VERY sad in the ending, and I almost cried after the two shocking scenes that came within 5 minutes close to the film's final.

Karel's performance as the main character was fascinating although he's supposed to be a rookie considering his age. This film makes you think a lot, makes you cry (or at least gets you close to it), and makes you hate any kind of war and political BS. The flashbacks to the prison-hospital make the film even more delicious.

One tiny flaw about the film is the non-British accents of supposedly British people. Most of the British people on screen were actually British, but how about the ones who are supposed to be British and speak with a foreign accent? That really didn't fit into this adorable film. But it's pretty much the only flaw I've noticed. Effects could also be a bit better but then again, we all remember many films from one particular land that have tremendous FX and absolutely nothing else.

Briefly, this film is a total masterpiece and every single individual should see it. If you want to travel to the Czechoslovakia of 40's, and if you want to virtually witness a tremendous amount of emotions at once, this film is for you. If you don't want to do those, this film will make you want to do so. Yet another foreign war movie that puts hollywood to shame. Real in the same proportions that hollywood productions such as harts war and windtalkers are unreal. A moving story backed up by strong acting and great film making. A surprisingly beautiful movie. Beautifully conceived, beautifully directed, beautifully acted, beautifully acted and most beautifully photographed.....the cinematography is nothing short of splendid. It is a war movie but is epic in it's scope and blends romance, tragedy and comedy into a story that is as harrowing as it is provoking. I saw this film in Wales in July. It deals with the courage of Czech pilots who flew numerous missions for the RAF after their country had been occupied by the Nazis. In this film, the action takes place both in the early 1950's when these pilots are being beaten in political prisons in Czeckoslavakia and during World War II in Britain. They were imprisoned after their return to their homeland because the Communist regime viewed these warriors as a threat to their occupation of Czeckoslavakia. The pilots maintain their dignity in prison and during numerous air battles against Nazi pilots. This film contain a love sub-plot that does make sense because it helps us to understand that both civilians and soldiers made great sacrifices to preserve democracy. The end of this film indicates that the heroism of these Czech pilots was finally recognized in the early 1990's after the restoration of democracy in the country then known as Czeckoslavakia. This powerful and moving film was made with financial support from the Czech government. I highly recommend this film. This is the movie that finally pushed me over the line into registering with IMDb so that I could vote for (and comment on) it. I've only recently come to appreciate well-produced "war" movies, and this is one of the most thoughtful I've seen.

"Stunning" is the word that comes to mind when I think of this viewing experience. My husband and I watched this film last night for the first time. It is gently moving, yet exciting at the same time (not a contradiction). This story in the hands of Hollywood could have become just another smarmy, action-packed, Top Gun time-waster.

The two lead actors playing Frantisek and Karel played off of each other marvelously well; and Krystof Hadek is a very "pretty" boy without seeming to exaggerate or exploit that fact. In terms of Hadek's acting ability and appearance, my husband said (tongue-in-cheek), "Well, he's no Tom Cruise." I replied, "Thank God!" If you appreciate beautiful and understated acting, see this one. "For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed This feels as if it is a Czech version of Pearl Harbor. It has a same story, both guys fall in love with the same woman. And add to the twist, the woman is actually a married one whose husband has been missing for a year. I don't think that the story line is too strong. The younger guy is quite naughty, that is cute. It kept me watching because of the emotional music, and the pleasing scenes one after another. It also has some strong visual special affects. Best of all, the love stories is seamlessly integrated with the story.

I think that if it was in English, it would be such a big shot all across the states. It is too bad that not that many people are open for foreign movies. This is an excellent film. The aerial scenes were well-done. It was also the right balance of war and love. The film gives meaning to the phrase, "Never in the history of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few." Instead of watching the recycled history of "Pearl Harbor" with nothing new to reveal except for a couple of real events involving a few individuals thrown in so the makers of the film could say they contributed to the spread of history, along with nothing but CGI explosions filling in for a sappy romantic triangle. One should go see Dark Blue World.

This film takes place during the historic time in WWII which the Czech pilots left their homeland and went to fight for the RAF instead of laying down their arms and giving in to the Nazis. It was a part of history that should at least be told once to the outside world. A love triangle takes place between the main characters, but one of them does not die off conveniently like in Pearl Harbor, but through sacrifice for true friendship. The movie is tragedy after tragedy, with not even a bittersweet ending, with our hero not enjoying glory of taking his country back, the return of love by his current lover, the return of love by his reunited lover, or even the return of unconditional love by his life long pet. He is utterly heartbroken and feels no worse off in the Russian labor camp. This kind of ending is something that Hollywood would probably change if it was their script.

The movie does play on the sentimental sometimes, but it also shows the humanity of people. Overall, a worthwhile movie. I disagree with the imdb.com synopsis that this is about a bisexual guy preparing to get married. It's more about all the crap we go through - self-induced and because of our parents - that we have to "get over" when we grow up. Like the Linda McCarriston poem says, "Childhood is the barrel they throw you over the falls in." This movie is much more like a narrative poem. It's about life and the mistakes we make and hurt we inflict and experience over the years, and how in the end, it's all about love (I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive or schmoopy) and finding and being with one special person. An example of genius filmaking. The epic story of three major stages of life for a young boy told with eloquence and raw fearlessness. Rarely does a film come along that causes me to out loud say during most of the viewing, "this is a really good film...." again and again. That is exactly what happened when I watched this film. I really do not understand how anyone could not like it. I found myself at moments crying and laughing at the very same moment, unable to control how I felt about the scene. The acting is outstanding. Eric Mabius- why is he not all over movie screens? He was really extraordinary. His seemingly effortless attempt on the screen impacted me in deep visceral ways. I thank him. In my opinion, Eric Schaeffer is one of the best filmakers around, and I hope he continues to rise to the challenges that he faces while trying to give us art in the face of ferocious commercial filmaking.

As i watched "Wirey Spindell" i couldnt but laugh at what was taking place on screen. Wirey sure got a lot of play from both boys and women but i was confused as to why the actor that played Wirey in H.S. was 10 years old. Then the actor changed age to like 20 to play Wirey when he was a senior in HS...but whatever, i thought it was funny. Wirey's journey through the final days of bachelorhood, liberally sprinkled with flashbacks to a sexually active and diverse childhood.

It's definitely not a feel-good romance movie. It is a romance movie, but one without illusions. Everyone's an adult here, not your cup of tea if you want another Sleepless in Seattle or Notting Hill. I, as many IMDB patrons seem to have, stumbled upon this little film when it appeared on the Canadian "Showcase Network". I was, as many of you, also sucked in and watched the entire film. I was hooked, at first, by the literate dialogue and wry sense of humour that the film is rich with. I was coasting along comfortably on a sort of "Kevin Smith meets Killer Films" wave until half way through when the movie really buckled down and explored it's themes in more detail... with a decidedly darker and more poignant edge. Far from being taken out of the experience, I was brought further in. This is not the best film of it's kind and will certainly not have universal appeal... so I do understand some of the more negative reactions to it. But I bought in... and enjoyed it immensely. The "flash back" type movement in the chronology was effective, the characters were well-realized and the issues raised were human, accessible (to my experience anyway) and interesting. I was quite impressed with the film's ability to remain sweet, funny and entertaining while not shying away from controversial subject matter and raw emotional language, dynamics and situations. This movie is a great antidote to a lot of the schlock that has permeated the witty/clever romantic genre. A kind of male Brigitte Jones for the literate sect. Take 2 hours out of your busy schedule and jump into Wirey's world... or you could go rent "You've Got Mail", 'cause if that appeals to you, you won't like this anyway! Those of us who did like it will be alright without you on our side... I saw this movie on a night i couldn't sleep, i loved it and searched to find out when it would be on again, probably the best movie i have ever seen, at the time, and even now the cast is full of people i had never seen before but it seems like a real life story based out of NYC, This is the kind of movie that elevates the viewing pleasure because you see it, hear it and feel it, from the moment i saw Wirey drinking a beer and watching the game i imagined what it must be like to grow up without a father, there are so many lines from this movie i use on a daily basis like "the personal alone time" in the bathroom drinking a 7-11 beverage, GREAT FILM The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that.

I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD. "MY WIFE AND KIDS," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Junior (George O. Gore II) got his driver's license. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. This show was crap when it first came on. The first actress that played the daughter didn't fit the role, the writing was hit or miss, and Damon Wayans CLEARLY wasn't comfortable doing such a cornball family friendly show. The chemistry between himself and Tisha Cambell (they're long time friends, as are all of the Wayans clan with Tisha's husband and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett) DID work so they retooled the show. Once it returned, they recast the daughter, made the son much dumber (a la Eric from "Boy Meets World")and made the youngest daughter into a genius...(later they gave her a little genius boyfriend to do comedic guest appearances). The show, while if often rollercoasters from over the top buffoonery to being corny walks the line enough to keep it as a show that you can see Damon Wayans be comfortable in his own skin on the set (especially since the main writers, directors and consultants were ALL members of the Wayans family) AND in his character. Once everyone had been on the show for a while, they worked to everyone in the casts strengths and were able to make a consistently funny show on the air.

However, there is TOO MUCH buffoonery, too many over the top antics, and oftentimes too much chaos happening in the life of the Kyle family. They made Junior TOO STUPID, they also made the eldest daughter an attractive, clumsy idiot from time to time and the youngest daughter wasn't even spared by the writers. I feel they jumped the shark and signed the shows death warrant when Junior got his girlfriend pregnant, she moved in and he married her and her parents were introduced (Junior's wife's father's character makes me WINCE just thinking about him). The show remained funny...but it was a UPN show on ABC if that makes any sense to the reader.

The reruns are funny enough, but I'm relieved it's over...there was nowhere left to go with it. When it's bad it's REALLY BAD. It tends to be cornball at times but at least he was a black man who had a sitcom make it to syndication on a major network..Who can say that for themselves now? (Given the CW merger and the "brownout" on TV networks lately, that is). One. My wife and kids is a good and funny series that truly shows the worries and problems that happen the most even in the best families.

Michael Kyle (daddy) is a man who is always trying to stop his children from doing teen's stuff like partying, drinking, loving or making love. When they do something wrong, he is right there to correct them (by the way he loves to make bad penalties)

Janet 'Jay' Kyle (mother) has a strong personality and rarely agrees with her husband. She understands that their children are teenagers and like to do "wrong" things, unlike Michael does

Michael Kyle 'Jr' is a dumb guy who believes in everything other people say. In the beginning of the series, he's such a cool guy and tries to be like his father, but lately, I don't know why, he becomes a very very dumb dude and he starts being a problematic guy. In the end of the series he falls in love with Vanessa and becomes a father, or should I say, a dumb father who does nothing right

Kady Kyle is a typical teenagers who loves to party, kiss and drink. She has many problems with her parents because they invade her privacy too much. She has a boyfriend called Tony who is catholic and is scared of everything, so we can't understand what makes she date him. I can remember one episode that they're prepared to have sex, but Michael Kyle scares Tony claiming that sex is very dangerous and deadly, so he decides to guard himself until he's married.

I resume this is the best series of my life and I still watch it everyday after 3 years so I recommend to all of you - mostly for teenagers. It's one of my favorites TV series. A wonderful cast, great screenplay and a out siding plot.

Watching the routine of the Kyle family is grantee of great moments of humor and great comedy performers. Let's see: - Damon Wayans: no commentaries. He's one of the bests today. Se has a perfect timing and always get the point of the joke.

- Tisha Campbell: Her's paranoid and sentimental Jay is just wonderful to see.

- George O. Gore II: perfect for the paper. It's impossible to imagine someone else as the adorable (and dumb) Junior.

- Jennifer Nicole Freeman: the egocentric Claire found the perfect actress. Beautiful & talented.

- Parker McKeena Posey: impossible to not fall in love for her.

- Noah Grey-Cabey: this boy have future, i'm sure of it.

I get very sad when it ends, but this show will be in my mind forever. Michael, Jay, Claire, Junior, Kadie... we love you! This show is great for many reasons..The father and mother can communicate with their kids this day in age. Its so great to see a real family instead of some stuffy overacting family. I watched this one time and became hooked.It so great to see a black family on TV worth watching. This show left too soon but on its way out it dealt with pregnancy, sexy, drugs, bad dates,death etc .The best thing about the show was that it dealt with it in a real humorous sort of way. Great show for the family ..I cant tell you how many times I have sat up watched this show late at night sometimes and laughed my head off. Great pg 13 rated show.I loved everybit of this show. If you take the Huxtable parents and blend them with the Kyle parents you get a perfect blend of over the top and under the edge parenting that you can wish for your own family child-rearing skills. The best part about each show is that the parents do not come off as pompous self-righteous upper class know it alls but at the same time they are not the stereotypical under-educated parents who are constantly being bamboozled and disrespected by their children. My kids are 20, 16 and 6; just about the same ages as the Kyle kids and I see so much of their situations mirroring my own experiences with my family. The silliness that they indulge in only goes to show that when you have love in your family you do not have to take yourself too seriously to keep your household together and have fun with your kids. My wife and kids was and still is the best comedy series on TV ever made.I really enjoyed it and everyone in the u.k still watch the recaps.The Wayans bros. should all somehow be featuring together in a comedy show.My wife and kids was a comedy the whole family could watch and you don't get that very often.Isn't there anything we can do to make it happen again??We would do anything to have that comedy show on again!1 Damon Wayans should make a come back! I would really like Damon Wayans to star or make another comedy like this one of course with the help of the whole Wayans family.I was really sad when it ended that way and I hope they will be more to come in the future.Brilliant comedy,excellent stuff! yours truly, DezMo On a routine mission in Iraq a group of Delta soldiers recover a computer hard drive from an Alqueda training camp detailing the location of weapons specialist Dr Walsh. After witnessing the termination of his top secret weapons development program Dr Walsh finds an alternative funding source and sets up a new research facility deep in the notorious Belzan forest in Chechnya where he is developing weapons and selling them to Chechnyan rebels.The team of Deltas is sent on a black ops mission to retrieve the doctor and his technology before the Russians find him and his lab.What the Delta team soon discover is that the doctors latest weapons is a flock of large carnivorous bats that have been genetically altered to develop a taste for human flesh. I found this movie to be much better than what I was expecting.There is lots of action and lots of blood. Its more or less what you would expect from a creature feature. The acting isn't great but its passable. I have certainly seen worse.Overall its an enjoyable movie for what it is. A good popcorn movie. It gives the ordinary guy/girl the chance to be on television singing as their favourite stars.

For the majority of the time, they sound like the singer they are meant to be portraying.

Another twist to it - A team of make up people and costumers dress the contestant up like that singer. They might not look like them but the likelihood of getting someone that sounds like a person looking exactly the same as them are very slim.

It's a load of fun for your Saturday night - and the contestants aren't raging wannabes like they are on another TV singing show. The fact that there are no prizes involved and it is for fun means that it will attract a different type of person.

The only gripe i have is with the Kids version - it looks like they have done the round of stage schools- what happened to the normal kids? The Psychopath (1973) A trip down memory lane. I saw this film many years ago on a old black and white t.v. A children's' show host Mr. Rabbey avenges the brutal abuse that parents inflict upon his kiddie fans. Mr. Rabbey (who looks like he's always on the verge of losing it) finally cracks and decides to go on a hunting trip. Watch out bad parents cause Mr. Rabbey is on the prowl! What happens next is priceless. However, trying to find this movie will be quite a chore.

What makes this film notable was the fact that Joe "Maniac" Spinell made a short promo reel for a film based upon this one. In his unfinished film, he plays Mr. Robbie, a t.v. clown(who looks like a pudgy out of shape Edward James Olmos) who avenges his young fans child abuse by going after their parents. Sadly, Mr. Spinell could never find the funds to complete the project. The film was going to be titled Maniac II: "Mister Robbie". Rabbey or Robbie the similarities are all too close for comfort. Pretty violent for a P.G. movie.

Recommended. Super original. Really great movie! James Franco and Sienna Miller really do go so well together on screen. I sure hope it comes out soon. I first saw this movie at a screening. Because of my age and gender, I was asked to stay for a "talk." We all got to comment on the movie and a lot of people didn't seem to like it. I really loved it and I don't know why so many people didn't think it was that good. Go see it when it comes out and decide for yourself! One thing that you might want to do if you are going to see this movie is to go into it not knowing anything about it. I had not known anything when I went to the screening other than, it was called, "Camile." It really is worth seeing. As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.

This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.

If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are "Interstate 60" and "Art of Travel" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.

This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.

Dean An unusual movie, which starts off with the classic premise of a hooligan who marries a girl who loves him in order to escape the country. But a twist soon turns the tale upside down. Most of the film hits the right buttons: the story develops smoothly, acting is solid (Sienna Miller's drawl is priceless, she really can act!), chemistry between both leads works, and rolling American rural scapes and quirky side characters really make for a good time. The mood, which starts off as light and romantic soon moves into something darker and downright eery at times.

At times though the pace slows just a tad more than we would like, but don't let this stop you watching this unusual little cinematic treat. Alexandre Montin, Paris I loved it. Others have revealed spoilers, but I won't. It was an unusual premise, actually sort of weird, but I went along with it completely. Camille was a difficult part to pull off convincingly; maybe that's why some people hated it. But I think Sienna was excellent and her acting skills enabled her to nail the part perfectly - without being maudlin or ridiculous. I don't know why she was even interested in a loser like James Franco, but married him anyway. I like him as an actor and also thought he did a terrific job. He has nothing to be ashamed of. There have been movies with with similar setups e.g. "Ghost". I simply love Sienna Miller and went along with the situation as written in the script. I feel her great acting talent is vastly underrated, and hope it becomes more recognized by the public. I thought all of the actors played their parts very well, and hope more people get to see the movie. I highly recommend it. I was surprised that my local Block Buster store had about 10 copies available. I definitely plan to buy it. I saw this movie at a screener and its the best movie I have seen in a loooong time. I loved it!!!! James Franco is sooo hot and him and Sienna Miller make the perfect couple. I don't want to give away what happens but they play a pair of newlyweds who go off on their honeymoon to Niagara Falls and some pretty wild stuff happens along the way....The movie is really really funny and sad and original. I can't even say what it reminded me of, but go see it! I cried so hard but really loved it and wanna see it again as soon as it comes out! My friends cried too. I hope it comes out soon - does anyone know when? i would really go see it if i were you This movie rocked!!!! saw it at a screener a coupla weeks ago. Kinda a strange story, where James Franco plays this jerk who marries Sienna Miller just to get out of the country and they go to Niagara Falls for their honeymoon. Don't wanna give it away cuz the movie isn't released yet but its totally cool and you would never expect the stuff that happens. I kinda thought I would hate it cuz its a romance but its also kinda twisted and stuff which I like a lot. The acting is really good and Sienna Miller is totally smokin' and plays this really sweet girl. I think she should do more roles like this. James plays a jerk but you end up liking him and the end of the movie is really good. David Carradine plays a cowboy and he is good. I gave this movie a 10 because I came out of the movie really liking it and wanting to see it again which I didn't expect and my girlfriend really liked it and cried. good date flick I saw this at a test screening in Chatsworth a week or so ago, and went with a bunch of my girlfriends. we all really loved it a lot. James Franco is amazing and so hot, I would see it just for him!!!!!!! but Sienna Miller is also really good and plays a southern girl who is in love with him so much that she can't let go. David Caradine who was in Kill Bill plays a cowboy and he is perfect for that. The story is kind of strange but if you believe in the power of love and magical things you will love it!!! It is really original, and it is also very funny and everyone laughed a lot but by the end it gets more serious and we all ended up crying. I am going to see it again with my friends as soon as it comes out, it is really good!!!!!!! this flick is strange but i liked it a lot. its about a good girl who loves her bad boy and their messed up honeymoon. he doesn't love her back and he's a mean son of a bitch. he starts to love her after some really whacked stuff happens on their honeymoon i wont give it away. its weird yeah!! but different than other movies in a good way i think. i don't know what to compare it to but its a love story. but has lots of funny stuff too. like get to see James Franco in a wig. i liked the Notebook a lot and it kinda felt like that because of the love story. but the rest is way different. nothing like that. Sienna Miller is really good. i saw this movie at a test screener because i like her a lot and her fashion. i liked her in factory girl but this is a better movie than that was. her and james franco look really in love in this movie and i hope they are together in real life but don't know

see it!!!! For all intents and purposes, 'Teen Devian' might seem like just another lightweight Bollywood musical. To some extent, this might even be true, especially because the producers had to be sure that the film succeeded with the masses. But somewhere behind the scenes, either Sadashiv Brahmam (who had the 'idea' for this story) or Amerjeet (who directed the film) decided that there would be a twist to the usual formula, and succeeded perhaps beyond even their own expectations.

This is not simply about a handsome man flirting with 3 women, undecided on whom to choose as his life's partner. Dev Anand's character was really in love with each of the 3 women at various times, and they with him, despite being aware of the other two. Dev Anand's relationship with Simi and Kalpana is particularly interesting - in that each of the women comes to depend on him heavily. There are quite a lot of suggestive teasers in the stars' body language that lend themselves to imagination depending on the viewer's maturity. The theme is surprisingly adult and after all that it was ashame that the ending was tame, obviously designed to please the masses and deflect criticism. I think it was way back in 1987 that we had our exams and my friend and I saw in the papers that one of the theatres was playing 'teen deviyan'. We decided to go just for the heck of it without hoping anything great. But we were in for a pleasant surprise. The movie was made in 1965 but even by today's standards, the plot was absolutely modern and way ahead of its times. The music was wonderful and Dev Anand as a city bred looked and acted his best. I still remember that elated feeling when we came out of the theatre after the movie was over.

Whoever thought of this story of one man falling for three very different girls at the same time? No he is not three timing or fooling them but he genuinely likes all three of them for different reasons. One is homely, one is an actress and the third is a 'high society' girl who can also help Dev in his career as a poet. The question is which one is the 'One' for him. What makes the matter worse is that all three of them like him too. When things come to an impasse, a hypnotist takes him in and in his hypnotized state he dreams of his future with each one of them and reaches the right decision.

This dream of his which is the only colored part in an otherwise black-n-white movie is the crux of the film but surprisingly is edited out from most of the versions available today. If you want to watch this movie make sure that this part is intact. In case you watch this movie without this part and get confused, don't worry because you just watched an incomplete movie. I saw Teen Devian in 1993 telecasted in Doordarshan on a Friday night, and could scarcely believe that such a remarkable film was ever made in Bollywood. It was mind blowing – a film with a "modern" storyline, superb music, three lovely ladies and my fave superstar Dev Anand.In this unusual storyline, Dev falls in love with three women – the simple Nanda, the ravishing Kalpana and the sophisticated Simi. They too are enamored with him and want to marry him. This puts Dev in a dilemma (which is the crux of the storyline)- whom to marry?. He consults a hypnotist who asks Dev to gaze into a crystal ball. Dev finds the answer and marries Nanda. Beautifully directed (most probably by Dev saheb himself & not by Amarjeet the official director) the B&W classic has evergreen music – some of SD Burman's (helped generously by RD Burman) best compositions. "Uff kitni thadni hai yeh ruth" is the probably the most sexiest song ever composed in Hindi films. Credit should also be given to Majrooh Sultanpuri for penning the memorable lyrics Teen Devian is a breezy musical which completely suited the style of Dev Anand and he did full justice to the role. Unfortunately Teen Devian has never received the recognition & popularity it richly deserves.

A must see for any Hindi film buff, I will rate the eternal favourite 9.5 out of 10. One of the best romantic classic,teen deviyaan is a film which is all about selecting among equals your most soft emotion,love.This is a simple story of a middle class man who came into limelight by his poetic talent and charming personality. He is attracted towards three women and vice versa, one a Hindi movie star, the second a rich lady and the third who lives in his neighborhood.

The situation put him in confusion as he has to decide one of them as his life partner.He asked for few days from all of them.Ultimately he goes to a astrologer and asked him who he loves most.His confusion is no more and he came to know the lady living in his neighborhood who really cares for him and loves him is his true love.Devanand played the lead character and has fully justified his contemporary romantic image. Teen Deviyaan is a great film. A very breezy entertainer and a very modern film for its time in the 1960s. The Music and songs are terrific though the lyrics of Majrooh are meaningless at places. Dev Anand is a tremendous star and as usual does great justice to his role. Kalpana is sexy and Nanda is OK. Simi too is just about OK. The film has terrific dialogue by Vrajendra Gaur who wrote most of Dev Anand's films like Mahal, Duniya, Warrant, Jaali Note, Manzil, etc.etc.

It is a story of Dev getting attracted to three females - the mod Kalpana, Simi and the homely Nanda. He eventually opts for Nanda. The story is about OK but its been narrated in a gripping way and the dialogue and Songs and the great Dev Anand are the highlight of the film. A must watch film for all Dev Anand fans. I think that COMPLETE SAVAGES is a very good TV show and they should make many more episodes. It is one of my favourites!!!! It is very funny and it is really good acting. I say that you should give them a chance to do more episodes. Iknow that they can and they should!!!! They should put COMPLETE SAVAGES on NICKELODEON more than what they do! I'm sure that many people will agree with me!!!!! I like the TV show because it is a very good programme for people our age and it is very funny. I also like COMPLETE SAVAGES because it isn't always about the same thing and things that happen could be real, unlike other YV programmes. When they advertised it, I didn't like the sound of it, but I watched it for the first time and I loved it. COMPLETE SAVAGES is an excellent comedy and I miss it being on TV!!!!!!!!!! I can't really compare COMPLETE SAVAGES with any other TV series because it is different!!!! Each show is excellent. Finally, a show about something other than why it sucks to be married or good looking people talking about why they are like normal people. Shame it got canceled.

Mike Scully and Julie Thacker, formerly of the Simpsons, wrote or executive produced some of the funniest episodes of that series and a lot of the similar style humour seeps in here. Take Officer Steve Cox and think Troy McClure. However, it does come with its own unique brand of humour and let's face it, a teenage girl will love it just by on the faces alone.

What is it with television that cancel most good shows and we are spoon-fed with such abominations as Who My Mother Almost Slept With or whatever that show is called? Please learn a lesson. Not everything has to be about cuteness or romantic travails or especially reality shows on how to demystify every aspect of life. Some people actually like to laugh and not have to think afterward. Well, my griping is done for the day. Now back to the Simpsons. When is it on? Oh, yes! All the time. Am glad that i am not the only one to find this series very good. This is the best series for young ladies! I have so strange taste on comedies and i find so hard one to please my intelligence, and i am so happy that their humor is exactly what i need. Love the gang of actors! If anyone knows a series or just a movie similar to this one, i say pretty please write back because i miss the series.

And kindly ask the writers and the producers to CONTINUE it, even if the actors are now all grown up, i guess!

Have a nice morning/day/evening/night! (because i do not know the exact time you will be reading this post) A Great show.

First, to the people who don't like it..Don't like it, then DON'T WATCH IT...

This is(was) an awesome show. Better than According to Jim (A favorite of mine). It shows a REAL family household (As opposed to 8 simple rules,etc, where everything goes peachy).

They're loud, they're messy....I can sympathize with their dragging all the garbage into the kitchen. It happens in real life..Sorta like the "Portal to hell", and everyone growling like dogs over the fast-food boxes.

It's a "Been there" show....You know what's coming, but fun to watch, because YOU have been there before.

A good cast, they work great together, a admirable enough show to warrant a DVD release. Mel Gibsons "Safety videos" were a highlight of the series as well.

Opinion? Good show, REALLY deserving of a DVD release (Deserving to not be canceled as well). I loved Complete Savages! Why did they cancel it anyway? They should have made a second season and so on... God! They always cancel the good shows... and leave all the boring stuff. Nothing interesting at TV since Complete Savages is gone. This show was a great idea. A single firefighter father with five crazy sons and a lazy dog... Each and every one of them has his own madness in that house. TJ is always the kid...always the smaller one... Kyle rocks! He breaks everything he touches! He's always on detention, he's always doing the wrong stuff... But still, he's so funny by all the things that he does. Sam is the smart one. He's always shy and stupid when it comes to girls... Finally he ends up by dating Angela. Chris is the sports guy who doesn't have much to do with school, studying, and stuff like that. He's always funny. And finally... Jack! The rock of the show. The oldest of all, the macho guy, "the rock star"... But still, as crazy as everybody else. Nick is...helpless with these guys. Oh! And I almost forgot! Uncle Jimmy... He's the man! He's like a 30 year old kid. He's like doing the same stupid things that the boys are doing. I always wondered how did he end up by being a firefighter... And the dog is the image of all the Savage family. The thing is... this show had everything to become something really big. It had everything, man! But, of course...they canceled it... Michael Ritchie's "The Couch Trip" is a wonderfully anarchic comedy about what makes a good psychiatrist. It is so subtle and wicked that you start to realize what a stinging satire it really is. It is also Dan Akyroyd's best movie, made in a particularly great film year (1988)for him. First, "The Great Outdoors" and now this.

Akyroyd stars as John Burns, a career crook who fakes insanity to escape prison. Now, a dumb comedy would just be about this. But "The Couch Trip" uses this as a springboard for everything else. Beverly Hills psychiatrist George Maitlin (Charles Grodin, subtly hilarious here)has a nervous breakdown and a replacement is selected: Lawrence Baird, who happens to be Akyroyd's psychiatrist! You can pretty much guess what's going to happen, but the great thing about "The Couch Trip" is not what happens, but how it is done.

"The Couch Trip" gives Dan Akyroyd the best role he has ever had. His John Burns is one of the truly original comic creations in movie history. Wicked one liners and physical humor are a part of it, but what makes it special is that Akyroyd makes Burns a lovable character. We root for him and grow to like him a whole lot during the 98 minute running time.

But Akyroyd isn't alone here. He gets strong support from other great comic actors. Walter Matthau joins the hilarity as a con artist minister who catches on to Burns' secret and commits genteel blackmail. Charles Grodin "slow burns" his way to another great comic role as the burned out psychiatrist. Grodin has been one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood. It's criminal they haven't used him more often. Richard Romanus plays Grodin's slimeball lawyer to perfection.

"The Couch Trip" is one of many films made by the now-defunct Orion Pictures Corporation that are currently unseen. MGM spent a fortune buying the Orion library but have yet to truly cash in on their acquisition. "The Couch Trip" joins "Dressed to Kill", "Blow Out" and countless others in gathering dust rotting in the vault. Shame on MGM for their inaction. Hopefully, with new management, "The Couch Trip" will find the audience and respect it deserves.

**** out of 4 stars As a fan of Dan Aykroyd, I watched this film when it was recently shown in the middle of night on TV. I wasn't expecting much, so it came as a big surprise that I loved it so much.

This is the type of film that Dan Aykroyd seems to love to make. A chance for him to 'ham it up' and not take things too seriously. If you loved him in The Blues Brothers or Ghostbusters you'll know what I mean, and you'd be wise to check out The Couch Trip.

Avid fans of Aykroyd will also have fun spotting all the tiny links to his other films in the script!

I can't describe this film without spoiling it for you, so all I can do is tell you to check it out. I can't praise this film highly enough, and it must surely be time for a DVD release!! I am surprised that this, well above average 80's comedy scores only a 5.2 from all the IMDB voters. Dan Ackroyd does his usual satirical turn as a con who seizes a great opportunity to steal a contract from his prisons physician. He retreats to California to start his work giving advice on a radio show pretending to be the infamous Dr Lawrence Baird. The only person that knows he's an imposter is the drunken priest (Walter Matthau) who comes along to be pampered by Ackroyd's new found wealth having blakmailed him. Charles Grodin throws in a good supporting performance too. For its genre I think this film deserves the same crediblity as 'Ferris Bueller' or 'Trading Places'. 7.5 / 10 I first saw The Couch Trip (1988)on late night television years ago and instantly fell in love with it. The funny thing is I usually catch all the comedies made but have never even heard of this one until I saw it. Dan Ackroyd is plain and simpley hillarious period. He has made a couple great movies with Belushi and don't forget Saturday Night Live. But I think the Couch Trip is probably his best and funniest. With a good supporting cast of Charles Grodin, David Clennon, and Walter Matthau this piece of cinema shines with comic gold. Ackroyd's wife Donna Dixxon even does a fine job here. My favorite moments of the film involve Ackroyd and David Clennon's charachter Lawrence Baird. Those two played well off each other. So if you haven't seen a good comedy in awile take a trip back to 1988 and rent or buy The Couch Trip. I just did, Amazon 78 cents. What a bargain, too bad I got hit with a 2.50 shipping fee. Oh well still well worth it. Any guy will love this flick check it out. I would agree with the comments already posted to this site by the previous rater.

I first stumbled across this movie back in the '80s, when I was employed at a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately, many of the barbs aimed at the psychiatric profession do hit home. I especially enjoyed the ending, where the psychiatrist would speak thru the door to the hospitalized Grodin. Trust me, its fairly accurate.

Of course, doors at most psych hospitals are not locked, nor are straightjackets used much these days, and any hospital MUST be licensed to have a "padded room".

But a wonderfully underrated film, and certainly one that is quite amusing.

Jeff A lot of people don't think Dan Aykroyd is funny. This movie proves otherwise. Aykroyd is brilliant delivering his one-liners in this comedy. The only major problem with this is that it wastes far too much time near the end jumping back and forth from Aykroyd's character and the doctor who is pursuing him to prove he's a fraud. The doctor goes nuts like doctor Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss) in "What About Bob?". The scenes where the doctor is desperately trying to get back to Los Angeles are silly, unbelievable, and unfunny. Other that this aspect the movie really is funny, especially the first half. does anybody know why this movie is called the couch trip? i was just watching it and am still not sure why this title was picked the movie was very funny and its probably my favorite Dan Aykroyd performance it even beats out his Ghostbusters performance i had never heard of the movie before i seen it in a sears store i read the back and thought it sounded good so i bought and when i finally got a chance to watch it, i thought it was better than what i had originally expected. this movie rates as good as animal house and national lampoon's vacation in my mind i wish comedies that have come out lately were written as well as this one was nothing sad happens in it and the bad stuff that does happen are also funny parts if anyone else feels this way and would like to read a comedy script for a movie that doesn't have a sad situation in it email me at killer2511@hotmail.com This is a strange, little, forgotten movie from the late eighties. It's one of those "Large-cast kitchen sink" movies that delivers some good gags. If you like the people in this one, give it a shot. To say I wasn't expecting much sitting down to watch "The Couch Trip" is an understatement. I had no idea what it was about - I thought it was going to be a journey into the realm of sexuality when I heard Chevy Chase played a condom man and the movie's title involves the word "couch trip," *wink, wink.* Then I figured out that it had something to do with a mental institute and a patient escaping. My expectations dropped even lower.

I was literally expecting a grin movie - the type where you grin once and walk out feeling a bit cheated. And in a way, this is cheap comedy - it doesn't have the greatest gags, the plot is ludicrous, but you know what? I had a big dumb smile on my face the entire time I was watching it.

Dan Aykroyd plays John Burns, a patient at a mental hospital who may or may not actually be mental. He gives the psychiatrist, Lawrence Baird (David Clennon), plenty of grief and misery, which leads us to believe he is a sane person after all.

Following a little bit of a riot in the mental institute's cafeteria, Burns is awaiting a tongue-lashing from Baird in his office when the phone rings. Burns picks it up, pretends to be Baird, and finds out the caller on the other line, Harvey Michaels (Richard Romanus), wants the real Dr. Baird to come fill in for a radio shrink named George Maitlin (Charles Grodin), who is taking a vacation with his wife, Vera (Mary Gross). Michaels wants Baird so bad he has even booked him a ticket on an airplane.

Burns escapes the institute with the help of a receptionist, and drives to O'Hare. He gets Dr. Baird's ticket, gets on the plane, and eventually poses on the air as Dr. Baird. His show is a phenomenal success. "People love him!" one man says, and the other man replies, "It's because he actually cares about them."

Donald Becker (the late, great Walter Matthau) is an ex-mental patient who recognizes Burns' clothes to be confinement-issued pants and shirts. To keep him quiet, Burns promises Becker a percentage of his income. The secret is kept closed.

Meanwhile, Maitlin and his wife get in an argument. He flies home to end his vacation short and realizes that the man on his talk show is not, in fact, Dr. Baird after all, but no one believes him. He gets the real Dr. Baird, but unfortunately he has lost his ID so the police take them as nutcases and don't listen to their story.

Let me name just a few of the plot holes I noticed while watching this film: Burns poses as Dr. Baird, but is never asked for his ID, even when claiming his plane ticket (he was robbed, he says, but they would still make sure he is Baird). If Burns becomes so very famous, how come the real Dr. Baird in Chicago never heard people talking about him? Word travels. And finally, why would the police ever arrest Maitlin and Baird (the real Baird, that is) without following up on their stories?

To be frankly honest, I couldn't care less. I went into this movie with a closed mind and it surprised me - I really liked it. It entertained me. Its ideas are essentially ludicrous and not at all realistic, but Dan Aykroyd gives a truly spirited performance as a half-a-loon that makes "The Couch Trip" a trip worth taking.

3.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer Dan Ackroyd in his prime stars as Johgn Burns, a mental asylum escapee who poses as his own shrink to travel out to La La Land and host a popular radio talk show while the regular host (Charle Grodin in his snarling prime) takes a vacation. Along the way, Ackroyd hooks up with Walter Matthau, a fellow nutjob, and the rest is sheer hilarity. Ackroyd and Matthau play off very well off one another. Ackroyd's stunning real-life wife, Donna Dixon, is along for the ride as yet another shrink. The ending feels a bit rushed and contrived, which is the only thing that keeps me from giving this film my top rating, an 8. A lost '80s gem. "The Couch Trip" is one of those silly comedies that they cranked out in the '80s. In this case, Dan Aykroyd plays a mental patient who poses as a psychiatrist, and he goes to Beverly Hills to sub for Charles Grodin. Most of the movie's humor springs from their satirical look at Beverly Hills and people's empty lives there (a woman has a power struggle with her maid).

It's the sort of movie that you just watch to have a good time. Don't expect any kind of religious experience. But you'll most likely laugh a lot at how the Beverly Hills people flaunt their wealth. Also starring Walter Matthau, Donna Dixon, Arye Gross and Victoria Jackson (of "UHF"). One of the most underrated comedies. Dan Akroyd is hilarious in this over the top role; Charles Grodin gives a performance nearly as good as in "Midnight Run;" and Walter Matthau gives a superb comedic performance in this sometimes subdued, sometimes wacky film. Akroyd and Matthau have great chemistry together.... I was very impressed with this film from newcomer Dir./Writer Jose Reyes. The cast was excellent. "Jorge Cordoba" executed a powerful

and shocking performance as the lead character of "Rafa". It's inspiring to see independent films with this level of talent.

It takes talent, courage, and determination to go out and make a quality film.

I admire anyone who can take an idea from concept to conception and go the mile.

It's easy for people to judge young filmmakers more harshly, but I applaud "Jose Reyes"

and the talented cast for their successful efforts. First, I must say that I don't speak spanish and usually do not enjoy spanish speaking films... BUT Two Coyotes is an exceptional film. There is enough action and hard drama that it doesn't matter that its a spanish speaking film. The subtitles were easy to read and didn't block the action - OR the drama!

I would tell fans of spanish speaking films and non-fans of spanish speaking films to go see this movie. The action and drama are worth every penny.

This film is an excellent example of what an independent film can be. The director does an excellent job of riding the line between emotional and physical violence. But in the end, he remembers what so many indie-films forget - he tells a good story. When watching this film I was reminded of how timid and mundane most big-budget Hollywood films really have become.

Especially notable, is an exceptionally strong performance by the film's lead - Jorge Cordova. As an villainous thug (on his way to the top of the crime heap) Cordova plays a conniving, brutal, conceited, devious, and sleazy S.O.B., but he is so likable that he keeps you entertained the whole time.

I read somewhere that these guys were part of the New Wave of Latino Filmmakers in Los Angeles - called La Nueva Obra, or something like that. Either way, this film makes you look forward to seeing more of their work.

This first time writer/director comes across as a season pro with "Two Coyotes". Most action dramas are all about the action first then the story. But this picture works the other way around. If this is just the beginning for this director, then Hollywood will soon be making room for this rising star. Independent movie making has once again reached a new level. I really liked TWO COYOTES. One of my friends rented it the other night and we were really impressed with how good it was and how cool the main guys were. I wonder if they are thinking of making a sequel because that would be excellent!

TWO COYOTES ROCKS! Hummmm,...ANOTHER Keystone comedy set in the park!!! It seems that the number one location spot for shooting was in this same local park, as so many of Chaplin's and Arbuckle's films are set there! And, while this is yet another one, it is different enough and well made that I still enjoyed it.

Fatty is interested in a younger than usual looking and acting Mabel Normand. I think she's supposed to be a little younger, though in her mother's eyes she is TOO YOUNG to be interested in men. Well, Fatty does not share her feelings and soon he and Mabel run away for some innocent fun. Things get complicated when the mother's watch is stolen. Fatty finds it and gives it to Mabel as a gift,...and MANY problems result.

Decent pacing and the fact that this movie did not rely too much on cheap slapstick but a reasonable plot make this a cute and enjoyable little film. Excellent introspective / interpersonal piece that really had some teeth to it without feeling hopeless or worse, manipulative & artificially gratifying. Might be a good double feature with American Beauty as well. Best performance to date that I've seen from Anita Mui, and every actor in this seems like a powerhouse. Hats off to Ann Hui for the direction and Ivy Ho for the brilliant script. Seriously one of the best dramas I've seen in a while, especially if you have a taste for classical literature ALA poetry. Again, excellent. A touching love story reminiscent of ‘In the Mood for Love'. Drawing heavily on Chinese poetry and how this is used by eastern people to communicate feelings to each other, the story focuses on a schoolteacher who wants so much to be a model teacher as well as a good husband and father. A senior student is very attracted to him. As the story unfolds we see the emotions below the surface in his 20 year marriage and how he grapples with the moral dilemmas that face him. A beautiful and moving story. This story of a teacher who has a relationship with a student is told in a subtle manner, something which sets it apart from most films with this plot. Mr. Lam (Jacky Cheung) has a relationship with Choy (Karena Lam, who was also so good in "Koma") in what at first appears to be an inexplicable situation. He is married for 20 years to Ching (the great Anita Mui, in her last role before she was cruelly taken from us), and it appears to be a loving relationship. When Ching offers to care for hers and Mr. Lam's former teacher, Choy and Mr. Lam have the opportunity to be together. What makes the film so good is director Ann Hui's pacing. It takes a while to uncover the secrets of the Lamsm and it all makes sense. The movie is very dramatic and touching. You don't feel any repulsion about the teacher/student situation, something that elevates this film above many with the same plot. It is slow moving, but stay with it. Also, revel in Ms. Mui's wonderful, unglamorous but beautiful performance. She was and is someone truly special and in this film you fall in love with her one last time. It is worth the time to witness and just be there with her. A rich experience is to be gained from watching this film.

This is a seemingly simple story of a gifted pupil, Yiu Kwok, who later becomes a teacher of classical Chinese poetry. He is married with two sons, and things at home seem normal. He still loves his wife after twenty years of marriage, and his sons alternately fill him with pride (the elder one) and disappointment (the younger one).

His passion for the poetry makes him an object of infatuation for a senior student in one of his classes. The student, Choi Lam, draws pictures of him during class, significantly, one of him with a flower coming from his mouth. She teases him more with her intelligence than her sexuality, although that too is an element. He of course is not immune to her attention, though he tries for a while to keep the demarcation line between teacher and student in place.

The reason why he doesn't succeed in the end is complicated. Firstly there is a real depth to the communication between him and Choi Lam. It becomes clear that she genuinely likes him, and it's mutual. Secondly, there is a long-standing problem in his marriage that is brought to light when an old friend of both his and his wife becomes ill. The consequences of the wife's involvement with this friend, both past and present, are almost too sad to bear.

Nothing is treated trivially in this film. All the characters have a vivid internal life, and an easily discernible history. The two leads, Jacky Cheung and Anita Mui, are outstanding, as are Karena Lam as the student Choi Lam, and Shaun Tam as the elder son On Yin.

Recommended without reservation. Let me say first off that I am a huge fan of the original series Lonesome Dove and the book it was based from. I have put off watching this sequel for the better part of 10 years due to the bad reviews I'd heard about it. If Tommy Lee Jones wasn't playing Capt. Call I didn't see the point. If Larry McMurtry wasn't involved why should I care? How wrong I was.

This is in so many ways a worthy sequel to Lonesome Dove, maybe even more so than the dark mood of Streets Of Laredo. The story, acting, production, cinematography are all top-notch. Of course the script isn't as colorful as Lonesome Dove but it has it's moments. And, much to my surprise, there are bits of Lonesome Done in this series; the relationship between July and Clara, completely dismissed in the prequel, is brought up here almost identical to the book, a most welcome surprise. The story isn't all roses, it has it's surprises too. By far the biggest surprise is Jon Voight's interpretation of Capt. Call. While not a direct copy of Tommy Lee Jones' his is both faithful and unique to Voight's credit. The cast is fantastic all across the board, and I don't think Rick Schroeder has done a better job of acting than in this series. Oliver Reed practically steals the show here, he is superb in a role that makes you care for his character as equally as you hate him.

It is worth it to watch this if you haven't due to bad criticisms, especially that the DVD is so affordable (I got the 2-disc set for $10.99, you can probably find it cheaper). It is in no way the disappointment that Dead Man's Walk turned out (well, it was for me). And MCMurtry was involved with that one! not a Larry Mcmurty masterpiece but it stands on its own as a good western, any of the lonesome doves do. who ever takes on the role of Woodrow call, does a great portrayal in their own style. It's also easy to see that they were looking to use this as a stepping stone to the t.V series (both version of it) and that the writers knew how to keep the flavor alive William Peterson was awesome in this, the geeky C.S.I guy is not the character he plays in this - this guy can do it all it seems

it's deserve to be enjoyed by those who enjoy westerns

4out5 stars I've seen Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, and The Streets of Laredo, and now The Return to Lonesome Dove. If you are hungry for more after watching Lonesome Dove, this'll fill yer belly. Great cast, great story. Most definitely a close second to Lonesome Dove. I will be purchasing this movie to add to my collection. This is the best, or at least my favorite performance by Jon Voight. He is Captain Call. Lou Gossett Jr. playing Isom Pickett is not somebody I'd mess with, he is a bad ass with perspective. William Peterson does a great job as well. Rick Schroder is back as Newt with an angst filled performance that reminds me of his stint on NYPD Blue. My only problem with this film (and it's really picking nits) is that I had the impression that Call wanted to be "the first man to graze cattle in Montana", and it's obvious that Dunnigan had already been there a while. A little inconsistent, but easily overlooked as you lose yourself in the fantastic tale. I especially love the apparent character growth of Jasper Fant and July Johnson. I've watched this movie several times and am ready for another sequel. Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original "Lonesome Dove" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between "Lonesome Dove" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no "Lonesome Dove". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right. This a wonderful sequel to the award winning Lonesome Dove miniseries in the 1980's. This sequel is perhaps, better than the original. It is definitely more family friendly. The language is more subdued. There is plenty of violence and one particular scene with Cherokee Jack is particularly gruesome. However, overall a great movie. The acting is superb. William Peterson is fantastic. Such a great dramatic actor with a quick sense of wit and comic timing. Jon Voight aptly fills Tommy Lee Jones' shoes as Captain Call. Ricky Shroder gives a great heart-filled performance as the young boy who grew up with no family to claim him. Highly recommended. I had my reservations about watching The Return to Lonesome Dove after seeing and enjoying the original so much. Without Tommy Lee Jones reprising his role as Woodrow Call or Anjelica Huston as Clara, I figured it just wouldn't seem authentic enough. Upon viewing 'return' I can honestly say it's a worthy successor. The actors really make the show with Jon Voight, Rick Schroder, and Oliver Reed all preforming at their very best. I admit the story might not be quite as engrossing as the first, but 'return' definitely has it's share of excitement and captures the romance of the old west in a way that few other films have. Anyone who still has reservations can rest assured that The Return to Lonesome Dove succeeds in capturing the 'feel' of the original and will not disappoint. Do yourself a favor and check it out, Ol' Gus would be proud! At first glance of this mini... I was a bit disappointed that Tommy Lee Jones and Anjelica Huston didn't return to the cast. Both John Voight and Barbara Hershey did commendable jobs replacing very important characters for the continuing saga of this legendary Epic Western.

Cherokee Jack Jackson (Haysbert) played an excellent bad guy, and Louis Gossett Jr. was, as always, true to form with his excellent acting skills.

The drama that seemed true to life in many scenes, including one of the best, where the valiant shoot-out ended with Ranger Walker being killed made me feel that I was actually in the film. Return to Lonesome Dove was to me, almost up to the quality of the first of the series. The next 2 follow ups with James Garner as Call just didn't make it for me. And that Lorena marries Pea Eye? How the heck did that get in their? That was a total mismatch of characters. The first 2 of the series made the Epic story, the next 2 in no way were of the same quality.

Now, if the first 2 could be remastered in Dolby Digital and an Anamorphic presentation, the films could be where they should have been like the movies of today. I just watched "return from lonesome dove" and it was very good! I've seen a lot of negative comments about it and I don't think the Viewers are being real about it! In the television/ movie business it is hard to get all the actors back for a 2nd sequel or 3rd part. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER MINISERIES THAT TIES INTO LONE D. FAITHFULLY!! This production was top notch with the original music score, and the actors put their hearts into it(you can tell). If you want to watch lonesome d. with Robert Duvall and tommy L. J. then watch the original. Return to L.D. didn't have as much wit and takes on a more serious tone but is totally captivating none the less. From the touching moments to the villains, this one is a winner! "Wonderful!!!" In a lonely road in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, a black man driving a car is chased and hit by a truck, falling off-road and dying. His daughter Cassie Robinson calls her former boyfriend Dean and asks him to investigate the mysterious accident. Sam and Dean see that three Afro-Americans and the Caucasian Major of the town were killed in weird accidents on the same road. When the truck threatens Cassie, her Caucasian mother Mrs. Robinson tells a tragic racist murder that happened thirty years ago, and the brothers realize that they have to fight against a hatred spirit in a ghost truck.

In this episode, Dean discloses his first and unique love to his brother, surprising Sam and showing that he has feelings, but also that his hunting wish is stronger than his love. The story is only reasonable, touching in the delicate theme of racism in an efficient manner and blending it with a supernatural event. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Rota 666" ("Route 666") Excellent episode, showed Dean has not only good taste by picking Cassie for his girlfriend but also shows he does have a heart and can love just one woman, and he's not just some guy who loves and leaves em! Aweso e episode. Applaud them on this one. I only hope that some way they go back to the Cassie relationship next season (if there is a next season??) i would like to see her come back into their "supernatural" lives especially Dean's. Also I like the fact the chose an African-American woman to be the special lady in his life that got away somehow. I hope they don't screw that up and end it as he episdoe ended. The girl who played Cassie was truly a looker and it was good to see the WB branching out into what we all see in everyday life-the interacial coupling that has become common and acceptable(finally!) Apart from being a clever and well-marketed variation on the nowadays hugely popular horror genre and a splendid formula to attract potential new fans in general, I always somewhat considered "Supernatural" as a massively giant homage towards the genre through the decades. Although not always noticeable to younger viewers and/or people who only have an interest in more recent horror films, each and every single episode contains a few obvious and subtler references towards classic and influential titles. From that point of view, it was only a matter of time before the writers would pay tribute to the 'creepy vehicle without a driver' type of films, and even more specifically the 70's milestones "Duel" (Steven Spielberg's acclaimed debut) and "The Car". Being an avid fan of these two films, I enjoyed "Route 666" a lot even in spite of its flaws and shortcomings. The episode opens tense and atmospherically on a remote Missourian road, where a black man is hunted down and eventually killed by a menacing monster truck with seemingly no driver behind the wheel. The victim's daughter, Cassie, happens to be Dean's ex-girlfriend and she calls the Winchester Brothers in for help. The brothers can't prevent two more similar "accidents" before discovering the ghost-truck sudden presence relates all the way back to a racial dispute of the 60's, involving both of Cassie's parents as well as several more prominent inhabitants of the little town. Some of my fellow reviewers around here tend to label "Route 666" as one of the weaker entries in season one, mainly because the script is too preachy regarding racial issues and shows a different and more emotional side of Dean's character. He's usually the strong silent type, whereas here he's confronted with unfinished romantic affairs from the past here. To a certain level I agree with the racism debate, but it didn't bother me that much, really. The writers eventually had to give an explanation to the presence of the ghost truck, and racial conflict is an acceptable one as far as I'm concerned. Concerning Dean's emotional vulnerability, I can only state it's admirable to see how the writers continuously attempt to provide depth and detail to the main characters. Dean's behavior towards Cassie sheds a whole new light on him, in fact. Besides, what really counts in this episode is the wondrously sinister truck and its virulent attacks. It's an impressive and overpowering vehicle, producing blinding lights and grisly engine noises. In case you worshiped the brilliant aforementioned "Duel", you will definitely find some amusement in the compelling chase sequences depicted in "Route 666". Episode No. thirteen of the fanciful (excuse the incredibly gay terminology) "Supernatural" TV series relocates Sam and Dean Winchester to Missouri where they have been called upon by an old flame of Dean's to investigate a string of mysterious murders occurring in their small town. As it turns out, a large pick-up truck with an unseen driver is running down African Americans on a desolate stretch of road... While Dean attempts to rekindle his past love affair, more towns people turn up as roadkill. The cause appears to be due to a past racial incident back in the 60s, causing a frustrated redneck spirit to remain in ghostly limbo, seeking to kill black motorists. "Route 666" is another good installment (which isn't uncommon, I've noticed) which contains a few notable aspects pertaining to the pair of main characters such as Dean getting laid and Sam's admitted regret for having left college... The killer truck does't come across as the most terrifying thing in the world, though, for an hour long show, it does it's job well. Not a hands-down fantastic episode, but a solid concept with more horror movie references. This episode of Buffy was one of my personal favorites. Also number three of Joss' personal favorites as well. The episode featured very little dialogue and despite that the good folks at the Emmy's decided it merited a nomination. Unfortunately it didn't win. When Hush first premiered it received about 6 million viewers, which was the highest rated episode of season four. That should tell you something. Even though there was very little talking it managed to intrigue people enough to tune in. Those gentlemen characters (who were played my mimes) were some of the scariest creatures the show has produced (or any network TV show I've seen). Nothing is creepier then a bunch of silver teethed men coming at you with a scalpel while smiling away. I think that despite the lack of dialogue the actors did a fantastic job on the episode. The creepy demons "The Gentlemen" capture the voice of the population of Sunnydale, to steal human hearts without scream. Giles find that in accordance with a legend, if a lady screams, the creatures will be destroyed, but Buffy and her friends, including Riley, have to fight the monsters speechless.

"Hush" is certainly the best episode of the Fourth Season of Buffy up to this moment. Having lots of humor and funny situations, I liked a lot. Spike is hilarious, the romance between Xander and Anya is cool, but I loved the "intense" dialog between Buffy and Riley in end. The Gothic scenario of the final battle against "The Gentlemen" recalls the environment of "Dark City". My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Silêncio" ("Silence") This is a good episode, but it's not my favorite. A lot of people love it and on a creative level it's brilliant. Most of the episode has no dialog, which is such a cool idea and "Hush" handles the silence really well. Plus, this episode introduces Tara, who I like a lot. But, I don't like Riely or the Initative or Maggie Walsh and they seem to get a lot of screen time in "Hush." Plus, I don't think the Gentlemen are that scary and I get tired of watching the float around Sunnydale. I know that I'm in the minority, but I tend to fast-forward parts of "Hush." Of course, there are other parts of the episode that I think are great, so if you're watching on DVD, I recommend seeing this episode. It really is a classic.

"Hush" revolves around the entire town losing their voices. Skelatal looking demon-guys called the Gentlemen arrive to gather seven hearts from human victims, but if they hear a human scream they die. So they steal the voices of everyone in town. Buffy and the Scoobies try to figure out what's going on, while the Initative also start investigating. Meanwhile, Xander comes to realize how much Anya means to him and Willow meets a fellow witch named Tara. Buffy and Riely finally come face to face while fighting the Gentlemen. They are both stunned about what they learn... He's a commando and she's the Slayer. In the end Buffy saves the day, but she now has to deal with her new knowledge of Riely's secret life.

Really, the creativity of "Hush" can't be seen in a basic outline of its plot. It's the overwhelming silence of the episode, that makes it so great. The characters try to communicate in different ways, (White-out boards, pantomime, obscene finger gestures, etc...) and it all just works really well. After a while you forget that there's no dialog because they're all so good at expressing themselves. During the "talking" parts of the episode, there are a lot of references to the importance of really "hearing" each other. Anya claims that Xander won't really talk to her. Giles ignores Spike and Xander's protests and insists that Spike move into Xander's apartment. Buffy quickly substitutes the word "petroleum" for "patrolling" when she talks to Riely so she won't have to explain her calling. And then at the end, when Buffy and Riely really do learn the truth about each other, they sit there with nothing to say. It's all pretty cool.

There are a lot of good parts to this episode. I love that people keep forgetting that they can't talk. Buffy and Xander both try to use the phone. Riley can't use the voice recognition thing in the Initatives' elevator. People try to scream. It's basically what everyone would really do if they suddenly had no speech. And I think it's hilarious that Spike has to move in with Xander. (They'll also share an apartment for a little while in season seven.) Xander and Spike have a fun bickering childishness that's just hilarious. Also I like the beginning of Tara and Willow's relationship. Tara plays an important role for the rest of the show and she and Willow are pretty cute together. It's nice to see them just starting out.

On the downside, I don't understand how the Gentlemen are choosing their victims. They just seem to float around dorms and pick random people. Also, I don't like Riely. I've never liked him, but from "Hush" on I'm pretty much just waiting for Angel to come back to town and beat him up. Finally, what happens to Olivia after this? It seems like we just met her, she and Giles have a relationship, everything's going fine... and then she's suddenly dropped. I don't get it.

My favorite part of the episode: Giles' "Who are the Gentlemen?" lecture to the Scoobies. The whole scene is wonderful and his over-heads are just hilarious. He makes some similar looking flashcards in season seven's "First Date." Pretty much anytime Giles starts drawing monsters, it's just gonna be fun. Having seen the movie years ago and been disappointed by its squandered potential, when I heard that it was becoming a TV series, I flatly refused to watch it. My best friend became a rabid fan immediately, and knowing my love for horror movies, could not believe that I wouldn't watch a single episode. I told him that the movie had scarred me for life as far as anything BUFFY was concerned, and he told me to forget that the movie even existed. He insisted that I give two episodes a shot: "Once More With Feeling" and this one.

Both of them are why I am a BUFFY fan today. He was right - I was hooked immediately. I have never seen a show with the guts to dare try an episode that has next to no dialogue, and nothing else could've pulled it off with the panache and the pure creativity of BUFFY. I think X FILES might've gotten away with it if they'd thought of it first, but I'm glad that BUFFY did it instead.

It is a credit to everyone involved that you are riveted for the entire hour, sometimes hanging onto the edge of your seat. And when it was all over, I craved to know more about every character. So I went out and bought the Season One boxed set. And the rest is history...

I guarantee you that if you've never seen it, either, you'll want to see more if you make this episode your first.

The only reason I'm not giving it 10 out of 10 is because I'm reserving that score for "Once More..." I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode "Hush" was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.

BTW My Heart is still racing... Though not exactly a comedy in the usual sense of the word this more rewarding than any movie full of laughs but devoid of substance. I don't think Bergman's movies can be easily classed under narrow genres, even the lightest are quite complex. This movie in spite of its light touch poses a series of problems related to marriage and its shortcomings and what happens when the flames start to die etc. I don't really communicate personally with all these issues as I am sure others do. But the atmosphere of the movie is extraordinary, you almost wish it not to end. I have to admit that I was swept away by the Bergman of the fifties, having come to know most of his later, groundbreaking efforts. Before Nykvist, von Sydow, Ulman etc. the master produced some of the richest, warm and touching movies I have ever seen. Though it's a long shot, I have seen this kind of love for human kind, in its complexity, only in Fellini's movies of the same period. A Lesson in Love alongside Smiles of a Summer Night are worth seeing for Bergman fans, to have the full image of the man's capabilities, and for those who love cinema with a heart. May he rest in peace! Bergman is a sublime comedy director and writer. This fact becomes apparent in "En lektion I kärlek", where the comic elements range from pure slapstick to deep, yet very emotional scenes. This movie is paves the way for Bergman's later comedies "Sommarnattens leende" and "Kvinnodröm", all of them starring Gunnar Björnstrand as well as Eva Dahlbeck. This is an excellent movie with which to start your Bergman experience, acutely portraying emotional troubles of the young as well as the old. The cinematography by Martin Bodin is astounding, for instance in the picnic scene. In short, the movie is a perfect example of a successful comedy, with a clarity of depth even surpassing some of Bergman's own comedies. Bergman and comedy don't quite go together. Some of his comedies are so naff you almost wince. This film has the odd naff moment - the last 30 seconds being the nadir, but on the whole this is a charming (rather than funny) piece, enjoyable throughout. Bergman casts several of his usual suspects who perform well. There is a great scene on the train between David, Marianne and an uncouth salesman which will stick in the memory. Some of the marriage material is typical, cynical Bergman, but this is Bergman in a light rather than dark mood.

This film has its moments and is worth the 90-odd minutes. Not one of his classics and not the place to start if you want to fall for Bergman. A fun filled romp, full of silly if not sometimes cruel jokes. Not the best of movies, but definitely well worth watching. David Niven and Stewart Granger are their usual charming selves with Granger as an especially delightful and ingenious gentleman. Ava Gardner as wonderful as always, with such a delightful character that is absolutely iresistable. The story line is typical, but full of jocular surprises, especially concerning the unconventional relationships between Granger, Gardner and Niven. Barely three and a half years after just scraping out a month's run (7-31 Oct. 1953) at Broadway's Coronet Theatre (on west 49th Street; since renamed the O'Neill), MGM relied on the earlier solid London success of the play to lavish a wonderful cast and - for the most part - carefully "opened up" production on a sadly trimmed down screenplay of this slyly subversive boulevard comedy and were rewarded with a modest hit.

Ava Gardner is the increasingly frustrated wife of Stewart Granger, an internationally successful and entirely complacent "workaholic" (before the term had been coined) using the perpetually frustrated David Niven to attempt to rekindle passion in her spouse. When the "second honeymoon" cruise Gardner inveigles Granger into leaves the trio (and Granger's dog) marooned on a south sea island (were there other survivors? That's for later plot developments), Granger continues right on managing the world around him - building a big hut for himself and his wife and a little one of the title for Niven - or the unattached male.

The core of the actual plot of the play only gets going about half way through the film when Niven proposes that Granger and he alternate as tenants of the Little Hut - sharing the only female on the island as Granger has been willing to share the only pair of shoes (his).

Reason (which Granger considers his strong point) reigns and frustration reigns supreme - for a while.

David Niven and Ava Gardner are superb in their appointed roles of suave would-be seducer and seductress, and Stuart Granger - usually called upon merely to be handsome and virile in action roles and the odd miscast specialty (a crowing pretty-boy as Apollodorus in Shaw's CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA in 1945) - gives one of the better acting performances of his film career as the husband who may actually be as smart as he thinks he is. 33 years later he would again show this suave urbanity opposite Rex Harrison in Granger's first (and BOTH their last) Broadway engagements in a hit revival of Somerset Maugham's THE CIRCLE which only ended with Harrison's death. We'd be far richer if Granger had used these skills more often.

As promising as the menage is, this is, after all, a very British Boulevard Comedy AND Hollywood in the 1950's which is to say that (unlike the source play) very little sex actually goes on. To be frank, if you don't give yourself over to the ideas driving the contrivances it does get a bit silly (the same basic plot is far more satisfyingly developed three years later in the Cary Grant/Deborah Kerr/Robert Mitchum/Jean Simmons (Stewart Granger's actual wife) THE GRASS IS GREENER, based on an even less successful play, but for some reason that superior trifle failed at the box office).

As lavishly as MGM set the piece, there were unfortunate lapses - the silliness which ends the stay on the island is cartoonishly presaged in what should have been a moment of genuine excitement - the sinking of the yacht that PUTS them on the island. Ultimately we only get about three quarters of an hour of the real Little Hut, but ninety good minutes of David Niven, Ava Gardner and Stewart Granger that make the film a fun diversion. Not high culture, but a worthy guilty pleasure.

We even get some very nice garnish in Walter Chiari (reputed to be Ava's actual lover at the time). As one of his better speeches goes: "Boola, boola!" This is a very noir kind of episode. It begins with Jim returning from a weekend trip with a new girlfriend, the recently divorced Karen Mills (Pat Delaney--daughter in law of John Huston, who knew a few things about noir film) and her daughter. When they arrive, Karen goes in the house while Jim picks up her daughter from the back seat and carries her up to her room. He then discovers Karen has disappeared without a trace. Of course he calls Dennis and when the police arrive, they see no sign of Karen, but find her next door neighbor murdered in the bushes. So of course that makes Jim an immediate suspect.

This is a great little mystery and the first half of the story is shown by Rocky asking Jim to go over the story once again. Rocky suggests that by Jim telling him the story he might remember a little detail that he didn't think was important at the time, but now might lead to a clue as to what happened. It's a really well written scene and completes the transition of the Rocky character from a grifter to a concerned parent. It also goes a long way to show that Rocky isn't just some clueless old man either. As he says "You come to me because I'm your father. And I'm smarter than you!" This is one of those times where we see where Jim got his smarts.

This episode also features an appearance by hottie Lara Parker, who played Angelique in the "Dark Shadows" series and went on to play Laura Banner, Bruce's wife in the "Incredible Hulk" series a few years later. She looks terrific here.

This episode also marks the first mention of the Minette crime family, a name that would keep popping up on the Rockford Files almost whenever they needed a mob family. This time, its Vincent Minette who Rockford helps apprehend.

Lt. Diehl (Tom Atkins) makes his first appearance on the series and Dennis is quietly demoted from a police lieutenant that he was on the earlier season one episodes to a police Sargent. I guess they figured it would be better to have Dennis less powerful and add some conflict between Jim and the police. Frankly, they were right, though I prefer the later Lt. Chapman to Lt. Diehl.

Not a lot of the typical "Rockford" humor in this episode, but a good mystery with a lot of heart. The episode begins with scenes of a dead woman bather washed up on the shore, a forlorn Jim strolling along the beach lost in reverie and a night ride home that ends in murder and mystery. Yep,this is an atmospheric little number with a super twist at the end. Jim does well to unravel what is, a priori, an inexplicable case of a woman going missing 20 seconds after she enters her home. To be sure, the eventual explanation is a little far-fetched. Why, for example, go to the lengths of substituting a woman midway thru a car journey when simply rubbing her AND her companions out would've been as easy and left less of a trail. However, these niggles aside, it's a memorable TRF episode full of invention, even if YET AGAIN Jim gets put in the frame by an ever suspicious Police Dept. I mean to say, have the ungrateful so-and-so's ever sat down and counted just how many of THEIR files have been solved by dear ol' Jimbo? I just recently discovered this fantastic series and I just can't seem to get enough of Garner's laid back PI. The shows continually display excellent level of writing and suspenseful episodes.

This episode, Sleight of Hand, is a little different. Forsaking humor in favor of a more serious turn for Rockford as he searches for his missing girlfriend.

The mystery is great and it's unraveling is convincing enough. It's based on a book (can't remember the name) and it could easily have been stretched to a feature length episode. Garner excels here as Rockford gets tough and really means business. This has a "noir" feel to it all the way, the dark lighting and overall mood echo the great dark thrillers of the 40's and 50's.

Really good episode in a Class A series. Easily deserves a 10. 'Sleight of Hand' is my favorite Rockford Files episode of the entire series. This episode shows a side of Jim Rockford that is usually ignored. To wit, Jim is genuinely in love with a beautiful woman and is shown as a father figure to her young daughter. The woman is recently divorced and she and Jim have recently returned from a weekend getaway along with the youngster. Through a strange turn of events, the woman is discovered missing after they return to her home.

Rockford's recounting to his father, Rocky, of the events leading up to the woman's disappearance is reminiscent of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer series from an earlier era. After much brooding and reflection and with Rocky's encouragement, Jim stumbles upon the clue that sends him off investigating the disappearance with his usual steadfastness.

Unfortunately, Jim's girlfriend, Karen, unwittingly witnessed some mafia activity while they stayed at the Buena Vista Inn. The crime bosses responded by killing Karen and substituting another woman into Jim's car. The imposter, ostensibly asleep in the back seat, made her exit immediately upon arrival at the home. A couple of cover up murders ensue and Jim proceeds to their solution while under suspicion of the L.A. police department even as warrants are issued for his arrest.

This episode evokes more emotional reaction than all other Rockford Files episodes combined. James Garner as Jim Rockford is seen at his most vulnerable moment and yet he retains the presence of mind to pursue the case. This is personal for Jim Rockford. In this case, he is not hired to do a job but he is trying to recover his lost love to save her life. Unfortunately, this is not possible but Jim tries hard to sort out his feelings but it is apparent that he will not soon get over his hurt.

Despite the appeal of the main story line, many key questions are raised but never answered in this episode. (1) What becomes of the young daughter of Jim's girlfriend? (2) What did Karen actually see at the hotel that made the mafia kill her? (3) How could Jim drive for hours with an imposter in his back seat without noticing this? (4) The daughter stated that "Mommy didn't come back with us". So why didn't the girl scream or cry when she noticed that her mother was absent for the hours long car ride? Regardless of these ambiguities, 'Sleight of Hand" is the Rockford Files episode which comes closest to being a tear jerker. The suspense is compelling and the story is told in a sensitive and vulnerable style which makes us feel Rockford's pain. A variation of the same plot line was used in a Simon & Simon episode (Thin Air) that originally aired in Dec 1982.

The gender of the victim was changed, the surviving spouse is one of Rick's "old flames". It's also interesting to note that Gerald McRaney had a role in this Rockford file episode.

Both episodes were based on a story by Howard Browne - as noted in the list of 'writing credits'.

Anthony James plays one of his classic TV bad guy roles.

The continuation of the concept between the Rockford Files to Magnum PI to Simon & Simon quite interesting. The mystery and its solution was a great noir conceit. I do have some questions though, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

Who killed the neighbor and why? Who killed the replacement girl and why?

And some minor quibbles, they should have shown the stopoff at the hotel for the switch. Not that they should have shown the switch, but they should have shown Jim and the girl going in the hotel, Jim going to the bathroom, coming out and being told by the bartender that his girlfriend went to the car without him.

then, Jim getting back in the car and seeing the sleeping woman, and little girl in his back seat.

This would have given the viewer a sporting chance at figuring out the solution.

I wish I taped it though, I'd like to see it again. I own this movie. I am actually from the same town as the brother directors. But that doesn't make the film any better. But, if one night you wanna watch something not serious, and don't have and high expectations, I strongly recommend Demon Summer. Yes, the lines are cheesy and the plot is corny. But it contains key elements of a horror/comedy. I just wanna see some small-town kids make a movie full of effects. And I say "bravo" to the Campell brothers. They are now making more movies and continuing a long dream. Demon Summer was one of the movies that are gonna help them start a great career with a great future. Speed Freak Productions and Compound Pictures described in one word: POTENTIAL While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide. One of the most significant quotes from the entire film is pronounced halfway through by the protagonist, the mafia middle-man Titta Di Girolamo, a physically non-descript, middle-aged man originally from Salerno in Southern Italy. When we're introduced to him at the start of the film, he's been living a non-life in an elegant but sterile hotel in the Italian-speaking Canton of Switzerland for the last ten years, conducting a business we are only gradually introduced to. While this pivotal yet apparently unremarkable scene takes place employees of the the Swiss bank who normally count Di Girolamo's cash tell him that 10,000 dollars are missing from his usual suitcase full of tightly stacked banknotes. At the news, he quietly but icily threatens his coaxing bank manager of wanting to close down his account. Meanwhile he tells us, the spectators, that when you bluff, you have to bluff right through to the end without fear of being caught out or appearing ridiculous. He says: you can't bluff for a while and then halfway through, tell the truth. Having eventually done this - bluffed only halfway through and told the truth, and having accepted the consequences of life and ultimately, love - is exactly the reason behind the beginning of Titta Di Girolamo's troubles.

This initially unsympathetic character, a scowling, taciturn, curt man on the verge of 50, a man who won't even reply in kind to chambermaids and waitresses who say hello and goodbye, becomes at one point someone the spectator cares deeply about. At one point in his non-life, Titta decides to feel concern about appearing "ridiculous". The first half of the film may be described as "slow" by some. It does indeed reveal Di Girolamo's days and nights in that hotel at an oddly disjoined, deliberate pace, revealing seemingly mundane and irrelevant details. However, scenes that may have seemed unnecessary reveal just how essential they are as this masterfully constructed and innovative film unfolds before your eyes. The existence of Titta Di Girolamo - the man with no imagination, identity or life, the unsympathetic character you unexpectedly end up loving and feeling for when you least thought you would - is also conveyed with elegantly edited sequences and very interesting use of music (one theme by the Scottish band Boards of Canada especially stood out).

Never was the contrast between the way Hollywood and Italy treat mobsters more at odds than since the release of films such as Le Conseguenze dell'Amore or L'Imbalsamatore. Another interesting element was the way in which the film made use of the protagonist's insomnia. Not unlike The Machinist (and in a far more explicit way, the Al Pacino film Insomnia), Le Conseguenze dell'Amore uses this condition to symbolise a deeper emotional malaise that's been rammed so deep into the obscurity of the unconscious, it's almost impossible to pin-point its cause (if indeed there is one).

The young and sympathetic hotel waitress Sofia (played by Olivia Magnani, grand-daughter of the legendary Anna) and the memory of Titta's best friend, a man whom he hasn't seen in 20 years, unexpectedly provide a tiny window onto life that Titta eventually (though tentatively at first) accepts to look through again. Though it's never explicitly spelt out, the spectator KNOWS that to a man like Titta, accepting The Consequences of Love will have unimaginable consequences. A film without a single scene of sex or violence, a film that unfolds in its own time and concedes nothing to the spectator's expectations, Le Conseguenze dell'Amore is a fine representative of that small, quiet, discreet Renaissance that has been taking place in Italian cinema since the decline of Cinecittà during the second half of the 70s. The world is waiting for Italy to produce more Il Postino-like fare, more La Vita è Bella-style films... neglecting to explore fine creations like Le Conseguenze dell'Amore, L'Imbalsamatore and others. Your loss, world. I saw Le Conseguenze Dell'Amore on the 2005 Rotterdam Filmfestival, It was the first of ten films I saw there.

Le Conseguenze has left the most powerful impression of the ten films. From the first shot, you know the movie is going to be something special. The beautiful cinematography left me in awe of what can be done with a camera. The music is also on par with the visuals, complementing the colorful and stylish architecture-like images.

Toni Servillo plays the main character in the film, Titta. He's a tax expert gone wrong who lives in a hotel. Every week, he brings a suitcase with money to a bank and the story plays around this.

He is always very controlled and shows almost no emotion to anyone; Looks calculated and well-dressed. He has a habit of ignoring people who are of no significance to him. For example Sofia (played very nicely by Olivia Magnani), who works as a barmaid in the hotel where he lives. Although she's been working in the hotel for two years, he never greets her, even if she does greet him. On one day she confronts him with this and the next day he sits at the bar, instead of his usual spot at a window. From here the story really begins, and will unfold in a strong tale of love, sacrifice and the mafia.

I won't spoil the rest of the film. See this film if you love stylish movies like ones from David Lynch, The Godfather, etc. Don't see this if you're an action-buff. There are movies that are just a different version of another one, not remakes, but just similar to others, it is not. Although it talks about Mafia it is watched in another way and often it seems just a secondary theme. I went to watch that movie for case (because the otherone's theatre was full) and I was satisfied at the end. It surprised me, because of its black irony or cynicism and there are more and more interesting items to analyze. It doesn't follow the classical ways of movies, it is just different and I think not to be the only one to like that. I am very happy also because it is Italian, and I was afraid that Italian directors and producers were not enough brave to change themes. In this movie you can watch new Italian style as well, but is not blocked into clichés. I hope to be understandable enough, I know it is difficult, I hope also that this movie can be exported out of our frontiers, it is a good product to export. I want to point out also the music, very good soundtrack, the movie needs it because of its long silent pause and they are covered perfectly by that music. Many compliments to the director, and thank you, cinema needs these movies. The consequences of love: There is really something special about this film but it's very hard to put your finger on. It is a love story of sorts but not really one i've seen before. It has several love themes running throughout the film. One mans love for a younger woman, a younger mans love for his older brother, the mafias love of money at all costs these are just some that intertwine in a story that has you guessing or rather not knowing where and how it will end. The cast are all superb from Sophia the teasing barmaid to the straight faced-ness of titta the films central character. With simple yet affective camera work bounced off an ever-changing soundtrack that mixes low-fi trip hop with lush orchestral pieces. The style of the film changes beautifully using several styles without ever getting cluttered. Love has never looked so diverse and powerful as the tales we are told rumble towards various conclusions. The director has married old and new into a rich Italian classic. I saw this movie in the Rotterdam Film Festival and I was pleasantly surprised. The photography is just so stylish and beautiful, and the story it's just not your average mafia movie, actually that storyline is pretty much in the background. It's more the personal journey of a middle age man that is trapped in an existence he was forced to live. The actor, Toni Servillo, is superb, he excels this "quiet man". The girl, Olivia Magnani, is the grand-daughter of Italian actress Anna Magnani and lives up to the family surname.

If you're expecting your typical Italian movie where everybody is screaming to each other in big families, this is NOT your movie. There are not you're average clichés and it's definitively worth seeing this one. Although I totally agree with the previous comment regarding the marvellous acting of Toni Servillo as Titta Di Girolamo, I would also like to add the beautiful filming and montage which turns this movie virtually into a painting. The young director Paolo Sorrentino had the courage to experiment with different types of camera techniques which reminded me of Darren Aronofsky' Requiem for a Dream. They both used the same MTV-style filming combined with modern (alternative/techno) music, making the film – Le Consequenze dell'Amore - stand apart from the other crime/mafia movies in its genre. Even though the movie may start of very slow-paced almost "sec" compared to the faster Hollywood productions it should be enjoyed cause of its serenity, marvellous character portray and splendid ending. Definitely a must see for people who enjoy the European/Italian cinema. PS Toni keep on acting like this we need an encore. This is a very visual film. By that I mean that the dialog is sparse, almost to the point of being a silent movie for some very long takes, beginning with the opening shot.

The silences, however, are broken by a stunning sound track that ranges from discordant, staccato beats to a haunting mix of violins, and interspersed with vocals that sound like dreams. It's a feast for the ears as much as for the eyes, one of the early visuals being a man walking along a street, so preoccupied with his interest in a shapely woman, that he walks into a lamppost: one of the consequences of love and a metaphor for what lies in store...

A long time ago, another movie – Love Story (1970) -- said that love is never having to say you're sorry. This narrative turns that idea on its head in a number of ways, beginning with the main character, Titta (Toni Sevillo), a seemingly innocuous long-term resident in a plush hotel somewhere in Switzerland. Everyday, week in, week out, he sits at the same coffee table, enjoying the passing world, his cigarettes, his coffee, his solitude – and he's been doing it for ten years. He sits, he observes, and once a week he engages in three very surprising activities that you'll find out about when you see this little masterpiece...

Love is explored in another way, in a direct counterpoint to Titta's solitude and reserved nature: two older residents of the hotel are still much in love, but the man wants to die in a spectacular manner when his time comes, while his long suffering wife berates him for cheating at cards with the other guests, one of whom is Titta. Now, Titta knows about their squabbles, their love, the man's cheating, his apologies to his wife, and his whining. How? In a surprising and black-comedic manner...one of those surprise activities I mentioned.

But, this is no comedy, in reality, although it does touch upon the idea of the human comedy in a Balzacian sense: the irony of life and what to do with it. That decision had been made for Titta ten years earlier when he left his wife and began to live in the hotel. He keeps in touch occasionally, and it is clear that he still loves his children (now grown up) and the sorrow in his voice speaks volumes. But, there's something more than just sorrow...

Such a life as Titta's would obviously seem to be utterly boring, and it actually is from many perspectives. It is only when we learn what lies beneath his almost death-like countenance, however, that the horror of his situation hits the viewer between the eyes. But not before we know that the female bartender, Sofia (Olivia Magnani), is very interested in Titta and goes out of her way to pique Titta's interest in her.

And that's when things start to unravel for Titta: he eventually succumbs to her femininity and in doing so discovers, once again, the consequences of love. Ironically, in doing so, he finally realizes what he must finally do with his life, and in a most spectacular fashion.

I know that all of the above is somewhat cryptic; but, to say more would spoil the film and story for you. If you like Italian cinema – I love it! – I urge you to see this one. The acting is superb; the sound track chills the spine; the camera work is truly innovative; the direction shows the maturity of a true artist.

I know I'll see this movie again, and again... OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films. Well, where do I start...

As one of the other reviewers said, you know you're in for a real treat when you see the opening shot - minutes and minutes of film time spent on a guy standing on a travelator.

I won't repeat Rubin's excellent summary of the story. What I would like to say, though, is that this film gripped me more than any film I can remember. I sat open-mouthed, and on the edge of my seat all the way through. The camera work, sound track and *fantastic* performances (particularly that of Tony Servillo) draw you to the screen and won't let you look away.

It's Italian, so of course everyone looks fantastic, but it is by no means merely an exercise in cool style. This is a film with lots to say about luck, loss and love.

Go and see it. I was a little worried about actors and acting in Italy then "Le conseguenze dell'amore" and Toni Servillo came. It was a long time that i didn't see a so charismatic actor on screen. Paolo Sorrentino has written a wonderful story about loneliness and Tony has built one of the most unforgettable characters seen in movies in recent years. The movie is not completely perfect but 'Titta Di Girolamo' will stay with you for a long time after the vision of the movie. Toni please keep on acting in movies, you're for sure the coolest actor around today (and not just in Italy, his performance deserves international acclamation). I rate this movie 9/10. I saw this the week it opened four years ago and I really did not know what to expect being unfamiliar with Sorrentino's work at the time. He has created a very intriguing and ultimately moving account of an odd character, one for whom the phrase 'life is for living' no longer applies. It outwitted me at every turn and I was constantly surprised by the story. I enjoyed the pacing very much and the way I was gradually given the pieces to work out what was happening. Tony Servillo is superb, as is Magnani. It opens with a brilliantly stylish wide shot and concludes with a very moving image that takes the movie into sublime territory. I thought long afterwards about the main character and the position he was in and his final fate and I didn't shake it for weeks. I recently bought the film and that final scene where he thinks about his friend gets me every time. I still have yet to talk to anyone who has seen this. It's a shame that it did not reach a wider audience as if this is the direction of Italian cinema it can only be a good thing. Stylish, thought provoking, cool and gripping – just four aspects of a film that will long remain in the thoughts of this viewer.

Slow-paced it may be at the beginning but the director beguiles with beautiful camera work, sophisticated compositions and elegant editing. The unfolding of the story, not so much the narrative line but the revelation of the characters' inner selves, is masterful.

Olivia Magnani, who plays Sophia, the hotel receptionist, who finally breaks down the icy reserve of former consiglierie Titta di Girolami (Tony Servillo) is coolly beautiful and reveals hidden depths and personal honesty in her brief but profound relationship with Girolami.

The disgraced Mafia middle-man, forced to live out an empty life, tormented by insomnia, in a Swiss hotel, becomes caught up in the similarly empty lives of the refined older couple who formerly owned the hotel but are now forced to live there as residents after the husband gambled away their resources years earlier. The husband is constantly dreaming about recovering his lost wealth and making a grand statement to the world. His wife realises this is but a pipe dream. This nicely counterpoints the resignation of Girolami who sees no way out and does not seek one.

The fleeting love affair between Girolami and Sophia has consequences that no one could have foreseen. It enables him to escape his prison without bars but to pay a huge price that he willingly accepts and in doing so provides redemption for the older couple. I've seen this film so many times, It's that good. Maybe because I can relate to Tittas way of life is the reason why. Not everyone would find it to their taste. Also, my Italien is improving after each viewing. Am I a sad case? Thankyou Mr Sorrentino. I look forward to your next film. Although I did not see the film at a cinema, I have the DVD and would encourage anyone to buy it. The Special feature extras alone is worth the price. The amount of time a director spends on the making of a film is very seldom appreciated, the extras on the DVD gives an excellent insight to the making of a film. As for the story of the film, I'm bias.I happen to rave about it to all my friends, but as I said before, I relate very much to the main character who is a loner in a situation not of his own choosing. The Mafia in Sicily use Titta to launder their money in a Swiss bank. He owes them for costing them Millions of dollars years ago in stock market deal that went wrong.Love kills. Maybe my rating should have been a 9, but the film absolutely stunned me when viewing it first time and my latest viewing confirmed my initial belief. Stylish yes, every scene has crafted scoped views, terrific angles with a perfect sound side accompanying them.

Put on top great acting from especially Toni Servillo, garner it with one of the most beautiful and charming women in Olivia Magnani, and a fine plot and you will end up seeing this small masterpiece over and over.

Paulo Sorrentinos next movie "L'Amico De Famiglia", which is in competition in this years Cannes Festival, will be eagerly awaited. A true masterpiece by Sorrentino and Tony Servillo demonstrates his exceptional acting ability as the cool, enigmatic Titta.

Yet another example of a must see movie that the everyday person will not receive access, as the high street cinema chains are full of Hollywood funded nonsense. Fortunately I reside in the metropolis and amongst the privileged few who enjoy the choice the art-house cinema provides. I champion the day when cinema investment will be channelled into bespoke film screenings allowing choice for the masses and away from assembling penny sweet counters!

Film of the year for me so far and yes I've seen a few.... Le conseguenze dell'amore (2004)is a beautifully made film that takes small carefully positioned steps towards its ending that need to be savoured in order to be enjoyed. From the contrasting landscapes, to the tightly enclosed world that the hero inhabits, we are taken by the Director and controlled from the very moment we enter the hotel. We, like the hero, will never escape from the suffocating intensity and paradoxical monotony of his criminally driven, Mafia world. That the film resists Mafia stereotypes whilst revelling in them makes it all the more successful. The concrete grave, the inevitable brutal executions and overwhelming maleness are laid bare and exposed for what they are. Just brutality and business, and no more. Life is about being part of the corporate machine that is organised crime and not about love or living for self, family or others. Our hero is indeed a hero in that he gives up his life for the sake of the touch of the beautiful barmaid, the resolution of the misery suffered by his only neighbours in the hotel and in order to escape his decorative prison. The consequences of love are indeed beautiful and brutal at the same time. See it!! The opening shot of the Consequences of Love perfectly sets up this intriguing and absorbing film. A travellator slowly carries a solitary out of focus figure towards the camera, trailing a huge suitcase behind him. Like the central character in the film, we know nothing of him and our initial interpretation of him, his profession, the contents of the suitcase could be way off the mark.

Consequences of Love is that kind of film. From the title you might expect a Bergmanesq dissection of a relationship. What we have instead is a lead character, Titta, living life in emotional exile, seemingly choosing to cut himself off from those around him. If the film can be classified in any way, I would call it a mystery, as we are engaged in working out who Titta is and what he is about. What we know from the start is he is 50'ish, cool, composed and expensively attired. He has lived for the last eight years in a plush looking Swiss hotel, always paying his room fee on time but seldom showing any interest in the staff or other guests.

His only real companions are a couple who he plays occasional card games with. The couple, it transpires, used to own the hotel but have now gambled everything away and have only the room they live in left. Their love of money, antiques and each other was their undoing and Titta seems to identify with their plight. He once had it all, but now is now living as a virtual prisoner in the hotel. His brother, a long haired surf instructor, drops in to see him occasionally, but he sees his visits as more of an intrusion than a pleasure. They talk about the person Titta considers to be his best friend, even though he hasn't seen him for 25 years. This long lost friend is now a telephone engineer, repairing the communication network that brings so many together. Meanwhile Tittas phone calls to his wife and children end quickly when they refuse to speak to him.

Midway through the film Titta makes an uncharacteristic move and begins to open up to a young barmaid from the hotel. With his judgement clouded by emotion he sets himself on a course of actions that will ultimately seal his fate for good.

The slow unfolding of Tittas fall from grace is and beautifully scripted, shot and scored. The thumping techno soundtrack does much to build up the tension as more and more secrets are revealed, the final half hour turning into a taught thriller as Titta lets his mask slip and must once again face the consequences of his actions. The ending, with a visual nod to Felini, is dramatic yet ambiguous and leaves the audience to once more question his motives.

Patrick Bliss, 01/06/06 I saw this interesting film back to back with the Chinese/French film "2046" at the recent Dubai Film festival. Both were intelligent works made the same year (2004/2005). Both had the main characters living in a "hotel". In both films, the hotel is more a metaphor of exile than a location. Both dealt with love between a man and a woman. Both had wonderful music and riveting performances. What a coincidence and yet how the two films differ in treatment of the subject! Somewhere at the beginning of the film, a man walking on a pavement turns to look at a woman and in doing so hits a lamp post. The audience erupts into a volcano of laughter innocently. But isn't that brief shot the synopsis of the film, that entertains you for 2 hours? While the film is a wonderful blend of black comedy (e.g., using a stethoscope to listen to neighbor's conversation), the film builds on what Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati had introduced to cinema earlier--stoic faces that leads to comedy quite in contrast to the equally intelligent world of Robin Williams or the heartwarming Danny Kaye. A sudden frenzy of activity transforms an otherwise stoic character while moving money from the hotel to the bank is reminiscent of Tati's works.

But the film is not mere comedy. The anti-automation statement (cash counting and the reaction of the bank staff to the statements relating to it, the dummy that acts as an ineffectual warning to the speeding lady, the reference to "Moulimix" as the fictitious "company" he works for, etc.) are several cues that the director is offering a loaded comedy to the viewer. Laugh, yes, but reflect on it and enjoy further..

The movie's strength lies in is brief, staccato script (by director Paul Sorrentino) that offers comedy that is mixed with philosophy ("Truth is boring," "Dad is dead, but nobody told him," "Bad luck does not exist--it is the invention of the losers and the poor". Then the director goes on to provide you with a fascinating lecture from the main character on insomniacs. You will not sleep through this lecture.

Sorrentino provides entertainment pegged to the subject the Italians know best--the Mafia. It is an existential mafia film.

Since "Truth is boring", the director provides a dessert as part of the fine meal of superb acting (Toni Servillo), good music, clever camera-work (Luca Bigazzi), a beautiful, enigmatic actress (Magnani, grand-daughter of the great Anna) and powerful script. The dessert is for the viewer to figure out whether what preceded in the film was the truth. It would have been boring, if it was, wouldn't it? The movie is a really well made one, which is great and looking and passionately directed. You can tell that every shot is thought over and executed to perfection. For the lovers of cinema this is especially a great watch and they especially should be able to appreciate the beauty of it and the passion for cinema that is being put into it.

It's hard to place this movie under one label. It's not really a drama, it's not really a thriller and it's not really a comedy. Instead its more a movie with its own style, that does things its own way. It doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cinema and features many different elements from many different genres combined.

But just like the movie its main character, the movie gets sort of slow and boring in parts. The artistic style of directing tries to conceal that the story is actually a quite simple one and it's more as if the movie relied solely on its style and overall atmosphere created by the movie. It doesn't make the movie horrible or anything but it just prevents it from being a true absolute must-see. In parts the movie also feels as if it's trying to be too poetic and tries to let the images speak too much for itself. It just feels a bit overdone in parts, though for most part of the movie it still works out beautifully.

It features some great camera-work and some unique storytelling, which makes this an original as well as a great film to watch.

7/10 Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one. I've read that Paolo Sorrintino's inspiration for The Consequences of Love came from simply observing a businessman alone in a Brazilian hotel, and speculating what he might be doing there. The film unfolds to us in a similar way. We view the existence of Titta who has lived alone in a hotel in Switzerland for 8 years. He is secretive and avoids friendship. His life is dominated by order and regularly. Gradually, the truth of his existence is revealed to us until, finally, his world begins to fall apart.

The mystery of Titta is central to The Consequences of Love and it works thanks in large part to the superb performance by Toni Servillo. His character becomes all the more intriguing to us as little details are revealed - that he injects heroin once a week, that he has no imagination. Although some here criticise the dialogue for not being naturalistic, that doesn't matter in my view - this is not that sort of film, and I think the script is great. The camera work is also excellent.

If you have to criticise, the film does lose its way a in the later scenes as the mystery of Titta's existence is revealed to us, and as his world begins to fall apart. However, the tragic final scenes are every bit as good as the earlier build-up. You could tell from the opening shot of the conveyor belt in the bank that this was going to be a great film.

A touch minimalist in feel with a twist of retro this film oozes style -the brilliant camera-work, acting, script and the manner that the secret life of the protagonist unfolds all complement each other in possibly making the best Italian film I've ever seen (up there with La Stanza Del Figlio - albeit different).

Shame on the people sitting behind me who made it obvious that they couldn't see the relevance of the slow but painfully beautiful scenes meticulously crafted by the camera. Don't miss. Conrad Phillips stars in the 1950s action adventure series - William Tell. Set in the fourteenth century during the hostile Austrian occupation of Switzerland, William Tell is a reluctant freedom fighter, battling heroically against the tyranny and oppression of the invading forces. William tell is the Swiss version of Robin Hood. Conrad Phillips plays the protagonist fantastically. It is possible that Pascal Bugnion would have had greater success in the role, but he was unavailable at the time of filming. The classic action show is made up of series of 39. The episodes are in black and white, but this does not detract from the entertainment in any way. Son In Law didn't do so hot in the box office, but that only means the masses were wrong. This movie is one of the few movies that Pauly Shore really excels in, with some of the funniest lines I've ever heard. Although the ending is sub-par, the antics of Shore carries the movie. Along with In the Army!, this ranks as one of Pauly Shore's best movies, if there is such a thing. While the whole West Coast-meets- Midwest-culture-clash isn't anything new, this film proves to make the story a little more entertaining with the wild and unpredictable antics of a then fresh Shore. While the change in values probably would have gone in the other direction, the whole concept was rather entertaining. Not only was Shore's interaction with the family hilarious, it also had Carla Gugino and Tiffani- Amber Theissen (she'll always have the Amber in my book) in two ravishing and early roles. One of those films I have no problem watching when it is on TV. One of our all time family favorites. When we need a laugh...we just put this one in and laugh all way thru like it is the first time we've seen it. This film has good, clean family humor. Pauly Shore is brilliant! With no plans for the thanksgiving holiday, Crawl (Shore) is invited to spend the holiday with a conservative coed, Becca. Crawl, being a big city boy, must adjust to the farm life if he is to fall in love with Becca. But, Crawl isn't the only one who is learning new things. Crawl teaches Becca and her parents how to be more open about their feelings and accepting others. This is fun for viewers of all ages. I love it! I love Pauly Shore. It seems some people don't agree. It's humor, and he's not like everyone else. The movie is great. I love the story line and most of the people in the movie. It's funny from the first time she meets him at school. I like the fact that she chooses him over the guy back home. I like that Tiffani Theissan isn't a bad girl in the end. All the secrets are let out. Only the people you want to see are left in the end. (except for those of you who don't like Pauly Shore.) Even if you don't like him, there are funny parts, and her family tortures him through most of the movie. She's country girl gone wild and needs to be heard. She finally makes it. It's got just the right amount of love and romance. I give it an 8 out of 10. I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this movie, so I was surprised to find myself thoroughly enjoying it. A couple of scenes had me laughing almost uncontrollably. The characters were engaging (no pun intended); however, the story is predictable. The fun of it comes from watching Crawl (Shore's character), a ditzy-yet-wise California dude a country college girl brings home for Thanksgiving, trying in his awkward (yet endearing) way to fit in to their lifestyle. I was also surprised that in all this there was a message. If you have a chance, see this movie! Despite myself, I really kinda like this movie. Pauley Shore is invariably laugh-out-loud funny, and here is no exception. He is just excellent at playing the weirdo with a heart of gold.

His performance in this, although nothing out of the ordinary for him, is so good, it seems to lift other cast members' performances. Perhaps this is because he's the kind of guy it's easy to bounce off of.

The clichés about country life in this movie are hilarious and the way Shore's "city boy", Crawl is so at odds with the way of life, is funny too, but it's not only he who's a fish out of water; comedy also comes from the fact, that to any "ordinary" person or people, Crawl is a freakish nightmare of a person. That's why this movie works in such a great way: we love Crawl, he's a breath of fresh air, but we can also sympathise with the Warners. He is one hell of a culture shock.

Although this movie is classic Pauley Shore, so there's no great brain power needed to enjoy the movie, enjoy it you do, and there's even a "never judge a book by it's cover" type moral here somewhere. Not bad, not bad at all. This is the only Pauly Shore movie you should ever see. O.K., it's the only one I've ever seen, and I think I've made good choices. I normally find Shore's shtick kind of tired, but he is very funny in this movie. Actually, the script is pretty funny, and Shore doesn't overwhelm the other actors with his ... what do you call it? Tomfoolery? Anyway, this is a funny, if ultimately forgettable film. --Frink-3 If you like Pauly Shore, you'll love Son in Law. If you hate Pauly Shore, then, well...I liked it! I've sat through several Pauly Shore movies, but this is the only one that I've liked. Of course, it helps that he is far less irritating than usual, perhaps even a little likeable. The rest of the cast does a fine job, especially underrated Carla Gugino. The film itself is basically a harmless and silly comedy, and although few of the jokes are especially funny, the film is quite entertaining overall. This was such a funny movie, which was soon forgotten about, probably because there are so many teen and young adult comedies, such as this. The movie is not quit as predictable as one would think. Crawl is an unattractive, but fun and caring and most importantly a very devoted friend. Still, an unlikely match for Rebecca, who has an attractive and seemingly kind boyfriend back home. When he helps feel more at ease at school, by showing her around the neighborhood and encouraging her to socialize more, they become buddies, but it is completely platonic. When she realizes her boyfriend might propose, she does not feel ready, he seems to like her boyfriend, but she seems to be enjoying her free laid back party life at college is not yet ready to live a life of marriage and responsibility. You kind of learn what a good friend Crawl is when he tells her he will help get her out of getting married. When her boyfriend proposes to her, in front of the whole family, she kicks Crawl and puts him on the spot. He tells the whole family that he proposes to her, and gives her his diamond ring, which it tunrs out was his the whole time (he must have come from money or something. Well they never really show a close up of the ring). The message of the movie seemed to be not to judge people by their looks and not to judge people before you get to know him. Rebecca's boyfriend, who her parents love, turned mean when we find out he druged his new girlfriend after Rebecca,(Amber Thesan) and Crawl, so that Rebecca would have broken up with Crawl, thinking they were a couple. Although they were not, Rebecca was mad at him, which when you think about it, was kind of unfair, since they were not a couple, but I think they were starting to like one another. And I think she thought there was more. The movie never showed them actually become a couple, they left it open for the viewers to decide. They never even actually kissed at any point, although there was one part where they almost did. That was one thing most viewers seemed to misunderstand. Many people saw it and said, that he would be a nightmare for fathers to see their daughters bring home or a shock, but they were just friends the whole time, even towards the end. And she did not introduce him as her boyfriend; still they never told her parents they were not engaged. Rebecca almost did. Even if he would never become her boyfriend, they could have still been friends. In the 90s for some reason femanin men were in, and there was this big stereo type that woman liked femanin men (not that there is anything wrong with that), think it came from the fact that women like the kind sensitive type, which Crawl proved to be, through his friendship with Rebecca. but when I saw the movie, I must admit, if I went for looks, I thought I would have gone for the first boyfriend. Still it was a creative movie, that tried to teach a lesson on friendship and judging others. when i first saw that this movie was going to be playing on TV, i only new of pauly shore as this joke of a comedian who wore really weird outfits back in the day. i still decided to watch it and i was impressed. shore brings a fresh breath of air to the screen. in this movie, he plays crawl a college adviser that probably needs his own adviser as well. carla gugino, in an underrated role, plays becca, a midwestern "farm girl" with a simple family and a movie-cliché boyfriend travis. when she heads off to ucla, she meets crawl and he quickly turns her into a bubbly, blonde Californian girl. she decides to bring crawl home for the thanksgiving break. when travis decides to propose, becca needs a distraction. crawl then decides to make everyone believe that him and becca are engaged already. this leads to crawl spicing up the romance between becca's parents, befriending her brother, and even getting the dancers at the local bar to get a little loose. i'm not going to reveal the end, but i liked it. anyway, don't rent it if you want a poignant performance; rent it if you want to laugh your butt of and enjoy an often-missed part of 90's humor. I think this is Pauly Shore's best stuff, he played the part perfect. I really enjoyed this movie, Patrick Renna is really funny as Zack the annoying little brother. Son In Law is a good comedy worth your time, but the only thing I wish Tiffany Thiessen was the farm chick instead of the one they had. I was cast as the Surfer Dude in the beach scenes. Almost got cast as the muscle guy, since the real muscle guy was really really late that day. Pauly had my brother and I (the skateboarder in front of the tattoo place) do some vj stuff in between takes live from Venice since he was still doing his MTV thing. This movie is really good as well. Would it have made my top 100 if I wasn't in it........? This Movie was Great and Funny. Pauly is Funny. The best Looking Girl is all the way Tiffani, she is totally hot in this film and she proves she can act with this film. This Movie is a must See Comedy.... and its not all about Tiffani, its a great Movie in general but Tiffani adds the zest to this Film, cause she does her scenes very well and she is all the way sexy........ This movie is extremely funny and it also contains the best looking girl, this young man has ever seen. Tiffani-Amber Thiessan is a great actress and she has the looks that stop traffic. Tiffani completes this movie, which contains funny scenes put on by Shore. The cast was well picked. Pauly Shore is hilarious and does a good job of bringing the plot of the movie together. However, Tiffani Amber Thiessan is who really makes this movie special. Her talented acting combined with her great looks makes this movie a definite see. This is like something I have NEVER seen before. It had me cracking up the whole time I don't think there was one scene that I didn't laugh through. It is about a girl from the country in South who goes off to a big town for college. At the school she befriends the RA across the hall. When she realizes that he has no family to go to for Thanksgiving she invites him to come home with her. Rabecca and her family and her serious boyfriend all go out to dinner one night and Becca realizes what her boyfriend is about to do...Propose. She urges Cral to do something so he stands up and shouts something like... Sorry mate but you are too late I already asked Becca to marry me a couple of weeks ago back at the school and she said yes. That all turns into Chaos. Please watch this classic it is totally worth it... I swear. By 1952 Hollywood decided to remake the Al Jolson first-talking classic.

This time the Cantor's son was played by Danny Thomas. Coming home from the army, it is expected that he follow in the footsteps of his father and other male relatives by becoming a cantor. However, young Mr. Golding has quite a zest for show business.

At this time, he meets Peggy Lee, an aspiring singer. She acts very well and her rendition of her favorite song, Lover, is remarkable. The film writers were smart not to plug the obvious Jewish guy and non-Jewish girlfriend relationship. If anything, this is glossed over. In his anger, for betraying his pledge to become a cantor, his father makes the traditional Jewish sign indicative of a loss in the family. This would not be done under circumstances of breaking a pledge, it would be done if among the orthodox, an inter-faith marriage would take place.

Thomas does a really good job of playing the cantor's son. His singing is up to par as the film ends on a positive note.

Am surprised that technical advisers did not realize that women do not carry pocketbooks into synagogue on the sabbath or at all during that period. To be frank, this is probably the best version in my book as a sound movie version of the Jazz Singer. The 1927 version is really a silent movie despite its build-up as the first talkie.

Danny Thomas is a great comedian, and he sings very well. He does the Jewish stuff with feeling. Peggy Lee is great and any film that has her is always entertaining. Allan Joslyn is not too entertaining and we could have done without him. One question: since when do Cantors live in such luxurious houses??? The Jazz Singer is one of a number of films made in the late 1940's and 1950 about the Jewish experience in the United States. Other than Crossfire(1947) and Gentleman's Agreement(1947) which dealt with anti-semitism they usually had a musical-theatre background. These films included The Jolson Story(1946), Jolson Sings Again(1949), The Eddy Duchin Story(1951), The Eddie Cantor Story(1953),The Benny Goodman Story(1956) and Margorie Morningstar(1958). The leading actors in these "Jewish" films were always played by non-Jews. For example Larry Parks a non-Jew played Al Jolson and Gene Kelly played Noel Airman in Marjorie Morningstar. This casting was probably done to make the Jewish theme palpable to a mainly non-Jewish audience. The Jazz Singer(1952) is no different. Danny Thomas was a devout Catholic and Peggy Lee was certainly not Jewish although she plays a non-practicing Jewess in the film. The clue to her background is when she attends the Golding's family meal before entering she says "I haven't been to a sader (passover service) since I left home".

The film is about a cantor's son who has just left the service after seeing action in Korea. His dilemma is whether to become a cantor, a family tradition or to be a singer in musical theatre. His choice of theatre leads to an inevitable conflict with his father.

However, there is much more to this film than this. This film was made after the Rosenberg trial during the McCarthy whitchhunts and the Hollywood blacklist. Therefore in this film the Jews are shown as good loyal citizens and

are quintessentialy American. The synagogue choir would rather play baseball than practice. The cantors friends also talk about baseball in fact one of them is a Major League umpire. The synagogue itself dates back to 1790 and George Washington is said to have visited. Therefore Jews are presented as part and parcel of American society. Nobody in this film has a Eastern European accent. Peggy Lee appeared in very few feature films. In this film you get to see her sing "Lover" and "Just One of Those Things" wonderful. Danny Thomas is quite credible and he acts and sings the part very well. The comedic routines could have been left out. Yes, the film is schmaltzy and sentimental but it is well worth seeing. I enjoyed it very much. Miles O'Keeffe once again assumes the role of the mighty Ator in this the first sequel to the original film.

What can I say? - This pretty much represents B-Movie Nirvana!

The plot is ludicrous, the script is terrible, the acting is hammy throughout, the special effects....well let's not even go there! - all in all this movie is a veritable delight!

Highlights of the film include Ator and Thong (his mute companion, not his undergarments) being attacked by invisible assailants in a cave (certainly saved on the fx budget there!), Ator battling what has to be the most unconvincing giant snake ever committed to celluloid, and of course, the infamous hangliding scene!

There's one question I have though......at the end of the movie we see a huge atomic explosion when Ator supposedly destroys the Geometric Nucleus (as the narrator tells us)......how in the hell did Ator destroy it and manage get out alive?! Did he fashion some form of primitive timer/detonator or something?

Oh well, such an illogical ending really only adds to the movies overall charm - they just don't make them like this anymore! When the Italians and Miles O'keeffe work together nothing can go wrong! As ever, Miles is great as the almost as great Ator; the most lovable barbarian of all times. Totally lives up to the first movie. Expectacular THE ATOR's second part!! Directed rapidly by JOE D'AMATO, specialist in all kinds of subkinds(subgenres) of exploitation, and interpreted again by MILES O'KEEFFE. the budget of the movie debio to be derisory or minimal. In spite of not being a better movie of his antecesora not mas entertained, ATOR 2 either, it has something, something that makes it enterteining. His introduction you prop it explains ATOR's origin to us with images of the first part. The script is incredible, is like any comic-book of the brilliant ROY THOMAS. has so fantastic elements inside dle world of the SWORD and such FANTASY as invisible men, black gentlemen, cannibals - monkeys ... the role of the villain this one interpreted brilliant. The final this struggle very well. lacking mas violence and blood, but this one well. Never it becomes boring. It has everything what there was lacking ATOR 1. Be charmed with to my me!! 4/5 This film must have been quietly released on some other side of the world, perhaps even in English. Hopefully nobody understood a word, not there's anything to understand in this movie anyways! Haahaa! Call me a nut, but I think this is one of the best movies ever. Why would I come to that conclusion?? Because it's my national pasttime to sabotage horrible films and this one begs for it every other minute! Once I became a fan of Myster Science Theater 3000, I had no doubt in my mind they'd find it somewhere and use it. Sure enough! The version they acquired was entitled "Cave Dwellers" using some strange intro footage not even from the film itself (apparently, they were ashamed to use footage from their OWN film!). I can't say I recommend buying this film. Rather, I highly recommend getting the MST3K version. Sure to find it most anywhere MST3K DVD's are sold, don't miss out! This is the first American film I have seen at this year and I think it will be the greatest one because of the feeling . As a teenage singer in America,Aaron is not as pop as before,most Americans I met said his song is fake and that he even didn't know how to rap.But attention,everyone,he is a kid,how many people can understand him.Being a pop fan is difficult,and being a pop star is more difficult.I think this time Aaron(JD) has shows something real to us.And I think people should learn to understand each other. At another hand,I like the music in the film very much.I remember the first song appeared in the film is "Saturday Night" and it also include some Aaron's real live show,And the second one is "One Better",so I think if you enjoy this film,maybe you'll be a pop fan,too. At last,I hope you will have a great time^^ A voice from a Chinese boy. A £3.50 DVD can be a gamble and this was one that sort of paid off.

A decent Saturday Night type movie that entertains if you gloss over the obvious plot flaws. Special effects are a bit few and far between with some repetition (and why does London always look as if it's in the 60's ?)

If it had the budget of, say, Armageddon then I'm sure it would have performed better at the Box Office as the story is quite a good one.

Overall, Tycus is consigned to B movie history but if you see it for £3.50 then it's worth buying. For a movie shot in 18 days and a budget less than 2 million, this little movie that could deserves a 'best we could' award. Interesting premise (aside from the usual meteor stuff) with solid perfs by a cast of familiar faces. 2 thumbs up. Advice to the other reviewer: Don't be afraid to say you liked something. Fans of apocalyptic movies will savor this well-made low-budget thriller that is essentially a remake of the 1951 George Pal classic "When Worlds Collide." A comet is headed for a near-collision with earth, and when his fellow scientists disregard his warnings of doom, eccentric scientist Peter Crawford (Dennis Hopper) gathers a group of private investors to secretly construct an underground sanctuary.

The story unfolds through the eyes of muscle-bound Gulf-war veteran Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati)who inadvertently discovers Crawford's hidden sanctuary and then decides that Crawford is wrong for keeping his project hidden from the rest of humanity. As the comet approaches, the subject of who should live and who should die makes for interesting drama.

While the special effects are not in the same league, I enjoyed the story more than I did Spielberg's War of the Worlds, because I feel this screenplay is better. Some suspension of scientific reality is required, but it's worthwhile for the development of a good story. I highly recommend this film to fans of the genre. "Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Island!" is a hilarious show that is on Saturday mornings on WB. It stars Coconut Fred and all of his friends on the island, and every episode is a very funny misadventure of theirs. Most of the time, it is because of Coconut Fred's trouble making antics which makes it funny, and other stuff going on on the island at the same time. The humor is great and nobody on the island is very bright at all, which adds it being as amusing as it is. I don't think this could be funnier. The voice talents of the characters are magnificently superior and are exaggerated, which adds to the show's hilarity. If this is ever on DVD, I'm getting it A.S.A.P!

Strongly recommended for a good laugh. Fred was such a great show.It was simple but somehow very addicting.I can still remember the days when I'd watch this on Kids WB Saturdays ,but then Kids WB did the unforgivable.Kids WB became like that older relative that tries to act "hip" and "funky fresh".*shudder*They became like that relative who tries to act all cool ,but the attempt is a cheesy disaster.They pulled Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Inland and all the other good shows to put on some of the most pointless shows I've ever seen In my life(Johnny Test).The only thing that keeps me watching KWB anymore is the occasional bits of the old shows and the anime on 4kids.It was such a huge mistake to pull this show off of the schedule.This brings me back to my first point... BRING IT BACK!!! In a sport that prizes quirkiness and treasures it's characters, one of the greatest of them from the 1930s was pitcher Dizzy Dean. He was so colorful a personality he was probably elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the strength of that as opposed to his pitching statistics. After all part of the Dean story is that early end to his career.

In the Pride of St. Louis Dan Dailey successfully captures the character of Dizzy Dean, at least the Dean I remember. I'm not old enough to remember him pitching, but I do remember him broadcasting Baseball Game of the Week during the 1960s. For that's part of the Dean story as well, being a pioneer broadcaster on radio and later television. Now that announcers are in the Hall of Fame, there's no question Dizzy belongs there.

Jerome Herman Dean was one of a tribe of sharecropper's kids who had very little schooling, but an amazing talent for throwing a baseball at blinding speed. In fact he had a younger brother Paul Dean who was a pretty good pitcher himself.

Richard Crenna plays Paul in this film and it's one of his earliest film roles. Paul Dean in real life was a quiet retiring sort who's career was also cut short by injuries. Because of that Crenna isn't given much to work with. During the Dean heyday, sportswriters tried to pin the nickname of Daffy on Paul, but it never took.

Joanne Dru, taking a break from playing, western gals in gingham dresses and corsets is first rate as the wise, patient, and understanding Patricia Nash who met and married Dizzy while he was playing for Houston in the Texas League.

In the 1937 All Star Game Dizzy started for the National League. Facing Cleveland's Earl Averill, Dean was hit on the foot by a line drive smack at him. Refusing to listen to medical advice, Dean came back to pitch too early. He'd broken a big toe and put too much of a strain on his arm. He was never the same pitcher and his refusal to accept that is part of the story.

Had he had a career of say ten to fifteen years who knows what pitching statistics he might have rolled up. Dean was the next to last pitcher to win 30 games in 1934 and after Denny McLain(who was something of a character himself)did it 1968 it hasn't been done since.

Dean went into broadcasting and while he was not the first former player to go into the broadcast booth, his colorful game descriptions made him an instant hit. He started broadcasting for the other St. Louis team, the Browns, and the Browns were a pretty miserable team with not much to cheer about. Dean became a star attraction there.

Of course part of the Dean story is the trouble he got into because of his lack of education and his colorful way of expressing himself on the air. That's part of the story I won't go into, but in the film it's handled with tact and humility and your eyes might moisten if you tend to the sentimental.

A fine baseball film, a real tribute to an American success story. Dan Dailey gives a sincere and colorful performance as the great Dizzy Dean. His handling of the character is very true to life and captures the flavor of Dean's background and limited education. The film of course centers around Dizzy Deans rise to fame and his sudden trip to the sidelines with an injury he chose to ignore, much to his regret. His wife is splendidly portrayed by Joanna Dru who gives a very down to earth quality to the woman who loved and supported the ballplayer who rose to a "dizzying height" so quickly. The portrayal of Dizzy's later career as a sportscaster is honest and unflinching, reflecting his troubles which stemmed from his poor education and his colorful language both on and off the air. Dizzy was quite a character and Daily has breathed life into his story with admirable skill. If you enjoyed this film, I recommend the comedy "Kid from Left Field" (1953) wherein Daily plays a down and out has-been ballplayer idolized by his young son (Billy Chapin). Daily again fleshes out a ballplayer in a completely satisfying manner. I heartily recommend Pride of St. Louis to baseball fans everywhere. This is a family comedy -- in the very best senses of the term. Uncomplicatedly about faith and family, Ann Blyth, with the help of everybody's favorite Grandpa, Edmund Gwenn, gets divine help in lifting the O'Moyne's above the would-be vengeance schemes of Goldtooth McCarthy (John McIntire). Pure fun. Wonderful family film that should be a staple at Christmas time. It's a mystery to me why it isn't. A true lost film that I first encountered, flickering away on my old 19" black and white RCA, when the Million Dollar Movie was still in vogue on Channel 9 in New York City. This Rudolph Mate directed fantasy should be nestled under everyone's Christmas tree. But it has never been released on home video. Too bad. I believe I saw part of it on AMC a few years ago, before they cut many of their older films from the rotation. TCM should take up the slack and play it at Easter or on Christmas Eve. Any movie with Santa, Aunt Bee, the Hostess Cupcake Lady, and an actor with the first name King, can't be bad. Ann Blyth as "Sally" is a bundle of energy. During her school years, she rushes over to the chapel to pray for St. Ann to help and give guidance to her mixed-up and financially strapped family. It works. So, after she graduates, she places a statue of St. Ann in her own bedroom. At one point the entire O'Moyne residence is moved to another address. I think this was done to put an end to a neighbor dispute between the O'Moynes and the dastardly fellow next door. Blyth is cute as a button. Edmund Gwen can play the reclusive grandfather in his sleep. All-in-all, this is a satisfying movie experience. This film centered on a young lady who makes prayers to help her family and friends when they encounter difficulties in life. It made me think of other movies like the "Song of Bernadette" and "Francis of Assisi" and has a very strong Catholic faith influence in the film. Ann Blyth is very charming as first, the Catholic school student and then later as a young woman who buys a statue of Saint Anne (which is the name of the street that I live on, by the way) and makes many prayers for the saint's intercession whenever problems come up in her life. Frances Bavier (Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith show) and Edmund Gwenn (from Miracle on 34th Street) play relatives of her. A local priest of mine used to say that my sister resembled Ann Blyth and the both of them have the same first and middle names. A nice good family film that came from an era when life was a bit more simpler. I watched this movie a long time ago, but I've always loved it. The story is about a young girl, Sally O'Moyne who finds out at a young age that when she prays to St. Anne, her prayers are answered, hence her missing lunch pail and a mean neighbor who tattles on her and she prays, that someone should give him a black eye for tattling. Well, a minute later something hits him and he has a black eye. Sally then believes in the power of prayer and decides to use that power for good. She is well known and loved around the neighborhood as she has copybooks/journals filled with all her friends requests to St. Anne.

Meanwhile, a local boy returns home from college (I believe) and Sally is awestruck at how much he's grown-up. Sally has a huge crush on him, but is so shy. Should she use her power of prayer to St. Anne for her own selfish desire or just watch as the most popular girls in school try to snare the man of her dreams? This is a fun filled movie with a grandfather who is so charming and Irish, brother's who are hilariously annoying and a sworn Irish neighbor-enemy who spars with grand-pop on an everyday basis. He has his own story of wanting to buy the O'Moynes property which is a little house in the middle of two huge apartment complexes (his own), in other words, the O'Moynes house is an eye-sore to his lovely buildings.

This movie is definitely worth a watch and is good enough and rare enough to add to your movie collection. I hope you enjoy! Sally and Saint Anne is a very funny movie. The first time my Mom told me about it I was 7 and Saint Anne had just been the Saint I had for my Communion Saint. My Mom knew this, so she told me to watch this with her. I did, and have seen it many times since because it is really funny. Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show was in it and Sally's grandfather was the guy who played Santa Claus in Miracle On 34th Street. So, there were lots of actors we seen on TV shows too. There is a bad guy who keeps trying to steal the house away, and Sally keeps trying things with St. Anne to help raise money so they can keep the house. That includes a boxing match with Hugh O'Brian who plays her older brother. This is a good and funny movie that I still love. I love this movie, one of my all time favorites. Ann Blythe as Sally O'Moyne is sweet and trouble-free. She believes that praying to Saint Anne will solve all her and her friends troubles. The sub-plot of the dastardly bad man to get her father's property is funny and clever. Her brothers are what kind of brothers any girl would love to have. Also, look for "Aunt Bee" as her mother, a strong Irish woman who won't leave her house that she brought her family up in. They don't make them like this anymore, that's for sure. "Miss Cast Away" is an amusing trifle, which dispenses with serious plot or character development to pack in as many gags as possible. Best enjoyed with a large audience that is open to such entertainments and perhaps, has had a few drinks. Most of the jokes are current-event based so in future years this film may become a time-capsule of turn-of-the-21st-century pop culture references.

The 30i to 24p conversion of the footage does create a jerky appearance in some parts, most noticeably the opening aerial shots.

The appearance of Micheal Jackson is indeed a strange non-sequiter event. But I, for one, find it encouraging that Mr. Jackson has shown a helpful interest in one of his protégés even after he (the director) has passed from the cute-preteen-boy stage.

The effects work is not as bad as one review suggested. Most of it was done by a one-man crew in a brief span of time consisting of animator William Sutton, whose name seems to have been omitted from the IMDb credits. His work is an extraordinary achievement and really helps to fill in the gaps in this movie. I hope he's finally been paid! I don't understand why this movie has such a low rating. It totally deserves more! Sure, it's completely ridiculous, but that's what it was supposed to be. Don't expect cinematic transcendence from a movie about beauty pageant contestants stranded on a Caribbean island! What you should expect is a huge spoof of pretty much every relevant sci-fi, fantasy and block-buster movie in cinematic history, and even references to other spoofers. All completely exaggerated and sometimes totally unnecessary, but that's exactly what makes this movie stand out. If you like parodies, and enjoy say, Leslie Nielsen or Mike Myers, you're gonna love this. I sure did! If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box. Okay, I think we're all agreed that Michael Jackson was the low point.

And the special effects too. But, please, keep in mind that this was NOT a big-budget film, okay? Not every film gets as much of a budget as Harry Potter or Star Wars.

However, I thought it was pretty funny altogether. B-? Nothing that would, in my opinion, waste your time.

Parodies are always fun to watch, and just because it wasn't big budget doesn't mean it's bad.

I think this was a good movie, if weak at some points.

Hope this comment helps. ~Angela -That's pretty much the whole soundtrack to this film. I just saw this baby at the Munich Film Festival and it rocked the house. Director Doug Pray is never seen in this documentary, nor I think he is even heard, but he has done a very intimate look into the lives and history of the "mixer." He has segmented his film into about eight chapters and then his motley group of enthusiastic interviews will be spiced throughout according to what they are talking about. I was never big into "scratching" but the film does a wonderful job of keeping elementary for those who know little, and infusing in-jokes for those who are experts themselves in this area. Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys is in this film, but it wasn't until after the film that I could name several heavy hitters in the industry (DJ Shadow, Q- Bert, etc). The extreme fascination for turntables by these talented and quirky DJs is evident in their explanations of what their music means to them. The film also sheds some gratifying light on these guys (and one woman) to be classified as musicians. Pray doesn't let his film idle and if there exists a slow scene it is soon re-energized by hardly ever ceasing music. If nothing else, this film will increase your slang vocabulary. I have to get back to "digging", so I'll end this review. See it, it will be of interest. Good stuff man. Good stuff. I'm not a fan of scratching, but I really dug this movie. It gave me a real insight into a world I never had a clue existed; and what else is a documentary for? Funny, clever, hip - just like Pray's previous film, Hype! about the grunge music scene. The omission of Jazzy Jeff, the creator of the chirp and transformer scratch, raised a few eyebrows, but it's good to see he made it to the extras of the DVD after all. With SCRATCH, Doug Pray, who previously chronicled the grunge phenomenon of the '90s in HYPE (1996), made an excellent documentary about the world of the hip-hop DJ and the evolution of turntablism. His latest documentary, INFAMY (2005), explores contemporary American graffiti culture. After a couple of viewings four years ago, my DVD had been gathering dust ever since, but recently I watched it again and besides the subject material, I was surprised how well-shot and edited this documentary actually is. An immensely enjoyable soundtrack as well and not just talking heads, but lots of music, old school footage, parties, break dancing, you name it. One of the best things about the film, is that it mainly examines where the art of turntablism is today (in 2001 that is), without disregarding the pioneers of course. Good stuff.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10 Being a huge fan of hip-hop and turntablism to begin with, I always knew I would like this film. However, I wasn't prepared for just how good the documentary actually is. It covers almost all the important aspects of the only element of hip-hop which has been there from the very start. The "story" begins in the early 70's, and follows the evolution of turntablism as an art from up until early 2000 (turntablism aficionados will point this out as significant).

The editing is nigh on perfect throughout the film. Aside from the excellent visual "scratch" techniques which they used, the rapid cutting between interviews and the stock footage is excellent, giving the film pace when it is needed. The sound editing is also very good, with some nice sweeping sounds being used to help with transitions.

The absence of a narrator was also welcome. We aren't taken by the hand through the story, and as a result the audience is able to make their own assumptions easier. Each DJ adds another side to the story, and it is so interesting to hear about the unknown stars of hip-hop, especially those who were there when hip-hop was being shunned left, right and centre by the music business.

Although there are many excellent things about this film, I do have a few gripes. The biggest of these is the absence of several notable DJs, such as Ca$hMoney and Jazzy Jeff, and also DJs from outside America, such as Scratch Perverts and DJ Noise. However, if you watch the commentary on the DVD (something which I highly recommend), producer and director go in to great depth about how they regret not being able to feature them. The deleted scenes contain many interviews with Ca$hMoney, Jazzy Jeff and the Scratch Perverts.

This is definitely the best documentary I've seen on hip-hop culture and music. It does stop short of showing the true potential of turntablism; for that I highly recommend checking out the DMC and ITF videos. However, that is a minor quibble. I highly recommend this movie, not least for the phat soundtrack, with excellent music throughout. (9/10) Scratch is a documentary about DJs and their art of scratching. From that one line description of the film you would have no idea how entertaining and educational this little film is. It is a joyous and vibrant celebration of a cool subculture which is little known. It's filled with great underground hip hop music and you get to see some top DJs (e.g. DJ Q-Bert, DJ Shadow, and Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys) showing off their stuff. Going into the film I wasn't sure that "scratching" can really be called an art form, or that the turntable can be viewed as an instrument in its own right. Scratch completely changed my mind on these points. What these guys do with their turntables is truly amazing--it is definitely some kind of art--and the turntable, if you know how to use it, can be transformed into an instrument that you can "play," as much as a drum or a guitar. And you even get a lesson on the basics of scratching from DJ Q-Bert (e.g. how to use the fader to get different sound effects). All these DJs in their own way were inspired to take up the art of scratching after watching Herbie Hancock perform his song "Rock It" (you remember that song, don't you?) live at the Grammys. What got their attention was not Hancock himself but his DJ and his scratching. Not only is Scratch about scratching, but it does some "scratching" of its own thanks to the creative way in which this documentary is shot and edited. There are moments where clips are quickly "rewound" and then "forwarded" several times, which mirrors (in the film medium) what happens when a DJ quickly moves the record on his turntable back and forth while using his fader (that "wicka-wicka-wicka" sound). Whether you're a fan of hip hop or not, you can count on Scratch to give you a very enjoyable night at the movies. After seeing it, I had an itch to go buy a turntable of my own. And I mean this as a compliment. Wonderfully funny, awe-inspiring feature on the pioneers of turntablism. DJ Shadow and Q-Bert are amazing in this terrific documentary. Check out just about every major DJ crediting their getting in to scratch thanks to Herbie Hancock's post-bop classic 'Rockit', and archival footage of some of the most complex and mind-blowing turntable routines of all time. This film is essentially for those who have had little or no introduction to hip-hop, specifically turntableism, as was the case with the director before he started this film. It was cool to have it focus on the bay more than expected, because NY is always getting all the credit, but comin from the bay the Q-Bert worship is a little out of control. This film didn't introduce anything new to me, but it did change my opinion in that going into it I was sketchy about the prospect of giving the tables the distinction of being a bona fide instrument. This film ought to convince anyone that it's right up there with the viola and clavichord. Wow - most of the audience just seemed to shake their heads through much of this documentary at the sheer wizardry displayed on screen.

The shift from the early days as a New-York based black-American phenomenon to current days as a racially diverse subculture (and largely West Coast-based) is profiled well.

The humble turntable is not given the respect of any traditional musical instrument, but it can be so much more versatile and technically complex. These DJs take the required skills for any musical instrument - dexterity, rhythm and timing, among others - and apply them to a new technology with several more variables.

DJ Qbert's comment that he pictures what "music" must sound like on advanced planets and then works it out, seemingly silly at first, makes more and more sense as you watch these guys go and spit out a multitude of sounds that no single traditional instrument could ever create!

Some critics have said that this film focuses too much on certain 'stars' and squanders an opportunity to profile the wider hip-hop culture. One film at a time people! just saw this film at resfest and was floored. i've never been a huge fan of scratching, but this film had me hooked from the getgo. it's listed as a documentary, but never really felt like one. (can't remember the last time i had so much fun watching a documentary). it has a style and an energy that is refreshing, insightful, and never too preachy. the production values were up there too. (shot on film with cool cuts and an amazing soundtrack). overall a smart, entertaining, and enlightening piece. ...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. "Scratch" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate "Scratchers" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B) What about DJ Cash Money??? This film fails in part by not covering the mid to late 80s. There was only a small mention of DJ Cheese in 86.

Also, it's Grandmixer "DST", not "DXT"!!!!! Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one. Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one. Every review I have read so far seems to have missed a crucial point. Shakespeare wrote for the accent and the pronunciation just as he did for northerners in other plays. The Scottish accent changes the emphasis and rhythm of the language and affects profoundly what is said and the way it is taken. So, listen again and note the difference. The play is well done and the rhythm of the words are so much better than that provided by people using received, polite, well- enunciated English. I am reminded of the time a teacher in a school in Leicester, unknowingly, asked me, age 14, to read a piece of Walter Scott which was written in the tone of the Border. I come from the Border and when I read it as it should be read it made all the difference. What do you mean son of actor, not an actor. You don't become an actor just because your daddy is a superstar---it doesn't work that way, not in UK at any rate.

Macbeth (this version) is a low budget Scottish movie. You can't compare this to the Polanski version because Polanski has all the budgets in the world.

Jason acted throughout school, but his big break came in 1985, when he landed the role of Robin Hood in Britain's "Robin of Sherwood" television series. He has appeared in many films since then, including "Shanghai Noon" and "Lord of the Rings 2″. Jason has since moved behind the camera, forming the production company, Unconditional Entertainment. He recently wrapped filming on his latest movie, which stars Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ray Winstone.

And all this has nothing to do with being the son of Sean Connery. If you think Jason said to Sean, "daddy, I wanna be in Macbeth movie that they are going to film," and Sean said, "sure, son, whatever you say," and made a phone call and got his son the role, you are mistaken. In fact, Jason Connery is being cut out of his father's will. Seeing as how his father is Sean Connery, that's a big chunk of change Jason will be losing out on. The reasoning behind the decision is apparently Sean's strong feelings that his only son should learn to provide for himself. The relationship has become fairly strained, with Jason even threatening to change his name.

------------------------------------ Of being the son of Sean Connery,

"I realize that I'm always going to be compared to my father. There are innuendos all the time. Should I spend my whole life justifying myself?" ------------------------------------

So stop being a jackass and accuse him of not being able to act just because he is son of Sean Connery (big deal!).

Watch Jason in Bullet to Beijing and you'll form a different opinion about his acting ability. Thank goodness not all Dutch people are that ruthless. I think Jason is being judged like that by most people, simply because he has a famous father. Maybe he's not as great as some of those actors, but he's definitely not as bad as suggested.

I watched the movie some years ago, and I actually loved it. I knew Jason from other movies and of course Robin of Sherwood. But I must say I really liked his acting from this movie on. It was really good!

During the movie, I actually forgot he was the son of. Sean.. who?

And if you're a Shakespeare lover, I can recommend this movie. I'm sure you'll enjoy it! This is the fourth full-length feature film by Marc Recha. By the third 'les mans buides' -Empty hands- I promised myself not to cut my veins anymore. But this time round the plot is completely different -a kind of homage to Ramon Barnils (Sabadell 1940 - Reus 2001) a Catalan journalist-. The visuals in the trailer are stunning -a gleaming river bathed in sunlight- and the promise that Marc himself would be in front of the camera with his twin brother -none of both professional actors- convinced me at last, six weeks after its release. Abandon yourself in this very unusual road/river film. Learn almost nothing about Ramon Barnils but his most poignant legacy: his constant fight against amnesia of what we Catalans chose to forget. 'La batalla de l'Ebre' -look for Battle of the Ebro at the wikipedia- was lost not once but twice because after 40 years of silence and 25 years of half-hearted democracy nobody has done much to remember the legitimate side of the Spanish civil war and those who fought it. This film is about the lonely people roaming the same places with very little conscience of what took place there 70 years ago. This film is about the landscape. In August Days/Dies d'agost Marc Recha has given us a sun-saturated Catalan documentary-style road movie that's mostly a meandering improvised meditation on brotherhood and reclaiming the dead. The beautiful sometimes large-scale, richly atmospheric 35 mm. landscape images, nice soundtrack and Catalan-language narration are enchanting as a mood piece, if one is content with a trajectory that hasn't much momentum and doesn't lead anywhere in particular. Filmmaker Marc Recha and his non-identical twin David are the stars and the narrative is voiced by their younger sister. Marc had been researching the life of Ramon Barnils (1940-2001), a socialist editor who had been a family friend. He felt he was saturated with information and had to take a break. The break turned into making this film, which seeks to capture the mood of the interviews with Barnils' associates, thoughts about the Spanish Civil War, the drought season they were experiencing, the rugged landscape, the Recha brothers' affection for each other, swims and suntanned nudity and whatever characters or stories they ran into as they camped out of their van. This leads to pursuit of a giant catfish and the temporary disappearance of one of the brothers. In the end David has to go back to Barcelona to be with his daughter and Marc has to return to his project, and there it ends. I found it fascinating to listen to an extended narration in the Catalan language with its blend of Spanish and French-sounding words (perhaps linked with Provençal?). This isn't a major film but it commands attention and makes sense as a film festival choice with its clean visual and auditory beauty and its way of playing around with genres and blending autobiography with fiction and documentary in a fresh and thought-provoking way.

An official selection of the 2006 New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center. Freely, from one scene to another, from one story to another, just like when walking, from a shadowy path to an open place, like the wind in the leaves, from a tree to another, how many different sounds ? Just like when traveling, people meet and tell their stories and then part forever, who knows ? And just like when walking through these places full of the lost expectations from another time, the human 'thickness' of the world takes the breath away.

I saw this movie with friends of mine, not all of them liked it, maybe were they too used to scenario-based and ready-made stories, I don't know. So this movie is for the silly ones who love looking at the sun sparkling on the sea, walking without any hurry in the hills or through the little villages, listening to the growing grass, which tells the stories of those underneath, six feet under, in the warm wind of summer. I am a huge fan of the $5.50 DVD bin at my local WalMart. Hopefully you have one at your local branch. You can find a bunch of campy flicks, a bunch of trash, and the occasional surprise. This movie is one of the surprises. My friend recently bought this one, and in thinking it would be another cheesy kung-fu laugh riot, I was genuinely surprised at how good it was. I watch a lot of movies, and as a result, I can almost always call how a movie will turn out; and if there's a plot twist, what it will be. Not this movie! The directing is brilliant, the plot is awesome, and the fighting is unbelievably inventive. If you see this one sitting around somewhere at a dirt-cheap price, get it! If you see it at full price, I would still recommend it. I bought this a while back, during a massive martial arts movie phase. Although this certainly ain't the best, I do love this kind of film making, and there was a lot to keep me entertained in this one. Leung Kar Yan is one of my favorite martial arts stars, I always appreciate the fact that, whilst he lacked formal martial arts training, he usually gave a more than capable fighting performance. He also has a good beard. This movie has him in a good, heroic role and although he doesn't kick as much ass as in some of his other movies, he still acquits himself well. Early appearances from Cherie Chung and Chow Yun Fat are also nice too see, especially for the fact that Chow Yun Fat takes on the bad guys without his trademark gun play. He may not be a great fighter but he does OK. Eddy Ko is as great a bad guy as ever, he performs the same villainry as in many of his other films and does it great, as per usual. The fellow who plays Bu is good too, I don't recall his name, but he's in Magnificent Butcher too. Although the fighting isn't as good as other movies of the era, The postman fights back makes up for it with a lot of imagination, quality cinematography and a nicely quirky ambiance. There are some very nifty scenes, good characters and a good eclectic mixture of Hong Kong talents all coming together to decent effect. All in all, I would recommend this to kung fu and general Hong Kong action fans. It may not be a stylised classic like the Shaw Brothers films, or as crowd pleasing as Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but it is rock solid entertainment. Sometimes it's hard to define what separates a successful, delightful comedy from one that falls flat. In this case, the contrived plot about a spoiled rich girl who schemes to take her nieces away from the Greenwich Village 'bohemian' who is raising them, only to fall for him herself, is not promising. And nothing in director Leigh Jason's filmography suggests that he was an overlooked major talent. And yet he must have been responsible for creating a relaxed, happy atmosphere on the set that was faithfully recorded on film.

He also had the good sense to cast this movie properly. The one small flaw is Miriam Hopkins in a part that Ginger Rogers would have been perfect for. Hopkins is efficient but brittle, lacking the warmth and sexiness Rogers would have had. She is further hampered by a pair of bizarrely long and sooty false eyelashes that are sometimes a distraction. But a very young and very handsome Ray Milland couldn't be better in an exuberant, uninhibited comic performance of great charm.

And better than that, particularly for New York City residents, is the Hollywood depiction of Greenwich Village in 1937. Though completely synthetic and idealized, it remains recognizable to a contemporary viewer. Art director Van Nest Polglase created an amiable jumble of mews apartments and ramshackle shared backyards that is the perfect backdrop for this picture's collection of artists, strivers, smart-alecks and wannabes. Best in the supporting cast is Guinn Williams, bringing sweetness and light to his role as a prizefighter-sculptor-dressmaker, suggesting the self-invention and fluidity (sexual and otherwise) of life in the Village. Even more refreshing are Betty Philson and Marianna Strelby playing the little girls. Plain, intelligent and full of humor, these girls seem like real human beings and are nothing like the professional child actors of the time.

Of special interest are a couple of memorable comic set-pieces: Ray Milland's vacuum cleaner demonstration to a woman with a howling baby is played with more spontaneity than one expects (the baby and his contortions are marvelous 'found' moments) and a phony domestic 'play' in a department store window that degenerates into a free-for-all is also fun. The movie slides slowly downhill with a straight-faced custody trial and then never quite gets back on track when the action moves to Long Island, but this movie is still worth a look. Society heiress Susan Fletcher (Hopkins) and her wealthy father Simon Fletcher (Henry Stephenson) are vexed that their young nieces Joan (Betty Philson) and Katie (Marianna Strelby) are living a Bohemian lifestyle in Greenwich Village with their artist uncle John (Milland) after the death of their parents (Susan's sister and John's brother). Simon has given up trying to convince John to allow he and Susan to take care of the children and have resorted to using private detectives to catch him in either unbecoming behavior or unemployed and therefore unable to care for the children properly. Susan finally decides to take matters into her own hands and goes to Greenwich Village herself, posing as an actress, to try to gain information and/or persuade him to see reason. What she discovers however, is that she not only likes the free and artistic lifestyle John and his friends are living and that the girls are being brought up well, but that she is quickly falling in love with John. Inevitably, her true identity is discovered and she is faced with the task of convincing everyone on both sides of the custody debate who should belong with whom.

I really enjoyed this film, and found that its very short running time (70 minutes) was the perfect length to spin this simple but endearing story. Miriam Hopkins, one of the great 1930's-1940's actresses is delightful in this film. Her energy, style and wholesome beauty really lend themselves to creating an endearing character, even though you know that she's pulling a fast one on the people she quickly befriends. This is the earliest film I've seen Ray Milland in, and he was actually young and non-patrician looking. (And apparently three years younger than his co-star) His energy and carefree manner in "Wise Girl" were a refreshing change to the demeanor he affects in his usual, darker, films. Honestly, though I am usually not remotely a fan of child actors, I really enjoyed the two young girls who played Susan's nieces. They were endearingly precocious, and were really the jewels of the film. Unfortunately, I can't dig up any other films that either of them were subsequently in after this one, which is a shame since both exhibited a large amount of natural talent.

"Wise Girl" was a film that was made three years after the Hollywood Code was instated, and to some extent, this was abundantly clear by the quick, happy ending, and the pie in the sky loftiness and ease with which the characters lived. The alleged Bohemian co-op was in fact a gorgeous cul-de-sac where the artists lived for free or for trade, and everything is tied up very nicely throughout. Fortunately, this was a light enough film and the characters were charming enough to make allowances for its fluffiness and short-comings and I was able to just take "Wise Girl" for what it was; a good old-fashioned love story that was as entertaining as it was endearing. Unfortunately, films of the romantic comedy/drama genre today are considerably less intelligent and entertaining, or I wouldn't find myself continuously returning to the classics. 7/10 Of all the major 30s star actresses, Miriam Hopkins has been the most bizarrely overlooked and underrated. Her string of excellent 30s and 40s films is quite impressive but she is often referred to as stagy or brittle. Yet she had a great sense of humor and was memorable in several comedies, including this film, Old Acquaintance (with Bette Davis), and The Smiling Lieutenant (with Maurice Chevalier and Claudette Colbert). Hopkins was famous for her dislike of Hollywood, and the results has been a bad rep--undeserved.

In Wise Girl she play an heiress trying to rescue the children of her dead sister from their guardian--the sister's brother-in-law (Ray Milland). The film offers several hilarious scene such as Hopkins taking a bath is a storeroom, Hopkins joining Milland and Guinn Williams in a Greenwich Village restaurant for $3 apiece to act as "bohemians," and Hopkins going ringside during one of Williams' fights. Milland is also excellent and very funny.

Hopkins and Milland make a great couple. The film also boasts solid support from Williams, Walter Abel, Henry Stephenson, James Finlayson, Margaret Dumont, Grace Hayle, Leonid Kinskey, and Inez Palange. The two girls are OK.

But Hopkins, drunk on a "slice of wine" and wearing a pinned-together dress that is twice her size is hilarious as she blows at stray hairs while smoking.... A scream. "... the beat is too strong ... we're deaf mutants now--like them", Rex Voorhas Ormine

I am surprised that this movie has been uniformly bashed. Let me be the first to actually discuss the virtues of "The Beat" and why YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW.

Make no mistake, this movie is cheesy and "bad" in the conventional sense: the story is preposterous, the poetry is silly, and the acting is inconsistent.

But these are the film's CHARMS--all of these ingredients form the recipe for one of the most UNDERAPPRECIATED CHEEZY FILMS of the 80's.

If the reference to "deaf mutants" didn't pique your interest, then perhaps this will: What kind of name is "Rex Voorhas Ormine", anyway? It is such an unusual name (for North American audiences) that I said to myself, "even the names of the characters in this friggin' movie are firggin' silly."

Well, "The Beat" is so fabulously cheezy that the "meaning" and "symbolism" behind "Rex Voorhas Ormine" is revealed not-too-subtly by Bart Waxman (the misguided guidance counselor you love to hate). I won't spoil the revelation behind Rex's name, but please don't get too excited, O.K.?

Overall, the acting is inconsistent (John Savage--who plays the "concerned teacher" Mr. Ellsworth is pretty good, as is the fellow playing Bart Waxman, but the rest of the cast are unconvincing). That said, the acting does NOT detract from the film. Why? There is a SINCERITY in each of the actors' performances that makes the characters they play endearing. So although the performances may suck, you are still left with the impression that the actors are really trying to do their best. As a result, the actors' sincerity succeeds where their acting fails (which is quite often).

The homage to "beat poetry" in this film is bad, bad, bad. But this is a good, good, good thing when it comes to entertainment. Would you actually enjoy "better quality" or "more respectable" poetry--especially in a film like this?

Folks, that would be BORING (think about the droll they made us read in high school--sanitized to avoid "corrupting the youth", politically conservative and devoid of any critical analysis, etc.) Even if you don't like poetry or "arty" movies (with all of the "intellectual" posturing that implies), you most certainly can (and should) appreciate LUDICROUS POETRY in a WANNABE ART FILM!!!! How could you not enjoy the following?

"do you remember the roar of the dinosaur? a woman's scotty craps on the floor bad scotty bad, oh the woman's so sad she washes her hands and then waits by the door today, yeah--today!"

Yes, that is an example of some of the remarkable poetry liberally sprinkled throughout "The Beat." But what about the story, you ask?

Well, the story is preposterous. But then again, that is the beauty of this film. Apart from some cliches, stereotypes, and predictable plot points, there are enough genuinely unique elements to the plot/story to keep things interesting. Who is Rex? Where did he come from? What the heck is he talking about? Deaf mutants? Illiterate angels? Do Billy and Kate REALLY understand what Rex is saying? Is the audience supposed to understand Rex and his poetry posse? (I've seen the movie several times and I still haven't figured everything out.)

Will bad poetry and high school talent shows really END GANG VIOLENCE?

I guarantee that you have never seen anything quite like "The Beat"--a perfect combination of brilliantly bad poetry, mediocre-yet-sincere acting, and a "mythopoetics conquers gang violence" storyline that has YET TO BE RIVALLED BY ANY FILM EVER MADE.

Bonus for fans of classic NYC hardcore: The Cro-Mags make a rare film appearance as the "Iron Skulls" and it's a hoot to see them perform several songs. I wish they included more concert footage, but maybe that will be an "extra" included on the "collector's edition" DVD I fantasize about.

My first review at IMDB, after a few years of using this site constantly...

Anyways, saw this on the tube the other night, loved it. It's in the mindset of a Dangerous Minds or a Substitute, but much better. Was sure for a moment that Rex was Speedy Levitch, in Waking Life, but after checking, it doesn't seem so.

I can see why many have problems with this plot and its poetry, but I also think these people are close-minded. Admittedly the ending wasn't quite what I was hoping for, but overall it was so unique and well-acted, I can't complain. I wouldn't call this cheesy, as one reviewer did, it pulled off the scene better than most films of the 80's did. And they refrained from playing any really dateable 80's music.

Can't remember everything that made me smile when I saw this, but basically it realistically showed very creative individuals surrounded by mediocrity, and whether I share Rex's beliefs or not, I love original attempts to describe the meaning of life. And his Mutant theory is, to my knowledge, original. He rambled a lot as well, but they showed how confused he was at times, and why he might have some psychological issues. And then in his moments of clarity he was a philosopher extraordinaire, a person who noticed the little details in life and tried to give expression to them.

Also I was very impressed with John Savage as the teacher. Usually actors fail at that role. He pulled it off brilliantly.

If you enjoyed Waking Life, I say watch this movie if you get a chance.

9.5/10

pk I think it's the sort of film you either love or hate and I'm really not the type to go in for arty movies. My mother rented "mullhuland DR" the other night and I nearly ran from the room, ha. But I love this film.

We recorded "The Beat" one night when we had just let the tape run and got a great film that way by accident. Saved that tape and watched it a lot. I eventually got the VHS to add to my collection. I've watched it many times and at one point copied down the poems. I even tried to preform one scene for my high school drama class. She had said we could do any scene we wanted and just cut out the bad words. She refused to let me do it. If it could upset my drama teacher that much it has to be good :) Honest she never treated me the same after that.

I liked the acting it came off very true and honest. It wasn't clean and polished but it was better than that. It was true to life, how anyone would truly behave and display emotions not how Hollywood does. It was great acting especially by the one playing Rex.

The story was original. Not only do the characters get drawn into his world but you do too. Not your typical person meets inner city kids and saves them through knowledge film at all. Simply caring and friendship make things a bit better.

The only thing is that even in the 80's there was more gun violence and less simple stuff like rock throwing but that little bit of innocence didn't hurt this film.

I think it's a must see. you will either love or hate it but either way it makes an impact and that makes a good film that you will remember and talk about later. The Beat was an exciting movie about a couple of young punks trying to survive in 1980's New York. This involves fighting with the other street gang that they directly share a high school class with, trying to stay in school, as well as going to local shows that involve bands that look like the Dead Kennedy's and have the name Skulls for their band name. Rex (played by David Jacobson) Plays an autistic kid who starts to get a long with all of these kinds, and starts to show them that poetry is really beautiful, and if applied to what these kids do in life can really make things work out for the better! Billy Kane (Played by William McNamara) and Kate Kane (played by Kara Glover) are brother and sister. Although they roll with this crowd of thugs, these kids are not the same type of people as this group. They care for Rex and they care for others, and really show an enlightened side of themselves. While his sister sleeps with the head of the Gang, she is also falling in love with Rex, trying to show him that she is not a slut. But in the end, the teachers at the school finally get to him and want to put him in a mental institution, he finally feels it is time to end his life, while Animals of Sound played without him. But they like to think that he is not dead, he is just living his life to the fullest, riding sharks and being happy living in the ocean. This movie, was one of those movies where I was glad that I watched it. While it was extremely entertaining, it also had a big message to it. Something a long the lines that these kids had no direction, no future, no figure heads to look up to, but because a troubled kid came along they all realized that there was way more important things to life then fighting the local black kids, or being destructive to everything. Rex showed them the beauty in angry music. Rex showed them the beauty in Rats, Disease and Murder. Rex showed they the beauty in almost everything, while some of those things have no beauty involved, they still were able to see that when used in poems, these poems speak to people. Rex played an important part in this move, who changed everyones heart from depression, to see that there is hope for them, and thats why he started to show them; The Beat. I watched the movie about 13 yrs ago while living in Airlie Beach Qld Australia. I had found it in the shelves of a little shop in the back that most don't bother to browse.

To my pleasure I found it and watched it with the intention of one day owning it and being in my collection. I still do not have it but will one day.

I like the concept with the poetry and the fantasy. The semi deserted street scenes with a busy teaming city in the far background added to the visual effect.

I have numerous times mentioned this movie to people that enjoy this genre, with nothing but praise. It has stuck in my mind and will for a long time to come.

I fully recommend this film, but only to those that are into this type.

This comment and the one from LA,CA can assist you when choosing to watch this film. The comments may be negative but I found them positive if you look past the derogatory connotation. This is a classic street punk & rock movie. If you remember those times out on the city streets 14 years old two in the morning and nothing better to do than skate from friends house to friends house and sparking it. This movie brings back old memeries. You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.

As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan).

Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife "Bonnie;" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's "Father John Callahan;" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor "Father Nieuwland" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.

What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players.

There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them. Pat O'Brien had his best role ever as Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne. From humble beginnings, Rockne entered Notre Dame as a student circa 1910. He is into chemistry but becomes a marvelous football player and hero.

Upon graduation, he teaches chemistry at the school but he has got the football fever that tugs at him, this forces him to give up chemistry to pursue his dream of coaching the game. In a way, too bad, the school probably lost a great chemistry teacher-certainly far better and nicer than the one I had in high school. (Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn to be exact.)

He motivates his students. He will not tolerate academic underachievement. He is a coach for all seasons.

O'Brien captures that common kind touch. One of his students, George Gipp, is memorably played in a fine brief supporting performance by Ronald Reagan.

The years pass and the achievements run high-but Knute remains the same kind coach who testifies before Congress when football is called into question.

Donald Crisp is outstanding as a Notre Dame priest who knew that Rockne was destined to coach football. Albert Basserman is adequate, but his Jewish accent in the portrayal of a priest is awkward at best. Basserman was nominated that year in the supporting category for "Foreign Correspondent."

Rockne's tragic death, in a plane crash, robbed the world of many more years of a totally professionally wonderful human-being. The film is great. It's hard to imagine in this day and age how popular and how much of an impact a Norwegian immigrant and would be chemist had on the American public and how much of a national tragedy his sudden death in 1931 was viewed. But Knute Rockne was an extraordinary individual who both revolutionized and popularized college football and put a small obscure Catholic college on the map.

I've heard clips of Rockne's famous pep talks and it is uncanny how Pat O'Brien got the voice and the inflection perfectly. In what turned out to be his career role, Pat O'Brien captures the integrity and fighting spirit that was Rockne. Rockne is assisted by well by Gale Page as Bonnie Stiles Rockne who complained about her home being a training camp for Notre Dame, but never threw anyone out of her house.

Rockne's first impact on football was as a player with Notre Dame not a coach. One fine day in the second half of a losing football game against heavily favored Army, Rockne and team mate Gus Dorais played by Owen Davis used the forward pass as an offensive weapon. Before that football was simply a game where you just got bigger guys for your side and ran through the defense. Rockne didn't invent the forward pass, but he popularized and football became a game of strategy as well as brawn after that.

Rockne knew how to work the media also. Those well publicized pep talks of his were not just to inspire his players. They were well publicized and it was in a lot due to him that college football became a major sport in that Golden Age of Sports in the Roaring Twenties.

Playing a small, but key role is Ronald Reagan. As George Gipp, the first player Rockne coached to achieve greatness, Reagan not only got a good performance, but forever after a name that was handy in his subsequent political career. That deathbed scene which Rockne swore was accurate became a Republican battle cry as many a GOP underdog went out to win one for the Gipper.

I still remember a widely distributed photograph in 1981 that was one of the first of recovering President Ronald Reagan at Notre Dame's graduation with his old friend Pat O'Brien. Reagan always credited O'Brien and Dick Powell of all the Warner Brothers stars of the period as the ones who were the kindest and most encouraging to a young player on the lot trying to make good.

Notre Dame itself owes its prestige to Rockne. It's quite possible that Notre Dame would be an obscure small Catholic College without the reputation that football brought to it.

Though George Gipp and the later famous backfield of the Four Horsemen certainly had their place in the sun it was Rockne who had the reputation. It's no accident that Warner Brothers was able to get Amos Alonzo Stagg, Glenn 'Pop' Warner, Howard Jones, and William Spaulding, Rockne's contemporaries and coaches with great reputations in their own right to appear in Knute Rockne, All American. It was there way of honoring the guy who was number one in their profession.

I think more than football fans will enjoy Knute Rockne, All American. Though you might become one after seeing the film. "Knute Rockne All American", the biopic about the famous Notre Dame beloved coach Knute Rockne, is an excellent sports film to watch. Not ever having seen it, we were surprised by the technique used in the movie by director Lloyd Bacon, who shows he was ahead of his times in photographing football games. The result is a vibrant picture about the man responsible for the legacy of the collegian sport, Knute Rockne.

The film presents Rockne from his humble origins in Chicago to his studies in famed Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. He was an ambitious man who had a vision about how the game should be played. Luckily, he went to give his beloved Notre Dame the glory he was after.

Pat O'Brien looks a bit older when he starts as a freshman. In fact, he doesn't change much throughout the film, but he is fine as Mr. Rockne. Pat O'Brien shows he could inspire the players under him by just being a father figure. Gale Page plays Bonnie Rockne, the wise woman who understood her husband's call in life. Ronald Reagan plays George "The Gipper" Gipp, who was a legend that died much too young, but who left a legacy behind. Donald Crisp makes a good contribution as Father John Callahan who was Rockne's mentor at the university.

This film will delight not only sports because of LLoyd Bacon's direction and the fast pace he gives to the movie. The true life story of perhaps the greatest football coach the game has ever known. Knute Rockne led the game of football out of the "stone age" with innovations such as the forward pass and offensive formation shifts. But he is probably best known for his motivational locker room speeches. Along the way, he brought fame and glory to a tiny, little, unknown Catholic school in Indiana. Pat O'Brien is incomparable in his role as Rockne. Terrific cast that includes Ronald Reagan who gives a great performance as Notre Dame's first, true superstar, George Gipp.

For Football aficionados, this is the greatest football movie ever made. Do yourself a favor and rent the black and white version. (Some versions have deleted scenes for some reason) If you got the good version, look for a brief cameo by the immortal Jim Thorpe as he sticks his head in the locker room telling Rockne and the team they only have a few minutes left before the 2nd half begins. Recently was traveling in Norway from Bergen, Norway and stopped in the small town of Voss, Norway and there was a monument in honor of Knute Rockne who was born in Voss years ago. The people all know about Knute to this day and tour guides are proud to stop at his monument. This film is a great history of this great man and his great love for Notre Dame Never realized that Knute has such great talents in chemistry and laboratory science and also taught chemistry for years and at the same time coached the football team. Ronald Reagan played the role of George Gipp, (The Gipper) who was an outstanding football player; Reagan had a short role, but gave a great supporting role in this film. Donald Crisp, (Father John Callahan) was outstanding as a priest who always had great faith in Knute during his entire life at Notre Dame. This is a great Classic film and will be viewed by many generations to come. Enjoy. Some time ago, we read of the results of a poll taken by some Newspaper Sports Writers. The Questions posed were only two, and were brief and right to the point.

The Question Number 1 asked respondent to tell who was his most Beloved college football team. Question Number 2 asked the fan to name his most Hated college football team. The answer to both questions was simply, Notre Dame! ND is tops on both lists! Yeah, love 'em or hate 'em, but you sure don't ignore ,em.

The roots of this unique position of this Indepent* College Football Powerhouse are found in the life and career of one, grown-up, little Immigrant Norweigen boy from Chicago named Knute Rockne.

As a biopic, the production of KNUTE ROCKNE, ALL-American(1940), came out relatively close to the death of Coach Rockne in a 1930 plane crash. It was about 10 years after that the film was released. That would mean that preliminary work on the project started about 8 years after our Nation's great loss of Mr. Rockne.

His likeness and voice were well known from Newspapers, Radio and Motion Picture News Reels. Both Knute's Widow,Bonnie Skiles Rockne, and the University of Notre Dame had approval rights in choosing the Actor to play the Lead and okaying the script. We think that they could not have done the job any better. Pat O'Brien truly looks the part and was himself a footballer in college. Ronald Reagan is cast in the pivotal role of George Gipp**, a free spirited student going to Notre Dame on a Baseball scholarship! He was a "walk-on" football player.

The cast runs full of talented players. We have Griffith Veteran,Donald Crisp as Fr. Callaghan, C.S.C., Notre Dame President. Albert Basserman is Fr. Newland, the Chemistry Prof and Rockne mentor. Gail Page appears as the Mrs., Bonnie Skiles Rockne. Owen Davis,Jr. is Rockne cohort, Gus Dorais(the passer in that historic ND vs. ARMY Game at West Point.)

The cast is rounded out by Kane Richmond, Nick Lukats, William Marshall and William Byrne as the Four Horsemen. Real life Big Time College Coaches Howard Jones, 'Pop' Warner, Bill Spaulding and Amos Alonzo Stagg appear as themselves in scenes of Congressional Probe into College Sports and add an authentic touch.

As for biopic,KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-American!,all one can only say that it hits the ground running, and did not slow down from beginning to end. There is no wasted time either. All the screen time is used to move the story along.

Use of Notre Dame Choir, the Campus itself and all that Brass Band rah-rah march music all ad to the feeling of really being there.***

* To this day,even though their Basketball Team and other sports teams compete in the Big East Conference, Notre Dame remains an Independent in NCAA Football. What this means, that in effect, The Fighting Irish play a national schedule.

** There was no such agreement with the Family of George Gipp. There was a lawsuit some years ago over the scene portraying young Mr. Gipp giving the famous "Win Onr For The Gipper Speech". Television prints of this KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-AMEICAN were minus the speech in the death bed scene.

*** Other Notre Dame themed Films were made over the years. THE SPIRIT OF NOTRE DAME (Universal 1931)featured J. Farrell McDonald as a Rockne look-alike coach. It also featured Lew Ayers, Andy Devine Nat Pendleton, as well as the members of the real Notre Dame Championship Teams featuring the real Four Horsemen. Then of course, we have RUDY (Tri-Star 1993)with Sean Astin, Jon Favreau, Ned Beatty and Charles Dutton, among others, in a fine cast. There was also talk of an unauthorized film, critical of Notre Dame called GOLDEN GLORY, but nothing has materialized, has it?(Let me know, Dear Reader, THANX!!)

**** Warner Brothers always had great music in their, both in opening themes and in incidental music. In this Rockne Movie, they have incorporated THE NOTRE DAME FIGHT SONG in the score. Along with it were STEP NOTRE DAME and THE NOTRE DAME ALMA MATER, which had its premiere at the Rockne Funeral in 1930 at the Notre Dame Basilica. Knute Rockne led an extraordinary life and his story is told rather well in Knute Rockne All American. We follow Rockne's incredible journey from young Norwegian boy to iconic American football legend. Produced in 1940 the film may at times seem a touch dated and at times downright hokey. And the filmmakers do lay it on a bit thick at times as Rockne is glowingly and lovingly portrayed. You may come away thinking Rockne should have been nominated for sainthood when in fact he was, after all, just a football coach. But it is undeniable that he had a great impact on the game of football as well as having a tremendous impact on the lives of so many of the young men he coached. This film shows the great impact he had and gives you an insight into why he is so revered to this day.

Playing Rockne, Pat O'Brien gives an impressive performance. It's unquestionably O'Brien's movie to carry and he makes the film and the character his own. The real-life Rockne was renowned as a great inspirational figure and O'Brien's performance will make you understand why. The only quibble comes early in the film when O'Brien, in his early forties, is playing the college student Rockne in his early twenties. All the makeup in the world wasn't going to make that believable and the effect is rather jarring. But as the Rockne character ages and begins his legendary coaching career O'Brien fits the part perfectly.

As for the rest of the cast one name jumps out and that is of course Ronald Reagan playing the young, charismatic, but ultimately doomed football star George Gipp. In the grand scheme of the film it's not really a large part, with Reagan appearing for no more than 10-15 minutes. But the performance has become legendary thanks to Reagan's famous "Win one for the Gipper" deathbed speech. It's a brilliantly-played scene, chock-full of emotion. Reagan may not have been on the screen for very long in this film but he certainly made a tremendously positive impact in a winning performance.

The rest of the film strikes a balance between football and life in general with Rockne having great lessons for his young men in both areas. For football fans (and history buffs) there is a rare treat as actual archival footage from Notre Dame games of the Rockne era is interspersed throughout the film. It's a rare opportunity to see just how much the game has evolved in the last six-plus decades and an opportunity to see Rockne's legendary strategic innovations put into practice. If you're a Notre Dame fan you'll probably enjoy the fact that the Notre Dame Victory March provides a seemingly constant soundtrack for the film. If you're a Notre Dame hater...well, then you're probably not watching this movie anyway. Knute Rockne All American is an inspiring, uplifting, emotional film. Perhaps a tad overly sentimental but that's not such a bad thing. It's a very enjoyable film, one well worth taking the time to see. Alex North (John Cassavetes) has problems in relationship with his father and flees home to join the army, from where he very soon deserts and comes to New York intending to start a new life, using as an advantage the fact that nobody knows about his past. He finds a job at the Waterfront, where he meets Tommy Tyler (Sydney Poitier) a lively young man, who is happily married and is a living contrast to Cassavetes' sad and unhappy character. They very quickly become good friends and Tommy does his best to help his friend. The only problem is that their superior at work, a tough worker Charles Malik (Jack Warden) is sort of envious of their friendship as well as Tommy's constant happy disposition and success in personal life. He really manages to make their life difficult when he comes to know the truth about Alex's past.

A good drama skillfully directed by Academy Award nominated director-producer Martin Ritt (The Hud) and featuring wonderful performances from Sydney Poitier and Jack Warden. 7/10 Martin Ritt's first film offers an exceptional existentialist answer (three years later) to Elia Kazan's more conservative "On The Waterfront." While "Waterfront" benefited immensely from an electrifying Marlon Brando, who inadvertently disguised Kazan's offensive theme of trying to justify naming names (as Kazan did eagerly before the House Un-American Activities Committee), "Edge of the City" boasts a young John Cassavetes and an upstart Sidney Poitier daring to confront issues that "Waterfront" failed to acknowledge, namely, workers' rights and race relations.

"Edge of the City" boldly dives into this (then) unknown territory, and although the quite appealing black protagonist (Poitier) may seem a bit Hollywood simplistic, the courageous struggle against thinly-veiled bigotry and violence has hardly aged at all. One wonders how shocked initial 1957 moviegoers were at such a bold presentation of white-black relations (if some of the bigoted didn't leave the theater early, they must of left dumbfounded, if not offended).

The last reel of the film will still surprise audiences, as it refuses to sink into expected clichés, including those that tainted "Waterfront." Only the most jaded viewers will not realize what a radical and entertaining film "Edge of the City" ends up being.

What's most disturbing about this lost classic: how it sadly remains unavailable on any format, for reasons that remain quite cloudy. This film should be required viewing in high school or college history classes across the country, yet one can only find it on obscure late-night TV, if ever at all. John Cassavetes is on the run from the law. He is at the bottom of the heap. He sees Negro Sidney Poitier as his equal and they quickly become friends, forming a sort of alliance against a bully of a foreman played by Jack Warden.

As someone who has worked in a warehouse myself when I was younger, I can tell you that the warehouse fights, complete with tumbling packing cases and flailing grappling hooks are as realistic as it gets. I've been in fights like these myself, although no one got killed.

The introduction of Sidney Poitier's widow is a variation on Shakespeare's Shylock "Do I not bleed?" This is an anti racist film, which, at the time, was much needed.

All the three principle characters - Warden, Cassavetes and Poitier - are superb, with Warden the most outstanding of the three. A skillfully directed film by Martin Ritt where a drifter and anti-hero, John Cassevetes lands in N.Y. to escape a tragic incident in his life, where he killed his brother in an automobile accident as well as going AWOL from the army.

Cassavetes, always an intense actor, shows grit in his portrayal of a film. Am surprised that Montgomery Clift didn't get this part.

Ruth White is his mother and does remarkably well in two scenes on the telephone.

Once in New York, he befriends Sidney Poitier as the two work on the docks. Immediately, Jack Warden, a bully and villain in this film,takes a dislike to him and tragedy ensues when Poitier tries to defend his friend.

Ruby Dee, plays Poitier's wife in this film, and is brilliant in a scene where she urges Cassavetes to reveal the killer of her husband.

This is definitely an interesting film of moral values and the loner in society. With the backdrop of tenements, the right mood is depicted in the film. "Edge of the City" is another movie that owes a lot of credit to "On the Waterfront". From it's NYC locations, to its score, to the belief that whatever trouble you may be in, you can somehow right your wrongs.

"Edge" also deals with ideas like loyalty and racism. In my opinion, that is where the movie does not succeed like "Waterfront". At 85 minutes the movie rushes through the establishment of relationships, and ties everything up so quickly that much of it seems forced and unbelievable.

Possible Spoilers****

The relationship between Sidney Poitier and John Cassavettes could have been further developed in the beginning. I don't believe that these two characters, from two very different places would have built such a strong relationship so quickly.

I think that the whole love sub-plot with Cassavettes could have been eliminated. He is so awkward with a woman that it becomes painful to watch. The only reason why it is in the movie is so that she can motivate him to do the right thing at the end. There are other ways that they could have shown this. I would have also liked to see some scenes of Axel in the army to illustrate why he is the way he is.

The acting is excellent. Poitier is terrific in a role that is beautifully written. His role as Tyler is interesting and multi-layered, and (especially for 1957), a man who is confident, respected, and intelligent. Cassavettes, as Axel North, while very good, does not seem quite right for the part. Warden is terrific as the boss who knows Axel's secret (although his fight scene with Cassavettes at the end is staged horribly. Too many break-away boxes). I thought Ruby Dee was wonderful in role of Poitier's wife.

On the whole, "Edge of the City" is a smart, movie with a very good cast that tries too hard to be an interesting noir style picture, without taking the time to let the drama build.

7 out of 10 This is one of Cassavetes' best performances. The entire cast is outstanding, as is Martin Ritt's sublimely understated direction. The anger, angst, and desparation of urban labor battles is magnificently told in a fashion that is neither obtrusive nor patronizing. In a way it is dated with its era, but in many ways, it is gloriously timeless. Although this small film kind of got lost in the wake of On The Waterfront, Edge Of The City can certainly hold its own with that star studded classic. It's another story about the docks and the code of silence that rules it.

Next to the corrupt union that Lee J. Cobb ran in On The Waterfront, Jack Warden is really small time corruption. But he's real enough as the gang boss on one of the docks who intimidates the other workers by being handy with his fists and the bailing hook and he gets the rest to kickback part of their hard earned money. And it's all hard earned money in that job.

One guy Warden can't intimidate is Sidney Poitier another gang boss and when he tries to intimidate newcomer John Cassavetes, Poitier takes him under his wing. The two develop quite the friendship and Poitier and his wife Ruby Dee even fix Cassavetes up with Kathleen Maguire.

Warden is truly one loathsome creature and it's sad how by sheer force of personality and physical prowess he cows almost everyone else into submission. In that sense he's tougher than Lee J. Cobb who did have to rely on an impression collection of goons to enforce his will in On The Waterfront.

Edge Of The City marked the big screen directorial debut of Martin Ritt who did a great job with a good cast of New York based players and spot on location cinematography. The film's low budget does show, but you're so impressed with the ensemble cast you don't really care.

Cassavetes as the loner with a past and the hip and tough Poitier are both fine, but my personal favorite in this film is Ruby Dee. She should have gotten some award for her performance, her final scene with Cassavetes is outstanding.

Catch this one if ever possible. I wish it were out on DVD or VHS. This is an excellent movie that tackles the issue of racism in a delicate and balanced way. Great performances all round but absolutely outstanding acting by Sidney Poitier.

He makes this movie breathe and alive. His portrayal of a guy who struggles against discrimination and violence is simply mind blowing. His acting is forceful and delicate and subtle at the same time. Truly worthy of an Oscar, Poitier had to wait (because of his skin colour) for many more years before the sheer brilliance of his acting was recognised by the Academy.

Cassavetes turns in a great performance too, withdrawn, troubled and realistic as it has become his hallmark. He and Poitier contrast inimitably the forces of cowardice, courage and human transformation through friendship.

The movie is enjoyable and at the same time deeply haunting in its portrayal of racism in the US. The irony is that it somehow mirrors the realities under which Poitier had to work. I cry at a lot of movies. Call me sentimental. Call me one of those viewers who always likes to see a happy ending. This movie, though it has a sad ending, was great! Of all of the actors that I would love to have lunch with, it would be Sidney Poitier. His acting, along with John Cassavetes and Jack Warden (of 12 Angry Men fame)is stellar. His character, who befriends a man on the run (Cassavetes) and helps him out in every way possible is incredible.

This is another one of those forgotten noirs made during the end of the noirish era. It is well done, has a superb cast, extremely talented acting, and great cinematography. It is a film worth watching over and over again. I highly recommend this one! This is just another truly great film done by Mr. Poitier and should be sold on DVD. Even though I cried, kudos to such great art! 1957's Edge of the City, directed by Martin Ritt, stars John Cassavetes, Sidney Poitier, Jack Warden and Ruby Dee. It's the story of a troubled man, Axel, who has a mysterious past that gradually comes out during the film. He has a connection that gets him a job on a loading dock working for Charlie (Jack Warden), a real meanie who takes kickbacks from his workers and rides them hard. Charlie has an intense dislike for a black man, T.T. (Poitier) who holds the same position. T.T. invites Axel to work on his team; Axel defies Charlie and does so. Axel finds a place to live and socializes with T.T., his his wife (Dee) and their son's white schoolteacher (Kathleen McGuire). When tragedy strikes, none of the men on the loading dock will talk to the police, and Axel has to come to grips with his values, what he stands for, and the meaning of friendship.

This is a really excellent black and white film that curiously isn't really about being black or white! It's really about the limits one puts on oneself and knowing who you are. Charlie is a bigot and hates that a black man has a good position on the dock. T.T. teases Charlie and gives as good as he gets. There's no discussion of T.T. and Axel spending time together or of T.T.'s son having a white teacher with whom the family also socializes. What Axel, a loner, finds difficult is accepting any friendship or confiding in anyone - these things he learns through T.T.

Poitier absolutely shines in "Edge of the City" - he's warm, energetic, loving and smart, a man with a real enthusiasm for life, afraid of nothing. Cassavetes is excellent and plays a character totally opposite - hiding in the shadows, chronically depressed and always nervous.

The film leaves open what happens to Axel. Whatever does, he's a different man now.

Strangely underrated and unknown film, possibly in the shadow of a lot of the angry young men films that came out in that era. This is a powerful film which seems to have never re-arisen after the Joe McCarthy censorship period. It influenced me as a Jewish teen-ager who had friends of various colors and whose father's family had suffered under the Fascist regimes in Europe during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. Unlike the later rip-off, "On The Waterfront" which seemed to take some of the same themes and twist them to fit the enforced Hollywood political correctness of the time, it told its story direct and with respect for the characters and for the reality it fictionally reflected. It was an antidote to "Gone With the Wind", "Birth of a Nation", "Triumph of the Will" and so many other glorifiers of hatred and violence. I would place it alongside the recent German film (also virtually hidden in the US), "Rosenstrasse."

I remember that the TV version, also black and white in format as well as story, was blacked out by some stations because the black hero's wife appeared white. As a young civil rights worker, it produced a conflict for me because on the one hand I was opposed to smoking cigarettes and on the other opposed the boycott in Georgia of a sponsor of the TV show, a major tobacco company (I no longer remember which one -- does anyone else?).

I would love to find a CD of either the film or the TV show to let my sons see something that informed my opposition to racism universally (as opposed to only fighting racism against Jews) and recognition of the inherent connection between racism and militarism. The reason why this movie isn't any better known and more appreciated to me seems because of its subject. Because of its controversial subject this movie never got a proper big release and still remains a fairly unknown one to this very day. Not that it's subject is that controversial now anymore though.

Basically in essence it's a movie about a white man befriending a black man. The friendship does not seem forced or unrealistic but the way it gets portrayed in this movie makes it all feel very real. We see these different ethnics mingle in with each other, as if it's just completely normal. Unfortunately of course back in those days it really wasn't regarded as anything normal. Seeing a black man talking to a white girl and just having fun with her as a friend must have been an hard thing to watch for instance for some proportions of its 1957 audience.

You can really understand why Sidney Poitier has always been and still is being respected so much by the Hollywood society and the black-community in general. Of course it's one of the reasons why he also received an Honorary Award at the Oscar's, in 2002. In his movies he often fights against discrimination and prejudiced issues, with of course "In the Heat of the Night" as the best example of this. A real role model, that certainly has inspired many Afro-American actors, to this very day. But on top of that, he also was a great actor. Yes, he is still alive but he has pretty much retired completely from movies now it seems, since his last credited role is from 2001.

This movie was Martin Ritt's directorial debut and he also wasn't given too much movie to spend on his movie. The studios were probably also a bit reluctant mainly because of its concept and/or because it was Ritt's first movie. Or perhaps it was simply due to the fact that MGM just wasn't that big anymore and it had left its best days behind them. Ever since the '50's on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer sort of had the reputation of making not too great and cheap movies, while in the early years before that it was really one of the biggest studios with lots of stars and acclaimed directors attached to it, who made many award winning classic movies. Luckily for them their reputation is starting to change again and whenever the MGM-logo appears at a movie people are no longer expecting a lesser-movie anymore.

Anyway, even with its restrained budget and limited resources they managed to make a great movie out of this one. The movie is very simple, with only a few characters and a simplistic plot in it. The movie however still manages to capture you with its story and subjects, without ever starting to become preachy or anything about it. It makes the movie an effective one as well with its subjects.

Really a movie that deserves to be seen.

8/10 Highlighting the acting of Sidney Poitier and the brooding on-screen presence of John Cassevetes, The Edge of the City is a highly-watchable film from the fifties, directed by Martin Ritt. There is great acting and stunning on-location photography in black and white.

Poitier is a delight at this point in his career and Tommy Tyler, the character he plays is happy and outgoing. He befriends Axel Noordman, played by Cassevetes, who is a young man suffering from poor self-esteem and a past that he wants kept under wraps. Tyler, a black man, brings his friend out of his shell and introduces him to his family and a new girlfriend.

Tyler and Noordman are employed on the New York docks at a time when the workers were expected to tow the line, if they knew what was good for them. The boss Charles Malik, played by Jack Warden, in one of his many hard-bitten roles becomes the focus of discontent, which leads to a climactic showdown with Noordman.

At the end of the movie, we are left with mixed emotions. However, the two main characters have left the audience with a story of friendship between two different men in a hostile world. Axel Nordman (Cassavetes) shows up on the New York dockyards looking for a job, but with a hidden past. He gets one on condition that he pay a kick back to surly crew boss Jack Warden. While there, he strikes up a friendship with black man Sydney Poitier that unfortunately leads to a gut-wrenching moral dilemma for a man who, we learn, typically runs from his problems.

The movie looks like Oscar winner On the Waterfront, feels like On the Waterfront, and most importantly, plays much like that 1954 Kazan production. However, its racial theme is ground-breaking for the time. The black Poitier and the white Cassavetes are treated as equals in every respect. It might even be called the first of the black-white "buddy" pictures that would later dominate so many action films.

It helps that the two leads play so well off each other. Nonetheless, the movie's central flaw is failing to indicate why crew-boss Poitier pushes a friendship with the dour Cassavetes in the first place. He really goes out of his way to befriend the newcomer. But why he would cross racial barriers to do so is never really suggested. One possible explanation is that Poitier wants to use Cassavetes as a pawn in his rivalry with other crew-boss Warden, but then comes to genuinely like the guy. There's a hint of that in some of Cassavetes's suspicious reactions, but beyond that, the relationship appears unmotivated.

If there's a single stage shot in the entire movie, I couldn't spot it. Everything is done on seedy New York location, without the usual movie extras. In that sense, it's an anti-Hollywood production, carefully deglamorized even down to the night club scene which itself looks like a real after-hours crowd. I suppose sociologists would dub this rather raw slice-of-life "a glimpse of the working poor".

Yet, for all its virtues, which are many, the film remains too close to the Brando-Kazan movie for comfort. Here, a fine unknown actress Kathleen Maguire gets the role of the redemptive girl friend, Warden the role of the corrupt labor boss, while Cassavetes, like Brando, must suffer a bloody beating before regaining his moral standing and doing the right thing. Still and all, despite the derivative nature, the gritty urban drama retains enough of the original force to merit a look-see. I first saw this film on cable in the 80's and it rocked me to the core. It showed up again on TV about six months ago.

Filmed on location, the black and white cinematography graphically portrays 1950's New York as the gritty "urban jungle" at a time when there was far more industry and port activity in the city, particularly in Manhattan.

John Cassavetes always brought a special intensity to his acting, and is magnificent in the role of the army dodger. His brief 1959 TV series "Johnny Staccato" is also a joy to watch.

Sidney Poitier and (later in the film) Ruby Dee bring freshness and vitality to their roles. But it is Jack Warden's superb acting as the vicious, brutal shift boss that grabbed my attention. To get an idea of Warden's versatility, watch this film, then check out a 1962 episode of the TV series "Naked City" entitled "Specter of the Rose Street Gang (available on video)." If you are a fan of film noir, this is a must see. Enjoy! A gritty look at New York City and dock workers. This is a classic film, realistic, brutal at times, always believable. It was originally shown LIVE on tv,also starring Sidney Poitier. John Cassavetes was a fantastic director and actor. Clearly patterned after the first gangster movies that Warner produced the same year,Little Caesar (1931) and The Public Enemy (1931),this gangster movie is one of the better efforts I've seen. Although not quite in the same league as the previous mentioned classics, it has a powerful performance by young Sylvia Sidney.She's magnificent and delivers her lines more natural than perhaps anyone did at the time.Gary Cooper is better than usual at this stage in his career and shows signs of what would follow the next few years when he rose to the top. The movie has some fascinating villains in Paul Lukas (never seen him this detestable) and Guy Kibbee (what a shock to see him act the hoodlum).The direction of Rouben Mamoulian is very inventive,probably the first voice-over to show a persons thoughts appear in this movie. If you get the chance to see this little gangster flick, don't let the chance go by. I saw this film last night at a "pre-Code" film festival, and I have to tell you that when Gary Cooper turned his head for his introductory close-up, the entire audience gasped. He was just that beautiful.

Cooper's looks aside, this film displays Rouben Mamoulian's directorial artistry to perfection. Wonderful scene-fades, creative camera angles, symbolic allusions--Mamoulian just keeps exploring the directorial medium and coming up with innovation.

This was Sylvia Sidney's first role in Hollywood, after her success on the New York stage, and she is just as lovely as a Gary Cooper leading lady ought to be. It's nice to see her in a role with a harder edge than many she was given--so often she looks like she's afraid she's about to be hit by someone.

There are lots of familiar faces in this film, including the wonderful Wynne Gibson. Most striking is Guy Kibbee, best known for playing fatuous rich men, as a grinning and mendacious hit-man.

There aren't nearly enough of these pre-Code films available on VHS or DVD, so if you can't find a pre-Code festival near you, try campaigning Turner Classic Movies for a broadcast! As for the reviewer who believes Gary Cooper was too stupid to have dialogue more complex than "Yep" or "Nope," he should perhaps consider Coop's performance in films such as "Mr Deeds Goes to Town" or "Meet John Doe." Although heaven knows anyone who looked that good shouldn't have to be smart as well. I thought I'd witnessed every wrinkle the crime/gangster flick had to offer, but the Garrett-Marcin-Hammett combination pull off some genuine thrills and surprises here, thanks to the inventively forceful direction by Mamoulian, the atmospheric photography by Lee Garmes, plus remarkably sharp film editing and flawless special effects. Brilliant acting helps too. Coop gives one of his most convincing performances as the reticent hayseed-turned-fearless bootlegger (the sort of character progression he was to repeat in other roles such as Sergeant York). Miss Sidney (pictured center) in her first major role is also an eye-opener. The principals receive great support from Paul Lukas, Wynne Gibson and Stanley Fields as the heavies, and even from Robert Homans' hard-as-nails detective. The movie has obviously been realized on an extensive budget which is brilliantly deployed in its realistic, crowd-filled sets. City Streets is amazingly modern technically speaking for a movie made in 1931. Also who could not be mesmerized, enthralled by Gary Cooper's powerful magnetism, galvanizing the audience attention. The plot is quite elaborate and clear. The scenarios, decor, are exceptional in every detail. All the actors are above average. I keep guessing how the director and his staff, including editing, sound, lighting, photography, could have been so brilliant. I couldn't find a flaw, understanding that the scenes in the road(bumpy ride) with the large motion pictures screen on the background was the best they could get in 1931. All in all I found this movie superb and so much alive thanks to Gary Cooper charisma. If it had been made 2 years later it would have been BANNED! The number one MUST SEE recommendation of the day!. The best Rouben Mamoulian film I have seen this far (have but have not yet seen J+H).

There's no wonder why this film got less than 200 votes. A bigger greyzone that could not care less about what's proper would not be seen again until the 60's. As morally ambiguous and dark as 70's grit but with a certain charm as well. Of course this had to lay low in the later 30's and sadly it does not appear to have been re-discovered.

Seriously. This got it all. Great actors: Gary Cooper, Sylvia Sidney and the this time not so lovable Guy Kibbee. And a mighty good director. This far I haven't been RM's biggest fans but I have liked his films a lot and with this he steps into a new league. One of the best 30's films I have ever seen! This is something I never thought even existed! 9.5/10 I am so glad Zac was in 'The Suite life of Zack and Cody' because that is my favorite show and he is my favorite actor. It is a really funny episode and a funny show!! I love everything about the show and the characters. All of the performers are great. Keep on acting Zac, and I am so happy that nearly all of my favorite actors (including High School Musical characters) are in this show. Zac Efron is so 'hot' and I have an autographed picture of him! It is not a photo copy, and it came all the way from America to Australia and it nearly did not arrive in time for Christmas. Also, I got a High School Musical Mug with my name printed on it. (Scarlett 8) When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show. I read the above comment and cannot believe it! Of course its a children's movie, its an adaptation of a children's book!! This film IS easy to get a hold of, try play.com or amazon and its very easy to gain a copy! The jokes are hilarious for kids and adults alike, and the adventure is clean with no violence! Its completely suitable for children of all ages! The songs are fab, and yes, a little repetitive but thats what children need and whilst watching it my little ones were heard singing "hi hi cocalorum" all night! They loved it, a story of innocence and friendship! Very lovely and well worth watching for kids and adults of all ages! I was wandering through my local library, browsing VHS tapes, when I saw a movie that made my mouth drop--Waterbabies. I have been hoping to see this movie again--it's been over 22 years since I saw it (cable-movie channel around 78-79). I had recalled a good many of the details--Grimes in particular. My son, who is 4, and I watched it.

He agreed with me that Grimes was "Not nice", and the best way for me to describe it was that he didn't love Tom. He accepted that. It was amazing that I still recalled some of the songs, too! They had stuck in my head for 22 years--which means they had to have some memorable-ness, eh?

It's a good child's movie, with parental guidance in case of questions about what children had to go through that were not nobility/society in the time-frame. This is what all the children faced daily (except for a few lucky ones), and while we try to Disney-coat movies, making them more pc for children these days, it doesn't mean that cruelty didn't exist--or even still doesn't. I enjoyed the animation. It wasn't Disney, no. I don't think Don Bluth touched a paintbrush on this movie.

There's a lot going for it, though. David T plays two roles! (I really like him!) James M does too. The waterbabies themselves are cute. You feel sorry for Tom, and root for him. Then Billie herself is extraordinary in the multi-role part she's playing--it's as if her eyes ARE magickal! I'm a huge fan of WoO, TLW&TW, and company (AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HP!), and I filed this along with those kind of movies. Yes, he jumps in the water, but not because of suicide. He jumped because he trusted the lady in black--she'd been appearing to him all along.

I think it's a good movie! If you have kids, pick up a rental copy. If you happen to locate a buy-able copy, let me know where! Ian liked it! :)

Dee Wonderful songs, sprightly animation and authentic live action make this a classic adaptation of a classic tale. A nice British feel which sets it apart and above from the standard, saccharine sweet Disney cartoons. I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have. I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in "kangaroo" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks! An orphan boy named Tom (Tommy Pender), who works for a pair of shady chimney sweeps, is falsely accused of stealing from the mansion where he is working at by Mr. Grimes (James Mason) - the real thief - and goes on the run. Tom's only alibi is the niece of the mansion's owners (Samantha Gates, a slender, blue-eyed blonde, with long, wavy hair, who I'm sure was the primary reason why I repeatedly watched this as a boy). He and his dog jump into a river and a witch turns them into water breathing cartoon characters! While underwater, he befriends and rescues a group of water breathing children known as water babies from a shark.

A very interesting and always fascinating fable, set in 1850, that should appeal to all children. The animation (42 minutes of the 85 minute HBO VHS print) is just average, but it's preferable to most modern day animation - even computer animation! My only real gripe is a plot hole caused by a deleted scene. At 42:06, after the first verse of "High Cockalorum", the film cuts to a scene with octopi swimming, followed by Tom and Jacque's encounter with Terence. This leads to a scene in which the killer shark (voiced by Mason) leads our heroes into a trap. The shark then greets Tom with, "Young Tom, so nice to see your ugly mug again" - but this is the first time in HBO's print that Tom meets the shark! Most reference books list the running time as 92 or 93 minutes, and it was previously available from Sultan Entertainment and Nelson, so it's very likely that HBO's print is edited and / or time-compressed. Adding insult to injury, MGM released a fullscreen, 76 minute print on DVD in 2002! Let's hope a restored version appears in the near future.

The film is copyright Ariadne Films 1978. "Ariadne" is the water baby voiced by Samantha Gates. Bernard Cribbins, who plays Mason's partner in crime, also voices the electric eel. A.K.A. Slip Slide Adventures. For years i've had a distant memory of watching this film , i looked on the net to find it somewhere and couldn't find it anywhere so i thought it must have disappeared.

UNTIL...my gran showed me a box set she sent off for in the Daily Mail and i though nah there wont be anything decent in there, but to my great surprise there amongst other gems was The Water Babies! I hadn't been that excited ina long long time! Its a great light hearted film, the songs aren't memorable probably if i was a child during the time it came out i would have stuck in my mind more. Sadly it was just a film i watched at my grans 10 years ago when i was a little spud. And watching it back now the animation is terrible! and the re-recored voices they do to get a richness to the sound in films is totally off! But who cares when your a kid you never think of those things, even if they lead boy is about 10 and sounds like a boy in the middle of puberty.

Great classic kids film! This is a movie that I watched when I was a young girl and never forgot. It is certainly not the best movie ever made, but there is something very special about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I LOVE it. I am the kind of person who likes everything explained to me though and for that reason alone this movie drives me crazy.

Exactly what/Who is that mysterious witch-lady and what is her relationship with Tom? WHY and HOW did he become a Water Baby ... why was he raised on the earth? It is questions like these that are just eating at me! I thought if I read the book I would get answers, but I just read an article that the book from which this story is "based" is a lot different. So I guess I'll never know what the writer was thinking!

I still love this movie though and I recently watched it with my two year old niece. She loves it too although she insists on calling it "Baby Water" for reasons unknown to me. She loves the part where he jumps in the water and then declares "I'm all clean." (You have to understand that my niece is the cleanest 2 year old in the world!) We watched that scene over and over.

I am so glad that we can enjoy this film together! There should be more films like this. (But what is up with the gay seahorse??!!) In 1850 in Yorkshire, a boy chimney-sweep is falsely accused of theft by his crooked master and runs away. He falls into a treacherous local river and is transported into an underwater realm, where he makes many friends and rescues the mythical Water Babies from an evil shark.

Based on a book by Charles Kingsley, this is a lovely children's film, half live-action and half animation, which is both a grim and evocative depiction of Victorian times and a terrifically enjoyable undersea adventure. It really is two films in one, which somehow complement each other and combine into a much richer whole. The animation by Tony Cuthbert, Jack Stokes and Miroslaw Kijowicz is wonderful, as is the photography by Ted Scaife and the music by Phil Coulter and Bill Martin. Pender has a great rough-diamond quality as the (literal) fish out of water - I love the moment when he's on top of the mansion, sees all the chimneys and shouts "Blimey !!" at the top of his voice. Mason and Cribbins are the filthiest, nastiest bullies you could hope to see in a costume drama (if you want to see real Victorian values, don't watch Sense And Sensibility, watch this), and Whitelaw, Pertwee (who does umpteen voices) and Percival are all excellent. This is how a good children's movie should be - good old singalong fun, but also just a little bit thoughtful, sad and frightening. High Cockallorum !! The 1978 adaptation had all the ingredients of a potentially wonderful film. It is based on an absolutely charming book by Charles Kingsley. It has a truly talented cast from the likes of James Mason, Bernard Cribbons and David Tomblinson, not to mention the vocal talents of David Jason and Jon Pertwee. There is also Lionel Jeffries, the director of wonderful classics such as The Railway Children and the Amazing Mr Blunden, and while the film is good on the most part, it was also a little disappointing. I had no problem with the performances, particularly those of Mason and Tomblinson as Grimes and Sir John Harriet respectively, and Tommy Pender and Samantha Gates are believable as Tom and Ellie. The voice cast is also commendable, especially Jon Pertwee, voicing charming characters in their own right. I also liked the incidental music it is so haunting and beautiful, and the script was fairly faithful and in general well-written, particularly at the beginning. The characters, especially the Water Babies are very charming, and the villains are sinister and funny at the same time, I loved the part when Tom and his friends help the Water Babies escape, seeing the shark chasing the electric eel with an axe was very funny. However, I will say the film does look dated, especially the animation sequences, the live action parts weren't so bad, if you forgive the rather dark camera-work. The character animation was rather flat, and the backgrounds sometimes were a little dull, though there were some nice moments, like the scene with the Krakon and of course the first meeting with the Water Babies. I also had mixed feelings about the songs, the Water Babies's song was beautiful, but I found the first song forgettable, when Tom ends up underwater. Hi-Cockallorum is an example of a song, that is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. I personally don't know what to make of this song, it was fun to listen to at first, but once it's in your head, it is perhaps annoying. As much as I like Lionel Jeffries and his films, his direction just lacked the wonder and the magic it usually does. All in all, certainly not a terrible film, but could have been better artistically. 7/10 Bethany Cox. Like many, I first saw The Water Babies as a child/young teen in the late seventies/early eighties. It has remained with me since then with its catchy tunes, memorable portrayals, less-then-successful animation, and a story full of heart, coldness, and ultimately good vanquishing evil. Recently I sat down and saw it again after at least two decades passing, and I noticed THIS time around its striking similarities to The Wizard of Oz. No, these aren't blatant likenesses but hear me out. In this one we have a boy and his dog - having personal problems at "home," running away from something and in the scene right after they run away, changing the substance of their appearance. In This one, the boy and dog become animated. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and Toto are in color. In this one, the boy and dog are told they must find the Water Babies for answers and then ultimately the Kracken for guidance and he has the ability to let Tom go home if he shows he has courage, etc... In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy must also find an authoritative figure that tests her before he will allow her to return home. In the Water Babies, Tom meets three characters that will help him on his journey to the Water Babies - Dorothy has three helpers as well. When each helper is met, we are entertained with a rendering of "Hi, Hi, Hi, Hi, HI Cockallorum...We're on our way." In the Wizard it is "We're off to see the wizard." Dorothy has a good witch sort of look after her; Tom has a woman with many roles(Billie Whitelaw) do the same. If you look closely at the two, there are many other likenesses. That being said, The Water Babies is not a knockoff in any way, I was just commenting on the eerie likes between the two. This film has some solid performances from bad guys Bernard Cribbins and the always fascinating James Mason. The kids playing Tom and Ella are good. The supporting cast of Joan Greenwood(love her voice!), David Tomlinson, and the vocal talents of John Pertwee and Lance Percival add greatly to the mix. I must confess that the animation is less than sterling even for its time but is adequate enough to the challenge. The three animated characters that help Tom get home are all likable. I always have trouble picking my favorite between the French swordfish and the John Inman/Mr. Humphries like seahorse. The scene where we hear this guttural, maniacal laugh from a shipwrecked vessel only to see a seahorse with a huge polka-dotted bow-tie bob out always has me rolling! The Water Babies is a lot of fun. Sure, it is more of a children's film, but it has and always shall have a fond place in my heart. The bulk of the credit for what successes the film does have must go to director Lionel Jeffries. Jeffries is a wonderful comedic actor and his sense of humor is clearly evident throughout. I first saw this film when I was about 6 ish - my grandma thought it'd be a nice kiddies film to entertain me and keep me occupied....however, every time I watched it I had nightmares the same night. Yes it masquerades as a kids' film, but even now I find it really dark in places, particularly the haunting music that is played each time the guardian angel woman is on the screen, and her rather hypnotic eyes and voice. The actual "baddies" of the film, ie the sharks, Mr Grimes etc didn't scare me at all, I just always found the whole film rather creepy and dark. This is obviously something I can appreciate now that I'm 21 years old, but speaking from experience there is no way I would show it to my kids! I remember watching this film in 1981, when I was 7. It was absolutely brilliant! I found the DVD just a couple of months ago. I was nearly jumping up and down with glee!! I bought it and showed it to my kids. They loved it too. They asked what words the seahorse was singing (I didn't tell them, though, because I don't think telling the words 'gay' and 'ecstasy' to 6 year old kids is very good parenting). The songs are brilliant. I still remember them all. I'll still remember them when I'm 60! There, or near abouts. Tommy Pender is (was) such a brilliant actor. It's a pity he gave it up.

If you find the film, BUY IT! You'll love it! OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This "film" was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools. Co-directed by and starring Rutger Hauer, this film short was based on a short story by Dutch writer Harry Murlisch.

In the 10 minutes of the film's length you will get to see a life-time as 'Harry' unravels his long-time fascination with a room he passes constantly in his youth. Returning to the city many years later he finds he has rented the same room.

Using black and white film the textures are accentuated in this delicate telling of a tale. The voice of 'Harry' drawing you into his world.

A subtle, tight performance from Rutger Hauer and 2 non-speaking characters. Wonderful soundtrack by Dutch musician Dyzack.

At the moment difficult to see this movie as it is only available on DVD region 2 "L'infidele" (Liv Ullman) as a bonus track. But is due to be on the re-released DVD of "The Hitcher" - another tight, but very different performance from Hauer!

See this film if you can! I rarely watch short films as they only seem to be on late night television and are not publicised enough for me to know which short films are worth while. As The Room is an extra feature on The Hitcher DVD, it gave me a wonderful opportunity to witness a high quality short with Rutger Hauer in excellent form.

Artistically shot in black and white, The Room explores a man's obsession with a room he passed by in the early stages of adulthood and is expressed in a documentary/ interview style. The dialogue is very poetic, typical of a man expressing his feelings for a woman, but is also juxtaposed with ramblings and occasional deficiencies in fluency. This adds great realism and depth to Hauer's performance who is perfect as an eccentric man with most of his life behind him.

The piano music that Harry (Hauer) hears from the room is constantly in the background and enhances the touching atmosphere of the film and intensifies the feelings of sadness expressed by Hauer.

Hauer proves he is more than just a psychotic Hollywood bad guy with this role and perfectly displays his more sensitive side. Mattijn Hartemink is also effective in the flashback scenes as young Harry with a silent role. He shows how affected he is by the music and his disappointment when it goes away.

The ending is prophetic and leaves you in a reflective mood longer than many feature length films. A very good effort. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hauer at the 2005 Sarasota Film Festival for the U.S. premier of this film. Not only was he gracious enough to autograph my copy of BLADE RUNNER, he took the time to answer some questions about the film before screening THE ROOM for a packed theatre.

I was so impressed by the film that I used it as the yardstick by which to compare all other films I had seen at the festival. It was powerful and moving, yet subtle and brief. The film tells the story of how a young man, (older version played by Rutger) one day finds himself entranced by a seemingly ordinary room in an unremarkable building near the street. Walking by, he notices a single window, always open, from which a haunting melody can be heard. Each day, he passes by the room, sometimes standing for hours outside, watching it through the silken drapes that flutter in the light breeze, hoping to get a glimpse of its occupants. Towards the end of the film, we find out how significant this room really is and what has drawn our protagonist to it.

The film was cut beautifully. Not a second of screen time was wasted on an uninteresting shot. Any single frame from the film could stand alone in an art gallery. Rutger is amazing. He is mysterious, yet approachable. His dialogue encompasses a series of reflections on a life that has run it's course, for better or worse. His words conjure familiar feelings and thoughts from the audience. I was particularly moved by a scene in which he is looking at some old photos, remembering his favourite dog, his favourite horse and his first love. You get the feeling that you are in his presence, as he allows you into his world to glimpse precious memories of a life that is nearing its end.

I loved this film and would recommend it to anyone who is looking for something fresh, intelligent and moving. Should be required viewing for all film majors. It must be so difficult to tell a story where not much happens, yet still grip the viewers attention. I think this short film achieves this with effortless quality. Rutger has an amazing voice that is very soothing, wise and fatherly, (I'm not gay) it reminds of the qualities that Robert Redford has in narrating. The end is very sad, but beautiful. One wonders how long Harry has left, will he be lonely and will he get to say his goodbyes? Also one gets annoyed at Mr Hauer for not getting involved in more work of this caliber. Lets hope he continues to do fine work in Holland and stays away from Hollywood.

Worth Watching this a haunting piece of work.its only ten minutes long but i would sooner pay ten bucks into the cinema to see this than to see any full lenght movie currently doing the rounds. it is a simple piece of a man's reflection.he arrived a young man in this place and was mesmerised by a room and the music coming from it...and now here he sits,dying in old age in this place he so fondly connects to his youth. the music in it is brilliant,the guitars have that jazz-room twang like neil young's music in dead man. if you get the chance,watch this film.its worth it.if rutger hauer made more films like this i think he would get more respect than he gets.at the moment you hear him put under phrases like "everybody's favourite psycho".im sure that is not what rutger would want to be rememered as an actor for.he also directed this film,so in this shows that he a very artistic actor/director.a change from the b-grade movies he has been doing since the early 90's.i hope to see more of this rutger hauer as he is one of my favourite actors. When, oh, when will someone like Anchor Bay or Blue Underground release this on widescreen DVD??? Le Orme, which I only know because of my rare/vintage video collecting habit, is a film in my collection that I would not only sit through, but actually enjoy watching. The fact that Klaus Kinski is top billed, but is only in small parts of the film, means little to me. (Though several comments expressed disappointment in his rather limited screen time.) I cannot say that this is a good horror film, a good mystery, a sci-fi epic or anything of that nature. It is simply unclassifiable in the "genre" sense of things. It is more like a confusing, frightening (though not particularly violent or bloody) dream, filled with great visuals and mystery. It relies on visuals and emotion, much like Bava's "Lisa and the Devil". Both films are beautiful in almost every sense, but almost impossible to describe in a logical manner; they both occur in such a dream-like atmosphere. Don't be deterred by Force Video's synopsis on the back cover. It is infinitely more complex and intriguing than that. Though Force Video's release from 1986 (the only one in the US, that I know of) is cropped to full-screen on tape, even in that format it is still great. Releasing it remastered and/or letterboxed would make it magnificent (hint, hint... DVD companies). This is actually a very good surreal mystery movie, despite the description that tries to sell it as a Sci-Fi movie. Balkan stars as a woman haunted by mysterious visions and lost memories that she is trying to piece together. She spends the majority of the movie trying to make sense of her visions. Very atmospheric and effective. It is true that Kinski does not appear very much in this film, but the staring actors are very good. There is only an English dubbed version available in the US, and the dubbing leaves something to be desired, but the actors do a very good job. The cinematography, by Academy Award winner Vittorio Storaro is excellent. An earlier Giallo by director Bazzoni, THE FIFTH CORD, is also excellent, and also lensed by Storarro. Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. "Psychological thriller" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus. Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a translator living in Italy, discovers that she has a memory loss and can't recall the last couple of days. She starts to follow a trace of memory fragments, which leads her to the small town of Garma. People in the town seem to recognize her and she's beginning to suspect that the re-occurring nightmares of astronauts conducting horrible experiments has something to do with her own amnesia.

The movie is interesting and the plot is good, but it's a bit to slow moving and arty for my taste. The plot takes some nice twists and it's really hard to figure out where it's heading. Florinda Bolkan is good in her role (but even better in "Flavia the Heretic") and it's always nice to see "star" child actor Nocoletta Elmi. Klaus Kinski's role is too small though. This is not a movie for the die-hard gore hound or exploitation addict, but still a very nice hour-and-a-half mystery. A very insightful psychological thriller! Footprints is a stylish example of the 70's powerful Italian film making.And Luigi Bazzoni, a wrongly underrated director and visually amazing 'auteur'. The movie develops its unusual plot with an incredibly suspenseful atmosphere and never disappoints,especially in its sad and dramatic finale! Florinda Bolkan delivers an excellent performance,rich of nuances and touching sensitivity,being able to portray a dark lady who is not only fascinating,but also painfully real and tragically lonesome.But the all cast is a treat,as well! Lila Kedrova,Nicoletta Elmi(the mysterious kid by the beach),Italian screen legend Caterina Boratto and stunningly beautiful B movie queen Evelyn Stewart in the brief but haunting role of the protagonist's friend! And Klaus Kinski in a surprisingly disturbing cameo! It's peculiar to notice how incredibly well done movies like Footprints were! Vittorio Storaro's moody and creepy cinematography,stylized locations and sets,Nicola Piovani's haunting score and first of all the story,so intense and disturbing,so intelligently layered and structured! A thriller with fantastic elements,but especially with a soul and a personal vision. I wish movies like Footprints would not be forgotten! I wish the movies were more insightful and personal today as they were back in the 60's/70's! And yes..i wish somebody will soon make a digitally remastered widescreen DVD out of this little masterpiece! "Footprints (on the Moon") is almost certainly the strangest, most convoluted and most atypical Giallo ever made. It may come as a restraint to some of the sub genre's fans, but this film doesn't feature many of the regular Giallo trademarks like bloody knife murders (preferably committed by a masked killer wearing black gloves), ravishing scantily dressed beauties and unpredictable red herrings. However, to compensate for all this – and much more – "Footprints" benefices from the most indescribably mysterious and non-stop compelling atmosphere I ever experienced in this type of film. The level of mystery in this movie is so high and unbearable it literally makes you feel uncomfortable and scared. Like the female protagonist Alice Cespi herself, you absolutely have no idea of what's happening or why, and this feeling of utter powerlessness is unquestionably the film's main strongpoint. As a viewer, you crave to help this poor woman understand the things that overcome her, but you simply can't. Alice has a successful career as an interpreter, but her quiet and peaceful life gets brutally interrupted when she wakes up one morning and slowly begins to realize she has absolutely no recollection of the previous three days. She finds a torn apart photograph of a hotel located on the holiday island Gama and decides to go there in order to investigate what happened. On the island several people including a lonely little girl seem to recognize Alice, only she used the fake name Nicole, wore a red-haired wig and acted like she came to the island to hide from an unknown danger. Meanwhile, even the poor girl's nights are restless as she has reoccurring dreams of astronauts hopping on the moon surface and an uncanny scientist called Dr. Blackman. The plot of "Footprints" is truly bizarre and slowly brooding, and particularly the cosmic sub plot is really difficult to link with the rest. Alice assumes they are just images from a Sci-Fi movie she saw long time ago, which sounds like a reasonable enough explanation, but you sense there's a deeper meaning and actual connection to all the other events. Fans of tension-driven and stylish Italian cinema can't afford themselves to miss this film, really. This is director's Luigi Bazzoni's psychological tour-de-force, with staggeringly beautiful photography and mind-altering music. In spite of the lack of violence (or maybe just because of it), the film is genuinely disturbing and the mental agony Alice goes through honestly affects the viewer emotionally as well. As it is sadly too often the case in Gialli-cinema, the climax suddenly comes rather abrupt and nearly doesn't give a waterproof explanation of all the awkward events you just witnessed for the last hour and a half. Still, the content of "Footprints" will keep you contemplating long after the film has finished and its powerful impact will only increase. Florinda Bolkan is sublime as the tormented leading lady and receives excellent feedback from the limited supportive cast, including the young Nicoletta Elmi. The eminent Euro-cult star Klaus Kinski receives top-billing as well, but his role is merely an extended cameo. This film is actually a lot better than director Bazzoni's more acclaimed (and much easier available) Giallo "The Fifth Cord", so here's to hoping "Footprints" will soon receive a fancy DVD-release as well. I saw this movie many years ago, have tried to locate it but perhaps understandably it is nowhere to be found. It was so esoteric, & yet one of a handful of movies that remains with you for a long time. I am still not sure what the reality of the movie is, and perhaps, like the Uncertainty Principle, the obscurity is the definite thing. Acting is superb, the atmosphere is always filled with a sense of foreboding, an overall melancholiness permeates, & yet, it is hard not to be absorbed in the story. I rented it thinking it was science fiction (it was in the sci-fi section with some totally misleading blurb), but quite clearly it is not. Or horror, or even suspense. In fact, one feels thankful the director took the courage to make a movie like this, for which obviously there is no solid audience. I know some people have complained about Klaus Kinski's short role, but I think it is very appropriate - his limited exposure is critical to the formation of the mystery of this movie. I was very impressed with with this film which was directed by (Luigi Bazzoni). The story was about a young woman translator who suddenly has lost all memory of the last three days and has suffered nightmares about astronauts on the moon. She can not explained how this has happened to anyone. One day a postcard arrives for her from the island of Garma, where she goes to visit. strangely though people seem to know her even though she has never been there before. Also her dreams of astronauts on the moon come back to her.

I thought that this was a very strange Italian movie that seemed very haunting at times and there was also strange images in the film that seemed to stay with you throughout the the time you were watching the film. I would recommend this film to people just to see how good it is. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) – where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from – in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else – in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being "deadly boring" – an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare!

Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days – of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) – where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) – the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).

While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace – and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme – adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).

With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb – lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.

I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) – namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot…except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called "Footsteps On The Moon" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) – amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) – and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface…!

The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing – though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of "Carmen" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) – also with Nero and Kinski – as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)…but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly! In a bizarre experiment, an astronaut is abandoned on the moon as Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a troubled translator living in Italy, wakes from a nightmare about a lunar mission mixed with an old movie that frightened her as a child. She also has no recollection of the last three days except for a torn photo of the Garma hotel she finds in her apartment. Fired from her job, Alice heads to that resort island to try and piece together the mystery...

Often touted as a giallo due to it's director (THE FIFTH CORD's Luigi Bazzoni) and the presence of Evelyn Stewart, Nicoletta Elmi, and Klaus Kinski, FOOTPRINTS is actually a deliberately paced psycho-thriller with sci-fi overtones. Blurring the distinction between dream, reality, memory and movies, the disturbing story is beautifully photographed by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro with a pensive score by Nicola Piovani. It also combines elements of such diverse films as Armando Crispino's MACCHE SOLARI and Lucino Visconti's DEATH IN VENICE in it's depiction of alienation, isolation, hallucination, and maybe madness. Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, on screen all the time, does a redux of her Carol Hammond in Lucio Fulci's A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN as Alice, a young woman thrust into a mystery that makes her question her sanity. The locations mirror Alice's unstable state of mind; the island of Garma, off-season, with it's Arabic influence and ancient ruins, is a lonely, almost mystical place unwilling to give up its secrets. Evelyn Stewart has a bit in the beginning as a concerned friend, Nicoletta Elmi and Oscar-winner Lila Kedrova are hotel guests, Peter McEnery plays a handsome biologist trying to help Bolkan, and the ever-intense Klaus Kinski is "Blackmann" in the film-within-a-film, "Footprints On The Moon".

FOOTPRINTS is a classy case of "Guaranteed 100% Euro-weird" but not for everyone. There's only one murder toward the end but you won't see it coming as the film starts to come together. Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. "Psychological thriller" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus. OK ... The end of this may be something of a letdown after what has come before ... And Klaus Kinski should have had his 10 second appearance cut out ... But there is no getting away from the fact that this is a really wonderful atmospheric Euro thriller ... I can't believe I have never seen this till now ... Its good to know there are films out there that are still worth tracking down ... And this really is ... Stunning visuals ... Haunting ... And builds an amazing atmosphere ... Florinda Balkan is perfect as our heroine ... And the scene on the beach with Nicoletta Elmi is some of the most relaxed and perfect acting you could see ... Lila Kedrova is spot on as a fellow visitor to the town who may or may not be who she seems ... If you miss the hay days of Euro cinema then chase this out ... There's a decent widescreen print going round ... And please get this out in a restored DVD someone ... They did it with the directors " Fifth Cord " ... And this is a much better film Footprints certainly isn't your average run of the mill Giallo, and that's no bad thing. Unlike his previous effort, The Fifth Cord (which was your 'classic' Giallo) Luigi Bazzoni's film forsakes almost all of the Giallo trademarks and instead of murder; the focus is very on psychological mystery. It's obvious from the outset that this is going to be an entirely bizarre film as the film opens up with a scene set on the moon. Things don't get any clearer after that as the lunar sequence turns out to be the dream of Alice, a troubled woman. Alice is tormented by dreams of an astronaut stranded on the moon, which have apparently come from a viewing of a film called 'Footprints on the Moon'. After several things go wrong for her, Alice decides to go to a mostly deserted former tourist spot named Garma. Upon her arrival, she is surprised as the people she meets seem to already know her. Alice also meets a young red headed girl who also seems to already know her; the girl tells Alice she looks exactly like Nicole, except nicer and with shorter hair...

The fact that Footprints doesn't feature much in the way of sex, murder and other Giallo trademarks puts it somewhat on the back foot with it's primary audience from the beginning as most people going into this film aren't going to get what they were expecting (or, probably, wanted). But on the other hand, Footprints commands respect for the fact that it doesn't just follow on from what went before it. By 1975, the Giallo had started to lose it's popularity and many of the films coming out around this period (with a few very notable exceptions) were merely retreads of what came before, so Luigi Bazzoni would have been taking a big chance on this film. Florinda Bolkan gives a strong performance in the lead role; and the fact that she's not the prettiest Giallo heroine isn't really important. The mystery builds nicely throughout, and while it can become a little turgid at times; Footprints is, generally speaking, intriguing for the duration. It probably won't come as a surprise to many once they get there that the ending doesn't make much sense, and doesn't really clear anything up; but it nicely adds to the bizarre cult value of the film, and all in all; I give Footprints a thumbs up! In the final days of the year 1999, most everyone in Taiwan has died. A strange plague has ravished the island. Supposedly spread by cockroaches, the disease sends its victims into a psychosis where they act like the insects. Eventually, they die. The Hole takes place in a crumbling apartment building (which is especially well created; kudos to the set designer!). Its two protagonists live right above and below each other. The woman is on the lower floor, and the pipes above her apartment are leaking fiercely, threatening to destroy her food supply, not to mention her sanity. She calls a plumber to go check it out, and he accidentally pokes a hole through the floor of the man's apartment. The two have never met before, and they come into contact through the hole.

The script is quite brilliant. Few films are simultaneously this funny while remaining completely human, deeply exploring the human condition, especially feelings of loneliness and despair. Tsai's direction is simply beautiful. Like a lot of other Taiwanese directors, he uses a lot of long takes. But unlike, say, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Tsai doesn't overuse them. In fact, I don't know if I've ever seen them used better. They're always effective and never tedious.

It would be wrong to review this film without mentioning the musical numbers. Yes, The Hole is also a musical, and a great one, at that. In the film's best scenes - which is saying something, considering how good all the other scenes are - the man imagines that the woman is a singer, almost a cabaret singer. These numbers are fully choreographed, often with backup dancers and singers. In a stroke of genius, Tsai has these elaborately produced numbers take place in the crumbling building, the signs of apocalypse and decay unhidden. This provides both a sense of pathos and absurdity.

The Hole is a film that begs to be seen. It ought to be a cult classic, if nothing else. Before I went to see this, I was told that it was a decent film, but probably Tsai Ming-liang's least good one. Well, if that is true, I just cannot wait to see another one! 10/10. *MINOR SPOILERS*

Need any further proof that Tsai Ming-liang ranks among the most original and provocative filmmakers working anywhere today? See this film.

Working from slight variations of a theme running through most of his work, THE HOLE represents a study in alienation and loneliness - in this case between a man and woman who are upstairs/downstairs neighbors - and how varied structures (real or psychological) of modernity wall people off from one another. Here, the woman (the downstairs neighbor) attempts to endure as her apartment is flooded by a prodigious leak from upstairs. A plumber attempts to locate the source of the problem, then disappears after creating a large hole in the floor. Already isolated and desperate (both characters are among the few residents of a housing project who haven't fled in advance of a mysterious, near-apocalyptic epidemic). The hole linking the two apartments functions first as yet another in a long line of indignities, but soon begins to take on a significance of near-mythic proportions.

Tsai's sense of humor, and sense of cinematic history is displayed with a bit more overtness than usual - as the woman's occasional daydreams revolving around her upstairs neighbor are visualized as musical numbers (set to the music of Grace Chang) which explode from the screen in brief bits of sensualistic, surreal romance and humor - quite reminiscent of the big-screen PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. And for all of the ennui and alienation on display here, Tsai's skewering of late 90s pre-millennial tensions is funny, absurd, and gives this film a very appealing strageness. The final scene is extraordinary.

Meanwhile Tsai - in typical fashion - subverts most of the usual expectations or preconceptions Westerners bring to Asian cinema with a nonchalant, casually-revealed directness, focusing on both the absurdist tendencies of the human mind, and the most absolute of mundanities. There's an utter, nonchalant demystification of almost everything about his characters, sidestepping backstory or most cultural signifiers (which does amplify the isolation of the characters), making THE HOLE - and his other films - rather disorienting, but also always fascinating and insightful. (the description of the mood of the movie may be considered as a spoiler - because there is not much action in fact)

Great one...

Is it for my peculiar interest for the dystopias and utopias? Is it for the atmosphere of the movie. Or is there some more magic? If yes, it is for sure the utmost human one...

This film is, no doubt, extremely artistic/artificial (depends on taste). I can imagine most of the people who hate to watch slow movies (and those of Tsai Ming Liang (who I didn't enjoy other times) are one of the slowest that I know), suffering during the movie. Yes, people are unable to slow down and to let time pass - and to watch it without feeling they waste it. One can take this piece as torture or as a therapy...

The topic at the surface? The lack of communication - even if we live in rabbit cages - one next to each other - but not really together? People are tired, sick of something and unable to describe it - just don't want to meet, touch, talk, confront the others... like if they had disappeared. The big block of flats looks void and the rain falling constantly evokes the strange melancholy inside. And sometimes it must be something abnormal, unexpected, some unwanted decay as a hole in the floor of concrete - that allows us to reach each other.

One of the possible ways to look at it is this: Don't survey the inner world of the characters - consider the whole movie-space to be inside of yourself. And ask - why is it there? Where could these depressive states and moods come form? Is there a place for them, they don't have a right to be here? And search for the answers (if you need them) among the walls and halls of the block - instead of inside hardly transparent mind of a man.

The key to understand is not-to-understand - to let a movie borrow us - as a subject of study - inside itself - and at the end safely return us to our more colorful and "normal" looking reality.

Then, maybe, you will reach - like me - the feeling of real, possible, non-pathetic hope, that in core we are still humans... and this state of mind can help one much to live in this world. It's less visceral than the only other Tsai film I've seen ("Vive L'amour"), but the idea of doorways (holes) into others' emotions and existences is vividly portrayed here, as Tsai sets up long shot after long shot, usually with long takes, suggesting a sense of alienation in Taipei. The musical interludes, inspired by Grace Chang, are perplexing but welcome mile-markers that add new dimensions to the slowly evolving relationship between the young man upstairs and the woman downstairs. It's not necessarily an easy film to watch (although it's not heavy-handed by any means), so I'd warn any casual viewers who are looking for some "indie" entertainment (like Tarantino or Guy Ritchie). But if you'd like to know something about isolation among city-dwellers in Taiwan, and something more universal about city alienation and romantic yearning, then watch this film immediately. This movie, one of the best I've ever seen, talks about incommunicability. It does it plunging ourselves in a livid Taipei, stained in cold colors, where the rain falls incessantly; a DAMP world. It does it displaying us the story of two persons living in this world, a man and a woman. a coincidence, or the fate,links their existences, but they're not able to open one to the other with words. Characters are the mirror of the difficulty of our society concerning interpersonal relationships. An incommunicability that here is taken to the extreme limits. all the characters exchange only a few words during the movie, dialogues are nearly absent, and when some words are spoken they're often weak and empty, far away from describing people's real feelings. So, the progression of the story, the revelation of character's feelings is developed (brilliant idea!) by the musical digressions, only apparently meaningless, that speckle the movie. The proceeding of the sentimental event, and the drama of female protagonist, lead us to a splendid ending, heavily symbolic. A movie totally different from the usual, a clever realization by a great-talented director. PS. Forgive me for my bad grammar!! In the middle of The Hole I e-mailed a friend of mine to summarize it. Not sure if the film would break down into a series of submissive gestures, I felt a little un-easy recommending it, but then I saw the ending. It's perfect. I've been living in Korea for 6 months, and this film could just as easily summarize the strange ennui and frustration of any Asian metropolis as it takes on Taiwin here. It uses the myth of Hong Kong musicals the same way Godard or Hartley use Western musicals, but takes it to an extreme, it's gritty world and occasionally Kafka-esquire logic make it all the better. I really feel like The Hole's closest comparison is Hal Hartley's Surviving Desire, but have a kinda bleak edge to what are ultimately hopefully and strangely metaphorical films. Anyway, this is what I wrote to Esther. Hope you like The Hole too.

Hey,

watching a move called the hole. Taiwanese I think seems a bit to weird for china unless it's hong Kong. it's worth seeing so far. it's about a guy and a girl in an apartment complex. the guy's ceiling caves in and the girl starts to get annoyed and well it's kinda a weird metaphor for the simultaneous pleasure ,degregation, and pain of a rather intense crush. there's also a kinda zombie-virus-sub-plot too and a lot of weird little scenes where the girl acts out her desires through rather innocent and kinda fun 50's doo-wop sequences. worth a look. The whole world is falling prey to a lethal disease, and rain never stops pouring down : nevertheless, in this atmosphere of nightmare, a man and a woman discover that they are neighbors, thanks to a hole in the floor of the man's apartment. They fall in love : at least, all would not have been lost. Although this wonderful film expresses the loneliness and the weakness of human being, there is also some room for hope, in the shiny singing scenes. This film is like a dirge. UNTIL it gets to musical numbers which are like MIND F*CK, but gentler, like a mind caress. MIND FOREPLAY. The depressing vibe given from the speed & desperateness of the characters can be pretty Kill-Yourself-Awesome UNTIL you get to the musical numbers. It's a great film. Optimistic. Weird. Manic-depressive(Bipolar). That's it! THIS MOVIE IS BIPOLAR. anyway see it. IT'S A MUSICAL!!! WITH DEPTH!!!! If you like the existential dross like The Stranger, or Waiting for Godot, Then your probably get a real kick out of this one. I had to get the DVD through Amazon.com for like 12$. OH & the songs rock. well they rock but they aren't rock, there like calypso, jazz, Broadway, but by Grace Chung, & I can't find the soundtrack NOWHERE< but i wanna the songs are great, & the dances are so fun. Compared to this, Tarkovsky is a speed freak.

Compared to this, Bela Tarr is MTV.

Compared to this, the movie "Russian Ark" is a roller-coaster ride.

I've just described 3 of the sllllowwwwwesssstttt experiences I've ever known, and this one tops them all. But that's not saying it's bad. On the contrary, I really liked it. But it was a chore.

I won't describe the plot, because you can easily find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the plot is INSANE. It's one of the most creative and bizarre ideas since "Becoming John Malkovich". I believe the interesting plot is the main reason I kept from nodding off (also, the humour was nice. That's something we rarely see in slow, artsy films).

Here we see a bizarre reversal of the norm. Most movies have little plot & little substance; yet they fill 90 mins with a lot of eyecatching images to keep us enthralled. But "The Hole" has 100% plot/theme without much to please the eyes. In that respect, I suppose it's a truly intellectual experience, much like reading a painfully verbose novel like Thackaray's "Vanity Fair" (which I've NEVER been able to finish!).

If you have a tremendous attention span, I think you'll really like this film. Despite its molassessy pace, it's highly creative and imaginative. It's like Jean-Pierre Jeunet on quaaludes and with a drab, dusty camera lens. Best of luck. "Where to begin, where to begin . . ?(Savannah in the episode "Gimme Shelter")" To disabuse: Fox/Viacom does not, at this point in time, have any intention of releasing THE show on DVD. But be not downhearted! That you are reading this reveals that the magic lingers fifteen years on . . . And small wonder. This was post-modern television, a valiant attempt to visualize magical realism. 'neath the blue patina, charm, and brio were scripts bursting with symbolism and metaphor, music that actually interacted with scenes! And, ultimately, an attempt, however doomed, to recapture one's belief in innocence, to reclaim Eden, as it were . . . It's potency is perhaps best attested to by the fact that even as we, umm, type, a book is being written about the show wherein will be found the thoughts, fancies, and reminiscences of many of the show's actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the meanwhiles . . . anyone desirous of once again visiting the end of the world and reacquainting themselves with Seamus, Sheriff Cody, Savannah, et al . . . should not hesitate to contact me, I may be able to make you a copy. "Angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees . . ." Key West, for too short a time was "appointment TV" for my family. I'd stop by Red Lobster and pick up a Party Tray for the night it was on. The irony of the situation was that I was working for a Fox Affiliate at the time, and every one at the station was incensed at them not renewing the show. Everyone in that cast was excellent. Fisher Stevens... perfect. Who couldn't fail to identify with an "everyman" who dreams of being a writer in Key West? Jennifer Tilly was always remarkable (and she is one HECK of a Texas Hold'em Player). You can still find the pilot episode on YouTube. Wish they'd post the Hurricane one. That episode alone, should have won an Emmy, as well as the rest of the cast. Such a shame that this wonderful bright spot on the small screen had such talent in writers and actors, such wonderful scenery that was the ultimate escapism for those in a land locked, sun deprived state. Many of the actors went on to bigger things...another indicator that there was something wonderful sadly lost. I lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, with all of my (now ex) husband's very large family in a chorus of 'NO NO!!' every time it would be yet again taken over by a baseball game broadcast.

Someone who wrote here mentioned it was up against 'Rosanne'...all my ex and I noticed was that it was always always always preempted by BASEBALL!!!! Yes, FOX really wasted something wonderful that one and nothing will ever equal it~! Thank you for the memories of it. I am right now watching "The Big Chill" on DVD. One of its actors is Meg Tilly. I looked it up on IMDb which led me to reading Meg's bio which mentioned and reminded me of Meg's sister Jennifer Tilly whose filmography included "Key West", which was one of my wife's and my favorite shows. I then read this entire thread of reviews.

Wow, I really loved that show also and agree with all of the sentiments about the quirkiness and uniqueness of the characters and situations.

As most everyone else, I wish it was on DVD or otherwise available.

The last reviewer says he watches it on reruns so I wish I knew what network, channel, day, times it is on.

So if anyone knows how we can watch episodes of "Key West", please let us know. This series, while idealized and fictionalized, has the quirkiness, sultriness, and good-heartedness that does come from living on an island.

I lived in an out of the way part of Hawaii for a few years and found some hilarious, quirky, and fun people in some remote (non-tourist) areas.

Every time I see the reruns of this series, I fondly compare my memories of experiences in out-of-the-way parts of Hawaii with the memories portrayed and fictionalized in Key West.

This series is not reality television. I hate reality television.

It is from the era when people still wrote creative TV shows. Give me a "young writer" who takes their inspiration from the "angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees and elves in the seashells" any day. Agree that this was one of the best episodes of this show. I remember the series well as I was in the Florida Keys when the show had its debut. I was looking through old VCR tapes that were "keepers" and came across two that had about eight episodes. I ended up spending part of Christmas night (and the next) watching these shows. The singer was Bankie Banx - saw his name come up on the credits. He's from Anguilla and owns a beach front bar called The Dune Preserve. He's a longtime friend of Jimmy Buffett and Bankie's classic song "Still In Paradise" is featured on the latest Buffett CD/DVD combo called "Live In Anguilla" - it is track #12 on CD 1 and #8 on the CD. I too would like to someday see this short lived series come out on DVD. Keep the faith! We all seem to be in agreement. It was an excellent show and let die way before it's time. I've decided that if I really enjoy a show, it's often the kiss of death. I love the quirky, ensemble cast shows, and a great setting always helps. I really expected to see a lot of these stars in other television productions, but short of Mariska Hagartay who played Fisher Stephens crazy girlfriend, I've not seen many of them except in occasional cameo roles. What a shame.

Key West, Northern Exposure, Gilmore Girls, and Veronica Mars... all great shows, all sadly gone before their time.

Hear us, loud and clear, we want Key West on DVD..... please. I think that "Key West" might do well as a DVD. There probably are a lot of failed Star Treks that just never had a chance to succeed. We will never know if this could have been a great series. I would love to know if there is a way to see older shows like this or are they just another Hollywood footnote? Is it possible to find copies of these shows so that we loyal oddballs can enjoy them again? The show had a great writing talent and some if not all of the episodes left you with a feel for the characters that is often missing in todays hit shows.I often came away with a sense of learning something from the story lines and greatly entertained by the very unique characters. Thank You. I went into this film thinking I wasn't going to like it, but hoping to be surprised, but this, much like the film, ended up being bleak and hopeless. But don't get me wrong, Minghella delivers every bit of a grand epic and for those who enjoy that kind of experience and are willing to take that adventure and accept what comes as just that, then they will not be disappointed and it will be one of the better films of the year in their opinion. The acting is of a high quality and will most likely come away with a trinity of oscar noms for Law, Kidman and Zellweger, even though Portman's few scenes may be the most powerful in the film. The locations are beautiful and Minghella has an eye for a good shot.

However, for those like me who want the director to take them on the adventure instead of going willingly may come away disappointed mainly due to Minghella and his adaptation. The film is so utterly bleak it makes for what I consider to be a punching bag epic which is a film that that tries to hit hard with emotion but does so to such an extreme and so often that during the film I didn't have the time to emotionally invest, or hadn't recovered from a previous blow, and it became unrealistic and consequently too difficult to really care, not to mention predictable. Overall the "Cold Mountain" almost left me too drained to even think back on the good aspects of the film, as all I remember is death, which may have been an original motif but ends up being the focus instead of the characters. "How can a name, not even a real name, break your heart?" Here's how. There have been few film versions of a celebrated novel that have done better justice to their source material than Anthony Minghella's movie of Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain. If you've read the book you will be able to feel most of the major scenes soul shakingly recreated. I personally cried numerous times while reading the novel and spent much of the evening watching the film through tears.

Astounding scope, beautiful words, great acting and great music. In the interview on the DVD accompanying the film Minghella talks about the multiple layers of the story. All of them work. One of the best films I've seen and an invitation to one of the greatest novels of the last ten years. Watching "Cold Mountain" gave me the impression that its director, Anthony Minghella, was deliberately trying to outdo himself and the own film of his' that he was trying to beat was the virtually impeccable "The English Patient" from 1996. Comparing the two movies, the premise is quite similar. We have a passionate love affair between two people set in a turbulent time of war and they end up treating the war more or less as a disturbance in the background while trying to find themselves back in each other's arms again. The primary plot differences are that Nicole Kidman's character is not married, Jude Law's is a deserter, and the conflict is the American Civil War.

"Cold Mountain" is, story-wise, more watered down and mellow than say "The English Patient" and it's more on the level for people who want a simple love story with some kind of an exterior turbulence causing a problem. It is a shorter film, which is a plus for people with less patience. However, it's not as spectacular or original or genuinely gripping as "The English Patient." My *only* big complaint about "Cold Mountain" is, astonishingly, the love affair between the characters of Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). Amazingly, their love was the least interesting thing in the picture. They don't have a real relationship; we don't feel any real passion coming from them and the passion that we do see is more physical than emotional. I was more fascinated by the friendship between Nicole Kidman and Oscar-winner Renee Zellwegger and also Jude Law's travels across country dodging vigilantes and enemy soldiers. If Minghella had strengthened the importance of the love story, then he would have had, I feel, a better picture.

Of course, the movie is entertaining even if the love story is uninteresting. The Civil War sequences are absolutely great; they are of the modern tradition that show war as horrible and dehumanizing. The re-enactment of the Petersburg campaign, in which tons of explosives was detonated from underground and then followed by a hand-to-hand battle is horrifying. Minghella does not shy from showing blood and gore in an artistic and sensible manner, and he's not afraid to show casualties of innocence and life in these scenes. There are moments where women as well as men are killed, oftentimes by crossfire. And there's more to it. Just the sound design of the movie generates tension. There's a scene where Inman and another deserter make themselves a meal by sawing off the head of a dead cow. We don't see the slicing, but the sound effects of blade going through bone are sickening.

Lastly, I must congratulate the cast for the performances. Jude Law was terrific in the movie and deserved the Academy Award nomination he received. I feel that Nicole Kidman deserved one as well, even though her character was a bit shallow. Renee Zellwegger had the most personality and screen-stealing atmosphere. And then there's just the bit parts that also really work to complete this stylistic world recreating a horrible time in America's past.

Maybe "Cold Mountain" would have been better as a war picture, but it most certainly would have been spectacular like "The English Patient" if its love story had been powered up and made more passionate by the screenwriters and director Anthony Minghella. As it is, it's a most enjoyable picture, I wasn't bored by it, and I recommend it. I just say that its love story - though a central plot point - is a little more mellow than it needs to be and all the stuff around it was what really worked. it's been awhile since i've seen Cold Mountain,bit i do knew that i enjoyed it immensely.though it does take place during the the last days of American civil War,it's not really a war movie.it's more of a romance/drama.and it works.mainly because of the performances.usually i don't like Nicole Kidman,but i liked here.i thought she was very convincing in her role.i liked Rene Zelwegger,as well,who i'm not usually a fan of.Jude Law is good as usual.the supporting cast.there are some great supporting performances her,too numerous too mention.there's also some breathtaking scenery in the film.and there are also a number of very nice musical pieces as well.the story is sad and tinged with tragedy but it s a beautifully done well told story.for me,Cold Mountain is an 8/10 It's initial premise is based on the American Civil War but it's ultimately a love story. We start at the beginning of the war where the main characters (Kidman & Law) are obviously aware of each other and there's an obvious attraction, they have a passionate kiss on the day he leaves for the war. The main thrust of this film is for Law's character to return to Kidman's and his struggles to achieve that and her struggles to survive until he returns. The reason it fails to convince is that we don't see enough of this relationship before Law's character leaves for battle - it's difficult to believe the premise that 2 people yearn for each other so much given they've had so little contact. Everything else is just about fine, Renee Zellweger and her incumbent father and his entourage are lovely additions as is the threat from the gang chasing deserters. Sure it's a long film but it does hold the interest and the cinematography is great. An honourable attempt that doesn't quite make it but worth a watch nonetheless. I really enjoyed this Minghella epic, thought not quite so much as "The English Patient" (a modern-day classic). The first 20 minutes or so feel awkward, but as Inman (Jude Law) embarks on the journey back to his love Ava (Nicole Kidman), the film picks up in leaps and bounds and it becomes a very memorable, thoughtful romantic drama. Apparently it is fashionable to hate Kidman at the moment, but I don't agree at all, and she does well here. I actually think that the romance between Inman and Ada is weakly developed in the script (they really don;t get much screen time together to develop a relationship), but Law and Kidman give it their all and convince. Ada's journey is the crux of the film- she becomes a strong woman who can bear almost anything. Zellweger at first seems all wrong as Ruby, but she grows on you after all and sparkles in many of her later scenes. The film has beautiful photography and set design, but never really captures the true feel of a period piece. Jack White, in particular, has long straggly hair and a pale rocker's complexion that look completely out of place with the setting. Cillian Murphy fans will enjoying seeing the talented Irish actor in an early bit part, and Natalie Portman actually proves she can act in probably the film's most striking sequence. It's a pity that in "The Other Boleyn Girl" she's so inadequate. How is it possible to like and dislike the same movie?

The plot is very much like that Jody Foster thing, Sommersby, only not as good. Nicole was great....Jude was adequate. They didn't give him many lines...is there a reason for that? Generally, he's a pretty good actor. She's so elegant, his character is so country bumpkin. It makes one wonder what they see in each other.

Romance between two such was only successful in Lady Chatterly's Lover.

I think the dislike comes about because the movie is too long. They could have told the story in two hours.

The story is good. Good locations, good filming. The character actors were great. When Liv Ullman's character says, "I feel like I'm in someone else's dream and they're going to be ashamed when they wake up," she is referring not only to being an unwilling player in society's war games, she is referring to being an ignorant participant in life itself. At the film's end, when she says that she had a dream that she had a child and she was trying to take care of it, but she forgot something else, the implication is that she has forgotten what she has learned in the war she's just survived, that like her own mother before her, she will be unable to pass on any vital lessons to her own child. And, therefore, the cycle of the shame of ignorance will continue...ad infinitum... I don't recall a film which so deftly shows the emotional destruction of war, as mirrored in one single marital relationship. The focus of the film is the union between Ullman and Von Sydow--the two are in every scene. Through the course of the film, they experience a role reversal--one has the strength of survival and the other is reduced to emotional escapism through dreams. Both will lose a measure of humanity, but one to a greater degree than the other. The characters and the viewer go through periods of fluctuation in regards to closeness--the camera pulls out and away, sound disappears, words are lost, only for the camera to return to painterly closeups of its facially expressive stars. The confusion and fluctuation may make this film hard for some viewers, but this is all purposeful under the master hand of Bergman. I think the use of a "fake" war makes the film timeless, as relevant today as ever before, and by focusing on the human relationship through war, makes the film relevant to everyone. The pair could be anyone. The film is not grounded in place or time, but rather in emotion. A unique and effective war film, unlike any other. Bergman's films are virtuosic in presenting human relationships--that he would bring this to a war film is masterful. Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film. This is not an action film by any means, though the pacing is faster and there is most action than in most any other Bergman movie. Nor is this a romanticisation of war or patriotism, unlike most war movies. In fact, the gritty realism and the deliberate ambiguity of the character's loyalties has a very contemporary feel.

Skammen is a darkly lit movie, that should be watched at night, so as to let it work it's magic. Many of the effects are conveyed indirectly, but so effectively that some scenes compete in intensity to a contemporary, insanely huge budget film like Saving Private Ryan. Of course, the action in Skammen is on a much smaller scale but it is impressive none-the-less.

While the film-making style feels contemporary, the setting of the film feels timeless and placeless. The war-torn countryside, and even the yet intact provincial hamlet could be anywhere, any time. And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.

The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies. Through much of the film they are spectators, much as we are. Bergman has the war imposed on them, and through them on the audience, and their reaction is perhaps what any of our reactions might be.

Highly recommended. 10/10 First of all the story is not so simple as many earlier reviewers tend to emphasize, it is actually a very complex story, unlike Bergman's other movies that are more bend towards character study. In Skammen we have two main characters but as we are thrown from the start in the middle of a war we have no idea who is fighting and why, everything is open for any resolution. This creates a huge tension and makes every event meaningful. As the story unfolds we are introduced to numerous characters, that are turned into symbols of humanity, both its dark and luminous sides. We have the example of the innocent bystanders who try to get by during an absurd war, the cynical doctor who makes fun of his patients and provides the only bitter humor of the whole movie, the perverse opportunists who try to make the best of an atrocious event (Bjornstrand's character), the innocent dead children, the nameless figures almost turned into animals from the boat etc. All of them are somehow seen through the eyes of Jan (von Sydow) and Eva (Ulmann), their characters are more restrained then in other Begrman films (En Passion) and this is exactly because what is important here is the story, the way exterior events have the capacity to radically change human nature.

Bergman made this film two years after Persona where the main conclusion expressed by the only word uttered by Liv Ulmann's character is INGENTING, nothing. That's it: the meaning of art and the meaning of life, the latter being nothing more than a play that includes all plays. But what about war? And especially the annihilating ones of the XX'th century. In Persona, the only real emotion suffered by Ulmann's character is when she sees a victim of the Vietnam war turned into a human torch. In Skammen that idea is extended to a complex analysis of the dehumanizing nature of war. In a nameless region of a nameless country (we only assume it's Sweeden) two factions speaking the same language fight an absurd war. Jan and Eva are two dreamers caught in the middle but their dreams are woven in a sort of counterpoint. Jan is at first an idealist, unable to react properly to the world and a subject to his wife's will. Towards the end he turns into a radically different personality, capable of unmotivated murder, strong-willed, pitiless (watch carefully the suicidal on the boat..the simplicity of the act is harrowing). On the other hand Eva progressively looses touch with reality and at the end she is completely suffused in her own unfulfilled dream.

From a technical point of view the whole movie delivers its message in a very effective way. Bergman places the viewer alongside the character, putting the camera in the car with the actors, or in an extreme close-up behind the actor. Nykvist manages an extraordinary control of the camera, there are some masterful "hand-held" effects, very good in making everything seem "real". The shots when the characters are captured by the army look remarkably documentary-like. The screenplay is minimalist but the story is quite complex for that matter. Actually the whole movie is paradoxical, it has an intensity in the subject that is in a sharp contrast to the coldness and lack of emotional involvement with which it is directed and filmed. Nothing is melodramatic here, there is no compassion, no hope and no apparent redemption. But, as in Liv Ulmann's dream at the end it is all so beautiful one cannot help but being amazed at it...It was not so awful since it was so beautiful! A gruelling watch, but one of Bergman's finest films. Interesting to compare this with The Hour of the Wolf, as both feature the same lead actors as artists (or an artist and his wife) who have taken sanctuary on an island. In the earlier film it's largely inner demons that lead to von Sydows disintegrating personality (at least that's how I read it) whereas here it's very much circumstances beyond his control.

Much has been written about the unsympathetic central characters, particularly von Sydow's. For me there are flashes of a good (if flawed) man early in the film, but one who copes badly with adversity. The flaws become all that is left as his humanity is gradually eroded by one horror after another.

I watched A Passion (Ullmann and von Sydow on their island again) soon after this, and was amazed to recognise many of the same locations. And then there's a dream sequence... Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit. Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living. His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).

They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman). Needless to say this is not one of the easier films to go through in terms of Bergman's filmography, however for some it may be one of his more accessible works. His religious themes this time is kept very low key, even as the idea of keeping a sort of faith pervades the film's atmosphere. When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).

And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn. In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'. The very last scene, by the way, is one of Bergman's very best, all around (acting, directing, lighting). It's not the kind of war picture (or, again, anti-war, I find little of the John Wayne spirit in this Svensk production) that I would recommend right off the bat to my friends all into Saving Private Ryan- it has a little more in kinship with Paths of Glory, looking at the effects of the hypocrisy of war. But in reality, like any of Bergman's "genre" films, it stands alone, however one that packs a wallop for the art-house crowd. I watched this movie on a big screen a few months ago. I didn't know what to expect precisely, and for the first ten minutes I feared I might not enjoy this film. It was beginning very slowly, in silence and almost banality, which was all the less exciting as the sound was quite bad and the subtitles sometimes impossible to read.

But I definitely do not regret to have gone on watching it. It is one of the most beautiful Bergman movies I've ever seen, at the same time human, ruthless and psychologically so convincing.

Seldom have I seen actors play so wonderfully, with such an intensity on their faces : Liv Ullman's interpretation is unforgettable and Sydow is excellent too.

There is always psychological violence in Bergman movies, and this one may be the most physically violent of them all. The strained relationships between the man and the woman evolve in parallel with the physical violence that is surrounding them...

Finally, this sober, violent and powerful film contains a surprisingly striking human depth. An excellent Bergman.

The apolitical musicians Eva (Liv Ullmann) and Jan Rosenberg (Max von Sydow) have been married for seven years and live in a small farm in a remote island to escape from a civil war in the continent. They provide lingenberry to a couple of costumers to raise some money and buy some supplies. They love each other and Eva is twenty years old and wants to have a baby but the reluctant Jan, who is a weak and sensitive man, does not want to have children. When the rebels arrive in the island, their peaceful and calm lives turn to hell, and they get in the middle of accusations from both sides. When Colonel Jacobi (Gunnar Björnstrand) stalks Eva, Jan changes his behavior and becomes a brutal man, and the love and affection they feel for each other change to hatred and indifference.

"Shame" is an antiwar movie by the master Ingmar Bergman focused by the eyes of a couple of artists that are apolitical and does not listen to the news, but when the war arrives to their lands, they have their love, friendship and affection destroyed by the senseless soldiers. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow have top-notch performances as usual and I do not recall seeing the breast of Liv Ullmann in any other movie. The process of brutalization of the pacific and sensitive Jan Rosenberg by the war is impressive and the bleak open conclusion is pessimist and adequate to the dramatic story. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Vergonha" ("Shame") This is one of the bleakest, the most harrowing of Bergman's films I've seen. I also think this is one of the most powerful films about the ugliness of war and what it does to the human souls.

The couple of musicians, who left a big city for a remote island and make a living as farmers, find themselves capable of unspeakable and shameful acts that would have ordinarily been impossible for them even imagine, as they struggle to survive horrible reality of war. They betray their souls, their friends and even each other in a desperate attempt to simply survive another day. Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow are brilliant as usual as lost, confused, and terrified couple that got caught in the midst of a civil war.

9.5/10 What Bergman has got here is "What if all that bad stuff happened here in Sweden, to nice people like us?" And what he gives us, in the Swedish language, with Swedish actors, on Swedish locations (and using what appear to be genuine Swedish military vehicles) is what was familiar from war films set in almost every other country in Europe-- all the confusing invasions and counter-invasions, political lies, internment camps, faked confessions, summary executions, torture, turncoats, "collaborators", and so on. As in a modern short story, it's done in the abstract, with no real names, cities, or countries used. But the stronger faction are "Nazis": they strut about self-importantly, and some wear shiny knee boots. One even whips things with a riding crop (ok, it's actually a cane). The victimized couple are named Rosenberg. Apart from the shame they feel at finding dirtier ways to survive-- and who would not do what they did?-- what all of the above suggests is that the title is clearly meant to refer to Stockholm's de facto complicity with the Nazis. Indeed, what we are shown is what Sweden might have looked like if Germany had asked for a bit more than mining concessions.

The first half plays like a black comedy. We see the "fog of war" from the point of view of a comically passive couple who ignore the troops all around, the long convoys, the bombed-out buildings, the news reports, &c. They do not even bother to find a working radio. They are the ultimate in "Not in my backyard". They talk of wine and lingonberries; meanwhile friends are mysteriously conscripted and growing numbers of troops show up in the town. They show no curiosity about the war that has been going on around them for many years.

The man (Von Sydow) is cultured, sulky, and a navel-gazer; the woman (Ullman) is somewhat more impulsive, passionate, and outward-looking. There's a beautiful scene in which the man talks about his violin: the manufacturer, he says offhandedly, fought in the Napoleonic wars, but his own interest stops with the cultural artifact in his hand-- or, more precisely, which his own warm feelings about owning it, and the security that that ownership assumes. Not in my backyard! But when war finally breaks into their bucolic idyll, the man's timidity, an irritation in good times, turns into a liability, one he ends up overcompensating for-- as is often the case-- as Bergman demonstrates subtly and beautifully. Definitely worth seeing. This film offers one of the greatest experiences available to movie-goers. It is by no means a pleasant film, but offers realities and emotions the human mind may never have meant to touch upon. It opens pathways in how an individual thinks, and afterwards will change the person forever.

The first time I saw this film was in class, and immediately after seeing it I had to skip my next class and walk around campus in order to reset my body and mind. I felt devastated and, somehow unreal, as if I didn't exist. It was only a few months later that I was telling one of my friends about SHAME, and she asked, "Oh, is that when you were messed up after seeing it, and ran into me talking all strange about it?" I didn't even remember running into or talking to anyone at all while outside that day, I was astonished.

In plot terms it is the simple tale of a couple torn apart by war. There suffering is greater than that of the dead and by the end...there are no words to complete the image that Bergman creates. Its like a horrible dream which causes you to wake, altering your own reality forever. This film must be seen. Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg. The story began with an ordinary couple who fights and make up. Jan was a sensitive person, but an escapist who isolated himself from the world. Eva is a practical woman who is getting fed up with her husband's lack of ambition. Because Jan procrastinating in fixing their radio, the are oblivious of the impending war. Of course the war arrived, and the movie was a fascinating study of their transformation of each other and to each other through the invasion as they were mistreated by the enemy and by their own government.

There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie. Ingmar Bergman's meditation on war concerns a couple living an idyllic existence on a small island off the coast (of what country isn't specified). Raging off in the distance is a war they know only from news reports. As they go about their day the war comes to them and it soon becomes a struggle for survival as both sides seem not to care about them. Bleak look at the human cost of war and those not readily engaged in battle but caught in the cross fire none the less. Its a movie ahead of its time as some 40 years since it was made the notion of armies at war where most of the casualties are the civilians have come of age. This is a dark disturbing film that is told from the average person's point of view with the complete sense of hopeless and confusion best expressed in the thought that kept running through my head, "what do I do now?". As an intellectual exercise the film is top notch, this is a film that will make you think. As an emotional film it is touching but never fully moving. I was never moved emotionally even as the horror of the situation made my brain do flip flops. (I should state that I admire Bergman intellectually for the ideas that he brings to the table, however I have never been moved by his films. I am not a "fan". I always sided with Fellini in the old film class argument as to who was better since he had more emotion to his films). Reservations aside this is require viewing especially since we live in a world were war, for most of us, is just a thing on a TV screen. This begrudging and angry film is against not just the war during which it was made, but all war. It doesn't care what war it is. It might be the most emotionally involving experience I have ever had with Ingmar Bergman's work. There are no sides to the two main characters in this impacting drama, which doesn't intimate a point in any ceremonial symbolism as per Bergman's usual, but plainly showcases people and their lives and exercises what Bergman has already proved he understands about a person's reaction to a movie.

His top-drawer regulars Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow play an internalizing but bickering married couple who were once orchestra musicians. Now they live in a weathered farm house on an island. Part of the building frustration we grow to share with these two people fertilizes in the detail that nothing in their house seems to work. They are not reclusive intellectuals, either. They are a rather familiar marriage that has more or less resigned from life and is essentially apolitical; they only get wind of distant rumors of a war that has been going on forever. Ullmann is concerned with the danger to their lives and to her desire to bear children. Her husband Von Sydow shrugs off that the war will pass them by. Their serenity is interrupted by screaming fighter planes flying low over their house, the killing of a parachuting airman, the arrival of dubious troops, their inquisition, and eventually their capture by what appears to be the local side, but loyalties have long since splintered.

They are sent back to their home, witness gratuitous destruction and suffer the vindictive consequences of such an agonizingly distrustful marriage. This, one of my top favorite Bergman efforts, is a study of a couple jarred from their safely self-unaware lives and violated by a manipulative despair, testing them both to reveal who they really are. She lacks compassion to some extent, too self-serving and restless to have any patience for his capricious breakdowns into crying. His suppressed emotional issues have led to the repression of the very initiative and excitement that attracted them to begin with. The immense last twenty minutes, sporadically interrupted by images of the overwhelming gray sky, are among the closest to real emotion that Bergman ever filmed.

All systems of dogma and faith are the antagonists in this very essential and downbeat portrait. The basically clearcut personalities of Ullmann and Von Sydow's characters are hurled into the degenerate world of war because they are accused of being "sympathizers," but the film, shot on Bergman's small home island of Faro, doesn't give any information about where or when it's set, who the two sides are, and for what they're fighting. To an uninvolved civilian caught in between, the knowledge base is likely to be quite similar.

Ullmann and Von Sydow are not sympathizers for the apparent enemy, but they're partisans for who are apparently their side. This 1968 reactive allegory could be about the common noncombatant citizens of Iraq, or Kosovo, or Vietnam, or Israel, or Palestine, or... Extremely pinching vision of a war situation where the couple from Vargtimmen (ok, they have different names and initial situations, but the actors are the same) gets caught in the crossfire of two fronts. The depiction of the fighting parties as faceless, superordinate authorities are often captured in sublime surreal pictures and draws interesting parallels to Orwell's 1984, even if Bergman thwarts this context on a personal level of a slowly burgeoning conjugal war. That is why countless fundamental and philosophical questions towards Eva's and Jan's marriage are relevant and essential, while the threat and danger from the outside tears open an abyss in the inside which was toilsomely covered with lambencies before. An intense allegory on the fragile facades of civic conventions. A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs. The absence of color and sound (as in a soundtrack) helps to give the film a more realistic feeling. There is no soft or hard lighting or a variety of camera angles to give the story a charming or dramatic effect. Everything is very simply portrayed as it would be in reality. At times the storyline was confusing, but perhaps in order to give a sense of the characters' frame of mind – how they too do now know what is happening or why. The simplicity of the film made it somewhat boring, but I could understand how the director is trying not to glamorize the story and points. He depicted the harsh and unsettling events and effects of war. In the beginning the characters were introduced and shown as content with the lighter settings and very long, drawn-out shots. When all of a sudden the war struck upon them, they were much darker and quiet with less intimate shots. Bergman did a good job on allowing us to be consumed by the war ourselves and presenting an image of it the so adequately corresponded to war. Although the storyline itself was not too impressive, the content of the film was. Shame represents a high point in the career of a master. Ingmar Bergman penetrating, existential study of a couple on the island of Gotland dealing with surviving a long war. Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow give painfully detailed performances in this spare, stark drama. The films intensity rests in Bergman's keeping our focus on the minute, intimate relations of his two characters - both accomplished musicians - trapped in a landscape they have ceased to understand. We see the way the external pressures of the war complicate and corrode their relationship. Both characters are forced by the material circumstances of the war to betray their own sense of ethics. In one of the most powerful episodes Bergman forces us to reflect on the manipulative power of the cinematic medium by showing us a filmed interview with Ullman's character that has been re-edited and distorted for political effect by one side of the conflict and is used by the other side as evidence of war crimes in a brutal interrogation scene.

I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.

Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Farö, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of Göttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near…. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?

That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame. This is a harrowing movie, and it moves relentlessly. Still it is utterly unique among war films in that it focuses exclusively on the civilian experience, the loss of humanity ordinary people undergo during wartime. The two young, married musicians undergo a slow, battering process of degradation at the hands of both sides of a civil war. Utterly stripped of sentimentality, the film offers a bleak vision of the modern world, and one I believe particularly recognizable to many Europeans. With brave, intense performances by Liv Ullmann (never better) and Max von Sydow (likewise). For my money, the most indelible film Bergman ever created. Being a huge fan of Bergman I had to search literally years to find this movie (at a price less than $60 I mean) and finally bought it a few weeks ago. The basic premise of Bergmans films are the relationships between the characters and how they deal with trying situations. This film therefore is the same yet it is different because the setting is far different than most of the Bergman films the I have seen.

It is set in wartime and the heros are caught in the middle.

It is riveting from start to finish and it once again proves that Liv Ullman is one of the best actresses of the 20th century. A must see. Bergman´s tale about how the hell of the war can drive a sensible couple of musicians to the barbarousness. With many memorable scenes throughout the film, I found particularly remarkable that close to the end where Ullmann and Von Sydow go in a boat completely surrounded by corpses of soldiers floating on the sea. A fascinating masterpiece! Shame, is a Swedish film in Swedish with English subtitles. The film is about a husband and wife named Jan, and Eva. They live on an island working as farmers. There is a war going on and soldiers start attacking people on the island. Once the war subsides a little Jan, and Eva are arrested as going along with the opposite side. Once released even more trouble ensues and the film shows how two ordinary people will act in a situation of war and life or death. Winner of The CEC Award for Best Foreign Film at The Cinema Writers Circle Awards, The Guldbagge Award for Best Actress (Liv Ullman, who plays Eva) at The Guldbagge Awards, The NBR Award for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Actress at The National Board Of Review and The NSFC Award for Best Actress, Best Director (Ingmar Bergman) and Best Film at The National Society Of Film Critics Awards. Shame, has good direction, a good script, good performances by both Max Von Sydow (who plays Jan) and Liv Ullman (who plays Eva), good cinematography and good production design. Shame, is a well acted and well made story of how people in a desperate situation will sometimes do whatever they can do in order to survive. The film has a powerful message and is a good film. The reason I'am not rating this film higher is because it is not a masterpiece like some other Ingmar Bergman films like Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal or Persona, for example. The film didn't have as big an impact on me as I thought it would and it lacked Ingmar Bergman's thoughtful and philosophical dialog. While nowhere close to being one of his best films there is still a lot to like about Shame, and it is a good movie. I just probably would have liked it more having not seen some of those other Bergman masterpieces. It came as no surprise to me that this was a very depressing and draining movie. After all, it's all about the impact of war on civilians AND it's by the "king of depression", Ingmar Bergman. In other words, so many of Bergman's works delve deep into human misery and angst and so this movie seems not so extraordinary coming from this director.

Even though it is more difficult to watch, the last half of the movie offers perhaps more insight into the lower depths of humanity. That's because initially, the main characters (Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow) try to overcome adversity and are basically decent (though a bit stupid) people. However, as deprivation after deprivation occurs, they (especially Von Sydow) become less and less humane and more animalistic--doing ANYTHING in order to survive.

Fun to watch, NO FREAKING WAY! But, an interesting insight into human nature.

PS--1 thing I LOVED about this film is that it avoided a stupid movie chiche. When the couple sat down with the shopkeeper to drink a glass or wine, they FINISHED the wine completely! In most movies, they barely touch their drinks or leave them untouched. It drives me crazy, as I would NEVER leave a $4 alcoholic beverage without drinking it unless it tasted terrible or had a bug floating in it! BRAVO! Oh, it's an excellent piece of work, to be sure. In fact, several of the best scenes in cinema, or at least in Bergman's cinema, are to be found in this film. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow are as good as you would expect. Do these two give bad performances? Sven Nykvist delivers some masterful, although unconventionally masterful, cinematography. The script is quite good, especially in individual scenes. Sometimes the film lags, and the pace is uneven, though probably intentionally.

So what's the problem? Well, the film is too bleak for its own good. Other Bergman films are similarly bleak, but nowhere near this harsh. Eventually, I just gave up and I started to become a little irritated. I was greatly affected often during the film, but, by the end, I felt uninvolved. It's a great film, but I doubt I'd ever watch it again, nor suggest it to friends. Or, if I did suggest it, I'd be very sure to warn them of what's ahead. 8/10. After watching Ingmar Bergman's Skammen, I had many feelings, but most notably, I felt unsatisfied. I have heard so much hype about this movie but I came to find it lacking. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate the artistic value of such a film, but as far as depth and emotion, I was not so impressed. I found the characters to be disagreeable and unrealistic, which detracted from the dramatic effect. In addition, the fact that the war was fake led me to feel that the emotion was not real. Dramatic war movies, in my opinion, are much more effective if the events (not necessarily the story itself) really happened. I find that of all the movies that try to show the brutality this one falls in the middle as far as effectiveness. Anyone looking to learn more about the development of skateboarding should find Dogtown and Z-Boys adequate research material. This is not to be confused with Lords of Dogtown, that sorry Hollywood attempt to cash in on the success of the original Dogtown revival.

Directed by Stacey Peralta, a former Z-Boys himself as well as pro skater and mastermind behind the 80s Bones Brigade, and co-written with skateboarding photojournalist Craig Stecyk, this documentary traces how a group of surfing kids from Southern California's mean streets (known as Dogtown) who formed the Z-Boys skateboard team (actually there was one girl--Peggy Oki) revolutionized skateboarding. The film contains interviews from nearly all of the Z-Boys (Chris Cahill's whereabouts are unknown) with the most noteable being bad ass Tony Alva and the youngest, Jay Adams, who's talents (along with Perlata) seemed to transcend the rest of the teams. There are interviews of the team's (and the Dogtown shop) founders, surfboard designer Jeff Ho, Skip Engbloom, and Craig Stecyk. There are also interviews of folks like Tony Hawk (obviously), Ian McKaye (Fugazi), and Henry Rollins, who were young kids in the 70s when Dogtown was making it's influence on skateboarding (skateboarding was a whole other context in previous years as the documentary explains).

It really shows you not only who the Dogtown team was and how they formed, but why their style changed not only skateboarding tricks (pool skating became immensley popular, and thus gave way to vert skating), but also facilitated the sport (though not into the extreme commercialism it is today) as more than just the fleeting fad it had been earlier as these surfing kids who's waves ran out in the early morning needed ways to spend their time and eventually got into skateboarding. The days of Russ Howell and Alan Gelfand were long over as the Dogtown, at least through the publicity of their skate team, paved the way for the new generation of skaters. Because Dogtown got all the attention, they were able to push skating to the next step.

It's a great documentary in the way that it is put together, though Stacey Peralta always knew how to do this even when producing the Bones Brigade mini movies/skate demos like "Ban This" and "Search for Animal Chin." Narrated by Sean Penn, the film is accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack, contains lots of terrific archive footage, and lots of interview to give you a genuine feel of who the Z-Boys were and how they made their mark on skateboarding. My skateboarding career ended in 1974 when my two-by-four skateboard with steel roller-skate wheels hit a rock and I tumbled, for days it seemed, down the sidewalk outside my parent's house in Boston. By the time the cast came off my arm, summer was gone.

But I have always admired the X-games types and surfers especially. I think I spent the first month after I moved to Southern California on the beaches and piers watching the surfers, bemoaning that fact that I had missed my calling. It's the sort of thing you should learn young, before the horrible senses of self-preservation and self-awareness burrow in. Or else at best, you'll be so worried about not getting hurt or laughed at, you'll wind up looking like a trained bear.

I always admired how a good surfer seems to not care about anything but that moment, that wave, that experience. At one with the forces of nature. A good surfer makes it look like there is nothing else but that wave right there, and the way you interact with it. There's a lot of Zen in it to me.

This documentary outlines how a few young folks took the surfing concepts and extended them to skateboarding. Ramps, downgrades, low sweeping curves while interacting with the cement waves beneath their feet. In their day and time, this was all new. radical. Prior to the Zephyr Skate team the idea apparently was to go as fast as you could in a straight line on a skateboard, hence my long "Evel Knievel at Caesers Palace" like tumble down the front walk.

This film is a look back through time, to an America before EVERYTHING was labeled, tagged, marketed, and jam-forced down our throats as "Extreme". (Seriously, what's so "extreme" about an "Extreme value meal" at Taco Bell? Other than the fact that it is an extreme hazard to your colon...)

Watch this film and watch the birth of 'extreme sports'. Before there was an X-games, before Boom-boom Huck-Jam, before Crusty Demons, before the ASA...there were these young street urchins who created 'extreme sports' without really trying. They were just doing it for the purity, the pure pleasure, of skateboarding in the sun with friends.

I hope they get a cut of the 'extreme' money out there. Goodness knows they don't get the credit they deserve. Maybe this film can correct that.

Excellent film with a great soundtrack, a portrait of a Southern California, indeed an America, that no longer exists.

I don't care for Sean Penn but he does a decent job narrating. Being in the suburbs of New York when the Z-Boys were creating history in Dogtown, I was only exposed to a glimpse of what was going on. I had a P-O-S Black Knight skateboard with clay wheels. It is long gone, and on the ash heap of my personal life. But I never forgot. It's like watching long-lost brothers and friends, and it hits me right where I live. I cannot watch this film enough. Every time I view it, some other aspect rises to the top, some other viewpoint come into sharp focus. The vintage footage, the incredible stills, the current personalities intermeshed with the vivid shadows of the brightly lit past, the heartfelt and not over-done narrative, all beautifully edited together in such a way as to make a landmark documentary of a genuine slice of American history. In the words of Glen Friedman - "It was F-ing unbelievable." If you have ever been, has a friend, or a kid that is or was into skating at one time, then watch this flick!. I have seen it several times and I get something new out of it every time that I see it. It reminded me of why I got into skating in the first place (a long time ago) . It reminded me of what skating brings to a person and I have found will also help a person who doesn't understand why skaters, well, skate. Sure there is a very dark side to the whole seen, which the movie does touch on slightly. But it tends to focus more on what is at the core of skating. Just a person on a board, doing it because they love to do it. This movie was so inspirational to me that I'm now skating once again (I'm 32) and I haven't been this happy with my self in years….. Give this one a go, you will not be disappointed. Back in the day, I was one of the RN's in the Emergency Rooms, these skaters would occasionally land in. They were not treated well, and some of it was brought on by their asocial personalities- but we all knew they were a talented bunch of "wonderkids" even then. They deserved better care than they received, I'm afraid. They had "attitude" in spades.

I'm so glad I caught this documentary on IFC tonight- it will be on again at 1 am and I'll be watching again!

Little attention was given to them until the rich dying kid was able to talk his parents into draining the pool- and the film really highlights that as the taking off point....it was an amazing time, and deserved to be recorded. Stacy Peralta is due all the praise heaped on him, and long may those Z-Boys enjoy their memories and contribution to the real sport of skateboarding. As for the few "sour grape" reviews contained herein, there always were and there always will be "wannabees" and hangers-on who never do more than dream...the Z-boys lived it, breathed it, were it.

Nice to see the vintage films and even the lone girl, "Peggy" who was so talked about as being the only female to win their respect.

Thanks to IFC I get to really take the occasional drug-free head trip of my youth and relive the heart pounding excitement again. This documentary traces the origins and life of the Zephyr skateboard team, using original film shot in the 1970s (mostly by Craig Stecyk) combined with interviews of the team members and other influential people today.

The first part of the film documents how the "Dogtown" section of Venice, CA came to be, starting back around the turn of the century when the town was created to be a Venice, Italy-like European city. By the 1970's, the one remaining local attraction, the Pacific Ocean Park, had been abandoned, leaving a beach with lots of exposed piers and other hazards. The poor kids living in the area had nothing better to do than surf, and they excelled despite (or perhaps because of) their surroundings. Because the waves dissipated in the afternoon, they took up skateboarding to fill their time, and the empty swimming pools caused by the drought during those years plus their surfing backgrounds led them to create the vertical skateboarding style that is mainstream today.

I found that the film covered much more about surfing than I expected, which seemed like a bonus since I really didn't know much about surfing or skateboarding before I watched the film. The soundtrack, not surprisingly, was good as well. I also liked how these kids were just following their passion and generally ended up better off for the experience. The parts that didn't work so well for me were the drama that they tried to create, which seemed somewhat forced, and the team's somewhat overinflated sense of self-importance (although this is probably just left-over street attitude from where they grew up). This is not to say that they didn't have significant influence, but only that it seems extremely likely that there were other factors as well.

One note: My wife is more affected than most to nausea when films use what we refer to as "SpastiCam" (wiggling camera movements). This film is often guilty, so if you are so afflicted, be warned.

I would recommend this film to anyone, but especially to anyone with skateboarding and/or surfing in their history.

Seen on 5/11/2002. Let me say first of all that I spent a total of about two minutes of my life on a skateboard before I realized I was totally uncoordinated. I've always thought it was cool watching cats that know how to get extreme on 'em do their stuff, but I've never been a skateboarder and have never really followed the sport. That being said, I thought this was a very informative and interesting documentary. Some reviewers have said that these dudes were sort of waving their own flag a bit, but what the hell? It looks to me that these guys probably deserve as much credit as anyone for giving the skateboarding world a jolt and they've provided some good footage of their innovations to back it up. It's great the way viewers are allowed to see these guys both then and now and the footage they shot while they were teens growing up in California provides some interesting nostalgia that goes a bit beyond the sport of skating. I never would have realized where extreme skating came from, but this films sort of ties all the pieces together and gives us an informative documentary. I'm sure it's at least a tad biased, but aren't all documentaries? Worth watching for anyone interested in the sport or, as in my case, anyone who grew up in the 1970's. I have seen this movie twice now on cable. The first time I saw it, it caught me by suprise. The skaters I was seeing were the guys we followed in the pages of Skateboarder magazine back in the late 70's. These were the guys we copied and tried to become while skating. I am glad that a film was finally made that gives an accurate account of how it all came to be. I am almost 40 years old now and I guess a pretty uptight kind of guy with all of life's problems, however; this film did a great job of taking me back. Back to the vacant pools, the backyard halfpipes and the road trips to Cherry Hill NJ. I suspect that in order to really understand this movie and appreciate it, you had to live it. Otherwise, it probably won't have the impact on you as it did me. But for those of you (and you know who you are), who did live it, you know exactly what I am talking about! In any event, I don't care who you are, if you get a chance to see this movie...do it! I give thanks to the Z-Boys of Dogtown for the memories of my youth and thanks to Stacy for making this movie! JOB WELL DONE! this is one of the greatest documentaries i've ever seen along with "Dark Days". I have skated for maybe an hour my entire life, and I still love this movie. Peralta and his excellent editor captured the feeling and atmosphere perfectly, helped in part with some incredible archival footage. Tony Alva is one of the coolest individuals in existence. Love those knee high striped sport socks, you rock Tony!

Not only is this movie a visual feast, but the soundtrack has to be one of the best in history, if you're into 70's rock. Buy the DVD, you won't regret it. I remember when skateboarding had it's rebirth in the 70s. I begged my parents for money to by a second-hand skateboard from a friend. It was a piece of junk, complete with clay wheels and everything. I also remember reading Skateboarder Magazine and being both completely impressed and totally terrified of the Dogtown crew. Skating never became a way of life for me, but in some ways it has always been a part of my life, whether it is using a board for transportation or just having a bunch of friends that skate.

This film is a brilliant documentary of the real birth of modern day skating. Watching this crew turn skating from the flat boring hobby it was into the vertical lifestyle it has become had me sitting slack-jawed for 90 minutes.

It's amazing that enough footage from this period still exists to have created this film, and thank god for that. The footage is brilliant. It gave me the feeling of watching an old Buster Keaton film: I've seen some of the tricks Keaton did repeated countless times in other films since then, but when you go back and see the first person to perform that trick it's amazing that, not only were they the first person to try it successfully, but that they lived through it and made it seem effortless. That's the feeling this film gave me. Yeah, I've seen people skate pools before, but to watch the FIRST people skating pools and inventing the tricks that eventually became the basics of modern skating is like watching the facade of the house fall on Keaton, leaving him standing safely in the frame of a window. It's absolutely brilliant to watch something that, up until that point, had never been tried before, but since, has been tried by almost everyone.

This film is beautiful to watch and incredible to listen to. The soundtrack is one of the best I've ever heard in a film. This is a film that will appeal to people whether they like skating or not. I've talked to a couple of friends of mine who made their girlfriends sit through this film after heavy protest, and they all said that their girlfriends were mesmerized by the end of the film and loved it as much as they did.

As for the previous comments on this board that complain about the film being too self congratulatory, I think that's an unfair disparagement. I liked seeing these guys get excited about their past. They created something that influenced their sport and changed it forever. They have the right to pat themselves on the back. They were stars for doing what they loved to do. Most of these guys/girls never achieved the staggering success Tony Hawk enjoys today, but that kind of success wasn't available to skaters then. Sure, they had some success, but more importantly, they have been able to live a life doing what they love to do, and, as we see in the end, almost all of them still surf, skate or work in the surf/skate industry. How many of us can say that we have been able to live our lives and have been successful by breaking all the rules and doing what we love to do? They can. My hat's off to the Dogtown and Z-Boys for being themselves and changing the world of skateboarding forever. This film moved me at age 39 in the same way that all the footage and coverage of Dogtown affected me when I was 13. For all of those who criticized the self promotion of the Z boys interviewed, they have the last laugh on you. That was their whole deal, "we're better than all of you and here's why....(insert footage of the smoothest pool carve imaginable)" This was a film to tell their story and that was their story whether you like it or not. It was THEIR opinion of their skating that mattered..... not yours or mine. I thought the film captured their attitude and influence exactly as I remembered it in the 70's. The reality is that they DID revolutionize skateboarding, they WERE the impetus behind extreme sports and they DID inject a cultural paradigm that reached into every corner of americana. This movie gave rebirth to images of Bertleman on a wave and Alva and Jay Adams ripping up the coping that WAS the California Dream to an entire culture of young american teenagers that just wanted to have fun and get rad! As I watched this film I realized that it was these images that I lived with every day until I was old enough to move out and back down to So Cal after my family had moved to Nor Cal when I was five. Until I could get back, my buddies and I built and thrashed ramp after ramp, searched for every empty pool possible and mimicked everything Stecyk covered about these guys. We are all educated and have family's and careers now but this film reminds me who I was at that age and why I still surf. This is an inspired film that anyone who has an interest in pop culture, extreme sports, the 70's or even just good documentary film making will enjoy completely. Whenever it comes on cable I can't change the channel. Kudos to Stacy Peralta for making a beautiful piece of art! I saw this movie on the lowlands festival (23, 24, 25th of august) after a friend of mine said this is a very cool movie about the history of skating. I didn't now what to expect from this movie. Was it recorded by a couple of skaters who thought they could do a couple of cool tricks, or was it a documentary about skating.

So i went in, after waiting for about an hour, whit out any expectations.

This movie is really a nice piece of work about the beginning of skateboarding. It started with the zephyr team, who where a fine group of surfers. This is taking place in a not so nice area to live in. At a certain point the waves are not so good any more to surf on. So they try something else. skateboarding was a fact.

If you were a part of the zephyr team in that time, you where one of the cool guys/girls. Because a lot of people saw an escape from the place they were living in with the zephyr team. So they were trying all there new tricks now on a skateboard.

In no time skateboarding was popular again. There were a couple of competitions and one national competition. The zephyr team was taking part on several competition and also the national one. But what they were doing on there skateboards was unbelievable. But the jury didn't now how to judge them. So they put the whole skateboarding world on it's head.

Anyway i can tell you the rest of the film/documentary, but you must see this one with you're own eyes. Because then you can feel the vibe of this movie. This movie got a lot of style for me, so i rewarded it with a 8.

Greetings from gijs and the rest of Holland. See you. This film to me deserves a lot of praise, because even though I am not a surfer or skater, I remained inspired throughout the whole documentary.

The depth of history and development of these two extreme sports emphasised what they were able to do for two groups of individuals. The dedication that these individuals had/have is truly inspiring and it was because of them that others can now enjoy and do what these guys founded.

Unlike most other documentaries, this one was cleverly put together, the amount of footage that was recorded and survived throughout the decades is outstanding and it was because of this that some of the greatest editing I have ever seen was put together and resulted in the subject remaining focused. Without the urge for them to retort to recent footage of the more famous surfers and skaters that remains popular today.

The film explores areas such as the success, such accomplishing new tricks, winning competitions and gathering fame. As well as failures such as injury or burning out.

It was also fulfilling to hear the experiences come from the skaters and surfers themselves and not from second hand information. This resulted in a better picture to be drawn.

Overall, a truly outstanding effort. In the groovy mid 70's a scruffy bunch of brash young Venice, California adolescents from broken homes and the bad side of town known as the Z-Boys turned the previously staid world of professional skateboarding on its ear with their fierce punk attitude, radical unconventional riding style, and unbridled spirit of pure in-your-face aggression, revolutionizing the sport in the process and paving the way for the many extreme variations on sports that popped up in their influential wake. Director Stacy Peralta, who's one of the legendary Z-Boys himself, relates the incredible exploits of this amazing ragtag crew in a ferociously punchy and visceral manner that's both informative and wildly entertaining: the snappy rapid-fire editing, ceaseless speedy pace, and raw, gritty photography deliver one hell of an infectiously kinetic buzz, projecting a sense of sheer joy and full-on bustling energy that's a total pleasure to behold. Better still, this documentary neither sanitizes nor romanticizes its subjects: These rough'n'scrappy lads were so fiercely competitive and out for themselves that they all went their separate ways when the lure of fame and fortune manifested in their lives. The ultimate fates of certain guys is poignant and heartbreaking, with gifted and spontaneous ace skateboard rat Jay Adams rating as the saddest and most tragic: He blew his chance at the big time and wound up doing time in jail. The other dudes are very colorful and personable as well; charismatic ball of cocky and defiant fire Tony Alva in particular comes across as one arrogant, yet impressive piece of furiously assertive work. Marvelously narrated with delightfully easy'n'breezy nasal nonchalance by Sean Penn. The terrific rock soundtrack likewise seriously smokes. But what really makes this documentary such a winner is its refreshing complete dearth of pretense: It's every bit as dynamic, exuberant and larger-than-life extraordinary as the gloriously outrageous Z-Boys themselves. solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that "it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node. Excellent Piece of work!

I am not a surfer nor a skate board fan, but work this good about sorting sock drawers would have been riveting. A must see!

There is a lot to enjoy here. Excellent Visuals. Great sound track mix. Huge body of documentary work both pictures and film.

The life work and love of the subject is captivating. Take a subject I didn't know much about and make it exciting, why don't you? It so happens that back about 1979, director Robert Altman said that he didn't believe he had ever made a real movie and that he expected that one of these kids riding skateboards--if he doesn't break his neck--will make the first movie. Well, I wouldn't put such an expectation on Stacy Peralta, but he is a skateboarder who has made a good movie. Of course, he was forced by the nature of the film he was making to use existing footage, and it is certainly a good thing that so much archival footage existed. Peralta edited it together well with not-your-usual talking head shots of his erstwhile colleagues as they are today. The whole effect is post-modern in the best sense, but that has been done. Altman's prediction hasn't quite come true. What Peralta has done, however, is capture enough of the energy of those heady days that we can appreciate what it must have been like when modern skateboarding was invented by the Z-Boys. This is all good. I highly recommend "Dogtown." A dozen bored surfers, mostly kids in Venice, California, not only reinvent the skateboard but remake a once-forgotten-about suburban fad from the 1950s into an action sports revolution.

Narrarated by Sean Penn, Dogtown depicts life in the more rundown "Locals Only" beach communities circa 1974, which consisted of mostly of surfing in the early morning tides and loitering. The Zephyr Team (or Z-boys as they are called) spend one summer combating the boredom by building their own boards with the help of a local who owns a surf shop. After they enter re-emerging skateboarding competitions in SoCal, they transfigure it all into their own scene; one that rouses a generation of skateboarders consisting of greats like Tony Hawk, Shaun White and the creators of the of X-Games.

Dogtown puts chronological perspective into skateboarding, and the up-from-the-bootstraps history you never knew it had.

from Andy Frye at MySportsComplex.blogspot.com Dogtown and Z-Boys

Summary: Dogtown and Z-boys is a documentary about a group of revolutionary teenagers that changed the world of surfing and skateboarding in Venice (Dogtown), California as we know it today. With their low pivotal style, they embarked on a Larry Bertlemen influenced journey that would lead to countless successes and a couple failures. After the Dogtown articles were featured in a reinstated Skateboarder Magazine, the sport was revamped and the members of the Zephyr skateboard team forgot about Jeff Ho, and looked to be on summer vacation for the rest of their lives by joining other skateboard teams that could afford to pay them like movie stars. The original Zephyr Skateboard Team put together by Jeff Ho (Zephyr Surfshop Owner) and Craig Stecyk (Photographer) included Jay Adams, Tony Alva, Stacy Peralta, Bob Biniak, Chris Cahill, Shogo Kubo, Paul Constantineau, Jim Muir, Peggy Oki (the only female), Nathan Pratt, Wentzle Ruml IV, Allen Sarlo, and David Ray Perry. All of the original members except Jay Adams and Chris Cahill are still well and surfing/skating. Jay Adams, at the time of the documentary, was serving time on drug related charges. Chris Cahill, at the time of the documentary, was last seen in Mexico.

Themes: The themes of this documentary are kind of read-between-the-lines, but if there were a clear-cut theme it would be that even kids can spark revolutions. Other themes would include extensive partying in one's past may lead to an unfulfilling future, and by planning and being careful with one's assets a very rewarding future could be at hand.

Other Works: Stacy Peralta (Writer and Director) has a fairly wide range of documentaries that he has either written, produced, or directed. Most with a common theme of surfing or skateboarding, such as Riding Giants, Sk8 TV, The Bones Brigrades, and Lords of Dogtown. He has also done films with a theme of growing up in America as a teenager, films such as: Influences: From Yesterday to Today, Crips and Bloods: Made in America, and The 70s: The Decade that Changed Television.

Subjects: The subjects of Dogtown and Z-boys are the original members of the Zephyr Skateboard Team excluding Chris Cahill. Peralta included Jeff Ho and Craig Stecyk in the interviews. Other subjects were people who grew up during the 70s reading the Dogtown Articles as well as skateboard enthusiasts. Skaters from the Dogtown area, but not on the team were interviewed.

Editing: The editing of this film was phenomenal in my opinion. There were scenes of the subjects talking so that the audience could see who was speaking and get a sense of the character, but would immediately cutaway to archival footage that would explain what the speaker was saying. When a song could explain the emotions of the subjects better, such as when Jay Adams' unfortunate life was a subject of talk, the song Old Man by Neil Young was played, which evokes many emotions. Sean Penn was the narrator for the film and he explained the transitions throughout the film. The film was presented chronologically from the time the Zephyr surf team was put together, to creating the skateboard team, to all of the Z-boys leaving the team to join other skate companies or create their own company.

Cinematography: The film was shot in an interesting way. The film of the subjects speaking were all in black and white and all of the archival footage of the Z-Boys surfing or skating were in color. Of course the footage from the 70s was grainy, but that only enhanced the film. The interviewees were mostly shot in the same area it appears, but all were outside. All of the footage was very well-controlled even the archival footage which I found very surprising.

Music: "Seasons of Wither"-Performed by Aerosmith "Toys in the Attic"-Performed by Aerosmith "Generation Landslide"- Alice Cooper "One Way Out"- Performed by The Allman Brothers "Lollipops and Roses" and "Whipped Cream"-performed by Herb Alpert "Into the Void" and "Paranoid"- performed by Black Sabbath "Godzilla"- Blue Oyster Cult "Aladdin Sane" and "Rebel Rebel"- David Bowie "Fastcars"- The Buzzcocks "Gut Feeling"- Devo "I'll Give you Money"- Peter Frampton "Funk 49"- James Gang "Ezy Rider" and "Foxy Lady" and "Freedom" and "Bold as Love"- Jimi Hendrix "Sidewalk Surfing"- Jan and Dean "Achilles Last Stand" and "Hot on for Nowhere"- Led Zeppelin "Six Underground"- The Sneaker Pimps "Surfrider"- The Lively Ones "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Motor City Madhouse" and "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang- Ted Nugent "Us and Them"- Pink Floyd "Bad Boys"- The Pretenders "Maggie May"- Rod Stewart "I Wanna be Your Dog" and "Gimme Danger"- The Stooges "Children of the Revolution"- T-Rex "Bad Reputation"- Thin Lizzy "Disco Inferno"- The Tramps "Hannah"- Rob Trower "Rocky Mountain Way"- Joe Walsh "Old Man"- Neil Young "La Grange"- ZZ Top

The music in the film make the movie. Every one of these songs contributes to what the subjects are saying and evoke emotions that would not have been called to mind otherwise. Dogtown and Z-Boys is a documentary about the Zephyr Skateboarding Team, and their influence on skateboarding. It also focuses on the history of skateboarding. It was directed by Stacy Peralta, a member of the original Zephyr Team, and was written by Stacy Peralta and Craig Stecyk, another member of the team. The documentary stars the members of the Zephyr Team and is narrated by Sean Penn.

The documentary talks about the beginning of skateboarding, and how it evolved from surfing. It discusses skateboarding's popularity in the late 60s and the 70s, its decline in the 80s and its 'rebirth' in the 90s. Skateboarding was introduced in Dogtown, the nickname of the poor side of Santa Monica, California. The Zephyr Team originated from the Zephyr Surf Shop, which manufactured the first modern skateboards. The documentary mainly consists of the original Zephyr Team members talking about the past in the Zephyr Team, the competitions they won, and their popularity and prestige. It focuses on three particular members of the team; Peralta, Tony Alva, and Jay Adams, three virtuosos of skateboarding, and probably the best three members of the team.

The interviews in the documentary were usually voices over archival footage from Dogtown in the late 60s and 70s. Very rarely to you actually see the people being interviewed, but when you do, they are shown in black and white, while the archival footage was in colour. I think Stacy Peralta used this technique to show that the documentary was about the past (i.e. the Glory Days of the Zephyr Team) and not the present. The documentary is very fast paced, in that we often see clips of impressive skateboarding over up-beat music of the era (such as Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and David Bowie), and the interviews tend to be quick and to the point. Knowing nothing about skateboarding (i.e. not even knowing how to ride one straight along the ground) I was very surprised that I found this documentary so interesting. The reason is that this doco was more about the Zephyr Team than the actual sport of skateboarding, so while I couldn't relate to skateboarding, I could relate to the boys in the team. Because it was made by actual members of the team, it gives it a little more depth and authenticity.

All in all, I would have to say this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It gave me a whole new insight, not just into the Zephyr Team, but into skateboarding as a whole. For those who love skateboarding, I can only imagine how it must be even more interesting. Seven and a half stars out of ten. My son, an avid skateboarder, sat me down and made me watch this with him. As I love documentaries, it didn't take a whole lot of pressure on his part. The whole amazing story of it all - a bunch of dirt-poor kids drift together and end up creating something revolutionary out of thin air - well, more out of some wood, wheels and lack of waves to surf - it just floored me. It still does. I didn't think I would enjoy it the way I did, nor did I think I would tear up watching Stacey Peralta tear up over the fate of Jay Adams. And just watching Jay Adams himself.....the sheer genius of the kid skating and the shrug of the adult remembering. I watched it again last night for what has to be the 10th time and I still get goosebumps watching him fly down the hill with Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" playing in the background. And I teared up, again. Not too many movies have the same impact with me after several viewings. Brilliant. I hate films about sports. I guess the pre-fabricated Hollywood sports film is a bit tough for me to swallow because it follows the most identical of ideas each year, what I am trying to say is that there isn't much creativity in this genre. Use exhibit "A" – "The Game Plan" as evidence of this if you want. So, needless to say, I was hesitant to watch this documentary because of the sports theme element, but at the same time I couldn't wait because I love surfing documentaries like "Step into Liquid" and "Billabong Odyssey". I took a step, I plunged into the unknown, and to be honest, at first I wasn't happy. I didn't like the direction, the people, or the style that the film encompassed to present these young sport entrepreneurs. With my first viewing, I thought that history couldn't be fully recorded, so I thought Stacy Peralta was splicing stock footage with faux-actors acting like they were from the late 70s. The music was intense, it matched well Peralta had made a mixed tape from this generation for our enjoyment, but the visuals were anything but stimulating. The elongated scenes, while using amazing music to support, just seemed flushed and too long for my attention. I wanted to get to know the pioneers, not just watch them skate for ten minutes in an empty pool. I wanted a combination of who these kids were, where they went during their rise of fame, and where they are now. It felt like I was watching the birth of our nation with a great score to the settlers just rowing their boats all day. I wanted to know the men behind the myths.

Then, with a thought that I would have another negative review under my belt, I watched the film again with Peralta's audio commentary. His passion, his voice, his knowledge of the people and what he had to do to get this film accomplished "wow-ed" me. This suddenly transformed into the film I wanted to see. Peralta lets us know more of where these kids are today, what they are still doing, and how difficult it was to get some of them onto the camera. He hadn't seen many of them in 20+ years, so to hear these challenges brought the human element back to the surface. He was sincere; he was sympathetic, yet he showed so much dedication to this project. While I do not agree with everything that he chose to do (i.e. the Sean Penn mess up is not PUNK ROCK), he revitalized this film for me. It was due to this commentary that I rate this film much higher than originally thought.

Jay Adams. Tony Alva. Jeff Ho. Peggy Oki. Wentzle Ruml. These are just a few of the name that need to be mentioned, and continually praised, if skateboarding is to continue the fast growing trend that it currently sees. While Tony Hawk's name sells products, it is these guys, these mild-mannered pavement slackers that redefined an entire sport. Sure, others were probably doing it in the stone ages, but these guys did it with style, grace, and moved it to the next level. This was a hobby for them, but it also propelled them in a direction I believe none of them were ready for. "Dogtown and Z-Boys" is the story of evolution, being in the right place at the right time, living in a generation without televisions to keep us planted, and about friendship. We have seen so many stories during the years that show the progression of humanity, and this is definitely a story that should be added to that. I cannot say that I loved this film, nor will I, but it should be standard viewing for everyone learning or wanting to experience the growth of the skateboarding trend. It was sad, it was emotional, and these guys aren't multi-millionaires over again – they are people with a passion, and very rarely do you see that in documentaries.

Overall, I cannot watch this film again, but I will suggest it to friends and family time after time. I think the downfall for this film, to me, was the filming – the attempts to be avant-garde with the style, which ultimately drew away from the characters and events. As mentioned before, there were some elements that dragged on too much, which left us with little to no time to know where these guys were now. Peralta obviously had a passion for this sport, for the people, but he seemed out-of-focus at times. The music was intense, and worked perfectly with the film. Sean Penn, while he was decent with his voice-over, wasn't needed at all. They could have spent the money elsewhere. On the positive, the audio commentary captures everything that the regular film was missing. Peralta's voice, instead of Penn's, brings a stronger human element to the scene, while he tells us better stories of the people, places, and events. Watch this film, but don't expect to be blown away. Listen to the audio commentary; I think you will be impressed.

Grade: *** ½ out of ***** Right there. Good, entertaining and accurate era-feel to most scenes. Enough personality variations to cover the real people around those days without story distractions from the exceptions. The credits show Peralta from Mar Vista, California.. up the hill from Venice and south of Malibu. I lived there in the Heartbreak Hotel days, pre-Beachboys, next to that surfer kid Bob Cooper up on Wasatch Avenue, where the alley was used to burn surfboards that didn't work. Old skatekey skatewheels were used on plywood cutouts to roll down sidewalk waves. Things were different in each succeeding decade as the cool innocence of the fifties broke into the Warmth of the Sun whitewater freedom and exhilaration of the electric sixties and then into the assertively innovative playtime and inventive evolutionary madness of the weird seventies. The movie gives you a piece of that kind of magic moment in time; in a place where the imaginary wave was real.. the source of culturally significant influences. And BTW, there's another movie that has a similarly American street edginess to it, and has the same genuinely unique goodness with laid back realness that helps refine that elusively eternal sense of cool.. "Two Lane Blacktop" (with one of the best examples of freesouldoit attitude in West Coast California history.. Dennis Wilson). Like Monte Hellman did with that one, thanks, SP, for being right there with this one. GWR Actually, I have more a question, than a comment. I loved Z-Boys, and The Lords of Dogtown. Saw Lords first, then the doc, and while I loved the story, I am curious as to why in the movie, Sid was an important character, but in the documentary, he wasn't part of the team, and only merely mentioned as just some kid they knew. Does anyone know the story on that? The story of these boys was amazing. I never experienced the skateboarding craze where I grew up, but my kids have enjoyed it. What I have seen in local skate parks is what these boys had invented. I never knew that. When the film showed the competition, and Z-Boys did their thing, they put to shame the others in competition. This is a pretty good documentary. I'm not a skateboarder, I don't particularly like skateboarding or skateboard culture. But somehow for about 2 hours this movie made me interested in the subject.

I wouldn't call it the most intriguing film of all time, but for some reason when those guys were talking about how they started their skateboard clubs and were skating in those empty Southern California pools, I was interested.

I should also add that the music in this film was pretty good too. I don't sit around yearning to hear more 70s rock bands, but it seemed appropriate for what they were talking about. I must say that this has to be the best documentary I have ever seen in my life. I first say the movie at my friends house, and didn't get a chance to finish watching it. From that point on, I spent my free time trying to find the movie. I never found it, but on my birthday, my friend who knew I had the hardest time finding the movie,got it for me as present. Sean Penn does a great job of narrating the documentary. I loved how it told the story of each of the Z-Boys and the history of Dogtown. I have been to Venice and the surrounding area many times, and had never known what had taken place, until I saw the documentary. I didn't get a chance to see the actual movie, and I heard it was nowhere near what the documentary was. I don't know if I actually want to see the movie, but who knows. This movie was awesome. It's a documentary about how surfing influenced skateboarding in the early days. It has interviews with skaters such as Tony Hawk(my idol)=), and Stacy Peralta to name a couple. Dogtown is a so called "ghetto" part of California, where there used to be an amusement park that was torn down. People started riding alongside the dangerous ruins of the park. Soon, the Zepher Surf team was formed. That led to Skateboardings first real start in Dogtown. The Z boys were a team of ragtag teenagers who loved skateboarding and started the phenomenon known as vert skating. They started it by skating in drained swimming pools. That's just a bit of the story behind it. It even contains rare footage from Charlie's Angels of Stacy Peralta making a cameo. I think you should buy this movie if you are a skater. It'll teach you that skateboarding wasn't always popular. Even if you are not, BUY! When the Bicentennial hit, I was in Hershey, PA and part of the Middletown Skate Team. We didn't do anything except skate around trying to learn what we were reading in the pages of Skateboarder Magazine. A couple of local hills provided all the speed-wobbles you could handle. At the time Mike Weed was the hot stuff, along with Russ Whats-his-name, with the Z-boys hot on their tail. I had a GT (GrenTech) plastic board with Power Paw urethane wheels (loose bearings).

My parents told me we were moving to California later that year and that they were taking a trip to go house-hunting. I was an extremely good son that summer and asked if I might not be rewarded with a REAL skateboard from California. They delivered. It was a fiberglass deck with the Surfer Magazine logo screened on it. Wide trucks and big red wheels (precision bearings, don't ya know). They got it at Oak Street, a surf shop in Laguna Beach.

When I got to California (all of 13), Anaheim had the Concrete Wave and Carlsbad had a great park as well. Soon came Skateboard Odyssey in Mission Viejo. An indoor park with every scenario imaginable. All the while I was reading about Stacy, Shogu, Tony and Jay. This flick was right on the money and a wonderful experience to watch. Not only was this film exhilarating, but it took me back down memory lane with its true to life sound track. These were the things we were saying, and doing...these were the songs we were listening to...all during this same time period, in the same era, way down south in Alabama. I may not have been one of the skateboard set, but I was definitely one of the observers, sitting on the curb with the old transistor radio, listening to Neil Young, watching those more brave than I ever hoped to be, as they put the spin on their surfboards on wheels, applying the tricks of Alva and Adams, hoping that maybe, just maybe for a brief moment, they'd adopt the Zephyr style. It just goes to show how much alike we all were during those wonderful days. ~ KLJ To regard the film as nothing more than a documentary about skateboarding would fail to recognize several important aspects of Dogtown. Peralta (a well- known skateboarding figure himself) has crafted a film that not only deals with the birth of what we know today as skateboarding, but also examines the socio- cultural and economic circumstances in which this sport emerged and gained wide appeal. In addition, his film is rather personal: Peralta's first-hand association with this cultural phenomenon serves as both the informed cinematic investigator and the involved participant-subject. In this role, he is a quintessential "participant-observer," while gathering together a wide array of personalities whom were integral to this movement and those who were profoundly affected by the advent of skateboarding as a competitive sport and subculture. The film employs a uniquely stylistic form of film and sound editing, and the narration (by Sean Penn) and interviews adopt a rather genuine, unrehearsed form that is akin with the anarchic, nihilistic spirit of sidewalk surfing. The film exhibits the kinetic appeal of a protracted sporting, music video tempered with an archaeologist's sensitivity to the importance of time, place, and circumstance. I used to watch this too at junior school in Petersfield Hampshire around 1975. The odd thing is that from time to time I still think about it (I am now 40) The big question running through out the length of the series (no idea how many episodes 6??)was the identity of the person riding the motorcycle !'I've ask friends in the past about this series and they have no idea what I'm talking about and think its some kind of weird dream I've had. I've never understood to this day the educational benefit of this but thought at the time it was great but slightly scary. I seem to remember that there used to be a break of some sort in the middle of each episode. No idea why. Would love to see it again. Got hold of a short clip via the BBC cult website. This is an outstanding criminal thriller, and with a great cast too. Spanish language cinema's best and most popular actors of the past couple of decades, Victoria Abril and Federico Luppi, team up in one of the better Spanish language crime thrillers of 2004-5.

The film begins by focusing on thirty something Ernesto (Ernesto Alterio), an elegant, attractive and slick thief who learned from childhood friend Gitano, and more recently from Manco, an old seasoned swindler. Manco introduces Ernesto to Federico (Federico Luppi), an also elegant, but more astute & experienced methodical thief - the best in his class.

Federico's only known weakness is Pilar (Victoria Abril), his former mistress and partner. She suddenly appears and proposes a fabulous rip-off scheme to her former lover, a crime in grand scale, which will eventually require the help of Ernesto, Manco and Gitano, among others.

The script is full of twists and surprising reversals, particularly towards the end of the film. One criticism about the film I've heard a lot is that there are too many plot twists towards the end, but I disagree. The film captivates the audience so much that all the unexpected events are not too much to follow. In fact, these are what make the film outstanding. I highly recommend it. Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.

This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.

This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco. So far Miguel Bardem's career it's been one of the more dreadful of recent Spanish cinema. He's made nothing but rubbish... until now. "Incautos" has been quite a surprise: it's a serious film, with rhythm, with a great cast and very entertaining.

The art of robbing, that's what "Incautos" is about. A film much alike to David Mamet's "House of game" and stuff like that. A thousand of twists in the script, and a story where nothing's like it seems.

The weak points in latest Bardem's movie may be the so-American language, that makes some of the characters look rather unnatural (especially Victoria Abril's. She's a hell of an actress, but in "incautos" she looks a little bit forced). Ernesto Alterio is not that bad, but he's not half as good actor as his father... And what to say about Luppi?? Well, he's the MAN.

In short: a good movie. The best that Miguel Bardem has ever made. I hope this is the beginning of a brand new stage in his career.

*My rate: 7/10 I was very lucky to see this film as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival 2005 only a few days ago. I must admit that I am very partial to movies that focus on human relations and especially the ones which concentrate on the tragic side of life. I also love the majority of Scandinavian cinematic offerings, there is often a particular deep quality in the way the story unfolds and the characters are drawn. Character building in this film is extraordinary in its details and its depth. This is despite the fact that we do encounter quite a number of characters all with very particular personal situations and locations within their community. The audience at the end of the screening was very silent and pensive. I am still playing some of those scenes in my mind and I am still amazed at their power and meaningfulness. This film came as a gift - a late-night offering out of the blue - so unlike other reviewers I had no preconceptions whatsoever. I found myself glued to my seat as the film slowly dictated its own rhythm, its own unfolding. I was drawn to acknowledge my own deep love and humanity as I willed for "good" to prevail - but also forced to wryly acknowledge that sometimes I was on the side of the "bad" guys. The film is quite quite beautiful - the word "elegiac" comes to mind, and this more than because the film begins and ends in an elegy. Far from being depressing or confronting, to me, the film acknowledges deep suffering - and then, by its cyclic nature - with the births and re-births as well as the deaths - the film celebrates the fact that to quote an Aussie poet, there is "sometimes gladness." Oh gods, I feel as tho I've just written a love letter to this film - but there it is. Hola! Before I'd seen this movie I've heard a lot of praise about it and quite many exclamations about how "horrific" it was. Not to take any credit away from this movie, I think it wasn't all that horrible or even shocking. It's just a movie about people living in the darker side of the town. And a good one at portraying the point.

There's some great acting here and a well-thought of manuscript. Paavo Westerberg is a renowned writer in the Finnish movie scene and he's the best in what comes to describing the contemporary Finnish culture (albeit he's not the only one writer for this movie, but I dare say he's the main-writer anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong).

The casting is excellent, except for Jasper Pääkkönen (the pseudo-main character, who in my opinion should have stayed in the soap opera scene), and the sets, the cuts and sounds are very well done as well and give great atmosphere to this movie.

This movie is a story about loosely interconnected sad destinies that according to a famous Finnish band's very well known song (Eppu Normaali's "Tuhansien Murheellisten Laulujen Maa", which VERY roughly translated to "Paha Maa") throughout the whole Finnish society lead to a sad, dark end accompanied with booze, lonesomeness and the bad choices. And it's the side of everyday Finnish life about 80% of the population have no awareness of, unless movies like this are made. For Estoninans Finland sometimes seems like a land of dreams. A land where many of us want to go and work there or start a business. Find love, start a new life etc. But... Aku Louhimies has made this brilliant piece which shows that everything is not so good in Finland as well. That Finland can be just as Paha maa (The Bad Land) than any other country. It shows that people there can be just as miserable in their lives than we in everywhere else. That sometimes there's nothing good. This movie nicely shows why Finland is one of the top suicidal countries. It's not easy to live in North. Cold climate changes us. I've become more and more attracted to Finnish movies and this one is very good. The acting is great as well. Jasper Pääkkönnen has become one of the top Finnish stars. Beware of the sex scene (if you have little children) and a little depression that might come afterwards the movie! 8/10 This is another of those rare movies one feels grateful to be introduced to instead of the usual Hollywood tripe. It really is a roller coaster ride, as we follow the effects of a a forged 500 Euro note on a multitude of people. One asks 'what if' all the time but it certainly is a butterfly effect captured on film. It'll have you laughing, crying and biting your lip. I loved every minute of it! And thank you SBS Australia for showing films that are truly entertaining, even worth the effort to read the subtitles. The only downside to my mind is that I wont be booking a holiday to the Frozen Land - they all seem to be far too depressed - must be all that cold weather. Either way, watch it - it's worth every second. I saw this film at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and Director Aku Louhimies introduced his film and was on hand for Q&A after. For some reason this movie is titled Frozen Land in English so I don't know how the distributors got frozen out of Paha. This is a very good film. It doesn't for me have enough that I would knock it up a notch to the excellent category but I did talk to some viewers who felt that it was an excellent film. Louhimies said that back in Finland people either loved this movie or hated it and said a lot of people in theaters walked out on it. I'm sure some objected to some of the violence, swearing, drug and alcohol abuse and sexual explicate scenes. It's a very clever story of how these different lives are woven together because of a trickle down effect. This film has very interesting and strong characters. I would rate it a 7.0 out of a possible 10 and would see it again and recommend it with caution. This was a movie of which I kept on reading the reviews again and again; and despite it being played at Film Museum and not at Pathe theatres – I decided to give this movie a try. The reasons were many – in the reviews it was compared with Pulp Fiction, it had several parallel stories running in the movie and lastly it had already won 17 awards internationally in various categories. I was eager to see this movie and due to my off day at Greenpeace I decided to make myself happy by going and seeing this movie.

It is a story based in Finland. I think it reflected the current life of people in general – drugs, crime, sex, anger, anguish, fear and guilt. Every emotion was captured brilliantly in the movie. There are several characters and stories interwoven but a few characters come back in the latter half – making a link with the beginning sequences and that takes the story forward.

The story is about two friends – one of whom is computer geek and the other is a drug addict – son of an abusive father. The drug addict boy trades a Euro 500 note – printed by his friend – to buy back his music system, and in returns gets huge change of cash back to buy more drugs. The trading of Euro 500 note continues to bizarre events – from the shop trader to an auto mechanic cum robber – to a car dealer – to a vacuum cleaner salesman – to a prostitute – to a police officer – then to her family and children. How the beginning of a small thing – creates a chain reaction that lead even after 5 years of that first incident to a depressing last note – which I won't reveal here.

The direction is excellent. The character development in the movie is first rate. The character that sticks on your mind even after you come out of the movie is of the vacuum cleaner sales person. All the departments of the movie are handled nicely. Here I would like to make a couple of critical comments. First, during the sequence of one event leading to another I felt that the coincidences were too rapid and forced. But this screenplay writing error is pardon when one sees the whole canvas. Second, the trail of one character leading to another somehow leads back to the first two characters and that again I found to be a forced decision by the screen play writer. There was no need to have the same characters showing up again when there are different causes leading to different effects in such a big city.

But after saying that – it is an excellent movie! It is a dark movie with quite a few sex scenes. The characters are having the black, white and gray shades and emotions that change from facing different situation which is brilliantly captured by the director.

A top rate movie! It has all the ingredients of becoming a cult movie. I hope that only such movies should not become and achieve the status of cult movies and win lots of awards, because without crime, sex, violence, drugs etc. too one can make fantastic movies – Bicycle Thieves and Pather Panchali are its prime examples – only thing is that they were a long time back and times are changing and I think movies are reflecting the current times. Imagine the most depressing winter you will never experience: grey instead of white, no snow fights and certainly no wonderlands. This is the Finland as portrayed by 'Frozen Land'. This film follows a bunch of people whose lives are oddly linked to each others' with results beyond anyone's nightmares. Yes, most characters are flawed in the way that only celluloid characters can - completely annoying and frustrating to watch, yet for some reason you wish for their luck to turn.

With some randomly placed humour and a cast that groups together Finland's somewhat mainstream faces, Frozen Land offers a glimpse of the Finnish mentality that despite its depressing downward spirals manages to restore some faith in humanity. More so than Kaurismäki, to say the least. I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one! The problem I have as a Finn is that most of the actors in this movie are in every Finnish movie. I have a feeling that Finland has only like five actors. I think that if you're not from Finland you really like this movie as a refreshing novelty.

This movie is about a dreadful chain of events that affects a few people quite harshly. Alcoholism, cold climate and darkness may all be clichés but they're still very real in todays Finnish society. A lot of people in Finland have depression, especially during winter.

The tone of the movie is very melancholic. I enjoyed it and Louhimes' directing was again very solid. I liked this movie a lot, only negative thing is that you see the same faces that you've seen over and over again. i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at hpn_x@hotmail.com thanks a lot in advance!! =) ---------------------repeating----------------------------- i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at hpn_x@hotmail.com thanks a lot in advance!! =) Paha maa is different Finnish film. But the things which makes it different are copied abroad. Some techniques of narration are from Amores Perros, Jackie Brown and Elephant. Scenes are shot from different angles again. Paha maa is a good movie, but it isn't so good that the hype tolds: "Realistic movie, no happy end, and no commercial admissions." Some actors did great job. Sulevi Peltola was so good as a vacuum cleaner peddler. Also Jasper Pääkkönen shows his skills. But Mikko Leppilampi was so lame. He is so overrated actor, he's handsome and a nice guy, but not the best actor of Finland. But if you like Finnish movies, Paha maa is worth to see. A touching documentary that puts a human face on the tragedy of 9/11 by showing how one small community coalesced to honor two high school friends lost on that day. The film interweaves the lives of Chris and Tom through interviews with family and friends and snippets of old photos. Through their reminiscences we glimpse two lives tragically cut short. The film also documents how, through a series of coincidences, an inspirational memorial garden was brought forth through the efforts of many people, both known and unknown to the two victims. Through the laughter and the tears(and the sweat) we see the power of hope and honor and love. This films evokes many different emotions, but the final feeling is one of admiration of the human spirit undaunted by tragedy. almost 4 years after the events of 911, if asked what comes to mind about that day, most people would probably comment on things such as the sight of planes crashing into and the collapse of the twin towers, the scores of people being killed, acts of terrorism and heroism mixed together, etc. everyone who was alive at the time will never forget that day. yet for most of us the memories, although moving, are not on a personal level. now comes an extraordinary film which gives everyone who did not lose a friend or a family member a chance to become involved at a personal level in just what we lost on 911. this is a film that needs to be seen. I was one of the lucky people to be invited to view this film in New York. It is a compelling story of how a group of extremely tight friends dealt with the tragedy of September 11th. This film made me laugh and cry and showed me how the human spirit, through love and friendship can endure and create wonderful things out of one of our darkest days. The film makers truly captured the emotions of the individuals involved. It was amazing to see how the same story was told through the eyes of so many different people. I walked out of the theater that day wanting to call all my friends just to say hello. I would recommend everyone see this documentary. I would rate this movie with an A++++++++++. See it if you get a chance. Roopa (Kamalinee Mukherjee) loses her parents and other family members in a gruesome car accident. She starts living on her own as an independent woman without taking any help from her relatives. She has a boy friend named Rahul (Anuj) and is about to get married to him, but backs out due to the behavior of her future mother-in-law and due to lack of confidence shown by her boyfriend. Anand (Raja) joins her neighborhood. And he starts making Roopa feel comfortable and secure. The rest of the story is about why Anand - MD of the richest corporate house of AP - has chosen to reside as neighbor of Roopa and what follows next.

This movie has a freshness to it which we rarely see in Indian movies to it. Although the story goes slow, you get a sense of familiarity with it. Kudos to the director shekhar kammula for such an awesome direction! Brilliant music and background score composed by K.M. Radhakrishnan adds to the quality. Kamalini mukherjee as Rupa has given a marvelous performance. I think she was the best choice for this role because of her non-glamorous looks and amazing histrionics. Anand as Raja has done well too. I have watched this movie thrice now and enjoyed it thoroughly every time. It is a class apart from the daily dose of action movies we get here. Highly recommended!! When I first saw the poster of this movie, I discarded it off as another low-budget movie targeting youth. After some days, when it finally made it to the theaters, one of my friends told me it's a good one.

A year later, the first time when I saw the advertisement that, Anand was going to be aired on television and the moment finally came as I flipped channels and for a moment I stopped to watch and that's it I ended up watching the whole movie.

And by now, 3 yrs later I'd have watched the movie at least 7-8 times and I don't really watch movies again and again!!

This movie is great because it tries to be different, when all Telugu movies were composed of 6 songs and 4 fights.

It's a simple movie, a bit slow but a very gripping screenplay, there're no loose ends in the movie, very well-versed dialogues, which is really-really hard to find by.

Music is both classic and soothing, great renditions by Radha Krishnan, some great kirtanas also come in the bgmusic, through out the movie.

Cinematography, deserves a mention. Editing is not slick but adequate for a romantic one such as this.

But, what really blows you out in this movie is two things- 1.the way each scene has been treated with utmost respect by, the now famous, Shekar Kammula.

2. The beautiful lyrics by Veturi.

And one more thing deserves a special mention, Kamalini, part of her success attributed to Sunitha, for lending her such a beautiful voice, really tell you, the voice does wonders to me.

The other actors, are equally good, Raja in the title character and the little girl, and the way she shouts when she gets a new dog.

Ultimately, I can tell you this movie is soon on its way to be another classic with those old classic romantic ones, along with Kammula's another classic-romantic piece, Godavari. Anand is one of those low-budget but well taken movies. It's a "cup of coffee" entertainment, with no violence, blood or "jump out of your seat" excitement which most telugu films have. However, it does have some massala of it's own. Roopa is a headstrong and down-to-earth young woman who is not afraid to confront any sort of situation, even her offensive mother-in-law's distaste for her. She even backs out of the wedding because her fiancé doesn't stand up for her. However, her air of confidence and independence is enough to make Anand, a rich young gentleman living in the city, aspire to be her new husband. His father accidentally kills her parents in a car crash anyways, so why not pay her back? But Roopa is not the kind who will fall for charming smiles and polite behavior, she puts him through a bunch of situations, continuing to be rude and a pain. It's not until he stands up for her and saves her life that she understands she loves him too. But complications ensue… Each frame in the movie is a lesson to new directors or existing directors to know how a movie should be taken. Hats off to Sekhar. He is underestimated in Indian film industry. The director has got all the qualities in taking this movie in the range of Satyajir ray, Adoor.. Every character is portrayed effectively in the movie. Though it's simple story, it's been taken to such extent it can be considered to one of the best in India. I don't have enough adjectives to praise the movie. Just as the way the life goes in day-today atmosphere, the movie has been taken. Though the songs in Indian movies are considered to a weak area, songs in this movie has given extra energy to the potential of the movie..especially background score..it's amazing A town in Japan is being taken over by a horribly brutal abstract shape: the spiral. It's becoming a theme in everything from animals to clouds to people and twisting them, mentally and literally. This film shows it happening to several groups of people. Some demonic possession is implied, but nothing is entirely sure except that the best bet is to get the heck out of dodge. The film progresses really well from normal life to abnormal phenomena (giant snails and crazy people) to the truly supernatural (walking dead).

As a jaded American horror movie fan, this was just what I needed. Maybe it was just the novelty of a different culture's film, but it seemed to have a very original progression, set of characters, and the premise was definitely new. The Japanese may think "horror shapes" (uzumaki means "spiral," I'm told) are old by now, but it was nice for me because I'm used to monster/alien/virus/disaster/undead films. In an American movie, you know who's going to die (the annoying/nasty/lascivious/racist characters) and who will live (the children/heroine/dogs/cats/nice guy). That's not true in Japanese horror. It was not predictable how they would fight the evil or how it would end up. Also, it had this really new (but probably typically Japanese) color leached Pacific Northwest style cloudy day thing going, which was a fresh visual effect for me. The horrific moments were seriously creepy, relying on a little gore but mainly just impossibly overdone facial expressions (think The Ring) and body manipulations. This should be one of the greats, up there with once-original ideas like the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Night of the Living Dead. "Uzumaki" takes place in a small Japanese rural town,where people are going mad.They go nuts over vortexes and spirals.The crisis is getting worse,because people are turning into snails and vortexes appear everywhere."Uzumaki" has to be one of the most bizarre and original horror movies I have seen.The plot is really clever and the gore scenes are really funny as the film doesn't takes itself too seriously."Uzumaki" is wonderfully photographed and the use of colors is top-notch.The characters are likeable and there is enough shocking surprises to satisfy fans of Japanese horror.Despite of some hilarious scenes,the overall tone of this film is pretty dark."Uzumaki" is not as good as "Ringu","Ju-on" or "Audition",but if you like Japanese horror movies you won't be disappointed.7 out of 10. It's very true that this film defies convention by not spelling out the plot for the viewer. While some may have a problem with having to figure it out for themselves, I embrace "Uzumaki" for its irreverence. There is a PLOT, it's just that it may not be immediately accessible to a lazy viewer. This is a film that invites numerous interpretations, as all great art does - however, this film is also very entertaining, making it a rare film experience. It's simultaneously provocative and fun. I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy. I've seen a fair few films from the Far East recently.....some were excellent (Battle Royale, Infernal Affairs, the Eye), and some were not so great (Versus, The Triple Cross). Then there are ones like Uzumaki and Returner, which while flawed I still enjoyed.

The basic premise involves the mysterious and horrific effects that a growing obsession with spirals has upon a community. Sound silly? Yeah, thats what I was thought. Firstly, the good stuff. Direction was top notch, sure a bit over the top in places but never the less interesting and stylish. Secondly the story, was original and like other writers commented very lovelace-esq...it was interesting. What it reminded me most of however was early Cronenberg; films like Shivers and Videodrome.

The acting wasn't great, but not too horrible either. To be honest I was actually bored on a few occations....I felt the pacing especially initially was a little slow. My main problem was that it was too silly and funny to be true horror, and yet not so enough to be considered a comedy. *SPOILERS* below.

*SPOILERS* Some good scenes (washing machine =)) and I liked the final shot/voiceover. At first I thought it ended far too abruptly but about 20 seconds later I realised the meaning and liked the end. However, because of the lack of seriousness in the story, combined with over the top scenes such as the news report at the school ment that I did not care for the characters much in the end. The final scene which was perhaps supposed to be a little poignent, while in reality I couldn't really care for the girl or her boyfriend. *SPOILERS END*

So overall I kinda did like this film, but it frustrated me and I think there was real potential in addition to some good scenes. Couple of other points, the main girl is quite pretty and cute, and the song that plays at the end is good too. I rated it 7/10.

Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars. As is frequently the case when Manga is translated into live action, there is quite a bit lost in the translation. However, this remains a highly entertaining film. The premise is unusual and it is presented in the quiet, understated style so prevalent in Japanese films (ha!). The special effects are a little 70s camp but, it adds to the comic book feel of the film. I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone but, if you are familiar with (and enjoyed) other Japanese horror films like "Evil Dead's Trap", this film will appeal to you. Wow.. I just saw this movie on the Sundance Channel, and it really is bizarre. I may not be a film expert, but it's probably the most bizarre film I, as an average movie fan, have seen.

Whoever came up with with it had a great imagination. I'm a bit of a fan of Japanese dramas, and there are often actors from dramas in movies.. (Matsushima Nanako, for example, the lead in Ringu, is a major j-drama star.) But it looks like this is the first film for Kirie and Shuichi's portrayers. I must say, if they really are debuting here, they do a pretty good job.

Kirie was a very sympathetic character, I thought she was easy to relate with. She was kind and good-hearted, perhaps not the most popular girl but nicer than some of the other attention-seeking girls. She was also pretty in a classic kind of way. I hope she does more films, but it's been a couple years so maybe she has no such plans.

The ending was odd. I'm not going to give anything away, but the rest of the movie's bizarreness was kind of put to shame.

Very bizarre, but very imaginative and unique movie. I'd recommend it for Japanese horror fans, though I'll warn you, it's a lot more bizarre than Ringu.

Nonetheless, I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, for originality, imagination, good characterization, above average acting, and just being plain intriguing. I enjoyed this film very much. It effectively combines humor, fantasy, and a few moments of horror with a solid film making effort from Higuchinsky. Brilliant visuals and a very original story concerning spirals. My only complaints are that it had its dull moments and wasn't as daring as it could have been. Still, I give this a solid 8 out of 10. The U.S. should take note of this and other fine Japanese horror/fantasy films that have come along recently and have them available on Region 1 DVD. Actually, Asian cinema in general, have some of the finest films that have been unnoticed by the American public because they're hard to find. I strongly recommend people to go look for these treasures, they're hard to find, but once you find them, you'll be glad you did. Uzumaki, is a visually stunning Film, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to argue that. But, unfortunately, the story somewhat falls flat.

The film nevertheless is very entertaining. It uses it's wild style to tell a somewhat non-existant story. The film almost works, just based on it's characters and style, but In my opinion, leaves something to be desired. I'm a horror movie freak, and this has got to be one of the most phenomenal horror flicks I've ever seen. The plotline is totally original (who else would think up a town who gets totally obsessed with a certain symbol to the point of death and insanity?), the special effects are amazing, and the cinematography couldn't be better. Some may find it disturbing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. It also makes a good point. The spiral symbol is kinda ubiquitous. The spiral notebook, spiral seashells, spirals on cakes. Of all the shapes they could have used (square, triangle, trapezoid, rectangle) this was one of the best choices. If you can find this movie, definitely see it. It's certainly unique, and quite unforgettable.

Horror movie time, Japanese style. Uzumaki/Spiral was a total freakfest from start to finish. A fun freakfest at that, but at times it was a tad too reliant on kitsch rather than the horror. The story is difficult to summarize succinctly: a carefree, normal teenage girl starts coming face to face w/ extremely disturbing events as the small town she lives in seems to come under the control of spirals. The spirals are everywhere, in the air, clouds, dirt and everyday objects. The spirals take control of people and bad things will happen to them. Oh, another thing, people are randomly turning into snails. Why? Who knows or cares, people are turning into snails, that's enough for me. This wasn't as much scary as just creepy as it doesn't have a lot of suspense or jarring attacks as horror films often do. Uzumaki prefers to creep and crawl (like a snail might!) rather than to jolt. A favorite scene: a woman lies sleeping in a hospital room when this long, thousand legged centipede creature makes its way into the room and slowly up the bed post, across the sheets, over the pillow and into her sleeping ear. I cringed and curled my toes. Uzumaki has a handful of scenes really violent but that are sort of humorous as well. For example, a man is obsessed w/ spirals, he gets into his washer because he sees a spiral in it when it spins, he commits spiral suicide inside the washer. The last shot we see of him is w/ his body all coiled & rubber like, a human flesh spiral w/ a engorged single eye blinking in the middle of the washer. A bizarre image. Uzumaki has a blatant psychodelic slant to it which adds to its charm and fun. I love horror movies like this. It's not about killing, a la slasher films, it's about a force of evil (the spirals!) taking over you and trying to kill you, force you to kill others. Films like Uzumaki prove that there are many ways to make a horror film and thank goodness for that Anyone who enjoys the Lynchian weirdness of Twin Peaks, or any fan of HP Lovecraft who knows that the most frightening things are the familiar things, will really enjoy this film. Don't watch it as a horror film in the "traditional" western sense, but more like a Grimm's fairy tale. It is gory and definitely for 16+, but once you start watching it, you too will find yourself drawn into the vortex. Definitely one of those movies that hangs with you for a few days after watching (I'll never look at my snails the same way again!) A couple of weeks after I saw this movie it began to remind me of John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness (not for the story!) for the atmosphere, the fast elements of surprise and the dreamlike sequences. On the other hand, this movie mixes very well the image and the music (note the 4th chapter in the movie) Uzumaki is a visually astounding film however I felt as if some of the story line may have been sacrificed. There is hardly any character development which left me feeling personally detached from the film, which is ironic because all puns aside, this film really does draw you in with its many slight spiral effects and stunning scene transitions. At first the overall cinematography threw me off but as you get used to the overall appearance you start to see the beauty in this twisted film. This is a great movie if you are looking for a looker with out too much substance or deeper meaning.It is a great horror film that is not actually scary or suspenseful but somehow...eerie. A girl begins to notice that people in her small town are becoming fascinated by anything that is shaped like a spiral. Soon, the fascination turns to obsession and things get deadly. While I won't say that "Uzumaki" was an excellent film, I will say that it was unlike anything I've seen before. Throughout my viewing, I felt like I was watching a cartoon. There are funny segues between scenes and characters with digitally enhanced eyes. Later, I found out the film is an adaptation of a manga comic, so this makes sense. However, just when you think you are watching something that could be a kid's movie, you are bombarded with nasty and gory visuals! The story often lags and the ending is somewhat abrupt and seemed anti-climactic at the time, but in retrospect I appreciate it more for its originality. My Rating: 7/10. Uzumaki (that's Japanese for "spiral" or "vortex") is one of the most absurd films I've ever watched. A town becomes obsessed and then all-consumed by the vortex pattern in some very grotesque ways. Fingertips are cut off, people commit suicide in washing machines... just wild and crazy Japanese horror. Possibly as psychologically damaging as "The Ring". Generally not as scary as "The Eye", but the imagery in this is more sickening than most of the things in "The Eye". And not as gory as "The Untold Story"... but that isn't to say there isn't a fair amount of blood and dismemberment. Seriously, if you enjoy horror films and especially Asian horror - you must add this film to your list. A few parts are a little odd with the sound effects (the story is adapted from a manga comic and it shows), but it really fits. Unlike some films that try too hard to capture the original source ("House of the Dead") this one does it perfectly. The most original film you will see... not just this year, but probably ever. Recommended! Uzumaki has a very unique story and I will never look at spirals the same way again. Not really spine tingling horror, this film has a dark morose, acid trip feel to it. During certain parts, was it just me or did you see vortex visuals? The camera shots are interesting and the movie lets your imagination run wild. The bizarre supernatural feel of this film draws you in just as the title suggests. Acting is done well and the town setting itself seems wrong with to begin with.

This may take a few viewings for it to sink in. A great trippy film. Uzumaki has a formidable reputation within Lovecraftian circles and now I know why.

Uzumaki is based on a Manga title (which, unbelievably, is allegedly better than the film) and follows the bizarre events preceeding a typhoon in an isolated Japanese town. I'm not about to tell you anything that happens in this film because it is an absolute must-see movie. I watched it for the first time last night and I was blown away. It shot into the my top movies of all time and leap-frogged Pans Labyrinth as the best fantastic movie (literally and photographically) that has been released in the last decade.

This movie is very Lovecraftian in nature without formally having any direct connection to the Cthulhu Mythos. It has been made in the same way that Lovecraft composed his stories; it exudes power as an aura of 'something's not quite right here' intensifies through a brooding phase to dread and, ultimately, horror through subtle progressive changes in the soundtrack and the cinematography. This is, indeed, a "Weird Tale" par excellence.

Simply stunning. To be honest, I thought this movie would be a Japanese drama. I was dead wrong. This movie is based of the popular Japanese anime novel of the same name. It tells the story of a town that is cursed by the Uzumaki or The Spiral in English. Little by little the towns residents start to slowly become dangerously and violently obsessed with anything to do with spirals and some of the residents start to actually turn into living things the actually have some sort of spiral within them such as a snail.

The movie was one giant, random, acid trip twisted with romance and drama. Sort of like a…twisted…drama. What makes this movie disturbing is the ways that some of the people are obsessed with The Spiral. For example: one of the dads has a garage full of house hold objects with spirals incorporated into them, one girl took her extremely long hair and teased to an insanely huge spiral-like style, one kid slowly transformed into a human snail, one man could twist his body into a spiral shape, one woman attempted to cut her ear open to obtain the cochlea inside and one teen ran over himself so that he could be twisted around a car tire and one kid stuffed himself into a washer so he could become a spiral.

Another very disturbing aspect of this very well syndicated is the atmospheric tone and the style in which this movie was shot. The camera angles add to the psychotic and twisted story, in other words, a very good cinematography. The overall coloring of this picture makes for a somewhat demented story. The coloring is a blend of lime green, yellow and a little orange and the special effects with some of the spirals are outstanding.

However, like many Japanese films, this one has an undertone of forbidden love and romance between a girl and a boy. However, with all the spirals and strange happening going on in the town it is hard to keep up with the relationship of the two teens. But, in some way it is very irrelevant, more like a second hand story that has nothing to do with the actual story of the spiral obsessed town.

Overall, I would recommend this film to anybody who likes vastly different and bizarre foreign films. It has just enough wackiness and insanity, it touched me. Uzumaki succeeds as at plunging you into a bizarre surreality where Uzumaki shapes haunt and curse a town. It fails at being a competent horror movie. While the film is sure to draw attention mainly to it's bizarre plot line and a few interesting visual treats, it's going to come off better as a dark comedy than a horror film. It's definitely a film you should see if your into the kind of stuff- but if your looking for a scare or even a small chill, you'll want to look elsewhere. Uzumaki doesn't really have much else up it's sleeve but a great chain of odd events.

a Watched Uzumaki last night and right away was reminded of two early Peter Weir films from Australia, The Last Wave and Picnic At Hanging Rock. They were films loaded with atmosphere but short on actual horror. Uzumaki, to me, seems clearly influenced by these films. It has a number of fairly mundane scenes that become more portentous the deeper you are sucked in by the film. It also has more scenes of outright horror and although I don't think the film actually measures up to those two films it is well worth the time of most thoughtful fans of the unusual (not necessarily horror). 7 out of 10 seems fair but I must say that years after seeing The Last Wave the film still stays with me, and it is precisely Picnic At Hanging Rock's unresolved ending that makes it so haunting. p.s. All the people criticizing the acting... pullleasse...in this genre? Having discovered the Ring trilogy, I have been greedily gobbling up all those other Japanese and Korean films that are either on or following the bandwagon.

I don't have an easy definition of horror, but this film certainly pushed some of my buttons, even though I can't claim that the film makes a lot of sense. I'm squeamish so there were several points in the film when I just didn't want to watch what was happening on screen. The film unnerved me so I became apprehensive of seeing things that I thought I was going to see.

It's an imaginative film offering a great deal visually. It also provides food for thought. And plenty of material to argue about when the film is over.

The characters are well-defined to say the least. Could they make films like this in the West?

So it doesn't make sense in the end, but when one has an appetite for the occult, the supernatural, the bizarre, the otherworldly, then no film is going to deliver a final all-explaining pay-off. I saw UZUMAKI about a year ago and was mesmerized. The only Japanese horror film I had seen before this one was KWAIDAN (Which I proudly own on DVD, by the way), superb! The idea of a town being absorbed by spirals sounds exactly like something out of Lovecraft. Certainly it reminds one of SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH, of the inhabitants slowly turning into monstrosities (in this case giant snails). And who can forget the washing machine sequence? I hope we will soon see this one available on Region 1 DVD (I see that Sundance has recently screened it on US TV, hopefully they'll do it again very soon) so that we can all see it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!! This is one of my all time favourite movies, if ur not into cars then forget it!! This movie features 1 of Aussies greatest muscle cars, the XYGTHO. Yeah so the acting not the greatest - it was never made to win an oscar. The car action will keep you comin back for more and more. There is a cool collection of muscle cars from the 70's and an Awesome '57 Chev - with a real cool cat drivin it! Also there is a really cool song sung by Terry Serio the main actor. The acting is pretty funny when taken lightly, but the tyre smokin and drag racing is the main focus in this movie. Big fast cars with pleantly of steel(NO PLASTIC CARS), and some cool street dragging. I recommend it only to people that are into cars and not someone looking for great acting. I remember watching this movie many years ago on VHS at a friends place. At first I thought it would be a boring car movie. But much to my surprise it ended up being one of the best movies I can remember watching for its time.

It has a good story line and best of all it has some awesome Aussie cars and street racing. I really loved Fox's car the most which was a worked Dodge Charger. The paint work which was done on this car was truly outstanding in my opinion :)!

There's also a black two door blown 57 Chev which comes into the movie later on.

I actually managed to get a copy of this movie on VHS last year at K-Mart over here in Australia. I did have plans of converting this movie to DVD myself as I believe it is a movie worth the conversion. But much to my surprise this weekend while I was browsing the DVD movie bin I came across it on DVD. So of course I grabbed it while I could as it was the only copy there.

Anyway if you really want to see some classic street racing with real muscle cars, including a great story line without a rice burner in sight. Then this movie is for you!!!!

Here is some additional info taken from the back of the DVD.

He'll Win At Any Cost Fox is a young man that lives in the fast lane. He believes he is the fastest man on the road - but street racing is illegal. If he doesn't accept his latest challenge he could loose his girl... if he does accept, he could lose his life. Living dangerously, living fast and winning at any cost is their obsession. They don't turn back, the don't give in.. and the don't ask for help. For those of you out there who have seen this pic on VHS, I would recommend the DVD. In fact the VHS is utter rubbish. The main reason is that the film was shot widescreen (2.55:1) and the producers ran out of money making the VHS version and released it as 4:3. The result is that several actors are not on screen at all, and in many drag races, less than half the cars are showing since one is on each side of the screen. The DVD is actually a reasonable version of the film.

A lot of the best scenes in the film were cut before the final release. They were viewed as being too offensive to minority groups. In fact the prospect of a US release caused even more cuts in the film. For example, the Americans reputedly did not understand words such as Petrol & Strides.

Mike's dad and mum were meant to be hippies. The dad survives in the film as a wasted dope smoking guitarist. But the following scene with the mum was cut. The scene took place in the roof space of the house which was lined with aluminium foil, fluoro lights and filled with plants... you get the picture. The producers had rounded up a lot of real plants for the foreground and when they saw the result on the big sheet, they freaked and the scene was cut. Cowards!

Yes, the film is noted as an Australian cult classic. Voted #2 in Street machines best 100 films of all time, narrowly missing out to Mad Max ll. The latter had over 10 times the budget of ROE. In fact the budget on ROE was so small that the director could not afford to wreck any of the cars... even though there would have been a public outcry if anyone had wrecked a real HO. (compare that with Smoky and the Bandit or Blues Bros where dozens of cars were wrecked.)

So there's one real GTHO and two fakes. One of the fakes was bought from the local indigenous community in Cobar after the standby GTHO crashed into the back of the Country Boy's truck. (That was unscripted! The car was meant to burst out from the side of the truck.) Because the budget was so tight, the car was made up with ordinary brown masking tape instead of the painted on gold trim of the real thing.

The 55 chev is absolutely real. The car began as a very plain 4 door and was brilliantly and quickly converted to the blown '55 in the film. The motor was a marinised 545 which made around 1000 bhp. This was reduced to around 600 for the filming. The car was able to easily to 170 mph as show in several scenes in the film.

Just for the record, anyone with $12,000 could have picked up ALL the cars after the film. The HO, the Dodge, the '53 Ute, Rammer's 53 Chev... the lot. Wonder where they are now?

SW The movie has started, the wheels spin, your car has entered a race against the Fox.... You're behind you can't get in front, you figure, "if i go out, i'm taking you with me..." You smash into the cars parked on the side of the road, you turn to hit Fox but your aim is bad.... Bang, you've gone up the back of a VW, and smash you've landed in a reservoir. Your car lights on fire. You could get out if you wanted, but the shame of losing has taken you... BANG! Your car blows up, everyone looks on in despair, some crying... The sound of a siren tells you the cops are coming. Everyone gets in their cars and bolts, leaving you to burn. The charred remains of the cars frame sits there, haunting the on lookers... You're dead.

This is one of the scenes; actually its the first scene in the movie. There are many more like it. As you enter the cockpit of the Fox in his pimped out V8 ford, Terry Serio in his crazy GTHO, and many others in this blast from the past.... JOHN CLARKS masterpiece, "RUNNING ON EMPTY" "-He'll win at any cost-" This is a top car flick (Its a work of art/ YER a work of art!) all classic cars no plastic fantastic, I have watched it over & over again I have worn out two video tapes, And will wear out lots more. Lots more car lovers young or old will love this film & watch it more than 1 time! so hire it or buy it (just see it) I wish they would make more (car) movies like this V8 power not gassed up little whipper snippers!!!!

(shes a 351 right?)(motor magic) (the heap the chariot)

(you've got to learn to feel the power) I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful – works of art, there's no question about it.

As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER – Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.

The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time – no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.

Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes – SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.

So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) – it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs – Bruuuuum! P.S – Amazon are selling this for just over £2 – it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever. Whenever this film gets a mention, usually the discussion begins and ends with the wonderful collection of cars and drag scenes, often overlooked are the at times eclectic characters that populate the film around the three central characters

One character that stands out is Rebel played by the great veteran Australian actor Max Cullen. Rebel is a blind drag racer, who nearly runs down the hero and his group in the middle of the night because he is not using any headlights.

In the back story we discover that Rebel master builder of street racing cars, and he and his wife seem locked in a time warp of the 1950's. Rebel goes on to play a small but pivotal role in teaching Mike, played by Terry Serio, the almost spiritual truth about street drag racing. It is not speed, reaction times that make a great racer. It is the one who feels the car best who will become the greatest

This is best exemplified as Rebel explains to Mike after a test drive "You got all the agony, just missing the style"

Graham Bond, is another well credited actor lending his talents as a crooked police officer looking to get in on some of the financial action being generated by the street racing. The confrontation between Bond and Fox played by Richard Moir adds tension to the story. Bond not only expects results but also Fox to drum up racing business

For most of the movie Fox displays a real manipulative and evil side, yet in the climax he presents a sense of honor that turns the final few minutes into an extremely tense and memorable ending. It is almost as if the film is refocusing on its true intention, to show us the culture of street racing rather than the day to day activities of people

One of the major complaints about the film is the script. Although it is nothing exciting, I believe the complete lack of any chemistry between Mikes girlfriend played by Deborah Conway and his mechanic played by Vangelis Mourikis has more to do with the problem. Any scene in which these two interact simply should have been cut

Lastly in terms of the actors, one truly standout performance is delivered by Kristoffer Greaves, who plays a deaf and crippled member of Fox's inner circle. His back story is never explored, was he injured in a race, born that way, what is it that Fox sees value in to keep him around

The reality of the film is simple, it is about street racing, and the culture behind it. When the cars are flying and action sequences are in motion it is the only time Director John Clark and his writer Barry Tomblin seem really comfortable with what they are doing.

So if you are looking for an in depth exploration of human relationships, moments of life defining drama, then this film is not for you. If your pulse races at the thought of a blown 57 Chev or the iconic GTO Phase 3 blazing away on the streets of Sydney, then you wont find much better than this film If Monte Hellman's legendary early 70's road movie masterpiece "Two-Lane Blacktop" had been done more like a stark, stripped-down, fiercely taut and straightforward brooding mood piece embellished upon by that distinctly mean'n'lean, rough'n'tough, very raw and ragged macho Australian mentality and topped off with a generous sprinkling of dour, despairing, no-hope-whatsoever end-of-the-road punk nihilism, it would undoubtedly be much similar to this jarringly bleak and atmospheric knockout.

Nice guy factory worker Mike (an appealingly scruffy Terry Serio) runs afoul of sneering, shades-wearing fascist car race champ Fox (a perfectly hateful Richard Moir) when he steals Fox's fetching model girlfriend Julie (the lovely Deborah Conway) away from him. Mike and Fox begin competing in increasingly lethal races in which the stakes become higher and higher with each successive bout, finally culminating in an especially pulse-pounding all-or-nothing race with only one true winner allowed. Mike, assisted by his worried, but loyal Italian mechanic pal Tony (a splendidly smooth turn by Vangelis Mourikis) and tutored by blind, supremely hip 50's-style greaser rebel (marvelously essayed with maximum coolness by Max Cullen), willingly puts his life on the line for the sake of his reputation, the affection of his old lady, the money, and, most importantly, for the chance to topple the haughty Fox from his gloating, glowering thrown. Directed with utmost gravity and intensity by John Clark, written to laconically right-on perfection by Barry Tomblim, with a shivery, flesh-crawling synthesizer score by Peter Crosbie and spare, unadorned cinematography by David Gribble, this authentically gnarly early 80's item presents the concept of racing cars as not only a funky alternate lifestyle, but also an all-consuming obsession and reason for living (it's the sole thing most of the film's characters are really passionate about) with a remarkably astute and unblinking eye. Complete with a harrowing downbeat ending and unsparingly grim central message about the bitter price one pays for being top dog, this riveting depiction of a dead-end existence rates as an extraordinary cinematic achievement. I don't understand why everyone hates this movie, aside from the fact that they're just jealous their music careers never took off like mega Popstar Aaron Carter. Like it or not Aaron has seen more success in his young life than most people could ever dream of having, so it only seemed natural for him to do a movie. Lou Pearlman and company have been known for over-exploiting their pop protégées, you remember Justin Timberlake's foray into TV movie Model Behavior? Granted this movie isn't big scale and impressive, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to impress people or be an Emmy award winner, it was released straight to DVD. It's just a cute little movie about an awkward teen who gets her dream of being with her favorite Popstar; I know a lot of you out there have had that dream at some point or another about you favorite singer, don't deny it. It's sweet and gentle and I applaud it for not stepping into the realm of sex, violence, and vulgar language that seem to be creeping into more and more of our movies today. Where's the decency? Where's the line? Teen dramas come in dozens these days because teens are a big market for companies, at least this one is more tolerable to me than Bratz (aka Slutz) with all the fake little girls running around going "Oh Mah Gawd!" in tank tops and mini skirts and is fathoms better than those gore fest movies like Saw. I feel for the main character girl because I was nerdy outcast girl in High School who loved Aaron Carter and NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys and other pop music and still do; and like Aaron's character would get crushing "testophobia", especially in Math. If you judge this movie solely based on the fact that you don't like or are jealous of Aaron Carter and his fame, then of course you're going to hate it and trash talk it in reviews. The only reason Britney Spears' dribble Crossroads got a higher score is because she has boobs. Accept this movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think this happy formulaic teen movie ends on a high note and makes you want to sing. This film brought me to tears. I have to say, that if I did not have a beautiful husband at home, I would ask this beautiful piece of art to marry me. Aaron Carter gives a masterful performance as a confused young pop star, while Timothy Barton writes quick and witty dialogue that only furthers the genius of Carter's performance. Kyle is pretty gay, but his performance was nothing less than spectacular. He is also very handsome and cute. I'm thinking about asking him out on a date and giving him a very sweet goodnight gift.;)

If you would like to discuss this film in the future, please contact me.

Nick Burrell Vassar Class of 2012 Malibu, California Malibu West 310 924 0126 wow is all i could say i really loved the movie and one thing i could say to Aaron carter is that i really think that you should be in a lot more movies cause you rock.i love Aaron carter so much hes hot and so i say thank you a lot for making this movie great.i really do so wish he would be able to make a lot more movies because he his a great dancer, actor, and singer. i so wish i could sing as good as he could. and I've been a fan of his for like ever and i will never ever stop loving him. i rented the movie and I've had it for two days and iv'e literally watched it over like 10 times. laugh out loud you could call me crazy but that just proves that i liked it a lot. if u wanna talk you can hit me up at dvlbab300@aol.com so e-mail me if you wanna. I LOVE YOU AARON CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aaron Carter plays the pop star(J.D. McQueen) in this movie (surprise surprise). This is a typical movie where the leading lady (Jane) has a huge crush on J.D. McQueen the pop star (as well as many other girls) but she's the lucky one that gets to spend the days with J.D. and forms a relationship with him that is more like a fantasy. J.D. has to go to a public school to keep his math grade up in order to do his summer tour. Problem is J.D. isn't good at math. He finds the smartest person in school (Jane) to tutor him. Jane tutors and falls in love with J.D. J.D. in return falls in love with as well but J.D. screws up and has to fix everything in order to win the girl and make the summer tour. The movie is definitely worth watching. Aaron will be a GREAT actor!!! Even though i am slightly older than the recommended age group, I really enjoyed this movie. It's a little break from reality and it must be every little girls dream to become friends with a pop star. I know it was mine, to be sure! The first 10 minutes were really cheesy and the mean girls said a few things that were also slightly cheesy. Once you get over that, you can really start to enjoy it. I loved the relationship between JD and Jane - it was really sweet and you could see how much they began to like each other. The soundtrack is perfect and it fits into the film really well. I also liked the family set up for Jane, her sisters seemed lovely. Very well made film. Well, I have to say, this movie was probably the funniest movie I have seen all year. And I don't exactly mean that in a good way. This is probably the most pathetic movie I have seen in a while, and yet that's what makes it so hilarious. you can tell these people are really trying to act, unfortunately for them they aren't doing such a good job, making it so even lines delivered in what is supposed to be a serious tone come out sounding really funny. Aaron Carter is essentially playing a character quite similar to himself in real life, and still he manages to make the character seem corny and not at all realistic. This movie is one of those movies where everything that is supposed to sound serious comes out really funny and all the things that are supposed to be funny are just so stupid and corny that you have to laugh because you know how hard they are trying. This movie is so bad, it's actually good. I would definitely recommend it if your in the mood for a good laugh. I know what most of people will think about this movie without even seen it... 'The typical movie from a famous singer... It will be a pink movie,a teenage film,it will be stupid...' and stuff like that... And yes, it is...I mean, it's a pink movie... But, you know what?...I LOVED IT. Seriously...It's a very romantic film... I think that every girl in this world has dreamed with something like the plot of 'Popstar'... Met his favorite singer, know him as a person...and even have a romance with him...right? ^^ I really enjoyed watching that... In addition, it's really funny...

I think the actors did a great job... There's a lot of loving characters...And, Aaron Carter (JD) is not the exception... To be honest, in the first five minutes of see him act, i thought 'this will be awful'...But then , he surprised me really pleasingly...

Also, I gotta say that the music performances on the film are GREAT! I specially loved the part when JD ( Aaron) sings without music , (only with a guitar) a very beautiful song...This guy is really talented... Time will tell...

My advice to you?...Watch it! Don't make a prejudice ;-) I am probably a little too old for this movie, 16, and being a guy, the story is a little too girlie, but I really thought it was a cool movie overall. All the girls in this movie are so hot and really great actresses, from Alana, to Adrianne, to Deena, to Kimberly, all the way down to the cute girl that plays Alana's little sister, Rachel. I am not a huge pop-star fan with the lovesick songs, but I thought that Aaron Carter did a really great job in this, and seems like he was really into this movie, and made it seem real. My mom liked all the older farts that she grew up with, so that's cool too. I kept thinking that I liked a lot of the people, and wonder if I will see them again? A sequel would be cool. I rented this, but I might buy it too, since I have a ton of DVD's, and like to go back to see something that I missed. I couldn't buy it at Blockbuster though, so I don't know where I could buy it right now, but I'll look into that. Anyway, I am a 16 year old guy, I already said that, I know, but I would totally take a date to see this. It's really good for all ages, really. I think even my little half sister who is 6 could see this. That's what is so cool about it, that it is something that all ages can see. I'm sure that was done on purpose, but it really works. Girls can dream about being with Aaron Carter, and guys like me can dream about all the hot chicks in this movie. There is something for everyone. This is a really cute movie. I had a massive sleepover (girls 10-11) and they absolutely loved this movie. They watched it twice! Don't let the rating fool you. You have to be 13 or older to rate a movie on IMDb, that eliminates the movie's target audience. If you have a girl (or boy) between 7 and 13, I guarantee they'll enjoy this movie.

Sort of a gender reversed "Notting Hill" set in high school. Aaron Carter plays a famous pop star who is failing his privately tutored classes. His mom sends him to a "regular" high school with the ultimatum, "pass high school or no summer tour." Taking the advice of his Manager (former pop star David Cassidy) he befriends the smartest girl in school (Alana Austin) with plans to cheats off her. Look for the humorous and insightful Janitor (another former pop star Lief Garrett). I just got it and it is a great movie!! i loved it! Although Jane Brightons voice n the beginning is so annoying because of her braces she don't open her freaking mouth...but ya have to watch it cause its a great movie!! the things he says in here are so funny and extremely cute!! and I'm sure Aaron would probably say some of the things in real life cause i don't know, it just seems that way!! ha ha there is a part in tha movie that is really funny...its wen Jane's little sister meets him...but i cant tell ya what happens cause ill just have to let u see for your self!! i went to go see Aaron n concert and it was so much fun!! n he smelled so good ha ha...i still cant believe i got to meet him!!! i have pictures if anyone wants to see them!! Steph I love Aaron carter but even i expected pop star to be predictable, but i was so wrong! Aaron carter was really funny in it and a great actor! Also the actress who played Jane was a brilliant actress! Every one who i no who watched it loved it!

The music in it was also really good!

The my favourite lines from the film is "you cant send me to a public school mom! Im a CELEBRIDEE!!" and "Take your time, it'l come to you!"

Although the endings kind of cheesy,all the good chick flicks do! This film is great, and a proper good Chick flick, that i can watch over and over again! This game is one of the best horror/shooter games I've ever played. The plot is a little choppy, but the game never fails to send you plenty of chills and excitement. Many people shelved the game when they found that there are no cheat codes for it and very little health potions and ammo to be found. But actually, after you've gone through the game once, you are more familiar with the monsters and different rooms, so you can easily get by the second time around. The puzzles are great, not too hard, not too easy. There are tons of different monsters so you never get bored. And there are plenty of gaming areas. You really feel like you're in a good Stephen King novel as you play. It's nice and creepy. Pick this game up cheap and have some fun. This game is an action/adventure with combat. There are quite long periods with no combat but other times, you have to get rid of various kinds of monsters. The monsters are not like anything you would see in real life, and they have to be gotten rid off in order to continue with your quest. The whole game is a quest. You play Adam Randall whose father contacts him from the beyond and asks him to come and save him. The game is from the mid 1990's and has to be played in DOS. I used Dosbox and was able to play the game quite well. The graphics are not as good as some games even of the time, mainly because the resolution is not high and some scenes look quite blocky, but others look batter, but don't let that put you off the game. The game is very imaginative, its long and can make you jump when unexpected monsters appear out of nowhere. Not for young kids who likely wouldn't be interested anyway, but over 13 or 14 might like this game. Its a horror\mystery\action\adventure\combat combination.I thought it was a great game. Its had to find now. maybe Ebay. But remember its a DOS game and you would not be able to play it on todays faster computers. would be hard to play on fast computers unless you use Dosbox. Oh, and the acting is very good too. Found a copy in a bargain bin sale of this old time classic. I played it with dosbox on a vista machine without any issues. It's graphically dated heavily, but what do you expect for a 12 year old game! The game is a FPS/Adventure game hybrid. It's what I call pseudo 3D, you can't look up or down, just spin in 360 (think Wolf3D). Game play can get tricky with a very limited supply of health pots, and a somewhat average interface (Tip: Press I), but on the whole it's passable.

One main strength of the game is the mood. There game heavily uses full motion video, and whilst the acting is b-grade and the plot is very choppy, the game as a whole feels genuinely creepy. It also does a good job of making you question the 'good guys'. Are they really helping, or are they just waiting to stab you in the back? The other major selling point is the games length. There are from memory 18 chapters, which range in game play time from 10minutes to, potentially, hours. My first play through took me a week with some serious devotion of time.

Dated, yes, but if you missed this years ago and can find it for $5, give it a look. Cheaper than a movie, and more entertaining than most movies. I play this game exactly after I watch the trailer in old magazine advertise CD...

The is very interesting and dark atmospheric (missing in nowadays games/movies). The game is set somewhere in the middle of the '90 in the spooky mysterious mansion. You play as Adam Randell and your quest is to free the soul of your death trapped father.

The look of the game is doom-like, but very different type of game. A lot of a action, various puzzles, quests, mazes and many more interesting locations and characters are presented in this old classic game.

The game will run only on Windows 98 and there is no patch for Windows XP. The game was made in 1996, but it is still good today. the graphics is not that hot and the actors are not oscar-worthy but the plot is twisted, diabolic and highly enjoyable. The dark story is compelling from the first film and is continuing throughout all the play. We played several people together for several reasons: 1) to use all our minds together. 2) not to be so afraid.

Play this game and you won't regret this, just don't try to find a quake engine in there. De Grønne slagtere or The Green Butchers as it is called in English is a very dark comedy about two losers who work for a popular butcher. They are fed up with their bosses criticism and decide to start a business on their own. Their shop is expensive and it doesn't even have electricity all over the place. And to make things worse, they haven't got any customers (as their former boss predicted). When the man pays them a visit in their shop, he challenges them to provide the meat for a dinner party he organizes.

Than a tragic accident happens. One of the butchers locks the electrician into the freezing chamber when he closes the shop. The man dies and the neurotic one of the two butchers decides to cut fillets out of the electrician's thigh and serves it to the dinner party instead of calling the police. It's an incredible success. All at once every person in the village wants to taste that incredible "chicken". Overwhelmed by his sudden success the butcher sees no other option but to kill more people, who he can sell as chicken.

I guess that the subject cannibalism may not be enjoyed by everyone, especially not because it is shown with a lot of humor. Personally I liked it a lot. It shows perfectly how far some people would go for some social acceptance and to get out of their isolation. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure you would be surprised to see how people in real life sometimes act.

Next to the original subject, I was also pleased by the actors' performances and the humor. There is no overacting, as you might expect in this kind of movies, it's all very sober and realistic (I guess that's typical for the Scandinavians and Scandinavian movies). The same for the humor. I'm sure I wouldn't have liked it as much as I did now if the humor had been over the top, or with a lot of farting, vomiting,... like you see so often in American movies. I loved this movie and I give it an 8/10. Many Americans are lazy, and this has manifested itself even in our DVD-watching. Many of us don't like to take the time to read an hour-and-a-half (or more) of subtitles, so we choose not to see many foreign films. One film that is TOTALLY worth your time, no matter how mundane a task you might think the subtitle-reading is, however, is "The Green Butchers." It's by far the best foreign film I've ever seen, and tops many American films I've seen lately as well. It's a complex situation told in a remarkably simple and funny dialogue. The character depth derived in this film is AMAZING. The way Svend and Eigel (sorry if those are spelled wrong) feed off each other's contrasting personas is downright spectacular! The actors were well-cast, and I'm very much hoping that a sequel is in consideration...it needs very little of Bjorne and what's-her-face...just give me Svend and Eigel on some sort of journey with supporting characters and more amazing dialogue! To the author of this fine screenplay, I say: Write more! The story itself is rather twisted, but you'll find yourself rooting for the bad guy anyhow...with no remorse. PLEASE check this movie out! This is, by far, the best movie I've seen in a long while. It is a wholly original and beautiful plot. It is not boring, nor is it too dramatic. The characters are tangible and realistic, but it does not take away from the story line. The fact that is not in English is most likely the final touch. The end leaves you fulfilled in a way I've never experienced in a movie before.

I wish I had found this movie earlier.

More lines.

more lines.

more lines a lot more lines c'mon, i'm done The art of the absurd is alive and thriving in current Danish cinema! Well, at least it is in this movie. Nobody in this movie are amused. They are all either annoyed or shocked, and if they aren't yet, they soon will be! It is a story of screw-ups, murder, embarrassment, dignity, and, in the end, love and redemption. The chilling, awkward humorous style is idiomatic and won't appeal to everyone, but personally I found it to have just the right fascinating mix of the bizarre and the absurd. You pity the characters from a distance, even as you dislike them up close and personal. But their story is so tragic that you find it in yourself to forgive them and be happy for them, even when they get away with murder.

This is, in my judgment, definitely the best Danish movie of the last few years.

9 out of 10. THE GREEN BUTCHERS (Anders Thomas Jensen - Denmark 2003).

How do the Danes keep coming up with these films that are consistently funny, sharply written, exquisitely filmed and filled with great performances? THE GREEN BUTCHERS is a dark and wickedly funny comedy, in many ways the Danish counterpart of EATING RAOUL and DELICATESSEN, but it has more on offer than just laughs or parody.

The film brings us the duo of chronic pothead Bjarne (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) and chronic perspirer Svend (Mads Mikkelsen). Sick of their evil boss, the two pals decide to open their own butcher shop in a small Danish town, but initially business is slow and customers stay away. When an electrician is accidentally locked up and freezes in their meat locker, Svend decides to turn the man's thigh into fillets he promptly nicknames "chickie-wickies." This special dish suddenly has everyone in town flocking to their counter and Svend - unable to resist this sudden leap into popularity - turns into a serial killer with Bjarne acting as his reluctant accomplice. But soon, led by their ex-boss, many people in town are starting to wonder what special ingredients the two men are using.

Without the extraordinary performances by Kaas and Mikkelsen, the film might not have risen above the level of the average black comedy. On paper, the character of Svend might border on caricature but Mads Mikkelsen portrait is that of an earnest, insecure and deeply twisted man, but Mikkelsen manages to make him frightening, funny and moving at the same time. Kaas actually plays a double role, also playing his comatose twin brother Eigil. When watching the film, I never even realized it was the same actor. The other performances are just as wonderful with every character in town refreshingly off-the-hook with some truly wonderful vignettes.

The subject material is - naturally - a bit morbid and the material might not be completely fresh, considering quite a few predecessors that handled the same kind of material, but director Jensen gives it a fresh twist and manages to build some real characters with the strange duo of Svend and Bjarne, with this wonderfully bizarre tale of two social misfits.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10 If you don't mind subtitles, you like comedy and truly interesting characters, along with a taste of something different from mainstream American cinema, then take a chance and rent this film.

Two contrasting friends, (one very neurotic sweater, the other the strong quiet loner type) working for a jerk butcher in a smaller danish town, decide to strike out on they're own together and open a butcher shop themselves. Not successful at first they incorporate something new to they're recipe and become an instant hit with the village.

That being an interesting story in itself, this smartly humorous film is laced with even more, (friendship, romance, crime, death, personal tragedy) that makes this film so funny yet riddled with numerous subtle interests that make it so interestingly funny yet warm and fuzzy.

A must mention is the characters created and the actors making them believable. You can have the best script yet if the characters aren't believable it can sink a film and with this, the directing, acting, character believability and story all mesh so well they make this a very entertaining film.

So, if your in the mood to stretch a lil, want to see something very good yet done a bit differently, then I suggest you rent this film while I'm on my way out to find more by director writer Anders Thomas Jensen. Good Lord... How this ended up in our DVD player I'll never know...my wife thought it was a new release she'd missed somehow...Nevermind it's a couple of years old and in Danish ( I think)... She kept looking for the English soundtrack...

All in all...the film wasn't bad... Good production values,better performances, and a clever story that doesn't get too far away from itself make for tidy, dark-humored fare from across the sea! The ending will make you chuckle...in fact, the whole film will. Incredibly strange characters that we grow genuinely interested in make a film that might be worth your while...Without spoiling the plot, the film's title and DVD jacket give you a good idea where this thing is going! Not entirely sure how I stumbled upon this movie, but I'm so glad I did. Initially, we were put off by the fact that it was subtitled, but even my dyslexic brother who hates to read (especially at the weekend) enjoyed this film. I found the script fantastic and the way it was delivered in such a dead-pan manner only added to the puddles of pee on my sofa. Not entirely sure whether it's quite so funny to the native Danish as the comedy seems to be enhanced by the tonelessness of the subtitles and the ambiguity of the translation. I haven't watched many Danish films (or any for that matter), but judging by this film I'm guessing they're not constrained by the same political correctness as elsewhere (gawd bless 'em) making the character of Eigel a breath of fresh air, because let's face it special needs are funny. There are so many great one-liners in this film it puts American sitcoms to shame. Not sure I've ever seen a black comedy from Denamark before but this is quite good actually. The humor is suitably low-key and deadpan to go with some of the gruesome activity. Svend and Bjarne are fed up with working for their boss, because he's always putting them down (in fact he mentions that they weren't bright enough to unzip before peeing at one point). They do what they have to to start their own butcher shop and when a workman is accidentally locked in the cooler overnight while fixing a light, they hit upon something that makes their butcher shop far more popular than their old boss's. In fact, he's the one they sold their first "filets" to, and it's partly his fault, since he served them at a Rotary dinner at his house and the guests raved about it and showed up at Svend and Bjarnes the next day. Bjarne is somewhat horrified what Svend has done but it doesn't stop there. Svend has risen above his sad little existence to be someone of some popularity which is new for him and he doesn't want to let go of that, so the freezer continues to fill up with all manner of acquaintances (and, at one point, "a small Swede from the park"). Suspiccions arise, though, because ex-boss Holger thinks something is wrong. Bjarne is also haunted by his twin brother Eigil, who lived in a sanitarium for years in a coma and whom Bjarne wanted the plug pulled on so he could get inheritance money to help open the shop. When Eigil was taken off the respirator he was revived, much to Bjarne's horror. And Bjarne has a love interest too in Astrid, who works at the cemetery. Neither Svend nor Bjarne are well adjusted individuals and so things start to spiral out of control. The deadpan humor really makes this, and while this isn't exactly laugh out loud material it certainly is amusing. It is somewhat creepy though considering the cuts of meat and body parts casually lying around, especially since these two take it all so matter-of-fact. If you're a fan of black comedies this is recommended, I liked it quite well myself. 8 out of 10. Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive. of Adam's apple and With Your Permission. I didn't know until looking it up just now. Also the errrrrrmmmmm 'Wilbur Wants to Kill himself' I prefer this very focused deadpan ...drama over Adam's Apple's over the top comedic zeal. But With Your Permission is much more layered and subtle, but that's another director.

Once the 'meaty' part of the story takes place I felt the dread of coming back to the shop again and again. A bit claustrophobic .. maybe that is intentional. It builds on the atmosphere. You dread the rediscovery and again and again until the 'kick in the shin'.

this is some funny stuff. OK, so I'm not usually one that runs out and rents foreign movies...especially foreign dark comedies. I think I can count on one hand the number of films that I found genuinely hilarious from beginning to end. This movie will be added to the short list. Even dark comedies right out of Hollywood sometimes turn me off because they require an incredibly dry sense of humor. But this one had my eyes welling up with tears. My sides hurt. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was recommended by my mother and I don't think I would have even dreamed of watching it had she not raved about it. Don't be afraid of having to read during your movie - you'll miss out on a hilariously well-acted flick. This movie is a mix of a dark comedy and a drama, about two guys who worked in a Butcher's shop and wanted to build up their own. When they finally fulfilled that dream, they faced a new problem: there were no clients! One day, by accident, one guy dies in the refrigerator room, and a new kind of butcher's business begins… They start selling human flesh, saying to the clients it's just chicken… and their business starts to improve: Human flesh sells good! Oh! I forgot to say something… These guys aren't normal! There's really something missing in their brains!

The movie has some nice dark humour scenes, but it is, in my opinion, mostly a drama. One that shows us what is inside the head of a psychopath, what are his motivations to what he does. I must confess I was a bit surprised with the ending of the movie, because I never expected they could make it without been discovered, but that's probably because I see too many Hollywood movies… What I mean by this is that in Hollywood's cinema we always expect the punishment of the guys which do the "bad things". There's always a morality protecting the "good values", in spite of we all know that in "real life" it doesn't happen this way too many times… And I liked this movie mostly because of that, because it fits in a kind of cinema which is true, frontal, without fake moralities, and which "see" what is on the other side, behind the "conventional morality"… It just happens in independent cinema (especially in the European)!

Besides, there're excellent performances by Nikolaj Lie Kass and Mads Mikkelsen (especially the first one) in the roles of the "disturbed guys"…

Very nice Danish film! This is actually a brilliant movie. The story is grotesque, but the actors are brilliant. Especially the performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Svend, is magnificent. It's a simple story about two guys with an urge to make it on their own, but it unfolds to a strange and absurd story, with a lot of people accidentally getting killed and served up as chicken steaks. If only more people understood danish... This could be a great candidate for an English version. It is also worth mentioning Ole Thestrup, who always delivers that extra twist to the plot, with his slightly mad character Holger. I can only recommend this movie to the danish audience. Also take a look at Adams Æbler (2005), a movie by Anders Thomas Jensen, also with Mads Mikkelsen accompanied by a well playing Ulrich Thomsen. This without doubt one of the funniest and most entertaining movies I have ever seen. I really enjoyed the characters in the movie. They are all wonderful bizarre in them selves. It's quite something I have never seen before in any movie.

The story is almost non-stop from beginning to the end. There are no boring moments. I was totally captured by the movie. And I thought the acting was great.

So if you want to see a fun movie. You should look for The Green Butchers. A great movie.

I give it 10/10 It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy! This is a novelty in Danish film. The mood is not unlike that of Blinkende Lygter, also by Anders Thomas Jensen, but with a novel touch. One difference is fewer characters, leaving much more room for them to be dwelled into. And what characters?! The two butchers are perfect. Mads Mikkelsen is a dominating, deranged parody and Nikolaj Lie Kaas an indifferent looser with a twin brother more or less an unholy pairing of the two. This movie is the funniest danish movie I've ever seen!

The plot is funny, surprising and exceptionel. Danish humor is unlike any other, and it gets you every time. The entire audience laughed 90 % of the time....it was incredible. The characters are so well played, and the two actors, Mads mikkelsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas play their best ever!

I would highly recomend seing this movie, you won't regret it, believe me :-) Cannibalism, a pair of cinematic references to Delicatessen, not only in plot, but in style. Cannibalism, a pair of references to the historic case of the Uruguayan rugby players that survived in the Andes by eating the dead members of their flight to Chile. Cannibalism, only an excuse the movie uses to delve into the extremes men are willing to go to defeat isolation and obtain social acceptance.

The script is extremely creative, and hopefully is going to leave the viewer laughing and wondering... There is a complete copy now available at the Internet Archive - watch it or download it today!

http://www.archive.org/details/The_Mascot_Complete

One of the greatest animated shorts ever made. Starewicz is endlessly inventive and his techniques still astound animation fans 70 years later. We may have computer-generated techniques now, but all he had in 1934 was an imagination that wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Whatever he wanted to see on the screen, he created.

And he wanted to see some truly bizarre stuff - every imaginable piece of scrap is called up for service: old shoes, chicken bones, utensils, broken glasses, dolls, monkeys, rats....seems like there was nothing that was off limits.

A truly eerie, even unsettling film that should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in animation. This film must be seen to be believed! Straight from the brilliant mind of animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz, "Fétiche", or "The Mascot" as it is known nowadays, stands as a masterpiece of stop-motion animation that sadly, has been almost forgotten by now. Nevertheless, the work of this man deserves to be seen, and in fact, must be seen to be believed because the outstanding way the animation flows is simply unbelievable.

Decades before "Toy Story", Starewicz conceived the idea of moving toys, in "Fétiche", he tells the story of a small stuffed dog that gets makes friends with the sick daughter of his maker. One day, his maker takes him away to sell him, and the adventure begins as he tries to find his way back home. In his Odyssey, he'll travel from Paris to Hell, and will find the other toys that were supposed to be sold with him.

It is a surreal experience to watch this movie, as Starewicz makes every imaginable creature come alive with grace and beauty. The other toys include a beautiful ballerina, who loves a thief, but she also is secretly loved by a clown, forming a love triangle; an old woman, a stuffed cat and a stuffed ape complete the group. every toy is so detailed and very expressive that without words one can understand their motives.

Truly, the surreal atmosphere the whole animation has it is remarkable. It is hard to believe that a work of this magnitude was done in 1934 since it looks even better than most of the current day animation. The influence it has in modern day animator such as Tim Burton and Henry Selick is very significant.

This short is a masterpiece of animation and the outstanding work of one genius who done everything by himself and that has influenced animators for decades. Starewicz's work is an immortal piece of art that should be seen by everyone. This work is not only for kids, adults as well will enjoy it and probably catch most of the subtext hidden in the movie.

It is possible to find it in the "Vampyr" DVD as a bonus feature. Anyone with the slightest interest in animation should give it a look. A brilliant animated piece that was far ahead of its time, and certainly far ahead of anything that was being released in mass production at the same point in history. The influence of this work upon Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" is readily apparent. One can only imagine how Starewicz slaved over every beautifully detailed frame of this masterpiece.

There have been very few animated films of this caliber. It's a shame that more people haven't seen this gem.

Apparently, IMdB now requires comments to be at least ten lines long, so this is the tenth line. This must be something new - but I really don't have anything else to say! Words alone cannot describe the sheer beauty and power of this film.

Think "Toy Story". Now, think "Toy Story", circa 1934. Now, imagine the animation looks as lifelike, as fluid. Think of the movie not as something adults and children can enjoy, but imagine it as a filme-noire.

Imagine trying to do something like that back in 1934. Somehow, "The Mascot" delivers. In a story where toys come to life, and one of them is trying to deliver an orange to his sick owner, Starewicz delivers a level of animation completely unexpected. It's so fluid, you will wonder for a long time whether what you see is really stop-motion animation.

Comparing "Toy Story" and "The Mascot" is an excercise in futility, plot-wise: while "Toy Story" is a children's story adults can enjoy, "The Mascot" is a dark, chilling story aimed at adults. Meaning, NO, your kids won't like it. One bit.

Still, get it if you can. You might be able to find it along "Vampyr" in DVD and LaserDisc. And prepare to be stunned at what Starewicz was able to do back in 1934 with a couple of puppets. One of Starewicz's longest and strangest short films follows a toy dog in search of an orange after becoming animated by the tear of the mother of a girl who longs for an orange. The dog comes upon an orange after falling out of the back of a car on his way to be sold, but at night must protect the orange when he comes enters a devilish nightclub featuring many bizarre and scary characters. With the help of a stuffed cat, the dog gets the orange back to the little girl and she is saved from a terrible scurvy death. The Mascot features new techniques I have not yet seen in Starewicz's films. The addition of sync sound and a mixture of live action with the stop-motion animation makes for a new twist on Starewicz's old style of puppetry. Live scenes of moving cars and people's feet walking by as a puppet sits on the concrete sidewalk is impressive and fresh. The honking of cars and cries of street vendors is noteworthy due to the fact that small studio shifts to sound were costly and Starewicz's utilization of the new technology seems like old hat. New puppet characters in this film are frightening contributions to the devil's club scene. Twigss and newspaper shreds come to life. Skeletons of dead birds lay eggs which hatch skeleton chicks. Characters come flying in from all over on pats and pans and rocking horses. A new editing technique uses quick zooms which are accomplished through editing to speed up the pace of what before might have been a slow scene. Overall, Starewicz is able to update his style of film-making to meet the demands of a new audience making this film one of the best examples of his work. i still can't belive that starevich made this film back in 1934. animation is simply perfect, and what is amazing about it, with all the advanced technology we have nowadays there are few animation studios that are capable of producing a little gem like this one. it has everything: a great story, beautiful chracters (although this is a morbid kind of beauty in some cases), special effects... well, it is definitely not a kid's movie,but it's a must-see for anyone seriously interested in animation. I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, "The Mascot" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is "Vampyr". "The Mascot" isn't a "bonus feature"-- it's tacked on as a chapter in "Vampyr". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I"m at it, "Vampyr" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.

Dude A: "We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!" Dude B: "Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter." Dude A: "You're awesome, Dude B." The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.

Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be "Criterionized" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5. The Mascot is Ladislaw Starewicz's masterpiece. It tells the tale of a stuffed toy dog who searches for an orange after he overhears the mother tell her daughter she hasn't any money. The dog gets picked with other toys to be sold off. In the truck, after the others jump off while the vehicle runs, the dog stays and waits to be picked up from store before setting off on his own. He manages to get orange after biting woman's leg as she was holding and selling the fruit. As he runs, he encounters the devil and accepts his offer to stop at nightclub. There, he meets the other toys who jumped off truck. The cat who was next to him in vehicle is especially determined to get dog's orange. I'll just stop here to mention that other wonderfully bizarre things happen in nightclub that you'll have to see for yourself. Suffice it to say, if you love Starewicz and is interested in all animation from the past, I most definitely recommend you seek this one out! I found this little gem as an extra feature on my DVD of Vampyr-Der Traum Des Allen Grey, and didn't expect all that much from it. It looked like it might be an interesting little short though, so I turned it on.

I am so glad that I did. It was really incredible! Despite having been made more than 70 years ago, the animation was, in my view, better than some of that done today with all the computer effects and experience available now.

The story is quite simple-a newly put together toy dog hears its owner's laments about not being able to afford an orange and goes on a quest to find her one. In the process, it runs into a toy's underworld with all sort of nefarious creatures and toys overseen by none other than the devil himself, who all want the dog's orange for themselves as well.

This film precedes, but reminds me a lot of Mad Monster Party? (1969, Jules Bass)-a movie which I have always really enjoyed-and to a lesser extent, some of Tim Burton's animated works-The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, Henry Selick) and Corpse Bride (2005, Tim Burton). Fans of any of these movies will, I am sure, also love The Mascot.

Overall, an incredible piece of short animation which is well worth watching. I think this movie was made as good as it could have been. With only 4 months and a 52000$ budget - I'm surprised this wasn't worse. If you are not to care about the CG or special effects, this movie is great.

Okay, the movie is not that well made (I'm sure it could have been but, you try to do better in only 4 months) but the story is good and the movie is rather exciting.

DOn't trust me when I say that this movie is good, cause I also find the 1933 King Kong to be good.

I must confess that I didn't watch the complete movie either... I might have fast forwarded some minutes here and there... This is an excellent B-film horror movie that borders between horror and comedy. It is about a genetically mutilated scorpion in outer space. Can it get more unreal? It is a hybrid between "Alien" and "Chain Saw Massacre." The movie was shot in Stockholm with a mixed cast of Americans and Swedes that interact beautifully. Director Martin Munthe does a great job finding the comical highlights in this script and gets a few good laughs out of the audience. The movie was shot with little or no money and it is inspiring to see what can be done with limited resources. Stinger has all qualities of a B-film horror movie. It is comical and scary at the same time and the cast and crew are dedicated to their cause. It is great to see that movies like this can still be made! I would recommend seeing it if you like this type of films. There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.

There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.

You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.

But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie. From 1950 comes a neat thriller about a couple smuggling diamonds from abroad and also the contagious disease smallpox. Evelyn Keyes pulls out all stops as the essential victim of this film-noir. Once back in the United States she is not aware that she could be spreading the disease on everyone and everything she comes in contact with. Eventually she is pursued and must be stopped before an epidemic occurs. Other than Keyes striking performance there is good support from villainous Charles Korvin, William Bishop, Dorothy Malone, Lola Albright and Whit Bissell. The finale is a humdinger with Miss Keyes on the ledge of a building with spotlights and hundreds of spectators below. A good B flick! This is a really dark movie. Noir indeed. The title character is smallpox, brought into New York City unknowingly by Evelyn Keyes.

She is on one mission when she arrives and on a rougher one after she's spoken to her no longer innocent sister. But she herself is not intentionally a killer. This doesn't mean she doesn't kill. It doesn't mean her presence somewhere among eight million other people doesn't throw the city into turmoil.

Keyes is excellent. The supporting cast is very good too. There are several little-known people involved in this -- the director included. Don't be put off. It is a movie to be reckoned with! (And how nice to see a Columbia picture. Columbia and Republic turned out wonderful comedies and noirs; yet we hardly ever see them anymore.) (Some Spoilers) Sweeping into New York City on a first-class railroad car a killer who doesn't kill with a gun or knife or club but just with his,or it's, touch and breath. A killer that's as old, or even older, then man himself. That killer has a name it's know the world over as smallpox.

Arriving in New York one cold November afternoon the killer hidden inside of Sheila Bennet, Evelyn Keyes, and like a Trojen Horse it waits until the opportunity presents itself. Then like a ticking time bomb with it's fuse set off explodes throughout the length and breath of the city.

Sheila knows that she's being followed by a U.S Customs officer who's been on her tail since she came back to the US from the Island nation of Cuba. Having smuggled $50,000.00 of illegal uncut diamonds she had to be careful in getting them to her husband Matt, Charles Korvin, to be cut and sold to unsuspecting jewelers in the city.

Mailing the diamonds ahead of time Sheila knows that if caught the diamonds won't be found on her. What she doesn't know is that Matt is two timing her by having an affair with her kid sister Francie, Lola Albrght. Even worse he plans to check out of town with the diamonds leaving her as well as Francie holding the bag.

Even though we know right from the start of Sheila's deathly condition it doesn't really come to the surface until much later in the movie.The first half of "The Killer that stalked New York" is a crime suspense/drama with the U.S Customs officials and NYC police looking for the stolen diamonds. As Sheila starts to get sick and begins to infect everyone whom she comes in contact with the film reaches the point of a mass panic in the streets type horror movie.

Both the police and custom officials together with members of the city's Health Depertment race against the clock to find Sheila before she infects the entire city of New York with the deadly smallpox infection that she's carrying. Sheila finding out from Matt's boss Willie Dennis,Jim Backus,that he quit his job as a nightclub piano player and that he was having an affair with Francie shocks her into the realization to what a heel he is.

Confronting Francie at her apartment it turns out that Matt not only stiffed Shelia but her sister as well. Which later leads the guilt-ridden Francie to take her own life. On the run and not knowing that she's infected with smallpox Sheila goes to her brother Sid (With Bissell),who manages a flop-house on the Bowery, to find a place to stay. Only too late does Sheila, and Sid, find out the the stolen diamonds is the last of her problems. Knowing that she's dying Sheila goes to the office of jeweler Arnold Moss, Art Smith, knowing that sleaze-ball of a husband Matt, who ended up beating old man Moss into a bloody pulp, is going to be there to exact vengeance on him.

Doucmentry-type drama, based on a true story, with striking black and white on-location photography makes this movie about the horrors of unseen and deadly smallpox unleashed on a unsuspecting public well worth watching. In this crackerjack noir thriller from Columbia which is a combination of Panic In The Streets and The Naked City, Evelyn Keyes is unknowingly The Killer That Stalked New York. Evelyn who smuggled some stolen jewels into the country from Cuba also smuggled in smallpox. It gets misdiagnosed by doctor William Bishop and when they do find out what it is the hunt is on for her.

For most of the film the Treasury Department is also hunting Keyes, but for the smuggled jewels. It's not until nearly the end of the film that the health department and law enforcement realize they're looking for the same woman.

Evelyn's on a mission also. Her husband Charles Korvin has left her flat, the unkindest cut of all being that he was fooling around with her sister while she was in Cuba collecting the gems and contracting smallpox. When Lola Albright as her sister commits suicide over the whole affair, Evelyn's on a mission, get Korvin or die trying. And that's not an idle threat given the situation.

The film was mostly shot in New York like The Naked City and its cast is sprinkled liberally with a lot of familiar names and faces. Keep an eye out for good performances by Connie Gilchrist as Evelyn's unsympathetic landlady, Jim Backus as a shifty club owner, and Art Smith as Korvin's fence.

A real sleeper in the noir category, don't miss it if broadcast. In April 1947, New York City faced an epidemic crisis. Eugene LaBar, a rug importer arriving from Mexico, had arrived in the city, bringing with him the deadly smallpox virus. He stumbled off a bus, complaining of fever and a headache, and soon died in a Midtown Hospital, but not before he had infected a dozen passers-by. The damage was already done; for the first time in decades, smallpox stalked the streets of New York. The city's health authorities acted quickly to isolate sufferers and contain the virus, enacting a free vaccination campaign that saw over six million New Yorkers immunised against smallpox. Thanks to their swift response, the virus was contained with minimal casualties. The outbreak, nevertheless, must have left an indelible mark, for several years later it was followed by two similarly-themed film noir thrillers in which doctors must track down a single contagious carrier in a city of millions: Elia Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' and Earl McEvoy's lower-budget 'The Killer That Stalked New York (1950).'

McEvoy's film unfolds in an unglamorous docu-drama style. Reed Hadley's narration sounds as though it was plucked straight from a newsreel, reciting facts as if reading off the official police transcript. This technique does feel a little cheap at times, but fortunately the narration is largely restricted to the film's bookends, as well as providing some explanatory filler during breaks in the plot. The "killer" stalking New York, in this story, is not a rug importer from Mexico, but beautiful diamond smuggler Sheila Bennet (Evelyn Keyes), who has just arrived from Cuba. Within days, Sheila has two parties independently pursuing her: a treasury agent (Barry Kelley) looking to arrest her for smuggling crimes, and a team of doctors (led by William Bishop) who have identified her as the source of the smallpox outbreak. As in 'Panic in the Streets,' an otherwise routine manhunt is given a heightened sense of urgency, particularly when those in pursuit initially have no idea as to the identity or appearance of their suspect.

'The Killer That Stalked New York,' for the most part, manages to sidestep its low production budget. Aside from a select few lines of dialogue ("we have to stop it!" exclaims Dr. Wood at one point, as though coming to a difficult decision), the filmmakers and cast members allow the story to unfold in a realistic, engrossing fashion. Indeed, in this regard, the low budget quite possibly aids the film's intentions, necessitating a documentary style that adds to the immediacy of the outbreak scenario. Evelyn Keyes is excellent in the leading role, showing obstinate resilience in the face of unimaginable torment; by the film's end, she appears so brutally incapacitated by her illness that it's almost painful to look at her face. Aside from the virus, Charles Korvin is the main villain of the piece, as Sheila's greedy and adulterous husband who, rest assured, gets everything that's coming to him. And if all nurses looked like Dorothy Malone, perhaps catching smallpox wouldn't seem like such a bad break, after all. This is without a doubt one of Neil Simon's best plays turned movies. It's full of great characters, and memorable dialog. Johnathan Silverman makes a great screen version of young Eugene(he was played by Matthew Broderick on stage).This is the first of Simon's autobiographical trilogy, its followed by the wonderful "Biloxi Blues", and closes with the TV movie "Broadway Bound". If I had to say the movie has any flaws it would maybe be that characters sometimes usually speak in obvious dialog, but that's alright because it's great dialog. Rent this little gem, you won't be sorry! The viewer who said he was disappointed seems to be wildly missing the point here. This is a superb movie, excellent and realistic portrayals of a middle class Jewish family in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, of long ago. The nuances are perfect and I felt the casting of everyone was superior. I especially found the acting done by Judith Ivey just perfection---especially the speech she has with her daughter when the daughter comes home late one night. That scene was Oscar worthy. But, really, all the acting was fine. I recommend this movie. It is a fun, family film and delightful to see how a lovely middle class family lived in Brooklyn so long ago. See it and you will be glad you did. Has some very funny lines and the Eugene character is a real comedian--very funny. How many of us have read a book or seen a play, and then when the movie version came out we were terribly disappointed? Well, maybe this would be one of those movies for those who saw the play too, but as someone who never had the opportunity to see it on stage, I was extremely entertained by this movie. The characters were funny, the music was great, and the story was interesting and made you feel genuine empathy for the characters, flaws and all. Jonathan Silverman has such good comedic timing, and his lines especially are hilarious. I'm not going to give any spoilers, it's just a nicely done, funny movie showing the inner workings of a middle class family during WWII. So if you never saw the play, and if you have enjoyed other Neil Simon movies, don't be held back by the couple of negative reviews seen here. On its own, Brighton Beach Memoirs is a GREAT movie. I guarantee it (no money back, though). This is a gently amusing coming-of-age comedy that comes from the later, more mature period of Neil Simon's writing. Although there are plenty of wisecracks to go around, this is not one of those Neil Simon pieces where every character spouts out one-liner jokes for 2 hours like they're guest stars on a Bob Hope special. There are also dramatic elements (some work, some are overkill) that lend some weight to the story.

The performances are good across the board, especially Blythe Danner as the mother (although she and Judith Ivey were oddly WASP-ish choices to play Jewish women). I've never been a fan of Jonathan Silverman, but I will say that he hits the right notes as the obnoxious, gawky, and totally horned-up teen-age narrator/protagonist of the story.

The movie is very similar in tone to Woody Allen's "Radio Days," but the latter is far more imaginative and funny than this one. One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.

If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound. I love this movie. The cast were all terrific in the portrayal of their various characters. Judith Ivey did so well portraying a weak, fearful, dependent, who was passive aggressive in her complaining and self-involved character, that it was a relief to see the character's metamorphosis. Blythe Danner was equally appealing in her role as a somewhat judgmental Jewish mother, devoted wife, and loving sister. Jonathon Silmerman, Bob Dishy, Stacey Glick, and Lisa Walz performed their roles equally well.

If you enjoy movies that relate to going through challenging times without loosing your sense of humor and hope, you will love this movie. Blythe Danner and Judith Ivey deliver wonderful performances here as Jonathan Silverman, as Eugene, recounts his life in 1937's Brighton Beach.

What makes the film so good is the relationships among the characters with a backdrop of extremely wonderful family values.

Bob Dishy had a marvelous opportunity here as the father of the clan. He gives a restrained but compelling performance as the patriarch of the family.

His sons played by Jonathan Silverman and Brian Dillinger are fabulous. There are certain scenes when Silverman is skating or hopping where I'm reminded of Jerry Lewis.

As for Danner and Ivey, they too are wonderful. Their mannerisms, intonation and idealism of the Jewish culture are beautifully realized by them.

The cinematography is just wonderful. Beautiful Brighton in 1937! Even as the inevitability of war loomed, the film is rich with many of the typical problems faced by families in that period. In a sense, you don't have to be Jewish to experience what the family is going through.

A must see for nostalgic buffs, and those of us who believe so strongly in family values. This movie moves and inspire you, it's like you are one of the family. Just to see and witness life during the depression era, makes you feel humble and grateful. Jonathan Silverman delivered well, so convincing and very witty! A must see for Teens! This film starts out with all the moody promise of a great contemporary noir Western - after the ill-conceived opening flashback sequence anyway. The scenery is beautifully desolate, the characters achingly isolated. While some of the acting is less than believable, the plot ultimately delivers enough tension and twists to make this movie worth a look. I first saw this movie in the night program of one of my favourite TV channels.... I was hooked from the very first minute. Nothing is as it first seems, lots of suspense, great acting from Mr. van Dien, and I did not mind the "heat" in it one bit ;-) ... and, best of all: You are in for a surprise ending!!! This film is one of those that can't be regarded by its outwardness. Indeed, at a first sight, it seems that the story simply focus the desire of have more money. But..let's take a look on the other side...What do you see? You see that the money is only a metaphor for the ambiguous feelings the human being have:Should I do the right thing, or should't I? And... what's the "right thing"? Le's make a deeper analyses... -What does it mean a little town in the border? - It means that sometimes we can go too close to the border of doing something we thought we couldn't... - What does it mean the arid soil shown in this picture? - It means the dryness that sometimes take possession ot our offensed hearts... - What does it mean the phrase of the character (KRISTEN) :"Now I belong to him"? - It means the loss of our free will, due to our unpremeditated deeds. In MY OPINION that's the writer of the story and the director tried to "tell" us. By the way...do you remember what another character (JACK BARNES)said:"Nothing is so simple..." Being Cornish and brought up with the history of tin mining, this film is quite special to me. Filmed in and around various locations in Cornwall, it depicts the story of two your children who get trapped down a mine with a group of miners.

The 'Haunters' of the title refers to the 'Spriggins' - ghosts of child miners who reside in the mine and are said to bring evil to all that mine there. Events take place with an American wanting to invest in local tin mining, but when the young local kid Josh is plagued by sightings of the ghost of a young boy, he and his American 'girlfriend' set out to unravel the mystery behind his death, climaxing in the rescue of themselves and several miners from almost certain death when a new shaft is opened and the Spiggins save them.

Top film, albeit low budget and short, but worth a look if you're from Cornwall and/or into tin mining! So after years and years I finally track this film down! I was dying to see how it lived up to my memories. I distinctly remembered the shots of the ghost boy running down the mine, then waiting behind two planks of wood crossed in the mineshaft, just staring out with a pale white face. This single shot was probably the most chilling shot of my childhood, I remember chills running down my spine. Watching it now, its obviously nowhere near as scary, but quite subconsciously strange to see the same images again. If anyone wants a copy, private message me.

The story itself is fairly standard BCFF stuff. Its strange though that the message is pretty unclear this time around - there is no real moral as such (except that 'ghosts are here to help us?' or 'don't be prejudiced against ghosts!') There wasn't even a greed/capitalist angle in terms of wanting to profit from the mine. However, a massive act of irresponsibility from the captain, encouraging the two kids to actually follow the vague implications of a ghost not only into a mine, but into a new mine hole, which is totally dangerous. The captain then encourages the children to climb down a huge ladder, deep into the mines, simply because he thinks the ghost wants them too. Its also a bit odd that the ghost chooses the boy to help the trapped adults, and not just help the trapped adults direct. Oh well. I remember watching this as a child as part of the Children;s Film Foundations Friday Film Specials on CBBC and have recently happened upon a copy.

In the twenty or so years since my last viewing this film has lost nothing.

It is an atmospheric tale which entices with Cornish folklore and adds elements of truly creepy imagery of the ghost of the young miner Billy.

Shot in the wonderfully scenic Port Loe area of Cornwall the film utilises the mixture of rugged coastline and abandoned tin mines to make the setting truly believable.

There is much packed into this CFF drama, something long since lost from Children's television today and well worth a look if you can track down a copy. This film has "haunted" me since I saw it when I was about 8 years old. I didn't know what it was called so am so pleased to have tracked it down finally. I remember being quite scared, because I'd just been to a tin mine in Cornwall when I watched it, so could imagine it all. Fortunately I didn't see any ghosts of dead children there, but I found this film really quite disturbing and scary when I was much younger. I've certainly never forgotten it, even though I couldn't find it anywhere. I seem to remember The Children's Film Foundation films being generally good, but they don't show them at all any more. I also remember programmes like The Children Of Green Knowe in the same era on BBC - equally unsettling in its own way. I saw this film early one morning in the early 90s when i was about 12.I have been trying to find what it was and finally today i did!I remember enjoying it and being a little bit freaked out at the ending when it showed the gravestone of the young boy and his ghostly face!Please could anybody let me no if i can get a copy of this as i would love to see it again.I remember the kid getting stuck down a cornish tin mine and then befriending a boy.cant remember that the kids were stuck there with miners but must have been.the boy helps them out of the mine and turns out to be the ghost of a boy who had died while working down there i think. Good to see I'm not the only person who remembers this great film. I have very fond memories of this movie - seem to vaguely remember back to when I was about 8 and I'd watch the kids TV shows after school (Broom Cupboard anyone?). This was the first and last film to scare me - and the images of the boy surrounded by mist on a hill will stay with me forever! Like most films of this era, it has a happy ending - aimed at children, but with a definite ability to capture an adults attention. The lovely Cornish scenery really sets the film up to feel isolated - and the "ghostly" scenes are simple but very, very effective! I'd love to try and find this movie again - see if it still hits home! Flowers! If it's one thing you'll take away from this movie, it's gonna be the flowers. They feature so prominently and are used as plot devices, you'll become an expert in identifying with daisies and black tulips by the time the movie ends.

Set in Amsterdam, Daisy tells the frustrating love triangle story between 1 girl and the 2 men in her life. One a professional hit-man eking out a living, the other an Interpol agent. Featuring a Pan-Asian cast (Korean, Hong Kong) and crew (director Andrew Lau from Hong Kong, writer from Korea, and a Thai post production team), I could imagine the headaches in coordination.

Park Yi (Jung Woo-sung) is a hit-man who found a soft spot for painter Hye-young (played by the pretty Jeon Ji-hyun). It's love at first sight in the meadows of daisies, where her clumsiness caught his attention. However, being shy and ever mindful of the dangers of his professional career, he can only admire her from afar, do little (or perhaps big) things for her in an anonymous fashion, but the one that takes the cake is sending her potted daisies everyday without fail at 4:15pm. He becomes her guardian angel from afar, shielding her and keeping her safe from harm.

Hye-young is in love with this mysterious stranger. She is constantly waiting for him to appear, but I really wonder how difficult could that be given the almost punctual daisy delivery. Nonetheless, she's terribly moved, and touched by this sole act. However, as the stars would have it, interpol detective Jeong Woo (Lee Sung-jae) chances upon Hye-young at a town square during one of his undercover missions, and he too is captivated by her. In a similar fashion, because of his profession, he is doubtful if he should make the first move.

Which is where the audience would find it frustrating. The lady obviously would fall for the wrong guy (then again, it's the "good" guy), Park Yi being infuriated by Jeong Woo's pursuit, but yet still refuses to step out and identify himself, and Jeong Woo being the opportunist in grabbing the free anonymous identity unwittingly. It's almost as if you wanna give everyone a slap to wake them all up.

That aside, it is precisely this tension that keeps you intrigued. And it is wickedly fun to watch the two male leads finding it tough to fall in love without jeopardizing their careers, or their loved one. But fret not action fans, there are enough cat-and-mouse revelations and unsaid camaraderie in the mould of Infernal Affairs, as well as ample gunfights, although I felt the ending could have been scripted tighter.

What rocks is the clever editing. Telling the story in a non-linear timeline (no worries, it ain't that bad, you'll still be able to follow the narrative) from the points of view of all the leads, keeping you in suspense, and culminating in a three way split screen showcasing all their emotions in a single converging event, which I thought was extremely well-done.

It's a beautiful film in terms of landscapes of lush meadows and busy city squares, with plenty of classical music to sooth the soul. As with romance movies, all the leads are eye candy - the girls will have a field day with the two handsome male leads, while the guys have to make do with a somewhat pudgy-faced (argh! OK lah, at certain angles) Jeon Ji-hyun.

If you're into a romance movie with an equal balance in the action/tension department, then Daisy would be your choice. If you prefer a more conventional weepy, then the other Korean movie making its debut here at the same time, You are My Sunshine, would be your alternative. And yes, I totally dig the ending scene, which I thought only the Koreans do it best? Kinda reminded me of the JSA one. I saw the Korean version of Daisy first. It came across as a simple love story that flowed nicely from start to finish. I saw it 3 times as I waited for my copy of the director's cut to arrive.

Then I got the DC and watched it. Wow! I think this is the first REAL director's cut I've ever seen. Amazing how detailed the editing is in both versions! The DC is laid out like a hardcore thriller, with the love story in the background. It moves at a slower pace than the Korean version.The variations between both versions are so drastic, it seems like two totally different movies. I thought I would be worn out watching the movie again, toughing it out just to look for the added scenes. That wasn't the case. It really felt like I was watching a whole new movie.

While the DC is 20 minutes longer than the Korean version, you'll be hard-pressed to pinpoint where or what has been changed. 2 seconds chopped off here. A second added there. An entire scene added here. Another erased there. In both versions, scenes have been added, omitted or chopped up and reordered. In some scenes, entire lines of dialogue were replaced or reordered - while the scene itself was untouched. Even simple sound effects were added/omitted from each version - having a major impact on the mood of the film, and sometimes even changing the outcome of a scene. What comes across as a tender moment in the Korean version is a sad, somber one in the DC. The endings of both versions leave room for interpretation. As far as I can tell, both versions end a LOT different, and were intended that way.

I'm assuming most people will be acquiring the director's cut of the film, and will find the movie pretty decent, but a little long and boring. If that's the case, look for the Korean version. Same movie, but different feel. I think there's a deluxe 3-DVD version that contains both cuts of the film - not sure.

The versions compliment each other so well that as a pair, I'll watch Daisy more often than I do any of my other favorite Korean movies. Alone, I'd say the Korean version is a nice love story that I'd watch once in awhile. The director's cut, I'll watch maybe once or twice, then never again, as I find the pacing dull. But they just go so well together! For what I consider the best experience, I'd say watch the Korean version first. Then watch the director's cut to help fill in the gaps of the story that you were curious about.

The editing is the real star of the film. A young Korean artist lives in Amsterdam. She is a bit of a loner and has never had a serious relationship, insisting that she is "waiting" for the right person. She works in the public square, drawing portraits for passersby but, for herself, she also indulges in painting her favorite flowers, daisies. But, all of a sudden, she has a secret admirer. Flowers are delivered to her residence every day at 4:15, usually daisies, yet she can not catch the sender in the act. This is because, unknown to her, her beau is a Korean hit-man, and he wishes to remain hidden, for now. One day in the square, however, another attractive Korean man sits for the artist and happens to be carrying a pot of daisies. She concludes that he is her shy hero and, also, the man she has been waiting to find. This second gentleman, too, has a secret; he is an Interpol agent. The assassin can see everything that transpires in the square, due to having an apartment close by. Naturally, he is disturbed that another man has entered the young girl's life. How will this shadowy love triangle play out? This is a beautiful picture to watch. The setting in Amsterdam and the surrounding countryside is very, very lovely. Add in three most attractive young Korean actors and, visually, any viewer has a stunning panorama in front of them. The story is quite nice, too, being a mixture of drama and action, with a dash of the unexpected. Costumes are very fetching and the production values, high. In short, anyone searching for a quality foreign film with a compelling story and great scenery would find this movie a wonderful choice for a diverting evening. Should you have someone's hand to hold during the view, so much the better. Daisy Movie Review By James Mudge From beyondhollywood.com

On paper, "Daisy" sounds like an Asian film fan's dream come true, directed by "Infernal Affairs" co-helmer Andrew Lau and starring everybody's favourite sassy girl, popular Korean actress Jeon Ji Hyun. Unfortunately, despite the talent involved, and the fact that the crew flew halfway around the world to shoot in Amsterdam , the film turns out to be a bit of a disappointment, being a clich'd romantic drama which wallows in misery and self importance.

The plot follows Hye Young (Jeon Ji Hyun), a rather naive Korean girl who lives in Amsterdam , spending her life working in her grandfather's antique shop and doing portraits for tourists. One day, she begins receiving flowers at exactly the same time from a secret admirer, who she believes to be a mystery man from her past who once built her a nice little bridge. One day she meets Jeong Woo (Lee Seong Jae, also in "Holiday" and "Public Enemy"), who unbeknownst to her is actually an Interpol agent tracking Asian criminals in the Netherlands .

With Hye Young assuming that Jeong Woo is responsible for the flowers, the two fall very slowly into a chaste romantic relationship. However, it turns out that the man sending the flowers is actually Park Yi (Jung Woo Sung, from "Sad Movie" and "Musa"), an assassin working for a Chinese crime syndicate. Inevitably, the love triangle turns tragic and the two men end up facing off while poor Hye Young tries to work out which of the two is the love of her life.

Although "Daisy" is ostensibly a love story, it has the feel of a funeral, with a slow, sombre pace and a plot which piles on the misery. Half of the film's running time is taken up with scenes of the characters staring longingly out of windows into the rain, with the silence broken only by bouts of self pitying narration. Director Lau seems to be under the impression that the film is a weighty Shakespearean tragedy, rather than yet another gloomy hit-man love story. As such, the proceedings have a rather pretentious air, despite the fact that the plot is inherently predictable and based largely around glaring cliché borrowed liberally from the likes of "Fulltime Killer" and John Woo's classic "The Killer".

Almost every aspect of the film is riddled with angst, with the three lead characters suffering as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders, and steadfastly refusing to do anything to pursue their romantic inclinations. Park Yi in particular, as the kind of overly emotional, socially retarded assassin so beloved of modern cinema, is faintly ludicrous, from his blatant incompetence on the job to his hilarious attempts to discuss impressionist painting with Hye Young or his penchant for flower growing. This languid passivity does make the film's central romance somewhat hard to swallow, and Lau's attempts to evoke the feeling that it is fate which brings the characters together comes across more as shoddy coincidence.

Fans of Jeon Ji Hyun should note that her character is far closer to her role in the glum supernatural drama "The Uninvited" than "My Sassy Girl" or "Windstruck", and while she tries her best to pull a few wacky faces here and there, her performance is certainly more subdued.

The film benefits from glossy production values, and Lau makes good use of the Amsterdam scenery, playing on the contrast between the grey, almost Gothic beauty of the city and the innocent blue skies and flowery fields of the countryside. Unfortunately, he tends to overuse slow motion for some of the emotional scenes, which when coupled with some of the picture postcard visuals gives the film the feel at times of a perfume advert. There are a few scenes of surprisingly violent action, though these are few and far between, and whilst well staged, seem to have been thrown in as an afterthought and do little more than briefly raising the pulse.

Despite its flaws, "Daisy" makes for engaging viewing, and the story grips almost in spite of itself, mainly out of a morbid fascination to see not which of the men Hye Young will end up with, but to see who will lie dying in her arms. The self indulgent melodrama works well enough to tick all the right boxes for the genre, and the film functions perfectly well as an enjoyably glossy, weepy romance.

It is worth noting that the DVD features the director's cut of the film, which for once indicates that it is substantially different from the theatrical version, which not only adds 25 minutes, but reorders some of the scenes, making the narrative less linear. Although this new version is perhaps too long, it is surely superior, as without these changes, the film would surely have been even more conventional and would have suffered from even murkier character development.

Wai Keung Lau (director) / Jae-young Kwak (screenplay) CAST: Woo-sung Jung …. Park Yi Sung-jae Lee …. Jeong Woo David Chiang …. Cho Ho-jin Jeon …. Detective Jang Ji-hyun Jun …. Hye-young Dion Lam …. Yun Joon-ha ** and 1/2 stars out of **** Lifeforce is one of the strangest films I've ever seen, so ridiculous, yet at the time it's strangely compelling and never the least bit dull. Whether it's due to the nonstop nudity, the large amount of violence and action, it all comes together to make an entertaining 2 hours of cinema.

The spaceshuttle Churchill has been sent to investigate Halley's Comet when they detect something hiding inside the coma of the giant rock. A small team, led by Colonel Carlsen (Steve Railsback), has been sent to search the area. What they discover includes hundreds of frozen bat-like creatures and three nude and seemingly unconscious humanoid beings inside strange crystalline containers, two male and one female (Mathilda May). They decide to take all three back with them, which results in a catastrophe.

When London receives no response from the crew, another crew is sent to find out what's going on. When they dock with the Churchill, they find the remains of the crew, all dessicated beyond recognition. The humanoids are still in perfect condition, and they take them back to London.

After various tests, the scientists still don't know what these beings really are. Then, late one night, a security guard in the compound feels compelled to enter the room the female is being held. He touches her shoulder, and she awakens, stands up, and smiles at him in a seductive and wicked manner. She approaches him, and begins to kiss him, when it becomes clear that she's actually taking his lifeforce, sucking him of all of his energy (the effect is slightly cheesy).

She escapes from the compound and begins to leave a trail behind. Another man, Colonel Caine (Peter Firth), is brought in to track her down. Then the men discover that there is a pattern to the lifeforce process. The corpse of the security guard awakens in 2 hours, and takes the lifeforce of a doctor. It seems in every 2 hours, this process is repeated by a victim. With the help of the Churchill's sole survivor, Carlsen, they attempt to track the girl down before it's too late.

Lifeforce is pretty good late night entertainment. It has all the elements one could look for in such a movie, loads of nudity, blood/gore, and plenty of special effects. This is certainly better than a similarly plotted film, Species, thanks in large part to a more riveting finale.

The performances range from decent to terrible. Faring the worst is easily Steve Railsback, who overacts to no end. Much better are Peter Firth, who comes through and convincingly, and the gorgeous Mathilda May (she's as beautiful as French actresses Sophie Marceau and Emmanuelle Seigner). May does go through virtually the whole role without wearing clothing, and there were reports that it was hard on her while filming, so the fact that she is able to go through every scene without fidgeting and looking uncomfortable is impressive. There are times when she can be quite creepy, being simply seductive. Most of the film manages to work because of her.

Like several other reviewers here, I'm surprised to see many negative reviews on this film. Dan O'Bannon's previous effort was the groundbreaking 'Alien' of 1979. Because it and 'Star Wars' introduced the stylistic approach of 'Used' or 'Dirty Space' in art-direction for these kinds of features doesn't mean that this was the only way to produce them.

Rather than dismiss 'Lifeforce' out-of-hand as a sort of schlock and primitive exploitation feature, it's important to recognize that the film draws upon the 'esteemed' traditions of British horror and science-fiction - specifically Hammer and American International features like Quatermass (specifically 'Quatermass and the Pit', 1967), Doctor Who and 'The Day of the Triffids' (1963), if not the works of Gerry Anderson ('UFO', 'Space:1999' and 'Thunderbirds'). But none of these influences would be a surprise if other reviewers recognized writer O'Bannon's genre-scholarly appreciation for 'Queen of Blood'(1966) and 'It! The Terror from Beyond Space'(1958) - the immediate sources for 'Alien' (1979).

Granted this film has some 'legacy' elements, but perhaps it's worth comparing this film to its more immediate peers - 1981's 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Company of Wolves' (1984) - other 80's films that share a 'looking-back' while they adapt those stories to the 80's zeitgeist. All three films drew on earlier incarnations of the same, but substantially sexed-up their themes (because they could), and, at the same time they recognized the tongue-in-cheek, humorous aspects of their projects.

Neil Jordan's 'Wolves' played to many of the psychoanalytic memes floating around at the during the '80's, while 'American Werewolf' curdled its theme as a 'coming-of-age' film. It's called artistic license, and the adaptations of these three films are no less valid than the latter-day dramedy inherent in the 'Scream' franchise, 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Final Destination'. But these teen-targeted, films seem to be part of a box-office trend, whereas the 80's films like 'Lifeforce' belong a canon of British sci-fi - even if this one was written by an American.

In many ways this film holds up much better than latter-day disaster and alien-invasion flicks ('Independence Day', 'Armageddon', 'Deep Impact') in that the 'solutions' don't reside in gun-battles, weaponized payloads and testosterone. At the opposite end of the pole, it is unfortunate that Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron didn't examine Tarkowski and Lem more closely before they remade 'Solaris'...

The goal of this film was fun, not ponderousness or stupidity.

7/10 Though it hardly compares to other sci-fi film giants like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, LIFEFORCE does work as a totally berserk and bizarre melding of science fiction and horror elements. Somehow, despite dialogue that approaches the ridiculous and acting that does the same, it manages to work because of a few highly different elements.

Loosely based on Colin Wilson's 1976 novel "The Space Vampires", this film from director Tobe Hooper (POLTERGEIST; THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) focuses on a joint US-British mission aboard the British space shuttle Churchill to study Halley's Comet. Led by an American commander (Steve Railsback), they discover an alien spacecraft in the comet's coma. And when they investigate the interior of the spacecraft, they find alien occupants that look like giant bats. Later on, the Churchill reaches Earth's orbit, but no response is given from radio calls issued from the mission's home base, the Space Research Center in London. Columbia is launched to rendezvous with Churchill, but they find the entire ship gutted by fire--all except for the alien beings encased in glass who, far from being untouched by the fire, look absolutely perfect. The aliens are bought back to Earth...and that's where the incredible happens.

These space vampires escape from the Space Research Center and, instead of draining their victims of blood via bite wounds, suck their victims' lifeforce totally out of them. One of them is the Space Girl, a thoroughly nude vampiress played by Mathilda May. Railsback, the only actual survivor from Churchill, is bought in by the SRC's chief (Frank Finlay) and a British special agent (Peter Firth) to track May, who is in telepathic contact with him. Pretty soon, however, the vampires have turned London into a scene of pure holocaust; people are either being dessicated or turning into zombies, and the threat by NATO to sterilize the city with thermonuclear radiation looms large. Railsback finally catches up with May, and sacrifices himself by impaling her with a large metal sabre.

Undoubtedly disjointed, unquestionably uneven, but nevertheless worth watching, LIFEFORCE, despite the frequent incoherency of its script and its acting, benefits from some drop-dead excellent special effects work by John Dykstra (STAR WARS), some of the best ever seen. The other working element, and a surprise one it is, is the incredible orchestral score by Henry Mancini, almost Wagnerian in the same way John Williams' score for STAR WARS was--and Mancini, like Williams before him, uses the London Symphony Orchestra, to boot!

Largely forgotten these days, and a critical and box office disaster in 1985, LIFEFORCE, if for no other reason, should still be seen for anyone with a taste for the bizarre. There had never been a film quite like it before, and there will certainly not be anything like it again. Danny Boyle was not the first person to realise that zombies can run like the clappers. That honour belongs to Lifeforce, which is, of course, the greatest naked space vampire zombies from Halley's Comet running amok in London end-of-the-world movie ever made. Tobe Hooper may have made a lot of crap, but for this deliriously demented epic sci-fi horror he deserves a place among the immortals. Plus it offers space vampire Mathilda May, the best thing to come out of France since Simone Simon, spending the entire movie naked. Which she does very, very well. Just bear in mind that while she is the most overwhelmingly feminine presence anyone on Earth has ever encountered, she's also "totally alien to this planet and our life form and totally dangerous." It's a pitch meeting I'd have loved to have sat in on: Astronauts from the British space program find three naked humanoid alien life forms inside a giant 150-mile long artichoke/umbrella shaped spaceship hidden in the tail of Halley's Comet filled with giant desiccated bats and bring them back to Earth with near apocalyptic results as they proceed to drain the population of London of their lifeforce amid much nudity, whirlpools of thunder and spit your coffee across the room direlogue ("I've been in space for six months, and she looks perfect to me." "Assume we know nothing, which is understating the matter." "Don't worry, a naked woman is not going to get out of this complex."). Oh, and we'll get the writers of Alien and Blue Thunder to write it with uncredited rewrites by the writer of Mark of the Devil, The Sex Thief and Eskimo Nell and the director of The Jonestown Monster. Sounds like a winner, here's $22m – have fun. And they do, they do.

True, there's enough promise in the raw material to have made something genuinely creepy and thought-provoking (at a time when AIDS hysteria was approaching its height, a sexually transmitted 'plague' offers ample opportunity for allegory), but in the hands of the Go-Go boys at Cannon, what could have been another Quatermass and the Pit quickly turns instead to be more Plan 10 From Outer Space. It's full-to-bursting with delirious inanity, be it Frank Finlay's hilarious death scene ("Here I go!"), Peter Firth's grand entrance ("I'm Colonel Caine." "From the SAS?" discreetly shouts Michael Gothard across a room full of reporters: "Gentlemen, that last remark was not for publication. This is a D-Notice situation" he replies to the surprisingly obliging pressmen), the security guards offering Mathilda May's naked space vampire a nice biscuit to stop her escaping, reanimated bodies exploding into dust all over people, the sweaty Prime Minister sucking the life out of his secretary and London filling up with zombie nuns, stockbrokers and joggers as the city gets its most comprehensive on screen trashing since Mrs Gorgo lost junior at Battersea Funfair and went on the rampage. And that's not mentioning the "This woman is a masochist! An extreme masochist!" scene or the great stereophonic echo effect on the male vampire's "It'll be a lot less terrifying if you just come to me" line while a lead-stake wielding Peter Firth adopts his best Action Man voice to reply "I'll do just that!" In one scene alone you have a possessed Patrick Stewart embodying the female in our deeply confused astronaut hero's mind, Steve "I-never-got-over-playing-Charlie-Manson" Railsback and his amazing dancing eyebrows in full-on "Helta-Skelta!" mode trying to resist the temptation to kiss him, the inimitable Aubrey Morris (the only man who makes Freddie Jones look restrained) playing the Home Secretary Sir Percy Heseltine as a kind of demented Brian Rix, Peter Firth (one of those actors who always looks like he must have been a Doctor Who around the time no-one was watching it anymore) hamming up the blasé public school macho in the hope that no-one will ever see it and the peerless reaction shots of John Hallam as the male nurse who keeps on opening the door mid-psychic-tornado to bring in more drugs. As if they needed any more in this film. It's just a shame that Frank Finlay's mad-haired scientist who isn't qualified to certify death on alien life forms (a role originally intended for Klaus Kinski) missed out on the action in that one.

No matter how mad you think the film is, it still manages to get madder still, whether it be a zombie pathologist ("He too needs feeding") exploding all over the Home secretary's suit, Patrick Stewart's blood and entrails forming a naked Mathilda May or the space vampires turning St Paul's Cathedral into the world's biggest laser-show to transport human souls from the London Underground to their geostationary mother ship. I loved every gloriously insane moment. In it's own truly unique way, this might be the greatest film ever made.

The DVD offers the original 116-minute version that opened in the UK rather than the heavily edited 101-minute US version, which not only offers much more hilarity for your dollar, but also fully restores Henry Mancini's score to its original glory (the US version covered a lot of the gaps with additional cues by Michael Kamen and James Guthrie). Although a somewhat surprising choice at first sight, Mancini cut his teeth on many of the classic Universal sci-fi horrors of the 50s and his score is quite superb, with a terrific driving main title that offers a rare reminder of just how interesting he could be away from Blake Edwards. Sadly there's no more than a trailer by way of extras, though it would be nice to hope some day for a special edition with some of the deleted scenes from Hooper's originally intended 128-minute cut: from what's on display here, these might just offer even more comedy gold! LIFEFORCE was one of Cannon Films' biggest flops. It received mostly bad reviews and did nothing to help director Tobe Hooper's career in the wake of the Spielberg/POLTERGEIST controversy. All of this is unfortunate, because LIFEFORCE is actually a really great movie. It is supremely entertaining, moves along at a fast pace and features some of the most outrageously over-the-top direction, production, performances and special effects ever to explode across the screen! It must have looked bizarre on paper: the producers of THE DELTA FORCE, the screenwriter of ALIEN, the director of THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, the composer of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, the special effects wizards of STAR WARS... Audiences were not ready for this demented exercise in weirdness.

What more do you want??? We got an alien spaceship full of giant bats! We got a sexy, naked space vampiress sucking out people's souls! We got exploding bodies! We got zombies! We got possession! We got an S&M interrogation! We got the entire city of London on fire! It's Dracula meets NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets QUARTERMASS AND THE PIT meets EARTHQUAKE. It's quite possibly the single most outrageous horror/sci-fi/comedy/action/disaster/erotic/apocalyptic epic ever unleashed, that is, if there are any other ones out there.

Try watching this movie while chemically altered. Perhaps then you'll understand. A genuinely f***ed up experience, and one of director Tobe Hooper's most underrated movies. Maybe one day, it will find its audience. "Lifeforce" is a truly bizarre adaptation of the novel "The Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson, scripted by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby. A joint American-British space exploration team makes a mind-boggling discovery: an alien spacecraft resting inside Halleys' Comet, containing three entities that look like people, one of them a female beauty (the oh-so-alluring Mathilda May).

They take these discoveries back on board their own spacecraft. Big mistake.

It turns out that these creatures drain the life out of human beings, and as American colonel Carlsen (an intense, edgy, and committed Steve Railsback) and British S.A.S. colonel Caine (a solid Peter Firth) watch in horror, an infestation of vampirism overtakes London, with the fate of Earth in the balance.

This picture certainly is not lacking in imagination. It moves a little slowly at times but offers so many strange and fanciful ideas and eye-popping visuals that it's hard not to be amused. The first of director Tobe Hoopers' three-picture deal with Cannon Films (he followed it up with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" and the "Invaders from Mars" remake), he makes it something truly unique. Incorporating elements of sci-fi, vampire films, zombie films, and end-of-the-world sagas, it's like nothing that I've seen before.

Railsback and Firth are ably supported by such strong Brit actors as Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart, Michael Gothard, Aubrey Morris, and John Hallam. Mathilda May is very memorable as the bewitching, enigmatic villainess; it certainly doesn't hurt that she performs a great deal of her scenes in the nude. Also worth noting is a stirring music score from none other than "Pink Panther" composer Henry Mancini.

Ridiculous it may be, but I found it to be fun as well. It's flamboyant and spirited entertainment.

8/10 Lifeforce starts in outer space where the HMS Churchill tracks Haley's Comet & it's equipment detects a 150 mile long alien spaceship in the head of the comet, unable to contact Earth because of interference Colonel Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback) decides this is the one & only chance to investigate it. Going outside in spacesuits Carlsen & some of his crew enter the mysterious spaceship & find the remains of a bat like race of creatures & three perfect looking humanoids, two men (Chris Jagger & Bill Malin) & a beautiful woman (Mathilda May) all of whom they take aboard the Churchill. Thirty days later & back on Earth the Churchill is detected on radar, a rescue mission is sent up only to discover the spaceship is burnt out & all the crew supposedly dead. The rescue team do find the three humanoid aliens though & take them back to Earth where in a space research center in London they come back to life & start to literally suck the lifeforce out of human victims who then in turn need to do the same to stop themselves turning into dust, things look grim as the epidemic spreads throughout London...

This English production was produced by the notorious Menahem Golan & Yoram Globus who during the early 80's were responsible for lots of cheap low budget action flicks under their production company Cannon usually starring Chuck Norris & they wanted to move into the big time & signed director Tobe Hooper up on a three film deal (which were this Lifeforce, the Invaders from Mars (1986) remake & The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) a sequel to Hooper's own classic) all of which flopped & basically bankrupt both Golan & Globus & Cannon was no more. Anyway, despite being a commercial flop at the box-office I have to say I think Lifeforce is a highly enjoyable, if rather silly sci-fi horror. When originally released into theatres back in '85 Lifefore was cut down to 101 minutes by Golan & Globus but over the past few years the longer 116 minute cut has all but replaced it on DVD, VHS, Laserdisc & TV although apparently Hooper's original cut of the film ran for 128 minutes so there's even more footage out there somewhere. I will be basing my comments on the longer 116 minute cut, the script by Dan O'Bannon, Don Jakoby & uncredited rewrites by Michael Armstrong & Olaf Pooley was based on the 1976 novel 'The Space Vampires' by Colin Wilson & has many extraordinary ideas, it's scope is truly ambitious & one felt that it ends up being a bit of a mess but a hell of an entertaining one. It moves along like a rocket & at heart there's a really interesting story here although the film gets itself into a tangle. There are also some hilarious moments in Lifeforce, the scene when the security guard tries to convince the naked female Vampire to surrender by offering her a half eaten biscuit is a true camp classic, the horribly overwrought hypnosis scenes including the one where Railsback ends up kissing Patrick Stewart & many, many more besides. I don't know, call me weird but I just thought Lifeforce was tremendous fun & highly entertaining in just about every way, from silly character's, odd dialogue, strange ideas that never quite come together & some terrific visuals Lifeforce certainly isn't a film that will bore you.

Director Hooper had just about more money here to play around with than he ever has (double what he had for Poltergeist (1982) even) & he uses every bit of it to bring this spectacular film to the big screen, John Dykstra the guy responsible for Star Wars (1977), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) & more recently Spider-Man (2002) was brought in to handle the visual effects & generally speaking they look fabulous. The sequences set in outer space with spaceships in particular look great, there's also some really good visual effects back on Earth including the destruction of London as 100's of blue souls fly around everywhere. There's some nudity but not much gore, there are some withered corpses, a few gunshot wounds, the skin on someones hand peels off, blood spurts from someones eyes, nose & ears & there's a severed arm as well as some zombies. The special make-up effects are also generally very good. I wouldn't say Lifeforce is scary as such as it's more of a sci-fi film than horror, I loved the way Hooper shoots the outer space sequences as he keeps rotating his camera to effectively capture the feeling of weightlessness & that there is no 'solid' floor as it were.

With a supposed budget of about $25,000,000 it made less than half that in it's theatrical run & hasn't set the world alight on video or DVD either which is a shame because although it's a bit of a mess it's very enjoyable to watch. Shot on location in England. Well filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, the 4:3 cropped image is horrible & cuts huge chunks of information from both sides of the screen, this is most noticeable during the opening scenes set in outer space where sometimes it's hard to make out what's going on & the sense of the vastness of space & the alien spaceship is lost. The acting is OK in a very silly film, Patrick Stewart replaced Sir John Gielgud, Nancy Paul replaced Olivia Hussey, Frank Finlay replaced Klaus Kinski while Anthony Hopkins turned the role of Caine down.

Lifeforce is a bizarre film, no two ways about it really & anyone looking for something simple & straight forward should look elsewhere. Anyone looking for something a bit different in the sci-fi genre than give Lifeforce a go as it's one of those so bad it's good films with some impressive effects & it isn't your average run of the mill film by any means. No, "Lifeforce" is not a great movie.

It's not a good movie.

It is, however, an average movie with some good effects and a compelling storyline (and, of course, Mathilda May). It may actually be one of my favorite SF/horror flicks for the very simple reason that they try to reason their way through the science of the space vampires. How often do you see that? Not even in "Alien" (the SF/horror flick of all time) does science come into the story at all. In "Lifeforce" they are trying to make reason of an unreasonable world.

Now, do I think it's successful? No. I think the movie has the issue of a massive ensemble cast that Hooper is straining to keep collected and on track and that the viewers have to focus on more than one 'villian' and there are one too many road trips.

To be honest, the movie is eye candy and fun to watch. but there is great potential here for a superior remake to take a hold of what Hooper was trying to do and really create a strong, scary, SF/horror movie.

If the remake does happen, however, I demand that Mathilda May have a cameo. Tobe Hooper (fresh off mainstream success with 'Poltergeist') aims for the skies this time around. 'Lifeforce' is an adaptation of Colin Wilson's 'The Space Vampires'. The script by 'Alien's Dan O' Bannon and Don Jakoby) varies a bit I was told: the futuristic storyline was made contemporary and Hailey's Comet was added to coincide with its actual passage by Earth a few weeks after the films release (so I've read).

The story concerns a shuttle mission (commander by Steve Railsback) sent to investigate Hailey's Comet as it passes by Earth. All goes off without a hitch but upon reaching the comet it is discovered that an alien ship is hidden in the coma of the comet. The team investigates the massive structure and discovers desiccated bat-like creatures. Looking deeper into the ship a chamber is found that contains three humanoids (two naked males and one rather fetching nude lady too) in odd stasis coffins. The crew returns to the ship with the humanoids and a bat creature in tow.

A bit later the ship returns to Earth but no contact can be made by NASA and another shuttle is launched to ascertain the status of the mission. Upon docking with the Churchill it is discovered that a massive fire has seemingly killed the crew and all data concerning the flight. But the three humanoids remain. However it is learned that an escape pod had been launched but whose whereabouts are unknown.

Soon they make the discovery of the alien's origin when the very attractive space vampire queen arises from her slumber to easily seduce the lifeforce from the men around her. If you suck face with her she makes you like them and if you don't feed after two hours you will dry out and become dust. The goal of the three is to drain enough of the population's essence to power and sustain them and their ship for the trip to the next planet to lay waste to them as well.

Thankfully the Commander survives re-entry in the pod (crash lands in Texas no less) and now has a psychic link to her royal hotness, the queen and is able to use it to find the hidden queen as she and the surviving male attempt to bleed London dry of their souls.

Tobe Hooper (of 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' (1974)) does an admirable job in what has to be his largest production to date. The production assembled many fine technicians from all over the movie industry. Production Designer John Graysmark (fresh off 'The Bounty (1984)') uses every bit of four stages at Elsree Studios to create the spacious interiors of the ship and such. Cinematographer Alan Hume returns to science fiction after a stint on 'Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi' (1983) and three consecutive James Bond episodes. Hume uses every bit of the widescreen frame with the great effects. Oscar winner John Dykstra innovator of the groundbreaking effects of the original 'Star Wars' (1977) manages to push the envelope once again a creating some highly creative and spectacular effects using lasers. Heck even maestro Henry Mancini drops in to give the film a very memorable title theme that gives this sci-fi / horror hybrid a touch of an adventurous feel. In the acting department it pretty much falls onto the shoulders of Steve Railsback and newcomer Mathilda May (vampire queen). Railsback always brings an edge to the characters he plays and can play nuts like nobody's business. That comes in hand as his mind deteriorates when the queen's grip tightens on his soul. Gorgeous French actress May doesn't have a heck of a lot of lines (were there more than ten?) but her frequently nude presence never gets old and you gotta give her kudos to having the jingle bells to pull it of. Pretty much all the queen is there to do is feed and to do so she needs to seduce you with her sexual presence. Job accomplished and where do I sign up to be victim? I really enjoyed how they tweaked the old vampire clichés and still managed to make it seem fresh but still easily recognizable. Almost everything is accounted for here: bats (their true form resembles a large bat), coffins {the stasis fields resemble these), transformations (they scan your mind and can be anything), massive sexual appeal (Miss May….duh) not to mention they even include the old standby stake-through-the-heart (this time a bit of a lead dagger to the energy center slightly below the heart). The only thing they didn't touch on was religion but I think that the vampires using the cathedral at the end as home base might just be a bit of a wink and a nod.

In short (yeah right 800 words later) 'Lifeforce' is an excellent science fiction and horror combination that pays homage to the vampire theme while adding some neat different wrinkles. The effects and scale of the production are enough to keep summer movie types engaged (at least at the time) and horror and sci-fi fans engaged. 4 of 5. To the guy who hatched the idea for Lifeforce I have one thing to say: Thank you, sir! Lifeforce combines the big-budget sci-fi pomp of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with the cheap horror thrills of Phantasm and tops it all off with t-ts-- and some real meaty hangers at that..And best of all, it's actually a good movie! It amazes me that someone actually justified a mainstream movie that is a vehicle for a hot chick to appear naked on screen for an hour and a half to producers. God bless you, all of you who were involved.

Steve Railsback (Helter Skelter) plays Col. Carlson, the American commander of an international space mission sent to investigate Halley's Comet. Carlson's crew finds an alien vessel inside the comet and inside that they find three naked people in suspended animation--two guys and a hot broad (Mathilda May). Well, to make a long story short, they're "space vampires"...naked "space vampires." They trash the crew except for Col. Blueballs who decided that he had to let the hot chick out of her lucite display case because the part of his brain that controls his nut fluids told him it was the right thing to do. The Col. wings it back to our big blue ball in an escape pod. Meanwhile, another space shuttle crew has discovered his ship floating dead in space and has brought the three space coffins of the Living Dead Martians back to London. And that's when people start turning into pork rinds and s--t in general just starts getting' way out of hand too damn fast.

Carlson teams up with the unflappable Col. Caine (Peter Firth) of the British S.A.S. to track down our naked cutie--who is having one hell of a time sucking guys off left and right. Carlson's discovered that he has a mental link with Vampira that allows them to track her down, with the ultimate goal being to blow her ass away and wreck her and her pals' big space umbrella that sucks up the energy of the people that the vamps attack. Will they succeed in time? MINOR SPOILER: Yes.

Wow. What can I say but "Wow"? This damn movie really works. I can't believe they got actual British actors like Aubrey Morris (A Clockwork Orange) and Patrick Stewart (Sexiest Man Alive or some such title) to appear in this film. All the actors are good. Direction is good and really shines during the last half where we see the fantastic devastation of London. Special effects are no slouch either. For 1985, this movie must've been the s--t as far as fx goes. All the effects are fairly impressive and there's a wide range of talent on display here in animotronics, makeup effects, light shows, and very nice space scenes with some good old-fashioned modeling and matte painting--very nicely done. There's even some gore and bloody squib shots for all the horror fanboys out there.

Lifeforce is a great film for anyone who has nostalgia for when popular films on the bigsceen were made with 100% love from start to finish. The creators of the movie really made sure all the bases were covered and the end result is a phenomenally fun affair that doesn't let you turn away because the proceedings are just too good-looking. Real solid entertainment here: 8 1/2 out of 10. LIFEFORCE is an extremely schizophrenic movie, based on Colin Wilson`s novel The Space Vampires the script ignores most of the novel`s concepts and structure ( Indeed it owes more to the QUATERMASS serials than the novel ) but the scenes it does leave in from the novel are nearly identical to those in the film . And talking of the script it must be one of the most uneven in cinema history , it`s though it was written in chapters by several different people. Take for instance Carlson , he disappears after the early shuttle scenes which led me to believe he was dead then he turns up again halfway through the film in order to explain the plot to the beleaguered Brits and it`s this lack of attention by the screenwriters that spoils the film . And there`s plenty of other clumsy scripting such as the heroes returning to London in a helicopter and not realising it has been over run by zombies untill they`re flying over it .

I could go on at great length about these plot holes but LIFEFORCE is actually enjoyable to watch as long as you don`t use your brain . It`s good to see a sci-fi horror film from an era when aliens were portrayed as being cute creatures that children hid in their bedrooms so that nasty human adults wouldn`t get their hands on them . The special effects and pyrotechnics are very very good , there`s lots of action and stunts and LIFEFORCE features one of the most memorable aliens in the form of the space girl . When mentioning LIFEFORCE in conversation with males it`s always a race to say " Seen the alien in LIFEFORCE? She can suck the lifeforce out of me anytime " Hardly surprising looking at the demographics of the votes that this film is more popular with males than females

" Don`t worry . A naked girl can`t escape from here " Can`t she ? Pity

Is it a perfect movie? No. It is a weird adaptation from a sci-fi book and it features vampires from space, naked beauties and the British army efficiency.

When I first saw this movie I was rather young and all I can remember is the feeling of awe for the movie and Mathilda May. Actually, if it weren't for this gorgeous lady being naked the whole movie, I probably wouldn't have rated it so high, but given her sheer magnificence, I am now actually considering voting it up!

Lucky for me I got reminded of the movie and watched it again now. Imagine Raiders of the Lost Ark or Poltergeist special effects splattered unto a rather decent sci-fi story, but with completely over the top performances. I still enjoyed the movie tremendously (as well as Mathilda May), but it was a mixture of nostalgia, comparing with the crap movies they make today and actually wanting more when it ended.

Bottom line: if you are a sci-fi fan you are not allowed to miss this movie. Oh, and did I mention Mathilda May is young, beautiful and naked? A lot of people say the end did not make sense, but it did. With the female vampire dead the link to earth was broken and the ship took off, having picked up a lot of Lifeforce from hundreds of thousands of souls. Enough to re-energize those hexagon cells and create new bat creatures. It seems they do not have carnal sex, like vampires of legend.

vampire bats from outer space may be ludicrous, but killing them with with a shot to qui force center below the heart is consistent. All you can ask for is consistency. The viewer has to suspend disbelief, even for scifi.

The only problem is having to be a sword or stake, not bullets. That puts in a supernatural twist that does not fit with sci-fi. So that is a problem.

The only major inconsistency I found is killing the male vampires with the sword, but the soul of the girl and Carlsen go up to the ship. I assume the males souls also went up the ship, but not shown.

What about all the humans killed? Do their qui forces ("souls") go up to the ship as discrete entities, are does all the lifeforce get merged into one, for use as ship sees fit? In other words, all the human souls that went to the ship could be re-incarnated as bat creatures.

The basic concept is no more ridiculous than Star Wars "Force" or even re-incarnation.

This movie was over the top, kitchen sink (Dawn of the Dead meets Alien meets Dracula), but in many ways profound. It was also a beautiful love story. The beginning and end were ethereal. It both began ("what is happening to me") and ended as a love story.

Most of the criticism of the movie is about its being bizarre.So what? Bizarre is an art form. As far as being ludicrous, it all fits. The plague concept is much more interesting and subtle than the Aliens just killing people. Maybe they didn't need Patrick Steward's blood to form an image of the girl, but it was a very far out, surreal, scene.

Another reason the movie is hated is because of the end. But the end fits perfectly with the beginning. People are so wrapped up in the nude girl that they miss the movie's core. Its a lover story,from start to finish. It starts with Carlsen and the girl on the alien spaceship and finished same way. So it fits perfectly. Most people are fixated on the hero killing the monster, and this movie did not end that way, which is precisely why I love it.

Instead, it has a happy ending, with the 2 of them going back to ship, to be reborn. Way cooler than the hero kills monster end, but that is exactly why it bombed. It was not a straight-up horror or even scifi/horror at all, but a love story, with a beautiful beginning and end. All those souls twinkling on the ship. And the crystal room pulsating with new life.

Most people can't deal with a love story that is also Alien meets Dawn of the Dead meets Dracula. By far one of the best sci-fi films out there. However, it does take multible viewings to understand the concept of the film and to be able to appreciate not only the special effect, but the main plot of the film itself. It is my own feelings that this film film got such poor reviews because no one took the time to watch the film the way it was meant to be seen. It does have some moments you wish would hurry up and pass by, but they are few and far between. Hooper, who directed TCM 1 and 2 along with a remake of INVADERS FROM MARS, and THE FUNHOUSE does his best work here. Great score, good acting,and great effects makes this a film to add to your collection, if you get the chance see the widescreen version on DVD, highly recommended to any one who is a fan of sci-fi. This really is a great movie. I don't think it has ever gotten the recognition that it deserves. I have bought this movie on VHS and DVD. The special effects were ahead of its time. The story was WAY cool. The pace was very steady. If you haven't seen it, you definitely need to check it out on DVD if possible. Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.

The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.

Not to be over-looked. Something I think some people miss about great science fiction is that it predicts some part of the future. No other theatrical movie that I can recall predicted that when the space shuttle went to study Halley's Comet that a disaster would occur! Some differences were: the "Churchill" (the shuttle in the movie) actually went to the comet, the "Challenger" was only in low earth orbit; The "Churchill" was merely burned out inside, whereas the "Challenger" exploded--hey the vampires had to get back to earth. One great similarity (and this is always bad luck!) both had mixed male/female crews--the legend of Halley's comet and disaster continues!

Other than this there is not much more to be said about this movie that hasn't been said before. As a outer space/science fiction/horror/sex film individually it provided nothing really new, but as in all great dishes it is the combination that counts. And taken together, this was a highly original and satisfying combination.

I just wish Mathilda May would drain her victims through another part of the body! Lifeforce (1985) was a Cannon funded film directed by Tobe Hooper. It's a very interesting film that deals with a pair of space vampires who are accidentally brought back down to Earth during the latest space shuttle mission. Steve Railsback stars as the sole survivor of the tragedy. But really folks the movie is a mere showcase for the natural beauty of Mathilda May. She's one smoking hot number. The director was a huge fan of Female Vampire (a.k.a. Erotikill). Miss May recreates Lina Romay's title role The film is beautifully photographed and directed. There's plenty of gore effects to keep genres fans happy.

I have to give this film a very high rating. Tobe Hooper was the man. He made three interesting films for Cannon during this time period (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Invaders from Mars as well). If you like science fiction/horror films, Tobe Hooper films or Mathilda May this film's just up your alley.

Highest Recommendation!

Did I mention Mathilda May is smoking hot? i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8/10. I finally got hold of Lifeforce on DVD with the widescreen format intact and rousing Henry Mancini score to the max. After having viewed Lifeforce for fifteen years on tape, I have to say that the 'uncut' DVD version was both great and disappointing. The U.S. version is so *much* better than the DVD (European?) version. The U.S. version of lifeforce moves much faster (the editing on the DVD version is terrible. Feels like an unfinished cut). And the many scenes not seen in the American version add little or nothing to the final problem. In fact one "new" moment almost destroys the entire movie, when Caine (peter firth) meets the male alien at the cathedral. I love this scene, in the U.S. version though. On the DVD, the male alien speaks to Caine and what he says is soooooo hilarious. It's the pinnacle of hilarity:

"It'll be much less terrifying if you just come to me!" the male alien says, in a deep 1950s style voice. I was floored when I saw this. It just doesn't belong in the movie. That scene is pure camp in an otherwise super serious flick. I'm glad Hooper (or whoever) cut that scene when the movie was released in North America. There are several changes that were made for the U.S. version that make Lifeforce that much better and I wished the DVD had the U.S. version. The editing is sharp and frenzied without being annoying and some spots that were already boring in the U.S. version are even more boring on the DVD version because of added scenes. And the opening credits on the DVD is terrible. Much better in the U.S. version. More subtle.

I love this film. It's basically aliens making a pit-stop over earth and sucking up as much Lifeforce as possible. The film has too many flat, uninspiring sequences (talk, talk, talk) but when the action goes to London, it's fun. The film really shines in these scenes. One can see Hooper finally doing what he's great at: chaos, savagery, horror! Lifeforce should have had more of these chaos scenes. They're the best Apocalyptic scenes ever put on film. It's also the best zombie movie ever. The zombies are hungry (for lifeforce, not flesh) and they're crazed and agile and terrifying. Not the slow moving bores of other zombie movies. Also, a lot of people have criticized the ending but I love it. It leaves you high and dry, like one of the lifeforce-drained victims.

And to think this movie came out during the cute and cuddly 80s, when people flocked to E.T. or Cocoon or other sweet and boring, feel good sci-fi movies. No wonder it bombed because it was way ahead of its time with its super nihilistic point of view!

As for the DVD, well, it ain't great. The image is muddy and grainy and there are no extras whatsoever. But it's great to see the movie in its widescreen format. I just hope that they'll release a clean, crisp U.S. version on a DVD, and with commentary by Hooper and Dykstra. Ok, let's get this out of the way first: As a piece of cinema, Lifeforce is rubbish. As a bit of cheesy entertainment for SF buffs, it's got a lot of merit. If you enjoy watching those old black and white SF B-movies - giant mutated spiders/ant or alien monsters wandering around the desert - you really will get a kick out of Lifeforce.

Bad things: The story makes little sense and the acting is pretty poor. Good things: The special effects are halfway decent; it has a welcomingly different British centered story (it's set in London) which gives different feel to most SF movies; and it has the well-endowed Mathilda May (amusingly billed as "Space Girl") wandering around stark naked.

In short: it's fun.

I've seen it half a dozen times now, and every time it comes on TV I make time to watch it - admittedly this is partly to do with the naked Ms. May - but it's also to do with the enjoying a bit of unassuming and silly SF. Lifeforce is certainly one of Tobe Hooper's best films. It has some great special effects and a lot of nudity, so it seems like a typical horror fan's dream. The film is quit creative though and I think that's because of the script from Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby. Nice cinematography and a good creepy atmosphere make it a solid film. Non-stop action and just about every conceivable (and inconceivable!) sci-fi/horror cliche can be found in this blatantly silly but fun, big-budget epic. The pace never lets up, especially in the shorter US version, which tightens things up considerably. Without a doubt, one of Tobe Hoppor's best! Epic storytellng, great special effects, and The Spacegirl (vamp me baby!). A mixture of Alien and Ghost Busters?

Starts very promising, then slows down to almost boring.

LifeForce contains some awesome special effects they were able to make in the mid 80's. The story is intriguing, but becomes quite lack lustre in the end. It was rated R because of the nudeness, sex and gore. Mathilda May's ethereal and savage (naked) beauty is very apparent through out the whole movie. A bizarre movie and cost a lot by the time it was made.

This could have been a bigger classic with a better script, but unfortunately it wasn't a great hit, I think it actually flopped quite bad.

So, something went wrong with this one, but still, it's very entertaining. As with some of the best films and series, I stumbled across this quite by accident. It was late, a storm was in full force outside and I was sitting comfortably on the sofa when I flicked past a channel that was just about to show one of the episodes. I intended merely to watch a couple of minutes while waiting for the commercials to be finished on another channel before switching back to some or other sitcom. About an hour and a half later I remembered my resolve and was so happy that I hadn't done that. Needless to say I made sure I saw all the other episodes.

John Hannah has been brilliant in almost everything I have seen him in and he does not let down here either. All other cast members do a stellar job too. My personal favourite (aside from John Hannah, of course) is Gerard Murphy.

The only negative side to this series are the limited amount of episodes. Only 8 with JH himself and an additional 1 with someone else. I would love to see McCallum back on the screens, though it would have to be with JH! I got this as a complete set of 9 episodes on 5 DVDs. I knew nothing about the history of the series. Season 1 of the series has the pilot episode as episode 1 and then 3 more episodes for a total of 4. Season 2 lists 5 episodes with the last being Beyond Good and Evil with an original Air Date of 7 December 1998. The other 4 episodes on season 2 were broadcast from December 1997 to Febrausry 1998. So Beyond Good and Evil looks like season 3 episode 1, except there are no more episodes in season 3.

Spoilers here. The two main characters of the first 8 episodes, Dr. Iain McCallum (John Hannah) and Dr. Angela Moloney (Zara Turner), are missing from this episode being replaced by Dr. Dan Gallagher (Nathaniel Parker) and Dr. Charley Fielding (Eva Pope). I recognized Nathaniel Parker from the series The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, which began in 2001. So they were planning to have a season 3 but only one episode was broadcast.

It seems odd to try to continue a series named after the main character, McCallum, when the main character is gone from the series. So they might have been planning a return of Dr. Iain McCallum, but when that failed the series was canceled. I have no inside information on this but I do see that both John Hannah and Nathaniel Parker were involved in other projects in 1999. Does anyone have any information on this? K-Pax is a very intriguing film. Is Prot (Kevin Spacey) really an alien, or is he a mentally deranged human who just thinks he is an alien? That is the question that Dr. Powell (Jeff Bridges) must answer before the self proclaimed deadline that Prot sets for his departure from Earth.

As the film unfolds and more evidence is uncovered, both theories grow in credibility. His ability to map from memory the area of the galaxy where his home planet is located indicates a knowledge that no human could possibly possess. Yet the hypnosis sessions lead us to a real person with a very real and traumatic life, filled with devastating events that could have caused such a personality aberration. The ending seems to give the answer, but is just ambiguous enough to make you wonder if you really know. Normally, I don't like lady or tiger endings, but this one is tantalizing. I have my own theory that fits all the clues, but I don't know that my theory is any more correct than anyone else's.

Director Iain Softley (`Wings of the Dove') spins the tale delicately, with great skill. This is a rare example of the director staying in the shadows and inducing outstanding acting performances out of talented actors to let the story dominate. This is not to say that the directing is technically inferior, because it is excellent. However, Softley remains unobtrusive, delivering great power through the use of subtlety, a pleasant change from today's vanguard directors who visually grab and shake the viewer as if to scream, `Look how brilliant I am!'

Kevin Spacey once again delivers a marvelous performance as Prot. This is a part that is extraordinarily demanding, requiring Spacey to render the cool and logical Prot one minute, and then switch gears to conjure his tormented alter ego under hypnosis the next. Spacey is so believable as both alien and human, it makes the viewer's task that much more difficult. Jeff Bridges is also terrific as the relentless psychologist who becomes obsessed with learning the truth about Prot.

This is inspired storytelling for the thoughtful viewer. I rated it a 9/10. If you must have closure at the end of a film, this movie will be very frustrating. However, if you like a fascinating mystery that keeps you thinking long after the credits, you won't be disappointed. Life is comprised of infinite possibilities; some known, others a mystery and destined to remain so. And what of the vast unknown, the realms beyond which knowledge has no established boundaries or parameters? Who is to say what exists or what is possible? Valid questions, all of which are raised and explored in the story of a particular individual's personal journey, a strange and dramatic odyssey that defies facts and logic, in `K-PAX,' directed by Iain Softley, and starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. In the wake of an incident in New York's Central Station, a man named Prot (Spacey) is transported to a psychiatric hospital in Manhattan, where he is delivered into the care of Dr. Mark Powell (Bridges), who attempts to uncover the truth about his patient, who claims to be from the distant planet K-PAX. It quickly becomes a challenge for Dr. Powell, as Prot, with his calm, direct, forthcoming manner and a propensity for produce (he eats bananas peels and all, and Red Delicious Apples are his favorites) is quite convincing. But it's Powell's job, as well as his nature, to be skeptical. Prot's claims, however, remain intact and stand up even under the most intense probing and the watchful eye of Dr. Powell, who finds himself in something of a quandary-- Prot even tells him the exact date and time that he will depart for K-PAX, a scheduled return trip that allows Powell but a short time to sort it all out. And Powell just can't seem to get his mind around the idea that he is dealing with a real alien being; and it's something he is going to have to resolve quickly, if he is ever going to know the truth. And he has to know. The truth, after all, is the only thing that is going to set him free in his own mind.

Softley has created and delivered a sensitive, thought-provoking film that challenges the viewer by sustaining the mystery surrounding Prot while forcing you to reflect upon your own concepts of what is, in fact, possible. And as you never know for sure about Prot until the denouement, you are able to identify with Powell, seeing the situation from his point of view and trying to solve the riddle right along with him. Softley creates an atmosphere of wonder and a real sense of being confronted with something that is truly unique as the story unfolds and you begin to realize that Prot just may be what he says he is. And in the context of the reality to which the film is disposed, it's an engrossing matter to try to wrap your mind around. How do you react when all of the evidence is contrary to the physical limitations we've set for ourselves? While at the heart of the film there is a resounding depth of humanity that is evident, not only in Prot, but in Dr. Powell, as well. All of which makes for an extremely engaging and gripping drama.

As we've come to expect, Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as Prot, presenting his character from the inside out, emotionally deep and physically convincing at the same time. This is a unique individual, and Spacey brings him to life with care and the ability to share those moments that are particularly revealing, which adds to the believability of the character and the credibility of the story itself. For this film to work, it is essential that we believe who and what Prot is; we do, and it does. Spacey simply pulls it off magnificently. It's a memorable performance, from which evolves a character that will stay with you for a long, long time.

Jeff Bridges, meanwhile, emerges on equal footing with Spacey, adeptly making a very real person of Dr. Powell. It's a fairly straightforward role, and the challenge for Bridges was to take this very normal and ordinary character and make him unique in his own right, which, opposite the character of Prot was no small task. And, again, for this film to work it was necessary for Bridges to rise to the occasion. And, with exceptional skill and being the consummate professional that he is, he succeeds without question. Bridges infuses Powell with an underlying complexity, and is so giving in his performance, that it makes the interaction between Powell and Prot vibrant, and at times intense. It's a demonstration of two of the finest actors in the business doing what they do best, creating a dynamic that is alive and inspiring. It's a great job by Bridges, who never attempts to steal the spotlight from Prot, which serves to raise the level of the film to an even higher notch.

The supporting cast includes Mary McCormack (Rachel), Alfre Woodard (Dr. Villers), Ajay Naidu (Dr. Naidiu), Vincent Laresca (Navarro), Kimberly Scott (Joyce), Conchata Ferrell (Betty) and Saul Williams (Ernie). An entertaining, emotionally involving film, `K-PAX' is a dissertation on possibilities, as well as an examination of the ever evolving complexities of the human condition. It's a film that demands an open mind and rewards those who are able to approach it on it's own terms and embrace it. In the end, it makes you realize just how real K-PAX is; and it makes you appreciate Prot's journey, and just how much we all share and have in common with those around us, human or alien. And it may just make you reflect upon your own journey-- where you've been and where you're going. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10/10.

K-PAX is exactly what a heart warming film should be. The story is about a mysterious mental patient Prot, played by Kevin Spacey, and his unbelieving psychiatrist Dr. Powel, played by Jeff Bridges. The two have a very friendly bond, and as their relationship grows Dr. Powel can't help but wonder whether or not there is more to his mysterious patient, who insists he is from another planet called K-PAX. This film is very funny, and Kevin Spacey pulls of well placed one liners as if it was his second nature. K-PAX is a smart film, and I wasn't expecting it to go where it did. In the end, I found myself thinking about the small things in life, and the wonder and magic of the every day life we so often take for granted. I left the theater with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and for families and couples on a date, K-PAX is a splendid film, that will not disappoint. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in something more than the monotonous releases of glossy, action packed, gore fests. Due to a very misleading advertising campaign, I saw this film in theatres at the relatively young age of 10. The trailers on TV portrayed the film as a comedy, and I bugged my parents until they took me. After seeing the movie, I was blown away. I had no idea what to think. Totally different than anything I had seen before, leaving far to many questions for such a young mind. Needless to say, I loved it. This morning was the first time I'd watched in in probably 2-3 years, and I still think it's one of the greatest films made in the last decade. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are both in top form, as a mysterious man who may or may not be from another planet, and the psychiatrist that develops a bond with him while trying to decipher his mystery. The supporting cast are near perfect as well, each resident of the mental institution is incredibly convincing in their own way. The open ending was handled very well, giving lots of evidence to support whatever you believe happened in the end. How this movie failed to receive at least a nomination in that year's Oscars is beyond me. If you haven't seen this film, run to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW. The DVD is usually in the bargain bin, pick it up!

9.5/10 This film IS brilliant...... without a doubt. Watched it a while ago after constant pestering from family members who are right into their sci-fi films (which I am not), and thought it was quite good. But after recently watching a few documentaries on outer-space etc we watched it again... and it IS good.

Kevin Spacey is without doubt one of the greatest actors ever and I really like Jeff Bridges (Big Lewbowski, Blown Away, Arlington Road). The film revolves around a patient in a nursing home who claims he is from another planet. Yeah right, you think... but what if his story is so believable that even his psychiatrist begins to wonder if he is telling the truth.

That is how the story evolves with Bridges going through all kinds of emotions dealing with Prot (as he is known), his own psychiatric colleagues, his wife and family, his brother-in-law and his cosmologist astronomer work colleagues (who after getting some data from Prot, pretty much admit that he might be telling the truth!) A great film... that get's you wondering.....

8/10 Dave Personally, I think Kevin Spacey is one of the greatest actors of his generation, maybe the greatest. This in combination with another amazing actor named Jeff Bridges, it can't be bad. And that's exactly what this movie is! "K-PAX" is one of the most pleasant surprises of the latest years. To start with has the movie a brilliantly written story. It's part of what makes the movie so great. The other aspect that contributes to the greatness of the movie is the acting. The combination Spacey-Bridges really works.

This was already the second time I saw the movie and I'm sure it won't be the last time. "K-PAX" has everything. There are moments which are extremely funny, parts that remind of a true thriller and others which reminds of high-class drama. I think this movie deserves a much higher rating and a lot more awards. Great movie!

9/10 I'm a fan of Jeff Bridges so I snapped this up on DVD without having seen it previously. I instantly became a fan of Kevin Spacey, also.

The general plot of "alien in human body" has, in my experience, been done to death, but I liked the approach taken in K-PAX, which struck me as quite different and much more sensitive than most. Bridges makes an excellent doctor (you *want* to tell him what's on your mind) and Spacey's expressions and gestures are perfect in the role.

The interaction between Prot and the entirely human characters in the clinic is delightful, particularly the subtle manipulation of their behaviour.

The ending is bittersweet - I like Prot's choice, but the final scenes (with Bridges) made me teary. Usually I do not like movies with/about aliens but K-PAX is different. The actors are great in the movie - especially Kevin Spacey played his character breathtaking! The movie never fall to a lower level - the suspense is always in the movie and you absolutely wanna know how it ends, what's about Prot... You have to think a lot after the movie over the movie because there are a few open questions... Is Robert Porter Prot or is Prot only using Robert Porters body as a means of transportation. How can he see uv-light and how can he know that much about astrology. But everybody can make his own end and can decide in what he wanna believe. Very good movie with an excellent Kevin Spacey! One of the best movies ever, the idea of a double interpretation involves we all.

Would be Prot a schizophrenic or an E.T? (No doubt in my opinion, but let's keep the question open...). Kevin Spacey, the big screen monster, plays Prot as it should be done. Let's not forget Jeff Bridges and his great psychiatric.

Lastly, a masterpiece that speakes for itself. Can keep our eyes wide open from the beginning to the credits and our minds thinking even when the movie is over. If you still didn't watch it, go right now! And again, again... Following a mugging incident at New York's Grand Central Station, an innocent bystander (Kevin Spacey, "The Usual Suspects") is arrested by police who believe him to be under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. We can understand why they think this, considering how the man politely informed them that he wears his dark glasses because "the light on your planet is really bright." And so Prot (as he identifies himself, pronounced as rhyming with "goat,") is shipped off to the Psychiatric Institute of Manhattan, where a weary workaholic doctor, Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges, "The Big Lebowski"), attempts to understand this man's so-called delusion.

Prot's manner is courteous and cooperative. When asked why he believes he has been institutionalised, he matter-of-factly replies that it is because "you think I'm crazy." Within minutes, after satisfying his insatiable newfound hunger for Earth-fruit, the completely forthright Prot has revealed that he is an extraterrestrial from the planet K-PAX, which resides 1000 light-years away, circling the binary star system Agape and Satori located in the Lyra constellation. He also details how his infinitely-more advanced species has already mastered faster-than-light travel, through harnessing the energy of light, an accomplishment that is allegedly eons away for the human race.

Powell is understandably very skeptical of these outrageous claims, though he is nevertheless fascinated by them, and commits himself to understanding how Prot came to believe such a thing. Meanwhile, Prot uses his time to observe his fellow patients in the psychiatric ward, eventually offering everybody around him something to live for, and hope of a cure. On July 27, Prot later reveals, he will depart again for K-PAX, and he can only take one human with him. Of what will actually happen on that date, nobody is certain.

Originally slated to play Dr. Powell – with Will Smith as Prot – Kevin Spacey stepped into the main role when Smith had to withdraw from the film. You can tell that he had a lot of fun with his character, the completely matter-of-fact delivery of his sometimes ridiculous dialogue ("Your produce alone has been worth the trip") often eliciting genuine laughter. There is undeniable intelligence behind many of Prot's words, but logic maintains that he must be delusional... mustn't he?

The audience is led back and forth between the possibilities – for the first segment of the film, we almost accept the possibility that Prot is an extraterrestrial (this is a sci-fi movie, isn't it?!), before being totally convinced when Prot inexplicably displays an impossible knowledge of the astronomy of a newly-discovered planet system. A final investigation by Dr. Powell offers us a neatly-packaged terrestrial explanation for Prot's delusions, but this is just as quickly whisked away, and we are left scratching our heads again. The film, quite rightly, keeps its ending open, leaving the audience to contemplate what they've just watched and to discuss it with those around them. Nevertheless, whether you believe Prot to be an alien or not, two irresistible certainties linger in your mind: the Universe is, indeed, a fascinating place, and perhaps there are higher forces that we humans are yet to discover. I was truly surprised when I first saw this movie directed by Iain Softley; it differs in so much ways from the usual Hollywood mass-production. The plot itself is simple - Kevin Spacey plays a mental patient Prot who claims to be from the planet K-pax who arrived to Earth by a beam of light, while Dr. Powell played by Jeff Bridges tries to help him to solve his delusions... First of all, I must admit the cast is perfectly chosen: Kevin Spacey is really brilliant in portraying the intriguing character of Prot, always walking in the fine line of convincing us that it is real and then making us wonder whether he is delusional or not... Some of the gem scenes include the one where Prot innocently eats the whole banana (even the peal) while in session with Dr. Powell; or the observatory scene where he confidently shows his knowledge of the K-Pax system to the astonished astronomers... Jeff Bridges on the other hand is the subtle, rational side of this movie, and he delivers it perfectly. There is a whole other cast of excellent actors (like Saul Williams' convincing performance as Ernie) who make this film truly work.

K-pax has it all, elements of comedy; Sci-Fi, even psychological thriller (concerning the Prot's identity) but most importantly it can be categorized as a heartwarming drama. The main premise of the movie is quite intricate, but the director never lets it get loose, he always keeps it believable and yet two-ways interpretable. The camera and photography have almost a crucial part here, continuing the main idea of light travel, there is much focus on light-shadow play, lightning settings - one of the memorable scenes is where Dr. Powell holds a crystal figure in his office which refracts light in a beautiful way while all the time he suspects can the idea be true?

Subtle and slow paced, intriguing and pleasurable, K-pax is truly a gem to watch, one of the kind movie that may not be for all tastes, but those who see it - might fall in love with it. In KPAX Softley brushes on the subtleties of Eastern Religious Mores from the small archetypes embedded all over the film to the actual purpose of Prot. Spacey (Prot) assumes a predominantly didactic role throughout the entire film - it is as if the statements he makes embody general truths about a culture of peace which is strongly promulgated in Buddhism and Hinduism. It can be said that Prot is the eye of the storm - the world is in disarray and is 'bright' and the false veil of reality is what everyone else sees, but Prot sees truth - he sees the minute - and appreciates it and at some points fears it as he transcends his social construction of reality and becomes more humanly.

The film is particularly detailed, therefore I would recommend that you watch it at least twice to see how Softley interjects nuances. Listen carefully to the narratives at the beginning and end as they truly touch on concepts not commonly presented in western philosophies.

9 of out 10 rating - Superb - with nominal room for improvement. The always delightful Kevin Spacey makes us once again question certain truths in our lives. After driving us into believing he is a mumbling small time crook (only to expose the true power of cinematic deception) in the classic The Usual Suspect; this time around he leads us into believing he is Prot, a likable alien who assumes a human form whilst strolling around the Earth.

Prot is a peculiar stranger who has seemingly appeared out of nowhere, only to be hospitalized in the Manhattan Psychiatric Institution. Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) soon takes extreme interest in him, and even finds himself pondering if Prot is actually a supreme being from planet K-PAX, or perhaps he is only a forgotten human being with severe psychiatric issues. While the ending can be seen and discussed in many ways, it remains a complex, enlightening journey which leaves a gr eat deal of intriguing/philosophical questions behind it. If you have enjoyed the Butterfly Effect, Donnie Darko or The Machinist, you will enjoy K-Pax too.

To me, this movie felt really uplifting and yet depressing in the end. Spacey delivers a great performance as Prot. Also, lets not forget the appearance of Saul Williams in the movie, who i am a big fan of.

After watching it, i recommended the movie to lots of my friends, and everyone was pretty much blown away.

But still, it is very underrated, maybe because of the lack of action and explosions. I'm sorry, this is not a movie about blowing things up, it's about how humans behave, and how people live in worlds that don't exist.

Go on, and enjoy. at least for me. and rather unexpected -as subject. a movie that makes you question your beliefs, your life, your approach on everything. that helps you see the world you , we live in through a lens - or a multitude of lens...a moving, surprising and haunting movie.

and it benefits of one of the best performances ever from Kevin Spacey. seconded very well by Jeff Bridges. there isn't a false note in this tango. it's a perfect dance. perfect 'till the end.

what does the ending reveal ? well...everything you want it to...

a movie one will want to see again. maybe not right away. maybe after a few days. months. years. but it's something to go - or come - back to. This is a movie that will leave you thinking, is he or isn't he? While many people have complained about the ambiguous ending, it gives room for the audience to think and interpret it from the signs. This is my interpretation and theory, and I believe it is very sound.

First, here is the plot. One day, Prot (Kevin Spacey) suddenly appears in the midst of a busy train station. After attempting to help a woman from muggers, he is arrested and sent to Bellevue, and later transferred to Dr. Mark Powell's (Jeff Bridges) hospital. Prot freely talks about how he came from the planet K-Pax and is here to do a report on Earth. Naturally, he is classified as a looney and is locked up in a low security level ward. He befriends the other patients and quickly convinces them of his story. In fact, he tells them he can take one person back with him. Soon Dr. Powell is beginning to question Prot's insanity and as the plot progresses, it is harder and harder to prove Prot wrong.

In the end, Dr. Powell learns that Prot is Robert Porter, a smart man who worked in a slaughter house in New Mexico, when his wife and daughter were murdered. Prot claims that he plans to leave for K-Pax at a precise time on the fifth anniversary of the murders. The time comes and goes, and Powell finds Prot or Robert in a catatonic state. One of the patients is missing and is never found again.

On to my theory: Prot is not crazy. Prot is from the planet K-Pax. Robert Porter is a friend of Prot's. On one of Prot's previous visits to Earth, Robert was a child, learning about the constellations from his father. Prot and Robert became best friends. After the death of his family, and Robert slaying the murderer, Robert decides to commit suicide. Prot is on K-Pax at the time, but he rushes back (in multiples of light speed) to stop Robert. So Prot takes over the thinking of Robert, taking over his body so to speak. Awhile later, Prot (still inhabiting Robert's body) comes to New York and is locked up. When he leaves for K-Pax on July 27, he takes Bess with him, but he must leave Robert's body behind. Hence, we now have the catatonic Robert.

Explanations or clues:

PROT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANETS AROUND LIBRA: As Prot says, any child knows about their own system. Only a few people on Earth had an inkling about the system, and Prot added to their knowledge. Robert Porter, while smart and knows his constellations, was no astro-physicist.

DR POWELL FEELS CHOSEN BY PROT: It's true. Prot could've left the institute at any time, but chose not too. Prot's last words to Dr. Powell are, "Now that you've found Robert. Take care of him." Prot was probably staying there to ensure a place for Robert when he left.

SUPER-HUMAN ABILITIES: It was a proven fact that Prot had a significantly higher sensitivity to sunlight and could even see UV rays. Prot provides his usual K-Pax reason, but there was no Earthly reason given. It was also mentioned that Prot was given extremely high doses of medicine with no effect.

HELPING THE PATIENTS: Throughout the movie, you see Prot helping the other patients (or the patients discussing Prot's suggestions) to a better sane world. While the psychologist balk at Prot's help, Dr. Powell talks at the end of the movie about the new lives the patients are leading.

THE SPRINKLER SCENE: The sprinkler is associated with Porter's home in New Mexico (which is ironically where Roswell is). Does Porter associate the sprinkler with the death of his family? Is her trying to protect Powell's daughter from that horrible fate? I have a different point of view. It is assumed that Porter had committed suicide in a river. Indeed, Prot (under hypnosis) is greatly concerned about Robert. I believe that Prot associates the danger with the water, not the sprinkler. He is trying to protect the girl from watery death, like he did Robert.

HYPNOSIS: Dr. Powell feels that under hypnosis he can uncover Prot's true identity, but while Prot gives plenty of information, he never gives up his Prot persona and claimed homeland of K-Pax.

THE SECURITY CAMERA: Why would the camera just give out for no apparent reason?

MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES: First, Prot disappeared for a few days to his trip up north. Funny, the patients are not at all alarmed. Indeed, they try to reassure the doctor. Sometimes I think they understand better than the staff. Naturally, the most telling disappearance is of Bess, the winner of the essay contest. Not only does she disappear at the approximate same time, but the only remaining clue is her winning essay.

This is only my humble theory. You can conclude what you want. You can take Dr. Powell's theory, that Prot was merely a persona taken up by Robert Porter to mentally defend himself from reality, but that would be giving up too many plot holes. Just watched this and it was amazing. Was in serious doubt about renting the DVD or not. So if you are...and like watching other than brainless action-movies...don't hesitate any longer. Don't let the dull cover put you off. The script is one of the best ever. Inteligent, funny, original, touching and keeps you at the edge of the seat through the whole movie. I had already watched another movie right before this one and was really sleepy, and usually I get bored on watching a second movie in one night, but this one really made me wake up and didn't have any boring moments. It also made me rethink a lot of things in life and gave me a really good feeling.

Also the acting is great (one of Kevin Spacey's best roles). The visuals are beautiful and the use of music is very well-chosen. If I have to come up with something negative to say about it....well....I can't really find anything......Enjoy! 10 out of 10 Well, not much really to say about this. But it is really good. Very good job from Softley directing and the movie have good cast of acting. Movies plot is also believable and... hehe good. So the good is main word in this case. I just hope there would be more this kind scifi movies. Thats why this one s pointed out in the crowd. I give it 8.5 of 10 A beautiful, magical, thought-provoking and heart-warming story. Excellent direction, perfect cast, marvellous script, excellent score, beautifully lit...... need I say more?

If you love films that not only make you think but also warm your heart (some that spring to mind are 'Contact', 'Field of Dreams' and 'Groundhog Day') then you're sure to love K-PAX.

Most highly recommended. Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.

This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.

Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.

K-PAX is rated PG-13 for "a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality", and that covers it. As far as "violent images" go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 "f" word (wow, only one!), 11 "s" words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The "sensuality" part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like "having your nuts in a vice." Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.

In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.

Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8/10 I thought this movie was highly underrated. The subject matter does seem like it would be a little strange, and I was put off at first, but once I was watching the movie, it didn't seem strange at all. I was intrigued with all the different possibilities that the story had to offer, and I couldn't wait to find out how it would end. Once it did end....I thought about it for a long time after. I was pleased with everything about K-Pax, from the acting and the story and the scientific elements and psychological issues, to the ending. It's not an especially upbeat or happy film, though it does make you chuckle from time to time, but I found it to be especially entertaining and thought-provoking. I own it now, and intend to watch it many times. If you like movies that will make you think, this is absolutely one of the good ones. I always liked David Lynch and Cronenberg. They have always made high-quality movies.

Iain Softley has directed K-PAX brilliantly. The movie tears in feelings and philosophy of the mind and world. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges both delivers superb acting skills. It caught me, I did not take my eyes away from the screen during the movie. On the other hand, if you are hoping for a special effect sci-fi movie, this is not for you. The story is being dragged a bit, which can be a bit boring, but also works as a way of building up the theme of the movie.

Enjoy this film, I did.. (Possible *SPOILERS* warning)

You never know. The guy keeps telling he's an alien but... oops, seems to be the most human in the whole story. Arrived from distant planet. Said weird things. Advanced the Earth's science. Healed the doctor... Or was it just a crazy dream? You never know. Better see K-PAX for yourself. Think.

Great acting of all the cast. Don't forget to notice the music, it's right in a place. Lot of fun, some sadness. 8 of 10, after all. *May be spoilers* No doubt one of the best dramas if not the best in the genre I've ever seen. Is Prot an alien or just a crazy bugger? This is the question you'll be asking yourself all throughout the movie.

Kevin Spacey is simply amazing, as is Jeff Bridges. You can't beat this kind of acting plus some humour at times. Some of Kevin Spaceys actions in this movie are very funny. When he was up in the tree, for example, and when he was talking to the "queen" mental patient, the way he hid half his face around the wall and just stared.

To simply put it, right from the start you'll be hooked, and if you really love drama's you won't be dissapointed.

A solid 85%. Who's the man~~~ what's that I hear? A resounding cry of Kevin? Well if you didn't shout for the 'usual suspect' I'd recommend changing your medicated prescription. Anyway this Is no first class movie, just a very well produced story, that is almost believable. Considering its about an Alien your probably wondering what the? All acting is top stuff and also the first I've seen a balanced, sarcastic Alien. Just enjoyable is all I can say and almost for the whole family (if not for the scene later in the movie). SEVEN STARS at last, a movie that handles the probability of alien visits with the appropriate depth and loving warmth. just in case we're not alone, i do believe that these visitors are just too touristíc to care for us or give that wayward bunch of anthropocentric goofs a stable proof of their existence. we wouldn't interfere in the battle rites of some agitated desert tribe either, unless we're out for messing with our travel insurance, huh?

anyway, the movie depicts the transitional cathexis of a weary mind and body by a superior entity. that happens quite unspectacular and rather unrecognized, but we're dealing with a movie here, right? so prot's hospitalization is just a trigger to the plot.

jeff bridges acts great as usual, but spacey is hilarious. the role seems tailored downright to him, convincing and lovingly "mad". eating unpeeled bananas, sitting in a tree, giving his doctor a hard time with quickness, wisdom and (most of all!) stunning quotes. they made me think and philosophize for hours already.

it's an encouraging film, to say the least, and the soundtrack by edward shearmur is simply beautiful. just go and get a copy. catch a beam of light. now. After watching this movie once, it quickly became one of my favorites. As different events happen in the movie, you change your mind about Prot, back and forth, until the end and even after. The movie is very thought-provoking and a must-watch!! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I had read the book a good ten years ago and was intrigued about how it would translate to film.

The screenplay is very true to the book, which I was charmed by - this is a rarity in itself these days. The characterisations were solid and believeable, and the stroytelling kept me shifting in my perceptions, even though I already knew the ending from the book.

An intelligent and well crafted film. Kevin Spacey again picks a winner with K-PAX, an endearing movie that expresses profound revelations at human existence via the Prot character's naive, yet at the same time unquestionably wise, point of view.

It's enjoyable trying to work out 'if he is or he isn't' as the plot expands and the Robert Porter character gets fleshed out. However some may find the ending a little unsatisfying but in reality it couldn't have been any other way.

My few issues with the film revolve around the rather cartoony and over simplified portrayal of mental patients. I was surprised because the films plot shows a great deal of intelligence and I don't feel it would have lost anything by being more honest regarding how people with mental health problems behave.

That said, I realise this was a movie and not a documentary and the film itself is exquisitly shot and the story unwraps at a pleasing rate.

Bridges is great and Spacey delivers a languid and relaxed performance, more like a stand-up than an alien.

A good film that will get you talking with your friends. I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the "morals of the story" a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final "is he or isn't he". That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8/10 'War movie' is a Hollywood genre that has been done and redone so many times that clichéd dialogue, rehashed plot and over-the-top action sequences seem unavoidable for any conflict dealing with large-scale combat. Once in a while, however, a war movie comes along that goes against the grain and brings a truly original and compelling story to life on the silver screen. The Civil War-era "Cold Mountain," starring Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renée Zellweger is such a film.

Then again, calling Cold Mountain" a war movie is not entirely accurate. True enough, the film opens with a (quite literally) quick-and-dirty battle sequence that puts "Glory" director Edward Zwick shame. However, "Cold Mountain" is not so much about the Civil War itself as it is about the period and the people of the times. The story centers around disgruntled Confederate soldier Inman, played by Jude Law, who becomes disgusted with the gruesome war and homesick for the beautiful hamlet of Cold Mountain, North Carolina and the equally beautiful southern belle he left behind, Ada Monroe, played by Nicole Kidman. At first glance, this setup appears formulaic as the romantic interest back home gives the audience enough sympathy to root for the reluctant soldier's tribulations on the battlefield. Indeed, the earlier segments of the film are relatively unimpressive and even somewhat contrived.

"Cold Mountain" soon takes a drastic turn, though, as the intrepid hero Inman turns out to be a deserter (incidentally saving the audience from the potentially confusing scenario of wanting to root for the Confederates) and begins a long odyssey homeward. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Ada's cultured ways prove of little use in the fields; soon she is transformed into something of a wilderbeast. Coming to Ada's rescue is the course, tough-as-nails Ruby Thewes, played by Renée Zellweger, who helps Ada put the farm back together and, perhaps more importantly, cope with the loneliness and isolation the war seems to have brought upon Ada.

Within these two settings, a vivid, compelling and, at times, very disturbing portrait of the war-torn South unfolds. The characters with whom Inman and Ada interact are surprisingly complex, enhanced by wonderful performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ruby's deadbeat father, Ray Winstone as an unrepentant southern "lawman," and Natalie Portman as a deeply troubled and isolated young mother. All have been greatly affected and changed by "the war of Northern aggression," mostly for the worse. The dark, pervading anti-war message, accented by an effective, haunting score and chillingly beautiful shots of Virginia and North Carolina, is communicated to the audience not so much by gruesome battle scenes as by the scarred land and traumatized people for which the war was fought. Though the weapons and tactics of war itself have changed much in the past century, it's hellish effect on the land is timelessly relevant.

Director Anthony Minghella manages to maintain this gloomy mood for most of the film, but the atmosphere is unfortunately denigrated by a rather tepid climax that does little justice to the wonderfully formed characters. The love story between Inman and Ada is awkwardly tacked onto the beginning and end of the film, though the inherently distant, abstracted and even absurd nature of their relationship in a way fits the dismal nature of the rest of the plot.

Make no mistake, "Cold Mountain" has neither the traits of a feel-good romance nor an inspiring war drama. It is a unique vision of an era that is sure not only to entertain but also to truly absorb the audience into the lives of a people torn apart by a war and entirely desperate to be rid of its terrible repercussions altogether. This movie moved me more than I was expecting, and I was fully prepared to cry. The acting mainly carried this film, with superb performances from Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger, as well as the supporting cast. These actors portrayed characters so intensely human that they lingered the remainder of the night with me, and I had trouble shaking this war drama. The costumes and cinematography were also magical, but didn't get carried away with themselves. They didn't take focus, but added to the whole effect. Cold Mountain could never become my favorite movie, as that title will always belong to The English Patient, but it's in the top five. The story itself was well developed, and stayed fairly unpredictable. I did not find myself guessing what line came next. A heart-wrenching story about humanity and war. In fact, this movie was so strongly real that it was barely noticeable it took place in the 19th century. It seemed to apply to all times. Anthony Minghela's (writer/director) Cold Mountain is a carefully constructed, sensitive, and intelligent drama set in the social context of the confederacy during the civil war, which deals with the politics of the war in a very subtle and realistic manner. While it accurately depicts the brutality and inhumanity of that war, it also does something that many films related to this period to not handle as effectively - Cold Mountain studies the southern context from the inside out, and portrays changes among the non-slave owning common people wrought by the war. And, almost uniquely, Cold Mountain does not over-generalize southerners, northerners or anybody else.

The film surfs through genres as needed - never presenting a dull moment. It is a romance, a war story, an action-adventure and historical fiction, all nicely woven into one.

The story centers on Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), who are smitten with each other for very simple reasons. As this young romance begins to bud, Inman enlists in the confederate army, taking with him a book Ada has given him and a photograph of her. Ada's character is one of the most brilliant aspects of the film, which is important because the audience experiences this film from a third person perspective, but the story is clearly hers from the beginning to the end. Ada is an intelligent southern belle and daughter of a liberal minister. She begins the film as a daddy's girl skilled in many of the arts that southern women who have been surrounded by servants most of their lives were expected to learn. In other words, as she admits to Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger), she is a master of everything useless.

Ada's father passes on, and she is left to manage his modest estate by herself. With no experience of this sort, she struggles, and survives by holding the memory of Inman close to her heart. Ruby enters the picture as a tough young woman who has been raised by a drunk and negligent father. Ruby has all the skills and abilities Ada lacks, and as they become inseparable business partners, they grow to love one another as best friends. Inman's experience is radically different, but something of a mirror image. During his participation in the war, he sees many friends killed for causes they don't really believe in, and decides to desert. Nobody he meets comes to his rescue as he begins the thousand mile walk back to Cold Mountain and Ada, and most of those he meets die.

The bulk of the film takes place during Inman's long walk, following both of the protagonists as they live, learn, grow and change. An on-going act of will borne of desperation preserves their intense passionate love. For Inman, it is his only source of hope in a world of pure desperation. For Ada, it is very much the same thing, but also a symbol and remnant of the old south - a world which is rapidly passing.

The cinematography is powerful and breathtaking. There are beautiful shots of Appalachian landscapes which give the film a strong sense of history. The script and editing are also extremely strong - emphasizing the broad class and educational differences reflected in the ante bellum southern dialects of the middle and lower classes. With the cast of this film, nothing short of perfection should be expected. And the cast, mostly, rises to the occasion. My one criticism, however, relates to the accents adopted by Kidman and Law's characters. An Australian and a Brit probably should not be expected to accurately reproduce southern American speech, but there are a few occasions where these two exceptionally gifted actors produce distracting vocal slips. I admit my oversensitivity to this, and can say with some confidence that it won't bother most people. Zellweger's performance is outstanding and she creates a character I will remember into my senescence.

Very highly recommended. In Cold Mountain, North Colorado, near to the period of the American Civil War, the Reverend Monroe (Donald Sutherland) arrives in the small town with his daughter, the shy Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), due to health reasons. Ada meets the also shy Inman (Jude Law), and they fall in love with each other. With the beginning of the war, Inman becomes a soldier, and his great support to stay alive is the wish to see Ada in Cold Mountain again. Meanwhile, Ada meets Ruby Thewes (Renée Zellweger), a survivor of the war, who helps her in the farm and becomes her best friend. The story alternates present and past situations, disclosing a beautiful romance. I liked this film a lot. Having names such as Philip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman and Giovanni Ribisi in the supporting cast, a magnificent direction of Anthony Minghella and seven indications to the Oscar, this movie does not disappoint. My remark is that there are some very important scenes deleted in the story and presented in the DVD. At least one of them, which show what happens with Sara, her baby and the three dead bodies in her farm, should not be deleted as it was. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Cold Mountain' I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.

Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards.

It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own.

The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least).

I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield. This movie worked for me because I see this movie as an exact opposite of 'Gone With The Wind.' Farm owners instead of plantation owners. Scarlett fights and connives for what she wants; Ada gets depressed and turns inside herself until Ruby, (Renee Zellweger,) shows up to save the day. Sort of, in a round about way. Deserters instead of officers trying to get back to their families, the lists goes on and on. Even the love story was opposite. If this is what the producer and writers were trying to get across it succeeded with me.

There are only two things I didn't like about the movie, the rest I thought was well done and I liked it enough to recommend it to friends. First, I couldn't see the attraction between Inman, (Jude Law), and Ada, (Nicole Kidman,) as being strong enough for Inman to desert to get back to her. Inman said he only had written to her a few times where Ada wrote to him almost constantly. Second, something or someone getting killed or dying in almost every scene was a little much. I must say it was full of action because of that, but after about the second scene I knew something or someone was going to die in the next scene. I like to be surprised by the next scene, not know what is going to happen before it does.

I thought all the acting was very well done, with Zellweger the best. She deserved the credit she got for it. I thought she played the part of the hillbilly girl very well. She must have done her homework on the part. Zellweger even said in the movie that she was smarter than people thought she was. I think that was true. Law did well with his part with all he had to go through to get back to Kidman. It must have been a lot stronger love to go through all that than I thought it was. Now he showed a lot of emotion in his face during his trials. Kidman's part may have had something to do with the fact I chose her performance after the other two. Except when she was depressed she didn't show much emotion, I don't know if that is how the part was written or if that is how she perceived the part. She still did a good job, I just thought the other two were better.

I liked the scene with the Zellweger, Kidman and the rooster, even though it was one of those scenes I mentioned above. I thought the 'Home Guard' was exactly as they probably were back then. Even though we don't hear much about them they were a part of that time. I thought the scenery was beautiful. The movie had everything needed to be a good historical romance. Well, i expected, for all the hype and Oscar nominations, an epic Civil war drama (& something with the "magnitude" of the "English Patient" given the same director). This film isn't of epic stature, but it turns out i was relieved it wasn't. It's a love story in the midst of the horrors of war where young men are sent off to fight, deserters are tracked and killed, and the women and children at home are left to fend for themselves while the men are gone.

Anyway i thought Nicole Kidman and Rene Zelleweger were pretty decent and not knowing much about Jude Law, he was all right, also. It seems Rene Z. had the more fun part of the 3 leads and was able to smartly play a spirited, feisty downhome woman with much aplomb. Also for me it was good to see actress, Kathy Baker...someone's who's talent needs to be more recognized/acknowledged.

This film is worth seeing this -- i'm can't articulate why really, but maybe because it is a slice of Americana.

I just saw the DVD and loved it. In particular, I thought the director and Jude and Nicole did an amazing job with the kiss between Inman and Ada just before Inman left. It was the most romantic kiss I've ever seen in a film. I thought it was crucial for setting the tone for the rest of the movie; it managed to make it believable that Inman and Ada would walk/wait, respectively, for each other for all that time without ever really having had a relationship. I thought the film managed this crucial plot point much better than the book itself. I'm sure many of you will be quick to name other film kisses which best this one, but this one is it for me! Jude and Nicole had showed incredible chemistry in the far too few scenes they had together. I watched Cold Mountain and the English Patient again this weekend. The former is a Civil War melodrama about Inman (Jude Law), a Confederate soldier who deserts the army to return to Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) a girl he barely knows. Both films were lovingly directed by Anthony Minghella who does an exceptional job. Although, Cold Mountain is very good it could have been a great movie with the right casting and less folksy, backwoods dialog.

Romantic epics need a convincing heroine. The English Patient, had Kristin Scott Thomas who was perfectly cast as the smart, alluring and beautiful Katherine Clifton. The main problem with Cold Mountain is Ada who seems silly and dim-witted and lacks that quality would make you believe that Inman could become obsessed after one kiss. As an actress Kidman has a limited range, she usually plays stern-faced women who face adversity with stoicism. Kidman was also too old to play the ingénue and Law's love interest. The film needed a young actress who could play charming, warm and vulnerable. For someone who was supposedly enduring hardship and near starvation she seemed ridiculously well-fed and over-dressed. Kidman was so impeccably groomed that it looked like she had spent three hours getting made-up for each scene. Michele Pfieffer in her younger days could have played the part perfectly. Even Natalie Portman would have been an improvement.

Renee Zelleweger was more appropriately attired but her animated performance chewed the scenery but maybe she was trying to compensate for Kidman. Jude Law was in his own silent movie in the Odysseus role, but played his part well. Ray Winstone was excellent as the London/Southern villain.

During the Civil War, people were probably not very well educated by today's standards and maybe they did speak in monosyllables. However if you watch BBC adaptations of Dickens, Austen or Mrs. Gaskill everyone is articulate. Maybe this is unrealistic but it would improved my entertainment. Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it. First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B I saw this movie as part of the Midnite Madness at Sitges. Set in 18th century England, the plot covers the life of Arthur Blake from his first outing as an apprentice grave robber to his final confession on the eve of his execution.

The plot moves along via a series of misadventures involving Arthur and his partner encountering various unsavory characters and bizarre situations.

The first thing that strikes you about this movie is how accurately they managed to capture the look of the Hammer period horrors, the atmosphere is set with lots of fog laden graveyards, rowdy tavern scenes and excellent set/costume design.

For a movie titled I Sell the Dead, I was expecting the emphasis to be mostly on horror – don't get me wrong there are some jumpy moments and gore, but the tone is very much comedic, driven by the situations the characters get themselves into and their dialog. The closest comparison to the scenes between the two leads (Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan) is the character interaction seen in the classic English comedies Only Fools and Horses, the Two Ronnies and Morecambe and Wise.

The acting is strong and the casting of very familiar faces in Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm lift the movie above many of the others on view in Sitges.

Overall the movie offers something very different to the current crop of mainstream horror and will leave a smile on your face. I went to see Glenn McQuaid's "I Sell The Dead" in it's North American premiere at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. Seeing as this is the second showing worldwide I didn't quite know what to expect of this film, especially having not seen the short film that inspired this big screen adaptation.

I'll start off with a slightly more elaborate plot synopsis, without giving away any spoilers.

This movie is about Arthur Blake, how he became a grave robber and the interesting and supernatural discoveries that both he and his mentor discovered.

The costume and set design in this film were excellent. I was amazed to hear that the entire film was shot in and around New York. The costumes were very accurate to the time, really bringing you as a viewer into the mindset of the time. This movie works just as well as a period-piece as it does a horror-comedy.

The interaction between the two leads was very fluid. They played off each others acting with ease. The dialogue between the two was very well written, with Glenn adding his comedic touch even in tense situations.

The story is very encompassing and the ball gets rolling from the very start. I'd compare it to a visual page turner, always wondering just what will happen next. The characters themselves are all very vivid and unique adding different emotional layers to the film itself.

All in all, I recommend this film for anyone in the mood for some dark humour, with a bit of horror mixed in.

9/10 I sell the dead revolves around convicted grave robber Arthur Blake. Blake's friend and fellow grave robber Willie Grimes has just been executed and Blake is going to follow suit the next morning. While he sits in his cell awaiting his execution a priest named Father Duffy comes in and asks him if he will tell all he has seen as a grave robber. He then proceeds to give Father Duffy a quasi biography of his more interesting exploits.

The plot pretty much consists of several incidents only tied together by chronology. This prevents the viewer from ever getting bored but it also makes the events less significant as you could easily add or remove a lot of scenes without noticing it much. Though flawed, I thought overall this method added to the fun loving nature of the film and kept it very entertaining. Most of the various stories are good, specifically the alien, the Murphy's and the vampire, but others weren't so great.

The acting isn't amazing but I didn't find it bad at any point. Dominic Monaghan had a good performance as he managed to be serious when it mattered and also play very well into the comedic parts of the film.

The characters were not extremely in-depth, but they were all interesting. I also enjoyed how a number of the villains were done in a over-the-top almost comic book manner. The part with the back story of the Murphy's and their gang is priceless.

So overall, I Sell the Dead very successfully combines horror, comedy and sci-fi into a mish mash of fun and excitement. It is one of the more interesting and original movies I have seen in a while, and it's unfortunate that independent films like this don't get more recognition. I just saw this at SIFF, and I absolutely loved it. There were parts where I laughed so hard I couldn't catch my breath. The script and direction by Glenn McQuaid are fantastic. I can't wait to see more from this talented young man. The performances make the movie. Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan are just delightful as the graverobber Willy and his apprentice Arthur. Ron Perlman turns in a fantastic performance (as usual) as a less-than-sympathetic jailhouse priest. Bonus: Angus Scrimm as an unscrupulous doctor! As always, he balances menace and humor perfectly.

This is a style of horror comedy that really hasn't been seen since Vincent Price did "Comedy of Terrors," "The Raven," and "Theater of Blood." The movie is genuinely scary in places, then it'll suddenly flip back into hilarious mode, keeping you totally off balance. Some parts are scary and funny at the same time.

I can only afford to see three movies at SIFF this year, but even if the other two are awful, "I Sell The Dead" was worth the price of all three. I'm going to be looking for more movies from Larry Fessenden's Glass Eye Pix. He's giving the horror genre a much-needed kick in the butt. This film was really a breath of fresh air from the load of Hollywood crap I've seen recently. The acting is superb and the characters are engaging and oddly endearing. There really isn't much to the story, it's simple and it works well. An easy film to just sit down and enjoy. The mood was fantastic and the sets really helped push the movie along and offered some nice visuals. The film obviously has aspects of horror, yet is geared a little more towards the humorous side of things. You won't be laughing out loud hysterically with this one, but you'll be smiling the whole way through. The humor works very well with the characters and the superb acting doesn't hurt. I really watched this movie based on the fact that Ron Perlman was in it. His role is a bit smaller than I expected, but it doesn't matter; the rest of the cast does more than enough to keep you engaged. If you like horror, watch this. If you like comedies, watch this. Just go ahead and watch this anyway, it's really quite excellent. If you want to see a great little horror comedy with an eerie feel to it this is the one. If you are expecting a blood and guts gore flick thats going to scare your pants off- then this isn't the one for you.

For the budget that this movie was filmed on, the music was particularly amazing! Even though the film was filmed on a bargain budget the music and audio was definitely better than most movies with a huge budget!

The story was truly well done and the director is to be commended. There is an almost perfect blend of comedy to horror in this movie! The acting is top notch and leaves room to make a sequel which I am definitely holding out for! I have no doubt that this movie will become an instant cult classic.

In a nutshell this movie chronicles the life story of a boy who enters into the career of becoming a grave-robber. It tells the story in flashback of each of the more fantastic experiences that the robber duo encounters. Vampires to Zombies and even aliens! Our stars start out as simple grave-robbers stealing for jewellery but quickly become body snatchers for a mad doctor (Angus Scrim) who requires bodies for his medical practise. When the duo find a way to have a vampire dispatch their cruel employer the grave-robbers discover that trafficking in undead corpses is much more profitable than just stealing regular dead bodies. The only problem is that there is another gang called the house of Murphy that is competing for the same undead corpses- and thats where both grave-robbing gangs clash head to head with dire consequences.

This movie is one of the most refreshing and exciting horror comedies that I have seen in years and reminds me of the Evil Dead. Don't miss this one, you will regret it! (Note: I saw I SELL THE DEAD at the Glasgow International Film Festival on 20th January 2009.) I Sell the Dead is a jet black horror comedy set in late medieval times, and stars Dominic Monaghan (Lost, Lord of the Rings), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Larry Fessenden (Session 9) and Angus Scrimm (Phantasm).

The movie opens with grave-robber Willie Grimes (Fessenden), still indignant and unremorseful, being dragged to the guillotine and executed. His apprentice and partner-in-crime Arthur Blake (Monaghan) is locked in the tower awaiting his turn when Father Duffy (Perlman), a whiskey-swilling priest with an unhealthy interest in the occult, pays him a visit with the apparent intention of recording Blake's final confession. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Duffy main interest lies in the more... otherworldly side of Blake's exploits. Most of the plot from here is told in flashback form as Monaghan regails Duffy with tales of his macabre career.

Initially, Grimes and Blake start out as simple wise-cracking body snatchers, working in the employ of the ghoulish Dr Quint (Scrimm), a callous, corrupt anatomist who uses blackmail as leverage over our two anti-heroes, and takes a rather unhealthy relish in his work. The pair have their first run-in with the undead when, one evening, Quint sends them on a mission to a bleak moonlit moor to retrieve a corpse that has been mysteriously interred at a crossroads, apparently according to some ancient custom. But there's something different about this corpse. This one has been wrapped in cloves of garlic... and buried with a stake through it's heart...

Following a terrifying encounter, not only do they devise a plan to rid themselves of the scheming Doctor's machinations, but they also uncover a secretive subculture of occultists who will pay good money for corpses, and even better money for LIVING SPECIMENS of the undead. This leads our intrepid duo into the hidden underworld of the "ghoul hunting" trade, where they find themselves going head-to-head not only with vampires, monsters and zombies (and one other paranormal entity for which I will not spoil the surprise), but also rival ghoul hunters in the form of the inbred and murderous Murphy clan.

I went into I Sell the Dead expecting a low-key, mildly distracting, low budget chiller. I was not prepared for the incredible imagination, giddy humour, quality acting, great dialogue, thick atmosphere and sheer personality that makes I Sell the Dead a strong early contender for my horror film of the year.

With the exception of a couple of rough edges, the production values are truly fantastic for such a low budget flick - it looks like it was made for about $20 million, and I was surprised when the director told the audience it was made for significantly less than half of that (although he was unwilling to give exact figures as the film was still being sold to distributors). The "look" and tone of the film is a visual comic book somewhere between Tim Burton and Hammer Horror, with smart little Creepshow-esquire artwork inserts. The plot is wonderfully surreal, but the idea of a hidden underworld, running parallel to everyday life but which the general populace is either unable or unwilling to believe in, is one that actually makes quite good sense within the context of the film.

The acting, as you'd expect from this cast, is top notch. The characters are fleshed out surprisingly well, particularly Grimes and Blake, and all the actors deliver their sharply scripted lines with just the right amount of deadpan tongue in cheek to make the dialogue both hilarious and realistic. Angus Scrimm also turns in a good performance in a somewhat brief but memorable role as the gently menacing, violin-playing anatomist Doctor Quinn.

Conclusion - I loved it. It's a long time since I was so entertained by a movie. I struggle to find anything bad to say about it. Mark my words, this is one of those cult films like Evil Dead 2 or Phantasm that people will still be discovering and falling in love with 20, 30, 40 years down the line. This movie was fun, if all over the board.

It essentially follows the comedic romp of two grave-robbers in 19th century England, who move from conventional body snatching to trafficking in vampires, zombies and dead Roswell aliens. (I have no idea what the Roswell alien was doing in there, and neither did the producers, I think.)

But was it funny? You bet. Even Ron Perlman, who is often the kiss of Direct to DVD Death was pretty good in this one as a priest who turns out to be the ringleader of a rival gang of body-snatchers.

A real joy to watch this hilarious little film, and a good example of what you can do when you don't have larger than life egos on either side of the camera. When people harp on about how "they don't make 'em like they used to" then just point them towards this fantastically entertaining, and quaint-looking, comedy horror from writer-director Glenn McQuaid.

It's a tale of graverobbers (played by Dominic Monaghan and Larry Fessenden) who end up digging up more than just silent, immobile corpses. After the initial shock of this they soon realise that they can actually turn the situation to their advantage. And that's just what they try to do. Mind you, it seems as if things may not have worked out quite as they planned as poor young Arthur (Monaghan) is actually relating his tale to a priest (Ron Perlman) before being taken to the gallows.

Looking at the detail of his filmography, McQuaid seems to have taken the core of his first, short movie and expanded it to this feature effort, which is no bad thing. Fessenden returns and does well, Monaghan is one of those guys who can actually still get you to like him while he goes about the nefarious business of stealing from the dead and with other genre favourites such as Perlman and Angus Scrimm on the scene this film is a lot of fun for genre fans.

It also benefits from a unique and favourable design and look, at times moving from E.C. Comic-style panels into live action (a la Creepshow) and always somehow feeling quite authentic in it's Hammer Horror feel. Maybe everything is just covered over with so much dry ice but that's beside the point. Whatever was done to capture everything on film, it works. It works well.

It may not have any actual scares but this film does have a great vein of black humour and definitely soaks every minute of it's runtime in macabre material that should please all of those who have the patience for horror that's a little bit more sedate and feels like it definitely could have been made back in the days of Hammer.

See this if you like: The Flesh And The Fiends, The Doctor And The Devils, Creepshow. OK. Finally, a horror film that's done well. As soon as I heard the music, I knew that some effort had been made in creating what I consider to be an almost masterpiece of good ol'horror. Zombies, whores, booze, grave snatching and a lot more. A great cast, well acted, well directed, well written---there was hardly a flaw. Even the American actors with Irish/English accents really pulled it off. I thought that the actor Larry Fessenden looked familiar to me. It was that missing tooth. Finally I realized that this guy was the lead in "Habit" a film about vampires in NYC. I thought he was excellent in that role. Now I'm wondering if he's an American or not. His accent was so convincing in "I Sell," that I thought he had to have grown up in the emerald isle, not in the US. Well apparently he's a born and raised New Yorker. A great actor--really made the role his own in this movie. Nothing beats a horror flick set in early 19th century Europe (like the old Hammer flicks.) I encourage anyone that wants to have a great time to watch this well crafted movie. I saw this at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and liked it a lot. It worked for me as a slightly weird comedy, because I don't like horror, but there were only a couple of minutes I had to close my eyes.

The dialog was good, the costumes and settings were not far off BBC-quality, which is amazing for an indie film. I liked the way the plot twists and even meanders, it kept surprising me in good ways. I even warmed up to the Willy Grimes character, who I quite disliked at the beginning. It would have been better if there'd been any motivation for the woman to be so interested in going to the island: that felt very much like a plot device.

I am fond of Dominic Monaghan, and he did a good job at pratfalls, horror, and at the more thoughtful moments. Nice voice in the narration, too.

This would be a fun and unusual date movie. It is so refreshing to see a movie like this with actual mood and personality instead of just a bunch of CGI cartoon gimmicks. This is a great horror-spoof that has genuine chills along side some really great sets and performances. Its laughs are subtle, but plentiful. Because there is very little if any CGI, there is no need to violently shake the camera around to hide the crappy effects. This makes the movie immensely watchable compared to the other camera-man-must-be-sh%#@ing-his-pants films of this genre that have come out in the last decade or so.

Far more enjoyable than the big-budget re-made garbage being released by Hollywood today.

See it. I SELL THE DEAD (2009) **1/2 Dominic Monaghan, Larry Fessenden, Ron Perlman, Angus Scrimm, John Speredakos, Eileen Colgan, Brenda Cooney. Uneven blend of horror and comedy that poses as a valentine to the '60s horror films by Roger Corman and Hammer Studios, with two cretinous grave robbers (Monaghan and Fessenden) facing final punishments for the crimes via the guillotine but not before their tales of the occult can be recalled in flashbacks. Amusing and a few well sprinkled jolts but really a mess of a B-movie trying in vein to be a cult classic largely thanks to the casting of genre vets Perlman and Scrimm to no avail; a good rental for Halloween. (Dir: Glenn McQuaid) This movie was very funny with just a bit of gore. It is about two grave robber that are going about business as usual when they discover that there is a different clientèle they can serve. This changes the direction of the corpses they collect. The movie is told by the younger of the two as he is explaining the business to a priest before he is sent to be beheaded. His partner had already been beheaded. The priest is required to take down the last confession and it takes the form of a story. There is some animation thrown in which gives it a Tales From the Crypt feel. In the story we meet another group of grave robbers that everyone fears, but at one point, the younger of the two up for execution is offered a job, so this calms some of the animosity between the groups. When a woman joins the two men, she oversteps her boundaries and gets them in trouble with the feared grave robbers. The story leads up to the meeting of the two groups, which led to the arrest of the man that is confessing and the man that has already lost his head. I Sell the Dead is a big, sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. This has advantages and drawbacks. The 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny, sometimes scary, sometimes gory, occasionally all three at once, but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film's parts.

The story, such as it is, follows professional grave robber Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Arthur's partner-in-crime Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and Arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. Arthur insists that he is innocent of murder, but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with Irish Whisky by a Catholic priest (played by Ron Perlman).

Since the movie is a series of grave-robbing anecdotes confessed by Arthur, it becomes a sort of horror anthology - a series of disjointed tales, all linked by a similar cast (Arthur and Willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). Like most horror anthologies, there is no consistent mythology, because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another.

It probably didn't help that I saw this film the same night as Trick 'r Treat, a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that I Sell The Dead falls into. In fact, Trick 'r Treat, designed as an anthology, tells a more unified, consistent story than I Sell The Dead which is intended to be a united narrative.

The other problem with the film (and I recognize that this is insane nit-picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. Grimes is killed with a Guillotine. We might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a Scottish Maiden, a precursor to the French Guillotine, but the Scottish Maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since Burke and Hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. Grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the Anatomy Act (1832) so the film must take place before then.

I know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead, undead and legendary dead are possible, but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy, to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. And it's not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story.

The most frustrating thing is that writer.director Glenn McQuaid clearly does know the history, especially the good bits. As an example, when Grimes first takes on Arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to Arthur that as resurrectionists, they don't steal the clothes from the dead, because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor, punishable by a small fine, while stealing clothes is a felony, punishable by deportation or possibly even death. So you would expect Wille and Arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they don't. You could accuse the director of ignoring his writer's script, but not when the writer and the director are the same person.

My point isn't that there should have been a lot of buck-naked corpses in the film, my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that Willie and Arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is, than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion, even if that means that Willie and Arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin, so that they don't get deported for stealing the walking corpse's clothes, otherwise don't bring up the matter at all.

Historical nerdiness aside, I Sell The Dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much more. Grave robber is sitting in his cell awaiting execution is visited by a monk wishing to take down his last words for posterity and as a warning to others about the horrible life he lead. At first reluctant, but with his tongue loosened up by drink the young grave robber is soon telling his story which is full of the dead, the undead and things that go bump in the night.

New York lensed horror film (filmed in part on Staten Island which no doubt brought the spirit of Andy Milligan lurking about) is one of the better horror comedies to come around in a while. This is an often very funny film that just spins its story out in every which way. The cast is first rate. Dominic Monaghan plays Arthur Blake the grave robber telling his story. Ron Perlman is Father Duffy the monk taking the statement and perhaps getting too involved in the tale. Both men are clearly having a grand old time and it shows. The rest of the cast is equally as good. The music by Jeff Grace is excellent. The effects are perfect for this sort of ghoulish silliness. The film is a great deal of fun. If there is any trouble with the film its that perhaps it throws its net a little wide so as the result has way too much going on. I don't want to give too much away but I don't think we needed the alien body in the mix. Still this is a great deal of fun and its one I'm pretty sure I will revisit on the IFC in Theaters where I saw it the first time, and later on I'm sure I'll pick up the DVD.

Worth a look. I saw 'I Smell the Dead' -- sorry, 'I SELL the Dead' -- at a press screening. Glenn McQuaid, the film's writer-director-editor, is a laddish Irishman who introduced the screening by announcing that -- whilst it was in progress -- he would be 'going out for a pint'. I don't begrudge him a drink, but -- by telling us about it -- he seemed to feel he needed to certify his laddishness or his Irishness, or both. When the opening credits rolled, there were -- as usual at press screenings -- loud ovations for the names of every actor or crew member who'd got friends in the audience, and silence for those who hadn't. McQuaid returned for a witty Q&A afterwards.

This horror movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is good because its humour is considerably stronger than its horror. Only one scene is even remotely scary, and most of the 'horror' is merely gross-out, but I laughed throughout much of the film.

This movie appears to be set in Ireland circa 1850 (by which time grave-robbing was mostly defunct). The story is told in flashback: we get flashbacks within flashbacks, and the narrating character flashbacks material that he couldn't know about, because sometimes he wasn't present or (in one case) because the action is unfolding behind his back.

The story begins with a prisoner being taken to the guillotine. Guillotines weren't used in 19th-century Ireland, but -- for once -- we actually see a plausible guillotine sequence. The prisoner struggles on his way to execution, the rope cleats are accurate, and the prisoner manages to look up to see the blade overhead. (And there's a payoff later to justify the historically inaccurate use of the guillotine itself.)

The characters are ostensibly Irish, but one major character speaks in Cockney slang: using phrases like "a mug's game" and "take a butcher's" (for 'have a look'). For once, actors in 19th-century roles display 19th-century dental hygiene, yet nearly all the clothes and hairstyles (and the women's make-ups) are resolutely 21st-century. I'm not complaining in the case of Heather Bullock, who wears a very fetching black miniskirt cozzie that appears to be PVC. Phworr!

The lead actors (except Ron Perlman) are excellent, but most of the supporting cast have no sense of the Victorian period. The worst offender is Joel Garland as the publican, whose characterisation is firmly rooted in the twenty-first century. Just when I thought that Garland's performance couldn't get any less Victorian, he used his fingers to make "ironic" air-quotes.

The sets (especially Angus Scrimm's lab) are detailed and impressive, yet failed to convince me that people actually lived and worked in these places. Nearly every interior contains burning candles, but never once did I see what would have been there if these were actual Victorian homes or workplaces: leftover drippings from previous candles.

One scene features an extra-terrestrial: I was annoyed that McQuaid plumped for a stereotypical "grey" Schwa alien, rather than something original.

There are splendid montage sequences, but McQuaid opts for flashy effects -- split-screens, overhead shots -- that don't serve the story. I was impressed by a recurring blue-screen device superimposing the main characters' heads over other backgrounds. Less effective was a recurring 'Creepshow'-style motif of camera shots morphing actors' faces into drawings resembling panel art from 1950s EC horror comics. I'm a fan of EC Comics, but they don't belong in 19th-century Ireland. The money that McQuaid spent on flashy photo F/X -- showing off his editing skills without serving the story -- should've been spent on accurate costumes.

BIG SPOILERS NOW. Ron Perlman gives an "Oirish" performance full of acting-school tics. Ostensibly playing a 19th-century Irish priest, he writes with his left hand. (In Victorian Ireland, left-handed children were punished for using "the devil's hand" and were forcibly retrained to become righties.) But Perlman's character turns out to have a reason for concealing his right hand. Elsewhere, a character is bitten by a zombie yet suffers no ill effects, so I knew there'd be a payoff later. Several scenes that would more logically take place at night are shot in daylight, apparently only because this was easier and less expensive. (Since McQuaid is a proficient director and editor, he could easily have shot "day for night" ... but using a process-photography effect to help tell the story seems to interest him much less than showing off his flashy editing techniques.)

McQuaid seems to be giving homage to those great old Hammer horror flicks. But those Hammers were so great because the actors and production designers worked hard to convince us that we were actually witnessing events in 1888 Whitechapel, or wherever. 'I Sell the Dead' almost entirely fails to evoke the 19th century.

Glenn McQuaid shows talent as a director, scripter and editor, yet in all three capacities here he makes odd choices ... then largely fails to justify those choices. But I enjoyed 'I Sell the Dead'. I'll rate it 7 out of 10, and I look forward to his next movie. I absolutely loved this series, and was very sad to see it go. Yes, it's Christian based, and traditionally as well. It deals with some tough issues, as the other reviewer points out, but I guess it depends on your viewpoint on these matters, and as a teenager growing up and now as a mother myself, I was so happy to see a TV series that was clean and, well, quite frankly, wonderful! I, unlike the other reviewer, was heartened to see how they dealt with the condom deal. Instead of hearing the typical wishy washiness about condoms, they showed the son actually working at being chaste and applying it to his later relationships, which were pure and Godly because of it, and A lot safer because of it (100%!).

After watching this entire series, you become extremely attached to all the characters in the family and outside the family (once they settle down more permanently), and the moral values they teach in each episode are just priceless. I found Touched by an Angel (made by the same producer) to be cheesy here and there (although overall I liked it), but this series, in my opinion, was a lot better made and had better acting and was more interesting as well. It was good for the entire family and was interesting for the entire family, which was a huge plus. The family wasn't outstanding, they had their own faults, but in the long run they did what was right and you saw them grow and change and struggle like any true family does. It was my favorite show at the time and will always be near the top of my list, I hope it comes out on DVD! Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me. All I can say is I really miss this show!! My wife & I just got married around the time this show started up!! Why did CBS take it off the air??? I think it was the best show for the whole family to enjoy!! It made me laugh!! It also made me cry. But when CBS took it off the air my wife & I thought CBS made a big mistake. You know what would be so great?? Have a reunion show!! That would be so cool!!!! Anybody know if it is on DVD yet?? On the last season of Promised Land, did CBS show the whole last season?? I think CBS took it off the air at mid-season. My wife & I will never forget it. The opening with that theme song was fantastic!!! This show only comes once in a life time! May we never forget Promised Land!! Hey Yall! The best drama every is now on Gospel Music Channel! Go to their website to see the schedule and find out what number it is on your cable or satellite This was one of my favorite shows growing up. It has everything that I want a TV show to be, a clean family friendly drama that does not gross me out. The story about a man, who after loosing his work, decides to set off for a great cross country adventure. Along the way they meet all sorts of interesting people and find themselves in the midst of all kinds of trouble. This show was originally a spin off of Touched By An Angel, another really good family show. Make sure you check it out! I absolutely love Promised Land. The first episode that I saw, was while I was on my mission from 2003-2005. I really loved the rich family background portrayed in the show. Here was a family with struggles of their own, but instead of dwelling on them; they would reach out with love to others who may have had the same problems, in an effort to forget themselves, and go to work. This is what caused me to fall in love with the show. All of the actors; especially Gerald McRaney; had demonstrated the true meaning of "Family" which has left an indelible mark on my life. I have been down the same road they have, but It has taken allot of time for me to develop that kind of character. I love this show so much, that I have wanted to share it with friends; but I was really stunned when I had heard that it was taken off the air. I thought and still think they should BRING IT BACK! So many lives can benefit from heaven inspired media. i honestly believe that this show was divinely inspired; because it brings the spirit every time I see just one episode. This show really (in my book) has truly defined what a "Promised Land" is. It is the Love that you hold in your heart for others; which brings you to a higher destination. The spirit of Love, is one of the most potent messages in this series, and all I can say is, Bring it back. -Robert This program is a favorite of our family, and we feel it MUST be released on DVD by seasons!!! The title of "Promised Land" is very apt, as it is a positive statement about all the good that is left in this great country and the people who live in her! It's a "God Bless America" type of program with inspiring stories, old-fashioned values, down-to-earth characters, truthful and encouraging messages, beautiful scenery, and well-written humor and drama. It's a show the entire family is able to enjoy and benefit from--without worrying about bad language, "adult" themes, crudeness, violence, etc. We always felt blessed when we were done viewing an episode and can't wait to see each one all over again when they're finally released on DVD! I couldn't disagree more with those who says this is a lousy movie. Me and my friend went to see it during the Stockholm film festival and this was actually one of my favorite movies during the festival. Dolls being used in horror movies aren't something new but I haven't seen that many movies were it has been as well carried out as it is in this movie. The atmosphere, the setting, the actors, the camera-work.. everything is just beautiful. And they really work well with each other. Now if you expect this film to be another Grudge or Ring then you probably won't like it. But if your out for a good, stylized scare then it's perfect. Even though it's pretty predictable and at some times laughable I still recommend this to anyone who likes horror flicks. Go see it. Now. I wandered into Blockbuster with a friend the other night having decided that we were too broke and too lazy to do active. She decided she wanted to watch Closer, which seemed like such a repellant idea that I had to rent another film for once she'd gone to bed. Looking around I didn't see much that interested me, but saw The Doll Master in the new releases section. Just based on the cover sleeve (A woman with a doll-like face crying tears of blood) I thought this would be interesting enough to rent.

As for the film itself, watching it in an almost empty house, with all the lights turned off it was pretty scary. I must admit I've always had a bit of a phobia of dolls since I was a kid (and watched an awful film called Asylum, one of the stories in it involved a mental patient creating a doll which killed people. Lame, but scary at the time) and the first three quarters of this film really hit the spot for me. The first half hour in particular was awesome. The creepy foreboding atmosphere really set the scene well, and without moving the dolls seemed genuinely threatening. But unfortunately as soon as they did start to move it all got a bit cheesy, I was a bit disappointed when moments that could have been genuinely frightening made me laugh because of the way they were filmed.

As for the characters, it's a horror film, you're not really expecting anything memorable. I found I remembered names and faces better than most Asian horror films I've seen, which suggests there must have been some hidden character development that I didn't consciously notice. The typical stereotypes are out in force in this movie each one having some kind of character quirk that sets them apart from the others, from shy and quiet Yeong-ha and her doll Damien, to the outgoing bimbo Seon-yeong.

The plot itself was fairly cool, even though the ending, which bought together many of the loose strands of plot, seemed a bit confused and didn't really do anything for me, although it did have a couple of really cool plot-twists that I won't ruin here. The basic plot is a bunch of kids are invited to be modelled as dolls by a famous reclusive old doll maker, they have to stay in the creepy house (adorned with scary dolls, some big some small) and things start to happen as our heroine Hae-mi starts to explore areas of the house and things start happening to the other inhabitants.

Overall, I would definitely recommend the film, not to watch with too many people as some of the moments would probably make you laugh if surrounded by friends, but as something too watch on your own in the dark, with the windows and doors open just a bit, just in case any dolls feel like watching with you. It really does leave you guessing for most of the film, allowing you to go off on wild conspiracy theories only to completely destroy them later on. If you really get into it and ignore it's cheesiness in places I can guarantee you'll check under your bed before you go to sleep and maybe even leave the lights on.

Or maybe that's just me :P As for Closer, it was OK but I preferred this. Yong-ki Jeong's "Puppet Master only with scary parts" was the most recent Korean Horror flick I had the pleasure of watching. With the title of "Inhyeongsa" in Asia, this movie struck me immediately when I saw it reviewed online, with images that made me think of Puppet Master, Childs Play and other toy/doll based horror flicks in the past. But for some reason I didn't think.."Boy, this will be tacky", I imagined it would be creepy and fun. Toysome horror done well almost.

The movie starts slowly, but I like that, so it was fine. The score, almost like I found with Acacia, was beautiful and very much reminded me of classic horror scores of the past. I wont give much away, but the story was strong in this one, and I would highly recommend it to any fan of Asian HORROR. It isn't extreme, it isn't to be taken with utmost seriousness, but it is really good. It's quite simple that those who call this movie anything below "decent" do not know their cinema. "The Doll Master" creates a sense of dread and suspense rarely seen in movies outside of Asia.

Think of a mixture of "Manga" and "Ringu" rolled into one and this is what its all about.

First rate acting, first rate direction, first rate sets and effects.

This is right up there with the best of Asian horror cinema; Ringu, Dark Water and A Tale of Two Sisters.

An absolute must.

Take it from a guy who knows his movies. So the Koreans are now knocking off American horror flicks. But they are doing so with style. DOLL MASTER is a close copy of PUPPETMASTER and DOLLS, and even has a little CHILD'S PLAY going for it. Several young adults are invited to attend a special event at a gallery filled with dolls, only to find they are targets of a vengeful spirit. The dolls come to life and do some pretty nasty things to the kids. The gore level is reasonably high, the photography and set design and production values are first rate, the acting isn't all that bad, and the scares are definitely there. DOLL MASTER may not be in the same league with A TALE OF TWO SISTERS or even DEAD FRIEND, but it's close. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed. Excellent film featuring Anthony Wong that certainly lives up to it's title. Erotic, but increasingly violent courtesy of dreams purchased from a crazed occultist that rapidly turn into nightmares of some magnitude as the sorcerer gets inside them to manipulate poor Mr Wong. Well filmed and very fast moving this is a non stop tale of serious magic, herbal medicines, power and corruption but also makes time for some fine sex scenes and some very bloody violence. There is also just a little touch of humour now and again to catch you further off guard and the whole thing makes for a most exhilarating 90 minutes or so. Excellent performances all round. Anthony Wong plays Lok,a husband whose wife is seriously ill.Poor Lok-due to her illness he has been going without sex for a long time.That's why he is plagued by a series of sleazy nightmares featuring nurses and schoolgirls."Erotic Nightmare" is a fun Cat III flick loaded with sleaze and voyeurism.There is also a bit of gore as the first part of the film shows some nasty killings committed by Wong character under the influence of the monk's mystical powers.The dream sequences are quite erotic and sleazy,so I'm not complaining.Of course those who expect gruesome Cat III horror in the tradition of "Diary of a Serial Killer" or "Red to Kill" will be disappointed,but fans of sleazy exploitation cinema should give this one a look.7 out of 10. Notorious HK CATIII actor, Anthony Wong, is for once (well...not actually once - he was a cop in the DAUGHTER OF DARKNESS films and a few others...)not a psychopathic weirdo in EROTIC NIGHTMARE. Usually recognized for his role as a complete wackadoo in such CATIII "nasties" like THE UNTOLD STORY and THE EBOLA SYNDROME - this time, Wong is on the receiving-end of the nastiness...

Wong plays a guy who goes to a sorcerer who promises to give him really good dreams, for a price. True to his word, the dreams that Wong has involve having mad donkey sex with smokin' hot schoolgirls - but the dreams come with a price that's more than money. The sorcerer can manipulate the dreams and with the help of a sexy ghost, blackmails Wong out of his cash and business, kills his family, and eventually kills Wong himself...Wong's brother comes to town to find out what's going on, and eventually finds that his family's murder is the work of the evil sorcerer - but as it turns out - Wong's brother is a pretty dope-ass sorcerer himself, and with the help of the sorcerer's abused wife - turns the tables on the sorcerer and his schemes...

EROTIC NIGHTMARE is one of the more enjoyable CATIII films I've seen in a while. Absent is the gritty and dark feel of some of the other CATIII entries like RED TO KILL, THE UNTOLD STORY or HUMAN PORK CHOP - EROTIC NIGHTMARE, though still sleazy in terms of sex and subject matter, is more "fun" then some of the more serious films of the genre. More comparable to ETERNAL EVIL OF ASIA - a more "carefree" CATIII entry that delivers plenty in terms of nudity and a good bit of gore, without being overly comedic either. Definitely worth a look, especially to the genre enthusiast. 8/10 "House Calls" is a wonderful romantic comedy that can best be described as "how they used to make them." It stars Walter Matthau (in one of his best roles) as a recently widowed doctor who goes out on the dating scene again and hits paydirt as he seems to have a different woman every night. He then meets hospital patient Glenda Jackson and soon develops a relationship with her. But it's one that will be severely tested as she informs him she is a one man woman and expects him to be a one woman man.

This is a sweet, very funny film also starring Art Carney as the senile hospital administrator and Richard Benjamin as Matthau's friend and fellow doctor. It's a must see for any Matthau fan or any fan of light comedy.

You won't be disappointed. I remember seeing this 1978 comedy at one of the bargain matinees I took in when I was looking for a study break from my college courses. Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson do some effective Tracy-Hepburn-style thrusting-and-parrying in this featherweight romp directed by the reliable Howard Zieff (he did "Private Benjamin") about a newly widowed doctor's aggressive re-entry into the dating game. It all breezes by quickly primarily thanks to the clever script by veteran screenwriter Julius J. Epstein ("Casablanca") along with Alan Mandel, Max Shulman and future director Charles Shyer.

Dr. Charley Nichols has just come back from Hawaii after his wife's death. Upon his return, he becomes aware that he is instant catnip to any and all the single women in LA. He works in a hospital run by an increasingly senile chief-of-staff, Amos Willoughby, whom Charley has to pacify to keep his residency. Enter Ann Atkinson, a transplanted Englishwoman who bakes cheesecakes for a living and has certain concrete opinions about the medical profession, which she expresses freely on a PBS talk show. Of course, Charley is on the show's discussion panel, and sparks, as they say, fly. This leads to the standard complications about how serious Charley is willing to become about Ann. At the same time, the hospital has to deal with a potential wrongful death lawsuit from the widow of a rich baseball team owner who died at the hospital under Willoughby's careless supervision.

It's just refreshing to see such a mature yet bracing love story between two characters inhabited by actors who deliver lines with the scalpel-wielding skill of surgeons. Matthau is his usual 1970's curmudgeonly swinger and quite a sight waddling with his gangly arms held akimbo in his power walk. Away from her heavy, award-winning Elizabethan roles, Jackson is crisply sardonic and charmingly vulnerable as the feisty Ann, who thinks all doctors should aspire to be Albert Schweitzer. Art Carney plays Willoughby with predictable bluster, while Richard Benjamin provides amiable support as Charley's colleague, Dr. Solomon. It's all very compact with a few nice jabs at the greed within the medical profession. There are no extras on the 2005 DVD. when I know that Walter will never grace another set.I was in my 30's when I first saw this sweet,endearing and unabashedly romantic film.I loved it from the first scene,and all the way through to the end.Art Carney was his usual daft self; Glenda matched Walter step for step in the witticisms;and Richard Benjamin supplied the sarcastic voice of reason that he does so well.Along the way there were many actors whom we all recognize,doing their usual brilliance. There are a couple of lines in the movie which my SO and I have used throughout the years,but I won't say anything about them here.I'm pretty sure you will know which two I am talking about. Just get this movie.Make some popcorn,grab your squeeze(if he is as sappy as mine is,for which I am thankful),and enjoy this standout romantic comedy from the 70's. You will not be disappointed. However,I have the feeling that I am preaching to the choir here because anyone who loves Walter will already own it.I'm very glad it's out on DVD now,finally. Matthau is a widowed hospital doctor enjoying his single status and the footloose and available nurses on the staff whilst colleague and friend Richard Benjamin looks on with amusement and amazement. Their boss is hard-of-hearing going on senile Chief of Staff Art Carney who is up for re-election to that post.

Matthau is content playing the field without commitment until he meets single mother Glenda Jackson who insists upon being the only woman in his life while she is in his life. At the same time, he comes under pressure to respond to the amorous advances of a potential litigant in a malpractice suit, and to support the shambolic and incompetent Carney in his attempt to be re-elected Chief of Staff.

This is a superior old-fashioned romantic comedy graced by four Grade-A actors and an excellent supporting cast working with a first-rate dry, caustic and sarcastic script. Carney steals every scene he's in and, in the parlance of IMDb, has us rolling on the floor laughing out loud whenever he appears on screen. We are otherwise entertained by the on-off relationship of the two leads and various sub-plots.

Lacks the ambition to be a great film, but remains one of the best of its kind and watchable and re-watchable for its comedic value alone. Deserves more attention than it seems to have received and well worth the cost of the DVD or video cassette. Near-wonderful mixture of comedy, romance, and medical chaos has a 50-ish swinging-single doctor, tired of going to rock concerts with nubile airheads, dating a patient his own age whom he met on his rounds. Screenplay by Julius Epstein shows a fair amount of sophistication, though he doesn't have enough material to fill out the picture's last third, and one can almost feel the movie slipping. The subplot about the hospital being investigated for its shoddy business affairs isn't worked out satisfactorily, and it feels highly concocted anyway. Still, Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson are a terrific team, Richard Benjamin and Art Carney very funny in support. Director Howard Zieff keeps it all popping, and even when Epstein's one-liners feel like Neil Simon rejects, Zieff zips right along happily. The results are dryly engaging and occasionally quite sweet. Followed by a failed TV series. *** from **** Walter Matthau is best remembered for the long series of comedies he did with his equal comedy partner Jack Lemmon from THE FORTUNE COOKIE to THE ODD COUPLE II. But people tend to forget that in the late 1970s he appeared with another partner in two films - a female partner. This was Glenda Jackson, the English double Oscar winner, who demonstrated her comic abilities against Matthau's first in HOUSE CALLS and then in HOPSCOTCH. Matthau's role was slightly larger in both films, because his characters were more central to the plots, but the chemistry between them was quite good. If you ever want to see two pros demonstrating how sexual intercourse can be crazily funny watch Walter and Glenda as Dr. Charley Nicholson and Ann Atkinson experimenting to see if two people could have sex on a bed under the old movie code rule of the two parties each having one leg on the floor! Never has sex been looked at from such a clinical and mechanical point of view.

Matthau's Charlie has just been widowed before the film began. He has only had one woman in his life - his wife. So now he's the eligible bachelor. He also is the leading surgeon in the hospital he works out of, but the chief surgeon is Dr. Amos Weatherby (Art Carney). Carney is apparently senile (there are moments later in the film that show he turns his senility on and off - see the scene where he rams Richard Benjamin's car). Amos is up for re-election (Charlie is his closest competitor for the post - if he wants it). However, Amos manages to convince Charlie to let him keep the job for reasons of self-esteem.

One day Charlie notices Ann in the hospital. She has had a slight accident and is resting in bed, but Amos has put her into a cage like apparatus (which Charlie remarks has not been used since about 1920). He gets her out of the device, and soon is romancing her. She joins the staff of the hospital, but she is critical of Charlie's willingness to cater to Amos, and she is critical of certain selfish tendencies she sees among the doctors in the hospital.

Amos' bungling causes the death of a wealthy patron of the hospital (Lloyd Gough), who owned a baseball team (his greatest innovation being separate admission costs for double headers). Amos tries to calm down the young widow of the team owner, delivering the eulogy at the burial service (the line in the summary above is the peroration line of the eulogy). However she is still determined to sue (her lawyer Thayer David says the hospital is the most incompetent he's ever seen). So Amos suggests that Charlie romance the widow to satisfy her from that expensive lawsuit. But how will Ann react to this? The film is quite amusing, and was so successful that besides causing a sequel for Jackson and Matthau, it led to a television series as well. HOUSE CALLS was an amusing 1978 comedy about a widowed doctor (Walter Matthau) who now wants to play the field but can't help but be drawn to a patient of his (Glenda Jackson) who refuses to be just another notch on his bedpost. Matthau likes the woman but does not really want to make the commitment that she insists upon so he agrees to date her exclusively for two weeks and then make a decision as to whether or not he wants to commit; however, other complications make it difficult for Matthau to make a decision when the two weeks are up, even though he is clearly in love with the woman. Matthau and Jackson have surprisingly effective chemistry as a screen couple and are given strong support from Richard Benjamin, Candice Azzara, Dick O'Neill, and especially Art Carney as the inept and senile Chief of Staff at the hospital where Matthau is employed. Matthau even has a brief scene with his real-life son, Charlie, who appears as Jackson's son. This engaging comedy still holds up pretty well after all these years. If you've never seen it, it's worth the rental. Late one night on Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" Show, I watched Tom ask his guest Henry Morgan what he considered to be 'perfect.' Morgan responded, "Anything with Glenda Jackson." And although I wouldn't consider this film to be perfect, it does bear out that notion very well. I was about to use the cliché' about Hollywood not making pictures like this anymore, but then I just saw, "Up in the Air," another intelligent film about 2 people over the age of 35 who fall in love. That's where the similarities end, though. "House Calls" is just sheer fun watching 2 pros like Matthau and Jackson hit it off and seem completely natural while they're at it. I saw this film in the theater in 1978 (at the ripe old age of 18) and it took me another 20 years to get all of the jokes. Any film that can make punch lines out of 1920's tennis great Bill Tilden, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wouldn't play too well at the megaplex these days. One other thought: the original theatrical release featured a 'walk on the beach / fall in love' montage set to The Beatles/George Harrison tune, "Something." It seemed a bit forced at the time, but that song has since been swapped out for a rather generic Henry Mancini music cue for subsequent home video and cable release. Too bad, because that scene just lays there now, another victim of music licensing Hell. It's a shame House Calls isn't better known. Is it perhaps because the romantic leads are middle-aged, shopworn, and gun-shy, rather than oversexed teen-stars? Could be. If you're over 35, you'll probably get this comedy. If you're over 45, you're really going to get this comedy. If you're 25, wait until you're older to see it.

The unlikely pairing of Matthau and Jackson works precisely because it is so unlikely. There's a wonderful line of Matthau's that sums up what is happening between the two of them--"I like old broads because you don't have to explain who Ronald Coleman is." (If that's not the exact line, it's close...)

The premise of a sub-par hospital run by incompetents rings true. Art Carney's portrayal of a senile head surgeon is absolutely brilliant. It is impossible not to laugh out loud at his delivery. Subplots, if you can call them that, are fun too, like between Matthau and Jackson's teenage son. Everything hits just exactly the right tone.

Okay, there's the bit where Matthau has to wear women's clothing that's a bit over-the-top and an easy mark. But, still--it's Walter Matthau in drag! It's funny! There is not much of a plot to this movie. There is a wealthy baseball team owner who dies and whose wife is going to sue the hospital for neglience. Not much more than that, but .... IT DOES NOT MATTER!

It does not matter because you have some real actors giving their dialogue life, and because of the cast you have yourself some hysterically funny scenes and even if you're not cracking up laughing, you have a smile on your face.

Matthau plays Charley, whose wife recently passed away, and who finds himself the object of desire of several women at the hospital. He is delighted to taste everything on the menu available to him. Then he meets Anne Atkinson (Glenda Jackson) who, at first, is a patient in the hospital (their first scene together is very funny) and then they meet up again on a television panel discussion show, where they disagree on nearly every topic that is discussed.

Charley begins to like Anne, and vice-versa, except that she is very big on monogamy in the men in her life (her husband was a cheater) and they decide to give it a shot - two weeks of faithfulness.

I will not give away anything else, but I want to mention the chemistry that Matthau and Jackson have on screen. She is usually not the first person anyone would think of for a romantic, middle-aged comedy, but her touch with comedy is very light and agreeable. She is matched every step of the way by Matthau, who is more charming than ever. He does not have to play Mr. Sensitive or Mr. Macho to get the girl, he just has to be himself.

Art Carney is a riot all by himself as a practically senile doctor. The scene where the baseball team owner's ashes are buried at home plate is priceless. He also has a very funny scene in a parking lot with Richard Benjamin. Richard does not have much to do in this movie and more often than not is just the straight man to Carney and Matthau; the role does not tax his considerable talents, but he had to have had a good time making this comedy.

Very much recommended...8/10

PS. FYI -- Matthau presented Jackson with her first Best Actress Oscar, and Jackson presented Best Actor to Art Carney for his role in 'Harry & Tonto'.. I don't know what it is about this movie, the charisma of the two leads, their chemistry on screen, the chance to see Matthau's real-life son (you can't miss him)or Art Carney's performance but I love it. I've seen it a few times and never tire of watching it again. Rent and enjoy. I was very curious about Anatomy (aka Anatomie) and if I was going to see it, I was going to have to buy it since no video stores in my area carried the film. Since it was not a low-priced DVD, I did take a chance and thought I'd take a peek at other comments on IMDb. Many of the comments didn't give me enough hope of forking out lots of bucks for a film I had never seen nor had any clues about. I basically got the idea it was a sexy youth-oriented romp being compared to many cookie-cutter teen thrillers. Well, something in the back of my mind told me to ignore those types of comments and buy it! I did, and was I pleasantly surprised!

If it is going to be compared to any other films, I would say it's a variation of Coma and Extreme Measures. I couldn't see any comparison to films like Scream, Urban Legends, et al. Yes, the cast is young (that's because they're med students! At least they aren't the increasingly boring high school type characters), and yes, some are lusty (basically the character played by Anna Loos is, and it is handled quite tastefully in the German language version), but Anatomy is well constructed, there is a tense mood throughout, the sets are amazing, the makeup effects are a wow, and Franka Potente is very credible in her role. I found myself enjoying all of it despite a few gaping holes in the plot! The story of a student discovering a sort-of secret society doing autopsies on still-living patients is a rather creepy scenario and what happens to those patients afterwards is quite clever. Sure, you could ask why didn't she just GET OUT OF THAT TOWN? Okay, but then the film would be over within a half hour.

This was the first effort from the German part of Columbia Pictures, and it's actually quite an impressive one. There was a bit of care in the production and to actually offer some genuine thrills is an accomplishment. It is a bit mature in mind, as it doesn't resort to constant opportunities for sexual encounters(a breast fest) or juvenile drug jokes. Anna Loos' character, while often making sexual remarks and looking for some fun, was actually a nice touch--having a character that was a woman more intelligent than any of the men in the school. She found that sex was really just a distraction for her and the men rather lacking.

THE IMPORTANT STUFF: Watching this film in the original German language with English or French subtitles is the BEST way to enjoy it. I saw the theatrical trailers dubbed in English and was disgusted by the change it made in the film's tone. I have never seen a properly dubbed film in my life--they never can find voices that suit the film's actors or characters. Sure enough, I tried to watch some of Anatomy dubbed in English and the intelligence level of it dropped severely, making it seem more like a comedy. A good example is when one guy was freaked out at being cut open and screamed to be sewn back up--hearing it in German he sounded frantic, but dubbed in English he sounded like a comedian. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing people say they can't handle reading subtitles or watch a "letterboxed" film. Anatomy comes off as silly with dubbed voices that seem octaves too high for any of the people you see in the film, and Anna Loos' sexual comments then just sound like awful remarks right out of Fast Times At Ridgemont High. I wonder if the negative comments about Anatomy are from people who watched it dubbed, it just doesn't seem like the same film at all! This is not a cheap horror film and deserves to be viewed as it was created. Interesting to note that some of the English subtitles are different in scenes in the feature and the "making of" supplement.

As it turns out, I gambled and won with Anatomy. It's a competent thriller with likeable characters and doesn't try to go for cheap thrills. This movie will send chills down your spine, even if you don't understand German. I first saw this in my German class in High School and found it for $5 at my local Wal-Mart. I've seen it at least 20 more times since *this being only a couple years ago* and it's great to watch on a movie night. The plasticized bodies are mostly real, used from Body Worlds. This movie was an out-lash to that. A German Dr. *nicknamed Dr. Death* began plasticizing human bodies for display and now Body Worlds is a touring deal, right now in Chicago IL. Many people were opposed to this and so a great German horror movie was made. I personally love this movie and would recommend it for all who like thriller slasher films. I saw (unfortunately) the dubbed version on Encore.

Student Paula Henning (Franka Potente who was also in the cult favorite "Run Lola Run") stars as a serious medical student who gets into a prestigious school in Germany. But she soon discovers that some students go missing and the bodies they work on in the anatomy lab are incredibly fresh...

I was stuck seeing the dubbed version on Encore. It hurt a lot (the words not matching the lips got annoying real quick) but I still liked what I saw. The acting was good, it was beautifully photographed, it wasn't TOO gruesome and I was never bored. Even more refreshing was a likable heroine who fights back when the bad guys go after her. The (mild) nudity was, in a refreshing twist, male! A previous poster mentions Benno Furmann (who is excellent) showed his butt but I don't remember seeing it. Regardless this is a well done, scary and excellent thriller. From all I've read the original German language version is the best (I don't doubt that for one second) but the dubbed version is watchable. I give this a 7. Anatomie (Anatomy) is an entertaining and engaging film that falls short of delivering the discomfort that should be connected with the films subject matter. The idea of ethical ignorance in the medical science world is one that pushes the viewer towards discomfort, and the realism of the institutions ('Heidelberg') and the special effects make it a not-entirely easy film to watch.

However, the characters, the script, and the gloss of the film all seem too familiar with the Scream movies that repopularised this sort of genre. Sadly, then, whilst the subject is one to care about, the viewer is presented with another movie full of college student characters that we don't really get a chance to care about, unresolved subplots, and hammy stage-killings that have been reinventing themselves since the memorable Drew Barrymore opening scene in Scream several years back.

Steven Ruzowillzky makes a fair effort of the script and the direction, but pushes no boundaries other than the general theme. Whilst we are presented with an entertaining film with some reasonable performances, we are unfortunately left with the old feeling: nothing is wrong with this film, but nothing is extraordinary either.

An entertaining film, and an interesting chance to see how foreign filmmakers have been influenced by the post-scream 'horror' culture. 6 out of 10 I was shocked at how good this German version of films such as Scream was. Surpassing all the modern American efforts at slasher films.

It as what all those films don't. Likable characters, genuine mystery, suspense, graphic murders and a brilliant soundtrack.

This stylish horror film is one of the best of its kind to come out in years. German cinema is going from strength to strength just lately. Its a shame more people wont go to see such films because they are missing out. It is easily available on DVD so even if you hate subtitles I think you should see it. It will be one of the best horror films you will see all year. I found the film quite good for what I was expecting. Although I weary, because I have a fear of injection needles, I sort of came to expect when they were coming. So if you're not into needles, blood, the human body, and some good medical fun, put this movie back and rent another. As the other user commented, I was also please at the German attempt at a slasher film. I'm an American who just moved to Germany to stay with a family and saw this lying on the shelf. I love psychological thrillers, and I'd say this is somewhere along those lines. A character falls into places and feels misconstrued. While trying to dig her way out and find some truth to a situation, things get a little sticky and other aren't so sure she's on the right track. So throughout the film you're kept on edge about who's anatomy you might catch a glimpse of and who's rounding the next corner. A horror picture set ultimately to parody but still in it's play out could scare a few of those that are frailed nerved or easily disgusted when they see whats under their skin. I laughed at it though. It was easy to decipher the true killer and his acting didn't help. This only led to Potente looking even better. Anatomie is not much of a horror picture for those foreign of the genre but those contained should get a few unintentional laughs and an interesting peak at German horror cinema. 6/10 I saw Anatomy when it came out and recently bought it and the 2003 sequel and as I watch a lot of foreign films in various genres, you have to watch movies in their original language for sure. Not only is it annoying to know the voices don't belong to the actors, but they always seem cheerful, like the whole movie is one big long toothpaste commercial or something. It makes an otherwise awesome movie seem horrible and I have had to convert a lot of my friends who used to think foreign films aren't as good as North American films - that they aren't "Hollywood enough". Also, they translation is never right, it's too literal, and screws up the vibe of the movie, even if it's basically saying the same thing. I watched Anatomy by myself the other week in German then with subtitles with my roommate because he was on his laptop and didn't want to have to miss parts when he couldn't see the subtitles because he was typing. 30 mins in and he begged me to let him finish his work then start the movie over with subtitles. He loved it! Both movies are awesome as intellectual horror films! Kelly I was going to use 'The German Scream' as a summary but that was already taken lol. It sums up Anatomy nicely. Provided you're not alien to reading subtitles, Anatomy fits in snugly with the Scream/Urban Legend pack. It's a teen-horror set in a medical school where the students are going missing then turning up as experiment subjects in the dissection lab. Cue one plucky student investigating herself and uncovering a giant conspiracy.

Provided you're watching the original German language film (I can't comment on the dub, having not seen the English edition) Anatomy is sharply written and cleverly plotted so that the tension never really lets up. In comparison to it's American counterparts, the mystery is uncovered much faster, meaning that instead of being a slasher right up until the final reveal, Anatomy evolves during it's running time from a slasher-come-body horror movie into a smart and exciting thriller. It's a gripping ride from start to finish.

Hats off to the actors involved as well. Franka Potente proves once more that she's an intelligent, smart actress who can make any role come to life. Her central performance as Paula is a great foundation for the movie to build from. The spooky lecturers and their teachers pets are equally good, a truly foreboding presence at all times.

It's also astounding that the movie doesn't drag much. The pace is fast and punchy, very similar to the earlier Urban Legend, meaning that there's always something going on to keep your attention high. If there's one downside it could be that some will find Anatomy too gruesome for them, but if you persevere through the first half's admittedly graphic dissection sequences, the latter half with it's exciting thriller overtones will reward you. I recommend Anatomy to anyone who enjoys a good teen-horror but is a bit jaded with the American take on the matter. This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story and solid performances. All the characters are cool, and Benno Fürmann is great as the psycho killer, plus Franka Potente gives a fantastic performance as the main lead. It did take a little while to get going, but it was never boring, and it had some good death scenes as well, plus the music is wonderfully creepy. I was lucky enough to get the subtitled version, instead of the dubbed, and I thought all the characters were quite likable, plus it's very well made and written as well. It has some really good plot twists too, and the effects are extremely well done, plus the ending is great. The finale is especially suspenseful, and Franka Potente was the perfect casting choice in my opinion, plus I wish Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey(David) didn't get killed of so soon, because he was a really cool character. There were actually a couple of moments where I felt uncomfortable but in a good way, and I must say this film deserved all it's praise, plus while it does have plot holes, it's not enough to hamper the film. This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story, and solid performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Stefan Ruzowitzky does a great! Job here with excellent camera work, very good angles, great close ups (see the opening sex scene), doing a great job of adding creepy atmosphere, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace.

There is quite a bit of blood and gore. We get cadavers cut open,plenty of very gory surgery scenes,lots of bloody stabbings,people are dissected while still being conscious, severed finger, self mutilation, gutting's, bloody slit throat, lots of wicked looking frozen corpses, plenty of blood and more.

The Acting is very solid!. Franka Potente is fantastic as the main lead, she was very likable, remained cool under pressure, was vulnerable, easy on the eyes, and we are able to care for her character, the only time she seemed to suffer, was when she had to spurt out some bad dialog here and there, but that wasn't very often, she was wonderful!. Benno Fürmann is excellent as the psycho killer, he was simply chilling, and wonderfully OTT, he really gave me the creeps, and was one effective killer!. Anna Loos played her role very well, as the smart slut, I dug her. Sebastian Blomberg was great here as Caspar, he was quite likable, and had a mysterious character,his chemistry with Potente was also on, and there was a great twists involving him at the end. Holger Speckhahn was good as the Idiot Phil and did his job well. Traugott Buhre is good as Prof. Grombek. Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey was great as David, he had a really cool character, and I wish he didn't get killed of so soon. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this great German slasher!. ***1/2 out of 5 With "Anatomy" the german film producers have tried to make something totally new. Usually there just drama or comedy movies - in the horror genre is(or was) totally new at that time.

The story's also new and shocking. Franka Potente plays her role brilliant and I bet you won't find out who's the murderer. It's possible, but difficult. A really great movie with a lot of talented actors. To me, "Anatomie" is certainly one of the better movies I have seen. I don't think "Anatomie" was primarily intended to be a horror movie but a movie questioning the ethics of science. If you watch it with that in mind, it turns into a really good film. The only annoying bit was the awful voice dubbing for the English version. How can you expect any non-German person to listen to these unbearable German accents for two hours? Let native English speakers do the talking or use subtitles instead!! I saw Anatomy years ago -- dubbed at a friends house I don't remember it much, and then I saw at the video store there is a second one -- not really related to the first one Franka Ponte makes a little cameo. And that one was okay not as good as the first one. I'm seeing the first one again tonight -- not dubbed collectors edition. I really like German movies like this one it's very interesting and people and cults like the one in the movie could exist i think, i dunno. But it's very grossly entertaining and scary. Anatomy 2 is a little different and the characters are not as good as the first. But if you really thought Anatomy was interesting and good you should see the second one. I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).

Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.

On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling. (spoilers?)

I've heard some gripe about the special effects. But that should detract from the movie. THe movie is a suspense film. And it's very good at that. So from that stand point, this movie rocks. Franke rocks. Enjoy to one's plastic hearts content. So no complaints for this movie. Unless you watch the english dub, which is a total farce. It creates the illusion it's a B movie.

One complaint I do have is the music video on the dvd. It doesn't say who sings it. I'd love to know.

8/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment : 10/10 Replayable: 5/10 OK, Anatomie is not a reinvention of the Horrormovie-Genre, but nevertheless it is well done. Good actors (Potente and Führmann at first) and some nice ideas made me happy. Maybe i would have been not so positive if this wasn´t a german movie, but who cares. It is good to see familiar faces in a good, thrilling story, with some gore and some good jokes in it. All of you complaining about the dubbing: i didn´t see a dubbed version (of course) but i believe that it is not easy for you to watch dubbed movies. We (Germans) are used to watch movies like that, so it´s not a big problem. But try to watch in german with subtitles. The actors are really good! More of a near miss than a flop, MR. IMPERIUM stars Ezio Pinza as Alex, heir apparent to and later king of a small European nation, who falls in love with a willing American actress and entertainer, Fredda Barlo (Lana Turner), but due to machinations by the sly prime minister of Alex as king, nicely played by Cedric Hardwicke, the lovers are separated for 12 years before being reunited in Palm Springs where their love is rekindled. Director Don Hartman, who also scripts, is not able to fully utilize his talent for snappy dialogue because of Pinza's tentative English usage, and the requisite rewriting, coupled with less than total rapport in evidence between the two stars, results in a somewhat raggedy tone to the screenplay, exacerbated by the studio's unkind cutting of many scenes, leading to a confusing ending. The overpowering Pinza dominates his scenes with Turner, but both performers score with good work, while Marjorie Main is impressive with her patter effects as written, with Debbie Reynolds placed on track by Louis B. Mayer for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as a result of her sprightly performance here; only Barry Sullivan is heavily victimized by the flagrant cutting. Prettily filmed largely in Pebble Beach, California, and other Monterey County environs, the film is endowed with Pinza's iron strong operatic basso in Solamente Una Vez, as well as with original songs by Harold Arlen and Dorothy Fields, with Douglas Shearer splendidly handling the sound recording, and notice must be made of the fine set decorations by Edwin Willis, and the effective costume designs by Walter Plunkett. Carla Gugino literally melts the screen in this crime caper. Her sex appeal, ample assets and sexy southern accent more than make this film rewatchable. But the film has so many "other" things to make it almost a modern classic. Simon Baker's performance for one thing. Truly that of a great actor. Til Schweiger is so perfectly cast it makes me wonder why he's not a huge "crossover" star. Gil Bellows rounds out this motely crew and literally steals this show. Other Gugino's cleavage easily the best performance in the movie. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are so utterly brilliant...I cannot even describe it. Great chemistry.

The music is so powerfully eclectic that it was a character in and of itself. Wonderous to behold.

People may say it's Tarantino influenced...I disagree. It's clearly unique and clever in it's own right. Sebastian Gutierrez does a wonderful job at directing this tightly woven film and underplaying a lot of scenes that left me reeling. The ending is perfectly sinister and you never see it coming. All in all a lovely film that, to me, is the very definition of what a good movie should be. And it got it in France ! Why not in the rest of the world while the studios keep churning out expensive post-Grisham trash (Will anyone remember him as a fine writer, and not the most betrayed-by-the-screen author this side of Stephen King ?) this one has it all. Okay, the situations are not always original, has minor plot holes and it has a tendency to be too clever some (brief) times for its own sake, but it actually delivers and is obviously a work of love. I'd be curious to know what the budget was. AND. for once, this is not a cheap Tarantino copy ! (Well, film noir didn't started with Tarantino, you know.) Will it once again be saved by Europe, like John Dahl's movies were, so Mr Guttierez can make another one like this ? If you ever read this, Mr Guttierez, thank you and se Thirty pieces of silver and a kiss for luck. This one was another totally unexpected gem. Usually, I'm not even a suspense/thriller fan. This satisfying 100 minutes has more twists than a boardwalk pretzel. It has titillating erotic romance, reminiscent of "Body Heat" in more ways than one; it has cops and crime; political intrigue and just a dash of daytime soap. It has just the right touch of gritty violence that any professional "by-the-numbers" crime job must employ. Emma Thompson, (FBI AIC), delivers her role with grace and humor and gets my vote for best fake southern accent by a Limey. Alan Rickman, (local cop), who always seems to steal the show, is excellent but not overbearing. They work well as a pair. Lots of plot misdirection that never gets out of control and gets coherently reconnected at film's end. And who is this awesome woman, Carla Gugino? I want her to bear my children. Carla, if you're out there, let's do lunch I found the movie Judas Kiss excellent. Carla Gugino's performance was extraordinaire, probably her best in her career. Her facial expressions in many scenes, were unbelievably true to character, and they were exploited to its best by Director Gutierrez. All actors and actresses were very good in their performances. Emma Thompsom was, as usual, marvelous. Her acting capabilities are way above what would be required for this character, so she actually enhances it in the movie.

The story, although sometimes over-intricate, is kept entertaining and pointed towards the end. Very, very good. A movie not to be missed. A story well weaved and brilliantly directed. Quality of film, excellent. Loved this movie!! Great acting by Carla Gugino. Interesting story about a kidnapping that goes horribly wrong (don't they all?). Some surprising twists and turns in the film and the plot was easy to follow without being so convoluted as to be totally incomprehensible. It was a totally unexpected delight. More "Quentin-ish" than most films try to be. What's the matter with you people? John Dahl? From "Rounders" and "Unforgettable"? TOO Quirky? Knocking emma Thompson and Alan Rickman for having fun playing against type? And somebody liked the Gingerbread Man?

I rented this not knowing anything about it and found it about as nifty a video find as you can get. Never insulting, well thought out, funny, scary. I disagree with the naysayers, clearly. I thought the story itself was unremarkable but the great cast, which most likely means the director was paying attention, lifted it to super cool status. Good sound design also (much more appreciated in surround, but I'm not bragging). And yes, I'm a girl, so maybe it has a slight female slant (the guys in the gang are pretty worthwhile). All in all, a 9 and a hearty RECOMMEND. Sure, there's stuff here that the Coens and Elmore Leonard have done before, but so what? If you want entertaining, lusty and smart -- "Judas Kiss" is near perfect. Prudes offended by tongue in cheek porn don't get it (Talk about getting your sex and violence out of the way straight up -- keeps your investors happy. That's independent filmmaking 101). As for the Brits making a bundle, I highly doubt it. This flick is clearly a labor of love and the budget probably not half of Mr. Tarantino's salary. Maybe guys don't like it as much as women. I thought it rocked. Go Coco! The efforts of a new group of young talent bolstered by Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson, 2 extremely gifted actors, makes for a thrilling and engrossing evening of entertainment. And I might add that Hal Holbrook shines as the Senator. This movie deserves five stars. I give it a ten on your scale. And the ending is PERFECT. I am constantly amazed at the ability of British actors to master our American accents. I was convinced that all the actors were born in Louisiana. And what finer locale for a mystery than New Orleans! The Big Easy, also known as the Crescent City, permeates every scene. As writer and director, Sebastian Gutierrez deserves high praise. Came across this film recently after so long hearing about it. It is an excellent not pretentious movie for people who loves film noir literature and films. Not "camp" but humorous.

GREAT CAST! From the magnificent Carla Gugino and Emma Thompson to German superstar Til Schweiger, this movie is a feast for the eyes. Alan Rickman is very funny as the antagonist of gang. Would love to see spin off movie with this character and Emma Thompson solving cases and arguments between them all the time (much like Tracy and Hepburn, etc.)

Intelligent story, nice twists and scope photography (don't watch unless it is scope because compositions are very rich).

Sexy sexy sexy and very fun time.

Best use of Just Like Heaven by The Cure ever (must see to believe!)

******** Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman,Carla Gugino and Gil Bellows are a DELIGHT in this sexy caper. This film is smart, edge of your seat entertainment for adults, and what a relief that is in these days of big concept predictable cartoons. Great music and camera work add to the fun that is this New Orleans-set puzzle. Highly Recommended. Ten stars! In the DVD era, you would think you could find pretty much any piece of crap committed to celluloid and for the most part, it's true. So WHY, WHY is it so hard to find this great little flick, clearly done by people who love noir as a loving homage (buit never descending into spoof land) of that most cinematic of genres. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are a HOOT in this and superstar-in-the-making Carla Gugino (KAREN SISCO, SIN CITY) does her now trademark red hot babe/great acting routine.

This movie really has it all for fans of film. A b noir on steroids, the clever and steamy JUDAS KISS succeeds on every count.

Please Columbia TriStar PLEASE release it on DVD soon!!!!!! This was the first directing job by Sebastian Gutierrez, the writer of Snakes on a Plane and Gothika. Anyone who has read my reviews knows that I love capers, and this was a doozy. A kidnapping and a woman shot in the process. The FBI has Emma Thompson on the kidnapping case and the Police Chief (Roscoe Lee Browne) assigns Alan Rickman to solve the murder, which happens to be a Senator's (Hal Holbrook) wife. These two make an outstanding pair as they work together.

The kidnappers/murderers have lovers Simon Baker (Land of the Dead) and the ultra hot Carla Gugino (Sin City), along with a couple of partners. They kidnapped a hotshot computer mogul and they run his accountant all over town before they get the dough. Things go fast from there as new twists and turns are brought in. The whole thing is brilliant and definitely a "piss in your pants because you can't go to the bathroom or you'll miss something" thrill.

Now, to be completely honest, I would have given this movie a 10 if there had been more of the movie the security guard was watching in the opening. I would have loved to see more of Beverly Hotsprings and Yvette Lera, but, hey, that wasn't part of the caper; just icing on the cake.

Thompson and Rickman should definitely make more movies together. One treat:

Agent Hawkins: So fill me in. Detective Friedman: That remark could be misconstrued as sexual harassment, Agent Hawkins. Agent Hawkins: Let's get it out of the way then: you've never worked under a female superior before. I got to where I am by pushing paper and playing nice - I've never actually fired a gun before, I'm only in this job to prove to my father I'm not a coward. I give decent head, so I got promoted before all the worthy candidates, all of them men, all of them equally gifted at fellatio but there was a gender quota to fill. I'm also stupid and idealistic; you are hard and cynical, and usually right. I am secretly in love with you but I have a hard time showing it. Did I skip anything?

Damn, that's great dialog! Gutierrez not only directs a great movie, but he can write too!

And, did I say Carla Gugino was hot?

Put this on your list. This is one gripping movie, reminiscent of the MGM crime movies of the late 70's. Excellent cast, crisp editing and good acting keeps the pace of the movie developing rapidly,. One of the better crime movies of the decade. Kudos to the director & cast. Although this film looks like a Crime Thriller Noir, the plot is actually a bit simplistic and with very few surprise twists or turns at all - and those that do appear, are not exactly shockers.

However, if you slip out of 'intense action thriller' mode and into 'mindless entertainment,' then this is really quite a fun movie, with several hilarious moments. Most of these can be attributed to the witty dialogue between Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson's characters - but that said, Sadie said it all in her hilarious opening greeting to Friedman, and it left very little else for anything else to develop between these two characters. I didn't find these esteemed british actors version of the southern accents that bad (Ok, Thompson sounded like she was rolling marbles in her mouth as she tried to spoke southern, but Rickman was surprisingly rather good with very few minor lapses into his customary english accent) - if you want to critique accents - lets discuss that of Coco - she only spoke southern periodically!

This movie was a pleasant surprise for me. In all honesty, the previews looked horrible, up until the point where Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman appeared. So I rented it with reservation, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It had great acting, a few good plot twists, and, of course, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. It's definitely worth checking out. But not too hip. And not too wisecracking. "Judas Kiss" nails the new noir thing just right. Great pacing and a nuanced score round out a twisty tale filled with sex, betrayal and sure-fire one liners. Inspiring work all around. Kudos in partcular to HalHolbrook (his best work ever), Gil Bellows (Ally Mc-what?) and Carla Gugino (the best famme fatale in ages... smart, funny and ultra HOT)... I give this a 9 (out of 10) and that's because 10 should be reserved for like, Humphrey Bogart and Coen Bros movies. This is a really great film in the pulp fiction genre with a touch of film noir thrown in. Truly one of Emma Thompson's best performances to date...this film has everything, it's well written, well directed, beautifully films, and has some great performances. I don't know why it didn't catch on. It's spectacular! Surprised to know that the director (Sebastian Gutierrez) was a young Venezuelan (28) and bored with so many predictable movies, I was delighted with the script showing so many small stories and cues spread here and there. Directed with black humor and taste, I loved the tension between the very Boggart Rickman and the very natural but beautiful Thompson. Each member of the gang deserves attention, Gil Bellows at his best.Gugino is remarkable. I got this movie from eBay mainly because I'm gay and I love Til Schweiger. However, it's one of those movies that, when you watch it a second time, you never say to yourself, "Hmm. I forgot about this boring part. I'll go make popcorn." It doesn't have that part. It's a very fluid and constantly interesting film. And, yes, Til Schweiger is worth it, if nothing else. But, it's a great movie even for straight guys. A fairly enjoyable kidnapping caper set in New Orleans, but its main downfall in my opinion is that it packs way too much political intrigue and double-crossing, and not enough of the sexy young actors, scenes of vibrant colour, original cinematographical style and biting humour. These aspects combine to give refreshingly daring cinema, which makes a whole bunch of recent stuff look unbearably dull. Let's hope Sébastian Gutierrez continues with such flair - he looks like a talent to watch out for. The mismatched bunch of small-time crooks in the film are outshadowed by the investigative partnership of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, the humour of whose scenes is much needed in making the movie what it is. The pair pull off their obligatory southern drawls just as well as the Yanks, and it's a delight to hear these two stalwarts of British cinema yapping away to each other with Lethal-Weapon-style fluidity...just a pity that the only scenes they have the opportunity to steal are exclusively theirs. Anyway, with a bit less politics and authoritarianism (!), the film would be near-perfect, so I'll give it a healthy 8/10 and hope that a few people remember it a bit better than the box-office did. The movie was good. Really the only reason I watched it was Alan Rickman. Which he didn't pull off the southern accent,but he did pretty well with it.Know Emma Thompson did really good she definitely pulled off the southern accent. I like all the character in my opinion not one of them did bad,another thing I have notice. I have read all these comment and not one person has comment on Alan 5 0'clock shadow. Which made him look even better and he pretty much had one through the whole movie. I would give the movie a 9 out of 10. Another one of my opinions is the movie would been better if there wasn't any sex. Still it was alright. Love the scene were he says "Aw sh*t" when he is setting in his car and see them in his mirror. The second episode of the new "Lost" gives you just what its fans were lacking - a fair amount of riveting action. From the very first scene, you keep seeing brand new features you weren't expecting to encounter. It's the best proof that the series, ingoing its 4th season, is still alive and kicking hard.

Although the producers don't amaze us with some more flash-forwards this time, the return to flashbacks is more than satisfying, as it brings some shocking facts. The flashbacks introduce a few fresh characters, and the familiar ones turn out to be connected in a surprising way.

The fresh characters dominate the whole episode and I can't say it does any harm. Their scenario parts and their actors both do extremely well, providing us with a bracing feel - right after the episode, you'll realize that the show really needed people just like that. And here they are.

"Confirmed Dead" is full of gripping action and greatly written dialogues. I'm sure I'll quote the best scenes of the episode for the long time - they're just that good that they remain on the spectator's mind. The episode is entertaining, smart, and perky. You like "Lost", you have to watch it. My vote is ten. "Confirmed Dead" is an important episode in the series, as it introduces four new characters: the rescue team that Naomi contacted before getting a knife in her back by Locke. However, as the quote in my one-line summary says, their true purpose for being on the island may be something else entirely. All the new characters appear intriguing (especially Miles, some sort of psychic / exorcist), but at this point it's still too early to make solid judgments. I felt that this episode was a slight step down from "The Beginning Of The End" (no flash-forwards this time; short-term flashbacks instead), but it still has its stunning moments and picks up steam near the end. *** out of 4. Jack and Kate meet the physician Daniel Farady first and then the psychics Miles Straume and they demonstrate that have not come to the island with the intention of rescuing the survivors. Locke and his group find the anthropologist Charlotte Staples Lewis, and Ben Linus shoots her. Meanwhile, the group of Jack finds the pilot Frank Lapidus, who landed the helicopter with minor damages that can be repaired. Jack forces Miles to tell the real intention why they have come to the island.

The second episode of the Fourth Season returns to the island, with four new characters, stops the confusing "flash-forwards" and it seems that will finally be the beginning of the explanations that I (and most of the fans and viewers) expect to be provided in "Lost". Why the interest of the government in Ben Linus, and how he is informed from the boat are some of the questions that I expect to see in the next episodes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available I cannot understand the need to jump backwards and forwards to scene set, and pad out the plot. Showing that someone has a skill right before they use it, I believe, is offending our intelligence. It's starting to feel a little contrived, and as though they are making up for being so vague for the first three series. A little disappointing this episode.

Furthermore, using past quirks, like Locke's ability to know when a storm is ending, is frankly insulting... are we supposed to ooh and arr, or laugh at the softer side of Locke?

This episode was all over the place. A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director. The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only "see" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there. I think i was one of the people who found this another one of roth's pearls. his performance, as awarded, was stunning. the story which was told so eloquently by Francis ford Coppola 25 years earlier, really unfolds gradually and leaves room for the characters to develop. Roeg proves again it doesn't have to be a war-setting to be interressting. In a most wonderful location lies a story of contrast. Ruthlessnes and beauty go hand in hand, while loneliness should become your best friend. It shows a more sinister past of a small golden age kingdom which lands on a coast full of wealth for a 1st world country, if u send the right men. All in all a beautiful directed film from Nicola's roeg wih a sublime cast. There have been many people that have tried to make a movie that was identical to the story, Heart of Darkness. Some movies have been based on Heart of Darkness, like Apocalypse Now. In 1993, Nicholas Roeg directed a film that was exactly like the book. Heart of Darkness the movie is almost exactly identical to the book. This movie is full of action and adventure. Heart of Darkness is about the journey of a seaman named Marlow who sails along the Congo River to meet the super powerful ivory trader, Mr. Kurz.

Heart of Darkness, the movie, has the same exact beginning and setting as the book. It takes place on a boat in the Thames River, and Marlow is telling the story to four other men on a boat called the Nellie. The whole movie is a flashback of Marlow's journey to see Mr. Kurtz on the Congo River. Marlow works for the Belgian Company, which trades ivory along the Congo River. He tells of his account in the Company's office, and about all of the maps he saw in the office.

Marlow sets out on a steamer to Africa. He arrives at the Central Station, where he receives orders from the general manager. The general manager tells Marlow about Mr. Kurtz and the ivory trading Marlow would be doing. Marlow soon finds out that the general manager is not fond of Kurtz because he fears Kurtz will replace him. Marlow waits around at the Central Station for months because his ship has been wrecked, and it is getting repaired. Marlow sees the harsh treatment and enslavement in Africa while at the Central Station. When the ship has finally been repaired, Marlow, another African character named Mfumu, and other crew members set sail on Marlow's steamer for Mr. Kurtz.

Along the Congo River, they are attacked by African natives in the wilderness. As Marlow's crew is attacked by the African natives, they end up shooting and killing Mfumu. When Marlow finally arrives at Kurtz's station, he meets a Russian who explains the might and glory of Kurtz. Marlow is then led to Kurtz's station home. There, he sees many maps and pictures that Kurtz has painted. Finally, Kurtz enters the room, and begins to tell Marlow about all he has done in Africa and talks about his mistress. Marlow soon finds out that Kurtz is insane with power because the Africans hail him as a god. Marlow becomes angry with the harshness and enslavement that he sees in Africa. After Marlow finally meets Kurtz, Kurtz begins to die. While Kurtz was on his deathbed, he called Marlow into his room. Kurtz's life begins to flash before his eyes, and his last words were "The horror, the horror." When Marlow returns to Europe to see Kurtz's fiancé, Marlow tells her that Kurtz's last words were her name to hide the darkness in Kurtz's life.

Heart of Darkness was directed well and was formed into an adventurous movie. I recommend anyone to watch this movie because it is full of action and mystery. The movie is slow at times, but in all, it really interesting. Heart of Darkness will really broaden your mind and will teach you a lot about how to interpret different scenes. Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however. The Youth In Us is a pitch-perfect gem. I saw this stunning short at this year's 2005 Sundance Festival. The story took me on a profoundly transforming journey. The directing by Joshua Leonard, the acting of Kelli Garner and Lukas Haas, the art direction, the cinematography, the score -- every element was true to the bone. One can only hope that this exquisite and excruciating film is prelude to more great work from this gifted director.

Just as a short film is shown before a feature at Sundance, commercial movie theatres used a similar format in times past. It would be wonderful if miniature masterpieces like The Youth In Us could reach a wider audience this way. I watched this short moments ago on the Sundance Film Festival website, and I must say it is absolutely astounding. I expected it to be entertaining - like all of the Sundance shorts - but I wasn't prepared for such deep sadness and yet also a sense of passion and beauty.

If you haven't yet seen any of this years entries to the festival, I suggest you go onto the site and watch these mini-masterpieces - I have seen them all, and can honestly say 'The Youth In Us' is the one that has touched my heart the most. I'm not the weakest audience member when it comes to romance in films, but my eyes flooded up so much I'm surprised I could still see the screen.

I agree with 'addicted2you', it truly is a masterful piece of directorial work, and the cinematography will just take your breath away.

I can't think of a better way to spend a spare 12 minutes. This short has all the elements of a great movie. Every time I show it to friends (on DVR) they love it too. The dialog is so, 'real'. The acting is superb. While the effects/props weren't as convincing by themselves, taken with everything else in the shot, they are expertly placed/used. The music is so haunting, perfect for this kind of 'moment' film. People who hold dear their beliefs and thoughts are shaken to their core about what they see in this movie. Most go 'that's it?', but in the end they blossom with new understanding, and leave the movie with one word to describe it:

'Beautiful'. The beauty of the film is also skin deep. I love the fact that there aren't any conflicting views, no other voices, and the voices that you do hear, are agreeing with each other. no conflict, but at the same time there is one. And the ending made me love it more! Harsh reality sometimes IS more film worthy than any plot device, or twist.

(wasn't Joshua Leonard the guy in Blair Witch Project?) :) Movie by a fictitious dead guy..great! I was fortunate to see a screening of this remarkable short film by Joshua Leonard before its premiere at the 2005 Sundance Festival. In twelve brief but exquisite minutes, Leonard takes us on a life-changing journey as he probes one of the most controversial contemporary social and ethical issues facing our society. The film embodies elegant direction, moving performances and a heart- rending story. Kelli Garner and Lucas Haas radiate as the two lovers. And, in his first venture into dramatic narrative, Leonard proves to be a director with a propitious future. I feel this short should be expanded into a feature film. It's difficult to describe talent, but as this debut film demonstrates, you know it when you see it! For a film by a first time director, this is a simply amazing little film, though I have to admit that it's a bit hard to watch and will probably offend the sensibilities of many who watch it, as the film takes a definite stand in favor of assisted suicide. However, what I loved about the film is that I had no idea this is what the film was about until the film was more than half complete and by then I was already hooked.

In addition to the excellent way the subject was introduced, I was amazed at the very professional style of the film--with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen in a short film. Plus, this camera work was combined so well with music and images that made the film just beautiful.

As I said, this is a controversial film. I myself struggle with what I think about this debate, but the film managed to make a statement in such a literate and intelligent way, I really have to respect the team who made this film. I absolutely loved this film... So much emotion in such a small amount of time. I loved the beginning and how it completely throws you off guard. I love the story and the deer being brought in. i know that when i think of deer i think of innocence, and prosperity. Also, in Psalm 42:2 in the Bible it says, "As the deer pants for the water brooks, So pants my soul for You, O God". Which could even connect the last moment when the woman says it will be okay. As if she knows she's going with God. Perhaps I am thinking way to much into it. But sometimes it is interesting to see what goes on through peoples' minds. Thank you for sharing this masterpiece with viewers everywhere. I live in Texas and I had it playing on cable... I immediately got onto the computer to find out more about this film and this amazing director! I really liked the music that was used in the background. Music can sometimes make or break a film. It definitely set the mood perfectly. Very nice choice!

Thanks again.

Laetitia I stumbled across this film while channel surfing, and was blown away. It was being broadcast on a lesser known short films program here in Australia.

It has been a long time since I have been so impressed by a film, especially one so short.

The power of the story, the quality of the acting and the stunning cinematography... wow. If it were available, it would make a very worthy addition to my DVD collection.

I am undoubtedly impressed, and I will look forward to Joshua Leonards' next film.

An exceptional experience 10/10 What a show! Lorenzo Lamas once again proves his talent as a cop who committed the worst crime a good cop can commit, by being a good cop. Then, again, he shows how sensitive a cop can be, displaying a range of emotions like no other actor can except, maybe, himself in Terminal justice.

HUGE ENJOYMENT! This was so much better than i expected, the film oozed proffesionalism compared to other B-moive of this sort of budget. The script was good if a little formulaic but the acting was surprisingly good from all including Lorenzo and you always expect good standards from Scheider and Busey. Aswell as the good plot and acting the action is good especially the car chases and the crashes are A-class. All in all this is a rise above other B-movie thrillers and doesn't have to rely on constant nudity or a flow of cheesy puns to make up for budget and script defficiencies, its certainly worth a rent. The first in a new style of films for Lamas- no tattoo's, motorcycles or karate. I, for one, miss them. But this is a serious movie. He plays a FBI profiler who has lived so long with the bad guys in his head that he no longer trusts anyone, including himself. Gary Busey is either a great actor or somebody I wouldn't want to meet in broad daylight on a crowded street. Kristen Cloke pursues Lamas as doggedly as she pursues the serial killer. There is one surprise after another as the story unfolds not the least of which is the ending. It seems to never come - there is always one more layer to the story. Cloke and Lamas start out as the good guys, turn into the bad guys and somehow end up the heroes. But it's definitely worth the rental price. For maximum enjoyment throw in a candy bar,a bag of popcorn and a soft drink. You're going to the MOVIES! I saw this 1997 movie because I am a fan of Lorenzo Lamas (and of his father, the late Fernando Lamas). In my opinion, Lorenzo looked his best in this film, mostly due to his hairstyle and the preppy wardrobe that were flattering to him.

As the plot progressed, I realized the movie was more than just entertainment or a reason to see a favorite actor. The story was about a ring of serial killers and the attempts of law enforcement to investigate the ring and bring the members to justice. There was adequate suspense, and I believe the violence was necessary to relate the story to the viewer.

At the end of the film I was shocked to learn the film is the true account of horrendous murders that occurred in Utah. Furthermore, Lorenzo and his leading lady were portraying actual FBI agents who solved the disappearances of many young women and contributed to the apprehension of the ring. I believe the film is worthwhile as it informs the public about the dangers and capabilities of the criminal element. In "Lassie Come Home," "National Velvet," and "The Courage of Lassie," Elizabeth Taylor was eleven years old … Nevertheless, her charm and beauty were extraordinary, and what she lacked in talent and experience was well hidden in a fine production that was nominated for five Academy Awards…

As horse-trainer or dog-owner, as spurned wife or mistress, Liz is a female who is absorbed in the giving and receiving of love: devotion to the object of passion is the center of her life… Little Liz lavishes love on horses and dogs with remarkable intensity… Ecstatic; a dreamer with a turbulent emotional life, persistent, the young Liz dedicates herself to the prize-winning horse the way she later devotes herself to men…

Anticipating her later images of young sex goddess, Liz as Velvet is both saintly and mature… Howard Barnes, in the New York Herald Tribune, called her a child who 'lights up with the integrity of a great passion.'

Directed by Clarence Brown with loving attention to detail, the movie that made her a star is a big bestseller from another era set in Sussex, England, where Velvet Brown, a butcher's daughter, teams with a vagabond teenager named Mi Taylo (Mickey Rooney) to train for competition a horse she's won in a raffle…

From the coastal plains with its beaches, to the rolling hills, thatched cottages, and miles of country walks, "National Velvet" is the product of a bygone era in movie-making…

Following closely the structure of the popular Enid Bagnold novel, the movie is part horse story, part family portrait: scenes of training and riding are balanced by cozy family scenes, vignettes about young love and sermons from Mom on the virtues of courage and endurance…

The Browns are a noble version of Hollywood rustic… Dedicated to a sober work ethic, they live quiet, exemplary lives… Mrs. Brown (Anne Revere) is the very spirit of plain-folk wisdom; the spokeswoman for common sense and fair play, she knows well enough not to silence the semi-hysterical energy of her horse-crazy daughter, and she lets the girl have her dream…

Anne Revere won an Oscar as Velvet's mother, as did editor Robert J. Kern… A sentimental, heart-tugging family film set in England of the 1920s. A young Elizabeth Taylor wins a horse in a raffle and decides to enter him in the Grand National; fortunately, ex-jockey Mickey Rooney is around to give Liz some help. Director Clarence Brown displays some remarkable control with material that could've been excessively maudlin in someone else's hands. He and screenwriters Helen Deutsch and Theodore Reeves take great care in establishing genuine characterizations and developing the story naturally. True, there are one or two scenes that seem a bit forced, but overall it's quite affecting, and gorgeously filmed in Technicolor. The race itself is quite thrilling, and like so many great classics, there's a marvelous, three-hankie fade-out at the end. Liz proves that she was a real trooper right from the start, and Rooney--who I usually find rather annoying--is surprisingly subdued and really very good. Donald Crisp is terrif as Liz's gruff father and Angela Lansbury is a delight as her older, boy-crazy sister. Most of the acting kudos, however, belong to Anne Revere, who won a richly deserved Supporting Actress Oscar playing Liz's wise and caring mother. I am 13 years old and I am writing this review in my mom's sign in. She will write her own review later.

This is my all time favorite movie.It was filmed in England in 1944. I watched it so many times when I was little that I wore out the video tape. I love this movie and it changed my life! The beautiful landscapes. The mighty pie-bold thoroughbred horse. The plain little Irish village with the young girl who wanted to do what no other girl had ever done, compete in The Grand National Steeplechase in London with her most beloved horse, The Pirate. It all made me want to ride horses (which I have done now for 7 years)and learn everything I could about their breeds so I could also draw and paint them. It's a ground breaking movie about winning against all odds, overcoming your fears, believing in yourself, and reaching difficult goals by working very hard. Also, the horse race scene was one of the best ever made and I have seen many movies with horse races. I never get tired of watching this movie. Everything about it is perfect. Especially if you are a young girl and passionate about horses! My daughter already wrote a review of this movie in my sign in...but I want to add a few words.

‘National Velvet' was one of my two favorite movies as a child. (The other being 'The Wizard of Oz‘.) The cinematography, the acting, the script, and the music all came together is such a wonderful little heart felt drama that it can still bring tears to my jaded eyes. Based on a book by Enid Bagnold, the script followed the book quite well. The characters are so thoughtfully created. It's easy to become emotionally involved with the entire family and the quaint little Irish village in which they live. The premise...complete outsider believes in her horse and herself enough to chance a try at the greatest horse race in the world...is awe inspiring to any young person, especially a young girl in the 40's...a time when girls were sometimes ignored as humans beings let alone athletes. You would have to be terribly hard-boiled not to appreciate it's merit.

But the perspective I cherished most about this movie is the unabridged innocence in it's moral message.. It's almost magical how 'mom and apple pie' the movies were back then. I was really taken aback by the IMDB reviewer who asked...'Was the world ever really this trusting?' and then proceeded to chastize the director for his complacency regarding ‘unchaperoned' overnight travel involving the two main characters. My answer to his question is an unequivocal YES!!!! The movie going world was that trusting in the 40's.

My grandparents remember taking my mother to this movie when it was released. Then my mother took me to see it when I was young, and my daughter was lucky enough to be born at a time when she could watch it repeatedly on video tape. Now we have it on DVD. It's been a family favorite for generations, albeit generations of horse lovers. It was never about sex...it's about coming of age! It's about believing in yourself and working hard to reach your goals. Also, so old fashioned it wasn't even about the prize money! It's about the girl child who understood her horse had what it took to ‘be the best'. And yes, the director was indeed concerned with Elizabeth Taylor's lack of physical development because the book made a big deal about Velvet Brown (Liz Taylor's character) having to cut her hair and bind her chest so that she could pass as a male jockey when she went to the Grand National Steeplechase. This was a guys only sport back then...I think there have only been 12 women ever to compete in this race. It's almost insulting that anyone would bother to think the Lolita thing about this particular movie...besides, anyone having had anything at all to do with an adolescent girl and her horse would know that the only thing they ever think about with stars in their eyes have four hooves and a tail.

And now for a great bit of trivia...the stunt riding was performed by the now famous ‘Horse Whisperer', Monty Roberts. I believe he is given mentioned for his riding in the movie credits.

I give this movie a 10 out of 10! I never get tired of watching it again. This is the first movie I ever owned on video, and 14 years later, I still have the same copy. Elizabeth Taylor was as radiant at twelve as ever later in life, Mickey Rooney gave real dimension to Mi Taylor, and Donald Crisp was solid as ever as Mr. Brown. The amazing Anne Revere, as Mrs. Brown, seemed to be the wisest woman in the world. After nearly 60 years, the warmth, humor, and excitement of this film still affect the viewer; we still laugh at the jokes, root for The Pie, and love Velvet for the spirit and capacity for love that she displays. I love it as an adult just as I loved it as a child. A must for every family video collection. During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.

It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.

It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.

It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.

What a movie! One of the enduring classics from MGM came out in the closing years of World War II, it's the film that made young Elizabeth Taylor a star. She had done a few films as a child actress before National Velvet, but when it came out her place in the movies was assured. Ironically enough biologically she'd be growing up fast enough after National Velvet was out and her next struggle as an actress was to get substantial adult roles because casting directors only saw her as innocent little Velvet Brown who loved her jumping horse.

I'm not sure of how this would work because steeplechase horses have to have confirmed bloodlines and the Pi's are a subject not dealt with in National Velvet. All we know is that he's a reckless and untrainable horse in the hands of Reginald Owen and after he breaks free and causes considerable damage, Owen gets rid of him for a nominal price to the local butcher Donald Crisp.

At the same time as these things are happening, Mickey Rooney comes wandering into the lives of the Brown family which consists of Crisp, wife Anne Revere, and daughters Angela Lansbury, Juanita Quigley, and Elizabeth Taylor and their little brother Butch Jenkins. Rooney is a former jockey who's now on the open road and heading for the Brown family where his father was once a horse trainer for Anne Revere's family. It's he who sees the potential of the Pi (short for pirate) as a steeplechase jumper and it's Elizabeth who convinces Crisp not to pass up this chance.

Elizabeth Taylor was so sweet and innocent in National Velvet. The Good Book says you have to have faith like a child and she has it to spare. She infuses Rooney with it, to have faith in the heart and ability of the Pi and to leave a little over for himself.

Anne Revere won a Best Supporting Actress Award for National Velvet. She's a very wise mother who has hidden depths to her that the audience doesn't suspect. It turns out that back in her youth she had a taste of fame and glory swimming the English Channel and her prize money, saved all these years, she gives to her daughter. That scene is probably what won her the Oscar. National Velvet also won one other Academy Award, for Film Editing.

Over 60 years after it made its debut National Velvet as a family classic hasn't lost a thing. Its depiction of life between the World Wars in Great Britain is still a standout. And National Velvet launched a movie legend. Can't do much better than that for high regard. This was one of the first color films I have seen at the cinema when I was a child. It is good to remember it. The girl, Liz Taylor, who later became a beautiful woman, starred together with the tiny and excellent actor Mickey Rooney. The content of the film plot is good for all ages, good wills and behavior. Good ethics of Velvet's parents, particularly her mother is something to take into account. Our generations should be well educated and this film may help to this purpose. Velvet loves the horses and racing them, and Mi Taylor (Rooney) brought her to an international horse racing competition in England, where at the end the young Velvet won, but was disqualified because of being female. "National Velvet" tells the story of Velvet Brown, a young English girl with dreams of entering her beloved horse into competition at the prestigious Grand National horse race. The film follows her as she trains her horse with the aid of a former jockey and the support of her parents.

While "National Velvet" is a family film that fact shouldn't deter anyone who typically views such films with derision. The film is indeed one that will appeal to the entire family, not just attention-addled youngsters. It even managed to land five Oscar nominations, hardly a sign of slacking off for a general audience.

Anne Revere, in the part of Velvet's mother, actually won an Oscar for her performance. She was indeed excellent in the role but it is 12-year old Elizabeth Taylor who steals the show. She is a charming presence and exhibits a talent beyond her years. Also on board are Oscar-winner Donald Crisp as Velvet's father, Mickey Rooney as former jockey Mi Taylor and Angela Lansbury (in one of her earliest film roles) as Velvet's older sister.

The film's lustrous Technicolor makes for an attractive viewing experience while the editing secured the second of the film's two Oscars. Additionally, the film was nominated for its direction (by Clarence Brown), cinematography & art direction. The score by ten-time Oscar nominee Herbert Stothart is also worth mentioning, though it went unnominated.

All in all, "National Velvet" is a wonderful family film that deserves a higher rating. I realize that the prospect of watching a film about a girl and her horse isn't exactly going to thrill some people but this one is worth taking a chance on. In my opinion, National Velvet is one of the top family classic's of all time. It features Mickey Rooney as (Mi Taylor) and Elizabeth Taylor as (Velvet Brown).

Velvet wins a race horse, named (Pie) in a raffle. She falls in love with it right away. With the help of Mi, an ex-jockey, they train it to race in the Grand National's. After the jockey who was scheduled to race Pie backs out at the last moment, Mi convinces Velvet to take his place.

This was a well put together motion picture. Fine storyline and top notch acting. The inner play between Elizabeth and Mickey was magical. This is a wonderful family picture expertly Directed by Clarence Brown. The photography is stunning. This is a movie you will enjoy for years to come.

This picture is what made Elizabeth Taylor a household name. Both Mickey and Elizabeth remained close after the film. They still send post cards to each other after all these many years.

One side note. Elizabeth loved the horse "Pie" so much that the studio gave it to her. it's a beautiful film.the scenes are well pictured.Anne Revere 's dialogs are really well written and inspiring,the philosophy and thoughts that this film gives and the things it teaches makes it great and wonderful.

Mickey Rooney is great in the movie and his role goes through lot of emotional turmoil as the film progresses.

Elizabeth Taylor looks very pretty,her scenes in the film are inherently poetic,the way camera follows her and the way the music make you feel make every scene of her ethereally beautiful.

this movie has great spirit and a beloved cherished classic.

Angela Lansbury is quite amusing in her role though unrecognizable if you have seen her in role of 'm' in 'the Manchurian Candidate'.

Donald Crisp has done his father's role full justice and the script provides him with ample stuff to justify his role.

its a very nice film and a must watch for family and children an evergreen Christmas favorite. Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.

The plot of "National Velvet" is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the "Big Race" are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading "child star" and Taylor's exuberant new "child star", which adds depth to their characterizations.

The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic.

******** National Velvet (12/14/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere Two of Hollywood's great child stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney) are perfectly teamed to deliver one of the all-time family classics. The story of a determined 12 year old girl, whose adoration for horses won't allow her to turn away from her goal to win the British Nationals. Mickey Rooney is the newly orphaned drifter, looking to tie himself over until he can follow his own dreams.

A beautiful side plot reveals that the girl's mother had ambitions of her own as a young girl. Repeatedly overruling the father's decisions in favor of their spirited daughter, it is mother who seems to know best. The scene where the exhausted Taylor rushes to go to school is priceless: father protests "why did you let her go to school, she'll drop from exhaustion before noon!" - Not to worry, she'd be back within a half hour; it was Saturday! The brilliant Technicolor, the sumptuous music score, and those beautiful faces, all telling a bittersweet story. Here's a good reason for the old saying: They don't make'm like that anymore! ccmovieman-1 must be, as the reviewer in the New York Times who preferred the Janis Joplin Big Brother and the Holding Company album to the just released Beatles'"White" album was called, either evil or insane. National Velvet is a great film. Elizabeth Taylor's performance is fantastic, and I fail to discern even a trace of accent, much less too much of one. Her performance is very natural, authentic and unbelievably charming. The rest of the cast is superb, especially Rooney and Revere.

As far as the dialog being hokey or sentimental, I suggest cc has dined too long on a diet of irony and has lost the ability to discern genuine straight-forward emotion and human interaction. There was a time when people actually did think and talk in such a manner. Not that this film doesn't have a slight hint of the magical permeating through it. That is the reason to tell the story. One might as well criticize the Wizard of Oz, King Kong, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Black Stallion ( the other great horse film ) or a thousand other films for having action and dialog that seem richer than real life. No my friend, National Velvet endures because of its belief firmly in itself, with tongue firmly not in cheek. Something today's jaded filmmakers find nearly impossible to recreate. After my 6 year old daughter began taking riding lessons I started looking for horse movies for her. I had always heard of National Velvet but had never seen it. Boy am I glad I bought it! It's become a favorite of mine, my 6 year old AND my 2 year old. It's a shame movies like this aren't made anymore. This movie is ageless and would probably appeal to children today, even if there isn't a Jedi in the entire thing. Of course, Elizabeth Taylor was the most beautiful child in the world and her acting is great too. Even Mickey Rooney is good; so are Anne Revere and Angela Lansbury. The world was a different place when this movie was released, and it certainly is a great place to visit. This is the greatest movie if you want inspiration on following your heart and never giving up on your dream. Elizabeth Taylor is Velvet and in her prime (of her childhood, at least), Mickey Rooney is a cynical friend who eventually becomes her trainer and they go off to the Grand National steeplechase with her beloved horse "the Pi"--short for "Pirate"--only to have Velvet become the jockey and have a chance at victory. To those of you who have not seen it yet, I won't give away the ending but you should see it and once you do you'll love it. Notice a very young Angela Lansbury as Velvet's eldest sister. This is a delightful film. Elizabeth Taylor does a wonderful job, as does Mickey Rooney. The film just makes you feel happy. It's inspirational, and even though some parts are a bit overly sentimental, that is easily forgiven. I could watch this movie again and again. The race at the end is exciting every time I see it. Highly recommend this film. National Velvet (1944) The movie that put Taylor on the map. Costarring the then number one box office champ, Mickey Rooney. Taylor plays a girl in love with her horse and when jockey Mickey Rooney is unable to ride in the Grand National race, spunky Liz cuts her hair, pretends to be a boy and races the horse to...well I won't spoil the end for you. It's quality melodrama that MGM was famous for putting out. And it's another early color picture to boot! First, let me say that I find films like Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, and most of Spielberg to be absolutely horrid and stomach turning. Although, National Velvet on the surface would seem to be in the same genre and has what should be cringe-worthy moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it, laughing and bawling throughout the film.

The premise of the plot, a young girl with an unknown horse from a small village entering the Grand National is certainly as implausible as could be, but it is the only thing that you have to accept for it to work as a fairy tale or allegory. The characters have depth and grow throughout the story. Ann Revere gives an absolutely stunning performance as one of the wisest women ever depicted in an American film. Her interaction with the good-hearted Donald Crisp is funny and sweet. While Liz Taylor tries a bit too hard to be even cuter than Margaret O'Brien (she succeeds btw), her passion and love for her horse shines through her face. Mickey Rooney gives a beautifully nuanced performance of the trainer.

This is far from a perfect movie. Some of the situations and scenes are a bit corny and dated (the kids' antics, and Rooney's scenes at the track and in the pub for example) but it doesn't matter. The plot remains true to the characters and leaves quite a bit unsaid. We don't have unnatural overly dramatic and preachy moments - sometimes more is less. The final scene is a great example of this - the emotional dialog is left to the viewer to fill in.

Strong understated performances, rounded characters, pithy dialog, intelligent and internally consistent storyline. We believe in the characters and are moved by their story. Yup - they just don't make them like this any more... I hope we never become to cynical as a society to appreciate the simple beauty of this movie: Beautiful to look at with its romantic English countryside, and beautiful in its message of faith and loyalty. Watch this with your children, especially your young daughters- Velvet Brown is a wonderful role model for girls. This was one of my daughter's favorite films.

The story is based on a best selling book by Enid Bagnold about a girl, Velvet, whose whole life is her horse, Pi, and about her single-minded pursuit of her "impossible" dream. I won't say anymore about the plot less I spoil it for first-time viewers. She lives with a big loving family in a small coastal village.

This is the movie that made Elizabeth Taylor a star, and to watch the film is to understand why. She is a natural actress who radiates an inner beauty that matches her outward beauty- trusting, passionate, innocent- she is the emotional core of the movie.

Mickey Rooney gives a wonderful performance as Mi, the young man who arrives on their doorstep one day, stays, and helps Velvet train the Pi. This is one of his finest performances. Also standing out is Anne Revere as Velvet's mother in an Academy Award winning role. Her strong, loving and wise character understands that life isn't of much value unless you follow your dreams: "We're alike. I, too, believe that everyone should have a chance at a breathtaking piece of folly once in his life."

I heartily recommend this very sweet, very inspiring classic from Hollywood's golden age. My family watches this movie over and over. Even our 3 year old loves it. I like the "goodness" in the movie. Giving the stranger a chance...showing goodwill to one obviously in need of some unconditional acceptance. The movie gives a feeling of goodwill and victory. One other aspect of the movie that makes it so appealing is the personalities of Velvet's siblings. The bird lover. The bug lover. The boy lover! Very cute and happy movie. There is one thing, however that is irritating about it. That is how Mrs. Brown often makes Mr. Brown look foolish or unwise. She, at times,comes off as a know it all, and he as a dimwit, which he is not. Too bad to put that into such a nice story. Nevertheless, we will continue to enjoy this wonderful, old movie! Wow! What a lovely, warm, rural film! The story focuses upon Mi Taylor (Mickey Rooney), a young male wanderer, whose journey takes him to a quiet, rural coastal town. There he stays with the Brown family. Velvet (Liz Taylor) their youngest daughter, who Mi subtly befriends, has a passion for horses and wins one at an auction. This horse is a beautiful, maroon stallion; referred by its previous owner as a 'murderous pirate', but Velvet re-names him Pie. Not long later, Velvet suggests to enter him in the Grand National race, Mi and her family are against the idea, but soon agree and Velvet and Mi began to train him for Britain's most famous horse race … This film is a beautiful example of what British films are like. I remember I first saw this when I was eight and on my summer holidays. My parents taped it off the TV and I warmed to it instantly – watching it most days instead of the large collection of Disney films that I owned.

I believe it was one of Liz Taylor's first movies and a good one! Her character is naïve but sweet – her acting is extremely convincing, especially when she portrays her love for horses. It's also a good chance to see Angela Lansbury in one of her early roles; who co-stars as Velvet's older sister, who spends most of her time in the film being smitten with a boy in the town! I must say she was a gorgeous lady when she was younger. Beautiful blonde hair and a rosy cheeked face. Although she doesn't have a major part in the movie, she dose have a number of scenes - so not to disappoint her fans! Parents reading this, I must emphasis – if you can get hold of a copy of this please do! If you're children love animals – I strongly suggest you show it to them! They may find a few scenes boring but you see Velvet riding the horse on many occasions throughout the film and would most defiantly entertain children! A lovely and nostalgic film. I might just go away now and put it on! I just wanted to say that I am watching National Velvet on TV, it is now Feb 2006 and I was checking on dates details, etc. Surprising to see it was made in 1944 and Rooney was 24 years old whilst Liz Taylor only 12, what an accomplished English actress she is.

To put some Americans contributors right: There are no Irish villages in England. Ireland is a completely different country and has nothing whatsoever to do with the English countryside. The scenes shown are supposedly taken on the South coast of England between Brighton and Arundel (county of Sussex). No such scene exists now unfortunately. Like many other places roads and buildings have been built on the hills and beaches.

So please, all you lovely Americans, do not confuse Ireland with England, ever! we take great exception to it. Like confusing Texas with Coney Island. A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so. Never mind if 'National Velvet (1944)' is a bit hackneyed and occasionally unconvincing, Clarence Brown's equestrian fable is an endearing and very likable story with a good moral. After achieving modest success through her appearance in 'Lassie Come Home (1943),' young Elizabeth Taylor, age 12, landed her first leading role as Velvet Brown, a passionate schoolgirl with an obsession for horses. Though filmed in California, the story - adapted from a novel by Enid Bagnold - is set in a small township on the English countryside, and full advantage is taken of the Technicolor photography to present the vibrant and handsome landscapes of blue skies and green shrubs. Mickey Rooney takes top billing as Mi Taylor, a misguided ex-jockey with devious intentions, whose relationship with young Velvet reawakens his sense of dignity and opens a new, optimistic chapter in his life. Though he noticeably struggles in one sequence, when he must confess the traumatic experience that led to his fear of horses, Rooney is enjoyable as the surly but passionate young man who must prove his worth.

It is perhaps a good thing that Elizabeth Taylor had those entrancing violet eyes, because her acting abilities, at this young age, were rather limited. Her more emotional sequences, in which she displays courage and integrity in the face of adversity, strike one as being rather hollow, and the touchingly-naive notion that simply "believing" will accomplish everything is one that has since been repeated ad nauseam by practically every unmemorable inspirational sporting film ever made. Nevertheless, Taylor is bright-eyed and enthusiastic, and she works well with Mickey Rooney, who was no stranger to being a child-star. Anne Revere plays a very important role as Velvet's mother, once a famous athlete, who not only swam the English Channel but was lovingly-trained by none other than Mi Taylor's own father. I liked that Mi was not told about this until the film's final seconds, with Mrs. Brown correctly deciding that the young man would first need to develop his own sense of decency, rather than exploiting the memory of his late father for financial gain, as he would undoubtedly have done at the film's beginning.

The film reaches its climax at the Grand National Sweepstakes, where Velvet has, at the last moment, decided to ride her own horse, the Pi, in the world-famous competition. Under the guise of a Latvian male, she goes on, as expected, to win the race, but is later disqualified - either because she's a girl, or because she tumbled from the horse before she was allowed to dismount (what a stupid rule!). This extended race sequence is exceedingly well-done, effectively capturing the nervous tension of those nerve-racking pre-race seconds, and the confusion of the event that places us in the same position as Rooney's character, stranded behind tall spectators and waiting anxiously for somebody to provide an accurate update. It doesn't really matter that we know it's a stunt double doing most of the difficult riding - in several scenes, we can clearly see a creepy-looking man in a wig - but the positive message remains the same. I'll wager that 'National Velvet' has nurtured the imaginations of millions of young girls over the last sixty years, and it's power to inspire has decreased little with time. I loved this show. I used to actually leave the pub ten minutes before closing and run down the road to catch it. I remember Daniel Peacock's sketch about Gandhi in the newsagents as a masterpiece. The set design and lighting were out of this world, creating an atmosphere that you felt you were actually living in. V unusual for a comedy.

Unfortunately I have only encountered one other person (apart from the other reviewer here) who ever knew that this programme existed. In fact I have to thank the IMDb for coming into existence and proving to me that I hadn't in fact imagined the whole series in a drunken haze, which I was seriously starting to believe! Ahhhh, 1984.... I was young and stupid, and just developing a taste for those exotic cigarettes, whilst living in a squat in Manchester's Moss Side, with the most unbelievable case of cockroach infestation.

After a few of those doobies, this show was ROTFLMAO material - I was an avid fan. Then I'd look down at the floor (or up at the walls, or just about anywhere) and see my very own collection of "little armadillos" scuttling about.

Not sure if it was the chemical enhancement, but I remember thinking at the time that the overt surrealism of the show was fantastic - it was my second favourite thing on TV at the time (#1 was the season of Luis Bunuel movies being shown by Channel 4). Radical art lives on!

Also you gotta that theme tune! ....I swear, I'll never drink no more.... I remember this in a similar vein to the Young Ones. We'd stumble back from the pub and watch this or tape it and then spend weeks replaying the lines to each other.

We called one of our mates "Zipmole Watkins" after the brilliant episode in which Daniel Peacock has a bit of 'restyling' on his nose by the Back Street Abortionist.

Lots of great lines "Remember at 5:30 in the morning you can only get white bread from a brown man. Take it easy guy!" - Gandhi as a local shopkeeper.

Tony woodcock was definitely on there in the episode they were teaching Ralph (Daniel Peacock) to be a barman "It's no good Amanda I'll never make it as a bar man" Helen Lederer teaches him to ask people about the match "See the match last night? I thought Woodcock played well" After a string of failed conversations the curly haired Arsenal star was sitting at the bar: "See the match last night?" "Yeah. I thought I played well"

We still do odd stupid lines now - "Reg and Ralph..... or....... Ralph and Reg. Reg, Reg... Reg Reg Reg Reg"

Lots of very surreal silly moments and very surreal songs from the Flatlets - The Back Street Abortionist a personal favourite with the great ending line - "And he'll mark your packages 'Return To Sender"

Good old Danny Peacock - you added a lot to some young drinkers' evenings sir.

**Update - I found a couple of episodes on tape - I'm going to upload the Gandhi sketch to Youtube ** I don't really know what it is about Dirty Dancing.. there is some sort of absolute magic in this movie.. I cannot possibly recount the hundreds (yes, hundreds)of times I've watched it, beginning to end... but every time I do come upon it on TV, I am entranced and mystified and sit myself down and there I am, for two hours, loving the movie as if I'm watching it for the first time. Although Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey absolutely hated each other throughout the making of this film, they possess a beautiful chemistry on the set.. it makes the viewer enjoy it that much more, to see this passion and commitment.. and I can't help tearing up a tiny bit at the end, when Patrick comes up to the Houseman family and tells her dad, "Nobody puts Baby in a corner". (classic moment) For all those people who believe this movie is corny and sappy, maybe in a way it is, but it was the penicle of the 80's films, and put Patrick Swayze right on the map; his performance was immaculate.

Three Cheers for Dirty Dancing !!

Ps- The soundtrack is fantastic, an absolute masterpiece This timeless summer love story is a classic and will never be dated. I can't even count how many times I've seen Dirty Dancing. This is one movie that I could probably watch every few weeks and still love.

There is something timeless about this movie. I have loved other "blockbuster love story movies" like Pretty Woman and when Harry met Sally. I think their up there but there is something about Dirty Dancing that just makes it absolutely perfect. The characters, the chemistry between Swaze and Grey, the movie's direction, the INCREDIBLE dancing, the warm summery atmosphere, everything about dirty dancing is absolutely perfect. It is an instant classic and I've never really seen a movie like it either before or since.

I don't think there is one particular element that makes this movie so loved but many things, a lot of which are mentioned by numerous reviewers. Dirty Dancing has a nostalgic, languid, summery mood, realistic characters, a relateable honest message coupled with incredible music and dancing, and the one of the best dance sequences cinema has ever given us.

This movie is always on TV and I will continue to watch it as long as they show it. But I WILL mention I have no interest in seeing "Havanna Nights", this one they should have left alone. I have been waiting to see this film for ages and I finally have! As soon as I heard the title I knew that this film would be my favourite film ever and when I saw it believe me I wasn't disappointed!

This film had everything dance, love and Patrick Swayze! There was so much in it and it dealt with important issues, (that were at the time, 1960's) , such as abortion.

The dancing in this film was fantastic, just like the acting was! Swayze was brilliant just like Grey was too!

Although this film was absolutely fantastic you cannot say that you have seen it if you haven't seen the last scene. It really does take your breath away as the whole choreography of the last dance was done brilliantly, it had you dancing at the end of the film and it really wouldn't surprise me if it influenced people to take up dancing!

Overall Dirty Dancing is a film NOT to be missed and even if half the actors are in the: "Where are they now?" period the actors will always have this superb film in their career! There was talk on the E! Hollywood Special about the Making of Dirty Dancing which still is considered by many women including a dear friend of mine in her fifties to be one of her favorite all time movies. Maybe the music, the dancing, or the melodrama around the plot of Baby Frances becoming a dancing sensation with Johnny Castle. Of course, this film established Jennifer Grey whose biggest role to date was the resentful sister in Ferris Beuller's Day Off. Patrick Swayze is perfectly cast as the heart throb leading man who sweeps baby away literally. Dirty Dancing has it all to become a Broadway or West End smash hit. It has the love story, the music, and most of all lots of dancing. Jennifer and Patrick could revive their roles easily. it is nice to see Jerry Orbach play a doctor instead of a police officer and Kelly Bishop as the mother. It all took place in the Catskills in the sixties where many Jewish families vacationed in the area during their summer vacations. At the end of the film, it is sad to see the hotel owner, Kellerman, be baffled by the next generation. It happened anyway! Most people prefer cruises and traveling through Europe than spending the summer in the Catskills. Those old grand hotels are becoming Indian gaming casinos. Let Broadway bring Dirty Dancing alive and well. After all, they could do it for Footloose and Saturday Night Fever, this should be a no brainer! I know that this film is one of the favorites that you don't get tired of after watching 800 times. There are people that have probably seen this film-a 1,000 times by now. Somehow watching the making and the story behind Dirty Dancing made me long for my childhood days as a thirteen year old. Dirty Dancing may not be the greatest film ever made in the history but its universal appeal still draws crowds and repeated watchers like the 800 club whose members have watched it so many times. I watch it fondly now with all the awkwardness of Baby's first days and her first true love with Patrick Swayze as heart throb, Johnny Castle. Nobody could have imagined this little film as a big hit then with the sixties music, two soundtracks, and even a tour in the late eighties. I hope they bring it to Broadway in a musical. It would work for the audience to be part of a film. No wonder it still attracts kids and even adults particularly women of all ages to watch it over and over again. Well, Australia and London both have had productions of Dirty Dancing. It looks like it will come to Broadway in 2007 just in time for it's 20th anniversary. I viewed this movie for the first time last night and I enjoyed every aspect of it –the dancing, the acting, the dialogue, the plot, the script and the whole atmosphere that this movie created. I would highly recommend it.

Jennifer Grey gives an absolutely wonderful and first class performance in her role as Frances (Baby) Houseman. She has a natural ability and flair for dancing and she is beautiful and enchanting on the dance floor. But what is wonderful about Baby is that she has such a wonderful depth and dimension to her character. This is not simply a movie about dancing but the scriptwriters have also given us a chance to see Baby deal with the various emotions and feelings that she is experiencing throughout the movie and to allow us an insight into how her interaction with others at the camp changes her life. Grey portrays her character with such realism and poignancy that you end up feeling deeply for Baby as she experiences all she does in this movie.

Patrick Swayze is magnificent in his role as Johnny and truly succeeds in making his character come alive. He gives his character a comprehensive personality, strong appeal and great depth. The chemistry between Swayze and Grey is enchanting and powerful and contributes significantly to the great success of this movie

Cynthia Rhodes is great in her role of Penny and her portrayal of the ordeal that she experiences is truly powerful and contributes a frightening dimension to the film. The other members of the supporting cast –Jerry Orbach and the late Mark Cantor deserve a special mention here-also give wonderful and imaginative performances that gives this movie an additional dimension of high quality acting and believability that is wonderful to experience. The dancing is magnificent and first class on the part of all involved.

The script and interaction between all the major characters is intriguing and engages the viewer in a powerful fashion. The plot, although exceedingly predictable, is given more than enough life and vitality to make this movie successful.

Furthermore the wonderful selection of music contained in this movie creates a truly magical atmosphere and very nostalgic environment that enhances the quality and success of all the various scenes.

`Dirty Dancing' is a truly powerful, magnificent and very appealing movie that leaves you deeply touched and with a wonderful feeling in your heart and soul and an inspiration to dance. I highly recommend it this is an excellent movie i have been watching it since i was 6yrs old with my big sister. it is the type of movie that u can watch over and over again and still laugh, smile, and cry every time with out ever getting bored of it like other movie's. it is a movie that will live on forever through generations of family. i love it :) when ranking from 1-10 in my case i would rate it easily 9.9 every time.

Itis a film about the change of a girl (baby) and her first boy-friend (Johnny)their relationships within the family, the changes in baby's and Johnny's view of the world during their relationship.

DIRTY DANCING WILL FOREVER LIVE ON AS A TIMLESS CLASSIC. thank-you sorry though for only the short comment. This is the best movie ever, but that is my opinion. Some say it's cheesy but I think it is truly a beautiful film. The chemistry between Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze it's like no other I have ever seen, and that is what makes the film so perfect. I always wonder what would have been of this film if these two actors never existed, because not just one them did it for me, they both did. If you have never seen this film, when you do you will understand what I mean. Dirty Dancing looks like it was done from the heart and it feels so real for some reason, like magic- and the soundtrack LOVE IT. Besides the 2 lead actors the soundtrack makes the film the beauty that it is. As you can tell I am in love with this film, and I know you will be too.

When this film was released I dismissed as being lightweight pop nonsense. That was a mistake.

After repeated viewings and seeing a documentary of the making of DIRTY DANCING, discovering the depth of this film certainly increases its appeal.

DIRTY DANCING is a film about change. The evolving nature of relationships within the family, the changes in one's view of the world during their coming of age, etc. The story takes place during August of 1963, the final weeks of the last summer of innocence for the American people. The many personal changes experienced by the characters reflect the many changes in American society that would be marked by the Kennedy assassinations and Vietnam.

Female movie go'ers adored this film and repeated trips to the movie houses made it the world's most successful dance movie. As a male I find the romantic pairing of ultimate stud Patrick Swayze with very plain Jennifer Grey very hard to accept. This would be fatal for most romantic dramas, and it also may have create the intense dislike expressed by most male reviewers.

The film's soundtrack found #1 status before the release of the movie. To this day it is nearly impossible to attend a wedding reception without hearing a DIRTY DANCING song.

Near the midpoint of the film Baby's mother wakes up and asks Baby's father, "Is anything wrong?"

Baby's father, the anti-change family member, attempts to keep all that is happening a secret. He tells his wife to go back to sleep. However, resist as one can, change is unstopable. DIRTY DANCING is the story of one person waking up just at the final moments of our country's last sleep in innocence. I first saw this movie with my fiancée many years after it came out. I thought I would hate it, but to my surprise it is so cheesy that it's great. We've spent many hours reenacting parts of the movie ("Sylvia?!Yes Mickey?" or "I'm sorry you had to see that Baby. Sometimes in this world we see things that we don't want to."). My financee cracks up every time I imitate Neil. Also the music is classic and fun to sing along with, especially on road trips. Of course I don't admit any of this to my male friends. It's like a guilty pleasure. I seriously watch Dirty Dancing once a month or more and it is just as good every time. Jennifer Grey is also so cute in this movie. Its too bad her career never really took off. Dirty Dancing follows the story of Frances 'Baby' Houseman (Jennifer Grey)and her family as they spend the summer at Kellerman's Family Summer Camp. We get to see her discover herself as she falls in love with the dance instructor, Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze).

The movie is full of wonderful dancing (hence the title!) some great music, and terrific scenery. It handles some tough issues with dignity and grace, and, of course, has (shocking spoiler here!) a happy, wonderful, feel good ending! You know how it's going to end from the beginning, but that's really not the point here. The point is the journey, a journey that touches every member of the family.

It's one of the movies I need to see whenever it comes on TV...never mind the fact that I already have it memorized! I have to admit, before i watched this film i thought, this is one of those soppy love stories where everything works out fine and dandy all the way through. but i was proved wrong when i actually sat down to watch this. I found that it was in fact a really good story about a family who go to a dance park for a 3 week holiday and there the youngest daughter, baby, finds love but has difficulty getting there with her new found love due to disagreements with her father. But along the way helps another dance instructor, and risks the whole relationship...A truly heartwarming film, like no other.

10/10 I didn't understand what that line meant... I do now. I didn't really want to see Dirty Dancing either. I'd rented it out but never watched it - and today I did. And I thought it was a really fun, great movie that makes you want to get up and dance. Alright, it was cheesy at times... but it's still a great movie. I can't believe Jennifer Grey was 27 in this movie - my friend and I thought she looked about 18 or 19 - 20 at the most. I guess this is attributed to her acting talent. And she did really look awkward at times. Patrick Swayze is also very good, but you can tell he is in his thirties and seems a bit old. Nevertheless, still very good. I love 80s songs so it really struck a chord with me, and the love story (yes, I'm a romantic) was so wonderfully done. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Exceeded my expectations! One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.

The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.

The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.

All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment. Jennifer Grey seems the unlikeliest of romantic leads and that's probably the reason why this beloved film is such a sure-fire hit. It's all very well doing a version of Montagus and Capulets with sweeteners like dancing and schadenfreude-baiting Jewish society family tropes thrown in but there usually has to be an X Factor.

Swayze probably makes this film safe with his rugged, post-Travolta moves and temperament but its being won over by this curly-mopped Penelope Pitstop teen that brings the dream in reach of the impressionable market. The super (dated? perhaps 'immortalised') soundtrack helps and of course the cunning conceit of setting the film in a resort away from day to day life altogether finesses the fantasy. 7/10 Great music, great dancing, a sexy star (Swayze) and actual sexual desire shown by a female character (a very unusual event!). You rarely see female characters who are motivated primarily by lust and it is a nice change. I also think the movie captures very well what it is like to be a teenager coping with issues of class and of having ideals suddenly come up against reality. Of course, it is sappy at moments - it is, after all, a movie musical - but all in all it is a real pleasure - a fun romance and also politically enlightened. This movie also has one of my favorite all time movie lines: "I carried the watermelon." Dirty Dancing one of my MOST favorite movies. I've only watched it two times on ABC because I haven't had the chance to buy it or rent it from Blockbuster. I had no idea Jennifer Grey was 27 at the time she made the movie, because she was very convincing as a teenager. Compared to some women in Hollywood she has a very flat chest, which is why I was fooled so easily about her age. So both physically and emotionally, Grey pulls off playing a teen very well. I also loved the dancing--who WOULDN'T? Both times I've watched Dirty Dancing, I keep wanting to look up dance classes. I also love the soundtrack, and I do recognize some of the songs from when I was eight or nine. I would LOVE to be able to watch this in my drama class, and I'm going to ask my teacher at some point if there's any part of the movie he can use for educational purposes. It's much better than the stuff he made us watch last year. And the ending was absolutely FANTASTIC. That's one of the best moments in the film.

I can't believe I'm looking forward to the first day back to school because of Dirty Dancing! Who could ask for a better influence from a movie with that sort of title? Dirty Dancing - I think everyone has seen this movie at one time or another. I can remember as a kid I loved this movie and watched it over and over again without tiring of it.

Now that I'm a little older, I bought the DVD recently and STILL wasn't disappointed with the performance.

Swayze and Grey create the atmosphere for this movie, even though it's claimed they don't get along, the chemistry in the movie is unbelievable! As the movie proceeds, we are sucked into their relationship, and believe every single one of their actions.

The soundtrack is amazing, the music only adds to the romantic mood of the movie and adds to the relationship between Baby & Patrick.

The last scene makes this movie, who can ever forget the famous line "Noboby puts Baby in the corner." The song is perfect and the dancing is amazing!

I would recommend this movie to anyone, at any age, it's just a fun movie anyone can enjoy 8/10. When dirty dancing was on TV in the middle of last year I was out so I didn't get to see it, my mum swore that I had seen it and that she had it on tape somewhere. Anyway getting to the point she couldn't find her video so for Christmas I bought her the DVD, well she hasn't had a look in. It sat around for a while then one night I decided to take it upstairs to watch and I fell in love with it. This is a great film with lots of lovely scenes! I love the plot and enjoyed every moment of it! It's definitely not for everyone but if you love a love story then you will want to watch Dirty Dancing again and again! Dirty Dancing - The Way Love Is Meant To Be! i have seen this movie about 50 times already and it doesn't look like i am ever going to get bored of it. i always watch it with my best friend and it has become sort of a tradition for us now to watch it almost every month. every single time we see this movie we both get really emotional and we laugh and cry in front of the TV together and sing all the songs in a loud voice and in the end we always dance.by now we practically know even the whole dialog by heart and watching the film feels like seeing our own old friends on TV.

this film is perfect! even though i have to admit that the story itself is a bit cheesy but the characters, the dance, the music and even the place where it all takes place make you forget all about it and you start believing that things like that really do happen and that the song "all you need is love" actually has some kind of a meaning.

i am really a normal person and not too serious about this comment of mine but i just cant wait until the next time we'll be able to see Dirty Dancing. i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it. I first heard of this film from a friend. She loved it and always watched it. When she told me about it and said how old it was, I immediately decided that I wouldn't like it. I was so wrong. Dirty Dancing was such an amazing film! I love the music and the dancing. I bought the soundtrack and DVD immediately after watching it. Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey were brilliant in it. They captured the emotions and feelings of the characters so well. They were both such good dancers. After watching the film I wished I could dance like them and I'm hopefully going to take up ballroom and Latin dancing soon. I've become a fan of that sort of dancing and am now hooked on all films and programs about it. Dirty Dancing revealed my passion for dancing and music. My favorite parts of the film are when Baby goes into the Staff's headquarters and sees them dancing and obviously the last scene where Baby and Johnny dance together in front of everyone. I believe that everyone must watch Dirty Dancing at least once in their lifetime. If they don't, it's their loss!! SO good, the acting, cutting, directing in there may not be the best ever, but the dancing, the moves, the heat and the passion in this movie is definitely the best (well...atleast for me ^^) it really touched me, inspired me to learn dancing. i even especially registered to this site just so i could vote on it and contribute my support for this movie. for this movie, it literally gave me goosebumps when i watched it. i love it. Jennifer Grey is SO pretty! Patrick is so sexy in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the first thing i'll do tomorrow, on my way to university will be to drop by the video store n buy a copy of it, n watch it again n again till i am old n wrinkly n cant dance with the movie any longer. before than I NEED TO LEARN ALL THE DANCE MOVES THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When young Frances 'Baby' Houseman goes to summer camp with her family, she never expected to have so much fun! One night, after wandering away from a resort activity, she stumbles upon a all night dance party with Johnny Castle and other fellow dancers. Quickly enthralled by the raunchy dance moves, 'Baby' is eager to learn when she has to fill in for Penny just so she and Johnny don't lose their jobs at the resort. But young 'Baby' soon finds herself in a sticky situation; she has fallen in love with a man she knows her father will never approve of. However, when Johnny is accused of stealing wallets, it is up to 'Baby' to confirm his alibi by admitting that she was with him the night they were taken. Johnny is fired anyway for getting involved with a visitor, but quickly realises what a mistake it was leaving 'Baby'. He comes back with that famous line 'No one puts Baby in a corner' and they show the resort exactly what they're made of.

An amazing film, perfect for a girly night in. With groovy tunes, inspiring dances and a story that will make you feel all warm inside, this has got to be the greatest film of all time! ********** Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings "She's Like The Wind" in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance. Hello all you lovely Dirty Dancing fans!!!! I came across this message board when i was bored one day and think it's cool. I absolutely love DD! I first saw it at my friends house when I was 13 (now I'm 17) and got hooked!! I saw it there at least 10 more times and soon after, I bought the DVD for myself. At this stage, I have memorized most of the script and can recite it whenever anyone asks me about it. ''I carried a watermelon?!'' It's gotten so bad that I bought the soundtrack and recorded Micky and Sylvia's song, and now it's the ringtone on my phone!! Most of my friends think it's a crap movie, but I don't care what they think of it, I know it's brill! I was reading the comments earlier and I have a few questions for you lot - 1. Why are you asking trivial questions like what ages Lisa and Baby are? I don't think it matters that much. They are teenagers in the 60's, isn't that enough? 2. Where did ye get this special edition that you're all talking about? It sounds VERY interesting... Please reply to this. I'd like to see other fans opinions... Cheers! charliesangel415 xxx It's funny how time went by and never saw this movie...'till last week, when i was like under a spell. I saw it twice in a week and it still wasn't enough. It's a great movie and I will love to see it again. The story is great and it really moved me. I would love to live such a story. The actors are great, the music too and you can dream about your own love story. I just hope that someday I will find the opportunity to learn to dance like Johnny and Baby. I feel like dance connects people and brings them together. I think people should learn to dance...it helps a lot, especially in a relationship. It's great to feel the dance in your blood and in your body. I have watched this movie at least 30 times, maybe more, and each time I watch it I am drawn into the movie and back to 1963! The Movie takes me on a nostalgic vacation every time I watch it.

I think the important thing to say here is I was 15 in 1963 and I can remember "before President Kennedy was shot and before the Beetles came." I can feel myself saying something like, "I carried a watermelon." and then realizing just how stupid that was! Jennifer Grey plays Frances "Baby" Houseman in Dirty Dancing. Baby is going to start college in the Fall. She goes to Kellerman's for vacation with her family (mom, Dad and sister Lisa).

One of the staff dancers, Penny (played by Cynthia Rhodes) gets pregnant by another staff person (one of the college boys played by Max Cantor) and has a chance to get an abortion but it is on a night that her and Johnny (Patrick Swayze) are scheduled to dance at a nearby hotel.

Thus, the need for a fill-in dancer for Penny. Johnny is persuaded by Penny and his cousin Billy (Neal Jones) that he can teach Baby to do the dance in time for the show. Baby learning the dance steps with Penny and Johnny are wonderful scenes!

Baby's father (Doctor Jake Houseman played by Jerry Orbach) comes to Penny's rescue when the abortion is done wrong. Dirty Dancing brought back to me this time in history when girls got pregnant and had abortions in back rooms by butchers. Around this time (1963) many girls actually died from this type of abortion - but there were not many choices for a girl then.

Lonnie Price plays a great conceited grandson (Neil Kellerman) to Jack Weston's Max Kellerman. Jane Brucker does a great job as Baby's annoying sister Lisa Houseman.

The music is great and the dancing is wonderful! The "dirty dancers" are absolutely wonderful and very sexy - I can feel Baby's astonishment when she first sees them dancing and says, "Where'd they learn to do that?".

Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze are just perfect together in their respective roles. Patrick's song, "She's Like The Wind" brings tears to my eyes each time I hear/watch it in this movie.

The movie ends on an up note, but leaves you wanting to know what happens next in Baby's and Johnny's lives. Dirty Dancing gives something new each time it is watched - It mesmerizes the watcher with nostalgia, a feeling of wanting it to be 1963 again. I'm 15, usually not kids my age usually watch these old classic movies. But this is one of my favorites. I was totally addicted after watching it for the first time. It's really good if u think about technology and movies back at that time, music is great, storyline is OK,choreography is great, must see it. I don't know why there's a prequel for this movie. Not many people like this movie, but i love classic love movies, they're so much better than movies now! This movie will make you smile, cry and make you start dancing. The music is absolutely ear catching and beautiful. I haven't seen Dirty Dancing 2 Harvana Nights(prequel), prequel should have star the original actors, thats what i hate about prequels, they ruin the original. No one wants a prequel, they want a sequel. Many people will agree that for a movie- the original, sequel and the 3rd one is enough. Beyond that, people wont be bothered to watch it. Who remembers the movie about the St Benard Beethoven? I think there's 5 movies altogether. While most movies that pit humans against horrendous extra terrestrials end up being cheap imitations of the 'Aliens' series, Pitch Black stands as a fine piece of Sci-Fi, and an excellent movie all around. Perhaps my favorite aspect of the film is the lighting. This movie beautifully employs many different colors, shades and intensities of light which set the mood and lend a unique feeling to the film itself, something different than the 'normal' movie lighting we are generally subjected to. Vin Diesel brings his character to life in an excellent manner, skillfully avoiding the routine portrayal of the hardened criminal. After all, the film is about Riddick's (Diesel's character) personal journey, so thankfully Vin doesn't drop the ball. The remainder of the cast (with the exception of the talented and gorgeous Claudia Black) were unknown to me but all turned in marvelous performances, animating the diverse characters with unique quirks and mannerisms. Pitch Black is a perfect example of making a great film with out the resources of an excessive budget. The special effects are more than adequate, but at the same time they are by no means the sole focus, as in many high budget 'blockbusters'. It's a great movie because it uses Science Fiction as a medium to tell an engaging, provoking story, rather then telling a mediocre story to use the flash of Science Fiction. From the first 10 seconds of Pitch Black I was hooked. I had walked into this movie thinking that it would be just another cheesy sci-fi movie. Instead I found a highly entertaining, on the edge of your seat, thought provoking action film. The movie goes beyond your basic special effects flick. The actors are amazing, Radah Mitchell (High Art, Love and other..) as Fry is truly a joy to watch on screen, while Vin Diesel as Riddeck is so captivating that you are dying just to hear him speak again.

The look of the movie is breath taking, the contrast of blues, yellows and oranges due to the three different suns is amazing. Followed by the complete darkness of nightfall. I would truly recommend any lover of the ALIEN movies or Radha Mitchell (which is why I went to see it) to check out this film. I'm sure by the end you'll look at the dark in a whole new way. Pitch Black is a survival story. It's about how to survive in an hostile, alien world against even more hostile enemies. The task gets even more difficult when the nearest enemies can be found within your own surviving group.

The plot of Pitch Black is quite usual and has been seen several times before in different variations. But what makes this movie shine above others, is it's well-written characters.

The group consists of very different people with few more interesting than the others: Jack, a boy with a secret; Fry, a pilot having hard time with her own conscience; Johns, a bounty- hunter with a drug-habit; Imam, a holy man facing the fact that God is sometimes cruel and Riddick, a convict and a murderer learning to value others, not only himself. Characters start to live in the movie. They aren't only paper like in many other movies of this genre. You start to care for the characters, especially for Riddick though that feels quite odd. He is supposed to be the bad guy. In this movie, the line between light and pitch black is very thin. All characters are familiar with both.

Other thing that works in this movie is the casting. Rarely do actors fit to their roles this well. Radha Mitchell is suitable for Fry. Cole Hauser brings the right amount of cruelness and sense of responsibility for Johns. But the most impressive work is done by Vin Diesel. He does great job as Riddick. In his hands Riddick is quite creepy, definitely very dangerous and also deep character, just as he is supposed to be.

So, how do you survive in Pitch Black? Keep your friends close and enemies even closer. The opening scene of this movie is pretty incredible. I've seen a number of sci-fi movies with great special effects but my roommate and I looked at each other after the opening sequence and he said plainly, "sensory overload." The plot of the movie is pretty simple but the nice thing about this sci-fi movie is that it lets the audience figure out most of the technology for themselves instead of wasting time to "subtly" explain it. The creatures in this movie are also very interesting. You don't get a really good look at them until about two thirds of the way through. Overall, a very entertaining movie. I must say that I didn't expect much sitting down to watch "Pitch Black," but I got a lot back, in terms of excitement and pure fun. It's the type of flick where you can just lean back, relax, and have a great time just being entertained. This isn't a deep film by any means. Everything that it offers is either recycled or ripped off of other movies such as "Alien," "Predator" or such. But when I watch a rip-off, I want it to be good, and this rip-off is great.

It opens with a galaxy of stars. Some of the greatest films of all time open with this type of scene - "2001," "Star Wars," "Alien," "Predator." A ship is cruising through space when inside the entire cryogenically frozen crew is awoken. The ship has been hit by something. They crash land on a nasty little planet with three suns. Everyone flocks out of the ship when they find that their prisoner transport, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), has escaped confinement. They scan the desert planet in search of him and eventually find him, but they have no way of getting their ship to fly again. They search the planet for water and civilization but it seems that everyone suddenly disappeared from the planet not too long ago.

Then they find out that every 22 years the planets line up in a solar eclipse and the entire planet turns pitch black. There also happen to be hoards of aliens that thrive in darkness living on the planet - what are the chances? They happen to be on the planet right as the eclipse happens - what are the chances? And Riddick has a rare talent - he can see in the dark - again, what are the chances?

There seems to be a lot of coincedence in this movie, but a film like this isn't out to get Oscars for originality or believability. It's there to entertain the audience - it does so with ease. Vin Diesel is a big gorilla of a man with no acting talent whatsoever. But I've got to say if there's anyone who can fit the part of a trashy, homicidal felon it is Diesel. Listen to him mutter, "He did not know who he was fu**ing with." Great stuff.

The aliens in this movie are a mix between hammerhead sharks, those from "Alien" and Predators. They've got long, horizontal heads like a hammerhead, the quick-moving agility of the aliens, and the stealth of a Predator. I assume David Twohy (director and writer of the movie) didn't expect audiences to believe his creatures were truly something never seen before. At least I hope not.

"Aliens Redux" might be a better name for this movie, but then again, it is better than both the second and third "Alien" films put together. In a time when apparently ended series are getting revived - "Terminator 3," "Alien 5," "Predator 3," "Alien vs. Predator" - "Pitch Black" stands out as a new series altogether. Two more sequels are planned. Let's just hope they don't get carried away. I can just picture it twenty-five years from now: "Aliens vs. Predator vs. Pitch Black Aliens: *The Fight of the Year."

*Fight of the Year title may be shared with the upcoming film "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael vs. Leatherface vs. Norman Bates vs. Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator vs. James Cameron vs. Barny the Dinosaur."

4/5. As a zombie fan, I really love these types of plots where people end up in strange places surrounded by wicked monsters! PB is also an excellent tie-in to Chronicles of Riddick (COR). The gang has to run as fast as they can away from darkness. There are so many metaphors in the story! Riddick is this bad guy, but he's also the hero who tries to save the slow-paced folks. The Muslim guy, Imam, relies on the sun's positions for the five times a day prayers, but he is stuck in a land where darkness will rule. Overall, I recommend this film to any sci-fi fans. You won't be disappointed. This is without doubt the most exciting and satisfying film I've seen in years! The plot seen in print is almost banal- a ship crashes on a desert planet with three suns, the survivors have to adjust to the landscape and each other, then darkness falls and the monsters appear. Pilot Fry, after a moment of cowardice during the descent through the atmosphere when she almost jettisoned the passengers, takes charge of the group and enlists the help of convicted murderer Riddick to lead them through the darkness to the escape ship - he's the one with surgically enhanced eyes that can see in the dark. But it's really not that simple - every character is complex, three-dimensional, with conflicting traits so you never quite know who's good and who's bad.

The performances are uniformly superb - Radha Mitchell shows Fry steeling herself for leadership, overcoming her own fears, and trying to prevent further bloodshed, while Cole Hauser, as the man taking Riddick back to custody, shows he has his own agenda and his own idiosyncratic standards. But the film belongs to Vin Diesel as Riddick - he has the most magnetic screen presence I've seen in years. For much of the film his face is in shadow, and he doesn't actually say a great deal, but he draws your attention all the same. Sometimes he draws your attention by not speaking - or by not moving. And Diesel doesn't trivialise the character, as could so easily be done, by giving him a "heart of gold" - Riddick is still one mean and vicious man as they approach the ship - he just lets us glimpse those first tentative steps from caring only for the self to caring for others.

Technically the film is very good. The lighting effects are excellent at both ends of the spectrum - the overbright triple sunlight and the pitch darkness. Special effects showing both Riddick's and the monsters' points of view add to the suspense, as do sound effects of the monsters flying and using ultrasound to "see" (the monsters themselves are anatomically plausible and suitably frightening). Editing is so tight it's almost jarring at times - there is literally no padding in this film, no fades, no time to re-orient yourself.

From the opening shot to the end of the credits you have to keep your wits about you. Every scene, every line of dialogue, every single camera shot is important. See it three times to understand it all.

My only caveat is about the science - the solar system as shown in the model is impossible (planets revolve around suns, not vice versa). However, that doesn't affect the human story, so I haven't taken points off for it. This movie is about the crew of a spaceship who crash land onto a strange bright planet with three suns. Among the passengers is convicted serial killer, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), and his nemesis, Johns (Cole Hauser). While the survivors of the wreck are getting their bearings, an eclipse of all three suns happens. Shortly afterwards, scary creatures begin to appear and start to pick off the crew members one by one. During the eclipse, Riddick comes into his own, as his eyeballs have been surgically shined, giving him night vision. The crew have to rely on him to try to get them to safety.

This is a very stylish film, with the colour of the sky changing scene by scene, giving it a very strange look. Vin Diesel is brilliant as Riddick, truly menacing but forced to help people who otherwise would only see him as a threat. There is also an underlying humour in his performance as well, which adds another dimension to the character. This is the sort of role that Vin excels in, the anti-hero, whos character is not as one-dimensional as first appears. I can imagine no-one else in this role, it could have been written specifically for him.

Roll on Chronicles of Riddick! Let me waste a moment of your time to explain how I approached this film. 1st I dismissed the trailers out of hand because the film appeared to be an uncredited remake of Aliens, which I consider to be one of the weakest films in the Alien series. Stupidly continuing to dismiss the film after I heard positive things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I missed the theatrical run completely. I then became hooked on Farscape, in its 3rd or 4th season at the time, and found Pitch Black on cable one night around bed time - so I said "oh why not, at least it has Claudia Black in it." Soon, I recognized Keith David, and began to realize that Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell and Cole Hauser could all act (why this should surprise me, I do not know). I was captivated. I have now remained captivated for four years. I just watched the film for the 3rd or 4th time, and I still love it.

This is not an art film, not an independent, and its not entirely original, but where it fails to break a lot of new ground, it utterly succeeds in providing interesting, realistic characters, hard-driving action in the medium of a compelling but simple plot, and non-stop entertainment; an absolutely beautiful environment with tastefully rendered special effects. Sound to good to be true? Don't take my word for it... see it for yourself.

The film also highlighted the charisma of the now somewhat iconoclastic Vin Diesel, introducing the character of Richard Riddick. Diesel would go on to star in the somewhat Riddick-ulous Chronicles thereof (which I also enjoyed, though recognizing its rather huge flaws) and is now something of a legend. Diesel is so charismatic, so big, and so interesting to watch that it is easy to ignore the fact that he is not only a talented actor, but a smart one too. Checking out the DVD version of Pitch Black, with the audio comments on might just blow you away.

The film is about the crew of an inter-system transport ship stranded on an unknown planet after a crash-landing in which their captain was killed. The new commander is inexperienced but bright and heroic (Mitchell), but she is caught between two dominant and dangerous personalities - a bounty hunter with secrets (Hauser) and a dangerous criminal who has been surgically altered to see in the dark (Diesel). Is that all? Of course not - the planet is inhabited, and the inhabitants are hungry.

As unoriginal and improbable as some of this may be, Pitch Black is beautifully filmed, well told, and very nicely performed. Don't expect to learn anything, and don't expect to have to think a whole lot, but do expect to have fun with this modern sci-fi action classic. "Pitch Black" was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.

The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque.

I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.

Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love/hate type of character.

Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.

Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.

Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.

Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.

The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.

This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it. This film gets off to a bad start. An incredibly corny monologue is followed immediately by a brilliantly-done, truly amazing spaceship crash. Then things go downhill again, as you realize that the survivors are all a) bad actors (apart from the docking pilot and the psychopath) and b) almost all of them fit too nicely into the role of monster-fodder. Hell, half of them don't even speak English, preventing the audience from getting to know the characters at all. You feel as if you were watching "Deep Blue Sea" meets "Silence of the Lambs", minus the good bits. And unfortunately, the entire thing tries to hard to be "Crashed on a desert planet with Hannibal Lecter" during the daylight scenes. Vin Diesel is a great actor - but he is no Anthony Hopkins, and he frankly annoys as the smart hyper-cool psycho. There is at least one very good scene involving an unexpected survivor - but apart from that you could just as well have cut out the first thirty minutes or so...

But then things take a turn. I can't exactly pinpoint the moment, but soon the movie gets a lot better. It also feels less chopped - the scenes actually begin to follow each other with a consistent narrative, and Vin Diesel becomes much less annoying and soon he is a show-stealer. By the time the first monsters appear, the film is actually quite enjoyable. By the time night falls, it is great. Thrilling, horrifying and exciting. And even the character development of most main characters is well-done. If you can just sit through the poor bits at the start you're in for some GREAT entertainment.

Besides, the visuals are eye-candy, and I honestly admit: I love the colour and the tone of this movie.

7/10 (could have been 9/10, if only....) I really enjoyed this movie. It was edgy without being sociopath. Vin Diesel brought the Riddick character to life and made you feel good and bad about him on different levels.

I also saw Iron Giant and Vin is perfect. (The snowmobile movie - oh yeah, it's called "Triple-X," or "xXx" - was a weak example of his work.) In Pitch Black he plays an anti-hero to the max. I don't think you can go wrong when Vin stars in a movie. Unfortunately, Hollowood might type cast him as an adventure action movie star - wrong! I think the script for "XXX" was weak for which Vin couldn't act down to it.

Anyway, Pitch Black is a great scifi - see it!

-Zafoid As a Sci-fi movies fan I also like Alien. But Pitch Black is definitely better than Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. It maches well into Alien series. But it isn't alien, it's something else. OK, enough comparisons. This movie but me think: Why people are afraid of dark. You can't run away from dark. It's impossible. You have to be faced with darkness and with that, what's in dark. In this movie I also liked that the Vin Diesel character Richard B. Riddick wasn't typical good-boy. He had a secrets and he has done bad things in the past. To the other people he is a hero who tries to save them all. First of all he want to get out of that planet himself. There is also other metaphors in this story. Every big sci-fi fan should see this picture. This film is a variation of a theme we've all seen over and over again - the Posiedan adventure in Space. The characters are all stock characters - feisty heroine, Judas, coward, etc. etc. The only question really is who's next to snuff it. Sometimes this tried and tested formula works - like in this case - but more often not - like the truly mind-numbing "Red Planet."

So why does this one work? Because it's stylish. The acting is above average. And above all it isn't predictable. The conclusion isn't sign-posted. I really had no idea how it would all end and was surprised at how it did end. That alone deserves top marks in my book.

It's an intriguing and entertaining movie. And though it was never likely to change the face of cinema as we know it, it doesn't disappoint. Pitch Black is a surprisingly good movie. I was not a fan of Vin diesel before I saw Pitch black, but after seeing Pitch Black my respect for Vin Diesel has gone up. He did a great job playing Riddick a man wanted for many murders. His character is cold and makes many decisions that surprised me, like near the end Riddick was going to get on the ship and save his own ass leaving everyone behind to die. I like this movie and how it deals with human instinct. This movie is low budget but this movie goes to show you don't need amazing special effects and lots of money to make a good movie, I think all the characters made this movie. I give this movie 8 out of 10 ;) This was a "sleeper" for sure!! Much better than I thought! Never realizing it was a horror flick.....and who was this gorgeous,baritoned voiced hunk, named Vin Diesel..adding spice and intrigue to this otherwise unpromoted film ??? The monsters in this film were quite unusual, not the same ol run of the mill gobble-you-up types!!The ending was great, too, for a change, not all "bad guys are bad"!!! I give it 2 thumbs up !!! People who thought that THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK sucked harder than the black hole that swallowed up EVENT HORIZON, probably didn't see the movie that spawned Vin Diesel's skin-headed killer to begin with, and probably have no intention of doing so. Too bad, because PITCH BLACK actually does kick major ass.

Directed by genre vet David Twohy, (WARLOCK and the excellent but underrated BELOW) and written by siblings Jim and Ken Wheat (LIES, SILENT SCREAM), PITCH BLACK begins with an 'ALIEN'-esque prologue. When a combination cargo freighter/passenger ship is badly damaged by a freak meteor shower (in which the captain is also killed), the co-pilot, Carolyn Fry (SILENT HILL'S Radha Mitchell) has an important decision to make: ditch the cargo or the passengers? Close to picking ore over occupants, the crash landing derails her ultimate course of action.

No matter, because the catastrophic landing has been made on a foreboding rock that once held a mining colony. Amongst the survivors are a couple of settlers, Shazza (FARSCAPE's Claudia Black) and Zeke (John Moore); an Imam (Keith David) and his young followers (can you say "red shirts" boys and girls?); an antiques dealer named Paris Ogilvie (Lewis Fitz-Gerald); a 'young boy' named Jack (Rhianna Griffith), and the most controversial members of the group: a Marshall named Johns (the excellently slimy Cole Hauser) and his prisoner...a dangerous murderer named Riddick (Diesel).

How the group dynamics shake out make for a lot of the dramatic tension, especially with concerns about Riddick and how many people he might slice and dice if he ever gets away. But no one here gets out alive, as the saying goes, and the biggest twists have less to do with how they get along, than how they'll survive when they discover the unthinkable. They are not alone on the planetoid. Things that are hungry, taloned and quick are slithering around just where they can't be seen, living in the darkness where they can survive and thrive. They want the flesh of the new arrivals to sate their appetites, but they can't come out into the searing daylight to forage for food.

Does the phrase "total eclipse" make things a little more interesting? You betcha. Hence the more-than-fitting title.

Vin, more monosyllabic than Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry on his grumpiest day, dripping more testosterone than sweat, has a field day here with a character that really does seem worth a sequel or two, and Hauser, oozing menace and bile is every bit as good as his dad Wings was at on-screen villainy. Surprisingly, though, Mitchell holds her own and manages to be strong and sympathetic as Fry. You would expect no less than a strong showing from Black, She Who Once Was 'Aeryn Sun', and she doesn't disappoint. (Too bad her role wasn't bigger, but that's all I'll say about it.) And David makes his usual indelible impression as the holy man whose faith will truly be tested in the very pit of Hell itself.

The pace moves faster than Riddick slipping up behind his prey with a shank in his teeth, and once the darkness descends, the terror and tension never let up, pretty much as in other classic sci-fi/horror flicks which this imitates. But if imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery, Dave Twohy and the Wheats deserve major backslaps for getting this one right with a vengeance, and for giving us an ending that is anti-Hollywood to the max.

I don't want to spoil the surprises, so I won't say much more, except that if you saw CHRONICLES first and weren't too happy, give PITCH BLACK a chance anyway. And if you've seen neither, definitely start with this one.

I don't know what Vin is up to now, but he could certainly do worse than to give these guys a call again. I'd love to see what they would dream up next... Even though this movie starts off with the usual: something goes wrong, spacecraft crashes, people are stranded etc. it still pulls off and introduces the viewer to some new ideas. Riddick is somewhat of a bad-ass convict and has modified his eyes so he is able to see in the dark which is a much sought after ability due to the situation the ship-crew and he gets in. The cutting in the movie is very good and emphasizes the mystique that shrouds around the anti-hero and male protagonist: "Riddick." The story in Pitch Black is, as already mentioned, to some extent very unoriginal and dissatisfied, but the clipping and cutting in the movie blended with some surprising elements which has been added to the story helps it to still support itself very well and one is afterward left behind with a hybrid feeling of satisfaction and hunger for more. Vin Diesel acts really well in the role as Riddick and even though his character is a hardcore, tough survivor he still takes morale decisions almost on the verge of good, but that does not mean his decisions do not turn in his favor at the very end... Why destroy an already perfect reputation? All in all this is a very good movie though not perfect. The story seems very unoriginal at the surface, but underneath it shines with enough originality to entertain. Some scenes has that wow factor while it as a whole is a bit better than average. It could maybe be described as a cult movie and it is definitely a recommendation for people who wants a spiced up sci-fi story blended with some minor psychological moments and an intriguing protagonist, namely Riddick. This was a great movie and the sequel should know our socks off!!! The action will be nonstop and I just bought the special edition DVD with the animated background story similar to the Animatrix. This will put Vin Diesel back in the spotlight and hopefully get him the coveted role in Spider Man 3 as Venom. He would be the most logical choice for the role. Back to PB this movie even though it is a indie thriller, it has a great story and characters with backgrounds that scream for you to want to learn more. If they were to do books or comics it would be a great read. There was one thing that I felt was a little under done. The ending it needed a little work but not every movie will have the best ending. Oh my gosh! this was one of the best Sci-fi movies i have ever seen, and quite frankly i can't stand Sci-fi films.

Vin Diesel and his co-workers made this movie really enjoyable!!

I also must say that Vin diesel is by far the most sexiest and most talented male actors i have seen. Keep it up Vin! your doing great!! As for everyone else good job. i thought the drama and suspense kept the viewers really intrigued. again, great job everyone and i 'm rooting for you Vin.

Sincerely yours,

Alexandra If you're a science fiction fan, and you've only seen this movie once, please, PLEASE go and treat yourself to a second viewing. I just did, and I was AMAZED about how good I thought the movie was, as opposed to when I first saw it three years ago. The first time around I was certainly impressed by the astronomical vistas we're treated to in this movie, but by and large I didn't think that much of the movie as a whole. It was an Alien rip-off, and I thought the description of the monsters was a case of really bad science. That they were allergic to light was something I found especially ridiculous. Based on my first viewing, I recently rated this movie a 5.

However, now that the sequel, Chronicles of Riddick, is on the way, and the movie poster for that one looks amazing, I thought I'd better brush up on Pitch Black once more, so I borrowed the video from a friend. I am so glad I did. There's so much of what I thought I remembered from the first viewing that turned out to be wildly inaccurate. I thought most of the characters died very early in the movie. This was not so. I thought Claudia Black's character was the first to die. This was not so. I thought Riddick was the sole survivor. This was not so.

I see now that the movie works *extremely* well. There isn't an excessive, tiresome focus on the monsters. It's much more of a human drama. The main characters are appealing and capable of some convincing acting. And there are so many little details that make the Pitch Black universe coherent and believable, such as the shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere of the planet they crash on, and the fact that the monsters have eaten everything on the planet, and so they turn on each other.

And I have to mention the astronomical vistas again. I mean, we start out seeing the spaceship passing through a comet's tail, with bits of spacedust zapping through the hull. Then we come to a planet with three suns. Just as the shipwrecked people think it's about to get dark, a blue sun rises on the opposite horizon, and everything is engulfed in a blue glow. As the eclipse approaches, we see the huge, neighboring, ringed gas giant rise across the sky, and in the final scene of the movie we see the ship skid closely above one of these very rings. These scenes are created with a sense of beauty, wonder and detail, and I don't think I've seen any other SF movie that really made such a point out of including these things. I hope we see much more of it in the sequel.

Pitch Black now gets from me a rating of 9 out of 10. A cult classic? You bet!! I saw "Into Pitch Black" on t.v. and so I had to see this. I must say, I was very impressed.

Not only has David Twohy's style improved since he wrote "Critters 2", this film brought to my attention Vin Diesel. Sure, he was there in "Into Pitch Black", but here he was ferocious, scary, and intense. I haven't seen charisma like that since Schwarzenegger in the 80's.

The story is simple enough, but it is the characters that make this film interesting. Then there was what happens with the female lead. Unexpected. The dark humor helps the film move along, the effects aren't grand, but when Riddick fights the alien... it blew all of my complaints out.

Diesel hasn't done a whole lot since this film that I would care about, but I am eagerly looking forward to the sequel. It opens with your cliche overly long ship flying through space. All I could think at this point was "Spaceballs" and hoping there'd be a sticker on back that said "We break for Nobody." The movie then shows some cryogenic freezers with Vin Diesel's narration. I've always thought his voice sounded cool ever since I saw Fast and the Furious. From when I found out he was as criminal, I thought the movie was going to be cliche. It was. It was very cliche and fate seemed to be against them at every turn. Black out every 22 years. Lucky them, they land on that day. Aliens can only be in the darkness, hey it's a solar eclipse. As much as I thought it was too easy and just a cliche, the movie pulled through and kicked major @ss. I even went out and bought a copy of Pitch Black after seeing it. I really can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick. *POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

I thought Pitch Black to be quite enjoyable, with some nice effects--I liked the larger beasts, although they aren't a patch on the Aliens from the Alien series. It had quite a good atmosphere, which I felt Vin Diesel helped contribute toward.

One thing which kind of stumped me was how it rained. If the planet has three suns and is in almost continuous daylight, where did the moisture come from to form clouds and therefore rain?

I liked the fact that Fry died at the end--it reminded me of the New Hollywood films of the 1970s, with the main heroine not making it to the end. The influences of other science fiction and thriller movies and stories are evident throughout this film. The movies that come to mind immediately are Alien, Aliens, and Starship Troopers. The story itself is fairly straightforward and not all that original, hibernated traveling through space, crash landing on planet with no apparent life and a "deserted" geological expedition - except when the lights go out, forcing different types of people to work together toward their mutual survival, while the body count mounts. This kind of movie always tends to be fun, as long as it's done well. I believe that Pitch Black was done well. The characters are interesting and you want to find out more about them the longer the movie goes on, and I think people will be surprised by who does and doesn't make it.

Vin Diesel plays Riddick, the stereotypical convicted criminal who has a murderous past, physically prowess, high tolerance for pain, and conveniently can see in the dark. You know he is going to end up doing the right thing at some point in the movie, because it's hinted throughout the movie that he actually may have a conscience about things.

Cole House plays the drug-addicted bounty hunter who's probably in many ways a real bad guy compared to Riddick, as his character reveals itself throughout the movie. It is most likely that he is most courageous when the odds and firepower are in his favor. A very self-serving character that in the end gets what he deserves.

Radha Mitchell plays the co-pilot on the doomed vessel, who is jolted out of deep sleep because the ship ran through a meteor swarm or the tail end of a comment. Finding the pilot dead in his sleeping chamber she attempts to land the ship, which leads to our discovery of that's character's potentially fatal flaw - fear of responsibility, accountability, and being a leader. Her character in the short span of the story probably grows the most, in that she actually grows some conviction, takes charge, and doesn't sit around waiting to be gobbled up by night stalking aliens. She in some strange way connects with the ever-distant human side of Riddick, who in turn in the end, respects her for her choices and her sticking with them.

The story in some cases plays out as you would expect it, but I think you'll be mildly surprised by which characters survive this harrowing experience. This movie is an entertaining train-wreck in progress to watch. Go watch it!

In the future, a disparate group of people asleep aboard a commercial spaceship is forced to improvise their survival when the spaceship crash-lands on a remote, barren planet. They already have one problem in that one of the passengers is intense criminal Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel, in his first top-billed role); however, they are soon preyed upon by a strange species of predator that thrives in the darkness - and a rare solar eclipse is soon to take place.

While the script for this movie is ultimately on the routine side, it is decently acted and it is especially well-made technically. Location work, photography, and design (production as well as creature design) are all very impressive. It is not the most original or stimulating science-fiction / horror picture ever made, far from it, but it still provides good entertainment. Diesel is particularly good at getting under the skin of his intimidating character. It is not ENTIRELY predictable, however, and gets some points for

**SPOILER**

having a more politically correct ending than most of its type.

Filmed on location in the desolate Coober Pedy area of Queensland in Australia.

A sequel of sorts is in the works.

7/10 (VERY mildly spoilerish)

I must start by saying that I'm not usually impressed by science-fiction, so Pitch Black (2000) was a pleasant surprise. It had me hooked from the very beginning with rhythm, intensity and visual outburst that left me fascinated and glued to my seat. I'm very happy to say that this movie was the best (okay, at least *one* of the best) science fiction piece that I've seen in a long, long time.

The plot in short might sound simple -- a (space) ship crashes on a supposedly deserted planet and the captain, Caroline Fry (impressive Radha Mitchell), must lead the survivors to safety. At first, a cold-blooded murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel, who plays the role with very believable spare style), might seem like the group's biggest problem but as the dusk starts crawling in, the creatures of the night start awakening... This leads to a desperate attempt to escape from the bloodthirsty predators, which, as we all can guess, does not lead to a happy family picnic.

It's not the plot itself that makes the movie worth watching -- after all, let's face it, if you strip it down to the basics it's not *that* original -- but the skill in which it's told. The story flowed forward, didn't leave me yawning (at least not much) in any point. The directing was fabulous work. This was a very visual, even beautiful movie; the purple night view was a real treat. Although, 'beautiful' might not be the right word to use; yes, the images shown were candy to the eye, but they also added a touch of unspecified grotesqueness, eeriness, as if something was just about to burst out from under the still surface. (Not to mention that the monsters were really well done, they looked realistic, which seems to be rare nowadays [maybe people just can't be bothered to make them look real...])

I did not only enjoy the visual side of the movie but also the psychological aspect of the story. During the movie we get to see the characters unraveling -- some of them fall, some of them rise -- but what fascinated me the most was the developing of the character of Riddick. I enjoyed watching the change in him throughout the movie. To go even further, the other thing I enjoyed a lot with Riddick was the incredibly well and originally executed UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) between Fry and him that "didn't" (you'll get what I mean once you see it). [One can't deny that they had chemistry. Don't even try or I'll seek you out and make you listen to me playing Chopsticks until you scream *grin*] It was fresh. As Radha Mitchell once put it (a modified quote), "Pitch Black is a really sexy movie with no sex", which is what makes it even more so interesting.

So, to summarize, I recommend this movie -- even if you're really not a fan of "space stories". The suspense was kept until the very end and, what's important, we were (or at least I was) left wanting for more. If you can't be bothered to think about psychology, subtext and such (as is my bad habit), you'll still find Pitch Black highly entertaining. Just kick off your shoes and enjoy. Reasonably effective horror/science-fiction a la "Alien" is fairly well done given its limited ambitions. Some nice special effects and well paced action sequences adequately patch the cracks in the rather tiresome dialogue. When a space craft crash lands on a remote planet the survivors soon become aware that a hideous terror awaits them in the dark of the upcoming total eclipse. I've seen Director's Cut version and can be nothing but content. Excellent acting (esp. Cole Hauser, I was sad about little space for Claudia Black though), subtle visual effects and photography in overall, believable plot (considering the genre) without a lot of logical holes, really non-predictable twists, build-up characters. These are the greatest assets of the movie. Combined with style - some may consider this movie a B-grade effort but I would disagree with that. The whole thing really is very original and stylish.

And even though I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, this tough guy role of Riddick suited him well. Can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick, it's really cool this flick's gonna have a sequel...

9/10 if you ask me For avid Sci-Fi fans this movie is just what you've been waiting for. Watching this movie gets you lost into the characters, especially Riddick, the movies bad guy. This is the case where you root for the bad guy and want to see him live and win. As you watch the survivors struggle to stay alive you long to see who lives and how they survive these unknown creatures that have taken over this planet. An excellent movie, Vin Diesel did a wonderful job as convict Riddick and the acting and suspense were ravishing.A+ Early Coppola with sublime cast that most folks never got to see (a pity). There's some wonderful things going on in this one - Shirley Knight's best performance (an underrated actress), a road trip in the late 1960's, James Caan very restrained and moving, Robert Duvall in a part he was born to play (edgy, lonely, motorcycle cop), and a touching script with F. Coppola behind the wheel.

If this had been made five years LATER by some nobody, it would have been a smash (so much for timing). Anyway, I recommend this to all people who don't need outer-space explosions and bad mother-in-law jokes or a billion dollar budget to sit for a few hours and watch a story unfold. Give this one a chance if you can find it! Newly-pregnant Knight bolts from husband for non-specific reasons which are apparently self-related. On the road, she becomes entangled with Caan, brain-damaged former football star, and Duvall, wacky but abusive cop. The type of movie that could only have been spawned in the 60's. Worth a look for its non-formula plot and for early performances by future stars.

Disappointing resolution does not take away too much from rest of flick, which shows an interesting slice of life. In some scenes in the Rain People, Francis Ford Coppola's precursor to his hey-day of the seventies, there is the mark of a similar situation to 1969's Easy Rider, but not exactly in the same reference frame. Here we have a drama about disconnected people from society, in some ways alienated by the choices or by limits imposed by one mean or another. It's one of those rare original dramas where some scenes stand alone as total knockouts. Even with such a low-string budget and a very freewheeling, so to speak, attitude about filming the movie, Coppola is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters and the curved, unexpected degrees of one character versus the helplessness of another, or vice versa, or both. And, as one might be inclined seeing as how it is very much about the cutaways of suburban life of the 1960s, it has that escapism of the film mentioned before, but of a more concrete, near timeless quality with the drama and the underlying issues. In a way, if Bergman were on route as a quasi-guerrilla 20-something filmmaker out to get the strange truths of everyday outsiders, this might be it.

But along with all of the very direct and sometimes self-conscious photography (though also with a more documentary approach at times, akin with its indeterminable characters), the actors all fit into place. Shirley Knight, an actress I'm not too familiar with, has a complex, diverging role as a pregnant wife running off in a sort of existentialist conundrum of what life is there to have. There are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her, and one of my favorites (if not my favorite) is when she is on the telephone calling her husband the first time. Such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word so much about her is spoken with so little. It's extraordinary in ways that mirror others in Coppola's films. Then comes in the character of 'killer' played by James Caan. This, too, is a dangerous character to take on, as it is a mix of childish bewilderment and amusement with scarred memories. Think Forrest Gump if he didn't make it past the football and wit. It's one of his best, actually, by being the most minimalist- for a guy who's usually playing tough guys in movies, here's one that also is part of the crux of the story and of Knight's character. Also very good in a supporting role is Robert Duvall as a cop with a rough side and rather checkered past; kind of an early sample of other defected characters he would play later on in his career.

So the characters, and what Coppola risks in having an uneasiness running in them, are really what make up the film, as whatever story there is it is definitely not resolved in the usual way you might think or expect. The last ten or so minutes are like others in Coppola's work, where the specific tragedies on all sides are undercut by the emotional- and psychological- implications this will leave on the principles are amplified to the sublime and sad. This is, for its time, brave on the part of what is trying to be represented (in both the freedom as well as the flaws and ambiguities) in the subject matter. And the style of the picture adds a fragmented kind of view onto it all with quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained in a contrast with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. It's a road movie of its period, but its also got a lot more working than it would under another filmmaker with less chances to take on the nature of these outcast characters. One of the best films of 1969. I have a letter from Ms. Knight, who went to college with my older sister. In it, she tells of the hardships of making this film. She, herself, was pregnant--an interesting conjunction with the movie's plot--and the novice director was unsure, fairly green, and having great difficulties with all the decisions, logistics, etc. They were on the move all the time, and it was a very difficult shoot.

The film, however, with a strong debut for James Caan, remains effective and affecting. It's a great showcase for the talent that Ms. Knight has demonstrated her entire career--on television, in movies and on the stage, where she won the Tony for "Kennedy's Children."

This film has aged well. Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from **** **SPOILERS** Simple movie about simple people who's problems are far too complex for them to handle.

Natalie aka Sara Ravenna, Shirley Knight, has become overwhelmed with married life and the fact that she's now pregnant is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Taking off from her homes in Long Island New York Natalie has no idea where she's going but hopes to find peace and tranquility somewhere in the heartland of America. It's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that Natalie picks up hitchhiker Jimmie "Killer" Kilgannon, James Cann,who seems as lost and confused as she is. As Natalie, calling herself Sara at the time, soon finds out Jimmie had suffered a serious brain concussion while playing football on his collage team and has been reduced to such a simple minded individual who's so passive that he lets everyone, including later in the movie Natalie, step all over him.

Sympathetic at first Natalie becomes very annoyed at the self pitying Jimmie for not standing up for himself and letting himself be used as a doormat by everyone he comes in contact with in the movie. Not knowing what to do with the child-like Jimmie Natalie finally gets him a Job in far off Nebraska as a cleaning man at the Reptile Jungle pet market owned and run by, Mr. Alfred, Tom Aldrege. Being the both kind and simple-minded person that he is Jimmie lets all the animals out of their cages causing havoc at the pet store and has him fired by his boss Mr. Alfred.

In the meantime Natalie who thought that she was finally through with Jimmie ends up back at the Reptile Jungle when she's given a speeding ticket by traffic cop Gordon, Robert Duvall. It seems that Mr. Alfred is also the acting county judge and is the person that Natalie is to pay her traffic fine to. While all this is happening Gordon-the cop- had developed a strong liking for Natalie and wants to get her in the sack, at his trailer home, the first chance he can. Gordon a widower with a uncontrollable 12 year old daughter Rosalie, Marva Zimmet, needs a mature woman-with lots of lovin'- to make him forget his many social and psychological problems and Natalie is exactly the medicine that the doctor ordered!

***SPOILERS*** Wild and shocking final with Gordon going completely out of his mind and attempting to rape Natalie, who refused his drunken advances, which has Jimmie finally get out of his self-pitying stupor and came to her rescue. There's no happy ending here with Natalie saved from being both manhandled and raped by Gordon but Jimmie, who was bouncing Gordon around like a Ping-Pong ball, ending up dead for all his good and noble efforts.

Jimmy by far was he most tragic and sympathetic person in the entire movie. All Jimmie wanted was a friend to talk to and spend time with and all he ended up getting was the sh*t end of the stick. By everyone even the one person who at first treated him with kindness and understanding Natalie Ravenna! In the end Jimmie even though he was treated like dirt by everyone despite his willingness not to offend even those who stepped all over him came out as the most likable kindest as at the same time heroic person in the entire film. Shirley Knight plays Sara Ravenna, a Long Island housewife who runs away from her marriage when she discovers she is pregnant. She plans to drive into America's heartland and start anew. Along the way she picks up a friendly hitchhiker (James Caan) who calls himself 'Killer.' Soon she discovers that the good natured 'Killer' is actually brain damaged, and by picking him up she has unknowingly taken on a huge responsibility. The two of them drive all the way to Nebraska, where Sara gets Killer a job helping out at a roadside reptile farm. It is here that Sara meets Gordon, a local cop, and soon things go horribly wrong for everyone.

This is a powerful drama about people disconnected from society, alienated by the choices they make or by the limits imposed on them by others. Even with such a low budget and a very freewheeling attitude, the film is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters. Shirley Knight has a complex, diverging role and there are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her. One of my favorites is when she is on the telephone calling her home to her worried husband the first time. It is such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word, so much about her is spoken with so little. Then comes in the character of 'Killer' played by James Caan. This character is unlike any I've ever seen him play, and he performs wonderfully. It's one of his best performances as he is very restrained and moving.

The way Coppola develops the characters by using short, dream-like flashbacks is very clever, adding a fragmented kind of view onto it all. The quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained contrast well with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. Also, because this film was shot on location all over the Eastern U.S., it offers an interesting, authentic look at America in the late 1960's.

I haven't seen many other films starring Ms. Knight, I'm only familiar with her more recent work on television, usually playing a nagging mother in law or a dotty old woman. It was great seeing her so young, beautiful, and so wonderfully subtle in this movie. It's also kind of a shame that James Caan went on to be typecast as the 'tough guy' for the rest of his career, because this film evidenced that he is capable of so much more than that. Francis Ford Coppola's first 'personal' film, completed and released in 1969, was the last movie he made as a mostly unknown, up and coming director before The Godfather, and is in stark contrast to both that film, and the rest of his uneven career. It's ostensibly a road movie involving a disconnected young woman bored with domestic life, and pregnant with a child she isn't sure she wants, fleeing the trappings her dull marriage and hitting the open road in search of freedom. Along the way she befriends a nice man, an ex-footballer player that suffered brain damage from a traumatic head injury, played in unexpectedly subtle fashion by a young James Caan, and decides to 'help' him, despite becoming frustrated with his simple ways. Her efforts to rid of him always fail, either by guilt or chance, and eventually lead her directly into the hands of an emotionally wounded cop(Robert Duvall), who has ideas of his own. The plot is threadbare, but Coppola does a great job at detailing the emotional life of these characters, and uses editing techniques to relay back story that were not at all common in American films of the time. Shots are simple, yet extraordinarily effective, conveying both the moody desolation of the open highway, and the emptiness of American suburban life, infused with a gentle melancholy provided by the film score. Coppola also deserves credit for addressing the issue of domestic discontent from a woman's point of view in the culturally turbulent 60's. Overall, a fairly low-key film that is not what audiences have come to expect from Coppola, but one that is a minor triumph in its own quiet, unassuming way. 7.5/10. At least one kind. Very human and moving. Not out to teach a lesson or anything like that. All principals are effective. I saw the movie years ago and still remember it (but can't remember the Morgan Fairchild role).

And a nice slice of American life. Ghoulies IV may not be the best out of the series but it isn't too bad, if you don't take it fully serious then you may enjoy it.

It's nice to see Peter Liapis return as Johnathan Graves who has gave up using magic and has became a Detective but still thinks about what happened in Ghoulies.

The plot is about a woman named Alexandra that is Johnathan's ex-girlfriend that breaks into a museum and takes a red gem, using the gem she awakens her boyfriend named Faust that is Johnathan's dark side but he needs the gem so he can enter the real world and John is sent to hell.

Something goes wrong and Alex loses the gem so she needs to find a new one, as she leaves the gateway is still open and two little Ghoulies named Lite and Drak appear. They're not the true Ghoulies since they look like guys in a Troll costume wearing a mask but that doesn't matter since they are humorous in parts.

Lite and Dark need to find Johnathan since he can return them home so they go around causing mayhem as they try to find Johnathan. Another difference is that the two Ghoulies are the good guys unlike the ones in the previous films.

I found Ghoulies IV to be good but this film may not go for everyone, check it out if you like low budget films like Troll 2. Okay okay, I must admit, I do somewhat like Peter Liapis and I'll admit this is not the best Ghoulies sequel. I mean, yeah, it had its flaws, such as NO GHOULIES themselves. But the two Ghoulies that come to earth were really funny, I guess they were called, Dark and Lite. I enjoyed the plot of the movie. And even at the end of the movie both Ghoulies implied that there would be a sequel. Still waiting. lol. Peter Liapis reprised his role as Jonathan Graves, this time playing a detective, how cute! Ghoulies IV may not be scary or suspenseful, but it is definitely funny. I thought I would comment on this movie and just say -- it's not that bad. It is worth watching even though the Ghoulies aren't in it. Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.

I give Ghoulies IV a 9/10 Seeing that this movie was on the IMDB Bottom 20, I simply had to rent it.

SUPRISE! SUPRISE! I have no regret of seeing this movie at all. In fact, I really enjoyed it. There's a level of camp in this movie that puts cult classics of the 80's to shame. Is it stupid? yes, but Jim Wynorski proves that stupid is not necessarily bad after all.

Rent it for a laugh that seems unintended but is actually meant to be funny. Wynorski is a genius. Hope he directs the next ninja turtles movie Sixth (And last) movie in the boxset. Well, looks like I've saved the best one for last. Ghoulies IV. I originally did a review for this back in like February, but I decided to do a new one. The Ghoulies series is pretty awesome. I know there are some people who don't like them, and that's fine. This happens to be my favorite one in the series. Yeah, I know the actual Ghoulies don't appear and are replaced by 2 guys in costumes, one of them being Tony Cox from Bad Santa. Now, onto the movie.

The movie centers around Jonathan Graves, the main character from the first movie, being played once again, by Peter Liapis, who is now a cop for the LAPD and has put his past of the occult behind him. During the first part of the movie, we encounter Alexandra (Played by the very hot Stacie Randall) communicating with a demon from beyond named Faust, who is the dark side of Jonathan. Faust asks Alexandra for a red jewel and something goes awry, therefore, unleashing the Ghoulies from the beyond.

I think Jim Wynorski did a good job with the directing. And the music by Chuck Cirino is funny as well. (SPOILER AHEAD) At the end of this movie, the Ghoulies say that there will be a Ghoulies IV, Part 2, or Ghoulies V. I still hope that sequel gets made and I especially hope Jim Wynorski returns to direct. I agree with GimboTheGhoulies on that. Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. "Attention K-Mart Shoppers!" Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot? The lovely, yet lethal Alexandra (stunning statuesque blonde beauty Stacie Randall, who looks absolutely smashing in a tight black leather outfit) must find a magic amulet so her evil demonic master Faust can cross over into our dimension. It's up to fearless, rugged cop Jonathan Graves (likable Peter Liapis) to stop her. Meanwhile, two pitifully unfunny "comic relief" dwarf gnome creatures run amok in Los Angeles. Seasoned veteran schlock exploitation expert Jim Wynorski relates the supremely inane story at a brisk pace and takes none of this foolishness remotely seriously. The cast struggle gamely with the silly material: the adorable Barbara Alyn Woods as sassy, fetching police captain Kate, Raquel Krelle as tart, sexy hooker Jeanine, Bobby Di Cicco as Graves' bumbling, excitable partner Scotty, Peggy Trentini as alluring museum curator Monica, and Ace Mask as the jolly Dr. Rochelle. Mark Stevi's puerile cookie cutter script, an amusingly lowbrow sense of no-brainer humor, Chuck Cirino's bouncy cornball score, the two dwarf guys sporting obvious cheap rubber Halloween masks, J.E. Bash's plain cinematography, no tension or gratuitous female nudity to speak of, and the tacky (less than) special effects all further enhance the overall delicious cheesiness of this prime slice of celluloid Velveeta. An entertainingly brainless piece of lovably lousy dreck. Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9 If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children. I highly reccommend this movie. It blurs the line between childhood fantasy and everyday reality in such a seamless fashion that it has to be seen to be believed. The actors and director have such perfect timing that in one scene a name calling fight becomes a sort of dance. I loved the story line, the actors, everything. While I do think there were one or two decidedly cheesy scenes, over-all the movie was impeccably done. I saw this movie for the first time on a sick day from school about ten years ago. Compared to the made for Lifetime movies I usually watched, it became an instant though obscure favorite.

I've seen it maybe twice since then. I think some parts are little cheesy, maybe the plot could use some more action.

Nevertheless, it captures the fantasies and realities of children with uniqueness and warmth. The magical realism is on par with that of Amelie, and the heart with that of The Wonder Years. Despite the particular development of my tastes, I still find the subtle magic of this film, the lovable characters, and its simplicity enchanting. Outstanding performance by Tantoo Cardinal. She carries this movie alone. Rip Torn is great but just a shadow to Tantoo. A bitter sweet story of a woman who loves a very stubborn man. Beautiful, funny, sad, touching, a must see film. This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the "Irasburg Incident" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down. Director Jay Craven's adaptation of Howard Frank Mosher's 'Where the rivers flow north' is one of the finer transitions from literature to the screen. Craven is an admirer of Mosher's work -- he also directed 'A stranger in the Kingdom'.

The cast is superb -- especially Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal. Torn offers what could be the finest role of his career -- Noel Lord, the fiercely independent former lumberjack who is at the center of this story. Tantoo Cardinal's portrayal of Lord's live-in housekeeper/common-law wife is dead-on as well. I'm both amazed and disappointed that neither of them were nominated for Oscars when this film was released. Performances of this calibre should be acknowledged. The only character that's a little hard to swallow for me is the power company executive played by Michael J. Fox. He just looks too much like a kid in this role. I guess there's a curse attached to youthful looks, no matter how much people want them.

Craven has done a nice job here in bringing the character of early 20th century Vermont to the screen -- locations, angles, sets, all combine to transport the viewer to the time and place of the story. Cinematographer Paul Ryan was exceptional. The score by the Horseflies is also first rate -- it fits the mood and scenery perfectly.

And the story itself...? One of the most compelling portrayals of the fiercely independent American pioneer spirit ever -- a trait that is on the wane in this day and age. When it appears in modern times, the person is often looked upon with suspicion and disdain. In Noel Lord, we have a character whom we can admire for his values, and even for his stubbornness.

This is not a stodgy 'period piece', but a vibrant look at an era that is gone, and a type of character that has all but vanished. These are not gold-plated heroes, but real people, with both strengths and weaknesses at play within them. struggling in a harsh environment to live their lives and at the same time be at peace with the world in which they live. Like today, there are those who wield power that would have it otherwise. Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history. I'm not sure how the IMDb "weighted average" came up with such a low rating on this film. It is in my opinion and by all other accounts an overlooked gem of a movie. Rip Torn is fantastic as the stubborn Noel Lord, and Tantoo Cardinal superlative as his housemate. Torn and Cardinal are both underrated actors who are finally given a stage to work their craft on.

Their relationship isn't always pleasant, but it's very real. This is NOT the "humerous and touching love story" it's billed as on the DVD jacket. In the end it is a tragedy. Lord simply aims too high and ignores all the advice to take the money offered by the power company to move.

The music is fantastic, as are the period sets. Where the Rivers Flow North is a well-told story about two peoples' fight to live their own lives in the face of "progress" and development. Besides enjoying the movie as entertainment, I also learned quite a bit about life in rural New England back in the late 1920s.

The cinematography captured the raw beauty of Northern Vermont and set the stage, while the music brought the movie to life. Very well done for a low-budget, locally-produced film. I found Michael J. Fox's character the weakest in the film, but Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal turn in two of the finest performances I've seen in a long time. I was saddened she did not get a nod as best actress that year (I assume the film was too "small" a film to be considered). Kingdom County, Vermont, 1927. Noel Lord (Rip Torn) lives with his Indian mate, Bangor (Tantoo Cardinal) in the area where a large dam is to be built; Noel, however, is not willing to give up on his land, and he'll have to fight the dam company in order to prevent the County from any possible destruction.

"Where the Rivers Flow North" is a gripping, contemplative story powered by the memorable performances of Rip Torn (recently seen in the small but juicy role of Louis XV in Sofia Coppola's underrated "Marie Antoinette") and Tantoo Cardinal ("Dances With Wolves", "Smoke Signals"). Director Jay Craven (who also co-wrote the script with Don Bredes, based on Howard Frank Mosher's novel) and cinematographer Paul Ryan crafted this powerful story with unique, contemplative pace/visuals, which remind me of Terrence Malick's and John Huston's best moments. It's an underrated independent period piece of the first (electric) half of the 90's, usually regarded as the rise of Quentin Tarantino's burlesque ("Pulp Fiction" is a masterpiece indeed, but the man suffers from Orson Welles' Syndrome), Todd Solondz's disturbing suburbia, Danny Boyle's dark vision of the UK (let's not mention that "Beach" flick with DiCaprio, though)... Jay Craven should be more regarded on the lists of great indie filmmakers as well. He's been leading a respectful, discreet career and it's always a pleasure to see a constant talent like his.

My vote: 8/10. I was really surprised when I came across this movie on cable TV a couple of years ago. The story is a wonderful example of how our land keeps changing and the fight to hang on to it and use it according to need. Conflicting desires of "the people" and the Government. The actors were fantastic in their portrayals and I absolutely fell in love with Tantoo Cardinal-she is so believable and was such a character in this movie, as was Rip Torn. The story was also a love story about the land, the past, and between the 2 main characters. I have tried to buy this film and have been unable to locate it-but I would sure would love to own it. This is an incredibly compelling story, told with great simplicity and grace. The story itself is the object of the film, although the scenery is beautiful. The acting is understated, even superbly so, for the characters themselves come through in all of their eccentric simplicity.

This piece of art will likely not be appreciated by those who view movies "casually", without due attention. It takes work to be brought into the story, but once you become involved the captivation is complete! This is one of my favorite movies. The performances of Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal are excellent and their performances combined with the music, scenery and reality of the movie are quite compelling. A look at a true, tell it like it is, logging, mountain man who refuses to give up his way of life in the name of progress and development. The music of the Horseflies is very unique and adds an eerie quality to some of the scenes. After seeing this movie for the first time, I had to go out and purchase the video and the soundtrack. Overall, a quiet type of movie with bursts of panic. Both Torn and Cardinal are very believable in their roles. I put this movie in the same category as Winter People with Kurt Russell and Kelly McGillis, another favorite. This show came to Canada via PBS in the mid 90s and I really, really loved it then. Even 10 yrs later watching the various news networks, I cant help but think of the cynical manipulation that goes on in the name of ratings and the various "show ponies" we all see on TV as depicted in various Frontline episodes. The scripts are tightly written and the actors all have impeccable comic timing and none of it is encumbered by an idiotic laugh track. There is a lot of funny material here really well executed and we don't need to be told when to laugh and what to laugh at. I don't understand why this show never took off in North America as its truly a gem! I was really excited to see the DVDs available, even though they are PAL format. I figured I would rip them to my computer and then watch the converted files. I took a chance and ordered it from ABC… 6 to 8 weeks later, I had all 3 seasons. Even better it worked on my NTSC DVD player. I suspect any player bought in the past 2 yrs that does xvid/divx will play them. Great stuff! 10 yrs later the episodes all hold up really well! You don't need to know anything about Australian politics to get the humor as it will all be familiar to western audiences. My wife and I had a 10 day Frontline fest and are still chuckling weeks later after watching all 39 episodes The sad thing about Frontline is that once you watch three or four episodes of it you really begin to understand that it is not far away from what happens in real life. What is really sad is that it also makes extremely funny.

The Frontline team in Series One consists of Brian Thompson ( Bruno Lawrence )- a man who truly lives and dies merely by the ratings his show gets. Occasionally his stunts to achieve these ratings see him run in with his Line Producer Emma Thompson ( Alison Whyte ); a woman who hasn't lost all her journalistic integrity and is prepared to defend moral scruples on occasions. The same cannot be said of Reporter Brooke Vandenberg ( Jane Kennedy )- a reporter who has had all the substance sucked out of her- so much so that when interviewing Ben Elton she needs to be instructed to laugh. Her reports usually consist of interviewing celebrities ( with whom she has or hasn't 'crossed paths' with before ) or scandalous unethical reports that usually backfire. Martin De Stasio ( Tiriel Mora ) is the reporter with whom the team relies on for gravitas and dignity, as he has the smarts of 21 years of journalism behind him. His doesn't have principles so much as a nous of what makes a good journalistic story, though he does draw the occasional line. Parading over this chaos ( in name ) is Mike Moore ( Rob Sitch ) an egotistical, naive reporter who can't see that he's only a pretty face for the grubby journalism. He often finds his morals being compromised simply because Brian appeals to his vanity and allows his stupidity to do the rest.

Frontline is the sort of show that there needs to be more of, because it shows that while in modern times happiness, safety and deep political insight are interesting things; it's much easier to rate with scandal, fear and tabloid celebrities. Even a decade after "Frontline" aired on the ABC, near as I can tell, "current affairs" programmes are still using the same tricks over and over. Time after time, "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" are seen to be hiding behind the facade of journalistic professionalism, and yet they feed us nothing but tired stories about weight-loss and dodgy tradesmen, shameless network promotions and pointless celebrity puff-pieces. Having often been subjected to that entertainment-less void between 'The Simpsons' at 6:00 PM and 'Sale of the Century' (or 'Temptation') at 7:00 PM, I was all too aware of the little tricks that these shows would use to attract ratings.

Fortunately, four rising comedians – Rob Sitch, Jane Kennedy, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner – were also all too aware of all this, and they crafted their frustrations into one of the most wickedly-hilarious media satires you'll ever see on television. The four entertainers had already met with comedic success, their previous most memorable television stint being on 'The Late Show,' the brilliant Saturday night variety show which ran for two seasons from 1992-1993, and also featured fellow comedians Mick Molloy, Tony Martin, Jason Stephens and Judith Lucy.

"Frontline" boasts an ensemble of colourful characters, each with their own distinct and quirky personality. The current-affairs show is headed by nicely-groomed Mike Moore (Rob Sitch), an ambitious, pretentious, dim-witted narcissist. Mike works under the delusion that the show is serving a vital role for society – he is always adamant that they "maintain their journalistic integrity" – and his executive producers have excelled into getting him to believe just that. Mike is basically a puppet to bring the news to the people; occasionally he gets the inkling that he is being led along by the nose, but usually this thought is stamped out via appeals to his vanity or promises of a promotion.

Brooke Vandenberg (Jane Kennedy) is the senior female reporter on the show. She is constantly concerned about her looks and public profile, and, if the rumours are to be believed, she has had a romantic liaison with just about every male celebrity in existence. Another equally amoral reporter, Marty Di Stasio, is portrayed by Tiriel Mora, who memorably played inept solicitor Dennis Denuto in the Australian comedy classic, 'The Castle.' Emma Ward (Alison Whyte) is the Line Producer on the show, and the single shining beacon of morality on the "Frontline" set. Then there's the highly-amusing weatherman, Geoffrey Salter (Santo Cilauro), Mike's best friend and confidant. Geoff makes a living out of always agreeing with Mike's opinion, and of laughing uproariously at his jokes before admitting that he doesn't get them.

For each of the shows three seasons, we are treated to a different EP, Executive Producer. Brian Thompson (Bruno Lawrence), who unfortunately passed away in 1995, runs the programme during Season 1. He has a decent set of morals, and is always civil to his employees, and yet is more-than-willing to cast these aside in favour of high ratings. Sam Murphy (Kevin J. Wilson) arrives on set in Season 2, a hard-nosed, smooth-talking producer who knows exactly how to string Mike along; the last episode of the second season, when Mike finally gets the better of him, is a classic moment. Graeme "Prowsey" Prowse (Steve Bisley), EP for the third season, is crude, unpleasant and unashamedly sexist. It's, therefore, remarkable that you eventually come to like him.

With its cast of distinctive, exaggerated characters, "Frontline" has a lot of fun satirising current-affairs programmes and their dubious methods for winning ratings. Many of the episodes were shot quickly and cheaply, often implementing many plot ideas from recent real-life situations, but this never really detracts from the show's topicality ten years on. Celebrity cameos come in abundance, with some of the most memorable appearances including Pauline Hanson, Don Burke and Jon English. Watch out for Harry Shearer's hilarious appearance in the Season 2 episode "Changing the Face of Current Affairs," playing Larry Hadges, an American hired by the network to reform the show.

Particularly in the third season, I noticed that "Frontline" boasted an extremely gritty form of black humour, uncharacteristic for such a light-hearted comedy show. Genuinely funny moments are born from Brooke being surreptitiously bribed into having an abortion, murder by a crazed gunman and Mike treacherously betraying his best friend's hopes and dreams, only to be told that he is a good friend. The series' final minute – minus an added-scene during the credits, which was probably added just in case a fourth season was to be produced – was probably the greatest, blackest ending to a comedy series that I've yet seen.

Below is listed a very tentative list of my top five favourite "Frontline" episodes, but, make no mistake, every single half-hour is absolutely hilarious and hard-hitting satire.

1) "The Siege" (Season 1)

2) "Give 'em Enough Rope" (Season 2)

3) "Addicted to Fame" (Season 3)

4) "Basic Instincts" (Season 2)

5) "Add Sex and Stir" (Season 1) Kennedy-Miller could hardly have done a better job at tackling a very challenging exercise: making dry political events work as human drama, and providing an even-handed representation of explosively controversial subject matter.

The key to its success on the first count is brilliant acting, although I was less impressed by Max Phipps' performance as Gough Whitlam than some other commenters here. The clear standouts for my money were John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and Bill Hunter as Rex Connor. The latter must have been one of the easiest casting choices in history - Hunter could not have been more perfect for the role. On the second count, the series avoids the "myth of objectivity" trap through a narrator who articulates the sympathies of the director (Phillip Noyce, who more recently demonstrated his left-wing credentials in Rabbit Proof Fence), while being carefully even-handed and sympathetic in its dramatic portrayal of all parties. The adherence to the Lady Kerr/Lady Macbeth theme popular among Labor partisans was perhaps a little partial, though not ruinously so. In particular, credit is due for the sympathy shown to Kerr and the extraordinarily difficult position he was placed in, whatever one might think of his actions.

However, there is one sour note for which the producers were perhaps not entirely to blame - the portrayal of the Jim Cairns/Juni Morosi affair. Those who come to the series with no background to these events will get the impression that Cairns and Morosi were the innocent victims of a smear campaign by a prurient gutter press. The producers may have been restrained in this respect by Australia's stultifying defamation laws, and the recently demonstrated willingness of Cairns and Morosi to use them against those who suggested their relationship was sexual (which Cairns would eventually admit to a year before his death). However, more could have been made of the bizarre fashion in which Morosi managed Cairns's office as Treasurer.

Speaking of defamation, there are a couple of disorienting occasions where dialogue is obscured due to injunctions taken out by offended principals - by a beeping noise on one occasion, and a very loud telephone ring on another. A further curiosity: the DVD release excises a line from the comic relief scene where a customs officer (played by the late Paul Chubb) serves Tirath Khemlani on his arrival at Sydney Airport. Next in the queue is a dishevelled looking hippie, who now receives only a disapproving glare from Chubb when he presents his paperwork. In the original version, Chubb said something along the lines of: "drug bust in Bali, eh?". Obviously this line no longer rings true in the wake of the Schapelle Corby case, which dramatically illustrated that those busted for drugs in Bali can expect far worse than deportation. After traveling around the world, it dawned on me that Australia really lacks one thing that other countries have: history.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Australia wasn't establish following a war, it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather..... boring! Nothing "big" happened to mark some sort of turning point in Australia's history.... until the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-general of Australia - John Kerr.

For those who are Australian, you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. This is for the benefit of curious non-Australians! Australia was colonised by the British. As time went on, it became apparent that Australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. Accordingly, the UK granted Australia permission to establish its own parliaments, laws, courts and so on. The law and politics of Australia would no longer be provided directly from the British; rather, Australia would be run by Australians in their own right, even though the courts, precedents, parliament and so on is largely modeled on the British system. This shift was codified in the Australian Constitution. Despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes Australian governments, law-making procedures, courts (but for those who are curious - no bill of rights), their are two "pro-crown" sections that were included and remain there to this day. These are more or less regarded as the "reserve powers of the Crown (king/queen of Great Britain)." The first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the Governor-general. Briefly, the governor-general is considered the Queen's chief representative in Australia and is described as the "Executive" branch of the Australian Government. When a piece of law is passed by the Australian parliament, the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the Governor-general. As such, the Govenor-general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the Crown. Theoretically, the Governor-general can refuse to sign a law passed by Australian parliament if he thinks fit. For instance, if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any Australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the GG could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. However, this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. By "convention" (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal), the Governor-general virtually acts at the behest of the Australian government and therefore, if the government passes law and the Prime Minister instructs the Governor-General to sign it, he will, almost always without question. In fact, by "convention" the Governor-General acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the Prime Minister of the day (and the Prime Minister alone). The second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the Governor-general's "pleasure." Now the events of 1975 - covered in this film - gave rise to a precedent on this particular section: if the governor-general is somehow 'displeased' with the government and/or Prime Minister, it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975... hence the title of the film "the dismissal.") Whether 'at the Governor-General's pleasure' can be construed as "the unfettered right to dismiss" is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst Australians at the time - especially considering that the governor-general is not elected by the people of Australia.

Now that this background aspect is out of the way, let's get back to discussing the film. It was well made. The pace was patient, but didn't drag at all. The drama was well contained and very realistic. It didn't over-dramatise the events and most importantly, it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. On the contrary, I felt that it was fair and balanced, even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film-makers probably didn't approve of the Governor-general's decision to dismiss the Whitlam government. But I wouldn't describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other.

In terms of accuracy, it was virtually spot on. The film-makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. There were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over, largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975, so I forgive them for that. Further, I think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post-Vietnam war era, but Noyce pretty much pulled it off.

Finally, I was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical, obsessive or judgmental over them. Moreover, any that we're raised, for example Connor's pipeline, had a great deal of relevance to the story. The film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. This was smart because it meant that the film can't be accused of misrepresenting one side's policies.

The dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in Australia in its short life. I am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. Essential viewing for any Australian. Although I lived in Australia in 1975, I moved overseas not long after, fed up with constant industrial unrest, the general worship of mediocrity - unless one is a sportsman! - and the complacency of so many Australians who chose to ignore the breakneck pace of change taking place in countries to their north.

Consequently I missed The Dismissal, along with many other Australian-made TV dramas of the '80s and '90s, such as the superb Janus and Phoenix series, which I have since seen, along with Wildside.

To me the filmed story of The Dismissal is fair and, as far as I am aware, accurate. However, as to public "outrage" it only shows one side of the picture, not how families were riven by the controversy. I know, as my two brothers would not speak to me for months afterward.

But the commentary is, in my view, very one-sided throughout. The inescapable fact is that, notwithstanding fiery expressions of rage from a substantial proportion of the community, the Australian electorate chose - and chose decisively - in favour of Fraser, as they did again two years later.

This apart, a historically accurate and superbly well acted docudrama. In nineteen eighty two when it was announced that the Dismisal was going to be made , there was a storm of controversy. This was an event which still left open wounds in the hearts and minds of the Australian people. After some changes (listen out for the well timed telephones ringing to disguise names) the Dismissal went to air. It was nothing short of brilliant. The leads were perfect. Max Phipps as Gough Whitlam lead the way, closely followed by John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and the evergreen John Mellion as Sir John Kerr. The time was created well, the feelings of the people were well done and the political elements were not two dimensionally made into melodrama as in so many American series. The Dismissal was a faithful re-creation of a time in Australia which some would rather forget and which we cannot forget. it did not take sides and it pointed out the mistakes and lies of both sides. It leaves one wanting to maintain the rage and change the constitution which still allows for this to all happen again. The Dismissal is now available on DVD in Australia. Watch it, learn from it and learn about our modern history. As a Canadian, I didn't know very much about the Whitlam dismissal. I had read the Wikipedia page about those events, but that was about it. Earlier this year, when Canada went through a potential constitutional crisis (it fizzled out, thankfully) that might have led to intervention by our Governor-General, the Whitlam dismissal was mentioned in the press. In an effort to learn more, I ordered the DVD of this mini-series through EBay.

I was greatly impressed by how interesting the account was. As dramatic as events were, this could have been a very boring political drama. However, it was a pretty suspenseful mini-series. I was also impressed by how understandable it was, despite my lack of familiarity with Australian politics. It didn't take long to figure out who everyone was, and what their roles were.

Having said that, it is not an entirely impartial account. Malcolm Fraser is certainly portrayed as a rather Machiavellian figure, who lets no person or thing get in the way of his quest to be Prime Minister. Gough Whitlam is portrayed in a more noble, almost saintly, light. However, the actor portraying Whitlam channels the nobility in such a way that it comes across more as pomposity. I thought that Sir John Kerr was portrayed in a fairly sympathetic manner.

I must warn people that the DVD is of very poor quality. I understand that it was made for television in the early 80s, but it would appear that no effort was made to restore the picture quality or sound quality. It was very disappointing that no extras were added either. A documentary, or even some interviews with the historical figures, would have enhanced the experience, but there is nothing.

I highly recommend this mini-series for anyone interested in the real-life events. I first saw this docudrama in the UK in the 1980's, and found myself intrigued and then astonished at how such good intentions could go so wrong. Previous commentators (who are Australian) have explained the unfolding plot's detail better than I ever could, but I would like to make an observation about what may lie behind the Governor-Generals 'UK Sovereign power'. All modern laws, as I understand them, need an ethical or philosophical root to exist in the first place and to become A law at all. That being the case, and if say the Conner's/Khemlani mess had been possibly set up,(just how many businessmen/millionares had been served by Khemlani, presumably without complaint), then the Labour government could have been victims of 'entrapment', which would surely have had to have been investigated' by the Governor-General as or until he could see that the budget standoff was A genuine result of Whitlam's fecklessness, and NOT elaborate entrapment, sponsored by 'person or person's unknown'! If its the case that Kerr in effect didn't have to refer to the law because fiscal circumstances overrides everything, then 'royal power' borders onto unreason; the implications in any Commonwealth country is that 'fiscal' rules literally, and that any person or organisation has Carte Blanche to break any other rule, physical or mental, so long as they have the control over the purse strings ultimately! Governments are elected for three year terms, as Reg Whithers said in 1973, the Liberals were determined to continue forcing Labor to the Polls until they were defeated. If you ask me, this is portrayed in the docudrama, but, anyone who says Kerr acted properly in this fails to acknowledge the self-serving and costly strategy of the Liberal Party of Australia. On the series itself, I though Max Phipps was a poor Whitlam, his voice was too ghostly. Also, more of the key political players on both sides should have been used, though this may have been a reflection of budgetary constraints at the time. Nevertheless, I recommend it, with caution. Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare. "you can't take it realistically." -sheets

Zombie Bloodbath 2 (ZB2) is a world all of its own. I've really never seen anything like it. The only thing I can think to compare it to is psychedelic drugs. Forgive the cliché—I don't simply mean that it's incoherent and absurd, though occasionally it is. I mean that it takes you through such a broad range of intense experiences and unexpected emotions so quickly as to overwhelm you, and when it's over, you find that it's all happened while you were sitting on the couch.

It is worth noting that it's extremely low-budget, as a disclaimer to those who, after seeing "Shaun of the Dead," consider themselves fans of underground zombie films. Also of note is that it is much more "brutal" than you'd expect. Children get disemboweled, and someone taunts a teenage girl before shooting her in the groin. Her corpse is subsequently "raped." These are certainly not flaws, and indeed I feel it is to the film's credit. But if it doesn't sound like your kind of movie, don't waste your time.

(I don't mean to over-hype it, regarding brutality. Don't go in expecting "Inside" or something.) I hesitate to give away any of the plot, because it's really full of surprises. Even the opening scene, which has nothing to do with zombies, is at once a classic horror scene and something quite original.

Man, I'm three paragraphs in and I've hardly said anything at all. Here's why I thought the movie was awesome: 1. It's big, and it keeps moving. At one point, you expect it to turn into another NotLD clone, a board-up-the-windows movie where everyone stays in a farmhouse and argues with one another. By the end of the film, however, the farmhouse scenes will seem like a distant dream. There are also a number of outdoor, urban scenes. These are rare in low-budget zombie films.

2. The makeup/gore is much better than ZB1. More convincing and more creative. Something kind of funny: the early zombies look really lame. Then, halfway through, they suddenly look really good, with prosthetics and everything. Some of them look like Fulci zombies, some are reminiscent of Mr. Tongue from "Day of the Dead." And it's got big scenes of dozens of zombies shuffling around. Never gets old.

3. There's something oddly emotional about it. One character asserts that heaven exists, and that our dead/undead protagonists are now in heaven. In the context of the film, we believe it to be true. Though the characters behave with typical horror film stupidity, they genuinely seem to care about each other, and accordingly, I found myself caring about them.

4. The pacing is great. There's hardly a dull moment.

My only observation that borders on criticism is that Todd Sheets comes up with the most bizarre dialog I've ever heard. I personally feel it adds to the experience, but I don't think he does it on purpose, so I can't fairly give the film a perfect rating. (Example: when a car breaks down, the owner yells at the passengers. Then he says something to the effect of, "Sorry I yelled at you guys. You don't know what it's like to have your dad standing over you with a straight razor when you're five years old." wtf?) At the very end, it gets to be more than I can handle. Involves a montage with Bill Clinton, and then some preachy end credits explaining the zombie metaphor. Really, by this point, I was firmly re-living my drug experiences.

Highly recommended. 7/10. OK, I got the DVD set last week and I am finally getting around to posting my reviews, but I sure liked this sequel in many ways.

Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead. OK. This one movies at a fast clip, has some really good gore effects and some really well done atmosphere and style. I would actually go on record as saying this may be one of the most stylish DV shot flicks that I have bought. Most of the time, I get rather angry at DV movies for being boring and looking like soap operas. Even a movie like Bone Sickness that I like, has incredible stretches of DULL. Not this movie. It never stops long enough to let you catch your breath. Although I wouldn't say I liked it better than the first film, I will say that Sheets certainly improved technically in the two years in between films. This one has better gore, the inevitable zombie feeding scenes, scumbag characters, and a few returning actors (although their roles are different) mainly Jerry Angell as a pretty good psychopath with a killer mullet from hell. The shots are more ambitious as well as the script this time around because you can tell Sheets is trying to pull a lot more off than he did in the first film. Some of it works and some of it doesn't, but I have to say that at least he wasn't just trying to do a larger version of the first film. There was no mention this time around of a power plant of chemical spillage, just Satanism and the occult that brings the undead back to life. So I say kudos to Mr. Sheets for trying to do something different with this one. I give this film two bloody thumbs up! Just finished with Zombie Bloodbath part one on the amazing Zombie Bloodbath Trilogy DVD from CAMP Motion Pictures. Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead is next. Now this one left me a bit puzzled due to a few plot holes and some confusing twists here and there, but it is a better film on many levels. Director Todd Sheets truly shows a major leap in style and talent between the two films. Again, this is not for people who want gloss and Hollywood style Horror films, this is for people who like their zombies bloody, raw and grainy. The story as far as I could tell, was basically about two robbers who in 1945 try and steal from an elderly couple only to find that the couple are members of a cult. One guy is simply killed and the other, the one in charge, is basically turned into a scarecrow and crucified and they stand him in the nearby field, still alive but dying. Cut to present day and a van full of college kids break down near a farmhouse. At the same time a group of convicts escape from a nearby jail. Both groups end up at the same house. The house was the one the elderly coupled used to live in and when one of the convicts knocks down the scarecrow and takes it's jacket, it causes the scarecrow to wake up and he in turn brings the cult members back from the dead. Wow. And this is all in the first half hour. There is another plot also going on in town where a couple of serial killer types have taken some workers at a deli hostage. This actually works though, as the people trapped in the house finally escape and end up in the same Deli. Most of the twists work out pretty good, but it is obvious that the film was just too complex in some spots for it's own good. It all ends in a huge showdown with the remaining heroes finding a delivery truck or something full of flesh eating bacteria vials. Of course they throw it at the undead and cause some major melting and a few heads to explode and then we get an odd, thought provoking ending. First, let me say, that while it was not always easy to follow, I still had a major good time with this movie. It was fun and the acting was pretty darn good for a low budget effort. It was obvious that Todd Sheets was truly trying to bring more to the table than a typical zombie film, and in that regard, he has succeeded. It had better special effects than the first film, great pacing and some cool music and visuals, plus there is a true show-stopper of a shot from INSIDE a mouth as a knife is jammed through it. Care was taken here and it shows. The weakness lies in the scripting and in a few of the lazier performances. Again, I recommend listening to the commentary track. It was even better than the first one and I learned a lot. Like finding out that some of the scenes were shot on Super 8 film for effect and that the film came back ruined from the lab and they could nit use it. And they had already been editing the film by the time they got the film back, so some of the confusion is from a few scenes not being in the film. Also, I learned that Todd Sheets truly has a passion and love for making Horror movies. It shows. The film is a good example of no budget cinema that could have used one more rewrite, but still shines with more style than most DV films I see. Not quite as fun as the first film, though a better movie technically. I really admire Sheets as one of the true innovators and trailblazers in the area of DV cinema... and this one is a great addition to the cheapo zombie genre! Just watched this one again. I wanted to show it to one of my friends and we had the best time. This is why these kind of movies are made, to entertain people and Zombie Bloodbath 2 does that for me and for everyone I have showed it to.

The story concerns a group of teenagers in a van that run into a group of escaped convicts who have taken over an old farmhouse. When a scarecrow (that is actually a demon I think) gets disturbed, it comes to life and re-animates dead bodies from the local cemeteries. This leads our heroes to escape only to land in the arms of two insane killers that are in the process of torturing some people in a deli in a small town. Pretty soon it's a showdown with humans fighting zombies.

I loved this movie! From it's different formats (black and white film, video and digital cameras) to the very fast pace and great music, there was always something going on and it NEVER bores you! Sure, it's cheap, but you can tell that a great deal of care and hard work went into this film. I have read other reviews and all I can say is that these people have missed the point. If you want 35mm Full Moon fluff, or if you are into modern stuff like Urban Legend, then I say pass on this. If you like low budget stuff like Gates Of Hell and Evil Dead, I say buy this now.

The make-up and gore is very good, the acting is uneven at times, but over-all it is pretty good and the editing is very impressive. There is enough going on in this one to fill two more films! It is actually one of the better b-movies I have seen in ages. I am a glutton for B-movies. I love the old Drive-In fare like this movie. This film, made for very little money it seems, does do one thing that some bigger budgeted films fail. It is cheezy. It is gory. It has no real plot, but it entertained me for an hour and a half. I was either laughing or covering my eyes in shock. There are a few great effects like a shot from INSIDE a guy's mouth when he gets stabbed in the chin by a knife and it pokes up through his tongue and slams into the roof of his mouth, and one gross-out with a guy getting his eyeballs yanked out. But there is also loads of zombies, and some psycho killers patterned after Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a demon possessed scarecrow. I loved the dialogue that the killers spout as they torture and kill people. It has great camera work, and some cool editing tricks. This one is more original than the first Bloodbath, and the undead look better, but it is still patterned after those dubbed trashy zombie movies of the 70's and 80's and it still has a cheeze factor that ranks mighty high. Don't expect Romero, just second-rate Fulci. I would say that Horror fans will like it, and it is funny and cheezy and a fast ride through B-movie Land. Todd Sheets has created one of the greatest LOW BUDGET Zombie movies EVER. The story is great, the gore is grand, the psychos are wicked! Yet the movie is flawed by its petty dialogue and sluggish imaging at times.

Despite this ZB2 delivers what any Zombie movie should, gore, good plot, fast pace adventure into the macarbe. If only MR sheets had been given a 100k budget this movie would out do EVERY zombie movie ever even the almighty Dawn of the dead.

But as time goes by he gets better and as he gets better more money comes into his pocket. Thus allowing this man this modern day Genius to craft his vision better.

Just remember that Zombie Bloodbath 2 was just one of his great stepping stones when he is atop of Gore Mountain I was at the world premier of this movie, and have even met Todd a couples times around town (once at Olive Garden). Todd isn't a bad guy, he is just a small time film maker with little to no budget and big dreams.

As for the movie, it is good if you like zombie films with very little plot and lots of blood and guts. You get to see some Kansas City locations and lots of raw meat, what could be better? :-) Look for the same 2 dozen people playing different zombies (with just a change of clothes or hats). You can have a good drinking game with this movie, take a shot whenever you see the same zombie in a different shirt. To surmise, this film involves two actors (Caine and Moran) trying to con a gangster. The plot is flimsy at best as several plot holes occur throughout. However this normally shouldn't matter as the comedy should carry a film like this. There are some genuinely funny bits (mostly provided by Dylan Moran). However, other times, there are long melodramatic scenes that fail to add anything to the movie. Caine's character seemed overdone to me. Especially at the start, he continually quotes Shakespeare and acts like a pompous actor. One could say he was playing the part properly but the character seemed to me flat and unfunny. Overall I would say see only if a fan of the actors involved. Otherwise wait for video or tv. I like Dylan Moran from his work in Black Books, although I found some of his stand-up to be really indulgent in terms of long confused gaps... however I was intrigued to see this film starring he and Michael Caine and curiosity got the better of me.

I was stunned.

Dylan's vocal range and characterisation of the different people he was playing in the film was absolutely perfect, something beyond the skills of a mere stand-up comedian and really truly on a par with alec guinness, john hurt and the other greats- truly he was skilled in his portrayal.

Michael Caine was a very convincing prima donna and the standard british film device of having a precocious child on hand to be overly wise and withering worked- the only aspect I didn't really like was the unbelieveable plot feature of the chemistry between Dolores and the cockney gangsta's hard man played by Dylan.

Other than that, it was great.

I also like the non-cop-out ending where it did end up happily ever after, but with MC getting a beating. OK, it's not exactly being strung up by your goolies and beijng disembowelled (which is what a real crime boss would do to you if you nicked £50k off them) but it showed at least a small measure of reality in the story.

I liked the film, and I would recommend it to anyone- but- I would also warn them not to turn it off after 15 minutes because it started a bit slow. If you stick it out, then it will all come back.

And with regards to the swearing- well, they're in Ireland. It wouldn't be real otherwise. At first I thought this film was going to annoy me.It was as though I had seen this movie somewhere before. The disillusioned hero, the father figure and the 9 year old sister who is older and wiser than her years (see Gregory's girl), but then, not 15 minutes in, it became a laugh out loud, comic gem of a movie. Dylan Moran (who I thought was just going to bug me) was excellent. As was Mr Gambon and the mad Scottish hitman. Lena Headey was extremely sexy. For half of the film I was trying to remember where I'd seen her before. The Parole officer. She has the most amazing smile. But clearly the true hero of this film is Mr Caine. This man should do much more comedy. This ranks alongside some of his best comedy roles (Without a Clue, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). He is a pleasure to watch in all of his scenes but especially the end.

No one can quite say f**k the way Michael can.

A ham actor without a penny. Who better than Michael Caine to play such a character? He is totally and utterly hilarious but, as in most of Caine's performances, he goes for it for real. The film seems to be a showcase of Dylan Moran and he's splendiferous in his double act with Caine. This, however, is where the script falters. Moran's impersonations should have been incorporated in a rather more organic way. They are too much of an act on their own and makes the potential plausibility of the plot fly out of the window. Never mind. Get it if you can find it. There is enough in it to make it a pleasurable journey. I know this film has had a fairly rough ride from the critics, but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The real star here is the fantastic Dylan Moran. He never fails to be both hilarious and convincing in all of his varied disguises. He also manages to radiate a sweet charm that belies his outrageous pratfalls. Special mention must also go to Michael Gambon who plays for laughs with a brilliantly accurate and yet comedic inner city Dublin accent. The only weak link is Caine who, while obviously having a great laugh hamming it up, plays the least interesting and most unsympathetic character. It probably won't play that well overseas but it's well worth a watch all the same. Although the plot of this film is a bit far-fetched, it is worth seeing just for the performances of Michaels Caine and Gambon. The latter delivers a truly wonderful Dublin accent. Caine hams it up...which is exactly what the character he is playing should do. Entertaining and fun, this is a hour and a half of easy watching. If you are going to watch this film because Michael Caine or Michael Gambon are in it then don't bother, it's not their typical role although I found Gambon fantastic. Instead watch it for Dylan Moran I am a fan of everything I have seen him in and this is no exception, I didn't even realise he could act but even the characters which he has to pass himself off as I found completely believable, which is impressive considering the audience knows they are fake.

The plot is genius and although it is not constant laughs all the way through it has plenty of other charms. A great film for people with a sense of humour. This film is a joy to watch and should do well on DVD and video. I suppose you really have to be Irish to appreciate the some of the subtlties such as accent, colloquialisms and the dress sense of some of the characters but let me assure you that when Dylan Moran impersonates 'Barreler' the impersonation is quite familiar to most people from Dublin because we have many characters in our fine city that look, act and talk like that! The sheer simple comedy employed and Michael Caines genius acting alone are worth the money but on top of this the plot is great, the script is fantastic and the dialogue fast moving and catchy. A perfect light entertainment movie without the madcap humour of Jim Carrey. Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.

Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.

Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!

Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for? tell you what that was excellent. Dylan Moran is simply the funniest actor on screen( and on stage) and with Micheal Caine as your partner ain't to bad either, both are great to watch in a really funny film. true, not all the gags come off but its worth sticking around for the ones that do, but come on its got Micheal Caine in a dress in it( the whole admission fees worth that) and every time Dylan Moran's on screen its more like Bernard blacks movie. the story is two actors(Moran and Caine) who decide to steal money from a group of gangsters by acting out different persona's to fool them all but getting away with it's a different matter. basically "the actors" is a great British comedy that was somehow missed by many, seriously if your a Moran fan(or want to see Micheal Caine in a dress) definitely see this This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it.

The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.

A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.

In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age. First off- What are some of you thinking? This is the best movie I've seen in ages!

Secondly- I don't think of it as a British movie as it is set in Dublin and has mainly Irish actors- Moran, Gambon, Aisling O Sullivan(Rita), Deirdre O'Kane etc.

Thirdly- I thought that Moran was excellent. He was hilariously funny through out. Micheal Caine seemed only to be there to get Moran context. Each character he took on he perfected.

Abigail Iversen I thought was better than any other child actor I have seen. She was believable as the smart kid and also as a kid and an adult(yes I know that sounds strange but hey...). Even she managed to upstage Caine.

Iversen and Moran worked very well together and were very funny in the preparation scene.

Barreler(Gambon) was very funny in his ineptitude. This film is completely underrated.

It's a film similar to Will Keenan and Patrick Hasson's Waiting, as well as Adrien Brody's Restaurant and the classic film Breaking Away, which are all about young adults who are stuck and know they're stuck, with little or no chance of breaking free.

Death By Pizza (Delivered) is about an intelligent, free-thinking, artistic young adult (Will, played by David Strictland) who is stuck and waiting, bitter at the world's hypocrisy and bitter at his own lack of direction and desire. Will meets his nemesis, Reed (Ron Eldard), another intelligent young adult who's so bitter, he's chosen the path of crime. Both end up helping each other to free themselves of their bitterness, which enables them to get unstuck.

For these young adults, getting unstuck, or, breaking free, can mean both forging ahead into life, and plunging downward into death.

Will's life is filled with the trademarks of a young "stuck" adult: a soul-sucking, sweaty, under-paying job, crude customers, an ex-girlfriend who left him because he was unmotivated, a partial college education with no degree, a house filled with self-made art, and of course the new friend whose ungodly choices help him to save himself. The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time. I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars Inferno gives Los Angeles what it deserves-- a baptism in fire, death from above. An excellent cast of obsessed characters could survive and sweat out the passing of the coronal mass ejection but that would be no fun and certainly not dramatic. A really lame review in Variety criticized the characters for being concerned with their personal redemption instead of banning together to save the world. But what's refreshing about this big heat is that there's nothing anyone can do about it. We are, therefore, mercifully not subjected to "heart warming" scenes of fascist presidents and other big blowhard statists as they contrive implausible plots to save a chosen remnant of mankind (ala Deep Impact). Here the sweat drenched and lust-powered dirty half dozen work out their own redemption or face their personal oblivions the old fashioned way-- together as individuals or......alone with the Alone. Excellent TV film all in all. Clearly not denatured by the destructive meddlesomness of overzealous Network Execs. I highly recommend. This is speculation. This movie could of inspired Paramount Pictures to film the movie The Core. Both movies have something in common nature.The only improvement for Inferno is a better cast. Inferno's cast is still good though. Excellent movie 8 out of 10. This is worth watching. This movie does have truth to it heat waves are real. Another piece of truth is heat related power outages. Where I live i have actually heard transformers blow. Unrest from heat is possible because people seeking to cool off may get rowdy. There is a considerable amount of team work in this movie. Again this a movie worth watching. The movie has a good cast. The movie has no slow spots. I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy. Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.

The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.

As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.

Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.

Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.

Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured.

There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.

The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively. This is one peace of art! If you like comedy you should watch this! Here comes a funny moment from the movie: "spoiler"

Nikolai and Goroshkov are walking together in Paris for the first time. They are visiting the local market. And Goroshkov goes: -"Look Nikolai, how much food they have! Look! One-two-three-ten-thirty-fifty-hundred kinds of meat! But if ask for a tiny-tiny peace, just for the taste, they won't give you. French are very greedy!" Then Goroshkov takes Nikolai to a TV-shop...Goroshkov: "Tell me, who needs all these televisions? Look at this monster here, for example!" Goroshkov points a finger at the "monster"-TV and goes: "And this motherfu*ker...he is supposed to be digging a ditch, but no, he's on TV...wait a minute... that's ME! hahah!"

Wanna laugh? Watch the movie, you won't regret! This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.

Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film. One unfortunate reality of post-Soviet Russia was that the people's welfare didn't change much from Soviet times. As we see in "Window to Paris", most people are still as depressed as ever, while they are encouraged to go after money.

Then, everything changes for music teacher Nikolai Chizhov (Sergei Dontsov) after he finds a window that leads to Paris. He and his friends are naturally quite amazed at what they find. This movie has one of the funniest discussions of Elvis Presley and Edith Piaf that I've ever heard. So watch this movie. You're sure to love it. It's sort of a precursor to "Being John Malkovich". I originally saw this movie as a Blockbuster VHS rental. That was quite some time ago, but still remembered it. Blockbuster doesn't have it anymore. Netflix didn't have it and there weren't many copies on the web -- only a few spendy VHS copies. Recently did finally find it available in DVD form on eBay for a reasonable price (in PAL format, but our DVD player will play PAL discs on our NTSC TV).

Wife and I both enjoyed it. The style of the movie is a bit strong, and many if not most of the parts are rather strongly over-played as if amateurs were making it(especially the kids), but it's not bothersome. The contrasts of societies are accentuated in the overplay.

There is a bit of political preaching in terms of saying that the young in Russia shouldn't try to escape their not-so-great life but instead should at least try to make things better first. But that's not dominant. It's fairly humorous most of the time.

Some downplaying of the west commented upon by others isn't that at all IMO, I take it as a comment about expectations of the Russian characters. At least when taken from my western viewpoint. Perhaps it's a downplay of the west from a Russian viewpoint (which it is literally by the characters saying it).

I can't say how literally true to the film the English subtitles are, but I can say that the subtitles were done very well, full of English idioms as if done by a native English speaker -- complete with "colorful" language. For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany. As I've hopped from film to film at the SXSW Film Festival, this film from the opening night has stayed with me. Curious, because it is a dark comedy with quite an absurdist premise.

A family of hyper-stressed fundamentalists in a small community of like minds is changed by an auto accident. Three of the four have the same near-death experience in which they are fully opened, as each receives a reversal of the concept of original sin (I won't spoil this scene with the specifics). The fourth, a middle school cheerleader, is not just the only one physically hurt, but also is unchanged and is now witness to what has become her crazy, apparently spiritually bankrupt, family. Every new moment brings a new outrageousness as they have become innocently naked and frank in every way, horrifying her and then the community.

Forgiving the Franklins has the most beautiful sexual awaking scene between a husband and wife that I have ever seen, to the Sarah Brightman song "Deliver Me," a song that can now bring tears to my eyes.

The cast is terrific. Robertson Dean as the dad, Vince Pavia as the son and Aviva as the cheerleader daughter are excellent, Mari Blackwell plays Peggy, the mom's questioning neighbor and best friend perfectly, a much more nuanced, fleshed out, real character than what might have been (everyone in middle America knows a Peggy). And Theresa Willis positively glows as Betty, the mom. There are lots of risks taken by the actors playing the three changed characters, and these risks pay off.

I hope this film gets a wide release - if so, I plan to see it again.

Very accurate review at: http://www.fosteronfilm.com/phil/forgiving.htm I just got back from the GLBT Film Festival at the AMC Loews 34th in NY. A friend told me about this film. Audience response was very positive! Lots of good solid laughs as well as some quiet moments of realization. Top notch in every area. A movie that makes you think, and then makes you realize how lucky we'd all be if we could turn back time and live without shame or guilt. I imagine this will come close to, if not win, the audience favorite award! What was most surprising was the fact the the movie appears to start off as a satire and then slowly weaves into a genuine commentary on the negative and sometimes violent reactions of the very group it started to satirize. There isn't any mean spirited humor at the expense of one group, just a slow realization that we would all be better off if we just went back to the gentle innocence that we all started off with. I agree with the other 9 and 10 star reviews. I saw this at the South By Southwest Film Festival in Austin. Of the 20 films I saw,7 were really good and this was the best one for me. I'm a sucker for movies that have plot devices where characters go through transformations that totally change their lives. The excellent acting was mostly done by people involved in TV, or it was their first movie. It was written and directed by Jay Floyd. This was his debut as a director. Jay's day job is apparently as a clearance administrator for lots of famous films. Forgiving the Franklins was a total delight and extremely funny in spots. This is one movie where I would buy the DVD and re-watch it, truly a high complement from me. Well done, Jay, yes...give up your day job! Just saw this film the other day at the Santa Fe Film Festival. I was delighted by its honesty and humor. It was the most thought provoking movie I've seen in a very long time -- I just can't get it off of my mind for some reason. It may not be for everyone, because it makes you think. I don't know if people like to think in movies so much anymore, which is a shame. The actors who play the Franklins are quite a find. I couldn't imagine playing these complicated people with such frankness. Though I thought a couple of the supporting characters were not as good as the Franklins, I can totally forgive it -- because this is an important movie in my opinion. I didn't expect to like it so much, but as I've thought about it for a few days, it's proving to be a very relevant piece of entertainment. I saw Forgiving the Franklins at a Paramount screening and loved it I have to be honest I really didn't want to go and I had become quite jaded about the movies being made today I have to tell you Forgiving The Franklins was fresh and wonderfully put together I laughed my ass off it was great story telling I could not believe two guys shot this and put the whole thing together. I thought if these guys can do a movie like this with this budget imagine what they could do with big money behind them. And then I thought be the jaded guy Iam the studios would probably f...it up anyway. That being said thanks guys I got lost and in your film and that's why I go to the movies to forget the world for a couple of hours. Forgiving the Franklins is the best film I have seen in years. The acting was fantastic..especially Mari Blackwell who was truly remarkable in the role of Peggy Lester. She brought Peggy to life with incredible skill and made her as real as my own next-door neighbor. I also enjoyed Robertson Dean in the role of the father... he is a true professional, and managed to pull off even the most intimate scenes with a rare grace. The performances by the entire cast were very good, excellent, in fact but Peggy's role as played by Blackwell made the movie. The cinematography was beautifully done throughout and was most impressive. The only criticism I have to offer is a slight weakness of the ending scenes, which were overly drawn out, repetitive and a bit too focused on the wrong character. I would have liked to see it end on a note of forgiveness....but spite of that slight flaw, it is very much worth the watching and applause for all involved in the making of it. the most "spiritual" film I have seen in a long long time. maybe ever. also one scene around the dining room table a piece of comic perfection. I understand a release date is coming up in the fall. if it comes to your town and you want to see a movie that makes you think this is it. Aviva is great in it and she is most certainly a future star - (Superbad is out now which she is in) - also all the actors seem perfectly calibrated. There is a tone set by this movie that is used to surprise through out. i would not know what to call it - it is comedy but the undergirding message is so fierce and direct that "comedy" is not a big enough word for it. I love this film. It is a thinking man's comedy. but even that phrase is not really good enough. FTF does have a message and that message needs to be heard right now In this tale of a tightly wound Christian family that has three of its four members "born again" after a cake-caused car crash, what really stands out is how grounded most of it is, where there is so much potential to go over the top, and how truly inspired most of the acting is. Where most of the film's moments, particularly its frank and "innocent" discussions of sexuality after three of the four family members have their guilt and shame removed, is hilarious, it is also thought-provoking and the characters stay with you.

How often, for example does a character in a comedy spin from near caricature to full-bodied emotional being in the course of one scene? How often do we see a cast that can pull back from showboating mid-sentence, in order to show a bit of the humanity beneath the character's skin? Even many of the "bad guys" in this film have moments of heart-breaking honesty, even while much of what they do can be absolutely ridiculous and horrifying. There is truth and history behind even the most questionable acts in this film, which is a difficult task in satire.

How refreshing it is to see a darkish comedy that can dare to be humanistic. How nice to see actors so fully committed to character that they can dare to let them be ridiculous and sublime.

And as a gay person, I do not think I have ever been quite so touched by a heterosexual sex scene as I was by the first sexual encounter between the parents of this family after their accident.

Bravo. Bravo. One of my favorites at Outfest this year. Wow, just caught this movie from Blockbuster and I love finding gems like this. While it was definitely shot on a budget and misses a little bit in clumsy editing (i.e. accident, hospital scenes, second to last end scenes), for a first directorial effort, I give this 10 stars! I absolutely loved the thought provoking concepts brought forth and if you're a free thinker and open to ideas outside the box, I highly, highly recommend this movie. I think the director and writer, Jay Floyd, should be given some attention and more opportunities in the film industry. Based on his credits, he may be another Quentin Tarantino. It's always a pleasure to see characters in a movie who are wholly good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when they're surrounded by those who are neither. The film's moderately silly premise is that the conservative, religious Franklin family (mother, father, teen boy and girl) are involved in an accident wherein the parents and brother have a near-death experience during which they meet Jesus, a pleasant but somewhat exasperated soul who removes from them the burden of 'original sin.' When they return to their lives, many of their views and attitudes have changed, much to the consternation of the daughter, who didn't share the experience. The religious side is, I think, presented with a good balance, from the good (Jesus) to the starkly awful (those of his 'followers' who are obsessed with the sins of others and utterly oblivious to their own). It's a movie to make you think, give you a few good laughs along the way, and leave you with the pleasant feeling that the world just might be a nicer place than you think it is. saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie. I saw this film at the Sundance Film Festival and I too was surprised that it didn't generate more notice because it was not only powerful and beautifully crafted but very original. The audience was totally engaged and the greatest part of seeing a film like this at a festival is the opportunity to talk to the director and cast in the Q&A session afterward. They literally had to throw us out of the screening room for the next film - we could have gone on for a lot longer. The film is thought provoking and hilarious at the same time. It will be a shame if this film isn't picked up for wider distribution - I hope it will at least become available on DVD because I want to see it again and share it with everyone I know. I was surprised that " Forgiving the Franklins " did not generate more buzz at this years Sundance Film Festival. There were times that the laughter at the screening I saw was so loud that you could barely hear the movie. The movie has some excellent acting and a story that really makes one examine broader issues . You know little issues like Religion, sex and the truth. Lots of comedy's seem to rely on the same old corny contrived situations, many leave you thinking " I know they ripped this off from some sitcom " .This film takes off on its own unique direction . I really think that Jay Floyd did a fantastic job with a tight budget on this film. Amateur camera work aside, I thought this movie was very different, and unlike all the blogs and posts I have read, I got something totally different out of the ending than others. The premise of the story revolves around a very religious family and their ties to their church. How they must adhere to all the rigid rules and regulations, but the daughter seems to have problems staying on track, what with nasty thoughts of others and her use of bad language. Yet she prays a lot, as does her family. Then one day they are headed to a church picnic and are in an accident. From there the parents and her brother change; what with being knocked out and "saved" by Jesus. WARNING: MAJOR Spoiler ALERT. Or so we are led to believe. I think if you watch this movie from the point of view of the daughter only, then really pay attention to the end you will see that what we, the audience, thinks is an actual occurrence with the parents and son, is in fact all a dream, and from the daughter's POV. This would explain a lot of the actions portrayed by the parents and the son, which were totally opposite of how they lived before, especially the sex, and also would also explain why Peggy got away with murder, etc. Look at how perfect that pie is, but go back and look at the cake Betty makes. That is unless Caroline removed all evidence that the pie was laced. And also the fact that the scene where she sees her dead parents, laying there in each others arms, and her brother, all whom of which seemed to die very peacefully, even if being poisoned, fits with a dream sequence. This is a wonderful movie...it's funny, dark, poignant, thought-provoking, innocently naughty and generally entertaining all around. I don't know that I've seen the like before..."The Rapture,"or maybe one of Todd Solondz's black-as-night "comedies" or even the recent movie "Teeth" come to mind...but those are all bitter, nasty little gems. "Franklins," despite the darkness around the edges, manages to have a thoroughly sincere and pure heart.

The story is similar to John Waters' "Low Down Dirty Shame," only this film differs in that it actually HAS a story, and something to say as well, beyond Waters' juvenile "Sex isn't dirty (snicker, nudge-nudge)" message. A conservative, repressed family undergoes a drastic change as a result of a car accident and suddenly aren't so conservative anymore...in fact, they're finally actually happy, probably the only people in their town (or maybe the entire world) who are. To talk about why this is the case would be to spoil the film; simply put, everyone should see it, though of course only people who are already sold on what the movie's upbeat, hopeful philosophy is ever would.

The acting is great--just this side of realistic enough to keep the proceedings from getting too heavy...Teresa Willis gives an especially memorable and brave performance as an uptight mother who emerges like a butterfly when she's freed up. Both she and Robertson Dean deserve kudos for their unflinchingly sincere performances (not to mention frequent and extensive nudity and sex scenes); they turn what could have been a salacious joke involving a "deviant sex practice" into a touching, believable and endearing moment. Aviva as the daughter is a standout and someone to watch, perfectly capturing the attitude, angst and speech patterns of a girl her age. Vince Pavia as the "himbo" brother with a secret is good looking and functional although his storyline and how everyone reacts to it is more rewarding than his actual acting. Mari Blackwell as the conflicted best friend to mother Franklin is wonderfully cold, confused and even compassionate in a role that could have gone over-the-top.

Technically the film looks fantastic, all bright colors and wide-open locales...it looks like it may have been shot Hi-def...if so, the line has gotten very thin, it looks very much like film. There is a great deal of talking and a lot of it philosophical, which gets a bit preachy (moreso, I'd imagine to a viewer who disagrees with the film's politics), but this film says a lot of things that need saying...if only people wouldn't be afraid to listen and think. The arguments that take place are smart and well thought out, first and foremost refusing to demonize either the religious OR non-religious parties.

The ending is on the ambiguous side, which I found a bit of a disappointment somehow...I think it would've worked better had the author (as Jay Floyd is, since he produced, wrote and directed) given a more workable denouement, some sort of solution, but then again, there probably isn't one when it comes to pitting people with different faiths against one another. All the same, it was a moving, memorable final image that left me choked up--a success. Meanwhile, I'm awfully glad Mr. Floyd got this film made and look forward to sharing it with as many people as possible. Check it out. I really liked this film about love between two adults in postwar Britain. The high standards of BBC TV is evident in the production, and superb lead actors (Claire Bloom and Joss Ackland) make this an uplifting experience. Bloom and Ackland have previously worked together in theatre, and their chemistry and interaction is splendid. I recommend this version of Shadowlands over the film version of 1993. This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances. This version did not move me as deeply as the later, Hollywood version starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. While it was beautifully filmed and superbly acted, the BBC version was more packed with dialog that imparted information which I found fascinating. It gave me a detailed glimpse of the intellectual, theological and moral considerations that motivated C. S. Lewis. It was therefore more interesting and stimulating than the Hollywood version, but not nearly as visually stunning or viscerally affecting. Still, while I did not leave a heaping mound of sodden Kleenex in the theater, I did use one, and at frequent intervals. I enjoyed this film every bit as much as the Hollywood version, and was grateful for the increased understanding I gained. This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, "C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia" deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between "Jack" (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of "Warnie" Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out. Easily one of my favourite dramatic TV films, in many ways beautiful yet sad, heart-warming and thought-provoking, this is a superb dramatisation of a few years in the life of C.S. Lewis and his relationship with Joy Davidman. I found it to be incredibly absorbing with excellent and 'realistic' dialogue and situations. It all seemed very 'real', yet there were also 'magical' moments that almost leave you breathless with delight. Ackland and Bloom as the central characters were excellent, as were the supporting cast. It's one of those dramas that I find hard to criticise, simply because, for me, there is NOTHING to be criticised, it just works so well on so many levels.

Very highly recommended. The 1990s film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger is rightly showered with praise, and I enjoyed it very much, but this TV original is just as good, and in some ways, more appropriately cast. Claire Bloom isn't a brash Joy, but she is still confident and throwing her cap at her favourite author (played by Joss Ackland in one of his best performances).

Quieter, calmer, and less emotional than the Attenborough film this may be, but it does justice to what is a marvellous play full of meaningful dialogue. You'll still cry to this version, but perhaps you won't have the musical prompts to set you off.

There's room for both - and having seen this on stage, I would say that the Ackland/Bloom one is slightly more faithful. But they're both excellent. True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting I have seen "Chasing the Dragon" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life. I loved this film! Markie Post is really great in it. I saw it on lifetime, and it's in the same entertaining class as films like: 'The Betty Broderick Story', 'Locked Up: A Mother's Rage', etc.... {which, by the way, are also very good, entertaining films!} It's an over the top drama, about a single mother who tries to break away from her middle-class, predictable personality. This movie is just pure entertainment! It doesn't have to be a realistic look at heroin addiction. But, it does show how any "regular" middle class person can (& they do!) get addicted to heroin. Junkies aren't just homeless uneducated people on the street. {By the way, if you do watch it, check out how the kid bosses his mother around! Spoiled!} 8 out of 10 stars. Based on a True Story . . .

The premise of this film is to illustrate that through fairly normal events its possible for an outwardly 'decent' mother to get drawn into Heroin addiction.

***semi spoiler*** Some of the scenes are fairly inaccurate - whilst others almost make you want to get the 'fix' yourself.

Computer technician/graphic artist woman with good relationship with her young teen kid spirals into addiction after work colleague, who is a 'chipper' (-someone who can take + enjoy it now and again - ) Then spirals into an addiction that leads her eventually to scoring off 'street' dealers after losing contact with her steady dealer.

The scenes that show her coming down and getting 'sick' are often VERY real - especially the first real 'night sweat' Prior to all these events she began a relationship with a guy who just happened to have lost his wife to the bottle, and insists he has an inner radar not to get hooked on such women. Some radar! However after after some late turn ups and weird behaviour, the boyfriend challenges her as to 'what is going on' His radar begins to get more with it and demands that she empty out her bag; she hits the roof and storms out.

Because of the excellent and open relationship she had developed prior to this tragedy, he is the first to 'find' some real evidence in her bag; he then looks around the hose for her 'stash' - apparently his sensibility is from school lessons on drug taking - and when he discovers a large stash in the bathroom he flushes it! NOT A HAPPY WOMAN when she takes her next bath and its 'disappeared'.

The kid keeps one back and places it on the meal table - she then goes into further denial - admits it and says its no worse than dope.

Thge kid does all the right things and calls her friends and generally puts her in a position where she has to come 'clean' - if you'll pardon the pun.

The movie takes the viewer through some pretty arduous situations where danger is not far away.

Eventaully she gets help from a professional organisation and does cold turkey - you'll have to watch the film to see what happens next . . . . i will like to order this movie for the women in treatment. i feel that this is a great movie for them to watch. i can't fine it no were i have been on ebay and all the other website to order this movie. now i am asking you for help to fine out where i can oder this movie at or what to do to get one. i will love to show this movie. yes i was like this movie and a lot of peoples here in treatment in to see how people can change there life around and move on. i think Markie Post played that move very well she is a great actor i love her movies. and if you have any other movie about addiction i will like to order them of the treatment center of women and men so that can look at other people go through what they go through in life. I had heard about "gaming" and "Dungeons and Dragons" before, but I had know idea it could be like what I saw in the "Gamers: Dorkness Rising." These guys are so funny and fun to watch. Especially the guy who plays the "bard" or "minstrel" or whatever, he has a gift for physical comedy and timing. There is so much background humor and energy in some of the scenes that make you really think that at least some of it was improvised there on set. The special effects needed to be worked on a bit, but I saw it at a convention last year and thats one of the things they said they were going to redo and make better, so it's probably wicked now! I am definitely not a gamer, but a couple people in my family and my boyfriend are. So, a little reluctantly I decided to find out what the big deal was with "fantasy stuff". I saw Dorkness Rising and thought it was HILARIOUS! It's slapstick, but not disrespectful to those that enjoy role playing games. Also, and most importantly, people who've never gamed before can enjoy it and not feel left out or lost trying to understand the plot. The acting was great and the field shots/set were believable. This makes me want to see other movies by this production company. I can't wait to see what the future holds for this group! Three cheers - well done!! I'm new to gaming, but I would have started MUCH sooner if this film had been around! I caught it at Gen Con last year (a trip made only as a favor to my husband) and LOVED it! Even to a non-gamer like I was at the time, it's funny and accessible--so much so that I finally relented and started sitting in on my husband's gaming group.

I don't want to give away any plot details, but if you're a gamer, you NEED to see this film--and if you're not, you're going to have a great time despite yourself. There are certainly "in" jokes, but the vast majority of the film is accessible to anyone.

My only complaints: wish it were longer and wish it were available on DVD. Soon, perhaps?... I saw this at the screening at GenCon in Indy. I had some time to kill and decided to check it out. It played to about 1000 people in a packed standing-room-only ballroom.

Wow, what a ride! The script was tight. The action tense. The pacing perfect. The character exposition excellent. One thing I really appreciated was that you knew going in that this wasn't a big budget film. Yet it soon became obvious that the creators pushed their sets and effects as far as they could despite their limitations. And it was more than enough.

It's true that this film was targeted at a certain audience - gamers/tabletop players - the creators make no effort to hide that. But other filmmakers could learn a lot from them. For in going for the jugular in scene after scene and not worrying about if Mom who happens to be watching will "get it", they got the biggest laughs time and time again. But there's enough universality there that Mom will be laughing too, even if she's not in on every joke. I think too many times I see films that try so hard to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator so that they will appeal to the most people, but the movie just ends up suffering for it.

But not this flick. Indeed, this film was so solid that it had the audience wrapped around it's finger from the opening credits. And, while the viewers around me *really* wanted to like the film, they weren't pushovers - gamers can be among the most critical niche out there.

I'm so glad I got to see this in a big crowd. At least 10 times the audience was having such a good time that they erupted into applause at a joke or scene during the film. How often does that happen at screenings? It should be no surprise that there was a huge standing ovation when the closing credits rolled.

For my own part, I can't wait for this to be released. After it ended, one of the producers said they were shooting for a simultaneous TV/DVD release. That date cannot come soon enough. Dead Gentlemen Productions has put together a film with amazing production values considering their budget. Anyone that has ever played any role-playing game, particularly any fantasy RPG (they play Dungeons and Dragons in the movie) will LOVE this movie. Brilliant performances all around--especially with regards to the dual nature of the principles, playing their players and their characters. Anyone who has ever filmed or acted in a student film will appreciate the amount of work and love they put into this project. This movie (and its prequel) is to fantasy movies and role-playing games what Blazing Saddles is to westerns--parody of the highest order. I only have a couple minor complaints about the movie itself, none of which will prevent me from buying the DVD as soon as it's available (only 6 more weeks--I'm counting the days):

1. When Lodge is talking to Joanna about joining the gaming group, he hands her a copy of the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and says "this will tell you everything you need to know." The camera hovers too long on a shot of the book, and the moment really seemed like a commercial.

2. The jokes are hilarious, but they seem unevenly spread throughout the movie. The last third of the movie, after the almost continuous barrage of visual and verbal humor preceding it, slows down a bit, as if the narrative was catching up with the jokes. Odd, but Blazing Saddles always struck me that way as well. . . and I love that movie, too.

One of the narrative strengths of the story is the unresolved nature of the romantic subplot. Will Joanna become the GM's girlfriend? Will she go back to Cass? Or will the three maintain a platonic friendship, deepened by the camaraderie of role-playing? (Yes that sounds sappy, but there are a couple of saccharine moments, particularly when Cass and Lodge "make up" at the end.) But the movie spans one week: in terms of human relationships, those questions could not be answered in a week. The fact that the characters' relationships are left undefined strikes me as better than the more classical choices you see in most movies, like the girl gets her prince and they move into the castle, or the prince sinks into the North Atlantic after three trite, tedious, and predictable hours. The writers really seem to have a grasp of the psychology of the characters, and you can see the characters (both the gamers and the player's characters) change over the course of the movie, but not suddenly, and not unbelievably.

I would love to hear more wisdom from Brother Silence. "The man who stands out in darkness is. . . fluorescent." Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.

The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.

The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.

Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.

All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).

In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.

Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)

Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment) Better than the original, "the Gamers: Dorkness Rising" manages to pull off a funny comedy with good acting, fine special effects, and comedy that transcends the "gamer" knowledge-base and do so on a low budget. I've seen many low-budget films that have been terrible and almost none that have been as good as their high-budget counterparts. This film blows most mainstream movies away! Parts are a bit weak (the bit with the pirates and ninjas -while funny- goes on a bit long without explanation and takes you out of the movie for a bit) but, overall, this is a very strong film.

I'm very happy to say that I bought this film as soon as I saw it and brought it home.

Any chance we can look forward to another feature Gamers movie from these guys? :) This groundbreaking film is truly a work of art. I went into the screening at the convention in Indiana with very low expectations, having already viewed 2 other film with "gamer" in the title (both of which were so bad that by the end of the second one I had plucked out one of my own eyes with my drinking straw and a twisted paper clip I found between the seat cushions). But from the opening credits "Dorkness" had me. The temperate Northwest setting made a beautiful backdrop for the drama surrounding the frustrated game master, Lodge(powerfully portrayed by Nathan Rice) and his misfit band of friends who set aside the real-life dramas they face everyday to face fantastical dramas in the setting Lodge provides for them. After the first scene(set in the fantasy world they inhabit) They are violently thrust back into the world they so desperately try to escape. This drew so many comparisons to my own life that I was moved to tears. Rice's acting is of such amazing caliber that I truly believed within the first 20 minutes of the film that he really was a twenty-something male suffering from frustration, male pattern baldness and an annoying group of "friends" that can't seem to grasp concepts like right and wrong. Lodge's friends are of some note here: Leo, the oldest and heaviest of the trio seems to be the only other character with a job, aside from lodge. Yet he seems to gravitate socially towards Gary, the youngest of the group. This seems only slightly odd at first until you realize that Gary is, in fact, a sexually confused sociopath with very few prospects outside his "fantasy" world. This dichotomy serves, not to confuse, but to inform and uplift the audience about the importance of diversity in our society. My only complaint about this is that the actors who portray Leo (Scott C. Brown) and Gary (christian Doyle) seem to play the characters for laughs at times, as though they were informed they were acting in a comedy instead of a hard-hitting action/drama. Speaking of action, Brian Lewis makes his film debut as Cass, the third and most influential member of Lodge's motley crew. the tension is always high when he is on screen, both when he is arguing passionately about his beliefs to Lodge or when displaying his fantastic Martial Arts skills as "Silence" his fantasy character. Or even when he turns around suddenly to face the audience and you reflexively duck in the audience so as not to get smacked by his fantastic chin. Lewis Lights up the screen no matter what he's doing and I hope to see more of him in the future. Once the action begins in this movie, it just doesn't quit. the drama and the action blend so seamlessly at times that you can's tell whether your in the middle of a frenetic action sequence or a touching dramatic moment. Truly a thrill ride of Epic proportions, I would recommend "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" as required viewing for anyone who loves film. It was almost worth losing an eye over.

~Chip Deedlenick This film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it . I was laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.

I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.

2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.

That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you "Geek Out" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half. There are few films that have had me waiting and waiting for release more than this one. This is the latest film from The Dead Gentlemen group responsible for the original Gamers film and the Demon Hunters films. This group has not been terribly active over the last few years but this film is a definite reason to try and keep things up in following their progress.

This film follows a group of gamers who are trying to finish a campaign run by a GM frustrated by his group's disregard for his story. With the help of some new blood they attempt the campaign again with hopes of finishing this time.

This movie is a breath of fresh air in the movie community and a great improvement over the original. The movie shows respect for the game much like the original movie did but on top of that this movie shows a dramatic improvement on special effects launching it above the simplicity of college films. The acting is fairly decent and the jokes are quite funny.

Unfortunately many of the jokes are in jokes so if you are not a gamer you may not find the film as funny as others. So this is why I give the movie an 8 instead of the 9 that I initially thought of. Any case if you are a gamer or know about gaming check this one out you will enjoy it. Best fan boy movie I've ever watched save "Free Enterprise."

In some ways it reminded me of an early Kevin Smith film.

If you do any kind of role playing, this movie will likely have you laughing often at its insatiable fun. Don't expect a big budget here, the acting is also questionable at times, but it really adds to the fun of the atmosphere they create. The script is truly humorous with a lot of witty moments worth experiencing.

The bard that always gets killed had me rolling. The sexually confused player also had me smiling a bit too. But in the end... It was just a great movie showcasing some better moments in the lives of a few geeks having a great time with role playing.

If you are bored, and ever got into role playing, this will do nicely for a distraction. A real unexpected treat. I saw the original rough screen showing 4 times at Gencon a couple years ago. I was delighted to have done so, my daughter is in the movie.

I stood in the back of the room with her watching the much younger fans sit on the edge of there seats, dead quiet no wanting to miss a line. The standing ovation afterward's was like watching the fans when the USA Hockey Team beat the Russians at the Olympic Games in Montreal.

I love excellent comedy and sight gags. Taxi, Barney Miller, Cheers, Frasier and Married with Chilren are my all time favorite comedy shows. Lesser shows I will not even watch.

This movie will do for Gamers what Animal House did for College Frat days, what Dodge Ball did for weird sports. Forget the lack of a mega budget backing the production. This is pure art, it's that good.

I could not be happier for the entire cast and production company. This movie brilliantly captures the atmosphere of a D&D group. While watching, I could not help but notice how vividly characters reminded me of myself and my gaming friends to the point where they acted literally the same as we do. Including the bickering, the fighting, the internal jokes, driving the DM crazy. EVERYTHING.

It has it all. Jokes that made me cry, action scenes which, even filmed in low-budget, I found uncannily awesome. The story is pretty straightforward and unsurprising, but that doesn't really matter, since the best part of the movie is to see the characters react and interact with each other and the NPCs.

Seriously, if you're playing D&D or any similar RPG, I cannot stress this enough, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it captured beautifully the spirit of D&D. Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.

I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like "fighter", "wizard", "hit point", "level", "character", "flaming hand", "Chaotic Evil".

What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.

I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it. There are few films that deal with things that I would consider myself an expert on, this one is.

After some years of Fantasy Role Playing we split, me not leaving without a sense of shame of what I had become: a dork.

You see, these things are really canonical, it happens to everybody.

First you create a character fairly and it dies after the first attack.

Then you help a little with the constitution, and while you're at it, why not help with strength, intelligence, intuition, charisma and dexterity too? This in turn frustrates the game master who doesn't know how to deal with this invincible gang. And after a while it bores the players too, so they start to create ever more exotic race-profession combinations, no matter how ludicrous it is.

I created a Druedain warrior monk, yeah, not that far from the film.

And that's not all to be said about the destructiveness of the inherent dynamic of this devilish game (think the hunt for experience points), but just watch the film, it shows it all - and of course the stupidity of its most basic premisses.

For this end, in turn, there is no better profession than the bard. I don't exactly understand why the bard became a character in the first place, after all, the blacksmith is none. But once it became one, it had to be mapped into the game flow, that is: it had to be made lethal, at least indirectly. The poking of fun out of this never comes to an end and rightfully so.

Sure, it's not exactly a professional production, but I haven't seen a better satire in ages. I am so impressed, really. I expected cheesy gamer humor and nothing else.

OK, there's a ton of pretty geeky humor. But the movie is so well done. The acting is quite good.

The dialog, while gamer cheesy at times, I guess to cater to the gamer crowd, is not bad at all. At times it's even, dare I say, great.

When the female gamer, who built this non traditional fighter type character rather then the usual (min/max) type gets all these additional attacks (seem right, I did not check the rules,) it was cool.

The sets are amazing for what must be a fairly low production movie.

The story moves right along. The transitions from game world to real world are well done. A male playing a female character would sometimes be played by a female, and sometimes by himself. Pretty clever, I thought.

The guy who decided to play a female, but kept forgetting he was female was good for a lot of laughs. He even said tag at one point, and the female walked on to play the role ( sorry, I did not look her name up, she did great though.) The guy always trying to "get some", got a bit tedious, but I guess that was more gamer humor.

There was just so much to like about the movie. Lighthearted. Fun! Very well done and I am saying that as a movie fan, not a gamer (and I am not a D&D player.) As I said I expected SO much less.

Movies often don't hold my attention, I end up listening to them while working on my computer. This one held my attention. I can't give a movie much higher praise. I don't play video games at all but my children do.

I got a big kick out of this. Would like to see more of this type of film. "very cool" as my youngest would say.

Interesting characters and the overall story line was interesting. Like I said I don't play video games but I think that my children would enjoyed this. It was not full of bad language and that is a pleasant change. This visual concept was different which caught my eye. Plus the sound track was pretty good. I might even try out some of the games my sons plays to see because of this film. Who knows maybe I'll be a gamer someday. My sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy. House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing. This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's "House of Frankenstein", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases). This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).

The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.

Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?

Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.

The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.

Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8. This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series).

Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10. Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.

A mad scientist sets out to "cure" both monsters of their "sicknesses" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.

If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo! A year after the release of the average "House of Frankenstein", Universal released another Monster Mash where all their famous character would collide once again. "House of Dracula" would reunite Dracula, the Frankenstein's creature and the Wolf Man for what would be their final battle and will finally close an era for the studio. Directed once again by Erle C. Kenton, "House of Dracula" presents a slight but noticeable improvement over the previous film and delivers a better constructed (although still flawed) story that while far from perfect, is a more appropriate closure than the previous film.

The story ignores most of the events of the previous entry, "House of Frankenstein", and introduces a new angle to the story. Count Dracula (John Carradine), tired of having to hide during sunlight, asks help to the brilliant scientist, Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens), a physician famous for his research in biology. Edelman becomes fascinated by Dracula, and soon begins an experimental treatment, in the mean time, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), the Wolf Man, visits Edelman with the purpose of get rid of his curse. Soon Edelman realizes that Dracula is a monster that must be destroyed, but his own exposure to Dracula's blood is also developing a disease in him. The discovery of the Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) in a nearby catacombs will bring more turmoil to the mind of the brilliant scientist.

After the previous clash of monsters, it is good to see the series going back to the roots and delivering an almost straight-forward Gothic horror returning to the dark pessimistic nature of this kind of films and moving away from the comic relief of the previous entries. The story (by Edward T. Lowe Jr.), has many interesting themes, as the contrast between Dracula and Talbot (both looking for a cure, but with different purposes) and Edelman's increasing madness. Probably among the most interesting themes is the inclusion of the character of Nina, a gorgeous but deformed woman who aids Dr. Edelman hoping to be cured of her condition.

Director Erle C. Kenton is back again and this time he finally captures the dark nature of these three characters, a nature that was apparently lost in the previous film. Despite the low-budget, Kenton crafts a Gothic horror that while simple, is quite effective, and even manages to present old partners such a these characters in a fresh way. While it's never on the level of the originals, "House of Dracula" recovers that charm that Universal Studios horror films used to have, and Kenton makes sure that at least for a last time the monsters receive a chance to shine.

The cast is very good this time, with Carradine, Chaney and Strange reprising their roles (although Strange's role is considerably smaller) with more enthusiasm than in the previous film. The addition of Onslow Stevens, Jane Adams and Martha O'Driscoll to the cast bring back the tragedy and the drama to the series, with Stevens giving a terrific performance as Dr. Edelman. A small cameo by Lionel Atwill and the presence of Skelton Knaggs as the creepy Steinmuhl complete one of the better cast Universal horror films has had in years.

"House of Dracula" is a nice addition to the series, specially after the mediocre "House of Frankenstein". It's nice to see Kenton back in form in a somewhat serious horror film, however, and while the plot is quite original, it suffers not only because of the budget, but because the film attempts to do a lot in a very short runtime with bad results. It's true that the characters have all very inventive story lines, but the film dedicates very few time for each of them to develop, and the film seems very rushed and disjointed.

While far from perfect, it's also far from being the worst of the series. "House of Dracula" is a nice closure to one of the best times for the horror genre, a time when ghosts and ghouls roamed the foggy nights, and mad scientists gave life to hideous monsters. Later the monsters would be back in "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), but that would be a whole different context. after the disappointing previous entries, it's easy to dismiss "House of Dracula", but give it a chance, and let the monster roam for a last time. 7/10 All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.

As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.

Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.

Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.

7/10 This has one of the more unusual plots I've seen in a horror film, but it's based on good, solid Universal Studios fare: Lots of monsters, pretty heroine, torch-bearing villagers. But my favorite part is Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) searching for the cure for his lycanthropy. After dying in the original "Wolf Man," he is resurrected and wanders through "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and "House of Frankenstein" searching for a way to end his affliction. I think first-time viewers will find his search in this particular movie very interesting.

"House of Dracula" is a good sequel to "House of Frankenstein". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his "affliction" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in "House of Frankenstein"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection. "House of Dracula" isn't all that bad of a film and is rather decent at times.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving at the home of Dr. Franz Edelmann, (Onslow Stevens) in his seaside home, Count Dracula, (John Carradine) discreetly seeks a cure for vampirism. He starts work on a potential cure involving blood transfusion, the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, (Lon Chaney Jr.) arrives at his estate looking for a cure to lycanthropy. Working with the two patients, he discovers a possible cure in a mold found near the laboratory, and after searching the area, he finds the Frankenstein Monster, (Glenn Strange) buried nearby. Becoming obsessed with reviving it, Dr. Edelmann keeps neglecting Dracula and Larry's requests, and after demanding that they get their treatment instead of him working on the Monster, they turn on each other in a climactic showdown.

The Good News: This was a rather decent film. There is one main idea that is quite creative and imaginative. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition. It works in some rather nicely used ideas and comes across as a rather nifty idea, even if some of the execution is a little stale. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a nicely done idea. The Wolf Man has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy. Dracula's initial appearance of appearing as a bat and flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then appearing in human form looks really impressive. The Monster rampage is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused. The large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, and is quite realistically done. It's a thoroughly decent affair.

The Bad News: There are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different back-stories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together and seem coherent. This really doesn't have any of that. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the stars, and instead concentrates on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The ending is for once a big let-down, and seems entirely like it was changed at the last minute. There's a few other small things that weren't all that spectacular, and pretty much also contribute to this.

The Final Verdict: It's quite a decent film and manages to get through most of the time with an entertaining style. Nowhere near the classic status of each monsters' debut features, but it's a nice enough watch for fans of the monsters and of Universal films in general.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence Dracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.

Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.

The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.

The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended. The last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10. The "House of Dracula" really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made "House of Frankenstein" from a year earlier. In "House of Dracula" you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from "Ghost of Frankenstein" used as the ending here just makes for an "el cheepo" flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello. House of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.

A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.

Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.

The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .

House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5. I liked House of Dracula much more than house of Frankenstein. Carradine is much more passable & his acting isn't as ridiculous & overboard as in HOF. The actors deliver solid enough performances. The subplots (eg the monster, the village mobsters, the village idiot, the hunchback nurse etc ) are mixed in well, so that none becomes an odd splinter as in HOF. Better run than the stitched-together HOF. The hunchback nurse is as likable as the hunchback in HOF. The doctor is very good. As well, Lon Chaney adds a classy touch with his wolfman. Worth watching twice. A classic universal horror with that typical 1940's, long lost flair. Especially good is the doctor's performance before/after his blood had been contaminated with Dracula's. This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of **** This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of **** This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of ***** Despite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun. This movie was a very good Universal Monster movie. It once again stars Lon Chaney as The Wolfman and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's Monster. Oh yeah, that jerk John Carradine is back again as Dracula. I like every actor in this movie. I especially liked Onslow Stevens as Dr. Edelmann. (It's spelled with 2 n's) I thought it was a good idea to have the goodhearted doctor himself doomed like Talbot was. One scene that I think is very good is the scene when Dr. Edelmann is in deep thought as he changes. Everything that is troubling him flashes before your eyes. The good Doctor is saying no while his evil side is saying yes. That's the only reason why I didn't want the Dracula character eliminated completely from this movie. I thought Dracula had no business in House of Frankenstein. If his character was taken out you wouldn't miss him. In this film the doctor's blood is contaminated with Dracula's, giving him his Jekyll and Hyde curse. I hate John Carradine and I don't think he should have ever played Dracula. I didn't mind other actors playing the Frankenstein Monster after the great Karloff because they all did good jobs. But when they get another actor to play Dracula it stops right there. John Carradine thought he was so high and mighty. They offered him the role of the Frankenstein Monster once and he turned it down because he thought he was too highly trained. I could just picture Carradine if he did play The Monster arguing with the director on the set, "I don't have to take this from you, I've done Shakespeare." John Carradine wasn't Dracula and he never will be. Sorry John, Bela Lugosi is the one and only Dracula. Thank God they got Bela to come back as Dracula for Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Don't miss this movie. It doesn't disappoint you and you will enjoy it as you did the other. This is a very good addition to the monster movies. If you're a collector, be sure not to leave this one out.

The reason I think this movie is fabulous is that it has so many layers of emotion. From the script and the fabulous acting you can tell that there is a history behind all of the feelings that there are. You understand why the characters take certain actions and why the do not make others. You can feel sympathy and joy and love and sorrow for them all at once. You see humanity at its best AND at it's worst. You can relate to the characters because although you may have never been in their exact situations before you see qualities and downfalls in them that you see in yourself. To a certain extent this movie kind of keeps you wondering but then at the end it explains itself and you feel a certain peace and understanding not only in you but for the characters. I will say that I have have never EVER cried so much in my life nor have gotten so much out of something. I implore you to watch this movie and take it's meaning to heart. That there is only one true thing and that is... love. What impressed me the most about "One True Thing" was how up-front it was when the daughter mentions her mother's cancer at the beginning of the movie. As depressing the subject matter was, it was a refreshing change of pace instead of being blindsided with the revelation about a character's fatal illness 2/3 into the movie ("Love Story" "Terms of Endearment", etc.).

Meryl Streep, Renee Zellweger and William Hurt give very strong performances that don't go over the edge. The characters they play seem human; they're not perfect people. (Arguably, one might not say that about the "Martha Stewart"-type character Streep plays but throughout the film, I found her character to be noble in a non-sappy way. She's dealing with her plight the best way she knows how.)

"One True Thing" is an observant, unsentimental family drama in which the tears at the end were well-earned. One True Thing rises above its potentially schlocky material to give us a view of a family of complex relationships and flawed, real people. It opens with Rene Zeleweger discussing her mother's death with the District Attorney; sparing us the cheap cinematic shots of a "shocking" illness and death. From there it proceeds into a look at a family system, in which everyone plays by a set of unexamined rules, and uses the mother's cancer to show what happens when all the rules change.

William Hurt as the self-important father, and Meryl Streep as the Suzy Homemaker mother are both superb; nuanced and not what they appear to be. Zeleweger is seething, angry and surprised with herself. Tom Everett Scott doesn't have much to do, but he does it well.

The story is predictable, and takes at least one badly soppy turn it needn't have taken, but the performances, and the view of family as a place where anger and love are equally mixed, make it worthwhile. It's not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow. Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.

Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very "master/servant" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: "It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill." George "You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?"

I wonder sometimes if maybe Meryl Streep has become so accepted as the most impressive, versatile actress since, well, maybe just about the beginning of the sound era that maybe her talent is now taken for granted. There are probably about three tics that she relies on consistently throughout her performances (most noticeably a pinched lip), but other than that, her performances are amazingly variable and original and fresh expressions of internal workings. Even though "Sophie's Choice" and "A Cry in the Dark" and "Silkwood" may be showier, her work here and in "Bridges in Madison County" is remarkable, too - just more subtle. In "One True Thing", she is mostly sweet and in love with her domesticated life, and Streep makes what could be routine, even boring, seem attractive and charming. I think that she must work out these mini-theses for each character and find what things make this person real and interesting. She works from the inside out with each character, and maybe it's this essential quality that has evoked the main criticism of aloofness or self-consciousness. I don't think she's cold at all, but instead has thought out her character's unique qualities. I think her critics are confusing self-consciousness with intelligence. Not too many other actors would be so complexly thoughtful and creative as to make Kate Muldrun lightweight and carefree within her beloved, homey environment, only to later reveal unprecedented depth because of her genuine attachment to that homey environment. Her performances are of an unsurpassed consistency, she rarely does anything wrong. I wonder if it's conceivable for any of Streep's pictures to not seem diminished because of her presence... Anyway, Kate loves her home, and her affection for her "family life" is as endearing as her new conflict within the home is jarring. When all of this comes together, and Kate starts to recognize that she can no longer function in the same capacity, and she breaks the pie dish and screams out that she is not handicapped, it is painfully sad to watch because this has not been someone prone to emotion. Streep is smart enough and generous enough to recognize how much better everything works because she has felt out the dramatic validity of Kate and it's really the only scene when she allows her character to go. But how refreshingly true it is to see a character who can really surprise you by displaying something that you wouldn't have thought possible. Once again, Streep's character has at least three dimensions... God, this sounds like a thesis itself, but as an actress, Streep just has a special kind of intelligence, incredible empathy and great expressive skills. The movie itself is probably somewhat mediocre. I suppose William Hurt is meant to be an unlikeable jerk, and he does pompousness very well. I think Hurt is really kind of creepy, though. Script is quite standard - another tribute to Streep that she was as touching and believable as she was. Meryl Streep as Kate, a woman dying of cancer, performs her role admirably. No wonder she was up for an Oscar. In the part she proves that caring and nurturing housewives are just as important as their sisters out in the business world. And the lesson she teaches about life's expectations and their lack of fulfillment as the relationship grows, that is the most important thing she teaches her daughter. We can expect too much of our mates. Realize that there are many slips and forgiveness or understanding are the main ingredients of a happy life. This is a sombre movie and the ending though sad, shows reconciliation between the father and daughter. I give this one a ten. "One True Thing" is the kind of movie where the audience is inspired greatly greatly inspired performances. I am not necessarily stating that the film is uplifting, because it isn't. In fact, the movie is down right depressing. I am trying to say that it takes a lot for a movie to generate emotional tears from an attending crowd.

I cried in "One True Thing," enough to conclude that this is one of the most emotionally powerful movies of 1998. The characters were perfectly casted. The performances are all guaranteed Oscar Nominees, especially Meryl Streep, who portraits the dying Kate extremely well. Her acting alone was enough to make the movie excel to the point of recommendation, and gives you a new point of view at her. I also thought that Renée Zellweger portrayed a realistic single, free-wheeling woman who has to take care of their own mother. The other cast members including William Hurt & Tom Everett Scott, were also superb. The script of this movie was really fantastic. It is kind of funny how the movie's concept has to do with the controversial happenings in my local area. You see, I live near Lansing, Michigan, and right now a big issue here is assistant suicide doctor Jack Kavorkian's (excuse my miss-spelling if so) ways have just been outlawed. The public will vote on this according to their beliefs in November After watching "One True Thing" it really changed my perspective at this topic, although I have always believed in it. Without revealing the ending of the film I will simply say that suicide is a distant theme in this movie and I think it fits in accurately with the gorgeous story. Overall, this movie does indeed have more emotional impact than "Titanic," "Saving Private Ryan" or any other tearjerker released in the last few years. I think that is because the main idea of this movie is that this kind of thing happened every day, so it relates better to an audience. And indeed, that this could happening to you. The DVD jacket in which this movie came describes it as "uplifting and humorous." Those are not the words I would have chosen - not by a long shot. I would choose a word like "sombre," sometimes even "depressing." Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It's actually a pretty good movie, featuring good performances from the leads, with enough uncertainty throughout about what's going to happen at the end that you keep watching. The uncertainty comes from the structure of the movie - it seems to revolve around Ellen's reminiscences of her mother's slow death from cancer, as she is interviewed by the DA. So, we know from the start that something suspicious happened at the end - the questions are "what?" and "who?"

Renee Zellweger was very good as Ellen - the somewhat resentful daughter who has to give up her life and job in New York to return home to care for her sick mother. Ellen evolves through the movie - moreso than any other character - as she learns to deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of her parents. Her relationship with her father (William Hurt) is quite interesting. My initial impression was that they were quite close, but the warts in the relationship start to show after a while. Hurt was effective as the detached husband - detached not in an uncaring way, but in the sense of being unable to cope with what's happening to his wife, and seeking escape from it in various ways. Finally, Meryl Streep as the cancer-stricken Kate was very convincing in the role, seeking to live out what remains of her life in the most fulfilling way possible, then dealing with the anger she feels at her increasing debilitation. In a way, watching a family deal with this kind of crisis reminded me a little bit of "Ordinary People," although this movie was far less emotionally intense. So, not "uplifting and humorous" (with all due respect to whoever wrote the synopsis on the DVD jacket) but very good in its own way. 7/10 Written by someone who has been there, you can tell, but only if you've been there. Excellent performances by Meryl Streep (of course!), Renee Zellweger and William Hurt.

Many people have said that it is about a dysfunctional family, I think every family is dysfunctional when they are facing this kind of torment. To NOT be dysfunctional would be dysfunctional! You are losing your family as you know it, can anything be worse? People need to see this movie so when they are faced with this nightmare maybe they will change how they do it. Maybe they will see that the father is denying himself valuable time he'll never get a chance at again. Maybe they will realize how hard it is to die, or to watch someone you love die. They didn't miss much of the nightmare, it's hard to forget. I don't cry easily over movies, but I have to admit, this one brought me to tears. Although I am not a Ms. Streep fan, her performance was excellent. The title defines in a sentence what a mother's love is. For the first hour I didn't like any of the characters, but that changed as the movie went on. The movie also explained why certain marriages last even though there are obstacles. A must see film. "One True Thing" puts Zellweger in the midst of a family crisis as an adult journalist who returns home to care for her dying mother (Streep). Somber and plodding, the film studies the adult child coming to terms with the adult view of her parents as they are slowly revealed to be something less than the ideal she grew up knowing as a child. An excellent character study and a find production with little to fault, "OTT" offers three fine performances by a trio of top actors and some plaintive reflections on life and death. One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man. I have loved One True Thing since the first time I watched it in the theater, and cried my eyes out. I bought it as soon as it was available, and have lost track of how many times I've watched it.

To me One True Thing is the ultimate family relationship movie. I love watching the relationships in the family change and evolve into what they end up being. I can relate to many details in the movie. My mother died of bone cancer, so it really hits home with me. Maybe this is why I love it so much.

I like the relationships between the children and their parents, and the relationship of brother and sister, but especially love the relationship between husband and wife. To me it is truly beautiful.

I highly recommend this move to anyone who enjoys this kind of movie. If you are among the IMDB audience that put High Fidelity in the all-time top 200, then this movie probably is NOT for you. This film is as unhip as Steve Frears is self-consciously hip. Renee Zellweger is excellent as a hip urbane magazine writer who returns to her suburban Bucks County nest in order to care for mother Streep (who delivers yet another hall-of-fame performance). William Hurt is ideally cast and the feckless, faithless, and egotistical husband. If this movie doesn't move you to cry and laugh, then you are much too hip to enjoy it. This movie started out confusing and grew into one of the best movies I have seen... The acting was utterly superb and when I wasn't drying my tears I enjoyed Meryl Streep, who's performance was extraordinary. The movie deals with the hardships of a distant family coping with a mother who develops terminal cancer. The movie was very difficult to watch and heartbreaking. The soundtrack fits this movie to a tee. Brava Bette Midler!! Out of 5 stars, I give this one 4 1/2. "One True Thing" is a very quiet film, that opened in the fall of 1998 to glowing reviews but mild box-office. It tells the crippled story of Ellen (Renee Zellweger), a workaholic who is forced to move back home to take care of her terminally ill mother (Meryl Streep), so that her aloof father (William Hurt) can run his academic department. These terms are only general. The strength of "One True Thing" lies in the way the actors elevate their characters above Hollywood cliché territory.

Streep is Kate, the perfect homemaker whose ability to light up a room with her charm is evident in her opening scenes at a costume party celebrating Hurt's birthday. But Ellen has never been close to her mother, and since she graduated from Harvard University, has a certain destain about her- Ellen almost thinks her mother is a simplistic air-head. While on the other hand, she admires her father- who shares a special passion: Writing. Ellen writes for an aggressive New York firm, and is almost heartbroken when her latest piece is torn down by Hurt, who seems to be a very lonely figure.

To get to the point, as Kate gets sicker, Ellen's perspectives change and she grows closer to her mother and more distant to her father. Hurt keeps making excuses not to be there when the family needs him most, and Ellen assumes he's having an affair. Meanwhile she's given up her desk at work to spend time doing craft activities with her mother's "cult" group The Minnies, and also learning that her mother isn't as weak as she first assumed.

Without giving too much away, "One True Thing" is a masterpiece in character study. Streep once again turns in a beautiful performance, this time working on a subtle level that starts slow but ends with a brilliant speech on the vows of marriage. Streep earned her eleventh Oscar nomination for this performance. Hurt is also convincing as the father who carries a secret that isn't revealed until the closing moments. But it is Renee Zellweger who steals this movie. Forget "Chicago", "Cold Mountain", "Bridget Jones's Diary" or whatever else you've seen her do and rent this movie. She is remarkable in it. Working within her character's bitter resentment at understanding her parents, Zellweger manages a realistic portrayal of a young woman fighting to keep her lip up while she's screaming inside. I loved this movie. To be very fair, the movie starts off very slowly, with none of the characters being terribly sympathetic. It continues in this way for a good half of the film.

But, if you're patient, you'll be greatly rewarded. What the first half of the movie lacks in character development and/or sympathy is adequately compensated for in the second half. It's a bit like riding a roller coaster - a slow, uphill climb to strat off with, and then speed, twists and turns, and a few surprises.

As usual, Meryl Streep is wonderful. She is the finest actress of our time. William Hurt is good, if a bit wooden in spots. Renee Zellweger does a very good job, showing that her performance in Jerry McGuire wasn't a fluke. Meryl Streep may be the greatest actor working today. Her chameleonic portrayals never fail to astonish; she seems actually to be the characters she brings to the screen. In "One True Thing," she gives life to a deceptively straightforward, profoundly complex woman doing her best to play the hand life has dealt to her. Surviving with cancer is no easy task, and not just surviving but actually continuing to live one's life is even harder--and this is precisely what Kate Gulden (Streep) means to do. Renee Zellweger ("Jerry Maguire") not only holds her own in this exalted company but shines as Streep's daughter, who learns to see in a new light her parents' lives as well as her own. Streep is a powerhouse and deservedly received an Oscar nomination for her work here; her "I'm only going to say this once" dialogue with Zellweger will leave you devastated. Zellweger, though, is the real revelation--her face conveys every emotion, every conflict as she begins to learn the many truths about her parents' strengths and weaknesses. Director Carl Franklin ("Devil in a Blue Dress") handles the extremely difficult story material with sureness and delicacy. I saw this movie in September with my mother. I was expecting a good movie, and I saw an excellent one. This is now my most treasured movie. It did not leave me after I left the theater. The situations in this movie reminded me of my late grandmother. Meryl Streep and Renee Zellweger were equally incredible. This movie has made me realize how important family relationships are. Rent it. I can't recommend it enough. After renting One True Thing the other night, I have learned to respect my family, and not take their health for granted. I have never seen such a real-life portrayal of a cancer victim on screen like Meryl delivered. She deserves the Oscar nomination, but she has some tough competitors in the running. All I can say is Beautiful film, great acting from Streep and Zellwegger. Meryl Streep revealed her one true ability in this excellent film! A great story, although one we are certainly familiar with. Meryl Streep proves that she is truly the best actress in film today. Very entertaining, and just what I expected. Don't go see this film unless you are prepared to be used and manipulated emotionally, but if you have that expectation, then you will enjoy the ride..... I think One True Thing is one of Meryl Streeps finest movies to date. Her depiction of a dying woman is perfect. I have recently lived this movie, and it touched me on more levels than I could have imagined. Meryl is truely the greatest actress to have ever walked the earth!!!!! I hate to say I enjoyed this movie as the subject matter does not lend itself to enjoyment. However, I was moved by the way the family relationships were portrayed and the sincerity of the performances. It was the kind of film I told all my friends and family to experience as a reminder of how important we all are to each other. This film has the guts to suggest that it might be best to simply accept your life as it is, and keep smiling anyway. As one who is more excited by the idea of taking charge of one's life and moving forward, I felt slapped in the face, but that's okay: I don't have to agree with a movie to love it and respect it. Great acting by Streep and Hurt, and everyone else really, and some wonderfully quirky scenes. A serious film. And take a hanky. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but "Cronica para un desayuno" could be one of the most gretatest films in tne mexican movie history for a lot of reasons. We can get a lot of ingredients for a perfect mexican middle-class family breakfast: a cup of Buñuel's surrealistic motifs with a little drop of Ripstenian desolated scenarios; a pound of phallus symbols around the film and a difficult psychological complexity, more than Todd Solondz's Happiness and the Dogma movement films. There`s a lot of sordidness, black humor, repressed dreams (Teodoro's dream of fly), incestual lack of control (the relation between Marcos and Luzma), no-sense parallel stories, a discrete violence, anachronisms and

a little sign of hope (spotlighted in Luzma, the husband's home return and "Un poco Mas" used for leit-motif). Marcos (Bruno Bichir) is a charming character ( I think in a Bukoskian way), the king-without a-crown who don't expects for anything, but broken noses. Luzma (Maria Rojo) , the lovable wife , put out a lot of faces, but the only thing that she worried is that her sons had breakfast; she' s a loser in many ways and sensual in few moments , but you will fall in love of her. The soundtrack's drag (too much woods) feeds the lack of technical merits, intentional , of course: out-of-focus shots, overlighted close-ups (in introspective scenes), dizzy pans and sudden edition cuts. "Crónica" is something difficult to digest, it get stuck in the throat and anything helps for it. It tastes bitter, like a rotten orange juice and sour like expired milk, but you want to enjoy it. So I recommend to get some Melox before the show, because you won't get hungry after all. Yes. Watch this movie if you like brave films. This is maybe the best Mexican picture since Midaq Alley just because the excellent cast, the outrageous direction and a sublime soundtrack. Many people did not like 'Cronica…', they think it's very aggressive but they didn't understand that it was just a representation with hyper realism of the Mexican society but so similar to all the third world families. I hope that Benjamin Cann and Bruno Bichir (who in this movie gives another example of his greatness as an actor) soon get together again with a new film. Just Remember how Los Olvidados (Luis Buñuel) was misunderstood when released, but now we consider one of the best movies of all times. Please, prepare yourself and watch this film.

The kind of movie that demands too much from the audience, yet to disappoint most of them. I think of the Mexican people who (either in an attempt to support Mexican movies or willing to see a film casting top Mexican stars) saw it, half of the people went out of the theater when I went to watch it, it's definitely not the kind of movie one could expect. I think too of the people from other countries who dared spending 2 hours seeing it till the very end, "what a piece of crap". In order to understand Cronica de un desayuno, one has to be mexican, and one has to be familiar with the low middle classes (or even better, be part of them). There's nothing accidental in this movie, the family is and has what many families, in Mexico at least, share. One has to see it with a wide open mind to accept it entirely, it's not the kind of movie that you fully understand after you watch it. The older brother wouldn't let anyone sit on his RED couch, the sister is staying no matter how she wants to leave, the younger brother is going to an excursion, and all he cares about is the yellow radio, the mother has to prepare the breakfast for the family, no matter how tense and unbearable the situation is. The father came back after who knows how long, allowing the mother to live a night of passion that somehow turns out to be momentary, and ends up by repeating all the attitudes of his sons... The stories around the house are surrealistic (and so is the movie), a travestite looking for his penis, a factory worker and his attempt of suicide, subtled by the kisses of his girlfriend, a fat man riding his bicycle after a interesting conversation about homosexuals with his sister? wife? mother?... The music doesn't pretend too much but it achieves a lot, not more than a snare drum, cymbal, a some strings. Thanks good a movie like this was done and released.

One of the best mexican movies ever!, and one of the less understood, even by mexican themselves, no matter how identified the should have felt with it.

Some people have the ability to use only 3 neurons, one for eating, one for breathing and the other one for s**ting... This is not a movie for them...

But for those who enjoy using the brain... the whole movie is a metaphor, everything is there for a purpose, every single detail, the coffee mug, the red couch, everything... is a underestimated masterpiece...

It is hilarious, is raw and totally realistic, that's how we actually interact.... it is a royal comedy... total causality...

Just hang on, don't let the first scene shock you..... hang on... and enjoy the show.... I'm not American, but Meatballs still really hits me. Maybe because it's a sweet, sweet movie. Watching it again today made me sentimental for a time I can't really put my finger on and a place I can't quite remember.

Meatballs is just a great movie. It reminds me of innocent days when nothing really mattered and anything was possible.

If you're reading this you probably know what I mean.

All I can say on top of what I've already said is that Meatballs must be even more nostalgic if you're American.

I guess you know what I mean by that too. "Meatballs" is an ode to summer camp. Those of us who got to go to camp will see many of the scenes as we remember or wish they could have been.

Bill Murray plays senior boys counselor Tripper Harrison, who really runs the camp. He reminds us of the funny cool staff member who everyone loves. Young campers gravitate toward him and if he speaks to you, you feel like you are family. This is one of Murray's best roles. He drives the film with his one liners and ad-libs.

Chris Makepeace plays Rudy, the loner camper who is taken under Tripper's wing and breaks out of his shell.

The rest of the campers and staff in the film were excellent as well.

The overall theme of the movie is the underdog overcoming obstacles to finally win. From Rudy to Spaz to the Camp and even to Tripper himself, the underdogs of the film are the stars. The movie has heart.

The film is fun and funny without being cruel or oversexed as some teen movies are today. The cast look and act like real people.

The comedy and heart draw you in to the point that at the end, just like at camp, you are sad to leave.

In my summer camp experience we had underwear run up flag poles, mystery meat, trying to sneak a peek into the girls cabin, the lunatic-with-the hook stories around the camp fire, and moving sleeping people out of their cabins and putting them elsewhere. But we also had a dedicated camp staff guiding us to be the best we could be.

My favorite scene is the CIT overnight when they are canoeing across the lake singing a goofy song. The one line that cracks me up every time is when Tripper is announcing light outs the evening before Parent's Day and he ends "Tomorrow is parents day, and you must look rested or Morty will be sent to the state penitentiary." I can hardly call this a great film but it is entertaining. In my case I, at the time this film was released, was the same age as some of the junior campers in the film. For me watching this film brings back the memories of my camp years. While some of the pranks that takes place in this movie, like carrying the camp director out in his bed and leaving him on the side of a road, strung up in the trees or out on a lake, are a bit over the top some of the other pranks are not. When I went to camp the campers and counselors pulled similar stunts such as running underwear up the flag pole, canoe battles and boys raiding the girls cabin. As I grew older I realized these night raids to the girls cabin that I participated in were carefully orchestrated by the counselors so that we wouldn't find the girls in embarrassing situations but at the time I thought it was real and it was fun. That's what MEATBALLS (MB) is.

MB captures not only the scenic beauty of camp surroundings but the beauty of being young and carefree. MB give a great example of pre-teens, teens and young adults living their summer with no concerns other than guys hooking up with girls and girls hooking up with guys and booth having as much fun as they can before they head back to junior high & high school and college. The opening title song that goes "Are you ready for the summer?...no more homework no more books, no more teachers dirty looks..." describes exactly how summer is viewed by school kids.

I personally enjoyed the two campers Spaz and Fink. What boy, nerd or jock, didn't spend all camp trying to cozy up to some pretty girl camper? What guy didn't want to be accepted by the other campers and counselors? While these two characters are somewhat over the top I bet everybody who watches the film can't help but to like these two guys. These two characters are a mix of Charlie Brown from PEANUTS and Jack Tripper & Larry Dallas from THREE'S COMPANY. I would bet that most viewers even cheer for Spaz in the egg carrying competition and for Fink as he attempts to "beat the stomach" in the hot dog eating contest.

Lastly, this movie had normal looking kids and counselors. No super models for counselors or campers that wore trendy clothing. It is fun to just kick back and watch this film and remember when life was as fun as this movie. Meatballs has been a main staple in my family for over 26 years! We saw this movie when it first came out and have seen it dozens of times since. Bill Murray is at his best and is most touching in the scenes where he reaches out to a lonely pre-teen boy and befriends him, while leading his CIT's into once mischievous scheme after another! The cast of characters are fun and zany and you really come to care about them and the relationships they have with each other. This is not another sleazy, dumb, teen sex-fest. It is funny and sweet and just all-around fun. Anyone who sees this will enjoy themselves. It is a must-see. Watch out for Spaz - he is by far the best character! (Especially during the camp social - while Bill Murray hams it up for the camera - just watch Spaz behind him dancing with the poor girl he picks to dance with!) By far, one of my very favorite comedies of all time! No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like "Meatballs"? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote "Little Darlings" line by line? Or "Whitewater Summer"?

This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble "Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz." Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, "I'm Wudy da Wabbit." (He doesn't get it). "It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter." I mean, this stuff is classic!

Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie. I caught this on television one day when I was young and loved it. In the 1970's, there were a bunch of lame comedies that tried too hard to be be funny so it this was a nice surprise. It's one of the best comedies of the 1970's and the definitive summer camp comedy thanks to Murrary's excellent comedic performance, which still stands as one of his greatest. This is the film that really got Ivan Reitman noticed as a director. Reitman proves with this movie that he is one of the most talented comedy directors of all time. While this film is hilarious and MEATBALLS 2 is so bad that it's fun, MEATBALLS 3 and MEATBALLS 4 are absolutely dreadful. Recommended for those who enjoyed STRIPES and GHOSTBUSTERS. Seeing this movie always reminds me of what I remember summer being like, God! such a long time ago. The entire scene involving the "overnight", from the canoe procession to the end of the trip, is precious, and Tripper's story about the homicidal maniac is urban legend right out of my youth. A highly entertaining movie, made many times better by the awful sequels that followed. This is easily the best of the summer camp movies. In fact, few of the others are even fair, let alone anywhere near as entertaining as this one is.

The film is just simply out to have some good, clean, fun. Many people who went to summer camp as kids will see that it is presented here faithfully to the way it usually was, but with slapstick comedy mixed in. Bill Murray, as the chief counselor of the camp, Tripper, leads a fine ensemble cast, and is usually at the center of the riotous nonsense. Tripper has great one-liners throughout, usually broadcasting his jokes as pseudo-announcements over the camp's public-address system.

Several great supporting actors played the campers and counselors to build a myriad of fun and interesting subplots, all the while sprinkled amongst the many incidents of camp hi-jinx. Spaz (Jack Blum) and Fink (Keith Knight) were two characters particularly well done. The adventures (and misadventures) of these two are hilarious. Each has classic lines, and they are characters you like and root for. Look for Spaz in the scene of disco dance pandemonium.

The girls in the story are realistic characters, too. They're not dumb, naive, freakish, oversexed, nervy, or any of the other overused, abominable teen character stereotypes. Kristine DeBell, Kate Lynch, Cindy Girling, and others make these characters believable.

The requisite pranks abound, usually at the expense of camp director Morty (Harvey Atkin). The nature of these pranks start at outrageous and progress from there. However, with all the silliness going on, Tripper and the others have their serious sides. For example, Tripper befriends a shy, lonely kid, Rudy(Chris Makepeace), and takes him under his wing.

The story culminates with a sports competition against a rival camp. It's a great "root for the underdogs" finale. When the chips are down, Tripper's motivational "It just doesn't matter" spiel is inspired, and one of the best moments in the movie. And get ready to root: "Spaz. Spaz! Spaz!!!"" Camp North Star and it's Camp counselor extraordinaire, Tripper Harrison(Bill Murray)sure would like to end a decades long losing streak to rival Camp Mohawk, an ivy league type place where only the wealthy kids can attend. Meanwhile, we watch as Tripper tries his hand at love when he flirts aimlessly with fellow female counselor Roxanne(Kate Lynch)as other teen counselors pair up and also fall head-over-heels. The film comes to head at the Camp Olympiad as the rivals square off in competitive athletic contests with Tripper almost realizing their doomed to fail yet another year. The film also shows the growing bond between Tripper and a quietly lonely, puppy-dog eyed Rudy(Chris Makepeace of "Vamp" fame), whose dad is often away all the time. Rudy doesn't seem to fit in with the other kids his age and he seems to spend most of his time either jogging in the mornings with Tripper or taking his peanuts at Blackjack. The film mostly contains hi-jinx of fellow teen camp counselors cutting up and goofing around.

You have hottie counselors, total nerd Spaz(Jack Blum)with his taped glasses and bad acne, beak-nosed "Hardware"(Matt Craven)who likes to blow things up, fat kid Fink(Keith Knight) who is often stuffing his face, amongst others in the film. There's a basketball game where poor Spaz can barely bounce the ball against rival Camp Mohawk much less shoot an accurate shot with poor Fink tossing underhanded, between-his-knees fly-balls that sail over the back-board. There's camp fire coupling(with a spirited scary tale by Tripper about a hook-handed killer)and boys drooling over the lovely ladies.

Yes, I know it's desperate at times trying to squeeze out every laugh it can and occasionally indulges in lapses of sentimentality(such as the scenes with a sad Makepeace and Murray), but just as much as this recent viewing, I found myself giggling away. I'm licked and just can't help loving this. It's a summer camp movie through and through which simply wants to entertain you. I can't explain, or reinforce enough, the overwhelming joy that floods forth when I see a sleepy Murray's hand reach from the covers for the alarm clock that's piercing loudly pronouncing a summer camp movie is about to begin. His intercom jokes are especially amusing. But, the flick is, let's be honest, a series of comic vignettes with Murray dead-panning endlessly..not that there's anything wrong with that. The film, though, couldn't quite survive without him, could it? Hard to even think of this movie without Murray in the lead. It's a happier time and I think nostalgia of that summer camp experience plays quite a hand in why we grown-ups still connect with "Meatballs" warmly. And, poor Morty(Harvey Atkin), the camp head who so badly wants things to run smooth, and to beat Camp Mohawk for a change, is the constant source of Tripper and gang's amusement as they often play gags on him..especially when he's sleeping on his bed! Great enthusiastic cast who seem to be having as much as us. Yes, it feels, and for the most part plays like an "after school special", for a slightly more adult audience, alright maybe a teen audience. But add in Bill Murray (already showing some dramatic as well as his usual comedic talent), a nice supporting cast, and an unexpected sweetness about growing up, and remembering those great, or not so great days at summer camp, and you get a heartwarming, funny, sleeper hit.

It does get a little too smarmy for its own good, but that is also one of its charms. When you hear the title "Meatballs", and see the poster, you expect a teenage sex romp, but what you get is a sentamental, yet sometimes sexy look back at those formative years at summer camp. The sentamentality, and the remberances of simpler times reminds me of "A Christmas Story", which I also love. The rememberances of summer camp were never so well stated. The only movie I've seen that comes close, is "Indian Summer", which I like almost as much as "Meatballs", and also stars Matt Craven. Let's hope he completes the trilogy. Maybe he could come back for "Return of the Meatballs", and bring some dignity back to the franchise (Meatballs 2 through 4 bare no resemblence to the original classic).

"Meatballs" is easily on my Top 10 Guilty Pleasures of all time (not really guilty either). It's a wonderful little film, that always makes me smile. I just saw this for the first time in 10 or 15 years...maybe close to 20. In some ways, it was better than I remembered...in other, it was MUCH worse.

First of all, there's the music. It's just plain awful. There are only 5 songs in the movie, most of them used more than once. The opening song is shrieked by a chorus of annoying children, and the disco-y title track is performed by Rick Dees. It doesn't get any worse than that. Even the background music is terrible, with much of it repeating the themes of the other nauseating tunes. We also get some truly lame slapstick, mostly in the opening credits.

On the other hand, Bill Murray is spot on brilliant as usual...you have to wonder if he ad-libbed the whole thing, or if the writers just gave him all the funny lines. Or maybe he's just that great- turning a weak script into comic genius. The best part are his surreal PA announcements. ("Lobsters...get out of here...you're a menace!")

You also get a lot more character development than you have any right to expect in a movie like this. At least half the characters seem like real people...and mostly real people you would like to have around. Even "Spaz" gets to do a more than any other Eddie Deezen-type character ever did, and when he gets the girl, it's plausible. (She's not absurdly hot, but he doesn't automatically pair up with one of the nerd girls- see "Revenge Of The Nerds" for examples of both cinematic phenomenons.)

And when the plot seems clichéd...well, ya gotta wonder if it wasn't a cliché yet when they made this. While it wasn't the first summer camp movie- ya gotta go back at least to "The Parent Trap"- it's certainly the movie that made it it's own genre. In fact, I was surprised that there was no Talent Show scene..."Wet Hot American Summer" spoofed the summer-camp genre so perfectly, I just assumed everything in it came straight out of Meatballs. (I also half-expected Jon Cryer to pull up in a convertible with a chimp, thanks to "Mr. Show's" epic camp-olympiad spoof "Monk Academy")

Anyway, this one seems to be vanishing a little as far as the late-70's/early 80's comedies- it's not a cable staple anymore, and certainly doesn't have the cult following of Caddyshack or Animal House. I was pleased to catch it on Showtime today- and in High Definition at that! Sure, it's pretty awful in spots, but you could do a lot worse in a 70's/80's teen comedy. And again, Murray is a genius. ... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!

It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. "Meatballs" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch. Wildman head counselor Tripper Harrison (Bill Murray in peak nutty form in his first lead role) presides over the various wacky hi-jinks at North Star summercamp. Tripper befriends sad and lonely misfit kid Rudy (a nice and affecting performance by Chris Makepeace). Director Ivan Reitman relates the amusingly off the wall comic vignettes at a ceaseless snappy pace and maintains an engagingly good-natured tone throughout. This film astutely nails the breezy'n'breezy essence of summer: making friends, first love, pulling pranks, competing in sports with a rival camp, campfire singalongs, and, of course, the inevitable scary urban legend about the escaped psycho killer with the hook hand. The sense of gleefully raucous fun this picture generates is positively infectious. Moreover, the humor is always goofy and occasionally gross, but never too nasty or mean-spirited. Best of all, there's a winning surplus of pure heart to go along with said humor (the warm relationship between Tripper and Rudy in particular is genuinely touching). The cast have an obvious ball playing their likable characters: Murray's gloriously gonzo and galvanizing presence keeps things constantly humming (his crazy PA announcements are absolutely sidesplitting), plus there are sound contributions from Harvey Atkin as hapless camp owner Morty, Kate Lynch as Tripper's sassy old flame Roxanne, Russ Banham as the amiable Crockett, Kristine DeBell as the sweet, foxy A.L., Sarah Torgov as the feisty Candace, Jack Blum as klutzy bespectacled nerd Spaz, Keith Knight as tubby slob Larry Finkelstein, Cindy Girling as the fetching Wendy, and Matt Craven as the hip Hardware. Donald Wilder's cinematography gives the movie an attractive sunny look and makes nifty use of wipes. Elmer Bernstein's lively and melodic score likewise does the trick. A real riot. I liked this movie for the most part, but have to say had there been anyone else besides Bill Murray in the lead role it would not have been as good. He brings an energy to the role that steps this film up a notch than it would have been otherwise. I mainly enjoyed the pranks pulled on the one counselor and there are other humorous things in this movie too such as the hot dog eating contest. This movie would also set the stage for summer camp movies with the competition at the end. Nearly every camp movie has either this or the unruly or troubled kids plot, or a combination of both. This series also would take a rather strange shift in tone as this one and two are both family friendly movies while part three and four are more adult oriented, more like the old teen sex comedies of the time. It kind of did the opposite of the Police Academy movies that went from R to PG-13 to PG movies. This series goes from the opposite to R. Still this first one and only good one is worth some chuckles largely due to Bill Murray. Imagine spending the summer without your family or friends from school, and meeting new people. Or yet, it's your first time where you're a nobody and the only person you can count on is somebody from camp. "Meatballs" packs lots of comedy in this film. In camp, there's a eccentric counselor(Bill Murray) who knows how the boys and girls can have a good time. Enter a kid named Rudy(Chris Makepeace) who has no one to look up to. He doesn't fit in with anyone, only Tripper can make him have fun. The rest of the can are just as crazy as Tripper. Camp Northstar is an average camp with an above average team. One the other hand Camp Mohawk is an elite camp that has them running for their money. In the basketball game, the Mohawks got pantsed! And in the Olympiad the Northstar teal got the revenge they needed when one of the members take out the saboteur. And Morty(Harvey Atkin), this poor soul can never get himself in gear if he tried. A very, VERY funny comedy, and it's a big keeper I'll say. This movie shows that camp can be fun, if you wanted to be! 5 stars! As a young teen when this came out, I completely related to it. As an adult in the present sex- obsessed American culture, it doesn't have enough nudity to be called tame.

If you are looking for American Pie-type lewdness, vulgarity or fart and feces jokes, Meatballs will disappoint with impunity and a guarantee.

If you like Bill Murray, and you like good clean fun, you will probably like and enjoy this film very much. Similarly with Stripes, Ghostbusters, Caddy Shack, etc.

Enough said, just go watch it, and stop intellectualizing it. It's Meatballs, for crying out loud! Why read a review? Just enjoy it and have fun. And ignore the trash talk by others. Films, like so many other things in life, are subjective. To each his own.

Always beware the 'expert' who diminishes others' taste. The plot is predictable. It has been done many times in other movies. You have competing summer camps in this one: the rich kids vs. the underachievers competing for "bragging" rights in the typical camp contests, while the kids and consolers pursue pranks, sex, and "a good time!" "Are You Ready For The Summer?" Meatballs is the first (and best) summer camp movie for feel-good comedy. As others have posted, it's no Citizen Kane, but this type of movie isn't meant to be. The film works because of the wonderful comic timing and classic one-liners of Bill Murray. His scenes with a camper where he tries to raise the kid's self-esteem are very good. Bill's one-liners throughout the film are very funny.

I also like that this movie isn't dirty or explicit like so many other "teens at camp" movies today. There is some mild sexual innuendo and maybe one or two cuss words in the entire film. But Meatballs is the type of teen movie that is actually appropriate for the younger crowd. It's rated PG.

This is a movie that you have to see a few times to get all of the jokes! When Bill Murray is on the screen or making one of his classic "PA Announcements" you are drawn to the film. Bill seems to carry the movie all by himself. But he does it so well, that when you see Meatballs, you will realize that this is the film that made him a star! A side note to this review is to avoid ALL of the Meatball movie sequels. They are horribly bad. Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.

The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or "Micky" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.

The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, "you must be the short depressed kid we ordered." Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, "you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in." But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.

The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but "it just doesn't matter". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.

The Hound. I know that was a goofy movie, but I enjoyed it immensely. It's one of the experiences that make me smile when someone says "Bill Murray." I almost always like movies involving the underdog, and this movie has more underdogs than you can count. It's overall a kind movie--some of the adults are not wrapped tightly, but the laughter is accepting rather than brutal like so many teen movies these days. The rich kids across the lake take a beating, but no one I know minded at all. I never went to camp, but I did some things that were somewhat parallel and most of the "bits" and tricks ran true. They were even understated at times, but I'm sure that was an accident.The cast performed well, with Bill Murray showing hints of what he would become. It's not Groundhog Day or Broken Flowers, but, hey, a good goofy laugh should be appreciated these days, but then...it just doesn't matter............................... If you take the movie for what it is worth, you won't be disappointed. If you think Murray is supposed to win an Oscar for his performance and that is the type of movie you are expecting, don't bother. It was funny when I saw it in 1979 and hasn't lost its charm. Good clean fun for the kids and mindless entertainment for the older folks. The story line is simple and easy to follow. Murray has done better, but this is his first film. The movie reminds me of a time when we didn't need blood and guts to be entertained. Morty is the head dunce and plays the part perfect. The other counselors are typical revved up teens looking to have fun during the summer. One nice thing about this movie, it has a message. I first saw this movie in the mid 80's and thought it was a funny movie. As I have gotten older I watch this movie for different reasons. I like to view it when I'm feeling sad/nostalgic for my "lost youth". I was a teenager (14) at the time of the release of this film so I can identify with many of the same problems/dilemmas that the campers/CIT's in this movie have. I enjoy seeing the clothes that were worn at this time and hearing the same old urban legends such as was told on the overnight canoe trip. The film is also full of funny one liners. I highly recommend this movie to anyone that was a teenager in the late 70's to early 80's. I rarely even bother to watch comedic movies or television these days. They're insipid, vulgar, and, most importantly, not funny. This one could be seen as a refreshing blast from the past. It's worth watching, and I don't believe it would be dated in any significant way. Classic humor is classic humor, and good writing is good writing regardless of the era in which created.

I would love to see this film again; it came to mind after having seen the somewhat similar "Summer School" on television recently. Like that slightly newer film, "Meatballs" is funny without being cruel, overly sexual or indulging in bathroom humor. The key, of course, is how the adult character makes such a difference in the life of the teen character -- maybe even a virtually life-saving change -- and how they both grow up in the space of a summer. The quintessential "let's get ready for summer movie." It's dumb, goofy, and maybe a touch dated, but my kids just saw it and they laughed as hard as I did when I first saw it. In the style of all "little guys versus the establishment" movies, so yes, the plot is very predictable, but it's warm and funny. And no, it's not Bill Murray at his Bill Murrayest, but he is starting to stretch out in what was his first starring role. Odd, though, to see how few of the "fresh young faces" in this film went on to do much more. Meatballs works its way into conversations, like no other movie. Especially during Summer. Whether it's the song about the CITs (Counselors In Training) or the cut-downs or the inspirational Rudy the Rabbit or It Just Doesn't Matter speech...it pops up! Poor Mickey/Morty, who knows where he'd wake up next!?! Such a great snapshot of the seventies and a cultural icon for my generation of those who understand that non-PC is really funny, no matter who you are! Wheels and Spaz are favorites, as is the hot dog eating contest with the famous line "what..? no mustard?" Oh, how many times I've reiterated that line and been the only one laughing! Thank you to the writers, actors and directors! Applause, applause! "Rattlesnake! Look out!" "Is that a bra you're wearing or are you expecting an assassination attempt?" "Spaz, what are you a homo or what?!" "OK way to go you guys! feed Fink, he's our hot man" "Do you know they use the most sophisticated training methods from the Soviet Union, East & West Germany and the newest Olympic power, Trinidad-Tobago." "Oh Spaz you old make-out master!" "What, no mustard?!" "Oh my God his nose is bleeding." "it's gonna get even bigger now" "Our political roundtable...Henry Kissinger will appear. Yassir Arafat is gonna come out, spend a weekend with the kids just rap with them."

These and many other great lines make Meatballs a hall-of-fame comedy. Only in Caddyshack is Bill Murray funnier. He probably ad-libbed half the lines. The high school actors seemed to have a blast being in the same movie with him.

Hilarious movie to watch any time of year, not just the summer. When I was younger, this movie always aired on Friday night in the summer on Channel 40 (this was the years before Fox was a network and took over the programming). I always looked forward to it. I'd go grocery shopping with my parents, then sit down with my Swanson's TV dinner and a Lady Lee Cola(the only time of the week I was allowed to drink cola, and enjoy. Sure, the script is predictably late 70's (like Little Darlings), but it's a fun movie, and I loved Rudy and Tripper. Bill Murray coasts with little effort in the movie, but he is charming. Gotta love Spaz and those taped glasses (pre Revenge of the Nerds). Chris Makepeace is pretty much the same character he played in "My Bodyguard" but he does it so well. I love Meatballs! Terrific characters and poignant situations make this one dearly loved. Bill Murray is hysterical and you gotta love that 4-mile trail race at the end! A total classic and one of my favorites now for about 20 years. It brings back fond memories of camp and deals nicely with the experience of being rejected by foolish peers and the empowerment brought one by being rescued by a sympathetic adult. Tons of great one-liners and quite an assortment of wacko counselors. This is the kind of movie where you repeat key phrases among friends for years afterward. Also nothing overtly crude and what a sweet late '70's soundtrack to bring on just the right amount of nostalgia. I can't say enough about Meatballs; it's a classic. Be forewarned! All the sequels are putrid stink bombs that simply bought the name rights for marketing. They have no connection to Ivan Reitman's masterpiece. Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.

In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.

The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.

Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen. One of the Message Boards threads at IMDb had two women talking about Colin Firth, how they watched the movie only because of him. Obviously these were two young women; but what struck me is how little this movie has been appreciated by audiences generally. The brilliant, and I mean brilliant, performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange were hardly noticed, not only by audiences, but by the Academy and by most of the critics.

I think I know why. First, the plot--or actually just the setup--is a kind of bastardization of Shakespeare's King Lear with the dying, crazy patriarch and the three scheming daughters who will inherit. Their names even begin with the same letters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia--Rose, Ginny, and Caroline. And I guess "Larry" (Jason Robards) works for "Lear." The apparent idea envisioned by Jane Smiley in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel was to tell a Lear-like story from the point of view of the daughters, and to tell it a sort of late twentieth century realistic way not considered by the Bard. The problem is, in Smiley and Moorhouse's story, the two older daughters are very human with strengths and weaknesses while the father is a most despicable character without much in the way of redeeming qualities. His only strength was his ability to make a financial success of the farm; however, we can even discount that since his father and grandfather before him built the farm and he inherited it.

The second problem--and this is one I cannot personally attest to, not having read Smiley's novel--is that the movie is only a limited and partial interpretation of that novel. Still, it is almost always the case that an excellent novel, especially a long and ambitious one with many psychological nuances, cannot be faithfully transferred to the screen. The vision and audio demands of film drown out the subtleties of a narration while the time constraints don't allow for the full development of character and motivation achieved by the novelist. Given five or six hours, perhaps Moorhouse could have made a movie more in keeping with Smiley's novel.

A third problem is one that is perhaps Moorhouse's alone. She began her directing career with the very well done Aussie film Proof (1991) starring Russell Crowe. She follow it up with How to Make an American Quilt (1995) which celebrated women, especially women of a certain age. However it was a bit heavy-handed and clearly and determinedly a chick flick. In a sense A Thousand Acres takes off from there, showing us not only the point of view of women, but does so in a way that may seem politically motivated to some. Larry Cook is clearly a bad, bad daddy. He beat his daughters and he had carnal knowledge of them. He ran the household with an iron fist. Jess (Colin Firth's character) seduces the inexperienced Ginny and breaks her heart for nothing more than a bit of fun it would appear. And then he goes to Rose, who clearly is going to be the power behind the new ownership, and hooks up with her, while incidentally inducing her husband to end his life in a drunken accident. The rest of the men are one-dimensional characters without nuance, the way they often appear in romance novels. I think most audiences were put off by the heavy-handed incest, adultery and sexual betrayal that was woven into the story.

Having said all this, I think the critics and the public are wrong. I think the direction was biased against men, but in this story it needed to be. I think Moorhouse did a fine job of making an emotional and engaging film about family dynamics that were none too pretty. And the acting by Pfeiffer and Lange was nothing short of sensational. They seemed to feed off of one another in a way that I found absolutely authentic and deeply moving. In particular Pfeiffer was riveting as she projected her bent-up anger and hatred. The way Moorhouse allowed her character to be revealed to us gradually is a tribute to her ability as a director as well as to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. And the skill with which Moorhouse guided the change in Ginny's character as she went from a "ninny," as she called herself, to someone with self-awareness and some understandable bitterness, was also excellent. The fact that she left her husband was as much out of shame as anything else. He needed to go get her and forgive her and bring her back. And Robards in his intensity and madness was also very good.

I predict that this film, which bombed in theaters, will be better appreciated in the years to come as people see it on DVD. My question is, whatever happened to Moorhouse? Her talent is obvious, but she has yet to director her fourth feature film. When she does I hope she remembers to go with what she believes but to be fair as well. I think, actually she was fair to the two lead character in this film, but didn't pay enough attention to the others. In addition to the unnuanced father, Jennifer Jason Leigh's Caroline was unfinished, leaving us to wonder about why she did some of the things she did. And the husbands needed to be something more than mannequins. They needed to be engaged and involved. This is a very unusual film which starts out with a rich dude getting a brand new sports car for graduation and decides to take it for a spin in the local town. Rich boy meets poor girl in 'Mabels Diner'who is a waitress and local boy friend gets very upset and a fight starts out. There is a car chase and all kinds of problems seem to take place and the Rich boy and Poor boy wind up having to do Community Service as ordered by the town judge. Rich boy and Poor boy just do not get along and the Rich boy winds up winning the heart and soul of the poor boy's girl friend. There are plenty of walks in the woods and poetry is quoted and some very deep thoughts about life. Poor Girl says, "Some people go through life and never find Love, I can say that I found love and am holding on to It". You will need some tissue's if you are sensitive, there are plenty of romantic scenes and I doubt very much if you will guess how this picture will end. The producer and director came up with a good idea and finally put an end to a film. If you like true to life stories with poetry and very sensitive subjects, this is your film. All I have to say is that this movie is the bomb. You are going to cry when you see this. I mean, this is a reminder for everyone how hard and easy it is to fall in love. It reminds you of the days during your youth when you were carefree and everything that was bad for you was washed away with a single kiss. Even though I am still a teen, this is how I live my life. When I am with that certain someone, everything that was negative in my mind was erased. So, I give this movie a 10 for it's heartfelt message and touching plot. Actors Josh Hartnett and Chris Klein I also give a 10 for having a cute face. I don't understand why critics would bash this movie. It's a teen movie that's actually serious, which is a rarity. I'll admit that there are moments that are hugely sappy, but c'mon it's about young love, it's gotta be sappy to be valid. My biggest complaint is Chris Klein. While he was funny in American Pie, he apparently isn't ready for the switch into more dramatic fare yet, he's very uncomfortable looking in some of his "mama stuff". Hartnett and Sobieski on the other hand, demonstrate a remarkable amount of depth and believability, as do the parent's. Although the script is heavily cliched with the lovers spouting off poetry, the actor's make it work. The directing sports some powerful images on the screen. Beautiful cinematography, nice music, great young actors, I was impressed and I'm a jaded critic when it comes to teen movies. Alright, I'm 12, so this is where you get to see the movie from a pre-teen's point of view. I've also commented on Magnolia and Bicentennial Man, both great movies, if you want to check it out. Alright, Here on Earth was a beautiful movie with astounding scenes and images, very pleasing to the eye. The writer (I don't know who it was, check IMDB) either worked very hard or has a good appreciation for love, poetry, and drama. I cried 4 times throughout this movie, once for over 30 minutes. It was really sad, really beautiful, really meaningful. IT's a great movie for anyone, say, 11 and up who isn't a romantic-comedy freak. Yeah, it's romantic, yeah, it's comedic, but (in my opinion), it's better than "She's All That" or "Whatever it Takes". I never cry! It's a tender story. Go rent it and tape it :). "Here On Earth" is a surprising beautiful romantic tale about Samantha who has both boy problems and health problems. As her love for her current boyfriend, Jasper, fades away, her love for Kelley blooms like a new spring flower.

I found this movie very touching, very warm, very romantic, and touching. I enjoyed every bit of this movie...and that's pretty rare! I highly do recommend this movie to all movie lovers! This is one film you don't want to miss!!! :D

By the way...if you're a very sentimental person who easily cries while watching movies, BRING TISSUES!!! On the other hand, it was a really really good movie!!! Very romantic...and surprisingly good!!! :D

I own this movie. I've seen it over 20 times and every time I still get weepy. Its a Great love story, surprises, and you can definately feel chemistry between Klein and Sobiesky. I definately give this movie a perfect 10. I recommend this to anyone. OK..you people need to settle down! This movie is not that bad. I saw it for the first time last night and fell in love with it! I do have to admit that I have never been a fan of LeeLee Sobieski but she grew on me in this movie. I do think Josh Hartnett is good looking, but c'mon..Chris Klein is the most gorgeous man I think I have ever seen!!! He made that movie better for me. C'mon girls..when he has no shirt on and goes to get water I know your mouth dropped. Yes, I know in the beginning he is a jerk, but in the end he realizes how he acted and learns to be a great guy. If he wouldn't have come at the end..then I would have been mad. I do think a couple of lines did not need to be said but all in all it was a great movie! I definitely recommend it! I absolutely loved this movie! It's my number one favorite. Although there were a few flaws (what movie doesn't have flaws?), this movie was very well written, directed, and produced. The characters in this movie are very real and believable. They made all of the characters fit into a specific role. I think that the most apparent thing about "Here On Earth" was the love triangle as well as the other emotional situations brought into the movie. It's not one of those movies where you just can't seem to relate to anything, because in it are situations that everyone is or has been in. There are so many different things going on in this movie that it is hard not to relate to it. I am just 18 years old and I can even relate to it. It was heart warming and wrenching at the same time. "Here On Earth" will make you laugh, cry, and sometimes angry. I give this movie an excellent review and recommend it to anyone who loves romance and passion! It's become extremely difficult to find a good horror movie anymore, thought this movie was a good thriller.

Could have had better production values but what kept me going was the suspense and the twists. I had real reservations before seeing this movie (because of the cover). I was afraid that it would be excessively bloody and gory. I was wrong.

Although there is a lot of scary parts, there is a lot of suspense and drama too.

The acting in Dead Line was better than what you would expect from a micro budget horror flick. The characters were believable

The movie is really thrilling and quite scary at moments so it makes you grab your seat until the ending credits roll

Because of its production values (the sound is not very good for example) 8/10. I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie was. Whether you're a gore fan or a suspense fan; you'll love this. I used to dislike horror movies, considered them stupid. But, anyway, it happens I make exceptions. I find something really extraordinary in this film. Rarely have I ever seen a film that has scared the crap out of me but I tell you the truth this film gave me shivers down my neck. Unlike most horror films this one cares about the development of the characters. I highly recommend this film and I'm glad that Asylum are finally bringing out good horror movies these days

I recommend! Enjoy! Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill.

A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot.

The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts.

It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.

The plot also has some very surprising shifts.

Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film. Good movie, all elements of a good movie was there, story, actors, script, and direction. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

No question about it, is a low budget film, but I liked it more than many big budget films.

Andres Bagg plays Martin Sanders, who is dealing with his unfaithful wife. Then a voice in the telephone and then just fear.

Virginia Lustig is beautiful and brings a powerful performance. She is an excellent part to the film.

I liked the increasing ambiguity near the end, even though we know that the main character can be involved, we continued seeing everything from his point of view and asking: Who is the killer? I was pleasantly surprised to find a very enjoyable film that kept my attention throughout. I am a horror fan and I see almost everything in that genre, but Dead Line managed to freak me out. The pace is very cleverly set and Andrés Bagg does a good performance as a desperate man. What is underneath the main plot? A trip to madness. How can you end up like that? Martin Sanders ask him self while he sees a homeless speaking to him self, alone in the street. Close to the end of the film, the character of Aaron Mandel asks the same question while he sees another homeless doing the same thing; not knowing, yet, that this homeless is Martin Sanders, answering the question of the beginning of the film. The broken eyeglasses in two are a clear symbol of rupture and division... of personality. The ending is jaw dropping and you just know that a sequel would have to be made. This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film.

The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.

The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention.

I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés. The first thing I noticed about this movie was how well everything was set up. A quality movie all round.

I suppose you could love this film just for its action, but I liked it for more than that.

This is a pure thriller/horror movie. It offers a more fully-fleshed script than most horror films do. I thought, at least the U.S. version, ended brilliantly, and was great throughout. The story felt honest and brutal.

The film has an excellent, tight script that keeps the action moving, with believable characters in largely believable situations. Wow, I loved this movie, this film was filled with plot twists, good acting, great story, and a surprising ending. To be completely honest this movie wasn't overly gory, it does contain some gore, though, but was more on the psychological side. I read it on the Internet: the film cost 3000 dollars and was shoot in 8 days. Amazing!!! This is for someone that wants to think and loves great film making. What starts out as a terrorizing thriller slowly transforms into something a bit more twisted, even a bit more sinister. Not much I can say without giving away plot points only that this movie went beyond my expectations After reading the terrible reviews of this movie, including comments said to be quoted from Colin, I almost didn't bother to add this film to my Firth Film collection, however being the Firth Fan which I am, intrigue got the better of me!

To my surprise I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had suspense,drama and intrigue and V.sexy Colin scene's. The plot kept me guessing right until the end credits and I felt that once one got past Jennifer Rubens opening scene's that the actress played her role convincingly. Colin was as brilliant as ever and its great to see him play a character from the 'Dark side', a 'chill went down my spine' and after watching this I can't wait to see Colins recent film 'Trauma'soon to be out on DVD.

OK, perhaps it 'wasn't a film that was 'in your face' so to speak and one couldn't 'go to sleep on the plot',especially towards the end as there was a lot going on, but that was what I liked about it, the acting was subtle, thankfully not overdone (like many suspense thrillers), this made the film all the more chilling to watch. One just couldn't second guess what Colins character (Ross Talbert), or for that matter Jennifer Rubens character(Jamie Harris) was going to do next, and there were quite a few surprises in store, I sat on the edge of my seat throughout, with a cushion handy!!

Personally I am very glad that I watched 'Playmaker' and I shall certainly rewind and view again. I think that any Firth Fan would benefit from watching this film, if they didn't like the plot then just watch Colin ;-)) This mystery/psychological-thriller is I think one of the best I've ever seen. All the actors give a wonderful performance, especially Jennifer Rubin as Jamie Harris, who changes from the nervous starlet in the beginning through the strange events she is part of to the cool star. You learn a lot about the real inside emotions of people in this movie, and a lot about the movie business itself. The movie in movie situations in the beginning and through the game that is played with her by the "acting coach" are fascinating. Also the music by Mark Snow is possibly the best score I've ever heard. You won't forget this movie! If you like subtle psychological dramas/thrillers this is a movie for you. Those who want to see an ordinary sex'n'crime erotic thriller surely will not understand this movie, as Colin Firth obviously did when he called it "rubbish". But Jennifer Rubin is the real star of the movie anyway. She is such a brilliant and beautiful actress! Along with the twisting and turning storyline, that gets more and more psychological and makes you think about yourself, the wonderful directing, photography and especially the music make this movie a masterpiece. Also the small parts are very good, especially Belinda Waymouth is terrific in her small scene. I hope it gets released on DVD soon, and a soundtrack album would be a dream coming true!! This movie is one of the best and moving I have ever seen, because of the terrible good performance of the main actress Jennifer Rubin as Jamie Harris, who really makes you feel with her. Also the music by Mark Snow is wonderful. Ah, how refreshing to see a vision of 18th century England complete with mud, the pox and gibbets... and accompanied by a delightful techno soundtrack to boot. This is the story of downtrodden highwayman Plunkett (Robert Carlisle) and Gentleman-fallen-on-hard-times Captain Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller), and how they get together and rob the aristo pigs. Plunkett is a hard nut, but MaCleane is far too polite for that, and thus becomes 'the gentleman highwayman'. He falls in love with Lady Rebecca (Liv Tyler), (who to be frank is the only weak part of the whole shebang) and wants to impress her.

The costumes are fantastic. Big, colourful, historically innacurate beautiful togs. Alan Cummings gets all the best threads, and the best lines as Lord Rochester, sporting a very non-18th century eyebrow piercing. The music shifts between swooping glorious choirs and thumping bass-laden techno, which doesn't jarr as you think it should do in a historical film. The script is fast-moving and peppered with modern-day colloquialisms; Merchant Ivory, this is not. There are hilarious parts, disgusting parts, sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-and-nibble-your-fingernails parts, but the whole thing chugs along and is wonderfully entertaining throughout. This is cheer-in-the-cinema stuff. Unmissable. ** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Recap: Macleane (Miller) witnesses a robbery by Plunkett (Carlyle) that goes wrong. Plunkett's partner get shot (and killed) but not until after he has swallowed a great ruby. Plunkett and Macleane then meet at the cemetery when both try to get hold of the ruby. Unfortunately they are caught as grave robbers and sent to jail, but not until Plunkett has swallowed the ruby. The ruby is their key to freedom, and once they're free, they form a partnership in robbery. Macleane is to pose as a gentleman and find out who is worth robbing, and then simply they rob him (and rob them in style). But Macleane falls in love with the niece/daughter (?) of their first victim, lady Rebecca Gibson (Tyler). And a Mr Chance (Stott) is out to catch them, and his methods are not very nice...

Comments: A good action flavoured by comedy and adventure. Carlyle and Miller form a good team, with a lot of friction and friendship. And then there is the relationship between Macleane and Rebecca Gibson. The scene with the ball is very good, especially the (anachronistic) use of the music. In addition to these interesting characters Cumming play the best of them all, Lord Rochester. Both the character and the acting are stellar and among the best in the movie. In total, the movie works very well, a nice balance between story and special effects, action and comedy. Very entertaining.

8/10 Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy! ... because while I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it seems from other user comments that I'm in the minority. Maybe not one for the philosopher (eek), there are some wonderful scenes here (- particularly the techno), and the great life adventure story originally portrayed. Go see for yourself! When I sat down in the cinema to see this I was expecting to see a sort of stylish tongue-in-cheek action film, which had been implied by the trailers. However, it very quickly became apparent that this film was trying to be more.

Normally, I don't approve of films that try to entertain in as many ways possible. For instance, this film tries to mix action with comedy, romance, lightheartedness and gritty seriousness all at once. Most of the time this sort of approach doesn't work in films (just look at Batman Forever) but I was was pleasantly surprised to see that in this case, they pulled it off.

The end result is a highly entertaining film that should appeal to most mature cinemagoers. (However, the weak of stomach should really be warned of one or two scenes.) Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller pull of a brilliant double act and Ken Stott does a excellent villain. This mixed in with superb costumes and a few decent action scenes makes for a very enjoyable watch.

However, the big let-down here for me is that in having 'The Gentleman Highwayman' there was a real opportunity for some good dialogue but the script was definitely lacking in punchiness and there were few belly laughs. Okay, so the lines weren't terrible but to me it does highlight a problem with recent British films; ignoring a few notable exceptions the screenplays being written today are still relatively mediocre when compared to some of Hollywood's efforts. I've been waiting since last October to see this film! (it was supposed to come out October '98) and now I've finally seen it I am not disappointed. Bloody marvellous! OK it was a tad slow in the beginning, but once it got going it's a very exciting nail-biting tense Robert Carlyle is so different from either Gaz in 'The Full Monty' and Begbie in 'Trainspotting' ) that it's hard to recognise him! And Johnny Lee Miller, no longer with his Sick Boy from 'Trainspotting' blond hair, plays his dashing gentlemen highway man with the right about of humour and sensitivity that it is easy to see why Liv Tylers Rebecca falls for him. A great film. As Hades in Disney's 'Hercules' would say: "Two thumbs way way up!!" I'm amazed that I have a real affection for this one inasmuch as I'm not an action and adventure lover. But hey... It's pretty tough to go wrong with a Robert Carlyle film. I've read several poor or temperate reviews on this film, pulling it apart for it's period errors or unlikely plot development, but no one seems to mention the rather intriguing character transition which features how a hardened, down-on-his-luck scoundrel (Carlyle) transforms into a rather noble, selfless hero and how the pretty-boy, cowardly vagrant (Miller)develops a real taste for the life of a highway man once he "gets the feel of it." Filled with lots of bad-boy humor, lavish scenes (particularly the use of "fireworks" by former apothacary Plunkett) and a charmingly ecclectic musical score, Plunkett & Macleane is a fast-paced,highly enjoyable piece of film making. It's certainly worth your viewing time FOR THE CLIMAX SCENE ALONE! Shoot 'em up, boys! .. is the Princess Bride meets... well Trainspotting. But wait, really, it's a good combination! This was definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a long time... it has the kind of witty dialog I associate with The Princess Bride or Cemetery man, along with the disgusting scenes of violence of a horror movie... the heroic feel of Princess Bride combined with the (this is odd) lack of any really good guys that Trainspotting had.

I'm not saying it was as GOOD as the Princess Bride, but it was in the arena, and it rocked. Some of the dialog transcends pleasing to brilliant, the plot is interesting, the characters - while SLIGHTLY anacronistic - are anacronistic not due to their intrinsic nature (there WERE flamboyantly gay people in the 18th century, contrary to a previous reviewer's remarks) but just in a bit of the language they used. The anachronisms made it fun, though, and NOT cheesy and easily dismissed.

If you've ever read any Simon R. Green, or Gleen Cook's Garrett series, you know EXACTLY what this movie is. Check it out. It's great. A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.

The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.

Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.

The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.

A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.

Well worth a viewing. This movie, without doubt is the best I have seen, and really shows what British talent can do. It's effects are exceedingly good considering the movie is set in the mid 18th Century, and all the grittiness and disgusting filth of England at the time, is captured very well. The character's are developed and fleshed out, from MaCleane's whoring antics to his development into highwayman and exhibitionary 'The Gentleman Highwayman' contrast well with Robert Carlyle, who's cynicism and honour show that you can love a thief and a criminal cos I quote: 'He's got more honour in his little finger, than any of you fat bastards!'

Not referring to you of course! But it has arguably the most stirring and emotionally charged scene ever witnessed in a movie, but you'll just have to see it to find out, suffice to say that it involves rope round your neck.

If you liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the chances are you'll like this, too. Although I guess a few of the British in-jokes (like calling two London characters Dixon and Winterburn, after Arsenal soccer players) may be lost on some, this is still cracking entertainment, which veritably pumps with vitality.

Carlyle, Miller and Tyler are all excellent, bringing depth to their characters, and the interplay between the two protagonists is always well-judged. In fact Scott's direction is very assured, considering that this is his first feature film, and proves that he has his father's talent for putting us at ease in unfamiliar surroundings.

Hell, I've convinced myself. I'm gonna see it again! Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!

The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!

As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say...."If you see one other film"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change! Well, I'm not about to add to the diatribe that's been 'preached' about this film.

All I can add is that at NO time does it even pretend to be a 'historic' picture. Unlike 'Braveheart', 'Titanic' or 'The Patriot' all of which have very credible and serious historical amendments, purely for theatric effect (possible the worst of excuses).

Has everyone taken a sense of humor bypass?

All I can add is a paraphrase from the good Captain Macleane - 'It looked

fantastic and we have a bloody good laugh'.

- One last point. What astonishes me is that there are comments relating to the 'modern music' in a historic setting. I wonder if the same people made the same judgment about Moulin Rouge. I suggest not. I've seen the previews everywhere before deciding to watch it. And what do you know, I actually liked it! It has a new twist of the 18th century england. Although the music in the dance scene were obviously modernized and also the colors of Liv Tyler's clothers (although it IS pretty!), it fit quite perfectly.

If you just want a good time, you should check this out. Very different from other 18th century detailed films. Plunkett and Macleane is a wonderful updating of the swashbuckling tradition, predating Johny Depp and his pirate friends. The tone is lighthearted, with a touch of social commentary, but nothing too heavy. One could almost see Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in this.

It starts out in low gear, with the introduction of the characters and the establishing of the themes of social inequality and rebellion; but, it kicks into high gear once the boys hit the highways. The robberies are grand and stylish, with romantic touches that are the bread and butter of swashbucklers. The actors are engaging and help elevate the material a bit, which is fairly hollow. There's not much depth to the figures, but they are played with such charm and skill that it doesn't matter.

Muh has been said about the modern music. Period music tended to the more serene, which seems out of place. A classical score with Celtic rhythms for the action pieces could work, but the more modern, rebellious rock and techno music seemed to add an edge to the action. Since the characters are more legend than reality, accuracy in the music seems pointless. The pieces tend to fit the mood of the aired scenes, so it mostly works well. I just wonder how they missed Adam Ant's "Stand and Deliver." Make no mistake, this is not a serious film. It's pure escapism and a wonderful lark. Tony Scott shows some of the visual flair of his father, but I don't think we are going to see many Oscar nods in his career just yet. He seems to understand the material here and pulls off a fine film. With time he may prove to be a name to reckon with. His father took a while to mature beyond visual stylization and become a more rounded director. This is definitely one to watch for an entertaining evening or for a swashbuckling film fest. This movie almost has everything. The action is cool, it's funny, 2 great leading men and a truly nasty villain that I REALLY hated. Not a lot of films have BAD bad guys. Just mainly comic book villains. He really does deserve a might ass kicking.

Jake Scott really does have his fathers talent for knowing how to make great visuals. The direction is faultless and has an irresistible lighthearted feel. I don't usually like films set in the old days but this I liked a lot because it makes a point of boring like so many other period films are (Sense and Sensibility, Age of Innocence and the absolute worst...Lady and the Duke). This will restore your faith. Thanx mostly to Craig Armstrong's amazing score. The music is both atmospheric and ethereal and in scenes of action it is very exciting.

The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and has a very grainy and muddy looking 2.35:1 anamorphic picture. I don't want to write too much about the film but basically it's an action/comedy with a little bit of romance thrown in about two men who come together in unlikely circumstances and become highway men together. Fantastic performance by Robert Carlysle and everybody else involved. A brilliant 'baddy' who really makes you hate him. Some great comical lines - actually laugh out loud, amazing action and a great plot. Choice of music and ambiance all fantastic, basically brilliantly directed and brilliants written. I recommend this film to anyone who likes a good British movie or a good bit of action, i don't know why the film never took off, i thought it got no where near as much recognition as it deserved. If for nothing else, watch this film for one of the greatest finale's of all time. Not to give anything away, but this one really get's the heart beating! I tend to like Historical (period) films and get new ideas for costumes for my historical group, and a friend recommended this one to me. I like Johnny Lee Miller as an actor so I figured it was worth it, and I was definitely rewarded!! His portrayal as a member of the English noble class was by far more accurate than I've seen in the past. The comedy aspect of it left my sides hurting, the costumes weren't awful, and historically, I didn't wince too much. I also noticed the fact that England didn't have a proper sewage system until much later, but anyone who dose not go deep into the minutae of England's past won't notice nor care. Absolutely worth seeing. I highly recommend this movie. Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.

The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.

The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.

This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment. When I went to the video rental store, back in the days when DVD was yet next to unknown to me, I had seen all the movies at the store that I was interested in. Or so I thought! The man behind the counter told me he had something for me that I definitely would like. He gave me "Plunkett and MacLeane". At first, I doubted it to be any good, but I trusted his advise and... man, I sure am happy I did take this jewel along! This is one of the best adventure movies in years, if you ask me! Of course, with Robert Carlyle as a major part, how bad can a movie get? Surely, Liv Tyler does once more what she's good at and nothing much more: being pretty. But still, you can very clearly sense that the cast apparently had a lot of fun, making this movie. I adore this film. The chemistry between the two leads Miller and Carlisle is amazing, they spark so well off of each other, creating an unlikely comedy Duo. Alan Cumming is hilarious, his enthusiasm for the role is clearly evident as he camps it up. The acting is superb and it is a genuinely amusing and touching film. Not the greatest film ever made, I'll admit, but it is a huge amount of fun, and I would recommend to those who enjoy other gritty Brit flicks. Includes some of the best British actors, including Michael Gambon so you can't go far wrong. Look out for cameos from David Walliams and Matt Lucas of Little Britain and Rock: Profile fame. This has to be my favourite film. The script is sharp and played to the limit by an excellent Miller and fantastic Carlisle! Sharp wit, excellent narrative and no Hollywood polishing; a totally immersible film which has you gunning for the bad guys! Stott excels again as the detestable Chance, while Liv Tyler truly beats her other, lighter performances as the excitement-hungry Rebecca! The soundtrack may not be known to you by name, but anyone who has ever seen Top Gear, watched the football or seen any TV action sequence is probably familiar with it, particularly due to Craig Armstrong's, 'Escape' which must allow him never to work again! The soundtrack on first play may seem out of place in a costume drama/action/comedy, but one re-watching shows it is perfectly at home in giving the the script it's drama.

My one gripe about this film is that it isn't shown enough on TV! Where is it? Truly excellent, sharp and classy - you'll not regret watching it - again and again! (exits to switch on DVD player!) This movie is great. Stylish, fun, good acting. I'd seen it described variously as 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Muskets' and 'Reservoir Fops', both of which are excellent descriptions. The plot is simple, but it does not detract from the enjoyment. Carlyle is a brilliant ruffian and Miller is an excellent drunken gentleman. The sets and costumes are stunning, and the music and camerawork are refleshingly unusual for a 'costume drama'. Sense and Sensibility it definitely is not!!!!! My recommendation? Go see it, sit back with a huge tub of popcorn and have a damn good time. Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.

Well worth a watch. Plunkett and Macleane is an entertaining, fast-paced and refreshing film. Refreshing because, unlike most other period films, it does not strive to give the audience a history lesson or preach pompously - indeed, historical accuracy is all but ignored. This film does not take itself too seriously, and seeks to entertain rather than enlighten. Plunkett and Macleane is set in the 18th century, yet director Jake Scott offers a thoroughly 90s take. There's action, sex and swearing aplenty, and in the inevitable ball scene the aristocracy dance to disco beats. Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are brilliant as always, and the rest of the cast, especially Alan Cumming as a flirtatious fop, are also highly entertaining. The film is visually spectacular in places, and is a mixture of comedy, action and drama, with a love interest provided by Liv Tyler with a shaky english accent. In short, if you're looking for an entertaining couple of hours, this is the film for you. It won't make you think, but it could well put a smile on your face. So it might not be entirely historically accurate. And there is little or no real character development. But for Jake (son of Ridley) Scott's first attempt, it's well worth the ticket price.

Captain James MaCleane (Jonny Lee Miller looking as good as ever) may be a gentleman, but he hasn't got the money or the clothes to prove it. Plunkett (Robert Carlyle with all his clothes on) is an apothecary-turned-outlaw. The circumstances of their strange meeting involve a dead body, a ruby, and eventually a partnership as the Gentlemen Highwaymen. As the tag line says, "they rob the rich... and that's it." There isn't really much background, or even in-depth development, but the object seems to be to relieve the aristocracy of enough money and jewels to pay for the two Highwaymen's passage to America. One small problem: MaCleane falls in love. With the Chief Justice's ward, Rebecca (Liv Tyler). Who happens to also have caught the eye of the Thief Taker General.

The plot is original enough, the casting is excellent (especially Alan Cumming as the drag-queenish Lord Rochester, Carlyle and Miller--also together in "Trainspotting," they haven't lost their dynamic), the costuming is fantastic, the makeup is outrageous, and the music is hard-edged techno with a strangely classical undertone. Jake Scott has an eye for light and shadow, a good sense of balance between spectacle and plot, and he isn't squeamish about showing the more unpleasant side of 17th century London. And lucky for us, he likes close-ups of faces, especially eyes. Jonny Lee Miller's eyes. And Liv Tyler's, too, but hey, who is this movie about? Rebecca? No. Plunkett and MaCleane. But there's more to this movie than just pretty faces. At the risk of sounding cliche, it's a fast, furious, and sometimes frustrating ride with the most noble highwaymen since Robin Hood. Decadent, sleazy, and violent, Scott's debut film makes for an entertaining evening at the movies.

As MaCleane says, "I was terrific, and it was a bloody good laugh!" Anyone who has seen the trailer for this film would be forgiven for thinking this film is an out and out comedy. In actual fact it's a light-hearted, though not overly funny, romp about a couple of highwaymen.

There are numerous faults in the film. The script and plot are weak and the love aspect of the story is strangely dull. Yet despite all this it is quite enjoyable, thanks largely to the two leads Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller. These two fine actors, Carlyle in particular, are always good to watch and here there exists a good chemistry between them.

Director Jake Scott is the next generation of the family whose brothers, Ridley and Tony, have given us films such as Alien, Blade Runner, True Romance and more recently G.I. Jane and Enemy of The State. His debut is directed with energy and enthusiasm, which keeps the film fizzling along, although without the strong cast he assembled the results might not have worked as well.

In short if you're looking for an easy enjoyable film to pass an hour and a half then you could do a lot worse than Plunkett and Macleane. If on the other hand you fancy something subtle, historically accurate and thought provoking, go elsewhere. 7/10. Made the same year as the first Lumiere films, this is a much more dramatic short than the brothers attempted until the following year's 'Niagara'. The surviving print is very rough, but this only adds to the Turneresque visual violence, as huge surges of water dash against a stolid pier, and seem ready to engulf the camera, the viewer.

If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).

Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy. I give this a 10 out of 10, not because the plot was hard to uncover because it wasn't... but because it leaves one caring for the characters. The acting, by all the cast, is superb, especially Joan Hickson, and it's a marvellous episode because of it's heart.

Miss Marple is called upon by Jason Rafiel's dying request to investigate, and solve, a murder that happened some seven or eight years previously, and she has to discover who, why and when as she goes along. Mr Rafiel is the same Rafiel as was in A Caribbean Mystery and so there is a sense of a connection here.

Nemesis is definitely one for the amateur psychologists among us, and if you are one of those who is only happy with lots of blood, guts and rip-roaring action sequences, then you won't like it. But if you are like me, one who loves knowing about PEOPLE and discovering what makes them tick, then Nemesis is the one for you. I have waited for ages to comment on this programme, and felt it was about time some justice was done to it. This is one of Christie's darker, more sinister and engaging works, not simply someone being killed for money, this is a dark and thoroughly engaging tale of mystery, intrigue, love and murder, made all the better by the amendments made by the adaptor. The level of acting is utterly superb, Joan Hickson is sublime in the part, as always! The rest of the cast, including the likes of Liz Fraser, Anna Cropper and Helen Cherry all perform beautifully, but it's my opinion that the show is stolen by Margaret Tyzack, the closing scene between her and Joan Hickson is simply magical, the acting is as good as it gets, chilling, moving and totally brilliant.

Please let me know if you agree with my words. I am seriously looking forward to the remake to see how well Geraldine McEwan's version is. Watch and enjoy. As always Joan Hickson is wonderful as Jane M. Subtle, sharp and aware. I do not wish to dwell on her acting skills as they are praised enough on this site. I would like to criticize some of the smaller parts as the rest of the cast seemed to be hand picked by director David Tucker.

Liz Fraser's performance as Mrs. Bent (the mother of the missing girl Nora) is a joy to watch. Subtle and deeply moving as the alcohol-depending grieving mother who loves and misses her daughter desperately. A good long shot of her monologue (thanks Tucker!) so she can be enjoyed to the fullest. I was moved when I saw her the first time when it was broadcast and I am moved again, now I have it on DVD. Brava.

Joanna Hole as Madge the tour-guide I find highly amusing. She is on the edge of over-acting but her role can have it. She is SO funny as the over-organized guide who wants to do good with everyone on that bus, I find her hilarious. Her reaction after she boarded every-one on the bus is great... As always: to perform comedy one has to take it very seriously, and that's what Ms Hole does.

I do hope those two ladies have good careers (as I live in Holland I do not know if they have, not all theater productions can be googled...) -their performances on the screen deserve it.

Pieter I totally agree with the other poster. NEMESIS is one of the best of the Christie adaptations with a superlative plot and cast.

The scene involving Liz Fraser as the mother of the murder victim is a study in acting at the finest level. This underrated woman was a fave in Brit films in the 1960s who never got a mainstream break in US films. Check her out as Julie Andrews's friend in the 1964 THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY.

All of the perfs in this prod have a chance to shine with and without the peerless Ms. Hickson who was never nommed for an Emmy for her Marple work. Shame on them! And dig the lesbian CID agents! :) 'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.

On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!'

This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended. While not quite as good as A Murder is Announced, which was not only delightful but almost surpassed the book, this is an excellent adaptation. And you know what, it is a huge improvement on the Geraldine McEwan version. Now I don't take pride in bad mouthing the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, two or three of them were surprisingly good, but others started off well but ruined by either a poor script, a confusing final solution or both. The Geraldine McEwan version suffered from a plodding pace, and both of the above problems, and I would consider second worst of the ITV adaptations, worst being Sittaford Mystery, which even on its own merits turned out dull and confusing. This adaptation of the book Nemesis is a huge improvement, it not only respects the book, despite a few liberties, but it pretty much rectifies the problems the ITV version had. Despite the added character of Lionel coming across as rather irritating, more to do with how he was written than how he was acted, and one or two moments of sluggish pacing, this is solid as an adaptation of a decent book. It is beautifully filmed, with nice photography and period detail, and the music as always is excellent. The performances are wonderful this time around, and make the most of an in general well-done script, with Joan Hickson brilliant as always as Miss Marple, and solid turns from Liz Fraser, Helen Cherry, Joanna Hole and Anna Cropper. Margaret Tyzack is outstanding though in a chilling and moving performance as Clothilde. Overall, well worth watching, better than the recent version in pretty much all departments. 9/10 Bethany Cox What often gets overlooked in Agatha Christie's stories is her progressive, anti-conservative attitude on a number of issues - from the role of women to the effects of tradition to people's belief in the supernatural. In "Nemesis", you can spot a lot of those subtexts - but you can also find a good old-fashioned intriguing mystery that keeps you in the dark for most of its length. Also lifting "Nemesis" above other series entries ("They Do It With Mirrors", "4:50 From Paddington", etc.), is the fact that in the crucial moments before and after the revelation of the killer you can actually feel the suspense. And finally, Jane Booker is welcome to guard my body any time. (***) A very bizarre bringing to the screen of William Shakespeare's tragic love story.

The Que family and the Capulet family have a long running hatred of one another which often results in violence. The hatred has something to do with a film company and the fact that everyone is pretty much crazy. In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous "star crossed" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.

The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines. But the infamous Troma bizarreness pervades the film from beginning to end. That makes for a movie that is definitely not for all tastes, but it is nonetheless pretty inventive. Tyrone (Tybalt in Shakespeare) has a particularly funny death scene. 7/10

Many differently edited and rated versions exist. Each contains violence, profanity, drug use, and sex, all with a big dose of bizarreness. This movie is truly unique. It really captures the spirit of the play, but makes it entertaining to the modern generation. The romance between Tromeo and Juliet was believable, and erotic, not pulled off by many adaptations. It is also so funny I was almost crying with laughter.

Like with most Troma its in your face, taboo subjects, gore and sex, and yet add in some really good acting and a Shakespeare plot. You really have to see this movie to believe it!

There are some hillarious jokes in the credits (best credits I've seen since Hot Shots) loads of Troma in jokes as well as general satire and shakespeare refs. And Lemmy from the house of Motorhead narrates. I lent this movie to a friend and had an almost impossible job of getting it back. Troma at its best, this film really is a gem, and goes in my top 5 favourite movies of all time.

Though its not the sort of film you'd watch with your mum, and might offend some people. For anybody bored with run of the mill cinema, with a wacky sense of humour you MUST SEE THIS FILM. Yes!! They finally got it down to perfection. What a great idea, a refreshing exploitation epic for Generation-X, whether they know it or not. After disasters like Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD, and getting screwed by Blockbuster, our hero, Lloyd Kaufman just decided to go for it, stop catering to distributors, and let Troma be all the Troma it can be. Lloyd would make this one the most unapologetic, outlandish and downright hilarious Troma movie yet. This time, Lloyd takes Shakespeare's love story, turns it inside out, Tromatizes it, and adds that long, lost, entertainment value it was always lacking. Entertainment value, such as Lemmy Kilmister (the narrator), Debbie Rochon (the cook), Joe Fleishaker (the fat guy), and of course, brutal mutilations and toilet humor. Tromeo And Juliet is the definitive edition of a rather lackluster story, and the crown jewel of the Troma universe.

Years ago, in Tromaville, N.J. business partners, Monty Que and Cap Capulet start a film company called Silky Films, which would produce supposedly tasteful, soft core films. Monty considers Cap his friend, but Cap is out to screw the poor sucker out of his share of the company. On paper, and in books, it appears that Monty gave away his life's work for free. Fast forward to mid-90's Manhattan, we have two families who are extremely displeased with one another, it's to the point that they're just looking for a reason to take a limb, or preferably, a life. Monty has a son, Tromeo, nephew, Benny, they, with their friend, Murray Martini, who's just a little too excited about all the carnage, wage war on the incestuous Capulets, except Monty, he's too drunk to care. Like in the original, there is a confusing situation, leading to Tromeo falling for Cap's daughter, who he has never met, or never even knew about. Unfortunately, Cap is a sadistic pervert, who, not unlike Tromeo's dad, has a thing for the bottle, and this would of course, lead to daddy's little chenshaw melon being physically, and emotionally abused, and molested, and kept in a Plexiglas cage, off and on, depending on how foul of a mood Cap is in. Cap is also forcing his vegetarian daughter to marry London Arbuckle, a billionaire butcher, who, would make just about anyone uneasy, with or without the raisin loaf. With all these inconveniences, the young lovers feel that eloping would be the best decision, but how will this effect the big feud? It might, or might not, go a little something like the original, but figuring out how this one ends up is just simply not going to happen, you'll never see it coming.

"The one with Leo" is downright sleep-inducing compared to Tromeo & Juliet, but if watered-down, over-directed, big-budget, Hollywood, Garbage is what you've been programmed to go for, then by all means, go for it, but if you're in the mood for something a little more colorful, something that really packs a punch, and doesn't follow the "normal" movie pattern, and if you happen to have a rather abnormal sense of humor, then you just might not hate this movie. Tromeo And Juliet gives the finger to all that is mainstream. Full-blast exploitation with as much mean-spirited humor as anything from a young John Waters. Along with some badass acting, Tromeo And Juliet flaunts a thunderous score which includes the legendary Motorhead, and not to mention, much input from James Gunn, that really brought this one together. For more awesomeness from James Gunn, check out Lollilove, and for more excellence from Lloyd Kaufman, check out his next vision, Terror Firmer. Tromeo And Juliet is jaw-droppingly priceless Exploitation for the 90's brought to us by the one, and only, king of the B-movies. Thank's, Lloyd. 10/10 Tromeo and Juliet (1996) is another jewel in the Troma Studios film archives. Like The Toxic Avenger, Troma's War, Class of Nuke 'em High, Terror Firmer and Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. this film is an instant Troma classic. James Gunn updates Romeo and Juliet taking a medieval tragedy and reinvision's it as a modern day street punk drama. If you have seen or read the play before nothing much has change except it has been "tromatized".

Lloyd Kaufman adds his own twisted vision to the screenplay and makes it highly enjoyable film. The actors handle the script very well. I was surprised by how well they performed the dialog, a lot better than some Hollywood big budgeted actors utilizing a monstrous budget and expensive sets. I enjoyed this movie very much. Lloyd Kaufman doesn't disappoint because you know what to expect from his films and other Troma productions. I would rather watch one of his films and be entertained than watch an boring expensive movie with pampered over paid actors, lame scripts, lazy directors and those awful C.G.I. special effects.

I highly recommend this movie. If you like fun films with cheesy special effects, over the top acting and inspired directing, then this movie's just for you! This trash version of `Romeo and Juliet' passes in Manhattan in the present days. Romeo (Will Keenan) is an a**hole and violent member of family Que, and Juliet (Jane Jensen) is a sexy (with beautiful legs and breasts) and bisexual girl of Capulet family. The scatological situations this romantic pair will face are very funny. Although being a cult movie (inclusive exhibited in Rio de Janeiro Festival), it is not recommended for all the audiences. If the viewer is fan of Peter Jackson's former movies (`Braindead', `Bad Taste'), `Toxic Avenger', `Body Melt' and other trash movie, he will certainly love this flick. Otherwise, he will hate it. Since I belong to the first group, my vote is eight.

This is the best movie I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. I'm not even a Troma fan. I've never heard of Troma before watching this movie.

I had already given up hope to see a great movie until I saw "Tromeo and Juliet". This movie is a dream coming true. Shakespeare would likely be proud of this modern adaptation of his classic. There are sex, violence, humor and satire. It breaks many taboos.

This movie is neither disgusting nor stupid. It's hard to describe with words how clever, funny, exciting and witty this movie is. The music is great and perfectly fits every scene. The characters are very believable and the acting is great. I really cared for the characters.

It is certainly not for Troma's fans only. It's for all people who have a sense of humor and like clever and believable entertainment as opposed to totally stupid and unbelievable mainstream movies that don't dare to do what this movie does.

The bad reviews only prove that this movie is great and something exceptional. You either love it or hate it. Like all true works of art it isn't understood and appreciated by all people. This movie is really sick, and funny. I have made my friends cringe describing it to them. I saw it about 8 months ago, and I still have the song 'Shall we Gather at the River' echoing through my head.

So basically, it is a Tromatized Romeo and Juliet, but it goes beyond what you would expect. Let's just say incest, references to child molestation, gore (of course), but unfortunately, has a sort of happy ending...sort of...it's more weird than happy. Cappy Capulet was brilliant! He has this sort of intellectual snobbish tone, he's abusive, but civilised. He quotes more Shakespeare than anyone else in the film...all while engaging in his sadistic role as a husband and father.

The meat guy was pretty cool too. He was Juliet's fiancé, deeply infatuated with her, and soon to be heartbroken because of Tromeo. And Tromeo, a true romantic. He's a handsome, really sweet guy, desperate to find true love. 'She doth make torches to burn brightly!' Unfortunately, Troma just had to resort to that awful fake green vomit and their other antics. They really get carried away with that stuff sometimes. But hey, this film made a great impression on me. How often do I refer to it in real life situations...wow that's pathetic.

Anyway, enjoy! Once upon a time, Troma, the company that brought us cinema classics such as: The Toxic Avenger, Rabid Grannies, Poultrygeist, Redneck Zombies and Surf Nazis Must Die, decided long ago to adapt Shakespeare's famous play, 'Romeo and Juliet.' This adaptation decided to spice up the story by adding kinky sex, extreme violence, genital monsters, body piercing and incest and it succeeded in creating a bizarre yet hilarious film. Anyone going into a Troma production should know what to expect, and that is irreverent and perverse comedy with plenty of political incorrectness. Expect plenty of nods to other Troma films and plenty of re-used gags (flipping cars and head squashing). Many may think it sounds like utter crap that only morons would find funny...they may be right, but at the same time they may need to lighten up and enjoy the insanity and mind-numbingness that is Tromeo and Juliet.

With a great cast, a funny script (by James Gunn and Lloyd Kaufman), a fitting soundtrack and plenty of great visual gags, Kaufman has yet again succeeded in turning what is right upside down and grossing the hell out of everyone. Get some popcorn, grab a beer, invite your friends over and enjoy Tromeo and Juliet for what it is, a Shakespeare adaptation with plenty of balls. The end.

4/5 This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, "Terror Firmer", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed "Tromeo and Juliet" so much, that I need to finally watch "Terror Firmer". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. "Tromeo and Juliet" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended. TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION

William Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films. Sometimes literally following the original text (which is, at times, vague in stage directions), sometimes in new interpretations where directors chose to show their own view on the piece. Some are good, many are mediocre. Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort. Kaufman wrote the script with his co-director on the film James Gunn, who is now famous for writing two successful Scooby Doo movies, doing the impossible by making a perfect remake of an already perfect film with his script for Dawn of the Dead and directing one of the best horror-films of the year: Slither. Lloyd Kaufmans innovative directorial view alongside with James Gunns original and unrestricted writing make for an interpretation of Shakespeare's play that maybe not everyone will "get" immediately, but will certainly be recognized by a truly unique and highly important view on a classic play. With a script that is written entirely in iambic meter, appearances of Motorhead's Lemmy and an outrageous forceful soundtrack watching Tromeo & Juliet is something no one will ever forget. Apart from it's historical significance, Tromeo & Juliet is a treasure for film-lovers of all kind. Not only for the script by James Gunn, now a good influence on Hollywood while working from the inside, but also because it features an early part of legendary actress Debbie Rochon. Well known by everyone familiar with films that are made on lower budgets. The 10th anniversary edition on DVD adds to all that by including so many as-yet undiscovered gems that not only all the information one could wish for about the film itself and the experience of making it is presented in ways that make it impossible to turn off the DVD, but also a very honest (and disturbing) look is given into the ways independent cinema has to surviver these days. In many ways the extra's on the disc are an invaluable addition to the already impressive amount given on Kaufman's film-school "Make Your Own Damn Movie". Furtermore historical items from the Troma vaults which include James Gunn, Debbie Rochon and all other contributors to this masterpiece are included, and the film itself is, apart from looking better then ever, accompanied by no less than four audio-commentaries, each and everyone informative, excruciatingly funny and all done for serious addition to the film instead of the boring and nonsensical commentaries that are so common these days. There are new commentaries (one with Kaufman and Gunn together), but also the one James Gunn did for the original release of the DVD but couldn't be included there for some of honesty he displays about some other people is present on this disc. With fan-recreations of a few of the scenes from the film, a video diary of Lloyd Kaufman's visit to the set of James Gunn's Slither and a visit the two brought together to Eli Roth's Hostel Birthday party and much more, this is the ultimate set everyone must own. Weather you are a film historian, someone interested in interpretations of the great Bard's work, a fan of great cinema, a fighter for independent cinema, a fan of James Gunn, interested in learning more on making films on a low budget, a fan of Lloyd Kaufman or whatever: this is the most important DVD-release of this millennium! In the seedy streets somewhere in New York City, a lonely punk named Tromeo ( Will Keenan) has little friends but all they ever do is get tattoos, piercing and just party all the time. He does fall for a beautiful rich girl named Juliet ( Jane Jenson) whom is also troubled as her father is being quite an abusive son of a you know what, but as our title characters meet and fall for each other things start becoming quite magical for them. Unfortunately their fathers are at each other as Juliet's dad wants to take over Tromeo's dad's movie studio, but could love really conquer them all and stop this feud?

Hilarious and gross horror comedy drama satire from the wacky and disgusting people at Troma is a wonderful modern day take on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This was released in theaters in 1997 and got some good reviews for this is a dark humored satire of the legendary story that started it all, it's got some good laughs, piercing, graphic violence and gore such as a head being smashed on a fire hydrant. For me this is the third best Troma movie next to the immortal "Toxic Avenger" and "Troma's War" being second, yes the acting can be a little bad like some Troma flicks but the stuff above makes it up for that and this is a must see movie if you like horror comedies, Peter Jackson, and Troma or if you wanna see a comical version of a beloved story, BTW also look for a couple of amusing appearances by The Toxic Avenger and SGT. Kabukiman NYPD.

Also recommended: "The Toxic Avenger", "Meet The Feebles", "Ichi The Killer", " Re-Animator", "Terror Firmer", "Class of Nuke'Em High", "Romeo and Juliet ( 1968 and 1996)", " Pieces", " Troma's War", " Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger 4", "Basket Case", " Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky", " Demons", "New Nightmare", " Freddy Vs. Jason", " Cabin Fever", "Nightmare on Elm Street", " Battle Royale", " Pink Flamingos", " Perfect Blue", " Rabid Grannies", "Surf Nazis Must Die", " Hostel", " Evil Dead II", "Serial Mom", " Dead Alive ( a.k.a. Braindead)", " Street Trash". Wow, this movie is amazing. It is such an excellent film. Has some sick scenes (not nearly as sick as Terror Firmer or Citizen Toxie) some nudity, and this was the penis monster's debut on film! This has set the scene for many of Troma's movies, this is a very Tromatic film. It mixes comedy, romance, and my favorite, HORROR/GORE! Not that much gore in this flick, but enough to satisfy. This is the best adaption of Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet. Much better than any other version. THey make it so entertaining, and fun to watch. And we have Debbie Rochon...hehe...I like her. :) All I have to say is this is a great film, very funny, and Lemmy is a good host for it. The acting is good, and Kaufman directs stylishly as always. Must see for all TROMA FANS! ah man this movie was funny as hell, yet strange. i like how they kept the shakespearian language in this movie, it just felt ironic because of how idiotic the movie really was. this movie has got to be one of troma's best movies. highly recommended for some senseless fun! Who else other than Troma can take the classic tragedy and change it around to todays standards???? No one....in my opinion the Leonardo DiCaprio one sucked. Tromeon & juliet is a definite stretch from the original Shakesperan tragedy, but it holds up well. Its sick, demented, twisted, but yet insanely funny and fulfilling. For the most part it follows the true Romeo and Juliet story, but many Troma elements are added. Will Keenan gives a great performance as Tromeo. The acting is solid and the story is great. Many people look past these movies, not only the Kaufman Troma movies, but all the ones they distribute. Sure Troma movies are an acquired taste, but you need to see some of these. It is renegade filmmaking at it's best. i L-O-V-E this movie... everyone and their grandmother's sister's lawyer's dentist needs to own it! its witty, devilish, thrilling, comedic, and full of toasty action-packed goodness! with this movie, those amazing people at troma offer you a whole new perspective into the story of romeo and juliet in ways you never would have thought to be possible! it has all the makings of an instant classic-- car crashes, deliciously lewd sex scenes, feuding families, street fights, amazing music, severed heads, and lemmy from motörhead narrates the story line! and thats only a taste of what it has to offer! every single person i have watched this movie with now owns their own copy or longs to... A+++++ and ++ Tromeo and Juliet is perhaps the best Shakespeare modernization I have ever seen, not that there's much competition, but anyway...

All in all, Tromeo and Juliet is definitely one of Troma's better movies, one of the little pearls hidden in a towering heap of dung. It's a funny, action-packed, gory take on the world's greatest love story, but still manages to follow the original story as faithfully as one can except from this kind of movie. Well, except for the ending, where Tromeo and Juliet kill Juliet's abusive father, and live happily together in a sunny suburban area for the rest of their lives with their hideously mutated children.

THIS is the movie high school literature classes should show instead of making poor students read through hundreds and hundreds of pages of Shakespeare's scripts. Thumbs up! ROMEO AND JULIET had been interpreted in so many ways, but very few of the versions captured the essance of the play. The ony ones I can think of that really nail the romance's spirit were WEST SIDE STORY and, beleive it or not, Troma Film's TROMEO AND JULIET. At first glance, this is another mere splatterfest, and many would think it bastardizes the Shakespearian classic. However, the film has an honest feel about it. Updated to appeal to the sick-minded youth of today, of course, but not without merit. Yes, the frequent dismemberments, body piercings, car crashes, lesbian sex scenes, masturbation and incest are in bad taste, but what's the harm when you have such a sweet love story as the foundation? As bad as most of the acting in this film is (I mean, it IS Troma, after all), the two leads have some genuine chemistry, more so than in big-budget monstrosities TITANIC and STAR WARS EPISODE TWO. There's a great deal of modernization, but much of the original text is in tact, especially when Tromeo and Juliet are together. There's a great scene where Juliet utters the famous, "Parting is such sweet sorrow," and tromeo quickly follows, in mid-nineties grunge fashion, "Yeah, it totally sucks." I think it's truly unfortunate that this film isn't going to get the recognition or the wide release that it deserves. I hop that people who see this on the video store shelves won't be turned off by the grossmess in the movie, because they'd be missing out on quite a subversive expereience. One of the more interesting films I've seen. Lord Montague is

black, Lord Capulet is in charge of the porn industry that was

handed down to him by Montague, not to mention the dismemberment of fingers, the squishing of heads, etc. etc.

Another Troma hit, this beats the Toxic Avenger. This is by far my

favorite Troma flick... And there's a priest who fights like Bruce Lee. Nothing can beat

that. -Joefro This movie is a absolute masterpiece!, 'Tromeo and Juliet' has all the Kinky Sex, Car Crashes, Mutations and a Penis Monster that Shakespeare always wanted but never got! This is Shakespeares classic retold, Troma Style! Tromeo and Juliet is about two rival familys named; the Que's and the Capulet's, non of the familys ever got along ever since Cappy Capulet (Juliet's father) screwed Monty Que (Tromeo's father) in the filmmaking business. Two rival familys grow apart, until Tromeo and Juliet find true love together and when each side hear of this..blood shed is the least that happens!..Yes! Tromeo and Juliet is the Troma classic adored by fans world wide! Witness Harry Balls (The Penis Monster) first feature film! and also has Lemmy's first Troma appearance...what are you waiting for?? Now go out and rent the movie!!

10/10

I don't think the world was ready for this film. I know I wasn't. I'd been expected a standard low-budget schlock exploitation potboiler. Instead, I got the most intelligent reworking of Shakespeare since Peter Greenaway's "Prospero's Books". This should become the definitive film version of Romeo And Juliet. It won't of course. But that's the world's loss. What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's "Comic Book Whore" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome! This film is a brilliant retelling of Shakespeare's classic love story, complete with "kinky sex, body piercing, and dismemberment". It does follow the same spirit as all the other Troma movies [except Combat Shock...That sucker was depressing] but it's not only for Troma fans. Anybody who appreciates lowbrow visuals and a hilarious script will without a doubt fall in love with this movie.

Don't expect pretentious, artistic-wannabe crap like the version of R&J with Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio; this one knows its a silly movie and draws its humor from that. The acting is also surprisingly good, and you can just feel Sammy Capulet's pain as he tries to put his brain back into his head.

The soundtrack, which contains many original and high-energy bands like The Wesley Willis Fiasco, Supernova, and The Meatmen is also four-star. This movie should be viewed by all, because it remains faithful to the original story while still being jam-packed with Troma's trademark gore/sex humor. I found it real shocking at first to see William Shakespeare's love masterpiece reworked into a gory, violent and kinky sensual movie adaptation. But after you watched it once, it sort of grows on you when you watch it the second and third times, as you come over the shock and start appreciating the movie on its own merits - solid acting, good dialogue, nice sequencing and choreography, not-too-bad soundtrack and some of the (special) effects that go on. Oh, and also the ending. What a riot! This movie is amazing. It is funny, sexy, violent and sick, but it all holds together for a brilliant Troma rendition of Romeo and Juliet. If you don't mind being grossed out a bit (ok a lot, but it's funny grossed out), see this movie. It's worth it!There's not one level on which it doesn't deliver. I've seen it thrice now, and it is still amazing. I recommend it. Go! Get it! This was the best movie ever has seen on "Germen's Cine Club" (Buenos Aires) This movie is a realistic critic of the society of the past and the next century. It cause a very good impression to all the partners of "Germen's Cine Club". I recommend this movie to all the fans of Troma and to all the people who like the good movies, not the commercial movies. I think it was François Truffaut who said that the best movies either involve the joy of making movies, or the agony of making movies. This flick is definitely of the first type. Tromeo and Juliet is a pleasure to watch from start to finish. The zany zeal fuelling this Shakespearian shenanigan is infective. I don't think I've laughed so hard since I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's that good! Superb! Even the Author was laughing at the end. And what a "balcony" scene! This film has it all. Wickedly funny and yet strangely faithful to the Bard of Avon. (But NOT for the Faint of Heart!) AND... the Best Credits since Monty Python and The Holy Grail! I am "Troma"Tized! These guys combine low-brow with low-budget. It's glorious.

Look- if you want Bergman, rent "7th Seal" or something. If you want to see gross-out humor and exploitation sex, this is the one.

I think Jane Jensen as Julia makes it all watchable. She can actually act (really well), she's a complete dreamboat, and she doesn't seem to feel above it all. Can this really be a Troma movie? Some scenes almost have an "A" movie look. The acting is generally competent (the two leads and the nurse-surrogate were especially good, and I liked some of the confrontations between the young Capulets and Ques); the scenes were smoothly edited; the plot is coherent. It's funny. It has a hip, original sound track.

It does have the usual Troma gross-outs and low humor, but I don't think Shakespeare would have minded so much. In fact, I think he might have gotten a few good laughs out of this.

It's a good DVD. There is an alternate sound track with a very informative commentary by the director, several deleted scenes, and the usual collection of Troma self-deprecating silliness.

I'm not going to tell you this was Citizen Kane, but it is some pretty inspired low-budget filmmaking. If you've never been "Tromatized", this is the Troma movie to see first. Amazing acting, supercharged soundtrack, and bust-a-gut humor blend perfectly with Troma's unique brand of storytelling and special effects. Despite straying from a word for word retelling of Romeo and Juliet, the fact that it stays in iambic pentameter gives you the odd feeling that it's closer to Shakespeare than that overdone music video with DiCaprio and Danes. I assumed I'd seen the ultimate Shakespearian comedy when the cast of Moonlighting overhauled The Taming of the Shrew, but nothing comes close to Tromeo and Juliet. I strongly recommend the DVD version, which contains a second audio track with director Lloyd Kaufman which is just as entertaining as the main track. It's the story of three brothers pulling together in the midst of hardship and loss, and learning that the really important things in life are family, love, trust, and forgiveness. The entire cast manages to pull in a powerful performance despite a few lousy one-liners. A great film for fans of true to life problems befalling believable families. Also worth a look for fans of Dermot Mulroney or Sean Astin. They both do an astounding job, often bringing you to tears. Take my word for it and rent this today! Not for everyone, but I really like it. Nice ensemble cast, with nice contributions from better known players (like Stockard Channing) and strong eye candy (from Sheila Kelley). What really works is the bond between the three brothers! Try it, you'll smile a little. For those not in the know, the Asterix books are a hugely successful series of comic books about a village of indomitable Gauls who resist Caesar's invasion thanks to a magic potion that renders them invulnerable supermen. There have been several animated features (only one of them, The Twelve Tasks of Asterix really capturing the wit and spirit of the books despite being an original screen story) before a perfectly cast Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu took the lead roles in two live action adaptations that proved colossally successful throughout Europe but made no impression whatsoever in the English-speaking world.

The uncut French version is great fun, but sadly does not appear to be available in a version with English subtitles outside of the UK DVD. While there's still no sign of a US theatrical or DVD release, the Miramax version of Asterix et Obelix: Mission Cleopatre is also on that DVD (and has played on UK TV), and you'll never guess what - it's been completely re-edited (at least 21 minutes gone) and dubbed into English. Maybe Harve mistook it for a Hong Kong movie - after all, he never saw a foreign film he didn't think couldn't be improved by heavy re-editing and shelving for a few years.

Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good. The film was the best attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, but a lot of the classical references are gone (such as the great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Cyrano de Bergerac references from Depardieu), alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely (a couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English).

Not a total disaster, but very disappointing considering how good the full-length version is. It would be nice to think that Miramax would do a Shaolin Soccer and release both versions, but since they've shelved both films for two years since paying $45m for them (another classic case of Harvey's notorious chronic buyer's remorse: gee, wonder why Disney were so p****d at their overspending) and still have no release plans, that may just be too much wishful thinking.

It's a real pity that such an accessible and entertaining film will now only be available to non-French speakers in such a clumsily bowdlerised version. It seems the plucky Gauls may have been able to defeat Caesar's legions but are no match for the Miramax jackboot. This is definitely a "must see" film. The excellent Director Alain Chabat (also acting as Ceasar) has managed to capture the very essence of the "Adventures of Astérix" (the French comic books it's based upon) and to create a fantastically modern and intelligent comedy, which is also an homage to the world of animated films. This movie is so funny, so full of jokes (both visual and spoken) that it might take you two or three screenings before you notice them all, between your bursts of laughter. The only drawback is that a non-French audience (or at least a non-French speaking audience) might not get all the "private jokes". There are so many dialogues impossible to translate, so many situations directly related either to the comic books or to the French way of life, that the fun might be lessened. However, it's still totally worth seeing for the beautiful picture, the amazing stunts, the music, the totally crazy atmosphere and the excellent acting. All actors are great, but the film would not be the same without Jamel Debouze, Gérard Darmon and Edouard Baer. And please don't EVER compare this magnificent film to the terrible previous one based on the same comic books : "Astérix et Obélix Contre César" and directed by Claude Zidi. Making a movie about a Comic is hard to do. Making a good movie about a Comic is extremely hard to do. Making a good movie about Asterix & Obelix has been done.

This movie shows that the french do know how to make an : a) funny , b) hilarious , c) beautiful , d) superb movie. The acting is no less than superb , the sunny feel to the whole movie is perfect .. A MUST see ! This just has to be the funniest thing to come out since we started the new millenium.. 10/10 I was lucky to see this sequel before the original because i'm not sure i would have gone out of my way to see it if the contrary had been true. I found "Mission Cléopâtre" better than it's predecessor for different reasons, but the major one is this : it was almost word for word an adaptation of one book not an amalgam like the first movie. The physical resemblance of some characters to their animated self were very funny especially the bad guy (who's name is escaping me, but he's the other architect). I don't know how this movie played in English; my first language is french so i didn't have that problem... I imagine some of the jokes weren't that easy to translate. I've learned something with years it's better to watch a movie with the subtitles than with the dubbing maybe you wont understand what is said, but you wont lose the rhythm and i think that's important too. I would recommend this movie to anyone who really loves "Astérix et Obélix". I loved this film, the audience I was part of loved this film, and the little 7 year old girl who was with me loved this film. We all laughed at the puns, the visual humour, and the good feeling you left the cinema with when it ended. I could easily see why it was such a huge box-office success in France. I am planning on buying the DVD, so I can see it again and laugh at all the bits I missed as I was laughing so hard the first time. I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!! Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: "They will never look for it here" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!

Grz Da Jean Holland After I read that ''At the time of its release in 2002, its budget of $47 million, or 327,000,000 FRF, was said to make it the costliest French film ever. However, Astérix et Obélix contre César (1999) had a budget of $48 million, or 274,620,000 FRF, which supposedly made it the most expensive French film ever'' I discovered the reason why I found this movie to be one of the most beautiful and colorful of all I have ever seen. I loved the scenarios,the clothes(specially the ones from Cleopatra) and the atmosphere of the movie! It's so happy and cheerful! I found the jokes smart and hilarious and I have to consider this movie to be in my favorite comedies of all times!

The cast is also excellent, with Monica Bellucci(who is very beautiful as Cleopatra)Gérard Depardieu,(great Obelix!!Christian Clavier, Jamel Debbouze(That I saw for the first time in ''Amélie Poulain'') among others!:)

I recommend this movie even for people who doesn't know Asterix and Obelix comics. You are going to have a great amount of fun!:)

aka "Asterix e Obelix: Missão cleópatra" - Brazil This film is the smartest comedy I have ever seen, a lot of jokes are either a parody of another film, (from star wars to dragon ball to power rangers to kung fu etc..) or somehow related to history of whatever, (Otis creates the elevator), a lot of jokes are also related to the modern world and made fun of because it was B.C. (Like the wheels of the horse wagon spinning) Other jokes are just plain total non-sense but also hilarious (like the famous scene, with the dog running after the roman guy with the little music) In fact in this movies they mix pretty much every kind of humor. I watched this film 6 times already and every single time I watch it I find other subtle jokes. (like the scene where waldo is part of the Egyptian crowd). It is the funniest movie I have every seem, finally a laugh-out-loud comedy, that doesn't include toilet or sex humor. Numerobis is also what makes the movie, everything that comes out of that guys mouth is hilarious. This movie is nearly perfect except a few clichéd thing, like the fact that Asterix gets his power back because he is kissed, that is plain stupid. But overall an excellent movie!! 9.5 out 10 I would say to the foreign people who have seen this movie and who did not understand it that it is normal because it was based on massive plays on words. A person not knowing about the French cultural funny references in this film could not follow all the subtleties. The movie has been a huge success in France and all the actors are well renowned here. I've read every adventure of Asterix and Obelix at least 5 times and I'm also a fan of "Les Nuls" and "Les Robins des Bois" and Jamel so I expected a lot from this movie.... and I finally got satisfied. Unlike the first adaptation of Asterix on the big screen (Astérix et Obélix contre César) which wasn't a real success besides the appearance of Laetitia Casta, this one really captures the spirit of the comic (and we get the beautiful Monica Bellucci). In the first movie the director tried to be too realistic about the time where the story is set and it killed the whole spirit that made Asterix hilarious. In this one all the clothing, the way of talking and everything is identical to Goscinny and Uderzo's work... more, it really stick to the original story with the downside that we know pretty much everything that's going to happen but Alain Chabat gave us a few surprises at the end. I really enjoyed that movie, and everytime that the first sign of boringness starts to appear, Jamel comes in and makes us laugh like crazy. This movie is a big mix of all the kind of humor I really like, and even if maybe it's mixing it too much, I can't help but to like it. So, if you like Asterix and the humor of all these young talents that started in "Nulle part Ailleurs" (a french mix of the tonight show and SNL) go see this movie. I just managed to find a copy of "Mission Cleopatra," which is not as easy as you would think for someone living in the United States. So far, I have only watched about the first 10 minutes of the film, and I can safely say that I laughed more in those 10 minutes than I did watching the entirety of the *first* live action Asterix movie.

I am watching the dubbed version, and while the dubbing job is a little disconcerting, I have found the movie to be very funny and true to the book. I see that people on here have said that the dubbed version is very inferior to the subtitled version, that may very well be true, and after I watch the subtitled version (also on my DVD) I may have to come on here and alter my review. As it stands, though, I find it to be a very entertaining movie, and it more than makes up for the mess which they made out of the first movie. It is the first time I can recall where an adaptation did exactly like the book... In fact, only jokes were added to the story rather than content blended or removed!

Such as the Egyptian slave Cellularis who had difficulty transmitting, um, communicating, LOL! Or when Tidivinnus was played like a quasi-Sith Lord and got annoyed when the Roman Empire endured a blow, the general ordered for the Empire to..? Ah, watch the movie folks!

I can easily believe that this picture was one of the most expensive in French Cinema History and for my part it was worth it, Depardieux was excellent as the Roman bashing and Boar chomping Obelix. Clavier playing the little indomitable Gaul was perfect and a far cry from his days as the bumbling squire of Jean Reno in "Just Visiting."

The fight-scene between Artifis and Edifis was hilarious and was nice to see the Matrix theme was not borrowed to despoil an otherwise perfect battle!

Redbeard the pirate and his crew almost stole the picture, from scuttling their own ship to being the engine for Otis' (Edifis' Assistant) invention used at the very end.

I understand there's Asterix and the Olympics with many of the same team back, by Toutatis, I plan to view that too! I watched Asterix and Obelix in Operation Cleopatra, which was my first exposure to the live action version of the classic comic. Like the comic the whole movie is full of jokes based upon puns, anachronistic jokes and slapstick gags which rarely fall flat.

Asterix and Obelix are Gauls who use a strength potion to fight the Roman legions in their native Gaul. Here they end up in Egypt helping a friend build Cesar's palace (yes its puny) in three months to prove the Egyptians are just as good as the Romans.

The reason I picked this up was because Monica Belluci is Cleopatra. She's good but the role is little more than a cameo. However, even though she's rarely in the film I didn't care since its so clever and the jokes so funny I was in hysterics. I loved it. I loved it so much that I can't understand why the movies have never been released in the United States.

The import DVD has the film in English dub- which is quite good especially when you consider that when you watch it in the longer French version the puns (and hence the jokes) are not always apparent since they are aural, so if you read the names wrong the jokes are lost. Most of the jokes between the full French version and the shorter English dub seem to be exactly the same, though some have been changed sometimes for the better and some times for the worse. Personally I'm gonna stick with the dub when I watch this again since its easier to pick up the jokes and enjoy the humor.

You really will want to see this if you love puns and low brow, but clever humor This is a great comedy A great combination: - Chabat's humor - Uderzo/Goscinny world and characters - limited presence of Christian Clavier

The original Comics was great - one of the better of an overall great series - and Alain Chabat, one of the funniest member of the famous French group Les Nuls, was able to film, replicate and supplement, the great work done by goscinny and uderzo by cleverly enforcing the story, giving to Djamel Debouze his best role (at last a little bit far from his usual repeatable part), gathering a bunch of great actors (Gerard darmon is wonderful, as often, Chabat himself is a great Cesar).

In addition, while being obligated to keep on with Christian Clavier as Asterix, Chabat cleverly tuned down his role in the movie to give prominence to Darmon and Debouze... which is always a good idea!

=> Great environment, great scenario, great director, great actors, great humor, beautiful Cleopatra... This movie would have deserved a 10 if Clavier hadn't been involved. The second live action outing for Asterix is far better than the glued together elements of ten different stories that was called the first film, instead staying fairly close to the original comic.

In a nutshell, Queen Cleopatra has made a bet with Caeser to build a palace in Egypt to show that the Egyptians are a great people. Royal Architect Edifis seeks the help of Asterix, Obelix and druid Getafix to complete his task. There are several laugh out loud moments, some jokes that only the French might get (jibes at the 35 hour week) while others that are more universal. The big budget special effects are spectacular but overshadowed by the jokes from the original comic.

Depardieu and Clavier still work brilliantly as a pair while Monica Bellucci makes perfect casting as Cleopatra. Also, for fans of the comics the hilarious pirates get a look making up for their absence in film 1. In the original French version, the jokes of Numérobis (great, funny voice - Jamel Debbrouze) are very funny.

But in translated versions (I saw the German & English version) it's not half good than the original.

But: goof Special Effects, almost the full comic (with differences, like the Figure of Lügnix (German name) is placed in an other comic book.

Sure, the Asterix comic book are cult, but when you watch the animated comic movies from 1968 to 1998 you will see much better jokes, better story and the old "charme" and "flair" of the cult stories.

For French speaking people I suggest to watch it in it's original version, with or without subtitles, where available in different languages. I don't know about the English version of this movie, but the Norwegian translation is the funniest movie I've seen in many years. The characters say so many funny things and make so many weird references to current events that I'm amazed they kept having more options, like the architect who can never say the name of the wizard Miraculix correctly. It becomes things like Malcom(i)X and "utenriks", which is Norwegian for foreign affairs.

Like the word "utenriks", many of the translations does not give any meaning in English, and probably not in French either, so the translators must have made up their own jokes, and done so very well. Of course, they have a very good base to build on, with a film that's simply comical from beginning to end!

Recommended in all languages with a good translation! If you are French native, then you find this movie extremely funny. It's good, just good! Can though imagine that subtitles or translations don't mean much in english. The above line sums it up pretty good. The best assets of the comics are it's visual gags and word-jokes (the latter of which are almost impossible to translate, which is why the comics are at their best in their original language).

Both are quite hard to capture in film, which is why those will never be as good as the comics. Movies are simply a different medium than comics. With that in mind, this movie does surprisingly well in capturing the fun of the comic.

The word gags are bearable, and sometimes even funny (Debouze does an Amelie reference!). I have to mention that I watched the french version. If you don't watch the french version or your lack of understanding of the french language limits you to the subtitles, the word jokes will probably suck.

The slapstick is okay as well; it's a very simple form of humor, and not really funny when you're older than twelve, but it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. The other visual jokes are the movie's saving grace for the older audience, as their often quite funny.

The acting is totally over the top, but again, that's not annoying at all as it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. Only Depardieu and Clavier don't really overact, which might be the reason some people think they didn't enjoy their roles (I didn't notice a thing). On the other hand Jamel Debouze and especially Claude Rich turn overacting into an artform. It's actually fun to watch. Again, I fear it wouldn't be nearly as funny when the voices are dubbed.

Overall not a bad movie at all, much better than the previous one. It's not a classic and it doesn't dethrone The Twelve Tasks of Asterix as my favourite Asterix movie, but it's still worth seeing. The french version, that is. 7/10 This movie is quite better than the first one "Astérix et Obelix contre César", but it is far away from perfection. The adaptation of the comic book is good, some of the pictures and the dialogs of the movie are the same as in the book. But there's few things that made the movie not as interresting as the animated movie released in 1968. For example the fighting between Numerobis and Amonbofis. This wasn't necessary or even credible, either for the little love story of Astérix. There were also some stuff missing, like the songs that are in the animated movie, and some other things... I am deceived by the movie because they cutted in the stuff I was expecting tho see and they showed things that I did not wanted or needed to see. I know that it would have been very difficult to make the movie exactly the same than the comic book or the animated movie, but that's what I expected. In conclusion, even if the movie is good, I still prefer the animated movie, wich is in my opinion, far better. The French people are not known to be great movie producers.

Though their Amelie scores high points at the Oscars. Asterix et Obelix is a very different film of what I am used to from the French. It is a great movie especially for kids. The only thing that boddert me was that it was spoken in French and subtiteld. Normally with the english spoken movies (here in the Netherlands) I don't have to read the subtitles. But with the French language you just have to read to understand. The story it self is just great with Obelix who doesn't recall him self of beïng fat, but there also nice details mainly in names like brucewillix and malcomix. You all know the story from the comic books and this movie shows all most slide by slide the book. Every thing is in it, from the Sfinx nose braking till pirate red beards lose of three more ships. I would say a great movie for the weekend with the children. This movie is just great... It starts out real slow and boring but as the movie progresses.....well the fun keeps on coming. The power of the movie is perhaps in it's subtle references to a lot (and I mean a lot) of other movies. For me the best part was perhaps the Bruce Lee/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scene. How the two actors switches from French to Chinese or whatever Asian language it was, it was awesome. Then the jokes with the names, they are hilarious but perhaps you won't understand all of them when your an American (no offense). Overall a great movie I was a little afraid when I went to the cinema to see this movie. Indeed, it is always tough to make a movie from a comics and the first episode of the adventures of the French two greatest heroes was good but not fantastic. Finally, it is very funny from the beginning to the end with unexpected gags, some cartoon scenes, no timeouts, great FX, a great cast, great landscapes, great everything !!!

However, I wonder how they will manage to translate all the French names in English or German, because it is certainly funny in French but how will it be in another language ??? Eh oui, impossible n'est pas gaulois.

Well paced, highly entertaining film. Pretty good command of the French language and knowledge of modern France (and history) are recommended. I don't think this film really works in any other language. The film is incredibly much better than the previous one (In search of...). Apart from great actors and savvy camera handling it's the wit and firework of allusions, word plays etc. that make for a really great movie. The cartoon vorlage is recognizable but the film is very emancipated. The cost of the film is put to good use. Indeed, all the special effects fit 'naturally' into the movie, you never feel choked by them.

Bref, oui, les 2CVs, ça traîne un peu mais à part cela, Imhotep!

-A neighbour from the other side of the Rhine Cleopatra (the delicious Monica Bellucci) is challenged by Cesar (Alain Chabat): in order to prove that the Egyptians are better than the Romans, she promises to build a fancy castle for Cesar in a period of three months, without any delay. She calls the one-arm architect Numerobis (Jamel Debbuzi) and gives him two options: to be covered by gold if he accomplishes his mission, or become crocodile food if he fails. Numerobis will ask for help to Panoramix (Claude Rich), Asterix (Christian Clavier) and Obelix (Geraard Depardieu) (with Ideiafix). This movie is very funny, specially the parts where Obelix and the Pirates leaded by Red Beard participate. However, the screenwriter and the director should have noted that French is not an universal language as English is. Therefore, the jokes with words (like in Austin Powers movies, for example) does not work well for people strange to French language. French people and persons fluent in French language will certainly like these jokes, but they do not make any sense for me, that do not speak French. My vote is seven. The second (not animated) movie about the only people still refusing to surrender to the Roman Empire is even more hilarious than the first film "Asterix & Obelix contre Ceasar".

Where the first movie got all the laughs because all cartoon-characters were so perfectly brought to life without losing their cartoonesque identity, this sequel (which is a separate story as are all the comic-books) is even better. Sure, all the ingredients that you find in the first movie and in the comic-books are present again: Obelix is still dying to taste the "magic potion" that gives his other tribe members such enormous powers, Caesar and the rest of the Roman Empire are still enemy number 1, but some new, refreshing elements have been brought to the stage as well.

Not only is setting very idyllic (biggest part plays of course in Egypt) but rather than repeating movie number one, some extras have been added by making all kinds of references to other movies (Bruce Lee etc.). This is all not very new, but the unexpected combination of the known story from the comic-book (with almost the same title as the movie) and references to stuff that has got absolutely nothing to do with Asterix & Obelix really works.

In that way the movie builds further on a tradition by comic-writers Goscinny and Uderzo who didn't hesitate to bring Laurel and Hardy on the stage and even dedicate an entire story to Kirk Douglas.

If all of this doesn't convince you to watch this movie, I'm sure Monica Bellucci playing Cleopatra will.... You cannot be seeing the same movie if you didn't grow up in France (or spent at least 10 years there, like me). I don't know if it will ever make it outside French cultural borders (I include Belgium and Luxembourg here). You cannot translate its kind of fun - every name is joke (how many people outside Paris would understand the pun in "Couloirdebus", the name of one of the Roman legionnaires ?). However Monica Bel(l?)ucci is so beautiful, I almost forgot to breathe when I saw her. The second film about the adventures of the Gaulois pair Asterix & Obelix is 10 times better than the first. The humor is great (and irreverant) and the script is well executed taken from the original 1965 comic book by Goscinny & Uderzo. I fell asleep with the first film (although i am a great fan of Asterix) and was reluctant to see this sequel, but i am glad this movie proved me wrong. Excellent comedy for everyone. Highly Recommended! A film of high intelligence and activity. As well as being a strong capsule of the time and persona that was the 60's, the film is also TRULY a surprise in its forward-thinking themes and the unique presentation of the system of power in a group. William Greaves appoints himself to the authoritative role in the group. He asks his crew members to film and film and keep filming. First the two actors, then the crew filming the actors, then the entire set including bystanders, policemen, and finally a homeless man whose been living in bushes in Central Park for 9 weeks.

Greaves edits the film (thousands of feet) together and surprisingly makes a strong narrative with an interesting arc and motivations. Don't expect to be bored by this film. Each of crew make for engaging conversationalists and often times are voicing the thoughts that the observer has watching this film. Greaves does well at integrating the multiple camera takes using synchronized three-in-one pictures and other attention shifting methods.

In the end, the film will really only be effective if it's what YOU'RE looking for: if you're looking for some abstract arty film that feeds your own self-indulgent ego while never having a point, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a film that will have you talking and thinking long afterward about the desire for honesty and sincerity in documented "reality" and the inevitable transparency that comes of it, then this is the perfect film. In 1968 when, "SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: Take One", was released, it came from out of nowhere, and struck like a psychedelic thunder bolt. Afro-American actor and film maker, William Greaves, aimed to forever alter the 'news-reel' style of documentary film-making, and to this day, there has never been anything quite like it. The movie is a film about 'the making of a film', and intentionally written and directed so as to create as much controversy and contradiction as possible. Set in New York's Central Park, the action and scant dialog concern a couple who fight and bicker about homosexuality and abortion. The woman wants out of the relationship, and the man wants an explanation. Near the end of this interaction, a drunk homeless man interrupts the proceedings and offers his commentary, and personal back-story. Then, after the principle footage has been shot, the film crew add their own views of the film-maker and what they feel is his inept handling of the movie. And during the entire film, multiple cameras are employed to record the action within the scene, and extraneous commentary by cast, crew, and onlookers. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone who has an interest in Avant Garde film makers such as Andy Warhol, John Cassavetes, or Jim Jarmusch. William Greaves attempts to show that a thing cannot be truly observed and understood because the viewing itself would alter the reality. "SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: Take One" can be seen as a cinematic representation or application of The Uncertainty Principle. This is only one possible explanation, and Greave's true intent is certainly open for speculation. Above all else, this film seeks to confound, confront. and stimulate, and without a doubt, succeeds admirably. This is a documentary unlike any other. It has so many layers and shows us so much that trying to analyze it all at once is nearly impossible. Documentarian William Greaves shows us the process of film-making from a different perspective. We see the struggles of the actors, the director, the sound crew, and everybody else trying to hang in there and make this film successful. If this was just about a movie being made it would be ordinary. What Greaves does is make it more complex by having a crew film the actors, and then this will be filmed by another crew, only to have another crew film the whole thing. Three cameras, each with a different goal. It has an almost dizzying affect on you but at the same time is exciting. I like the parts where the crew organizes together and discusses what is going on. Even they are somewhat in the dark as to what Greaves is trying to do. Half see this as an experiment while the other half sees it as a chaotic and confusing failure. No matter what side you choose, you can't argue that Greaves doesn't get you involved in this process. How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).

The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.

It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".

--PolarisDiB On June 22nd, 1941, the city of Przemysl, Poland is divided between German and Russian. When the German invades the city, the Nazis send the Jews to a ghetto. The young Catholic Fusia Podgorska (Kellie Martin), alone with her young sister, lodges and hides many Jews in the attic of her house along two and half years until the end of the war. "Hidden in Silence" is another good story of human sympathy in World War II. This film looks like "Rescuers: Stories of Courage", and is also based on a true story. Unfortunately, the actress Kellie Martin performs a strong and powerful lead character, but she is very weak for such a role. In many dramatic situations, the expression of her face is not convincing. I have noted that many IMDb Users liked her performance, but I am not sure whether they like her wonderful character or her performance indeed. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ocultos no Medo" ("Hidden in Fear") This is the underrated Kellie Martin's best role. Based on a true story, it tells the story of Fusia's attempt to save the members of the Diamant family and other Jews she meets over time. One of my all-time favorite movie scenes involves an heroic act by Fusia's little sister. All children should see this scene-role models like this are very few and far between. The movie is well written and acted. I am a movie lover and this movie I rate a 10 on imbd's rating system. It is on my top 25 movies of all time and should be put out on video.

Mike Porter I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger. This movie just screened on Channel Seven - Australian TV - today.

In my opinion, it was a very interesting take on how the Nazi's treated the Russian Jews as mercilessly as everywhere else.

Kellie Martin did a really great job, and her tears and frustration as "Frusia" were quite convincing.

The Holocaust is a part of our history that WE MUST NOT FORGET. Schindlers List wasn't the first - and it wont be the last - account of survival and courage in that five year nightmare. My family is Dutch, and I will always applaud any movie makers who want to keep the candlelight alive by telling of someone's courage to stand up and help those who were being abused, violated and murdered for being "A Jew." I thought that i wrote a comment on this movie before, but i can't find it on here. anyway, i am writing it again. I accidentally found this movie from my college's library collections. It was free to watch, so why not.

I am certainly glad that I watched it. I love this movie. I have seen a few Russian movies before, most of them have serious topics. I am surprised that this was one a good comedy. I had a great laugh while watching it. and this is a movie that i want to buy. this thing is so funny. and they are not just silly funny, those plots were very original, and well thought, so they don't seem to be silly at all. I am surprised that this movie didn't attract many viewers. This is a classic that you can watch it over and over.

those actors were also very authentic, their acting are real, not faked. if you haven't watched it, go get a copy soon! definitely recommended. A funny and scathing critique of Russian society and culture during the transition from communism, OKNO V PARIZH also shows the west in an unfavorable light. A group of Russians living in St. Petersburg (a.k.a. Peter the Great's "window on the west") find a magic portal that instantly transports them to Paris. Mamin's film is truly hilarious, and just "weird" enough constantly keep even the jaded film viewer on his toes. The songs, the dream sequences, and the deliciously disgusting fringes of society from both cultures mingle to create a memorable and meaningful film. Anyone trying to understand the shift in Russian cultural sentiments since the fall of the USSR should begin here. My first Mamin film, saw it on IFC long ago, and LOVED it. It seemed absolutely artistic, original, fun and hilarious. Not a moment in the film let me down or made me bored, and i was laughing a lot or had a smile on my face. I mean this movie is truly funny. But here's the catch: it's also very artistic and creative - if you don't know Yuri Mamin (probably, sadly, because so many of his GREAT films aren't available here) he has a very original style like no one else's, and for me this isn't even my favorite film of his (right now it's the insane ("Saideburns/Bakenbardy"). Also, i have to say as a Russian, this film is great because you really do see what Russians are like. And this is possible because this is a true Russian film to me, NOT a foreign film trying to be American or trying to appeal; Mamin did not sell out (nor has he since, Gorko (1998) was as good if not better. This is true Russian style filmaking that came out of communist Social realism.

If you liked this film, i think you have a very high chance of loving Mamin's other films, in fact i like quite a few of them more than this one. I guess this one is his most accessible film. A similar film is Fountain, taking place 6 years before during perestroika, it has the same actor in the leading role, and more of Mamin's regulars who you will recognize from Window to Paris; this one has one supernatural twist in the end but is mostly a realistic comedy, a great one. Viva Mamin, hopefully Criterion will hook all of his movies up one day, he's still working, and his catalog is so great! See any of his films if you can. One of the most unfairly maligned programmes of all time, 'Terry & June' was also one of the most popular sitcoms of the '70's and '80's.

It started life as 'Happy Ever After', but when Eric Merriman decided he didn't want to write any more, it changed into this, hence the dropping of 'Aunt Lucy' and the Fletcher's becoming the Medford's.

Yes, it was cosy, domestic, middle-class stuff; the plots ran the gamut of clichés from the boss coming to dinner, the vicar organising a jumble sale, and unwanted relatives coming to stay for the weekend. It was certainly not 'dreadful lazy comedy'. As for it being 'not clever', it was not meant to be. It was funny and well performed, and that was enough!

I too loved the 'alternative' boom of the '80's ( 'Spitting Image', 'Black Adder', 'The Young Ones' etc. ) but also enjoyed conventional stuff such as this. If nothing else, it provided alternative comedy with something to be an alternative to. I found it sad though when the likes of Ben Elton took against both this and Benny Hill. Well, family oriented comedy has all but vanished from our screens, but where has it left us? Take a look at the latest T.V. schedules. All soaps and reality dross. The few comedies left are aimed at teenagers, meaning they are jam packed with swearing, bodily function jokes, and explicit sexual references. And they are not remotely funny either.

The 'alternative comedy' boom was good in many ways, but had a dark side. It made conventional sitcoms appear old fashioned, drove away talented writers and performers such as Spike Milligan, and ultimately led to such unspeakable drivel as 'Little Britain' and 'Tittybangbang' ( heaven help us ). If it ain't broke, don't fix it! terry and june in my mind, is a all time classic, along the ranks with bless this house with the late sid james and the late diana coupland, but terry scott will be sadly missed even tho he passed away in 1994. i have all the dvds upto press and i look forward to getting all 9, also would be nice to see "happy after ever" released on DVD

june whitfield is still going strong and terry scott will always live on in my memory

terry scott r.i.p. there aren't many comedies today that i can think of that will stay in the legends list and yes the middle class bit does get on some peoples wicks but i don't mind, i think it would be brilliant to see some celebration of the life of terry scott When the long running 'Happy Ever After' came to an end, its characters- 'Terry & June Fletcher' were revived for the longer running and more popular sequel- 'Terry & June', although their surnames were changed from Fletcher to Medford.

Terry has received a new job and as a result, he and June move to Purley where they end up in all manner of scrapes- unwanted guests dropping by to visit at an inconvenient moment, the boss inviting himself to dinner and Terry trying to chance his arm at D.I.Y but cocking it up each time. A fellow IMDb user branded this show as 'not clever' and 'never well written'. Fair enough, it wasn't clever, but that was the whole point. As for 'never well written'- some of the episodes were pretty substandard, I will admit, but overall I found it to be extremely well written, highly amusing and very well acted.

It was warm hearted slapstick, not dissimilar to the later B.B.C sitcom 'Keeping Up Appearances'. Eight different writers contributed to the nine series, giving the show plenty of scope. Terry Scott was a comic genius, as he well proved in productions such as 'Hugh & I', the 'Carry On' films and of course, here! June Whitfield likewise was a comedy legend in her own right.

I enjoy some modern shows- i.e 'Still Game', 'The Catherine Tate Show', 'Legit' and 'Empty'. I even enjoyed the 'alternative comedy'- 'Naked Video', 'The Young Ones' and 'The Comic Strip Presents' but I am more inclined to enjoy vintage comedy, such as this. Humour that you don't need to think about is excellent for when you are feeling down and want to lift yourself up. For the record, 'Terry & June' was wonderful stuff. Special note should be made of the catchy theme tune which caught the mood of the show tremendously well! Terry and June was one of the classic British sitcoms in my opinion. You knew what to expect - and ain't that just so typical! :) Unlike modern sitcoms with utterly contrived plots, this show is still a breath of fresh air. How lovely not see or hear remarks about bodily functions or not to see a family PERPETUALLY late for breakfast or a family with impossible teenagers. And therein is the secret: Terry & June was based on a middle class couple living in relative harmony in stead of today's strained plots with the 'de rigueur' dysfunctional family (made to look hip).

Personally, I vote the "Bridge to far" episode as one of the best. In a way, Terry's antics reminds me of Basil Fawlty - both sometimes getting almost impossibly embarrassing!

Terry & June comes highly recommended. Have your tea and biscuits ready! This movie has one of the best club scenes, very good soundtrack (if you like techno/trance music)

some situations (As the main character Carl begins to take drugs for example) are a little off reality, but the plot is entertaining, but the characters are all a little shallow...

I'd not recommend you to see this film if you don't like techno music

For the plot/acting alone this movie is a 4/10, with the really cool special effects and the club scenes and soundtrack it's a 7/10, but if you would want to go to the movies just to hear nice tracks and grab a little club feeling, it's a 10/10.

the special effects are sometimes hidden, sometimes clearly visible. (i.e. fast moving clouds/sun/moon, morphing background, morphing cuts)

I for one enjoyed it very much, a shame there was no dancefloor in the cinema ;) Best club scenes that i have seen in a long time - atmosphere mesmerising - matthew Rhys's performance is impeccable and faultless. i would recommend this film to any age group. watch out for wonderwoman! The club scenes in this film are extremely believable, Tim Curry is in his most venal mode, and there are enough drugs and violence here for two movies, maybe even three. What more do you require from an evening's entertainment? Pump up the volume. I have rented this film out about 6 times! it is very well directed and the story is unique and grabs your attention from the beginning. Big up to Jason Donovan whose acting in this film was wicked and i loved the guy with the st fighter moves - goood! it's a super movie!!!! i only seen it once but it's very good if you like music like in disco's and don't have problem with drugs.... It's fantastic movie!!!! it's only a little bit to short! but when you watch the movie make sure your sound system is at 100%!!! then you will love the music in the film and the funny things that a guy from the country comes never drink any alcohol and then he is under drugs in the biggest disco's and love the music!!

the only problem is that i want to buy it and i can't find it! so if anyone knows where i could buy the movie pleas mail me!!!

greets me from Holland

pleas reply me!! How on earth this film isn't more widely regarded is beyond me.

I picked it up for £1, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it's the best pound I've ever spent on a film.

The thing that usually lets films about the club scene down is either the music or the actual scenes filmed in clubland.

Here, the music and club scenes are completely credible,using some big tunes of the time, and filmed in real clubs, with people actually looking like they want to be there.

The performances from the actors are of a high standard all round, although Jason Donovan in particular for me stands out (he was playing Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in London at roughly the time this must have been filming, so his drag phase was in full flow!), and of course Tim Curry who's eloquent drug land boss is convincing.

Simply put, if you're a fan of British film you have to see this, it matters not a jot if you're into clubbing as the film is strong enough as a story anyway.

Highly recommended. Didn't have much aspiration for this film, but was pleasantly surprised. Very well made film, very well cut, doesn't really get to the height that Human Traffic did, but it's a very good effort. Well directed, and I thought the lead actor put in a superb performance! In fact the only really bad performance in the film was from Tim Curry, who is supposed to be the name.

Cool Film surprised it hasn't done better than it has. I'd never heard of it until I saw it at a mates.

I'm not a raver, but I imagine people who are will really like this film. I just saw this movie in a sneak preview and before reading my comment you have to know that it is very subjective because I love Techno, Trance, Club, House and music like that.

The movie deals with Carl, whose brother Jason (or whatever his name was) died in an accident: he fell off a rooftop, "drunk". Carl meets his brother's girlfriend Sunny and the two of them quite unmotivated some kind of private investigation about Jason's death and Carl gets involved in Jason's ex-life that was filled with clubs and drugs. The movie itself, seen from an artistic point of view, is nothing more than a big pile of s**t. The plot is predictable, all of the characters are extremely cliched and two-dimensional (stupid boy from a small town, young good-looking innocent girl, big bad drug king... the list is endless) and most of the acting such as the plot are just not credible. Matthew Rhys' performance of the stupid boy coming to big London and sudden taking drugs from people he does not even know does not seem very credible, unlike his female counterpart Sunny, performed by Sienna Guillory, whose behaviour seems more realistic to the spectator. Nothing more than a joke was Tim Curry's performance of the drug king Damian: a phony caricature, too "eeeevil" and just too ridiculous to be true.

BUT: If you like club music (the club scenes such as the selected tracks are simply brilliant), if you enjoy a simple lovestory with a sweet girl like Sunny (yes, I confess, I lost my heart ;)... that makes my comment even more subjective, I guess) with some (predictable) twists and turns you will definetely enjoy this movie.

Anybody else: F.O.R.G.E.T.....I.T.!

3 out of 10 (objective view)

7 out of 10 (my personal view and also my final vote) "Pharaoh's Army" defies formula. Instead of selling out for cliches and big stars, it relies completely on the excellent acting from a strong cast, the strength of a well written script, and a fascinating and bitter story. The result is a raw and realistic film that moves along fast, with a heavy emotional current. One of the best I've ever seen about the Civil War, and I think it can owe that to the pleasure of being an independent film (if you like this film, try to see the similarly brilliant indie Civil War film "Wicked Spring" as well).

"Pharaoh" simply tells the true story of a small expedition/forage team of Union men who ride into a Confederate farm to take provisions, but end up stuck there because of an accident of one of the men. Tensions broil and relationships are made and broken. Nothing happens the way Hollywood would write it; this movie comes from the mind of someone who actually cares about quality film and the telling of history. Superb dialogue and plot exposition move along a film that looks highly professional, but often doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, more along the lines of hearing a story.

The film boasts an incredible performance from Chris Cooper who shows an amazing versatility in the exploration of his role. He transforms, but is always at the height of believability and is easy to emotionally relate to. Patricia Clarkson is equally as stellar and realistic in a role that many actresses would crumble in. She shares an interesting chemistry with Cooper's character and where she's the more severe of the characters, is still as easy to identify with. The rest of the cast is quite capable, and fill their roles in well.

The art design and the set are wonderful, and personally I love the cinematography. It all has the feel of a Civil War period photograph with the camera presenting strong contrasting colors and shadows and a tin-like metalic tint, but always keeping the naturalistic look of the rustic setting. They seem to have used natural lighting, but whatever they used works beautifully. Everything looks like it belongs where it is, it feels period, something I find rare in American period films. The actors act 19th century, not like 20th century people in old clothes.

Above all, this film is very personal. I think that as an indie it can afford it. The film is nearly flawless with an outstanding script that effortlessly creates and explores the relationships and personalities of these characters and lets them grow in a situation, as bad as it is. It doesn't fail in getting it's point across, and it gets it's point across without the usual and overused techniques that are used in all war films these days. It's brave. It relies on it's characters, a fantastic script, human emotion, and in the cold hard fact that the Civil War wasn't all CGI, big stars, and hoop skirts. Thought provoking, humbling depiction of the human tragedies of war. A small, but altruistic view of one family's interactions with the enemy during the civil war in Kentucky. This movie lessens the "glamor" of war; showing it's effect on not only the soldier but the entire family unit.

A lot of today's movies show war as an opportunity to highlight the "hero's" and other glamorous features of war, but very little attempts to show the true effect war actually takes on a community. This movie attempts this through a retelling of a person's memory of those days. This movie is stated to be loose translation of an actual events, when in reality, this movie is probably a factual reality of hundreds, perhaps thousands of "actual events" during the civil war. I highly recommend those interested in our civil war to watch this movie. This is one of my personal favorites, a rare little gem that seems to be undiscovered by the general population. Chris Cooper and Patricia Clarkson form the heart of the piece in what is a well-chosen cast. Few movies have ever captured the true hostilities that undergirded the Civil War, but this one seems to capture all the right tones and moods. If you're a fan of the book, Cold Mountain, try this movie out and see if you don't think it makes a good companion piece. It is characteristic that this film is not better known. It obviously lacks most elements that a successful theater film needs: heroes, villains, conflict and resolution, romantic love interest..

Everything is topsy-turvy here, nothing works out as it should, everyone is clumsy, sad, angry, hurt and hungry and nobody has a solution for anything. In short: it is war and it is hell for everybody involved. People try to do best, but interests, allegiances and so called duty interfere. The picture transports us back in time to the Civil War with an intensity seldom seen in today's cinema. Straightforward honest images of an intense beauty. The actors are very well cast for the story and they make the characters come truly alive in front of our eyes.

A silver dollar in a heap of nickels! If you're even mildly interested in the War between the States, this film is worth watching. It is great historical story telling. No flashing sabres, no cavalry charges, no carnage -- just the story of a sorry group of Union soldiers stumbling into the farm of a Confederate woman and her son and taking as much as their captain's conscience allows. This quantity moves up and down as events unfold affecting his sense of humanity in conflict with his sense of duty to his men and his cause. Ultimately, he reaches a compromise that any of us would be hard put to top.

I appreciate the historical treatment of the war in Kentucky, a slave state that tried to stay neutral but eventually opted to remain in the Union under mysterious political circumstances involving the detention of certain legislators. Roughly half the soldiers from Kentucky fought for each side, but there's never been much treatment of what it was like to have lived there through those times. This film makes a great contribution simply in the "look and feel" of the time and place. This film was my first acquaintance with the talents of Chris Cooper. I was deeply impressed with the character he played. I knew when I saw the film that more great things were to come from this gifted actor. He plays a Union Captain who, along with a couple of enlisted men, are foraging in Eastern Kentucky. They happen upon the farm of a "Sesech" woman whose husband has chosen to go off to the Confederacy.

The portrayal of Eastern Kentucky, and its seriously divided sentiments during the War, is so very accurate. If you are looking for a war film with a lot of blood and guts, this would not be it. If you are looking for a drama that explores the psychology of peoples at war, actually and philosophically, then this is the best study of how divided loyalties affected the interaction of peoples in the border states during America's Civil War. I had never heard of Silverwing before, then I saw it on Toon Disney and instantly loved it! I also think that it is not just for kids, and that people of all ages would enjoy it. It has a great plot, great effect, and cool characters. I will always love the show, and I heard it will be coming on on DVD worldwide soon, and I'm going to get it! I haven't read any of the books, but I intend to. The show deserves a 10 out of 10, and I hope the books are just as good. Well, that's all I have to say. But I still have 2 lines I have to fill up, so...who do you all think is the coolest character? Mine is Shade, and my second favorite is Marina. Sometimes good things happen by accident.

I'd never heard of "Silverwing" until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!

Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats "extra fingers" where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.

Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).

What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the "trilogy." I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, "Towers of Fire" (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.

But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.

However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering "Is that it?" Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.

In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.

Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.

Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait. Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2. Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness.

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice "That was fun!".

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it. This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along.

People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings, lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs, arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders.

The snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says 'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt.

This is just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the snowball replies, 'that's not nice'

It was worth then ten bucks spent to buy this.

10 out of 10 stars. Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS. This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person. The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.

It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.

The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.

What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.

Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).

The lack of "memorable quotes" disturbs me.

As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE. *SPOILERS*

I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.

Or so they thought.

This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.

This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.

Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.

This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.

*** out **** Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10. Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes:

**SPOILERS**

The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.

The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself.

And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.

**END SPOILERS**

infinity stars Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one. I think this movie is different apart from most films I've seen. It was exciting in a way, and no matter what others say, I say, I was surprised about the final solution. Certainly didn't see it coming!! Although it's sad, it's worth watching.. I can't think of any movie that would be like this! Actors knew what they were doing. If you say this movie sucks, you say probably what most people would say. But, if someone says that this movie is ordinary, I absolutely don't agree. And Norman Reedus should be more noticed.

Maybe I'm freak but I liked this very much. It was kind of mess, but who cares? I'm tired of boring and ordinary movies. The first time I saw this film, I wanted to like it for so many reasons, but I simply did not. It just seemed a little dull. But there was a tiny question I had about something I saw near the beginning of the film so I watched it again… and then finally it clicked for me. I first watched the movie knowing the "surprise ending", and while I definitely wouldn't recommend having the ending spoiled for you, I have still thoroughly enjoyed the bulk of the film and discovering the many seemingly insignificant events that all unravel to point to a very sinister scheme.

I don't think that everyone will love this movie, or even like it. If you like any of the actors, you'll like this movie because the acting is fairly strong and they all get a lot of screen time. If you like mysteries (namely Hitchcock) you'll like this movie. If you like independent or psychological films, you'll like this movie. It really worked for me on all of those levels. If you don't like the actors, mysterious plots or psychological elements, you might not like this movie. But that's your loss. Personally, the only thing that irked me a little was the accents. Good try, Alan Rickman, on the American dialect, but it wasn't much improvement from the scene in Die Hard. (The wonderful voice makes up for the weird accent though.) The medley of accents in the movie was a little odd, but it was not so distracting that it became difficult or particularly irritating. Also, the camera change from scene to scene was evident and might bother some people, but I actually think it added to the scenes (or scene… I can really only recall one scene where the change was severely different, but it worked).

When you see this movie, see it at least twice. The second time you see it, I hope you realize how intricate the plot really is. Every time I watch this movie (it's under an hour and a half so multiple viewings are not difficult) I seem to notice something else about it and find myself wondering, "Why did that just happen?" or "Was that intentional?" I like movies that make me think. This one does. So just see it. Twice. "It's funny your worst nightmare always seems so far away!"

Dark Habour's characters, a married couple (Alan Rickman & Polly Hunter) and a vagabond (Norman Reedus), are slipping into a game full of hidden sexual energy and treason. Now-and-then tantalizing breaks increase the tensions and give much space for interpretations. Good acting and a story which, if not using the brain, will leave you in confusion. You have to watch it twice at least. The very strength lies in its unconventionality and in Alan Rickman, of course. Those who love him will love this movie.

Conclusion: It is not a typical prime time movie but Well Done ! I saw Dark Harbor at the '98 Seattle Film Festival. Filmed against a autumnal Maine backdrop, this movie boasts an excellent cast and a plot that keeps you guessing throughout. At times eerie, at times funny, I have to say that it stayed with me for days after seeing it. Rickman and Walker are wonderful as the icy marrieds and Reedus is someone you'll be hearing more from, I'm sure. The opening shot of a winding, deserted road in a downpour at dusk (and the score that accompanied it) set the tone so well -- just terrific. Nice, nice work from a new-ish director/screenwriter and his talented crew. Dark Harbor is a moody little excursion into murky emotional waters that run extremely deep. It's basically a 3-character piece, featuring a finely-layered performance by the always-great Rickman, with Polly Walker and Norman Reedus (also excellent) forming the other two sides of this strange triangle. A perfect late-night cable film, with a surprise ending to boot. If the ending hadn't been so fantastically unexpected, I don't think I could rate this movie so well.

This movie has a lot of uncomfortable, distressing, "marriage falling apart" character interaction. That sort of thing is not my kind of drama, so the pace seemed to drag for me.

In addition, the main characters are difficult to relate to and thus care much about -- the husband (Alan Rickman) is rather bitter and cranky and the wife (Polly Walker) is aloof and a little haughty. The acting was just fine (Norman Reedus was very alluring), but the characters themselves were perhaps a little TOO realistically flawed (for me).

The setting was nice and appropriately isolated and a little spooky. The cinematography had something to it that seemed a little old-fashioned to me somehow.

But the last 5-15 minutes of this movie are so ingenious that every uncomfortable scene, awkward conversation, and inexplicable character behavior absolutely worth it. I guessed every typical plot twist except the one that occurred.

The ending definitely makes this movie worth watching. The intrigue and the drama, not quite as much. A few things to touch on as a response to the earlier person's comment. You just have to pay attention to what is going on in the film.

(I guess they are spoilers)

The red stuff under David's mouth? Poison ivy, the wife says not to scratch it or else "it will spread".

David goes "insane" because the stranger is telling HIM to get out of the house, which probably proves David's theory of an affair happening between the wife and stranger; he runs after the man.

David does not lose him in the woods, he simply hits the stranger a couple of times and leaves it to his wife to pick up the pieces.

Only the wife eats the mushroom.

I must say, after that one point with the wife and stranger, I began to feel disappointed. But the ending made up for the entire film.

And for that and the very last scene... this is one of my favorite movies ever. I should have put it together earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I was really surprised, honestly.

This film is interesting, to say the least. But if you are not watching this for the performances that the actors give, I'd say you better let this one go, because that is all that keeps this certain film together. Rickman is sexy and good, but the "stranger" is less convincing - Reedus is sort of sexy, but he is not a consistent actor - this could be the director's fault in this case - we are supposed to find him alluring in the extreme just because he is "pretty" - but that's not enough. The thwarted wife is almost convincing - 7 years marriage and she and Rickman's character should be more settled with each other, whether their roles are to be incompatible or not - they must have patterns by now. i get that, although i think the wife is a bit stiff in her role - and not convincingly attracted to the "stranger" - so that's a failing - the unspoken bonding between the Rickman character and the "stranger" is better done, even if we are not sure what it is. i miss Rickman's sexy English accent (luckily he slips into it and out of the American pattern). disappointing but with some great acting. I really loved this movie. I thought it was very well done. The character interaction was wonderfully done as was the characterization. The actors were definitely believable. The plot was very deep and intriguing. Even though parts of it are a bit slow and sometimes a bit boring, it's definitely worth watching several times. The chemistry between the three main actors was great. If you don't want to watch it for that, then at least watch it for the drama between the characters. I mean, the whole thing was just "Whoa!" It was like I couldn't look away. The whole movie grabbed my attention and kept my interest, even through the slow parts. I loved this movie and almost everything about it. I loved the ending because it was so interesting and, if you watch the movie a second time, makes perfect sense. But I'm not spoiling anything. This is one of my all time favorite movies, it's great to watch in groups, I find. It's also great for any Alan Rickman fan, he does such a wonderful job. It's engrossing, entertaining, very surprising... you have to watch it twice, at least. I haven't watched it with anyone who didn't like it or at least find it worthwhile. in a time of predictable movies, in which abound violence, cheap romance and melodrama, it is delightfully surprising to find such a strange movie. the plot itself is compelling, and the actors are excellent, especially Alan Rickman. If you want to watch a movie that does not provide all the answers before asking the questions, a movie that will surprise you (in good or bad), Dark Harbor's for you. And if you're not convinced, believe me that Alan Rickman's performance is well worth it... especially at the end, ladies.... ...this film noire set piece suffers from murky sound (at least, as shown on the inadequate equipment of both the Seattle and Maine film festivals) and murkier plotting, while Rickman suffers from an American accent, old tennis shoes and baggy sweats. Nonetheless, he has moments of stellar scenery chewing, and the film offers sinister ambiguity from Norman Reedus, the pretty Polly Walker, and a surprise ending (telescoped to frequent filmgoers), while affording a beautiful look at the physiography of both Maine and Rickman. Due out in video release (after a cable airing) in March. Not to be missed by any Rickman fan. Ignore the amanita hooey. Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award. This was an interesting study in societal sexuality, as well as the "dark interests" of man.

While I can't say the wife was a strong character - she was the wrong choice for the part, in my opinion - she was a rich kid in search of escaping her drool life. She was a rebel in fact, and never fully matured for her husband, a lawyer (Rickman). It's obvious he married her for her money and to cover his sexual desires, which is taboo. Rickman played his part to a tee, his flirtations with the young man, and very subtle undertones of gayness. The young man was gay to the hilt! When he did Marilyn impersonation that should have told the wife everything. He was perfectly cast as well. He has hustler written all over him.

I was not crazy about the ending, as I knew what was coming. Overall though, the acting from Rickman was great, Reedus was good, Walker was okay but I had misgivings. For a gay themed movie, it was average, but not blatant at least. It's worth viewing if you don't have "Truly Madly Deeply" lying around for a spin. While driving in a dangerous zigzag manner on a lonely road in the night, the teenager Cliff (Jay R. Ferguson) has a car accident with his friends Lauren (Christine Taylor), Alex (Kim Murphy) and Eric (Christopher Masterson). While spending the cold night stranded in the woods around a campfire, they kill time telling ghost stories. In "The Honeymoon", the couple Rick (Ron Livingston) and Valerie (Jennifer MacDonald) travels in their RV to Las Vegas in their honeymoon. Rick takes a shortcut to visit the Clayton Caverns in the night, but the stranger Cole (Hawthorne James) advises them to leave the spot since dangerous creatures attack people in the full moon. In "People Can Lick Too", on the eve of her twelfth birthday, Amanda (Alex McKenna) tells her Internet friend Jessica that she is alone at home. However, Jessica is actually a psychopath. In "The Locket", the biker Scott (Glenn Quinn) is crossing the country on his motorcycle. When he has a problem with his bike, he finds an isolated house where the gorgeous dumb Heather Wallace (Jacinda Barrett) lives with her father. When the man returns from his herd, Scott finds the truth about Heather.

"Campfire Tales" presents three good horror tales, with monsters, psychopaths and ghosts and a surprising twist in the end. The weakest segment is "The Hook", with Eddie and Jenny, but the other stories a great. The plot point is totally unexpected and gives a great conclusion to this above average horror movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazul): "Contos da Meia-Noite" ("Midnight Tales") I would like to say that I absolutely loved Campfire Tales! To me, it was one of the original horror flicks with a twisted ending. As if the contents of the movie weren't scary or weird enough, you have the ending. It's a very awesome movie and I'm so happy that it's being released on DVD on August 30th.I will not hesitate to get my copy on that day.I don't think the movie received all the credit or recognition it should have, because all these other movies came out shortly after and was acknowledge, but if it weren't for my brother telling me about the movie, I wouldn't have known. Which stinks because in my opinion it's far better than any "Scream", "I know what you did Last Summer", or any other horror for that time. So I hope that you are able to see the movie yourself and at least be able to see the difference. I loved it, and being a horror movie junkie, Campfire Tales was like dessert for me! I originally posted the first user comment on this movie,and claimed it was crap and it didnt make sense.I DIDNT MAKE SENSE. Campfire tales is a thoroughly enjoying film (now that im 2 years older and watched it last night).The actors were famous but not TOO famous. The acting itself was more than acceptable,it was rather good.I will rate the movie per segment of films.

1)The black and white scene (A.K.A-"The Hook") This one was rather pointless,it looked good,but didnt hold much grip at all,the only disappointing one,i dont think it was even included as a segment.Here is the scare-o-meter.

------(Poor)

2)The R.V Story (honeymooners stuck in woods) Possibly the most entertaining of all tales,the acting was good in this one too,dissapointing bout the typical caravan sex scenes.Yet it was intruiging,you think "WHo was knocking on that door".It had suspense,and not too gory.Liked this one

--------------------------(Very Good)

3)Internet Chat Tale (Little Girl Meets Psycho) This was a smart addition,gore left at a minimal,frights left at EXTREME.Although dull at times,the last few minutes were most entertaining,dont get me wrong it was still fun to watch.Real creepy,and could happen to anybody,so watch who youre talking to.

---------------------------(Very Good)

4)Ghost Tale (Man kisses ghost)?? Not the best,it wasnt too atmospheric for a ghost tale.This one was strange,the aspects were rather good,playing music and the screaming,but everything was too real to be ghastly,although it was good,it was quiet bloody,and could have been better with that idea.

-------------(Acceptable)

5)The Ending (the 4 lost teenagers) These are the 2 attractive gals and guys telling the tales through-out the film.The best thing about the film is definantley the ending,it set a great impression,the ending was totally un-expected.Watch it,it was so well done,the realism was spectacular.

-----------------------------------(TOP NOTCH)

6)THE FILM OVERALL Campfire tales was more than i used to take it for,i actually like it so much now im buying it on video,cause its a truly entertaining horror movie forget the trash you see these days,like many,im dissapointed that this didnt really go nowhere,it was straight to video,to me it was better than all the hype "horror" you see these days. Overall for Campfire Tales

----------------------------- (Very Good)

8 out of 10 I saw this movie late at night on a free-to-air channel, and I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. Being a horror movie fan, I often watch these sort of midnight movies during the school holidays. More often than not, the horror movies shown during this time are usually big lamers. 'Campfire Tales' certainly does not fit into that category.

Campfire Tales is basically an anthology of short stories based loosely on well-known urban legends. They are pieced together with a setting involving teenagers telling these stories around a campfire. This campfire setting has a mysterious plot in itself. However, this particular story is weak and confusing, obviously used predominantly to set up the other spooky tales.

There are three tales in this movie (four if you count 'The Hook' at the beginning), all of which are truly spooky and well-made. I especially enjoyed the third tale ('The Locket') involving a guy whose motorbike breaks down in front of a mysterious household. This particular story works well in really freaking you out with sudden flashbacks of the house's history. In addition to this, the ending of the tale will completely shock you! The first tale ('The Honeymoon') was also very creepy, though the second tale ('People can lick too') was somewhat lacking.

Being a horror movie veteran, I don't usually get freaked out. This film certainly did that job well! What I particularly liked about this movie is the fact that it's split up into three shorts. This means the movie won't plod through an hour or so of character development and setting establishment before the real bloodshed begins. That makes 'Campfire Tales' perfect for sleepovers, parties, etc.

Campfire Tales is a creepy, crisp horror movie that will make your heart stop more than once. It's certainly better than the crap you'll often find in the cinemas these days (Blair Witch 2, Urban Legends: Final Cut...bleah!). Find a copy and watch it...if you dare!

Definitely not only for urban legend aficionados, Campfire Tales is an often scary and always fun ride through several popular stories. It is also a film that exceeded the (low) expectations I had. A horror film I had never heard or read about, a straight-to-video release (granted, the latter often presents us with a pleasant surprise, but with horror films nowadays it can be all or nothing), a cast of mostly unknowns... well, I'll leave the math to you.

The film proves to be an entertaining, suspenseful and overall very enjoyable experience. The four stories are well-paced and satisfying. The only one I felt was a little weaker was "The Locket", for the simple reason that it offers almost no explanation for its plot or the characters' actions; however, I still loved the tale, its atmosphere and ending. My favorite one was the third story, "People Can Lick Too" - the suspense in it is not only palpable, but also educational.

I found Campfire Tales to be one of those horror gems one discovers by chance, and then goes on recommending it to everyone.

7/10 I decided to watch this on FearNet on demand for free because I figured well, nothing else looks enjoyable. And it turned out to be quite a good little horror surprise! The film serves as an anthology of four urban legends told from the point of view of four teenagers whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. After they decide to build a campfire in the woods, they begin to tell their spooky stories and the movie transitions to the events in the stories.

The Honeymoon- a newlywed couple traveling cross country in an RV to Las Vegas is terrorized when they park in a wooded area by evil beings that hunt by the full moon. (I won't spoil that for you!) The Hook- Amy Smart and James Marsden, (probably the most famous people in the movie besides beautiful Christine Taylor) play the young couple who come face to face with the maniac that has a hook for a hand in this most recognizable short.

People can Lick Too- this is probably the scariest and most dark of the stories. A young girl chats with another girl on the internet, but it turns out that it's actually a man who is obsessed with her and he proceeds to break into the house when she's alone. This was really chilling.

The Locket- This is also a great story with Glen Quinn and Jacinda Barrett, who play a motorcyclist and a beautiful mute girl who are terrorized by ghosts from a previous century in a mysterious farm house. This was good but it was the weakest of the entries.

The group around the campfire slowly develop their own terrifying experience in their segments between stories, and the end of this movie is surprising and really awesome! Overall this is not bone-chillingly scary but it's certainly a great little guilty pleasure that horror fans alike would definitely find worthwhile! "Campfire Tales" is basically made up of three spooky stories that a group of friends tell after they get into a car crash in the woods after a concert. The film begins with the classic "Hook" story, and then we're introduced to the group of friends driving home from the concert. They crash their car, put out some flares, and start a fire in a little abandoned chapel, waiting for someone to arrive with help as they warm themselves by the fire. To pass the time, they decide to start telling classic horror stories, about terrorized honeymooners, a girl who falls prey to an Internet predator, and a motorist who takes refuge in a haunted house. As they tell the eerie tales, each story becomes increasingly terrifying, but the real shock that awaits them is yet to come...

In my opinion, the last story they tell is probably the scariest and had some genuine, frightening effects. The first story was alright, and the motorhome sequence near the end was a little creepy. The second story built a lot of suspense, more than either of the others did, but it's unoriginal plot was it's downfall. I remember watching this movie a long time ago when I was like eight years old on HBO and the third story scared the crap out of me, although it's not scary to me now. You'll probably recognize some of the cast here, particularly Amy Smart from the opening "hook" interlude story, and Christine Taylor as one of the main actresses in the film. The twist ending was kinda interesting too, I know I didn't see that coming, I thought it was all cleverly pieced together.

To sum things up, if you're looking for a horror movie that is worth the while, rent this, you should be happy. It's a great anthology of some classic urban legends, and the whole film was tied together neatly. It is much better than what one would expect. 7/10. This was on the Saturday before Halloween this year (today, at the time of this writing) and it has to be the best horror anthology out there. I am normally not a fan of horror movies - largely due to the volume of crap that's been recently released. However, the director of Campfire Tales has the Hitchcock-esquire gift of suspense - unlike other contemporary films, it doesn't take every opportunity to scare you silly, instead using foreshadowing and 'near-misses' - incidents that seem like the instant that the climax will occur in the instant before, but turn out not to be.

I didn't catch 'The Hook' or the first main segment, but from what I have read here, they were the two you could afford to miss.

'People Can Lick Too' was full of suspense - this short keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something to happen to the little girl as she wanders about her yard and house looking for her soccer ball and later her dog. She encounters so many near-misses that the suspense reaches heart-stopping proportions before the climax of the short, when the girl gives up and goes to bed, thinking her dog is underneath it. She reaches her hand down to let him lick it, and she feels the touch of a tongue on her hand...before noticing that on her mirror, written in blood, is 'People can lick too'. I'll leave the last few seconds for you to find out, my reader, for at this point the short could have taken any number of turns.

'The Locket', however, was the unarguable masterpiece of this film. It begins with a man on a motorcycle, simply driving...towards what he does not know, but he can feel himself getting closer. As he's driving along, a storm breaks out, and he's forced to find shelter in the house of a mute girl. The two quickly cozy up to each other, but before they can do anything besides kiss, the girl reveals through writing that ghosts inhabit her house. They quickly begin packing up to leave, but they are caught in the middle of a reenactment of a scene decades past - a father, coming home to his daughter and her boyfriend preparing to elope, murders the both of them and then commits suicide. I'll have to leave you to discover the ending here as well - I couldn't hope to do the story justice in any case, and what I've said so far is just a brief summary of the story - I couldn't hope to convey the nuances and sensory details that add to it.

'The Campfire', being the connecting thread between all of the stories, is a fairly interesting rehash of the car accident theme, and the girls are very much attractive - in fact, most of the girls in this film are good-looking. Anyway, despite the fact that it's chopped up, the story is given justice, and the ending is difficult to predict if you're preoccupied with the other stories. However, if you pay enough attention to the segments of The Campfire spread through the film, it's certainly possible to predict the ending, especially if you've seen movies based on the same premise. (MST3k fans, remember Soultaker? Same premise, but without the god awful writing of Vivian Schilling, and the bulk of the movie. If you've seen the first 30 minutes of that you should be able to predict the ending.) All in all, the best horror movie I've seen in a LONG time, and the only horror anthology worthy of a buy. This movie dethroned Dr. Giggles as the best horror movie I've ever seen. The plot was great, the plot twists were even better and the cast was great. It's hard to believe that they compiled the most unknown people 8 years ago and they would be big names today!

The plot is simple. 4 teenagers wreck their car in the middle of nowhere. They stumble on this campsite and do what everybody who is in an accident should do. Build a fire and tell scary stories.

1. "The Hook." Great opener. Anyone who is in High School has heard variations of this story on Prom night. But they do it real good in this movie.

2. "The Honeymoon." OK, this was not the best of the 4. It was pretty good and you get to see some boob. Emphisis on the word "some." It's just your basic creature in the woods story.

3. "People Can Lick Too." This is a cautionary tale of what happens in internet chat rooms all across the country. This segment alone should be required viewing for parents whose children have access to the internet.

4. "The Locket." Now this is the best story in the whole movie. A guy on a motorcycle breaks down and goes to this mute girl's house. Very good plot twist.

The main plot, "The Campfire" has the biggest and best twist in the whole movie. I won't tell what it is cause I don't want to ruin it. I was never this shocked during a movie in my life!

Plot: A+

Acting: A+

Writing: A+

Directing: A+

Music: A+

Overall: A+

I recommend it to anyone over 13 with the exception of "People Can Lick Too." Any parent who's child has access to the internet needs to watch this one with their child. This movie is about a group of four friends who wreck a car while driving. They build a campfire to get though the night and wait for help. To pass the time, they tell each other scary stories. To tell about it would ruin the movie, so rent and enjoy it!!

I will say it starts out a little slow, but each tale get better and better. This movie stars some of today's hottest actors Christine Taylor(The Brady Bunch Movies), James Marsden(Disturbing Behavior) and Ron Livingston (Office Space). So you can see there are big name stars just not the really big ones!!GO rent or buy it ASAP !!This movie is awesome!! I recently bought this movie for three bucks at a garage sale, and while I'm glad I didn't have to pay the usual $19.99 for this DVD, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was.

It's set up like a horror anthology, broken up into 5 tales, including the 'connector' story which involves four teenagers who's car breaks down a dark, lonely road in the middle of the night. Apparently, these kiddos like horror stories, because that's what they decide to do until morning - tell spooky stories around a campfire. Each character takes their turn telling a story, after which their own story is wrapped up with a nice little twist.

The first story, "The Hook" is kinda a waste of time, a bit bland and dull. Luckily, this is not one of the main stories and only lasts maybe 5 minutes. It's intended merely to introduce the film and it's easy to overlook the unoriginality of this piece.

The second story, "The Honeymooners" is, eh, okay. It's about - you guessed it - two people on their honeymoon! They're traveling around in an RV headed to Las Vegas. They decide to stop somewhere for the night, but they're quickly warned by a mysterious stranger to leave the location, or risk being attacked by some dangerous, unknown creatures. This story has a pretty good setup, but just merely an 'ok' delivery. Basically, it's fairly entertaining and mysterious till the monsters show up, then it's just kinda iffy.

The third story, "People Can Lick Too" is my personal favorite. It involves a young girl who's parents are going out for the night and who's older sis is ditching her for a party. So, she's going to be all alone - a fact she makes known to an internet buddy of hers. Trouble is, that internet buddy? Is not exactly a thirteen-year-old girl. This story's conclusion is slightly less climatic than I might have liked to have seen, but still pretty dang good.

The final story, "The Locket" is definitely the one packed with the most atmosphere. Set in a creepy mansion on a dark, rainy night, it's the tale of a young man (played by Glenn Quinn!) traveling around on a motorcycle who stumbles across this house just at the time that he conveniently has a problem with his bike. He meets the mute girl who lives in the house, and falls in love with her at first sight. Unfortunately, not everything is all fine and dandy - and it might have something to do with that locket hanging around her pretty neck...

After the stories are wrapped up, we're presented with a twist involving the four teens in the car, a twist which, in retrospect, should have been obvious, but which it didn't really see coming, and it's a quite pleasing conclusion to film.

So, all in all, a good movie. Rent it if you can, because unfortunately, I don't really think it has a lot re-watching value. But next time you're in the mood for a vaguely scary litte flick in the same vein as "Tales of the Darkside" or something, grab this movie and some popcorn, turn off all the lights, and treat yourself to this surprisingly nifty little flick. Campfire Tales (1997)

An excellent peace of work. Everything about this film is just perfect.

The film has a great cast as you can see from IMDb. The reason i brought the film was because of Christine Taylor and the love for horror films. lets get to the main parts

1. there are 4 Teenagers in this film , After crashing their car they decide to tell some spooky stories 2. there are 3 stories and the main plot ( the 4 teenagers are the main plot) 3. the best story is " people can lick too"in my opinion. the least scary story is possibly "honeymoon" or the 2nd story (can't remember the name"

4. "people can lick too" is about a man pretending to be a 13 year old girl( over the internet). he starts chatting to a girl called Amanda and then enters her house . very creepy stuff this story will make you think twice of chatting to someone online. basically a pervert enters her house and things go creepy.

5. the main plot is sweet and simple, teenagers crash, tell stories, try to freak each other out. But there's a very cool twist at the end.

the only bad part of this movie is, the teenagers crash their car into another couple, but the kids don't bother seeing if the couple are OK. They just talk about the couple who they've crashed into.

The men and women who made this film made it to scare people, not to make money. unlike "Scream" and "I know what you did last summer", this film is created to Scare you. "scream" and "i know what you did last summer" were made to make Big time cash.

even though this movie wasn't pushed as publicly as scream was , it's still 10 times better than scream and "i know what you did last summer".

the characters in this movie are great and have realistic characteristics. The cast who play theses characters are great. Christine Taylor does a fabulous Job with Lauren, doesn't go over the top with the acting. The dude who plays Eric (laurens younger brother) also does a good job of showing men or teenage boys can also get freaked out. Screams is like a spoof movie, the murderer is a joke and the kids are dumb

Unlike scream and "i know what you did last summer", this movie has realistic people, not a goof of a movie, should of been more noticed. Good (not great) little horror film with a high "creep" factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment ("The Honeymoon")). Solid acting and a few truly "scary" moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. "Surprise" ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS. Caught this flick as one of a five-for-$5 deal from a local video store, and it was a most pleasant surprise. It's a collection of four interrelated tales built around four kids who've just had a car wreck and are waiting for someone to pick them up. They tell each other these stories to kill time, and are occasionally startled by flashing lights and funny noises which all come together in an O. Henry-esque ending that left me gleeful. A real discovery. Blood (and plenty of it), breasts and beasts round it all out rather nicely...Jacinda Barrett is worth the price of admission alone. This one is a keeper--Jim Bob says check it out.

Oddly enough, "Pumpkinhead" was one of our five choices too, and IMDB recommends that for anyone who likes "Campfire Tales". I'll followup as soon as I get a chance to sit down and watch that one. Joyeux Samhain! This movie is definently a horror movie and if you do not get scared than you must not be watching this movie. It works on the old techniques but throws something new into the mix. This movie grips and runs and hides within your mind. The movie has a point to it unlike other horror movies. Watch it for a thrill and shock to your system. Remarkably well done, but under-recognized because of limited distribution. Has big-studio feel, understands the horror genre, speeds along with clever plot twists and never stumbles. Could have been a college cult classic, if it had ever gotten the opportunity. Wow! My mom bought me this movie because it was on sale really cheap in some store in my town, and she knows I love scary movies. First I looked at the cover and sighed, thinking that it was some ordinary B-movie trying to be scary. I was so wrong! I made the great big mistake watching it alone, my parents and my brother was asleep and it was really late. After I seen the movie I was so scared I was shaking... I didn't even dare to go up and take the videotape out of the VCR! I slept with the lights on...

This movies main story is about some teenagers who drives off the road and have to spend the night in the woods, telling scary stories... The first story is really scary, and it makes you hug a pillow really hard if you watch it alone.. The second story is scary too, but not in the same way as the first one. The third story (my favorite) is really, really creepy. It scared me most of all stories. It is about a guy who is driving around the country on a motorcycle. One night when there's a storm outside, he goes to the closest house and knocks on the door.. A girl opens, and she is mute.. Don't wanna tell you more, but you will get chills when you watch it (I might add that my heartbeats were really abnormal when I watched it). "Campfire Tales"' main story has a really interesting and surprising ending. I know some guys said it sucked, but me, my boyfriend and my friends loved it, and it was a long time since we got that scared.. rating: 10/10, oh by the way, it is NOT like Urban Legend at all, it is so much scarier. I cannot believe I enjoyed this as much as I did. The anthology stories were better than par, but the linking story and its surprise ending hooked me. Alot of familiar faces will keep you asking yourself "where I have I seen them before?" Forget the running time listed on New Line's tape, this ain't no 103 minutes, according to my VCR timer and IMDB. Space Maggot douses the campfire in his own special way and hikes this an 8. I switched this on (from cable) on a whim and was treated to quite a surprise...although very predictable this film turned out to be quite enjoyable...no big stars but well-directed and just plain fun. With all the over-hyped crap that is out there it is very nice to get an unexpected surprise now and then... and this little film fits the bill nicely. 9/10 This movie is so awesome! I loved it, it was really scary. I love the Scream movies and all horror movies and this one ranks way up there. It probably helped that I watched it at midnight. If you want a real scare rent this one! 10/10 It may not have had the big budgets, celebrities or endorsements of Scream, Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer, but Campfire Tales had one thing these three movies lacked: true horror.

This film tackled the subject of urban legends a year before the aptly titled and less than enthralling Urban Legend did. It was intriguing, masterfully scripted and logical in a way I Know What You Did Last Summer could only dream of. Finally, it held its focus and finished with a flurry while Scream fizzled and died.

What's most exciting about the film is the variety of horror that the writers and directors achieved. The overarching story of teenagers around a campfire was classic dread at the unknown (but certainly expected) doom that awaited them in the forest, but the tales themselves are where the movie really shined.

The opening sequence is pure, fast-paced urban myth. It's based on a popular legend, and the director plays on this with the style and pace of the action, making it more enthralling because we know what's going to happen.

The first campfire tale is a straight-forward thriller. Based on another popular myth, we don't actually realize this until the end, both because it blends so well into the story and because the action keeps our attention. Being the thriller of the trilogy, this one plays off our fear of the unknown and includes several well-done "jump" sequences that don't feel nearly as cheap or contrite as those in movies like Scream or Urban Legend.

The second tale is more suspense. This time, though the characters still don't know what's going on, we do, and this provides the horror. No need for cheap thrills here.

The final tale contains elements of the supernatural and uses a creepy/trippy atmosphere to scare the viewer. Because we can relate so easily to the characters and their situation, our fear comes from their intensity and what they can't explain. This is the true ghost story of the trio.

I didn't expect to enjoy Campfire Tales when I rented it. I figured that if I didn't like its more acclaimed, bigger-budget counterparts, how could I like it?

The truth is, though, this film succeeds where the others fell far short of the mark. I loved this movie! I'm shocked and disappointed that it never made it to the theaters. Every story was better than the last..much better than the much hyped "Scream" series and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"and way better than the terrible "Urban Legend". I'd recommend this film to every horror fan. This movie was talked about in Fangoria where I heard about this, it was interesting to me mostly becuase it was direct-to-video and I recognized two of the stars on the cover, James Marsden of Disturbing Behavior and Christine Taylor from The Craft. And to my surprise on Valentine's Day when I was searching through the horror aisle to find it on the shelf! I immediately had to grab it. Me and my brother and our girlfriends watched it and to my surprise it was pretty good, the tales were interesting and for once they were actually SCARY, unlike a lot of other horror movies being made recently. Some of the plot I do not understand but once I watch it again I bet I'll get it. And to even more of my surprise there were other stars I recognized including one of the girls from the TV show My So-Called Life and Jacinda from The Real World, I'm not sure why this movie was only direct-to-video, with a little advertising this movie could have at least made up for how much money was spent on making it. The only problem I have is that since it wasn't released in theatres I guess I'll never be able to view it in widescreen. You should definitely take a chance and rent this one.

Low budget, mostly no name actors. . . this is what a campy horror flick is supposed to be all about. These are the types of movies that kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid staying up too late to watch cable. If you liked the 80's horror scene this is the movie for you. After the return of "horror movies" (come on Scream isn't scary!) i didn't have very high hopes for this low-budget three story horror movie. But i was positively surprised! Man this is scary!!! The first 2 stories are simply brilliant. The first one about a new wed couple driving in a dark forest with their RV, When they bump into a fierce........(watch the movie)! The second story is about a disgusting man who is obsessed with a little girl, who is home alone for one night.... I know it doesn't sound any special but it is Scary. I promise you. The last story isn't scary but atleast not bad. It's about a biker and a ghosthouse. In fact the stories are based on real urban legends(i guess kevin williamson can steal ideas too).Rent this movie it is Good!!! i'd say i'ts the scariest three-short-story-horror-movie ever made! Loved it! This has to be the best horror flick of the 90's. I

was at the edge of my seat. I jumped a couple times. Wonderful

acting. It is totally horror but it was funny when it was meant

to be. Okay, "pretty good" doesn't scream rent me but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Campfire Tales. While by no means a classic the directors involved do have an idea what suspense is. The scares don't just jump out at you but instead the directors build steadily to the climatic moments. The film is based upon popular urban legends and ghost stories. The writers have updated the tales rather well and twisted them just enough that the familiar endings still pack a punch. The best of the shorts are "The Honeymoon" and "People Can Lick Too", I enjoyed both as they have nice suspense throughout each story. "The Locket" was a good ghost story and the wrap around "The Campfire" is pretty good too except they go for one too many twists at the end. The only disappointing segment is "The Hook" which is fine because it's pretty short anyway. Overall I give this a 7 out of 10. It has suspense, which is lacking from most horror movies today, and good acting by the cast. It may not rate up there with Halloween and The Exorcist but it's a good little movie well worth the price of a rental. This, without any doubt, is the greatest spin off to Jackass ever made, hell, it even blows Jackass out of the water.

Picture this: You have a group of guys who just didn't want to grow up, throw in a ton of money, and some seriously cool stunts, and you have Viva La Bam.

This show, it's such a family-based one, and it's not just "the gang" running around being complete jerks (like in Jackass). For example: Bam's parents, April and Phil, are in every episode, with appearances of Bam's obese uncle, Don Vito to boot! The reason why the Margera family makes us laugh is simple: Somebody in our family can relate. April: The woman who wants to live life by the book and follow tradition. Phil: The guy who tries to be a good father, and finally, Bam: That son that never grew out of high school.

The pranks and jokes in every episode will give you a guaranteed laugh, and buying the DVDs is definitely recommended! Another thing which is surprising to see, is how casual Margera is over the whole thing. He's said in interviews that for the majority of episodes, he isn't acting, and is just acting off instinct.

What I liked the most about the whole thing, however, is the amount of influence Margera has over MTV. He wanted Slayer to play in his backyard, MTV did it. He wanted to hang with Dani Filth for a day and have a Cradle Of Filth concert in his backyard, it happened.

Add to this his passion for the love-metal (and debated as emo) band H.I.M and his brother's garage band CKY, and there's a whole lot of head banging going on.

If you liked Jackass, you'll fall in love with this. I borrowed Season 1 from a friend last year, and I would give up my legs to meet the Viva La Bam Crew. You will not be disappointed, and I can promise you'll be in stitches by the end of it all! I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the "omg.. what an idiot " kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.

Bottom line is.. please watch the show. Viva La Bam was one of those shows that I didn't have high if any expectations for, before seeing it, and I never even knew about it until I saw my friend watching it. I had thought Jackass was pretty funny but the stunts were just that, funny and I never really got into the show. When I watched Viva La Bam for the first time it was the complete opposite effect, I loved it. It had more of a TV Show feel to it, which a lot of the "Reality Shows" have today. I was hooked and I wanted to see what new scheme they were going to cook up for each episode. All the way to the last episode it held my interest and even though some of the ideas seemed rehashed at times, it always had a newer and funnier twist to it. Viva La Bam is one of those shows that get you hooked and I have yet to see another show that is quite like it. OMG, it is seriously the best show in the world. It rocks harder then Jackass and CKY and is so funny and entertaining. I love the show. All 5 seasons are awesome but for a quick summary: Season 1:- Great if you wanna plan a scavenger hunt, watch the house be pulled apart and enjoy seeing Phil bing starved.

Season 2:- Great if you wanna see them buy Castle Bam, watch a slayer concert, see the wonder that is Mardi Gras and the fun of getting to it, see a demo derby and actually see a the making and opening of a Tree Top Casino.

Season 3:- Great if you wanna see probably the first Driveway Skatepark, a civil war, Johnny Knoxville, a pirate ship and Don Vito actually winning one of Bam's reindeer games.

Season 4:- Great if you wanna see them in Europe, them getting Jobs, the building of a State and a bayou and The Dudesons Season 5:- Great if ya want to see them in Brazil, Ape's Birthday, Mike Vallely, The Metal Mulisha, Bams Lambo disappearing, Bams Hummer being destroyed, a playboy party in bams swimming pool and the very Last ever Viva La Bam :( I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film. The relationship between the main characters I thought was very realistic. How the two end up involved is believable. It doesn't have that whole "oh yeah right" that most Hollywood movies have. Not too mention how they captured the sexy, beautiful and painful side of trapeze. I am a trapeze student and I love that they showed how hard it is on the body, hands and yeah those fabric burns are brutal! Definitely a must see for the relationship as well as the art that is made in the movie. I loved it! I'm happy with the way the movie ended but I definitely wanted to see more. Be sure to stay seated through the credits for a special treat hehe. Great scene! This film tackles the subjects of loss, personal struggle and transformation in such a smart, artful, sensitive, and visually stunning way that I was completely transported. It is a rare gem of a film in the way it honors beauty and women. You'll have to see for yourself. Dreya Weber (Jane) masterfully portrays the subtleties of a remarkable if not somewhat broken personality, in a way that every woman will relate to. I found the honesty of the emotional interactions among characters to be very refreshing and profoundly engaging. There was nothing in this film that said to me "low budget" as far as quality is concerned. Nothing. The fact that it is a low-budget film is a tribute to the film's creators. The final sequence during the credits will also knock your socks off. It is a brilliant celebration of Jane's choice. Unexpected and inspiring. Now maybe it had something to do with the fact that I saw this movie at a low point in my life, when I was really trying to figure out where I was going and what I needed to make myself happy, but this film really spoke to me. Jane is an everywoman: although she has so many positive things going for her, she is still vulnerable and unhappy in her life. She is strong and intelligent, but she was cheated out of achieving her potential by an unfortunate accident and is living a second-choice life. She seeks out new challenges and happiness, seeking desperately to fill the hole in her heart. Dreya Weber is an exquisite Jane. As we journey with her we feel the depth of her despair, the torture of her desperation and, eventually, the strength of her conviction. The beautiful Addie Yungmee is also very well cast and an asset to the production. Allison Mackie is a scene stealer as a saucy character with impeccable timing. I highly recommend this film; although it's low budget, it has big budget writing and production values. PS- great aerial scenes with two beautiful sexy women. Women will love the story and characters, but there's something for the men here, too. :) Somehow, somewhere, someplace.. you GOTTA see this film. Breath taking aerials, and incredible outstanding performances from highly gifted actors.You think Cirque du Soleil blows your mind,wait till you see what these 2 women do - most importantly, the emotional journey and struggles Jane(Dreya Weber) faces are universal in theme to many women. A superbly directed film which deals with the complexities of relationships,and holding on, until you're ready to let go. This masterpiece will touch women and men alike. Ned Far (director/writer) and ridiculously talented Dreya Weber (star/producer) just had the guts to tell it, honestly and sincerely. This film will hit big - see it HOWEVER you can - or you won't be "in the loop" when it becomes one of the most talked about films. Whatever you do, don't stop watching when you think the movie is over! Hang around for the first batch of credits or you'll really miss something! We saw this movie at the Savanaah film festival and thought it was the best of the bunch. Dreya Weber is a marvel really, not only because of her performance, but because she can pull it off so far above the ground. At the Q&A she said there were no wires or effects, so everything you see is really her going for it. Addie couldn't make it to the festival because she was dancing with Madonna. She was excellent and, my gawd, so beautiful. I was amazed that the film went over so well with the blue haired lady crowd, but there you have it, Savannnah isn't a backwater. Thankyou for making such a wonderful escape . That's what I love about movies. I'm so impressed with the aireals , the way they were shot and the timing was so dynamically perfect with the music .being a dancer myself , and having been a part of many dance films choreography is usually chopped ,diced and sometimes not even to the beat....."Showgirls" the Movie . The relationship between the ladies was ever so present in the movement .

My favorite scene is the last one, when she is pulled over . I've seen the movie before, a different version ., and I disliked the husband more last time . I felt a little more sorry for him this time . It changes how I feel about the female love birds. Its all so magical . The Gymnast (2006) was written and directed by Ned Farr. Dreya Weber portrays Jane Hawkins, a former world-class gymnast who was seriously injured and now earns her living as a certified massage therapist.

The promotional material leads you to believe that the plot hinges around Jane's accidental reunion with a former teammate. Although this meeting takes place, that plot line is secondary to the main plot, which involves Jane, her husband, and a professional dancer named Serena (Addie Yungmee). The two women develop an act of the type performed by Cirque de Soleil. The two complement each other--Jane is more experienced with heights and has tremendous upper body strength. Serena is more elegant and artistic, although, obviously, also capable of incredible physical feats.

The film works because we can understand how Jane would turn to Addie, who is caring and compassionate, while Jane's husband has taken her for granted for the many years of their marriage.

Both women are incredibly fit and athletic, and Dreya has the lean body and well-defined muscles that are characteristic of gymnasts. They clearly are truly performing their act, and the results are so excellent that we can believe they would indeed, be a success in Las Vegas, or anywhere else they traveled.

The sexual tension between the women is obvious, and the situation becomes even more complex when the act requires them to kiss while suspended in the air. A woman with a neglectful husband and an attractive woman partner make for an explosive situation, which isn't resolved in a neat and tidy fashion.

Of the six films we saw at the Rochester NY Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, we thought this one was the best. It will work on DVD, and is definitely worth seeking out on large or small screen. NOTE: Stay for the credits! Everyone who worked on this film did an AMAZING job. This is honestly one of the best lesbian films I've seen in a LONG time. The acting, writing, cinematography, music, visuals, everything was top notch. As an avid fan of the genre (both lesbian films and gymnastics), I was so unbelievably pleased by this film. It truly gave me so much more than I expected across the board. Hearing the Q&A with the cast and crew was great, the lead actress has so much positive energy and is so humble and gracious, it's a pleasure to see people who can be talented and not lose sight of what's really important. And the writer did a hell of a job, as well as directing and the editing was awesome. Thanks so much for making a great film! Thanks also for the line about 'if you're going to slap a label on yourself, it would be bisexual'. I'm so tired of movies where characters who have a relationship with both sexes get passed off as gay or straight, it's wonderful to see bisexuals getting recognition for existing and being part of the gay community, and it was nice that labels weren't even necessary at all in this film. What an ending! Just when I thought it couldn't give me more, it did. Beautiful work and my applauds to all. I will spread the word, this is definitely a film not to be missed! "The Gymnast" unfolds in short shots and short scenes, revealing its characters and message over time. The spare editing is accompanied by a beautiful, simple score. This intimate approach is wonderful for feeling like you're on a path of discovery as much as the characters are.

The spare approach is also its drawback; there are a few scenes that are confusing because they don't have enough context. There are some decisions made by the characters that seemed rather flip until I watched the interviews that were in the bonus materials. I'm glad I did, because the actors' descriptions of their motivations gave me a much more well- rounded understanding of the film overall.

Aside from the story itself, it was wonderful to see women so comfortable and strong in their own bodies. The shooting was very tastefully done; very matter-of-fact. One has the feeling of seeing a love story and a life story unfold, not a voyeuristic sleaze film. The physicality of the athletes -- their realness -- is a great contrast to the sometimes ethereal nature of the plot.

Not a film I'll need to see again anytime soon, since the storyline is simple but its delivery is powerful enough to stay with me for a long time. This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art.

The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.

The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.

The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets.

The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!! ...this one. What came to my mind immediately was Loving Annabelle, as it has this same kind of mature mood and distanced dealing with the subject. We simply observe as the story unfolds, without taking sides, or having to confront any "moral" issues (or of course we are, but are not spoon-fed them). Sure, there were some difficult facts to face, and choices to make, but it just flowed. Basically it was just like any other love story, in any other life, with any other sexes.

I personally found the girls having a good chemistry, and had fun with them on their night outs. The only thing i could really pinpoint as a problem would be it just felt kind of...retained. Held back. It's not about the sex scenes (or those missing), but given that i felt the film at its liveliest during the moments they were together having a good time, it kind of contrasted with the rest. Lowkey is good, but it just never quite sizzled like Loving Annabelle, nor touched me quite as much.

This said, i heartily recommend it, it's by no means a waste of ones precious time, on the contrary...

7/10 Wow what can I say it was a good movie, very different to all the boring remakes we see lately the only thing I would have liked to see a bit more of an ending like when Jane left her husband Im guessing she was going to Serena cause she fell for her,not just her but everything that she is,I so wish Producers would actually show that sort of ending instead of leaving to it your imagination sort of ending I really hate it when they do that. The aerial acts looked like fun but I guess you'd have to be light and muscly, I would like to see more movies like this one, maybe the could do a sort of sequel of Jane and Serena.If I were in Jane's shoes I would have went for the girl too she was attractive. I just saw this film in Austin Texas at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival and it was my festival favorite. The gymnast is a film NOT to be missed. It is an honest "coming to terms" story about relationships, self discovery , growing older and having the courage to change and move forward. Not only is this a good story but the glorious aerialist performances by Dreya Weber and Addie Yungmee will take your breath away! See this film! It will be coming soon to a festival near you. This film deserved to be picked up right away by a major network or studio. I will certainly purchase this when it becomes available on DVD. This is one of a very few movies with terrific acting, wonderful story line and worthwhile to watch. It is about changes in life. It is about how happiness can be found when one is true to oneself. It is about accepting oneself and others. It is about life challenges. It is about coming to term with reality. It is about courage. It is about love. Both actresses are very true to their role. The actresses had very good chemistry between one another in the movie. This is the key of the movie that made the movie. It is rare to see an independent film like this one. One could tell the hard work that the film crew had to have while producing this movie. I wish to see more movie from this producer/writer. See the movie, you will love it. I thought this was a beautiful movie- very brave. Such beautiful imagery-and I liked the use of breaking glasses w/ applause. Also how the best friend repeated the line about "..and she's one year older than me.." showed that their friendship has rekindled and grown, but maybe some competition is left...i loved the footage of hands feeling the fabric. The dance concert was beautiful. The beginning seemed slow, though..it took awhile to feel for the characters-the husband could have been more abusive-he just seemed absent so when other characters talked about him-it didn't really fit. The affair btwn. the best friend and husband seemed random..the doctors meeting seemed to hint that there was not much time left(to live..) so when the infidelity was revealed, I didn't feel as much sympathy for the character-more like relief! the ending was so great- the lines btwn. her and the husband, and the scene where she is pulled over is brilliant! Flipper is a nice heartwarming movie for whole family. It's obviously not a great movie, Free Willy looks much better almost in every component of film making. Possibly, at times it becomes a bit naive , and the writing and the script are not the best part of the movie, but it's a entertaining film with very good cinematography (including underwater shots) and some important moral messages. Elijah Wood proves himself one more time as an incredibly talented and underrated actor. He can make bad movie watchable, okay movie - good, good - great and great movie becomes all time classic. Paul Hogan performance also was very good and he is completely fit to his role. As I already say above, whole cinematography was very good. But underwater shots definitely is the best parts. So Flipper is a perfect way if you want to see nice, sweet and entertaining movie. If you like me become sick and tired of modern Hollywood trash, filled with sex, violence, vulgarity and profanity you most likely would like this movie.

My rating: 7,7 out of 10. Feel free for mailing me about any of my comments and posts here.

Sorry for my bad English. I like this movie. I may be biased because I love dolphins. However, my 3 and 4 yr. old will sit and watch the whole movie.... It's not Oscar material, but definitely entertaining. The dolphin cinematography is well done with a beautiful backdrop of ocean scenery and sunsets. My favorite scene is when Flipper "flips" the pop can out of the water striking Sandy in the head. It's an endearing funny moment that makes me laugh every time. On the other hand, the villainous banterings of the bully boatman (forget his name) are a little hard to take. And the shark scene is far from reality. Question: do dolphins really make that much noise? Or is there some serious dubbing happening here? Bottom line: my kids like it and it keeps recycling through our VCR. I was rather appalled to see the low rating this movie received here, personally considering it fun family fare. It revolves around a young teenager, Sandy Ricks, who is sent by his mom to Coral Key to spend the summer with his Uncle Porter. While there he befriends a dolphin named Flipper. Lots of adventures ensue amid the predictable nephew / uncle bonding as well as a little romance for Sandy with a local girl.

I'm a great Crocodile Dundee fan myself so absolutely loved Paul Hogan in his role as crusty and comical Uncle Porter. For starters, he keeps an endless stock of Spaghetti-O's in his house to serve as his usual meal, heated with a blowtorch! Elija Wood, Frodo from The Lord of the Rings, appeared quite competent playing the young Sandy, a boy at first none too fond of his forced summer vacation locale.

Of course the dolphin is magnificent and there are some wonderful underwater scenes. Set in the Florida Keys, it was apparently filmed in the Bahamas. This adaptation of Flipper makes great family entertainment, a sweet, sentimental, and fun movie that is infinitely superior to many of the cinematic offerings for youngsters nowadays. I can't say that this movie deserves a ten, because I would be lying. I adored this movie when I saw it, though! It carries the unique bond of a friendship between a teenager and a dolphin. Although it doesn't display the sweetness that Jesse and Willy had in Free Willy, it provides an exciting movie that the whole family will enjoy! If you love marine animals, or if u love just a perfect family film, this movie is suited for YOU! Flipper definitely shows us how adorable dolphins are, and they are playful and could easily be house pets if everyone had a big enough pool! I love whales and dolphins, so obviously this movie works for me. I do think that the producers should have chosen another shark instead of the hammerhead to enhance the antagonist part in the story. Perhaps a great white? FLIPPER IS MAGNIFICENT! So check it out! Yes, it's "Flipper". But writer/director Alan Shapiro has put together a gem of a version. Spectacular above and underwater photography from "Jaws" veteran Bill Butler and haunting music by Joel McNeely and Crosby, Stills & Nash make this truly memorable family entertainment. Shapiro, whose last film was improbably "The Crush", shows himself once again to be an extremely talented -- and versatile -- filmmaker. Rent it! Universal Studios version of "Flipper" (1996) is a great heartwarming film for the entire family with good values and sentimentality. It is the story of Sandy Ricks, a teenager from Chicago who reluctantly spends his vacation with his Uncle Porter Ricks in the Bahamas. This ultimately changes the teenagers life and he grows up in the process. He learns to appreciate nature and to have a respect for the environment. I grew up in the 1960's and the NBC television show "Flipper" was my favorite childhood show. Elijah Wood is perfectly cast as a 1990's Sandy Ricks and gives an excellent performance. As much as I liked the NBC television show and MGM theatrical feature films with Luke Halpin as Sandy in the 1960's I liked this feature the best! I feel Elijah Wood is the best Sandy Ricks. With respect to Luke Halpin I feel Elijah Wood has more of a range of acting talent and emotes more as an actor which makes his performance excellent and more believable. I think Elijah Wood is the best young actor working today in films. Director Alan Shapiro also wrote the screenplay and has done an excellent job as both writer and director of this film. Paul Hogan gives a comical and likable performance as Sandy's Uncle Porter Ricks. Mr. Hogan's performance perfectly offsets Elijah's role as Sandy. I am a big fan of underwater films. This film was beautifully shot in the Bahamas like "Thunderball" (1965 UA) was. The director of photography was Bill Butler A.S.C. who lensed the film "Jaws" in 1975. Mr. Butler is a very talented cinematographer. The underwater director of photography was Pete Romano. He did a superb job with the underwater cinematography. I enjoyed the film score by Joel McNeely. This good film score featured Crosby, Stills and Nash among other talented artists. This motion picture was shot in Panavision like "Thunderball" in the aspect ratio of 2.35:1 If possible try to see this film in a scope version as originally framed and visioned by Alan Shapiro and Bill Butler. Another very nice thing is that Mr. Shapiro gave the "original" Sandy Ricks (Luke Halpin) a small part in this remake. He portrayed Bounty Fisherman #3 in this film. This was a very kind gesture on Mr. Shapiro's part! As you can tell I am a real true fan of this film. Sadly this beautiful film was met with harsh words by the majority of movie critics. I originally saw this movie on my birthday, May 31st of 1996 in a movie theater. It meant a lot to me. I have it on numerous video versions. The VHS versions are in "pan and scan". The laserdisc version is "letterboxed" 2.35:1! I even have a VCD in 2.35:1 from Hong Kong which is "letterboxed". But my most prized possession is an "original" 16mm theatrical feature print which I will treasure for the rest of my life! Thank you Mr. Shapiro, Elijah Wood, Paul Hogan and everyone involved for making this a memorable movie for me to enjoy!

P.S. I must add that the quality of the Universal DVD is superb! It is the best DVD as far as quality I have ever seen. The color and resolution is spectacular. The soundtrack is great. I think Universal must have used the same transfer for the DVD that they did for the laserdisc version. The 35mm scope print is "mint" and Alan's film really has a wonderful look to it. A great tribute to a wonderful film! The DVD's resolution is even superior to the laserdisc quality! It's just spectacular! Thank you Universal Home Video for the great quality control and transfer. Many thank's for doing a superb job on this wonderful family film. Also many thank's to you Alan for all your extreme kindness to me!!! It's a real honor to know you!!! (Review Revised/Updated June 27, 2005) This film is brilliant it has cute little dolphins in it and its a great storyline and it has elijah wood in it which makes it a great film too. his acting skills are very good and if you want a good soft family film. this is the one to watch. This belongs in their top tier, although there were others, such as Micro-Phonies and Punch Drunks, that were more deserving of Oscar nominations than this one. But if nothing else, the recurring loudspeaker announcement, "Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard," followed by Curly's "Woo woo woo woo," makes this a classic on two levels. First, it symbolizes all that the Stooges represent; my daughter loves to repeat the announcement when she is in the middle of doing something silly. Second, the absurdity of these three as physicians in a hospital; I imagine the terror I would feel if I were a real patient in a real hospital and heard this announcement over the loudspeaker. Throughout this short, you hear that announcement and you know that something horrible is about to happen, and the loudspeaker voice stays with you for months afterward. The Columbia Pictures Short Subject unit never had any delusions about producing any 'Art' Films. They wanted to give the film exhibitors just a little more for their money, when booking a Columbia Picture into their theatres. This would go double for The 3 Stooges films.

MEN IN BLACK (1934) came about as close as any of their Comedy Shorts in that it received an Oscar nomination for Best Short Subject, Comedy. Though it did not win, it well could have. It was good enough and even those who do not number themselves among Stooge-files, still seem to be won over by the clarion cry of ".......calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!" This was the second entry in the long series of Comedy Shorts made by the Stooges for Producer Jules White, head of Columbia's Short Subjects Department. Only WOMAN HATERS, described in its credits as a 'Musical Novelty' preceded it at Harry Cohen's Poverty Row sweatshop.

The film starts off in the office of Dr. Graves, the Head of the Hospital. He is receiving new interns and in addressing the group, he relates that three of them are passed along from Medical Conditionally as they had remained there so long. But, the good Doctor states that he will not reveal their identities as long as they pledge their all "......for Duty and Humanity!" The Stooges run up front pledging "...for Duty and Humanity!", and run out of office, breaking window glass in door. The game was on.

The Stooges took off and did not stop for the remainder of the 2 Reels. Every type of gag was in evidence. From broad Sennett-like sight gags, to puns, to dialect humor, to 'theatre of the absurd' and a surrealistic running gag involving a Public Address System, which seemingly takes on a life of its own and having the true culprit, a radio tube get shot to a "........he got me!" (It all plays out quite well, honest!) The sets used were very authentic looking and were no doubt borrowed from Columbia features being made around the same time. There are plenty of Wheel Chairs, Surgical Cotts, Stethascopes, Surcical Scalpels, etc., in evidence to maintain the illusion of a Hospital.

A true strength of MEN IN BLACK is the high number of usually nameless players, whom we all recognize by face. Along with them, the film boasts of a great number of veteran comedy actors, who always turn in fine performances, often stealing the scene. The people with names like Billy Gilbert, Hank Mann and Bud Jamison shine in even small parts.

And lastly we have the Maestro, the Conductor-Director Raymond McCarey, kid brother to Leo McCarey who showed off his abilities in getting this little film 'in the can'. He skillfully kept it all moving, acting as a Traffic Cop at times, what with all the actors, extras and behind the scenes crew moving and outside of each other's way. And that doesn't count the Giant 3 Man Tandem Bicycle, The Sway Backed Horse and Miniature Race Cars, not to mention the 'Giant, Green Canaries!' This is one particular Stooge short that actually uses satire in conjunction with slapstick, a rarity. As mentioned, the title and concept for this short was "borrowed" from a feature film from the same year with Clark Gable called "Men In White". It's basically about the trials and tribulations of interns and their sacred cause for "duty and humanity". I saw this recently and almost treated it like the Stooge version because it does take itself a little too seriously. In any case, "Men In Black" is so well written, directed and not to mention original, it didn't borrow a thing from Chaplin or any of the others, that the Motion Picture Academy nominated it for an award as the best short comedy of 1934. Some stinky short called "La Cucaracha" outdid it though and stole the award. Some producer's brother in law must have been on the Academy's voting board. "Men In Black" pokes fun at the whole concept of the medical profession much in the same way that the Marx Bros. always did at this time. May not be a fair comparison but I can see the Marx Bros. in this short. In fact in their feature "A Day At The Races", there is a scene where there's "medical things" going on and they cause anarchy as usual. My guess that this particular short was judged along those lines and hence why it was nominated in the first place. Try this in fact: watch this short first and then watch "Duck Soup" or "Day at the Races" with the Marxes and then see if there isn't the same great quality of comedy. Directed by the younger brother of great director Leo McCarey this is a pretty good short from the Three Stooges, nominated for an Academy Award. Here the stooges are doctors named doctor Howard, doctor Fine and doctor Howard. They are not the brightest doctors but they get the benefit of the doubt as long as they handle for duty and humanity.

I liked this short. It is not one of their best but some moments are hilarious though. One joke that is repeated more than once works every time. The part where they must operate the hospital's boss is terrific. To say more would spoil some of the jokes, so you must see it for yourself. Just another fine short from the Three Stooges. This is the third Three Stooges short that the team ever made, and like a lot of their early ones, this is absolutely and totally hysterical! Now owning it on DVD as part of the Three Stooges Collection Vol. 1, whenever I feel like it, I watch this!

In this short film, Moe, Larry, and Curly play these three doctors in a hospital who are trying to help out everyone, but boy, they end up making a mess out of everything!

This short is another one of my all time favorite Three Stooges shorts, I also am a very huge fan of slapstick comedy, and the Three Stooges are the kings of slapstick!

When I heard that it got nominated for the Academy Award for Best Short Film, I really became curious about this, when I heard that it had lost, I was very disappointed about it!

This short is one of the Three Stooges funniest by far, I extremely recommend that you see this hysterical riot!

10/10 Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.

Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.

By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL. This is one of the Stooges best shorts. It was the only one of their shorts to be nominated for an oscar. In this short the Stooges play doctors, who cause some trouble as usual. This short has non-stop sight-gags, puns, and jokes. The part at the end, where the Stooges are breaking apart the machine. This is definitely a classic. I would highly recommend this Three Stooges short. This is an early one from the boys, but some people may not be satisfied with this one like all the others. I found it to be different somehow than the your average Stooge slapstick. It was more funny for it's jokes rather than the poke in the eye or slap. Watch for a hilarious part when Larry grabs the stethoscope from Moe and sings into it. Moe gives him a good smack. That part made me crack up for a good ten minutes. Another hit for the Stooges. Everyone's favorite trio of bumbling imbeciles run amok in a hospital in this incredibly raucous and often hysterically funny romp. These guys are without a doubt the single most incompetent bunch of doctors to ever fumble their way across the screen. Comic highlights include the Stooges constantly breaking a glass pane in a door, their encounter with a deranged patient who claims that rats used to come out of the buttonhole of his shirt, the Stooges riding through the hallways on a giant bicycle, a huge horse, and miniature race cars, and our sublimely stupid threesome accidentally leaving instruments inside a hapless patient's abdomen after they finish operating on the poor fellow. Director Ray McCarey relates the frantic comic shenanigans at an appropriately nonstop hectic pace and stages the broad slapstick gags with considerable gusto. Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard are all in peak loopy form, with sterling support from Dell Henderson as long-suffering hospital supervisor Dr. Graves, squeaky-voiced Jeanie Roberts as a hiccuping nurse (the scene where the Stooges do an absurd impromptu group singalong with this gal is absolutely sidesplitting!), Ruth Hiatt as a whispering nurse, Billy Gilbert as the ranting crazy patient, and "Little Billy" Rhodes as a feisty tiny patient. The spirited lunacy never lets up for a minute, thereby making this beautifully berserk baby one of the Stooges' best-ever outings. I found this one to be more chaotic than the average Stooges short (as strange as that may sound). There were several funny bits, especially the running gags ("Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!", the glass door breaking, the Stooges running into the supply room and coming back out with... well, you know), but also quite of bit of it was taken up with things that just didn't make any sense to me. I have to assume that these were generally take-offs of scenes from the film "Men In White", but since I don't know much about that movie I can't say for sure. Maybe if someone could explain these I'd appreciate this short more. The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

One of the most hilarious Three Stooges shorts is Men in Black. In this short are Bud Jamison, Jeanie Roberts, Phyllis Crane, Dell Henderson, 'Little Billy' Rhodes, Billy Gilbert, and Ruth Hiatt The acting by these actors are good especially by Jamison and Roberts. There are many funny scenes here that I think most Three Stooges fans will love! In My opinion this one of the most different Three Stooges shorts. I recommend this one to all! Norma Shearer dazzles as she is transformed from a frump, addle-brained house-wife to an alluring potential divorcee. Most 1930 films have a creaky edge to them -- the camera work is pretty sluggish at times -- but we must forgive these all-talking pleasures for their thump-a-long "qualities". As a guest of the eccentric globe-trotting Marie Dressler -- Shearer mixes with an odd assortment of lovelorn types, including her long-lost husband. The dialogue is fun, oft-times clever and the performances on cue. Shearer and Dressler shine the most. Shearer even shows off her piano expertise in a musical brevity. Her strange, yet appealing posturing and "affair with the camera" are evident throughout -- and she hits every emotional note, genuinely and on target. For its time . . .a good show. A rich old lady calls on a flirtatious divorcée to woo a Lothario away from her silly soon-to-be-married granddaughter.

LET US BE GAY is an interesting little domestic comedy which features some tart dialogue (courtesy of celebrated screenwriter Frances Marion) & good performances. While perhaps a bit mawkish at times, this can probably be blamed on the difficulties with early sound technology which tended to limit action & movement.

Norma Shearer can be credited with appearing in this minor film, rather than using her undoubted clout as Irving Thalberg's spouse to insist upon only A-grade pictures. She is especially effective in her first few scenes, where dowdy flat makeup makes her almost unrecognizable. Her extreme transmogrification from goose to swan could only happen in Hollywood, but it's scarcely profitable to spend much time worrying about that.

Rod LaRocque doesn't come off too well as Shearer's adulterous husband. Quite popular during Silent days, the talkies were not especially kind to him and his career would suffer. Here his role is not in the least sympathetic and one has to wonder what masochistic impulse moves women to desire the cad so much.

Magnificent Marie Dressler is on hand as an eccentric Long Island dowager. As a great friend of Frances Marion, one can easily imagine that the part was written expressly for her. Full of cranks & crotchets, she is very humorous. However, the tremendous warmth & essential goodness which would very shortly make her Hollywood's biggest star are largely missing.

Among the supporting cast, Hedda Hopper scores as a slinky society serpent, as does Wilfred Noy playing a comic butler. Movie mavens will spot little Dickie Moore as Shearer's young son & elderly Mary Gordon as her housekeeper, both uncredited. When a dowdy wife (Shearer) loses her husband, she decides to completely make herself over to win him back. Not "politically correct" by today's standards, but still fun to watch, especially the scenes with Marie Dressler and Hedda Hopper. Dutiful wife Norma Shearer (as Katherine "Kitty" Brown) waits on husband Rod La Rocque (as Bob Brown) hand and foot. While making him breakfast in bed, and helping him dress for a Sunday golf outing, Ms. Shearer suggests joining Mr. La Rocque for the day, noting how infrequently the two see each other. But, La Rocque puts her off, saying her presence adversely affects his game. Then, unexpectedly, Shearer meets the real reason for her husband's frequent absences… his pretty blonde mistress!

Three years later, Shearer is a glamorous and flirty divorcée. While summering in Paris, she has struck up a friendship with wealthy, older socialite Marie Dressler (as as Mrs. "Boucci" Bouccicault). Ms. Dressler invites Shearer to her Long Island home, to socialize with some friends, and ask a favor. Dressler is worried about her granddaughter's relationship with a suave, worldly man. She wants young Sally Eilers (as Dionne) to marry Raymond Hackett (as Bruce), instead. Aware of Shearer's flirtatious conquests, Dressler asks her to lure the undesirable man away from Ms. Eilers. Shearer is stunned to discover the man is La Rocque, her ex-husband.

Shearer and Dressler make this a cute, entertaining play. They are in top form, giving guaranteed-to-be-popular performances, with enthusiasm and professionalism. The story is silly and predictable; yet, in a way which helps the humorous situation. And, the ending is quite clever. In fact, the comic "Let Us be Gay" may have aged better than Shearer's larger-produced, and more serious, "The Divorcée", which was released around the same time. The cast uniformly fine. La Rocque is better than his film with Lilian Gish; but, his role is not at all endearing. Gilbert Emery (as Towney) and Tyrell Davis (as Wallace) are funny supporting suitors.

Those not familiar with Norma Shearer may not realize it is she who appears as the dowdy wife in the opening scenes. This is Shearer as "Kitty" before her make-over. Watch the close-ups of Shearer with light, natural make-up, for a good look at an intriguingly beautiful woman.

******* Let Us Be Gay (1930) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Marie Dressler, Rod La Rocque The film begins with a dowdy housewife (Norma Shearer) finding out that her husband (Rod La Rocque) had been cheating on her. Three years pass and apparently they'd been divorced during these years due to the infidelity. Oddly, during this time, La Rocque did not see Shearer or his two kids as Shearer took them to Paris.

Marie Dressler is a rich society lady and she has invited a new and improved Norma to come to her house for the weekend--ostensibly to help Marie break up a budding romance between her daughter and La Rocque! Apparently, Norma is now a super-vamp and with her magical sex appeal, she can break up the romance--and no one seems to realize that she and La Rocque were married. Several others are there for the weekend and immediately Norma is a hit with her gay, carefree sexy ways--and almost all the men (including La Rocque) are captivated by her. Neither tells anyone that they were married but it's obvious that her ex- wants the new and improved Norma back! This film is a sophisticated comedy of manners among the upper-crust--similar in some ways to Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME. Oddly, despite the severity of the Depression, such films about pretty rich folks were pretty popular though many today will doubtless find them a bit too droll in spots. However, fortunately, in LET US BE GAY, there are plenty of cute and funny moments (particularly towards the end when Marie Dressler shows her true colors). While not a great film, it certainly is a good one and more than just another time-passer. My only real regret is that I didn't love the very end. You'll just have to see it for yourself--perhaps you'll agree about the ending, perhaps you won't, but I'm pretty sure you will enjoy this clever film. Norma had spent most of the 20s playing beautiful ingenues but her first talkie cast her as a brassy showgirl in "The Trial of Mary Dugan" and she came through with flying colours. From then on her sweet and lovely ingenues were cast aside and she sizzled in parts that cast her as sophisticated women of the world or society girls out for thrills. "Let Us Be Gay" was made before but released after "The Divorcée" and was an unusual twist on the upper crust dramas that Shearer made her own.

Norma first appears without make-up as frumpish Kitty Brown, who's main purpose in life is to pander to her very unappreciative husband Bob (Rod La Rocque). She is hurrying to get him off to his golf game - but in reality he is going to see his mistress. When Helen, the mistress, comes to the house for a showdown, Kitty faces the situation with civility but behind closed doors she is a mass of emotions and Bob leaves for good.

Three years later Mrs. Courtland Brown (Kitty) comes to stay as a house guest of the eccentric Mrs. Bouccicoult ("Bouccy")(Marie Dressler). Kitty is now a knockout and "Bouccy" has a job for her. She wants Kitty to romance a house guest, who in his turn is romancing her grand-daughter Diane (beautiful Sally Eilers). Shock!! Horror!! - the man is none other than Bob, her ex husband!!! Kitty carries off the meeting with sophistication and witty repartee - "there seems to be something strangely familiar about that man"!!! - and no one is the wiser.

The film then settles down into one of those early very "talkie", boring "drawing room" comedies. Kitty casts a spell over all the men and Bob is desperate to start again. The women have all the strong roles in this film - men are just puppets. Raymond Hackett seems to be in the film as an extra butler - "pass me a cushion", "get me a drink", "move this chair" instead of Diane's harassed fiancé. Norma Shearer is of course the whole show, Marie Dressler adds "Bouccy" to her list of eccentric portrayals and Sally Eilers is a real eyeful as the gorgeous Diane. At the beginning it was almost a shock to see Norma Shearer without her makeup. Then she glamorizes herself and becomes the life of the party.

Anyway, she divorces her husband, makes herself over and gets on with her life; or so she thinks. Somewhat keeps you guessing if they'll get back together. I think several others have already commented on this film, but I liked it so well I wanted to just say how good a film this is. I gave it a rating of 9 out of 10. It did not get a 10 because it is very slow starting. I almost quit on it, but am glad I didn't. Hang in there, it is well worth the wait.

This is primarily a film about relationships: deceit, trust, and betrayal.

Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Lange and Jason Robards all do bang up jobs in this movie.

Set in midwest farm country, Jason Robards character is a farmer whose grandfather first settled there. Jason's character is getting older and he decides to set up a trust dividing the thousand acres of farmland among his three adult daughters. That's when the plot of this film really beginning cooking.

Sisters turn against each other due to misunderstandings rather than greed over the land. They also make some discoveries about each other's childhoods, and their present day marriages, including an adulterous affair, while the father becomes increasingly abusive, demanding and paranoid--until the terrible truth about everyone finally comes boiling out.

This film really reached me emotionally, I got angry right along with some of the characters, and sad with them. I could feel their pain due to the excellent performances that were given.

The ending was a bit of a surprise to me, but in keeping with the growth of the characters.

I was very moved by the gentle power of this movie and by the mood it created. I think it should have gotten a great deal more credit than it did. I agree that Michelle Pfeiffer should have been nominated, but I think all the performances were outstanding, and that Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange portrayed the deep affinity and conflicts of sisters with great emotional depth and sensitivity. Although I didn't read the book, I found the modern concept of King Lear very cool. I certainly will never look at the play quite the same way again! I liked this movie a lot, but the feeling that I most came away with was the memory of how much I´d enjoyed the novel. The film features two of the best actresses working today--Jessica Lange, who is great here, and the divine Jennifer Jason Leigh, who does the best she can with the thinly-drawn character she is given--as well as a surprisingly excellent Michelle Pfeiffer and a steady Jason Robards. The adaptation is basically faithful to the book, at least as faithful as it can be in an hour and forty minutes. The film doesn´t really dazzle, except for certain scenes between Lange and Pfeiffer, but it does a thoroughly competent job of visualizing this wonderfully tragic story. As far as movies adapted from novels go, this was definitely among the better ones. If nothing else, it has sent me back to my bookshelves to rediscover favorite passages from Jane Smiley´s excellent novel, and back to King Lear to brush up on the minor characters in order to see just how deep the parallels go. Worth your time as a film, definitely, and hopefully enough to make you remember that reading great literature is a joy as well. Having watched this film years ago, it never faded from my memory. I always thought this was the finest performance by Michelle Pfeiffer that I've seen. But, I am astounded by the number of negative reviews that this film has received. After seeing it once more today, I still think it is powerful, moving and couldn't care less if it is "based loosely on King Lear".

I now realize that this is the greatest performance by Jessica Lange that I've ever seen - and she has had accolades for much shallower efforts.

A Thousand Acres is complex, human, vibrant and immensely moving, but surely doesn't present either of the primary female leads with any touch of glamour or "sexiness". I don't think this is well received in these times.

Perhaps one reason for this film's underwhelming response lies in the fact that the writer (Jane Smiley(, screenplay (Laura Jones), and director (Jocelhyn Moorehouse) are all women. I know that, in my younger days, I wouldn't have read a book written by a woman. I didn't focus on this fact until years later.

If you haven't seen this movie or gave it a chance in the past, try watching it anew. Maybe you are ready for it. This movie is excellent in how it portrays the reality of sexual abuse. The daughters perfectly express their conflicting emotions of affection and betrayal. The on-location scenery is absorbingly authentic, and the soundtrack is unobtrusive yet moving. This film is a graduate-level course in a reality that's too little recognized in American society. Personally, I'm freaked out by the names of the characters -- Lange's character is Ginny Cook Smith -- my name is Connie Cook Smith, and my mom is Genny Cook. The youngest daughter is Caroline Cook, which is my sister's name, and the father is Larry Cook, my cousin's name.But sex abuse was not in our immediate family. A Jane Smiley novel, loosely based on Shakespeare's KING LEAR about the Cook family and its dark secrets. Director Moorhouse seems tamed in her approach, allowing the characters to step forward and take a bow. And how could you go wrong with the talents of Pfeiffer, Lange, Leigh, Firth, Carradine and Robards? I watched this movie, having never read the book, and took the characters at face value, but having already been introduced to them, watched it again recently. I got a whole different viewpoint out of the film.

Without the burden of having to focus intently on each character, learning their quirks and foibles, allowed me to focus on the cultural issues laid out in the film. The farm families of Iowa are so intimately inter-related as they are in the area of Indiana where I grew up in the 40's and 50's that I immediately recognized the back-stories and motives behind the characters. Perhaps, Jane Smiley did mean for us to see beyond the superficial into the world these people had to live, but viewers are so caught up in the "Hollywood" aura of the individual actors that they miss a rich layout of a lifestyle that exists less and less as each decade passes. Another film with these characteristics is the "Bridges of Madison County". Try watching both of these films again with an eye to the whole picture. A touching movie. It is full of emotions and wonderful acting. I could have sat through it a second time. Okay...so I am gazing through my Mom and Dad's extensive DVD collection (mostly because they don't charge late fees;-)) and I come upon "A Thousand Acres." I was stunned that here was a movie that had Jessica Lange AND Michelle Pfeiffer (with a small appearance by Jennifer Jason Leigh) that I had not seen. I don't think I had ever even heard of it before. Well, this is exactly the kind of find that I dream about since I have to admit that my parents raised two movie buffs in my brother and me. With a few exceptions (Neither of us can even get them to consider watching the Lord of the Rings movies, but my Dad LOVES the Matrix trilogy -- GO FIGURE), we have very similar tastes in movies.

It was a particularly AWFUL day today, weather-wise. It poured rain all day, so I popped in this movie and shortly after I was mesmerized.

This has to be one of the all-time best "sleepers" I have seen. Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer are GREAT in their roles especially since they are playing very different types. Jessica Lange's character is a people-pleasing follower who, despite her being the senior child in the family rarely takes a leadership role. Rather, she bows to her father (Jason Robards) and sister Rose (Pfeiffer) and is hell-bent on teaching her little sister Caroline (Leigh) how to follow suit. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a very STRONG willed cancer survivor who is barely able to keep the anger at her unhappy life contained. This movie is five years prior to White Oleander, mind you, so it was definitely inspiring to see her playing such a strong, angry character.

I would have to say that this movie will probably appeal more to women. However, true movie buffs who enjoy a film for what it is, regardless of genre or target audience, will have a hard time denying the charm of this touching drama about family secrets and what they do the people involved and those who love them. I don't know how I missed seeing this movie before now, but it sure was a nice distraction on a rainy afternoon. ENJOY!! I just watched this movie for the first time after finishing the book last week. What's the problem here? Folks admit that the performances are great--I mean, Lange is stellar!--and that the film is good-looking, but it's got less than a '6'! I don't get it. Come on! The writing's not that bad!

Having read a lot of Pulitzer-winning novels, and having seen a lot of the films based on them, I think a better-than-decent job was done in bringing the screenplay together. I thought the paring down of all the dialogue in the novel was executed almost perfectly. This story had a pretty hefty amount of dialogue in it, and the story really came through on the screen despite the fact that only a portion of it was used.

**BOOK SPOILER PART** I was, however, a little disappointed in the Ginny-tries-to-kill-Rose subplot's being omitted. I thought that was one of the more emotionally jarring parts of the book, but it was probably a good bet to leave it out. Avid movie-goers, more than avid readers, I think, tend to be less forgiving of protagonists pulling antagonistic stuff. It's apt to confuse Johnny Lunchpail and Joe Sixpack.

If you loved the book, you will like the movie. If you hated the book, you will likely hate the movie.

********

Rog

When I unsuspectedly rented A Thousand Acres, I thought I was in for an entertaining King Lear story and of course Michelle Pfeiffer was in it, so what could go wrong?

Very quickly, however, I realized that this story was about A Thousand Other Things besides just Acres. I started crying and couldn't stop until long after the movie ended. Thank you Jane, Laura and Jocelyn, for bringing us such a wonderfully subtle and compassionate movie! Thank you cast, for being involved and portraying the characters with such depth and gentleness!

I recognized the Angry sister; the Runaway sister and the sister in Denial. I recognized the Abusive Husband and why he was there and then the Father, oh oh the Father... all superbly played. I also recognized myself and this movie was an eye-opener, a relief, a chance to face my OWN truth and finally doing something about it. I truly hope A Thousand Acres has had the same effect on some others out there.

Since I didn't understand why the cover said the film was about sisters fighting over land -they weren't fighting each other at all- I watched it a second time. Then I was able to see that if one hadn't lived a similar story, one would easily miss the overwhelming undercurrent of dread and fear and the deep bond between the sisters that runs through it all. That is exactly the reason why people in general often overlook the truth about their neighbors for instance.

But yet another reason why this movie is so perfect!

I don't give a rat's ass (pardon my French) about to what extend the King Lear story is followed. All I know is that I can honestly say: this movie has changed my life.

Keep up the good work guys, you CAN and DO make a difference.

FOUR FRIENDS was first billed on HBO in 82 as a sleeper hit. Having heard the term 'sleeper' when 14, back then - I was anxious to see one. (!) Boy - was I surprised! That film! I hadn't really fallen in love with a non-special effects film outside of TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE - much less a 'hippy flick'...but having had grown up with a couple of hippies - I understood the power behind Mr. Penn's film. FOUR FRIENDS is definitely one of a kind. The script is so personable - and that cast!!! Craig Wasson defines Danilo Prozor SO well! He just personifies the 'writer type' to a tee - both smart and clumsy (the scene at the window...) and strong yet so very vulnerable. For me - he captures what it's like to be so taken with agirl that it lasts over a decade...and I have always found solace in the character - and in the film. Throughout the 80's FOUR FRIENDS was a partner in crime to me - and I caught the movie whenever I could on HBO - even if I had to stay up until 5AM! And still, always at the end - there is a sense of loss when all those wonderful characters part from the viewers on the beach. Jodi Thelen personifies "that girl" to the hilt - it is so hard not to be charmed by her. This movie really stands the test of time. Every once and a while I check out my video of it...or show a friend...and it STILL gets a solid reaction. I've known women who absolutely fall in love with Georgia! So many levels..! Just an incredible little 60's piece of humanity. Very special, very magical. I recently found THE NOVELIZATION of FOUR FRIENDS by Robert Grossbach - and it's even more detailed that the movie! Actual dates of events, etc. A real find! And what's more - haha - I found the novel while thumbing around in a used book store...in Omaha, NE of ALL places!!! Guess you have to have an eye for her! When I was in L.A. in 92 working as an extra - I went into a ruddy lil memorbilia shop - and there were a TON of stills from the film!!! Unfortunately - I was broke and couldn't indulge...but boy, those photos of Georgia and the guys all together just went right through me! I met director Joe Sergant on the set of SKYLARK in Emporia, KS in summer of 92...and we spoke about FOUR FRIENDS - very cool! Also...working at a video store in Omaha in 98 - waited on a female who was a relative of Jim Metzler..! Told her to pass the word on that there was some kid in Omaha who was just fanatical about the film - and had gotten the utmost out of it. Once again - the movie captures everything that's in Danilo's character's heart...great, great work --- one of mssrs Tesich and Penn's finest efforts. Steve Tesich is sorely missed. An incredible writer. "Isadora Duncan!!!"

- C. Unfortunately, many great films on IMDb such as this one have their scores "adjusted" by IMDb. This is truly a fine and intriguing film by the accomplished director of Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man, Night Moves, Mickey One, and The Chase.

If you click in the user rating area, you'll see that the actual median for Four Friends is 7.6. However, IMDb has "adjusted" (dumbed down?) the rating to 6.4.

Per IMDb: "IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it....The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective." In other words, we won't disclose our methods, so you can't question how we arrived at the score! What a shame to see fine thought-provoking films like Four Friends fare no better than lame formulaic comedies due to IMDb's "filters". I rented this movie not knowing what to expect but WHOA was I in for a treat!

For anyone who, like myself, was waiting for a good movie that combined horror and sci fi, it is time to rejoice because the wait has finally ended. Writing, acting, filming and directing - all top notch. I hate to admit it, but I actually cried at one point (when Dracula was talking to the crippled guy). Truly an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish. The corridors of the ship provided the perfect spooky setting for this tale and the actors were really able to make their fear come alive to me. And Coolio as a vampire....very nice!

And believe me....as great as the bulk of the movie was...the ending will BLOW YOU AWAY! I know this movie gets a lot of flack on this site for some reason but I know NONE of you saw the ending coming. Brilliant! So Udo Kier earned like nine bucks and free food for this so that is a victory in and of itself.

More importantly this movie tells a very interesting tale about a group of salvage guys coming across the broken down Demeter. I should warn you, i'm gunna bounce around through this review real quick so buckle up. First thing's first. Coolio plays a guy named 187. 187 likes drugs. 187 finds a bunch of caskets on board and... now i don't know anything about the future but maybe they smuggle drugs in caskets. Not gunna say that was the craziest thing in this movie. Later on the vampire gets out of his mist filled coffin and then the real hilarity begins. First, although this movie has the word Dracula in it he is actually not in this movie. I have a theory though. Out of the blue you see the salvage crew's ship leave without them. My theory is that Dracula was on board with his retarded brother Orlock. Dracula told Orlock he'll be right back. Dracula got the hell out of this movie before he could be seen leaving Orlock to play the vampire for the six or so minutes he is in the movie. The best part of this film, and for those of you that have seen this you know what i'm gunna say, is after 187 gets sired, embraced whatever. He has this huge monologue about ejaculating on various parts of erika Elaniak's body and... other super cool stuff. Coolio, seriously you are the best thing EVER.

Some other stuff happens in this movie too. Like Casper Van Dean gets some work. Orlock screams a lot and loses his arm and then we kinda lose track of him FOR THE REST OF THE MOVIE. And thank god really. We find out Erika's character is a police bot. As the movie comes to a close we find out that the ship is on a course to ram into the sun. The police bot and one other surviving character are doomed. Rather then avoid certain death Erika's police bot reveals she's also a whore bot and they decide to screw each other and die. Before they die in the sun they die for no reason, yep that's right... their ship blows up for no real reason.

This movie got the amazing rating for one reason, Coolio. My god, if they gave academy awards to black rappers then he'd be the first to get one. The only reason this didn't get a perfect ten is because there was not a drop of nudity. Now i know what your thinking, how can you judge a film by whether ladies show their goods or not. Well easy. A movie like this pretty much requires it. Its part of the process. Gore, gore, monsters, nudity, gore, end of movie final shock at the end. Its the formula. This had some gore, the monster was awesome because he sucked so hard he actually did us the favor of staying off camera. That was considerate of him and i respect that. Nudity, not a drop even though there was a length conversation about... well see the above statement and as for the shock/twist... i certainly didn't see the end coming. That counts.

I hope Hollywood doesn't think Coolio gave this film his all and has nothing left. He deserves more work. Well, until Dracula 4000, i'm out. The first of five St Trinian's films (although the last is usually discounted) was based around artist Ronald Searle's schoolgirl characters, and features the wonderful Alastair Sim in drag as Millicent Fritton, headmistress, as well as her own brother. Much of the humour is dated, yet curiously touching and outrageous in today's PC world - the girls drink, gamble, smoke and are later sold off to rich Arabs, yet always remain in charge, defeating bureaucrats, police, judges and other establishment figures as they maraud across England. Perhaps because the films have been so regularly seen on TV, St Trinians still inspires fancy dress parties and club nights. The films have recurring characters that include PC Ruby Gates (Joyce Grenfell) and Flash Harry (George Cole). The precursor to the entire series is a charming film called 'The Happiest Days Of Your Life' (1950). This comic classic of English school girl antics is and was one of the great art house classics. Then the art house disappeared with the arrival of videos. And so did the audience for this movie. The loss is not to the art houses or to this great film. The loss is to those who will never have a real opportunity to view this memorable laugh filled cinematic masterpiece. But I am preaching to the converted aren't I. Who else would search for this flick? This bright hilarious English comedy about school girl antics is a neglected gem. The significant question is where is the audience? The film is rated 10 by most voters, but how many voters is that? They don't make comedies like this anymore because the films don't get distributed or seen. I would never miss a chance to see this old art house classic again. But where are the art houses? Alistair Simms is a wonder in this. He makes such a good headmistress. The role given here for George Cole was made for him. Hence, the casting job on this film was perfect. I think it was one of those rare occasions where everything clicked. the story line was good, the comic dialogue a scream and the older prefect girls a delight!! Each character you are endeared to, even the villains. Why can't we make films like this any more. Basically, this is a very English comedy with good movement and fluidity. There are other movies about boarding schools and the antics of the students and staff, but "The Belles of St. Trinian's" towers above them all! The plot has been thoroughly summarized by other posters, so I won't cover the same ground. I just want to say that it's a shame that it's FINALLY out on DVD, but in a format that can't be used in the U.S.! :-(

Enjoy, fellow fans in New Zealand and Australia! And if anyone reading this has any pull in such matters, PLEASE help get it released on DVD with Region 1 encoding! Also, is it possible to be notified via e-mail when (I won't say "if") it is released on DVD in the United States? Thanks! A really funny British comedy from the mid 1950's about a school for girls. The girls are all involved in mischief and mayhem, making bathtub gin, smoking and gambling. Alastair Sim plays Headmistress Millicent in a glorious drag role, as well as playing Millicent's brother. A female police officer goes to the school undercover to see what is going on. This film is funny, having great sight gags and Alastair Sim is great. Just a classic Britsh comedy, lots of fun and not too cruse. Joan Sims ans Sid James, stars of many Carry On films, play small roles, but this film is about the girls. It spawned 3 sequels and a recent re-make. Watch and enjoy where it all began. Choose your fate: The terrible tykes of the fourth form, playing practical jokes that involve axes, or the...ummm...well-developed girls of the sixth form, who discovered some time ago cigarettes, gin, sex and how easily men can be led astray. The problem is that one set comes with the other. They are all there at St. Trinian's, that remarkably easy-going English school for girls led by headmistress Millicent Fritton (Alastair Sim). As Miss Fritton is fond of pointing out, "In other schools girls are sent out quite unprepared into a merciless world, but when our girls leave here, it is the merciless world which has to be prepared." Miss Fritton sounds something like a melding of Julia Child and Eleanor Roosevelt, and definitely has Sim's droll and deadpan comic genes.

In The Belles of St. Trinian's, a sly, chaotic comedy from the team of Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat, St. Trinian's is, as usual, on the brink of financial disaster. Salvation may be at hand, however, when a rich sheik sends his daughter to join the fourth form and receive a proper English education. The sheik also is a horse owner and one of his prize racers, Arab Boy, is being trained near the school for a race. It's only a matter of time before the fourth- form girls form a racing pool and bet heavily on Arab Boy, with Miss Fritton adding to the pool what funds the school has left. (Much of the fourth-form girl's money comes from the gin they make in chemistry, then bottle and lower by rope to Flash Harry (George Cole), a Cockney fixer, for distribution. "It's got something...I don't know quite what," says Miss Fritton on sampling the stuff, "but send a few bottles up to my room.")

Miss Fritton, however, has a brother, Clarence Fritton (who, by some coincidence of casting, also is Alastair Sim), a bookmaker who not only has placed a bundle on another horse, but who also has a daughter. And he has placed the precocious Arabella in the sixth form to keep him informed. Soon the sixth form has kidnapped Arab Boy, the fourth form has taken the horse back, Flash Harry has joined forces with Miss Fritton, the sixth-form girls are determined that Arab Boy will not leave the second floor of St. Trinian's, Clarence and his Homburg-wearing gang have arrived, parents are driving up for Parent's Day and the Ministry of Education has arrived in the person of a very proper inspector. Total war breaks out at St. Trinian's. It's hard to say which is more dangerous, the African spears or the flour bombs.

Alastair Sim as Millicent Fritton turns in a tour de force performance. Miss Fritton is a tall woman with a stately bosom, fond of long gowns with embroidered lace and Edwardian hats with lots of feathers. She takes everything in stride, even a fourth-former pounding at something in chemistry class and, after hearing an explosion a few minutes later, the results. "Oh dear. I told Bessie to be careful with that nitro-glycerine!" She is firm in believing that St. Trinian's is "a gay arcadia of happy girls." Sim was one of Britain's great eccentric actors. Other than the sheer chaos of all the little (and not so little) girls doing terrible things, he delivers much of the film's pleasure. Tremendous fun both as a film and as an excuse to sit back and play the 'oh, that's whassis name' game. Every star of the golden age of English films seems to be in this one and it was a joy to see them. And the greatest of them all, Richard Wattis, was as tremendous as ever.

There is actually a plot that trundles along very nicely, there's also some splendid jokes and comedic moments, but the key to this films triumph is the characters within it. Alastair Sim is magnificent and somehow convinces you that a six foot, big-boned Scotsman could be the headmistress of a girl's boarding school. George Cole, Beryl Reid and Irene Handl all have their moments but, with Alastair and Richard, the star of the show is Joyce Grenfell. She is an absolute one-off and brings a smile whenever she's on the screen...her rolling-walk and plum accent done to perfection.

And for those playing the , that's whassis name' game, you can even spot Arthur Mullard, Barbara Windsor and Ronald Searle if you look carefully. Alistair Simms inspired portrayal of Miss Fritton transcends drag. It is one of the great comedy characters in film. Equally wonderful is Joyce Grenfell's character - Ruby Gates.

This is a movie you should curl up on the sofa with on a wet Sunday's afternoon and be transported to a time long ago when terrifying, rampaging school girls only gained our respect - not our ire! I hear that a remake is in the offing with Rupert Everett as Miss Fritton? He will have a hard job competing with the master - or should that be mistress? - Alistair Simms.

Go and rent it - it beats so much of what today goes for comedy. For those of you unfamiliar with Alisdair Sims, he is of course THE definitive Scrooge of all them Christmas Carol movies. (Me? I guess I'm REALLY bad.. I haven't actually seen the darn thing). I guess those who HAVE seen Christmas Carol and so used to his character might find The Bells of St. Trinians rather surprising. You see, in this movie, Sims has two roles. One, he plays a heavy better, and in the other, he's in drag as a headmistress for a private girl's school! So once you get that through your thick skull, this movie offers plenty of delights. The plot is deals with the way the school tries to make some desperately needed money through a horse race. It's actually a little more complicated for the small kids to handle, but I think they would be preoccupied with their antics, and with the horses to really notice. The adults too might get tripped over all the thick accents being thrown around as well. But again, the story is reasonably light, the action crazy and frenetic, for one to really notice. PS, the kids all look like they come from the Eloise school of cuteness. About as hilarious as 50s British comedy can get, THE BELLES OF ST TRINIAN'S has almost a gag a minute... and at 91 minutes makes for a terrific time. Other films I equally recommend of the same period are THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT and THE GREEN MAN. In fact any film with Alistair Sim or Terry Thomas, George Cole, Richard Wattis or Joyce Grenfell or any combination is a delight. in ST TRINIAN'S we get a double dose of Sims playing two roles with that hilarious disdain he constantly lets ripple across his face. Joyce Grenfell as Ruby Gates (oh dear! that name!) plays her 'jolly hockey sticks' constable-incognito to hilarious perfection. Possibly the best laughs come from George Cole as Flash Harry (who comes out of a bush when whistled at) and various visits to classrooms by Ms Fritton (Sims) reacting to explosions ('Oh poor Betty!") or science lab gin production ("just send a few bottles of that up to my room"'). Every part of the film is funny from the characters, their costumes the antics and the setting. There were sequels but the first three are the best: including this one, BLUE MURDER AT ST TRINIAN'S and later in color THE GREAT ST TRINIAN'S TRAIN ROBBERY. This is a skillfully crafted piece of cinema that deals with a teenage boys confused sexuality.The cut scenes within can be lengthy but the cinematography is beautiful.This film would not appeal to many people, especially those who are queasy about gay teenage relationships, but the more open minded can sympathize with the puzzled protagonist. I think this movie is underrated. To me it felt like a gulp of fresh air. Some people complain about the implausibility of the plot, overlong sequences and lack of sex (the latter being, I believe, the main reason for "implausibility"; and how come there are no drunken teenagers talking dirty?!); but it's just not their thing, and good for them if they can't relate to the story. The performances are great; I'd really like to see more of the actors in other movies. The emotions are genuine. The whole unrequited love thing is presented with uncanny subtlety. And it does give you the tingly feeling you expect to get from a good movie. A stunning and thoughtful observation on modern life for youngsters in Japan, Like Grains of Sand delves into issues such as rape, homosexuality and pubescent angst in a subtle and significant way. It gives an insight in to the youth culture struggling to define itself outside of the bounds of their parent's generation, with it's strict conformity and facade. Typical to Japanese cinema, often what isn't said is more important that what is, so to those not versed in Japanese film and culture, beware. It can seem dull and minimalistic (pretty much like every film to come out of Japan bar Mangas) if you don't know what to look for. I saw it for the first time when I was 15 and was what originally sparked my interest in Japan, it's culture and language. Considering I'm now 22 and learning Japanese with the intention of living there for 2 years, needless to say it's a powerful film. Enjoy! "Nagisa no Shindobaddo" or "Like Grains of Sand" is an amazingly beautiful story about teenage boys and girls dealing with the state of becoming one with who they are. This movie isn't about homosexuality, but it IS about sexuality.

Aihara, an aloof girl, will definitely make the viewers ponder who IS behind the aloof girl. Does she love Yoshida? Or does she love Ito? Or did she somehow turn into a lesbian because of the "incident"? (I doubt it).

And what about Yoshida? Does he realize that he loves Ito in the end? Well, we all know he loves him as a friend. But you'll never know once you see this movie... haha :) In the end, Aihara (along with Ito) delivers an exceptional message to the audience: which is that it does NOT matter if you love a boy or a girl. And I have to tell you, I'm SO dense that I didn't get it at first. ^^;; It's because of the whole no talking scenes... You have to try to understand what the characters are thinking and saying through their actions and NOT by what they say (especially the final part... whew, boy, that was confusing!) It's a confusing story, but it IS beautiful nonetheless. :) This movie is certainly one of the best Japanese movies I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen plenty). Writing about something so wonderful is completely hard. Actually, it's almost impossible to describe the peculiarities of this movie. This is a marvelous story about sex and gender, and it's almost unbelievable that we have not to deal with obscene scenes of sex. Feeling, this film was made for people that like to feel, and just to feel, life in all its complexity in a gorgeous simple way. We look at it, and something starts growing inside our minds, even our hearts: it a pure poem. I've watched some "gay" movies, and I almost always got really unsatisfied with unnecessary scenes of sex, not because I don't like scenes of sex, but generally they are so pornographic that I'm forced to think that the director or the producers or the writer of the script thinks that homosexuality means perversion. Nagisa no Shindobaddo is totally different from that ones. Three are the main characters. We have Ito, Yoshida and Aihara, two boys and a girl in a peculiar love triangle. Ito likes his best friend Yoshida, Yoshida likes Aihara and Aihara likes Ito. Imagine what this could turn in unprepared hands? But in the contrary, Hashiguchi makes a magnificent story which goes profoundly in the philosophy of life, adding a question in our mind that made me think, astonished, in the end of the movie: Why? And that why expanded in multiple questions inside of my brain and inside of my heart. The scenes, actually, sometimes tending to be boring, are moments of the most delightful poem which we are able to feel, but totally unable to write down in words. And maybe because of that, we are unable to understand the question in the end of the movie. I'm sure this movie was not made for us to discuss every piece of it… Some people want to understand a film almost dissecting it. Others are so used to common "American gay" movies that can't appreciate the real value of this master-piece. Watch it, close your eyes in the credits and feel, everything, feel yourself, feel the wonderful song. For all this and much, much more, I give a nine. And I just don't give ten, because ten of ten is perfection. But I confess I almost did it. Watching this movie, I can't help drawing the comparison between it and Wild Reeds, another thoughtful film about teenagers coming of age.

Like Wild Reeds, this movie is slow and the director would not be hurried. So if you want a quick resolution to things, don't watch it. This movie is like a slice of life, beginning imperfectly and ending imperfectly. There's no resolution to anything, no happily ever after for anybody, just like real life.

This movie is as real as it gets. The acting is surprisingly good. The director is fond of long, really long, shots and the actors and actresses excel at showing subtlety and inner thoughts.

I love this movie. I almost didn't watch it but now I'm very glad that I did. It's not a movie for everyone but if you're willing to let it grow on you, you will be rewarded.

10/10 I just watched this film, and I have to say it surprised me. It was very well done, with good acting and a deep look at high school students from Japan, in adolescent love.

The look and feel is a lot different from many movies, and you can easily get into the film. Much of the emphasis seems to be in the story itself, which is extremely subtle. The main theme and relations with other characters are a bit complex. But the the overall sense of realism and dimensions still pulls you in.

A main draw back is of course, those who like something simple. Which is not here. You have to be open to many things, including a new culture, to get more into the film.

I did enjoy this film though. It is worth watching. Pepe Le Pew can either really creep you out or totally sweep you off your feet. Either way, you can't help feeling a little awe on beholding this classic WB character. This commentater personally believes that Pepe was the inspiration behind other would be animated casanovas today from Cartoon Network's "Johnny Bravo" to Disney's Lumiere from "Beauty and the Beast".

His unique brand of love making is to be wondered at in today's world where his antics would normally be slapped with a sexual harassment warrant and at least a 50m distance from all his victims.

In this particular cartoon, a world weary cat decides to do an ultimate makeover and earn some respect for a change for pretending to be a skunk. All goes well, until Pepe arrives and promptly pursues the unfortunate feline with his overwhelmingly enthusiastic love-making.

The groundwork for Pepe's many trademarks are laid in this cartoon. From his adorable "frenchified" love calls to that aggravatingly calm hop-chase of his.

This cartoon only goes to show that as far as the world of cartoon fantasy is concerned, the most ardent wooer can go the distance...and have his beloved "pig-eon" leaving dust trails behind them. One day a red alley cat is fed up of being kicked by people and attacked by dogs and muses that life would be better if he were a skunk. He then paints himself black with a white stripe down his back and adds a bit of Limburger cheese to make him stink. At first life couldn't be better for him, the dog flees and the butcher abandons his shop letting the cat walk off with a pile of meat. Just as he is thinking everything is perfect he is noticed by a real skunk, not just any skunk but the overly amorous Pepé Le Pew. Pepé mistakes the poor cat for a female skunk and pursues him thinking his protestations are just shyness. Our poor cat thinks he has escaped when he throws a skunk skin from a tall building so that Pepé will think he is dead, at first it seems to work but as he sneaks off Pepé sees him and instantly forgets the dead skunk. In the end the cat realises he was better off being kicked and attacked than being lusted after by a randy skunk... there is a nice ending for the skunk too when his wife finds out what he has been up to.

This was a fairly funny introduction to Pepé Le Pew who back then was just overly amorous but now looks like a randy sexually harassing stalker, although he was punished for his behaviour in the end. And thus was born the most amorous skunk ever to grace the silver screen. While the plot has an abused cat painting himself like a skunk and inadvertently attracting Pepe Le Pew (called Henry here), Pepe certainly steals the show. No doubt Chuck Jones realized that this love-seeking member of the genus Mephitis had that special something necessary to be a star in his own right, and so he cast Pepe in "For Scent-imental Reasons" four years later, firmly establishing PLP's enduring presence on screens everywhere.

So, while "Odor-Able Kitty" may be a place holder otherwise, I try to imagine watching it for the very first time in 1945. Could anyone have guessed that this supporting character would soon join the ranks of Bugs, Daffy, Porky, and the rest? Whether or not anyone did, Pepe remains one of the most likable characters to this day. C'est l'amour! This is the first Pepe Le Pew cartoon and in some ways it's very similar to the later ones but in a few other odd ways it is not. While the object of Pepe's affections IS a cat, oddly it appears to be a BOY cat! This whole predicament occurs because a cat is tired of being abused by others and dresses up like a skunk and tries to smell like a skunk so it can be left alone. Unfortunately, this attracts our hero, Pepe. Most of the action is pretty typical until the very funny and unexpected ending--and this actually makes this one of the best of all cartoons in the series. Excellent animation (though the style is different than later examples), excellent writing and a good sense of humor make this one a keeper. The brilliant Chuck Jones, master of Warner Bros. cartoon comedy, brings us the first (?) Pepe LePew cartoon. An alley cat, tired of being pushed around, paints himself in the colors of a skunk, and with a healthy dose of Limburger, turns the tables on his tormentors. Then along comes Pepe, and you know the rest. Many of Pepe's famous gags were born here, including his chase/hop, in which he hops casually along while his prey runs himself to exhaustion.

In my opinion, Warner Bros. cartoons became less inventive and more ho-hum in the 50s. This 1947 'toon is one of the few examples of Mel Blanc putting his absolutely crazy voice into Pepe's mouth. But the kicker is the ending, where Pepe is revealed to be an American "wolf in skunk's clothing"! A must see! Classic Warner Bros... This short, a formative cartoon featuring Pepe Le Pew, concerns a cat who thinks he'll solve all his problems by pretending to be a skunk. Trouble is, he attracts the most unwelcome attention of an honest and for truly skunk (our hero, Pepe, entering stage left) being decidedly more attentive, shall we say, than M. Cat would like. Every great plan has its drawbacks, but this one's a corker! I wonder if Jack Warner got a call from the Hays Office over the fact that Pepe and the object of his adoration were both male. After all, Betty Boop was in part responsible for the Production Code coming into existance. Subsequent "conquests" were clearly and most definitely female. Very good cartoon, but Pepe is a character who works better as the focal point, rather than supporting. Well worth watching. Recommended. Another Raquel Welch Classic! This Picture hit the theaters November 10 1969 starring Raquel Welch as Michele, James Stacey as Joe and Luke Askew as Alan Morris. Nikki is on her way to meet with her girl friends Michele and Jackie. While on her way there, she runs into her ex husband who wants a second chance. Nikki walk away from him goes to the table where she sees Michele and Jackie. Alan approaches her again and she starts to walk away when Alan shoots her in the back. Nikki is taken to the hospital while Michele and Jackie go to the police station. Michele goes to the hospital where she meets up with Jackie only to find that Nikki died. Alan then goes after Jackie who he hits with a car and then tries to run Michele down. Michele jumps into her car and heads for Los Angeles. When she gets there, she calls Lloyd her boss in Las Vegas to let him know that she was all right. Lloyd tells her to go to the club called the losers to see Jeri about a job. However, there's one problem! The bartender has a drug problem and Alan knows it so Alan and the bartender have a little talk. Back in Los Angeles Michele not only gets a job as a dancer with Jeri but also hooks up with Jeri bouncer Joe. Now some thoughts on this picture! This picture was far better then Raquel last, and this one had nonstop action. Luke Askew did a fine job of playing Nikki ex husband. He was your typical murder with the look that goes with it. As for Raquel Welch performance, the only word that comes to mine is fantastic. She was awesome in this movie and her beauty stood out and shined like never before. The outfit that she wore on stage to dance was breathtaking. In fact, all the outfits she wore in this movie were breathtaking. Of course, it doesn't matter what Raquel had on because she looks good in everything or nothing. I give this movie 10 weasel stars for two reasons. The first and by far is Raquel Welch who's the leading actress and deserves 10 stars. The second reason is that this movie was wall-to-wall excitement from beginning to end. Anyone who has spent time working in a hospital or medical facility has got to appreciate this film. The plot is absolutely wild but entertaining from start to finish. The acting is superb. George C. Scott is the brilliant doctor but class A failure as husband, father. Diana Riggs, a sex symbol of the 1960s and 1970s (of The Avengers), saves him from himself. The surrounding cast is superb and the dialogue quite entertaining. I think I enjoyed the film more on viewing it the 4th., 5th. or 6th. time because I caught that much more of the richness of the dialogue and the interplay of the characters. Well worth seeing again and again. You just won't want to check in to a hospital in the near future. Certainly the highlight of this film is it's cast.

Diana Rigg, George C. Scott, Bernard Hughes to mention a few.

I have accumulated more time in hospitals and with doctors over the years than I care to think about.

This comedy attacks the pomp and pretension in all aspects of our society, through the setting of one of it's "Most Haughty" institutions... the Medical profession.

The idea that such goings on could be possible, might be a shock to some, but is a delight to anyone with the perspective of experience.

Dr Brock (Scott) undergoes a mid-life crisis of monumental proportions before our eyes as we, and he, become enamored with the prospect of his involvement with Miss Drummond (Rigg).

The thread of the absurd is woven into this wonderful mix in the form of the irony that the Hospital appears to be killing it's own workers as they mismanage their affairs in it.

The climax is unpredictable (unless you've seen it) and made even more hilarious if you happen to guess.

It's not everyone's brand of humor, to be sure, and has uproariously funny "Dark Moments" if you're open to them.

I loved every minute, and was delighted to see it out on DVD. I had never paid much attention to this flick until I learned that Paddy Chayefsky - author of the brilliant "Network" - was the scriptwriter. His work there had instructed me as to his genius, so when 'Hospital' appeared on TMC, I was anxious to see it. I was not disappointed. Looking at both this film and "Network" it would seem that his big theme is the absurdity, inanity, and sheer viciousness of large human enterprises (e.g., hospitals, networks) against the sanctity of individual experience and the human spirit, and all of it delivered with a knife-edge sense of utterly black humor. "Hospital" is as black of a comedy as "Network" is, and the excellent cast, led by the incomparable Scott, does his work full justice. This is a keeper; definitely not to miss. If you liked Paddy Chayevsky's "Network" you'll probably like this black comedy as well, as it's another brilliant Chayevsky script, a wonderful satire on big-city hospitals and a perfect vehicle for Geo. C. Scott. He plays a burned-out chief of medicine on the most chaotic day he or his hospital have ever seen. His personal crisis is coming to a head and his hospital's falling down around him, as local residents demonstrate against the hospital and patients and doctors are dying at an alarming rate, thanks to a biblically-inspired and murderous saboteur. The latter, who theatrically declares himself the "Fool for Christ," "Parakleet of Kaborka," "Wrath of the Lamb," and "Angel of the Bottomless Pit," bops doctors on the head, administers lethal injections and swaps patients' identities, causing treatments and operations to be performed on the wrong persons.

This film makes you uncomfortable, as deadly mistakes like these do happen (hopefully not so many, not so often and not in one place) and at the same time makes you laugh at the priceless character portraits. One is Richard Dysart ("L.A. Law") as Dr. Wellbeck, a sort of celebrity surgeon who spends far more time worrying about his investments and publicly-traded stock than about his patients, who suffer lethally from his vast indifference and neglect. There's Diana Rigg as free-spirited, hippie-ish Barbara Drummond, who seduces the beleaguered chief of medicine (Scott) and tries to get him to run away with her. Then there's the deluded murderer, who happens to be Barbara's father and who "functions well enough" back at the Indian reservation where he lives with his daughter and even runs a clinic, but who's pushed to madness merely by being placed back in civilization. The strongest portrait by far is Scott's Dr. Bock, who bares his soul as former boy genius, failed father and husband, brilliant doctor and responsible administrator, who constantly dreams of suicide but must bear up under the demands of his job. Scott is exceptional in this demanding role.

Until the final scenes one doesn't know if Bock will leave the hospital behind for Barbara's Indian reservation and a quieter, simpler life, whether her murderous father will be caught or whether the protesting, rioting locals will take over and bring the hospital to its knees. Watching the crazed killer at work, one suspects Chayevsky is telling us our lunatic society makes him do these things, as we're told he's a different person away from cities and people.

As my own father was the chief administrator of a number of large hospitals over the years, I had some idea of the demands of his job and the huge responsibility he shouldered. This story makes that responsibility the linchpin on which Scott's crisis turns. This is both a funny and scary film, with the actors up to the considerable demands of Chayevsky's script. It's also a film I get more out of each time I watch it. Anybody who goes to the Manhattan Hospital Center is taking his life in his hands. That includes the staff of The Hospital.

I had never seen The Hospital before and I was intrigued at how similar the characters and situations of the plot were to that other Paddy Chayefsky masterpiece, Network. There are elements in George C. Scott's character that have both Al Schumacher's and Howard Beale's.

He's the administrator of The Hospital and he's mad as hell and not going to take it any more. He's completely estranged from his wife and kids. It takes a Faye Dunaway type character in the person of Diana Rigg to make him snap out of it. One roll in the hay with her and he's shocked back to reality and the fact he still can contribute in the world.

But first he's got a real problem. Someone is out killing hospital staff, four of them in a 48 hour period. And the nice part is their deaths can be attributed to in large part to the general incompetence of a medical bureaucracy. That's where the comedy comes in.

There is an actual Howard Beale type character in the person of Barnard Hughes, Diana Rigg's father. His end is not quite as dramatic as Beale's though.

Back in my working days it was part of my job to pay medical suppliers. Some of them could be as big creeps as you'll find portrayed in The Hospital. The black comedy satire had some real bite to it for me.

George C. Scott was nominated for Best Actor, but having won and refused to accept the previous year's Oscar for Patton, he wasn't about to get a second chance. He lost to Gene Hackman for The French Connection. Still his handling of the role is unforgettable.

Try viewing The Hospital back to back with Network and see how many similarities you spot. Absolutely corrosive! Director Arthur Hiller and writer Paddy Chayefsky dismantle the American hospital system with this wicked comedy/drama/whodunit. The hospital depicted here is fraught with problems...from protesting neighbors to irate patients to a potential serial killer on the loose. George C. Scott is the top doctor who, on the brink of his own nervous breakdown, gets involved with free-spirited Diana Rigg and her wacky father Barnard Hughes. Alternately depressing and uproarious, THE HOSPITAL features some of the most acid-tinged dialog imaginable (note how Scott describes his love making session with Rigg). It also has a lot of great vignettes: Scott berating head nurse Nancy Marchand after one of here underlings accidentally kills a doctor; daffy administrator Frances Sternhagen trying desperately to collect insurance info from a waiting room full of sick people; Scott getting sobering advice from the hospital psychiatrist after telling him of his woeful home-life. All of the acting is first-rate. Scott and Rigg are dynamite and Hughes is a real surprise. The movie is a masterpiece with Chayefsky's script earning a well-deserved Oscar (over such stiff competition as KLUTE & Sunday, BLOODY Sunday). The opening narration is priceless. George Scott gave the performance of a lifetime in Paddy Chayefsky's THE HOSPITAL, a very dark drama about an aging big city hospital and a middle-aged physician on the verge of suicide. Along comes Diana Rigg as a free spirit determined to save him from himself. Their dialog crackles, and it is clear they are made for each other from the outset. But will she save him? Their one sex scene is both graphic and memorable for its passion and fury. Meanwhile, the hospital is under siege by a group of agitators who don't want it to turn a condemned building into a cancer center. And a serial killer is loose in the hospital, specializing in doctors and nurses. A good part of the movie, though, is squarely focused on Scott. As it should be. What a difference a few years made back when this movie was made. 1962 had given us THE INTERNS, a hokey, old-fashioned reworking of DR. KILDARE with terrible acting and a cardboard script. Along came 1971 and THE HOSPITAL. Less than 10 years later. Hollywood did something right for a change. Watching THE HOSPITAL today is a reminder of how much medical shows like ST. ELSEWHERE and SCRUBS owe to this enduring classic. And if THE HOSPITAL reminds you of NETWORK, it should. Same scripter. Read a biography of the late George C. Scott and you'll discover why he was so enormously talent. He was asked by an interviewer what his secret was when making each character he played his own. Scott replied, he possessed inside him a burning fire which drove him. In one of his last interviewers, he sadly revealed he had lost the drive. This was not the case when he starred in the movie, "The Hospital." In this offering, he plays talented doctor Bock, medical director of one of the finest hospitals in the country. However, life has dealt him some crippling problems, such as losing his wife to a divorce, becoming alienated from both his promising children and worse of all, believing himself to be physically impotent. At this point, he is now becoming complacent, morose and frequently fantasizes various ways of committing suicide. To add to his growing list of personal obstacles, his main reason for being, his hospital has come under siege by students and neighborhood protesters, incompetent doctors like Dr. Welbeck (Richard Dysart) and a mysterious MD. who is killing both patients and doctors alike, because he believes he is "the Wrath of the Lamb." (Barnard Hughes). Few choices are left to Bock. One is promising doctor Brubaker (Robert Walden) whom he confides in by saying, "If there were an oven around here, I would put my head in it." The second is a luscious young woman, named Barbara who is attracted to Bock because he acts like a wounded bear. Paddy Chayefsky wrote the screen-play and Arthur Hiller did an extremely good job of directing this dramatically interesting, dark story, but a vehicle nonetheless, lit by the fire of George C. Scott. **** May I never have to go to this hospital [or hospice, if I want to be politically correct] [which ass coined this asinine phrase, anyway?], for anything other than directions on how to get out of town. George C. did a masterful job playing the burned out, over worked cynic who has come to the conclusion that his life has been a waste, but is helpless to change his environment or conditions even when given a golden opportunity [which probably wasn't so golden anyway]. I got several laughs out of this brutally black comedy, however at the same time was sobered and often chilled to the marrow because I fear this very atmosphere pervades most houses of healing even as I write. Patty Chayevsky was years ahead of most successful screenplay and drama writers in tackling sticky subjects. In this 1971 film he followed Sinclair Lewis and A. J. Cronin (in respectively ARROWSMITH and THE CITADEL) in looking critically at the world of medicine, although his target is centered on a special stage: a modern hospital in Manhattan. Chayevsky's point of view is quite direct: are hospital's places for people to go to to get well, or are they money making organizations where people frequently die due to incompetence.

As a person who has recently been to a hospital too many times (and will shortly have to return again) I find THE HOSPITAL a very timely and rewarding satire. George C. Scott is Dr. Block, one of the heads of the Manhattan Surgical Center, a major teaching hospital. He has just started his day when he is told that one of the second year residents has died during the night in an apparent mix-up. It seems he was sedated and drugged while sleeping on a bed (he'd been having a tryst with a nurse), and someone tampered with an i.v. that should have contained water with glucose in it (later it turns out he got an overdose of insulin in the i.v.). Soon Scott finds that whenever he turns around some other member of the staff dies of a heart attack or of a botched operation. The key to all this appears to be one patient who came to the hospital ten days before for a regular check-up, and has since lost one kidney, nearly lost his other kidney, and is now in a comatose state (Barnard Hughes).

Hughes' daughter (Diana Rigg) wants to bring the comatose dad back to his home on an Apache Indian Reservation in Mexico. Scott is not totally opposed to the idea - after all, hospital errors almost killed Hughes. Also, Scott is suffering a mid-life crisis with the collapse of his marriage and family, and his growing doubts about what his chosen profession really accomplishes. It is not only looking at a case like Hughes'. The hospital is in a constant state of chaos wherein the regular staff (Scott, Stephen Elliot, Nancy Marchand, Stockard Channing) is overworked and overtaxed, and is at war with the business staff (typified by Frances Steenhagen in a really chilly performance). The local community is hostile because of the expansion plans of the hospital - but when they meet to "discuss" matters with Elliot they prove to be as divisive among themselves (militant Black Panthers versus local clergy versus birth control seeking women and pro-abortion clinic types). Rigg (who falls in love with Scott in the course of the film) becomes more and more certain that leaving the insanity of the city makes sense, and Scott also toys with the idea.

Scott was at his acting height in this film, what with ANATOMY OF A MURDER, THE HUSTLER, DR. STRANGELOVE, and PATTON under his belt before THE HOSPITAL was made. His angst registered when he and Rigg get to know each other (she prevents him from killing himself due to his despair). He can't tell if anything done in the hospital is worthwhile, and screams out the window the words in the "Summary Line". Though he does later relax a little about how good his teaching has been for doctors studying with him, Scott really never fully is sure about it all - he does, however, fully accept his own sense of responsibility that others just dump. Rigg too was at the height of her international fame (if not her acting abilities) - her stint as Mrs. Peel on THE AVENGERS was a few years old, but she was recognized as a leading stage talent in Britain at the time, as well as one of the sexiest women performers of that period.

The supporting actors are good too. Besides the chilling Steenhagen (demanding Medicare/Medicaid/insurance information from comatose patients in the E.R.), there is Hughes as a religious maniac who wins, and Elliot as the fed up head of the hospital. There is also my favorite caricature: Richard Dysart as Dr. Elwell. Elwell is a butcher who has found a real home for himself on the Big Board of the Stock Exchange, having incorporated himself for tax incentives. Anyone recalling his performances as ethical types such as the head of the law firm in L.A.LAW or as the friend and physician to Melvin Douglas in BEING THERE, upon seeing his greedy Dr. Elwell see another facet to this underrated actor's talents. This is one of the greatest films ever made. Brilliant acting by George C. Scott and Diane Riggs. This movie is both disturbing and extremely deep. Don't be fooled into believing this is just a comedy. It is a brilliant satire about the medical profession. It is not a pretty picture. Healthy patients are killed by incompetent surgeons, who spend all their time making money outside the hospital. And yet, you really believe that this is a hospital. The producers were very careful to include real medical terminology and real medical cases. This movie really reveals how difficult in is to run a hospital, and how badly things already were in 1971. I loved this movie. P.S. - I noticed that the incompetent, wheeler dealer surgeon played the head of the firm in LA Law. The young doctor played in Lou Grant. I also noticed that the registration nurse has appeared since in Becker and other shows. this movie is funny funny funny my favorite quote from the movie "i think i saw a half naked Indian in my room last night" response that was no hallucination it was a Indian in your room" and another is "what the hell are you talking about, just what the hell are you talking about" but if i ever be admitted to an hospital like this one i will be prepared to write my will on the spot...i would say there were in my opinion three very funny characters in this film most funny but three is the funniest to me even though their lines were few.. and don't get me started on the crack-pot patient hehehe that one i will keep secret and fast paced too. The Hospital is a movie that was made ahead of its time. This film, produced by screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, who gave us the Oscar-Winning film, "Network", deals with overworked staff, gross incompetence, and bureaucratic corruption at a large conglomerate hospital in Manhattan. George C. Scott, in a superb performance as the head physician, is driven to alcoholism and a death-wish, as he tries to recover from a divorce, throwing his son out of the house, and worst of all, a medical facility where corruption and incompetence take precedence over caring and healing of the sick and injured.

Mr. Scott makes the movie his own, and viewers will be shocked at what they observe at this medical establishment. You can feel the "pain" (pun intended) of what this hospital has done to him. The vivid images of this hospital's incompetence are so vivid and dramatically powerful that you may find yourself laughing and being deeply disturbed from scene to scene.

If only the film had stayed with that premise in a documentary style fashion as it starts out, this picture would be brilliant. Unfortunately, there is a sub-plot of Scott falling for the daughter of a senile patient. The patient has been murdering people at the hospital. This is where credibility of the picture becomes strained. The romantic dialog scenes add nothing to the picture, and the mental patient, posing as a doctor, I found to be totally unbelievable. A simple security call and records check should have prevented the senile patient from doing the killings. It takes almost the whole movie, before security people are brought into the film to get the patient out of the hospital. I could not see ONE PERSON doing that much damage, even as corrupt as this hospital is.

Furthermore, George C Scott's character is "overworked" (another pun intended) because the script has too many things happening at once. For example, within a period of 20 minutes, you could have as many as 20 different doctors accused and denying what they should have done or didn't do. With the nurses and aids, it's the same story. Someone's chart was read wrong, someone was given the wrong medication and died, the doctor operated on the wrong patient, than another doctor does the same thing, blaming a third nurse who was not on call because the second nurse who was supposed to be admitting the patient was on her coffee break. There is also a lot of subtle, dark humor with the same messages of incompetence and corruption being fed to the viewer.

This repetition of medical ineptness is unforgettable. However, the murder subplot is a distraction more than a help to this movie. When the focus of this film is on the incompetence of the staff and Scott's reactions to this, you are glued to the screen. But the conversations between Scott and the mad patient's daughter force the film into a mystery type "Who Done it?" scenario that seriously hurts the quality of the movie. When the loony patient is revealing how he did the killings, I wondered the following: Why did the producers need the "find the killer" mad-patient sub-plot? I think the only point of Scott's character having a relationship with the senile patient's daughter, was to give him anybody with whom to communicate. The Hospital should have maintained its scathing indictment of the medical profession by removing the love-interest and mad patient scenes. It should have focused on the incompetent B.S within its walls more frequently. In an era where this movie could have been phenomenal, the sub-plot stories make the film very good instead of the great masterpiece it could have been. This movie is George C. Scott at his very best, Bernard Hughes at his very best and Diana Rigg at her most pithy, and of course Paddy Chaevsky writing at "masterpiece" warp! There are also very brief snippets of future biggies like Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing etc., who have one scene lines that you don't necessarily spot until your fifth or sixth time watching. Nancy Marchand as a young to middle age nurse supervisor is also superb, as well as practically every "face" in Hollywood of 1970.

It is one of the few movies that gets better the more times you see it. Watch for the "surprise" scene ala "Wait until Dark"! This is one of the few movies I have ever bought on DVD. It is that superb. I am still waiting for years a new DVD issue of this marvelous film. I own a beta max recording with FRENCH language. Unfortunately, MGM omits the french track on his recent DVD... Just English spoken an french subtitles...I don't know how make MGM to be advised: I wrote emails to them but, of course, no answer. If I insist, it's because exceptionally, the dubbing track in french was spectacular, funny, well written etc... George C. Scott acting is always outstanding and, for people born like me during the 50ies, Diana Rigg represents something very different than Madonna (for example). Thanks for help... Kind regards... Dr. Bock teaches at the hospital and he is quite good at it. The thing about him is that he is depressed. Dr. Bock and his wife separated, his children are deviant, he cannot perform in the bedroom and he feels as if he isn't doing a very good job at healing people. He becomes suicidal but meets Barbara who changes his ideas for the better. All around this story is a murder mystery and a group of angry protesters outside.

The movie is well done and the character of Dr. Bock is well played out. It's a little sad, somewhat funny and somewhat of a drama. It was good to see a couple stories wrapped around the hospital even if they were somewhat unrelated to what Dr. Bock was doing. Great movie. PLOT SPOILERS!!!! Dr. Boch (George C. Scott) is the chief of medicine at a major NYC hospital. He's left his wife, his children have disowned him, he's impotent, drinks a lot and contemplates suicide. Also there's a killer roaming the hospital. Then he meets VERY strange Barbara (Diana Rigg) and falls in love. She wants him to run away with her--but can he completely give up on his old life and start a new one?

Very strange movie with an Oscar winning script by Paddy Chayefsky. It presents a suicidal main character and shows us a hospital full of overworked nurses and doctors that is run incompetently. It manages (somehow) to actually make this seem pretty funny. It's not laugh out loud humor--it's VERY black humor. Also the acting is right on target--Scott is just great (and Oscar nominated) here. You see him trying to keep his sanity in a totally crazy situation. Riggs character is more than a little odd but her matter of fact manner works and she's also incredibly beautiful. The script is strong and brutal--but never too much. I think it fumbles the ball at the end with a situation that goes way too over the top--but it's still worth seeing. If this had been done totally seriously it probably would be impossible to take. Also look for Katherine Helmond in a small bit and Stockard Channing and Christopher Guest in uncredited bits. I personally had trouble taking this seriously. From what I've heard hospitals WERE this bad back in the 1970s but not anymore. See it for the acting and script. I give it a 7. Being a retired medical/health field "toiler in the vinyard" I never get tired of seeing this film. Paddy Chayefsky was a friend of my college comp teacher & visited him & us during several clases back in 1958. His writing ability has stood the test of time & the "Hospital" is as fresh as it was in 1971. I can watch it every week & still find something new. So many of the supporting cast members went unto bigger & better roles in both TV & film. George Scott made only a few comedies, but his timing & patter are as good as Jackie Gleason & Steve Msrtin. Mental humour rather than physcial/slapstick wins in my book every time. And still a family film with only 1, four letter word during entire film Another black comedy that won an Oscar for Best Screenplay. Starring George C Scott, this redefines the phrase "tearing a new a$$hole." In this case, the target is America's Medicare and grand hospital system. Throughout the hospital, patients and doctors are dying because their names and prescriptions are being changed. Scott roars, screams and blasts away his workers and bosses as they fail more and more. His comment about Dachau to one of his many bosses is sure to elicit laughs. He even beats and rapes a hippie 3 times. This is one that has to be seen AND heard as the monologues and soliloquies are the key points in the film. George C. Scott gives his finest and funniest with wonderful drama as well in this Paddy Chayefsky screenplay. Diana Rigg is attractive and quite the complicated young woman. This film veers between tragedy and chaos in a New York hospital of the late 60's with staggering consequences. Barnard Hughes is delightful as always (great stage actor as well).

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = George C. Scott. Chayesfsky was a big blow-hard when he put down Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar ceremony, but he's a good writer. A truly ensemble cast that works wonders, down to the smallest role. This won best script at Oscars and Scott was nominated. He should have won for this instead of PATTON the year before (which he was also brilliant in). Seek this out! For sheer quality of performance and the "theater of the absurd," this one is hard to compare to anything else. With the world melting down in the early '70s this film made perfect sense then, and still resonates. George Scott could never be typecast. This movie has some of the best dialogue ever written. The really good lines are all given to George C. Scott, a man who knew what to do with a juicy piece of dialogue. I just saw this movie again, for the first time in 20+ years, and the dialogue is as good as ever. The bizarre goings-on at the hospital are so imaginative as to dazzle you. They frequently involve such marvelous poetic justice as to be near strokes of genius. I love this movie!! 36. THE HOSPITAL (comedy, 1971) A series of emergencies has gripped Manhattan Hospital. Patients are dying left and right due to overcrowded conditions, and a ineptitude staff. When a resident doctor is caught up in the death count the chief medical examiner, Dr. Bock (George C. Scott), is called in to investigate. Having worked as a doctor for too many years, and going through a mid-life crisis of his own, Dr. Bock finds the going tough. He decides to commit suicide. But then he meets Barbara (Diana Rigg), a young-hippie beauty. Whose keen insights on life help the depressed Bock.

Critique: Black comedy features a 'tour-de-force' performance from veteran actor George C. Scott. He's good at playing high-strung, serious characters whose strict morals are severely tested. First half of the film unfolds like a melodrama, giving a pretty good account of hospital life, and the shambles they sometimes are. But then, as things look set for a dramatic climax it skews into slapstick comedy. If Paddy Chayefsky's script had maintained its dramatic feel I wonder if Scott would've walked out with another best Actor Oscar (he had previously won it, 'in-absentia', the year before). His breakdown (suicide) scene is one of the most gut-wrenchingly real in cinema history.

QUOTE: Dr. Bock: ". . .last night I sat in my hotel room reviewing the shambles of my life and contemplating suicide. I said 'no Bock don't do it. You're a doctor, a healer, you're a necessary person, you're life is meaningful'. Then. . .I find out that one of my doctors was killed by a couple of nurses. . .how am I to sustain my feeling of meaningfulness in the face of this?" The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the "We heal nothing. We cure nothing" monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.

For those unfamiliar with Paddy Chayefsky, this is a very good introduction. While Chayefsky deals with the reality behind the myths of many things including medicine, this work is surprisingly prophetic of the way medicine is going today, two decades after the movie was made and over a decade after his death. Beyond that, some insights into Chayefsky's view of life in general are 'slipped into' the movie as well. The 20th Century may well turn out to be the first and last century of the United States in the History of the World. If it turns out that the contribution to the arts by the United States was in the dimension of the 'movie,' this is a prime example of that art. As I stated earlier this year, in my review of Swordfish (which was scripted by this films writer/director/producer Skip Woods) this is a good film. It ranks very high up there in my crime flick list among Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, Pulp Fiction and Snatch. Basically I think this film is for me what Reservoir Dogs was for many people - a cult classic - although I prefer to compare it with Pulp Fiction. I mean I never liked Tarantino's first effort a lot, but I sure as hell liked this one as much as I like Pulp Fiction, for it simply has everything a classic needs. A great story and good actors. OK the budget might be not as big as in for instance Godzilla, The Avengers of Mission to Mars but it sure as hell beats the living crap out of those films (and numerous others).

The story of this film, is about a man named Casey (Thomas Jane), who has settled down with his wife in Houston. Unexpectedly an old friend of his comes by disrupting his life, revealing his secrets and basically making his day a living hell (and a bloody one too).

The film is very original and quite bloody / sexually tinted. So based on that first and that last quality I can assure you that if you like this film, you'll also like Swordfish, which of course has a much bigger budget and more famous faces than this one but is just as good (though not as bloody and not quite as sexually tinted). I saw this film for the second time last night and I really enjoyed it (again). I mean all the characters and actors are good, although I must give very big credits to Thomas Jane and Paulina Porizkova, who were the best actors (and had the best characters) in the film. Also I'd have to thank Skip Woods for being so imaginative and original. Brutal, sexual, offensive??? Maybe, but sure as heck enjoyable and a thrill ride to the end.

8 out of 10 OK,so this film is NOT very well known,and wasn't very well publicised.I discovered this fairly brutal gangster gone good movie by complete accident on one of Skys millions of movie channels late on some boring evening,but I'm glad i did!The opening sequence to this film is fantastically comical in a very dark way.This in fact sets what i think is the general tone for the movie.I think a lot of critics and movie fans that have actually seen this film have been a bit unfair to just write it off as a lower budget gangster movie in the Reservoir Dogs vein.OK,so there are undeniable similarities between Thursday and some other crime genre films that it has been compared to,but in all fairness,i think this film takes a much more darkly comic look at this type of film,and the end result is a engrossing,well made,funny,if not totally original film.Tom Jane is good in this,and deserves the recognition he will now hopefully get thanks to the The Punisher.His performance as the bad guy gone good is realistic,funny and just cold enough to make you believe Casey really was a bad ass before he reformed.Thats another thing that makes this film stand out for me,the characters.In Nicks gang you get the strangest trio of criminals ever assembled,a smooth,charismatic but very cold leader(Nick),a trigger happy blood loving sexually predatory bitch of a woman(Dallas)and a psychotic hill billy with brains with a penchant for torture(Billy Hill).Throw in the most bizarre police detective ever seen on screen,beautifully over played by Mickey Rourke,and you've got a recipe for...well for Thursday really.Its at times darkly comic,sometimes brutal,sometimes unoriginal,but always engrossing and worth watching.8/10 'Thursday' is a good movie but we recognize too much from other movies in its genre and therefor it lacks originality. If you have seen 'Goodfellas', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and a bunch of other movies that were inspired by that last one you have seen almost every part from 'Thursday'. There is a scene that involves torturing that has even the same dialogue as in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'.

Still, it is a good movie. Because not every part is taken from the same movie the complete thing has some new ideas and some nice touches. The opening sequence to begin with, is quite impressive. We meet Nick (Aaron Eckhart), Dallas (Paulina Porizkova) and Billy Hill (James Le Gros). They get into a fight with a clerk in a gas station over a cup of coffee and it ends with the death of that clerk and the arrival of a cop. We've already glimpsed at a suitcase with a lot of money in it.

Then we meet Casey (Thomas Jane) in Houston. He is married to Christine (Paula Marshall) but used to be working with Nick. She doesn't know a thing. Then Nick gives him a call and says that he is coming. We learn that he has screwed his friends over and the problems are about to start.

What happens exactly is not for me to reveal but we meet some other characters, all interested in the money or the drugs Nick also had with him. Casey has flushed those down the drain.

Very funny moments, a lot of blood, a very funny sub-plot involving actor Michael Jeter and some surprises (although if you really think about it you see them coming) this is a good movie with some very fine performances, nicely directed by Skip Woods. It is a damn good movie,with some surprising twists,a good cast and a great script. Only a couple of stupid bits,like the Rasta hit-man scene (This guy's a professional?) but that has been commented on already. The fact I had only heard one guy at work mention it before, and did not have many opinions or reviews to go on, made it even more entertaining. This gets a higher score than maybe some people think it deserves, but I have to factor in the low budget and the good effort from the cast. It sickens me that some movies get made whose budget equals the GDP of a small country,with a hyped up release,good reviews,an Oscar winning director and/or actors, and turn out to be so disappointing,with actors sleepwalking through their roles and uninspired directing,with predictable plot lines and a story with holes in it so big,Sandra Bullock could drive a bomb-loaded bus through it. (Examples in my opinion are The Terminal,Castaway,Matrix:Revolutions) Extra points are awarded for the wardrobe department choosing great clothes for the cast,especially Paulina Porizcova,who wears a rubber dress in one scene,and a jacket with "c*nt" on the back in large letters in another!A sex scene which shows off her tight ass and a good soundtrack are added bonuses! And PLEASE,enough with the Tarantino comparisons,this did not remind me of a Tarantino flick at all.... and Tarantino borrows virtually every idea he has ever had from other movies! Even if that is your opinion,are we saying once a certain film or book is written or directed one way,no-one can ever use the same ideas again? get real. This film has it's own style. This film is hard to knock. It follows in the tradition of Pulp Fiction, yet succeeds further by stamping its own unique style. The cast is awesome, the script is great - and things like the odd (Pulp Fiction-esque) time-sequencing is done brilliantly. I particularly like how the images provided in flash back vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story at the time. When it is one of the indoctrinated criminals everything is flashy and cool, but when it is the hero's recollection everything is skanky and disgusting.

This is an awesome film - and so I am extremely annoyed to find that I cant buy it anywhere! When i watched this movie i had no idea what it was about, and i had never heard of it before. But i must say i was positively surprised. The first few minutes are almost the most funny of the whole movie. The store clerk from India is just too funny! Anyways, the story isn´t really too much to talk about, but i think it´s ok. The acting on the other hand is quite good, and still the only actor i recognized was Mickey Rourke who wasn´t really in the movie until the ending. And the ending is where the turn-off is i think, it´s not bad but i don´t feel like it really ends. I feel like there should have been something more. A final battle in some way. I don´t know. All in all, this was a good movie and i recommend it to anyone into Tarantino-type movies with loads of violence and dark, sinister humor! I rate it 7/10. The movie is a riot - hilariously funny yet graphically violent. Just when you think you can't take any more it gives you more. Great thiller. The cast is excellent and the plot is very convincing. The past does indeed catch up with our hero, but right(?) prevails. It resembles so much to movies like PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS that is impossible to think that Tarantino's films weren't a source of inspiration to this THURSDAY. However for a low cost B-Series movie it's not bad. The plot about gangsters is captivating and funny and it also has a bit of dark humor and sarcasm we can find in PULP FICTION. The resources weren't many fore sure but the film is well produced. The acting also is good. I enjoyed the scene when the girl was sat on the sofa teasing the doctor... It was hot and funny at the same time! The soundtrack is nice too. I didn't hear too many songs but the ones I heard I liked. I score it 7/10. ONE GOOD THING: This hidden treasure of a crime drama is incredibly entertaining from beginning to end. An example of low-budget film making at it's best, writer/director Skip Woods uses seemingly everything he could find (ex: Lamborghini, super model, cow phone) and an ear for dialogue to add levels of satire to the plot and all of his camera set-ups.

ANOTHER GOOD THING: This movie seems to be made for the DVD era, with several segments that comprise a larger story (similar to the work of Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's Desperado). Each "chapter" of the film features Thomas Jane's main character spending one day at home encountering quick and memorable performances by Aaron Eckhart, Glen Plummer, Mickey Rourke, Michael Jeter, James LeGros, and an unforgettable role by Paulina Porizkova.

EVEN ANOTHER GOOD THING: Not exactly a "good" thing, but incredibly shocking and memorable... Every person who sees this movie remembers one important scene. Much as Deliverance will always be remembered for it's awful rape of Ned Beatty, Thursday will go down as the movie where a woman forcibly rapes an unwilling man. Unforgettable.

ONE BAD THING: The title makes people think it is somehow related to (or derivative of) the "Friday" series of films featuring Ice Cube.

GRADE: A+ A vehemently cynical, sarcastic and intense film, mocking and imitating the style of Pulp Fiction and stylized gangster films, Thursday is an entertaining, off-putting and hilarious thrill-ride. An amazingly eclectic mix of over-the-top characters and bizarrely entertaining situations, this day-in-the-life of a gunman trying to go straight proves to be a worthy addition to the series of films that attempts to mimic the genius of Tarantino's dark-humored masterpiece Pulp Fiction.

Nick (Aaron Eckhardt) stops by Casey's (Thomas Jane) house to catch up on old times. Casey was a former gunman for drug dealers who has since reformed, become an architect, married a successful businesswoman (Paula Marshall), and is now contemplating adopting a child. Nick, who still has ties to the gangster underworld, leaves a briefcase full of drugs at Casey's house while he borrows his car to run a few errands… a.k.a. unfinished business. Disgusted and angered by the introduction of drugs into his home, Casey flushes them all down the kitchen sink. That's when, one at a time, Nick's double-crossed accomplices, rapping Rastafarian drug messengers, and crooked cops all come a-knocking for the unsuspecting Casey, who is about to have one unbelievable Thursday.

The film opens with a hilarious sequence in a gas station in which Nick is looking for the best deal for a cup of coffee. After pondering which size cup to get, a fiasco breaks out with the cashier when he demands a free snackie cake and uses a $50 bill to pay. Resulting in comically brilliant bloodshed, the situation goes from bad to worse when a cop intervenes and is caught in the most unusual of circumstances. This opening segment establishes the perfect mood for the rest of the film, which never takes itself too seriously and includes outrageous characters that seem self-aware of their own existence in this nonsensical gangster flick.

The film is broken into segments based on various events and times during the course of one day. This effect is much like Pulp Fiction, which is a similarly given chapters, although Thursday doesn't mess with chronological order except for the occasional flashback. Also like Tarantino, music magnificently introduces each scene and each character. Oddly humorous creatures, such as the Jamaican hit-man pizza delivery guy that raps over the phone and shares his hashish, and Paulina Porizkova's narcissistic Dallas, who attempts to rape Casey, add humor to each event regardless of how horrifying and unnerving some of the coincidences are. When Mickey Rourke's calmly spine-chilling crooked cop Kasarov is introduced, the careful staging and intricate setup is fully assembled, and Casey's sticky situation becomes even more daring and laudable.

Definitely a wannabe Pulp Fiction, with plenty of violence, witty dialogue and extremely creepy antagonists, Thursday does some things right, but other attempts at homage may be going just far enough as to suggest rip-off. A flashback sequence that shows Casey shooting up baddies and sporting a hairstyle that exactly matches John Travolta's do in Pulp Fiction is easily one step too far.

- Mike Massie, www.MoviePulse.net OK, so it owes Pulp Fiction, but in my opinion has it's own voice and identity mainly because of the music-video direction style, sketch-like narrative and great performances. Thomas Jane delivers great (the drug-dealer show-down is extraordinary), Aaron Eckhart likewise. James LeGros has a short and effervescent appearance-great humor-"they got the Wong house". The Porzikova interrogation and rape scene is memorable, as is Mickey Rourke's cameo appearance-"take a peak".

Great Hollywood popcorn B-production with strong performances of A-level aspirants and renegades(Rourke).

Well, take a peak, it's worth. This movie is excellent. Not because it does anything special or new, but because it is consistently great in all of its parts. No part stands out as being "ground-breaking" or "stellar", but all parts are far above mediocre, and that makes, to me, an excellent movie.

I own several copies of this movie, and may acquire it on collectors DVD or Blu-Ray, someday (holding off right now due to high blu-ray prices, and of course the face that I don't have a blu-ray player... but that's beside the point of this review).

It stars off sort of ordinary, but quickly turns into a drama filled with tension, some action, strongly portrayed characters, and a well though out plot which keeps you interested until the very end.

Wait, no, it does NOT start out ordinary.

It starts out sort of like what a Qun. Tar. movie WISHES it could be. With an awesome scene where an attempt to buy coffee and a donuts goes... very, very wrong.

By the end of the movie, nothing was as it seemed, and a few people are dead, and a few people are very rich. I won't tell you who... watch and enjoy! Overall rating: 10/10, A**, Excellent! We are taken to a convenience store where Nick is looking at coins in his hand figuring if he can get the special, a 69 cents 20 ounce cup of coffee that comes with a free pastry. He decides to go for the larger size, which of course is more expensive plus it doesn't qualify him for the cake. He tries to argue with the Indian clerk at the register, who keeps her ground. With her it's a matter of principle. Well, Nick gets irritated not getting his own way and proceeds to kill her.

The tone of the story is set from the start. The people we are about to meet are not nice guys. There are Nick, his girlfriend, Dallas, and their partner Billy Hill. They are drug dealers. Nick decides to visit Casey, his friend, and former partner in crime, in Houston. He wants to do one more transaction and then go to Paris with the profits from selling the drugs he is bringing. What he doesn't realize is that Casey has gone straight. He is an architect, married to Christine, and wants to adopt a baby.

Casey doesn't appreciate his former friend bringing drugs into the house. He decides to get rid of the stuff by flushing them down the kitchen drain. The untimely arrival of Ice, a pizza delivery man, takes Casey by surprise. This man has been sent to kill him, but before that, Casey brings out some weed to share with Ice, who has a talent for rapping.

It is at this point that Dr. Jarvis, the man from the adopting agency, arrives. Casey's application shows a two year gap that he can't justify. Jarvis begins to doubt about the prospective father. At this time, Dallas makes an entrance. She is a woman that asks questions point blank, like when she demands to know whether Jarvis enjoys watching porn. Jarvis, who is aroused ends up leaving in a huff. Dallas has decided to seduce Casey at all costs. There is a surprise in store as Billy Hill enters the picture and he doesn't like what he sees, shooting Dallas in the process. Billy Hill has also come to off Casey, but he is overpowered.

Casey gets the visit of Kasarov who wants to get his money from Nick; in his absence, he'll take it from Casey. Kasarov gives a deadline and Casey makes up his mind to outsmart all these low lives. He has all the parties come to his house at an appointed hour and the different factions will take care of themselves. In the end, Casey has a better plan that includes taking Christine for a stay in Paris.

Never having heard about "Thursday" we were drawn into it because of the talent in it. Skip Woods directed his own material. This seems to be a film with good intentions. At times the film remember others of the same genre, not a sin by any shape, or form, which seems to be the main objection of the negative comments left here in the IMDb site. For starters, "Thursday" shows a witty Skip Woods that has gone to write other films, notably, "Swordfish". The screenplay is divided in chapters with suggestive titles, pertaining to the action. Denis Lenoir does wonders with the mostly interior photography.

Thomas Jane makes an excellent contribution to the film with his Casey. Although hard to imagine, he has beat the odds and made something out of himself. This actor, seen recently in the television series "Hung", is one of the actors we don't tire of watching. A dark haired Aaron Eckhart is a welcome addition to any film. He is a greasy criminal that shows no redeeming qualities, or anything close to remorse and doesn't hesitate to involve his former friend in his scheme. James LeGros has nothing to do. Same goes for Paulina Porizkova, a gorgeous creature that is only a distraction, or an afterthought to add a sexy angle. We enjoyed Glenn Plummer, who appears as Ice. He does a mean audition on the telephone. Michael Jeter and Mickey Rourke also appear. hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his "ragga application song" but the cozy one! thanks

this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing.

hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his "ragga application song" but the cozy one! thanks

this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing. Thursday is clearly derivative of the 'new wave' of crime films released since Quentin Tarantino took the genre by storm with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the early nineties, but it has enough ideas of it's own to ensure that it remains an interesting little film. Thursday utilises a few characters mostly within a single location. It works because each character is quirky enough in their own right to be memorable, and when put together what you've got is a very amusing little thriller. There is little substance to be found within the plot, but it doesn't matter because nobody goes into this sort of film expecting a life-affirming experience. The plot follows Casey; a former drug dealer who has gone straight and is now living as a successful architect in suburbia with his wife. The pair wants to adopt a child, but things turn awry when Casey receives a visit from his old partner in crime, Nick, who brought with him a case of heroine and a load of money stolen from the cops. Thursday is going to turn out to be a very interesting day for our former criminal...

The first scene sets the film up rather nicely and ensures that we know what to expect. We see a coffee order go wrong, which turns into a murder scene that the culprits promptly cover up when a cop comes in for refreshments. The scene is soaked with dark humour and witty dialogues, and that is carried on throughout the rest of the movie. Thursday is a very funny film, and scenes such as the ones that see the adoption visitor turn up at an awkward time ensure that the film is difficult to dislike. It's true that the film doesn't bring anything new to the table, cinematically or plot-wise, but the fact that it's happy to wallow in its derision ensures that there's more time for the absurd situation to build around the central characters. The acting is decent enough, with the entire cast clearly having fun with this plot. Thomas Jane holds the film together well in the lead role, while amusing portrayals from James LeGros, Paulina Porizkova, Michael Jeter, Glenn Plummer and Mickey Rourke back him up nicely. This film is unlikely to impress the seasoned film fan, but if you just want an amusing little movie with a few enjoyable twists and performances; Thursday is likely to suffice. I was referred to this movie by a friend. I had never heard of it but I thought it had Christopher Lampbert so I rented it, and come to find out that wasn't Christopher Lampbert it was Thomas Jane who was great it this film. I love that almost the whole movie is set in this suburban house. The characters were great everyone of them and the script was amazing I really wish Skip Woods would write and direct another movie. In my book Thursday is the flawless tale of this guy trying to do the wife and kid thing after a shady past but then his old drug dealer buddy shows up and it becomes quite the Thursday. This is one of my favorite movies and it shows some real potential in Thomas Jane. But this movie is very rare but I have found it in a couple of Hollywood Video's on VHS. So dust off the old VCR and pop in Thursday because it gets Pee Wee's seal of approval I love the premise, but it's replay value is only for certain parts(the opening scene of course). Some characters are a bit outrageous, but they are entertaining none the less. I think the Ballping sh-t was pushing it. I know it was to show that Nick and Casey were living foul out in LA and to show why Casey quit the lifestyle, I just think that the flashback's story could have been better. Also the Jamaican guy rapping on the phone is clever and entertaining, but once again I think the story was told sloppy. It really seems unbelievable. I actually believe Swordfish (the other movie Woods has written) more than some of the parts in Thursday because the government keeps sh-t a secret all the time, and has organizations set up that the public will never know about.

Thursday is the best Quentinesque movie I've seen. I think Woods is imaginative,clever and has witt; however, his work needs more maturation to even to get to the Natural Born Killer script (not Stone's movie) level. How old is he anyway? Very violent and nicely filmed movie. Paulina is a bad sexy girl who will show that men can be raped too. This movie has lots of black humor. This guy will kill anybody just to forget he used to be a gangster. There will be sometimes when you wouldn't know whether to shiver or to smile and think "Am I laughing at someone who is killing people?" Is Thursday an original film? Heck no, but it is a lot of fun! I just caught this buried on the movie channels one night and it was an enjoyable flick. I was expecting much but what I got was some interesting scenes (I really liked the first seen at the convenience store), some amusing stories as told by the characters and a little bit of action thrown in the mix as well. Some good performances from young actors, Paulina Porizkova was good and I was particularly impressed with Aaron Eckhart (who has gone on to impress me further in ‘Yours Friends and Neighbours' and ‘Erin Brokovich'). So if you want 90 minutes of easy going fun go ahead and check out ‘Thursday'. I loved this film! Fantastically original and different! A solid, intense, hard-core and suspenseful movie that has just the right touch of (dark?) humor. If you're tired of the typical, overdone, ridiculous Hollywood B.S. movies, how many big explosions and awful and unrealistic shoot em up gun fights that insult your intelligence can we take, then this film is for you. Fantastic characters that are wonderfully original and believable, and solid performances by all actors, not a weak character or performance in the film. Skip Woods' film is a breath of fresh air and I applaud his originality and efforts, his film has the feel of a cross between a Quentin Tarantino and a Cohen brothers film (not a bad mix at all in my opinion). This movie grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go, there's nothing boring or bubble gum about this film. The only disappointment is that nobody seems to know about it, everyone I've recommended it to has thanked me and shared my opinion on it. This film is a welcomed change/alternative from the canned Hollywood mainstream garbage being produced today, even with their big name actors, big explosions, special effects and huge budgets. It's a terrifically wild, intense, violent, graphic, humorous and raw (I mean that in a good way, no phony Hollywood polish here) ride. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film happen, you did an incredible job! This movie was excellent from start-to-finish. I was riveted by the action, the black humour and the incredibly bad luck our hero encountered at every turn. Thomas Jane is a great actor and I hope to see him in many more movies to come. Reading through other people's comments, I have to admit I never once thought about Tarrantino while watching "Thursday" but now that I think about it I guess there are some similarities. I guess I don't spend much time trying to relate everything to everything else. The rape scene between Porizkova and Thomas Jane is one for the record books - sexiest scene ever. How 'Thursday' managed to avoid attention remains a mystery. A potent mix of comedy and crime, this one takes chances where Tarantino plays it safe with the Hollywood formula. The risks don't always pay off: one character in one sequence comes off inappropriately silly and falls flat. In the lead role, Thomas Jane gives a wonderful and complex performance, and two brief appearances by Mickey Rourke hint at the high potential of this much under- and mis-used actor. Here's a director one should keep one's eye on. I turned over to this film in the middle of the night and very nearly skipped right passed it. It was only because there was nothing else on that I decided to watch it. In the end, I thought it was great.

An interesting storyline, good characters, a clever script and brilliant directing makes this a fine film to sit down and watch. This was, in fact, the first I'd heard of this movie, but I would have been happy to have paid money to see this at the cinema.

My IMDB Rating : 8 out of 10

I saw this movie by accident while in Paris. I went into the wrong theater by accident and by the time I realized it wasn't a preview or a short film, I was hooked.

Paulina does a phenomenal job of holding your attention with her acting. I can't say enough how impressed I was with her portrayal of this real femme fatal. The rest of the cast performs very well too. Don't get me wrong, this is not the greatest film ever made but given I knew nothing about it I was left with a lasting and very positive impression.

Finally, NOT speaking French in France paid off for once! I didn't stop talking about this film for 3 weeks after seeing it. I don't know what the critics were viewing when this movie was released, but it slipped by them unnoticed. It is well written, witty, satirical, and thoroughly enjoyable. It's like a video game brought to life. You never know who's behind the door or what will happen next. The violence is not gratuitous nor overdone for splatter effect.

One last word: For you Mickey Rourke fans...the Mickster is back and at his coolest in the cameo performance at the end. I saw this movie yesterday. I must admit - I love it! It's like early Tarantino, but better. Really a must, but... don't show this movie to anyone younger than 18. It's full of blood and sex (rape scene is great :) ). Now I'm just waiting for other movies of this director and a DVD release. Truly a great film... I stumbled onto it at the video store and rented it because Aaron Eckhart (In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors) was in it as well as Paulina Porizcova... The lovely former SI swimsuit model does get nude in the film, but that is only one of the many reasons to rent it... It's very exciting, and the character development is fantastic... Eckhart is one of the most underrated actors working, and he steals this film... It is very dark and violent, but I enjoyed in immensely.... I watched the movie yesterday and for me it was a stunning combination of movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The best of the best. It was never any dull and always moving, every hour there's another character bothering (trying to kill) him. You never know what's next. In one word TERRIFIC !!! Very tightly written, acted, and filmed. Violent, but not too much so. Whoever edited this knew exactly what he wanted to portray. There isn't a wasted scene in this movie. "The Usual Suspects" was superb ensemble acting; this is a collection of outstanding individual performances. I rarely buy movies, but this one is worth owning. This film is outstanding! On this date of APR, 8 2007 it was on On demand from show time. It had been a while since i seen it, but it does feature Thomas Jane in the first role i seen him in. At first you see a normal guy that seems kind of henpecked, with a wife that seems close to going her own way. The directors cut which i just watched has a opening scene that is cool. Paulina Porizkova is dressed as a cheerleader type, looking very fresh and hot. Trying to buy a coffee late at night with no small bills turns violent in a hurry, Paulina shows that her name on her letter jacket is the real deal. Meeting up with his old road pal Nick played by Aaron Eckhart was cool at first, and he even loans him his wife's car to take care of some business. Then he spots nicks silver briefcase, and the day changes for the weird and violent. There is a cast of real characters that parade through the next series of scenes. But, Paulina's Dallas steals the show i think. Her telling of a Casey story to the doctor that is there to get a personal interview in a adoption application, is outrageous. As a rule i have never thought tall women were that sexy,but as with any rule there are exceptions. Paulina is as one has never seen her before in films. Sexy and lethal, like in the one movie with Tom Selleck, but with a never seen before malevolence. If your looking for film to add to your collection, this one is worth the price. Paulina in the nude is worth the price alone, but this story has everything one might hope one has. Love,friendship,sex and violence in a terrific mix. When i first seen it years ago it blew my mind, and i know you will feel the same way. I had the pleasure of watching this two chairs down from (one of?) the Executive Producer at the Atlantic Film Festival, Which was interesting because he laughed at very different times than the rest of us.

Filmed in Atlantic Canada, the movie is about three teen-aged girls who in one of their last summers of their youth, devote a large deal of energy to sleeping with a married 30-year old man, despite much protestation.

It's definitely worth a watch, but the humour was geared a completely different demographic than the one I inhabit (Male 18-25), so I was shaking my head at the character's antics rather than laughing. Inspite of this, the story is strong enough to hold up for itself make it entertaining, without so much laughing. I had the honor this evening to see a screening of the movie "These Girls" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. Going into the movie, I knew very little about it and just took a chance on it because the film's plot sounded interesting. So as I entered the theater just hours ago I wondered what the final verdict would be thumbs up or thumbs down.

"These Girls" is the story about three best friends from a small town. Keira (Caroline Dhavernas) is the ringleader who basically doesn't know what to do with her life after High School but her father keeps pushing her to go to college which is something she doesn't want to do. Lisa (Holly Lewis) will be going away to a Christian school after the summer. And finally, Glory (Amanda Walsh) who plans on spending her summer babysitting. But this summer is going to be a special one as they all blackmail Keith Clark (David Boreanaz) the sexy older hunk who they baby-sit for. Fun times and a lot of laughs ensue…

I normally don't like movies like "These Girls" but there is something about this movie that I really liked. I think the quality I liked most about it was that it seemed rather realistic. Three girls who want to explore their sexuality pick a hunky guy who lets all of them have sex with him only to be blackmailed by them later. It's a pretty funny tale about growing up, friendship and sex but even though it sounds pretty cheesy I can see majority of this film happening in real life.

The subject matter here is probably a main reason why this film didn't get a mainstream release in the United States. All the girls in this film are suppose to be under 18 which if I remember correctly two of them are 17 and one is 16. Now in the USA even though underage sex occurs on a daily basis many production or finance companies won't finance a film like this because of the sexual content. This information was actually confirmed by the director himself John Hazlett at the Q&A after the film. The thing that gets me is that the sex scenes in this film aren't graphic and the nudity is minor. Not to mention that all the actresses in this film are way over 18 in real life. Go figure.

What the movie does best is it provides a lot of laughs as well as very strong characters. I liked all the characters in this movie and each character seemed to have a "Now & Then" characteristic to them. The jokes were funny because they were cleverly written not because they were dirty or over the top. Everything seemed to flow together nicely both the comedy and the drama. The script was very strong.

The acting was very good for the most part. I thought all the three girls were great. Caroline Dhavernas who also starred in one of the most underrated television series of all time "Wonderfalls" was just terrific; as well as Holly Lewis and Amanda Walsh who both did a fine job as well. David Boreanaz did a good job and he looked like he was having fun while shooting most of the scenes. The guy played a pot head so it was funny seeing him play that role.

I had the pleasure of meeting John Hazlett tonight who seemed like a very nice guy and was very appreciative of the comments made about the film. I am shocked that this movie didn't go anywhere. I think with a little marketing behind it, it could have taken off. Sadly it's going to be one of these direct to DVD films which so few will ever have the pleasure to see. I think with what little budget Mr. Hazlett had to work with, the film turned out well and I think he did a fine job directing this little gem.

For someone who typically hates teen sex comedies I can honestly say I really enjoyed this film. The character development and witty script allowed me to sit there for an hour and a half and be amused. This is a fine comedy because it has heart and spunk to it. I know I will be sure to buy this film when it comes on DVD on May 16, 2006. If you're a fan of coming of age stories, teen sex comedies, or romantic comedies be sure to check this film out because it's one of the funniest films of its kind to be released in years.

MovieManMenzel's final rating for "These Girls" is an 8/10. This movie starts out a little slow but kicks into comedic gear quickly. Each of the three "teenage girls" offer their own believable, distinct, assertive and entertaining personalities. I particularly enjoyed the dialog and interaction between Keith and Lisa. If one looked beyond the superficial "action" that was taking place, Keith's character treated Lisa's "deflowering" with tenderness and consideration. The comic development that followed was also pulled in expertly in my opinion. David Boreanaz gives a wonderful performance as the adult male who clearly gets himself into more trouble than he can handle. Dialogue was sharp, quick and flowed nicely. The director and writer of this film clearly showed how none of the main characters got to claim the moral high ground after all the shenanigans they pulled. Although the movie appears light on the surface, it reflects all the gray areas of becoming an adult, human emotions and desire. My friends and I rented this movie simply to satisfy a friend who was very bent on renting it despite having no idea what it was about. We all thought it would be like "a Canadian American Pie" but when we watched it we were completely surprised, we were all silent throughout the movie and loved it! It was nothing like American Pie and had a plot that teenage girls are sure to adore (seeing as the guy gets the crap beaten out of him at the end), after that night it became my favorite movie for not only it's plot but the actors and the great writing. There wasn't a moment where i thought that it was unbelievable. Everything is very realistic and relate-able for anybody living in a small town with little prospects. I absolutely adore this movie and would recommend you to rent it next time you have a chance, it's worth it. I am really amazed how little fame this film had. i think it has to do with distribution companies and etc.

Don't be idiots - if you are looking for a good fun take this movie - this is very nice movie to pass few hours with and the music is GREAT.

It's about ..... well girls and boys and whats between them with not too much story but not all movies should be PULP FICTION should they?? it's nice and cute and gives good time . The girls are also very good looking and this makes the whole movie even more enjoyable.

Why i gave it only a 9? well the story could be little more convincing from the middle and on. in some point you start to see events that are little less reliable. SMALL SPOILER: The baby is crying and the father goes in and tries to relax him. now i am not talking about some small cry but- no - hysteric cry and 30 sec after that the father goes out and "baby is sleeping"- excuse me , when and how exactly did you make him calm and sleep and be able to leave his room in 20-30 seconds. but ignore this kind of small picking because the film itself is not Docudrama - it's fun and this should be overlooked. This is a great movie. I read the brief synopsis and was unimpressed but as I watched it (mainly for Caroline Dhavernas) it grew on me.

It's such a nice change to see a movie where girls/young women are not punished for their sexuality. The girls are given full license to explore and even the chance to make mistakes without ridiculous repercussions.

Some of the scenes are absolutely hilarious - and many of them the supposedly erotic scenes - which were not over the top or distasteful. The male characters in the movie were brilliant - David Boreanaz was great as the fickle hunk - and what is great is that the movie doesn't make us hate him all that much. The other two younger male characters were good too, without being overbearing.

This is one of the best movies I've seen that has girls growing up and is quite empowering to see how the they realise their mistakes but eventually come through and carry on with their lives rather than drag their mistakes along with them. Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans "oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape. I agree with the posters before that the characters were exceptionally strong and believable and all the actors at their top form. I especially loved David Boreanaz stretching in a part so unlike anything else he played proving once again his amazing gift for comedy. The first part of the movie was light and funny, the blackmail part was a bit surrealistic but interesting - and it was all downhill from there.

I found it frustrating that at least two out of the 3 girls (Keira and Lisa) get out of the blackmail&betrayal scot free, nary a trace left on their psyche. I know the movie amended the darker ending of the play - and I am not saying I missed the murder part. But I surely needed to see those two getting their comeuppance somehow and I was left groaning in frustration with the ending. (It's why I gave it only a 9)

But definitely an interesting film. I first saw this film by chance when I was visiting my uncle in Arizona about 3 and 1/2 years ago. The VHS print was a little faded looking, but I was very haunted by what I had watched. Did it all make sense? Well, honestly, no it didn't. However, this is a film that requires more than one viewing to understand all of its aspects. The beautifully tragic score haunted me and the bizarre images made quiet an impression.

Well, when I found out that Anchor Bay had released this oddity on DVD, I picked it up immediately. I was very pleased by the transfer, though I felt the extras rather lacking. Though the film concerns the "O" and Sir Stephen characters, it really has nothing to do with Pauline Reage's original novel or the 1974 film The Story of O. However, the film does pay attention to artistic detail and symbolism of an almost mystic kind. "O" decides to prostitute herself for Sir Stephen in violent 1920s Hong Kong. Her mission is to prove her unending devotion and love for her master through giving her body to other men. Naturally, Sir Stephen enjoys watching her during her unpleasant sexual escapades and even finds himself a mistress. However, the tables are turned when "O" actually finds a kind of love with a young male admirer. Suddenly, Sir Stephen feels the threat...

I feel that the deep meaning behind the film (including the tragic score and artistic direction) really make this film a classic. The viewer is introduced not only to the lives and pasts of "O"'s fellow brothel mates, but the turmoil of 1920s Hong Kong is also explored. Like the political setting, the prostitutes all find themselves in need of belonging. No one is happy in the film, even if they believe that they are. (However, "O" does find a sense of happiness with her young admirer). One prostitute tearfully remembers how her father used to act like a dog when she was drunk, naturally leading to a fetish for having her customers act like a dog. Another older prostitute is obsessed with her past as an actress. She cannot let that vision go. She treats her clients as co-stars and even swears she hears a piano in the river.

As for "O", she has a flashback about her father leaving her in a chalk circle. When he leaves, she feels a sense of abandonment. Of course, in that same flashback Kinski suddenly becomes her father. I was very, very disturbed by this image. I truly felt for "O" at this point in the film. She hardly ever smiles and this scene really explains why. Her fear of abandonment is so great that she sees Sir Stephen as her father and caters to his every obscene demand in hopes of proving her love.

Another curious aspect of the film is the young child (that ages at the end) that sells fortune in a box. It is a very random character, but somehow it just adds to the sense of loss and emptiness in the film. At one point, the director even uses painted cardboard figures to represent people. Now, if that isn't symbolism for you! (Laugh)

All in all, I really love this film. I feel that it is a very deep and somewhat moving experience. It has erotic scenes, but the scenes aren't really meant to arouse. Like the lives of the characters, the sex acts are empty. They are motions, but lack feeling and tenderness. (Once again, the only tender scene is between "O" and the young man). "O" believes she is in love and that lowering herself is an honor, however, she finds in the end that she has choices. She too can be her own person and pursue her own happiness, however, she also has the option to stay in that circle that her father drew. The director leaves a lot of unanswered questions, however, some things don't need answers. The viewer will make the judgment that works for them.

I must say that I wish a special edition of this DVD would be released that had director commentary. I think it would be fascinating to hear his opinion of the film and its message years later. It is a shame that the soundtrack was never released. This film has a truly haunting and heart breaking score. There is something about the lingering vocals that send a chill up my spine. I can truly feel the sense of loneliness in the film by just listening to the music. I've always enjoyed animated ducks for some reason: Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck. Though none of them are as deranged as Duckman. Originally broadcast between 1994 and 1997 Duckman lasted for a total 70 episodes but could easily have gone on forever without becoming stale.

The titular character is a discombobulated, unapologetic slob and pretty much the worst living person in the world. He's a private detective, a widower, a peeping tom, an alcoholic, a sex maniac, a murderer, a (fill in the blank). You name it, Duckman has done it. But who can blame him for being such a slimeball when the world he/we live in is so insane, outrageous and just plain nonsensical? Eric Tiberius Duckman(voiced by the maniacal Jason Alexander) could carry the whole show by himself but when he's surrounded by a bunch of eccentric supporting characters you just know that trouble is just waiting to explode at every opportunity. My favorite has to be Willibald Feivel Cornfed (or just Cornfed Pig), Duckman's incredibly deadpan sidekick who is seemingly talented and highly skilled at everything and is perpetually oblivious to his partner's infinity of vices and incompetence.

The typical plot will involve some bizarre case he'll inevitably blunder through or will revolve around his highly dysfunctional household, though every now and again Duckman's arch-enemy King Chicken (Tim Curry), a sort of Professor Moriarty in fowl form, hatches some diabolical scheme in revenge for being bullied in high school.

Since I was a teenager this has been my absolute favorite animated show, better than The Simpsons, Family Guy and even King of the Hill. Nothing will ever surpass it. There never was, or will be, anything quite like Duckman ever again. The level of satire, observational humor and writing is so sharp it's deadly and the animation is done in that unique Klasky/Csupo style (anyone who has seen Rugrats will understand). It's a wonderful, highly imaginative and wild world and all with a noirish, 1940s feel.

You can never have too much of this particular bird. Duckman was a show that used to be on during the last hour or so before it was time to sleep about ten or so years ago. It was a contrast to a lot of the kid-type of animation I was watching at the time; I was still a minor junkie for Disney and Looney Tunes stuff, and most Saturday morning cartoons were still on the run-off of the peak from the days of Ninja Turtles and Batman. But also around this time I began to recognize that the more raunchy, mature, surreal, obscene, and (though I didn't know the term at the time) satirical cartoon shows were more creative than the stuff I was used to. Around the time of Beavis and Butt-head, Ren and Stimpy, and even The Maxx were hitting TV sets via MTV, USA put out two shows- one of them was Weird Science, and the other was Duckman. I've always remembered a few key bits from the show, and some of the lines are very quotable to those who haven't forgotten it completely. Luckily, I found a tape recently with about six episodes I taped long ago, and the jokes stayed very fresh. And the delivery of the jokes are rapid-fire a lot of the time in the better episodes.

In the voice department, the choices in talent are top notch for the story-lines, which are usually just an excuse for crude, fascinating parodies of pop-culture, politics, movies and TV shows, music, detective mysteries, and the dysfunctional family unit. Jason Alexander is a wonderful choice for Duckman, and his performance is a comedic 180 from his days on Seinfeld (even if there might be some similar characteristics here and there). Also, the voices of Gregg Berger as the unmistakably monotoned and deadpan Cornfed, Dweezil Zappa as the hilariously inept Ajax, and Nancy Travis as the sex-starved, obnoxious Sister-in-Law Bernice, all contribute in a full amount. Along with some great writing - even when a joke isn't sure-fire, the wit behind it compensates - the animation style, while a far cry from some of the refurbished, computer-enhanced product of today, is inventive and often abstract. It has that home-made, gritty quality that Beavis and Butt-head or South Park would later have. And, like those shows, if you're a little kid, I mean little as in younger than I was watching the show, you may not understand most of the jokes (i.e. there are enough stripper and VD references to fill two shows sometimes). But it's inventive to catch if it's on TV late at night, and it functions rather well in that time slot. One can only hope for a DVD box set.

So, to no one who's barely or even never heard of this program, here's a general note: think of this show as if Dashiell Hammett met up with Walt Disney and decided to go to slum part of Vegas with a free mini-bar and make a collaboration in the vein of Luis Bunuel and The Simpsons combined. Not to mention, it's by the group that did Rugrats.(strong) A Perhaps the deepest cartoon made in the USA, "Duckman" runs short at 70 episodes in four seasons.

Unlike the often innocuous criticism found in "The Simpsons" (a pretty good show in its own right), and the rude-for-rudeness-sake humour in "South Park," every bit of this series follows a plan. The criticism of US society, from its mercantilism to its selfishness, carries much more bite than it does in any other animated series.

The cultural references in "Duckman" also tend to be obscure sometimes (anyone browsing the fan sites will realize most have not even been caught). In that, it is different from "The Simpsons," which usually uses pop culture instead of the high-brow stuff often hidden in "Duckman." As other people writing about it notice, there is a growth in the characters (Bernice, Duckman and Cornfed). Also, by making the main character not just an offensive neurotic but in fact someone who is living a personal tragedy (as is made clear in episodes like "The Once and Future Duck" ('You'll love her until the end of your days...') and in "Bev Takes a Holiday" (when he takes a chance to tell Beverly all those things he couldn't tell Beatrice), the series is anchored in a deep sense of reality.

One can't avoid feeling sorry for him and his lucid madness.

All in all, in my opinion, the best cartoon ever made in the USA and one of the best series ever. I doubt it will ever be on DVD though. Far too many things the Duck said make much more sense today. Rated TV-14 for Sexual Content and Language.

I remembered hearing about this show back in 1998 when it used to play on the channel Teletoon.I didn't watch it then but now, it plays on the channel, Razer.I have seen about four episodes of this show and I must say, it is fairly intelligent and funny.

The show stars Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame and also Tim Curry of Rocky Horror Picture Show and It fame.The show is about a duck who is a police officer.He basically does his job as a policeman, while coping with personal problems.This show is fairly funny at times and fans of animated-comedy will like this. "Duckman" is a great show. I first saw it when I was 10 years old at the time and after school I rushed home and turned on Comedy Central. I saw a cartoon called "Duckman" and I LOVED IT!! It's such a funny and cool show. It's created by Klasky-Csupo, who are great creators of cartoons. They animated some of my favorite shows ever, like "The Simpsons" and "Rugrats".

I've seen lots of episodes of this show and I think they're all really funny and sweet. The voice actors did a great job voicing the characters, too.

I wish that Comedy Central could bring this show back, along with "The Critic" and "Dilbert".

But this is a great Comedy Central show. Great job, Klasky-Csupo! Graphics: brilliant, obviously. The most stunning things were definitely NOT given away in the trailers. Fight sequences move extremely fast, but after watching a couple of them your eyes should be used to it and it won't seem so confusing. Cloud has a wide array of swords, and I kinda wish things were moving a LITTLE slower just so we could see them, because they were each incredibly detailed. Oh, and we finally get to see exactly how one equips Materia...

Music: brilliant also. I was a bit nervous about it, since (from what I've seen) Nobuo isn't the best at writing music to go along with action (remember the Steal the Tiny Bronco sequence?), but it's brilliant and it fits perfectly. I'm glad I preordered the OST. They changed the lyrics to One Winged Angel though, so you won't be able to sing along if you know the Carmina Burana Lyrics.

Plot: the first half of the movie sets up things and introduces everyone in a fairly complex tapestry, but the second half is almost entirely fight sequences, once all the players are in place. I wouldn't call it a weak plot, but it's nowhere near as convoluted as the game's plot was. I think this is in an effort to avoid trying to overshadow the game, and I think that's a good thing...the movie is its own entity, and shouldn't try to top the original in terms of sheer plot.

I admit, I was kind of hoping that this movie would bring FF7 to a wider range of people, but this is NOT a mainstream movie. I was going to give it only nine stars, just because it doesn't even really try to explain anything to newcomers...Marlene (at least I think it was Marlene...sounded like her) gives a bit of background at the beginning, but it's more of a refresher than a crash course. But then I realized, for me this movie is a 10/10, so why should I take off points just because other people probably won't like it as well...if you've played the game, or are at least passingly familiar with it, you should see this movie. But you don't need me to tell you that. If you're not familiar with it, go out and buy it, sit there for twenty hours and beat it, and then see the movie...although even without any background, it's still stunningly beautiful. You just won't get any of the inside references...which make up 50% of the movie (that is, everything that ISN'T a fight sequence). I do not have much to say than this is a great finish to the story. Most people have said that there is not enough plot and its just eye candy.But think about it, everything was explained in FFVII you cannot add more plot to such a grand story it would ruin it. They did the best that they could do and I think that this should be taken more as A Final FMV.. the last fight.

Graphics - 10/10, Absolutely amazing

Story 8.5/10 - don't think they could of expanded it that much more. And the stuff they could put in there was clever enough I thought.

Characters 9/10 - Well most of them have already been explained during the game but still could not fit it all into 90 mins.

Sound - 10/10, since i am a metal fan I loved the fight music.. and piano just reaches right in there..It is a great ST and I was not disappointed.

Tilt/Replay 10/10 - Enjoyable every time.

Overall- 9/10 (FF Fan View 10/10)

I personally think this is what was needed, a fight to end it all.. the plot was already in place. The action was necessary as much as people complained. I loved every second of this movie. It was a pleasure to visit the world of FFVII just one last time.

Just remember this.. most movies that have been made form a game have been directed by movie directors i think this is pretty great for a team of game directors.. Don't think I've seen a better game to movie..

Thankyou Square, I think you did it right! Now after watching The Advent Children twice, the storyline isn't as shallow as majority has criticized it to be in my opinion. If you haven't played FFVII or disliked it for whatever reason, this movie is most likely not for you. Being familiar to the original story is a prerequisite to understanding AC fully, otherwise you will just see the greatest CG animation in your life so far.

Without actually spoiling the storyline, I must admit that after seeing AC we have been putting pieces together with my friends relying on our knowledge of FFVII. Seeing it second time allowed to actually pay attention to the story more and most of the questions we may have had were answered. Some were not. AC is clearly for FFVII players/fans and doesn't honestly try to be anything else. There is little to none realism in it outside FFVII world which serves the purpose. Music is mostly reconstructed FFVII themes with a heavier touch (TBM team according to end credits) and works well with the eye candy without exceptions. I found the music enhancing the experience added to the visual fireworks in all situations.

We all know you can't put a FFVII in 1.5 hours and keeping that in mind the storyline actually offered more to me than I expected. There are two issues at hand in FFVII : AC and both stories were wrapped up very smoothly between the action sequences. And trust me when I say there's a lot of it. Action that is.

I'm changing my vote from 9 to 10 after watching it the second time because I had missed a few explanatory sequences I couldn't put together the first time that provided some answers. As a warning, it's going to be easy to disregard the story and concentrate on graphics, but try not to judge the Adevent Children because of that. If you don't let the story in, it's no wonder it seems sloppy.

I'm not going to praise the graphics because I assume we all know they are awesome, which might be an understatement. Especially characters talk so much more with their facial expressions than ever before. I hope you pay attention to the storyline for it actually makes sense and works well with the whole. Get ready for the ride of your life, there are no breaks. Yes I AM a FF7 fan, but how many people who watch this movie are NOT going to be? And so, I'm reviewing this movie from a FF7 fan perspective, and with no regret. (I would not know how to adequately review the movie for someone who has not played the FF7 game.)

Visuals - 10/10 I loved Advent Children. It's a sensory delight - a complete audio-video overload. The visuals were breathtaking: some feats were accomplished that I would simply have not quite thought possible with an animated feature. When the action scenes came about, they were, for lack of a more accurate word, a roller-coaster. With dramatic camera movement sweeping across from range to range, to seamlessly integrated bullet-time effects at the crucial moments, to the sheer level of detail - it's all hard to fault. The animation looks big budget, the style and imagery is awesome, and the effects at times made me forget that I was watching animation rather than live action footage. I could ramble on for hours repeating myself on the fantastic quality of the visuals, but it simply wouldn't do it any justice.

Sound - 10/10 The sound was fabulous. The voices for all the characters didn't disappoint (no one sounded silly) and the sound effects were bold and sharp. The music - from the game that (in my opinion) had the best game soundtrack EVER, transfered beautifully to the movie. Most of the memorable themes from the game are present in the movie, albeit often using different instruments to fit in better with what's going on. There was some bolder rock and slight thrash metal music over the really intense action scenes from time to time, but it all fitted in well with the movie's situation at the corresponding time.

Story - 7/10 The story and characters would be the main flaws of the movie. Both aspects were simply not up to par with the game - but then again, the game could spend 40+ hours developing these points - the movie only has about 90 minutes. As far as the story goes, the plot wasn't bad or anything, but just not as ambitious as was expected from someone who played the game through. In effect, the plot seemed rather weak in comparison. The game was so extravagant with the intricate plot twists and story progression/development, that the movie never really stood a chance to compete in the same league. Instead, the movie took the more sensible approach - to expand on the action and try to place as many inside-jokes and themes into itself instead of trying to impossibly recreate the massive story factor, which was originally such a driving force in the game. The lack of Materia usage also caused me some controversy - the story of the movie chose to use little (though not ZERO) Materia, and instead lots of supernatural fighting ability and skill. I would hope that if a sequel was made it would incorporate Materia much much more extravagantly and importantly into the film. There were also many plot holes in the movie - all which can be forgiven if you think of Advent Children as a random anime, but seem ridiculous when you realise how it was based on a game that executed plot tremendously well.

Characters - 7/10 The characters, whilst all being present in one form or another, don't necessarily shine to their true potential. There simply isn't really enough movie-time to spend with all of them. And so, all of their background stories and abilities are not entirely showcased, and in some cases, barely at all (Red and Cait Sith leave absolutely no real lasting impressions). Even Cloud, who is the focal point of the movie, I feel doesn't use enough of his familiar abilities from the game. The Materia issue is a strong reason for this. With that said, it's a joy to see the cast back in action, even if it's in such a role that doesn't utilise them to their fullest. The new characters were the ones that caused me most of the strife however - the Bad Guy Trio and the kid dude Denzel - there was a huge lack of explanation about any of them. Anyone willing to use their imagination can probably fill in the blanks with something reasonable and be done with it, but objectively speaking the issue is still there to be commented on and is therefore a little disappointing.

Value - 10/10 The replay value for this movie is excellent - I personally want to watch it again in a more bigger and louder way - bigger screen, louder volume.

Enjoyment - 10/10 Whatever the flaws of the movie, they simply weren't big enough to hinder my enjoyment of it, and I honestly think that will be the same case for most people. I enjoyed Advent Children tremendously, and encourage fellow FF7 fans to go see it. What is there to say about this movie? This movie is simply gorgeous. A true feast for the eyes. In the same way that the game set the standard for 3D role playing games 7 years ago, this movie sets the standard for future CG movies. Many of you have seen the trailers and the amazing details in every frame and let me tell you this movie does not disappoint. You can actually see the fibers in Cloud's sweater vest.

The music is also very good. The movie contains several rearranged tracks from the video game that fans will definitely recognize and appreciate.

The movie's main weakness is its story. Its not exactly a bad story, but this story is exclusively aimed for people who have played the video game. First time viewers may feel lost at times, or they may not notice the significance of certain events.

I recommend this movie to everyone, even if you've never played the game because what we have here is a special movie. Watch it and enjoy the the beautiful show. I shall begin with a disclaimer: This movie is NOT recommended for anyone who lack interest or have never played FF7 the game before watching. The movie relies on the audience's knowledge of each character in the game to convey story plot elements. And it does so very subtly. Do your homework before watching this wonderful piece of CG film and I promise it'll be that much better.

With that in mind, this film has some of the most spectacular CG sequences I have ever witnessed. The whole experience felt like an extra long FMV sequence from the game, on steroids. Yeah. The attention to detail in each scene, especially in the heavy action oriented ones, is so impeccable it left me with a sense of awe.

I believe the soundtrack is simplified so as to help the audience focus on the animation quality more than the music. Again, for those who are familiar with the FF7 story and background, the music should not surprise anyone (although the timing and placement of each soundtrack from the original accompany each scene and mood to the point where the music simply enhances the animation).

Once again, I myself having only played through FF7 once, thoroughly enjoyed this piece of art from Square Enix. And that is the feel in most scenes, choreographed and organized. Like a dance.

In short, if you enjoyed the music or the game Final Fantasy 7, this film will blow you out of the water. If you're in the unfortunate majority who has not experienced the goodness known as FF7 on Playstation or PC, doing so before watching the movie will allow for an exponentially greater experience.

Finally, I just want to make a note of the quality in animating this film. Characters move with fluidity. Each scene background comes to life and tells its own story. For those who criticize the thinness and dependency of the story plot, I urge you to reexamine the animation. Facial reactions, subtle clues that bring about another level of entertainment above the typical narration method of story plot delivery.

Square Enix and the great Tetsuya Nomura has set a new bar for quality animation and storytelling. Advent Children has ushered in a new era for CG animations, allowing the subtleties that lie in each character to speak volumes in and of themselves.

Thanks Square Enix. The wait was well worth it. Just watched it then. It is pretty damn awesome. The fights are fantastic and the magic is really cool! It's totally like a video-game in parts, with some amazing hand-to-hand combat in there.

This film is for the fans: "To those who loved this world once before and spent time with its friends, gather again and devote your time..." Besides this ominous opening, the story was not very hard to follow, and Ihave never played a Final Fantasy game. I think it pays to be familiar with Role Playing Games in general; knowledge of the genre kinda helps you grasp some of it better. I think though that if you pay attention, and accept what the film throws at you, it's quite easy to understand. There is a lot that isn't explicitly explained, and if you demand that it should be then you will probably be confused and irritated.

Watching the film is like being dropped into the middle of some grand saga, and having to put as much of the puzzle together as possible. I like that approach; you get caught up in the mystery and confusion that all the characters are going through. But like I said, just be accepting. If a weird red lion thing that talks, turns up and starts kicking ass and taking names, and the other characters just say he's an old friend, accept it and move on; you don't need a biopic flashback, or a tell-all sit-me-down. You are an observer here, of something beyond your experience and undestanding.

So: fantastic graphics and animation, great voice acting, cool video game styled music, involving story and characters, and maybe some of the coolest fights you'll see in a while. It's worth seeing, and while it IS for the fans, it is perfectly accessible for people like me that have never played the games. Square really landed this one. They didn't try to please everyone and instead focused exclusively on Final Fantasy 7 fans. And boy, are those going to be happy fans when they see this movie! The story might not be all that interesting or credible but it ties in neatly with the story of the game and has several honest-to-god funny moments!! A total surprise there and a welcome one too

There are lots of cameos and funny references to the game too. And most important of all: The fighting scenes rock so hard they could cut through diamond! They are truly the total awesomeness and would have made the movie worth it even if everything else sucked. I mean, they are some of the best ever created PERIOD.

See this movie. Bye.

PS: I know my review sounds like the ravings of a teenage girl. It was, like, totally what I intended. Haven't played the game? Don't bother. This is for the Final Fantasy VII fans out there that beat the game, and no other will appreciate this rare gem of a movie. Want to watch it and love it? Buy the game, beat it and then watch it. When's the last time you've seen an excellent movie based on a video game? Well, this is it.

The story takes place two years after the game and no short summaries are given to refresh your memory (though I doubt many would forget), and goes right into the one hour and forty-one minute adventure.

All your favorite characters are there, even Cait Sith. The voice acting is superb in the Japanese version, every character is cast perfectly. Cloud sounds tough and broody, Tifa sounds kind yet strong...Aeris is also perfect, she sounds exactly as I imagined. Cait Sith sounds less cute than I imagined, but worked very well.

The character models are spectacular, great textures and lighting. The environments are breathtaking and the battles are choreographed in a way to make The Matrix blush. The amazing camera work comes through in the bike chases, for example, where your eyes are just screaming in satisfaction and your lungs breathing heavily without consent.

The music is typical Uematsu quality, which means its top notch. Familiar tunes are remade to accompany Advent Children's graphical leap, which meshes with the visual aspects very well. There's even an inside joke for the fans that involves music, it'll make you smile for sure.

I did not watch it with subtitles since I'm half-Japanese so I can't say that the subtitles are any good. In Japanese, however, the dialogue is very good and every word sounds like it's coming from real living beings, not just actors. Impressive. I'll watch this again someday with subtitles to see the differences since I've played both the Japanese and American release of Final Fantasy VII.

If you are a fan of Final Fantasy VII, buy this movie the day it comes out or pre-order it. If you haven't played the game but want to see this movie very badly, don't waste your time: buy the game, beat it, and then come back for this DVD. I won't tell you to not watch it, but play the game. It'll make the experience a lot better and won't leave you in the dust scratching your heads.

Come back, old friends - it's time to go on an adventure again with your brave comrades! SOME MAJOR SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

I saw this movie yesterday at Venice's film festival, and I must admit that, being a fan, it was REALLY IMPRESSIVE. Excellent graphic, excellent music, excellent dubbing, excellent action sequences and so on... BUT there's a but. ALL the film was thought EXCLUSIVELY for the gamers that have loved it, and that can therefore enjoy every single reference, character, inside joke (you should see a joke with winning music that's particularly comic) etc. A poor man not inside the world of FF will obviously see the magnificence of technical part, but CANNOT grasp the inner satisfaction of seeing, e.g., Barret appearing and shooting Bahamut TOTALLY OUT OF NOWHERE. He'll ask himself, "WHO'S THIS GUY?", and I cannot blame him. He cannot even understand what a gamer feels when in the OPENING SEQUENCE there's game's opening music, Nanaki running in the canyon with his two cubs, howling at Midgar's ruins, and then "498 years ago...". Almost all characters have made an appearance or quote (including Reeve, Tseng and Elena), and Reno & Rude were really goofy and comic to see, but the final impression the movie left to me was "hardcore gamer's final dream, but far less for a MOVIE fan...". The movie is really cool, I thought. It sticks to the original game quite well, and some of the battle scenes are depicted in such high detail, it's incredible. I thought the movie could have been a little better if they'd give you a little more information before the end, but trying to figure out what's going on is what hooks on you this movie.

The CG is beautiful, I don't think they could have done a better job graphics wise. Every little detail, the way they move, the way their swords look, everything is perfect. The way they make the characters look is almost like they're real people.

The music was great, and I found it entertaining to listen to just how much of it was remixed from the original game, with new instruments and effects.

All and all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone that enjoys fast paced action and a good storyline. I would definitely play the game before I'd watch the movie though. This movie was definitely scripted with FF VII fans ONLY in mind. I am someone who has never played the original game and watched it with a friend who was a series fan. From a visual and technical standpoint this movie is just as good as "The Spirits Within", if not better, but from a story standpoint, I was pretty lost. One major plot weakness that stood out to me was the scene where "all" of the children dying of geostigma were brought to the healing "reunion" by the three Jenovites. All told there were about 15 kids in all... Hmmmm... I thought that this Geostigma was an illness of pandemic proportions... I understand why they did it that way (time, budget,CPU), but it just seemed cheesy after all the explanation about how the bad guys needed to collect all of those who had Jenova cells so that Jenova could be reincarnated. The subtitle version that we had (some fan sub from the internet) was a pretty direct translation and therefore probably added to my confusion.

It did prick my interest in FF VII however, and I spent a few hours on the FF VII wiki reading about the main characters and the plot. Once I read the Advent Children wiki, things made a lot more sense. If you are a video game or Sci-Fi fan this movie is a pretty good flick, but like a previous review said, it comes off like a 90 minute fight scene. You never really get to know any of the characters, and the story does just seem to jump from scene to scene without much explanation, even though some explanation just might be required. Thank goodness for wikpedia. I generally like this movie a lot. The animation is supreme: meaning they took to trouble to animate the hair and fur on animals and people. And being an amateur at graphics and animation (self teaching myself through books. For those who are curious on the same matter, I use the program Gmax by Discreet. It is a high quality free program that can be downloaded from the internet) I see that the quality of animation shown here is of high standards.

The plot of this movie is good. Though this movie lacks character development, this story is still understandable. Generally, I believe that this movie is primarily should be watched by people who are fans of the game as its plot closely follows the game. As for me, I do not play the games and therefore I don't have the wowing effect it probably does on fans of the game.

For those who like the game, I suggest this movie to you, and if you haven't played the game, I would still recommend this movie to you. hey i think this movie was great and it had great graphics and i was vary glad they used final fantasy 7 i think that game was the best i ever played anyways this is a great movie and i loved it.They should make another one but maybe they should ether use final fantasy 7 again or final fantasy 10 there both pretty awesome from:Tyler Sheena i hope you can email me back if you have any details if there is another one .people for anyone else reading this i suggest you see this movie it is animated but it looks pretty realistic and its got awesome fighting scenes i haven't see that fast of fighting in a movie for a long time. The game final fantasy 7 is also really great not good graphics but its really fun and challenging this movie is simply amazing.. unfortunately in Portugal not even a shadow of him... and i agree with a former opinion, only FF fans will really give the movie the real credit... but for the rest.. i dare you to watch it. the story is great, and i thought that the game has ended the story, but the screenwriters have given us a great story to the god of all r.p.g.'s ... the ost, as usual, it came from heaven ;) ehehe but the little details that they gave us ( us fans of the game) are beautiful .. like the ring tone is the Battle winning song of the game, and even some moves are quite familiar just watch it it's a great movie great story, great animation... just a 10/10 I play final fantasy 7, and this movie is EXCELLENT like the game, all fans of final fantasy will love this movie.

The music are fantastic and the history is good, but, the best of this movie is the visual effects, are amazing. The characters are equal to the game and that detail are good for the fans.

You don't need play the game to like this movie, all the people can enjoy the film, because the history is some different and is easy to understand. I buy the DVD because is EXCELLENT, IS 100% ADVISABLE, if you don't see this film, what you waiting for? believe me,you will fascinate like me I cannot believe how perfect this movie is. Great CG graphics, good storyline, and the fights, oh the fights!!! This movie was great!! The characters. They look real enough to be considered real. They definitely resemble the ones from the game perfectly. The scene in which....well all the scenes, made my jaw drop. Fantastic 10/10 graphics The story. Perfectly explained. Plus the way Aeris comes to help Cloud at many different times in the movie. They explain it very well, and make your jaw drop from how perfect it is. But the repetitive fights do take some story out, but that is only a minor thing. Story 9.5/10 Everything else, great. The movie was just amazing. I really do not know what more i can say except that this movie was pretty much perfect. I LOVED IT!!! It really isn't hard to understand this movie! I watched it with no expectations and no knowledge of the story from the games. I was completely blown away!

Initially, I wondered how most of the characters have some sort of super-powers but it IS called "Final FANTASY...". I also wondered about Cloud's past but that was easy enough to look up. In no way did these questions spoil the enjoyment of the movie, though. Just the opposite; it shows I kept thinking about the story long after seeing the movie.

It's one of the most beautiful movies my eyes have ever seen. The music supports the movie completely. The characters are incredible.

I want more! I really love this movie!!! I haven't played Final Fantasy VII but i still loved the movie, its really funny and I love the job the voice-over actors have done. The visuals are SO fantastic and all the lines are so well done.

I have to admit i have a pretty good imagination so I was able to fill most of the gaps the movie presented, and I suggest you watch it twice because lots of things "suddenly" make sense.

Also, (this is pretty funny) you should watch it with the subtitles on because what they say and what the subs say are sometimes completely different. Its really usually pretty funny but sometimes it helps u to understand what they say better.

Watch it!!! love Marnie I still can't believe that computer graphics are able to create 3D images. The moment I heard it from my friends over at a forum, I swear to myself that I am going to make myself watch it.

I managed to watch parts of it at a fellow shopping centre where they had many Advent Children DVDs and showed it at a few laptops for sale. Obviously I was overjoyed but it was still not enough. Then I headed off to YouTube.com to search for the movie. All I came up with was music video dedications. Until that fateful day...I found it. I watched it despite all the distractions because I knew that I have to watch or else I will be called a loser.

Enough about me more on the movie. As if Final Fantasy VII wasn't enough, they made a movie about it! My most favourite part was the end of Sephiroth's life. Cloud's OmniSlash couldn't be better. But I wouldn't entirely spoil the show for you. You have to watch it for yourself!!! Get the DVD now! o m g!!! did you ever think they would make a movie about it?? well i knew they would, but i didn't know when!! and now its here at last!!! when i received it yesterday through the post i put it into my (wicked) stereo that plays dvds and instantly had this huuuuuuuuuuge grin on my face as cloud appeared (looking well....gorgeous!!) and they followed by all the other fascinating characters from final fantasy the game! including tifa and aeris, my favourites....(they are pretty too in this) the graphics knocked me out!!!! they were truly amazing. so real down to the last hair!!! the story line is OK bit confusing, especially as my version of the film was in Japanese, but of course - being a long time final fantasy fanatic - i did not mind a bit - i just read the subtitles!!! all the characters talk the way they would do in the game, and reno and rude are still ridiculous. the dragon scene is wicked too. just looks SO good!!! anyway.... the graphics were, amazing....the storyline , fantastic....and the basic idea of even having a ff7 film.......genius!!! i am an avid ff7 fan, for instance i have the game then sell it(bad mistake) but then buy it again (good mistake...erm)

anyways, yes this film is very good, the fights are very cool, music very good, and the cgi you cant falter.

only thing disappointing with the film i felt was the lack of other character involvement, it was almost all cloud which although is a great character, u cant beat a of cid and barret.

but despite that the film was great in my opinion, and a must watch.

overall a great film give and will give it 9/10

squaresoft, make more films like this and you'll be worshiped more so than you already are!!!! This movie is based on the game series: Final Fantasy. This one particularly is about FF7 or Final Fantasy VII. I loved the game, and I was very happy to see it be transformed into a movie, I loved the CG, that was awesome. Lot's of great fight scenes, action, and characters to make the movie memorable. If your a die-hard fan of the game you will love this movie. Personally, I'm not a die-hard fan of the games, but I am starting to become one.

My favourite character out of Final Fantasy VII besides Cloud, would have to be Cid. I love Cid, I think he's cute. I was amazed how real the CG images were, it was amazing, it's the game in 3D. I had a great time watching the movie, and by the way, I love the aeons to, especially Bahamut, he's great! Overall I gave this movie a 9, because yes, I loved it. I thought it was a really really good movie, and yes it's on my list of movies to get. The characters were amazing, loved the CG, story was wonderful, with lot's of action and fight scenes. All-in-all, it's the best movie I've seen yet, based on a video game. Errol Flynn had quite a gift for comedy that was sadly rarely exploited. Given the right material this film demonstrates that he could have happily been quite at home in Cary Grant style, gentle comedies. Out of his various forays into the genre this is certainly the best. Patti Brady gives a fine performance in the child part and Eleanor Parker looks simply stunning throughout the film. An added bonus is the wonderful Hattie McDaniel who is sadly underused in this film- a welcome presence none the less. Flynn carries off his comedic duties with the same easy style that he brought to his swashbuckling roles. The fact that he makes it look like it's easy doesn't mean that it is. A super little family comedy, great for the Christmas period or any other time you feel like being cheered up. A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining. This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and "schmaltzy" that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!!

The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).

Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.

So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time. This movie is a hidden gem. I can't understand why this movie doesn't get more air time. Errol and Eleanor Parker make for a real attractive and dashing couple. And their chemistry is impeccable. I really liked the touch of his daughters reference to him as being her Robin Hood. I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys Errol Flynn. It's nice to see Errol playing a father as well. By all accounts from his very own children, he was a very attentive and loving father in real life. Also, the supporting cast is wonderful as well. You can't go wrong with supporting players such as Hattie McDaniel and Lucile Watson. Hattie McDaniel makes a movie that much better from the get-go. This movie has now become a Holiday tradition in my home. Enjoy!!! a fine romantic comedy. errol flynn shows what a deft touch for comedy he possessed. a talent that probably shows some of his true prankster self. the comedic writing on this film is excellent. eleanor parker does a nice job as flynn's ex wife whom errol is trying to win back. eleanor is also easy on the eyes. the sets exude 1940's glamour and style where appropriate.

flynn's comedic timing and wit are displayed to full effect here, watch his double takes, his ability to verbally counter punch with a snappy comeback or act the straight man, and his total believability and sincerity where required, this guy could act! it is a shame errol did not get a chance to do more roles like this throughout his career, he was multi-talented to the extreme. if you enjoyed "it happened one night" with gable and colbert or some of the william powell and myrna loy comedies you will enjoy this.

well paced and lots of laughs. a lost diamond of a movie. A true comedy.The dialog is fast and very witty.Eleanor Parker at her physical peak .Flynn as only Flynn can be"the charming rogue'..although now past his prime.. Most of the scenes between the principals are short so the movie moves well. If you haven't seen this movie please give a look.You will be surprised at Flynn's comedy timing.The scenes between him Tucker, Parker and "Cudddles" Sakal are hilarious.Just on the basis of the outfits worn by the most attractive Parker,this movie is worth a look.The romance of this 40's movie will not be lost on those so inclined to watch movies from Hollywood's golden past. My bet is that Never Say Goodbye won't disappoint. I used to enjoy "Happy Ever After", but was absolutely hypnotised by "Terry & June". With Aunt Lucy gone, the emphasis seemed to fall more heavily on the relationship between Terry and June, a middle aged, middle class English couple, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, losing myself quite happily in each episode.

The 1980s were the era of alternative comedy, but they were also the decade of choice - and Terry and June certainly suited more traditional tastes. And mine - and I was a huge fan of "The Young Ones", too! Each week, Terry got into a silly situation and June got pulled in herself and usually ended up having to bail him out. How dated the shows seem now - it was a different world, but it's great fun to see trends of the 1980s featured - such as the CB radio storyline of 1982 (CB radio was legalised in England in November 1981), which saw Terry imprisoned in his car in the back of a lorry! I've been watching the shows again recently on DVD, and I still think they're terrific! Not loved by the enlightened elite - the chattering classes, but a huge hit with the masses! Wonderful! I saw the film in its original theatrical release in Austin Texas. The old Paramount Theatre (I don't know if it still exists.) went all out with speakers around the walls connected accurately to all six channels. At 15 years of age, I was blown away. The concept of surround sound was completely foreign to music and film at that time.

I vividly remember at least three outstanding scenes where the surround sound made a huge impact. (Though please forgive me if time has warped my memories with inaccuracies.) The first was a travel by the camera through Catfish Row, alive with the sites and sounds of daily activity. You saw each one first, such as a blacksmith for example, then as the camera passed them by their sound would continue to be heard passing left or right down the side of the theater to the rear. The second was a marching band that was seen first in the front, then it marched past the camera splitting left and right. Not only did the sound of each instrument follow its own directional path, it also changed in timbre as it played toward you, to the side of you, and then away from you. And if that wasn't enough, they also accounted for the Doppler effect for each instrument as it went by. The third scene was near the end of the movie as Porgy is leaving Catfish Row for New York to look for Bess. He and about half the cast members pass by the camera as they leave the village with the same sound effects as the marching band. The other half of the cast/chorus sing along with them and also wave and voice goodbyes to Porgy and their other friends. The friends' replies can then be heard from the sides and the rear.

Surround sound was used with splendid effects throughout the movie. I think I remember a rock or something thrown from a pier and hearing it land in the water behind me. Little things like that were evident to theater-goers lucky enough to have the full six channels -- things that would just seem mundane in theaters without it.

I stayed in the theater for several showings. You could do that then. And I went back several more times before it left town. I never saw the movie again. It literally BEGS for release on DVD with restored picture fidelity and surround sound. I do hope someone somewhere has preserved it. Please, Gershwin family, allow it to be released before it is lost for good to other generations. It is a shame that the Gershwin family and Goldwyn Estate has pulled this great movie from the viewing, thereby depriving the public from seeing some of the most wonderful actors and performances ever packed into one motion picture.

It is also true that the singing voices for Sidney Poitier and Dorothy Dandridge were dubbed for this movie, and that is used as one of the reasons that the Gershwin's do not want this movie ever released again.

For in spite the flaws in the movie and the creative differences between the Gershwins and the Goldwyns, this film has some of the most remarkable performances ever committed to the screen. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Pearl Bailey are especially deserving praise.

This film was the great independent producer Samuel Golwyn's swan song. It was also ironically, the Gershwin's greatest shame.

Finally, it is a loss to the wonderful black actors who appeared in it. For we can no longer see them at their best. I saw this movie when I was very young. It is my all time favorite. I had been unable to obtain a copy until recently and viewing it brought back so many fond memories. I loved Sidney Poiter's portrayal of Porgy, he his character with such strength and courage. Pearl Bailey's part, although small, was not unlike many of our own family members. My favorite songs were and still are "Bess You Is My Women," "Porgy,Don't Let Him Handle Me" and of course "Summertime." According to the guidelines, if I'm interpreting them correctly I'm unable to post where I was able to obtain my copy, Sorry. That is why I registered so that I might be able to share this info. Before registering the guidelines are not posted.

Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs. Availability, price, or ordering/shipping information. I have searched for this movie for years. I have great memories of the first-rate acting and singing in this movie. I never knew that the reason the movie was unobtainable was because of the actions of the Gershwin family -- SHAME ON THEM for trying to suppress at American Classic!! I can only hope they will relent and allow this movie to be release and enjoyed by the American public.

Sammy Davis, Jr. is at his absolute best in this film. The only other performance of his this is it's equal was in 'Anna Lucasta'--another terrific film that I wish would be released on DVD.

Porgy & Bess contained a first-rate, all-star cast. Hopefully one day you'll get to see for yourself. The many comments made by others have been very informative and I join in their calls for the release of Porgy and Bess, the 1959 film.

In my early teens I joined a record club and this album was one of the free ones I chose for joining. I knew some of the voices were dubbed, but only Robert McFerrin was acknowledged on the album. Recently my daughter purchased a CD from Austria, I think. The quality is excellent, so I am confused about why it is available in Europe by CBS Records, Inc, when I have had no luck in local stores.

Actually, I never saw the movie but for years have pleaded with local video stores to get it. Now I know why it has never been available.

I add my voice to others who plead with the heirs of the property and rights and that they agree to release it, however imperfect they perceive it to be - the beauty of the music and story reached so many of us who would never have had the experience otherwise.

Trudy I was given the solo "Summertime" in 5th grade for our spring choral concert. From that time on, a great appreciation for Gershwin's music arose in me. I love the haunting melodies of this opera by Gershwin. Back when I was in 5th grade (around age 10), I got the LP to practice with and also love the soundtrack very much. I recommend seeing this movie and if you can get the soundtrack, get it - you can sometimes find it on eBay - an old, used LP. I have been searching and searching to try to find the soundtrack on CD. The songs on this have marvelous musical arrangements and I truly wish it would be put on CD for purchase and also wish they would restore the movie and put it on DVD. This is truly a great work that I think present and future generations would enjoy and benefit from. Some may think the movie slow and dull, but I find it quite the contrary. Although Poitier and Dandridge have dubbed musical voices, I think the voices fit the faces and personalities well. A person's speaking voice and singing voice may be quite different. Porgy and Bess, and the songs in this opera, will always have a special meaning for me. I saw this once probably like most people my age(55) back in the 60's. I understand the dissatisfaction with the final product by both families. But this is a great movie, it was a great Opera; but as a film it is wonderful. This film should be released at least to video, other generations can gain an appreciation of great music and story telling. The cast was made up of some of the greatest Black actors ever, most have now passed away; only Sidney P. is still with us. Please don't wait until he is gone and the film as all old film does, becomes unusable do to the ravages of time. Again this is a great film which is something that one does not see very often today, if at all. I stumbled on to this site while looking for a video or DVD of the 1959 version Porgy and Bess with Sammy Davis as Sportin' Life. If anyone finds this on a home movie format please let me know. I talk to my daughters all the time about things that they think are new which, actually have already been done. We went to see a live theater of version a couple of years ago and all I could talk about was this film. Sadly my daughters cannot remember seeing Sammy Davis Jr. in any production, although they have heard of him. Needless to say, they're not familiar with the other great actors in the film. It is a major oversight not to have this classic film (because of the cast) on a home movie format for collectors and for future generations. Anyway, in my opinion this version was the best! I found this movie to be one of the best for this time and era. The cast was very exceptional and most entertaining to all that saw it.I would like for my younger generation to have seen this movie,but I haven't been able to find or see the movie in the past.My first viewing was back in the early sixties and I have been looking for it every since.The movie showed me potential of how far we come go to become a gifted at a craft where we could only have meaningless roles to act as buffoons and servants.

Porky and Bess showed some of the urban life of my neighborhood as I saw it in the time where I needed good solid male role models. The singing and acting had me skipping for days, playing the part of different characters in this excellent movie. I see it when I was 12 year old and I dream to see it again !

What marvelous Sammy Davis Jr singing "it ain't necessarily so !" I had the great pleasure of recently viewing this beautifully filmed wide-screen adaption of the the 1943 stage revival (which unlike the original 1935 production) which included extensive spoken recitatives. This had been the fashion at the time, so to blame the film for an 16 year tradition. The film should be seen if only for Sammy Davis Jrs brilliant catlike performance as Sportin' Life, creeping in and out of shadows. His seduction of Dorothy Dadridge's BESS "There's a Boat dat's leavin' soon for New York," is one of many highlights. Nearly all of the principal music is intact and beautifully sung. It certainly never bores which the recent PBS and MET versions did. It was a pleasure to see that time had not diminished the movie, and hopefully it will be made available in the near future for the generations that haven't had a chance to experience it. Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" stands, to date, as a great American musical. I believe it is time bring this film out onto VHS and DVD for countless generations to view, admire, and absorb its wonderful music. Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented.

It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, "The Sonny & Cher Show," With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of "insult humor" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as "specialty" acts!

The "hybrid" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no "Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin," and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris "Gong Show."

The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from "SCTV" (it was borne from the MTV series, "The State," after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But "Viva Variety" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again. This show was incredible, but too esoteric for most people. If you had never truly seen a European variety show in the 70's or 80's (or at least a Mexican one) the entire show would probably be lost on you. If you had, this show was a dead on skewering satire of the phony spectacle and shallowness that these shows dive into at their worst. Helmed by a chain-smoking suave wannabe with a pencil moustache and his ultra-glamorous and immasculating harridan of an EX-wife, "Viva Variety" is a variety show that tries to get off the ground every episode but always descends into in-fighting and acts gone very wrong. The hosts are joined by "Johnny Bluejeans", a dim witted side-kick who seems to have been named because blue jeans are a very popular product in his country and that means the kids will like him, which of course, they don't.

The result was a hilarious spoof of variety shows in general. Imagine the arguing that probably happened BACKSTAGE during the last days of the "Sonny & Cher Show". Now imagine it's happening ONSTAGE in front of you and the stars are trying to keep their composure. Now add cheesy acts and a Euro-riche mentality (tuxedoes, gowns, booze, accents and smokes). NOW you have "Viva Variety".

Have you ever heard a musician whose music was pretty much written for other musicians? Too conceptual? Viva Variety did this for comedians. WAY too esoteric for the standard American audience. It was funny as Hell. And doomed. I've never read a good review for "Vanity Fair" and I can't understand why. For something that was "rushed through in ten days" it all comes off surprisingly well. Though admittedly "Becky Sharp" is a better movie and Miriam Hopkins a better Becky, there's nothing to stop this one from getting a solid 9/10. At times, Myrna Loy might seem just too cute and nice to be playing an utter bitch, but at other times she just has to squint her eyes and the air temperature drops a dozen degrees. Meow! The move to a more modern setting did not work against "Vanity Fair" and the only thing that really causes some conflict is the casting. Barbara Kent (Amelia) was under 5 feet in height, and few of the leading men were very tall either - this all coming together to make Loy look like an absolute Amazon woman!

"Vanity Fair" is similar to "Craig's Wife" in that no matter how bad the main character is, you have to love her. And you know she deserves her comeuppance, and then some, but you still feel sorry for her when she gets it. Though based on the same story as "Becky Sharp", this version had a different ending, which is interesting to see because most of the rest of the films were almost identical. For pleasure value, the ending of "Becky Sharp" is ultimately more enjoyable, although aesthetically, and from the flow of the story, there is no doubt that the ending of "Vanity Fair" is the better one, whether or not you actually like it. I love the Thackeray novel on which this film is based. And while this modern version of Becky Sharp's story is a B film, the casting of Loy, in her first top-billed role, is rather fascinating.

Before Loy became MGM's reigning good girl in scores of genteel and comic roles, she was an actress. VANITY FAIR was Loy's follow-up film to EMMA, in which she played a snotty and greedy daughter who almost destroys the loyal housekeeper (Marie Dressler).

Loy's Becky is much nastier than Miriam Hopkins' version 3 years later in BECKY SHARP. Loy's Becky is very much a pre-Code film character with her plunging necklines and amoral ways. It's the type of character that Jean Harlow or Clara Bow could easily have played, but Becky here is still supposed to be of the genteel set. That's what makes her fallen character so tragic.

In counterpoint to Loy's grasping Becky is the goody goody Amelia (Barbara Kent) who is just not an interesting character. Mary Forbes is icily good as Mrs. Sedley. Most of the other actors in this version are pretty blah: Conway Tearle as Rawdon; Walter Byron as Osborne; Anthony Bushell as Dobbin. Others are nearly Dickensian is their quirkiness: Billy Bevan as Joseph; Lionel Belmore as Crawley; Montagu Love as the Marquis; Lilyan Irene as Polly the maid; Elspeth Dudgeon as the housekeeper.

Loy is front and center throughout. While the ending is rather shocking, she has several excellent scenes, such as the gambling scene in the casino where she tries to steal another woman's winning roulette bet. The more Loy's Becky descends morally, the more beautiful she gets until she is finally "caught." Bottom line here is that this is a very solid performance by Loy in a film that should be seen. I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as "Indecent," as that is the name on the main titles.

Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.

Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it. Eliza (Elizabeth Moorman) is a farm girl from the country coming to the city looking for love. She has met a man that has told her of an Astrologist who will show her the stars. This is a journey of souls...Eliza is put to the test, can she realize her true love when she sees him or not? Tommy (Tommy Lee Jones) is a construction worker trying to find himself in his native heritage. They show each other different ways of looking at things. All the while Eliza is still looking for love and Tommy is trying to protect the reservation that his grandmother lives on. This is a twisted story of looking beyond the obvious and finding beauty in the simple everyday things. The style is artsy and chock full of symbolism. The psychedelic camera styling might scare away the average moviegoer, but the deeper message and the interesting frames make this movie worth watching. It is a movie that explores the underworld of the weird, wretched and devastated individuals. This one strays from the path but certainly worth watching! Hercules the Avenger is by far the best single entry in the muscleman genre I can recall. The charge against it made by critics - it is a cut and paste of two previous Hercules films, with some added new material to make it appear fresh - misses the fact that this cut-and-paste approach solves one of the central problems of the sword-and-sandal movies. With most of these films, the middle third sags horribly - usually involving a sappy love story or arcane political intrigue or both (queen falls in love with Hercules and her evil brother plots against them, etc.) It's often hard to hold on through this to watch the exciting finale. Hercules the Avenger cuts all that crap from the source films, and adds a rather brisk narrative of a Hercules impersonator bullying his way into power. (It should be noted that this episode also functions as a distant but pointedly critical remark on the rise of Fascism in Italy.) This also sets up a fine final wrasslin' match between the real Hercules and his impersonator.

In a narrower focus, I might also add that further editing has improved individual scenes borrowed from the other films. For my money, the mutiny scene here is much better than it first appeared in Hercules and the Captive Women, since it has been tightened with the reduction of several characters and their plot complications.

There are also floppy monsters, creepy underworld atmospherics borrowed (literally) from Mario Bava, an entire city destroyed, and the usual amount of lovely babes in revealing gowns. Since no one expects any of these films to compete with The Seven Samurai - or even with The Magnificent Seven - it seems a bit picky to hold the film's borrowing from other films against it. Hercules' son gets severely wounded during a lion hunt that goes awry. Hercules (a solid and engaging performance by the beefy Reg Park) has to venture into an eerie and dangerous alternate dimension ruled by the evil and vengeful Gia the Earth Goddess (a deliciously wicked portrayal by Gia Sandri) and battle various monsters in order to save his son's soul. Meanwhile, Gia's equally nasty son Antaius (a perfectly hateful turn by Giovanni Cianfriglia) poses as Hercules and takes over an entire city as a cruel and ruthless tyrant. Director Maurizo Lucidi relates the engrossing story at a steady pace and maintains a serious tone throughout. This film begins a little slow, but really starts cooking once Hercules enters the misty and perilous subterranean spirit world: Rousing highlights include Hercules grappling with a humanoid lizard beast, Hercules climbing a giant gnarled tree, and Hercules being attacked by a bunch of creepy rotting zombies. Better still, the bizarre spirit world just reeks of spooky atmosphere (gotta love that persistent thick swirling fog!). The strenuous rough'n'tumble mano-a-mano major physical confrontation between Hercules and Antaius likewise totally rocks. Of course, we also get a big mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption as well. Allvaro Mancori's crisp widescreen cinematography gives the movie an impressively expansive sense of scope. Ugo Filippini's robust, rousing score has a nifty majestic sweep to it. Okay, so this flick is an obvious cheapo cute'n'paste job that uses copious footage from both "Hercules in the Haunted World" and "Hercules and the Captive Women," but it's still an extremely lively and entertaining romp all the same. Beautifully filmed, mind expanding exploration of Gypsy culture in the context of their music. Travel across a continent, experiencing the amazing musical styles of various groups of Gypsy peoples. It is sort of misleading to say this movie is not narrated. It is masterfully narrated by the music itself, the soaring melodies and subtititled lyrics tell a story much better than a narrator would have. See this film. Latcho Drom is a cinematic survey of Gypsy music from several countries. It is touching, sad and joyous. Most of the segments appear to be completely unstaged, unrehearsed. The music, ranging from the sensual flamenco music of the Spanish Gypsies, to the melancholy music of the Central European Gypsies, is exquisite. If you love Gypsy music, you'll find Latcho Drom absolutely beautiful.

This is not "direct cinéma", as a matter of fact it is its opposite. Second installment of filmmaker Gatlif's gypsy trilogy, this French work produced by Michèle Ray-Gavras, is a film masterpiece, not pure documentary, no fiction by any means. Instead, Gatlif has chosen different locations of the route from India to Spain, wherever the Rom people have a strong presence, and with the help of art directors he has staged several musical numbers that tell us how the gypsies live, sing, dance, struggle and have survived. The movie may have strong opposition from those who question the hypothesis that the Rom tribe is of Indian origin, mostly challenged by those who see a direct link with the Hebrews (so, in a way, it comes as no surprise that they were also persecuted by the Nazis.) But above any anthropological argument, this is a work of great beauty, strong colors and wonderful singing and dancing. What makes this documentary special from a film-making perspective is its passiveness; which engages the audience to bask in the delight of gypsy music. It innovates the form of documentary while showcasing a tapestry of sound and movement that invites us to celebrate the primal similarity found within the traveling music of (historically) traveling peoples.

Indeed the film itself is a single "take" of sweeping movement that travels the globe and transitions effortlessly from one rhythmic culture to the next.

Watching this film, one's breath is taken away by the simple beauty in our common connection to music, rhythm and dance. If there is a more deeply spiritual, flowing homage to the sound and movement of gypsy cultures, it has yet to be filmed. Latcho Drom, or Safe Journey, is the second film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy of the Romany people. The film is a visual depiction and historical record of Romany life in European and Middle Eastern countries. Even though the scenes are mostly planned, rehearsed, and staged there is not a conventional story line and the dialog does not explain activities from scene to scene. Instead, the film allows the viewer to have sometimes a glimpse, sometimes a more in-depth view of these people during different eras and in different countries, ranging from India, Egypt, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France, and Spain.

The importance of music in Romany culture is clearly expressed throughout the film. It is a vital part of every event and an important means of communication. Everything they do is expressed with music. Dance is another important activity. Like Romany music, it is specialized and deeply personal, something they alone know how to do correctly. We are provided glimpses into their everyday activities, but the film is not a detailed study of their lives. Rather, it is a testament to their culture, focusing on the music and dance they have created and which have made them unique.

Mr. Gatlif portrays the nomadic groups in a positive way. However, we also witness the rejection, distrust, and alienation they receive from the non-Romany population. It seems that the culture they have developed over countless generations, and inspired from diverse countries, will fade into oblivion because conventional society has no place for nomadic ways.

The other films in the trilogy are Les Princes (1983) and Gadjo Dilo (1998). This film is a tapestry, a series of portraits of Rom communities woven together by music. It's very much a musician's film, because of the paucity of spoken dialogue - and what dialogue there is, is not important to the structure of the narrative. Some might expect a National Geographic tale of "customs, dress, and music" or a plot-line orbiting a few central characters - don't look for that here.

This is because it paints a portrait of a family of peoples, rather than telling a story of individuals. The plot is the story through space (India to Andalucia) and/or/ time (we cannot tell) of a people. There is no need of narration. You get a sense of a joyous people, strongly linked in small communities where social interaction is very important. And a great sense of sadness in parts, at their rejection by society at large.

So it's a paean to Rom culture, very beautifully shot, with a wide spectrum of Rom music, and a sting in the tail which is the oppression these people have faced, and still face. I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.

However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music. My girls 4 and 6 love this show. We stumbled across it on a PBS station and they always ask when its on now. It reminds them of their Grandma that takes care of them everyday in the summer. Its funny too and sometimes they can't stopped talking about one scene or another. I would definitely recommend this show to all young kids. It is very clean and shows you to slow down and its not about watching TV all day long. When Nana reads a story it is slow and she talks about each page with Mona. It reminds me to slow down when I read the next book to my girls at bedtime and talk about the book instead of going through it quickly just to get them to sleep. We stumbled across this show one Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m. while flipping through all of the cable channels and this turned out to be best show on! It is absolutely adorable. We need shows like this for children (and adults, as I'm certainly way beyond my childhood years.) As one of the other commentaries pointed out, this show benefits from the simplicity of the characters and story lines. The puppets are fantastically cute, the backgrounds are colorful and even though they are created out of cardboard, foam, paint, and pure imagination, they remind us of our own childhoods, when we could spend the day at our own grandma's house, exploring the world around us. For those who never were lucky to have a grandma as nice as Nana, this show is for you, you'll make up for lost time! This show is a true inspiration and filled with cleverness and humor and just outright fun, for children and adults alike. In other words, don't overlook this show, just because you're over the age of three! Spend a half hour with Mona, Nana, Mr. Wooka, and Russell, they'll be friends you look forward to seeing! This would definitely not have been my kind of movie, but my husband saw it on TV and said it was really good. So, on his recommendation, I bought a copy, since I didn't know if it would ever be on TV again. I had never heard of anybody in it except Armand Assante. At first I had a hard time getting into the story, because the first part of the movie is a jumble of images-- and it doesn't make much sense. It is only later in the movie that it all comes together. The scene-cutting- if that's what it's called, is a bit jarring-- it sometimes looks as if a few frames have been cut out of each scene, and the scenes are jerky--but I guess that was done to add to the unusualness (if that's a word). The story veers here and there, and just about the time you have it all figured out, everything turns upside down and you have to readjust your thinking as to who is the bad guy and who is not. Or bad woman. The acting is very good-- I kept thinking how much Norman Reedus looks like Leo Decaprio. The ending was a real twist, totally unexpected, which I liked. A good show. Not having heard of this film, it came as a surprise when it was shown on cable recently. Gary Ellis, the gifted director of "Tough Luck", does wonders with the screen play written by Bill Boatman and Todd King. The film involves the viewer from the start.

Archie, the young hustler at the center of this story, has been involved in all kinds of petty crime. In fact, we witness a confrontation right at the beginning which makes him get out of New Orleans, as fast as he can. He ends up in the carnival that is run by the mysterious Ike. Archie falls for Davina, the woman he should have been wise to stay away from. The result proves a fatal judgment for Archie who then becomes the object of double crossing all around.

The director should be commended by the casting of Norman Reedus, who obviously is loved by the camera. In spite of his nature, one feels for him because we know his heart is in the right place. The beautiful Dagmara Dominczyk is perfect as the exotic dancer Divana who, in spite of being Ike's lover, entices Archie into falling heads over heels with her. Armand Assante is barely understandable with the thick accent he speaks during the first half of the film.

"Tough Luck" shows a new director, Gary Ellis, showing he will go to do bigger and better things because he knows what he is doing. Didn't really know what to expect from this movie-and found myself being pleasantly surprised. I picked it up because I recently stumbled across Norman Reedus and am trying to find more of the films that he's been in.

I'm not big into hustler movies or con movies, but I have to say, this one roped me in within minutes. Probably because I couldn't quit figure out exactly who was hustling who. This movie is stylish and fast-paced, with a story that is believable thanks to location and fantastic performances.

While I was impressed with most in the film, I must say Dagmara Dominczyk was simply excellent.

Give it a chance-it's a really fun film. This one surprised me.

I read a few reviews beforehand that called it a good B-grade movie and was prepared for the worst. Halfway through it I suddenly realised I was completely wrapped up in it and enjoying it a lot. There were some really tense moments that had you sitting forward fiddling nervously with the remote control or any other object in reach. Overall this movie definitely doesn't deserve the B-grade tag.

Credit must be given to Director, Gary Ellis and writers, Bill Boatman & Todd King for their movie debut. I hope these guys continue with bigger budgets and some studio backing. I like Armand Assante & my cable company's summary sounded interesting, so I watched it, twice already, and probably will again.

The early part is difficult to follow, but later it clears up. I believe the screenwriter did a good job of tying up the loose ends.

Some of the acting is unconvincing, but maybe that's because I was always expecting some kind of double-cross. In that case, the poor acting would be the insincerity of the characters interacting with each other, so it fits very well.

The important theme is the carnival owner (Assante) is laundering money for a local casino & his snake-charmer wife (Dagmara Dominczyk) wants to steal it. She complains to "Archie" (Reedus) how terrible her life is, and how he could help her get out of it.

There are 3 or 4 plot twists (which is probably the reason for all of those loose ends), and just when you think you have solved the mystery, something else will happen.

My 8/10 score is mostly for the plot.

I won't say any more - I don't like spoilers, so I don't want to be one, but I believe this film is worth your time. This is a quirky heist/caper film, one that seems predictable at first then keeps surprising until the last scene. The protagonist is a grifter who goes to work in a little carnival, where he's paid to kill the manager's belly dancer wife Divana then ends up falling for her himself. She's alluring, tricky and deadly and she keeps disappearing and popping up again like some sort of magician's trick. The film's other props include her duplicitous husband/employer (played by the talented Armand Assante), some nasty Dominican mobsters and most important to the plot, a suitcase full of money. Just like the old "shell game," the one where you have to guess which one the pea's under, you'll be guessing who's got the money, and like the victims of the hucksters who run such games, you'll probably guess wrong. Dagma Dominczyk, as lovely Divana, is a talented performer and an eyeful, whether she's dancing with the huge snake around her shoulders or working her grift on all the unfortunate men in her orbit. Norman Reedus is fine as the young con who is flummoxed by the elusive beauty he was paid to kill. Don't count him out, however, for he turns out to be smarter than anyone gave him credit for. This oddball film is worth a look. I watched this movie on HBO and I had a good time.

The director has done a great work. I found myself totally absorbed into this movie once it started. Norman Reedus's performance is cool. I expect more chilling movies from him.

I was so absorbed that on occasions I wanted to grab gun from Norman and shoot that snake girl. Hehe. I like the movies when innocent looking girls play tricks with men really cunningly. The ending was what I wanted :))

This movie is filled with twists of moments. You expect this but something else happens.

In the beginning, those massive images cut scenes were really painful to eyes.

Although it was not shown when Norman Reedus changed currency notes? Or is it me standing by fridge. :) TOUGH LUCK follows a homeless drifter as he becomes entangled in the underground crime world of deception and chaos. Archie(Norman Reedus) has been released from prison and has nothing to lose. He is almost killed before the owner of a carnival named Ike(Armand Assante) hires him for work. Soon Ike discloses a strong desire for Archie to murder his mischievous wife, Divana(Dagmara Dominczyk), an erotic dancer for the Carnival. Things soon get complicated when Archie falls in love with Divana and warns her of the scheme. They become involved in a very steamy affair that leaves little to the imagination of the viewer, after which they soon make a plan. Together they plot to murder Ike, but things don't go quite as planned.

I would be lying if I said that this film didn't surprise me. I was, personally, blown away by how good this film was. Upon renting it several years back, I was expecting another cliché thriller with a lot of the typical elements and themes that are shown in a lot of films of that type these days. Within minutes I was hooked and found myself quite involved with the world of this film. It's the kind of film, much like BUFFALO '66, that just sucks you in and transports you into the style and the feeling of paranoia. It is a film that really pulls it off in stunning fashion. One thing I particularly appreciated was how the film depicted it's characters. The film isn't as easy and clear cut as it may appear in the plot summary. These are characters that you actually grow to care about and are fascinated by, including the characters that are supposed to be the bad guys. In truth, there are no good guys or bad guys in this film. All of the characters are flawed in ways that are realistic and incredibly true-to-life. There aren't many films that manage to accomplish this task as flawlessly as this film does, but it's definitely a film style that I like and I want to see more of from films today. There were quite a few crime films that were like that back in the early 50s, but there hasn't been one as gripping and unique as this ever since!

In terms of flaws, I have mostly very minor gripes. The film itself isn't exactly original. However, I doubt that most folks would expect it to be original. The film's editing style also may be irritating to some folks as it tends to have a camcorder type of shaky cam throughout. While I wasn't bothered by it and actually felt that it added to the atmosphere, I'm sure most viewers will not be as enthralled by it and may find it generally off-putting. Despite the minor flaws, however, this is one of the most underrated films of the 2000s. It's so refreshing to get lucky and watch an unknown film that turns out to be good. It seems as if this film was a direct-to-video release, though this film is far better than that. Had it been put in theaters, it wouldn't have won any awards nor would it have been seen much, but it would have a lot more recognition than it has today. Recognition that this film deserves. TOUGH LUCK is an astounding, entertaining, and twisted neo-noir thriller with a real sense of class and style juxtapose and with enough substance to make the average moviegoer more than simply satisfied. Like a twisty country road, "Tough Luck" takes the viewer for a ride. There is nothing wrong with plot curves, as long as believability doesn't fly out the window. Unfortunately in the end the film does challenge an audience's belief tolerance. Nevertheless, it is easy to forgive this fault due to the superior acting, character development, and wonderful carnival atmosphere. Do not expect to like any of the characters. Armand Asante, Norman Redus, and Dagmara Dominczyk, play shady con-artists, not exactly the type of person easily admired. The double crosses come fast and furious, and the final cross is a bit of a stretch. Recommended. - MERK I caught this movie on the Horror Channel and was quite impressed by the film's Gothic atmosphere and tone. As a big fan of all things vampire related, I am always happy to see a new variation of the vampire mythos, in this case, a ghoul-like creature residing in a Lovecraftian other dimension. The director has done a brilliant job of conveying the dark mood of the subject, using the decadent art scene as a backdrop to what is essentially a tale of love spanning time and space- the pure love of friendship opposed to the lust for blood and life by the vampires in the story. The characters in the story are transported to another dimension by the means of a mind-altering substance, where a shape-shifting vampire creature appears to grant them their hearts desires, whilst draining them of their life essence. There are some analogies to drug addiction and loss of control, and how this affects a group of friends in an artistic circle. I enjoyed watching the 2 main male characters in the story, Chris Ivan Cevic and Alex Petrovich, who were very attractive hunks, always a plus point in a vampire story for the female viewers! The special effects make up and creature effects were well done, and the set design of the vampire's dimension was very effective. All in all, an enjoyable take on vampire myths, and recommended for anyone who likes their vampires with some intelligence and not just action. The only thing missing to make it even better would have been a bit more eroticism and nudity, as it would have suited the plot and themes. I don't see why all the people are giving this film negative reviews?!?! I loved this movie! Bled is a form of abstract art, and if you don't appreciate art, I can see why you would not like this film. It was a great twist from the average, played out vampire movie. If you are looking for a fresh, new and ingenious new vampire movie, then this is for you. But if you want one of those turn into bats, wolves and melt in the sunlight movies, then go watch your old played out Dracula flicks. Sure, it is a bit on the low budget side, but they did a great job with the budget they had. I'm very happy that I found this movie, because I was about to give up on the vampire genre fro good. I thought this film was brilliant! I give 2 thumbs up to the writer, director and everyone involved in the film. I gave this movies a 7 out of 10. I think the general dislike of this movie is due to people not really understanding the plot. If you think about the story line this movie actually makes perfect sense, it just doesn't ever give you a dumbed-down explanation. Its true that the special effects are sub-par and it appears semi low budget, but I think the originality of the plot keeps you drawn in. People say that the vampire genre is overdone and clichéd out, But with Bled, what you get is not your conventional vampire flick. Its a dream/alternate reality story- line with a vampire/eternal life spin on it. I loved it. The only thing that kept me from giving it a higher rating was the lack of special effects and that I personally dislike movies where most of the people have accents. But like I said earlier, if you really get the plot this is not a bad movie.. I watched this movie thinking it was going to be absolutely horrible and was ready for all the corniness, bad special effects, etc. But, I was pleasantly surprised. Not to say that it's the best vampire movie I have ever seen, but it certainly isn't the worst. I liked the whole alternate reality/dream state that played into the movie. The graphics were quite well for a straight to DVD movie and I liked the overall look of the film. I enjoyed the main character Sai. I usually end up hating the female leads but there was something about her that kept me interested. Yes, she does make some bad decisions, but that was to be expected. Yes, the other characters were stereotypical, but I was expecting that too. I don't know if I'd highly recommend this movie, but give it a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised. I'm putting this one on my guilty pleasures list. "Cherry" tells of a naive, unmarried virgin who decides to have a baby but isn't quite sure how to go about it. This easy going little sleeper is full of quirky characters and tongue-in-cheek situational humor. Fresh, fun, mold breaking stuff, I happened to really enjoy this flick...for whatever that's worth. Recommended for lovers of romantic comedy who want something different. It's true that this is not realistic story, but romantic comedy is not a genre that I look to for realism. What counts is that the characters are likeable and, as needed, sexy. Shalom is beautiful and relaxed and Jake Weber is handsome in an offhand kind of way. They have enough chemistry to make the story believable in the area that counts, sexual attraction. I would love to see either of them in another movie. And yes, the clown is pretty cute too. L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.

This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!

If you like so-called "Euro-cult" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails. Italian soft X Exorcist clone.

Woman buy statue of crucified thief. Said thief comes to life and turns out to be the Devil with rape fantasies.

Ivan Rassimov plays the Devil brilliantly. Mostly due to his gift of evil looks. And Because he was never above doing nudity. Good on him.

The actress in the lead did a decent job. Her wide eyed innocence and the fact that she looked great naked helped.

This one has a similar plot element to most Italian horror films. The girl's parents are filthy rich, and depraved. Watch it to get the details.

Laura Gemser's husband, Gabriel Tinti, also appears as a random stud. His part is basically phoned-in, but like a cheap beer, it did the job.

Fault the director for its failings. This could have been a horror/sex classic. "L'Ossessa" (released in English under many titles and the eeriest of them certainly is "The eerie midnight horror show") is one of the best Italian rip-offs of "The Exorcist". To really appreciate this film you should have a sense of humor. "L'Ossessa" is at the same time sleazy (but naive), pathetic and sometimes even moving.

Danila (Stella Carnacina), an art student, goes to an old church to see the statue she's going to restore. It's a wooden statue of Christ, a demonic Christ, maybe already overcome by evil, or fighting against it, or perhaps planning dark deeds. The face shows infinite torment. The statue dates from the 15th century. Danila is impressed by the mastery shown by the sculptor - the statue seems almost alive! She lives with her parents. Her mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) lives a dissolute life and doesn't care too much for keeping up appearances. Her father Mario (Chris Avram) observes everything with disenchanted eyes.

The wooden statue will soon assume a human form (Ivan Rassimov) and possess Danila in the carnal and spiritual sense. An amazing scene! The poor Danila, from now on, will suffer the torments of hell.

Danila (the lovely Stella Carnacina) was ravished, violated, possessed by the devil and now following his orders, she will try to seduce others. Ain't she emulating her sleazy mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) who feels great pleasure when her lover whips her with a bunch of roses? There is a scene so ridiculous as to be sublime and moving, when Stella Carnacina runs in despair through the narrow streets (possessed by the devil, remember?) of a small Italian town screaming her heart out. Luigi Pistilli is a very good exorcist. His performance is, as usual, intense. The exorcism scenes (particularlly the final battle) are very, very amateurish, but this will only enhance the fun (and/or emotion?) if you've really got a sense of humor.

Stella Carnacina is beautiful and looks fresh and innocent, and that's a factor that adds to your pleasure when she's naked, but I think that the film could have explored more her natural beauty. Lucretia Love is a very good sleaze companion (her nude scene with the roses... well.:)

Other Italian exorcist rip-offs I would like to recommend for you are:

Malabimba (very sleazy and released uncut and digitally restored)

"Evil Eye" (Malocchio) - "The Exorcist" was the main source of inspiration for "Evil Eye", but others films, like, for instance, "Rosemary's Baby" should also be taken into account. "Evil Eye" is completely over the top. Not that sleazy but with plenty of gorgeous Italian and Spanish actresses. You'll be drooling all over the film. The film is ridiculous, the story doesn't make any sense, but if you see it in the right mood you might feel moved! - a diabolical sect, possession, murders, despair, love, investigation and beautiful women all around. A wild ride!

If you liked "Evil Eye", see also "Ring of Darkness" (Un'Ombra nell'ombra). This film can be found in the alternative market. Search this title in the IMDb. There are good reviews about it.

P.S. - "L'Ossessa" has many different faces. It's exploitative, but it can also be serious and moving. It's cheap, cheesy... sleazy (but not that much) and it has an underlying "moral" message. This strange brew can sometimes be very funny. We all already know that "L'Ossessa" is an "Exorcist" rip-off so why can't we see it on its own terms? Yes, Mario Gariazzo was trying to earn a fast buck, but he was able get the most out of a shoestring budget. The story is well told, the film is atmospheric and overall the actors are committed to their roles. See the film with an open mind and you may discover two or three new things. Surprisingly good film made in the wake of the Exorcist concerning a young woman who becomes possessed by a spirit after she goes to a de-sanctified church to restore a life size and life like crucified man . The piece was Christ and the two thieves, however Christ was long ago sold off. Trouble starts once the figure is removed from the cross and it seems to come to life and seduce the woman. From that point on it becomes a battle for the girls soul. Creepy, scary and much better than you think the film works because its cast sells the events which are decidedly adult. It helps that these are real people who are flawed so its easier to relate to them. I really liked this film, and seeing it again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how good it is. Definitely better than any of its myriad of schlocky titles makes it seem. I have read a couple of reviews of this film, which has recently been released on DVD by Eclectic. Apparently, the opening titles are letterboxed, but the remainder (most) is full-screen. The first release, in 1982 by Planet Video, is completely letterboxed. Though it was a primitive release, it did get the compositions right. Later releases had sharper and better picture quality, but they were fullscreen as the DVD is. Any release of this film should be letterboxed, as it adds significantly to the visual experience of the old Planet tape. Prepare to meet your Messiah - they call him Masten Thrust. Male role models have become increasingly difficult to find in today's overexposed society. Every other day an apparent role model is forced to tearfully apologize for a youthful indiscretion or he innocently gets a few youngsters drunk on his ranch. The Last Dinosaur is the story of the last great hunt of Masten Thrust, an old, grizzled, big game hunter who serves as role model supreme. Despite his haggard features and bulbous nose, the females, including Joan Van Ark, are attracted to him like Meatloaf is to cheesy lyrics. Thrust is openly sexist and makes no apologies for his elaborate lifestyle, which includes a red kerchief and a private jet with a working fireplace.

Thrust embarks on a mission to find and hunt the last dinosaur on earth when ironically, after a rich full life, he is truly the last dinosaur. Despite his propensity for yelling at everyone in his presence, his employees and lady friends are unwaveringly loyal to him. He may act as though he's perpetually drunk, but make no mistake, if he calls you a 'Ding Dong' you are a 'Ding Dong'.

Not to be denied his own ballad, Thrust's song shamelessly praises him and his manliness. A sampling of lyrics includes: "Few men have ever done, what he has done, or even dreamed, what he has dreamed/Few men have even tried, what he has tried, most men have failed, where he's prevailed/The world holds nothing new in store for him, and things that startle you and me, are just a bore to him/Few men have ever lived, as he has lived, or even walked, where he has walked'. Even BMTG banned artist Clay Aiken could belt out those lyrics and become an rump-kicking machine.

Thrust and his crew of scientists strap themselves into the 'Polar Borer' wearing mini bike helmets, though Thrust affords himself the luxury of the red kerchief around his neck. The giant human filled drill bit digs through the earth and ice to come popping out into a lagoon. Dinosaurs from the air and land soon descend upon the scientists forcing Thrust and crew to run for their lives. After narrowly escaping a charging dino, Masten lays back and blasts out a hearty laugh, not so much to celebrate life but to acknowledge 'the game is afoot'.

Soon after, it is little surprise that we see a few slightly hunched over cavemen sneaking peeks at their visitors. Thrust, not content with simply killing a dinosaur, decides then to make it his mission to bag a cave broad. Throughout the movie, the lone T-Rex contradicts the belief that dinosaurs have a brain the size of a peanut. Despite its enormous size, the local T-Rex is able to sidle up next to its victims virtually unnoticed. With the element of surprise, T-Rex simply crushes a scientist or two and loots the campsite. Every so often the bloated and cagily faced Thrust is seen yelling at someone, shooting at something or flirting with a primitive J-Lo in manly fashion.

Thrust is like James Tiberius Kirk, not only in his addiction to love, but also when is comes to making complicated weapons using limited natural resources in a short period of time. Thrust and the remaining crew members construct a highly accurate catapult that flings a large boulder into the skull of the cunning T-Rex. Upon realizing that even he, Masten Thrust, cannot top this addition to his trophy case, Thrust decides to stay in his prehistoric surroundings. The ever-dwindling crew then leaves Thrust to live out his days with his lovely, although a bit gamely, cavewoman and introduce her to his personal collection of STDs. This is only a brief synopsis of a movie so complicated and rich in BMTG tradition that it takes several viewings to absorb its message and realize that Masten Thrust is the answer. The press conference, complete with a yelling Thrust, mumbling reporters, and the introduction of the great Bunta, is a classic moment. Also look for a body, resembling a dead Ricky Schroeder, lying on some logs, and the most powerful use of someone being called a 'Ding-Dong' in cinematic history. The Last Dinosaur was one of those "out of nowhere" movie-of-the-week films in the 1970's that was pretty exciting for the time especially to fans of Japanese Tokusatsu films. Originally slated for a theatrical release (around when the Dino King Kong was out in the previous December) it was suddenly pulled and made into a Friday Night ABC Movie of The Week. Rankin Bass-who were no strangers to Japanese co-productions were the guns behind this production, co-produced with Tsuburaya Productions of Japan-the people who brought us Ultraman in various forms. Starring mostly an American cast including the late Richard Boone, Joan Van Ark and the late Steven Keats, it told the tale of a prehistoric pocket of time in what was a superheated volcanic caldera somewhere at the frozen arctic circle, containing dinosaurs. It plays a lot like the films The Land Unknown(1956) and The Land That Time Forgot(1975) in feel and pace. Sure the dinosaurs were guys in suits(A Triceratops with front knees!) but they were filmed in such a way, the music and score was so well done, and the cast did a fine job that this didn't matter much to many of us brought up on Godzilla. The film has a lot of class to it, from the opening score by Nancy Wilson "The Last Dinosaur" to the overall "big" feeling of the film-the locations at hot springs in Northern Japan were excellent and lush- and the undeniable feeling of Kaiju Eiga to it. There are some amazing set pieces-the T-Rex's "bone yard" and a tracking shot that takes us deep into the jungle to see the T-Rex eat a giant fish from a stream. Tsuburaya's FX people did their job in style here and aside from a few dodgy matte shots, they do their job well. This film is considered the best 1970's "kaiju" film from Japan, even over the five Godzilla films made during that decade. Rankin Bass did several other co-productions with Tsuburaya providing the creatures or miniatures- The Bermuda Depths(1978) and The Ivory Ape(1980)-but neither measured up to the epic look of this film. Stupidly beautiful. This movie epitomizes the 'so bad it's good' genre of films.

The only two talents in it are Richard Boone and Joan van Ark, and only Boone is any good. It's kind of sad that the man who rose to fame as Paladin should wind up in this ugly pile of celluloid. While he turns in a fantastic performance, I couldn't help but feel that he so outclassed all his fellow actors in this piece that he shouldn't even have been there.

The effects in this film are laughable, but fun. The idea of a dinosaur being buried in the wall of a cave and suddenly coming to life is B-movie gold. When the 'triceratops' gets killed, watch how it falls. It's clear that the stunt performer in the FRONT of the costume knows the timing best. He falls to the ground, well before the back half of the dinosaur follows suit.

Speaking of 'suits', there is nothing good to say about the purple tyrannosaur, in this flick. It seems to have some kind of stealth technology, since Bunta (reputed to be the best tracker in the world) twice fails to notice it until it's within biting range of him. I don't know how all the prints are, but in the version I own, the Tyranno's roar contains Godzilla's trademark bellow.

This is loads of fun, to watch, if you like bad movies. I love them, and especially bad monster movies, so I consider this the gem of my collection. If bad movies are your thing, definitely get this one. The Last Dinosaur is a film that is meant to be fun and exciting. It succeeds at doing both.

Maston is a big game hunter who hunts big game(go figure). Owning a company he is planning on going on an expedition with a group of people including a photographer named frankie, a Japanese scientist, a guy who works for his company named Chuck, and an African guy who has aided him on many safari's named Bun Ta. The point is to study what is believed to be Tyrannosaurus Rex, dinosaur that killed the last expedition to the area. They will be getting to this prehistoric area taking a drilling vehicle that travels underwater called the Polar Borer. After getting to the area they soon find the Tyrannosaurus, which Maston tries to shoot but his gun gets jammed. Chuck immediately senses that Maston wanted to hunt the dinosaur all along to add it to his collection of "Stuffed Animals". WHile they were away, Tyrannosaurus invades their camp and takes the Polar Borer away from their camp. Upon returning the group realizes that they may be in the area longer than they expected and Maston states that he will kill the Tyrannosaurus.

THe story is great for a science fiction film. Drilling to a prehistoric area is something that seems could really happen. The scenery is beautiful and it looks like a place where dinosaurs could still reside.

Also I liked the characters in this film. Maston is the typical big time hunter who wants to get anything that could be a trophy kill. Also great was Bun Ta, played by Luther Rackley formerly of the NBA, who really looks and acts like an African tracker. Jackie is the typical female who causes problems for the group and seems to not belong in the wilderness. Chuck is the former employee of Maston who has his view of his boss change when he is in the wild with him.

The Tyrannosaurus in this film is one of the best in a film. It stands a little too up-right like Godzilla does and it drags its tail, so it is a guy in a suit. But the suit looks good, especially the head and the tail, and the Tyrannosaurus looks good and very scary. I have seen plenty of other films where dinosaur suits look way worse. Tyrannosaurus in this film sometimes emits a roar sounding like Godzilla's and other times roars like King Kong from "King Kong Escapes" and "King Kong vs Godzilla". SO a great Tyrannosaurus.

There is plenty of action in The Last Dinosaur. Of particular note is a great fight between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. Also a great scene where Bun Ta tries to spear the Tyrannosaurus. There are other great parts that I wont give away. You have to see for yourself.

I recommend this film to everyone. Watch it and you will not be disappointed. i was 9 when i first saw this on TV. on a Friday night. i remember the full page ad in the TV guide with the picture of the Rex. amazing how some things stick in your mind after 30 years. Anyway if your a kid who likes monster movies this one is entertaining enough especially with boone and Keats raging at each other. Special effects are no harryhausen but its worth the hour and a half if you find it somewhere on late night TV. Haven't seen it in a few years for some reason these classics fade from cable TV. If you do catch it on late night don't be too critical just grab some snacks and enjoy it. it might be cheesy but i thought it was a lot better than the kong remake that came out in the theaters a year before. Once a wise man from India once said, "First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us." Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time "Masten Thrust" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before!

This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format.

"Be afraid, be VERY afraid!" I guess this is the first movie that made me aware of the term "cult flick". It is totally a bad movie, but I can't help it, I like this movie. Richard Boone has made better and so has Joan Van Arc, but if you are in to staying up late and watching movies that don't make you think to much this one is for you. Great cult flick for MST-3K types: Richard Boone is a mess -- bad hair, arthritis, even his dark glasses aren't right; about as good as a bad dino-flick can get... actually, that charging saber-toothed Styracosaurus was pretty cool -- maybe Spielberg should take a couple of notes from that one. This movie is kind of good. It seem that they used the Tyrannosaurus Rex like a blown up balloon, just like Godzilla, just maybe back in those 60-70's days, scientist haven't got enough info. on all sorts of dinosaurs. Back in those time scientist still making dinosaur, so I guess this movie was base on a Tyrannosaurus Rex movements back in the 60-70's. There even a part where a giant rock, fired by someone at the Tyrannosaurus Rex, it damage the Tyrannosaurus Rex and it was knock out for a little while. At the end, the Tyrannosaurus Rex went back to search for food. There is something wrong in the movie as well, like a rifle, how can one rifle kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex, when it could be 1,000-5,000 stronger than we are. If this film going to make a remake, I suggest make it more good and excited, because watching a old movie seems like to have a remake of it, if lucky. I'm not sure if these other people saw the movie - some apparently couldn't follow the "complicated plot". He's a billionaire who owns an oil company who ALSO happens to big game hunt - wow - that's really far fetched. Any way - his new "drilling machine" happens to break through a glacier and on the other side is a world seperated from our own time where dinosaurs and cavemen wander around. Nothing ground breaking about this but it certainly isn't ludicrous. Anyway the rest of the movie is about this T-Rex they find (which the billionaire, Boone, claimed was there) hunting them and them hunting it. Look - it's an old made for TV movie - of course the special effects look cheesy - they didn't have CG - they did the best they could and for a MFTVM they did a hell of a job for the time. This movie should be remade for the big screen - I'd love it and I'd be the first one in line. Seeing that Dinosaur with modern day special effects stalking those guys would be great! I LOVED this movie. Not as great as "50 First Dates", but it's definitely a repeater, especially on a rainy day or with a group of girlfriends. Yes, the plot was "cute" and maybe even unbelievable, but what's so bad about a feel good movie. Drew as Josie and her romance with the teacher is so sweet and brother baseball wannabee adds to the movie's good feeling. With all the junk out there, what's so bad about a good movie the whole family can enjoy? Without being embarrassed while watching with your kids! Drew is an awesome actress that really seems to be unappreciated for the most part. This is definitely one of her best roles! I think this movie more than any other shows what a great actress Drew Barrymore is because she plays a ugly duckling in high school which is something I never imagined her being. A great flick with lots of laughs . I don't usually go for those feel good movies but I really enjoyed this one. This is a truly hilarious film and one that I have seen many times. Drew Barrymore is brilliant as Josie Geller, as is David Arquette as her brother. You cringe with embarrassment at the thought of her returning to high school as the film is a reminder of what high school was really like! Her outfits are wacky and weird, and it brings back memories of those who dressed a bit differently! The gorgeous Michael Vartan was adorable as the teacher (wish there had been teachers like that when I was at high school!) and Josie's boss is fantastic. This is a film you could watch again and again, with a fabulous sound track! One for all those at school in the 90's to watch! Very sadly, I can relate to this movie, as I'm 17, and have yet to be kissed, so I really feel for Josie. It's been a while since seeing this film, but to write this review I re-watched it, and remembered everything I loved about it.

Drew Barrymore is a great actress, and this role suited her really well at the time. The chemistry between Sam and Josie was really good, and Michael Vartan was an excellent actor in this.

I loved the storyline too - as i said up there, I could relate, and it's rare you find a film you can completely relate to.

All over - I loved it. 7/10 I can't say that I embrace this as a Romantic Comedy, as I found little funny about it. I did find it endearing, entertaining, heartwarming, and terminally sweet, and while there were some witty moments, I found them more bittersweet than outright comedic.

I liked this one. Barrymore has grown so much as an actress, and it's always wonderful to catch her on the big screen, but this translates well to the small screen, too. In fact, on subsequent viewings, I like this one more and more.

If you're a fan of the Romantic Comedy, then you may be a bit put off by lack of comedic effect with this one, but if you're in it for the romance, it's definitely here to be found.

It rates a 7.8/10 from...

the Fiend :. I saw this when it first came out and have seen it several times since. I have the DVD. It's one of Drew Barrymore's best works and one that is worth seeing more than once.

Not being popular in high school was one f the things in the film I could relate to. I wasn't quite as tortured as Josie was (during her real high school days) or like Aldys, but I was never the go- to-the-major-party type either. The prom scene were the three popular girls fall victim to their own prank as Josie pushes way Aldys (the intended victim) is my favorite scene and I clapped when I first saw it.

I can still watch this movie today. it is excellent. Never Been Kissed gives Drew Barrymore the chance to do something that maybe 70% of us would like to do. Go back to high school and make some necessary corrections. Actually the first time for me was bad enough and at my age I doubt I could pull it off the way Drew does.

Of course the reason could also be that once we leave high school it's like leaving a cocoon and we have to deal with the great big unfriendly world out there. I've known a few in my life who would go back and stay if they could. In fact there is a Law and Order episode which explores the dark side of this same situation. A girl looking young enough to pull it off, goes through high school at least three times and kills the person who stumbles on her secret.

With Drew though it's an assignment. She's a copy editor for the Chicago Sun Times who yearns to be a reporter. Publisher Garry Marshall who plays the part like Donald Trump took over the Sun Times gets this brilliant idea and just sees in Barrymore a young enough looking person to pull off the masquerade.

High School the first time was bad enough. Drew was not the most popular then and she's not doing better the second time around. That is until brother David Arquette also goes back to school and helps her over the rough patches.

Of course this raises a whole lot of issues for Drew, peer pressure from two sources, job and school. What's a girl to do?

Never Been Kissed is a light and charming comedy which to its credit skips over the opportunity to be crassly exploitive and gives us some good entertainment. Drew is very funny and sweet and her performance in moments of stress for her character moves nicely into pathos. Michael Vartan as her English teacher is the kind I wish there were more of in the education field and Leelee Sobieski and Jessica Alba play a pair of the empty headed cool kids that Drew tries so desperately to hook up with.

Still it doesn't inspire me to return to Midwood High School. Never been kissed starring Drew Barymore as Reporter Josie Gellar is a sweet, extremely sappy and sometimes quite painful tale of a timid woman named Josie Gellar who though brilliant is quiet and shy and has never been kissed by a man. She is assigned her first major news story for the newspaper she works for-to go undercover as a high school student befriend the popular cool kids and get a scoop as to what really goes on in the world of high school. Only problem is Josie has never been popular. High School was in fact, a traumatizing experience for her as she was the recipient of quite a lot of teasing and cruel jokes. Josie grabs this assignment, as much to finally "fit in" as to get a scoop-what she finds is the major premise of the story.

Never been kissed is one of those movies that's so sappy and schmaltzy at times, particularly in a few scenes at the end that the limits of believability are sorely tested and many a cynic may not like this movie. It is however, very sweetly done. Drew Barymore is perfect as the bumbling yet lovely Josie-she breathes a breath of fresh air into the character and makes her appear perfectly realistic. I also enjoyed Leelee Sobiesky as the intellectual student who befriends Josie on her first day at the school.

Never been kissed has some really funny moments as Josie unravels in her frantic efforts to be cool. Example-the reggae bar scene.I also loved the appearance of Josie's brother Rob who also goes back and signs up as a high school student, the way that he helps to give Josie her "dream" of finally fitting in is just hilarious. At the same time, as Josie's woeful story of her original years in high school are shown in flashback it is extremely painful. You do not need to have had similar experiences in high school to Josie to be affected by her story-Drew is wonderful at making her character have a personal connection with the audience and we adore Josie from the beginning.

there is a lot of "mean girls" a 2004 release, in this movie but mean girls honestly was a lot grittier. Never been kissed becomes very much a romantic pic as Josie develops feelings for a certain man and the question becomes will they get together.

I liked this movie. It was really beautifully done in some areas. The movie is corny in some places yes, the last scene-realistic-no way-does this movie manipulate your emotions in the most obvious Hollywood way? Oh yeah yeah yeah baby! But it manipulates beautifully, there are some lessons to be learned here. The movie never preaches but manages to paint an accurate picture of what high school was like for a select few. I have actually met people who have had similar experiences to Josie-I've met people very much like all these characters-I think a lot of people simply don't know or can't conceive of the cruelty that can exist in the world of high school, and how hurtful it can be, but it's there. Not unrealistic at all. What struck me was Drew's speech at the prom, as she demonstrates the "sheep mentality" that can exist so prevalently -as Hollywood and manufactured as many think that may be, it was well done and very true.

I'm making never been kissed sound a lot heavier then it is, in truth this is a perfect movie to pick when one wants a sweet feel good light heartwarming picture. It's engaging, sweetly acted and just Rufus. I'd say check it out. 8 of 10. I love this movie so much. It always makes me cry. If you appreciate Drew Barrymore half as much as I do, you'll love this movie. It's got all the essentials I look for in a movie. It has good actors, good characters, good humor...a lot of heart-warming moments too. The flash-back moments when we see Josie in high school make me cry though. Every single time. I'm sure you'll like this one, don't judge based on the fact that it looks like a teen movie, even though it is, in a way, a teen movie. Sure, if you're a guy, and all you watch are hardcore special effect movies only in the top 250 movies of all time, then this isn't for you. But if you like romantic comedies you will not forget after seeing it, pick it up at a video store and enjoy: Drew Barrymore is great in this one! Josie is a reporter from a newspaper is set a task to go back to high school as she is going to be 17 again. .

As she is there, she remembers some really awful stuff thats happened to her the first time she was in Highschool as we see in flashback scenes.

In the flashback they show that (little spoiler) Josie was kind of a nerd in high school and was picked on a lot and one day the cool guy tells her that he is taking her to the prom, only on the prom night as she leaves her house she gets egged by the ass hole and his bitch. what a horrible thing to do (some will find this hard to watch as it so nasty and it will make you feel warmer to Josie).

I did not find this movie that funny but there was some really funny stuff in the office scenes a lot more funnier then anything that happened in the school.

This movie did have the perfect happy ending, as it did bring tears to my mum and sister eyes. The acting in this movie was not outstanding, it was good for the most part of the movie, there is some poor acting in some parts of the movie.

I going to give this movie 7 out 10. I thought this movie was really awesome! One of Drew's best. I am also a fan of Michael Vartan so I thought he was so hot in this movie. Why all the bad reviews. I would want to watch this movie over and over again if I could. I also loved the ending. This movie clearly has shown a smile on my face! I was also surprised that James Franco and Jessica Alba were in it. I love them both so I also highlighted this movie. At the end, when Drew is making the huge comment about the truth it really told the truth of what sometimes happens in High School. Again, the movie was amazing. Defiantly a 10/10. Hope this comment was very useful to any IMDb readers. I saw this movie for a first time years ago, when it was still new and I was satisfied. It's a great Hollywood make-belief story for teenagers. However, it's not lifelike. As much as you would want to believe it, these stories never happen. That's why it is irritating to watch movies like that. They play with teenagers' minds, just imagine how many girls still in high schools believed in that magic and got disappointed. I wouldn't recommend this movie to my little sister or my cousin. The director should have spent some more time thinking about the plot instead of thinking about actors. Yes, they (actors) were good, but the idea isn't worth a 10. There are a lot of films about teenagers. So why don't we make a better one? Of course, really experienced reviewers who like stuff like Star Wars and professional crap will definitely drag this movie and say really bad comments about it. But really, it is enjoyable teen comedy with an awesome story and good acting.

Josie Gellar (played well by Drew Barrymore) is part of a news-reporting team and she has been offered a ('real') job - she has to go back to school and find out what teens are like these days. Well this goes alright, until Josie remembers her horrible time at High School and gets freaked out. But she's never been hip, never been cool, never been popular until now!

Sit back relax and enjoy with Never Been Kissed!

i love this movie. it focuses on both issues: reality and fantasy. reality because hey, we all wanted a date from that popular guy Billy. and some of us haven't been kissed yet, right? be honest!

another real issue is because of the pain people gain from teasing. and whoa, high school life. remember it? the fantasy is finding your true love, when you're 25 and still in high school. not really fantasy, but close enough!

although some parts are unbelievable, it was a great movie. there are no other words to describe such incredible work. and the story was wonderful. Drew Barrymore did a charmingly wonderful job, same as the hilarious David Arquette. the people who worked in the movie are all wonderful. didn't i just repeat that?

Never Been Kissed is one of the movies that the later generations should watch. it shows reality and some-not issues for people like you and me. There is little more that I would like to say about this movie than it really can touch your heart if you let it. Sure, it's surrounded by all the stereotypical Hollywood stuff, but I found myself actually engrossed in this movie and very interested in the outcome. I'd recommend it to all you romantics out there in a second! 'Never Been Kissed' is a real feel good film. If you haven't seen it yet, then rent it out. I am going to buy it when its released because I loved it. Drew Barrymore is excellent again, she plays her part well. I felt I could relate to this film because of the school days I had were just as bad. I thought the plot was well written, there was comedy and romance which are the type of films I love. I loved the ending because even though you know what's going to happen, it still leaves you sitting on the edge of your seat waiting - anticipating!! This movie turned out to be pretty much what I expected. Of course it's sappy, of course it's predictable. We all know the fairytale. But knowing that when you go to watch it, it's enjoyable enough to watch. It was funny and sweet. I did find it annoying that they showed geeks as either kids who didn't wash there hair or kids who loved math and joined clubs about math and wore T-shirts about math. I was an outcast in high school and I didn't do these things. It goes much deeper than that. Having to do with many things, some of that being how much money your family has, how much you are willing to hide your uniqueness and how mean you are willing to be to other kids. Anyway, I won't get into it. I don't agree with other opinions that Drew isn't convincing as a geek. With braces, no make-up and unwashed hair, I don't think too many people would be drooling over her. And even when she goes back to high-school and sheds those things. She's still wearing the "wrong" clothes, "wrong" hair and has the "wrong" attitude to be considered cool. And her other "geek" friend may be beautiful but it doesn't matter, where I come from, you can still be an outcast and be beautiful. (inside and out) This movie may superficially appear to be flaky and for teenie-boppers. It seems to be the stereotypical high school movie. But in fact, it takes an honest and touching look at the high school experience. It doesn't propose some unrealistic ending where the geeks and the popular kids reconcile. It doesn't change what happened in adolescence; it just attempts to reckon with it. This is a really great, fun, heart-warming movie, good for teens and for those who can still remember being one... I thought this movie was great, not only because of it's storyline but because it was portrayed greatly by the excellent cast. I read that Drew Barrymore wasn't exceptional as Josie Geller because she is beautiful. Yes she maybe but in the movie she played outside herself, which brought on a plain girl searching for who she is in the world. The story is sweet and definitely for the hopeless romantics out there, I for sure am. David Arquette is mad as her brother Rob, and Michael Vartan is gorgeous as Sam Coulson. Leelee Sobieski did an excellent job as her mate Aldys, someone who wasn't afraid to be herself. I think this movie should get more credit rather than being branded as a "teeny boppy" flick Drew Barrymore gets second chance at high school, on undercover assignment as newspaper reporter. In flashbacks, we see that the first time around was, to put it mildly, a major disaster. David Arquette is amusing in modest role as Drew's brother, who also enrolls to help out sis. Lots of subplots endanger but never overwhelm simple charm of movie. Drew keeps making her niche as major innocent-sexy light comic actress. I just saw this movie for the second time with my 8-year-old daughter and I remembered why we liked it the first time. All these people who say it is bad are too uptight and critical! It is simply an entertaining little movie, it's not supposed to change the world. I thought all the actors did a great job with their characters. (Except for Jeremy Jordan as Guy--he was a maggot who looked seriously in need of soap and shampoo. If HE is supposed to be the hot guy in their school, then they've got slim pickins'.) But I digress--Drew Barrymore was delightful, as usual, and David Arquette was even enjoyable, and I usually can't stomach him, if only because of those STUPID AT&T commercials! Molly Shannon is always entertaining, and Leelee Sobieski did a great job as a tortured brain. Some parts were actually painful to watch, reminding me of high school. Even though I thankfully didn't get made fun of, it made my heart ache for those who do. Movies like this are actually good for children to see--my daughter made several observations about the cruelty of some of the students and how wrong it was. This movie is appropriate for anyone and a good way to while away 2 hours. If there's ever a time you want to see a lighthearted little movie with a happy ending where you don't have to think very much, then this is definitely a consideration. Women will like this movie better than men. Of course, women like all romantic comedies more than men - on average. I generally like romantic comedies quite a bit, however I considered this a 5.5 for the first 50% of the movie and about a 6.5 for the next 40% and about a 9 for the last 10%. So, begrudgingly, I will rate it a 7. I tape and keep all movies rated a 7 or better and none that are a 6 or worse - at least that's my objective. I have over 1200 movies, so why keep the dogs.

My wife liked this movie quite a bit more than me, though I'm not sure why. I am a bigger Drew Barrymore fan than she is.

The whole point of this movie was about a young woman who goes back to high school (undercover) to write a story about the high school experience nowadays. She was a dork in high school the first time around and has to learn how to be cool the second time around. Her journey toward cooldom, as well as her falling in love with a teacher, is the story.

What drove me nuts for the first half the movie was just how mangy she looked. I wondered why they would pick her for this role until I realized how capable she is at looking like a dog. So much so that I truly don't think I want to see her in 15 years when she gets up in the morning. ARGH! Naturally, she transformed into a rather attractive (cute) woman by the end and she became very popular.

The ending is about a 9.9 on the very sweet scale, so you sappers out there will like that. Otherwise, it isn't very memorable and easily missable. After seeing this movie, I came to the realization that Drew Barrymore is a great actress. This movie wouldn't have been watchable without Drew. The fact that somebody as attractive as Drew, could actually gross me out, and she did when she was "Josie Grossie". Her attempts to "transition" as the cool girls called it were hilarious, especially her trying to dance at the night club.

We also had SNL favorite, Molly Shannon, playing a great part as Anita, Josie's best friend. One of the funniest scenes in the movie was Anita trying to teach the class sex ed. This was one of Mollys funniest performances and best.

Leelee Sobieski also had a great part and I really felt for her, because I know people like her that got tortured like that.

This movie is a must see for Drew Barrymore fans, because Drew makes the movie. Drew Barrymore is such a great actress when it comes to these kind of movies. She stars wonderfully and gets away with the quirks and jokes. Romantic comedies like this suit her and I believe that she's done her best so far. Check out her other romantic comedies. You'll see what I mean. it doesn't matter whether drew or leelee are total babes, but there are a lot of girls who are so pretty and hot but they appear to be so nerdy. This movie is not oscar type of movie but it has at least a good point of view of what life is like for young people or for "real" people. It made us laugh and learn to accept others for who they really are. this movie represents the real world and that what really matters. I think that Never Been Kissed was a totally awesome movie. The casting was really good and they acted very well. I really like Drew Barrymore and of course for me it was excellent. I was scared at first because it said that it wasn't coming out on video. Boy, am I happy that it is because it's a beyond cool movie. Go see it if you already haven't! There are worse ways to spend an evening than watching this movie, although it IS a tad predictable. Drew Barrymore does a very good job of being the outcast nerd in this film - excellent casting choice. What I found a bit hard to believe is that the popular girls finally accept her - in my experience that crowd has a longer memory than that, and knowing how AWFUL Drew's character was (ostrich feathers?) at the start of the school year would have kept them miles away, regardless of what rumors her brother drums up. (And does "Kole Slaw Food" really make HIM all that popular? I doubt it). As for rooting for Drew's character to win big as a reporter - well, I would have hoped she could have come up with a story long before the prom. A bit contrived. Having said all that, it was a cutsie piece of fluff that will be entertaining as long as you don't expect too much. I'm very surprised that so many people don't like this movie. I think it's a lot better than most of the teen films that have come out recently - Ten Things I Hate About You ( can we say teeny bopper film and what was with the principle writing those porno novels ? ), Cruel Intentions ( where a character gives up their virginity because of a fun car ride ), and She's All That ( mediocre ). If your looking for something that's just fun - I say go with Never Been Kissed. My mom loved it and she hates movies ( one of her favorites is BEACHES ). This is a great fantasy about what you would do different if you could go back to high school. People who were outcasts in high school will probably like this movie better. It reminds me of 'Romy and Michele's High School Reunion'. And the ending puts me in the best mood. Sure the plot has been done, but how many recent movies can you honestly say haven't been done in one form or another. The cast is also charming. And for those who think Drew can't be geeky - she pulls it off just great. Another good teen comedy that I recommend which was made recently is ELECTION but it's more of a satire on school and politics. Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a "Tabloid Musical") EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.

Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.

However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.

This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song ("Americana") to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, "Il Bacio" by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.

Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive "Little Miss Fixit" screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first "Teen Idol" with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive "wistful wallflower" adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully "adult" role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and "solo attraction" status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.

It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only "superstar" attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an "Honorary" Oscar" in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.

In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's "Let's Put On a Show" musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.

Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty "Americana." As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.

By contrast, Durbin's presentation of "Il Bacio," is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her "classical" selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional "stand 'n sing" variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though "miniature diva" Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with "jazz baby" Judy, and their delightful duetting of "Americana" in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan "Number One Asset" Durbin out).

A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance! Canthony is correct that this little short is just an excuse to hear a very young Judy Garland (fourteen years old!) singing with a slightly older (by one year) Deanna Durbin. But I must disagree with everything else he or she said, including the running time -- which is only about ten minutes, not twenty (a single-reeler).

The song is not her best, obviously; but it's enjoyable and definitely worth the ten minutes to watch on Turner. The duet with Durbin is quite interesting: two conflicting styles that nevertheless dovetail reasonably well.

The short is just a throwaway, but it's nowhere near as bad as the other reviewer made it out to be. Honestly, I enjoyed it.

Dafydd ab Hugh This one reeler produced by MGM in 1936 showcases the talents of two of its young stars under contract, Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin. In a way, these short films were promotional trailers that featured new talent in front, or behind the camera. Felix Feist directed this one which was a way to promote the two talented stars to the public.

The story is simple enough. The orchestra that entertains in a public park every Sunday doesn't get the attention it deserves. Enter two music aficionados, Judy and Edna, who love to hear the band play conducted by one of their grandfathers. Two of the town's elders sensing there is no public for this type of entertainment have decided to cancel their Sunday concerts in favor of a more popular orchestra that will attract a wider audience.

The two girls embark in a promotional tour of their own doing what they only know, calling and running errands and being helpful to their neighbors in exchange for a promise they will attend the park concert next Sunday. Well, that day comes, and to their surprise, hardly anyone comes as the music starts. The two girls decide to take matters into their own and ask the conductor to play a song for them to sing. The result is clear, people all over the park flocks to hear the talented young singers, thus ensuring the orchestra's existence.

Of course, the only attraction of the short film is the inspired singing by the two stars who are wonderful in their rendition. Ms. Durbin's operatic voice blends well with Ms. Garland's natural one creating a lovely duet.

Don't miss it whenever it shows on TCM! Every Sunday is an eleven minute short subject featuring the talents of two of its young juvenile contract players, a pair who would develop into players of note in the future. It's interesting and entertaining to see the contrasting styles of Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin as they perform at a Sunday concert for Deanna's uncle.

Of course no one knew how big both of these young ladies would get to be. I've always wondered why Mayer kept Garland and let Durbin go to Universal. L.B. always had pretensions to culture and this was the guy who had Jeanette MacDonald at his studio and later on hired such lovely soprano voices as Jane Powell, Ann Blyth, Doretta Morrow, etc.

Judy certainly had her glorious career at MGM, but she paid a heavy price for it. Deanna, along with Abbott&Costello and several Gothic horror monsters preserved Universal pictures. She was smart enough to get out at the top and make it stick.

So, in their salad days, Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland. As has already been noted, the short film "Every Sunday" (1936) could be considered the first music video. This was a happy accident resulting from MGM's need to crank out a variety of short films for exhibit with its feature length material. They had a couple fresh young singing talents (Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin) available and essentially slapped together a blend of music styles in a kind of Norman Rockwell concert in the park setting.

Who would have dreamed at the time that they would capture the best collection of images since Eisenstein's "Odessa Steps" sequence.

It's Sunday with some inattentive folks sitting around a small wooden band shell in the park while a tired looking ensemble play Strauss. Events unfold and the next Sunday Judy and Deanna save the day. The operatic Deanna sings "Il Bacio" (The Kiss) and Garland follows with the contrasting "Waltz with a Swing". The climax nicely blends the two styles into a duet of "Americana".

A must see.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Having previously seen this short on VHS tape with the feature Summer Stock, I just rewatched Every Sunday on the TCM site. It marked the film debut of 15-year-old Deanna Durbin and of 14-year-old Judy Garland outside of her two older sisters. These two teens showcase their musical talents with a solo from Deanna of "Il Bacio", then one from Judy of "Waltz with a Swing" before the two climax with "Americana". The slight plot of this 11-minute film concerns the possible unemployment of Edna's (Durbin's real first name which is the way she's addressed here) grandfather's conducting job at the park because of low attendance. With the two girls' help, you can probably guess what happens from there! Contrasts are marked not only with Garland's and Durbin's musical choice but also with their height, poise, and movement. Despite all that, they perform quite well at the end and it's almost surprising that M-G-M chose Garland while Durbin was already contracted at Universal as this short was made but was briefly allowed back in since her feature debut (Three Smart Girls) was in the early preparing stages. Judy herself would make her first feature (Pigskin Parade) at 20th Century-Fox as M-G-M was deciding what movie she would next star in. That would be Broadway Melody of 1938 where she would perform the show stopping number, "Dear Mr. Gable (You Made Me Love You)". But back to this short, Every Sunday provides a warm and wonderful glimpse of two star singers at the beginning of their legendary careers unaware of what the future holds for them... I have seen over 2000 Studio-Era sound films-- including lots of Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Shirley Jones, and Deanna Durbin's own Universal features-- plus a decent amount of live and studio-recorded musical comedy and opera. And I assure you, no one tasked with singing in front of a camera and microphone, or maybe anywhere ever, HAS EVER TOUCHED DURBIN'S SOLO here...mono soundtrack and crap 1930s microphones and all. The kid from Canada sings this bit from "Il Bacio" like she lived and wrote it herself and then happened to show up for a retrospective in Italy late in her career, not like a child who learned it from her music teacher.

If you skip this Extra on the DVD-- or skip ahead to the Garland solo-- you are just depriving yourself, since this cheap MGM teaser just happened to capture one of the greatest performances of the 20c. Horses on Mars is a wonderful journey taken by very small creatures. It doesn't have to work hard to hold your attention and the characters are truly memorable. Most of the credit must go to Eric Anderson for his choice of visual style and for writing an interesting story, but credit is also deserved by Anuj Majumdar for the narration and the wonderful music score. These choices were obviously not an accident. If you can, see it in 35mm scope for the most impact. It is quite a beautiful film! Horses on Mars is an engaging animated short that takes a sometimes comical look at the process of evolution through the eyes of those yet to evolve. The story is personal, and at times sentimental, and is supported by strong digital animation and narration that involves the viewer in this science fiction story. I was fortunate enough to view this short in widescreen format at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival, and must suppose that when transferred to the small screen, it will lose some of its ability to draw the reader into the no less thoughtful story and stunning graphics. In the history of cinema, every great film-maker had to create a first film. Many times when viewed after they have become a success, a light bulb goes on in our heads. The connection is made and we see the solid foundation from where they started. So it is with HORSES ON MARS. It is the subtle humor woven around a seemingly straight-forward narrative that tells a great story, but allows you to enjoy the visuals at the same time. In the imagery, I found great attention to detail and a production polish that is rare in any student film.

A young film-maker always has improvements to be made. But if Mr. Anderson continues on this path, I think we will someday look back on this film as the beginning a great career.

You should definitely view this film. Nothing beats the grandeur of the big screen. I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.

Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done. Anderson's animation easily rivals that of Pixar and goes well beyond most anything I've ever seen Disney do. While some say the story is a bit too abstract, I find it a thought-provoking and refreshing change from the exaggerated characters and bumbling animals typically found in animated shorts. It's an interplanetary version of CASTAWAY! Anyone who has left the safe harbor of home and gone off to a lonely, frightening place by themselves, will readily identify with this forlorn microbe. Excellent work, Mr. Anderson!

I am not a movie maker but I know it is hard to tell a story and draw people into it in only seven short minutes. I think a good movie is one you don't want to end. Eric did a great job of developing the charater of the microbe and making him seem "human". Loved the music and the voice used for the microbe. I am looking forward to seeing what Eric has in store for us in future films. This is one movie I didn't want to see end. Great job. I've seen this movie a few times and with each viewing I still feel the excitement of embarking on a journey and the frustration of trying to overcome the barriers that impede the path. It's more than a mere desire of finding home; it's about the very basic human spirit of finding one's way in the world, of overcoming despair, of facing the character foibles that deter our goals. Underlying these human endeavors is the challenge to reconsider the origin of life. While this film is imbued with serious ideas, it has just enough comedic lines to leave the viewers hopeful. It is surprisingly funny. The execution of the story line is excellent! This is all packaged with visually engaging animation. A must see.

I enjoyed two of the three movies in the "Sarah, Plain & Tall" trilogy. This, the final of the three, was definitely one of the "good ones. " It is an excellent family film with wonderful acting by the three adult stars: Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Jack Palance.

The storyline is simple but well-told. The only sub-par performance was by one of the kids. It was interesting to see how the kids had grown since that first movie.

Of the three, that initial "Sarah," was the best- filmed with some beautiful cinematography. This movie didn't have that, but it had the best story. It had some genuinely-tearful sentimental moments and a very nice ending.

Highly recommended. I don't ever remember reading Sarah, Plain and Tall in school, but when my son told me about it and said they watched the movie in class, I wanted to see it too. I borrowed the video from the library and watched it as a family. It was a wonderful story. However, I didn't know until a few months ago that there were sequels. I finished watching those this week. I discovered one small oops: in the second movie, Skylark, Jacob is reminiscing when he was a boy, and tells Sarah "my brothers and sisters and I would dream...". In Winter's End, those "brothers and sisters" don't exist in conversations between Jacob and his father. But it is a very small oops, and I only caught it watching the trilogy, the second time around. Great movie, a must see for good wholesome family viewing. Glenn Close is back as Sarah Plain and Tall, a woman who keeps a family together through the good and bad times. The acting is superb -- Christopher Walken (unusually non-spooky) as her husband once again delivers a top-notch performance. It's good to see young Christopher Bell all grown up; too bad we don't get to see much of Anna (Lexi Randall, also a few years older), but the new addition to the Witting family (played by Emily Osment) was very welcome. And finally, Jack Palance, as the long lost Witting patriarch, is as fine as ever. What a joy to watch this family grow up and see the same children acting in this series eight years later. Anna (Lexi Randall) is a beautiful young lady, working for a physician in town. She is in love with his son Justin, who went away in the army and was injured in war. And the newest daughter of Jacob and Sarah, Cassie, is an outspoken cutie, so transparently honest she often is embarrassing.

On a cold winter day a stranger shows up at the farm. He is slow to reveal his identity. When they find out he is Jacobs father, John Witting, thought long ago dead, hard questions about the past are difficult to get answered.

Glenn Close is magnificent as a loving mother, who wants only the best for all her family, and is constantly wrestling with the forces that tend to separate them. Sarah talking to Jacob said, "It's all so fragile, this life. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye. I could have died in that blizzard. Think of Justin, and John. probably more ill than we know. Time moves on. The moment passes, then it's too late. It's a shame, don't you think?"

Life lessons on honesty and forgiveness make this a meaningful evenings entertainment. Excellent story of lives that need repair....one of those rare films that I could watch with my 7 and 8 year old daughters... Glenn Close was excellent in the title role. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken in a more normal role. Sarah Plain and Tall's Winters end was the best movie I have ever seen. The person in the story that I liked best had to be Cassie played by Emily Osment. Just because of her energy and how she speaks her mind. For example when Anna calls from town Cassie wants to answer and she says,"Hello? Anna guess what. Grand father was lost but hes back now and he is not a good man!" I loved all of the Sarah Plain and tall movies for my rating I think Sarah Plain and tall was #3. Skylark was #2. Winters end was #1! If I could live in any family from the past It would have to be the Witting family. I think there are so many good parts in this movie I can't name all of them. I think they picked the best and perfect actors to play all these people in the movie so if you ever want to watch a movie from the past I would highly highly highly recommend Sarah Plain and Tall's Winters end. Jack Palance,(John Witting), was usually a bad guy in most of his films and in this film, he showed his great acting talents above and beyond my expectations. John Witting unexpectedly returns to his son's farm after years and years of separation. Christopher Walken,(Jacob), has a hard time trying to accept his father's appearance after he spent the night in the family barn. Jacob's son and younger daughter greet their new grandpa and accept him just as he is, a very old man, at the end of his ropes. Glenn Close,(Sarah Witting), delves into the character of John Witting and starts to bring out the truth about what happened to him during his years of absence from the family. This is a very warm and loving down to earth film about real events that happen in most families for generations to come and go. I love Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End. Its such a good movie. It tells of the hardships of living on a farm.I live on a farm so I know what its like to have hardships.

I love the setting in Kansas. Its such a beautiful place. My favorite country star is from Kansas. I love the country in Kansas its just so beautiful. I would love to live in Kansas.

Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End I think is a love story. I love love stories they are so fun to watch. I like to watch them because it is nice to watch people fall in love. Falling in love is not as hard as most people think. I've fallen in love once. Sarah Plain and Tall: Winters End is my favorite love story I had borrowed the three Sarah movies from a friend, and had watched them while sick in bed during one weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed every one of them. I enjoyed how the last movie gave a glimpse of what Caleb and his sister were like when they grew up. In addition, I liked the carry-through of the "Billy-boy" song that first was heard during the credits of the first movie, the title "Sarah, Plain and Tall." However, the one thing in Winter's End that I didn't like was the youngest daughter. She was a very cute little girl, but she just had too much spirit and looked like a brat compared to the other kids, even compared to talkative but still good-natured Caleb when he was younger. The best independent film of 2001 - I went to see The Wind at the recommendation of friends who caught it at Dances with Films Festival in LA last summer - it's a great, scary, well made film. The score was amazing. Can't wait to see his next movie! Zeke Rippy (Mic) is great, you totally believe his character. And it's scary as hell, I spent half the movie covering my eyes, the other half on the edge of my seat. It's cool to see something this suspenseful and frightening that isn't all blood and guts - but it did give me bad dreams.

Basically this is a great movie - see it the first chance you get. First of all, despite the low rating on this site, I saw something quite worthy in this film and will gladly defend it. And no, I'm not connected to the crew in any way...

I came across the DVD of The Wind by accident, and had this strong feeling that it wasn't going to be quite like the video packaging described. So I took a chance, and was pleasantly surprised by this strange, very different drama. I'm assuming the DVD marketing and summary were the work of MTI Home Video to hook a rental or sale (the tag line "Love comes in many forms" was changed to "Terror comes in many forms"). Sure, smaller films' rentals and sales depend strongly on grabbing a person's attention, especially if they've never heard of the film before (a similar case happened with the film THE ITEM). That's probably what is working against this release, as horror fans read the description of an "ancient wind" carrying with it "omens of the apocalypse." It's easy to think that that is what this film is all about, and will turn some college students in the story into crazy savages that go on a killing spree. Thus, at the time this review was submitted, is most likely the reason for the lower rating on IMDb. I can understand people becoming upset and thinking they were fooled by that summary , seeing the apocalyptic intro but then experiencing a dark drama. I can forgive the marketing choice since I enjoyed The Wind and thought it was a refreshing change of pace from major Hollywood offerings, it's just that if the intended audience was given the attention, more might voice a higher rating.

The "wind" in this film is basically just a metaphor for society, and is the story of four friends who make some bad choices and how their lives quickly turn into ones of desperate self-preservation. After going too far in 'teaching a lesson' to one of their own, a death occurs and each person tries to save his/her own standing. Manipulation between them becomes the norm, and by the end we see how self preservation becomes their main motivation over good judgment. Civilized to savage, basically. This is very apparent throughout by noticing that the use of a knife, branches as clubs, fists and kicking are instruments of violence instead of guns. These characters are, in a way, doing all the wrong things for the right reason just to stay on top of the situation since they've already taken things too far. While there are many implied violent images, it's interesting to see that there is an absence of cussing and nudity.

What works in favor of The Wind are the "unknown" actors. Bigger stars were originally intended, but I find it works better when you have lesser known, capable actors. This way you can get into the story without sometimes thinking "oh, that's Tom Cruise" for instance, instead of an actual tormented person dealing with an extraordinary situation. Even unusual conversations (like between Mic and Billy in a field, and Mic confronting Claire in her bedroom) hold up well and feel quite natural in the strange universe of Fairview...which has cozy homes,a forest, and wide open fields. I kept thinking of the calm landscapes concealing darker secrets in The Reflecting Skin, which director Michael Mongillo mentions as an inspiration in his commentary.

The Wind manages to get messages across without being heavy-handed about it.

Sure, if you look carefully you'll see many symbols and dialogue that other directors would just pound you over the head with. I even understood the infamous "kissing scene" between Claire, John, and Billy within the context of the story without being surprised it happened. I am still amazed at how some people (guys, mainly) who complain about two men kissing in a scene would obviously have NO problem if the scene were of two gals kissing instead. All is handled nicely here, and additional viewings will make things more clear without making you groan and say "oh man, how did I miss THAT...." Things sink in gradually and I appreciated that. Or you could listen to the DVD commentary as well for more things revealed!

For those of us that "got" the intentions of this film, The Wind is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended) in a time when most films are made in order to JUST make money and be heard knocking other films out of their "box office competition" standing when mentioned on Entertainment Tonight or CNN.

Years later, it's always the great little discoveries like The Wind that stay in my mind, not processed star-driven blockbusters.

Get past the marketing ploy from MTI Home Video, and you just might find this an engaging story indeed. I strongly recommend it to friends that seek out unusual films like this one. Someone definitely has it in for The Wind and I cannot believe that what I saw on the screen has much to do with it. This is a better and more solid movie than most of the independents I watch all year long. The cinematography displays a genuine love and mastery of the craft and the casting was just fine. I would love to see more of these folks, especially Zeke Rippy.

As far as the story and script, I'm not so sure that the negative comments preceding this post were written with the intent of informing anybody else about the movie. The long drawn out nit-picky bashing posts that must have taken hours to compose and are the only comments ever left for any movie on this site by the reviewer, are obvious slander directed at the producers of the film. I don't know the inside story, but it would probably make a good movie. What I do know from being around this biz, is, productions that try to make everybody happy usually end up being awful and when the filmmaker has the guts, drive and common sense to "kill the babies", someone always ends up with hurt feelings. That's part of the biz too, and one of the finest learning tools available to those truly dedicated to making it in the movie business. Of course, the failures have nothing better to do than to sit at home and write false reviews on the internet as a form of vendetta against those that snubbed them (read: were honest and truthful with them). And that is my best guess to explain the nasty, nasty reviews. In as much as there is a grain of truth behind everything, there is a point to be made, but these exaggerations of the grains are so over the top that they become obviously fictitious.

It's not a slasher blood bath if that's what you're looking for, it's more the psychological suspense thriller, which typically is not appreciated by the lowest common denominators out there. The best way to see this movie is to try to expunge any pre-conceived notions, pop it in and let it unfold - seriously, characters are defined by their actions and words and when you see what these people do and what they say, I don't think you can come away with the conclusion that these characters were poorly developed. Poorly understood perhaps.

Overall, I do agree that this is a nicely done, compelling movie. Perhaps I would not have given it a 9 under normal circumstances, but the severe negative comments actually attracted me to the picture (I have a secret love for really bad cinema). To me, the ratings below 5 should be reserved for the shlocky, inept, poorly acted and stupidly written movies. None of that applies here - it is quality movie making with some real talent in there. I gave it the nine to to tip the scales back in the correct direction. Watch the movie and tell me I am wrong. Behind the nostalgic music, we see a young boy get off a train. He is arriving from Yugoslavia to meet his father, a man he has not seen in a decade. At the train station, we meet the man. He never smiles.

Thus, we begin our journey into "Four Friends", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.

Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Chase", "Alice's Restaurant" and the underrated "Mickey One") and "Four Friends" is no exception.

A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from "Body Double" and "Nightmare on Elm Street 3") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in "Four Friends", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.

I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe "Four Friends". It's not one of those "high-concept" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.

"Four Friends" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another "American Graffiti" (it lacks the wallop of "Four Friends"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.

**** out of 4 stars This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete. What a great movie!! It's a touching story about four high-school friends who grow up in the 1960s. Throughout the decade, the friends are somewhat separated, but they mnnage to see each other occasionally. There are many tragedies, but there are also a lot of happy moments that make you laugh and smile. It's a heart-filled tale of life, love and friendship. Definitely a must see for drama fans. I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, but it had such an impact on me that I remember sitting through the credits and for several minutes after in complete awe. This is one of the most underrated films of the entire decade in which it was originally released. I just ordered a copy of it on DVD and paid for overnight shipping and can't wait for it to arrive. It is uplifting at times, and also very dark and somewhat disturbing. It's a story of a close-knit band of regular kids growing up in the inner city and makes one feel as though they are actually sitting on the sidelines, rather than watching on a movie screen or television. Hard to explain, but it is something that must be experienced. The story starts at childhood and tracks the lives of the four main characters through high school and as they embark on their separate journeys in life. The entire cast did an incredible job and it's by far the best work of Jodi Thelen's career. I'm hoping that the DVD lives up to my memory and plan on watching it this Friday with a good friend. Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, "Four Friends" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!! I was so moved by this film in 1981, I went back to the theater four times to see it again! Something I have never done for another film. No movie evokes the feelings of growing up in the 60's like Four Friends. That it so closely approximated my own experiences in the 60's is probably something that many will share. Jodi Thelen is radiantly beautiful and unforgetable! Why she didn't become a major star after this I will never know. The acting by the entire cast is flawless as is Steve Tisch's script. I always wanted to know how much of the story was autobiographical. But alas, Steve is no longer here to answer that question. I have all but worn out my VHS copy of this great movie! Highly recommended! This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete. A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in "Breaking Away", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama. ...that maybe someday people will wake up to. People who can resist the urge to separate each and everything, and who see the 60s for what they were. People who can see that it was the individuals who made those times; not the other way around.

The "Forrest Gump" comparison is a good one. Both films look at the 60s, but "Four Friends" is about human beings, as opposed to caricatures. FF delves deeply into the very thing that FG (quite successfully!) tries to condense and classify as nothing more than a backdrop. But while "Gump" files the 60s away in an attic like old toys in a box, "Four Friends" picks up and embraces each toy, thus blurring the lines between what you hold dearly and what you are.

If you associate romance with shoe polish, you'll hate this film. Film follows four friends from the 1950s (when they're in high school) up to 1981. They are Danilo (Craig Wasson) a Yugoslavian immigrant; Georgia (Jodi Thelan) a "free spirit"; David (Michael Huddleston) who has no personality and Tom (Jim Metzler) a big, strong, handsome, rugged guy. All three of them are in love with Georgia but she only loves Danilo. The film mostly focuses on those two--it chronicles their lives, love and attraction to each other over the years. It also gets into Danilo trying to win the love of his tough immigrant father.

I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).

But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!

Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.

This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in "The New Yorker" was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way! A wonderful movie about people. I first saw Four Friends when it was originally shown in theatres and I've seen it many times since. If I'm not watching it when it's on TV, I'll get together with friends and rent it. Invariably, the people I've watched this movie with find it enjoyable. It deals with friends from childhood to adulthood, in the 50's and 60's. It's very funny and touching, dealing with first love (and first sex), racism, war, politics- the whole 60's shebang. It can also be quite dramatic. If you enjoy movies about people, this one is definitely worth the time. This may be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has anything but a trite plot, and leaves one wondering which way it will go next. It is an interesting portrayal of the struggles of youth, youth who are interested in more than immediate gratification, youth who show some concern about the desires and needs of others. I first encountered Arthur Penn's "Four Friends" late one night on HBO. Having never heard of it, I expected very little, but watched because I was interested in seeing what a creation by a teaming of Penn and screenwriter Steve Tesich would be like. For the next two hours or so, I sat mesmerized, watching this incredible teaming of talent and the story they wove. A semi-autobiographical tale of a young immigrant to America growing up amidst the turbulence of the 1960s, "Four Friends" follows the story of Danilo, an eastern European immigrant (the brilliant Craig Wasson), from his arrival in the United States through a decade that changed the American landscape. Accompanying Danilo on his journey are his friends Georgia (the radiant Jodi Thelan, in a role that sadly, she has never had the opportunity to equal), Tom (Jim Metzler) and David (Michael Huddleston). "Four Friends" covers way too much territory for me to attempt to explain it here, but if you haven't seen this film, I urge you to find a copy (it's just been released on DVD) and watch it. You won't be disappointed. Tesich's script is wonderfully poignant — at times funny, at times incredibly sad, but always fascinating and honest. Penn directs with a sure hand, and an obvious love for the period and the people whose lives we're following. The cast is uniformly superb. This film should have made a major star out of Wasson who is truly one of this country's most wasted talents. Jodi Thelan, not your standard brainless Hollywood sexpot, heats up the screen in a performance that makes the audience fall in love with her character as easily as the characters in the film. Metzler and Huddleston subtle performances could easily be overlooked in the shadow of their co-stars, but they are excellent and help anchor the film. Also superb are Miklos Simon and Elizabeth Lawrence as Danilo's parents, as well as Reed Birney and Lois Smith. I have not been without a copy of "Four Friends" since the day after I first saw it on HBO those many years ago. It has been and remains one of my all-time favorite films for more than 20 years now. I can't recommend it enough and feel, if you give it a chance, you'll feel the same way. Four Friends is one of those films that you go to without any expectations, only to find yourself knocked for a loop. You sort of file it away, but then you hear the song "Georgia On My Mind" by Ray Charles, and images and vague feelings begin to flicker on the edge of your consciousness, and then you remember this crazy film which made you laugh and cry, almost at the same time.

Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.

How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience. It's simply ridiculous how underrated this movie is. It is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It never lags, it never slows down, it is a movie that has a wonderful flow to the plot. That along with the brilliant writing makes this an awesome movie. Aamir and Salman are outrageous, even Raveena and Karishma are funny in this movie. Paresh Rawal and Shakti deliver some great bad guy comedy, but Viju Khote and the Ajit-wannabe are the best with their dumbfounded bad-guy intentions. If you want to laugh, and enjoy a movie, watch this movie, do it with family or friends, you will not regret it. Most indian movies tire me out by the end, cause they are 3 hours long. This movie is just as long, but I wish there was more when it ends, cause it's an amazing flick. Its a spoof, its an intelligent comedy, it has some a pathetic action and choreography (and mind it, it is intentional), good hummable songs, good performances by the entire cast, brilliant by Amir, Salman and Paresh and over all an script which is so rare in Indian cinema that too in comedy (watch David Dhawan, Harmesh Malhotra etc). Story is of two wastrels whose only aim is to get rich and famous by any which ways. They come across one such way when they find out that a rich NRI is coming India to get married. Rest of the story is about oneupmanship and how these wastrels try to out wit each other. Entire cast is perfectly cast right from Deven Verma till Viju Khote. Songs are rightly placed and are funny. Surprise package is Salman who acts with perfect timing and this particular act gave him his style of comedy.

All an all a fum film which you should not ignore if you like and watch Indian Cinema. There are some movies that are loved by almost everyone who you come across and yet happen to be box-office failures. Andaz Apna Apna, an intelligent and hilarious comedy falls in that catogory. For once, an Indian director has kept in mind the sensibilities of the audience, and not churned out a Kader Khan type stereo-typical hoax. The movie is about two guys who dream of riches, and try to accomplish that by wooing a millionaire's daughter. A humorous drama unfolds while a lot of complexities surface in the story. The complexities add to the sheer comedy of the entire plot. Aamir Khan plays the a street-smart guy, while Salman Khan gives an unexpectedly good performance as the dumb guy. The villian played by Paresh Rawal,and his henchmen, Junior Ajit and "Kaliaa" make you laugh in your sleep. Although the movie borrows from a lot of other movies, despite shoddy camerawork, and despite being "loud" at times, it remains one of the scarce "funny" movies Bombay has come up with after movies like Padosan, Golmal and other Amol Plaekar movies. It is sad that it didn't do well at the box-office, for that means producers turn back to formulas and creativity is abandoned. Its a very good comedy movie.Ijust liked it.I don't know why i love this movie i just love it.Storyline:It is a story of two boys Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) who want to get rich quickly by taking all the short-cuts in the book. Amar is the son of an honest barber, Murli Manohar (Deven Verma) in Mumbai, while Prem is the son of Bankeylal Bhopali (Jagdeep), a hardworking tailor in Bhopal. Both Amar and Prem sell their father's shop and house respectively, and zero in on a hill station where a beautiful wealthy heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) has come from London accompanied by her friend cum secretary Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) with the intention of getting married to a virtuous Indian. The lucky man to wed Raveena will inherit her father Ram Gopal Bajaj's (Paresh Rawal) entire wealth. Amar and Prem see their get rich quick chance and woo Raveena, each trying to out do the other. Enter Teja (Paresh Rawal in a double role) whose sole ambition in life has been to grab his twin brother Ram Gopal Bajaj's millions. So Teja plants Bhalla. (Shehzad) and Robert (Vijoo Khote) in Raveena's house, to help him in fulfill his ambition. As the story progresses it turns out to be a mad chase from Ram Gopal Bajaj's wealth, full of humor, romance thrills and chills. Will Raveena & Karishma see through Amar and Prem's mischievous intentions? Will Teja succeed in his motives? See it all in super comedy ANDAZ APNA APNA.

Aamir,Salman,Raveena,Karishma and Paresh at there best.

Good Music.

Good Direction.

Good Story and Screenplay.

and very good Comedy !!!!!! i have been watching this movie repeatedly, since it came out. even though it is 8 years old now, it still cracks me up. the jokes are still hilarious and the way the characters are portrayed will make anybody of any age laugh like they've never laughed before. Enjoy it It'll soon be 10 yrs since this movie was released....still makes me laugh.... If u enjoy this film, try the new Hera Pheri....t'is as hilarious. And my favourite bit of the film must be when Salman realises that he has no bullets left in his gun while he has the upper hand and has everyone at gun point...and he actually says it out loud!!! U just wanna bash him....but u know u can only do that if u stop laughing!!!! Fantastic film.... 10/10 Andaz Apna Apna is a movie that I treasure and its one movie, I don't mind seeing at any time... well almost any time! This movie is simply marvelous and according to me, is the funniest movie I've ever seen! And yes, I do put it over Hera Pheri... reason? Hera Pheri has scenes you'll watch out but Andaz Apna Apna? Not possible! Simply because every scene is a scene you got to watch out for! Aamir & Salman share great chemistry and are perfect in their shoes but I'll put the characters in order of favoritism:

Rank # 1. Crime Master Gogo (Shakti Kapoor's best performance till date and yes, this happened before the casting couch): Gogo is an innocent character who belongs to well reputed family of Mogambo (Mr. India fame). Crime Master Gogo is actually Mogambo's nephew but for Mogambo, he's more than a responsible, handsome, charismatic charming son. Gogo, makes the biggest mistake of life by lending 36,000 rupees to Teja (who is as Balla had once said, "A Fraud and a Cheat!"). Now, Gogo's only goal is to get back what's his and in his journey of recovering his lost money, Gogo realizes that there is more than 36,000 that he needs to achieve and thus begins... Gogo's struggle against the sinner-world.

Rank # 2. Teja (Teja Main Hoon, Mark Idhar Hai!): Teja is an evil character who is Ram Gopal Bajaj's twin. Originally named Shyam Gopal Bajaj, Teja chooses to change his name to suit his personality. Teja, as a child had always envied his brother and then one day, things took a turn for the worse when his father gave his entire wealth to Ram Bajaj. Teja decided to kill his father but in the night's darkness, instead killed Munshi Harish Chandra (Raveena's Dad), though Teja doesn't regret his actions. Teja's sole mission, now, is to get back his property somehow and start his own Poultry & Bakery Farm. Teja also needs to return back the loan to Gogo (but has no intentions whatsoever to do so). In order to achieve his evil goals, Teja employs two people: Robert (Vijay Khote, who is very good at aiming) and Balla (Shahzad Khan, Ajit's clone and son... who is a very very smart boy!)

Rank # 3. Amar (Aamir Khan): Wants to marry the rich heiress Raveena, so he sells his father's cheap saloon and heads off for Mumbai. Amar, has no problem taking care of the big business that Raveena's father will hand him over after their wedding and is willing to sacrifice his happiness and shift to London, if needed.

Rank # 4. Prem (Salman Khan): After Gogo, Prem is the second most innocent character to appear in the movie and the way Amar tries to take advantage of him in the mask of a friend, is tragic.

I won't reveal any more characters because Jesus Christ! I just wouldn't stop typing! The movie is outright stunning! Go and get the DVD now and beware of those cheap VCDs as they have omitted many good scenes out of the movie.

The background music is stud and the action is better than the Matrix, especially the final encountered between Prem and Crime Master Gogo (watch out for it), it appears in the climax. Andaz Apna Apna is also a drama with many negative and positive characters and teach us a lot about life and values and ethics. It teaches us about bravery (why else would Amar ask Prem to stay back when they go to meet the kidnapper, even though Prem was complaining that he had to go to the toilet???). Andaz Apna Apna is also a tragedy, especially the scenes where Salman is targeted by Aamir and is given overdose of stomach-upsetting pills, the part where Teja reveals his sad feelings regarding why he couldn't go to London and the part where Gogo is arrested in the ending, without even getting back his 36,000. Andaz Apna Apna is overall a complete package.... sit back and enjoy the ride! Bet there'll be a second ride after that... and then a third!

The movie was considered a flop back then and I bet no one liked it but buckle up guys! This movie is a big hit! Even if it didn't have enough people coming to theatres, the movie is one of the highest selling Home DVDs and one of the most frequently movie on most of the channels so the producers have laughed their way to the banks long time back! This is my favourite Indian movie of all time. It is comic genius. Salman Khan is hilarious. But Amir Khan steals the show with his witty dialogue. Karisma Kapoor's outfits tell a story of their own - makes you wonder if the stylist deliberately made her wear some of the clothes just to make the movie funnier (at one point she looks like she's wearing a nappy). Andaz Apna Apna is the only comedy genre movie to make me laugh from the beginning till the very end. There is not one dull moment, every scene is hilarious, even the songs and dance moves will have you in stitches of laughter. I especially loved the scene in which Amar (Amir Khan) 'regains his memory'. I've seen this movie so many times I've lost count. And I'm so glad to say that this time Bollywood can take all the credit for this fantastic movie as far as I know A.A.A it is not a replicate of a Hollywood movie (THANK GOD). Overall I recommend this movie to anyone who understands Hindi/ Urdu and loves good comedy.

Watch it you'll love it!!!!! The movie Andaz Apna Apna in my books is the top 5 intelligent comedy movies ever made in Bollywood perhaps even Hollywood.

When the movie released i was a 8 year old and I heard it was a flop but I never understood till now why was it a flop...but let me tell you one thing...this movie would have more money by selling home Cassettes and DVDs and by showing in TV movie channels than any hit movie in theaters. This movie has been shown countless times in Movie channels and I think even now the public love and the TV producers keep repeating the movie again and again. I personally have watched the entire movie more than 80 -100 times and I still love it.....

The performance by both Aamir khan as Amar and Salman khan as Prem is mind blowing but i especially liked the performance of Aamir khan as a street smart guy....his dialogs in the movie are Hilarious... the story is simple and heres how it goes.....

Amar and Prem are poor , lazy chaps and come from a poor family of tailors and Amars father is a barber. Then they both get a news that a Millionaire 's daughter from London is coming to India to look for a suitable match ...both Amar and Prem think that this is a brilliant opportunity to become super rich.....therefore they both head out to woo Raveena Tandon..(the millionaires daughter)......in their journey they both hate each other and each one of them try to fool the other in order to marry Raveena.....the comedy scenes in between are so hilarious that you would need a glass of water to stop the pain in your stomach by laughing.......and then there is Raveenas Uncle (Millionaire's look alike brother) Teja who wants to take revenge from Raveenas father.....since he is broke and Raveenas dad is a millionaire......his plans include kidnapping Raveena to blackmail Raveenas dad for which he hires 2 butlers.....

but later on we get to know that there is a twist in the movie (watch the movie to know).......then there is Shakti Kapoor as crime master Gogo who is also incredibly funny......

The thing which stood out for me were the dialogs in the movie which has become a legend of sorts.....Aamir khan uses his "aaila " brilliantly and Salman goes like "OOima "........and for Gogo there is " Jab Raat Ko Bacha Soota Nahi Hain to Ma Bolti Hain Ki Sooja Nahi to Gogo Aa Jaega" ......each and every scene is so funny......

I especially liked the one in which Aamir khan and Salman goto get Raveena from Teja and they both go in a Luna having "chillar" money in a bag....that scene is so funny..

I recommend anyone who understands Hindi or Urdu to watch this movie ......this is one movie that I would recommend having a DVD and you will never regret....... I find it hard to believe that this movie has such a low rating. It is arguably one of the best comedies ever made, and surely the best Bollywood comedy of the 90s. The film did not do too well on the box office and people had diametrically opposite reactions after seeing it. My guess is most people didn't expect it to be an all-out comedy and were expecting a regular movie. If you love comedies, this is a must-see. And Aamir Khan is outstanding. This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this. a hilariously funny movie! of course u gotta have a sense of humour to be able to appreciate it. the music is excellent, reminded me of 50-60's hindi music which is a rarity nowadays... worth the $$$! go check it out :) Rajkumar Santoshi tries his hands at comedy and succeeds. One of the few good movies that involves Salman Khan. A very funny movie from start to finish. All the characters contribute to the movie and believe me, there are a lot of them. Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Raveena Tandon, Karishma Kapoor, Paresh Rawal, Viju Khote, Jagdip, Deven Verma, Shakti Kapoor, Harish Patel, Tiku Talsania and more. The direction, editing, sound are not up to par, but that still does not matter, because the actors more than make up for that part. AAA is my favorite movie... I have seen it a number of times (don't remember the count now) and every time I just love it.... This is the best movie of Raj Kumar Santoshi..The comedy, dialogues, and performance is amazing.. All the actors and actresses have done a superb job... You cannot stop laughing while watching this movie... its just hilarious... Amir khan and Salman Khan have done a great job... and acting by Paresh Rawal was excellent as always..... The music is inspired from the old Hindi movies (60s music) and is good...the entire cast of the movie has done great job...

Overall its a great Indian comedy movie to watch... The first time I watched it was when it came out (1994), and the last time I watched it was just before writing this review.. It still makes me laugh my brains out...after all these years,it dose not disappoint. Truly the smartest Bollywood comedy ever made. This is one Indian movie which deserves its place in the IMDb Top 250. Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in probably one of their best performances in comedic roles. The thing that makes this one a time less classic is its comic timing and wonderful editing...The jokes are refreshing and not cheap.. This is one film truly ahead of its time. If you haven't seen it yet GO WATCH IT NOW !!!!!!!!! I watched this movie probably more than 20 times. The jokes are now 10-15 years old but every time I watch it it makes me fall off my chair. Two of the finest actor Salman Khan and Aamir Khan plays the lead roles here. Even if Aamir Khan is a much better actor and got the better role(smart guy) in the movie Salman Khan matches and sometimes perform even better as the dumb guy. All the characters are memorable. This movie is filled with hilarious one-liners and funny situations(a little too silly probably). Don't try to look for logic in this movie. Let your brain relax for some time. I promise it will be an experience to remember. The best part about this movie is that you can watch it over and over again n still not be content of watching it. I have watched this movie least 10 times over the past 12 years and still it makes me laugh as if i was watching it for the first time. I have great liking for good comics like the Orgazmo,Cheech n chong, Monty Python series and many others but this one in Hindi is one of my favorite outstanding movies. Some of them recently in Hindi are Golmaal,Munnabhai series and Herapheri series. SO all i can say is Hind comedy is finally evolving. But Andaaz Apna Apna is pretty different from the movies i have said above. Its what i call the Hindi stoned comedy and very few of the kind found around 1994 in Hindi cinema.Cheers to Rajkumar Santoshi for the brilliant movie. Well to start with Rajkumar Santoshi is not a comedy film maker ,and this is really unfortunate because the only comedy film he has made is a masterpiece.This film is really funny .Loud in bits ,overacted in a few scenes but still the dialogues r really laugh riots and characters r really full of fun . Story line in simple a Billionaire's daughter come to India for marriage and Two young chaps r behind her ,the story has a twist as well with a connection of a Gangster .Aamir playing a street smart guy Amar has played his role with brilliance and Salman has played the role of an innocent stupid to perfection.Raveena has done fine ,but Karshima really turns irritating in some sequences .But real show stealer r Paresh Rawal and Shakti Kapoor ,they enter the frame and automatically u start laughing . Overall such an enjoyable film that u can watch it any no. of times without getting bored. I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. "Shut up, Robert!" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. "Rabbit". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. "Crime Master Gogo". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. "Relax. PLEASE relax." I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman "Muscles" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times. It is the best movie released in Bollywood upto date. The best comedy, the best acting and the best direction till now! Rajkumar Santoshi's writing and direction proved that he is one of the best directors in the industry. Aamir Khan was absolutely amazing, Salman Khan looked good the way he acted. Shakti Kapoor was good, but Jagdeep over acted as usual! This comedy is still copied by people and no other writers and directors have been able to make this thing again! Even Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't been able to make this cult classic again! This movie was a flop when it released but it has been a cult classic since it released and loved by all kinds of people.

STAR.

ACTING 10/10.

DIALOGUES 10/10.

SCREENPLAY 10/10.

DIRECTION 10/10.

MUSIC 9/10.

LYRICS 9/10.

Overall, This movie is strongly recommended. If you didn't watch it till now, you missed something big! It is a laugh riot and the best comedy i have seen till date! Classic Films like Hera Pheri, Golmaal and Jaane Bhi Do Jaaro are not even half as funny as this.

GREAT MOVIE, HATS OFF!!!! Andaz Apna Apna is my favorite comedy movie of all time.Both Aamir and Salman khan have acted brilliantly while Aamir's acting was far better than salman.Aamir Khan is known as 'MR. PERFECTIONIST' in Bollywood and he proves it in every of his film.

The story moves around two young guys Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) both are from poor families and are a big dreamer.They want to become rich without bearing any pain.so when they hear about Raveena Bajaj (Raveena Tandon) daughter of Mr.Bajaj(Paresh Rawal) who comes to India to find his bridegroom , they both fool their fathers to marry Raveena Bajaj and the journey begins.There is also a twist in the movie that makes movie even more funny.Paresh Rawal is in double role (Teja and Mr. Bajaj) and has acted brilliantly as he always does.Shakti kapoor (crime master Gogo) also adds a great comedy.

This movie is a rib tickling comedy from first minute till last and it is one of classic comedy movies of Bollywood. RKS after the success of GHAYAL started work on this film which was a comedy The film was in making for 3 years and released finally in 1994 but didn't work for some reason Before this film, DAMINI(93) released and did well

The film is a mad comic film like most Priyadarshan films nowdays but it is funny and well handled The film has a proper plot unlike today's films and makes you laugh most characters became famous, be it Crime master gogo(Shakti Kapoor), Paresh Rawal and others

The film keeps you laughing throughout it's run time though being too slapstick and overdone yet it's one of the funniest films

Direction by RKS is very good Music is good

Amongst actors Aamir steals the show and delivers his funniest performance, this was his first out n out comedy Salman does well but looks amateur front of Aamir, yet does a good job and their chemistry is delightful Karisma is annoying and sounds like a child Raveena is adequate Paresh Rawal is too funny in both roles, Shakti Kapoor is hilarious in his over the top act Shehzad Khan(dubbed by Ajit) is very good and Viju Khote too is funny rest all are good too According to me, a movie can be best rated by the number of 'best scenes' there are. There are probably at least 80-90 scenes in the whole movie that is probably rated as 'best' by somebody or the other.

This movie is a masterpiece. Period. I know many who have called it ahead of its time, probably because it bombed at box-office. However, I think any generation can relate to this movie and have a good laugh through out.

I am personally glad that Mahmood is part of the movie too. His role isn't that 'meaty', however its good to see that he is a part of the cast in the funniest Hindi movie ever. Well this is the best comedy movie i have ever seen... My both Favorite actors did good job. Salman khan and Aamir khan rocked. Hope to see Andaz Apna Apna part 2 soon as i heard they will come back with part 2 as well. i have request to those who haven't watched it yet. please buy DVD and watch it u wont feel bored. i am watching this movie 1 times a week. All other was also good in this movie. Paresh Rawal, Shakti and others The music is also good it have also nice songs. there are some sense which will kill u from laughing Salman khan did very nice role and also Aamir.

so must watch movie excellent job by actors and director.. The summary is only for those who hate this movie, as finding the movie OK or average is acceptable. Visiting this movie on IMDb has made me nostalgic as I can't help myself going back in the year 1994. I was one of the few lucky ones who saw this movie in theaters. It instantly became one of my favourite comedies and took some years to make it my favourite. How can I say what made this movie my favourite? Was it the excellent writing ( story was OK but screenplay and dialogues were fabulous) Was it the superlative performances? Was it the mood of the film?

After thinking about it for so many years I say it has to be a mixture. It is one of those movies which didn't have any flaws not even its music.(the other movie coming up in my mind right now is Sholay)

PS: Rajkumar Santoshi please keep a balance between your drama and comedy movies. Only 1 comedy is not enough. I want moreeeeeeee.......... very rarely it happens that i sit down to write a comment for a movie....but this movie!!!!!!oh my holy god!!!!!!!!never ever was there a Hindi movie better than this......and never ever there came a movie better than this......it's the king of all comedies.....

aamir khan is arguably the best COMIC actor in Indian film industry...though its funny to say that because he is a class act,not a comedian...but what he has done in this film is perhaps the most hilarious performance by any Indian actor in an out and out comedy...

salman khan has never been a good actor in my eyes....but this movie got the best out of him....he was innocently comic...if ever there was a term like it....just what the doctor ordered as far as his role in the movie was concerned...

rajkumar santoshi i don't know why, never tried his hand at comedy again....he directed great ventures like The Legend of Bhagat Singh and khakee but could not recreate the magic of andaz apna apna....

i don't care why this film bombed at the box office....though i feel sad that a film like "hum aapke hain kaun" was the reason for it's failure...... as of now i hope the rumors become true.....there'll be "andaz apna apna-2" they say.......we as the audience can only say AMEN!!!!! This is my favorite love story it has every element that a good love story should have. Poetry, jazz, friendships the ups and downs in a relationships. Finally a movie that shows positive aspects of the black community. Larenz Tate was great I can't picture anyone else playing the role of Darius. He recited that poem like he had written it himself and meant every word. I own this movie and if I had the time I would watch it everyday it always makes me feel better and that's what a good movie should do. Also, the character Savon could not had been any better dealing with the subject of marriage. We would all like to find a Darius out there but most of us just settle for watching this movie. My vote is 10/10 Love Jones cleverly portrays young African-American men and women in a clear, positive, realistic sense. I feel that all of the actors and actresses were magnificent and really did a great job at capturing the mood. Nia Long and Larenz Tate worked well together and I hope to see more work from the two of them. As a matter of fact all of the actors/actresses did such a fine job it would be great to see another romantic-comedy from them. This movie can be compared to most any well-written, romantic comedy. If you have not seen this movie already I strongly recommend that you do, it can definitely give you another perspective on life and love. One of my favorite movies of all time. Beautifully done, well written and well acted. It portrayed 20 something blacks in a way I don't think has yet been duplicated, and the dialog? Hmmmm, so stimulating. Makes me want to find love like that........ This movie features some of the best ensemble work I've seen in film or on stage. The actors play off each other with a skill and vivacity that in no way can be achieved through editing.

"Love Jones" a good story, period. But it is also an excellent portrayal of the urban, middle-income, twenty-something African-American set that is not often seen. It's a shame this movie didn't get more play in theatres. It's a rich, textured love story with believable, all-too-human characters, who are too busy gaming and protecting their hearts to recognize The Real Thing when they experience it. One of the most pleasurable aspects of this movie is its setting in Chicago, among hip, artistic, literate, middle-class African-Americans who discuss poetry, music and literature. Another is his Royal Fineness, Larenz Tate -- and if you are even half a fan of his, you NEED to see this film! His boyish cockiness and vulnerability are perfect for the role of Darius. Nia Long also shines as Nina, who longs to tell Darius she loves him but is afraid the break "the Rules." A great movie to watch curled up on the couch with your sweetie! I think it's about 3 years ago when I saw this movie. Accidentally I revisited the info-site for it here and immediately I felt good again! I remembered seeing this movie and loving life again! It showed me I could find love and what-do-you-know?? I have a boyfriend for a year and a half now and love is definitely there.. I think this is one of the best movies of all time. I just think it shows realistically what romance and especially black romance is all about. Would love to know what others think as well. The acting was just out done. Where is Tate anyway? It has been awhile since I have seen him in anything, however I think he has out did his acting performance in this movie! After viewing this movie, lets say, around 8 times, the story line has never bored me. Each character has their own distinct personality and their own views of "love". This movie has timeless, almost realistic, love lessons. Filled with philosophies on love, a jazzy soundtrack, and great actors is why I would call it a classic. This is a must for All but especially African Americans. It is about time there is a movie that expresses and shows the concerns going on in African American relationships. It also allows other cultures to see in a fictional humorous manner how positive African American relationships are and the outcomes of them instead of the undesirable stereotype that plagues the African American community. I love this film a must see!! From the opening sequence, filled with black and white shots reminiscent of Gordan Parks photos, this film draws the viewer into a feeling of artistic renaissance. The backdrop of a poetry cafe aptly named, "The Sanctuary," provides just that. The jazz that permeates the film and the cinematography will seduce you.

This story of love actually allows love to grow, to evolve, and ultimately mature, a rarity in hollywood. Everyone can identify with some stage of their journey towards each other. This tale of two artist that just can't quite get it together sparked a debate amongst its viewers. Should she have gone away? Should he have stopped her? Who knows...?

Starring Larenz Tate(Darius Lovehall), and Nia Long(Nina Moseley) with a scene stealing performance by Isiah Washington(Savon) and Lisa Nicole Carson(Josie Nichols) as the ultimate best friend, this film is a romantic jewel.

See this one with someone you love (wink). I have watched Love Jones over thirty times. It is one of the rare films that depict a love story about people who happen to be African-Americans. The dialogue was realistically written, and delivered with honesty. It was so nice to see a film where the story line centered on young professional African-Americans. This is virtually an untapped market. Love Jones was visually captivating as well. The chemistry between Lorenz Tate and Nia Long will bring memories of past and present love. The feeling of the film is jazz and blues, and brings to mine the sensuality of a warm creamy hot chocolate with a splash of Kahlua and Butterscotch. If you hadn't guessed, I loved it! This film was filled with great acting, great musical sounds that blow your mind completely away. Larenz Tate,(Darius Lovehall),"Waist Deep",'06 was a sharp cat with the gals and he soon met his Waterloo with Nia Long,(Nina Mosley),"Big Momma's House",2000. Nina put her heart and soul into this role and when she meets up with Darius, the sparks fly at first and then there is a sort of hate relationship. The entire cast of actors made this a very entertaining film, with plenty of comedy, drama and lots of loving and cheating going on. This is a very down to earth film and at the same time shows how everyone eventually has his and her destiny in life and are placed in their little corner of this big world. Great film, enjoy ! Love Jones is one of the best movies I've experienced.

The main element that sticks out to me is the fact that it is very well-directed. I have studied this film in it's entirety - with watching movies more than once, certain things dawn on you subconsciously - the direction of this movie, as well as the writing, is chic, hip, and artful! I am in love with the direction. The scene where Larenz Tate and Nia Long are riding the motorcycle through north Chicago at night is astonishing. The director of this movie DESERVED awards for his great job.

Love Jones is a classy and sexy film. It highlights the fact that we can be people who love, who have flaws, who love living, learning, and just being us without the hype. Being our Natural selves.

The poetry is wonderful, but the story line, the dialog, and the scenes really make this movie.

This movie deserves to be seen. It is a great movie for lovers and friends to sit back and watch, or, the hopeless romantic (like myself) to sit back and enjoy alone on a Friday or Saturday night. Any day of the week where peace, solitude, and a little entertainment is needed, Love Jones is what I recommend. Late film critic Gene Siskel said that this movie shows how easy it is to make a movie. He was giving it a compliment even though now that might have been taken as an insult these days. Even though I didn't always agree with Gene Siskel, I agree with him here. Love Jones is a shining example of how a love story should be: realistic with real characters in real situations.

The story chronicles the ups and downs of the relationship between Darius Lovehall(Larenz Tate) and Nina(Nia Long). Larenz Tate and Nia Long are more than just a beautiful couple on screen. These two actually have chemistry together. You can feel the vibe between these two whenever the are on screen and its fantastic.

Bill Bellamy is pretty funny as the deceitful Wood and Lisa Nicole Carson is great as Nina's friend Simone. Isaiah Washington is just as great as Darius's close friend Savon and I sigh every time I see him in a movie. The guy is a great actor whose career is ruined by industry lowlifes and the childish games they play. You can believe that he called the little weasel on Grey's Anatomy out of his name but anybody that knows how Follywood works knows better than to believe any "official story" from the place of make believe. At any rate...

Love Jones is a wonderful love story full of interesting and likable characters that are in realistic situations that anybody that has been in love can relate too. You love these people because they are believable and are not portrayed as gangsters and tramps. Not one obscene stereotype can be found here. Contrast that with the Romance movies of toady. Exactly. In closing if you love Black Cinema then you would do well to own a copy of this movie. This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man

This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?

SuperB Black Love Story I try to be diverse in my movie watching. I can get into "Pride and Prejudice" as easily as I get into "Disappearing Acts". Love Jones is my all time favorite, it is the standard by which I judge any Modern Urban Romantic Comedy. Shot very well, the shot of Nia and Darius riding up Lakeshore Drive on the Motorcycle is one of Classic 3 second movie shots of all time. Of course no one will ever remember it. When it came out, I though it would be a new paradigm for Modern Urban Film-making, good actors, no guns, and so forth. The movie industry has disappointed me to a certain degree, you will have your occasional Drumline, or Roll Bounce, or Tyler Perry's "Why Did I get Married". So whenever I need to see "my people" presented on screen in a very professional and stylish way, I pop in Love Jones. There is no Best Movie ever made, to many people and opinions for that. But it is my personal best. My favorite line from Love Jones " Baby, I just wanna come up and talk!!" This is my favorite movie that portrays African Americans in whole different light. because it shows a different side of African Americans that it is not shown in the movies. its not the gang bang, urban ghetto setting or having to deal with deep racial issues, it captivates the whole essence of being young and trying to be successful and having problems with letting your guard down and letting someone into your life, and the whole bohemian atmosphere gives that great touch that makes all that great, its a great script great dialoge that captivates you and you just get involved with the character. perfect casting with a lot of chemistry and very good acting and i still haven't seen any other movie with black characters that are portrayed in this format the only one that get close is "Sprung" but since its a comedy it looses it very quickly I give this movie 9 out of 10 and i wish they would keep making movies with this type of attitude about African Americans Working in a music store, my collegue first tipped me this soundtrack. The music of this movie is perfect. One of my favorite CD's. Only years later I saw the movie, I was afraid it would not fulfill my high expectations, luckily it did. A feel good romantic love story. A Must See!

Excellent positive African-American Love Story. This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man

This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?

SuperB Black Love Story

Amsterdam, Holland Okay, let me start off by saying that, on the whole, I don't like anime very much. I've enjoyed a couple of the oft-cited "classic" series, but regard the medium as a whole in exactly the same way that I do American television: namely, that a good 90-95% of it is utter tripe, with the remainder falling anywhere from "watchable" to "decent." This being the case, it's no wonder that I don't like the self-deprecating anime parodies out there. I don't get most of the jokes, and the medium itself enforces a certain style of humor that doesn't appeal to me at all - loud, hyperactive, lowbrow, and completely over the top.

So, when I started watching this series at the behest of a friend, I was primed for disappointment after the first couple of episodes. I figured that the characters were supposed to represent cliché characters from shopworn story outlines, and that their actions were supposed to be similarly satirical. I could kind of see where it was coming from, but didn't think that it was all that clever - lots of "wacky, fun-filled high-school shenanigans and goings-on, only now we're being ironic about it." At about the third episode, my opinion drastically changed.

It was at that point that the strengths of this series started to manifest themselves. The quirks of the non-chronological episode order, its snarky sense of self-awareness, and, above all, clever humor with (gasp) a well-executed straight man.

In what I consider to be a rarity in any medium, this show presents well-thought out, witty interactions between diametrically opposed characters. Protagonist Kyon's perpetual sense of vaguely annoyed resignation provides the perfect foil to the actions of title character Haruhi's generic "anime-like" exploits. It's a break from formula, and it works incredibly well.

Based on that strong foundation, the series further succeeds with a truly phenomenal level of attention to detail. As previously stated, the episodes air out of chronological order. I considered this to be a gimmick at first, but it works surprisingly well. The chronological sequence of events makes sense logically, but the aired order of the episodes more closely follows the traditional structure of Aristotelian drama. The order chosen leaves no narrative gaps that cannot be filled by simple inference (but while it is possible to guess what happened in an unaired "preceding" episode, one still feels compelled to watch exactly how those events unfold), and superb planning prevents any plot holes or contradictions. I watched this series a second time immediately upon completing it the first time, and I was amazed at how well even seemingly inconsequential events were all tied together.

The last point is indicative of the extreme attention to detail in every area of the series. While the stock "anime" character designs grate a bit, the background art is exquisite, realistically rendered based upon actual photographic references. Animation quality is also excellent at important points. For example there is a musical performance late on in the series in which the characters are shown actually playing a song - this may sound trivial, but the subconscious effect of watching (film-quality) animation which actually corresponds to the soundtrack is incredible.

In short, I love this series for some reason. By its very nature it is something that I generally dislike, but its execution is so unique and well-carried out that I can't help it. Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu is a very high-rated anime in almost every review page you'll find on the web. So I really wanted to know why, and I was anything but disappointed.

If you can get past the very bizarre (but rather funny) first episode, you'll find yourself in a very entertaining and much strange world. A very well drawn, perfectly animated world, that is.

I can't tell much of the story without spoiling it, so I'll just say that it's a high school comedy... and yet it's not. I can't really say what it's about, really.

Seriously, I'm a HUGE anime fan, and I've got around 50 full series, and I'm not kidding when I say that, even though I haven't finished watching Haruhi Suzumiya, it is actually standing in a very high rank in my personal collection. I fell in love at first sight with this one, and I assure you that, at the very least, you won't be indifferent to its irresistible charm. Trust me, I don't go around giving a 10 to every thing that I watch. Suzumiya Haruhi no yûutsu (The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya) might at a first glance make you think that this is just another animated school comedy/drama. Well, it's not! The setting just happen to be a school environment. This is a comedy alright, but a very smart one with a lot of sarcasm. And the characters does have a psychological sublimeness which is almost in the same class that can be found in the works of Ingmar Bergman. The episodes is aired, as it seems, out of order, i.e. the pilot is in fact episode 11. This makes it possible to present small clues to upcoming episodes. The show is an adaption of Nagaru Tanigawa's popular novel series about Haruhi Suzumiya.

What about the story then? Like in all the episodes does the story revolves Haruhi Suzumiya, who tries to ease her own boredom by embarking in adventures. Haruhi her self has no interest in ordinary humans, and actively searches for aliens, time travelers and espers (persons with supernatural forces). To find this sort of people she has formed a club which she calls the SOS-Brigade (Save the world by Overloading it with fun: Haruhi Suzumiyas Brigade). Except for Haruhi, the other members of the SOS-brigade is Kyon. He is the real protagonist of the show. It's trough his point of view that we follow the story. He just happen to sit in front in class when Haruhi came up with the idea to form the SOS-Brigade. He is quite sceptical to most club activities and tags along just to ensure that Haruhi don't go to much to the extremes, and he is the only one in the class that Haruhi likes to talk with. Another member is Yuki Nagato, which is the "indispensable silent member" and is also the only remaining member of the Literature club, which room the SOS-Brigade has occupied in the quest for a free club room. She doesn't mind that the SOS-Brigade uses her clubroom, as long as she can sit in a corner and read her books. She also participate in the brigades activities. Mikuru Asahina was "voluntarily arrested" by Haruhi because the club needed a Lolita-like mascot for anything suspicious to happen. She often act as the clubs maid. The last member is the always smiling Itsuki Koizumi, who happens to be the "mysterious transfer student" (meaning he transfered two months in to the semester which Haruhi finds to qualifies as mysterious).

Haruhi thinks that all members but Kyon are some random picked people in school, but the do indeed have their own interest in her. Good animation, nice character design, and a light-hearted story make Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu enjoyable to watch.

After my first viewing, I thought that this anime was pretty good, but but was much better on for a second watch.

This is because it is done out of chronological order, and once you re watch it in correct order you notice connections you didn't see before. (OR it may be that you see a second meaning to some events you didn't notice before) You may want to read the original novels (not manga) by Tanigawa Nagaru before/after seeing this. The anime is very good at visualizing every detail in the stories it shows.

However, there are some short stories from the book that are not animated, but are referenced to.(bamboo w/ wishes attached shown in episode 14) Overall, this anime is actually very good once after brief analyzation of the plot (reading the book improves upon it as well). It is a nice break from the shounen-jump anime that seem to be taking over. At first sight this is yet another highschool anime with lots of excuses for 'fanservice', but there is a lot more going on. The 'fanservice' is part of the plot, the main character is a tired cynic (unusual), and most importantly there is a clever plot that ties all the episodes together, and that poses some interesting questions. The episodes are deliberately non-chronological, and it is certainly worth watching the series again in chronological order.

The series is worth watching carefully, because there are a lot of casual hints in there that foreshadow and explain things, plus a good number of in-jokes about other series, anime and other. A 2006 online poll of Japan's top 100 favorite animated television series of all time, conducted by TV Asahi, placed this series in fourth place. That tells you everything you need to know. So go and watch it.;) I won't comment on the story, simply because I don't want to ruin anything. I only urge you to keep watching after you saw the first episode. The Animation is really good and above TV average. The best thing about this series is, that there is finally something new. I mean it's not groundbreaking but still it offers a fresh new idea and likable characters. You won't regret entering Suzumiya Haruhi's world.

and the best thing a movie is coming soon From the get go, you won't be able to look away, and you won't want to. "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" (Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu) is one of the most entertaining animes I've seen in a long time. If you can look away from the insane, and sometimes perverse, humor, it's easy to find a brilliantly constructed and masterfully executed work.

Part of the brilliance comes from the fact that the episodes are not in chronological order, so you may not understand some of the things they talk about at first, but as the series progresses you'll find yourself saying "ah, so that's what they meant!" Even though this might confuse some people, after watching the show you'll be hard pressed to make a case against telling the story in this fashion.

After all the focus is on the characters. The title character, Haruhi Suzumiya, is by far one of the most eccentric heroines of any anime ever. Her opening speech to her class, in which she declares she is "not interested in normal humans," and is searching for "espers, aliens and time travelers," is absolutely bizarre, but she's lovable that way.

Then there's Kyon, the "normal" guy who is pulled into the madness surrounding Suzumiya-san. He's the narrator, and his quick wit always makes the scene that much more entertaining. He finds himself caught in the middle of various factions all trying to influence Haruhi Suzumiya, and the other three characters are representatives of these factions; ironically, they are the very beings Haruhi is searching for, and yet they cannot reveal themselves to her.

The first is Yuki Nagato, a quiet girl who happens to be the only member of the school Literary club, and also a representative of the Integration Thought Entity; she is basically an alien, though the best description of her is a computer program in a human body. Her purely emotionless responses make her comically deadpan and always make you think there's more than meets the eye. Then there's Mikuru Asahina, the time traveler, who happens to be incredibly cute, a major ditz, and the subject of Suzumiya's plans to advertise her club, the SOS Brigade, to the world. The end result is that Suzumiya does things to her that border on sexual harassment, making her dress up in fetish uniforms. The final character is Koizumi Itsuki, the timid and perpetually optimistic philosopher who happens to be Haruhi's "esper," though he can only use his powers in certain conditions.

The end result of all these characters is a comedy unlike any other, that is both crude and deep, and always brilliant. Don't believe me? Watch the first episode, their "student film." You'll see what I mean. I first heard about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya from a reviewer on Youtube. He literally slapped the show with a big bad rant, condemning it rubbish and confusing. Curious, I decided to watch the show (once I got the order of the episodes right, thanks to those who made the lists), and I found it absolutely brilliant and enjoyable to watch. Great memorable characters who are full of life and are absolutely lovable and hilarious; a unique and not over blowing plot that makes sense now that I've watched the show; and two of the best anime moments in history, in my opinion. Plus the opening and ending themes are great.

The anime, based on a collection of successful manga novels, follows a simple plot, once you understand it. While the show's focus is on the main character, Haruhi Suzumiya, the point of view is from her friend Kyon. Kyon is a regular high school student who doesn't really believe in supernatural stuff (e.g. Santa Clause, aliens, time travellers, ghosts, espers) but he soon ends up talking to Haruhi, who is the most oddest girl in the school and would prefer to date an alien, considering all men worthless. She even joined every club in the school to find something interesting, but quit as quickly as she joined. Upon "advice" from Kyon, Haruhi decides to form her own club with Kyon's club. Setting up in the literary club room, Haruhi forms the SOS Brigade - its mission to investigate supernatural cases (think Scooby-Doo minus the dog, the masked man and the Mystery Machine).

Haruhi "recruits" three extra members. The first is Yuki Nagato, a bookworm of sorts who speaks very little and spends most of her time reading and sitting. The second is Mikuru Asahina, a shy girl who is forced into the club by Haruhi who thinks they need a cute mascot to get some things done. She is often forced into costumes by Haruhi to further her cuteness. The third is Itsuki Koizumi, a friendly and sociable transfer student who is always smiling. While Haruhi thinks her group is filled with normal people she couldn't be more wrong. While Kyon is as normal as you can get, the other three on the other hand are rather unique - Yuki is an alien, Mikuru is a time traveller from the future, and Itsuki is an esper (a person who has ESP). All three have come to watch over Haruhi who may just have the powers of a god, and if she becomes bored, she may be able to discover her powers and create a whole new world, and Kyon is involved somehow.

The show is worth watching with great characters, music and some hilarious and wonderful moments. However, for parents, there is some sexual references including Mikuru's cleavage being exposed or touched several times, and several swear words used as well. Apart from that, the show is one of the greats. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is an anime that left quite the impression on me. Partially for the characters, many of whom fall into anime fantasy/sci-fi stereotypes, but placing these stereotypes in the rather mundane setting of high school is a twist that I appreciated. Then there's the somewhat insane titular character who is something else: a headstrong, almost amoral, girl with ridiculous amounts of talent and a secret that she's not aware of.

The set-up for the series is a bit of a mind-trip. Essentially Suzumiya, unbeknown to herself, is a sort of super-powerful being, capable of god-like feats of creation and destruction, as she can destroy and rebuild reality to her whim. Our narrator and primary character is Kyon, a high schooler whose sympathy/curiosity for Haruhi appears to cause her to drag him, against his will, into a club she's starting to spice up her life, because she's bored with the normal life. Searching for adventure, she claims three more unusual members, each with secrets and they all end up being dragged into her crazy schemes.

There is a bit of crazy, but enjoyable, philosophic consideration early on as we debate whether the world is merely Haruhi's creation as she gets bored of the old one and whether our characters exist to serve her or serve her to continue to exist or whether they could exist without her. It's a bit of a conundrum, but an enjoyable one all the same. While sci-fi/fantasy scenarios do occasionally occur in the series, I think the joy of the series lies in how normal things are, while there remains this tension in knowing that if things are too boring, Haruhi might destroy the world in hopes of making it more interesting.

The art is clean and in line with what I've come to expect from the anime that typically gets imported to the US; I like the character designs and while there isn't a whole lot of action in the series, I think it sits better that way. The series is narrated from the mind of Kyon and he doesn't play an omniscient narrator but only comments on what he knows and what he feels. He's has a lot going on in his head, but he doesn't actually speak a whole lot so it's good that we get to hear it.

The voice acting in the English dub is acceptable enough, but I prefer the Japanese acting over it. There are some stranger aspects to the series, some of which both parodies and traffics in fanboy-ism, which I found amusing. For the first season, I have to admit that there's a lack of closure, as the series doesn't really have an larger story arc, but seems to take things one at a time, so it's an easy series to pick up and put down, although I think that because of its rather entertaining qualities, it's still quite hard to put down. It's also based on a series of light novels and the author was directly involved in the writing of the series.

Even though it's based on the novels, I still wish that the over series had stronger story arcs, but I love how naturally we get to watch these characters develop and how well the series can play out the quiet moments as well as the crazier ones. Seeing Haruhi grow herself was quite a treat as well as watching the relationships develop between the SOS Brigade (Haruhi's club).

It's not for everyone, due to its mind-twisting premise and "extra-ordinary beings in a mundane world" setting. It probably won't sate fanboys who are into action/sci-fi/fantasy and might be a little too off-kilter for the more relationship-oriented drama lovers, but for those willing to try out something a little different, or that like strangely quirky series like this, I think The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a rather refreshingly unique and enjoyable series. More please. 9/10. On the surface TMHS appears to be yet another generic high school drama; but surprisingly hidden away underneath is immense amounts of depth, originality and eccentricities that will not only render it unforgettable to the viewer, but also makes it indisputably one of the best animes that the medium has produced in the last few years.

We see the world through the eyes of Kyon, who on his first day of High School meets Haruhi Suzumiya, a girl that boldly claims to the rest of the class she has no interest in 'normal humans' and to top it off casually invites any aliens, time travellers, sliders or espers to meet up with her. Kyon stares in disbelief, wondering if shes joking or has a few screws loose. However defying his gut instincts he begins talking to her. In doing so it soon becomes apparent she isn't some ordinary high schooler. Not to long after, she creates her own aptly named 'SOS Brigade' school club, and drags Kyon amongst other highly unfortunate people to attend.

Nothing in this anime conforms to the usual standard conventions, Kyon the protagonist is an overly cynical pessimist, and contributes a witty narration to the show. A far-cry from the usual 2D male leading characters that tends to populate the medium. The episodes themselves are not chronological,and forces the viewer to think about the events unfolding and how they relate to prior instances. This is a stroke of genius; the effect is like a jig-saw puzzle, as a new piece is layed we get more of a sense of the bigger picture. Previous scenes are now given entire new meanings, and the realization of them are profoundly satisfying. This does mean however that it feels dis-jointed (its anything but), a very cleverly written script has bypassed this problem and ensured that it flows smoothly from start to finish.

The story itself is strikingly original, but I won't delve further than the simple bare-bones plot outline I gave earlier, as it will no doubt spoil it for you. However what I will mention is the plot incorporates a vast array of genres, ranging from comedy to sci-fi. How they managed to accomplish this in the space of fourteen episodes is beyond me, and no doubt a huge achievement in itself.

TMHS is a true gem, which has such diversity and depth that it will appeal to pretty much anyone with an interest in anime. Watch it, rather unusually this is something that lives up to the enormous hype that it has received- and even exceeds it. I tend to fall in and out of love with anime, as the more you watch the more you notice a lot of shows are just poor copies of the few gems or rehashes of old formulas. But every once in a while one of the true gems comes along and it's originality just blows you away. Haruhi is truly one of those shows. Many anime series are originally manga and sometimes the translation into an animated show is rather poorly done and doesn't utilize the benefits animation has over static drawings. Haruhi is actually based on a series of light novels and fires on all cylinders, beautiful animation, great voice acting, great music and a complete and well paced story. Watch it you won't be disappointed, and I'd suggest watching it in broadcast order it works so much better that way. I have no words to really describe this series.

The premise behind this concept (a highly hyperactive girl with a very eccentric personality which ends up whirling up a team of oddballs into her own rendering of the world, which after all was a creation of Haruhi, since she wants a world with aliens, espers and time travelers) is a breath of fresh air in a world ridden with repetitive anime series and non innovative TV shows.

Characters are well developed, and you will end up loving them, some less than others. The word to describe the animation job does not exist, since "excellent" would really fall short to describe how was done. There are many funny situations which either will make you smile or put you into deep thoughts. Don't fall for the impression of the first episode, since that's only the tip of the iceberg, as the novels are yet to come.

The only problem comes due to the lack of chronological order in the episodes, but you can solve that problem, no?

Conclusion: Unquestionably, one of the best series of 2006. Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is based on somewhat pat formula by now of Japanese school drama anime. The formula somewhat goes like this:

1. The main protagonist comes from world outside the normal society, and has super powers.

2. There's a very beautiful and sexy girl in a supporting role.

3. A normal character is in there who shares the main role in the story.

4. Unusual things happens in an usual social settings.

5. Sometimes the story is about the main protagonist, and the normal character that connects to the existence or destruction of the world.

6. Absolutely no effort is spent by anyone to gain all the magical powers. They just have it.

7. Usually, people outside of this tight nit group is not aware of their super powers, and goes on with their daily lives.

So there you have it. Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi is made along these lines which became the success formula for comics and anime in Japan. Even though it follows a pat formula, the series is superbly crafted and the episodes are always set in an interesting back drop within the normal social settings which always morphs into unusual circumstances surrounding Haruhi Suzumiya. Each player in the story brings some unusual insight into the daily life that usually we are not aware of. The philosophical twist of their insights are what makes this series extra entertaining. The visuals are first rate, and done beautifully.

The crazy ideas Haruhi always seem to come up with along with complicated settings of the story may give you headache from time to time. It's further complicated by the fact that the episodes are played out of sequence which further adds to the confusion. When I watched the episodes in the chronological sequence, some of the plots finally made sense. I recommend you do the same. It's much more entertaining to watch the series this way. Google

List_of_The_Melancholy_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya_episodes

for the correct sequence of all the episodes. And oh, you might notice the headache while you're watching this like I did. Let me know if you had it too. This show is great. Not only is "Haruhai Suzumiya" a very well written anime show, it also reflects things like Philosophy, Science Fiction and a little religion. It's hilarious at some points and "cute" (for lack of a better term) at others. Actually this may be effect to my lack of experience with Japanese anime shows, but it is one of the best of its genre I have seen.

I mainly have to give credit to the writers. I haven't seen such brilliant scopes of imagination in a television show since the original Star Trek. I hope the writers continue to add strange new characters and give more insight on the already great characters that have been added.

9/10 I thought this movie was quite good. It was on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) at three am one night, and its offbeat humor kept me up til five. Kelly performs beautifully in this role, especially with the Grandma (whose quip almost caused me to laugh out of my seat). The main actress was alright, but the father was able to keep his character isolated from the marriage conflict and kept the humor coming. If you like a good offbeat, older movie, I would recommend it. Unlike the other comment, I do like Gene Kelly. He was the perfect leading actor for many of the early musicals and I think in this role, he oozes his charisma. One drawback is the dance scenes get a little long-winded, but if you can get through those, you're in the clear. I thought this movie was fun. I have never really watched old movies before and this one was a really great first date film. It had warmth and heart and spirit. Was kind of cheesy but in today's film industry, cheesy is cute. I gave it a ten and I highly suggest renting, buying or seeing the movie anyway you can. Gene Kelly was very dreamy and a little bit sarcastic and you knew the character thought that he was gonna have it all. The female lead was cast perfect because their two personalities had spark and you wanted to hold on and see what would happen. The grandma in the movie was priceless. The perfect addition to a great old movie. I love the fact it was black and white and Gene Kelly is so sweet with all the kids in the movie that you can't help liking him. See It. I absolutely fell in love with "Living in A Big Way" when I first saw it! Reason #1 is because I LOVE, ADORE, and am a HUGE fan of GENE KELLY. He was such a wonderful dancer, actor, and choreographer. Not to mention his extremely handsome looks and his sensual personality. I love his role in this movie. He was such a gentleman. This movie showcased his wonderful talent for acting. I enjoyed Marie MacDonald as well. It was my first time of ever seeing or knowing anything about her, and this excellent movie made me a fan of her's as well. Actually, the whole cast in this movie was enjoyable and great. The humor between the butler,"Everette Hanover Smythe", and the father, Mr. Morgan; Mrs. Morgan's courtroom humor, and especially grandmother Morgan's immediate attachment to, and concern for "LEO GOGARTY." And GENE'S number "FIDO AND ME" is adorable. The opening dance number with GENE and MARIE is very nice too. I would recommend that anyone see this movie. It will truly remain dear to your heart forever. Or at least it has to mine. And you'll fall in love with GENE all over again. I rate it my #2 favorite GENE KELLY MOVIE, and I've seen and own a quite many of his movies. They're a part of my daily routine! So trust me when I tell you, you'll love this movie! Watch it and enjoy!! I've rented this gem several times! It's a small, yet somehow sprawling masterpiece taking the viewer from Manhattan glitz to the beauty of the Greek islands. John Cassavetes on-screen marriage to his real-life wife Gena Rowlands is on the rocks. He finds meaning in a fling with footloose Susan Sarandon whom he finds in Greece while their daughter, played in her earliest film role by the pubescent Molly Ringwald, falls for the son of the Greek shipping tycoon who is courting her mother on a yacht sailing in neighboring waters. Meanwhile, the immensely talented Raul Julia plays a goatherd living in a cave with his Sony Trinitron. He has the "hots" for Molly Ringwald's character until confronted by John Cassavetes. All comes together at the end in a classic closing scene where all is reconciled. Raul Julia, the goatherd, is seen dancing with his goat. This film is full of mysticism, beauty, young and old love, humor, sexiness, and more. See it! "Tempest" is a somewhat self-indulgent, uneven, discursive movie. But as Lord Byron, another visitor to Greece, protested to his friend John Murray about his similarly self-indulgent and discursive "Don Juan," "It may be profligate but is it not life, is it not the thing?"

The connections to Shakespeare's "Tempest" may seem, as another commentator here claims, a bit tenuous. But watch the film again after re-reading "The Tempest," and they'll seem far closer. What makes this film flawed is its uneasy mixture of straightforward normal narrative and sudden jarring apparent improvisation, particularly between Cassavetes and Rowland. But to be honest, these scenes are the most remarkable and gripping in the film, if the hardest to watch.

The music of this film, composed by Stomu Yamashta, is also overlooked. Particularly fine is the perfect little piece played to accompany the afternoon siesta, as people, animals, and seemingly the entire island collapse to sleep away the hottest part of the afternoon. It's a sublime moment, and representative of the best aspect of this movie and the one thing that keeps it somewhat unified, the fact that (aside from extensive flashbacks and the very end) it is the story of one day on an island, from awakening to night.

Overall, I'd rather watch this film a hundred times than see some bombastic Hollywood piece of crap once. And in fact, I probably have watched it several dozen times. Most times, I see something I missed before.

(Confession: I'm biased. This was the second movie I took my Greek-American goddess wife to see.)

Trivia notes on this flick:

- It was Molly Ringwald's first movie, as well as Sam Robards';

- It was actually not filmed on an island, but in Gytheion, the southern tip of the remote Mani peninsula of the Peloponnesus of Greece;

- The (by today's standards) primitive special effects were done by Bran Ferren, who later became head of Disney Imagineering, and still later was an adviser to the US intelligence community;

- Paul Mazursky, the director, chose the title of his recent autobiography, "Show Me the Magic," from the script of "Tempest." For many years I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen TEMPEST, and I am so glad to learn that I am not the only person who discovered this sleeper somewhere in their movie-going travails. Loosely based on the Shakesperean play, TEMPEST follows an architect (the late John Cassavettes, in one of his best performances), bored with his work and his crumbling marriage (to real life spouse Gene Rowlads), who decides to chuck it all, say the hell with the rat race and go live on an island with his daughter (Molly Ringwald, in her film debut), and new girlfriend Aretha (a luminous Susan Sarandon). Even though Paul Mazursky is credited as director, Cassavettes hand is all over this film...the long scenes filmed without cutting, the improvisatory feel to the dialogue..., the self-indulgent storytelling style, this is definitely his show from beginning to end, and if you're not a fan of his work, the film will seem laboriously long and dull but if you are a fan, there are rewards to be had. Cassavettes is surrounded by a first rate cast...his scenes with Rowlands crackle with intensity and his surprising chemistry with Sarandon is a stark contrast to his scenes with Rowlands. Ringwald shines in her film debut and there is a scene-stealing performance by the late Raul Julia as Kalibanos, Cassavettes' manservant on the island. Julia stops the show in one scene dancing with a flock of sheep accompanied by Liza Minnelli singing "New York, New York". This film is sad and tragic and funny and intense. Yes, it's a little long and disjointed and it works a little too hard at being different (there's even a curtain call at the end of the film), but it never fails to hold the attention of those who like something a little different in their filmgoing. I can't say what knowing the source for this movie adds, but this is one of my favorite films from Paul Mazursky (director and co-author). This is a retake on the Shakespeare "comedy", but utterly removed from the stage. Without much text, Mazursky and star Cassavettes make visual a mid-life crisis of passion and purpose. Desperate to re-center himself, Cassavettes retreats to a remote Greek island--where the locals and the island itself weave a little magic. With Raul Julia especially, Susan Sarandon and Molly Ringwald, this is an adult fantasy that is emotionally satisfying and visually gorgeous. And funny. It wasn't a big box office hit, but whenever it does come to DVD, it will sell. I love this movie and all aspects of it, well directed as a comedy and as a drama. The acting is tremendous, performed by an all-star cast who play the high society New York perfectly. The scenery is incredible, totally breathtaking. I also love the story: a successful NYC architect who is going through a midlife crisis leaves his cheating wife and runs off to a Greek island to hide out with his daughter who chooses to go with him.

I just cannot express my love affair enough regarding this movie. "Show me the magic". I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's "Tempest" has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie "Tempest" is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What "Tempest" is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip/Prospero is in itself worth a 10/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it. What will be Prospero in the twentieth century, what is his life? Why a man would need to choose to live on an island with his daughter and girl friend? Because it is too hard to live and love in good conditions in "civilisation". This man (John Cassavetes) is a broken hearted giant, he can command the storm. He's got the power, the strengh but he is human. Deep love of life is the subject of this extraordenary movie. The acting is incredible, all the genius of John Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, Vittorio Gasman and Shakespeare and paul mazursky of course. don't miss it it'll be a mistake this film is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen.and i've seen a lot of movies. I love this movie despite the fact it just misses being great. It's an adult entertainment, full of issues that a grown person can relate to. The acting is superb. It's fun watching John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands as a feuding middle-aged couple. Who knows how much of it came from their own marriage? Susan Sarandon has never been sexier or more appealing than as her freewheeling character, Aretha. Raul Julia is a hoot as a lusty goatherd. The scenery in Greece is spectacular; the New York settings cause me to squirm due to many shots of the World Trade Center. Fantastic score by Stomu Yamashta. With so many things going for it, why isn't this a great film? It's a bit rambling and overly long, unfocused, and uncomfortably imbalanced between humor and drama. Still, it's engaging, entertaining, and deeply thoughtful. Cheers to all the wonderful fans of this film that have not only seen and appreciate it, but (based on the many literate comments) actually GET IT! I for one have always considered Paul Mazursky's "Tempest" a musing on the Shakespeare play of the same name, as has been noted in a few of the other reviews here. On the other hand, if you're looking for a more straightforward adaptation of the play, you should look elsewhere. As an experiment, however, it succeeds just spectacularly. Charming, moving, funny, sad, dramatic ... it's all of that and much more. Cast, locations, script, music are just fantastic. Cassavetes and Rowland were never better. Susan Sarandon's turn more than hinted at the great work to come from her in the future. Molly Ringwald makes her film debut memorable and you just have to love Raul Julia's performance ... he steals the show in several scenes. What's more, the always great Cassavetes was confident and assured enough a performer to have let him! A study on what the thematic elements of Shakespeare's classic might be life if updated into more "modern times," Mazursky's "Tempest" burns brilliantly! William Shakespeare probably didn't envision Stephanos as a gay doctor, Antonio as a faithless wife, or Caliban as a goatherd with a Trinitron, but the Bard's had worse done to his good work over time, and might even enjoy the sumptuous pageant of life that is his "Tempest" as re-configured by Paul Mazursky and co-writer Leon Capetanos.

This time, Prospero is Philip Dimitrius (John Cassevetes), a Manhattan-based architect tired of designing Atlantic City casinos for the amiable Mafioso Alonso (Vittorio Gassman), especially after discovering Alonso is carrying on an affair with Philip's wife Antonia (Gena Rowlands). Along with daughter Miranda (Molly Ringwald), Philip escapes to a remote Greek island with Miranda and his new mistress Aretha (Susan Sarandon), a nice Catholic girl who struggles with Philip's celibate lifestyle. Will a sudden storm bring all right in the end?

Here's a thought on the career of Cassevetes: How many other actors could make a film so confused into something so riveting? A darling of film critics for his earlier work, often with his real-life wife Rowlands, he presents a central character who really suffers for his art here, but seems to enjoy himself and makes us enjoy him, too. It's not Prospero, but something rich and strange that makes for a terrific sea change all his own.

"It's all here," he tells one of his faithful companions, Aretha's dog Nino. "Beauty, magic, inspiration, and serenity." That it is. "Tempest" transfers 1611 London to 1982 Manhattan and finds some nice resonances in Philip's displaced life. "Show me the magic", he calls out to a storm-tossed city skyscape, and Mazursky's version, augmented by Donald McAlpine's sterling cinematography of purple seascapes and naturally sun-burnished Greek landscapes, does just that.

It's not a perfect movie, by any means. In fact, the big finale, which is the only part of the movie that follows Shakespeare's storyline to any faithful extent, is a mess. Rowland's character is hard to care much for in this film, and after meeting Sarandon in all her braless glory, it's hard to understand Philip's continuing concern for his wife, let alone his left-field desire to make an unhappy "sacrifice" in order to restore the natural order of things.

But there's a lot to love about "Tempest". In addition to Cassavetes, there's Ringwald's film debut as his loyal but restless daughter, here as in the play an object of desire for the primitive rustic "Kalibanos" (Raul Julia). Ringwald here is very much the same teenaged muse of privileged adolescence that would inspire John Hughes, but with an emotional depth those later Hughes films didn't delve into. Ringwald and Julia never got any Oscar attention, but they both would win Golden Globes for their playful work here. He tries to woo her in her island isolation with his TV reruns of "Gunsmoke" in Greek, tempted by her 15-year-old body.

"I want to balonga you with my bonny johnny," Kalibanos declares, getting shoved aside but winning our sympathy anyway, especially after performing "New York, New York" with a chorus of goats. (When "Tempest" hit the screens, Julia was the toast of Broadway as the lead in "Nine".)

It's Mazursky's show, even if it feels at times that Cassavetes is running things with improvisational line readings and emotional breakdowns galore. (Philip introduces himself to Aretha by telling her "I'm right in the middle of a nervous breakdown".) He plays his character as an amiable obsessive, seeking to crystallize his happiness by building an theater in his otherwise uninhabited island.

Adding to the enjoyment is Gassman's rich performance as the other man, who is as completely amiable as Julia while telling a youth-obsessed Philip: "Boys don't have half as much fund as we have. They're nervous...and they make love in the back of an old sports car." Despite being overlong and pretentious in spots, like so many art films, "Tempest" is entertaining in its excesses and a trip very much like Shakespeare intended, even if his dreams didn't involve smoking pot backstage at a Go-Gos concert. Paul Mazursky's Tempest - Interesting,odd and strange movie about a mid-life crisis.Set in NYC and a remote Greek Island with John Cassavettes as world renowned architect who decides to drop out.He is accompanied by his daughter(Molly Ringwald) and a lounge singer(Susan Sarandon).A beautiful transfer of this 25 year old movie on the DVD- but without any extras-not even the theatrical trailer.Tons of great scenery and razor-sharp dialogue make this 2 and a half hour movie an interesting trip.Raul Julia and Gena Rowlands round out a strong cast.A good drama mixed with comedy and tension and near insanity.This recent DVD release is worth renting. B+ I just cannot believe the low scores for this movie. Probable reason has to do with the low number of votes meaning few people have seen it. This is simply a fantastic movie! There are so many stories inter-wined within but it's not complicated. Each character grows with the movie and we experience with them undergoing life changes. The scenery is simply amazing and the end credits are the best ever in any movie I have seen (just like a Shakespeare play). Yes, it's a little dated (filmed in 1982) but the issues the characters face are very current. It could have been filmed in 2002 without modifications to the story line. Raul Julia is amazing, best role ever in a movie - this is his signature piece. A young Molly Ringwald is excellent as she matures from girl to young woman. Susan Sarandon is perfect as a young carefree woman and John Cassavetes is the force that puts this all together. Do yourself a favor, find this movie, view it & enjoy it. Come back to IMDb and score this movie into the top 250 of all time where it really belongs. I saw this film much like Skywalker02 did, but when I could manage to see it again and with formal film training, psychology, and life has had the time to really take me by the hand and start beating me about,..I really click with the film. I remember the pay for service cable channels played this thing almost to death, much like poltergeist when it first came out, and many other popular films. I felt back then it wasn't worth the fuss and constant "airtime" (I know cable isn't really on air) given it, but I was very young and adult situation drama wouldn't have and shouldn't have worked. However, recent viewing of the film has enlightened me on the film. I think that Susan Surandon and Molly Ringwald were likely studying the script together, and I would be a bit surprised if Surandon had coached Ringwald during this project. Ringwald's other projects, while good, do not have her exhibiting the potential depth as this role. Surandon nailed hers, as Raul Julia did also. Cassavettes and wife delivered acceptable performances, but I will admit at times first class acting turns to mediocre. A steady ebb and flow to the acting does take place during many scenes, but overall I can see why the story might call for the dynamic to become more subtle.

All in all, I don't find this film to be the "take me out and drown me" kind of boredom fest as Skywalker02 would have you believe. I think that perhaps with the right psychological training and a bit more hardship in one's domestic life strategically placed, coupled with some film courses perhaps this film would appear different. I would say if you are feeling a bit melancholy and yearn for a simpler life, and you have had your share of marital discord amongst dysfunctional family units, then perhaps this film might provide more insight and entertainment than you might think. I do feel it is a classic and find it much more entertaining than mainstream films that are supposed to share many of the same elements, such as Terms of Endearment which as far as I am concerned could be stripped of a few extraordinary performances by Jack Nicholson, then ceremoniously burned until nothing is left. (How could a film like that get more attention than this one. Talk about boredom.)Best thing, don't take my word or anyone else's, see the film and support our industry. Just lovely. It is long. No climax. Don't wait for anything to happen. Great for a rainy day. About a man in a mid life crisis who takes his family to a secluded area of the Greek isles. I saw this in my teens and still love it 20+ years later. I have been unable to find it in video stores however. Molly Ringwald is a cute average teenager who basically wants to go home and then kind of settles into the place. There are no phones, no TV, boredom, which when hit with quietness like that, the human condition is to be bored and then to reflect. And each character does so. Susan Sarandon plays a beautiful woman who wants to be sexually involved with John Cassavetes' character, but he is unable to, well, you know. Gina Rowlands, is the wife that loves him but is just about to give up on their marriage. He is demanding and frustrating to everyone. There is another character in the movie, a Greek who talks to Molly Ringwald inappropriately about sex, but things that she is curious about. But he is irritating and horny and i didn't like this character. The locale of the film is what makes this film so so good. It wouldn't work if filmed anywhere else. I recommend this film and give it a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. An extremely gentle retelling of the Shakespeare play (and much more overt about it than Forbidden Planet). Cassavetes is always a joy to watch, and even more so with Gena Rowlands sharing the spotlight. His take on the Prospero role is well suited for the sort of craggy all-knowing expression he brings to the story. This especially comes to the forefront in a scene when, upon spotting his estranged wife and her lover in a speedboat, he conjures up a storm (accompanied on the soundtrack by an appropriate selection from Stomu Yamashta's "Go"). This is only one of the moments throughout the film where the line between reality and fantasy becomes nicely blurred, and the viewer is left with the feeling that magic is more possible than one might believe. Add to this an excellent performance by Raul Julia, plus good work by Susan Sarandon, Vittorio Gassman and Molly Ringwald, and the film becomes a nice little treat to occupy the space behind your eyes. I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man "on the edge". But the scenery! Oh oh oh! Excellent movie in many aspects. Vicente Aranda has succeeded in depicting the time (1830) with meticulous care. The light, the places, the feeling, are perfectly perceived from the very start of the movie. And along with it -in opposite to what happened to "Mad Love" (Juana la Loca), a rather episodic historical movie- all of this beautiful photography/ music/ clothes is wrapping a very fluid screenplay that reaches its climax in the only possible way.

Concerning the actors, Paz Vega as Carmen is outstanding: liar, seductive, agressive, totally sexual, so beautiful Carmen. Sbaraglia is a little less convincing the audience about his instant mad love for Carmen, but he succeeds in conveying the proper tragic mood to the whole movie. I recommend it to everyone: the best spanish movie of the year. There are several ways to misunderstand this movie and a couple of them have been shown in some of the past comments. This is a movie to be analyzed as a free recreation of a known subject and therefore not to be compared with the opera, the book or other Carmen movies seen before. It just stands for itself and I must say that this Carmen does it very well. It is a mistake to compare because that is the first step to deny movies the chance to be autonomous creative works of art. Vicente Aranda is a master of atmosphere and the art direction, the costumes and the photography are extremely well put together to achieve a pleasing aesthetic experience. Let's take it as it is.

And that brings us to the next misunderstanding. Someone complains about the typical Spanish clichés in the movie. Well, historically the movie is extremely well researched and you can see the results of that very serious work in every scene. It is not only an accurate portrait of the "black Spain" of knife and espadrille that Goya portrayed so vividly, but it's also of that part of history as seen by a foreigner fascinated with the folkloric side of that society. Honestly, anyone who doesn't want to see any cliché about Spain shouldn't buy a ticket to see Carmen, but in this case those clichés are presented before they became one and the way to see them is getting rid of our own prejudices.

Another important requirement to understand this movie properly is to speak the language. It is not acceptable to criticize any actor performance for not having understood his or her lines. If all the rest of the audience did, the problem most likely lies somewhere else. Paz Vega has an immaculate diction with her Andalusian accent and all she says is understandable and credible. Her Argentinian partner, Leonardo Sbaraglia, gives also a convincing portrait of the Basque officer that became a "bandolero", and her accent is very well learned.

No less important is to have a minimally open approach to the material. To say that Paz Vega is "horrible" suggests that the author of the phrase entered the theater for the wrong reasons. We already had in Spain a critic in one of the most prestigious papers that used to recommend us pictures he found homosexually arousing, without mentioning it explicitly. And that was not totally fair for the rest of us, especially for the ones that hadn't detected that the man was writing with parts of his anatomy that many readers didn't necessarily had to care for. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer had the same motivation, but the expectations must have been different as the ones of those among us that went to see a talented and beautiful actress play an almost classic role, because that's what we got. Paz Vega IS Carmen, and an excellent one, in Vicente Aranda's movie. I thoroughly enjoyed Carmen, better than Original Sin (Angelina Jolie & Antonio Bandaras), which share some thematic similarities, and which I also enjoyed very much. I felt the acting was stronger here (Paz Vega displayed a wider range, has more fire; and Sbaraglia was also great). Overall, their acting was more gritty, more believable (less dreamy than Original Sin, and both actors here had less 'celebrity status' and 'pretty face' to depend on to make the movie work. Vega definitely sizzles, as to be expected.

Director Vincente Aranda has also built a detailed world (again, better than Original Sin) that lets you feel the grime and the daily goings-on of archaic Spain - for example, people unloading goods from a cart on the street, workers changing the candles of the street lamps, all in the background of the action.

Whilst I greatly sympathize with the recent idea of redeeming our femme fatals (like Brian de Palma's Femme Fatale), Carmen is a poignant, modern take in the tradition of the noir classic Double Indemnity, and is a delightful pleasure to watch. This is another fine example of the triumph of daring European cinema over glitzy and safe Hollywood fare. Even for the non-opera loving public the name CARMEN is immediately recognized as an opera by Bizet about a gypsy girl whose capricious loves destroy men. But as much as the opera is now considered a staple in every opera house repertoire, the real story of the wild gypsy lass as created by Prosper Mérimée in 1845 has never been told as well as in this cinematic version by the abundantly gifted Spanish director Vicente Aranda ('Juana la Loca AKA Mad Love','Amantes', 'If they tell you I fell', etc.). Incorporating the author of the novel as a main character seeking the story of Carmen from one of her lovers - José - provides just the right vantage for the story of this famous gypsy wild lady to be told.

Carmen (the amazingly beautiful and talented Paz Vega) works in a cigar factory in Seville, a factory adjoining the military station where the very proper José (Leonardo Sbaraglia) is stationed. Carmen is tempestuous and in a fight instigated by a fellow factory worker bringing attention to the fact that Carmen is a gypsy, Carmen murders the co-worker and is arrested. José is physically attracted to the voluptuous Carmen and when Carmen flirts with him he consents to allow her to escape - his payback is the promise for a night of passion with Carmen. Carmen keeps her pact, providing José with his first sexual encounter, and José is doomed. His lack of military discipline results in his losing his rank and being imprisoned for a while, but at his release José encounters Carmen again, kills a fellow officer, and in fear runs off to the hills to live with the smugglers and gypsies that are Carmen's people. Many incidents occur to try the passionate bond between the lovers, but when Carmen's real husband is released from prison, destructive behaviors take over, behavior's that include Carmen's infatuation and affair with a bullfighter and the passion of Carmen and José comes to a tragic end.

One factor that makes the story (as adapted for the screen by director Aranda and Joaquim Jordà move so well is the role that Prosper Mérimée (Jay Benedict) plays: his questioning of José completes the story that Bizet's opera only outlines. The acting is superb, the cinematography by Paco Femenia and the excellent musical score by José Nieto contribute enormously to the success of this very fine film. This is a must for lovers of the opera Carmen, and a splendid action drama for those viewers who admire historical pieces. Highly recommended. Grady Harp This is a nice movie with good performances by Paz Vega and Leonardo Sbaraglia . Of course Vicente Aranda is a legend in Spanish Cinema and surely one of the great directors in Spanish cinema but I don't think this is one of his greatest movies even if it's fine. The screenplay plays with the introduction of Merimeé as a character , it's a nice touch but it's unbelievable. The music is composed by Jose Nieto , National Spanish Prize in Cinema. I mean this movie is very good in all the technical aspects .There are very good actors in supporting roles like Antonio Dechent , Maria Botto and others . I give it 7 out of 10 cause I think this could be a better movie but as it is it is not boring at all. There have been approximately 60 different films & Television plays,besides the classic Opera of this tale of a sex mad girl and her hapless soldier lover. This story has been done so many times, in various ways.

Vicente Aranda directs Joaquin Jorda's screenplay adaptation of Prosper Merimee's classic novel & play.

This is the story ONLY of Bizet's opera Carmen

Pas Vega is an exciting Carmen,full of passion & the ability to drive simple men to do terrible tragic things. Leonardo Sbaraglio is the hapless soldier who is ensnared into Carmen's poisonous web & led to doing bad things.

Jay Benedict is the author Prosper who tells this tale.

There is not much action, BUT there are some very hot sex scenes.

In fact this is almost an NC-17 film.

since I have seen this tale so often in so many guises I was not overly impressed.

It is a very well made film & will be of interest to those that may not know of it,

My not overly enthusiastic review also could be that I miss the fantastic Opera score by Bizet.

See this as you may like it more than I did.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10) This movie is a quite fair adaptation of the Prosper Merimeé's novel. In the novel Merimeé himself is a character, Don José is from Navarra (North Spain, and historically a Basque Country zone, they can speak Basque language). They are in Seville (Andalusia, South Spain) and they only speak Spanish with Andalusian accent, in no way they speak Basque, but Carmen explains to Don José that she was living in Navarra. You can believe it or not, anyway this is the book's version, then you can't be critical with the movie about this, be with the book! You have to note are different the novel by Merimeé and the opera by Bizet, and this movie is an adaptation from the novel, anyway in the opera Don José is still Spanish from Navarra, never he's French. Why so many people keep thinking Don José is French? I don't know but I guess because the novel and the opera are in French although is supposed to be in Spanish.

The only important difference between the movie and the novel is that in the movie Don José also kills the "torero" lover of Carmen and in the novel he doesn't (neither in the opera). I guess they wanted to keep the movie a little more gore! I think the movie is quite good, anyway. Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in "Spanglish"). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.

It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.

The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.

Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega. For people who are first timers in film making, I think they did an excellent job!! We have to support the emerging industry especially coming from up north. It was very popular when I was in the cinema, a good house and very good reactions and plenty of laughs. It's a feel-good film and that's how I felt when I came out of the cinema! It has northern humour and positive about the community it represents. The film has just opened, I do hope it does well - people should support this little film. I think this 'vinny...' person is very bitter, about something! And getting too personal…? shame!! I say well done to all those involved…have a drink on me!! I look forward to you next venture. This film is about a young Indian guy who comes home one day and finds himself getting engaged to a woman. The problem is that he is gay. In order to stop the wedding without telling his parents that he is gay, one lie leads to another until it spirals out of control.

This film is hilarious and got me laughing many times. Sally Bankes' acting is superb and she plays this strong woman who does what she wants convincingly. The plot is outstanding as well. I find the plot very realistic, and I can completely identify with Jimi's feeling of being terrified, worried and upset. On the other hand, Jimi's boyfriend, Jack, is given much less attention in the film. I would have liked him to be given more lines in the film, and have more character development. However, as I guess the director wants to make this a more mainstream film, the love between Jimi and Jack was not developed in the film.

It is great to watch a gay affirmative film. Furthermore, this film preaches us to be accepting to other people's difference, be it sexuality, culture and the way of life. This film makes viewers think hard.

We need films like this to give us a boost. Thanks for making this film! My comment is mainly a comment on the first commentator (the extra on the film) and his unhappy assessment of the film. I think his perspective indicates why an extra is an extra and a director is a director. The film was sweet, the acting sufficient, the experience of watching it a nice diversion from a busy work week. It wasn't "The Hours" (acting), or "The Matrix" (Special Effects), or even "The Color Purple" (Direction). Most movies won't be. But it also wasn't the crap fest that "vinny..." would lead you to believe. Sorry guy, just my 2 cents.

As to the movie itself, it was in the end very gay affirming (+ #1). It showed a world full of diverse and less than perfect people--you know, just like ours (+ #2)! It opened a door on one culture without excluding other cultures (+ #3). And I liked the music (+ #4). have just got back from seeing this brilliantly funny film.

granted, part of the reason i loved it so was because i could point out people and places i knew ('i walk there everyday!', 'i work there!', 'i've had drinks there!', 'hey! that's our postman!' etc...). but, still, if you're out for a 'feel-good' with a bit of spice (excuse the pun) - this is just the right answer. relationships, culture and, most importantly, love are all woven together within the plot.

with preston (where the film is set) recently being made a city, it is good to see this work featuring the place and adding to the feeling of uprise. it is also a brilliant representative of the many cultures in this part of the north.

fabulous! Just how exactly do gay Asians manage in a culture that generally refuses to even recognize the concept of homosexuality? For millions of gay Hindus and Muslims there seems little hope of ever leading a life that is accepted and endorsed by their otherwise very close knit families. This is the main point explored in Chicken Tikka Masala - presumably named after the Western spicy dish involving tender pieces of young chicken flesh! Jimmy is a typical young Asian brought up in Britain by traditional parents with the common narrow minded and selfish views on marriage and grandchildren. Like millions of others he is led into an arranged marriage that seems inescapable even though he is apparently completely gay and deeply involved with a very attractive young man with whom he lives. He knows that the truth should be told but fears for the consequences of that particularly so as his father appears to be terminally ill. And so he becomes embroiled in a web of deceit that becomes wider and wider as the plot develops.

The film is beautifully sensitive and not at all judgmental or patronizing to any group portrayed. The acting is generally excellent although it might seem a bit ham in places as the director tends to search for humor rather than letting it blossom naturally. There are no prizes for photography or script but the film is made entire by the wonderful sentiment expressed at the very end - a sentiment that all fathers across the world would do well to learn from. Wow, its been quite a while since I've watched anything so mysterious in the way it is portrayed.

A Detective Story uses old fashioned black and white images to portray a private investigator who dresses in an old fashioned trench coat and hat. The theme of this animation is reminiscent of that of Sam Spayed which was briefly mentioned by Ash.

Sick of spying on cheating house wives because of his clients, Ash was offered a chance to track down a "computer hacker" which he thought was a worthwhile chance for a four figure sum he could not turn down and the rest is history.

The ending was a little bit bland but still okay. For those out there who like old fashion stories this is the one for you. This is one of the anime films from The Animatrix collection, one of nine - the only one done in black and white, and the only one featuring Trinity. Richly textured and beautifully rendered in every way, and the animated version of Trinity definitely does her justice. If you're a fan of The Matrix, you will need to put this on your short list. I've seen three of the Animatrix episodes, and this is my favorite of all of them. The Second Renaissance provided a flimsy back story to the already flimsy universe. Program was a stylistically impressive number, it just felt kind of silly. I guess what gives this one it's special touch is the direction from Shinichiro Watanabe, director of the incredibly popular (and for good reason) series Cowboy Bebop. It has some of the best elements of Bebop: slick, sci-fi adventure, a no-nonsense, slightly apathetic hero working for hire, a bounty-head (more or less), and a chase scene, all wrapped up in an excellent film-noir packaging. Watanabe's Tarantino-style slickness comes through here full throttle. The eighth, and thus second-to-last short of the Animatrix ones, this is the only one quite like this. This takes two of the main types of filmed entertainment inspirations of The Matrix, and combines them unbelievably well. This is immensely faithful to the trilogy in that aspect, the tone. The animation is a gorgeous, breathtaking Animé. The style, which is omnipresent in this, is Noir. The plot is fitting, and the story-telling, as well, as the music, is spot-on. The sound in general is fantastic, and really helps solidify the mood and atmosphere, along with the drawings and designs. The voice acting is impeccable. This is one of only two where people also in the movies reprise their roles, and both have Anne-Moss, who is the only of them appearing in this. This is one of the best of the nine, and also one of my personal favorites. This is about ten minutes long. The pacing is perfect. It never slows down terribly much, but it's not overwhelming, either. The ending could not have been more appropriate for this. This shares a nine and a half-minutes long making of with Kid's Story, and it's well-done and informative. I recommend this warmly to any fan of the universe and the two genres that this is made up of. 8/10 This is one of the periphery stories told by the Animatrix that isn't directly relevant to the war stopping One glorifying plot of the films, but Trinity, voiced by Carrie, does appear in it. it features a private detective who is hired for big money to look for a hacker named Trinity. we see his search which features other PIs, only one who he meets, who has seemingly gone mad from his own experience trying to track Trinity down. eventually he makes contact with Trinity who he assumes to be a man of course - told in the narrative and something that firmly puts us in his own perspective despite what we already know - on a hacker chat-room, and solves a riddle which forces him in a hurry to catch a train. he forgets his hat but his faithful cat throws it to him in a moment of ludicrousness so absurd it's hilarious.

he meets her on the train but the ruse is thereby revealed when agents attack; the agents were using him to get to Trinity and Trinity was trying to free the PIs sent after her, which he doesn't know of course, and which isn't explicitly stated in the animation itself, something common to film noir titles, which often hint at plenty of interesting back-story, subplots, developments etc. but don't show you more then the core story and a limited point of view to create an extra air of mystery and intrigue.

almost everything in this short is in black and white, the music is reminiscent of film noir and the offbeat, old fashioned yet dedicated detective is the perfect protagonist for a film noir title. the trivia section of this title's entry on IMDb also helpfully presents a few references this title makes to hardboiled literature, something it also borrows heavily from, a genre of mysteries for detectives, gangsters etc. who engage in challenging conflicts readily and often. animated aptly by Studio 4°C and directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, it is an enjoyable variant on the usual matrix story. This is the fifth part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'. This time they introduce Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) in a story about a detective who is hired to find her. With great black and white animation and an interesting story this is again a great animated short from 'The Animatrix'. The detective story is not typical for the Matrix Universe. It is a film-noir-esque private eye story, with a strong narrator and a very rich feel. Rich, in terms of its visual appeal. The snowing scenes, the grainyiness, it all stuns the eye.

But what about the story? It is interesting, even if it feels a little out of place. The agents hire a privat detective to track down Trinity. He finds out that they tried the approach before, but with hazardous consequences for the hired detectives. Still, he tries to locate her and eventually succeeds, through Alice in Wonderland references and hackers and chat rooms. Then things begin to get interesting...

All in all, this is a perfectly satisfying short animated movie.

8/10 Film noir meets anime... brilliant! This was one of the highlights of the surprisingly creative Animatrix shorts. This was one of my favorites if not my favorite (I also loved World Record). This is basically a reference to those classic film noir detective stories and movies of the 40s, except it's animated and involves the Matrix. But by being animated, it is able to take the extreme camera angles, the detective life style, the shadows, and everything film noir to an entirely new level. The Femme Fatale? Trinity. The detective in this story seems to be living in the 40s in his mind but stuck in a modern world, and everything becomes too much for him when his case suddenly involves science fiction and agents when a mysterious woman in black walks into his office...

My grade: 9/10 This is one of nine shorts on the anime disk, "The Animatrix." It is my favorite. The artwork is amazing. The black-and-white, somewhat grainy texture perfectly captures the mood that the segment is trying to portray. The story is tight, and the ending is true to film noir.

Overall, I gave The Animatrix a "7", but this particular segment deserves a "10." The Animatrix: A Detective Story is very well planned and has a great storyline to go with it. Carrie-Anne Moss plays Trinity in this animated cartoon. I really like the 'Private Detective' ideas created by the Director. Tracy and Matt, Michelle and Sebastian: these are the two couples whose lives of addiction, crime, and squalor are brilliantly captured in this raw and honest HBO documentary. They're in turns petulant, charming, repulsive, astonishingly stupid, and dedicated: to the drugs and to each other. They're also each very different: Matt is a working class boy who clearly revels in his naughtiness, whilst prep school dropout Tracy supports the couple with Western Union money from her moneybags father, who makes a surprisingly sympathetic cameo towards the end of the film. Meanwhile widow Michelle (whose hubby died of an OD) earns her daily bread by posing as an NYPD vice cop willing to cut her would-be Johns a deal to avoid prison time, and sad sack companion Sebastian lives off the proceeds. You'll be pulled into their stories and will wish the film went on for twice as long. Unlike most documentaries of this kind, there's no coda providing us with an update about their progress (can Matt and Tracy really keep that Brooklyn apartment? Will Michelle go back to Bellevue for more detox? And can Sebastian become any more pathetic?). As a result, the film seems incomplete, but that may have been the point. Essential viewing, as long as you aren't completely averse to scenes of people shooting up. "Dope Sick Love" is a really remarkable documentary made for HBO about two pairs of heroin addicted lovers roaming the streets of NYC. I managed to catch it one night by accident and found it absolutely mesmerizing. There is no narration and we never see any interviews with the subjects, the camera just follows them around, like a third eye, completely detached. The people being followed don't even seem aware that they're being filmed! (or, at least, they don't seem to care). The footage is amazingly candid. Some of the most candid I've ever seen. This is as real as it gets. The nuts and bolts of what its like to be on the street and addicted to heroin. We watch them score dope, shoot it, make up, hustle, and even impersonate cops to rob people, and about a million other tiny details that less observant documentary filmmakers would leave out.

Some of the footage is truly horrifying. Like watching one guy frantically searching for fix he lost. I found myself praying that he would find it, just so that his misery would temporarily end. And when he does find it, the guy literally dances in the street.

The cyclical nature of drug addiction becomes very apparent while watching this. EVERYTHING is about getting the next score to these folks, yet the next score seems to be well worth the immense trouble they go through.

I would love to get a copy of this, if anyone knows where it is available. Highly recommended, if you can catch it on HBO. i watch this film with horror in my heart because my mother also was a crack head like Michelle. i've been wondering where Michelle is now. there has been times where i had to find my mother in places i was scared to be but more scared to leave her there! to see Michelle act like that made me wonder where she was sleeping all that time?? i watched in hopes the it was never that bad for my mom! and what i want to know is... where did Matt and Tracy "tear that ass up"?! worst scene for me was watching Tracy shoot up in an old navy dressing room!!!! u never who try clothes on before you and it looks like all of them except Michelle has aids!!!! where are they know 2008? can we get an update?????????? One of the most macabre, depressing, yet eye-opening docs. I've watched in awhile. There's no narration or story that's told, just a "third eye" type camera following around 2 couples of heroin addicts in NYC through the seasons. Watching them shoot up on the floors of public washrooms then "clean" their needles in the public toilets... sometimes it's a bit too much and you need to hit pause just to go for a breather.

Anyone currently in recovery of alcohol/drug addition should watch this when they're craving - it really shows you to what you could be going back to! After seeing this it's a wonder how anyone could even try this drug to begin with.

The only thing it needed was a follow up at the end to tell where these people are today. Judging from what is shown in the doc., there's no hope for any of them. They mention wanting to get better and quit, but it seems the only end to their habits is to quit by way of dying.

This definitely isn't for all audiences. I found myself kind of like watching a car accident - after I started watching it I just couldn't turn it off. I had to keep watching with a dark/morbid fascination of what it's like inside the lives of these addicts. A great suspenseful thriller the acting is first rate and the plot keeps you guessing. This well performed and directed movie is based on a true story and well worth while Joe Penny is cast extremely well and Ann Gillian is convincing as the concernened and terrified sister. Joe again prove he's acting ability is amazing and the ending well done. It,s worth watching I hope they repeat it soon on any channel, I will definitely record it. For Penny and Gillian fans it's worth your time. Rent it if you can better still try to buy it I going to. Perfect early nineties thriller watch this

movie it's great. A man and his wife are not getting along because of the wife's jealousy and drinking problems. When the wife disappears, her sister begins a vigorous search involving the local police, state government, and a television crime show. What she finds out stuns the entire community. Good drama with lots of fine performances; based on a true story. This story takes place in Wisconsin. I was half heartedly watching my tape when I heard the name Appleton. I wasn't sure where it was taking place until I heard them say Green Bay & then I figured it was Wisconsin. Watching further confirmed it.

Anxiously awaiting the outcome I could really feel Corrine's frustration. I did not know it was based on fact until the end. It left me glad but sad and wanting to know more. Well done melodrama that tells the story of Sally, tomboy dancer in the circus, raised by sideshow performer McGargle (played by W.C. Fields), he of the top hat, little mustache, checkered pants, and proficiency as juggler, pickpocket, and runner of carnival con games like Three Card Monte and the Old Shell Game. McGargle has raised Sally, who worships him as her "real father" since Sally's mother (kicked out of her home by her father, a judge, when she married a "circus man") died and left Sally orphaned. Sally is feisty and loyal to McGargle no matter what he gets up to - but McGargle seems to feel a bit of guilt over keeping her in the circus instead of with her own family all these years. When they end up performing in a carnival in the town where her wealthy grandparents live, McGargle uses the opportunity to "investigate" Sally's real family, with the idea that he may restore her to them. But grandfather the judge takes an immediate disliking to Sally 'cause he doesn't like a "show girl" - what a stern, narrow-minded man he is, a real piece of work that guy! And meanwhile Sally is busy being pursued by a handsome and rich young man, son of the man who helped grandpa get his riches.

This is a very good film with a few laughs here and there and a sort of odd editing style (I don't know how to describe this other than it shows long shots, then sort of jumps back a few seconds or changes angle suddenly as a close up is shown). Carol Dempster, who plays Sally, is delightful here - quite cute and comical in her performance. W.C. Fields, even without his famous voice, is very funny - just the way he moves and his amusing, comical reactions to things (like a small dog seen in one funny scene), we even see him juggling briefly in this. I love the few peeks at the old-fashioned circus and carnival that is shown here. The print of this featured on the DVD is very nice looking, tinted a light sepia tone, and the piano score for this is really excellent, performed by Philip Carli based on the original cue sheets. The plot of "Sally of the Sawdust" is the usual melodramatic stuff-- an orphan, rags-to-riches-- but the film rises above most silents thanks to three people:

This is not, of course, D. W. Griffith's masterpiece, but it does showcase his film-making savvy in full maturity. He uses all his innovations, which are techniques we take for granted now: close-ups, cross-cutting, a mobile camera, and the ability to modify acting from theatrical exaggeration to cinematic subtlety.

W. C. Fields also showcases his skills-- not his signature gruff delivery, but his remarkable dexterity as a physical comedian. He does a few inventive juggling acts, cut too short to be fully appreciated, and some very deft pickpocketing, but it seems that every prop that comes within reach gets manipulated for comic effect-- hat, cane, car roof, dog, cash. He's a joy to behold.

Finally, there's Carol Dempster. Much has been said against this actress, but her performance here is also richly comic. She was 22 at the time, playing a teenager, and her approach to the role is a combination of grace and awkwardness that may not be wholly convincing, but she truly engages the eye when she's on screen-- particularly when she's dancing. She's not a beauty--though she's positively luminous in the one scene where she's gussied up like a Talmadge sister-- but her plainness only adds to Sally's character, especially in the many moments when she shows very obvious affection for Fields as her guardian/"father." Few, if any, Hollywood performers could compete with Fields when it came to comedy, but Griffith gives his leading lady every chance to match her co-star, and Dempster absolutely holds her own. Seems to have been made as a vehicle for W.C. Fields and Carol Dempster and they dominate it. Fields already has his film character well developed. Carol Dempster seems to dance through the film and her acting reminds me of Mary Pickford, who also worked a long time under D.W. Griffith. Typical of later Griffith films technically.

Later remade as Poppy (the original title) with Fields in the same role. "Porgy and Bess" is an outstanding production of George Gershwin's masterpiece. It is tastefully done in muted colors. The voices are outstanding. Although Sidney Portier's voice is dubbed for his singing portion, he gives a very touching performance. There is a remarkable performance by Sammy Davis Jr. as Sportin Life. There is yet no DVD available for viewing, and this piece begs for one. All intelligent movie goers who enjoyed it in 1959 will appreciate the release of this masterpiece on the new medium. The screen is filled with a dynamic presentation that rivals all other musicals including the outstanding ones by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Be sure to ask for it an your video supplier. Like "Songs of the South" by Walt Disney, it may be the assumption of racial overtones that is preventing the marketing of this cinema. I was @ 13 yrs of age when I saw this greatly underappreciated film at The ADAMS theatre in Newark, NJ, I purchased the Program, and later bought the soundtrack... still have both.... I am now 55 + yrs.. and have not seen it since (possibly once on network TV, in 1960's???) One of the greatest casts ever assembled, great score and production , please let another generation see this great film... It was my introduction to opera, and aided with my understanding of Tolerance.. Please family of Gerswhins or Premingers, release this classic soon !! I have always been a fan of this largely unseen filming of the Gershwin opera, since I last saw it in 1959. As many of you know, it has been unavailable on video or DVD; in fact, the Gershwin family sought to destroy all existing prints.

Yet, for some reason--hopefully signaling an end to its opposition, the Gershwin family recently approved the showing of a collector's print at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens. .

Well, the wide-screen, Technicolor print was excellent! (Not perfect, but excellent.) The sound was outstanding, in road-show quality stereo. The folks who saw this in its original release wouldn't have seen a much better copy. (The program notes include the original Variety review, which cautions that people might balk at the steep limited-release ticket price of $3.50!)

And, as much as I loved it originally, PORGY AND BESS was better than I remembered it. It's just wonderful. Sidney Poitier as Porgy was at the point where his career was just beginning to catch fire, and his charisma shines through. Dorothy Dandridge as Bess is spectacularly beautiful. Brock Peters as Crown is aggressively masculine. Pearl Bailey as Maria provides a few comic moments, although her role is small. And Sammy Davis, Jr., as Sporting Life, steals every scene he's in; he's especially riveting in his two big numbers: "It Ain't Necessarily So" and "There's a Boat that's Leavin' Soon for New York." (That last one won applause in the screening I saw.)

PORGY AND BESS is set-bound, but it really doesn't matter when the set is as gorgeous as this one. The costumes are also outstanding.

Sidney and Dorothy's singing voices are dubbed in, but they are dubbed in extremely well. The exquisite "Summertime" is sung by Clara, played by a young Diahann Carroll; her singing also is dubbed. (Actually, only Pearl and Sammy do their own vocalizing.)

The music is sublime, of course, but what really struck me this time was how much emotion Preminger got out of the story. People were actually sniffling in the audience a number of times--once when Bess sings that beautiful "I Loves You Porgy." And I got a kick out of the audience actually laughing out loud at the lines in "It Ain't Necessarily So." Could it be they had never heard this song before-- or never really listened to it? I believe that much of the emotional impact of this film is due to Poiter and Dandridge's performances--you root for their love to win out.

A minor quibble with the 136 minute running time--one or two slow spot, and a stereotypical, Amos-n-Andy kind of scene about Bess seeing a shyster lawyer to get a divorce from Crown, even though she's not even married to him. (I would have cut that.) And the beginning is a little confusing--both title characters are introduced awkwardly--they're part of the movie before you realize who they are.

And I don't think Preminger used a single close-up in the entire movie. It all seems to be shot in 3/4, which I'm guessing was his way of working with the wide screen.

PORGY AND BESS has always been a cult film for those of us who saw it, for those of us who loved the soundtrack, and for some of us who have only heard about it. Let's hope they find a way to re-release this, and put it out on DVD. It deserves the widest audience possible. This was/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy! I saw this movie when I was a kid and have been looking for it ever since.It rates up there with Cabin in The Sky, Stormy Weather and Carmen Jones as a must see in movies that showcased the awesome talent of African Americans.In the 60s the local Los Angeles TV stations would have a movie of the week and some stations would show the same movie for 5 days.Porgy and Bess was one of them and my whole family would be there all 5 nights in front of the TV and only moved on the commercials.South Pacific,Oklahoma and The Sound of Music are all musical classics that you can pick up at any video store. It would be a shame to let this collection of some of the best talent America had to offer be forgotten or locked in a vault.Please make the film available to the public. I first saw the opening of Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" on TV, probably some time in the early 80s, and my younger self found it a bit slow, despite the timeless music. I turned it off

Last night, an extremely rare, cobbled together print screened at the L.A. Cinematheque and it was a bit of a revelation. The performances are strong and memorable. Dorothy Dandridge brings a great deal of vulnerability, strength and subtle (at least by today's standards) eroticism to her part. Sidney Poitier is said to be uncomfortable with the movie, but his performance is terrific, as is Pearl Bailey. Even better are Sammy Davis as the amoral, cat-like Sportin' Life and Brock Peters as the villanious bully Crown.

Still, I'm no fan of Preminger's earlier, leaden -- and far easier to see -- "Carmen Jones." Porgy and Bess" is far superior to that less controversial film -- though that may have to do with the fact that the source material is also far superior.

As seen last night, this is a sturdy but far from perfect work. Not all of the moments quite come alive, and there is some awkwardness in the way the film mixes the overtly stylized Catfish Row set (beautifully done by Oliver Smith) with actual locations. Also, even to my rather untrained ear, some brief portions of the score seem unduly popularized.

Moreover, while this doesn't detract from the achievement of the filmmakers -- Preminger's decision to film almost entirely in wide shots, with no close-ups and occasional medium shots, no doubt rendered it unwatchable on TV "panned and scanned" and may doom it even on widescreen DVDs if it gets the restoration it deserves. On smaller screens, we won't be able to make out the many details that are crucial to the way Preminger staged the film.

Also, the mix heard last night was odd. Many of the vocals, particularly on the opening "Summertime" seemed unduly soft and were overwhelmed by the instrumental music. Perhaps this can be fixed in a restoration.

There is the issue of the film's racial politics. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, at least in a contemporary context. At the time when so few films depicted strong African-American characters, this may have seemed an unfortunate choice for a big-budget Hollywood film. And, while there may not be much "empowering" here, these are recognizable human beings that are not racial stereotypes. These are operatic characters who make poor choices because that's what tragic characters do. That alone made it a giant stride forward at the time.

In a modern context where strong and heroic African-American characters are less rare (though still not common enough), these characters seem nothing more nor less than human. They truly could be poor and undereducated people of any ethnic background.

Thorny politics aside, the original work is undoubtedly one of the truly great achievements of American music and (secondarily) theater. Poitier, Davis, Dandridge, Peters and, yes Pearl Bailey, were all amazing performers who we'll never see the likes of again. This less than perfect but still solid film clearly deserves to be seen and treasured. I saw this on television more years ago than I can remember, but never forgot the performance of Sammy Davis, Jr. I just by chance thought to look for it on video. This rendition of Porgy and Bess is a treasure. I would love to see it again and introduce my son to it as well. I just can't imagine why it is not heralded as one of the greatest performances Sammy Davis, Jr. every gave. Whoever is responsible for not bringing this to audiences should be ashamed of his/her ignorance. I will continue to look for it though. Maybe the execs responsible for such things will come to realize the forgotten work of so many African American actors. I had the privilege recently of viewing what is said to be the last 35mm, Technicolor, stereo print and found it much livelier and more touching than remembered. Also closer to the original material -- basically, all screenwriter N. Richard Nash did was trim, change much recitative to spoken dialog, and insert a transitional scene or two (including a very amusing one for Pearl Bailey). Oliver Smith's production design is stagy in the "Li'l Abner"-"Guys and Dolls" '50s adaptation mode, but it works well for this work's folkloric, unrealistic quality. Stereotyping and racism are present, but not to a wince-inducing degree. Further, for a movie of its time, it's pretty frank -- the adultery, violent behavior, drug use, and self-destructive habits of the denizens of Catfish Row are not at all minimized in the telling. But there are debits, beginning with all that variation from the stage text. The loss of so much compromises Gershwin's brilliance -- no wonder the family doesn't like it. The reorchestration, especially of Sammy Davis Jr.'s material, is disconcertingly trendy and vulgar. George knew what he was doing, folks; you didn't have to mess with it so much. And while Poitier and Dandridge act well and their singing doubles sing well, there's a huge chasm between the characters' singing and speaking voices -- you're constantly aware of the artifice. What really counts here, of course, is the music, among the greatest ever written for the theater, anywhere. Despite all the tinkering, it survives,and you'd have to be made of stone not to be moved by it. If the treatment isn't entirely to the estate's liking (and it shouldn't be), there's still no reason not to spend some bucks to restore this ambitious filming of Gershwin's masterpiece and make new generations more aware of his genius. "Porgy & Bess" was the very first movie my parents ever took me to see. Even at the tender age of 5 years, I was so greatly moved by the drama that I cried aloud at the screen "Crown, PLEASE don't take Bess!" I was fortunate enough to see the one TV broadcast of "Porgy & Bess" so many years ago and now all I have are the great memories (and the record album) to remember this wonderful, wonderful movie. I have been waiting and wishing and hoping that one day I might own a copy of "Porgy & Bess" - but it doesn't look like it will happen. What is the hold up? Obviously, there is enough public interest in this movie to warrant a release. After all these years, I remember it and it sure seems like I'm not alone. This movie is brimming with human emotion - jealousy, lust, anger, bravery, determination. "Porgy & Bess" is a buried gem that deserves to be brought forth into the light for a new audience to admire and an old audience to relish. I remember seeing this movie as a child in the 60's. It took my breath away then at young age. I was glued to my seat in front of the black and white TV. The cast was one of the best i have seen in my life. The musical was one the greatest ever have been written. Please to the Gershwin and Goldwyn Families please release this on video or DVD so that the generations now and in the future can experience what I'm sure what so many of us have done when we saw this great work of art .Please consider, let not this great man's work go unseen for years more. I,m praying and hoping that the hearts of these families will be soften and let the world see this great movie again. This movie is one of the only historical documents displaying the talents of so many black singers, actors, actresses, and dancers. Many who are no longer with us. Those which we are blessed to be able to enjoy today in 1999, through this film lets us recognize the talents that existed then. This is why those individuals still living today as well those who are deceased are super star icons. Due to the educational history in music, drama, filming, design, singing, etc., this movie alone belongs to the people of this country.

I viewed this movie recently. The sound was excellent! The movie appeared to be complete, color and clarity was fare, but good considering how old this movie is without any repairs on frames. I agree with all prior positive reviews. I do not have any negative views.

I only would like to make one request. Please to whom it my concern, please make this movie available so all can have this historical experience. I was in my early 20's, just graduating from college when this movie appeared. Seeing it was event of great impact, not only because of the high quality of the film (as evidenced by its many awards), but because of its place in the historical context of 1959. Because of social progress since then, it is nearly impossible to fathom that my college had only begun admitting (carefully screened) black students in 1953. A mainstream, high-budget extravaganze with an almost entirely black cast was a distinct novelty in 1959.

The movie was given a deluxe roadshow (reserved seat) presentation in only the best theatres, complete with a souvenir program detailing the lavish care that had been taken with lighting and color, multi-track stereo sound, etc. Almost every black entertainer that we white people had any knowledge of was in the movie. Gershwin's music, superbly performed, and the sheer universal humanity of the story was tremendously moving.

I was recently able to obtain a faded copy of a two-hour cutting of the film, and repeated viewings have confirmed my opinion. Time has made what seemed steamy sex scenes in 1959 seem quite tame, but the musical quality has not diminished. Sammy Davis and Pearl Bailey are masterful in their portrayals. What a crime that the young black artists of today are unable to see these performers at the peak of their careers! When is ART going to overcome racism? I believe the American people have grown up since this movie was made. Porgy consists of a stellar cast and music. This motion picture is an excellent adaptation of a great opera. i.e., Miss Saigon is based on Madame Butterfly, Les Miz is based on a classic book. Recently, an opera has been introduced here in Los Angeles, based on the movie The Fly. AN OPERA!! So be it!!

Disney is hesitating about releasing Song of the South. The NAACP has voiced no contest for race issues, and let us not forget Amos N Andy was a huge hit in the 50's as a TV series. Ethnicity is our heritage in the U.S., and we should embrace all forms of ethnic artistic diversity.

PLEASE RELEASE 'PORGY' ON DVD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

j hartz I've been waiting 30 years to see this film. I played the soundtrack album as a teenager and through my 20s. Recently, I located a reasonably priced dvdr and I watched it this morning. It was in widescreen, probably even a 70mm print, stereo, the colors were quite good, very little fading, certainly not remastered but I'm very very happy with this clean copy.

Now for the film. It's pretty good. I wouldn't say it's great though there are great scenes in it. Perhaps Premminger may not have been the right director for it, but I'll say this. For me the center piece of the film was the hurricane scene. Marvelously staged by Premminger. One of the great weather scenes of all time.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that the acting scenes are better than the musical scenes, not that the musical sequences are bad. Not at all. They did lack... something though. Perhaps it was the fact that there are no close ups and very few medium shots. It was almost like watching a filming of a stage production. Perhaps that was the feel that Premminger was going after. In the end it may not have been the right choice, but so it goes. It is far from a ruined movie.

Having said that, not everyone loves the singers on the soundtrack either. I always have. They are perfect for this film. I love the singing voices. The actors lip-sinking are excellent for the most part. I just wish the songs were staged more imaginatively. Sportin' Life's two numbers are fine, but the intimate numbers don't even feel intimate. They just feel... far away. In spite of that, you cannot deny the power of the music. And in the end, that is what comes through loud and clear. Once again, maybe what Premminger was trying to do was to stay out of the way of the incredible music he was working with. I believe he had the right idea but perhaps went too far in that direction.

The acting is terrific. Top kudos goes to the great Brock Peters who acts and sings the part of Crown. He is the ultimate meany. We just want him to leave poor Bess alone, and he doesn't. As proud, arrogant and nasty as he is, Sammy Davis Jr's classic rendition of Sportin' Life is the slick devil himself and a very charismatic one at that. Arguably, Davis's best film acting. Poor Bess just can't handle two bad men. I'm glad the Hermes Pan gave Davis a tap dance number to do.

Dandridge and Poitier, reportedly not impressed by being in the film, really are very sweet together. I don't know about chemistry... there was more chemistry between Dandridge and Peters than there was between Dandridge and Poitier. Still, it worked out fine for Dorothy and Sidney.

Even so, I think they should both be proud of the work they did on this film. They both managed to bring more than one tear to my eye. Their characterizations where very 3D and believable. Sidney Poitier's Porgy, however, seems almost out of place in catfish row. I couldn't help thinking he was Mr. Braithwaite in "To Sir with Love", very educated and well mannered and spoken, fallen on hard times. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice for the part of Porgy, but hey, he was a huge star at the time, so why not? Dorothy's Bess was as perfect as her Carmen Jones, in fact even more vulnerable this time around. Carmen was probably the flashier part for her to do.

A very very good film indeed, it is two sticks short of what I would call a classic. It just doesn't make the ultimate classic grade. Still, there is no reason on earth why the Gershwin estate has decided to keep this beautiful film, even with all of its flaws, hidden from the public as they have. Premminger may have made some odd choices as a director, but the film is nothing to be ashamed and embarrassed about for anyone involved with it. It is what it is and there are a lot worse movies than this that are embarrassing out on DVD and in theaters today. Porgy and Bess is not one of them. i was a projectionist while in the U.S.A.F. and remember this movie very well. we had just been set up with Stereo Sound!! o-o-o-o-o!! well, it Was a big deal in 1959. instructions came with the reels. the overture played while the projected curtain image was closed and i followed suit with the theater curtain closed too. for intermission the theater curtain was closed and after five minutes i restarted the movie with the projection curtain closed while music used as a curtain call to the second part. being the first stereo movie i had ever seen and being such a huge musical production i certainly enjoyed watching it every time i showed it for the run. Surely the Gershwin family realizes this is one of America's greatest opera. You have thousands of fans of this opera waiting for it to be released on DVD. Please don't be so stubborn, give us a break. Think of the joy and wonder you can bring to a starved public for quality music, by releasing this great GEM. Don't wait until the film is beyond repair. The cast is first rate, the music is just awesome, we need beautiful music in today's world. It may never be filmed again with such a great cast again. With today's home theater systems,wonderful sound systems and need for great music, I'm pleading with the Gershwin family to reconsider and release this awesome movie. Thanks So Much When I was a child my grandmother took me to see this movie. And I fell in love with it. I admired Dorothy Dandridge so very much and wanted to be like her. I fell in Love with Sidney Poitier. Pearl Bailey made me laugh. And Sammy Davis Jr. was so great as Sportin Life. The music was just breath taken. When I had my first son and the movie came on TV I let him see it, and to this day he has never forgotten this movie. He loved it. I will always remember Porgy and Bess. It has a special place in my heart then and now. I really wish that they would restore this movie, because it was one of the greatest movies there has ever been with an all star "Black Cast". Eisenstein describes his collaboration with Prokeviev as an equal partnership, where they worked together to match image and music, scene by scene. Unfortunately, the sound recording was a disaster, so for once the devotion to authenticity in Criterion DVD's backfires. Fortunately, there is at least one restored version of the film on VHS (BMG Classics) with an excellent re-recording of the music (by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus).

It is interesting to compare this film with contemporary propaganda films in England, Germany, and the United States. Eisenstein's film was made in 1938, in response to the fear of a German invasion; and Olivier's in 1943, when a German invasion of England was still expected. Both films are stagey, but in different ways. Olivier begins by showing a staged performance of the play in the Globe Theater by Shakespeare's own company, then takes us out of the theater to a more cinematic (though still stylized) setting. Eisenstein's film is cinematic from the beginning, but the dialog and speeches are still influenced by the melodramatic acting conventions of the old Russian theater. This works very well for Cerkassov's speeches as Alexander, because part of his job as a prince and military leader was to play a role in public.

In Nazi Germany, the first major propaganda film was Leni Riefenstahl's tedious Triumph of the Will, which recorded a huge political spectacle - massed crowds cheering Hitler's ranting speeches. The propaganda in her masterpiece, the film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is much subtler, with its worship of the athletic male body carrying disturbing undertones of the Aryan superiority myth. But wartime German propaganda films could also be subtle. Karl Ritter's Urlaub auf Ehrenwort (Furlough on Word of Honor) is typical. It shows a young lieutenant letting the men in his company go on a 24-hour leave before returning to the WWI trenches (and almost certain death). Against the advice of veterans, he accepts their word of honor to return, though he will be courtmartialed and shot if they don't. Naturally, they all return, (though some of them berate themselves for it), presumably inspiring the audiences to similar displays of duty to their country.

In the United States, one of the better WWII propaganda films was Howard Hawks' Air Force. In it, we follow the mismatched crew of a bomber as they bond to each other with the experience of battle, and overcome obstacles to continue their part in the war. Typically for Hawks' films, however, their real loyalty is more to each other than to their country.

Eisenstein has to reach far back in history to find any Russian military triumphs. Ironically, Alexander (like the other Russian princes) is descended from the Vikings who sailed up the Russian rivers to conquer and rule their own fiefdoms. So he is a conquerer repelling another would-be conquerer. Physically, they are not that different (though the actors portraying the German princes were obviously chosen for their ugliness and smirking stupidity). But the real contrast is between the common soldiers. The Russian peasants are as tall and strong as the nobles; whereas the German peasants who scuttle out of the shield wall to kill wounded Russians are a foot shorter than their masters. There is some historical truth in this contrast. Russian serfs in the Middle Ages were much better off than their European counterparts, because they could always escape into the wilderness and clear their own land.

Eisenstein's film also cleverly gives us our first sight of Alexander as a fisherman. In the battle with the Germans, he uses his fisherman's knowledge of the ice as well as his knowledge of their military tactics to defeat them. When Gavrilo breaks the shield wall, they are forced to regroup and mass on the West side of the lake, where the ice is thinner.

One of the other pleasures of Eisenstein's film (which most audiences miss) is the historically accurate way that he portrays the politics of medieval Russia. Cities like Pskov and Novgorod owed their growing wealth and prominence largely to trade, which put the merchants into power, and sidelined the princes until their military expertise and feudal levies were needed to repel invaders. In the film, Alexander is shown not only as a military leader, but also as a master politician, who knows how to wait for his time, and how to make the most of his popularity after the victory. Nevsky is one of the great epic war films. Sure, others, such as Birth of a Nation and Napoleon had come before, but this one is just as influential. The acting is stock, but anyone who knows the first thing about Eisenstein would know that that was part of his theory of film. This film, unlike many of his silent works, is about the heroic individual as much as it is about the group. This reflects the Stalinist philosophy that had risen to the fore by 1938. Still, his film shows us the power that can be generated by people coming together to fight something they perceive as evil. Nevsky is just one of many men. He is prince because he is strongest, but not because he is somehow different than the rest. The film's romantic angles provide more of a personal story than Eisenstein had previously allowed. Not all of the elements work and the film is probably a bit too long, but it still resonates. Of so many excellent and so on in Nevskiy, one particularly compact *zing* out of them all tickled me so thoroughly that it ends up being the definingly terrific moment of the movie for me.

Or at least the one that tends to drive hassling people to see the film, brandishing the disc in hand for emphasis.

The existing vague abstract acknowledgement of the fairly simple and concrete guilt involved in the guilty pleasure of this may truly gel and prod me into paying the intellectual bill eventually.

Till then..

The demise of the organist was so right on. I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it – the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s – remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world – like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap? Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.

To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless.

But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.

But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.

If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A Eisenstein wasn't just one of the greatest soviet,russian, films'directors, but one of the great masters of the cinema, among Griffith, Murnau, Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, and others. One of the greatest things in all his films was the edition, very personal, and in this movie is exceptional. This was his first sound movie and the use of the musical score by great russian composer Serge Prokofiev in the sequence of the battle is a perfect contrast between music and image. Watching this film is like taking a class or lesson in Cinema, something that no many film directors can afford. I never get tired of watch REAL CLASSICS like this film. I hope that in near future more people will recognize a great work of art. This film is one of the classics of cinema history. It was not made to please modern audiences, so some people nowadays may think it is creaky or stilted. I found it to be absorbing throughout. Cherkassov has exactly the right presence to play Alexander Nevskyi, just as he did when he played Ivan Groznyi (Ivan the Terrible) several years later. The music was beautiful.

My one complaint was the poor soundtrack that was quite garbled. Although I only know a little Russian, it would have been nice to be able to pick out more words rather than having to rely almost 100% on the subtitles. I was watching this on an old videotape from the library, though. Perhaps by now a DVD version exists on which the sound has been enhanced. I would like to know whether the actors were using archaic Russian or even Old Church Slavonic when they were speaking. The subtitles were strangely worded, and it's hard for me to tell whether this was to reflect an older manner of speaking, or whether the subtitles were just somewhat poorly done. (Contains spoilers)

Russia in the 13th century. The opening shot shows the relics of the last invasion: moldering uniforms, human skulls and a horse's skeleton. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) chased the swedish army away and impressed the mongol ruler to such a degree that he proposes to promote him to the rank of captain. But Nevsky replies: "Die in your homeland but don't leave it". He intents to fish, build ships and trade. But he warns of a more dangerous enemy: Nearer, meaner and no possibility to buy oneself out: Germany. Their objective is Novgorod. They have already reached Pskov: Mothers and daughters suffer for their fathers and sons. The marauding occupation forces distribute the looty. Rich merchants want to purchase their liberty (always a place for some anti-capitalist p. r.), but the "common people" are ready to fight. They want Alexander as their leader. Pskov is burned to the ground. The teutonic knights feel invincible and have just a smug smile for the russian women who witness helplessly how their fathers and sons are butchered. Babies are thrown in the fire while high dignitaries of the church look on and remain idle. In Novgorod: Olga Danilovna has two admirers: rich and staid Gavrilo and tall and jolly Vasili. She promises to marry the most valiant. Vasili calls on Alexander Nevsky in Perejaslav. The prince decides not to wait for the attack but to strike at once. Even women put on a chain armor...The invaders want to bait the "russian bear", but Nevsky's stratagem stands the test: Lake Peipus is his war zone : His men know the territory but the germans, who are heavier, will break through the ice...

Open your eyes and watch the most impressive battle scenes ever filmed. It's not just the multitude of extras (Who were, I think, pressed in this patriotic exercise), but Eisenstein's masterful management of such a large number of individuals: he displaces divisions like pieces on a chess board and nearly every shot resembles the composition of a painting by Rembrandt or Rubens (Including horses in phantastic outfits). Russia in winter looks intimidating in itself, but Eisenstein's visual imagination is hors concours. Heaps of corpses are plunged in cosmic light under an endless horizon. At nightfall, Olga and other women search with torches for survivors. A devoted falcon sits on his master's dead body while a crow waits for the right moment to pick out the eyes of the deceased. Eisenstein's direction and Prokofiev's score make ALEXANDER NEVSKY the "Rolls Royce" among propaganda films. Nevsky is, of course Stalin's alter ego, and the russians are tall, good-looking, heroic, and they have a perfect hairdo. The germans are bearded savages and look like members of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The actor who plays Vasili gives a one-man-four-characters performance: first wavering, then heroic, youthful lover and comic relief. Cherkasov's main duty is to look heroic. At the end, Nevsky-Stalin displays his generosity: He pardons the "little soldiers" and barters the knights for soap. Only a bearded killer and a traitorous cleric are turned over to the mob. He does not forget a final warning: Who comes with the sword will die by the sword...He kept his promise. 10/10 Tom Clancy uses "Alesandr Nevsky" in his book "Red Storm Rising". In the book, Nevksy was show in theatres across Russia as a prelude to the Soviet invasion of West Germany. I felt I had to check it out. It was excellant! The cinematography was magnificent and storyline incredible. I do not regret watching this movie and added in to my collection. This was Eisenstein's first completed project in over ten years. The film takes place in the 13th century during an invasion of Russian by Germans (Teutonic Knights - I think). Released in 1938 its a very loose parallel to Russia's nearing involvement in WWII, and Germany's advancement into Eastern Europe. There are some incredible scenes, most notable the battle near the end of the film, and there is a shocker when children are thrown into a pit of fire, but its not an easy watch. The film drags and isn't as consistently brilliant as "Potemkin" or "Ivan the Terrible". Sometimes Eisenstein is better in clips. His brilliance is present, however, and its a "must see" for Eisenstein fans and film historians. Russian Propaganda at its finest. Went looking for this movie after i read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" novel. Timeless masterpiece about 13th century Russians being invaded by the Germans. Movie was made in 1938, under orders from Joseph Stalin to warn Soviets about Hitler and Germany. Battle scenes are wonderfully done, showing that you don't need computer animation to make a great fight scene. Probably Sergei Eisenstein's greatest work. Also see 'Battleship Potemkin'. Any history buff or poli-sci major should watch this movie. 10 out of 10. This movie has to be seen for the music, which is actually a wonderful cantata composed by Sergei Prokofiev. Obviously, the original soundtrack is not exactly hi-fi, but there are many excellent versions available in classical music selections. The cantata can be appreciated for itself, but having seen the movie helps.

The story itself is fairly standard Soviet wartime anti-German propaganda. An amusing anecdote is that Stalin was later so eager to buy time by appeasing Hitler at the onset of World War II that Eisenstein was seconded to a German movie for a short while, as penance.

Prince Alexander Nevsky (revered as a saint by the Russian Orthodox), having earned his nickname by defeating Swedish raiders on the river Neva, musters Russian resistance against an invasion by the Teutonic knights, and concludes his victory with a stern warning to other would-be invaders.

An interesting scene: Alexander sees a convoy of Russians being taken as slaves by Mongolian soldiers, and does nothing to stop this, as the Teutonic knights are his priority. The historical Alexander Nevsky paid tribute to the Mongol khans, as his father before him, while working to consolidate his realm's future independence. ALEXANDER NEVSKY is nothing short of a grand film on a grand scale. The film opens a window to a world and culture most Americans will never become acquainted with. And much has been said and written regarding the film's thinly veiled patriotism in the face of imminent war with the German Nazis.

By US standards the acting is a bit stilted. The screenplay is short on words and big on visuals and action. And while the action can become tiresome, the visuals are often stunning. Direction is incredible.

On another note, fans of Ralph Bakshi animation might notice that he stole a lot of his visuals for WIZARDS directly from a copy of ALEXANDER NEVSKY. (Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)

Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).

The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old "Midsummer Night's Dream". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.)

This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).

The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.

The actor playing the German "grand marshall" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)

A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.

After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.

Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?

Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. "Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword". This is one of those movies where you have to put to one side some of its obvious shortcomings (a result of the date and location of its production)and accentuate the positive. In many ways this is a truly superb film.

Forgive the parody in the one line summary, but the most serious shortcoming for an English speaker like me was the ghastly subtitles. The print I saw had 1982 Soviet "Film Export" subtitles, which consistently used inverted grammar, presumably to give the impression of 13th century speech. The actual impact of this nonsense is to make it harder to follow the subtitles which means you spend less time looking at the images. Given that the cinematographic imagery is this films great strength, this is a real issue.

Other IMDB-niks have written plenty about the Stalinist propaganda elements of this film (just in case the viewer doesn't notice them for him/herself). They have also written plenty about the battle on the ice scene, which is superb in my view.

The love interest almost totally lacks subtlety and yet strangely..... almost totally lacks charm also. But it is good to cringe every now and then.

I was familiar with the Prokofiev music to this film long before seeing the film. The images and the music complement each other marvelously. And it is the images that will stick in the mind for a long time. Bergman clearly learned a lot from these images - the imagery of his medieval pieces (e.g. The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) building upon and enhancing Eisenstein's ideas. This film was made in 1938 in the USSR. In that context it is a masterpiece, albeit a flawed one.

For the modern viewer, I suggest that you go with the flow and enjoy the many treats on show. This is being commented on only because Serge Prokofiev(1891-1953)may not of known at first just how powerful a score and how actually majestic these lyrics really are.If you read the lyrics to Alexander Nevsky op.78 there is nothing here that is less than a witness through the song to one of the most beautiful and moving scores in all of musical literature.This film with its accompanying score have a special place in the world and that may be just as true on the internet as anywhere.The composers own website which is underwritten by his estate provides for additional care given such a score as this score truly deserves.It is to me as deep as it is wide with such boldness that you wish to be the one,the one they called Great Novgorod!This is a song about Alexander Nevsky.Yes,it happened on the River Neva-on the River Neva,on the wide waters.There we slew our foes'pick of fighting men-there pick of fighting men,the army of Swedes.Ah!How we fought,how we routed them!Ah!smashed their ships of war to kindling!In the fight our blood was freely shed for our great land,our native Russian land.Hey!Where the broadaxe swung was as an open street,through their ranks a lane where spears ran!We mowed down the invading Swedes like feather-grass grown on desert soil.We shall never yield native Russian Land.They who march on Russia shall be put to death!Rise against the foe,Russian land,arise,rise to arms,great Novgorod!(the call to arms goes on)Arise to arms,ye Russian folk,in battle just,in the fight to death,arise,ye people free and brave,defend our fair native land!To living warriors high esteem,immortal fame to warriors slain!For native home,For Russian soil,arise ye people,Russian folk!In our great Native Russia no foe shall live.Rise to arms,arise,native mother Russia!No foe shall march across Russian Land,no foreign troops shall raid Russia,unseen are the ways to Russia.no foe shall ravage Russian fields.(here dear reader we are asked to live forever with the following verse)titled"The field of the dead"-I shall go across the snow-clad field,I shall fly above the field of death.I shall search for valiant warriors,my betrothed,my stalwart youths.Here lies one felled by a wild saber,there lies one impaled by an arrow.From their wounds blood fell like rain on our native soil,on our Russian fields.He who fell for Russia in noble death shall be blest by my kiss on his dead eyes;and to him,brave lad,who remained alive I shall be a true wife and a loving friend.I'LL not be wed to a handsome man,earthly charm and beauty fast fade and die.I'll be wed to the man who's brave,Give ye heed to this,brave warriors!(now to its conclusion with Nevskys entry into Pskov)In a great campaign Russia went to war.Russia put down the hostile troops.In our native land no foe shall live.Foes who come shall be put to death!Celebrate and sing,native mother Russia!In our native land foe men shall not live.Foes shall never see Russian towns and fields;they who march on Russia shall be put to death! In our Russia great,in our native Russia no foe shall live!Celebrate and sing,native mother Russia!All of Russia came in triumph to the celebration.Celebrate and rejoice,Russian motherland!- It should be noted that Prokofiev was under quite a bit of pressure from Stalin, to if you will, make good.This musical score was really very much approved of by Stalin.To me there is a unmistakable beauty in how we love this world and Nevsky tells of a Hero whose God Like attributes provides for all participation in that love.A truly beautiful and furtive telling of the story of Alexander Nevsky. I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like "Lord of the Ring: Return of the King", but without the special effect but as good and better drama.

We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.

Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as "how many enemy we will be killing", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.

Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue. It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.

It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.

To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.

It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.

The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat "obvious", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.

If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.

So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference. "Alexander Nevsky" marked director Sergei Eisenstein's return to film-making after a period of exile, and what he produced is a bald-faced propaganda film proclaiming Russia's superiority over Germany.

There's very little plot: Russians unite to battle Germans; Russia wins. The film is really an extended montage of mostly battle scenes, mixed in with some moments of German brutality (like a rather shocking scene that shows German soldiers throwing Russian children onto a raging fire). This was Eisenstein's first sound film, and it's clear that he had no idea what to do with the medium. Indeed, this film really looks more like a silent film with some sound added. There are some dialogue scenes, but they sit rather lifelessly on the screen, and the pacing is all off, as if the actors weren't actually on the set together at the same time when they were filming them. Eisenstein mostly uses sound as an excuse to overlay a rousing Prokofiev score over the proceedings, and indeed, that's one of the film's biggest assets.

Say what you will about Eisenstein's ability (or lack of) to direct actors or tell his film in a more narrative format, he certainly knows how to edit images and music together for maximum effect, and "Alexander Nevsky" over all shines through its deficiencies.

Grade: A Alexander Nevsky is rightfully held up as a cinematic masterpiece. It has however aged very badly. People decide not to mention this and talk about the great battles and the great music. The sound effects may have been good then but apart from the foreboding organ all the sounds are risible. I may be shot by film buffs for this but i'm sure the modern viewer of Alexander Nevsky will agree that the blatant propaganda and the appalling music to detract from the film. I gave this film 10/10 because it is undeniably a master piece. It does have its great bits however. The costumes of the Teutonic knights are superb and the battle scenes are fairly good for the time.It is however a master piece that is showing it's age. Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring. When Patricia Newell is attacked after witnessing her cousin's murder,Detective Carrella searches the city for her killer.Identifying the murderer after an intensive manhunt,Patricia is sent to live with relatives in the country.For Carrella the case is closed...or is it?"Blood Relatives" is an overlooked masterpiece.Donald Sutherland plays a cop and it's nice to see Donald Pleasance in a small role as a child molester.The conclusion is pretty disturbing.Still "Blood Relatives" is more of a mystery than a horror film,so fans of gore will be disappointed.A must-see for fans of old-fashioned mystery movies.9 out of 10. I honestly can't believe that this film isn't more highly rated. Claude Chabrol could be described as something like a French Alfred Hitchcock, and while this film is only the second one of his that I've seen (the first being Le Boucher), I can already see that this guy is something special just on the strength of these two films. The film is a French and Canadian co-production, and takes place in Canada. The cast is made up of British and Canadian stars and the high quality performances bode well with the rest of the film; most of which is high quality also. The film is a murder mystery and begins when a young girl covered in blood is brought into a police station. After being questioned by Inspector Carella, it emerges that the young girl, Patricia, and her sister Muriel were attacked by a man who killed the sister and only just allowed Patricia to flee. However, as the investigation goes on, Patricia goes back to the station to give new evidence, which reveals a far more shocking identity to the murderer.

The performances in this film are excellent. Donald Sutherland is subdued as usual, but he suits the role he's given here very well and I wouldn't hesitate to name his performance in Blood Relatives as one of his very best. The film also features supporting turns from British stars Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings who both give good turns; Pleasance in particular who shows just how great an actor he can be and highlights what a shame it is that he went on to waste himself in Halloween films. The unknown Aude Landry also gives a great performance in her role as Patricia. The movie is very mysterious for the first hour and really keeps the audience hooked. When Inspector Carella discovers Muriel's diary, the film turns into more of a drama in which the girl's last actions are shown; and while this section of the film is not as good as what went before it, it's still interesting and leads into a great twist at the end! Overall, Blood Relatives is a great film that really deserves to be better seen. Le Boucher is a better known effort from Chabrol, but for my money this is at least as good! Highly recommended viewing. Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well. Considered by many to be a strangely overlooked Chabrol it seems to me the reason it has been cold shouldered is its sleaze factor. Not as overtly sexy, violent or gory as many films of this period it nevertheless starts rather startlingly and although becoming more measured continues to ooze a rather unpleasant odour. Ms Audran, not here the ice maiden but a drunken mother, Donald Pleasence does a cameo as a child molester, David Hemmings has his eyes on underage sex and the central theme involves the relationship between a brother, sister and niece. No not very nice at all and Chabrol treats it all as if it is very normal (like it might be in some small French village!) instead of Ed McBain's New York City. Had this been treated in a more sensational manner then it would have been a more acceptable but lesser film. Here we really have to choose between the likelihood of various unpleasant options before the final denouement. Very watchable Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version. This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put "Peter Pan" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.

As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it. A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.

To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.

Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.

What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.

Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.

With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation. My cousins and I have watched this movie ever since we were little. I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but we latched on to this endearing movie and it has become a special part of our family's memories.

I totally and absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who likes good wholesome family movies because that is exactly what this is. The things that the four kids get themselves into is absolutely hilarious to watch. It is an old movie but don't let that fool you. This is one of the best movies out there that shows such strong sibling bond for each other. It's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss it! The Commenter before me stated this movie is the worst that was ever forced upon him/her as a child. I have to say though that I loved this movie when was little and I still love it today. The movie has the best running theme of all-family togetherness. Considering the time period the movie was released I thought the movie was acted out well. I only wish I could still find a copy of it somewhere!! Of all the 1980's films I watched as a kid this was on of my favorites. I know I probably watched it at least once a week with my brother and my mom. I would definitely recommend it to anyone I know-or don't know. So if you do find a copy of it I suggest watching it! It's wonderful and heartwarming. "on our own" is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey. Vanaja (2006), written and directed by Rajnesh Domalpalli, is an extraordinary film from South India. Mamatha Bhukya plays 15-year-old Vanaja, who lives in a rural area with her loving but alcoholic father. If she is going to succeed in life, she will have to overcome the liabilities of low caste and poverty.

I went to the film expecting the depiction of an wretched girl who is crushed by society. This isn't what "Vanaja" shows us. The young woman is attractive, intelligent, and ambitious. She won't accept her fate with tears or simple resignation. She wants to succeed, and it's never clear that she won't succeed, despite the odds.

The acting that Mr. Domalpalli draws forth from his cast of amateurs is miraculous. Mamatha Bhukya is outstanding in the title role, and Urmila Dammannagari does an exceptional job as Mrs. Rama Devi, the wealthy landowner who is a formerly famous classical dancer.

In the film Vanaja learns South Indian classical dance, as she did in real life. I couldn't tell how good Vanaja's dancing was by Indian standards, but the many dance scenes were spellbinding. (Don't think Bollywood--this is classical dance. It's also very different from ballet, because in ballet the dancer lifts her heels away from the floor. In Sound Indian dance, the heel is the primary contact point.)

This is a movie that is not to be missed. It will work on DVD, but will be better on a theater screen because the dancing will be shown to better advantage. However, if DVD is your only option, then see it that way. Just be sure to see it. This is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great film. Winning 26 out of the 28 awards it was nominated for, there is no doubt that this film will stand as one of the best of 2007. The fact that it was made with non professionals who were trained to act and dance makes it that much more special.

It is not a Bollywood production, but it is about art. A lower caste girl wants to sing and dance. She wants to move up in society, but there is a limit. Everyone cannot be President in India, there is a caste system, and the narrow minds will not allow it to be breached.

Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) quits school at 15 and goes to work for the Landlady (Urmila Dammannagari), who was once an accomplished dancer. After some time working the animals, she is taught to sing and dance. The film is strikingly beautiful with rich color. It is amazing what can be done with $20,000, as this film was a Master's project for the writer director.

The Landlady's son (Karan Singh) returns from America to run for office and is struck by the girl. But, she is lower caste and can only be a vessel for his lust. Things are no better at home as her father drinks and eats and steals her money. She ends up pregnant and has to sell the baby to the Landlady.

In the end, she never rises above her caste, but the story was fascinating and the acting was really good. Vanaja is a film of superlatives. It has an exceptionally well thought-out cast with Mamatha being the crowning jewel, a superb production and possibly pre-production with Rajnesh at the helm, a fantastic journey of rural Southern India through the eyes of a 15 year old, a remarkable mixture of song and dance, traditional and modern, blended perfectly, and a beautiful backdrop of lush color of the flora and fauna that make up the magnificent experience. What a towering achievement for a debut director!! The casting was absolutely dead-on. I wish India would come out with more of such films. This film will remain as one of my top favorites for my entire life. 9/10. let's face it, you know what to expect when you tune into a post 1990 Corey Feldman film, there are probably boobs, guns and cars. saying that, there is more to this movie than just naked ladies (i'm sorry to say), cos it's mainly people getting themselves killed in a variety of unusual, and as the name suggests, often 'mystical' ways. I love crappy horror, and i love this film. If you don't, you probably wont. but i think it's worth most people giving it a go, it's not so crappy that it'll ruin your weekend or anything. All in all, if its mindless good fun, a bit of corpse loving, and an 80's childhood superstar your in the mood for, then you've come to the right place. its a cracker!!!! I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one. Caution-possible spoilers ahead….. Just watched 'Joe' for the second time. The first time was 30+ years ago on an Air Force Base. I was reminded of that by the Air Force overcoat with Tech. Sgt. stripes wore by the boyfriend/dealer; we airmen had quite a laugh the first time that appeared on the screen because that is a 'lifer' rank. Over the years I have carried several other images from the film. Foremost was the absolutely beautiful and vulnerable daughter of the executive. As someone else commented, you could not take you eyes off her. I did not realize until now that this was a 20-year old Susan Sarandon in her first movie. What a loss that she did not do more movies when she looked like that. I also recall the irony of having a counterculture hero like Peter Boyle playing the title role of a right-wing gun nut. Not unlike George C. Scott playing generals in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. And of course the shocking ending made a lasting impression.

30+ years ago it was the most talked about movie that ever played on the base. We thought it was a great film then and I have been reluctant to see it again because I was afraid that it would be as disappointingly dated as Easy Rider. But watching it today I was amazed at how well the film has held up. It is a very strong script with few holes although you have to wonder about the boyfriend immediately getting out of the bathtub when Sarandon gets in with him.

Searching for an explanation of why this film is still so entertaining I have to think it has something to do with the perfect physical casting. Boyle was physically believable as Joe (as others have pointed out his portrayal would inspire the Archie Bunker character a few 'years later). Did Ted Knight model his 'Caddyshack' character-Judge Smails after the Dennis Patrick's advertising executive in 'Joe'? They look alike and sound alike. Patrick was totally believable as the wrapped-too-tight upper middle class executive. And Sarandon's doe-eyed innocent with the Raggety Ann doll still evokes a protective response from all male viewers-perfect casting.

The nude and drug scenes actually hold up (they were very provocative for their day) and are as explicit as anything to be found in 'Thirteen'. About the only thing that dates this film is that the violence is not realistic or graphic. 'Joe' was about the same time as 'The Wild Bunch', and the tone of movie violence had a just begun to change.

Another reason this film holds up is that events in the past couple of years have brought back the relevancy of the theme and context of this film. In the film both types of 'conservatives' are portrayed as full of fear and hate toward the unconventional ways of the counterculture; and filled with envy at their free and hedonistic lifestyle. The counterculture is portrayed as mocking the straight culture; and although paranoid toward conservatives (legitimately so given that this was just a couple months after Kent State) they cannot resist flaunting their lifestyle in an attempt to antagonize. The political landscape is not all that different 30+ years later. I'm not sure conservatives envy young people and liberals as much as 1970, but they fear and hate them more.

An excellent film that surprisingly is as relevant now as it was in the early 1970's. Wealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. "Joe" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this "pre-Rocky" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though "Joe" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together. "Joe" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away. I was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 8/10. If Archie Bunker was armed, he may well have been "Joe". However, "All in the Family" would have had a rather short run because the censors would never have allowed it to run along the lines of THIS movie. Joe is a working class guy who is a racist and a bigot, and has a big mouth, especially when he's drunk. One night he meets a man in a bar, Bill, who is having a drink to soothe his frazzled nerves after accidentally killing his daughter's junkie boyfriend and he lets that slip to Joe. What happens is that Bill's daughter was living with the junkie, and she's hauled off to the hospital after an overdose, and he goes by the apartment to collect her things but doesn't expect that he'll actually run into the boyfriend, who comes in fresh from a big drug deal. In the struggle that ensues, the boyfriend is killed accidentally and Bill doesn't want anyone really to know, of course. But he lets it slip to Joe, and then when the newspapers and TV reports come out, Joe sees them, puts 2 and 2 together, and suddenly this man is a hero in his eyes. He hooks up with him later and Bill is of course concerned that Joe is going to blackmail him, but not for money, he wants to hang out with him. Which is, in a way, almost worse. Now, Bill's daughter escapes from the clinic she's in, and slips back home, and accidentally overhears what happened and then is on the run, and most of the rest of the movie consists of Joe & Bill infiltrating "the underground" to try to find her. This builds up to a rather shocking ending, which to me was totally unexpected and ends on just the right note, or wrong note, depending on your point of view. A sort of decent but dim view of life in the early 70's, mostly from a working class bigot's point of view, which makes it not for everyone, but it's not a bad film at all and it's a decent watch. 8 out of 10. 22. JOE (drama, 1970) Joe (Peter Boyle) is a racist factory worker who's known to hate "hippies and ni**ers". He meets Bill, a businessman who has just murdered the lover of his drug addict young daughter Jill (Susan Sarandon). Jill runs away and joins a hippie commune at the outskirts of town. Bill turns to Joe for help. Their search leads them through the seediest parts of town where both men's inner hatred and loath is furthered tested.

Critique: This was director John G. Avildsen's first sleeper-turned smash hit (an amazing run which included: 'Rocky', 'The Karate Kid', 'Split-Image', 'Weekend at Bernie's'). Film is interesting enough in that it served to encapsulate the themes and ideas of the turbulent 60s (Vietnam War, black power, women's lib etc.). It also has a good performance from Peter Boyle as Joe, one of the cinema's first antiheroes. He's always been good at playing creepy, bossy heavies whose abstract ideas are enforced by his intimidating presence (he would play the Frankenstein monster in Mel Brook's spoof Young Frankenstein). He reminds me of a little kid trapped in a big, dumb, awkward body. Film has a weak script (the meeting of Joe and Bill, for instance, is a bit coincidental), but it has a particularly gruesome, post-Taxi Driver ending.

QUOTE: Title Song: "I saw a fella selling junk to children. He gets nervous every time I pass Cause he knows that if I catch him I'm gonna kick his head and kick his fat a$$." I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in "Young Frankenstein" or being cranky Frank Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.

"Joe" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for "Archie Bunker" on "All In The Family". I think Boyle even went back to "Joe" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both "Joe" & Frank Barone look similar.)

I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.

After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.

Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,"I'd really like to kill one of them",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,"I just did". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny.

Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to "get to know" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.

How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.

10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END) I only voted excellent because this film took two snapshots of Americana: one in 1970, and one for every year afterward.

Nothing's really changed.

Joe is actually a jerk, a big stupid slob who's mad at everybody else in the world for his own idiocy. This ain't really a spoiler, but the key to the film is the big, corporate "never does wrong" guy making friends with this semi-troglodyte Joe, and he gets some kind of...validation from his bigotry and stupidity and sense of being wronged.

Yet, few would argue, that the dealer boyfriend did deserve to die. And those kids shouldn't have ripped Joe and Compton off. And Joe and Compton were actually getting into the hash and the young skin until they got ripped off. A simple film in many ways, except that in 1970 New York City was par to a battle zone thanks to Nixon's care, and all of the money going to the war in Vietnam. As I write this (2/25/2007) there is a "very long wait" on Netflix for this film - which makes me happy because I think there are people out there who want to learn. This was a pretty good snapshot - not exact, a bit caricaturist - but actually pretty close to how it was back then. And the scary thing is - things haven't changed that much. Sure, there's no more welfare, but that just means the wage-slavery has won out.

Amazing how millionaires will complain about not making enough money, then complain that $5.15 an hour is too much to pay their people. WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap. After recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open. Unusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff "Joe" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an "oar-gee" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about. I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - "Come on, get with the Pepsi generation". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - "Would you buy a used car from this man?" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. "Joe" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from "Joe" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in "Young Frankenstein"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already. New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.

Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.

What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.

This film needs to be remembered. Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, "Would you buy a used car from this man?" This is a classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers "the enemy" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the "generation gap" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because "the enemy" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes. Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing. Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's "Joe The Plumber" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the "niggers" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: "a living, breathing reality!" God help us. I really liked the Movie "JOE." It has really become a cult classic among certain age groups.

The Producer of this movie is a personal friend of mine. He is my Stepsons Father-In-Law. He lives in Manhattan's West side, and has a Bungalow. in Southampton, Long Island. His son-in-law live next door to his Bungalow.

Presently, he does not do any Producing, But dabbles in a business with HBO movies.

As a person, Mr. Gil is a real gentleman and I wish he would have continued in the production business of move making. Peter Boyle was always a great actor and he proved it by his performance as a gun-ho Bigot, making me hate him everytime he used the "N" word, I watched him and his big mouth and wanted to punch his lights out. ( Just think, Peter Boyle was a Monk once) (Now a supporting actor in "Everybody Loves Raymond") Susan Sarandon making her first debut need a bath right away and enjoyed sharing it with someone else in his own dirty water. I noticed a large Raggerty Ann Doll(creator, John Gruelle) was the only thing that Susan could actually trust and love and the doll appeared in quite a few scenes. If you really want to know about the way out 70's with drugs, free love and pipe dreams, then, enjoy the excellent direction of John G. Avildsen ("Rocky and "The Karate Kid") I always thought that Peter Boyle should have been blown away in the end!! This is definitely a cult classic well worth viewing and sharing with others. A fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm... Oh man , this movie is amazing, It's very good it's a story about a man who isn't so accepting of Black people, he sits at a bar drinks on his night out and he rants about hippies who are anti-war , and how blacks and hippies don't deserve to get any welfare checks. This movie is very realistic ,because it portrays a guy "Joe" who represented a lot of guys back then, and now too. The story goes like this.... Joe is in a bar and he rubs shoulders with a rich guy who just accidentally killed his daughter's hippie boyfriend. And this rich goes to the bar to rethink what he just did, and while he's doing that, "Joe" is in the bar ranting about hippies and people who are against the war. The rich guy accidentally tells Joe that he killed a hippie ; and obviously joe applauds the rich guy, Cause Joe hates hippies, Amazing movie watch it to see what happens next. I liked this movie , because it was reminiscent of those days in the early 70's, I liked the way movies were shot back then in those days, very good stuff , it's not like today's movies. Basically the movie gives you an inner look into the mind of the lead character "Joe" . I like the theme of the movie ....... about the working man , who's busting his ass trying to make a living My 2nd favorite film of 1970 (after Five Easy Pieces) was totally dismissed by a lot of idiots, calling in an audience-baiting piece of trash. Peter Boyle, a well-known liberal, is incredible as the hard-assed working stiff who has a few problems with the younger generation. He's a frightening dude, but has a great imagination and is very funny. I was a teenage liberal when this was released, but as horrifying as Joe seemed to me, he also cracked me up! Susan Sarandon, in her first role, is perfect and a mixed-up stone rich fox. The dinner scene in Queens is hilarious and insightful for everybody involved.

This WAS NOT an exploitation film and the script (which was Oscar-nominated) should have won that year. The director just didn't WASTE enough money making it to give it enough credibility in Hollywood. No matter your political pursuasion, then and now, you'll like somebody in this film. A definite 9 out of 10. It's on DVD and video. Check it out! Imagine that "Dragnet" episode where Friday and Gannon go into a typical 1970 den of hippie inequity, but instead of giving everyone a lecture, they "get some." That's "Joe" in a nutshell.

This film of a working-class bigot and a rich guy who's just killed his girlfriend's drug-dealer boyfriend has dated terribly and most of the supporting acting is stilted, but it's still interesting to watch. Peter Boyle, then about 35, plays Joe (the bigot), and he looks like James Gandolfini. In her film debut, Susan Sarandon plays the doe-eyed daughter, and while she doesn't necessarily hint at her future greatness, you can't take your eyes off her. This was a rather unnerving look at an ostensibly functional family confronted by their daughter's druggie boyfriend. Father tangles with and ultimately kills druggie boyfriend. Wallowing in guilt he reveals to a drunk redneck what he has done. Things spiral rapidly out of hand before degenerating completely. The ending you dread stalks the viewer throughout, but is still able to startle when it finally arrives. i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.

Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...

It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.

Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...

Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!

Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :) I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.

At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.

Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.

This is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des "The Beguiled" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with "Play Misty For Me". An alternate title considered for the film was "Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a "Peyton Place" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.

Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.

I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.

Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.

The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.

Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.

Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film "A Patch of Blue" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.

I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles. .....and it's a good one, too. In fact, this may be one of the best studies of sexual repression ever made. It's extremely well-acted and has some downright chilling moments. An often overlooked film in Clint Eastwood's filmography, and atypical of him, to be sure, but if you're willing to accept him in such an ambiguous role, it's certainly very gripping. (***) Clever psychosexual drama about a wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood) who seeks refuge in an isolated Confederate school for young women during the Civil War. Slowly, Eastwood begins to seduce every girl in sight, until the tables are turned and he becomes the pursued in an unsettling, gothic-toned finale. Never has a film been so deliciously erotic yet disturbingly macabre at the same time.

This is undoubtedly Eastwood's finest hour (those who tune in for "Dirty Harry" will indeed be surprised), while the rest of the cast gives uniformly superb performances. Try to see the film on video, as television prints usually delete crucial flashback scenes between Geraldine Page and Patrick Culliton. Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star. This Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into "Explosion" films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you. Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations.

Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.

Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, "The Beguiled" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own "Play Misty for Me" and "Tightrope".

The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.

Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from "Invation of the Body Snatchers" to "Dirty Harry". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty "realism" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.

"The Beguiled", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, "The Beguiled" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.

8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed "Black Narcissus", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, "The Beguiled" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material. During the brief period between Clint Eastwood's string of spaghetti westerns and his Dirty Harry films, he and director Don Siegel teamed up to make this unusual picture. Eastwood plays an injured Union Army corporal during the Civil War who is taken in by a southern school for girls until he recovers from his wounds. It has been a while since the young women (most of which seem to be teenagers) have had a man on the premises, so they are reluctant to turn him in to the local rebel soldiers. The resulting situations are often humorous, shocking, erotic, or even downright grotesque as Eastwood slowly regains his strength and begins to brood over the establishment.

The basic storyline almost sounds like the makings of a porno film. We have a masculine male suddenly surrounded by young nubile women. Most of them are sexually attracted to him. And he is more than willing to spread the love amongst them. The material never really slips down to the level of "tasteless", however. Eastwood, Siegel, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees are such skilled filmmakers, that the film always retains its dignity.

Eastwood's John McBurney is like no other character he has ever played. McBurney is an amoral, conniving, and lustful charlatan. He knows that most of the women, even the youngest want his bod, and he lets more than one of them have a shot at him. McBurney often uses flattery to butter the women up, then uses his rugged good looks to reel them in. He is like a drunken player at a cocktail party, often hitting on different women even in the same scene! Eventually, his lustful ways cause him great agony and loss in a way you must see for yourselves. This author would not dream of revealing the specific consequences of his actions, but there is little doubt he has them coming.

Eastwood gives a typically great performance. He seems to be having a blast with the role until things turn really ugly, then he turns mean and ugly. Geraldine Page is a treat as the steely B*tch who runs the school. We know she wants McBurney as much as the other girls, but with her checkered past shown to us in flashbacks, we find out that isn't all she's after! Mae Mercer as a slave belonging to the school gives a great performance, too. She obviously knows McBurney is a skunk from the beginning, and she never lets his phony charm bring her guard down. This is a character you will want to know more about after the film is over. She seems to have a greater knowledge of the world than anyone else in the film.

The Beguiled did poorly in its theatrical release. Nobody was quite sure what to make of it, and some of its content no doubt raised a few eyebrows in 1971. For example, in an early scene we see Eastwood romantically kiss a 12-yr-old girl. Is he just trying to keep her quiet when the rebel soldiers get close, or is he really enjoying it? Probably both! A fantasy sequence later on even shows Clint getting it on with not only Page, but her young assistant! Truly some interesting goings on in this one. It's a good thing Eastwood became the star he did, or this one might have been long forgotten.

Highly recommended. 9 of 10 stars.

The Hound. It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.

As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.

That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it. It is hard to know what category to put this film in, most films set in this time period of US history are westerns but here instead of the wide open plains of the west the action is almost entirely confined to a claustrophobic girls boarding school in Louisiana.

The film opens with Amy, a young girl, walking though the woods picking mushrooms, as she does so she stumbles upon Corporal John 'McBee' McBurney, a wounded Union soldier, who she takes back to the school. We know that he isn't a particularly nice person when he kisses her on the lips to distract her from alerting a passing Confederate patrol even though she told him she was twelve.

Once back at the school opinions are divided about what should be done with their new guest, some think they should look after him till his wounds are healed while others believe that it is treason not to hand him over to Confederate forces at the first opportunity. The former group prevail and he gradually recovers. As he does so his presence has an effect on all of the girls who haven't had a man on site for a long time, including a young teacher and the head mistress who's previous relationship appears to have been with her own brother. McBee sets about seducing them, emotionally if not physically, this leads to considerable jealousy amongst the girls.

While this film is rated fifteen it is definitely not for younger viewers both for the sexual content, of which little is actually shown but much is implied, and for a very gruelling scene which had me squirming more than any other scene in any film I've seen for quite some time. It is interesting to see Clint Eastwood play against type, instead of being heroic his character is both unpleasant and for most of the time at the mercy of the women around him. The acting is solid throughout, not just from Eastwood but also from all the actresses, including the young Pamelyn Ferdin who played Amy. Director Don Siegel really impressed me with this film. It is starkly shot, graphic without being visually graphic, well-acted by all concerned, and covers some of the most taboo issues of any day in a workmanlike, almost expected normalcy hitherto not seen in any other film by this reviewer. I didn't know what to expect sitting down to watch this: a civil war movie or some kind of 70's soft-core peddling with Eastwood descending on a school for girls in the South. But really is is neither of those things but rather and examination, exploration, and descent into the soul of men and women - a dark commentary on what is at the core of the civilized. as one reviewer previously noted, none - none - of the characters are likable by the film's end and yet each one is interesting, complex, and enigmatic. Eastwood plays Cpl. McBurney, a Union soldier found by young Pamelyn Ferdin(you'll recognize that voice as soon as you hear it), a girl at a school for manners headed by Geraldine Page amidst the chaos that was the Civil War - particularly in the South. Soon, Page, teacher Elizabeth Hartman, lovely, young seductress Carol, and even Ferdin(Amy)have emotional/sexual ties to Eastwood - each having their own needs and secrets and problems. Eastwood is not a nice man. he plays the girls off of each other always trying to get the sexual advantage. In the unfolding we get some real interesting things revealed from latent lesbianism to incest. The Beguiled, for me, is a masterpiece that far exceeded my expectations on every creative front. This might be(except for Invasion of the Body Snatchers) Siegel's best film. It certainly is one of Eastwood's best REAL performances. page is always so very good and Hartman, Fe5rdin, et al excellent. the Gothic manse set for the school is effectively claustrophobic. Some of the sexual-laced scenes disturbing. And what happens to Eastwood is a leg up on much of the competition for creepy, eerie, demented film. This super creepy Southern Gothic melodrama stars Clint Eastwood as a wounded Confederate officer in the Civil War who's taken in by a rural girls' school and nursed back to health. A weird clash of genders ensues, with the supposedly "dangerous" male falling prey to a batch of seemingly harmless women, who prove themselves to be every bit as brutal as the men waging war on one another at the battle fronts. This is a classic spider and the fly story, but here there's one lone fly and a whole bunch of spiders.

Geraldine Page plays the head mistress of the school, and she gives a characteristically sensational performance. Page was trained as a theater actress, and it shows in all of her performances. No matter what role she played, she always committed herself 100% to it, and never once let herself drop out of character. So it is here, with this lethal spinster, who takes her sexual repression out on this helpless man. Each of the other girls responds to him in her own particular way as well. The two most prominent are the slutty girl who can't wait to throw throw herself at him, and the virginal one (played by who else but the mannered Elizabeth Hartman?) who acts like she would fall over in a dead faint if someone so much as said the word "penis" to her. The schematic Madonna and the whore storyline would seem heavy-handed if the movie didn't keep you so off-kilter and so completely unsure of what was going to happen next.

The most memorable scene in the film for me occurred when the group of women perform an amputation of Eastwood's leg, which has become infected with gangrene. Again, the spider/fly allusion is clear: they hobble him so that it's that much harder for him to escape their web.

A classic chiller. Not a great film, but a morbidly entertaining one.

Grade: A- Clint Eastwood plays a wounded Union soldier found by a girl from a Confederate boarding school and he's taken in and nursed back to health instead of turned over to Confederate soldiers. Seems that the women-folk at this place have ulterior motives. Geraldine Paige, the headmistress, justifies not turning him into the Confederacy and even passes him off as her cousin. Of course when the man gets to feeling better he becomes quite the lady's man and is pretty much making the rounds, but when he gets busted he REALLY gets busted, in fact so badly he gets his leg cut off, but it's for his own good, of course, not out of retribution. Things get carried a bit further though when certain women don't get what they want. I haven't seen this for years and it still has a certain creepiness to it that by today's standards is still pretty strange. Not typical Eastwood at all. If you haven't seen this one it's worth seeing. 8 out of 10. This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.

The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching. This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.

I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end. One of eastwood's best movies after he had separated himself from the westerns. which in themselves were good whenever I had a chance to see any of clint's earlier work I would sit in front of the set and watch whatever was on. Probably this is the best film of Clint Eastwood. Here action is minimal, but with plenty of good acting. A Yankee soldier Eastwood is wounded and taken by the female pupils and teachers of a school in the South, where he is hidden and taken care. Shortly after his recovery all ladies wanted to have fun with him, and some of them succeeded including the director of the school(Geraldine Page). Erotic scenes are coming until the ladies discovered that their "macho" was shared by several of them, so they became angry and poisoned him in a farewell dinner. Geraldine Page, although somewhat old, was able to play a very suggestive role as the director of the school, a woman with more failures than happiness in her life. I thought that Eastwood's most unusual role was that in The Bridges of Madison County, but that was until I saw The Beguiled. He manages to pull it off, giving a very good performance and so does the rest of the cast. The direction is imaginative given that the film was made in 1971 and had there not been some plot holes - which the director seems to struggle to cover up at times - we would be talking about an excellent film. It remains powerful, nonetheless.

8 This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses? I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching. This film has some rather shocking scenes and subject matter considering it was made in 1971.

Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page, and Elizabeth Hartman do excellent work in the film, as do all the cast members.

Set during the Civil War, the film begins when a wounded Yankee soldier, Johnny, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, is given refuge and help at a girls academy located in the south.

The headmistress of the school, Ms. Farnsworth (Geraldine Page), the one teacher-Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), and a small group of half grown girls have been without a man in their midst for perhaps a little too long.

While their loyalties lay with the Confederacy-- their emotions and physical needs definitely lead them in the opposite direction. Johnny immediately uses his masculine charms to try to win the women over to his side--and keep them from turning him over to the patrollers.

However, feelings previously stoked by incestuous behavior, an adulterous father, a brutal rape, and adolescent inexperience combined with jealousies--turn things upside down with some unexpected consequences for both Johnny and the school's residents.

10 stars The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.

The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.

Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...

This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Let us assume for a moment that you haven't experimented with the psychotropic mushroom and you're wondering about the so called bad experience and just how something like that might play itself out… Well go ahead and pop in a fresh copy of The Beguiled. See, with film you have your clean trips (Solaris and anything else directed by Andrei Tarkovsky), whack trips, i.e. the experience-from-which-you-never-recover (Sweet Movie and El Topo), and you're bad organic trips, a category specifically reserved for a film like The Beguiled which is the sort of content those keen writers at the Times who made all the right decisions with their lives and graduated from the Harvard Department of English refer to as "hallucinogenic in tone." By the third act of this Don Siegel directed movie, you may not exactly observe that your two lead-heavy hands have become shrunken and assume all the characteristics of a burrowing insectivorous mammal, nor will you exactly fall under the suspicion that your spine has achieved the same sinuous shape and knotty texture of a pomaceous fruit baring tree incalculable in age, but you will feel something.

In 1970, when this film was filmed, most Americans were looking for an anodyne for their collective pain, a movie like The Graduate perhaps, a lot of world-endism was going on and, of course you had the nightmare break down of war in Vietnam. What you get with The Beguiled, banal drug metaphors aside, is a screenplay adapted from a novel by a guy who at least for the moment wanted to be known as Grimes Grice, and direction from the director who helped bring about the work and career of Sam Peckinpah. In the Beguiled, Donny Siegel, born in 12, Chicago, Il., less than 45 years after The Great Fire is showing his attempt at grappling with all that contemporary cultural madness of the early 1970's in the form of a classical film artifact. The Beguiled is an incredible film and an outstanding contribution to the cinematographic arts in almost every aspect: the shooting, editing, direction and story are all fantastic, and you're not likely to see anything else like it. Undoubtedly, a sinister film, its effects, as I've said, both dizzying and adulterating; frankly it's hard to believe would ever Universal attached its name to this picture, but you are going to see upon viewing some of the sweet, sweet camera moves, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees exploiting every bit of dark myth you harbor in your head about the American Plantation South, conflating beauty with evil in every location shot. Clint Eastwood, needless to say, has never been like this. Old Clint, he moves at instant from coy to livid, his eyes like two Archimedean spirals in medium close up. The rest of the cast is equally exacting and uncanny.

This Beguiled will never make the AFI 100 in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me from positing that it's one of the best American synch sound films ever made. While most people catalogue it as a western, to include the folks at The Western Channel, The Beguiled is a problem because you don't really know what it is: A sort of war movie? A drama? Psychological thriller? Maybe the answer to all those emotionally wrought Noir films starring Kirk Douglas? I actually call this piece a horror film because when my old man, who likes to kick back with the cheap, gratuitous violence projected in entertainments like The Wire, saw that high angle medium long shot of Geraldine Page wrapping a tourniquet around Clint's bloody leg, Pa was pretty quick to suggest we watch something else like the Outback Bowl, right before he absconded to another room. My advice: watch this one, and make sure it is on a very large screen, preferably run on that DPL home theater projector you're contemplating. I would put The Beguiled right on order along with that important consumer purchase, turn the overheads out, throw some cinematic light up on the big blank wall, and try not to lose your grip because just like Norman Bates, "We all go a little mad sometimes," even the beguiled. During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end.

"Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained.

While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona.

Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song.

A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality. The Beguiled is a pretty satisfying film for those who are after the things above. For Clint Eastwood's die-hard fans, it will be a disappointment. Although Eastwood does his best here in his so atypical role (except for the fact that his character is a charming womanizer, which he isn't so unacquainted with), the ambiguous nature of his character, which goes from being a sort of fallen hero to a manipulative and insatiable woman eater (to put it that way) will eventually be too much to handle for anyone used to see him play heroes in the best western tradition, morally a bit unclean but still without that dark side. I think he manages to pull this unlikely part off, but those who really steal the show are the two rivalising women, the schoolmistress Geraldine Page and the head of the students, played by Elizabeth Hartman.

We see that there is a potential devil in every man and a potential witch in every woman, especially when it comes to sexuality and sexual desire. Hartman's Edwina is the sweetest, most innocent girl in the world until she becomes infatuated with John McBurney and becomes possessive of him. This is what causes tragedy, as well as the headmistress' secret lust, the forbidden fruit. She carries a great and ugly secret about her incestuous relationship with her brother, whom she clearly idolizes still. The fourth factor in this "unholy" love spiral is the wicked Carol, played by Jo Ann Harris, who lures John away from his crush on Edwina and into her bed.

The whole nature of the story gives this film a sort of Gothic feel, which makes it a pretty rare thing in the Western genre, but a popular thing in the movies of the 70's. A unique achievement by the Siegel/Eastwood team and a movie not for the faint hearted. The Beguiled is one of those under-seen films in the careers of a director &/or actor that ends up playing better than expected. In the same year that Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel collaborated on Dirty Harry they also worked together on this little psycho-sexual drama set in Civil War era Confederacy country. It's almost a 180 from what 'Harry' had for audiences. Here is a film that is under the radar, and with a low-budget to almost no business when compared with what Dirty Harry pulled in. It is also a story where Eastwood is not surrounded in a world full of dangerous men but women who, despite their first appearances, have darker sides to them. And there's even romance in it in between some of the rougher and more complex scenes. But in this kind of framework to make the film, Siegel therefore actually has a little more freedom to do things with the style of the picture that roams into something more European; I'm reminded here and there of Polanski's work in the 60's. It all works though pretty well even with the initial doubt that these two figures of masculine film-making (Eastwood the obvious and Siegel having made his niche in B-noir and low-budget thrillers) can pull off material that could possibly be made for a Lifetime movie.

It was also captivating and really darkly comic here and there to see Eastwood's performance working off of these girls. He's doing something a little subversive in his performance by still having the sort of Eastwood machismo- if there is such a thing close to his clichéd movie image- by being a step ahead of this little school for young women at times and not at others. To see Eastwood in a performance like this, as with Play Misty for Me (the other Eastwood work of 1971), shows how cool he can act believably with very good actresses. Particularly here are the four main female characters, each of varying ages and each with varying attractions to their 'Yankee' man. While Siegel's work directing all of the actors has its moments in the first half it's really once the story crosses the half-way mark in the dream sequence (less successful than the director could be capable of) that the real juicy scenes start to pick up. A lot of this is the best that Siegel directed dramatically, pushing the psychological and emotional edges of scenes where not expected.

It's a difficult film, all of this praise aside, as it doesn't paint anyone as being too respectable- only the character of Hallie the slave on duty played by Mae Mercer is sort of separated from what transpires between the all-too-curious women and McBurney. Along with this, Eastood here is acting in a role that is and isn't what he's usually seen as during this time of his true formative years in the movies. He's an anti-hero here, which was his trademark of the westerns and other thrillers he was doing at the time. But unlike those films he's not really in a mode where he's 'larger than life', to put it in a way, as he is both deserter and womanizer, deceiver and tricky even in his most charming and affable moments. If it's not one of his best acting jobs, which is hard to really put together considering his catalog, it is one that is worth a look for fans who might want to see another side of him. It's a credit to him, but also to what clicked with his collaborations with Siegel, as they both took chances at this time in Hollywood. This is a wonderful film taking place during the romantic period of the Civil War. This film is a must see for Eastwood Fans and Eastwood claims this is one of his most favorite films that he did. I couldn't agree more. Watch out! This is a spoiler- Eastwood does die in the end. Eastwood and director Don Siegel rightfully argued that the ending should be unexpected and should be unhappy for a few reasons. They wanted to stick to the book, for one. Secondly, there can't always be a happy ending. Thirdly, this was written during the Vietnam War- they wanted a negative statement to this terrible struggle of war where people were needlessly dying. I agree with all of this. It is a wonderfully shot film and I love most films involving the Civil War. It is more of a portrait of how deceptive women can be- that they can be more dangerous than men, hence the title has much to do with the statement of the film BEGUILED- to be deceived. The song sung by Eastwood at the beginning and the end of the film is another statement against not just the Civil War but the Vietnam War and maybe indirectly the women he comes across during the film. Wonderful story of love and deception and many memorable scenes- NOTE: This film is rated R for no reason. There is hardly any language, it is probably some of the subject matter involving sex- but there is no nudity really. Excellent film- 9/10. Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star. Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the "ladies" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.

"The Beguiled" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say "repressed professors" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.

This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it. "The Beguiled" is a strange work among Clint Eastwood's oeuvre. By 1971 he had become well known as the star of action movies, not only Westerns (the genre in which he first made his name) but also war films (such as "Where Eagles Dare") and cop thrillers (such as "Coogan's Bluff"). Yet although "The Beguiled" takes place during wartime (the American Civil War), and was made by Don Siegel who had earlier directed Eastwood in "Coogan's Bluff" and was later the same year to direct him in "Dirty Harry", it is not an action film in the traditional sense. In most of his previous films Eastwood had played an active role, but here his role is largely passive- his character, Sergeant John McBurney, is a wounded fugitive forced to rely upon the charity of women in order to survive. Even while serving with his unit, McBurney played no active part in the conflict; he is a Quaker, whose religious principles forbid him to bear arms, and was serving with the Union forces as a medical orderly.

The film is set in Louisiana towards the end of the war and starts with the injured McBurney being discovered by a young girl named Amy and brought back to her boarding school. The school is a small one, with only two teachers and a handful of girls. Although some of the girls are ardent supporters of the Confederate cause and want to hand him over to the authorities, the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, decides to shelter him and tend him, fearing that his injuries are likely to prove fatal should he be sent to one of the Confederacy's notoriously harsh prison camps.

Although McBurney scrupulously follows the teachings of his religion as regards pacifism, he is not so scrupulous when it comes to following its teachings on the sin of fornication, and as he starts to recover he makes full use of his opportunity to exercise his charms on both the staff and the older girls, and he wins the affections of number of them, including Miss Farnsworth, her assistant Edwina and Carol, one of the older girls. Even twelve year old Amy appears to have a sort of childish crush on him. In the sexually repressed atmosphere of the all-female school his presence gives rise to jealousy and hatred, and Miss Farnsworth, rejected in favour of the sluttish Carol, plots a terrible revenge. (Interestingly, the one female to resist McBurney's blandishments is Hallie, Miss Farnsworth's black slave, even though he tries to win her round by pointing out that he is fighting to free people like her).

"The Beguiled" has been described as an anti-war film, but this seems to me to be a misconception. The film is not really about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War or of war in general. The only acts of violence we see are perpetrated by non-combatants, and they are motivated by a desire for personal revenge, not by zeal for the Confederate cause. It would be more accurate to see the film as a drama about the psychological stresses that can be caused by the peculiar circumstances of war.

At the beginning the school, set in a beautiful old antebellum mansion, seems like an island of peace amid the war. The building is in the Classical style, associated with order, harmony and restraint, but the story that unfolds within its walls is one of disorder, passion and violence, qualities associated with the Gothic school of writing which in the 19th century was often regarded as the antithesis of Classicism. The film can be seen as falling within what has been called the "Southern Gothic" tradition in American film and literature.

The film was not a great hit at the box office, possibly because Eastwood was cast so much against type. It is not perhaps his best film, but it did show that he could expand his range and play something other than action heroes. (In "Play Misty for Me", his first film as director made the following year, he was again to play a "passive" character in danger from a vindictive female). There are some very good performances from the female members of the cast, particularly Geraldine Page as Martha Farnsworth, outwardly a respectable middle-aged spinster but inwardly a woman of strong passions. (There are hints that she may have been having an affair with a man whom she passed off as her brother). There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Hartman as the shy, repressed Edwina, who falls in love with McBurney and rejects the idea of revenge and from young Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy. (Amy is an animal lover- a key moment in the film comes when McBurney kills her pet turtle- so it is interesting that in later life Ferdin became an animal rights activist). The one character I was less keen on was Jo Ann Harris's Carol who seemed too modern, like a swinging seventies chick transported back in time to the 1860s. The film is notable for the emotionally intense "hothouse" atmosphere which Siegel brings to it. This will not be a film which is to everyone's taste; some will find it too overwrought and melodramatic, and some have found it misogynistic. (Judith Crist called it a film for "woman haters and sadists"). Others, however, may find it a compelling psychological drama. 7/10 Watch The Beguiled because it's a good place to begin when you study the femmes fatales in Clint Eastwood's filmography.

The smothering Gothic sexuality of The Beguiled has already been discussed. What everyone missed is the synchronized sexual physiology that occurs in a group of females living together, especially when a man is introduced into the group. They all become horny and then bitchy at the same time.

Femme fatal filmography for Clint Eastwood: Inger Stevens, Hang 'Em High, 1968; Jean Seberg, Paint Your Wagon, 1969; Shirley MacLaine, Two Mules for Sister Sara, 1970; Geralding Page, The Beguiled, 1971; Jessica Walters, Play Misty for Me, 1971; Sondra Locke, Sudden Impact, 1983; Genevieve Bujold, Tightrope, 1984; Marsha Mason, Heartbreak Ridge, 1986; Burnadette Peters, Pink Cadillac, 1989; and the best heart-breaker of all, Meryl Streep, The Bridges of Madison County, 1995. First of all I'd like to start by saying it's a refreshing start to see a British Drama that finally looks and feels believable.

Patrick Stewart does the role justice as (Ian Hood), the government Science adviser, with his constant and unwavering views on authority and thoughts about the future of "real world" science and how he feels It's either being used or abused by others.

Not only is the casting thoroughly maintained all the way throughout the Series, but it makes it's characters seem more believable than most other British Drama's.

Ashley Jensen also delivers a first rate performance as Dr. Hood's Appointed bodyguard (Rachael Young), she brings a refreshing take on the unscientific, Uninterested everyday views of science, and her constant battling with Hood makes for some very funny and memorable moments between them.

The way the series keeps all the scientific elements more realistic I Find positive and more engaging than the psychobabble we are so used to in other Fiction or Science Fiction TV shows.

There are however notable disappointments with the series, every time an Episode ends I find myself disappointed that they didn't seem to cover all aspects of the plot and sometimes leaving open-ended stories unclosed.

Although bearing in mind that this is still the first series, I hope that we see a return to form in the near future where these open ended stories can finally be given a significant conclusion they so rightly deserve.

For those who enjoy more slow paced science related plot lines, this is the ideal show to watch as it always manages to stay believable and more Importantly to the point. I've just seen a couple of Episodes of "Eleventh Hour", but I must say that they were enough to impress me. This series is just so impressive and interesting... I'm definitely going to follow it.

First of all, I must say that the acting is top-notch. Patrick Stewart plays his character - Ian the scientist - believably and coolly, and he makes the audience believe in the character. Other characters, such as Rachel, are also believable, and, although they sometimes are a little cold - due to the way the series is filmed - they're interesting.

The stories told by this series are also interesting. For example, one of the episodes I saw was about cloning, and a man who was trying to clone humans. The way the Episode was developed, and how Ian - Stewart - kept following clues and saving people was amazing. In addition, it made you think about ethics and how good or bad could this be.

Anyway, I think this is one good TV shows. I just hope it keeps going on like this - interesting, thought-provoking and with good acting. Even though it's filmed in a kind of cold way - little lightning, cold photography, lots of close-ups - it never stops being interesting. Highly recommendable. I found the episodes to be fascinating and well written. As a TV show, it was entertaining which is what I expect from fictional entertainment. I like the "relationship" between the Professor and his female Security Guard ... although sometimes her Scottish accent makes it a bit difficult to understand what she is saying. I was hoping that there would be more than just four episodes. I recognize that one commenter/reviewer of this series had comments relating to his opinion as a physician. I understand this gentleman's comments; however, this is a fictional television series which is meant to entertain ... not present precise facts like a documentary. Patrick Stewart performs well and makes his character believable. If you want to watch a documentary, then this is not the series for you. But if you want to watch unique scientific-based theories in an entertainment-based medium, then you will enjoy the four episodes. Forget some the whiny (and pointless) comments left here by some. This series is well acted, well shot, and makes a refreshing change to most of the pap on TV.

Any fool can nitpick anything. However, in this show the characters are believable, the story lines intriguing and compelling (but do require some intelligence on the part of the viewer), overall it's enjoyable, and it's British !! (We do occasionally come up with some gems, and this is one of them).

The shows are an hour long each and i think there are four of them all together (at least I've only seen four of them). The show clearly impressed some U.S. TV station/director who made a longer series which was nowhere near as compelling in spite of the bigger budget.

If like soaps and reality shows you won't like or understand Eleventh Hour. Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else.

I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers!

The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless.

Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie.

It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill.

A solid 7 out of 10. Forget everything that you have ever read about the Mallachi Brothers' straight-to-video release "Snakes on a Train," especially if it was a negative review. This movie is way more fun than the movie that it obviously rips off: "Snakes on a Plane." Frankly, I am surprised that more people aren't rhapsodizing about this low-budget Asylum Release. Instead, most reviews that I've read have nothing kind or critically worthwhile to say except the usual stupid herd mentality idiocy, such as the acting was amateurish, the action didn't numerically live up to the advertising, and the entire thing amounted to a hideous waste of time. Of course, it doesn't help that the title is a tip-off to the obvious rip-off nature of this film. Actually, I felt that "Snakes on a Train" surpassed "Snakes on a Plane" for a number of reasons.

First, the producers used real, genuine snakes until the last fifteen minutes when they substituted either giant fake snake heads or computer generated a super-giant snake that consumed an entire Amtrak like train. How many movies have a snake gobble a train? As a result, "Snakes on a Train" ranks as the first movie to scale that height.

Second, this low-budget movie employs some grisly gross-out effects. The woman who coughs up baby snakes--real ones--was fantastic! The special effects of her forearms getting tore up later in the movie were visually enticing! Also, you get to see a little white girl get eaten alive by a snake. She was as cute as she could be, no more than 10 years old or thereabouts, and she died screaming all the way as nasty olé giant mister snake head swallows her. Not only kids in jeopardy but kid eaten! This is exactly the kind of graphic material that you won't find in 99 % of all theatrical Hollywood releases. Of course, she wasn't eaten by a real snake, but it's the subversive thought that counts.

Third, it is one of those cursed upon movies where Alma (Julia Ruiz of "That Guy"), the chief female character--no heroine--has a curse placed on her by her parents because she didn't marry the man that they recommended. As a result, she is filled with snakes, coughs up quantities of green radiator fluid slop then chucks up a baby snake. Imagine Medusa, the mythical characters that had snakes for hair, only with the snakes in her belly. Her psycho-shaman type boyfriend collects all the snakes that come out of her because they are heading to L.A. on a train to see a relative of his who can put all the snakes back inside of her and return her to normal. Talk about a whacked out character performing stomach churning routines. Prepare yourself for lots of slime, blood, and gore.

Fourth, the train had only about twenty or so passengers, not hundreds. Nevertheless, it looked like the Mallachi Brothers filmed this above-average horror flick on-board a real train with real snakes and they played up the swaying motion of the train on the tracks.

Fifth, the snakes slither around for the first hour, quietly infiltrating the train before they turn weird and attack everybody. In other words, it's suspense, suspense, suspense, before people start dying from snake bites.

Up until the last five minutes when the snake grows bigger than the runaway train and swallows it, "Snakes on a Train" is warped, wonderful, and way-out. It doesn't have the Attention Deficit editing of a big league Hollywood movie. It's a fantasy about an unfortunate Hispanic women victimized because of her feminist, at-odds-with-society attitude.

Altogether, you've got gory fantasy type stuff; suspenseful snakes slithering around the train, and am over-the-top gigantic snake at the end. Incidentally, they get on board the train because a bunch of other Mexicans have bribed a train employee and the Mexicans on board think that the girl is so cute that they let her and her boyfriend on free.

I think it's better than "Snakes on a Plane" if you want a tough, little, independently produced horror movie. The tagline on the box hails, "100 TRAPPED PASSENGERS... 3,000 VENOMOUS VIPERS!" You almost have to admire that degree of "no chance in hell we're ever going to deliver on this promise" bullshit. I could admire The Asylum's hucksterism more so if they made movies that, well, you know, were good or, at the very least, worth a damn. Haha, and it's what I like about theses movies. They are garbage. You put them in a toilet and then you flush. It worth the price if you are a fan of cheesy movies. It may become a cult classic among many fans. The gore scenes are effectives, there's not much I can say, it's a Z flick that parody the new movie with Samuel L. Jackson, hell, it may be better so who knows! OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.

The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.

There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.

The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it! Ladies and gentlemen, we've really got ourselves a winner here. Actually we don't, but boy is this film an often hilarious and always entertaining horrible hoot of a stinker. Poor Alma (fetching Julia Ruiz) is suffering from an ancient Mayan curse that causes lethal poisonous snakes to grow inside of her body. Alma and her deranged shaman husband Brujo (Alby Castro, who feverishly overacts with delicious eye-rolling intensity) stowaway on a train that's bound for Los Angeles. Naturally, a bunch of deadly vipers get lose so they can terrorize the motley assortment of passengers. The Mallachi Brothers, working from an absurd script by Eric Fosberg, treat the ridiculous premise straight, thereby creating a wonderfully wretched piece of deliriously campy cheese. The cruddy CGI effects, the pathetically unfrightening common variety Gardner snakes (there's would-be scary rattlesnake noises added to the soundtrack to imbue them with a faint sense of otherwise nonexistent menace), the plodding pace, the total dearth of any tension or momentum, the obvious rickety stage-bound train set, and especially the simply astonishing "you gotta be kiddin' me!" over-the-top preposterous ending are all downright awesome in their very jaw-dropping awfulness. Better still, we also got game (if lame) acting from a no-name cast, a nice smidgen of tasty gratuitous female nudity, a funky hum'n'shiver score, and plenty of extremely gross and grotesque make-up f/x. Bonus points for the fact that the token irritatingly cutesy little girl gets eaten by a large reptile and for the stoner engineer who gets caught smoking crack out of a hollow light bulb (!?). An absolute gut-buster of a kitsch howler. This is one of the funniest movies ever made. And for those of you who don't get it, it's supposed to be funny. So often comedies try to be so intentionally funny that it misses, but here is finally a movie that succeeds in being hilarious in the most subtle of ways. Even "spoofs" lack the originality and natural feel of this film. It is a comedic classic that will surely be appreciated in another time when studios are fdoing this sort of thing regularly. kudos to the makers, and to a hilariously subtle cast of actors, including Isaac Wade, whose performances is top-notch. Truly, a real break-out star performance by an true underrated stage actor. It'll be great to see this guy get his due. Snakes on a Plane was such a well hyped film that it was both inevitable and a little crazy to try to release another movie with almost the same title in the same year let alone the same week. Reading the other comments here I see the results. A lot of people are mad. Mad because it doesn't have the best special effects. Mad because it doesn't have a star cast. Mad because they wanted to see Samuel Jackson say "I'm sick of these M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Snakes on this M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Train"!

Well, this sure ain't the Samuel Jackson version. And maybe that's good.

Snakes on a Plane was lost between cop film and horror, a family action film and a bloody gory movie of death. Saturday Night Live performers got laughs while Jackson swore enough to make a grandmother cover her ears, and as far as kids go, they would be traumatized by the violence.

Snakes on a Train however knew exactly what it was. This was a cheaply made horror movie on a train. Sure it had snakes and sure many of them were scientifically harmless garden snakes with fake rattler sound effects. But never once did it miss a step in its plot or intention where as the "on a Plane" version was tripping all over itself from the first scene on.

I did enjoy the over the top fun that Snakes on a Plane had to offer and I admit that the "...on a Train" version was a little dry. But hey, in trade, it was a cool and unexpected story. This little horror film could have gone way more wrong than it did.

For this it gets a 7 out of 10. Without doubt a great all round show that if shown today would attract a huge following.Bodyguards was only 6 episodes and a trailer,but deserved a few more series to really bring it up-to speed.With outstanding performances from the highly talented and versatile Sean Pertwee and the dynamic Louise Lombard,it really did put it up with the likes of the Proffesionals,The Sweeney and Thief Takers.The story lines are based on the Diplomatic Protection Services and with great filming and story lines and scene locations,it stood out from some of the junk that gets churned by other TV production companies.I do not think that it has been shown on terrestrial TV either,such as Sky or Freeview,witch is a shame as if it were to be shown nowadays,i am sure it would get a large viewing audience.So i hope one day the guys at Carlton TV decide to release it on DVD,cheers,Nick. When i first saw this show advertised to be on Australian TV back in the late 90's i ignored it thinking it was just capitalizing on the Kevin Costner movie 'Bodyguard'. But then i caught an episode and i wish i had watched it from the start. The partnership between Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard was so well acted and the structure of each episode was extremely entertaining. It wasn't an overblown TV show that you can tell spent most of its energy in making things explode so that they could put that clip in the commercial to lure audiences and then not deliver on any other level. The show delved into the lives of the two main characters and thats what made it interesting. The stories for each episode where also well written with interesting guest stars who were good actors. And of course there was a lot of action and intrigue which is always good. But what was great was that there was humour, and it flowed naturally from the characters, it didn't appear contrived. It was British but in a good way, and if this show was made in America it would no doubt be on DVD by now. I don't know why British TV production companies are not interested in releasing this show on DVD. It was a great show and deserves a DVD release. It's very easy to figure out why The New Professionals was a dud, at least in New Zealand: it didn't just follow in the footsteps of the original, it followed Bodyguards, which out-Professionaled the show considerably with its boss-and-two-agents formula. Cmdr McIntyre was a latter-day George Cowley: tough on his team, but one who would defend them to the death against others. The shadow the show cast was huge.

Well, not as huge as it should have been in the UK. Here, it was networked in prime-time. It was even marketed in the promos as, 'They are the professionals.' Someone else obviously noticed the difference. We were fortunate enough not to have this show released in different regions at different time slots.

It was the high production values that sealed the deal for me. As other reviewers have noted, it followed the great British tradition of the one-hour actioner, but blended in personal elements at the same time. There's a slight undercurrent of something developing between Liz and Ian, though that never distracted one from the real plot. Most episodes were based around inflammatory diplomatic incidents, the sort of thing that helps Spooks along from time to time.

Unlike many 2000s shows, the plot was not sacrificed at the expense of fancy-pants photography or over-stylish direction. Directors like Christopher Young kept the pace up and did their job. They made use of good locations, making Bodyguards slicker than if it had been shot on back roads and alleyways. It was contemporary, it would still stand up beautifully today, and it was one of the better examples of the British actioner in the 1990s, showing that the UK can still do them better than anyone else.

Maybe except for the Germans and their Cobra 11. It is to typical of people complaining about something when they no nothing about it...So this is about a gay man falling for a straight women. First of all...This is a true story so you cant say its not believable Second its written by a gay man so the whole thing about this being against the gays are just plain stupid. Personally I think this was the best love story I've ever seen. And I am very pro gay. I think this shows that real love is about personality not just looks and sex. And it has nothing against anyone who is gay, straight or bi unlike so many other shows. Maybe we in Europe take to it more cus most TV here are a bit deeper and make you think more then American TV...Plus we don't fear when it comes to showing certain things.

If you want something funny with one of Englands best (Lesley Sharp) and you want to see a decent believable love story without too much sap this is for you. I know I love it Sometimes, you're up late at night flipping through the stations, bored out of your mind, and wanting some light and fluffy romantic comedy that doesn't make you feel bipolar. And this movie fit that exact billing. Sure, the plot was ripped right out of the 1930s....the writing as schmaltzy as the Hallmark Greeting Card company's legendary poetry, and the one- dimensional characters were played by a cast plucked straight from Central Casting - but it was CUTE, and exactly what I needed last night.

Lauren Holly and Costas Mandylor have great chemistry together - I liked it on "Picket Fences," and I'm happy to say they still have it over 10 year later. Costas Mandylor, at 41, is still possibly one of the handsomest men to grace the screens since ol' Rudy Valentino kicked the bucket 80 years ago. RRROWRR! Bonus points for casting that funny man who used to be on the roller skates on that show about the cartoon lady. I always thought he was something straight out of a Hepburn-Grant comedy. BRAVO!

Some people will probably say this was the corniest piece of cinema ever made, and I would probably have to agree - but come on! It's on the Hallmark Channel. What were you expecting? Just sit back, relax, eat some sesame sticks, and watch a sweet little movie with two cute people and down a bottle of Zinfandel. Trust me, you'll love and accept the schmaltz a whole lot more, and then you can go to sleep dreaming about Costas Mandylor swimming in a sea of tempered chocolate feeding you petit fours with minty fresh chocolate icing. YUMMO! (PS. Now I have a hankering for petit fours. THANKS A LOT, HALLMARK!)

I really wish the evil girl had been cast with Rachel Ray, and maybe that dishy food nerd Alton Brown as the announcer instead of the creepy dude with the Van Dyk beard. Shudder!

That would have made my night. But hey, check out "Just Desserts." This is a made for TV movie by Hallmark. Hallmark has always made quality movies that are family orientated. Just Desserts is a boy and girl fall in love while working together movie. Two bakers competeing for a $250,000 prize against a field of professional bakers. It is fun and light hearted. The desserts look great. The movie has a catchy, upbeat little song played during the competition. I assume that it is a made for the movie song by Roger Bellon. To bad that no soundtrack is available. I would really like to get a copy of the song. I don't even know the name of the song, because the credits are squished at the end of the movie to make room for hundreds of promos. Anyway, the cast is great. It is always nice to see Brenda Vaccaro. She is very bubbly and upbeat. Lauren Holly is always a plus and Costas Mandylor rounds out the good guys with a wonderful performance. Professional chef Wolfgang Puck has a guest appearance. The movie is worth watching. This is a great Valentine's Day gift. A gorgeous guy and a pretty girl fall in love while trying to beat the competition at a baking contest. Very romantic. I'm a real fan of Costas Mandylor since his days at Picket Fences and he hasn't lost his appeal. Lauren Holly is still lovely and adorable and the two still have great chemistry together. The supporting cast was good as well. Seeing all those wonderful desserts being made was a delicious sight in itself. I loved that Costas and Lauren teamed up to win in the baking competition and in love. This is the kind of film that satifies all palates, romantic and otherwise. Hallmark always shows excellence in their programming and this is no exception. The whole family can view this film. Also shows that sometimes love triumphs over any adversity. I found myself sighing and wishing for more for this film and also yearning for those wonderful desserts. I recommend this film highly for all ages. A great treat for all. I watched this movie because of Costas Mandylor and Lauren Holly. I adored them together on Picket Fences, so it was a treat to see them together again. This was not the best movie ever made, but it was cute. Very predictable, but sometimes mindlessly fun movies are just what I need.

The desserts were gorgeous, and I wanted to eat all of them. I did love it when that one fell apart though. I bet it still tasted good.

Costas and Lauren still had the great chemistry that they had back on Picket Fences, and I swooned as they kissed in this movie.

I wouldn't watch this again, but it was a great filler for one night. Marco Poloni (Costas Mandylor) was born into a baking family in the Bronx. Although the Polonis have been well known for their confections over the decades, the business has fallen on hard times. Meanwhile, Grace Carpenter (Lauren Holly) is a most talented dessert maker in Manhattan but, she can not seem to land a prime confectionery position because of the glass ceiling. An accidental meeting between Marco and Grace results in a conversation about a possible solution for them both. There is a high profile bake-off, The Golden Whisk, taking place in the near future and Marco wants Grace to partner with him. There is a hefty amount of "dough", haha, at stake for the winners, enough to set Grace up in her own business and save the Polonis eatery, too. Reluctantly, Grace agrees. But, there are complications. Some of the judges and fellow contestants may have past issues with both Grace and Marco. Then, too, although Marco and Grace both feel some sort of attraction for the other, Grace has a long standing, very rich boyfriend. Can Marco and Grace win the contest? This is a lovely film for the romantic at heart. First, there is the nice cast. Holly has always been a lovely actress with a notable husky voice that furthers her attractions. In this film, she is perfectly cast as the determined but beautiful Grace. Mandylor, a newcomer, delights, too as the good-looking rival baker. The rest of the actors, including the wonderful Brenda Vaccaro as Marco's mother, is quite nice. As a Hallmark movie, the costumes, sets, and production amenities are beyond reproach and the script still manages to seem fresh and funny, despite some familiar themes. Treat yourself, romcom lovers, to a most sweet confection by securing a viewing of this film. It is definitely the movie equivalent of a big box of quality chocolates. I loved this movie, it was cute and funny! Lauren Holly was wonderful, she's funny and very believable in her role. Costas Mandylan was also very good, nice to look at too!! Brenda Vaccaro, as usual was a pleasure to watch, she did a great job with her character. It was a pleasure watching a movie that is funny, interesting and can be watched by the whole family. It's difficult to find nice wholesome movies anymore. Thank goodness for the Hallmark movies, they are wonderful! I wish I could buy it, if anyone knows where I could purchase this movie, please let me know!! I have purchase several Hallmark movies and am very happy with them. I hope I can buy this one!! A charming movie enhanced by the musical and vocal background, especially during the competition. My understanding is that there was never a soundtrack but could you, through your sources, advise me where I might get information on the singer and the likelihood of getting a copy of the song he sang. Your help would be appreciated. The song really touched me and my wife and we would like to secure a copy wherever possible so that we might play it as background music when we have our family and friends over for our "Italian Nights". If you are able to get this information to us we would be eternally grateful. Even if you can advise of the studio contact so that we might go direct.

Regards,

John Payling There are a number of reviews that comment on the cast of this film. Suffice it to say that Alex Cord plays a strong lead opposite Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy. What concerns me is that many of you may not be aware of the (at least) two existing versions of this film. In the U.S. version Clay McCord gains amnesty from Governor Lem Carter and then rides out of town redeemed. I agree that ending is less than satisfying. However, in the original Italian cut Clay McCord rides out of town (weaponless as he has turned in his pistols to the Governor) and is bushwhacked by the bounty hunters that have been slowly depopulating the bandit town of Escondido. The Bounty Killers are excited at the prospect of splitting the $10,000 reward but are disappointed to find McCord's amnesty agreement in the corpses pocket. As they ride away one is heard to comment,"If this amnesty keeps up I'm gonna start hunting buffalo !" . This alone takes A Minute To Pray...A Second To Die and places it on an even playing field with movies like Keoma and The Big Gundown. As the end credits say in the Italian cut "FINE". The cast alone tells you this will be a notch above the usual Italian western. Veteran actors Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy team up with Alex Cord who, at the time, seemed on the verge of stardom. The result is a movie that's both off-beat and down-beat and yet it'll satisfy those who seek more from a western than just gunplay. Especially interesting here is the character played by Alex Cord. One expects the "hero" in these westerns to be taciturn and introspective, but "Clay McCord" is an extreme example and, surprisingly enough, he's often shone in a passive, even weak position. Much is made of the fact that he fears falling prey to the epileptic fits which immobilized his father, and in these moments of helplessness he's either at the mercy of those who wish to harm him or those who wish to help him. To emphasize his passivity, Clay McCord -- don't you love that name? -- is often shone stripped to the waist as if he were little more than an attractive plaything being put on display. There's even a strong masochistic streak in his nature, most in evidence when he's used as a punching bag by his enemies and then suspended by his wrists and left hanging above the middle of a street. Not only does he often fail to protect himself, but McCord is equally ineffective in protecting those around him. Nearly everyone who helps him is killed.

While "A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die" is far from being a complete success, it has a depth and a tone which sets it apart and causes it to linger in the memory. It's also a good showcase for Alex Cord whose career tended to decline after this point following a few promising years in the mid-1960s. He must have been about 36 years old when he filmed this -- in his physical prime -- and the scene of him hanging by his wrists, bare-chested and sweaty, is a memorable piece of cinematic "beefcake." "A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die" is a quality spaghetti western with a solid cast and an interesting storyline. It is filmed beautifully, with a relatively high production value for a film in this genre.

Alex Cord does a terrific job portraying Clay McCord, an outlaw who is suffering from increasingly debilitating seizures. He is seeking amnesty before his enemies close in on him, but is being too cocky for his own good when he asks for it. Robert Ryan delivers the best performance in the film as the governor of New Mexico. Mario Brega and Arthur Kennedy are also great here.

This movie is very good, but it doesn't stand out to me as being one of the best spaghetti westerns out there. It's lacking too much in style to be in the same league as any of the great ones. It does have some cool spaghetti overtones, but overall it's a bit too much like an American western. This is especially evident in the music score, which is OK as movies go in general, but pretty dull by euro-western standards. The soundtrack kind of reminds me of the music from "The Unforgiven." Although there is an interesting story here, it is told in a manner which is a bit too conventional for my tastes. If a spaghetti western fan and a Hollywood western fan had to watch a movie together, this one would be the perfect compromise.

All of this is not to say that anyone should avoid this film. I did enjoy watching it very much. As I said, it is a very well-done film and I recommend it to anyone who likes westerns, spaghetti or otherwise. I caught this for the first time a few nights ago on television. I expected to only tune in for a few minutes, but found myself intrigued by the movie. I ended up watching it all and found it surprisingly compelling. The acting by the three American leads was quite good, especially that of Alex Cord. He plays a gunslinger with quite a degree of vulnerability. Very different from how most of them are portrayed in westerns. He ended up in several situations where he was at the mercy of the bounty hunters. The final shootout between the three leads and the bad guys was very good, as was the scene where the doctor digs a bullet out of Clay McCord. Somewhat gruesome, but realistic. I must admit that, despite my initial misgivings at watching a "spaghetti western", I ended up enjoying this film quite a bit. I would recommend it to anyone who likes westerns. I found this to be an underrated, quietly compelling Spaghetti Western (also known as DEAD OR ALIVE). Despite modest credentials (apart from multi-purpose co-writer/producer Albert Band, the only notable crew member is composer Carlo Rustichelli), the film clearly benefits from the presence of its three American stars (newcomer Alex Cord is an ambiguous anti-hero, while veterans Arthur Kennedy and Robert Ryan lend a mythic quality to the proceedings) as well as the unusual plot (involving a crippled protagonist, an amnesty ruse covering a strategic clean-up of the town, and which has the law finally siding with the gunfighter against a horde of Mexican bandits).

There are several tough action scenes on hand – the film is capped by a terrific climax in which the star trio is besieged inside a blazing cabin – plus a couple of outrageous moments which are something of a Spaghetti Western trademark: from the middle of the street, Cord sees a hidden gunman at a window reflected in a whiskey bottle; a man who helps Cord escape is repeatedly immersed in a pool of oil by the villains. Nicoletta Machiavelli also makes a nice impression as a village girl with whom Cord lodges; the supporting cast, then, is peppered with familiar (if largely anonymous) faces – all of them essentially genre fixtures.

I wasn't aware of the fact that the English-dubbed version of the film on MGM/UA's R1 DVD was cut: I was fooled by the wrong running-time being listed on the back-cover; the film was only 99 minutes long and not 118 – apparently, Cord's character is killed in the longer Italian version! In A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die, Clay McCord (Alex Cord) is an unhappy outlaw with a ten thousand dollar bounty on his head and degenerative epilepsy.

Realizing his days as an outlaw are numbered, he wants desperately (though somewhat reluctantly) to take advantage of an amnesty being granted by rough and tumble territorial governor Robert Ryan, (excellent performance) who badly wants McCord to renounce his ways and accept the amnesty as an example to others while in the bandit hub of Escondito, outlaw Mario Brega plans to kill McCord to stop that from happening.

Also starring Arthur Kennedy, Aldo Sambrell and a slew of other familiar European faces, this is co-written and produced by (American) spaghetti western pioneer Albert Band, also responsible for the pre-Leone film Gunfight At Red Sands.

Though the solution to the main character's "epilepsy" is lifted straight out of Howard Hawks' El Dorado, the script is solid, pretty fresh and unpretentious. This has a great balance of action and story and Alex Cord is great in it. He really should have been a bigger star.

In defense of the shorter (well dubbed) English version: personally I'm past that age where the longer version is always the better version and the ending where McCord is ironically gunned down by grimy bounty hunters after his pardon, is needlessly nihilistic and completely destroys the film's message about hope and redemption.

Call me old-fashioned, but I rooted for McCord and felt he earned that happy ending! This movie fully deserves to be one of the top Hindi comedies ever made . Rajkumar Santoshi is mostly known for his gritty hard-hitting social dramas , but this is easily the most effortless movie he has made .

The plot revolves around two small-town buffoons Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) . They want to get rich quick and so move to the big city . They hatch the same plan separately - to woo a rich heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) who is the daughter of a rich businessman Ramgopal Bajaj (Paresh Rawal) . Thus the one who marries Raveena gets his hands on all her wealth . but when they get to know each other's plan , there is an intense tussle of one-oneupmanship over who marries Raveena . Hilarious gags and situations ensue as the battle rages on .

At the same time Ramgopal Bajaj's identical twin brother Shyamgopal Bajaj wants to eliminate his brother and niece and usurp the family fortune . Add to this an assortment of funny characters including a Raveena's maid Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) , a mistake-prone butler named Robert (Vijoo Khote) , a manager named Bhalla (Shehzad Khan) who mimics yesteryear's villain Ajeet and a funny gangster Gogo (Shakti Kapoor) who looks more like a pirate and a rollicking comedy awaits you .

Do not waste your time looking for LOGIC in the movie . Leave the company of your brains and just ENJOY . The actors are so much in sync with the script that no room is left for mistakes . Dialogues (Rajkumar Santoshi , Dilip Shukla) are witty . Music (Tushar Bhatia) and lyrics (Majrooh Sultanpuri) are memorable . The picturization and choreography (Saroj Khan) of "Yeh Raat Aur Yeh Doori" , "Ae Lo Ji Sanam" and "Dil Karta Hai Tere Paas Aaoon" is fitting and will remain etched in my mind forever .

The film starred two superstars-in-the-making , Aamir Khan and Salman Khan (they eventually became superstars) . Aamir Khan is impeccable in his first all-out comedy role . I salute his sense of comic timing . Salman pales in comparison with Aamir but is still likable . Among the supporting characters , Paresh Rawal stands out in his dual role of Ramgopal and Shyamgopal .

The movie surprisingly failed at the box office . I fail to understand why . I recommend it to all nevertheless . There have been very few great comedy films in the history of Hindi Cinema. Andaz Apna Apna happens to be one of them. The film is based on a very simple story of two poor young men (Aamir and Salman) who dream of becoming rich by marrying a millionaire's daughter (Raveena). Aamir and Salman Khan try their best to outwit each other and woo Raveena. The plot thickens when Paresh Rawal & Co. plan to take over all the wealth. The movie is well paced and very funny. Rarely does one come across a Hindi comedy which is both funny and intelligent. This is one of the few films with Aamir and Salman together (probably the only film!). Unfortunately it did not succeed at the box-office, and we might never see a film of this calibre again. Aamir Khan is brilliant in the film and has proved his versatility as an actor in this film. Salman Khan gives a very good performance as a dim-wit. Raveena plays a convincing role as a confused rich girl, and Karishma who is Raveena's assistant/friend is also funny. Paresh Rawal, Junior Ajith, Shakti Kapoor, Deven Verma, Jagdeep and Tiku Talsania just add to the flavour of the film! All in all, the best Hindi comedy ever made and I wish they make more quality films like this one. You will want to watch this film time and again.

P.S - For those of you who have watched this film, I also suggest Gol Maal, Chupke Chupke, Chhoti Si Baat, Naram Garam, Hera Pheri (old and new), etc. This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top. Andaz Apna Apna is by far my second favorite comedy of all time, first being Namak Halal (even though that was technically a drama). Story is nothing groundbreaking, but the complications that are added to it make it awesome. Aamir Khan is a total cartoon. Just watch his expressions in the song Yeh Raat aur yeh doori. He is amazingly good at comedy, I never knew. Salman Khan was also good as the somewhat dimmer of the two characters. The noises he makes are almost as funny as Aamir's faces. Raveena and karisma serve their purpose but are nothing amazing. The real pick of the lot is Paresh Rawal as usual.

The plot is rather simple, Amar (Aamir) and Prem (Salman) are useless sons of poor fathers. They don't believe in hard work and just want to get rich the easy way. So both their brains come across an idea to woo a rich man's (Paresh Rawal) daughter (Raveena Tandon) who comes to India to look for a husband. So Amar and Prem meet on the trip and join hands to drive off the hundreds of other men trying to marry this girl. When they succeed, they now have to get rid of each other. Somehow both of them get into Raveena's house, Amar as an injured guy and Prem as his doctor. From here on they try to oust each other. But things are complicated as Raveena's friend (Karisma Kapoor) falls for Prem and pursues him. And rich man's evil twin brother (Rawal also) tries to get rid of the heiress and her father so he will inherit the money and sends in his two most trusted but bumbling fools to do the dirty work.

This is a movie you do not want to miss. Watch it! It will be worth it. I even own the DVD, its that good. And if you like this movie, I'd also recommend Gol Maal if you haven't already watched it. Other good comedies are Namak Halal and Hera Pheri (new). Through the years I've been very much interested in the life of this teenager who left such a profound, indelible mark on the world. My fascination has also been born of fear, as in, could this happen again.

And throughout the ensuing years, yes, I fear 'it' continues to happen around us and of course 'it' was happening long before Anne. The 'it' of course is can a so-called civilized society turn on its own or on an innocent country/race/continent and murder citizens in cold blood on the flimsiest of excuses? I leave that question out there.

At the beginning of the documentary there is a statement about the leader Adolf Hitler in that the one profound fact about Hitler that is never mentioned was that he was elected democratically and all of the atrocities committed were done as the result of a compliant poodle-press and fear-mongering propaganda played over and over again for a docile population.

One of the atrocities was Anne Frank, who put a face to the death camps by the miracle of her diary's survival.

Kenneth Brannagh does a wonderful job on the commentary and interviewing, he has that rare gift of minimizing his own persona thus allowing the subjects to speak for themselves.

Many new facts and people never before interviewed are brought to life in the meticulous research, which I will not go into here as they add immeasurably to the reality and gut wrenching sorrow of the film.

Glenn Close reads selections from the diary and her voice is perfect for the part, she brings a naiveté and freshness to the role.

Old childhood friends of Anne's are interviewed at length and her last days before death are well recorded and witnessed along with her vibrant and mischievous personality.

This is not to be missed. A wonderful and respectful film about the seldom seen Anne.

10 out of 10. As good as Schindler's List was, I found this movie much more powerful as it is a documentary and based on real life. It details the story of the Frank family, and Anne in particular. Although it is a bit slow moving at first (detailing their family life before the war); it becomes very powerful.

Due to some of the footage and photos of the camps, I would not recommend it for children but for adults, it illustrates the horror of the Holocaust through one young girl. Highly recommended. I've read "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl" when I was in high school, and found myself completely engrossed in her story, and also in the Broadway play of her life in the Secret Annexe.

However, I'm a little perplexed about how people have perceived her diary and of her as a person, seeing her as a little saint or having a message of hope for the world. I don't think that was the original intention of her diary. She wrote it mainly for herself, even though she did make some rigorous rewrites before the occupants of the Secret Annexe were betrayed, intending it to be published someday.

But I never saw her as a saint or as a messenger of hope...but as a very talented writer who could express her thoughts very well and very entertainingly in a diary. No doubt she was a very engaging writer, and she did possess an extraordinary talent with expressing herself fully with words. You really got to know her well through her diary. But the importance of her diary lies in the fact that it is a testament and an important historical document of the proof that the Holocaust did happen.

It also brought the tragedy of the Holocaust closer to home, to lose someone that we could put a familiar face and personality to, at such a young age...literally having had her young life ripped away from her and from the other occupants who were murdered in the Holocaust. It's a searing indictment of the Nazis systematic murder of over 6 million Jews, and that should not be forgotten.

But it's sad to me that her diary is being so misconstrued as anything more than that. When I look for hope, I have the Bible...the first most widely read non-fiction book in the world. God's Words in the Bible is eternal...but Anne's diary is a diary of a young girl under extraordinary circumstances, and that is it. She is not someone to be worshiped or idolized, because she was an ordinary girl with many flaws, who possessed incredible talent as a writer, and who died at age 15 from typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. She was a victim of the Holocaust, and as this otherwise excellent documentary has so vividly testified, she was Hitler's most famous victim.

Besides the Anne Frank's story...the stories from her family members and friends and survivors of the Holocaust were engrossing, vivid and powerful. I especially enjoyed Miep Gies' testimony, and marvel that she is still strong and alive today. Hannah Goslar's testimony was also very interesting. And I also liked hearing from Otto Frank. But I also agree that the moving picture of the young girl with the dark hair and the familiar big eyes at the end was particularly memorable.

Another thing about the Holocaust that I kind of disagree with the documentary...is that I don't believe it was just a matter of discrimination...but rather something deeper and more profound, and that was just an act of pure evil. Pure evil. Nothing else but pure evil.

Excellent documentary of Anne Frank and of the Holocaust that should be watched. This is a film that every child should see before they grow and get distorted often passed down ideas from generation to generation of family. I grew up in two different places although only 20 miles apart. I went to school & had friends of every color creed & religion for the first 8 years of my life. Then I moved to hillbilly country (although not anymore) where it was very unusual to even have one African-American kid in your class. My graduating class in high school had 2 or 3 African-Amercians (god why can't I just say Black? You can call me a honky or whitey or whatever! all of this political correctness peeves me as it does most others!) Anyway back to the film give this a try to see what happens when people get a distorted view or just what ignorance or a lack of understanding does to a culture or a country! This is an excellent film everyone should see especially children. After World War II the ungoing crime in Phenix City, Alabama, encouraged by the money from an Army base just across the river in Georgia, got even worse. Gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and the like helped an organized crime apparatus in the city. Soon it was too bad and violent to even tolerate anymore. This movie is based on the real story of that fight.

By the standards of the 1950's it was shockingly explicit. Although low-budget, that same small budget helped with the realism requiring location shooting. A very gritty film. Richard Kiley was marvelous as always, and John McIntire stolid.

Why this good movie isn't on video is a real puzzle! During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of "The Well"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of "The Blair Witch Project" but this one IS based on REAL events! To view the fictionalized biography "The Phenix City Story", I claim, is to enter fields where U.S. filmmakers have seldom ventured, Director Phil Karlson got his directorial assignment on "The Untouchables" TV mega-hit series largely on the basis of "Kansas City Confidential" and this film; and it has become one of the most admired and most- imitated movies ever made. The rarest feat for US filmmakers seems to be the hero-centered purposeful anti-crime film or TV series; I remind the viewer how mightily "Cain's Hundred"'s and "Hardcastle and McCormick"'s and even "the Untouchables'"' producers had to work to produce anything but episodes devoted largely to the unfictional activities of criminals rather than those of their ethical opponents. This powerful, seminal and very-gritty movie has a style all its own; and its lesson seems to be attention to detail about the opponents and victims of criminal organizations as well as their gang members. There is a twelve-minute prelude to the film, in which reporter Clete Roberts interviews the real participants from the Alabama city's who had struggled against its corrupt vice gangs. The problem grew out of the presence of Fort Benning across the river, and the nearly century-long existence of vice dens in the area. The film details the return of John Patterson from Germany where he has been a prosecutor. His father, defeated for Attorney general of Alabama, refuses to join his pursuit of the 14th street vicelords despite several provocations including a beating of his son, avenged by Patterson on his tormentor. There are several well-developed characters, including Ellie, who works in one of the clubs and her honest boyfriend, the leader of the syndicate, the Pattersons and John's wife, Ed Gage, the vicelords' operatives and Zeke Ward, an honest black man victimized for his opposition to them. The cinematography by Harry Neumann and the art direction by Stanley Fleischer are in B/W and are very much like news-film, adding to the film's realistic power. Music by Harry Sukman contributes to the film effectively. Writer Daniel Mainwaring and Crane Wilbur produced a swift-paced and straightforward story that divides into parts. Part one illustrates the vicelords' empire from inside one of their clubs, showing the fate of a victim who is beaten and then picked up by police in the pay of the Mob. In part two, Albert Patterson refuses to oppose the leader of the Mob, the intelligent Rhett Tanner. In part three, young Patterson returns and after several incidents including his having to beat up the Mob's head goon to avenge his own beating decides to run his father for Attorney General of the state. His wife is horrified; and the Mob kills Zeke Ward's daughter and dumps the body at Patterson's house with a warning his children will be next. A few more such incidents, including the loss of a trial in which the Pattersons prove the goon killed a friend of theirs who had found the car implicated in the murder of the little girl, and watch the inquest declare the death accidental, convince Patterson to run, and he wins the Democratic statewide nomination despite the Mob's statist tactics--and is promptly assassinated. John Patterson stops a vigilante crowd from starting open warfare with the 14th Street mob and uses their voices to call the capital and demand martial law for Phenix City. The clubs are closed and equipment confiscated, but not before the girl inside is murdered by the Mob's goon, and Patterson has to be stopped by Zeke Ward from killing Tanner instead of delivering him to the law. The drama's ending is upbeat; but the prognosis for the town is less- sanguine than painted; the mob in fact tried to come back then moved to Tennessee. In this well-acted classic of anti-crime film-making, Richard Kiley is young but very strong as Patterson, playing it without an accent. John Mcintyre as his father is very good, while Edward Andrews as Boss Tanner is award caliber. Others in the cast include Kathryn Grant as the girl inside, Ellie, Jean Carson and Kathy Marlowe as the Mob's women, John Larch as their goon, Biff Mcguire as the young victim, James Edwards as Zeke Ward, Lenka Peterson as John's wife, and some good character actors as townsmen and Mob bosses. It is I suggest hard to say enough good things about the realism and lack of posturing in this film; it is certainly one of Phil Karlson's best directorial efforts. Karlson also did "The Scarface Mob" later did "Walking Tall" as well. A sobering and inspiring look at the ease with which complacent citizens of a public-interest democracy can acquiesce to tyranny, and how a few honest men can teach them the need to fight for their rights. Having been brought up in Phenix City as a child, I recognize many of the local people in the movie, so for me, it's like a trip down memory lane to see "The Phenix City Story" again. As a matter of fact, my granduncle is in it in one of the very first scenes. Uncle Drew's the one in the Hawaiian shirt who scoots his chair out to get a better look at the singer/stripper.

Unless you've been there, like Mr. Page and I both have, you couldn't possibly understand the story it tells. The reviewer from New York calls John Patterson racist, most likely without ever having had an encounter with Mr. Patterson or his father. And what is your point in bringing up Mr. Patterson's employment now? It has nothing to do with the film that you're supposedly reviewing. How in the world can you sit back and judge either them or this film when you've probably gone no further yourself than the south Bronx? It's been my experience that people who do that are simply attempting to feel morally superior to the folks portrayed in the movie. By most accounts of the time, both Mr. Pattersons were basically good and decent men. Their families were respectable people, as were most of the people who lived in Phenix City.

By the way, why is so hard for those who live outside of the south to believe that there are good and decent people even in small towns in Alabama? And why do they assume that everyone living in a small southern town is a racist? My parents lived there and yet, they didn't tolerate it in our household. Others didn't tolerate it either, but the myth that everyone in the south is racist lives on through the willful ignorance of others.

The movie itself is simple and direct. It isn't the whole story --- Hollywood added a certain sensationalism when the film was made. Parts of it were absolutely on target. Other parts of it bordered on fairy tales. And if it's the source that anyone uses to decide how folks in small southern towns are, they need to get a grip and understand what most of us do --- it's ONLY a movie. "The Phenix City Story" is a brutal, hard-hitting docudrama about what was once dubbed the "wickedest town in America." The film documents the events that led up to the murder by the Phenix City crime syndicate of Albert Patterson, an Alabama attorney who made a bid for the state attorney general's office as a way to clean up the vice and corruption plaguing his hometown. His son, John Patterson, picked up his father's mantle after his death and won the post, making clean up of Phenix City a primary item on his agenda.

Director Phil Karlson created a film that has the ability to shock even today. The grimness is so relentless that the film is actually difficult to watch. We see the crime syndicate beat and kill in order to get what they want -- the beatings and killings include women and children, and one scene in particular, revolving around the death of a little black girl, is especially disturbing. It's not exactly an enjoyable film, because there's very little payoff at the end to reward the viewer for sitting through the infuriating events leading up to it, but it's a well made film, full of an intense and angry energy.

A 15-minute prologue includes a series of interviews with the actual inhabitants of Phenix City, some of who are then portrayed by actors in the fictional portion of the film. It lends the film a quality of urgency that carries over into the narrative, so that we feel like we're watching a documentary the entire time, a feeling that's helped by Karlson's choice to film on actual locations.

I'm glad I saw this movie, but it's one of those films that fills you with a sense of righteous indignation and then makes you feel helpless because you can't do anything about it.

Grade: A **SPOILERS** Shocking yet true story of the horror that befell the Alabama/Georgia border town of Phenix when it was taken over by a gang of organized hoodlums who turn it into the Sin City of the South.

With crime skyrocketing and no one to turn to a group of concerned citizens get well respected Phenix lawyer Albert Patterson, John McIntire, to run for the office of State District Attorney. With the criminal element of Phenix doing everything, from intimidation to outright murder, to keep the voters form getting Patterson the nomination he still wins with the other 86 counties of the state, not including Phenix's Russell County, giving him the nod by just over 1,000 votes.

Terrified in what Patterson would do when he takes office head of the Phenix Mob Rett Tanner, Edward Andrews, has a hit put out on him. Patterson is gunned down while driving to his office but his killers are spotted by Ellie Rhodes, Kathryn Grant, who soon becomes, through an informer in Patterson's office, Tanner's next person in line to be targeted for murder. What Tanner & Co. didn't expect is that the late Albert Patterson's son John, Richard Kiley, got the news from Ellie about his dad's murder before his boys could shut her up! That major miscalculation on Tanner's part will end up putting an end to both his criminal organization as well as his freedom!

Powerful documentary-style crime movie with the actual persons involved in the events given some 15 minutes, at the start of the film, to tell their stories. This despite the fact that they were still in danger of being murdered by the Tanner Mob that was still at large at the time their interviews were filmed!

Finishing what his brave dad started John Patterson single handedly brought the story of Phenix City to the front pages of both the state and national newspapers giving Tanner the very negative publicity that he tried so hard to avoid. With the now Alabama National Guard flooding into Phenix City the blood-thirsty and gutless, in not willing to stand up to people with guns in their hands, Tanner Mob evaporated from sight like a morning mist after the sunlight hits it! And with John Patterson now taking the place of his murdered dad as the state of Alabama's new Attorney General you can be sure that the Patterson Mob has seen its last days of pushing people around as well as murdering them. The only thing that they'll see now in the future is the gray prison walls and bars that will be their home sweet home for the rest of their rotten and miserable lives!

Very probably the most graphically violent movie to come out of Hollywood up to that time "The Phenix City Story" didn't pull any punches in showing how a group of lawless and powerful criminals can turn a quite American city into living hell for everyone in it. No one was speared from these ruthless gangsters who didn't even think twice when it came to murdering even women and children if that's what it took to keep them in power! As for the Phenix City Police Departmentn they had better thing to do then enforced the law that they were sworn and paid to uphold. They were out having coffee and donut's while their city was being burned to the ground by the gangsters like Tanner who had them in their hip pocket! Born in 1946 I was about eight years old when first viewing this movie and it left a deep impression.Not only scary ,for lack of a better word this movie haunted me for more than 50 years.The mob goon played by John Larch was terrifying.The only scene that stuck out in my mind during those 50 years was the killing of the little girl and the uncaring policeman referring to her as a "little n----- kid".Those words were replaced when the movie was shown recently on TV,maybe there are two versions of the movie or someone felt compelled to alter a little bit this heart breaking scene.Accurate or not the film went a long way in formulating my opinion of the South and still till today the closest I've come to visiting a southern city is El Paso.That stand may seem extreme but there is a little bit more to the story.When the movie was shown recently it became clearer why it haunted me for years.With the newsreel like beginning this movie gives the impression that what is being shown is fact.The film is made supposedly only one or two years after the depicted incidents adding to its realistic credibility.The terror in the movie isn't provided by creatures or space aliens but by persons living in our society at the time.Re killing of little girl:The recent viewing helped make clearer the impact it had on my 8 year old mind.When this movie came out the only school I had ever gone to was attended by mostly African-Americans.The victim looked like a girl in my class,it was like seeing an actual killing.It made a horrible scene that much worse.Maybe no one will find this review helpful but it helped me. I'm from Phoenix city and the first time i saw this movie and read the book it only confirmed the stories i had heard all of my life. i asked my grandfather about the mob and he told me that when he got back from fighting in the pacific theatre he started up a CPA firm that is know the largest in the Columbus area. when he was just starting out he was asked by the mob to do financial work for them, but he said that he gently declined. even when the FBI and army came through Phoenix city and cleaned it up my grandfather wouldn't take it lightly when my mom, aunt, or uncle went across the river, but i assure you all of that is over now. the downtown area of Phoenix city is in need of restoration and it has slums by the courthouse where all of the shooting STILL OCCASIONALLY takes place over angry, uneducated, low socio-economic people, and the 14th street Phoenix-eagle bridge has been shut down for a solid 15 years and replaced by a newer 13th street bridge, but on the more fair side of Phoenix city on summerville rd. it is very quaint and the scenery depressing.

another incident was told to me by my best friend's family from high school that lives in a nothing spot on hwy 165 called Holy Trinity, Alabama, which is about 28 minutes outside of Columbus, Ga. my best friend in high school's uncle was a man that went by the name of Old Man Davis. regardless of how the movie goes, that fact is that there were 3 bosses and Old Man Davis was one of them...you can even read about him in the original book. legend has it that he was so cold-blooded that he went to downtown Phoenix city to make a deal with a man, but apparently the man backed out on the deal right in front of Old Man Davis, so the Old Man Davis proceeded to take a sawed off shotgun out of his coat and shoot the man in the chest in the middle of town by the courthouse. they say he even walked off nonchalantly because the mob had paid off every law enforcement official in town so he had nothing to worry about.

another incident is about a bridge that another one of my friends owns a rental house next to in downtown Phoenix city. it is the same bridge that the mob killed and threw a black man off of, and you can even read that part in the book. i also would like to as that in many columbus and Phoenix city civilians were asked to be extras in the movie. when the patterson's friend is murdered and brought to trial and proved guilty in front of the judge but still set free, well, the judge is my fathers partner in his law firm in columbus, who unfortunatlly is deceased. The movie is a starter to what really happened in Phenix City. I'm a grandchild of the people who really lived the story. The truth never has come out to my knowledge. I have tried to find the whole story out but the people who lived it are still scared to tell it. Phenix City is still run by crooked people. Albert Patterson was not quite the saint the story wants you to believe. The story was filmed in Phenix City. It still has some of the famous sites in it that you see in the movie. The Colonal Funeral Home still looks exactly the same. But if you are wanting the real history of Sin City you have to visit us and find people willing to tell you about Ma beachies and her kindness. She didn't get the name ma for nothing. While I score the movie a 7, I also should point out that it is both interesting historically (as it stars Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish and Lionel Barrymore when they were all younger and less well-known) and features pretty exciting action for its day.

The plot is odd for a Western, in that all the trouble with the Indians begins for the weirdest reason I have ever seen! The Indians decide to have a giant dog banquet (no, they are not feeding dogs, but feeding ON dogs) and when two Indians arrive late, there are not pooches left! So, they steal two dogs belonging to two orphans from the nearby White settlement and this actually touches off an all-out war!!!! Not only is this silly, but seems to play on the prejudices of audiences. I don't know if American Indians actually ate dog, but it sounds like the sort of stereotype that later was applied to other ethnic groups. All this over dogs! The movie has some excellent battle scenes and exciting moments--such as when Ms. Marsh crawls across the battlefield to save a baby! Exciting stuff! But, STRANGE, too! It's hard to imagine that "The Battle of Elderbush Gulch", directed by the legendary D.W. Griffith, was made a way back in 1914. It is a showcase for Griffith's emerging style.

The story centers around a group of settlers called the Cameron Brothers and their families which include a young waif (Mae Marsh) sent out from the east to live with her uncles and a young wife (Lillian Gish) who has just given birth. A group of Indians tries to capture the waif's pet dogs and are driven off by the men folk. During the confrontation the Indian Chief's son (Henry B. Wathall) is killed. The Indian chief plots his revenge and launches an attack on the small community of Elderbush Gulch.

It is this attack, which is quite brutal and graphic for this or any other time, that forms the core of the picture. The Indians slaughter the towns folk, women and children alike and drive them out of town towards the Cameron's homestead. The newborn baby becomes separated from its mother and all hell breaks loose. Someone goes for help and returns in the nick of time with the calvary.

The battle scenes contain some graphic violence. For example, we see a woman being scalped alive and there is also a sequence where we see a horse being shot down. I have never seen an animal being slain so convincingly on screen. Mr.Griffith was becoming a master of staging large scale battle scenes, a talent that he would use extensively in his epic Civil War drama, "The Birth of a Nation" released the following year.

Even though it runs a scant 29 minutes, "The Battle of Elderbush Gulch" is nonetheless an exciting and historic bit of film making. See if you can spot Lionel Barrymore and Harry Carey in bit parts. Epic early film, directed by D.W. Griffith. Mae Marsh, her little sister, and their dogs are orphaned - they must go to live with an uncle. Aboard their coach is young couple Lillian Gish and Robert Harron, celebrating the birth of their first child. The coach arrives in Elderbush Gluch. Marsh's uncle tells her she can't keep the dogs, and they are put out. There are Indians (Native Americans) nearby; and, Indians love to eat dog meat (no kidding?). These Indians are hungry! Lionel Barrymore is sympathetic to Ms. Marsh, desiring to help her recover the runaway dogs. While rescuing the puppies, an Indian is shot - resulting in a "Cowboys vs. Indians" confrontation.

This "Saga of the American West" is certainly an important film; however, the reliable Griffith performers begin to overplay their hands, and the story is too contrived. Many of the Griffith elements are in place - some good, and a few bad. "The Battle at Elderbush Gluch" foreshadows the later epic, "Birth of a Nation".

******* The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (3/28/14) D.W. Griffith ~ Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Lillian Gish Some of the reviewers here have foolishly judged this silent film by political-correctness standards of today.

"Battle" was an excellent film for several reasons, correctly noted by more rational reviewers: Superb cast, lots of action, innovative editing and photography.

Its stars were in effect the D.W. Griffith stock company and to this silent movie fan, that is inducement enough to watch it and to enjoy it.

I saw it many years ago and just watched it again at YouTube; that was a very poor quality print, but coupled with my memory of a good print in a real theater, I can justifiably recommend this to reasonable people and film historians. The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch was Griffith's longest and most expensive short he had made up to that point. In it we see him trying to perfect the large-scale action scene that would be necessary in his full-length features, packing in all the elements that had made his previous action shorts successful.

Griffith uses the western format – already the ideal backdrop for pure, straight-ahead action set pieces – as the setting for his first epic battle. Like many westerns of the 1910s, the starting point is a character from the east heading out west – a device which perhaps helped ease the audience into the wilderness, and here those easterners are a pair of children, which was important for the type of picture this develops into. For Griffith, you couldn't have action without a sense of vulnerability and here he crams it in, with the kids from back east, Lillian Gish as the distraught mother of "the only baby in town" and even some puppies that are at risk of ending up on the Indians' menu.

All this paves the way for an exceedingly complex and layered action sequence, blending the trapped heroine scenario and the ride-to-the-rescue with the battles that Griffith had been depicting since his earliest Civil War pictures in 1909. There is a phenomenal amount going on here, and Griffith does very well at maintaining the exhilarating pace throughout and keeping everything coherent and logical. However, juggling x amount of elements in an action sequence does not necessarily make it that many times more exciting, no matter how skilfully they are balanced, and Griffith did create better tension-soaked finales before and after this one.

But even a Griffith picture so heavily focused on action would not be without its drama, characterisation and atmospherics. In The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch, the emotional set-up is dealt with briefly but economically. First, we have the scene in which the waifs leave their home. The cart they travel on heads away from the camera, making use of depth and distance to express their moving away from safety and civilization. An equally effective scene is the one in which we are introduced to the young family of Gish, Bobby Harron and their baby. The people of the town coo over the precious tot, then saunter off screen, revealing that two Indians were watching them from the background, adding a sinister little note of danger.

Of course, many viewers today have pointed out The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch's offensive portrayal of Native Americans (in contrast with the more sympathetic Red Man's View), but perhaps all is not what it seems. First of all, take a look at the Indian Chief's son's waistcoat – it's black and covered in shiny white dots. It looks to me like a pearly king's jacket, perhaps modified slightly for the warmer climate. Now have a look at the "war dance" they perform later on – it has a certain "knees-up Mother Brown" air to it. These aren't Indians, they're cockneys! So it shouldn't be offensive to Native Americans. Just cockneys. This movie really proves that the world is all too often an unfair place, especially the world of motion pictures. "The Assignment" received barely any attention upon it's release and not surprisingly flopped at the box-office, but when history will be written this movie will most surely receive some long lost praise.

Thank God I'm surrounded by friends who knows what's good for me. Being a movie buff like myself a pal highly recommended "The Assignment", a movie I hadn't even heard about. I decided to check out what Leonard Maltin gave it, and not surprisingly he gave it **1/2. Knowing that this is the same grade he gave classics like "Alien", "The Usual Suspects" and "The Matrix" (I kid you not) I knew his meaning didn't mean diddly squat jack s***. So without hesitating I went out and bought it on DVD. This was about 3 years ago and the movie is still one of my proudest belongings in my DVD collection, despite a cover design that echoes a low budget stinker with Casper Van Dien.

"The Assignment" is expertly directed, delivering some really intense moments that will hold you on the edge of your seat throughout the movie, on top of that it boasts an at times brilliant story that you know will be riddled with unexpected twists and turns. It stars Aidan Quinn in one of his best performances, and serves him with great support by Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley who are both in great form.

Something like 40 out of 42 user comments like this movie, most of them can't seem to praise it enough. So what are you waiting for? If you call yourself a fan of action-thrillers you should have bought it, rented it, seen it YESTERDAY! The Assignment is an outstanding thriller with several plot twists driven by character, rather than star turns, the need to stage special effects, obligatory romance, and endless car chases. However, there is a car chase in here, and a dandy it is. Aidan Quinn is wonderful as both the terrorist and the naval officer "recruited" to eliminate him. It is rare that a second or third tier actor, such as Quinn, is given an important starring role like this that carries a film. Usually, such a role is given to an A-list actor with box office draw, which is probably why I never heard of this film before I saw it. Donald Sutherland is great as the morally ambiguous, somewhat creepy at times, agent that recruits Quinn. Ben Kingsley is fine also as the Israeli agent. The plot is very complex and there are multiple story lines, which converge in gradual fashion toward the end, and not all at once as we're used to seeing. The paranoia and claustrophobia of these type of thrillers is captured and portrayed with both moral ambiguity and frightening intensity. The locations are convincing and effective. The soundtrack is nothing special, but rarely do we get all of the above mentioned qualities these days, without dumb and/or meaningless plot developments; unconvincing star turns; loud, annoying, music video type soundtracks; a villain that hams it up; and repeatedly a cast, costumes, and plot that cater mostly to an audience under 25. This is an outstanding thriller, which most assuredly did not get its just due upon its release. ***1/2 of 4 stars. Slick, tidy, and well-made old school version of how a great international thriller should be made. Determined to nail a feared global terrorist who is known as "Carlos the Jackal", Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, "Without Limits", "Space Cowboys"), a CIA operative and his Israeli counterpart, Amos (Ben Kingsley, "Gandhi", "Sexy Beast") get a noble Naval officer, Annibal Ramirez (Aidan Quinn, "Music of the Heart"), to become Carlos and use him in a daring plot to get the KGB to kill the real Carlos, because he took an offer from the CIA. Sutherland and Kingsley are both good here, but the movie really belongs to Quinn here, who embodies himself here (in a dual role). Director Christian Duguay and cinematographer David Franco provide another great asset of the film here with Hitchcockian-like suspense and great sights of the world. This is certainly a quality movie with a classy cast. As far as movies about Carlos the Jackal go, this one beats Bruce Willis' feeble efforts in 'The Jackal' to a bloody pulp, then spits on them. I am a bit surprised that this movie hasn't attracted more votes, something of a 'sleeper' obviously. A pity because this film is definitely worth a watch. It is clever and never dull. See it, 7/10 The Stunts sequences (as well as the Special Effects) are Brilliant, in this movie. Michael Scherer must be one of Canadas BEST Stunt Co-ordinators of all time. The explosion in the Café, is a wonderful combination of Stunts, Special Effects AND Visual Effects. The Director HAD an idea, that the Crew managed to create on film.

Besides that; Donald Sutherland makes one of his best performances in this film....... It worked! Director Christian Duguay created a very clever action/spy thriller. The actors Donald Sutherland and especially Aidan Quinn gave a top performance. What a pity that we couldn´t see Aidan Quinn in others movies like this one till now. He was simply the best in the role as Ramirez/Carlos for what he should have earned the Oscar. The picture was very nice. The scenes are fast paced from beginning to the end and the story doesn´t let you a chance to get bored. The movie is too underrated and I recommend it to anyone otherwise you will miss something great. Believe me you will not be disappointed. That´s why i give it 9/10. Christian Duguay directed this tidy little espionage thriller early in his career. It plays on TV pretty regularly, albeit with some terrific scenes of violence and sex unfortunately trimmed. I finally got around to seeing the theatrical version on a $3 tape from the local video store. Naval officer Aidan Quinn is recruited to impersonate the notorious Carlos the Jackal, and gets a little too caught up in the role. Donald Sutherland Ben Kingsley play Quinn's superiors, with Sutherland a true zealot and Kingsley as the more level-headed one. The first half of this fun flick shows Quinn being trained and indoctrinated. The second half has him out in the field, making love to the Jackal's woman and shooting it out with sundry enemies. The idea is to make the Jackal look like a turncoat to the Russians, and let them take care of the world's most notorious assassin. Things don't exactly play out as planned. At times, I almost expected the cast to break out laughing at some of the corny dialogue, but they all play it very straight. In the end, this is one terrific little thriller that deserves your attention. The Jackal's former mistress teaching the highly proper and very married Quinn to rough her up, lick blood from her face, and then go down on her, alone is worth the price of admission. This is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It's intelligently made and brilliantly filmed, and is one of the few thrillers that creates complex, interesting characters and makes the movie about them, not the action. I would recommend it to just about anyone, especially people who like movies with both style and substance. I found this movie to be quite enjoyable and fairly entertaining. Good characters,good actors and enough suspense to keep your interest throughout. The plot twists might have been a bit much but overall a decent thriller. If you liked this film I would recommend The Spanish Prisoner, The House of Games and No Way Out. I will not comment on the story as such. I agree with most peoples comments that this is a good all round action movie with a well told story and good acting.

This film deserves 100% for cinematography for its opening sequence. The opening shot is stunning and I have not yet figured out how they did it. The movie is worth watching for that shot alone! A pity therefore that the DVD that is currently out is just the movie and no information is given as to the making of the film. Let's hope somebody comes up with the special edition.

And the even better thing is that the opening sequence also becomes the ending leaving you totally guessing! Great stuff. A must have for a collector of classic film moments. This is probably one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. It has action, but not this bullet-flying, good guys - bad guys, van damme - stallone action, but quick, realistic and nervous action, it has a plot, cause till the very end of the movie you don't know how this is gonna end, it has characters, aidan quinn, donald sutherland and ben kingsley are just perfect, and it has suspense, this movie just won't let you go away before you've seen the end of it.

Though there are only a few characters, I didn't find it difficult to keep my attention the the story, and as for the story, it's basic (not too tom clancy-difficult, but simple and raw) and realistic.

If you're in for a movie with a good story, some action and great acting, watch this and I promise, you won't go away till you've seen the end of it. The very end of it. I loved this film. It was so intelligent but it also had some great action sequences, without basing the movie solely around them. Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley all put in fantastic performances and there are enough twists to keep anyone interested. The ending was great as well. If you liked the Richard Chamberlain version of the Bourne Identity then you will like this too...Aiden Quinn does this one brilliantly, you can't help but wonder if he is really out there...I reckon he and the other main cast members probably had nightmares for weeks after doing this movie as it's so intense. When I first saw it I was just flicking channels on the remote late one evening..& I got hooked within minutes. look up www.answers.com for Ilich Ramírez Sánchez who is the character that "carlos the Jackal" is based on for both... I remember reading about Ilich Ramírez Sánchez's arrest in the paper in 1997. It was front page for weeks, through the trial after his arrest. 2002's the Bourne Identity is one of my all-time favorite movies. however, many fans of the book have complained that the movie had very little to do with the book's plot.

The Assignment is the real deal. It's odd that no-one on the "Bourne Identity" threads has mentioned this movie at all. (Well, I jst did.)

Besides the excellent plot, I personally found this movie to be as good as any espionage movie I've ever seen, with the possible exception of The Bourne

Identity itself.

The action is all completely realistic. I especially liked the protagonists' training regimen, which was very inventive.

The feel is dark and gritty. There are a few surprising plot twists. The acting is excellent.

If you like this genre, I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Throughout the world the unmistakable imprint of the American C.I.A. can be found in many a muddled mess they have left behind. In the beginning, their objectives were simple: spy, remove enemy agents, steal classified information and destabilize unfavorable governments. Years have elapse and although their mission remains similar, their clandestine black operations now include domestic spying, discrediting U.S. citizens and infiltrating American organizations who criticize the U.S. government. This movie however, centers on the C.I.A.'s world manhunt for the infamous 'Carlos, the Jackel.' The film is called " The Assignment " and tells the story Lt. Cmdr. Annibal Ramirez, (Aidan Quinn) a U.S. naval officer who bears a striking resemblance to the mastermind of so many terrorist bombings. Recruited by Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland) of the C.I.A. and Amos (Ben Kingsley), a special agent from the Israeli Mosad, Ramirez is secretly trained to look, pose, infiltrate the elusive organization and to thereafter discredit the real Jackel working for the Russians. This film is Explosively exciting, and packed with wild chases, killings and inter-country mayhem. Quinn is wonderful and surprisingly artistic playing both sides of the war. Easily one of his best efforts. **** I'm a huge fan of the spy genre and this is one of the best of these films. The Assignment is based on a true story, which has been somewhat embellished for the big screen, and it really takes you on a fun ride. The film has a great cast, starring Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley.

Naval Officer Quinn is a reluctantly recruited by Sutherland after a chance meeting with Kingsley who believes Quinn to be the famous terrorist Carlos the Jackal. Because Quinn so closely resembles Carlos, Sutherland stops at nothing to recruit him because Sutherland is obsessed with the terrorist's capture or death.

The training sequences are awesome. Quinn is really put to the test by Kingsley and Sutherland, having to withstand attacks from remote controlled snowmobiles, from eating the same food each day, to being drugged with a hallucinogen. He even has to learn how to make love to a woman the way Carlos would.

The film has some great action scenes with Quinn eluding allies because they believe he is Carlos and in his final mission when he is to kill the jackal. Throughout the film, Quinn must struggle with the new personality he has attained versus his own. Will he remain as ruthless and free as Carlos or will he once again return to his life of a good husband and father?

If you like the spy genre, this is a must see. The action is used only to propel the story of this thriller forward; no gratuitous explosions or fight scenes. Rating 10 of 10 stars. Once I knew that Donald Sutherland, (Jack Shaw/Henry Fields) was appearing in this film it instantly told me this was going to be a good picture to view. Most of Sutherland's pictures are full of action and suspense and he can play a rather cruel character and can also be quite charming and kind. In this picture, Jack Shaw did his very best to be a good guy and a bad guy while he was training a Naval Office to become a spy who had to change his entire identity and become a different person over night. There is plenty of car chase scenes and plenty of stunt men situations which I would not want to perform. This Naval Officer lived in a quite community with his wife and was a father, but you would never realize that fact until the film reveals his horrible background secrets which he had to keep from his family and friends. Good spy film and great acting by all the actors. This movie is about Carlos "The Jackal" (Quinn), an international terrorist who, by CIA agent Henry Fields's (Sutherland) description, appears to maim women and children for the heck of it. At least that's what he says to guilt US Naval Officer Annibal Ramirez (Quinn again) into taking on the assignment of posing as Carlos and setting him up as a traitor in the eyes of the KGB. Ramirez is apparently physically identical to Carlos but mentally he is his antithesis. He is borne of order and Carlos is borne of chaos.

The movie isn't all shoot-gun-jump-around action, and that's a good thing. In its first half, Ramirez undergoes training to act and think like Carlos, and that's actually where the movie achieves its distinction from other run-of-the-mill action flicks. An Israeli agent (Kingsley), joins Fields in training Ramirez, and together they appear to take on the roles of parents in the birthing of Ramirez's new character. Ramirez is taught to dislike the things Carlos dislikes, to act on the split second like Carlos would, and even to make love like Carlos (courtesy of an ex-girlfriend of Carlos's). Naturally all that he is taught would be put to good use in the later half of the movie. It's a little contrived but Quinn gives a riveting performance as a Carlos-wannabe.

Another thing I liked about this movie was that it didn't utilize the much overdone plot point in evil twin movies - you know, the one in which the evil twin insinuates himself into the good twin's family. Ramirez's family does come into the picture, but instead they highlight how his new character wrecks havoc on his family life.

Good chuckle humor is injected into this movie, often coming the acerbic duo of Sutherland and Kingsley. An exception is the overused and apparently gratuitous joke involving Ramirez's first name (Annibal, Annabelle, get it?). Also overdone was the constant harping by the duo about how powerful and cunning and intelligent Carlos is. In my opinion, during the final showdown, the payoff wasn't able to match the build-up.

On the whole, the movie was enjoyable. I'm not a big action flick fan but this movie was more intelligent and engrossing than the average action movie and it maintained my attention throughout.

My rating: 9/10 This movie was over-shadowed by 'The Jackal' (Bruce Willis, Richard Gere) which was released the same year. Having seen both films, I can honestly say this is the superior film.

Granted, the production value of 'The Jackal' was very good, it probably had a substantially bigger budget. However, 'The Assignment' is well written and has a fascinating story. Aiden Quinn is flawless in dual roles. Aiden Quinn and director Christian Duguay did a great job of establishing a deep and multi-layered relationship between the title character and his family. I particularly liked the ending.

I was reminded of the Jack Ryan character in the Tom Clancy movies. Both are Naval officers thrown into unbelievably dangerous roles as they covertly work on behalf of National security. And yet, both Harrison Ford and Aidan Quinn reveal their respective characters as heros who manage to be both virile and gentle. They have a genuine tenderness and vulnerability in their relationships with their families.

What I don't understand is how the opinions of all who have posted on this movie (myself included) can be so much more positive than the luke-warm reception the film has received. This is a movie that has enough complexity and subtlety that it remains compelling after multiple viewings. If you are a fan of espionage-genre films, I recommend 'The Assignment' enthusiastically. This is the classic case of an excellent film being looked over by the American public simply due to the fact it didn't have Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenneger as the lead man - Adrian Quinn does a better dual performance, thats right you heard it dual performance in this film than either of those have ever pulled off in their careers! Well anyway, now to the review...

The Assignment is loosely based upon the story of Carlos the Jackal, a 1970's radical who terrorized Europe for years before finally being apprehended by French agents. In this adaptation, a US Naval officer (Adrian Quinn) is on leave in Israel when he is apprehended by Mossad (Isreal's crack intelligence / counter-terrorism agency) and took in for questioning due to the fact he looks EXACTLY like the jackal (this is the one extremely cheesey part of the film, but trust me it doesn't detract from the great value of this film). When it is discovered Mr. Ramirez is not the Jackal, however, he is recruited by a hardened CIA agent by the name of Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, who does his usual grizzled mysterious government authority figure routine but in a stupendous manner) who has spent his life hunting the Jackal, and the series of events which follow will captivate anyone who watches this film - it is chock full of great acting, without all the usual action film cliches and one-liners, and a great plot which will surprise anyone. The three leading men - Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley - carry this film much further than its modest budget would have allowed with anyone else filling their shoes. Also kudos to the director and his staff, the camera angles and cinematography are top notch, especially in the action scenes. The Assignment is better than anyone renting it could ever expect, its a pity the film did fairly poorly in the box office, otherwise we might see a sequel to this stupendous espionage thriller.

9/10 stars, this reviewer HIGHLY recommends it to all potential viewers! I saw this movie last night and thought it was decent. It has it's moments I guess you would say. Some of the scenes with the special ops forces were cool, and some of the location shots were very authentic. I won't be putting this movie in my DVD collection but it is fair enough to recommend for renting. I guess nothing set the movie at another level compared to others of the same genre. The action is good, the acting is decent, the women are extremely seductive and exotic in my opinion, and the story is pretty interesting. 7 out of ten

When I first heard about this back in 1997, over coffee with friends, I decided to check it out. The only problem was that it was on a small screen at one of my local cinema's.

That didn't stop the enjoyment of seeing a simply great movie, with a top notch cast in Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, and Ben Kingsley. The whole movie, kept me glued to my seat.

I simply found no flaws in this great movie, I give it my highest recommendation to those who love thrillers. I am very proud to have this in my collection.

10/10 ( I don't hand this out lightly). Picture the scene: A bored student with an empty day ahead, A video shop with a special offer of 5 video for a week rentals. This ex-student usually just grabbed a pile of videos of dubious quality for the most arbitrary of reasons (The Turning anybody?). Occasionally the odd undiscovered gem did make it into his VCR - this being the case with this film. Everything about the film is good, but much more than this the parts all mesh to provide something all too rare - a cracking good film. Why this never got a UK cinema release is beyond me, especially when we consider the crap that we have to wade through at the multiplex week on week. Whilst I'll happily accept this isn't Oscar material (but neither was sodding Titanic - schmaltzy cgi-tinged bollocks) it is a an extremely enjoyable film. I was trying to think of a way to describe how best this film should be appreciated/accepted - The perfect film to watch while bonding with your Dad, after a coming home for the holidays, after a large Sunday lunch. I must say I didn't expect much about this movie, but it turned out not to be bad at all. Most striking of course, was Aidan Quinn's performance. I would never expect to see this fine actor as an action hero. The great thing about it is that he really builds up his character (Annibal). I mean, it was not like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis would do it, he was sensitive and modest. For example, he's really upset when he kills someone. I also noticed that some clichés were avoided. When Annibal gets his training, you would easily expect him to be a rebel and act like any average American would do in such a situation, ask what the f*** is going on and refusing to cooperate. But Annibal is a professional marine officer, he doesn't give up and he tries not to lose his courage, in which he succeeds pretty well, except for a brief break-down on Christmas Eve, which I think was very realistic. I'm glad that Aidan Quinn got this opportunity to show another side of him (in fact two, because he plays the villain as well), even although the film wasn't that successful. An excellent "sleeper" of a movie about the search for Carlos the international assassin. Am surprised this film didn't rake in $100-million-plus because it's much better than most films that do so. Rent it NOW. The acting is good, the action is good, and so is the plot. If you like some good, fast entertainment with an air for authentic action scenes, not the Hollywood (looks great, but is totally ridiculous) kind, you're in for a special treat. Just sit back and enjoy... A very intelligent and exciting thriller that doesn't rely on action but on situation, which is all to rare these days. I would compare this film to The Day of the Jackal, another film about the pursuit of a dangerous international criminal. The acting across the board is superlative - Aidan Quinn has a tricky double role as the vicious terrorist Carlos and as the Navy man who impersonates him. Donald Sutherland plays the amoral CIA agent who hires him. Ben Kingsley plays the Israeli officer who assists in the plan. This is a very tense and effective film, and it's remarkable considering just how little action there is in it. The first half of the film is all set-up, as the Navy man prepares to impersonate Carlos. The second half is a breathless actioner, the action coming out of the characters and their situations, thus making it all the more gripping. A really tight film that shouldn't be overlooked. While "The Jackal" [remake of the excellent "Day of the Jackal"] has better esthetics [and a boatload budget], this film nails the actual persona of "Carlos" down...

Quinn excels as the Naval officer enlisted to impersonate the wiley Jackal to draw him out of hiding and, at the hands of Kingsley and Sutherland, turns himself inside out to do so. Risking his family, his career and all that he believes in, he takes on the task, albeit utterly unwillingly.

To say more would spoil it... this is an excellent film.

3 1/2 Niro~Stars [of 4] Okay so I love Aidan Quinn's acting even with a bad script. This is not the case in The Assignment. As other viewers have said, this was a movie I stumbled upon on cable and got so into it I didn't want it to end. Take one Cuban American Navy Ofc.(Quinn)who is an upright, uptight soldier and family man. Add a crazed agent(Donald Sutherland) who is looking for the worlds most notorious terrorist and add a Ben Kingsley and you have "The Assignment". Sutherland is a witness of the most notorious terrorist Carlos actions in a cafe on a lovely day where he is so profoundly rocked at this mans evil that his sole reason to live is to get this man as long as he draws breath.

Take one soldier on a pass in Israel who is a dead ringer for this man and is beaten and held by Kingsley until they realize they have a plan. By taking on Carlos by being him, or being forever responsible for never helping rid the world of him, makes for a very heavy assignment and guilt trip. By not helping his country he is bound as a man and his military duty to chose wisely. So the training begins. Lets say Carlos training is right up there with the academy of arts and holocausts. When I say this intense and wonderfully casted,scripted and executed film rates the best, I am not understating it. All three actors could save almost any script..together this is a movie to be seen from frame one to credits. I am not into terrorism or movies about it but I got hooked! Bravo again to Aidan Quinn who for once plays a heavy that could hold up to any actor including Gary Oldman. Thats a compliment. Rent it and get lots of popcorn. Oh did I mention the sex?? It works better than "Last Tango!"and its educational. This was an excellent movie - fast-paced, well-written and had an intriguing plot. The special effects were innovative, especially in the opening scene. The training segment got a bit silly but overall it was a tense movie. These were two video shot movies that Troama decided were horrible so in a desperate move turned into this one movie. Perhaps the bitterness on Troama's side helped spark the comedy, but for whatever reason this is very funny stuff with an inspired bit with "Oliver Stone" doing commentary during the movie. Lots of cameos, lots of use of the Lesbian Cannibal HoeDown song add to the fun. Trey Parker, Ted Raimi, Julie Strain etc etc....

One of the best of recent Troama releases. Yes it's all over the place, know that going in, the production quality, or lack of, becomes one of the many running jokes. Go with it and you'll be in for a good time.

The behind the scenes, frequently the best things about Troama releases are also above average this time around. I really think the anger they felt over these two lousy films helped drive them to, well not greatness, but drove them to "fix" this film in a way that's better than either of the films would have been as they were originally planned. Therefore it is important to talk about the DVD release instead of just the film. Tales from the Crapper is a film that only one studio in the world could deliver. The one that has brought us innovative and original REAL independent films for 30 plus years now: Troma. This is truly a very special film because it manages to be certainly not my favorite of the Troma-productions, but released on a disc that because of what I just said is one of my most valued and favorite DVD's. Not only counting the countless Troma discs I own, but counting my entire collection of films. The film itself is the result of an ill fated plan to produce a television series to be directed by a director who was trusted with a substantial amount of money (especially for Troma) to make something wonderful and delivered a lot of unfinished and incomprehensible material before quitting (or being fired, I am not sure which at this moment). In order to prevent having to shove a vast investment down the toilet Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz decided to get together a team of directors and actors and use the material as the backbone of one movie. One movie that really consists of two, in the nice old Tales From The Crypt anthology fashion, hosted by the Crapkeeper played by Mr Kaufman himself. But, as I said, not quite my own favorite of all their movies. That is greatly due to a weird sense of discipline at the various sets, forgetting about the hard Troma rule of "no booze on the set" which was discovered by a furious Lloyd and other less respectable employees that Troma had at the time of the filming of the added scenes. All this made it all but impossible for Mr Kaufman to make a worthwhile product in the editing room. But Lloyd Kaufman is a genius, and with the troubled added scenes to an already misshapen start-product he crafted not much less of a masterpiece. The film itself is as good as circumstances would allow the most brilliant filmmaker to slice together and it is certainly highly entertaining, totally confusing, loaded with those elements that made Troma great and certainly unique and one of a kind. As a film itself, though, not as brilliant as many other Troma productions. The genius of Independent Cinema however made the DVD of this film so much more than a release of a film with some extra's. The film is, when push comes to shove, actually only a part of the entire DVD that in its whole is a document of the difficult situation serious filmmakers find themselves in having to survive in a world that is monopolized by the few Very Big Ones who don't really allow any other players on their market turf. A document of the problems one has when trusting people to be on the level, only to find out that freedom sometimes is something that is hard to live up to and realization that access to a Movie Budget when the Boss is not around can corrupt even those who should really know better. The brilliance of this DVD is that the film is not perfect, and that Lloyd KNOWS it, and doesn't want to make anyone think he believes it is. The full-length commentary is a show in itself (as is often the case with Mr. Kaufan's audio commentaries), mixing humor, sneers at those who deserve it and highly interesting information for anyone interested in Independent Film-making in such a fashion that watching the film again with this commentary straight after viewing it on its own merits is so interesting it is hard to stop. The feature-length documentary THE THICK BROWN LINE takes us behind the scenes at the various locations where Lloyd visits the sets only to sometimes take over and make the most of what he finds there. We see him somewhat disillusioned sometimes, different from his appearances in other Making Of Documents such as Fart of Darkness and Apocalypse Soon, both to be found in the must-own MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN MOVIE box set.

The added scenes with James Gunn (who started his career at Troma only to find success as a writer an now a director in Hollywood) and Trey Parker (again someone to start out with a Troma-released work, to later be a national hero with his South Park series) are entertaining and probably (as is much else on this release) a reason for obtaining this disc alone for anyone remotely interested in the work of these two characters. Loaded with much more than I could mention here (including a SECOND audio-commentary) this is one of the best Troma-DVD-releases. After watching this film I experienced a new sensation. I had watched a film in which the lead actor had put in a performance that almost rivaled the legend Chevy Chase in 'Fletch'. This isn't to say that the performances are comparable, but both give practically flawless delivery of their lines. That actor is Marc Singer! Singer is Jack Ford, the 'Droid Gunner' of the title, grinding out a living collecting the bounty on androids.There are some mutants, topless pleasure droids(!), a Scandinavian smuggler, and possibly a half-hearted attempt to make a statement on class or maybe even globalization or......... well it doesn't really matter. What matters about this film is the dry manner in which Singer delivers his lines resulting in side-splitting humour! What matters about this film is that director Fred Olen Ray seems to realize that serious sci-fi very rarely works, and when your budget is skimpy it is best not to take yourself to seriously. Olen Ray has said that everyone involved in this film had great fun and this transfers onto the film.I dare you to criticize a film that allows itself to portray futuristic Earth as eternally dark and neon-lit and then ends in a 'pipes and valves' warehouse. Self parody is a very redeeming quality. To summarise, Fred Olen Ray is an ambassador for independent film making and Marc Singer the perfect B-movie lead.If only Olen Ray could draft in Tim Thomerson to the equation then we'd have a film on our hands. me and a coupla friends form university - alberto lopez, dave hall, celina alcock (we graduated from uea, norwich, uk in 1997) still get together and watch b-movies once a month.

We are consummate experts in the art of bad movie-making, and this film was quickly placed in the top 10 of awful/brilliant movies.

so if you've just got the beers and weed in, and need a film to laugh like a drain at, DROID GUNNER aka PHOENIX 2 is the film for you! Marc Singer is totally aware he's in a turkey of a film here, and milks it for everything he can! Matthius Hues is sublime in his wooden acting and musclebound moronity (is that a word??) as he grunts "But I want my 20 thousand!" Pure Shlock Gold! If you liked this, also see: TRANCERS, THE RUNESTONE, DOLLMAN and anything by Charles Band or Fred Olen Ray.....(but be warned: some of their films are completely and utterly without merit and you'll be screaming for those lost hours of your life!!!?!). I watched this show until my puberty but still I found it to reflex many situations that worry us when we're teenagers although it was a family oriented show. Until the mid 90's it focused more on the young adults and their situations.

That's why I loved "Step By Step". I mean, it offered situations for every age and unlike many shows of it's kind, it delivered expectations.

Let's be honest; this wasn't an extremely funny show, no, but it had some situations that you could feel related to but only funnier.

There was an extremely good charm between Patrick Duffy and Susan Sommers. Duffy rocked! Sommers was tender and actually funny. I was in love with Stacy Keegan because she was extremely sexy (loved her legs) and witty. But Sasha Mitchell stole the show with his Cody character. He was the man back in the day! Oh, the memories. Nowadays, this show wasn't been able to adequate correctly on the new generations and that's why it should be kept in the vault of memories. That's it, only memories.

Thank you Step By Step for making my puberty funnier. "STEP BY STEP," is my opinion, is a pure ABC hit! I can't recall every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred at school. I always laugh at that. As a matter of fact, I think just about every single one of J.T. (Brandon Call) and Cody's (Sasha Mitchell) lines were funny. It would have been nice if Penny (Patrika Darbo) had stayed on the show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope it never stops airing in syndication. i like full house and step by step the same. i don't have a favorite episode i just like certain scenes. but some scenes i don't like but i haft to say the reason i started watching this show is because it had Suzanne Summers in it. and my most favorite character was Dana. and Karen could be a snob sometimes, but she was good character also. i just like to watch family shows instead of trash that has a lot of drugs and violence. this show is a lot like other family shows where one of the parents are always strict about curfews and dates. other than step by step, my other favorite shows are full house, Sabrina the teenage witch, gomer pyle usmc, the andy griffith show, and dukes of hazzard. Out of all the Bat-films, Batman Returns is my favorite. This beautiful, dark, and funny film is one of Tim Burton's best work. Although it is much violent and darker, this is the Batman that creator Bob Kane envisioned many years ago. Michael Keaton reprises his role as the avenger of Gotham City. This time he's up against two deadly foes, Danny Devito's Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. With a great cast and film score by Danny Elfman, the movie takes us on an adventure as Batman battles the evil forces that are trying to take over Gotham City. Christopher Walken makes a great appearance as Max Shrek, a shrewd businessman who has an evil scheme up his sleeve. But of course, Michelle Pfeiffer is the one that steals the show. With all of these components, you have a film that will blow you away. This is the reason why you go to the movies. It's got everything. It's really a shame that Tim Burton didn't get to direct the other sequels. If so I think the franchise would still be going strong today. Batman Returns is an awesome experience for fans that like cool movies. And a perfect film to watch during the holiday season as the winter/Xmas atmosphere that Burton creates for Gotham City is way cool. It's weird that Warner decided to release this as a summer film. It doesn't fit.

But what's even weirder, when you consider the content of this film, is that it was aimed at families. An upper-class family throws their mutant baby down the sewer, a socio phobic billionaire dresses up in leather as a flying rodent, a lonely secretary dresses up in leather as a feline and a freak runs for political office. And S&M and bondage are presented in a very perverted way. But Burton got away with it. His visual style in this film is at it's best.

This and Batman: Dead End are the only true live-action incarnations of the comic-book character. True, the animated series was the closest to the source material, but compared with Batman Forever and the un-nameable one after that, Batman Returns is the best of the four.

Darker and more violent than the first movie, the sense of Gothic pathos reaches a new high. I was quite keen on Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (don't even get me started on George Clooney!), he displayed the right balance of weirdo loner and cool crime fighter. Michelle Pfieffer is great as Catwoman (much sexier and more 'realisticly' cat-like), she wears that leather outfit better than Halle Berry. And Danny DeVito was so convincing as the Penguin that his scenes became disturbing to watch. And Christopher Walken is brilliant as the spooky Max Shreck (if you think you recognise Chip Shrek it's none other than a very young Leatherface/Butterfinger).

Danny Elfman's score is also even better than it was first time round. His powerful and engaging themes are way better than the dross that followed in the later 2 Schumacher movies. This movie is the Batman phenomenon at its Zenith. Forget the following sequels and stick to the animated series after this. Let's hope that Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale can bring some integrity back to the live action Batman with their movie next year.

This DVD was one of the first ever DVDs released by Warner (almost 7 years ago!!!) and as a result there are NO features and the case is a snapper. Pick it up cheap like I did and hope for an SE in the future. Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying!

Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?

You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin "Meow" is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me!

9/10 Many of us find art agreeable only when the masterpiece itself touches something deep inside us. That is, the completed creation can only be accepted and appreciated if we can somehow personally relate to it. It was winter, here in Australia 1992 when I had seen Batman Returns at the cinemas and it blew me away. Both "me's". I was supposed to belong to an ideal, a standard, but at the same time I was living another life. Tim Burton was the first film maker to say its OK for a comic movie to be dark and to confess that darkness can happen to us all. After Tim Burton's Batman interpretations, many other dark comic book heroes and anti-heroes flooded the cinemas. Comic book folklore for decades had told of friendly, likable heroes with dashingly handsome smiles and magical superpowers who fly in the sky, and spun powerful webs from their wrists and wore red boots and had the strength of a locomotive. But what happens when you are only ten years old and you see your parents coldly executed in front of your very eyes? You snap. Somewhere in your psyche,your young tender psychological make up breaks apart. The only way such pain and hurt can be managed is to create an alternate persona.You make a promise. Your other self will be stronger, harness all the anger all the rage to use whatever means available to avenge the innocence of your parents onto that criminal, those criminals, any criminal. This is life seen through Bruce Wayne's eyes. Both pairs. The world he sees is dark, gloomy, and cold. Although he patrols the streets and people hear him cruise by, they don't rush out to get his autograph. He is their Saviour, not the winner of a personality contest. Batman Returns is about losers. Batman, for yet another Christmas, remains "the only lonely man beast in town". Bruce Wayne never gets to lawfully arrest the vile Max Shreck. The Penguin never gets to unleash his pain of being discarded by his parents onto the citizens of Gotham, and Selina Kyle is forever lost to being mentally fragmented and traumatized. And the hero doesn't get the girl- or cat.This movie delves into the desire in all of us to want so desperately to belong, to have a home, as expressed by Bruce Wayne and Oswald Cobblepot.The film brings out a need in all of us to be heard, respected and not ignored as desired by Selina Kyle , Oswald and of course Bruce Wayne. But sometimes we are all suppressed in one way or another, we are told to be an ideal, to behave to a certain standard. That is until we finally snap. Only hope remains at the end of the movie as we see Catwoman rise towards the night sky. But come what may we all must wish good will towards all men and women. As for me , I cant say that I will reach a point where I will believe my problem with duality will be reconciled. But thats OK. We all have a dark side. Batman Returns is not only the best of the Batman films ,it is truly a stand out exceptionally fine masterpiece of storytelling. I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.

This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.

You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions. Tim Burton the man behind the original Batman film and Beetlejuice, brings the world the sequel to Batman, that exceeds the original in more ways than one. Firstly Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny De Vito are a great mix of Batmans enemies. The dark, deadly and sexy Catwoman works well to rattle some heads within the story and penguin works in the same way that the joker worked in the original. The sets are stunning and immaculate. Gotham city has so many dark alleyways that you could never know what's happening at one time or another. The only thing that gives it a bad name is its script, which at times seems to lapse and then not recover for while. Tim Burtons direction bring superhero films into a new realm. Beats all the superman films and the other Batman films by a mile. Though in terms of realisation the new Batman begins has a bite where this one lacks, but Burton is a more original director than Nolan. I really wanted to be able to give this film a 10. I've long thought it was my favorite of the four modern live-action Batman films to date (and maybe it still will be--I have yet to watch the Schumacher films again). I'm also starting to become concerned about whether I'm somehow subconsciously being contrarian. You see, I always liked the Schumacher films. As far as I can remember, they were either 9s or 10s to me. But the conventional wisdom is that the two Tim Burton directed films are far superior. I had serious problems with the first Burton Batman this time around--I ended up giving it a 7--and apologize as I might, I just couldn't help feel that Batman Returns just has too many small direction, plot and script problems scattered throughout to justify a 10.

But Burton _almost_ trumps the problems with sheer force of style, and even though there are a lot of small flaws, Batman Returns is still a great film, especially if you're a Burton fan, as Batman Returns has just as much in common with The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Edward Scissorhands (1990) as it does with anything else in the Batman universe.

The film begins strongly, with the Cobblepots having a baby. We see their dismay--people walk out of the birthing room with horror on their faces, ready to vomit. Later, they have the baby in a small cage. Finally they take it out for an evening stroll and dump it in the Gotham City River. The baby ends up becoming Batman villain The Penguin (Danny DeVito).

Meanwhile, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) is the film's "evil capitalist", comparable to Grissom (Jack Palance) in Batman. He is planning on duping Gotham City in various ways, and we see him emotionally abusing his secretary, the timid Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). When Kyle discovers one of the nefarious plots, Grissom tries to get rid of her, but she is rescued by cats, becoming Catwoman.

While all of this is going on, The Penguin, who has long been only rumored to exist and who is thought to be dangerous, begins a scheme to be presented to the public as a good guy, despite having less than benevolent, ulterior motives.

Before re-watching Burton's Batman films this time, I didn't remember just how little the films are about Batman (Michael Keaton). It's almost as if Burton didn't feel the character was interesting enough to focus on. The focus here is much more on the villains, especially The Penguin. Batman doesn't appear very often, especially in the beginning of the film, and surprisingly often, we're watching him watching The Penguin.

Although some viewers necessarily count the above as a flaw, I can't say that I do, even if I'd like to know more about Batman and follow his story more. The villains' stories are interesting, too, and as an "origin story" for two major Batman villains, Batman Returns is already more than complex in terms of plot.

However, there are some character problems that I do count as a flaw. The Penguin has a cadre of circus performers who do his bidding, but even though they're frequently on screen, we never get to learn anything about them. Burton has a core of characters as intriguing as those in Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) available, with actors as interesting as Vincent Schiavelli, but he just doesn't have the space to use them.

For that matter, he hardly has space to explore Catwoman. The film plays as if Catwoman may have been as developed and featured in as many scenes as The Penguin, but that cut of the film would have been 4 hours long. So the bulk of the Catwoman scenes had to be excised. Of course, all of this barely leaves any room for Batman. Burton has Batman turn very dark in the public's eye in this film, and unusually, he never bothers to resolve this. As far as we know, at the end, Gothamites still think that Batman is a murdering lunatic. That's an interesting development, but unfortunately it ended up being dropped between this film and the next.

As for the script, although there are minor problems including some non-sequiturs and bizarre decisions (in terms of logic) made by characters, it's clear that Burton and writers Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters are not exactly trying to tell a traditional story. A lot of the dialogue is pun-oriented, but often this is fairly subtle and/or complex (of course, sometimes it is very blatant or transparent, too). It helps to look at Batman Returns as a more "poetic" film, as I believe was the intention. This also carries over into more general plot and directorial decisions--plenty of odd character actions, including from minor characters, are done in service of a general mood or style, and that style works very well.

"Dark" is the easiest way to sum up Batman Returns in a word, and whether that's a positive or negative depends on your disposition. Anyone who knows me knows that I love dark. So for me, Burton's style largely transcends the flaws in the plot and the script. In many ways, Batman Returns is like an insane, campy horror film, with beautifully eerie production design. Like Batman, Burton is still making many references to other films, but instead of Vertigo (1958) and Star Wars (1977) (well, there's still a slight Star Wars reference), he invokes films like Nosferatu (1922) (including that "Max Schreck" was the name of the actor who played the Dracula-like character there), Motel Hell (1980), the aforementioned Freaks, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) (which has a surreal, dark edge to it) and zombie films--made most explicit in The Penguin's final scene.

In terms of visuals and general atmosphere--and that includes the general "feel" of the story, the characters and so on--this couldn't be a stronger 10. Batman Returns is a really dark movie, that shows the Caped Crusader fighting against the Penguin and the sexy Catwoman (I'll get to them later). Michael Keaton acts well as Bruce Wayne, showing he is a good actor. Tim BUrton directs this picture well, and the locations of the movie are impressive. The villains: Danny deVito is menacing as the Penguin. A cruel, yet disturbed man, that had a really hard childhood. But, Michelle Pfeiffer steals the picture. She is the BEST Catwoman ever! She is threatening, and extremely sexy. There's a scene where she kisses Batman the cat way that just heats the movie up. The action scenes are good too, and the ending is dramatic and tragic, probably the best ending of a Batman movie. Tim Burton shows he can manage a Batman movie really well (he already demonstrated this with the first Batman) and also gives Batman a darker nature. So much like him. It's been said that Batman Begins in the first Batman movie to "get it right" but I think that's a horrible overstatement, for I think the new Batman film, although greater that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, pales compared to Tim Burton's classics, with this one being the best of the five. The darkness is beautiful, as is the music and scenery, creating a Gotham City cloaked in mystery, unlike Batman Begins, where Gotham City is a normal-looking city. The villains are terrific in this movie. You literally can't take your eyes off of the penguin and cat woman. I applaud Tim Burton for being original with his use of the penguin as a freak, rather than an ordinary criminal or a clone of the old Batman TV show. In Batman Begins we have the scarecrow, whose not nearly as demanding on screen as the penguin or cat woman. The film doesn't need to focus only on Batman, because we already know his story, and it is the villains who we are exploring and trying to figure out, and they are the ones who create the plot, with the penguin running for mayor and seeking revenge for his parents' desertion by killing the first born sons of Gotham, a task he fails. Danny Devito gives the finest performance ever by a superhero villain in any film, surpassing even Nicholson's joker. The closing scene where the penguins drag the dead body of the penguin into the water is touching and powerful. It's a tragedy that Tim Burton wasn't allowed to complete his trilogy, since Warner Bros., interesting in marketing appeal, wanted to "lighten" the Batman movies up. And they got their wish...unfortunately. Tim Burton planned on directing the third film, using the Riddler as the villain, with no Two-Face and Robin to mess it up, and I'm sure Michael Keaton would've signed on. So this is the last great Batman Film. Batman Begins is dark, but boring, tedious, ordinary, filled with lackluster villains, and a playboy Bruce Wayne. A decent Batman film, but the best Batman film ever? Never. Batman Returns holds that crown. Batman Returns is to be considered quality when one speaks of superhero films. Its predecessor, Batman, in my opinion, is by far the greatest and most well thought out of the comic book genre. For one to say that Batman Returns was disappointing, he or she has not fully watched the movie and considered the acting of Danny Devito as the Penguin. Devito and Walken offer some memorable moments. The tale of Batman is suppose to be dark and Tim Burton has fulfilled how the comic portrays Batman. Batman Returns provides comic relief, action, suspense and fantasy; and it should not be viewed as 'crap', although we are all entitled to our own opinions. This sequel proves that Tim Burton was for all intents and purposes THE best choice to ever direct a Batman movie. The story focuses on Baman taking on three enemies: The Penguin (wonderfully played by Danny DeVito) Catwoman (the slinky Michelle Pfeiffer) and Max Shreck (the superb Christopher Walken).

Perhaps the best entry in the series, it has it all: complex themes, complex characters and a dark tone that truly stands out. The cast is simply wonderful although the obvious stand-out is DeVito as the multi-layered Penguin. Here is a guy who is evil, pitiable, funny and perhaps most importantly, scary. The infamous scene with Shreck's image consultants still sends shivers up my spine. In other words, the cast is simply a joy to watch and all turn in first rate performances.

I do not hesitate to say that "Batman Returns" is my favorite of all the Batmans released (sorry, Dark Knight fans). If you want a superhero film that has a little more to offer besides flashy effects and big scale action, then please check out this badly underrated film.

If nothing else, it's at least the best film Tim Burton has ever made. So what is 'Batman Returns', anyway?

It was marketed as an action film, and many people who've seen it seem to think that they've watched an action film - but really, there isn't that much action, and Tim Burton barely seems interested in it.

People often align it with the 'grittier' superhero comics of the late eighties, but honestly, if you've read 'The Dark Knight Returns', that seems just a little absurd; Burton's excessive imaginings have more in common with the day-glo sixties TV series (the Penguin drives around in a giant plastic duck, for goodness' sake).

Burton's style is often described as Gothic, and that's a little closer to what we see on screen; the Penguin - deformed, malign, with a tangled history and a subterranean lair - is a Gothic menace dressed up in more respectable Dickensian clothes - Udolfo masquerading as Uriah Heep.

But what of Catwoman? She may be raised from the dead, but that PVC catsuit is decidedly Twentieth Century, and her alter ego Selina Kyle's world is all boardrooms and apartments - reminiscent of a 1930s romantic comedy.

And then it clicks. The smart but downtrodden secretary romanced by a lonely millionaire? The ensuing complications caused by deception and disguise? 'Batman Returns' is, quite clearly, a romantic comedy in the old Hollywood style, filtered through Burton's S&M dungeon sensibilities. It has more in common with 'The Hudsucker Proxy' (including expressionist sets) than it does with other superhero films.

Like many a romantic comedy, it centres around the make-over of the heroine; not from ugly duckling to swan, but from doormat to dominatrix. Michelle Pfeiffer gives one of the performances of her (often remarkable) career; she's iconically sexy as Catwoman (poor Halle Berry never had a prayer), playful and vindictive, memorable because she knows how to act with her whole body. In retrospect, though, it's her scenes as Selina that impress; almost every one of them is a little comic gem, particularly the glimpse we get of her lonely home life. It's a delicately balanced tragicomic performance, and it's in these scenes that the film really sparks to life. Nothing moves me quite like Selina and Bruce Wayne dancing under the mistletoe to Siouxsie and the Banshees, a gun held between them, simultaneously empowered and trapped by their alter egos, doomed to conflict. Forget the easy sentimentality of 'Big Fish' or the gossamer emotions of 'Edward Scissorhands' - this is the most heartfelt scene in all of Burton's films. Love, revenge, fatalism, fetishism, insanity, self-loathing and not a little wit, all in a few short lines and absolutely nailed by the actors - particularly Pfeiffer.

Elsewhere, Danny de Vito almost matches her, finding the wounded dignity buried beneath those truly repellent long-johns. The upper-crust villain of the comics is revealed to be nothing more than a sham; Burton's Penguin is a feral creature subjected to his own, Eliza Doolittle-style make-over (almost literally an 'ugly duckling'). It's Burton's most radical - and funniest - reinvention. Christopher Walken's Max Schreck completes a perfect triptych of villains, sliding between casual charm and blank-eyed psychosis with unnerving ease (and is it just me, or does his company's logo bring to mind Mickey Mouse? Perhaps we should ask former Disney animator Burton).

Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' - a real action film - has been much praised as the first film to do justice to Batman; I admire Nolan's film, but it would be a pity if it were allowed to overshadow this idiosyncratic gem. forget the over-rated "Batman Begins, THIS is the ultimate Batman movie that you are not gonna want to miss out on. this movie has everything, and it totally surpasses the first 1989 mega hit. it may not have done as well as the first one in at the box office, but this is certainly a much better film. the visuals are amazing, Burton works his magic as he always does in his films once again. Gotham city, Batmans hunting ground, is an amazing sight to behold. the story itself is actually quite good and the 2 villains in this one are VERY interesting, much more interesting in fact then there comic book counterparts. Tim Burton and screenplay writer Daniel Walters go a step further to bring you a truly emotional connection with these characters. the Penguin, played to perfection by Danny Devito, is a type of tragic character who was abandoned by his parents at birth and later in life seeks revenge on the world that denied him. very disgusting to watch at times, but he has some of the most classic lines a villain could ever utter in a single film. the other villain is Catwoman, played so absolutely brilliantly by Michelle Pfieffer, one of the most beautiful actresses of our time and gives a WOW performance, and totally steals the show as far any of the past and present live action batman villain's is concerned. she also has a tragic background. her name is Selina kyle, and she is a very put-upon, mousy secretary for a shrewd business man called Max Shreck, who later murders her by shoving her out a window. somehow, she survives and is "awakened" by cats, and decides right then and there to become the legendary Catwoman, not before, of course, the amazing sequence in which she completely lets loose and wrecks her entire apartment in one of the most Oscar worthy performance's of rage and anger i have ever seen in an actress.

Michael Keaton once again dons the cape and cowl as Batman and also as Bruce Wayne and THIS time hes much darker. there's not much else to say here except that Keaton is simply the best actor to play Batman ever. he just oozes cool, and he has a kind of Clint Eastwood approach to playing Batman, and he is very dark. he doesn't talk a lot, and when he does, he sounds very cool and he doesn't make his voice sound all goofy and fake IE bales "batman" voice in batman begins. he struts around Gotham like a man possessed by his own inner demons. he's pshycologically disturbed, and you know it. in this outing he takes on 2 of the most famous baddies to ever grace the batman comic book world.

i have to say though, despite the awesomeness of the action scenes, like the scenes with the coolest Batmobile EVER racing down the street knocking thugs to the ground and batman gliding across Gotham, its the romantic angle between Pfieffer and Keaton that really makes this movie classic a top choice for anyone who wants to see the REAL Batman in action, i rate this a 10, would give it more if i could. Why is it better? Because it's true to the dark vision of the comic. Because the imagery is inventive and, unlike the first, there are real moments of fear and pathos in this one. The first one had too much of Jack Nicholson's shtick, too much Prince music, and an awkward "romance." Here, instead of one villain, there are three. No Robert Wuhl, and the leading lady is more than just a pretty face. In fact, Pfeiffer is the #1 attraction of this film. Her transformation is what drives the running theme, teetering on the edge of sanity and insanity, good and evil. She becomes truly fearsome. The costumes and makeup are excellent. Danny DeVito's Penguin is inspired and anguished, not just a nut. His circus gang posse is the one element of comic relief (besides that giant duck). Max Shrek is the only character I'd have toned down, Walken is pretty hammy as the ruthless businessman. Danny Elfman's score is a perfect fit as usual, and the Siouxie and the Banshees song ("Face to Face") is easily the best of any of the songs from any of the films, a perfect match of musical artist and film soundtrack. The least campy of the films, it is macabre, doesn't pander, and demands second and third viewings like an amusement park ride. Bravo Tim Burton and cast! I always thought the Batman Returns was a great sequel to Batman. The story was an interesting one and Danny Devito, Christopher Walken and Micheal Keaton gave great performances. Plus lets face it, Tim Burton was a genius and did the comic book character more justice than Joel Screwmacher ever did.

Plot: Oswald Cobblepot also know as The Penguin(played By Danny Devito) is abandoned by his parents as child for being deformed. He uses this as an excuse to masquerade a sinister plot to abduct the first born children of Gotham with the help of his goons(Red Triangle Gang) and a very shady tycoon Max Shreck(played by Christopher Walken). Max Shreck later makes Penguin the mayor of Gotham. Selina Kyle(Michelle Pfeiffer) is pushed out of a window by Max Shreck and is revived by cats. Later on she develops cat-like qualities and seeks to destroy Max Shreck and Batman. Her reasons for wanting to destroy the dark knight are not explained.

Opinion: Batman Returns is a classic. It has a darker feel in terms of atmosphere. Tim Burton always had a knack for making grim backgrounds look appealing. Micheal Keaton is still sharp as Batman. Danny Devito steals the show as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin. When you think about it, he would have made a better Violator for the movie Spawn than John Leguizamo. Michelle Pfeiffer gave Catwoman more personality than Halle Berry ever could. Max Shreck is one of Christopher Walken's best roles. The main reason why I like Batman Returns is that its fun. Its not only creative but its also fun. Something a lot of big budget movies these days sorely lack. The Batman series goes to the dogs after Tim Burton decided to do no more. You don't believe me, look at Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Thank god that Christopher Nolan breathed life back into the series with Batman Begins. I've enjoyed this movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. I also liked Batman forever back then but the real difference is that THIS movie didn't date when I grew up. I did notice a few scenes in this film that didn't make any sense like: 'Hhmm... the crowd is angry. Hey! Where did they get those tomatoes from?' Then I thought: 'who cares? This movie is not 100% serious anyway!'

The original Tim Burton Batman was great as well but it was a bit cheesy at some parts and I didn't like all the actors. This movie improved on almost every aspect with a wonderful cast, a more Gothic style and no involvement of Prince.

Nowadays, many fans of the Christopher Nolan movies dislike Burton claiming that the Nolan movies are more serious and therefore more loyal to the comics. I don't think this is entirely true: -There has never been an adaptation of the original concept of Batman which was a vengeful criminal killer with a gun. -Batman has taken many forms over the years peeking its silliness in the 60's (and a bit with Batman & Robin). A director is free to choose what kind of Batman he's going to portray as long if it's good.

My opinion: Batman doesn't necessarily have to be serious. It's about a man in a rubber suit with pointy ears. Burton managed to create a perfect balance between the silliness and the darkness surrounding the whole idea.

I just recently watched the Nolan movies and I love those ones as well (especially The Dark Knight). There's simply something about this movie that interests me more. Nolan's goal was to give the character much more depth and in doing so, he looked for an explanation of nearly every aspect of Batman. That's a bit too much for me, I'm a bigger fan of the more abstract version of Batman. The Burton movies are more theatrical and centered around the atmosphere.

My conclusion is that you shouldn't compare the Nolan with the Burton movies. They're just different and it's up to you to decide which one you like better. My respect is for both directors. 1992's "Batman Returns" was Tim Burton's second round as director and yet again he scored a hit by making this film again dark and gloomy like his 1989 one. Gotham City again is a place of darkness and gloom with crime and corruption boiling out from every street corner. It was also clever to see how Burton used politics as a subplot that tied in well and neat with the business corruption of businessman Max Shreck(Christopher Walken)and the plan to make the "Penguin"(Danny DeVito) mayor of Gotham! Anyway Keaton again returns as "Batman"/Bruce Wayne and he gives another stellar performance as a strange and torn man who just can't find love in a normal world yet he is challenged when he meets another lonely soul in Selina Kyle only Ms. Kyle has a dark secret of her own one that's very slinky and she's just a downright vamp as the sexy and mysterious yet dangerous "Catwoman"(Michelle Pfeiffer). A plan forms between both villains to destroy Gotham and most of all both want to rid themselves of the bat. Really this film even though violent and somewhat gross with many penguin scenes is clearly an exciting thrill ride from start to finish as you never find a dull moment and thumbs up to Tim again for his exploring of the characters as dark and conflicted it just made the film even more interesting. The performance from Michelle Pfeiffer was the best ever as no one could have played "The Catwoman" any better and Devito was perfect as the "Penguin" his body frame fit the character just perfect his performance even though ghoulish was fun to watch. "Batman Returns" is an entertaining thrill ride that you can't take your eyes off of as a viewer you will enjoy it many times it's that thrilling and explosive. I remember really liking BATMAN RETURNS when it came out in 1992, but now I think that this is the best of all the Batman movies (even over Christopher Nolan's terrific 2005 BATMAN BEGINS and definitely over the seriously over-hyped overrated 2008 THE DARK KNIGHT!). I originally remember thinking that the 1st BATMAN w/ Jack Nicholson was the best (and I still love it). But I think that this movie really hits the nail on the head. The 4 main characters (Batman, Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck) are all vivid and memorable. You really get to see what Batman/Bruce Wayne is all about in Keaton's terrific characterization. Keaton is the best Batman, not Kilmer, Clooney, or even the up-and-coming Bale, who was exceptional in BB and could have stolen top honors from Keaton had his character not been destroyed by Nolan's hack film-making in TDK !.

Danny DeVito as The Penguin is disturbing, scary, hilarious, and lethal. DeVito is great and doesn't need scenery-chewing to give great performance like Nicholson's Joker. The viewer can actually sympathize with this disfigured outcast and his plight to fit into normal society. I had never really been big fan of Michelle Pfeiffer until this film, but this is definitely my favorite performance of hers. Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle is goofy and odd at first, then when she is transformed into Catwoman, she is simultaneously sexy and scary, a total deadly sexpot! Also, I feel that Keaton and Pfeiffer have more chemistry than Keaton and Basinger from BATMAN; they form a tragic love story. And Christopher Walken as Shreck is, well, as always, Christopher Walken!

BATMAN RETURNS, more so than BATMAN, is more confident and focused. It is assured film-making from beginning to end. The way Burton introduces the Penguin's heartbreaking backstory grabs you from the very beginning. The first 5 minutes are among my favorite beginnings to any film: Danny Elfman's music sets an ominous foreboding tone that defines the rest of the film. It is a modification from the original BATMAN and a great one!

Then flash forward 33 years to the present day Gotham and we are introduced to powerful businessman Shreck who wants to build new power plant in Gotham. During same scene we meet Shreck's meek, bullied, under-confident secretary Selina Kyle. And not long after all this is the film's exciting opening action sequence as Batman must battle The Penguin's Red Triangle Gang, a fun yet lethal group of outcasts and circus performers. Penguin sets plan in motion to attack the Gotham Christmas celebration, kidnap Shreck in the chaos, and force him to help re-introduce him to society. Meanwhile, Selina discovers Shreck's criminal plans and so he "kills" her by shoving her out his high-rise office, then she is revived by cats.

Sound convoluted? Yes, but Burton never claimed to be posing a realistic story. He has created a world where the viewer can accept that things like this can happen, a dark, noirish world comprised of mistreated, deformed outcasts who deep down only want acceptance and to fit in. Confident storytelling if you ask me!

The action scenes are few and far in between, but they are all exciting, entertaining, and nail-biting. They aren't there just for show, the way some in BATMAN are. And they all make sense. The climactic scene with Penguin's "army" marching into the center of Gotham with Batman zoning in on Penguin's hideout and sidekick butler Alfred (Michael Gough in a welcome return from the original!) assisting Batman is succinct, solid, heart-pounding fun!

I also love the Christmastime, wintry setting, which adds to the super-dark, cold feel of Burton's Batman world. I also love the way Burton slowly introduces to us the Batman "toys" without shoving them down our throats. Each "toy" is appropriate for that moment in the film and we are compelled to accept them for their purpose. And although dark, RETURNS is still a funny film. DeVito's Penguin has many funny lines. So does Walken's Shreck. The Batman-Catwoman exchanges are extremely stimulating and humor-filled as well! A great ensemble! All in all, BATMAN RETURNS is a tightly woven tale of the dark forces at play in Tim Burton's fun, comic book world. As a kid I grew up with the chintzy 60's TV series (and no I'm not that old… POW!). However when director Tim Burton brought his novel vision to the silver screen, I simply took an immediate shine to it and never backed away from favoring his installments over the much hyped-latest additions ('Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'), which I don't really care for. Even if they're going for a much more grounded approach and wanting to explore Bruce Wayne/Batman psyche further… but in honesty I don't think there's all that much to tap in to. I wanted crazy fun with a dark streak and in my eyes that's what Burton brought across, and this is the reason why I can watch them over and over again.

After wowing audiences with the 1989 'Batman', thanks to the gaudily Gothic art direction and Jack Nicholson take no-prisoners performance of the camped-up, but psychotic Joker. Burton would return 3 years later for the follow up and my favorite of the batman films so far; 'Batman Returns'. Camp, but well-done. In what would fair up to being even more expansive, louder, dreary, and nihilistic and having two villainous foes for the price of one. Enter the grotesque Penguin (with Danny DeVito magnificently going out on a limb) and the ravishing Catwoman (a steamy Michelle Pfeiffer who fills out the suit nicely) coming to spoil Gotham's party. Again Batman (an aptly brooding Michael Keaton is equally commendable and looks quite imposing in that bat suit… look at the eyes) plays second fiddle to the bad guys, but I always preferred this sober interpretation of Batman that gave him an ominously gloomy mystique, but also a wearing psychological complexity that never felt the need to force feed. And his turn of Bruce Wayne was well served too. Burton's illustratively atmospheric direction opens with his sleek Gothic style engraving an carnival comic book world filtered in with a splendid range of characters and vivid costumes. The moody narrative (in what probably is a tad too long) is more so symbolic in its progression, rather show-piecing its spontaneously arresting and extravagant set-pieces and sharply etched art direction covered with shadowy tinges and grey/blue neon lighting of a wintry backdrop. The magnetically free-flowing camera-work takes flight and Danny Elfman's stately spacious score balances the playfulness along with gloomy touches with a very hypnotic pull. The rest of the performances might be overshadowed, but Christopher Walken digs in his teeth into a smarmily glassy role of a two-faced businessman Max Shreck. Pat Hingle is back, but gets very little to do as Commissioner James Gordon and Michael Gough is delightful as Alfred. In solid support are Michael Murphy, Andrew Bryniarski, Vincent Schiavelli, Doug Jones and Peter Rubens also makes a cameo appearance. Batman Returns It is my opinion that the first Batman of the Batman series was only half the movie that Batman Returns is. In the first Batman by Tim Burton we had only Batman and The Joker both played wonderfully by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.

In Batman Returns we have what I feel is the most perfectly cast Batman movie (yes even better then Dark Knight). Keaton returns as Batman and is perfect in the role never going to far over top with the character of Batman, which is perfect in this film when it comes to the two villains that he's up against. First you have Danny DeVito who is delightfully insane as the Penguin. Then you have Michelle Pfeiffer as Cat-Woman, who I dare to say is one of the most interesting and complex villains in the Batman movies. I feel this way about Pfeiffer because of the way she becomes the Cat-Woman she starts off as the rather pathetic mousy Selena Kyle and then truly dives into the dark side of her mind and what you get is a brilliant performance of a woman who goes from trying to be a hero to a villain and then I suppose back to a hero in the end. Also in this amazing cast you have the evil businessman Max Schreck played by the amazing and legendary Christopher Walken. While in a supporting role there's something about this role that I love and maybe it's the look of Schreck in the film that makes his performance all the better then it already is.

Story wise I have to say that Batman Returns has so much more going on this time around as opposed to the first Batman. Part of the reason I loved this story so much is the fact that Burton dared to go in a much more darker and twisted direction as opposed to Nicholson's over the top antics. You have the story on the Penguin and how he tries to deceive the people of Gotham into making him the new hero and mayor of the city. Then you have Cat-Woman and her struggle to decide just who she really is and what she should do with her new persona. When it comes to Batman I feel that in this one he's more the ring leader that holds the two stories together but of course kicking ass at the same time.

Cinematography was the film is dark and atmospheric just like the story that's taking place within it. Gotham City never looked as good as it does on Blu-Ray and HD so if you have the chance to see it this way then by all means do because it truly adds to the overall experience of Batman Returns.

So all in I truly feel that of all the Batman movies Batman Returns believe it or not tops the Dark Knight for me because while I enjoyed that movie for Heath Ledger's amazing performance as the Joker I felt that the movie was lacking something. Batman Returns lacks nothing, so if you want to see an amazing film with what I feel is a perfect cast then this is the Batman to light the Bat signal for. When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.

Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.

Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.

With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.

9/10 First off, this film has no story. It's obvious there were a lot of rewrites during production -- sometimes characters reference a timeline that is impossible, and this is probably because the timeline of the entire story was never known to anyone on the set.

That said, the film is kinda brilliant. Pfeiffer is amazing -- and I mean amazing, as Catwoman; she nails the character's inherent sexy darkness and good/bad tendencies. Walken is Walken -- but even more nasty than usual. Devito is not true to the comic book when it comes to Penguin, but he is good and memorable.

Keaton is underrated as Batman.

And the music and style are pure cinema thrill. True, the 3rd act doesn't work. But the final 2 scenes are knockouts, and it's clear Pfeiffer and Keaton were meant to be in a trilogy that got derailed by this film's kinky darkness. That's too bad, because Pfieffer and Keaton had classic chemistry, and had they acted in a third installment, Joel you know who might not have gotten the chance to destroy Batman for an entire generation of movie fans. The best Batman movie of the 90's no doubt about it. This movie takes place in a city filled with insecurity and nightmares.

Although the villains are somewhat cheesy, they fit perfect for the movie's tone of colorful but nightmarish cinematography.

The performances are really great and the comic tone behind them really delivers expectations.

Don't get fooled by the cheesy outfits, this is a movie in the pure style of Burton. That can't be described; Burton is a sui generis director that took the Batman franchise to another obscure level but not forgetting about it's comic style past.

Recommended for fans of action cinema and best of all, if it deals with super heroes. what can i say, this film is amazing. it has its flaws like every film does for example wobbly headstones in a graveyard, a clearly visible slide board during the penguins death scene, Max Shreck losing his heavy coat in a split second between shots during the image consultancy scene, batman losing his black eye makeup all of a sudden between shots so he can reveal Bruce Wayne to Catwoman, dialogue being recorded but is played back and spoken differently than when it was spoken in the first place and lastly Catwoman all of a sudden knows how to use a bull whip without any training whatsoever. these flaws are minor compared to some you would see in for example batman forever where the riddler can obviously be seen waiting for his cue or val Kilmer's hair changing between shots.

what makes this film so deserving of an 8/10 is the great acting because the performances are absolutely amazing. Michael Keaton reprises his role as Batman and has a lot more to do in this film. He looks more comfortable in the role the second time around and is on par with the villains performances. Danny Devito is the perfect penguin. I really like the conversion of the penguin into the grotesque penguin man instead of the non threatening character from the comics or TV show because now the character has more depth and has a far more interesting story that generates from the basic need of family and to feel accepted and wanted. this gives us an evil character who we feel sympathy for because he was rejected for being what he is which is not his fault. Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent as Catwoman. she is sleet and sexy and she is also a villain we can feel sorry for because of the way she is victimised. Christopher Walken is a great secondary villain and is so interesting a character even though he is not even in the batman universe.

the soundtrack is far better than the first and Danny Elfman gets more of a chance to show off his musical talents this time around. The sets are amazing. They are detailed, eye catching, sinister, Gothic , unique, dark and so many other adjectives can describe how amazing they look. the costumes and make up are great and obviously a lot of work went into making them and all the work pays off because the Batsuit is better, the cat suit is amazing to look at and the penguin make up and effects are so convincing.The animatronic penguins look really realistic and are played to good effect. The script is really good and the Storyline in my opinion is a plausible one. overall, because of all these factors this film deserves an 8/10 and stands as my favourite of all the batman films Tim Burton is in essence an expressionist film-maker, disinterested in dimensions of character and obsessed with Gothic scope, opting for style over substance incessantly throughout his career. However, with his style being so poignantly endearing, I, like many moviegoers, forgive all the countless flaws that can be found in many of his movies and become engrossed in what are essentially, one hundred million dollar art films.

It's almost embarrassing for me to see a poetic, emotionally involving spirit within the second installment of a mediocre franchise, especially when that franchises target audience are half-witted 15 year old boys. Batman Returns should have been every bit as commercial as its predecessor, ensuring box office draw and cheap (in actual fact, very expensive) thrills, being entertaining without ever truly involving its audience. Had this been the result, then Tim Burton would have surely been required to direct a third installment. Instead, Burton delivers something that can only truly be defined by the phrase, 'out there'.

From the melancholy opening in which a high society couple throw a prison-like bassinette containing their newly born deformed baby into a river, it is clear that Batman Returns, ain't no picnic at Buckingham Palace. Cut to thirty three years later, during a political speech made by bad guy business tycoon Max Shreck (sinisterly portrayed by Christopher Walken), the Red Triangle Circus Gang attack Gotham City. Batman (Michael Keaton returning to the role) makes his first appearance sporting a new logo, eventually saving the day. Shreck is soon kidnapped by the circus gang and black-mailed into endorsing the political return of the baby, now a fully grown Penguin man (Danny DeVito in hideously perfect make-up), whose motives for return are suspicious only to Batman.

Meanwhile, Shreck attempts to off his nosey and awkward assistant Selina Kyle (played perfectly by Michelle Pfeiffer who quite frankly deserved more recognition for her performance) who transforms into the deliciously sexy and psychotic Catwoman, out for revenge and harbours, for some unexplained reason, a deadly vendetta against the Dark Knight.

Batman Returns is bleak. The production design is breathtaking, delivering a cold haunting Gotham City with an even more apocalyptic feel than its predecessor. Danny Elfman's score supports the film brilliantly, ranging from invigorating to tragic. The tone and direction of the whole film itself is intensely brooding, shot like a sad nightmare, Burton's direction overshadows what is in fairness a diabolical screenplay with an almost totally irrelevant plot and yet at the same time perfect for Burton's visual style of film-making. And whilst Burton's action sequences struggle for exhilaration, the real excitement lies in the directional choices displaying the fall of each of its main characters, the Penguins demise, the Catwoman's mental state and Bruce Wayne's lonely destiny.

Warner Brothers hated it whilst critical and audience reaction was mixed. After all, they wanted a Batman sequel, not a weird, somewhat ghastly horror movie, in which a deformed psychopathic orphan attempts to kidnap and drown a batch of babies, all-the-while vomiting what can only be described as green mucus. The production company wanted an audience friendly feature, something for the McDonald's clan to promote their happy meals with, not a movie of dire irredeemable characters, including a sexually repressed secretary who is pushed from a skyscraper and revived by a gang of cats awakening her from unconsciousness by chewing on her bloodied ice cold fingers.

It's easy to understand the mass disappointment that followed the release of Batman Returns. The film never felt like a Batman blockbuster. It is questionable if Burton really knew who Batman actually was or even if he cared about the character as much as he cared about the film fitting in with his usual themes of beautifully haunting art direction and misinterpreted, lonely characters who rarely conform with societies standards and expectations. This is why Burton failed to create a great Batman film. He did however; create a nostalgic and stunning, ballsy piece of cinema that remains a personal and nostalgic favourite of mine.

This may not be a great Batman movie. But it is a great Tim Burton film. Batman Returns is more Gothic and somber than its predecessor, and I like it a lot. Also, the scenery is more darker, and the entire environment is saddening along with the soul-chilling music composed by the so-talented Danny Elfman.

However, I didn't like the idea to make the Penguin a monster, unlike to the comic books, where he's human. Even if he looks like a monster, he shows well that he possesses a human dignity, and I felt very sorry for him when he saw the tombstones of his late parents. But still, he was a dangerous villain in fact, and he needed to be stopped.

Michael Keaton made a "tour de force" with his return as the Dark Knight, and this time he's powerful as in the original Batman. It's not difficult to understand why he's called Batman in public sometimes...

Also, Michelle Pfeiffer is so sexy and well-fitted in her role, and she gave a faithfully performance as the female villain/crimefighter dressed as a cat. Really, the actors did all a masterful work with Batman Returns, which made it a successful movie.

If you liked Batman, watch its awesome sequel, cause it's very worthy for all the Dark Knight's hard-core lovers.

Steve Baillargeon Any Batman fan will know just how great the films are, they've been a major success. Batman Returns however is by far the best film in the series. A combination of excellent directing, brilliant acting and settings makes this worthy of watching on a night in.

Tim Burton, who directed this movie, has specifically made sure that this film gives a realistic atmosphere and he's done a great job. Danny Devito (Penguin man) is a man who has inherited penguin characteristics as a baby, and grown up to become a hideous and ugly...thing! Michelle Pfiffer plays the sleek and very seducing 'Catwoman' after cats had given her there genes from being bitten. The result in both the character changes is excellent and both Catwoman and Penguin man play a very important role in this excellent film. The mysterious Catwoman is great fun to watch - her classic sayings and a funny part in which skips with her whip in a jewelry shop adds such fun to the film. Danny Devito also does well, his ability to impersonate some strange creature was vital, and he adds a great atmosphere to the film that takes us back to the dull sewers where he lives.

You can't forget Batman though. Micheal Keaton once again pulls of a comfortable performance, and shows us a different side to Batman. His affection is let loose when he confronts Catwoman at the end of the film, and his meetings with her when she's a normal person, Selina Kyle, result in him being seduced badly in his own home. There's a clever part after this when they leave, and the film is full of great scenes. Its worth noting that Bruce Wayne's Bat mobile is not used as much as in the other Batman films, as close combat and story telling scenes make up this film.

The winter setting is created perfectly in Gotham City with most of the scenes being set at night, and with the town being filled with snow. Therefore, if you watch this film during the summer like I have, it doesn't feel the same. Best watch it during the winter.

Overall, its an amazing movie. All the credit goes to Tom Burton and the cast, they've done an incredible job. This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.

Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.

True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.

Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.

There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.

Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton. With "Batman Returns", Tim Burton succumbed to an important priority in American cinema: giving a sequel to a blockbuster. Three years after the most successful movie of the year, "Batman" (1989), here comes the hero of Gotham City again for the pleasure of many spectators. Like its predecessor, "Batman Returns" enjoyed an enormous commercial success. Tim Burton made Batman come back once again because it is to believe that the victory of the latter on his enemy the Joker did little to improve the image of Gotham City. Indeed, violence and corruption still exist and here, the second word is epitomized by Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and the penguin (Danny De Vito). These two crooks who are eager to take control of Gotham City are going to make life difficult for Batman. His task will be more difficult with the apparition of Catwoman...

Tim Burton still delivered much work on the scenery and it seems that he tried to correct the faults of the first movie. It means that the director gave way to fight sequences which are better mastered than in the first Batman. But he didn't neglect the psychology of his main characters for all that. If in the movie of 1989, Burton had focused on Bruce Wayne/Batman's psychology, here, it's the penguin that obviously interested him. The director attempted to make of him, very well acted by De Vito an ambiguous character. On one hand, he's full of bad intentions (previously quoted) but on the other hand, he's searching for his past and would like to be considered as a real man.

"Batman Returns" also appears as crazier than its predecessor, especially with the cast. I think of Michèle Pfeiffer who offers a daring and powerful performance as Catwoman. Besides, at the time when I'm writing this review, it makes me remember that a new version of Catwoman is currently at the cinema. But given the bad reviews (3 out of 10 on IMDb!), it is sure that her performer Halle Berry must pale into insignificance beside Pfeiffer.

Ultimately, this film is one of the best sequels of 1992 and it enables to develop Tim Burton's peculiar style. We also still find his taste for the strange and the Gothic. Concerning Batman's other adaptations for the screen, you can skip them. "Batman Forever" (1995) and "Batman and Robin" (1997) are no good. I heard that Christopher Nolan was shooting the beginning of the Batman story and it was to be released next year. Will it match Tim Burton's works? For a long time, this was my favorite of the Batman films. It had the best cinematography and an edgy feel to it with two wild characters - Catwomen and The Penguin - along with the always-interesting Christopher Walken. However, after the last viewing it finally slipped in my ratings and, frankly, I now prefer the last Batman: Batman Begins, with Christian Bale.

THE GOOD - Nonetheless, this is still the most intriguing of the five latter-day Batman films. The stylish cinematography in here is the best of any of the Batman movies. Director Tim Burton is known for his films which feature stunning visuals, as this is a great example. The three characters listed above are all very different and very interesting, almost fascinating. Of the villains, I preferred Catwomen, finding her the most fun to watch before and after she changed. Violence is not overdone here as it was in several of the other Batman stories but one is never bored watching this. As he did in the first film, Michael Keaton does a fine job playing Batman/Bruce Wayne.

THE BAD - For a movie based on a comic strip that mostly kids read, I still think these first two Batman movies, both done by Burton, were too dark and the profanity was definitely not appropriate. Although, unlike the first movie, there was no usage of the Lord's name in vain in here, there still was profanity and both villains made too many sexual remarks. That would have been okay if they hadn't marketed this film for kids as well as adults. Danny DeVito's "Penguin" is downright gross in spots. "Grotesque" I can handle, but who wants "gross." Few guys, meanwhile, complained about the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer playing Catwoman. Generall too much darkness and some cheap shots on Christian- bashing also made me re-consider my previously-high rating of this film.

OVERALL - Fabulous visuals and memorable characters make this the most interesting in the Batman series, but too-dark an edge, too gross and too much anti-religious bias all finally turned me off after a half-dozen looks at this film. Sorry, but I prefer a kinder-gentler Batman movie. After all, it's just a cartoon. Most will disagree, but I was glad to see the series lighten up after this one. This is a cute little movie that provides pretty much what it promises - some good entertainment. After all, when a movie proclaims it features top SASS shooters, you have to figure that it is not a likely candidate for the "Best Picture" Oscar. Those guys are shooters, not actors. Your next clue is that the movie doesn't star Nicholas Cage or Jennifer Aniston, i.e. you shouldn't expect to see the current hottest names. It was meant to be just plain old entertainment and in that regard it is every bit as good as a lot of the old "oaters" I have seen through the years.

SO what do you get with "Hell To Pay"? You get 100 minutes of good old entertainment. You get a chance to see some stars from past years, who act pretty much like what they did in their prime but a little older. You get to see some good SASS shooters in major roles and a few SASS hams in the background. It was a lot of fun for me seeing people that I have shot with, visited in their homes and who are my good friends get to do something that a lot of people only ever dream about - they're in a real, live honest to gosh movie. They're doing something a lot of wannabe actors and wannabe shooters will never get the chance to do and I think that alone makes it worth the watch.

Admittedly, not everyone is a SASS member and so I saw lots of fun and humor that others may miss, but it is still good, old-fashioned entertainment, and frankly, there are a LOT of movies in the theatre right now that I wouldn't give a nickel to see, so save the money to go see "Brokeback Mountain" get "Hell to Pay" and watch some real cowboys have some fun. I really enjoyed watching Hell to Pay. I've been a fan of Westerns for as long as I can remember and this one reminded me of a lot of the Westerns from the 1960s (even though I was too young to have seen them in their first run). The one thing that bothered me about the movie was the constant music. It was distracting at times. One thing I did notice, and I wonder how many other fans of Gunsmoke noticed, was the name of Buck Taylor's character. It was a play on Doc Adams' name from Gunsmoke. Instead of Gaylan Adams, Buck Taylor used Adam Galen. I wonder if that was his choice or Chris McIntyre's? Anyway, I would recommend this movie to fans of Westerns. Don't expect anything too "deep". Just plain old entertainment. If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more. This is an excellent movie and I would recommend it to everyone. Mr. Drury's acting is top notch as it always is and he blends well with the other actors in the movie. Can't give away any of the suspense or drama found in the movie. Hell to pay is a must see movie!!! The plot was very suspenseful. I would watch this movie over and over again because it has all the elements of a great western movie. It was very authentic in how they displayed the components dealing with this movie which includes the guns, horses, and clothing. The soundtrack is enjoyable and adds flavor to the movie. James Drury has the right touch when picking out a movie to be involved with. This is a another winner for the western genre. !!!!! Hell to Pay is a bit bloody for my taste, even though it is no worse than many films. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the parade of seasoned stars and the western scenery & all; but, the story-line was very weak and I couldn't really see the point of it all. However, the music that accompanies the movie more than makes up for the lackluster film.

Where did the guys -Nate & Noah Cryns- who wrote this music come from? They are awesome!! From the moment the music begins, it is by far, better than anything I've heard in years. I think it may be the best I've ever heard! Even though I wasn't thrilled with the action taking place on the film, the music evoked the exact emotion that was needed for each scene. I was transported in time to the old west during the opening credits and really felt like I was re-living those old days through the music.

This movie is definitely worth a purchase and a viewing for the beautiful music and a trip down memory lane to see the old western stars once again. This certainly is one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium. It's an homage to all the stars of the great TV western classics, and it is the ultimate revival of the western movie. The story of two brothers who meet after the War between the States and end up on different sides of the law isn't new but interesting nonetheless, and the shootouts and the atmosphere are great. There is some graphic violence like bad guys getting chopped to death with an axe or women being shot down in cold blood, and Lee Majors doesn't take part in the action until the very end, that's why I gave it 9 out of 10 points. But it still is one of the best new western productions I've ever seen. I've had the honor and pleasure to meet Chris McIntyre at the Festival of the West and have a nice chat with him, and I've had the chance to meet Buck Taylor who performs the role of town doctor. In my opinion, we ought to be much obliged to Chris McIntyre for his efforts to gather that many stars of the classic TV westerns and SASS around him to perform in a new western such as this. Chris has an outstanding talent for choosing the right actors for the main characters, too. Both are young and promising, and I think we should see more of them in future western productions. I sincerely enjoyed this western movie - it was worth every minute. I hope that Chris McIntyre will continue to work on other western movies and present us with some more great productions such as this one. Great work, Chris! Jasper P. Morgan (Pete) "Hell To Pay" bills itself as the rebirth of the Classic Western... it succeeds as a Western genre movie that the entire family could see and not unlike the films baby-boomers experienced decades ago. The good guys are good and the bad guys are really bad! . Bo Svenson, Stella Stevens, Lee Majors, Andrew Prine (excellent in this film) Tim Thomerson and James Drury are all great and it's fun to see them again. James Drury really shines in this one, maybe even better than his days as "The Virginian." In a way, "Hell To Pay" reminds me of those movies in the 60's where actors you know from so many shows make an appearance. If you're of a certain age, Buck Taylor, Peter Brown and Denny Miller and William Smith provide a "wow" factor because we seldom get to see these icons these days. "Hell To Pay" features screen legends along with newer names in Hollywood. Most notable in the cast of "newbies" is Rachel Kimsey (Rebekah), who I've seen lately on "The Young and The Restless" and Kevin Kazakoff, who plays the angst-ridden Kirby, a war-weary man who's torn between wanting to live and let live or stepping in to "do the right thing." William Gregory Lee is excellent as Chance, Kirby's mischievous and womanizing brother. Katie Keane plays Rachel, Rebekah's sister, a woman who did what was necessary to stay alive but giving up her pride in the process. In a small but memorable role, Jeff Davis plays Mean Joe, a former Confederate with a rather nasty mean streak. I think we'll be seeing more of these fine actors in the future. "Hell To Pay" is a fun movie with a great story to tell… grab the popcorn, we're headin' West!. A tremendous action movie that I have ever seen. It was the first expression that I uttered after watching it twice on the local TV in my country, Indonesia. A combination between a constant shooting and a great fighting choreography played well by David Bradley. He was good here besides "American Samurai". His skill in martial art was performed above average. He succeeded to make the fighting scenes nice to watch. Not only punching and kicking like what most of martial artists show in their movies. David Bradley could utilize all the martial arts techniques such as throwing, smashing and kicking. Very Recommended for action fans.I have tried to look for the DVD but I still cannot get it particularly in my town. Anyone could help me? This movie is very similar to Death Warrant with Jean-Claude Van Damme and also has some similarities to Island of Fire with Jackie Chan and I also heard that there is some other very similar action movies, but this film has a much better action than Death Warrant or even Island of Fire (that's right, the Jackie Chan's movie). Rarely American action movies has such a great action sequences, though there was many negative reviews on this film, it easily beats most of the action movies of that time who were more successful. There were many martial art's scenes, David Bradley was fast as Bruce Lee in this film and what else was good, that fighting scenes were much longer than in most of the American martial art's movies. The shoot-out scenes were similar with John Woo's movies, maybe not that good, but still very exiting. There was also many impressive explosions and one great chase scene. I've seen some other David Bradley's movies, but this one, yet is the best in terms of action. OK, this movie has some cheesy moments, but which movie hasn't? The acting was decent, Charles Napier was incredible and his character was real tough. Adam Clark who played Squid and Yuji Okumoto who played the main bad guy were also very good. Other actors acted pretty well too, though the acting isn't important in this type of movies. If you are action movies fan (I mean the real action movies fan, who really can appreciate the good action), than you must see this film. Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! David Bradley is really good and his character takes a pounding in the movie. He gets hit by the stick over a dozen times, gets stabbed in the back and is in a coma for three days and then wakes up and fights again, gets beat up, recovers and is ready for more action! His character is incredibly tuff! Charles Napier was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! Vernen Wells was good! Professor Toru Tanaka had a short and an uncredited role in Hard Justice! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the huge stand off like scene in the beginning has cars getting blown up and flipping up in mid air! There is so much that happens in the 95 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and fighting that this film has to offer! Hard Justice is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper an d plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot ems and fighting movies and has been disappointed by other movies that have the look like a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get Hard Justice! Once you sit down to see this film " A Cannon for Cordoba " you get the feeling it's going to be a great. The reason? The film begins with a rousing score by noted composer Elmer Bernstein who gave us such memorable themes as 'The Great Escape and the Magnificent Seven.' Indeed, when you read the opening credits headlining the cast is none other than George Peppard as Capt. Rod Douglas, you know it's going to have action and lot's of it. Furthermore when you see actor John Russel playing General John J. Pershing, you know you're in for a heroic saga. The story is taken from the annals of the Mexican revolution and involves the U.S. in a border town dispute with the Mexican bandits who cross the Rio Grande in the early 1900s. Among the most brazen of the rebel leaders is General Cordova (Raf Vallone). With his army of Mexican revolutionaries, he attacks Pershing, kills his men and steals some valuable artillery pieces. Since the United States Army cannot enter Mexico legally, Capt. Douglas is sent on what is slated a suicide mission, without orders and without aid from Pershing. His mission is to retrieve the Cannons, destroy a rebel stronghold and bring Cordova back alive. Selecting the roughest, toughest, most experienced, certainly the most insolent men available, Douglas enters Mexico and attacks the nearly impregnable fortress. Dramatic action follows, as does lots of explosive excitement. If one is asks for criticism, I would say the choice of heavies. Vallone and John Larch are not very menacing. Not so with the men who side with Peppard. Pete Duel and Don Gordon (Who is superb.) Nevertheless, this movie is recommended as good viewing. **** I have reasons to love the great users of a camera; fluid direction of action lends itself to fast-paced adventure and comedy narrative; but such a skill, in the hands of a King Vidor or an Anthony Mann can also be applied to idea-level work. This is Paul Wendkos' masterpiece. Its storyline can be retailed in a single pair of sentences. General Hector Cordoba is setting up as near-emperor in Northern Mexico, and steals a huge cannon from General Blackjack Pershing. he sends his crack mission unit, divided, apprehensive but determined, led by George Peppard, to get the cannon back and bring back Cordoba alive, to put an end to the rebellion. Charismatic Raf Vallone plays Cordoba; the ladies in the piece are Giovanna Ralli and Francine York; with the squad even further comprised of Nico Minardos, Peter Deuel, and Don Gordon. Other stalwarts in the class include John Larch and John Russell. Also horning in on an already fantastically-dangerous operation are Miss Ralli, and a stubborn Mexican Teniente (Gabriela Tinti) whose regiment was betrayed when Cordoba set up on his own. The danger is multiplied when Gordon's brother as advance spy is captured and tortured to death while he has to watch...and he decides he needs to kill Peppard. The attack that captures the cannon, when Peppard's orders are not obeyed by a regular army type, is one of the most electrifying visual and staging achievements in cinematic history; the penetration of Cordoba's stronghold, the revelations uncovered there, and the actions that win the mission team a chance at victory--or almost victory--are flawlessly presented. This is a beautiful color adventure film, with unusually strong costumes, acting, lighting, art direction sets and music by Elmer Bernstein. The script by Stephen Kandel is probably his best ever for a feature film. This is probably the most underrated major western at the moment, but I have always appreciated its heroes as result- getting hard-workers. But as Peppard reminds his group on the way home, "The trouble with being a "hero"--is the morning after". To find out why he says so, you will have to see "Cannon For Cordoba". Towards the end of his career Jack Arnold, a very efficient director who gave us such classic 50's creature features as "It Came from Outer Space," "The Creature from the Black Lagoon," and "Tarantula," teamed up with former football star turned top 70's blaxploitation film headliner Fred "the Hammer" Williamson for a pair of movies, producing the amiable, if unremarkable Western "The Black Bounty Hunter" and this refreshingly breezy, clever and highly entertaining 70's black action variant on your standard 40's film noir down-at-the-heels private detective yarn.

Williamson displays a charming combination of dry, self-deprecating humor and relaxed, easygoing self-confidence as Shep Stone, a cheap, affable, and forever in debt erstwhile Los Angeles cop turned private investigator. Stone's so hard-up for cash that he uses a bar as his business office and just barely makes ends meet doing penny-ante low-paying minor cases that the police don't want to bother with. While pounding the pavement for one of these deceptively simple gigs (Stone's trying to find some guy's runaway teenage daughter who's hiding somewhere in Hollywood), Stone finds himself elbow deep in a complex, dangerous, seemingly bottomless criminal plot which includes a flipped-out Jesus freak religious cult, assorted deadhead hippie dopers, a sordid porno ring, a priceless missing gold-tipped cane that belonged to a legendary silent movie star, a nefarious underground drug smuggling operation, and an ever-growing number of fresh corpses.

While lacking the wickedly playful, mischievous ingenuity of Robert Altman's masterful "The Long Goodbye" or the haunting, unremitting pessimism of Arthur Penn's beautifully bleak "Night Moves," "Black Eye" nonetheless still makes the grade as a highly successful hip'n'flip 70's spin on 40's mystery suspense thrillers. Arnold's capable direction keeps the pace moving at a nice, steady clip, punctuated with sporadic exciting mano-a-mano bare knuckle fight scenes and excellent use of various colorfully seedy L.A. locations (the rundown abandoned amusement park at the film's conclusion is especially effective). The script by Mark Haggard and Jim Martin supplies a goodly amount of fairly complicated and often genuinely surprising plot twists. And the expected array of quirky, rough-around-the-edges secondary characters are an interesting oddball bunch, with particularly notable turns by Rosemary Forsyth as an alluring, powerful lesbian model agency owner (Forsyth has the picture's best line, boasting to Stone when she first meets him, "I'm a whole lot of woman"), Teresa Graves of "Get Christie Love" TV show fame as Stone's loyal bisexual girlfriend (the film's casual, nonjudgmental depiction of both Foryth's unconventional femme fatale and Graves' equally atypical gal Friday is one of its strongest assets), and Bret Morrison, who did the voice of radio's "The Shadow" in the 40's, as a smugly sleazy porno filmmaker. All in all, it's a modest, yet surefire winner. I was very happy and at the same time quite surprised by other positive comments written by non-Koreans below. This movie is amazingly heartshaking, and shows very 'sad but warm' view toward life which is typical to Korean people. I thought other foreigners would not understand this delicate feeling and under-rate this quiet film as a boring one, but I was wrong. The attraction of this film might be hard to avoid to foreigners, too. (Even without subtitle...)

I would like to mention some points others have missed. Of course, this film depicts love between a man and a woman. However, the very theme is way beyond that. Actually, it is about time, value of remembrance, and death. In this film, the focus is not on the 'love affair' between two people. As some pointed out, they do not kiss, they do not hug each other, even without holding hands. So love itself is not completed (whether positively or negatively) in the film. Rather, what haunts Jungwon (a leading actor) is his impending death. He's running out of time, he can't hold it, leaving a few behind including his father and of course, Darim (a metermaid). So the problem is how he can face the death and leave something valuable in his short life, not how he can make love with Darim.

This kind of theme sounds very familiar to us. There are lots of movies regarding patients with uncurable disease such as 'Love Story'. However, what makes this film outstanding is the way Jungwon deals his death. He is a loser, but tried to do his best while he's alive, IN A SILENT WAY. He does not tell anybody around him about his death. He hides something in his mind but without rage, hate, vengeance. He just tried to do best while he was alive. This limited communication and obedience to fate is the typical mindset of Koreans and the point most Western people don't understand or at best, misunderstand.

This theme is very effectively expressed by the director of this film (surprisingly, his debut). Some say he's much influenced by Japanese director Ozu Yasujiro, who directed Tokyo Story. Indeed, I remember I read in some magazine that the director himself admitted he was influenced by Ozu. I'm not that knowledged to analyze his style comparing to Ozu's, but they have some in common and some not. Low angle and static camera, especially remind us Ozu's style. But, in terms of theme again, this Korean director seems to have somewhat warmer and hopeful vision.

It is expressed concisely with Jungwon's last photograph. Very well done and really heartbreaking scene, I think. Actually, the director first had the idea of this film when he participated the funeral of a very famous Korean folk singer who died young of mysterious suicide. They say he saw the photograph of the singer at the funeral and thought of a film on death and remembrance. (And possibly hope for the remnants, I think...)

I highly recommend this film to anybody who has deep interest in film art as well as Korean culture. This film, in my opinion, can be rivaled with other movies like Tokyo story, and a sort of American Beauty. It is that great if without language barrier. DVD version is going to be out in the market this February, so it might be a little help for foreigners with English subtitle. Hooray for Korean cinema! Last year I saw "Chungyang" and "Nowhere to hide", now I catch up with Hur Jin-ho's directorial debut "Christmas in august". The variety of themes and level of achievement speak highly of a national cinema ripe for discovery. This film's major themes are death and love. The graceful and thoughtful way Jung Won(Han Suk-kyu) copes with his impending death, and the sublimation of his desires toward Darim(Shim Eun-Ha) out of true love for her. I was deeply moved by his careful management of behavior and emotions, shielding Darim from unnecessary pain without rejecting her.

The success of this type of film is predicated on the skill of the actors. Han and Shim excel, being both quite expressive yet naturalistic. A number of secondary characters, Jung Won's relatives, friends, and clients, are quickly delineated to enrich the story without detracting from its main focus. To LIVE is to love, but all things must pass. Pain subsides. Life goes on. How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.

Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.

Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?

On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.

Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely. This is, without a doubt, one of the most accomplished debut films for any director. The Movie is only 90 minutes long, but manages to say just about everything about life and death. Not much action, and dialogue is minimal, but the movie flows perfectly and demands your attention due to the wonderfully natural feel of everything going on. The performances by the leads are perfection, and even some supporting characters get strong emotional scenes. The movie will be somewhat lost on today's modern audience, but this is one that everyone ought to see.Refreshingly unsentimental and honest, this is on par with Ozu's works.

Scratch my title, this one is perfect! Last time I checked in here I think there was no more than one comment. I'm very glad that more people have caught on this flick now,and even more so about you all digging it as well. I caught this the night of Christmas 2004,and I found myself unable to change the channel on my TV,even though it was an Asian flick-and I'm-sadly but truly-very used not to give any chance to any Off-Hollywood products. I did that night,though,and I thank God deeply for it. I've not been able to shake that movie out of my system since-not that I've tried to or wanted to-and it still amazes me-in an extremely grateful way-that such a great,beautiful experience came in such a way,completely unexpected,like a Christmas Miracle.Please,if you got the chance go see this movie,buy it or rent it of bootleg it or whatever,but watch it. I guarantee it will affect you. I'm out of time,but I'm far from finished with my appraissal here,so Ill be back as soon as I can. A photographer in the small city of Gunsan in South Korea learns that he has a terminal illness but downplays the seriousness of it to his family and friends. We never find out the nature of the disease but the main focus of Hur Jin-ho's poignant first film Christmas in August is not his illness. It is the grace in which he conducts his life - his ability to accept what life has in store without remorse. Sadly, it was the final film shot by cinematographer Yoo Young-kil before his death, and the film is dedicated to his memory.

The photographer, Jung-won, is played by Han Suk-kyu, at one time, Korea's most popular star. A handsome man in his early thirties with an infectious laugh, he is so warm and full of vitality that it is difficult to picture him as nearing the end of life. Jung-won owns a small photography shop and lives at home with his hard of hearing father (Goo Shin) and sister (Oh Ji-hye), teaching his dad how to play movies on the VCR, and writing instructions for him to take over his shop if he were to die. As Jung-won goes about the day-to-day business of getting his affairs in order, Dar-im (Shim Eun-ha), a meter reader, comes into his store with an urgent request for some photographic enlargements.

Abrupt and impatient, he treats her with disdain but later apologizes and she becomes a regular customer. Without overt expression of romantic feelings, their relationship develops a growing intimacy. Love is not something they say or do. It is their ground of being, the place where they come from. To protect Dar-im from suffering, Jung-won does not tell her that he has only a short time to live but this does not make the situation any easier for her. Inevitably his increasing absence from the shop causes her to feel betrayed and frustrated to the point where she throws a rock through the shop's window. Although Jung-won's decision to withhold his illness from Dar-im is open to question, it feels organic to his character in the film and is not used simply as a plot device or an excuse for the character to "live life to the fullest" by playing around.

One of the most touching sequences in the film is when an elderly woman returns to his studio to take a memorial photo of herself. Jung-won makes sure the picture is an exact likeness, knowing that soon he will be taking his own picture of remembrance. Christmas in August is an unpretentious film that never resorts to melodrama to make its point. It is about taking pleasure in ordinary moments: riding a bike, sharing a joke, eating ice cream, being thoughtful and considerate, and feeling good about what life has to offer. It is a love story where love means having to say you're sorry. Although there have been many films on the dying process, Christmas in August propels the genre in a new direction and, in the process, offers an unforgettable commentary on the human condition. Incongruously, this film about death is an experience of the utmost joy. CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST is a perfect movie. A flawless movie about all the flaws of humanity. On the outside it may look like a movie about death, but is in fact a movie about life. I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. And be not afraid, dear readers, it is not a depressing film. As stated, it's a movie about the brightness of life coached under the guise of death. You will laugh. You will cry. You will realize that life is fragile and short. And you will leave the viewing with a better understanding of how precious life is.

10 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films) Palwol ui Christmas is very Korean, if you have been to Korea or have Korean friends, you should know what i mean. Korean are very traditional people, they see love very quitely. a kind of feeling you don't find in today's world. i think that is why this film is so special. it is wrong to compare this film with "Love Letter" by Shunji Iwai, japaness are very good but could never make one like Palwol ui Christmas. if you have a chance please see this movie for yourself. I always had this concept that Korean movies were all about comedy and drama, but "Christmas in autumn" has changed my point of view. This movie is so simple. It doenot have any melodramatic scenes or over the top comedy scenes. Not a single scene where the actors cry out loud. Not even a scene where the actor and the actress kiss, not even a simple kiss. And yet this movie is able to reach it's viewers in ways that I dint know existed. The ending of the movie left me Speechless. I dint even cry, but my eyes were red hot. This movie left me a feeling I can hardly describe in words.

I don't think I can recommend this movie to everyone but I do recommend this movie to people who want to watch real cinema. 9.4/10 If you want to see a film with no guns, blood, sex, shouting angry people, hero, bad guys & girls or even clumsy love words and you want to see a film in which every shot has the meaning of "LOVE" , this one is a must see film. For me I've been waiting for a film like this all of my life. This film would have put the typical Hollywood "tearjerkers" to shame. The emotions portrayed are subdued and understated in a very comfortable fashion. The plot is cliche enough with a lead role having terminal disease (this is not a spoiler and was well established quite early into the movie) The method of execution is somehow unique from most love stories you ever saw--not even a kiss was being exchanged and yet you will feel the enormous current of love between the two leads. Initially, I assumed this "restriction on emotions" to be something analoguous to the typical "eastern values" but later decided against it.

This film is so understated that if you compare it with movies like "Cinema Paradiso", CP would have felt overtly manipulative by comparison. So, it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

After watching the film, I have this strong feeling that Holly- wood love movies, (or love movies all around, to be accurate) have been glorifying romance or passion and label it as "love". I am sure we all have our own definitions and I wouldn't say these qualities are mutually exclusive. But, I would venture to say that the movie will let you wonder if there is any added dimension you have with you loved one.

It's very obvious that I enjoy this movie a lot. Considering the fact that the movie is so plain in appearance, it is paradoxically one of the more "cinematic" movie I saw lately. This wonderful movie really takes the time to step back and tell the story without words. The end of the movie contains almost no dialogue but what is in the minds of the characters is always perfectly clear. You know the film is not going to have a happy ending but you leave the film feeling hopeful. I really appreciate what Jung-won had done before his death. Everything. I want to say that his choice for love is unselfish. If he chose Da-rim , that will be good for him. But Da-rim will need more time to recover from his death. Obviously he does not want to let it happen. As he did in the film, he chose giving up. So it was just temporary agony for Da-rim.

As comparison, My Life Without Me is very different. Their behavior shows big difference between eastern culture and western culture. I cannot say which is better. Every one can has right to choose. That is totally up to you. Life is equal for everybody. We can live only once. Any choice is acceptable if only you think it is fit for you.

In truth the slow pace of the film cannot be the excuse for rejecting the movie. Just calm down. You will get more from the movie.

One of the best Korean movies I ever watched. 9/10 Korean "romance" about the owner of a camera store who is diagnosed with a fatal disease. As he goes about his daily routine and prepares for the end he becomes acquainted with a young girl who is a customer. A friendship and romance grows, eve though neither expresses any sort of affection for the other. Good film is unlike anything you are likely to see remade in America simply because the studios would insist that the "couple" act on their feelings. He will not say anything because he doesn't have that long to live, she won't because its not the thing thats done and he is not responding as she thinks he should. Of course its much more complex than I'm making it out to be and in all honesty its the sort of thing that you should discover for yourself. Is it a great film? No, but it is a good one that will move you emotionally. The final lines of the film still haunts me: "I always knew that love would fade like a photograph - but you will remain in my heart as you are in my last moment. Thank you and goodbye". It may seem odd out of context but with in the context of the film it is very moving. I watched this film with high expectations but was somewhat disappointed. Although I like this film and was engrossed by the story, I did not find it moving and think the ending falls flat.

The story consists of the friendship between a man running a photo shop and his best customer who is a traffic Policewoman. The location is a quaint Korean village.

This film is in some ways realistic as there is an element of tragedy and yet it is not melodramatic. However I was not ultimately moved by a film depicting a man who is loved so much by a woman, yet does not even give her the choice to enter his life. In my mind he is a sweet, noble loser.

Good points - Excellent acting by the two main leads, enjoyable snapshot of village life

Cons - Flat ending

Overall - Good but I prefer the Before Sunrise and After Sunset films (or is it Before Sunset and After Sunrise) How would you feel if you had only a few weeks left to live? This film helps you to know through the eyes of one guy who is faced with that situation. It is told with sympathy and without too much emotion. Some might feel it rather slow - but I think that adds to the realism of the film. Some might see it as a love story, but I think that is secondary to seeing his last days through his eyes. The loves of his life are part of the end of his life and give it more impact. Low key and gentle, the film rolls out the story much as life does. Without clichés and with unexpected events set against a backdrop of getting by. If you like your films gently emotionally realistic this may be for you. I was lucky enough to watch this film in the recently concluded international film festival here. I was actually able to watch another South Korean film (The Power of Kangwon Province) but Christmas in August caught my attention more. The story is simple enough, the usual boy-meets-girl (or shall we say girl-meets-boy?). What made it special for me was how it was rendered. We can say that the movie was quiet and endearing. We don't have flashy and contrived romance here, only two ordinary beings made wonderful by their friendship and unexpressed love for one another. I also loved how the movie used pictures as expressions of relationships past and present. I wished that this was shown here as a regular film. I'm sure it would call out to a bigger audience. SPOILER ALERT--AND I REALLY MEAN IT!! READ NO FURTHER UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO HAVE A MAJOR PLOT ELEMENT REVEALED!!

Okay, first I've gotta say that I have a relatively high tolerance for depressing films. I'll watch and appreciate films about true life horrors (such as war and the holocaust) or where death and sadness are important to the plot BUT I hate films like STEAL MAGNOLIAS and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT where the film is built around a manipulative death of a main character. So, already no matter how well made this film is, it's got a MAJOR strike against it because one of the main characters dies from a disease at the end (though they never say WHAT he had in the English subtitled version).

So you might ask yourself, "then if this blow-hard hates this type of film, then why did he watch it in the first place?" You would have an excellent point to ask this, though I hope I am not really a blow-hard! Well, when I found it in our local library I had no idea what it was about!!! The movie was not intended specifically for export, as the subtitles were in Korean, English and Japanese and the box was printed all in Korean. Well, being a fan of trying films from any nation (I've seen films from probably at least 30-40 different countries), I gave it a try.

Well, apart from the obligatory death, I loved the film and so hated the way it ended. While I usually hate Hollywood-type miraculous endings, I wanted to see the guy saved through some new drug or experimental surgery. I was really bummed that he had to die--particularly since he seemed like one of the nicest people I've seen in films in a long time. His smile was infectious and I really wanted him to get the girl in the end. Oh well, at least I can appreciate the film's message that you need to seize the moment. Great acting, music, etc., but just not the most satisfying ending for me. This film was good enough to encourage me to try some more Korean cinema. I watched this film recently for the first time in over 30 years and was very pleasantly surprised. I remembered a film that caught the mood and feel of Britain in the mid 1960s without falling into the 'Swinging Britain' clichés that so many other films thought they had to propagate, my memory proved correct. Those who feel that this is like a TV play are not entirely wrong but while Andrea Newman was to become famous for risqué TV drama, this film is more in the tradition of the 'kitchen-sink'films such as 'Saturday Night And Sunday Morning' but with an emphasis on middle-class rather than working-class life. Rod Steiger is excellent as the middle-aged angst-ridden lead, unhappily married to a repressed and apparently barren wife (Claire Bloom). The onset of the 'Technological Revolution' is the the backdrop for the drama in which old values and certainties are challenged. This is the stage for the central character played by Judy Geeson, a role which at the time was a shocking departure from the typical prim behaviour of contemporary heroines. The reversal of roles, with the girl rating her conquests in a little-black-book was a precursor to the Feminist movement and was criticised at the time for promoting promiscuity among young girls. The irony of these criticisms is to be seen in both Claire Bloom's and Peggy Ashcroft's characters who are both acceptingly dissatisfied. Peter Hall made few films and on this evidence that is a great shame. Steiger is exemplary and wholly credible showing why he was so highly regarded Many accuse Rod Steiger of overacting, and anyone who has seen the Amityville Horror and the 'fly' section would struggle to say otherwise. That said, he's brilliant in this.

It's never on TV, you can't buy it on DVD (legitimately). In 1988, when Channel 4 still had a prescription for innovation, they showed this amongst a small amalgam of 60s films, Privilege etc - and I remember an essentially theatrical experience, transposed well to film. The great thing about theatre is it's enclosed - how do you make it available and interesting on screen? PH just about pulls it off. Because this sort of film is never even on cable or Sky TV anywhere it's hard to get a debate going, but for anyone out there who has seen it or can remember, my memories are of a forthright, almost strident performance by Sally Geeson 'thats all taken care of' (which eschews the almost diffident general performances of her and her sibling in many early 70s offerings) she says ref conception. There are several of these - key lines you remember years, decades on. That's the power of a film like this.

PS I just saw it again and its just as good. One day, TV too will be enlightened. I saw this film back in the early 70's and I was mesmerised by Judy Geeson. For me it captured the clandestine nature of Rod Steigers irrepressible obsession with the young and extremely sexy hitch hiker, played by Geeson.

You couldn't help feel a little sorry for the wife, played brilliantly by Claire Bloom. I was really disappointed to see that the original cut may have been lost and there is little chance of it being released on DVD.

I defy anyone who saw the film, and it's strong message not to be equally absorbed by the three main character performances, and I would have loved to have seen it again, if nothing else for a purely nostalgic reason.

Going back in time, some 35 years.

A real classic. In 1242, Russia in being invaded by two sides: from the orient by the Mongols and from Europe side, by the Germans Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. The city of Novgorod is the last free city in Russia. The population, in order to organize the defense of Novgorod and the lands of Russia, calls the Prince Aleksandr Nevsky, who had defeated the Swedish in a previous battle. His successful strategy defeats the Germans, after a great battle on a frozen lake. This movie was made in 1938 due to the threaten of the German to Russia, in a pre-Second World War period. The idea was to make propaganda pro-Russia. However, it is an overwhelming, marvelous, stunning powerful masterpiece. It is amazing the combat scene on the frozen lake. The present generation is very accustomed to special effects, like in the `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, and maybe cannot understand how fantastic is this black and white fight. If the viewer can forget the ideology and watch it as an art, he will certainly be astonished in the end with such a masterpiece. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Alexander Nevsky At school I was taught how some shots were called and there were two directors constantly mentioned : Orson Welles and Sergei M. Eisenstein. I didn't care that much then (I was a kid!) but now I know why, Eisenstein is a genius and it is a shame to see what was possible in 1938 where as almost more than a half century we're stuck with countless blank movies! Some say this movie isn't worth the genius of Eisenstein (then they have to watch it over and over till they can say anything bad) or even worse that it is just some propagandamovie for the Russians. Let's say it as it is, it is indeed pure propaganda for patriotism but isn't "Saving private Ryan" or "The longest day" so? I could sum up so many movies in where America is being raised to the top so why not Russia, and besides every war is fought for itrs patriotism why else would they raise flags? Aleksandr Nevsky is a must for anyone who cares about cinematography as almost every shot is a sublime picture. Perhaps it's all overseen but I am in wonder why this isn't included in IMDB's Top 250 where as there is so many overrated Oscarcrap in it as well. Alexander Nevsky (1938) is a brilliant piece of cinematic propaganda. The people of Russia are threatened by two major enemies, the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. In ordered to unite the warring, rival Princes in the Russian Realm, Nevsky takes charge and fights the lesser of two evils (The Teutonics). This influential film was copied many times over and it still holds up to this day. The soundtrack by composer Prokiev and Eisentstein's direction are a sight and sound to behold Many years later, John Milius used many of the movies scenes, set pieces and costumes from this film and incorporated them into Conan.

One of my favorite lines from Conan was taken from this movie. "It's not the strength of the iron in a weapon but the strength of the person that wields it is what matters." The comparisons are unmistakable. The armor that James Earl Jones and the Leader of the Teutonic Knights wear are virtually identical. A true tribute paid from one director to another.

I give Alexander Nevsky one of my highest recommendations. The movie plays like the final Act of Richard III. The presence of Prince Alexander on the screen is truly amazing. When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.

That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art. A stunning piece of art.You can watch every image of the film and see the beauty in it.First I would like to say that ´when I saw the German´s soldiers helmet´s I understood that it was from here that "Star Wars" hade been inspired.The scene were they kill the baby is frightening and when I saw it I did not like it.But when the film was end I thought about that scene and I changed my mind and thought that in the World War 2 that was exactly what the German´s did.

The Ice-battle scene is some of the best war scenes I have seen(If not the BEST).They way this film combines music and so superbly stunning visual images is really excellent.Then the Prokofiev score is one of the most famous sound track´s in history and I thought it was some of the best to.

what more can you say then a work of art.Eisenstein have created a stunning masterpiece,a propaganda film and a Beautiful work of art. I am very happy because I have just got the criterion collection Eisenstein set. I saw this film with a live performance by the Buffalo Philharmonic, and the music was one of the two things that definitely made the experience for me; particularly, the song after the battle where the woman is looking for her husband was just devastating. The other thing that stood out to me is the battle on the ice itself, a bit of strategy ripped off thoroughly by the makers of _King Arthur_ in 2004. Also, the battle goes on forever (half an hour?)-- painfully long. I can't think of another propaganda film that makes war look less glamorous or rewarding. I'm surprised Stalin liked this film so well; I wouldn't want to go out and fight after watching it. Alexander Nevsky is a series of superb sequences of cinematic opera that pass from pastoral to lamentation and end in a triumphal cantata. The story takes place in 1242. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) defeats the Teutonic Knights in a battle on the ice of Lake Peipus.

The film is a splendid historical pageant which shows director Sergei Eisenstein at his most inventively pictorial, and climaxes in a superb battle sequence using music instead of natural sounds. Several films have scenes strongly influenced by the Battle of Lake Peipus, including Doctor Zhivago (1965), Mulan (1998), and King Arthur (2004). Alexander Nevsky was kept out of circulation due to changing political winds, and then enshrined as perhaps the most influential Soviet-made historical film. There is a version of "Nevsky" that is shown with a live symphony orchestra, chorus, soloist and the movie. If it's EVER performed within a day's travel of you see "Nevsky" done that way. The Oklahoma City Philharmonic did it with the OKC Canterbury Choir (one of the finest anywhere) a couple of years ago. I think I cried through the whole thing, it was one of the most emotionally powerful movie experiences of my life. I'm listening to "Nevsky" on the radio right now and it still tears me up. There are movies that I love, and classical music pieces I love, but there is no combination I can think of that comes close to the impact of "Nevsky" performed in real time. I've loved this movie since the first time I saw it lo these many years ago. I'm not sure how many times I've seen it, perhaps 10, perhaps 20. This last time I watched it I was struck by a detail that I hadn't noticed before.

Toward the end of the picture, the slain heroes are conveyed back to the town via sled. There are a couple of closeups of the dead men. The one that struck me most was a shot of the blond youth. All you see on the screen is his profile from head to hands. His hands are holding a flickering candle. The wind is blowing and his thick blond hair is dancing in the wind, in tune with the flicker of the candle flame. The contrast between death and the life he has lost is incredibly powerful. The moving hair and candle flame remind us of the life force that once inhabited his body.

Every time I revisit this film I see something new. This 3 hour epic (seems much shorter) explores the will to power and conquest and the conflicting motives that underlie that quest by tracking two parallel lives: the emperor Q'in, whose desire to unify the Chinese feudal states has its basis in noble aims but devolves into violent oppression,isolation, and ultimate powerlessness; and the assassin Jing ke, a mercenary killer who comes to recognize the unintended consequences of murder and finds a form of salvation. As with all great art, this can be understood on many levels. The movie evoked for me images and ideas from Homer, Euripides, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Freud.

The story itself is true (I checked it out at britannica.com!), so this film will appeal to history buffs. It's ironic that Q'in spent much of his last years in a futile quest for immortality (not shown on the screen, but consistent with the plot).

The movie can also be viewed as an allegory of Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. Through the movie, one can understand that the last 50 years of Chinese history have had their precedent in the last 3000.

Fortunately for the audience, these complex ideas are developed in a film that is rich in imagery, action, and pagent. The battle scenes alone are worth the price of admission. Based on the actual event , this epic, is set in the year 221 B.C and tells the true story of the unification of China. Action packed and filled with intrigue, passion, betrayals and unforgettable battle sequences, it held my attention throughout in spite of its 160 minute length.

The king, Ying Zeng, played by Li Xuejian is obsessed with unifying the seven kingdoms of China and becoming its first Emperor. His lover, Lady Zhao, played by the beautiful actress Gong Li, devises a plot whereby she will travel to the neighboring kingdom of Yan to set a fake assassination plot in motion which will give the king an excuse to invade Yan. However, she falls in love with the assassin as the king becomes more and more ruthless.

There are subplots, and tragedy and constant high drama. There are scenes of great beauty and of abject cruelty. There is great cinematography and brilliant use of physical space.

The deep characterization made me think of Shakespeare. And tragic events that call to mind Greek drama. And yet it is totally Chinese as it deals with age-old questions of whether the ends justify the means. And raises the questions dealing with life and death and good and evil and all the blurred edges in between.

It is the story of individuals against the backdrop of history, a history that has shaped China for the past two thousand years. I was swept up in the story as well as the moral questions raised. There are no easy answers and this was one of the strengths of the movie.

Recommended. But be prepared for the violence and gore.

Chen Kaige lost his sense of tempo. I envy Europeans and Americans who can watch the film without following the dialog with their ears, because it is painful to do: slow, unnaturally heavy, and over-deliberate. But Westerners, on the other hand, suffer from the poor quality of subtitle translation, which manages to lose all the subtlety and double meanings that make a careful study of the film so much fun. This movie is beautiful in many ways: the plot, the depth of the characters, the stunning photography and acting, the kolossal-like scenes of battles (no computer graphics here, just thousands of people). Someone said the story has something to do with the Sheakespearian tragedies. I find some connections with the Greek tragedy tradition, too.

The emperor, extraordinarily acted, struggles between power and love, but he is forced (for the greater good, for the will of his ancestors) to choose the power (and the loneliness, the hate of his subjects and kins) as his destiny. He, like Creon in Antigone, was a good guy before becoming emperor. Once gained power, he has to be merciless and cruel (with innocent children, his mother, his father, etc.) to defend and expand the empire. Entrapped by power he becomes a monster. Overall, The Qin emperor is a majestic Greek tragedy figure.

The assassin evolves towards a different direction: from pure evil to heroism and morality. Even this character is forced towards his destiny by love and by his new ethics. This character is really unforgettable, too.

Lady Zhao, a wonderful Gong Li, is the uncorrupted morality, nor by power or love or hate. She is morality against power, somehow like Antigone. Her conspiracies (for and against the emperor) have always a moral rationale.

In conclusion, a wonderful movie. If you love cinema and you want to try Chinese movies you can start here. I enjoyed the film very much, especially the performance of the exceptionally beautiful Gong Li as the concubine.

It was a little distracting, however, to have Chinese dialogue PLUS English subtitles PLUS American-accented voice-over, even though the voice over was very well synchronised.

Qin shi huiang di's (The First Emperor of Qin's)family name was Zheng, and his given name Yiong so in the English he should have been referred to as "King Zheng" or "Emperor Zheng", and NOT as "King Ying Zheng" as in those days the two family/given names were not used together.

The State of Qin is pronounced "Chin" not "shin" - a pity the researchers didn't get this right.

I forgave this but was dismayed at the end when the commentary announced that he was buried at "Zai-an" together with his terra cotta warriors. The town Xi'an is pronounced "See-an" , never "Zai-an"- surely the American voice-over speakers could have got that right ! Leaving aside the drawbacks and deficiencies of the film mentioned by other viewers I must say that it seemed to me a film about power,which is in my opinion one of the most luring illusions. I saw the drama of an emperor and people. It seems to me that the director wanted to pose a question of what the benefit of nation is and what the price of "happiness" for all is. Is there justification for the enforced benefit and "happiness"? How much can be forfeited for the nation's security and peaceful existence? Is the idea of a powerful would-be empire worth reducing to misery and killing thousands of its citizens now? It seems to me that the emperor himself does not know the answer and seeks to learn it all the time the film runs. He is desperately torn between these desires and at the same time psychologically harassed by the discovery of his true origin. He seems to half hate his subjects for having to renounce his father and his love, half love the people as a good emperor should. No wonder his actions are controversial and emotions confused. It seems to me that as another film presenting the problem of power of man over other men the film is a success. Chen Kaige gives us magnificent depth of atmosphere. Yes, it's a 'period piece', but Chen's artistic use of imagery makes it something more. The actors often behave like players using the stylized diction, postures and facial expressions of Peking Opera. All the actors in a scene play to the 'back wall' even when addressing each other. They are like spirits of the past enunciating with powerful clarity a story with urgent meaning for those in the present. Combined with close attention to scale and masterful cinematography indoors and out, "Jing ke ci qin wang" is a stunning tale told with great reverence in its own idiom that captivates completely. Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler. Quite a production from the director telling the story of The Qin Emperor's ambitious plan to unite all kingdoms of China. Some great characters, sets, costumes and scenes. However, I was not blown away by the film in terms of the actors ability (which was good I enjoyed the Marquis the most) or its look (although the massing of troops was extremely impressive, if it was real man that is a lot of extras!).

I have seen Li Gong in other movies and she is always great. Good period piece I think, but not one to judge the true historical accuracy of it. Good film and found the 2 1/2 + hours not a problem.

Rating 7 out of 10. The movie invites comparisons to Shakespeare. The Mandarin is beautifully written and spoken, and the plot is intricate and intriguing. Never has Gong Li looked better, never has the glory that is China been better represented on the screen. The balance between political turmoil and personal intrigue that Gladiator hinted at but never really delivered is here in spades. Simply incredible. This story documenting the rise of China's first emperor and his efforts to unify the empire was the most expensive movie production in Chinese history.

It's worth every penny. Visually dazzling cinematography, a sweeping score and outstanding characters make this one of the finest epics ever put on film (foreign or otherwise.) Please do not miss the opportunity to see this on the big screen. Another period piece for Chen Kiage... (can't remember him doing a modern film!)...

Good characterization with a simple story of trust and broken promises. None of the HK fighting scenes, or the Hollywood type of heroes, but it is good because of it. The characters are strong, I really felt for them.

Understanding the mandarin definitely gives the English subtitles the edge. The film is 3 hours, but it didn't feel like it. This movie is not for those expecting a martial-arts extravaganza. As for historical accuracy, I will leave that issue to those better informed on that subject. I thought the performances were wonderful. Gong Li never disappoints as the resourceful and (initially) loyal consort of the King of Qin. Fengyi Zhang showed a lot of flexibility portraying a ruler descending into madness. He chose the "Hannibal Lector" route, rather than resorting to ranting. For me, the best performance was from Zhiwen Wang as the supersmooth Marquis. The character came across as very oily, but in a subtle "Sir Humphrey Appleby" - Yes Minister kind of way.

The cinematography is the standout feature of this film. The scene when the Marquis and his men stormed the palace was breathtaking. There are also a number of wonderful battle scenes. Therefore, this film is highly recommended on the big screen. The pace of the film is ponderously slow in parts, but if you can tune into its languid speed and lengthy silences then it is a satisfying piece of courtly intrigue. The story of the first Emperor of China, his childhood sweetheart and the personal cost of power. The film is very atmospheric, the extremely mannered and polite courtly ceremony and ritual contrasted with sudden brutal violence. Filmed in a way that evokes shadows and cold spaces. Battle scenes are rare and short, the focus is on the battle within the individual on what is right to do and whether the ends justify the means. The emperor's journey from idealistic peacemaker to ruthless tyrant is aiming to be subtle, but gives little background or convincing insight into the motivation of the Emperor, indeed his actions and aims do not really change throughout, only Gong Li's attitudes to him are altered. The most interesting performances are Gong Li's and the titular Assassin as they reassess when to fight, when to retreat, when to kill. The most expensive film ever made in China at the time, the Emperor and the Assassin does not rely on hysteric emotion or big battles, but rather a brooding atmosphere of menace and inevitability. Gong Li fans will be unsurprised to hear she is as stunningly beautiful as ever, giving an understated performance. This movie is excellent ( i watched the French version ). There are many subplots (which usually detracts from the whole ), but they nicely unfold and concur to the "discovering of one's real self" main theme. In fact, the whole movie (besides his background ) is the journey to the discovery of one's ( or someone else's ) self. Is the King really a "good peacenik monarch" trying to wage a "war to end all wars" or is he just a disturbed, blood thirsty hoodlum? Is he a true king, after all? Is the attendant to the queen mother just a lusty, career-driven, spineless sock puppet or rather a sharp thinking, bold individual? Will the dame/concubine realize who the king truly is? What's between the king and the old chancellor? What's the secret everyone knows but won't tell? What's the true reason the assassin quit his "job"? Subplots (something i'm not particularly fond of ) are handled well and keep one watching until the end. Scenes are well crafted and CGI fits nicely in, without going overboard. Suspense is properly maintained and actors are upto the task. There is a lot of brain-damaged smiling, but that is how one was supposed to behave at the king's court ( as the dame/concubine complains about ). Realistic movie without superhero moments. This Chinese movie really puts Hollywood cardboard colossals ( Gladiator etc ) to shame. The story of pre-unified China must be a popular one. Jet Li's Hero made the assassination of the King popular.

This is another story made a few years earlier. It stars the incredibly beautiful Li Gon (Memoirs of a Geisha, 2046, Miami Vice) as the King's lover, who was sent to recruit an assassin so that the King could defeat him. She recruits Fengyi Zhang, but falls in love with him.

No matter, he is not able to complete the mission anyway, as the King knew about him beforehand. I suspected he also knew, but went anyway.

It was a beautiful story with massive military operations, and, of course, another chance to see Li Gong. A very great movie.

A big love story. Lots of sword fighting. Huge battle scenes. Heros and villains. Real history.

Few in the West know much Chinese history. Chin Zchaundi founded China. The country is in fact named after him. Some are familiar with the terra cotta army recently unearthed. This is a historical epic of how he ended the Period of Contending States and unified China. He founded a dynasty that only last 14 years but it was immediately replaced by the Han dynasty that permanently defined Chinese civilization ever since.

Chin (or the King of Zheng as he was known before he founded the empire)was roughly contemporaneous with Scipio, Hannibal, and Fabius in the West. The parallel Roman world dominance (West and East worlds) was achieved without a single towering personality like Chin. It would not be for another century before the West produced Caesar - the nearest comparable Western figure.

Chin is shown very sympathetically here in the beginning but he develops over the course of the film into a ruthless despot. History only records the ruthless despot part but the sympathetic beginning leaves room for real character development over the course of this long film. The famous story about the meeting with the assassin is as true as any two thousand year old anecdote can be. Gong Li is lovely. She is the emotional core of the story. It all makes for great movie making. I have found this epic to be of an astonishing, striking, even heartbreaking beauty. Some kind of monumentality in beauty and decorative richness, a magnificent dramatic movement and dynamism. The choreography herein is hugely enjoyable, the actors are thoroughly enjoyable. I have been a big fan of CROUCHING TIGER … as well, but this one was even better. They have Kitano's ingenuity in delighting in what is pleasurable. This beauty affirming adventure cinema is an act of courage. When was the suspense so exquisite and genuine? And the art of showing huge crowds, gigantic armies …. The film has something deeply satisfying, and a steadfast good taste. There is an enormous pleasure in making such a deliberately impressing and clean show ….It's good beyond words. Few, few adventure films ,let alone epics, gave me such an uninterrupted delight.

Fan can be monumental. …is not monumental art—but is monumental fun,like Leone's movies, like some '60s epics; also like the hobbits trilogy. It is large—sized fun. I have nothing but good things to say about this tasteful and heartwarming film. I think that the effort of the film's director/writer is courageous as well as inspirational. I loved this film not only for the fantastic story (which needed to be told), but also for the way the actors delivered the story. This is not another shallow "gay movie" that depicts stereotypical characters in humorous situations. This was a memorable and flawless effort to show people that love truly knows no bounds, and love is still as beautiful and wonderful as it always was.

Another thing that touched my heart was how well I could relate to the emotion portrayed in this film surrounding the coming out of one of the main characters. We all have to go through similar situations living in the society that we live in and feeling that feeling of detachment from everything that is "right" and "normal". I give my most heartfelt praise for this fabulous and courageous story. Having grown up a Mormon and grappled with the church's bigotry towards Blacks (they were not allowed to hold the church's priesthood when I was a member) -- I wasn't aware of the organizations policy of excommunicating gay men and women until after I left the church in 1966 -- (I was 20.) I was stunned when I learned that friends who were gay were excommunicated even after serving on missions. LATTER DAYS exposes the Mormon's persecution of gay members. The film is LONG overdue. It does an excellent job of showing how the two lead males come to terms with one another, while managing to grow up and develop more fully as individuals. LATTER DAYS has great heart, wonderful original music and an added touch of class from Jacqueline Bisset. The film brilliantly tells the story of an individual who leaves behind the confines of organized religion and reclaims his very soul. I love so much about this movie: the music, the cinematography, the acting, the story, and all the Mormon clichés. Just because they are clichés doesn't mean they aren't true! This is not perfect, it is a movie after all. Though excommunications are held in well-lit rooms with nice big desks and chairs, it was totally appropriate to portray it as the dark, cold scene they did in this film. I also liked the scene with the angel waiting at the bus stop, smoking a cigarette. I thought that was so cool. I mean, I believe that angels do watch over us. What is one supposed to do while waiting? Smoking is a way some people pass the time while waiting. I loved the irony cause Mormons make such a deal about smoking. I saw this movie 7 times in theaters in Salt Lake, and cried every time! It blows me away. And I've watched it 3 times on video now and it still makes me cry every time. I would jump at the chance to see it again on a big screen. I hope the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake will bring it back regularly at General Conference time, as a cult movie (pun intended, but no offense intended). I may be a sentimentalist. But i found this movie truly moving. It was the first movie that reduced me to tears. And it did it more than once!! I recommend it to anyone both gay and str8. Religious or not! Supporting co-star Jackie Bisset stole the show, especially with her one liners. The nude scenes were superbly crafted as well, and all in were good taste. Most shocking was the portrayal of the orientation reversal deprogramming instituted by the Mormon church to the lead character. It shocked me that this still goes on in the world. Nevertheless I enjoyed this movie tremendously. This is definitely the best gay film since Torch Song Trilogy. And much better than the other gay movie offering that year - The Fluffer. Latter days is the best gay movie of the homosexual genre. Most of the films entail sappy stories, one night stands, and let us not forget infamous baseball teams? Latter days actually contains male affection beyond the kiss in the dark, and quite graphic material that made me wonder whether the film belonged at Blockbuster or badpuppy.com. The films emotional journey is what sets it above the rest in the genre. Not until this film had I seen a story of such intense passion and love, and the torture that it can bring. I think when people cry during movies they should be beaten, but I found myself sobbing throughout several scenes because of the realistic nature of the world in which we live. I suggest every gay male see this film, and if you have a boyfriend, thank him... I am a Sociologist/Anthropologist specializing in the field of Symbolic Interactionism, and I must say that this film exhibits high quality in the symbolic context throughout the entire film. To anyone who has not yet seen this, I recommend that you also read "Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning" by Victor E. Frankl. I think you will be able to draw some amazing correlations.

That being said, I would like to say that despite the fact that the main characters are gay, this is not a story about being gay. This is a story about seeking out and finding meaning in life, despite the difficulties and challenges, the pain and terror that stand in your way. This is a story of seeking and finding balance and wholeness and happiness. This was truly a deeply moving movie in every sense of the word. I myself was a Mormon missionary and I know first hand the wanting to complete my mission but at the same time hiding the fact that I was gay. Like the character Aaron, I was sent home for being found out and excommunicated, but being the only Mormon in a family of Catholics wasn't as big a shame as it was for the lead character. This movie really took me back to those days and helped me to realize, years later, how fortunate I was to have a family that accepted me and understood what I was going through. I found myself applauding the end of a movie when Aaron and Christian find each other again by shear chance at Lila's Restaurant. I was truly moved to tears. I highly recommend this movie to all who read this review and also declare it a must buy. First of all, I'd like to say I'm just an amateur in commenting movies and that English is not my native language, but that I felt a strong feeling compelling me to write about such movie; possibly as a way to thank and congratulate C. Jay Cox, the cast and the crew for such a brilliant production.

Yesterday I watched "Latter Days" for the first time.

At first I thought it might be similar to the movie "Priest", which I liked very much for showing a gay priest out of the closet. But "Priest", maybe due to its restrict Catholic Ideological notions, didn't supply my spectator's needs by revealing a profound sad end.

"Latter Days", on the other hand, broke that concept (and some other ones as well, such as the Mormon's principles); presenting a tender and cheerful story, leading it to a happy and emotive end, and yet arousing a feeling of God's blessing and hope. A great movie indeed!

Somehow "Latter Days" made me feel L.A. as a city of angels.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes astoundingly beautiful gay love stories! The very first time I heard of Latter Days was when I was renting DVD's and I was interested as I am a member of the LDS Church. I found this movie very heartfelt and in several areas it made me cry. The reason for this is that too many years ago I knew a young man who went through what Aaron (played by Steve Sandvoss)does in Latter Days, but unlike Aaron this dear young man did not survive the ordeal. He ended up taking is life after his church, his friends, and his family disowned him because he was gay. There have been many people who do not think that the things that are shown in the movie really happen in this day and age, but the sorry and sad thing is they do. For those of you out their who are gay and young you need to see this movie and if you are a gay Mormon you really need to see this movie. Plus if you get the DVD there is help for you listed in the DVD. Teenage suicide in the gay world is very disturbing and this movie touches it but that part is hidden to a degree. The acting and the music is excellent. This movie sold out every movie house that it showed but it only showed in major cities and had a very limited release, so for those who would like to see this movie I would recommend the DVD release. The only people that I know who did not like the movie are members of my own church and they did not see the movie because of the subject matter gays and the LDS Church. See the movie, experience the story, and feel the emotions that are showcased in this movie you I feel will not be disappointed. Four holy young men from Mormon country go to L.A. to preach the gospel to urban heathens. But, one of the young Mormons is a repressed gay who "happens" to cross paths with a very "out" young L.A. party boy. (What would film plots be without coincidences?). These two, very different, young men become friends, and in the process, affect each other's outlook which, in turn, sets up an inevitable clash between gay and Mormon cultures.

That is the premise of "Latter Days", a 2003 film, written and directed by C.Jay Cox, himself a former Mormon missionary. The film's story is, of course, highly relevant, especially in contemporary America. Variations of this story need to be told, and retold, and retold, hopefully in future films ... because the underlying theme brings to light the hatefully superior attitude that Christian fundamentalists too often display toward gays. By its nature, "Latter Days" is provocative, and I doubt that the film was well received in Provo or Pocatello, even though the script is intelligent, sensitive, and insightful. LATTER DAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Stereo

Trouble flares when an LA party boy (Wes Ramsey) falls in love with a handsome Mormon missionary (Steve Sandvoss).

A huge hit on the festival circuit and on limited theatrical release, this likable movie - the feature debut of screenwriter C. Jay Cox (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) - is an exercise in 'opposites attract', in which Ramsey's shallow-minded character is changed forever after falling hard for vulnerable beauty Sandvoss, who is constrained by the dictates of his religious convictions. Here, the path of true love is paved with hardship, not least of which is the reaction of Sandvoss' fellow Mormons to his newfound sexuality, which results in his excommunication from the church and the wrath of his indignant parents (Mary Kay Place has a small but devastating cameo as the boy's outraged mother). But Cox's script focuses chiefly on Ramsey's path to redemption, as his hedonistic lifestyle is thrown into disarray by Sandvoss' influence, and by the responsibilities which emerge as a consequence of his developing maturity: He volunteers as an outreach participant, delivering food to AIDS patients living at home, leading to an unexpected friendship with former party boy Erik Palladino (TV's "er"), whose illness provides Ramsey with a much-needed wake-up call.

Cox's script is laced with juicy one-liners and various pearls of wisdom (on Mormonism: "Your church doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals? Well, I'm definitely not joining - I can't imagine heaven without both!"), and the characters are surprisingly complex and well-drawn. Ramsey has the showier, sexier role (he's first seen doing something rude to a willing participant!), but it's Sandvoss who has become something of a gay icon, with his sensitive portrayal of a sweet-natured innocent whose journey from Darkness into Light leads to a startling revelation about his place in the world around him. He and Ramsey are well-matched, and their inevitable sex scene (brief but memorable) is followed by a compelling sequence in which Ramsey describes a childhood trauma which has defined his life to date.

Filmed on hi-def video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition, the movie's meager budget places limitations on the scope and grandeur of Cox's ambitions, though the characters and situations are strong enough to survive this minor drawback. Jacqueline Bisset shines as a worldly-wise restaurateur at the diner where Ramsey waits tables for a living, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") steals everyone's thunder as Sandvoss' fellow Mormon, opposed to his friend's relationship with Ramsey on religious principle... but ONLY on principle. Though a little stilted in places, the movie aches with romantic longing, and deserves plaudits for its honesty and compassion. Best seen with a crowd of like-minded viewers, preferably with a loved one by your side. I was impressed by the story. It had the "typical" predatory gay male and the "typical" Mormon missionary. But, they each also had friends and family who balanced their lives well. There are a number of characters, some nice and some not so nice, each with their own personality nuances. And, most reminded me of people in my own life.

The story starts out with several humorous moments and slowly evolves into a heartwarming relationship film. The story progresses without obvious plot turns and never talks down to you. It makes you think a bit while waiting to see what happens. Even when I thought I could foresee something coming, I was surprised by how it actually came about.

Not many movies make me laugh knowingly at real gay dialogue and then bring a tear to my eye when I feel the characters' pain. I watched the film on DVD, and couldn't bring myself to stop watching until it was over. (Usually, I watch a film in pieces over a couple of days.) It's nice to see a film with gay characters that is uplifting, but not preachy. I highly recommend this film! And, not just for gay audiences. The relationships transcend sexuality. Without a doubt the most impressive recent gay oriented film I've seen. C. Jay Cox hit the nail on the head with this one. The way he handled the issues surrounding faith, family and sexuality were very well done. Casting was perfect. Wes Ramsey did a fantastic job at pulling off the character of Christian and Steve Sandvoss will knock your socks off in the role of Aaron. Both brought an incredible amount of realism to the roles and the impacts these issues have on young gay men. As a gay man who grew up in a very religious environment (though not Mormon)the identification with Aaron's character was phenomenal for me. Strongly recommend this film to anyone, faithful or not, who is interested in how young gay men have to deal with family and friends in an oft times unfriendly world. By the way, the music in this film rocks! Another great job by C. Jay Cox. Back in 1982 a little film called MAKING LOVE shocked audiences with its frank and open depiction of a romantic love story that just happened to be about two men.

I have been waiting for years for a good, old-fashioned romance between two men; LATTER DAYS is all that and more.

Yes, it is soapy, melodramatic, cliché-ridden, and quite corny. That is what makes it so wonderful. There is nothing like a good romantic movie, and this movie is romantic in the best sense of the word.

As to the issue of religion, sorry folks, but these things do happen and are happening to gay people even now. It is not just the Mormon church that rejects its gay members. Gay people in every religion have faced harsh judgment and rejection.

I loved this movie. It has a perfect blend of a fantasy-romance grounded in the reality of the day-to-day lives of the characters. If I could give it more than ten stars I would. Good love stories never go out of style; great love stories like LATTER DAYS are unforgettable.

It's about time! "From C. Jay Cox, the writer of the hit comedy 'Sweet Home Alabama', comes a heartwarming and tender gay romantic drama that combines laughs, seduction, tears, and plenty of romance. The handsome Aaron (Steve Sandvoss), a Mormon missionary, travels door-to-door in Los Angeles spreading the word of his religion. Christian (Wes Ramsey), a cute West Hollywood party boy, goes from man-to-man without much commitment. Opposites attract when Aaron and Christian meet, and sparks begin to fly.

"Featuring two star-making performances from Sandvoss and Ramsey, the film also features a terrific supporting cast including Mary Kay Place, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and international screen legend Jacqueline Bisset," according to the DVD sleeve description. Not to mention some sweet vocalizations from Rebekah Jordan (as Julie), the stock sympathetic roommate. Debuting director Cox turns his otherwise ordinary "Latter Days" into a enjoyable and touching drama, due to some story surprises and an engaging team.

******* Latter Days (7/10/03) C. Jay Cox ~ Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey, Jacqueline Bisset, Joseph Gordon-Levitt Latter Days is a very, VERY independent movie. And compared to many of today's more modern films, it's lacking on many parts. The shooting seems at times quite amateurish, the dialogues can be a bit chopped up and the characters are not impressively complex. So, don't have too high hopes for this movie, because as I've said, it's very independent. But whatever it lacks in the concrete aspects of the film can be overlooked because of the story's charm! I cannot claim that the plot is outstandingly original, but the story is still beautiful and heart-warming in many ways! It's not about being gay versus being straight, it's about faith, and how you decide to run your own life! It's a silly story, that makes you want to both cry and smile at the same time! So to be honest, Latter Days is far from perfect, but I truly loved the movie and I highly recommend it! It's very critical towards the religious aspects of our society, and there is homosexuality involved - but approach it with an open mind, and I'm pretty sure that most people will enjoy it as much as myself! Excellent performance by Mary KAy Place, Steve Sandvoss, Jacqueline Bissett and Rebekah Johnson. Superb story that reels you into the movie, emotional, yet light-hearted. I own this movie, and everyone that I've shared it with, loves it. Great for mixed company, 18+ crowd.

Nice production, not a cheap budget, well organized, and keeps your interest. Uses dome newer ideas, for flashbacks, and at one point keeps the viewer at the edge of their seat.

No matter what walk of life a viewer is from, they will buy-in to one or more viewpoints in this film.

Would love to see a sequel! This is an all-around superb film. A moving experience filled with real life emotion. There's lessons to be learned here about love, sex, work, religion and American culture regardless of one's sexual preference.

While this film is also a scathing indictment of the Mormon's (Church Of Latter Day Saints) belief system, any conservative faith could easily take its place. But it's a bit ironic that homosexuality is currently condemned by the Mormons in no uncertain terms. Here's a faith that mandated for generations that believers practice polygamy! And these true believers only gave up this practice because they were forced to do so by the Federal government in order for Utah to join the Union. Talk about a unique form of hypocrisy!

The sex scenes portrayed in the unrated version are tasteful, and surprisingly brief. There's nothing here that would offend anyone with an open mind.

What this film makes so obvious is that homosexuality is perfectly natural to people who are gay, as heterosexuality is to people who are straight! While love and sex are obviously quite different needs, its absolutely beautiful, beyond words, when both occur at the same time between two adults! Profound erotic love is one of life's most precious gifts! My congratulations to the filmmakers for a job well done! Hey guy, this movies is everything about choices. All the times in your life you must pick something or it just pass away... And this movie prove that! Of course, life in fact is not like a beautiful picture as this movie shows... it not shows indeed but some may figure that. I'm trying to say it's full of pain, love and deep lessons of live. Aaron, the Mormon missionary is the real shepherd digging out the thing beautiful deep inside Chisthian, the skin feeling guy...

It's a great end and you do always believe in fate because it will surprise you in a turn or in other of your live like Latter Days...

Big deal watch it!!! I watched this movie on LOGO television today. I was absolutely enthralled by the powerful messages and plot line within this film. I don't want to spoil it. I will say this, I related to the inner struggle of Aaron and his upbringing. As a gay man growing up in a small town, I related SO well to the "big secret" and the choices I made. This movie has made a HUGE impact on me and I plan on buying a copy of it in the very near future for my personal library. I no more than finished the movie and began calling my friends to recommend it. It had that profound of an effect on me. To those who read this comment. WATCH it. Try to have as little distraction as possible. Also,keep an open mind. This is not a film that can be viewed like a Disney film or the movie of the week. Instead, take the time to watch and actively LISTEN to the dialog as well as read between the lines and get involved in the plot. You may find yourself in tears. Not since "Steel Magnolias" have I been moved to tears by a film. This one did just that. Thank you to the cast and writer and crew for producing an emotionally charged romantic film about homosexuality and religion. It has been LONG overdue. If you've got a box of tissues, a comfy couch, a large bowl of popcorn and no social commitment on a Friday night, this is definitely your movie! Its romantic, its hot and its challenging. For most of us gay people, religion is just one of those things that we did when we were kids and probably just starred at the alter boy and how cute he was! But in Latter Days, you see the struggles of being gay when your entire world revolves around belief's which totally contradict being gay. The two main cast members were totally hot, but at the same time managed to capture your heart and even make me 'almost' cry (I have never cried in a movie!), which I thought was quite impressive for a B grade movie. I highly recommend this flick, you will laugh, you will cry (unless your me) and you will definitely drool! I love it so much I even purchased the DVD for my collection. Its truly the most beautiful movie ever For an independent film it scores well with reasonably high production values and a great cast. The acting is uneven but the plot is compelling. We could have used a bit more development of Wes Ramsey's character, but hey, the guy's fun to look at nonetheless! Mary Kay Place and Jacqueline Bisset are like icing on the cake.

It's not surprising that it was controversial on its release. It presents a less than flattering portrayal of the Morman Church and its relationship with gays. While, like Brokeback Mountain, it's about tolerance and accepting one's own life, I found it to be more successful in conveying a positive message. It was more moving, too. I love a cute heartfelt movie with a happy ending. This movie could be considered a drama, bout two characters realizing true love, but the story's so touching and so sweet that in my mind its a romance. Granted, the acting is not so great (thats y i didn't give it a 10) but they do the job, and they don't overact (thank god) plus they're cute, but the story's powerful and just plain adorable (some of u pansies will choke up)!!!!!! its a great watch for a love story, but if ur homophobic, STAY AWAY! for everyone else, i loved the movie, its soo sweet! i felt its a brokeback on a smaller scale...but with a happy ending....so enjoy!! I watched it last night and again this morning - that's how much I liked it. There is something about this movie... When the movie was almost over, I was about to cry. I would strongly recommend "Latter Days" to my friends - it's definitely worth seeing! I agree with those who say that some parts of the movie do not look very realistic. For example, both main characters are totally cute and in perfect physical shape (although, round is also a type of shape:) ). I rarely meet people like this as singles and I have never met any in couples. Other parts of the movie, including all those "coincidences", do not look very realistic as well. BUT, after all it is A MOVIE, not a life story. With the exception of the main character, the acting didn't convince me, but the story was quite good: It's about a love affair between a gay party boy and a young Mormon missionary. As you can imagine, such a relationship is quite problematic. The movie is very American and, as such, has some metaphysical undertones to counterbalance its criticism of religious intolerance. But some story lines are hilarious: one of the main characters asks his gay colleague: "Do you believe in God?" And he answers: "…you mean: other than Madonna?" All in all, the film is not one of my all-time favorites, but the script is really good and I really liked it: it's entertaining and stands up against (religious) prejudice and intolerance. I think this is an important message in our times. Since I rated films that I liked less with 9, this is clearly a 10 for me. Some people may find this exaggerated, but I think this film deserves it. Latter Days for me was a very moving film, it showed just how hard and disrespected the gay community really is. The film etherizes true passion and really explores the feelings of these two characters, the film holds a real depth of compassion for the gay community, as it really speaks out for the gay man/woman. Personally i think it's about high time that the homosexual community of all religions should no longer hold there head in shame, just for being there beautiful self. The film was very much of a eye opener for me as I could not believe how anti homosexual this world really is. Even at schools if a kid dislikes something they will refer to it as being "gay". I real hope that more film like this one are made, and that they are not just labelled as a "Gay" film but as a love story, as I believe that gay directors should stick up for themselves and tell their story through their eyes. Honestly, at first, I watched this movie because of the gratuitous sex scenes I heard it possesses but by actually watching the film, it just made me realize that there are still good and sensible movies out there. Truly, it is one of the most well-crafted and touching movies I've ever watched. I'm a teenage bisexual and the film spoke to me about my predicaments - sex, religion, love, acceptance, etc. It gave me an idea on how to deal with these issues with the help of my self and others around me who love me for who I am. Cox really handled the movie well by sprinkling dozes of heart-warming lines and a bit of sexuality in it. It made the movie more interesting. Some people compare it to Brokeback Mountain but I don't agree myself. Brokeback Mountain has more drama while Latter Days is well-balanced. When i was told about this movie i wasn't too happy to see it, although by the end credits, turned out to be one of THE best movies i have ever viewed.

the movie it self is quite graphic (male to male scenes, you don't see everything) wouldn't be a gay themed movie if there wasn't...

the movie is very light hearted with humor and contains some very funny parts. i highly recommend this movie, about 3 quarters through you really feel for the main characters, and this i think brings the whole flick together.

once again, very nicely put together.. plus cute Mormon. I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.

A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!

The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes! A truly remarkable film that takes you on a journey through your hidden emotions,a deep and enlightening story. The story takes you through the lives and beliefs of gay and religious cultures, with excellent performances from an superb star cast. It will touch the deepest reaches of your emotions, for those who belief that a love that risks nothing, is worth nothing. The film starts with introducing us to the characters that on the surface seem to have everything ,later we find that beneath the surfaces of each character they are looking for a journey of self discovery. We learn from this story that we all must chose the path in life that we are destined to be on despite what difficulties we encounter,an all thumbs up film!!!!! "Purgatory Flats", shown on cable recently, is a small movie that packs a lot. Harris Done directs with style. The screen play by Mr. Done and Diane Fine makes a good thriller.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.

The film is the story about a young L.A. doctor that made a mistake and lives to pay for it. Upon being released from prison he wants to hide in a small town where he feels he will be forgotten. Bad choice! What Thomas Reed finds in Purgatory Flats is hell in the desert. Right after landing a job as a bar tender, Thomas meets a pretty young woman, Sunny, who, clearly is someone to stay away from. The young doctor is called to help as Sunny's boyfriend Randy, is gunned down by a drug dealer.

We get to know Randy's family. His uncle Dean appears to be OK, but his brother Owen is a loose cannon. Every one in the household is connected in more ways than one to the nubile Sunny.

The performances are fine. Vincent Ventresca is Thomas, the man who should have gone to his L.A. practice instead of making a detour to the small town. Alexandra Holden is Sunny, a young woman with a tremendous ambition to escape her surroundings. Kevin Alejandro, Gregg Henry, Brian Austin play the men in the Mecklin family well. Nicholas Turturro makes also a good contribution as the drug dealer.

The film shows a director with promise who will go far judging from this tightly constructed film. After spending five years in prison, Dr. Thomas Reed, played by the incomparable Vincent Ventresca, exiles himself to Purgatory Flats and winds up tending bar. He soon meets the luscious, angel-faced Sunny (Alexandra Holden). "You are wicked." he tells her. "You have no idea." she replies as she sips her Slo Comfortable Screw and languidly drags on her cig. Reed finds himself entwined in the violent troubles of her family and the femme fatale story unfolds set against the desolation and desperation of the oil-drained western town.

Canny direction. Great performances. Superb entourage work. And some lust scenes that sizzle like the sun in Purgatory. My friend took me to a screening of this movie in Hollywood and it was awesome! It's a film noir with amazing acting, great script, cool music, the whole thing was very well done and entertaining. Don't know if it is getting a release in theaters, but this would be a great date movie or a fun movie to rent if you see it at Blockbuster. This is the kind of movie I love, low on budget but big on style and imagination. I hope Alexandra Holden gets more big parts like she has in this one, she is fantastic. I am so happy not to live in an American small town. Because whenever I'm shown some small town in the States it is populated with all kinds of monsters among whom flesh hungry zombies, evil aliens and sinister ghosts are most harmless. In this movie a former doctor, who's just done time for an accidental killing of his wife in a car crash, directs his steps to the nearest small town - he must have never in his life seen a flick about any small towns - which happens to be the Purgatory Flats. And, of course, as soon as he arrives there all the hell breaks loose. He meets a blond chick who out of all creatures most resembles a cow both in facial expressions and in brain functioning and at once falls in love with her. But there is a tiny handicap, she is already married to a very small-time drug dealer who in a minute gets himself shot pitifully not dead. To know what has come out of all this you should watch the movie for yourself. I'll just tell you that it's slightly reminiscent of U Turn by Oliver Stone but is a way down in all artistic properties. Found this movie in a rental store. Never heard about it before, but it was a good movie. Great acting, and thrilling story line. Great kudos to Vincent Ventresca. He made Thomas character very attractive, and brought a special atmosphere to this movie.

NJ

This short movie intends to focus on one issue sociologically known as cultured shock. the film presents the condition of average Romanian in democratic Romania who finds out that the life and the problems are not different from Communist period, and if you want something, you must bribe around to get it.

So, our main character is fired after a long while, he is around 50 and needs to get a similar job, but the only job available is one inferior. He is forced to take it because the lack of money.

My opinion is that you have to live in Romania so that this movie can be as real and tragic as it seems. What are the movies? I mean.. what are movies made for? Shootings? Killings? NO. They are made for life stories and this is what this movie does. It presents how the life has changed between two ages. The father and a son, the father being in a need of a job and asking the son for help.

Although there is another generation, there are some characteristics which remain including the caress for the family.

The main subject is, in my opinion the love of the son to the father and vice-versa.

The movie is consisted of ONLY one dialog but that dialog is more than I could ever wanted. This movie is a pure art! Once again, after "Marfa si Banii", Cristi Puiu delivers us another beautiful movie. Well done ! No this is not an Ed Wood movie. "Angora Love" is Stan Laurel's and Oliver Hardy's last silent movie. The end of an era! In the '20's Laurel & Hardy left a real mark on the silent movie genre with movies that are still popular and being watched and aired regularly, this present day.

It's a shame that this movie is however not among their best.

The premise of the movie sounds good and is good. The boys team up with a goat this time, which of course leads them into trouble and for us some hilarious situations to watch. It however at the same time is extremely silly and just totally unbelievable to watch the boys doing comedy stuff with a goat. Most of the jokes in the movie still work good but the movie just however never gets truly hilarious or memorable. The comedy and story really feels lacking at times and is mostly too simple and predictable.

Of course still good and fun enough to watch for the fans but still a slightly disappointing last silent Laurel & Hardy entry.

7/10 WHENEVER an idea was successful during those "Golden Days" of the Silent Movies, you could bet your bottom dollar that it would be repeated; although "Reworking" is the term that is used. Of course one could make the argument that this reworking business has never left us, for success in the Movies or TV always leads to a trend; with all competing parties vying to come up with their own version of said hit Movie or TV Program.

TO this last premise we strongly disagree; for this is copycatting or plagiarism, plain and simple.

THIS, the last Silent Laurel & Hardy Short, surely must have been quite well received; for ANGORA LOVE (Hal Roach/MGM, 1929) was reworked on the Roach Lot, not once, but twice over the next three years. We were treated to LAUGHING GRAVY (Roach/MGM, 1931), in which the Goat was replaced with a cute, little puppy-dog. Also, the weather is transformed into the dead of Winter, in the middle of a blizzard. They also made other line-up changes with substituting Landlord Edgar Kennedy with Landlord Charlie Hall.

THE second reworking of the hidden animal premise is the 3 Reeler, THE CHIMP (Roach/MGM, 1932), which substituted a female ape from a dissolved and defunct Circus, to which Stan and Babe were former employees. The Circus paid off its employees with their assets and the Boys received the Chimpanzee as their final payday.

BACK to our original 'victim', today's subject, ANGORA LOVE. Recomember? THE short starts off simply enough. The boys encounter the Goat on the street and the Nanny in return follows them back to their rooming house; after Stan feeds a doughnut to her. The comic moments that follow are generated with the interplay between L & H and slow-burn exponent, Edgar Kennedy, their Landlord. The incident's impact is amplified by having the interplay occur at night. And as luck would have it; their room is situated directly above the Landlord's quarters.

IN addition to the noise, the bathing of the goat, its odor and Landlord Edgar's suspicions about Laurel & Hardy's having another person illegally in the room; we were most amused by a little throw-away gag, which may well have been missed by the Censors. While admonishing the boys about the noise they'd been making and reminding them of the house rules about any unauthorized person's being in there overnight, regardless of their sex.

ITS camera shot is made from inside The Boy's room, over their shoulder. With Edgar in the hall and facing them, he warns; "Remember, this is a respectable establishment!" Just as he says this, a lady clad in evening clothes walks across and behind the Landlord; followed by a uniformed Sailor, who cocks his hat forward as they pass! POODLE SCHNITZ!! This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper. OK, I don't kid myself that this is the typical gay love life but since when are straight romances in real life as they are on the screen? This movie is well-balanced with comedy and drama and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was a riot to see Hugo Weaving play a sex-obsessed gay real estate salesman who uses his clients' houses for his trysts with the flaming Darren (Tom Hollander). And having seen him in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert only the day before, he is probably one of the most secure-in-their-masculinity actors around. :) Anyway, the plot flowed smoothly and the male-bonding scenes were a hoot. Thumbs up! 8/10 Though I saw this movie dubbed in French, so I'm sure it lost something in the translation, lack of accents, etc., it was an excellent, fun movie for a lonely night in a hotel room--a real pick-me-up that portrayed accurately and positively the complexities of individual sexuality, gender role, and finding a place within the communities to which one is supposed to belong--male, gay, urban, 30-ish, etc. I was very proud of French television for showing such an honest and positive portrayal of the gay community. While the fact that the gay lead character ends up somewhat "straight" in the end is mildly disappointing, that's life, and that happens sometimes. This is a great movie, whether alone or with a date! A really enjoyable experience. This is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted film. It is funny and sometimes hilarious. The finale is a bit disappointing, since it tries to wrap everything up into too neat a package. The film is better remembered for its priceless vignettes: the Jane Austen staging, the camping trip as examples. B & H does not attempt to mirror the predominant attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality. Most of the characters are quite accepting of sexual diversity. In that sense it is a joyous vacation from homophobic society. And it is a celebration of a flexibility, a loosening of rigid sexual categories--perhaps a happy harbinger of things to come. The biggest tragedy surrounding this thoroughly delightful movie is its lack of U.S. distribution. I was fortunate enough to see this film at the Boston International Festival of Women's Cinema, and highly recommend it to anyone who gets a chance to see it. Terrific performances, and thoughtful script and great direction from the talented and funny Rose Troche all combine to make this film a winner! Bedrooms and Hallways was one of the funniest films of the 1999 Melbourne Film Festival. From the UK, it is about a young crowd of flatmates and their various relationship dilemmas. Much of the humour is centred around a new-agey men's self-help group where they pass around various implements like the 'rock of truth'. They also go on a 'hunter gatherer' weekend with hilarious results. Trust me, you'll laugh your teeth out. An inspired choice of director for this latest Brit-Flick, Rose Troche, who burst on the scene with the budget-free tale of NY Dykes, _Go Fish_ brings a gently Jaundiced view to this tale of a Londoner choosing the slightly inappropriate milieu of a male bonding society to declare his lust for a fellow seeker of masculine truths. The highlight for me is a scene where the society try to revert to being primitive hunter-gatherers but end up ordering a take-away. The film as a whole is wonderfully acted and Troche, who'd never be accepted by some of the lesbians she portrayed in her previous film, relishes the bigger budget by indulging in some wonderfully lingering pan shots that contrast with _Go Fish_'s grainy hyperkinesis. A really enjoyable film I seriously enjoyed watching this movie for the first time some years ago and whenever it gets aired again somewhere (which luckily happens from time to time in European cable television) I experience the same thing, I'm moved, entertained and end up wishing there were more movies like this one.

It all deals with Leo (Kevin McKidd) and his group of friends living in urban London, Leo as a gay guy who follows a friend to a hilarious New Age Men's Group and falls for straight guy Brendon, played by dashing James Purefoy, who turns out not so straight after all. Thrown in as side characters are the equally great Tom Hollander and Hugo Weaving whose side story alone is worth watching the movie, Simon Callow as the leader of the Men's group, turning in a great as ever performance. But it's really hard to pick some folks out here, because every character, the female ones like Jennifer Ehle's, Julie Graham's and Harriet Walter's as well, are exquisitely acted. Maybe even Kevin McKidd looks a little pale compared to his co-actors but it benefits his somewhat subdued character.

The idea behind this movie is a simple one: There is never only black and white, classifications are difficult and may not always stand the test of time.

Leo identifies as gay but ends up falling for a woman as well who turns out to be his teenage sweetheart and Brendon's long time girlfriend. Brendon starts out straight but gets to learn that gay may be more than just an option for him and being bisexual might not be that bad after all. Darren and Jeremy (Hollander and Weaving) are gay and loving it and even the straight folks in the movie, like Angie, Leo's female roommate, get their fair share of love and funny moments up until the end of the movie. The comedy bits(especially Tom Hollander who's just hilarious) are funny and on point and the emotions are believable, as confusing as they may appear at times reading this summary.

What I like about this movie is its genuinely positive notion. Whether you're gay, straight, bisexual or simply not sure, this movie leaves you feeling that it's just okay NOT to be sure and that "not being sure" might be something worth living out as well! Sexuality is portrayed fluid in this movie and none of the main characters seem to have a real problem with it, apart from all the gay/straight camp fights that you sometimes get fed with in other gay themed movies. I can only wholeheartedly agree with the subtext of the movie, that what you feel certain of one day, when you think you identify as gay, straight, whatever, can look very different on another. I have never seen (what to call it?) bisexuality or maybe just the absence of the segregating need for sexual classification being portrayed in such a heartwarming and true to life manner.

This movie dares going where few movies go, gay or straight movies, by not playing on labels and stereotypical assumption of sex and relying on that. It goes further and assumes that there may be a life to sex after well-known classifications and I think the times are more than ready for that and other movies exploring postmodern themes like this one!

And for all others who don't care about that, heck, it's just a funny comedy worth watching on a rainy Saturday evening with some popcorn on your hands. Give it a try!

Loved it! This movie was a pleasant surprise because I didn't expect much. I didn't know that some of the actors have since become bigger stars in major pix. While moving on to the Matrix is not a plus in my book (hated it), I'm sure it's a career plus for Hugo. James Purefoy is great in this and Jennifer Ehle sweet and wonderful. It seemed sometimes like a Carnaby street romp 30 years later but I enjoyed the thrift shop Janis Joplin clothes mixed up with the modern mindsets of sexual and gender blur. The real estate agent who has an erotic relationship with his listings is loads of fun. The Iron John mens' group meetings are a bit dated but I still loved them. It's a social satire sex comedy in the best way and reminds me a bit of the old "Carry On" movies. The British know how to do sex comedy and it's an old tradition, unlike the United States which is too prudish to really understand that sex is funny. Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy. Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy. By the acting in this movie, it is sometimes hard NOT to imagine that the cast are who they portray themselves to be. Unbridled passion and acting at times make this a very enjoyable and engaging movie. Wouldn't even have known about it except for HBO late night. And the biggest reason I like UK films much better than American ones are that the actors aren't afraid to act out what is needed. i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even "tragical"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.

"mr. smith" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with "strange" appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy..... After a long wait, "Bedrooms and Hallways" made it to Perth cinemas - not a commercial one mind you - and I thought it was fun, honest and took a swipe at those 'tribal scream' groups running around trying to find meaning in rocks and 'what's behind my eyes'. It is playing to full houses over here because it tells a story, has terrific acting and says something about the human condition. It was a fun film to look at. Though the chance this happened in your street is small, there are still a lot off recognizable situations that will ring a bell. The simplicity of the film and the humour DO work. I must admit that you don't have to see it in a theater; it will do very well on a small TV-set. Tip: see it with some close friends. Bedrooms and Hallways is the kind of film that makes you realize that the drama of life is hidden in the details. And that drama can be great fun too! Even though your own love life and your own friends may not be as unique as the characters in this movie, every one is bound to recognize themselves and others in the colorful protagonists of this film. And that's the great strength of Bedrooms and Hallways, that the irony of life is that the most confusing things that happen to you can be the most interesting/hilarious/funny/sexy/...things too! Hope you'll enjoy the film as much as I have! Quite a ways away from "Go Fish". Both were good films but Troche had a bigger budget and cast to work with here. This film was very entertaining and easy to like. The acting was good lots of slow burn sexual tension.

I saw this film at the Boston Internation Festival of Women's Cinema last night, and was saddened to hear Ms. Troche tell us (in her Q&A after the screening) that she doesn't expect to see too much US distribution, due to her insistence on including all of the so-called "gay content". It was a FANTASTICALLY entertaining comedy, and it just seems to me that American audiences might enjoy it in much the same way they enjoyed "The Full Monty", so it's really unfortunate and kind of ridiculous that a few shots of two boys kissing is keeping it away from mainstream theaters. Wonderful cast, FABULOUS script, and of course, Rose Troche's direction make this one of the funniest films I've seen. Never have I seen a movie like this; didn't plan on seeing it but it was worth the turn of the TV channel. I am mostly a scifi movie watcher,but I would be more than happy to add this one to my collection. It starts out as a one sided film with a simple love triangle, then became something a little different(can't tell more then that. but it does involve two guys and one girl. juts not the way you would expect). Also, this movie starred Hugo Weaving from the "MATRIX" and "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" in a role I would not have expected...very funny guy. This movie is playing on HERE TV, but if you do not have satellite, it is worth a rent. So give it a try; you won't be disappointed. I loved this movie! It was adorably touching and funny. Finally, here's a story about a group of people who meet some challenges, flounder a bit, and then decide to just be themselves and end up happy for; when was the last time you saw that in a film? Dealing with the fluidity of life, love, and sexuality, the characters are faced with real problems (albeit in often ridiculous situations like the men's group camping trip, and the explicit realatory liaisons) and manage to learn and grow without the movie getting preachy, darkly desperate, or too unrealistic. You'll love and care about the characters who, far from being hollow stereotypes, portray real people with just a touch of the truth behind their would-be labels.

A good romcom for a Saturday afternoon, and the only movie I've ever seen where sexual fluidity ends happily, and no one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Far better than Kissing Jessica Stein, a good choice if your tired of watching gay movies that have some painful lesson and bitter lesson. Or, maybe you just like a good British romp? James Purefoy looks dashing as always, and Tom Hollander is deliciously funny. So go forth, watch, enjoy; you won't regret it! I loved that the mood was light and airy. I loved that the lead character wanted guarantees about his future, and that his roommate sets him "straight" of all people. I loved that they tackled the dynamics of how the members in the men's group dealt with each other, considering this was directed by a lesbian,the whole theme of masculinity was put out there, ridiculed, dissected and questioned. What makes a man? What makes one straight, gay, or bisexual? You aren't really sure if our lead character has decided on who he really wants; he's living in the moment and thrown caution to the wind. These, and other reasons, make me love this film. Absolutely fantastic! Whatever I say wouldn't do this underrated movie the justice it deserves. Watch it now! FANTASTIC! This film entered production before WW2 began, but was not released until it was well under way. With significant fascist-sympathy in the US, and Chaplin himself being suspected as a communist sympathiser, The Great Dictator was a very courageous endeavour. Such risks in film-making - thinly veiled political statements - would be almost inconceivable today. Imagine the fallout if someone were to make an equally satirical film today which criticised the USA's foreign policy?

This film is hilarious, poignant and tragic. The tragedy is that Chaplin makes a plea for the madness to end, but it is already to late - for him and for us. A must see if you have any interest whatsoever in history, film-making, politics or sattire as an art-form. The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work. Hynkel, dictator of Tomania, is a spoiled child who becomes angry when he cannot gets what he really wants... And what he simply wants is nothing less than the world...

In one of the extraordinary scenes of Chaplin art, Hynkel performs a ballet with the 'world' which bursts when he thinks he has it in his grasp...

Chaplin also has some biting words on war and war films... In a scene at the beginning of the movie, which takes place during World War I, the Tomanian messenger crashes the plane and thinks... He is about to die... In a state of delirium, he begins to say ridiculous words... The empty double-talk continue ascending into a brilliant take off on all the heroic death scenes of War films...

In another scene when he becomes a fugitive in the Jewish ghetto and assumes command of the resistance fomenting rebellion among the old men, he plans to kill the dictator... One of the group must kill the ruthless conqueror of Austerlich... Whoever is chosen will naturally die, but his heroic death will be rewarded and his name will shine like a star in Tomanian history...

The sequence in which he and four other characters eat cream cakes containing coins to determine which shall sacrifice his life to murder the dictator is a bitter hilarity filled with great fear...

For all its disappointing shortcomings, "The Great Dictator" is still a significant movie for the ironic tones of the film adding something that neither Chaplin nor anymore else could have given it: the irony of history... The necessity to murder Hynkel presages the assassination attempt against Hitler by his generals... The force of the original satire is only surpassed by history's imitation of art...

With a splendid sequence like the duck-shooting accident which leads to the dictator being mistaken for the humbly Jewish barber and vice versa, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talking movie... This time 'Charles' and not 'Charlie,' wanting to say more through his movie and not through an amusing comedy, the last in which he uses his celebrated 'Tramp Character.' ..this movie has been done when Hitler ( and Mussolini who is as well in the movie) was at the top and many politics and even the Roman Church used to close eyes about brutality and evil of Nazism. Especially in USA there were many people who had not understood what was really going on in Germany and Europe ( Charles Lindenbergh for example ).It would be as today a big actor would made a parody of Berlusconi or Chirac. Chaplin maybe made a lot of mistakes in his life, but this is really a masterpiece of humanity and IMHO a great demonstration he was a courageous man. The movie is funny and deep, the final speech has a terrible strength and is still updated. I think this movie is one of the best ever done. I was surprised and impressed to find out this movie was released in 1940, before the United States entered World War II. On the surface, satirizing something as solemn and horrible as Nazi Germany could be misconstrued as rash. But Chaplin's brilliance isn't limited to making a joke out of everything. In fact, the seriousness of his message wouldn't have been nearly as valid if not for the excellent use of humor in this movie along with the moments of stark drama blended in. Drama alone wouldn't have had the bite and resonance that this film did. Laughing at someone (Adenoid Hynkel) can be the best way to attack them, while laughing with someone (the Jewish Barber) can be the best way to love them. In the Jewish Barber's final speech, I forgot for a moment that the war he was talking about happened more than half a century ago. They are words that have meaning now, and in any time of war. For this reason I believe the film did far greater good than harm, as it still has the same profound effect today. Here we have the inimitable Charlie Chaplin forsaking his slapstick past to tackle the serious subject of anti-Semitism, and intolerance in general. He portrays two characters - the sweet, innocent Jewish barber - a war veteran, and the raving and ruthless dictator, Adenoid Hynkel. The Jewish ghetto in this country is not safe for long, due to the whims of Hynkel and his armed thugs, who routinely rough up its residents, or leave them alone, dependent upon his mood that day or week. The barber is among them, but is befriended by his former commanding officer, Schultz (Reginald Gardner), who seems to keep things quiet for a while, until Hynkel condemns him to a concentration camp. He seeks refuge with the Jews in the ghetto, most specifically the barber, and the feisty young woman, Hannah (Paulette Goddard). The premise will be - who will be the one among these Jews to put their lives on the line to get rid of Hynkel and his cronies? We needn't guess too hard to know the answer; the barber is a dead ringer for the dictator, and he is outfitted in his image, accompanied by Schultz, also in full military gear. Hannah escapes with several of her ghetto friends to the country of Osterlich, where Mr Jaeckel's (Maurice Moscovich) cousin has a farm, and they can live peaceably for a while. At this point, Hynkel himself has been arrested by his armed forces, thinking him to be the notorious barber. The latter, meanwhile, has been escorted with Schultz to a podium, to make a speech announcing the conquest of Osterlich. The ensuing ten minutes is pure Chaplin himself, speaking from his heart of tolerance, love and freedom, and denigrating greed and hatred. Albeit Chaplin started production on the film in 1937, it can be forgiven some naivete. He was allegedly unaware of the gravity of this persecution and hatred, and said had he known the full extent, he would never have made the film, because he most likely believed it would have trivialized the situation. He has a marvelous supporting cast: Reginald Gardner, Henry Daniell as Garbitsch, his aide-de-camp, the always wonderful Billy Gilbert as the bumbling Herring, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie as the dictator Napaloni, his rival for conquest, veteran European actors David Gorcey (Leo's father), Maurice Moscovich, among others. The scene he choreographed with globe, with just a musical accompaniment is sheer, luminous inspiration, and luminous, as well, is Paulette Goddard at the film's end, smiling through her tears. I have seen this film before, but there is always something new in it for me. Last evening, when it finished, I sat there in tears. I defy anyone not to be moved by it. Before I saw this film I didn't really expect to much from it, although my friend advised otherwise. Due to this request from my friend I decided I was really going to watch this film. The minute I sat down to view the film I was absolutely blown away. From the credits I was falling of my seat; I just couldn't contain myself. The film is about Hitler in all the glory of comedy. Hynkel is the absolute double for the Jewish Barber, who comes back from fighting in the war. Due to the heroics of the barber, he manages to save one of the germans and by doing that gets a member of the enemy on board, which helps in the struggle which the jews had. But things went wrong and Stolz was arrested, but only then to escape to the confines of the Jewish surburb, 'The Ghetto'. Due to this escape, the german army began searching which meant that the Barber and Stolz got arrested but again they escaped, only to be mistaken for hynkel and consequently takes his poistion. *****THE SPEECH THAT CHAPLIN MAKES AT THE END IS FANTASTIC, IT COMPLIES THE MORALS WHICH SOCIETY COULD ONLY DREAM ABOUT. IN THE SPEECH IT CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE MEANING OF THE FILM BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUNESS AND SINCERENITY WHICH IT ENTAILED, AND IT DEFINATELY WORKS, BECAUSE I DID WALK OUT FEELING GUILTY ABOUT HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES, LOOKING AT THE SMALLEST THING SUCH AS BEING IGNORANT TO SOMEONE TO THE BIGGEST, MOST PROMINENT THINGS SUCH AS WAR. I once caught about a 20 minute portion of this movie on Turner Classic Movies about 6 months back. I thought every minute of what I was watching was gold, and, because it was somewhere in the film's middle and I didn't want to spoil the whole thing if I were to watch it from the start, I decided that I would rent it immediately. Well, the video store which I frequent did not have a copy, so it took me six months to finally go somewhere else and rent it. I had previous to that experience only seen some Chaplin shorts, funny but not greatly artful, but after I saw the snippet of The Great Dictator, I checked out three of his other films, City Lights, The Gold Rush, and Modern Times (City Lights was great, I found the Gold Rush a little overrated, but still worthwhile, and I found Modern Times to be one of the funniest films I've ever seen (second funniest, behind Keaton's Sherlock Jr., more exactly).

Finally, the whole of the Great Dictator. Well, to be honest, it had its moments, both of comedy and of drama. But these moments don't always mix well. Chaplin's comedy worked well when mixed with melodrama (City Lights is the best example of this), but it didn't always work with social commentary. Plus, the fact that there was dialogue lessened the impressiveness of Chaplin's talent. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie as a whole, but I thought it of little consequence. I would have given it a solid 7/10 on the ratings scale...if not for the ending. The final speech that the Jewish barber gives is enormously powerful. Yes, it is adressed to the tempora et mores of 1940, but his message is perfectly applicable to the world today. The speech brought me to tears, and I consider it one of the best endings I've ever seen. Final score: 8/10. This ingenious and innovate comedy packs many moments priceless and great sense of pace, though overlong. Chaplin's satire with several classics scenes , he has dual role as a Jewish barber and dictator Hynkel, an offensive portrayal of Hitler . Then the barber is mistaken for the Hitlerian tyrant and happen bemusing events. Funny and extraordinaries acting of all casting, as the co-stars Jack Oakie as Napolini(Mussolini-alike), Henry Daniel as Gasbstich(Himmler-alike) and Billy Gilbert as Herring( Goering). Chaplin's first spoken film is brilliantly photographed by Karl Struss.This splendid film contains numerous amusing scenes, the funniest are the following : 1) The one when during the WWI the barber-soldier along with a co-pilot are flying in a turned plane without aware 2)Dictator Adenoid Hynkel doing overacting speeches including a twisted microphone 3)Hynkel playing with an enormous balloon of the world 4)The Jew-barber shaving a man fitting to Hungarian Dance number 5 of Brahms 5) when Hynkel and Napolini each try to keep his body higher than other in a barber's chair; among them.

Hitler banned movie exhibition to the Germans due to its satire of him, and put him in his death list after his proposed conquest of America.The movie is co-starred by Paulette Goddard, third of his four wives , they were married in 1936, although no announcement of the marriage was made later, one time finished The Great Dictator.The picture was released in 1940, when Chaplin had survived a moral scandal by a paternity suit but a brush with the House of Un-American Activities was the signal for the USA to refuse him re-entry from Britain and he fled to Switzerland. "The Great Dictator" is, arguably, one of Charlie Chaplin's most widely-known films. It is notorious for it's blatant satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Until watching it, I only knew of it's fame. Now I know how much the film deserves it.

The film basically shows the exploits of the somewhat clumsy, ambitious, short-fused and impressive dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel; and with him, his near and dear staff: Field-Marshall Herring and Herr Garbitsch. Also, it entails the exploits of an amnesiac, emotional and often clumsy Jewish barber, a veteran of the First World War.

Stopping with the plot, I would like to say that this film has various qualities that make it both unique and wonderful. While the comedy is decidedly both verbal and slapstick and incidental, the entirety of the film shows how serious it takes Nazism or aggressive nationalism as a theme with various interludes. Chaplin's impeccable acting skills range far and wide in the film, he keeps revving it up and up until he simply explodes. Paulette Goddard's position as an ambitious Jewish would-be revolter and Henry Daniell's delivery of a nasal, calm-as-Death-serious-as-a-heart-attack lines makes for wonderful viewing.

Further, one aspect of the film is what makes it so special: it pulls no punches. It isn't "covert", it has no business being covert. It is an "overt", blatant, in-your-face, obvious lampooning of both Hitler and Nazism.

To sum up briefly, watch it. Just watch it, you'll see it. With the Nazi rise to power in Eastern Europe in the late 1930's, Charles Chaplin turned his attention to creating a reaction to it. The catalyst may well have been a propaganda publication referring to Chaplin as a Jewish sympathizer. In The Great Dictator, Chaplin created a dead-on parody of Hitler that is as funny as it is frightening at times. The film traces Hitler's experiences in the German army from World War I up to the present day. Simultaneously, Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who dresses like the tramp who comes out of a hospital after a long long time, only to discover how different the world is under Nazi rule.

Paulette Goddard, Chaplin's wife at the time, plays a young Jewish girl whose family is oppressed in a Jewish ghetto. Jack Oakie has a great, Oscar-nominated supporting role as a Mussolini look-alike (Benzini Napaloni) who gives Chaplin's Hitler character, Adenoid Hynkel, a lot of fits. Henry Daniell is his usual staid self as Garbitsch, chief adviser to Adenoid Hynkel. Chaplin wrote and directed the film and received Oscar nominations for his screenplay and his acting. The film was also nominated for best picture.

Chaplin made the film under tremendous pressure for some obvious reasons and some not so well known. He financed the entire film himself at great risk because of the subject matter, and there were no other major films made regarding Nazi Germany up to that time. The film spent about twenty-one months in production with Chaplin even rebuilding a set and re-shooting a scene to get things right. By the time of the film's release in October of 1940, the war in Europe was well under way with Hitler conquering one country after another, so the film became much more topical at its release than when production first began.

There isn't much plot in looking at the film in retrospect; the film seems more like a series of comedy sketches and/or mishaps strung together to get to a purpose independent of the film itself. Several examples of this occur in the last third of the film with the meeting between Hynkel and Napaloni. The scene is very very funny, but it leads no where in terms of the plot. Likewise, the escape of both the barber and Schultz simply leads to the mistaken identity of the barber for Hynkel in order to give Chaplin (through the barber character) an opportunity to pontificate to the audience at the end of the film. On the other hand, what better way to make a point about the misplaced narcissism of Aryan superiority than to have a Jewish Barber mistaken for Hynkel?

Still, the film contains many high comic moments, such as the rally speech, the new war developments (bulletproof uniforms, etc.), the dancing globe scene, the coin in the pudding scene, and the entire scenario between Hynkel and Napaloni (including the barber chair scene) to highly recommend the film. One can also not forget the risks Chaplin took in making his first talking film, an anti-Nazi film, and financing the film himself. ***1/2 of 4 stars. From the beginning of the film I found myself laughing trying to keep quiet so I did not wake anyone in the house, this didn't continue so much throughout the rest of the film, I didn't find everything completely "laugh out loud" funny, but still I found certain things quite funny. At the beginning I had to hold in laughter when he drops the very crafty looking Hand Grenade down his sleeve. Then there are scenes where you will just smile, like when the Barber falls through a roof into someones apartment, I can see that being quite funny but in todays days and time that has been done quite a lot it didn't feel original, though at the time, I'm sure it was. I loved Hynkels (Hitlers) bursts of raging German with the nice subtle English translation.

The final scene is wildly discussed because, well it's absolutely true, and so very intelligently constructed. Though the film is sixty eight years old the final scene is still relevant today, if this doesn't show how great a writer Chaplin is, then I don't know what will. The acting in this scene in particular was quite good, the Barber transcended the message perfectly and makes you realise the serious nature of the film, at the same time enjoying the humorous side.

Another element about this film is the fact that this was such a brave film, that almost feels ahead of it's time. Of course, Chaplin did not know what was going to happen after 1940, he was not aware of the Holocaust (obviously), he's also gone on record as to saying if he had of known he would not of made this film. The fact this film is so anti-Hitler is interesting, it's more interesting that it wasn't anti-Germany which would be very easy to have done back in those times, Chaplin could of easily made this a propaganda film, but instead did something more, he made an honest film.

I recommend anyone remotely interested in this film to see it, as well those who has studied or is studying Hitler and WWII to watch this film. It's entertaining to say the least, it doesn't have an annoying out-dated feel that some films of the time did. Unlike most "comedies" this film actually has a message it tries to bring to you, watch this film, you will be better off for having seen it. Okay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, "The Great Dictator" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.

Chaplin stars in a dual role as a jewish barber who, with amnesia, is mistaken for the dictator Adenoid Hynkel, (i.e Hitler) A movie made in 1940 when the war was in its dark days and was in no way won by the allies..it was banned in Germany by Hitler and was a risk in a way for Chaplin because if the war was lost, he surely wouldve been sent away to be "reeducated"

A funny satire with the classic scene of Hitler tossing around a giant balloon of the world..good fun but with a message..a little preachy in the end. This was the last movie with Chaplin's trademark little mustache. on a scale of one to ten..9 Being quite a fan of Charlie Chaplin following good vibes after seeing first 'The Gold Rush' and then 'City Lights', I was eager to see 'The Great Dictator' as I had been told this was, arguably, his best film. I was also intrigued at the fact it was a talkie; my first one, Chaplin-wise.

The start is typical Chaplin and blatant proof that when it comes to sound, Chaplain can cut it whilst not solely relying on music to set mood and to do the talking; it's funny, well timed and the elements of slapstick such as falling off an anti-aircraft gun are well tied in with the jokes. It was good to draw the viewer in with this 'classic Chaplin' opening and at the same time, kick start the narrative of characters getting to know one another. What was also well done was the way in which Hitler is spoofed. Any scene involving Hitler or 'Hynkel' in this film, was funny and even now; makes you think back as you know exactly who he's spoofing and does create an internal reaction of some kind. The way in which English in mixed in with the mock German during the dialogue scenes is further proof of the way Chaplin managed to adapt to the talkie era. My favourite joke was the five minute speech Hynkel gave, only for the English translator to translate it into a mere few words; making you think back to footage of Hitler you may have seen giving a speech at some point in your life and, indeed, laugh at him.

Historically, the film got a few things right as well. Hynkel is seen getting his photograph taken with children; something Hitler did for recognition as he manipulated the media but here, Hynkel is seen to yawn and act bored; stabbing at Hitler's underhand technique of winning over the German public through sympathy (Oh, he hugs and kisses children. He must be OK!). The film is also given a fantastic premise of a Jewish civilian reinstalled into the ghetto amongst all the travesties going on but with the catch that he is oblivious. Films such as 'The Pianist' and 'Come and See' are two good examples of Nazi cruelty towards 'inferior' people which nowadays, we can all look back on and shake our heads at whereas back in the late 1930's when this was filmed, the fact he had the cruelty going on and was exploiting it makes it even more an astounding achievement. Chaplin has managed to replace guns and truncheons for tomatoes and saucepans and still pulls it off.

What I didn't like about the film, however, was the fact it settled into an actual narrative after the opening. This slowed the film up and this is very noticeable as the foot was taken off the gas somewhat. The film started to hint at stories and sub-stories. These included the barber and the female neighbour falling in love and the supposed destruction of Hynkel's palace whereas none of these were actually developed. The 'giving a woman a shave' and the 'whoever has the coin in their pudding does the deed' gags were hinting at these plot paths but in the end, just materialised into nothing but excuses for drawn out, unfunny gags which was disappointing.

During the final straight, The Great Dictator gets a boost from the fact the Italian dictator is introduced who adds some much needed life and excuse for comedy to the film. It works a treat as we see them argue and more underhand tactics are exploited when Hynkel attempts to 'overpower' his Italian counterpart through a series of dirty tricks (although, they are humorously foiled). Despite a few weaknesses in pacing during the middle segment and the fact I felt the message at the end was a little forced down my throat, The Great Dictator holds up for viewing today but that's only because he took the gamble of exploiting things nobody else really knew were there. This must have been one of Chaplin's most ambitious projects; he throws in virtually everything, from visual gags and blackout comedy sketches to social relevance, romance, even some violence. The mixture is challenging and intriguing, and the film has many entertaining and clever sequences (like the one where Chaplin and four other guys try to avoid finding a coin that will order their self-sacrifice), but the ingredients don't always click together, and the mix (and tone) seem kind of disharmonious. As for the famous final speech, though undeniably honest, it also seems a bit naive today, with its allusions to "a better world where man will overcome his hate and brutality, and his soul will fly". Great perfornmances by Jack Oakie and the beautiful Paulette Goddard. (***) A good, but not great film, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) "Limelight". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in "Modern Times" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel. Although I haven't seen it yet, I know that Chaplin is a genius, and only someone of his talent would take on this daring subject matter--a comedy about Hitler. All great satire is based on going out on an edge. Also, all great comedy deals with the other side--pathos. This film seems like it will skirt both sides. Like Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, The Great Dictator deals with history through the distorted lens of satire. The only way to deal with the horrors of this world is by laughing at it. And hopefully, through laughter, we can learn to view the world in a new light. Another film that does this that comes to my mind is Emir Kusturica's Underground, and Fando And Lis. So, let me watch the film first. Written, produced and directed by Charlie Chaplin, this is the great actor's anti-Nazi propaganda piece, skewering Adolf Hitler.

Chaplin plays Adenoid Hynckel, the dictator of Tomania, as well as a Jewish barber who is Hynckel's spitting image. His parody of Hitler is brilliant. Anyone who has ever seen newsreels of Hitler speaking will recognize the eerie resemblance of the caricature.

I thought the movie got off to a slow start with some typical Chaplin slap-stick focussing on the First World War adventures of the Jewish barber. Having never seen it before I must confess that after the first 20 minutes or so I was wondering what all the fuss was about. But the movie picks up steam quickly. There are some very funny moments, and enough emphasis on the anti-Jewish nature of "Hynckel-ism" to make the propaganda point. The climax of the film is a brilliant anti-Nazi speech given by Chaplin at the end of the movie.

As good as Chaplin is in this movie, though, I thought the whole thing was stolen by Jack Oakie, playing the dictator of "Bacteria" - "Benzino Napaloni." Our first look at Oakie shows how well he had studied his subject - he had Mussolini's arrogant posturing down pat. The scenes in which Hynckel and Napaloni negotiate over the fate of "Osterlich" had me in stitches.

This was a very good movie, and well worth watching. Most of this film is an alternately hilarious and brutal satire on Nazism and Fascism, made at the height of those movements' success.

Sadly, in the final moments of the film, Chaplin abandons all pretense of making art (not to mention comedy) and switches completely to propaganda. And not anti-Nazi propaganda, either, but some of the most mawkish and idiotic "progressive" propaganda ever to ooze out of Hollywood.

Never mind that nothing we have seen so far indicates that the barber is even capable of giving the speech we see him give (delivered, ironically, with a disturbing wild-eyed fanaticism); such trivialities must not be permitted to interfere with The Message. This was Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.

When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.

I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.

The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form. Great comedy from Charlie Chaplin. I've seen Chaplin's 4 major films (Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator), and I think it is easily the funniest of the four. This movie had me laughing more than almost any other I've ever seen. From the very opening disclaimer ("Any similarity between the Great Dictator and the barber shop owner is purely coincidental") the movie is a laugh-a-minute with a blend of wonderful slapstick and verbal humor. And at the same time, Chaplin manages to portray the evils of totalitarian persecution. Maybe a little short on the ending and the lasting timeliness of the subject matter, but easily a 9 out of 10 for me. This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.

The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.

However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone. This satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as "Hynkel", and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years. This movie is the absolutely perfect way to explain what a good movie is. It is a movie both for children and parents, and it is "timeless". I saw this movie before Ocean's Eleven and must admit that the actors in OE has class in advance, but the play of Klatretøsen is much more down-to-earth and moving. Why i say Ocean's Eleven, is the fact that these 2 movies has many things in common and Klatretøsen is THAT good ! that it can bear comparison with OE. The 3 youngsters play their part in a perfect way not to believe, compared to what we are used to in Denmark. The different cases of impossible acts, is handled in a way that you wouldn't belive from many young actors (and sometimes not even from the "old boys"). The story ? again it has things in common with Ocean's Eleven except for the reason of stealing the money and in Klatretøsen they need to climb up to the strongroom. The part in which the young people has to take care of Ida's younger brother, gives a fine element in the movie. Try to imagine how to rob a bank with a 2 year child with a nappy, on your arm :-).

This movie can bear comparison with most "grown up" movie like MI2 and Ocean's Eleven. Yes i do believe it is THAT good. It is best to see it in a theater, as all the children in the room comments the movie and these comments will stay in your hearts forever :-).

Regards Klavs. I just saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the "kid's-film" label on it, "Klatretösen" ("Climber Girl") is on almost every account a classic (as in "biblical")! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and "Klatretösen" is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the "action". After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:

- effortlessly puts "mission impossible" to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)

- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )

- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives

- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds

- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here

- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)

- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years "Mirakel" is everybody's favourite kid actor

What a ride! Klatret©ªsen(Catch That Girl) is really great movie! It's a 'happy' movie. I watched this movie in 'Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival(PiFan)' on July 12nd, 2003. There is Action + Adventure + Comedy + Thrill + Happy + Romance(cute kids' love Triangle!). You must see this movie. :) Yes, I am sentimental, and yes, I love movies where kids are the better humans. True, Klatretøsen does have some logical or even plot shortcomings. These are more than compensated by the kids' great acting (Julias first movie role at all!) and the charm of a Dogma film (I liked this kind of cinematografic art long before the Dogma; ever since Herzog's 'Herz aus Glas'). Well, I cried through the last fifteen minutes which is a higher tear factor than bambi or Fly away home had for me. This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion. "The Vicious Circle" is a very unknown British mystery story. Like many Hitchcock movies, it's about a man who is being accused of a crime he didn't commit, and does everything he can to prove it. This time it's a Dr. Latimer (John Mills), who finds a murdered German actress from his floor. As an honest man, the doctor calls Scotland Yard, which turns out to be a big mistake...

There's really nothing special in this little movie. Still, watching the film is an entertaining way to pass time. I enjoyed following the plot development. Fine actors are a plus. The film is a remake of a 1956 BBC serial called'My Friend Charles',& as such gallops thru the material in a relatively short time.I found it fast moving,enjoyable & unpretentious.Did anyone else notice the scenes,towards the end,where John Mills was being gassed?-the producers obviously decided to omit the scenes-maybe censorship?,but notice when he's sat by the window of the flat,deep breathing closely followed by similar scenes with the car window open. The Francis Durbridge serials all seemed to inhabit the same universe,that of unexplained happenings,people being not what they seem & the villain being someone close to the hero/victim.A predictable universe in some ways,but one with its own rules & regulations. I like the phrase "British post war suburban paranoia" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in ("The October Man" (1947), "The Long Memory" (1952)) in between "big" pictures ("Scott of the Antartic" (1948) and "War and Peace" (1956)).

This distinctly "Eric Ambler" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy "reporter" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.

The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.

When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a "friend" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!

This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as "The October Man", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!

Highly Recommended. For a made for TV movie I thought that it was a great popcorn movie - don't expect anything to be very accurate and don't expect any award winners in this bunch but I do recommend this for a TV type version somewhat like "The Replacements". Look for cameos from real NFL players & officials. In the year 2000 (keep in mind, this is two years ago, not four), two men had the motivation to create the most miraculous piece of art on this side of the Mississippi.

Thanks to Jere Cunningham and Tom Flynn, the world can now enjoy Second String, a delicious TV movie depicting a tale of a rag-tag gang of second stringers (thus the title) who are thrust into the position of starters due to an order of bad oysters.

Because of the motivational direction of both the director Robert Lieberman and the Buffalo Bills' last minute QB, Dan "Give 'em hell" Heller (portrayed by Canadian actor, Gil Bellows) the oft Super Bowl snake-bitten Bills find themselves in the ultimate position.

With an intriguing mix of internal and external conflict, a love story, comraderie that only the fine sport of football can bring, and an overall theory that the underdog can compete, Second String is an excellent movie worthy of viewing every possible moment that it appears on TNT.

The only thing potentially bad about this production is the spelling of the Costume Designer's first name, Jenifur Jarvis.

Being a Bills fan, I originally found it annoying that they made a movie about the Bills and the losing of four superbowls. But once I began to watch, I felt really connected. It was actually nice to see the "Bills" win the superbowl, and I must say, that for a TV movie it was actually very well done. Gil Bellows as the QB, and Jon Voight as the old-school Coach did a very fine job. 8 out of 10 So forgive the *really* lame game-play scene, cardboard background and studio like stadium. For this part I should have give the movie 5 instead of 7, but read on...

From the premise to plot there is a lot similarities with "The Replacements". Some say this movie rip off "The Replacements", while some say this script wrote before it.

Both movies require some sort of "suspension of disbelief on the basic premise, and this is especially difficult for "Second String" since it has NFL license team and all the history behind it. Food poison excuse may sound too lame for some people, and not to mention in "Second String" Bills has to overcome big scores again and again, with the limit budget in shooting the game play scene, this make it look even bad.

In "Replacements", the premise and the league is fictional yet you know it happen in real life. I believe it is easier to accept fictional story and setting with real event ("OH yeah, this happen before!", rather than real setting/background with fictional scenario ("There is no way Bill can win a Superbowl!"; Some of the scene were actually shoot in pre season game of Raven games, real stadium, real audience and some NFL match alike shooting angle.

But let say both movies came out on the same day, and we erase the budget factor (thus forgive the game play action scene): Overall, I like "Second String" over "Replacements", not by much, but I like this more.

It has "relatively better" character development. In "Replacements", Keanu character is too "out sync with the world", and all he care is maybe, get a girl? In Second String you see the struggle of the QB from getting the job back, and deal with his past with coach. Or the fumble guy problem. This "hold the ball all day long" solution of course is not new, but we see progression in fixing it.

How about those trick play? I think it is "relatively realistic" than "Replacements". The "Dan Marino" like fake knee pass, flea-flicker, wild cat full back rush, all real, except sometimes this look a bit too easy. But for me it is better than "Replacement"'s center catch and rushing for 50 yards call, or how a 60 yards field goal look too easy. OH BTW, I am glad they didn't force the TE kicker made his shot....

Of course ---if you objectively review this movie over other football movies all there, this could easily be a 5 out of 10 movie. But some say this is the worse football movie? Try "The Comebacks". All y'all hatin' on the fact you'd probably neva make the cut for "Second String" need to save it. If more guys out there took their sorry behinds to the gym for once...maybe y'all have a chance....well,...maybe. Take Shawn Woods' "HOOK" physique for a "perfect" example...and I stress the word "perfect" Put that in your pipe and smoke it...!!! You couldn't look better Sha-Shawn LA ANTENA (Esteban Sapir - Argentina 2005).

A completely unique take on silent cinema in this fairy-tale like story by Esteban Sapir, beautifully shot in black-and-white and practically without dialog, "La Antena" is a feast for the eye and a must for lovers of German expressionist cinema, with most of the nods to the works of Fritz Lang and Friedrich Murnau.

'The City without a Voice', 'La Ciudad sin Voz', is ruled by Mr. TV. He has taken the inhabitants voices and is in total control of all spoken words and images, forcing everyone to eat his own brand of TV-food. Mr TV is not just a monopolist, he is the personification of evil and totalitarianism, even the swastika appears as a symbol a number of times. He secretly works on a hypnotizing device to control all the citizens minds through his television broadcasts. For this purpose, he kidnaps the only one left with The Voice, a beautiful singer, but a TV repairman witnesses the kidnapping and flees to an old TV antenna in the mountains in order to halt Mr. TV's evil plans.

The production design is stunning with beautiful sets and imagery. Although shot primarily with the basic language of silent cinema, Esteban Sapir also adds a number of fresh techniques of his own, like a combination of typographic and animation techniques. Everyone talks with each other through text balloons (usually floating near their mouths), the louder they talk, the larger the characters. The texts themselves can be pushed away or crushed. In the opening sequence, we see a book, titled "La Antena", that opens and a city of paper rises from the pages. There are hardly any references to Argentina. It's constantly snowing, which gives the film a very un-Argeninian feel, while the surreal setting suggests any large city in the Northen hemisphere, with only some of the songs revealing the film's Argentinian background.

The pace is swift and there is so much happening on screen, it's hard to keep track of the film's surreal narrative. Not only breathtakingly beautiful to look at, we're also given a few messages about media monopolies, corruption and totalitarianism, but they are breezily packaged. One of the most original films I've seen in years. A delight.

The film was shown as the opening film at the IFF Rotterdam 2007.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10 I've seen this movie twice on Transilvania International Film Festival(TIFF), the movie is in competition and I really hope that Esteban Sapir will get one of the awards (at least the best image award).

As a silent cinema fan I'm interested in contemporary movies that quote or recreate the language of the yester-year cinema. The previous reviewer emphasized the quotes from Fritz Lang and Fr. W. Murnau. As I see it, the movie references directly Lang's Metropolis, and the allegorical-parabolic character of his plots. But I didn't see Murnau in it. There's a more obvious Melies-homage though: the Moon with a (here cigar-smoking) human face, and the paper-made, painted mountains and city-landscapes. I enjoyed the film mostly for its visuals, and in the meantime I found very interesting the story on muteness, and the creative means of communication used by the inhabitants of the voiceless city. From this perspective this movie is an unique reflexion on the muteness of the silent cinema, because in the films of the silent period one can hardly find stories with mute characters. In this case can be questioned whether the story on the stolen voices was the motivation for the silent film form, or there's an intention to play upon the muteness of the silent films. Another example of this kind of reflexion I found in Guy Maddin's Careful,where the inhabitants of a mountain-village have restrictions in using their voices. I intend to write a paper on it, if you know movies related to this topic, please let me know!!!

I highly recommend Esteban Sapir's film to every moviegoer (one of the critics called it: the jewel of the festival).

PS: Winners were announced, and the film won the award for best cinematography! For those who appreciate the intersection of silent cinema and social commentary, this is a unique film. Part homage to German expressionism, part allegory, the film is replete with visual symbolism and an artistic style that rivals anything seen since the 1920's. Moreover, the attention to period detail and the visual composition of the scenes as an instrument for advancing the story is stunning. Aside from this, the plot offers an interesting commentary on the role of the media in society and its effect on social voice, perception, and opinion. In truth, it's not so much the silence that permeates the film as it is the loss of voice and the loss of words to communicate and express thought that inevitably follows. In sum, this film is something not often seen and, as the producer of the film said in the Q&A that followed, will leave you thinking about its meaning well into the next day. I didn't see such a movie where the creators put so much heart's blood into their work and paid attention to the finest details for a very long time.

Everything was well thought and perfectly put into reality. Camera-work, editing and compositing worked so good together it was just amazing. The titles were so fun and so perfectly choreographed.

This movie just blew me away.

The "Showdown" could have been cut down by 10 or 15 minutes though.

It's a near to perfect homage to early silent noir Films story, acting, scenery and costumes were perfectly fitting and believable to have com from the times of silent film-making. Some would argue that Argentinean director Esteban Sapir's La Antena is an exercise in anachronistic futility; that, while the silent films to which Sapir's pays homage were at the cutting edge of cinema when they were made, they are outdated today, leaving La Antena a meaningless oddity.

I would disagree. Fervently. La Antena melds the conventions of the silent film with 21st century technology, making it the ultimate exercise in post-modern film-making.

The film is set in the timeless "The City Without a Voice", so called because the citizens have been rendered speechless by Mr. TV, a dictator/media mogul with his hair painted on. The City resembles the titular one in Fritz Lang's seminal Metropolis (1927), perhaps 100 years before that film. It is all expressionist skyscrapers, TV aerials, and animated billboards.

The citizens of the City are mollified by La Voz (The Voice), the only person with the gift of speech. Her face perpetually shrouded by a hood (kept on even when she is naked), La Voz is forced to sing on Mr. TV's television network. But when Mr. TV concocts a plan to steal the written word as well, La Voz and her eyeless son join forces with a renegade family in an attempt to return the freedom of speech to the people.

La Antena is nothing but pure cinema. Burdening himself with the conventions of the silent film, Sapir has to rely upon images to tell his story. There is sound, most notably in the almost continuous score by Leo Sujatovich. It evokes the best of silent movie music, as well as ingenuously working itself into the film's diegesis, such as the beeping of car horns, or the rhythmic ra-ta-tat-tat of gunfire. And, underlying the whole film is a familiar whirring, as if it were being shown on an ancient projector.

There is a fair amount of dialogue as well. But instead of using intertitles, Sapir has the characters' words appear in the frame. They are larger or smaller, filling the screen or hovering meekly in the air, depending on what is being said. Think a more imaginative version of the subtitles in Night Watch (2004).

Thankfully, the words don't distract from the images. Which is very fortunate indeed, because La Antena boasts some of the most creative and original images we've seen in a long time, all captured by Cristian Cottet's sumptuous black-and-white photography. There are the expressionist cityscapes. The hooded singer and her eyeless son. There is the city's abandoned aerial, which looks like the decayed remains of some colossal spider. And there's the sinister Dr. Y, whose jabbering mouth is displayed on a television screen attached to his face.

La Antena has been criticised for relying too much on its imagery, while skimping on the allegorical depth. But, again, I would disagree. It is true that the sudden appearance of a mind-control machine shaped like a swastika, or the eyeless boy seemingly crucified on a Star of David, feels out of place, a tad over the top in what is otherwise merely a well-crafted fairy tale.

But the lack of overt symbols (the two previous examples aside) works in the film's favour. It allows us to make up our own minds: to decide whether to infer political meaning, to see La Antena as an allegory for fascism, the danger of capitalist monopolies, and the power and responsibility of the media; or to just take the film at face value, as a visually stunning adventure through a world simultaneously unique and familiar.

The sacrifice of explicit depth in favour of unique imagery may seem like a compromise. But, really, when a film looks as good as this, it's hard to care. There is more imagination and artistry in every frame of La Antena than Hollywood can shake a derivative stick at. Evoking films almost 100 years old might be futile, but in doing so, Sapir may be showing us what is lacking in the films of today. He may be telling us that it is time for another artistic revolution. And he may be right. The summary line is some men's wet dream for the ideal woman ... ;o) Seriously though, back to the movie, which has classic cinema written all over it (pun intended and quite literally shown in the picture, too as you'll see)!

How could someone make a silent movie in this year and age? It's not completely silent for once (take the music for instance). With great cinematography is the answer. And it's no wonder that it did win prizes (as another user stated) in this area! But it's also sometimes it's downfall. Although the pictures are great, it sometimes delves too much in them instead of moving forward (plot and time wise). If you can cope with that, than you'll enjoy it even more than me. I haven't told you anything about the story, but I'll never do that, because I don't want to spoiler anything for you ... La Antena, an audacious film by Argentine director Esteban Sapir, succeeds both as a reinvention of the silent movie genre and a gripping cautionary tale. The setting is a city in thrall to mindless television, its people deprived of the power of speech except for a solitary and mysterious screen presence known simply as The Voice. In a bid to cement their grip on power the marvellously villainous duo of television mogul Mr. TV and mad scientist Dr. Y set out to kidnap The Voice and turn her unique talent towards their own dastardly ends. It is up to a young family and The Voice's nameless, eyeless son to stop this evil scheme. The result is a roller coaster of a story that is bewildering on occasion but never less than engrossing.

This is a silent movie that wears many of its influences on its sleeve; the overt references to silent movie greats such as George Melies and Fritz Lang will be readily apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity of their work. But more subtle references and symbolism lie behind such tributes. I particularly like the fact that Mr. TV and his henchman drive around in typical 1930s gangster cars, drawn from the decade when the silent movie era died away and a very different industry began to emerge.

La Antena mines the clichéd plot devices and theatrical over-acting common to so many silent films, albeit in a very knowing and humorous way. It is the astonishing visual style of La Antena that really sets it apart from the movies that it pays homage to. From the hypnotic TV logo to the menacing hilltop transmission station, this film abounds with dazzling visual inventiveness that is the rival of a Studio Ghibli animation – and all this using real actors and handmade sets.

Moreover, though the style is often intentionally corny and theatrical, this is still an unsettling, provocative and emotional picture. The use of religious symbolism throughout La Antena lends added resonance to the struggle between the TV Empire and the waning power of words. At the same time, many of the most powerful images are original ones, including the hypnotic swirl of the television sets and the nightmarish TV food factory.

I hate to end this review on a sour note, but I feel that the English-language release of La Antena is let down by the subtitles. The original Spanish subtitles are used to great effect, with much playing around with words on screen. However, the English-language subtitles that accompany the original dialogue are frustratingly incomplete, with omissions and mistakes at times leaving the viewer to piece things together for themselves. La Antena is nevertheless a striking piece of cinema; a visually breathtaking experience that displays great energy and humour whilst narrating a powerful cautionary tale. Although it might seem a bit bizarre to see a 32-year-old woman play the part of a 12-year-old, Mary Pickford soon makes you forget the incongruities and simply enjoy the fun.

Mary is a street kid in New York City, with her own lovable gang of mischief makers, whose attentions are engaged by the older William Haines (he was 25 at the time & just on the cusp of his own screen stardom.)

To give away too much of the plot would not be fair. Suffice it that Mary is great fun to watch & amply displays why she was Hollywood's first and most beloved super star. Production values are very good, with lots of extras making the NYC street scenes quite believable. Annie Rooney lives with her officer father and brother Tim in the slums of New York, where she is constantly getting involved in many fights with the other neighborhood kids. Annie secretly has a crush on Joe Kelly (whose little brother Mickey is head of the gang that Annie constantly battles), who is in a gang that is headed for trouble, says Officer Rooney. Kelly sponsors a dance, where Tony plans to shoot Kelly in order to get even with him for making him look like a fool in front of his girl, but Officer Kelly gets fatally wounded instead. Tim (part of Kelly's gang) is told by Tony, and friend Spider, that Kelly shot his father, so he goes after him in vengeance. Annie learns of this and goes to stop her brother, if she is in time. Very good mix of humor and heart in this film, even though the plot doesn't start until the 40 minute mark of the film. Pickford is enjoyable (even though she was 33 playing a girl no more than 12-13) and really gets into her character. Haines doesn't play Kelly as tough as he should, but is able make the audience feel for him on an emotional level. The scenes where the officer tells Annie of her father's death and the ending really put a lump in your throat. The mix of all sorts of kids throughout the film are fun to watch. Rating, 8. Mary Pickford plays Annie Rooney--the daughter of a cop that lives in the tough part of town. She is a rough and tumble young lady of indeterminate age (somewhere between 12 and 16) who loves to scrap but down deep has a heart of gold.

This is a very typical style of film for Mary Pickford. Like so many of her films, she plays a young girl--even though she was nearly 40 when she made LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY. And, like so many other stories, she was both plucky and courageous. As a result, I had a strong feeling of déjà vu. Now if you haven't seen her other films, this isn't an issue. However, she is essentially playing a character much like the one in SPARROWS or DADDY LONG LEGS--though these two other films are a lot better. Now this isn't to say this is a bad film--just that it's certainly not among her best work--mostly due to a rather "schmaltzy" story that is very heavy on sentiment but not especially convincing. Entertaining but not essential viewing unless you are a huge fan of the silents. Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's

sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic "battle" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an "Our Gang" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era.

Of course the requisite "happy ending" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end.

The Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling nonfiction book in the world, and for good reason. Nonetheless, sitting through this documentary about her life, which fills in some of the details where the diary left off, I thought, "Just another documentary about Anne Frank." I found it to be competent but not extraordinary. That was my complacent attitude because I was already well aware of the story of Anne Frank; most of what the documentary had to tell me wasn't news to me.

Everything changed, though, when I got to the end of the documentary---when I saw the motion picture footage of Anne Frank. The emotional impact of seeing this footage, only a second or so long, made everything that came before it a thousand times more real---but not just everything that was in the documentary; everything I had previously known about Anne Frank suddenly became more real to me, more personal. I'd always been moved by her story, but when I saw that footage, what I felt was stronger and deeper and more profound than any other film experience of my life. (I knew beforehand that this documentary contained live footage of Anne Frank, and I'd even seen the footage in a movie review on television, but seeing it in the context of the documentary was a completely different experience. It's not likely that my mentioning it here will spoil it for anyone.)

I realize now that many people still don't know the story of Anne Frank; it's discouraging at times to be witness to this kind of ignorance. I think to myself, "How could someone NOT know the story of Anne Frank?" This being the case, though, ANNE FRANK: REMEMBERED, along with reading her diary, is the best place to start. It's a story that everyone should know. This series when the Dinosaurus lived for 65 million years ago. The Dinosaurus looks very real and are very realistic when they moves. It is also very interesting how the climate changes.

I am very interesting in how the dinosaurs lived and died. I am also interesting in how the dinosaurs behaved.

The color of the dinosaurs is also interesting to see and discovered. They think which color they had.

The most interesting is why the dinosaurs died and what happened after that.

BBC have made a brilliant series how the dinosaurs lived and died! Walking With Dinosaurs is an amazing Documentary, educational for both the Ignorant of Dinosaurs and Dinosaur-Lovers (like myself) alike. I admit, I was very young when I saw this on Discovery, but I was obsessed with it immediately. (Spoliers!!!!!) The series contains 6 episodes, going from the Late Triassic when dinosaurs were just first evolving to the Late Cretaceous, at the end of Reign of the dinosaurs. When I first saw this film, it was like I really had traveled back in time. The majesty of the Diplodocus, the adventures of Opthalmosaurus, and the caring mother version of T-Rex all astounded my family and me. It is an amazing film, and I believe that BBC managed to do just what they set out to do. Awesome job! (r#88) Brilliant, very entertaining show with spectacular effects. Any fan of these prehistoric reptiles has to see this. The CGI blends in extremely well with the environment and it's just plain fun to watch these giants walk about their daily business as casually as on Discovery Channel. This show was a stroke of genius and it blows its followers "Walking with beasts" and "The future is wild" out of the water.

The greatest episode was definitely the last, where we got to watch the final days of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the meteor strike that became their doom. This stuff is almost too awesome for television. How about a theatrical release? I would pay anything to see these dinos in the cinema.

If you're in the mood for a show that manages to be spectacular, engaging and educational at the same time, this is for you. Dinosaurs have never been cooler. SPOILER WARNING

I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my

favourites were the "Sauropod" theme song and the "Winters Coming" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this "speculation" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy. This movie is well done. It really attempts to show what the dinosaurs had to contend with in their daily lives. The animation is very well done and the film makers have done a great job of giving scientific fact in such a way that it is entertaining. This is a great movie. This documentary on dinosaurs was undoubtedly fascinating and very well made. However, I found myself watching many of the bits with unease. The film generally took a rather confident stand on anything it said and showed, but inevitably much of the behaviour of the beasts, their interaction with each other, what they looked like, how they moved, what they ate etc. much of that is surely guessing - sometimes guessing with reasonable confidence, sometimes just wild guessing. But the viewer is never made aware of that, the film pretends to actually observe real dinosaurs and their real behaviour etc. That makes probably better viewing than confronting the audience with mountains of disclaimers, but it makes it just a bit too populist in my estimation. Tomorrow Is Another Day is NOT the sequel to Gone with the Wind but a lovers-on-the-lam story, and a surprisingly alert and moving one as well. For a supposed hack relegated to B-minus features like The Devil Thumbs A Ride, Felix Feist proves adept at filling his work with unexpected, inventive details. Steve Cochran leaves prison after 18 years for killing his brutal father when he was only 13, and now he's still a tentative, gawky pubescent operating inside a man's hulky frame. Lonesome, he visits a 10-cents-a-dance palace and falls for brassy, grasping Ruth Roman. But the sudden shooting of her police-bigwig boyfriend causes the ill-matched couple to hit the road, ending, like the Joads, in a California migrant-worker camp.

Roman's the revelation; in her best-known role, as Farley Granger's fiancee in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, she was ill- and under-used. Here she modulates persuasively from bottle-blonde taxi dancer to sacrificing wife and mother-to-be (and a brunette, to boot). Cochran's almost as good, waffling between the suspicion of a wounded child and the explosive reactions of an under-socialized male. And the ending, while unconvincing, is nonetheless welcome. Along with They Live By Night and Gun Crazy, Tomorrow Is Another Day displays a redeeming sweetness and warmth that belie its film-noir pedigree. This film screened at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood on April 7, 1999. It was described in the American Cinematheque schedule as follows:

"TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY 1951, Warners, 90 min. Steve Cochran's an ex-con who's never been with a woman. Ruth Roman is a dime-a-dance dame with no use for sappy men. A hotel room, a dirty cop, a gunshot - the perfect jump-off for a fugitives-on-the-run love story. This virtually unknown noir is Felix Feist's masterwork, packed with revelatory set-pieces. Cochran was never more vulnerable, Roman never sexier. Imagine GUN CRAZY scripted by Steinbeck - it's that good."

I just saw this film, and I agree with every word of the above description. His John Dark-Kevin Connor fantasy adventures were a mainstay of Summer holiday movies in the days before Star Wars: they weren't masterpieces, they didn't boast state-of-the-art special effects, but they were exactly what an audience of kids wanted from a film back in the mid 70s.

At the Earth's Core catches just the right tone for the appropriately named Burroughs' pulp adventure about Victorian inventor Peter Cushing and the inevitable Doug McClure ending up in the underground world of Pelucidar and battling its evil telepathic fighting dinosaurs. This time the puppets are gone in favour of men in monster suits, which is a lot more fun if you're willing to suspend your disbelief, and if you're not there's always Caroline Munro's cleavage to look at. Aside from what may well be Peter Cushing's worst performance, an irritating but dottier rehash of his movie Dr Who ("You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!"), it's easily the best of the John Dark-Kevin Connor-Doug McClure fantasy adventures, surprisingly well directed and boasting an atmospheric use of colour. Never especially good at exterior scenes, Alan Hume's photography gains immensely from the control a studio set gives him (the film was shot entirely on soundstages) to paint a luridly vivid world worthy of a pulp novel cover. Not high art but definitely great Saturday matinée fun. The main criticism of AT THE EARTH'S CORE is that it's cheap, the special effects are bad and so on and so forth. Yes, some of the special effects are painfully bad but what a lot of folks overlook about it is that it's actually quite fun, which is very important in my book.

In comparison, just look at the latest STAR WARS films: they have the latest, greatest special effects created by the latest technological advances which are capable in creating stunning visual effects as far reaching as the human imagination can imagine and yet, with all the razzle dazzle, those films were as exciting as a funeral. As Yoda would say, Fun they're not! In other words, who cares if the FX aren't the greatest when the spirit of the film is fast-paced, humorous and clearly set on the side of action. I love everything about AT THE EARTH'S CORE: the contrast between stodgy Victorian England VS the wild other-worldly, colorful setting of Pellucidar, the cast of characters, the concept of a lost underground world, the telepathic Pterodactyls, the human slaves rebelling, Jubal the ugly one (lol!), the inspired teaming of Peter Cushing (who's great!) and Doug McClure, the excellent music (it's really good), cinematography by the amazing Alan Hume and last but not least, Caroline Munro. She's effing sexy in this movie. One of the sexiest B-movie babes ever captured on screen.

Seriously, anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't know what fun is. Gimme AT THE EARTH'S CORE over any turgid STAR WARS prequels any time! At least it has Caroline Munro, which no CGI fx can ever recreate. CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS! Shame on you if you give this film a low rating. How can you not like a film that has Doug McClure, Peter Cushing, silly rubber monsters, fights, (and for the guys, that woman that was the baddie's henchwoman in The Spy Who Loved Me and one of the seventies Sinbad films, not wearing very much of whom my mother said "She wasn't picked for the colour of her eyes"), lava, silly wigs and a daft Victorian drilling machine very much like the one used in the old Thunderbirds series? Whoever watched this film and slagged it off was watching it for the wrong reasons. It may be crap, but is definitely good crap. They don't make 'em like they used to, sigh...... This movie was the second movie I saw on the cinema as a child. It scared the living crap out of me. So much so that I asked my father if we could leave halfway through.

Nowadays, the only people leaving halfway through are the ones who have a good taste in movies.

I, however, still have fond memories of this flawed masterpiece of awfulness. Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in the same movie! Great! Monsters made of polypropylene substitute. Scary stuff. A rubber monster is, when you think about it, is even scarier than a real monster.

The astonishing thing about this movie is how good the score is. Truly rousing stuff.

There's also plenty of prehistoric tit on show, too. Nice. Due to the fact that in 1976 there were no CGI I felt that the movie was quite watchable. The studio productions were very good and very elaborate. The background effects were very believable and always appeared as if they were part of the whole set. The actors did OK considering the premise of the film being set in a type of Jules Vern atmosphere where imagination and possibilities of future exploration were at most improbabilities. Had I watched this film in 1976 I probably would have been in awe of the ability of man to build a machine that could travel to the earths core. I still wonder to this day why we are not all flying around in our cars but I digress. McClure and Cushing have their funny moments, mostly from their facial expressions toward each other which of course makes the film somewhat campy which I loved. The 'monsters' left something to be desired but the story had a good premise although I feel as though some other sort of 'thing' could have been more believable under those circumstances. All in all quite watchable for its time and fun now. My father took me to see this film when it was released in 1976. I was but a child and it scared the crap out of me. So much so that I had to leave the theatre during a particularly claustrophobic tunnel scene as it was too intense for me!!! I went home to the safety of my family. I saw the film all the way through as I got older and thoroughly enjoyed it. Shame about the men in monster suits, though. If you overlook the cheapness of the production and delve deeper, you'll find an excellent performance by Cushing, a stunning opening score, some nice photography and the ever reliable Mr.Douglas McClure, my childhood hero!British police constables guarding the Whitehouse at the end! Titty bang bang cave woman! Monsters with beaks! Actors in monster suits gliding on wires! This has it all! Superb. I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth. I think this is a great, classic monster film for the family. The mole, what a machine! The tall creature with the beak, the flying green lizards, Ranthorincus/mayas or whatever they are and the ape men things the speak telepathically with them. The battle of the men in rubber suits fighting for a doll for breakfast umm! yummy! Class, what else can I say? How would they make a 2002 remake of this one? This is a true gem of corny sci-fi! Peter Cushing adds a great personality to this midnite movie classic.

I particularly like the sound design. The weird choppy voices of the creatures and the rhino creatures all provide a bizarre backdrop (Of course the scantily clad babe doesn't hurt either!)

Nice way to relax. I am packing my suitcase now so I can go and be with Caroline Munroe. Phony monsters and scenery make for 89 minutes of harmless fun. Something you can enjoy with your family and not be offended. Agreeable "Boy's Own Paper" nonsense with a sprightly performance from Cushing, some amusing rubber monsters, colourful jungle sets, & the ever-welcome appearance of Caroline Munro in animal skins. Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot. I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.

Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the "core" of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8/10 Once a year in America, Saturday morning would give way to new cartoons, usually sometime in America. Just about the time school started.

I guess this was to make not having school on Saturdays that more bearable.

One Friday night before the premiere of the new Saturday morning cartoons, a movie came on.

"At The Earth's Core" I had not a clue who Cushing nor McClure were. Clearly they were not from the same country, so I couldn't grasp why they were traveling together.

I do recall seeing the mechanism in the fire-breathing monster's mouth.

What connects this movie for me is the opening with the molten metal and then suddenly we get the band playing as we see the factory.

How do you end a movie like this? The music again, and two bewlidered cops as the drill appears behind them.

Whatever reason, I remember watching this movie more that Friday night than I do any new cartoon that came on the following morning.

That was definitely the late seventies.

It would be during Jurassic Park mania, cicra '93, I believe, before I would see this movie again.

Yes, people in costumes. There was the fire-breather again.

Still loved the ending with the two cops.

Finally, it would be nearly another decade before I would send off for the movie on DVD.

Now I would just watch the beginning and intro.

Oh, I do love much of the movie. Of all these sci fi Jules Verne, HG Wells, ERB movies, this one stands as my fave.

What I note now is that one of the cops begins turning around a wee bit too soon, then turns back, then he and the other cop are synchronized as they turn inward once again to look behind themselves at the drill.

Perhaps for me, this movie stands as the best of the Saturday morning shows, which is why I enjoy it so much. The family happiness is crumbling when, the from the beginning rich father Ward (Michael Ontkean), gets poor and cannot support the family any longer. Then the mother Faye (Jaclyn Smith) has to take the role as the breadwinner in the family and starts to work in order to support the family and at the same time, periodically alone, has to manage the family life. Not always that good, but as good as she can. The family life hardly gets easier when the father learns that the son Lionel (Joe Flanigan "Stargate Atlantis") is gay and is living together with his lover John (Joel Gretsch "The 4400") also an old family friend, resulting in that the father makes clear to Lionel that he is no longer welcome in the family. Lionel is the one who meant the most to his sister Anne (Leslie Horan) during her up-bringing, since the family neglected her. Anne cannot stand the fact that their father have cut the cords with Lionel and therefore she run away from home. As this wasn't enough, the son Greg (Brian Krause "Charmed") enlists in the marines and is sent to war. The storyline in this film can on some occasions feel a bit thin, in spite of that it still has a lot of realism in it, which makes it well worth seeing. Since this film illustrates many sensitive relations and situations, I would believe that it is best appreciated by a mature audience even though it wouldn't hurt for teenagers to see it and get something to think about before adulthood. I loved this movie it was a great portrayal of a family who had it's share of ups and down, but in the end they knew that special love they had for each other. I have seen many movies starring Jaclyn Smith, but my god this was one of her best, though it came out 12 years ago. This movie contained an all-star cast, and what I loved the most was that it opened my eyes to see other actors who I haven't seen before. This movie was kind of long in length, but I enjoyed every minute of it. It is a movie that you can sit down with your family and watch, though we would have to cover the kids eyes a few times due to the discretionary love scenes. Overall I rate this movie a 10 out of a 1-10 scale. Lifetime does not air it enough, so if anyone knows what store sells it let me know because this is a must-have. The only print of CHIKAMATUS MONOGATARI I've been able to find was abysmal - I almost couldn't watch it. Which is a shame as this is among the greatest Mizoguchi films. The story - which I believe had been done before and since by other Japanese directors - is a bit straighter than my favorite Mizoguchi films (SANSHO THE BAILIFF and UGETSU MONOGATARI), and is essentially a tale of tragic romance, in this case a transgressive romance that crosses strict class boundaries. As always with Mizoguchi, there is an exquisitely expressed tone of defiance, and - bad print aside - I was very pleased. As with all of Mizoguchi's films, I'm eagerly awaiting a restored DVD release - whenever that may come... This is certainly a good film, beautifully photographed and evocatively acted. Yet one should certainly criticize it, and Mizoguchi, for it is not without flaws and weaknesses. Mizoguchi really cared for women, and wanted to make statements on man's lack of sympathy and total cruelty, yet he sometimes gets ahead of himself in trying to make this statement by adopting the wrong means. This is certainly a case in 'the Crucified Lovers', 'Princess Yang Kwei Fei' and 'Zankiku monogatari'. He sets the scenario in feudal Japan, which leaves the viewer at the end with the partially right exclamation: "boy, does feudalism suck, I'm glad that it is over...". And true, some of the scenarios such weaker films of Mizoguchi present would be literary impossible today. Also, his women characters sometimes become archetypes of unrealistic self-sacrifice, which also simplifies the scenario less appealing. Saying that, "Crucified Lovers" is a good film, with such few relative weaknesses, though the sometimes chilly, cynical prose by Ueda, the screenwriter helps this film allot. I still highly prefer and recommend Mizoguchi's 'realistic, 'contemprary' films of 1936: 'Osaka Elegy' and 'Sisters of the Gion', as well as his late masterpieces, in which he showed more restraint and subtlety: 'Ugetsu', 'Sansho Dayu', and 'The Life of Oharu'. I've loved this movie for a LONG time. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I again checked it out and actually found it even more enjoyable now. I loved the Chipmunks cartoon when I was young, so naturally I adored 'The Chipmunk Adventure.'

I honestly can't think of a better plot to this movie. It's not wildly creative, but I've always wanted to travel all over the world, and so I just have so much fun watching it as my longing to travel grows even more. The part with Elenore singing to the little penguin always makes me cry...

'The Chipmunk Adventure' will remain a favorite of mine forever, I'm sure. I guess it's because I saw it when I was so young. I don't think it would make quite an impact on someone older seeing it for the first time. (Unless, of course, they have a young heart) One of my absolute favorite childhood films. The Chipmunk adventure packs incredible fun geared for young and old alike. The animation is lively and colorful and the film itself boasts some of the best songs ever put in an animated feature. Who could forget the dynamic "Boys/Girls of Rock n' Roll", the exciting "Diamond Dolls", and the heartrending "My Mother"?

This should be considered a nostalgic classic animated gem from the eighties. It's too bad they don't make them like this anymore. Most animated films today resort to violence, crude humor, or sentimental mush... except of course the folks from Pixar.

BOTTOM LINE: An amazing and unforgettable adventure for all ages. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE

There are some movies that I could watch all my life and never grow tired of them, and this nostalgic favorite is one of them. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE was a 1987 attempt to bring the old favorites back to the forefront of animation, this time on the big screen. In an age when Disney dominated the film industry in terms of animation quality and box office, THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE stands as one of the best animated films that Disney didn't produce in the 80's.

The story is simple and elementary, having Alvin, Simon & Theodore compete in an around-the-world race with the Chipettes (Janette, Eleanor, & Brittany). However, as the chipmunks encounter exotic dangers, they are unaware that they are the pawns in a major diamond heist.

THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never was and never will be a film that soars thanks to an engrossing plot. And to people who didn't love it as a child, the film will probably never be more then an enjoyable, yet forgettable, animated movie. But for me, it will always be a little known masterpiece. Something about the film just clicks for me in a way few films do.

Every song is fun, upbeat, and harmless. Highlights include the Chipettes in a slightly risqué Arabian dance to calm snakes. There's also a very sweet song in which the Chipmunks sing about traveling the world and we get to see them at major landmarks throughout the globe. One thing about the Chipmunk characters is that, despite the potentially annoying vocals, the songwriters always managed to write songs that were catchy without ever being grating. This film is no exception... it actually boasts one of the best Animated movie soundtracks of the 80's if you ask me.

Every joke is cute, sincere and amusing. The bits between the bad guys and a pampered puppy are very amusing. And the shock of seeing the Chipettes nearly forced into marriage by a child emperor is as well. The comedy manages to constantly play to the kids so that they don't miss anything, but everything remains charming for the adults with enough nostalgia to keep them entertained.

It's really just a fun trip that is completely humble in it's ambitions. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never aims to be anything more then it is, harmless fun. I'll be the first to admit this is a biased review because I have such a nostalgic fondness for THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE that I would never be able to give it a bad review... but nonetheless, it fills me with such a childish contentment while watching it. Everyone has their random favorite from childhood that no one knows, and for me it's this movie. And any film that I can watch over and over whether I am 5, 12, 23 or older is a great film in my eyes.

... A- ... To this day, there isn't a movie I've seen more times than The Chipmunk Adventure, nor has any movie brought me more happiness. This is by no means the greatest film or even the greatest animated film, but to an 8 year old girl in 1988 it was the coolest, funniest, most exciting film ever! I'm still equally as impressed today with the musical numbers, each one a standout song with wonderfully dramatic lyrics in the epic tradition of 80's pop (think Pat Benetar on helium, only catchier).

Controversy has stirred over the blatantly suggestive tone of the Chipette's song "Gettin' Lucky With You", which to me seemed much more innocent at the time. However, looking at it as a rational adult, I can totally understand the concern; you've got three young girls in skimpy harem outfits passionately proclaiming "getting lucky is what it's all about". The Chipettes' were definitely sexualized tenfold for this movie.

But this controversial issue doesn't even come close to overshadowing the Chipmunks' otherwise fabulous feature length animated adventure, I encourage parents and childless adults alike to check out this movie. Especially if you were a child of the eighties/early nineties like me. :-) I loved this movie when I was a kid. I saw it theatrically. Randy Edelman did a good composition of the soundtrack. David Seville is the Chipmunks' father and recording manager. The Chipmunks consist of Alvin, who is best known for playing the harmonica, Simon, who is a bright and studious chipmunk & Theodore, who is the youngest and is always hungry. There is a lady known as Miss Miller, who looks after the chipmunks and has 3 daughters known as Brittany, Jeanette & Eleanor, who all have the same character as the Chipmunks. My favourite songs from this soundtrack include "Diamond Dolls", The Girls of Rock & Roll", & the touching "My Mother". Alvin really wanted to see Europe when Dave had to go there for business. The Chipmunks meet the Chipettes playing the Around the World in 30 days video game which led them to race each other doing the real thing. Although it is more of a kids movie, it still holds its own, especially when compared to the more recent assembly line animated films being made. The music is fantastic!! I don't care how old you are, you will still find yourself rockin to "Girls of Rock and Roll" and Diamond Dolls." Definatly a must for animation lovers. "The Chipmunk Adventure" is one of the greatest animated movies of the 1980's. Alvin and the Chipmunks have always been of some interest to me, since they were what really got me into rock and roll. Neither one of the Chipmunks has any bad traits. Alvin's really the star and has all the cool looks. Theodore is the lovable sensitive one. Then there's Simon (my personal favorite), the smart one who is often a party pooper. I also like the Chipettes a lot. There's Brittany, who, like Alvin, is one who is always trying to be so popular. Then there's Eleanor, who, like Theodore, is sweet, sensitive, and loves food. Janette is the only Chipette who is not much like her counterpart; she's very naive and really clumsy.

In the Chipmunks' very first full-length movie, David Seville is going on a business trip to Europe, and he's leaving the boys with Miss Miller while he's gone. While playing an arcade game, Alvin loses against Brittany and then says that if he had the money, he'd race Brittany around the world for real. Unbeknownest to the kids, a man named Klaus Furschtien and his sister, Claudia, who have been trying to come up with a sneaky way to deliver diamonds around the world in exchange for cash, overheard this conversation and said that they'd let them race around the world for $100,000. Alvin and Brittany accept it and go on the race.

This adventurous movie has a lot of great songs. "Off to See the World" made for an appropriate theme song for the movie. Then there is "Getting Lucky", one of my favorite songs in the movie. "My Mother" is most likely the sappiest song in the movie, but it always makes me cry. "Wooly Bully" is the only cover song used in the movie (the rest were completely original). Then, of course, there's "The Boys and Girls of Rock and Roll", which, in my opinion, has to be one of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.

I used to watch this movie very often, until my recorded tape of it died. I still watch the movie, though. This is actually a fun movie for people who are about to go on a vacation to a foreign country for the first time. It'll give you an idea of what kind of stuff you'd expect out of world travel. Definitely one of my childhood movies, and one that I'd recommend to 80's fans and Alvin & the Chipmunks fans. AWWWW, I just love this movie to bits. Me and my cousins enjoy this movie a lot and I am just such a HUGE FAN!!! I hope they bring the TV series out on DVD soon. Come to mention it, I have not see the TV show in a LONG time. Such geart times! Where I come from Australia The Chipmunk Adventure is only known by people in their late teens and adult years which is kinda sad because the young kids don't know what there missing.

The songs in this film are ace the ones I love the most Boys/girls of rock n'roll, Diamond Dolls and the song that ls sure to make you want to cry My Mother.

This film is sure to excite both young and old GET THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE TODAY!!! 10 out of 10, such an excellent movie. When I first saw this movie I was only a little kid and I fell in love with it, they really don't make movies like this anymore,I just watch this again now slightly older and still love it.

The Humour is perfect and fits into the movie really well, all the gags are kind of childish but will make adults laugh as well,and in a kids movie is really very rare.

The Animation is amazing and to watch hand-drawn animation is a real breath of fresh air to all the computer animation we see today. The Backgrounds are stunning and the coloring is amazing.

The Characters are just the kind of characters that you fall in love with the moment you start watching girls will think the Chipmunks are adorable and Guys will think the Chipettes are really kinda sexy.

The Songs are fun to listen too and some just really make you wanna cry or get up and dance, its also fun to watch visual humor to go along with them.

The Voice Acting is great no doubt even if most of the voice acting is high pitch, but an interesting thing popped up and it one of the songs from this movie but the slowed down to show the real voices behind them and its really kinda fun to watch.

If you see this movie in a store or somewhere to rent I say check it out it's really worth seeing and is a perfect family movie its absolutely amazing, words can not express this movie. This was one of the best movies you could find as a child. I lived with The Chipmunk Adventure from 4 years old to 8 years old. The story of this film was: Dave's going on a business trip to Europe and sticks the boys with Miss Miller. While playing an Around the World in 80 Days video game, two villains, Klaus and Claudia (brother and sister), round the Chipmunks and Chipettes into an adventure in which the kids must hot-air-balloon their way across the globe. What they're unaware of is that the "game" is really a diamond-smuggling ring. And when found at the airport by the villains, a chase ensues! And which ends in Klaus and Claudia off to jail and Alvin, Simon, Theodore, Brittany, Jeanette, and Eleanor safe with Dave and Miss Miller. But I am warning you now, this is a musical and quite a damn good one at that. Most people hate musicals, but I am not one of those people, I frigging love musicals like Rocky Horror, Grease, Sound of Music, Cats Don't Dance, and just about anything (except for My Fair Lady). If you see this, share with your kids (if you got any)! I loved this movie and i never knew it was this old it came out the day n year i was born in and now i am 19 now i still love this movie especially the songs like "My Mother" and "Boys and Girls of Rock N Roll" and i remember as a kid i believe i was 5 n my sister was 6 and my cousin (boy) was 6 as well we used to pretend to be the characters in the movie i was Eloner and Janette and my sister was Britany and my cousin was Alvin Simon and Theodore those were good times and i miss it and having this movie reminds me of the good times since my cousin is old for this stuff and so am i and my sis we are not going to forget about the chipmunk and the chipmunk movie i still even remember the songs and the words off by heart even though i haven't seen this movie for 12 years but now starting to love it again ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS AND CHIPETTES <3<3<3<3 i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children. This movie is a classic. Kids now will love it, and people like me, who were kids when it first came out, still watch it for its nostalgic value as well as for its humor and great story. It introduces kids to different cultures and inspires them to adventure. It's not JUST a cartoon, it's a masterpiece. I love it. I have been an avid chipmunk fan since the late 70's - early 80's. When this movie came out, it was a must to see it. And after seeing it, I went right over and bought it! The movie is great, I love the animated action it brings, and the music is great (yes, I bought the soundtrack on CD...) A recommended video for everyone to watch and enjoy! If your a child of the 80's and have not seen this movie you have failed to be a true child of the 80's. How can you not love those great chipmunks (don't forget about the chippettes), lines, and songs. Years later i can still sing every word to every song. The story line is great and much better then the films for kids today. It's just pure fun and worth the rent, even if your all grown up. The feature length CGI movie has just been released this year, but whilst it will provide kids a lot of entertainment, for die-hard Alvin fanatics and followers who grew up with the 60s and 80s versions of the cartoon shows, The Chipmunk Adventure is probably the best Alvin and the Chipmunks based animated movie, ever.

For starters, the animation is as ever terrific, the character designs are as they should be in the cartoons- unlike the motion picture film itself, it is just sheer fun to watch. there are no celeb voices, no CGI generated effects, just pure quality 2-D, hand drawn animation and the colours are fantastic- bright, bold and beautiful. The jokes and humour is typical chipmunk standard and the narrative is spot-on. In truth, The Chipmunk Adventure is everything the live action movie ought to have been, but isn't. Alvin, Simon and Theodore compete with the Chipettes, Elenor, Jeanette and Britney in a hot air balloon contest and along the way, the kids encounter all manner of problems and dilemmas that they have to resolve in their own way. And no chipmunk movie is complete without the odd renditions of classic rock and pop anthems.

The Chipmunk Adventure is for kids and adults alike-, which is another advantage over the CGI movie- as whereas, the 2007 version will gain a few new admirers, the 1987 movie will appeal to both young and older Chipmunk fans. Bagdarasian and Karman provide the helium-like voices of the film's trio.

Overall, this film is a must for fans of the cartoon shows themselves- you will not be left disappointed. If you have seen the live action version, then you'll feel that this movie is a much better effort in contrast. If you haven't then you should go and see it still, or even still forget the Jason lee movie and as an alternative, stick with this I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.

It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black

Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10.

''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now'' PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: Dave Seville, father figure & manager of the Chipmunk brothers Alvin, Simon & Theodore, has gone off to Europe on a business trip, leaving the boys at home with Miss Miller as their watcher, much to the chagrin of Alvin, who wanted to go to Europe. While playing against his female counterpart, Brittany, the leader of the Chipettes, comprised of her younger sisters Jeanette (the female counterpart of Simon) and Eleanor (the female counterpart of Theodore) in a fierce arcade game of Around the World in 30 Days, they catch the attention of two evil foreign siblings who need to smuggle money & diamonds around the world, but need a way to do it that won't draw the attention of their arch enemy, Jamal. The 2 evil siblings, Claudia & Klaus, overhear the banter between Alvin & Brittany and decide to use them as the delivery boys & girls for their loot (more Claudia's idea than Klaus's, the latter initially objects feeling that it's too dangerous for children). The 2 siblings make an offer to the boys & girls - travel via air balloons to 12 drop off points to leave dolls (which resemble the kids) that contain diamonds and/or money to indicate their arrival, with the promise that whoever wins the race will get an obscene amount of money. But as the two different set of talking animal siblings make their rounds, they are stalked by the henchmen of Jamal - but who is Jamal? Is he friend or foe?

OVERALL: Enjoyable, lighthearted farce based on the 1980s TV series version of Alvin & the Chipmunks. Beautiful animation is a highlight, lacks the crude humor that keeps creeping into today's family films and engaging songs (Boys & Girls of Rock & Roll being a stand out). Eagle eyed fans will probably notice that Brittany's character design has been tweaked from the animated series, giving her a less round face while adding a seemingly permanent blush to cheeks (which Jeanette & Eleanor also display).

Keep an ear out for Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. This is a charming movie starring everyone's favorite cartoon chipmunks. In this feature we follow the band of rodents on an unforgettable balloon race around the world. Although there are lows, including an orphan penguin, all in all it's a great family film. When this was first aired on Masterpiece Theatre, it had a profound effect on me. It's beautifully filmed and acted. I immediately read the book by Mary Webb, and it remains one of my all time favorites. Janet McTeer is wonderful as Prue, and I fully expected her to become a regular on the British drama scene. I guess she chose to focus on the British stage instead.

I was hoping that with the American success of Janet McTeer years later(with Tumbleweeds) this film would again become available to us. Alas, it has not yet been released on DVD. If anyone out there is listening, please make this available again! I'm so happy I recorded this on VHS tape when it was featured on Master Piece Theatre. This is a movie I can watch again and again. Like living in the early 1800's in England isn't hard enough, Prue is born with a "hare lip" and is outcast from birth. The people in her village accept her somewhat but always fear that she is "from the Devil's smithy" and are quick to turn on her. Especially when a lot of bad luck befalls her family. She is strong and courageous but shies away from Kester Woodseaves, a traveling weaver who catches her eye. Partly because she fears rejection and also because she thinks he is so virile that he should have a wife who is as lovely as a lily. Kester is a modern man who does not believe in the superstitions of the time and he speaks his mind and follows his heart. The movie stays true to the original story by Mary Webb and is riveting from beginning to end. This is a great TV miniseries of a classic novel. Janet McTeer and John Bowe, in the lead roles, are exceptional. This is one of the best adaptations from a book that I have seen. I would LOVE to get a copy of this - let me know if you know how I might get one...Thanks! hi i am john and i would like to tell you all that my dog was in this film at the baiting screen he was the pit like one, that was going to bite the man chained up. my dogs name was Colin and he stayed away filming for a week for this film. he was also in other things like crime watch uk and some other small parts. he won some dog shows but he has passed away now i miss him he was a great, true and loyal dog and we had some great times together but he got cancer which could not be treated so i had to get him put down that was the worst day of my life i hope this gives you some thing to look for in the film if you watch it again.

thanks all Just reading the reviews of this wonderful BBC mini series reminded me how much I enjoyed this when it was first broadcast many years ago. At the time I remember waiting with anticipation for the next installment and fell in love with John Bowe and Janet McTeer ,two talented actors that we don't see enough of on TV or cinema these days.

I have tried without success to obtain several of the BBCs fantastic dramas from the past, including the 1973 version of Jane Eyre and the 1972 version of Anne of Green Gables, all wonderful timeless classic stories, which sadly the BBC seem to have no intention of releasing on video or DVD. If anyone learns otherwise I would love to hear from them.

In the meantime we will have to content ourselves with our recollections of how wonderful they were. Having known and loved this book since I was eleven I was terrified to see it coming up as a movie - what if they'd made a dreadful mess of it? In the event I needn't have worried at all. Everyone was very well cast and the acting is terrific, it followed the story very well except for the strange addition of the scene in the prison, which to me added nothing at all. However it really is the most beautiful love story and I'm so glad I videoed it so I can watch it again and again. My only gripe is - why didn't they give Kester a green waistcoat 'which made him such a personable man'? Such a simple thing, when they went to so much trouble for everything else. If you get the chance, see this, it is excellent. When Precious Bane aired in America, I was stunned by this beautiful story. All the actors were brilliant; Clive Owen really understood the character he played. I went right away to a bookstore and ordered the original novel, which is even more beautiful, and which went out of print just after I bought the book - although I've seen it online a few times now. I had also hoped with the Oscar won by Janet McTeer and the huge popularity of Clive Owen the BBC would naturally get this fine production on DVD...I cannot believe all these years later we still have no DVD. It has to be the only production ever created by the BBC that is NOT for sale. Come on BBC - you have money to make off us fans here. Get this on DVD please! I have copied my video of this on to DVD so that I can enjoy it whenever I like and it makes a very successful (and rare) wedding present as well! This is just an absolutely wonderful adaptation of a much loved novel. Everything about it is just perfect and it has aged amazingly well. There is always a chance with something this old that it might appear a bit creaky next to more modern dramas but 'Precious Bane' more than holds its own.

The quality of the acting is amazing with Janet McTeer making a superlative Prudence and a young Clive Owen stomping around as the taciturn Gideon Sarn.

I challenge anyone to watch the final sequence without at least sniffling a little at the sheer romance of it all. It is the perfect film to watch when it is cold outside and you are snuggled up on the sofa.

I really can't recommend this highly enough. I'm lucky enough to have a good quality copy of my VHS on DVD so I can now watch this over and over again. The characters are so well played I can't find fault with any aspect of the casting. OK, so there are a few differences from the book, but the old cliché of love conquering all is so powerfully portrayed that it makes no difference. The reality of living in the rural countryside of early 19th century England is beautifully contrasted by the changing seasons, from biting winter to glorious summer days and this is mirrored in the different characters, from Prue's bullying father to Kester's all encompassing love. A story that changed my life. I was fortunate enough to record this wonderful drama, both parts, when it originally aired on Masterpiece Theatre. I loved it but lost it. Then one day, while going through old tapes, found it again. I recorded it to DVD and watched and --- WOW! I still love it! The leads are excellent and my only complaint is I wish we had seen more Kester! What a man! And Prue. She's so strong and wonderful ... living in a time and age where her affliction and how she deals with it is seen as unfortunate and evil. Even her own brother tells Prue to her face that he doubts that a man will ever have her. *sigh* Unfortunately my copy is not the greatest, with wear and tear over the years, and I too would absolutely love to own this on professional DVD if it ever happens. In the early 19th century, a young woman with a harelip falls foul of her family's ambition and the superstitions of the local community, but she meets a man who may see her differently, and just may, change Pru's life forever.

Precious Bane is a British Broadcasting Corporation adaptation of the highly acclaimed novel by Mary Webb. It's a beautifully filmed piece that is acted to an incredibly high standard, the story {screenplay by Maggie Wadey} is excellent, and the period detail and use of dialect is second to none. It's such a shame that this film has yet to get a DVD release, one would have thought that with Clive Owen's {great here as Gideon} rise to stardom, the BBC would get it out there, but sadly no, so the only way of catching it is on the very rare occasions that TCM shows it. The lead performance from Janet McTeer as Pru Sarn is simply brilliant, guts and genuine emotion go hand in hand as McTeer gives it her all. Pru has to not only contend with her facial disfigurement, but also the constant snides and hurt from the ignorant villagers. This is a time when folk believed that if a Hare ran in front of a pregnant woman it spelt doom, a time of Bull Baiting, a time of superstitions and talk of witches. In spite of constant set backs Pru is strong and resourceful, even her own family knock her dreams back without realising it, but this road may well be a terribly bumpy one, but hope is everlasting, and Pru has hope in abundance.

8.5/10 As you can see, I loved the book so much I use the title for my internet alias and have for over 15 years. (Okay, so it had to be spelled phonetically to fit the name character limit for the BBS at the time but what could I do?) If anyone every finds this movie, I would absolutely love to see it! Janet McTeer is great in everything else I've seen of hers. I think she would have made a great Prue. And it even features early Clive Owen - from before Chancer (a great series itself). What's not to love? I hope the powers that be wise up and make this available on DVD soon! With some of the true dredge they pout out, it's about time well executed productions make it on the market too. Please let me know of any versions of Precious Bane or Gone to Earth on video that people may be aware of. I love the books of Mary Webb wholeheartedly and would be very grateful to have any information on either VHS or DVD.

I've read Precious Bane and Gone to Earth, which are my favorites by Mary Webb, many times, and have collected other novels by her also. I was lucky to have found her "Springs of Joy" poetry and essays, but I've never been able to see the Precious Bane version that was on Masterpiece Theatre, or the full version of Gone to Earth, although there was an American Movie Classic airing of The Wild Heart which was a chopped-up version of Gone to Earth's original film.

If anyone can assist me in obtaining copies of either or both of these films (full versions), I would be so thankful! I LOVED this program, and for years searched for it on video. I've contacted a great many folks in my attempts to get a copy...to no avail.

I DO, however, have the second half of the program. I would be willing to share MY half, with anyone who can give me a copy of the FIRST half of this show. I'd offer to provide copies of what I have to anyone, BUT it's just only part of the program...so it's just not an adequate representation of the show.

There are a few folks selling this on EBAY for some incredible cost (and that's plainly not fair...not to mention blatant copyright violations!).

Please send any correspondence to: thndrmouse@aol.com Superbly adapted to the screen and extremely faithful to Mary Webb's period novel, this film is a true masterpiece. Aside from the exceptionally talented rising star, Janet Mcteer as the lead and one or two established actors, the film used mostly little known names. Yet the drama was all the more convincing for that. The social and personal tension is almost tangible and I felt as if the cast were reacting each other's character as though they would have done in real life. I saw that one commentator asked if Janet McTeer really had a hare-lip, a testimony to just how good was her characterisation. I saw this on TV when it was first shown, taped it, then later the tape was sadly lost. But it remains clear as anything in my mind. If you have any fondness at all for the social period, it's an absolute must see. please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be. I have seen this movie about 4 times and every time I am impressed with the Second Camera Assistant's work. Seems trivial but there is something very professional, knowledgeable and talented there. The movie as a whole suffers from other problems, as stated by other comments. The significance so the issues being approached are as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The acting is a bit strained but the work of the Second Camera Assistant is stellar! This person needs to get back into the business - perhaps directing? What is this person waiting for? I will be watching and waiting and cheering from the sidelines!- Bob This movie is an almost forgotten gem from 1979 which although in essence a comedy it was based on one of the UK's biggest ever bank heists. In fact one of the titles that this film is known by includes "caper" therefore that in its self is an indication of the type of movie. A of a bunch of lovable rouges, who are not the violent or psychotic types, who with cheek an guile pull off the biggest job of their lives. To be honest I don't really know too much about the real crime and can't comment if it accurately depicted the events that unfolded or the characters involved.

Richard Jordan handles himself very well playing PINKY Green and is very believable as an easy going small time American born crook who seems very comfortable with himself. I have to add that sometimes American actors struggle gel well with English actors in a British made film, the chemistry is not always there, however this is no problem for Jordon who fits right in with his role.

It's worth pointing out that Jordan himself was probably one of the most underrated actors of the 70's and 80's and never really got the recognition he deserved. He seemed to get stuck in supporting roles and B movies, not a fair representation of his acting ability. He has played a corrupt cop in THE FRIENDS OF EDDY COYLE, a sadistic killer in THE MEAN SEASON. In THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS he played a sort of comical Gordon Gehco character and also in the 1980's EQUALIZER TV show he played a good guy. All of this displays the versatility of his acting skills while mixing with the likes of David Niven, Kurt Russell, Edward Woodward and Robert Mitcham.

In this movie he effortlessly plays his part as a small time crook with the eye for the ladies and you immediately take to his character and root for him from the beginning. You can't help liking Green, – – you see he really did want to go straight but once blackmailed it all seemed too much of an opportunity to pass up and in the end he relished the thought of all that money.

David Niven is the boss and calls the shots, the police inspector was brilliantly played by Richard Johnson who typically portrayed a smarmy but thorough London detective who clearly loves his job. The other supporting cast don't say too much but looking at them they were all very well known British character actors who often found themselves playing either villains or coppers(isn't that ironic). Elkie Sommers, Oliver Tobias do what they have to do and it's good to see Gloria Graham in a cameo role.

To some viewers particularly Americans it would seem ludicrous that somebody with Greens record could land a maintenance job at of all things a bank and come and go when he pleases. In addition the stunt he pulled at the crown court after sentencing was not as far fetched as it might seem, back in the 1960's and 70's security was not as nearly as tight as it is now.

As for the movie itself there are a couple of interesting observations. With small time crooks the haul here was too much. There have been other movies where this occurs too i.e. THE BRINKS MAT. It's not just the disposal or the hiding of the loot but with so many people involved somebody is going to be careless, is going to blab or just simply break once leaned on. In addition the authorities come down on very hard on local rouges when such huge robbery is carried out. Also, they say there is no honor amongst thieves but Ivan was adamant that PINKY got his whack. You only had too look at his stare in the dock, if looks could kill, a look of total betrayal! How could he have dobbed them all in after taking care of him? You have to ask yourself a question why is it that crooks can be so stupid? Did Green really think that he could sweet talk his way out of suspicion a second time around? Inspector Watford was not at all fooled by his innocent looking face as well as a well constructed alibi, the whole caper reeked of inside job. In addition you have to wonder why they leave so many clues? A note pad with the safe numbers jotted down, travel brochures for overseas trips, still leaving his telescope around as well as unusual behavior on the day of the robbery which was out of character.

With some decent but common sense police work Insp Watford quickly had the measure of Green, picked him up and soon had him singing like a canary. It just shows how despite well thought out planning things can unravel very quickly, there is never a clean getaway for every body, some are always going to get nabbed. Although it's worth pointing out that a lot of the money was never recovered.

All in all an entertaining movie, interesting shots of London and England in the late 70's, well paced, with a great ending. I would highly recommend this particularly if you enjoy capers. ( Note: I recently purchased a DVD of this but the transfer was obviously taken from a VHS tape and is of poor quality. Therefore do not pay too much for it!) I recently bought this movie on DVD at a discount store for $5. Although it is a no-frills DVD on the Geneon label (just the movie that starts playing immediately - no menu, no special features) the picture and sound quality were EXCELLENT. The movie is based on the true story of one of the biggest bank robberies in history.

Richard Jordan, who I must admit to not having heard of, plays the lead - Pinky Green. A charming young man who had spent too much of his few years in prison and now wanted to go straight but is not allowed to do so! He portrays an American in England. David Niven plays the lead bad guy, also with the great charm for which he is famous. Bad, but with scruples as when he refuses to deny Pinky his "whack" for the job. Whack, in England, apparently is the fair share of the take and not a bullet in the head as in American gangster films! All the supporting cast do an excellent job producing a very believable movie.

What is perhaps best, to me, is that the whole movie is quite enjoyable and understandable (I frequently find myself lost in plot confusions and various characters) without ANY special effects. NO blood. No violence. Not even a single car chase! Just a well written story, well acted, well directed and well photographed! If I had any complaints about the movie, I would question the music. WHAT is bluegrass music doing in a bank heist story that takes place in England? I provided location services on the this film every Sunday we would shoot in London's Berkeley Square. David Niven ever the gentleman thoroughly enjoyed the role, sadly to be his last. we had a moment of panic when a trunk load of fake Krugerrands (cast for the film..) tipped down a storm drain.

Imagine frantic crew opening all the drains to recover every last one. If you know and love London you'll love this comedy romp - also starts Richard Jordan who sadly died from a brain tumour. A good film, great crew ,superb cast. look for the current stars of coronation street then playing crowd scenes or extras.The car lot and Ivan's retail enterprises were all shot in west London, Chiswick the entire shopping parade and the American used car lot were dressed overnight, the car lot is still there as are the shops. A restaurant was suddenly turned into a funeral parlour. If you see the film on the listings make an effort to see it! By the way Sally Harrison the Bank receptionist was married to the production designer Tony Curtis..

April 2007 Just thought I would add a few extra comments on locations:

Pub: just off Berkeley Square Elke Sommers Cottage: in back Road alongide Twickenham Film Studios Ivans Used Car Lot: along Chiswick High Street and all shop locations near roundabout. Workshops (converting armoured vans)Factory on roundabout opposite Fullers Brewery Jail (see workshops above) Telephone box see Elke Sommers cottage ( it was the wooden studio prop box used in many films, look for the lighting cable at gound level and the wood hinges on the door!!! Computer room Honeywells near Olympia Graveyard - Chiswick - Grave just outside the boundary on common land Bank interiors, ceiling void and strongroom :Twickenham studios

And just to add David Niven ever the gentleman, joked and mixed with the crew, extras and so on......Niven would dine in the Connaught hotel bu join the crew for coffee! Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.

Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.

Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. "Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!"

Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by "Cor blimey, gov!" cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles.

Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!

Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope! I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from "the bank". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.

It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.

Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with. Just ingenious enough to be plausible and still a lot of fun, this is a pure slice of the 1970s (Even the cops need haircuts badly!). Shot in and around London, the plot of the American ex-con who tries going straight but finds himself sent as an electrician to a bank in Mayfair, and then has the screws put on by crime lord David Niven, and finds himself plotting the crime of the century is well-handled.

I liked its simplicity and even innocence, it harks back to a time when caper films where just that, a caper, and violence wasn't a part of the deal.

All in all you could do a lot worse than watch this: it has enough twists and turns to give it some oomph and a cast that obviously had fun making it.

Nicely made and watchable. A gem of a British caper-comedy. Poor American schlub Pinky Green (Richard Jordan, playing another bad guy but this time an adorable one) gets out of a British jail and tries to go straight, but his maintenance man job in a bank is too attractive for his never-reformed criminal friends, headed up by a really nasty Ivan (David Niven in one of his last roles). Pinky resists, but the lure of all that money is just too much for him. Things unravel and reravel and it's all joyous to watch. Jordan must have played 20 bad guys in his career, but he never played the same one twice - this one is just too lovable to hate. Niven never played a slicker bad guy, oil all over. Two fine actors we've lost that I wish we had back. When Pinky, a qualified electrician, is released from prison, his parole officer has found him a job working at a big city bank. When some of the crime underworld from his past learn of his position they plan to exploit it and rob the bank. Pinky is at first horrified because he really wants to go straight, but when a twist of fate happens Pinky begins to think one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Also known as The Mayfair Bank Caper {amongst others!}, this is a hugely enjoyable piece that is quintessential 1970s. London and all it's highly dubious fashions are lit up like a Christmas tree in Ralph Thomas and Guy Elmes' cunningly crafty caper. If the viewer can accept David Niven as an aged crime lord of some evility {it's not easy i can tell you}, then A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square could well surprise you. The actors aren't pulling up any trees for sure, but it's really not hurting the picture at all, it has an honest fun quality that is never less than entertaining. The score and soundtrack is perhaps guilty of over jollification during the dramatic criminal moments, but it's a minor complaint to leave me thinking this is an under seen British gem.

Richard Jordan takes the lead role of Pinky (obviously hoping to lure in American viewers}, 70s heart throb Oliver Tobias {a mass of hair} is in there to keep the ladies interested, whilst the blokes get the pleasurable sight of Elke Sommer and her delightful legs for company. Moving along at a decent enough clip and containing a seriously rewarding finale, A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square deserves far better than the paltry 5.7 rating here on IMDb, but just how many people have seen it i wonder?, hmm, go on give it a go if you the chance, it's good stuff. 7/10 David "master of debonair" Niven plays the Big Boss (IVAN) who preys upon the unfortunate Richard Jordan (PINKY) by forcing the hapless ex-con to exploit his ill-found new position in a bank. Elke Sommer (Miss PELHAM) most effectively provides the female interest, whom Pinkie cannot simply cannot resist.

It seems they were unable to decide on one name for this film so instead they used four .... makes sense ???

Sadly, this turn out to be one of Niven's last roles.

Overall, this film is fun and well worth watching if you manage to catch one of its rare or late night TV screenings.

I've seen this amusing little 'brit flick'many times. The only problem is Its currently unavailable on video or DVD. I'ts certainly a contender for a DVD release. The much missed Richard Jordan plays 'pinky' an Ex-pat American, whose Just been released from prison,he finds himself A job as an Electrician in a bank, it all goes well until he finds Himself Embroiled in a bank heist with his ex cronies, David Niven Plays the mastermind Ivan, Its an enjoyable little romp, hopefully studio canal or anchor bay, will come to the Rescue. Look out for john Rhys Davies Before he struck it big with 'shogun' Raiders of the lost Ark 'Lord Of The Rings' In a small role as a barrister, There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.

So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end. In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget. I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.

The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.

Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.

I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.

Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators We went to the cinema expecting a biggish budget release and got an art-house movie. The movie was projected digitally onto about two thirds of the screen real estate with sloping edges classic of digital projection, and had a limited stereo soundtrack which was wasted on the cinema experience.

The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick. Live action scenes what little of them there were, were re-used constantly in classic documentary style, which became annoying after a while.

I was somewhat amazed that only 4 people turned up to watch it, guess the rest knew something we didn't.

I suspect the producers made the film to recognize the ninetieth anniversary of Gallipoli. I have to question whether they should have bothered.

Seven out of Ten for trying, and out of respect for the ANZAC's. As a child growing up in the Sydney of the 1950s, I can readily identify with the content of this fine film. Each week I visited the Wynyard Newsreel cinema on George Street to watch the Cinesound (and usually 3 Stooges) shorts. Never has there been a better blending of B/W and colour in a film. Faultless production values round off a never to be forgotten movie experience. A really good Australian film .Beautifully recreates the look and feel of Sydney as it was in the 1950s. This movie greatly impressed me when I first saw it during it's initial cinema release and it still stands up very well. Fine directing job by Phil Noyce, wonderful camera work , thoughtful lighting and some fine performances across the board. An absolute "Must See" for any students of 70's Australian cinema.One out of the box ! This little-known comedy from the hit play by Ruth Gordon is a delight. The script, based on the play, is spicy, rich, and completely undated. Ditto the cast but I must underline the work of the leading lady,Irene Dunne. Irene is simply superb - as usual - and lights up the screen with every frame she's in (and she's in it a lot, thank heaven). In addition, director Vidor has given her some unusual close-ups that are mesmerizing. What a gal! I know of no other Hollywood actress from any era who has her versatility and is so convincing in every film. Why she remains so little known is a mystery. I have seen most of her films and this one was a surprise, even for a solid ID fan like myself. See it, everyone! The beautiful, charming, supremely versatile and talented Irene Dunne is one of the greatest 5 or 6 actresses of American cinema. In Over 21 - as in all her films - she lights up the screen with a natural, yet glamorous presence. She is simultaneously authentic and human, AND a charismatic, inspirational model. This role is quintessential Irene Dunne, full of pathos and wit and a little mischief. I love all of her films, and this film was a fantastic new discovery for me when TCM aired it last night. I hope they don't wait years to air it again.

Likewise, Charles Coburn is one of the greatest character actors in all of American filmdom. True, he often portrays variations on the same theme, but I never tire of watching his soft-hearted curmudgeons. Here his character is the perfect foil for Irene Dunne, and he is portrayed perfectly by Coburn. Their conflicts in this film are absolutely fantastic. They never miss a beat. In addition, they represent the central conflict of the film and the moral conflict of Irene Dunne's husband, portrayed by Alexander Knox.

I am not as familiar with Knox's work. He was recognizable, but that was about all. However, cast with Dunne and Coburn, he holds his own. He delivers a fine, nuanced performance. His character has noble motives that are made accessible to us by Knox's performance and never held over us like some holy grail. He is noble, but conflicted and doubts his ability to successfully complete OCS. His interaction with Dunne, is always convincing, too. Dunne supports him without being syrupy or becoming a martyr, and he responds in kind. Their scenes are very well done.

The film, itself, is a fantastic snapshot of a moment and a milieu not portrayed in other movies. I don't recall off the top of my head another movie that portrays America still fighting WWII, but with the end in sight and the focus on the establishment of the post-war world. Not the usual WWII movie! That in itself is interesting; it is also essential to the plot and the movie's message. In contrast to other commentators, I thought that the climactic speech was okay, but not great. It was delivered very well by Knox, but it was not as "tightly" written as the build-up led me to expect. I have heard better cinematic speeches addressing very similar themes. It served its purpose.

For me, the greater value of the movie, was the depiction of the life of Dunne and Knox, as it reflected the typical OCS experience. The sense of community among the wives living on Palmetto Terrace seemed absolutely authentic - as did Palmetto Terrace, itself, despite the fact that it was obviously a sound stage set. The incredibly brief encounters between the wives and their OCS husbands. The rigors of the OCS candidates, mastering the difficult and complex material they had to learn. The shabby "base housing" - obviously hastily constructed. The tired and worn furnishings. The constant and harrowingly short deadlines - for returning to base, for learning lessons, for catching trains to subsequent "posts." Tenants constantly running into their predecessors and successors in the base housing, as they were moving in and out. Yes, I suspect this was a glimpse of a real WWII experience - clothed in some comedy, but very real at its core. I loved it, and I recommend it highly. A light, uplifting and engaging movie. Watching Irene Dunne is a delight! As you watch her, she ceases to be Irene Dunne and becomes in every way Paula Wharton.

I have enjoyed Irene Dunne in every movie that I have seen and that would be nearly all of them. What a shame that most of her movies need restoration so badly. I do hope Irene Dunne movie are restored before it is too late they are such treasures Thank goodness this is not the case with Over 21.

It is a must see if you like superb acting and witty comedy with serious overtones. I agree with a previous comment on the speech "The World and Apple Pie" it was one of the many highlights of the movie. I read somewhere that Irene Dunne helped in writing that speech along with Director Vidor (Irene Dunne was a very good and charitable person in private life) and it certainly seems to show through in her movies! It is well known that Irene Dunne could sing somewhat more than a little. And I think her talent as a comedienne can only be really understood once one has struggled through a sonata by Haydn or a song by Debussy and made a success of it. Her instrument is her voice and her handling of it is pure musicianship. She could tackle any part. The only thing she couldn't do was to not make a success of it. This film is a perfect example. In it, she channels Ruth Gordon (because the play is the thing), is feminine, charming, willful and self-effacing, generous, protective and combative but never pretentious. She manages to stay as believable as Alexander Knox is in another difficult role he assumes with aplomb. The viewer gets to believe in what he is seeing and to care for it. It is refreshing to see a film that is both entertaining and intellectually challenging while pushing all the right patriotic buttons. I sincerely hope the entire Dunne oeuvre makes it to DVD one day because it's really hard to keep a secret like that among just a few initiates. Over 21 the film version of the Ruth Gordon play which detailed her experiences trying to keep the marriage together with Garson Kanin after he'd gone in the service provides Irene Dunne with one of her better later roles on the big screen. It's also in keeping with what was then an upbeat spirit in America about how we would not screw up the peace as we did in the first World War and sow the seeds of yet another global conflict.

The play Ruth Gordon wrote and starred in herself ran for 221 performances in 1944 on Broadway and was confined simply to the bungalow that Gordon and Harvey Stephens who was the male lead had on a training base. If you look on the Broadway credits list it says that the production was 'staged' by George S. Kaufman as opposed to being directed by him. I'm not sure of the distinction, but I can imagine that with a wit and will as strong as Kaufman's it must have been an interesting period putting the production together before opening night.

When Columbia bought the screen rights, Sidney Buchman had to do some considerable script reconstruction to move the action beyond the bungalow. The film bears very little trace of its stage origins.

Alexander Knox plays the husband and Charles Coburn the employer of both Dunne and Knox who are writers. Knox has graduated to not only editor, but featured columnist. His words and thoughts help sell the paper and Coburn is in a bind. But Knox feels he has to get into the war, the seminal event of his time in order to speak authoritatively on the kind of post war world he wants. This was not an uncommon theme in those years.

Irene Dunne has some good comic moments, the kind she used to have when she was appearing opposite Cary Grant. In fact Garson Kanin directed both of them in My Favorite Wife a few years earlier. Coburn is his usual cantankerous old water buffalo of a boss who ultimately has a good heart.

Over 21 was an optimistic picture which sad to say wasn't accurate about what the Allies and I mean all of them could bring to the peace conferences to create a better world. Still hopefully a new generation will get it right. During WWII, there were a bazillion movies created by Hollywood and after seeing many of them they start to seem alike. However, OVER 21 is unique in so many ways, as it shows a side of the war you won't see in other films--making it well worth seeing, even if you have seen the bazillion other films!

Alexander Knox plays the male lead, but the real lead of the film is Irene Dunne--who looks amazing for a 47 year-old lady (yes, I checked--she really was this old when she made the film). In OVER 21, the pair play husband and wife. He enlists in the military, much to the consternation of his father (Charles Coburn) and owner of the newspaper where Knox is employed, and most of the film takes place when he is in officers candidate school. The film shows little of Knox in the school but instead centers on Dunne as she lives in nearby spartan housing for spouses. During this time, she (as the British say) keeps a 'stiff upper lip' and makes the best of it--even though she really isn't a housewife but a famous professional writer. Occasionally she gets very brief visits from her harried husband but most of the time is spent doing housewife duties and keeping the meddling Coburn at bay. Eventually, she decides to stop the pesky Coburn from phoning incessantly (he ALWAYS complains that his paper won't survive without his son) by pretending to be Knox--writing wonderful editorials that everyone just assumes were written by him.

While there is nothing earth-shaking in this film, it's a very interesting slice of life move. Additionally, the acting all around is very good. It's interesting that this film is a fictionalized reworking of the experienced of Ruth Gordon (a famous screenwriter) and her husband, Garson Kanin (also a famous screenwriter as well as director). When Kanin joined the military during WWII, Gordon soon wrote and starred in the play that became this film.

By the way, I noticed that some of the reviewers really liked the speech towards the end of the film and were inspired by it. While it was very good, it was also very sad as all this hope for a better world following the war was short-lived. Note the wide release date of Aug 8, 1945 - about a week before Japan surrendered in WWII, so there will probably be a message for us in "Over 21". Irene Dunne (It Happened one Night, the 1939 version of Love Affair) is Paula Wharton, who goes to live on an army base while her newspaper editor husband is in training school. Alexander Knox ( the Longest Day) is her hubby Max. Look for Charles Coburn (Monkey Business, Gentlemen prefer Blondes) as the stuffy, commanding, newspaper boss. Also look for Cora Witherspoon as Mrs. Gates, from The Women, Bank Dick, Libeled Lady. War story written for the wives' point of view, which wasn't too common in those days. fun commentary on the shabby condition of the "married housing"; Irene's wardrobe in this film certainly wasn't at all shabby.. since they never had to leave their little cottage, it appears the whole movie budget was spent on her always-exquisite dresses and hats. This one is a very solid Randolph Scott Western. He plays Bat Masterson and goes to Liberal, Kansas to clean up the town. He becomes good friends with Robert Ryan who played a very, straight up leading man role. It was not until after this that Robert Ryan began playing much darker roles. In fact, in 1947 Randolph Scott made one other movie which was not a western and never made anything but westerns after that until he retired in 1962. This movie has good pacing and builds up to the climax steadily. I can't say any more as it would give away the plot. Be sure to see this one. 8/10 After cleaning up Dodge City (with a little help from Wyatt Earp) Bat Masterson goes to Liberal, Kansas where they've got a nice little range war going. Plus a rather interesting scheme of sharecropping.

Randolph Scott is Bat Masterson and he's after villains Billy House and Steve Brodie who are driving homesteaders off their farms. The homesteaders they are driving off are in a sharecropping scheme financed by Robert Ryan. Seems as though he's staking the various farmers to a parcel of land to homestead for a percentage of profit from their crop. Ryan's about to lose his shirt as a result of all the shenanigans.

As portrayed by Scott, Bat Masterson is a stand-up western hero who has a passion to go east and become a reporter which we all know he did later in life.

Anne Jeffreys and Madge Meredith are involved in a romantic subplot involving Brodie and Ryan which is a little silly and does detract from the action. Anne Jeffreys does sing nice though.

Of course Gabby Hayes as always provides the great comic relief.

A good addition to the Randolph Scott collection of westerns. Also interesting because his later western films don't have him as wearing a hat as white as the one here.

This review is dedicated to Kasey Hayes of the Professional Bull Riders who is a proud resident of Liberal, Kansas, a town with a great tradition whether Bat Masterson marshaled there or not. This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and "civilizing" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .

Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .

The script is clichéd but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers I am a fan of Randolph Scott Westerns. While some of them are amazingly clichéd (as are most Westerns of this era), his easy delivery and style really elevate the films to classic and near-classic status. While this film features yet another example of real life Western heroes being exploited after their death by Hollywood (in this case, Bat Masterson), the film works well due to him as well as excellent supporting characters. One is the always strong acting of Robert Ryan--an excellent actor who is sadly almost forgotten today. The other is the ubiquitous Gabby Hayes who has one of his best roles as the crusty and very colorful deputy. Here he is more enjoyable than in his many supporting roles for Roy Rogers and John Wayne--mostly because his part is better written and he's given more to do.

The plot is pretty much the plot of half the Westerns ever made. There are some baddies who hire a bunch of thugs to run roughshod over the locals and it's up to a do-gooder (Scott) to restore the peace and kill off the villains. However, how the plot is executed is much better than average and due to this the film is still watchable fun. Just don't expect a whole lot of innovation or uniqueness--unless you want to see what might just be Gabby Hayes' best performance. I read ashew's comment and thought they must have been watching an entirely different picture!

I just watched the film this morning and was quite surprised.

To address ashew's comments:

Trail Street is a very well done western.

And Randolph Scott was in it quite a bit!

Gabby Hayes was funnier than I've ever seen him!

The bad guys had very good comeuppances as far as I was concerned.

Plus:

It was interesting to see Robert Ryan as a straight-laced good guy - he's usually so slimy.

In all, a good western, very well acted and written.

I liked the background story of Kansas and the "winter wheat" that supposedly helped it become a state, too.

I thought the girl who played Susan was lovely - can't think why she didn't become a bigger star! Do a title search on Randolph Scott and TRAIL STREET is the one film missing from the list you've seen. One of 4 films Scott made at RKO during his prime (1947) the others are always easy to get. Liberal, Kansas is just southwest of Dodge City and is a powder-keg about to explode between the trail-riders who drive the longhorns into Trail Street, the town's main street, and the sod-busters who feed our bellies. It'll take a strong man like Bat Masterson to step between the two groups and bring the town to order. More I won't say, except that Scott movies usually have just one pretty girl and this one has three. RANDOLPH SCOTT always played men you could look up to for their sense of honor, courage, level-headedness and willingness to do the right thing. Fifty years ago parents could send their kids to a Scott movie with confidence they'd learn positive values. ROBERT RYAN co-stars in this film, playing a good guy for a change. In real life, RYAN was one of the many WORLD WAR II HEROS who starred in America's movies. How sad what we get these days. George Clooney teaches our young that we ought sympathize with suicide bombers, while Steven Spielberg teaches there is no moral difference between the Olympic athletes murdered in 1972 in Munich and the Palestinian terrorists who killed them. Hollywood 2005 derives their moral compass from too much cocaine and too much commitment to the wacky left. I wonder how all this plays out in Liberal, Kansas. Liberal, after all, was not a dirty word 150 years ago when the city was named. Ronald Colman plays a prodigal son. While he is NOT a bad guy, he is a bit flighty and hasn't done a lot with his life other than travel the world and have a jolly good time. Now that his latest venture in Africa has failed, he's on his way home to England. His rich upper class father plans on tossing him out on his ear, though thanks to Ronald's winning style, he is reluctantly welcomed back with open arms.

At this point, there are two women in his life--showgirl Myrna Loy and rich girl Loretta Young (who is already engaged). How will all this work out and will Ronald wise up and act like a responsible adult--these are the main themes of this pleasant little film.

This isn't a great movie and certainly won't change your life, but it certainly is very entertaining and fun. Most of this is due to the always genial acting of Ronald Colman. Heck, in the heyday of his career in the 1930s, he could have played in REEFER MADNESS or some other dreck and still made it entertaining and likable due to his charming persona. His seemingly effortless style in this movie make it very easy to like him and it's easy to see why both Loretta Young and Myrna Loy are in love with him in the film! Plus, the writing is very witty and make this a nice romantic-comedy. This film directed by George Fitzmaurice, who made so many excellent films, is well up to his excellent standard. It is crisp, witty, with some wonderful lines, and has the inimitable Ronald Colman in the romantic lead. Colman plays the irresistibly charming younger son of a wealthy English peer. He is financially irresponsible (spending, for instance, £15 of his last £20 in the world on a cute little terrier whom he names George), but open, wildly generous, contemptuous of lucre, irreverent in the politest possible way, and hopelessly sentimental. He is so dashing that all the women fall in love with him. His girlfriend is a star of the music halls, and hence in 1930 a denizen of the demi-monde, played with her typical svelte, narrow-eyed silkiness by the youthful Myrna Loy. Fitzmaurice was not a great user of closeups, and gals of that day had their faces half-hidden with those awful clinging hats anyway, so we do not get as good glimpses of the faces of the two heroines as we would like. The director seems more interested in the charming Colman, anyway. The romantic female lead is the youthful and fresh-faced Loretta Young, who had not yet become the proto-Julie Andrews we generally know her as, but was still a blushing girl exuding all the sweetness of a rose garden and laughing merrily and heartily the whole time. It is obvious that a character with her terrific sense of humour was needed to appreciate the snob-busting social anarchism of the refreshing aristocratic character played by Colman. The plot barely matters, as is so often the case with these light and amusing films. This is just such fun. Ronald Coleman had been a star of the screen for several years when talkies came in, and what a boost it was to his career. His Oxford English accent is so enthralling I could listen to him recite the farmer's almanac and not be bored.

Coleman plays Willie Hale, a 30ish playboy from a wealthy family who spends his time womanizing and gambling. Yet, he's a likable rogue - not only likable from the standpoint of the audience but by family and friends too. He has yet again gone broke due to his constant gambling and sells off his possessions in a foreign location to settle his debts and provide passage back home to England. When he gets there, he at first is met by a father who insists he'll kick him out - he's had it with Willie and his layabout ways. However, five minutes alone in a room with Willie and his charm, and Willie is not only forgiven by dad, dad has given him one hundred pounds to boot.

Willie then goes for a day's recreation with his sister and her friend, Dorothy Hope (Loretta Young). Dorothy is set to be engaged to the Grand Duke Paul that very night, mainly just because her dad wants royalty in the family, and there is nobody else special in her life. That changes after her day with Willie, and soon there is a scandal brewing as Dorothy refuses to go through with the marriage as planned.

Ronald Coleman is always a delight to watch in these early talking films he did for Sam Goldwyn where he is playing the confident adventurer or cad or both. He has a demeanor akin to Errol Flynn, but he is unable to display Flynn's physical agility due to a disabling wound he received during World War I. However, what he lacks in physical agility Coleman always made up in agility of soul. Loretta Young, only 17 when this picture was made, shows the beginning of her trademark sweet girl that can erupt into a ball of fire when the occasion calls for it. Myrna Loy plays Willie's girl from the past - Mary Crayle - a showgirl. Here Myrna is still playing a part similar to the exotic vamp parts she got stuck with so often over at Warner Brothers when she was a contract player from 1926 until shortly before this movie was made in 1930.

This is pretty much a light and breezy romantic comedy from start to finish. If you're in a mood for the kind of escapist entertainment that lightened the hearts of audiences during the Great Depression, this little film fits the bill. The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of "Comedy" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as "The Fantastiks", and "Waiting for Godot." Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy. The Regard of Flight and the Clown Bagatelles as performed by Bill Irwin are some of the funniest (both in terms of physical comedy and verbal and visual gags) performances I've ever seen. My father taped this special when it first aired in the 80s and my family has loved it ever since. We quote it back and forth fairly constantly. It's a crying shame that copies are not readily available for purchase. I have a bad VHS copy that I acquired from a specialty distributer a few years ago, but Mr. Irwin's performance deserves a proper DVD treatment with a restored version of the original performance and interviews with the performers/producers as well as more examples of modern clowning.

Bill Irwin's talent deserves more exposure to mainstream audiences than it has enjoyed in his limited wide release appearances. I share "The Regard of Flight" with friends quite often and though I am always greeted with a small amount of skepticism when I mention that it is a mixture of clowning and vaudeville I have yet to have anyone come away from seeing it without loving it. In case the powers that be ever happen upon this IMDb listing, please consider releasing this and other Bill Irwin work. This adaptation for TV was a wonderful vehicle for Bill Irwin to show his ability to perform physical humor. With the backdrop of a struggle between an actor and his writer/director, Bill uses his clowning antics to showcase a variety of skills including hat tricks, pantomime, dance and various physical devices.

Although it takes a big swipe at the entertainment industry and his craft, it is engrossing for people of all walks and ages.

This work was televised as a PBS special. Bill performed a piece of it on the Tonight Show, but out of context it did not go over well. I saw this performance on TV and taped it. My daughter played it over and over again. I loaned out at work and everyone just loved it. It is just brilliant physical comedy. Bill made an appearance here in California, (he was working and living in New York) and performed the Regard of Flight on stage. I was able to take my daughter and her girlfriend to see this brilliant performance.

Bill was awarded a Federal endowment, and my daughter wrote him a letter of congratulations, and Bill was so kind to write her a note back and enclose a photograph.

People ask me, and I can't decide if he is a comedian, and actor, or a clown. Actually he is all three. I really wish this was on DVD, my tape is lost. I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.

I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.

Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box / marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he "pulled" himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet point—and did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor / performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.

As to the unfortunate (yes—"tragic" would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for long—assuming it ever made it into VHS / DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as "The Regard of Flight" are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.

Oh, yeah—our local library did get a copy of "The Regard of Flight." And yes—it was stolen. This is a typical Sandra Bullock movie in which she plays a mousy (but profane) woman who is in trouble but finds a way to survive and be the hero. Sound familiar?

There are plenty of holes in this story. Things just don't add up and some of the suspense is a little corny. But - that suspense is very good. There is a lot of tension in this story which has strong paranoia running through it. The story starts off slow but kicks in pretty soon and stays that way, making it an involving movie for the viewer. That's why I give it a pretty good rating - the movie gets you involved in it. Bullock is more cute than annoying, which she normally is to me, so this is my highest-rated movie with her in it. If you're actually reading this review, I give you a lot of credit. You care enough to actually look up this movie, which most people have forgotten about and then cared to read beyond the first review! So for your reading pleasure...

I'm assuming you know the plot line already so I won't waste time typing that out. I will mention that Sandra Bullock did an amazing job with this movie. She really brought a lot of sympathy to the role of a computer programmer, often difficult to do. I can say this because I happen to be a computer programmer.

Anyway, I thought the basic plot was a very good one. You can easily build sub-plots upon its mainframe and turn it into a very enjoyable movie. The premise is also scarily realistic in that this can all really happen if the right precauctions aren't taken.

To make a long review short...oops! Too late! If you enjoy Sandra Bullock bringing a role to life and want to see a very well made movie for the time, take a look at this little gem. You won't be disappointed. :-) The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.

Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.

This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error. This movie was suspenseful and fun to view. As I am a fan of these type of movies, I did enjoy this. The premise is kind of scary but the fact that I didn't rate this a 10 was because the movie was a little over the top in some areas.

SPOILERS:

Cmon:NOBODY could identify this girl? I understand the concept of isolating oneself but I find it hard to believe that SOMEBODY-ANYBODY wouldn't have been able to ID this girl as Angela Bennet. That was over the top and so was the scene where she WALKED over to somebody's desk and started typing. This was overall a really good movie, suspenseful and keeps your interest. Dennis Miller was great as Allen, REALLY believable, Bullock was good as the lonely reserved computer worker the bad guys all underestimated.

I think the PREMISE of the movie was really different-and scary. In today's times who knows what could happen? But some of the over the top scenes prevented this movie from being a 10. 8 of 10. Just a short comment! I want to say that I like this movie very much! Sandra Bullock is my favourite actress. I like the whole story, from the beginning until the end! I have it on tape and I can watch it a 100 times, it doesn't matter!!! This is one of the many Techno-phobic movies that sprouted like mushrooms in the mid-90s, after the Internet went mainstream.

Hollywood movies have always had their way in "beautifying" the depicted ongoings, to make them look better and more appealing. The same happens when Hollywood tries to show us some hi-tech. The outcome of such attempts varies from being very far-fetched and ridiculous (see Hackers (1995), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), etc.) to being quite realistic (see Sneakers (1992)).

"The Net" lies somewhere between those extremes. By nitpicking, one can end up with quite a lot of technical inconsistencies, and a lot of cases where the ongoings seem to be much more "sexy" and graphical than the way things are in real life (as usually happens in movies).

However, by simply overlooking those, the viewer ends up with a quite solid, entertaining movie. The characters and acting are convincing, and the movie does a good job in keeping you in your seat till the end of it. The plot is okay (a fairly standard one, really -- based on the good ol' paranoiac design, but with a hi-tech edge this time), and quite convincing (again, when disregarding technical issues). The development of the plot is a bit sluggish, though, and occasionally you can anticipate some supposedly surprising turns in the plot.

The bonus here is cutie-pie Sandra Bullock, which besides being cute (something she does quite easily, apparently), also portrays a solid act. You can really feel her character -- her despair, her emotions.

In the bottom line, the movie is entertaining and interesting, rates about 7 from 10 in my scale. It's worth renting from the video library, or even watching in the cinema. Whether to buy it or not is up to you. At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!

And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.

You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye! When this movie firt came out in 1995, I found it amazingly great. Especially with Sandra Bullock.After having watched her brilliant performance in Speed , i was ready to enjoy any of her movies.

Back to The Net, it was a movie that keeps you in suspence.All in all, i enjoyed it so I give it a **** out of *****. All the comments so far about this movie are negative but I have to say I found "The Net" engaging. Few movies can keep me on the edge of my seat but this one did. Another plus for it is that most action/suspense films are full of language but this one had little profanity. I found it an enjoyable movie to watch. I am slightly biased though, being a big Sandra Bullock fan. *wink* Why all the negative reviews??? You didn't expect a movie like this to be a masterpiece did you??? What we have is a movie that tried to entertain us and it worked for me. Not an oscar contender, just entertainment. You can really see how the movie has aged, especially with everything the internet has to offer nowadays. I still remember when this was first released and the net was still so new. Crazy and scary thoughts when I saw this for the first time; I was 15 and seriously thought anyone could get a hold of your information on a computer and destroy you. But, who's to say it can't happen??? I'm not the type of person to nitpick a movie to death, analyzing it until I'm blue in the face. That's not my style. Average acting, suspensful and once again, very entertaining. Sandra Bullock as Angela Bennett is so cute. This is my favorite movie with her in it because she's like the computer genius, which I find very attractive. Of all the movies that were released in 1995, this would have to be my favorite, although, I didn't see it until 1996. My rating, 9/10 because it did slow down a little. I loved this movie!

Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social, political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movie served that purpose.

I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. At the time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick were advanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine by way of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like when people do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they have done it to me.

I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Angela Bennett/Ruth Marx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who has the courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keep her sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom she loves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attempt to bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a stranger added a poignant touch of reality.

The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kind problem. Following the advice of a friend, I got myself this movie. I'm very fond of computers in general - hence why a 1995 film about identity theft on the Internet could not be left unseen. I had some bad echoes about it, but in the end, I wasn't so disappointed : the story, though classical, is kind of interesting and must have been really new back in the days when it was released in theatres. I was gladly surprised when I figured out that contrary to what we usually see, computer-performed actions are somehow realistic, as they use Windows 3.x and normal computers. The storytelling is median and not bothering the viewer. The end is typically American. The actors' performance is globally OK, Sandra Bullock usually annoys me with her "oh my god why me" way to behave, but this time she seems to have controlled herself. I'd recommend that movie. This is a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills-a plenty, with a cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific!. All the characters are great, and I was surprised by how unpredictable it was as there were only a few predictable moments, plus Sandra Bullock is simply amazing in this!. Jeremy Northam played an awesome villain, and I know what Bullock's character in this is all about, because I'm kind of the same type of person(I hardly ever go out), plus this is pretty well made and written for the most part. This should be higher then 5.5 in my opinion, plus Denis Miller was surprisingly better then expected in his small role. The scene where Northam terrorizes Bullock on his boat was quite suspenseful, and was one of my favorite moments, and I also liked the chase scene in the carnival, plus I liked the ending too, as it was quite well done, even If i did think Northam was defeated too quickly. There are lots of other good chase scenes as well, and it's also clever at times too, plus there are quite a few shocking moments as well, This is a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills a-plenty, with a cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Irwin Winkler does a great! job here with excellent camera work, adding good atmosphere, good angles and keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting is fantastic!. Sandra Bullock is amazing as always and is amazing here, she is extremely likable, tough as nails yet quite vulnerable, and I was able to feel for her because as I said I'm sort of like Angela,I hardly ever go out, I really enjoyed her work in this movie! (Bullock Rules!!!!!!!). Jeremy Northam is excellent as the villain, he was sneaky, unpredictable and very menacing, he was great. Dennis Miller is surprisingly OK and non annoying in his small role, and managed to bring some comic relief. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good all over. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. When Angela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, "That is a really nice place to vacation." From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam) and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, "Don't let anything bad happen to her! Please!" I also took quite a few deep breaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had. On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious and spacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars. This Movie is a warning to all people sat surfing the internet on a typical day at the office. My Warning is ,Do not reveal too much about yourself, 2 Be careful who you cross!! ,there are spies on this internet thing. I thought that it was so scary what that man and woman combination did to poor Angela Bennett, I did not realise that somebody could take ones life away in one click of this mouse Angela I thought did a sterling job of outwitting Jack Delvin and that awful girl my question is, why does that computer make that noise when it works? like a clicking sound mine does not do this or this one. This film also tells you that there is fraud on this internet Also why couldn't Angela do the virus destroyer programme at a CyberCafe? I also thought that like all computers the transfer rate to disk was slow that is correctly portrayed in this film when you save the programme to your floppy disk the bar only moved slowly!!! I quite liked Angela's house at the beginning of the film as well Why did no one believe Angela??? You could get into the nitty gritty of this film, and say how it couldn't happen, or how could the main character just walk into offices and start using computers etc without someone noticing and really pick the movie to bits...or you could just sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the story and the acting. Personally, I prefer the latter, I live real life and watch the news with all it's doom and gloom, and so would much rather be entertained by my movies, and see the bad guys get their just rewards. Don't take it too seriously, and you can thoroughly enjoy this film. When "The Net" was first being advertised, the ads made it look ridiculous. Then, when I saw it, it was actually quite good. Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) spends her days working on the computer and has never gotten to know her neighbors. Then, through a series of events, her identity gets erased by a cabal of shadowy people, and she can't prove that she exists.

Some parts of the movie are a little bit far-fetched; you'd probably know which parts if you saw the movie. Still, it's a good look into what the existence of the Internet may have wrought on unsuspecting people. I do recommend it. It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps. Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment. I've read some grumbles about the court scenes. These people betray their ignorance. This production went to simply amazing lengths to recreate all aspects of the period in which the story occurred. Courtly manners are something few people outside the court ever see. While the acting may appear highly stylized, it is, in fact, as close a replication as possible of the behavior of individuals in their particular stations as the director could create. The actor's facial expressions are a marvel, particularly the duplicitous Marquis Changxin and the King's mother.

There are, of course, reflections of both Greek and Shakespearian tragedy in the relationship between the king, his parents and his love. The juxtaposition of the king transforming from good to bad and the assassin from bad to good provides much food for thought on the evolution of an individual's nature. This movie would provide much to ponder in a college course on the humanities.

At the same time, it almost rushes along, even in the slowest scenes heading towards an inexorable denouement. One suspects the involvement of large portions of the troop movements, which were quite awesome. It makes The Lord of the Rings battle scenes pale by comparison. Few directors have the ability to literally field thousands of humans on the field of battle just for art's sake. I recall one scene in which at least 30,000 troops can be seen moving across a huge plain. The logistics for such a shot would have been staggering.

I could go on... but simply, I can't recommend this film highly enough. I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances. This is an epic film about the unification of the ancient kingdoms of China in the third century BC. What makes it interesting is the tragic downfall of the king and all the palace intrigue going on around him. It reminded me a bit of "King Lear" and some of the other Shakespeare plays.

The king starts out with noble ambitions, to unify the kingdoms under one ruler and to stop all the quarrelling so that the people can prosper and lead better lives. He and his childhood sweetheart, played beautifully by Li Gong, concoct a scheme whereby she pretends to go into exile in a rival kingdom in order to recruit an assassin to kill the king, thus giving him a pretext to go to war. But while she's away, the king becomes sadistic in his lust for power and goes on a killing spree.

There are numerous side plots that keep the action going. There is the Marquis, who pretends to be stupid and foppish but who's really very clever and wants to become king himself. He fathers two children with the king's mother and manages to keep it secret for years. Then there is the Prime Minister, a political rival to the king, who turns out to really be his father.

The assassin is a complex character himself. An adept swordsman and killer, he is undergoing a reformation when the king's lover comes to recruit him. He wants nothing more with killing, but is eventually won over by Li Gong (who wouldn't be?) when he sees how cruel and vicious the king has become.

Some spectacular cinematography, especially the battle scenes that are carried out on a grand scale - like they used to say, a cast of thousands, literally. The acting is OK, nothing special. It's the story that's interesting, though at over two and a half hours, it pushes the limit.

Definitely worth viewing. This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start. After watching the movie a few times, I found so many subtle touches and emotions within the dialogue. Jing Ke, the Assassin has become one of favorite movie characters of all time. This fine Chinese actor says more with his eyes and his economy of words and movements then any big screen American actor today. Qin, the Emperor, is brilliant as he leads the audience to believe the kindness in his heart, only to unleash the most cruel acts upon the people around him. The promises he makes with incredible passion and shattered with an evil fist. Gong Li, as in just about every movie I've ever seen her in, is simply fantastic. Her screen dominance is so graceful and emotionally charged.

In case you couldn't tell, I loved this movie.

This is an excellent film. No, it's not Mel Gibson in "Braveheart," but then, it's not trying to be. Actually, "The Emperor and the Assassin" probably has (thankfully) more in common with a Shakespearean production than a Hollywood blockbuster.

In the third century BC, the King of Qin is attempting to unite (in other words "conquer") the seven kingdoms of China. He has already overthrown the Kingdom of Han. Now he needs an excuse to invade the Kingdom of Yan.

This is where the Lady Zhao comes in. She and the King have been friends since childhood. They are obviously very much in love, but cannot marry for political reasons. Together they devise a plot. She will pretend to have fallen into disfavor with the King and escape to Yan. Once there she will convince the Prince of Yan to send an assassin back to kill the King. When the assassination fails, the King will have his excuse to invade Yan.

Once in Yan, however, Lady Zhao begins to reconsider. Hearing and seeing more and more examples of her old childhood friend's ruthlessness, she begins to wonder if the King may need to be assassinated for real.

One sure sign that you're not watching a Hollywood production is the final encounter between the King and the assassin. Unlike a Hollywood movie where the hero and villain are clearly defined and the final outcome already predetermined, this is a fight that could truly go either way.

This is a well crafted and well acted story of a tumultuous time in Chinese history. There is a mixture of both incredible beauty and incredible ugliness. Most beautiful of all, however, is Gong Li as the Lady Zhao. I grow more and more convinced every time I see her that Gong Li is the most beautiful woman in the world.

I must say, however, that she does have one unintentionally funny line in this film. Early on Gong Li asks one of her servants "Do I have a beautiful face?"

Duh!!! For a feature film, the plot closely follows history--or at least historical gossip. But then the Chinese, who know the story very well from seeing it portrayed again and again, would never tolerate it otherwise. The attention to detail is wonderful, especially for anyone who has read Sima Qian's account in the Records of the Historian. Jing Ke, according to Sima Qian, did indeed make an attempt on Qin Shi Huang's life at the request of the Crown Prince of Yan before unification. Sima Qian explicitly mentions both the head of General Fan and the dagger rolled up into the map, as well as the dagger being thrown into the brass column. Although Jing Ke is described as no stranger to swordplay, he's hardly the invincible warrior portrayed by Chen Kaige. Jing Ke is indeed this film's weakest link. In reality (again, according to Sima Qian), he was a heavy drinker and put off his visit to Qin for as long as possible, spending a good deal of time with the ladies of Yan before the crown prince finally ordered him on his way. He was, in short, a human being and was not looking forward to death although he was willing to accept it. Chen Kaige's Jing Ke is afraid of death, but not his own. He is the classic ruthless killer turned disillusioned pacifist. His love (or maybe just affection) for a woman and pity for several hundred children whom Zheng had buried alive (not even two thousand years of hostile Confucian historians claimed Qin Shi Huang did this, although there is a legend about him burying 460 Confucians up to their necks and then beheading them)is enough to make this former assassin kill again. The melodrama is not convincing and the character ends up being just plain boring. The acting here isn't shabby, though not very interesting given the character. As for Lady Zhou, in all the numerous stories I've heard about Qin Shi Huang, she's never come up. Anyway, Gong Li is famous enough for Americans to have heard of her (thanks to Zhang Yimou) and there needed to be a love interest, so here she is. It's unfortunate that her performance is almost as wooden as Jing Ke's character. She's done much better (in Qiu Ju for example) at being subtle; here she just barely manages presence. But all of this is trivial compared to the extraordinary acting of Li Xuejian as Zheng himself. Qin Shi Huang is for the Chinese rather what Milton's Satan is for us: accepted as a villain, but a noble one. Qin Shi Huang's accomplishments radiate an awe all the way across two thousand years into the present and Li captures his frightening will without compromising his humanity. Li's performance is enough, but the scope of the film is grand although the photography is purposely drab. It does feel ancient. The score is adequate, scarcely moving though very appropriate to the action. Though I've only seen it once, I believe that Chen Kaige should be given more credit for his camera work than other reviewers have allowed him. The opening credits are exhilarating. If five stars its absolutely average, I given three more for Li Xuejian's acting and Chen Kaige as an actor, writer, and director. The Emperor and the Assassin (w/English Subtitles) at 161 minutes is long, but the time is packed with a story that barely fits into it. Golden hued palace scenes and dusty yellow panoramas of Chinese landscapes background a true story of China's unifying King, circa 300 BCE. An intricate plot with a myriad twists and turns is played out with excellent portrayals by the cast. King Qin's simple wish for a unified Empire for his common people is fulfilled, but not without treachery, plots and counter plots and oh yes, bodies. Lots of bodies. This epic story of China's beginnings is a great way for Westerners to glimpse little known Asian history. Emperor Qin's legacies include the thousands of life-size terra-cotta figures which are still being excavated today. As an historical person, this film makes it clear that Emperor Qin should be regarded along with George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar, to name a few of the world's greatest conquerors/statesmen. I highly recommend seeing The Emperor and the Assassin, especially on the big screen. May contain spoilers

This historical movie was so refreshing. Although it may be exagerating the actual events, it does show the heartless nature of emperor Qui, which he was later infamous for. And there wasn't a single computer generated person in it. I think it's great that China has produce such an epic film. The costumes and the settings were beautiful, the performances were also excellent. Dignity vs. death is a major theme in this movie and i think it reflects the Chinese history and culture. I also enjoyed a little allusion to the terracotta warriors, a 3d map carved of the conquest of China with individual soldiers. Emperor Qui of course later as entombed with his life size terracotta warriors.

I also enjoyed the scene with the dwarf, he was a very interesting character, even if he only had a small scene.

9/10

I work at a nuclear power plant, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.

Seriously, I do. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station and you can see where I work.

I could not think of a safer industry to work in. We are required by procedures to report events as minor as paper cuts. Any issue identified as being a potential concern with respect to nuclear, radiological, or industrial safety is immediately reported in the corrective action process.

Bottom line is that nuclear plants in the US operate with safety in the front of their mind. >>>>Author: msgreen-1 from Canada >>>>The big problem was the "China Syndrome" claim - that if the reactor error occurred and radioactive waste leaked out it could burn its way straight through the earth to China. A lot of people have made fun of this and if the movie makers meant it seriously then yes it should be made fun of. The spill wouldn't make it anywhere near the center of the earth or even the molten rock. Even if it did make it to the center of the Earth how would it come out in China? It would have to flow against gravity the rest of the way! Also China is not the opposite side of the world, the Indian Ocean is.<<<<< ......... ......... ........................ ................ ..................... .................. .............. ............ ................

This point is brought up by the characters of the film, saying that of course it could not happen, as the core would hit ground water and release a radio-active cloud, raining down on the population.

Before you try to find a weak point in the film, you should watch it first!!!! Don't judge a book by it's title... As long as you don't mind paying a little more attention than you normally might for other films, this is one of the best "thrillers" you'll ever see. The film portrays an incident that might occur in real life; nothing in it seems fictional at all, in fact. It also portrays how people might react in real life.

In fact, it portrays these so well that is seems like real life. Combine that with the lack of a soundtrack, and you've almost got the best news-like movie you've ever seen. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon are particularly good in this late-seventies masterpiece, evoking concern on her end and genuine tragic pity on his end. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers. Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.

Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.

Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.

The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released. It's some years since I've seen this movie, so forget most of the details. However, I loved it at the time and found the plot intensely gripping, the climax heart stopping. I remember being literally on the edge of my seat at the theatre back in 1979.

Jane Fonda plays a Los Angeles reporter, Kimberley, who stumbles upon an accident at a local nuclear power facility. She wants to go public with the story, aided by her hippie cameraman (Michael Douglas) who has photographed the event, but a sinister conspiracy attempts to cover it all up. Jack Lemmon is absolutely wonderful in the role of the nuclear plant's conflicted middle manager, torn between loyalty to his company and 'doing the right thing' by reporting the perilous situation. His facial expressions speak volumes here.

Apart from the engrossing plot and riveting tension, this film is all about Jack Lemmon, his character, and his superb acting performance. As for Jane Fonda (I was a huge fan of hers at the time), I suspect she just moved on from her anti-war protests to taking on the nuclear industry.

This movie seems intended as a nuclear scare tactic. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island notwithstanding (they're different types of reactors), our Canadian CANDU reactor is safe and well respected around the world. I wouldn't hesitate to reside near the nuclear power plant about an hour's drive away, where my friend works as a very competent engineer. Apparently they shut down for every teeny problem, irregardless of the financial loss. I sincerely doubt that there are any conspiracies afoot there. One can hardly imagine any of the managers or highly trained operators willing to risk any sort of meltdown or whatever...it's absolute tomfoolery. Of course the moral here is to spare no expense or effort either in building the facility or ensuring its ongoing safety.

If we want our Western lifestyle, we have to get our energy somewhere. For those who claim nuclear power can never be made completely safe (true, of course), perhaps they should volunteer as a coal miner or else return to pre electricity horse and buggy days.

By all means, enjoy this entertaining and highly suspenseful movie, which apparently is based (loosely? embellished?) on a true story. It's a real chiller, a thriller, and maybe (?) even a killer, but please, don't get your attitudes about the operation and safety of nuclear power plants from it. It was easy to dismiss this film as hyperbole at the time of its release. Fonda, Douglas and Lemmon were known "lefties", but the accident at Three Mle Island provided shocking context to this fictional drama.

This film works on many levels, taking shots at both public utilities and TV news. 1979 was the zenith of the infamous "Happy Talk" format of TV news (see also "Ron Burgundy") and it's on display here in all its glory. The sonorous anchor grimly reads a story about a "grinding head-on collision" before cheerfully introducing Kimberley Wells (Fonda), doing a story about a veterinarian who makes house (or is that "aquarium?") calls. The show's producer and the station manager argue about content - or lack thereof - behind the scenes.

There are a few technical errors. The PR flack (James Hampton) shows Fonda and Douglas the requisite scale model of a pressurized water reactor plant, built by Westinghouse. Later, as Lemmon and Wilford Brimley (nicely playing Lemmon's friend/colleague, caught between duty and loyalty) fight a sudden crisis in the plant' s control room, they're obviously running a boiling-water plant (built by GE.) A small point, but curious, considering how many details the screenwriters got right.

Like any good drama, the film asks more questions than it answers. The real-world accident at TMI proves the film's basic premise. The working title for the film was originally "Power", and you'll see why. As nuclear power prepares to make a comeback in these days of $3 gas, "The China Syndrome" is as relevant today as it was over 25 years ago. Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his/her life.

Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station.

In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.

This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 8/10. The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this. This is a pretty good thriller at a nuclear power plant in southern California that was directed by James Bridges and stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas. Fonda plays a TV reporter who wants to be an investigative journalist but is only allowed to be a TV reporter. Douglas is an independent cameraman and Lemmon is a supervisor at a nuclear plant. Fonda and Douglas are sent on a routine assignment at a nuclear power plant and an accident almost happens and they get it all on film. Everyone tries to cover it up except Fonda and Douglas, so Douglas steals the film. Lemmon starts to investigate and finds out the company cares more about profit then safety at the plant. It's a good movie with a pretty good ending. I rented "The China Syndrome" recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make "The Day After". "Syndrome", however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)

"Syndrome" is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to "Network", only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as "research" finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.

What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.

On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today. James Bridges' "The China Syndrome" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.

Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. "The China Syndrome" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.

The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for "Save the Tiger"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for "Klute" and "Coming Home" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". This isn't your standard "spot the star" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.

There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.

The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes "The China Syndrome" so good.

**** out of 4 stars This film is definetly Fonda's best film. The Plot is amazing, the acting is amazing, and the directing is amazing. An all time classic, this should have won best picture not kramer Vs. Kramer. Though it was not even nominated. Jack Lemmon and Micheal Douglas are also at their best. One of the best endings ever. If you haven't seen this film run don't walk to rent it. Should have been on afi's top 100. See it not just for Fonda but for everything.

**** out of **** 4 out of 4 The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching. I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.

It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.

It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great. This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films. Highly politically charged drama that, while biased, is extremely well-handled and one of the most intelligent films ever made. It contains almost no preaching, but rather follows a naive TV reporter who gradually comes to realize the threat presented by nuclear power plants, not because of an inherent danger, but because the purveyors are more interested in the bottom line than in the safety of those affected.

Many hated the film because they saw it as a political tract made by ultra-liberals like Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas, but if you view it simply as a drama, it's gripping, exciting, full of well-developed, distinctive characters and, ultimately, a truly suspenseful contemporary thriller that hits close to home.

Historical note: For some, especially those in the energy industry and inhabitants of the Harrisburg, PA metro area, it hit perhaps a little too close to home, as less than a week after this film was released, the devastating explosion at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility occurred.

Update, 04/08/2007: In the nearly a decade since I first wrote this critique, I've heard a lot of commentary on the film. One thing I think really needs to be noted is that this film is not the "ultra-liberal" anti-nuclear tirade that it's often tagged as being.

While the makers and stars are (or were) notable "Hollywood establishment" liberals, what this film attacks is not the very idea of nuclear power, but rather the idea of human greed, corruption and fallibility calling into question the potential hazards of something that nature has already made dangerous.

No one who accepts reality can argue the fact that human exposure to nuclear radiation is at least quite likely to be fatal. Close friends of mine who worked at a nuclear plant for several years even told me of their employer's official policy on the maximum "safe" exposure levels that its employees could handle.

You don't have to believe that corporations are inherently evil in order to accept that individuals, in pursuit of wealth and power, are greedy and often corrupt. And even if you refute that claim, you can't dispute that all humans are prone to make mistakes. When it comes to exposing innocent people to nuclear radiation, we can't afford any mistakes, and that, more than anything, is the argument this film seeks to make.

Condemn it if you must, but try to have a little perspective. We're currently engaged in a war whose ongoing results are quite different from those originally predicted, an incredibly costly war with no end in sight. And whether or not you feel the war was necessary to combat global terrorism, you can't dispute the reality that the length, the financial cost, and most importantly the loss of human life have all far exceeded the levels that the "experts" assured us of back in 2003. So even if no one involved is greedy or corrupt, "mistakes were made," and mistakes of a pretty serious magnitude, to boot. The same kind of serious mistakes, if allowed to arise in the nuclear industry, could render much of the earth's surface uninhabitable. It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.

Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.

The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.

Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.

Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.

Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.

What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen.

The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.

See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about. "The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.

I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.

I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct. I am a big fan of the 1995 version, which I have seen many times and consider a subtle, excellent film. This 1971 version I bought yesterday, a bit hesitantly, but now that I have seen it I am glad I did, because it is truer to the book and to Austen's insights. The 1995 version has more dramatic power largely because it sharpens many of the characters -- in the 1995 version Lady Russell is snobbier, more manipulative, less truly looking out for Anne; Sir Walter is even more vain and vapid; Elizabeth is nastier; Mary is more insufferable; Mr. Elliot is more smarmy; Lady Dalrymple is much more stupid -- but I think the characterizations in this 1971 version are closer to the book, to Austen's vision, and to the real people of the time. The 1971 version also includes more of the key lines and scenes from the book, including especially the key scene in the field where Anne overhears Wentworth talking to Louisa (or is it Henrietta?) about the importance of strength of character. I found the acting more subtle and evocative than do many of the critics here, but the acting in the 1995 version is more powerful. I agree with the critics here that the actress who plays Anne is too old for the part; I looked up her entry on IMDb and she was 38 at the time of the filming, when her character is supposed to be 28. I thought her acting was subtle and effective, however. Wentworth is of the correct age and I found him very convincing. In particular, this 1971 version of Wentworth has much more of his sense of humor and teasing; the 1995 one, much more of the sense of power a sea captain would have, and more passion. The admiral in the 1971 version lacks the gruff presence and human warmth of the one in the 1995 version and lacks any feeling of the power an admiral certainly would convey; I found him the one truly weak element in the production. I agree with others that the staging of the "falling" scene was too wooden, and it seemed unconvincing that she would have been so injured by such a little fall. However, it could be that she banged the back of her head on the edge of the stone step, which if so, really would produce a very dangerous injury, and would make the scene more convincing than the scene in the 1995 version, where she falls farther but is clear of any sharp edge that could plausibly cause a major head injury. As to the costuming that some have criticized, I am no expert and can't respond, but I will note that none of the Navy characters (Wentworth, admiral Croft, Benwick, Harville) in the 1971 version wear their uniforms, while in the 1995 version all of them consistently wear their fancy uniforms. I suspect that the 1971 version is the accurate one, and it always bothered me a bit in the 1995 version, the officers being always in uniform when clearly the nation is at peace and the officers are detached from active duty. My father and grandfather were career US navy captains who commanded aircraft carriers and submarines, and they did not spend every day while on leave or at leisure in their dress blues. I doubt it was any different 180 years ago. The uniforms give the 1995 version a lot of zing, and I prefer it, but I doubt it is accurate historically that these officers wore their uniforms so frequently. Lastly, it is true, the production values of the 1971 version are a lot less than the 1995 version, but given the year (1971), the TV format, and the budget, we can't blame the artists for it. Contemporary viewers who can make a mental allowance for the lower production values can find this version well worth their time. I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.

I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.

Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.

Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.

I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.

So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.

The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.

And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it! I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life. Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved. Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.

So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.

Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.

One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation. This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.

Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.

People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it. I know it was supposed to be a long walk, but really!!!!

The costumes were a bit yuk, but still... it was the 1970's I suppose!!!

It was a bit long and dull, so give me the newer version any day! This is a very touching movie. This is a story about a special bond between a child and his grandfather. A villager (Arun Nalawade) brings his grandson, Parashuram, to the city to get his eyes treated. But comes to know that Parashuram (Aswin Chitale) has some rare cancer of eyes and has to undergo an operation and will lose both his eyes. The movie is all about the emotions and the turmoil both them go through and how they accept the whole thing. The movie avoid any melodrama and tells this story in a simple way. Though the movie is in Marathi, language is not a barrier at all.It proves that to make good movie you do not need item songs, superstars and usual masala. Excellent performances. This is India's entry for Oscars 2004. Hope it gets the nomination at least. Would rate 10/10. This is a film about a six year old child from a village in Maharashtra (a state in India) and his grandfather who come to Pune (a city in Maharashtra) to treat the child's eyes. here the grandfather gets to know that the child has cancer in both eyes and that they have to be removed to save the child's life. the movie is all about the main characters' and their feelings and actions until the operation.

The movie is not a typical cliché Indian movie, so dun expect to see songs or romance or melodrama. this ia a supremely crafted sensitive movie which resorts to silent expressions rather than over the top dialogs to get the point thru. witness the scene where the grandfather is told about the need to remove the child's eyes. the acting is superb, dialogs heart breaking. your heart goes out for the grandfather who has the unenviable task of telling the child and his mother about the operation.

the handling of the subject has been excellent. the film was made under great hardship by the director, Sandeep Sawant who had to knock many doors to gather the Rs. six million (approx. $130000) budget. even then the final product seems polished and has decent production values. also witness the subtle city village contrast shown by the director by incorporating some random shots of the boy's life in the village. Sawant definitely seems to prefer village life.

THe acting by all is excellent. Amruta Subhash as the social worker is competent adding the required humane touch to her role. Sandeep Kulkarni as the docter is great, showing perfect mannerisms of a doctor. Ashwin Chitale as the child is a natural. he doesn't seem to be acting. everything about him is natural and does not seem forced.

But towering above all is Arun Nalawade as the grandfather. he is astounding in his role. mere words cannot describe his work. it is a performance to cherish forever.

Shwaas is a sincere effort to make good cinema. it should not be ignored just for the fact that it shows that if things are kept simple, the the results can be really surprising. 10/10. Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema. Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination

Enjoy and again don't miss it I am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.

It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.

Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like "mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe"(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.

Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone! After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.

The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.

This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this. It was very refreshing to watch this beautiful movie. The director maintained focus on the main subject without venturing into side plots (the doctor's family or stories of the other hospital patients), that are so typical of Bollywood assembly-line products. He kept the narrative simple to comprehend and made sure all the actors are true to the characters that they are supposed to portray. The rustic ways of the grandfather in the clinic, the cold and unemotional behavior of the surgeon, the zeal of the social worker gave the movie a feel of genuineness. I am also glad that the director did not fall for the temptation of adding songs or special effects and reduce it to the level of Anand or Safar. A couple of scenes toward the end of the movie, such as the boy visiting other blind children and a blind worker's workplace and also the final scene where the boy claps at the sound of splashing and birds chirping are sure make your eyes misty.

Many Bollywood players do not realize that Oscar committee members value simplicity of the subject and genuineness and brevity of the movie more than the glitz and glamor. Shwaas is certainly a better nomination than Lagaan, which dealt with a subject that has already been beaten to death. No MPAA member is willingly going to suffer through 4 hours of jingoistic drama and a lot of song and dance.

I look forward to more movies from director Sandeep Sawant in the future. Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-) James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes. Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.

Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.

All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.

I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately. I didn't read the book "Scarlett" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.

The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.

The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.

The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that "Tomorrow is another day"... I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.

It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.

There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.

In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.

I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.

The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!



It's common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.

I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.

Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.

For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett.

First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly.

Lore60 I loved the movie. I loved Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whaley. The movie had many different locations in it. I really liked when Ann Hampton realized she could not make Rhett love her. And when Scarlett and Ann where together and Ann apologizes for taking Rhett and Scarlett just told her not to worry she would get him back. It had a great story it told. You just can not compare it to GWTW. It just has so many great scenes. I love both SCARLETT AND GWTW! Of course do not forget to have a hankie handy. A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).

I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.

My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.

All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing. Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett. Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrow…after all tomorrow is another day. :) gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me. I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of. My God, this was a fantastic film. Every time we watch it takes us to another place of "WOW". Rhett & Scarlett were played brilliantly by Joanne & Timothy. They did a fantastic job revising the roles of our two favourite heros. Everyone! It is a must see..... Dont deprive yourself of this movie. If u loved Gone With The Wind you will love this mini series. Go Rhett!!! Go Scarllett!!! This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.

The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.

The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond. I, having both read and watched Gone With The Wind, found it very difficult to not compare this movie with the original. Although I thought Scarlett, the novel, was superb, the movie didn't add up. It was a completely different story. Of course, there will never be another Scarlett and Rhett besides Leigh and Gable, but the new actors did a fine job, considering. I loved the way the book and movie wrapped up the story of Gon With the Wind, because after reading it I felt a surge of disappointment because it just stopped and left the readers to wonder what happened. Scarlett finishes the story very well, and Alexandra Ripley did great on the book. I just wish the movie followed the story more, although it is great in itself. I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible. Gone with the wind is one of the most popular books ever printed . It is by far the movie of all movies . The romance between Scarlett and Rhett made people dream all over the world and turned the lead actors into cinematographic icons . One can ask , is it really necessary to make a sequel ? And ... there are some big shoes to fill .

Well , there was the book first . 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley is , we have to admit , well-written and fully respecting the world created by Margaret Mitchell . She picks up exactly where we left our heroine previously and gently leads us from Mitchell's heritage into her own fantasy . In the book Scarlett , defeated after Melanie's death and Rhett's leaving , travels to Charleston to reside with her mother-in-law in hope of regaining Rhett's love . Her typical manipulative behavior evokes once again a lot of criticism from Rhett and drives them further apart ... until a certain boat trip that will change everything . Scarlett now carries a secret . The series follows the book quite accurately until the arrival of Scarlett in Ireland . From then of , book and series slowly split ways . The actual end differs , but of course the both have Scarlett and Rhett back together .

The production of the series was announced with a worldwide search for the next Scarlett O'Hara . Many countries made their own television shows featuring young actresses auditioning for the part . Eventually , about twelve girls were chosen to participate in the final screen tests and interviews in Atlanta , Georgia . Unfortunately , the producer found no Scarlett amongst these actresses . Sad for the girls , major publicity for the show ( it was already sold to many television stations worldwide before shooting even had started ). Robert Halmi , the producer who bought the rights to 'Scarlett' , told he discovered the right actress while watching TV , gave her a call and two days later signed the deal . Joanne Whalley-Kilmer ( who starred in'Willow' and 'Scandal' , the latest being the movie Robert Halmi was watching that faithful evening )is not Vivien Leigh , but she certainly is Scarlett ! Her performance is not a copy of Leigh's , she makes the character her own . The major difference between GWTW and 'Scarlett' is the fact the lead character evolves and grows as a person . This is the series prerogative , why copying something that has been done before ? Considering there is a gap of almost seventy years between the first and second storyline , it is natural that both authors emphasize on different aspects of the characters . Whereas Mitchell works around Scarlett dealing with the consequences of the civil war and fighting for Tara , Ripley lets Scarlett face her demons . This to me , is the most interesting aspect of the series , we get to know Scarlett in a different way as she learns that not everything can always go the way she wants . I totally agree with the choice of Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler . He portrays him with charm and irony and is less of a cardboard figure than Clark Gable's performance . The rest of the cast was well chosen . Julie Harris is endearing as Rhett's mother , John Gielgud gives a very amusing performance as grandfather Robillard and Sean Bean is always at his best playing a dirty character , his Lord Fenton makes no exception . Poor choices however with Stephen Collins as Ashley and Ann-Margret's adaption of Belle Watling was a waste of money . Costumes , sets and locations are elaborate and convincing . The newly built Tara set looked exactly the same and it is a moving sequence in the series when the house appears for the first time .

Is there a point in making a sequel ... Well , six hours of romance are to me . One to watch ! My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.

Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.

Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.

She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.

The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.

Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.

In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.

Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, "It's time I became acquainted with my daughter." The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.

After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.

If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after "tomorrow". This is one of the most cerebral insightful movies I have ever seen. The script language, costumes, scenery, plot, characters, etc. all are supreme. You will not be bored. I have watched intensely or even just listened to this movie while working so many times I have lost count. Scarlett ages gracefully, acquiring wisdom beyond her years in the end. This movie takes you from Tara to Ireland where her family is originally from and you see the results of another civil war played out there, this time between the Irish and English.

This movie depicts the double standards of men at the time--a man is still respected if he has girlfriends and whores, but not a woman. If she is merely seen in a private place with a man society accuses her of impropriety. And of course Scarlett was always thinking outside the box, breaking rules when necessary to create needed change, help people, and/or survive.

Scarlett's beauty definitely is to the bone. Her strength, self-esteem, and wisdom grow as she ages.

I remember her lines when I am confronted with too much on my plate, such as, "tomorrow is another day," and the way she carried herself, her determination and courage, and have learned from her experiences. This is a good movie to show your daughters as it teaches a woman how important it is to have respect for yourself, and that men, especially very handsome ones, can have two sides and may treat a woman differently, depending on how she acts and respects herself. An attractive woman needs to learn what this movie teaches.

This movie is like therapy to me, and it is better than Gone with the Wind. The second part takes place in Ireland and anyone who is of Irish decent will cherish the scenery, people, and Scarlett's character within it. I am a big Gone With The Wind nut but I was disappointed that both Gone With The Wind the movie and Scarlett the mini series are so different from the books. Gone With The Wind left so many things out in the movie that were in the book and they did the same with Scarlett. Both were good movies, but I really liked both books better. There were so many characters left out of Scarlett, and the ages of some characters didn't seem to match up with the book. The time lines don't match up either. Scarlett realizes she is pregnant on the ship to Ireland in the book, but she realizes it when she is throwing up while in Savahanna. Also Sally is made out to be an ugly monkey like woman in the book and the movie casted Jean Smart to play her, who is obviously not an ugly woman. Over all, Scarlett is a good movie, and it helps anyone who was disappointed in the way Gone With The Wind ended, to see what might have happened if Margaret Mitchell had lived to write a sequel herself. This is about as good as gone with the wind was.I love this movie I could watch it over and over again.Scarlett always gets what she wants no matter what the cost.She tries real hard to forget Rhett but she just can't do it. She loves him so much. This is a story of real true love.It started in gone with the wind and ended up in this movie.The only real way to end this movie for real true love.Was to have Scarlett and Rhett back together at the end.And thats the way it ended with them back together with their daughter.What more could you ask for. There's not a better ending to this great love story than this.What else can i say about this great movie. Not your everyday Tom and Jerry short for many reasons. One, there's a voiceover narration by Jerry, which is odd, because Tom and Jerry rarely speak. Two, the two are friends, which was also rare and seldom works as well as the more adversarial shorts do. Third, and most importantly, the cartoon is rarely humorous (by design) and the jokes here are dry chuckles with a little cough and a bubble of blood at the end. Think a Tom and Jerry cartoon directed by Tim Burton. Not wholly successful, but it largely does work. The creepiest ending for an MGM short that I can recall. Not for everyone and proof that these shorts were never intended solely with children as the target audience. Well worth watching. Recommended with the caveats above. While I agree completely with drvn below about Mary McCormack flopping a milk-bag out on TV, the rest of the show is fantastic! Phil Hartman was great in a professorly way, teaching the celebs the ins and outs. Foley's a nut, but in a good way. You never know what self depricating humor he's going to come up with next. As for the game play, it's entertaining, filled with witty banter, and great for any newbie that may have even a passing an interest in the game. Too bad it isn't on anymore :( I just checked the schedule all the way to August and it doesn't appear to be scheduled for any time in the future. Bad Bravo! You deserve a beating! It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.

Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.

So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.

Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.

Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.

What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.

Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.

That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.

All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.

It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.

The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT. Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clichés, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone and I'm unsure how Germans will take the film, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!! Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.

Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.

It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.

Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi "Jew Hunter" SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, "à votre famille et à vos vaches, je dis bravo." The thing of it is, in French "vache" means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.

That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.

Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France." Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.

In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.

Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.

If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch. I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.

We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.

War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.

The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.

Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino. I had the PRIVILEGE of attending the UK premier of Inglorious Basterds this evening! Having seen the trailers i had high hopes but had doubts due to a string of self indulgent films (c'mon lets be honest, self indulgence is his tarantinos middle name)

I was surprised to find though that he had pulled the cat out of the bag with this one. The film is rich with interesting dialogue, Perfect timed comedy with a dash of brutal assassination.

The crowning glory of this film though lies with Christoph Waltz whom no fault or error can be found. He manages to create a real tension in the audience whilst remaining quite "theatrical" (couldn't think of a better word). He definitely deserved his prize at Cannes and is heading for an Oscar no doubt!!!! Hoping to see him in something again soon! ..."Inglorious" as our local theater decided to display its title on their marquee, minus the second word. It is terrific cinema.

I don't hesitate to recommend this film to all but the over-squeamish. Let them never know what they're missing.

I did hesitate to give it ten stars because of my experience of Tarantino's previous films. In every case, save "Reservoir Dogs," they have improved with additional watching.

So although I gave it ten stars, I did so reluctantly. It leaves me no "up" to go to.

Yes Christoph Waltz is the Nazi we've all imagined the worst to be. He is cultured, sophisticated, suave and most sadistic, the kind of man who can make a glass of milk a threat and who puts out his cigarette abruptly in a strudel, grinding it into the whipped cream as if he were grinding his heel into a victim.

To understand Tarantino's films, you need only have a sense of dialogue, color and pacing. The colors are as bright as necessary and when necessary, brighter yet. In the French farmhouse of the opening scene, they are muted and dark, but excessively so. Outside a brilliant sun is shining, but in the one room of the house, everything is bathed in shadows and black.

It is a brilliant setting for an interrogation by Waltz, as the "Jew Hunter" of the SS, who dangles his host French farmer over the precipice of revealing what he cannot reveal numerous times, then pulls him back with obsequious lines of friendship and understanding.

A second sadistic German, well-played by August Diehl, later functions as important actor in the final plot twist. Diehl's Nazi Major, who has an ear for German accents, is almost as good as Waltz....almost.

Film classes will study much from this movie. They should look lovingly at the superb pacing. Tarantino knows just how long to draw out a scene, building suspense in the manner of Hitchcock, then at just the breaking point, suddenly coming to a resolution.

For color, look for a final shot at a French Theater, where its secretly Jewish proprietor is staging a surprise for the upper reaches of Nazi leadership.

We see her, played by Melanie Laurent, awaiting the hated German dignataries who will arrive for a film preview of the latest Deutsch film masterpiece, a propaganda piece about a German hero and his dubious accomplishments.

Laurent is framed on a balcony, reflected in the glass mirrors of the gorgeous theater, her red lips and low cut dress reflecting everywhere the intensity of her designs on her guests. It is a single shot that would be worth an entire film.

There are thankfully many more such images, many more paced scenes of exquisite dialog and suspense.

In short, see it. I'm sure you'll see it again and again. That's what I thought, when I heard about the cast of Inglorious Basterds. And I'm both from Germany and into movies.

That guy is older than 50 and so far he almost only played in mediocre TV series - and even there he didn't play the main parts. Obviously nobody ever noticed, what he's capable of. Now, thanks to QT, he got one shot to change that - and - let's put it this way - that was a bingo! He is the living proof of what a great caster Tarrantino is.

By the way: I think it's a great privilege to watch the movie as a German - being able to understand everything. And the German dialog is written almost as good as the English.

Now I could repeat, what many others have written here before. I'll put it short: Finally, QT is back. I must admit when I saw the preview for "Inglorious Basterds" I gave myself big expectations. THIS FILM DID NOT Disappoint.

Rarely when I watch a movie with such high-expectations do I have those expectations met or exceeded; this film did that and more. Even more rarely do I clap at the end of a movie, this I and everyone else in the theater did.

I have to say I am a little biased towards Quentin, I grew up with "Pulp Fiction." I watched it when I was 12 and it is still my favorite and most influential film.

However, since then Quentin has not really lived up to his billing. His style was getting a little predictable instead of familiar, the quality honestly wasn't there (I never watched Jackie Brown, and then there's Grindhouse). That is until "Inglorious Basterds." What Quentin did was exactly what was needed for the war genre, a spaghetti western feel that could only be done by Tarantino or Sergio Leone, but seeing how Leone is dead, Tarantino's the self appointed guy on this masterpiece.

So let's look at the movie which I won't give away. The writing was spot on, a beautiful transition between using not one but four different languages in this movie. Not to mention this movie was set up in the classic Tarantino mold, great scenes of rich meaningful dialog and sudden shocking action.

The acting was superb!! Christopher Waltz deserves an Oscar, seriously. I don't say that often, but honestly the man should get one for this movie, he spoke every language in this movie, and delivered with such amazing touch and poise. He stole the show in a movie that everybody was amazingly impressive.

I have no problem building this movie up, because this movie is the best film I've seen all year, and probably all of next year. Quite frankly the more I think about it, this movie may crack my top films of all time, and is Quentin's best movie since "Pulp Fiction." Take it from me, watch this film. I loved it doesn't do this movie enough justice.

I watched it yesterday and I'm still blown away. Thank you Quentin from the bottom of my heart for you making this movie. You're back on top again buddy. I can't say enough for "Inglorious Basterds!" Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes "The Dirty Dozen" for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even "Paris when it sizzles" is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place. I have been feeling a little disappointed by Tarantino ever since death proof. But i insist it was only a little, because i can appreciate the amount of work in producing such an homage to stunts people. Inglorious Basterds has definitely propelled Tarantino to the top ranks in my universe. This movie can be summed up (albeit inadequately) in one word : "RAW".

There is an intense emotion in every scene. Revenge and justice seem to be the main themes, From the start of the movie one feels compassion towards the victims of the Nazis, and is placed in Tarantino's fictional dimension of the WW2 historical context.

Characters are unpredictiable, fun, scary, brutal, sexy, and other adjectives i am sure are escaping my mind that are just as fitting and positive. I won't go in to an appreciation of each character, but the other comments by fellow users sum up the appreciation of the various performances.

Dialogue has evolved from the classic Tarantino "bad ass" provocative style as seen in Pulp Fiction and Death Proof. One can feel in the dialogues that Tarantino is making more open references to other movies. Indeed, many dialogues were near lessons in cinema to the audience, the setting partly takes place at a movie premiere ; a reference to a movie is close around every corner.

It is nice to see that each language presented (German, French, and English) is employed rather equally and naturally. I speak both French and English very fluently, and am frequently disappointed in how English speaking characters in french movies act poorly, and how french speaking characters in English/American movies act poorly. Amazingly enough, Tarantino managed to make his actors pull off a natural and graceful performance from his actors. It helps put the audience in context of the historical context. Indeed ; soldiers, spies and civilans rarely understood soldiers/spies/civilians from other countries.

The visuals/photography are beautiful, with sceneries convincingly conveying a 1940s WWII Europe. The outfits are perfect, and the violence orgasmically/realistically conveyed. No punches are held back, and the Nazis are often shown being tortured. This makes the movie not open to all audiences ; the graphic violence can shock the more sensitive demographic.

volumes can be written about this movie. But the movie is so good, that during the North American Inglorious Basterds premiere at the Fantasia Festival in Montreal, i had to pee, but refused to go so as to not miss one single scene. I hope that image conveys how strongly i feel about this movie, and i'm a hard audience to please. Operation Scorpio (AKAThe Scorpion King) doesn't slip into top gear until the last 25 minutes or so, but when the action does hit top speed, it delivers some truly amazing martial arts scenes that demand the viewer's attention. That is not to say that the first hour is worthless— just that compared to the final fight-fest, it seems a bit underwhelming.

The plot revolves around Yuk-Su, a talented comic artist who dreams of being a hero—just like those he depicts in his drawings. When Yuk-Su rescues a young maid, Siu-Yu, who is being sold into prostitution, he incurs the wrath of her evil boss, Wa. Led by Sonny, master of scorpion style kung fu, Wa's henchmen give chase to Yuk-Su and the maid. Yuk-Su's father intervenes but he is injured. After being rescued by some friendly bodybuilders, the three eventually hide out at a noodle restaurant, owned by their friend, Master Yat.

Yuk-Su learns to cooks noodles, but also regularly sneaks out in order to secretly build his strength and learn kung fu under the tutelage of Jean, the teacher of the musclebound hulks who rescued them. When Master Yat must leave on business, Yuk-Su is left in charge of the kitchen; however, he pops out to practise his skills with Jean, leaving Siu-Yu to serve the customers. Sonny and his men visit the restaurant and, disgusted by the noodles they are served, trash the restaurant.

When Master Yat learns that Yuk-Su has been sneaking out, he tells him that he should have learnt kung fu from him; it transpires that Master Yat used to be a top Triad assassin, until he decided to try and change his ways. Under the guidance of Master Yat, Yuk-Su improves his skills, even learning the art of the shadowless kick! Yuk-Su eventually gets a chance to try and become a real hero when his friend, Fatty, announces that his maid has also been sold into prostitution. With Jean, they visit Wa posing as French brothel keepers looking for new women. When Fatty's maid is presented to them, she accidentally blows their ruse and at last the action kicks off big style. Despite his best efforts, Jean is badly beaten by Sonny and he and Yuk-Su are forced to flee. On returning to the restaurant, Yuk-Su finds it ablaze; and worst of all, the bad guys have found Siu-Yu! Yuk Su, accompanied by Master Yat, returns to Wa's place to try and rescue Siu-Yu...

Despite some fairly entertaining training scenes, the slow build up to the final action at Wa's house is rather too drawn out and devoid of any serious fight scenes. It is a shame that the tedium wasn't broken up by a decent scrap midway, rather than saving all of the juicy stuff until the end.

The last fight, however, is worth the wait in the end; Won Jin gives a jaw dropping performance as the high kicking Sonny who scuttles, flips and spins with amazing skill and dexterity, and Chin Kar-Lok gives a solid performance as Yuk-Su, the artist-turned-fighter. Also particularly good is old-school kung fu star Lau Kar-Leung (AKA Liu Chia Liang) as Master Yat, proving that this old-timer has still got what it takes to kick ass! Although not a perfect film, Operation Scorpio has enough standout action in its finale to definitely warrant a viewing.

NB. I may have got some of the names wrong. My DVD calls characters by different names than those listed on IMDb. Hong Kong, the 1920s. A young man from poor beginnings dreams of being a hero, and spends most of his time training and learning about kung fu and bodybuilding, much against his father's will. He helps a servant girl escape from a ruthless businessman, whose goons then come after them, and terrorizes the young man's uncle's noodle restaurant. The uncle turns out to be an old, reformed Triad assassin, who now helps the young guy become proficient in martial arts. It's all-out Karate Kid style with "wash the wok" instead of "wax on, wax off". The kung fu villain is the ruthless businessman's son, who has a trademark scorpion style that looks cool although it is quite silly and surely completely unrealistic.

But the story, which develops over time, has an epic feel, good characterization, great kung fu and is generally very entertaining. The young hero is very sympathetic and provides a good protagonist to root for. The romance dimension remains undeveloped, though, which is a bit disappointing. Otherwise a great movie.

My rating: 8 out of 10. There's a "Third Man" look to the shadowy B&W photography of STOLEN IDENTITY, a thriller produced by Turhan Bey, ex-star of Universal pictures during the '40s. It's an expertly filmed tale of jealousy that leads to murder when a famous pianist (FRANCIS LEDERER) becomes overly possessive of his wife (JOAN CAMDEN) and is soon intent on carrying out a scheme to murder a man she's having an affair with.

A taxi-driver (DONALD BUKA) happens to be giving the woman's lover a lift to the hotel when he steps outside a moment to chat with a worker digging up the street. Lederer uses the sound of the drill to muffle the sound of the bullet he puts in the head of the passenger from outside the back of the car. When Buka returns to his cab, he finds a dead man in the passenger seat.

Enroute to report the murder to the police, he changes his mind and decides to switch identities with the dead man who has an American passport which means Buka could realize his ambition to return to the United States. The stolen identity plot becomes thicker when the man's girlfriend (Lederer's wife) shows up at the hotel to accuse Buka of impersonating the dead man.

It's the sort of plot movie-goers have probably seen countless times, but it gets a nice workout here, with plenty of tense scenes as Buka and Lederer's wife plan how to run from the authorities until a final confrontation with the murderer and the police.

It's extremely absorbing, well done and holds the interest throughout with some excellent atmospheric photography of Vienna that will remind most movie-goers of "The Third Man".

Well worth viewing. A quick paced and entertaining noir set in Vienna just after W.W.11. Donald Buka is a refugee who can't find legal work because he does not have any papers. No papers means no work permit, which means no way to get a passport. He survives by driving a friend's cab at night. If he gets caught it means three months in jail. One night he picks up a fare at a big hotel and drives the man to an airline office. Buka takes the man's luggage in and returns to the car. There he finds his customer has acquired an unneeded hole in the back of his head. What to do? Call the police? Without a work permit they will put the grab on him real quick. No, he needs time to think this out. He drives to a secluded spot, empties the man's pockets and hides the body. He now has an American passport and plenty of cash! He drops by an underworld contact to have the passport photo changed. Now he just needs to go to the man's hotel and collect the man's plane ticket. His ticket to freedom! Needless to say that would be too simple. Waiting at the hotel is the dead man's mistress, Joan Camden. Camden is on the run from her rather nasty husband, Francis Lederer, Lederer is of course the swine who had bumped off the man in Buka's cab. Camden calls the police since she believes Buka has robbed her lover. Buka shows his new passport and manages to talk his way out of the mess. Camden breaks down when hubby Lederer shows up at the police station. Lederer convinces the police Camden has suffered a mental breakdown and she is released to him. She escapes again, finds Buka, and the two decide to flee the country together. Lederer again puts in an appearance and Buka must decide if helping Camden is worth his freedom. This film is much better than I'm making it sound. Buka is best known as the low-life cop killer in 1950's "Between Midnight and Dawn". The film was produced by actor Turhan Bey. Previous commentators have noted the similarity in appearance between this film and The Third Man, director Carol Reed's classic film noir starring Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten. This similarity strikes the viewer almost immediately. It is, indeed, high praise to be compared to Robert Krasker's academy award- winning cinematography in The Third Man.

The plot of Stolen Identity also has been delineated fairly accurately but in rather ordinary terms. I found it highly creative and entertaining. As common as the "Mistaken - or Stolen - Identity" device is in both theater and cinema, it is only a device and not to be mistaken for the plot, itself. Consequently, while the viewer may have seen this device "a thousand" times, the plot of Stolen Identity is full of surprises and twists based upon this device. It is the unexpected turns that make this film much fresher, more original and engrossing than a plot synopsis might convey. Stolen Identity doesn't rely on the kind of suspense that characterizes most film noire, because there is no real mystery here. Instead, it relies on constant, smaller surprises. In short, the Mistaken Identity device is rather common; but this plot is not.

Finally, although I was not familiar with the cast, I found the acting to be uniformly good, occasionally outstanding. I easily could have imagined other actors turning this film into a melodrama, with bombast, overblown gestures and obvious facial expressions. The acting is always more restrained and subtle. Donald Buka is especially restrained and credible, never "blowing his cover" with an obvious facial expression as we see too often in films that depend on the maintenance of subterfuge to sustain dramatic tension.

The only disappointment in this otherwise fine film was the very weak development of the love story sub-plot. As it stands, it seems like an afterthought - a mild surprise, in fact - tacked on to the end. Or perhaps during their shared ordeal, the actors simply couldn't convey a palpable level of chemistry that I could appreciate. This sub-plot should have been made more apparent as the story unfolded. All in all, I thought this film was a fine little gem, and I wondered why I had not seen it before. Try it, you'll like it. Its a good film set in Vienna about a cab driver, Toni (Donald Buka), who steals a passenger's identity when the passenger is shot whilst sitting in the back of his cab. This gives him an identity as he is an illegal immigrant, but he needs to play out the role of the victim until he catches a flight to the U.S. with a ticket in the victim's name. Mrs Manelli (Joan Camden) rumbles him but she is accused of having mental problems by her husband, Claude (Francis Lederer), a concert pianist. As a result, Toni is let off the hook. Claude does not want to part from his wife, but she runs away from him. There are several plot twists and eventually both Toni and Mrs Manelli make a run for it together - they are both trying to escape from their lives in Vienna. There is a tense, exciting build-up to the finale. Are they going to get away.....??...

Unfortunately, the picture quality isn't fantastic and there is a line that runs down the middle of the picture for a while. The cast are all very good in their roles, especially Francis Lederer's portrayal of Claude. Also important to the story are Heinth (Manfred Inger) as the cab company owner, Marie (Inge Konradi) as Toni's hometown girlfriend and the inspector (Hermann Erhardt).

Its a good film. An unusual film for an audience outside the USA. Lena Horne looks fabulous and so does Ralph Cooper. There is not added background of tap steps as in other musicals so you do not hear the beat of the taps which is great realism. Music is muted to hear what dancing steps there are. Acting is a little stilted and the casts speak slowly so that you think the movie is older than it is. Costumes are daring for the time in the dance routines at the end. Often feels like you are part of an audience at a stage show. What furniture you see is very modern which adds to the movies feeling of other worldliness. A must for all film buffs. The only reason The Duke Is Tops, one of several "race movies" made during the times of segregation, would be worth noting today is because it made the film debut of a 21-year-old singer named Lena Horne. She plays Ethel Andrews, a singer who has to leave her producer mentor Duke Davis (Ralph Cooper) in order to branch into the big time. Davis, however, has to fake having taken the money for her services in front of her so she won't feel sorry for having done so. He then teams up with Doc Dorando (Lawrence Criner) for a series of medicine shows throughout the south. Meanwhile, in New York, her new producers have bombed big time because they made her the whole show instead of simply the specialty act. Davis finds out from the radio and offers his services as producer and band leader to bring his lineup of other specialty acts, many of whom make their one of their few or only film appearances here, for his chance at the big time with Ethel next to him. Guess what happens? While the plot is the kind you've seen in thousands of other movie musicals during this time, the fact this was made for a certain audience makes this one of the more fascinating features I've seen during this Black History Month. Ms. Horne's singing is on good display here and it's interesting seeing her so young before her professionalism takes full hold later in her career. Among other supporting players there's an unconfirmed, according to IMDb, appearance by Lillian Randolph, Annie in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life and sister of Amanda Randolph who I just saw in the musical short The Black Network, as the woman with Sciatica who complains of not being cured after taking the Doc's medicine before Duke explains it's for the feet! And as a longtime Louisiana resident, I'd like to take note of two players from here in this movie: Joel Fluellen from Monroe as a tonic customer and Marie Bryant from New Orleans as the sexy dancer who appears near the musical climax. So for just Lena Horne alone, The Duke is Tops is worth seeing at least once. Sam Lion (Jean Paul Belmondo) discovers he needs to take some time off as everybody around him relies to much on him and stages his own death. When he discovers those he loved ans still loves are in need, he gets Albert Duvivier (Richard Anconina) to help them. In search of his own past, of his own desires, this fabulous film by Claude Lelouch is a man's quest for himself at a ripe age.

Built like all Lelouch films, the film's beginning with constant flashbacks may be puzzling, especially scenes where Paul Belmondo (who looks a huge lot like his father) is playing a young Sam Lion while Sam Lion stands in the same room - a flashback sequence which takes a second to grasp.

One of Lelouch's most elaborate works, L'itineraire d'un infant gate is a must-see tale of self fulfilment. Surely the best film directed by Claude Lelouch after "L'aventure c'est l'aventure". The Jacques Brel's life inspiration is really present. Richard Anconina and Jean-Paul Belmondo played a really amazing duo and are really great in the psychological discovery of the two characters they are playing. The Claude Lelouch's movie is a pretty good moment of cinema. One of the most touching films about family and loneliness, and surely the best interpretation of French actor Jean-Paul Belmondo. This is not the best movie you might ever see, but it still is very refreshing. Of course, it has it's flaws, it has it's humbling moments and yet at the same time it's different from all the sh*t you're used to and is funny in a way only the french can give you this. You might recognize a little from the masterpiece Amelie, when you see the opening. I give it 7 out of 10, but still reccomend it to you if you're tired of the usual bore you can rent in the videostore. I was born in Beijing, China and moved to the United States at the age of 9. Been home to Beijing several times since and loved it each time. One of the many things I love about Beijing is the people and the ambiance they bring to the city. "You hau hao hao shuo" (which translate more accurately to "if you have something to say, say it nicely") delightfully and truthfully captures that feeling of Beijing. I suppose you would have to have lived in and kinda understood Beijing and its people to get the most out of this movie, though you might enjoy it regardless.

> The story is not complicated, intentionally kinda quirky, and captivating. I will leave it to unfold by itself and not tell you too much except some comments. Each detail, from the pictures on the wall, to the decorations, the streets, and restaurants feels like home. (Zhang Yimou most likely shot everything "on location") But more importantly, the characters - our "hero", the girl, the kind-hearted but unfortunate "laptop man", and the night club owner are each native to Beijing and lovable in their distinct ways. Their conversations really capture the essence of each character. The story, mostly driven by situations and conversation (save the brilliant bafoonery near the end) is intriguing and always interesting.

> I am 21 now. My parents and I love this movie. We are always so amazed by Zhang Yimou's ability to transform ordinary people into believable screen characters, and everyday life into extraordinary situations.

"keep cool" - different. hilarious. meaningful. I could never imagine I would start loving movies like this. After seeing Yimou Zhang's 'Hero', I decided to check his other movies, perhaps looking for something similar. The second Yimou Zhang's movie I watched was 'No One Less' after which I realized what kind of cinema I'm now in. No wonder why I got 'Keep Cool' immediately. It is a simple, touching and brilliant piece of cinema, I pay my respect to the director.

This movie shows that it's not the amount of money makes film good. It's all about what the director wants to show and how successful he is in doing this. The story is very simple, a typical extract of a typical daily life, moreover shown in a very simple way, the movements of camera also strengthen the impression and the feeling of the movie. I give a top rating to this film and impatiently waiting to see other Yimou Zhang's films. Shuai is a burly and uncouth young Beijinger with a punkish haircut, who ekes out a living selling cheap books from a stall in an indoor market. He wouldn't appear to have anything in common with the wiry, middle-aged, would-be intellectual, Zhang - and yet the two of them wind up in a restaurant together discussing the pro's and con's of murder (the Chinese title would perhaps be better translated as 'Talk It Over'). If that makes it sound kind of pedestrian, don't be misled: this film is profusely inventive in its plot, and mostly races along at breakneck speed (although the pace does flag quite badly towards the end).

If you only know Zhang Yimou's worthy historical dramas like Raise The Red Lantern and Shanghai Triad, or his more recent martial arts epics, Hero and House Of Flying Daggers, you'll be amazed; in fact, whichever of his other films you've seen, you'll be surprised, pleasantly surprised - this is far and away his most original, most quirky, most experimental work. It was shot within a couple of weeks on a minimal budget, almost entirely on location in Beijing (and making use of many ordinary Beijingers in the smaller supporting roles - there's even a fleeting cameo by the director himself), and mostly with a hand-held camera, in a jerky, hyper-kinetic style which is a million miles from the elegant formalism of his best-known films.

OK, I live in Beijing, so I find an additional delight in all the bizarre little details of everyday life that I am coming to recognise and relish (even though it was shot in '97, and things are changing so rapidly here), but I really think this film can be appreciated by anyone. I saw it, as I have so many other Chinese 'comedies', at a movie club that screens sub-titled versions of recent Chinese films for an almost exclusively expat audience; and it is the only one I can recall where the audience was laughing out loud. Some non-Chinese audiences might find it a little too strange, a little uncomfortable at times, in that it does include some violence, and, after opening as a breezy, offbeat romantic comedy, mutates into something much darker in its second half. It is, however, very, VERY funny.

It's also superbly acted by the two leads, especially long-time Zhang Yimou collaborator Jiang Wen, who is probably mainland China's foremost film star, and has a brooding screen presence reminiscent of a young Depardieu or De Niro.

Watch this film - for proof that the Chinese have a sense of humour that CAN translate to other cultures, for proof that Zhang Yimou is far, far more than a one-trick pony...... and for a thoroughly good time. I'm a fan of Zhang Yimou and finally found this DVD title from the shelves of a Shenzhen bookstore after a long search at many places.

This is a huge departure from previous Zhang Yimou work, esp in terms of style and locale. The director himself has said that this is the first and only time he'll ever attempt to make a black comedy set in contemporary China. You may even say this work is experimental in nature, compared to his other well known big budget and formal pieces.

Filmed with a hand-held camera and wide angle lens throughout the duration of the whole film, the quick pace editing and high energy performance & naturalistic tone never let you go once it grips you from the start. It presents a very realistic account of modern Chinese urban sensibilities, which in this case is set in Beijing. If you appreciate and love this kind of black humor, you will love this film totally. Also look out for hilarious cameos by Zhao Benshan (Happy Times)and the director Zhang Yimou himself.

A last point of note: I find the characters in this film, as in all other Zhang Yimou films, exhibiting similar personality traits - stubbornness, always trying to beat the odds & up the ante. Do let me know your thoughts on this.

David Lee Shazam was okay, but Hero High was my favorite when I was a kid, I mean before there was Sky High(2005) and Zoom(2006), there was Hero High, a school for super hero's in training, Teenagers with super powers would help police capture bad guys, and other times they would get in embarrassing situations like The Greatest American Hero(1981). It was a fun cartoon to watch, what was also fun, was the live action stage show called The Kid Superpower Hour with Shazam. The actors who voiced the characters, also dressed has there characters in the show. Rex Ruthless(John Berwick), Misty Magic(Jere Fields), WeatherMan(Jim Greenleaf), Captain California(Chris Hensel, who also sang the theme song), Dirty Trixie(Maylo Mccaslin), Glorious Gal(Becky Perle, who looks like the love child of Superman and Wonder Woman), and Punk Rock(Johnny Venocour). The whole cast just went with anything, when it came to the jokes. The cartoon was a fun superhero comedy, I shore up it will come back in live action like Fat Albert(2004) The Kid Power Hour featured two segments: Hero High and Shazam. let's start with Hero High.

Hero High was intended to be a new Archies cartoon, featuring their superhero identities: Pureheart the Powerful (Archie), Captain Hero (Jughead), Superteen (Betty), and Evilheart (Reggie). However, Filmation couldn't get the rights to do it so they tweaked it a bit and came up with this. Here's the breakdown of characters: Captain California (Archie), Glorious Gal (Betty), Weatherman (Jughead), Dirty Trixie (Veronica), Rex Ruthless (Reggie), Principal Samson (Mr weatherbee) and Miss Grimm (Miss Grundy). The show featured live action sketches, as well as cartoon adventures. The humor was the typical lame Filmation jokes, but at least it had a sense of fun about it. It was entertaining enough for kids, though not quite up to previous standards.

The other segment was Shazam!, which was very faithful to the comics, unlike the previous live action show. All of the major villains made appearances, as well as the entire Marvel Family (including Freckles Marvel, in at least one episode). Uncle Dudley had the correct WC Fields voice and shady character, as well as his perpetually acting up "Shazambago". Burr Middleton, a veteran of 70's TV shows, like Fish, voiced the Big Red Cheese, while Alan Oppenheimer (Rudy Wells in the early 6 Million Dollar Man episodes and voice of Skeletor in He-Man) handled Dr. Sivana.

The Marvels had always had a sense of whimsy to them, so little alteration was required for their adventures, to meet the Broadcast Standards and Practices requirements (the censors). As such, the stories were very imaginative and inventive. Amongst the villains who appeared were: Dr. Sivana, Black Adam, Mr. Atom, Mr. Mind, Aunt Minerva, Ibac, and the crocodile creatures. Mr. Tawky Tawny also made his on screen debut.

Hero High is due to be released from BCI, but Shazam! is still in limbo, as well as the live-action show. Hopefully, the proposed movie will help shake them loose on DVD. It is well worth watching and deserving of DVD treatment. Time travel into the past is tenuous at best as a topic. In this episode a man who has been thinking about the possibility, finds himself at the date and location of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He tries everything he can think of in the short time available to him with predictable results. Of course, he is thought to be quite mad. He is arrested and eventually remanded to the very man he is attempting to stop. Serling was bright enough to let him return to the present, but is the present the same? This is kind of a precursor to "The Time Tunnel" where time travelers on a weekly basis were given the same task, overcoming what had already happened. Unfortunately, the implications of the distortion of time and the future always negate the result. Unless you have something like Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder." Like a great many twilight zone episodes, one of my favorite parts of this one was the overt social commentary that Serling is making with the story. As was the case with a recent episode "The Howling Man," I was reminded of my long standing suspicion that, for example, if Jesus were to come to earth to bring his followers to Heaven, he would be immediately judged insane and probably thrown into an asylum. Our main character in this episode meets a similar problem when trying to convince the 1860s Americans that he is from the future and the President Lincoln is about to be assassinated. The episode wrongly asserts that this means that some parts of the past can be changed while others can't, but it's a fun time travelling romp nonetheless.

Granted, we don't know for a fact whether history could be changed by time travel, because time travel has never been accomplished and, sadly, never will be. But it seems logical to me that, if you could physically place yourself in a time of the past, you could physically prevent something from happening, as long as you didn't flail around like a lunatic yelling about assassinations.

One of the consistently interesting things about time travel films and TV shows, in my opinion, is the method by which the time travel takes place. There is really no method at all here, our main character is having a conversation about time travel at a posh gentlemen's club and then walks outside and into a dissolve from the early 1960s to the mid 1860s, but no matter. The twilight zone has thus far not struck me for its complex sets or high production values.

Russell Johnson plays the part of Peter Corrigan, the time traveller, and upon discovering that he has been somehow transported back to the exact day of Lincoln's assassination, he manages to get himself thrown in prison, but luckily for him John Wilkes Booth, for some reason, just happened to be hanging out at the police station and overheard the frantic Corrigan desperately trying to describe the very assassination that Booth was planning for that night.

Booth requests custody of Corrigan for some psychiatric experimentation, and the police officer sees nothing wrong with relinquishing custody to this guy. He had a business card, after all, how bad could he be?

The show seems to suggest that you can change people's lives by slightly altering events in the past through time travel, and while I'm not willing to accept that time travel would include such limitations, it's still a fun episode that really makes you think, which is one of my favorite qualities of the good twilight zone shows... Being a fan of time travel stories I was surprised that there was no 'device' that sent Russell Johnson's character through time. He just appeared in 1865. It was a disappointing part of the episode. I enjoyed the premise of the dangers of 'altering' the future by changing the past. Other Twilight Zone episodes about time travel such as "No Time Like The Past", "Once Upon A Time", etc. were more to my liking because of the uses of time travel 'devices'. Perhaps if Russell Johnson's character had been the same character he played in "Execution" it would have been more acceptable to fans like myself. As sci-fi fans know, no characters really ever have to 'die' in time travel episodes. All sorts of plot 'twists' can be applied in these types of stories. That was the only flaw I could comment on for this episode. When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.

As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. "The Professor" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the "what if" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.

7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better. Aslan Adam, or Lionman as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with an epic battle as King Solomon & his army defeats a load of guys although I'm not sure who they were & the film itself isn't too helpful in establishing the fact. Anyway, after King Solomon has slaughtered all these guys Princess Maria, Bishop Osorio & Commander Antoine are forced to sign a treaty which lets King Solomon rule just about everything in sight. Soon after Princess Maria seduces Solomon & they have sex, meanwhile in the shortest wedding ceremony ever (just two sentences long) Antoine weds Princess Maria & is planning to rebel against Solomon & gain some sweet revenge in the process. Antoine & his guards attack & kill Solomon even though his pregnant wife Princess Almunia escapes with her protector Rostin with Antoine's guards in hot pursuit, after the shortest labour ever (less than 5 minutes or the time it takes to run around a bush) Princess Almunia gives birth to a young baby boy who is hidden in some bushes away from Antoine's guards. Unfortunately when Rostin tries to retrieve the little fella he finds that the baby has been adopted by a pride of Lion's as one of their own! Year's later & the evil Antoine now rules treating his subjects with no mercy, Princess Maria has given birth & he has a son but Rostin is also still kicking around trying to put together a gang of rebels to overthrow Antoine, the task seems hopeless unless they can enlist the help of the legendary Lionman who is more beast than man...

This Turkish Greek co-production was directed by Natuk Baytan as Natuch Baitan & is a one of a kind type of film, I found it hilariously bad but at the same time immensely entertaining. The script never seems to take itself seriously, it is a pretty funny film at times, it moves along like a rocket & is never dull or boring & some of the English dubbed dialogue is just hilarious in context with what's happening on screen. None of it makes any sense, we get a boy raised by Lion's, an evil king, betrayal, dark family secrets, birthmarks that form the shape of Lion's in an element of the story that was present before the kid was raised by Lion's, crazy fight scenes, torture scenes where the posts people are supposed to be tied to wobble, ancient castle interiors that randomly contain zip wires & gymnastic rings, idiotic bad guys who all seem to have extensive facial hair & a central character who has a jaw line resembling a house-brick, can be stabbed twice, have his hands covered in acid (this acid can eat it's way through steel trapdoors but is kept in a ceramic jug!) & fall over 20 feet onto a concrete floor & yet maintain no serious injury! Aslan Adam is a terrifically entertaining film, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it that I can compare it too, if your looking for something serious then forget this but if you like 'so-bad-they're-good' type films & want to have fun, laugh & be entertained then Aslan Adam should be at the VERY top of your list. Total 100% gold for bad film fans & those with a taste for the different & bizarre. On the disappointing side Lionman only gets his steel claws 10 minutes before the end which is a shame.

Director Bayten certainly keeps things moving along at a brisk pace although it's far from well made, during the opening battle one moment guys are fighting on a sand dune the next their on a grassy hill with trees in the background! There is one point where Lionman uses a 'branch' to pole vault but it's obviously just a long tube with a vine wrapped around it! Then there's the scene when a bloodthirsty pack of bloodhounds are supposed the chasing Lionman down but the dogs used are obviously different breeds including some of the most harmless looking dogs ever! There are just so many individual scenes in Aslan Adam that are just hilarious, stupid, bizarre or all three that I could go on forever. Just check the ending out when Lionman is jumping & flying about everywhere like he can fly. There's lots of blood in Aslan Adam although not much actual graphic gore or violence, a few stabbings & someone has their hands cut off is as graphic as it gets.

Technically Aslan Adam is pretty ropey, the period costumes are bright & garish featuring purples, yellows, reds & various other bright colours. The fight scenes are cheap but at least the filmmakers tried to put as much action in as they could. The music seemed like it was more suited to a classical ballet rather than an action film & is yet another bizarre aspect to Aslan Adam. The acting was bad, even dubbed you could tell the acting was bad.

Aslan Adam is pure gold from start to finish, there are so many things to like, laugh at & enjoy in this film that I just ended up really liking it. In no way whatsoever can Aslan Adam be considered a good film in any sense of the word but it's one hell of an entertaining one. I may have have to watch this one again sometime soon just to prove to myself that I didn't dream it all! The best Turkish action film about a man raised by Lion's you will ever see, period. Proved popular enough to spawn a sequel, Lionman II: The Witchqueen (1979). Hilarious film, I had a great time watching it. The star (Cuneyt Arkin, sometimes credited as Steve Arkin) is a popular actor from Turkey. He has played in lots of tough-guy roles, epic-sword films, and romances. It was fun to see him with an international cast and some real lousy looking pair of gloves. If I remember it was also dubbed in English which made things even more funnier. (kinda like seeing John Wayne speak Turkish). Where do I begin? Walt Disney's happiest motion picture "Lady and the Tramp" is one of, if not possibly, my favourite in the theatrical canon of Disney animation. The sequel, however, is... to say the very least, enjoyable. I enjoyed myself throughout the whole movie. It was, (flame-shield up!) adorable! The Broadway style of the songs and the movie kind of worked, and I was humming the songs for the rest of the night. I can, if you asked me to, still sing all of the songs.

But where the movie was (really) good for me, it was bad in a lot of other places. The animation was kind of scary at times. Every time there was a close up shot of someones face, I don't know... it just seemed scary to me. Also, where the hell was Lady? She gets like two lines of dialogue and only doggy hugs Scamp at the end. She gets 0% interaction with the plot and her only son!

But all in all, I liked it. Compared to the original does it hold up? No. The songs aren't as good (still kind of catchy though), the plot was a lot less involved, Lady had almost nothing to do with it, and it's not as cute as the first one. But, if you go in with an open mind, you'll have fun, and maybe 'gasp!' Like it? Well, first of all, it's not a bad movie. It is good, and I like the characters introduced. I also like Lady and Tramp's voices more in this.

However, I would like to see Lady And Tramp more. I know it says 'Scamp's Adventure', and I love Scamp And Angel to bits, but it's a sequel to the original, where in my opinion, they should of just released it as 'Scamp's Adventure', not 'Lady And The Tramp II:Scamp's Adventure'.

Tramp did have quite a role, but he didn't have much time with Lady.

But anyway, the songs are quite good, and Scamp and Angel are sweet. I've seen better sequels, but hey, it's not a failure.

I give it 7/10. Very good, but still had flaws. Another good animation from Disney. Sequels are not always that great and tend to follow the same plot as the original. However, the son of Tramp tries to savor the world out side the home and family he knows and learns where he actually belongs. Being a junkyard dog is not for everyone, er dog that is, but Scamp overcomes adversity. The voices of the various characters were superb and provided by several well know actors such as Scott Wolf, Alyssa Milano and Mickey Rooney. Entertaining and a well made family movie. I thought that this is a wonderfully written movie. I love little Scamp, and the street-wise Angel. This movie is very easy for little kids to understand, but a good movie for adults as well. I liked this movie because it continues the original Lady and the Tramp, and that movie is a classic. Lady and the Tramp 2 Scamp's Adventure was filled with new characters, catchy songs, brilliant animation, and unforgettable classic characters. I have loved the movie ever since I saw it for the first time. I also loved how they showed the different personalities of each character. It also shows the downfalls and good things of making new friends that you can hang out with. My favorite song in the movie was Always there because it showed the different characters sharing their views on how they feel. I definitely recommend this movie for everyone that was a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp. This movie is excellent!Angel is beautiful and Scamp is adorable!His little yelps when hes scared,and the funniest parts are when:Scamp is caught under the curtain and when Angel and Scamp are singing 'Ive Never Had This Feeling Before'.I totally recommend this movie,its coming out on special edition on June 20.The cover has scamp on a garbage can and Angel underneath the lid.

I just cant explain this movie more than romantic,charming,hilarious,and adorable.The junkyard scenes are funny,all the junkyard dogs have something special.Too funny i laughed,kids will LOVE it.Buy it when it comes out,it has new features! *minor spoilers*

You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent ("Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" and the fantastic "Lion King II: Simba's Pride") to horrible ("The Return of Jafar"). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. "Scamp's adventure," and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.

The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and "Ol' Reliable," and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)

I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.

The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.

All in all, while "Scamp's Adventure" is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.

Lady and the tramp ii: scamp's adventure i think is a good movie but i think the first lady and the tramp movie is better because it is the original and i would think that the original movies compared to the sequeals is better. Lady and the tramp ii takes off after the original, but this time it's junior's turn, Lady and Tramp's youngster (scamp) always hates been treated with the things that has to be done with him, following the rules in the house, taking baths all the time and taking things nice and easy, scamp gets angry and runs away with a pack of dogs that are left off the loose. Scamp meets another dog called Angel, they both get along fine and do the things scamp's mother and father did, having an italian meal (Spagetthi and Meatballs etc:)Afterwards, Scamp realises that he is loved by his family especial his pal, which is the baby, scamp comes back and Angel is joined in the family. I give this movie 10 out of 10. Since watching the trailer in "The Little Mermaid II: Return To The Sea" DVD, I had a feeling that this movie is gonna be great 'cause I am a huge Disney fan. And guess what? I'm right! This movie is a very worthy successor to the original classic "Lady and the Tramp".

It tells the story of Scamp, Lady and Tramp's mischievious son Scamp, who wants to be wild and free instead of living a housedog life. Though the movie might not be as good as the first one, it has a great moral that you couldn't find anywhere else until you watch it.

I admit that the movie isn't for everyone, but those of you who hate it, all I can say is that you don't have a spirit for this and I suggest that you shouldn't go see it again. But hey! It's really an awesome story, packed with brilliant animation, music, and star-studded voice talents featuring Scott Wolf(Party of Five) and Alyssa Milano(Charmed). So if you haven't seen the movie, why standing there? Go and grab the copy!!! I loved this film almost as much as the origional version!What teenager DOESN'T go through what Scamp's going through;wanting to find independence by getting more and more distant from your family?The songs were nice to,and the character designs were great.Lady and Tramp look almost exactly like they did in the origional feature.They did a good job on the voices of those two,too considering the fact that the origional voice actors are probably dead.However,I do think they should've given more lines to Lady,Annette,Colette,and Daniel.Oh well;at least they had the common sense to keep the same scenery from the original film. Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is a cool movie that many kids today can really relate to. It's a well-presented story about a kid who longs for the freedom to do things his way, and how he goes about getting this freedom is only a part of what makes this film interesting. Just forget the itty-bitty disappointments, like the fact that there were only adults in this movie based on a pup's point of view, because that's just 0.5% or less of the movie's wonderful effect on the viewer. Great music, lively acting, talented animation and directing, and a powerful storyline tell a tale of the difference between freedom on the streets of New England and a cozy home with your family. And that no matter how bad things seem, your family and friends are "always there" to help you though any tight spot.

I can't wait to get the soundtrack! Lady and the Tramp II is very colourfully animated, and the songs, especially that of the Junkyard Dogs, are quite good. However, the family seems even too idyllic, and I can't help understanding that Scamp is discontented when everything is forbidden. However, I also pity Angel who never has had a loving family until she meets Jim dear and Darling.

In any case, it's clear that the original Lady and the Tramp is better than this sequel. I am a college student and I bought this movie at a used book store because it sounded really funny from the back description. Nothing would prepare me for what would be the FUNNIEST MOVIE EVER MADE!

It is especially good to watch if you are an Atheist, like me. Because then you can see how silly these Christian people are. They seem to think non-believers like to live in really disgusting, messy houses and do nothing but drink beer and be mean to the neighbors. It's a LAUGH RIOT!

My buddies and I watch it every couple of weeks so that we may be entertained beyond our wildest imaginations! See this movie NOW!

Let's hope Rich Christiano makes some more of these movies to entertain us heathens! This movie is apparently intended for a young, evangelical Christian audience as a teaching tool. For that I give it a 7 out of 10 point vote. It's a decent movie to show a youth group, but I don't think it will be very well received beyond that. For any other audience, I'd rate it lots lower.

The reviewers that saw "It's a Wonderful Life" in this were right on, though I didn't think of that until they mentioned it. I was more reminded of a "Chick Tract", those little 3" by 5" gospel comic books. If Jack Chick ever made a movie out of one of his tracts, it would probably look a lot like "Second Glance." It has a strong Christian message about the power of prayer and the influence each of us has on earth, but it is somewhat hampered by Christian stereotypes. The Christians are all very nice, somewhat passive, and squeaky clean, while all of the non-Christians seem to be bad people.

Muriel the angel plays a major part, and he is the corniest, cheesiest character in the film. He is the most unlikeable angel I have ever seen in any movie, and the biggest negative. I don't know if the directors intended for his personality to come off so badly, or if he just struck me that way. (I admit that he reminded me of someone I know.) Dan's love for a very worldly girl who is not at all his type drives the plot in this movie. Why he ever fell for her in the first place is the one question that I wish had been answered.

But the movie does display positive Christian values, and your youth group will be entertained as they view something wholesome with a good lesson. This film is about a teen who is struggling with his social status in school. He is a "Good Christian" and feels that he is missing out on all the fun in high school. So he wishes he had never become one. After getting his wish and trying a worldly lifestyle he realizes that his quality of life has been dramatically diminished and wants to go back to being the person that he was. Good family-oriented film with a positive message of being proud of who you are even if you're not the most popular. Dan Burgess is a nice guy. He happens to be a Christian. Dan can't get a date with a girl and thinks that all of his friends are having all of the fun. He is constantly being bothered by non-believers and being made fun of.

Dan prays one night, and wishes he was never a believer in Jesus.

His prayer is answered for one day. Things get hairy from there. An angel appears to Dan and explains his prayer is granted.

So, all of the impact that Dan has had on starting a Christian club.

He be-friends Scot Parks and making a difference, is erased for one day.

Dan's eyes are opened. His life really did make a difference. Way too many Christian films become centered around the fear of the Judgment, and as a result come across as condescending and indeliberately cheesy. "Second Glance" gets it right. This is a near perfect evangelical tool; it deals with the real reason why so many young people want nothing to do with Christianity. It assures viewers that one must give up their sin--not their fun--to succeed in the Christian lifestyle. "Second Glance" even works as a piece of film-making. The filmmakers obviously were working on a very low budget, but they managed to write a script dynamic enough to divert viewers' attention from this obvious fact. This film brought me to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and thanks to Christian stations everywhere which show it, it surely has impacted more people than just me. This is one of those films that looks so "dated" that being that way is part of the fun. You see and hear things you would NEVER see or hear on the silver screen today. Some of that is good; some it too corny for words, some of it bad (depending on your viewpoints on certain cultural issues.)

For instance, in this short (68 minutes) 1931 film you have:

The grandpa of the family that is featured in this story extolling the value of patriotism and why one should speak up against criminals for the good of the United States (picture that in today's films!)

A district attorney (Walter Huston) almost begging for death penalty sentences and the populace shown as supporting it 100 percent (once again, picture that in modern-day movies.)

Along the way you have some shocking violence, such as a young boy being picked up a few times and literally thrown head first into a closet, and his father being picked up and swung repeatedly head-first into a wall. This is a tough stuff, to say the least.

Yet the film is dotted with comedy, mostly by the patriotic grandpa, memorably played by Charles "Chic" Sales. There are a bunch of laughs for all those who view this unique crime film. And, for soft touches, there are the two young boys, one of whom - Dickie Moore - went on to become a pretty famous child actor in his day. Here, he is just a little tyke of about 5 years of age who, understandably, is far from being a polished actor, but you can see stardom for him on the horizon. In fact, he did just that the following year with a solid performance in "Blonde Venus," starring Marlene Dietrich.

Anyway, this is an entertaining film because of an effective mixture of violence, comedy and sentimentality....and it has a nice feel-good ending and a thought-provoking message. It was up for an Academy Award, too, for "Best Writing, Original Story." I am sorry to say it is only available for viewing on cable TV as it has never been put out on VHS or DVD.....and that's a shame. This film, an early William Wellman, has an important message, particularly today. It posits the notion that sometimes there are things more important than your own personal safty or well-being. The film, which has Walter Huston as the lead, is stolen by the performance of "Chic" Sales as Grampa. He's the most completely drawn character in the film and a joy to watch. You'll recognize some familiar faces if you watch many movies from the '20's and '30's. Wel worh your time to watch if you get the opportunity. Recommended. Charles "Chic" Sales is absolutely terrific as the sole member of the Leeds family willing to testify against a gangster they saw murder a policeman and an informant. He fought at Bull Run in the Civil War and his patriotism runs high, even after his son-in-law is beaten and one of his grandson's is kidnapped by the gang, intimidating all the other members. Fear of his grandson's death is no excuse, he says. He wouldn't want his grandson living in a country run by gangsters anyway. The conflict between civic duty and personal safety is driven home sharply in this Oscar-nominated story. Walter Huston is also a standout as the hard driving district attorney threatening the family with perjury if they don't back up their identification of the killer in court. The rest of the cast, including the sleazy killer, Ralph Ince, are all excellent, and the film is snappily directed by William A. Wellman. There's also good suspense, as Sales disappears just as the trial is about to begin. ...Our the grandpa's hour.

More than the gangsters ,it's a detailed depiction of an American family circa 1930:the father,proud of his job who worries about his son who's given up high school,the mum everyone would like to have ,the daughter who forgets dinner time in his squeeze's arms,and the twins who are absolutely lovable ("Don't go to sleep first ,please!").

And there's the grandfather ,playing the Yankee doodle on his flute .Have you noticed that this tune plays the same role as Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera" in Hitchcock's "The man who knew too much" (1956)?And there's this grandpa who is finally the most courageous person of the family .So old he does not even tell you his age ,but proud of his country and resisting to the gangster's hateful blackmail.

A good film by Wellman. SPOILERS AHEAD— For the first ten minutes or so of Star Witness we're introduced to a quote typical urban American family unquote in a nameless city, which is another way of saying Warner Brothers' version of NYC. Except for the young children, including the charming Dickie Moore, and sprightly Sally Blane, they're a pretty dreary lot, and their dinner table conversation is tedious and we wish the story would move along and bring in the star, Walter Huston. But wait, folks, wait. All of a sudden serious gangster movie action breaks out, drawing the family in against their will, and after that this baby never lets up. There's suspense, an Oscar-nominated script, good acting; everything you want old movies to be—it is here. I do question Chic Sales performance; he must be an acquired taste, but his presence turns out to be crucial to the plot. He's treated to special status in the credits, so Warner Bros. must have really been high on Sale, but how his corny old man routine fit in with the public then is something lost to me. Perhaps it is lost to time period, an unknowable factor you had to be a 1931 moviegoer to understand. Also, the climax is typically melodramatic. Nevertheless, this right now is the best release of the studio that year I have seen so far (however, I've only seen eight, so perhaps that's an inconclusive view). Do not miss this when TCM shows it. 8 out of 10. FOLLOWING the business coup of the year of 1941, Max and Dave, the Brothers Fleischer were removed from their own Studio by Paramount Pictures Corporation. Former employees such as Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber were put in charge of the new operation, now renamed Famous Studios by Paramount. Early on, the finished product of Famous was indiscernible from that of the recent output by Fleischer. The existing series (Popeye, Superman) continued as if nothing at all had transpired.

TODAY'S subject, JAPOTEURS is one of the earlier Famous Studio's SUPERMAN Shorts.

AS had been the custom, the SUPERMAN Cartoons were a great combination of fine, fittingly fashioned music in the score. That goes for the theme (overture) as well as all the multi-mood background (incidental) music. It was if each cartoon short had its own background music, as all was kept fresh by apparently recording it anew with each picture.

WITH regards to JAPOTEURS, we must remember that this was filmed during the first year of the United States' involvement and the characterization of the enemy was very stereotypical, short-handed and outright evil. The dialogue and personality of the villainous Japanese saboteurs was strictly from the stock characters of the old pulp magazine stories, with their every word being said in a sarcastic, totally insincere politeness as the characters would flaunt their cold bloodedness as they made the most demonic of threats and outrageous acts toward the occidental world.

JAPOTEURS is visually bright and uplifting, stunningly laid out and makes use of some multi plane or table top animation in order to give its flying sequences a real depth.

MAKING good use of the tie-ins between the animated cartoons, the SUPERMAN Radio Show then heard over the Mutual Broadcasting Network; the cartoon bears a close resemblance to the Comics Page and uses the very same talents of voice actors Bud Collyer and Joan Alexander from the Radio Show.

WE rate it with a *** ½ stars.

POODLE SCHNITZ!! A SUPERMAN Cartoon.

When America unveils its colossal new bomber, the JAPOTEURS, an elite force of Japanese spies & saboteurs, strikes. Stealing the behemoth, with intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane aboard, and the destination either Tokyo or destruction, it's time for Superman to get involved...

This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts. Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane. In WWII, America has developed a brand-new HUGE bomber plane. Lois Lane and Clark Kent go to cover the story when the plane is going on its first mission. Lois stows away on the plane before it takes off. There are also some Japanese saboteurs on board who have every intention of flying the bomber to Tokyo. Will Lois be able to warn Superman? What do you think?

Fast-moving, colorful cartoon. The animation is a little jerky but much better than anything we see today. The color and sound have been beautifully restored. Just two problems--the lousy music score and the racism (especially in the title). That aside this is pretty good. An 8. This documentary is absolutely fantastic. I was really astonished that you can make with so less money such amazing fx. Especially the scenes of the birth of the Diplodocus babies or the sad story of the big flying dinosaur were wonderful and breathtaking. Well the only flaw was: It was to short!! Great "documentary" of how scientist's believed dinosaurs behaved, captured with some of the most spectacular CGI since "Jurassic Park". Done completely seriously, like a prehistoric episode of "Nation Geographic". Grabs your attention from the first frame and never lets go. My favorite part was when the Diplodocus fights off the Allosauros.

10 stars. This is what science is all about. We bought the DVD of "Walking with Dinosaurs" and have been nearly ecstatic over the things that are done so very well on it.

Many DVDs today offer the bare minimum ... the feature itself, and maybe one other language (which doesn't help the viewer at all, but makes it easier for the company to see the DVD in multiple markets).

Not so in the case of WWD. There are so many wonderful extras and well-thought-out vignettes that watching even the *navigation menu* is interesting. The intros to each chapter in "The Making Of" DVD are laugh-out-loud funny. The quality of the sound and video is terrific. And of course the story and content ... what more could a dinosaur lover ask for?

I did watch most of the version broadcast on TDC (narrated by Avery Brooks) then watched about half of the DVD (narrated by Kenneth Branaugh). As near as I can tell, the broadcast version slipped in a number of mostly American slang terms in the narration (i.e. in a section about T. Rex mating, Branugh says "the female is tiring of the male's attention" and Brooks says, "The honeymoon is over")and cut out some of the closer-in puppet work. I prefer the Branugh version simply because it is more complete.

Overall, a great value and wonderful production. many kudos to the BBC and the crew that made this gem. Walking With Dinoasaurs is a new and exciting programme that uses amazing visual graphics to display the living dinosaurs. The information presented here is stunning. The moods in the series alter to get your attention, things such as dramatic music when fights break out. There is clear evidence here for one cracking documentary! My greatest thanx to the writers, directors and producers, and not forgetting the other people involved. If you stumble accross this video in shops I suggest you buy it not just for the graphics, but for the extreme efforts and productive work the series has to offer. 10/10 This is as good as it gets.

This is six episodes tracing (briefly) what life may have been like when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Done in the style of a nature documentary this show does away with talking heads instead just gives us the good stuff with the dinosaurs attempting to survive.

Certainly this isn't a true documentary since none of what we see on screen can be attested to with any certainty, but its a best guess, and an entertaining one at that. Here is a show that brings dinosaurs to life in a realistic way that doesn't involve them eating people. This is a show that should be shown to any kid who loves dinosaurs since it will instill them with the OH WOW factor to go out and find out more. It will also entertain the hell out of them, and you.

See this. If you love animal shows or nature or science or Disney True Life Adventures (except no one really gets killed) or just a really good trip to somewhere else run out and get yourself a copy. Your brain will thank you. If you haven't seen this yet, you really should, on DVD. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it! It is amazingly realistic and believable. True, much of it is speculated, and I would have liked to have known more about what was speculative and what were proven facts (there aren't many of them), but it handles everything quite well with a "Cruel Mother Nature" theme. It will remind you of the nature programs that you've seen on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, only the animals here are Dinosaurs. They act natural; they eat, kill, mate, play, and fight for survival. You will actually find yourself rooting for some of them and against others.

For the most part, the effects are excellent. At times they will look a little too much like CGI's, but then you will see them in a different angle that makes them look more realistic. In some cases, you will actually be convinced that you've seen a dinosaur. My favorites were the Coelophysis, the raptors, the diplodocus, the iguanadons, the allosaurus and the arctic bipeds. I was most disappointed with the T-Rex, however, which looked a little too computer generated at times.

In any case, you should definitely see this production. It is educational, well made, and very entertaining. For what it is, its an A! When Jurassic Park first came out, it was revolutionary in filmaking and special effects.For the first ever time people cold go to a dinosaur movie and be convinced they were looking at real dinosaurs brought to life.However whilst some dinosaurs were almost perfect examples of what the real creatures could have been like (T.Rex,Brachiosaurus,Triceratops etc)some were altered to fit the movie(Velociraptor,Dilophosaurus)and the film took place n the present on a tropical island where they were not in their natural habitat. Walking With Dinosaurs shows us the real animals in their real habitats all those millions of years ago. The amount of detail and scientific information used in this is great. Now we can view sights such as a grim Triassic desert,a whole herd of Diplodocus, an Icthyosaur give birth, a MASSIVE sea monster, a pterosaurs eye-view,dinosaurs thriving in the South Pole, two Torosaurus lock horns,T.Rex roaring at the camera and the impact of the comet that spelled their doom. These dinosaurs walk,run,feed,fight,breed,hunt and swim. But the series also reveals the other creatures that they shared the world with,two episodes are mainly focused on two different kinds of animals, the flying Pterosaurs and the marine reptiles that lived beneath the waves. The locations and scenery are spectacular and look all the more unique when a CG Dino walks onto screen. And as for the CGI and animatronics, the movements of the CGI dinosaurs look totally and completely natural,the colouring is bright and vivid and the crewmen have taken careful steps to ensure that the CG animals interact with their environments in any way an actual creature would by making splashes in the water,brushing by bushes, kicking up dust and casting shadows on the ground. Admittedly the CG isn't perfect with a few brief instances where the animals look too computery but the rest of the time it looks breathtaking. The puppetry is poor in some cases but it has its moments particularly the scene with the Cynodonts in the first episode. The narration by Kenneth Branagh is pretty good as well giving us vital bits of information and drama at the same time. But of course the true pleasure is seeing a living dinosaur doing what they did all those years ago and also seeing some truly cute moments with Cynodont(mammal/reptile hybrid)pups,Sauropodlets(baby Diplodocus)and T.Rex chicks(Yes even T.Rex can be cute)and then reminds us that nature can be brutal and was even more so back then. All this adds up to a prehistoric nature masterpiece that lets you see a real dinosaur and take your breath away, all from the safety of your living room. If you like nature, Dinosaurs, informative learning, amazing visuals or just to have a truly good viewing and be entertained then Walking With Dinosaurs is definitely for you. Easily recommended. This BBC series is excellent. I am no Paleontologist, but this series gives the best historical representation of dinosaurs I have ever seen. The 3D animation and animatronics are very good and make you believe you have travelled back in time. The BBC deserves a pat on the back for such a fine series as well as Tim Haines who must have spent a great deal of time getting this series to air. For those that are great fans and collectors of dinosaurs like I am, it is not only a very informative series but also puts our imagination to fly. Colors, composition, great models and camera angles. Fantastic photography and filming presentation. Superb. Thanks. I saw this series in 1999 in London TV and was blown away. Like another user commented - This is what i would have liked to see when i first watched "Jurassic Park" - Life and death of Dinosaurs in their natural habitat as a documentary. The CG are very lifelike, and the diversity of dinosaurs and habitats shown makes it also very educational.

The series takes everything factually known about dinosaurs, adds a lot of good ideas on "what it could have been" to make up what then looks like a documentary series. What i missed was some small bar-graph constantly in one corner of the screen, moving between "fiction" and "fact" along with the narration and the pictures, because you often wonder how much is educated guessing, and how much is pure fantasy.

To some clues on facts & fiction, you have to see the 50 minute "Making Of", which is not only very educational about the CG process and collecting and including the paleontologists knowledge into the series, but which also is very funny (Dinosaurs smoking cigarettes and complaining about CG animators).

I highly recommend to watch this series before going into the upcoming Disney Dinosaur movie or watching any Jurassic Park (like) movie again. It will surely make you much more critical towards those movies. The Disney Trailers looked especially bad. As John Grierson pointed out: "The documentary genre can be defined like this: the creative interpretation of reality"

This fabulous 180-minute documentary marks the first time a computer-generated project about dinosaurs respects the intelligence of the viewer.

When I saw Jurassic Park, which I was expecting with great excitement, I was left extremely disappointed. Of course the dinosaurs were great, but the story-telling was unnecessary. I thought: "What if they made a documentary on dinosaurs, with no crying children or bad puns, just dinosaurs made as realistic as possible, to let us marvel at what was once reality."

My dream came true. The BBC has produced an exhilarating documentary exploring the different eras of the dinosaurs.

This part is to all the people that seem to disagree with the fact that they had to guess at many points concerning the behavior, skin patterns etc: Of course they have to. Nobody was there. I think it is fantastic that they could present something as realistic as that. The guessings are all based on the knowings of many paleontologists, and it allows the viewer to have a pretty good idea of what it was like. If you wanna stick to what we know for sure, then just go visit a dinosaur bones museum. That is why I incorporated the Grierson quote at the beginning of this comment.

Anyway, hats off to the creators of it. and quite frankly that just sums it up.

It is a small computer animated series that is filmed just like an animal documentory....

The animation is almost flawless (I thought the long necked swimming dinosaurs eyes looked fake).

However some of the model shots didn't look quite that realistic...

and I thought that Jurrassic park made a better T Rex..

If this is the type of thing we see on a normal British TV series then I cannot wait to see what they can accomplish in the movies..

I give this 10/10 stars...

(and the "making of" video was also great.....the dinosaur on the skate board was halarious)

<..> "Walking with Dinosaurs" is absolutely brilliant in every regard. Kenneth Branagh narrates in a way that really makes you want to listen. The script for the documentary really sounds as though the researchers and writers had done their homework, it is so insightful and it does get you hooked and never lets go. The music is also brilliant, very dramatic when it needs to be. But the visual effects and scenery are what makes this documentary work so well. The scenery is breathtaking, and the dinosaurs look so real, thanks to the simply astounding effects. This is so informative with such a good concept and attracts not only adults but kids too.

In conclusion, this is a must watch. Not only did I love this, but this is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. If anything, it could have done with being longer, other than that this is perfect. 10/10 Bethany Cox I wanted to love this movie. Everything seemed to be in place for an enjoyable, if not groundbreaking, film. It was set in southern France, good-looking and recognizable actors led the cast, and I really admired the vibrant African costumes, the proverbs and music. Despite all this, I didn't love it. Movies are supposed to convey their meaning at the first viewing, but "Secret Laughter" doesn't do that. Nimi and Matthew, as played by Long and Firth (both of whom have played romantic leads before and should have known better), radiate as much warmth and passion as dried fish. I used 'dried fish' deliberately, because it was one of a few - too few - strong lines and moments sprinkled throughout the film. Another winner was when Nimi catches Matthew snooping around her apartment. He finds a book of hers with her first name written on it and says: "Your name is Nimi. I never knew." Then he insists that she call him by his Christian name. I watched this scene intently as Matthew asked Nimi over and over to "say my name", realizing that up until that moment, they always called each other by their last names. I thought this was a turning point for the film, and expected that it get better. It didn't. Why do Nimi and Matthew always seem to stand at ten paces, even in that "say my name" scene? What does Matthew like about Nimi, aside from her obvious beauty? And why would a sensible woman like Nimi fall for a comic book writer who regards his marriage as something he can put on hold when a beautiful exotic 'adventure' comes along? And I'd like to add that it was a little hard for me to get behind a romance built on adultery. Yes, Jenny is a vicious harpy, but if I were in her shoes, but I'd probably match her Cruella tactics to stop my husband from straying. Believe it. The story hints at Nimi's painful past, but never fully explores it. Some critics say Firth seemed a little awkward here, and I agree. For goodness sake, the actor summoned more palpable longing and passion as that early 19th-century snob Mr. Darcy (and while wearing those hideous britches)! As for Long, who did shine in 'Love Jones', there were times when she seemed to concentrate more on her accent than playing her character. Even so, there were many moments – the 'say my name' scene among them – when she was in total control and came across really well. Yet, 'Secret Laughter' is not without its redeeming qualities, and I've found that it grew on me with more viewings. Nene was well portrayed as supportive and well-meaning, even if she doesn't fully understand Nimi's attraction to Matthew. I absolutely loved it when Nene faced off with Mama Fola in those dueling proverbs scenes. My husband liked it, and usually he's the first to sigh and throw insults at the screen if he doesn't like what is going on. He even chuckled at the scene when Sammy asked Matthew some very frank questions about sex. So there you have it. 'Secret Laughter' was good enough to entertain an avowed curmudgeon like my hubby, but an avid moviegoer like myself will need more than one viewing to appreciate what the director and writer were trying to convey. Man this movie is awesome especially the part they show the Italian chick damn shes incredibly hot shes not your average Italian. Mna i would go see that movie over and over just to see that chick. i really enjoyed the movie really hot girl shes steamy sexy. also the actor are really good but the girl is better. I think the actor played a better part in pride and prejudice so i don't think he acted in his highest level but yeah back to the girl i mean shes gorgeous perfect and i could only wish her luck in her future movies yeah also her acting skills in such young age was awesome i was just amazed Wit her performance. what a great actress so yeah i recommend everybody this great movie If you watched this film for the nudity (as I did) you won't be disappointed. I could have done without the bumbling crooks or the bear though. Some bottomless nudity could have be shown but for what it was I think H.O.T.S. has to be the best of its genre.

It is not the sort of film that could have been made today which is a pity because it is the sort of film that is worth watching in these times.

I would take mindless nudity over pivotal plot points any day.

It is a shame that the DVD doesn't have any extras but as they didn't have DVDs when this was filmed that is understandable. I would have like to know more about the shooting of the film especially where they shot the football match at the end. I'm grading this film on a curve, in other words, it isn't the greatest film that has ever been made but it does exactly what it set out to do. This is an excellent T&A film. I have no idea the count of how many T's or A's were seen in this film but I did see one shot that had 16 bare T's at one time, just to give you an idea. There are topless girls all throughout. There is a wet T-shirt contest scene. And the climax involves a game of touch football between two all-girl teams and every time one scores a touchdown the entire opposing team losing a piece of clothes. I don't know why this gets such a low rating here. Perhaps the people who gave it low scores thought they were going to see Citizen Kane. I love this movie and hope to find more similar ones. If you are looking for a GOOD campy T&A film I'd recommend this one. Topless touch football!! A wet t-shirt contest!! A jockstrap raid!! This "SheAnimal House" has it all. Except a plot and good actors. The film consists of several pranks and catfights between the H.O.T.S. girls and the bitchy PI house. The dialouge is a scream and the soundtrack is sublimely brilliant. Over the past couple of months it's been popping up all over cable, so do yourself a favor and watch out for it. H.O.T.S. is so bad it's good! This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity! H.O.T.S. is a fun film for a trip back to when skin flicks had a more positive fun-filled agenda. They were made simply to titillate and have a few laughs. Everything seems less cynical and jaded. The girls all have natural figures and some are Playboy playmates. The simple plot deals with a group of young women who open a non-sanctioned sorority house to get back at the snooty sorority girls who spurned and insulted them. Instead of the mean spirited tricks of today, most of the hijinks are simply innocent fun. The women are decent actresses for this genre and are mostly very attractive. To keep our attention between the topless scenes, we have mafia henchmen, a stolen bear, a hot air balloon, a funky house mother, and the cheapest robot ever seen. There's even Danny Bonnaducci of the Partridge Family. If you have a sense of humor then let yourself go and enjoy some light entertainment. I remember hearing about this movie and how it played at nearly every drive-in theatre here in Toronto. It's about a group of girls that are not accepted by the other sororities at their college, so they start up their own, and of course call it H.O.T.S. It's a fun movie, that is just bursting with drive-in nostalgia! Lots of fully endowed t-shirts, vans, fighting, and a football game showdown like no other! It's been compared to "Animal House", which is a good movie in it's own right, but to me nothing compares to H.O.T.S. It has it's own brand of fun & character. If you are looking for a classic T n'A movie, look no further because the H.O.T.S. girls are to the rescue, boom-boom shorts & all! H.O.T.S. is proof that at one time, the movie industry said "F-OFF" to the censors, and made movies with whatever they wanted! In today's world, this movie would be too "over the top" and "extreme" for it to be anywhere than behind a velvet curtain. Although, BestBuy had several copies on their $5.99 rack (in case anyone wanted to get a copy)! The movie was brilliant in its own way, in that it blended humor into a T&A movie loaded with Playboy Playmates! Unlike most skin flicks, it did have a plot. That, however, is not exactly why you would watch H.O.T.S.

H.O.T.S. is a college movie that reminds me of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, in that it takes a group of "average people" and puts them against the elite rich preppies that most people can't stand! The only difference is that the "Nerds" in this movie have a much better shot at getting laid! I notice that there are some people who would rate this movie low, and to me that is ignorant! Obviously this is not intended to win Oscars or break barriers in film. If you are looking for that, then go watch what ever the critics pick for you! You have to appreciate the fact that this movie actually had a funny plot, decent acting (for the most part given the genre), and plenty of girls getting naked! H.O.T.S. is one of those movies you watch to get your mind off of modern day problems and daily stress, and instead, laugh and have a good time! If you are looking for a funny college-based movie that has enough skin to turn a pink Miata straight, then you should really check out H.O.T.S.! This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity! It's not Citizen Kane, but it does deliver. Cleavage, and lots of it.

Badly acted and directed, poorly scripted. Who cares? I didn't watch it for the dialog. I gave this a 10 because it's the best film of its kind...a good old-fashioned T & A film in the shadow and spirit of "Animal House." I saw this with a similar film called "Swap Meet" and both were good of their type...a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Let's be honest...there are more breasts in this movie than one could imagine for an R-rated movie. From beginning to end, they just seem to keep showing up on screen (sunbathing scenes, bedroom scenes and, of course, the climactic football game). Also, a memorable kissing booth (kiss me, Clutz!) Everybody seems to be having a good time in their roles (several Playboy Playmates, Danny Bonaduce, several familiar TV and movie actors, etc.). The only complaint I have to register is that Lisa London's character is called by her last name "O'Hara" and not a good 1970s name like "Olivia" (or even Ora or Ona or O...??!!). I saw this again in the late 1980s with my now ex-wife (pretty well endowed herself) and she couldn't believe I was actually enjoying the movie!! She was probably jealous!! Again, this movie is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon...just don't think too hard! This picture was released in May of 1979 starring Playboy Playmate Susan Kiger as Honey Shayne, Playboy Playmate Lisa London as O'Hara and Playboy Playmate Pamela Jean Bryant as Terri Lynn. In one of the most delicious sec comedies in drive-in history a bevy of bouncing young lovelies all come together in a tale of battling bikinied sorority sisters who will stop at nothing to bare everything. So what does H.O.T.S really stand for? You're going to have to watch the movie to get the answer. You see, the girls are having there problems with the society girls on campus that make them out to be nothing but sex craved maniacs. Therefore, the girls set out to discredit the society girls no matter what they have to do to get the job done. In addition, cut up in this mess is the Dean of the college who wants to dismantle the group of girls before they grow out of control. I loved this movie especially Lisa London. I thought her acting was fantastic and I'm disappointed that she didn't get other acting jobs. Based on the three playmates alone I give this movie 10 weasel stars. I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.

On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.

I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original. I agree that this film achieved its goals perfectly. I saw it on Showtime late at night as a teenager, and again in college. I thought it was funny. And there are boobs everywhere! It seems like in the late 70s and 80s there were loads of this type of film made, from R-rated films like "Porkys" to soft-core "Au Pair Girls"; it's a shame they seem to have fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity. The thing that made HOTS great was that, like the previous two films, it's a hell of a lot of fun. HOTS is like a girl-power version of "Animal House", with the girls forming a sorority of sorts and engaging in campus bedlam. On a side note, whoever designed the "Hooters" girls outfits must certainly have seen this film. Of course, going into it, one would expect it to be a typical, stupid T&A flick, and it is. But it really does have some fairly well thought out humorous moments. Given the era in which it was made, and the obvious exploitation aspect, it is still one of the better B comedies of the time.

While watching this movie, you will see quite obviously the inspiration for many of the scenes in "Revenge of The Nerds", and numerous other films of the same genre. Most of the acting is horrible, and WAY over the top, but that's exactly what I expect in a movie like this. What it lacks in the way of acting ability, it more than makes up for with its camp value and complete disregard for anything of merit.

The amazing thing about this movie, is that there was obviously some money that went into it. Films like this made today just don't have the same style. If you can turn your brain off, and turn your sense of humor up for an hour and a half, you will enjoy this flick. I dare anyone to not find at least SOMETHING in this movie that they think is funny, if not hilarious. H.O.T.S. is not for those that want hardcore porn. Instead, this film is a precursor to many 80s era cult-classic college/frat films like REVENGE OF THE NERDS and PORKY'S and a post-cursor to the world-renown ANIMAL HOUSE. A good time if you dig a lot of big-titted 70s/80s Playboy type chicks and cheezy slap-dick comedy - but nothing too notable if you wanna use it as whack-material...

H.O.T.S. is an "unauthorized" sorority of sexy outcasts doing battle against the popular and trendy Pi girls. This one has pranks, an Aunt Jemima-ish house keeper, and even an over-heated robot that makes it relatively fun viewing if boobies are your "thing"...

Well...I like tits as much (or probably more...) as the next guy - but with all the sleazy sh!t that I've seen, I couldn't help but wish for a few hardcore scenes to make this one truly worthwhile. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still wish that H.O.T.S. had a bit more sex and a bit less cheeze. Not quite as notable as NERDS, PORKY'S, or ANIMAL HOUSE, but worth a look for fans of those types of films...7/10

P.S... and I forgot - this one has consummate douche-rag Danny Bonaduce in probably the best role of his career outside of his "reality show"... h.o.t.s. is one of those sexy 70's drive in movies that features many of playboys famous playmates from the 70's like sexy tall blonde Susan kiger,Pamela jean Bryant,Lisa London,kc winkler and the late sexy Angela Ames.and would you believe a post partridge family Danny bonaduce?its the snobby girls verses the good girls(the hots girls)led by Susan kiger.there's a couple of comedy relief gangsters,a runaway bear,a trained seal,misplaced bras,etc;etc;think animal house meets hooters.h.o.t.s. is an enjoyable little comedy with t& a no complaints here.i actually think that Susan kiger was one of playboys sexiest playmates from the 70's.she did do a few more movies including deathscreams.if you like fun drive in movies you will no doubt enjoy h.o.t.s. 7 out of 10 We don't know why this extraordinary film was never made available officially on DVD... Anthony Quinn's performance alone makes this a must-see. There are relatively few films in which an actor identifies so profoundly with his character, a phenomenon always unique for us, moviegoers.

But Quinn's powerful portrayal of an innocent Romanian, literally dragged out of his house and everyday life by forces he cannot comprehend, is only part of what makes this film great. The script is based on a book published in Paris by a Romanian priest who fled the Communist take-over of his country, and the film succeeds to go deep into a little known area of East-European history. Told as a succession of Kafka-esquire twists of fate, the misadventures of Johann Moritz (told openly and honestly, without any of the political correctness currently so precious in Hollywood) are in fact a eulogy for the lost innocence of the Romanian people... it is devilishly ironic that this eulogy is signed by a French director, working with the American money of an Italian producer, and overseeing a multinational cast fronted by an extraordinary Mexican-born thespian.

I've seen mentions of VCDs of this film in various Asian internet stores, and I was fortunate to take possession of a digital recording of this film, broadcast on the British version of TCM. But it's a shame that "The 25th Hour" isn't anywhere on the future DVD release map of MGM studios. I have seen this movie maybe a 100 times, never grow tired of it.I saw this movie the first time when i was 7 years old, and it has left a mark in my memories since then. Its a enchanting love story that brings the sun out in most people, even in the darkest times. I think that this is a "must see" movie and one of Anthony Quinn's best performance ever. I just wish that the TV-channels would send this movie more often. It has inspired me in a good way and surly will do that to many others. If there is any actor i wanted to meet, it would have been Anthony Quinn. There will never be a like of him on the silver screens,,, ever. Wish that Anthony Quinn was still alive. May god bless his soul. I caught up with this movie on TV after 30 years or more. Several aspects of the film stood out even when viewing it so many years after it was made.

The story by the little known C Virgil Georghiu is remarkable, almost resembling a Tolstoy-like story of a man buffeted by a cosmic scheme that he cannot comprehend. Compare this film with better-known contemporary works such as Spelberg's "Schindler's List" and you begin to realize the trauma of the World War II should be seen against the larger canvas of racism beyond the simplistic Nazi notion of Aryan vs Jews. This film touches on the Hungarians dislike for the Romanians, the Romanians dislike of the Russians and so on..even touching on the Jews' questionable relationships with their Christian Romanian friends, while under stress.

As I have not read the book, it is difficult to see how much has been changed by the director and screenplay writers. For instance, it is interesting to study the Romanian peasant's view of emigrating to USA with the view of making money only to return to Romania and invest his earnings there.

In my opinion, the character of Johann Moritz was probably one of the finest roles played by Anthony Quinn ranking alongside his work in "La Strada","Zorba the Greek" and "Barabbas".

The finest and most memorable sequence in the film is the final one with Anthony Quinn and Virna Lisi trying to smile. The father carrying a daughter born out his wife's rape by Russians is a story in itself but the director is able to show the reconciliation by a simple gesture--the act of carrying the child without slipping into melodramatic footage.

Today after the death of Princess Diana we often remark about the insensitive paparazzi. The final sequence is an indictment of the paparazzi and the insensitive media (director Verneuil also makes a similar comment during the court scene as the cameramen get ready to pounce on Moritz).

The interaction between Church and State was so beautifully summed up in the orthodox priest's laconic statement "I pray to God that He guides those who have power to use them well."

Some of the brief shots, such as those of a secretary of a minister doodling while listening to a petition--said so much in so little footage. The direction was so impressive that the editing takes a back seat.

Finally what struck me most was the exquisite rich texture of colors provided by the cameraman Andreas Winding--from the brilliant credit sequences to the end. I recalled that he was the cameraman of another favorite French film of mine called "Ramparts of Clay" directed by Jean-Louis Bertucelli. I have not seen such use of colors in a long while save for the David Lean epics.

There were flaws: I wish Virna Lisi's character was more fleshed out. I could never quite understand the Serge Reggiani character--the only intellectual in the entire film. The railroad station scene at the end seems to be lifted out of Sergio Leone westerns. Finally, the film was essentially built around a love story, that unfortunately takes a back seat.

To sum up this film impressed me in more departments than one. The story is relevant today as it was when it was made. I stumbled upon this movie whilst flipping channels on the teevee late one night. It has continued to hold my interest some twenty years later, because of the important real-life lesson it teaches us about the dark side of human nature. And although it tells a true story that takes place in WWII, it is amazingly apropos to the ugly things happening in Europe today.

If you thought "ethnic cleansing" as it's called today, has anything to do with race or ethnicity, you'll think differently after viewing this story.

I guess I'd been pretty naive in thinking that evil follows any prescribed set of rules. Evil is as evil does.

This movie teaches a valuable lesson, and I recommend it especially to e.g. church groups or civil rights organizations.

I don't expect it will be too easy to find and rent, but I'd really like to see it again, because there is one amazing scene in it which gives a totally unintentional yet interesting glimpse of the banal intricacies of "race expertise". In this scene, the protaganist, who was taken prisoner by the Nazis at the beginning of the war, is "discovered" by an SS race authority, and ushered into a room. There the two play a sort of guessing game, where the SS officer is able to determine where our hero (Anthony Quinn's character) came from -- and where his ancestors came from. Well "come to find out" that Quinn's character isn't a member of an "inferior" race after all, but to the contrary, he's a perfect, archtypical Aryan! Which doesn't mean a whole lot to Quinn's character, who is more interested in talking about the towns, rivers and mountain ranges that the SS guy had just been naming... Nevertheless, being a perfect Aryan archetype has its perks. Among other things, he gets to leave his job in a slave labor factory where he wears striped rags, and into a slave modeling job where he gets to wear tailored Nazi uniforms. Yeah, it's a better gig for sure for a guy who always did appreciate wearing nice clothes... until the Allied armies arrive, and recognize his face from magazine covers.

This movie ... I saw it 15 years ago and in the last years couldn't remember it any more, name or anything else, just it was about a Romanian country man played superbly by Anthony Quinn. The impression I got from this drama will be eternal. Finally I found the name of the movie, I hope I will be able to buy it. And honestly this movie worth 10 Oscars. Ten times BRAVO. I was quite young when I first saw the movie. I asked my friends if they heard about this story but nobody would know anything about Anthony Quinn playing the role of a Romanian peasant. I remember when a German officer came and saw Anthony and told him he was a good "breed" but in fact the German was cheating on him. For few bucks you won't get rich in case you buy the movie but you will be rich if you have it. living in Romania, i was almost stunned by the very realistic setting for the scenes and the great care paid to local details by the director. The performance of Anthony Queen is absolutely great, and the rest of the cast does a great job supporting him. The movie does take a little knowledge of the east European context in order to be fully enjoyed, but it remains otherwise a great performance with some memorable lines. the ending is maybe a bit too melodramatic, but that's actually the way people are in this part of the world I believe the screenplay is great, because it presents the horrors of the 2nd WW in a most original manner - no blood, no battlefields. Still, lives are shattered, and the smiles you get every now and then throughout the movie are quickly killed by the war realities touching the characters. I was wrapped to see many other people also enjoyed this film. First watched it when I was in my early teens and then again several times late at night a few times after. Then sadly, no more. I'm now nearly 49 and so wish it could be made available on DVD. Why not? The best Anthony Quinn role, no one could have been more suited for the part or parts he plays - I've mentioned it to other film buffs of similar age and alas, no one I know recalls it. As the daughter of a generation that went through WWII and its aftermath (and myself deeply fascinated by what that generation endured) I guess this film at the time gave me a wonderful cinematic insight into some of the heartbreaking issues of the day. For classic final scenes this movie is a stand out. This is a finely crafted movie with moving sequences, humor, and best of all a love story. Anthony Quinn is wonderfully casted and after seeing several of his movies, this has to be categorized as one of his best performances, besides Zorba. The movie makes you really wonder if its filmed in Romania, which apparently is not the case. It is sure to fool even native Romanians, with its authentic-like landscape, costume, and ways of life. According to IMDb it is actually shot in France and Yugoslavia, hmmm. The story is compelling, making you want to watch the entire movie over, to see if you missed something. It provoked me into researching to find out if this is a truth based movie, but to my disappointment, it is a novel based film, seemingly fiction. It seems a bit far fetched to have happened for real, but one never knows.... The one problem with this film, is that it doesn't seem to cast any Romanian actors, and it is a film about a Romanian character. There are probably many Romanian fill-ins in the beginning, but maybe not, it is filmed elsewhere. The author of the book was Romanian, at least thats all fine and dandy - overall a masterpiece in cinematography. Anthony Quinn was a legend of 20th century in cinema by his great roles obtained this movie about a policeman innovated a false guilt for Toni to rape his beauty wife (Lisi) but he failed in this trap because he faced the strength of Lisi but he succeeded in his trap which was prepared by him for Toni that he put his name in the list of Jewish people in Romania and he transported from country to another in east Europe.

This movie was directed in 1967 at the time of Arab -Isreeli war in 1967 (Six days war) as an evidence of harmful works from Jewish people which were caused by Jewish people not only in Europe but also in the rest continents.

Jewish people were a great cause of French revolution in 1789 , the Pelchfik revolution in Russia 1917, the Turmoil of different countries in any time.

Pearl Buck wrote a novel (Peony) in 1948 at the time of occupied Palasteine in 1948 about Chinese Jewish people and their problems they faced in China because of their bad instruments they used in these countries as keys of crisis. I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I saw this movie years ago and I never forgot it. The theme is very timely. It was on TCM this morning and I am wondering why this wonderful film is not on VHS or DVD. I have searched extensively for this movie but cannot find it. I believe that if enough people request it, the movie will ultimately be put on DVD. It amazes me that such a stunning performance from Quinn and such a powerful plot is not yet available to the public. The fact that ethnic cleansing exists today in many parts of the world makes this film a must see for teachers and students alike. This film is a great teaching tool from the past yet in many ways as contemporary as "Crash". From previous comments I can see that this film as made deep impressions on everyone. Again, too bad it is not available for sale. Anthony Quinn is a master at capturing our heart and sympathy. He portrays a Romanian peasant with a below average IQ, harassed by his wife to do more. It's WWII and the Nazis have taken over his country. Soon he finds himself digging entrenchments hoping to benefit himself in his wife's eyes. The Nazis have different ideas. Through the next years we watch events unfold through his naive eyes, but all he wants to do is go home. His manipulations and ill luck just get him in further hot water. Finally, through no fault of his own, we see his picture on the cover of "Der Spiegel" as the perfect Aryan. The war ends and the allies put him on trial for war crimes. But all our peasant wants to do is return home to his wife. There are many, many older movies that deserve to be transferred to the DVD format. This is surely one of them. An Anthony Quinn triumph! Scores of movies portray the victims of Nazi atrocities before and during the war, but, I don't think any of them have delved into the psyche of the victim and predator as well as this this one has. Anthony Quinn was truly a man for all seasons. He had the ability to portray the humblest of creatures devoid of any human vises to a creature of extreme animalism and pull it off as believable to the audiences who watched with no afterthought of what they had just witnessed! Truly one of our greatest artists. He is missed. the 25th hour was a movie i just chanced upon.tuning in late at night, this movie kept my fascination throughout the entire film.tony quin is this poor unsuspecting guy who just wanted to fall in love with a woman,and by simple jealousy , goes on this incredible journey--terrific movie,and a hidden treasure. I first saw this movie in Papua New Guinea in 1967 and have remembered it since, although I have never seen it since that first time.

Just how easily good people's lives can be destroyed by the pure evil that existed then and still does is a memory that will haunt me forever.

The movie is funny and immensely sad at the same time and the role played by Anthony quinn is superb.

This movie should be in all college studies about man's inhumanity to man. It has past almost 25 years since I saw this movie. I would consider this film as an all time classic in a drama category. Anthony Queen gives one of the most wonderful performances ever. In a matter of minutes he takes you from laugh to tears. This movie represents a splendid picture of how humanity changed after the II World War. How a great part of that generation and the forthcoming lost its innocence. It has taken me long time to find this film by its name "the 25th hour". This type of films are not a moneymakers but they are for sure a treasure for some. I am very surprise why this movie is not used for the media in a broaden way in order for more people to enjoy this picture. You know those films that are blatantly awful but you can't help but love them? Well that's what Evil Ed is, possibly the best awful film in the world. The sound is rubbish, the dubbing is crap, the screenplay is nonsense and the special effects are pap. However, I can't help but love this film dearly and I have recommended it to at least 50 people over the years. Sam Campbell (or the guy who plays him) should be featured on the Actor's Studio series as he is that memorable. Possibly the greatest movie villain not named Tony Montana. Seriously, if you don't expect a lot then you won't be disappointed. Keep a light-hearted approach to watching this film and you'll soon rate it a ten afterwards. The box at my video store is why I rented this one. It looked cool from the guys face axed in half so of course I had to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually watched it being an "Evil Dead" fan. The Swedish makers must of been fans as well as they included lots of references in this masterpiece. A criminal tries to break into the house Evil Ed was editing the movies that ultimately drive him insane in and says "groovy" as he looks at his weapon quite like Bruce Campbell does when he finishes his chainsaw hand in Evil Dead 2. There is also many posters of that movie scattered around the house and office in the movie. They don't just spoof Evil Dead, as there is a Gremlin style puppet monster that cusses at Ed in his refrigerator. My personal favorite is when he chases his wife around the house and says "I'm coming to get you Barbra" which in case you did'nt know is Barbra's brothers main line in "Night of the Living Dead". This movie pretty much has it all good plot, cool characters, funny stuff (Gremlin puppet),scary stuff (demon doctor), excellent effects (exploding head) and a fair amount of female nudity. I only gave it a 9 because its kind of slow before Ed goes insane but its well worth the wait. So if you liked "Evil Dead 2" or any of the other movies I mentioned above you gotta rent and watch it with a freind, and when your done try "Brain Dead" because I hear it is similiar to this masterpiece.

Ed (coincidentally an editor) is hired to cut horror films down to be favorable in Europe (where standards are much more rigorous). But he finds the films very mind-destroying and starts going a little bit mad. Okay, "a little bit" might be an understatement.

Let me just say this first of all: best. opening. scene. ever. A man in an office who blows up his head with a grenade. His boss then says -- with a straight face -- "you're fired". The entire film does not keep up this level of intensity, but it certainly tries.

Take the shotgun scenes, the decapitation, the clips from "Lost Limbs" (which my friend Jason wishes were a real film). The writer of this film thought up the idea of a woman who gets raped by a beaver and then immediately after gets shot in the face with a bazooka. That is something you won't find in any other movie (at least, I'm pretty doubtful you will).

This film's biggest flaw is the quality. The picture isn't as crisp as a 1997 film should be, and the sound could be touched up (though it's not bad). I thought I was watching a 1980s film. Although, that gave it a bit of a boost in my mind -- the film also had the 1980s style of writing and directing in it: a sense of fun and giving the audience a little something extra over the top. I do miss those days.

I wish I had more to say, though at the moment I cannot think of anything strong enough to praise this film. I do think you ought to see this. You've seen the box in your video store with the ax splitting the head... maybe you've passed it up a few times. Maybe you thought it would be cheesy. Pick it up. Savor it. Evil Ed is a Swedish film about a man named Ed (of course)and his collapse into total madness after editing a series of B horror films known as "The Loose Limbs" series. Ed becomes so mad that he thinks he's seeing demons and monsters but in reality they are people he knows and people that are close to him, such as his wife and daughter.

I first saw this movie back in 1998 and was baffled by what I had seen. To this day, this movie I consider to be one of the darkest comedies out there. As the movie is almost slapstick funny with its gore scenes there are still a few creepy moments.

This is a cool flick but don't expect anything marvelous. It's simply just a fun movie that is good to show some of your friends for some laughs. 8/10 stars Oh my god. Obviously, when you rent or buy this, you're not expecting to see a documentary on the mating habits of small rodents in their natural habitats. You're expecting a visual feast of blood and gore and and maybe even a scare or two. well, for those who are as sick and twisted as myself, you won't find many scares, but you'll come very close to urinating all over yourself in laughter. the catch phrases in this movie will stay with you and your friends forever. The first time i showed this to my friends and colleagues was over 3 years ago, but still we laugh our asses off and use the catch phrases. it's as addictive and funny as Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn and Peter Jackson's Dead Alive/Braindead. From the opening scene's absolutely ridiculous dialog, to the Splatter and Gore Department's finest works, to the wondrous abilities of Ed the film cutter, you will laugh and laugh again. As far as the visual feast of blood and gore, oh yeah, they've got it. And they're pretty damn good at it... "The neck-bone's connected to the head-bone..." This film also may have done the best nightmare/hallucination/totally effing nuts scene i have ever seen. and that one's not mean to be funny, but man is it well done (and creepy.) Overall, to anyone who is not against a bunch of blood and a damn good time, IF YOU EVER SEE THIS MOVIE GET IT!!!! it's on Netflix, i know that for sure. First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout.

The f/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations.

The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that. I honestly didn't think at first that this movie would make me laugh like hell and admire the great gore effects, boy was I wrong! From the very beginning to the very end the film showed some great gore effects accompanied by spoofs from other titles like "Evil Dead" and "Gremlins". This movie could be compared to Peter Jackson's works of art, though this movie isn't as gory as "Braindead", but I sure wait these guys'll make another splatter movie. (Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: "Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out "Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!! On monday, earlier this week, sometime in July, I happened to be under the influence of the sweet leaf, and me being a horror fan, wanted to see something scary. I was thinking of The Ammityville Horror 2, but I got something way better. I was at my friend's house, and he had the VHS Evil Ed. No cover or anything, he didn't even see the whole thing himself, but he told me it was about "A guy who goes crazy and kills a lot of people." Well, this movie was very shocking,I've never seen the actual brutal nature of sadistic violence until this movie, It buries Ted Bundy and Ed Gein both! It is pretty funny too, with references to The Evil Dead trilogy( and plus the Evil Dead 2 poster is everywhere in the movie!) The movie is about Edward, a obsessive-compulsive, nice guy, who happens to be a film editor. He is then lent to another department in the building, and he is sent to the posh yet violent world of Sam Campbell, the Splatter and Gore department. Sam Campbell, Eddy's new boss, is telling Eddy about the big break on his movies, the gruesome Loose Limbs series, and he needs Eddy to make the movie somewhat less violent so they can be shown all over Europe. Eddy has his regrets soon, as the images and scenes that are displayed to him from the lonely suburban house he is sent to work in, and then, what happens from there is truly nightmarish. Imagine yourself in his place! The acting is great, the overdubbing is little funny (Sam Campbell's voice is often found funny, same with the other actors). However, the overdubbing job was done pretty good, I give this movie a 10/10, and it's a good introduction to the Gore sub-genre to Horror. Very good, Nightmarish, bloody.......You just have to see it for yourself.

quote from movie: "Where in the f**k is my Beaver rape scene?!" The filming is cheesy. Some of the actors overact. Some of the actions are unexplained and unexplainable. But...

This movie is in the mode of the psychological dramas of the 50s.

It is a morality play. Similar to the movie in which a "method" actor becomes the evil character he portrays on stage, Ed is forced to watch slasher movies because he is the film editor. It gives him a nervous breakdown which leads to a complete psychotic break.

You got to love this movie! I mean, what other Swedish splatter movie could be so evil, bizarre and totally cruel...The whole movie is stuffed with some kind of weird humor, like: The old cencoreguy just blows his head off and the boss just wipes the blood off his glasses and says with a mean voice: - Your fired!!! wouppie!!! Well, first of all - i am a big fanatic of horror movies, but however - I am pretty sick of all those damn American horror movies. They are all about the same thing - blood and violence. It's not even creepy. Well, it's nothin wrong with the blood and all that - doesn't even bother me - but that's not what makes a movie creepy! That's why I find this movie entertaining - it's fun to see a satire which is making fun of the koncept "main horror USA". American splatter/gore-movies, they are not suppose to be creepy, only funny. That's OK. But when they're suppose to be "creepy", it mostly gets pathetic. However, there are a few great american horror movies (Poltergeist, Psycho, Birds), but in the end it's all the same thing. That's why this movie came as a relief. Evil Ed is not just a cult movie - it's a classic! I can't wait untill master director Anders Jacobsson makes another goddamn splatter movie! Untill than I have to watch Evil Ed again - and again - and again! But I don't care - it is such an outstanding movie! The year 1983 saw a strange phenomenon; two rival Bond films. "Octopussy", starring Roger Moore, was part of the official Cubby Broccoli Bond franchise. "Never Say Never Again", made by a rival producer, is, apart from the awful "Casino Royale", the only Bond movie which does not form part of that franchise. Its big attraction was that it brought back the original Bond, Sean Connery; its title reputedly derived from Connery's remark after "Diamonds Are Forever" that he would never again play the role. Some have complained that Connery was, at 53, too old for the role, but he was in fact three years younger than his successor Moore, who not only made "Octopussy" in the same year but went on to make one further Bond film, "A View to a Kill", two years later.

The film owes its existence to the settlement of a lawsuit about the film rights to Ian Fleming's work. It is perhaps unfortunate that the terms of the settlement included a clause that the new film had to be a remake of "Thunderball", as that was perhaps not the greatest of the Connery Bonds. (A remake of "Dr No" or "Goldfinger" might have worked better). The plot is much the same as that of the earlier film; the terrorist organisation SPECTRE, acting together with a megalomaniac tycoon named Largo, have stolen two American nuclear warheads and are attempting to hold the world's governments to ransom by threatening to detonate them unless they receive a vast sum of money. It falls to Bond, of course, to save the world by tracking down the missing missiles.

The film is fortunate in that it has not just one but two of the most beautiful Bond girls of all, Barbara Carrera as the seductive but lethal Fatima Blush and Kim Basinger as Largo's girlfriend Domino who defects to Bond's side after learning of her lover's evil plans. A number of the Bond films have a plot that hangs upon the hero's ability to win over the villain's mistress or female accomplice- there are similar developments, for example, in "Goldfinger", "Live and Let Die" and "The Living Daylights". In the official series, Bond's ally is normally regarded as the female lead, but here Carrera, playing the villainess, is billed above Basinger, who was a relatively unknown actress at the time. Basinger, of course, has gone on to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars, whereas Carrera is one of a number of Bond girls who have somewhat faded from view.

Of the villains, Max von Sydow makes an effective Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE, but Klaus Maria Brandauer seemed too bland and nonthreatening as Largo, except perhaps during the "Domination" game, a more sophisticated variant on those violent computer games such as "Space Invaders" that were so popular in the early eighties. Brandauer can be an excellent actor in his native German, in films such as "Mephisto" and "Oberst Redl", but he does not comes across so expressively in English.

One of the film's features is that it both follows the normal Bond formula and, at times, departs from it. There is the standard world-in-peril plot, chase sequences, a series of exotic locations, glamorous women, sinister villains and a specially written theme song based on the film's title. There is, however, no extended pre-credits sequence, and we see some familiar characters in a new light. For example, Bond's boss M becomes a languid, supercilious aristocrat, his American colleague Felix Leiter is shown as black for the only time, and the scientist Q is portrayed by Alec McCowen as a disillusioned cynic with (despite his characteristically upper-class Christian name of Algernon) a distinctly working-class accent. There is also an amusing cameo from Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling British diplomat. Although Connery was perhaps not quite a good here as he was in some of his earlier films in the role, this ringing the changes on the familiar theme makes this one of the more memorable Bonds. 7/10

A goof. Rowan Atkinson's character states that he is from the British Embassy in Nassau. As, however, the Bahamas is a Commonwealth country, Britain would have a High Commission in its capital, not an Embassy. In 1965 producer Kevin McLory -who owns a part of the Bond cinematic rights- associate with EON Productions (Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli) for making "Thunderball", the fourth film of the 007 franchise. The star is Sean Connery, of course.

In 1982 McLory wins a legal battle and can produce an "independent" Bond film. "Never say never again" (NSNA) is one of the two "unofficial" 007 films made outside EON (the other is the 1967 comedy spoof "Casino Royale"). NSNA is a remake of "Thunderball" and stars the original Bond, Sean Connery -who comes back to the role after many years of absence.

The film is released some months after "Octopussy" with Roger Moore, the 13th episode of the EON series. At the time press calls it "War of the Bonds"... Both films are a big success in 1983, even if "Octopussy" earns more money at the box office.

NSNA is a luxurious film made by excellent technicians -director Irvin Kershner who led "The Empire strikes back", Douglas Slocombe -cinematographer of "Raiders of the lost Ark"-, and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr -who wrote "The three days of the Condor"- among others...

The cast is excellent with Connery, a then relatively unknown Kim Basinger, Barbara Carrera, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Edward Fox...

Although all that the film remains inferior to the original "Thunderball". It lacks many fundamental ingredients for being a real Bond movie: there's not the traditional gun barrel sequence, there's not the "James Bond theme", M and Q are not played by the traditional actors... It's a copyright reason: EON only is allowed to use these elements. Briefly, NSNA lacks the classic cinematic 007 atmosphere.

On the other hand the film is exciting and enjoyable. Brandauer is a very good villain and the women (Basinger and Carrera) are sensual and gorgeous. But the main highlight is Sean Connery! He's once again wonderful in the role, he's older but looks fitter and nicer here than in "Diamonds are forever", his last performance in the role of the British super-spy before NSNA. Only Connery could bring that particular style with a line like that… Fatima crashes into Bond's arms when she water-skis up to the super agent in Nassau and apologizes, 'Oh, how reckless of me. I made you all wet.' The super agent replies, 'Yes, but my martini is still dry.'

Barbara Carrera makes a great villain, stealing the show as SPECTRE executioner Fatima Blush… Fatima is number 12 in the SPECTRE chain of command, and is a gorgeous assassin who takes intense sensations of pleasure in killing…

Fatima assumes all the deadly characteristics of Fiona, proving to be one of Bond's toughest adversaries… She is a victim of her vanity… She's good at what she does, and wants the world to know it… But her vanity is her downfall… Using every possible approach to eliminate 007, Fatima is a wild and cunning woman who makes love to the man she is about to kill…

Austrian actor Klaus-María Brandauer (Largo) does not make a very formidable opponent for 007… Referred to as number one in the SPECTRE chain of command, Largo resides in the Bahamas, and travels aboard his super yacht, the Flying Saucer…

Max Von Sydow becomes the fourth actor to appear as SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, once more plotting to put the world at ransom…

Kim Basinger takes the part once owned by the lovely French actress Claudine Auger… She is Domino, the mistress of Largo, who soon falls deeply in love with her rescuer…

Black actor Bernie Casey becomes the sixth actor to play CIA agent Felix Leiter after Jack Lord, Cec Linder, Rik Van Nutter, Norman Burton, and David Hedison...

Edward Fox portrays the new, unsympathetic 'M.' Pamela Salem is the third actress to play Miss Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was the first and Barbara Bouchet was the second.

Valerie Leon is the sexy lady in the Bahamas who fished 007 out of the blue water and saved his life by making love to him in her own room… Valerie was the Sardinian hotel receptionist in 'The Spy Who loved Me' when Bond and Anya arrive seeking Stromberg…

Prunella Gee is Shrublands physical therapist Patricia… Saskia Cohen Tanugi is Nicole, Bond's Secret Service contact in the South of France…

Gavan O'Herlihy is Jack Petachi, the U.S. Air Force communications officer who duplicates the President of the United States' 'eye print' and arms two cruise missiles with nuclear warheads…

Rowan Atkinson is the bumbling foreign officer Nigel Small-Fawcett; and Alec McCowen is Algernon, the armorer who provides 007 some formidable items…

If you like to see Connery playing a tense battle of wills, disguised as a masseur, attacked by robot-controlled sharks, giving away a considerable amount of money for a tango dance, thrown into a medieval dungeon, don't miss this second of only two "unofficial" James Bond films… When I first saw this on tape, about 10 years after it had been released, I thought it was one of the better James Bond movies. However, after seeing it again around the turn of the century, I was disappointed.

I think it's a bit overrated only because critics were so happy to see Sean Connery end his 12-year hiatus from playing Bond that they didn't dare criticize the film. I guess what disappointed me was the ending. After investing two hours into the film, you expect a less-hokey, more satisfying ending. And, it may be nitpicking, but I was disappointed in not seeing the regular actors in the supporting roles such as Miss Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter, etc.

On the positive side, there was plenty of unique action scenes, particularly early on, and the two villains were interesting. I thought Klaus Maria Brandauer was the more intriguing of the two because he was so low-key and looked the "nice guy next door." He wasn't your normal Bond villain.

This had plenty of "skin," for a PG movie, especially with Kim Basinger starring, never being an actress known for hiding her figure. The language was very tame, but most Bond movies are pretty good in that department.

All in all, it's a "fair" Bond and nothing else. Just because Connery is in it, it doesn't mean it's automatically good. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have proved they could play the role well, too. I've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.

And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.

Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.

But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.

I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.

Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair. This is an excellent James Bond movie. Although it is not part of the original and more famous series, and it is a standalone film, it is very well done. Enticing Sean Connery to return to the role he made famous was a stroke of genius, as was titling the movie in a way that references his past vow to not play Bond again. Connery was as great as he was in his earlier 007 appearances. The script is outstanding, as are the photography and the performances. It's the earliest movie I recall with Kim Basinger, who became much more famous after this film; Barbara Carrera was excellent; and Klaus Maria Brandauer was absolutely perfect as the main villain. The frequent references to the aging of Bond and the changing times and attitudes of the British secret service were most humorous. The 007 gadgets equaled those of the other Bond films. The only thing missing was the famous 007 music theme, which, of course, could not be used by this competing production. It was rather amazing to me to be able to see two excellent James Bond movies released in the same year, this one and Octopussy with Roger Moore. An interesting aspect of the film is an emphasis on video games and computer graphics. The early 80's were the first heyday of such things, and the use of them in this film made it a very contemporary movie. The film is actually a different version of Thunderball, updated with newer technology. Regardless of the repeated theme, there are sufficient differences to make it most entertaining. I will watch this one frequently. In 1983 two Bond movies was made, one was the official Bond movie Octopussy starring Roger Moore who starred as James Bond for the first time in Live and Let Die and the other was the unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery who played the role as James Bond for the first time in Dr. No, that film was also the first 007 James Bond movie to be made. Never Say Never Again is called unofficial because the company that made the other James Bond movies didn't make this one. Never Say Never Again is also a remake of the 1965 007 movie Thunderball, there are several differences in Never Say Never Again that lets you know it wasn't made by EON. One thing is that the opening is different, there's no gun barrel sequence and no pre-credit sequence, another difference is the music score. Some things in this movie does feel like a James Bond movie like the gadgets and cars, plus James Bond always getting it on with the ladies and the film does have an opening credits song. Sean Connery still does a great job playing Bond, the acting from the other stars is also great.

Never Say Never Again is a good film that's just has entertaining as the official James Bond films. Check this out. 10/10 You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film. And even though NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is not technically part of the official Bond filmography, the mere presence of Sean Connery returning as 007 makes it something more than merely an honorary member of the series. Anyway, here's how it rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: The clever title has no apparent link to the actual storyline, but is instead an in-joke reference to Sean Connery's vow to never play OO7 again after having been lured back once before for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Whatever the case, it is a catchy title. 8 points.

Pre-Credit Teaser: Perhaps trying to avoid any obvious parallels to the official EON series of Bond films, there is no Teaser; the opening scenes are just shown behind the credits. And even that is disappointing: yet another "oh-no, Bond has been killed" fakeout. 4 points.

Opening Credits: Other than a screen full of tiny 007's, they didn't even bother trying to jazz up the credits with graphics or split screens or interesting camera angles. 1 points.

Theme Song: As written by Michel LeGrand and sung by Lani Hall "Never Say Never Again" would make for a perfectly pleasant part of a particularly long elevator ride. As a Bond theme, it's merely okay. 6 points.

"Bond, James Bond": Appropriately, since this film sees Connery being lured back into service as Bond after a decade's hiatus, the story begins with 007 facing the question as to whether Bond/Connery is still up to the job. Happily, Connery more than proves himself ready for Bondage again. Though he is a bit grayer, sporting a bit more girth and wearing a slightly more obvious toupee, he seems to have no trouble slipping back into action. All in all, it is one of Connery's best, and most relaxed, turns as the character. 9 points.

Bond Babes: Even in the best of the Bond films, the female characters aren't given much dimension; they exist largely as necessary props for Bond's use. Future Oscar-winner Kim Basinger is granted a great deal of leeway in creating her character of Domino Petachi and the film benefits from this. She does a nice job -- and she's not bad to look at either. 8 points.

Bond Villain: The reports of his death being obviously exaggerated, Blofeld is back -- at least, for the moment -- showing he has more lives than his prized pussycat. One-time Jesus portrayer-turned-stereotypical villain, Max von Sydow isn't given a lot to do in the role, but is a silky presence nonetheless. But he is overshadowed by a wonderful performance by Klaus Maria Brandauer as Maximilian Largo. After a string of banal Bond villains, it is so refreshing for Brandauer to gave a performance that is both subtle, yet colorfully evil. Funny without being campy, ruthless without seeming cartoonish; his Largo ranks right up there with Auric Goldfinger as one of Bond's best villains. 10 points.

Bond Baddies: Fatima Blush! What can I say? As played with all the bold style of a particularly flamboyant drag queen, Barbara Carrera breezes through the film, displaying a mix of self-amused evil and more than a tad of pure psychotic insanity. Bond has crossed paths with a variety of femmes fatales, most of whom have been so easily disposed of that they existed more as amusing eye candy than as characters. But few dared to exhibit such a flare for the dramatic or such fierce determination. Even her untimely demise is spectacular, even by Bondian standards. 10 points.

Sinister Plot: As a remake of sorts of THUNDERBALL, the film does seem a bit been-there-done-that: nuclear missiles are stolen and major real estate will go kaboom if all the countries of the world don't pay a multi-kazillion dollar ransom. But at least producer Kevin McClory was lucky enough to find himself forced to remake one of the weakest Bond adventures. By comparisons, this effort blows THUNDERBALL out of the water. And despite the absence of many Bondian trademarks, the film succeeds on its own. 9 points.

Production values: The film starts out with an uneasy style, like a TV movie trying to be more than it can. But as the story progress, the film gains momentum and a sense of purpose, making it a superior adventure. 8 points.

Bonus Points: There are several odd changes that sets this Bond film apart from the official series. Miss Moneypenny is hardly acknowledged; as played by Edward Fox, "M" is a cranky old grouch with no respect for the "Double Os," a foreshadowing of how Judi Dench would later play the part; and "Q" suddenly has a cockney accent and is all buddy-buddy with Bond. And there is a curious sense of nostalgia throughout the film, such as replacing Bond's Astin-Martin with a vintage Packard and a tango dance number that is cleverly inserted into the story. And a big rescue near the end is on horseback, an homage to THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which was itself a tribute to the Bond films. 5 points.

Summary: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a mixed bag. In the really important areas, it more than holds it own thanks to hero Connery, villain Brandauer, assassin Carrera and damsel-in-distress Basinger. But the devil is in the details; as seemingly unimportant as the opening credits, theme song and such seem, the film is lacking because of their absence. It all comes off as a faux Bond film; a very good substitute, but a substitute nonetheless.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 78 points out of 100. As the '70's drew to a close, rumours began to fly in the entertainment industry about the possible return of Sean Connery to the role he had made famous back in 1962 - James Bond.

Cubby Broccoli was asked on location in Brazil during the making of 'Moonraker' by the B.B.C.'s Barry Norman how he viewed the prospect. Understandably, the producer was reluctant to commit himself to an opinion.

When 'Moonraker' opened, Bond fans were outraged by what they perceived to be a cheapening of the character, and the jumping onto the 'Star Wars' bandwagon much as 'Live & Let Die' had done with the blaxploitation craze a few years earlier. Many publicly vocalised their hope that Connery would return, if only to show Eon how a real Bond movie should look.

Years of legal battles followed. The original script, entitled 'James Bond Of The Secret Service' ( later retitled 'Warhead' ) was written by Kevin McClory, Len Deighton, and Connery, was never filmed, and remains one of the great unmade movie blockbusters.

A new script, closer to the 'Thunderball' storyline, was commissioned. It was written by Lorenzo Semple Junior, best known as the man who put the camp into 'Batman'. He had also written 'The Parallax View', one of the decade's finest conspiracy thrillers. Feeling the script needed a British touch, Connery brought in Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, writers of hit British sitcoms 'The Likely Lads' and 'Porridge'. The witty title was suggested by Connery's wife Micheline.

'Never Say Never Again' opened just before Christmas 1983 to a shower of critical praise; normally sensible critics were so ecstatic at Connery's return they ignored all other aspects of the film. Many used it to viciously attack the Roger Moore series, particularly that year's 'Octopussy'. In truth, 'Octopussy' is superior in every respect. 'Never' lacks the excitement and spectacle one associates with Bond, at times it looks like a made-for-T.V. movie. The story had been done before and better in 1965's 'Thunderball', hence 'Never' was always going to come off second best. It was also hampered by not being part of the official series, meaning that Monty Norman's 'James Bond Theme' and Maurice Binder's gun-barrel logo could not be used.

As Bond, Connery is magnificent, effortlessly stepping back into his most famous role. Playing Bond as an older, wiser agent worked. Barbara Carrera landed her best movie role as villainous 'Fatima Blush', a lady whose love for murder is such she dances after ( so she thinks ) killing Bond. Kim Basinger smolders as 'Domino'. As S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent 'Maximillian Largo', Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a chilling performance. A major disappointment though is Max Von Sydow as 'Blofeld'. The posters gave the impression he would be a major character, in fact he appears only in a few scenes. With a stronger script, he could have been one of the all-time great Bond villains.

'Never' promised to be a throwback to the early Eon Bonds such as 'From Russia With Love', but did not deliver. The gadgets were there, but were used almost apologetically. Bond's rocket-firing motorcycle was a tired gimmick even in the '60's. The film tried to compete with Eon's Bonds in terms of humour. Bond saving himself by throwing his own urine sample into an assassin's face is a farcical a moment as any you will find in 'Moonraker'. But the nadir comes with the introduction of Rowan Atkinson as bumbling Foreign Office official 'Nigel Small-Fawcett'. He gives a performance so staggeringly awful you wonder if he thought he was in a Footlights revue.

Michel Legrand's music is horrible, the man seems to never to have seen a Bond film in his life.

Though the film was a financial success, viewed years later it stands as the weakest Bond of the '80's. Connery himself was disappointed with it, and not did act in a movie again for some years.

1983 was a good year for 007 maniacs, in addition to the Connery and Moore movies, George Lazenby did a delightful cameo in the made-for-T.V. 'Return Of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair'. Yes, it's Sean Connery playing Bond again, looking more alive and into his part than any time since the first time they made this film, in 1965 when it was called "Thunderball". But the tongue is so firmly in cheek one wonders if Connery isn't employing a few observed tricks from his friend and more humorous successor, Roger Moore.

Moore is my favorite Bond, but Connery makes a strong case for himself in this unusual outing. The only serious Bond film not made under the aegis of the classic Eon Bond series, "Never Say Never Again" is an irreverent return to the well. Soft on action, it's nevertheless strong on character and clever dialogue.

Bond, it's made clear right away, is a man in disfavor. No matter how many times he has saved the world, his new boss thinks little of his fat lifestyle. "Too many free radicals, that's your problem...Caused by eating too much red meat, white bread, too many martinis." "Then I shall cut out the white bread, sir," Bond smartly replies.

An early fight sequence in a spa represents the movie's high point action-wise, with Bond and an attacker fighting their way through a kitchen, a bedroom, and a laboratory before Bond finally douses his opponent, ironically with no small help from those free radicals. Humor is liberally applied in the film, rather more cleverly than most of Moore's outings, though Connery seems to be having more fun sending himself up as a result of Moore's less egotistic example.

Was it because he was making a good chunk of the gross? Or was it working for less stingy producers? Whatever it is, the screenplay serves his laid-back style well, and the result is richer and more entertaining than Connery's prior two Eon Bond outings, "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds Are Forever".

The 1980s were not a good decade for Bond, whether it was Connery, Moore, or Timothy Dalton. Leg warmers, video games, and ugly sports cars are all in evidence, and the Bianca Jagger sunglasses Klaus Maria Brandauer is seen wearing in his first scene do him no favors. Forget first impressions. Brandauer's role as the chief villain, Maximilian Largo, is one of the best in any Bond film, with Brandauer enjoyably playing up his character's menace and mania. At one point, he allows Bond free roam of his situation room, with a martini to boot, and his dancing eyes and mad, engaging grin make for compelling company throughout.

The best thing in this film, other than Connery, are the Bond girls, shot with more attention to personality than normal in Bond films, a testament to cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and director Irvin Kirshner. Barbara Carrera was nominated for a Golden Globe for her role as the villainess Fatima Blush, every bit as crazy as Largo and even nicer to look at. She doesn't last the whole movie; you almost need her gone in order to focus on the others.

Kim Basinger's breasts and buttocks should have had their own agents for the screen time they get in this film, but I'm not complaining. Basinger's a rare beauty who in this early role as Largo's mistress mixes incredible hotitude with a childlike vulnerability that brings out the Bond in me, and many others I suspect. (Her lips and cheekbones are pretty sweet, too.)

It's not a well-constructed film. It's a knockoff of a better Bond movie with a sloppy storyline, a terrible score, and a flat ending. But it does have Connery, proving his was the definitive take on cinema's definitive secret agent, even if he steals a page or two from my 007, Mr. Moore. The end result is entertaining enough, so I'm not complaining. "Empire Strikes Back" director Irvin Kershner's "Never Say Never Again," a remake of the 1965 James Bond movie "Thunderball," doesn't surpasses the Terence Young original, but this non-Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli film is well worth watching if you call yourself a 007 aficionado. Nevertheless, despite its shortage of clever gadgets and the lack of a vibrant musical score, "Never Say Never Again" rates as an above-average, suspenseful doomsday thriller with top-flight performances by a seasoned cast including Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Barbara Carrera, Edward Fox, Bernie Casey, Alec McCowen, and Rowan Atkinson. The film bristles with surprises galore from the invigorating title credits sequence throughout its generally exciting but lengthy 134 minutes. Unlike the franchise James Bond sagas with their breath-taking moments of spectacle, "Never Say Never Again" provides few of these scenes because of its prohibitive budget. Indeed, the film features only three gadgets: an explosive ball-point pen, a wristwatch with a laser, and a souped-up motorcycle. Aside from the flavorful Lani Hall opening theme song, "Ice Station Zebra" composer Michel Legrand's orchestral music score leaves much to be desired. Legrand replicates none of those snappy, jazz cues that made John Barry's music for the regular Bond franchise so memorable. All in all, "Never Say Never Again" seems to fit more into the first two Bond movies—"Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love"—and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in terms of its more down to earth approach to the subject matter.

"Never Say Never Again" presents Sean Connery's James Bond as an older 007 who has seen his day and has been taken off active service to teach. Ironically, Roger Moore was a year older than Connery and Moore's Bond movies treated 007 as an active, young guy. Sean Connery seems to be responsible for making 007 a more mature secret agent and a number of changes take place in the Lorenzo Semple screenplay that emphasize Bond's age. Initially, Connery had lobbied to play Bond without a hairpiece, but mercifully wiser minds prevailed and Connery sports a hairpiece. He looks tanned and fit and appears in better condition than he did twelve years earlier when he was rushed into "Diamonds Are Forever" at the last moment to replace John Gavin. Connery had been working on another movie and had gained weight for the role that he was unable to remove in time for "Diamonds Are Forever." At 52, Connery still has a youthful vigor here despite the contrived demands of the script.

The action unfolds with 007 single-handedly trying to rescue a kidnapped woman on a remote desert island. He dispatches several guards armed with machine guns and frees the woman, only to have her stab him with a knife in the side when he isn't looking. It seems that this entire sequence was an exercise designed by M (Edward Fox of "Day of the Jackal") to test Bond's ability. The new M doesn't share his predecessor's use of field agents. M decides that Bond needs to clean out his system of all 'free radicals' and has 007 packed off to Shrublands. While at the country clinic, Bond notices suspicious activity between a nurse and a patient and gets noticed watching them. The nurse is none other than SPECTRE assassin Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera of "The Island of Dr. Moreau") and she is in charge of making sure that nobody sees USAF officer Jack Petachi (Gavan O'Herlihy of "Superman 3"). Petachi is part of a SPECTRE plan by millionaire businessman Maximilian Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer of "Out of Africa") to black the world powers by stealing two nuclear warheads. The villains implant a duplicate eyeball into Captain Petachi who has access to the highly sophisticated computers and can order the arming of weapons. After he steals the weapons for SPECTRE, Fatima Blush runs him off the road by tossing her pet snake in his lap and then attaches an explosive to his wrecked car and blows him up. Indeed, the first part of "Never Say Never Again," apart from the SPECTRE planning conference, belong to Fatima as she supervises Petachi's stay at the clinic and then repeatedly tries to kill Bond, one at sea with sharks and later in a motel suite with an explosives device.

Eventually, Bond meets the beautiful blond Domino (Kim Basinger of "Mother Lode") and sneaks into Largo's charity banquet at a Monte Carlo casino where the two face off in an elaborate video game called 'Domination' to see who will rule the world. Bond bests him and Largo hates him doubly now because 007 is his only rival to Domino and a thorn in his side that not even Fatima seems to be able to remove. Bond and Fatima have it out after a motorcycle chase when he returns the favor and blows her up. Their earlier encounter in the Bahamas when she attached a device to lure a shark after him is pretty lame. Like in the original "Thunderball," the villains recover the hijacked nuclear warheads at sea, but just the warheads themselves.

Bond flies to the Bahamas where he meets his diplomatic liaison, Nigel Small-Fawcett (no lesser than Rowan Atkinson of "Mr. Bean" fame, who is worried that Bond may kill somebody and ruin the island paradise. Of course, Nigel Small-Fawcett serves as the film's source of comic relief. The C.I.A. sends Felix Leiter (Bernie Casey of "Guns of the Magnificent Seven") to back up Bond. This is the first time that an African-American portrayed Leiter. Bond encounters his share of problems, involving saving Domino from Arab slavers, while Leiter and he save the world. "Never Say Never Again" is a richly respectable James Bond thriller with many neat touches, but it never generates the air of danger that the franchise Bond films have. Indeed, "Never Say Never Again" looks like a dignified Masterpiece Theatre take on 007. 1983 was "the battle of the Bonds". That year both Roger Moore and Sean Connery starred in two separate James Bond film, the former (Octopussy) was produced by the "official" makers of the Bond films while the later (Never Say Never Again) was produced "unofficially" by a group led by Kevin McClory who held the film rights to Thunderball. Surprisingly enough is the "unofficial" film that is better despite the obvious flaw of and the fact that Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball.

Never Say Never Again has the distinction of sporting one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film. It all starts with Sean Connery, returning to the play Bond for the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever. Connery might be older then he was then but he looks better here then he did in Diamonds Are Forever. The Bond of Never Say Never Again is the sleek and dangerous shark of Dr. No or From Russia With Love, just a few years older. Connery's delivery of one liners and dialogue is as dead on as it ever was. The one downside to Connery's age is his believability, especially when it comes to the ladies of the film. Let's face it even Connery, despite being in top physical shape, looks as odd as Moore when he is bedding women half his age. Yet despite this believability issue, Never Say Never Again shows Connery in one of his better Bond performances and a definite improvement on his two earlier Bond performances.

Kim Bassinger plays Domino in one of her early film roles. Bassinger plays the role with considerable confidence for a relative newcomer and she makes the character believable. Bassinger holds her own against her co-stars and has considerable chemistry with them as well. In fact she may well outshine her Thunderball counter-part played by Claudine Auger.

Then there's the villain, Maximilian Largo played by Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's Largo is everything a James Bond film villain should be: suave, charming, evil and above all believable none the less. Brandauer makes the role realistic and chooses not to fall into the trap many other Bond villains have fallen into by going over the top. Brandauer plays Largo with a silent menace and charisma unseen in many adversaries of 007.

The excellent cast extends into the supporting cast as well. Barbara Carrera makes a fine henchwoman in Fatima Blush and the screen lights up when she appears. Max Von Sydow a nice appearance as Blofeld, though his appearance is more akin to a cameo. Rowan Atkinson makes an appearance as Bond's bumbling contact that makes for some of the best scenes in the film. With all that the highlight of the supporting cast comes from the MI6 staff from Edward Fox's M who makes for a great contrast to Bernard Lee, Pamela Salem who make s affine Moneypenny and the icing on the cake with Alec McCowen's wonderful Q. The supporting cast has a couple of misfires though in the form of Bernie Casey as Felix Leiter and Gavin O'Herlihy as Jack Petachi who both seem to lack credibility in their respective roles. Otherwise this film sports one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film.

On top of an excellent cast the film has several other essential ingredients. From the opening Central America sequence to the fight at Shrublands to the underwater sequences and motorbike chase, this is a film where the action sequences are not only great but service the plot as well for the most part. The film also sports good special effects in terms of cruise missile models, explosions, and all the things we expect from a Bond film. Irvin Kershner, then fresh off doing The Empire Strikes Back, brings a tight sense of direction to the film especially in sequences like the substation of nuclear warheads and the subsequent theft of the cruise missiles.

Yet this film is far from perfect. Never Say Never Again is easily one of the most dated of the Bond films with its heavy use of 1980's computer sand video games. While technology dates any film after a time, this film's heavy reliance on it, especially in the hijacking of the cruise missiles and the Domination sequence makes the film look incredibly dated some quarter of a century after its release. The script also tends to suffer from predictability due to the very fact it's a remake of Thunderball.

Yet for its predictability the script for Never Say Never Again is pretty good. The script sports good dialogue scenes, not a single cringe worthy one liner (how many of the Roger Moore era scripts can you say that about?), some humorous situations, and yet is watchable and tense for the most part. Once you look past he fact that it's a remake, there's quite a lot of good things in the script for the film.

Music is in fact the biggest weakness of the film. Due to the "unofficial" status of the film, the James Bond Theme could not be used. That said this could have shown with the right composer that a Bond score without it could work. Unfortunately Michael Legrand's score is far from adequate. Legrand's score is totally out of place in a Bond film and there is only of or two places where it actually works. To make matters worse the film is also lumbered with one of the worst title sequences ever to grace a James Bond film.

Despite being heavily dated, somewhat predicable, and having a bad score Never Say Never Again is still a good Bond film. With one of the best casts of any Bond film, good action sequences, good special effects, good direction, and some terrific dialogue, this film proves that "unofficial" isn't a bad thing. In fact it is is better then Octopussy and the winner of "the battle of the Bonds". If you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.

If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.

If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toupée and still see James Bond.

If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.

If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.

If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.

If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.

Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.

And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son! There are lot of similarities between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball not only on Sean Connery but also the story and plot. except the actors all other are same like hijacking Atomic bombs, asking for ransom, trafficking nukes in a ship, etc only difference are place of occurrence in thunder ball plot it is in Bahamas in Never Say Never Again it is over North Africa. And in thunder ball the NATO / RAF itself loads the nukes into plane and in Never Say Never Again it is changed by an "rouge arm of the Axe" and air dropped over US and stolen in Caribbean. Almost 99% is same.If anybody wants to dispute this they are most welcome. Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.

I've heard many people claiming that the "official movie" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be "good" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.

---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's "unofficial" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.

The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a "day off" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.

As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.

Highyly recommended. Like most people out there who have watched James Bond 007 movies. Most people NEVER knew that Thunderball was originally the FIRST 007 Movie to be released, but after Ian Fleming, wrote the story with kevin mcclory and jack whittingham. The 2 other authors took Ian Fleming to court and WON THE CASE providing evidence that ian fleming took the ideas of SPECTRE(Special Executive In CounterIntelligence Terrorism Revenge Extortion). So rather than making Thunderball they(fleming,broccoli,saltzman) went on to make Dr NO.

This movie had the best of the best, From getting sean connery to come back one more time, he was paid over 5,000,000 for NSNA. Irvin Kershner and Sean Connery had problems on the set, that much is true. But overall this movie was up there i think with(Thunderball, Licence To Kill, Dr No) those are my favorite from the bond series. David Dryer was hired for Special Photographic Effects, he was working at the time on Bladerunner beFORE NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. The 100 million dollar yacht makes the disco volante, look like a canoe. This movie starred the best Villian in a bond movie just behind dr no. Klaus Maria Brandeau held together this neurotic business like calm manner, with a little wit to his authority over bond. Barbara Carrera was excellent as fatima blush.

The Music was better than every score that didnt contain John Barry doing the backround score music in most bond films. Michel Legrand is not big in the usa compared to over in europe, he has played with miles davis and many other GREAT jazz musicians over the years. Its a little bland at times but the 007 theme that happens around 3 or 4 times in the Movie NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN IS so Cool, i like it more than the original.

007 is back One More Time

Timothy Dalton explained it right i thought, YOU CANT RELATE TO A SUPERMAN OR A SUPERHERO, he or she has to be human and have feelings. He was by far the BEST SERIOUS TRUE TO FLEMINGS VERSION OF BOND. But Sean Connery proves he can still do the role that made him and others to follow, i bet at 75 now he could still pull off a villian role in a MCCLORY 007 movie if one ever surfaces.

Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!

This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.

Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.

Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!

The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.

If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you! People criticize NSNA because it is a low-point in Bond god Sean Connery's career, and because it is unofficial. ***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* First of all, this movie is better then any other bond film featuring any other actor then Connery, all sub par wannabes in my book. Sean Connery is the only real Bond, no one comes even close to his toughness, good looks and sex appeal. Yes, this movie is a low point in Connery's Bond career, but it is still the definet best bond film of the 80's. Sean Connery is the only Bond actor who is good at an older age. he did not become a baggy mess like Moore, but kept his good looks and toughness, but gaining some gray hair. So what? hes still the only real 007, and he is as cool, and tough as ever. Sean Connery is the one and only 007. And this movie is definitly worth seeing, no matter what anyone says. No gun-barrel opening, but you can't have everything, can you? great theme song, though. Although Never Say Never Again (NSNA) has a weak sound track, it is far superior to its competition at the time, "Octopussy." Never Say Never Again is an updated and improved version of Thunderball (Connery's least popular bond flick). NSNA is rich with clever dialogue, wit, smarts, sex appeal, and one of the best and most convincing bad guys in the entire Bond series. In addition, NSNA features a very talented young and beautiful Kim Basinger. British comedy fans will also recognize the actor (Attwood), known as, "Mr. Bean." I wouldn't trade any of the Moore pictures for this one. However the earlier Connery/Bond efforts (with the exception of "Thunderball,") are superior.

I'm sick and tired of people complaining that Never Say Never Again is just a weak remake of Thunderball. Yes, that movie's influence is unmistakable, but the tremendous and almost universal inferiority of re-made films is reserved for such thoughtless and unintelligent films like the 1998 re-make of Psycho. While it's true that the opening theme of the twelfth (and Connery's last) Bond film is one of the worst of the entire series, the film itself still manages to stand on its own, despite many other weaknesses. Besides that, even the weak title song is made to blend pretty nicely with the closing dialogue in the film.

Sure, Sean Connery was getting a little on in age when this movie was filmed (at least by James Bond standards), but there is plenty of evidence in the narrative that makes it clear that this was not exactly unknown to the filmmakers. James Bond is near retirement before he is handed his assignment, having spent most of recent time teaching, not doing, and there is even the tongue in cheek insistence from M that he pay more attention to his health, dieting and training and getting more exercise and whatnot. Besides, this is James Bond, remember? This guy is supposed to be some kind of super human, and all of his fans are getting all upset because he's got some gray hairs. When this guy retires at the end of the film, M sends poor `Small-Fawcett' (in a hilarious cameo from Rowan Atkinson) to tell Bond that without him, he worries about the safety of the free world, and all of you people can't get over the fact that he's not a sprightly young man anymore. Come on, Sean Connery could STILL play James Bond just as good as he ever could, or at least better than anyone else ever has been able to.

The majority of the film deals with the elaborate plan to steal nuclear missiles and hold the world hostage (as Dr. Evil would say, `Oh hell, let's just do what we always do…'), so there's clearly not much new there, but this is one of the Bond films that had the better one liners. There's the amusing scene where Bond is asked for a urine sample – `If you could just fill this beaker for me…' `From here?' There are a lot of good one-liners, but the sexual innuendos aimed at Mr. Bond are especially prevalent in this installment. But then later he happens to throw that very urine sample into a villain's face, making him scream as if his face were burning off. Not a very good attempt at comic relief, especially since this guy had been kicking Bond's ass with some sort of super-spring device that could cut through pretty much anything. And of course, Kim Basinger stars in this film as one of the best Bond girls of the entire series.

It's no secret that Never Say Never Again has dated badly, and one of the things that has dated the worst is the special effects – with the one exception of the flying missiles, which were obviously fake but still impressive for 1982. The colored contact lens at the beginning of the film was totally without effect, and the laser watch was one of the worst things in the entire movie, second only to those damn sharks. Evidently, Fatima Blush put some sort of device on his scuba tank that attracted sharks (granted, they did have weird guiding mechanisms of their own), in a scene that more than likely inspired the classic line, `I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with FRICKIN' laser beams attached to their heads!' And then, of course, there is the exploding hotel room scene which was redone in an episode of The Simpsons, and which was obviously followed by another obligatory and overly casual one-liner from James.

The domination video game created by Largo, the film's villain, is an especially memorable scene, and the film also boasts what is probably the best motorcycle chase in the entire series (far to superior to the laughable one in Tomorrow Never Dies). But despite many strengths, the film's weaknesses are left clearer in the audience's mind at the end of the film due in large part to the anticlimactic underwater conclusion (one of the more obvious parts borrowed from Thunderball, and inferiorly recreated). Never mind the fact that Largo revealed some crucial information to Bond as he left him in the tower alive (Dr. Evil's brilliance, once again, `I'll just leave him there without actually witnessing his death and just assume everything went to plan. What?'), the climax of what is expected to be a fast-paced action film should never take place in a muted underwater atmosphere.

All in all, Never Say Never Again ranks very highly on the James Bond scale, and Connery's wink at the end of the film (as well as the two closing lines) suggested at the time that he may still return for another turn as Bond. Clearly, this is no longer very likely, so we can only hope. Many have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an official Bond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to the fruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-credit sequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of the film is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossible for EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and title sequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.

Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film is certainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is a vast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverse range of exotic locations are included in the film.

There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera is impeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the film is the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by a dynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays the psychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actors portraying Blofeld have indulged in.

NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At the commencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery's portrayal of Bond. Bond promises "never again" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion to Connery's portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying to hurt the official Bond franchise.

Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last time that Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me that perhaps he should have never have said "never again". Yes, let's get this out of the way before we begin: *This is the one that Sean Connery returned to in 1983 after the stint we had of Roger Moore. *It's Connery's last film. *And YES it's a (kind of) remake of Thunderball, but more of a film inspired by it. If all you Bond purists out there think I'm gonna get controversial, you're right. Bond is one of the greatest movie series ever, but that doesn't mean that a series should go on forever. This, I think, is one of two films where they could've done themselves a huge favour and ended the Bond saga. Not offended yet? Then I'll continue... Hey, if you're thinking I'm indifferent about Bond flicks, you're wrong. I grew up with my Mum being OBSESSED with them. Any spare moment, Bond and his antics would be on the TV. Bond rules, and 'Never Say Never Again' (directed by Irvin 'Empire Strikes Back' Kershner) is one of the best. It may not be 'Goldfinger' or 'From Russia...' and may not have been done by the same production house as all the others (which I hear is why they refuse to accept it was ever made!?), but still stands head and shoulders above the recent Brosnan outings... (if you haven't spat at the screen, read on). CHARACTERIZATION!!!!! Something so many blockbuster films forget about these days, but something which is essential to telling a good story. 'Never' played a superb hand by treating 007 like he had been ageing since 'Dr. No'. He's 'getting on a bit' and so has to do things like go to a health farm - a direct order from 'M' (!). Yeah, if you haven't seen this film, I won't give too much away with the plot because A) Loads happens and B) Obviously, I want YOU to see it for yourselves. Don't be put off by my 'old Bond' revelation, Connery still get plenty of superb set pieces to charge, swim, punch, speed, smash, and snog his way through. The man is a legend, and this film is one of his most enjoyable outings as Bond. High tech gadgets galore, some great villains, and an excellent supporting cast (including a fantastic cameo by Rowan Atkinson) lift this movie high above audience expectation.

This could've been the last Bond film ever, and it would've been a party to remember. Playing the secret agent as someone nearing retirement was refreshing stroke of genius - the last scene wraps things up perfectly for the series.... ...but still we had more, and then more, and more still, and one more Moore. Still, if you fancy finding out what "Fatima Blush" is all about, get this film. Then you can at least pretend 007 spent his last moments as a wisecracking secret agent, in the arms of Kim Basinger, and smirking at Mr. Bean. (P.S. * That other film that I think could've finished it all off? The gritty 'License to Kill' I've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.

The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.

7/10 \ 2.5/4 \ 3+ (1+ - 6-) I like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version). I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM "well-cast," but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at "larger than life" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis "repertory player" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when "Dorian Gray" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me. The famous French detective Henri Cassin takes his first vacation in 11 years in St. Margot where he meets Nanette, the daughter of the vacation spot proprietors. Despite Nanette being promised to childhood sweetheart Leon, Henri and Nanette fall in love and decide to marry, despite Nanette's father objecting due to Henri's age. On the day of their wedding, Leon returns and Nanette runs after him. Nothing is heard of the two until both are found dead, and Henri swears he won't rest until he can find the killer. The only clue Henri has to work with is a footprint found by Leon, but he is also getting written warnings that others will die soon. Soon Nanette's mother is found dead and Henri has no idea as to the identity of the killer. Thinking himself a failure he returns to Paris, then he realizes (and fears) that the killer can be only one person, even though none of his colleagues can believe his explanation. Out of the ordinary murder mystery that doesn't really follow the formula in other of the genre by Columbia or other B studios. Credit to that certainly goes to director Lewis who does manage to turn this into a noirish film despite the setting of the film, also aided by the use of good camera-work and lighting. Geray turns in a very good performance in probably his only lead and the rest of the cast is able to carry their performance. Rating, 8. So Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle – Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles – as an odd choice.

For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Surété in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town.

But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....

A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story – and the storytelling – gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick – and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a movie.

Don't forget the lover on the side!! She is a 'hottie', Karen Parsons is delicious, she is wonderful, in acting and beauty and style. It's just his Job! HO, well now here is a show that the writing slugs you in the gut and while your doubled over, kicks you in the butt! In quoting Peter's wife,(The Associate/ writer/ Producer) she said when they were watching the 'previews' for up coming 'new' shows at an ABC network party, she looked at her husband after the preview for 'the Job' played and said, "This doesn't look like anything else that is on this network. You guys are in trouble." Meaning, it 'looks' very good! But it's not looking like the regular 'shiny happy people sitcom' fare or over-hair-styled drama that they (ABC) are regularly comfortable putting on the 'Air". From the time I saw this, after the first episode finished, I made sure that I didn't miss that time slot next week. I was instantly addicted to "The Job" Cutting wit and cynicism, outrageous situations, and laughter rolling writers makes this series a Hit!!

Then I felt anger and a feeling of being let down, that the show just sailed off the air. I wondered what executive, made that decision to tear down a major comedy cornerstone for their network?

I talked to other people about it some knowing, some not, but I know that the stupid network didn't promote this hard enough, or I should say visually enough. If they had it would have run at least 3-5 seasons, maybe even six. I just believe that knowing network short comings and being overly subscribing to one 'formula' or another that they missed the boat with this one. There was so much room for expansion, it had barely just begun. The situations were funny and serious, fast and sometimes slow, though not much it kept a good pace. some years later, I finally found it on DVD new for $50.00. To me it would be worth $1,000.00 to have this in my entertainment library. I watched in amazement as I went through both seasons again for the third time on DVD and the ending 'Betrayal' episode, was going into a total serious drama segment with them uncovering a murder victim, it was better than most of the drama 'victim Unit' and 'cop' shows on the air now!!! They went into the scenes as serious as a heart attack and as believable, did so as if not even skipping a beat. Just like it was meant to be serious, I am so impressed with the 'versatile ways' that Tolan and Leary shared in the story-lines and scripts.

In another outrage of the 'entertainment week' I learned that the beautiful wardrobe, of silk ties and expensive suits with pressed shirts and ultra stylish footwear...was all sold to the movie made for cable "In the cut" (2003) for only four hundred dollars, thats it!!!! I'm sick. Did you see what they all wear for each show?? A good over coat alone could run that much.

This was Denis Leary at some of his finest. I recommend this great cop 'dramedy' for East-coasters or wherever you are in this country. I even heard that people from Ireland were joking with Leary the 'Bathroom' episode, repeating lines back to him from that one, because they saw it over there. (****) A Superbly intuitive, comedic New York Leary/Tolan cop Show. Denis Leary can indeed be funny and clever at times and is always likable, but this takes the cake! This show showed Leary's genius.

The Job is set in New York. Leary plays Mike McNeil, a hard-nosed detective who is married, has a occasional drug problem, and has a girlfriend. McNeil has serious attitude. So much he's dripping in it. The precinct is filled with funny, interesting and likable characters besides McNeil. An excellent cast too. All of the episodes in this show are really funny and are addictive. The one liners in this show are everywhere. You'll be in stitches after hearing them and still laugh about them a few minutes after and then some. The cases the precinct deals with are something else to stripper nuns, a bathroom hostage situation, and more are over the top. This show was too good. Could have grown legs to last many more seasons.

The Last Word: A great, fantastic show. I miss this show dearly. All episodes of this show are great. You get even belly-laughs...a lot. ABC made a huge mistake by giving this the ax. Too bad Leary did not revive the show for cable TV. Still, I give this show one of my highest of recommendations. Truly a one of a kind show. This type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode! My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.

I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.

I was wrong.

This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.

Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.

This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time. If someone had nudged me about 15 minutes into 'Ray' and asked what I thought of Jamie Foxx in the title role, it would have been time for a blank stare. After all, what is this (fictitious) person talking' about? That wasn't Jamie Foxx up on the big screen. That was Ray Charles. This is one of the best performances by anybody in recent years. Like the soundtrack, Jamie as Ray is flat-out brilliant.

The blind Genius of Soul (who took a revolutionary step of mixing gospel with R&B) died during production. The movie about his troubled life is good, not great. Taylor Hackford's direction and James L. White's script follow the well-worn biopic outline. Super-talented youngster battles adversity, achieves greatness while also self-destructing, then picks himself up out of the gutter for a happy ending. The film shows Charles' flaws (heroin abuse, chronic womanizing, persistent bastard-fathering) even as it sucks you in with his beautiful music.

Kerry Washington and Regina King play the main women in Ray's life, one his long-suffering wife and the other his longtime mistress. Both actresses match Foxx stride for stride. What takes him to a different level, though, is his deep understanding and uncanny impersonation of the great musician. The entire cast is effective, especially Sharon Warren as his headstrong mother and Curtis Armstrong as a music exec. Hackford's stars are likely to be rewarded with trophies and---better yet---more starring roles.

I was not a Ray Charles aficionado before 'Ray'. Apparently, the film has left out a lot (as do all biopics), but this picture functions as both an old-fashioned crowd pleaser AND a dark investigation of a brilliant/troubled man. For those who whine that Foxx doesn't actually sing (as if that somehow diminishes his performance), take a hike. No mere actor can sing like Mr. Charles anyway. You can't have everything. What the talented star does in this picture is about as close to "everything" as we'll probably see for a while. First of all, it is sheer joy to hear the legend perform such wonderful and timeless music. This movie and soundtrack is a tour de force. Ray Charles is unique and amazing. I truly adored the film as it was inspiring and entertaining throughout.

Jamie Foxx has become one of the premiere actors in Hollywood as is clearly shown in Ray and he should get an Oscar for this role, it is unprecedented. In fact, everyone who worked on this film should receive accolades. I really liked Kerry Washington who played the exceptional wife...Ray Charles obviously married well. Regina King is a fine actress as well as the extraordinary Sharon Warren who plays a struggling young mother.

In all honesty, I'd say this whole project was providentially arranged. The entire cast was perfect, great screenplay and awesome settings...major props to the director Taylor Hackford and crew for doing such a splendid job in bringing the life of Ray Charles to the screen so flawlessly. This is my picture of the year, certainly one of the best biographical films ever made. This is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I took me to a new time and place. It was as though I was right there with Ray through his many trials and triumphs. Jamie Foxx transformed himself into Ray. During the movie he was Ray. Also, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson and Regina King were superb. The movie was well cast and directed, the music was fantastic.

I've seen the movie four (4) times with different people and the last time was just as enjoyable as the first time. I will buy the DVD as soon as it is released. This is a movie that will viewed over and over for years to come.

Thank you for a great experience. This movie has inspired me to be a better person. In life you don't know who you will run across and sometimes our prejudice will cause us to prejudge a person wrongly. I have learned to give a person the benefit of the doubt because of this movie. I also learned that tough love can build a stronger person. Now I want to know where to find the movie soundtrack. There are songs in this soundtrack I have been trying to get for years. May I comment on the acting for a second. Jamie Fox was outstanding. The man has risen to be the actor of actors. Also the performance of Regina King was awesome. If I can get a woman to look at me the way she looked at Ray...I can only dream. I plucked down $18.00 for this movie and I don't have a lot of money but I am willing to see this movie again and again. This movie touched me. Taylor Hackford wanted to make this movie for 15 years, and finally found Jamie Foxx to play the title role. Foxx is amazing in his portrayal of Ray Charles. From an interview I saw with Foxx, he met Charles several times and the two of them also played piano together (Foxx had piano lessons as a young child and actually played piano in all his scenes). I didn't see Charles live until his later years, so it was great to get a perspective on how his career developed. I hope Foxx gets nominated for the Best Actor Oscar as he certainly deserves it. The music, also, is incredible - it really showcases the breadth of Charles' music, from country to blues, and everything in between. The movie also gives an unblemished account of Ray Charles' life, from the many women he had relationships with to his drug habit and the consequences of that. Let's get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.

Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.

P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there! The year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.

And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.

The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.

A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, "Sing my Song for You" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art. Jamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues/soul/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.

This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it.

Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:

GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going "country" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.

BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.

The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the "theatrical version." Jamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.

The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.

The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in "Ray." The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.

Recommended for everyone. 'Ray' lives on

Ray Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***

"Hit the road Jack, and don't come back…no more, no more, no more, NO MORE!" Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic!

There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!

It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Note- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).

Rating- ***

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

19th February, 2005 A couple of days ago I saw the awesome "House of Sand and Fog" and I was impressed with the amazing performance of Ben Kingsley in the lead role. I decided to see "Ray", trying to understand how and why Ben Kingsley did not win the Oscar of Best Lead Actor. After watching Jamie Foxx in the role of Ray Charles, I agree with the Academy: he really deserved to be awarded. I like Ray Charles, I was not his fan, but it is amazing the resemblance of Jamie Foxx with him. The film is completely supported by Jamie Foxx, who participates of most of the shootings, and his movements on stage looks like as if he was a reincarnation of Ray Charles. With regard to the story, I saw the extended version on DVD, too long but also very pleasant, with many beautiful songs and scenes showing mainly a junkie Ray Charles. My greatest surprise was to find that Ray Charles was heroine addicted, and how he treated his own family. The presentation of his childhood through fragmented flashbacks was the boring part of the movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Ray" Jamie Foxx was the epitome of Ray Charles. After a few moments you stop seeing a film and see a biography played by the great man himself. Ray Charles was truly a genius of music and the movie excellently depicted that. No one has ever or will ever write, play, or record music like this musical giant. When he passed the flesh, the world lost one of it's greatest American heroes. As far as the movie, the fact that Jamie Foxx received a classical music scholarship to college and could play like Ray was an asset to the director. What could be better than that? You don't have to have a "double" play piano and then try to split the screen from someone else's hands to Jamie's face. It worked beautifully. I loved the fact that it also picked up how difficult Ray was. He wasn't always a nice man. You didn't also root for him. He was a drug addict, a womanizer, and sometimes just plain hard-headed. But I guess that's what made him genius so I can't fault him for that. I pick Jamie for Best Actor! I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.

But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a "great" film. I've seen "Malcolm X" and was blown away. Same with "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Bird". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.

I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several "other" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got "choppy" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on "Lifetime" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.

So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.

Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he "looked" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.

Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say "he was robbed". I wont particularly feel that he had been.

This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A "great" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so. Let's not beat about the bush here, Taylor Hackford's undoubtedly slick movie has little to make it stand out from the biopic genre other than Jamie Foxx's exceptional, career-making performance. Remember the year they handed the special effects Oscar to the Terminator 2 boffins, uncontested? They should do the same with this year's Best Actor gong.

That Ray Charles' story is worthy of filming is not in dispute. Indeed, the many flashbacks to his traumatic childhood are well-handled and judiciously used. But for a life so unique, the film seems incredibly formulaic and familiar. It follows the 'history of a flawed genius' template almost to the letter: hardship and exploitation, women and drugs, recording wrangles, band squabbles, rehab, yeah yeah yeah. And surely there was more humour in his life than we're treated to here?

I appreciate Charles' music yet where neatly-cut medleys would have kept the story rolling, Hackford indulges himself with near-full-length renditions of too many songs - in gin joints, in the recording studio, in concert halls, infinitum. Narratively, and for non-devotees, they begin to act like a cinematic brake. This may seem like harsh judgement on a music biopic but with a catalogue as extensive as Ray's, we need a taste not the whole dish. Otherwise, we'd buy the albums.

Intrigued as I was, I glanced at my watch more than once. So for all Foxx's brilliance, maybe Ray would have been better served as an HBO two-parter? Ray is interesting in parts, and technically it's very well made, but Ray is often sluggish, and forgets some important details about Ray's life. All the movie shows us is parts where he's in his prime, and most successful, which is good, it's just I wanted to see some bits about his older life too. Jamie Fox mimics Ray Charles to a t, at times it's absolutely uncanny. I have to say, Jamie is the reason I got through this movie. The 1st half is a lot better then the 2nd. It's more interesting, it has more Oomph, and it's nowhere near as sluggish as the 2nd. I wasn't a big fan of Ray Charles to begin with to be honest, so I really didn't have any expectations for the film, what so ever. Ray's biggest problem had to be the over length. This could've been cut very easily, with more relevant scenes, other then the ones they used. I found the early part of Ray's life when he was just starting to get successful, the most interesting. He was humble back then, and somewhat a gentleman. And while the film may have over exaggerated his actions, he got a bit too full of himself for me to care.

Performance. Jamie Fox gives a performance for the ages as Ray. He looks like Ray, talks like Ray, acts like Ray. He even sings like Ray!. This is much more then an impression, I truly believed he WAS, Ray Charles. He was the heart of the film, and without his presence, this film would've been a complete and utter bore.

Bottom Line. Ray is interesting at times, dreadfully dull at others. When all was said and done, I was disappointed by how routine it seemed at times. Just because it's a bibliographical film, Doesen't mean it's automatically Oscar worthy. Jamie Fox deserved his Oscar, but the movie is above average at best. Worth a watch, but if I were you, I'd keep my expectations at a rather comfortable level.

7/10 Jamie Foxx did an incredible job playing Ray Charles. I loved this movie because every so often there would be a flashback scene and then to the current movie. When Ray Charles was little, he went blind and his mother didn't baby him. She was a strong woman who didn't treat him any different because he was blind. She made him do things on his own and that really pushed him to become a great musician later on in life. His mother also sent him to school as well. Then when Ray Charles became a man, he could stand up for himself and take care of himself but there was a downfall into narcotics, sex and betrayal. When I am discouraged about something I can just think of this movie and it will inspire me. Like almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard "Georgia ON My Mind" and "The Mess-Around" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple." The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 9/10 Jamie Foxx absolutely IS Ray Charles. His performance is simply genius. He owns the film, just as Spacek owned "Coal Miner's Daughter" and Quaid owned "Great Balls of Fire." In fact, it's hard to remember that the part of Ray Charles is being acted, and not played by the man himself. Ray Charles is legendary. He is well-established as a musician and the music is deep, complex, and innovative ~ even more innovative than I realized before watching this movie. The film should make new fans of a young audience who might come into it knowing little about his music. Ray Charles' life provided excellent biographical material for the film, which goes well beyond being just another movie about a musician. I confess that I knew very little about the man's life until I saw this film. I came out of it being impressed with Ray Charles' courage, strength, and innovation as man and musician. I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life. A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light. Ray Charles Robinson (Jamie Foxx) is a extremely talented pianist and singer as well. Ray is an smart man as well. Ray started his career in the late 1940's before he finds his distinctive style. Ray is certainly popular at the night clubs with his music. Things changes, when he meets an ambitious music producer (Curtis Armstrong). Who knows Ray got what it takes to be an strong performer and he also meets an woman (Kerry Washington), he loves as well & marries along the way. Ray's album becomes an hit, when he mixes soul music and gospel together. Which makes Ray an Controversial man during in the 1950's to the 1960's. Ray has love for all kind of music, including Country. But Ray isn't always the perfect man as he seems to be. Since he had plenty of failed relationship with other woman, while he's married. But he also had to battle with racism, people who double-crossed him, his music ideals and of course, his drug addiction. Which it made Ray's life extremely difficult for him and as well for battling the tragedy of his childhood. Which Ray always blamed himself for.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Taylor Hackford (Against All Odds, Devil's Advocate, Dolores Claiborne) made an fascinating true-life story of the always interesting of the late "Ray Charles". Foxx won an Oscar for his touching performance of the late entertainer. Foxx brings heart and soul in the film and humour as well. But this film has plenty of rich performances by an top cast including:Regina King, Clifton Powell, Bokeem Woodbine, Aunjaune Ellis, Warwick Davis, Terrence Howard and Sharon Warren as Ray's mother. This is probably THE best film of Hackford's career to date. The film has plenty of song of Charles's best music as well.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an excellent Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Disc 1 has an informative commentary by the director and the DVD also has the original theatrical cut and extended version as well. But u are better watching the theatrical version instead, because the bonus footage is in bad shape at times and u have to click on a logo if you want to see these Deleted Scenes. Disc 2 has deleted scenes with optional commentary by the director (Which is seen in the Extended Version), featurettes and more. But the featurettes are disappointingly short for this DVD. Since the movie is extraordinary good. This film was nominated four Oscars including Best Costume Designs, Best Director, Best Editing and Best Picture. This is an amazing true-life story well told but of course, Charles' life was even more controversial and outrageous than the final film. Still, it's pretty damn close. Screenplay by James L. White. From an Story by White and director:Hackford. Oscar-Winner for Best Sound. Don't miss it. (**** ½/*****). Brilliant Biographic FILM………..

Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.

Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!

Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.

I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?

The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington … she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.

Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried… I Cried very Badly……

I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry… And that's a lot for me!

All in all a SUPERB FILM……. One of the very best of this century!

10/10 This is the true story of the great pianist and jazz singer/legend Ray Charles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Jamie Foxx). He was born in a poor African American-town, and he went blind at 7 years old, but with his skills of touch and hearing, this is what would later in life would lead him to stardom. By the 1960's he had accomplished his dream, and selling records in millions, and leading the charts with songs and albums. But the story also showed his downfalls, including the separation from his wife and child, because of his affair with a band member , his drug and alcohol use, and going to prison because of this. Also starring Regina King as Margie Hendricks, Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson, Clifton Powell as Jeff Brown, Harry J. Lennix as Joe Adams, Bokeem Woodbine as Fathead Newman, Aunjanue Ellis as Mary Ann Fisher, Sharon Warren as Aretha Robinson, C.J. Sanders as Young Ray Robinson, Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun and Richard Schiff as Jerry Wexler. It is a great story with a great singer impression, the songs, including Hit the Road Jack, are the highlights. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, and it was nominated for Best Costume Design, Best Director for Taylor Hackford, Best Editing and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and it was nominated for the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Craig Armstrong and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It was number 99 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good! Recent years have seen a number of biopics of famous singers, and "Ray", the story of Ray Charles, has much in common with "Walk the Line" which was made the following year and told the story of Johnny Cash. Cash and Charles were near-exact contemporaries, both being born in the early thirties and dying in 2003/04. Both grew up in poverty in the American Deep South. Both lost a brother in an accident during childhood. Both achieved success in the 1950s. Both experienced problems in their marriages, and both were addicted to drugs. All these matters are emphasised in both films. There are also similarities with Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind". Although that film was about a mathematician rather than a musician, it, like both "Ray" and "Walk the Line", stressed the part played by its subject's wife in helping her husband to overcome his problems.

Ray Charles was born to a single mother in a poor black community in Georgia in 1930. (His original name was Raymond Charles Robinson, but when he was starting his career as a musician he dropped his surname to avoid confusion with the boxer Sugar Ray Robinson). In some ways Charles had an even harder time than did Cash, having to cope with two additional disadvantages in the shape of his blindness and of the racism which affected all black Americans, especially in the South, during his lifetime. Charles had a particularly traumatic childhood, witnessing the death of his younger brother George in a drowning accident and going blind about a year or two later. He appears to have been haunted by nightmares and feelings of guilt over George's death throughout his life.

The first half of the film is rather slow moving and is a standard rags-to-riches showbiz biopic, telling the story of how the young Charles is taught to play the piano, becomes a nightclub performer and then rises to fame as a major artist, falling in love along the way with the beautiful Della Bea. The best scenes in this part of the film are the flashbacks to Charles's childhood. There is an effective recurrent image of coloured glass bottles hanging from a tree in front of his house; perhaps this was one of his few visual memories of his life before he went blind. There is also a memorable scene in which the teenaged Charles shames a prejudiced bus driver into letting him on the bus by pretending to have lost his sight on Omaha beach (In reality he would only have been thirteen at the time of the Normandy landings).

The second half of the film becomes more interesting as it moves into more controversial territory, focusing on Charles's drug addiction, the problems in his marriage caused by his affair with Margie Hendricks, one of his backing singers, and his battles against racism. In the early sixties Charles caused a sensation by refusing to play in front of a racially segregated audience in Georgia (although, contrary to what is stated in the film, this did not result in his being banned from performing in the state). He also fought against racial divides within the music industry itself, performing not only traditionally "black" styles of music such as gospel and rhythm and blues, but also traditionally "white" ones such as country and western (regarded by many black Americans as the music of choice of the redneck community).

As Peter Bradshaw, film critic of "The Guardian", noted "Ray" is a sunny film which diplomatically turns away from the darker side of things. It omits any mention of such matters as the death of Charles's beloved mother Aretha during his teenage years, his brief marriage to Eileen Williams in the early fifties and his eventual divorce from Della Bea in 1977. It also plays down the extent of his womanising and the number of his illegitimate children. There are similarities here with "A Beautiful Mind" which also omitted a number of controversial details about its subject's personal life, including a divorce.

Fans of Ray Charles will no doubt enjoy the film for the music, but it is worth watching even for those who do not know much about him, chiefly on account of Jamie Foxx's Oscar-winning performance in the title role, reproducing Charles's mannerisms so exactly that we think we actually are watching a blind man, even though Foxx himself is sighted. (Unlike Joaquin Phoenix in "Walk the Line", however, Foxx did not do his own singing- doubtless Charles's distinctive singing voice was too difficult to reproduce). He receives good support from some of the other performers, particularly Sharon Warren as Aretha and Kerry Washington as Della Bea. The film is uneven and overlong, but nevertheless rewarding. 7/10 I agree that this film was spectacular. The way in which Jamie Foxx captured, not only the impression of Ray Charles, but the essence of Ray Charles really made the film. His life made a great story and it is good that it is finally being told. I also found a great interview with Jamie Foxx about this role by Ernie Manouse from InnerVIEWS on KUHT, Houston Channel 8. The link is http: //video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-3001837218936089620&q =innerviews+ jamie+foxx&hl=en . I encourage everyone to check it out, as it gives in depth looks into what went into his role and his personal feelings about Ray Charles. The only problem I might cite with the film is that the shotting style was rather bland at times, but in the end I think it helped make the story more realistic and keep the focus on the person, Ray Charles, rather than the film Ray. A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of "Ray," a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.

The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.

Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts "Georgia on My Mind" as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.

What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.

Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives "Ray" a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.

As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.

One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.

This is an excellent biography, which, like "Walk the Line" is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, "Ray" is something to experience. Ray is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend. I'm not saying anything new when I say that "Ray" was magnificent. As I proceed to laud this movie I have to mention something that sets it apart from other films. Very rarely is a film made entirely by the actor(s). "Ray" quite simply was made by Jamie Foxx. Without the wonderful performance of Jamie Foxx, "Ray" would just be another interesting and informative biopic. I always thought Foxx was funny, stemming from his days with "In Livin' Color" and "The Jamie Foxx Show", and I also knew that he was talented, as he used his own show ("The Jamie Foxx Show") to show off his musical talents. But never did I imagine that he could pull off a role like this. I don't know much about acting and what they go through to get into character or other things like that, but what I saw from Jamie Foxx was extremely impressive. He wrapped himself into that role and made us see Ray Charles rather than an actor portraying Ray Charles. The story of "Ray" was great yes, but it was given life by Jamie Foxx. The very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.

But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!

The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.

The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.

This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed! It was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the "peepshow" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.

In this experiment, codenamed simply as "Dickson Experimental Sound Film", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named "Song of the Cabin Boy". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's "Black Maria" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, "The Celluloid Closet", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the "Song of the Cabin Boy" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, "The Gay Brothers", is actually anachronistic as "gay" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).

Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumière's Cinématographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8/10 This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.

The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.

The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.

So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.

8/10 This film is an eery, but interesting film. I will tell you why it is eery later in this review.

The film is interesting because it was the first film to ever contain sound. No, it may not be a one hour and forty two minute film, no it may not contain great action scenes, but it is still a wonderful film to me. It sparked a whole knew revolution if you will, of sound movies. This can be a little eery to watch, knowing that everyone in that film are now dead, I can hear the voice of a man in the beginning who no longer walks the Earth visible, and that the sound is cracky and broken.

I recommend this video for everyone to watch. This created movies as we know it today! There have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction.

There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before.

This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern. The fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a DVD. I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.

I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.

Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few "trick" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.

One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often. Ever wonder where that episode, "Tuttle," came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase "the Lieutenants, though ..." into "Lieutenant Kizhe" which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be! Saw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of "lifetime movie network"? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.

The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.

I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed it. Christine Lahti (Sandy Dunlap) and Mary Tyler Moore (Holly Davis) worked well with soapish material, Ted Danson did his best with a thankless role of Chip Davis The premise of this that the two ladies' friendship, one a seemingly happily married woman and the other a career woman who is aware of her biological clock ticking. I found the relationship that Ted Danson's character had with the single woman played by Christine Lahti's rather sordid. He behaved in a caddish way, yet he left two "widows" pining over him, bawling. I found it revolting when when Sandy told him she wanted to break it off after meeting his wife, he calls her saying he misses her (did he call his wife? There was no sign of that). He behaved like a heel. It perhaps would have made a more interesting film had he not been killed off. Perhaps both ladies would have wised up and dumped him. I liked the friendship between the two ladies but it was spoiled by what they had in common: The Cad of a husband. Although the premise of the movie involves a major "coincidence," the actors all do a creditable job and look great bringing the story to life. I found myself rooting for the characters played by Mary Tyler Moore and Christine Lahti, empathizing with both, and wanting them to reconcile. Sam Waterston and Ted Danson are fine in their roles as well, doing a decent job with the stereotypical buddy relationship. While the story tends to leap through time, occasionally leaving the audience perhaps a little hungry for missing detail, it still flows and avoids any real confusion. This interesting storyline has all the elements for a good "chick flick." I normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.

This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.

Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.

But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.

I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.

I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go. Intelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1/2 from **** The first thing you see in this film is a static angle(one which will be repeated later in the film), depicting the chaos going on(unseen to the audience) in a studio that airs news. Soon after, Fonda's character's typical story is shown, in that same angle. Don't let this mislead you; the film is not about a female reporter, a woman struggling to succeed in a male-dominated profession. That is merely a lead-in, a way of starting the film(though it's used later). The actual point to this production is revealed gradually, and the first we see of it is in a deliberately long scene early on. The entire film has that pace; not slow or drawn-out, but deliberate. It's never really fast, even in the few sequences that one would normally expect to be so. This pacing(especially because it seems to slow down further as the plot is revealed, as the disturbing, unsettling nature of the film is unraveled) is strong, almost painful to the viewer. It inspires you to, if it had been possible, jump into the screen, grab the people responsible by the collar and yell at them to *do* something about it, to remedy the situation. Never once did I feel like getting up or even taking my eyes off the screen for a moment. The subject is extremely important to be aware of, and it's handled perfectly here. No over-dramatization(well... very little, anyway), just an accurate presentation of the issue. The direction is astounding. The empathy felt for Lemmon's character is profound. The editing is masterful... one scene near the very end illustrates that perfectly. The editor, judging from his filmography, is vastly underrated. The writing was excellent. The acting was great, in particular by Lemmon, Fonda and Douglas(who also produced it). The lack of a score is perfect; no music is needed to enhance. The ending is sublime and effective. The movie does have a few negative points... among them, some of the dialog is obviously and undeniably mainly exposition, one particular part of the film, whilst dramatic, doesn't seem to mesh with something that follows it. Not everyone will watch the film because of two features of it which are commonly (and rightfully so) attributed to bad movies; the pacing(which can be mistaken as being slow) and the (lack of) score. One could argue that to be a negative thing, as everyone ought to consider the points it presents, but maybe it's better this way; handling the heavy subject with the intelligence and respect(for the topic as well as the viewer)... something like this, maybe it shouldn't be spoon-fed. I was mesmerized with the film, and left very taken aback. I recommend this to anyone who believe themselves strong enough to handle it. 9/10 When THE CHINA SYNDROME was released, plenty of right-wing critics and pro-nuke supporters blasted this film, particularly since its three leading stars were all known for their liberal politics and their overt distrust of nuclear power. But it only took two weeks and a near-catastrophic accident at Three Mile Island to shut those critics up.

Fonda and Douglas are the L.A. news crew that witness a potentially nasty accident at the Ventana nuclear power plant. Douglas films the event through the plant's soundproof glass; but the TV station will not air the footage, fearing a massive lawsuit. It is thus up to Fonda and Douglas to get at the truth, despite a massive attempt by the plant's owners to cover up the accident.

But a conscientious shift supervisor (Jack Lemmon) has uncovered certain defects in the plant's pump support structure. He believes that these defects were the cause of the accident and that, though it would be extremely costly and lengthy, if repairs aren't made, the next accident could be apocalyptic. But he can't get anyone who works with him to believe his story. The result is a nightmarish climax that pulls various political, technological, and human interest stories together in one disturbing package.

While obviously quite politically liberal in nature, THE CHINA SYNDROME, well directed and co-written by James Bridges (THE PAPER CHASE), is also fundamentally a message movie about the inherent dangers of putting technology and nuclear power together. Fundamentally, nuclear power can NEVER be made safe because people can NEVER be perfect. That is what the film is saying; and in a highly entertaining and suspenseful way, it says it brilliantly. All the right elements seemed to conspire here to make this a memorable thriller for years to come. You have the stellar cast - Michael Douglas in an uncharacteristic 'free-spirit' role that pretty much launched his movie career, Fonda playing her typical forthright female doing her bit for womens lib, and Jack Lemmon as assured as ever showing us a man with a crisis of confidence. Give them a hot-button topic about big business being duplicitous, and that's encouraging for a kickoff, but to have life imitating art so soon after is a marketing man's dream.

The script is impressively taut, intelligent but mercifully keeping the jargon to a minimum, and there is a genuine sense of sustained tension brought in play by the director as our three protagonists race to beat the clock. If you like 'whistle blowing' dramas, then this is not quite as good as "The Insider", but the whole thing is more than nervy enough. Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8/10 TV newscaster Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda) and her radical camerman Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) are at a nuclear power plant when a serious accident happens. The plants managers play it down but Adams has filmed it all. Wells and Adams try to get it on the air but the corporation that runs the plant prevents it. Plant executive Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) realizes there are serious problems and tests have been falsified. He tries to get executives to believe him--only they know it. Wells, Adams and Godell find all their lives are in danger.

I saw this in a movie theatre in 1979. I was only 17 and it scared me silly. To make matters worse the Three Mile Island accident happened around this time making the movie all that more real. Seeing it over 20 years later it doesn't scare me but it still is an excellent film--it works as a mystery, a gripping drama and an expose on the nuclear power industry. Fonda (with red hair) has one of her best roles as Wells--she perfectly conveys her character's growing suspicion and horror when she realizes a nuclear disaster could happen. Lemmon is (as always) excellent. He starts out believing in his company and the job and slowly starts to unravel when he starts finding things out. He was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award for this. Douglas is good but he has a small part and is completely overshadowed by Lemmon and Fonda.

A really great film--one of the best of the 70s. Don't miss this one! I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.

However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.

I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does. One of the best and most exciting of all conspiracy thrillers, (there were a number of such film in the 1970's). This one is about an accident at a Neuclear Reactor and of the attempts to cover it up. Jack Lemmon is the employee who realizes just how dangerous the plant is and Jane Fonda is the crusading television reporter who takes the story on board and both players are at their best.

The events portrayed in the film are, of course, terrifying and not in the least bit far-fetched, (much of what happens here happened in real life at Three Mile Island), and although it now looks like something a period piece it, nevertheless, highlights just how fragile and dangerous a world we have created for ourselves. Expect a number of similar films about the effects of global warming any time soon, (and not rubbish like "The Day After Tomorrow" either). "The China Syndrome" launched a whole string of films about the potentially devastating effects of misused nuclear power, a black cloud of paranoia that would hang over America for much of the Reagan years. It's a well-made and effective drama, given an extra punch by its high-power stars, notably Jack Lemmon who plays a senior official of the nuclear power plant who suffers a crisis of conscience. But one can't help but think that it was the serendipitous timing of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident that occurred just a couple of weeks after this film's release that has given it its lasting appeal as a classic from the 70s. As watchable as it is, it's certainly no classic.

With a red-headed Jane Fonda as a news reporter and a bearded Michael Douglas as her camera man (and the film's producer, by the way).

Grade: B+ Great film from the late 1970's. Says much about corporate corruption at the expense of the common person, so that the powerful can gain gain huge profits and disregard the environment and safety of others.

Nearly 30 years later this film is compelling about the power of certain corporate entities that since the films release have gained ten fold in their ability to control; It shows the need for regulation of the public against powerful business interests whose primary goal is profit.

Jack Lemmon is brilliant- while Jane Fonda and Micheal Douglas are as equally compelling in their roles. The frivolous 70s where damned for much, this film redeems the decade.

A film that becomes better after each watching. Again, I've read all of the comments posted here and agree with the many intelligent ones, but totally disagree with those who think it was/is hokum.

Personally, I think nuclear is about the only energy left to us, unless our governments (feds and states) increase the grants thinking homeowners will use photo-cells on their roofs. Many attractive and pricey homes in Southern Calfifornia are designed and built to take advantage of the cleanest energy around, the sun. I live in a loft, which is exposed to total sunlight on its roof the entire day. I hardly use the AC - I'm sure it would consume too much electricity to convert the intense heat in the attic to about five degrees cooler. We are blessed with "dry" heat in this part of the country. I'm from the Gulf Coast of the USA, so I know about humidity.......

That said, I found "the China Syndrome" to be a convincing movie about what COULD go wrong, if the industry is not busy regulating and inspecting nuclear plants. I think there are enough comments posted here to enlighten those who still fear it like the plague: they ARE safe. TMI is still on-line....

Director James Bridges carefully guides this plot (by Mike Gray-T S Cook) to build suspense and to a thoughtfully interesting film. All the roles were well-played: Jane Fonda ("Kimberly Wells"), Jack Lemmon (Jack Godell") and producer Michael Douglas ("Richard Adams") are all excellent in their roles, plus all of the rest of the cast. I, too, loved there being no score. It was so interesting to get a true-to-life glimpse of the behind-the-scenes of the TV industry - that shouldn't be surprising. Currently, Dan Rather is sue-ing CBS, and I hope he wins. Can you believe Donald Trump saying "he's a loser" ? Trump - who cares? "tiberius1234" posted a very good comment here - I agree. It is my opinion that getting "vaporized" by a nuclear spill is much better than living in a world which has been wasted, and becomes "Blade Runner" and/or "Solyent Green". Come away from your video-games for a couple of hours and watch this "dated" movie (really isn't), and get a little education on nuclear energy. I Recommend it to the whole family.... first watched this film years ago with my daughter who is now 13 and fell in love with the vampire. we both thought it was a top film, then watched sub 11 then sub 111 now i find there is sub 1v which i cannot wait to get my fangs on, and also there is a fifth in the pipe line. if no one has seen the movies. these are the best of the best. i think it deserver's a thousands Oscar's. i could watch these from morning to night.i would love to have a set of nails like he has, watch out girls. i love it as all the story lines continues from film to film. these ant typical vampire movies they are better. i would love to live in the life that is protruded in the films. it would make all my dreams come true the subspecies series is an always will be the best vampire movies ever. there is something about them that makes them special i think it`s the feeling you get when you watch them .

they are set in modern times and yet they feel as if they are set in the 1700`s or 1800`s i think it has some thing to do with the set`s that are used if so then it`s working keep it up guy`s :).

in a quick round up of what`s happened in the first part - Radu was supposedly bannished from his home land years ago by his father and he has decided to come back and take what he thinks is his birth rite. the blood stone and all his father has so he kill`s his father who is played by Angus Scrimm (the tall man from the Phantasm movies). and takes the blood stone which has emense power to who ever has it because who has it need never kil anyone again because the stone is supposedly meant to drip the bloody of the saints and every time the Radu takes a drop from it he is slowly going insane. (thats all we need an insane vampire as if a normal vampire aint bad enough). well Radu`s brother Stephan try`s to put a stop to his evil ways all while trying to stop himself falling inlve with a tourist who is staying at a house/fort which belongs to a friend of his.

well one thing leads to another and the two brothers clash and well you will have to see the movie to see what goes on from here on in.

i will review/comment on the other sequels soon .

the difference between this and buffy is buffy is too commercial and this is not so this will not appeal to everyone but this has an atmosphere far superior to that of buffy although Radu does not look as good as the wonder full Sarah Michelle Gellar :).

rating for this movie 10/10 a fine example of how a vampire movie should be done :).

King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm) of Romania is a vampire, but a vampire of light who wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with mankind. But his son, Radu (Anders Hove), is a cruel creature to his very heart (which is pretty obvious as soon as you see him). Three female students have come to study local folklore, but find themselves drawn into the vampires legends at just the wrong time: Vladislav has been killed.

Who can say anything bad about a film featuring a cameo from Angus Scrimm? I can't. I mean, I had some low expectations after seeing other Full Moon pictures ("Puppet Master" in particular, and "Demonic Toys"). But despite the really bad animated effects of the demons, this film was actually really well done and very fun to watch. Plenty of blood, a good plot and backstory (the Bloodstone story was surprisingly refreshing) and even some new angles on the vampire mythos, which you'd think would be dead by now. (Maybe I'm wrong, but this is probably the first film to feature rosary beads being fired from a gun.) Aside from vampires and blood, you get a share of nudity (gratuitous, but welcome) and I had to notice the excellent score from the composers (not sure who deserves credit, but those involved include Stuart Brotman, Richard Kosinski, William Levine, Michael Portis and John Zeretzka). This is Horror 101 all the way. Heck, you even get two sequels, which is the sign of a true horror film. (Of course, some bad films get sequels, too -- did I mention "Puppet Master"?) The Romanian theme was well-done, and the film even seems to have been made by Romanians if I am guessing their name origins correctly. And the score -- the music -- really stood out for me as a nice change of pace, very mood-setting. I like Richard Band, but I'm glad another composer was given a shot because he nailed the atmosphere on the head. If you like vampire films and want a slight variation (one of the Eastern European variety), this is worth seeing. For pure gothic vampire cheese nothing can compare to the Subspecies films. I highly recommend each and every one of them. OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to. A few years ago, while I was renting some movies, I came across Subspecies 4, ended up watching it and actually kind of liking it, we need a good vampire gore flick that doesn't hold back. But when I went back to the video store, they said they didn't have any other Subspecies videos, unfortunately, the same went for any other video store I checked out. I gave up, until someone on youtube actually posted all the Subspecies films and I got to watch them all last night and I'm hooked. I am now a fan of the Full Moon Subspecies series. I think because this was the type of horror film I have been looking for, I've been looking for a good cheesy scare for a long time and Subspecies filled that spot. Radu is one of the coolest vampires on screen and almost gives Nosferatu a run for his fangs!

Radu is an evil vampire who is after his blood stone, his birth rite, the stone contains some blood that is absolutely incredible and gives him strength. Three American girls who are studying Romanian history and culture bump into a man, Stephan, who offers to help. They stay at Radu's castle where we find out that Stephan is Radu's brother; Radu seduces and turns two of the girls, but Stephan falls for one of the girls, Michelle, and will do anything to protect her.

Subspecies is a fun series, despite the cheesy effects, it makes it in some ways more likable. Plus Radu was a perfect villain as Stephan was the perfect angel like romantic vampire. The story is chilling and I think this was a fun vampire movie. This was also the first in the series, the best part is, the sequels are just as fun. I would recommend this for a scary movie night, watch it in the dark, Radu is sure to send shivers down your spine, or even your neck... OK, cheesy joke, couldn't resist.

7/10 Absolute grabber of a movie, and given its age, years ahead of its time. I first saw this the week my dad came home with a neighbor's TV, that the guy had thrown on the scrap heap. A tinkerer with all things electrical, dad had it working inside two days. This was July 1955...and then probably only the third house in the street to HAVE television! Pretty much the first thing we ever saw on that grainy and flickering old 12-inch screen was THIS film. "It's pretty OLD dear," I recall my mom telling me!

Almost 50 years on, and it doesn't seem any older - rather like World War I in that respect! Terrific little fantasy about a London omnibus carrying thirteen passengers, that crashes, killing one of their number. Then, in flashback we pick up on the lives of these people and what brought them to being on this bus that very day.

Returning to the crash at the end of the film, the victim's identity is revealed, perhaps the inspiration behind the 1960 movie THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER.

If ever you come across this little gem, I suggest you watch it! So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.

And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.

Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema. This film has an excellent premise and is really crying out to be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster. As I recall (and it's a few years since I've seen the film) the action starts with a London omnibus filled with people. There is an horrific crash and one passenger dies. The rest of the film is then told in flashback, with 13 characters who were on the bus getting their recent lives explored in intricate detail. At the end of the film we return to the crash and find out which of these chirpy, vivid characters has met a gruesome end. Great stuff, a little like a good tabloid news story fleshed out in precise, even handed detail. If only it were available on video... This movie pops up now and again on the ABC in Australia at about 3 am in the morning.

It starts off with the scene of a bus crash in London.

The films has got flashbacks of each character as the film progresses, plus the lapsed photography of Big Ben winding back, to symbolise what events occurred thirteen hours ago, up until the bus crash.

It took me a while to understand it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

If Sean Cunningham and Quentin Tarrantino got together and made a film, this may be the result - due to the flashbacks and small stories tying in, and deaths.

I am unsure of the main characters, as it has been a while since I have seen it, but a rare gem indeed. This is an exceptional film. It is part comedy, part drama, part suspense. The dialog is exquisite. Most of the actors and actresses were very famous in their time, and for good reason. You will probably recognize someone, even if you don't usually watch older movies. They are also each in a role that particularly suits their talents.

One correction to make on another users comment is that two people, not one, are announced to die in the accident. Maybe the unlucky two are a reflection of what the writer considers important in life. The movie is too engaging to worry about who it is until it happens.

The story is ahead of its time, but it does not lose the quality of an older movie. Time and effort was spent perfecting the camera's view and the soundtrack, something modern movie makers tend to forget. Despite its age, this film retains its undoubted charm and attraction, and is a fine, surviving example of early British cinema. It has an underlying air of eeriness, interspersed with shafts of humour which are not out of place, and serve to demonstrate the assured direction & production values involved. So many episodic type films are disjointed and untidy, but this is not one of them. The standard of acting helps a great deal, and the various disparate characters come across as interesting and believable. All in all, this long-forgotten little gem is well worth anyone's attention, in spite of the one jarring note in the film which, surprisingly, escaped the censor's attention! Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling "The Good Companions" and the classic "Evergreen" is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as "Millie - the non - stop variety girl" but there was more stop than variety.

Now I see it as a good little drama.

It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.

Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fiancée ( yes, that's right).

Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in "Miracle on 34th Street", plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.

Emlyn Williams - who wrote "Night Must Fall" was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in "David Copperfield" and "The Devil Doll" is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor. With looks that could kill, and a willingness to display her charms, Paget's sensuality leaves no doubt as to where her assets lay...

She plays a sultry-innocent 13th-century princess who rouses her people to save Egypt from the ambitions of a powerful Beduin (Michael Rennie) and joins her forces with the son of the Caliph of Baghdad (Jeffrey Hunter) to save her trembling throne... She also finds time to fulfill a great deal of exotic dancing... Her luscious legs make her hard to forget!

The emphasis is not on the plot, but on the visual pleasure of a great number of beautiful girls in sensual Technicolored costumes... Even the Maria Montez/Jon Hall technicolored baubles of the '40s are eclipsed by "Princess of the Nile," Fox's entry in Hollywood's mid-'50s obsession with things Egyptian (see "Land of the Pharoahs," "Valley of the Kings," etc.) Pure, unadulterated, mindless hokum, lavishly produced (low-budgeted, actually, but using sets and costumes left over from "The Robe," this Technicolored spectacle looks like it cost millions). 71 minutes of eye-candy (the plot, having something to do with nefarious derrings-do in ancient Egypt, is beside the point) offers the cinematographer and audiences the delectable sight of Debra Paget wearing an assortment of see-thru veils, most of which hit the ground when she shakes and shimmies thru a slave-girl production number unparalleled in film history. Female moviegoers were not shortchanged: Fox's handsomest young contract player, Jeffrey Hunter, is as photogenic as Ms. Paget, while Michael Rennie lurks around in the background, stirring up evil doings in the land of the pyramids. For those who might think Paget & Hunter can't act and were only hired for their physical attributes, check out their subtle, overlooked, heartbreaking work together a few years later in "White Feather" (another Fox production that has sadly vanished into the realm of "lost films"). "Princess of the Nile" still stands in a class by itself as a cheerfully mindless, breathlessly fast-paced, dazzling testament to the glories of 3-strip Technicolor--and the seductive charms of Ms. Paget (all of 20 at the time). Put this one-of-a-kind kitsch classic at the top of your "guilty pleasures" list, and enjoy. Satisfaction guaranteed! For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her "purple harem" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.

One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.

What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.

This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one "B" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, "If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?" Since my answer is a resounding "yes" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities? I watched Princess of the Nile for the first time when I was about 10 years old. I am 63 now and have never forgotten the movie. Nor have I gotten over my fascination with Egypt. I have searched the internet trying to buy the movie, but have not been able to locate it. It makes me wonder if this is one of the lost movies in Hollywood. I loved Debra Padget and Jeffrey Hunter together. They have such charisma together. If you were to ask me anything about the movie I could not tell you anything other than who was in it. I vaguely remember a scene by the Nile with Debra Padget a bunch of other women.I have always wanted to see it again. I never thought of it as an escape movie back then, but I can see now where that was probably the case. I do hope they will put it on DVD and I will be able to see it again before I die. It was a wonderful movie. algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's "ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration. It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance. Her near nude gyrations in Fritz Lang's "The Indian Tomb" make this number look decidedly tame. As for being the most erotic in the history of dance. Well! Where do I start? Salma Hayek's performance as Santanico Pandemonium in "From Dusk to Dawn" (1996); Jamie Lee Curtis in "True Lies" (1994); Jessica Alba in "Sin City" (2005); Rose McGowan in "Terror Planet" (2007); Sheila Kelley in "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" (2000), blah, blah, blah.

Don't get me wrong. I love the sequence and have included it in my "Cheesecake Dance" series on Youtube. I just think that making a claim like "most erotic in the history of film" is really going out on a very fragile limb. I saw a test screening of Blurred recently, and I am surprised to say that it was actually pretty good! Its a film about different groups of kids, your hillbillies, your rich snobs, your typical teenage couple, plus two geeky guys and one post hippie babe. Together, but as separate storylines, each group is travelling to the Gold Coast for Schoolies Week. Australia has never had any problems writing comedy and Australia is never short or actors who can play comedy with subtlety and just the right amount on quirkiness. The cast is full of stellar Aussie actors with enormous talent and loads of screen presence. Keep your eyes on Craig Horner, a young graduate, who's optimism for a week long party gets lost in his friends shenanigans. Travis Cotten and Mark Priestly, who successfully tackle some tricky physical comedy as two bummed out bogans and Jessica Gower as a cutie but confused teen angsting about love. Veronika Sywak makes her film debut as every adolescent boys dream girl, and holds her own amongst an array of considerably more experienced performers. Look out for Matthew Newton, cleverly cast as a seedy limo driver. Fantastic Aussie All i can say is that, i was expecting a wick movie and "Blurred" surprised me on the positive way. Very nice teenager movie. All this kinds of situations are normal on school life so all i can say is that all this reminded me my school times and sometimes it's good to watch this kind of movies, because entertain us and travel us back to those golden years, when we were young. As well, lead us to think better in the way we must understand our children, because in the past we were just like they want to be in the present time.Try this movie and you will be very pleased.At the same time you will have the guarantee that your time have not been wasted. I thought this movie was brilliant. It was so funny and so true too. A great idea for a movie. Five groups of friends on their way to schoolies. I've got to say that Matt Newton as Mason was probably my favourite character. I wish i could give this movie more than a 10 rating. Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix)

Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies. I read most of the comments here were everybody saw only the flaws of the movie. I agree, the director it's not Kuprik, the actors are not Oscar winners, but it has something everyone could relate to. I don't want to spoil but telling more then the plot - the finishing of school and the trip to a big party, or if you like to see beyond the metaphor, is choosing the way trough life. Remember that days of youth? the days when you or our friend acted like the characters? Or do you think you should acted like one of them and now you regret you didn't? if you can go back in to that time and if you can ask yourself any of this questions maybe the movie wasn't so bad. I must say THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. i know that on this website it's received only negative reviews, but for once I'd like to be the good person who gives the worlds best movie a good review. i find the movie to be extremely funny, and it has the perfect mix of everything. it makes me feel all sorts of emotions when i watch it, and I can't get enough of it. the soundtracks brilliant. I LOVE IT, i understand why people may not love it as much as I do, but I don't understand how people could hate it. The movie is 100% brilliance. Blurred is amazing. i never realised that Aussie movies could be so good, and i also never realised I could watch one movie, so many times in a single day without getting sick of it. i think that everybody should watch it, whether its to get a feel of what life was like in the younger days, or if its to see what your in for when you reach the end of year 12. Andreas arrives in a strange city. He doesn't remember where he came from and how he got there. He is ordered to arrive at work, and gets his own apartment in the city. All his co-workers are nice and polite to him, they say hi and smile when they pass by him. But then later on Andreas discovers that the city isn't that pleasant as it seems. Going home from work, he see some people wearing grey suits, cleaning up the bloody mess of a dead body, apparently a suicide victim that had thrown himself out of the window. The procedure is done with a calmed mind, as if they were emptying a trashcan. The following day, Andreas meets the suicide victim fully alive at work. More and more Andreas discovers the feelingless atmosphere of the city.

Den brysomme mannen might be the best norwegian film I've seen. Original, artistic directing is usually missing in norwegian films, with only a few exceptions. The plot is also very original, and could even be called post-modern horror, as the film present us a terrifying thought of having to cope with a world that is completely feelingless. and the more you try to fill your life in this city with a meaning, the more meaningless it becomes. I am fascinated by how the director manages to create the feeling of a disembovled universe, a nightmare, that you simply cannot escape from, not even with death.

go see it, its really worth it! i gave it 9 out of 10. Imagine a world, in which everyone treats anyone nicely, no foul word is ever uttered, office bickering is nonexistent, and your boss invites the office crowd regularly to self-cooked dinners where you can chat about latest interior design styles. Everything is neat, pleasant - well, just nice. In other words: you are in hell. After being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, mid-thirties Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) starts a new job as a book-keeper in a small, clean city. From the beginning he feels foreign in this proper, impersonal world of superficial kindness, surrounded by pleasant but lifeless interior architecture and likewise colleagues. Food tastes of nothing, drinks don't get you drunk, no children anywhere; after initial steps of fitting in, Andreas searches for ways to escape the bland new world. He doesn't know where he came from anymore, but still remembers rich tastes, true feelings - anything beyond the non-committal flatline life he's leading now. THE BOTHERSOME MAN resonates ideas of Huxley and Kafka, but here the cruelty is the omnipresent noncommittal neatness. Unlike PLEASANTVILLE this is not about narrow-minded bigotry, more a fable of our urban free-world civilisation of fitting in. It mostly reminds one of the ingenious FIGHT CLUB scene, in which Edward Norton walks through a mock-IKEA catalogue. Spiced with macabre humour, this Scandinavian laconic tale convinces on every level: story, characters, and relevance. A true screen gem. 8/10 I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.

It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our "hero" though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself.

What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.

I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true! Totally different, with loads of understatement and black comedy, this is a film few get to see, but those who do will remember it. This movie creates its own universe, and is fascinating in every way. What it is about? Estrangement, I believe. Probably up to the viewer, but I found that this movie tries to say something about the coldness and emptiness behind all the designer furniture and perfect facades. Don't know if I'm right. But this movie really got to me. See it. I really hope the team behind this movie makes more movies, and that they will continue to do so in their own, some kinda weird style. And I forgot: The Casting here i superb, with Trond Fausa Aurvåg being perfect in the role as the Bothersome Man, who doesn't understand where he is, what he is doing and why. The acknowledgment of not understanding the purpose of life (in the city), is what makes him bothersome. All the others do as they are told, and pretend (?) to be happy. This movie is a good and humorous comment on life in 2006. I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back.

The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well.

All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it.

And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way. What we have here is a film perfect for anyone that participates in the world of post-industrialism: those who sit in their privatized home, earning money by buying and selling sensual-less commodities and perpetuating a system that values little other than the preservation of self.

The beautiful filming (I always appreciate fix 35s and soft boxes) makes it an even stranger place to travel through, both enjoyable to look at but frightening to comprehend (perhaps that's overly dramatic, but its true).

Andreas' journey through his hell is overwhelmingly tragic. His quest is honorable, laudable, and precious. The conclusion is necessary and we are left not sure if he's better off, which is the perfect conclusion.

Breve! Highly recommended to all people who view their world with a critical eye and especially to those who don't (perhaps it will encourage a reflection or two). One of the best films I've seen in a long time, precise in its vision, and beautiful and highly imaginative in its realization. I can't say much without giving it away, and I don't recommend you actually read that much about this movie before seeing--just see it.

But ah, one must come up with ten lines of text to have a review listed on IMDb. Conundrum. What can I do? Tell you about the film? Nope. Can't do it. I think I enjoyed this movie precisely because saw it with no preconceptions. Please you do the same.

I suppose this can be said: the acting is excellent and understated, and what I have come to love about foreign movies is that the movies are actually about the MOVIES, not the stars. Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground. I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!! I believe there are two angles to the story, first, it's the world satyric view, presented in an obvious Kafkaesque manner, underlining the sordid spectacle behind some of life's most common, but also pleasant, or comfortable moments and elements, which are usually enough to keep man functioning in society. Like: a good job, a good home, a good wife, a good car, and even a good mistress. Apart from this so called common bliss, there are some, who cannot help asking themselves some more uncomfortable questions, like, where they come from, or weather they can have some other form of bliss, weather there could be a reason for them being or weather there could be something they missed out on, or, even more sinister, weather there could be something the system itself is withholding from them.

Second, the most interesting aspect of this film, I believe, is the fact that it attacks head-on this natural compulsion to dissect the world around us, questioning it by our personal judgment, and usually condemning it because it doesn't serve us better, because it's not tailor-made to suit us as a person.

The symbolism behind the train-accident, I believe suggests that our own will can be overpowered by fate or some other universal greater power, even in the face of our so called power to decide when we want out. Instead the man gets to be dismissed by this greater power(let's call it THE SYSTEM, because the authors clearly avoid calling it GOD, perhaps further underlining that the SYSTEM is MAN - made and therefore can be mastered by man, unlike FATE, which is a concept closer to religion) on it's own terms, not by killing him, but by showing him that there is a place for the man who asks/wants too much, suggesting maybe, that true fulfillment does not come from the outside world, but from within, and if the outside world "decides" to provide you with some comfort, you should learn to accept it, without questioning the fabric of every little aspect of it.

Unconfortable, but makes you reevaluate some existential questions which have become mainstream in the last century, like what can man do in a world increasingly drained of substance, a consumer-driven world in which man can be interchanged without making a difference to the bigger picture, but only as long as he is of some use to the system. At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.

Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.

In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation. As you may know Norway is the most developed country in the world (regarding to HDI; Human Development Index). This film craftily reveal our future to us. Our future would be that of Norway since we are all paddling to achieve the best and offer the least. The life that was shown was maybe an exaggeration, yet comparing today's concerns with those of our ancestors it is not far-from-reality reasoning.

Watching this film free from all of our pre-assumptions, we can find both of our faces; the one that is laughing at the brilliant scene of Andreas dumping her girlfriend and the one that is searching through magazines hours and hours to choose some stupid chair among stupid collections.

The idea of the hole with the hope of lightness was another magnificent idea of the film. The slight glory; yet the only one, and the effort that was put to reach it makes us feel closer to Andreas.

Although I was attracted mostly to the idea and production of the film, Trond Fausa Aurvaag played pretty well and the atmosphere of the film was quite matchable. Where the heck is Andreas(Trond Fausa Aurvaag), exactly? Heaven? Hell? A parallel universe? When the bothersome man steps off the subway platform and meets an onrushing train, his next conscious moment occurs on a bus; riding solo, the newest arrival, in a dead netherworld where all the suicides go. Dressed as he was at the time of his sudden departure from the corporeal biosphere, Andreas is greeted by an official man, who processes and transports the bothersome man from the barren flatlands to a city, if the eyeballs work, is a dead ringer for the sort of urban landscapes that he once inhabited, if memory serves him right. Andreas retains the look of a sleepwalker in a trance, a man estranged from people and objects, struggling to find his bearings; at home, or rather, his assigned apartment; or at work, where the bothersome man is randomly designated as an accountant for an independent contractor. Havard(Johannes Joner), his boss, tells him, "You'll get used to it," which covers more than just crunching numbers, we suspect, in this world, same as the old world.

If life is meaningless, like French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre said, the same can be said for death, as well. The subculture of office life might be heaven for one man, but it looks like hell to us, under the context that "Den Brysomme Mannen" operates on. To work in the afterlife, in essence, is to work for the rest of your life. The social intercourse among Andreas' office mates may pass as normal in the physical world, but death is a variable that creates estrangement in the viewer, as he/she now recognizes the drudgery of white-collar labor performed by white-collar laborers, who kill the hours with their inconsequential small-talk and designated jobs they perform during the course of a day like automotons, each and every day, seem irrational in its self-evident absurdity. To see daily life replicated in a speculative light, "Den Brysomme mannen" makes normal human interaction look like deadpan comedy, as quotidian life becomes a performance, which transforms Karl Marx's meaning of the word "alienation", because here, the men and women in the office, "do" identify with their labor, like actors in a play who conspire to make their fictionalized selves appear real. But the bothersome man never fully participates in the facade. He's always aware of the cracks.

From a wooden bench, Andreas witnesses the aftermath of a jumper, who impales himself on an iron fence while people on their lunch breaks walk on by, indifferent to his escaping intestines that create red splatters on the clean sidewalk. Andreas faces the same impassivity from his own co-workers after he purposely cuts off his own finger, with the hope that he'll feel the pain, on a paper slicer. He doesn't. It's just another sensation, in addition to being able to taste and smell that's lost to the bothersome man. This inability of being able to take solace in the simple pleasures, amplifies the bothersome man's need for love,where simple pleasures compensated for his loneliness in the physical world. At a dinner party, hosted by his boss, Andreas meets Anne Britt(Petonella Barker). They hit it off. He walks her home. She invites him in. They become a couple. He moves in. When they have sex, however, it's good for neither Andreas, nor Anne, who seems to get more pleasure out of interior design. Love is an abstract concept, another sensation that's unattainable in this world, but love matters to the bothersome man, so he tries again with Ingeborg(Birgette Lagen), a girl from work. "Den Brysomme mannen" deconstructs love by presenting its foundation as a series of gestures that require performances from both the man and woman. When Ingeborg doesn't elicit the same tender feelings for Andreas after his hyper-romantic gesture of leaving Anne Britt for her, this Norwegian film reveals its secrets about the prosaic, but odd city, with an open-endedness that's solvable, and offer up multiple interpretations.

Wounded by Ingeborg's apathy towards his avowal of love for her, the bothersome man wanders into the same subway station, stands at the same platform, leers at the same couple aggressively making out, and jumps. This time, he can't die. How can you die when you're already dead? Hit repeatedly by train after train, Andreas' face turns into ground beef; his body contorts in angles previously seen only seen in art. When the bothersome man realizes that love and death are out of his grasp, he seeks out the man from the club, who was willing to say what goes unsaid in this city of the walking dead. Which is: death, not life, has no meaning.

Getting to the bottom of the mystery behind Andreas' whereabouts drives the narrative, and to the filmmaker's credit, this enigma is satisfactorily addressed, in a scene that recalls Spike Jonze's "Being John Malkovich", when Andreas crawls through a tunnel in order to cross over into another world, like a newborn baby, which resembles the portal to Malkovich's brain that Craig Schwartz charges people to crawl through. Andreas' attempt to traverse the great divide presents a beguiling paradox. Since heaven and earth are literally separated by a wall, this vulnerable boundary acts as a perfect encapsulation of the atheistic belief that "heaven is a place on Earth". But at the same time, heaven is proved by the reality of a hell; the place that Andreas is sent to after being banished from the city of his destination. It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.

This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.

The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain.

When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.

To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.

But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly – so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind – and look where the thinkers end up. Den Brysomme Mannen is one of the better films of all time and is about a man trapped in a world where there are no senses, no feelings, no Love, no Truth and definitely no Freedom. A world where people become afraid when someone speaks their mind, expresses himself or show affection, a world where no one is Free and no one has any idea what the Meaning of any of this is. Just like the world we live in, the world in Den Brysomme Mannen is a world of lost souls trying to become fulfilled but focus on the complete opposite of what fulfills them, materialism, social acceptance and mediocre satisfactions.

Den Brysomme Mannen deserves full attention by every human soul, because we could all use a fresh Wake Up call. A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the "bothersome man" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. "The Bothersome Man" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon. The Bothersome Man is one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. All the technical aspects are, in my opinion, perfect (lighting, acting, directing, pacing, etc). The STORY is breathtaking.

Seemingly beyond death, our main character finds himself inhabiting a world without beauty, passion or anything remotely pleasing to the human senses. His work is cold and uninteresting; his relationships are numb and uninspiring, and when it all becomes too much, he seeks to end it in front of a train. But it doesn't end - he can not leave this strange world by suicide! Working his way back to a man who seemed to be feeling he same isolation and loneliness, our main character joins him in excavating a stone wall in hopes of revealing the source of a strange and wonderful smell and music. Just as they break through - and I will not reveal THAT much, it all comes to an end and the movie ends as oddly as it began.

Suffice it to say you will either love this movie or hate it. I feel that it is like a magical poem - open to many different interpretations and all of them as valid as the next. If you enjoy new experiences in film and want to be taken away from Hollywood's crap-feast, try this movie!

9/10 (and I don't rate easily!) because in spite of its darkness, this movie left me with a sense of something greater...something mysterious and beyond ourselves. Well done! This Norwegian film starts with a man jumping over the subway, apparently committing suicide. But the next scene shows him arriving in a lonely bus into a desert. He meets a man, and is shipped off to a mysterious city, where he starts working in an aseptic modern office as an accountant. The coworkers seem nice, if guarded, he soon meets a girlfriend, yet the city seems utterly strange, as food has no taste, alcohol doesn't make you drunk, and there's nary a children around. Is this a dream, or is he in paradise, or in hell?. While at times, the films looks as extended episode of The Twilight Zone (even at ninety minutes, the movie seems a bit long), it is quite thought provoking. The best scenes are those in which the exaggeration is minimal, as when the people engage in banal conversations about interior decoration, and recoil at discussing deeper issues. I always thought there was something inhuman in advanced capitalist societies, in the way they try to repress the basic urges of human nature. And this movie is best when it devastatingly critiques this life style. Unfortunately, the movie ends up a big long, and the director doesn't seem to know how to end it, but most for of the running time this is very much worth seeing. What a great movie this was. Is it heaven? hell? or something in between? I disagree with many reviews of this movie saying that this is a depiction of hell. It is not even clear if the opening scene starts the movie or is a flashback from the end. Further, it is not clear that the main character goes to hell, but perhaps someplace in between. The review I read on IMDb says this is hell, but I disagree whole-heartedly. Take into consideration that perhaps good people who commit suicide may not be condemned to hell...this only one religious belief. This is indeed a thinker, and I have/would recommend it to anyone who likes that type of movie. Definitely worth it! first real movie in this year. amazing long shots, sometimes with fix camera, so specific for Nordic cinema (let aside Dogma). A true auteur film I find it. Athmospherique :-) It simply delighted all my senses and keep in mind how the image goes violent and painful during the scenes when he's trying to kill himself. That's the point I don't think it stands up in the whole plot. Why, if this was an ideal world, couldn't you die but still you were keeping your conscience ? Either was the real world with "tailored" rules or was a "fantastic" world but in this case no accidents like people remembering how it was before can happen.

It reminded me of Kafka and maybe more, of Huxley's Brave New World, especially in that part where sex was actually available to everyone, since it was viewed like a right to pleasure. It lacked a plot but I think it was better like this, since you realized and sensed the whole strange behavior of everyone, the absurdity and the lack of real sensations in this "happy" world.

I think also that the end was brilliant. true world is indeed a homo homini lupus, you're eaten if you are not strong enough. Synopsis: Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) finds himself alone on a coach, getting dropped off on a desert land, at what seems the last stop of his journey. He doesn't know how he arrived there, but a welcome sign has been erected for him. After momentarily pondering his whereabouts, he is greeted by a man who takes him to his new life. He then enters a world different to the one he came from.

As Andreas is quickly introduced to his new job as an accountant, he senses that his surroundings are a bit too uniformed for his liking. As he takes his first lunch break, he instantly notices that everyone in the city walks around in grey suits. On this same day, he sees a fellow businessman dead on some fencing spikes, of what looks like an act of suicide. The strange thing is, the city folk pay no attention to this horrific act and walk on by as if it never happened. It is quick to see that these people are genetically desensitised, and their ability to distinguish between anything humane or inhumane is absent.

To help Andreas settle in, he is invited to go out with his co-workers to a local nightclub. The club appears to be one step away from becoming as exciting as a bingo night..and as Andreas drinks his sorrows aways, he realises that no matter how much he drinks, the alcohol has no effect on him. As he tells these observances to a stranger in the men's room, a man in a toilet cubicle starts to utter words which have been on Andreas' mind all along. Realising that this man is thinking what he is, he follows him to his house, and notes where he lives for future reference. The plot predictably evolves with Andreas wanting an escape. He seeks out the man he once followed...hoping that he could lead him to becoming human again...but is it too late?

My thoughts: This norwegian film is something which everyone should see, as it holds the answer to the big question! What is the meaning of life? (well, close enough). The film sketches out the dark realities of what has become of today's working man (or woman). It's sole purpose is making people realise that life is too short to be materialistic. It tries to show that small cliché things, such as the sound of children playing, should not be taken for granted, because the moment you stop hearing that sound, is the moment you're one step away from becoming a robot. The ending of the film reiterates what happens when its too late to escape the mundane routine you've now become used to. You start to adopt the saying of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', and become too comfortable to take a risk of change.

Even though this film is not to be taken as a piece of realism...its message is more than real. The lack of empathy conveyed in the film, and that of which Andreas sees, is a bold statement of what life can become. The director, Jens Lien has put together a film, which in any other director's hands would have failed. This is a fine piece of cinematic genius, and i eagerly await to see what he does next.

The lead role, played by Trond Fausa Aurvaag is perfectly cast. Representing the average Joe, Trond provides a good catalyst in making this picture darkly humorous. The supporting actors also do an apt job, and for some reason, i feel that Keanu Reeves would have been perfect in this film, as most of the supporting cast required their acting to be emotionless.

The score for this film was beautifully composed. The recurring theme was always a delight to listen to, and it provided a very sombre but welcomed feel to the movie.

Set for a release date in the UK for 25th May 2007, i will definitely be going to re-live this experience on the big screen. This film has gained its way in my top 10...now quickly becoming my top 20! It has some shocking scenes, and is darkly humorous throughout...A MUST -SEE!! The Bothersome Man is a smart, surreal movie that makes you reevaluate what you're doing with your life and what makes you tick. When you see these people in zombie like trances doing everyday events and realize that's what we do and what we want in real life it really hits close to home. This is a surprisingly effective movie that at the end leaves you asking questions about your direction and not so much the movie.

Andreas is the main character whose life we get a 3rd person view of as he tries to adapt to a new life after being relocated. In the beginning he seems to be the most popular guy in town as everyone at work caters to him and he's invited to dinners etc. A good example of this is in the scene with his new boss who offers him an envelope of an unspecified amount of cash saying "here's a little something to get you started". Andreas even gets a girlfriend 20 minutes into the movie, which he eventually moves in with. This seems like an ideal living situation as his girlfriend is an established interior designer, attractive, and doesn't ever nag about anything he does. But Andreas is unfulfilled with their relationship as with everything else in this world. He then begins an affair with a coworker named Ingeborg who he eventually leaves Anne for and claims he is in love with. After telling Ingeborg how he feels she tells him that she is also seeing other coworkers and says all of the relationships are "nice". Soon after we see Andreas at a train station where he tries to end his misery and to the audience's disappointment doesn't come about. Still looking for salvation Andreas meets Hugo who has found a hole which music can be heard coming out of. So they embark on a mission to get to the other side, will it be better or will it be worse?

"The Bothersome Man" shows us society's obsession with appearances and its materialistic mindset. It does a great job making fun of us by filling homes with IKEA products that the characters spend each lunch picking out. I think he is mostly poking fun at the dull Scandinavian society and its high suicide rates. For example there is a scene in the movie where Andreas comes across a man who jumped out of a building and onto a spiked fence. Also, Andreas fed up with this world cuts his finger off and then later jumps in front of a train; this is one of the most weirdest/outrageous scenes I've seen. This world created by Lien is equivalent to purgatory where there is no punishment or reward. In this world drink after drink Andreas never got drunk, sex was unfulfilling, and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't kill himself. This movie reminded me of "Fight Club" and how both main characters were kind of out of sync with the world around them. In "Fight Club" Tyler Durden creates a second persona that does everything he wouldn't and in this movie the awakened Andreas is the equivalent to Tyler Durden. After a while he wakes up and tries to escape the bland life he is now apart of by escaping through a hole in a wall.

Lien does a great job with continuity in this movie meaning when a character has a half full cup in his hand and they cut away then come back they have the glass in the same hand and its not full or empty showing that the shot was done another day. Nowadays directors are more worried about the sound effects and overlook the little things like is that character wearing the bracelet on the same hand as yesterdays filming? Since I took TV Production for three years in high school it's hard for me not to look for continuity or voice overs which drive me nuts. Lien does the little things well he's got great lighting in each shot, never leaves you wondering why something is in a shot and brings about an interesting topic. This film really worked for me because it not only mocks Scandinavians' but the western society and what's wrong with it. The only real issue I had was with the man who commits suicide by jumping on a spiked fence. Because you eventually find out this world has no death but he laid motionless forcing you to assume he was dead and this never gets answered in my opinion.

Andreas is the only main character as others come and go and never do more than support his him. His first girlfriend Anne Britt is an interior designer who at the surface seems perfect for him but eventually turns out to be dull. This leads him to Ingeborg who he starts an affair with and falls in love with. He soon finds out that she was with a handful of other men and that what he felt was not real. Andreas eventually meets Hugo in the bathroom of a bar complaining about how nothing tastes good anymore and how he can't even get drunk anymore. He follows Hugo home to find the hole in the wall with that is filled with children's laughter and birds chirping.

Lien doesn't have a lot on the resume but "The Bothersome Man" is more than a jump start to a great career but a preview of an up and coming director. If this is any indication of his talent and potential as a story teller, Lien has a bright future and we can only hope that his future movies don't take so long to make it overseas for our viewing pleasure. So take a seat and enjoy the ride as Director Jens Lien takes you from the comfort of your home to the dreamlike world that is "The Bothersome Man". Enjoyed 'Den brysomme mannen' http://ow.ly/PTTp (my wife didn't, so I watched it in bits over a few days.)

Reviewers mainly confused - most agree it's allegorical, but not of what; 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Socialism', 'Capitalism'?

That most people don't wish to escape, and it's, essentially, forbidden goes with most of those options.

So, presumably you're supposed to project your favourite preoccupation/prejudice/fear onto it.

So I'd say it's about an a-epicurean life. A live desaturated of colour, literally in the film, figuratively in the interpretation. Grabbed my attention on Netflix Instant Play because it was only an hour and a half long (it's nearing 4 am here), and because it's Norwegian, which I wanted to follow up with Dead Snow and see what else the country is offering in international cinema right now. A droll and deliciously wry romp, this movie features a man, Andreas, who gets shipped out to some Purgatory of a Brave New World city, where everyone is happy and bland and food has no taste, nothing smells, and even sex loses its appeal. Driven to the edge by his lack of common senses, he feels nearly ready to kill himself.

After an hilarious botched attempt at latter, Andreas tracks down a man with similar complaints and the two discover a tiny, vagina-shaped hole in a concrete wall from which music emanates. The two attempt to break through to see what is on the other side, tracking a tiny bit of light they can barely see. But of course, in fantasy allegory land, desire and nonconformity are not allowed and the elements of the city operate to end Andreas' attempt at freedom and sensuality.

Jens Lien and crew create a simple, straight-forward movement to the story, one that flows well with its themes and moves along at just enough of a pace to keep from lagging. The similarities in other similar science fiction aren't worth enumerating, but still the movie has a unique feel and balances some very funny scenes with some pretty horrifying ones. I like the limited but effective use of gore in this movie, some disembowelment and flagellation that will get your heart stammering harder than The Passion of the Christ simply because it is so perfectly out of place from the gray-toned mise-en-scene. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is a dependably squirrelly actor who physically feels out of place from his surroundings, which works very well. Despite the fact that the concept itself isn't anything to write home about, everyone involved makes it work and the movie fully realizes its own world.

--PolarisDiB Scandinavians are pretty good at making me laugh at the drab nothingness of my soulless life, huh.

The film-making here was incredibly meticulous, every piece of framing, every deadpan stare, every element of the colour palette, every snippet of muzak or whooosh of those street cleaners was there to hammer home this world's calm emptiness.

In fact, I think I might have found the general sense of emptiness overbearing had its absurdity not been genuinely funny and relatable. Like when Andreas is telling his boss that he misses children and looks up and the guy is smiling and halfway out the door, it's a sort of sad but true reflection of working with people, spending 7/8 hours a day with them, seeing more of them than the folk you love, but ultimately knowing deep down they don't give a damn about your troubles and you the same.

This might have been a film the Coens had made had they been born in Oslo and not Minnesota. I think their humour is more aggressive and more wrapped up in cinema's past but they have the same mastery of technique and their films have the same underlying sense that life is pretty inconsequential.

I'll stop before I talk myself into taking a bus into the wintry wilderness. The film is a great watch very thoughtful.I believe it is a film about how your like would be if you lived in a world created by catalogues. The scenes are all perfect recreations of an Ikea catalogue they even watch furniture on their TV. When they break into the kitchen they break into another perfect picture of how a kitchen would look like in a catalogue. When he is reborn or whatever you would like to call it he returns to the harsh reality of life. I love the bit when he tells his new love he has left his partner. It pokes fun at commercial bliss by saying you can have it all and whilst it it is nice to have the same things, but some things you do not want to share. A film without children also per Say makes for a perfect ten. A very interesting addition to the Scandavian surrealistic collection. Recommended viewing for those who like their movies complicated. My interpretation of the 'strange' ending would be that Andreas' journey ends in Hell. He dislikes the bland consumer-led emptiness of purgatory; a sort of 'living' but not progressing, i.e. not getting anywhere - even the city's metro trains don't stop at the stations. It has a Metro system, like you should be able to travel, freedom, escape, but you can never actually board those trains. He is unable to reach fragrant, sensory heaven and winds up continuing his bus journey to its final destination. The old Norse version of Hell (Hades, NOT Hell the terrestrial city) isn't burning hot like the British version, its cold, freezing, the land of Niflheim (land of cold and mists). This appears to be where Andreas end up, having just failed to access Heaven through that tunnel. A man arrives in a strange, beautiful, sterile city where no-one feels any emotion and obsesses instead about interior design. The essential sameness of his days is reminiscent of 'Groundhog Day'; the strange passages in and out of this world more remind one of 'Being John Malkovich'. But truly, this is a Scandanavian movie, a piece of self-satire that is also Scandanavian in style: the tone is austere, and even the most fantastic scenes are played straight, daring you to laugh at the absurdity. To my mind, the combination isn't wholly successful: there aren't enough genuine laughs to compensate for the difficulties of taking the piece as pure drama. It certainly is original; perhaps my problem is that the world that it satirises is not one that I recognise. Perhaps I should move to Scandanavia! The whole movie made me think of the first circle of Dante's Inferno, Where the souls who 'fool' themselves in believing that they are happy go to. They never realize they are actually in an inferno, but nothing is enjoyable, they just move on without any emotion. In that sense Dante thought that they the were in the worse part, as they would never actively try to change their situation. Nobody can die in that place, but trying to certainly does hurt. I am not sure if the writer based his story on this medieval manuscript or not, but the resemblance is absolutely striking.

I didn't enjoy the movie when I was watching it, as I was expecting a climax which never came. Nevertheless, it made me think afterwards and now I actually think it's a good film - it surely does stick. In the beginning, with the careful, remote location and sweeking metal sound, I thought of the opening scene in "Once upon a Time in the West". When it gets to the city, then it begins to feels like "Kitchen Stories", or "Drifting Clouds", even possibly "Grimm".

Then it turns out that this is more similar to "Joe Versus the Volcano" in theme (not style). And the movie executes from beginning to end the same, understated style. Letting you observe, take in the steel, blue-grayish tone of the suites, dresses, wall color, furniture, bedsheets, mirrors, cars, music, background sounds and even people's expression. Then near the end, there is one shot of a completely different tone - warm orangeish-yellow with soft music and ocean splashing, children and laughter.

But maybe the observation is too long for me, I would much rather to see the alternative side or what happens to the character after the ending shot. Still beautifully done. 10/10

PLOT DISCUSSION

This is one of the best movies ever made and I am not saying that because I am being fooled by the seemingly nonsensical presentation. Those who dislike the film because they don't understand the story often criticize those who are praising the film by saying that they are assuming its genius because they don't understand it. I don't view this movie as very allegorical. To me, it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. People become confused by the film because they expect it to have a deep, philosophical meaning that they are to interpret from the allegedly meaningless scenes. I feel they fail to realize that the crypticness comes from a chopped-up and rearranged plot combined with a very long and rather explanatory fantasy sequence and not from a chaos of visual allegory. Because of the limitation of length, I will try to keep this short and to the point and touch on the major concepts.

The general plot: Diane moves to L.A. after jitterbug contest to get into acting. At an audition, she meets Camilla with whom she falls in love. Diane becomes enraged with jealousy since Camilla sleeps with other men and women. Diane discovers the other man (the director) at a film shoot and discovers the other woman (a random blond) at the engagement party for Camilla and the director. Motivated by her rage and possessiveness, Diane hires a hit man to kill Camilla. After that is done, she is overcome by loneliness and slips into an unconscious fantasy world where she lives the life she wants to. Diane is then awakened. In her conscious state she is haunted by what she has done.

The significance of the fantasy: The film starts out, after the credits, with a 1st person p.o.v. shot depicting somebody collapsing onto a bed and slipping into unconsciousness. This is where Diane's fantasy starts. The accident is there as an excuse for her to "bring back" her dead girlfriend and justify the fantasy life. She depicts her girlfriend as meek and innocent because that is what she wished she was. In the meantime, she acts like everything is "like in the movies" because she has an escapist personality. She also, in a sense, kills herself off and assumes the identity of a waitress named Betty at a diner. The story revolving around the director is a direct result of her feeling that he was in someway victimized in reality just as she was and "convinces" herself that he was forced to choose Camilla. It was also an unconscious expression of the lack of control she felt during the party. Camilla Rhoades in the fantasy is actually the random blond from the engagement party. She hated her so much that she turned her into Camilla and made the ultimate antagonist. She then took the real Camilla and turned her into a perfect, submissive out-of-the-movies girlfriend and used Rita Hayworth as an inspiration. She also paints the hit man as a very clumsy and incapable person to further justify the survival of Camilla. Her fantasy world, unfortunately for her, was a search for Diane which ended up being herself and made the dreamworld die by taking her through a series of reminders of reality. The first reminder was Club Silencio which chanted that "there is no band" and the "instruments" you hear are not really there; this is a metaphor for the fantasy. She begins to shake violently because it shakes her perception of her surroundings. The other reminder is the blue box... Actually, the blue box is not the reminder itself (more of a Pandora's Box, really), but the blue key that opens the box. The blue key reminds her of the actual death of Camilla because it is what the hit man said would show up when it was done. Along with having love, this entire creation of hers is an escape from reality by living in the idealized Hollywood that she expected to be part of when she arrived.

This is a story showing the psychology of a very troubled woman who lost a dream. It is not series of random things specifically designed to disturb and it is not a cryptic philosophical message. It is an unfortunate chunk of the human condition that is presented beautifully.

However, ultimately this is all my opinion. I may be way off. Or it may not be intended to mean any one thing. There are many who disagree with me. Great! Afterall, why does it have to mean anything? Why can't it just be a statement in itself? What if coherent, sensible narratives are shackles for artistic expression? Peter Greenaway, for example, has spent many words eloquently supporting that idea by such statements as "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative." And where is the written rule that everything must be immediately understandable with only one possible interpretation? There is no such rule because the clarity of the movie is unrelated to the art of it. "I didn't understand it!" So...? "Mulholland Dr.," story or not, affects the viewers, harasses them, drags them, awes them, lulls them. The way it lends itself to interpretation is amazing. It never gets old. It never loses its luster. Its visuals are always effective and beautiful. It is cinematic perfection no matter what. Enjoy. There's a sign on The Lost Highway that says:

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

(but you already knew that, didn't you?)

Since there's a great deal of people that apparently did not get the point of this movie, I'd like to contribute my interpretation of why the plot makes perfect sense. As others have pointed out, one single viewing of this movie is not sufficient. If you have the DVD of MD, you can "cheat" by looking at David Lynch's "Top 10 Hints to Unlocking MD" (but only upon second or third viewing, please.) ;)

First of all, Mulholland Drive is downright brilliant. A masterpiece. This is the kind of movie that refuse to leave your head. Not often are the comments on the DVDs very accurate, but Vogue's "It gets inside your head and stays there" really hit the mark.

David Lynch deserves praise for creating a movie that not only has a beautifully stylish look to it - cinematography-wise, has great acting (esp. Naomi Watts), a haunting soundtrack by Badalamenti, and a very dream-like quality to it -- but on top of it all it also manages to involve the viewer in such a way that few movies have before. (After all, when is the last time you saw a movie that just wouldn't leave your mind and that everyone felt compelled to talk and write about, regardless of whether they liked it or hated it?)

Allright, enough about all that, it's time to justify those statements.

Most people that have gone through some effort to try to piece the plot together will have come to the conclusion that the first half of the picture is an illusion/a dream sequence.

Of course, that's too bad for all those trying to make sense of the movie by expecting "traditional" methods in which the story is laid out in a timely, logic and linear manner for the viewer. But for those expecting that, I urge you to check the name of the director and come back again. ;)

MD is the story of the sad demise of Diane Selwyn, a wannabe-actor who is hopelessly in love with another actor, Camilla Rowles. Due to Diane's lack of talent, she is constantly struggling to advance her career, and feels she failed to deliver on her own and her parents' expectations. Upon realizing that Camilla will never be hers (C. becomes engaged with Adam Kesher, the director), she hires a hitman to get rid of her, and subsequently has to deal with the guilt that it produces.

The movie first starts off with what may seem as a strange opening for this kind of thriller; which is some 50s dance/jitterbug contest, in which we can see the main character Betty giving a great performance. We also see an elderly couple (which we will see twice more throughout the movie) together with her, and applauding her.

No, wait. This is what most people see the first time they view it. There's actually another very significant fact that is given before the credits - the camera moving into an object (although blurry) and the scene quickly fading out. If you look closely, the object is actually a pillow, revealing that what follows is a dream.

The main characters seen in the first half of the movie:

Betty: Diane Selwyn's imaginary self, used in the first half of the movie that constitutes the "dream-sequence" - a positive portrayal of a successful, aspiring young actor (the complete opposite of Diane). 'Betty' was chosen as the name as that is the real name of the waitress at Winkies. Notice that in the dream version, the waitresses' name is 'Diane'.

Rita: The fantasy version of Camilla Rhodes that, through Diane's dream, and with the help of an imaginary car-accident, is turned into an amnesiac. This makes her vulnerable and dependent on Diane's love. She is then conveniently placed in Betty/Diane's aunt's luxurious home which Betty has been allowed to stay in.

Coco: In real life, Adam's mother. In the dream part, the woman in charge of the apartment complex that Betty stays in. She's mainly a strong authority figure, as can be witnessed in both parts of the film.

Adam: The director. We know from the second half that he gets engaged with Camilla. His sole purpose for being in the first half of the movie is only to serve as a punching bag for Betty/Diane, since she develops such hatred towards him.

Aunt Ruth: Diane's real aunt, but instead of being out of town, she is actually dead. Diane inherited the money left by her aunt and used that to pay for Camilla's murder.

Mr. Roach: A typical Lynchian character. Not real; appears only in Diane's dream sequence. He's a mysterious, influential person that controls the chain of events in the dream from his wheelchair. He serves much of the same function as the backwards-talking dwarf (which he also plays) in Twin Peaks.

The hitman: The person that murders Camilla. This character is basically the same in both parts of the movie, although rendered in a slightly more goofy fashion in the dream sequence (more on that below).

Now, having established the various versions of the characters in the movie, we can begin to delve into the plot. Of course I will not go into every little detail (neither will I lay it out chronologically), but I will try to explain some of the important scenes, in relation to Lynch' "hint-sheet".

As I mentioned above, Camilla was re-produced as an amnesiac through her improbable survival of a car-accident in the first 10 minutes of the movie, which left her completely vulnerable. What I found very intriguing with MD, is that Lynch constantly gives hints on what is real and what isn't. I've already mentioned the camera moving into the pillow, but notice how there's two cars riding in each lane approaching the limo.

Only one of the cars actually hit the limo; what about the other? Even if they stayed clear of the accident themselves, wouldn't they try to help the others, or at least call for help? My theory is that, since this is a dream, the presence of the other car is just set aside, and forgotten about. Since, as Rogert Ebert so eloquently puts it "Like real dreams, it does not explain, does not complete its sequences, lingers over what it finds fascinating, dismisses unpromising plotlines."

Shortly after Rita crawls down from the crash site at Mulholland Dr., and makes her way down the hillside and sneaks into Aunt Ruth's apartment, Betty arrives and we see this creepy old couple driving away, staring ghoulishly at each other and grinning at themselves and the camera. This is the first indication that what we're seeing is a nightmare.

Although the old couple seem to be unfamiliar to Betty, I think they're actually her parents (since they were applauding her at the jitterbug contest). Perhaps she didn't know them all that well, and didn't really have as good a relationship with them as she wanted, so the couple is shown as very pleasant and helpful to her in the dream. They also represent her feelings of guilt from the murder, and Diane's sense of unfulfillment regarding her unachieved goals in her life.

A rather long and hilarious scene is the one involving the hitman. Diane apparently sees him as the major force behind the campaign trying to pressure the director to accept Camilla's part in the movie (from Adam's party in the second half of the movie), and he therefore occupies a major part of her dream. Because of her feelings of guilt and remorse towards the murder of Camilla, a part of her wants him to miss, so she turns him into a dumb criminal.

This scene, I think, is also Lynch's attempt at totally screwing his audience over, since they're given a false pretence in which to view the movie.

Gotta love that 'Something just bit me bad' line, though. :)

The next interesting scene is the one with the two persons at Twinkies, who are having a conversation about how one of them keep having this recurring nightmare involving a man which is seen by him through a wall outside of the diner that they're sitting in. After a little talk, they head outside and keep walking toward the corner of a fence, accompanied of course by excellent music matching the mood of the scene.

When reaching the corner, a bum-like character with a disfigured face appears out from behind the corner, scaring the living crap out of the man having the nightmare. This nightmare exists only in Diane's mind; she saw that guy in the diner when paying for the murder. So, in short, her obessions translate into that poor guy's nightmares. The bum also signifies Diane's evil side, as can be witnessed later in the movie.

The Cowboy constitutes (along with the dwarf) one of the strange characters that are always present in the Lynchian landscape -- Diane only saw him for a short while at Adam's party, but just like our own dreams can award insignificant persons that we hardly know a major part in our dreams, so can he be awarded an important part in her dream. We are also given further clues during his scenes that what we're seeing is not real (his sudden disappearance, etc.)

The Cowboy is also used as a tool to mock the Director, when he meets up with him at the odd location (the lights here give a clear indication that this is part of a dream). Also notice how he says that he will appear one more time if he (Adam) does good, or two more times if he does bad. Throughout the movie he appears two more times, indicating to Diane that she did bad. He is also the one to wake her up to reality (that scene is probably an illusion made to fit into her requirements of him appearing twice), and shortly thereafter she commits suicide.

The espresso-scene with the Castigliane brothers (where we can see Badalamenti, the composer, as Luigi) is probably a result of the fact that Diane was having an espresso just before Camilla and Adam made their announcement at Adam's party in the second half. It could at the same time also be a statement from Lynch.

During the scene in which they enter Diane's apartment, the body lying in the bed is Camilla, but notice how she's assumed Diane's sleeping position; Diane is seeing herself in her own dream, but the face is not hers, although it had the same wounds on the face as Diane would have after shooting herself. This scene is also filled with some genuine Lynchian creepiness. Since Diane did not know where (or when) the hitman would get to Camilla and finish her off, she just put her into her own home.

In real life, Diane's audition for the movie part was bad. In her dream, she delivers a perfect audition - leaving the whole crew ecstatic about her performance.

Also interesting is the fact that the money that in real-life was used to pay for Camilla's murder now appears in Rita/Camilla's purse. This is part of Diane's undoing of her terrible act by effectively being given the money back, as the murder now hasn't taken place.

When her neighbor arrives to get her piano-shaped ashtray, another hint is given; she takes the ashtray from her table and leaves, yet later when Camilla and Betty have their encounter on the couch, we see the ashtray appear again when the camera pans over the table, suggesting that Betty's encounter with the neighbor was a fantasy.

The catch phrase of the movie Adam is auditioning actresses for is "She is the girl"; which are the exact same words that Diane uses when giving the hitman Camilla's photo resume.

The blue box and the key represent the major turning point in the movie, and is where the true identities of the characters are revealed. There's much symbolism going on here; the box may represent Diane's future (it's empty), or it may be a sort of a Pandora's box (the hitman laughs when she asks him what the key will open). Either way, it is connected to the murder by means of the blue key (which is placed next to her after the murder has taken place). The box is also seen at the end of the movie in the hands of the disfigured bum.

Club Silencio is a neat little addition to further remind the viewer that what s/he is viewing is not real. It also signifies that Diane is about to wake up to her reality (her reality being a nightmare that she is unable to escape from, even in her dreams).

During the chilling scene at the end where the creepy old couple reappear, Diane is tormented in such a way that she sees suicide as the only way out in order to escape the screams and to avoid being haunted by her fears.

Anyway, that is my $0.02. Hope this could help people from bashing out at this movie and calling it 'the worst movie ever' or something to that effect, without realizing the plot.

As usual, Lynch is all about creating irrational fears, and he certainly achieves that with this picture as well.

10 out of 10. After two brief scenes that at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, we see a dark-haired, obviously rich beauty in the back of a limousine. Her driver stops at an odd location on Mulholland Drive, which is a twisting, thickly wooded two-lane road full of mansions overlooking Los Angeles. Just as her driver and another man in the passenger seat turn around to kill her, two drag racing cars from the opposite direction come crashing into the limo. Only the dark-haired woman survives. She works her way down the ridge to Sunset Boulevard and hides in a vacationing woman's apartment. Shortly after, Betty (Naomi Watts), the vacationing woman's niece, shows up at the apartment and runs into the dark haired woman, who now has amnesia. The bulk of the first part of the film is Betty and the dark haired woman trying to figure out who she is, why people were trying to kill her and why she had thousands of dollars and a strange key in her purse. This is interspersed with oddly surreal threads about Hollywood producers and directors, with occasional forays into a land of hoodlums and prostitutes.

The above may sound a bit complicated and disjointed, but that's not the half of it. The film is constructed so that the meaning will always be open to interpretation. It's basically guaranteed that you will not understand this film and you will not have very much confidence arriving at your own interpretation the first time around. Even if you have a lot of experience with like-minded films--such as Memento (2000), Donnie Darko (2001), The I Inside (2003) and The Butterfly Effect (2004)--you may not understand it on a second viewing, either. The studio was aware of this to the extent that they had director David Lynch write "10 clues to unlocking this thriller" and they put it on the back of the chapter listing insert in the DVD. Lynch being of a particular disposition, these clues are almost as cryptic as the film itself. It doesn't help when trying to figure it out in the early stages that the structure is extremely complex. It takes a very long time to figure out what parts are supposed to be "real" and there is a complex nesting of flashbacks in some sections, with only contextual clues that they're flashbacks.

But is the film worth watching, or worth trying to figure out? That depends on your tastes, obviously. On a surface level, the film is certainly attractive if you are a fan of surrealism, although it will tend to seem a bit slow and overly disjointed to some viewers. But those qualities, and many other surrealist aspects of the film, are typical of Lynch. A prime Lynchian moment is the old couple in the beginning bizarrely smiling almost as if they're alien pod people trying to put on a front. If you're familiar with that style and like it, you'll find much to love here, although in many ways, Mulholland Drive is fairly understated for Lynch. It's also worth noting, for viewers who'll primarily be interested in it or who enjoy it just as much as other aspects, that Mulholland Drive has a quite steamy lesbian scene. It's not gratuitous, although I have no problems with gratuitousness, but is instead an important hinge in the film.

Like all of Lynch's films, it's easy to become enraptured in his unique approach to every aspect of filmic art and his attention to detail. Any serious student of film (including "armchair students"/"cinephiles") should study Mulholland Drive; many will love it. Lynch doesn't let anything pass unmanipulated. He includes brilliant color schemes (such as the plethora of reds and pinks) with important symbolism. He makes unusual use of sound, such as the ringing telephone carrying over into the section of score that follows it (when Betty first arrives at the airport). He directs his actors to deliver their lines in a plethora of bizarre ways, such as his characteristic odd pauses. He lets his odd and surprising sense of humor poke through, such as the name "Winkie's", and the "Hot Dogs--made for Pinks" sign that provides a clue to some of the color symbolism.

Lynch's attention to detail in production design provides important, subtle clues throughout the film to help one unlock the meaning. It's interesting to note that Lynch even apparently demands that the DVD programming be unusual--there are no chapters on the disc; you must either watch the film in real time or fast forward or rewind to get back to particular points.

If the surrealism and veiled meaning of the film are attractive to you, or if you're just fond of "puzzles", then Mulholland Drive is well worth watching for that aspect. There is a fairly accepted interpretation of the film, at least on a broad, generalized level. I won't recount the standard interpretation here--it is worth researching, but only after you've seen the film a couple times and have reached your own conclusions. Many articles and monographs have been written on the film and interpretations; there are even websites dedicated to it.

For my money, however, although I generally love Lynch and find many things about Mulholland Drive attractive, it is not quite a 10 for me, at least not yet (I have a feeling that my score could still rise on subsequent viewings). To me, though, the "twist" aspect of the film is done much better in other works such as The I Inside and The Butterfly Effect. Mulholland Drive is more attractive to me for its surface surrealistic touches, but the plot doesn't carry them as well as some of Lynch's other films.

Still, Mulholland Drive is certainly recommended for the right crowd. If you're serious about film and do not mind having to think about what you watch (as if those two would not necessarily coincide), you shouldn't miss this one. "twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you. Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies. Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

"Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it. The case history of 'Mulholland Dr.' is known: What should had been another excursion (after 'Twin Peaks') into the rivaled field of TV-series ended up abruptly after completing the pilot. It was too risky and twisted for the producers to venture an investment. Lynch used all the filmed and cut material and started new shootings to finish a completely new feature film. The result: One of the most impressive cinema experiences of this decade which can be ranked among the best works of David Lynch. His earlier movies 'Eraserhead', 'Blue Velvet' or 'Wild at Heart' kept aloof in an irritating way which hustled the viewer into the role of a voyeur, but never involved him as part of the plot happening such as here.

'Mulholland Dr.' is a puzzle where pieces are missing, others obviously were taken from 'Eraserhead' and 'Lost Highway', but it never seemed to be unfinished work. In the internet I came across with a lot of instructions and essays to explain this film. I am aware now that it loses its magic when you try to decipher it completely. All those detailed solution explanations are not only waste but also the questionable attempt to offer an answer where no such thing is completely required. Imagine this scenario: A little child is dissecting his teddy bear to find out where the secret and the specific of that bear lies. Is it because it wants to destroy his toy? Does the secret lie in the teddy bear or actually in the heart of the child? Transferring this to 'Mulholland Dr.' it means innocence is one of the most important conditions to watch and appreciate it.

David Lynch succeeds not only to picture the surface of human behavior life but also to grapple with everything beneath that. Human desires, dreams, obsessions and fears - all that what remains unspoken; emotions that are often repressed. 'Mulholland Dr.' has the intensity calling for a cast that completely takes issue with the substance. Actresses and actors who are ready to follow the visions of the director selflessly.Laura Elena Harring, Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux solve their task in such an impressing way that you wouldn't want or couldn't imagine another cast. While their acting at the beginning seems to be a little superimposed you soon will realize that this stereo typing is set in with a purpose to manipulate the viewer and to baffle him as soon as the red thread of the film is visible.

When you claim the criterion of a well made film in being able to lose yourself and dive into what you see on screen than Lynch succeeded in making a masterpiece. A modern masterpiece that manifest David Lynch's status as one of the most important, creative and courageous directors of the present. Like every film maker who go beyond the limits he is confronted with criticism and ignorance. This will fade as soon as you find the individual key to Lynch's world of films. 'Mulholland Dr.' is more than just a sleeper – it is a must see for everyone who loves ambitious cinema. And besides, the film is a pay-off with Hollywood, in form and content, which in that distinctness was hardly dared before. Spoiler Alert - although this is a plot almost as impossible to spoil as it is to completely explain.

'Mulholland Drive' is by far the most successful expression of David Lynch's cinematographic style and vision since the first season of his 'Twin Peaks' TV series. As Lynch enthusiasts know, his is a style and vision uniquely blended from film noir, horror movies, surrealism, and parapsychology – with a healthy dose of postmodern self-consciousness and black humor thrown in for good measure. All these elements are richly at work in 'Mulholland Drive,' making for a riveting, hair-raising, and highly satisfying film experience – especially if one does not become overly obsessed with trying to make all the plot pieces fit into a logical, mystery-unraveling whole.

The film features wonderful performances by Naomi Watts and Laura Harring in the lead roles of young women whose lives intersect in various ways amid a Hollywood setting that is itself an hallucinated blend of contemporary reality, retro '50s nostalgia, and satirical self-aggrandizement. Their seemingly random initial meeting occurs after the film's opening scene, in which Harring's character escapes an attempt on her life thanks to a fortuitous, not to mention horrific, automobile accident. Staggering down the hillside from Mulholland Drive to Sunset Boulevard (the two most archetypal of Hollywood thoroughfares), she finds her way to the very apartment that Betty (Naomi Watts) is about to sublet from her 'Aunt Ruth,' a purportedly successful actress who is off to Canada to begin a new movie. As we later learn, Betty had herself arrived from Deep River, Ontario, shortly after winning a jitterbug contest.

A highly energetic and stylized flashback to the contest forms one of two pre-credit prologue sequences that frame Betty's descent from the clichéd would-be-starlet's bright-eyed innocence to the debauched madness of spurned lover and going nowhere bit-part actress. Unable to remember her own name, the Harring character adopts the name 'Rita' from a movie poster for the film noir classic 'Gilda' that adorns Aunt Ruth's apartment. (Actually, it turns out Aunt Ruth has long since deceased and whose apartment we're really in is a good question to be resolved in future viewings.) Anyway, Betty determines to help Rita find out what happened and to discover the source of the rolls of cash and a mysterious blue key that the women find in Rita's purse. The two women begin to piece together clues that would seem to lead to Rita's true identity. They also, by the way, become lovers, at one point radiating such an incendiary chemistry that I cannot recall its equal in mainstream treatments of Lesbian lover affairs (if a Lynch movie can ever be designated 'mainstream').

At the local Winkies restaurant (a recurring location fraught with dream-like significance behind its grubby realistic facade), Rita's attention is caught by a waitress's name-tag reading 'Diane.' This leads her to a recollection of someone named 'Diane Selwyn,' whose apartment the two women soon visit and, at Betty's insistence, break into. I won't reveal what they find within, but suffice it to say the scene is rendered with vintage Lynchian creepiness. Subsequently, Rita wakes in night sweats speaking Spanish and hurrying Betty to an all-night magic show/theater called 'Silencio,' where the arts of illusion and lip/instrumental- syncing are practiced with manic intensity and where the Blue- Haired Lady, as she is noted in the end credits, reigns as the presiding Muse. Framed by the blue-lit, red-curtained Silencio Theatre, the blue-haired lady occupies the last shot in the film, perhaps a symbol for the controlling artistic imagination – rather like Steven's "man with the blue guitar" as filtered through bad- drug surrealism.

During the Silencio sequence, and as Rebekah Del Rio cameo lip-syncs her own powerful Spanish rendition of Roy Orbison's 'Crying'), a shattering epiphany occurs when Betty opens her own purse to discover a blue box with a keyhole that obviously matches the key in Rita's purse. Even if we do not delve too deeply into the Freudian sexual symbolism of purses, the moment is a singularly Hitchcockian one in that the matching of the key and box leads to a complete inversion of what we thought we knew and into a whole new set of character relationships and meanings. Not the least of these reversals is the discovery that Betty is the sought-for Diane Selwyn and the spurned lover of Camilla Rhodes (i.e. Rita). Camilla in turn is a Latin femme fatale movie star to whom Diane is indebted for the few minor roles she has managed to secure and, more significantly, to whom she is emotionally subjugated.

After these and other discoveries in the last third of the film, the problem of accounting for the first two thirds of the movie is not so straightforwardly resolved as in 'Vertigo.' While bits and pieces of imagery and dialog suggest that much, if not all, of the earlier material is projected and displaced from the fevered subconscious of Diane herself, other bits and pieces suggest the perhaps supernatural intervention of a cast of characters drawing direct inspiration from 'Twin Peaks,' including Michael J. Anderson reprising his unearthly dwarfish powers and a Bob- variant who hangs out behind Winkies and is the ultimate repository for the blue box and its id-like associations.

However one fits the pieces together, though, the whole of 'Mulholland Drive' is much greater – and more mysterious – than the sum of its parts. Lynch takes us on a wonderfully inventive, provocative, and pleasurably disturbing mind trip. What's more, the film's cinematography is stunning, the soundtrack filled with evocative atmospherics, the acting superb, and the directing /editing masterful. This may well have been the unacknowledged Best Picture of 2001 among major American releases. David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.

Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.

It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.

Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie. Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird.

I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.

At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's "Blue Velvet." There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.

Like Lynch's "Twin Peaks" television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.

The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.

Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.

I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things. With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.

The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.

Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his "love story in the city of dreams" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.

The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.

This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film. Mullholland Drive proves once again that David Lynch is the Master of cinematic expression. At the screening last night I witnessed a brilliant addition to the history of cinema. The performances are astounding, the score entrancing, and the photography mesmerizing. David's ability to weave the many elements of film making into a unique and stunning cinematic experience is unequalled. As I watched Mullholland Drive I couldn't help but realize that with David Lynch in this world we are truly blessed. The cinema is blessed as well for, in the films of David Lynch, we are shown that one man's vision can be realized with stunning results. We realize that blockbusters are not the only path. We realize that a true cinematic artist has a chance in this world and in that we are blessed indeed. There is a bunch of movies that we say must be seen twice. In most cases this is mainly a recommendation: you understand the movie anyway after the first viewing, and watching it for the second time helps you catch the plot twists you just did not notice. However, for Mulholland Dr. this is different. The sequence that worked for me was: see it first time - spend a day in Internet trying to figure out what this was all about - and then see it second time. Otherwise most likely you will not be able to enjoy this film to the full extent. Then you start to understand that this piece is ingenious, camera work is stunning, and the aftertaste follows you for weeks.

9/10 I've loved this movie since I was a little kid. I remember the night my mother brought this movie home for me. I loved it and I still do. I think it's very funny and original. There are also some very catchy tunes in this movie. Lou is also a surprisingly good singer. The actors that portray Prince Arthur and Princess Eloise are okay too, but Abbott and Costello are the best. Former heavyweight boxing sensation Buddy Baer, also brother of former heavyweight champion Max Baer is good in this movie as the cop and The giant. He's a better actor than boxer. He had a natural talent. The beginning of this movie is hilarious how Lou Costello keeps crashing the car and how he gets into trouble with Buddy Baer. The slapstick in the house is good too. I especially like the comedy in the Giant's castle. My favorite parts are; the part were Lou is climbing the beanstalk and they're all singing as a farewell. Jack is singing back to them that he'll return. Lou Costello is a very good at singing. My other favorite part is the part when Jack is fighting with the Giant. I like when Jack makes exploding eggs and when he tries to make the Giant an omelet they keep exploding. Abbott and Costello are hilarious and the greatest comedians of all time. This is only one of their great movies that I will love and cherish. The reviews for this movie aren't very good and I can't understand why. This is a very good Abbott and Costello movie. I also love how Lou Costello comes back to reality in the end and thinks he's back in the dream when Bud hits him. He starts singing his song and leaves with an attitude like no one is going to push me around. Very good movie. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello always had a good following among children, but in their careers I think you could say that they only made one film that could be designated for kids. Jack and the Beanstalk was that one film.

It was part of a two picture independent deal from Warner Brothers, the second film being Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd. These were the only two films the boys made in color.

The two of them, out of work as usual, take a job for a very precocious and obnoxious young David Stollery as a babysitter. Although it starts out with Costello wanting to read the kid, Jack and the Beanstalk as a bedtime story, the young lad winds up reading it to Costello. Lou falls asleep and in his dreams he fantasizes he's indeed Jack the Giant Killer.

Buddy Baer who menaced the boys in Africa Screams plays the giant and he's got a giant size Dorothy Ford as his housekeeper. Dorothy was a big girl, 6'2", and you can imagine she had some difficulty being cast except when her height was used as a joke. One of the only players who ever looked down at her was John Wayne in Three Godfathers at 6'4". Henry Fonda and James Stewart in On Our Merry Way also stood barely above her, but again her height was part of a gag.

Shaye Cogan and James Alexander were the princess and prince of the fantasy and they sang beautifully, but couldn't act worth anything. This was the last film of William Farnum who's career dated from the early silent screen days and even to the turn of the last century on stage. He played princess Shaye's father the king.

Some not terribly memorable musical numbers came from Jack and the Beanstalk, save the title song. I well remember as a kid having the 78 record of Bud and Lou singing the song and reciting the story. I was in my early single digit years, but became a lifelong fan of their's through that and their television series.

Jack and the Beanstalk is still a good children's picture for the very young, though I would warn parents to warn their little urchins not to imitate young master Stollery. Having read so much negative press on this movie over the years, I'd always avoided it, but the advent of the cheap public domain DVD encouraged me to finally give it a viewing.

Unfortunately, it's been transferred from a poor copy. The modern prequel, shot on tinted stock, is blurry and the contrast, non-existent. Faces are occasionally difficult to make out. Having said that, the actual story is entertaining and Lou comes across as an accomplished actor, more so than in many of the boys' movies.

Once the movie switches to the 'Jack' story, the film switches to 'colour' and I use that term loosely. Most hues are orange or brown. The greens look particularly bad.

Dorothy Ford as 'Polly', the giant's maid, was a big plus for me as I enjoyed her in an early 'Andy Hardy' appearance.

With so many negative comments put down to the actual quality of the print, I'm still happy to give this movie a 7. It gave me a lot of laughs and that's more than the greater majority of comedies I've watched over the decades can manage.

One to watch if you get the chance. Abbott and Costello's talents shine in the happily childish version of "Jack and the Beanstalk". The use of sepia tone and colour, the music and choreography, song and dance, the crossing over of players from one role to another, plus various other aspects of this very fine movie make it obvious that techniques and styles used for "The Wizard of Oz" are being toyed with here. And that works right well for our intrepid duo. There are certain other things involved that make this movie a treat for me ... Buddy Baer's, Max Baer Jr. of "The Beverly Hillbillies" uncle, appearance as the cop and the giant. Pat Costello, Lou's brother, having been involved in the writing of the script. These things help make this film fun. It does, however, have it's down side. I do think that the choreography is poorly done. But the cute tunes and accompanying vocals help detract from the rather sloppy dance numbers. Some of the players, the couple in love ( prince and princess ) to be precise, aren't very good at their trade. But these things are a small price to pay for an otherwise throughly enjoyable walk down the yellow brick ... er, I mean ... climb up the beanstalk. Although copies of this movie are hard to find, if you can find it, get it!! !!! I believe this was, aside from In The Navy, Abbott and Costello's only musical. Although they twisted the plot around a little, (I've never heard a version where the butcher goes up with him), you still enjoy the antics of the slightly idiotic but lovable Jack, and the greedy butcher, Mr. Dinklepuss. Slightly reminiscent of DuBarry Was a Lady, this uproarious film will have you rolling on the floor - only to get up and dance as Lou Costello sings. (I don't know why they didn't do that in other films.) I wanted to see this movie because I am a very huge Abbott and Costello fan, and when I saw it, I liked it.

This movie is funny, not hysterical, but funny. I mean I laughed at a lot of the funny parts and I just plain enjoyed it.

Though it is not of the best of the Perfect Straight Man and the Perfect Buffoon, you should see this if you really love Abbott and Costello.

Out of all of the Abbott and Costello movies that I have seen, I can't say I've seen one that I hated. This is decent, funny, and entertaining. Abbott and Costello at least made some pretty decent movies in their later years.

All in all, I liked this movie, it is not one of their best ones, but I liked it.

7/10 So I guess that Bud and Lou just liked to mess with classic stories (although they did have some interesting results). In this case, they're baby-sitting a bad boy, and Lou tries to read him "Jack and the Beanstalk" but falls asleep and dreams that he's Jack and Bud's the butcher, and they climb the beanstalk to rescue the prince and princess from the giant (Buddy Baer).

I think that my favorite scene was when Lou was trying to make the giant an omelet, and...well, I'll let you see what happens. As this was an Abbott and Costello movie, they did have a few unnecessary songs, but other than that, it was pretty funny. For other interpretations of the classic story, "Bewitched" and "Gilligan's Island" both had episodes portraying it. For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.

Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.

It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.

Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening! The duo of Abbott and Costello lives on in this version of a story-time classic. In "Jack and the Beanstalk", there's everything to see, music, magic, and comedy rolled into one. Costello play plays Jack after he listens to the story being told by a young boy one time. We know Jack was a poor boy who sells his cow "Dolly" for 5 magic beans. Well, he plants those 5 beans, and they were indeed, magic. He climbs to the sky, sees a big castle there, and he would sing a song, unknown he would encounter the giant(Buddy Baer). Not only him, he would dance with the woman who was also a giant. She would clobber Jack with her elbows during the dance. That was funny! You got the playing harp who knows how to put the giant as ease. The goose who lays golden eggs. And my favorite, the way Jack gets rid of the giant. He gets the ax, and started chopping down on the beanstalk. Another funny is where the ax got stuck during the chop, and the final celebration happens when the people dance around the imprint where the giant fell. A lot of fun, and fun for the whole family as well. Very recommended! 5 stars! I grew up with the Abbott and Costello movies, A. because my dad grew up with them and both our last names are abbott so we owe the deo a bit of respect, I didnt realize the flack this movie and others of theres gets. It was a really clasic due, it was funny cause abbott and costello were always the same characters, but it was sooo funny, now what i like about jack and the beanstalk is that even though the love story is totally boring and that one song the prince sings, omg , awefull, but i like the angle they took on the love, story, the couple has to get married cause one kingdom is running out of money, they meet in the jail cell and fall in love becaue they both pretend not to be royal and they end up being the couple, so happy ending, i dont think that was the orginal version, if it was they should have cut it out of this movie, but i think it was orginal and i love it. but watching it sucks, lol, also when the movie really kicks in with the giant + abbott and costello it is sooooo funny. when the giant is beating jack into the door and jack is screaming "OPEN THE DOOR, OPEN THE DOOR" that stuff is really funny. And that once joke where jack starts screaming prince, prince and all those dogs jump him. kinda cheezy but really orginal. i wish they would have al least tried to remaster it, though i got that africa screams\jack and the beanstalk, and i dont mind the quality cause when i had it on tape it was bad quality also so whatever i guess. the begining is mildly funny the middle is really really funny, and the end is not funny in the least, but i am 19 years old and when a movie made in 52 makes me laugh this hard, it rocks, this movie is really funny. i love their style. also the chapters suck. also the part where jack is climbing the beanstalk and they are all singing a song about what a dipstick jack is and that he will be killed, thats pretty funny About 12 minutes into the song, in the scene where Daryl Hannah and JFK Jr are first embracing, there is a really pretty song playing...what is that song?! And, who is it sung by? It's a song that sounds very romantic and it is a female singer, piano playing, etc. I have tried everything in the world to look up the music on Google and on iTunes, etc., but it just doesn't come up, not even on Lyrics websites. So, if you hear it I would sure love to know enough about it so that I can try to either go get the CD with that song on it, or find it in iTunes. I don't know if my email will pulblish, I am new at this...but I will be looking back here. with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John. While I thought this was a good film about JFK Jr it was a little hard to follow the timeline. It jumped around quite a bit without ever mentioning what year they were in. Otherwise not great acting, and not really a great film, but it was nice to learn a little more about who JFK Jr was. I liked the movie but it should have been longer. The actors did a great job. Portia De Rossi is a fabulous actress and Kristoffer Polaha is a hottie. He didn't look like John at 100% but he did favor him from a distance. I look forward to seeing more of him on the big screen. He didn't have john's charisma, but he definitely has a charm about himself. He has beautiful eyes and a great smile. He reminds me of my boyfriend alot. Ms. Bissett was just too breathy for me. She should have that asthma checked out. Im not going to comment on the Darryl Hannah character. My mom always said, "If ya can't say anything nice, then shut the hell up!" so that's what Im gonna do.

Molly It is very hard to come up with new information about JFK Jr. and this fine movie had very little of it, but it was a joy to watch. The casting was very good and the script, while somewhat like a documentary, was also good. My only complaint was that it wasn't long enough. Perhaps a two-part movie could have told us more about his "pre-George" days and his relationships with his mother, sister, and other relatives. Some of the material in the book, "American Son," by Richard Blow would have enhanced the movie a lot. WTBS should be applauded for producing such an entertaining movie. The accounts seem real with a human factor added to the mix. A lot of sadness. I'm sure glad that I wasn't him....another thing to add is that all the women in this show were not really pretty accounts of the real women. But, I don't think that it was about the women, although it was to JFK Jr's passion. What a shame. any loss of life is a real shame.

Seemed like a good account of his life. I recommend it if you are into biographies and melodrama! Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy – a new genre for Breillat – we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film ‘A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to ‘purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male – female sexuality. Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.

Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.

Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.

The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.

"Sex Is Comedy" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style. This film was very interesting to me, virtually a film within a film, which is about a very whimsical director who cleverly persuades an actress and and actor (who happen to dislike each other) in producing sexual chemistry on film. The director is faced with a fusillade of obstacles as she tries to get the two individuals to perform beautifully on film. Sex is Comedy is much more than a comedy, packed with uncomfortable quirky moments the movie also addresses the psychological and innate instinctual behavior of men and women in regards to the sometimes controversial act of sex. I loved this film, the character Jeanne played by the beautiful Anne Parillaud performs wonderfully on screen as you share in her struggle to produce a motion picture work of art. I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light. I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those "making of" DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for "meta," but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very "French" in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) "works," but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended. As being selected during the Quinzaine des réalisateurs, this year 2002, Catherine Breillat is masterfully halvedivided of her autobiographical film, there where her lead actress, Anne Parillaud (La Femme NIKITA, Luc Besson), embodies admirably the Film Director of "Intimate Scenes ".

This is a comedy of actors' manners. Making-Of ? Film genre ? Pornography or Exhibitionism? Sex Is Comedy is a post modern film, with its script based on a film within the film. As an implosive story of a minimalist love scene, the film is built with a constant solidarity of the forms and the spirit, in which, Breillat keeps on breaking and analyzing the taboos. Using visual codes and certain sense of the formula, Catherine Breillat implement her clinical analysis of the sexuality as an isolated problem outside the society to be communicate by the door of the heart.

Therefore, Grégoire Colin (Good Work, Nénette et Boni, Claire Denis, The Dreamlife of Angels, Eric Zonca) in the role of the Actor and Roxanne Mesquida (Fat girl, Catherine Breillat, Marie from the Bay of Angels, Manuel Prada), the Actress, are actors whom she invents, she does clarify in an interview. Breillat observes the man in front of him even, a chaste man. Then Breillat films the shame and the sexual mutilation, but also a big hope, a disturbing dimension of the ecstasy, a nudity of the feelings, the halving of the exhibitionism, playing to be one to be one. The Director is finally expected to lead the actors to give their feelings, their body and their soul. So arranged, facing the problem of the order of "who I am ", the actors of Breillat put on an inorganic vitality to merge in her work in progress. But, for what is a shape of incredible exorcism, for an actor, Breillat puts many questionings. Enduring at the same moment a big suffering, the actors appear to be the ones who look for this loving transport to be part of the eternity of their work.

The Art of Breillat is of researcher, to know how to undertake in a dialogue aiming at pushing away the limits of intimate scenes. Join make-up, prosthesis in erection and syndicates are not without reminding what pictures and scenes of Jan Steen's and Rembrandt could be in the anecdotal and the daily of characters on a shooting set. While the moral categories disappear from the background of Sex Is Comedy, Breillat succeeds in revealing the loving imitation power of the actors in a landscape of formidable and dramatic humanity. Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature – the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.

The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.

There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it. It's particularly hard for a director to capture film-making without getting precious, inbred, over-dramatic, or all three. Breillat ably demonstrates the instinctive, lizard-brain methods of a female auteur in extracting from two "cattle" (as Hitchcock called actors) a love-scene of searing intimacy. Her main battle is with her leading man ("an actor is really a woman" she opines), although, naturally, it is the leading lady who will steal the show. I disagree that this is Breillat's first comedy. 'Romance' was at various points hilarious, but I accept that the French sense of humour can be elusive for foreigners; indeed, dozens of IMDb reviewers detected no comedy in Romance. By contrast, Sex Is Comedy raises plenty of laughs, mainly by using an actor's prop that goes back thousands of years to Plautus and the ancient Greeks. We wondered, leaving the theatre, whether Roxane's "beard" was a wig. A lovely performance from Anne Parillaud as Breillat wrestling with her own script, looking ten years younger than her age. Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.

Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight. This movie is a fascinating drama about the Making of a movie. The Actor and the Actress really can't stand each other, but we build up to a scene in which they are to have sex - she for the first time, per script. The actress shows little emotion on or off camera in the plot, aside from she is freezing in the early scenes on a beach. The actor is self absorbed and increasingly defies the direction of the Director, Jeanne. I could not help being drawn in to the drama of 'how are these two possibly going to ACT their way thru a Sex Scene?' That drama in itself becomes more exciting than the actual nudity and foreplay performed for the cameras. Not that Roxane Mesquida isn't lovely and worth seeing naked! However, there is a pretty young stage hand who walks thru a few scenes as an extra. I think that is her in the far left edge of one of the pictures (2 of 9) here in IMDb. I don't even know if this girl is credited, but when she walks by (fully dressed of course) in confident indifference with her short blonde hair -- SHE is Sexy! WHO IS THIS GIRL??? Pretty darn good for a French film. I have not seen any of Catherine Breillat's previous films, and so have no opinions about this compared to her previous work. French cinema usually sticks to the ultimately arty films, and leaves the shoot-em-ups and star vehicles to Hollywood. That is probably a good business strategy, as no other nation's film industry will likely have the resources to compete on those sorts of projects. Films about film-making are often a bore, as it has little resonance for people not in the business. But this one held my interest much more than I thought it would. In spite of the title, (oddly in English) it really isn't much of a comedy, in spite of a few droll moments. I've only seen a few of Anne Parillaud's films, but she shows a generous amount of talent and range, from the action/psychological drama of "La Femme Nikita" to the wry comedy of "Innocent Blood". This film also extends her range as she plays a more or less ordinary woman, yet is still compelling on the screen. Kudos also to Roxane Mesquida, with whom I was unfamiliar. She plays a very inexpressive actress for most of the film, whose talent is drawn out at the end. If you don't HAVE to have car chases and explosions to be entertained, check this one out. The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small "community bound by the bomb."

The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as "damaged goods" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.

The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity. It infuriates me no end that, now and forever, I will have to identify this movie (which I consider a masterpiece, and I don't use that word lightly) with the qualifier "Not the Michael Douglas movie!" Not only are the titles the same, but they refer to the same thing- the radioactive fallout that rained upon the survivors of the first nuclear bombings. In Imamura's film, this is no cheap metaphor; the whole movie is about the fallout, physical and emotional, from Hiroshima and the war itself. As the deterioration of a couple and their grown niece becomes more grimly clear, the ironic imagery becomes more potent, from the old clock that is reset each night to the stone gods that gradually pile up outside the heroine's door. (These, in turn, are carved by a shellshocked veteran who is compelled, in a series of tragicomic episodes, to attack anything with a motor that approaches the town.) The bombing day itself is shown in piecemeal flashbacks that are coolly horrifying. Yet "Black Rain" ("NtMDm!") can be watched, even repeatedly, because of Imamura's compassion for his characters. I repeat: a masterpiece. Shohei Imamaura's Black Rain was released in 1989 just at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, a fact that gives the film about the slow deterioration of Hiroshima radiation victims an added poignancy. The black rain in the title refers to the combination of ash, radioactive fallout, and water that fell one or two hours after the explosion. There have been other books and films about the dropping of the atomic bomb but none as unique and powerful as this one. Based on a novel by Masuji Ibuse who gathered information from interviews and the diaries of real-life bomb victims, the film depicts how an entire family is affected psychologically as well as physically by the bomb years after the original explosion. It is a horrifying vision but one that resonates with deep compassion for humanity.

The film begins in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 as soldiers and civilians go about their normal daily activities. Suddenly a blinding light flashes and a thunderous blast is heard. Almost every single building is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. The first atomic bomb ever dropped on a city is now a part of history. Survivors must somehow restart their lives, unaware of the bomb's devastating after effects. Filmed in high-contrast black and white, the story centers around Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka), a young woman who is caught in the radioactive rain as her boat heads back to the city to search for friends and relatives. In Hiroshima, Imamura shows us indelible images that remain with us: a young boy with skin hanging from his body pleads with his brother to recognize him, an older man is in tears over his inability to free his son from piles of debris, a mother is in torment as she rocks the blackened body of her child.

When the family returns to their rural home, Yasuko's life is forever changed. She sees her friends dying around her and waits for the inevitable bouts of radiation sickness that have already affected her Uncle Shigematsu Shimuza (Kazuo Kitamura) and Aunt Shigeko Shimuza (Etsuko Ichihara). Pretending that there is only business as usual, the family denies that the bomb has affected Yasuko. "She forgot how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. Everyone forgot it. They forget the hell of fire and go to rallies like an annual festival. I'm sick of it," says a friend Katayama (Akiji Kobayashi). Yasuko internalizes the tragedy, feeling shame for being different than others and guilty for being contaminated.

When her aunt and uncle try to find her a husband, the eligible men refuse to marry her because of suspicions about her health, even though Shigematsu has copied her diary to prove that she wasn't directly exposed to the bomb. The only suitor she feels comfortable with is another damaged man, Yuichi (Keisuke Ishida), who has a panic attack every time he hears the roar of an engine. At the end, the beauty of life shows itself ever so fleetingly when Yasuko goes to the pond and sees a sight she has been longing for all her life, the king carp jumping in the water, playfully as if to say that beyond despair there is still joy. Sadly we hear on the radio statements by politicians about using the bomb once again in the Korean War. "Human beings learn nothing", says Shigematsu. "They strangle themselves. Unjust peace is better than a war of justice. Why can't they see?" Immamura's Black Rain has hopefully allowed all of us to see more clearly. After the atomic bomb hits Hiroshima, charred bodies lie all around, deformed victims attempt to communicate with relatives who can't even recognize them, and one person after another dies of radiation sickness. This black and white film, however sad and scary, is not without humor. The story revolves around a young woman Yasuko, who was hit by black rain after the explosion. She is trying to get married, but everyone keeps dying, and people are worried the same will happen to her. After finding a suitable mate (who is losing his mind after being in the war for too long), she ends up showing signs of radiation sickness. This film is a great portrayal of the atomic attacks on Japan, it will frighten you, and will perhaps make you cry. The acting is good, not overly dramatic like many other ww2 films that have been made. This is a pretty faithful adaptation of Masuji Ibuse's novel, "Black Rain." Like the book it is very moving and thought-provoking. The story revolves around a couple's attempts to see their niece successfully married. They are having trouble finding suitors because of a rumor that she suffers from radiation sickness, after walking through Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. Well filmed, well acted, moving, tragic, horrifying and funny. Black Rain is a superb film, but watch out for the DVDs currently being sold for as much as $300 apiece. I have the DVD, and it's terrible. Very tiny non-anamorphic image that has to be blown up to resolution-killing size. Acceptable sound. This is a primitive DVD that absolutely *has* to be rereleased.

BTW, I also own the laserdisc and the VHS of Black Rain. The VHS is a huge step upward from the DVD! And the laserdisc has far and away the best picture of them all—subtitles in the black, sharp, big picture, simple but very good soundtrack. Buy the VHS and avoid the preposterous prices these scam artists are demanding! I didn't really concentrate on the larger Genocidal aspects of the story (although the horrific images at the beginning are very powerful). I was really taken with the human story of the girl and her family. Imagine living your life not knowing if you have a time bomb ticking away inside you. I was really wrenching to see Yasuko being rejected as "tainted" by the bomb. The image that stays with me most is when Yasuko stands before the mirror combing her hair, silently watching it come out in clumps. It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.

The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.

The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.

I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing. In the light of the recent typhoon that hit the country hard (that is, typhoon Ondoy), I thought it upon myself to re-watch "Black Rain" (1988, Japan), Shohei Imamura's haunting black-and-white masterpiece on the destruction and after-effects of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in the closing period of the Second World War. The destruction and impact of both catastrophes (war and typhoon) may differ in degree and quality, but the trauma and scar (physically and psychologically) nevertheless are still there.

It is a testament to a film's power that its images remain as potent and as indelible as when they were first seen. It is only that the difference now, in my case, is that watching those images has assumed a greater sense of poignancy and potency due to a first-hand experience of a near-monumental weather calamity. There is a sense of kinship, so to speak.

Imamura has always been one of my favorite Japanese filmmakers. His films are always a pleasure to watch because of their anarchy, sensuality and earthiness:"The Pornographers:Introduction to Anthropology" (1966), "Eijanaika" (1981), "Warm Water Under a Red Bridge" (2001), his two Palme d'Or-winners "Ballad of Narayama" (1983) and "The Eel" (1997), to name some. Given the mood of his films, who would have thought that he once served as an assistant director to Yasujiro Ozu, Japanese cinema's most austere and minimalist filmmaker? But then, it is Ozu's rigorous formality and domesticity that Imamura was rebelling against.

But then again, with "Black Rain" one can unmistakably sense Ozu's imprints. The father (or the father-figure) being intent on seeing his daughter get married before time runs out on both of them, and the stillness and calmness of the scenes showing all members of the family together (notably, the dinner scenes or in Ozu's film lexicon, the tatami) are something that the revered master filmmaker would perennially explore in his works ("Tokyo Story", "Late Spring"). Essentially, the over-all subdued and deliberate quality of "Black Rain" is a remarkable contrast to the bacchanalian chaos and instinctual drive of Imamura's entire filmography.

Still, this is not to say that watching the film would not be an altogether unsettling experience. "Black Rain", as aptly described by American film reviewer Leonard Maltin, is "filled with haunting black-and-white images." In the film's first 15 minutes, Imamura pulls no punches in showing the immediate and graphic horrors of the nuclear bombing, one after another (stiffly-burnt bodies, hanging flesh, walking dead, fires and debris everywhere, madness all over). An assault to the viewers' senses, definitely it is, coupled with Takashi Kawamata's somber b/w photography (he did the lensing in Yoshitaru Nomura's crime drama "The Incident") and Toru Takemitsu's chilling score (he did the music in such classics as Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" and Masahiro Shinoda's "Double Suicide").

Even during the film's supposed "tranquil" phase (that is, five years after the atomic bombing), one can still never have a sense of contentment and order, with the uneasiness and pain still being strongly felt by the survivors, not only in terms of failing physical health, but more so in terms of psychological trauma and social stigma. The human race, it now indisputably appears, has been destined to bear the legacy of the Bomb, for as long as it lives.

I already wrote a piece about "Black Rain" some years earlier (posted in IMDb.com), but only in comparison to Volker Schlondorff's magnificent "Tin Drum", another film dealing with monumental human folly and global catastrophe. Moreover, it has never been my practice to write twice about a film that I already wrote something about before. It is in the light of the recent weather calamity that devastated our country that I was prompted to re-visit and write something again about this remarkable Imamura film, as there is a wealth of lessons to be learned from both the film and the recent event in regards the imperfections and dangers of scientific knowledge and action, and the long-term scars and wounds inflicted by a wide- scale destruction (whether human- or nature-induced).

There have been a number of films dealing with nuclear holocaust and destruction ("Testament", "Threads", "The War Game", each situated within their own respective countries);and "Black Rain" stands among them, if not more so, for both its unapologetic and somber portrayal of individual and communal disintegration brought about by atomic devastation and the fact that it has a historical event as its basis.

Few weeks from now, another disaster film from Hollywood, Roland Emmerich's "2012", will finally hit (no pun intended) the big screen. As we all know, this American director's bunch of "disaster/apocalypse" films--"Independence Day", "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow"-- serves no other purpose than to be of mere entertainment value, with no real insight into the nature and wisdom of apocalyptic disaster and the human condition being affected. I wonder how this "gigantic" movie would exploit the trauma, disorientation and apprehensions still being experienced by our people because of the recent weather calamity. To say that this flick is a precautionary tale would probably be no more than an overstatement.

But yes, I will still watch "2012". Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles. Well, where to start? I stumbled across this one in 1993 and just hit "record" on the VCR out of habit, more than anything else. "Citizen Kane" it sure isn't...but if you've had a bad day and are in the mood for crashing out in front of something not too intellectually stimulating, then I tentatively suggest this might just be your "thing".

We have the lot here - great title track, more stereotypes than you could shake a stick at, unconscious comedy, the bitchiest fight scene of all time and more, more, more! David Hemmings plays the diametric opposite of his role in the 60s classic "Blow Up" - still a photographer, still hormonally stimulated but not "quite" the same.

John Philip Law is easy to slam as an actor who makes a log appear unwooden but that wouldn;t be fair seeing as how he had about 5 minutes notice before accepting the role.

Wexler as "Amanda"? Suffice to say it was her one and ONLY film role! The real star of this movie, though, is Ethel Evans who plays a, shall we say secretary (?), with the morals of an alley cat and an ambition to match. The way she manages to reconcile her present life with that of a future with her comedian husband-to-be is actually quite touching in an earthy, gritty, what-is-to-be-will-be way.

I actually love this movie when I'm in the mood for it.......and wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole when I'm not.

Kudos to the cast for keeping a (relatively) straight face when filming.

A "classic" in the Edward D Wood school of cinematic endeavours! Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!

The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song "He's Moving On" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect. I have never read a Jacqueline Susann novel, but I have also seen Valley of the Dolls, based on another of her books. On both occasions I thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). The reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion, design and behavior patterns. And in this aspect The Love Machine offers quite a lot. The set design fits the story perfectly. And all the characters fit in, too. They're perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. They are superficial and do not develop, it is true, but in this movie I wouldn't want it any different.

David Hemmings reprises the role he played in Antonioni's Blow Up. And it's more than a rip-off. He's a fashion photographer, looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. Robert Ryan reprises the role he played in Max Ophül's Caught, he is Smith Ohlrig all over again, greedy, bored and boring, uninspired and uninspiring. It's possible Ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly, on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. Whatever happened, it fits the picture. Dyan Cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe!), she dominates every scene she's in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie: the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the Hemmings character with a Academy Award statuette.

The title, The Love Machine, is, of course, meant ironically. Robin Stone is a kind of a Barry Lyndon of the pop era (incidentally, the movie IS slightly kubrickysh). That he chooses a TV station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. He sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. There are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. Homosexuality is treated very casually, probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. The open cynicism of the TV executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like A Face in the Crowd or Network or Truman Show. They are producing crap, they agree among themselves it's crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it.

I did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following, provided it's given the chance (meaning a DVD release). This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.

Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo. I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney! To answer the question of a previous reviewer who asked the name of the U.S. official mentioned in "Lumumba", the name of the character is "Mr. Carlucci." Frank Carlucci is reported as having been at that time Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in the Congo. Subsequently, among other assignments, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and is now the Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It's hardly surprising that Carlucci's biographical sketch on his www.carlylegroup.com web site fails to credit his service in the Belgian Congo. If his name was deliberately censored from the HBO version of "Lumumba" it may have been to avoid the possibility of HBO's being sued in U.S. courts. Carlucci's name, however, is clearly mentioned in the theatre version of "Lumumba" that I saw recently. In the event, I expect that he would deny any involvement in Lumumba's murder.

Others have commented on the evenhandedness with which the film "Lumumba" treats the parties concerned: Lumumba-supporters, other Congolese, even Belgians. A somewhat more sinister view emerges, I think, from the BBC documentary entitled "Who Killed Lumumba?", based on the book "The Murder of Lumumba" by Belgian historian Ludo de Witte. When examined closely, these films demonstrate that the fate of Lumumba and the history of the Congo is not just a matter of black and white. Only Lumumba's murderers believe that. When it comes to political movies I usually come out feeling empty. They generally take up some moralistic stance and you have a clear good vs bad story line as if it is some sort of Batman movie.

But with Lumumba it is the first movie I've seen that showed politics for what it is, and the real issues of trying to rule a country of broken people who have known no other rule but violence. There were no good or bad there were just interests and conflicts of interest. This is the only political movie in my opinion that one can come out of it truly learning something. Especially for anyone with their eye on politics as a career this movie shows you, you cannot rule on what you want for a country, but what the country wants from you.

That's why I disagree with a lot of reviews that say everyone comes of bad, I think they come of too idealistic, (the Belgians want the perfect colony, Lumumba wants a perfect Unity Congo, Tshombe wants wealth and riches, America wants the perfect ally against communism, Russia wants the perfect aide for Communism). And the Congolese? They come off used and abused, ( best example in the movie when Général Janssens tells his black troops your government lied to you and it leaves them all in an uproar) they are always being pulled and pushed into supporting this person or another.

This movie shows in politics a mistake can cost you dearly and this movie everyone makes mistake after mistake until it escalates and ends up destroying the country. Their intentions might be good (or at least in the characters opinion), but it's everyone's mistakes that lead to the downfall of Congo. I don't think anyone is bad in this film, I just think they want too much from people sick of giving and want to start taking.

Overall, it's not just the best political film, it is a great film in general. Acting is fabulous (Eriq Ebouaney as Lumumba was perfect casting I really believe him) script flawless, editing perfect pace, and production value higher than I expected for a central African film. A must watch. an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa. The story of how the (communist) leader who freed the Congo from Belgium imperialism was eliminated by the Western powers through the hand of Mobutu. A story of struggle and injustice, of hope and the search of freedom. The story could be the one of any African country. A very moving film with images full of symbolism and beauty. If you have to see only one foreign film this year, see this one. Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.

It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.

It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.

Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.

In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars. First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was "communist." If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a "communist" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in "revisionist history" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which "granted" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.

Onto the film...

This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school/secondary school (or maybe university/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.

And to to think that Oliver Stone's "JFK" took over 3 hours, "Lumumba" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.

This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed. In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell.

Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to.

This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters.

Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see. It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium "letting them go". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis. Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.

The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.

The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10. I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing. The English are a little too evil, the Scots are a bit too

heroic. The dialogue is overly dramatic at times, and the

transitions between scenes could be smoother.

Still, "The Bruce" has the feel of authentic, if unpolished,

history ... even if it does play loosely with some important

facts.

Sandy Welch is no Gibson or Branagh, but he makes a stalwart

Bruce. And Brian Blessed chews the scenery in delightful

villainy as Edward I.

While lacking the budget needed to make the final battle truly

impressive, they still marshalled an impressive crowd for the

English and Scottish armies. It is, according to filmmakers, the

"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in

the British Isles."

Allowing for a few failings and shortcomings, the film still

does a convincing portrayal. A fabulous film,which I have now watched several times over since buying the video only four days ago.Yes I am a Colin Firth Fan and Colin was his usual talented, natural gorgeous self.

The interaction between Colin (Matthew Field)and Fissy(Sammy, Nimi's 7 year old Son) was very special and so natural to watch. They were hilariously funny together and also touched my heart strings. The scenes which I loved the most was Sammy and Matt sitting on the wall chatting and Matt then falling backwards off the wall in an hilarious fashion (I won't reveal the content of their discussion so as not to spoil the plot). Also very hilarious was Sammy quizzing Matt about sex, Colin and Fissy were perfect in this scene and making what can be an awkward subject between adult and child just so natural. Colins words and face at the end of that scene were so delightful and said it all! just brilliant. Credit, of course, must also go to Fissy Roberts for his delightful portrayal of Sammy. He played such a lovable and cheeky child character. The two actors were just perfect together.

The interaction between Colin (Matt) and Nia (Nimi)was perfectly balanced and I couldn't agree more that the chemistry between them was wonderful to watch, displaying love,tension and of course passion. It was exciting to see how their delicate blossoming romance gradually unfolded, also showing how their cultural and social divides affected their relationship and was good to see how Colin and Nia sensitively portrayed Matt and Nimi discovering, accepting and overcoming these differences. It kept me fixed to the TV and guessing right until the end of the film.

Colins portrayal of Matt's vulnerable and juvenile side was also perfectly portrayed, so much so, that I found it was difficult to watch when Matt was so mean and childish towards Sammy because he (Matt) felt that Sammy was getting in the way of his romance/relationship with Sams Mother Nimi.One couldn't help feeling very disappointed, angry and frustrated with Matt for treating Sammy this way and this in turn threatening to spoil Matts special relationship with Sammy and Nimi. Colins special talent of 'getting inside a character's head' and displaying to the audience the different sides of a character, was very much in evidence here and pure magic to watch. I must also mention that Colin also has such a good rapport with young actors (see also 'My life so far'a wonderful and not to be missed film).

I also loved the relationship between Matthew and his wife Jenny, both were excellent in displaying to the audience the dark side and tensions within their marriage and that not all seemingly 'Happy Marriages' are quite what they may seem from the outside.

I mustn't forget to mention the reverend whom I thought was very funny, in a serious sort of way! Also Nimi's Mother and family were hilarious as well as bringing across the importance of Nimi's culture and her situation.

The downside, I can't really find a downside,but to be objective about the film and to give credibility to my review, the only negative comment that I would make is that the script writers didn't explain in enough detail as to why Matt collapsed in the car, there was only a vague suggestion, from Nimi, of something being wrong with his heart. However, this didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film, far from it.I just needed to rewind the tape a little for a 2nd take.

I felt that this film had it all, entertaining, uplifting and I loved the rich colours and sunny scenery.The film warmed up a cold winters day and made me smile :-)) All the essential elements were there,laughter,love,tension,sadness,anger,drama and a Warm feel good factor, with, yes plenty of those delicious Colin Firth moments including a very soaked Colin in a 'Wet Shirt scene',not to be missed by any fan, what more could a girl want;-))

I would strongly recommend this film, specially to any Colin Firth Fans ;-) I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it. *Warning! Some spoilers!*

Matt, a rich writer, is in fact still just a boy in his behaviour. He doesn't care about anyone's but his own needs and couldn't care less about the consequences of any of his actions. Just as he gets to know Nimi and her bonds with her familiy and her communitiy he starts to feel that something is missing in his live.

He starts to realize that he is in fact lonely and stuck in impersonal structures that are just convenient but lack heart and commitment. Nevertheless he shies away from any responsibilties and is reluctant to change his live. But will he be able to settle again in his old life and ignore the bonds he's already - unconsciously - formed?

Nimi's situation is the absolute opposite. She is pressed into the regulations of her Nigerian community, its prejudices and its medieval values. Being a single mother her position is difficult and it gets even worse when she falls in love with Matt, a white devil (as the Referend would say), a man who cannot commit. The women of the community plan to marry her to the Referend to end her single status and give Sammy "a name". But that would mean for Nimi to give up all independence and self-determination. But is there an alternative for her if she wants Sammy to be accepted and herself to become a respected member of the community?

This movie has it all: a very sensitive and sensual love story (with VERY sexy scenes of Matt and Nimi) and an endearing child who is eagerly matchmaking, a beautiful scenery in lively colours.

Colin Firth (*swoon*) and Nia Long show a great chemistry. It's just fantastic to watch them. And Fissy Roberts as Sammy is just to die for. You simply want to adopt him. I just love the way Sammy and Matthew talk to each other. They are both on the same level in many ways. Especially when Sammy asks Matt about Sex. This scene is absolutely adorable!!

Almost nothing to complain about.... wait! That's not true. One thing is not good: That the movie is not long enough! (Well, and maybe that the Referend is too bad and too silly to be convincing....)

10 of 10, by all means! This is a great movie. When two people from different backgrounds and social status think that they have nothing to offer each other and in the end they what each other needs it a testament to what the heart knows. Sometimes we wonder why one man is with a woman or vise versa and the outward appearances say one thing to our eye, but what they offer each other from within that we cannot see is amazing and unexplainable. When Nimi thought that Matthew had nothing to offer her and when Matthew was only looking for a fling (because he had an open marriage w/his wife Jenny), in the end they realized that they could not and did not want to exist without the other. It was worth it to them to resist what family and friends thought and what society said was right to be with each other. This movie kind of restores my faith in love. I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago! Personally, I think the movie is pretty good. It almost rates an 8. I liked the ethnography aspect as well as the gorgeous photography. Colin Firth's character isn't the most likable but he does a better than decent job with the role. The heroine, played by the beautiful Nia Long, is a familiar film heroine in that she's trying to do what she thinks is the best for her child -- marrying a respected member of her expatriate community -- while fighting her attraction for the "bad" man -- one who's not a member of her community (the "outsider"). Most of the film is about this mother's struggle: should she do what's expected of her, what she thinks is best for her son or should she follow her heart? I don't want to give away the ending. Let me just say that it's a feel-good movie with gorgeous location shots, exquisite African dress (it's worth seeing the film just for the women's brilliantly colored African clothing and headdresses), and likable characters overall. The actor who plays Nia Long's son is bright and adorable. The plot is a bit formulaic, but I liked the movie nonetheless. If you're a Colin Firth fan you MUST see this film. If you like chic flicks, see it. I think I'll watch it again tonight! I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it. Duck_of_Death needs to watch this film again, as his major criticism is completely baseless. The film never once forgot about the time delay, and it was mentioned explicitly in a couple of places. The crew were never shown having conversations with mission control that didn't obey the time delay rules.

One thing I did think was a bit far-fetched was the amount of risk involved - would a crew land on a planet on which pressure suits would only last two hours? I doubt it. Would a manned space ship go into a star's corona? I doubt it. Would humans land on a moon that was being bombarded with huge amounts of radiation? I doubt it. Also, the ship seemed overly sturdy. Would a ship designed like that risk atmospheric flight to slow it down? I doubt it. Would it survive being hit by comet debris? I doubt it. I think in both cases the stresses on the structure would be too much. But all-in-all, the unlikely scenarios were compensated by some nicely done special effects, good editing and production, and some good acting, especially by the actors portraying the ship's commander and the Russian cosmonaut. I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead! 1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation. i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it...

much better than any war in the stars...

there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force My main criticism is quite simply that it isn't long enough or detailed enough. I would have loved to see more of everything: the building of the vessel, the engineering, the training, the first lift to orbit, preparations for departure, Venus Orbital Injection, everything. I would have liked to see more of the first leg, Venus to Earth, instead of zipping there like a n°10 corporation bus. In fact, I would have liked to see a series on the scale of Earth Story made of this, with a full hour dedicated to every planet and maybe another to the loop around the Sun. As it was, I was left hungry. On the other hand, I do understand budgets and viewers' attention-spans.

Re the science: Let's be fair about the speed-of-light time-lag: they did mention at the beginning that there was a lag in conversations, but they let this evaporate once they reached the outer planets. Some kind of conversation had to be presented to the viewers, and we have to assume that the lag was edited out for the sake of palatability; so no complaints there. But zero for noisy spaceships. The only film in which spaceships make no noise was Kubrick's 2001, and even then he copped out by using the noise of the crew breathing in their helmets - which *was* pretty effective. I wish the makers of Space Odyssey had realized just how eerie the sight of vast rocket-motors blasting in absolute silence might be but alas, Pegasus lets out much the same roar as every other cardboard spaceship in every other cardboard SciFi film.

But the rest of the science was excellent. No complaints there, in fact praise for bringing out the radiation problems as well as they did. I just hope that having done this film won't discourage the BBC from making a really detailed version, but I suppose that's not for next week or next year either... Every time the supposed explorers and we , the audience, is primed to set its first sights one of the wonderous new worlds, for some ungodly reason, the filmmakers decided to distract with an "emergency" or some false alarm or some bit of artificial dramatic suspense.

So instead of calmly enjoying the surface of Io, or standing over the rings of Saturn or concentrating on the magic of flying by a comet or an asteroid, we are distracted into worrying about the wellbeing and survival of the characters. Big let down !!!!

The filmmakers seem to be unsure what they want. A documentary of the natural wonders in our solar system, or a suspense thriller in which the viewer cares more about the characters than the subject matter. Come on.

Hello. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd watch a real Narrative sci-fi movie.

Sure it's a docu-drama. But the characters and their survival here (the risks of such a mission - should be secondary to the subject matter ). Wait. Yes the risks of such a mission are an important part of the subject matter - since essentially this is a film about a space mission , not just about the solar system. But it was overplayed and distracted strongly from the discovery of new worlds we were supposed to be enjoying.

Otherwise, the film was remarkable in giving a very realistic feel for the human elements of a space mission , the squabbles, the tensions, the weight of responsibility, the near-fatal mistakes, the sacrifices , etc. Also it would fit very well in the hard-sci-fi subgenre - in fact it would be one of the best , because here the science was almost closely adhered to.

But the distractions were awful.

Otherwise, I missed showing the effects of being in space for several years on the astronauts AFTER landing on Earth. Also not Watching this PPV, I had high expectations for it, since Smackdown is the best show in WWE, this is a very good PPV as it is the last one before Wrestlemania.

FIRST MATCH-HARDY BOYS & CHRIS BENOIT VS. MVP & MNM W/ MELINA IN A 6 MAN TAG TEAM MATCH Good way to start the match. It started a bit slow at the start, but later the pace quickened & the match got more exciting & entertaining. Benoit rolls through & makes Joey Mercury tap out to get a victory for the Hardy Boys & himself. 6/10

SECOND MATCH- GREGORY HELMS {CHAMPION} VS. SHANNON MOORE VS. FUNAKI VS. CHAVO GUERRERO VS. DAIVAIRI VS. SCOTTY 2 HOTTY VS. JAMIE NOBLE VS. JIMMY WANG YANG IN AN OPEN CRUISERWEIGHT INVITATIONAL MATCH FOR THE WWE CRUISERWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP I'm a very big fan of Cruiserweights, & I never get disappointed watching them, especially in this match here. Chavo Guerrero nails the Frog Splash on Jimmy Wang Yang to get the win & become the new WWE Cruiserweight Champion. 5/10

THIRD MATCH- FINLAY & LITTLE BASTARD VS. BOOGEYMAN & LITTLE BOOGEYMAN This was not really a wrestling match, it was more like a comedy match, despite not being a clear wrestling contest, it still entertained me with the funny antics. Finlay nails the Little Boogeyman with the Shillaegh to get the win. Boogeyman does not deserve to be on a PPV, & does not deserve to be in WWE. 4/10

FOURTH MATCH- KANE VS. KING BOOKER W/ SHARMELL This was a surprisingly good match, I thought it would be mediocre, but it turned out into a real competitive wrestling contest. Hats off to both men, pulling a very entertaining match. Kane wins after a Chokeslam on King Booker. 6/10

FIFTH MATCH- PAUL London & BRIAN KENDRICK {CHAMPIONS} VS. DEUCE & DOMINO W/ CHERRY FOR THE WWE TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Not really that much of a good match, Deuce & Domino need more training to wrestle, & London & Kendrick are the only ones keeping this match fast paced. London & Kendrick retain their titles, after Kendrick gets a roll-up on one of the guys for the win. 4/10

SIXTH MATCH- BOBBY LASHLEY {CHAMPION} VS. MR. KENNEDY FOR THE ECW CHAMPIONSHIP Mr. Kennedy attacks Lashley from behind, before the match starts. It was an okay match, but not really good. Lashley & Kennedy have a bit of chemistry, but not enough to pull a great match. Kennedy wins by DQ, after Lashley nails him with a chair, then assaults him with the chair all the way to the entrance area. Lashley still retains his title. 4/10

SEVENTH MATCH- JOHN CENA & SHAWN MICHAELS VS. BATISTA & UNDERTAKER This is probably the greatest tag team match that I have ever seen. Hats off to all of these men {yes even Batista} for pulling off as close as a 5 star main event classic. All 4 of these men played their parts in the match very well, as this was a very great & entertaining tag team match. Batista turns his back on Undertaker spine-busting him, then leaving the ring, which prompts Michaels to nail Sweet Chin Music, then Cena to nail an F-U for the hard fought victory. 7/10

I don't know why everyone says that this PPV is not good enough, or it is boring, I just don't get it. It is a great PPV which Smackdown always delivers. A great PPV indeed.

Overall I'll give it 8/10 & a B+ I saw this very emotionally painful portrayal and it was fascinating. The conflict between the public and private faces of Williams and the pressure he was under is illuminated in a way that even those who knew something about him would be surprised. The cast acted superbly, but Michael Sheen was outstanding. I only realised it was him when I saw the earlier comment. He looks completely physically different in this role, from any other role I have seen him in or as himself. Williams autobiography differs markedly from his diaries,as represented in this film. The film is at times distressing to watch, because of the emotional anguish displayed. However, it is a worthwhile experience and a film that can be recommended highly. A lot of my childhood was spent lying in front of the wireless listening to Round the Horne or Hancock's Half Hour or watching Carry On films. Probably the most famous line in comedy "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!" still makes me laugh.

This is a rare insight into the man behind the comic figure and the whole production is a brilliant mix of tragedy and comedy right down to the final quotation from the coroner's court read in four different voices by Michael Sheen. He was brilliant in the role. Most of the other members of the Carry On team were so-so and their Kenneth Horne was very good but Michael Sheen carried the show and there should be an award of some sort for him.

It left me feeling "wow". To quote Kenneth Williams, to the cynic who says 'life is a joke' the only response can be 'Yes, well let's make it a good one.' I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy! This is a "docu-drama" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed. Michael Sheen shines like the afternoon sun in this brilliant portrayal of a comic genius. If you are familiar with Kenneth Williams' mannerisms and Diaries then this drama captures the essence of them perfectly. When i read about Kenneth hoovering in his swimming trunks i laughed and then it was brought to life on the screen, but this time i didn't laugh as it was put into perspective as the actions of a repressed and tortured man. It must have been such a lonely existence being in Kenneth's skin, craving attention but shunning it when it TRULY mattered! The last 20 minutes are heart-breaking as you see Kenneth gradually sink to the depths of despair and consider suicide as the only alternative. I have seen it a dozen times and still cry uncontrollably at the point where he bids goodnight to LOUIE. I cannot recommend this drama enough. Sexually explicit but it drives home the fact that Kenneth couldn't let anyone invade his world and this is where the sadness of the man lies. For a genius who brought happiness to so many, it's such a shame that his private life was filled with such despair and sadness. Pauly. A wonderful little production.

The filming technique is very unassuming- very old-time-BBC fashion and gives a comforting, and sometimes discomforting, sense of realism to the entire piece.

The actors are extremely well chosen- Michael Sheen not only "has got all the polari" but he has all the voices down pat too! You can truly see the seamless editing guided by the references to Williams' diary entries, not only is it well worth the watching but it is a terrificly written and performed piece. A masterful production about one of the great master's of comedy and his life.

The realism really comes home with the little things: the fantasy of the guard which, rather than use the traditional 'dream' techniques remains solid then disappears. It plays on our knowledge and our senses, particularly with the scenes concerning Orton and Halliwell and the sets (particularly of their flat with Halliwell's murals decorating every surface) are terribly well done. All in all, Big Bad John was a hilarious, and touching movie. If you want romance, tragedy, and humor, this movie's got it. If you're a fan of the song (like I am) you pretty much know how it ends. But if you don't, or do and want to watch it anyway, I strongly recommend this movie. Jack Elam and Jimmy Dean are a hilarious pair with great chemistry. However, I wouldn't recommend this movie to strict urban folk. You have to understand where these people are supposed to be coming from, and only a handful of us are left. But even a few urban folk might understand it, and appreciate it for what it is: a good, down home movie that'll make you laugh, cry, and be inspired. This blaxploitation classic about a kung fu mama who travels to Hong Kong to avenge her brother's death offers everything you learned to expect from the genre. Playmate Jeannie Bell (with a giant afro) really kicks ass and usually loses her clothes very quickly. If you don't take it all too seriously, the movie is great fun to watch. Stan Shaw gives a solid performance, Jeannie Bell is a little less convincing. Pam Grier she ain't.

This is where Quentin Tarantino got his idea for the light switch scene in "Jackie Brown" from.

The soundtrack by Don Julian is a gem and is frequently used in rap songs. Feisty Dianna Jackson (a winningly spunky performance by gorgeous former "Playboy" Playmate Jeanne Bell) goes to Hong Kong to take out the evil heroin ring that murdered her brother. Dianna's assisted by friendly karate master Joe (amiable Chiquito), faces opposition from undercover narcotics agent Elaine (lovely, buxom blonde babe Pat Anderson), and romances cocky, ruthlessly ambitious Charlie (essayed with supremely arrogant aplomb by Stan Shaw) while plotting her revenge against nefarious drug kingpin Sid (an effectively slimy Ken Metcalfe). Director Cirio H. Santiago, working from a blithely trashy script co-written by none other than Dick Miller (!), crams the lively and eventful 72 minute running time with a plethora of gratuitous distaff nudity and loads of badly staged martial arts fight scenes (Bell is clearly doubled by a squat guy wearing a giant Afro wig!). The definite sleazy highlight occurs when a topless Bell singlehandedly beats up a bunch of thugs in her hotel room. Felipe Sacdalan's raw, grainy, scratched-up cinematography, the clumsy use of strenuous slow motion, the funky-groovin' score, the laughably inept fight choreography, and the surprisingly gruesome conclusion add immensely to the overall scuzzy fun of this deliciously cheesy grindhouse exploitation hoot. This film was hilarious. It provided a somewhat comical view of the British club scene, which, if you really look at it, is a funny thing. The characters in this flick were so realistic to those of us who watched here at my place that it was like watching a movie about ourselves.

There were a few pivotal scenes which really made this movie work: the getting ready scenes; the "Get me a real doctor" scene; the white background scene showing each character in a total state of being wrecked, ending with the infamous line "what was i saying?" and the comedown-sunup scenes. I have lived these moments myself and found myself laughing hysterically at my own ridiculous behaviour.

I can't give this movie a 10 because it doesn't measure up to Groove, which I thought was out of this world, but it certainly has its moments. The mise-en-scene and the camera work is superb, the special effects are well worth mentioning, and the acting is fantastic.

After waiting a long time to see this film, I am glad to say that I was not disappointed. I hope to see more from the writer/director in the future. Every time I watch this film, it just really makes me wanna go out and have a good night! My mate uses "the weekend has landed" speech to psyche himself up before going out! and so do I...sometimes.

This film is a great debut for the writer/director - well done mate!

The acting is great, all the characters are believable and are larger than life! The 'weird' scenes are a joy to watch, Jip's running Mr floppy flashbacks/explanations/visualizations are all great! The scene in the huuuuuuuge pub when everyone stands up and starts singing the mock national anthem is a laugh too. There's loads of comedy here - Howard Marks' 'spliff politics' speech is hilarious!

Oh god, you just need to see this. Mind you, I felt the film did somewhat glorify the use of ecstacy, but hey, that's the truth of the matter eh? At least the film doesn't shy away from this fact. I suppose the film does carry a decent message to it as well - don't take life TOO seriously, you have to let you hair down sometime. And of course the chat in the pub when Moff tries to explain to his mates that he's coming off the drugs is a sure reminder that when the come down's out-way the good times, you know the party's over!

This is at times a very clever film in it's use of the camera, lighting, etc. It was a realised piece of cinema, and a great feel-good tale of mates, love, clubs, and drugs.

Get outta the 'rat race' people!!!

8/10

Enjoy! I have a completely biased point of view mainly because I live and enjoy the club culture lifestyle. Being a DJ and frequent club goer I see the honesty within this movie and I love it. If you don't know the club/rave culture then it will be a great foray into that culture for anyone that doesn't know it first hand. The honest portrayal of human emotion and issues in the part of Jip I loved. The characters were well constructed and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I really don't enjoy the fact that you have to write ten lines on this web site. I will write at least 6 or 7 but i feel that i can portray my point with fewer than ten. Here are some extra lines to make the IMDb gods happy. I absolutely love this film. Everything about it. It almost felt like watching me and my friends on screen. The way this movie was filmed was a pure masterpiece, very original and creative. I related to these characters and even had the same thoughts as some. I'm really glad I ran across this movie. If only there were more genius' like justin out there! Cardiff, Wales. A bunch of 5 mates are deeply bored in this town. There's Jip who works in a clothes shop. Coop, an easy-going DJ. Nina, inseparable from her best friend Lulu and Moff. The week is hell for them and they only wait for one thing: the week-end. At this time, they got out to a nightclub and to the sound of tech no music, they experience different drugs, particularly ecstasy. Then, they usually continue the party to a friend's. At the end of this really good time on Sunday, the feelings are the following ones: tiredness, melancholy, just the memory of a crazy night...

Surfing on the wave of the notorious success of "Trainspotting" (1996), this debut movie written and directed by Justin Kerrigan brings and develops a new variation about the notion of hedonism. It means: how to have fun as much as possible while knowing that you have a shortened lapse of time. Indeed, as I have previously written, for the 5 main characters of the movie, the week is hell and the weekend is the only time they can free themselves and have a wild time without the single pressure (besides, Jip in one sequence talks about the positive aspects of shooting oneself: you are numb, you don't feel any pressure, you are like an astronaut in orbit above the earth. Kerrigan's relentless directorial style expresses very well the spirit of debauchery and care freeness of the 5 protagonists. They only live to take advantage as much as possible of an hedonist week-end. Furthermore, to spice up a little more the festive atmosphere in which his movie bathes, Kerrigan isn't afraid to include dreamlike sequences which represent his characters' fantasy or embarrassments. Then, "Human Traffic" (1999) is also served by a particularly bouncy sound track. The amount? A perfect symbiosis between the sound and the music. At last, this week-end of euphoria enables to shelve momentarily the usual drab image of the popular social classes, British cinema has studied a lot.

Notwithstanding, when a movie (conscientiously or not) exploits the fame of another famous one, it rarely matches the brilliance of its predecessor. "Human Traffic" is in this condition. There's little inventiveness at the level of the narrative structure and the introduction of the characters and one can note down a few useless digressions (Jip who, in the nightclub goes in the manager's office and tells him a cock-and-bull story so as to enable Moff to enter the club but that's no use because the latter succeeds in coming without problems). One can also blame Kerrigan to overlook the dramatic sides that the story could have involved. His movie can also be read as a transition from euphoria to paranoia and the dramatic connotations of this second pole aren't virtually explored. It's a shame! It could have conveyed the following message: even in the happiest moments, there can be something terrible preparing which can flop them. The same remark could also be said when Coop has a fit of jealousy because Nina broaches a guy.

It may not be the last great film of the nineties as it is billed on the DVD cover but "Human Traffic" is to be taken as a good and incisive little movie which conveys with the styles and the fashions of the end of the twentieth century, a will to have fun without ulterior motives and trouble. An ideal movie to start any party or before going to a club. It takes a lot for a movie to reach the already numb particles of my brain which have not already been tapped out due to the overcharge and redoredoredocopycopycopy world of movies. But this movie has made it onto my 'Magic Movies' list. To become a 'magic movie', it must leave every string of my being quivering in that which I can only define as 'bliss' and 'complete satisfaction'. This movie has tapped into the fibers of how my mind thinks and if not for the deeply personal bond my head and the head of whoever made this shares, it would look like another 'dead rave scene' movie from back when the 90's exploded with its Ecstasy craze. This is not how the movie came off to me at all. It's reached into me and pulled up something that I thought was dead for a very long time and pushed me as far as to give it a critique of my own. I forgot how long it's been since I've seen something that left me feeling this good inside. I strongly suggest seeing this movie. If you "been there" and "done that" you will absolutely love this film. I have and by "there" I mean underground clubs and house parties where there is far more rare to find people just being drunk than it is to find people high to their ears on extacy, speed or LSD.

By "that" I mean dancing and sweating like crazy for eight hours or so in a row with out even a brake and , that followed by a way to long morning of no-can-sleep and almost wanting to die, followed by a week of just waiting till the next weekend to do it all again.

So even though this film now is one of my absolute favourites I can certainly understand why some people, or most people even, would dislike it. I remember a time when the only thing that did exist where clubs, drugs pubs and parties. This movie came out a couple of years after i started going clubbing. If i had never discovered the ravier side of things this movie may not have made sense to me. That night when i watched it for the 1st time, with some mates, i was completely blown away. I had never watched a movie that hit so close to the reality of where i was in my life at that time. Almost everything i could relate to in some way. There was never 1 character i could fully relate to but more a combination of all of them in one way or another. My mates where no different and i remember us all saying that they where us or we where them. We had all been out that weekend together doing exactly what the crew do in HT. We where coming down while we watched and when the movie "came down" i remember actually coming down a bit further. it was actually quite depressing in our room during those "low points". Thats what's so good about Human Traffic. it really taps the whole situation.

its a unique movie in the way its not plot driven, but then its not completely character driven although the characters are important. it always seemed to be based on the situations. Situations as a group and as individuals. Each character is lost in life, for their own reasons. yet each of them responds to the lostness in the same way. work any job to make money to pay for the weekend and escape it all. for them its their holiday. But the reality is you cant truly escape. Another situation they all have to face.

Me and my mates where no different from these guys. We all had our own stuff going on. Human traffic helped explain to us what we didn't understand about our selves. It does it in a way that doesn't talk down to you. It made us feel like we weren't the only ones out there like us and that the lessons learned where ones many others, from all over the world, had gone thru. it wasn't until my lifestyle changed from party popper to career driven that i would fully understand this movie. these days i watch HT, every now and then(as i just have), and reminisce the old days. No other movie can do this. I was peter popper, i was jip travolta, i went to never never land with my chosen family. i'd have $200 in my back burner and i wax the lot! No worries! As I sit here, I find myself laughing at certain moments in this film. Go and see this film.

If you've ever been clubbing, go and see this film.

If you've ever wanted to go clubbing, go and see this film.

My bet is that the film was borne from an idea whilst out clubbing and this is the product of that one-in-a-million chance that someone remembered it in the morning and had the application to follow it through.

In summary then, go and see this film.

Human Traffic is a view into an average weekend for a group of friends, it is a fly-on-the-wall view into their lives (and minds) which will show you how this group of friends relate to each other. There are many moments in that every one can relate to, Like being out of you skull at parties and talking complete rubbish to strangers. The characters are all people that you can relate to and they are believable in the roles that they play in the movie. The situations that they are in are all situations that we all have found ourselves in, and that is where this film succeeds. The topics of sex and drugs are handled superbly as to no get in the way of the characters relationships with each other. The story to the film is not all that, but that is not a criticism. This is a film about people. This is a well written film, with a sound track to die for. D.J's Pete Tong has put together an superb selection of tracks for this file which all goes to make this one of the best films that I have seen in 1999. After watching this film I felt like I had been out partying all weekend. Fantastic Movie! Jo Brand as the voice of reality - Need I say more!

This film brought back a lot of good memories and really works to give a good buzz. There was no pc message and the film is all about having a good time, which is all there really is to it when people go out clubbing. A highly original film using a myriad of genres and film techniques to stunning and powerful effect. All people involved gave only their very best and it shows on screen. A committed film with a committed cast and crew. Simply Brilliant. Just go and see it NOW! I went in expecting not much from Human Traffic and came out really pleased! The film is well made and acted and very stylishly shot. It has so much going for it - it's a film I really recommend, especially to those who liked Trainspotting (or for those who like to argue the debate in the drugs and the media sector). Tremendous fun. This is one of the very best films i've seen in ages... it's right up there with the likes of trainspotting and pulp fiction. It just epitomises teenage culture today. The soundtrack is absolutely amazing... overseen by Pete Tong. It's a must see! Great movie in a Trainspotting style... Being billed as the Welsh Trainspotting, but then so was Twin Town, although this is streets ahead.

Takes in a weekend in the life of Cardiff Clubbers, good debut movie from Kerrigan and some great performances in the cast.

Go see ! then go clubbing If you've ever had a mad week-end out with your mates then you'll appreciate this film. Excellent fun and a laugh a minute. Human Traffic is without a doubt the most original and compelling film that I have seen for a long time. It documents 2 days in the lives of a group of young people, bored with their everyday existence and dead end jobs and taking ecstasy at raves on the weekend. It is hilariously funny and extremely poignant, and at times very sad. In the same genre as 'Trainspotting' it has a great soundtrack and features hot young rising British stars. The movie was made on a miniscule budget and I look forward to future offerings of Writer/Director Justin Kerrigan when his talent is discovered by the major movie makers. the film itself is absolutely brilliant, its that buzz, that rush that makes you just want to go out, blow your wages and loose yourself. It's what the weekend is all about, its our sanitation where we can come together as one and be ourselves without a care in the world. The film is layered in depth and the dialogue in places is just spot on, especially with Jip. The characters themselves are instantly likable, one in particular is obviously dyers character and his views on what "Star Wars" is really about, genius.

If ever you've got an hour to kill before going out, stick on this, you'll immediately feel yourself growing in confidence, definitely recommend it. This film has a brilliant soundtrack and superb acting from some pretty unknown faces. I especially like the welsh docklands bad boy characters in it who strut around like American rappers acting tough. The banter between Jip and Koop is brilliant they come across as being best mates almost as if it were true in real life. I have experienced some of the things in this film and let me tell you first hand these folks ain't acting (especially the seen with Jip and Koop talking and snorting coke). Danny Dyer is priceless as Moff the 'party prescription' dealer and has the funniest lines in the film...

"I'm happiest when i'm off my pickle feeling the music, you get me.... yeaahhh! I knew you wouldn't let me down, I knew it!!!" hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot

take care everyone... The only way to truly understand and relate to the characters in this movie is to have experienced the situations your self. To a lot of people this movie is almost mock-biographical, a sort of snapshot of one weekend in our lives. (I have done about 85 percent of the things in this movie and witnessed the other 15 percent, usually all in the same weekend) For me and others I know it is nice to have this movie to look back on because other than a few pictures of people we sort of remember and nights that are patches and blurs, this movie is our generations "Studio 54", a piece to add to our scrap books to look back on and smile. Personally I'm glad those days are past but it is great to watch this movie and say "I remember when........." Thank you Justin for making this mock-biography of one weekend in my life. This film is too good for words. Its so unbelievably great and funny and true to life. You just know from watching this that the person who wrote this has DEFIANTLY felt the way that Jip and his friends do through the film. It was my life at one point and I would rely on coming home to watch Human Traffic ever night before I could even think of going to bed. I think you just get so loved up with the characters and their life style. Of course, this film wouldn't be for old people more around the age of 16 to 22 I guess. There is defiantly nothing wrong with this film and it will have you in stitches all the way through. It doesn't have a particular story line to it. The general idea is a weekend in the life of older teens in London and what they get up to. The places they go, the people they meet, the drugs they take and the experiences they have. You have to get this movie on DVD never mind just watching it, you have to have it!!! Well, I should say, "the only film related to club/dj/electronic music and raves...that ravers respect".

Seriously now. It's a gloriously fun, fast paced and fairly accurate portrayal of the night of a raver. Albeit, its in a club, its in Wales and its somewhat dated. The film leaves out some of the sketchier elements of club life, but doesn't disassociate from them altogether. It presents a idyllic yet serious portrayal of the ups and downs of the characters lives.

At the core of the film, and the best element of Justin Kerrigan's script, is the characters, eccentric, unique yet completely understandable and accessible. This film simple would not work and be infinitely less entertaining were it not for Jip, Koop, Nina, Moff and Lulu. Viewers can deny the political and social implications of the subtext of Human Traffic as a drug film, Trainspotting wannabe, important peg in British youth culture circa 90's, BUT....they can't deny that these are engaging characters.

It's frantic, its brutally honest, it's sobering, it's over the top, but its a great comedy.

Raves are a complex thing, so are the drugs that are taken at these events, so are the people you will encounter. But from someone who has gone to parties, become jaded and still goes...Human Traffic is the best snapshot that could be taken of the subculture. Just whatever you do, avoid "Groove" as its the antithesis of all that is good about Human Traffic. I just adore this film! I love all characters and I can watch it again

and again...and I use to listen to the soundtrack again and again.

Although I have seen it about two years after it was made and I

have never been such youngster as Jip and company I can

understand them and I love their stories. And if somebody thinks this film is crap, I disagree and I say it is

full of positive energy and friendship and love...and full of youth!

The weekend has landed...enjoy it! Great movie! oh yeah! Full of energy, full of fun, presenting our generation, our alienation: a hymn to positive thinking despite this world we live in, a tale of a great party, a tale of a bunch of friends who desperately must do something in a week end and the only thing to do is The Club. But fun and extasy keep boredom away! Very funny, nicely grotesque in a few points, nicely shot... and great soundtrack! Hitchcock made at least 11 films about the ordinary man, wrongly accused, on the run (sometimes really running, sometimes not) to prove his innocence in a situation beyond his control, the first one being "The 39 Steps", which really made him popular in Great Britain. It really is his signature theme.

Others include "Young and Innocent", "Saboteur", "Spellbound", "Stage Fright", "Strangers on a Train", "I Confess", "To Catch a Thief", "The Wrong Man", "North by Northwest", and finally "Frenzy". "Saboteur" starts Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a wartime aircraft plant worker during wartime accused of murdering his co-worker and best friend during an act of sabotage on the plant. He meets up with model Patricia Martin, played by actress Priscilla Lane, during his run from the law, and later, of course, the various Nazi/Fascist sympathizers along the way.

"Saboteur" is mainly like "The 39 Steps", even including similar plot devices such as handcuffs, the blonde who doesn't trust the main character in the beginning, a race across the country (in one case London to Scotland, and in the other California to New York), and meeting the "colorful" locals along the way. And so, just like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", I believe this is an American remake of one of Hitchcock's earlier works.

I think Robert Cummings was chosen because he comes across as a very ordinary American, sort of an "everyman" with whom the audience can identify. I like Priscilla Lane because her character is a more involved in the action than Madeline Carroll in "The 39 Steps" and Ruth Roman in "Strangers on a Train". As mentioned elsewhere, though, Otto Kruger steals the show as the villain. I also liked Vaughan Glaser's performance as the blind uncle; his lines are great. There are some funny touches all along the way for some comic relief, such as road signs featuring Priscilla Lane's character on them, and circus sideshow performers, and the truck driver, Murray Alper. Contrary to other opinions here, there aren't too many characters who believe Barry Kane's innocence immediately.

There are some slow parts, mainly when the action first moves to New York, but it picks up quickly when the last planned act of the fifth columnists gets underway.

It's one of my favorite films from Hitchcock (I put it in my top 5), especially in these days of the new war on terrorism. I think it hits home.

It makes you think, "Could my coworker be involved in something evil?" In fact, one of the movie posters for "Saboteur" proclaimed "Watch Out for the Man behind your back!" Imagine how that played in the mind of adults during the Second World War. NO SPOILERS!!

After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.

This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.

In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf! Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur is not one of his best-regarded films; made between two vastly more popular and critically praised pictures, Suspicion and Shadow Of a Doubt, it's generally regarded as a lesser effort. I agree that the later film is groundbreaking, drawing Hitchcock wholly into the American mainstream for the first time, but Saboteur is in its way at least as lively as Suspicion; its chief flaw being its less than charismatic star players, Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane.

In Saboteur we find Hitchcock feeling his way around America, literally, as its lead character travels from California to New York in search of an arsonist for whose crime he was accused. Cummings is very youthful here, and quite engaging. His boyishness (but not immaturity) perfectly suits the character he is portraying, and seems appropriate, as the director, though middle-aged, was in the process of reinventing himself, and an older, more established star might have thrown things off. Priscilla Lane's spunky heroine, which not a typical type for the director, was very much a common type in American films at the time; and she and Cummings provide an openness and a youth the director needed both in his life and work at this time. I cannot imagine older, more solid types,--Cooper and Stanwyck for instance--doing any better, as they would have, between them, carried, well, too much baggage.

As is the norm in Hitchcock's films, nothing is as it appears. Where Saboteur differs from his better known films is that the audience is let in on the game early. Though Cummings is an accused arsonist, we know that he is innocent. The villains become apparent fairly soon; and the movie hinges more on its plot than its ironies. What pleasures there are are incidental, and here the Master does not disappoint. There is an interesting, Tod Browningish interlude with some circus freaks, who help Cummings elude capture. In another scene, reminiscent of James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, Cummings spends some time in the cottage of a blind man, who, as it turns out, is Lane's uncle. Was the director perhaps studying key American films of the previous decade? Whatever the case, these and other offbeat and discursive aspects of the movie give it a playfulness and variety, which, when one adds the factor of quite youthful leads, makes the picture seem like the work of a younger man, still learning his craft.

The film's later scenes, in New York, are more suspenseful and typical of the director, as the picture gradually becomes more Hitchockian as it moves along. In the end I find it a satisfying work; and as neither Cummings nor Lane has a dark side as an actor, neither does the movie have one. It is deliberately lightweight, and I suspect semi-experimental; an attempt by Hitchcock to see if he could pull off, in an American setting, the sort of story he had done so well in England. He succeeded admirably. The next logical step: Shadow Of a Doubt, a film in which the main character travels east to west, and with a wholly different set of values and plans.

You can't help but marvel at Hitchcock's early work. "Saboteur," for example, is so slick and quick that it's hard to believe he made this film over 60 years ago. There's some propaganda elements but they're woven into the mystery so well that the thing plays beautifully years later. You also get some previews of stuff that Hitchcock would do later--like using a national landmark as a backdrop. This time it's the Statue of Liberty. In "North by Northwest," of course, it's Mt. Rushmore. You'll also recognize things that pop up later in "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" in "Saboteur" but let's not give away the show. Robert Cummings is excellent as is the oh-so-charming Otto Kruger. Look for Hitchcock's mini-western in this one. It happens quickly so don't blink. Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) is wrongfully accused on sabotaging a hanger making aircrafts for the war. He goes on the run, meets Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) along the way, and she joins him to find and bring the real criminals to justice.

There are a lot of things wrong with this film. Robert Cummings was a good actor but he's totally miscast in this role; Priscilla Lane is pretty but was never a good actress; the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and rambles on longer than needed); it wears its patriotism a bit much (but this WAS made while WWII was in full swing) and there's no ending. It shouldn't work but it does.

It's full of bizarre lines and characters that certainly hold your interest.

For example: Lane says to Cummings (while they're falling in love), "I wish I could have met you a hundred years ago" (????!!!!); Lane PAYS a villain for getting her lunch and Cummings and Lane join a circus troupe briefly while on the run. Also Hitchcock's direction was (as always) just great--he throws in some truly amazing shots and sequences--especially the Statue of Liberty climax.

This is not one of Hitchcock's classic movie but is still very good and worth catching. I really enjoy this film. It is a look back in time when this nation was truly at risk from nations who either attacked or delared war on us,i.e., the Japanese and Germans. Robert Cummings and Pricilla Lane were excellent in the lead roles. The supporting cast... Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter, Clem Bevins, and Norman Lloyd were also outstanding. The direction, pace, and finale held and continue to hold my interest. So much so, that I bought my own copy. Thank goodness for Turner Classic Movies, they show so many of the truly classic films, including this one.

Robert Cummings was certainly no light weight as an actor and although I am a great fan of Gary Cooper and Joel McCrea, two of my favorite actors, who were first offered the lead role, I don't see what they would have brought to the role that would have surpassed Bob Cummings' performance.

This is a film that I enjoy watching repeatingly and urge others to view. An entertaining first draft for "North By Northwest", "Saboteur" has some wonderful Hitchcockian moments (one of the best occurs at a table, when the hero is asked by a woman who hasn't yet seen that he's wearing handcuffs, to give her a plate; trying to do that, he also drops a knife to the floor, exposing himself even more!) but suffers from a poorly chosen lead (whether he's delivering patriotic speeches, romancing Priscilla Lane, making jokes or trying to look worried, Robert Cummings is wooden), and from a lack of really distinct villains (oh, there are villains, many of them, but hardly anyone has enough screen time). (***) Screenwriters Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, and (of all people) Dorothy Parker enable director Alfred Hitchcock to expound on what may have been his favorite movie theme: innocent man, wrongly fingered for crime, takes it on the lam. Hitchcock, who some credit with originating the story, engineers a great deal of suspense in plot about a warehouse worker blamed for the explosion which killed his best friend; he sets out on journey to find the real culprit. Plenty of excitement on a grand-scale, with usually-colorless actors (Priscilla Lane, Norman Lloyd, Alan Baxter) doing surprisingly fine work. Even eternally-smug Robert Cummings gets into the proper spirit! *** from **** Ah, Hitchcock! It's hard to find a bad Hitchcock movie until he lost it after THE BIRDS (1963) and SABOTEUR proves the point. Having admired most of this director's work for many years, I had managed to skip this one, perhaps from lack of interest in Priscilla Lane and Robert Cummings as lead actors. I was of course familiar with the Statue of Liberty climax from having seen it repeatedly in film retrospectives but I wrongly assumed the story leading up to it might not hold my interest. Was I wrong! The suspenseful plot gets cooking right off the bat through a chance encounter between the Bad Guy Saboteur and the Good Guy Wrongly Accused protagonist and continues zooming along through a series of further chance encounters and narrow escapes. Familiar Hitchcockian elements are all there: the innocent person wrongly accused of a crime; people not being what they seem to be; dramatic or unlikely locations that intensify the suspenseful scene being played out within them (an airplane hangar, a ranch, a bridge from which the handcuffed hero hurls himself to escape the police, a sumptuous charity ball in a palatial mansion, an upper floor of a skyscraper, and finally the torch of the Statue of Liberty).

Throughout is humor provided by supporting players, generous dollops of early WW2- vintage social comment, moments of human warmth where suffering people find it within themselves to lend a hand to help a fellow human, getting nothing in return – in short, there was always a basic humanity at the core of Hitchcock, however grisly the trappings - a sensational cast of supporting players, chiefly Otto Kruger as the slickest villain this side of George Sanders (his Broadway credits include the male lead in Noel Coward's PRIVATE LIVES – and that says it all) and weaselly Norman Lloyd as the titular saboteur, not to mention Alma Kruger – no relation to Otto – as a prominent society dowager involved in fifth column intrigue (her character foreshadows that of Claude Rains's mother in NOTORIOUS). Priscilla Lane does a fine job with a difficult role. For most of her early scenes we can't tell whether she believes the hero to be innocent or guilty and she seems constantly to shift her opinion, not coming over to his side fully until late in the proceedings. One cannot ascertain whether her acting is at fault or whether we are meant to be kept in a state of uncertainty, but the plot developments are so swift, fun and clever that we really don't care what she thinks.

Then there are the peculiar Hitchcock touches that have nothing to do with the plot. Twice the Lane character pauses to get change for a quarter – once to reimburse her kidnappers for an ice cream soda and again to make a call from a phone booth. Why these scenes were inserted are anybody's guess, perhaps to make the film seem more realistic and thus heighten the believability and suspense? Or perhaps to give the audience a moment to catch its breath? Some of the characters are over the top – the garrulous truck driver, the impossibly kind and trusting blind man living alone in a spotlessly maintained forest cabin, the political-philosophy-spouting "human skeleton" and other members of the circus caravan who hide the protagonists from their pursuers. Cummings is falsely accused of sabotage and goes on the lam, looking for the real culprit. The familiar Hitchcock theme of a man wrongly accused of a crime is nicely played out in this entertaining fare that has elements of "The Thirty Nine Steps" and "North by Northwest," although it is not as good as either of those classics. There are some impressive set pieces, including the finale on the Statue of Liberty. The plot is implausible and unconvincing and, after a terrific start, it seems to run out of steam. Cummings is likable if somewhat stiff in the lead. Lane is the blonde but not the cool variety of the director's later films. The supporting roles are generally well played. There are many familiar Hitchcock elements (of previous and later films) and this time they mix to a jolly, but hardly suspenseful piece of entertainment. You can tell that Dorothy Parker had a hand in the script, the most memorable scenes are the dialogues of hero Cummings with the blind man and his encounter with a rather bizarre group of circus people. The famous climax on the Statue of Liberty seems a bit heavy-handed - judged by today´s standards, but also compared to other Hitch monument finals (e.g. Blackmail, North by Northwest). I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.

The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.

Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles. I consider Saboteur as Hitchcock's first "American" film, because the story takes place completely in U.S.

There are brilliant scenes in this film. Statue of Liberty Scene, Barry Kane jumping into the water from the bridge, Water fall scene are amazing. Its not Hitchcock's fault that he didn't get the actors he wanted. Hitchcock originally wanted Gary Cooper for the leading roles in Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur. But Gary Cooper wasn't interested in doing a thriller. Another reason why Hitchcock didn't get big stars was because he wasn't one of top directors. Although Rebecca was a huge success, still most of film's success went to Producer David O. Selznick. For Example, David O. Selznick got Best Picture Oscar for Rebecca. And Hitchcock didn't get a Best Director Oscar for Rebecca. Hitchcock started getting some attention after Foreign Correspondent (1940). But Universal gave him a low-budget for Saboteur (1942). Hitchcock tried to get Joel McCrea for this film, because he was willing to work with Hitchcock again with a low salary. He enjoyed working with Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent (1940). But he was unavailable. So the role went to Robert Cummings. Hitchcock called Robert Cummings "a competent performer." I thought he did his best. He was a less known actor who was willing to play a role when many big actors refused to play the leading male role.

As for leading female role, Hitchcock wanted Margaret Sullavan or Barbara Stanwyck for the leading role. They weren't interested either. So Universal decided to give the role to Priscilla Lane. I read in a book that this was one of her favorite films.

I also liked the scene at Blind Man's house. That is my favorite scene. If we listen closer to the dialogue in scenes that happen in Uncle Philip's house, then we will see how intense it is. Uncle Philip (Blind Man) was studying Barry Kane's character the moment he entered his house. The moment Barry entered his house, he heard Barry's handcuffs. Through conversation, he realized that Barry Kane isn't a criminal at all. We also see his hearing ability through those scenes. For Example, Barry hears the sound of a car says "Is that a car coming?" Uncle Philip says "2 cars I think." Uncle Philip was right. We see 2 cars in the next scene. Priscilla Lane did a fine job playing her role. She was no big star. But I thought her performance was really good. Another brilliant scene in Uncle Philip's house is the scene where he asks Priscilla Lane (Patricia Martin) "Are you frightened, Pat? Is that what makes you so cruel?" I thought Otto Krueger played the villain brilliantly. Hitchcock wanted Harry Carey for the villain. But he refused. Harry Carey is famous for his role Mr. President in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." I want to mention more about this film. But I think my post is getting too long.

Every Hitchcock film is special in its own way. I am sure Hitchcock fans will like this film. I rate 10 out of 10. Hitchcock once gave an interview where he said he like to direct screenplays that had an ordinary person minding their own business, who's accidentally caught up in an awful chain of events that they can't get out of until the dastardly plot that's behind their troubles is resolved. That way, the audience can feel more sympathy for the hero. We certainly do in this fine film. Barry Kane is only trying to help his fellow-man out by performing acts of kindness and consideration, like helping Fry pick up the letters he dropped at the factory. Barry even returns a lost $100 bill to Fry later on...that was BIG money in 1943!! It's Barry's acts of Christian kindness that get him into trouble and soon, he's wrongly accused of sabotage and murder and will likely hang if he can't clear himself. Similar to The 39 Steps in plot, the hero travels cross-country where he discovers plans for further acts of terrorism by fascisistic cells, an arch-villain who nobody could believe to be a closet-Nazi, and a beautiful blonde, Patricia Martin, who first suspects and hates then eventually falls in love with Barry Kane. Hitch's trademark touches of humor are here, too. Patricia is a billboard model who's various roadside ads are a help and comfort to Barry as he hitches a ride with the bad guys, all the way from Las Vegas to NYC. We meet a trucker who's a one-man comedy act "Someone convinced my wife it was stylish to eat three meals a day." Field employees of the fascist spy ring grouse about being forgotten or ignored by the "suits" just as if they were working for some legit enterprise. During a chase scene into a cinema, audience members laugh at the action of a schlocky comedy/gangster flick as the saboteur cell shoots it out for real with the good guys and accidentially kills a guffawing movie-patron. Awful for the dead old man, but funny! Hitch liked to use famous monuments in his movies and this is the best instance, with the Statue of Liberty as backdrop and ironic icon! It works even better than the Mt Rushmore scene in NBNW. This movie is a masterpiece of brilliant acting and timely patriotic sense of pride in America. The Nazi Saboteurs of the 40's are replaced by the Middle East Terrorists of today. The intent is the same, to terrorize, disrupt lives, destroy property, and kill Americans! We see a wrongly accused Barry (Bob Cummings) on the lamm, trying to uncover the real Nazi terrorists plot, meeting the beautiful Pat (Priscilla Lane) and together, they travel to New York chasing the devious and evil saboteur Fry, played expertly by Norman Lloyd. Along the way, they encounter the also very sinister Otto Kruger playing the leader of the Nazi saboteur ring but disguised as a distinguished model citizen, where Barry seeking saboteur Fry, takes him into his confidence, only to handed over to the local law enforcement. He escapes, meets a kindly blind gentleman and his niece, enter Priscilla Lane. From there, Barry and Pat travel to Soda City Cal., run into the West coast saboteur gang heading East. They trail ends up in the mansion of a unlikely New York Socialite. The going gets tough when the bad guys kidnap Pat from Barry and he goes after her with reckless abandon. The movie climax is the famous Statue of Liberty scene which is excerpted in many compilations. This is a true, blue patriotic flag-waving performance at it's best and what is wrong with that! See this movie if you don't see another Hitchcock film. You will be swept up in the patriotic furore and the love interest between Cummings and Lane will make you wish they had been paired in other movies. She is the beautiful, ideal girl next door, often underrated, her talent shows through in this film. See it and Go Bless America! I really loved seeing this movie. I think it's a brilliant, underrated Alfred Hitchcock movie. Everyone is familiar with the famous Statue of Liberty scene, but there's a really great movie before that. Robert Cummings is great in what I consider to be his greatest role, and the beautiful Priscilla Lane shows that she has a lot of talent too. But I think Norman Lloyd gives the best performance. His character, Fry, is so evil and devious. Even though he's not in it for very long, the movie wouldn't be the same without him.

"Saboteur" is a great movie that every Hitchcock fan should see. I give it a 10 out of 10!! Overall, this is entertaining and odd film. Don't try to make sense of it. There are more holes in the story than a computer could keep up with, but Robert Cummings and a cast of minor characters are mostly fun to watch in this "Fugitive"-like story.

Unlike the popular TV show and then 1993 movie, this fugitive isn't looking for a one-armed man, but a two-armed Nazi saboteur by the the name of "Frank Fry." Cummings ("Barry Kane") gets blamed when a defense plant blows up in Los Angeles and goes on the lam looking for the man who did it (Fry) to clear his name.

The first 40 minutes or so are very tense and interesting. Then Priscilla Lane ("Pat Martin") enters the story, and it starts to bog down a bit with some sappy dialog. Director Alfred Hitchcock often did that with his female characters, to the point I wonder if he had a clue how woman talked. Lane's character here was a little lame.

Actually, the villains played by Otto Kruger ("Charles Tobin") and Norman Lloyd ("Frank Fry") were the best, in my opinion......just fascinating. Kruger's acting and dialog was especially good.

If you haven't seen this film but saw Hitchcock's well-known "North By Northwest," you'll chuckle at the ending and really enjoy it. Instead of a climactic scene at Mount Rushmore, here we have a memorable last 10 minutes at the State Of Liberty. As usual, Hitchcock camera angles are great and fun to view. I am a massive Hitchcock fan, ever since seeing "Rear Window" on television. "Saboteur" is not Hitchcock's best for me though, it is very good but not a masterpiece. It does have its faults, some parts are rather slow moving and as a consequence of it being written off in a hurry the script felt rather incomplete. But Hitchcock's direction is superb, and the performances weren't that bad. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane both do a good enough job, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd come very close to stealing the show. The story is good, about a wronged man on the run, very similar themes used in "39 Steps" and "North By Northwest", and cleverly provides some much needed escapism. The music score was absolutely outstanding; the music in the opening title sequence was phenomenal, almost like a distorted march, and I liked the digs at Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto and Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The cinematography is also crisp and smooth, the scenery and landscapes almost dazzling and there are also a number of very effective scenes. Namely the Statue of Liberty climax, but the circus troupe encounter and the Radio Music City Hall shoot-out is also on the money. Overall, not Hitchcock's best, but definitely worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox Bob Cummings is excellent in this, as this technically brilliant Hitchcock film really does not get the fame as some of his other films but is very watchable even today. Priscilla Lane proves in this one that she can hold her own with other blonde's that worked with Hitchcock later. She just did a handful of films after this which makes her almost forgotten today.

There are sequences in this that will remind the viewer of set ups in later films by the director. The acting is so well done and the story so well done that this film is still very entertaining today. Every person in the cast performs well. There are several great backdrops in the black & white film.

This was the first film at Universal for Hitchcock. Long run between the feature films he did at Universal, plus the television series, Hitchcock would make as much box office for the studios as anyone who worked there. This fact gets lost in film history.

Norman Lloyd is well cast as the real bad guy in this film. The story moves along really well including Hitchcock's only filmed western sequence. This film is very good with lots of great work by everyone involved making it. This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.

It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.

The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.

The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.

In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. A man is wrongfully accused of killing his friend in an aircraft plant fire, and must travel cross-country to avoid the police and discover the true sinister nature of the situation at hand. A plot line that was later used to fuel Hitchcock's classic North by Northwest, Saboteur benefits from some very good performances as well as some masterful suspense sequences from the Master himself.

For any Hitchcock fan, the plot is a bit too familiar, but he was always able to infuse the story with its own memorable supporting characters and charades. Here, the likable and charming Robert Cummings is the lead and soon finds himself visiting many strange and quirky characters, not withstanding a troupe of circus performers, a rich businessman with hidden motives, and a blind loner who shows him the best way to judge someone.

In terms of sheer originality and quality, this does lack in some areas, particularly the motive of the antagonists. However, there is some nice chemistry between Cummings and his lead lady, the much under-appreciated Priscilla Lane as well as a truly moving performance as the blind man by Vaughn Glaser. The best part is the final sequence, which perfectly mirrors what Hitchcock would use later in North by Northwest, only this time the climax is atop a statue in New York. Certainly not his best, but the Master of Suspense gives us some great moments to wait for. Alfred Hitchcock's "Saboteur" (1942) (not to be confused with another Hitchcock film, "Sabotage" made in 1936 which has a completely different plot) is not the Master of Suspense greatest film. It dose not have the depth of "Vertigo" (1958) nor the brooding atmosphere of "Rebbeca" (1940) and it certainly dose not have the emotional impact and acting talent that can be found in "Notorious" (1946), but what it dose have is thrills, adventure and a nail biting climax. The two leads, admittedly, are quite weak. It is easy to understand why Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper for the Robert Cummings role and Barbara Stanwyck for the role that was taken by Priscilla Lane. Also, the patriotic speeches that Cuumming says (that were written by Dorothy Parker) have dated badly, and the encounter with circus troupe is poorly done (the beard on the bearded lady is clearly false). However, the last half hour is edge-of-your-seat viewing, the climax atop the Stature of Liberty is very well done, and the film is a clear predecessor of "North By Northwest" (1959). The two villains, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd are very good and the beginning fire at the Aircraft Factory is a superb sequence. This not the best film Hitch made, but it is surly one of his most entertaining. Excellent Hitchcock thriller with Robert Cummings proving once again that he could really act up a storm.

This time he is a defense plant worker caught up in a horrible plot when his best friend is killed at the plant.

Priscilla Lane is the girl who suddenly becomes interested in Cummings as the plot thickens and he is pursued from California to N.Y.

There is a diabolical plot by a group of wealthy 5th columnists to destroy from from within. Hitchcock was known to play up the upper echelons of society involved in mayhem in his long career as a director.

Ironically, the film implodes at the very end. While we see what happens to the guy who killed Cummings' friend, we don't see what happens to the rest of the gang, again, many of whom represent the upper crust of society. The subject is banal, even in 1942. It is war propaganda. The fascists are among us and they are doing all they can to sabotage the war effort and to prepare their victory and their seizure of power then and their establishing an effective totalitarian state. But Hitchcock has to make it a real thriller. So he invents a first sabotage that succeeds but one of the victims, the friend of the one who dies in it, becomes the prime suspect and run-away for the sabotage. That enables him to so-to-say visit the country and discover the tricky organization of the local Nazis who have acquaintances and support in the top benevolent society and use the small little dissatisfied whites to do the dirty work. The chase after the real saboteur takes our young false suspect from Los Angeles to New York and to the top of the organization. He meets a blind pianist who believes his senses to know the chap is not guilty, his niece who is a star of the advertising billboard but also a frenetic and fanatic patriot who only thinks of going to the police. Then the rich rancher and his nest of plotters. Then, on the road some sympathetic and friendly truck driver, and the long caravan of a circus going around and their dwarf, bearded woman, Siamese sisters, and a few other grotesques of that type. And he discovers the target in a Soda City, an electric dam that provides Los Angeles and its war industry with the energy they need. He takes part as a gravel in the organization in the sabotage of a USS Alaska military ship when it is launched. And finally with some inventiveness, creativity and elbow grease he and the pianist's niece manage to get the whole lot cleaned up, most of them arrested and the first saboteur, a certain Fry, falls down from the torch of the Statue of Liberty. That one won't fry on the old electric sparking chair. But Hitchcock is not yet in his habit of having a personal cameo appearance in his own films, so don't look for him. It's well built and well performed, but it is only a propaganda film with an extra style.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines Barry Kane is an aircraft factory worker.Suddenly sabotage takes place at the factory and starts a fire.His best friend is killed.They accuse him of the deed but Kane knows it was a man named Fry who was there.He becomes a fugitive and goes to find this man named Fry.He's helped by a kind blind man.He lets his niece, the billboard model Patricia Martin take the man to a local blacksmith to have his handcuffs removed.They don't end up there for the woman doesn't believe Barry and wants to take him to the police.But soon he changes her mind about Barry and they find out about another sabotage attempt that's going to take place soon.There's a group of anti-American fascists.And Frank Fry is a member of that group.Saboteur (1942) is another example of the fact Alfred Hitchcock could not make a bad movie.Robert Cummings plays Barry Kane and he's really good at that.Priscilla Lane with her good looks plays Pat Martin.Also really good.Otto Kruger makes a great main villain as the leader of the fascist group, Charles Tobin.Norman Lloyd, still alive at 94, plays Fry and makes a very believable crook.Vaughan Glaser is the most sympathetic character as the blind man Philip Martin.The dance hall sequence is fantastic.And also the moments on the circus train.In the end we're at the Statue of Liberty. Saboteur is a 1942 film, partly aimed at getting American support for the war against Nazi Germany. Propaganda or not, it's great entertainment. The leading actors are Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, although director Alfred Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper, and Barbara Stanwyck in the roles, which would have given the movie more stature. This is a good movie anyway with Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane bringing their own style to the characters. As in other Hitchcock movies, we see the director's disregard for the socially suave and the well-heeled. He often portrayed spies and foreign agents as nice upper-class folk who at the same time sneered at democratic values and concepts such as guilty until proved innocent. These upper crust traitors are the last the police pursue or even suspect. Hitchcock had a lifelong distrust of the police. He wanted to elevate the regular guy, the bungler and the fellow who doesn't take himself too seriously. One can see him wanting Gary Cooper as an icon in the Frank Capra mold. Nevertheless, Bob Cummings puts his own stamp on the boy-next-door and works well in the role. Priscilla Lane, as the spunky female lead, comes off as the all-American girl who can handle herself quite nicely when put to the test. Robert Cummings, as defence plant worker Barry Kane, is framed for a bombing that kills his best friend. This leads to a cross-country chase scene reminiscent of other Hitchcock heroes on the run. Hitchcock repeats some of the well-established formulas from previous films - the reluctant female who is drawn into the action, e.g. Madeleine Carroll in the 39 Steps, and risking his life to evade the authorities who are on his heels. We view scenes of America as Kane tries to find the real culprit in the bombing he stands accused of. We see rivers, bridges, backwoods cabins, truckers, the Hoover Dam and finally, New York City. New York is a fitting backdrop for the climax as we go from Rockefeller Center to the ocean liners (with a cut to the ship Normandy) and the grand finale on the Statue of Liberty. Great movie with uninterrupted action. Don't miss it. 'Traffik', despite its title, is not really about drugs. In the best tradition of crusading British TV drama, 'Traffik' analyses and moralises about its ostensible subject, which is not some mythical scourge, but a matrix or process with identifiable social, economic and historical roots, causes and effects. There is something almost scientific in the way the film takes four sets of characters from spectacularly separate global and class backgrounds - a poppy grower forced into the Pakistani underworld by poverty and a cynical government; the English, ex-Olympic swimmer wife of a drugs baron on trial for trafficking; two shambling German policemen whose determination to convict the latter arises as much from class anger as any faith in the law; and a Tory junior minister whose Cambridge-student daughter has become an addict.

'Traffik' is unapologetically didactic - from the early scenes of Jack Lithgow in Pakistan, investigating the government's success in eliminating drugs before sanctioning more British aid, we are bombarded with facts about the problem. But these 'facts' come from a variety of sources - dissembling government representatives; left-wing lawyers with vested (ideological and domestic) interest in the corruption; poor farmers who need to grow poppies to survive.

Facts, normally reassuring markers on a map, are clearly not enough - the more facts we get, the less controllable the situation seems. It is not until Jack, the film's moral centre, the man who connects all the narrative threads, actually journeys into the heart of the drugs darkness, learns to shed his tory hypocrisy (deploring the use of drugs, but refusing to put any serious money into tackling the problem, and creating the conditions, through various free market initiatives, where drug-traffiking flourishes. Just as the anti-heroes of the old Warners' gangster films were actually model American capitalists, so the traffikers are the ideal being espoused by Thatcher and Reagan) that at least the reality of the problem can be acknowledges.

Like I say, 'Traffik' isn't really about drugs. As Jack finally recognises, after being sacked as a Tory minister, drugs isn't really the problem. It's a society dismantled by a woman who said there was no longer any such thing (as proved by Jack's non-existent family life), systematically depriving the vast majority of people of hope and happiness, increasing numbers of whom turn to drugs.

What is most frightening about 'Traffik' is not the graphic, numbing depictions of drug abuse (the technical detail of which ironically reflects the presentation of more 'legitimate', verbal factual information), but the dystopian vision of a Britain stripped of any joy, beauty or community, a bleak wasteland of derelict tenements and soulless modernity, a society of defeatists ready for the thatcherite smugglers and barons to ply their trade.

This isn't just a contemporary British story - it records the decline of an Empire built on trade reduced to lawless drug traffiking. It is surely significant that the other sites in the programme are Germany and Pakistan, crucial agents in the Empire's decline. Here the old imperial amorality comes home to roost, the formerly enslaved victims, their bodies abused by their masters' power, returning to the Imperial centre, London, the seeds of its decline literally carried in their bodies, embodying the fears of all those late 19th century gothic novels.

'Traffik' is one of the great achievements of British TV, and is in many ways superior to the recent Hollywood remake. The political focus is obviously sharper - Jack's decline is much more effective than Wakefield's because he, as agent of government policy, as well as a bad father, is very much part of the problem, whereas the American's only real political flaw is complacency. In almost every case, characterisation is tighter and much more plausible (compare Lindsay Duncan's steely Helen, already bitten by experience and failure, and her risibly superficial counterpart).

Unlike the dubious racial undercurrent of 'Traffic' (making Mexico dark and Other; the ultimate WASP horror being sex with a black man), the portrait of Pakistan is richly, tragically drawn, with disconcerting arguments about drug protection punctuated by scenes of gruesome violence. Throughout, the inextricable linking of public and private is expert. Visually, the film is remarkably inventive, without ever being flashy or 'cinematic' - especially in the last episode, where the buildings and decor seem to move as the system closes in. If 'Traffik', like its remake, feels the need to shore fragments, then the prevailing sense of waste and loss is much more damning, Jack's speech bitterly despairing. It is hard to put the devastating beauty of Traffik to words, partly because I am still grasping to comprehend it myself, several hours after my second viewing. First, it must be said that Traffik contains some of the most incomparably and unforgettably haunting scenes I have seen in a film or television production. The acting is excellent, particularly that of Bill Paterson as a British minister grappling with his heroin-addicted daughter and an aid deal to Pakistan that hinges on drug issues. Another plot line describes these drug issues at a ground level in Pakistan, and revolves around a struggling opium poppy farmer and his interaction with a successful heroin smuggler. The third main storyline involves the prosecution of a Hamburg drug importer, and the conflicting efforts of his wife and two German detectives while he is under trial. It is a profound accomplishment that the interaction between these stories feels natural, transcending the forced plot entanglement often found in Hollywood movies. It is an even greater accomplishment that a work spread over three countries and half a dozen main characters can be so focused and enthralling, without having to oversimplify. It is devastating--bleak and brutal but never apathetic. In short, Traffik is a rare work of film that handles challenging subjects with unmatched compassion and clarity. beautifully constructed, "Traffik" tells the story of narcotics usage and commerce from multiple points of view. From a policeman view, from a politician view, from an addict view, from a smuggler's view, and from a farmer's view. In a carefully contructed storyline, one gets the impression on how everything is inter-related. From beautiful on-location shots in the poppy fields in Pakistan, to downtown Karachi, to the entry points airports of Frankfurt and London, to the delapidated buildings where the smuggling takes place, one sees the massive dimension of narcotics consumption. "Traffik 1989" is an Emmy award winning six part miniseries out of the UK which was the inspiration for the Oscar winning "Traffic 2000". The five hour film breaks down the opium/heroine trade for the viewer from the handcasting of poppy seeds in an Afghanistan field to the "head rush" of a mainlining junkie in a flat in England. Not only does "Traffik" offer entertainment value through interleaved dramatic stories it also provides an overview of the international drug trade at all levels answering the who, where, how, and why questions of the age old and unstoppable narcotic supply/demand machine. Synergistically entertaining and educational, "Traffik" will prove to be time well spent for teens and up. (A) If you've not seen this then look out for it. It is available on DVD. It is a channel 4 (uk) production, possibly, in conjunction with German and danish TV. If you've seen the film it is basically the same plot. Several interleaved stories are connected through the drugs trade. The story jumps between the housewife (played by the excellent Lyndsay Duncan) trying to complete a deal on behalf of her husband, who to her surprise is an international drugs dealer (and generally dangerous man).

A minister, who is embedded in his job to the detriment of his family, is investigating the whole state of affairs with international drugs trafficking. He gets a few eye openers to the reality of heroin when his daughter turns out to have a 'problem'. He then visit Pakistan, officially, where he seems to be taught that the abuse (not simply the drug or its casual use) is the problem and also gets to sample some produce (an excellent scene where he simultaneously realises what the attraction is and why it is and why it is such a problem). In Pakistan we get to see the other side. The desperation of farmers who can barely survive turning to opium production and crime lords. The pointless attempts at subsidy resulting in the system getting rich. And a country so drenched in drugs yet only a relative fraction of the abuse we have in the west. Around all this a customs official/interpol agent tries to catch the 'dutch' connection in heroin smuggling. Seeking justice for his murdered partner. This really is a masterpiece. Super, understated performances from all the main actors in a way only European cinema can really do.

A must see. Especially if you have seen the film, they compliment each other abd present some subtly different opinions/attitudes from both sides of the pond. I can only agree with many observers that Traffik is one of the most memorable dramas ever made for television. I saw Traffik when it was on TV, and I have just watched it again. I am particularly moved by the haunting original music of Tim Souster, and especially by the dolorous strains of Dmitri Shostakovich's Chamber Symphony in C minor ( the music over the credits and in parts of the film). The music intensifies the desperation of the characters as they pursue their sad fate. The music is powerfully emotional. This arrangement combines two of the movements from the symphony, but I recommend listening to the symphony per se. Four stories about the drug trade in Europe become intertwined over the course of this 6 part miniseries. In Germany a businessman is arrested on drug smuggling charges, and his wife attempts to save her family by continuing her husband's illegal trade. Meanwhile the British Home Secretary travels to Pakistan to negotiate an aid package that he hopes will stop the drug flow from that country. Even as he does this however his own daughter succumbs to heroin addiction, tearing their family apart. This is the miniseries on which the American film and miniseries were based. The original is far superior to its two decendants. The poverty and desperation of the third world are portrayed very well. It is stark, uncompromising and brutal. I had been very curious to see the original six-hour miniseries that Steven Soderbergh's latest movie was based on, and now that I have, I am happy to say that one is not better than the other. They are both intelligent, involving and extremely entertaining. The only real advantage that the miniseries has over the movie is that it is three and a half hours longer, so we get to know the characters more in depth.

There isn't a false note to be had in this production, one that you should definitely make time for when PBS re-broadcasts this miniseries sometime in 2001. You won't regret it. Traffik is a really well done 6 hour drama about drugs (circa 1987). It tells three stories, in parallel, about how opium is grown in North-East Pakistan, how drugs are smuggled from Pakistan into Europe, and finally, how people addicted to drugs spiral out of control. All three stories are told realistically and with empathy. You see enough of the characters lives to understand how ordinary people can get sucked into a life that is really immoral.

These aren't card-board cutouts, the opium grower is trying to feed his family in a dry area filled with guns and other opium growers. The drug smuggler is a rich German with no heart but his wife (one of the three main characters) is just an ordinary woman who has to choose between leading her life "the old way" or giving up. Finally the main character, the government minister has the toughest role as he must deal with the emotional devastation caused by his own daughter. She slips into the world of drug addiction and starts stealing, suffering from ill-health, attacking her parents emotionally, all so she can continue to satisfy her craving for the drug (heroin) that is destroying her life.

Traffik is one of the best dramas I have ever seen on TV. The scenes in this show will remain with you for a long, long time. Highly recommended. -- Colin Glassey I remember seeing this in the early 90's on UK TV and was hooked. The international scope of the production is breathtaking and watching how the characters develop through the five hours it runs for is magnificent. The scenes set in Pakistan and Afghanistan are of particular interest, and as a viewer you get a real sense of a grounds-eye view of the culture and vibe of these countries during the closing stages of the Cold War. The characters of Fazal and Helen develop really well throughout the series and rivals modern shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under in this area. In the UK, the VHS goes for about £6 and the DVD about £10 - a quality bargain. I thought Soderbergh's version was great too - but clearly owes this masterpiece a huge debt. The best thing one can say about the film "Traffic" is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series "Traffik". As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.

I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in "City of Joy". Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.

The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.

With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey.

Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the "bad guys" getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a "different" feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film). Brilliant. Ranks along with Citizen Kane, The Matrix and Godfathers. Must see, at least for basset in her early days. Watch it. I enjoyed this programme immensely. It is exceptionally well written, with finely judged performances and clever visuals.

It is also very frank and honest, refreshing compared to the sanitised representation of drug use in films and television.

Unmissable - one of the finest television shows of recent years, and triumph on all scales for Channel 4.

9/10 Contains spoilers I had it recorded a while ago when it was on PBS but never got a chance to watch it (probably due to prejudice about having to sit through 5-6 hrs of Masterpiece Theater, with its BBC made for TV production style (no music, settings all in one room, no outdoor scenes flat TV look...)) But after watching the movie Traffic (which I thought was pretty good at that time,) I couldn't help digging up the Traffik tape to see what else could they have dwelled into with the extra 2 1/2 hr.

Boy, was my preconceptions wrong about this TV series. It is so much more involving than Traffic. The characters are fleshed out better so that their actions are more believable. And the whole subplot involving Pakistan completes the whole point of view of everyone in the whole supply chain, from the farmer to the end user. In Traffic, the Pakistan story was rewritten and reduced down to a good cop vs bad cop plot.

There was alot more meaningful discussion and debate about alcohol and other forms of drug, whereas in Traffic they mostly became passing references of no significance. Same with social issues, which in Traffik, were conveyed realistically w/o sounding preachy. Whereas in Traffic, the characters jus t blurted it out as a statement like the way they do it in those made for TV "issue of the week" movies.

There was no bad guy vs good guy in Traffik, even the dealer is portrayed as a junkie that sells to support his habit instead of the "nobody messes with me" type of person in Traffic.

The only down part is that since I watched Traffic not much before watching this, it was hard not to compare scene by scene, and even though the scenes were not the same, I knew what the outcome was going to be already. Thank god for the Pakistan story, which is different enough that it allowed me to enjoy it completely w/o thinking which scene it compares to. Although I was thrown off thinking the drugs were fused into the ceramic of the statues in which Helen brought back to Germany (as in the storyline of Traffic.) Thank god Traffik was not that hokey and far-fetched. What an awesome mini-series. The original TRAFFIK completely stole me away from anything else that was on. Far more engaging than the American remake, the original TRAFFIK boasts an amazing cast formed of lesser known actors to North American audiences. Juliette Binoche being the mainly recognizable actress who plays a drug addicted teenaged daughter of a government official. But it's not star power that carries this film (though I enjoyed the American version, I felt it was dimmed by the famous Americans in the picture).

Unfortunately, I saw the American version before I found the original BBC mini-series. Of course there were no picture filters, lush locales, and the big name stars/director. However, the grit and grime of Europe (through the drugworld) perfectly compliments the impending sense of danger, which permeates throughout this film. The problems, such as getting addicts off of drugs by giving them more, poor anti-drug campaigning, and the resistance of foreign governments to assist with destroying their drug cultivators from within, all make TRAFFIK bold, immersive, and horrific all at the same time!

The truly incredible portions of the movie all come from Pakistan. My God, I never knew how bad the problem really was over in Europe...even all over! For a real education on the problems of drugs, beyond how they affect the human body you must watch both this and the American version. Each show one very clear and undeniable fact. Those countries, which are leaders in the eyes of the world, have a culture that has led to the death and suffering for many.

Drugs are worse than war. They work in the shadows, the dark secrets of any "successful" society. Compared to the acclaimed Hollywood remake, this film is less flashy but much stronger at providing an overall picture of the drug problem. The remake loses the most interesting of the three plot threads, that of a farmer whose meager livelihood depends on drugs as a paying cash crop and whose increased involvement with the drug trade in an effort to better himself destroys himself and his family. Additionally, the story of the daughter's addiction goes into the problems not only of withdrawal but the high likelihood of relapse. This original miniseries makes good use of the additional time to go into the issues more thoroughly and remains stronger meat on this controversial subject. I haven't seen the more recent 'Traffic' which is based on this, but I'd bet on this one as the better creation. I know of no other movie that has so well portrayed the intricate tragedies of the drug trade and the 'war on drugs." I've watched this one at least four times and am enjoying it again as part of Masterpiece Theatre's 30th anniversary presentations. I was disappointed with the recent (2000) American remake of this English mini-series. Though it followed the plot line very closely, it seemed to leave the heart and soul of the original out. Not to mention adding shallow preachy heavy-handed 'messages'... So my advice is to skip the modern remake and stick with the original. It's much longer, but gripping and totally well done. Interesting, complex and textured, without the preachy self-righteousness... and it's beautifully shot, as well.

I find it galling that these heartless remakes of great overseas films get so much Hollywood fanfare at the Oscars. (Though I did like Benicio Del Torro getting some deserved praise...) This is a wonderfully gritty drama, detailing the various sides of the international heroin drug-trade--From the hills of northern Pakistan, where the tacitly allowed cultivation of opium-poppies occurs on a vast scale; to the jetsetting "Euro-Trash" in Germany and England who arrange the importation of processed heroin in multi-kilo smuggled shipments; to the end-users caught up in the web of addiction and the crime needed to support their growing habit; and finally all the levels of international government corruption and hypocrisy surrounding police efforts at controlling "the drug problem"---this drama is sketched out with a wide array of in-depth well-rounded characters, fully evolved plot, and excellent character acting and location shooting.

This puts Hollywood epics like "The French Connection" in their place!

Traffik is a deeply thought-provoking and suspenseful tale of modern drug-related espionage, and the international efforts of many people to try to eliminate it.

Unlike many "crime dramas" revolving around drugs, Traffik focusses strongly on uncovering the societal *reasons* that people slide into drug addiction... As one of the characters puts it "...until we, as a society, construct a world that people want to participate in, instead of wanting to escape from, we will not be able to stop people from taking drugs..."

This is a fascinating and fully engrossing drama. I highly recommend it! I've read innumerable reviews talking about the superiority of the mini-series. I certainly can't agree on such a blanket statement. If you analyze all of the aspects of a video/film production, there are numerable areas where the film is arguably vastly superior.

Certainly, many of the comments are valid with regard to particular areas of the mini-series. Specifically regarding more threads (customs officers) and more developed threads (such as the Pakistani farmer and family). That said, I found Catherine Zeta-Jones' character much more compelling as the desperate women, from poverty to riches who "won't go back." That's a much more likable character than this cold women who didn't seem to have as much reason for her quick turn to evil. (And yes, I understand...her children. She was desperate; I just didn't see her as being as desperate.)

Further, while I appreciated some of the more fleshed out story threads in the mini-series, Benicio del Toro's character was very compelling. An anchor for the film. That thread was changed (as an alternative to the Pakistani family) in nothing but good ways. A fantastic adaptation. (Of course, I'm skeptical that someone so pure can exist within such a system, but I don't know enough about the politics of the nation to argue).

After watching the first episode of the mini-series, I actually rewatched the film. Why? I kept reading about the fantastic acting. I found the performances in the first episode of the mini-series to be borderline laughable. Certainly, this improved as the mini-series progressed. Now having just finished both versions in a few days, I can't agree that the performances in the mini-series reached the same level as, say, Benicio del Toro, who was brilliant in the film, though Ormand, Paterson, Shah, and Lindsay Duncan were very good. I also feel the police in the film far outclassed the mini-series. I was not impressed with the Germans throughout.

Finally, the dialogue, as delivered in the film, is much more nuanced. Especially in the scenes which are almost verbatim. "Careful, you're beginning to sound like your husband." as opposed to "HAHAHAHA! You sound like Karl." Again, I found some of the acting in the mini- series very unconvincing. This was a prime example.

Other superior aspects of the film, in my opinion: score, cinematography, editing.

Should I complain that the film wasn't longer? No. I think it was a fantastic adaptation given the format. The changes made stood on their own. I mean, would you sit in a theater for 5/ 7/10 hours. Of course not.

Mini-series: 8 out of 10

Film: 9 out of 10 I remember watching this when it was made and thinking it was brilliant at the time. Watching it for the second time nearly 20 years later, I still think Traffik is brilliant and much better than the US film that was based on this drama.

It should also be watched by all our come today gone tomorrow politicians who think they can win the war on drugs, as the issues raised in this film are as pertinent today as they were back then at the end of the 80s, and unless they change their policies, will be so in another 20 years.

Well written, well made, beautifully acted and superbly filmed. A thought provoking drama that entertains as well as brings to light some of the hard realities of the criminal drug trade. Traffik is an excellent miniseries dealing with drug trafficking in Europe. This is the European produced PBS series on which the Oscar-nominated movie Traffic is based on. If you loved Traffic then Traffik is a must see.

Overall I would highly recommend this miniseries to anyone that is interested in seeing drugs from a social point of view. The screenplay is exciting and unexpected as it weaves through the lives of drug dealers, traffickers, farmers, policians, and police officers. Unlike other movies that sensationalize the issue of drugs, Traffik presents it AS IS. In a phrase, moral ambiguity. In the Soderbergh remake, there ARE good guys and bad guys. Benicio del Toro's character is clearly the good guy, morally clean and uncorruptable. His counterpart in the BBC original, Fazal the farmer turned dealer, is realistically flawed and conflicted over his fate. The two relentless cops are similarly different. In the American one, they win our hearts. In the BBC original, they are over-zealous, nearly obsessive.

The best moment for me in Soderbergh's was when the college student rhetorically asked the Drug Czar, "What would you do if you were poor and black and rich white people came into your neighborhood looking for drugs?" That point was insinuated throughout the BBC show, and crystallized in Jack Lithgow's final speech. Both are excellent, but the BBC towers over the remake. My conclusion after seeing both shows is that dealers are innocent pawns who are only supplying a demand, and it is the demand that causes so much suffering. Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a "sunny" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say "Next," and move on.

Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and "set things straight." Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's "lover". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.

It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.

Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes "not really acting" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all. This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.

This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soignée for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?

The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.

Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from **** Cactus Flower is what I call a "pizza movie" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.

Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not "just" a receptionist.

Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.

Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: "That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class." Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws.

The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).

For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident.

In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza... Walter Matthau is wonderful as the "philandering" dentist Dr. Julian Winston whose frequent fibs to girlfriend Goldie provide textbook proof of the dangers of lying. Goldie Hawn's touching kook Toni Simmons certainly deserved to win her Oscar. Ingrid Bergman's work as the stiff-as-starch nurse Stephanie is also touching to watch as she comes out of her shell, slowly and nervously. This is a great movie to watch in the springtime, or any time for that matter. It's very underrated; I never heard about it until I found it in the video store, and what a find! I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself "I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.

I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.

It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again. Everyone told me to see "Cactus Flower," and I finally did. What a wonderful movie -- the perfect pick-me-up for a Sunday night/dreading Monday morning. Matthau and Hawn were good, but Ingrid Bergman really made this movie -- after all, it was really about her. The truly great actors can do anything, and Miss Bergman proves it. She shows us -- in the course of one film -- a range few people display in their entire career. The scene in the dance club was as hysterical as it was touching. Even as the film drew to its obvious conclusion, I found myself cheering for Miss Dickinson as if she were the Boston Red Sox. Thankfully, she made out (no pun intended) much better. ;) When I saw LAUREN BACALL do CACTUS FLOWER on Broadway, I never dreamed that one day I would see an actress like INGRID BERGMAN playing the Bacall role on screen. But here Ingrid really lets her hair down for some good comedy moments as the dental nurse pretending to be WALTER MATTHAU's wife so he can go on with the fib he's told GOLDIE HAWN.

It's a story played for laughs from beginning to end, good-humored stuff that never runs out of dry humor and wit throughout its running time. There are plenty of one-liners or gags that are way above the usual situation comedy stuff one hears on TV--the lines ring true because they blend so well with the characters and their motives.

As the daffy girl who contemplates (in the beginning) committing suicide over her unhappy affair with Matthau, GOLDIE HAWN (fresh from her days as a star on TV's "Laugh In") does a dumb blonde role to perfection. Easy to see why she won that Supporting Actress Oscar.

Ingrid is surprisingly fetching in a rare comedy role, although there are times when she seems just a bit too matronly for the part. At any rate, she's a surprising choice to play the nurse who puts on a freeze act at the office but is considerably warmer off duty.

As Goldie's next door neighbor, Igor, Rick Lenz acquits himself admirably, and makes a suitable match for her in that final scene.

Matthau plays the kind of character that became his stock in trade in all those Neil Simon roles he had--a lovable cad who gets caught up in his own messes when he tells lie after lie.

It's the kind of rib-tickling comedy that'll have you laughing out loud at some of the amusing lines that Abe Burrows and I.A.L. Diamond have managed to scrap together, based on a French farce. I've been playing this movie incessantly this month, and I just love it. I was around in the 60s (oh dear), so it is nostalgic in one sense. However, it's the funny premise, the snappy dialogue and the great performances that keep me watching.

Dr. Winston's reactions to Stephanie at the end of the movie are priceless. (I'd be more specific, but don't want to spoil it for anyone.) Who other than Matthau can play a man not entirely on the up-and-up and yet have us still love him? As for Bergman's costumes, I think she looks as dowdy as she's supposed to. I think "she was robbed" the one time that she appears in an evening gown. It doesn't suit her at all, which is too bad. I never liked it when I first saw it on her and I still don't.

Goldie won an Oscar for her role. People thought it was a groundbreaking performance at the time, and yet it's the one performance that I don't love as much as the others. She does have the right amount of sweetness and likability, however, which is important for this role.

And I agree - I thought Rick Lenz was great in it and it's too bad that his movie career didn't take off after this.

I hope more people watch this movie ... they'll love it! CACTUS FLOWER was a delightful 1969 comedy based on a Neil Simon play about a dentist (Walter Matthau) having an affair with a young free spirited woman (Goldie Hawn), totally unaware that his devoted nurse/assistant(Ingrid Bergman)is in love with him. Matthau can play this kind of role in his sleep and he doesn't disappoint as the philandering dentist, Dr. Julian Winston, who is dating one woman but really has no clue that he's in love with another. Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for her sparkling performance as Toni Simmons, the aging flower child who slowly comes to realize she is trapped in a dead end affair and is not as dim as she appears on the surface. But the real pleasure for me in this film was the performance of the legendary Ingrid Bergman as Stephanie Dickinson, Dr. Winston's completely devoted assistant, who is willing to to bury and sacrifice her own happiness as long as Dr. Winston is happy with Tony. Bergman is luminous in this film, looking absolutely beautiful (though the camera has always loved her) and showing an unforeseen knack for light comedy. Yes, the dialogue and the settings are slightly dated, but the story is timeless and the performances by the stars make it imminently watchable. I was very surprised to learn that Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for this film. She seemed very lifeless and completely schooled by the 54(!) year old Bergman in the scenes where they are side by side. If it had been written today, I think that Bergman and the young man Ivan would have wound up together (Ingrid is so much hotter than Goldie...) and the two self-absorbed characters played by Matthau and Hawn would be left out in the cold. But it was written at the end of 60's and feels like Plaza Suite or Barefoot in the Park. However, Matthau's one-liners, Hawn's innocence and Bergman's classy performance make this quite pleasant to watch. Far more sprightly, and less stage and set bound than Gene Saks' previous efforts Barefoot in the Park(67) and The Odd Couple (68), Cactus Flower is not a work of art, but compared to most of the tired farces from the 60's like The Apartment, How to Murder Your Wife, Goodbye Charlie, A Guide for the Marrried Man, Divorce, American Style, Any Wednesday, Kiss Me Stupid, Boys Night Out, it's a masterpiece. Director Saks and writer I.A.L. Diamond have effectively "opened up" Abe Burrows' Broadway hit, and the film benefits greatly from New York City location shooting and excellent performances from Ingrid Bergman and Goldie Hawn. Bergman is charming, looks great, and demonstrates a flair for comedy. Hawn in her Oscar winning role has never been better or more appealing. Matthau is OK though it's hard to believe that Hawn's character would be so enamored of him. And in retrospect, Hawn's attempted suicide at the start of the film is out of character and unbelievable. Nonetheless, the film has a plausible farcical set up, and once it gets going it generates laugh. Rick Lenz, Jack Weston, Eve Bruce, and Vito Scotti provide good support. The film is likable and fun, and Hawn and Bergman make you care. I am surprised by the relatively low rating this film has. It is a screwball comedy & romance film rolled together by someone besides Billy Wilder but it does a really good job & even won an Oscar.

It is Ingrid Bergman's first film in the US since the 1950's & even though she is no longer the young bombshell she was in her early films, she brings off a difficult role quite handsomely. This film proves she had multiple talents beyond her good looks.

Goldie Hawn who won an Oscar in this, her first film, as supporting actress is very good as the modern sophisticated yet quirky latest mistress to Dentist playboy, love them & leave them Walter Mathaw. Goldie is delightful to all the senses in this role which with a great cast set her up as a slam dunk for this early career award.

This film is not real deep, but is a gem that has stood the test of time very well. Not sure why it's average is so low as I give it a solid 8. Anyone who has ever doubted Ingrid Bergman's ability to play comedy need only look to "The Bells of St. Mary's". OK, so she's a nun with TB who's probably in love with Fr. O'Malley, (think what Luis Bunuel could have done with that), but she also displayed a wonderfully sly sense of fun that made you wish directors had cast her in comedies more often. In "Cactus Flower" she's a starched dentist's nurse, (Walter Matthau is the dentist), in love with her boss but keeping it buttoned up. When she's forced to act as his 'wife' in order to hoodwink his mistress, (don't ask), she lets loose and the buttons pop. And she's a joy to behold.

The movie itself is a hardier than usual translation to the screen of a Broadway hit, (you can see it's three acts). It's a French Farce, (it was originally; it's taken from the play 'Fleur de Cactas' by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy), and it hits all the right spots. Matthau uses his great hang-jowl expression to wonderful effect and a klutzy blonde newcomer, as she was then, called Goldie Hawn almost steals the film as the dizzy mistress who decides to give up her meal ticket because she feels sorry for 'the wife' even though 'the wife' is having a ball. Hawn made such an impression in the role that what she did steal was the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. Goldie Hawn's depiction of a simple young lady caught up in a love triangle with an older man, a dentist, played with such relish by Walter Matthau, that she won the best supporting actress Oscar for 1969.

The film, however, is another tribute to Ingrid Bergman. Rarely, did we ever see her in a comedy and she literally kicks up her heels here as a dedicated dental nurse who is thrust into a scheme for Matthau to tell Hawn that they're married.

It is such a joy to watch Matthau and Bergman fall for each other here. Theirs is an accidental love affair in the making.

As Matthau's friend, Jack Weston is fabulous as his partner in the scheme as well. Rick Lenz gives ample support as Hawn's newly-found boyfriend as well. Goldie Hawn, in 1969, was best known for playing in television comedy shows - in particular ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN, where she was the giggly cookie young blond. She did make movies before CACTUS FLOWER, the most notable being a Walt Disney feature, THE ONE AND ONLY GENUINE, ORIGINAL FAMILY BAND. But CACTUS FLOWER picked up on her character from LAUGH-IN, and (due to a good script by I.A.L. Diamond - Billy Wilder's second partner - based on an Abe Burrows play) she was able to develop the television character so that a real performance was fleshed out. As a result Ms Hawn won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 1969, and her career took off to such future hits as PRIVATE BENJAMIN and THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. Although other stars of LAUGH-IN did well on television (Henry Gibson has a recurring role as a judge on BOSTON LEGAL) only Goldie was able to have a career as a bonifide movie star.

On LAUGH-IN Goldie's personality would show a naiveté that would be embarrassing. Occasionally she realized it, and would laugh loud to cover, but sometimes she just did not see her error (example: Goldie is introduced to the 1950s variety show host Gary Moore, and is told, "Goldie, this is Mr. Gary Moore." She shakes his hand and says (much to his confusion), "I've always wanted to meet Mr. John Gary Moore!"). But as Toni Simmons it is quite different. She is desperately in love with Dr. Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), a successful dentist, who can never marry her. Julian has told her that his wife (with whom he has had two sons and a daughter) will never give him a divorce. So at the start of the film Toni tries to commit suicide by the gas of her stove. But she is rescued by her neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz), a struggling dramatist, who breaks into her apartment and turns off the gas.

Toni is resigned to live, but she has sent a suicide note to Julian. Igor tries to deliver a message to ignore the note but Julian's receptionist/nurse/assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (Ingrid Bergman) won't stop Julian's work schedule to pass him the phone when Igor calls. Instead Julian finds the letter and races to Toni's apartment, only to find her alive. When Igor supports her story that she tried to kill herself, Julian realizes the depth of her love, and decides he must marry such a woman. Unfortunately Toni has swallowed Julian's lies, and believes in his wife and children. You see, Julian has no wife and children. Since Toni is a firm believer that she can't marry a man who would lie to her Julian is stuck on a weakening tree branch.

Julian comes to solve it by getting Stephanie to pretend she is Mrs. Winston. Stephanie is opposed to it at first, but on her own, on her first free Saturday, she confronts Toni at the record shop Toni is at. They talk, and Toni notices all the fine strengths of character and personality of Stephanie (and since Stephanie has her two nephews with her, Toni thinks they are Julian's kids). Toni tells Julian they have to see who is the man that Stephanie is supposedly going to marry. So the lie starts spiraling for Julian, Stephanie, and Toni. Soon a lover is given to Stephanie in the form of Julian's friend and freeloading patient Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston). Greenfield is so sleazy (Stephanie loathes him) that Toni feels that he is unworthy of Stephanie.

And so it goes, with one complication (most caused by the well-intentioned, misinformed Toni) following another until the conclusion. The script is full of first rate situations and one-liners (example: Julian to reward Stephanie for lying about their marriage, buys two record albums from Toni's store. He has given a mink stole to Toni, but she decides to send it to Stephanie with Julian's card. Stephanie is quite happy at getting the mink, but she does not say a word about the nature of the gift she got - when she profusely thanks Matthau, he says the thought she'd like Horowitz - meaning Vladomir Horowitz. But Stephanie thinks Horowitz is the name of the furrier!).

Bergman must have enjoyed the filming, as several scenes shows that earthy radiance that was a trademark for her in the later 1940s films. But there was also the resemblance to her 1958 film comedy smash hit, INDISCREET. There Cary Grant lied to make sure the pair would concentrate on the romance of their affair without having to think about marriage. When Grant's lie is revealed to Bergman she decides on a lie of her own to convince Grant that she was making him a cuckold. Here, instead of being the passive lover believing Matthau is telling the truth, Bergman gingerly tries to get Matthau out of his mess by little white lies, only to find one leads to another to complicate everyone's lives. Bergman is seen as a nice woman who becomes part of the problem, despite trying to be part of the solution.

All the leads perform well, in particular Bergman, all business thoroughness at first but gradually reclaiming her sexuality. Matthau is delightful as a man who finds a useful lie is an impediment that just can't be kicked aside. The supporting cast, especially Weston as the mooching and sexually slimy Harvey, and Vito Scotti as the U.N. ambassador who actually has the hots for Bergman. It was a clever comedy, and a really good way for Goldie Hawn's movie career to push forward. Well I would say that this is a very enjoyable and somewhat touching movie despite its flaws. I didn't believe for a minute that Matthau knew the first thing about being a dentist. Also, Hawn's character seemed to recover from suicidal depression rather quickly at the beginning of the movie. Not to mention the entire thing seemed rather ridiculous. However, the film does succeed due to a good pace, humor, and its stars. Matthau may not have been a dentist, but he was as amusing as he usually is. Bergman brought a great deal of sensitivity to the film (especially during the scene where her and Matthau go out for a drink after work) and also a good deal of humor. I believe it was her performance that made my brother take notice of this movie after overhearing a couple scenes. Hawn's performance is noteworthy, although an Oscar may have been over doing it a bit. Basically, don't take this movie too seriously and you will enjoy yourself. I knew next to nothing about this movie until I chanced to rent it. It was a very pleasant surprise. The cast is excellent including Matthau whom I do not normally care for. He makes a credible romantic lead. Hawn is a sweet kook and Bergman is touching as a woman coming out of her shell. As much as I like Walter Matthau, I felt that the majority of his roles were tailored towards his personality. This role is one of the exceptions. He plays a dentist who is both charming and dishonest. This role does require much more acting than in most of his other roles. I liked the fact that the movie was honest about how a professional can be dishonest in order to avoid commitment in a relationship. His whole aim was to find a way to be in a relationship with a much younger woman, but not to be committed in any way. The alibi - using his secretary (Ingrid Bergman) to pretend to be his wife. At some point in the movie, the pretend Mr. and Mrs. actually are deluded into believing that they were actually really married. The ending was good, because a middle aged man found that pursuing someone in his own age group was more worthwhile. The movie was funny, entertaining, and didn't sell out by being preachy. What an absolutely charming movie. The cast is wonderful, and the story is witty and fun. An all around pleasant movie experience. Although the plot is somewhat predictable, it doesn't make the story any less enjoyable, in fact I didn't want it to end. I've always been a Ingrid Bergman fan, and I was interested to see her in a comedic role. She didn't let me down, Ingrid Bergman's performance as Ms Dickinson is fun to watch. I loved her interaction with Toni at the music store as well as her Dancing and doing "the Dentist". It only further proved what I already knew, that she is one of the greatest actresses of all time. Goldie Hawn is also delightful to watch. Her fun, gentle-hearted and lovable Toni is the driving force of the movie. You don't even question why she would be so concerned about her Finacee's wife, you just accept that she's just that type of person who wouldn't be happy unless she knew everyone else was also. And Walter Matthau is great as Julian. His actions never create a feeling animosity for the viewer, in fact they almost make him more enduring. There wasn't an unlikable character in the bunch. This movie has definitely with stood the test of time, I watched it just last night and I think it's one of the best romantic comedies I've ever seen. If you're looking for a fun, lighthearted, romantic comedy look no further. Aside from the discotheque scenes that epitomize the swinging sixties (especially with everyone dancing to instrumental versions of Monkees hits), I am surprised how well this lightweight farce holds up 37 years later, but indeed it does thanks to the breezy execution of its deception-based plot and the sharp interplay of the three leads. Directed by the redoubtable stage-to-screen expert Gene Saks, this 1969 comedy is about Julian Winston, a successful Manhattan dentist and confirmed bachelor, who pretends to be married in order to avoid long-term commitment with his young girlfriend of a year, Toni. In response to Toni's half-hearted suicide attempt, Julian agrees to marry her, but Toni first insists on meeting his wife to alleviate her conscience. Enter Julian's devoted nurse Stephanie to play the wife, and the inevitable complications ensue with white lies growing into major whoppers that lead to presumed couplings and de-couplings.

As Julian, a relaxed Walter Matthau dexterously plays the deceptive dentist in his typically sardonic manner, but he lets his two female co-stars walk off with the picture. In her big screen debut, a pixyish 24-year old Goldie Hawn is still retaining her giggly "Laugh-In" persona but provides unexpected savvy and depth as Toni. She and Matthau have great, unforced chemistry in their scenes together. Screen legend Ingrid Bergman, still serenely regal at 54, is obviously having a ball playing Stephanie, initially starchy and quick-witted but blossoming into a liberated spirit as the story evolves. I particularly like how casual she appears after her overnight romp. There is nice supporting work from Rick Lenz as Toni's bohemian neighbor Igor and Jack Weston as Julian's smarmy actor buddy Harvey. Billy Wilder's longtime collaborator, I.A.L. Diamond, provides the sparkling screenplay and opens up the story beyond its stage-bound origins for Saks, who is not the most cinematic of directors. Other than a couple of trailers, there are no significant extras with the DVD. Swinging bachelor Matthau, a successful dentist, is stringing along his blond mistress Hawn, having told her that he's a married man with three kids. After she attempts suicide Matthau decides to get responsible and marry the girl. Worried that she's going to be a "homebreaker", bright eyed Hawn wants to meet his wife and explain everything to her. Matthau employs his faithful nurse Bergman to act his wife and that's when things really get complicated.

A farcical comedy with irresistible leads quite often hits the mark but isn't for one second believable. The script asks us to believe that us men are such one-dimensional turds that it's truly beyond belief. But maybe this comedy doesn't need to be analyzed too deeply, just sit back and enjoy the ever so funny Matthau, the ever so charming Bergman and débutant Hawn, who here basically created the dumb-blond girl role. Another "oldie but goody" from about the same time as "Out of Towners" is "Cactus Flower", with a great cast: Goldie Hawn, in her first film appearance (pre-facelifts), Ingrid Bergmann in one of her later ones, and the ever-funny Walter Matthau. The story is about a dentist who pretends to be married in order to have an excuse for not marrying his girlfriend, leading to the need to come up with a fictitious wife for proof. He cajoles his spinster receptionist (Bergman) into taking the role, leading to multiple comic disasters and surprising romantic turns. It's in the same vein as the Doris Day/Rock Hunter comedies. Fans of those - as I am - will like this movie; if not, don't bother. I was lucky enough recently to see Ingrid Bergman's name attached to a film I had never seen (or even heard of) on AMC. What a stroke of luck.

To marvel at her flawless and seamless performance isn't the only reason to stay up late and watch this movie. The writing is wonderfully comical and the performances are excellent.

Walter Mathau (not my favorite) was nearly perfect and Goldie Hawn (suprisingly) was fabulous. Tender at times, demanding, then just plain goofy. There are times in the film that even the most hardened film viewer will get caught up in the story and forget that it is a movie.

That Bergman can steal a dance scene among a crowd of 20 year-olds was amazing to watch. She is effortless in her return to the screen (at age 54?). The supporting cast was great and the lines... the lines are exquisite.

A top 5 romantic comedy of all time. Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s…

"Une Parisienne" succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men…

Charles Boyer — as Prince Charles — was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments… His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love… His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism… He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover… Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner… I have to agree with all the previous commenter's--this is simply the best of all frothy comedies, with Bardot as sexy as Marilyn Monroe ever was, and definitely with a prettier face (maybe there's less mystique, but look how Marilyn paid for that.) I don't think I've ever seen such a succulent-looking female on screen, so perfect that even a gay man like me got excited by it--and not just for purely aesthetic reasons (if the idiot evangelicals really want to do their 'convert-a-queer' number, they are really going to need to up their standards, as no church mice need apply here...)Her breasts, the rest of her figure, her adorable voice, the hilarious way she shakes as she walks across a room...only to arrive in front of a man, breasts literally pointed as if in exquisite confrontation...

I think Boyer is one of the greatest leading men in all of film history. No one played opposite more great female stars than did he: Garbo, Dietrich, K. Hepburn, Colbert, and here Bardot, among many others. And he was also in 'Fanny' with Leslie Caron, and had small parts in 'How to Steal a Million' with A. Hepburn, as well as being in the Deneuve movie 'The April Fools' (although not opposite her.) The only thing I could disagree with in remarks is that even the loud, obnoxious music over the opening credits is appropriate--I mean, Bardot is not meant to be subtle on top of everything else, and her essential loudness (I don't mean her voice) is part of her irresistible and, one might even say, exemplary charm.

Vidal is thoroughly handsome, even if pouty Brigitte says toward the beginning 'I don't know why I am in love with you, you're not even handsome.'

Dear, dear Bardot! Truly one of the wonders of the 20th century, not to mention the joy that she is still with us, when so many of the truly characterful are passing away so fast, in all her eccentric glory. Most of the Brigitte Bardot movies I've seen have failed to take full advantage of her captivating screen presence. Unfortunately, she was given few really good roles in movies of undeniable quality, which was a real oversight. She deserved them and was able to demonstrate her full cinematic power when they came her way. As Genevieve in "Love on a Pillow" we had a clear exception to the trend of light, fluffy vehicles, for it was an interesting, artistic film by any reasonable measure, and in it, a 28-year-old BB was at her most alluring. "Une Parisienne" is another, featuring an extremely captivating Brigitte in an interesting, well-crafted comedy that explores how an ambitious lady's man can be convinced to remain faithful to an incredibly beautiful young wife. There are several good performances here. Her playboy husband, Michel, is one, "the prince," played by Charles Boyer, is another, with entertaining efforts by a good supporting cast. As for Brigitte Bardot, the way she looks in this movie is the way I remember her as a kid in the fifties. She was 23 in 1957 and way ahead of her time, more beautiful than any other actress of the period, including Marilyn Monroe. Her curvy, coquettish sexuality, amply displayed in several bosom-baring, skintight dresses, simply jumps off the screen. She was more hip and cute than the women of America are today, nearly fifty years later. Obsessed with their careers and still desperately clinging to feminist politics, they come off like a bunch of clueless lesbians. In stark contrast, the sex kitten was sexually liberated, intelligent, and clearly independent long before it was fashionable, yet while fully understanding the power of her exceptional femininity, she used it for a higher purpose than mere self-interest -- she believed in love. A still photo simply could not do her justice. You had to watch her slender yet voluptuous form (with its 20-inch waist) lightly cross a room. You had to see that wild blonde mane, gaze into her big, brown, seductive eyes, and listen as her full, pouting lips spoke French. In a closeup at the end of this movie she winks and flirts with the camera, her beautiful orbs twinkling. What a babe! For fans of Brigitte Bardot, "Une Parisienne" is not to be missed. Bridgette Bardot, looking as sexy as ever, plays a spoiled but innocent daughter of a French Ambassador. She cons one of her father's top aides (womanizer MICHEL) into marrying her and it turns out to be the best thing for both of them. Michel is soon flirting with his old girlfriends and in order to teach him a lesson, Bridgette flirts heavily with a married PRINCE CHARLES. Michel is surprised by his jealousy. A cat-and-mouse game ensues between Brigdette and Michel ("I'll have an affair"..."No you won't"...) And finally Michel realizes she just might and vows to give up all the other ladies in his life. Bridgette and Michel settle comfortably into their happily-ever-after while Prince Charles jets home to England.

It's an admittedly light piece but it's incredibly charming. While some may fault it as a product of it's time, I found that completely enjoyable. Worthy of a rental. Of all the 48 films of Brigitte Bardot, "Une Parisienne" is widely regarded as (one of) her best. What we see is special: for once the plot has a value of its own, does much more than only providing a cheap vehicle for BB's sex-charged appearance.

This film is your true & well worked-out light comedy, with a good and coherent story. Set in France's government circles in the late 1950's, it entertains from beginning to end. Providing many amusing twists & turns and some slapstick -- all acted out by at least three starring leads, including Bardot.

"Une Parisienne" (= French for "female inhabitant of Paris") focuses on telling a story, not on showing Brigitte Bardot. Brigitte serves the plot very well by using her talent for acting in light comedies.

When you settle on your couch on a Friday-night, tired and weary from a week's slaving away, just turn on "Une Parisienne". This film will make you feel better. A sparkling movie. BB is a marvel. She's sultry. She is a feminist. She is still very much in love.

The movie features Paris in the 50's. It is wonderful to look at the sites, the cars (DS!) and Orly.

A simple but very enjoyable romantic comedy. The music is horrendous. It almost dissonates. On the other hand it is hilarious. But it is probably the only thing amiss, at least looking at it with 21st century eyes.

The movie comments on the French manner of treating infidelity. It is that sense modern. A movie like un elephant se trompe enormenent did it in an 80's way. But the basic premise stays the the same.

Thanks to makers for providing BB with this opportunity. Words fail me whenever I want to describe my feelings about this movie (and the sequels)... Does it have flaws? Sure it does... Starting with the "Subspecies" themselves,which were not executed well enough for a special effect.So why do I glorify these movies??? For the herd of movie mass-consumers out there,who care more about quantity than quality,about cheap fun more than about depth, crap like "blade" (it doesn't even deserve a capital letter),"underworld","Dracula 2000","dracula 3000" and so on are good movies to munch popcorn to and drink a couple of cokes... What makes Subspecies a superior effort for anyone claiming to be a Vampire fanatic,on the other hand,is obvious: The Vampire Himself is Romanian,the story is set in Transylvania (the scenes filmed on location are more than convincing),and the atmosphere is not based on any "action-packed" chases or expensive orchestral music.Radu Himself is the source of the atmosphere... This is what a Vampire should look like and this is how He should behave! Add a breathtakingly gloomy castle with dark passageways situated in Romania,include some typical Vampiric elements ( such as the movement of the shadows on the walls when the Vampires take to flight) and you have a work of art! In short,if ,like me,you 're fascinated with Vampires and feel that their appearance as well as the setting should be sinister and dark,there's no better place to look in than in a Subspecies movie... Or in Vampire Journals,the brilliant spin off of the former... This is one of the best and moodiest Vampire Tales ever! I love this movie really. The character are great, even the locations and the story. Indeed the Picture isn't a big budget production, but it is absolutely worth seeing.

OK there are some faults (especially the Names of the Castle and the Locations) in this movie, but such mistakes are typically and are almost in every Horror Movie.

The scenery fits perfect to the story and is close to reality,I can say that honest, because I visit them once when I was in Romania in my Vacations.

In my opinion this is the Best Part of the Subspecies Series. This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies.

Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.

Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be. This is a perfect example of a Classic Full Moon Pictures movie. Any fan of Horror/Vampire Flicks should definitely check this one out. Original Plot and good, easy to follow Story. Also, this movie has some heart-racing scenes that combine Horror with action. As of now, the only sequel I have seen to this movie is Part IV, which I have to say is almost better than this original.

I give it 10 / 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Slumber Party Massacre, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section. "Subspecies," like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, "Subspecies" is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.

Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, "Subspecies" boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - "Subspecies" has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.

Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).

But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - "Subspecies" is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series. I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.

Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.

The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.

Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.

Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good! I have seen a number of horror movies to know that this one was one of kind. Full Moon Pictures has a knack of giving this fan an entertaining night. For all the cheesiness of most vampire films, This Is the ONE that has not only a good premise but has two good sequels. A Must See. I was ten years old when I saw Subspecies, I instantly had the hots for Michael Watson and Laura Tate, they really do have some great on-screen chemistry in the earlier parts of the movie. I ordered a copy back in 1993 from Full Moon and I learned this: Ion and Rosa, the servants, have much bigger roles in the screenplay along with the King. What most people don't know is that there was an alternate sequence that was supposed to occur in the ending scene: Michelle and Stefan get cornered into a room and Michelle has the idea for Stefan to make her a vampire to help fight off Radu and her demonic controlled ex-friends. However, for some reason or another that scenario never made it on camera. Another scene in the script, that can be confirmed from the original trailer shows Stefan drinking blood from a wolf, or actually in the trailer you see him coming up with blood on his chin.

This movie gets a 9 because it's one from my childhood and I have fond memories attached to the characters; even though my favorite characters were Stefan and Michelle I think Anders Hove's Radu is pure feeling-evocative acting, so much feeling in his work there. Once again, I am amazed that Thomas Gibson did not come to the head of the pack earlier in his career. In this film, Gibson once again demonstrates his ability to grasp a character regardless of sexuality, social status or nationality. Gibson plays a very convincing gay male of the late 20th Century. Tender yet not effeminate, afraid of the basic tenets of love, Gibson's character touches a variety of emotions. Also worthy of praise is Cameron Bancroft's performance. His need to be the heterosexual conqueror as opposed to his best friend's "homosexual conquests" provides dynamics for the relationship that are in many ways unexpected. Bancroft and Gibson's chemistry is apparent from the first scene they appear in together. There are many "panels" in this quilt. From gay relationships to straight relationships; from heterosexual relationships to the exploration of lesbian love; this film travels across the broad spectrum of sexuality while having the story of a serial killer at its core. My only regret is that it took 6 years since its release before I discovered this movie! I look forward to seeing it again and highly recommend it to any fan of Bancroft, Gibson or Director Denys Arcand. Extremely good cinematic story of gay, embittered former teen star, now waiting tables. The sexual ambiguities are explored here realistically, and with an actual human face. This, and throw in a serial killer on the loose, and you have LOVE AND THE HUMAN REMAINS. A well portrayed drama, a strange sense of humor and a mystery. The screenplay is fluid and believable. The performances are well above average, and the twists in the story are sharp.

This certainly isn't everyone's ideal notion of a movie, but for those who appreciate something different and slickly written, it's very much worthy of your time. Highly recommended. I bought this film from my local blockbuster for 99p an it's been sitting in my video bookcase for at least a year now. Then tonight I decided to see it, the film was quite different to what I had expected and I didn't find any humour in it all I saw was that it was a bleak look at people dealing with love relationships and sexual orientation and I didn't really see the psycho killer plot really having a point except to add tension to the end of the film. I felt that the person playing the lesbian woman did a great job. I was following her emotions and what happened around her. Some people would probably have seen some of the stuff that she does as funny but I could really put myself in her place, loving someone but them rejecting you at every turn no matter how hard you try. I thought it was a very moving film and dealt with all the different sexualities well. I was expecting something like Bound & Gagged : A love story, but this is a very different film. Not for bigots. I first watched this movie in Istanbul Film Festival back in 1994. It was so good I took couple of friends with me and went to see it again the same week. The characters are very well played and the humor here and there is amazing. It sure is a very powerful gay movie. Some scenes make you feel you're watching an episode of Friends with much more sophisticated lines. I guess I'll put it in my VCR and watch it again tonight... There is, as many reviews have observed, a strong dark streak to this movie. The director it most recalls to me is John Landis (yeah, go ahead and howl about what a peasant I am). Arcand has the gift of exploring frivolous things in a bleak, gray kind of way, then turning round and exploring the horrors of life with a lighthearted touch.

The cast is, without exception, above average. Thomas Gibson, as David, is outstanding as the moody and self-deceptive center around whom the rest of the characters revolve. He talks a good nihilist, but his actions reflect more love in his character than he is willing to acknowledge. Gibson was already a strong and subtle actor in 1993. It was difficult to look at him and see Greg Montgomery, let alone Agent Hotchner of Criminal Minds.

Perhaps not the best scene, but the one I enjoy most, my "rewind scene," is the section where Candy is expecting a visitor, and one uninvited person after another shows up at the door. As Candy's interpersonal environment swings further and further out of control, David just grows bouncier, perkier, and more enthusiastic, like a gaunt Gen-X "Tigger." Watched this flick on Saturday afternoon cable. Man, did it drag. I got the metaphors, symbolism, and all that stuff. No, I didn't care one way or another about the sexuality of the characters. But, the pacing of the story and the scripting almost put me to sleep.

That is..... until Ruth Marshall got naked. If you're a breast-man who is not homo-phobic, you may want to rent it. Ruth has a lesbian sex scene that's pretty hot, and then a hetero sex scene that is a notch higher than most standard movie fare. Her jiggly D-cups made the film worth the watch.

--The Mighty Avatar This was the film that started that the cinematic love affair

between the Jaundiced Eye crew and Matthew Ferguson. His

ability to portray RELATIVELY normal characters like Birkoff in

"La Femme Nikita" is counter-balanced by his equally deft

handling of weirdos like "Kane." One wishes that he would only

be given more roles, bigger roles, and other, even more complex

roles to assay to push the limits of his abilities. There were

four or five memorable scenes in this film, and Matthew Ferguson

stole two of them from far more experienced actors. This film

itself is good, and it is worth watching on its own merits, but

Ferguson makes it a little extra special. His *ouevre* may

eventually show what the career of Anthony Perkins MIGHT have

been like if he hadn't been typecast as "Norman Bates" so long

ago. "Kane" isn't quite as whacked-out as Norman, and far fewer

people saw "Love and Human Remains than saw "Psycho," so we can

hope that Ferguson will show us some hint of what Perkins MIGHT

have been able to accomplish, had he been allowed to do so. . . . I found this a very enjoyable light hearted comedy set in Wales with some truly funny sequences highlighting the rivalry between two funeral directors. The showbiz ideas used by Christopher Walken's character to liven up his funerals are genuinely laugh out loud moments. Very lovely love story between Brenda Blethyn and Alfred Molina. The whole story is very bizarre and funny. An undertaker (A. Molina) loves a married woman (B.Blethyn). They try to fake her death to escape her husband and the village. A scenario of strange situations starts. As good as SAVING GRACE and LONG LIVE NED DEVINE. Once again seeing this kind of movies turns me more and more into English humor, not too often seen on screen since the days of Monty Python and Man About The House. Too bad.

Brenda Blethyn (Who I first saw in Saving Grace early in the year, another must see by the way.) just excels, as Alfred Molina does. The rest of the cast, while virtually unknown to me, turns on great performances too. The film starts slowly and gradually gains in pace and amusement - midway I had tears in my eyes from laughing.

All in all, a funny English movie, a thousand times better than the supposedly 'funny' garbage that comes from Hollywood.

This movie is one of the funniest I have seen in years. A movie which deals with death and funerals without being depressing, or irreverant. Christopher Walken provides much of the comedy in this charming romance and I could hardly breathe for laughing so hard.

I saw the movie a preview, and when it was over, the audience not only applauded, but cheered. I am telling all my friends to watch for it's arrival in the USA. I definitely plan on seeing it again in the theater and purchasing it on DVD as soon as it's available. I saw this in a preview and it seems to have not been released in the U.S. Nonetheless, it was one of the more enjoyable little comedies. It concerns the rivalry between two funeral directors in a small British town. The plot [of the movie] gets a little out of hand in the third act but the characters are very enjoyable and memorable.

The acting is great across the board. Sure to be overlooked in the crunch of blockbusters, this is a movie worth looking out for. I know I will try to catch this in the theaters again and/or buy the video. Hilarious from start to finish, there's got to be great courage to handle the theme of death with a smile, specially when two funeral parlors are battling for control of the market: a classic parlor and a revolutionary one where every funeral is a show, lead by Christopher Walken, a treat in the role of the visionary american mortitian. But the rest of the cast is great also, and this one is another success that only UK is capable of making. Surprising among the ensemble cast is Naomi Watts, that strikes in another metamorphosis (accent included). Always sporting a smile on its face, it seems like a paradox that there could be so much comedy to be taken from a movie that could be called "Four Funerals and One Wedding", but you'll understand when you see it. Two funeral directors in a Welsh village? English humour as opposed to that other stuff from over the Atlantic? How could I resist. My wife and I saw it on March the 6th for our belated Valentines day celebration and both of us enjoyed some good belly laughs. We were going to see another movie later but decided not to because we wanted the experience of THIS movie to stay with us for the evening.

The mortuary scene in the last 20 minutes of the film is worth the wait. It raises issues rarely talked about in the community, but I know three funeral directors, and the humour is right on the money

Highly recommended and congratulations to the writers. Without you all the actors, directors and the others havn't a job on any Monday. A humorous voyage into the normally somber funeral business. It's easy watching, and even offers Blethyn & Molina stealing a scene from an old Fred & Ginger movie. Walken is over the top as a zealous competitor of Molina in the undertaking business, trying to bring a new style to an old Welsh town. We see a couple of very funny examples of the "new style". The plot thickens with Pugh having an affair with Watts, and her suggesting that they do Blethyn in. Meanwhile Molina has rekindled his long suffering romantic feeling for Blethyn, and convinces her to fake her death so that they can run away to the South Seas, and dance away their days together. During the "fake" funeral Blethyn learns of her husbands' infidelities and plots her revenge. Watch it for a view of what funerals probably should be--a celebration of life! I accidentally bumped into this film on Cinemax while channel surfing. I must admit that what attracted me was Christopher Walken. And the setting was the kind I would like, so I started to watch it. At first I expected a serious drama film, and it seemed like so for a while... until I started to giggle here and there, and before I know it I was laughing so hard all through the film. I really like how subtle and light-hearted it is, but still has a huge impact on the audience. The plot is very simple, and it's far from trying too hard to be funny like many Hollywood "comedies" are, yet it almost had me rolling on the floor. A must see for a nice evening rest, or any time in that case. I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is. Wales seems to be turning out some quirky movies recently. Actually, Wales seems to be developing its own little film industry. I recently saw Very Annie Mary, which I thought was very good. But Plots with a View is not only quirky, it's laugh out loud funny, has a cast of wonderfully talented actors (Brenda Blethyn is amazing), and a plot that, while not entirely original, is so cleverly written that one is always gleefully picking up what might almost be throwaway lines. It was the kind of movie that I wanted to watch again immediately it was over, and one of very few that I would actually like to own. Even though many of the characters are caricatures, and you have to have been to a Welsh village to appreciate that, they are also very human, and the rapport between Blethyn and Molina is a joy to behold. This film had a distinct Woody Allen feel about it, so if you're not a fan of dry humor, dark humor, or back-handed humor, you probably could find something else to do. If you ARE, however, this is quirky, with some nice twists and a flowing, natural dialog.

The story itself is quite engaging, not quite like a train wreck from which you cannot disengage your eyes, but close. I mean that in the best way possible. The intrigues are plenty, the twists are enough to fully engage the senses, and the characters are downright lovable.

I had a great time with this movie.

It rates an 8.3/10 from...

the Fiend :. Betty and Boris eye each other at a junior dance when they're still kids, but unfortunately Hugh gets to her first and thirty years later when we tune back in--Betty is married to Hugh and putting up with his fussy mother, who also lives with them.

Neither Boris, nor Betty, however, have forgotten each other and when their paths cross again, they soon declare their feelings.

But Betty feels she can't divorce Hugh, a Councilman, it would hurt him too much. What Betty doesn't know is, Hugh isn't hurting at all. He's rolling in the sheets with his beautiful secretary Meredith.

Boris, an undertaker, thinks he has the answer. They'll fake her death.

Christopher Walken plays Frank Featherbed, an outrageous, competing undertaker in their medium-sized town--that causes additional problems for Boris and Betty.

All kinds of complications arise as Boris and Betty try to pull off this major coup.

There are laugh out-loud scenes, some delightful dancing, and nary a curse word to be heard. In short, the film was a pleasure to watch.

10 stars. It's been a long time since such an original, quite funny, black comedy has surfaced. If "Eating Raoul" is on your top 100 list, do yourself a favor and find "Undertaking Betty" immediately. The subject of death being funny has been attempted before (see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in "Mortuary Academy"). While that movie has some brilliant moments of black comedy, "Undertaking Betty" is much more steady, with a better cast. Who could imagine that the undertaking business might be fertile ground for an original, uplifting, and heartfelt comedy? I was surprised and you will be too. I highly recommend seeing "Undertaking Betty" - MERK Viewed this the other night on cable on-demand and thought, "this is the type of movie that might have starred Alec Guiness and Glynis Johns if it had been made in the late 50's". A farce in the English tradition. Alfred Molina and Brenda Blethyn are very sweet and sincere in their portrayals. Naomi Watts simply sizzles in a ditzy Jayne Mansfield-ish (if she could have acted) way. Rest of the cast have some great turns and bits. The Welsh landscape is delightful. An absurd premise, indeed and not at all believable, but that doesn't get in the way of enjoyment. Not a GREAT movie, mind you, but a truly fun watch. And Walken is at his wacky best. A joy to behold! "Plots With A View" of 2002 is a delightful little comedy like only the British could do it. The film's sense of humor is both mildly morbid and black and yet very lovable and sometimes very slapstick-ish. It's the only film by director Nick Hurran I've seen so far, and while I am not intending to watch any of his other films at the moment (I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies), this one is highly enjoyable and very funny. The film takes place in a little town in Wales, where Betty Rhys-Jones (Brenda Blethyn) is married to the town's drunken and adulterous major (Robert Pugh). The local mortician Boris (Alfred Molina) has been desperately in love with Betty since their childhood, but has always been too shy to confess his love to her. Apart from being desperately in love, Boris has some other problems, as the eccentric American mortician Frank Featherbed (Christopher Walken) has opened a funeral flourishing business in the same town... The film's odd, very British wit should amuse everybody with a sense of humor, and the story sometimes becomes quite bizarre. Also, "Plots With A View" profits from a wonderful cast. Brenda Bethlyn, who has already proved herself to be a funny lady in 2000's "Saving Grace", plays the lead, and she is once again very funny, and very lovable in her role. Alfred Molina, who plays her shy admirer, delivers a great performance as always, and Robert Pugh fits perfectly in the role of Betty's sleazy husband. Beautiful Naomi Watts is also great as the husband's 'secretary', I'm becoming a bigger fan with every film I see her in. The greatest role, however, is played by the incomparable Christopher Walken (one of my favorite actors). Walken is brilliant as he always is in the role of the eccentric Mortician who arranges funerals that are quite unorthodox. Overall, "Plots With A View" is a vastly entertaining little British Comedy that I highly recommend! Watching "Plots with a View" (called "Undertaking Betty" in the US), I got the feeling that there need to be more movies filmed in Wales. This one portrays a woman (Brenda Blethyn) in a small Welsh town trying to get away from her cheating husband. So, she and the funeral parlor manager (Alfred Molina) come up with a plan...but there are likely to be some glitches along the way.

I would actually say that Christopher Walken's character is the neatest in the movie (how could he not be?). But overall, the whole idea is just a really neat one, stacked with some "uh oh" moments...especially the haunted house scene. It's the sort of movie that I wish that I could enter, just to experience it.

Also starring Lee Evans, Naomi Watts and Miriam Margoyles. Only the Brits could make a film like this and have it be so tastefully charming! Betty (Brenda Blethyn) wants something more out of life, but she doesn't know what, when she realizes she is in love with her childhood friend, Boris (Alfred Molina), who owns the local funeral parlor. Meanwhile, an American mortician (Christopher Walken) who "wants to put the 'fun' back in funerals" moves into this small Welsh community with his assistant (Lee Evans) and wants to give Boris a run for his money with flashy, themed funerals. (Star Trek funeral, anyone?) Brenda and Boris decide to stage Brenda's death and funeral, with hilarious results. A very enjoyable film - if you're a fan of British comedies such as "Waking Ned Devine", you'll love this. I have always loved Brenda Blethyn and "Undertaking Betty" was no disappointment. I saw it on Satellite on dreary Sunday morning. Life has been stressful and this movie made me laugh and see things we usually consider dire in a mirthful way. I wish she would make more movies like this and "Saving Grace." Brenda Blethyn is a great gal for us approaching 60 to see in action. She is cute, beautiful and full of life without appearing plastic and phony. Not many actresses are out there for us to relate to in a realistic, yet comical and/or serious way. Brenda - if you see this - keep going with gems like this. We need more Mrs. Bennetts, Bettys and Graces. I've been wanting to see this movie for a very long time. I eventually just bought it on E-Bay since it's so hard to find state-side. But the wait was...somewhat worth it.

I can't say the movie was great. And I can't say that the movie was hilarious. But it was good and it has some pretty funny points. That aside the shots in this movie are just beautiful. And the entire cast, especially Brenda Blethyn (someone I hadn't seen before, sadly), were excellent.

In the end this is a feel good romantic comedy and I recommend checking it out, unless you've just had a death in the family.

If anything, the final chapter is highly worth the money. >.< I have seen this film on a Sunday evening and I must say there is no better way to end the weekend. I am totally pleased with the humor and the warm charm this film offers. It simply leaves me in beautiful mood. Watching this film means having a great time and keep a warm feeling.

The film offers sharp black British humor and feels very fresh to me. You really enjoy the story and the characters. Brenda Blethyn is SO great. I don't know exactly why. She's too old to be a love interest for me and too young to be my mother. But I really feel comfortable when she shows up in the movie.

Some may say the story was thin and predictable. But who cares? There simply has to be a happy end, dancing in the sunshine! Are the characters stereotypes or cut outs? I don't know- better I don't care! I just loved them and enjoyed watching them.

Furthermore, I must say that I usually don't like romantic comedies. But this one is outstanding: a black comedy with a heart of gold !! Well, my Dad drove Lee Evans back and forth the hotels so i got to see some being made. Its a brilliant film! Bob Pugh walked past a shed with a lawnmower and he accidentally let go and it went into a fence and he fell over.

Lee Evans was also funny as he seen me and said are you cold I said Yes and he said Well whack your hands in your pockets! I think it was really funny and it will be a well-known comedy. As like every other Lee Evans film! They were really great people. they seemed to be quite polite and funny. I would like to meet them again one day. Brenda Blethyn walked out of her caravan with blood down her and twigs in her messy hair and i got really scared as i didn't notice her until she was right behind me EIGHTEEN as written and directed by Richard Bell may have a few too many stories to tell simultaneously for a 102 minute movie to completely succeed, but there is such a fine sense of commitment on the part of all the cast and crew that the viewer ends up wanting the movie to work - and so it does. Yes, aspects could have been finessed if the producers had more money to spend on the final cut, but as a small independent movie from Canada this is a tender, gently humorous, very touching tale about vulnerability and communication and commitment. It works on many levels.

In a very well choreographed opening we are voyeurs at a family dinner where obviously something has gone awry and results in a father and two sons taking off in a car and having an accident in which one of the sons is killed. With an introduction like that the mood is set for the surviving 18-year old Pip son (Paul Anthony - looking far too old for credibility as a teenager) to desert his family and live on the streets. He meets Clark (Clarence Sponagle) a male prostitute who gives Pip food and shelter, Jenny (the very fine Carly Pope) who saves him from a bashing by her associate Derek (Ryan McDonell) and becomes romantically entangled with Pip, and Father Chris (Alan Cumming) in a finely wrought sympathetic role as a priest. It is Pip's 18th birthday and his father (Serge Houde) traces Pip down to give him a present from his deceased grandfather with instructions the gift should be opened on Pip's 18th birthday.

Pip, though drinking too much and full of anger, pawns the tape machine but keeps the tape and begins to listen to the words of his grandfather Jason (voice by Ian McKellen) who recounts his own 18th birthday in WW II in France where he (now the very sensitive actor Brendan Fletcher) has an experience with a wounded medic named Macauley (Mark Hildreth, also superb) and reflects on his one night marriage with a cabaret singer Hannah (Thea Gill of 'Queer as Folk' fame and a fine singer and actress here), only for something to live for during the war: Jason offers succor to Macauley as he dies, with a beautiful scene of redemption for he two men at the end. The parallels of Pip and grandfather Jason interplay every time Pip listens to the tape and lead Pip to ultimately alter his view of life and love. Subplots include Clark's isolated existence as a hustler being altered by Jeff (David Beazely - in a surprisingly fine film debut) who simply wants to be loved; by an unexpected pregnancy between Jenny and Pip; by the trust Father Chris instills in both Pip and Clark in a good shepherd's manner: and by a flashback to the car accident where Pip could have saved his brother Daniel (Paul Dzenkiw) from an abusive act at the hands of his father, just before the accident, but failed to do so, opening his deep guilt and resultant misplaced anger, mirrored by his grandfather's taped experiences. Each of these subplots pulls together at the end, creating a sense of closure for each of the people involved.

There are aspects of this film that make it seem like a big budget production: the musical score by Bramwell Tovey is performed by the Vancouver Symphony members, the cinematography by Kevin Van Niekerk is aptly atmospheric, and the general quality of acting by this Canadian cast is very fine. Though Paul Anthony handles his role well, casting a very young teenager in the pivotal main role would have made the story work much better, and Richard Bell, with only one other film 'Two Brothers' on his resume, gives promise of a young talent to watch. Despite the shortcomings, EIGHTEEN is a worthwhile film and deserves attention. Grady Harp "Eighteen" (2004) tells the story of Pip Anders, a depressed and extremely cynical young man who is estranged from his dysfunctional upper/middle class family and living on the streets of Vancouver. On his 18th birthday, he receives a cassette tape and player from his recently-deceased grandfather, relating his memoirs of his own 18th birthday, spent serving with the British army in France, trying to help a mortally-wounded comrade avoid capture by the occupying Germans. As Pip listens to the tape (Ian McKellen provided the voice of his grandfather), we see the scenes he is describing as flashbacks, alternating with daily scenes of Pip's life, as well as more recent flashbacks filling in the dark secret why Pip left home and finds it impossible to trust anyone who is nice to him.

An ambitious second film from writer/director Richard Bell ("Two Brothers"), with a polished look, excellent photography, well-developed non-stereotypical characters (with gay and straight treated equally), and commendable efforts in emotionally and physically-demanding roles from some talented new actors (especially Paul Anthony as Pip and Brendan Fletcher as his grandfather at 18). There is also a noteworthy turn by Alan Cummings as a priest who tried to help Pip, and a small supporting role played by Thea Gill ("Queer As Folk"). The complex story - in the director's own words in his DVD commentary - is meant to drive a "vortex of emotion" pushing Pip to his breaking point, and it certainly accomplishes that. My only criticisms are that the overall effect is too "schmaltzy" or artificial for an audience to truly identify with, much of the supporting dialog (and the ending) too contrived and predictable, and the direction needed to be sharper to curtail sloppy overacting in some scenes. I do recommend it, 7 stars out of 10, including extra points for a noteworthy effort. This film was incredible! Looked high budget but felt heartfelt and original like an Indie. The most amazing part of this film were the astonishing performances by David Beazely, Mark Hildreth and Paul Anthony who plays the main role. He carried this film with ease, humor and charisma balanced with a huge depth.

The cinematography was really beautiful even though some of the subject was quite ugly. It wasn't very realistic in that way but it didn't have to be to make a larger point. It was really great seeing Alan Cumming in this too. The script was tight and propelled very nicely with some of the best acting I've seen in a while.

Go see this. I rented this movie with very low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. This movie is extremely good stuff. And one would never guess it was low budget.

EIGHTEEN, directed by 'Richard Bell' centers around an 18 year old named Pip, played by the superb 'Paul Anthony' who leaves his home because of the circumstances surrounding the way his older brother died. He is overcome with guilt by this event and falls into a hard life of a runaway teen on drugs and alcohol. On his 18th birthday, his father tracks Pip down and gives him a tape left for him by his grandfather, of which he was to listen to on his 18th birthday.

The way the whole film is told is with two simultaneous stories unfolding at the same time. The present life of Pip and the past life of his grandfather during WW11 of which Pip listens to on the tape.

The three outstanding performances in this movie are the ones from 'Paul Anthony' as Pip and 'Brenden Fletcher' playing Jason, the young 18 year WW11 soldier, his grandfather. Also, the role of the WW11 wounded medic 'Macauley' played by 'Mark Hildreth.' All putting in fine performances.

A couple of concerns and scenes that didn't sit too well with me...the priest, Father Chris played by 'Alan Cumming' who is gay and in broad daylight pick's up the local street hustler the whole neighborhood knows about. And then we have the local store clerk named Jeff, a sweetheart played by the attractive 'David Beaszely' who just wants to be loved, and for some unknown reason is attracted to the very unattractive and sleaze ball street hustler, Clerk, who sleeps with just about anyone and in all likelihood is a walking toxic time bomb. On top of all that he's not a very likable person. This part just didn't ring true.

The parts I really like the most was the flashbacks to the War. They were so well acted and very touching. There is a scene at the end where the one soldier is dying and the other soldier, 'Jason' is there for him to comfort and show him love as he lays badly injured and dying. This is such a wonderful and touching scene it left me in tears. Beautifully acted.

I highly recommend this movie. It is one of love, redemption and the power of the human spirit to survive. I read a viciously hidden remarks on a previous comments stating that this film showed a bunch of gay guys romping around their gayness.

This couldn't be more misleading. "Eighteen" is not a gay film. It has only three gay characters in it and one of them is the victim of prejudice of people like the one who wrote the comments, despite his confession of fairness.

Pip's grandfather was not gay. The tender scene of the soldier and his sergeant is male bonding at the crucial moment of death. But some people gets appalled by a kiss and welcome scene of guts flying out of a man killed by a bomb.

The focus of the film is the straight relationship of Pip and that sweet girl and their facing their social obligation and parenthood.

Ralph Rewes www.r1313.info I'm a 55-year-old fairly jaded gay white man. Since I don't watch TV, I watch at least 250 films a year, most on DVD. I keep notes on all the films I see and rate them. Since December 2003, I have seen only five films as great as EIGHTEEN. So, I've rated EIGHTEEN better than at least 700 other recent films. Mr. Bell is far too modest in his film commentary. EIGHTEEN is a Great Film. And, it also resulted in two "firsts" for me.

I watched the film, the first time, and I was riveted throughout and weepy during the last half hour, something that's only happened to me three times before. (Five minutes into the film I knew it was going to be very good.) When Jason began reciting Whitman, I lost it, and then... The Kiss. Well, that is one of Film's great kisses, and that scene among Filmdom's most poignant and unforgettable. When Pip blows out the candle at the end and the credits rolled, I clapped. I cheered. I love happy endings. I wept.

Then I watched the trailer and the TLA previews and thought, "Okay, is this $800,000 or so Indie really that Great?" So, I immediately watched EIGHTEEN again, something that's only happened three times before. And, EIGHTEEN blew my socks off yet again, even more so. Then I watched "The Making of EIGHTEEN" documentary and was completely charmed by the cast and Mr. Bell.

So, I thought I'd watch EIGHTEEN again with the Director's Commentary. I have never before watched a film three times in one night. After the third time, at 3:00 AM, I knew I had just experienced a Great Film; EIGHTEEN now ranks #10 on my Top Twenty Films of all time. And, in the very small universe of great gay or gay-subtext film, there is Brokeback Mountain, EIGHTEEN, Mulholland Drive, and Maurice.

Thank you Mr. Bell! EIGHTEEN is brilliant and fully-realized, with a magnificent cast, a wonderfully moving, understated score, excellent cinematography, an entertaining, touching, totally appropriate and hummable song. I can go on, but I won't gush too much more.

This film should have received Oscar nominations, certainly one for Best Picture. The performances, without exception, were all wonderful. Ms. Gill's lovely, sultry voice was a surprising epiphany. And Sir Ian McKellen? 'Nuf said. Awesome.

EIGHTEEN is the reason I slog through over 200 mediocre to utterly horrendous films (some in the $150 million plus range) a year, to find that one treasure, that one exquisite, magical, unique and enchanting, perfect "Faberge egg" enfolding an unforgettable heart.

Finally (I promise), my second "first" -- I've never before posted a commentary on any film I've seen.

Thank you again, Mr. Richard Bell! Breathtaking genius. Give this man $100 million for his next film! He made $700,000 US into one of the top 50 films of all time. If I had the cash, I'd grant him $75,000 a year living expenses and match any funds raised for his next film. Mr. Bell is already a great director at 31-years old. Can you imagine him at 45-years old?

Wise and witty, tender and brutal, poised, poignant, understated yet edgy, chilling and thrilling, mesmerizing, haunting, unforgettable: EIGHTEEN, THE MASTERPIECE. This movie was clearly an early attempt for a new director, but still succeeded in being original and entertaining as well as in some moments thought-provoking. However, I have to say the story would not have come across as well without the stellar performance of Paul Anthony as Pip. He made the well written parts very believable and affecting, and the more weakly written parts much more bearable. Also, I have to mention the performance by Alan Cumming. It was refreshing to see him in a part like this. He brought a weight to his role that provided a very grounding element to the film. As for Paul Anthony: Who is this guy? Why haven't I seen more of him? Someone give him more roles, please! This is an excellent film, full of complexity, themes and great dialogue. The characters are well drawn, with Phil the biggest loser of all time.

Adam Haddrick's character is the most vicious thing I've seen on screen since Alec Guinness's portrayal of Adolf Hitler in 'Hitler: The Last Ten Days.'

I just wish they'd all got away with it. But without giving too much away, there are some situations you just cannot lie your way out of. Not many people have seen this film, and it is a shame because it is a work of art. The characters are brilliant, the dialogue is sensational and the use of themes leaves the audience wondering. I truly loved this film and can't wait to see more of Matthew George's work. OK so some of the plot points might be a bit obvious but over all an interesting idea which works towards a tight ending. The acting is solid particularly Lachy Hulme who plays one of the central characters in this ensemble piece. He certainly has a screen presence and he is interesting to watch. It has a low budget feel which works for the sort of thriller/horror genre Four Jacks belongs to. The film doesn't try to take itself to seriously which adds to the overall charm. The character of Phil(Dave Serrafin) has to be one of the most annoying character seen on screen since Rupert Pupkin/ King of Comedy. Worth adding to a weekend pile of DVDs. My friend made me sit down and watch this film. This is out there material. "God the Devil, Heaven Hell... and a restaurant thrown in for good measure.

Four guys and a prick. Who dies? When and how?is That's the story. You'll never guess the ending for this one. A skillfully realized little gem of Aussie cinema. Hats of to the team that made this one.

10 out of 10. This truly is an Australia cult classic. If you're one of the lucky ones to have seen it-- then you are very lucky. It has been released in most countries, but not in Australia for some reason. I have a copy on DVD from the UK. Not a great transfer, but I bought it, having seen it previously at a film festival. The directing is spot on and the performances rock! This is dark film scary film, but often times, very funny in parts. I urge you to see this film, there is a coolness about this you don't see in 99% of the typical Aussie fare. The screenplay is very well crafted and sends you on a journey where you know it will end badly, but until the last ten minutes, you just can't pick how badly. Great work from the four leads, especially Lachy Hulme.

When its all said and done: Great work on display! I will admit that this movie was awful, cheesy, sexist, badly dubbed, and poorly edited, but I loved it anyway. I first saw this movie when I was 14, and it has stuck with me ever since. FYI, this is very close to hard-core porn as I remember. It certainly got my juices flowing. This flick gives a whole new meaning to swedish erotica. It is a humourous take on human sexuality as seen by hot randy female aliens who are, I think, just looking for some spermatozoa for their dying race. Don't be fooled: this isn't yet another tired example of the Girls From Outer Space Pretending To Be The French Ski Team Come To Earth To Collect As Much Sperm As Possible genre, though the synopsis may suggest otherwise. This movie is a gem, an absolute jewel that has enriched my life from the moment I laid eyes upon it. Hilarious, exhilarating, action-packed, and stunningly erotic, "Ach jodel mir noch einen" is a Euro-Madcap Tour-De-Force, a grossly underrated Bavarian classic.

Stop everything you are doing and run out to rent, or better yet, BUY this movie immediately. If you are looking for an erotic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for a comedic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for something hardcore this isn't it.

That being said if you are looking for an example of the fine art of European erotic comedy from the the early - mid 1970's this is it.

I see many people complain about the quality please understand it was made in 1974. Yes the women do not conform to the modern ideal of attractiveness. They are by no means ugly women but they do not have the same looks which are idealized in our silicone culture. Yes the dubbing is not great but they are speaking German and anyone who speaks any German will realize it is pretty hard to dub over a word with 12 syllables.

If you have seen the DVD prior to the latest release it is marketed with 2 covers of 80's and recently 90's adult stars. The film is an R film so those complaining about hardcore should have realized this, the film is edited from the original BUT it was also edited prior to its run in the drive-ins in the late 1970s.

I first saw this film as a young man and judging by some comments there are many in the same boat who caught a glimpse on Cinemax. Many people become upset when later in life it doesn't live up to their previous memories. It's understandable considering the raunch and nudity packed into todays erotica.

If you compare 2069 to a modern soft-core erotic comedy you may be disappointed. The film while outlandish is actually quite fluid and the jokes while generally innuendos and double meanings still hold up and can still garner a chuckle. If you compare it to a hardcore movie you will be further disappointed, compared to today you see very little.

It is still one of the best examples along with Bottoms Up and The Other Cinderella of European Erotic/Comedic Cinema of the 1970's. Why do I give this 1974 porn movie 7 points? Because I watched it. And I found it hilarious! Aliens, their weird spaceship, their weird helmets... my God, was that a sight. And all what these desperate alien women need is semen from the earth.

And where do they look for it? In upper Bavaria, Germany. And that is where the main fun comes from: In Europe (and more so in German-speaking countries), Bavaria is seen as a traditional and backward region. And then the actors are so helpless with the alien women. Well, there have been films about people being unable to deal with women like the "American Pie" series.

But what this film achieved is a true, funny weirdness. You constantly wonder how they came up with these crackpot ideas. But it was 1974, and looking back 35 years fills one with a kind of nostalgia. You've never seen a film like that.

And if you don't mind seeing the casual pubic hairs and breasts, watch it once. It is a comedy essentially, not a porn flick. And a hard spot somewhere else. I haven't seen this movie since i was quite young, maybe 12 or 13, who knows. But what i do know is this is the movie that taught me how to masturbate. I kid you not. I have no idea if it is any good by any real standards of today, but for me, back then, it was everything.

The only reason i feel comfortable writing this is because i'm sure no one will ever get around to reading it. I mean, really, who is going to look up this movie these days?

I just discovered that i have not yet used up the ten line minimum for the amount of length i most take up in a review. i had no idea there was such a minimum length, but there i go, like a student trying to fill up a page in a journal, my ten lines. thank you very much. There is more to this movie than meets the eye. If you're looking for groundbreaking originality or easy comedy, you'll be disappointed. But for an entertaining 90 minutes, this is just fine.

The cinematography is careful and precise. The sex scenes, which one comment decries as gratuitous, are anything but - every gesture contributes to the development of the characters.

Yes, some of the main characters are not exactly lovable human beings. But the movie makes an honest effort at showing their interactions in an honest light, without being sensationalistic (at least not for early 21st century urban standards). And there are many very amusing moments. Alien Warrior (or King of The Streets) is one of those 80s gems you stumble across by mistake, then watch awestruck, marveling at how wonderfully silly and over the top it gets.

A rather hunky alien arrives on earth (LA to be exact) and stumbles into a world of drug dealers, gangs, and corrupt cops. He falls in love with the flaxen haired, beautiful teacher who only wants to help inner-city kids read more. He also manages to anger a coke-snorting drug kingpin who vows to destroy him.

I fell in love with this film at first viewing... sure it's hokey, silly and low-budget. But you can tell the filmmakers had their heart in the right place, and damn if the thing doesn't work! I only pray it'll be on DVD soon.

It's got a hot soundtrack, break-dancing, violence, nudity.... all with a positive, wholesome message! See it. First off, the alien saves a little black boy as well as a Mexican, despite what the IMDb plot summary suggests. This film is the fulfillment of the purest of male fantsies, interracial rape. The main character in this film is a George Michaelesque dope, who doesn't understand primal human urges like drug abuse and murder. In fact, every time he uses violence to solve a problem he has an internal conflict that physically hinders him. What a square. In any case, my favorite scene is when he writes the gang members a letter stating if they want the 500 bucks they get from the Reading Center for protection they must meet with him. At the meeting he is surrounded by countless Chicano gangsters, but he keeps a cool head. In slow motion, he punches the wooden post of a stop sign that shatters upon contact. Then, still in slow motion, points at the leader of the gang and says, "Noooooooooooooooooooo, mooooooooooooore!" The gang members comply. Cool, right? The beauty of this film shows through in these simple solutions to social problems like prostitution and gang violence. MONKEY is surely one of the best shows to have ever been shown on TV. I remember when I was a kid, I'd go to my grandma's house every Saturday morning and I'd turn on the TV so I could watch MONKEY. I loved it. It had kickass action scenes, cool special effects, a great story, a fantastic theme song that was guaranteed to never leave your head and hilarious dubbing. But it is kind of weird that it's set in China and the actors are Japanese and filmed in Japan, but that is no stop towards making this TV show lovable.

MONKEY is about the adventures of three people: Pigsy (Toshiyuki Nishida), Sandy (Shirô Kishibe) and of course, the unforgettable and most lovable character, Monkey (Masaaki Sakai) who travel from China to India to get a bunch of holy scrolls in order to save the world.

MONKEY is great fun and it's magic. In fact, the nature of the whole series is irrepressibly funny! But not always funny... there are moments of extreme poignance as the deeper aspects of human emotion are touched on.

Over and again, the series comments on the frailties of human nature and the life long, or in this case eternal, struggle to overcome them. Monkey is both smart and stupid at the same time, his arrogance and reliance on his own martial skills lead him into trouble in almost every episode. Pigsy is just plain gross. Sandy has a philosophical turn of mind. He has many of the wittiest lines.

The English translation is a delight. "Ignorance can always be improved upon," drawls Sandy in his laid-back manner, "but you can't do anything to help stupidity!" "Who are you?" the group of travellers are asked. "We three kings of Orient are," says Monkey.

This is not just for children, it is a magical romp for anyone who can suspend reality Easily one of the best shows ever made, & it just gets better with age.

For me , one of the chief reasons for this was the English adaptation done by David Weir.

A Japanese friend of mine once told me that the show in it's original language was more whimsical & less flat-out hilarious that the version we all know.

The fact that the show resonates so strongly for its non-Japanese fans is , I think, largely because of Mr Weir's inspired efforts & some winning voice-over work.

Well done, sir! Like so many other reviewers on here, my memories of this show are universally warm. In fact, so fond are said cherished memories, that I recently purchased the DVD box set in order to revisit that happy and carefree period of childhood, whereby I used to sit utterly mesmerised, as I watched the ongoing quest of Monkey, Pigsy, Sandy, Tripitaka and later Yu Lung a horse/dragon/man (you'll really need to watch it to understand), when the much loved show initially aired on BBC 2 on Friday evenings, as I recall.

Well, I'm pleased to say that even after all these years and now viewing this with adult i.e. more cynical(!) eyes, the show has lost none of its inimitable charm.

Simply wonderful entertainment, from the magical characters and their comical interactions with one another to the perhaps not so special effects (which actually serve to heighten the fun) and of course, not forgetting the hugely memorable opening title sequence from the first season, the passing of time has not in any way, shape or form diminished any of Monkey's spellbinding charm.

As Monkey himself would probably say, 'Oi! You there! Go out and grab yourself some nostalgic fun.' Since the last horrid Astérix film and the fact that we only get the Swiss German version in cinemas, here, I went to watch it with quite a bit of trepidation... Unfounded, as I was happy to discover ^____^

The film is funny and modern, has good gags, a good animation, an amusing character interaction, a good voice cast (Note: I can only speak for the Swiss German one!) except for the Viking chief's daughter Abba (her name is great, despite the not very inspired voice actress)...

I especially liked the character Justforkix (Goudurix in French, Grautvornix in German. He's the young man who is supposed to be put in shape...). He's a very amusing portrayal of a mollycoddled, urban teenager; but he's very likable, despite the teenage mannerisms... XD The interaction between Astérix & Obélix and their young charge is fantastic and thoroughly entertaining.

It shouldn't be compared to the old films, since this one is quite different... Which surprisingly doesn't make it bad. On the contrary. When they tried to modernize the last film (twelve years ago), they completely blew it. This film, however, proved that it can be done just fine... ^-^

I came out of the theater cheerful... Always a good sign ^_~ Attending this film was an excuse to escape the work I had to do for my classes but it turned out to be one of my best experiences here in France. The film makes quick work of building multidimensional characters and has an excellently smooth storyline. The characters really did have the voices you would expect reading the graphic novels and the artistic talent exceeded my expectations The music was catchy and the comedy toying and lighthearted, almost a flinstoneish inclusion of modern items in playful manners. The film was attention grabbing, cute and action packed at the same time. A wonderful tale spun expertly. I'll be showing it to my French students. ... but I laughed. A lot.

I saw 'Astérix et les Vikings' at a public screening during the World Cup. The sound was lousy, it was too bright to see the screen properly - but I still enjoyed myself immensely. The names of some of the characters had me rolling on the floor: Smsix, Abba, Vikea... All not very witty, but in good Astérix tradition. Some very good jokes, but also some that not everybody seemed to get.

The only thing I didn't like were the voices of Astérix and Obélix, in the German version at least. The voice actors are very well-known around here, which was the only reason they were casted, really. They don't fit the characters at all.

All in all, a good way to spend some time (and if it's free, like in my case, all the better) and to have a couple of laughs. 8 out of 10. wow! it's even better than I expected! the best animated Astérix movie ever! and it feels so good to hear Roger Carel doing the voice of Astérix again! I surely recommend it to everyone who likes the comic books of Astérix! but I suggest that you go to see the french version, cause it surely is the best and you hear the original cast! did you know that Roger Carel has played Astérix for nearly forty years? i think he did a marvelous job! and the song from Céline Dion at the end fits rally good to the end credits! the music is good, the drawings are good, the actors are wonderful... in a word: a masterpiece! go to see it! you will not regret this! Having been a faithful Asterix fan all of my life, I have to say that "Asterix and the Vikings" is probably the most well done of all the Asterix films. Its got some very funny jokes in it and the animation is superb. As many people have pointed out, it doesn't really follow the plot of the comic ("Asterix and the Normans") very closely, but in many ways that's just as well, because that book stands out in my mind as one which poked a great deal of fun at the culture of the sixties, and much of it is very dated today.

What really rubbed me the wrong way, though, is how they incorporated a Disney-style plot into the film which took much of the focus away from Asterix and Obelix. We have a misunderstood boy who doesn't fit in, Justforkix. We have a tom-boy girl who doesn't fit in because she wants to be treated as equal to men, Abba. They meet and fall in love, but their love is threatened because boy is ashamed to be totally honest with girl, but in the end their love wins out. This has been the plot of so many Disney (and, be fair, other studios too) films that its not funny and the plot was old twenty years ago. I mean, they even gave Justforkix a whimsical animal sidekick.

Not only did I find this derivative and clichéd, but it really detracted from the story and left me dissatisfied.

I think that it speaks volumes about how superb the rest of the movie was that I still think very highly of it, despite the way the plot got hijacked. After another raid in an empty village, the chief of the Vikings Timandahaf misunderstands the explanation of his adviser Cryptograf that "fear gives wings to the dwellers" and believes that fear actually makes the villagers fly. They decide to chase the champion of fear in Gaul to learn how to fly and make them invincible warriors. Meanwhile, the nephew of Vitalstatistix, Justforkix, is sent from Parisium to the Gaulish village to become a man and Asterix and Obelix are assigned to train the youngster. The stupid son of Cryptograf, Olaf, listens to a conversation of the coward Justforkix with Asterix and Obelix and kidnaps him. While returning to the Viking village, Justforkix meets Abba, the daughter of Timandahaf, and they fall in love for each other. But the Machiavellian and ambitious Cryptograf plan to marry his son Olaf with Abba and become powerful. In the end, Asterix realizes that it is not fear that gives wings, it is love.

When I was a teenager, Asterix was my favorite comic book and I read all the Goscinny and Uderzo stories. This feature film shows all the original elements and humor of the comics in a delicious and wonderful animation. The romance of Justforkix and the gorgeous Abba is delightful and the situations Asterix and Obelix get involved are hilarious. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Astérix e os Vikings" ("Astérix and the Vikings") I was a huge fan of Asterix comics when I was a kid and watched every one. I never heard about this movie when it was released but I watched it with my kids last night. I remembered the comic well enough to know that a lot was added to the story for the film. Some of the changes I thought were a bit corny (like the nephew's 'modern' dancing, and the viking chief's daughter - almost everything about her), but I found most it amusing enough. Most importantly, seeing the reactions as my kids watched it, confirmed that the film pleased its target audience. As a family film it works better than other Asterix titles I've seen. Many of the names that weren't in the book I found had the same appeal as ones that were. Overall, an enjoyable family film, regardless of whether you're an asterix fan or not. Asterix and the Vikings is the first animated asterix movie in over 12 years since the 1994 "Asterix conquers America". It also has the honor of being the first digitally colored asterix animation, which makes the largely entertaining story a lot more breathtaking to behold.

Every scene of this movie is vividly rendered in bright cheerful hues adhering closely to the color schemes of the comic books it was based on. The character designs also stick relatively close to the comic, for better or for worse, preserving the simple but unique look of the characters. Being simple in terms of character design, this allows for more time and effort to be spent on the actual animation, which by the way surpasses many other big screen theatrical animated movies. Character movements are very fluid and possess a quality that looks way beyond what a modest budget would usually produce; there is always something moving in every scene and no evidence of the usual cost cutting animation short cuts. 3D computer images are incorporated seamlessly with the traditionally animated 2D art. If anything, the style of shading makes the 3D elements look more like traditional comic book paintings than CGI models.

The storyline takes much of its elements from the "Asterix and the Normans" comic, and this is where its main flaw lies. As an adaptation of said comic, "Asterix and the Vikings" takes way too many liberties with its source material. Long time fans of the comic would no doubt find much to dislike about the movie's story and its lack of adherence to the source.

On the other hand, one can see this story as a really fun one if taken on its own without comparing it its source material. Highly comedic, well written jokes pepper the upbeat script. The funniest parts were the numerous pop culture references and jibes at modern day 21 century life. Mobile communications, the shopping channel, commercial airlines and even sports cars are spoofed to great effect. Excellent chemistry and acting by the cast (I watched this in English by the way) though a couple of voices like Cacofonix I found really irritating (but I guess it is all part of his character).

If there is anything to criticize about the story, it is the lack of "asterix". This story seems to be more like Justforkix's story of teenage romance and "coming of age" with Asterix and Obelix merely playing supporting roles. This gives a pretty big sense of staleness since much of the story's elements are the usual staples of such teen movies. Derivative and clichéd at times, only the witty comedy and traditional "Astrix" elements (the Romans, the pirates etc) manage to save this film from falling into plain mediocrity.

While not the best installment in the Asterix animated movie library, it is certainly one of the funniest, the best scripted and the most beautifully animated. DVD seems a little hard to come by though………… I don't pretend to be a huge Asterix fan, having only seen one other movie adaption and read only two of the comics, but this was a superb movie, all the same. I only saw the English version, and found the voices to go perfectly with the characters - Brad Garret as Obelix and Sean Astin as Justforkix especially. The story itself was both interesting and truly funny (especially the contradicting name endings - all the viking names end in "af", while all the Gaulish names, of course, end in "ix"), with a little romance thrown in that (I though) enhanced the story, even though it weighed down the overall production with unnecessary clichés.

The plot is this - the Viking chief, Timandahaf, is sick and tired of going to raid villages and then finding them emptied. So, he consults his "wise man", Cryptograf, whose entire repertoire consists of old proverbs, and Cryptograf tells him that "fear lends the villagers wings". Taking this literally, Timandahaf believes that fear actually allows people to fly, and sets out on an expedition to retrieve the "Champion of Fear", an expedition that, of course, leads him to the Gaulish village where Asterix and Obelix live.

The pair are currently very frustrated - Chief Vitalstatistix's cowardly, pacifist nephew, Justforkix, has been entrusted to them so they can train him to be a man, and the boy is making little to no progress. When Justforkix unwittingly confesses to being "afraid of everything" in the presence of the brainless viking Olaf, he is believed to be the "Champion of Fear", and is kidnapped. Asterix and Obelix are sent by Vitalstatistix to go rescue Justforkix before his father returns to the village to bring his son back home.

Ultimately, this is a great movie with few flaws besides the clichés and, at times, defective dialogs. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it wasn't true to the comic. It's a shame that Asterix and his buddy Obelix do not get the world wide recognition that other cartoon comic characters get.

This is another funny Asterix cartoon jammed with entertainment. The animation is excellent and the voice Characterization good, even if the synchronization is a little out. The music and score fit well within the story and the slotting in of some modern musical numbers is a nice touch.

The running time seems short and while it's not the best Asterix story or the most developed cartoon, it's good clean fun. The modern (Disney like) animation will capture children, Asterix fans and new comers... Enjoy the Gaul adventure! As much as I hate to disagree with the original poster, I found Asterix and the Vikings quite good, and a HUGE step above previous attempts at animating everyone's favorite Gaul.

For someone not familiar with the famous comic series, the show would be hard to follow, but for those of us in the know, it's a pleasure to watch.

First and foremost, the animation is far superior to earlier comic adaptations. You can tell they took the time and effort to really recapture the look and feel of the comics this time around.

As mentioned, there are elements of other Asterix titles in the movie and I can see how fans of those titles might feel confused or a bit let down, but I was so caught up in actually seeing one of my favorite childhood comics faithfully represented on the screen, any qualms I had were minor by comparison. Minor spoilers follow...

Asterix and his faithful friend Obelix travel north to rescue the nephew of their village chief, who has been captured by the Vikings. The Vikings think that by the boy teaching them about fear, they will be able to fly, thanks to some poorly worded advice from their village druid. In the process, the boy meets the Viking Chief's daughter Abba and they fall in love, etc etc etc... If my explanation sounds convoluted, don't worry.. The plot is easy to follow! Definitely a great buy.. You can purchase this DVD through Amazon France, but be warned.. Your DVD player probably won't be able to play it. I had to change the region setting on my computer to view it.. For those who have enjoyed the Asterix books and films, you'll LOVE this film! Yes, I will admit that it does mix some of the books and films, but the characters are brilliant and it's not just people showing off their CGI left, right and centre. I've already seen it several times and laughed my socks off at it.

Of course it contains the main heroes Asterix (Astérix), Obelix (Obélix) and Dogmatix (Idéfix), but this time they have someone new to... deal with.

With a sense of humour like that, the Gauls will go on and on and on. Bless 'em. Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role.

"Throw Momma From The Train" is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).

Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled "Hot Fire") and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: "100 Girls I'd Like To Pork."

Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's "star pupil" even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him "lardass" and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but "Throw Momma From The Train" piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.

For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, "swapping murders" as seen in Hitchcock's "Strangers On A Train."

As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)

Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. "You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here." "She's not a woman...She's the Terminator." "One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper." Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.

The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.

Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it. Billy Crystal is Larry, a writer who hasn't written and is suspected of murder in "Throw Momma from the Train," costarring Danny Devito and Anne Ramsey. The phrase "black comedy" was invented for this insanity, which is a take-off on Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." In fact, Owen (Devito) gets the idea of having Larry kill his mother in exchange for Owen killing Larry's ex from watching that famous film. "I saw the movie. Criss-cross," Owen tells Larry. Not that Larry knows what he's talking about until it appears it's too late - just like "Strangers." Larry, a writing teacher, claims that his ex-wife, played by Kate Mulgrew, stole his book and put her name on it. She has become a big celebrity, appearing on "Oprah," where she refers to Larry as "a beast." Owen is in Larry's class. He lives with an abusive Neanderthal mother (Ramsey) and has visions of poisoning her, sticking a scissors in her head - you name it. It's not long after seeing "Strangers on a Train" that he's in Honolulu, stalking Larry's wife. While she's leaning over a boat railing trying to get an earring, Owen stands behind her and creeps up...Soon the police are looking for Larry to question him, but he's at Owen's where he's being encouraged to live up to his end of a bargain he had no idea he made. You know, "criss-cross." There are several scenes copied from "Strangers," which are hilarious. I especially loved Larry's confession to the sleeping Mrs. Lift, Owen's mother, similar to when Guy thinks he's talking to Bruno's stepfather.

Crystal and DeVito are complete masters of comic dialogue and timing and will leave you laughing, often out loud. Ramsey is repulsively funny - a totally "out there" performance. Kim Griest and Rob Reiner also have roles - Griest is Crystal's girlfriend, and Reiner has what amounts to a cameo.

The ending is very clever, and the whole film will leave you laughing. The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches "Strangers on a Train" and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.

"Throw Momma from the Train" is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is "Strangers on a Train", but there are jokes with "Vertigo" (with the spinning camera), "Family Plot" (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Jogue a Mamãe do Trem" ("Throw Momma from the Train") Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) has a crazy life: His wife (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book and left him, he has a new budding romance with a girl named Beth (Kim Greist), he doesn't know how to start his book, and his students of his screen writing class are stranger than most. However, one student (Danny DeVito) is extra strange. He lives with his evil Momma (Anne Ramsey) and he can't get up the courage to kill her. So than he goes to Larry for help, making his life go from normal crazy, to extra crazy!

Stu Silver should have done more! The dialog, the characters, the whole script is near perfect! And Danny DeVito has proved to me he's more than a great actor: he's a great director! His kid's movie Matilda is among my favorite family movies and now this is one of my favorite comedies.

It's a black comedy, most jokes are about murder, but it's damn funny! All of the actors are doing their full potential, whether they're main characters (Billy Crystal) or just one-bit minor characters (Olivia Brown).

If you like comedy (Who doesn't?) than you'll like this! 8/10 stars. A deliciously nasty black comedy about a middle-aged schlub (Danny DeVito) who wants to bump off his mother and hatches a plan to do so with a bitter divorcée, who wants to bump off HIS ex-wife. The movie is completely unapologetic in its cynicism, and gives us no one to like, but for once that works in the movie's favor rather than as a turn off.

Anne Ramsey, as DeVito's battle axe mom, steals the show in a grotesquely funny performance. Even though she's a horror, you end up rooting for her, because it seems like she could kick both DeVito's and Crystal's asses at the same time with both hands tied behind her back.

Grade: B+ If you had a mother that described you like that, you just might be looking to bump her off yourself. It's how Danny DeVito feels about Anne Ramsey, it's just how to put the plan in action.

And his creative writing class taught by Professor Billy Crystal gives him the idea. That and a viewing of Alfred Hitchcock's classic Strangers On A Train which gives DeVito the idea to switch murders with Crystal who hates his wife, Kate Mulgrew, who not only is cheating him out of an idea for a book he wanted to write, but is also carrying on with hunky Tony Ciccone.

Throw Momma From The Train plays out kind of like Strangers On A Train as DeVito seems to have carried out his end of the murder scheme. But Crystal's having a bit of a problem putting Ramsey down even with Danny's help. That woman might need killing, but she's going to take a lot of it.

The only Academy recognition that Throw Momma From The Train got was an Academy Award nomination for Anne Ramsey for Best Supporting Actress. Ramsey lost to Olympia Dukakis for Moonstruck, but the film turned out to be her finest hour. Ramsey already had the throat cancer that would eventually kill her the following year, but look at the list of credits she managed to amass even after Throw Momma From The Train, she worked right up to the end.

I've seen interviews with both of the stars of Throw Momma From The Train, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito, and both have gladly conceded that Anne Ramsey's performance as the mother from hell both made the film the success it was and stole it out from under them. Their acknowledgment of Ramsey's talent and performance is the best possible tribute.

If Marion Lorne in Strangers On A Train had been anything like Anne Ramsey here, Farley Granger would gladly have joined Robert Walker in disposing of her. Throw Momma From A Train is one of the best black comedies out there, should not be missed. Black comedy isn't always an easy sell. Every now and then you get a black comedy that is hugely successful, like Fargo, for example. But usually they don't often find big audiences. People seem to either set their minds for comedy, or for serious mayhem. There doesn't seem to be a big market for a good mixture of both. Throw Momma From the Train was a fairly decent hit, yet few people seem to remember much about it in this day and age. Danny DeVito just about hit this one all the way out of the park back in 1987.

DeVito plays an odd mamma's boy named Owen looking to rid himself of his outrageously overbearing and unpleasant mother whom he still lives with. The mother is played by Anne Ramsey, who passed away shortly after this was released, and she is quite a caricature. She is loud, ugly, rude, and overbearing. Though Owen hardly seems like he could take care of himself, he wants desperately to have his mother offed. He fantasizes about it in some truly weird scenes, but he clearly doesn't have the guts to actually do it himself. That's where Billy Crystal comes in. Crystal plays Larry Donner, Owen's creative writing teacher at a nearby community college. Larry is a paranoid would-be intellectual novelist who claims his ex-wife stole his novel and made millions off it. He is currently trying to write a new one, but cannot even come up with a decent first sentence. "The night was...." Owen hears Larry wish his ex-wife were dead during an outburst at the school cafeteria. And borrowing the idea from Strangers on a Train, Owen decides to travel to Hawai'i and murder Larry's ex-wife. Once it appears he has done so, he expects Larry to return the favor and kill his mother. The resulting action is often quite funny, and even poignant. It's certainly never dull and often full of surprises.

The acting is exceptional, even if Ramsey was a bit over the top. Crystal is as good as he can be, and DeVito has always been undervalued as a performer. The film relies on quite a bit of physical comedy which usually works, often painfully so. The film makes use of some truly innovative editing techniques in some scenes, and the off-beat tone is truly refreshing. I have often been critical of the late 1980s as being a time of artistic malaise and down right lazy film-making. Throw Momma From the Train takes chances. Both in how its characters are drawn as well as its general plot. How many comedies revolve around a son having his mother murdered? The film isn't too long, and it is chock full of laughs. Writers are apt to find it more interesting than the general public, but it can still be enjoyed by just about anyone. 9 of 10 stars.

The Hound. We're living in sad times today, in which it seems like every comedy movie and TV show is painfully unfunny and inflicted with cheap, crude, or poor humor. Most people don't know what it means to really laugh at a comedy, and these people desperately need to watch "Throw Momma From the Train." I say with little hesitation that this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, from beginning to end. The comedy is so unpredictable and twisted just enough to make us laugh out loud many times throughout. Don't be fooled by the murder plot. The plot is not serious enough to make us care or worry about what's going to happen. The story involves a young man (Danny DeVito) who wants to get rid of his annoying, grouchy mother (Anne Ramsey, nominated for an Oscar in a role that was completely flawless, in my opinion) and does so by killing off Billy Crystal's wife, whom Crystal wanted dead for stealing his novel. I don't want to spoil the jokes and gags in this film, but all I can say is that you must see this film if you want to laugh. Fast-paced and genuinely, a real treat to comedy lovers, and the type of film you just do not see today.

***1/2 out of **** Inspired by Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN concept of two men swapping murders in exchange for getting rid of the two people messing up their lives, THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN is an original and very inventive comedy take on the idea. It's a credit to Danny DeVito that he both wrote and starred in this minor comedy gem.

ANNE RAMSEY is the mother who inspires the film's title and it's understandable why she gets under the skin of DANNY DeVITO with her sharp tongue and relentlessly putting him down for any minor infraction. BILLY CRYSTAL is the writer who's wife has stolen his book idea and is now being lionized as a great new author, even appearing on the Oprah show to bask in adulation he should be enjoying. Thus, DeVito gets the idea of swapping murders to rid themselves of these nuisance factors.

Of course, everything and anything can happen when writer Carl Reiner lets his imagination roam with unending ideas for how the plot develops. And it's amusing all the way through, providing plenty of laughs and chuckles along the way, as well as a good deal of suspense.

For devotees of black comedy, this one is guaranteed to please. When I watched this movie when I was a kid I didn't understand the premise of Hitchcock movies, and dark comedy. Now that I'm in my mid 20's it makes a lot more sense.

I think the reason I like this movie so much is that the comedy duo of Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito make for some interesting comedy, both slapstick (the frying pan and car scenes) and verbal (the arguments/conversations over murder and writing).

The story revolves around Larry Donner(Crystal), a struggling writer who has his masterpiece stolen from him by his wife Margaret (played by a surprisingly radiant Kate Mulgrew, aka Capt. Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager).

While he shifts between writer's block and teaching creative writing class, he meets with student Owen Lifts(DeVito), an aspiring writer and overgrown mama's boy who sadly still acts like a kid. He has toy train tracks, need I say more? Think of Failure to Launch, only Matt McConaughey is short, fat, and bald.

Owen is stuck in his own life, with a demanding evil mother(Anne Ramsey) who he can't stand. He seeks Larry's advice on how to get out of it, and when he says to go see a Hitchcock film Owen gets the wrong idea that if he kills Larry's wife, he'll return the favor and kill his mom for him. Hilarity ensues while the two try to deal with each other's problem. Owen goes to extremes to kill Margaret while Larry, who refuses to agree to do his "part of the plan", is driven nuts by Owen's mother.

Throughout the film, Larry and Owen slowly but surely form a bond of friendship that is rare in dark comedy nowadays. One part of the movie I really loved was where Owen shows Larry his coin collection, and lets just say its more a sentimental collection than anything.

The two main stars aside, the late Anne Ramsey is hilarious as Mama, and deadly with that cane of hers. She's a lot more comedic verbally and physically in this as opposed to her role as Mama Fratelli from The Goonies. So she curses like a sailor and belittles her son at every turn, but thats what makes her character so vivid. She makes her character the kind of person you love to hate.

Another treat in this movie is the music of jazz great Brandford Marsalis, who plays Larry's neighbor and friend Lester. There is a great moment in the movie where he plays jazz for Larry, who is depressed and needs some good tunes to relieve the pain. Jazz can do that.

In closing, I wish Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito would do another good movie together, but their kinda getting too old for the game I'm sad to say. This is one of those rare movies where both stars shine in their own subtle ways. DeVito's childish comedy and Crystal's sharp wit made this movie for me. 5 star comedy. Had it with the one who raised you since when you were young? You just want her gone from your life? That woman is your mother. You should respect her, you should honor her, whether she's in sick or well. But that in times, it can be aggravating. Especially when she becomes very overbearing. That's how Owen(Danny DeVito) had to deal with in "Throw Momma Fron The Train". His Momma(Anne Ramsey, 1929-88), is one of the worst. He trying his best to be a writer, and she is everything but grateful. Calls him a "clumsy poop", a "larda$$", and "fat" and "stupid". For his friend, Larry Donner(Billy Crystal) he has his own woman problems, his ex-wife. She trying to discredit him. So what did Owen do? Push her overboard. What does he do? Help return the favor, get rid of Mrs. Lift! In the kitchen scene, I liked it where Owen called Larry, "Cousin Patty". And Momma said, "You don't have a Cousin Patty!" and Owen shouts "You Lied To Me!" and El Cabongs Larry with the frying pan. Then comes the fun part when they where on the train and try to kill Momma Lift. That is thwarted, and she kicks Larry off the train. Well, everything back to normal, the ex-wife lives, but Momma kicked the bucket on her own. Maybe she should have seen the errors of her domineering ways. A fun movie it is, and the cast is great. A classic! 5 stars! stars: Danny Devito, Billy Crystal, Anne Ramsey, Kim Griest, Kate Mulgrew, Oprah Winfrey and Rob Reiner.

After college class, teacher Larry (Crystal) wants his ex-wife dead and Owen (Devito) wants his momma (Ramsey) dead. When Larry brings up that he wants his wife dead, Owen knows what he must do for him, in order for a favor in return, for Larry to kill his mother. Devito is absolutely hilarious in this as the brain dead wannabe writer that has daydreams of poisoning his mom and sticking scissors through her head. He has a child like role that makes him seem more of a confused man than a killer. Ramesy was actually nominated for an Academy Award for this because of her wonderful performance as mean old Mrs. Lift. Along with having comedy, the film also has heart. One scene between Devito and Crystal starts off seemingly as a joke, but goes deeper, actually making me slightly sad. Danny Devito directed the film and did a good job getting the dark tone in to his direction. For any fan of comedies I recommend this.

My rating: B plus. 84 mins. PG-13 for Language, Sexuality and Violence. This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses. A picture starring Danny Devito and Billy Crystal. They are both famous actors, and in this charming comedy entails them trying to murder each other's pet peeve. Billy Crystal's pet peeve being his ex wife who stole his book and put her name on it, and Danny Devito's pet peeve being his malignant mother. Billy Crystal is an author and a teacher apparently and Danny Devito is one of his students. This comedy classic is very entertaining and for all ages.

Danny Devito seems to act like a child in this movie because of his evil mother who keeps putting him down all the time. She says things like "You have no friends!" and when Billy Crystal fell down, she said "Burry him before he stinks up the basement!". She puts down Danny also by calling him "Lard ass!" and other things just to make him angry. I am surprised people, after such lousy movies getting to be in the top 250 or just being in the 7.0's, I thought more people would get a kick out of "Throw Momma from the Train". This was a great comedy by two terrific comedic actors, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Together they made a great duo of insanity and obsession. Billy is a man who just lost his million dollar story to his ex wife and repeatedly wishes her dead, Danny has an insane and senile old mother who just abuses him. When Billy gives some "misunderstood" advice to Danny, Danny offers a proposition to Billy, if he kills his ex wife, Billy has to kill his mother. This is a crazy and funny story that can always get a good laugh. Please, sit back and enjoy this movie, people! It's a good one!

7/10 Now, Throw Momma from the Train was not a great comedy, but it is a load of fun and makes you laugh. The title may seem a little strange, but the entire movie isn't literally about that, although it is about something just as sinister.

Danny De Vito basically wants to kill his overbearing mother, and fast forward a little bit, some random and funny events take place. The premise is quite funny, and the things that Billy Crystal and Danny De Vito get into were great. Some of the scenes seemed to not fit in for me, but this didn't make it a bad movie.

For what it is, a wacky comedy, it pulls it off well and should be seen once just to say you saw it. This movie was one of the rolling on the floor laughing movies I have ever seen. Danny De Vito plays Owen perfectly. Momma is excellently portrayed, and was one of the highlights of the movie.

At the beginning of the movie it starts of differently then what you would expect. Larry is trying to write a book and is having some troubles. Larry teaches a writing class and Owen tagged after Larry trying to get him to read his story. Owen eventually asks Larry to kill his mother, and in return Owen would kill Larry's ex-wife. The whole movie was really hilarious.

One of my favorite parts of the movie is at the end when Owen writes "Throw Momma from the Train". Larry gets furious because he just wrote a book of similar plot. It turns out that Owen wrote a children's pop-up book.

I would really recommend this movie. I gave it a 10. The one thing I really can't seem to forget about this movie, is its beginning: classic comedy, brilliantly crafted. I love it. See it for yourself (no spoilers here! :-). The sparring between DeVito and Crystal also glows in this movie, with DeVito as the perfect oppressed son. One of my favourites. Highly recommended for fans of Crystal. Just thinking about the movie, i laugh to myself. Anne Ramsey plays an unforgettable part as 'Momma,' probably the most nasty, yet hilarious matriarch ever captured on film. Danny Devito and Billy Crystal make a fabulous duo, bringing a true warmth to the film. Though not exceedingly complex, the cute story holds your attention, and keeps you laughing the whole way through. It's a fun comedy to lighten things up, and even will entertain the kids. I give it my full recommendation. This movie is extremely funny - the character of momma keeps me returning to the movie time and time again! I can't get enough of her dry lines ... like when she tells her son Owen to bury his friend in the back yard before he smells up the place ... and her suspicion that Owen is trying to kill her by giving her unsalted nuts! It's hilarious!

If you like movies such as National Lampoon's Vacation, Uncle Buck, or Planes, Trains & Automobiles, this has similar humor. It's a great, wholesome laugh ... a must see! You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good! In a really neat spin on Hitchcock, Larry (Billy Crystal) and Owen (Danny DeVito) lead unpleasant lives: Larry's ex-wife has gotten rich by publishing a book that he wrote, and Owen has the most overbearing mother imaginable. When Larry tells Owen to calm down by watching "Strangers on a Train", Owen gets the idea that they should do criss-cross murders like in the movie. And just like in the movie, Larry thinks that it's a joke, but Owen's serious.

How they came up with the idea for "Throw Momma from the Train" I'll never know, but it's a hilarious movie. There isn't a dull moment in it. And that ending was a hoot. Crystal and DeVito are at their best, and Anne Ramsey is as much of a hag here as she was in "The Goonies". A modern classic. I thought that the interplay between Crystal and DeVito was great. The movie is rather off the wall, but there are some unforgettable lines. Ramsey as "Momma" is vulgar and over the top, but also very funny and effective. The character HAS to be pretty awful for why else would someone entertain thoughts of killing his mother? Now Crystal's wife -- she is a "slut" whom everyone would like to receive her comeuppance, thus her role, though minor, is also effective, because it has to justify Crystal's ridiculous case of "writer's block." While there are certainly dark moments, the movie is not depressing and, despite the murderous urges that the protagonists feel, they have redeeming qualities too.

Overall, this is one of the funniest movies I can remember, one that I don't mind watching over several times. This movie sat in a dusty stack of videos in my house for ages before we watched it. We knew it was there- every time someone wanted to watch a movie, it was suggested. It almost became a joke... "I know, let's watch Throw Momma from the Train"... I don't know why it was always turned down, it just was. Little did we know what we were missing out on. It still befalls me why it took us so long...I mean it stars Danny DeVito, Billy Crystal, and Ann Ramsy (who we referred to as "The Lady from the Goonies"), an all star cast that should have appealed to everyone in my household. But there it sat for nearly ten years. Until one day it was suggested and we could turn it down no longer....

It was like finding King Tut's tomb...

No movie has ever made me laugh so hard, and I doubt any movie ever will. I had to rewind for almost every line because I was still laughing at the line that came before it, and lost ability to hear or pay attention. Not just simple laughing, either... the kind of laughing that expends more energy than running ten miles in the cold. The kind of laughing that you cannot control, that causes rolling around and spasms, and tears and snot running down your face because it's just that freakin funny. Once I learned the movie by heart I will say this effect has lessened, but I don't think I will get tired of watching it and finding new quirks in it to appreciate. I think that's all I can say. I would recommend this movie to anyone, but if you don't enjoy it please don't let me know, I will probably be offended. I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?

I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v

There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.

Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.

Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.

And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.

Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film. "Throw Momma From the Train" is a simple dark comedy with lots of laughs.

Billy Crystal plays a frustrated writer on the verge of collapse; Danny DeVito plays a man in one of Crystal's writing classes. Crystal's ex-wife is a *hag* to put it nicely, and Crystal hates her. DeVito, sensing this, offers Crystal a deal one night: DeVito will kill Crystal's wife, if Crystal kills DeVito's nag of a mother. Crystal does, of course, refuse, but later, corruption deep in his heart makes him say yes. And so as things play out we see what happens when you try to throw someone's momma from a moving train.

This story is an interesting character study; a story of evil, greed, revenge, ego, trust, doing what's right, but most of all corruption. We see Crystal's white-collar writer become ever-stressed with events colliding around him, and because of DeVito's constant nagging, he says "yes." But we know deep down in his subconscious he wanted to say "yes," and he's pleased that he said it to DeVito.

This movie is a bit of a dark spoof on Hitchcock's immortal film "Strangers on a Train," and it plays an homage to the film early on, when there is a theater playing "Strangers on a Train." We see DeVito watching the movie, and a lightbulb in his head pops on. He gets an idea. Throw Momma from the train!

Billy Crystal gives another convincing and strangely comical performance as a hassled writer on the verge of collapse. He has been so beaten down by everything around him that his inner-emotions come out and he agrees to throw DeVito's momma from the train.

Danny DeVito directed this film excellently. He uses just the right touch of comic darkness to create a world of corruption and sickness. Everything is demented, but not to an extreme like in some other dark comedies. It has just the right touch of darkness that shone through in "The War of the Roses."

Not only is "Throw Momma From the Train" a simple tale of corruption and morality, but is also an interesting character study. Definitely worth catching on TV.

3.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer This was very funny, even if it fell apart a little at the end. Does not go overboard with homage after to Hitchcock - Owen (Danny DeVito) was lucky he had "Strangers on A Train" playing at the local cinema, so the movie flat out tells you that that was the inspiration.

DeVito is very funny but also a little sad. He has no friends and all he wants to do is write and have someone like his writing. His teacher, Billy Crystal, is going through some serious writers block of his own and his wife has stolen his book and made it her own success, which also has him frustrated a great deal.

Best parts are the book proposal by Mr. Pinsky ("One Hundred Girls I'd Like to Pork") and all scenes with Anne Ramsey, who is so horrible that even Mother Theresa would have wanted to kill her, too! Throw Momma hasn't dated at all, it's as funny now as when it was released. A genuinely eccentric comedy, that doesn't try too hard to be liked and is all the better for it, full of memorable laugh out loud lines. Even small characters are well written and beautifully played, like Billy Crystal's best friend's girlfriend, and a lovely cameo from Rob Reiner as Crystal's agent. A little bit insane and a lot funny. "I know I'm human. And if you were all these things, then you'd just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it's won."

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of the most entertaining horror films ever made – fast, clever and purely exciting from start to finish. This is how all movies of the genre should be made.

Taking place in the Antarctic in 1982, the movie focuses specifically on a group of American scientists. We are given no introduction to their mission, but are thrust into their existence when a pair of seemingly crazy Norwegians appears at their base camp, chasing an escaped dog. The Norwegians are killed, and the dog finds its way into the colony, which is when things really start to get crazy.

It is soon made quite clear that the "dog" is actually a shape-shifting alien organism, which manifests itself upon the physical form of its victims – in other words, it begins to eat the Americans, and imitate them so well that the remaining humans cannot discern the difference between their friends and enemies

The pack of scientists, led by MacReady (Kurt Russell), begin to fight for their own survival, using wits instead of brawn. If the Thing is indeed amongst them, then how are they to go about revealing it? How many Things are there? How can the Thing be killed? (Or can it be destroyed at all?)

The creature's origins in the film are explained easily: Thirty thousand years ago a spacecraft plummeted to Earth, and was frozen in the Antarctic ice. The Thing tried to escape, and was discovered in the ice by the Norwegians, who unknowingly released it from its natural prison.

"The Thing," the movie itself, is similar to Ridley Scott's iconic "Alien" (1979). Many comparisons have been made – the protagonists are stranded in a desolate area, stalked by a seldom seen foe that manages to kill them off one-by-one. However, "The Thing" – for all practical purposes – came first.

Based on the famous short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr. (writing under pseudonym as Don A. Stuart), the film was originally adapted as a feature production in 1951 by Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby. The result was "The Thing From Another World," an unarguable classic. But to be fair, it bore little resemblance to the short story, and Carpenter's remake does it more justice.

The idea of the Thing being able to adapt the physicality of anyone is what essentially makes this movie so great, and is the most vital link to the short story. In 1951 the special effects were simply too poor to reasonably portray the shape-shifting organism, but thirty-one years brought many advances in SFX.

Creature effects artist Rob Bottin does an excellent job of turning what could have easily become a cheesy gore-fest into a startlingly frightening (and realistic) mess of blood and fear. The Thing, although never actually taking one specific form, is constantly seen in a morphing stage, and the effects are simply superb. They still pack a punch twenty-two years later.

Ennio Morricone's score (nominated for a Razzie Award at the time) is a bit too electronic and tinny, but nevertheless haunting when used correctly.

From the fact that its cast consists entirely of males, to the fact that its ending is one of the most thought-provoking and untypical conclusions of all time, "The Thing" – by any standards – is unconventional Hollywood at its best. It comes as no surprise that, at the time of its release, "The Thing" performed poorly in theaters, and "E.T." – released the same year and featuring a much kinder alien – became the higher-grossing picture of the two (by far).

In the long run, however, "The Thing" is superior in almost every conceivable way. Spielberg's tale is outdated and flopped during its 20th Anniversary Re-Release. "The Thing," on the other hand, has gradually climbed a ladder of cult classics – it is one of the most famous non-famous movies ever made.

Carpenter is notorious for having a very uneven career – from his amazing "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) to the magnificent "Halloween" (1978) to the disappointing and silly "Escape from L.A." (1996), "The Thing" remains his very best motion picture. Although its reputation over the years has never been honorary enough to land it a spot on most "great movies" lists, "The Thing" is still one of my favorite horror films, and – upon close inspection – masterfully crafted. It is a daring and ingenious thrill-ride that is simultaneously unique and chilling – a genuine relief for film buffs who are tired of the same old horror knock-offs. This one, at the very least, is genuinely unpredictable. I am ashamed to say it, but I have to admit, the first time I saw this film was only about a year ago. After seeing it, I immediately rushed out and bought the DVD collectors' edition and have watched it many times since.

The film is terrific on many levels. It works as your straight monster or action type film, as a horror/sci-fi and also as a very intriguing look into the human psyche. The incredible sense of paranoia, mistrust and fear, lent not only by Carpenter's direction (which is stunning) but also by the incredible acting of the cast in general. Kurt Russell (obviously) is spectacularly understated in the lead role of MacReady, and, as a direct result he "feels" like a real person, rather than a hollywood "all american hero". The other cast members all carry off their roles with style, and the net result is an intensely believable atmosphere, and a truly fantastic film. This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.

Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?

The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.

This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it. John Carpenter's The Thing is hands down the best horror film ever made. Not only that, but it is also on of my personal favorite films of all time. What makes the movie so great? It's hard to put my finger on it. Everything just seems to work in The Thing, it's one of the rare occasions where everything just seems to fall in place. The film is even superior to Alien in creating a type of moody atmospheric hell. The fact that it's not only about the gore (which is wonderful btw), but it is able to create a paranoia that is unmatched in films. A truly wonderful film that is worshiped by all horror buffs, and anyone who has good taste in films. Antarctica, winter 1982. The team on an American research base get surprised by a couple of mad Norwegians who is chasing a dog with a helicopter, trying to kill it. All the Norwegians are killed and the Americans are left with nothing, but a dog, a couple of bodies and questions. That's the beginning of the greatest horror/thriller film I've ever seen.

From the very beginning all to the end you feel the tense, paranoid mood. Helpless and alone out in no-mans land. Ennio Morricone was nominated for a Razzie Award for his score. Why I don't know 'cause as far as I can see his score is simple, creepy and very good. It really gets you in the right mood.

The acting is great! The best performance is probably given by the dog who's just amazing. As for Russell and the others on two legs I can say nothing less.

You may think 1982 and special effects are not the most impressive? Well, think again! You haven't seen it all until you've seen this. Bodyparts falling off and creatures changing forms... Rob Bottin has done a great job witch today stands as a milestone is special effects makeup.

The movie didn't get a big response when it first hit the big screen due to other alien films at the time and so it's not very well known. In fact you can almost consider it an unknown movie. Nobody I've asked have heard of it. However the movie has managed to survive for over twenty years as a cult film on video and DVD. Twenty years is a long time and except for the haircut the movie is still pretty much up to date. This movie is to be considered a classic.

The movie is without doubt one of my, if not my favorite. I've seen it several times, but it's just as good as the first time I saw it. As a Norwegian the only thing I don't like about this movie is that MacReady keeps calling the Norwegians swedes! Many people has got a film they think of as their favourite movie. My movie will always be John Carpenter's The Thing! The main reason why this movie is a cult-film is perhaps the splatter-effects created mainly by genius Rob Bottin and that this is the movie that made Kurt Russell what he is today (along with Escape from N.Y.) In my opinion, this is not a great film because of the effects, it has to do with the story, the atmosphere, and of course, the acting. I have watched thousands and thousands of movies (3-6 every day the last 10 years), but none has had the impact on me as this one, not even the great "Das Boot".

Here's my suggestion to you who likes sci-fi and horror movies: Place yourself in the good chair of your home. Be sure you're not interupted by anyone. If you aint got a projector, sit close to your TV and watch this miracle of a film. Let it absorbe you, and you'll see it my way!

Best View Time: Late February between 5 and 9 in the evening. Remake of the classic 1951 "The Thing From Another World". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?

The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette "Who Goes There?") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!

It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.

This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with "E.T." and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!

An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up! John Carpenter shows how much he loves the 1951 original by giving it the utmost respect that he possibly could, the only difference here is that Carpenter chooses to stick to the paranoiac core of John W Campbell Jr's short story. The secret to this version's success is the unbearable tension that builds up as the group of men become suspicious of each other, the strain of literally waiting to be taken over takes a fearful hold. Carpenter manages to deliver the shocks as well as the mystery needed to keep the film heading in the right direction. Be it an horrific scene or a "what is in the shadow" sequence, the film to me is a perfect fusion of horror and sci-fi. The dialogue is spot on for a group of men trying to keep it together under duress, and Carpenter's score is a wonderful eerie pulse beat that further racks up the sense of doom and paranoia seaming thru the film. The cast are superb, a solid assembly of actors led by Carpenter fave Kurt Russell, whilst the effects used give the right amount of impact needed. But most of all it's the ending that is the crowning glory, an ending that doesn't pander to the norm and is incredibly fitting for what has gone on before it, lets wait and see what happens indeed, 10/10. The Thing has to be one of the all time great movies. Of course it was ground breaking special effects at the time of it's release that impressed me so much, back in 1982 it just blew my mind, I'd never seen anything like that! However, although the effects themselves made the movie more horrific, it was the story itself, the music score , the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Anarctic as well as the interaction and tension between the members of the doomed research station that makes it a classic.

Movies don't get any better than this! In the opening scene with the the chopper chasing this husky you just assume that it was some bored scientists from some station letting of some steam. Yet when you see them continue their chase at the US base you then think that the Norwegians are suffering from some form of advanced or extreme strain of cabin fever. Yet this is offset by the menacing opening music score that sets the tempo! You just know that something is not right! At this point it's a mystery until 'the thing' reveals itself.

However, the mystery returns because it becomes a sort of Agatha Christie "who dunnit" ( i.e. ten little Indians movie) sci-fi style as the members don't know which one of their team is really an alien. Suspicion continues to go back and forward between them all as one by one they eventually get knocked off or revealed as the alien. The mistrust between the station crew is absorbing as the movie progresses until the final showdown.

After 20 years of advances in computer graphics and film making production the special effects in "the Thing" don't carry the same weight as it did in 1982, but other than that it holds up very well all round with some great performances by the cast. The silly saying, "You can't touch this" surely applies here. With all the clone horror and sci-fi films coming out, along with all the inferior remakes, it's hard to find anything worthy of 2 hours of your time. That's why I always rely on the classics that scared the weewee out of me when I was a pre-teen.

THE THING is, without an ounce of doubt in my mind, the goriest, ickiest, screechiest sci-fi horror classic that John Carpenter, or any other director (sorry, even you Mr. Spielberg) ever made. What really gives it power, though, is not the gore (it OOOOOZES of slime and blood and God knows what other fluids), but rather the sense of dread, isolation, and distrust it fosters in the characters and the viewer.

You can't get more remote than Antarctica, and in this howling, freezing white setting is where the story takes place. Several Americans, researchers and military men, are stationed there. One day, they witness a Siberian Husky dog running for dear life from gun-wielding Norwegians. Before they know it, the American outpost is battling a mysterious creature that can imitate any creature it wants. It may morph into disgusting slimy bloody shapes before it's finished, but once it's finished, if you didn't see it in progress, you can't tell it among humans or other normal Earth animals.

Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley, Richard Masur, Donald Moffatt, TK Carter, Thomas Waites and Charles Hallahan are just a few of the fine cast. This film is the reason why horror CAN be a great genre. It actually STILL scares me. The alien blood "jumping" out of the petri dish when the hot wire touches it still makes ME jump!!!

Still the scariest of them all. In following the lines of the classic formula to a point of taking another leap off from the material, The Thing remake becomes one of the coolest remakes of its time. John Carpenter fashions out of what must've been a fairly vague screenplay about certain things (or maybe very descriptive who knows), bringing forth incredibly wretched, brilliant puppetry and animatronics by Rob Bartin (with Stan Winston also on the team). These effects help set the tone against the harsh, detached environment Carpenter sets up with his characters. The film takes the story of a group stationed in a research bunker in the middle of an arctic climate, pitted against a malevolent force that takes the shapes of others. It's given a full life by Carpenter's choice of tones, and surprises. For someone following in the footsteps of Howard Hawks, the filmmaker here has a lot more trust and talent in executing the material than most given the chance to have another go with an old film.

With the effects people working to full force- amid what would likely follow Backdraft as containing the most fire per scene (it could become overkill, but it all fits into the suspense after a while)- the actors pull along as a fine ensemble. Unlike the squad in Predator, these are mostly just regular working guys, with the leader coming in the from of Kurt Russell's MacCreedy (very good role for his style, excellent in fact). Juicy supporting roles are out for grabs for the likes of Wilford Brimley and Keith David. And it is refreshing to see how the sort of absurdity of what's going on in the film (an alien that starts off with dogs and then moves onto the others in gory, demented transforming form) is pit against such a tone of timing with everyone. I loved the long silences at times, with Ennio Morricone's spooky, curious music in the background (and that bass line is of merit in itself).

It ranks up with being, if nothing else, delivering what it strives for for its genre/cult audience. It remains one of Carpenter's best; a rare breed of horror film where the story is told clear and precisely by way of the position of the camera, dialog, and timing with the scenes. That's not to say the film isn't chock full of violence, it is, and in fact a couple of times it's almost funny. But given that it goes back to what is ridiculously seeming like a by-gone era, the creatures/make-up, alongside the steady, well-calculated script, was done completely without CGI. It's disgusting, but it's real, and atmospheric to a T. In 1982, two films were released within weeks of each other that were both about aliens. Steven Spielberg's ET, and John Carpenter's The Thing. Of the two of them, ET was the one that won the hearts of people the world over, even though The Thing debuted first. Because people were so entranced with Spielberg's warm, fuzzy feelgood alien fable, they stayed away from The Thing in droves.

Its not hard to see why. The two are diametrically opposed. One is an optimistic tale designed to warm the cockles of the still-beating heart. The other is a harsh, uncompromising film that paints alien life as something purely determined to destroy us. I guess audiences felt ET was a much cuter prospect than The Thing's tentacles and slime coated saliva!

It's taken some time, but The Thing has gone on to win over a substantial cult audience. As it should. Because The Thing is that rare example of a superior remake. It takes all the best qualities of the 1951 classic, and reinvents them in startling and imaginative ways. Indeed Carpenter does his job so well he actually succeeds in making a film that is in every inch the equal of the genre's showrunner, Alien. And that's even rarer!

Carpenter's film follows its source material more faithfully than The Thing From Another World did. It keeps the frigid wastes of Antarctica as a setting, because its the perfect backdrop when you're trying to establish a heightened sense of isolation. But although a bit thin on characterisation, the remake gets right inside the mindset of the actors, and amplifies the uncertainty and fear that slowly surrounds them.

Frequent Carpenter collaborator Kurt Russell returns, hot off the success of Escape From New York, cast once again as one of Carpenter's perpetual anti-heroes. He plays MacReady, the helicopter pilot at an Antarctic research station (what they're researching is anyone's guess). The trouble begins when a Norwegian chopper from a nearby station flies over MacReady's, trying to gun down a Siberian Husky from the air.

They end up dying for their troubles, and while the camp tries to solve the mystery of what happened, they take in the Husky and add it to their own. Except that this Husky, is not a Husky at all. But a shape-changing alien. The Norwegians discovered it frozen in the ice, and when they thawed it out, it massacred their crew. Capable of absorbing its victims at will, it can duplicate a living being right down to the smallest detail. Soon paranoia and suspicion works its way through the 12-man crew, until no-one is certain who is human and who is not.

The Thing is one of John Carpenter's finest films. In fact I'm tempted to say its the best film he's ever made. Even surpassing classics like Halloween and Dark Star. The reason why I place The Thing at the top of Carpenter's list is that it feels like the last film of his that could truly be called a classic. All the others thereafter have felt like Carpenter was slumming it. Films that didn't flow with the cool sophistication and ragged intensity so prevalent in his earlier works.

But The Thing had John Carpenter at the peak of his powers. Never has he generated suspense to such an unbearable degree. Not even in the ferocious Assault on Precinct 13. From the second the alien makes its presence known, Carpenter ratchets up the tension level relentlessly. And when he delivers his punches, they come with an agonising jolt.

The film is a blend of pure atmospherics and visceral horror. An approach that can often seem at odds with one another, but in Carpenter's hands melds together beautifully. Bringing in Rob Bottin of The Howling fame, he lays to bear some of the most astonishing transformation effects you'll ever see in a horror film. Amorphous shapes. Half-formed human features starkly contrasted with gaping jaws, spider legs and fully flexible tentacles. Indeed the film's effects are so amazing and squirm-inducing, The Thing came under fire for being too realistic!

That type of thinking misses the point entirely. It only shortchanges the film's values. And there are many. Carpenter only stages an effects setpiece when he needs to. Its in the film's quieter moments where he seems especially attuned to the story. The Thing is an often bewildering tale of shadows, whispers and implications. Characterisation has never been one of John Carpenter's strong suits, but it works to his advantage in The Thing. Because we hardly know anything about the cast, it only makes the present situation that much more confusing. We're never certain, from one moment to the next who is who. And because of this, The Thing holds up very well and maintains its mystery on subsequent viewings.

A special mention should go to the excellent film score from Ennio Morricone. A pulsing thud thud every two seconds. It creates an eerie, spooky feeling that is very hard to shake. The whole film is a wonderful exercise in paranoid manipulation. The scene where they blood-test each other to see who's human is wound up with such dexterity by Carpenter, you may find yourself biting your nails without even realising.

The Thing is a pure unadulterated classic. Even the ending leaves you with the vague suspicion that not everything is resolved. An underrated film, well worth the reappraisal it received. And so much better than ET! The Thing is a milestone in movie-making and remains one of my favourite films of all-time. Despite the film's roots in science-fiction it is ultimately a horror film that brilliantly balances splatter with psychological trauma. Today, Over twenty five years after its release, the special effects stand up as an example of sheer brilliance and effects man Rob Bottin suffered a complete physical breakdown for his art. It would be impossible to make the same movie today as the Studio would most certainly insist on casting a female character or a Paul-Walker type.

An all-male American Science team in Antarctica are thrown into turmoil when an alien lifeform able to perfectly absorb and imitate other lifeforms infiltrates their camp. Their trust in each other steadily crumbles as they become increasingly unsure who is real and who is an imitation, and this 'body-snatchers' scenario sees their numbers steadily dwindle as one-by-one, they fall victim to The Thing. When cornered, it manifests itself as a different nightmarish creature, the metamorphosis always horrific and compelling.

The helplessness, isolation and claustrophobia of a team of desperate men with no way out of their situation and no way of help reaching them is expertly sustained. The long hours of darkness and the mounting snowfall provide a bleak backdrop to the terror that unfolds. Director John Carpenter selected with great care a team of brilliant character-actors and each member of the team fits perfectly into the part they play, whether it be the young and street-wise chef, the elderly and wise Doctor or the bitter and cynical helicopter pilot. The point is that no-one here comes close to being an all-American badass superhero with blonde locks and a six-pack and the film's real strength is thanks in no small part to this stark realism. The people suffering on-screen are recognisable in our daily lives.

The Thing remains consistently enjoyable and affecting even after repeated viewings. I have now seen the film on more than twenty separate occasions and my amazement at the quality of the direction, the acting and the special effects is unwavering. My girlfriend prefers the high-school spin-off of the film -The Faculty- which is good and solid entertainment but far more light-hearted and whistful. She still loves and acknowledges the brilliance of The Thing however, and thank goodness for that... Because I could not remain in the company of someone who didn't love this movie.

A classic and then some. When in 1982, "The Thing" came out to theaters everywhere, it had a cold reception and very poor box-office results, becoming almost a failure in John Carpenter's career as a horror director; however, time has proved that "The Thing" was definitely not a failed project and that the disappointing commercial results were not the film's fault. Nowadays, John Carpenter's "The Thing" has gained the appreciation it rightfully deserves and is considered by many horror fans as a horror classic, and not without a reason, as this new version of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s story "Who Goes There?" (previously adapted as "The Thing From Another World") is closer to the original tale and keeps a pessimistic feeling of dread and high doses of suspense in a masterfully crafted study about paranoia.

The plot of "The Thing", begins in the winter of 1982 in a U.S. research station located in the remote territories of Antarctica, when the members of the crew notice a Norwegian helicopter coming their way. The two apparently insane pilots of the helicopter are trying to kill a Husky dog who makes its way into the American base. After the Norwegians are killed accidentally, the Americans try to figure out what made them to be insane. Soon they'll discover that the Husky dog the Norwegians were hunting was not a normal dog, but a creature able to mimic every living creature, and not only that, it has a tremendous hunger.

Director John Carpenter earned a place in history when in 1978 he directed the seminal slasher "Halloween", where suspense and atmosphere were above gore and shock. "The Thing" could be seen as an evolution of that style, as even when Carpenter makes great use of Rob Bottin's special effects (which were labeled by critics as "repulsive" on its day), the film still focuses more on atmosphere and suspense rather than in the violent (and very well-done) displays of gore. The feeling of loneliness, as well as the "bad karma" between the members of the crew increase the feeling of paranoia as anyone could be the Thing, even our main character, R. J. MacReady (Kurt Russell), ending in a situation where nobody can be trusted.

This plot element was more faithful to the concept of the source novel, and was blatantly ignored by the previous version (not completely a bad thing, just a big difference), making this version feel less like a remake and more as a new conception of the source novel. Bill Lancaster's script handles the characters with brilliant domain, giving us enough to distinguish them, but not too much to completely trust them, making them an essential factor in the film's haunting feeling of dread that keeps running through the movie. The mystery and the suspense are at the max, as never one can tell who is the Thing and who is normal, enhancing the paranoia and unpredictability of the plot with excellent results.

The cast is very effective, and their performances as a whole so effective that one can almost feel the bad feelings between their characters as real. Carpenter's regular collaborator Kurt Russell as MacReady carries the film, and through his eyes we witness the madness and the horror the research station becomes as the situations goes worse. Definitely one of his best performances. Wilford Brimley is also terrific as Dr. Blair, a scientist that goes insane after discovering the Thing's purposes.

"The Thing" is a film so wonderfully crafted that its flaws tend to go unnoticed, although they exist. The most notorious being the very low-key and at times unappropriated score by Ennio Morricone. It's not exactly bad, but it just feels out of place at some scenes and it's not one of the best works by the legendary composer. Also, due to some misshapes with the special effects, some scenes were left out that actually fill some small plot holes, although nothing of big importance or actually annoying.

When talking about John Carpenter's films, most people will almost instantly name "Halloween" as his favorite film, but personally, I would go with "The Thing", as I consider it Carpenter's greatest achievement so far, and one of the most interesting and actually scary horror films ever made. I would go as far as to call it one of the finest films ever made. 10/10 John Carpenter's brilliantly suspenseful flick is a great fusion of Sci-Fi and horror, adopting the classic body-swap theme and taking it to the extreme. A remake of the Howard Hawks produced 1951 original, Carpenter keeps the Cold-War themes of paranoia and trust as a backdrop of alien takeover and impending doom amidst madness and the isolation of the Antarctic setting. Carpenter's direction as always is excellent as his camera glides through the lonely world of the characters whose inhabitable environment is about to be corrupted by the primordial fear of body takeover. But here and much like the work of David Cronenberg, Carpenter doesn't hold back on the incident, as through some fantastic special effects we are witness to some insane moments of surreal gore. However, he never loses touch with the human side of the story, as in the face of everything shocking happening in front of us, we are left with perceived notions of trust and suspicion.

9/10 People with an aversion to gore may find some scenes hard going, but The Thing is far from being simply a horror classic. The fact that the extraordinary special effects stand up against most modern day CGI is only a small part of why this movie is, finally, rightfully regarded as a masterpiece. Technically brilliant in its camera-work and editing, superbly scripted and acted, one of the best openings, one of the best endings, tension and paranoia sustained throughout (with countless viewings), an excellent soundtrack, and open to multiple readings and analogy, there simply aren't enough superlatives to do this film justice. Absolutely essential viewing. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is undoubtedly one of the best horror movies ever made. Sadly as with most Carpenter movies go it is also one of the most underrated movies being panned by critics shortly after it's release for a reason that is almost pathetic. It seems that at the time people were overwhelmed by the idea of the "good" alien. An idea spawned after the success of "I.T.". And the very thought that a movie dealing with aliens could deviate from that idea was regarded as heresy. Human ignorance is truly a frightening thing, people need to judge films for what they are not for what they want them to be.

"The Thing" itself is an interesting study on human paranoia as members of a U.S. Antarctic base discover the presence of an alien being (refered throughout the movie only as a "thing") able to imitate any form of life. Not knowing who might or might not be the creature, we see how every character reacts to the situation. There is no mass hysteria or panic just a slow and gradual descent in to chaos as more and more people turn up to be... not quite human.

Carpenter succeeds into elevating this movie into something far more than your average Sci-Fi/horror. There are no "whats behind you?" jumping moments here. Instead relying on an intense atmosphere of mistrust and pre-apocalyptic despair along with some nicely balanced moments of visual terror with no small thanks to Rob Bottin's impressive creature effects, he gives us an experience not matched by many other horror films.

Instead of just throwing facts and plot elements at our face Carpenter offers us a much a more gradual and delicate approach. By implying a sense of mystery he gives the viewer enough freedom to interpret-ate what has transpired in certain scenes, while giving enough plot to those who are not so fond of interpretation in movies.

Ennio Morricone's score works all the way. It's minimalistic and depressing sound perfectly fits the movie's overall tone. Although I've always wondered how would it have sounded if Carpenter (he has been known to compose all of his movies's OSTs except this one) did it? Characters while not as deeply developed are still memorable thanks to the good performances of the actors especially Kurt Russel who plays the "down-out" apathetic helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady. Its worth noting how his character transforms through the movie. From his disregardful "don't give a ...." attitude in the beginning, to that of a unifier and leader of the group of men who try to fight "the thing". But even with that said, there are no false heroics here, there are no "laughing at the face of death" moments and there certainly isn't any sort of comic relief, the movie keeps its atmosphere from the very first scene to the last. Speaking of which, here once again Carpenter keeps his tradition of creating a powerful ending.

Quarter of a century after its release "The Thing" doesn't feel dated. And with the disturbingly growing use of computer-generated effects it feels even stronger then before because it shows the life's work and dedication of human beings not computers. Combined with its openness for analyzing it gives the viewer a lot more reasons to watch it for a second or third or fourth or ... time. A masterpiece of terror that will never be forgotten. A brilliant horror film. Utterly gruesome and very scary too. The Thing is a remake from John Carpenter, but please, do not let that put you off this film. It is simply brilliant. The start of the film has the alien's spacecraft hurtling towards the Earth centuries before mankind walked the planet with an explosion that unleashes the film's title in amazing shining white and blue stating 'THE THING'. One of the best opening credits for a horror film ever.

The cast of actors who play the twelve man science team are a joy to behold and the locations for the setting of their Station in Antartica is visually impressive on DVD widescreen. It must have been great in the cinema. I regret not seeing this on the big screen.

Kurt Russell is excellent as Macready, the helicopter pilot who reluctantly becomes the leader of the men trying to combat a lethal shape changing monstrosity that has infiltrated their base. All the actors in this are really good and create terrific scenes of paranoia and tension as to who the thing has infected. My favourite scene in the whole film has to be when Macready tests everyone thats still alive for infection, it is tense, scary and finally spectacular. I love it because its funny as well.

Special mention must go to Rob Bottin for his truly amazing make up effects and shape changing designs of the alien itself. If he didn't get an Oscar for best visual effects at the time then he damn well should have. This is also debatable as to whether this is John Carpenter's greatest film...its certainly a gruesome masterpiece.

Wait for a cold winter night. Get some Budweiser from the fridge. Sit down and watch The Thing, a horror masterpiece of flame throwing heroes fighting shape changing towers of gore and slime.

Utterly brilliant.

Ten Out Of Ten. In an era where nearly every great horror film of the 60s and 70s is being remade for audiences weaned on horror flicks of today that are not too terribly good, it is instructive to look back at John Carpenter's 1982 opus THE THING, which itself is a remake--of a childhood favorite of the director's, Howard Hawks' 1951 sci-fi/horror classic THE THING FROM OUTER SPACE. Although Carpenter's film was not initially that big a box office hit when released in mid-1982, it has since garnered a very large following.

In fact, Carpenter's film is less of a remake of Hawks' film than it is a reworking, as he goes back to the original idea posited by the source material, namely the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There?", in which a US scientific crew in Antarctica is menaced by a shape-changing alien thawed out from the ice after 100,000 years. Kurt Russell, who had starred for Carpenter in the director's 1979 TV movie ELVIS and the 1981 film ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, heads a cast of stalwart character actors, including Keith David, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart, and Richard Masur, in this tension-filled exploration of paranoia, as the shape-changing "thing", which first comes to their camp in the form of a guide dog a Norwegian team is trying to kill, takes over each of them one by one. It isn't long before everybody in the camp begins to mistrust his fellow man. The ending of the film, in which Russell and David are the only ones left, has a disturbing and chilling ambiguity akin to the similar codas to both THE BIRDS and STRAW DOGS.

Almost universally, when the subject of THE THING is bought up, the emphasis is on the extremely gory special effects make-up and alien designs created by Rob Bottin, who had worked with Carpenter on the 1980 horror classic THE FOG, and on Joe Dante's 1981 werewolf film THE HOWLING. These effects are indeed quite spectacular and graphic, and even today, they can also be quite stomach-turning. But all of this would make Carpenter's film nothing more than a high-end splatter epic if the direction, the story, and the acting weren't up to snuff; and thankfully, each of them are. When he's not concentrating on the enormously gruesome transformation sequences, Carpenter builds suspense in the same Hitchcock-influenced way that informed his previous films HALLOWEEN and THE FOG, with cinematographer Dean Cundey's prowling camera-work, particularly through the corridors of the station, a significant help. The acting enhances an already-fine screenplay adaptation by Bill Lancaster; and we are also given a taut score by Ennio Morricone, whose work on director Sergio Leone's classic 1960s Italian spaghetti westerns is well known to all, including of course Carpenter himself. THE THING also features additional fine visual effects from Albert Whitlock (who worked on many Hitchcock films, including THE BIRDS), and Roy Arbogast, who worked on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and JAWS 2.

Carpenter's film was not the success it could have been because Universal chose to release this graphic shocker a mere two weeks after it had released Steven Spielberg's far more family-friendly E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (not surprisingly, critics and audiences at the time favored Spielberg's excellent film over Carpenter's equally excellent but exceedingly different one). Also, most of the horror film box office business in 1982 was going to another Spielberg-produced film, POLTERGEIST. As a result, at a cost of $15 million, THE THING suffered from lack of attention in its time.

Over time, however, many have come to see Carpenter's film for what it is--an extremely gory but extremely intelligent combination of science fiction and horror, done with a great deal of flair and a true understanding of the psychological paranoia at the heart of its story. Though it is still quite gruesome, THE THING should be as much remembered for the skill by which the story is put together as it is for the gory alien designs and make-up effects; for it is the storytelling skill and the suspense that make it so memorable in the final analysis. For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.

I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ("Who Goes There") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change "always a mistake" to "usually a mistake"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...

Until seeing "The Thing", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing "The Thing", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.

If you haven't seen "The Thing", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced! Aaah...The Thing.

To see a horror film in which not only is every character over the age of thirty, but distinctly UNattractive, makes a refreshing change, and reminds me of those distant times when actors were chosen because of their talent and their ability to play realistic characters, rather than because of their teen appeal on a magazine cover. And Carpenter chooses a production designer and a cinematographer who can actually create realistic environments rather than over-styled parodies. And there's no gimmicky 'twist' ending, or cameo celebrity appearance, or lame pseudo-romantic subplot.

And I REALLY miss on-set physical effects; with all those 20 year old kids trying out crazy new ideas with vats of blood and latex and early animatronics. In the 5 years between 1979 and 1984 we saw Alien, The Elephant Man, Poltergeist, The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, The Thing, The Company of Wolves, A Nightmare on Elm Street...what an era for horror effects! And don't get me started on the death of matte painting. The matte work in this movie is beautiful and seamless.

What do we have now? Third rate CGI, former music video directors and professional stylists, that makes even 'gritty' horror movies look like glossy MTV videos.

Now I'm going to go Netflix 'The Howling'. This being my first John Carpenter film, I must say I was very impressed by The Thing. Right from the beginning, the film draws you in, and never lets up on the tension. The film's special effects and models hold up well even today. Other than Kurt Russell, I wasn't familiar with any of the cast members but they were all exceptional in imparting fear, paranoia, and the desperation to survive. The Universal DVD has a wealth of very interesting behind the scenes extras. Strongly recommended, 9/10. I cannot believe I never added my two cents about this film as yet!

This is one of the best films of all time. Many critics and movie-goers alike talk of John Carpenter's "Halloween" for setting trends and being "his best work". Those folks have not seen this version of "The Thing" because it is right up there with "Halloween".

John Carpenter's work shines in this film. He took a film that was already made and instead of "re-making" the film, he made the book the first film was based on! Brilliant.

The casting of each man was great, the tension between them was real, it made me scream, made me scared, made me guess, made me laugh, made me question, even up to today "who goes there?" in that film. This film had no Hollywood sweetie pie or funny-type ending, and what a bold move not to have one in 1982. Another brilliant move.

I was at the screening for this film when I was on vacation in Southern California. The audience at the screening went wild! I carry those memories for years, it was so much fun! We all thought that there was no way on God's green earth this film was not going to be a hit. But by box office receipts, it was a dud because of "ET, The Extra Terrestrial" and "Poltergeist" two very good family oriented films took the box office in 1982 when this film came out.

This film was what I, as a horror film adult buff was looking for, a horror/thriller with an adult script, and real adult actors. Not kids playing adults. Not little Miss "big-breasted" scream-queen of the day running around screaming for titilation BUT real guys with real problems delivering some of the best monologues you'll ever hear. Heck, being a feminist, I didn't even MISS women in this film! And good for Mr. Carpenter by not putting one in there, it really wouldn't have made sense! (Unless, "The Thing" was actually feminine! Something to think about!)

I saw special effects of that time I had never seen before, I saw makeup that made me sit up a few nights. This is what horror/thrillers of today are missing. Today, the Directors wimp out. Today, the Studios wimp out. Too much CGI and not enough belief, too much CGI and not enough story, not enough imagination. You leave the theater and in a week -- or less -- you forget about the film and move onto the next grand film opening. This one stays with ya. That's one of the marks of an excellent film.

On many reviews I've written how now paying $10 for a film is horrid. For films like this one, you'd pay it and not feel slighted. This film is NOT for everyone.

I find it horrific that they lable this film a "cult" film. I find that the audience is broader than many would lead you to belive and although not a commercial success in 1982, this is an example of how releasing a darn good film on the wrong date can make a darn good film look bad. After John Carpenter's film, many people copied many techniques, make-up, special effects and story lines from this version of "The Thing".

I am now excitd to go on record and state that this film is one of the best films of all time, very much under rated. Please see it uncut, please see it in letterbox and please hear it digitally. You'll talk about it for years as well. This is one of the most outstanding horror movies i've ever seen in my life time. Forget the exorcist and all the other hype horror movies out there.John Carpenter as made a tour-de-force horror epic with outstanding special-effects great performances from Kurt Russell and co and a great soundtrack that will haunt you for ever! The greatest thing about this movie after 17 years is it has'nt dated it looks fresh and new and you don't get many movies like this.Back in 1982 this was up against E.T. and of course it failded and was a box-office bomb. Over the years THE THING as made a cult following from video and t.v sales and as many new fans. In the end this movie kicks ass and to me it as never loss it's edge to scare the pants off of you and to me that a horror movie. Long live John Carpenter!! "The Thing" is John Carpenter's best movie. Merging his talents for tension building and shocks with decent production values he turned out a perfectly crafted sci fi / horror movie.

By filming in truly difficult conditions he creates a very believable isolated research base which sets the tension before anything has even happened. The ensemble cast work well together with Kurt Russell proving a charismatic leading man even under all that beard.

By building the tension slowly with moments of gory horror (courtesy of effects meister Rob Bottin - currently directing Freddy vs Jason) Carpenter creates a movie that has rarely been matched. Considering this came out the same year as ET it could not be more different!

Worth a watch / rewatch. 9 out of 10.

p.s. the DVD is excellent. Lots of extras plus the best DVD commentary going (with Carpenter & Russell). Plus remixed in Dolby Digital for even scarier sound effects. I first saw this film accidentally when they showed it on TV and I was up far too late... I really lucked out there though. It's truly incredible; from the location (as isolated as it's possible to be on this planet; it made "the abyss" look like ET in the council swimming pool), through the interesting characters (Keith David is especially good as the reactionary Childs -"What if we're wrong about him?" - "Then we're wrong.") and the effects (more yucky than Alien).

Moreover, however, the real tension and fear in the film has nothing to do with the effects. It's the people you start being scared of; knowing that one of them may - or may not be - "All they appear to be". It's certainly got the feel of "who goes there?".

The soundtrack is great; it really plays up the isolation, fear, and gravity of the situation.

Finally, the epilogue scene really, really cuts. Even more than the "But then again who does ?" punchline of Bladerunner. Enough said. It couldn't.

From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.

Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.

I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema. When John Carpenter's masterly version of "The Thing" was released in summer 1982, it was panned by critics and bombed at the box office. The audiences couldn't handle another 'bad' alien, they wanted ET. Their loss in the long run.

I would kill to be able to see this great movie on the big screen. This is a movie that was way ahead of it's time; now it has influenced a new generation of filmmakers, showing it's trail on things like "Se7en", "Alien 3", and even "The X Files", which unceremoniously ripped it off page by page. And the structure, which eschews character development in favour of incredible SFX, is commonplace in today's blockbuster flicks.

Carpenter shows the same skills he honed in "Halloween", using the camera to create an unsettling and claustrophobic atmosphere. The performances are all fine, and the ending is terrific - still unique today.

A paranoid masterpiece. Ironically, what makes John Carpenter's "The Thing" such an entertaining sci-fi film are its genre-defying elements of mystery, suspense, and tight plot structure. It puts to shame such films as "Aliens" or "Armageddon" that are content to inundate the viewer with special effects while their plots revolve around stunts that butcher the laws of physics, testosterone-laden one-liners, heroes equipped with enough artillery to conquer Iraq, and pathetic attempts to inject "meaning" into the barrage on screen with "emotional sequences" that only serve to further insult the intelligence of the audience. The supreme tragedy, of course, is that these kind of lobotomized movies are also the most popular. I think that there is a cause for this, although it isn't very comforting. There is an increasing trend in our culture to passively "surrender" to the media -- to immerse oneself in the images we see without dedicating a single brain cell to comprehending the statement the work is trying to make. This mindset is becoming increasingly dominant in all arenas; even the once-hallowed print medium is being diluted, thanks to the abominable "reader response" theory that pervades our schools and the "tabloid brigade" that lines our magazine racks whose mentality appears to be infiltrating the once-venerable mainstream press. Nowadays, we just flip the switch and put our minds on "pause." Is "The Thing" a "good" movie? For the rare individual who still values his faculty of reason, a more appropriate term would be "entertaining." Its plot keeps one guessing, its ending is uncompromising, and it has some redeeming statements to make about human paranoia. Upon subsequent viewings, one begins to note a conspicuous lack of depth in the acting, but the taut storyline remains compelling. Of course, "Citizen Kane" it's not, but then again sci-fi never was a thinking-man's genre... The best horror/sci-fi movie i have ever seen. I was myself in the Arctic, working for Canadian government , in a small northern station when I see this movie for the first time; needless to say I was in the mood... So, Americans make t.v. series based on movies, whilst us Brits make films based on t.v. shows.It should never work, but on this occasion it does because of a sublime meeting of character and actor. Cliches are sometimes justly so, and Leonard Rossiter was BORN to play Rigsby.This is one of the great comic creations, kind of how Norman Bates would have turned out if he'd been melancholic instead if murderous. The history of TV to film adaptations are littered with aberrations which almost conclusively prove that the tradition should never have started in the first place. There are, however, some examples which manage to pull it off, just. Rising Damp would, at first, appear to be the last sitcom suitable for the big screen treatment as this hilarious series was based within the tiny confines of a northern bedsit. Also the writer, Eric Chappell, wasn't being paid enough to spend time crafting an entirely original screenplay so he harvested a batch of TV episodes and stitched them together to form the body of the film. This, in itself, didn't necessarily mean that the script would fail. David Croft and Jimmy Perry did the same thing with their screenplay for Dad's Army and it worked superbly. Although, the early Dad's Army episodes, with their staid pace and over arcing plot, lent themselves far better to film adaptation. The Rising Damp episodes, however, were high energy affairs from the first scene to the breathless climax. As a result, as one story is concluded and another started, the scenes within the film become disjointed. Another pitfall for the movie version of a TV series is the inevitable comparisons that are made. In this respect the film pales in comparison to Rising Damp's brilliant series. Despite all this, Rising Damp the Movie manages to be entertaining and occasionally uproarious. It is perhaps not surprising that the finest moments occur during sequences written specially for the film. This includes a rugby match where Rossiter does a brilliantly timed pratfall. Indeed, while all the cast handle their roles perfectly (bar a sub standard replacement actor for the late and truly great Beckinsale), it is Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby that shines the most. In fact Rising Damp should have been made as a film just so Rossiter could have been eligible for an Oscar, such is the magnificence of his acting talent. Criminally, he wasn't even nominated. Ultimately, the film fails to match the giddy heights of the TV series while managing to hold its own as a comedy in its own right with some beautifully played moments. Recommended viewing.

One last thing: The opening and closing music is by far the worst in film history. Obviously, the the responses here were written many years after the film was released and cannot be taken in context. Back in 1980 in post labour England, this film was bloody funny. We were glad of something to laugh about and Rising Damp, with its sympathetic mockery of a complete social strata, was one of the best British sitcoms of its period, if not ever. It struck a chord in almost everybody and in true British fashion, we laughed at the Rigsby in ourselves. America had nothing to touch this type of humour because self debasement was not amusing to our overseas cousins. Leonard Rossiter was one of Englands finest actors, on stage, on TV and in Movies. His commitment and professionalism were second to none. Richard Beckinsale was, although young, a perfect comedic foil to Rossiter and should, by all rights, be classed as an all time great. Had he not been taken so young, I feel sure he would, by now, be classified as one of Britains greatest comedy actors. Frances De la Tour found her finest television moment in Rising Damp and, for me, never quantified her undoubted ability with further roles. If you did not see the film at the time of its release, you are not qualified to comment, simply because you cannot understand why it was funny, the humour of the moment. i was part of the cast of Space Odyssey, playing FIDO in mission control. i just want to say that none of us actors, specially those in mission control who had to react to a green screen most of the time, had any idea how amazing it would turn out to be. i knew it was going to be good, if only for the sheer camaraderie and professionalism that the production team at Impossible Pictures provided for everyone involved. but when we all saw it for the first time at the screening at the Curzon Mayfair, well, i for one felt very proud. I was so glad that none of us looked like we were in Star Trek. Joe Aherne, the screenwriter and director, is the most amazing man to work for. He pretty much gets a good team together and then just trusts them implicitly to freely do what they do best. I'm really lucky to have been part of this show. Who knew something this epic and complicated to understand would turn out to be so enticing to watch. and my god it's a beautiful universe out there. I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.

The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.

They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.

I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".

Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation! Cocky medical students play chicken with process that simulates death, in attempt to get a (hopefully temporary) view of the afterlife. Certain plot twists and themes are a little off the mark, and the acting occasionally goes over the top. But the underlying message - about God's and others' forgiveness for our real or perceived sins - is positive and unique in cinema, and the cast is very very good. The last sequence between Julia Roberts and her father is so effectively done that, years after having seen it, I still get chills thinking about it. Highly recommended. Can't get much eerier than Flatliners. This deep, dark film had my heart pumping throughout. The lighting is dark and will get you in the mood for a death defying experience, literally. Keifer is in top form as he is today in 24. He's a great actor and he plays a very convincing and shocking role you won't forget for years to come. And what can you say for the rest of the cast? An all-star lineup, Julia is hotter than ever, Will, Oliver, and Kevin light up the stage in this thriller that will keep you gripping your seats. It's a refreshing sight to see a true thriller, with top notch professional actors. You won't regret seeing this 2 hour seat bender. -JL Nelson is a medical professor who wants his four students to put him to death and then bring him back to life so that he can prove that there is an afterlife. So they do and soon enough all of the medical students want to know if there is life after death. The afterlife isn't about pearly gates and lights at the end of the tunnel but something more sinister.

Past ghosts come back to haunt them and surely this movie will haunt anyone. It has some pretty scary moments that could translate into real life and it makes people wonder somewhat about what happens when you die. It's a good movie to see when it's raining and you're feeling down. It's also a little weird.

See it with a haunted past. A film that reveals the unease of modern men and women in life when confronted to death. We are beyond the simple religious belief in the afterlife, and what's more in any kind of hell or heaven. Religion is declared dead. Yet human beings are more obsessed than ever by death, especially since we can push it away for quite a long time. What's more the scientific and technological development of our societies leads us to believe we can explain everything, know everything and do everything. That was quite typical of the end of the 20th century. Today things are changing, especially when the president of the United States himself, Barack Obama, in a public speech to journalists speaks of their search for truth and qualifies that truth as being of course relative because it is more a quest than a final end, objective or achievement. The film shows the end of the good old metaphysical thinking that was starting to evolve into a truth obsession, an obsessive conception that truth was unique and irreversibly reachable. Post modernism had not reached Hollywood yet, though today it seems to have reached the White House. So some young doctors and medical students decide to go into death and come back. Technically it is possible but the result is not surprising. It reactivates old guilty feelings and frustrations that had been buried into the unconscious. One has to do with a drug addicted father of a Vietnam veteran who commits suicide, another with a young boy who was stoned to death by some others the death tripper included, another still with a young black girl who was victimized and bullied in grade school out of racism, sexism and hatred if not fear in front of her shyness. It is so naïve that you could cry out of shame for these young adults who are highly qualified and behave like babies who are crying for their bottles of edulcorated fruit juice. The film though is interesting but in something quite different. The setting and the shooting and every single detail or treatment of any detail is baroque, morbid, decadent, quite in the style of "Death in Venice" or Greenaway, or some other works of art that deal with making friends with the basic enemy that death is. Of course that does not save the film but at least that makes it worth watching.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID This movie is great from start to finish about a group of med students that get together and literally kill each other by stopping their hearts and then revive themselves. They then research what happens from the "near death" experiences. As each one goes through the experience, they become haunted by their deepest fears that seem to materialize as reality. This ranges from dead kids with hockey sticks to dead fathers that seem to be upstairs.

The cast is first rate and Oliver Platt is hilarious in one of the best roles of his career. I am not a big Keifer Sutherland fan but even he does an excellent job. This is a movie that I can watch over and over! Although Flatliners is 15 years old, tonight was my first time ever seeing it. I had heard about the movie Flatliners, but there was never a buzz about it to make me go out and rent it or make a point to see it period. Well, I caught it on one of the premium channels and I must say that it was very good.

This movie was about some brilliant young medical students deciding to explore death. They have figured out a way to cause a person to die briefly and bring him/her back to life. Besides the all-star cast, this movie had some serious bite to it. Just the very thought of exploring death is riveting enough, but I really thought the writer & director did an excellent job in giving a different yet hair raising view. This was no generic attempt to thrill, frighten, and make one's mind race... this was the real deal.

Instead of making it an empty, superficial, star-studded thriller, this movie had substance. A nail-biter, white knuckle, edge-of-the-seat, hard nose thriller. I give it an 8/10. I just watch this move recently on Encore channel. What a great film, a great cast as well. Flatliners is very suspenseful and unpredictable. The movie has a great opening scene by the ocean then to a series of scene establishing the questions about life after death which provide a very strong upfront story involvement. Therefore Nelson played by Kiefer Sutherland was the first to go through the test to die and come back to life. Then it's gets very dramatic by bringing back his wrong doing from the past to life. Then all of the above mentioned characters went through the same experience except for Randy steckle played by Olliver platt. Then the story unfold into a resolution and basic understanding about life and the presence and meaning of God. David Labraccio played by Kevin Bacon an atheist end up questioning his own belief about God. It's amazing to watch Julia Roberts along with Kevin Bacon, Oliver platt, William baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland at such a prime time of their careers. One can ask how come we don't have such great movie produced anymore. This is one of the best productions from Joel Schumacher. I really enjoy this movie. Nostalgia isn't always the best reason to watch a movie. More often than not, the movies you loved as a kid will disappoint you as an adult. While there are exceptions to this rule, it's hard to justify owning a DVD of Krull, regardless of how many insightful the director's commentary may be. But stay sharp Gen X/Y'ers, because the dozens of disappointments dominating your trip down memory lane, might stop you from stumbling across one worth revisiting.

One surprise film worth another look is Joel Schumacher's Flatliners, the supernatural thriller starring 80's popcorn heavyweights Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts and Billy Baldwin. You would think that a stew comprised of this cast, the flamboyant flair of Schumacher and the über slick eye of cinematographer Jan De Bont would result in something sickeningly stodgy, but calories aside... Flatliners ain't half bad. Even though it's production design is inexplicably over-the-top and the photography is achingly over- stylized (replete with neon soaked streets spewing endless billows of steam), Flatliners still manages to be an effectively dark and compelling thriller. If there's an explanation why Flatliners was forgotten, it might be because 1990 saw the release of another, far superior, supernatural thriller: Jacob's Ladder.

Had Flatliners been released a year or two after Jacob's Ladder, it's likely Schumacher's flashy thriller would have been dismissed as a toned down, commercialized rip-off of Adrian Lyne's nightmarish masterpiece. But with these films being released in the same year, Flatliners enjoyed a different fate, tripling JL's take at the box office despite being a watered down version of a similar premise. The passage of time hasn't been as kind to Flatliners, it has been lost atop a dated heap of throwaway 80's Brat Pack dreck, while JL has cemented its reputation as a timeless classic. Fates aside, JL is seamlessly terrifying and it manages to keep audiences guessing right up until the last frame, whereas Flatliners falls victim to over- simplification and Hollywood conveniences that drag down the final act into a predictably tidy denouement. Comparisons between the two movies is unfair, and ultimately overlooks Flatliners ability to represent the 80's at its quintessential best. Released at the end of a decade of shallow excess, Flatliners will always be dated by its hairstyles and clothing styles, but in fairness, it should also be remembered as a well executed movie at (or at least near) the top of its particular heap of dreck. For intents and purposes, it's an entertaining walk down memory lane. Someone i know said that there was this film called flatliners that was probably up my street. I was told about this movie after watching final destination 2 and watching the extra feature about near deth experience.

I bought the DVD of flatliners at the modest price of 5 pounds. Got home and watched it. And i could not help but smile and feel good wondering how this film hadn't been in my life before. The film is about a group of medical students try to see what it's like after near death experience. But then there sins come back in reality and can harm them physically.

Acting from Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland is great as you would expect from the pair. And Joel Schmacheur made this a great movie like he did with the lost boys.

This is an edgy and stylish thriller bound to please nay type of film fan. Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise "what a beautiful day to die." For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once. *Flat SPOILERS*

Five med students, Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland), David Labraccio (Kevin Bacon), Rachel Mannus (Julia Roberts), Joe Hurley (William Baldwin) & Randy Steckle (Oliver Platt) decide to attempt an experiment; dying for exactly 5 minutes (it is the maximum amount of time somebody can do this before being risk of brain damage).

Almost everyone does this experiment, Randy being the lone exception, but they begin to have unwelcome visitors; David sees a little black girl shouting crude insults to him, Joe sees all the women he has had sex with (and which he videotaped) asking him why from the TV Screen, Rachel relives her father's suicide and Nelson faces a little boy with murderous intentions.

Why are they here? And how will they get rid of them? This tense and interesting movie, set in an hallucinated city and into a Gothic Med School, is quite the experience, both for the story and the characters, played by then-budding stars such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon and William Baldwin.

The director is Joel Schumacher, who had already worked with Sutherland in 'Lost Boys', and this second cooperation is even better than the first.

A must for psychological-thriller-horror buds and metaphor lovers (this story is about forgiveness and righting of past wrongs), this is one of the minor classics from the '80s that get respect even today, like the mention by Rebecca Gayheart in 'Scream 2' or the Tru Calling episode which used the movie's premise.

Flatliners: 9/10. This is definitely a good movie unlike what other people are saying. Peline and I have both seen the movie 3x and the end is cheesy but that is part of the package... to experiment with death is the same as trying to defy it, so the movie is cool. For those who wish to see a classic Kevin Bacon movie, see this please. take care greeting from Istanbul. we will write 10 lines if you really want us 2 but we think it is a waste of time bye. The rest of this review should not be taken seriously because we just wrote it to fill the 10 line requirement (which is crazy) but we are kind people and will therefore adapt to the rules that are set out for us. So people watch this movie not because we wrote 10 lines, but because it is good. and by the way we wrote 12 lines!! My mom always told me to sit down and to actually watch this movie because it's one of her favorites, I never did for years until I caught one night on TV. This movie was great, I don't even know how to explain it. Not only is the cast excellent (Julia Roberts, Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt) but the story is awesome. It's freaky but not too scary and it makes you think. I was left speechless after this film and amazed of how good of actors and actress all five of these people really are. Where did William Baldwin go, he's great. This film is a must see for anyone, if you haven't seen it go rent it, you will not be sorry. Amazing! Five medical students (Kevin Bacon, David Labraccio; William Baldwin, Dr. Joe Hurley; Oliver Platt, Randy Steckle; Julia Roberts, Dr. Rachel Mannus; Kiefer Sutherland, Nelson) experiment with clandestine near death & afterlife experiences, (re)searching for medical & personal enlightenment. One by one, each medical student's heart is stopped, then revived.

Under temporary death spells each experiences bizarre visions, including forgotten childhood memories. Their flashbacks are like children's nightmares. The revived students are disturbed by remembering regretful acts they had committed or had done against them. As they experience afterlife, they bring real life experiences back into the present. As they continue to experiment, their remembrances dramatically intensify; so much so, some are physically overcome. Thus, they probe & transcend deeper into the death-afterlife experiences attempting to find a cure.

Even though the DVD was released in 2007, this motion picture was released in 1990. Therefore, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, Julia Roberts & Kiefer Sutherland were in the early stages of their adult acting careers. Besides the plot being extremely intriguing, the suspense building to a dramatic climax & the script being tight & convincing, all of the young actors make "Flatliners," what is now an all-star cult semi-sci-fi suspense. Who knew 17 years ago that the film careers of this young group of actors would skyrocket? I suspect that director Joel Schumacher did. Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.

The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.

So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.

With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.

Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.

All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.

All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again. The bevy of box office big league stars is phenomenal in this movie!! William Baldwin, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon and Julia Roberts!! This movie was made in one of my favorite years too, 1990!! I am a Chicagoan, and the setting in Chicago was very identifiable and artistically expedited as well!!I liked this movie, and the agitation which motivated the climax in this picture was a powerful element to the plot which was utterly sensational!!

"Flatliners" centers around a group of disgruntled pre-med students who want to be flat lined as a way of attaining some sort of societal vindication!! When life does not make sense, it would appear very illogical to get curious about apocalyptic nightmares!! At the same time, once their desultory curiosity has gotten the better of them, there is no turning back!! The king of the hill, (so to speak) is the one who vehemently shouts: I WILL DO TWO MINUTES!! WHO ELSE IS GOING TO DO THAT!! ANYONE WANT TO TRY FOR TWO AND A HALF!! Ultimately, all of these newly arrived and very unwelcome recriminations now have an extremely ubiquitous disposition in these re pro-bate's lives!! The consummation to their justified or unjustified pathos required a full 360 degree perspective on the issues they were agonizing over!! Whatever purpose all of this reckless and academic chicanery serves, it is definitely an original approach for asserting your personality!! I liked this movie, 1990 was a good year for me too, things seemed to fall into place that year!! When I saw this movie some night in November during the year 1990, I was very glad that I did!! Very suspenseful, surprisingly intelligent film about five medical students flatlining themselves and then being resuscitated to share their experiences of death and what lies beyond. Joel Schumacher directs with some skill - creating some very eerie scenes as well as particularly beautiful ones. The visions of death are not what viewers might expect nor is that which awaits us all when we go - thanks to screenwriter Peter Filardi who really did an outstanding job coming up with this story. While the creativity of the story is impressive, the story has many holes as well, particularly in the logic department and believability factors. Notwithstanding all of that Flatliners is a good effective film because of the script, the direction which again is very surreal at times, and the acting which brings four very talented actors and William Baldwin together. This core of actors acts and reacts off each other very nicely. Keifer Sutherland does a very impressive job as the head of the group - the one who comes up with the idea to die and be born again. He also manages to portray a man- a young man - with a damaging, destructive secret from his past. Kevin Bacon is fine as the most pragmatic and skeptical of the group. Oliver Platt is really good as the voice of reason and human fears. Platt has some really good lines and plays the paranoia well. Yes, Julia Roberts is here too and very good. the actors do best though by playing off each other and making us believe they are such good friends. I was duly impressed with much of Flatliners but more than anything else the story affected me the most. The scene with that dog hobbling around the street just one of those powerful images evoked as were many of the "flashback" scenes. Im usually wary of movies hovering around the 6/10 mark on IMDb. Id like to think people know what they are talking about and know what they like. I guess the trick with reviewing is to take an approach of "Hey, if i liked types of movies like these- would i give it a higher score than i am about to give it now since I don't like these types of movies" Then again people judge differently , basing more value on acting, or perhaps story or directing. Anyway, landing the plane here- i had rented this movie out before and hadn't had time to watch it, this morning i did.

Wow! See this movie. I am personally interested in the paranormal/have read a bit about near death experiences, so automatically i was hooked. I am unsure about some of the comments here saying that a quality cast here was wasted - i disagree- the acting here was superb from all- i think this is the only time i didn't mind Julia Roberts, it was good to see 24's Kiefer Sutherland (Currently at the time of this review, serving a jail sentence for DUI), and Kevin Bacon sporting an interesting hair style.

Overall- i liked the direction, the atmosphere, the acting, and the story line most of all- particularly the idea of karma, and , to quote Nelson Wright "Everything we does matters" So true.

10/10! Peter Lorre gives one of his most evil performances as the owner of the titled place. The plot has a new government agent being put on the track of Peter Lorre's character. When the G-man's contact his killed by one of Lorre's agents, the G-man is sent to prison for the killing even though everyone knows there is more to the story. Lorre has the man paroled into his care and brought to his island where he is mining diamonds. Lorre wants to know what our hero knows, but he isn't talking and a battle of wills is set in motion.

This is a good solid little thriller that doesn't quite make a great deal of sense plot wise, but even so the film holds your interest. I had put the film on last night in order to use it as something to drift off to, instead I found the tale riveting enough I was up an extra 70 minutes. Lorre is the reason that one falls into this. His quite demeanor is unnerving. He does very little but its clear from his orders and the way everyone reacts to him (watch how they light his cigarettes) that he is a bad dude.

Worth a look if you should run across it. The story in this movie is fairly implausible B grade stuff, but the script called for a creepy guy to play the lead, and in 1940, that meant Peter Lorre. And Peter is at his creepiest in this one as island owner Stephen Danel, who gets prisoners paroled to his custody to work at his island diamond mine. Upon arrival the parolees discover that they are slave mine workers that can be beaten or killed at the whim of Danel.

Only two things seem to have it worse off than the slaves; Danel's wife, and monkeys. Monkeys tick him off so much that his violence towards them probably leads to the only meat the slaves get.

Lorre is perfect in his role here, and creeps up the screen in industrial-strength fashion. Although the script is not Casablanca caliber, the editing is very tight and there are no wasted scenes. This is a very watchable story, but I'm not sure what niche this movie filled. Too long for a short subject, and too short for a feature length film, I'm not sure how this was marketed to theaters.

I just caught this for the first time on a late night/early morning TCM showing. Lorre fans will not want to miss this one if they haven't seen it. Peter Lorre was born to play Stephen Danel with lines like: "Mr. Smith, you shouldn't hold my wife like that." and "I told you not to keep the monkey in the house!" The poster for this film is an eerie green and Peter Lorre leers in way that makes you never want to go to his penal colony / island. This film is not available on DVD although it is a classic and very rarely shown on TV. What exactly is the relationship between Stephen Danel and the monkey? Why does the monkey upset him so much. We will never know. The film should be colorized by someone and excerpts should be made into a Kinks video. The film was re-released in the 1950s and only a few of the Peter Lorre biographies spend any text on this film. Casablanca was right around the corner. Bogart could have been on that island but they surely did not have the budget for him Saw this at Newport Beach Film Festival the other day. The film is REALLY exceptional. The crowd I went with all loved it. Funny, poignant and great acting. I'm tired of the tried and true Hollywood romances, who can relate? David Krumholtz (Max) is really amazing as the sure and true lover of the ultra-screwy Grace (Natasha Lyonne, who is also excellent). When Max falls for Grace we believe it. Why? Because love at first sight IS crazy and we're dealing with two lost, and maybe not so crazy, souls. Also of note are Giullmo Diaz as Hector and Rosanna Arquette as a sexless/sexy neurotic, both "roommates" of Max and Grace before they embark on their trip to Sheboygen, WI and finding themselves. Don't miss this one, its something special! P.S. The soundtrack, led by Kevin Hearn (of Bare Naked Ladies fame) is really super super cool as well. I really loved this original screenplay and the different places it took me, emotionally, spiritually and just plain silly stuff. I didn't get caught up in "believability" in the screenplay or the actors and didn't even think about it until reading the reviews listed here in IMDb for the movie. Listening to Michael Parness talk at the Q & A about his idea of the film, wanting to see how crazy people, or "f'ed" up people, as he put it, fall in love is really interesting. I identified with not having a story book romance and liked seeing dysfunction at it's best. I like watching David Krumholtz in anything he does and have followed his career for a few years now. I believe this is some of his best work and say to anyone, just see this film to watch an amazing young actor. I agree that Guillermo Díaz really was a scene stealer, and what he did with his character is really a great acting lesson in commitment. I laughed and cried both in this movie and was disappointed that it didn't win any awards at the festival. I question why that didn't happen. I gave Max and Grace a ten because these interesting, unique, creative Indie films deserve an audience. Technically watching this film, it's really beautifully done – the colors are amazing, and lastly, it's one of the best soundtracks I have heard in a film in awhile. This film was original in an unoriginal way. Although many movies have tackled the subject of suicide and mental institutions, it was always about treating the patients and making them better because of the doctor's assistance, in this film, however, we follow a depressed guy who falls in love with a suicidal girl and will stop at nothing to make her happy even though she doesn't care for happiness at all, she just wants to die. This was a very interestingly cute romance comedy that in nothing less than enjoyable. This is a fun one to check out if you ever get the chance, you just have to be open minded about the material. Overall i give it a 6.4, i just voted 9 to get the rating higher :) Many films attempt the ambitious. Few succeed. This film is one of them.

Though billed as a black comedy, that term seems too limiting to express the true nature of the story behind Max and Grace. Multi-hyphenate Michael Parness has managed to weave elements of absurdest comedy with incredibly real human emotion. Quite a remarkable feat, to be certain.

While the comedic aspects are certainly present, the heart of the film lies in its leads: David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. The delicate balance of the film - really crazy versus real love - falls to them and they achieve it, carrying it through from the opening scene to the heart wrenching climax and on to the heartwarming ending. David Krumholtz, in the titular lead role and as narrator, anchors the picture and does an exceptional job. We see the world through Max's eyes and Krumholtz imbues them with a sort of wonder and hopefulness that one would not expect to be believable coming from a character who had previously attempted suicide. There should be no doubt from this point on that he has truly achieved leading man status, well deserved after more than a decade of memorable supporting roles. Natasha Lyonne might be something of a revelation for anyone who has seen her only in less challenging roles. The role of Grace is expansive in scope, requiring her to show both great rage and great tenderness - sometimes within seconds of each other. She manages to convince us of Grace's deep seated desperation that lies just beneath her alternating torpor and mania.

This is not a laugh a minute type of comedy so don't see the film expecting strictly humor from start to finish. Think more dramedy than comedy. There are some very dark moments, as one would expect given the subject matter of suicidal individuals, and some oddly real moments delivered most notably by Emma Adele Galvin as Max's sister, Sis. The most humorous scenes are those populated by the myriad of name actors in supporting roles. While Lorraine Bracco and David Paymer lend the most surreal aspect with their scenes the other supporting characters who populate the institution where Max and Grace meet are the real treat. Guillermo Diaz is a wanton scene stealer as the delightfully frenetic oddball, Hector. Ralf Moeller, as Bruno, acts as his straight man but has his own charm and appeal. Rosanna Arquette fully inhabits the role of Vera with the crass vitriol of an embittered truck stop waitress. Even her hardhearted character melts eventually, as does everyone who is touched by Max's literally undying love for Grace.

Can love conquer all might be the question behind the film and even though the realist within says no, movies are about an escape from reality, even if only for a few brief hours. I recommend seeing this film as an antidote to not just reality but to the cynicism that says that a love story like this never happens. Spending a few hours immersed in a world where it can and does works wonders on the psyche.

(Seattle International Film Festival - June 2005) Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's "surreal moments". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has "pulled" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo Díaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer/Director Michael Parness. Who'd a thought suicide could be dealt with in a way that's palpable by everyone? I saw the film at SXSW at it's premier and it turned out to be the best film there by far. Yes, its warped and it's bizarre, but it makes sense in the world the filmmaker (Michael Parness) creates. If you didn't laugh (most everyone did), then you just ain't getting it and thats a darn shame. Particularly of note, Guillermo Diaz as Hector steals a bunch of scenes and the chemistry between Natasha Lyonne and David Krumholtz is intense. The film reminds one of Harold and Maude, but not really, it takes one bizarre spin after another, and they do all make sense in this crazy mixed up world we all live in. I stayed (as did most) for the Q & A afterward and what was great was hearing that the same things I thought in my head as to why things "happened" are the reasons they did. I don't think you can say much bad about the film, unless you didn't get it. I think I got it and it seemed like most everyone else did as well. The film is dubbed a suicidal comedy, but its got a lot of heart, a lot of laughs and offers a lot of hope, yet it doesn't shy away from the horrors of suicide as well. A nice little movie that should get attention when it gets a release, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later. Not since "Harold and Maude" has suicide been so successfully used as the theme for a love story. The acting, by a top notch cast is terrific. With a well structured script, things progress at an enjoyable pace. There are moments of black comedy, but I would classify "My Suicidal Sweetheart" as a unique romantic comedy, with a touch of dark humor. The relationship between two psychologically challenged lovers, is both touching and engaging. The movie actually makes you question, what is a normal relationship? I highly recommend "My Suicidal Sweetheart". Seek it out on DVD under the title "Crazy for Love". You will not be disappointed. - MERK On a scale of 1-10 "Suicidal Sweetheart" got an 11 from me and from everyone else at this showing. The picture was incredibly funny. I told my wife "It's obvious that this man walks on water but across a bed of fire, that's a bit much." This is one of the very best blends of comedy, satire and uses of innuendo I have seen since Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein". I can't believe this picture was not picked up by a major studio.

This "Film Festival" audience was sophisticated and was able to pick up on every comic innuendo either visual, spoken or implied. The characters are real and the combination of a great script and a great casting was obvious. Max and Grace are real people with real problems that are dealt with regardless of the odds of success. It keeps you smiling while being serious and laughing with all the indirect humor brilliantly built into this production.

To sum it up, this is a "must see" picture. I went it to see this film with caution. A suicidal "comedy" didn't seem consistent. Having a brother who is has attempted suicide and seeing the devastation that has caused our whole family, I know first hand how crushing it can be to deal with this issue. I must say - This film deals with it in a way that allows the viewer "inside" someone who is suffering and simply doesn't know why, or how to stop it. While the film is not perfect, it respects the subject matter and more importantly makes it accessible for the masses. I know for our family, humor has helped us through a lot of the pain. And, Max and Grace is just what it portends to be - a suicidal COMEDY. It's funny - And, I also felt that characters were real and vibrant. It's also extremely intelligent, yet simple. It cuts to the chase and I appreciate that! I give it a 9 and will recommend it. This really is a great film. Full of love and humor, it compels the audience to really care about the characters and participate in their journey. Michael Parness managed to assemble a great cast of top players, a minor miracle for a first film. No doubt, they were moved to help him tell this beautiful story. David Krumoltz carries the film with his understated intensity and honesty. Natasha Lyonne is unpredictable, exasperating, and yet totally lovable as Grace. Also a great turn by Karen Black (great to see her on the screen again) as Grace's crazed but sympathetic mother. There is cutting wit throughout, allowing us the relief of laughter when faced with life's pain. The acting is impeccable, the editing tight, the direction inspired, and the music creates a fitting backdrop of mood. Given the present-day Hollywood Blockbuster craze, full of big budgets, big names, car crashes and special effects, 'Max & Grace' is a refreshing departure. Give yourself a treat and see this movie. I usually steer clear of Film Festivals and don't enjoy slap-stick comedy but I must say that this picture was great. I immediately recognized David Krumholtz from the TV show "Numbers" and Lorraine Bracco, Roseanne Arquette and Karen Black were at their usual best. This is comedy at an incredibly high level with visual, spoken and satirical interludes that kept the audience, and me, laughing throughout a rather deep rooted plot.

Kudos to Mr. Parness for dealing with a delicate, but real, subject in a manner that can be enjoyed but fully absorbed by his audience at every level of intellect. The plot stays intact throughout the film and the comedic relief adds to the message without being laid on so thick as to distort. The blending of segways is done beautifully and the overall product is wonderfully tasteful.

I can definitely state that this film is one that will go a long way and should be seen by audiences of all ages; the problem is real and so is the powerful impact of this production. Man, is it great just to see Young and The Restless star Melody Thomas Scott as something other than flighty Nikki Newman! A doctor with a brain no less! And super nice to see her with the likes of the gorgeous Lorenzo Lamas instead of Victor Newman!

Mel plays a college professor of micro-biology who goes to the islands with her son for spring break, only to find herself a prisoner of the island infested with a rapidly spreading virus. Handy for her there is the hunky character played by Lorenzo, who has a daughter just her son's age.

Mel shines, as does Lorenzo with a bit of the overacting from the younger couple. Interesting premise in these times of chemical and biological terrorism talk. Worthwhile seeing, especially for Y&R fans. Hick Trek is clearly a film that is envious of even an El Mariachi-level budget ($7,000). Still, the creators are able to pull off decent effects at times (often due to great editing) such as the beamings, the situations aboard the cat ship, and Slim T. Jerk's unique way of communicating with his ship without use of a traditional communication device.

The acting does have its rough spots but the portrayal of "Horns" McBoy is excellent and Fluffy is certainly not too hard on the eyes.

I do wish that the film had been longer than its approximate hour - and that should be seen as a compliment. This movie is a success due to the sincerity and hard work of those involved. Now this is classic. A friend of mine told me about this flick, saying that it's incredibly lame, stupid, retarded, and moronic. He also said that I'd love it.

To my surprise, I found it available from netflix and rented it at once. I'm just shocked that I had never heard of it before. If I could give it an eleven, I would.

Hey, its great not to have to wait for the next Star-Trek convention to see hick-trek! Its a cheesy film by a bunch of treckies with no budget, but a good way to spend an hour. They got most of the special effects right, the dialog is classic trek and it just feels right for a trek-knockoff. This 60min film shows just how much fun filmmaking can be. It's all in good fun as it plays-out a no holds barred comedy assault on the Star Trek genre. In "Hick Trek - The Moovie", a group of good 'ol boys are on a mission to stop a group of renegade cats out to destroy the entire Redneck Federation.

Can Captain Jerk stop the villainous Fluffy with the power of the R.S.S. Bovine and it's Cow Ray?? She may have nine lives, but he has ten bullets! This cult classic (previously only seen at scifi conventions) is a party favorite. Lots of funny moments! Despite looking dated, "Inki and the Minah Bird" is, my opinion, an enjoyable and charming cartoon. The artwork isn't extraordinary, but good enough. This cartoon has no dialogs, just sounds and music, but this combination works out pretty well. The cartoon itself is good, funny, old fashioned, creative, entertaining and amusing.

This cartoon also makes the difference because it focus in just 3 characters: Inki (the little black girl), the Minah Bird (a very strange bird) and a hungry lion that wants to have both Inki and Minah for breakfast - so he chases them both during most of the cartoon.

I actually find that lion very handsome, hilarious and cool. I really like that lion. That poor lion is so silly and loser that you have to feel sorry for him. For me, the real enemy is the Minah Bird, not the lion. At one point, the lion almost eats it - too bad he doesn't get to gulp it, because it deserved to be eaten.

Back to this animated short, there isn't a single dull or boring moment. At least for me. The only bit that I find stupid is the ending because the bird has a major fight with the lion, steals his teeth and puts them on itself. Other than that, I have nothing major to criticize about this, aside the fact that the steak should've definitely have gone for the lion and not the bird.

In my opinion, this is a very forgotten and underrated little jewel that should definitely get more credit. If a joke doesn't offend anybody, it isn't funny.

The Inki cartoons are offensive, no doubt about it. So is rap music. Get over it. I suspect that any sane Black person will find the Inki cartoons hilarious, and that the people who are offended by them White people who still think Black's need their patronizing protection against racist humor.

Seriously, the Inki cartoons are funny. It saddens me that, not because anybody is really offended, but because somebody might, just might, be offended, I can't buy Inki cartoons or The African Queen or Song of the South on DVD. Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.

This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.

Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks! Dexter (Kurt Russell) returns from The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes for a new adventure that can stand alone. Dexter, ever the college student prone to misadventure, has an idea for a formula to render things invisible. Dean Higgins (Joe Flynn) is less than impressed and sets his hopes for winning a lucrative science prize with the pupil studying bees. However, the bees sting the student and he turns out to be allergic. There goes THAT chance for a prize. But, wait, Dexter does it! He actually concocts a liquid that makes him invisible. Trouble is, a unscrupulous businessman (Cesar Romero) learns about it and decides he can use that formula, thank you, for something illegal. Can he manage to steal the bottle out from under Dexter's nose? This is a companion movie to the TCWT but one need not have seen the first film to enjoy this one. Russell is a genial leading screw-up who comes through when it really counts. The rest of the cast is also a dream, with Flynn, Romero, Jim Bacchus and others showing why their comic abilities are still held in high regard today. The script is just innocent fun that is charming, with the special effects somewhat simple, by today's standards, but effective nonetheless. If you want to sit down and relive a bygone era or just want to share a quality, G-rated film with your family, this is a great choice. Although it is over 30 years old, there is a great possibility that even now you will see your loved ones giggle away the blues with a showing of this fine flick. This is Classic Disney at its live action cartoon best! Bumbling college student Dexter Riley (Kurt Russell) develops a mysterious liquid invisibility formula that actually makes objects disappear and helps him to save his cash strapped college. Further experimentation reveals that it works amazingly well on humans too! Riley's startling discovery takes some hilarious new twists when a gang of crooks headed by the notorious A.J. Arno (Cesar Romero) steal the formula and attempt to use it for their less-than-legal activities. Dazzling special effects and a fast-paced story make this lively film a textbook case of college comedy! I love this movie! This movie has always filled me with a sense of wonder and joy.A pleasant little comedy that the entire family can enjoy. Not much violence or sex and absolutely no swearing, makes this a movie that parents can watch with their children.Merely one in a series of Kurt Russell movies set at Medvale College. A pleasant little series set in a wholesome America before terrorists, when people valued integrity more than cash! I highly recommend this movie! It may not be a 10 out of 10 but for me the jokes didn't fail. I've seen it many times when I was younger and again on DVD I believe, and I laughed each time.The humor is simple and fun,this film was just one of many small flicks Disney was throwing out at the time. I found the parts where the people out of the invisible loop saw people invisible. THere expressions were priceless Great film, if the opportunity to ever see this arises I recommend seeing it for a good oh fashion laugh. My favorite character in all the Dexter series would most definitely have to be Dean Higgins, I love his voice and hearing him get upset especially seeing his expression at the end was just pure hysterical for me. This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages. An unjustly neglected classic, "Intruder in the Dust" is one of the great films of the 1940's which has unfortunately slipped into obscurity. Based on a story by William Faulker, and shot in his hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, "Intruder" tells the story of Lucas Beauchamp (played with great dignity by Juano Hernandez), a black man unjustly accused of the murder of a local white man, and a white boy (Claude Jarman, Jr.) who uses this situation as an opportunity to pay a previous debt to Beauchamp. Terrific acting, especially by two great character actors, Porter Hall (as the dead man's father) and Elizabeth Patterson (best known as Mrs. Trumbull on "I Love Lucy") as an old woman willing to stand against the townspeople to see that right is done. This straightforward, tense and sincere study of racial bigotry deserves to be seen more. This is easily the best cinematic version of William Faulkner's fiction that I've ever seen, and I've seen several of the most prominent ones. Filmed in Faulkner's hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, it really captures the feeling of Jefferson and Yoknapatawpha County. Intruder in the Dust is not one of Faulkner's best novel, but, even if it is a cliché to say this, it would be the crown jewel in any one else's career. It beats Harper Lee's good but simplistic To Kill a Mockingbird fifty feet into the ground (I read that one in ninth grade, and that's exactly where it belongs). Two of Faulkner's most prominent characters play major parts in the film, Gavin Stevens and Lucas Beauchamp. Stevens is probably the single most common character in all of Faulkner's fiction. He's a lawyer and he works easily as a narrator, because, unlike many of his other characters, Stevens is a man of logic, not emotion (at least when he's older). Lucas Beauchamp may be the most prominent of all of Faulkner's black characters (he plays a major part in one of Faulkner's out-and-out masterpieces, Go Down, Moses); unlike all of the other black folks in Yoknapatawpha, he refuses to bow down to any white man. He has pride, and many in the white population find that an execrable quality in a black man. One day, Lucas is found standing over a dead white man with a recently-fired pistol in his possession. Most of Jefferson and the surrounding areas don't see the need for a trial, and everyone's pretty sure that Beauchamp will be lynched before the evening's over, or at least the next day, as the murder and arrest occurred on a Sunday. Beauchamp, on the other hand, declares his innocence and tries to get Stevens to help him. Stevens refuses; the case seems open and shut. But his young nephew, Chick Mallison, because Lucas had helped him in the past, is willing to help him now.

As far as I know, no Hollywood film of this period deals with racism as overtly as this one. Hollywood films rarely persecute the black population, but instead prefer to relegate them to servant roles. If you're an African American actor, you might as well give up and accept that role as either the mammy, the maid, the servant, or the porter, because that's the only way you'll work. In Intruder in the Dust, there is to be found one of the most memorable non-porter roles a black actor ever had, Lucas Beauchamp. And Beauchamp, as I described above, is no stereotypical character, and might have been hard for audiences to accept. Even today, black characters are usually simple, magical, and kind. The recent arthouse hit Far from Heaven is a great example of that. Beauchamp is kind of a jerk, and he's very stubborn. Although he's perhaps a little less so here than he is in the novel, he's not any kind of stereotype. He's a complex human being. Juano Hernandez plays Beauchamp extraordinarily well. I haven't seen the film in a while, but he also appears in Robert Aldrich's 1955 film, Kiss Me Deadly, as well as the cinematic adaptation of Faulkner's final novel, The Reivers.

All the actors are great in the film. I should also praise quickly Claude Jarman Jr., who has the great role of Chick Mallison. The novel takes place from his point of view, and he is the conventional hero of the picture. Jarman is quite an actor; he captures the character (who also appears elsewhere in Faulkner's fiction, narrating, for example, events that happened a decade or more before he was born in the 1957 novel The Town) perfectly. He would appear in another great role the next year in the underrated John Ford film Rio Grande. The only other film of Clarence Brown's that I've seen is National Velvet, quite a different picture than Intruder in the Dust. His job here is exceptional; I really have to credit him with capturing Faulkner perfectly. Other famous Faulkner adaptations are too melodramatic (The Long Hot Summer, filmed in 1958, which I really like despite that) or too cold (Tomorrow, filmed in 1972, which I do not like; that coldness is a complete misunderstanding of Faulkner). The only other one that really does well according to its source material is Douglas Sirk's great 1958 filming of Pylon (really a different sort of Faulkner novel altogether), Tarnished Angels. 10/10. No movie could ever do justice to Faulkner's command of the English language. but they did a pretty good job here. Lucas Beauchamp is exactly the way I pictured him in the book, as is Chick. What the movie couldn't really go into was how Beauchamp wasn't liked by the Negro people either, because he was equally as stubborn. Not that it is a bad thing, but from my take on the book that was his attitude toward the world (yet, I got the feeling it was white society's racism that started it and it spilled over into Negro society, until that became his attitude toward everyone).

the best part of the movie is that you get to see Yoknapatawpha county (actually, Oxford, Mississippi) exactly as Faulkner wrote about it (the film was made when Faulkner was alive and writing). It doesn't look that much different today. Because of this alone, the movie is worth a watch considering it is filmed in Faulkner's backyard. A true must see for Faulkner fans. It's pretty surprising that this wonderful film was made in 1949, as Hollywood generally had its collective heads in the sand concerning black and white issues at that time. The film deserves strong kudos for taking this stand, for having exceptional acting from its mostly lesser-known cast and for the super-intelligent script that doesn't insult the audience or take the easy way out when it comes to white racism. Plus, with the movie's rather modest budget and fast running time, it does an amazing job!

Juano Hernandez (an exceptional actor who played supporting roles in many films of the era) is a proud black man who is accused of murdering a white man in the South. The crowd could really care less about the details--they are just hell-bent on a hanging. And, despite his commitment to the law, the one lawyer in town who has agreed to defend him also assumes he is guilty and doesn't really want to know the truth--just delay the hanging until they could try and convict him and then have a LEGAL hanging! Fortunately, a young white man (Claude Jarmin) begins to wonder about Juano's innocence and begins seeking out the truth. At this point, the best character in this wonderful drama is introduced--played by Elizabeth Patterson (the old lady who later played Mrs. Trumbull on I LOVE LUCY). She single-handedly steals the show as the white person with not only a conscience but the will and determination to stand up for the black man. At one wonderful point in the film, a mob is trying to push past her to get to the prisoner to kill him, but she stands very firm and forces them to back down. There is a lot more to this rather complicated but intelligently written story, but I'll leave it to you to see it for yourself. See it with your kids if you have a chance--it will open up some amazing dialog about how far race relations have come in the last 50 years.

By the way, apparently 1949 was a great year for Hollywood finally addressing race prejudice head on, as Twentieth-Century Fox also released "Pinky"--an equally effective and strong film about racism, interracial marriage and even rape! See both films if you can. As a fan of Wm. Faulkner since college, I was especially pleased to see Intruder In the Dust and for other reasons. My grandfather, also named Clarence Brown as was the director, grew up in the Oxford area having been born near there in 1888. We attended a week long family reunion at Oxford in July, 1964 a mere 15 years after filming the movie. It still looked mostly like it does in the film but was going thru a period of civil rights upheaval then as the site of Ole Miss. My recollection is of its being a nice little college town that summer but I was just an 18 year old college sophomore and white. I was just then beginning to see the injustice of segregation and prejudice but still had a long way to go. Anyhow, the movie is well worth watching but the filmmakers must have had to walk a tight rope to get it done there and I would love to know more about that story.

Now days, Oxford is a larger, more modern college town with all the ills that go along with such things and I hope to return again to see how it must have changed socially in the last 40 plus years. Juano Hernandez should certainly have been nominated for an Oscar that year but Hollywood was still to bigoted itself to let that happen. Other Faulkner stories have been filmed so look for them and compare. One of the best was a PBS treatment of The Barn Burner from about 1985 or so starring Tommy Lee Jones. It really captured the intensity of rural Southern whites that Faulkner wrote so incisively about so often. This film was set, filmed, and premiered in Oxford, Miss., the hometown of W. Faulkner, the locale of the 1948 book. Most of the extras were locals. I've been to Oxford, and it has greatly changed. This film features Will Geer as the sheriff;he was later blacklisted. It was the writers and actors of social dramas such as this film, and Grapes Of Wrath, that were targets of the HUAC a few years later. I don't recall if the actor playing the young Mallison boy (Claude Jarman Jr) did anything after the TV series Centennial (1978), but he was terrific in this earlier film. And do not miss Elizabeth Patterson who later played in Little Women. Take a look at those faces alongside the entrance to the jail. They're not the faces of Hollywood extras. Somebody in production was really smart to take filming to Oxford, Mississippi, because you can't get that kind of authenticity from a studio backlot. Scope out the narrow dusty roads, the frozen earth beneath, and the skeletal trees just barely hanging on. No wonder those faces look hard and unforgiving; they're just reflecting the soil from which they spring. Old man Lucas (Hernandez) better fear for his life, but then he springs from that same hard earth.

The movie works because it tells a good story that neither preaches nor sentimentalizes and even has some suspense. Old man Lucas is not very likable. He's a victim and we sympathize, but he's also haughty and unfriendly. Wisely, the script refuses to sweeten him up. That way we're forced to recognize the effects of racism and injustice on even the less sympathetic. The script also wisely avoids dealing directly with racism since that tends to become preachy and less effective. Instead, we're shown how easily prejudice can convict an innocent man and condemn him to a horrible death. So, it's through our common instinct to see justice done that the effects of racism are exposed, a much more effective pathway. It also makes the actions of the sheriff and the lawyer more understandable since they are otherwise part of the Jim Crow system.

Note how the movie doesn't attack segregation. It's doubtful that old man Lucas would want to mix with whites anyway and there's no hint that even lawyer Stevens (Brian) wants to cross the color line except to see justice done. No, the possibility of reconciliation lies in the future as symbolized by the kid (Jarman) whose head is not yet filled with "notions". He's not exactly friends with Lucas, but he has glimpsed the common humanity of being befriended after falling into the frozen creek. The last line of dialogue also shows him siding with his uncle, the lawyer, instead of his more hidebound parents (the dinner table scene is important and easily overlooked). The lawyer might not join a future civil rights march, but the kid might. That's the movie's realistically hopeful side.

There was a bunch of racially themed movies during this brief 3 year period, 1949-51, (The Well, No Way Out, Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries). Even famously detached MGM got into the mix with this little gem. Unfortunately, the McCarthy purges in Hollywood put an end to "problem" films that might not serve Cold War ends. Even so, each of these is worth catching up with, not only because they're good movies, but because even with the passage of 60 years and Jim Crow, they're still relevant. I've described this film as surprising... this is true in many respects. The subject material (black man wrongly accused), the characters (people you expect to be stereotypes often show uncharacteristic attitudes during the film), the production...

All of these factors make for a refreshingly unusual film, especially for its time (1949). The only possible spoilers being the sometimes cheesy dialogue and occasional high moral stance.

But, if you happen across it when you weren't planning to watch a film, you might find yourself like me - staying up into the middle of the night just to see what happens.

Intruder in the Dust (1949) Dir: Clarence Brown

Production: MGM

Excellent 'Southern Gothic' tale, adapted from the Faulkner novel, about a black man, accused of the murder of a white man, who asks a young white boy he has befriended to help him prove his innocence. Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez) is something of an anomaly in this small town. He's a black man who owns the land he lives on and doesn't think much of the diseased social order that mostly keeps the peace here and in many similar small towns. So when Lucas is found holding a gun over the dead body of Vinson Gowrie, shot in the back no less, young Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman) (who Lucas once saved after Chick fell through the ice while hunting on his land) fears that the town finally has the chance to "make Lucas a n*****." Arrested, and with a very real chance of being lynched before the night is through, Lucas reaches out to Chick for help, as the only person he knows "not cluttered with notions". Chick asks his Uncle John, a lawyer, to defend Lucas and while the man is initially bothered by his own notions he agrees and they race against the gathering mob to save Lucas' life.

The film has an uncommon frankness for its time and is mostly free of moralizing. The lawyer character has a tendency to speak incredibly self-aware dialogue that sounds mostly like something from the printed page, but it has minimal impact on the tone. That's a credit to the rich characterization of everyone else. Juano Hernandez, who had mostly appeared in Oscar Micheaux films, is superb as the proud Lucas. Porter Hall as the murdered man's father, in maybe the best role I've ever seen him in, and Elizabeth Patterson as a plucky old lady sympathetic to Lucas' case, standout in support roles. The setting is perfectly realized. It is actually filmed in Oxford, Mississippi, Faulkner's hometown. Brown also uses the crowd in an effective way, it's always an anonymous mob against a single person (like Lucas when he's arrested or John when he's going up to his office), that is very threatening. Or the grotesquerie of the whole town gathering at the jailhouse to witness the lynching like it was a parade. Of note is an absolutely riveting scene when Chick and his friend Aleck go evidence gathering in a cemetery. Robert Surtees (THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, BEN-HUR) shot the picture.

*** 1/2 out of 4 hello there; i would just like to say how much i enjoyed your review and comments about that excellent film 'intruder in the dust'. i believe that the points you made were insightful, intelligent and totally valid. it's also a shame that this film is hardly ever shown on TV these days and that it isn't available on DVD region 2 - i live in england. once again, many thanks for your review. the actor juano hernandez was in another brilliant film, 'young man with a horn', which also starred kirk douglas and lauren bacall. that was a very evocative and stylish film with some superb music. i wish that someone with influence could release the entire back catalogues of films like 'johnny belinda', 'i remember mama', and 'the yearling' on DVD region 2, we love these movies in great Britain. i'm not of pensionable age, i'm still reasonably young and my family and i love classic films!!films like these were so beautifully made and they bring back wonderful memories. anyway...! many thanks for your comments! I am not a Faulkner fan (which is considered sacrilegious, especially since I grew up near the author's hometown); however, I think this is an excellent movie. On par with the quality of the movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird". If you haven't seen it, buy it anyway. It's well worth having in your permanent collection. TCM recently played the movie as a part of the Race on Film series. I wish they'd play it more often. Very moving.

On a side note, the folks from Oxford, Mississippi, will also enjoy seeing the footage of the town square as it was back in the 1940's. The Courthouse, City Hall, etc.: They're all on screen. I never knew the movie was filmed there until I noticed the familiarity of the buildings. When I saw the arch in the front of City Hall, I began to get suspicious. Look closely at the pennants on Chick's wall: You'll see two for Ole Miss ! A very potent drama of Faulkner's small town south dealing with an innocent black man's murder of local ne'er do wll. Striking cinematography and good narrative (via flashback) take us through the uneasy relationship between the suspect and the son of his lawyer. A still powerful story that predates the Sidney Poitier films of racial prejudice. Porter Hall has a great role as the murdered man's father. Trivia: this was actually filmed in Faulkner's home town of Oxford, Miss. with many of the residents used as extras. It's too bad iameracing wants to deny the reality of Faulkner's and Clarence Brown's purpose in the creating of the story and film of "Intruder In The Dust". I suppose the burden of a history of racism is difficult for any Southerner to bear and I can understand that. But to say that this film was not specifically about racism is ridiculous and inaccurate. YES (to borrow your use of the upper case) iameracing, there are many many many places where blacks and white people in the South get along quite well. But to deny the way that black people were and sometimes still are forced to live, the conditions and injustices they have had to endure are not imaginary. Sometimes black and white people got along because of genuine affection and understanding. Sometimes it was only as long as blacks 'knew their place'. The point of making Juano Hernandez character (in film and print) a somewhat prickly type, not warm and fuzzy, was to underscore the fact that bigotry is wrong in and of itself and human rights are just that for everyone regardless of whether we like a particular individual or not.

It would do iameracing good to stop denying the existence of racism and the great harm it has done to Americans of all stripes. The fact is that black people (among others) did not, as a rule, not an exception, receive the benefits of the justice system as even-handedly as whites. Segregation, discrimination and lynching are historical fact. People like iameracing might claim these things were not as widespread as some think and would probably love to exonerate their ancestors and heroes from any connection with such behavior. It would be a wonderful thing if iameracing's Southern ancestors (if any)never participated in any of the horrible racist actions that mar this country's history and I hope they didn't. If that is so congratulations to them but that fact, if true, does not erase the fact that others did. And even if the horrible things that were done to blacks in the South (and other areas, let's not forget the Draft Riots of the Civil War Era)were only half as numerous, only a third, does that make them any less horrible? Is the murder of ten children the hanging of ten men the sexual assault of ten women any less horrible than the same things happening to a hundred?

Iameracing asks us to get the "Mississippi Burning" chip off of our shoulders before we see "Intruder In The Dust", well I ask you, did the murders of the civil rights activists happen or not? Why should that be forgotten? Forgiven? Maybe. But in order to prevent their recurrence they cannot be forgotten or revised into minor occurrences. The racism that is displayed in "Intruder In The Dust" is displayed there quite purposely. It is there to make a point.

On a cinematically historical level it is also ridiculous for iameracing to discount the racial angle. Any viewer of films that were filmed before the 1960's knows that black actors/characters/extras were usually deliberately cast. To judge from our movie history; wars were always fought by middle aged white men; There were no black people in the Old West; it was possible to walk down a street in a major city and never encounter a black person; there were no black hospital orderlies,taxi drivers,clerks, salespeople etc. Blacks were almost never cast with regard to a role unless race was a factor. If Falukner (and Brown) had wanted to tell a simple murder story he probably would not have made the Hernandez character black.

Racism exists iameracing. Probably for different reasons I am sure, we both wish that it didn't but it does. Wanting things to be the way we would like them to be probably can't be helped but it still does not make them so. Had it not been for To Kill A Mockingbird, this movie would be much more famous. Had it not been for Gregory Peck as Addicus Fitch, the acting here would be much more lauded. Had it not been for William Faulkner, perhaps To Kill a Mockingbird might never have been written in his shadow.

I found this movie to be sadly familiar because it showed me that one of my favorite movies, To Kill a Mockingbird, may not have been as original as I'd always thought it was. Perhaps it was inspired by this very similar movie. Oh, the "whodunnit" is different, but the underlying story, a lone righteous "white" attorney against a white Southern town defending a Black man is all too familiar. And, written by a woman, Mockingbird concentrates on rape, the ultimate betrayal to a woman while this movie concentrates on brother against brother hatred, the rape a man feels by fraternal betrayal.

There's not the depth of Mockingbird here. Not the comfort that Addicus brings with his presence. So you're just left with the sadness that, whether she intended to lift the plot from this movie or not, Harper Lee's Mockingbird reflects. Nothing changed in that 10 or so years since the time she may have read Faulkner's book and saw his movie while in college in Alabama and unconsciously or not took most of it as her own in later years. Nothing changed in race relations and some may say nothing has changed even now, these many years later.

It's all too sadly familiar, and one wishes there were an Addicus of our day to make it all right. Where Mockingbird leaves you with hope of that, rocking in the arms of Addicus and waiting for a morning of better times, this movie leaves you just sad that pride from Black people might equal or better the pride of White people. But pride from either is no answer at all.

Rather, it's the answer of Addicus we need, comfort that we are all flawed and that in our frailty we should have mercy, not pride, when facing each other in our differences. When It Comes to ANY Movie that was made in or about the South,The Characters are Labeled Racist or Hillbillies or Even Worse That Awful RACIST TERM "Rednecks". This Movie Was a Murder Mystery, Plain & Simple. It was a Great Murder Mystery & Did Demonstrate Some Of Human Feelings About Each Others Race. The Same Type of Observations Made By Black Character Actors Toward Whits in Todays' Movies. Before Watching This Movie, One Should Get the "MISSISSIPPI BURNING" Chip off of Ones' Shoulder & Enjoy the Plot, Wonderful Acting, & Reminiscent Scenes of Simpler Times That While are Gone, They Will Not be Forgotten. Mr.Faulkner Did His Hometown of OXFORD,Miss. Justice by Having this Movie Shot There. The Producer Noted While Shooting the Movie There, His Stereotypical Perception of Whites were Misconcieved & That He Observed WHite & Black Townspeople & Locals Getting Along With Each Other in the Same Way. So, Sit Back & Enjoy one of Mr Faulkner's Great Classics & Try to Figure out Who The Killer Really Is... This is not a serious film, and does not pretend to be, but it is not as bad as some of its reviews, it's title, and the first ten minutes lead you to expect.

The plot is very silly, but this adds to the light-hearted fun and enthusiasm which runs through the film. The characters are played sympathetically, and while they do engage in typical teenage angst, they generally avoid the sickly sentimentality usually to be found in this film genre.

Unusually set in London, sympathetic to geeks, this is well worth a watch if it happens to be on; if you want some tongue-in-cheek silliness, and don't mind suspending your disbelief. I really can't see why people seem to dislike this film. I found it very entertaining (of course the fact that it stars the gorgeous Laura Fraser is a bonus!) When I first heard about it, I thought it would be along the lines of a role-reversed "Weird Science" and, to an extent, this is true, however there is a twist which I really didn't see coming. Having seen the trailer on the DVD (which I hadn't seen before watching the film) I saw that the "twist" is actually shown in the trailer! Very strange.

As the film progresses the "Weird Science" comparison fits less and less, and I think this is the better of the two films. Certainly there are some scenes which don't work wonderfully, but these are made up for by the enthusiasm of the young cast.

In summary, I'd suggest that this is a fine example of a Sci-fi chick flick, and I don't think I've seen many of them! This film, won't win any awards for greatness. But if you have an hour and a half free and fancy a bit of light hearted entertainment then you could do much worse than watch this...

The cast are mostly young and pretty, the script has some genuinely funny moments and the soundtrack is pretty cool too. Rupert Penry-Jones as Jake seems to have the most fun, while Laura Fraser as Justine is sweet, likable and funny.

I rented it because I like the series 'Spooks' that RPJ is currently starring in. And here he's young and buff and the perfect eye candy for a girls night in.

Get some wine and some ice cream and have a chuckle. Okay, so it starts very unimaginatively with a narration from the lead character (Justine played by Laura Fraser - an amazing actress in her own right) but it goes on to become something miraculous. It has silly little things that you really shouldn't find funny but do every time. There is an especially memorable moment that sees your jaw dropping to the ground the first time you watch it when the male body of Jake, containing Justine's female mind, is trying to get used to her new anatomy. I wont spoil it for you, but the second time I watched it was with friends; seeing their faces was brilliant. It makes you cringe, but laugh at the same time. I am also a big fan of the music used. There is a beautiful small band that appears randomly on the street or on a pathway every now and then, but also some gorgeous, yet unknown (often the best), pop songs. It has the feeling of being written for an English cast by an American writer, which does annoy me only a couple of times. Overall, this film is hilarious. I am a massive fan of Laura Fraser's now, after being given his film for my birthday, and expect that, even though some of the cast are little-known to most, you too will enjoy every bit of it. This is a great film for pure entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. It's enjoyable, and a vaguely feel-good movie.

A minor, but nonetheless irritating thing about the movie is that we don't know why Justine and Chas broke up. Okay, most first relationships don't work for one reason or another, but they more or less seemed like a nice couple.

In a nutshell, it's worth a watch to escape reality. This was a very funny movie, not Oscar-worthy, but definately the best dollar I've ever spent at Blockbuster! Rupert Penry Jones is a shining star, and very well might be the new Jude Law! So, if you're in the mood for a British Teen Flick- RENT IT!! I love this movie. I just saw it for the first time about 10 hours ago and had to rewind it so that my sister could watch it. This movie is so funny. There are two times that I was laughing so hard my sides hurt. I didn't expect to watch a movie so funny; I really only wanted to see it because Laura Fraser is in it. I first saw her in Titus which is an awesome movie as well.

Like others reviewers have said, too many people are expecting a deep moving film. You are not going to get it. What you will get is humor, eye candy and the chance to ask yourself exactly what your perfect mate would look like if you could create them. You can also wonder what it would be like to be stuck in the body of the opposite sex.

A hilarious sequence involves Justine first seeing herself as a naked man. I was cracking up.

I swear, this movie is the most imaginative teen film that I have ever seen and it is now my favorite.

Just remember why movies were originally created; as entertainment not philosophy in motion. Remember this and you will have a great time watching Virtual Sexuality. In this movie "Virtual Sexuality" the 17 year old Justine is not lucky in love. One day when she is stood up, she goes with her friend to a virual reality conference, there she is introduced with a machine that can change your look, dody and whatever you like in Virtual Reality. She decides to try it out, but begins to make a boyfriend of her own, her dreamdate. Then suddenly there is an explosion in a gas pipe and her creation comes to life. I'll say no more, you'll have to watch the movie, which is quite fun to watch. I saw this film a week ago and I had to persuade my friend to come with me because this film seems to be getting such bad reviews. Sure it is no 'Human Traffic' or 'Lock, Stock...' but is by no means a flop. I think the fact that there are so many big budget films out at the moment means it has been ignored but it shouldn't be. I reckon it sets out to do what it wants to do- entertain us for an hour and a half and leave us feeling happy and contented. I would much rather go and see it that 'The Mummy', which looks boring. And no, I'm not a teenager. Don't listen to the critics, Star Wars fans didn't. This film is well worth seeing, if just to see the gorgeous Luke de Lacey and Rupert Penry-Jones. Go see it! Well, I tend to watch films for one of three reasons. Unfortunately, there are no Transformers in this film, so I can recommend it only on comedy value and pretty women (read girls)

Yes, it is funny, I know this due to the number of people in the cinema who were laughing on a regular basis throughout. Personally though, I loved it for Laura Fraser, who IMHO is FIT! It's pretty good, all things considered. A must for anyone perplexed about the opposite sex (i.e. all of us!). The trailer doesn't give away any of the plot FOR GOOD REASON.

The premise is absurd, so it's nice to see that it doesn't take itself seriously. It's like someone from the BBC children's department decided to make a film for adults. That's not a bad thing IMO.

7/10 In England we often feel very attached to British films that we like, as we are so used to the usual American settings and accents. Being from London, where Virtual Sexuality is set, I felt a strong emotional attachment to it. The characters in Virtual Sexuality, particularly the females, are exactly what British teenagers are like, I felt like I was almost in the film. I immediately related to the character of Alex from the film, his shyness is quite common in most British teenage boys, especially around girls. Virtual Sexuality made me feel really good as its one of the only British films that isn't about gangsters or the middle-upper class, but about the people who are watching the film, average teenagers. Americans wouldn't really feel the emotional attachment, but every British teenager should watch it. Anyone from London will recognise the parts of the city from the film, it's definately got a special place in my video box! It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.

Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing! I had the privilege of attending a regional premiere for this, this is one of the funniest British movies ever, the plot is fantastic, focusing around a young girl, who unwittingly changes into her ideal man at a computer fair, whilst also creating a copy of herself, who falls in love with him, the film is full of jokes, both visual and aural, and has a bright and fresh feel to it, and the acting is of great quality, released in U.K. on July 2nd this film is a must, go see it!!! While I understood, that this show is too weird to please everybody, I don't get where all these bad reviews come from, and I'm most surprised over the bad reviews, that it has gotten from fans of the movies. I liked it and got hooked on it since the first episode I watched. It's a little messed up though, that Kuzco was put into school. And it seems to be High School rather than College. But I guess he's only eighteen, right, so it's not like he's too old to get educated? And haven't the royals always had to get the best education avaible to them? So the "Kuzco has to graduate, or he won't become emperor" thing doesn't sound too weird for me. And I guess his education was neglected before, so that's why he has to be educated now. Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.

The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!) I've never been compelled to write a review about anything, but seeing such bad reviews about such an innovative show made me say something. First, people just have to get over the fact that the voices are different. Once you watch an episode, it never really comes to mind ever again. The humor is original and while, yes, some jokes do carry over from the movie, they are delivered fresh. Some of it is even reminiscent of Shrek--self-referential humor. A lot of these jokes seem aimed at teens or original fans of the movie as much as tweens and younger. Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt are both hilarious as they reprise their roles as Kronk and Yzma and their Annie Award nominations were well-warranted.

This show takes some time to love, to really get in "the groove" of things, so to speak. If you ignore the horrible theme song (which really shouldn't warrant that much in the way of how you judge a show since it's only 30 seconds of the overall product), this show is laugh-out-loud hilarity and doesn't lose any of the Emperor's New Groove spirit. It's not as good as the movie, that said it's a cute kids show. Okay so the Emperor has back slide and become a selfish spoiled brat once more, accept it and enjoy the cartoon as something entertaining. It has plenty of jokes for the parents and still holds the attention of children. Also it boasts two of the original voice actors from the movie. Earth Kitt who has been in numerous films but I'm sure many people know as Catwoman. And Patrick Walburton (sorry if I misspelled) who also has appeared in many films and TV series but is most widely recognized as The Tick. It's really a rare and wonderful combination. If for no other reason I highly recommend comic book fans watch at least one episode just to enjoy the dynamic duo. To sum up, entertaining children's show, with plenty of inside jokes for the grown-ups to laugh along with. If your looking for educational value this isn't your show. If your just looking for something funny this is a great Saturday morning pick! I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead. Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.

Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.

J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.

Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.

And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.

The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad. It helps that the characters this show is based on are among the best Disney has ever come up with. The writing is what really makes this show. It's a total classic. Given, you need to appreciate the type of humor to enjoy it, and this is hard to explain. The humor is akin to the old school scenarios of 40's and 50's Disney, with modern spins. It never degrades into fart jokes or anything of that type. It's not adam sandler humor either, though I have enjoyed that. It is the exact same humor of the movie, only expanded upon for the length of time a TV show permits. So if you didn't like it in the movie, you won't like it here, but IMO The emperors new groove was the best thing to come out of Disney since Gargoyles.

A+ The new voices scare me! Kuzco doesn't have to pass some frickkin' academy to become emperor again! It's the same thing over and over, isn't it? This IS a kids' show, right? Yzma turns Kuzco into something stupid, like an animal. He learns a lesson. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME!!!!! David Spade and John Goodman never returned... *sniffle*! Nothing changes 'cause Disney won't do anything 'bout it. It's probably one of the most retarded shows ever! The first movie was so damn better! Malina's probably the only person I like. Kuzco's such a crybaby! Kronk is retarded! And Yzma's retarded-ER (if that's even a word)! What I meant to say is... How could you, Disney... why? Forever strong is one of those sports movies you can actually watch. It reminded me a lot of Remember the Titans because it included comedy, sadness, and just awesomeness. I saw it at a pre-screening and all my friends liked it and easily put it in their top 2 sport movies. The acting is great in the movie. Even though it is similar to Remember the Titans it there is something very unique about this movie. I feel this is definitely Oscar worthy and will receive many awards. Everybody should definitely go see this movie and it is worth your $10. I'm going to have to see it again when it comes out because it was that good. I cant say one bad thing about the movie. As a former Highland Rugby(HR) player, I feel like I can possibly answer some of the questions and confusion that has been put forward. I think that I am also in a position to offer some insight into the club and back stories. Oh, and this is gonna be a long post, I can tell already.

First off, the people who said that the movie doesn't show real rugby, have a valid point. The movie is full of bad tackles, people in the wrong places, and much much more. If you want to know what a real rugby game feels like, you won't get the best idea from this movie. But the thing is, anything short of actually sitting down and watching a highlight reel or jumping into a game yourself, is not going to be satisfactory. It's Hollywood, not ESPN! Really, how many sports movies really make you feel like you are in the game? Not many that I have seen. I think it's important to keep in mind that the movie is about rugby players, much more than it is about rugby.

Next, the Haka is VERY much a part of Highland Rugby. It is not something that they just threw into the movie. To be honest, I don't know how the tradition got started, but Highland emulates the All Blacks in many ways. The uniform is based off of the All Blacks as well. The movie did not do a good job of explaining the origins of the Haka, and to be honest, I don't think that that is right. But I can tell you that every member of the team knows exactly where it comes from and what it means. As for the person from China(?) who said that only a Maori can perform a Haka, I would suggest that they take a look at the All Blacks and tell me if they think that they are all Maori. Believe it or not, Utah has a very large Polynesian community, and a good portion of them like and play rugby for the local teams. I, myself am part Hawaiian. Whenever possible, the Haka is led by a Maori. The team does not do it because they think that they are Maori, they do it because of some of the issues shown in the movie. The concept of unity and "those who have gone before" is a huge part of the HR culture, and the message behind the Haka, for any of those that are familiar with it, support those values. It's a chant by a chief who thought he would die (Ka Mate), and those around him supporting him telling him he will live (Ka Ora) and boosting him up. How appropriate it is for a bunch of white boys to do it is not for me to say, but that is the ideology behind it and why it is done. "Kia Kaha" is also a well used team motto, even if the actors had a hard time saying it.

Also, for the people who questioned Highland's Rugby playing ability, I would just remind you that you were not really watching Highland play in this movie. Many of the extras were former players from Highland and other teams, but the main characters were all actors. Believe it or not, Highland really is pretty good at what they do and pretty well respected in the international community. Granted, some years produce better teams than others (it's what you would expect with any sports team), but you don't accumulate HR's win record by just being okay. The year after I graduated, (1998) Highland was one of 12 teams to be invited to the World Schools Rugby Championship in Zimbabwe. The teams were hand picked from around the world and represented the best of High school rugby talent at the time. Highland obviously didn't win first place, (New Zealand did that), but they did manage to take third place in the tournament, beating the Tongan national champions in their last match. And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about. Highland also has a tradition of touring New Zealand every few years, and usually comes back with more wins than losses.

The majority of characters portrayed in this movie are based off of real people and real stories. I watched this movie with my brothers, who also played for Highland, and between the four of us, we were fairly certain that we were able to identify ALMOST every main character. Nobody knew a white Rasta. Of course as this wasn't a documentary, Hollywood did take some liberties, but to tell you the truth, not as many as you might think. The film was actually pretty accurate in showing the 2 and a half hour daily practices, as well as the mandatory personal running and weight training. Sometimes it really was running until you threw up. It also showed the service and other team activities (like the chuck-a-rama buffet) that were very much a part of team bonding.

And finally the movie, in my (obviously very biased) opinion, it was a pretty good movie. And I think that the reason for it is that I watched it as an inspirational sports movie. I didn't think that it would be a pure rugby movie or an academy award winning drama. It was just an uplifting movie about a rugby team, complete with morals, encouragement, and a good dose of jokes thrown in for entertainment. I hope that I addressed some of the problems that people have had with the movie, and hope that you can now enjoy it for what it was.

Kia Kaha Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of "We Are Marshall" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix. First of all, I know almost nothing about rugby, so although I found the rugby-aspect of this movie to be interesting it could have been any sport and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. The fact that it as about rugby didn't make it any better or worse for me.

What made this movie great is the story itself, based on actual events that have occurred over the last 30 years with the Highland Rugby club. Coach Gelwix is the kind of coach that most every parent would like their children to have, someone who cares more about the person than the sport (even though they have won 17 national championships and have only lost 9 games in over 30 years!). The more I have learned about the coach and team the more I like this movie and its message.

I have seen other sports movies that seemed great at first, but then I researched the details only to find that most of those movies were 10% fact and 90% fiction, with the 10% of facts being greatly exaggerated. Not so with Forever Strong. It may seem too good to be true, but that's what's so amazing about it. If it were fiction it would just be an enjoyable story and nothing more. Instead, the movie is inspirational and makes you want to be a better person.

Don't miss this movie because of a few negative reviews by professional critics. I have been reading some of their reviews and most of them have given the movie horrible reviews. These are generally the same critics who rave about movies that most people hate. In fact, I would be worried if some of these critics had given the movie good reviews because I almost always disagree with their opinions.

Go see this movie and post your review (positive or negative)! Currently most of the audience reviews are enthusiastically positive (here and on Rotten Tomatoes and similar sites), and I am interested to see if this trend continues. Thanks! Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.

The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment. Forever Strong is a type of film we've seen many time before,just in different types of genres. However that being said,I really thought it was a great film,Sean Faris is showing the type of potential that usually lands actors into big time stardom. Apparently this film got a limited release as I wasn't even aware of it,but I saw it in the video store and decided to take a chance with it after I remember enjoying Sean's performance in Never Back Down. I ended up making a great decision,I'm not a fan of rugby what so ever,but the film really isn't fully about rugby,it's about making a stand in you're life,challenging yourself,reaching your goals,there is a whole lot more then the simple plot suggests. At 1st we don't give a damn about what happens to Rick,he's mouthy,full of himself,and completely arrogant,we feel he's completely sealed his fate as a trouble maker. Along the way we see the changes in his character,he starts to hang around with better people,he starts to better himself,we learn how much negative impact his father has had in his life,it's just a great swerve and the film did a great job of turning Rick from cocky prick to a good hearted person.

The rugby action itself is not too bad at all,unlike the stuff I played and saw in high school,this was actually quite fun to watch and beautifully choreographed. A great young cast combined with some veteran experience helped this film immensely,it just did a fabulous job of avoiding in what could've been a run of the mill type of thing to a poignant and effective drama. I also liked the conflicting contrast between The Coach|Garry Cole| and Rick|Sean Faris|,it made for a very interesting storyline,and I loved seeing him help out Rick along the way it was emotional and heartwarming at the same time. This is a real hidden gem that i'm truly glad I discovered it made me think about my life and a lot of times I need something like that.

The Performances. Sean Faris is outstanding as Rick Penning. He reminded me an awful lot of a young Tom Cruise cocky yet very charismatic and talented. It was a tough role to turn going from a mouthy teenager,to a good hearted young man,but Sean pulled it off with pure perfection. He clearly put his heart and soul into this film,so big kudos to Sean for putting so much effort into this great film. Gary Cole is excellent as the preachy yet likable coach who wants to help out the kids. I've always found him to be likable,he always has a sort of presence he carries to his films. Neal McDonough is fantastic as the selfish yet pressured father of Rick. For the majority of the movie,the script leads you to believe he's nothing more then a selfish bitter man who wants Rick to be exactly like him,but in the end you start to see the real him come out,I felt sorry for him a bit. Julie Warner is a good character actress and she plays the good hearted,yet clueless mother well. Penn Badgley is required to play a real jerk,and boy does he ever do that well. On numerous occasions I wanted to pop him one,so I must say it's a great performance. Arielle Kebbel is the love interest not much of a part,she did OK. Nathan West plays a somewhat mysterious character,he did quite well. Sean Astin is billed as a major player for the film,but he barely does anything,he did good with what he had to do.

Bottom line-Forever Strong is a great feel good film,it will definitely make you stop and think about how your life was much better then you thought. Don't let this one slip you by,you won't regret it.

8 1/2/10 I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!

So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it.

So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!

Muawha! I think a several of America's baseball movies are among the best movies ever made. When this movie was in production and heard it described as a rugby movie. I'd read about the Highland team in the newspapers, but didn't have high expectations for this film about a sport that didn't interest me.

Last night I viewed it "on-demand" and loved it almost as much as my favorite baseball movies. Ryan Little and the cast and crew did an amazing job. Neil McDonough was especially convincing. As the "bad dad" he displayed fine range and a subtle, but moving character arc.

I also enjoyed the Pacific Islander actors. I've been fortunate to know many of these fine people and this film captures their wonderful spirit and culture. A flashback showing how the Islander culture became such a key element of Highland's team would have been a excellent addition to the film.

Some pretty tacky movies have been shot in Utah recently. It's good to see a quality film like this from the Beehive State. First, let's call this movie what it is:

1. It's a feel-good movie with a message.

2. The acting is just okay, dialog slightly better, production value pretty good.

3. Rugby scenes...just barely passable.

But here's the trick: this isn't something Hollywood contrived, and it isn't trying to be a ferociously accurate portrayal of the sport. It is instead a pretty good representation of mostly real people, in real circumstances, and a real storyline. Sure, they could have done a better job actually rep'ing the sport, but my vote: it does a pretty good job at what it sets out to do.

(And fwiw, I can't think of many football, baseball, hockey or soccer movies that are true to the sport either. C'mon...Bull Durham?)

I'm not a rugby player (I was a wrestler) but I graduated from Highland, attended '86-'90, and occasionally trained with the Rugby guys. My brother-in-law David, however, was one of the original founding members of the Highland Rugby Club in 1976. (His younger brother, Billy, played the next year, as I recall. If you're interested, there's a Highland Rugby site at highlandrugby.net that addresses the history of the team.)

By the time I was there the club had been in existence for about a decade, and had long since built a reputation for excellence. It's a fact that they focused on "broad" training topics: devotion, honor, discipline, effort, not tactics. I thought the rugby guys I knew were a little 'off' in the head, but I think I might have just been a little jealous. They were hard-core dedicated to the belief system that Gelwix promoted.

With regard to the "cultural mixing" issues that have been brought up, it might be interesting to note that while I was there in the 80's, one of the larger schools in the city was shut down - South High School - and its students distributed among the other 3 primary SLC schools. To be honest, Highland pre-80's was pretty whitebread...I've got a picture of the team from (I think) 1977 that shows an *all* white club. South High, on the other hand, was a much more racially integrated school before it closed: I had a pair of friends from South who joined the team, one Tongan, one Samoan, and as I recall there were a bunch of Island-nation players that joined up '88-'90. I don't think anyone questioned the credibility of the team in adopting Maori (or other cultural) traditions: if there was one thing that was obvious about these guys, it's that they walked the walk.

And as to the strength of the team when compared to the best highschool-age teams in the world: yeah, it's true that US-Rugby, on average when taken as a whole, does not represent particularly well against the best elsewhere. There are exceptions, but hey - it's a simple fact that Rugby doesn't have the prominence or exposure needed to develop the multiple traditions of excellence in the US that arise in other countries.

With that said, judge Highland on its merits:

- the *only* team to qualify for the USA Rugby National Championships every year of that organizations' 25-yr history.

- a win record of 392 wins, 9 losses. Read that again...winningest coach in any US sport in history.

- regular international tours.

- some compelling wins against some legitimate international teams.

Are they the world best? Maybe some years, probably not most...but they're pretty good on a consistent basis. And it's disrespectful to the game to blow them off, when Highland Rugby may be the best ambassador to the sport in the US. This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly. A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field.

The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.

I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.

The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years).

Enjoy! My family truly enjoyed this movie. As far as what this movie will do for Rugby in the USA...well I am sure that will be debatable. But as for me and others around me, I know that we were more curious about the sport after seeing the movie and I personally gained more respect for the game. You may wonder how this possible, especially since the movie does not dive in and explain Rugby. But the simple fact is it drew you into the players and emotion of the game and life. The film was inspirational as well as entertaining. It made us laugh and cry. The chemistry between Sean Astin, Big Budah and Sean Faris worked well. Some may think the movie is a little cliché, but I seriously wish Hollywood made more movies like this. I couldn't help drawing analogies of the game and life's struggles. At the end of it I found myself examining my own life to see what I needed to do better, in order to be the best person I could be. Honestly I was grateful this movie taught morals, values and teamwork, there is so much to the contrary. After watching this I really hope my kids are coached by someone who has a philosophy like Coach Gelwix. I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect. I wonder how someone could diss on this movie. It is based on an actual story. It is not necessarily about "Rugby" itself so to the one that posted on here that they need to make a "real" rugby movie, you missed the point. This is not another typical sports movie where a team sucks, they hire Emilio Estevez and turn the team around and win the championship and give everyone the warm and fuzzies. It focuses on a STORY. It shows how someone can change his or her life for the better. The movies now days are all about sex, drugs, partying etc. That is Hollywood. I am a big fan of movies, but I have to say this was an inspirational movie with a great message. If you consider yourself a "tough guy" don't watch the movie, it won't live up to your standards. If you want to watch a good, inspirational movie, this is a good one. I am huge movie enthusiast and also an active rugby player who believes that rugby is the greatest game ever played. Forever Strong is a mix of Coach Carter and sloppy rugby. This movie is full of great acting, well developed characters and in action shots that will have you ducking and dodging in your seat, but with more arm tackles than pee wee football and almost every shot cuts away as soon as a player touches the ground its filmed to almost seem like football. If you want to bring your kids to see a movie that will build character from within and could inspire a blind man to see again I can easily give it 9 out of 10, if you want to see a great rugby movie that truly shows the sport your going to have to wait for the next one because Forever Strong is mostly practice, running, and a one ruck film, for this I give it a 7.75 out of 10. The movie forever strong will never be nominated for an Oscar, it will never be nominated for best acting, for best motion picture. But this movie does have things that other movies don't. In a nation with so much scandal, so many problems, movies being poured out with little thought to the morals of society, at least this movie promotes good. What is wrong with standing behind something that promotes happiness? We should support movies that tell our American teens that there is more to life than sex drugs and alcohol. As for this Haka debate as previously stated, the Hakka is not exclusive to the New Zealand All Blacks, various Utah high school football teams and colleges perform this ritual before games. Including Hawaii, BYU, etc. Like most sports movies, it's not surprising that people who know something about the sport can find flaws in it. As a soccer referee, I have yet to see a movie or TV show get it right when depicting a match. "Forever" has good actors, but I found Sean Astin to be a bit young to be an administrator in a juvenile jail. I was very thankful that the plot did not involve the lead character turning his fellow inmates into rugby players and taking on Flagstaff as well as Highland. Which gets to credulity: a police squad car just happens to pull up at precisely the time the Flagstaff baddies are hazing Rick Penning. Even though rugby is not a sanctioned high school sport nationally, the team is a school-based club sport -- much like rodeo. That said, I find it hard to believe that high school officials would allow students to play with open wounds: That just isn't done in this day of AIDS and Hepatitis. I don't care what the tradition and macho image is. Despite that, it was a cool movie in that teens were expected to act like adults (and sometimes actually did). Sadly, far too many coaches are like Flagstaff's -- or worse. Now, I realize that most people on here trash YOUNG WARRIORS or hail it as "so bad it's funny" type entertainment, but let me make something clear: It's actually a quality piece of low rent action, if you're willing to watch such cinema without a critical eye. In fact, it's a good deal more entertaining and thought provoking than the bulk of the action films of the 80s.

The key is in the film's subject matter. I'm always a sucker for movies that tackle the subject of vigilantism, especially when they ambitiously probe into the psyches of the characters involved. YOUNG WARRIORS may not have the intelligence or sensitivity of the first DEATH WISH film (and yes, I do think the first one had both of those elements), but it's trying to be different from the run-of-the-mill Cannon films of the period in that it's genuinely unique.

The plot is simple (don't worry, there won't be spoilers): A group of college student pranksters change their ways when one of their family members is assaulted by a tough street gang. The students take to the streets in an effort to combat general street crime, being that they don't know who the gang responsible is. They eventually acquire some heavy artillery (machine guns and grenades) and prowl the night fully armed. However, these are not Schwarzenegger types; they're vulnerable, inexperienced novices who make sizable blunders nearly each time they set out to clean up the city (usually with their frat mascot dog in tow). They finally figure out who the gang is and go after them, but by then you won't be expecting a standard climax in which the good guys walk away unscathed.

One thing about the film that struck me as strange yet effective is that the bulk of the first act offers no indication that we'll be seeing any action or violence later on as it's treated like a goofy frat comedy you'd see on USA's Up All Night (where I believe this was actually shown at one point). The comedy set-up actually lulled me into forgetting that the VHS cover showed a guy riding a motorcycle with a machine gun strapped to his back. Then, when the violence finally arrives, it's not fun or cute at all... it's shockingly disturbing. From that point on the film becomes a full blooded, uncompromising action yarn containing some startling gunfights and gore.

The acting, while nothing special, is far more impassioned than I anticipated. James Van Patten, who plays the protagonist, gives his all and his performance is surprisingly good for this type of movie. The rest of the cast is equally invested, including the always dependable Ernest Borgnine as the hero's cop father. The cinematography is also above par and the action scenes are handled with a level of severity that I personally wasn't expecting.

I can understand why some people thought this movie was worthless as much of it is extremely dated, but those facets struck me as nothing short of cool in and of themselves. Van Patten's character is studying animation and his patently early 80s style work that's on display in several scenes is a retro film lover's psychedelic wet dream. I'm sure most contemporary viewers would cite those very moments as low points in the movie, but I disagree. Also, Joe Walsh's soundtrack - which sounds like it could have only been recorded in '83 - seemed particularly fitting and enjoyable, regardless of how "old" it seems today.

YOUNG WARRIORS is one of my favorite action films of the 80s and I highly urge anyone interested in the genre to take a look. Sadly, however, it's only been released on VHS as of this writing, and it isn't being shown on TV these days. A nice DVD presentation would make me moon-walk around my living room with such intensity that I'm sure my ankles would swell. In the meantime, I implore you all to go on Ebay or Amazon and cough up the ten bucks or whatever for the old big-box tape. It really is a remarkable staple of ambitious trash cinema. Young Warriors (1983)

While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.

Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.

So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.

The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.

At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it. This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was "Alphabet City", and "Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, "Young Warriors" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection. I caught this a few times on TV in the late 1970s. It only played late at night (past midnight).

Peter Lorre plays a kind, happy man whose face is disfigured in a fire. He is rejected by his girlfriend and left alone and filled with despair. He turns to a life of crime and eventually becomes very successful. He makes a mask to hide his disfigured features and falls in love with a beautiful girl (Evelyn Keyes)...who is blind! He tries to go straight for her...but he can't escape his life of crime or his hatred of his own scarred face.

A no budget B film. Very short (runs only a little over an hour) but well made and superbly acted by Lorre. This has a lot more depth than you would expect from a quickie B picture. Ankers especially takes the thankless "girl" role and makes her character fresh and appealing. This has sadly disappeared from TV and was never put on video or DVD (as far as I know). TCM did show it recently and it was great to see the movie still holds up.

Highly recommended. Peter Lorre turns in one of his finest performances as a Hungarian watchmaker coming to the United Staes to make a new life for himself and someday bring his girl across the big pond to be with him. Lorre's infectious optimism and bright outlook come off very effectively which makes the performance all the better when he has his face hideously burned in a hotel fire and, when no one will give him a chance to work, turns reluctantly to a life of crime. Lorre's range as an actor is seldom as apparent as in this movie with his jovial, good-natured immigrant, to his depressing, melancholic, disfigured self searching for the truth behind what he believed America afforded him, to his suave, intelligent, better-than-your-average hood, to his sympathetic dealings with a blind woman with whom he falls in love. The story is well-paced, has some interesting twists, and gives Lorre many opportunities to shine. Director Robert Florey does a quality job behind the lens, and all of the supporting cast help aid the film with Evelyn Keyes giving a particularly good turn as the blind girl. I loved the ending - and the truth - that was shone to exist in Lorre's character despite all the negative things society had done toward him. For a little B picture, The Man Behind the Mask is good movie-making for its time. This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.

I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most "A-pictures" of the day. This film grabs you from the opening scenes and never lets go. You watch indulgently upon viewing Janos Szaby's excitement over coming to America. He's a likable fellow. You cannot help being fond of him even when his eagerness is replaced by bitterness as his fortunes turn. You know that in his circumstances,you would be forced to make the same choices he does to survive. This movie comments on society's worship of beauty and all things superficial and is only more true in the culture of the twenty-first century. Janos himself becomes victim to this philosophy when he tells his blind girlfriend "you're young and beautiful; if you could see, you would have the world." And like many a modern gangster movie, when her safety is threatened, he extracts a powerful revenge. His innocence is not altogether lost however for he demands an equally high price of himself, knowing he deserves his fate.

Peter Lorre is in fine form in this starring role. Only a few actors could convincingly accomplish this character's transformation from innocent to embittered criminal in sixty nine minutes. Lorre is well supported by all the cast making this a real ensemble picture and not just a vehicle for one star. With a bit less preachy dialogue, this movie would be a 10. Highly recommended. Mike Nichols in finest form. I was not a fan of "Closer", so it's refreshing to see him again right back on top with this comedy set in the darkest of circumstances. Just one slip in tone could have wrecked this compelling picture but Nichols and his very strong A-list cast never put a foot wrong in this biopic of a deeply flawed but utterly compelling Congressman.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as usual is scintillating and brilliant - here playing a damaged but ultra-smart CIA manipulator, and it is in the exchanges between Hanks and Hoffman's characters where the comedy soars. Rarely is movie humour laugh-out loud and also smart... This hits the spot time after time with a biting satirical edge that makes you both laugh and weep at the state of the world (often simultaneously).

One other major plus is the length of the picture. The film is based on George Crile's fat book of the same title. The temptation for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (his claim to fame is "The West Wing") must have been to make a fat movie, but what we get is a breath-taking 90 odd minutes of great story with sweeping implications.

This film deserves to be seen and to be recognized for finding an extraordinary balance between the darkest of dark subject matter and the lightness of touch of it's sparkling witty script - even if it does flunk the obvious link between the help that Herring and Wilson provide and the ultimate consequences (9/11). It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.

George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely "difference maker" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, "Good Time Charlie" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.

When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, "You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits." No argument there.

But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?

Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising "Charlie's Team."

The on-screen "Team," is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the "Team," Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.

For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually "Charlie's Team" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.

That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...

Even though the initial outcome for "Team Charlie" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely "covert," the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to "Mission Accomplished."

As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, "The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it." Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).

Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, "We f&%ked up the end game."

Again. Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.

The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, "The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.

As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.

Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure. I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to "light comedy" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember "Big"? Well, "Charlie Wilson's War" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.

Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.

The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.

I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.

Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.

Heartily recommended. Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.

The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's "jailbait" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.

Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.

During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.

With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.

- Mike Massie I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies? In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+ Aaron Sorking raises the same questions as Shakespeare did or does. How could they possibly know so much about the inner workings of palace life. Here like in The West Wing, Sorkin opens surprising doors that are hardly a shock but seem ton confirm our worst fears. Everything is so casual and at the same time so directly responsible for so many people's lives. A puffy Tom Hanks tells us one way or another that things can be manipulated with semi pure intentions but without weighing the consequences and Julia Roberts in a blond southern hairdo reminds us of the powers harbored in the sidelines. The subject is serious but the treatment is light, intelligent but light. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the invisible middle man, steals every scene he is in, just like Charles Laughton did in every movie he was in.The dialogue is fast but not fast enough for us not to catch up and discover that this is not an ordinary comedy. The seemingly casual pace filled with strokes of wit and provocation grants another badge of honor in the Mike Nichol's collection. Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that? Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.

First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a cliché. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.

The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.

The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.

Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining. It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.

Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred. Charlie Wilson's war is an excellent example of how films should be made. This movie is of the highest quality and is cast perfectly. Tom Hanks play the lead and delivers an exceptional performance. Furthermore, Tom Hanks is complimented by the unparalleled acting ability of the incredible Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have never seen him in a role that suits him so perfectly.

The film is witty, intelligent and well written. Julia Roberts also stars in this film but is easily over-shadowed by the other two leads.

I rated this film 10/10 and am pleased to recommend this film to anyone that is interested in quality cinema. Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration.

Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film. Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.

In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.

There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana. Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.

For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.

Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.

Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.

It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.

7/10 Mike Nichols' film "Charlie Wilson's War", set in the 1980's, tells the story of how the title character (played by Tom Hanks) managed to wage a covert war with the Russkies by way of aiding the Afghan forces. Of course, we know how well that turned out in the long run but, thankfully, the film does not gloss over the unpleasant after-effects.

The cast is star-studded, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts being among the most bankable stars in Hollywood. As a bonus, you've got the versatile Philip Seymour Hoffman in a characteristically memorable supporting role, one for which he received a not unwarranted Oscar nomination. I'm not much of a fan of Roberts but Hanks is always dependable. Nevertheless, I can't quite buy into him as a drug-using womanizer, although the real Charlie Wilson seems just as eminently likable as Hanks. Apart from the big three, though, there's not much worth remarking on, even from a recognizable name like Amy Adams.

The story is engaging and is bolstered by a fine script from Aaron Sorkin. The verbal interplay between the main characters is excellent and is chock full of memorable lines. The later events set into motion by the war are not ignored though the bookending scenes honoring Wilson seem to me to be too earnest to achieve the bittersweet feel which was likely intended. On the whole, Nichols' direction is workmanlike and follows the action of the script admirably.

This is a film that, like Charlie Wilson himself, has flaws but is nevertheless disarmingly likable. Certainly recommended for fans of the three stars and for those looking for an engaging political drama with a light-hearted feel. Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, "Charlie Wilson's War" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. "Charlie Wilson's War" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1/2 out of *****). ... with a single act.

Charlie Wilson, congressman, a real character. During the 90s, when the communism on USSR, the Wall of Berlin and the war on Afhganistan (with the Soviets) broke over. He did it, a single denial for money, and everything went down. He should be remembered, so here it is. His memorial.

Back to the movie. Funny, dramatic, snob, politic or just boring. Anyways, it's a smart movie about politic life, about ruling the world and about, above all, a lesson to the world. A lesson to every politic out there, a critical point of view referring to countries who support wars with money, guns and words.

Lesson Learned - World isn't a nice place to live in Great film, a very worthy 7/10.

Tom Hanks was at his usual best, the heavy drinking congressman who saved Afghanistan from its communist oppressors! Based upon a true story tells us how the West throws money and arms at a problem and expect it to go away. Well, it did go away, albeit temporarily. Look who we (the British, amongst others) are now fighting the very same people who the US gave arms, training and money to in the 80s.

This film was always going to provoke political thoughts by the people who watch it, but it does portray a very nice story. However, once the main objective is achieved, i.e. ridding the communists from Afghanistan, it is seen how quickly the plight of people is forgotten about.

This film was good, it was a well deserved 7/10. It told the story of the Communist invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent covert operation by the US to some detail and was dramatised well. Although being a good film, I will recommend it to people but some people will not enjoy it particularly is a serious film about good (US) v evil (Russia) isn't your thing! Recap: Based on the true story of Charlie Wilson, an American Congressman, who (according to this movie) was instrumental in USA's covert war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

Comments: A rather funny movie about not so funny things, especially since they were real. But focusing on the movie, Hanks performs very well as a mischievous womanizing Congressman with a good heart that becomes the champion for the covert war in Afghanistan. Hanks, and the entire movie, Philip Seymor Hoffman especially, has a rather humorous tone. So much that adding comedy to the genre would be appropriate. But, the story that it tell, and maybe the ending the most, are serious indeed.

A story of what happened with some questions about what might have been. So the movie works as a comedy if you want one, and a much more serious one if you want that. Something for everybody? 7/10 Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a hard-partying, womanizing Texas Congressman with no discernible legislative record. In 1980, he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of Afghanistan, which is in the midst of a brutal war with the USSR. On the auspices of his old flame, arch-conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Afghanistan to assess the situation, and is stunned by what he sees. He returns to the US determined to help the Afghans, only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation - and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. Undeterred, Wilson recruits Herring and the vulgar, outcast CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a mostly unknowing US Congress. Ultimately, the Afghans defeat the Soviets, but while America celebrates their victory, Wilson and Avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post-war Afghanistan falling on deaf ears.

Charlie Wilson's War is slick brain candy, a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film-goer. The movie assembles an astonishing array of talent, both in front of and behind the camera, and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. The film's has only one flaw, which we'll arrive at later. As an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th Century's largest covert war was waged - and, perhaps, the way that things get done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies - it's fascinating.

The movie is interesting on a number of levels. The story portrayed in the movie - with all of its outrageous double-dealings, sneaky covert operations, and, perhaps most of all, its success - would be so outrageous as a work of fiction, that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. But things really did work out this way, at least within reasonable bounds. The film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. Wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them) - yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. Herring is something of an elitist, and her born-again attitude of righteousness is off-putting - yet she's deeply committed to the cause of the Afghan people. Avrakotos is a CIA outsider with an attitude problem, looked down upon because of his "street" background - yet his love of country and hatred of Communism are unwavering. The fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the USSR is not only proof that anyone can make a difference, but also that truth is stranger than fiction. It's also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy - not too surprising, given that our writer is Aaron Sorkin, but it's an interesting way to approach this story.

The movie does, however, have one drawback, which is a bit surprising. The film seems to unabashedly celebrate Wilson and Co.'s achievement. This is fine - nothing wrong with defeating the Soviet Union, is there? - until one considers that out of the ashes of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan came the Taliban and eventually al-Qaeda. Regardless of the US's level of responsibility, it happened, and the movie's portrayal of Wilson's success is almost unmitigated. To be fair, the movie does address this issue towards the end, with a rather topical speech by Wilson about the US's inability to clean up after themselves, but it's done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. The overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. This isn't a fatal drawback, mind you, but it's one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie.

The film's talent is remarkable. The legendary Mike Nichols delivers a slick, gorgeous-looking production; the material is perfectly suited to his understated, wry directorial style. Sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay; the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic Sorkin exchanges (the best being the "Scotch bottle" discussion between Wilson and Avrakotos), and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. The film's cast is a marvel: Tom Hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause, Julia Roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed Joanne, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive Gus. The always-lovely Amy Adams takes another step on her road to stardom as Wilson's long suffering assistant, and Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Emily Blunt, Christopher Denham, and Ken Stott flesh out the supporting cast.

Charlie Wilson's War is an intelligent and fun movie, a wonderful bit of a-bit-more-than-light entertainment. The fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn't be held against it; it's brilliant at what it does.

8/10 i am not exactly how sure the accuracy is with this movie, but i can tell you that i was thoroughly entertained by this movie. the character of gust,played perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the most unique, yet entertaining characters in recent memory. this movie informed,yet managed to avoid preaching to the audience. it made me laugh, made me sad, made me feel alive, and glad to be spending the time to watch the movie. it takes no time to understand what is going on, and takes you on a roller coaster ride of genuine, human emotion. i thought i knew my history, apparently i didn't know it at all! i give this move 9 out of 10, and recommend it for all adults, and young adults, and the young at heart, just not the young. but as soon as they are allowed to see "r" rated movies, make it a priority. Yes, this film has many gay characters. It also has straight characters, characters who are not sure about their sexuality, people who are searching for some truth about their existence.

This is not a film about sexual orientation. It's about loneliness and the difficulty human beings often experience in connecting to one another. Filmically, Denys Arcand cleverly balances the various dimensions of the relationships and the contrasting, constantly shifting relationships. The serial killer element is a bit less successful (it feels more like a way to wrap up various plot points and, unlike the rest of the film, is thematically heavy-handed).

Thomas Gibson centers and grounds the film; it's a quiet performance but behind the handsome, arrogant exterior he slowly reveals a terrified soul afraid of showing or accepting love from those around him. The supporting cast is strong, especially Mia Kirshner as Gibson's friend, a dom-for-hire with precognitive powers. Her role is more metaphor than a literal conceit---strangely innocent and depraved at the same time, she represents the light and dark of the characters' sexual consciousness.

The film's involving and often surprises in its character development. The effect is somewhat like Robert Altman directing a David Mamet script---the dialogue doesn't shrink from some searing observations aside from a few contrived moments in the beginning. Often, in our search for love and a conventional "relationship", we ignore the love that already exists around us---in our friends, family, those who are able to see us as we are. Arcand and the writer, Brad Fraser, make some canny observations on the different ways human beings try to escape and deny their loneliness and how that denial returns to haunt us in so many unexpected ways.

This film is a rewarding experience. It may not be for bigots who can't get past the sexual orientation of some of the characters to see the greater, transcendental message of hope and redemption. Loneliness is a universal experience. A film like this, that dares to explore the darker side of our lives with a clever and perceptive eye, deserves applause and an open-minded approach. The worst movie ever?? HARDLY!!! This is one of the BEST animated movies i have ever seen! It has appearances from all the great characters from the animated tv series Rainbow Brite. Very safe for small children and the colors capture their attention like no other! There is an evil Princess trying to steal the diamond planet Spectra, which would in turn cause all life on Earth to cease. This tells the tale of how Rainbow Brite and her new friend Krys are able to stop the Princess' evil plot and restore life and color back to Earth. It's proof that kids can make a difference! Rainbow Brite will live on forever. I must admit that I am a fan of cheesy '80's cartoons, but this is among the best. Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer is one of the most watchable and entertaining of the Rainbow Brite cartoons, and is much better than the TV series. I especially like the relationship between Rainbow and Darian and find it very amusing. My favorite character, though, is Starlite who is definitely the most "magnificent horse in the universe"!

I also recommend Rainbow Brite: New Beginnings, which tells the story of how Rainbowland came to be. Have a Rainbow-Day! wow! this was a great movie! i just got it from the u.s. and it was worth all the money i gave for it! this movie is one of the best movies for children i have ever seen, maybe the best!!! all you who like rainbow brite, must see this 1 ! the first 7 minutes, you can not believe what you see! it's so great!!!

scooter. All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all. Just got into viewing program for the first time recently - the 2-hour "kidnapping" program. Don't know why I didn't sooner?? James Caan is outstanding and wholly-believable in the role as the chief honcho at the featured 5* Vegas complex.

So often, programs like this have one or more in the ensemble who are either outright annoying, or seem to have been picked because they must be related to the producer or director.

That is certainly not the case with this program. Along with Caan, all of the primary and supporting cast are engaging attractive, and believable. The guest actors are well-chosen.

The stories I've seen are interesting, and the show presents a good view of the city as well.

This is an entertaining program, and one I hope will remain. I don't know how I managed to miss it for so long, but plan to TIVO it from now on. Very reliable entertainment, as Las Vegas amuses as well as intrigues, very light hearted and very much bolstered by Josh Duhanel!! I like this television show and I think that many people watch it as a form of escapist voyeurism...Voyeurism in this case is very positive, and many females in this series are very nice to look at...This show incorporates Las Vegas legends such as Wayne Newton as intermittent characters to authenticate the Las Vegas genre!! There have been copious depictions of sin city, this is one of the better efforts...The producers and directors are lucky to have James Caan in the show, as he is very much a totally accomplished actor!!! By and large, I like the T.V. Show Las Vegas and I watch it on Fridays, I watched it on Mondays as well, but with Monday Night Football, I could see why NBC switched it to Fridays...Nonetheless, I like Las Vegas a lot!! I think that Vanessa Marcil is the best actor in the cast. She makes Sam one of the best character on the show. James Cann is also pretty good. I love it when he worried about Delinda. One of my favorite scenes in when Ed and Delinda are beating the crap out of some guy. That was funny. Nikki Cox is also good and she has great chemistry with Josh Duhamel. Lara Flynn Boyle was awesome in her guest role. I wish they hadn't killed her off. The show has a great cast with no bad actors which isn't something you often see on TV. I still think Vanessa Marcil is the best though. She should have got an Emmy in my opinion. It's a shame the show was cancelled I would like to vent my displeasure at NBC Canceling Las Vegas. The show had been Top Notch for the past 5years. Tom Sellecks addition was great. He really brought a nice fresh addition to the show. What does NBC have now? Lame reality and night time game shows. I mean come on Keep the Old and Tired Law and Order? Not even putting Jack McCoy as DA can keep the show interesting. Gee let's keep quality program like Deal or No Deal or ED? ER should be put out to pasture to. NBC is worse now than it was in Pre Seinfeld Cheers days. With cable and internet, NBC cannot afford to fall flat on its face.PLEASE BRING BACK VEGAS! i remember when Homicide Life on the Street ended the way it did. At least they had a two hour series final. Hey CBS are you listening? Please pick up Vegas it is a great show. I think Josh Duhamel is so great!! The rest of the show is fun to watch, but, I think it is the handsome and sexy Josh Duhamel that makes the show "Las Vegas" really fun to see!! In the days of "Magnum" I loved Tom Selleck, I thought he was the sexiest man on the face of the earth!! A hunk on a television show is a must in order for women to enjoy watching something, especially just for purposes of innocuous entertainment!! I would have done anything to "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"!! Josh Duhamel is incredible and I will always have a super crush on him!! Josh is definitely a HUNK!! and I will watch "Las Vegas" all the time, Josh Duhamel is a big reason why too!! Las Vegas is one of the most brilliant shows of our time, its combines hard-hitting action with light drama and heavy doses of comedy. It features fantastic characters lead by the charismatic tough-guy Ed Deline (James Caan). The show uses cool high-tech surveillance equipment to bring down the cheats and schemers. The characters are joyful to watch especially as their different departments within the hotel/casino cross paths.

The show is mainly centred around the surveillance and security part of the hotel/casino. The two leading characters are Ed Deline, president of operations and Danny McCoy (Josh Duhamel), former US Marine who served in Iraq but is now head of security. The shows five other main characters are former valet now security personnel MIT graduate Mike Cannon (James Lesure); the feisty, sexy casino host Samanthat Marquez (Vanessa Marcil); Danny's childhood sweetheart hotel manager Mary O'Connell (Nikki Cox); Danny's current sweetheart also Big Ed's daughter and manager of Mystique Delinda Deline (Molly Sims) and Ed's adopted daughter from his CIA past casino floor manager Nessa Holt (Marsha Thomason) who left the show after the second season. Each character is unique in their own quirky way, giving the show its energy and charisma that keeps its audience entertained for the entire duration of an episode.

Every episode features a special quest star either a singer, actor or band who perform at the hotel's nightclub Mystique. These cameo appearances by big names is a specialty that is popular among the shows audience.

Las Vegas is a show that can appeal to both male and female audiences. For the guys the show features sexy women, classy sports cars, high stakes gambling, adrenaline pumping action and overall a pool for topless women. For the ladies there is the young and handsome leading man (Duhamel) and the tough edgy Deline, romance and tanned topless guys around the same pool.

The plot of each episode combines action with light drama and comedy to break the ice. Each episodes also features 2 even 3 secondary stories which revolve mainly around the female characters. Every season also ends with a bang which leaves the audience hanging until the airing of the next season. An excellent way to end a season! With a mix of genre's driving the show and a cast of colourful, charismatic characters and of course lets not forget the topless pool makes Las Vegas one of the greatest TV shows ever aired.

9/10 I've read the comments on Las Vegas and do agree with some of them, it's not brain surgery TV, but then again I was under the impression that TV was mainly for escapism, especially with what is going on in today's world. Let's face it, a show about Vegas (that isn't a reality based programme) isn't going to one based on reality because to me Vegas is pure fantasy! It's the sort of place where we can go and pretty much do what we want when we want (subject to funds obviously!).

Therefore the fact that Las Vegas is pretty, sexy and cliched with characters that reflect all this seems to be on the money in my eyes. If you don't like it, don't watch it, that what we have a million channels for!

We're coming up to the third episode here in the UK and I know that I will be making a beeline to watch it again. I just hope it's not cancelled, something that seems to be happening a lot with most of the shows that come to the UK that are half decent! (Firefly and Jake 2.0 anyone?!!).

It's harmless, great looking fun and everytime I watch it, I want to go back to the real thing :) Las Vegas is very funny and focuses on the substance.....

The sets are amazing and the scenes outside are breathtaking; the characters are all very fun and cool.

The women are a plus....

Holly Sims is lovable as the daughter of James Caan who heads the security of the casino. While Josh Duhamel is very funny and lets face it, he looks like he can take down anyone.

Vanessa Marcil and Nikki Cox add that special touch.

The story lines are very fun and weird at times.

You can easily just relax into this show and doesn't bring the heavy story lines like the other shows that rule the ratings... I was shocked to learn that Jimmy Caan has left this show, does anyone know why? I regard James as one of the all-time greats and wasn't surprised he ended up on TV, which can be better than the crap you see on the big screen. The stories are slick and the camera faster than a speeding bullet! Mustn't forget the rest of the cast: James, Vanessa(yum!)Nikki, Molly, Josh, Mitch.. Also,can anyone tell me why on earth there's a crap theme tune on the DVD sets, but Elvis's JXL remix of A Little Less Conversation is used on the initial NBC broadcasts?? Does it not make sense to use a tune that you would associate with the gambling mecca of America for DVD releases?? Frankly i just enjoy watching James Caan. Wonderful actor. With such simplicity you know exactly what he's thinking. A true pro.

I have watched the show from the very beginning and found it different - that's something that is unique in Hollywood - a new idea - not a 3rd version of a current hit show -

I also find the show fun and exciting -I like the pacing - you're never bored - I especially like the mystery in each episode - the way it unfolds. I am a big mystery fan and have read a lot of the great mysteries but I find the stories in the show well written and the outcome is rarely obvious. Also extremely interesting to me, probably because I am not a gambler, is the different cons that the 'gamblers' come up with - I was fascinated by the number of schemes that people have come up with to rob Las Vegas. The music: I like the music at the top of the show. Absolutely perfect for the show...Sets the tone and atmosphere . Just marvelous. And of course, there is James Caan. This show is awesome! I love all the actors! It has great story lines and characters. It is the perfect drama. James Caan and Josh Duhamel have great dialogue. They both can be really funny.I miss Vanessa Marcil on General Hospital, but she's great on here. James Lesure is great! He can be hilarious. Molly Sims plays a dimwit very well. The writing is awesome!They keep up an excellent pace. The show can really leave you hanging, which is one of my favorite elements of a show. I cannot wait until the new season starts. This show makes it to the top ten of all my shows. I hope this show stays on for a really long time. If people know what good is, it will. I never want the show to end. Ever. I don't usually comment on films or TV shows but had to post a comment about Las Vegas.

Naturally here in the UK we are about 2/3rd's through the 3rd season and though i have managed to watch the last series of season 3 ( via other means ) i'm still glued every Friday at 9pm.

From the very first episode of season 1 i have been a big big fan of this show and own all 3 seasons on DVD, yes i cannot wait for season 4 to start in October.

So why do i love this show so much, well i have to agree with the last poster.... James Caan, i know one person cannot make a team but Big Ed Deline was made for Caan or maybe it was the other way around, i read that the producers were considering Martin Sheen for Ed Deline.... Do'h no way!!! i also agree that Caan's character is getting very soft, i also preferred the tough take no sh*t Big Bad Eddy D that we saw in season 1 & 2, he seems to have mellowed out.

As i said no one person makes the team by themselves's and of course the other cast members Josh Duhamel/Danny, James LeSure/Mike, Vanessa Marcil/Sam, Nikki Cox/Mary, Molly Sims/Delinda all contribute well, even outside cast members such as Cheryl Ladd as Jillian Deline, Harry Groener as Gunther, Dean Caine as Casey, Mitchell Longley as Mitch who may feature 6 or 7 times during a season can fit in just as well as if they've been in every single episode from day one.

This show has everything, drama, action, suspense, laughs, romance, glitz's, glamour and big time celebrity's who often play themselves's.

Many may disagree but this is one of the best shows on digital TV and i hope it may long continue after season 4. This show is sheer entertainment and doesn't try to be a Greek drama. It certainly contains elements of one what with all the plot twists, but it's immensely engaging and fun. Las Vegas is the perfect setting for a show and they will certainly never have a lack of material to work with! Anything and Everything DOES happen there! The actors in this show are extremely personable and you really do want to see what they are up to and into each week. The show is also very funny. The humor arises from the characters and situations. Not just thrown in gratuitously. It's a well-crafted show in that regard. It certainly makes me look forward to Friday nights and I'm glad I now own the first two seasons on DVD! I had heard interesting critics on this movie. I believed it was a love story but I wasn't sure what was the plot about. So, when I finally saw it, I found myself in the middle of a love relationship between the ex-con Isabel (Isabel Ampudia) and the junkie Rufo (Sebastián Haro). So, a love story but not probably what I was expecting.

The movie is focused on Isabel, as she struggles to get back into society. She doesn't want to return back to her neighborhood and she finds herself without a home or anywhere to go. So, while she just experiences those first hours of freedom after being released from jail she came across Rufo, an old acquittance of her which while she was in had become a junkie and lives on the streets. Not having where to go, and without money or feasible source of income, she decides to join Rufo on his residence: a covered area on a lonely street.

The story by itself is moving. It explains how the, impossible, relationship between Isabel and Rufo gets deeper until the the almost final twist of the movie.

Definitely, the movie is worth watching. Sebastián Haro is splendid in his role of the junkie. A person being able of both being an innocent and tender giving person and a ruthless street scum. Just depending whom deals him with. I believe his role.

On the other hand, I don't quite believe the role of Isabel Ampudia. Although the movie tries to show the bitterness inside her through several scenes, she is not capable to make me believe it. She is in a way too sweet and too honest for which might be expected of somebody on the same situation.

The movie tries to show a love on a desperate situation. It is a enjoyable movie. But the feeling I get when the movie ends is that Isabel, with the way of thinking and acting she has, would never have arrived to that situation. Her role, partly because of the script, partly because of the acting is difficult to believe.

I specially like the ending, and because of it I have raised my rating one or two points. I liked its bittersweetness and the fact of showing that sometimes, survival instinct is above other more spiritual considerations as love.

Summarizing, an interesting movie, but it lacked some punch to be a total "must see". This is probably one of those films too many commented but undiscovered... This is probably one masterpiece of Spanish cinema like some Buñuel's masters-piece. "15 days with you" could be the better "now and them" re-visitation from others films of long-time ago: could be "Midnight cowboy" but could be also "Les amants du Pont-Neuf" or a realistic and non-spot-look (but most realistic) "trainspotting". This hard story has place to humour, love and obviously dramatic sense. In the new social Spanish cinema this little diamond could be the resurrection of the Italian neo realism mixed whit the best Ken Loach films.

Probably the better film I discover in the last 10 years. 1st watched 10/28/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end. Isabel has just gone out of jail. She is decided to not return again, but life is difficult for ex-convict, specially if they are homeless, as Isabel. When she finds the one that was her boyfriend Rufo, she can see a light of hope, but Rufo is now not only a junkie but also an AIDS ill. This will not make Isabel surrender, because, if there's a will there's a way and she is going to fight for her future, to have normal life, with a house and a family. A very hard and touching film that has passed unaware by most of the Spanish cinemas, actors are great and the story is very touching, maybe a better treatment of the secondary characters would have made the movie better, but it is really good. I highly recommend it to watch it, but be aware that this is not a Disney happy film, it is hard and dramatic. Like in "Les amants du Pont-Neuf" two outsiders lives a love story without concessions. The film consists out of a lot of interesting conversation and a lot of sweet moments. The best one comes in a listening booth. They listen to a record together and once in a while they look at each other. They talk, they like each other. She suggests a change in their lives but he is out of hope. The realistic stylestrokes over the realistic (but) emotive dialogs. A really mathematic screenwriter's work for this film. Spanish novel director Jesus Ponce creates one of the most perfect gallery from the latest year of Spanish cinema. Someone reviewed this movie as a "waste of time" because he/she was expecting the "beautiful scenery of Brazil and Portugal" but then everything looked "washed out" or gloomy, or something to that effect. I believe this person missed the entire part of the film. This is reality. The point of this movie is to show that life is not, indeed, ideal, and to show what people go through in their lives for family, love, and survival. A young man leaves his slum in Sao Paolo, Brazil, to go to Portugal to visit his mother's home country after her death. He discovers that not everything is free, and that Brazilians are looked down upon by native people from Portugal. He eventually finds a life, a love, but the story does not end as expected and this is not a "fairy tale" story. The part that got me most was the ending song, "Zeca Bailero (Honey Baby)" by Gal Costa. It fit so well with the movie; especially the ending. I have read the last comment made on this film and have to utterly and totally disagree with it.

You see, I am of Portuguese nationality and even though this film may say little to someone coming from Boston, it surely says something to both Portuguese and Brazilian people, as well as immigrants everywhere.

And why, you may wonder? Well, firstly, this film deals with two sibling nations: Portugal and Brazil. Brazil gained its independence in the early 19th century (by the hands of the heir to the Portuguese throne)and since then relations improved greatly.

However, meaningful as this may be, there is still a lot of prejudice. Because of the economic climate in Brazil during the 1990's, immigration to Portugal grew massively. You see, Portugal is not only a country sharing a similar language, culture and beliefs as Brazil but is also a gateway to the rest of Europe. Some people were thus forced to make the decision to cross the Atlantic and look for a better life and Portugal was the first logical place to try to immigrate to.

As it happens still with a lot of immigrants, they were paid averages below the minimum wage and were treated like "dirt" - only in this case, because the language is similar, they were constantly made aware of their status as immigrants.

Another curious thing in this film is the idea it conveys of how a man so knowledgeable of the history of his own country still tried to make a quick buck through exporting coveted national resources. It is exactly people like this that keep Brazil in a constant state of arrested development, as the country is well endowed in natural resources and could easily climb the economic ladder should it be given a fair opportunity.

In a sense, this goes to show how colonialism still exists - Pablo representing the exploited people, Igor the man whose status as a "nobleman" (or at least rich or "well off") is assured by the foreign colonialist power which is in turn represented by Kraft.

If you have seen other films by Salles you will recognize this as a recurring topic - the struggle against an oppressing power. I do not mean to lecture or be patronising as to teach anyone history but I thought this film was, symbolically speaking, very powerful. I am not saying there wasn't room for improvement (as there always is) but I think the last comment written on it was not only narrow minded but hands down ignorant.

One last thing to be said on this, I have to assume you have watched this film with the eyes of an "American film watcher". No harm intended by this remark but I mean "foreign" films cannot all be about "beautiful scenery" - Art deals with the problems of its time. You would not expect Otto Dix, for example, to paint all the lovely places in Bayern and the Black Forest... Why should you expect a film maker to focus exclusively on scenery when he feels there are more relevant issues to attend to?

In a nutshell, do not judge films lightly and with only two or three criteria in scope. This film is very interesting, its photography is quite good and even the idea the black and white colouring conveys goes hand-in-hand with what it deals with. I believe the image is purposefully grainy... like reality, no? :)

Watch it and reach your own conclusions... This existential thriller, in Portuguese with English subtitles, is a modern version of the American filmes noires of the 40s, complete with a surprise twist at the end. It is riveting from beginning to end. My only criticism is its poor production values. The film looks cheaply made, and it probably was, so the black and white cinematography is vastly inferior to that of Godard in Vivre Sa Vie, to cite another film noir of more than 30 years earlier. Most maddening of all, the subtitles are often hard to read. When will filmmakers learn and provide yellow subtitles so that they can be read against a white background. I'd give this an 8 overall, although with better production values it could have been higher. Fado is a sad almost bluesy style of Portuguese Gypsy music that is heard repeatedly trough the movie. As explained by one of the main characters (Igor) it also means fate.

Indeed it's fate that bring the two main characters Paco and Alex together and triggers the problems that ensue.

On the whole I enjoyed it quite a bit. It starts out as an 'on the down and outs' drama/road movie an builds into a suspenseful thriller / road movie.

There were two things that I found unrealistic that kept me from giving it a higher rating (I gave it an 8). The first is the major point of why did Alex give the stuff away. She was so desperate for cash that she sold her passport for a paltry sum and then she gives away things worth thousands to a stranger? Her explanation was unconvincing. Also how did they get through the gate, where were the cops? I wasn't sure about getting this movie on DVD because I really do have something against people making black and white films in the 21st century, but I ended up buying it anyway. I still don't understand why it had to be black and white, but that's the only negativity I can see about the film, and it sure is a perfect example to see the definitive rise of Brazilian cinema. Not everyone can understand a film like this, but it's quite rewarding to those who do. Unlike O Homem Que Copiava, the surrealism fits this movie pretty well, and the acting is at least as good as that one, or other successful Brazilian films such as Bicho de sete cabeças, Cidade De Deus, Brava Gente Brasileira, etc..

My only hope is that this gem doesn't get insulted and raped by a crappy Hollywood remake. It's amazing to see how those guys spend zillions of Dollars and still can't make a movie that's 1% as good as this possibly low-budget flick.

Bravo to the entire crew! 10/10 This was a movie that, at the end, I thought "Now that was an enjoyable 2 hours!" I hate spending around $20 (not including baby-sitting $$) for my husband and myself to have that "It was OK" feeling.

I think I like Will Smith better as a comedic actor than an action hero. He was well cast in this. His character was very likable, as was Kevin James'.

There were several laugh out loud scenes. It's also a romantic movie, so guys, if you want to impress the lady in your life, take her to this. Women will like it as much as any chick-flick, but I wouldn't categorize this as one. There is plenty of guy humor in it for men to enjoy. I think that's one of the reasons why this movie is so perfect as a date movie. It has romance AND slapstick. I don't usually like slapstick that much, but it wasn't overdone and I can't think of any those scenes that didn't deliver laughs.

I definitely recommend this movie. The first thing my husband said to me after it was over was "I want to see it again!" This film was not about stereotypes, nor dance moves, nor pickup lines, really. This film was about the vulnerability of peoples' hearts. It was hard to believe that Kevin James could play in a convincing role, that Will Smith could satisfy without action, and that such a hackneyed genre of film could succeed in such a way. I don't intend to sound overly endeared with this film - it wasn't "groundbreaking" in any sort of way - but it was a film worth seeing. Was it believable? No. New York couldn't be so simple and there has been no human being in the history of mankind that has the "hutzpah" of Hitch. Sure, there are bar-studs, but not ones that can get any chick, at any time - excluding those raking in seven figures, of course. The thing that worked best for this film was its true focus on the dramatic side of things, not just on the comedy. It was a funny two hours, no doubt. But it was also two hours that made you sit in your seat, become immersed in the characters, and smile. I expected a good movie. What I got was an even better movie. The chemistry between James and Smith is just incredible. Glad to see him in a major motion picture for once!

The movie works, because the actors play their parts perfectly. Will Smith is fantastic with his never ending charm; Kevin James is hilarious, and Eva Mendes...well, let's just say she plays that bitch/sweet/annoying role to the best of her ability.

What I loved about the movie was the fact that Will Smith didn't even have to try to be lovable. He just was!! The "date doctor" had all the right moves, said everything in the most perfect of ways, and never ever went over the top.

The funny parts are hilarious...and the cute, romantic parts are unforgettable.

I totally recommend this movie. And no, it is not a chick flick. Last evening I had the remarkable pleasure of seeing the movie Hitch. I was stunned and amazed. Will Smith did a phenomenal job in a role that he isn't always associated with. He proved once and for all that he does not need to be holding a gun to be a great actor in a movie. Kevin James was also very impressive. I admit that I've always like him on "The King of Queens" but this role really brought him into the light more, and i hope to see him on the big screen a lot more in the near future. The movie was funny and adorable and I recommend it to any guy as the best date movie you could ever imagine. The mix of comedy, romance, and drama left me feeling complete. It's nothing like most "chick flicks" in the sense of tears and sadness, but holds its own and i think can be equally enjoyed by males as well as females. I encourage all couples especially to see this movie but even if you aren't involved with someone you may pick up some great ideas from Hitch.

TWO WAY BIG THUMBS UP!!! Not having seen the film in its commercial debut, we just caught with it via DVD. Expecting the worst, "Hitch" proved to be a pleasant experience because of the three principals in it. Thanks to Andy Tenant's direction, the film has an easy pace, and while predictable, the comedy has some winning moments.

Hitch is a sort of "date coordinator" for losers like Albert, who is not exactly what one would consider a hunk. Yet, Albert is a genuine guy who, without some professional help would go unnoticed by the same women he would like to take out. Enter Hitch, to prepare him to overcome the obstacles that he can't overcome, and even though Albert stays overweight and never gets to master social graces, he conquers us because he is a real, in sharp contrast with all the phonies making the rounds in Manhattan.

The basic mistake most production designers make, when preparing locales for Hollywood films, is how out of touch with reality they are. The apartments in which they situate these characters are so rare to find that only by the magic of the movies can these people live in places likes these. Evidently most of the movie people are dealing with fantasy since most city dwellers would kill for spaces so fabulous as the ones they show in the movies, let alone these same people depicted in the film would not be able to afford them.

Will Smith is a charismatic actor. He has a disarming way to charm without doing much. The surprise of the movie though, is Kevin James, who as the overweight Albert, not only win us over, but he proves he can hold his own in his scenes with Mr. Smith. Eva Mendez is fine as the main interest of Hitch. In minor roles we see Adam Arkin, Amber Valletta, Michael Rappaport, and Phillip Bosco, among others.

"Hitch" is a fun film to watch thanks to the inspired direction by Andy Tenant. That is the promise of the trailer I saw and by which I rented Hitch. Exactly, a serious film viewer shall not expect much further from this title but, surprisingly enough, Smith, Mendes, James and Valletta managed to reach a theatrical performance which could be metaphorically summarised on their rap dance-floor routine by the end of the film: their characters formed an effective combo which may prompt more than a good laugh with this Sunday afternoon DVD, providing your date is not an exquisite, french-swedish-directors-of-the-60's movie fan.

P.S.: The techniques to score are all TRUE, especially the "cocktail girl" routine! Will Smith is perfectly endearing as the "Relationship Doctor," here to heal all your relationship woes.

I expected this to be a standard RomCom with little to amuse. I'm happy to report that I was wrong. Will Smith is delightful and unexpectedly "fresh" in this Andy Tennant vehicle. Surrounded by a great supporting cast, an interesting story, and fed with witty dialog, I was thoroughly engaged.

We found this one cute, quirky, and inspirational without being preachy.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :. OK, OK, I must say I was impressed. It's hard to say what I'm more impressed with: my ability to choose the right romantic comedy to watch so that I don't gouge my eyes out, or the movie itself. Either way, "Hitch" was pretty darn good. Hey, it was good enough for me to watch twice. Will Smith was funny and good. Kevin James was just hilarious, and absolutely essential for the movie. As much as this movie centered around Hitch (Will Smith), without Kevin James it's just not the same.

The story is: Hitch is a match maker that helps the guy woo the girl. His job is to create the chance for the girl to notice the guy when she otherwise wouldn't. After the encounter, the rest is all up to the guy to make or break the relationship. He works on referral only and stays largely unnoticed during the process. Albert (Kevin James) is Hitch's project this time around, and Albert has eyes on Allegra Cole (Amber Valleta) a Paris Hilton type figure. While that plot unfolds, Hitch himself has eyes on Sara (Eva Mendes), a sharp, independent, fanged gossip columnist that wants nothing to do with a relationship.

The two stories make for some funny moments and they tie together for a bit of a quagmire. Of course no love story is complete without the obligatory miscommunication, misunderstanding, or mishap to send the guy chasing after the girl. Fortunately, they make it brief and unsappy. Hitch was a fun and funny movie that flowed very well and rolled along without a hitch. When one watches romantic comedies, one knows what to expect; we've seen enough of them over many, many years to know how they go. There's a formula, one which almost always begets movies that become popular with the genre's audience... not always in relation to their actual quality. How to play around with that, and create something more interesting? This movie has a suggestion... and it works relatively well. Instead of simply following a lead, we follow him skillfully helping the unfortunate men, those who lack the attractive facade that would allow them to reveal the unseen good qualities that they possess to the women they are in love with. The plot follows Smith as he works on his self-proclaimed most difficult such case; Kevin James. Alongside his aid of James, we also follow Mendes, who is fed up with men who lie to get what they want(one particular scene that inspires great respect of Smith's character is him meeting one such jerk, and putting him in his place). After seeing Smith helping the disaster that is James, we see him with Mendes... and in spite of his talent for helping others, he messes up... badly... with her. Making a marvelous point about love, and how falling in love affects us. For a romantic comedy, this mostly avoids the pitfalls of such(at times almost bordering on feeling like a spoof of the genre), though the last few scenes has the sweetness and the emotions of this type of films. Whether or not they follow the formula will not be revealed in this review. The pace is quite good, it never really slows down, and seldom moves too fast. The acting is great, as far as pretty much everyone goes. The characters are nicely developed, and come off as real people. The humor doesn't always work... there are occasional gags that are less than fortunately executed, and one or two jokes that seem forced. However, for the most part, the film was funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes romantic comedies and anyone who is or have been in love. Those who do not believe in love will have a difficult time with the last few scenes. 7/10 I liked this comedy so much. Will Smith does not do anything slow. It is always right on target with the greatest scripts and comedy that keeps you laughing, and involved in the plot. You are watching a skilled comedian, who plays all his parts well. One fully believes he is who he is playing. I loved him and Tommy Lee Jones in the Men in Black. This comedy rates right up with that movie. The humor is fast moving, and Will Smith is as sure of himself as he was in Men in Black. Quick witted, and well skilled in the art of making others score each time, but doing it in a tasteful manner, and with finesse.

Will Smith seems to have honed his comedy routine well. He was so darn funny. I loved the part where he had an allergic reaction to something he ate, and his face swelled up, and he looked more like Cassius Clay after a fight then he did himself. Then seeing him sipping on the benadryl bottle trying to bring his head back down to the right size. I laughed so hard. He knows how to make us all laugh. This was a romantic, simple funny movie. I really enjoyed it and would definitely say to watch it and enjoy it, Will Smith was funny, fumbly, nervous, sweet and just a simple guy who got hit by Love. It was cute to see him fall for someone and be so nervous and lost as to what to do or say. It was great. He was great, funny as usual. Eva Mendes was better than i expected her to be as well, i thought there were moments in the movie where Will got the shaft, he was doing everything he could being a good guy and still getting treated bad. The ending was romantic and happy and it was great. I have seen it several times, and would watch it again. A funny, movie, something you don't see a lot of anymore. It had the old time feel with a fresh new look. -love is hard to find in this fast food society that we live in so man called Hitch makes it duty to help men find love with women that they are beyond madly in love with. his rules are that he only helps you find love and not just some casual sex which seems like a great deal but soon word begins to spread around and people begin to get the wrong idea about what he does which begins to complicate the relationship with woman he just met that he is madly in love with.

-I have to say it's really nice to see Will Smith in a movie that doesn't have him trying to save the world from aliens or robots. There are no jaw dropping effects nor is he showing off his beefed up body. He's just a normal human being in this movie which was really nice. He doesn't necessarily stretch his acting muscles in this movie but then again the story doesn't call for that but all the same it was nice to see him relaxed and not showing off his ripped body to make those of us without six packs jealous. His character here is as with all his characters likable, witty and very charming which is something that almost all the characters in this odd love tale seem to share. The Kevin James character is just a regular guy that needs help hooking up with the girl of his dreams which really makes you feel for the guy and root for him every step of the way. the only character that was a sore spot for me was the Mendez character because she's so cold and calculated that it's hard to believe that Smith could fall for her. He must love a challenge I guess.

-now this is the part of the review in which I'll make a joke about how I would never need Hitch because I'm such a player but I just got through writing about 16 reviews for another web site plus I'm still working on a little project so I'm a little jaded right now. whiles the movie is packed with enough charm and likable characters with funny lines it slowly but surely falls into the sea of formulaic romantic movies in which after the big scene where the terrible secret comes out everyone is forgiven and the relationship is even better than before. But hey there's like 4000 movies about the underdog overcoming adversity so I guess one more movie having a predictable ending that's been done to almost death doesn't cause much harm. I really like the message of the movie as well because in the end you don't need a formula to get the right girl, just be yourself and all will fall into play which is theme of the movie and why it works so well. I'm sure if it had turned out that the James character gets the girl after following everything that the Smith character said then it would have being a pretty empty movie but as it stands it works really well.

-despite being predictable this is a PERFECT date movie. It's sweet, it's funny, and it's romantic so anyone that watches this movie on a date should be getting some after it's over. and by some I mean sex 'Hitch' is a nice surprise: A romantic comedy that actually has romance and comedy. Most romantic comedies for me range from mediocre to horrible because they are not funny or romantic. 'Hitch' takes actors like Will Smith, Kevin James, and Eva Mendes into a fun, light-as-a-feather journey that actually had me laughing and, yes, a little "aww, how sweet!".

Meet Alex Hitchens (Will Smith), aka Hitch. He's a self-proclaimed 'Date Doctor'; he helps hopeless guys like Albert (Kevin James) win guys like Allegra (Amber Valletta). Unfortunately, Hitch has to deal with Sarah (Eva Mendes), a gossip columnist bent on breaking the Date Doctor...

'Hitch' is actually pretty funny, and it even makes the standard slapstick scenes work simply because the cast is so energetic and clearly having fun. I have to wonder why Will Smith hasn't made more movies like this. His sharp, rapid-fire delivery is perfect for this genre, and his chemistry with Mendes and James is wonderful. James is a real discovery; I have never seen his show 'The King of Queens', but he is funny and heartfelt, and he proves once more that fat white men cannot dance hip-hop (Smith's responses to his attempts are hilarious). Mendes is hot and bouncy (not that way, geez) as Smith's perfect match, and Amber Valletta is sweet as Allegra.

'Hitch' isn't perfect; it's a tad too long, and things get too "dramatic" near the end (although this is redeemed by the happy ending filled with funny dancing). But's it a great refresher from the cookie-cutter romantic comedies that keep littering theaters. A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great "blind date" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!!

Enjoy. Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.

The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.

And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.

At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.

Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing. I just wish I was eloquent enough to say how GOOD this movie is.

I...it's hard to say.

Maybe I'll just say what comes to mind.

I laughed. I really laughed. I couldn't believe it. I laughed, and, it wasn't bitter-laughter. it wasn't cynical laughter. it was the laughter that is generated by genuine joy.

joy. that's a foreign word for me. i don't feel that word often, but, i did while watching this movie.

Will. Maybe it's Will's face. He is a great human being. "Smile on my face and there's a twinkle in my eye." That line in one of Will's songs describes him perfectly. He has "joie de vivre". Trey is a lucky, lucky boy to have a daddy like Will. Jada is a lucky, lucky woman to have a husband like Will. He is someone...special.

Happy. I actually feel happy. It's a strange feeling. I don't feel this way very often. It's just so nice to see, to see...other people really happy. I mean really happy. In this movie, I did. As Will says in the movie, "Maybe I'm not happy with just 'fine', maybe I want 'extraordinary." You know, watching this movie made me think: so do I.

Fun. Being yourself. We all know we're supposed to be ourselves, but, it feels like we're punished if we do so. Maybe it has to be earned. Maybe it's something that we show after having not been ourselves for a long time. That's why I just loved the ending. Will, Eva Mendes, Kevin James, Amber Valleta, Julie Ann emery all dancing at the wedding. Dancing without inhibitions. NO THEY WE'RE NOT DRUNK! except, on actually being happy. I can understand that, at least, I think I can (at least, I enjoyed seeing them happy, really happy).

Women and Men. I don't know anything about relationships, but, I do feel. Watching this movie I feel like connecting with someone, striving, pushing, wanting to be with someone. It seems to make life...something else entirely. I don't really know. I'm just guessing. but, I felt something, watching this movie. I felt like, that connection, must be...must make, life worthwhile.

That's the kind of movie this is. It's FUNNY. It's CLEVER. It's TENDER. It evokes feeling. It made me think, that maybe, just maybe, life is, truly is, a wonderful thing.

Want to LAUGH? Want to FEEL REALLY GOOD! Want to GET SOME ANSWERS ABOUT GIRLS (and Girls, answers about Guys)? Watch Hitch. YOU-WILL-GET-IT-ALL!!!

GO WILL!!! You are a great human being. While the "date doctor" concept is the one thing that saves this film from being an otherwise average romantic comedy with a standard plot for the genre, I found it enjoyable enough to elevate my opinion of it so I ended up liking it a lot more than if it'd had just a mediocre plot without many twists. Will Smith does a great job, as always, acting as Hitch, the man who devotes his life to advising men how and how not to win over women...ever since his failed attempt to keep his college girlfriend. There're plenty of laughs as he tries to help his latest patient, overweight, gawky asthmatic Albert Brennman (Kevin James) successfully court beautiful co-worker Allegra Cole (Amber Valetta). Also, when he decides to rid a woman he meets in a bar of the turkey who just doesn't seem to get she doesn't want him around, he finds himself attracted to Sara (Eva Mendes) - it appears to be a big deal for him, so I guess since college he never actually practiced his own rules on himself. Unfortunately, Sara is a gossip columnist who is interested in "the date doctor" who got a seemingly dorky guy like Albert together with Allegra - especially AFTER player/jerk Vance Munson (Jeffrey Donovan) breaks her best friend's (Julie Ann Emery) heart and hints the date doctor he saw disgusted him, when she doesn't realize that he refused to see him. Still, trouble follows and Hitch is stuck left wondering about what to do with his own relationship, while not being any great help to Albert when he tries to figure out what more to do in his. The acting is good, there's a great deal of humor and some other fine points with meaning. Hitch's character is witty and wise, sometimes managing to be both at once. True, the misunderstanding where the woman is affronted at something the man hasn't truly done (why do they always show that?) as common and irritating - guess it wouldn't have been if it was the 1st, not 5th, time I've seen IT - but the rest of them were completely new. I only wish this movie was longer - I remember being able to watch 3/5 of it while it was playing on a restaurant's TV once - but I still approve. It's definitely worth the money to pay for its brevity. Over the past century, there have been many advances in gender equality, but not so much in the world of movies. I'm not talking about what goes on behind the camera, I'm referring to the tastes of the audience. The idea of a "chick flick" is alive and well today, while there are still plenty of action and horror films which appeal primarily to males. Sure, there are men and women who enjoy the movies that fall outside of their typical demographic, but there aren't many movies which have appeals across the board. Hitch, the latest Will Smith vehicle attempts to change that trend by being a chick flick which throws in a dose of male perspective.

Smith stars in Hitch as the title character, Alex "Hitch" Hitchens, a "date doctor" who trains men on how to approach a woman and have a successful date. Hitch enjoys his job and loves to see men successfully accomplish their goals of going out with the woman of their dreams, but due to a bad experience in college, Hitch himself is somewhat sullied on the idea of love. As the story unfolds, the film introduces two seemingly separate story lines. Hitch's latest case is Albert Brennaman (Kevin James), an accountant who is very attracted to one of his clients, the beautiful heiress Allegra Cole (Amber Valletta). Hitch has his doubts about Albert's chances, but if his clients desires seem sincere, Hitch supports them.

In the mean time, Hitch meets gossip columnist Sara Melas (Eva Mendes) and is instantly attracted to this strong woman. However, the date doctor can't seem to follow his own advice in pursuing Sara. Things get even more complicated when Sara's job leads her to investigate the relationship between the accountant and the heiress. Will Hitch be able to balance his private life and his job? And more importantly, can Hitch believe in love again? If you are a true movie fan, then there's been at least one time in your life when you've complained about the redundancy of the Hollywood movie factory and cried out for something new and original. Well, Hitch ain't that movie. But, most movie fans will also admit that occasionally a formulaic movie can work solely on an entertainment level. Hitch does qualify as that film. I have to admit that I liked this film much more than I expected to. Will Smith has that clean-cut charm that you just can't help but like. The plot was a minor twist on basic romantic comedy stuff, somewhat reminiscent of Jane Austen's "Emma". This guy Kevin James has a real flair for comic timing and physical comedy. I have never seen his TV show, but he was cast very well in this film. Amber Valletta was good enough. I can't remember why she was a rich celebrity in this film, but if she was supposed to be an actress or model, then the casting might have left something to be desired. I enjoyed Julie Ann Emery, and wish she'd had a larger part. But, saving the best for last, Eva Mendes more or less stole the show. Her beauty, and charm, and just the right amount of standoffishness had me glued to the screen whenever she was there. I hope to see more of her in the future. This film is definitely worth checking out. Will Smith is smooth as usual in the movie Hitch. Smiths character Hitch is a date doctor. He dates Mendes character who is a gossip columnist. At one point Hitch shows his love interest her Great Grandfathers name in the immigration book at Ellis Island pretending what is actually an arranged event is a coincidence. Not long after I mentioned starlight in my previous review today. There was a view of the starry sky in survivor hinting that My Moon 168 Rtexas already knew that was going to be there due to faster than light communications.

The male star from the show The King of Queens is very funny in this movie especially his dance moves. The allergic reaction on Hitchs face is a little cruel to laugh at even though it is just pretend.

My latest message from my Daughter Julias Artificial Intelligence computer on the Creator of Humans Home world Coaltrain that my Moon 168 as part of Moonfleet is near says: "Daddy I'm Okay again." Her messages are always very short. It is a curious pattern. Daddy will always Love you Julia. Thanks to our Creator we can talk forever. Yesterday Daddy talked to the first you on the telephone and told you your homework time wouldn't be that bad and you said "How bad will it be Daddy?" I said that your Grandma and I would help you with it. You only have to put pictures of our friends the police on a bristol board display and write a title like "The Police protect us." Check out the other movies of Will Smith as well. As I've said in the title of this review, It pains me to say this, but "hitch" reaches the zenith of what Hollywood Romantic Comedies can ever hope to aspire to. I've been a critic of both the Genre and it's namesake for as long as I can remember myself, but on an almost tragic note, "Hitch" has caused me to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of two hours of my life with a ridiculous smile plastered across my face.

This movie may be misogynistic and presumptuous at times but it nonetheless possesses a certain humor about it whose subtlety may only be described as British. This is a wonderful attempt by Hollywood to make (Or remake as the case may be...) a film which appeals to all of our wishes for a Romantic Comedy which can make us both think and laugh simultaneously. I grudgingly and most evasively give this movie a 9 out of 10... Something you shall hardly see me do for a Romantic Comedy in the near future, or so at least, I hope. I think that the basic idea of any movie is to entertain or to inform. If you want information you are looking at true life movies and historical movies. Sometimes these are one of the same. The other side of the coin is to entertain. Did Hitch entertain me? Yes it did. Okay the formula is standard. Boy meets girl or in this case boys met girls. They get together have a falling out then get back together. However the way it happened in this movie was refreshing. I particularly liked the bar scene with Hitch and Sara. The Allegra Albert romance was a delight to watch unfold, most REAL men are shy when it comes to wooing the woman of their dreams and had I had Hitch's advice I would probably have got my wife up the altar in half the time.I read the first comment on this film that appeared to suggest that this movie was played safely and good have had a few more laughs. I tend to disagree there are so many laughs you can pack into a romantic comedy without turning it into a farce. Besides relationships have there serious moments. All in all I found Hitch quite entertaining, the actors did a good job (I will be looking out for them in other movies) and Hitch is a film that I am very happy to have in my DVD collection. This movie was much better than I expected. After a couple of films by Will Smith that weren't that great like I, Robot, he is back to being likable and fun in this one. Smith plays, Hitch, a date doctor. Most of the film centers around him teaching Albert how to be himself and get a date with Allegra Cole, a rich famous celebrity whom he works with. Albert is a klutz and goof and always tripping on his feet or what-not. All Hitch does is teach him how to act more cool and not be so nervous around Allegra.

During all this, Hitch meets Sara, a gossip columnist whom has sworn off men. Hitch charms her, so of course, they go out. But, Hitch may teach other guys how to get the girl to fall for them, he doesn't believe in love himself. He has never really had a girl since he was dumped in college. But, he likes Sara, so keeps going after her. Sara's friend is hurt by guy whom she thinks went to the date doctor. So Sara tracks the doctor down, only to learn its Hitch. So of course, she thinks he's a pig. Then it's up to hitch to explain to Sara and Allegra what he does, so they both end up forgiving.

FINAL VERDICT: Good, has some laughs, and is entertaining. I recommend it. The Italian concept of "sprezzatura" was the grace and nonchalance in social manners that led to success in love, as described in the 16th century manual "The Courtier." The film "Hitch" is worth watching for the embodiment of the "sprezzzatura" concept in the dynamic performance of Will Smith.

Smith plays the character of Alex "Hitch" Hitchens, who is a professional dating consultant to those short on luck and confidence. The best scenes are when Hitch coaches the painfully shy and maladroit Albert in his quest to win the heart of a New York socialite and in Hitch's own attraction to Sara and a surprise for her when visiting Ellis Island. In these scenes, Smith is supported with good work from Kevin James and Eva Mendes. But this film is driven by the charm and winsome personality of Smith.

From start to finish, Smith rises above the average comic script to make "Hitch" an eminently watchable and entertaining film. I do not believe there is another actor working today who is capable of delivering the charisma and the perfect timing with the comic moments like Will Smith in this film. And his secret is in the "sprezzatura"! I would recommend this as the most successful attempt so far to make a movie on Soviet Afghan war. And it is very honest and responsible picture starting from small details of uniforms and weapons up to human relations, war routine and Central Asian landscapes. It's been shot in Tajikistan just after the the troop withdrawal which happened in 1989 not in 1985. The Italian star Mr. Placido was just perfect in the role of Major Bandura. Other characters looked also very natural especially always drunk club managing officer:-).The scenario seems a bit jammed in the end but it might be an impact of the Civil war in Tajikistan which had started right during the shooting of the film. All movie team had to escape sometimes even under fire. The last scene is purely "harakiri" type of behavior and reminded me the final phrase from one famous samurai movie - "We've won all battles but lost the war". It could be also a metaphor of USSR collapse - the great country allowing to shoot itself to the back by the small offended child. Filmed less than a year after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the subject matter was fresh in the minds of the cast, the director and the audience. Most of the cast are actual soldiers and officers just back from the war. The Soviet army cooperated quite a bit during filming, which is odd.

The Afghan intervention was a bloody and pointless war in which even the generals had forgotten the reasons for the bloodshed. This film shows the tension and the cruelty of military life, the emotional atrophy experienced by the troops and the pain that convulsed a small nation torn by war and civil-war.

There is no lack of powerful scenes. One of the first is footage of steel coffins being loaded onto a transport bound for the USSR. Solders go about their work while an officer calmly ticks off the destinations: Moscow, Rostov, Donetsk, The Baltic.

An earlier comment describes the last scene with Maj. Bandura as illogical. It is perfectly logical and in the spirit of the film: the only human relationship Bandura maintained was with the Afghan family which he accidentally kills in the assault. Having lost his only buffer against the senselessness of the war, Bandura turns his back on the boy(and his gun) in resignation to his fate.

I particularly liked the last scene: a flock of MI-28s rising over the mountains as the voice of a pilot yells: "Uhodim! Uhodim rebyata! (We're leaving! Boys, we're leaving!) in a tone of sincere relief.

Afhanskii Izlom is an excellent film - brutally honest and as unholliwood as they come. From the first to the last scene, this film is made very realistically,even too realistically that sometimes we can't see details in night scenes(it's dark as real night),in the desert(sunshine is so strong as in real desert).

Script and actor's play are also very realistic. Shots and episodes are edited not to show things and events "effectively", to "explain" them, or,as many Hollywood films do, to "entertain" viewers. Editing here is to represent the events as if they really happened in Afganistan. Camera is set sometimes far from dying solders, even the moment when the main character Major Bandura is shot and killed.

Such method reminds me of masterpieces of Italian neo-realism. And the construction of the story here is based on the same principles as "Paisà",or "The Bicycle Thief"--chronological series of "true to life" episodes and a few pathetic moments, which at first seem to be sudden and illogical, but have inner reasons.

I think the inner reason of Major Bandura's suicidal death is religious emotion--Repentance for innocent people's death(not only his accidental killing of family in the village, but also death of solders under his command).He is not depicted as a eager believer,on the contrary he is depicted as tactful and responsible officer.Exactly for this reason his last decisions(to go back to the destroyed village and to turn his back to an armed boy, whose family he killed)seem an act of Repentance.

The Russian Orthodox choral, which sounds at the end("Evening Sacrifice")is another context,by which all the film can be seen from this point of view. Well, the movie is basically about the last days of a specific Russian regiment stationed in Afghansitan, before the main troop withdrawal in 1985. The movie accurately portrays the grim realities of Russian army that have made it infamous: "dedovshina" (officers and NCOs physically harassing, beating and humiliating younger recruits), mixed character of war (you can trade with your enemy one day and kill him the next), life of women at the front lines, documentary footages of helicopter assaults, and coffins being soldered and sent home in heave C-130 Hercules class Russian cargo planes with tracer to jam Stinger missiles, fatigue, boredom, anti-war sentiment, emotional side simply put. The there's some action scenes, but they are poorly done, and often are illogical, like Major Bandura's suicidal walk and turning of his back to 10-year-old kid armed with AK-47 who's father he just killed. Also the fact that in the middle of firefight in the mountains heavy grenade launcher pops out of nowhere (and any half-bright person knows that it's virtually impossible to hump 40-50 lns launcher on the march anyone). But at the same time films shows that war is a dirty affair, where murder is sometimes condoned, wanton destruction of whole villages for little or no reason is normal, indiscriminate killing of civilians is overlooked as collateral damage inevitable during war... Some food for thought as to why Afghan war as lost.. Not the best war movie made, but profound and intelligent enough to be worth watching. American war movie fans might be bored out of their skulls by this movie, but that boredom is born of ignorance. Guerrilla suppression operations are always like that. Sit around and wait, get some hookers, get drunk at the base, wheel and deal with the businessman, kick a prisoner around, cover up the killing of the street merchant by the green private. Then, boom, there goes two fuel trucks, and for 10 minutes a small-arms battle with one high-caliber machine gun. Then wait for brass to plan a way to knock out their stronghold, and then end up killing a few civilians in the process of doing it. If reality doesn't work for Western viewers, there's always Top Gun or Rambo (Top Gun realistic? nope)

The best part of Afganskiy Izlom's realism was the way all the planes dropped flares like confetti. They had to do that because Carter and Reagan gave the Mujahedin so many missiles. Also, the wave of Mi-24's was excellent, a better helo attack even than Apocalypse now. The sight of their missiles dropping and shooting was a scene of impending "death from above" for whoever they were aimed at.

It's funny how the Soviets were able to make an honest Afghanistan movie within a year after their departure, but it took the US six years. Afganskiy Izlom is just as real if you apply it to NATO's occupation too. Someone will always pick up the gun and shoot you cause they care more about the land. It's a movie Westerners should watch. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has ever made English subtitles; I might have to make some. NBC was putting out a lot of good product when this series came out, but none of it was getting viewers. At least according to their executives who wisely canceled good shows like Star Trek & My World & Welcome To It because of low ratings. NBC's advertisers were getting a bargain from NBC's ignorance.

This show stands out as the only time James Garner wasn't enough to get viewers. It is ashame as this show had an excellent support cast from Stuart Margolin (later Angel in the Rockford files), to Neva Patterson to Margot Kidder.

It was set in a 1900 western town. Garner was playing a sheriff who did not want to use violence to do his duties. It was small town stuff, but it was excellent. It wasn't long after this that Jim Rockford brought Garner back to success, but for my money, this show was good enough, it just wasn't in the right time, right place, or given the right opportunity.

The show was so good that most of the folks who worked on it also got jobs on Rockford. As I recall, my family made a point to stay home on the night "Nichols" was on (Mondays? Tuesdays? NBC?). It was a superb vehicle for James Garner, very well written, great ensemble cast. His character very much like the "Support Your Local..." films: Retired gambler with mysterious past settles into town and has adventures every week. In fact, it seemed fairly obvious that it was the same character. It was just a charmer of a TV show. A sleeper, like "My World And Welcome To It", which may have been its contemporary--I forget. I dearly wish these shows would be made available on DVD. It was Just Good TV. Perhaps "Briscoe County Jr." come close, but only by a mile. Hey, you are not alone! I remember Nichols! I was just 17 when it was on. I remember James Garner was one of the coolest actors, and Nichols was such a great show. I couldn't believe it was on such a short time, wish I could remember the last episode, I probably didn't see it...there were no vcr's back then so it when it was on you saw it, and if you missed an episode it was gone forever unless it came back on summer reruns. Anyway, sure would be great if it came out on DVD, but I don't think that many people even knew about it. What a shame.

Garner would hit it big a few years later with Rockford Files, and he brought along his buddy Stuart Margolin from Nichols to play his sidekick Angel. This show was a really good one in many ways, although certainly an atypical Western with the hero (?) riding around on a motorcycle rather than a horse, due to the 1914 setting, very "late" for a Western, which tend usually to be set between 1866 and 1890. I remember some controversy about its cancellation at the time but didn't really watch it during its time on NBC. When I came to see it and love it was a decade later when I was in the Army stationed in Germany and it was shown every week from the beginning on Armed Forces Television. By then, Margot Kidder was famous as Lois Lane but I'll also always think of her as Nichols' girlfriend. In a lot of ways, Nichols was a lot like Maverick; both were much more attracted to getting rich with little effort than they were fighting. It was in the little TV magazine that they distributed at the PX (not really an authorized edition of "TV Guide" but made to resemble it as closely as possible without getting into copyright trouble) that I first learned the real story behind the cancellation. I really wonder what the next season with the more violent twin would have been like if they had really made it as planned. Of course, by the time this show was made the "Western era" of TV had been in decline for around a decade; someday I hope to be able to write that the "reality era" has been in decline for that long! While "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza" were still running, they were both nearing their ends and it had been years since a new Western had really caught on; I think that this trend did a lot to hold "Nichols" back, and was the main reason that NBC executives doubted that it would ever find a large audience But to me, a good Western, unlike a show set in contemporary times, is somewhat timeless, as are other "period" shows; changing fashions and the like do nothing to make them look any more "dated" than they were supposed to be, and I think that watching this show, 10 years after it was produced, is really what brought this point home to me. Also, this show is an early pairing of Garner and Stuart Margolin, who is really one of the all-time great sidekicks, and not just in Westerns. I loved this show but then I don't remember ever not loving anything he did, starting with "Americanization of Emily". A town sheriff who keeps trying to steal the town blind and ride off to Mexico, gotta love it. Like everything he does it has a tongue in cheek flavor that brands it as a Garner product. James plays the same character in lots of his shows and movies but somehow it never gets stale.

P.S. re: Killing off the main character

If I remember right the "good" brother was killed off and replaced with the "evil" twin in an effort to increase the ratings i.e.; make it more like every other western on TV at the time. I think this show was too far ahead of its time and I still miss it. TV without a Jimmy G show is missing something. Superb silent version of the story of Francois Villon. Although remade in the thirties as IF I WERE KING, with Frank Lloyd directing, Preston Sturges scripting and Ronald Colman starring, this version is even better. Barrymore, with a cohort of comedians, plays the comic fool and the wine-depressed Villon with a verve that Colman could not match. The photography is startling in its beauty and innovation and the supporting cast, particularly Conrad Veidt in his American premiere, the incredibly beautiful Marceline Day, and the supporting comics, Slim Summerville and Hank Mann, steal every scene they are in.

It is a shame that Barrymore did so few first-rate comedies. Among his sound films, only his lead in TWENTIETH CENTURY and his supporting role in MIDNIGHT can compare to this, and those stand up only because of his superb voice. In this silent movie, Barrymore must tell his tale without benefit of words, and he does so, alternately hilariously unrecognizable as the King of the Fools and tenderly as Villon in love. He even gets to leap around in the swashbuckling style of Fairbanks, most convincingly. He also lets his supporting cast have their share of glory, capering in this ensemble work like any talented comic of the era.

Finally, a brief word about Alan Crosland, a director known today only for directing the first talking feature, THE JAZZ SINGER in the same year this was released. Crosland was a careful, innovative, delightfully original director, and it is a shame that more of his works are not known. Perhaps this movie, far more interesting as a movie than his best-known work, will be your introduction to his other talents. If so, you could do far worse. And nothing wrong in that! Heartily endorse the comments of boblipton and Snow Leopard.

I'm thrilled to find this movie is available on US DVD - I've only ever seen it through once - I persuaded the Goethe Institute here in London to show it in their Conrad Veidt season some years ago - and long to see it again.

Barrymore is resplendent when engaged, as in this movie, possibly because of the prick of having a renowned German actor as a foil. And Veidt is such a wonderful scene stealer (doesn't he pick his nose at one point?) This is one of the seminal films to connect 'Dr Jekyll' with '20th Century', 'Grand Hotel' or 'Midnight'; and 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' or 'The Student of Prague' with 'The Spy in Bladk', 'Contraband' and 'Casablanca'.

See it! The Beloved Rogue is a wonderful period piece. It portrays 145th century Paris in grand Hollywood fashion, yet offering a bleaker side to existence there as it would be experienced by the poor. And the snow. It's constantly swirling about, adding to the severity of the setting -- brilliant! The setting is enhanced by the odd cast of characters, including beggars, cripples and dwarfs.

A brilliant performance is turned in by John Barrymore, outdone only by the magnificent Conrad Veidt, who portrays a degenerate, dissolute Louis XI to perfection. And yes, Veidt picks his nose on purpose, pushing his portrayal to wonderfully wry limits. Most of the silent films I've seen have been serious in nature, so it was fun to see one with a comic touch. The setting and some of the scenes for "The Beloved Rogue" were reminiscent of 1923's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" relative to the Paris street scenes and the celebration of the 'King of Fools'. John Barrymore portrays France's greatest poet Francois Villon in a characterization that ranges quite broadly from virtual slapstick to romantically tender; that 'water into wine' bit early in the picture was rather amusing.

It seems that times never change, and it's interesting to see the movie make a cogent observation nearly a century ago - Paris has it's fool to reign for one night, while everywhere else has one all the time. How true.

The appearance of Conrad Veidt in the film was a little surprising for this viewer, I've only seen him as Major Strasser in "Casablanca", oddly one of his very last movies. As King Louis XI, he's a monarch obsessed with astrology, crafty but suspicious, and it was a bit unnerving to see how closely he resembled Brad Dourif's Wormtounge character from the final chapter of the 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy. Not exactly exuding the confidence a King of France might be expected to bear. Which is why the ascendancy of Burgundy's duke (Lawson Butt) seemed all the more plausible, until Villon rises to the occasion to put one over on both rulers.

I found it interesting that the use of inter-title cards was exceedingly spare, used only when absolutely necessary to advance the story. Without them though, one would have missed a curious nugget. It seems Villon carried out his exile from Paris at the Hostel of the Lame Flea!

The print I viewed was of exceptional quality, the very first film presented in a one hundred Action and Suspense movie DVD set from Mill Creek Entertainment, that's saying something for a film that's now eighty years old. It's great that movies from the silent era are now finding a wider distribution in this type of commercial format, making them accessible to an entirely new generation of movie lovers.

One question - did it seem like Conrad Veidt's King Louis picked his nose on purpose, or as an inadvertent gesture that simply remained safe from the cutting room? François Villon was a real-life poet and rogue who lived in Paris in the 15th century. However, most of what is portrayed in this historical film is actually fiction--from a play created at the beginning of the 20th century. Whereas in the film he met and became friends with Louis XI, in reality he died in his 30s and was never involved in all the intrigues like he was in this film. In reality, he wrote some lovely verse and was frequently on the wrong side of the law--not the combination of a patriot and Robin Hood-like character like he is in the film. Provided you know that the film is nearly 100% fiction, then it's well worth seeing--just don't assume it's a good history lesson.

In THE BELOVED ROGUE, Villon is played with wild abandon by John Barrymore. I was also pretty excited to see that his three friends were all played by very familiar faces. Angelo Rossitto, who was the plucky dwarf, played in tons of films over the years and had a very long career. Slim Summerville was a character actor known for adding a touch of comedy to films. Mack Swain is best known as the silent film foil in many of Chaplin's short films and played his partner in THE GOLD RUSH. All four of these men did a nice job and have no complaints---even with Barrymore's rather over-the-top treatment that was rather reminiscent of a Douglas Fairbanks performance. However, the performance I had a serious problem with was Conrad Veidt as King Louis XI. To call this "unsubtle" would be a gross understatement. He played the role like a high schooler who thought he was supposed to be the stereotypical Richard III--skulking about and acting like a demoniacal caricature. While Veidt was wonderful in many, many films (both silent and sound) but here he is just ridiculous.

As for the story, it's full of lusty adventure and action--like a swashbuckling film minus the sailing ships. The sets worked out well for all this, as they'd been used the previous year for THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Both films were set around the same time period.

Overall, it's one of the last great silent films. There's a lot to like and the film is a lovely combination of romance, comedy and action. Well worth seeing, though it loses a couple of points for Veidt's overacting as well as the way the film plays fast and loose with history.

By the way, this film was also made twice as IF I WERE KING (1920 and 1938) and apparently these two films are closest to the original play. However, in total, six films have been about Villon and tell, more or less, variations on the same tale! This film is a good start for novices that have never watched a 'Silent Film' and for those who believe that quality Cinema started with their generations efforts. They are doing a disservice to themselves by not expanding their horizons. The 'Silent Film' is a art-form of acting in pantomime that is different from the sound film and the stage, it can stands on it's own merits.

THE BELOVED ROGUE (1927) United Artists is a fictionalized history of the relationship of French Poet 'Francois Villon' and 'King Louis XI'. Through 'Villons' prodding 'King Louis' will defeat his nemesis 'Duke of Burgandy' minimize the Feudal System and establish the KING as head of the State and the beginnings of modern France.

The cast is exceptional, lead by JOHN BARRYMORE (yes, Drew's GrandFather). For those who only remember him for the decaying actor 'Larry Renault' in DINNER AT EIGHT (1933) or the ham in THE INVISABLE WOMEN (1940) this will be a revelation. Fit, trim with the 'Great Profile' still in evidence he commands the screen. Co-Starring in his first American film is CONRAD VEIDT with his 'cadaverous spider' interpretation of 'Louis XI'. This is a duel of acting titans, each not giving the other a inch. On a trivia note is Character Actor and Dwarf ANGELO ROSSITTO in his first film, his last, MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985). There are other character actors who would continue in sound that are easily picked up on.

United Artists spared no expense in this handsome production supervised by WILLIAM CAMERON MENZIES. Costumes, Props and Sets are well done and not exaggerated like in a DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS productions. There is a touch of reality here. The copy on DVD that we watched from 'Delta Entertainment' came from a good master. Though not 'restored' its musical soundtrack was clear and the print only suffered from nuisance black-spots (dirt) and drop-outs. The only major damage at the end of the last reel from water. 'Kino' also has a edition which may be of a better quality since they do major restorations on their prints. Best check with them. In our opinion this is a 'must have' particularly if you have no 'silents' in your collection. This is a good place to start. Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore No matter how many times Wile Ethelbert "Famishius Famishius" Coyote tries to get Road "Burnius Roadibus" Runner, we always know what's going to happen, though our sympathy always remains with WEC. The highlight in "Hook, Line and Stinker" is a Rube Goldberg-style scheme that WEC hopes will finally finish off RR; but of course you know what happens.

So, Wile E. continues hilarious engaging in fanaticism (defined by George Santayana as redoubling your effort after you've forgotten your aim) while Road Runner pretty much never becomes aware of the potential danger - or lack thereof - in which he could find himself. A real classic.

And yes, the coyote's middle name is Ethelbert. I learned that from "Jeopardy!". If you love Vampire lore and are a fan of Gothic horror, then you might want to check out Soul's Midnight. I did not know much about this movie before I watched it, and I wasn't expecting much, but I found the movie to be fun and entertaining.

Starring Armand Assante as the leader of the vampires Simon, Soul's separates itself from other low budget vampire flicks by weaving in the mythology of St. George and the Dragon in a fun new way.

I'm not sure what the budget for this movie was, but I sense that if it was a little more then they might have really been able to hit home the gore and effects.

If you're up late one night and you're in the mood for a fun low budget vampire flick then Soul's Midnight is a good choice. Soul's Midnight stars Armande Assante (Simon) who stared in "The Mambo Kings" and Elizabeth Bennett (Alicia Milford). Together with Sexy vampire vixen, Lucila Sola (Iris), Simon lures pregnant Alicia and her husband Charles into the netherworld of Soul's Midnight. Assante sinks his fangs into the script by writers Brian and Jason Cleveland and you enjoy watching him and Iris kill. Alicia and Charles (Robert Floyd) try to stay alive while gore keeps your lust for blood sated.

(spoiler alert) In today's jaded landscape, it comes as no surprise that a back-stabbing preacher gets bitten. Set looks cool – lots of detail at the Borgo Hotel and cool special effects at the end. I had a lot of fun watching this movie – it doesn't take itself too seriously and looks great. As a huge fan of horror, I had given up on the vampire sub-genre due to the fact that in most vampire flicks the vampire has become feminine and non-threatening, benign and basically weak. This was the attitude I brought to a viewing of Soul's Midnight and I am happy to say that the vampires in this film at least have the hunger to kill old ladies and sacrifice babies! Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors of all time, was born to play the charming vampire with savage intensity.

Another thing that interested me is that the central location is the Borgo Hotel. That is cool because (and I went back to my high school copy to look this up) in Dracula, the Borgo Pass is where Jonathan Harker must pass to get to Dracula's castle.

Finally, my hats off to whoever made the decision to make the creature a real effect and not a darn CGI! That's the one thing great about many low-budget movies, they cannot afford the garbage computer effects that plague many Hollywood monstrosities.

Bottom line...this is better than Underworld for sure, especially if you are a vampire purest. Cheers, JA China White (1989) was Ronny Yu's first international film. This U.K,/Holland/Hong Kong production was shot in English and was slightly edited for the western audience. The American Wong brothers (Michael and Russell) were supposed to star in the film together but due to prior commitments was unavailable so another western actor Steven Leigh took his spot. Several Hong Kong stars such as Tommy Wong (playing a mute) and the always creepy William Ho appear as well as the director in an interesting cameo spot.

The Chow brothers are in Holland to run the family business. They want to the family business to go legit but the other Asian gangs don't want to and see there move as a face saving move to please the "foreigners" and want to keep on making money the old fashion way. Others want to take their business to even a new low by smuggling drugs and what not. After the Chow elder is gunned down in cold blood, the brothers make their move against any family who's not with them. Can the Chow family keep the families from killing one another or while the streets of Holland flow with the blood of the innocence and gangsters?

A highly underrated movie. I was surprised by how good it was. I haven't seen the Hong Kong version. That would be a huge treat for me. It's longer and has a lot more stars of the Hong Kong Cinema involved with the production. Too bad this film isn't available on D.V.D. The video print i saw was washed out and the sound reproduction wasn't that great.

Highly recommended for action fans.

factoid: This film takes place before the decriminalization of drugs

in Holland. I already gave my comment on this movie under the name BruceV3. Now under BruceV13 I want to add something! Now after a long time I have seen a lot of so called heroic bloodshed titles! But not many come close to the action shown in John Woo movies! That's why after all these years I think it is strange that "China White" doesn't get the credit it deserves! No matter what version you have seen! The action is top notch! The scenery,China Town in Amsterdam is very unique. You get the impression it is a large district. But having lived in Amsterdam myself I know it is only a small area part of the red light district which happen to have a lot of Chinese stores and restaurants! But because of the way they shot the movie it actually looks like a big and important territory where people know not to mess with the triads (chinese mafia)! Besides the action "China White" is a compelling gangster drama with some good acting! For this i have to give credit to Russel Wong! Too bad we don't see much of him lately,since he has a lot of potential! Must see movie! With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as "Randy"), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer ("Michelle") were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching "Randy" try to score with "Michelle" and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way. Wow, I just LOVED watching all these hot babes! The scenery around Malibu and California was off the fizzy. I could watch it again just to see all that flesh crammed into those tiny, teeny bikinis! I recently saw Pilar Lastra, the steaming hot housekeeper in Malibu Spring Break, as a center fold in my favorite mag, PLAYBOY. She is hot, hot HOT! The opening seen was bitchin. When the two main girls run out of gas and stop at this desert gas station, they drive the gas-guy nuts with their bodies and skimpy outfits! The slow-mo lets me enjoy every inch of them! My girlfriend liked looking at this shredded hot dude too (now I'd like a bod like that) and at all the other hot dudes....and some of the girls too! Any movie that can bring that out in my girlfriend is a 10 + for me! Not having seen this film in quite some time, we caught with it not long ago in the nicely transferred Criterion DVD. "Le cercle rouge" is a film that owes a lot to other movies, as it keeps reminding us about "Rififi", "The Asphalt Jungle", among others, because they all deal with capers that take center stage in the movie and reproduce it in great detail. Unfortunately, one knows that old adage that crime does not pay, and from the start, these men involved in it are doomed from the onset.

Jean-Pierre Melville was a director of few words. He didn't fill his pictures with a lot of dialog, as it's the case here. Yet, for not being "talky", they had a style of their own as proved with "Le Dolous", "Le Samurai", and his masterpiece, "Bob le flambeur", among others. Mr. Melville had a sense of style that comes across in everything he did. In this film, working with his cinematographer, Henri Decae, he takes us along for a ride through the streets of Paris that shows the vibrant city mainly at night and the bleak winter in France. The score is by Eric Demarsan that emphasizes a jazzy music that accompanies most of the action.

Although the film shows Alain Delon, as Corey, at the center of the action, it is however, the smart inspector Mattei who is the real hero of the movie. As played by the great Bourvil, he is a man that shows a lot of patience because he has figured from the beginning how to catch Vogel, and in the process he gets involved in the investigation of the jewel heist in which he knows the escaped man he is tailing looms large behind it. Bourvil gives an enormously satisfying performance as Mattei showing equal parts of determination and tenderness, as it's the case with the three cats he adores.

Alain Delon always responded with interesting performances his appearances in Mellville's pictures. In here he is Corey, the man who is first seen leaving prison and promising himself he won't go back, but he cannot pass a good thing when he decides to go ahead and participate in the robbery. His association with Vogel and Jansen, pays off in the way they get the job done, but it will also prove a mistake in the way they will not be able to dispose of the loot as the fence they have relied on has a change of heart.

Gian Maria Volonte and Yves Montand are seen as Vogel and Jansen, respectively. They were excellent actors who blend well in the action of the film. Both actors were at their best moment when they took the roles in the film and it shows. Mr. Montand has the more complex character to play as we witness him in his first moment in front of the camera as a man with many demons inside his head.

Jean-Pierre Mellville got wonderful results from his cast and crew in a film, that although feels a bit longer, but still succeeds in showing his style in one of the most memorable pictures from the director. THE RED CIRCLE (Jean-Pierre Melville - France/Italy 1970).

This might be the coolest film ever made, in the most literal sense of the term. The men here never lose control and never - not once - show their emotions. No dramatic outbursts in this film. Everyone is cool all the time. It's an abstract dream-world, where the men live by their own code, a gangster code with the values of the outside world conspicuously absent. In this masterfully filmed heist saga, Melville tackles the American crime thriller in his distinctly dark and desolate style, yet made in grand fashion with a hefty budget of ten million dollars and with four of the greatest French stars at the time. Alain Delon as the master thief, Yves Montand as an alcoholic ex-cop, Italian star Gian-Maria Volonté as an escaped criminal and André Bourvil in an atypical role as the cynical police chief.

Melville described LE CERCLE ROUGE as his penultimate film and it is indeed a masterfully stylized policier. He also claimed he wanted to shoot a film noir in colour and in many ways he succeeded. The two primary influences for this film were John Huston's 1950 heist movie THE ASPHALT JUNGLE and Jules Dassin's RIFIFI (1955). But unlike these films, where we learn much about the background of the individual gang members, with all their petty needs and worries that motivate them, making clear these are not just ruthless underworld types, but ordinary individuals engaged in a world of everyday worries and human endeavour, Melville, though, tells us almost nothing about his criminals. Why was Corey (Alain Delon) in jail? Why was his associate, Vogel (Jean-Marie Volonté) arrested in the first place? Or why the ex-police marksman Jansen (Yves Montand) left the force, was it his alcoholism? We never learn the motivations behind their actions and never find out what drives these men. Women are even more absent than in his earlier films, with the "emotional" ties exclusively between men. They don't even seem to have personal lives. A sort of an emotional twilight zone and although the setting is not as abstract as in his earlier LE SAMOURAI (1967), Melville still sketches a very eerie world. Melville's favorite actor, Alain Delon, is perfect and almost outdoes himself in coolness, if imaginable.

Deliberately paced and with a length of over 140 minutes, Melville takes his time to tell the story, but its slow pace and length seems a perfect way to show the desolate world these men live in. Nothing is ever out of place in Melville's films and here it's no different, every little detail seemingly of pivotal importance for the story. Although LE SAMOURAI remains my favorite Melville film, even up there with the greatest films ever made, this one also belongs to the very best.

Camera Obscura --- 10/10 Everyone likes the coolly created, memorable heist movie. Alain Delon provides the antihero, Melville provides the cool, and a handful of other great talent (Yves Montand, Gian Maria Volonte, and Andre Bourvil, mostly) arrives to add a crisp engaging movie...

...with very little dialog. This is great, because one certain aspect of the genre tends to be a lot of dialog involving the quick-witted and their various repartees. This movie, however, could be watched with the sound completely off and not too terribly much would be missed. Not to say the sound is bad, oh no, the jazzy soundtrack and the crisp audio catching the little movements makes the slow, patient deliberation of the patients very compelling.

What's also really neat about this film is that the color cinematography is pretty fantastic. Usually when it comes to cinematography, black and white movies tend to stick out in my mind, but this film has some very strong and beautiful imagery that makes the movie pure visual pleasure to observe.

--PolarisDiB I decided to write a comment on this amazing movie because here on IMDb it is cited that John Woo, a mediocre director who made some decent films back in his pre-American years but totally ruined his reputation by his latest, made in US films, plans to remake it. Well, here are a couple of reasons why it is one of the stupidest ideas for a remake ever: The plot of the film is simple and even clichéd by today's standards, but what makes the film a masterpiece is acting by the four leads, unique direction by Mellville, cinematography, music and its style. There is no way any director today can make such film, it is impossible to create such an atmosphere in a movie in today's Box-office targeted movie business.

John Woo did make a more or less decent film which borrowed from Melville's Le Samourai - The Killer, but remember, it was made when the director was not spoiled by big budgets and expensive (in salaries) but cheap (in acting merits) actors. So what I'm saying is that this is one of the greatest films ever made, together with another film by Melville - Le Samourai. Watch it. And even if the remake will be made, try to avoid it before seeing the great original first. Jean-Pierre Melville is a director I've only recently gotten acquainted with (I need to see Bob le Flambeur and Le Samourai again to fully grasp them), but in watching Le Cercle Rouge (The Red Circle, supposedly based on a saying in Buddhism) I realized I was watching as skillful and absorbing a crime film as I had seen in a quite some time. Though his film has dialog, it is mainly to keep the film's scenes rolling along, adherent to the plot. What kept me on the alert, even in seemingly mundane scenes/sequences, was the emphasis on the characters' movements, or behavior patterns. Melville has his story laid out, and he is careful to take his time to tell it (this could seem boring to some, but it does seem to work since he puts a little more emphasis on the weight of the characters/environments over plot).

Yet look at each of the four main players: Alain Deleon as Corey (just released from prison, scheming a new heist), Gian Maria Volonte as Vogel (escaping & on the lam from hand-cuffed custody, meets Corey by luck), Yves Montand as Jansen (an aged pro with many years of experience with weapons, a friend of Vogel), and Andre Bourvil as Mattei (an experienced investigator, who is on the look-out for Vogel, and on his toes with internal affairs). Each of these actors plays their parts with precision, detachment, and they each have their own kinds of moments that indicate to the audience what their personalities might be besides as criminals and cops. The heist sequence gives little hints, for example, like how Vogel cops-a-feel off a female statue while passing down the halls, or how Jansen takes out a flask and merely has a whiff of the contents (and what a dream this guy creates). Even Corey's movements involving a photograph of a woman arouse interest.

As absorbing and cool the story becomes, and as great the skills were to make it happen (via cinematographer Henri Decae, the editing, and the musical score by Eric Demarsan), it's the people on the screen that gain fascination, in how they stay true to their natures and ideals. Not a film to be missed by French new-wave enthusiasts, and modern-day crime movie buffs might want to take the 140 minutes to soak up the atmosphere of Melville's work. A suave piece of film-making that still ranks as one of my all-time favorites. While its not the masterpiece that "Le Samourai" was (I've accepted by now that Jean-Pierre Melville was never able to top that classic), I find "Le Cercle Rouge" to be much better than "Bob le flambeur". I felt that "Bob le flambeur" was an above-average and influential b-film, but still a b-film. "Le Cercle Rouge" proves that as a filmmaker Melville improved as he continued. John Woo is a massive fan of Melville, even though their film-making style differs. While Woo uses fast-motion for shootouts and an operatic sense of violence, Melville has a minimalist style that suits him very well. He wasn't interested in creating quickly paced action films but more meditative crime thrillers. In that department, he was one of the best.

"Le Samourai" is still his best work, mainly because it has more character development than this, but on a technical level they're probably equal. Besides, while "Le Samourai" had one great lead performance, this has four. Alain Delon is once again an ultra-cool gangster on the prowl - this man's silence is fascinating. Bourvil is superb as the police inspector on the case of the heist and escaped con. He steals every scene he is in, and proves that he was a skilled dramatic actor (in France he is best known as a slapstick comedian in the mode of Buster Keaton). Yves Montand is great also as the shaky and paranoid gun expert. Gian Maria Volontè (a regular in spaghetti westerns) is overshadowed by his three co-stars but still does an adequate job.

Once again, Melville's direction is superb. Taking equal influence from both American crime thrillers and the French new wave, the man always seems to know the best shots and angles to choose. This is more slowly-paced than most caper flicks, but it really pays off by the end. "Le Cercle Rouge" is a bit short of being an absolute classic, but is still one of the best heist flicks ever made. Tarantino must've seen this before making "Reservoir Dogs". (8/10) Having finally caught up with this "masterpiece," it strikes me that it must have seemed terribly clever, in its day. It's French, arty, under-played to the point of agony, and ultimately downbeat. But viewed from the vantage of 37 years in the future, it's also just a bit vacuous, pretentious and unsatisfying.

Others have summarized the story, but I don't think anyone has pointed out the dramatic flaw at the heart of this film: the lead characters, Corey and Vogel, really don't deserve what they get. They play square within their code, never harm anyone who didn't ask for it, and show great courage and initiative. Moreover, Corey in particular is victimized by his former gangland 'friend,' who stole his girl and who repeatedly tries to have him killed, apparently just because he (Corey) dared to 'borrow' a few thousand francs. These are guys who really ought to be due for a break! Instead, things go far worse for them than they really need to, within the logic of the story.

One might contend that this is the whole point: that the real villains never get caught; that they collude with the police as needed, sell out their friends, and always come out on top. But that's not shown either. Corey's old gangster friend is not shown colluding with the police. Nor is he shown gloating over his victory. In fact, after materializing several times when he's needed, he's nowhere to be seen at the conclusion, leaving a dramatic tension (his feud with Corey) entirely unresolved!

Nonetheless, I'd say this film is well worth seeing for its beautiful photography, its slow, deliberate pacing, its great deadpan performances, its elaborate heist sequence, and its encapsulation of the art-film style of the late 1960s. I guess Melville intended this movie to be the definition of the cool; it has the cool approach of the late '60s/ early '70s thrillers—the same discrete quirkiness. LE CERCLE ROUGE, a bitter and fatalist story, is also the playground of Delon, Bourvil, Volonté and Montand in defining roles.

Bourvil is a cop who has in his flat three cats and a daily routine. Delon is a hoodlum. Montand is a sick, failed cop. Volonté plays an escaped suspect. LE CERCLE ROUGE is of course far above a heist movie; Melville uses his techniques –long wordless detailed depictions of every step of the heist, etc.. Yet this particular action drama is far better than his other movies—and it's very unlikely them by being so much better. The look of LE CERCLE ROUGE is very peculiar to Melville, very Melvillian.

Delon was sharp and cool; Bourvil brings his craft, and Montand makes maybe the finest role of this movie; his performance has an unexpected warmth .

On the other hand, the characters are barely sketched, no more than strictly necessary, and are personae. Or masks; yet the portrayal is inspired, economic but suggestive.

Another of the movies that prove Delon to be a good, a very good actor; and the fact that he's not a genius does not imply that he ought to be despised as a fourth rate actor. He's good, he can bear the proximity of a Bourvil and Montand.

Only ten yrs. before LE CERCLE ROUGE, Melville was doing, towards the end of the '50s, a boring overlong insipid noir pastiche (starring himself)—and after only a decade, here he is, in full form, with this quite amazing action drama. Stylistically, it's a success.

Before seeing LE CERCLE ROUGE, I was not a Melvillian fan; now I guess I rather am one.

LE CERCLE ROUGE is a drama—namely, an action drama, one of the most exigent genres. Melville scores. you have loved The shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Vertigo, Oldboy.... And i guarantee you will love this one more. its a brilliant thriller. The story is so simple yet so gripping. it keeps you at the edge of your seat till the end. the slow moving scenes, simple music adds more perfection to the movie. its so genuine. the performance is top class the direction the sequences...they are too perfect..if i could i would place it in top 10 thrillers ever made. Most entertaining thriller i have seen in a while... *****/***** my vote help me move this movie to top 250

you will love it... Commissaire Mattei(André Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.

Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volonté)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.

It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.

Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volonté, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volonté-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volonté is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.

Melville is wrong. Volonté give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.

Also André Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.

Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.

We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volonté is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?

In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.

The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volonté escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.

Michael Zabel Just as in Rififi, the most compelling scene in the movie is the perfected silence of the jewel heist. The scene is masterful in its execution, each of the robbers having their own specialized job to perform, each one successfully combining their own unique talent towards the objective, and each one, until a month before, complete strangers.

Many of the scenes play out very slowly. In fact, the opening scene is a long character introduction to both Corey and Vogel, as we see Corey getting released from prison and Vogel escaping capture on his way to prison. The two characters are then methodically brought together through fate at a roadside diner as Vogel hides inside the trunk of Corey's automobile. From this improbable break in, the two strangers agree to become partners to commit a perfected and precise jewel heist.

However, to pull of this heist they must include the help of a third man named Jansen. Jansen is hired as the sure shot gun man. His inclusion into the mix was an interesting and desperate choice. At the time of his hire, Jansen is in a full battle with DT's and spent most of his day on his cot hallucinating over lizards, snakes and spiders. His transition from the disheveled and hallucinatory world of a William S. Burroughs dream into the steady handed and sober sharp shooter is a very quick one and perhaps the only real false moment of the film, but that's just me being extremely picky.

One other mildly false note was that of the police inspector Mattei. At times he appeared to be brilliant in the ways of strong arming the right people or gathering information and waiting out for his escaped prisoner to make his move. Other times he appeared to be 10 years past retirement, especially at the beginning during Vogel's escape through the woods.

I wonder if I got too much hidden meaning from the beginning of the movie. At the start of the movie, as the police car is speeding through the city, the first image we see is that of a red stop light. My first thought was that this may be the 'red circle' and that if I am to find a deeper meaning in the movie, perhaps it is that this car, or rather the people inside of it going through the red light, will be the ones who will 'stop' the jewel heist. Hmmmm?

Perhaps the red circle refers to the triumvirate thieving ring? Perhaps it was the burning sled? No matter.

It's a long movie, but it doesn't feel that way. The ending is a bit of a disappointment. It seemed too hurried for a movie that felt like such a delicious slow burn. 9/10

Clark Richards How good is this film? Apparently, good enough that they plan to remake it in 2011. Jean-Pierre Melville, who gave us Le doulos and The Good Thief, wrote and directed this film.

The film is almost a silent. These are men of few words, preferring to let their actions speak for them. They live by a code that governs their every move.

There are some great actors in this film - Alain Delon (The Leopard), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette, Let's Make Love), and Gian Maria Volonte (El Indio from A Fistful of Dollars & A Few Dollars More). The film does not shine on them; they are along for the ride that Melville has for them. Melville makes the film; they make it better.

You see Melville's work in the Ocean films, but they just get the idea. The can't make it work like he did. A great loss in the seventies, but his work remains for our pleasure. LE CERCLE ROUGE is a very good film, though it does suffer a bit since there have already been similar films. In all too many ways, the movie is reminiscent of previous heist films such as RIFIFI and GRAND SLAM and many others. So, while director Melville and the actors did great jobs, it all seems like a case of Déjà vu. Because of this, I had a hard time giving this excellent film a higher score.

The one unusual aspect of the film is how the crooks get together. Instead of the usual means, Vogel escapes from prison and just happens to meet up with Corey, a career criminal just released from prison! Both are a good match but having them both work in parallel for much of the film until they meet was a clever touch. Apart from that, as expected much of the movie concerns the meticulous details in planning and executing the crime. I also appreciated how the film showed the crooks in such a cold and detached manner--something relatively common in French crime films but rare among American films until recent years.

Overall, extremely well-crafted and worth seeing...if you don't mind that it seems a tad repetitive, you'll see some fine acting, direction and a lot of great tension. Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge follows the lives of two criminals: Vogel (Gian Maria Volontè), a murderer who gives the cops the slip while he's being transferred from one city to another by train; and Corey (Allain Delon), a thief just released from jail. Fate decides to join these two men to pull off a spectacular heist. In the background there is Matei (André Bourvil), the detective Vogel escapes from, implacable in his pursuit and sometimes ruthless in his methods. Along the movie the viewer meets other minor but fascinating characters, the best of which is Jansen (Yves Montand), a disgraced ex-cop and an excellent marksman.

Melville has such a unique style one doesn't need to watch many of his movies to catch on. Le Samourai, Un Flic and Le Cercle Rouge are clearly made of the same cloth: the symmetrical angles; the long shots; the silences; the coats and hats and cigars; the quotes at the beginning; the amazing heists, the fatalism; the unglamorous and inglorious criminal life. Everything that's great in Melville is present here in top form.

And his shortcomings didn't bother me so much this time: the illogical, perplexing behavior of his characters and confusing storytelling, which hurt my enjoyment of his other movies, are almost invisible here. Since Le Cercle Rouge preceded Un Flic that doesn't mean he got better with time; perhaps I'm just getting more used to it and reaching a mindset where it doesn't bother me anymore.

Melville made unique crime movies. As old as they may be, they show more ingenuity, realism and grace than the modern techno-thrillers in which cool thieves use computer systems and James Bond-esquire gadgets to pull off impossible crimes. Melville's criminals aren't cool: they're lonely, socially awkward and probably aware they're not good for much more than planning heists. They're society's unwanted, living in the night, always one step ahead of the police in a game they know they'll lose eventually. There's nothing romantic about them.

Amazingly for a movie of this type, the cops aren't complete idiots either. Matei is smart, crafty, patient and even compassionate. He's not an unlikeable villain or a cliché, he's just an old man doing his job and doing it right. He knows when to use force and when to use brains. Many movies could learn from him.

It's this down-to-earth, unromantic style that makes Melville's movies such a joy to watch and puts him on a special pedestal as one of cinema's great crime masters. "All men are guilty," says the chief of the police. "They're born innocent but it doesn't last." Add this bit of nihilism to Jean-Pierre Melville's fascination with the idea of the crook's code of honor and you have Le Cercle Rouge. This code of honor among crooks, however, is not simply a cliché; it's a figment of the imagination even when film moralists -- realistic moralists by their viewpoint, romantic moralists by most others' -- began to make movies on the subject. Their theme is that it isn't what one does, but how one does it. We most often wind up with stories all about experienced men with their own sense of honor, stories where fate, fatalism and the code run things.

For most of humanity, except screen writers and movie directors, this would seriously get in the way of living one's life, raising one's children and being a good friend. This mannered fatalism is something of a self-indulgent notion. Le Cercle Rouge is, in my view, a classic film for people who may secretly enjoy the adventure of just missing the last bus home. But where Melville's Le Samourai - Criterion Collection, in my opinion, is style dominating story, Le Cercle Rouge manages the great trick of combining style with a strong story and with compelling actors. The point of the movie, in my view, is nonsense...but the movie itself is a first-class experience.

Melville's hopeless tale of three crooks -- Cory (Alain Delon), Vogel (Gian-Maria Volonte) and Jansen (Yves Montand) - is based on a bit of wisdom which is, maybe, attributed to the Buddha: That all men who are destined to meet, will...along with their destiny they cannot change. Maybe, because some believe Melville himself came up with the wording if not the thought. Either way, we know right at the start that this movie will not end happily, will depend upon fate and coincidence to set things up for us, and will leave us recalling the nihilistic philosophies we discovered and loved when we were in high school. Once Corey and Vogel meet and then gather in the unique talents of Jansen, we are off on a one-way ride to rob an exclusive, heavily protected jewelry story on the Place Vendome. The tension arises because we not only know the French police are after Vogel, we also realize that some determined crooks are after Corey.

The great pleasure of the movie, for me, came from admiring the work that Delon, Volonte and Montand brought to their characters, and the intelligent ruthlessness that Andre Bouvril brought to his character, the police captain Mattei. Melville hooked me as he developed these characters and their own situations; he built me up emotionally and then released me when he brought me to appreciate their probable fate and let me see see it happen. Melville establishes his set pieces -- the escape from the train, the escape from the woods, the later shootout in the woods, the meetings with Mattei and a man who refuses to inform -- with intriguing possibilities. He builds tension in all these cases by taking his time; a rare trait in movie making and an even rarer trait now. And Melville takes the time to build up Mattei as an individual. Mattei is a rueful, experienced man. He's a loner. He has a set routine when he returns to his apartment -- he greets his three cats affectionately, he draws his bath and while the tub is filling he sets out food for them. I don't know who Mattei is destined to meet, but I hope it's someone who likes cats.

Nihilism is always fashionable among some creative people and some critics. In most cases, I think it's a much harder task to set nihilism aside and to simply live one's life without damaging too many people. (And that's even more challenging to show compellingly in a film.) Le Cercle Rouge is a movie which, for me, tells me little, but it is in its own way, I think, a beautifully put together film. Meville's caper film is not as good as his most famous movie, the deliciously stylish "Le Samourai (1968)." I don't even think this is the best example of the much-loved heist subgenre. The main thing against the film is its long running time. Meville has this tendency of concentrating on too many trivial details. He could have told the same story in a relative short time, but for reasons that I don't understand, the film seems to go on and on. Still, the movie is never boring. Melville's direction impressed me and the cast is very good, especially Alain Delon as a very "cool" master thief. The movie's must-see color photography is a great asset and Melville uses sound (or lack of sound) in a very effective manner. From a technical standpoint, the movie is practically flawless. At times, one gets the feeling that Meville is merely showing off, but when someone is as talented as he is, one has little reason to complain. I still like other heist movies a little bit more (Jules Dassin's "Topkapi (1964)," just to name one), but there is no denying that this film is a good piece of pulp entertainment and a good example of what people refer to as "cool" cinema. After 30+ years of hiatus, once again I immerse myself in the mist of uplifting melancholy. The cold, slow-paced and existential treatment of this crime story comes from a different world, Melville's world, where darkness is pure enlightenment. There were heist movies before this one, and indeed the likes of Rififi were an obvious influence on it - but The Red Circle is more than just another entry in an overpopulated genre and with this film, director Jean-Pierre Melville has managed to create something that both thrills on the surface and gives its audience something to think about. Being cool is just as important a feature of the modern crime movie as guns and gangsters, and Melville delivers that with this film in droves; the tone of the film is very relaxed too and Melville allows the bulk of the film to bubble under the cool exterior. The story has a number of angles but the central character is Corey - a thief who is released from prison. His release coincides with the escape of infamous murderer Vogel, who slips from under the nose of Police Commissioner Mattei during a train ride. The first thing Corey does upon release is steal some money from his former boss Rico, and the second thing he does is recruit Vogel and a sharpshooter to help him pull of a jewel heist. But Rico and the police are hot on the thieves' tails...

The film is bolted together by four excellent central performances. Alain Delon is calm and calculating as the film's anti-hero, while Gian Maria Volontè looks formidable in his role as the escaped murderer. François Périer is good also as a dubious club owner, while the real standout performance comes from André Bourvil in his role as the police commissioner. The film runs at almost two and a half hours and is not exactly a thrill ride. However, the director keeps things interesting by keeping the action focused on the important elements. The film does feature crime film stapes such as shootings, but they are kept to a minimum. The first two thirds of the movie are really just building up to the suspenseful heist scene towards the end. Rififi was most famous for its heist sequence - an intricately designed scene in which nobody speaks a word. The heist in this film is similar in that it is also wordless, and I have to say that I preferred the scene in Rififi; but Melville's skill in direction and the calm and composed way that it plays out make good of it. The film boils down to an exciting climax that rounds it all off nicely. Overall, this might not appeal to all crime film fans as the action is more than a little bit slow; but The Red Circle is an excellent film and deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. I love a film that mixes edge-of-the-seat suspense, laughs, style, good acting, and a bit of self-parody. Hitchcock consistently carried this off, and in "Le Cercle rouge" Jean-Pierre Melville does the same. I was sorry when this long film ended.

I agree with the English commenter who found remarks by one of my compatriots chauvinistic. I love French films, Italian films, English films, Indian films--and the increasingly rare good American films. I also feel the writer who panned the film for being not even a good copy of an American gangster film, missed the point completely. But I guess it's like jazz: either you get it, or you don't, so why waste time trying to explain.

Just see "Le Cercle noir" and be prepared to be deliciously entertained. Just saw it at as closing film of Austin Film Festival. Going in, a had seen a few snippets of their act at Alamo Drafthouse, and thought the trailer was amusing but I wasn't expecting such an epic theme music and the use of tarot cards is genius in the title sequence. Watch out for cameos from Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins, and the dark lord himself (who has a fetish for KG). So much over-the-top fun and the songs are so catchy. The car chase was by far my favorite scene. I know this will earn cult status right away and win over some new Tenacious D fans, just like me. I hope this does well in the theaters. "Follow me, we are the shadows" I saw this movie on a fluke.I was standing on 42nd street waiting for a bus to go home and a sister started passing out free tickets for a preview of this movie.I gave it a chance not expecting much.The promotional movie posters I've seen on the subway station walls do not give this film justice at all.

The movie is about a young rocker who goes on a journey to learn the craft and art of heavy metal.I'll leave it there.The movie is a heavy comedy and lot's of fun.If your are old enough to remember when Heavy Metal dominated the music scene in the eighties you are going to love this film.Jack Black is an amazingly talented comedian and actor and assuming he really wrote and performed the songs in this film he is also a talented musician.

Tenacious D is definitely worth a look! I saw The D's new film tonight at a special advance screening, and I was so blown away by its sheer greatness that I felt I had to come onto IMDb and get the word out. Admittedly, I was already a huge fan of the D's work - I loved the HBO series and listen to their music weekly (there's nothing better to sing along to), but this appreciation actually made me more apprehensive going into to tonight's screening (for we've all been disappointed one time or another by something we love when it attempted to make the jump to the big screen). With Tenacious D's "The Pick of Destiny," this is not the case.

Simply put, this film rocks harder than anything I've seen and is funnier and more majestic than anything Peter Jackson, Pixar, and Will Ferrell together could produce. It tells the story of the D before we came to know them, setting up intriguing histories of Kage and Jables' upbringings, their comings together, and how they were inspired to write songs about such things as Lee, Sasquatch, and Dio. Most importantly, they reveal the true inspiration to the Greatest Song In The World, "Tribute," and how it came to be (which is different than the HBO Series' version). After you've witnessed it you probably won't be able to remember it (hence the Tribute), but your mind forever be changes by its genius.

I don't go out to movies very often anymore due to the high ticket price and the hassle of getting parking, paying outrageous concession prices, etc., but I usually make exceptions when it's starring someone I really love or concerning something of the the same variety. "The Pick of Destiny" was so good that I have no qualms going back to see it again when it releases nationwide, and I plan on convincing all of my friends to go, too. Last week we saw "Borat" and loved it, but this is honest to goodness TEN TIMES BETTER. For anyone who truly loves rock music and comedic brilliance, see this film. These guys' talent is so great you should have no hesitation supporting their cause. You will not be disappointed, and the Rock Lords will smile upon you favorably. I was able to see a preview of this movie through UCLA's pre-screening program, and let me tell you: THIS MOVIE IS UNBELIEVABLY GOOD!!!! I have seen many movies, but few have made me laugh so sincerely or talk about the movie afterward as much as this one. I had a decent respect for Tenacious D before seeing the movie, and now I am MAD about them. I will most definitely buy their album when it is released on the 14th and will see this movie again.

If you were on the fence about seeing this movie, GET OFF AND GO SEE IT!! It is worth the extremely expensive price of movie tickets these days, as you will surely bust a nut laughing during the whole thing.

Aside from the comedy, the glorious and divine music that flows from KG's guitar and JB's voice is awe inspiring. The audience is left in a stupor that such beautiful harmonies and amazing riffs can be created in conjunction with such ridiculous (and hilarious) lyrics. If for nothing other than the music itself, this movie is worth the price of admission.

With a wonderfully coherent storyline tying in almost all aspects of the traditional "D" history and hallmarks, great new songs, hilarious comedy, and some pretty awesome cameos, this movie ranks up there with the best! Go see it!! I managed to see the MTV premiere of this movie last night and I needed to tell everyone that this movie brought the thunder. Obviously this movie will be most enjoyed by fans of the D as it has plenty of in-jokes for those that have seen the HBO series and has more than enough D for newer fans and the mass of soon-to-be converts. The music really shines with the new songs "Kickapoo" (which is much better than it sounds), "Master Exploder" (possibly the 3rd best song in the world) and "Dude (I totally miss you)". There are a load of excellent scenes (the car chase, the rock-off, the meeting) and cameos (including Dave Grohl as Satan!). I really could go on for hours but I don't want to give the movie away. Go see it. You won't be disappointed. If you are like me and you bought the new Tenacious D album the day it came out, and went into the film knowing all the lyrics to all the songs....then you will CERTAINLY enjoy this film. Yes I am biased as a huge Tenacious D fan, but i really did like this film which made me chuckle quite a lot.

This movie was pretty much everything I expected. Comedic genius backed up by great songwriting and some great cameos from Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins. I particularly enjoyed Tim Robbins' part.

If, however, you are unfamiliar with Tenacious D's HBO series and fantastic debut album, then this may not have quite the same comedic impact on you. I would still recommend you go and watch that because it still worth every cent of the admission price and will make you smile even if you aren't in stitches the whole time. This movie was amazing!!!! From beginning to end, the movie is packed with fun, laughs, music, enjoyable rock music, hot chicks, more music, action, drama, and the f-bomb.

Although some scenes are entirely bizarre and unfitting, they were fun to watch and enjoyable. All in all this movie left you feeling great and happy. Especially those that love rock music.

The soundtrack is great, the laughs are plentiful, and the storyline is simple, entertaining, yet complex. You have to see this movie if you love rock music!

Overall Vote: 10 out of 10! Tenacious D: in The Pick of Destiny tells the fictional tale of the formation of the band Tenacious D and their quest to find the Pick of Destiny, a guitar pick with supernatural powers made from the tooth of Satan himself (played by Dave Grohl). JB (Jack Black) and KG (Kyle Gass), joined together by fate, must travel to the Rock N' Roll Museum and steal the Pick of Destiny to become the greatest band on earth. The movie is hilarious and delivers non-stop laughs. Jack Black and Kyle Gass work perfectly together, having been real life friends and co-workers for over 20 years. The film is in part, a musical. All (or most) of the music was written and performed by The D. All of the songs are new material and many of them are classic. The soundtrack is definitely worth checking out. This film will be mostly appreciated by fans of Tenacious D, but if you are not a fan of The D, I still think you will enjoy the movie. If you are a fan of the D, then you must see this movie. The acting isn't as bad as you may think, and the laughs and crudeness never stop coming. I highly recommend this movie to anyone looking to get their socks rocked off and laugh as hard as they have laughed in a long time. Look out for cameos by Dave Grohl, Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, Tim Robbins, John C. Reilly, and Neil Hamburger. Also, stay tuned for an extra scene after the credits. I am a HUGE Tenacious D fan, and I think this is not the funniest movie in the world, but the most entertaining. It's not laugh-a-minute but that's not what the D intended it to be. I went into the movie seeing all the HBO shows, memorized both albums, and that made it even more enjoyable. Plenty of inside jokes from past Tenacious D albums, and HBO shows. Since I knew the new album already, I knew 40 minutes of the movie because it is a musical comedy. I would say it has the best first 5 minutes of any movie and the best last 5 minutes of any movie. Hands Down.

See This Movie Now! When I first heard that Jack Black and Kyle Gass would make a movie about their band I was freaking out! I love their music and I hoped that this movie would be really funny! Now that I have watched it I can't really say that these hopes weren't satisfied but I think I expected more. The movie is full of Tenacious D's great music and I really loved listening to all of it. There are a lot of great jokes and I just love the story, at least the first bit. I don't like the way the movie ends. The ending is very abrupt and in my opinion they could have extended that a bit more.

Overall I think it is a good movie to watch! Everyone who likes rock music should watch it! It'll give you a good laugh! This film rocks...so hard...

The cameos...the drug references...the sharing...the love...the ROCKING!!! When Jack and Kyle first met in Tim Robbins' "Actors' Gang" theater company years ago, who knew that such a legacy of awesome music and hilariousness would ensue?? All that door to door rocking paid off...

Although anyone who enjoys classic rock will get a major kick out of this film, I would definitely recommend renting the original 6 HBO episodes at your local video store before going to see the film in the cinema. They're on the Tenacious D Masterworks DVD, which is available for rent at pretty much every video store. There are some inside jokes in the film that refer to these earlier episodes that will add something more enjoyable to the overall viewing experience... Calling all D-sciples! Grab your friends, hit the theater and see the hell out of this movie. From the opening sequence until after the credits you'll be laughing your self breathless.

This movie is a wild ride through the history of the D, and not just some bull-crap list of the things they've done, but a chronicling of their rise to power. I am a huge fan of Rage Kage(Kyle Gass) and Jables(Jack Black), so naturally I loved the movie.

It helps to know about the show they had, and their first CD, but it's just as funny if you don't. From the hilarious and vulgar lyrics, the rocking rhythms, the massive amount of pot smoking, and the cameos, down to the outright insanity that is the story line, this is a movie for D-sciples and newbies alike.

Many of their songs are referenced, such as Two Kings, Tribute, and Kielbasa to their many audio tracks like Cock Push-ups, every fan in the audience will be saying I remember that as well as new comers saying "That's F'ing hilarious!." I highly recommend this movie to any body that's ever rocked out. This movie is certainly in high competition for being the next "This is Spinal Tap." One of the best ever. Probably the best comedy in a long time. keeps you laughing nonstop! the acting is good and there are a lot of hilarious cameos such as Ben stiller as the guitar store guy. The plot wasn't as good as i had hoped but the comedy makes up for that. I can only hope for a sequel cause it seems like they can still do so much more. Even though it was 1 hour and 40 minutes long i still wanted more at the end :) also there is a scene after the credits which is actually one of my favorite parts of the movie!! I suggest this to anyone who loves a good comedy and Definitely suggest it to fans of The D or Jack Black. You should buy the album also, the songs are so damn catchy and hilarious, the music on it is Top Notch as well. I've been waiting for this movie for SO many years! The best part is that it lives up to my visions! This is a MUST SEE for any Tenacious D or true Jack Black fan. It's just so great to see JB, KG and Lee on the big screen! It's not a true story, but who cares. The D is the greatest band on earth! I had the soundtrack to the movie last week and listened to it non-stop. To see the movie was pure bliss for me and my hubby. We've both met Jack and Kyle after 2 different Tenacious D concerts and also saw them when they toured with Weezer. We left that concert after the D was done playing. Nobody can top their show! Long live the D!!! :D This is the only thing I will be able to look back on from the year 2006 and say now that rocked. It rocked hard, and yet it also rocked tasty. Mr.MEATLOAF added a nice little touch to this dish of a film before the opening credits even rolled. Now that tells you something, this filmed rocked even before it STARTED! Now I don't want to give to much away or be a "spoiler" but this movie ROCKED! If you have heard the new album and thought to yourself "this seems a bit substandard Tenacious material,it is like I a merely playing badminton with Satan, what gives?" Then this movie will elevate your appreciation for the music and you will marvel at this steamy satanic masterpiece. For those who would want it better do not know what they want,because better would no longer be the D. This movie is the D period.!So venture if you dare to the local viewing theater if you to want to have your socks rocked. I was lucky enough to win free passes to the sneak preview of POD. Let me just tell you, from just the previews I was excited to see it! The movie absolutely rocked! What I really liked about it was the fact that JB was in his element. With other movies like "School of Rock," he does namby pamby music for kids and families, but this music is obviously all his.

I took my brother and sister with me to see it, and we laughed basically the entire time. There are a couple places where I wonder what the hell they were thinking, because some items are a little disjointed, but for the most part it was great. A lot of the time it didn't seem like a low-budget film, so that is a plus.

What I was most surprised about was Dave Grohl as Satan. That is f-ing hilarious! You honestly wouldn't know from seeing the film that that is him.

I say that if you are a rock fan and are into JB, KG, and/or Tenacious D, go see the film. Be prepared for a LOT of drug references, a LOT of four letter words and some skull shredding rock! (Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details)

IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.

The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.

I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style. This movie is very silly and very funny. You can't ever criticize it for taking itself seriously. If you've heard their previous album or seen their HBO videos from the album, you can imagine the extremely foul-mouthed, rocking good time that is this movie which tells the fable of how the group Tenacious D came to be formed.

Full of cameos, it not only gives a fictional account of Tenacious D but is a send-up of musical history as well. The humor reminds one of Something About Mary in that they often "go places you'd thought they wouldn't," but it lacks the scatological humor of South Park. This movie contains no nudity, except for mooning. I absolutely loved every minute of this film. Jack Black and Kyle Gass most definitely brought the thunder in this epic tale of friendship, hard rocking and destiny.

Filled to the brim with unnecessary swearing in every sentence, toilet humour and the general rule breaking attitude, this movie is a must see for the hard core tenacious D fans of the world.

We follow the journey of young Jables (Jack black) and Kage (Kyle Gass) as they try and recover the pick of destiny, to win the open-Mic night, and to become the greatest band on the planet. The duo have to overcome obstacles such as a room full of lasers, a man with one leg and the devil to accomplish their task. I'll let you see whether they make it or not.

The soundtrack itself is awesome enough, and now we see the D in person, making the experience even more magical. A must see for anyone who calls themselves a tenacious D fan. Watch out for the inside jokes from the first album! I loved this movie!! Jack Black and Kyle Gass have probably made one of the best comedies since Up in Smoke. This movie has something for everyone: rock, drugs, and Satan. What more could someone want? I suggest this movie to anyone that wants to sit back and forget all the trouble in the world and have a good laugh. Even if the movie does not do well in the theaters it is sure to become a cult classic. I do suggest anyone going to see the movie pick up the D's first album because a lot of the jokes are made only funnier if you have heard the songs( such as JB's obsession with Sasquatch and the epic battle against the devil.)The movie still is guarantied laughs even if you have not heard their music but the songs are so great you can't pass them up. This movie is everything a Tenacious D fans can hope for. Director Liam Lynch partnered with The "D" is a concoction of epic proportions. Of course you need to understand the humour and format of Tenacious D. When I saw it there wasn't too many laughs from the audience but the reason is not a lack of humour or intelligent jokes. This movie seems to have been released on to an unsuspecting public that haven't familiarised themselves with the musical duo. This movie does stay true to it's roots. For the few of you who have seen the HBO TV series and heard the album, they have not forgotten what their audience loves. Like the TV show people have noticed from the trailer the JB and KG apartment scenes and of course the open Mic nights that each Tenacious D episode would start and finish with. The soundtrack is phenomenal and each song blows you away.

...And Dave Grohl plays a fantastic Devil.

This is the perfect movie for those of you looking for a hard time and a rocking musical. For those who loved "Wayne's World"..."The Blues Brothers"...and hell, even "Raiders of the Lost Ark," you will find much to like (but probably not love) in "Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny," a fictional epic about the formation of the JB (Jack Black)/KG (Kyle Gass) band. Two out-of-work losers with a love for rock n'roll are met with a dilemma when KG's long-supportive mother stops sending him rent checks; JB and KG make tracks for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after a sage music-store clerk (an inspired Ben Stiller) tells them about the titular pick (a funny animated-tapestry sequence gives the backstory). Along the way, our zeroes encounter a snaggle-toothed stranger (a game Tim Robbins), Sasquatch, stoner security guards, sorority chicks, and Satan himself (an ironically-cast Dave Grohl), in a climactic sequence that has to be seen to be believed (and preferably played at high volume). Rarely do I see comedies in the theater, but "Pick" is an extremely nice change of pace...it may not go up to 11, but it hums a tune both crude and clever for a good 90 minutes. And the songs are inspired low-brow hilarity. Recommended.

6.5 out of 10 Jack Black and Kyle Gass team together to promote their band Tenacious D in this Rock Classic called Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny. Jack Black and Kyle Gass invent their own Rock Opera..it was like an Opera of Rock 'N' Roll. Some of the most twisted events took place in that movie....the big foot part....the mushroom part....and in the end when they did the rock off against the Devil. A classic formed in Tenacious D....one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The last couple things I saw in the theater were stupid..but this movie rocks. This really made me laugh hard. The whole basis is Jack Black runs of to find his rock partner in Los Angeles. His partner is Kyle Gass and man who has always been bald. They work together to find this magic pick that can make the most terrible musician play greatly. They finally make it to the Rock 'N' Roll Museum and steal the pick. On the way they meet The Stranger Played By Tim Robbins. They make it to the club to win their prize money when the owner grabs the pick and all along he was the devil and he battles the D in a Rock Off. The D doesn't win but the Devil's horn falls off sending him back to hell. Therefore LONG LIVE THE D!!!!!!!!!! Just Go see this movie. It taps into everything awesome about rock and roll, the band comes up with some great songs (Classico, Pick of Destiny, Master Exploder etc). All this with the Humor of Teancous D makes this the best movie ever.

The Cameos are great right of the back, with Meat Loaf and Dio singing to JB. Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins are great, I really like Tim Robbins character. You also find out who Satan really is! The Music and Musical references are hilarious and Awesome. Playin songs great songs from The Who, Dio, and others just complete it. i personally didn't think the band could top the awesome songs of the D, but they did with songs like Classico and Master Exploder. Seriously awesome music.

Just go see it, its a must for anyone who loves rock! Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie.

Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed

If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth Seriously, it had everything you could want in a movie, everything! Screw you scalawags who like Gone With The Winds, and screw you Titanic fans even harder! Tenacious reins supreme, forever and ever, amen!

Climb upon my faithful steed, Then we gonna ride, gonna smoke some weed. Climb upon my big-freaking' steed, And ride, ride, ride.

What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about, But it's good to go. What's the name of my girlfriend I don't know, But she's built like the best And she's good to go, go, She's good to go, She's good to go.

We are fueled by Satan, Yes we're schooled by Satan. Fuelled by Satan! Writin' those tasty riffs just as fast as we can. Schooled by Satan!

We were the inventors of the cosmic astral code. We've come to blow you away, We've come to blow your nose. We've come to freaking' blow, We've come to blow the show. We've come to freaking' blow, You know it, you know it!

What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about But it's good to riddle-ah!

I am not one of you. I come from an ancient time. I am known as The Kicker of Elves. I am also known as The Angel Crusher!

Explosivo. Worth the admission price for the Rock-off alone!! Any D fan will LOVE this movie (even though it's a tad short) and cameos from John C Reilly, Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins, Meatloaf and Dave Grohl (just about recognisable) prove that the D rock hard enough for anyone. Even Dio... The sasquatch/mushroom scene is going to become an instant classic (I don't want to say any more and be accused of putting spoilers in here). Fans of the original HBO series will see a couple of nods to the D's early on-screen appearances in characters such as Lee and the open mic host. I only wish that they had played a few of the songs from the first album and the omission of 'the government totally sucks' from the POD album is also a shame. Other than that this movie rocks. Obey the D! The basic premise of Flatliners is fairly simple. Several medical students put themselves at the point of death in order to find out exactly what the brain does during the fact. It sounds like something a mob of bored students would do for a joke, but it forms the basis of some very creepy substories. In today's world, where Hollywood has to mine foreign markets for the ideas to make a horror film, Flatliners is one of those rare gems that show Hollywood can make something different when it tries hard enough.

What separates Flatliners from a lot of films based on this premise that would come out today is that it does not stoop to being condescending or arrogant. Flatliners recognises that people go to films to be entertained, not moralised to. In this kind of supernatural thriller, the difference this restraint makes is really incredible. What's even more incredible is that Julia Roberts appears without being annoying or demonstrating that she can only play Julia Roberts. The theory of obscurity, that performing artists do their best work with the smallest audience, is in force here.

The subplots concerning what the characters find during their loss of pretty much everything that makes them alive, and how it comes back to intrude on their present time, are done surprisingly well. The moments when William Baldwin's character finds his personal videotape collection coming back to haunt him are especially intriguing. That William Baldwin seems so perfectly cast in the role says a lot either about the script or the direction. I am not sure which.

Kiefer Sutherland, on the other hand, really shines as the lead. One really feels for him as the mystery of what past experience is intruding on the present and why unfolds. As Kevin Bacon's character goes to find an old school pier whose life he made hell and tell her how sorry he is, it becomes clearer what the film is about. We can try to change the past as much as we like, but it's what we do with the present that matters most.

Another good aspect of Flatliners is how it achieves an atmosphere without the use of expensive, elaborate visual effects. Quite unusually for what is essentially a horror film, Flatliners did not expend its budget in places where it did not need to. Much of what we see during the more surreal sequences is a case of professional pretending, simple trick photography, or stock footage. Sometimes the simplest things are the best.

If there is a problem with the film, it's that it feels about ten minutes too short. The ending seems more perfunctory than conclusive, as if someone in the studio asked the director to wrap the film up so they can bring it out at a certain market time. Of course, many films have been left with sore spots for this very reason, so Flatliners shouldn't really need to be any different. The hundred and fifteen minutes we do get is highly satisfactory, though not overly brilliant.

I gave Flatliners a seven out of ten. It works well as a date flick or a kind of late-night popcorn film. That aside, it makes a good reminder that low-budget horror shows weren't always sad pieces of garbage. I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.

I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'

Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!

Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.

Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.

First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.

I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.

Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.

This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.

Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.

By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'

Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'

When I first watched Flatliners, I was amazed. It had all the necessary features of a good movie: the cast was superb, the plot was superb, and in the case of thrillers, there was genuine "thrills" throughout.

Keifer Sutherland offered a marvelous performance as the male lead in the piece, portraying a scientist who believes he can find the answers to life and death by killing himself and then coming back to life, essentially "stealing" death's secrets away. Kevin Bacon offers an excellent performance as the more morally decent counterpart to Keifer, while Julia Roberts offers her most convincing role. William Baldwin portrays a student who excels in class and, apparently, intercourse. And Oliver Platt, in another outstanding performance, portrays the voice of reason for the group and the most innocent.

The story is relatively simple, yet original, and the acting is refreshing-- definitely a stand out film for the genre, and one that has set the standard for measuring other thrillers for me.

8/10. Flatliners has all the ingredients of a good Joel Schumacher film - intelligent, youthful characters, stunning cinematography, a gripping story, and excellent performances. It's escapist fun but it's done very well and resonates with a positive spiritual message despite the unnerving precedings.

Schumacher has a knack for spotting talented young actors, and all of the main five here have gone on to greater things (see the cast list). Their believable performances help to raise this movie well above average. Kiefer Sutherland shines in his egotistical med-student role.

The cinematography really stimulates the right side of the brain, which is what I love about Schumacher; his use of light and location create images that stick. A disturbing nightmarish atmosphere is created which unsettles you while you watch the film and haunts you when you go to bed - reminded me of The Lost Boys.

This is a film that takes an awesome premise - curious students want to find out what's after death, and successfully follows it through into a scary, gripping tale of redemption. One of Schumacher's best; highly recommended. This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars. Countless TV displays and the memorable appearances from 4 of today's mega-stars(plus Hope Davis's screen debut) keep Flatliners still in prudence. The plot is about a non-academic research of five medicine undergrads pursuing one's crazy idea on discovering the secret of death, and learn what's after death, then come back to life again. Yet the storyline hasn't been designed as fascinating as the idea of the plot.

There are popular stereotypes to develop a regular teen-slasher script in Flatliners. There is Nelson who creates the idea of decoding death, pretty but introverted Rachel, David who cuts the Gordian knot on luckily not to be dismissed from the school, ladies' man Joe and finally the smart guy Randy("I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be"). They join hands altogether in an experiment where Nelson's heart will be stopped and rerythmed. Then they decide to continue this experiment in strict confidence at night times in the campus. Not long after Nelson's experience everyone starts a race over having the wildest and the longest death experience, risking their lives one by one. Yet, soon they realize their daily life becomes affected from those experiences they had. The visits to the afterlife brings back their delinquent feelings from their childhood memories. Depolarizing their deep subconscious watchfulness, they begin having somatic delusions and visual hallucinations.

When the point comes where the explanation of subconscious, director Joel Schumacher skips that every humankind has a subconscious personality which they are not aware of. This inner personality keeps one from altering into identity loss. If you lose or if you depolarize this subconscious personality you certainly lose your identity instead of refreshing childhood memories. I wanted to add this as a movie mistake, which already has been mentioned via movie critics in the earlier 90s'. Obviously here in this movie Schumacher made the actors have it least affected. Then why do they hesitate continuing on the experiment after learning their lesson, as if death is designed indiscoverable by God? David had been introduced as an Atheist, now he turned out to believe in God when he recalled a flashback from his childhood. After witnessing this 180 degreed change in David, it's clear to see that Schumacher's film was so conservative and lily-livered; that's ultimately why it's never classified as a work of science fiction. Alas! It had a good potential. It even tried to tell the unconscious maturation from having a death experience, beginning to believe that death is so simply natural and it's only a part of a human's life.

More than what's in the movie, it was also memorable to recall what's with the movie. Jan de Bont as the cinematographer, who had worked almost every time with Schumacher, creates an dreamy atmosphere like it's being an Gothic horror movie. The blue color schemes all over the walls reflecting into the actors' faces deliver first class of lighting, that suits perfectly with the film. The close-up shots of the gargoyle statues in the campus buildings, Catholic frescoes in the walls, stop-motion cameras, and the dynamic camera speeds were all belong to Bont's skills.

Flatliners became a cult movie in time with its sociological pen-portrait of the X-generation juvenile especially via its futuristic editing style with storyboard connection sequences like being part of a video music clip so much aesthetically. Those were the times where fast-paced and multi-sequenced video music clips were on rise. This style was very rare to come across in those years after its pioneer Tony Scott's "The Hunger(1983)". John Landis truly outdid himself when he directed Michael Jackson's THRILLER as a short film. Of course, it's corny, the dialogue is terrible and it all seems way too cheesy, but it's perfect none-the-less.

Michael and his date are out at the cinema to view the latest horror flick. When it all gets a little too graphic for the date, she leaves. Michael follows. On the way home, they decide to take a shortcut through the local graveyard. There, it begins.

The actual thriller dance is amazing. It's full of those trademark Jackson moves, as well as some memorable zombie moves, too. It doesn't appear rushed at all, nor too long. The whole thing seems movie-like and it really is actually rather scary. Of course, it's one of the most famous music videos of all time, and is probably the greatest music video ever made as well.

Overall: Watch it, seriously. Those 13 minutes will be some of the best ever spent staring at a screen. (5/5) Michael Jackson's Thriller (1983) has to be the greatest video ever made. Dude you have Zombies, gore and a catchy tune, what more can you ask for. John Landis mixed elements from Night of the Living Dead and American Werewolf in London and out came this video. What starts out as a nice evening for a young couple turns into a date from hell, literally. You have dancing zombies, a werewolf in a funky jacket and Vincent Price "rapping". A cool video to a song that everybody in the neighborhood marked out to.

I have to give this one a high recommendation because it has to be the best music video ever made. There hasn't been another one like it.

Check out the "making of Thriller". The documentary has some "interesting" stuff in it. The stars and the planets must've all been in just the proper alignment, the day that THRILLER was conceived. Michael Jackson's album was slaying the charts, John Landis still had a lot of good will built up from his genre pic "An American Werewolf In London", (not to mention his classic comedies ANIMAL HOUSE and THE BLUES BROTHERS) and choreographer Michael Peters was creating some of the most innovative and influential pieces for music videos of that period.

Not before or since has one single piece of film illuminated, exploited or underscored MJ's incredible talent or the more "otherworldly" aspects of his persona quite like THRILLER, the world's most successful (if not officially the first) long-form video, and the most fondly remembered. Also the most expensive at the time, but every penny and every bit of the talent behind its creation and execution is up there on the screen. And how would it not be complete without the "rap" from the original song, provided by the late, great Vincent Price, to add even more cache to the chills already there?

The glory days of one of the world's greatest performers have long since passed, but no one can ever take away the man's towering achievements, of which this is probably the most memorable. If you don't think so, now, remember: Halloween is coming. I won't be one bit surprised when, like other Halloweens before it going back decades, this appears on some Saturday Night Creature Feature special.

As it will next year, and the year after that... Before this clip, music videos were merely to display an artist. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" created a whole new section of music videos which can honestly be called mini movies. "Thriller" follows a couple as they travel to the girl's house from a movie. On the way they encounter zombies announced by the immortal Vincent Price. My favorite part is where the zombies stagger in on the couple and the girl turns to see that Michael has turned into one of them. Then, they do a little dance. The scariest thing about "Thriller" may be the fact that it is consistently more fun and enjoyable than a lot of movies that are made. After twenty years it remains the premier music video.

P.S. My music video Top 5: 5 - Madonna "Like a Prayer" 4 - Guns N' Roses "Sweet Child of Mine" 3 - Nine Inch Nails "Closer" 2 - Peter Gabriel "Sledgehammer" 1 - Michael Jackson - "Thriller" I don't particularly care from Michael Jackson. Aside from being a pedophile, I really do not like his music, with the exceptions of a few songs from his landmark album, THRILLER. This is one of them. I do like this video because it is one of the first and most important music videos ever made.

This was directed by John Landis, best known to horror fans as the director of AN American WEREWOLF IN London. This music video is not so much a music video but more or less, a short horror film. M.J. and his date are at a werewolf movie. When they leave the movie, they are attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty zombies, when Michael Jackson does his famous "Thriller" dance.

You know, this actually is a pretty good song with good synthesized beats. This and "Beat It" are probably the only two Michael Jackson songs I can tolerate over and over. I especially love Vincent Price's cameo as the narrator. His distinctive voice is perfect for a horror-themed music video. Even if you don't like M.J.'s music, you need to see this video at least once. By the way, he was good before becoming a creepy white woman with a fake nose. Without a doubt, this is the big momma of all music videos!!! Unlike most music videos that are either "dance videos" badly storied and/or badly interrupted lyrics this was done right. Jackson was co-writer and by evidence of VH1 heavily choreographed and directed this masterpiece. In fact you could say Thriller is creepier then most horror movies with that last second sparkling eye. To me this music video is what you judge all other music videos on. You can easily see the ominous influence M.J. had on early break-dancing with the zombie march number. Because of the dancing, comedy, storyline, and yes horror. I give it a 5 of 5. The video opens with a scene from a horror movie, in which a man proposes to his girlfriend. He begins to tell her that he is "different." As the full moon rises, he morphs into a werewolf. He then pursues her through the woods, and right before he attacks, we're taken to the inside of the movie theater. Inside the theater are Michael and his girlfriend. She's too scared to watch any longer, so they leave. As they exit the theater, he begins to tease her. ("It's close to midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark...") Michael then sings and dances his way down the street with his girlfriend. This scene shows Michael's skill with the camera. He never once acts "aware" of its presence, as many other artists do. As they make there way past the graveyard, the graves begin to open... Once they arrive at an alley, they are confronted with a horde of the undead. We then see the horror stricken face of Michael's girl. Who wouldn't have a horror stricken look if their date morphed into a zombie? Yep, he becomes one of the undead. (A very bright and shiny one, though.) He and his fellow zombies then begin what may be the most well known dance choreography of any music video. To tell you any more would give the ending away.

This is my favorite music video of all time! You don't want to miss it! I give it a 10/10. (Yes, I know you can see the curtains in the back of the sound stage, and the werewolf looks kind of cheesy by today's standards.) Back in 1983, Michael Jackson's popularity was such that if he wanted to make a $1 million horror music video with the "American Werewolf" team and featuring the voice of Vincent Price, then that was exactly what he was going to do. And never has a music video created such a sensation, before or since ... when it was released on VHS, this 13-minute short became the world's largest selling musical of all time. But odds are you already know all about it, as whenever there's a list of the greatest music videos of all time, this one almost invariably takes the top spot.

It begins with Michael Jackson walking down a dark street with his date after their car has broken down. He explains to her that he's "not like other men" (damn right), and then the full moon appears from behind the clouds. His girlfriend stands there and screams, and screams, and then screams some more, during a lavish transformation sequence as Michael Jackson becomes a werewolf. He chases her through the forest, catches her and we ... cut to a movie theatre. Ah, all of this is just occurring in a horror movie that Michael Jackson and his date are watching.

So, we're five minutes in and still no sign of the song "Thriller". Extravagant, much? Anyway, you must know how it goes from here ... dancing, singing ... graveyard ... Vincent Price ... zombies ... "What's the Problem?" ... then end credits. End credits for a friggin' music video. "Thriller" isn't one of Michael Jackon's most memorable songs, but even by today's standards it sure is a bitch of a visual experience. If you still haven't seen it in it's entirety, then you definitely should someday soon. It may be a little creaky now, and it certainly can never have the impact it once had, but this is still a thrilling reminder of what Michael Jackson could once do. Looking back on it now for the first time since its initial prominence, I was struck not by the horror trappings - quaint, but fun, and Vincent Price has never sounded so genuinely, un-camply (sic?) menacing - than its absorption of the horror film, allowing Jackson, behind genre and make-up, to give us a bravely revealing portrait of male sexuality.

Because THRILLER isn't really about horror, in the way horror isn't really about horror: it is about that age-old theme, the sexual awakening of a young woman. The film opens in a cinema, with Jackson's girlfriend uncomfortable with the imagery, and the aggressively gendered response. Of course, she is on a date, and she is less scared by the film than what she knows will be expected by her boyfriend.

The mainstream imagery of the film they watch, the group atmosphere all suggest the socially conditioned expectations. This leads her not only to think of the body in disgust - hence all the decaying ghouls; the loss of her virginity is seen as a kind of death - but the sexual rite is not just about her boyfriend, but her peers, her society, hence its visualisation as a gang violation.

This is brilliant, disturbing stuff, the best thing director Landis has ever done. Jackson, the most popular artist on the planet, was still willing to show that the fixed image of a star contained multitudes, not all of them reassuring. The song itself has held up remarkably well, the creepy, insistent bass rhythms, the extraordinarily salacious lyrics, the beautiful 70s disco ecstasy tailing the chorus, shattering timelessness, revealing the milky desire behind the fear. For those who remember this video's initial impact, it will never be forgotten, and a viewing of Thriller is all that's needed to feel twelve years old again. But, while it's a great video, it's not perfect, even though it seemed like it at the time. When this video first came out, nobody had ever seen anything like it before. Now the music video medium has grown by leaps and bounds, and a fresh viewing of Thriller will reveal its faults. Why was it necessary to deconstruct the song? When Michael Jackson is walking beside the girl after they leave the movie theatre, he sings all the verses of the song, skipping the choruses. After he becomes a zombie, when it comes time for him to sing again, his zombie makeup inexplicably disappears, and he sings the chorus again, and again, and again, as if to make up for its previous absence. This may have been the first time a song had ever been deconstruct to fit the visuals in a music video, but it certainly wasn't the last time. It has continued to be a problem in the age of MTV. The best videos, like Jackson's Billie Jean and Beat It, have used visuals to serve the music, not the other way around. Still, Thriller is great fun, and an absolute must on Halloween. Although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, I like some of his early songs and some from Jackson 5 too. 'Thriller' is one of his great songs and it comes from the best-selling album ever with the same title. As for the video, it is awesome, one of Michael's best, but also very eccentric and weird.

There is a story behind this video, but it's so complex that even I can't fully understand it. It's freaky. The freakiest things are Jackson's transformation into a werewolf, his evil red eyes at the end (like a werewolf) and those dead people dancing.

The video is very dark, thrilling, chilly and original. There are great sceneries and settings. The music itself is full of life and rhythm, characteristic from the good old pop from the 80's.

I like Vincent Price's soliloquy. He does a great narration with his distinctive and unique voice and his evil laughter at the end is awesome! My favorite videos of the 'King of Pop' are "Billie Jean" and "Don't stop 'til you get enough" (both among his best songs). I am not a big music video fan. I think music videos take away personal feelings about a particular song.. Any song. In other words , creative thinking goes out the window. Likewise, Personal feelings aside about MJ, toss aside. This was the best music video of alltime. Simply wonderful. It was a movie. Yes folks it was. Brilliant! You had awesome acting, awesome choreography, and awesome singing. This was spectacular. Simply a plot line of a beautiful young lady dating a man , but was he a man or something sinister. Vincent Price did his thing adding to the song and video. MJ was MJ , enough said about that. This song was to video , what Jaguars are for cars. Top of the line, PERFECTO. What was even better about this was ,that we got the real MJ without the thousand facelifts. Though ironically enough, there was more than enough makeup and costumes to go around. Folks go to Youtube. Take 14 mins. out of your life and see for yourself what a wonderful work of art this particular video really is. Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While "art" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror/comedy.

Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is "different" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, "Thriller." However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.

It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson – though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings – there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again! Before this was shown on MTV or VH1 it was at my local theatre playing just before the main movie. I remember this short movie more than the film I saw that day. It was the first time I had ever a music movie like this, but I will tell you that seeing on the big screen from a 35mm print in a darken theatre gives it a much better impact than seeing a cropped pan and scan version on VH1 at Halloween. Thriller is the GREATEST music video of all time !!!!! Performed by the GREATEST artist of all time ! Thriller really sent music videos going, and other artists have been trying to copy Thriller in one way or another ever since ! IT'S A THRILLER !!!!!! This is one of Michael Jackson's best music video's ever made. Vincent Prices rap is totally cool and the zombies dancing with Michael is totally amazing! Michael Jackson is one of my favourite singers and he is one of the best singer's in the world. Way to go Michael! No matter how you feel about Michael Jackson himself, you can't deny that this video is the most unique video of all time. There is no other video that is even remotely close to "Thriller" The first time I saw it was when I was 6 years old and it scared me bad. Now I watch it with a smile because I can now appreciate the marvel that it is. I love this video and it will be around for as long as music videos exist. I think everyone should sit down and watch it when its on sometime and look back and see how great it was, especially for being 1983. michael jackson is the greatest singer and the greatest dancer that ever lived and this film proves it. It is brilliant to watch and the dance is fantastic. when michael turns into a werewolf is a bit of an on the-edge-of-your-seat part the first time you watch it. and vincent price's rap adds to the fear when all the zombies a rising from their graves. if you like this then i suggest you buy 'Making Michael Jackson's Thriller' which has the film then the making of it after it. the making shows an unbelievable performance of 'Billie Jean' by michael, which is when he first did on television the moonwalk. watch it. When it was announced the "King of Pop" was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say "what's the problem?" The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good! For those too young to remember, or too old to have been part of the "hype", the Michael Jackson fad in the early-to-mid 80's was at a fever pitch- like the hype about Titanic, except this just didn't let up. Every song, every video, every word uttered by Michael was important. Nothing similar had been seen since the heyday of the Beatles.

I remember seeing this video for the first time, at a roller skating rink. Everyone stopped skating. There was no question as to whether you were a Michael Jackson fan or not; you were. Everyone crowded around the projection screen, and watched the video...

This is probably one of the longest music videos ever made, and definitely the best. It perpetually gets #2 on the annual MTV top 100 videos (#1 is always the flavor-of-the-month, and somehow whatever was #1 of all time slips past #2, to make way for the new #1. Go figure.), and Thriller became a phenomenon in and of itself.

If you ever get the chance, you must watch the video; not just the excerpts shown on MTV or VH1. If necessary, you should search out Making of Thriller at a video rental store. Hey... your parents probably made you watch Beatles and Woodstock footage because "it was important"... well, this is important too. Musical bios are all cut of the same cloth. Hopeful struggles, succeeds and finally wins the girl, but this one - a life of Irish tenor, Chauncey Olcott/Jack Chancellor - has more going for it than the usual trappings. It has great charm and great sincerity and is played beautifully by all concerned. Dennis Morgan is fine in the lead as is Arlene Dahl as his love interest. Andrea King's supporting performance as Lillian Russell is far better than Alice Faye's leading bio performance in the film dedicated to her career. William Frawley is touching as the aging tenor champion, William Scanlon, and Sara Allgood is lovely as Olcott's mother. George Tobias, Ben Blue and Alan Hale lend good support. There are over 25 songs (a true treasure chest): Come Down My Evening Star; My Nellie's Blue Eyes; You Tell Me Your Dream; Wait Till The Sun Shines, Nellie; Will You Love Me In December?; By The Light Of The Silvery Moon; Minstrel Days; Polly Wolly Doodle; The Natchez and the Robert E. Lee; Miss Lindy Lou; If I'm Dreaming; Wee Rose of Killarney; Shake Hands; One Little Girl; A Little Bit of Heaven; Mary; Sweet Innescarren; Tiddely Um; When Irish Eyes Are Smiling; Mother Machree; The Kerey Fair; Room In My Heart; My Wild Irish Rose.

Although the film only earned one Oscar nom -for Scoring - and deservedly, it also deserved nods for Art Direction and Costume Design - sumptuous and lovely in Technicolor.

Reasons why this is not on video may be due to the large chunk of time spent within the Minstrel Show atmosphere -at least a quarter of the film - with a great deal of material quite politically INCORRECT for today's audiences. It's historically accurate, however.

This is a true gem and very worth seeking out. It leaves one with a warm glow. This excellent musical movie, in beautiful Technicolor, is so wonderful it's enough to make every person of Irish descent feel proud. Full of the joy and celebration of all things Irish, a fine cast, with brilliant settings and superb theatrical trappings, lovely Irish music and the superlative Irish tenor voice of star Dennis Morgan, 'tis the luck o' the Irish to have such a marvelous movie to enjoy over and over again! Not just just for St. Patty's Day, mind you, but for all year round.

One of the jewels produced by Jack L. Warner during his heyday as studio boss in Burbank in the 1940s.

Shame on Warner Brothers for not having this fine picture available on home video and DVD! I enjoyed this film very much. I found it to be very entertaining for me in that I feel that it captured the romanticism of turn of the century Irish-American culture. There's no messages. There's no violence and there's no overt sex, just wholesome 1947 style entertainment and Dennis Morgan had a chance to sing some really good songs. A really good movie. One of the better musical bios. Dennis Morgan is great as the singer/composer Chauncey Olcutt. The supporting cast is very good, especially Andrea King as the glamorous Lillian Russell. The turn of the century atmosphere is the perfect setting. The technicolor is excellent. A simple plot, but the movie just makes you feel good. Morgan was always underrated as an actor and a singer. Yes, I give it a 10 because I compare it not only to others of it's kind but also to the dreck one is bombarded with on a daily basis in what's laughably called today's "popular culture." That aside, the film is beautifully cast, as has been stated elsewhere, and gives us a fairly good look at popular theater of the late 18th and early 20th centuries. No small coincidence is that many of the plays that Olcott played in involved a similar plot: Boy meets girl, someone objects, (usually the father or some authority figure) boy struggles, boy wins girl. The was actually known at the time as a "Chauncey Olcott Act." No coincidence, too, that John Ford directed one. He called it, "The Quiet Man." And, "My Wild Irish Rose," is, in itself, a "Chauncey Olcott act." Great stuff, no? Anyway, great songs, great stuff. Enjoy.

PS - After seeing the film I'd like to know more about Bill Scanlan. I found an obit that said he quit "Mauvorneen," as a result of insanity (replaced, as in the film, by Chauncey Olcott) and died in an asylum several years later. But he had been, apparenlty, a very big star in his own right, who wrote songs and plays and had plays written for him.

Anyone know more? Nothing better than an android boasting 80's technology and a coming-of-age storyline to pull your thoughts from the depths of your mind front and center to be taken captive by a beautifully lovable cast. Growing up in the 80's gave me the priceless opportunity to see re- runs of "not quite human" on many special occasions. Considering the fact that my parents were never present during the viewings, I would guess that I would most likely not enjoy it near as much as I did as a child. So perhaps this is a film to dig out of your VHS collection and hand to your kids, it can be found on the same tape as "The apple dumpling gang" and an episode of "tour of duty," that is if you recorded in LP mode of course. Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!

In 1987, Disney, while still a "low" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called "Not Quite Human," about a geeky teenager who, like in "Inspector Gadget," looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like "Tron" and "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!

My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)

"Not Quite Human" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again.

Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.

10/10 Purportedly made back to back with 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead' with the same cast and setting but for certain this one does not have Laura Gemser. Much derided by all I rather like this movie. Sure enough the storyline and dialogue are codswallop, but this is so beautifully filmed in such a marvellous setting and I actually like the hardcore. I find it at once naturalistic and exotic, and that doesn't just mean there is a black girl and some limp penises! I find the numerous and varied sex scenes very believable, even if two are set upon a tree trunk at the edge of the ocean with the waves constantly splashing around. The creature does not deign to appear until half hour before the end and is, it has to be said, a disappointment. Still, in the time remaining he manages to kill off all but two of the expedition and in the case of the girls having sex with them first (or afterwards in at least one case!) and this film is not as slow as some maintain. Moreover there are some fine moments of sexploitation, not least the lady scientist and her urge for two 'natives', and the glorious finale when the two survivors speed off in their boat, gaze back at the island they have escaped from, and find there is still time for one last act of copulation. I've heard a lot about Porno Holocaust and its twin film Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead. Both films are interchangeable and were filmed at the same time on the same location with the same actors changing clothes for each film (and taking them off). If you are expecting the D'Amato genius displayed in films like Buio Omega or Death Smiles on Murder, you won't find it here. Nonetheless this film has a charm that exploitation fans will not be able to resist. Where else will you see hardcore sex mixed with a zombie/monster and his enormous penis that strangles and chokes women to death? Only from D'Amato. There is some amount of gore in which many of the men are bludgeoned to death. The film is set on a beautiful tropical island. As far as I know there is no subtitled version, so if you don't speak Italian you wont know what is going on...but who cares right? In all honesty, Gore fans will probably fast forward through the hardcore sex. And if anyone is actually watching this for the sex only, will for sure be offended instantly. I can just imagine modern day porn fans tracing back through D'Amato's output and coming across this atrocity! Out of the two I find Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead far superior. But, don't bother watching either if they are cut. Porno Holocaust is extremely low budget as expected. Even the monster looks no where as good as George Eastman's character in Anthropophagus. The film is worth watching for laughs and to complete your D'Amato film quest. I have spent many years studying all the great directors, like Kurosawa, Lean, Fulci, Lenzi, Deodato, Peckinpah, Kubrick and admire them greatly. My favourite film is Once upon a time in America.

I have only recently become a fan of D'Amato, and while he was no horror master, his films were extreme whether it be soft core, hardcore or extreme.

Porno Holocaust is now one of my favourite films, the way its shot is brilliant and the music is catchy.

Joe D'Amato, wasn't a horror master, he's no Fulci or Bava, but however he was a master of erotica, no other director could shoot erotic films like him, he also never tried making any films outside of these genre's either.

Long live Joe D'Aamto-Master of Porn and Erotica! How is bear´s paw, elephant´s trunk or monkey´s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.

This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung´s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...

This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...

Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though. The first time i saw this movie was on a flight between Guangzhou, China and Los Angeles. It was a real hoot and made the trip pass with much less discomfort than the normal 10 hour flight. I tried to locate a copy of it without success until I discovered a copy for sale on eBay. Having now watched it twice, I recommend it as good entertainment. My only real criticisms are that the choice of English translation words for the subtitles is sub par, even by normal standards. Also, the subtitling is little to small, blends into the movie too often and frequently travels too fast to read well. This was a very funny, fast paced movie. I watched it more than once and am keeping my rental around to show others. I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask anyone in the know, how do HK producers choose their subtitle translators? I'm most curious. Please direct me.

Again, to return to review, it is a really rollicking film with plenty of content, subtleties reminiscent of the classics, though full of slapstick. Reminiscent, say, of the Mexican comedies of Cantinflas.

The film does not disappoint fans of the director who have noticed that he chooses distinctly Chinese themes, trying to get to characteristics rarely explored. The director's entire collection is way of getting a look inside the culture in a disarming way.

And I don't see how his funny girl in Chinese Feast could be topped. Okay maybe it was because I happen to be in Yangchun China when I saw this movie. Maybe it was because I finally had something on TV I could understand or at least read the subtitles, or maybe it was just funny. Whatever it was this movie was worth the time.

I had just arrived for my foot and head massage when they gave me the remote so I could watch TV. Usually I would turn the darn thing off but I stumbled upon this crazy movie and got hooked.

The plot if you could call it a plot sort of revolves around a cooking competition and sort of is a love story and the food in this movie is the real star. If you like Iron Chef and many of the other cooking shows currently in the reality TV mode, then you will love the scenes with food in this movie.

It goes fast and the subtitles are so fast you better be up on speed reading for this one. However the action is mostly slapstick so you don't always have to read the entire subtitle to get the idea.

The main actress is lovely eye candy and the main actor isn't bad to look at either. They are both worth watching. Finally if you have some time to kill and want a good laugh this isn't a bad choice for both.

I don't speak a word of Chinese but I was totally able to understand the cultural humor of this film. For those who do speak Chinese maybe it is even better. Overall I give this an 8 out of 10 and currently I am even looking to find a copy to have while I stay in China, and keep for when I come back home, it will be a nice reminder for me of my time in Yangchun and a silly afternoon at the massage salon watching a silly movie. It's rare for a movie to both encompass the process of problem solving and a fantastically far-reaching moral quandary AND be a fairly accurate historical movie, but Fat Man and Little Boy pulls off this trick.

It's the story of the Manhattan Project -- the World War II effort to build the atom bomb, told as the conflict between the two men who made it happen, Gen. Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer.

The historical figures are a great study in opposites: military vs. civilian, practical vs. idealistic, emotional vs. scientific, brute force vs. consensus-based problem solving, immediacy vs. long-term vision. A fictional character, played by John Cusack, is added as a sort of synthesis of the two historical figures, to show the humanity that oddly escapes the real people (and of course the obligatory love interest, played by Laura Dern). One looking for a straight documentary might criticize the lapses into melodrama (and occasional looseness with the facts, but that's Hollywood for ya), but the purpose of fiction is to synthesize and galvanize events into more universal truths, so I think this can be forgiven.

One of the great visuals in the movie is when Oppenheimer witnesses the first atomic explosion: it's done entirely through his reaction, and considering the awesome visuals inherent in an atomic explosion, it's a brave and entirely effective way of describing in a single moment the ambivalent effect on humans of unleashing such power (the sort of thing lost in the typical Hollywood shoot 'em up version of history.) The use of music is particularly excellent in the last third of the movie.

Fairly accessible and highly recommended as both a historical movie and drama of the highest order. It was a fascinating story waiting to be told. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes us inside the trials and tribulations of a group of top American scientists handed a lofty task during the Second World War: beat everyone else to the atomic bomb. Sequestered in a heavily-guarded New Mexico compound, the brainiacs slowly turn the idea from ambitious concept into immense reality.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.

Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.

Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history. We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it. Fat Man And Little Boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs that were dropped in reverse order on Nagasaki and Hiroshina. How these came to be and came to be in American hands is the story of this film.

The terms by the way are the code names of two bombs fueled with plutonium and uranium. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb and that one was dropped on Nagasaki and Little Boy was the one used on Hiroshima

The film is primarily a conflict between General Leslie R. Groves of the United States Army and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer who led the team of scientists who developed the bomb under Groves's direction. With two men from as widely divergent backgrounds as these were, conflict was inevitable.

Paul Newman who all his life has been a disarmament activist plays General Groves. To his credit Newman does not play a man whose views he would very little in common with as any kind of caricature. Groves is a military man first and foremost with an engineering background. He wanted a combat command as trained military professionals would naturally want in this greatest of wars. But because of his background in engineering Groves got to head the Manhattan Project which was what the effort was code named. So be it, Newman is determined to make his contribution to the war effort count.

Most of us first became acquainted with Dwight Schultz from the A-Team as H.M. Murdoch the pilot whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. If one was only acquainted with the A-Team, one might think that Schultz had a great future in comic roles.

Instead Dwight Schultz is one of the best actors in the English speaking world with an astonishing range of dramatic parts since leaving that television series. J. Robert Oppenheimer in life was a complex man who recognized the dangers and benefits of atomic energy. The challenge of the problem also intrigues him. Later on Oppenheimer got into a real bind because of his left-wing political views and associates which everyone knew walking into the Manhattan Project.

Some of the lesser roles that stand out are Bonnie Bedelia as Mrs. Oppenheimer, Natasha Richardson as Oppenheimer's Communist mistress whose affair with Oppenheimer got him in such a jackpot later on, and Laura Dern as a nurse at the Los Alamos site.

But the best is John Cusack who as Michael Merriman is a composite of some real life scientists who might accurately be labeled as the first casualties of the atomic age. His scenes with Laura Dern, especially with what happens to him, take on a real poignancy.

The debate over the bombs as the use put to them is still a matter of raging debate. Fat Man And Little Boy presents the facts and lets you decide what might have happened if an alternative use of them had been taken. If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find "Fat Man and Little Boy" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.

*** out of **** There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the "Gee Whiz" technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.

With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a "superior being" by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of "Philosopher/King", a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) "wisely" prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment.

Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of "The Super", the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.

I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose.

While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.

Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.

Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.

Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course!

Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.

Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.

In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!

Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.

Kusak's "Michael Merriman" is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research.

Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.

The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or "excessive" bureaucratic oversight.

It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb.

There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project. I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with "McCarthyism" and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.

And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.

That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy.

Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was. This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book "Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson." Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The movie seemed a little slow at first. But it picked up speed and got right to the point. It showed exactly how the government and the scientist argued for humanity and the reasons of the "gadget". I enjoyed it. It is very close to reality as any movie about the Atomic Bombs that were to be dropped on Japan. I have recommended it to friends. I was particularly pleased with the acting ability of Dwight Schultz. I saw this again today for the first time in about 6 years. I had forgotten how well acted this movie is. Paul Newman gets the billing, but Dwight Schultz holds his own and shows how good an actor he really is. I know one is not supposed to comment on other users' comments, but I will say that a lot of the negative reviews seem to come from people who already knew quite a lot about the Manhattan Project and were annoyed at things that were left out. (From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such.) I knew very little before watching the film, however, and found it rivetting. Dwight Schultz is absolutely mesmeric as Oppenheimer - a truly magnetic, charismatic presence, an inspired piece of casting that makes me wonder why he isn't given better roles and more leading parts. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five. Lets face it, Australian TV is for the most part terrible, but this is a real diamond in the rough that not enough people are watching. The Chaser crew who do the satirical newspaper and CNNN try something new by mixing live comedy, pre-recorded skits and political satire into one show filmed in front of a live audience, sorta like Rove, but funny. They love causing controversy and this causes some of the shows funniest moments, especially Chris telling his wife to "f-- off" live on breakfast television and Julian handing a novelty cheque signed by Saddam Heusein to the head of the AWB. It has to be one of the funniest Aussie shows since the Micallef Program. The chaser's war on everything is a weekly show from the guys that brought you CNNNN and the chaser decides where each week the 5 chasers and Firth break down the issues that we didn't know were important.

This show goes beyond the mere satirizing of politics and television by not being afraid to take the mickey out of anyone whether it be a counter-girl at subway or even the prime-minister of Australia and although this may be familiar ground in say American television it has never been this well executed.

The Chaser's war on everything is the smartest, funniest and overall most entertaining show on Australian television and if you haven't seen it you seriously owe it to yourself to give it a watch. For comedy to work, there are many factors involved:

1. Don't be afraid to take risks. 2. If anyone or anything deserves to be poked fun at, do it and continue to do it,

...but most of all:

3. BE FUNNY!!!!

"The Chaser's War on Everything" succeeds in all those three things. In fact, the show proved to be so popular and so funny that already only months after it's first episode, a DVD of the first season was released. I picked it up within days of it being released and hit the floor laughing and had so many fu#@ing tears in my eyes- It's that well, good!

In short and to save me blabbing on about the show- watch it, buy it, podcast it, whatever will make you watch the fu$#ing best show in the world!!!!!

Go the CHASER!!!! No matter what country your In you have to buy this show, Sure It is Australian and if you ever seen any attempt of our comedy's they pretty much suck but with the chaser's they aren't boring forty year old men making bad puns they are a team of people who talk about current affairs (pretty much in Australia) make fun of our crap ads, make fun of our politicians and so on.

The guys also had a show in 2002 called Cnnnn which was not as successful as the War which had only started this year so everything they talk about is current news which is really good considering no matter how boring or tragic it is they try to shine some humorous light on things. The hilarious team that brought you 'CNNNN' and 'The Chaser Decides' have returned to the ABC with their new series, 'The Chaser's War On Everything.' Filmed in front of a live audience, the Chaser team, once again, does what it does best- lampooning key political figures, international celebrities and media personalities.

The satire is simply priceless, and nothing is sacred. In recent weeks, the Chaser Team has chased alongside the Queen (during her visit to Australia) to try and have John Howard Dismissed and had Kim Beazley (Aust. Opposition Leader) threaten to kneecap them.

A particularly funny segment is "Mr. Ten Questions," showing an overly enthusiastic reporter who approaches celebrities (recently Charlize Theron and The Backstreet Boys) and asks them ten such inane questions as "what is your optimum length of rice grain?" Just for the record, Theron ignored him and walked away, and one of the Backstreet Boys got angry and "refused to dignify it with a response."

A segment that recently had me in stitches was when one of the team decided to become a 'statue busker' to score some extra money. When he realized how hopeless he was, he put a real statue in his place. THE PERFECT SCAM! He got thirty dollars in twenty minutes!

A brilliant satire of everything in Australian society. Two thumbs up!

(By the way, the show won't be showing for the three weeks after Easter, because "though the team are all atheists, they're also hypocrites.") This show is up there with the best Comedys made in Australia as it makes fun of pretty much anything which is what lots of our public want. Some of the best bits in the show are the ad road test which tests out how an ad would do in real life. What is really great about the show is how original it is and the fact that it has people(the chasers)who love doing what they do and who would n't. This show has loads of bits in it that can crack up anybody like the ad road test which I've already mentioned, Mr ten Questions where he asks 10 questions really fast in front of famous celebrities like Hugh Jackman and the Beach boys, temporary ones like The Chasers Emmys and ones that have been there from the start like What have we learnt from Current affairs this week. Overall I rate thin show 98%. This is exactly what Australian Television and Australian Politics needs, people with a sense of humour!!! Good on ABC for supporting these guys. The show is based around a couple of Aussie blokes who know how to take the mickey out of politicians or other people in the limelight. The boys use Sydney as their main base for making a splash in the public. Keep an eye out for the Crazy Wharehouse Guy or Mr Ten Questions. The guys who perform these acts are the same guys that presented CNNN. If you enjoyed CNNNN and the Glasshouse then you will love this show. I am still interested in knowing which stunts are real and which are purely acting because there are some questionable actions made by the guys... When you think of brilliant Australian comedy you don't think of Skit shows (Although I'm quite partial to a bit of 80's and 90's Full Frontal) or even Sitcoms - you think of SATIRE! Something that we Australians really know how to do well. (Eg: Front Line, The Micallef Program) We know how to take the pi$$, and The Chaser's War on Everything, is a classic example of how to do it, and how to do it really well.

I've been a huge fan of Chris Taylor and Craig Reucassel for a long time. I remember listening to them on Triple J's afternoon show. They were, and remain, two of the funniest comedians around.

Although I was sad when they left Triple J, I was excited to find out what they were investing so much time in that made them have to leave. (They were doing CNNNN and Triple J at the same time, so I figured this was something much bigger) And what an amazingly HILARIOUS show Chaser is. Biting political and social satire at it's best.

I'm also pleased to say that it has recently received a MUCH better time slot than Friday nights and has been moved to Wednesday nights right after Spicks and Specks. THANK YOU ABC!! Finally I don't have to tape it! :) This show is non Stop hilarity. the first joke will make u wet your pants. And thats probably the weakest joke of them all. I started watching it when the second half of season 2 started airing. and straight away. I'm hooked. only 2 weeks after I started watching. I've downloaded episodes and bought the DVD's. Reoccurring Clips Such as "the Ad Road Test" and "current affairs" Are quiet hilarious. Then There's the ad's they take off "Use Emo. Use your Own Tears For More Effective Use" Also Funny in the politics Side of things. Nothing is wrong with them doing this. it's funny. Any Australians Who Don't Find This Funny. Don't Complain And don't Watch it. ALL Australian TUNE IN Wednesday AT 9 ON ABC everyone is a genius in something. Albert Einstien was a genius in science, William Shakespeare was a genius in literature and the boys from the Chasers war on everything are truly comedy geniuses. Their satire TV show is a constant hit on the Australian broadcast commission ( ABC ). After a small start as a satire newspaper, the chasers popularity skyrocketed when given their own television show. Never short on controversy with the cast members will do everything some of it even being arrested for. Chris Taylor going on Sunrise, a very popular live morning television show and telling his partner to f***k off, creating a fake motorcade and driving into APEC high security area and doing a very funny satire of a Australian ad about nicotine by following smokers around yelling out "NO GARY NO NO GARY NO". While controversial the show is increably funny and worthy of running for years to come. A very funny look at some of Australia's current affairs and political goings-on. The Chaser boys really seem to have fun with this show, and what I enjoy is that they all have their strengths; some are brilliant (Chas) at making complete idiots of themselves, whereas Julian can pull off the whole "I'm interviewing a famous politician and I'm about to suggest that he disguise himself as a pot of jam" type of humour.

They have great segments in the show taking the mick out of all sorts of aspects of Australian culture such as our Current Affairs Shows, our Adverts and Early Morning TV programmes. Some material is a bit tired and predictable, but overall it's a lot of fun to watch, and will leave you with a smile on your face. For one used to the comedies on television now- whether sketch, sitcom or animated, it's nice to watch something truly refreshing.

The Chaser has to be the best comedy of this decade, Seinfeld being the last's triumph. It follows the hosts urban crusades to fix situations, do 'ad road tests' and try to get the facts from our politicians the good old fashioned way.

Despite being very controversial at times, the shows excellent quality, from the well made and truly funny opening credits to the sketch style investigations (sketch style only in time, they are not scripted, at least, not the ones at the other end of the joke) is certainly worth watching. Even the most cynical and intellectual viewer won't be disappointed, and the show deserves ten stars.

All in all, well done to the ABC for showing this and i recommend it highly. If I was only allowed to watch one program in my entire life, I would definitely have to pick "The Chaser's War on Everything". Of all the satirical shows that have been on Australian television, I found "Chaser" to be the funniest of all. It is just so Amazing, the boys aren't afraid to do anything.

Whether it's dress up as Hitler to get into a Polish Club, or push a MASSIVE ball of string around Melbourne to try out the tourism ad's or rock up to the Coke factory naked in a bath with $2.40 to buy some water. The Chaser boys will go there.

In agreement with the comments above (and/or below) "The Chaser's War on Everything" is more popular than their previous program "CNNNN". But CNNNN was just as funny. Some unforgettable moments from that show... Clean up Cambodia!!! Classic.

So anyway to stop me from Ranting further, I STRONGLY advise you to at least give Chaser a chance, you'll more than likely find it HILARIOUS!!!! This program is certainly my favorite non-sitcom television comedy. Australia produces very little good programs - most of the TV which I watch (and I live in Australia) is from the US and England.

The funniest part of this show is just how controversial it is. Like when they went past numerous security barriers at the APEC summit pretending to be Canadian diplomats.

The show is made up of pre-filmed stunts, general satirical discussion of current world events, and sometimes on-stage skits. These all come together to make a fabulous, extremely funny TV show. The segments like "Ad Road-test" and "Message from Osama bin Ladin" are hilarious. For anyone interested in watching hilarious satirical TV comedy - then this is definitely the show you should watch.

All the guys are great and do an excellent job in entertaining you for half an hour.

I would rate it 10/10. The Chasers War On Everything. 5 words that I love to watch. The chasers war on everything is an excellent Australian comedy. As the name suggests they wage war on everything. They seem to love hitting the politions most of all.

The Chaser is one of the best comedies I have seen and is the top of the line in Australia. It is on the Australian Broadcasting Corparation (ABC) which is where some of the best comedies are.

It has won the Australian Film Industry (AFI) awards but did not win the best comedy at the logies.

Last Year (2006) the chaser was aired on ABC on Friday nights when everyone was out so no one could watch it. Well they have been moved to Wednesday nights at 9pm (a heaps better timeslot) and the best thing is if I miss an episode or even just want to see it again i can download it from www.ABC.net.au/chaser. Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it. But i plead with you, foreigner, look at the other crap that's been churned out from Singapore and compare it to this film. It's like comparing a mule's diarhhoea chunks to a little diamond. This film is the first to truly show some the singapore's seedy underbelly - something the forces that be, pretend does not exist. And there's a part in the film where a gangster(ah-beng in our unique colloquial 'ingris') curses in 4 languages, namely Tamil English Malay and Hokkien. Well the truth is most of us can and do do that all the time. The sad thing is that viewers from foreign contries will have an easier time getting their oily little claws on this gem, in its country of origin, it was banned initially, only to be given and R-rating, and that too with about 20 cuts to it. It's nice to know you that one of the best, creative, edgy and original films ever created would be easier for you to obtain unadulterated, uncensored; halfway across the world than in your own nation. This is the first movie I've seen from Singapore and it's great. If you don't know a lot about Asia, its languages and its culture, then this film may be a bit confusing for the non-informed people. As an Asian-American who's double majoring in two Asian languages (one of them being Mandarin) and has taken some Asian American Studies classes, this film was easier for me to understand, but even without that kind of knowledge, I believe this movie is still accessible to its foreign audiences as long as you keep in mind that it's a coming-of-age type of movie. The film is definitely worth seeing just so that you get the chance to see what kind of issues Singapore's young teenage boys are struggling and having to deal with. This is an awesome coming-of-age movie, but filmed and shown in a more artistic and original way. The actors are outstanding. I'm totally agree with GarryJohal from Singapore's comments about this film. Quotation: 'Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it.' It's still not quite the truth and as a Malaysian-Chinese, i do 'get it' although i don't speak Hokkien because we do have the similar 'problems' in Malaysia too. I know that it's really hard to understand and to accept this as a REALITY but it is definitely NOT a 'no real story'. I was pleased to see this film outside Malaysia because it will and definitely be banned in Malaysia too. Which means either you get it in 'illegal copied VCDs or DVDs' or hope that someone to be kind enough to 'share' it in the internet. This is not an 'another violent teen drama.......' because it portrays the reality which exists in Singapore (and in Malaysia too) in an interesting way (sad+humour). I was just a little sad to know that this film got about 20 cuts in censorship. What a waste! Um .... a serious film about troubled teens in Singapore, a country I have not much knowledge on but have the previous wrong impression that all the kids there are highly disciplined and controlled by their family and government. Well, I guess I am wrong, just like other cities/ countries, they also have their troubled teens who also lead the not so surprising rebellious way of life of drugs, fights, bad language, and .... many other obvious signs of being a bad boy. The surprising part of this film isn't really about how these kids running around causing themselves and others trouble, but rather the subtle gayness hidden behind their so call loyalty between them. The bond between these "brothers" may very well originated from an unconscious gay tendency inside these boys. Though it isn't uncommon for str8 guys to have very close friendship with each other, but watch this film closely, it should be entering all sorts of gay film festivals and I would not be surprised that it may win itself a lot more awards toward this direction! Despite the previous reviewer's screed, this is a well paced and interesting documentary with lots of clips from classic 1950s sci-fi films that influenced Spielberg, Lucas and others in their more recent efforts. I agree that Spielberg's films aren't even in the same league as the films discussed here, such as William Cameron Menzies' brilliant INVADERS FROM MARS, to name just one of the many titles examined, but this is still a remarkably good overview of 1950s paranoid sci-fi. Yes, it turns into a commercial for the tepid remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS during the last fifteen minutes; you can turn that off. The rest is surprisingly good, and it's nice to see contemporary filmmakers remember the films that inspired them, even if they can't begin to match the originals. I was really looking forward to watching this documentary on what I considered to be some of the most entertaining films ever made. Growing up in L.A. during the 60's many of these old black and white films were shown on the local stations. I even remember a Friday night show called "Strange Tales of Science Fiction" that showcased a different Sci Fi flick every week. This documentary however spent way too much time on the opinions of the four famous filmmakers and how they felt about the classic movies of that genre and how they used them as inspiration in their filmaking.

That is not what I was hoping for in this documentary. It really could have been a comprehensive examination of the decade instead of a brief highlighting of the most well known films of the era. Anyone who has studied or been interested in these films are pretty familiar with standouts such as War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, The Thing, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. I would have liked to see some excerpts from lesser known films and perhaps some interviews with people involved in the making of these movies. I would have to agree the documentary was way too focused on Spielberg's opinions and was a type of commercial for his new release of War of the Worlds. "Watch the Skies" (2005 - 60 minutes) is an excellent documentary about movies of Science Fiction. It was produced and directed by the critic Richard Schickel, author of more than 20 books on this theme. Mark Hamill is the documentary narrator. Schickel joins directors as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, George Lucas and Ridley Scott to carry through a trip in time and space to show some of the most memorable science fiction movies of the fifties and also some more recent classics. The documentary shows six different approaches: The paranoia of the atomic war; The fantastic trips to the Moon; The enigmatic planet Mars; Good and evil aliens; The after-apocalyptic world; and The humanity future. It presents comments and scenes of the following classics: The Flying Saucers, Rocketship XM, Destination Moon, The Space Children, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, A Trip to the Moon, The Angry Red Planet, Forbidden Planet, The Thing From Another World, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, I Married a Monster from Outer Space, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob, The War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, ET: The Extra Terrestrial, The Omega Man, The Planet of the Apes, The Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Things To Come and Metropolis. Highly recommended to Science Fiction fans! I suspect there are several cuts of this doco doing the rounds. The copy I saw focused heavily on Joe's erotic films and referred to his horror output in passing. There are numerous X-rated films presented in their X-rated glory and EMMANUELLE IN AMERICA'S legendary "snuff" footage (the breasts being cut off) is given generous screen time.

The interviews with the highly likable Joe are informative and candid. He is an unassuming, articulate gent and discusses his interest in shocking audiences, why he wanted to mix erotica with horror, and how he may have been responsible for one of his performers turning gay.

His friendship and working relationship with Indonesian beauty Laura Gemser is touched on, as is his indifferent attitude to shooting hardcore.

Joe D'Amato personifies an incredible period in Continental cinema that has now passed. It is great to see a documentary dedicated to him and his fine, unique work.

RIP, Joe. This documentary is as unique as it's subject. And while D'Amato's staple was erotica, the film manages to show some decent clips of the films you may remember from old time, late night Cinemax... One problem... Joe did hardcore porno at times mixed with softcore erotica, even mixed in his gore films. The gore films are cult classics, going for like $20 a pop for a dubbed copy on the net (not peanuts for 20 year old films, folks.) I want to see why those are cult classics. Also, as sweet as Joe seems (he did seem more elegant than one might expect,) the dude liked to shock. Both "Caligula: The Untold Story" and "Emanuelle in America" show us hardcore rape, snuff, and beastiality (in both, you'd be suprised how far he goes in "Caligula II" with that one, if you can track down an uncut print.) Although these scenes may be disconforting in a documentary of a persons career, hey, he did it... Also, I would have liked to see more interviews of people Joe worked with... Maybe that's just me wanting to see what Laura Gemser looks like these days... I still think she's a goddess and one of the sexiest women ever to grace the genre. I was very excited to see a documentary on one of my favorite Italian directors. D'Amato has dabbled in everything from Horror, post-apocalyptic to hardcore Porn. He has touched upon genius a couple of times with films like Buio Omega and Emmanuelle & The Last Cannibals. This documentary is a lenghty and informative guide to the films of D'Amato. He is interviewed throughout with English subtitles rolling across the bottom of the screen. The excerpts from his films are narrated by a narrator (with english subtitles). The documentary proved extra interesting when it analyzed the often censored "Emmanuelle In America". Here D'amato explaines the faked "snuff" scenes in detail and recalls some funny stories. In fact, good ol' Joe is very warm and funny throughout, always wearing a smile and smoking a cigarette. The one disapointing aspect of this documentary is that it spends little time on D'amato's Horror films like Anthropophagus and the brilliant Buio Omega. It spends too much time on the erotic cinema and hardly touches the post-apocaplyptic films. But, I can't complain. It is wonderful to see D'amato get the respect he deserves. Highly recommended for fans of D'amato. May he rest in peace. A refreshing interview with the legendary Italian cinematographer-producer-director who passed away in 1999 with close to 200 features to his credit as director. A large portion is spent on D'Amato's softcore sex films including his notorious EMANUELLE entries with Laura Gemser. They also briefly cover his porn career, which kept him afloat during his last decade or so. More interesting to me is the section focusing on his horror and action efforts. D'Amato has plenty of great anecdotes about actors and his low budget film-making including a story about an assistant accidentally collecting real bones amid the fake ones while shooting in a 2,000-year-old catacomb. Other interviewees include George Eastman and Al Cliver. I would have liked a bit more conversation about his Stateside Filmirage productions (not a single question about TROLL 2; granted it wasn't the cult film then it was now). Remember Greg the Bunny? It was this show that started on the Independent Film Channel, but got turned into a full blown sitcom on Fox. My cousin and I thought it was pretty funny, beyond the precocious idea of puppets taking on TV-PG material. Puppets Who Kill occurs in a similar universe, where puppets live in the same world as people, and like us, take on jobs and lives of their own. Let's just say if you couldn't handle that, then don't bother watching PWK, as this show is a profile of 4 puppets who fell out of society's good graces through drug abuse, hedonism and violent felonies only to end up in a half-way house. There's plenty of violence, sex, and bad language (so it would never make its way to U.S. Network TV). As if sociopathic puppets weren't enough, the fact that this takes place in Canada makes it even more disturbing (btw, the government pays for this), and I think any American television viewer would demand more demented cable TV fodder like this. I don't know where you can get it in the U.S., beyond extra satellite Tv, but I'd advise you give it a try. Really funny stuff. (It airs on the Comedy Network in Canada) So totally unique and entertaining! Another great Canadian invention. A regular "Joe"(Dan) and a bunch of misfit delinquents (aka Puppets), all share residence at a half-way house. Its Dan's job to keep an eye on four 'menaces to society' and help them to rehabilitate. Bill, the homicidal dummy, Rocko the cigarette smoking dog, Buttons, the nympho teddy bear, and Cuddles the comfort doll. The five of them find themselves in all sorts of odd predicaments. Despite their homicidal, and often overtly perverse sexual tendencies, it's hard not to find them lovable.

I give this show a 10/10 simply because it provides good entertainment, without needing a huge budget, and exudes a Canadian flair that makes me proud. There are so many episodes that make me howl over the stories

that I wish I could pick the best ones , Rocko and Bill make for a strange pair that are beyond help but manage to play the victim and BS their way out of hard time just to drag Dan into their life of crime .

Canadians will notice the odd joke for Toronto or the Federal Government, and because the CBC axed a really good show by the Frantics that Dan was part of , the show takes shots at them and in the episode "Dan's Umbrella" the CBC is raked across the coals .

When Dan says that the CBC would never waste taxpayers money on useless venture , Rocko enters the room and gives Dan back his Tape of Friday-Night with Ralph Benmurgue , this show was a flop and most people wouldn't get the joke unless they knew the CBC's history for making shows people don't watch or axing good shows that they do watch. I went into "The Closer She Gets" knowing that it was the story of the filmmaker's mother fighting cancer. I expected it to be a very harrowing, depressing movie. And although the subject matter is certainly emotionally wrenching, the remarkable thing about this movie is the positive message it sends. It shows a family's total dedication to meet the challenge of cancer together. They refuse to lose faith in each other, even in the darkest moments.

The most moving moments to me are when this faith is revealed. Little comments that the mother and the family make to each other that reveal her (and their) will to survive, and their defiant emphasis on love and family togetherness. In this way it is an uplifting and profoundly hopeful film. We should all be so lucky as to be surrounded by family like this in times of serious illness. I saw this documentary film at the 2005 Slamdance independent film festival. This documentary is shot, directed and edited by a son (Craig) of his mother's year long battle with cancer. Shot over the course of one year "The closer she gets", is a documentary in the truest form and gives you an inside look of a family's struggle with battling with the cancer, the viewer gets an inside point of view of the effects cancer has on a family as well as the individual throughout the entire process. I have never seen such an honest film, this is a powerful and raw film, and since it wasn't shot by an outsider you get the true emotions of everyone involved. Many documentaries are shot by an outsider, but having this story told by the son adds another emotional level to the film, unlike any I have seen before on this subject or any other. This is a touching story that everyone should see, and can relate to. I would highly recommend it. The Closer She Gets... is an artful documentary dealing with the death of a person I actually knew. It allows a glimpse into the private moments of the family involved in the most trying time of their lives. Parents tend to support the work of their children, in this case the subject of the documentary went above and beyond. She was willing to share her death experience as an act of love for her son. It is a most touching work of art, weaving the serious, serene, and lighter sides of life for this family. The story is one which can make you laugh, but also cry as it addresses issues we all must face. I highly recommend this documentary to those unafraid to cry, and are willing to deal with the issue of mortality in a most human manner. This film will touch you. This film is so different to anything you would have seen before. It's an honest and chilling account of an entire family's battle with a terminal illness.

'The Closer She Gets' is shot in a very unique style. Craig Oulette films in a very different way.... using different angles and viewpoints, in what i find is a very eye catching manner (perhaps due to his experience with photographic works).

His style gives such a clear picture of not only what the patient herself is facing, but what loved ones close to her also have to deal with.

A very sad, but extremely interesting and unique film. One I would definitely suggest watching. I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface.

Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.

Vote: 9 I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show. In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD... What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go... Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City. Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers.

It was almost as if the series with the full title of "HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET" (1993-99) was a sort of "Mr. In-Between" of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over.

During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.

When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for "HOMICIDE"; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie.

Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.

OUR STORY………. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has "pulled the pin", Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'

While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital.

News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.

The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as "classified".

In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading "THE HOMICIDE MOVIE", we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode. My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film. The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot. For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV. This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing. For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order. HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get! ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied. Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!

Looking at the "Top 250" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.

I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again! Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.

"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.

** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. ** I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie. I am sligthly biased because I appear in this film but i loved it and I am only in about seven dispersed minutes and am not nearly the most interesting part of it. The film is an honest and intriguing account of a noble independent group of filmmakers trying to make a lovable movie. It is also an account of bloated expectations and fallen heros The interviews are well patched together in the editing. The different people are all interesting and there is never really too much of one person. Also, the interviews are shot in a pretty interesting fashion keeping the film visually satisfying. Definitely a worthwhile film. I hope it gets around. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=211772166650071408&hl=en Distribution was tried.

We opted for mass appeal.

We want the best possible viewing range so, we forgo profit and continue our manual labor jobs gladly to entertain you for working yours.

View Texas tale, please write about it... If you like it or not, if you like Alex or not, if you like Stuie, Texas or Texas tale... Just write about it.

Your opinion rules. All of the trials and tribulations of making a no budget movie right from the mouths of those involved. You feel all of the sweat, guts, determination and dedication Stuie put into this labor of love and the frustration of being left hanging after all his work. The clips of interviews with all involved provides a great flowing narrative and conveys the balls-out, hardcore punk, almost anarchic attitude it took to film "Waldo" and subsequently the documentary. Stuie and company deserve all the props in the world for not giving up when the going got tough and getting "A Texas Tale of Treason" out so we can see what it's like for the budding filmmaker on the street! There are a limited number of fans for movies in the world that would love a particular genre to go to the depths that this crew has done to bring to life something that the very writer of the original film had, up to this point, never achieved. This is a wonderful exploration of the real dedication and love it takes to reach towards a potentially very successful cult film.

Originally, with the blessings from Alex Cox, this crew began producing the sequel of one of his movies in absolute true punk fashion. Their goal simply being to fully capture the atmosphere as it should be for a complete tribute to the original "Repo Man" film.

This is a great tale of dedication and the treachery that can occur along the path to wonderful movie making. A truly entertaining tale and a guaranteed learning experience for the viewer. Nice doco Stuie!

Even though it didn't work out how you wanted with the original film you have a fantastic piece of work and great viewing.

It is self evident how much you put into it.

That goes for everyone else too. It's great to see the warts and all account of the process without being 'too nice'.

Loved it! Well worth a view.

Que pena, the writer of 'the original' film couldn't appreciate what you have achieved.

Love the attitude too. Great piece. Looking forward to seeing the next work.

Keep going bro! Paully I found this to be an entertaining account of the challenges an independent film maker might encounter (something I never even thought about). The film managed to keep my interest the entire time and I actually laughed out loud more than once! I'm not a film maker so I know nothing about the technology but I though it was well edited and flowed smoothly telling the story. As a disclaimer, I contributed to this effort after the fact providing music for the soundtrack but I was not involved in the creation of this film and I could not tell you a thing about Repo Man except that I remembered seeing it way back when (I'm not really a sci-fi fiend). I enjoyed the comparisons the film made of punk rock file making to punk rock music. My wife went with me to see the film and she did not know a thing about it before hand and we had a great time. Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply "refuse to quit." These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of "just do it" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly "one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of "sci fi" and "suspense" and also "how to make a movie." It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff. I viewed this movie at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas a couple of days ago. Punk! Everyone and everything involved in the movie added to the punkiness of it. The music, well of course. But the movie itself captured the whole punk genre. Even a grandmother and school teacher (me) can appreciate artists who are able to turn their ideas into reality (well, reality, film-wise). This movie takes a handful of ticked-off young film makers and clearly and cleverly shows the "why" of their angst over not being given the green light on finishing the Waldo film. The (relatively) happy girl gave good comic relief, a nice respite from the continual (but understandable) ragging on the dude who left them in a lurch. Gotta love Stu, though. And be sure to watch/read the credits - they're the icing on the cake! Everyone who has ever wondered how to make a film on no budget should see this documentary. The determination of everybody portrayed in this project was very moving to me, and should connect to those of us who have ever ventured into any part of show business, be it film, music, or writing. I think the film makers could have done a better job with foreshadowing the events that led up to this film becoming a documentary, perhaps by use of a narrator; other than that, the film comes off as a real example of how show business isn't about "the show", but rather "the business".

I hope that the actual intended project, "Repo Man II", gets to see the light of day. I think the film makers did a fine job on it with what little they had to work with, and all that they had to overcome to complete it. I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).

This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.

The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term. After seeing A Texas Tale of Treason, the measly correspondence efforts by Cox could not even afford the massive collusion Stu directed with no budget. It tells a story about dedication, sweat, whiz, fire and punk rock. I love it! My favorite parts are the interviews with Marci (she's such a hot baby babe and she digs me but she just doesn't know it yet). The Japanese clerk muffing his lines, that cracked me up. The sex scene was really cool. I am going to see if Stu will come over sometime and do the box light wave thing when i'm doing it with my woman. The intro and of course my 5 seconds during closing credits. I know thats going to get me some chicks. I hope to see more from Antstuie because I know I can expect the unexpected. watch this movie. it's truly a good ride through the difficulties of making a indie movie, and what happens when it blows up in the film maker's face. there's a lot of stuff about punk rock, and the philosophy behind that movement and it's relationship to this project. so if you're into old punk, American punk, you'll dig it.... but, beware, there's a ton of bad acting bits from the failed project that are incorporated... yet they do come off funny at times. and, actually, some of the best parts are listening to people who have never been involved in movie making pontificate and what they went through in the three year period that it took to put this together. so anyone out there that's about to make a film, especially if you haven't been to film school or worked in the field, you should watch this and learn from the film maker's mistakes. This film would be particularly fun for anyone who has been in the film industry, especially in any indie capacity... those whose inheritance includes a film introduction may not appreciate it quite as much. I am hard to please in the documentary category. This doc is different though- its pleasure comes from an earthy realism of indie filmmaker punks who are a hoot to be around and watch. Whether you've ever wondered what it is like to be in films, in front of or behind the camera, or whether you have worked your way through the sometimes painful and hard but rewarding indie world, you'll certainly get a kick out of this film. After watching "A Texas Tale of Treason" you feel a renewed disgust for the nature of the Hollywood beast. Inside the interviews and conversations of all involved with the project there is a common sense of comradery and rebelliousness that spans backgrounds, social classifications, and even geography. This can be attributed to hard work on the entire production's undying commitment to the project and the love the of the story from the original film, and the complete creation of vacuum that is it's creator. The scale of people involved in "Waldo's Hawaiian Holiday" was amazing to me, at a no budget, no glory production. There were no trailers or craft services, no amenities at all, and yet everyone involved stuck right there with it. If nothing ever comes of this project, Antstuie Productions have laid their foundation for being a serious, honest company that's never going to lay down and take it or sell out and make a movie just for the money. I'd like to see any L.A. director go through the guerrilla process to get a shot. More realistic true to life cinema is lacking in this time of CG and green screens. The masses may enjoy their entertainment spoon fed to them in nice bite sized censored calm bits, but there is a large group of people out here in the world that share the opinions and insights of the filmmakers that still make films for the love of the material or love of storytelling, not DVD sales or box office. I loved this documentary, and I hope that IFC has the cahones to pick it up and air it so that maybe, just maybe, one more person will decide to pick up a camera and film some real life so we the viewer can have even a temporary understanding that everyone everywhere is the same, and anyone anywhere can be a true storyteller. This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all. This is a very funny movie. There is a self deprecating, iconoclastic tone to the movie that is very appealing. The characters are interesting. The movie flows very well and holds your interest throughout the 1 hour, 50 minutes duration of the film. The film quality is not of the highest Hollywood standards; however the original film was supposed to be made in the genre of a gritty punk-rock style. The documentary about the attempt to make the film and the subsequent betrayal of the film makers is very well detailed and easy to follow. The original film makers themselves become the main characters in the documentary version of the movie. The interviews of the film makers and the actors has been assembled in a highly entertaining story that illustrates the struggles involved in making the original film, the eventual failure of the original project and the phoenix-like rising from the ashes that evolved into this documentary film. In my mind the documentary (A Texas Tale of Treason) is a much more interesting and entertaining film than the original film (Waldos Hawiian Vacation) would have ever been. Two thumbs up for a job well done. Iam not sure if discussing the television series is exactly where the comments should be drawn to,however it is on the television where the The Lone Ranger really made a name for himself.Iam not even referring to the original radio broadcasts of this masked rider of the plains,Iam though referring to a point where in a little boy, about 9 or 10 years old,I was to see the movie,"The Lone Ranger"and never forgot it.I can recall that I was on a line or we were moving toward the Paramount Theater-the theater was located in the theater district,if I remember correctly.It was directly across,going East to West from the building that has the ball that drops on New Years Eve-This is of course if anybody doesn't know, New York City.High Above the street on the roof tops there was a time and maybe even still today huge billboards would advertise what was being shown and so on.It was at that point in time that I looked up and was never more impressed as I was when I looked at that billboard to see The Lone Ranger across the roof tops-It was great-It made an impression and was never forgotten.That day we went to see The Lone Ranger-It was the story of how the Lone Ranger was born-The terrible ambush that the Texas Rangers rode into and the subsequent rebirth of one of its fallen heroes.It was in this film we learn that The Lone Ranger will not shoot to kill but to injure so as to let the law be the judge.That type of thinking is so worthwhile that we might be good to learn something from history.This is where we learn that Tonto discovers the fallen Ranger and upon seeing the symbol of the boyhood friendship that The Lone Ranger established years earlier when he as a younger person came to the aide of a injured young person in Tonto-For the aide given, Tonto gave to his faithful friend, a symbol of his thanks which now was part of a necklace that Tonto recognized.Tonto said,"you are Kemosabe".The Lone Ranger said,"kemo-sabe,that is familiar?Then Tonto tells the story of this "trusty scout"(the meaning of Kemosabe)I think the Lone Ranger is one of the true heroes of the silver screen and one of the great heroes of television.It should also be stated that these very respected individuals Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels sought to live there lives according to the legend of The Lone Ranger-It may very well be that there is an inspiring story in the story of the Lone Ranger and his faithful companion Tonto.I myself was so pleased by the ability to find and buy the DVDs, that I stayed up all a Saturday morning and watched The many episodes now available.Long Live The Lone Ranger and His faithful companion Tonto-Hi-Ho Silver- Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: "A person who can listen to "The William Tell Overture" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.

And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make "the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.

As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to "…the Plains of the Early Western United States!" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The "New Technology" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than "Roller Derby" and "Wrestling From Marigold Arena" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.

So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.

Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' "Thrill Factory", which would be invaluable experience in doing "THE LONE RANGER". Cast as his "faithful Indian companion" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively "Cowboy Movie" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on "GUNSMOKE") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the "LONE RANGER".

In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.

The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from "U NO Wutt!") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the "old Radio" stock stuff.

With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans! The 221 episodes of "The Lone Ranger" were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming.

The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases.

The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments.

The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse "Silver".

There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: "who was that masked man?".

To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Bullets may not have bounced off his chest, but The Lone Ranger was every bit the symbolic icon to me as my other boyhood hero - Superman. He represented truth, justice and the American way in a classic TV Western setting, living by the principle that he would never use his gun to kill, while scouring the American Southwest with his faithful Indian companion Tonto to bring every single outlaw to justice. The advent of TV provided the perfect opportunity for a post War generation to find it's ideal in an enigmatic masked man who stood for law and order, while providing unparalleled entertainment for five seasons spanning almost eight years.

Today I had the opportunity to view for the first time the complete three part origin episodes start to finish without the standard opening and closing sequences to interrupt the continuity of the story. For fans of the Ranger, this is the grand daddy of all Western sagas, telling as it does how Texas Ranger John Reid survived the ambush by the Butch Cavendish Gang, and how he was nursed back to health by an Indian friend from his childhood. Tonto (Jay Silverheels) declares his companion a 'trusty scout', and names him Kemo-sabe. I've read various interpretations of the origin of the term Kemo-sabe, but I'm satisfied with Tonto's explanation. Reading too much into it just detracts from the story, just like the English translation of 'tonto' from Spanish, which I won't reveal, because it's just better not to know if you can help it.

I thought it quite clever how the origin story created the mystique of the Lone Ranger, like the sixth grave that created the illusion that all the Rangers died in the box canyon ambush. You never see the face of the man who becomes the Lone Ranger, as it's always turned away or obscured to hide his real identity. Even the origin of Silver is handled brilliantly; the voice of the story's narrator describing the wild stallion's sterling qualities. Would that relate, say, to sterling..., silver? I got the biggest kick out of that.

Of course with the passage of time, watching the Lone Ranger episodes today offers a view of how unsophisticated the show was beyond the origin story. Some of them are almost embarrassingly goofy, particularly when it comes to a Lone Ranger showdown when he shoots into the middle of a crowd of bad guys to knock a gun out of it's owner's hand. And how about that little wave he gives to Tonto whenever they're about to ambush the bad guys - it's always the same gesture, but Tonto always knows what it means in different circumstances. Then you have the episodes where Clayton Moore takes off the Ranger mask to don a different disguise to impersonate another character in service to the story. He even went under cover once as an actor portraying President Abraham Lincoln to uncover a villain, top hat and all!

Few fans that I come across ever know that actor John Hart replaced Clayton Moore for the 1952/53 season in a contract dispute that Moore had with the show's producers. If you ever saw that "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie idolizes his boyhood hero, you'll notice it was John Hart listed in the credits. It's difficult actually, to tell if you're watching a Hart episode or not, the key is to listen to the voice; Moore's is so distinctive that it's a dead giveaway.

If you ever get the chance to sample some of the final season color episodes, you're in for a treat. The renditions I've seen on VHS are absolutely gorgeous, although I don't know if commercial prints are available. Most of the black and white episodes around have been re-packaged by any number of distributors in different configurations, so getting your hands on those should be no problem. The must see of course is the three part origin, and if you don't watch anything else, this gives you all the flavor and excitement you need to capture the imagination of one of the West's most famous heroes. Hi-Yo Silver, Awaaaay! I wasn't even born when this series was released in the USA. It took about another decade before British TV networks laid hold of it.

In fact, I was fortunate enough to see the very first episode, in which The Lone Ranger was one of a posse who ran into an ambush and got slaughtered. TLR was the only survivor. Although badly wounded, he was saved by a passing Indian called Tonto. I believe he took to wearing a mask in order to hide his true identity for fear of reprisal. But instead he made himself all the more recognisable. Dunno if he wore it in his sleep.

This was Saturday teatime staple. The fanfare bugles of William Tell's overture presaged a dash to the telly, food still in hand. Though it very quickly became repetitive, predictable hokum. Nobody ever unmasked him. Nobody ever landed a punch, nobody ever out-shot him. He was a little too good, and just a little too camp in his dress for most kids. Poor Tonto, on the other hand, became his Aunt Sally. He was always getting slugged and tied-up and kidnapped and stuff.

And what did he keep calling The Lone Ranger? 'King Savvy' was the general consensus where I lived. It seemed to imply 'the big know-all' in Indian-speak. But is sounded like something else, as if Mr Silverheels had a speech defect. 'Kemosabe'; what the hell's that?

A later, and less well-merchandised duo called 'The Range Rider' and 'Dick West' eventually won my vote. This featured a naked-faced Jock Mahoney who got beat-up pretty thoroughly in each episode and was altogether less camp, less super, and more believable.

Still; even today I can't hear William Tell's overture without expecting the gallop of hooves and a hearty Hi-Oh Silver.

Devine daftness. I found this movie on one of my old videos, after "Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster" (which should INSTANTLY give you an idea of it's tone) and I hadn't seen it in a while so I decided to watch it. I didn't remember much about Rainbow Brite except I used to like the cartoon and that it was cute. Most people feel that way about her. You probably do to.

Well, when the movie started, I wondered if it was the right one! It didn't fit the mold of Rainbow Brite as I remembered her. But it turns out she kicks butt! This has to be the strangest animated movie EVER! I can't believe these characters were so popular (the series isn't much different) while being so bizzare. As soon as I watched this movie again, it became one of my favorites.

I really don't want to give too much away. Just know that if you see the movie in the video store, rent it and watch it. No questions asked. You will get a kick out of it. Especially the outrageous Princess character. And the robotic horse. And the hypnotized sprites.

If you can't tell by know, this is an 80's cartoon that is really an undiscovered "head" movie in disguise! Have fun! Rainbow Brite and the star Stealer is not for people who were born before 1980 or after 1989. Most of those people would not appreciate the great things that are 80's cartoons. The fact that Rainbow Brite was made into a movie is a guilty pleasure for many of us who remember watching the tv show as a child. Granted, much of the dialogue is quite amusing and silly, and the plot is nonexistant to pointless, but it's a very cool movie none the less. Here's what you have to remember about this movie.... IT'S A KIDS MOVIE!!!!! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm an 80s child. I was obsessed with Rainbow Brite. So, naturally I love this movie. But if you watch the other Rainbow Brite movies this one is by far the best. But, like I said, it's a kids movie. You have to judge it as a kids movie. It doesn't matter to kids if the acting, animation or script is fantastic or even good. All they care about is what happens to the characters. If the good guy (or girl) wins then it's a great movie. If not, then it's bad. You all know what I mean. You were all kids once. RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER, in my opinion, is an excellent masterpiece. I felt all warm and tingly when Rainbow Brite (voice of Bettina) and Krys (voice of David Mendenhall) set out to get revenge on the princess (voice of Rhonad Aldrich). If you ask me, the princess was absolutely bitchy and diabolical. To me, she deserved to have Rainbow Brite and Krys seek revenge on him. However, I liked her castle as well as the rest of the setting. In addition, I thought that Lurky (voiec of Pat Fraley) and Murky (voiec of Peter Cullen) were diabolical. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone was perfectly cast, the direction was flawless, and Disney has scored a big hit. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent masterpiece to everyone who hasn't seen it, especially die-hard fans of the TV series. I guarantee you you'll enjoy it. People talk about how horrible the script was, and how horrible the animation was, but Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer really is a Japanese Anime aimed towards children. If you look at the anime today it's done in the same style, and it's immensely popular. I don't think this movie was ever intended to be viewed by adults. Just as I don't think it was ever intended to be serious. The very things that people seem to hate about this movie are the things that I love. Rainbow Brite is one of the best cartoon characters ever created in my opinion. She's smart. She's funny. She cares about the enviorment. She cares about her friends. This movie can teach so much to young kids. My little brothers even liked this movie. I have to say this movie taught me a lot when I was a kid. When it came out on DVD I was first in line to buy it. It's a great kids movie. So what if it's not perfect, nothing is really perfect when you look closely enough at it. I first saw this movie when I was very little. I was born in 1985, so it was around the age when 80s cartoons were big. My mother taped it one day thinking I might like it. I had never even heard of the Rainbow Bright TV show before I was introduced to the movie. When I saw it (on one of those old BETA tapes...) I loved it. I became addicted to it. There are people who say it's badly written and all that, but it's a kid's movie, and things like that don't matter much to children. I loved the story, and especially liked the songs and all the female characters. Of course I pretended to be them, and in the scene where Rainbow first met Krys and they were repulsed they had to work with the opposite sex, I could totally relate. The story was the basic good vs. evil that children enjoy, and there were enough happy moments to balance out the scary ones. The world is a fantastic place that would stimulate the imagination of any young child. I am very glad I had an opportunity to see this movie when I was little. It made a big impact, and watching it now brings back happy memories of childhood. I would recommend to any parent with young children to rent this movie. It will trigger their imagination and provide plenty of entertainment. You're only a child once, so don't let them miss out on this one! when i was a child this was the movie i watched. i think it is a great movie for the kids to watch and parents don't have to be afraid of any violence or obscene images. rainbow brite is a cheerful young girl and she is trying to make the winter go away. she finds that something or someone is trying to steal the source of life and keep it for themselves. i love this movie and i think that even adults can enjoy this movie. I adored this, but I am an 80's kid. I loved Rainbow Bright my whole childhood. I don't know if little ones these days would be very interested in the show, mine wasn't. (But thats okay, I bought it for me anyway. I just brought the little one so the guy at the checkout stand wouldn't look at me funny.)I love the non violent drama, and the colorful scenery. It just reminds me of a simpler time before cartoons had more violence than our local news can legally show. :) Although I may be just a little biased on the subject. Afterall I was Rainbow Bright 6 years in a row for Halloween........I wonder if they make a Rainbow Bright costume for adults. Lol. Um, hello.. Rainbow Brite.. the name alone is hard to take it seriously, like she could be the cousin of Strawberry Shortcake.. but when you're a kid, this is definitely serious stuff.

So, there's this vile, snotty, spoiled girl and she wants Rainbow Brites belt, amongst other things, ie the light of the whole universe, and Rainbow Brite and her friend Cris are bound and determined to stop her. As I remember, Murky and Lurky had a minor role in this production. Maybe they wanted too much money?

So anyway, snotty, evil girl has a powerful jewel and she channels it's power to take Rainbow's belt.. imagine? But somehow, Rainbow gets her belt back and re-energizes it with "star sprinkles" and kicks the bad girls' butt with the help of Cris and his prism bracelet, and they also save the whole universe in the process.

So good triumphs over evil, niceness triumphs over rudeness, and Rainbow Brite and the Color Kids are once again safe to spread color and joy for all mankind. I watched this movie as a child and still enjoy viewing it every once in a while for the nostalgia factor. When I was younger I loved the movie because of the entertaining storyline and interesting characters. Today, I still love the characters. Additionally, I think of the plot with higher regard because I now see the morals and symbolism. Rainbow Brite is far from the worst film ever, and though out-dated, I'm sure I will show it to my children in the future, when I have children. This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.

The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :) One of my favorite villains, the Evil Princess is just the perfect villain for this movie. Full of space travel, horses, diamonds, mystical characters, colorful backgrounds, evil characters, etc etc. Very bright, full of action, you will not get bored. Great movie! This movie is awesome due to the fact that it showed how good cartoons really looked in the 80s,the animators were not lazy like they are today,the cartoon had so much detail with very little resources they have with them compared with what we have today.If more people would request these cartoons to be rebroadcast then maybe all of the other 80s cartoons would be shown on television once again,therefore to finish my sentence i would just like to say that this was a cartoon that i grew up with and really would like it to be on tv once again. I got a chance to see this movie at an early screening in Brea and I have been crazy for it ever since. The film is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night which I have read and loved and seen on stage a few times so I certainly liked the references. But whether you like Shakespeare or not it won't matter - the movie stands on it's on. It is super funny, witty and charming. Amanda Bynes is hilarious and so was David Cross. Actually the whole cast is great - I just happen to be a huge David Cross fanatic. The cast is hot and the soundtrack kicks lots of cool bands and a few I hadn't heard before but I know they have a CD coming out so I will definitely buy it. Everyone in our audience laughed from start to finish - all age groups. !!!! She's The Man was everything I wanted it to be and maybe even a little more. I love the teen type "chick flick" films and I knew this one would be great!! In the same vein as 10 Things I Hate About You (one of my all time faves) She's The Man is a unique, well written, very well performed comedy with some of the funniest lines, and physical comedy I have seen in a long time. It's probably the funniest movie I've seen this year (with the exception of the hilarious Pink Panther.) But She's The Man is actually a more intellectual funny and most of the humor relies on the witty script, "Three's Company" style story of mistaken identities, and mixed messages, and the cast.

Amanda Bynes is a star!! Even since the days of the horribly campy (yet strangely entertaining "The Amanda Show", she has shown a brilliant talent for comedy. She's probably one of the most talented comediennes out there. Her style of physical comedy, impersonations, and witty dialect makes her hilarious. Previously her big screen debut (where she was the star) was the rather hilarious and well made "What A Girl Wants." If that wasn't her break out vehicle than She's The Man takes care of that hands down. Bynes is really the ultimate girl next door. It's a shame she doesn't do more big screen work because she could be the next "It" girl. She is the All American, cute, down to earth, bubbly teen (although she's twenty now) and whether or not she'll be able to carry her talent and style over to being an adult actor will remain to be seen. But for the purpose of this film she is perfect!! She actually legitimately pulls off the rather outlandish plot of her impersonating her twin brother and makes it believable. Not entirely...but believable enough. Most of the script relies on the comedy of her errors trying to be a guy but it's just hilarious, non stop laughs. Channing Tatum redeems himself from his deplorable performance in 2005's "Havoc" by plays Duke. He's the jock, the captain of the soccer team, and eventually Bynes' object of affection, unfortunately he's also Sebastian's room mate (who is Bynes.) He's a good leading man, and the chemistry is perfect between them. Laura Ramsey is Olivia, who happens to be attracted to Sebastian (who again is Bynes.) She does good as well although her part is small and she doesn't really effect the rest of the cast one way or another. James Kirk is great in his small role as the real Sebastian. His resemblance to Amanda Bynes is astonishing...they are absolutely believable as twins and further more, from a distance you could understand someone believing Bynes is Sebastian. The rest of the cast all fit in there somewhere and their roles range from brief to more supporting but essentially they are all supporting the story between Bynes and Tatum but everyone is more or less supporting Bynes terrific performance. She easily carries the film with no hesitations and makes it worth while.

This is one of those films that shows so much in the trailer and yet it's not one of those films that when that part comes up it's not funny anymore. The parts in the trailer that make you laugh are even more hilarious in the actual film. Relative newcomer director Andy Fickman does such an incredible job on this film. He weaves together a potentially complicated storyline and makes it flow naturally and makes everything fall together. The story which is loosely based off of Shakespeares Twelfth Night but it's remarkable how much they managed to translate over to this modern day film. It's seemingly completely off the wall but more exact to the classic comedy than you'd think. There isn't too much to say about a downside except that the last half hour drags a little and also becomes a might predictable but it doesn't change the hilarity of the first half of the film. Nonetheless you'll be laughing to tears and it's one of the funniest films in the theater right now hands down!!! 9/10 I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious. I already knew it was going to be a funny movie, but it was funnier than I expected. Sure there were some lame jokes, but they cracked me up. I thought the actors were going to turn out to be pretty bad, but the actors were good in acting out this comedy. I have to give kudos to Amanda Bynes, she looked surprisingly like her brother and pulled off an awesome performance as a boy. As for the other actors, they were funny as well. Of course there were moments where you yell at the screen "how can you not tell?", but that's all part of the fun. In the end the plot turned out pretty well. There's a happy ending, but what'd you expect.

Overall,just hilarious. I saw this film at a special screening. At first I thought the movie would be like a typical Amanda Bynes movie, but I was wrong. The movie is based on the Shakespeares book "The Twelth Night" This movie tells the story of a girl who lives to play soccer. Well when the girls team is cut she has to go to great lengths to get on the guys team at a different school to get revenge on the egotistical guys team at her old school. On her way she gets caught up in a long tangled web of love, lies, and deception. This movie is this years Mean Girls. I think it shows some great new actors abilities and there are defiantly some big stars to be featured in this movie. This movie is a great movie, however it is, as most movie highly predictable. The greatest highlight of the movie of course is the star character Amanda Bynes, who is absolutely gorgeous and hilarious. She is one of very few people in this world who can use all 53 muscles in her face to make the most strangest and gut-busting faces ever made. It's good for the kids, and contains upper male nudity and suggestive nudity towards the end. All in all, they did a good job updating an old classic, and deserves to rest on the movie stand along with O and 10 Things I Hate About You. The other actors also do a swell job, in many of their first time debuts. This film is full of charming situations and healthy young people easy on the eyes, whether they are wearing clothes or not. The strong superstructure of its plot is upheld by the art of Shakespeare. As Joseph Papp discovered back in the 1950s in Central Park, Shakespeare's plots can be adapted to the manners and customs of the present. And, so the classic tales of cross-dressing and other mischief found in such lighthearted comedies such as Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night's Eve and As You Like It are used to good effect in this film. All the young actors and actresses do a good job of advancing the plot with their blocking and dialog and costumes. And the idea of a soccer game to bring things to a climax reminds me of Bend It Like Beckham, another charming coming of age movie. I have to be honest, I really had a good time watching She's the Man. Despite it being a typical teenage comedy or if you will the switching of the sexes movie, it had some pretty decent laughs that I think anyone could get. Adults and teens alike would over all enjoy this movie.

Amanda Bynes is your typical rebellious teen who dresses and acts like a guy, and when she is turned down to try out for the boy's soccer team, she decides to take over her brother's appearance to prove herself worthy of being on the boy's soccer team. Of course, love shows itself when she meets another guy who thinks she's her brother. She also has a girl who is chasing after her. Well, the tag line says it all.

This is a fun little teen drama that I think will be remembered for a while. Amanda Bynes did prove something in the film, it's really hard to really act like a guy. :D Well, it's true!

8/10 At first, I honestly thought it would be a corny movie. But after seeing this, I was quite surprised. Amanda Bynes was convincingly funny along with the supporting cast (Especially that character played by "Bullet tooth Tony" from Snatch. What a contrasting role between those two movies!). Now, i'm not one to say whether or not an actor is good or not, but her act, especially, was thoroughly enjoyable. Even though the plot devolved into a teeny-bopper love triangle (though very funny) half-way into the movie, I feel that this shouldn't discount, what I think, the movie really is: simply entertaining. So if you happen to stumble upon it, whether by DVD or theater, i'm confident that you'll enjoy. OK, now at first i thought this was going to be another cheesy romantic comedy, which held back on the comedy but this wasn't. I mean how could it have been with the fabulous Amanda Bynes staring in it! She was amazing, really funny & is still stunning! The boys in it were also extremely fit, one major reason for going girls! The plot is strongly based upon the Shakespeare play 'Twelfth Night', as it was extremely similar, there was even a spider called malvolio, which belonged to the malvolio like character. The script was really well written and pulled together and it was very witty. The football skills in it were also amazing, it even made me think of playing football myself! Anyway, to sum it up this is a light hearted film about young romance, which gets very confusing! Go and see it! This movie is about Viola (Amanda Bynes) and her quest to beat her school Cornwell boys team after they kicked the girls team out. So she goes to the rival school Illaria and joins the boys team, in doing so she falls for Duke (Channing Tatum) who thinks shes a guy and likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Viola as a her brother.

I was in a version of the 12th night play and the beginning was very modern. So I knew the play well. I was very exited about seeing this movie and when I saw it it exceeded my expectations. It kept a lot of my favorite lines and I could see big connections to the play. Though it was like the play it was not as complicated. It was also more of a chick flick than I expected but it was good. It was very funny. It pulls you into a whole bunch of crazy love stories and lies. You saw how viola (Amanda Bynes) thought wrongly about what guys thought and her complications in living in a guys world. You also see her room-mate, Duke's(Channing Tatum), impression of this. I really liked seeing the characters being portrayed in a modern way. It also tells the modern theme "Follow your dreams" but this time it has a twist. I think this movie was a great movie about a girl who loved soccer and stuck up for herself and her family and her dreams. I think this movie will be the big break for many raising stars. I think a person would be well-advised to read or see (I favour reading) "Twelfth Night" before seeing, or re-seeing "She's The Man". The movie is good on its' own, but comparing the two, and looking for the in-jokes makes it a lot more fun. Shakespeare was inspired by others. I think he'd give a thumbs-up.

Harld Bloom said in "Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human", that most of the people in "Twelfth Night" need to be locked up. Malvolio, the person Malcolm is based on, is-for no good reason. People in "She's The Man" are sane in contrast. For instance, Duke Orsino is far more leval than the Duke of Orsino. He also shows that a man can have feelings without being gay. He displays a lot of self-control.

It's a teen comedy (a clean one), so it doesn't have the dark edges of the play. For instance Olivia in the play is mourning the death of her brother. In the movie, she has been dumped.

If you like Sir Andrew and Sir Toby in the play, they don't have the same attention in the movie.

The in-jokes are quite often quick. The hairdresser Pauls' last name is given once. It is Antonio. Lots of people who've read the play say that Antonio has more love for a man than is just friendship. Deep love between men was noted in those days. Some see a sexual side to it-homosexuality was illegal.

The only line from the play I caught is where Duke Orsino quotes the coach on greatness during the soccar game. In the play, it is said by Malvolio, quoting Maria). I caught this movie right in my eye when I was passing by a hall of posters in the nearby cinema. The tag line was sort of confusing and immediately after reading it, I thought of the possibility of it being similar to National Lampoon's Dorm Daze. I liked that movie, aside from having a huge collection of such genres, I decided to hit it to the cinemas right after my exams for a tension releaser.

Delightfully, I came out smiling from cheek to cheek and had an equally great amount of laughter at bits and points of the movie. Amanda Bynes definitely kicked it off better than Keira Knightley in Bend it Like Beckham. Being both a male and female actor is definitely not that kind of easy especially having to face the similarities of life, coupled together with the reactions that the actress have to respond to. This movie requires a great deal of confusion to confuse themselves and us viewers at the same time. The only way of pulling it off is through this movie.

The principal is obviously sickly hilarious in a serious manner, the girls are equally sexy and beautiful and so are the actors. I'd recommend this movie to all who needs a weekend relaxation and don't worry, you will get laughs throughout the movie. It is a definite guarantee. Shes the man is great. its funny, original and made me laugh so much i nearly wet my seat. the day i went to go see it at the movies i wasn't in the best of moods (man trouble)but leaving the movie i had a grin plastered on my face. The story is a bit out there with the whole no-one noticing that she looks way too much like a girl but hey who am i to say whats believable, the jokes are great and some of the one liners in this 2006 hit could go down in history. Amanda B. did a great job as the main role and Channing Tatum looks too good to be true as her opposite as the gorgeous Duke. So girls go see this because its a great laugh and there's a hot guy in it and boys u go see it because you might just learn something about girls!

All in all a brilliant,fantastic and fun movie which i will be buying on DVD when it comes out. When I went to see this movie i thought that this would just be another chic flick i would have to endure with my sister. Plus too Amanda Baynes last movie was not so hot, making me doubt the movie for she is the lead actress.However within 5mins i was laughing so hard i had tears in my eyes, the jokes were not "out there" that it took more then a second to understand it but very funny. The script was not too complex that I could not understand the love triangle but was very true to the original play by Shakepeare. I loved every minute of it so much that I kicked a guy two seats away from me in a fit of laughter lol!!! very embarrassing! I'd definitely advise people to see this movie especially girls as the guys in this movie are hot hot hot!!(lol) so much so that I might just get it on DVD. I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn.

And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me.

On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes.

Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in "Twelfth Night" so it's cool. When I saw the first preview for this, I nearly passed out from excitement. I have long been a fan of Twelfth Night- it turned me on to Shakespeare, so to have a modern adaption is a dream come true. My anticipation was not disappointed.

The plot basically follows the original storyline and that means: complicated! I don't want to even try to relate it, the plot summery will probably cover the basics. Just imagine having a girl pretend to be a guy at a boarding school and think of all the possible situations that would create. I will not even pause to question the plausibility of such a plot; reality is NOT the point of the film.

What it IS, though, is absolutely hilarious. Nearly every scene nails the comedic set-up. Kudos to the writers, director and actors on that count.

Amanda Bynes is the star of this film and she carries it wonderfully. She's super-cute, not a vixen and can do faultless comedy. I admire her so much for not going full-on tramp in her films or public life like so many starlets today do. I'm glad there is at least one decent young actress left in Hollywood. OK, I'm off my soap-box...

Channing Tatum, yeah he's hot and built like a flippin gorilla, but he really makes me laugh! My favourite scenes in the whole movie are when he's trying to converse with Olivia first by talking about cheese and then later about his workout regimen.

The rest of the cast did not fail to perform either, with marvelous additions to the characters in the forms of the inane débutante mother and Monique, the classic evil girlfriend.

Overall, lots of fun, loooots of laughs, and a highly attractive cast. Maybe not on par with the original, but it beats out modern versions of other plays, including the much-touted 10 things I Hate About You. If you haven't seen this movie than you need to. It rocks and you have to watch it. It is so funny and will make you laugh your guts out!! so you have to watch it and i saw it about a billion and a half times and still think it is funny. so you have to. yes i have memorized the whole movie and could quote it to you from start to finish. you must see this move. it is also cute because it is half a chick flick. if you don't watch it then you are really missing out.this movie even has cute guys in it and that is always a bonus. so in summary watch the movie now and trust me you will not be making a mistake. did i mention the music is good too. So you should like it if you enjoy music. This is a movie that they rated correctly and it will work for anyone. I thought that this movie was going to be totally lame based on the advertisements that I saw in theaters. When my sister borrowed from a friend I decided to watch it because it was summer and there was nothing else to do. . .needless to say ten minutes in the movie and I loved it. Amanda was a great actor in the movie, her comedic timing was perfect. The guy who played Duke was hot, plain and simple. My favorite scene was definitely when Amanda walks by the gardener and a fellow student who is suspicious of her and she is talking to her mom about dresses--as she is pretending to be a guy! I re-watched this part over and over... to make a long story short, the movie I thought was going to be lame--I now own it. The movie was great and everything but, there were a lot of mistakes in the "soccer" scenes, i wonder if any of the guys who were working on the movie have ever seen a soccer match before..? first of all, i don't understand how she wanted to try for the boys team? in soccer boys and girls cant play in the same team and these are the FIFA rules. And don't get me started on who when they found out that she was actually a girl they let her continue to play...!! second of all, players cant paint their faces with colours and play like that, again FIFA rules not mine.

and don't get me started on the way they scored goals its was ridiculous completely unrealistic. and all the players seemed like they didn't know Jack about soccer.

and when duke was training Viola why did they only concentrate on shooting what happened to passing and dribbling. or was shooting her only problem?! and why the hell were all the posters on the wall in their room were for players from Chelse ?! don't they like any other players from any other teams.? it was like this was the only team they know...! but other than that the movie was good and i enjoyed the rest of it, just the training and the game scenes were unrealistic for me. they really should have consulted some one a bout them...! I just rented this movie from the video store last night. It being new and not released long ago here, the rent was only overnight. Me, my little sis, and my older brother who usually hates watching these kind of movies sat down and watched. Once the movie started and after sitting there watching it for a while we were all laughing historically. Even my brother. This movie is hilarious, I actually laughed. No matter how funny some movies are... even if I think its funny I sometimes can't seem to laugh. But this movie... I laughed. My brother ended up thinking it was the best "that type of movie" he had seen. I ended up watching the movie again about 2 or 3 hours later. This was a fantastically written screenplay when it comes to perceiving things from another perspective. The comedy was timely and not overdone, the acting was generally terrific, and the plot line served a greater purpose of generating misconception when we think about people solely based on their external appearance. The plot twists as the brother/sister character of Amanda Bynes tries to play soccer on the boys team finding instead a new love interest along the way. Tatum Channing is where the real misperception lies and he does a fine job of acting disinterested at first, later coming to realize the most important thing in life is friendship, not attitude. Well,i'm not a movie critic or something like that.But I have my opinion for this movie.I think that the best in this movie was Amanda Bynes,she played her roll for my look very well,i have watched many her movies,this I liked most!When you are watching this movie,you just can relax,come down,and watch it.You don't have to try to look for subtext or something like that.You just watch it. Movie is really great. Maybe I liked it for actress,maybe for all the scenery,but i liked it.The whole atmosphere that was created.In one moment I just felt like I was in that university,in that room.It is not another drama movie that is made to win Oscar,it is just nice movie to watch in your free time. this is a classic American movie in combination with comedy, romance & dream. you may say:' there have been lots of these kind of films already. but just believe me, you'll find this a good one because it's well directed, scripted and played. Amanda Bynes's just crazily amazing! she's humor, cute & charming both inside & outside the screen. she's the MAN indeed!!! the message i get from it is to pursue your own fairy tale. what i mean by'fairy tale' is not the one with prince & princess, but indicates 'faith'. namely, it tells us to hold your faith, dream & things that make you regret for your whole life if you don't do that. one of those movies you can't miss out in your life. I think this movie is amazing but there is one problem. there is one song that i want to find but cannot find it. it starts on about 18 minutes just after the coach has said "what are u the runt of the family", and then looks at the fat kid takes his hat off then he says go, the song that starts there, i would like to know what it is? Does any 1 no email me please or add a comment.It Starts Zaga Zow, Ziga Zow something along those lines. I just think it is an amazing dance track i would love to have that song so that i could use it in my break dancing lessons. It starts when they are jumping and running over the orange fast stepper things which are used in football training to help you run faster She's the Man was the funniest movie I have ever seen. I laughed so hard that I was crying. It was also very romantic. Channing Tatum is absolutely gorgeous and can really act. It sure doesn't hurt that he has quite a few shirtless scenes either. Channing and Amanda have amazing chemistry and were absolutely wonderful together. I love this movie. When you watch make sure to watch the last deleted scene. It was a huge mistake to cut that scene because it is one of the best scenes in the movie. I highly recommend this movie. Amanda has never been funnier. And Channing is going to be a huge star. This is just the first of many for this bright new star. Okay, so I don't understand why people are getting so aggravated over this movie. So I thought it was going to be the usual Amanda Bynes movie, but it wasn't. It was GREAT.

Okay, okay, so the acting wasn't the best, but I thought the performances were still overall great. Also, you could tell that the actors were having fun while doing this movie. In other movies, that have surprisingly won awards, where the actors didn't like working on the film, you could tell. All of the actors had chemistry, and that also showed.

A ton of people are ripping on the soccer skills that the actors have. Yah, so they're not perfect...get over it! They are actors, not soccer players. I have been playing soccer for my whole life, and trust me, it is hard to learn, so stop ripping on the level of skills they have.

I thought this movie was going to be stupid, but it was really funny. The way Amanda Bynes and Channing Tatum can make a situation funny without even saying anything is funny. I found myself laughing a lot in this movie.

Overall..I LOVE IT! I loved this movie so much. I'm a big fan of Amanda Bynes's recently ended show. I admire her(besides her body) for her acting capability. She is a good actress.

The movie was great. Its about a girl named Viola who wants to play soccer, but when her school cuts the girls soccer team she gets upset. Her brother is set to go to a prestigious school and he decides to leave to England. So Viola wants to make an impression by playing on the soccer team at the boarding school. She goes to the school and tries out for the soccer team. She gets in. Meanwhile she meets Duke who is a sensitive guy who plays on the soccer team. He really likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Sebastian-who is really viola. Sebastian is dating Monique and suspects that Sebastian isn't being himself.

This is certainly NOT a chick flick and I enjoyed it a lot. Its so funny and lovable. I don't think I have seen AManda act better. This has got to be one of the best episodes of Doctor Who that I've seen since it came back last year. There is a brilliant mix of amusement, fear and tenderness all mixed up which equals one amazing episode. The ood were brilliantly designed and I'm pretty sure there' going to be a lot of ood jokes in the next few weeks. I myself am guilty of that already.I particularly liked the way that we saw a different perspective of Rose's and the Doctor's relationship and the ending;well, it's the first time I have ever hidden behind a cushion! I cannot WAIT until next weeks episode to find how they get out of this mess. Even an old cynical DOCTOR WHO fan like myself can be left breathless by watching an episode of my favourite show . It happened previously during Eccleston's finale and it happened watching this episode . It doesn't happen often though but The Impossible Planet is an example of both the show and of television at its very , very best . This is stunning television

The Doctor and his companion land in a mysterious place where they see strange writing on the wall and the audience ( Many of who will be moving behind the sofa ) are instantly transfixed . A door opens and horrible monsters start stalking the time travellers . This might have taken up an entire 25 minute episode in the original show but all this takes place in he pre title sequence . You may miss the longer drawn out format of the original show but at least this new series is tightly plotted and if we're treated to a disappointing story then at least it's usually only for one week

There is nothing to disappointment a viewer here . It is DOCTOR WHO at its most traditional best . Writer Matt Jones and director James Strong have gone out of their way to make a story that will be regarded for years to come . They do this by constructing a doom laden narrative . The Doctor and Rose lose the Tardis and they're stuck with the protagonists in the far flung future . It's interesting how many stories never feature this type of plot point where the Doctor and his companions no longer have access to the Tardis which makes for a more intriguing type of story . Without doubt the highlight is the scene where Scooti goes to look for Toby only to find him standing on the surface of the planet where he turns and beckons her outside . Everything from acting , make up and Murray Gold's music makes this a scene that genuinely shocks its audience

I can imagine immediately after this episode the BBC switchboards received a tsunami of complaints for distressed parents saying how traumatised their children were . That it took them several hours to get them from behind the family sofa and that they're now refusing to sleep with the lights out . To do this complaining would be to deny the magic of DOCTOR WHO . Yes it can terrify and yes such images will burn themselves in to the mind of a child , something they will never forget even if hey live to be a hundred . But I will bet my life that these same " traumatised " children would have spent the week begging that no matter what they'll be allowed to watch the next episode If you want to really terrify people, choose the Devil as your subject. After all, a good deal of the population believe that he is real. Therefore you are plugging into a whole meaty swathe of pre-existing religious and mythological imagery. And bound to cause quite a few nightmares in your young audience.

This episode had all the appearance of a Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, having finished watching it I flicked over to another channel which was playing a recent Bond film and quite frankly couldn't split a hair between the differences in SFX. With a minimal cast, restricted by its situation on a space station; complete with overwhelming panoramic views of an imploding universe, it was as claustrophobic and intense as Alien or Event Horison. The black hole outside made it feel as if the black hole's weight of dark matter was pressing the station onto the planet and to Whatever was sealed inside. And as the horror is intensified by the knowledge that the Dr and Rose are stranded, the sinister Ood start channelling a disembodied voice and then the characters start being picked off one by one...

This has all the best qualities of the cream of this new Dr Who endeavour; Girl in the Fireplace and the Empty Child. Emotionally engaging, frightening and humorous all without seeming cheesy. This is far scarier than any amount of flying Daleks. But it has to be asked, is this really suitable viewing for children? This is not a family friendly episode. Pity the poor parent who has to put their kids to bed after this one. I'm not sure I even want to see what happens next! Oooooh man was I pleased I didn't miss this. I wanted to post this review as this episode in particular does what a certain recent movie did not. It pays true homage to the game DOOM. Its plot is different yes, and the characters are obviously set in an entirely different universe (obviously the doctor who universe) however the feel, the pace, the references and the location are perfect. And for all original Doom fans listen out for the door opening and closing sound effect, it was the icing on the cake for me.

Please all doctor who and Doom fans alike, check this one out. its a gem! Rose and the good Doctor find themselves in a space station that is on a planet that's quite impossibly hovering in orbit right below a black hole. The crew of the station is just as perplexed at that as the two new inhabitants are. Suitably spooky in it's atmosphere and gets better as the Doctor and Rose find themselves stranded due to circumstances out of their control and speaking through the submissive alien race of the Ood, something quite dark is coming from below the crust of the planet. Not haven seen the second part of this two-parter I can't vouch that the end is as strong yet. But it does make for one hell of a beginning.

My Grade: A What's the most violent movie of all time? Rambo III? Commando? Robocop? Add these three very violent together, and you still won't equal the carnage in The Stabilizer, the wildest, silliest, craziest action movie I have ever seen. For one hundred minutes things blow up and people die in dozens of strange ways. It will make you laugh and cheer, and when it's all over you'll be more than a little exhausted. This movie is a buried gem, a cult classic sadly lacking a cult.

The Stabilizer is the nickname of our hero Peter Goldson (Peter O'Brian), a large oily man with a curly mullet. He arrives in Indonesia on the trail of the villainous and mean Greg Rainmaker. We know he is evil because he is only referred to by his full name ("I hate SCUM like Greg RAINmaker!") and utilizes a method of killing that is so horrible I can't even utter it here. Wait, yes I can. He steps on people in spiky shoes. Greg Rainmaker: Cleat Killer.

When Greg Rainmaker isn't pouring alcohol on women for their sexual pleasure, he's kidnapping important professors and heading a huge underworld empire. It's up to Goldson (A Jewish action hero? Gevalt!) and his motley crew of sidekicks to stabilize the situation by killing everyone and blowing lots of stuff up. Maybe "stabilize" has a different meaning in Indonesia.

And the violence, oh the violence. This is a film unwilling, nay, uncapable, of letting five minutes of screen time go by without some sort of explosion, knifing, car crash, or squib interrupting the dialogue. The violence is extreme; not graphic and bloody, just really weird. For example, The Stabilizer & company invade one of Rainmaker's warehouses (by driving through a solid concrete wall on a motorcycle, of course). When perched on the balcony, with heavy fire coming from below, The Stabilizer does the one thing he can do. He drives off the balcony into the guy's head, his front tire bouncing off it like a basketball. Astounding.

From the overly-gratuitous love scenes (Both major female characters hop in the sack with the hero of their choice not two minutes after they speak to them alone for the first time) to the poorly dubbed dialogue ("Victor, you talented bastard!") The Stabilizer has it all. This is a film for the ages, right up there with Citizen Kane and Gymkata. It is not widely available in release. If you find it anywhere for any price, buy it and relish the insanity.

I would like to start by saying I can only hope that the makers of this movie and it's sister film The Intruder (directed by the great unheralded stylist auteur that is Jopi Burnama) know in their hearts just how much pleasure they have brought to me and my friends in the sleepy north eastern town of Jarrow.

From the opening pre credit sequence which manages to drag ever so slightly despite containing a man crashing through a window on a motorbike, the pitiless destruction of a silence lab, the introduction of one of the most simultaneously annoying and anaemic bad guys in movie history and costume design that Jean Paul Gautier would find ott and garish. Make no mistake; this is a truly unique experience. Early highlight - an explosion (get used to it, plenty more where that came from!) followed by a close up of our chubby heroine and the most hilarious line reading of the word "dad" in living memory. And then... the theme song...

Yeah, this deserves its own paragraph. Sung by AJ, written by people who really should wish to remain anonymous, it makes the songs written for the Rocky films sound like Schubert. This is crap 80's hero motivation narcissism at an all time high, with choice lyrics such as "its only me and you, its come down to the wire" and much talk of having to "cross the line" (it'll make sense in time - our hero cares little for the boundaries of bona fida police work) abounding. Not to mention the Indonesian Supremes cooing the film's title seductively. At this point anyone wishing to switch off officially has no pulse.

Our hero is Semitic cop Peter Goldson (essayed brilliantly by Intruder star Peter O'Brien), the "stabilizer" of the title. The man's bull in a china shop approach to crime fighting and particularly his less than inconspicuous undercover work truly leaves much to be desired, but he is without question an entertaining guide through the mean streets of downtown Jakarta, with local sleaze ball connection Captain Johnny in tow, as well as Peter's own waste of space partner in fashion crime Sylvia Nash, who does little. So many highlights, so little time - the "slide please" arrogance of Peter's not all too convincingly argued case against chief baddie Greg Rainmaker (Intruder fans will know hirsute slimy bastard Craig Gavin as the monstrous John White - helluva name eh? No! Oh well...), the x marks the spot location map stupidity, our hero taking horrible advantage of heroine Tina Probost during a moment of weakness on her behalf, the latter turning up at a sting operation dressed like a member of a particularly flamboyant dancing troop. And believe me that barely covers it.

There wasn't even time to go into the plot revolving around the hunt for a drug detection system and a kidnapped professor with an alarming but commendable amount of national pride. Or our hero turning up at a funeral dressed as if an extra on Boogie Nights. Or the absolutely hysterical craic between Captain Johnny and Goldson - two guys have never made more heavy weather of buddy buddy shtick than these clowns. The trowel was possibly too subtle me thinks.

Ah it tails off people, and you never thought scenes of wanton destruction and general mayhem could be so unbelievably boring, but the character interaction is stupendous, the dialogue truly priceless and the incompetence on show somehow endearing. Oh and the shoes people - watch out for the shoes! Do you like explosions? How about fighting? Well, this movie has both of those. You know the other thing you can't have a movie without: a kick ass motorcycle, the type that bounces off someone's head and knocks them out at the same time. You bet the Stabilizer has one. There's even a classic cliff scene.

All in all, I'm quite proud that I have even seen this movie...and even prouder to have my review be the first one...YES! Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) begins this story in disguise, helping to smuggle famous physicist "Dr. Franz Tobel" (William Post) out of Switzeralnad and under the watchful eye of the Nazis, who want his bomb sight plans. The Allies obviously want it, too, and Sherlock is there to help. Dr. Tobel has invented an instrument which greatly aids in the accuracy of aerial bombardment.

Holmes and Dr. Tobel arrive safely back at Baker Street but the scientist would rather be alone, for some mysterious reason, although he had promised the English to help them, not the Germans. He stays true to that promise but there are some desperate moments for Holmes and the English along the way.

It's an entertaining film and one in which our famous detective uses not one but three different disguises. He needs all the help he can get when he goes up against his arch-rival, "Professor Moriarity." One complaint: if Moriarity was that evil, he would have dispensed with Holmes without batting an eyelash, instead of giving him openings to escape. It's pretty sad, too, when the usual dim-witted Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) has to rescue his boss from certain death a couple of times!

Yes, there are some credibility issues in this story but if you can put your brain on hold a few times, it's a fun film to watch....and it looks beautiful, thanks to the great restoration job done on this DVD. It makes the old print come alive with some wonderful visuals, particularly the night-time shots.

One other note: whoever did the English subtitles in here misspelled or misinterpreted at least a half dozen words. It's very sloppy work, and not the first time I've encountered this watching the entire series on the restored DVD set. Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) have been hired by the British government to protect a Swiss scientist Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.). He has a bomb that the British want to win the war. Unfortunately the evil Dr. Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) is working with the Nazis and will stop at nothing to get the doctor--and his invention.

Moving Sherlock Holmes to the 1940s sounded like a stupid idea but it does work for one reason--Basil Rathbone. Arguably he is the BEST Sherlock Holmes ever put on the screen. He plays the character so well (and accurately) that it doesn't matter what era he's solving crimes. As for Nigel Bruce as Watson...everybody has problems with it. He plays Watson as a bumbling old fool...that is NOT the Watson of the books. You seriously wonder why Holmes puts up with him. Still, he does grow on you (in a way). Then there's Atwill having a whale of a time playing Moriarty--the discussions and battle of wits between him and Holmes are just great! I've never liked Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade--he's such an idiot. Makes Watson look like a genius. And Post Jr. is pretty good as Tobel (even though his accent amusingly keeps changing!).

This movie is done elaborately and runs only a little over an hour. Still, it does have it's slow spots and I never understood the secret code section.

Still, worth catching if just for Rathbone and Atwill. The evil Professor Moriarty plots to gain control of both SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON which could win the war for the Nazis.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return to the screen as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved detective and sidekick, Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, in this entertaining little mystery. Universal Studios wasted no money on either fancy production values or a sensible script, knowing that its two stars would be all the attraction an audience would need. Indeed Rathbone, as the cerebral ego, and Bruce, as the bumbling id, seem to actually become the characters they are creating, gleefully keeping their faces straight while engaged in the most utter nonsense.

Dennis Hoey makes his first appearance as the dogged Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard; teamed with Bruce, these two good-hearted but pedantic fellows actually get to save the intellectually superior Holmes' life twice. Lionel Atwill, a master of the sinister who deserves more recognition for his talent, does a fine job as Moriarty, making the wicked rascal a foe worthy of Holmes' steel, relishing the scenes in which he gets to inflict torture & pain.

William Post Jr. and Kaaren Verne play the Swiss scientist and his girlfriend who are at the heart of the mystery, but they're not given much to do. Sweet Mary Gordon makes a token appearance as Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson.

Rathbone spices up his already classic interpretation of Holmes by getting to appear in disguise three times during the story, thereby revealing to the viewer that the great sleuth was a bit of a ham actor at heart.

This film--which is based very loosely on elements in Sir Arthur's short stories 'The Dancing Men' and 'The Empty House'--followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON (1943). Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a fair number of Sherlock Holmes accounts but the popularity of the famous detective insured that sequels in both print and on film would extend far beyond the author's works.

In "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," Holmes, Basil Rathbone, patriotically serves British intelligence in order to secure a Swiss scientist's desperately needed bombsight. The film is from 1942 and I wonder if the producers and writers realized how vital bombsight secrets were (the American Norden bombsight was guarded almost as zealously as the new radar sets that would change the course of World War II).

Holmes and his faithful but expectedly bumbling companion, Dr. Watson, Nigel Bruce, battle Dr. Moriarty, Lionel Atwill. As evil as Moriarty has always been it's a bit of a shock to see he's signed up with Hitler. Has the man no vestige of decency? I guess not. But Atwill is deliciously evil.

The story is reasonably fast-paced as Holmes and Watson seek to recover stolen bombsight components before they can be delivered to a U-boat. Rathbone is his usual suave self and several Holmsian disguises are well carried out.

This and other 1940s Holmes stories are now available on DVD and oldies.com has put out a very nice four-disc set in a wooden box: this film is included along with a bonus CD of an interview with the aged Doyle. The set retails for about $26 in major DVD and CD stores but I found this and other sets from oldies.com at a warehouse club for $14.98. The transfers are very good.

Very nice and relaxing late night viewing.

7/10. This jingoist outing concerns the usual battle Holmes vs. Moriaty,but this time in an effort to save the British war against the Nazis.Sherlock Holmes(Rathbone) and Watson(Bruce),the detecting duo living in 223 Baker Street,again are up against their old enemy Dr. Moriarty(Lionel Atwill).The film starts in Switzerland where Holmes saves from the Nazis to an inventor of a bomb-sight,named Dr. Tobel(Post).Back in London,Tobel hand over four parts of the device to diverse scientist.But Doctor Tobel is kidnapped by Moriarty.Sherlock must to solve his disappearance and some vitally important.Holmes only holds a clue left his girlfriend(Kareen Verne),the detective with an extraordinary mechanism get decode it.But dead body scientific are accumulating but have appeared murdered and Moriarty knows the keys ,as well.Holmes disguised as sailor goes out to investigate ,finding the Moriarty's shelter .The picture is based on¨ the dancing men¨by Arthur Conan Doyle.This is a Rathbone-Bruce effort for the WWII along with ¨The voice of terror¨ in which we are asked to believe the magnificent detective could have lived in this century. Both stories are completely patriotic and flag-waging movies.In fact,on the end there's an advertising buying of war bonds with evident propaganda.

The movie is an excellent Holmes thriller with gripping wartime setting and unanswered mysteries and unstopped suspense.In the film appear the habituals from Holmes series.His nemesis Moriarty,,Mistress Hudson,Inspector Lestrade( a funny Dennis Hoey) and of course the bumbling Dr. Watson.Basil Rathbone performance is splendid ,he's the best cinema's Holmes similar to television's Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett.Rathbone as whimsical sleuth is top notch,he's in cracking form,intelligent,broody and impetuous.He's finely matched in battle of wits with Moriarty,his arch-enemy,a first range villain: Lionel Atwill.Nigel Bruce plays Watson with humor,jinx,goofy and mirth.He's the perfect counterpoint of Holmes.Besides appear briefly distinguished secondaries as Paul Fix and Whit Bissell.This classic gets an atmospheric black and white cinematography but available colorized in a horrible version.Adequate music score fitting to suspense by Frank Skinner.The motion picture is professionally R. William O'Neal,the usual saga director and habitual in the monsters movies Universal. Not too bad entry in the series, heavily ladled with war propaganda, but Rathbone & Bruce's sincerity keep me happy.

It's a rather fantastic story from start to finish, just how many McGuffin's are there? Holmes (and Moriarty independently) reeling out the Dancing Men code uncoded so fast was Amazing Watson - so why weren't you amazed! The post explaining the bomb-sight/enlarger tickled me, it was just the kind of cheap trick Universal would play - once again reminding me that they didn't expect people to be critically watching this over 60 years later. This (and I think every other potboiler from Universal at this period) were meant to be viewed the once or twice and forgotten. They perhaps should have realised that basically people don't change, that what was entertaining to ordinary people in 1942 would still entertain a select group now (2005) and tightened up on the script and sets!

Lionel Atwill was going through his Hollywood rape court case at about this time, I wonder if it was that or particularly effective make-up that made him look so haggard as Moriarty?

The important thing about SW though is that this was the first Holmes film Roy William Neill directed, I think he directed all of the rest and produced all but one, thus establishing a marvellous ambient continuity. Dr. Franz Tobel, a Swiss scientist, is smuggled out of his home country by Sherlock Holmes in order that the Nazi agents spying him do not get his invention of a new bomb sight. Arriving in London, he takes residence with Holmes and Watson, but goes out for a visit with his girlfriend, Charlotte Eberli, where he leaves a clue for Holmes as to the locations of his bomb sight, which he has divided into four pieces, but Holmes' eternal nemesis, Professor Moriarity, is also seeking the bomb sight to sell to the Nazis, and abducts Dr. Tobel and the clue left at Charlotte's, a code series of dancing men, which both Holmes and Moriarity are both unable to decipher completely. Holmes eventually discovers the clue to the code and get the location of the fourth piece of the bomb sight, but Moriarity has the other three and a showdown is inevitable. Very good entry in the Holmes series with plenty of mystery and guesswork to go about. Atwill's portrayal of Moriarity is more sadistic than the cunning sort described in the Doyle stories (or George Zucco's performance in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes), but Atwill's skills as an actor makes his Moriarity quite the benevolent fellow. The script and direction both make this entry more of a cat and mouse game between the two characters and that is one of the reasons this entry succeeds so well. Great job on the cinematography as well. Rating, 8. In the Universal series of modern Sherlock Holmes stories with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEOPON is not one of the top films - although it is entertaining. I think the problem with it is that much of the film's "dueling" between Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty (here played by Lionel Atwill) seems to delay the actual point of the Professor's work.

Moriarty appears in three of the Holmes films with Rathbone. In THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he was played by George Zucco, who gave real relish to the love of villainy for its own sake to the role. For my money Zucco's performance as the Professor was the best of the three (there is even a brief moment of comedy in his performance, when he's disguised as the "Sergeant of Police" towards the end - like he's preparing to sing "A Policeman's Lot" from Gilbert & Sullivan). Next comes Mr. Atwill's performance here - more of that later. Finally there is Henry Daniell's intellectual Moriarty in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LADY IN GREEN. It's a typically cool, classy performance by Mr. Daniell, but his confrontations with Holmes seem to be a tedious bore to him. They keep him from completing the main plan. In the stories that the Professor pops up in, he really senses Holmes is a nemesis who will remain a danger as long as he is alive. Yet, because of the intellectual tennis match between him and Rathbone, Rathbone (in his autobiography) actually felt Daniell was the best of the film Moriartys.

If Zucco captured the love of evil in the Professor, and Daniell seemed to demonstrate the tired Oxford Don (in the stories the Professor is a well regarded mathematician, whose volume on the binomial theorem had a "European vogue", and who wrote an intriguing book, THE DYNAMICS OF THE ASTEROID), Atwill demonstrates the Professor as pragmatic businessman. First of all, he's sold his services (apparently) to Nazi Germany. This is never gone into, but one presumes (as this is before the Nazis began to really collapse) he figures they will win the war. Secondly, he is not a fool. When Dr. Tobel (William Post Jr.) has shown he is a state of near physical collapse due to the torturing of Moriarty's gang, the Professor decides to kidnap one of the other scientists who are assisting Tobel, because he's as good a scientist as Tobel and would be able to put together the bomb site. I somehow can't quite see Zucco making such a sensible decision on the spot, and if Daniell had to make it, he would seem annoyed that there is yet another delay to his plans.

By the way, one trick used in all the Holmes series regarding the Professor is how to rid the film of him. If you read the Holmes stories, Moriarty appears as the villain three times: in THE MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' last story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM"), in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' first story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE") and the last of the four novels/novellas (THE VALLEY OF FEAR). It's amazing how much mileage the Professor got out of so few appearances (he is mentioned in two or three other stories as well - in passing). But because of his fate at the Reichenbach Falls in "THE FINAL PROBLEM" and "THE EMPTY HOUSE", we always see him fall to his death. Zucco falls off the White Tower on Tower Hill. Daniell (with more imagination) tries to flee Gregson and the police, but is shot as he jumps, and wounded fails to hold on to the wall of an adjacent building. Atwill (here it is not seen, but heard) seems to fall down a trap door he's planted in an escape tunnel). It is really tedious after awhile to see the Professor always fall in these films. One turns to the Gene Wilder comedy (admittedly a comedy) SHERLOCK HOLMES' SMARTER BROTHER, wherein Leo McKern is a wonderfully wacky and villainous Moriarty (complete, finally, with an Irish accent), who is not killed at the end, but just left mulling - in a rowboat - over how his careful schemes did not work out. I rather liked that better.

The use of the "Dancing Men" code here, like the use of the "Devil's Foot Root" in DRESSED TO KILL, snags a part of a mystery from a short story. "THE ADVENTURE OF THE DANCING MEN" appeared in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and deals with a client of Holmes whose wife has been getting weird, blood-curdling messages in this code. Charles Higham, in his biography THE ADVENTURES OF CONAN DOYLE suggests Sir Arthur may have picked up the code from a magazine game in the 1870s, but we really don't know. The code is basically one of letter substitutions for the figures of the dancing men. The story in the short story is dramatic, but deals with a triangle. The only innovation in the film is that Tobel makes a slight change that confuses both Holmes and Moriarty.

The film will entertain, but I still think THE HOUSE OF FEAR, THE SCARLET CLAW, and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH are better films. For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.

I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose. Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) engage in a battle of wits for control of a Switz inventor's newest bomb-sight creation. Holmes wants to safeguard it for the British while Moriarty isn't above selling out to the Nazis.

While no doubt many fans will be disappointed to see Holmes updated to the 1940s war-time setting, this particular film proves light-hearted fun which doesn't wallow in wartime propaganda as it might well have done. Dennis Hoey's Inspector Lestrade and Nigel Bruce's Dr. Watson do tend to steal the show as their characters bumbling methods consistently provide delightful comic relief. The sparring between Holmes and Moriraty is colorful and well thought out to boot. Atwill does well enough as Moriarty even if he's not as memorable as some others who played the role.

While this provides nothing especially new or thrilling for fans of the series, it is a wonderful escape from reality, somewhat appropriate for 1942 in my opinion, that mirrors many movie serial adventures of the 1930s and 1940s but boasts a more compact, less repetitive plot. And all this is done while still remaining true to the basic spirit of Sherlock Holmes. Since others have complained about putting Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary setting, I won't do that. Basil Rathbone could have fit in in any era with that voice, that savoir faire. This is a nicely put together mystery based loosely on "The Dancing Men," one of the best of Conan-Doyle's stories. Instead of the original plot, it makes the men part of a Nazi plot. Holmes becomes a spokesman for the British war effort. His adversary is Moriarity, who seems to die frequently enough to rival the central figure in the Friday 13th films. He is certainly creative, but the Rathbone Holmes is unflappable. Watson is just along for the ride in this one. He isn't given much stupidity to spout in this film and that's a real plus. The plot is complex enough to keep ones interest. There is a concluding speech that is almost a parody of itself. But then I can't be critical of a time and nation that was under great duress. If they needed to call in Holmes, so be it. This is a great late night movie! What I mean by that is that I truly have enjoyed playing my $3.00 VHS copy (now I have a $6.99 DVD Copy!) many nights just before bedtime or if I have insomnia. There's just something about this movie that makes it fun to watch in repeated viewings. It could be the fun that Basil Rathbone has in "The Secret Weapon" wearing several disguises which fool the bad guys and Holmes's assistant Nigel Bruce (Watson) but not the housekeeper (Mary Gordon). It could be the espionage, code cracking and WW II theme. It could even be the light touch which the director uses to handle the threatening situations Holmes finds himself in while keeping the story moving. Whatever it is, "Secret Weapon" is simply a pleasant and enjoyable detective story which takes us back to a time when the Nazis were seeking world domination and does it with the bonus of the camaraderie between Watson and Holmes. Whether you agree with the patriotic speeches and noble "save the world" themes of this movie or not (I think they are right on!), I find that they only add to the flavor and fun of this fine old adventure film that holds up to repeated viewings. I rate it a pleasant 83/100 points. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this superior tale of Holmes battling the 3rd Reich and the mastermind genius of Professor Moriarty. The film opens up in Switzerland as Holmes is in disguise as an "old bookseller." He must bring Dr. Tobel and the Tobel Bomb Site to England before the Germans can kidnap Tobel. Holmes succeeds and the Germans recuit the evil Professor. Moriarty manages to outwit Scotland yard and LeStrad "Dennis Hoey" by kidnapping Tobel. The only clue left by Tobel is a list of "dancing men." Who will break the hidden code of dancing men, Holmes or Moriarty first? Can Holmes prevent the bomb site from falling into the German hands thereby saving England from the precision bombing techniques developed by Tobel's bomb site? Watch and enjoy. I liked this probably slightly more than Terror by Night though not enough to give it the extra *. The beginning is just brilliant, as we peek in on Nazi agents scheming to get their hands on a new bomb sight and its inventor in a small Swiss village, only to be foiled by a disguised Holmes who spirits the scientist back to London. Once there, he does everything he can to keep the scientist from falling into the hands of the man behind it all -- not Hitler, but worse: Holmes' arch-enemy Moriarty. Of course the scientist disappears, leaving a tantalizing coded note, and Holmes goes in pursuit, once again in disguise. A climax in Moriarty's dockside lair is suitably exciting, and we can all guess that all ends well, can't we? Slightly over-the-top patriotic message as the credits roll. Now that I think of it, the fine sense of place despite the obvious sets, Rathbone's use of disguise and the way in which so much plot is crammed into just over an hour -- what the heck it gets that extra * and is my favorite of the 5 Rathbone/Bruce films I've seen to date.

Watched on DVD, part of the "50 Mystery Classics" set from Mill Creek Entertainment. Many of the transfers on these el cheapo box sets are of very poor quality, but Holmes fans take note that the Rathbone/Bruce films (there are 4 on this set) are all quite watchable and reasonably sharp. Beginning in 1942, the Sherlock Holmes character as portrayed by Basil Rathbone was set in the then 'modern' Britain. Many Holmes purists have praised the first two entries in the series (produced by FOX), but dismissed the 12 features that followed. I for one was never an avid reader, and thus I appreciate these films as they are without any initial bias. In fact, the setting of World War II for this entry places it as a period piece with the British propaganda evident throughout the film. The execution of the modern Holmes is handled with much more care than the previous entry (Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror)and fares much better for two reasons. First, Roy William Neil is on hand to direct (and would be for the rest of the series), and second although Holmes is pitted against the Nazis, the inclusion of Professor Moriarty makes this feel more like a battle of the intellect between two rivals. Lionel Atwill's performance has been criticized by many as being far inferior to that of George Zucco and Henry Daniel, but I feel as if its more the script than the character interpretation. Especially after seeing that Atwill was very capable of being much more diverse and enthusiastic in other horror roles. Basil Rathbone on the other hand is exceptional in this entry. He seems to be enjoying himself in the role of Holmes, but for that I blame the writing. For example: The introduction of Holmes in the Voice of Terror tries to hard to immediately establish how superbly intelligent Holmes is as soon as he is on screen, whereas this film shows Holmes' brilliant deductions, but also his shortcomings. Even in the climax Holmes initially has the upper hand, only to then have his blood slowly drained from his body. Now there are a few flaws in this film I thought I might point out. First the opening; Aren't the Germans fooled a little too easily? Maybe its just me, but the book seller just waltzes into the bar, says he's gonna get Tobel to not only answer his door after weeks of hiding, but allow him to come in and then go for a walk with him? What!? Second, Tobel certainly seems to put everyone around him in danger. Leaving the secret bomb parts with genius scientists. Leaving the note with his fiancé. Like what was he thinking? He was endangering them all. I thought he was this superb scientist trying to save England? And isn't the whole concept of 'use it on them before they use it on us' a little harsh. Obvious propaganda. Third, just how in God's name was Holmes supposed to fit in the bottom of that chest? Its really small! In fact the entire execution of Holmes finding Moriarty in the ex-con disguise really doesn't explain itself that well. I have seen this film well over fifty times and there are still parts like this that I find are executed in a very confusing fashion. Fourth, okay so Holmes finds out the first three scientists are dead then immediately assumes that Moriarty couldn't know the name of the fourth man because he wasn't dead yet. Well if Holmes didn't know the name then how could he assume that? The guy could very well have been face down in a lake. Lucky guess. Fifth, again with the confusion. When Holmes is supposedly dying on Moriarty's operating table, how can he recover so quickly? He sure was acting like he lost a few pints of blood, but not enough to stop him from saving the day. Now despite these flaws this is a highly entertaining film. The disguises are well done, the mystery of the dancing men is well done (especially the back-to-back scenes of Holmes and Moriarty each figuring out they were over analyzing them) and Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade is always a plus. And as a final note, the interrogation scene still kinda bothers me, I always thought that was one of the most well done sequences in the whole film. Overall, this film holds a special place with me as it was the one that solidified my Rathbone as Holmes obsession. A classic. 7/10. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson respectively, the second of the Universal series, where it's again established by means of a written prologue that the famed detective is legendary and spans time. This helps to comfortably set things up here in the "present" era of the early 1940's.

In this offering, Holmes goes through a few different disguises (with Rathbone's very prominent features, is it likely that people really wouldn't recognize his true identity?) as he protects a physicist from the hands of the Nazis as well as from Holmes' greatest nemesis Professor Moriarty (now played by Lionel Atwill). The scientist has developed a bomb sight which will greatly aid in aerial bombardment, and he's promised his plans to the British. But Moriarty wants to get hold of it so he can sell them to the Nazis.

A good entry boosted a bit by the participation of the properly villainous Atwill now cast as Moriarty (though George Zucco was no slouch himself in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). It's always intriguing watching Holmes and his greatest enemy engaging in witty banter together ("the needle to the last, eh, Holmes?"). It's one of the paradoxes of Basil Rathbone's wartime anti-Nazi Sherlock Holmes films (Voice of Terror, SH in Washington, and this one) that while the plots and settings are mostly terrible, he is so good in them. Despite a bizarre wind-swept hairstyle meant to make him look younger, he blazes through every scene with so much bite and attack that you hardly register how flimsy the plots are. Here he also has great acting rapport with Lionel Atwill, who makes a wonderfully repulsive Professor Moriarty -- a heavy lidded cockroach with nice hints of sadism and depravity (it may not have been acting, kids). At the climax, changed into a lab coat in order to drain Rathbone's blood "drop by drop," he's as over-the-top sinister as Seinfeld's arch-nemesis Newman. The movie itself is ancient kiddie matinée fare, but it benefits from director Roy William Neill's attention to staging and atmosphere. It also looks fairly sharp in the DVD's UCLA restoration -- don't even think of buying any other edition, all of them faded, choppy public-domain prints. A brilliant Sherlock Holmes adventure starring the brilliant Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Despite many other actors brilliantly playing Holmes and Watson and making a great job of it- Rathbone and Bruce will always be the best two.

Holmes takes a Professor Tobell from Switzerland to London. Tobell is wanted by the Nazi's. He has a bomb sight that could win the Second World War. His bomb-site has been split into four parts, each hidden in books. Tobell agrees to give his bomb-site to the British government. On the night of his arrival, Tobell goes to the house of his girlfriend. He has drawn some figures of men, if Tobell was to disappear, the lady was to give the drawings to Holmes. On his journey home he is attacked, but a Policeman stops this and the attacker runs away. Tobell is happy for the British government to use his bomb-site but refuses to give it to them, Tobell wants to look after it. The bomb-site is split into four parts, each part completely useless without the other. He gives one part each of this bomb-site to one of his scientist friends. Then Holmes's greatest fear happens, Tobell goes missing. Holmes visits the young lady Tobell was with the night he was attacked. She tells him about the drawings. The drawings have been stolen. She says only one man came in during the time Tobell left, to fix the light-bulb. The man she describes is Professor Moriarty. He is working for the Nazi's. Seen as he has the drawings, Holmes is done for. But he finds the writing pad he used and using Science, he manages to see what Tobell drew by looking at the next page on the pad. He sees it's code. He sees it's the name of four scientists. The first three he works out the code for, but he can't work out the fourth. The three scientists he has worked out have been murdered and the bomb-site has been taken. Holmes can't work out the fourth scientist, but neither can Moriarty. Disguised as a sailor, Holmes manages to get in Moriarty's office. Moriarty sees straight away it's Holmes, puts him in a box and has him thrown in the sea. But Watson and Lestrade insist they search the box and find Holmes in it. It's now obvious Moriarty is at large. Holmes manages to work out the fourth code, a Frederick Hoffner. Holmes gets round to his house straight away and get Hoffner and the decisive fourth part to safety. Holmes now needs to get Moriarty charged for working with the Nazi's. He pretends to be Hoffner. Moriarty works out the fourth code and gets two men to go round and get Hoffner. They take him back and he comes face to face with Moriarty. Meanwhile Tobell is not in a good way, he has been tortured and tortured to get the name of the fourth scientist. Moriarty has had it with Holmes now, he has got him and his death must be a long one for Holmes. The idea is to put him in his hospital, put a needle in his vein and watch him die of blood loss, drop by drop. Watson runs in and saves the day though. Moriarty gets away, but Holmes was only careless enough to leave Moriarty's trap door open. Moriarty plunges sixty feet.

So, Moriarty dead. No. He makes his final outing in the film 'The Woman in Green' but in 'Green' he is definitely dead, a suicide, he jumps off his roof. It was Moriarty's second of three appearances in the Rathbone series, a different actor playing him on each occasion. His first appearance in 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' was played by George Zucco, his second in this film he was played by Lionell Atwill and Henry Daniels plays him in his final outing in 'The Woman in Green' The first three Holmes films made by Universal were set in the war as Holmes triumphs over the Nazi's. 'The Voice of Terror' was the first, then this film and then 'Sherlock Holmes In Washington' Then it was back to Victorianish times, with definite relations to Edwardian and Georgian (George the fifth and sixth) times. This film had a close link to the Sherlock Holmes short story 'The Dancing Men' which can be found in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' A great film, though obvious propaganda, it was a brilliant Holmes outing. I watched two very different Holmes adventures this morning, but you would be amazed at the similarities.

The was presumably the first collaboration between Basil Rathbone (If I Were King, Romeo and Juliet) and Nigel Bruce, and director Roy William Neill. It was not their first Sherlock Holmes adventure, as they did one a couple of years before this.

The made an excellent team, but I prefer the Hammer version, which I will talk about later.

Holmes relies on a lot of disguises to do his work, and I am constantly amused by the mannerisms displayed when they figure something out. They always seem to dash on when they find a new clue.

The story itself about keeping a bomb site from the Germans in WWII was interesting and kept you focused on the mystery. Sherlock Holmes films from the classic Universal era tend to range in quality. This range goes from very good to above average, with none of their output being abysmal, or astoundingly brilliant. Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon fits snugly into the middle ground quality-wise, and, as ever, it's an enjoyable outing that fans of the series, like myself, will enjoy very much. This film sees Holmes in the middle of a World War 2 plot by the evil Nazi's to steal a Swiss scientist's invention, which could turn out to be a key element on the battlefield. The World War 2 Sherlock Holmes films don't tend to be as good as the ones such as The Scarlet Claw where Holmes is conducting private investigations, as they're usually dogged by too much propaganda or a plot that is more to do with the war than the mystery. This one, however, pretty much stays away from both and by putting the focus on Holmes and his investigation, the film works much better. Perhaps Universal saw what brought down the earlier Voice of Terror and changed the focus because of that.

Basil Rathbone once again puts in an excellent maverick performance as the ace detective and while Nigel Bruce doesn't feature as much as normal, it's nice to see him when he does. The two don't spent much time together, which is disappointing because their chemistry is always one of the best things about Holmes films; but this does allow more time for Holmes to showboat in various disguises, which is always lots of fun. Dennis Hoey's Lestrade is definitely my favourite of the secondary characters, and while he's not as funny as usual; his facial expressions are great, and his presence helps to emphasise how great Holmes is. His scene with Watson in a car following paint drops on the road is my favourite moment of the film. It's good to see Holmes' nemesis, Professor Moriarty return, even if it does seem like he's just been thrown in for the hell of it. Lionel Atwill's performance isn't as good as George Zucco's in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, as he never really convinces that he is indeed a brilliant mind; but seeing him lock horns with the protagonist is fun and it's nice to see him in the film to offset the World War 2 themes, which are never as interesting as Holmes himself. The film starts off as more of a thriller than a mystery flick; but once it gets going, it's hard to put down and this is a more than solid entry in Universal's oeuvre. this movie takes the voice of terror and makes it better. holmes is protecting an inventor in switzerland and is on the trail of professor moriarity, who has become a nazi. this is a better version of holmes in a WWII world. rathbone does a great job with holmes as a spy and a detective. see this if you liked the voice of terror. One hilarious thing I'll say off the top, is I'm not the biggest Seisun Suzuki fan. I've actually seen a fair number of his works (thanks to a retrospective the film festival had) and I found his films just a wee too Yakuza-driven for my tastes. So, I went into Princess Raccoon wary of what I was going to see. Boy! Was I knocked out! 'Raccoon' is Suzuki's attempt at a musical, using the elements of Japanese opera mixed in with many modern elements (both Audial and Visual), Raccoon is a treat from start to finish. The lead actor, Joe Ogdari, proves that he's one of the hottest actors in Japan these days in this role. I have to admire that the younger Japanese actors still take roles that take place in Feudal-times Japan, dressing up in Samurai gear to full effect. The story itself does get a bit confusing, if you don't follow it really closely, but even if you don't, prepare yourself for the treasures that Princess Raccoon has. I use "Princess Raccoon" (to give the film its not-quite accurate English title) as a litmus test for my friends' sense of humour. It either leaves them cold and baffled - as it clearly did several other commentators on this site - or results in doubled-up laughter, unassailably huge grins and occasional gasps of admiration.

The laughter comes from the film's consummate mixture of parodies in contemporary style. Targets include a bouquet of Japanese and Western classical stage drama forms, from Kabuki to Late Shakespearian and Spanish renaissance Christian fantasy; the naff vacuity of the modern American and European musical, as witness a host of random tap- and rap- dance songs and some very funny banal lyrics, all choreographed with loving "amateur" cliché; Japanese anime and samurai live-action clichés; portentous Buddhist ritual; and the overweening sweetness of Viennese operetta. I've not laughed out loud so much at this type of film since Ken Russell's outrageous musical deconstruction in "The Boyfriend".

The grins come from the clever textual subversion of the Japanese legend, told in a traditional 5-act structure reminiscent of the plays of the 17th century master Chikamatsu. As in his work the narrative is advanced in a mixture of song, recitative, high-flown poetry and low comedy relief - here the pot-broiling of the incompetent ninja, Ostrich, by peasants under the illusion that he is a tanuki-raccoon in human guise. All of this somehow does hang together, and even more remarkably does manage to engage the watcher's emotions through the welter of cultural references.

In truth "Princess Raccoon" wears its pan-cultural garb with alluring lightness, and that's where the gasps of astonishment come in. Visually - again, as with Russell's masterpiece - the film is a treat, a riot of colour with its digitised backdrops of classical Japanese images from screens and prints, over-the-top costumes and stage sets, mixed with some breathtaking live action sequences in summer fields and seashores. You'll love it or loathe it, but there's no point castigating chalk for being cheese; and "Princess Raccoon" stands, first and foremost, as a wickedly funny as well as affectionate put-down of our contemporary cultural vacuity, in both East and West. Bravo! Maverick director Seijun Suzuki finally was able to film his dream project, "Princess Raccoon" and in a way it's lucky he didn't try this in the 1960's. Special effects and computer graphics certain made this sort of production easier to achieve than the old film matte technology would have.

Some familiarity with Japanese history and theatrical traditions will help with the enjoyment of this film. Much as familiarity with Shakespeare's "The Tempest" would help with Peter Greenaway's dense "Prospero's Books". These two films actually have a bit in common although, "Princess Raccoon" is much more colorful and easier to watch for someone without the background to fully appreciate it.

While the art design, acting and direction are fine for most of the film, it seems to this viewer that the energy runs out in the last third of the film. Most of the interesting sets have been already been introduced and the camera seems to step back for more of a filmed stage play experience.

This is certainly a unique film experience and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in alternate forms of film performance. It's not really meant for children although nothing happens that would upset them. If the last third was better I would have given it nine stars. It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the "Fifth Missile" to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled "The Naked Time", not the "Naked Now". The "Naked Now" refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the "Naked Time" original series one.

Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with "Crimson Tide", "The Day After", "By Dawn's Early Light", "The Hunt For Red October", "Ice Station Zebra", and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen. Yes, it is a bit cheesy. But it's suspenseful and entertaining, and one of my favorites; there are some excellent actors in the film, and they do a commendable job given the limitations of plot and characters. It's interesting to see David Soul in a 'bad guy' role; I thought he was quite believable--and rather chilling--as the ever-more-paranoid CO. Robert Conrad is a long-time favorite--I think he brings his character to life very well; and Sam Waterston has been star quality in everything of his I've watched--movies or TV.

I watch this movie every so often but our tape (a VHS TV copy I got) is such poor quality it's difficult to fully enjoy it. This is a movie I think they should put out on DVD; maybe it wouldn't be universally sought after, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me out there who like this sort of film so there WOULD be a market for a DVD version. I'll keep hoping! Having seen this without knowing all the hoopla surrounding the lead character, indeed without even knowing that it was based on real-life events, I must say I am impressed. "Murder in Greenwich" is an above average production for a made-for-TV movie - the acting is uniformly great, Christopher Meloni in particular putting in a stand-out performance and the teen actors excel in what are difficult roles. The idea of the dead girl narrating the movie is a stroke of genius which elevates the movie from merely good to excellent. The script is exemplary for what is essentially movie-of-the-week fodder and the cinematography is beautiful. I'd heard of the case, but hadn't really paid attention during the whole hoopla of Fuhrman writing the book, Skakel being arrested, etc. However, this movie did an excellent job of detailing Martha, the Skakel brothers, the murder, Mark Fuhrman's involvement and the results of his investigation. I especially liked the flashback scenes with Martha talking about her last summer. The actress who played her literally glowed with life and made it even more poignant that the real Martha was probably like that. It made Martha seem like a real person rather than a victim. I'd definitely recommend watching this. In 1974, the teenager Martha Moxley (Maggie Grace) moves to the high-class area of Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut. On the Mischief Night, eve of Halloween, she was murdered in the backyard of her house and her murder remained unsolved. Twenty-two years later, the writer Mark Fuhrman (Christopher Meloni), who is a former LA detective that has fallen in disgrace for perjury in O.J. Simpson trial and moved to Idaho, decides to investigate the case with his partner Stephen Weeks (Andrew Mitchell) with the purpose of writing a book. The locals squirm and do not welcome them, but with the support of the retired detective Steve Carroll (Robert Forster) that was in charge of the investigation in the 70's, they discover the criminal and a net of power and money to cover the murder.

"Murder in Greenwich" is a good TV movie, with the true story of a murder of a fifteen years old girl that was committed by a wealthy teenager whose mother was a Kennedy. The powerful and rich family used their influence to cover the murder for more than twenty years. However, a snoopy detective and convicted perjurer in disgrace was able to disclose how the hideous crime was committed. The screenplay shows the investigation of Mark and the last days of Martha in parallel, but there is a lack of the emotion in the dramatization. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): Not Available I thought this movie was excellent. Jon Foster is one of my top favorite actors, he was perfect as Micheal Skakel. I found everything about it to be great, acting, costumes, production, directing, photography, script and music, etc.

Spoilers Coming Up! You Have Been Warned!

Martha Moxley, who they had tell the story in the movie was bludgeoned to death by her violent troubled neighbor Micheal Skakel. Micheal did this out of jealousy of his brother Tommy when Martha rejected him and took Tommy instead. Thankfully though, they caught him years later and he was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Although, I think he should have been sentenced to "natural life" without the possibility of parole.

Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two thumbs way up. This great TV movie told of the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut by a nephew of Ethel Kennedy. The use of the "ghost" of Martha to provide some of the details was very effective and added a lot of heart to the story. Christopher Meloni seemed to capture the personality of Mark Fuhrman very well. Furhman, who got so much underserved bad publicity in the O.J. Simpson trial has certainly vindicated himself by his contribution of bringing the killer to justice after about 27 years. too bad they showed palm trees that could not be more inaccurate for Connecticut in October ... this was filmed in New Zealand ...This Martha Moxley case had been 'cold' for 20-25 years ... her family worked hard to keep it alive and when Mark Fuhrman decided he did not want to be remembered only for his involvement in the Nicole Simpson case .... which could have been deleterious to his reputation (if it already hadn't)... Anyway, he followed along as the police tried to get enough information to write a book. ... with the use of flashbacks we can see the relationships Martha formed .... Unattended boys coming of age without a mother around to help and a dad who was always looped ...

Plus the fact that they portray the real Martha as if she were a movie star... she was a cute sweet girl next door type. Other than that, the other characters were really great, especially Jon Foster and Toby Moore, who played as Michael Skakel and Tommy Skakel respectively. They were good as well, the costumers had to keep it all in the 70s look and back up to the 90s ....

It kept my interest even when I caught on about the Skakel guy .... I was quite impressed with the narration by Martha and how it pulled on the emotional heartstrings of the audience as well as how it must have impacted the family. The forward-backward motion of the storyline was well-done, and normally I don't enjoy movies with the flash-back/flash-forward effects. I felt during the whole evolution of the movie that "surely Tommy did it". It leaves you with a sense of how these people lived their lives almost totally devoid of each other and the consequences of not having any desire to answer the question, "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" And furthermore, "What the heck are they doing?"!! Or "Do I care?"!! Rich, spoiled brats literally getting away with murder. Or so they thought....... If you like detective and police shows and you like suspenseful movies, then you will love this movie!! This movie is great! Christopher Meloni has amazing acting skills. You may think you know who the killer is in the beginning, but you don't. This movie is about the true story of the murder of Martha Moxley. Watch the movie!! this is a TV movie based on the murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich in the mid 1970's.based how much on truth it's hard to tell.this much is certain.it is based on the book written by Mark Fuhrman.anyway,the movie depicts the crime in flashbacks and its aftermath,including the arrest of a suspect,some 25 years after,who was never considered a suspect at the time.in the movie,Fuhram of course is largely responsible for the arrest and closure of the case for Martha's surviving family,in particular her mother.the narrative of the film is by the ghost of Martha Moxley,talking in the first person.this is a very effective device in this movie.to me,it adds more impact to the movie,and puts a human face on the murder victim(if only an actress playing the part)Maggie grace plays Martha,and i was really impressed with her.there is no way for certain to know Mark Fuhrman's motive in investigating the crime.it could have been out of a sense of justice and maybe he really cared.or maybe he just saw dollar signs from a future bestselling book.either way,it makes for an interesting movie.it's well acted and fairly fast paced.i don't think there was a lot of extra,unnecessary stuff in the movie,just what was needed to tell the story.one could argue that they left out things that would have shed a bit more light on the proceedings,and one would be right.also,one may argue that the ending was abrupt and again one would be right.but,as i said,for me,i think they told the story with at least most of the essentials.anything else would have likely required a miniseries.as an aside,there is a miniseries entitled "A Season in Purgatory" which came out 6 years ealier(1996)which this movie has some parallels to,even if only faint.however,if you like this movie,"Then you may be interested in "A Season in Purgatory". it is my belief that "a Season in Purgatory" is in fact a fictionalized account of the same crime.anyway,for me,Murder in Greenwich" is an 8/10 I recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a "look", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this. This film is on my top 20 comedies list. This is a truly unique film. To the reviewer who said "I must be really missing something."--you are correct. You are missing something. If you don't have the kind of sense of humor this film requires, that's one thing. But don't give it a bad review because you think it's "looney" but isn't intended to be. Loony is an apt description of both what it intends to be and what it succeeds in being. I laughed much more often and much more intensely at this film than I do at most other funny films.

Michael Almereyda brought out the best in his cast in this, his first big film, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit award for Best First Feature. Crispin Glover, as usual, is absolutely brilliant in some perfectly inexplicable way, and some of his very funniest lines ever were said in this film. Glover is clearly the best comic actor working right now. Harry Dean Stanton puts in an excellent comic performance. William Burroughs is incredible in a small role. Dylan McDermott was ideally cast, and Lois Chiles is completely excellent.

All of the above are perfectly funny in their own perfect way, but this is one of Crispin's finest performances--up there with his performances in River's Edge and Willard. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, but have somehow overlooked this film, you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and see this immediately.

But just remember to relax first, and maybe have a beer or something. This is a great film, but it is very unusual, and I recommend being in or inducing an appropriately silly state of mind before viewing. This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film. Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!! It's really rather Simple. The Name of the Movie Is Death Bed, The Bed that Eats. If you are anything like me, You already know if you are going to like this movie. I stumbled across this gem at Best Buy the other day and picked it up for Ten Bucks. I got ten bucks worth of enjoyment out of the title, and the box alone.

I'm a huge fan of B movies. This is in my opinion one of the greatest B movies i've ever seen. Now, it's not for every one.

Granted, it's not even for most people. As a matter of fact, i suspect their are only going to be a handful of us who truly enjoy this movie.

For those of you who like B movies though, this film is a Diamond in the rough. It has a great premise, A bed... That eat's people. It doesn't walk, it doesn't move, it doesn't have a siren call to attract people. It pretty much relies on people wandering by and sitting on it.

I loved every inch of this movie and have already seen it three times in the scant weeks i've owned it.

Like I said, After reading the title of the film, You already know if you'll like it. If you laughed or smiled, Then give it a go. it's worth it. I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.

So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.

This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).

Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment OK, it's easy not to confuse this with the lame Stuart Gordon movie called "Death Bed" that came out a few years back, because this one is "The Bed That Eats". And how do I even begin to describe this? Well, for starters, obviously there is a bed that eats. This is as a result of demon teardrops, which of course affect most things, I guess, in a negative way. The bed is in some old servant's quarters or something, and has been responsible for the disappearances of quite a few people in its time. We have a narrator, who is a ghost that sits in the wall behind a painting, and collects all the non-edible goodies (jewelry, etc) that the bed passes on. He died of consumption, one of the few people to lay in the bed that didn't get eaten, probably because he was sick, he theorizes, as we see him hacking blood into hankies.....bleah. The thing about this movie is that is has a very odd sense of humor to it but it's all played pretty deadpan. The movie is divided into several "acts", I guess, "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, & Just Desserts". For fans of the unfathomably weird and bizarre, well, this may just be right up your alley. All I can say is you have to see this one to believe it, it pretty well defies description. 8 out of 10 stars. Hmmmm. I'm kinda at a loss here. I mean, I know I liked Death Bed, I know I'll be spreading the gospel of Death Bed to all my friends and acquaintances, and if you're reading this, I urge you to see Death Bed, but I can't really say why. Perhaps that's the secret of its charm.

Plot? Well, sort of. There's this bed that eats people (and fried chicken, apples, flowers, suitcases, and any other darn thing that gets near it) by sucking them inside its digestive-fluid filled mattress. Amongst its near-limitless powers, Bed has the ability to keep the spirit of Aubrey Beardsley trapped behind a picture to observe and narrate the events of the film. Various people then wind up at Bed's abandoned mansion (Bed's habit of eating anything that moves gave the place an unsavory reputation), and lay down to have sex, or take a nap, or because they don't feel well, and get eaten, sometimes having trippy dreams first. And in the end we have the explosive final confrontation between Beardsley, Bed's mom (you had to be there), and Bed.

Seems rather straightforward, when I put it like that, doesn't it - well, except for the Aubrey Beardsley part. But something feels constantly off-kilter, and the story seems to glide sleepily from one scene to the next, even when indulging in cheap laughs or strange gore effects. Imagine Bunel crossed with Bergman, then left to soak in a big vat of Herschell Gordon Lewis. The tone of the story shifts from horror, to fairy tale, to comedy, to existential meditation, without breaking stride - an incredible achievement for a no-budget student film shot in the Detroit area.

All in all, an astounding little film that, quite probably, no review can ever completely do justice. See it for yourself. A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped "inside" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.

A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind. George Barry is a genius. "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book "Nightmare USA" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" and "Beyond Dream's Door" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" has on the viewer with an advanced palate. "Death Bed:The Bed That Eats" is a supremely bizarre horror film that truly has to be seen to be believed.There is an ancient four-poster bed that just loves to eat humans and it does so anytime it can lure anyone to lie upon it.There is also a long-dead artist,imprisoned behind one of his paintings,who provides a voice-over narration.George Barry's the first and only one film offers some truly surreal moments such as the bed absorbing its victims in a mysterious sea of yellow foam and liquid.The atmosphere is dreamy and there is only a little bit of gore,unfortunately the premise is rather silly and the acting is amateurish.Still as fan of unusual cinema I enjoyed this low-budget oddity.Give it a chance.8 out of 10. This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal à la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.

The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.

There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless.

The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.

Find this film and bathe in it. I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of "so stupid it's funny" films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself "what the hell is this bed/film going to do next!" I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic. I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.

Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.

The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask. Death bed: The bed that eats.

Judging from the title, you can guess what this movie is about. And yet there is a lot more (background) story to this film then one might suspect.

Okay, so the main plot is about a bed eating people and food, but there are also a few subplots. I won't spoil them for you, but they're a nice touch.

Sadly, the acting in this movie is very mediocre. The fact that most dialog is not even spoken by the actors doesn't really help to improve the quality of the movie as a whole.

Because there is a lot of voice-over work. The thoughts of characters are also revealed to the watchers. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The effects are fine. Sure, it could be a lot better if you compare it with today's movies. But you really shouldn't; just judge the movie as it is and don't take it too seriously. You have to admit that a killer BED is quite creative. If you are easily spooked, don't watch this movie. You might never want to sleep again...

Death Bed: The bed that eats is a strange horror gem with a low budget, but I'd still recommend it to fans of horror movies.

In conclusion, I give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars for it's creative story and unexpected twists here and there. As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats".

The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.

"Death Bed" is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.

The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric "midnight movie" quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist / narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!

This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.

If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, "Death Bed" may be just what you've got in mind.

7/10 This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later. A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.

Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following

-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?

-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?

-What the hell am I watching?

"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.

In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much. I can honestly say that "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" was a much better movie than I expected. Allow me to clarify the plot in case the title of the film is a little too vague - there is a bed that eats. An evil bed. It eats people. Several unsuspecting women on an "outing" of some kind, stumble across the sinister "sack" and ultimately fall prey to it's hunger. The bed's devouring process consists of a yellow foam soaking people into it's inner... stomach acid; all complete with chewing sounds. This is a very strange cult flick and the only film from George Barry who had forgotten he made it until word-of-mouth of it's newfound cult status got back to him and he decided to release it on DVD. Not a bad movie at all, if you can look past the lousy acting and enjoy the hokey effects - the most laughable being the guy whose hands are eaten off and he is left with only plastic looking skeletal fingers... Pretty dreamlike tone to it, too, coming across as very surreal and aberrant - mainly the whole thing involving the artist behind the painting and the demonic back story of the bed. If you like bizarre no-budget, oddball flicks than definitely seek out "Death Bed". Watching "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is like waking up in the hospital, two days into a suicide

watch, disorienting but oddly stimulating. There are few cinematic equivalents to this disturbing yet often humorous lesson in mythology, morality and surrealist ideology.

Cocteau's "Blood of a Poet" and Maya Deren's

experimental works evoke a taste of the strange atmosphere found in DEATH BED. A close comparison are the dark adult fairy-tales by literary genius- author Angela Carter, the short disturbing stories of Unica

Zurn or E.T.A. Hoffman.

DEATH BED has many recognizable elements of the

past, but displays a wholly unique and original storyline.

As a story, DEATH BED is an amazingly simple yet original

vision, something which only one-in-a-thousand independent releases will manage to accomplish. This unassuming film has its technical flaws but overcomes them all with a cast of beautiful non-actors

and lost creepy locations- a true 1970s independent classic.

DEATH BED also displays a unique, subversive, 3-dimensional personality-- a deep and continuous layering of dream images and ideas that lend it a "fun-house" type of construct. The passage of time told in flashbacks and historic time travelogues, the bed with its sinister black humor, the rich yet understated symbolism used within its imagery. Most pleasing is the image of Aubrey Beardsly, the suffering artist, forever trapped inside the frame of his own painting as he comments on and fondles with the murdered victim "offerings" gifted to him as love offerings by the demented bed's spirit. -- A sick refrain and wonderful element /metaphor for the "trapped artist" -- Nothing but the weirdest in POE or MALLARME can equal that.

Anyone who values the spirit of independent cinema and craves the multi-layered symbolist experience, or craves the Surrealist concept of "convulsive

beauty" and the Gothic-horror leanings of low budget exploitation film-making will dig this totally unique vision. A simple and fun film with deliciously deep psychic undercurrents. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. ***** George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films. Never has the words "hidden gem" been so accurate. Bad movie lovers might search all over for the next hidden obscurity, sometimes coming up short with stuff like Weasels rip my flesh, but other times, luck will prevail and you might end up with something like Death Bed, then hopefully realizing it's not a bad movie at all, it just has a bad title, and not even a bad title, but a humorous one that might throw you off, but Somehow Death Bed still fits into the "bad" category. With a vibe that's somber and empty, Death Bed is a true masterpiece of low-budget horror, reserved only for those fortunate enough to appreciate such a dark shadow of a vision.

Death Bed involves an incoherent, yet intriguing relationship between a demon in the bed and the sympathetic ghost trapped in the portrait, who only wishes he could spare someone from the awful fate of being devoured by the yellow suds. Although not all that scary, considering it's about a killer bed, Death Bed possesses the qualities that make for successful horror. A dark, desolate vibe, confusion, an eerie, subtle score and that dream quality that this masterpiece almost flaunts. Such a quality, or vibe usually seems unintentional. Not only is it intentional, but from what I've read, Death Bed is based on an actual dream, George Barry, the director, successfully transferred dream to film, only a genius could accomplish such a task.

Old mansions make for good quality horror, as do portraits, not sure what to make of the killer bed with its killer yellow liquid, quite a bizarre dream, indeed. Also, this isn't quite the brand of B-horror I was expecting, considering the title and all. Before viewing this Gothic gem I expected something more like Class Reunion Massacre, now thats a bad movie, if you've seen it, you know what I'm saying. After considering all of the above, I feel like Death Bed deserves only eight stars, but since it stayed so obscure for so long We'll say the bed that eats deserves nine. Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely "message" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.

Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.

Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.

The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).

Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).

But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage. Edward Dmytryk directed this shadowy movie about a murder investigation involving demobilized military personnel. Robert Young gets to lecture us about hatred, Robert Mitchum walks through most of this picture, and Gloria Grahame revisits the feistiness she exhibited in "It's A Wonderful Life." It's Robert Ryan who gets at the heart of the matter: anti-semiticism. He goes so deep into his role as Monty Montgomery (Imagine parents named Lawrence calling their son Larry!), that the drama sits squarely on his shoulders, and he is more than up to the challenge. Without him, the movie would be commonplace. Ryan has played a number of memorable villains in his day ("Bad Day at Black Rock;" "Billy Budd"), but this performance put him on the map. With Sam Levene as the murder victim. As a rule, there are few things more dispiriting than Hollywood's attempts to be courageous. Mixing caution with heavy-handedness, "message movies" pat themselves loudly on the back for daring to tackle major problems. CROSSFIRE is not entirely free from this taint; it includes a sermon on the nature of senseless hatred that is embarrassingly obvious, assuming a level of naivity in its audience that's depressing to contemplate. As late as 1947, it was a big deal for a movie to announce that anti-Semitism existed, and that it was bad. (It was unthinkable, of course, for Hollywood to address the real subject of the book on which the movie was based—its victim was a homosexual.) Nevertheless, thanks to good writing and excellent acting, CROSSFIRE remains a persuasive examination of what we would now call a hate crime.

Postwar malaise was one of the major components of film noir, and CROSSFIRE addresses it directly. The film is set in Washington, D.C. among soldiers still in uniform but idle, spending their days playing poker and bar-crawling. Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), an intelligent and kindly Jew, explains that the end of the war has created a void: all the energy that went into hating and fighting the enemy is now unfocused and bottled up. Samuels meets three soldiers in a bar: the sensitive Mitchell, who is close to a nervous breakdown, the weak-willed Floyd Bowers, and Montgomery, a tall, overbearing bully who nastily belittles a young soldier from Tennessee as a stupid hillbilly. The three soldiers wind up at Samuels' apartment, where the drunken Monty becomes increasingly abusive, calling his host "Jew-boy." Samuels is beaten to death, and Mitchell disappears, making himself the prime suspect for the killing.

Unraveling the crime are Detective Finlay (Robert Young), dry and by-the-book, and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum), a thoughtful and experienced friend who knows Mitchell is incapable of murder. Among the pieces of the puzzle are Ginny (Gloria Grahame), a nightclub hostess who met Mitchell and gave him her apartment key, and Floyd (Steve Brodie), who as a witness to the crime holes up terrified in a seedy rooming house. While there is no real "whodunit" suspense, the story remains gripping, and the trap laid for the killer is extremely clever.

The strong noir atmosphere saves the movie from feeling didactic or sanctimonious. The cinematography is a striking shadow-play, with inky darks and harsh lights, rooms often lit by a single lamp filtered by cigarette smoke. World-weariness is as pervasive as noir lighting. "Nothing interests me," Finlay says quietly; "To nothing," is Ginny's toast in the nightclub. Gloria Grahame, the paragon of noir femininity, nearly steals the movie with her two scenes. Platinum-blonde, jaded and caustic, she's the quintessential B-girl, poisoned by the "stinking gin mill" where she works ("for laughs," she says bitterly), her sweet face curdling when Mitchell tells her that she reminds him of his wife. Now and then a wistful kindness peeks through her defensive shell, as when she dances with Mitchell in a deserted courtyard, then offers to cook him spaghetti at her apartment. When he goes there, he meets a weasely, crumple-faced man (Paul Kelly) who seems to sponge off Ginny, and whose conversation is a dense layering of lies and false confessions. Gloria blows Mitchell's good-girl wife off the screen in a scene where she's asked to give Mitchell an alibi. Slim and frail in her bathrobe, with her girlish lisp, she lets us see just how often Ginny has been insulted and dismissed as a tramp.

Robert Young is a nondescript actor, and he stands no chance against Mitchum's charisma, but he does a good job of keeping his pipe-smoking character, saddled with delivering the movie's earnest message, this side of pompousness. Mitchum, meanwhile, gets some cool dialogue, but not nearly enough to do; still, even when he's doing nothing but lounging in a corner you can't take your eyes off him. The third Robert, Ryan, creates a fully shaded and frighteningly convincing portrait of an ignorant, unstable bigot; we see his phony geniality, his bullying, his resentment of anyone with advantages, his "Am I right or am I right?" smugness; how easily he slaps labels on people and what satisfaction he gets from despising them.

CROSSFIRE's message seems cautious and dated now, though not nearly so much as the same year's A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Finlay's speech about bigotry cops out by reaching back a hundred years for an instance of white victimhood, reminding us that Irish Catholics were once persecuted; next it could be people from Tennessee, he says, or men who wear striped neckties. Or maybe blacks, or Japanese, or homosexuals, or communists? The script seems afraid to mention any real contemporary problems. It sweetens its message by making the Jewish victim saintly, as though his innocence were not sufficient; and it takes care to exonerate the military, having a superior officer declare that the army is ashamed of men like Montgomery, and stressing that Samuels served honorably in the war. Still, it did take some guts to depict, immediately after World War II, an American who might have been happier in the Nazi army, and the movie's basic premise is still valid. If Monty were alive today, he would have gone out on September 12, 2001, and beat up a Sikh. Definitely a "must see" for all fans of film noir.

Thanks to a fine script and crisp, razor sharp direction a top cast comes together and works like a well oiled clock to produce a crackerjack psychological thriller.

Wonderful characterizations articulate the movie's powerful message of racial and religious tolerance. It's difficult and almost unjust to single out any one particular performance because there isn't a weak link in the entire company but Robert Ryan as the hateful and violent white supremacist is truly spine chilling.

Making this film in the 1940s would have taken a lot of courage. Now,all these years later, at a time when contemporary movies are dominated by a ridiculous over abundance of foul language, bare breasts, crummy acting and deafening soundtracks it's refreshing to get back to the basics of quality film making with a viewing treat like "Crossfire".

Another low budget gem from the Hollywood archives . A bigoted soldier kills a man for being Jewish and tries to pin it on a fellow soldier. Not as good as the novel it was based on ("The Brick Foxhole") in which it was a gay man who was killed...but Hollywood wouldn't touch that in 1947. That said, it's still a very good film. The anti-Semitism is handled very well, but it's hammered into the audience that bigotry is bad...well duh! But this was 1947. The picture is well-acted by the entire cast (especially Robert Young and Robert Ryan) and the tone is very dark...as it should be. Very atmospheric too. A deserved big hit in its day...well worth seeing. I haven't read the source, Richard Brooks' novel "The Brick Foxhole," which I hope is not as infelicitous as its title, but I understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti Semite. (And to be honest, Sam Levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier.) But, okay, you have to go with the flow. Consider 1947. Not even anti-Semitism has been treated on screen yet. Many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves Jews but anti-Semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. So we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. Now that's REALLY unpleasant -- and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for Robert Ryan to get away with it. We are by no means free of prejudice but we've still come a long way since 1947.

Watching this again for the first time in years I was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie, the many shots of two people talking, the shadows, the time that passes between the question and the answer, the uninspired editing. But I could live with that because of the film's subject matter and because of a few other things.

One of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is Robert Ryan's performance. The guy does a splendid job. At times he can seem thoughtful, cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police -- "Any way I can help, yes sir." Then, alone or with another soldier, the simmering hatred rises to the top, not so much through what he says but the way he LOOKS. That scowl, that penetrating stare, those dark eyes glittering. Wow.

The film has taken a lot of heat because of Robert Young's preachy speech about his Grandfather's murder. That doesn't bother me at all, although I guess Dmytryk didn't have to have Young shove his face into the camera while talking about "MICKS and PAPISTS". Still, taking the context into account, it's one of the more shocking moments of the film. Part of its impact is due to Young's almost casual delivery of the message, and part of it is due to the message's not having been heard on screen before.

Another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the Paul Kelly character and his relationship to the whore Gloria Grahame. Holy Guacamole, what elliptical conversation Kelly is given to. "You know what I told you? All those things I just told you? They're all lies." His character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. It's impossible to know what to make of him. He adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence.

It's a moody, murky film. Its people live in the dark. And there is murder afoot. Practically no one screams or shouts. The horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface.

See it if you have a chance. Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows.

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still. "Crossfire" is remembered not so much for the fact that its three stars all had the first name "Robert" but as being one of the first Hollywood films to deal with anti-semitism.

The story opens with the murder in silhouette of a man whom we later learn is a Jewish man named Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene). Pipe smoking police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) is assigned to the case. An ex-soldier, Montgomery (Robert Ryan) comes upon the murder scene and we learn through flashback that he had met Samuels in a bar along with other soldiers who were in the process of being mustered out of the service following WWII.

According to Montgomery, he and pal Floyd Bowers (Steve Brodie) had followed Samuels and Cpl. Arthur Mitchell (George Cooper) to Samuels' apartment for drinks. Montgomery tells Finlay that Mitchell left the apartment first and that he and Floyd followed soon after with Samuels still alive and well.

Unable to locate Mitchell, Finlay suspects him of the murder. He enlists Sgt. Peter Keeley (Robert Mitchum) to help him locate Mitchell. Mitchell meanwhile has been wondering the streets in a dazed state. He meets prostitute Ginny (Gloria Grahame) in a bar and strikes up a friendship. She gives him a key to her apartment and he goes there to rest. Unexpectedly a man (Paul Kelly) turns up looking for Ginny. Mitchell, still in a daze, leaves and goes back to meet Keeley and his pals. Keeley manages to keep him from the police and hides him in an all night movie house.

From Mitchell's perspective we learn that Montgomery hates jews and is probably the killer. Finlay begins to focus his investigation on Montgomery trying to prove his guilt. He arrangers to have one of the soldiers, a kid named Leroy (William Phipps) set a trap for Mongomery.

"Crossfire" is considered to be one of the best of the "film noire" genre. In fact it garnered several Academy Award nominations including Ryan and Grahame for best supporting actors. It was made on a modest budget in about three weeks.

It has all of the elements of classic "film noire", the shadows, low key lighting and the story playing out mostly at night. The requisite "femme fatale" of the piece is Grahame's Ginny who plays a minor role but is nonetheless your classic "femme fatale". The unnamed character played by Paul Kelly (in an excellent bit) has been chewed up and spit out by Ginny and was she about to do the same to Mitchell?

Robert Ryan steals the picture as the brutal Montgomery although it would type cast him in similar roles for years to come. Robert Young makes a good low key detective but Robert Mitchum has little to do other than befriend the Mitchell character. Others in the cast are Jacqueline White as Mitchell's wife, Lex Barker (who would go on the following year to play "Tarzan") as one of Mitchum's soldier pals and Richard Powers (who was previously known as Tom Keene) as Finlay's assistant.

Director Edward Dmytryk would shortly run afoul of The House Un-American Committee as having communist affiliations and spend a couple of years in jail. **** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT **** This is a very strange film - particularly for its time - in every respect. For six years, American movies had shown American soldiers as everybody's son, brother, father.

In movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Til the End of Time, our hearts are tugged by the difficulty that the sweet returning soldiers have in adjusting to peace and their families. Yet in this same year, this film shows soldiers as a mix of people rather worse than the viewer - one message of this film is - "lock up your daughters."

Even the good soldiers - with plenty of time on their hands - are gambling all the time, getting stupefyingly drunk, and are wholly indifferent to whether they even have wives any more. And their reaction to the police investigating a murder is -- to conspire against them.

Mitchum, the most sympathetic soldier says things like "I don't know if my wife wants to make a go of it now after the War. Haven't seen her in two years. Do I care? Not really. Maybe we'll make a go of it, maybe not."

Another soldier is shown as unusually sensitive because after years away, he would like to see his wife again.

Later, when this soldier states at the police station that he spent the evening at a whore's home - without knowing his wife is sitting just behind him, there seems to be no question whatever that his wife will be fine. Indeed, she is - I guess it's "Hey, soldiers will be soldiers".

The police detective played by Robert Young who is trying to crack a murder case, states convincingly and with infinite weariness about someone's account of their actions on the night in question,

"Do I care? No. I don't really care about anything any more. I've done this too long, I guess."

A man shows up at the whore's apartment. He says "I'm just a man like you, interested in" the whore. Then he says, "No that's a lie, I'm her husband. I'd like to be in the military, I was turned down before." T

hen he says, "No, that's a lie, why would I want to be a soldier?" He goes through another series of lies when the police ask him who he is. To the end of the movie, we haven't a clue who he is or why he is there!He's one of the strangest characters in the history of movies!

A man stands with his girlfriend at a bar talking to four soldiers, when a clumsy soldier knocks a drink onto his girlfriend. She leaves to change her dress - and is right back wearing another, no problem. Yet the man doesn't leave with his girlfriend - who simply disappears - but instead follows one of the soldiers when he leaves to go to another area of the bar! The man then extrapolates from the minimal information he's learned about the soldier -- to philosophize grandly about the problems of returning soldiers -- and immediately invites the soldier home because he is drunk and feels sick. This is strange stuff.

Similarly, a dance hall girl is irritated by the sentimental soldier who would like to take her out "for a real dance - and dinner maybe". Yet she does dance with him - and immediately gives him the key to her home!

Were people in the late 1940s always urging soldiers to come to their homes after they just met them?

Robert Ryan kills his host, a stranger, when he's enraged that the Jewish host tries to get the steadily drunker Ryan out of his home. The reason for the murder? "No Jew tells me how to drink". "How to drink?" Huh? What does that mean?

This movie is always off-kilter, quite deliberately so - the soldiers act consistently with total complete defiance of the law, and all the characters are as cold and tough as any movie I've ever seen.

And yet the movie is utterly gripping! You simply have no idea how these people are going to act - or what new bizarre character is going to pop up - without anyone thinking the person's actions are strange in the least - e.g., the wife's behavior.

The acting is about the finest I'e ever seen - from Robert Young, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame (who earned an Oscar nomination), Paul Kelly and other actors I'd never heard of.

I'd never heard of this movie - and it's a complete delight that I've discovered one that I shall want to see again and again and again. it's really strange but impossible to look away from because you've no idea what these creatures will do next. "Crossfire" feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece -- it's well acted and beautifully filmed, but thinly written and way too short. As is, it's just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. It's remembered today as one of the first two Hollywood films to deal with anti-Semitism, and as being much better than the similarly-themed "Gentleman's Agreement" (no mean feat). But its real subject is the difficulty that WWII soldiers, as trained killers, were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (For a more genteel take on this topic, try "The Best Years Of Our Lives.") A man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. We do not see his attacker. The movie is about the investigation of this murder, which is actually pretty straightforward, but it takes some unnecessary detours, like when the main suspect, a depressed soldier, winds up in the apartment of Gloria Grahame, a dance-hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by Paul Kelly. There's also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl, and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. But otherwise it's a pretty decent mystery. Still, what a great noir it could have been. Director Edward Dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel -- homosexuality, not anti-Semitism -- like when sadistic creep Monty seethes at the image of his friend Mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. And the cast is excellent. Robert Ryan makes for a very credible cretin, and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes, not unlike Peter Lorre as the child murderer in "M." He deserved an Oscar but lost to Edmund Gwenn that year (you can't beat Santa Claus). Robert Mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. Was Mitchum a great actor or a great star? Someone else can figure that out, but his sleepy eyes and bemused half-smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn't. (And he does.) And Robert Young, as the detective assigned to the murder, is surprisingly gritty, discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil-rights sermon midway through the picture. There's no question that Bogart or Tracy would have been brilliant in the role, but neither of them were at RKO in 1947 so you'll just have to deal with Dr. Welby. Still, Young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of "Father Knows Best," which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. The man deserved better than smarm and Sanka. Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay – not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.

There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading… A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.

But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.

Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the "hick"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.

Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too. The real Best Picture of 1947 also deals with Anti-Semitism and is superior to Elia Kazan's GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (the eventual winner at that year's Academy Awards) in practically every department. Edmard Dmytryk's near-perfect direction, John Paxton's terse script and J. Roy Hunt's expert Expressionist lighting are wonderfully abetted by a superb ensemble cast. Although Robert Young (playing an easy-going, methodical and very likable cop) and Robert Mitchum (who actually does have the occasional throwaway witty remark) are the nominal stars of the film, it's Oscar nominees Robert Ryan and Gloria Grahame - as well as Paul Kelly, in the small but pivotal role of Grahame's pathetic husband - who give the film's most memorable characterizations; Ryan proved so convincing as a homicidal racist that he was eventually typecast for a while, excelling in equally villainous roles in such films as ACT OF VIOLENCE (1948), CAUGHT (1948), THE RACKET (1951), CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), THE NAKED SPUR (1953) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955). The film is also notable for its atypical structure in that Ryan's "flashback" sequence, a complete fabrication, is shot in a straightforward manner while the actual truth emerges from the hazy, distorted recollections of the real protagonist of the film who, furthermore, isn't even played by any of the film's stars! Also, CROSSFIRE was originally to have treated homosexuality (as per Richard Brooks' original source novel, "The Brick Foxhole") but this taboo subject was unacceptable to the Hays Office at the time - a far cry from the situation we have today when (at least) 3 gay-themed films are in the running for this years' major Oscars!

The print utilized for Warners' DVD transfer shows some regrettable signs of wear-and-tear at times but the Audio Commentary by noir experts, James Ursini and Alain Silver, is a good one, even though I don't happen to share their opinion that Dmytryk's career declined steadily after his HUAC troubles, as such excellent pictures as THE SNIPER (1952), THE CAINE MUTINY (1954), BROKEN LANCE (1954), THE YOUNG LIONS (1958), WARLOCK (1959) and MIRAGE (1965) amply prove; having said that his collaborations at RKO with producer Adrian Scott and screenwriter John Paxton - MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), CORNERED (1945; hopefully this will be part of the next Film Noir Box Set from Warners) and CROSSFIRE - do constitute his best work. In any case, in my opinion, the latter is not only one of the key films of the 1940s but also one of the finest noirs ever made, period. Edward Dmytryk's "Crossfire" is a rare film coming from the Hollywood of the 1940s. This was groundbreaking territory for Mr. Dmytryk and the studio because of what the director and his adapter, John Paxton, decided to do with the novel, in which the film is based.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.

Richard Brooks novel was about the killing of a gay soldier. In the movie, the subject matter was turned around to prejudice against Jews, a theme that was taboo during that time in the American cinema. It's to Mr. Dmytryk's credit to have had the courage to get involved with this film project, at all.

The movie is an outstanding piece of film making because the way the director presents it. Obviously influenced by the film noir style, we are taken to the Washington of the post war. The opening scene about the brutal murder of Samuels shows such unusual cruelty being inflicted to a decent man, who we don't know yet, or why has been killed, but who didn't deserve to die in such horrible fashion.

The basis of the murder is prejudice, pure and simple. We realize how in the mind of an ignorant man, the mere fact of being successful and different, plays in the mind of the assassin. Samuels stands as the sacrificial lamb, the same way the gay soldier is the victim in the novel. The parallels are well drawn.

This film makes compelling viewing because of the brilliant star turn of Robert Ryan, as Montgomery. Mr. Ryan was an actor that always played interesting roles, but never so well as in "Crossfire". Also, there is a great appearance by Gloria Grahame, as Ginny, the prostitute with her heart in the right place.

The rest of the cast play as an ensemble. Robert Young, as the police detective in charge of the investigation plays is a decent man who has known prejudice first hand in his own family and speaks loudly against it. Robert Mitchum plays a cool Sgt. Keeley who is deeply touched by the crime when one of his men is accused of committing it. Sam Levene is excellent in his small role of Samuels.

This is a film to watch because of it probably the first to speak out loud against ignorance. Brilliant thriller, deserving far more fame, Mitchum and Ryan are awesome in their starring roles, as is the entire supporting cast. A truly gripping film noir featuring some wonderfully images and some great dialogue, at the heart of it all is a strong message of tolerance and understanding. Based on a novel concerning homophobia, this movie attacks post-war anti-emitism, and all intolerance and hatred, with considerable power. Though parts may seem a little preachy to modern audiences, it still has the power to shock, and works very well as a thriller in its own right. A credit to all involved. Crossfire is one of those films from the Forties that is crying for a remake, if for no other reason than maybe it's time it should be done as originally written. The story on which the film is based is about the killing of a gay man. But anti-Semitism was certainly a hot topic in the days of post World War II with the holocaust fresh in everyone's mind.

In the Lee Server biography of Robert Mitchum, Edward Dmytryk the director was interviewed and and bluntly said that the film could never have been made about a hate crime against gays at the time with The Code firmly in place. It could have been though because the character of Robert Ryan is such an equal opportunity hater of everything that deviates from his societal norms.

Mitchum was told in no uncertain terms that he was in the film strictly for the ride. Robert Young was cast as the Washington, DC Police homicide captain who catches the case and while Mitchum was second billed, he knew from the beginning the film would belong to Ryan. But he was RKO's new star by dint of his performances in The Story Of GI Joe and Till The End Of Time so he was there for box office insurance. Mitchum's part was as a sergeant and friend of the original suspect in the case, George Cooper.

Crossfire is not a whodunit, even though we don't see the crime it becomes clear that Montgomery is the one who kills Sam Levene, the quintessential Jewish salesperson. And it becomes clear to Young and Mitchum that Ryan is the guilty party almost as fast as it does to the audience. It becomes just a question of getting the evidence.

Ryan earned one of several Academy Award nominations the film garnered, his Best Supporting Actor category. Though he lost to Edmund Gwenn, the film was Ryan's breakthrough role. Similarly Gloria Grahame was nominated for a brief part as a party girl for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost to Celeste Holm for Gentleman's Agreement. In fact Crossfire ran up against Gentleman's Agreement and lost for Best Picture and Best director for Dmytryk to Elia Kazan. It's fifth nomination for Best Screenplay and Crossfire came up short again with the winner being Miracle on 34th Street.

Gloria Grahame also had her own problems on the set which spilled over from her personal life. She was having big trouble with her then husband Stanley Clements who was an abusive husband. He was hanging around the set causing Ed Dmytryk a lot of problems. Fortunately Grahame's part was a small one. In fact the whole film was shot in typical RKO economy style in 20 days.

Robert Young has a particularly fine scene with William Phipps a young kid from Tennessee in Mitchum and Ryan's outfit who Ryan constantly belittles. Young is most eloquent in speaking about the corrosive nature of hate and how it affected his family as Irish Catholics who came over in the potato famine years. It was one of Robert Young's best moments on screen in his long career.

As fine a film as Crossfire is, it's time to be remade as a story about an anti-gay hate crime. Especially with the real killing of Barry Winchell from the last decade and the debate about gays in the military.

That's a film who's time has come and almost gone. RKO Radio Pictures made a real classic in 1947 and even managed to get it nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award. The acting, script, continuity, et cetera, are all just about perfect; and the story is well worth the viewer's 82 minutes. Although the picture soft-petals the true life story by making the murder victim a Jew rather than a homosexual, most viewers will see the victim as a Jewish homosexual -- such disguises never work, perhaps weren't intended to.

I could nit-pick about a few details, but just for fun. There was no all-night movie house in Washington, DC in 1947 --- and if there was I wish Robert Mitchum and his pal wouldn't talk through the show. There weren't any bars where a GI could pick up a pretty blonde. NONE! If Robert Ryan wanted to read the latest murder scoop he ought to have bought the Daily News; not the Times-Hearald, Evening Star and certainly not the know-nothing Washington Post. But these little things take nothing away from this classic.

The film benefits a lot from the absolute lack of a musical score, except during the credits. I've only seen this done in a few films.

On the negative side, since 1995 it comes with a TMC introduction where some liberal blabs about what the public was "ready for" in 1947... blah, blah, blah! As if this fool has any business judging his betters. I'd say the ex-GI's in 1947 -- the Greatest Generation -- were much smarter --and had better values -- than some commentator, film historian, or other wise-mouth in 1995. Put a sock in it! This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.

Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.

I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There must have been something in the air in the immediate postwar years that made night cities attractive settings for movies. A gaggle of nocturnal, urban films were made at that time, and not just in America. One of the most notable was Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, an English picture about a wounded gunman staggering through the streets of Belfast. In America it was the high noon, or more properly, high midnight, of film noir.

Crossfire isn't really film noir, but has the trappings of noir, though it uses them for its own aims, which have to do with bigotry. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, written by John Paxton, it was adapted from a novel by Richard Brooks. The book concerned the murder of a homosexual; in the movie the victim is changed to a Jew. Though filmed like a mystery there is little suspense in the film, as it is fairly obvious who the murderer is early on. What makes the film so watchable and beautiful is its evocation of a city, Washington, D.C., just after World War II, by some of the most gifted craftsmen working in films at that time. Unlike many night movies Crossfire is set mostly indoors: in police stations, rooming houses and all-night movie theaters. Soldiers are everywhere in the film, and most are itching to get back to their civilian lives. Yet one senses, from most of the men we meet, that their personalities have been so shaped by their military experience it's going to be tough for them to return to their old neighborhoods; for some maybe even impossible. They seem more bound to one another than to anything or anyone else.

Yet some men never truly bonded with anyone in the military. The murderer, Monty, is one such individual. One senses that he was never connected in his civilian life, either. He is a lone wolf who also needs people. Desperately alone, he has a sadistic streak a mile wide, and always needs someone nearby to be the butt of his jokes. The man he kills did him no harm, and was in fact a stranger to him. But once Monty figured out the man's religion, that was enough. He didn't really mean to kill the guy, as it was his intent to 'merely' humiliate him and just beat him up. But as he was quite drunk at the time, Monty's fists got the better of him. It is this act that sets the story the story in motion.

Once the movie builds up a head of steam the other characters come rapidly into focus. Monty's opposite number is Keely, another soldier, who, though introspective like Monty, and somewhat detached, harbors no resentment toward anyone and seems a reasonable, even amiable guy. Finley, the pipe-smoking homicide detective, is dandyish and a tad effete compared to the men in uniform, but proves more than a match for the various and mostly recalcitrant soldiers he deals with. The actors who plays these roles, Roberts Ryan, Mitchum and Young, give excellent performances, each in a different key. Ryan, as Monty, is tense and paranoid, always looking around for someone to pick on; and one can feel his anxiety over becoming a victim himself. As Keely, Mitchum is low-key, almost nonchalant; he never raises his voice; and he seems to have more to say, more to offer, than is permitted by the script. Young's performance has often been criticized as being too soft, but I find it deceptively strong and nicely offbeat. He cuts against the stereotype of the hardboiled cop, and makes the character of Finley a bit of a prince of crime detection.

There are few surprises in Crossfire, though the script is at times surprisingly well-written, even brilliant. Character actor Paul Kelly gives one of the best short performances in the movies as the 'boyfriend' of a woman a soldier picks up in a bar. Kelly may or may not be her husband; and he may or may not live with her, though he seems relaxed enough in her apartment. The beauty of these scenes are that nothing is made clear, and this man himself seems more than a little confused over what his role is, was or ought to be. In a way these few scenes form the thematic core of the film, which is anomie. With the exception of the detective all the men in the film are drifting, aimless and basically lost, some more seriously than others. In this respect Crossfire is, for all the preaching near the end, a film about the vagueness of identity, and how easily it can be lost or warped. Men drift from one bar to another in this film, as they engage in a sort of woozy camaraderie, their personalities merging into a kind of general American male template. Then something happens, something is nailed down. A word is mentioned, whether 'Jew' or 'hillbilly', and things suddenly turn tense, and the very notion of individuality, of an identity outside the group, of anyone not like them, becomes deeply offensive, even loathsome. Then, after tempers flare and whatever stirred them up has been resolved or forgotten, the men revert to their loose, non-personal group normality, and order is restored. "Crossfire" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a "hillbilly" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.

The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called "The Brick Foxhole" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the "House Un-American Activities Committee". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.

When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur "Mitch" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).

Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt.

"Crossfire" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The "message" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.

Despite it being a low budget production, "Crossfire" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received. A March 1947 New York Times article described Crossfire as one of the first Hollywood films of the 1940s to "face questions of racial and religious prejudice with more forthright courage than audiences have been accustomed to expect." While RKO was producing Crossfire, Twentieth Century-Fox was making Gentleman's Agreement, another story about antisemitism. RKO raced to beat the much "ballyhooed" Fox picture to the theaters, releasing Crossfire several months before Gentleman's Agreement. In July 1947, RKO screened Crossfire for representatives of various Los Angeles religious groups. In addition, several surveys, which were designed to gauge the audience's prejudices, were conducted before and after screenings of the film. Crossfire received both praise and criticism for its depiction of antisemitism in America and was the subject of many editorials. Crossfire received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, but lost to Gentleman's Agreement. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame), Best Director and Best Screenplay (Adaptation). In September 1947, Crossfire was named Best Social Film at Cannes. In December 1947, Ebony magazine, an African-American publication, gave the film its annual award for "improving interracial understanding." Loved this movie. If you get the chance to watch it, see it. "Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.

I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.

The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.

Truly excellent, and a must see. After a man turns up dead, a soldier becomes the prime suspect. Undoubtedly the best film to feature three Roberts and all of them are in fine form. Young is the cool-headed, pipe-smoking cop investigating the murder, Mitchum is the murder suspect's concerned friend, and Ryan is a hot-headed soldier with something to hide. Grahame has a brief but effective role as a femme fatale. Future Tarzan Barker has a bit part as a soldier. This film touches on anti-semitism, a subject also covered in Best Picture Oscar winner "Gentleman's Agreement," which was released the same year. It is solidly directed by Dmytryk, who creates an effective film noir atmosphere. A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.

Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.

The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.

Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5/10 Crossfire is a fantastic film noir that is both a product of it's time and a timeless classic. This film achieves this by addressing issues that haven't been brought to the screen before its 1947 release, and by being a high quality film that holds up to this day with a good script, great look, and fantastic performances from it's actors. The first American film to take the issue of anti-Semitism head on, Crossfire is cemented in classic standing. Set in post-World War II America, a lurid whodunit develops after a Jewish man is found murdered.

The story is great, its anti-hatred theme wrapped up in a dark multiple-character crime thriller, and along side the anti-Semitism angle is some great post-World War II dialogue and themes as well. Unlike other mystery thrillers, the audience is alerted to who the perpetrator is almost immediately. However, the film's story is still engrossing because of the struggle of all the great characters involved are going through while trying to make sense of the situation. Outside the great overall story and themes, the entire script is simply smart, complete with meaningful messages and razor-sharp exchanges between characters.

The film's captivating story is played out wonderfully by the its excellent cast. Robert Young is fantastic as Capt. Finlay, the leading investigator of the murder case. Finlay's my favorite character of the film, he's just a cool character - dry as bone and tough as a two-by-four and stopping at nothing to bring the killer to justice. Robert Mitchum is also great in the film, very vivid in his soft-spoken army sergeant character due to his superb screen-presence. Gloria Grahame gives a memorable performance in her small Oscar-nominated role; George Cooper also does a good job as the sick and distressed Corporal Mitchell; Paul Kelly gives an eerie portrayal of a bizarre character; and Steve Brodie, Sam Levene, Jacqueline White, and William Phipps also give strong supporting performances. Robert Ryan ends up being the most talked about performer of the film, giving a chilling performance as Montgomery and also being nominated for an Oscar.

Crossfire has a terrific look. Director Edward Dmytryk does an extraordinary job with the film's execution and cinematographer J. Roy Hunt does a masterful job with its black and white picture. Crossfire's picture is as dark and dank as its themes, covered in shadow with an almost glossy overtone, yet also very raw in parts. Ironically, the film's great look was not the result of hard work - or even intention. Dmytryk wanted to spend more time and money on the actors rather than the lighting - so that's what he did. Less lights, less preparation (around a 6 hour work day), and it resulted in a fantastic looking film. Not just a well done piece of cinematic art, Crossfire is also a great example of a cheap film that ends up a rich classic. Exceptional movie that handles a theme of great proportions with a very well-balanced direction. Dmytrik was a very good director, at least from what I can tell from this movie and Murder my Sweet but he was seriously affected by the HUAC as other movie directors and actors. It is in a way ironic that Crossfire received no Oscars, because it is exquisite example of how to make a great film on low budget. Everything about this movie is exceptional: a well-written script that makes use of extensive flashbacks, a great cast, superb lighting that seems to tell the story more than the actions proper. What more can you expect from a top-notch movie? Might I add that noir is here used for its stylishness, and I might add financial advantages. But this proves once more that what was originally deemed a B-movie can have more impact today that most of the heavy-handed A-movies that lost their audience with the passage of time.

This film is not a noir movie per se and this rises serious questions about what noir actually is. The style is definitely noir, in terms of sets and especially lights but the theme surpasses the recipe of the "noir genre". You can see things from the opposite perspective and claim that Anti-Semitism is only a pretext for the criminal investigation, the puzzle around the murder being the actual focus. This would have been the case had it not been for Robert Ryan in an outstanding performance. Either way, the movie has a lot to offer and it is truly a pity that the director had to suffer so much iniquity for his former beliefs in a really "noir" period of America My top 2 actors happen to be in this film - Robert Ryan and Robert Mitchum.

Ryan could play anything from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller and play it magnificently. In this film when he starts his speech "...people with names like Samuels and others with names that are hard to say" - it is chilling to watch him.

Robert Young plays the policeman who is called to investigate the murder of Samuels (Sam Levine), a civilian, who is chatting with several soldiers in a bar. Mitchell is the soldier wanted in connection with it - his wallet has been found in the apartment. But Mitchell is a gentle soldier, who is only missing his wife.

The story is told from different perspectives. Mitchell and Samuels strike up a friendship and go back to Samuels apartment. Samuels seems to know the loneliness that Mitchell is feeling. "For years you have been concentrating on one peanut and now it is gone you don't know what to feel" he says about the war.

Ryan is superb as Monty, the psychotic racist.

Robert Young (along with Dick Powell) was an actor whose career was re-juvenated by film-noir. "Crossfire", "They Won't Believe Me" and "The Other Woman" are great examples.

Robert Mitchum is his usual laid back self as the philosopical Keeley.

Gloria Graham and Paul Kelly as the "odd couple" are outstanding as well in their brief but telling roles.

This is probably the best film about racism ever made. What a fine film! Unfortunately, being 1947, the movie script couldn't have followed the book from which it was adapted, but the murder of a homosexual would have been too hot to handle in that era.

I thought all of the performances were outstanding, as well as the script, direction, brilliant black and white cinematography, music and film noir atmosphere.

I do understand that in 1947 the film couldn't portray racism against blacks or prejudice against homosexuals. (Robert Young's account of prejudice against his grandfather who was Irish and who endured this racism 100 years ago was pretty lame, but the times dictated that the film avoid a further examination of racism.)

I do have one observation and one question to ask the viewer: 1. Did you notice that Robert Young didn't aim his gun when he shot and killed Robert Ryan who was running fast in the dark and Young shot from an upper story window into the dark without aiming? 2. If Robert Young's grandfather was killed 100 years ago in 1847 (the film was made in 1947) and Young was 40 years old, the time line would not be logical. If the grandfather had been killed 50 years ago then the time frame would be realistic. **SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel "The Brick Foxhole" about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie "Crossfire" is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.

Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in.

Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place.

With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.

The movie "Crossfire" then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him.

Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.

It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of "them" he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of "us"! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death.

It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI "friend" of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.

Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. "Crossfire" addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved. Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), "Crossfire" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of "cleansing".

Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a "war of aggression".

This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.

See "Crossfire", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.

See "Crossfire" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in "Cape Fear". I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more "real" than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.

Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself. It Came from Outer Space II is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Peña, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, Iilana B'tiste, Jerry Giles, and Howard Morris! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Kerwin and Norris are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is great by Shirley Walker. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Peña, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, the rest of the cast in the film, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting Action films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

I noticed this is the second film that Dean Norris and Mickey Jones were in a movie together. The other being the classic violent epic Total Recall! Funny seeing them in another alien flick!

If you like alien movies and/or the subject of aliens I also recommend the following films: The Thing from another World, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005), Horror Express, The UFO Incident, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, John Carpenter's The Thing, Krull, The Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn, Time Walker, My Science Project, Howard the Duck, John, Carpenter's Starman, John Carpenter's They Live, Mac and Me, Explorers, Invaders from Mars, Alien Seed, The Abyss, Communion, Suburban Commando, Fire in the Sky, The Arrival, Mars Attacks! Contact, Men in Black I & 2, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, Xtro 3: Watch the Skies, Battlefield Earth: A Saga for the year 3000, Stargate, The Puppet Masters, John Carpenter's Village of the Damned, Independence Day, Life Form, Contact, The X-Files: Fight the Future, Roswell: The Aliens Attack, The Faculty, Mission to Mars, Pitch Black, Evolution, K-Pax, Signs, Silent Warnings, The Forgotten, Alien Hunter, Spaceballs, Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Predator & Predator 2, AVP: Alien Vs. Predator, The entire Star Wars saga (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi (Original and Special Editions!), The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, & Revenge of the Sith), the entire Star Trek movie saga (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, & Nemesis) and Stephen King's IT! The first music video I ever saw, Thriller, my mom told me that she took me home from the hospital and when we arrived, my sister had MTV on the TV and Thriller was playing, my mom said that I smiled. Silly I know, but I have loved Michael Jackson since that day, the music video Thriller inspired me to dance, still I have the dance memorized to this day. I even performed it for an audience 3 times! Words cannot describe the power of this song that makes you wanna sing and dance, but Michael of course had to raise the bar for MTV at the time by signing on American Werewolf in London director John Landis and directing the one, the only, Thriller.

Michael and his date, Ola Ray, run out of gas in a dark, wooded area. They walk off into the forest, and Michael asks her if she would like to go steady. She accepts and he gives her a ring. He warns her, however, that he is not like other guys, no really, not like the other guys. A full moon appears, and Michael begins convulsing in agony – transforming into a horrifying werewolf! His date shrieks and runs away, but the werewolf catches up, knocking her down and begins lunging at her with its claws. The scene cuts away to a movie theater where Michael and his date are actually watching this scene unfold in a movie called Thriller. Michael smiles but his date is frightened, and tells him she's leaving. Michael catches up to her, and says that it's only a movie, but she doesn't like his jokes on her and she starts walking away. Michael and his date then walk down a foggy street, and he teases her with the opening verses of Thriller. They pass a graveyard, where corpses suddenly begin to rise from their graves as Vincent Price performs his rap. Michael and his date then find themselves surrounded by the zombies, and suddenly, Michael becomes a zombie himself. Michael and the undead perform an elaborate song and dance number together, followed by the chorus of Thriller.

Thriller is arguably the best music video of all time, funny thing is people who wanna argue that is with other Michael Jackson videos, but what makes Thriller so special is the dance, the story, the effects, this at the time was the most expensive music video of it's day. Michael of course rose that bar again with his famous music video Scream and then again with Ghosts. But say what you will, Michael was the star of the 1980's, there was no celebrity like him, he loved the life, he lived it, breathed it and embraced it. Thriller is proof that he was willing to work to make the best and that's what we got with the legend that is Thriller.

10/10 'Thriller' remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other.

Ola Ray plays the girl who watches with incredulity as her sweet boyfriend (Jackson, natch) turns into a werewolf! Then to the pulsing rhythms of the opening line 'It's close to midnight', he stomps around the graveyard with the other zombies and creatures of the night.

The crowning glory of all this is the fruity voice of the great horror star Vincent Price speaking in the middle of the record. Terrific. "Thriller" is brilliant. It is a long video, but simply brilliant nonetheless. The song itself is...excellent...add Michael JAckson dancing and you have a golden Phenomenon. Out of all the videos I have ever seen, this is the best. If you have not seen the video yet, then I urge you...

The special effects are amazing for it's time... everything from the wearwolf transformation to the idea of these creepy zombies slowly raising from their graves is grand...spookishly grand that is. Vicent Price has his segment of bone-shivering lines...known simply as "the rap" Ola Ray does good as Michael's girl, and Michael JAckson himself...the dancing, and singing (although not during the video itself) is unmatched...

10/10. Michael Jackson is amazing. This short film displays the absolute highest standard in music video and no-one will ever be able to out-beat this 'King Of Pop' masterpiece! It shows Michael turning into a zombie and dancing in the street with some spectacular choreography. The story is great, the scenes are marvelous, the music is fantastic and overall the clip is fun, eye-popping, spooky and is a real spectacle. Today everybody is still doing the same thing in music video with dancing and film-based story-lines which he innovated. This ground-breaking video is the toast of MTV and will forever be remembered for what is the greatest music video of all time!! I am not a footie fan by any means but watched this with a friend as there wasn't anything else on the box at the time.(thank goodness). Not only did we laugh from start to finish but about a week later in the pub, when we started discussing it, we made a right spectacle of ourselves with uncontrollable laughter. Does that sloping pitch actually exist??? I have released my e-mail here so if anyone hears about it's future availability or a repeat on the telly please let me know. Definitely the funniest thing I've seen on television!!! King Leek was good too!! another Tim Healy classic This was a fantastically funny footie film. Why won't they show it again? Tim Healy was superb, as were all the players. Direction was inspired, and some of the gags were matchless. The sloping pitch had me on the floor. Show it again, ITV, so I can video it!!! This is a true gem of a TV film. Based on a completely untrue story, it follows the course of the down-and-out football league club through their course in the English FA cup, where mayhem ensues and the players all sport seventies styles. The ending is unexpected, the performances are great, and Nick Hancock shows that he CAN do something other than host sports shows. My only regret is that I didn't tape it. I caught this filmshow about the most unlikely, success? ,from a lower league, football team. The plot is thick and roles out some great tenuous twists and turns. Intercut with shots and commentary from the 70's .I was taken aback by its shear footy fun.

A great cast includes the excellent Tim Healy as the crazed(drunk) manager , bumbling along hanging on to anything that will make his team win...? I keep remembering bits such as the stolen secret file that Don Revie( Super leeds united and england manager-loved by the fans hated by everyone else)has on Bostock United ( the underfelt men) which in its detailed report of their opposition, Bostock United, in this the FA Cup final, merely says "Sh-te".

Lots of other footy gags a long time before the fantastic feature length "Mike Basset - Football Manager" Starring Ricky Tomlinson.

Up there with the, Gung ho English beating Germans, at football. Well morally.Although the score lines says different , of "Escape to Victory" ( I still cheer when England score )

And the thankless eternal grind of following a really bad team in Micheal Palins "Golden Gordon" from "Ripping Yarns" series ( with Terry Jones)the team were called Bostonworth United ,in case your interested.

I've looked high and low for a copy of Bostock's Cup-even Nick Hancock's biography doesn't list it ( probably someone -not mr hancocks- error)

Play it again or sell me a copy- PLEASE.... As a reviewer has already commented, this made for tv comedy is up there amongst the best football parodies ever. But....having failed to video it when it was first aired, I now find that it isn't around in any format. OK, so this has only polled 17 votes to date, but a 9+ average does seem to suggest something special. Basically, I suppose it's a case of tough luck if you missed it 'cos it's no longer available to view !! Aaaaaaaargh. I have it on VHS but its not a great copy as I have watched it 2 or 3 times per year since 1999. I am also in fear that 'her indoors' will throw it out in the annual VHS purge.

My brother and I (Late 30' still laugh at the carry on in this fantastic show.Tim Healys Lucky Cup Hat and telling the apprentice YOU Can DO NONE OF THAT (Shooting, passing etc) and he turns out to be Peter Beardsley.As a Leeds fan I have to laugh at the empty dossier on Bostock before the cup final (or did it say S**t ?)

The reason I came on line today was that my Bro wants it for Christmas so ITV please bring it out on DVD Come on The UnderFelt Men !! I think this TV film was first aired the same week that Manchester Utd played in the Champions League Final (1999), they run a lot of football related items that week and this one was an absolute standout.

It played on all the clichés that are churned out every season during the FA Cup ie, plucky underdogs, lucky clothing/mascots, name on the cup etc and turned out to be brilliantly funny.

I'm surprised it has never been repeated prior to other big football occasions, even now with the world cup just getting underway.

A few previous posts from non-football fans have said they still love it, but a football fan will find it hilarious imho. To anyone who is interested, I have managed to get this on DVD from Ebay (haven't received it yet - any day now).

I have been desperate to get this even if it is a VHS quality put on a DVD I don't mind. So to anyone interested get in touch with me and maybe I can help you out.

To be honest it's ridiculous that I've had to wait nearly 7 years to see this again but boy it will be worth it.

All my mates at work are desperate to see it too.

Anyway I'll post later regarding the quality.

Just do a search on Ebay if u want it guys. it's there to buy .....whoops - looks like it's gonna cost you a whopping £198.00 to buy a copy (either DVD or Video format)from ITV direct.

Ouch.

Sorry about this, but IMDB won't let me submit this comment unless it has at least 10 lines, so...........

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblah !!

I'm like the rest of the fans who love this comedy,i've been waiting for it on DVD. I've got it on VHS and got so fed up waiting for a release and worrying that my VHS copy would ruin i got the equipment to get it onto DVD. The picture and sound are excellent to my utter surprise. If anyone else want's a copy drop me a line at

stone_stew@yahoo.co.uk

and for £7.00 i'll put it onto a DVD,print the DVD and get it in the post to you. £7.00 just covers my costs & recorded delivery etc with maybe a little over so i'm not after making money out of it,i'd just like the world to see this ignored gem of a comedy.I recently saw a copy of ebay got for over £26,amazing. How can they not release this classic. Email me for payment details like cheque or Paypal etc etc OK...time for a bit of a rant I think. It's been 2 flamin' years since I submitted my original comments praising this top-rated footy comedy.....and the damn thing still hasn't made it to video or DVD (or for that matter even been repeated on the telly !!) !!!!!

Does anyone out there know why not ? Has there been a BBC-style error whereby the original copy has been deleted/mislaid/wiped ??

Listen up you lot in charge of ITV - whack this on to DVD now !!! Do you even realise how funny this programme was ? It makes "Mike Bassett" look as bad as the current pants Spurs team.

Rant over. For the moment. Tweety is sent in his cage on a train by his old-lady owner. In the same baggage car, also in a cage, is Sylvester.

In no time, Sylvester has grabbed Tweety but a trainman comes back and slaps the "sneakin' feline," as he calls him, back in his cage. He puts Tweety "in a safer place," up high and tells the cat, "Now, remember: no tricks!" Sylvester puts his halo on and looks innocent. Yeah, right.

I found the funniest stuff, however, didn't involve Sylvester versus Tweety but the "viscious dog" that is in another cage next to Sylvester. The cat gets mouthy with him, and pays a big price in an extremely funny manner. Sylvester just doesn't learn, but that's one reason we love him! (I know a number of IMDb reviewers don't like Tweety but I like both main characters - they both crack me up!)

Also, the train, and the passing scenery, is beautifully illustrated in here - really nice visuals. Tiny Tweet and Sly the sneak are locked up in cages for a train ride to who knows where. Swinging Tweety begins belting out an insufferable song as soon as the train leaves the station, so lets hope that Puddy Tad gets him this time. Sly tries out a couple of funny hand tricks but spoil sport conductor man puts the bird in a safer place amongst the baggage. The cat's next attempt has him ending up in the coal oven of the steam engine. And the chase is on. Of course there's a bulldog too, and silly Sly just cant keep his big mouth shut.

Next up the persistent pussy tries the old-stacking-of-the suitcases-bit (twice) producing a payoff Tex Avery would be proud of. Unfortunately for Sylvester, that bulldog seems to be everywhere. He even displays a talent for shape shifting and producing enormous clubs from his back-pocket. Not even Sylvesters ability to outrun a speeding train can save him when he is thrown off, Silver Streak style, several times in a row. Arriving at Granny's new place, (Gower Gulch, population 86) the cat's final attempt involves cross-dressing. But you know what happens to men in dresses, they always get more attention than they bargained for.

7 out of 10 I always enjoy watching this cartoon, with Sylvester trying to catch Tweety on a train, rather than at Grandma's house. It's actually a standard fare, but entertaining, especially when Tweety pulls the emergency stop cord. One of my complaints about this is how sloppy the animators were with the train. When you watch this over and over, like my little boy did (who loves trains, which is why he liked it so much), you begin to notice some things.

Throughout this short, the position of the baggage car changes on the train, either 3rd, 4th or 5th, and in long shots not at all. The engine has either the number 651 or 814, or none at all. The coal tender has either the number 99, or the letters "S.P. & Q.R." on it, or no number or letters at all. The coaches carry the "S.P.Q.R." without the "&" in long shots, and then in closeups it has the words "SouthEast and Western."

All of this doesn't interfere with the story, but the production details were obviously not looked into very carefully.

Still this cartoon is among my favorites with Sylvester and Tweety. Friz Freleng's 'All Abir-r-r-d' is one of the best Sylvester and Tweety cartoons. Unlike the many repetitive cartoons in the series which simply transplant the same tired gags to a new setting, 'All Abir-r-r-d' makes the most of its concept. Tweety and Sylvester are domestic pets who are being sent unattended across country by train. With both a watchful official and a vicious bulldog to deal with, Sylvester has his work cut out. The Sylvester and Tweety cartoons always benefited from some extra participants and 'All Abir-r-r-d' is a good example of how much these additional characters help. Although they are not especially memorable creations, they throw some more obstacles in Sylvester's path and make for a more interesting battle. This early Sylvester and Tweety short presses many of the right buttons and, while Tweety is often particularly irritating with his forced cuteness, there's some deliciously violent antics between Sylvester and the dog, culminating in a surprisingly brutal climax which is unfortunately marred by a final unfunny non-quip by Tweety. OK, so I admit that it often seems like most of the Sylvester/Tweety pairings have exactly the same plot: Sylvester tries to get Tweety, but repeatedly fails and always gets maimed in the process, often with the help of a bulldog. I guess that it's sort of like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner (in other words, mammals should never go after birds). "All a Bir-r-r-rd" has the same plot and sets it on a train. In a way, the best part of these cartoons is seeing what sorts of schemes Sylvester comes up with to try and go after Tweety. We know that he's going to fail miserably, but it's also funny to watch Tweety turn into a bad-ass (if you've seen his really early cartoons, you'll see that he was not "cute" at all, but in fact had a cruel streak). This one mainly works as a way to pass time.

By the way, I thought that I saw - I mean, I taut I taw - Sylvester pass a piece of baggage with the name Friz Freleng on it. Its such a shame that an important film like this is virtually unknown.

I don't think Alan Bates has done a better film than this.

Its never shown on television. The only time I can recall it being shown on British TV was in the summer of 1998. I have it on tape but sadly the quality isn't great due to a dodgy aerial at the time...

I remember wanting to see this film for some time before it appeared on TV. It was shown on Channel 4 in the early hours of the morning, thereby ensuring that it still remained unseen except for a very small audience.

I was living in Bristol at the time and it was ironic that, when I finally saw the film, I realised that I had walked past the VERY house where it was filmed several times before!! The film treads a fine line; a married couple attempting to make light of their tragic predicament of coping with their severely mentally handicapped daughter by laughing about it and even involving the child in their jokes.

The direction and the acting are so superb that the film is always compassionate and moving and is never in danger of lapsing into bad taste.

A couple of years ago I saw a clip of the filmed theatre production with Eddie Izzard in the role of Bri and Victoria Hamilton playing Sheila.

It showed Izzard improvising and larking about and Hamilton jokingly telling the audience to ignore him when he's being like this.

I maybe taking this out of context as I only saw a brief clip but having read the play and seen the film this is clearly such a delicate subject that such an approach is both insensitive and disrespectful.

Izzard was praised for his performance but I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.

It is perhaps surprising that such a successful play failed to find an audience when it was finally filmed.

This is one of the best British films of the 70s and hopefully it will be released on DVD one day. Long before Terri Schiavo brought the issue of living as a "vegetable" to the public view, "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" dealt with it. Alan Bates plays Bri, a schoolteacher whose daughter is almost completely brindled. He and his wife Sheila (Janet Suzman) try all sorts of dark humor to try and get on with their lives, but they can't escape the facts. At one point, they even consider euthanasia. The question circling them and their friends is: what will ever become of this predicament?

With this movie, Alan Bates continued his streak of really good movies, preceded by "Zorba the Greek", "The King of Hearts" and "The Fixer". We can safely say that he will be sadly missed. Another masterpiece that needs a DVD release but some libraries have the VHS and well worth seeking out. Just a brilliant play about many things, foremost being euthanasia, "respectability", religion, and fundamental human relationships. The script effectively uses intelligent humor not only to cope with an issue like a severely disabled child, but to bind the parents in their love for "Jo" and each other. As the couple, Alan Bates and Janet Suzman are perfectly matched both in acting virtuosity and in bringing their deep, intelligent characters to life.

I've recently seen Bates' brilliant performance in "Butley" which was released as a film a couple years after "Joe Egg" and he plays a teacher in both, cynical, intellectual, and funny, although Butley is much darker than his character of Bry here. If you throw in such great performances in "The Go-Between", "Women in Love", "Whistle Down the Wind", "The Caretaker" and "Georgy Girl," not to mention the more obvious "King of Hearts" and "Zorba the Greek", and I'd say that Alan Bates had a career comparable to Peter O'Toole, Albert Finney, and the other great British actors of his era.

Director Peter Medak also had one of my all-time favorites "The Ruling Class" released the same year (1972) as "Joe Egg", which comprises a career year in anybody's book. He's had kind of a spotty filmography("The Krays" was another highlight), but these two gems will mark him as a great director. ...the opportunity it gave me to look at Ireland's past was invaluable.

I had the benefit of seeing this with my Mother who hailed from Cork, and in watching, we talked and I learned a lot from her about how things were back then.

Stuff like how Deasy and Co. was a Cork soft drinks company; how rain truly could destroy a harvest; how farmers used to have to collect the crop; how in dance halls the women and men did really have to stand along opposite walls before the men walked forward and asked the woman to dance; about the bellows that kept the fire going; how priests really did call out the list of church donators and their donations and a bit about the currency back then (which my Dad helped by showing me a case displaying the pence, shillings and crowns that were used back then (which were legal tender in England also)).

I didn't pay that much attention to how good the movie was, but I was very grateful in having this opportunity to look back on a period of time that for some is Irish History, but for others including some of our parents and grandparents, is just their childhood. How often do you see a film of any kind that has a talent show with refreshments? Waldo's Last Stand is a refreshment. Here Waldo is selling lemonade but isn't making any money. Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Mickey, and Buckwheat come to visit him which is ironic because in both 3 Men In A Tub and Came The Brawn where there was competition between Alfalfa and Waldo for Darla's affection. Back to the story: The Gang taste the lemonade to see if Waldo made it right. One funny moment is when Alfalfa gets a glass cup for lemonade and Waldo fills is and gives it to Darla and Alfalfa has an angry expression on his face. Spanky proposes a floor show to go with the lemonade and even Mickey agrees ever so cute. When the floor show begins there is no one at the barn but then a customer comes in (Froggy). Spanky asks him if he wants lemonade but all he does is nod no. Spanky asks him numbers of time in the short and every time Froggy nods no Spanky displays many expressions on his face which is funny. Spanky tries many ways to make him thirsty. One way is when after Mickey said ever so cutely "Those crackers are salty and they made me thirsty". There is also many entertain musical bit is this short. The opening number is by Darla which she tap dances and sings. The second includes Alfalfa singing off-key (as usually) with Mickey, Leonard, Spanky, and Buckwheat about "How dry I am!" (I believe they sing that to make Froggy thirsty. It also made me laugh.). The closing number includes boys and girls all dressed up in an old fashion way. This was Waldo's last Our Gang short. A grand musical short that is a pure 10 out of 10. I'll admit that I've never seen "Waiting for Guffman", 1997's critically acclaimed comedy mockumentary about a small town thats that stages a pageant. When the advertising for Best in Show had the tagline "From the Team That Brought You Waiting for Guffman", a fair number of critics out there implied in their reviews that only people that are familiar with the film or its filmmakers and cast would have a good time seeing this film. For shame, critics, for shame times two! Any critic that implies something like that with any film probably doesn't want to share the film's wealth with the rest of the world, but this is one film that I hope people will experience, now that its video/dvd. "Best in Show" is, without a doubt, the best comedy of 2000.

The film begins with a mockumentary style, introducing the main competitors (not to mention screwballs) of the annual Mayflower "Best In Show" competition, where dogs of all breeds come to compete to see who is the top dog. We have the loveable and gullable Harry Pepper (Guest) with his bloodhound, the simple Gerry & Cookie Fleck (Levy & O'Hara) with their terriors, nut-case yuppies Hamilton & Meg Swan (Hitchcock & Posey), the gay dog groomers Scott Dolan & Stefan Vanderhoof (Higgins & McKean), and the airheaded millionare Sheri Ann Ward Cabot (Coolidge) along with her trainer Christy Cummings (Lynch). They all have their minds on one simple object: The Blue Ribbon, which will be awarded to the best dog. And...do I have to tell you the rest?

Director/writer/star Guest's idea of humor is one that assures me that there are comedies out there that are worth laughing at, and that the idiocy of films like "American Pie" or other pointless "teenage" flicks won't take over the world after all. His idea is simple: make your comedy not just funny, but SMART funny. But instead of following in the brilliant footsteps of films like "Zero Effect" and "High Fidelity", he used a rather unusual approach (and as I understand, he also used this approach for "Guffman"). Whether you notice or not, a very large part of the film is improvisation. In other words, what the actors say and do were probably not written in the script, maybe even not even dreamed of by Guest and co-writer/star Levy. But with a gentle hand from Guest, he and the actors pulled off a hilarious theatrical feat that probably would have flopped if handled by other, less adept actors. Now that's smart!

The cast is, of course, what makes improv work the most. All of them are a (comedic) marvel to behold, especially Guest as Pepper. But the real standout has to be Fred Williard as Buck Laughlin, the clueless announcer at the competition who can spin out the most outrageously funny stories and comments that no announcer would even dream of...that is, if the announcer was trying to be funny. Williard can go from talking about the dog to suddenly going on and on about how much he can bench press. There's even a part were he gives out an idea for a new marketing strategy: have sexy women pose in tight shirts and shorts with the dogs and imply something like "have a doggie-style of a time". Its priceless, as is his performance.

I hope that people engage in this 90-minute "dogumentary". The film deserves so much recognition. It did get nominated for Best Picture-Comedy at the Golden Globes, but didn't win. I can't see why. I mean, in the comedy department, it is best in show.

GRADE: A In the era of the Farrelly Brothers and the Jackass series, to have a movie made and performed by Americans come out that is well paced and full of charm as well as hilarity is well-nigh miraculous. This ensemble has been behind some other efforts, most recently "A Mighty Wind" which was so subtle it seemed to be an actual documentary without the overlay of entertainment, but "Best In Show" hits on all cylinders. It is superbly cast with some of the best of current US actors, Parker Posey, who exudes energy even when she stands still, Eugene Levy as tolerant everyman who is nobody's doormat, even when he appears to be (or maybe, 'indomitable doormat'). The brilliant stylings of Fred Willard, the understated performances of so many others, which is a characteristic not normally associated with Americans or American actors. One of the few humorous movies I can watch again and again. This is the only Christopher Guest movie that rivals Spinal Tap and Princess Bride for sheer entertainment value, but somehow never gets near the recognition. The plot surrounds the contestants--dogs--and their owners as they venture into the world of competitive dog...OK, it's about a dog show. The owners truly are characters, as one would have to be to be so attached to their dogs. That's really all there is to it, but that makes it funny enough.

You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.

The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.

What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one. You know, this movie reminded me so much of so many people I know, I think that's the reason why I loved this movie so much. I was just on the floor laughing because this had such a serious and document feel to it, but the dialog is so hilarious, that you can't help but have a good time. Basically the movie is about these crazed dog owners who are competing in a big dog show to see who is the best of the best. Whlie it seems like it should be the dogs who take this competition seriously, it turns out the owners are just as insane. Megan, one of the dog owners, goes almost serial psycho killer on the hotel manager because she cannot find the special bee squeaky toy for her dog.

There is another couple that is just great, Gerry and Cookie, this complete nerd and attractive woman that are just so lovable. In the beginning of the movie, Gerry describes how many boyfriends Cookie had. Throughout the movie, her "lovers" see her and hit on her even in front of Gerry! It was just great and fun to watch Gerry's looks. This whole movie is just a hoot, and you can't stop with the recognizable faces that keep popping up. It's a great movie is just fun to watch, I'd highly recommend it! Now, I have to find a nice way of showing this to my friends who are like these couples to see the mirror image of themselves. :D

8/10 This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.

It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.

I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this. Functioning as a sort of midpoint between "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind", "Best in Show" portrays a dog show and the various people who bring their canine friends to participate. Some are weird, some crazy, and otherwise, but they all make the movie good. Director Christopher Guest is particularly funny as gay Harlan Pepper, very much trying to promote his dog. Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Bob Balaban also do great jobs (I can't imagine them not doing great jobs, at least not in a Christopher Guest movie). As someone who's never attended a dog show, this movie is my main exposure to them. They sure look neat. I love the mockumentary format that Chris Guest and crew have developed over the years. I actually like this and "Waiting for Guffman" better than "Spinal Tap", which was the first of the group (and made by Rob Reiner but starred Guest and several other of his mockumentary regulars). This humor is not for everyone. IT's rather subtle and not too physical, so some people may not relate. However, as a dog lover (and a dog show fan), I loved this movie. There are so many funny lines in it! My daughter and I quote them to each other often. I find it amazing that these people can ad lib so much funny material for each movie! What a fun bunch they must be. I highly recommend this to people who prefer their humor on the cerebral side. This movie should go down as one of the funniest movies in history. Its cousins A mighty wind, Spinal Tap and Waiting for Guffman are terrific in their own right but Best in Show takes the cake.

A movie about the idiosyncrasies of dog owners that show their dogs competitively, it's the intricacies of the characters that make it so good. After watching the movie about 75 times I have come to the conclusion that there is no weak character or actor in this film. There is very little interaction between any of the "groups" of characters but that only seems to add to the beauty of the film.

If you watch this movie and don't find it as funny as I am billing it as, watch it again. The first time I saw it I thought it was serviceable but not overly hilarious. It is a film that grows on you. Defininatly a movie that you will find yourself quoting frequently.

Characters: Hamilton and Meg Swan: A+ if you get the DVD check out how these characters were "born" amazing that these two could hit it so on the head. And to find out that they really didn't go by a script and sort of made it up as they went.

Gerry and Cookie Guggleman: A Cookie is especially funny and she does a fantastic job of selling the Cookie character. Gerry (Eugene Levy) delivers his standard stellar performance of the hilarious discombobulated type weaker half.

Stefan Vanderhoof and Scott Donalan- A+ Find me a funnier character than Scott Donalan, I DARE YOU! He will forever be typecast as this character to me as he was so natural and didn't seem forced at any point. Stefan (Micheal McKean) was very good as well and they interplay here (and a brief appearance with the Gugglemans) goes to show why he is always in these films. A great actor with razor like wit.

Harlan Pepper- B+, I don't want it to seem like he isn't funny, he sure is but being the only "Solo" act he can't be quite as funny as the others above. He does use the dog more than others and has some other idiosyncrasies going for him.

The rest are all great as well, there is no weak character. See this film at least twice. Buy it, you will not regret it. This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.

The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious "Mayflower Kennel Club". However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's "parents" who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.

Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.

By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular! This movie brought together some of the old Spinal crew for another mockumentary film, this time revolving around the world of the Dog Show, how their owners prepare and train for the show before moving on to the show itself.

We meet several teams as they hope to win the top prize- The Fleck's, Cookie who seems to have slept with every man ever, and Gerry who tries to cope with his wife's old escapades and the fact that he literally has two left feet. Harlan, whose dog talks to him, and enjoys ventriloquism. The Swan's who have taken far too much coffee and scream at each other. Donalan and Vanderhoof the gay couple, and Cabot and Cummings who have won the last two years. Fred Willard commentates on the show, and is very funny as always. Funny scenes include the 'Look at me!' scene, and any with Levy. Unfortunately some of the best scenes were deleted or filmed later- Willard interviewing Leslie Cabot, and the alternative epilogue with Gerry is one of the funniest things i have ever seen. If these had been included, i would give the film an extra mark. But...

7 out of 10 This has got to be the funniest movie I have seen in forever. Chritopher Guest is truly talented. He has a gift for humor. I almost died laughing. Actually, when I saw this in theaters, I considered walking out because the movie was so dumb. But it is dumb in a good way. It is funny-dumb. And this is a really good combination. You will be laughing from start to end.

This mockumentary style film follows an array of characters all competing at the Kennel Club Dog Show. The cast includes Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, John Michael Higgens, Michael McKean, Larry Miller, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge and tons more.

This is a truly funny movie that will have everyone laughing. Someone born without a personality would laugh at this film. It is presented in widescreen to give the image that you are viewing an actual documentary and that is probably what adds to the hilarity. BEST IN SHOW: 5/5. Well in to 2002 I've got some catching up to do. And looking back on a lacklustre year, Best In Show shone. No great storyline. Little action. Just a cavalcade of magnificent characters. Particular reference to Fred Willard and Jim Piddock as a rattling pair of TV commentators. Well done. Well worth the effort.

Ron (Viewed 24Mar2001) This film isn't a comedy, its an expose. I've always hated dog shows, considering the ridiculous get-ups people put their dogs in and the idiotic names they give them. Hence, the reason for my uncontrolled cackling while watching this film. I get a kick out of something being taken so seriously, even though the gains are small and insignificant. It's like miniature golf, or jump roping championships or the need to set some obscure world record. The acting was much more refined in this film than Waiting for Guffman, and its mainly due to the more fluidity of the characters, who seem more comfortable with their specific acting partners in this film than the previous. Eugene Levy was great, as was Michael McKean and Fred Willard. However, it was the dogs who eventually stole the show. But then again, who wants to see a bunch of humans in a film about dogs anyway. I saw this movie with an open mind, not knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this movie was written, directed and acted in such a manner that every minute of it is a delightful watch. The people don't seem like they're acting, more like they are real people who really train dogs and lead the lives portrayed in this movie. There are some wonderful moments where you laugh or chuckle, some jokes may be dry but are presented in a very viewable fashion. Highly recommended! "Best In Show" tracks the stories of a handful of human contestants as they prepare for one of the biggest dog shows in the calendar. Any amateur psychologist would say that an unconditional love and obsession with a pet is a sign of something missing in someone's life, and each of the characters in some way fills this cliche. There's the former High School Hottie who's now married to a geeky man, the childless, label-obsessed yuppie couple, the solitary outdoorsman, the young wife of a wealthy old codger (along with her short-haired dog trainer), and the gay couple.

What makes this film so funny though is the way it portray's these stereotypes in a completely believable way - almost affectionate, in many cases. Every ridiculous thing one of the characters does or says - with their dog as an innocent onlooker - seems like the kind of behaviour you'd totally expect to see at a dog show.

The biggest laughs come from the commentary team of an all-american style sports announcer, comparing moments in a dog show to parts of a baseball game, and his English, canine academic, foil.

The trials of the geeky husband as his blonde wife meets an astonishing number of men from her past is also always good for a chuckle, as is the demented behaviour of the yuppie couple as the pressure builds, while their hound stays completely unflustered.

Well worth watching - even if cats are more your bag. I recently saw this movie for the first time. I enjoyed it so much that I went right out and bought the DVD. This movie is pure genius and only gets funnier with each viewing. Anyone can write jokes or funny dialog and have actors memorize them, but the basis of this movie is improve!! How do they do it? Thank you, Christopher Guest! The first time you watch this movie you may hate it, but the 2nd time you see this movie I guarantee laughs all around. The owners of the dogs are so ecclectic that you can't help but look at them and laugh. From the littlest toy poodle to the announcer, everything will make you laugh. And you may learn every single nut there is! This flick was even better then 'Waiting for Guffman'. The great strength in these two films lie in the brilliant character acting by Guest and Levy's little second-second city troupe. If one finds this movie boring or pointless, God help 'em, they just didn't get it. It is a mockumentary, something at which Guest and Levy have a genius for. At the end of the movie where Guest's southern down home dog lover tells us that to relax after the show, he went to Israel to work on a 'caboose', or when he tells us that ventriloquism is an ancient art and we see a hieroglyphic

of an ancient Egyptian holding a tiny ancient Egyptian in it's hand, I realized it is moments like this that make life worth living. Thank you Mr.Guest and Mr.Levy, and God bless you. This is one of the funniest movies I've seen in ages. I watched for about 20 minutes, slightly puzzled by what was going on. Then I started to laugh and didn't stop 'til long after the movie ended. Such deadpan satire is rare indeed. Christopher Guest has a true eye for the humor inherent in those who have no sense of humor about themselves (about 90% of white heterosexual males, to start with). As in "Waiting for Guffman" Guest nails middle America's idiotic self-importance to the wall. I can hardly wait for his next film. In an earlier comment I mentioned how much I enjoyed this film - better second time around. I don't resile from that opinion. Strangely, I can't find anyone else who did like it.

My mother was going to see it but several friends told her "No way". My sister and her family saw it and half the theatre walked out part-way through.

My wife's suggestion is that Australians see the characters as just normal, everyday Americans and therefore it's not funny. But, hey, most Americans think all Australians are like Crocodile Dundee, so it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for a change. In this offering, one only has to view the current Westminster Kennel Club's annual offering to see the parallels. Outrageously funny and captures the true essence of the competition. One can only imagine the wit of the producers and the amazing ability of the performers. I too would have nominated this movie for a Globe Award and feel it is one of the funniest I have ever seen. "Best in Show" is certainly Christopher Guest's funniest and deepest movie yet. The characters are excellently portrayed and the connection of pet to owner adds a new level of comedy to the movie. I've been a fan of Guest since Spinal Tap but in this movie he has truly achieved what he set out to do in the "mock-umentary," a genre he invented and has now perfected. "Best in Show" is a often hilarious mockumentary that takes us into the world of dog shows and some of the dog owners who prepare for the event. The only thing that separates this movie from real dog shows is that the dogs in "Best in Show" act more sane than their owners! Funny stuff from a top-notch cast that includes Eugene Levy (who co-wrote the film), Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, and Christopher Guest (who co-wrote with Levy and directed). They're all funny, but Fred Willard steals the movie with his explosively funny performance as the dog show announcer who says the most outrageous things. Plus the dogs are cute too. "Best in Show" isn't exactly the laugh riot that I expected, but there are laughs and it's worth seeing.

*** (out of four)

This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too ! Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!

10/10 Rented the video for a slow Saturday night. First viewing I thought it was funny. Took a while to get used to the American caricatures (here we're more attuned to British grotesques) but very enjoyable.

Watched it again next night and really warmed to it. The characters seemed more human - lovable, even. A film one could watch several times and get more out of it each time. However, my wife *hated* it. No accounting for tastes in humour I suppose. This film is my favorite comedy of all time and I have seen a lot of comedies.First of all,I should not this film had no script.Just a storyboard.The dialogue is almost completely written by the actors.Which makes this film absolutely hsyterical.The cast is one of the best comedic ensemble's you will ever see.The story is about the Mayflower Dog Show in Philadelphia and some of the contestants in them.Parker Posey shines and is absolutely great!This is one of those films that most of the laughing comes from the absolute pathetic-ness of the characters.*****/***** Man, I really enjoyed this, if only for Fred Willard's commentary at the dog show. There are some dead spots and some gags that don't work, but overall the film works very well. When I was younger, my parents bred dogs and the people that I met at those shows were not significantly less bizarre that the freaks at this show, I can assure you.

I enjoyed this film for its artistry and for its commentary about how we tend to take frivolous things far too seriously... I enjoyed the acting for its accuracy (most of the accents were flawless) and its subtlety (I loved the way each person walked their dogs)...

Rent this film if you have any appreciation for the strangeness of human existence. when fellini committed 8 1/2 to film many commented that it was the most personal vision ever to find its perfect expression. when dante cast betrice to the flames of his undying passion many were aghast at the honest brutality of his unrequited feelings for a younger woman. when onur tukel, and a merry band of wickedly talented and misfited filmmakers--from the mecca of movie-making insanity--band together, during the course of two chilly weeks in december 2000, many commented that nothing more sophmoric had ever been committed...much less on film.

well, to the doubters out there, watch this original piece and find out why the ID is both a charming and powerful thing. and if that doesn't getchya, roll over and rub one out...it's probably time you did so.

kudos onur on a great piece of art There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come. I saw the movie in Izmir as the closing film of Izmir film festival. I didn't know anything about it but right now I'm glad I didn't refuse the chance to see Ding-a-ling-less! It IS one of the funniest movies I've ever watched and believe me I've seen zillions of movies!! (I'm a film critic!) Clever script and dialogs... Smart details... What else can I say? AN indie masterpiece with a totally unique style of humor... One can't stop by wonder what he's capable of right now. Ding-a-ling less was shot five years ago and i'm sure the director Onur Tukel is more mature now. I heard that his next feature will be a political satire and I really can't wait to see that too among with his previous works like "House of Pancakes"... What could ever happen in a dull Texan town in summer? Well, a bunch of teenagers find out a few things can and do happen.

It turns out the Mexican werewolf of this story is nothing less than el chupacabra, and the movie, unlike the name would suggest, is not a remake or lookalike of the American Werewolf movies, but something completely different.

Overall, for an obviously low-budget movie, it's not bad! Some clever camera work, quite decent looking traditional creature and gore effects, and for once not all-knowing people that can and do make mistakes, like shooting a colleague thinking it's the big bad beast, and are baffled by things they could not possibly know.

Sit down at this expecting a blockbuster million-dollar production, and you will turn it off in disgust after a short while. Sit down at this expecting a bit of entertainment and a relatively simple story, and it's quite good! Overall it gets an 8/10 from me for being creative, having OK acting, and pulling off some good work for the budget this movie had. I am salivating for the sequels. I needed something to keep me from going insane with tension, anxiety (what if it isn't as good?!), and constant lack of information. I needed something to calm me a little, something to pass the time, other than, of course, The Matrix. This was just the thing.

I found it informative (like the part about Keanu's neck...) and some of it was funny. I pitied Carrie-Anne soooo much when she said there was only one bathroom and all those guys. I found only one problem with it. Given that 95% of the people there were as a matter of fact male, they just kinda let their mouths run wild, and there was language in it. It's not near as bad as The Shawshank Redemption's cussing runs, but that one scene were Keanu is describing a bad day, plug your ears if you are little. >

It was entertaining and was just what I needed. It is what all Matrix fans who are going nuts need to keep them quiet. They mention a tiny bit about the sequels, and someone almost gives something away, but he catches himself in time (shoot!). It gives you almost no spoilers, but it is great to have if you are a Matrix Head like me.

There is no spoon. Long trailer? whoever said that has got to be joking. this has got to be one of the most in depth behind the scenes or making of documentary ever made. how can it be a trailer when several minutes are spent telling the audience how the movie was conceptualized and then brought to the studios? this documentary also spends lots and lots of time detailing how stunts were done and the new technologies created to achieve them. then it shows us how woo ping's team came up with the fight scenes along with blocking tapes that pretty much put to shame the actual scenes with the actors. there is stuff mentioned about matrix reloaded, but there's hardly anything really. if you are a real fan of the matrix, you have to see this documentary. the original documentary in the dvd is good, but incomplete compared to this one. for instance, it never explained why keanu wore a neck brace in the original documentary, but that is explained in Revisited. the Revisited dvd also shows carrie ann moss spraining her ankle during the lobby scene and being really distraught because she feels like she's letting the crew down. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. so ignore that "just a long trailer" review and go check it out for yourself. you won't regret it. casual matrix fans need not apply... This covers just about every area of the creative process, and goes through the three stages chronologically, with the main focus squarely placed on the production. There are documentaries that go into more detail, and cover the other two groups better. This consists of artwork, behind-the-scenes footage, clips of the movie, and many interviews. With a running time that comes in at just over two hours the audience is entitled to a lot of information, given that this is nearly the same length that the film itself is. It could be argued that a lot of the time is spent on the people, with the craft and the result of their collaborative efforts coming in second. This is well-done, with tight editing. It gets into the technology some, and reveals how certain effects were achieved. This spends a lot of time on the physical training, in preparation for the fighting and such. You do get nice candid shots of the people, crew and actors alike. The Ultimate Matrix 10-Disc Set of this also holds nearly three hours of music, in a simple system, with individual track selection and a Play All function, about 38 minutes worth of BTS material in addition to the title itself, in various featurettes. The original release, however, has several very brief extras, including clips of the making of the sequels, a preview of The Animatrix and Yuen Wo Ping's Blocking Tapes(a complete run-through of a couple of the biggest martial arts sequences, with stunt performers and almost the exact cinematography, with the same shots and angles of those bits in the finished silver screen effort). The language is quite strong, but rather infrequent, nearly non-existent. I recommend either version of this to anyone who enjoys the concept, and/or wants to know about how they put the first one together. 7/10 I avoided this film as a boy because I thought it would be boring…no fights or shooting, cops, robbers, cowboys or Indians. It was definitely not a cool film to like. So I didn't see TRC until I was in my twenties and found it one of the most beautiful, captivating films I have seen. All the actors deliver the characterisations perfectly and each emotion is drawn from the viewer scene by scene. The filming and direction are deceptively simple but feel so natural and drew me completely into the story. My two favourite scenes are Bobbie's birthday party and the scene on the station platform near the end, directed and edited to perfection. The quality and phrasing of Jenny Agutter's voice when she calls: 'Daddy! My Daddy!' wrenches emotion from the viewer. Tears are welling in my eyes as I think of it.

This adaptation isn't just a movie it is a piece of precious art, as well as being the perfect example of what all film makers should be striving to achieve…creation of an emotional experience. This wonderful film has never failed to move me. The colour, convincing cast, and stunning scenery all make big contributions. This production, unlike the later remake by Carlton, is more impressionistic, and presented more from the children's own perspective. It focusses on certain episodes from E. Nesbit's charming story rather than trying to make a somewhat more documentary "warts-and-all" style that Carlton adopts. Above all, the superb musical score of the late Johnny Douglas underpins the story throughout, adding extra emotional depth. The net result is a truly formidable combination of sensory experiences that cumulatively present the poignant story of "The Railway Children".

One uncomfortable factor for the viewer to ponder throughout this film is how things have changed since those times - and in many ways, for the worse! Yes, maybe many of us no longer have to use outside toilets and travel in horse-drawn carts, but what about the quality of life in general? Consider the foul-mouthed celebrities who now "grace" our TV screens. Their language is now apparently considered perfectly acceptable. Consider, too, the fragile "here today, gone tomorrow" aspects of so many of today's "partnerships" plus all the single mothers - whatever happened to that institution called "marriage", when people accepted each others' flaws but still remained together, loving their children? These details add extra piquancy when watching this marvellous film.

I hope that, as generations pass, children will still be able to enjoy this film. Not to mention certain adults! This almost perfect cinematic rendition of Edith Nesbit's popular children's novel follows the lives of Roberta (Bobbie), Phyllis, and Peter, and their mother, after their father is unfairly accused of treason and sent to prison. They go to live in an almost uninhabitable house in the country which stands near a railway line – mum writes stories to make enough money for food and candles, while the children spend much of their time around the railway station and, specifically, waving to one particular train to 'send their love to father'.

Always an involving and clever novel, the characters are here brought to life under the perceptive direction of Lionel Jeffries (better known as a fine character actor). Jenny Agutter plays Bobbie, while Sally Thomsett and Gary Warren are her sister and brother. Their mother is Dinah Sheridan, while the other memorable characters are played by Bernard Cribbins (Perks the railway-man) and William Mervyn (the old gentleman on the train).

'The Railway Children' is gentle entertainment from another age, but does its job beautifully. As we watch Bobbie grow up with the worries of an absent parent jostling against her own needs both to be alone and to have fun, we can only rejoice when events come together at the close of the picture. Throughout we have a sense of time and place – be it from the steam trains, the university paper chase, or the red flannelette petticoats worn by the girls (and used to avert disaster!). The Railway Children is perhaps my favorite film of all time simply for the brilliant acting of the cast,the warm,humane interaction of the 3 children and the people they encounter living near the railway in the beautiful English countryside. Jenny Augutter is especially believable in her role as 'Bobbie' the older sibling of her sister Phyllis and brother Peter.The adventures they discover and relationships formed in their new home and surrounding area are very real and fascinating.The scenery is lovely,the trains a part of Britain's vast history and the soundtrack is very moving. This heartwarming film never fails to bring tears to my eyes,each and every time as well as makes me homesick.I often wonder if I should have been born in that era as I think I would have fitted in just fine as people treated each other with such chivalry and decency.

In short I consider this film somewhat of a masterpiece and a must see for anyone who considers themselves a 'sensitive or caring type'.Edith Nesbit wrote this story around the beginning of the 1900's and what a wonderful story it is.More kids today need to read this or see the film instead of playing violent video games.If we had more films of this nature ,the world would become a better place. This is a film that I love above all others. I try to revisit the main film locations in Oakworth and Oxenhope whenever I can, which help to re-establish those magical qualities that this film seems to embody so uniquely - recalling a gentler and more mannered age, with its unspoken assertions that people really do matter, that family life is not just another disposable, and that life really is worth living (though sometimes, we may doubt that). In short, a film that soon brings tears to my eyes, helped perhaps by the deeply evocative music - some tunes are jaunty (like the Perks' tune, played on a trombone, sometimes with spoons), the stirring melody when the family first set off for Yorkshire not knowing what lies ahead, and the haunting little tune played on a solo clarinet (or is it an oboe?) that precedes sudden child-felt changes in fortune.

This is as much a film for adults as for children, appealing to the eternal child in us all - a key that effortlessly reactivates those deep and apparently long-lost values and feelings buried inside us, which are normally swept aside by the demands of modern everyday life. This is a film about basic human goodness and decency in which we the viewers are left to make of it what we will, and there are welcome touches of humour sometimes added for good measure, such as the arrival of the aunt or, on a more earthy level, the bedroom scene on Perks' birthday - "All right Bert - as it's your birthday!" I must know every scene, every line of this film, and yet so great is the magic that each time I watch, it is like I am opening a box of delights for the first time, savouring each moment - sometimes humorous, sometimes....well, very different. As Peter says in the film: "it's perfect - more perfect than you know". And so it is!!! ...apparently Bernard Cribbins ad libbed nearly all of his lines. If you can sit through the 'Daddy! Oh my daddy" bit without blubbing then you really need to get in touch with your inner child (trust me. I'm a 41 year old bloke). Perhaps once in a generation a film comes along that is perfection. For me, "The Railway Children" is that film - a timeless classic that was directed and performed most beautifully. It depicts all that is worthwhile in humanity and climaxes in the conquest of love and faith over cruel injustice. Every performance is a gem, though Bobbie stands out and, like Judy Garland as Dorothy before her, Jenny Agutter makes it impossible for us to imagine anyone else in the role.

The world is all the better for this film and the children of today would be much the better for watching it.

Of course, like so many young men of my generation, I fell hopelessly in love with Jenny Agutter and her hold was as strong when I had the great good fortune to meet her a few days ago - the bewitching smile and voice like dripping honey were still there to send me weak at the knees as they first did all those years ago! The book "The Railway Children" is a children's book published in 1906 by Edith Nesbit, an early British socialist who had very strong views about the importance of family values for the upbringing of children, and the story it told was presumably intended to be contemporary. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems to retain a significant appeal for today's children a hundred years later.

A film adaptation of an Edwardian classic children's story with the principal roles those of the children, does not sound very exciting to most film-goers in this day and age. But a really great performance by Jenny Agutter who (near the start of her long and distinguished acting career) played the part of the oldest girl Roberta (Bobby), combined with remarkable work by the script-writer and director Lionel Jeffries and outstanding photography by Arthur Ibbetson, have made this a film that is still not to be missed, and one which most of its viewers find quite memorable. It is remarkable that this book, set in the year 1905, was filmed five times between 1951 and 2000, (four of them by the BBC for British television), and all of these versions are not only still greatly admired but also very highly regarded (something that user comments on this database will confirm), even though this may seem almost inconceivable for a nostalgic period story designed to appeal primarily to children. Since I have not seen the four BBC TV versions, these comments relate exclusively to the 1970 film version produced for showing in cinemas. Unlike most films of children's books, 'The Railway Children' may appeal more to adults than to children. The structure of family life has changed so much in the last century that many children may feel totally lost by the way in which it is depicted in the film, whereas many older adults may find it has a considerable nostalgic appeal. Perhaps compensating for this, the children featured in the film are full of life and vitality, whilst the adult characters although well rounded tend to mostly be 'stuffed shirts'. The story is a mature one, which deals with love, support and encouragement, it is not only timeless but capable of appealing to all ages. It can fairly be described as sentimental and more than a little idealised, but it is never in any way mawkish, and that rarely justified adjective 'uplifting' fits it like a glove.

Spoiler Ahead.

The film starts with its upper middle class Edwardian family celebrating Christmas in a comfortable and fairly spacious London home when two unexpected visitors call and take Father (who is a senior government officer) away with them. Mother has to move to a very small cottage alongside the railway in a remote part of Yorkshire and the children gradually build a new life mainly associated with the railway and the few trains that pass. This life proves quite eventful in small ways and the elder daughter Bobby grows up rapidly as she takes over more responsibilities from her mother. At one point she averts an accident to the train when her sharp eyes spot that a landslide has created a natural hazard. Father's story is never given much emphasis, but he is never forgotten and it gradually becomes apparent that he is incarcerated and suspected of treason. Finally these suspicions are cleared up (we are not told how or why) and he reappears unexpectedly at the local station to rejoin his family.

For many years this film was not available in any home video format in North America, but Anchor Bay created a DVD from it three years ago, so they clearly recognised that this quite simple film has not yet lost its appeal. For anyone who has not got one already, I would very strongly recommend rushing out to buy a copy of this DVD whilst it is still available - you would be most unlikely to be disappointed unless you have become totally cynical, or your minimum requirements for a film include buckets of blood and/or intense sex scenes. This brings back so many childhood memories. (I'm not old, I'm 19) It's brill. The trains, the old house, the fallen runner, the really scary landslide (well it is when you're 6), the drama if the children can stop the train, or will it crash? This is a children's film without a doubt, but it offers great harmless no blood/guts/guns etc for children. And it's got Bernard Cribbins in it, who's cool. 8/10 What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like "Raging Bull" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries' "The Railway Children". This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children's film doesn't seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children's movie – "Railway Children" was created during a time when purity was more than just saying "no", when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. "Railway Children" is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.

There are several moments that stand out proudly in "Railway Children" that transform this from mediocrity to excellence – one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries' children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today's children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, "No, I will not. I don't like Perks." The children's reaction is hilarious – providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.

That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn't perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children's reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn't distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like "Love, Actually" or "Vicar of Dibley" demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren't afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of – more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.

Overall, I loved "Railway Children". I didn't know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. "Railway Children" is more than just a kid's film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.

Grade: **** ½ out of ***** Edith Nesbitt's best book has been adapted into a truly magnificent film, I love it. The film itself has gorgeous cinematography, and fine realisation of the subject matter. The ending is enough to have you in tears, as it is so beautifully done. Lionel has directed some truly excellent films, like the Amazing Mr Blunden, but this is his best film as director by a mile. The costumes were absolutely lovely, that matched the beauty of the countryside, and the sparkling and conveniently-faithful script helped matters. However, it is the quality of the acting that holds this film together, as it is nothing shorter than incredible. Dinah Sheridan is suitably sincere as the mother, a much-needed characteristic of the character, and Bernard Cribbins was hilarious as Perks. In fact, I preferred Perks on film, as he isn't as humorous in the book. The children were perfect. Gary Warren and Sally Thomsett both gave spirited performances, but it is Jenny Agutter's enchanting portrayal of Bobbie that impressed me the most. Another special mention is the gorgeous music by Johnny Douglas, the title music reminded me of Charlie Chaplin's Smile. In conclusion, a funny and poignant masterpiece, that is better than the book, I think. 10/10. Bethany Cox. Proudly and defiantly working class porter Perks(Mr B.Cribbins)is eventually won over by upper middle class family down on their luck. Father(Mr I.Cuthbertson) incarcerated for treason - for which the penalty was death in those days,lest it be forgotten),mother(the very beautiful Miss D.Sheridan)brave and resourceful,loyal and loving,and - principally - older daughter (Miss J.Agutter) tottering on the cusp of adolescence - hurt and confused about the fate of her father. Mr Perks,like many working people of his time,will have nothing to do with anything that he considers smacks of "charity" and it is a key moment in the movie when he finally accepts that birthday gifts he has been given by the children do not compromise his principles. Although the lovely Miss Agutter has received all the accolades it is Mr Cribbins and Miss Sheridan whose performances dominate "The Railway Children".They both know how Edwardian society works from opposite ends of the spectrum but there is an unspoken mutual respect and understanding between them. But this is basically a movie about family.In an era when a mother can kidnap her own daughter and hold her to ransom and be considered as "socially inept" rather than unfit to live in decent society,and when two "human beings" can beat and kick a baby to death without being charged with murder,"family" may be seen as an old - fashioned,elitist, racist even homophobic concept,but a century ago it was the glue that held society together at all levels.Mr Cribbins' and Miss Sheridan's families are archetypal for the age.Strong and loving,sticking together against outside influences,integral units with a moral certainty mocked in the 21st century. What might seem to be a dull,preachy political tract is turned by Mr Lionel Jeffries into a delightful hymn to hope,faith,optimism and courage. That all those attributes were once considered the norm and are now too often the subject of scorn and cynicism is a reflection on our society rather than Miss Nesbit's. No one with more than a passing concern for the human condition can fail to be considerably moved by this quite perfect movie. The Railway Children was on TV again this weekend, and I had forgotten how good it was.

If I have a criticism, it is that the episodic structure sometimes shows a little too clearly, there being little narrative flow from sequence to sequence. The charm and beauty of the film are such that this matters very little, however.

I won't revisit the comments of others, other than to add my vote for the final scene on the platform as being possibly the single most emotional scene in the history of British cinema: as a cynical old git passing through middle age rather too quickly I, too, find I cannot even think of that moment without being hit with a severe case of "I've got something in my eye." In fact, it's not just something in my eye, it moves things around inside me, too, with that beautiful happy pain we sometimes feel.

And Jenny Agutter was exquisitely beautiful in this film, standing with one foot in childhood and one in young womanhood, and bringing qualities of both to her portrayal of a girl having to grow up rather too quickly.

Plus a quick plaudit for Bernard Cribbins. Regarded mostly as a lightweight actor, he deftly created a Perks of great humanity. An extremely powerful film that certainly isn't appreciated enough. It's impossible to describe the experience of watching it. The recent UK television adaptation was shameful - too ordinary and bland. This original manages to imprint itself in your memory. I have watched this movie countless times, and never failed to be charmed by it's homely simplicity, sincerity and goodness. Great characterizations by all of the cast, and the lovely little steam trains that play a such an important supporting role.I confess I fell in love with Roberta in 1970, and she still touches me today. Shown on TV in New Zealand on Christmas day, the nicest present I could have had. I try to catch this film each time it's shown on tv, which happily is quite often. But I keep forgetting to video it. As it is, I practically know the script by heart, but that doesn't stop me having a good cry, in fact it probably adds to it as I cry knowing what's coming next. It's such a lovely film - well made, well cast, good photography. I love it. One of my top ten films. In Victorian times a father is separated from his family when he is falsely accused of treason and they are sent to live in the country. The children adapt to their new situation, make friends, and enlist the help of a kind old man they wave to on the train to help reunite their family.

Actors who direct movies are often not very good at it. Jeffries however, the great veteran actor of dozens of British comedy classics, is one of the few exceptions. His brilliant conception (he also wrote the script, from the novel by E. Nesbit) of a classic British children's story is what raises this film to art. Whilst the story may be highly idealised, the wonderful performances and the fabulously evocative Yorkshire dales settings combine to make a truly memorable movie. The photography by Arthur Ibbetson is the definition of good movie-making - not a shot is wasted in telling the story but at the same time the images combine to create a fabulously romantic atmosphere. Agutter is simply perfect as the kind-hearted Bobbie (okay, I fell in love with her at an early age, but I defy anyone to disagree) and Cribbins, whose comic acting pedigree is on a par with Jeffries, is unforgettable as Perks the humble-yet-proud railway porter. This is a film out of time; romantic, charming, hugely enjoyable and with a beautifully naive sense of good-hearted kindness towards all. I think together all the reviewers have captured this film really well. I have seen it many, many times, but I still feel a sense of joy and warmth just as I did the first time. My emotional response to this film never seems to fade. The final scene certainly brings me to tears, but so does the scene between Perks and The Children on his birthday. And as for the Kindly Gentleman. Something else is going on with that character. The generous provider and solver of problems. He knows everything about everything and has connections everywhere. A perfect father to run to and make us feel safe. I do not know how the film does it, but it touches something very English deep inside, which has long gone from our daily experience, but yet we all instantly recognise and yearn for again. The Railway Children, at least this 1970 movie version written and directed by that long-time British character actor, Lionel Jeffries, is an unmitigated...classic. It tells a childhood story with great simplicity and charm; the sentimentality is muted; the evocation of childhood adventures is involving; and Jeffries brings cleverness and style to his production.

The Waterbury family is leading an idyllic life in Edwardian London. The father is prosperous, the mother is beautiful and loving, the children are well-mannered and affectionate, their home is warm and cozy. Then one night during the Christmas holidays two men appear at the doorstep, talk quietly to the father, and then take him away. In a moment the lives of Mrs Waterbury (Dinah Sheridan) and Bobbie, 14 (Jenny Agutter), Phyllis, 12 (Sally Thomsett) and young Peter (Gary Warren), have been changed. Only their fortitude and good spirits are going to see them through. Now teetering into poverty, Mrs. Waterbury takes her children to live in a musty old brick house in the countryside near a rail-line, not too far from a small village with a train station. The children discover the rail and regularly sit on a small hill to wave at the passengers as the train chugs by. One day an old gentleman, going to his business in the city, looks up from his newspaper and finds himself waving back. It's not long before he will play an important part in the story.

As time passes, Mrs. Waterbury brings all her love and intelligence to bear on her children. She begins to write stories to earn money. She teaches them their lessons and provides a home of warmth and security for them. The story, however, is about these three children, especially Bobbie. At 14, she is old enough to want to share her mother's worries, yet young enough to enjoy the adventures she has with her sister and brother. They find a poor man at the station who cannot speak English. They discover he is a Russian refugee who no longer knows where his wife and child are. They insist he must come home with them, and their mother takes him in. Before long the children have written a large sign to the old gentlemen on the train asking for his help. They help a young man taking part in a steeplechase who breaks his leg in a train tunnel. Soon, he is at their home recuperating. They decide to have a birthday party for the station master, a man with few friends and several children who is a stickler for his dignity. It's not long before the children help him realize the difference between friendship and charity. In other words, the three children encounter all sorts of problems in their childhood adventures, and manage to be instrumental in seeing that all the problems have happy endings.

But what of their own problems? Bobbie finally learns from her mother that her father was taken away because he had been accused of treason, of giving state secrets to the Russians. Will Bobbie be able to find a way to help? Will the old gentleman be something more than simply an old gentleman on a passing train? Will their father's case be reopened? Will there be a happy ending?

Jenny Agutter was almost 18 when she filmed her part; she plays the 14-year-old Bobbie with great naturalness and charm. As important as the other players are, especially Dinah Sheridan as the mother, Agutter is the heart of the story. For me, it is Jenny Agutter's talent and Lionel Jeffries' style and restraint that make this movie so memorable. The story's problems come with no serious doubt but that they will be solved. And Jeffries does not just give us an expertly adapted and directed movie, he adds touches that are barely noticed but which charm us. This might include just a split second of a freeze frame as two people talk; or a slow close-up of a small, yellow wildflower in the grass outside Bobbie's home, then a slow pull-back from a yellow oil lamp being turned up inside; or the realization that a delightful interior shot or a view of the green countryside or a look at the train station from a hill...all suddenly recall those charming Edwardian hand-tinted drawings of a perfect by- gone time.

Perhaps this gentle story can't compete for the time kids need nowadays to perfect their Nintendo monster-splatting skills. I'm almost positive it would never capture the attention of most of their parents, especially those weaned on Batman and Leone. Still, it's a perfectly put together movie and shouldn't be forgotten. As an aside, 19 years later the story was retold as a television program. This time, Jenny Agutter played the mother. I will admit I possibly missed tiny moments when I wasn't paying proper attention, but I got enough of the story to agree that it is a great family film, from director Lionel Jefferies, who played Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Basically it starts with a happy upper-middle class family living in Victorian London. One night the Father (Iain Cuthbertson) is visited by two strangers, and he leaves with them, and does not return. They move to a cottage in the country, and here the children; Bobbie (Jenny Agutter, who I first saw in Child's Play 2), Phyllis (Sally Thomsett) and Peter (Gary Warren) keep their spirits up, with their fascination for the nearby railroad. Everyday they wave faithfully to the passengers in the passing trains, and with courage and vigilance they also avoid an accident and are made heroes. Their kindness makes them friends, including important people who can help find the mystery of their missing father. Also starring Dinah Sheridan as Mother/Mrs. Waterbury, Bernard Cribbins as Albert Perks, William Mervyn as Old Gentleman, Peter Bromilow as Doctor Forrest, Ann Lancaster as Ruth and Gordon Whiting as Russian. It was number 29 on The 100 Greatest Family Films, and it was number 24 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Very good! For all of us American Deneuve fans, this little gem is a little tough to get ahold of. Fortunately, I found myself so wrapped up in the short bits that I saw previewed on youtube.com that I was willing to go to any lengths. I found it on ebay.com, ordered it directly from France, and changed my laptop so it would play Region 2 DVDs. Let me tell you that it was well worth it. Be warned - there are NO subtitles (unforunately, Pathe shouldn't have released this on DVD, Koch Lorber should've - they're good about the subtitles). I don't speak a word of French. I can utter a syllable here and there, order a drink and whatnot. That having been said, this film was a treat anyway. I couldn't fully appreciate the supposed "bawdy" humor or the witty dialogue. Watching Deneuve and her cohorts was enough for me. I understood what was going on without need of the dialogue. It really says something about a film when those who can't speak the language enjoy it.

The cinematography is wonderful. London is adorable as the smitten son-on-law. Loved the lesbian Mom. And, of course, what can I possibly say about our dear Mademoiselle Deneuve. She is one of a kind. Those eyes, that smile. I could watch her films all day. She really goes beyond beauty. People always say she's gorgeous. Well, yes, she is. But she is also VERY talented. I believed her every second of the way. Her conversation about chocolate and vanilla with London is too sweet. Her character even gets arrested for smoking dope with some 15 year old in the street. NOT TO BE MISSED! Fly to France and buy this if you have to. Great. 10 I always loved French movies because I think they are filled with much more emotion and sense than the Americans. This film is a gem.

Starting with the wedding which is so funny that you just want to join them and in the end where the little family kids tell us who is with who which is extremly funny. Catherine Deneuve is simply hot and so good that it is absolutely possible that a young man can fall in love with her, and Vincen Lindon is perfect for that role. The best scene (except the wedding party) is in the family reunion where Antoine has got mad and yells his feelings to Lea in front of the family. It is such a shame that I could buy this film only from the French and not from the English (so I have to learn in French to enjoy watching it)!! Starting with a "My Name is Joe" like scene in Alcoholics Anonymous tBM careers into a mad spiral of infidelity, double standards and clandestine affairs. but what do you expect from a family of lawyers?

A genuinely funny film, with some of the most outrageous characters since The Birdcage, plot and subplot are intertwined with surreal scenes of decadent Parisian life (ever been to a wedding reception in the gents toilet where the brides grandmother and her deranged girlfriend are smoking dope and cracking blue jokes? No, me either!) leading to a final scene of almost Arcadian symbolism.

Excellent. Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word "rollicking" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.

No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.

Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect. Wow....it's been a long time since I've last seen such a hilarious movie like this one!!!!! I've never been a great fanatic about French movies, but ever since I fell in love with the beauty and the acting skills of Catherine Deneuve I decided to see all of her movies... however I didn't think this one would be so fantastic as it turned out to be. Lucky me, that I bought it even though I had some doubts! This is really "feel-good-time" film with class and quality. There are some great social topics and moral drama's involved that are very close to today's modern way of living, which are shown very beautiful and realistic. I also liked the dancing scene in the men's room a lot! But my favourite is the rather timid attempt of Catherine Deneuve to sing.....she brings it the way she is, with lots of grace and modesty at the same time...very tempting! Further on I would also like to express my respect and admiration for Line Renaud, who played a fantastic role (I didn't even know she acted....I've only known her for her music). So, don't wait any longer and go see the movie...you'll be surprised in many ways. This is yet another gem from the pen of Daniele Thompson - in fact that same year (1999) she wrote and directed La Buche, the first of three writer/director credits so far. Belle Maman is first of all 'French' whatever that means which is, of course, different things to different folks. The premise is simple: At the altar where he is marrying Mathilde Seigner, the groom, Vincent Lindon, gets his first glimpse of her mother, Catherine Deneuve, and suffers what the French call a coup de foudre which we know as love at first sight. In theory the story is either 1) over right then and there assuming he called the wedding off or else 2)just the beginning as he goes through with the wedding and thus lives a lie until it is resolved one way or the other. Thompson veers towards #2 but not without hitting us with the odd subplot along the way like, for example, Deneuve's cigar-smoking lesbian mother Line Renaud (in real life, if anyone cares, Renaud is in a long-term relationship with Stephane Audran, who co-stars here) and throws in a brilliant set-piece in a luxuriously appointed Men's Room at the wedding reception, which takes the form of a hilarious song-and-dance. Consummate writer that she is Thompson also leavens the comedy with drama like the brilliant climactic scene where Vincent finally spews out his feelings for Deneuve at a family gathering whilst simultaneously wrecking the joint. This is one to savour. Again and again. If you want an excellent survey of Byzantine history done in colorful fashion, this is for you. This documentary would also be excellent for educators, who are teaching about Roman, or medieval history. This documentary is divided into three portions, first dealing with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. The second video deals with Byzantine diplomacy and the iconoclastic controversy. The third and final video explains the decline and fall of Byzantium. The series is shot in several countries, and beautifully integrates Byzantine history into the realities of the modern world, showing the place of this civilization as part of human civilization in general. Do, take the time to watch. Though not a Greek I have had a lifelong interest in the Eastern Empire. Its fall in 1453 was the Greatest loss to Christianity in its entire history. Yet while the Easter Empire is not a topic much discussed in American intellectual circles, the US did not merely mimic Golden Byzantiums public architecture, the US is much absorbed in the fated Byzantine historical cycle and now has faced many of the crises involving certain people of a middle eastern extraction about whom it is said that there is a slight tendency for excessive exuberance on religious matters which humbled Great Byzantium. I wonder if the loss of the ability to speak plainly was the first sign post on the road to disaster.

John Romer is to be credited not only for his excellent production but also for his joyful enthusiasm for the subject which is most refreshing.

Not recommended for Americans who like political correctness. Another "end of the world" film that begs comparison to the abysmal "Day After Tomorrow". Following the same sort of structure as DAT but with a distinctly Japanese style. How does it fare? That depends on your taste for Japanese melodrama.

I found that the small human touches to be what makes this film compelling for most of it's 2 + hours. Also the frequent title cards explaining some of the science. The effects are probably the best I've seen in a Japanese film and they compare very well to anything out of Hollywood. Many of the disaster scenes are truly horrifying even though the human carnage is usually off screen. And that is one of the drawbacks. While the terror of thousands of on- screen deaths like in the recent "War of the Worlds might have too overwhelming, we also don't really get a sense of the chaos of an entire nation crumbling into the ocean. A few scenes touch on the chaos but for the most part this part of the story is barely touched on. Regardless, this film works on a lot of levels and is way more realistic then DAT, that is until the end.

Unfortunately the story hinges itself on one clichéd plot device and another plot device that would be at home in the 1960's Japanese Earth in peril film "Gorath". After the reasonably good science and mostly realistic take on the disaster, this makes for a bit of disappointment. The sudden stopping of the film for a pop love song doesn't help either (unless you like the song). This made the "exciting" ending a bit of a drag for me.

The overall direction is good and the art design is excellent. Acting is all good as well. Recommended. I actually caught an ad for JAPAN SINKS in a Japanese magazine last year, and wondered what the heck it was until I saw the trailer for the film. It was then I remembered that I had seen the English translation of Sakyo Komatsu's novel some years back. I got it, and it was quite good, as well as chillingly realistic. It's enough to make the reader dread hearing any news about earthquakes in Japan.

Now, I've read the book, and seen this 2006 movie version (the first movie came out in 1973). And you know what? I thought the movie was quite good, even if there are major changes from novel to film (but that's understandable). The story is simple--a major tectonic shift will cause Japan to sink within a year. Massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis rock the country as frantic efforts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. One scientist has a plan that could stop the sinking of the country and save what's left of the landmass, but can it be implemented in time? I saw JAPAN SINKS at Otakon 2007, and while there were a couple of problems I had with it--it does run a bit too long, and a couple of the character moments were a little too sappy--I was nonetheless blown away. The sheer concept of an entire nation sinking into the sea was made terrifyingly real, and the effects were some of the best I've ever seen, rivaling anything that Hollywood has done. The film also plays no favorites with the main characters, with some not making it to the closing credits.

Frankly, I've been surprised by some of the negative comments made about this film. Difference of opinions, I guess. Personally, I enjoyed it. And I've read the original book. As spectacle, it's hard to fault Nihon chinbotsu. The Japanese people have benefited from their intimate relationship with the sea, and the concept of the film implies that an entire world and way of life at risk - thanks to its volcanic heritage. From the standpoint of reality it's rather silly to have a drama wherein the entirety of Japan vanishes under the waves; why just Japan?

So, presume instead that we have movie reality, fueled by spectacle (and popcorn), and some may find this quite affecting. Compared to adventures with Japanese radioactive monsters, this comes off as more mature and better paced. The emotional element is underplayed, and it really works. (It loses a bit with the overblown theme song at the climax, however.)

Is Nihon chinbotsu credible? Probably not, but the thrilling eruptions, and the relaxed pacing make for a more pleasing entertainment that one night expect. I don't know what Dick steel was talking about, but I found this film to be one of Japan's most thrilling epics to date. As for Armageddon or Deep Impact, or for that matter The day after tomorrow is pale in comparison. For what I know of films, most of the catastrophes in films are basically run of the mill asteroid flicks or one of which of Global Warming. This how ever ran a different course. A course of natural means where the earth's crust is beginning to erode to such a degree, that it will take another piece of land with it for the ride. What the scientific teams had to do was create a way to stop the erosion from going to far and Sinking Japan altogether. In most cases this would simply be called tectonic shifting on steroids. I found the characters rather appealing in every way, from the child who lost her mother only to face her own demise among unfamiliar friends. Or the rescue girl who does all the she can to save lives in the face of disaster. Or a man who thought he could change her mind not to be such a dare devil and go with him to safety, only to become the hero himself and save his homeland. And let's not forget, how the rest of the world just shucked them all back only to be forgotten, by having the world turning their backs on the Japanese citizens who cried for help. This was a great movie in all aspects. What Dick is trying to say is that this movie was not Hollywood made, that it was made in Japan, that it had characters which rival other actors around the world, that the effects are very gorgeous as he mentioned but it's all he was waiting for, and nothing else. He lacks the vision of what's important to everyone, and why this film had every element of feeling, of grandeur, and of humanity. I thought this film was top rate, and I have seen many disaster films to know that Japan Sinks was possibly one of the most original and well thought out projects I have witnessed. I really hope Shinji Higuchi will make another of such films. Oh and by the way, I am not Japanese, though in many ways I wish I was. I am Canadian, born and raised. And an avid movie buff in all aspects. Predjudicial visions are bitter and not worth the effort to be recognized as an opinion. Dick you should watch it with a more open heart and mind, don't just look for the eye candy which makes a films content, look for what's more important, and understand it. They may not be American, but the Japanese have cornered the market lately for some of the most breath taking and down right gritty film making to date. Which is why spending 25,000,000 is just what the Doctor ordered. You heard right, 25,000,000 to make this film. Now you tell me, was it worth it? or was it worth it because American actors weren't in it? I've never watched a file in a language I don't understand just because I wanted to see the movie and I couldn't find it with English subs. I don't know how much I missed but it wasn't much. Probably just specific details which sounds silly until you see the emotional level of this movie and how the characters interact together. I want to mention to The Diceman from Germany there's no reason to feel that he 'sucks' when it comes to commenting on the emotional strength of the film. Like I said, I don't understand Japanese -or at least only the very small amount I came away with from reading the very lengthy novel -pro- bably my favorite all time book which I could not put down & took the next day off from work just to finish reading! I don't know if there's an English dubbed or subbed version but if the film but if there is I'd love to see it. The film was incredible in Japanese anything better is icing of the cake!! Slainte', Maegi It's the best movie I've watched this year! Excellent detail and storyline (for a remake).

It presents to you a "what if" situation wherein the island of Japan could totally be wiped out of this earth. A thought-provoking, life and death situation and not to mention all life on earth (well in this particular Japan). It also presents a great and genius solution to this massive tragedy.

Horror, action, suspense, sci fi, documentary, love story and all the human interest story you can get you'll find everything here! But I also warn you that it is a real tearjerker! The casts, actors and all are all excellent, better than any Hollywood movie!

The thing is...this could really happen to anywhere on earth! Now let me ask you this after you've seen it..."what would you do if you are faced in this life and death situation"? I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film. This review contains MILD SPOILERS, but not enough to spoil the story...

Watched Nihon Chinbotsu (Sinking of Japan or Japan Sinks, depending on where you live) recently, a remake of the 1970's movie of the same name, which itself was based on Sakyo Komatsu's best-selling novel. This movie is a gem of Japanese film-making. It appears that Japan is sinking due to a subduction of a tectonic plate to the west. The Americans predict that it would happen in the period of 40 years, but according to Dr.Tadokoro (a seemingly 'mad' scientist), it will happen in less than a year. The Japanese government isn't that convinced but sets up a Disaster evacuation plan as well as form a new D1 team to handle the crisis. While on a trip to China to negotiate evacuation plans, the Japanese Prime Minister was killed, and sends the cabinet into a state of panic. The D1 team is left to handle most matters, and led by the newly elected Minister of Crisis Management, Saoro Takamori (Dr.Tadokoro's ex-wife). She turns instead to Dr.Tadokoro for advice, and he has plans to blow astronomically HUGE holes under Japan to avert the process of sinking.

Japan would soon have to negotiate with various countries and persuade them to adopt Japanese refugees. Soon, it seems that a lot of countries are reluctant to accept any more due to the sudden influx of Japanese in their country and the chaos that follows (if this ever happens, touch-wood, I hope Ito Misaki will be safe... she can always stay at my place... hee hee). The scenes of evacuations are really well done, showing the havoc, suffering and desperation civilians have to face in such disastrous times. And the many faces of human beings surface, arrogance, selfishness, bribery, bravery, cowardry...

This is a really well-made film. the storytelling is solid, with an engaging storyline and wonderful acting. Dr.Tadokoro (played by Toyokawa Etsushi) was done really well, portraying a divorced and often mad scientist who kicks and bashes up stuff. His frustration and concerns were very visible and that's a really good thing. Reiko (played by gorgeous Shibasaki Kou) was also played rather well, and has the most memorable line in the entire movie (go watch it to find out) and I fancy that she has a nice acting voice. She plays the love interest of Toshio Onodera (played by Tsuyoshi Kusanagi of SMAP). Oh, I almost forgot... she has really, really long hair~ And there's also a subtle but background love story, which is well written and if there's something the Japanese do really well, it's love stories...

One thing that makes this movie interesting is the technical explanations of the events that occur, and if you're interested in geography, you'll have a really good time (I know I did... hehe). I can see that they went to great lengths to make this movie's theory believable, and the first few graphical displays and explanation were done rather well (although you'll have to excuse the Japanese's famous "Engrish".

OK, now about the effects (it's all about the effects, isn't it?). After watching the movie with pure awe, I must say that this movie has special effects that are on par (or even better) with some Hollywood productions. The volcanic eruptions... the massive earthquakes... destruction... tsunamis... explosions... all done splendidly. The opening scene is so cool, the 1st earthquake catches you by surprise, mountains fall, the destruction due to volcanic eruptions makes you cringe... to actually watch Mount Fuji heat up is a marvel... then you see Shibuya fall to the ground... it's so sad!!! However, what I felt was one of the best scenes was the giant tsunami scene, which sees rescue operations fail and people left with nowhere to run and no hope to hold on to... the ending scene also deserves a mention... wonderful stuff. If you like effects, you'll love this movie.

Oh ya... every good movie has a great song behind it. The seriously addictive "Keep Holding U" sung by the super-cute and adorable SunMin is a duet with Kubota, and it's simply lovely. I feel it suits the movie really well and it shows that no matter what disasters hit us, our love and strength would keep us holding on. The disaster scenes are handled with orchestra music and at times silence (a Japanese specialty) and really gives a sense of chaos to the destruction on screen. Oh, and did I mention it's a really, really, really WIDE screen? Okla, been going on and on about this movie. Yeah, I LOVED it, and hoping to watch again... It does have plot holes, but it's all excusable because it was just a wonderful popcorn movie. Not perfect, but really well-made. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I'm glad to say that the most expensive movie in Japanese history is also one of their best. If you haven't watched it, you really should today... it is a MUST WATCH! They were alternative before there was alternative, The Residents are a band like no other, and I love them for it. This has all their classics, from 'Hello Skinny', 'Third Reich and Roll' to their homage to the great James Brown with a take on 'This is a Man's Man's Man's World'. But that is just the beginning. As a bonus it even has Renaldo & the Loafs hauntingly beautiful 'Songs for Swinging Larvae' and even features The Residents cover of it. Needless to say, I highly recommend the purchase of this DVD, I would also recommend buying their latest album 'Demons Dance Alone', it is fantastic.

Uncle Willie Eyeball Buddy #502 As other reviews have stated, there are a few missing videos from this collection, but what is on this disc is overwhelming. There are two separate soundtracks, an original recording and a completely redone new performance version. Any new music from the Residents is welcome, and I suppose for a first time listener, the new version may be more ear-friendly, but I prefer the original recordings (probably simply because they are "the originals". Production of this DVD is amazing, new and old videos are all interesting, with live performance videos probably the least interesting of what is offered (although the snippets of live recordings hidden as easter eggs are extremely welcome). This is not a renter, this is a must own collection. Enjoy. This video was my first introduction to the Residents, and I couldn't stop playing it for the past three days. The visuals are dynamite and more inventive and technically complex than any I have ever seen on the big screen or small.

The DVD loses points, however, for the pointless addition of new music. The original Residents music is unlike anything else you've ever heard, and will really tweak your brain in the best possible way. The new music however is uniformly uninteresting and in most cases is rather bad in comparison to some of the classic tracks. Also, the uncompleted Vileness Fats video feels VERY incomplete, and I could only fathom the plot of the story from extensive reading of the notes on the disc.

Speaking of notes on the disc, this DVD features lots of cool easter eggs that will probably appeal to long-time fans of the Residents. Hint: look for icons on the notes pages that shouldn't be there.

From a technical standpoint, the disc is one of the best DVD transfers available. There is virtually no observable pixelization, and only a little edginess in strong contrast points.

Kudos for a top notch presentation. This disc really deserves your attention. "Icky Flix" is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although "Earth vs. Flying Saucers" and "Don't Be Cruel" are curiously missing), and the "concentrates" of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).

All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- "The Third Reich 'n' Roll" and "One Minute Movies" -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why. The Residents are a band known for their strange appearances and odd musical stylings, so obviously, their music videos aren't going to be exactly normal. In fact, these little videos are abnormal, and bizarre, but have a huge artistic value to them. The atmosphere is built with lighting, and thoughtful visuals. It's a great watching experience.

Basically, Icky Flix just consists of many Residents music videos made for their songs. The music itself ranges from rock to synthesized music that sounds like it's straight out of an 80s horror film. What doesn't change is the quality of these videos. They're great!

Any fan of art films will love these. They're so original with their visuals, and the angles they are filmed at, and the lighting especially make these so interesting. The music is creepy and catchy and highly original and these short films are mini-classics that deserve multiple watchings. This is a near-perfect collection of short videos.

My rating: **** out of ****. 56 mins. Cecil B. DeMille directed a series of domestic comedy-dramas in the late teens and early 20s. He found his perfect leading lady for these provocative pieces in Gloria Swanson. In Don't Change Your Husband, Swanson plays a bored housewife whose wealthy businessman husband (Elliott Dexter) pays more attention to work than to her. She is chased by a handsome roue (Lew Cody) until she relents and divorces the boring husband for the new lover.

Things soon become familiar and Swanson discovers the new husband is as neglectful as the first. To make matters worse she discovers Cody has a woman on the side (Julia Faye). After several confrontations and convenient meetings, things are resolved.

This was a smash hit in 1919 and helped make Gloria Swanson a major star. Although she was only 20 when she filmed this she is very good as the maybe foolish wife. She looks great and wears some stunning gowns.

There is one memorable scene that is 100% DeMille in which Cody is luring Swanson with promises of wealth, pleasure, and love. As he coos to her she imagines the scenes. Pleasure is a fantastic scene of Swanson in a spidery hammock swinging out over a pool while people dance around. Wealth is a scene in which Swanson is gowned like a Babylonian queen as servants bring her chests of jewels, which shes tosses aside. Love is a scene in which she is a wood nymph making love in a forest glade with a Pan-like character (Ted Shawn). Pure hokum but very entertaining, and Swanson looks great.

Dexter is very good as the bland husband who shaves off his moustache and starts to work out in order to win his wife back. Cody is also good as the fake charmer who is a liar and cheat. Faye is funny as the bitchy other woman--named Toodles no less--who gets hers. Sylvia Ashton plays Mrs. Huckney. Ted Shawn was married to Ruth St. Denis and together they were groundbreaking and influential modern dancers (of the Denishawn School).

Swanson impresses me more every time I see her. She seems to have been such a natural actress and yet there is a way that the camera captures her expressive face that is just mesmerizing. She's a joy to watch.

Very entertaining film with lots of color tints in varying scenes to keep things lively. And a lot of the furnishings are back in style 86 years later. No more corned beef and cabbage for her!

This little romantic comedy clips along from scene to scene with a few exotic twists (some imaginary scenes and a costume party). All of this is centered around the wife of the husband(s) who is looking to break out of the doldrums, played by Gloria Swanson (she is twenty here!). Both the leading men have a natural air that is convincing and of course Swanson is perfect in all kinds of moods, from frivolous to worried to hopeful.

Behind all the games and apparent lightheartedness is that old serious problem of staying in love and not straying in love. There's a little corniness, but director DeMille is on top of keeping it snappy and believable in all. As with many films from this period, the subtitles do not just tell what they are saying (or thinking) but often give a kind of philosophical insight, as if to justify the tragedy (or raciness). And there is that higher purpose here, probably better without the instructional text, but it's part of the narrative style, and it's kind of quaint.

If you are looking for visual or formal amazement, you won't find it here. But as a story, well acted, and filmed with precision and economy, it's really a great example. The events might not come as a total surprise, but it's such a modern love story, set almost a hundred years ago, it's a gas. And did I saw Swanson was perfect? Don't Change Your Husband is, on the one hand, the beginning of a series of lightweight marital comedies from Cecil B. DeMille. On the other it is his first picture to star Gloria Swanson, probably the greatest actress of the silent era, and is the film which made her a star.

Although the old DeMille formula was beginning to change, and his films were becoming wordier and less purely visual, with such an expressive performer as Swanson we regain much of that silent storytelling style. Her character does very little, but conveys volumes through subtle gesture and facial expression – with a particular talent for looks of disdain. In real life Swanson was herself coming towards the end of her disastrous marriage to Wallace Beery, and it's possible that this fact fuelled her convincing performance.

As if to best complement his leading lady's talents, DeMille's use of framing and close-ups is particularly strong here. He uses cinematic technique to show off the acting – often holding Swanson in lengthy close-ups at key moments – and also to clarify the story visually. For example, when we are introduced to the character of Toodles, she is shown reflected three times in a dressing table mirror. Her character disappears from the story, only to become important towards the end. That attention-grabbing first shot of her helps us remember who she was. Later, at the anniversary dinner, Swanson and future husband number two Lew Cody are framed together in one shot, while Elliot Dexter is isolated in his own frame. Also – and this is a sign of the increasing sophistication of cinema in general – there is much use of reaction shots – for example the disapproving glance of the bishop when Cody acts out his intentions with the wedding figure dolls.

In contrast to DeMille's visual narrative method was the increasingly verbose screen writing of his collaborator Jeanie Macpherson. As I've remarked in several other comments, Macpherson could put together a strong and dramatic story, but like DeMille she tended to state her themes in a somewhat pretentious and flamboyant style. And so we get these very long quasi-philosophical title cards about the pitfalls of married life which, if they improve the story at all, it is only because they are unintentionally funny. For example, only Jeanie Macpherson could come up with a line like "Fate sometimes lurks in Christmas shopping". Fortunately though in this picture these titles mostly introduce scenes rather than break them up.

Although the pictures he made around this time tended to be small scale, it is at this point that DeMille seemed to develop his taste for the spectacular. You can see him start to sneak in excuses for a bit of razzmatazz like the little fantasy scenes of Swanson being showered with "Pleasure, wealth and love". It wouldn't be until the early twenties after the unofficial embargo on historical pictures was lifted that he would get the chance to go all out with the grand spectacle.

All in all, Don't Change Your Husband is a fairly decent DeMille silent picture, although to be honest it is only really the presence Gloria Swanson that lifts it above the average. It's curious though that this is supposedly a comedy, and Swanson was cast at least in part because of her background at Mack Sennett's slapstick factory. She hated comedy acting, and here gives a dramatic rather than a comic performance. It makes sense then that the only straight drama she did with DeMille, Male and Female, was by far the strongest of their collaborations. Gloria Swanson (as Leila Porter) is an understandably bored wife. Workaholic husband Elliott Dexter (as James Denby Porter) has "lost his romance" along with his waistline; he also smokes cigars in bed, eats onions, and snores. He can barely remember his own anniversary - which is attended by caddish Lew Cody (as Schuyler Van Sutphen); the younger man eyes Ms. Swanson's voluptuous figure, and flirts unabashedly. Soon, Swanson is drawn to Mr. Cody. Then, Mr. Dexter decides to try and get her back. Who will win?

The three principals are fine, with Swanson most impressive in the pivotal role as the woman torn. Julia Faye grabs supporting honors as Cody's other interest, "Toodles"; off-screen, she tempted director Cecil B. DeMille. The DeMille touch is evident; especially in an imaginary sequence wherein Cody promises Swanson... "Pleasure… Wealth… Love…"

******* Don't Change Your Husband (1/26/19) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Gloria Swanson, Elliott Dexter, Lew Cody This is apparently the first film featuring Gloria Swanson--the film that made her a breakout star. While she was good in the film, I can't see how this performance in particular was so noteworthy at the time--but, still it was a very good film.

Gloria plays the wife of a rich slob that continually takes her for granted. He cares little for his grooming, eats onions and forgets their anniversary! And, at the same time, a Lothario comes into their lives and begins paying a lot of attention to Gloria and her dippy husband doesn't even notice or give her any reason NOT to cheat on him. Ultimately, she divorces her hubby and marries the smooth-talking Romeo. However, while the movie could have just been an overdone melodrama (they were pretty common at the time), it takes some interesting twists and turns and is an imaginative and fun film. While not the greatest silent film I have seen, it is a standout and deserves to be remembered.

By the way, the DVD release from Image Entertainment is surprisingly good--with a decent print and music. This hasn't always been true of other Image releases (particularly how sloppily they handled the Chaplin releases). I found this movie to be filled with irony. But watching the movie you can almost for see what will happen. Leila is a confused, bored house wife, who is constantly looking for happiness. When she thinks she finds true happiness, she clings onto it, leaving behind all that she knew. But she finds her self almost comparing notes between her ex and her current husband. She learned that if she only had communicated more about what had bothered her in her previous marriage, that it could have been salvaged a lot easier that she intended it to be. She realizes that words are nothing with out action, but she learns that too far into her second marriage and finds herself looking back and hoping for change once again. The main conflict in this movie, is Leila vs herself. You can not have true happiness with out yourself being truly happy. I liked this movie, but I would only recommend this movie to women, I can't see a man truly finding enjoyment in this movie. I thought this movie was really good. It ends up showing the viewers in the end that Leila should of kept what she had. Leila was sick of her husband Jim, who was more worried about work then her. He was so into his work that he forgot their anniversary. He was also very sloppy. She couldn't take it anymore so she left to see if he would miss her. The movie shows that he misses her, he even tries to make up for the night he messed up. He goes to her and tries to bring her home. She ends up finding another man named Schuyler. He seemed like the man she always wanted neat and notices her. In the end she sorta foreshadows by when she look at Schuylers shoes and the way he let his cigar ashes fall on the floor the way Jim did the same kinda thing. Jim ends off making lots of money and cleaning himself up. Leila thinks in the end that she should of kept her husband because thats all she really wanted and he did changing. I loved this film. It manages to make the characters sympathetic (well, most of them) concerning the problems they have with their relationship.

Gloria Swanson, as Leila, is in a dusty marriage with a husband who barely notices her presence (though he does notice her absence). The film shows very well why she is tired of married life, and why she is susceptible to a sweet-talking con man, without making her selfish or demanding. The reaction shots of Leila at the dinner table on her anniversary, while her workaholic husband (late to dinner again) eats salted scallions with gusto and pushes bride-and-groom dolls out of the way of his plate, are perfect.

The show is stolen - and stolen effortlessly - by Elliott Dexter as Jim, Leila's neglectful husband. After losing Leila to another man, Jim literally cleans up his act, shaving off his mustache, working out to lose the middle-aged spread, and dressing neatly. There are several shots of Jim at home, lonely and thinking of Leila, including a powerful scene when he finds one of her old dresses in the closet. The film gives the audience the advantage of watching Jim's transformation along with Leila. It isn't just the exterior that's more attractive; we come to know much more about the kind of person Jim really is, and we see how completely different he is from Leila's second husband, Schuyler (Lew Cody). Dexter shines as the before-and-after Jim, who is determined, after discovering Schuyler's true character, to win Leila back, if he can. The film's most touching moment comes when Jim and Leila discover that they are standing under the mistletoe, and Jim talks of what he has lost.

Definitely worth watching. "Don't Change Your Husband" is another soap opera comedy from Producer/Director Cecil B. De Mille. It is notable as the first of several films he made starring Gloria Swanson. I guess you could also call it a sequel of sorts to his "Old Wives For New" (1918).

James (Elliot Dexter) and Leila (Swanson) Porter are a forty-ish couple where James has gone to seed and become slovenly and lazy. he has a penchant for smelly cigars and eating raw onions. He takes his wife for granted. Leila tries to get him to straighten out to no avail.

One night at a dinner party at the Porters, Leila meets the dashing Schyler Van Sutphen (now there's a moniker), the playboy nephew of socialite Mrs. Huckney (Sylvia Ashton). She invites Leila to her home for the weekend to make James "miss her". Once there Schyler begins to put the moves on her, promising her pleasure, wealth and love, if she will leave her husband and go with him. The sequences involving Leila's imagining this promised new life are lavishly staged and forecast De Mille's epic costume drams later in his career.

Leila, bored with her marriage and her disinterested husband, divorces James and marries the playboy. James ultimately realizes that he has lost the only thing that mattered to him and begins to mend his ways. He shaves off his mustache, works out, shuns onions and re-acquires some manners.

Meanwhile, all is not rosy with Leila's new marriage. Schyler it seems likes to gamble and has taken up with the gold digging Nanette (aka Tootsie, or some such name) (Julia Faye). Schyler loses all of his money and steals Leila's diamond ring to cover his losses.

One fateful day, Leila meets the "new" James and is taken by the changes in him. James drives her home and becomes aware of her situation and.................................................

This film marked the beginning of Gloria Swanson's rise to super stardom in a career that would rival that of Mary Pickford. Barely 20 years of age, she had begun her career in Mack Sennett two reel comedies as a teen ager. Elliot Dexter was almost 50 at this time but he and Swanson make a good team, although it's hard to imagine anyone tiring of the lovely Miss Swanson as is the case in this film.

Dexter and Sylvia Ashton had appeared in the similar "Old Wives For New" where the wife had gone to seed and the husband was wronged.

Also in the cast are De Mille regulars Theodore Roberts as a bishop and Raymond Hatton as a gambler. I just re-watched a few episodes of this series on very poor VHS tapes that I recorded the series on. I'm glad I did, though.

Ramona is based on the children's books by Beverly Cleary and follows the adventures of the title eight-year-old (Sarah Polley). She has fun with friends and family and gets into trouble much like many eight-year-olds. All ten episodes are pretty good. "Mystery Meal" kind of grosses me out as a vegan, but it's funny seeing the parents trying to get their kids to eat cow's tongue! And any episode that mentions Godzilla Versus The Smog Monster twice can't be all bad. I like "Ramona's Bad Day" even more. Although it's disheartening to see Ramona going through a rough day, she does imagine herself getting revenge on her friend Howie's uncle (a pre-Psi Factor Barclay Hope), who always teases her. "The Perfect Day" is also good.

Lori Chodos plays Beezus, Ramona's sister. I swear I've seen her on something else, but IMDb doesn't list anything besides this show. Unfortunately, this series is not on DVD. Why is every crappy show made these days on DVD except something I'd actually like to buy? An injustice if there ever was one! Some people don't like Led Zeppelin, but luckily the number of people who versus the number of people who don't is WAY unbalanced. I am the proud converter of 2 or 3 Led Zeppelin fans and the only reason I was able to do this is because of this DVD.

For one, how someone can listen to "Stairway to Heaven" or "Immigrant Song" without falling in love with Zeppelin is beyond me, but to play the guitar and not like Page... That is like being Christian and not liking Jesus. My friend was like "Led Zeppelin sucks!" and I was like, "Oh yeah, watch this!" After about 2 mins of watching Page pick through "White Summer/Black Mountain Side" he was glued to the screen and has never said a bad thing about Zeppelin since.

Incase you haven't been following the running metaphor I am calling this DVD the Bible of Led Zeppelin. Held high by the followers and used as a converter for the unwashed heathens.

Course there are some things missing like "Over the Hills and Far Away," a good version of "Immigrant Song" and I really didn't need 2 version of "Whole Lotta Love," but what the hell, I'll take 'em.

Because there is nothing besides "The Song Remains the Same" to compare this too I gave it a 10 and even if there were more to compare it too I still would have given it a 10. I bought my first Zep album in 1974 (at 17) and have been hooked ever since. This DVD has now taken pride of place in my music collection. It is not often that a band can boast 4 virtuosos in their lineup but here we can. Each member made their own contribution to the band but on the stage together, the electricity they generated was bigger than the 4 individuals. This masterpiece covers the band's entire career from Led Zep 1 to Coda and this is captured magnificently on this DVD as each concert shows how the band became bigger and bigger over the years. Recently my copy disappeared, but I'm happy to say was found in my 17yo son's room as the new generation discover just how great these guys were. This is a must have for anyone who has an appreciation of rock music. Long live Led Zeppelin. just another showcase of led zeppelin at their finest and their absolute rocking best . every band member is at their best jimmy page and his bow and guitar JPJ with his thunderous bass bozo pounding away and Robert singing like theirs no tomorrow . i have to say when we get into the first song where gonna groove it is the beginning of something very special . this DVD follows zeppelin through their 11 year Carree starting in 69 in the royal Albert hall then Madison square garden 73 followed by a much older and mature band in 75 at earls court and finally a different looking band at their last English show at Knebworth in 79. this DVD is fantastic showcase of zeppelin and if your not a fan you will be after . N Zeppelin is my favorite band, so when I heard that this double dvd was coming out, I was understandably excited. I'll just cut to the chase here, and say that if you are any kind of Zeppelin fan, you must run out and buy this right away! It's absolutely spectacular! It blows 'The Song Remains The Same' completely out of the water. Why this material was never released before is beyond me. The footage presented here really shows Zep at the peak of their game, which I never really felt that 'Song' quite did. Jimmy Page is the best ever without a doubt, and these performances make Jimi Hendrix look like a chump! Be on the lookout for the live jam 'White Summer'... whew!

Viva Jimmy Page!

Viva Led Zeppelin!

11 out of 10 The only footage of Zeppelin I've seen prior to this DVD is 'The Song Remains the Same' movie from 1976. We used to spend hours round a friends house watching this, but I never really liked it and hated the fantasy sequences....

So what of this DVD? I didn't know it existed until browsing for the Physical Graffiti CD.....'When did this come out?' I thought

For some reason I thought that Page wasn't a great live guitarist, but to say that watching this DVD has changed my opinion is a massive understatement.

There's 'White Summer' from 1970 - 10 minutes of guitar wizardry.

There's an acoustic set from 1975 - 'Bron-y-aur Stomp' has a brilliant finger-picking improv section.

The 'In my Time of Dying' and 'Trampled Underfoot' performances (also from '75) are breathtaking - with Page and Bonham tearing things to pieces like no one else ever has. Demonic possessions of rawk!!

The magic continues into the Knebworth 1979 section. The rendition of 'Achillies Last Stand', considering their various drug-addled states just beggars belief! A song of complex guitar overdubs, Page arranged it in a way that lets him just 'punk it out' live - the effect is totally mesmerising. 'In the Evening' - I never liked this on disc but it zings along here. 'Sick Again' - great piece of sleaze-rock. The footage from Knebworth is very interesting, cutting between big screen, various rostrums and bootleg footage to great effect.

Plant is amazing throughout all the performances. Page, despite being painfully thin, looks like a six-year old kid having the most fun of his life at the Knebworth concert - and makes infectious viewing.

One thing that puzzled me - The 'Black Dog' performance from 1973 sounds very 'camped up'!! Robert Plant always did love a little 'mince' and those jeans are absolutely ridiculous - and would warrant an arrest nowadays. All very different from the muscle-bound kick-a$$$ studio version.

I love this DVD. It has reminded me how good Zeppelin were and remain. This two disc set is incredible! If you're like me and never had the opportunity to actually see the band live, then this is the next best thing. Jimmy Page, who in my opinion is the second best guitarist ever to walk the face of the earth (second only to Slowfingers himself), He puts on an amazing show in every piece of footage in this film. John Paul Jones, although not as up front as Page, puts on one hell of a show. Although in the live atmosphere, his rythmic bass lines aren't as defined as they are on studio recordings, except of course in songs like Dazed and Confused, or What is and What Should Never Be), but his wide array of instumental talent is well displayed in these DVD's. John Bonham is John Bonham, what can I say? There is no comparison, his beats stand out like no other, and this DVD is proof. Last, but not least, Robert Plant wails like no other can wail. If you've ever read Hammer of the Gods, you'll be wondering the same thing as Page was when he first met Robert Plant, why the hell isn't this guy already famous? And so concludes my review, sorry about and spelling or grammar mistakes, Zeppelin rocks. What can I say about this band, I was hooked in 68, I was a ten year old kid, I grew up on the Blues though my Dad, then these guys from the Midlands came along, a fusion of Country rock, Heavy Rock and Blues, I wish I could have got to see them live in the early years, I was lucky enough to be there in 79(Knebworth) that was the best concert I've seen to date, I hope a full version of that hot August night will be realest soon. This CD gave me a chance to see the boys over and over again, The Song remains the same is great but This CD gets down to the nitty gritty.

Long live the Zepp. I am a professional musician who was inspired nearly 20 years ago to begin playing guitar after hearing Jimmy Page on Led Zeppelin II. While I don't play in the same genre or style, the impact of that man has been huge. Now, nearly 20 years later I finally got to see something more than the not-so-good The Song Remains the Same. Again, I have seen SO many bands perform, some small - some the current 'masters.' No band, no where, no way has EVER been able to pull off the magic that you can actually taste by watching this DVD.

Robert Plant can be a bit much at times, and you can nearly sense Page's annoyance for him forgetting lyrics, but that didn't matter I guess - especially for the era. Bonham's genius shines more on this DVD then on any album with Zeppelin, the Band of Joy or Lord Sutch. JPJ is pretty ordinary - but the magic of this DVD is how well the four of them perform together. The world loved to imagine that they were into black magic(k) etc. - that was only a matter of interest to Page. The magic (notice I say this a lot), is that this DVD captures a rare glance to the rawness of 4 young boys who can play brilliantly, no matter how sloppy they are actually playing. It didn't matter.

A quick breakdown. The first of the two DVD's is where the true magic is. You should be able to sense the power and rawness Zep had in their early days. By the end of the second DVD Page is struggling with his sanity during the Knebworth songs. (It's no secret that by this time he was severely addicted to heroin). So, I'd recommend the first disk to ANY music lover, and the second for the only true Zeppelin fan.

I may be going too far here for some guitarists, but I would say after watching this, Page is certainly more creative and inventive than Hendrix. Yup, I said it. And if you disagree - watch the DVD. After seeing this DVD, I was floored. It is SO wonderful. Not only does it capture Led Zeppelin during convented performances, they span a few years. This only shows the growth of the band, and the growth of their GREAT music. This DVD is a MUST HAVE! The DVD is over 5 hours long, with extras. The extras are also great pieces, some are of the band performing in Denmark, and other various promo spots. This contains footage that was once thought lost, thankfully recovered, and carefully restored to 5.1 Dolby Digital, under direct supervision of Jimmy Page himself! Includes many timeless classics, such as, Stairway To Heaven, Going To California, What Is And What Should Never Be, Moby Dick, and so many more. Great acoustic songs are also included. This will correct any forethought that Jimmy Page isn't a supreme guitar legend! Buy this if you like rock, led zep or just want an amazing experience. world class! I love this band, and the dvd was even better than i had hoped for, believe me, if you took the time to read this thread, you need this dvd. period. From the opening drum hit of "We're Gonna Groove" to the last guitar hit of "Whole Lotta Love", this two-DVD set might be one of the best music DVD's ever to hit the shelves since the Beatles Anthology was finally released earlier this year.

One of the best things about this DVD is that on Disc 1, a whole concert and many television appearances can be found. For instance, the whole Royal Albert Hall concert is on the DVD, as well as some of the best performances from the band's last concert at Knebworth.

In the Royal Albert Hall concert, for instance, the band had a lot of room to improvise. Jimmy Page's guitar solos make "Dazed And Confused" a huge rock power ballad as opposed to the laid-back blues song it was on Led Zeppelin I.

Next, on DVD 2, is a promotional video for the Led Zeppelin III hit song "Immigrant Song". One of Zeppelin's hardest rocking songs, the video is about as sketchy as a Pre-MTV video was, but it displays a lot of guitar power by Jimmy Page, as it was taken from a live performance. After the video ends, we are treated, in transition, with a short picture of fans filling the seats at Madison Square Garden. The following are performances that were supposed to be part of "The Song Remains The Same", but did not make the cut. Excellent riffs like those in the songs "Black Dog" and "The Ocean" were both present.

After the Madison Performances, we are treated with Earl's Court. Most of the Led Zeppelin IV material was played here, like the most popular song that Zeppelin ever recorded, "Stairway to Heaven". It is brilliant as always, even more so than the version on IV.

Finally, to end the 5+ hours of live material, is Led Zeppelin's final concert in Knebworth in August of 1979. As the viewer watches this, they have to admit that Robert Plant's voice is getting throatier and deeper from all of the screaming he has done in the past, and it is evident here. On songs like "Kashmir" and "In The Evening", Plant does not have his vocal boost of old, yet, on "Whole Lotta Love", it returns for one more song.

Overall, one of the best musical DVD's ever released, only next to the great "Beatles Anthology" boxed set that was released earlier in 2003. The sound, both in 5.1 DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital, just like the Beatles DVD, gives you a feeling of being on-stage with the performers, standing right next to them, as you would feel on the Beatles DVD when they are jamming in the studio. Even though The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are different bands, though, they each received different DVD's. Even though this set comes on only two discs compared to the five disc Beatles Set, it still feels very filling to the viewer after they have gone through all of that content. It is also a pleasure to watch again and again, not only because of the sound quality, but because of the sheer energy on stage when Robert Plant begins to sing.

A brilliant effort from Atlantic. After waiting years for a definitive collection of Led Zeppelin perfomances on video, fans have finally been rewarded with what is undoubtedly the greatest concert video ever! Much better than the dismal "Song Remains the Same", this video includes performances from no less than 5 different venues spanning a decade. It also includes rare interviews and TV appearances. The sound quality is amazing, considering the source material used. And the video quality is even more impressive. This is an ABSOLUTE MUST for any Led Zeppelin fan. The first time I've seen this DVD, I was not only happy because of the fact that it was the first time in decades that the band put out anything, but also because the DVD itself is extremely loud. Jimmy Page obviously can't live with quiet music, I guess. I do must say though that during the concert at Royal Albert Hall, they expanded 'How many more times' and 'Moby Dick' too long. Other than that, it was exquisit. My favorite song of all time is now on that DVD. Trampled Underfoot. It's either that one or 'In my time of dying'. In that song, Jimmy really plays that thing good. Ever seen Randy Rhoads play? Well, Jimmy plays just like him, except his guitar is lower. If you like Cagney you'll like this film. It has the pretense of American integrity at any cost, personal or social. Cagney plays the head of weights and measures in NYC. Cagney goes up against crooked politicians, the criminal underground, a prominent philanthropist and simple grocers who add a few ounces to the price of a chicken. The chicken scene is hilarious where Cagney finds a weight placed in the bird cavity by an unsuspecting butcher. The chicken gets tossed around the shop in a hilarious scene about who controls the "evidence". If you like old telephones there are interesting scenes of dials, phones and even bizarre phone cords. Compared to a lot of film made today this is pure entertainment and includes mystery with comedy and a message that honesty above all should be the guiding principle of humanity. Made in simpler times it reflects a world we can't find today. The fashion (especially hats) outwear and automobiles all play a prominent visual role in defining this little film. Early in the movie, Cagney's Johnny Cave character tells his gumshoes in the Office of Weights and Measures that in the previous year, unscrupulous shop owners had cheated the American consumer out of more money than the aggregate National War Debt! Then he goes out and tickets a particularly greasy green grocer for short-selling him a bag of sugar that is four ounces off (oh, the horrors!!) and one skinny chicken that his butcher's scale has rather generously proclaimed to be six lbs., after which the fur--or in this case feathers--flies. Er, fly. When a racketeer in politician's clothing attempts to derail an investigation into the paltry poultry purveyor's practices, our hero becomes a lone wolf waging the war of the weights on behalf of housewives across America. After all, four cents here and a quarter there add up and before we know it we have anarchy! Word of his intransigence soon reaches both the Mayor and the Governor's offices, and Cagney becomes a marked man. If it sounds silly, it's not--the dishonest retailing practices are only a plot tool (or as Hitchcock would say, the McGuffin) and while unfamiliar, it works every bit as well here as any Treasury Agent or G-man anthology in which the fight is taken to shady crooks who are operating outside the interests of the country's common good. The production standards are decidedly Grade-B, but it is Cagney who makes this movie the delight that it is: this was his first film away from Warner Brothers after seeking release in court from his unreasonable contract, and he seems to be at ease and enjoying himself tremendously--the performance turned in here is intelligent and crackles with his unique energy and surefire charisma. Mae Clarke's presence lends a definite Warner's feel to the overall production. The supporting players turn in solid performances and the story moves along smartly after a rocky introduction that seems to begin three or four reels into the story--but sit back and enjoy it for the Cagney showcase and engaging Depression-era time capsule that it is. This is what James Cagney is all about, wisecracks, cockiness, hard as nails and no-nonsense charisma.

Although the plot sounds serious, the film is anything but. It is done in the 30's screwball comedy style and works well with his 'bickering' with fiancé Mae Clark and his reactions to the tall stories of his colleague James Burke.

What raises it above normal is the dialogue and the cast that delivers it. Dialogue is good but it is nothing unless delivery is spot on and can bounce about the characters involved. This is done well by all throughout.

Good entertainment and thoroughly enjoyable. It's fun to watch a young James Cagney doing his thing. He plays the cheapskate Weights and Measures guy who takes his job very seriously, stepping on the toes of a group of crooked politicians. He is offered the world, but keeps his integrity. He is beaten and set up, but that's the problem. We never know if he is really in danger. They say he's in a spot, but still seems to have carte blanche to move around and do what he needs to do. At times he's so cocky he doesn't do much to protect himself. His allies are in the police department but just about everything else is pretty corrupt. He perseveres (almost too good to be true), of course, and we pull for him. The problem for me is a lack of sustained suspense. It would have been much better if he had had to clear his name. He never drops into the depths, even when rejected by his wife to be. It's still fun with the bad guys kind of imploding. See it just to watch Cagney do his tough guy posturing. This is the first James Cagney film I have ever really watched. I was never interested in his movies before because I figured I wouldn't like anything in that style of cinema and because I've heard most Cagney films are the same. I have to say I really liked it. By today's standards for movies, it was not special, but I found it surprisingly entertaining. Cagney did not have the look of a tough guy but he played the part very well. Five years after she teamed up with James Cagney in "The Public Enemy", Mae Clarke makes another appearance, this time as his fiancée with Cagney's character on the other side of the law. It seems like she was calling more of the shots in their relationship as well, trying to get Johnny Cave to be a little more practical with his money and his career. You had to figure they'd get back together after she gave him the boot for challenging her crooked boss; those things have a way of working out in pictures.

I got a kick out of watching Cagney in this one. I usually do, and here he looked like he might have auditioned that characteristic shoulder shrug move that he used to good effect in "Angels With Dirty Faces" portraying Rocky Sullivan. It was right after he threw Cavanaugh (Robert Gleckler) out of his office during the first attempt at bribing the new Weights and Measures boss. He turns to the camera and hitches up as if entirely pleased with his response to the crook - very cool.

It's my understanding that this wasn't one of Cagney's Warner films, but it might as well have been. Warner's often took up the cause for the common man, and the expose of crooked merchants and the politicians who protected them would have been right up their alley. You also have those great New York City street scenes depicting cars and shops of the era, with home made signs pricing flour at eighteen cents a pound. Hey, how about the furniture store selling the living room set for a hundred eighty nine dollars, you might get a single stick chair for that price today.

Best part of the picture just might be that meat counter scene when Cagney, James Burke (Aloysius) and the butchers play catch with an underweight chicken. One of the film's lighter moments, but you get an idea how tense people can get when they're caught cheating. Same with the truck driver who's pressured by Johnny into signing for an accurate delivery; he just wasn't used to doing that.

All in all, a nice diversion from Cagney's more typical gangster presence, even if not up to the standard of his feature films. It's easy enough to obtain as one of a handful of public domain Cagney pictures out there, and often found in relatively inexpensive compilations. I just took my 11 year old daughter and 8 year old son to this movie and I can't remember a movie where I laughed SO hard -- literal out loud, deep bursts of laughter because this movie is hilarious. Granted the story line is predictable but the ride is so extremely enjoyable it doesn't matter that you know how it's going to end. The actors' comedic senses of timing were impeccable. The actors were perfectly cast. My children mentioned that Amanda Bynes seems to be the last of the young women actresses who aren't ruining their lives. She is so refreshing. My children said this is now their favorite movie of 2006. Our money was well spent on this movie. I saw this movie today (opened yesterday here) and was simply delighted.

I saw a review that said something to the effect that the reviewer thought this would be just another teen movie, but then found it was based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night ... and then started trying to justify liking this flick on Shakespearean grounds. I really think this is going way overboard: the only connections I could see with Twelfth Night are (a) the basic conceit of a girl masquerading as a man; (b) the extensive male-female humor arising out of that basic conceit; and (c) some of the names (including Viola & Duke).

Aside from those names, the thematic commonalties (a & b) are really great themes for any script, and this movie's script is no exception. Beyond that, though, this really is a simply delightful and very contemporary/traditional teen flick. And that's a perfectly legit genre even if highbrows have to find an excuse to like it ... like alluding to Shakespeare.

The movie is bright, fast-paced, emotive, stylized, funny ... full of teen hormones and teen humor and male/female humor suitable for all ages. And that's really the best part IMHO: really just about every male stereotype and every female stereotype is depicted in roundly appealing over-the-top fun. Those stereotypes are parodied relentlessly but affectionately, with such a complexity of invention that I'm still a little bewildered ... but really don't feel at all disappointed in that regard, it's not that kind of a movie: things come at you fast and fun and you get a laugh and a groan and then move on to the next split-second happening.

Amanda Bynes really is just delightful as Viola / Sebastian; Channing Tatum makes a wonderful Duke; David Cross does a wonderfully over the top Principal Gold. All of the acting and characterizations were fine and on target. Cinematography was excellent.

Wonderful entertainment from beginning to end ... check it out! Apparently a B movie ...B must stand for Better acting and a Better message than we get in big budget "A" pictures today. Modern-day movies aimed at young women, surely aren't designed to encourage depth of character over shallow self-serving behavior... or increase the self-esteem of young girls who don't conform to "feminine" standards. (After all, criticizing the fake and flashy, like this movie does, ain't gonna help sell more products that depend on girls *not* being satisfied with their natural attributes or inner beauty.)

Laraine Day is lovable as a mechanically inclined tomboy who "bounds" into rooms and confesses to an inability to flirt. She bonds with Robert Cummings due to similar interests, a shared sense of humour, and her honesty, loyalty and good friendship, which he gradually comes to value over the superficial "charms" of her selfish glamour-girl sister (who only brings out his own selfish, reckless playboy tendencies).

Although Laraine is outwardly beautiful as well, it's refreshing to see inner beauty valued more, and the depiction of true friendship leading to the most fulfilling romantic relationship. I wish young girls (and guys) were getting this kind of down-to-earth message today.

Maybe if Hollywood returns to making "B" movies again, with modest budgets, and tries to be content with modest profits... what am I saying? Sacrificing the blockbuster mentality to create something sincere on a smaller-scale, would be like expecting a guy to give up the shallow sexpot for a sweet girl who really cares about him. That's crazy talk.

Please, somebody invent a time machine already! I belong in 1940.

I'd rate this movie higher, but the ending is a bit too abrupt, and perhaps lacked sufficient indication of Robert Cummings' change of heart. (I like the fact that B movies are short & snappy, not bloated & self-indulgent, but this one might've needed more than 70 minutes.) Also found it somewhat unrealistic that a widow and young children would be so unaffected by a sudden death in their family...or be so forgiving of the one who caused it. I mean, I guess it's *nice*, but a little more grieving or bitterness would've been only natural. Maybe a deliberate choice to make this family act lighthearted about their loss, to lessen the impact of the tragedy and make sure *we* forgive those involved in the death - since it's just a plot device anyway, not the real point of the film. Still strange though. Had no idea what I was going to experience viewing this old film from 1940. However, I always enjoy viewing Laraine Day, (Katie Lattimer) who plays the role as a younger sister to Jean Muir, (Helen Lattimer) and also their mother, Billie Burke, (Mrs. Julia Lattimer). Thought I was going to be bored with the story of two sister's and a mother who is overly protective of her daughters until they meet up with Robert Cummings, (Ridley Crane) who has the reputation of being a millionaire playboy who has plenty of gals and is a heavy drinker who parties all the time. One night, Helen Lattimer goes on a date with Ridley and he proceeds to get bombed out of his mind and simply cannot drive his car. It is at this point in the film when this becomes a drama and changes the complete direction of this film which will definitely hold your attention right to the very end of the film. This is the best television series for children (and adults) ever. John Hurt is a great actor, with many excellent performances over many years, but he was born to play the storyteller. The scripts for almost every episode are superb pieces of craftsmanship, and the productions run the gamut of the emotions, being alternately funny, sad, happy, exciting, and always hauntingly beautiful. It is hard to pick a best episode from so many excellent contenders, but "The Soldier and Death", with its timeless pathos, is unbeatable. It is a series to watch with your children, over and over again. Series as a whole - Jim Henson's best work. John Hurt *is* the Storyteller. Often Oscar-caliber screenplays, not surprising when you consider Minghella doing the writing. Oscar-caliber acting, always.

Sapsorrow - Everybody loves 'The Soldier and Death,' but something about 'Sapsorrow' pushes it an iota higher in my favor. In the first ballroom scene, the costumes, the music - perfection. Hurt and the dog typically semi-interact with the story, but this time Minghella pushes it up that extra notch in the 'ring' scene between Hurt and Sapsorrow. The chemistry between characters is especially well-developed, more so than usual in the series, in reference to the friendship between Straggletag and the prince. Seen it? See it again. Pay more attention (to those of you who don't fanatically adore this 22-minute piece of cinematic perfection). Never seen it? I am so, so sorry.

Luck Child - not as sophisticated as Sapsorrow, but very clever in its own right. This is a story about irony. Irony upon irony, within irony... I love it. Every character is acted to perfection, with the exception of the ferryman. He was doing drama; everyone else was doing romantic comedy. I forgive him. This is my favorite of the primarily comedic episodes, 'Sapsorrow' and 'The Soldier and Death' being examples of more dramatic episodes.

Side note: Greek Myths. What it lack in Minghella subtlety (different writer) it partially makes up for in boldness as it portrays the four chosen myths with more sympathy and respect and history than is usual. Also check out the Jim Henson Hour if you can get your hands on it. For Storyteller adicts, it features The Man Himself introducing the myths, the lion from 'True Bride,' and... No Annoying Opening Theme! Half Storyteller, half pure, unadulterated muppet wit. Beautiful art direction, excellent editing and wonderful stories make this some of the best television ever produced. The fact that it was relatively short lived is sadly reflective on the state of television. I highly recommend snatching these up as they're released, you'll love them. Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.

John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.

The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power. its been years since i have seen these shows. i have been searching years for anyone else that has seen these or know anything about them. i thought i made them up. the one i remember most is the soldier and death. i'd ask movie fanatics if they had seen these, mentioning its a Jim Henson and people still didn't know. these are great fables. i was very young when i was these, not even 10 and it left a lasting impression on my life and beliefs. i would recommend anyone to watch these, just remember they are from the 80's so they don't look like the movies today. just give them a shot. Jim Henson was way ahead of his time and died to early. Each story has a lesson for young and old. But what more I have to say may spoil a future story. But, I believe what I have to say is for everyone; just for one particular episode: The Soldier and Death.

Okay... of all the stories the one that sticks out for me is "The Soldier and Death" because is was the point in my life I realized that life was terminal. I am not kidding. The airing was on my 8 1/2 birthday... and I will always remember it. I didn't remember its title until tonight, but I new the synopsis. (May 15th, 1988)

It is always difficult to explain that Death is a natural part in Life. It is also difficult for adults to accept that children can accept this fact. I am living proof (currently 28 yrs old) that children can accept this fact and from time to time remind adults...

I write this with tears in my eyes. Heath Ledger - a wonderful actor my own age - died today. It kinda reminded me of many lessons I have learned in my life. So I write this as a reminder to Young and Old... no one is immune to whatever is in store for us.

I hate to say that Death is going to happen, but this Story was the first time I saw Death as not a bad thing; but a part of Life, was quite literally in this story. I can't help it. It was a life changing moment for me and will alway be.

And for that...

I love you Jim Henson (and I still remember much of your work in life up until the day you died, and your memorial Muppet Show) and thank you Brian Henson for keeping the Workshop alive!!! Honest, I do thank you, all of your co-workers, editors, and interns.

The stage is just a stage/ And a show is just a show/ But Imagination will create Magic/ That Forever the world will Know.

Thank you!!!

(And for all who doubt me... Dance, Magic Dance) I remember my dad hiring these episodes on video. My whole family loved them, and now that I have moved away from home and have my own life I am trying to share these fabulous Jim Henson creations with my Husband and stepson but as I am starting to find out not everyone is a Henson fan. Which is a pity since it means they will just have to put up with me searching for this series. But even though they don't find these interesting, I would highly recommend anybody getting hold of the Storyteller. You will be lost in a world of tales from a time when people could only talk about unexplained situations through stories and how people need to care if they were ever confronted with these situations. Jim Henson always seemed to put out wonderful television shows. This was sadly one of the shortest lived. It was endearing to hear each tale with their delightful morals. Each episode was a new story, with new characters. John Hurt did a wonderful job playing the Storyteller, and the sarcastic tone of Brian Henson as the dog was always enjoyable.

The set designs and costumes were very well done. The Muppet work, when required, is classic Jim Henson work. You know it is a Muppet, but it's endearing appearance more than forgives. You find yourself enchanted and compelled. When each episode comes to an end, you realize that you were quite entertained. An entertained that is fulfilling, not the kind that wears off after a few moments. You sit back and think about each episode, realizing that each story is indeed timeless, and presents a strong tale of morality.

I have yet to show this to my own children, but this is indeed a series that is more than family entertainment. I implore you to find it on DVD, and snatch it up. If you can't do that, then just find it some how. Sadly, every single person I ask about this series says they've never heard of it. I remember it fondly from my early childhood (I wasn't quite 10 when it came out).

My favorite story was "A Story Short". Something about the way the "stone soup" story was woven into a greater story gets me every time. And then the storyteller explains why he has no story to tell, and it becomes a story itself. I've always been a fan of Jim Henson, and this is just one reason why.

I'm adding this DVD on the self with Labrynth, The Dark Crystal, The Neverending Story, The Princess Bride, The Last Unicorn, Willow and MirrorMask. These are all DVDs I share with my siblings who are 6, 5, and 4 yrs old. it would be a shame if one has yet to watch speed racer, be it dubbed or subbed (i prefer the dubbed version (which is rare) because it was funny...in a good way). what's great about speed racer is that you're never too old to watch it. go red and yellow!! i first saw this when i was around seven and enjoyed hearing the catchy opening. it disappeared for some time then i saw it again a couple of months ago (i'm 19). imagine the feeling of nostalgia surging in, singing "here he comes, here comes speed racer! he's a demon on wheels~~~" over and over again. anyway, the concept of the mach 5 spawned so many 'ultra-multi-function-special-cars' but none were able to surpass its genius in construction. the other cars just seemed too much. and it wasn't just the races or battling different bosses that made it interesting for me. it was racer-x's mystery persona and how the world of speed racer pretty much 'happened' to revolve around it. they did some tweaking to some story lines from the manga, but it all turned out pretty well. though i can't remember if the show actually revealed how racer-x looked like, in the manga, they did. The role of economics in the industrialized North American market must have always been theorized in the homelands of the engines creation. Persons and industrialist such as Mercedes Benz and the Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) surely realized the opportunity of the North Ameircan market with the purchase of fuel and number of automobiles purchased per household. This type of economic phenomena sparked the concept of Speed Racer.

After the new constitution of Japan the industrialization of the isolated island nation of Japan must seek opportunity once again via economic partnerships with its global neighbors. This also helped spark the economic opportunities in the European and North American market if not the global market.

Speed is a young avid driver who without knowing any better is driven by his demanding father Pops Racer who has challenged himself his whole life to make a better machine better at winning races. It was in fact Pops Racer who drove his first son Rex Racer to the brink of destruction with his strategy of how to best use the technology he developed. As a mature Racer, Rex, finally realizes his own inherent values and becomes independent but still feels obligated to his younger bother Speed.

The exact relationship of Rex Racer to persons such as the Inspector are never really clear, but put into dramatization. Rex is eventually accused of being a type of agent for a country or organization due to his ability to be in places at times when there is no other explanation to how he would have known Speed was in trouble. Or the fact that the situations involved some types of illegal activity were his secretive knowledge is leveraged against an evil plot. This brings a level of cloak and dagger romance to Speed Racer.

The mixture of Speeds innocence with Trixy, Sprital, and Chim Chim brings a level of comic human nature. This concept is a good form of rhetoric to balance the themes and plots as they are played out from episode to episode. So, instead of a dry detective story the thrill of international race car driving, romance of cloak and dagger, and comedy of human nature is put into one story, Speed Racer. It seems everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and say "Maha Go Go Go"....The word is MACHA........Like "Mach".....Pronounced maa - ka"...

I grew up with this series in the early 70's here in LA on the late and VERY lamented channel 56...Before that there was Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy), dating from 1963 on ol' KHJ TV. Astro Boy was the first TV example of anime we got here in the states...I was into anime as a kid and followed it until the late 80's when, by then it'd become a series of badly animated "talking heads", a phenomenon which has only gotten worse. 'Nuff said.

As for "Speed Racer", I really enjoyed the basics there, the POV shots, the cinematic aspects of live action skillfully adopted to animation...That was fairly typical of most Japanese anime back then...Graphics graphics graphics! Take note sometime how obviously the series was inspired by Stanley Kramer's film "Grand Prix" (1966), especially the redone American credits....

Oh yeah, I have the original comics from which the series is based, so I know of which I speak.

What were we doing animation-wise besides crap like Johnny Quest?.....Th' same ol' stuff we'd been doin' since the 20's....Ho-hum!

I guess the real problem I had/have with the way anime was/is shown on American TV is the hatchet job done on the scripts, credits, etc to "sanitize" them for American audiences...I won't go into other programs as we're talking' Speed here.

Look at clowns like Peter Fernandez as one of the culprits here, as he was 99% responsible for the re-writes of the series...Not to mention the voice of Speed, Racer X and others...Between him and the goofs at Trans/Lux ( Think Felix the Cat and the Mighty Hercules - oy vey!) they took a slick, very sophisticated show and dropped it down to the level of Sesame Street. Think "Cruncher Bloch", The "Forthebird Company", "Skull Duggery"...If I go on I'll puke.

This series dates from 40-odd years ago but I, at the time, was keen enough to feel insulted by the dumbing down of this and other Japanese programs...I mean it's obvious when someone's getting' killed but they either remove it or gloss it over........Pleeeeeze!

Good show - originally. Sadly all the more recent incarnations of the series have that CRAPPY "made in Korea" look, not to mention being nauseatingly "pc" in content. Even the Japanese outsource their animation now..

Try watchin' the original Japanese opening on YouTube sometime...It sends chills up my spine.....If only......Oh well. Robert This movie blew me away - I have only seen two episodes of the show, never saw the first movie, but went to a pre-screening where Johnny Knoxville himself introduced the movie, telling us to 'turn off our sense of moral judgment for an hour and a half.' He was right. As a movie, this would probably rate a 2, given it has zero plot, no structure besides randomness, and very little production value. However, that isn't the point. Everyone in our theatre was laughing and gasping the whole way through - not only were some of the stunts creative (see trailer if you need to know but they hid some of the best (or worst depending on how you want to look at it)), but some of the stuff they did took us completely by surprise. These guys do some stuff that won't make it into your newspaper reviews (and probably can't even be published here), involving lots of things below the belt. However, almost 3/4 of the stunts are fantastically hysterical (even if morally condemnable, but remember Knoxville's statement), and if you are in the right mindset this movie is hysterical to watch. Only about 20 minutes of this movie could have actually been shown on TV, so consider yourself warned of what you're getting into - some stuff is disgusting, but instead of being repulsed by it you end up laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. As a person who thought Jackass the TV show was an over-hyped fad with only a few funny sketches and lots of unnecessary pain, the amount of fun I had at this movie has made me realize that having no boundaries is the best environment for these guys to work in. It's a lot of fun and should be a great comedic fix until the Borat movie comes out. With this movie, you may think you know what you're getting, but these guys are a few steps ahead of you - I guarantee you'll be surprised by the 3rd sketch. So enjoy, and don't worry: you won't want to perform almost any of their stuff at home. The sequel is exactly what you will expect it to be. And it is good enough that everyone who would have wanted to watch this should leave it happy.

This is not a movie that will win an Academy award. But it does take what made the Jackass TV show and original movie a success, and it turns it up a notch. It is funnier, more brutal, and more disgusting than the original. And I loved every minute of it.

The original had a few notorious stunts, and there is at least one stunt that this movie will be remembered for. You will wince, cringe, look away, and laugh very, very hard.

In any event, you probably do not need to read this review, or any others, to know if you will like this movie, unless you have never heard of Jackass. Where do I begin? I sat down ready to laugh a bit and I was blown away! This movie is just perfect, it's indescribable. Jackass Number Two in all honesty was grosser, more obscene, funnier and more entertaining than the first. This was just what I needed tonight.

There are so many scenes in this movie that will make you say "Oh My! No Way!" or "Ouch!". Perfectly mastered and set up, each event and scene were coordinated way before and therefore made it even more perfect. I loved every minute of it! I'm just going to say that there was even a scene where it was necessary to censor particular footage in order to prevent an NC-17 rating! It was so hilarious that they had to put it in anyway! Amazingly good.

9/10. Incredibly funny, Do Not Miss Out! Yes. Bam cried a couple times and so did Englund. And most probably you will too. The whole cast is back in action and Knoxville has stepped up to become the true leader of this gang of messed-up retards (I mean this in the best possible way). I first thought, maybe Bam or Steve-O were the main go-to guys....nope, the main man is now Johnny. Don't get me wrong, everybody, and I mean everybody is great in this flick! Right from the get-go you're laughing, and believe you me, don't plan on resting that smile of yours. I personally think the movie definitely has better moments than the first. You know when you go into a theater, and you kind of don't want to have high expectations for it.....well, this movie blows all expectations away. If you love Jackass, you can go into this with gigantic expectations. No matter what you'll laugh your ass off. If you're not laughing, the reason is most likely someone has a gun in your face telling you if you laugh you die or maybe you are embarrassed about the sound of your laugh or the highest probability is that you were eating Jack Sh!t for breakfast and Jack left town. All I have to say is, prepare yourself to have a sore face after the movie. :) This film tops the previous incarnation by a mile, taking everything to the next level. As always the JackAss guys are purely unbelievable, and I personally laughed harder in that theatre than I have in a long time. Like the first JackAss, this isn't so much a movie as an eighty minute long string of stunts and pranks. It is pure circus entertainment taken to the highest level. Essentially these guys are clowns, debasing themselves for the amusement of others. And its great. The shenanigans are so low, outrageous, and often disgusting that they transcend into a higher form of entertainment.

You can't rate this along other movies, its in a class of its own. And it shines. Go and enjoy it for the pure spectacle that it is. It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. " Jackass Number Two" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear!

8 out of 10 Johnny Knoxville has gone insane.

In the first Jackass he delighted in practical jokes more so than the physical stuff – his opening car rental gag and the later bit involving an air horn on a golf course were more akin to some type of extreme Candid Camera – but in Jackass: Number Two he's really off his rocker.

Beginning with a sequence where he is chased through a living room by a bull, or later when he rides a rocket (a stunt which almost cost him his life due to an unexpected explosion from the side of the rocket), and especially when he stands willfully in front of a defense mechanism and takes a spray of pellets to the stomach, Knoxville is a madman. In the first film Bam Margera and Steve-O – notorious party animals – were the daring ones, but you know it's pretty bad when you see Knoxville enticing them to do a stunt.

This is essentially a series of stunts pulled off by guys consumed by testosterone, constantly trying to one-up each other. It will eventually end in death for one of the cast members – in Jackass 2 Steve-O nearly loses a leg to a shark, Knoxville (as aforementioned) is nearly impaled with an explosion from a rocket, and so on and so forth. Jackass 3 has already been confirmed owing to the success of 2, and frankly I can't imagine any stunt out-performing the bull run in the opening scene of this film – that's incredible footage. It's almost unbelievable, and I wondered whether it had been faked, but apparently it was 100% genuine. (Which is actually kind of frightening.) And in terms of extremes Jackass 2 far outdoes its predecessor – it also feels more cinematic than the first film, with less of the cheesy titles preceding stunts that were made famous on the original MTV television show.

Unfortunately, the boys were given too much freedom here, and a good number of the gags are simply lame exercises in crudity – I can enjoy the occasional poop gag, but watching a man relieve himself on a miniature toilet, or see Steve-O take beer up the butt (yes, honestly), gets grating after a while. Even the frat boys in the screening I attended – who were enthusiastic when Wee Man took a playing card up the rear and got zapped by a rigged chair – were disgusted by some of the scenes in this film. It's not a matter of getting away with as much as possible – it's a matter of saying, "Is this even entertaining or funny?" Many times, sadly, it really isn't.

But for every lame stunt involving fecal matter and farting on people's faces, there are some brilliant hidden-camera bits. Wacky director Spike Jonze ("Adaptation") dresses up as an old woman and hits the streets naked, with sagging breasts and no shame. And my personal favorite skit involved Knoxville as an irresponsible old man, out for lunch with his grandson, letting him drink alcohol and smoke and swear and insult people. That's classic comedy taken to new extremes with the liberties of an R-rating. It's a shame they had to ruin all the great stuff – including a final segment involving an elaborate terrorist prank – with poop jokes along the way.

Still, there's enough sheer spirit and craziness in this film to merit a viewing, and it's really taken the concept of extremity in cinema to new heights. Just got out of an advance screening, and wow was this movie hilarious. Possibly better than the first one, but at least its equal. If you don't like jackass, or really unnecessary amounts of male nudity(way more than in the first) then stay far, far away. But if you dig the whole Jackass thing, then this movie will not disappoint. Toro Totter is the greatest invention ever. OK. so my review wasn't long enough... All else i have to say is poor, poor Dunn, they really kick the crap out of him in this. So if you enjoy masochistic humor, and prolific male nudity, and by far the most disgusting female nudity ever (John Waters is involved, need i say more?) then this movie will keep you in stitches for it entirety. I never stopped laughing, and actually came out drenched in sweat. Johnny Knoxville and the boys of Jackass go over the top for "Jackass Number Two." At a press screening, the laughter was so loud and raucous it was hard to hear all the dialog. The stunts are over the top and the pranks are funnier and more outrageous than ever before.

All of the guys put their limbs on the line to make a great film, and they succeeded. If you like this genre, you'll love this film. If not, don't bother.

Some of the funniest bits are the pranks the guys play on themselves, and they have no regard for what happens to them. They'll do anything to make a stunt work.

Many critics panned Johnny Knoxville for a less active role in the first film, but not to worry, he is front and center in Number Two, and they have enough footage in the can to be half way through a Number Threee.

This is a must see for fans of this type of humor.

Chris Sansone, Entertainment Editor, Fort Bend Herald Like the first one,the team of JACKASS are back to try to kill themselves with whatever manner they see fit.Either,it's fitting yourself in a tractor tyre and rolling down a slope.Or getting yourself deliberately smashed by a bull.Or something even worse.

The first one was crazy,and that's how you can describe it.It was also really hard laughing film.But this one is completely nuts.It's got even more dangerous stunts,and even harder laughs.So,I think watching dumb idiots getting themselves killed is gonna be the funniest thing this week.

So,before BORAT comes out,I shall laugh my A** out. This movie is just about as good as the first Jackass, but with slightly more disgusting skits. I wouldn't say this was as good as the first, but it came very close. Jackass fans will not be disappointed, but if you didn't like the first movie, you will hate this one. There are scenes that will be seen as Jackass classics (the elderly suits with "additions", the "cab ride", and many others), and those that you will wish you never watched (eating crap, drinking semen, etc...) Overall this movie was a good watch, and I am glad I got to see it. I'm sure this movie will not have the best rating due to critics that rate it (I sat in the press section and most of the older viewers seemed disgusted), but don't let that stop you from enjoying it. My sister, a friend and I went to see this film for my birthday on the 24th of September. We had all seen the first "Jackass" movie a while back, and we all enjoyed it. We were really looking forward to Number Two.

We were not disappointed.

From start to finish I was laughing hysterically. It is equal parts shocking and amusing, however, and is definitely not for those with weak stomaches. It is obscene, but it is also groundbreaking American cinema... well, perhaps that's a bit too much praise for a movie where men intentionally get their scrotum's stuck to ice sculptures, but it IS groundbreaking in that it shows us obscenities whether we like it or not, things that no other "decent" American movie released nation-wide would dare show us.

There was only one scene in particular that I felt was unnecessarily obscene, and it involved a horse - I'll not elaborate.

I laughed, I nearly gagged, and I came damn-close to crying (out of a physical reaction to viewing a scene involving a leech and an eyeball, not sadness). In my humble opinion, "Jackass: Number Two" is THE film of '06.

Does that make me a jackass? Perhaps. But if it does, I could really care less. I've been a huge fan of the Cky videos, Jackass, and Viva La Bam for a long time. They've had a great run and I expected my laughter to end, eventually. But, it hasn't yet. This movie kept my mouth open the entire time. I'm still laughing, randomly. I went to the theater with low expectations, thinking it wasn't going to be better than the first. Oh, how incredibly wrong I was.

There were many great moments in the movie. If you're squeamish, don't like randomly placed raw humor, or if you disliked the first movie, you probably won't like this. But, with that said, I almost wet my pants from laughing so hard. It had all kinds of different pranks, masochistic humor, toilet humor, puking, laughing, some great falls and massive damage done to all of the cast. Ryan Dunn even branded Bam's rear end with an image that will be stuck there for a long time. I'm sure you can only imagine how raw this movie is.

No pain, no gain? Right? This movie has already done well, causing theaters all over America to laugh so hard, they'll be wishing it could last longer. I know I did. This movie did not feel short, at all, especially with the credits continuing the footage. But, I still wish it could've gone on forever. Now, let's just wait and see when they release Jackass Number 3! Overall, an excellent film, if you can get past the male nudity and a few sickening images. Keep your kids out of this film. They don't need to see this, at least until they are older. Support the crew and BUY THIS when it comes out on DVD! I know I will. We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening "act". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy This movie is hilarious. I would say much more painful & disgusting than the previous movie. The entire cast from the previous movie & series is present.

These kind of movies are great to watch in the MovieTheater cause the whole audience is crying with laughter, especially at the terrorist part that was damn disgusting. I wish they made more of these kind of movies.

Strong stomach required! They got some insane stunts this time around. Warning: includes a lot of snakes! I would love to write about it but I just can't spoil the fun. Go see it!!! All you could ever hope for if your a Jackass fan.As always Knoxville & his crew risk life & limb just for our viewing entertainment. If you are fan of the series & of the first movie you won't be let down like most sequel often do. The jokes they pull on each other as twice as funny,cruel,crude as ever before & the stunts & dares are twice as rough as any Jackass episode you have ever seen. If your a fan don't waste time go check it out for yourself because on Jackaass standards this movie is an easy 10 out of 10 just for the opening credits alone, I can't go into detail without spoilers but you've got to see it to believe it. This movie was Hilarious! It occasionally went too far, but isn't that what we expect from them? The theater roared with laughter and ooooooed at all the incredibly crazy stunts. It's rude, crude, and occasionally frighteningly intense. The whole gang is back and even more out of their minds, which in turn provides for some great entertainment. I don't want to give anything away, but the little snippets of clips going around the net are nothing compared to what comes after.

This is a great movie to go see with friends. Try to see it with a big crowd. You will not be disappointed. Just don't go with anyone who can't take it (see above). It will not go over well, you can be sure of that. But that's pretty obvious in the first place. If you enjoyed the first one, you will loooooove this one. I've always been a fan of Jackass, as well as Viva La Bam and Wildboyz. And when you're a fan of something, your expectations are high to whatever your "heroes" might star in. And if there's one thing I've learned about expecting a lot from the people you simply love to watch and listen to, it's never to expect to much, 'cause in 99 out of a 100 times, you'll get disappointed.

Although, when I heard there was a Jackass 2 coming up, I thought "Not even I can turn down my expectations for this movie", and as a result of that I sat down today, ready to laugh, but also ready to say in the end "Well, it was OK, but I'm a little disappointed". How wrong was I! Every single member of the Jackass crew brings this movie way over the first one, showing you the one crazy ass stunt after the other, making the whole world see that there's nothing they wont do to try to harm themselves - and that's what we love! I cried my eyes out laughing from the first minute and till the very last second of the movie, at some times even shouted in laughter, not able to control myself! Stunt after stunt, prank after prank, and hilarious comments on the flow - it can simply not get any better than this! Amazing from start till end, guaranteed to make you laugh your ass off. I've got two things left to say; WATCH IT, and PLEASE God, let there be a Jackass 3 - these guys clearly has a lot to offer! Does exactly what you expect, and then some. The first movie, was a step up from the TV show with sicker stunts airing uncensored and a gnarly factor that had increased. Surprisingly, Jackass Number Two is even more twisted.

The stunts have become more dangerous and spectacular, with some mind blowing painful antics sprinkled with good fun skits to keep that smile turning into a curl of disgust.

Knoxville, like always, dominates the proceedings, but this time he has reason to take centre stage as he volunteers for the most dangerous and idiotic of all the stunts, with Bam Magera also proving himself as wild as ever, despite having had his image toned down in 'Viva La Bam'. Surprisingly, the infamous Wild Boys (Steve O and Chris Pontius) seem to take part in fewer of the skits, despite being focal in the previous outings.

If you like Jackass or Dirty Sanchez then you will definitely enjoy this film, and will laugh your guts out for the 100 minutes of its duration, if you see it as childish, disgusting or a sad snapshot of the youth culture of today, you will find it as offencive as ever. So f**k off. I shouldn't like Jackass Number Two. No one should. There is and never has been anything particularly redeeming about Jackass. And yet...it's one of the funniest things I have ever seen - and I simply cannot explain why.

This new movie leaves the first one in the dust. It's so funny, so horrible and so wrong. The whole team give their all - with Jackss in chief Knoxville leading the charge. He's nuts. I adore him, but he's insane. And more power to him. With his burgeoning film career he could have sat back and just let everyone else do the dirty work, but the fact that he threw himself, almost literally, back into the world of the 'Ass so wholeheartedly makes me oddly respect him. More kudos must go to Bam Margera who previously seemed content to sit back and just make sure everyone around him did pretty much what he wanted. Here Bam isn't the tormentor but the tormented and is all the better for it.

I simply can't say what my favourite part is because I laughed the whole way through. Admittedly I viewed much of the movie from between my fingers, but there hasn't been a 'real' movie I've seen in a very long time that made me feel as invigorated as this did. Love them or most probably hate them, the Jackass team have delivered above and beyond my expectations. But I do agree with Bam. There can never be a Jackass number three because someone will die and I want these guys to stick around. This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.

What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.

Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.

It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.

On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed. First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.

This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.

If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.

And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me. i would give this movie an 8.5 or a 9. I thought it was just straight up hilarious i don't know how you could not think this movie was funny but the only thing that disappointed me was that there was alittle bit too much gross stuff because personally i think when they fly off of bikes and stuff like that is much funnier but I'm sure there are people that think the other things are very funny so that is not my desicion but anyways great movie go see it and after that you should definitely go buy it also if you do not like this movie that is fine because I'm sure there are many people who think that this movie shows how downgrading our society is or whatever this is just my personal opinion and you have yours. also the jackass box set is definitely something worth downloading or buying or whatever you do to get your videos Jackass Number Two is easily the most hilarious film of 2006, beating the also hilarious Clerks II. It is one of the best sequels in recent memory, beating Jackass The Movie in every way. Now, this film may be the funniest, but it is also the most offensive, appalling, and utterly disgusting. You will find yourself feeling sick several times throughout the film. I'm completely serious when I say don't eat anything before watching or during this film, because chances are that it will literally come back to haunt you. Keep the drinking to a minimum as well. You've been warned, because, just like the tagline says, it will make you beg for mercy.

Jackass Number Two follows the crazy men from the hit show Jackass, Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Chris 'Party Boy' Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ehren McGhehey, Dave England, Brandon DiCamillo, and Jason 'Wee Man' Acuna (Chris 'Raab Himself' Raab is absent) as they perform the most outrageous, life-threatening, and revolting stunts imaginable. I'm not going to tell what the stunts are, but I will warn you that any scene with an animal will be sickening or psychologically frightening, and that one cast member (once again, not telling) will flirt with death several times in the film.

What makes Jackass Number Two so entertaining is not the stunts themselves, but how the cast reacts to them and to doing them. To put it simple, if they loved doing it and had a blast, you will too (this goes for 99% of the stunts). All the stunts are very original, and 90% of them are never-before-seen. You will witness a few recycled ones, but they're amped up. You wouldn't think directing really factors into a movie like this, but it does; Jeff Tremaine's direction makes the movie so much funnier, because he provides guidance for the gang in their comedic timing, which is simply brilliant on his part. He could have just sat back and slept throughout filming (actually, you'll see in the film that he did sleep through some filming), but he went out there and helped these crazy guys make the stunts as funny as he could. I give Mr. Tremaine two thumbs up for that. Another great thing about Jackass is its bonanza of celebrity cameos, and this time they include BMX legend Mat Hoffman, skateboard god Tony Hawk, director/actor Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers & Beerfest), actor Luke Wilson, Miami Dolphins star Jason Taylor, and director/actor Mike Judge (Office Space). The scenes with Hoffman, Taylor, and Chandrasekhar are among the funniest in the film, as it's even funnier to see these men as a part of the film.

Jackass Number Two is one of the most politically incorrect, morally degrading, and just plain wrong movies of all time, if not the most. Despite this, it is so original and so hilarious that you won't care about that. You'll be gasping for air, laughing so hard you'll be crying, and jumping out of your seat laughing throughout the entire film. Due to the explicit and potentially disturbing graphic content of this film, no one under 18 should watch this film. You've been warned. I hope you enjoy Jackass Number Two as much as I did.

10/10 --spy seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off. This movies had to be the funniest movie i have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed so hard i almost puked. After the movie was done i laughed for about an hour just thinking about the very last seen in the movie. Its is definitely 100 times better than the first Jackass movie. I loved seeing all of them back together again. If you are squeamish or don't like raunchy childish humour you will not like this movie. If you can go in with an open mind and not take it so seriously then you will laugh your ass off. Its amazing no one was killed in this movie. Every seen in this movie is so original and so different from the next you will not know what to expect.

Mike Webber If you're a fan of Jackass, Viva La Bam or the CKY videos, then you already know what you're in for. But this is one of those rare happenings when a sequel is better than the original! And man does this movie pack a mean low blow. But i mean that in a good way. It's the same type of death-defying, gut-wrenching insanity that we have all come to know and love and expect from Bam, Knoxville and Co. But this time with even more laughs than ever before! With Johnny Knoxville's insane tolerance for pain, Bam Margera's love for harassing his friends/family and Steve-O's gross-out factor, you have one hell of a funny film. The bar for the stunts, skits and general mayhem of the Jackass crew has been raised. Jackass 3? Doubtful, because it's nearly impossible to improve on perfection. ....but at the same time part of you is thinking "Am I ready for what I am about to see?"

In the end, you are happy you saw it. I was, at least. Jackass Number Two has twice the laughs and twice the action. Some stunts will leave you breathless. Besides Little Miss Sunshine, I think it was the best movie I saw this summer. Maybe even this year.

The entire cast returns, besides a few such as Chris Raab and Rake Yohn. I don't think any of the cast members had a dull moment. Each and every stunt was either funny or dangerous or a combination of both; stupid. The beginning was just as funny as the first one, and the ending was interestingly hilarious; the cast performing a musical number.

Jackass Number Two is the perfect movie to see with your friends. Stay during the credits, there are some pretty funny moments. One involves Luke Wilson. This movie was borderline in crude humor....I utterly can not believe that these people can get away with this. Johnny Knoxville didn't cross the line...he was stomping all over it! This was better than the first...ALL THA WAY! The thing I found about the 1st movie was that the shenanigans were somewhat as if it was on the t.v. show. NOT THIS TIME!!! they completely made a 180 degree flip...the whole cast is so outstanding in what they do and not were the stunts crazy...but the music basically fit every situation...GOOD WORK!!!! When you go see this be sure to use the bathroom before going to the theater, maintain a strong stomach and rememba to not let your beverage spray out your nose.... I love everything about family guy.

My favourite characters in family are Brian and Stewie and I like the episodes when it mainly features them such as "Road to Rhode Island" (Season 2), as they interact very well. The comments they make just have me in stitches. Peter's behaviour is also very funny as some of the things he does "are just so brilliant they're retarded." The voice acting is excellent, especially Seth MacFarlane as he provides the voices for half of the Griffin family as well as their perverted neighbour Glenn Quagmire and how he manages this range (particularly with singing) I just don't know. He deserves his two Emmy's for providing the voice of evil baby genius Stewie. Adam West also steals the show with his funny and completely insane regular character the mayor of Quahog. What I like about Chris (voiced by Seth Green) is the things he says show that he takes after his father when it comes to intelligence and common sense.

The only thing I have found annoying is that in the UK Fox has decided to change the seasons to increase DVD sales, which in no way reflect the programme itself but rather the marketing.

If you enjoy Family Guy then I would thoroughly recommend Seth MacFarlane's other project American Dad which uses a different style of humour but is still extremely hilarious. Despite the apparent structural similarity with The Simpsons - loud fat dad, housewifey mum, 3 children, a pet, typical suburban home, Family Guy is actually functionally and stylistically opposite to The Simpsons. Its avid use (and sometimes too much) of cutaway gags has been its main stay since the first season. While some hit the nail on the head (The Rhea Perlman and Danny Devito bit in Season 5 is spine-snappingly hilarious), others are less successful, coming across as contrived. And they can be annoying, especially when they don't advance the story line. (The Jesus bits are entirely unfunny and insulting)

The chemistry between Stewie and Brian Griffin lends itself to pure comedy gold, so much so that Chris and Meg only manage to fulfill the role of the obligatory teenagers in your typical dysfunctional family.

However, the feature film Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, is MINDNUMBINGLY horrible. Thank goodness it went straight to DVD.

Contrary to tiresome comparisons with the perennial Simpsons, Seth Macfarlane's approach with Family Guy is actually very different - it's much more politically incorrect, and amazingly, a lot more brazen.

Creator of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi, famously criticized Family Guy for having "extremely low" graphic standards from a cartoonist's standpoint. I don't think it looks that bad though, the detailing and accuracy of some of the spoofs are quite successful.

All in all, a great series to go with a great big bowl of chips smothered in ranch sauce and ass jokes. "Family Guy" is probably the most ballsy sitcom ever produced. It relentlessly skewers everything it can think of, from TV shows to family drama. Best of all, it's one of the few TV shows on today that's actually funny.

The show revolves around the Griffins: Peter, the obese father whose schemes are limited by his lack of intelligence. Lois, the mother who is more or less the head of the family, even though Peter considers himself to be that. Chris, the fat teenage son who has just as few brains as his dad. Meg, the black sheep of the family that is the but of everyone's jokes. Stewie, the baby who has plans for killing his mother and taking over the world. And Brian, the family dog, who is frequently the voice of reason, but is frequently corrupted.

"Family Guy" employs many tactics to get laughs from the audience. Most notable are the frequent cutaways that spoof what has just been said. They are effective because of the impeccable timing, and in how they play out. "Family Guy" uses spoofs to get humor as well, most commonly from 80's TV shows. What really makes the show so great is that a person doesn't have to be familiar with what it's spoofing. I'm sure it would help, but the material is funny enough in its own right. But the show doesn't stop there. Not only does it spoof just about everything, it skewers its own spoofs! The show is filled with off-color humor. The only reason why people aren't up in arms about the show is probably because it makes fun of every race, sex and other generality equally. There is nothing sacred here, and no one and nothing is immune from "Family Guy's" satirical jabs.

Putting on musical numbers in a film takes a lot of time and effort, and it's a very big risk. But "Family Guy" contains some great songs. All well-written and performed, and of course they are hilarious (perhaps the most famous one, "The Freakin' FCC" is both catchy, and hysterical because it hits the ratings board where it hurts).

The voice characterizations are right on the money. Seth McFarlane is tremendously talented. He provides the voices for Peter, Brian (which is his own natural voice), and Stewie. Not only are the voices consistent and creative, he can alter their pitch at will, so it really seems as if they are spoken by three different actors. Alex Borstein brings a nasally drawl to Lois that is perfect for the character. Seth Green is unrecognizable as Chris (had I not looked on IMDb, I would have never known that it was him). Lacey Chabert originated the character of Meg, and while she was good, Mila Kunis really elevated the character with her sharp voice. Kunis gives Meg a new, sharper edge that she didn't have with Chabert.

"Family Guy" has been compared to "The Simpsons," and that's entirely understandable (and not just because they are produced by FOX). Both are satires of blue-collar life, and while "The Simpsons" is good, "Family Guy" contains are sharper edge. The show is utterly fearless. There is no real sacred cow. The show lampoons handicaps (physical and mental), ethnicities, TV shows and movies, celebrities, politicians, religion (especially catholicism), drug use and addiction, sexual humor of all kinds (including S&M), and some that's just beyond description. Not everything "Family Guy" throws at the audience works, but as a whole, the show is consistently amusing and frequently hilarious.

If there's any flaw with "Family Guy," it's that the jokes run on far too long sometimes. Particularly with the "awkward moment" jokes, the sequences are stretched for so long that not only does it cease to become funny, it becomes so irritating (and long) that a fast-forward button is warranted. These can be effective at about 10 to 15 seconds, but the show sometimes stretches these to beyond two minutes. One could argue that the show rewrites its rules to suit the plot, and it often does (for example, Brian frequently acts like a person, but he still acts like a dog when the story requires it). But that's not a problem because the show still works.

Some people have argued that the show has stopped being funny. While I agree that it's not as edgy as it used to be, I think the blame lies with FOX, not McFarlane and his crew. The show originated with FOX, but after some lackluster ratings and viewer turnout, it was canceled. However, DVD sales were large enough for it to be picked up by Adult Swim. The show became an instant success, and it was once again bought by FOX. However, because the show is so big now, FOX is afraid to let the writers experiment and try new things. While it's still funny, the humor is not as fresh and edgy.

Definitely check this show out. It's awesome. Family Guy has been hilarious for so long but I feel like it lost it's sharp and random humor at the start of season 6. Although I enjoyed Blue Harvest, it felt like the remaining episodes were "wrapping-up" - episodes where the producers made little attempt to fulfill Family Guy's reputation of American social satire.

I have seen all the episodes from season 7 and I was utterly surprised and happy that Family Guy has found their true colors again. Season 7 delivers a lot of fantastic episodes and with a lot of jokes about the current situations in America which is exactly what we need right now - more fun.

I feel that the Simpsons has lost its spark all together, this show, however, has made a terrific recovery from going down to proving how perfectly satirical they can be. Great job! Being a Russian myself, sometimes it's hard for me to get the reference jokes about American TV personalities or celebrities. Apart from that, Family Guy is the smartest, funniest and most politically incorrect shows seen on earth. The voice acting is excellent and sounds clear enough even for a non-English speaker as myself to comprehend. Animations are good too, maybe even too good for a TV-show. Here we have the equivalent of the Adult Swim Channel, but nothing there simply compares to this gem. Not even Simpsons or South Park. Hope the creators will continue to entertain and amuse us. Don't want to see the whole thing spiraling down into mediocre entertainment. If Family Guy offends you or you simply don't get the humor, unfortunately this show is making fun of you and the masses of overly religious, dull, and politically correct people in America. So put your morals aside and have fun with this show. FG is a hilarious mind opener on the reality of today's society. Whoever said this show is for a young immature audience is very mistaken. With all the references to old movies and politics 10-80 years ago, I couldn't imagine any young immature kid finding this funny. Family Guy is definitely for a mature open-minded audience who are not afraid to criticize American society. Hats off to Seth and the whole crew who were able to make this show happen. I absolutely love this show!!!!!!!, Its basically fox's improved version of the simpsons (cau'se lets face it the simpsons are very dry if you're above the age of 9. It's political, irrational, and irresistible. Anyone who says they don't like it is lying, There is a character for every one. Peter, Stewie, & Quagmire are my favorites. Peter because he is rude, obnoxious, and just doesn't give a crap. Stewie because of his amazing intelligence and how he hits you with something an adult would say when you least expect it. And quagmire because one of guilty pleasures is dirty jokes. Also there is an episode for everybody too. If you're the political type there is Mr. Griffin goes to Washington (VOL.2 SEASON 3). If you like more of the sexual and bodily humor there is emission impossible (VOL.2 SEASON 3.). Or if you like any other kind of humor there is dammit Janet (VOL.1 SEASON2).Basicly what i'm saying is that when you watch this show there is side splitting humor for everyone. GIGGITY GIGGITY GOOOOO! When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff. Family Guy is THE best show on TV. EVER. It has achieved great things that no other animated sitcom, or any show, has even come close to achieving.

In terms of animated sitcoms, this era should be referred to as "The Era of Animated Sitcoms" because there are so many of them, and almost every one of them imaginable is being released on DVD. There are some good ones (i.e. South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons). Every animated sitcom has its own style/technique of creating humor. For instance, Futurama is funny because it always comments or acts on what just happened with a touch of humor. The Simpsons is also a great show because it uses the same comedic technique and style that Futurama does, but The Simpsons deserves the credit for it since it was on the air way before Futurama and still remains on the air using the technique. South Park, in my mind, is the funniest show next to Family Guy, because it uses a smart blend of vulgarity and silliness as it's technique of creating humor.

But enough about other animated shows. Let me tell you what makes Family Guy so funny. Family Guy uses a comedic style that no other show has ever used before. It uses a technique of having flashbacks occur after every joke. This not only reinforces the joke, but makes it seem funnier. It also moves at a very quick pace. These two criteria make it the funniest show on TV. You have to see the show to believe it, but once you see it, you will most likely agree. (FYI, the two funniest moments on Family Guy were: 1) The 5 minute chicken fight in "Da Boom", and 2) The Dick van Dyke spoof in "Holy Crap.") Also, in my mind Family Guy is a very modest show because while other shows create humor by getting familiar with their shticks/routines and characters, most of Family Guy's jokes are based on the silliness of current events and pop culture. This also shows that Family Guy is intelligent, in addition to being modest, because it reveals that the show has insight. And this technique is extremely effective because they relate their pop culture references to the particular plot of the episode they are found in.

Family Guy can be enjoyed by all ages, because while younger children may not understand the pop culture references, they will be amused by the hilarious, silly antics of the characters, especially Peter. The show is, however, a little bit more vulgar than The Simpsons and Futurama, but it is less vulgar than South Park. So, in terms of vulgarity, Family Guy would rank somewhere in the middle when associated with the above shows, but it would rank No. 1 in terms humor and intelligence!!

Sadly, it was cancelled last year, not because it wasn't popular, but because FOX kept changing it's time slot, so no one ever knew when it was on. Luckily, we've got the DVD box sets (which, by the way, are selling like crazy) and reruns on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim available to us. > This show is the single greatest thing to come out of America since The > Simpsons. Not only does it have thousands of new ideas, but it's actually > controversial (see the Jewish joke, Season 1, Episode 1) and isn't scared to > "tick" people off. However, the great minds at Fox have canceled it, along > with Greg the Bunny and Futurama, so make sure you buy the Season 1 box set > while you still can. It'll be the best money you ever spend. It's > definitely a show that gets better the more you watch it, as at first the > constant flashbacks can get a little annoying and don't always seem to fit > the story properly. However after a couple of episodes you realise how > brilliant it is, and how well it compares to any other show currently on air > at the moment. This is one great show, that it makes me wonder why it got pulled off the air so many times. But I believe its now here to stay! This show cant compare to any other, Before Simpsons was pretty "on the edge" and than came Family Guy, and they are stretching it out to go off the "edge". The things this show gets away with is incredible. Totally work the watch! If you like the Simpsons you will LOVE Family guy! I own all family guy seasons so far and i have to say Vol. 6 has been the biggest disappoint of them all. There are still plenty of laughs to be found here but i think Vol. 6 like the last few volumes is slowly providing less and less laughs. At least for me.

The biggest annoyance i had with Vol. 6 is it seems to be VERY heavy in left wing politics. I'm a big believer in if you can laugh at other people you should be able to laugh at yourself but this Volume REALLY seems to shove their political view points down your throat and i think it takes a lot away from the show. Insinuated all conservative sates are horrible places, Insinuating we need more gun control, Insinuated school are under funded, Insinuated religious people are crazy, Bush is friends with the devil.. I could go on and this is just from the first three episodes.

Sure some of it was funny but there becomes a point when you're not making a comedy and you're really just shoving your political views on other people. Family Guy has to be my all time favorite cartoon.It is definitely the funniest TV show ever made and is better than The Simpsons.I have never laughed so hard at a TV show in my life The things that make the show so funny is the plot,characters and themes that are dealt with in the show.There are very few themes that have not been dealt with on Family Guy.

I have seen just about every episode of Family Guy ever made and would have to say that the show was better in the first two seasons.My favorite characters are Peter because he is very funny and is the best character of the show.My second favorite character is Stewie because he is the funniest villain to be on a TV show.If you love Family Guiy you should check out American Dad because it is just so similar and is created by Seth McFarlane.I hope this show never ends because it is a comic genius! 10/10 Seth McFarlane is a true genius. He has crafted a show that is witty, culturally sharp and just downright hilarious.

For those that think its 'offensive' take on social or cultural topics makes no meaningful comment, just causes 'offence', can be pointed to this quote:

Peter (coming out of the stem cell lab): How long was I in there? // Guard: Five minutes. // Peter: Why aren't we funding this?!?

Why indeed.

Thanks family guy, for being not only the funniest show on TV (with the possible exception of the much loved, much missed futurama), but for also being pretty clever to boot. This is the greatest show ever made next to south park. I love this show! it is so funny, and Peter's laugh is hilarious. You need to watch this show right away for the few people who have never seen this show before. One of my favorite shows of all time.

If you can, try to see some of the later episodes such as I dream of Jesus, or Tales of a third grade nothing. But there's never been an episode I didn't like. All of the episodes are absolutely hilarious. It's got a great satire to it as well. You can find a lot of clips on you tube. If you're somewhere near a computer or a TV see it right away however you can. Ignore the comment before mine. The show is comic genius, most underrated show ever. 3 reasons why. Reason 1, the flashbacks are hilarious, who cares if they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, they make me laugh so hard it hurts and isn't that the idea of a good comedy programme? People who think this isn't funny just have no sense of humour. Who cares if they are random, its a t.v. show, you can do what ever you like with it and people say its not realistic, neither is a cartoon, its animated. Reason 2, The jokes are just generally hilarious, Seth McFarlane and the other writers are soooooooooooo funny, everything from the Star Wars references to making fun of celebrities, i love them all. And Reason 3, the story lines are just brilliant and funny, they set up all of the jokes with their crazy nature and wackiness, just all the more funnier.

I caught this one late night on BBC2 and have never gone back, i have all 7 seasons, plus the kind of movie thing (Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story), i have several t-shirts, posters and my collection is still growing. I've never got a collection of any TV show before but this was so funny i just had to get everything.

Just watch season 3 and trust me you will be hooked for life, the funniest show ever created and i hope it never ends! This is a brilliant series along the same lines of Simpsons. Following a family as they go through life and problems etc. Slightly less realistic than Simpsons, talking baby and dog anyone? Family Guy goes where SImpsons or Futurama dares not, reaching past into the sicker jokes and more racy gags. And believe me, it works! Almost all the gags hit the mark and they'll have you in stitches(especially the random, frequent flashbacks!) When my brother first showed me this I wasn't hooked but after a few episodes I was hooked. You will be 2. 10/10 for a truly brilliant show. COngrats to Seth Macfarlane for bringing this show to life. :) The Romanian cinema is little known out of Romania. No directors from Romania came out to the attention of the international public, as some from other countries from Eastern Europe like Hungary, Czekoslowakia, or Yugoslavia succeeded to do. One of the few great directors in Romanian cinema is Lucian Pintilie, who 35 ago directed a great movie 'Reconstituirea' - quickly taken out of the circuit by the communist censorship. After that film, still a reference for the Romanian cinema, Pintilie was not allowed to create freely in Romania until the Communist rule fell in 1989.

'Furia' reminds me Pintilie's film 35 years ago. The title means 'The Rage' and I cannot imagine why the distributors chose to translate it differently. It is about a lost generation. While in the classic of Pintilie the root of evil is in the oppression and lies of the communist regime, here the young folks need to deal with the emergence of the sub-culture, and the moral filth that filled in the void left by the totalitarian rule. The end is tragic and painfully expected.

The movie is well directed, and the acting is good. Without too much complexity, it succeeds to create an emotional link between the characters and the viewer. One would say that some situations seem similar to '8 Miles' or 'The Fast and the Furious' - but look at the date of the production! This film was made at the same time, if not before the Western peers. If this is indeed the first film of director Dan Munteanu, as IMDB says, it is an outstanding debut. In any case, a good movie, can compete and may sell well on the Western market.

There is hope for a new generation of Romanian films that with some luck and good distribution will make its place in the international cinema scene.

8/10 on my personal scale. Looking backwards to that year 2002 when "Furia" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.

The main qualities of "Furia" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation!

Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of "a fateful night" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: "Hârtia va fi albasträ" and "Boogie". now we know radu munteans movies, the excellent PAPER WILL BE BLUE and BOOGIE, but its worth to see again (or at last) this first FURIA, which shows perfectly clear his initial qualities.

its very interesting to see how his beginners talent developed into confirming him as one of the best romanian contemporary directors.

of course, the movie itself is excellent - intelligent and professional script, sure-handed direction, stylish photography. definitely, one of the best - in the most serious and competent sense! also, munteans storytelling sense is compelling and gripping - and he actors... well, they simply rock! is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with "bad habits" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap. The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).

I wish the movie, the director and the actors success. I have to say that I haven't expected that this movie to be this good. Usually, the eastern cinema presents the communist past in 90% of the films. However, this film surpasses the Romanian Cinema, being worthy of some more advertisement.

The acting is truthfully and not exaggerated, the plot is simple yet complex as it presents the life in the Romanian suburbia, the sound amazed me, the directing was good and what more can I say...

This "Crash" of Eastern Europe was drawn me into the film living each moment of it. I have even felt a desire coming out of me, a desire for adventure after seeing it.

Watch it! You will definitely enjoy it!

7/10 My teacher did this movie. It's a new beginning. Watch it, and you won't notice that it is a Romanian movie. The old boring style has gone. Now it's something else. A post-revolutionary movie. It is using the latest imaging technology and mostly unknown artists. They are unique. You won't even know that you're watching, you will be simply transferred beyond the screen and you'll feel every frame. Don't miss it, pay attention to the plot but don't ignore the details. They make the difference between this movie and the others Romanian movies. You will hear some music at some point. It's representative for a part of us, but it does not represent us. Please, just keep your head straight and leave your body free. This is probably the best movie of 2002 regarding Romanian cinema. I do recommend it being an intense drama with no lack of action and thrills. The movie concentrates upon teen life in the Bucharest suburbs trough the main character, not focusing so much on the character's shape or definition but more on the anger that he and other characters feel. The title "Furia" means rage rather than anger, but could be regarded in the movie in both senses from the behavior of actors. The rather odd love story (not a typical romantic one, but rather a modern suburban conception) is well shaped towards the end. It is a captivating picture, and cinematography is pretty good in catching the suburban night life thus making it a nice movie to watch and.

You won't get bored for a minute, i promise! It is movie about love,violence,illegal affairs and romanian tycoons. A romanian story combined with an occidental adaption resulting in a modern international film that can be understood both by western audiences but as well by eastern European audiences that HAVE LONG forgotten about the conservative comunist regim over film-making.

A film full of violent fight scenes that are very numerous and create more and more tensed situations as the movie goes on .

A story that impresses because of its view over the hard life from the neighbourhood. Two young men do illegal car races. They work together as a team and prosper from their occupation ,but when they are asked by a local tycoon to lose one race things start to get messy and the fuse from the bomb lights up creating a very tensionated movie that will keep you close to the screen until the ending of it when you will still be asking yourself a lot of questions long after that.

Brilliant acting both by Dragos Bucur and Dorina Chiriac along with high quality directing and screen writing by the young but talented director Radu Muntean also give a unique charm to Furia. All this and many other elements that can be noticed while watching have created a must see movie by all the filmlovers around the world and its message is clear to all not depending of race ,language we speak or country. It is a real hope for the Romanian cinema as it tries to keep up with the more advanced occidental cinema.

I hope you enjoy watching it as I'm sure that all the people that have seen it liked it and understood it. Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased. I watched this movie for the first time ever on the Sci Fi channel and I must say.. it was simply awesome. For those of you whom loves 'The Never Ending Story' this is one that would bring back memories of that movie. Even though it is a 1996 movie it has a hazy like setting and look which makes it feel like it is, a fantasy. The acting was brilliant and the music was great especially the beginning battle song and end song. To those of you who have yet to see it, WATCH IT! I recommended completely! This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it. This is a great movie, a must own. I really liked every aspect of it, from the sword fighting, the romance, the costumes were really well done and put together. The scenery is absolutely beautiful. I also loved the mystery and magic. Also the message of the power of love, that love is the greatest power there is. I really like the heart of the king in the sense that he desires peace instead of the bloodshed and hate. I wish that I could live in a world like that with flying ships, to castles in the sky. I also think that it was really nice how they brought the animals into the movie. I also thought that the cook was really funny. I have watched it many times in one day and still never tire of it. Just wish they would bring it onto a DVD. Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. "Les amants réguliers", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an "amour fou" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.

The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.

There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.

The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.

"Les amants réguliers" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences. This film is probably the best new French film I've seen in this century so far. There have been some great ones including Noe's Irreversible, Green's Le Pont des Arts and Hadzihalilovic's Innocencebut none of them come close to Les Amants Reguliers' timeless glory.

The movie is a description of the events of May 68 and what followed in the wake of it and furthermore it is and update of, and a homage to, the Nouvelle Vague-movies of those days. Concerning the depiction of the riots in Paris the movie is meticulously accurate (I'm only 19 and I wasn't there myself but you know what I mean)and the almost real-time and very long riot scenes set the stage perfectly for the aftermath of the events in the streets of Paris. The riots are not glorified or beautifully photographed like the ones in Bertolucci's The Dreamers (to which the movie is comparable in many ways) instead they are filmed in grimy black and white shots courtesy of the excellent William Lubtchansky. The love story that is the movie's main concern after the riots in 68 is filmed in stunning and far less blurred shots and manages to evoke true feelings of love and adolescent confusion in the midst of the otherwise politically concerned and seemingly cold environment.

This film is a beautiful love story and it radiates through it that the director wants to depict his own experiences of those mythical late 60's which makes the film all the more compelling. But the film is also a homage to the whole Nouvelle Vague canon. Much of the dialogue evokes early Truffaut, and the length and non-action and plot less structure is reminiscent of Eustache or Rivette. There are even Godard-like verfremdung-effects with the persons looking directly into the camera and even addressing Bernardo Bertolucci directly. This film is no doubt an answer song to Bertolucci's The Dreamers and it is also a Nouvelle Vague homage but still it stands by itself as a beautiful and radiant love story.

Bottom line: This movie is incredible and if you love French cinema you shouldn't sleep on it. It may be the finest french film since Eustache's La Mamain et la Putain. This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants Réguliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists. The reason I am reviewing this is that the previous review, was written by someone who walked out of this film, not even half way through. Unfortunately for him, he missed out on a film of tremendous beauty. Agreed the film was very slow to start, in fact the friend I was with fell asleep briefly,I woke him before his snoring disturbed the rest of the audience. Thankfully the film developed from there into a story of love, drugs and what it was like to be young and free in the experimental 60s. Fantastic performances from the two leads and a great look to the film that gave it a real authentic feel. Be patient, like many great films its well worth the wait, and is certainly a film that I will look forward to revisiting! 8/10 Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.

The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.

The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.

Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century. This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story. It's not like an historical movie, it's not a movie with unforgettable love stories, it's not a movie with a spectacular scenario, but i can surely say it's a movie with a great atmosphere...

It had that 60's kind of bohemian and rebellious spirit: a group of friends living in a poor apartment in Paris, each one making art, dreaming of changing the world, doing drugs and loving in his very own way.

It takes a lot of patience to watch, and a special mood, that if you're not in, you might find it extremely boring and dull.

I liked a lot the very realistic approach of the events that took place and their immediate effect on student's lives: the fear for their future, the difficulty of earning their living, the obstacles in following their dreams.

What i absolutely loved was the black & white image. The still camera angles were amazing, they were like freezing moments. It left me the impression of a long slide show of old and very emotive and suggestive photographs. I actually had to see the movie again, just to take those amazing screen-shots.

In one word: beautiful... I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.

First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.

There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.

Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.

Third, I think the romance works very well.

Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it. I felt compelled to give some feedback on this movie that I rented from Blockbuster. This movie has it all - comedy, drama, crime, suspense and "realism".

This movie also had a lot of action with just the right amount of humor! I will definitely watch it again! There were some funny parts as well as action-packed drama. I enjoy movies that keep you wondering what's going to happen next.

The writer/director, Travis Milloy, should make more movies!!! In my overall opinion, this movie was great! I'm looking forward to his next one! Travis Milloy has real talent as a writer and director. You can tell that this is the first offering by the Director (who also wrote it), but you can also see the potential this guy has. This is an obviously low budget film in the spirit of Boondock Saints. Of course, Boondock Saints came out a few years after this, so you could look at this as a diamond in need of some polish. The acting was good - if you're looking for DeNiro or Michael Madsen in a crime drama, remember that these are young guys, playing young guys trying to be criminals. They're not going to be "supercool" (tm) like some of the veterans. I would have love to have seen Justin Pagel (Joe - the main character) go on to make more movies - he was great in this. Good movie - 3 stars out of 5. The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.

Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.

Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.

Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.

Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.

Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.

MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience. As I type these comments I'm watching a DVD of this movie that I just got from a mail-order dealer, and I'm finding that it holds up extremely well, with strong characterizations, believable situations, and well-staged action scenes.

It's been a good 45 years, maybe 50, since I saw HELL BELOW, but the one scene that made an extremely deep impression on me was Sterling Holloway's death scene, which several other commenters have mentioned here. I haven't gotten to that scene yet on this viewing, but I can vouch for what other comments have said: once you see Sterling Holloway's death scene in this movie, you will absolutely never, ever forget it. Judging from how strong the film so far is holding up, I fully expect that scene to live up to the memory of it -- as unquestionably one of the greatest death scenes in movie history. The movie's worth seeing for that moment alone, but even without it, it would be a first-rate early submarine drama. I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.

Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.

The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.

Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.

The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film. Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, "Ptomaine". Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called "innocent" past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate. Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.

This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one. Good footage of World War I-era ships and planes supplement this excellent war drama set in the Adriatic. Walter Huston is excellent as the commanding officer who knows his place and his place has no room for personal feelings. The safety of the ship and the mission must always come first. Robert Montgomery is the Lieutenant who has not yet mastered the role that a leader must play in combat. He makes bad decisions, endangering the submarine and its crew but finally becomes a "real man" after he is court martialed and dismissed from the Navy. Robert Young plays a lieutenant junior grade and Jimmy Durante as a cook. Paralleling the war drama is an equally important wartime love triangle between Montgomery and Madge Evans who plays Huston's daughter and the wife of a tragically injured aviator. Recommended. In my personal opinion - «The Patriot» is one of the best Steven Seagal movies.

I've heard people say it's the worst one ever, it's not like SS etc. I disagree. As a highly spiritual person, a great master Seagal established a good tradition in action movies. He always has a good background, great action, high professionalism and a clever message. This movie has it all. You have good shooting scenes, great aikido. Although there isn't a lot of it, it shows us its peaceful side. This change in his film making only proves his spiritual growth (he doesn't kill Chisolm's buddy in the end).

«The Patriot» is definitely one of the best films from the «filmmaker's» point of view which I have seen lately. You have great panoramic shots of Montana, we see real American nature and beautiful wildlife(among others - horses and flowers). The soundtrack also deserves a few words. During the film I had a great opportunity to listen to classical American-cowboy-western music(not Country though). Similar music was heard in «Back to the Future Prt.3». SS's acting has greatly improved since his last films. His role is unfamiliar to him(unlike cops & commandos), but he does a good job playing the-retired-doctor-from-the-government. His acting is convincing and his lines are good.

I was really pleased with the cast. LQ Jones proves that life & death walk the Earth together, Whitney Yellow Robe plays a beautiful and clever scientist, Camilla Belle makes a great appearance as McClaren's daughter.

Mr.Seagal discusses the much debated «Real American» tradition and the militia squads, providing his own point of view(he likes the Constitution just fine, but chubby bearded men have nothing to do with it). Also good points are raised regarding the Eastern-Western Medicine system and nature.

Seagal's best. And opening new horizons in his film career.

I think this is one hell of a movie...........We can see Steven fighting around with his martial art stuff again and like in all Segal movies there's a message in it, without the message it would be one of many action/fighting movies but the message is what makes segal movies great and special. This is another classic Seagal movie. He walks, no, cruises through the patriot just all the other Mega Seagal movies. Nothing even comes close to challenging Seagal in this movie except maybe the part where he has to find a cure for this so called 'plague' and he starts throwing things about the lab but it all works out, i mean lets face it, its Master Seagal, he's got to win. What about his outfit in the film, masterpiece, he must have picked it himself. Its great that everyone in the film is dying after being exposed to the virus but Seagal doesn't even get a cough. The incident at the end when he kills the fat guy with the broken glass, genius, i bet Seagal thought of that one as well. This film is class pure and simple. great plot, great characters, and Seagal. OK...ths film (like Segal's last few films) once again goes beyond the "knock 'em down, kick 'em in the groin, shoot 'em in the face, get revenge against the bad guys for hurting my sister's niece's cousin" stuff Seagal was into for a while. Geepers, Steven started thinking, and using his bucks to make movies with actual ideas in them. SURE....there is plenty of action in this flick, but also some thought and heart. It's not an Oscar flick, but well worth the effort, unless the viewer is so into brain dead violence that it hurts to have to think for longer than a second. It's worth a rental..or two!! Many people are making fun out of Steven Seagals acting abilities. And I really see why if I remember Fire Down Below. Well...ok his other films are acceptable (regarding to his acting!).

After reading reviews about The Patriot I didn't expect anything from this film. I barely came through Fire Down Below and I read a lot that The Patriot was even worse. So I was really surprised about this one. In my opinion it is one of his very best movies. If it had have more action sequences and a couple more fighting scenes it would be THE best. I liked the story the directing and the actors. Cammilla Belle was just incredible. She will have a great movie-career in the future. The few action scenes were very well made. And Steven Seagal was very believable in his unusual role. Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal's other films though, which unfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of the other films, this does not feel like a 'Seagal vehicle'. You get to see plenty of the other characters as well and all of Mr. Seagal's actions are not the same as we've seen before. The concept of him being an 'intellectual' in something other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change. Although there are some unrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), in general you can let them slide since the film is fun to watch.

It boils down to this: If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Watch it anyway for the fun of it. If you're open to seeing Seagal without the action, it's well worth a look. I personally believe it is some of the best work he's done in quite a while.

Man, I think people have forgotten how to watch a movie. Everyone thinks they're a critic. They comment on things that the average movie goer doesn't even know or think about.

I enjoyed the film. It was what I was expecting therefore was not disappointed. Steven gets a bad rap for putting his views into his films but that's also a reason to watch. What's even more funny is the people that complain about his films, say he's the worst and that we shouldn't watch his films, yet watch his movies anyway. All so they can comment on how bad they are. Who's the dummy? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Then you won't have to subject yourself to this supposedly painful event.

Stop comparing movies to other movies and watch a movie on an individual basis and you may begin to enjoy films again. It seems that all people didn't like Steven Seagal: Just take a look at his nomination list, there are only razzie awards nominations (with one win) for him, but I think he didn't earn anything of it. I saw good movies with Steven Seagal, I saw bad movies with Steven Seagal. And THE PATRIOT (1998) is one of his best movies, nearly as good as UNDER SIEGE (1992) or HARD TO KILL (1990). THE PATRIOT shows his activities to protect nature. Surely, this movie is not a great one, and I must say that there is more violence than I like, and why must Seagal's best friend L. Q. Jones die the death of a victim? The role of Dr. McClaren is one of Seagal's best performances. He has, as always, a very good charisma. And in summary, THE PATRIOT is good entertainment-and with an average rating of only 4 points the most underrated movie of all time.

Regards, Hans-Dieter I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, "western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it."

The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewer into the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted, it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitely the trademark film of what might be described as Seagal's second era of films. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for good measure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some of Seagal's unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film that hardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us who not only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this is a big step forward for Seagal. It's almost like the transformation Clint Eastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his "Dirty Harry" series. Either man, had he continued in the singular direction they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specific role and guaranteed the brevity of their careers... "Five Fingers of Death" started the American kung-fu movie craze but I remember seeing it for the first time as "King Boxer" in Chinatown, NYC, without the bad dubbing and few Americans. I also was fortunate enough to see the American premiere of "Five Fingers Of Death" on Times Square, NYC. What a contrast this turned out to be...same film but different audiences.

In Chinatown, this film took on a more serious tone to the viewers. It was because of hearing the real voices of the actors(In Chinese) that made this movie more believable. Chinatown theaters were showing violent kung fu films for years(1972's "Boxer From Shantung" beat them all in gore), so the action choreography & story were the main attraction. Rival school plots were not overused yet so the storyline seemed fresh. Every great kung fu film had wonderful, dastardly villains you wanted to see get their comeuppance and FFoD had them too. The star, Lieh Lo, was a known actor in Chinese theaters. The mostly Chinese audience enjoyed this film immensely. The audience buzz while leaving this film gives the final satisfaction to me.

On Times Square, this film was an action comedy...probably unintentionally. I enjoyed it here too but for different reasons. The crowd was ethnic and quite energetic. From the start, the movie made you laugh. As soon as the audience heard those strange British accents come from those Chinese actors the movie turned into a violent and gory cartoon. Most American audiences saw this kind of gore in a horror film not in an action film. The action sequences blew the audience away. Unfortunately, the movie studios saw that they enjoyed it so much that, bad dubbing and unnecessary violence became a kung fu flick formula.

I had fun seeing this movie with an American audience but enjoyed it much more in Chinatown. Some films can pass the test of time but the dubbed version of FFoD can't. The original "King Boxer" is still enjoyable...a CLASSIC! This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as "The Karate Kid" (1984), "Hero" (2002), "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), and "Kung Fu Hustle" (2004).

I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.

Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem. I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, "white hat" good guys and "black hat" bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of "Hey You! You are a very bad guy!" and "They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!" This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see. This is my favourite kung fu movie. It has a very authentic flavour, seasoned by an eerie music score (of tradition chinese instruments, I think), and some wonderfully over-acted melodramatic moments contrasted by heavily affected comedy. Indeed, while attempting to create their own "Western" (i.e. Cowboy film) genre, the Chinese concocted a whole new animal, marked by kung fu fighting and its associated sound effects.

The story of Five Fingers of death is simple, a story of revenge (for killing a loved one) and the pursuit of the main character to master the "iron-fist-technique" that will enable him to wreak holy vengeance on his enemies. There is even a love interest, though the awkward, polite kind (found in most Chinese films of the period). The end result however is great and much more authentic than any Bruce Lee movie. This was the very first kung fu movie that I have ever seen. The dubbing is not the greatest but alot better than some that I had seen. The plot is much better than some that are made today. It is gory at times but that is what gives it that special push. Academy award material is it not. But if you like to watch fights and a decent story backround, this is for you! "Five Fingers of Death" is a classic of 70's kung fu cinema. As the film that "broke out" HK cinema to the west, this is a must see for any serious fan of the genre. It's also a damn entertaining film, with hard-hitting, non-stop action, solid and mostly believable fight choreography and great over-the-top 70's era dubbing ("Oh I see ... so you want it THE HARD WAY!! HWAA!!").

"Five Fingers" is an eye-for-an-eye revenge tale ... and I mean literally, eye for an eye! It's great to see Lo Lieh portraying a hero. He played so many great villains later in his career - including Pai Mei in the classic FIST OF THE WHITE LOTUS, which was one of the characters Tarantino used in creating the Pai Mei of KILL BILL.

My only complaint is that I wish there was a better quality DVD - mine looks like it was a VHS transfer. Overall this is a great film - don't miss it!

Bart Blackstone Film Club - Hollywood, CA While it's generally acknowledged one of the first martial arts movies to play here in the West, it's real impact comes in retrospect. Lo Lieh is VERY low key throughout and many of the fight scenes, while often hailed as innovative (which they were at the time of the movie's initial release), are a tad tame compared to what came after (particularly after Bruce Lee, who became the instant standard by which all others will forevermore be judged). That's not to say that FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH/KING BOXER is anything less than a classic in its own right, because it is. Like many of the leading characters in many martial arts movies, the character Lieh plays lays low through most of the movie for a reason- but, when he cuts loose, he effectively cleans house. You can't ask for more than that. The martial arts movies got huge in the 60's in parts of Asia but with the growing popularity of the infamous Shaw Brothers films, America was bound to catch on. This movie was the first to be presented in America under the Warner Bros. label and it did in fact start a craze here that flooded the 70's with martial arts films. Many of the films to follow would pale in comparison but some were great and many like Enter The Dragon (which came out shortly after this one) became huge success stories and made superstars out of these fighters.

Fast forward almost 40 years later and this movie still holds up. Most Shaw brothers films are as good today as they were back then and truth be told no films have been made in this genre to compete with those made by The Shaw Bros back in the day.

I like to think Martial arts are like porn and nobody watches porn for the plot just the action, well same goes with M.A. films and most of them are just a bunch of great fights with little story, this one is an exception. It doesn't have an amazing story but there is one there.

The main guy played by Lo Lieh actually stands out amongst karate film heroes. He never brags and he never fights just because he can, he is often seen as weak and less of a fighter than most, but when he must fight, he is damn well the greatest alive. I really loved this character. Many of the bad guys were memorable and the fight scenes were just presented so amazingly. Even a small role with Bolo Yeung can be seen as the huge Mongolian, and Bolo is in my top 5 as greatest martial artist film stars ever, he was also in the above mentioned Enter The Dragon.

The production as I've said over and over is wonderful, you can't beat the Shaws, the direction was something unlike I have seen much in films of the 70's, the use of color was well placed and made this movie stand alone and rise above the others. When the light shines on Chi Hao's hands as he does the Iron Fist, its pure beauty.

The music was superb as well. Martial arts films were to Asia what westerns were to Italy, two separate art forms with so much in common. The countries making these films had all genres but the Japanese films were what was making waves there as the spaghetti westerns were in Italy. With their many differences the styles of these two genres were neck and neck. As seen in movies like 5 Fingers Of Death, the fights were easily compared to Sergia Leoni cowboy stand offs, and the music tied the genres together so well. The music here borrowed a little from Ironside, but it was still very original.

Many films were inspired by this one and when I watch it I can see everything from The Master Killer to Bloodsport having been influenced. The most obvious movie to have been influenced was Kill Bill, which to me is the greatest of all time. Many of the sets Quentin used are complete replicas of ones seen here and he used the music from this film, even though the music he used was the music borrowed from Ironside. And the fight scene at the end of Kill Bill vol. 1 with The Bride and O-Ren is at times exact in comparison to the fight with Chi Hao and the Japanese thug at the end of this movie.

I have seen many martial arts films, a few even better, but this is a MUST-SEE for fans of the genre. You can't go wrong here. The movie starts off slow but 15-20 minutes into it it picks up and doesn't slow down. Hong Kong filmmaker Chang Chang Ho's 1972 martial arts movie epic "Five Fingers of Death" is widely considered by a great many film experts and kung-fu movie fanatics to be the martial arts movie that started it all.

Being released in 1972, it was phase-two of the three-step process that would lead to the explosion of martial arts movies in the West - "Billy Jack" (1971), with its famous Hapkido showdown in the park, was released the year before, and Bruce Lee starred in "Enter the Dragon" (1973) two years later, thereby solidifying martial arts movies' place in Western cinema.

But what is all the hoopla about regarding "Five Fingers of Death"? The movie, with its terrible dubbing, explosive (if not highly improbable) action sequences and technical flaws and all, has a plot, albeit a very thin one. Chih-Hao (the late Lo Lieh) is a young and dedicated student of Chinese gong-fu who is selected to represent his school in an upcoming martial arts tournament. His teacher offers to allow him to self-train in the "Iron Fist" style of fighting, a style so deadly that it could very easily kill a man with only one blow.

Additionally, Chih-Hao's arrival at the school coincides with a violent conflict with a rival school, its students, and a trio of murderous heavy hitters from Japan. Before you know it, a major setback threatens Chih-Hao's training, and his ability to represent his beloved school in the upcoming tournament.

Let me just say that "Five Fingers of Death" is in fact the movie that started it all. As another viewer mentioned, "Five Fingers of Death" helped to set a lot of standards in martial arts movies over the next three decades - Asian, European, and North American martial arts movies. Such standards include the dedicated student, the learning of patience and endurance, conflicts between rival schools, the intense ethnic animosity between the Chinese and Japanese, and learning a system of fighting for that good old-fashioned action movie motive: revenge. "Five Fingers of Death" would also serve as a major influence on American filmmaker Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies (Tarantino borrows quite liberally from this project, among many others, just so you know).

The acting is pretty good, considering the fact that this is a martial arts movie from the early 1970s, the best of which is Lo Lieh. As the atypical student of the martial arts, his performance is quite groundbreaking, though upon first glance at this movie you wouldn't really know it because of how that particular character arc has been done to death so many times over the years. He's quite humble in his acting, doing anything he can to persevere over his enemies and not fight them in anger or stoop to their level of stupidity or arrogance. Also, when he suffers his major setback, it does make your heart sink a little bit because it's so brutal and you wonder if he's going to recover enough to realize his life-long ambition.

"Five Fingers of Death" is a classic in every sense. It's by no means perfect, and viewers would be crazy to expect something on the caliber of the "Godfather" of martial arts movies. What it does offer you is the ultimate example of Eastern hand-to-hand combat from the time before Eastern cinema was a major fixture in the West.

7/10

P.S.: "Enter the Dragon" Bolo Yeung also appears as the Mongolian street fighter near the beginning of the film. Having recently seen Grindhouse, I was browsing in Video USA looking for some movies that might have played in real grindhouse theatres in downtown areas during the '70s. The Hong Kong action flick Five Fingers of Death seemed just such a picture. The cartoon-like sound effects and the quick jump cuts seemed a little distracting at first but after a while I was so involved in the story and the characters I didn't care. Parts of the music score sounded like the "Ironside" TV theme song that was subsequently used in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movies. Some scenes involving the hero's fiancé seemed to border on parody but they were so brief that they didn't ruin the film. The most exciting parts involve the tournament and some revenge segments after that. Well worth seeing for kung fu fans! Five fingers of death: Although previous Shaw Martial Arts epics had shown the influence of the American cowboy genre, none had paid such open tribute to it as this one, especially in the saloon fight scene. And though Shaw Bros. films had borrowed from the Japanese chambara (swordfight) genre before, none had done so with such success as this one. i suppose some of this had to do with the fact that the director originated from Korea, and thus brought a non-Chinese perspective to such borrowings, which certainly raises some interesting questions about culture; but in any event, this film presented real innovations in technology and technique in Hong Kong action films. for the first time in Hong Kong, the camera was given access to the whole of any given set, which meant shots from many different angles, such as the low-angle interior shot showing the ceiling of a room (the original American innovation of which usually credited to John Ford), or the high angle long shot that allowed visualization of a large ground area, or the frontal tracking shot.

It is true that this was not the first hand-to-hand combat film of real cinematic substance - that remains Wang Yu's 'Chinese Boxer'; but on a commercial level, Shaw Bros. were right to choose 'Five Fingers' as their first major release to the West because, one might say, it was the 'least Chinese' of their action films, that is, the least dependent on purely Chinese theater traditions. Although this made no impression on the American critics at the time (who universally trashed the picture), it wasn't lost on American audiences, especially among African Americans, whose culture had always been - by necessity - an eclectic patchwork of borrowed elements and innovation. In 'Five Fingers' they were given the opportunity to discover the core of the story, in the earnest young man forced to make the extra effort to overcome social barriers and betrayal in order to have his merit recognized. This seems to be an issue universal to Modernity, but each culture has its own way of expressing and resolving it; 'Five Fingers' presented it in a way many Americans could relate to as well as Chinese.

So is the film now only of historical value? Certainly not. For one thing this issue hasn't gone away. Secondly, some of the innovations leave much of the film looking as fresh today as it did on first release. Also the action is well-staged, and the performances, though a little too earnest, are crisp. The film is a might over-long, but the story does cover a lot of ground. And there are marvelous set-pieces through-out, such as the saloon confrontation, the fight on the road to the contest, the odd double finale.

definitely looks better on a theater screen, but still impressive for home viewing: recommended. I was first introduced to this movie while in San Antonio, Tx. This movie was the 2nd. in a double feature. Unfortunately, the theater where I saw this was torn down. Anyways, Five Fingers of Death (aka: King Boxer), was released in 1972 and introduced in the U.S. the following year. Like a lot of "other" Kung-Fu movies released while riding on the "coat-tails" of Enter the Dragon, this particular movie actually was pretty good. It's the story of a country boy who is sent to a martial arts institute to better himself & his fighting skills. Meanwhile, the "opponent" martial arts school plans & scheme to thwart our hero, utilizing dirty tactics to try to throw him off track & try to prevent him from participating in the tournament. By surprise, I had thought since Warner Bros. distributed this movie in the U.S., Warner Bros. was going to issue a DVD. It never happened. As far as I know, this movie has been released in both English & Cantonise, w/sub-titles.....the latter a more "cleaner & clearer" version. Although the fighting sequences are a bit funny to watch (i.e.: flying in air & hitting, jumping on buildings, a fighter using his head....literally....to hit his opponent, etc.), nonetheless, it's classic kung-fu action wonderfully planned & executed. If you like Enter the Dragon, Five Fingers of Death would be an excellent addition to any Movie collection.....if you can find it. Well as a life long fan of Kung Fu films I have to say this is one of the best I have ever seen. Sure there is nothing special about the plot but man does it entertain. As does most movies of the genre. This film is packed with action and does not boar its viewers. It's so damn fun when I watch I have a smile on my face the whole time. This also has an impact on future films like Kill Bill. (Many of Kill Bill's Sound effects come from this film for example.) This is essential viewing for all knew viewers in Kung Fu. Form open to close this film is filled with fights that really are some of the better I have seen in the genre. There are few Kung Fu films out there that measure up to the sheer magic and entertainment of this film. So if in search of a Great Kung Fu movie check this one out for sure. The skeleton of the story is that the main character needs to win a public kung fu tournament with high stakes. The flesh of the story consists of LOTs of fighting, a love triangle, betrayals, rivalries, and revenge.

There is a lot to this story. The main character is very likeable as an even tempered, mild mannered, and very tough country boy. A good versus bad movie is only as good as the villains and the main villains are tough and smart, not to mention ugly, devious and tricky.

If there is one weakness, it's the scene where the fiance of the main character is imagining her and the protagonist running towards each other in a flowery field and hugging when they meet. I thought I was watching The Sound of Music for a second and nearly lost hope for the movie. Luckily, the movie recovered quickly with a fight scene. Released as KING BOXER in the U.K.

This film was essentially the FIRST kung fu film to go on general release in the U.K. Many of us had ratcheted through Kurosawa's astonishingly gritty and involving dramas and were used to oriental film being beautifully shot and lit, with somewhat restrained pacing, all in all like leafing through an album of very fine still photographs that just happened to be moving.

Along come Run Run Shaw and co. with their widescreen "home movie" production values, and astonishing ripe-for-parody dubbing and all the rules have changed. KIng Boxer was the first in through the door, leaving a clearly marked trail for others to follow with their feet planted firmly on top of the blazed footsteps.

In spite of hokey plots, pantomime acting, cheesy jump-cuts and spaghetti western style snap-stepped zooms, this film was marvellous. Gorgeous without being opulent and with the most brilliant fight choreography ever to grace a screen. We loved the sickening violence, the anguish, the testosterone. The martial artists among us found some of the techniques fascinating, if flamboyant and oftentimes silly. It was so very different from the Japanese stuff we all knew, and it had lovely acrobatic grace that perfectly complemented the sickening violence and bloodstained floors. Delightful.

The "KIng Lear" scene was, at the time, quite a milestone in schlock "You cruel bastards.. My **** !!" Now it's rather less shocking, but still a bit of a gut-churner

We didn't notice that any females in sight were absolutely one-dimensional. After seeing more films of the genre, it now stands out like a sore thumb, but at the time it didn't matter

This film defined what would rapidly become the kung-fu movie clichés. All of them. Watch it and remember that until this burst onto the western screens, there was no genre for it to slot into. It was unique and awesome. It was the first kung fu movie and it still is, for me and many others, the best. I saw this movie on the base movie theater while in the Air Force so my affection for it might be influenced by the reaction of the raucous audience in attendance at the theater that night. But I do think that this movie was one of the first popular kung-fu movies and helped to begin the trend in the early 70's. It's worth seeing. This film is the best kung fu film of all time. Although there is not wire-work and special effects like those used in Crouching Tiger, this movie uses ingenuity and creative camera-work to create memorable fighting moments, and the fight scenes are well choreographed and tight. There is a ton of action in this film with lots of great fight scenes, but the story is very good too,with lots of twists and turns. The characters are well rounded and have real depth to them, as the motivations for their actions and personality are revealed in a much greater detail than most kung fu films. There is some really great camera-work in the film, with my favorite shot starting as a close up on our hero's face showing his reaction, then pulls back quickly to reveal the scene before him that is the cause of his look. Originally, I bought the movie to hoping see some great fight scenes, but upon multiple viewings I learned how terrific the acting and story were as well. Overall, a great film. Crimson begins with some cool jazzy music so I liked it immediately, but as the film wore on I began to wonder if the music wasn't the best part. We have some thieves pulling a jewel heist and when one does something wrong the alarm is triggered and the cops chase them and when the car turns around at a road block one of the thieves (Paul Nash, Jacinto Molina, whoever he is here) gets shot. Now, it seems like he might die but with the help of a drunken doctor and his mad-scientist friend (and wife) he is saved, with a part of the brain of some nightclub owner called "The Sadist". The Sadist is unfortunate in that the gentlemen that kidnapped him lost their knife to remove is head, so to add insult to injury (or, in this case, death), they remove his head using a train, leaving the body for the authorities to find, oops. Once the brain transplant is complete Naschy wants to ravage any woman that comes near him, because he now has the mindset of his donor. Well, of course this is all pretty improbable and features medical equipment that looks to have been purchased at Radio Shack, and overall it's pretty cheesy and sleazy. But, it has a good early 70's look and feel to it and the music is cool. This isn't so much a horror movie but more a thriller with lots of thugs battling it out over turf and babes and other thug-type things, but it's strangely entertaining in ways I can't begin to describe. 7 out of 10. The undoubted highlight of this movie is Peter O'Toole's performance. In turn wildly comical and terribly terribly tragic. Does anybody do it better than O'Toole? I don't think so. What a great face that man has!

The story is an odd one and quite disturbing and emotionally intense in parts (especially toward the end) but it is also oddly touching and does succeed on many levels. However, I felt the film basically revolved around Peter O'Toole's luminous performance and I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much if he hadn't been in it. Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.

The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances.

Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.

I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name "Brotherly love". "Country dance" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact. After all these years, of Peter O'Tool's brilliant, costly giving of his Soul, film after film, at last, Hollywood tosses him an Oscar recently.

Country Dance showed up one night late, and of course, blew me out of my complainant niche in my alleged "Life". How does he do it?

York again also is brilliant in this kind of play. Both psychological battleships loaded for bear....

Bravo to author, director, cast, and camera crew. No wonder the Nazi's lost to these Irish, Scot, English blends....brutal honesty hurts...back in the 70's, when I personally believed "honesty" was pure and absolutely vital to trust. I have modified my edgy extremes, and will settle for more human, warm flaws within myself and others.

Forgiveness allows humanity to have a reverse gear, and allows us to fix our own bull headed egos and erotic mistakes.... I saw this back in 99 and I remember loving it. Still to this day I can remember parts of the movie in my head, like the slanted pitch. Unfortunately from 99 - now I could never remember the name of this until I was looking through the filmography of a friend of my uncles and came across this (he played Clive Kennard). Straight away after reading the description I knew what it was. After catching up I was shocked to find out that not only did it not make a release on video or DVD but still has yet to be repeated. This is a massive shame, I am begging you ITV at least repeat this superb TV Movie. Nick Hancock showed in this movie he could do more than just host a show with his character Mike Tonker. This is a movie that most football fans would love and even those who aren't too keen on the sport would be able to enjoy the comedic value of this. Yes this is a brief review but there is not much to say apart from this is an underrated movie, deserves to be repeated or released on video/DVD so ITV, myself and other fans of this movie beg you. PLEASE CONSIDER ONE OF THOSE! Having obtained a copy of Bostocks Cup I must confess It is not as funny as I originally thought!! IT IS BETTER!!!!! Charlie Williams ... eat your heart out. Match fixing???? Never! Sloping pitch at 45%? Ronnie and Reggie Kay? George Best? The Coach Driver who thinks Pontefract is in South Wales ( It's all Ponty this and Ponty that)Bertie Masson's (Tim Healey's)lucky Cup hat!! (not that he's into gimmicks) Sugar Plum Fairy????? Confused???? Watch it again. The innovative use of real footage with Bostock players was brilliant and the producer should be proud of giving us a MASTERPIECE. Come on ITV do the viewers and yourself a favour - show it again!!! Please> As you can see I've submitted 2 comments about this show since 1991....and no, ITV have still not made it available for general release.

HOWEVER, I recently contacted ITV to see if there was any way of getting hold of a copy, and this was their reply.......

"Unfortunately there are no plans for this programme to be released on DVD/video. You can however, purchase copies from our Viewers Requests dept. Their email address is: viewers.requests@itv.com ".

Hope you all now get the chance to enjoy this classic short comedy again.

.... could it be that ITV wouldn't want to release this absolute classic because it would show up their current series of Mike Bassett for what it is? When discussing Mike Bassett with some work colleagues I mentioned Bostock's Cup as being a far superior offering and was surprised to find that I seem to be the only person in my entire office that has actually seen it. This can't be right for a film that has got to be the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Let's face it, ITV don't have the greatest recent record for producing comedy so you would think that they would jump at the chance of at least repeating something which is genuinely funny. Perhaps if it could be combined with a lucrative telephone competition of where we think the coach driver will go next then they might be interested.

Come on ITV, there are still some of us out there who would like to watch original, quality comedy/drama. Do the decent thing thing. Repeat it then get it out on DVD. Airplane apart, I don't think I've ever laughed at a film so much in all my life.

I love football like mad, but I tend to hate almost any song or film about football as they tend to be unrealistic. This wasn't.

I watched it once, it was over 2 years ago & it was brilliant. Everyone I know loved it. I remember the gay physio, the sloping pitch at about a 45 degree angle and 'Shoes' (a player so named because he once turned up for training in a new pair of shoes). Brilliant, that's what goes on in park football.

A definite 10/10. If anyone from the TV industry is reading this, considering all the crap you repeat on English tele, please have the sense to show this again (and the Muppets while you're at it). Also does anyone know if this was shown on BBC or ITV. I think it was ITV, so it's worth asking them if they plan to show it again. They should do. I can't add much to what has been said already, except I'm going to have to because of the 10 lines minimum policy.

I've actually got this on a VHS-to-DVD copy, but the quality is quite poor and I desperately need for it to be officially released.

I can just imagine what extras I would like to see (Tim Healy's character swearing his way through one of those 'Football Bloopers' type programmes would be great!). You can imagine it now, can't you? But of course, it looks like most people will have to carry on dreaming about a DVD release.

Surely to God there must be someone in the DVD releases department at ITV who also knows something about British culture, is web savvy and has enough about them to look at IMDb now and again? Oh, well. Can't believe that Bostock's Cup isn't available on a proper video or DVD yet. I've only seen it once, on a dodgy copy taken off the TV and despite not being a footy fan (at all,) thought it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

The famous sloping pitch of wherever it was, the clueless coach driver ("Ponty-this, Ponty-that", "I'll take the next exit"), the pointless plot; it all added up to aching sides.

Being stuck in the US I'm desperate for some good British humour but not quite enough to spend the amount that the production company are asking for. C'mon, get it out on kosher DVD pronto. What a crazy film!It lasts 12(!) hours and you don't understand who these people are and what are they doing!The main plot is about a bunch of clueless actors trying to bring on scene "Prometheus",but there are lots of sub-plots,like the disappearing of Thomas and a crazy guy looking for Monsieur Warok....what's the meaning of all this??? This documentary is not only one of the best documentaries I've seen, but also one of the most moving and quietly beautiful movies I've seen period. It follows the lives of two Sudanese young men, Peter and Santino, as they try to make their way into the American culture. Peter and Santino are friends at first, but they gradually drift more and more apart, as Peter goes to Kansas City, and Santino stays in Houston ("a land called Houston"). Santino's beauty is in his eyes. He takes people onto his back, he supports an apartment full of other Sudanese, paying the rent, doing everything for other people. He is a quiet sufferer. Peter looks out for himself, getting a high school education while playing basketball and making Christian friends. It seems that director Megan Mylan did not know what she was getting herself into with the beauty of this tale. Peter and Santino are amazing characters that move you. But the real strength in this movie lies in its commentary on American society. It is not judging. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of our world, and how difficult it can be to outside people. I suggest you find this film, and look at America through the lives of these two fascinating and beautiful people.

My grade: 10/10 In Sudan, the Arabs rule and are constantly at war with the Christians and Animists who inhabit the southern portion of this East African country. This film follows a group of of Dinka boys, a tribe of cattle herders, whom were left orphaned after their village was destroyed and their families killed in a brutal attack carried out by the Arab forces. Most of these boys are now teenagers and have been dubbed "The Lost Boys".

The filmmaker follows a group of the "Lost Boys" on their journey, as they have been accepted as refugees in the US, where they will land in Houston. Those who've been accepted as refugees gain celebrity status, as they feel (from what they've heard) that America is amazing. Making a trip from Sudan to America is like "making a trip to heaven" says the one young man. A huge party is thrown for their departure, and they are told to do Sudan well, and once they have been educated, to return to Sudan so that they can contribute to Dinka society. They are also warned not to be like "those with the baggy pants" whom are responsible for the negative stereotype of Black men, and also, no matter what happens, not to forget the Dinka culture.

You watch as the boys come from a third world country into America and how they attempt to integrate into American society, as they have gone from a place with practically nothing to this plentiful world where everything is massively overproduced and overconsumed. They are taught about cleanliness and how to use all the utilities that we take for granted on a daily basis. It is humorous at times, humbling at others.

Listening to the comments they make about Black Americans and American society/culture are quite interesting. As the film progresses you see how American culture begins to corrupt their previously humble ways of thinking.

One of the boys, Peter, is not content with working and making just enough to survive, so he up and moves from Houston to Kansas City so that he can pursue an education. When the other boys visit him, they talk about how they cannot get into any schools. The main reason they came to America was to get an education and the media is saying that the boys have been brought from Sudan for an education. This is occurring because the boys were given arbitrary ages, making them older than they actually are, preventing them from being able to enroll in high school.

The film juxtaposes images from Houston to Kansas. We watch as Peter enrolls in school, where he befriends a group of Christian conservative kids, and as Santiago attempts driving school(even though he drives without his license anyways), and works at Walmart. We see Peter struggle with high school life as he strives to make his schools basketball team, and as Santiago has trouble keeping up with work, the rent, appeasing tensions back home in Sudan, and most of all, coping with loneliness.

It comes to the point where the boys want to return to Sudan, and tell them that everything they are taught about America there is lies. "You must make it alone here, do everything alone" one of the boys says. A damning message to a Liberal Capitalist lifestyle, showing how it causes people to become radical individualists (a trend which led to the creation of both the neo-conservative and radical islamist movements). Their biggest beef with America though, is that there is no time; time is money and we don't waste a second!

Despite all this, the boys never lose their sense of Dinka culture. They celebrate Southern Sudan Liberation Day, which marks the day which the SPLA began to fight in Sudan, a fight which continues today. They also meet with other "Lost Boys" on the anniversary of their arrival in America, where they discuss their experience in America as compared to back in Sudan. When asked, one boy says that if he were able to make a living he would much prefer to live in Sudan. It is much too lonely in America he adds. They never lose their sense of community, which has been conditioned into them as part of their culture!

This film makes us question the way we live, makes us question the artificial happiness that materialism and the nature of our societies has created within us. It will also change the way I look at refugees, I will never again take for granted how hard they must work and what immigrants mean for a country such as my own, Canada. This is a wonderful film. I laughed, I cried..a very emotional journey, and a very well made documentary. 10 out of 10. I've heard about this documentary for so long I knew I needed to take the time to watch it. As a documentary it's very well done, in that it takes a neutral observant view of their experience. There are no voice-overs, or interviewing. It is honest. It is true. It is also humbling. Two comments really stayed with me after the film was done. One was how the boys are told to not to become like the American boys who wear the baggy pants, and how in Africa there is time but no money, but in America there is money but no time. The biggest impact was how the boys hungered for education, and how one of the boys totally relocated himself so he could go to school. I watched this film with a high school sophomore who said it upset him to see how the boys were brought to their new life without any real orientation to America. He also said he knew so many American teens who simply cannot appreciate howblessed their lives are in America. I would agree with him on both accounts. A strong film that will leave a person thinking about many things. Well made documentary focusing on two Sudanese refugees who get resettled in the United States. It's your basic fish out of water story with a non-fiction twist. I found it fascinating to see how Peter and Santino lived prior to coming to America and how they adapted once they arrived here (in Houston, Texas.) They expected a sort of heaven but found out that it's a lot harder than it looks to cope well in the states. They go from hopeful idealists to somewhat more realistic skeptics. Everywhere they go they meet bureaucrats with paper trails that most citizens may take for granted. They fret that they are blacker than the African-Americans here and don't feel accepted because of that. One of the "Lost Boys" manages to leave Houston to go to Olathe, Kansas, where he finds conditions slightly better but still less than ideal. There are people that try to help them as well as try to hurt them in this film. Not shown, but talked about, are those who put a gun to their heads and robbed them, leading one Lost Boy to comment negatively that "all black people in America are no good." I found it interesting, too, that they arrived in Houston in August 2001, a month before the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. I had hoped to see their reaction to this tragedy but it's not mentioned at all. Still, all in all, a really well done documentary with no narration. None is needed really. The "Lost Boys" do a fine job expounding on the events going on around them without any help at all, thank you very much. If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local "art house" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28/40 Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale — a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District — and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.

The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.

Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.

Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show. I mention that there may be a spoiler here just to be cautious because of what I discuss, although I don't really think I am giving away anything important. Any "suprises" are really unimportant to this film's success or a viewer's ability to enjoy it.

While not without some very minor flaws, this is a beautiful and very moving film about friendship, time, uncertainty, and the choices people make about their lives. Yet, at the same time, it is also a very humorous film, with small, mostly understated bits of comedy woven in throughout. For much of the film, it progresses at a fairly leisurely pace, but it does not seem slow at all since the film draws one into it and into the lives of the characters, and at first it is mostly rather light-hearted. Some have commented that much of the film seems slow, but it is such a wonderful portrayal of the lives of such sympathetic characters that one could watch it almost endlessly. As it progresses, the film becomes more emotional and moving up to the very end and the progression is handled wonderfully.

Eventually, some of the characters decide to rob a bank and although it is perhaps somewhat hard to believe, that is beside the point. It is a wonderful addition to emphasise the love that these friends have for each other while at the same time it accents the humour and adds a little more irony to the film. And, although hardly original to have a bunch of old guys rob a bank, the context and details are quite original and they do it wonderfully, making it really quite funny as well, such as when Ismet (if I remember correctly) exaggerates his aggressiveness to "disguise" the fact he's old.

As I said, most of the other comedy is rather low-key but still very humorous so I was constantly chuckling throughout.

The actors are probably the real key to this film. They imbue the characters with deep personality and sympathy and portray them with great care and warmth. There are some small transformations or tiny details of the characters' personalities which are pulled off smoothly and beautifully. Of course, the film is about the personalities of these very characters and how they care for and interact with one another. It succeeds so well because of them and if lesser actors had the roles the movie could well have failed.

Gule Gule is not without sadness, but that simply provides the full range of emotions and provides a more powerful experience. In fact, the film is so moving and filled with so much love from such rich characters that it is in the end a very heart-warming, satisfying, and even happy film despite its sadness. I could watch it over and over. It is the best movie on acting I have ever seen. All the artists are old Turkish theater actors, they are magnificent in this movie.It is sometimes said that "They do not act, they live it", you can really see this in this movie. The director is also competent, you cannot see lots of moving cameras around but the positions of the cameras are also good. But after the acting, the most outstanding part is the content of the movie. It gives happiness, enthusiasm, desire to live, importance of real friends to people. We all started to live individually nowadays, in this film you see that there are someone other then us. And most importantly, you see that the most honorable feeling in the world is love, loving your friends, loving your darling. All people should see this movie... The great James Cagney, top-billed in big letters, doesn't show up till the movie's second third, and probably has less screen time than Dudley Digges, who plays the eee-vill reform-school potentate. But when Jimmy arrives, as a deputy commissioner of something-or-other out to reform reform schools, he slashes the air with his hands and jumps on the balls of his feet and spits out punchy Warners-First National dialogue with all the customary, and expected, panache. The psychology in this crisp antique, one of Warners' many efforts to assert its place as the "socially conscious" studio, doesn't run deep: Digges is bad just because the script requires him to be, and there's the quaint notion that juvenile delinquents will turn into swell kids if they're just given a dash of autonomy. But it's made in that spare, fast style that the studio specialized in, and it never bores. Frankie Darro, who got into all kinds of onscreen trouble during a brief tenure as Warners' favorite Rotten Street Kid, is an ideal JD -- a handsome, charismatic toughie with a pug nose and a hate-filled stare that could wither steel. No kid actor today can touch him. This is a typically fast-moving entertaining movie of the early 1930s. When you have James Cagney in the lead, these "pre-Code" films are even better: just fun stuff to watch. Usually, when films are "dated," it's a negative but not so with films from 1930-1934. Yeah, with the slang and the attitudes, dress, hairstyles, etc., they are dated but that's a big part of the fun. These films have an edge to them that almost always are fun to view.

They also have a corniness which is appealing and fascinating. You see people - like the juvenile delinquents pictured in this film and their goofy parents - that you just don't see in any period but this one (early '30s). Early on this movie, the kids go before the judge and you sit and just laugh at these crazy characters that appear in court on behalf of their kids, one after the other. Yes, we get the stereotypical emotional Italian father; the Jewish dad; the Anglo-Saxon mom and a few other moms who all, in dramatic form, plead theirs is "a good boy." Even though things are predictable in some cases, you don't mind because everyone in here is so much fun to watch.

This also teaches you that kids were punks 75 years ago, too, stealing, robbing, mugging, lying - hey, that's the human condition. This movie debunks the theory that "people were nicer back in the old days." No, people have always been rotten or good. The degree was aided by their environment, parents, financial situation and other things. Here, we get a bunch of "Dead End" kids who wind up in Reform School.

The ridiculous and stupidly-liberal storyline has kids acting immediately like angels once they run the show at the reform school; not punished in the slightest for causing a man to fall to his death and setting the institution on fire (the explanation: he was a meanie and deserved it. So much for real justice and reform.); and "Patsy" shooting a guy bit never having to even be questioned by police because he's the good guy! Notice the subtle anti-religious dig in which the only guy seen praying is the evil "warden." That's no coincidence, no accident. That sort of negative-association things has been going on ever since the Hays Code was canned in the late '60s and was seen, as you see hear, in the Pre-Code early '30s.

Dudley Digges, by the way, is outstanding in his "bad guy" role of "Mr. Thomson." I especially his voice was very effective and could picture him playing one of those similarly-evil roles as an institution boss in a Charles Dickens film adaptation. Cagney played his normal role, the take-no-guff tough guy who gets the pretty girl, "Dorothy Griffith," played by Madge Blake. Frankie Darro also was effective as the leader of the boys, "Jimmy Smith." Just the looks on Darro's face alone made his character believable. Some thing he was the real star of the film, but I'll still go with Cagney. The rest of the reform school kids weren't too believable and they were really ethnic stereotypes, but they were all fun to watch.

I thought the most interesting part of the film was the first 20 minutes when we saw how bad these kids were and witnessed the good and bad and stereotypical parents in the court after the kids were arrested. Those scenes are pure 1930s Dead End Kids stuff. They always showed the kids to be bad news at the beginning of the film, but by the time the story was over they all looked acting more like Wally and Beaver Cleaver - hardly rough "delinquents." It's very far-fetched but it works, entertainment-wise.

Overall, a hokey but very entertaining movie, typical of Cagney films and those of the early '30s. Almost all of them rate at least eight stars for their entertainment value. James Cagney, racketeer and political ward heeler, get to become a Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and visits a boys reform school. The catch is that Cagney is not in it for the graft, he genuinely wants to make a difference in the lives of the kids there because he comes from a background like their's.

The villain of the piece is Dudley Digges who is a grafting chiseler and a sanctimonious hypocrite to boot. One of the subtexts of the plot of The Mayor of Hell is that these kids are mostly immigrants and those that judge them and are in positions of power are those who are here a few generations. Note in the mess hall scene as Digges offers a prayer of thanks for the food they are about to receive, Digges is eating well, but the kids are getting quality you wouldn't feed to your pet.

Cagney has his own troubles back in the city with some of his henchmen and he has to take it on the lam. That puts Digges back in charge and setting up the film for it's climax.

The Mayor of Hell was a typical product from the working class studio. And because it was pre-Code it gets pretty gruesome at times. A later version of this, Crime School, with Humphrey Bogart and the Dead End Kids, was a more sanitized remake.

Although Cagney is fine in the lead role as is Madge Evans the school nurse, the acting honors go to Dudley Digges. Hard to believe that the same man could portray the drunken, but kindly, one legged ship's surgeon in Mutiny on the Bounty. But Digges is a fine player and a joy to watch in every film he's in.

This film is not shown to often because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes it portrays. A whole lot of minorities would be offended today. Still it's a fine film.

Interestingly enough a few years ago the film Sleepers came out and it touched on some of the same issues. I guess films about reform schools don't change in any time. James Cagney (The Yankee Doodle Dandy Boy) was just starting his career and was able to perform as a gangster and also a social worker for a Boys Reform School which is being run by corrupt politicans. The reform school inmates are underpriviledge minors from the streets of New York, like the "East Side Kids" who were poor and uncared for during the great Depression. In the final scenes, there is a trial held by the reform school boys with flaming torches and a barn which is set on fire and a big leap by the corrupt warden. I noticed that they did let the horses out of the barn first. This film is not shown very often and I really can understand WHY! This one of those social dramas that WB knew how to put together and were guaranteed boxoffice hits in the thirties. This early "dead end kids" are sent to a reform school where they are mistreated. Cagney, a gangster as part of a deal is appointed as the commissioner of the school. He doesn't take it seriously at first but he changes and makes the necessary changes to improve the lives of the boys. The idea is to let the boys rule and administer their community. Whether this is sound social reform is beyond my belief but it's a movie. It's a lot like Boys Town with a slight darker tone. A useless happy ending deluges what impact the scene prior hard but is still good. WB would later make this same movies with Bogart in the Cagney/fatherly role. Remember - before there was Sidney, there was Dudley.

Dudley Digges is barely recalled today - because his heyday as a fixture in sound movies was the late 1920s and through the 1930s. Except for one major performance: the ship's good natured, if tipsy doctor in the 1935 MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, most of his films are barely revived. More's the pity because he was a wonderful actor. In 1931 he played Casper Gutman (the original actor to play that villain) opposite Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade in the first THE MALTESE FALCON. Similarly, about the same time, he played the recording angel in Leslie Howard's version of OUTWARD BOUND - the same role that Sidney Greenstreet tackled in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS a decade later.

Digges could be likable and lovable (that ship's doctor again), or detestable (in CHINA SEAS, as the judgmental First Mate sneering at poor Lewis Stone but then proving he's as big a coward in a moment of crisis). He held his own against Paul Robeson in THE EMPEROR JONES. He is the Chinese freedom fighter working with Gary Cooper in THE GENERAL DIED AT DAWN. Digges could do anything.

Here, he is Mr. Thompson, the hypocritical and thieving warden of a reform school that Frankie Darro and his friends are sent to for committing a robbery and injuring a Greek-American store owner (it is the latest incident for most of them). Digges is as bad here as in CHINA SEAS, but it is a close thing to totally dislike him. He's able to somehow transcend his roles...more later about that.

Darro has a gang of urban delinquents (including a Jewish boy and "Farina" from "OUR GANG"). As pointed out in another review, it is a prototype of the Bowery Boys. We see them shake down car owners to pay them to "watch and protect" their autos. When one guy won't do it, they calmly wreck his car. The snatch and grab robbery at the store of the Greek-American is also rather graphically shown - his skull getting fractured when pushed.

The boys are rounded up and brought before stern but decent judge Arthur Byron, who realizes that he can't leave the kids with their parents: the parents are unable to watch them, or are incompetent. Unfortunately there are three racial stereotypes in this sequence: a Jewish father who is more concerned with his business than with his son, Farina's stereotype "Yassum" father, and the an Italian father whose willingness to cooperate gets his son out of going to the reform school.

Once there the boys find the regime oppressive. Occasionally one of the guards or the nurse (Madge Evans) tries to speak up for them. But Digges has no time for coddling. His is a regime determined to break the boys so they behave themselves. Unfortunately, Digges and his bookkeeper partner are greedy. They have been serving inferior food to the boys and pocketing the profit.

One day a new official comes from the state to look at the reform school. It's Jimmy Cagney, who is a hack ward heeler whose gang got the vote out for Edward Maxwell. As a reward (he could not get the Park Commissioner post) Cagney was made an Assistant school inspector. He is supported by his hanger-on pal and factotum Allan Jenkins (in his first Warner Brother film).

The irony is that if Digges were a bit more careful, Cagney would probably have let him continue running things. But Cagney arrives to see Darro brought to Digges for fighting. The Warden and Darrow have had problems about respect earlier, and Digges now intends to punish Darro who flees - but get seriously injured by Digges' barbed wire fences and his free use of a whip. Cagney stops Digges and lets Evans treat Darro's injuries. And she explains the reality of the situation to Cagney, and her own idea of real reformatory reform of the boys by building up trust in them with responsibility.

The film follows this to the end, showing that Cagney and Evans are on the right path, turning the reformatory as a "republic" for the boys to run properly. This leads to conflict with Digges, whose profiteering is reduced as he is no longer getting supplies. But the scheme is derailed when Cagney himself finds he may be in serious trouble with the law. Digges sees his opportunity and fully takes it. But then he goes too far...far more than he ever bargained for.

The 1930s had many films showing kids taking steps to right wrongs and change things. Darro appeared in such as WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD. Cecil B. De Mille did THIS DAY AND AGE, where the kids teach a lesson to a gangster played by Charles Bickford that scares the hell out of him. So it went in the 1930s. THE MAYOR OF HELL reaches a similar intensity of vengeance and juvenile justice seeking. But that's the one problem of the film. Digges' character is a knave and hypocrite, so we never really cheer for him, yet if he wasn't a thief we might go along with his view (even if it is counter-productive). The scenes at the start of Darro and his gang preying on people actually make the harshness Digges would follow seem fairly understandable (even if his thieving ways are not). Also he has one moment when he's justifiably angry at Cagney - at that point in hiding from his own clash with the law - giving orders over a phone from long distance to a befuddled Digges. When Digges learns what's actually happened he is justifiably furious at Cagney lecturing him about proper behavior. It is the closest thing to making Mr. Thompson sympathetic in this fine movie. "The Mayor Of Hell" has the feel of an early Dead End Kids film, but with a much harder edge and very few light spots, preceding the first appearance of the Dead Enders by four years. James Cagney has a full screen opening credit, even though technically, the 'mayor' of the movie's title is actually portrayed by Frankie Darro, one of several boys sent to reform school during the opening scenes. Darro's character is Jimmy Smith, a young tough who's befriended by 'Patsy' Gargan (Cagney), and is elected to the position when Gargan takes a chance at humanizing conditions at a state reformatory.

Warner Brothers made a lot of these types of films, attempting to provide a conscience of sorts in an era that only too well knew about the effects of crime and poverty. This movie is quite gritty, with no apologies for ethnic stereotyping, as in the submissive posture of a black father in court or the way a Jewish kid gets to run a candy shop in the reform school. The rules at the reformatory are simple enough - work hard and keep your mouth shut; step out of line and you answer personally to Warden Thompson (Dudley Digges).

Cagney's role in the story seems somewhat ambiguous, since even though he makes a serious effort to improve conditions inside the reformatory, on the outside he's still nominally in control of a criminal racket. The film's attempt to juggle this dichotomy falls short in my estimation, the finale attempts to wrap things up in a neat package as Gargan awaits the outcome of a near fatal shooting of one of his henchmen. Not exactly the kind of role modeling one would look for in a film like this.

Warner Brothers would sanitize some of the elements of this story in a 1938 remake titled "Crime School", featuring Humphrey Bogart in the Cagney role, and Billy Halop in the Frankie Darro part. If you're partial to the Dead End Kids you'll probably like the latter film better, since it also offers familiar faces like Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan and Gabriel Dell. However the ending is somewhat muddied in that one too, with Bogart's warden character involved in a cover up of a prison breakout. Both films offer a romantic interest for the lead characters, in 'Mayor', Madge Evans is a reform minded nurse that falls for Cagney's character.

Curiously, a lot of James Cagney's early films aren't commercially available, so you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for a screening on Turner Classics, or source the film from a private collector. Personally, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff, and find intriguing points of interest in the films of all genres from the Thirties and Forties. Frankie Darro was a wonderful child actor who excelled at playing pugnacious little toughs with gigantic chips on their shoulders. He appeared in a couple of top films of the early 30s - "The Public Enemy" (1931), a ground breaking crime drama and "Wild Boys of the Road" (1933), a topical depression era movie about kids who ride the rails. He was essentially a younger version of James Cagney. Although short of height, his willingness to do his own stunts kept him employed in a series of programmers when the bigger studios had no more use for him.

"Crime School" was supposed to be a remake of "The Mayor of Hell" but it had far more humour in it and featured The Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart as a very laid back Deputy Commisssioner. "The Mayor of Hell" is really a combination of "Hell's House"/"Crime School"/ "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney didn't make his appearance until around the 25th minute his impact (as usual) was immediate. He plays a hot headed gangster who is on the payroll of a political group run by the mob.

Jimmy Smith (Frankie Darro) and his gang (including "Farina" from "Our Gang") run a car washing racket but bite off more than they can chew when they rob a general store and push the owner through a plate glass window. They appear before the juvenile court and are sentenced to go to the state reformatory. It is painted in glowing terms - a model school where boys are given a chance to learn a trade. In reality, it is a hellish place run by a sadistic warden, Mr. Thompson (outstandingly played by Dudley Digges). The only compassionate person is Dorothy Griffith, the live-in nurse (played by Madge Evans).

"Patsy" Gargan (James Cagney) has been given the job as the new Deputy Commissioner, as a favour. On his arrival at the school he witnesses a failed escape attempt and after talking to Dorothy, realises the school needs sweeping reforms. He is soon running the school and brings in a system of "self government" - rather along the lines of "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney doesn't have a lot to do, the picture is carried along to it's gripping climax by the energy of Darro. After "Patsy" is temporarily out of the picture (he accidentally shoots a mobster and has to leave the state), Thompson returns and his brutal treatment, resulting in the death of a boy ("Skinny") turn the rest of the boys into an angry mob. They burn down a barn and Thompson falls to his death - "Patsy" returning just in time to quieten the mob with some sobering talk.

Sure, all the boys seemed to get was a stiff talking to for their crimes but I do disagree with one of the reviewers - Thompson was more than just a "meanie". His sadistic treatment resulted in a boy's death. There is a scene at the beginning where the boys are served some inedible slop - Thompson orders ham and eggs and keeps piling the butter on his bread while talking to Dorothy.

Allan Jenkins plays "Uncle" Mike and Sheila Terry, although billed only as "a blonde" has one of the most memorable lines when she pouts and says "I thought there was going to be young boys here, where are they?"!!!

Highly Recommended. This is not a 'real' James Cagney vehicle since his screen time is unusually slim. Frankie Darro plays tough kid Jimmy Smith, the leader of a gang of street thugs that is sent to reform school with a few of his hoodlum friends. Cagney plays Patsy Gargan, a gang leader himself, who is given a token position as a deputy commissioner. When he finds out first hand of the brutal treatment dished out at the reform school, he is compelled to make some major changes with the help of the reformatory nurse(Madge Evans).

THE MAYOR of HELL is fast paced and is still entertaining after all these years. The cast is well rounded featuring: Dudley Digges, Arthur Bryon, 'Farina' Hoskins, G. Pat Collins and Allen Jenkins. Years ago, I didn't love and respect the films of Jimmy Cagney nearly as much as I do now. I noticed that many of Cagney's films done with Warner Brothers in the 1930s lacked realism and his acting style was far from subtle. However, the more I watched these films, the more I found I was hooked despite these aspects. In fact, I now kind of like and expect them! Fans of old time Hollywood films probably understand what I am saying--teens and other young whippersnappers don't! Well, when it comes to entertainment, THE MAYOR OF HELL never lets up from start to finish. While the idea of a shady character like Cagney played taking over running a reform school is ridiculous, and while all the changes he made also seemed far-fetched, it all somehow worked out and delivered solid entertainment.

The gang of tough thugs were pre-Dead End Kids and instead of the likes of Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and Billy Hallop, similar roles are played here by Frankie Darrow and Farina. Yes, I did say "Farina". This Black actor was already famous for his roles in the Our Gang comedies and was, believe it or not, one of the highest paid child actors in Hollywood. All he needed to give up in return was be named an insipid name and act like a nice stereotypical "Negro". Here, he actually was pretty good and the usual Black stereotypes are a bit more subdued than usual. However, some will cringe at the very funny but horribly offensive court scene involving Farina and his dad, Fred 'Snowflake' Toones. With awful names like "Farina" and "Snowflake", don't say I didn't warn you.

Apart from this small complaint and a plot that is tough to believe, the film is exceptional and fun. The kids do a great job, as does Cagney and Dudley Digges in a truly despicable but exciting role as the evil warden. Also, as an added plus, you get to see perennial Warner stock actor Allen Jenkins in his first role for the studio. This show is a show that is great for adults and children to sit down together and watch. The stories are a little slow for adults but they are still good. There are lots of children in my family, boys and girls, and it is hard to get them all to agree on what to watch, but they always agree with each other when they want to watch the Mystic Knights. It is a wonderful show and I hope that they will continue to keep making it. All of the kids in my family and myself think that Vincent Walsh is the best of them all. We have seen that he has done lots of other work and think that he is doing a great job. We wish all of the actors, actresses, writers, directors, and producers the best of luck and would just like to say keep up the good work. As a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy "Mystic Knights" show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.

SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.

Recently "Mystic Knights" has taken on too many "Power Rangers" traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie "Willow" or the T.V. series "The Adventures of Sinbad". A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 7/10) True, there are some goofs, for the one who wants to find them. They're not important, though.

The primary feature of this film is watching veteran expert actors do their craft. Kristin Scott Thomas is beautiful and plays well the part of a strong woman, but one who has been hurt. Same for Harrison Ford, who, for the ladies, is just as beau as Kristin is belle for us guys.

Their hurt at the hands of their adulterous spouses brings them together in an awkward manner, but one in which they find support in each other. How they evoke their hurt feelings and their humanity within on th screen is why these are such sought performers. The viewer cannot help but feel what they feel, nor can one help wanting to cheer them when they're together.

Yes, there are several action scenes involving angry corrupt cops, but they only spice it up a little, and are not a significant part of the movie.

For the lover of music, Dave Grusin provides a superb Jazz based background, featuring trumpeter Terrence Blanchard. Like the actors, Grusin shows why he is one of the most sought musical consultants in the movie business. Blanchard shows why he's one the premiere trumpeters on the scene.

Not a movie for the lovers of guts, blood, and gore. But for those who want to see a lot of what makes us feel inside, watch a beautiful English actress with big expressive blue eyes who can act, like Harrison Ford, to the endless soothing accompaniment courtesy of Dave Grusin and Terrence Blanchard, this is a move to watch with someone you love. Preferably in bed.

I thought it deserved at least an 8. I admit I have been a fan of Harrison Ford for many, many years now so it didn't surprise me that I enjoyed his performance here. But I also enjoyed the way the storyline developed and thought the casting was well done. I don't know whether I "buy into" Kristin Scott Thomas as a Congresswoman but she is a fine actress and a beautiful woman. I took notice of her in the first Mission Impossible. Although her part was small she stuck out on the screen.

Here her and Ford play people whose spouses are killed in an airplane crash. They are seated together and this is where the plot takes off. Apparently Ford, a police detective in Wash D.C., discovers that his wife was having an affair. He further discovers that the affair was with the husband of a New England Congresswoman.

The story takes on many subplots as Ford and Thomas find themselves drawn together by revelations of their marriages, the uncovering of deceipt, and the pure grief and anger over the loss of a loved one.

I think the movie is worthwhile either renting or catching on cable. Random Hearts snuck up on me. Criticized for the implausibility of a) the premise and b) the pairing of an IA cop and a Congresswoman, as well as for its slowness, the film felt just fine to me , and even ended up being surprisingly absorbing. I found my interest engaged as the film cut back and forth between Ford's and Thomas's lives as they first found out about, and dealt in very different ways in very different environments with, their spouses' deaths and the subsequent revelation that they were involved with other people. It could happen; two people's philandering spouses could be on the same plane, the plane could go down, the survivors could be brought together by the aftermath. So what if it's improbable? Improbable is not the same as far-fetched. So..what if it did happen? Why not speculate?

Ford's and Thomas's performances are believable and nuanced. Instead of finding their coupling implausible (opposite sides of the tracks--give me a break) I felt it driven by a grief and betrayal neither party knew how to deal with. The script does not bring them together too soon or too easily, and the end of the film does not resolve their relationship conventionally, either. Where I find it unsatisfying is when the dialogue brings up interesting wrinkles in or insights into the ramifications of the situation, personal and professional, but never seems to pursue any of them very far. And if you make the mistake of thinking about it too hard, Harrison Ford does seem about 10 years too old for the part.

For five and a half bucks at Wal-Mart, with full length director commentary and behind-the-scenes featurette, the DVD is well worth owning. I don't think I would pay $20 for it on a bet, but my wife might. OK, ten... I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary? Random Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.

(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)

I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.

From the late Sydney Pollack comes a grown up love story about human nature,pain,passion and betrayal. Police Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck(Harrison Ford)is devastated when he learns his beloved wife has been killed in a plane crash,he's even more upset to learn of her affair with the husband of a famous congresswoman Kay Chandler(Kristen Scott Thomas).He arranges to meet her and see if she knew or like he had no idea.They start to befriend each other then out of their mutual pain and distress begin an intense affair(which could be seen as healing for them both).However will the memories of the dead and pressures from their respective jobs drive them apart and cause more harm than good or can they escape the past?well you'll have to watch Random Hearts and find out.A moving and well acted film with a great cast. Of all the actresses in film today, Kristin Scott Thomas would be my choice if I had to select one for stranding on a desert island.

I could watch her simply, say, sitting in a chair for a couple of hours. So it's difficult for me to be objective completely with respect to one of her films.

However, I did enjoy this movie and its story, per se, more than that indicated by the average ranking among the many persons previously commenting on this site.

Harrison Ford is not one of the actors, though, whose performances I enjoy most. But he's one of a handful who have reached the level of moving from 7 figures to 8 per film, so who am I to argue?

Ford though is often droll in his acting style, and sometimes seems to be in serious need of an antacid and a shot of caffeine - and "Random Hearts" is in this grouping.

His obsession in probing the losses, which both he and Thomas have endured with regard to their linked spouses, is understandable, given his profession as a detective - but not to the level presented here. Although not far, it crossed the line into the "annoying" category.

However, most of the scenes after he and Thomas became involved were interesting and well-played.

This film could have been a 9*, but I'd lower it a couple of levels, based upon Ford's overall performance, and and another, because it contained a bit more of the extraneous sub-plot elements than seemed required. I really enjoyed "Random Hearts". It was shocking to see such a low rating on IMDB, but chacun a son gout and all that. I am a big fan of Harrison Ford, but I do have to admit that he was ill cast in this movie, and the reason I gave it 9 instead of 10. Kristin Scott Thomas, though, was just wonderful. She was believable and beautiful, in spite of being made up for half the movie like she'd been crying for days. Could "Random Hearts" have been better? Sure, but it is very much worth seeing as it is. Why do people need to follow the opinion of the herds of masses and critics? RANDOM HEARTS, directed by the brilliant Sydney Pollack (who has a small role in the film too) is another Harrison Ford vehicle. As such, it is quite good and entertaining. Surely, anyone who goes to see it has this in mind, or read the book which is no better. Even Kristin Scott Thomas fans, myself included, knew it would be a variation of her again playing the love interest of her eldest uncle. Even as such, the film is satisfying. What's so bad about this movie that is much better in the other (much higher rated) Harrison Ford vehicles? This film is no masterpiece, but it's not as bad as the masses would have the potential viewer believe. I read the other comments here about this movie before watching it. If you've read them, you will know that they are almost all negative. I really don't understand that. I admit that it is far too long (it needs about a half hour cut out to speed it up a bit). The music is often inappropriate. But, strong performances by Ford and Thomas are indeed enough to carry this. With all his fame as a movie star, I'd forgotten that Harrison Ford really can act! This role as a man who has defined himself based upon a lie is remarkable. I find it completely believable that he wants all the details he can get so he can see what was real and what was deception. Thomas is always wonderful and this is no exception. Her initial denial which leads to confusion and then to inner calm is tremendous. This movie is never going to be on anybody's list of great flicks, but it isn't that bad. I'm glad that I waited to see it on video, but it is worth the $3 or $4. I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?

I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what/who I want to see despite any reviews.

I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.

I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.

It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the "love", and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.

It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.

I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): "Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us".. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.

Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie. Like many others, I had been attracted to the combination of Pollack, Ford and Scott-Thomas. I had enjoyed the work of Pollack and Ford on Sabrina, a well made film and a careful rewrite of the old material. On hearing that this film was in production I ordered and read the book. Immediately it seemed that this would be a more difficult story to film. The characters are not always sympathetic, there is little if any humor and the author makes numerous plot shortcuts to focus on his principal theme: that, since each would see the other as the only one sharing the unique combination of loss and betrayal brought on by the air crash, the adulterers' completely surprised spouses would seek each other out. Moreover, he imagines that resolution could come to both through a bitter exploration of the adulterers' hidden lives and that this experience of "thick and thin" could yield a deeper love than each had previously. Although much of the book deals with their bitterness and their building hatred of their former partners, in the end acceptance and forgiveness are found. The film script retains only the air crash and the shared predicament of the spouses. Where the woman is the research aggressor in the book, it is the man in the film and the woman is never a willing co-researcher. The film has a completely new dramatic sub-plot for Harrison Ford which seems even more contrived than the double coincidence of the air crash. The "congresswoman up for re-election" sub-plot for the woman is also new, yet it works better. Audience the expectations of pure romance or romantic comedy cannot be met because this story focusses on a very bitter pill. Where resolution and forgiveness is achieved in the book, however, lifting the burden of bitterness from the reader and permitting levity, there is no corresponding moment in the film. Although forgiveness is never hinted at, we are left to surmise that healing following a shooting does double duty. Ford's character need not be such an unentertaining man of few words and Scott-Thomas's accent change is a little disconcerting at first. This film is not the dead loss suggested by others. It is, however, a difficult film to appreciate because the rewrite and adaptation to the screen is below the standard previously achieved by the director cast. I've read approximately 10 reviews of this film, but haven't taken any of them "to heart". Harrison Ford is being criticized for everything from his haircut to his earring and I really don't see what any of these things have to do with the film. As I recall, he had bad hair plus bad reviews in Blade Runner but it's still a favorite among us videophiles. It is slower than the majority of his previous films but not worthy of the trashings it has received.

I would gladly pay $7.50 just to watch a bald Harrison Ford mow his lawn. A film for mature, educated audiences...

I saw "Random Hearts" in an advance screening shortly before its North American release. This romantic drama was quite a treat. I'm sure this story will not be everyone's cup of tea, especially considering the film's darkly downbeat premise. But the pic has some very uplifting strong points in its favor.

All-time Box Office Draw Harrison Ford ("Star Wars," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "The Fugitive," "Air Force One," "Patriot Games") is at the top of his game as the harried and desperate Internal Affairs officer, Dutch. Ford's very subdued, nuanced performance shows quite the range he can achieve with class and determination in bringing the audience into his world of loss & betrayal. This is the perfect complex role and very different type of film for Harrison Ford to grace the screen with between his action blockbusters. Next year Harrison Ford returns to action, first for director Robert Zemeckis ("Forrest Gump," "Back To The Future") in his summer 2000 thriller, "What Lies Beneath," and reportedly later in the year in the film adaptation of Tom Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears." 'Fears' will be Harrison Ford's third outing as CIA operative Jack Ryan.

Director Sydney Pollack ("Out of Africa," "The Firm," "Tootsie") has a supporting role in this feature as a political advisor to Scott-Thomas' congresswoman. It's a very sharp & energetic portrayal for Pollack. Not only is Sydney Pollack a gifted director, he is also one of the most believable, natural and charming actors around (see "Eyes Wide Shut" as well).

Kristin Scott-Thomas ("The English Patient," "The Horse Whisperer") shows that you don't necessarily have to be eccentric or worldly to be considered sexy. This is one of her better films, and she gives a tremendously crafted and mellowed performance that works well opposite Ford's quiet-man toughness.

The subplots work wonderfully, especially the subplot involving Ford's character's investigation into police corruption. Look for a chilling & effective turn by "Heat" actor, Dennis Haysbert, who plays Detective George Beaufort, the obstacle to overcome in Dutch's investigation into police corruption.

The rest of the supporting cast is a wonderful delight. Charles S. Dutton (whose long overdue for a film leading role) goes to show that he is one of the best character-actors around, and Bonnie Hunt, who I find extremely solid in this production, steals most of her scenes with that wonderful, charming smile as Wendy Judd.

The technical side of Pollack's thriller is top notched. From Dave Grusin's (Pollack's "The Firm") perfectly surreal-feeling jazzy score, to Philippe Rousselot ("A River Runs Through It") crisp photography, to the sharp editing that keeps the film feeling fresh, despite the film's unfortunate downer premise.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good yarn of mystery, well-paced plot, character-driven stories, and romance all rolled into one. This is a terrific story about betrayal & forgiveness. It also features one of the most surprising, yet poignant, and certain to be controversial endings for a Harrison Ford film in recent times. "Random Hearts" is definitely one of the better films of the year.

(***1/2 out of ****) or (8.5 out of 10.0) In this unlikely love triangle, set in 19th century Italy, `The Beauty and the Beast' is being turned upside down and inside out and then some: Giorgio, an army officer and the very image of male beauty, is being transferred away form his (married) lover Clara and sent to a small garrison somewhere in Piemont. There - initially much to his horror – Fosca, the grotesquely ugly cousin of his commander, develops an obsessive love for him. He suffers her passionate and demanding displays of affection out of pity and concern for her health (she is gravely ill), but becomes more and more fascinated by her – until the dramatic finale…

Do not miss this most unusual love story, as twisted as it may sound. Valeria d'Obici, who deservedly won a price for her portrayal of Fosca, is as alarming as she is touching. Buy the video, read the book, go see the musical! This is one of the few movies that was recommended to me as absolutely brilliant, that really is. If you give this movie a low note than you really missed the point. You could describe Fosca as manipulative, but what if it is really serious, that she gets ill when the love she is sure of isn't answered. But what would you do when you are sure that the other one loves you, and is 'only' rejected by the fact that you are ugly. Wouldn't you fight for it. At least I think it is better to fight for it that die in bitterness. And it reminds me of the fact how I, as a man, react at first sight completely on the physical ugliness of Fosca and don't look further at the person she is or might be. This movie confronts me with very solemn questions about respect, trust, feeling manipulated and so on. How do I now if someone manipulates me or is just trying everything to make contact? What I think to be the most outstanding feature in this movie is that Ettore Scola made it absolutely believable that Giorgio falls in love with Fosca. Ettore Scola's masterful rendering of this epic of the heart deserves a much wider audience. It is a worthy successor to the risorgimento classics such as Vischonti's Senso and Il Gattopardo, as well as Rosselini's Vanina,Vanini. The 19th century is indeed a fruitful source for Italian filmmakers. The period settings and trappings are beautifully realized here, but the story is timeless and could occur in any period. What is so intriguing in this story is that the hero becomes trapped in a claustrophobic situation in which he finds himself the vigorously pursued object of desire and he is quite powerless to extricate himself from the alarming circumstances. Handsome and callow Giorgio (Giraudeau) is frustrated by his inability to visit his charming but light-minded married mistress (Antonelli) and falls prey to the dangerous passion of enamored Fosca (D'Obici), the ugly and sickly daughter of his stern commander (Girotti). The resulting anguish and ensuing tragedy this unlikely pair undergoes make them both understandable, pitiful and immensely sympathetic to viewers. Bernard Giraudeau's stellar performance will captivate and leave a lasting impression. Not to be missed. A clever and bizarre angle to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down. This film, based on the book by Pascal Laime' -La Dentelliere- is an acclaimed film of excellent cinematography and costly Italian language. Set in a "scholastic" 19th Century, Balzac-style set, it portraits the story of a mad love story: a man and a woman. There is an infamous line at this shadowy-Mussolinni strike which reads: "She does not smell like tomatoes." Sage perfumery of this Italian masterpiece, Scola is a director of the stature of Mussolinni: his cake will jump in your strawberries and if you let this director he will cream your olives as a Superman. Remember Nietzsche? This one will scare the HELL out of YOU: don't forget to visit Mussolinni's cake next to the Colisseum in Rome, across the Via Appia. This movie will wipe your Pampers inside-out and outside-in, it will make you cry out of Romantic joy! If you liked Ulysses, you will wipe it good with these strawberries until the end of the roll. Enjoy! This bittersweet slice of magic realism had a checkered production history (director/writer replaced) and tanked at the box office, but it's a helluva film.

Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are pre-teen brothers whose flaky mom (Lorraine Bracco) shacks up with a mean-spirited alcoholic (Adam Baldwin). During his drinking bouts, Baldwin physically abuses Mazzello and manipulates him into remaining silent about his situation. But when Wood cottons on to what's happening, the boys put their heads together and hatch a fantastique solution to Mazzello's devastating dilemma.

I love films that mix fantasy and dark reality. They are rarely successful financially ("Lawn Dogs" is a similar example), but they are usually original and intriguing.

The drunk Baldwin is shot from a low, child's perspective and his head is deliberately lopped off below the top of frame. This device allows us to judge him purely by his actions and as a totally physicalized beast. Both Wood and Mazzello are excellent, and they pull us effortlessly into their dark, frightening world.

The "radio flyer" of the title is a small red wagon kids transport their belongings in. Here it transports a dream.

Seriously interesting stuff. In reply to "State of Confusion" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this "monster" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic. Everything about this film is simply incredible. You truly take this journey through the eyes and soul of a child.

I do feel it is important to note this tale is about child abuse. Don't rent it for your kids thinking it is a fun, disney-esque film. Simply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.

As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world.

The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments

Worth a watch any day I'm not sure as to call this movie a children's drama or a fantasy film. When I first watched this I couldn't really make out the ending and that's the only part of movie that's seemed to lack depth and left me a bit depressed for awhile. Then I watched it a second time and realised how great the acting was and was clueless as to why it received the meager attention it did at the time.

Unforgettable performances by the young Mazzello and Wood should have made this film a classic.

Although the it was probably intended to be a fantasy/drama by the original writer/director (Evans), once Donner took over he presumably made it with a more dramatical outlook especially the ending, which left a lot to be desired as to what really happened to Bobby - Was he killed?, did he escape & really do all those fantastic journeys?, or was it just an imaginary story woven by Hanks to prove a point to the kids?

But in all it didn't provide the closure of a happy ending that we are so used to in a children's film. Perhaps it's because it's not just that.

To see what may have been a more classical ending check out the Official Elijah Wood Site where you'll find the First rough draft script of the conclusion of the movie(presumably by the original writer)

Also a note of the music by Hans Zimmer which is one the best Soundtracks I've ever heard, a mixture of childish and dark sentiments throughout the movie. A great CD to get hold of if you can.

SPOILER NOTHING BUT SPOILER

I have to add my name to the list of folks who feel that the other viewers just don't get it. But no one has even mentioned the "s" word so far as I have seen.

While I agree that the kid died I think we can be more specific: he committed suicide. He races down the slope in an old wagon, shoots off the cliff and..."flies away". Maybe the whole account of the form of death is allegory or maybe he does commit suicide in a wagon as laid out. In either case, he "flies away" (c'mon, not that tough a metaphor).

Maybe I just have a thing for Tom Hanks, but I was ok with the narration. Besides he is raising $ for the WW2 memorial and you gotta love him for that.

Oh yeah, I loved the movie and found it incredibly moving. I started watching this one very tensed because I heard so many different things about it. Somewhere I read it was a drama about child abuse and rated PG-13 for violence. Another critic said it was a fantastic and nostalgic adventure of kids (and I thought it was also for kids to watch). Well, now I've seen it so many times and still don't know in which category to put it. It is extremely funny at times but terribly sad and depressing the next moment. Because of the nice relationship and the adventures I would like to recommend this film to all the youngsters I know but I fear the somber atmosphere is not suitable for children. Because of the perfect performances and the magic of the film I must say this nevertheless: Watch it, especially the kids! The last thing I have to say is that I hate the scriptwriter for letting poor Bobby never see his family again after having fled from The King (who didn't even return to terrorize the remained Mary and Mikey). It is very good for this film not to have a perfect happy ending with everybody being happy - and I didn't expect it to - but this solution left me very, very sad! Even people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie.

Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation.

I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending as this. You got it right! Bobby was Mike's imaginary friend through the whole movie, even at the beginning when on their way to California. His mother knew of Bobby and didn't discourage Mike leaning on Bobby since imaginary friends are common with young children.

That's why they both got stomach aches at the same time. That's why the boys' were so close.

At the end Mike was letting Bobby go. The "King" was arrested. Mike could go on without Bobby. It's also why Mike's mother didn't seem disturbed when Mike received the postcard (Mike had written & mailed) from Bobby the Ol' West tourist stop and the other postcards from all over the world. You noticed Mike's mother turned the first card over and looked at the postmark. What a great mom doing the best she could in the late sixties.

A 9 out of 10 for me. Brought back memories... I believe, that this is a heart tugging film. Richard Donner (Directed the top grossing film "Superman"), had done a great job directing this film. Some of the segemets were good, and several were horrible because, Bobby (Mazzello) was beatened by The King (Baldwin, and especially their dog, Shane attacked the King which meant that he paid for what he had done to Bobby.

Elijah Wood, portrayed a good role in this film. The memorable scene in this, he dreamt that he took the buffalo's advice about Bobby being battered. Lorraine Bracco, (Pre-Soprano)had portrayed an impressing role.

I give this film *** out of four!!! I rented the movie and liked it so much that I bought it. Elijah Wood (Mikey) and Joseph Mazello (Bobby) are outstanding as the two boys. Their new stepfather physically abuses Bobby. The abuse is implied, for the most part, not seen, and roused a lot of passion in me to help abused children. There is a magical quality to the movie as the boys' imagination helps them find a way to deal with the abuse. You have to try to understand the story from a child's point of view. I'm still thinking about the ending. I've watched the movie 3 or 4 times and each time I think of possible new meanings. I'm not sure exactly what Richard Donner intended me to think, but this is an excellent film! Joseph Mazello and Elijah Wood will make you go hug your kids. I am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.

If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.

There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie! This movie was a heart-felt piece of cinema that helped show the darker side of childhood, and the little things that shaped who Tom Hank's was. Using a very cryptic story, they were able to give you an idea of what truly happened to Tom Hank's character as a child. And while scenes like the flying machine may have never happened, it helped to show how even denial can help tell the truth. In all good conscience, I could not rate this lower then a 9 out of 10, great performances from all the actors, and while many may not have understood the cryptic ending in which the brother is murdered by his step father, and Tom Hanks covers it up using a far-fetched story about a flying machine, pay close attention to the little details, such as the turtle that he still has, even though his brother "flew" off with it. Truly, a beautiful piece of cinema, and every actor deserves recognition for it. My take on the ending. Bobby died at the hands of his step father. Mike had tried as he may to get Bobby out. Only a child could think that it would be possible to build a machine that could fly. Bobby died.... Mike as a child survived by creating an alternative ending in his mind...on how Bobby left....Mike made a plane that flew Bobby out. Children who are sexually and violent abused often create whole other worlds in their minds to survive.

Was also great seeing my old housing area. We called it San Jose Boulevard and I lived right around where these house were filmed. It was so strange to see that they filmed inside the houses...not studios... It was my kitchen, bedroom and living room. And those hills...we use to hike them as kids....looking down on our little valley....seeing glimpses of the bay. Was a real nostalgia trip for me. This has to be the best movie of all time (in my opinion). It really taught me when i watched when i was 10 (in 2000) that the freedom of a being a child slips away sooner then we expect it to. Also Joseph Mazzello has to be my favorite actor ever, and i think that him and elijah wood did a Great job in the roles of brothers. This movie is quite sad, and some people don't understand the ending. But the story itself is quite incredible, the thought of a poor 7 year boy (bobby)getting abused by drunken step father is horrible, and what the two boys do about this is sad, and important. My favorite part of the movie is when Tom Hanks (older Mike) lists the 7 things of being a kid that are lost to the grownup world. However there are some parts that could have been done better in this movie, such as the casting of the mother (lorraine braco), who i think is a horrible actor. "the king" played his role well, since it is a hard role to play. Joseph and Elijah definitely were the stars of the movie. i couldn't believe how well they played victims of a abusing stepfather, being the age that they were (7 and 9). But overall, i recommend this movie to anyone, who loves great child actors, and a great movie. :) I first saw this movie as a younger child. My sister had told me about it and I thought it would be more of a kid's movie. However it remains to also be an incredible movie. True that the subject behind the movie is ruff but also true this movie will never stop touching your heart.

I was only 6 when I first saw it and just yesterday, 7 years later, I saw it again. For the first time in a long time. Even after I knew how it ended, I knew that I had seen it a billion, bizillion times I wept like a teeny weeny little baby. When I saw it a few years back I finally got the idea and the seriousness of the film. So I stoped watching it for a while. But yesterday I didn't change the channel, I watched it. By the end I was astonished at how much it still made me laugh, cry, think, and above all, believe in mericals again. I haven't belived in a long time and this movie got me out of my shell and opened up my heart. This movie wasn't just impacting. I was also so impressed with the actors. Especially Bobby. So if you are wanting to see this movie for the first time I suggest seeing it alone. With tissues. And being ready to discover your young, sweet, innocent side and the side that still has hope. This movie touched my soul when I was only 6, and even in this time of trying to figure out who I am this movie helped me realize both what I don't and still do want to be in life. This story is an excellent tale of two boys that do whatever they can to get away from there abusive drunkard father. "Lord of the Rings" star Elijah Wood is outstanding in this unforgettable role. This movie is one of the main reasons I haven't touched a single beer and never will as long as I live. That might make me sound like a nerd, but that's what I have to say. It is a wonder why this isn't hearld as a classic American tale. Young Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are outstanding in this excellent film about two boys who have promised to "take care of their mother," and how they cope when their new stepfather begins beating the younger boy. The supporting cast around the boys is top-notch as well. The script really gets inside the mind and heart of an imaginative child. It's hard to believe Wood could grow up to look anything like Tom Hanks, but that's nothing new in Hollywood. That's honestly my only criticism of the film. I am a 20 year old bloke from England. I don't cry at films. But this one moved me. I cried like a girl! This is absolutely the most moving film I have ever seen, even though the story was questionable. Joseph Mazello's little face when he dreams of crying made me sob every time. How could anyone hurt such a sweet looking kid? I'm going to cry now just thinking about it! Remarkable. Where do I begin? I first saw this film in 1995 and had no idea of what to expect, I was actually at the time searching out films that Elijah Wood had starred in and this one had come highly recommended. I sat down and watched the film once and didn't know what to think. I watched it a second time a few days later and the floodgates just opened. Never before in my life had I ever really cried while watching a film, and I was blubbing, every high and low the film I was riding right alongside, on an emotional roller coaster.

It struck such an emotional chord in me on many levels, the intense sadness and elation we see in the film, the wonder and innocence of childhood, the yearning for a time that once was, but is no more. More than anything, this film reminded me of my childhood (except for the abuse) during a time in my life when I'd shrugged off my childhood some years before and not even really noticed, I'd given it up and moved on to a life entirely devoid of it. The Radio flyer made me wake up and suddenly realise what I'd given up without really even noticing. From that day forward I immediately set about to change my life and myself, and I did.

This is going to sound corny but basically I rediscovered my inner child, I started down a path that has been ongoing over the past 6 years and has changed me so much, so much for the better, embracing and living that part of myself. I've been finding out who I really am. I don't think it was simply a case of the right film coming along at a crucial moment of my life, The Radio Flyer really did something very special, and I still look upon it as an incredible piece of work in all respects, an incredible film.

In closing I cannot fail to mention the music. I am a great fan of Hans Zimmer and this is among his very finest works. The sheer breadth and depth of emotional expression he has put into the score of this film is a huge part of what makes the film what it is to me. Like subtitles to a foreign language film, his soaring music is a crib sheet to the intense emotions this film will take you through. Find the soundtrack at all costs, it was sadly deleted long ago, I never expected to find it but amazingly did, after chatting with someone I met on a Hans Zimmer fansite guest book.

Watch this film, let yourself live the emotions, don't get bogged in trivial nitpicking of the ending, be that child again "Radio Flyer" is one of my most loved American movies.

The really great job of two boys, Joe Mazzello and Elija Wood, (in spite of terrible performance of T.Hanks at the beginning and ending...) with marvellous script of D.M.Evans and powerful and emotional directing of R.Donner plus Absolutely Incredibly Peerless Music Score of H.Zimmer allowed the "Radio Flyer" to win one of the first places in my family's rating of movies.

It's so pity that that very good movie was underrating by some movie critics.

I just can't help waiting to see it on DVD. Well...I like this movie first of all because it's very well thought of... and well..because the um...director and others chose an extremely great actor to play Mike....and also my last reason because ( my opinion) Elijah Wood is so so hot!!! This is a really sad, and touching movie! It deals with the subject of child abuse. It's really sad, but mostly a true story, because it happens everyday. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello play the two children or Lorraine Bracco, a single mother who just tries to make a home for them. While living with her parents, a man, who likes to be called "The King" comes into their life. He hits the youngest boy, Bobby, but the two brothers vow not to tell their mother. But finally she finds out, after the Bobby is hurt badly. The end kind of ruined it for me, because it is so totally unbelievable. But, except for that, I love the movie. Ever sense i was a kid i have loved this movie. i have always been a fan of Joseph Mazzello. the kid had pure talent in both this movie and Jurassic Park. I have been looking for the DVD or VHS to purchase at a store near me i cant seem to find it i hope it goes on DVD! well anyways great movie. If anyone knows where i can find this please contact me at wrp24@adelphia.net . Also can anyone really explain what happened with bobby. was her real or was he fake and was he mikes imaginary friend and his escape? lol I'm clueless. my favorite part had to be definitely where they made the monster juice and spilled it all over the kitchen its funny but also a sad part as well because of what happens to bobby due to the mess.. i would've liked to see the boyfriends face because he played his part pretty good. i think the mother was a great actress i think her name is Lorraine Bracco or some sorta name like that.. well thats all please contact me

wrp24 This is just my all time favorite movie. Nothing special. It's just so incredibly detailed. Makes me cry just thinking about it. Geronimo Bill is the nicest guy I can imagine. Money is not important. Bamboo spears are important. You don't need money to get what you need. If you need something it will just come to you. If people would realize that the world would be a much better place. Whatever you do, don't do it for the money. Bobby and Mikey are two little boys who move across the country with their divorced mother to start a new life. Soon after the family settles in, their mom marries "The King" who ends up being an abusive stepfather, especially to Bobby. So Bobby decides that he will "fly away" from the abuse in his birthday present.

This movie was difficult to watch, especially the abuse scenes. It was hard to watch an innocent, playful little boy become abused and turn into a sullen scared, and withdrawn young man. The acting is excellent.

I cried throughout the last half of the movie. There were some funny scenes in it too like the Monster Brew and the dog that finds the pop bottles.

I wouldn't suggest letting little kids watch it. It was a movie that was painful to watch and yet it really really flew away. I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not something I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.

Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.

This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.

Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though. This film is not at all as bad as some people on here are saying. I think it has got a decent horror plot and the acting seem normal to me. People are way over-exagerating what was wrong with this. It is simply classic horror, the type without a plot that we have to think about forever and forever. We can just sit back, relax, and be scared. this was a get up and go horror movie with an intelligent cast and a director with great vision to really capture the mood of the story i highly recommend this movie Milo is an overlooked & underrated horror flick from the late 90's but the feel and atmosphere is more that of an 80's horror flick. Seems a bunch of little girls are taken to "see things" at the office of Milo's father, a gynecologist, and as a reward for getting to see what's there in jars (yes, a gynecologist plus something else...) one girl plays "doctor" with Milo. Hmm, his first patient and he lost her. Now Milo is a creepy little kid that always wears a yellow rain slicker, rain or shine, and he talks funny....but that's not all that's strange about him. Fast forward to the present where these girls are adults and there's a wedding planned for one of them but tragedy strikes and leaves one girl that came in from out of town with a choice of whether or not to replace her friend as a school teacher, which she does. And then strange things begin to happen again. Which of course involve this little kid in a rain slicker. This isn't overly violent or graphic but has a distinct creepiness that you don't find in many modern horror flicks, and it's well worth seeing. One wonders why it's so hard to find any good horror flicks in this day & age but here's one that's criminally overlooked and definitely worth your time if you check it out. 8 out of 10. What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...

My score: 10 Critics claim that this film is one of the worst films ever. Watchers also claim the same. But there is a flip side to that coin. They are wrong, very wrong. It's the most clever film I've seen in ages...

From beginning till end you see a story thats unrealistic. A story that reflexes the real world. This film is like a mirror. You see yourself in another way that people see you. To really understand the directors point of view, you have to see it another time...

When you see this film...Try to understand the story (and watch the background)...Listen to the lyrics of the music...And smell the industrial complexes...

This film is one of a kind. You'll hate it(most people do), or you'll love it(and understand it completely)

Ernest Hemmingway once said:'the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for'. I agree with the second part. This movie was great and I was waiting for it for a long time. When it finally came out, I was really happy and looked forward to a 10 out of 10. It was great and lived up to my potential. The performances were great on the part of the adults and most of the kids. The only bad performance was by Milo himself. There was one problem that I encountered with this (and others like it) movie. All of the characters I wanted to live were getting killed. Overall, I give this movie an excellent 9 out of 10. Maybe we should select better people to kill next time, though, ok? When I heard there was to be an ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] mini-series based on life in Changi [WWII POW] camp... with a focus on "elements of comedy", I was deeply sceptical and somewhat critical.

My father had served in the second world war. Such was the barbarity of the Japanese, he was able to talk about the horrors in and around Labuan (where he was stationed), until only quite recently. Along with my father, I had been awarded the fortune of knowing many great men (of stronger character and spirit than I shall ever have), who had witnessed acts of unspeakable barbarity at the hands of the Empire of Japan, and had never completely recovered. The name 'Changi' is destined to conjure horrific images for ages to come...

But upon viewing, I was highly impressed with the cast, the characters and the complex plot-lines of this wonderful series. I now regard 'Changi' as the highlight of my week, (bear in mind, I have viewed only three episodes so far... I hope the remaining episodes adhere to the standards set by the first three).

The black humour works uncannily well (however, the flatulence jokes are a little overdone), and while much of the horror has been suppressed, the series comes quite close in relaying the undaunted spirit of the survivors who were able to later continue with their lives in spite of the inhibiting memories.

The 'flashback' format of this series will be difficult for some to follow,

but I can not think of no better way to do adequate justice to the men who suffered deep emotional scarring proceeding internment... when painfully suppressed experiences are remembered, sometimes years after the horror.

One of the darkest chapters of the Second World War, the 20th century, and, (I would go so far as to say), in the history of mankind, is being relayed to a new generation through this series, and I hope it serves to relay the overwhelming adversity borne by the wartime generation.

Proceeding 'Changi', I don't think I shall ever be able to listen to the poignant tune 'on the road to Gundagai' in the same way again. Tune in... My family and I enjoy this show and find it a fair thumb nail sketch of what the people went through.

My own father spent some time in Changi before going onto the Thailand-Burma Railway in "F" Force. Much as been said about the treatment the POW's received, I will just say that my father was 6 foot 1 inch and 196 lbs when Singapore fell, at the end of the war he was 5 foot 11 inches tall and 91 lbs.

No show could truly convey what the POW's went through, but this comes closer than most.

As the Ex POW's say, "If you didn't have mates you didn't survive." This show succeeds in getting this message across. Having had a great grandfather be captured and sent to Changi during World War two I was hesitant to watch this when it was first screened on TV. My great grandfather kept a diary whilst he was in captivity and when he died over there his mates bought it back and I have been lucky enough to read it and feel I have at least some idea of what Changi was really like, first hand.

This is a fantastic recount of what happened to those poor blokes who were sent to Changi Prison and shows what hardship and cruelty they witnessed in order to protect their country. It is a terrific story of mateship, commitment and Aussie Spirit, that never going to give up attitude. It is worth watching if you like Australian History or anything to do with World War Two.

I enjoyed this mini very much and give it 10 out of 10. Here we have a miniseries, which revels in in its flaws, and doesn't make us cringe because of them...it is excellent story-telling, which fuses black comedy, mateship (in a positive way), the pathetic waste of war, without the sheer unadulterated manipulation of a con-job like Life is Beautiful...it is an entertainment, not the meaning of life...and showcases the talents of actors both young and old...give it a go and tell us what you think... This has got to be one of Australia's best productions. I completely disagree with the comments made by 'RamiNour101'.

This series shows the depth of Australian mateship and the lengths they went to to help each other out. Episode Five 'Eddies Birthday' is a great example of this and it really captures the Australian spirit.

The music used throughout the series only emphasised the situation that the men were faced with, their longing for home and their loved ones. The numerous amusing renditions of The Road to Gundagai captures the spirit of the men and the fact that they never forgot home, and that it was little elements such as the singing of a song that took them home for a short while.

As for the comment about it being racist towards Japanese people, the only thing to be said is that you can't change what happened. The Japanese did treat the Australians very poorly in Changi and to represent it as otherwise would be very misleading indeed. The comment about the screenplay being in accurate is also false. These six stories that are told in the series are composed from real P.O.W experiences.

The actors were superb; the best being in my opinion, Matthew Newton. His performance as David in the first episode was gut wrenching. From being a city boy, to being another nameless face to his captors. We see him change dramatically in the first episode because of his violent attack in the jungle, and in further episodes we can see how that one event has changed him, he is more aware of what is really going on and is always one of the first to help out the other members of The Secret Nine.

Stephen Curry also deserves a mention. His performance in 'Eddie's Birthday' is amazing, going from the larrikin of the group, to being sick, weak and unable to take care of himself. The displays of mateship in this episode touch you on an emotional level and make you proud to be Australian.

I study WWII at university level and have found this series, if not physically truthful, spiritually truthful, as it captures the true spirit of what it was to be an Australian Soldier.

Well done to John Doyle for capturing the spirit of Changi. I've heard a few comments, particularly from prisoners of war, that CHANGI is not historically accurate, and that it is disappointing. Perhaps it is for those who actually had to live through this stuff, and much worse. But for the rest of us, who really have no idea of how prisoners were treated by the Japanese during World War II, CHANGI is a remarkable introduction. But CHANGI isn't a war documentary - if it had have been, then the historical accuracy aspect would have been paramount. It is a miniseries drama, with fictional characters and fictional situations (though based loosely on actual events I've heard and read about) - and at the centre of the story is the ideal of mateship. This group of young Australian soldiers, taken prisoner by the Japanese and held in appalling conditions for years, became mates through adversity and the strength of their friendships continued throughout their lives after the war. It is also a cultural study of the differences between the Japanese of the time and the western world, with its music, games and entertainment: in part 5, when it is becoming clear that Japan will lose the war after Germany has surrendered in Europe, the Japanese prison camp colonel insists that his country must study the culture of their prisoners - in order to defeat a people, one must defeat their culture - and to do this, one must understand it. All in all, Australia continues its rich tradition of producing exceptional television miniseries, and is an unrivalled world leader in this regard: vyeing for the AFI Award with CHANGI is MY BROTHER JACK, the adaptation of George Johnston's novel, and also a worthy winner. Miniseries in recent years include DAY OF THE ROSES (the story of the investigation into the Glanville train crash), KINGS IN GRASS CASTLES (the adaptation of Mary Durack's historical account of her pioneering ancestors), KANGAROO PALACE (about a group of friends from a country town in Australia who travel to London and change and grow apart), and the (somewhat disappointing) adaptation of Bryce Courtenay's powerful novel, THE POTATO FACTORY. Less recently: Nancy Cato's sweeping saga of life on the Murray - ALL THE RIVERS RUN; Cusack & James' brilliant novel about postwar life in Sydney - COME IN SPINNER; Colleen McCullough's outstanding pioneering saga - THE THORN BIRDS; THE RIVER KINGS; Ruth Park's novel THE HARP IN THE SOUTH; BODYLINE; EUREKA STOCKADE; ANZACS; etc..., etc... (Of course, there have been some not-so-good productions - for instance, MOBY DICK, DO OR DIE, ON THE BEACH, THORN BIRDS: THE MISSING YEARS; etc...) Generally, though, if an Australian miniseries comes your way, make sure you see it - and this goes double for CHANGI, a superbly directed masterpiece. Rating: 9/10. As soon as I saw the ad for "Changi" on the History Channel, I knew I'd love it. It captured the ANZAC spirit fantastically - you would die if you didn't have mates around you. The characters of "Changi" were strong and each brought something different into the story, and the Japanese soldiers weren't criticised, but were depicted as normal soldiers doing what they thought was right, just as the Australians were doing. Direction, screenplay, acting and setting were all done wonderfully, with a clear easy-to-follow plot. Humour was the soldiers' key to survival, and it was great to see a mini-series about war actually have some sort of humour in it, which is usually difficult to do without offending people. From what I've read about soldiers in Changi PoW camp, this story is a very realistic approach to the three and a half years those Australian, British, New Zealand, American and Dutch men spent there. I would recommend this series to anyone, whether you are interested in war or not. 10/10. Somehow, CHANGI lost out in the AFI Awards to MY BROTHER JACK. The latter, a high-quality adaptation of George Johnston's immortal novel, was outstanding - but, in my opinion, not as good as CHANGI. I have heard that many critics dismissed CHANGI as being irrelevant, unimportant, historically inaccurate or even disrespectful. Who and where are these critics? CHANGI is outstanding. More than that. Brilliant. It's not supposed to be a documentary - certainly I can forgive the actual Changi survivors (or indeed any survivors of a POW camp) for being disappointed with the production - but to the rest of us, CHANGI represents the remarkable power of mateship in times of extreme adversity. It contains a part of the Australian culture that appears to be diminishing as times become easier and less challenging, but which we should never forget: Australians were respected worldwide after Gallipoli and WW2 for their comradery and sense of humour. Rating: 96/100. See also: GALLIPOLI; PARADISE ROAD; THE LAST BULLET; THE SUGAR FACTORY. This would have to be by far the greatest series I have ever seen. I vividly watched every sunday night and purchased the box set as soon as it was available. this is a timeless play written by a fantastic Australian that people of all ages could relate to, whether they are Australian or not, however for those of us that are Australian it truly brings across the typical Australian icon. A must see 10/10 Changi has a delightfully fresh script, acted superbly by both young and old actors alike. John Doyle has done an excellent job bringing humour to a tragic true story, keeping a sometimes sad story fun and engrossing, particularly to those of us not familiar with the events of South East Asia during WW2.

John Doyle's parallel story line successfully bridges the gap between past and present, allowing the audience insight into the long-term effect war had on the prisoners and their family's lives as well as providing the basis for an excellent narrative which nicely rounds out the tales, both individual and collective. Doyle deserves praise for this effort. We have in the past been delighted by his abundant and quick-witted humour as evidenced in his long running collaboration with Greg Pickhaver as `Roy & H.G.'

As the series is approaching half way, we are looking forward to how the story develops with anticipation. Never have i sat down for six hours straight to watch a miniseries, but Changi changed that. I'm not going to lie, I know some Aussie flicks can be pathetic and boring (actually, i quite like Aussie flicks myself but maybe I'm biased) but Changi is on a completely different lane. Although not historically accurate, as we are continually reminded, the show combines superb acting, an excellent script and the addition of humour to provide us with an entertaining and emotional perception of life in a POW camp in WWII.

Keep in mind, the show was not supposed to be a documentary so don't let any factual errors disappoint you.

This series exposes such creative writing by John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven)who is known more for his comedy than anything else, and an excellent director and actors move this creativity along perfectly. If you want to see how much hard work went into this series, visit the official website, it is really interesting and you'll learn a lot about true accounts of changi.

If you haven't seen Changi yet, make sure you are doing nothing for a whole day because you'll want to watch the series in its entirety. I saw this drama by cable TV. Although I saw just two series, I love this drama. I'm waiting for more series will be aired by cable.

Even though it describes horrible, absurd situation in a prisoner's camp, this one shows us an indomitable spirit, warmth, friendship and humanity. They don't know whether they can survive or not, but kept their hope strongly without being discouraged by adversity.

I know this movie is not realistic like other war documentary, but I don't want to blame for it. It makes me believe the strong will of people in the most difficult situation.

'Private Bill' , especially, this episode touched deep in my heart.

I remember every scene. I always hate mathematics. But after seeing this drama, I can understand something about mathematics... Mathematics is his connection between past and present, also symbolizes eternity.

'Time, light and memory framed in a circle.'

Like other victims of war, he lost his lover by irresistible fate. I'm immersed in his time and memory as if I experienced same thing.

He experienced the great loss but he has pure passion of study.

He started his study in the camp, his joy of realize,

I believe his dedication of study sustained him.

I saw it several times, but the meaning of this film never faded. Every time I saw it, I feel same deep emotion.

* Their songs are beautiful, harmonious,

I'm sorry that I can't listen OST. This mini-series is iconic of the Australian spirit. While there may be what are perhaps considered glaring inconsistencies, the film portrays a spirit that is unique to Australia, and one that should be cherished. If anything, this mini-series demonstrates the Aussie sense of humour. The ability to laugh at the supremely ridiculous. Our willingness to have a laugh in even the most dire of situations. While a large part of this series focuses on mateship and how humour can be used as a means of survival, it also has elements of drama that are evoke real emotions. The main actors who appear are absolutely sensational and very convincing in their different roles. Capturing the essence of their characters perfectly. This mini-series should be mandatory viewing for all Australians. Apparently this Australian film based on Nevil Shute's novel exists in more than one form. Beware heavily cut versions sometimes shown on cable or satellite, running anywhere from 95 minutes to 2 hours. Only the full 5 hour miniseries version tells the story properly. It is a very close realisation of the story, suffering only from editorial faults commonly found in TV movies: choppiness and episodic progression. But this excellent cast carries the story forward very well with generally good production values accompanying their work. Yuki Shimoda is notable as "Gunso Mifune", one of the guards assigned to accompany the women on their agonising trek. In the end he becomes a friend. You will agonise with him when his loss of face leads him into death.Helen Morse as "Jean Paget", pretty but not a great beauty (she resembles Sigourney Weaver a bit)registers just the right amount of spunk and winsomeness as the occasion demands. The miniseries properly emphasises the beautiful love stories, three of them: "Joe" and "Jean", "Noel" and "Jean", and "Jean" and Willstown. Gordon Jackson plays "Noel Strachan" appealingly, but as a somewhat younger man than Nevil Shute indicated in the novel. The third love affair I mentioned doesn't get quite the emphasis it is due, and the full significance of the title is diminished. "Jean" is devoted to the goal of bringing businesses to Willstown that will attract young women and girls and their civilising influence to this god-forsaken out back town. She wants to make it "A Town Like Alice"; Alice Springs, that is. We get only a few hints of this in several scenes. If you have the five hours to spare, this miniseries is a truly rewarding experience. Nevil Shute based his novel about the cruelty of the Japanese military in shunting a large group of women and children from one place to another on the Maylay Peninsula on a true occurrence. It happened on Sumatra, according to Shute, though, rather than on the peninsula. The crucifixion of "Joe" by a Japanese officer for stealing chickens to feed the women is probably fiction, but the cruelty of the Japanese in dealing with prisoners is certainly a matter of record. I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film. I remember watching this series avidly and being so disappointed when it came to an end. Over the years since then, I have tried to find out if I could obtain a copy of it on either video or d.v.d., to no avail. However, I was delighted to find this website with details of it, only to be disappointed again at the point of purchase, that the videos available will not play on English recorders! This production was so wonderful, being absolutely accurate with Nevil Shute's novel, taking the storyline through after the end of the war, with Joe and Jean's subsequent life together - absolutely marvellous - and I just wish I were able to see it again, as since it's original screening, there have been no repeats of it on British television. I raced to the library to check out this miniseries after having just finished listening to the marvelous "talking books" unabridged version of the book. The first half of this TV version is really very good, but it stumbles quite a bit in the second half. The relationship with the trustee is overplayed and conflicts are inserted between Jean and Joe that don't exist in Shute's story, unwisely in my opinion, as they greatly diminish the power of their love story. I was disappointed to find that the wonderful Bryan Brown's Joe seemed a lot cockier and much less appealing than the man in the book, but Helen Morse's Jean was really quite good. I think they would have had to make this a 10-hour miniseries to develop the outback story properly. But all that said, I did watch whole thing in more or less one go and did appreciate its merits, all the while wishing that someone would do a less soapy remake. I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film. This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy/taciturn/"It'll be okay" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories. This review contains what might be a spoiler if you never read the book or saw the cover of the video box. So if you want to approach the movie not knowing anything about it, except that I like it a lot, stop here...

The production values are not first rate, but the acting between the leads is, and they give the romance between them more life than Shute does in his novel (although I generally prefer the novel). My very faint objections to the film as opposed to the book is that the film dumbs-down some of the relationships with secondary characters, and between the lead characters in a scene toward the end of the film, to provide for some not at all realistic dramatic tension and as a general plot device. All this is handled much better in the book, with the result that I find the end of the book quite a bit more touching than the end of the movie. This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.

The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.

I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information "MOLEY75" "Strawn" is the gaelic pronunciation of "Strachan". If you love the book, as I do, stop watching the video after Jean and Joe meet in Australia. Up to that point it is a fairly faithful rendition of the book, and the visuals are great. 10 out of 10 to that point and I've enjoyed it many times. After that, the story is seriously rearranged and revised in ways that really destroy the key part of the book, i.e., how Jean creates a town like Alice (Springs). In the early part, the major change is to make Strachan a 40-something bachelor instead of a seventy-year old widower. This rather skews this love story, especially when there are also small changes that contribute to making him more selfish and avaricious, such as: in the book, he intimates to Joe at the ship that he might find more than a letter waiting for him in Australia, but in the video he gives Joe no clue about Jean's whereabouts or intentions. The last hour of the 5-hour video scrunches and mangles the last third of the book. I see no reason why they threw in a fight between Joe and Jean -- it is quite out of character and seems to be just an Aussie dig at Pommies for telling them what to do. Then they bring on Strachan for the wedding (instead of some three years later) -- and have him read the toast!! -- very strange, especially in the context of the relationship between Jean and Noel as cast in the video. The whole wedding scene is the invention of the screenwriters. These abominations take up time in the last hour, which was already not long enough to do justice to the fascinating story of how Jean recreates Willstown as a place where she and Joe can both be happy. I can't count the times I have watched this, and although it differs from the book in story line the mood is still the same. The bond that two such diverse people give each other that surpasses trials and years is immortal. And that the element of the women prisoners was an actual event, that did happen to real people. The story is about the strength of character of ordinary people, people who just tried to survive a horrible time in their lives. And this also presented Australia in a real mode. The country is like all countries, areas that everyone loves, quaint country areas and desolate areas. But it gives Shute a stage for Jean's transformation from a lowly outback town to a family community. Jean Paget, Joe Harman, and Noel Strachan--all are unlikely heroes and survivors. Petite but strong Jean whose strength and resolve help save lives, marching hundreds of miles and with calm self-discipline and persuasive powers, Joe Harman ("oh my word") who took risks for Jean and the other prisoners, only to suffer the worst pain imaginable, and Noel Strahan, who trusted Jean regardless of the odds. Her good humor and hardiness inspire everyone around her, and those with the courage to go in with her are rewarded. The beautiful scenery and musical score adds to the adventure. Despite the length it was never boring to me. These ordinary people did extraordinary things and it is based on a true story. Someone borrowed my VHS a few years ago and I never saw it or them again. Learned my lesson, mates, and will buy another copy when it can be found. It's a shame the miniseries is not on DVD. I cannot believe it has been 25 yrs since I first watched this story on TV. I remembered to have been very much touched by it and was lucky to get the VHS tape several years ago. I did not watch it again until just recently. I have been watched it over and over ever since. I must have watched it 10 times in the past 2 wks.

The acting is superb, the story is compelling, and I am embarrassed to say that I did not appreciate actor Bryan Brown's talent until now. The playful facial expressions shown in the first half - when he gave Jean the stolen medicine in Malaya is such a contrast to his very reserved and nervous body languages shown in the second half: in their first drink together in Caines and the touring of the homestead. We have to wait until the wedding reception, especially the final dance scene to see his open display of affection for Jean. The same dancing eyes that first revealed his admiration in Malaya. Who wouldn't want to be his Mrs. Boong ?

While Joe changed from a cocky, almost bigger than life figure in the Malaya jungle to a somewhat self-conscious average Joe in his own backyard, Jean took the opposite road; her wartime experience seems to have given her new confidence. She wasted no time and went after what she wanted. She took steps to take what she could get - exactly as Joe had told her to once upon a time.

For me, all these transformations helps to show this is more than just a love story - this is a story about growth, courage and fragility in life. The solicitor -Noel is both a sweet and sad figure. He too gave much to Jean - he gave his last hope for love. At the end, he did what true love requires -- he put her happiness ahead of his own.

I happened to like the fight between Joe & Jean that was not in the book. I thought it's an appropriate and necessary addition for it helped to surface the inner struggles they both had to deal with in order to make their life together possible.

Now, I am older, maybe I understand life, love and loss a little better. This story touches me even deeper.

I am, however, surprised to see B. Brown has blue eyes in the promo photo shown on this site. He most definitely did not in "A Town like Alice." Well, 25 yrs is a long time ! I don't know where this movie was shot, but because it was shot on location, it has the authenticity that this story deserves. It is the story of a young English woman who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in southern Asia at the beginning of WWII, with a group of other English women. There is no prison camp for women so they are forced to march for months from place to place, because the Japanese don't know what to do with them. The courage and resilience of the English women, and the bravery of the Australian soldier who tries to help them, is the core of the movie. This movie is very long, maybe 10 hours, so you can watch it as it was shown on PBS, as a series, which actually adds to the feeling of the endless journey this woman makes from England, across this remote island, and finally Australia. Story, cinematography, location and actors combine to make this a movie not to miss. My only question is why this hasn't been released on DVD! "The Gay Desperado" is wonderful throughout. The banter between Leo Carrillo and Harold Huber is as funny as anything you would hear in a movie today. Best line? "That would be my third choice!" "Diego" is obviously the archetype for Kevin Smith's "Silent Bob". Lucien N. Andoit's black and white cinematography (particularly with the banditos' shadows) was striking. All I can say about Ida Lupino is, "Thank God for DVD!" You can go right to the scene where she is trying on sombreros and serapes and watch her standing in front of that mirror over and over again.

Lest I forget, that Nino Martini guy sings real purty, too. If "Love Me Tonight" is "the musical for people who don't like musicals", it has to be said that "The Gay Desperado" is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.

Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out "Nessun Dorma" to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.

Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic "you say you hate me but you love me really" routine with a refreshing twist.

Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems. HUNT FOR JUSTICE is a Canadian television drama that has made it to DVD and that is reason for gratitude for those who hunger for educational dramas that inform us about facts of current history that somehow get buried in the media. The film is not a Hollywood production, it relies heavily on footage from court files, but it also introduces to many of us the act of heroism of Louise Arbour in bringing about the trial of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic.

Louise Arbour (veteran Canadian actor Wendy Crewson) is a Canadian judge appointed by NATO as the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The film begins in 1996 when Arbour travels to The Hague to face the political obstacles that are preventing the Tribunal to bringing to justice the war criminals in the war Yugoslavia has been waging in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia, a war that has gross evidence of crimes against humanity in the form of genocide, extermination camps, and other heinous abuses. The progress toward bringing the criminals to justice is hampered by generals (including one played by William Hurt) who fear a major World War if precautions against same are infringed upon. Arbour, with the keen help of her translator Pasko Odsak (Stipe Erceg), her staff including Keller (Heino Ferch) and the unexpected assistance from British Capt. John Tanner (John Corbett), forges ahead, focusing the impossible task of bringing all responsible parties to justice on three specific events. Two of the three top suspects are captured but during their trials each meets his end. This leaves only Slobodan Milosevic himself, and Arbour and her colleagues are successful in bringing the war criminal to justice in 1999.

There are several touching side plots employed in the telling of this well-documented tale, stories that make the point in history more personal. Some may find the film footage of corpses and prisoners and death camps too strong to watch, but they are necessary to bring home the purpose of the film. Wendy Crewson carries the power to drive the message home - the message that war crimes must never go unpunished. There is much current history to be learned from this film: writers Ian Adams, Riley Adams and M.A. Lovretta have condensed the information and made it dramatic as well. Director Charles Binamé balances the docudrama with the story progress, never forgetting that he has a tale of intrigue to tell as well. HUNT FOR JUSTICE is worth watching! Grady Harp Hunt for Justice is about the setup of Slobadon Milosevic for his trial in the Hague. While it was a little too clinical in presentation the subject matter could have gotten very depressing very quickly. A Canadian Judge, Louise Arbour, becomes the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the UN in Yugoslavia. She battles everyone to pull out the evidence that sent Milosevic to trial. Not a bad docu-drama with class A directing and production work. The 'evidence' was disturbing by the shear discussion of the facts, happily they didn't go into too much detail and no real pictures of the tortured. I found this movie to be educational, entertaining and very moving. I was impressed when I learned of just how much Justice Arbour had contributed in during her time in Kosovo.

Wendy Crewson is highly under rated and it is good to see her again in a Canadian production. Other easily recognizable stars are Leslie Hope (24) and John Corbett (Sex in the City.)

While the story line of this movie may not be completely factual it did leave me with the desire to learn more about the word of Arbour. A great movie for inspiring young women.

I say the movie is a "must see." I really enjoyed watching this movie! Only a few parts were slow, but it was only setting the mood and building up to the action. I thought this movie was very educational, it taught me more about my Croatian heritage. I also learned more about Louise Arbour, and I can say she has a very great influence on me. Time magazine named Louise Arbour one of the world's 100 most influential people in April of 2004. I recommend this movie to people that like historical movies (obviously). This movie was very dramatic, but still told the truth of events in the former Yugoslavia. Louise Arbour is a brave hero, and I'm glad they made a movie honouring her. If you see the movie, I hope you'll like it. this was a thoughtful and well-shot and directed TV movie that took on a huge subject with precision and intelligence, and gives it a film treatment that would look great on a bigger screen -- the palette is a little muted for TV. if you're looking for a war action film or "bosnia lite", this isn't for you -- it's about an ordinary woman who took on an extraordinary challenge for humanity. if you want to learn more about the conflict and how the work of one woman influenced the world in a massive way, watch this film when it comes your way. i don't see that a lot of other TV films have dealt with the issue of genocide and ethnic hatred at this level. the story avoids obvious demonization of "the bad guys", and instead shows the denial and everyday hatred that resulted in deaths of thousands. i was moved at several points, and not in some manipulative Hollywood way with driving music and flashy mise-en-scene, but allowed to discover the horror and implications along with the characters. this is a film brave enough to let the content speak for itself, and keep the visuals understated to support it with dignity.

the actors do a helluva job at bringing the intense dramatic scenes to life. the scenes where victims give their testimony before the war tribunal are powerful, and Wendy Crewson, Stipe Erceg and Heino Ferch are excellent. William Hurt's British accent is awful -- no one else has given him a chance to play a Brit, and when he finally has it, he blows it! -- and although John Corbett's body was born to play a soldier/commando, he's a little too gee-whiz nice, although he does a good job. My friend gives me these 3 huge boxes. "They're laserdiscs of Flash Gordon serials," he says. "I'm gonna have some giant coasters," I say. But not so. This serial rocks. (But I had to whine & moan to almost everyone I knew to find a laserdisc player for em).

There is really a little of everything in this serial: There are lion-men, hawk-men, shark-men, Earthmen, & I guess you'd call em Mongo-men. The sets & costumes combine, Greek, Roman, Oriental, Egyptian and there's even armour like English knights. Awesome costumes. And some of it was a riot. Those horrible tights with shorts over em worn by Zarkov are beyond description. And the guys in the furnace scene seem to be wearing boxers.

It's also funny the way they renamed the octopus to an octosack, the orangutan to orangapoid, and the tiger to a tigron. There's even a dragon (a Godzilla-like creature who threatens Flash on a couple of occasions before being killed off).

You like the Invisible Man? This has got you covered. You like sword fights, wrestling (both animals & men), fist fights? Plenty for any taste. We have an underwater city, a sky city, a city on top of a mountain, and tonnes of secret passages and caves.

Hokey effects? Massive amounts. The sky city is supported by radium furnaces stoked like old-time steamships. The rocketships are "powered" by fireworks and have constant backfires and/or humming noises. Lots of wires are visible holding things up (like food when Flash was invisible and of course rocketships). There's clouds out in space, but none around the earth when viewed from Mongo. "Giant" lizards show up briefly. Fighting sea creatures supposedly threaten Flash & co. on the way to the shark-men's underwater city. The "gadgets" in Dr. Zarkov's lab crack me up. And they seem to be the same ones no matter what lab he's in (he worked in Ming's lab and Vultan's).

And yeah, we have romance. Everyone wants Dale; Ming, Vultan, Flash. But at least one person wanted Princess Aura (Prince Baron) just not the person she would have preferred. In fact, it seems a lot of the sub-plots concern intrigue on the part of Princess Aura to try to win Flash.

Man I think the characters are awesome. That fat, horse-laughing, King Vultan was hilarious. How he managed those wings was pure artistry. And Ming! What can I say about Ming? He was perfect. They should have had him for the emperor in Starwars. Ming has got to be my favourite character in this serial. Princess Aura was quite a little character too. And she pulled it off nicely. I think she's a better actress than Dale Arden by a long shot. Even the sneaky high priest had a distinctive role. Zarkov was good, but not the strongest character---and he always stood in the background during fight scenes holding Dale. Now we get to Flash: Flash, of course, was the strong point, the leader, the hero---and he did it well. Crabbe is a good actor and this role fit him perfectly.

After watching this, I think I know where George Lucas got the main idea for Starwars. Watch this, you'll see what I mean.

If you ever considered watching an old serial (or any serial for that matter), this should be your first choice. The only reason I didn't give this one a 10 is because of a few story holes that could have been fixed easily, the way the giant lizards seemed just tacked in there, and a couple of weak characters (king of shark-men & king of lion-men). After 66 years "Flash Gordon" still has an appealing scifi/adventure/epic feel that many of today's science fiction adventures strive for and fail to deliver. The only way to fully enjoy this serial is just to sit back and not pick at anything (hokey effects, dialogue, why Flash doesn't go for Princess Aura etc.). And as for you older people who saw "Flash Gordon" back on the serial screen or on T.V. "back in the day", if you want this fine serial to remain appealing to future generations, get your kids/grandkids to watch this when they're young. It worked for me (Male aged 18 or under). 9 out of 10 The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.

This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it. Flash Gordon was a first rate serial. I know there were a few goofs, however, i didn't watch it for the flaws. Buster Crabbe is Flash Gordon. He was not a trained actor but he gave a very good, convincing performance. Jean Rogers is pretty and at 20 yrs. old did, in my opinion, a pretty good job. Charles Middleton as Emperor Ming, is superb. He was in a lot of other movies, quite versatile, he could sing and dance. His portrayal of "Ming The Merciless", in all 3 Flash Gordon serials, was top notch. The rest of the cast also did a very good job. Well, boys and girls, get some popcorn, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy. Flash Gordon is, undoubtedly, the best of all American serials. In a date so early as 1936,Universal was capable of making such an entertainment story, and twenty years later when I watched it for the first time as a kid it involved me in a great adventure and emotion. Buster Crabbe was the hero we always wanted to be in our childhood, and Jean Rogers the beautiful girl we always dreamt to be in love with. Dragons, octopus, monsters,gorillas were also the attraction. Charles Middleton was a great presence as Ming, the Merciless. A true predecessor of George Lucas´s Starwars. Arguably the finest serial ever made(no argument here thus far) about Earthman Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov, and beautiful Dale Arden traveling in a rocket ship to another universe to save the planet. Along the way, in spellbinding, spectacular, and action-packed chapters Flash and his friends along with new found friends such as Prince Barin, Prince Thun, and the awesome King Vultan pool their resources together to fight the evils and armies of the merciless Ming of Mongo and the jealous treachery of his daughter Priness Aura(now she's a car!). This serial is not just a cut above most serials in terms of plot, acting, and budget - it is miles ahead in these areas. Produced by Universal Studios it has many former sets at its disposable like the laboratory set from The Bride of Frankenstein and the Opera House from The Phantom of the Opera just to name a few. The production values across the board are advanced, in my most humble opinion, for 1936. The costumes worn by many of these strange men and women are really creative and first-rate. We get hawk-men, shark men, lion men, high priests, creatures like dragons, octasacks, orangapoids, and tigrons(oh my!)and many, many other fantastic things. Are all of them believable and first-rate special effects? No way. But for 1936 most are very impressive. The musical score is awesome and the chapter beginnings are well-written, lengthy enough to revitalize viewer memories of the former chapter, and expertly scored. Director Frederick Stephani does a great job piecing everything together wonderfully and creating a worthy film for Alex Raymond's phenom comic strip. Lastly, the acting is pretty good in this serial. All too often serials have either no names with no talent surrounding one or two former talents - here most everyone has some ability. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Shakespeare troupe by any means, but Buster Crabbe does a workmanlike, likable job as Flash. He is ably aided by Jean Arden, Priscella Lawson, and the rest of the cast in general with two performers standing out. But before I get to those two let me add as another reviewer noted, it must have been amazing for this serial to get by the Hayes Office. I see more flesh on Flash and on Jean Rogers and Priscella Lawson than in movies decades later. The shorts Crabbe(and unfortunately for all of us Professor Zarkov((Frank Shannon)) wears are about as form-fitting a pair of shorts guys can wear. The girls are wearing mid drifts throughout and are absolutely beautiful Jean Rogers may have limited acting talent but she is a blonde bombshell. Lawson is also very sultry and sensuous and beautiful. But for me the two actors that make the serial are Charles Middleton as Ming: officious, sardonic, merciless, and fun. Middleton is a class act. Jack "Tiny" Lipson plays King Vultan: boisterous, rousing, hilarious - a symbol for pure joy in life and the every essence of hedonism. Lipson steals each and every scene he is in. The plot meanders here, there, and everywhere - but Flash Gordon is the penultimate serial, space opera, and the basis for loads of science fiction to follow. Excellent! As previously stated in one of my great reviews, the Universal Pictures'Trilogy of FLASH GORDON should not be classified with the other serials. For,indeed the three of these have made a sort of celluloid-electronic mythology for a punchy, war phobic mid twentieth century world. They stand alone in many peoples' minds as THE example of just what a cliff hanger was.

We can recall seeing Buster Crabbhe as a guest on NBC's late night talk show, TOMORROW, hosted by Tom Snyder. This was circa 1979-80. During the interview Mr. Crabbe was asked about his personal fitness habits. He credited weight training and swimming, coupled with some sound dietary habits-which included vitamin and protein supplementation.(And would you believe it, he smoked several cigarettes!)

When questioned about his career, Mr. Snyder of course got to the subject of his portrayal (and strong identification with) the character of Flash. Buster stated that he had read and enjoyed the feature in its original medium, that is a comic strip the property of Hearst's King Features Syndicate. He stated that he had thought that it would not work once transferred to the screen! Luckily he was wrong.

As for the 1st serial, it was a very good adaption of the original continuity from the Sunday Color Comics. The world is about to end because of impending collision with Planet Mongo.It's up to independent working Dr. Zarkov to rocket to the wild planet to change its course. He enlists the aid of Flash and Miss Dale Arden, newly acquainted parachuters from airliner, landing in Zarkov's property.

The Serial has excitement through out and manages to make one feel that there is always some other peril lurking just outside the film frame. The costuming and decor is varied,from Romanesque to Oriental to Art Decco. It would be easy to surmise that this was due to frugality on the part of Universal,but once again this was being faithful to creator,cartoonist Alex Raymond's visual concepts.(just look at the old strips as reprinted in many collections) The rockets were used before in JUST IMAGINE! (Fox 1930), a science fiction musical comedy.The other scientific lab equipment was provided by Universal's prop dept.,being the top Hollywood company doing Horror and SciFi.

The cast features Jean Rogers(Dale Arden) and Priscilla Lawson (Princess Aura)who get into a good girl vs. bad girl battle over Flash. Charles Middleton portrays Emperor Ming in a sort of overly melodramatic villain,but makes it work. Zarkov(Frank Shannon)is toned down from the sheer madness that he suffered in his appearance in newsprint. (by the way, ever wonder how Zar-KOV has a brogue?) Richard Alexander makes a fine, powerfully built Prince Barin, ever helpful and so noble.

Comic actor Jack "Tiny" Lipson is the surprise of the cast, stealing scene after scene as a lecherous, Henry VIII like scoundrel turned ally, King Vultan,ruler of the Hawkmen. Among the others, most notable is Jim Pierce as Prince Thun of the Lion Men. Pierce,like Crabbe, had also portrayed Tarzan in a film-but he later married Tarzan Creator, Edgar Rice Bourroughs' daughter, Joan.

FLASH GORDON and the two sequels, FLASH GORDON's TRIP TO MARS(1938) and FLASH GORDON CONQUERS THE UNIVERSE(1940), have been a staple juvenile fare for generations,first in the movie houses then in Television release. Like fine wine, they seen to get better with age.

We're all so glad that Mr.Crabbe was wrong. One of the most famous of all movie serials! Still interesting today although it does have an "old movie" look to it. The second serial looks better but simply does not equal this one. Actors have a good time , especially Middleton and Lipson. Great editing by the Universal expert crew. The musical score was tracked in from Universal's "Destination Unknown", "The Invisible Man", "The Black Cat", and "Werewolf of London". And what great action music it was! If there was a choice for all-time best serial, this (arguably) should be #1. this took me back to my childhood in the 1950 's so corny but just fab no one ever could play FLASH GORDON like LARRY BUSTER CRABBE, just great. i have two more series to view flash gordon's trip to mars and flash gordon conquers the universe cannot wait

In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of "Flash Gordon" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular "sleepovers" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.

Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's "Ming the Merciless" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. The brainchild of comic strip pioneer Alex Raymond, "Flash Gordon" was the grand daddy of all sci-fi epics. This serial is the first time Flash was brought to celluloid life. Despite it's low budget, this is a great space opera.

The story begins with Earth doomed to apparent destruction, when the Planet Mongo comes hurtling through space on a collision course. Maverick scientist Dr. Zarkov is headed off for the approaching planet in a self-made rocket ship, convinced he can do something to stop the runaway celestial body. He gets some last minute recruits in the form of resourceful athlete Flash Gordon and beautiful Dale Arden. Once they reach Mongo, their problems really begin. They run afoul of dastardly Emperor Ming the Merciless, conqueror of his world, who has some ambitious plans for Earth.

The rest of the serial revolves around Flash's desperate attempts to save the earth; the assorted alien cultures he encounters; the allies he makes; space ships he flies; the battles he fights, and the monsters he slays.

Brilliantly conceived by Raymond, "Flash Gordon" features classic archetypes from legendary myths and fables of antiquity. Echos of famous tales, like the sagas of Troy and Camelot and Sherwood Forrest are seen here. You have the dashing, handsome hero, on a quest to save the kingdom (Flash); The evil king (Ming); The old wise man (Zarkov); The lovely damsel in distress (Dale); the seductive siren (Aura); loyal allies (Thun, Barin, Vultan); Plus monsters, dragons and assorted beasties.

Flash is a modern Robin Hood, Jason or Beowulf. Ming is Prince John or Aggamemnon. Dale is Helen of Troy or Gwenevere or Maid Marion. Zarkov is Merlin or Odysseus. (Or Gandalf) Thun/Barin/Vultan are the Merry Men or the Knights of the Round Table.

You get the idea.

You can't help but notice how many ideas from "Flash Gordon" would later reappear in STAR WARS. The cloud City; The ice World; The forest moon; The scrolling opening text (From the second serial); There are others, but you get the gist. The whole sci-fi genre owes a great debt to this timeless classic.

Buster Crabb is the perfect action hero, and I personally think he's better at this sort of role than any of the current crop of action stars. He also played Buck Rogers and Tarzan.

Charles Middleton is the embodiment of diabolical nastiness as Ming. Sure, he seems a bit melodramatic today, but that was what audiences expected from their bad guys in the 30's.

Jean Rogers is our hero's love interest Dale Arden, and I had such a crush on her when I first saw this as a boy. I can readily understand why Flash always rushed to her rescue. She's the quintessential good girl, to counterpoint the seductive manipulations of Aura, the quintessential bad girl.

The supporting cast seemed perfectly chosen to emulated their comic strip counterparts, and despite the now-silly looking FXs, there was a lot of thrilling action in this groundbreaking serial.

An all around fun romp and the beginning of the sci-fi genre in cinema. i originally seen the flash Gordon serial on PBS,and thought it was fun and awesome,i overlooked the special effects of the rocket ships with sparklers,and the big dragon monster with lobster claws,who cares this is 1936 and it was a serial,so each week they would show a new chapter, buster Crabbe played flash Gordon 3 times,in all 3 serials.then in 1939 he played buck rogers,in 1933 he played Tarzan the fearless.he was a very busy actor.beautiful jean rogers played sexy dale Arden.frank Shannon as professor zarkov,and Charles Middleton played the evil ming the merciless.he makes Darth Vader look like a boyscout.the serials were very close to the Alex Raymond comic strip.space travel was just a pipe dream at the time.not to mention ray guns and television.this one stands out as the best serial ever.the sequel flash Gordon's trip to mars is 2 chapters longer,the next flash Gordon conquers the universe is only 12 chapters.and then there's the natives of mongo..,hawk-men, lion-men,shark-men.the feature version leaves out the shark-men scenes. for the full effect you must see the complete serial.i heard George Lucas was inspired by flash Gordon when he did star wars.flash Gordon was from universal studios.and the music on the soundtrack is from many universal movies like bride of Frankenstein,werewolf of London,Dracula's daughter,etc;even today flash Gordon continues to delight people young and old.10 out of 10. I loved "Flash Gordon" as a child and watching the series again on DVD brings back such fond memories. Each 15-minute episode features the adventures of our hero Flash, the lovely Dale Arden, and intrepid Dr. Zarkov on the planet Mongo, with Flash escaping death at every turn: The Shark Men nearly drown him, he faces the Fire Monster in the Tunnel of Terror, and he's in mortal peril in the Static Room!

The characters are still fun: Buster Crabbe is every bit the blonde dreamboat hero and Jean Rogers is a delicate and beautiful Dale Arden. Princess Aura still plots to steal Flash for herself, King Vultan of the Hawk Men still has his booming laugh and angel wings, and Ming the Merciless, Emperor of the Universe, is still giving everyone the evil eye and the creeps.

This serial probably wouldn't interest children today with its hokey effects - oh, that spaceship! - but it's a fun bit of nostalgia for those who liked it the first time around. The actors play it straight and don't play down to kids. I appreciate that young viewers were expected to read the chapter synopses which had pretty big words in them.

I'm glad this came out on DVD. It's a lot of fun to revisit this classic sci-fi serial. I was a child when I saw this serial, a bit after seen Buck Rogers one, both characters performed by the same Buster Crabbe, and I must acknowledge that these films have always been part of the best entertainment I've ever had. The fight against Emperor Ming was one thing but I was more interested to know about the final fate of the love triangle of Flash with Dale and Aura. Barin came and persuaded Aura to forget Flash, very innocent termination of her obsession for good-looking Flash. The serial has no offensive and really violent scenes and can be watched by all audiences. Another thing is that I learned floating in water looking the way Crabbe did it when fighting against shark men. The soundtrack was also nice although it was used previously in another film of Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. It would be nice to have the DVD of this serial provided that it comes with subtitles in Spanish (not yet available). I don't understand all these bad reviews. I believe this movie was one of the best in the Puppet Master series. Being made on a low budget, one can comprehend why the special effects and acting were not spectacular, but they were not completely horrible.

Greg Sestero brought a lot of charisma to the role of Andre Toulon. He has a lot of potential, and I hope to see more of him soon. And though the cinematography was not excellent, and there was minimal violence and gore, this film was a lot of fun. I am a big Puppet Master fan and have grown to expect blood and gore from the films of this series, but I can say that I was never bored through the entire course of watching Retro Puppet Master. So, if you ever get an opportunity to see this movie, don't automatically regard it as unworthy of your time. Give it a chance. You might like it. Six-shooter, Tunnel Sergeant, Dr. Death, Pinhead, Cyclops, and Blade help the young Andre Toulon take out Sutek's Egyption henchman in the best sequel this series has seen.

Retro Puppet Master is atmospheric with many sets, quality acting and some fun puppet FX. What it lacks in gore, it makes up for with an interesting well-paced plot.

Best Quote: Dr. Death: "Don't you know, my friends? Smell the sulfur, see the smoke..."

This is easily the best Dave DeCoteau film I've seen. The actors do a more-than-credible job: Jack Donner as "Azfel" turns in an inspired performance, and the young Toulon does well with the puppets. Oh, and the ring-needle is cool.

John Massari's score is a nice symphonic take on the original Puppet Master tunes by Richard Band, keeping the movie playful and eerie. It's rare for a Full Moon score to actually add something to a film, and this one does.

Unfortunately, Dave Allen didn't seem to be affordable enough for Band and Co. in the late-90's and beyond, so all of the puppet action is done rod and string. There's no stop motion such as the famous and funny scene in the original where Pinhead's looking for his pinhead. And, of course, as with all of the Full Moon fare of this time period, RPM was shot in and around Castel Studios in Bucharest, so most of the bit parts were cast to Romanians: hearing their "Parisian" accents was a bit annoying.

All in all, this is probably one of the top-10 Full Moon films. It's certainly the most inventive of the Puppet Master sequels. First off, I Hate Sci Fi Stuff, And Although This Movie got a little Sci Fi at times, That's Allright, Because At Least It Focused On Andre Toulon. In the last 3, Andre seemed to have kind of been Mentioned, but the Stories Never really focused on him, which made me mad. What also makes me mad is The Amount of 0's it Got on the Voting Chart. Give It a Rest People. If you saw this Movie and Liked it, Please vote for it. Please. What I Loved About this Movie is that It went back to Where it all started. When Andre first learned the Secret to Life. I would Recommend Renting this if you Have seen a Puppet Master Movie before and liked it. But not renting it if this is your First Time viewing one from the PM Collection, Mainly Because you might think all the Puppet Masters are as "Dull" as this one. This is the kind of movie that you rent when you are incredibly tired, or impaired in some other way... The acting in this movie is so bad it seems intentional, and to let you know how bad the special effects are, there is one scene when the puppets are coming alive where you can see most of a hand holding the puppet, moving it about. The movie looked as if it was filmed with a camcorder. When I saw this movie for the first time, a fistfight nearly erupted when my friends and I were calling each other names from this flick, that's how terrible it was. If you enjoy getting mad at movies, I recommend this to you, otherwise, flee as though your very life depended on it. It is great to see a new batch of puppets creating havoc in this series. I found this chapter a lot of fun. In fact, it would probably be my second favorite in the series. This movie has very little violence and is only rated PG-13. This is notably different from the other R-rated puppet master movies which were loaded with gore and violent mayhem. The lack of violence does not diminish the fun though. This film also has notably better special effects than the last movie in this series. Good. This is probably one of my favorites so far, although I have the first one and have seen Curse, Legacy, and vs. Demonic Toys. The only one better than this one is PM vs. DT. Curse is the worst one in the series, Than the first one, and then its Legacy. I recommend people to see this and vs. DT. Those ones who say this stinks are so wrong, the story is well written and it is a sweet movie. This is a classic movie even younger kids can watch and not be as scared when watching the others. Well this is my review, you can call me Gipdac,( its easy to know where that came from: 101 Dalmatians series, you can watch it on Toon Disney at 4:00 A.M.). Oh and don't laugh, I'm a guy, you will see more of my reviews in good time. If you want to know why I watch it? I'm 12! Word of advice: Have a mental meal, arrrrroooooooooo! I also agree with you motter-1, but why people like the others is because they're more thrilling than horror, and because the puppets are made to look scarier. Also, you can call me Gipdac. And she really was beautiful (Laraine Day, that is) - herself, her part, and her performance. An engaging story of selfish vs. selfless love, for the same man, wealthy heartthrob and dipsomaniac Robert Cummings. One of his bouts of inebriation leads to an incident that enrages the local community and tests the mettle of the two sisters (Jean Muir and Laraine Day) that are close to him (and to each other). Their comfortable and somewhat superficial milieu is up-ended as the two girls confront the ensuing crisis and respond to its conflicting demands of prudence, integrity, loyalty, and love, with consequences that are profoundly different for each of them. With the old vanities and niceties abandoned, their real characters are revealed in enthralling contrast.

A wonderful find on TCM! Robert Cummings, Laraine Day and Jean Muir star in "And One Was Beautiful," a 1940 film also starring Billie Burke. At one hour and 15 minutes, this looks to have been a B movie. Cummings is a playboy, Ridley Crane, whom many women desire, including two sisters, Katherine and Helen Latimer (Day and Muir). Katherine is the more earthbound of the two who likes to fix cars, and Helen is the blonde social butterfly with the beautiful gowns. Ridley arrives back in town, and, believing he's not going to be at a party, Helen decides not to attend. Since the party is given by a family friend, their mother (Burke) sends Katherine in a pinned up dress. Ridley is there, and the two connect. But Ridley is into more superficiality, and when he sees Helen at a dinner party, the two pick up where they left off and go to a club. He becomes terribly drunk, and Helen at first refuses to ride in his car because he won't let her drive. After walking awhile and breaking the heel of her shoe, she gets into Ridley's car when he drives by. He passes out, and she takes over the wheel, accidentally hitting and killing a bicyclist.

Ridley can't remember anything, so Helen lets him take the blame for the death. The heel of a woman's shoe is found in the car, and Katherine sees her sister bury her shoes - plus, something in Helen's manner makes her realize that Helen isn't telling the truth. Ridley is convicted and goes to prison, and Helen marries a man she doesn't love and leaves for South America.

This is a wonderful film, even though at the time, this wasn't an A-list cast. Cummings is playing a part that Robert Taylor would have played (it's an MGM film) - he's handsome and very amiable, even if he doesn't have the dazzling looks of someone like Taylor. Laraine Day is a favorite actress of mine, someone MGM loaned out constantly because they didn't know what to do with her. Why, I wonder - a wonderful actress with a great face and voice, she livened up many a film. This one is no different. Her Katherine is determined, sympathetic and totally lovely. Jean Muir is a lousy actress.

So who was the beautiful one? We all know even if MGM didn't.

Highly recommended little gem. Disney's Buena Vista Pictures presents a wonderfully told fact-based sports drama directed by actor Bill Paxton. Photography is superb, but story sometimes lumbers along. This film is about the 20 year old amateur golfer Francis Ouimet(Shia LaBeouf)and his competition in the 1913 U.S. Open. What a story; a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a supposedly incapable young man to play along side the best golfers of the time, including British champions Harry Vardon(Stephen Dillane)and Ted Ray(Stephen Marcus). A storybook ending leaves a knot in the throat. The cast also includes: Peter Firth, Elias Koteas, Marnie McPhail, Robin Wilcox, and possibly stealing the show is Josh Flitter, who plays Eddie Lowery, Ouimet's caddy and best friend. Both Disney and Bill Paxton did a fine job in conveying a story that is based in fact. You do not have to like the game of golf to appreciate the story of one man's struggle to overcome the odds. It could have been based on any sport or simply on any other situation which involves competition, though this one just happens to be related to Golf. The only problem I have with the story is that I would have liked to see a bit deeper into each of the main characters, esp. Mr. Ouimet. Mr. Francis Ouimet is a typical young man of his times, turn of the century America, where "class lines" are well delineated and woe be it to anyone who deigns to try to rise above his "class" standing. I did a bit of historical research and my biggest question was indeed answered, to my satisfaction. Although the circumstances are a bit different than those portrayed in the film, I came away with a feeling of content. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I believe you will too. This is not a movie that I would typically watch at 2:30 in the morning, but I got into it and couldn't stop until it was over.

Shia LaBeouf demonstrated that he is not just a young actor here, but could handle more demanding roles. The fact that he has been handed those roles in the last two years is testament to his ability.

It was really his movie. Sure, there were others involved, but they pale in comparison to his role.

This was a time when gold was reserved for the privileged. This victory opened it up to the masses, much the way that Tiger Woods has opened golf to all races.

Like Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane) said to Lord Northcliffe (Peter Firth): " ...if Mr. Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf) wins tomorrow, it's because he's the best, because of who he is. Not who his father was, not how much money he's got, because of who he bloody is! And I'll thank you to remember that." Go get charged up. Shia LaBeouf has impressed me before with his acting ability, but I can honestly say that I very much look forward to his next efforts...his portrayal of Francis Ouimet, a 20 year old caddy who ignores his father's insistence that golf is not his place in life and enters the 1913 US Open tournament in his hometown...the beginning of the movie does drag a bit, but it's necessary to set up the underdog subplot that Shia works so well...the entire cast is well-chosen and they work very well together in a story that, based on the actual event, has an ending everyone can discover before seeing the movie...but even knowing that information doesn't spoil the fun...Josh Flitter is delightful as Eddie Lowery, Francis' caddy, who keeps him grounded and loose while at the same time proving to be an invaluable part of Francis' effort...Stephen Delane is outstanding as Harry Vardon, the legendary British golfer who Francis idolizes yet does not fear...and who knows the background Francis comes from as he, too, had humble beginnings...Bill Paxton takes a formulaic movie and makes it worthwhile...bravo Mr. Paxton, and bravo to the cast...from the imagery to the story to the people who bring it alive, this is a movie to get, enjoy, and revel in...it's nice to have movies like this that we can feel good watching... Rainy day with not much to do. We were surfing the movie network channels and found this one just starting, so we gave it a chance.

The more we watched, the more we became engrossed in the story. Its the old story of working class underdog trying to make it in a sport which at the time (1913 I think) was usually played by the wealthy upper class but this movie was every bit as interesting as Seabiscuit and this is also based on a true story.

The acting is believable and the casting is brilliant. AND . . . . we are NOT golfers, so please don't miss this one just because its about golf. Any individual sport would serve the plot, because it's about the people. Golf works well for this story because of the class distinction and snobbery that seem to involve some who play the game.

Bottom line . . . . Its a feel good movie. It's well put together and isn't it always fun to see those who think they are better than others get taken down a peg or two. If you like your sports movies to be about dignity and the best values then this'll work for you big time. Oversentimental in places? Sure, of course it is - and proud of it. It is the biggest and best ride in the Carnival and should be enjoyed as that.

Big production values, simple telling, with creative shots: it is not complex, is a very nice and remarkably sweet film. It really feels like a labor of love from Bill Paxton; and I bet his son gets that.

The build-up is slow enough to be enjoyed, the conflicts feisty, and the British vs. Americans handled with a degree of vaudevillian villainy, but the dignity between the two main transatlantic protagonists is always to the fore. I have minor gripes: the score wants to be James Horner but is too overblown, and there are too many close-ups, and panning shots for 2005, but if you want a straightforward, decent, and good-looking sports film then this is it.

So here's the thing, and I feel like I know my film, but I actually liked it more than Seabiscuit: which is a better film, but Greatest Story is simply Disney at its core and hugely enjoyable! Thanks, Bill. When i first saw the movie being advertised i thought it was going to be another Disney movie that almost goes straight to video. I finally got around and rented it. I thought it was going to be bad because i couldn't see Shia in any other role than his recently cancelled show "Even Stevens". When i turned it on i was ready to turn it off from boredom in about ten minutes. It started a bit slow and i couldn't understand the beginning because the years didn't make sense then they explained that later in the show so i was relieved of wondering about that. All and all i thought it was a good movie and i would recommend it. The cast was top notch and even though i'm not a fan of golf it easily kept my attention with a good plot. When you think of golf movies, you think of Caddyshack, but what if there are kids around? Go right to this movie! Disney uses is proved formula to make a movie that the adults and the kids will enjoy. The acting in this movie, in my opinion, is quite good and the leading cast, for the most part, is very young! This movie is also suprsingly filmed very well and unique, seeing all the angles of the golf game. I think this movie should be up for some academy awards for film editing or something like that because the entire flow of the film is top notch. Though the ending might be a little predictable, the movie does well on its own! It also shows that you do not need swearing, nudity, or violence to make a great golf movie! this movie has a decent story in my opinion,very good fight scenes but i was a little bit disappointed by the end of the movie.i think that it was a way better if lydie denier knew karate also or if she knew to use some weapons,her character has become more interesting too and she was a decent opponent to cynthia.i think when the director filmed the final 'battle' between cynthia&denier he wanted to finish the movie earlier so he didn't care how the end was going to be.all in all i think that fans of cynthia rothrock will be very satisfied watching this movie.it's not like 'yes,madam'! or sworn to justice but it was entertainment enough and cynthia looks awesome in this movie so my rate for this movie is a solid 8/10 'The Merchant of Venice' is one of Shakespeare's better-known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. Incredibly, however, this film would seem to be the first-ever English-language version made for the cinema rather than television. There were a number of versions made in Britain or America during the early days of the cinema, but these were all silents.

The reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play's alleged anti-Semitism, a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. (This may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era; in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray Shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). Yet in my view the film is not anti-Semitic at all. It should be remembered that during Shakespeare's lifetime there was no settled Jewish community in England; the Jews had been expelled by Edward I in the late 13th century, and were not permitted to return until the time of Cromwell, some forty years after Shakespeare's death. As far as we know, Shakespeare never travelled abroad, so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any Jews personally or experienced the effects of anti-Semitism at first hand. The play is not simply about the Jewish question, but is, among other things, an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. It may, in fact, be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England (something of which Shakespeare certainly would have had first-hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them.

Then as now, traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes had always depicted Jews as avaricious, but Shylock's principal sin is not avarice; if it were, he would certainly have accepted Bassanio's offer to pay him six thousand ducats, twice the amount borrowed by Antonio. Rather, Shylock's besetting sin is anger, and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow-Jews are treated by the Christians of Venice. Not only are Jews in general regarded as second-class citizens, but Jewish moneylenders such as Shylock are particular targets for abuse, even though the services they provide are necessary to the Venetian economy. The play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. Not only do views of this sort corrupt the Christians who hold them, they can also corrupt the Jews who suffer abuse. Shylock's vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. By spitting on him and calling him a dog, Antonio behaves like a boorish bigot, but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. Moreover, Shylock seeks to revenge himself on Antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that Antonio has done towards him, but also for all the wrongs, real and imaginary, that he has suffered at the hands of the Christian community, such as his daughter's marriage to Lorenzo.

It is to the credit of the film's director, Michael Radford and of its star, Al Pacino, that they understand all these issues. Pacino's Shylock has, initially, a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally, after his humiliation in the trial scene by Portia's reasoning, to pathos. We see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction, but we can still sympathise with him. In my view, none of Pacino's performances that I have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two 'Godfather' films (not 'Scent of a Woman', for which he won an Oscar, and certainly not 'Godfather III'), but 'The Merchant of Venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. The other acting performance that stood out was Lynn Collins's luminous Portia, speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. I was less impressed with Jeremy Irons's Antonio, who seemed too passive. Antonio is a complex character; part loyal friend, part melancholy contemplative, part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. Although Irons captured the first two of those aspects, it was difficult to envisage his Antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures.

Radford's interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the 'Daily Telegraph' who, although he admired Pacino's performance, disliked the period setting and argued that Shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have 'relevance' for a modern audience, citing a recent stage production which set the action in Weimar Germany. I would disagree profoundly with this approach. The theatre and the cinema are quite different media and, while there have been some striking modernist approaches to Shakespeare in the cinema (Trevor Nunn's 'Twelfth Night' comes to mind), a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (I preferred, for example, Zeffirelli's 'Romeo and Juliet' to Baz Luhrmann's). The idea that we can only appreciate Shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness; we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the Elizabethan society that produced him, but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth-century man.

Radford's traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age-old, universal problems, but also makes for a visually striking film. In the play, the scenes set in Venice itself are characterised by turbulent action; those set in Portia's country house at Belmont are happier and more peaceful. In the film, the Venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty, wintry grey skies, similar to the look achieved in 'Don't Look Now'. The candlelit interiors, with faces brightly lit against a dark background, were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a Caravaggio painting; I suspect this was quite deliberate, as Caravaggio was a contemporary of Shakespeare. By contrast to dark or misty Venice, the Belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting Palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight.

This is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of recent years; an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. 8/10.

A couple of errors. We see a black swan on the water in front of Portia's house. These birds are natives of Australia and were not introduced to Europe until well after 1596, the date when the film is set. Also, the portrait of Portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the Florentine Botticelli, who was active about a century before that date. Lynn Collins may be reminiscent of a Botticelli beauty, but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century Venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century Florence. Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of "If you prick me, do i not bleed?" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough. The inherent problem with any staging of 'The Merchant of Venice' has never been the pseudo-controversial anti-Semitism, but the fact that there are two story lines wildly different in both tone and content; a frothy romantic comedy and a searing tragedy. While mixing genres was all the rage in the sixteenth century (and mocked by Shakespeare in Hamlet), it rarely fails to grate with modern audiences. As a result, most directors are forced to place an emphasis on one storyline at the expense of the other, and it is no surprise that the decision falls in the favour of Shylock.

Like so many of Shakespeare's great tragic heroes, Shylock continues to fascinate after 400 years because he is such a difficult and complex character. Pitiful, proud, angry, vengeful, weak, arrogant; his behaviour defies simply analysis and continues to be argued over. He is flawed not because he is a Jew, but because he is human. Rarely do modern screenwriters imbue their creations with such richly textured contradictions, and it is to everyone's benefit that we have Shakespeare to draw on for inspiration.

Shakespearean language is wild and rambling, saturated in multiple meanings, word play and metaphor. To be understood it must be wrangled and tamed by an actor with the strength and knowledge to do so. When an actor fails, the words pour forth in a torrent of incomprehensible words, but when he succeeds, the English language springs to life with an immediacy and vibrancy that takes your breath away. Al Pacino is one such actor, and here displays an incredible level of clarity and control that, were there any justice, would sweep every award in the offering. He meets the challenge of presenting Shylock head on, and delivers an extraordinarily subtle and nuanced performance. It would be a crime if we never got the opportunity to see what he does with King Lear.

The supporting cast is noteworthy. Jeremy Irons gives an original take on the familiar Antonio, presenting an older, quieter figure that displays the unsavoury contradictions between medieval chivalry and ugly prejudice of the time. Joseph Fiennes is a revelation as he matures beyond superficial eye-candy to actually inhabit a character for once. Lynn Collins is the only disappointment. Many of Shakespeare's women are underwritten and require an actor to really work hard to bring them to life, and Collins' Gwyneth Paltrow impersonation seems a little flat and unsuited to the darker tone that Radford is aiming for.

The design team must be acknowledged for creating a unique and thoroughly believable vision of Late Renaissance Venice. The city has not looked this ominous since 'Don't Look Now'. Taking full advantage of extant locations and natural light, the film has an appearance of authenticity that is greatly enhanced by the dark and timeworn costume design. All, again, are worthy of award recognition.

The financial backers of films such as this must be commended. With a budget of $30 million, they must go into such a venture in the full and certain knowledge that they will never make a profit, and yet they invest nonetheless. We can all be grateful for it, as the result is a remarkable adaptation that is sure to be a benchmark for many years to come. I just saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival in the beautiful Elgin Theatre. I was blown away by the beautiful cinematography, the brilliant adaptation of a very tricky play and last but not least, the bravura performance of Al Pacino, who was born to play this role, which was perfectly balanced by an equally strong performance from Jeremy Irons.

The film deftly explores the themes of love vs loyalty, law vs justice, and passion vs reason. Some might protest that the content is inherently anti-semitic, however they should consider the historical context of the story, and the delicate and nuanced way in which it is told in this adaptation.

9/10 I am always impressed when a director (and this case director/screenwriter) takes a piece of classical text - and makes it come alive. Sure, Shakespeare's text can give you goosebumps even when hammered out with self-importance, but to see a production where true inventiveness makes wonderful words even more so - by the provision of context or nuance not found in the stage directions is simply awe-inspiring. There are many troubling things about the play. It is a racist play about racism - and that still sticks. I have never accepted Jessica's desertion of her father without any acceptable reason. I have never accepted the Christians' position of sanctimonious self-righteousness. But, brilliantly, there is a text prologue which helps us understand the times and politics in which the story is set, and mercifully, much of Jessica's part is cut.

The text is quite stripped down with many passages cut. But, I only noticed one line which was cut at the moment when I expected to hear it - and it was replaced by a look that said it all. This economy and judicious editing has given us a gripping movie - not just a film of the play.

And at last, there is a rationale as to why Antonio is so loyal and generous to the undeserving/unrelated Bassanio - you can almost feel Antonio's pulse start to race when he catches glimpse of Bassanio passing by in a gondola, or arriving for a visit. But it is as subtle as that - no more. I was spellbound.

There were many other highlights. I felt the arguments during the trial to be heartbreaking. And, the suitors' trials are hilarious.

Add all that to glorious cinematography and costumes that resonated with the times, and you'll understand why I can't wait to see it again. And again. It is a risky business to film such a lavish production of "The Merchant of Venice". It could be a stodgy, wooden, period piece, or it could be laughable for its excesses. This version is neither. While I am not completely sold by Al Pancino's very restrained Shylock, he does give a competent and honorable performance. Jeremy Iron's Antonio, is as always with his tortured-self roles, riveting. Some of the lesser roles seemed to be a little to much in the spirit of boisterous fun, "a boy's own Venician adventure story", but the central plot is efficiently and sympathetically moved forward through the film.

It goes without saying, that the location shots, costumes, and interiors were breathtaking, almost to the point of distraction.

One thing, on which I do not wish to comment on, is the anti-semetic content of the play. The film is as sympathetic to the predicament of the Jews as possible while still portraying Shylock as the instrument of his own self-destruction. It is a sad comment that four centuries later, the director of this film found it necessary to comment on his nuanced view before the premiere screening at the Toronto film fest.

This is a beautiful film, and I look forward to several viewings. I saw The Merchant of Venice in London last week. Great acting by Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Finnes and Lynn Collins. Compare to other movies based on Shakespeare's play, this production has made the play so easy to understand and follow. Bravo to Michael Radford for directing such top actors. The costume and the scenery are great and since it was filmed on location in Venice it gives the film and authentic flavor. I had read the play over thirty years ago at school and the emphasis was on the characters' anti-Semitic behavior toward the Jews and the cruelty of the Christians. I do not know if this movie is going to be controversial but in any case I am sure that it will get few Oscar nominations. William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.

Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian "geto", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.

The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.

When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.

The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.

In the monologue, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? …If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, "…when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it." He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries. Seriously, where is Al Pacino's Oscar nomination for this one? Is it that we take him for granted at this point in his career? Pacino here is extraordinary.. He gives a complex, heartbreaking performance as Shylock, the Jewish money lender.. the movie as a whole was quite great, with beautiful shots of Venice to look at and a pitch perfect score to listen to.. the other actors all do a fine job as well, but the real reason to see this is Pacino.. I have seen all the nominated Oscar performances of 2004, and I must say that Pacino was snubbed.. blame it on the anti-semitism associated with the play, the lack of campaigning by the studio, the late release date with no major push, or most likely, all of the above.. in my mind, the best performances of the year belong to Jamie Foxx in Ray, Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, and Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice.. Michael Radford, the director of "The Merchant of Venice" makes a tremendous job in opening the play, as he makes it more accessible for everyone to have a great time at the movies watching this thorny account of a horrible time in history. The luscious production of the Shakespeare's play is a feast for the eyes with its rich detail of the Venice of the XVI century.

This is a story of revenge, prejudice and justice, as imagined by William Shakespeare. Having seen the play a few times, we were not prepared about what to expect. Mr. Radford takes care of presenting the story with such detail so it can be easily understood by everyone. Also, he has used a version of English that makes more sense, rather than relying on the original text. In fact, the way Shylock speaks in the film, doesn't shock at all, being he, a member of a minority that has been marginalized by the Venetian authorities and the Catholic Church.

Al Pacino tremendous portrayal of Shylock shows a man that is vulnerable, arrogant, revengeful, mean, and totally human, all at the same time. Mr. Pacino sheds light into the character of the man who is defeated in court by a technicality. His own daughter has left him and his whole world seems to be caving in on him. At the end of the film, we see a man that has been reduced to being the target of hatred and ridicule by everyone.

Lynn Collins, as Portia is a happy discovery. Having seen her in lighter fare, she not only surprises, but she makes the best of her role and her time in front of the camera. She shows us she is a woman with a high intelligence, who comes to the help of her husband and his best friend, who risked his own well being in trying to help Bassanio get Portia's hand.

Jeremy Irons plays Antonio, the man who seeks Shylock for a "bridge loan". After all, he knows his ships will be returning with fortunes from abroad soon. Antonio gets much more than he bargained for in agreeing with Shylock to the terms of the loan. Antonio's best laid plans go astray when he is suddenly unable to fulfill his obligations. Mr. Irons gives a subtle performance.

Joseph Fiennes, makes a good appearance as Bassanio. His good looks and his charm make an impression on Portia, who clearly sees a soul mate in this young Venetian as she knows he is the one for her. Also, in smaller roles, Kris Marshall, Zuleika Robinson, Charlie Cox, contribute to make the film an enjoyable experience.

Ultimately, it's Mr. Radford's triumph because of the vision he gives us of Venice and its citizens during a horrible time in the history of mankind. The Merchant of Venice 8/10

(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)

As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve.

Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.

In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.

Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.

The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).

The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.

The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support.

There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):

In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.

Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.

The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)

Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition. Venice, in 1596.Jews are separated from the good Christians.Bassanio, a young but poor Venetian loves the fair Portia, who is a wealthy heiress.So he approaches his friend, a merchant called Antonio for three thousand ducats to travel to Belmont and propose Portia.All of Antonio's ships and merchandise are busy at sea, so he turns to the moneylender Shylock, the one of Jewish faith.Shylock does not like Antonio, for he spat on his face.He offers Antonio a three-month loan at no interest, but if he will not pay the money in that time, he will own a pound of his flesh.Also, Shylock's daughter Jessica elopes with the Christian Lorenzo.The Merchant of Venice is based on William Shakespeare's play that's believed to have written between 1596 and 1598.I read the play last summer and now I've seen the movie, made in 2004 by Michael Radford.I liked the play, and I don't quite agree with the accusations of it being anti-Semitic.The Jewish character does not appear as an inhuman monster, even though he's ready to cut a piece of Antonio's flesh.There's a lot of depth in his character, which all comes out in his speech where he asks "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" and so forth.There is much more human in Shylock's character than in one of Antonio's, who spits on the good Jew.Al Pacino is unbeatable as Shylock.He gives such a strong performance.Jeremy Irons is also terrific as Antonio.Lynn Collins is most beautiful and brilliant in the role of Portia.Zuleikha Robinson does great job as Jessica, and Charlie Cox as Lorenzo is also very good.Kris Marshall plays Gratiano, and he does a good job.In the role of Nerissa we see Heather Goldenhersh.Mackenzie Crook plays Launcelot Gobbo.As in Shakespeare plays usually, also this one contains most brilliant dialogue.The movie paints a fantastic portray of the era.It deals with some great issues, in a Shakespearian way. My guide for the quality of the a movie is if I'm still thinking about it after leaving the theater. I'm still thinking about this one the next day, which doesn't happen often.

The scenery (a reasonable guess for 16th century Italy), costumes, lighting, cinematography are all excellent. It is a beautiful film visually.

Characters can never rise above the script they must recite, but these actors made the most of their material, which is excellent. This is one of Shakespeare's best plays, which people will still enjoy another 400 years down the road. All of the principals were interesting and enjoyable.

Those who say this is anti-semitic must be deaf and blind. If anything, it is anti-Venitian-16th-century-Catholic. While Shylock plays a man controlled and tortured by the hurts he has suffered, it is clear that the society in which he lives is largely to blame. The script clearly places his personal responsibility where it belongs, as well.

A great film. The Merchant of Venice is a fantastic movie. It's very true to the original Shakespeare play. If you saw Jeremy Irons in Casanova and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love and you enjoyed his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! It is a very enjoyable movie and if you're studying Shakespeare like me, this is a great movie to see!! The only problem with this movie is that you can't let the little ones see it because is has a wee bit of nudity in it. But other than that, it's a really good movie!! A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.

The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.

Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino. William Shakespeare's plays are classified as comedy, tragedy, or history. Some of his most memorable --and most often read -- creations provide us with wistful humor, gentle poetry and hilarious slapstick. Some of them survive as unforgettable dramas of compelling depth and gravity. Regardless, he was able to write with unparalleled skill and inventiveness, contributing greatly to our young language. So in what category lies The Merchant of Venice ? I was very surprised to find it is one of Shakespeare's comedies. I had never before read it nor seen it, but after watching this most recent film version I have decided it is neither and it is both. This is one of many questions the viewer must try to answer when coming to terms with what is clearly a perplexing and deeply troubling moral tragedy.

The players are introduced quickly, and simply. One of them, firstly, is Venice itself; director Michael Radford filmed the Venetian scenes in the actual city, creating an impressively vibrant, bustling backdrop to the play's proceedings. To this scenery enters the youthful Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), returning to Venice to see a dear old friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons). It seems the poor Bassanio has heard of a princess whose father has died and has left to any potential suitors a lottery of sorts. Waiting at the fair lady's island estate are three small trunks,

only one of which contains "images of the princess". He who can guess the right one, using only blind intuition and the cryptic teasers written upon them, will be bestowed the father's huge fortune for life. Oh, and his daughter and her eternal love in marriage, I forgot to mention. Here the light comedy of Shakespeare takes over the movie. This farcical plot element drives the story and also fills up much of the film's screen time, as a number of painfully eager opportunists arrive at the island, humorously vying for and failing to earn this very wealthy hand in marriage. But before any of this occurs Bassanio, very much lacking in finances, entreats Antonio to loan him three thousand ducats to pay for the lengthy journey he must take to have his shot at the prize.

Antonio, himself nearly penniless, must reluctantly embrace humility by seeking the financial aid of Shylock (Al Pacino), one of countless Jewish usurers who keep the sagging economy afloat yet are scorned and persecuted to no end by the city's zealously Christian majority. Thus they dwell in society's underbelly, and it is here the two borrowers must go. Shylock does not hesitate to remind the two men of a certain incident where Antonio insulted and spat on him in the city market, and he proudly rebukes this man who frankly has a lot of nerve now coming to ask for help. But help him Shylock does. He even erases any kind of interest on the loan, most likely feeling he has no reason to be concerned if Antonio will be able to repay him within three months. Still, Shylock's one contractual demand is a pound of Antonio's flesh, should he renege on their agreement. This is an unsettling request, to be sure, for Antonio and Bassanio as well as for us. But it appears that despite his justifiable pride Shylock does not really anticipate seeing such a gruesome act occurring.

So here the dramatic groundwork has been laid. And while the film goes off to explore its gentler side with its love lottery and mistaken identities, there still looms the gloomy prospect of the loan itself. In the end, what will become of this ominous agreement? Meanwhile we are left at turns to explore the true central character of Shylock. Al Pacino has ample dramatic weight to carry here, and he does so with convincing grit and passion. There are times when he is given room for the theatrics we have come to expect from such a colorful actor. But his most impressive scenes are the ones where he internalizes this energy, showing a conflicted personality: honest, sincere, and proud, yet brooding, vengeful and entirely remorseless. This is one of Pacino's most heartfelt performances to date. And while the rest of the cast play their roles creditably and convincingly, it is Pacino who really owns the film -- especially toward the end, when Shakespeare upends this seeming romantic comedy with a wallop of a third act.

I shall not reveal much here; all I can say is that it involves the initial loan -- a mighty shoe one expected would drop sooner or later. And does it ever. By the end Shakespeare has raised a host of dilemmas for his audience: seemingly unresolvable questions of faith, morality, law, and mercy are thrown before us through the final scenes, and while by curtain's close the playwright's position may seem clear to some, we are left completely at odds. There are winners and losers in this one, but have the winners earned their spoils with good reason, or have they in a larger sense ended out losing as well? Has virtue been rewarded, or simply flouted? Has justice in fact this time been just? By the play's finish some fates are painfully clear, and unequivocally sealed. But the audience are to be the ones who really decide the verdict for all of those involved. And for some the verdict is still out for the play as well. Comedy or tragedy? The author has cunningly veiled the intense courtroom finale with an ending of light mirth and pat romantic resolutions. Is he saying that all is well that ends well, or is this his final, ironic condemnation? The play's humor serves to set us up nicely for such a heavy crash. And while it is also what unfortunately keeps The Merchant of Venice from achieving the greatness of so many of Shakespeare's other works, it is still engaging, amusing, and thought-provoking beyond measure. "The Merchant of Venice" was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in "Shakespeare in Love") is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give "The Merchant of Venice" an 8/10. There were at least a half dozen silent-film versions of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," and there have been several television productions. But no one has ever gotten around to making a big-budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. Given the nature of the play/s most memorable character, Shylock the Nasty Jew, it's a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in Europe in the late 1930's and 1940's may have dampened filmmakers' enthusiasm. Sure the main motivation for Michael Radford's new film is to provide Al Pacino with a chance to shout, bray, brood, mutter, and be tormented - all of which he is quite good at. Like Richard III, the role of Shylock is a scenery-chewer's dream. It is ridiculous to call Shakespeare an anti-Semite, since he never met a Jew. Jews were banned from England from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death; and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. On some level, Jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. But, while Shakespeare may not have been anti-Semitic, his play certainly is. Pacino gives Shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of Yiddish. Unfortunately, the result is a 16th-century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of Fozzie Bear. Radford's version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of Jews and then spot Antonio (Jeremy Irons) gratuitiously spitting on Shylock (Pacino), who's really just standing around, minding his own business. Will buy it when it comes out on DVD, for sure! Sarge Booker having never actually seen anything by this beloved of the luvvies, let alone a production of merchant of venice, i cant comment on how faithful it is to previous adaptations of the play so i will treat it as just another movie that tries to be more than novocaine for the eye MoV is an instantly gripping movie about a young lover bassanio (fiennes) and his merchant friend antonio (irons) and a Jewish money lender shylock (pacino)

plot summary

bassiano is broke and needs money to woo the lovely portia (collins), he goes to his friend antonio, who sypathises with his friends predicament, so borrows some money off shylock

now antonio does not like jews in general and shylock in particular and shylock bitter and twisted from the abuse he has suffered from antonio in particular and christians in general agrees to lend antonio the money on condition that if antonio does not repay the loan by the agreed deadline, shylock will cut a pound of flesh from antonios body

comment

the movie is breathtakingly beautiful and acted and spoken in such a way as to force you to think about what each line means, this in turn causes the viewer to gain insights into the characters and their motivations

it seems to me to be a movie about the choices that shylock makes, and how making wrong choices leads to shylocks ruin

from the moment shylock demands his pound of flesh he is doomed, for rest of the world is against him and connives to bring about his downfall

this disturbed me greatly, normally in a movie when a victim gets a chance of revenge against those who have harmed him either the victim succeeds or makes the villain see the error of his ways leading to a big hug

not in MoV the victim quickly becomes seen as the villain and is stripped of his fortune and faith

this movie is a powerful and subtle portrayal of casual anti semitism which shows how a whole society can turn on a minority and make it seem like the victim is really the offender

i was blown away by this movie 10/10 one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.

i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.

vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires.

I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.

but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.

Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.

well worth watching over and over. People have often been uncomfortable with "The Merchant of Venice", due to its anti-Semitic subject matter. Fortunately, this movie avoids that, opting instead to show how anti-Semitism reigned supreme in 16th century Europe. The story, of course, is that Antonio (Jeremy Irons) needs money so that he can help Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) ask for Portia's (Lynn Collins) hand in marriage. He gets the money from Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino), who demands a pound of Antonio's flesh if the latter doesn't pay back the loan. When Antonio can't pay back the loan, Shylock is determined to get what is owed him.

We would expect this cast to do a good job, and they don't disappoint. It is yet another testament to what a great actor Al Pacino is. hello. hello and goodbye. but, before i go, i want to talk to you. i just want to quickly mention a few keys points about this film. the first being erotica. especially homo-erotica.

yes, well. let us begin. When a man and a man love each other very much they fuse together in a spectacular, not to mention tender, explosion of cinema which we call merchant of venice.

the homo erotic love was sensual at worse. and even more sensual at best. it was hardcore and emotional. it touched me inappropriately and I'm pretty sure i touched it back. and when no one was looking i touched myself a little too.

i laughed because portia was denied. she was second in line to our friend, the homo erotic love. oh antonio. antoni. just toni. i love you. more than you loved that guy. whos name may or may not have contained an "B". he was well ugly.

antoni was very greasy. he lathered his body in an encasement of his own hair grease and sensual juices and proceed to writhe accoss the screena and present himself to the guy with the name i like the movie in conclusion, go see the movie if not for the homo erotic connotations, for the love of a man such as antoni. just toni. William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice portrays 16th century Venice. Al Pacino plays Shylock, a Jewish loan shark who plots revenge on a Catholic that has looked down on him. The movie is a slow moving plot in the beginning that builds up throughout the two plus hours. The film gives a very good and believe appearance to it's characters, especially Pacino. When hearing that Pacino plays a Jew one might think that it would not work looking at Pacino's previous mobster type movie roles. Nonetheless it works very well, credit must be given to the costume designer's and director's of the film. The look of all the characters fits well with the time period the play takes place in. The costumes look like the Renaissance appearance one might envision to be.

The film portrays a very anti-Semitic vibe. From the first minute to the last it is shown how the Catholic's try to take advantage of the Jews in every way they can, even to the point of keeping them locked away in "ghettos" and not allowing them to regular jobs. In comparison to The Passion of the Christ, another recent film that people believed to be very Anti-Semitic, Merchant of Venice makes Passion look like a Jewish holiday. The film shows how the Jews, or at least Shylock wanted revenge for the mistreatment that the Jews received. The location shots also seem very timely and the scenery is at times very beautiful or very ugly depending on the scene of the film, making it just that much more realistic. Showing the beautiful and the ugly can also be seen as anti-Semitic because the ugly is usually shown around the Jews and the beautiful around the Catholics.

Although the film clearly attempts to have a serious aura certain parts do add a bit of humor to the act. The oh so serious trial between Shylock and Antonio (Irons) adds a bit of humor when Portia (Collins) and Nerissa (Goldenhersh) come into the trial and decide who will be the victor and the defeated. That in itself might not be funny, but seeing it that they were women dressed up in disguise as men one might find it to be pretty amusing. The whole cross dressing scene, as compelling as it was could have probably been even more memorable had the make up artists and director Michael Radford taken notice that the two women still look like women and could easily be recognized. The director also could have seen into the fact that the women are speaking through their regular voices instead of trying to sound like men, which in part takes away from the scene but doesn't kill it entirely.

Overall the film gets a 7 out of 10 What can I say? The little kid inside has always had great affections for the following...giant robots, giant monsters and a cackling, megalomaniacal lead villain and this movie delivers on all counts. As an adult, it's easy to point out the many flaws in this film and to say hey it's really only a bunch of episodes taken from a children's TV series strung together. Despite all of this, I find the ending very moving and the content surprisingly adult in nature. Tremendous Fun if a little nonsensical at times. This is a cherished movie from my childhood!! I can still hum the theme song at the drop of a hat!! I remember getting to stay up late to watch this movie with my father, usually two to three times a year. We always referred to it as "Giant Robot". Although the effects in this movie are crude compared to today's standards, they were perfect for this movie's genre. I am also a BIG fan of the Japanese "Monster" movies, so this movie fell right in to place with the others. It's been years since I've seen this movie & would love to get my hands on a copy of it to share with my 8 year old daughter. I remember running home from school almost every day to catch KTLA's channel 5 monster movies, but never did I run home faster then when this movie was scheduled. Somehow, the idea of being a boy and having a giant robot as a friend appealed to me in a very unique way. Sure, I pretended to be Spiderman, Batman and other superheros, but I really wanted to be Johnny Sakko over any of them.

I have not seen this movie in 30 years and I can still remember it vividly. Who can forget the way Giant Robot shot missiles out of his fingers! Or how about the way Ghuillotene threw his fingernails to make explosions! Geez, I can even still whistle the theme music that plays at the end, which is so tragic that I remember crying myself to sleep a number of times!

Only one other movie has the kind of magic that this movie does in my mind and that is the Wizard of Oz. But I have seen that movie many times since I was a kid. Of course, the Wizard of Oz is a true classic whereas Voyage Into Space is low budget nonsense. These two films shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence but to a young boy it isn't high production values or continuity that capture your heart, its flying monkeys and giant robots!

P.S. My cousin use to do a very accurate impression of Giant Robot (he pronounced it "Giant Robutt.") If you recall, Giant Robot had a particular way of shooting his missiles and my cousin had it down cold. I made him repeat the routine endlessly for my personal amusement. If you love Japanese monster movies, you'll love this action packed battle pitting an alien invader, intent upon conquering the Earth, and a "Giant Robot" with an armory of super weaponry. The alien, "Emporer Guillotine," from the planet Gargoyle, has a army of thugs called, (of course) "the gargoyle gang," as well as an endless supply of immense hostile creatures that are routinely loosed upon the Earth to smash buildings, make loud noises, panic the populace, etc. A little kid, named Johnny Sokko, has the Giant Robot at his beckon call, and sends the Robot, as needed, to beat up, and then blast these creatures. Johnny joins a group of "good spies" called Unicorn, and endeavors to help save the world.

In spite of the campy nature, unintentionally humorous dialog, and the fact that the target audience was obviously children, this movie has non-stop action, colorful characters, decent special effects, and just happens to be downright fun to watch. Battle scenes are well executed, and frequent, as the storyline requires. The good guys and bad guys both made sure they had an inexhaustible supply of bombs, lasers, ammunition, and schemes to attack each other. In spite of the fact the movie was constructed from edited episodes of a TV series, the plot actually develops, and reaches an ultimate conclusion.

The film has a positive outlook and appeals to everyone's (especially kids') desire to destroy evil in its many forms. Kids may be the target audience, but it's fun for everyone to laugh at its comical silliness; yet, at the same time, root for the good guys to prevail and "save the world." The acting is cheesy in places, but that is the charm: there are several lines of corny dialog (possibly translation errors or possibly intentional jokes by the movie makers), and you'll find yourself quoting these absurd lines later.

Admittedly, this film is not high in production quality or budget. However, for what it is, campy sci-fi, it's enjoyable for some laughs. I recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor for that sort of thing. OK, I admit it, I'm 40 and still shed a tear every time I watch Johnny calling back his Robot at the end.

"Robot, now stop! Don't do it, stop the attack...Robot, what are you doing, Robot... Robot, where are you going…Robot, come back! Robot...Robot please! Don't do it, you'll die... Robot... Robot, please comeback! I need you here…Giant Robot... Robot! Giant Robot…" -Johnny Sokko, The Last of Emperor Guillotine

Of all the Tokusatsu thats out there, Giant robot has a special place in my heart and will always be there. I credit it with getting me into everything sci-fi and anime when i was a kid.

LIVE ON GR! Four or five episodes of Johnnie Socko and his Flying Robot edited together. Amusing giant robot battling giant monsters tale aimed squarely at kids. Parents of course will go crazy since the action is violent with the robot/monster battles resembling professional wrestling and the human on human violence the sort of stuff you'd find in the Al Capone St. Valentine's Day School and Gangster Training Academy. I liked it, but then again I grew up on the series. If there is any problems, other than the "men in suits" effects variety is that the movie plays like a series of episodes stitched together, with a climax coming every 20 minutes. Recommended for those who've run out of Ultraman or Godzilla When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :) I've noticed that a lot of people are taking Opera to task for the way Betty reacts to the murders. I think they are basing these complaints on how they imagine a "normal" person would react. The thing is...Betty is not a "normal" person, due to traumatic events in her childhood. She has problems way way before the movie ever even starts...and by the end of Opera...in my opinion...she has become totally unhinged.

---------------------SPOILERS--------------------------------------- You have to keep in mind that when she was a very small child she witnessed her mother's lover commit at least one brutal murder while her sadomasochist mother was getting off watching it.

She was raised by a woman who achieves sexual release tied up watching girls get hacked, slashed, and strangled to death. That does not make for a healthy home life. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that her mother would have employed all sorts of emotional manipulation and negative reinforcement to ensure that her daughter never snitched on her. It is also likely that at her impressionable age, Betty might have been deeply confused by what she saw. Is this just something that adults do, etc.

Betty obviously looks up to her mother...I mean...she's become an opera singer just like her. If mommy likes it it can't be bad, can it...mommy can't be bad, can she? She couldn't tell the police on her mommy or this mysterious hooded fellow she associates with mommy.

Betty has a lot of deep-seated emotional issues. Her mind has for years been trying to block out the memory of what she saw her mother doing...but it keeps coming to the surface, manifesting itself in the form of horrible nightmares, skull-throbbing migraines, a dependence on relaxation techniques, and sexual frigidity She associates brutal violence/bloody death with sex on a subconscious level. There's an inner struggle between the part of Betty that has confused murder/sex and the part of her which believes these things to be wrong.

After she's seen her boyfriend murdered by the hooded man...she calls the police, yet is unwilling to give her name. The part of her that thinks murder is wrong forces her to make the call, but the part that is ambivalent won't allow her to admit personal involvement. The ambivalent part of her takes control before she can go all the way. So she walks away from the phone in the rain...and when she's picked up by the director she's acting surprisingly calm, not as upset as you would think a "normal" person would be...because the part of her that's been blocking stuff since she was a child is trying its damnedest to block the horror of what she's just witnessed.

The state of affairs in her life all contribute to an impasse within Betty's psyche. Her singing career is starting to bear fruit...she's going to be a great opera singer like her mother was. But is she going to become like her mother in all ways? In the darker ways? Or will she be able to make her own path? Add this to the re-emergence of the hooded man murdering everyone around her.

It's not until the hooded man kills Daria Nicolodi's character that Betty really takes an active role in defeating the killer. Here's someone who loves Betty, who's supported her wholeheartedly in her emerging career, who is in fact a maternal figure in Betty's life now since mommy's dead. Imagine how terrible it would be to lose your real mother and then to see the woman who is the closest thing you have to a mother get shot through the eyeball.

I could go on...but I won't. The main gist of what I'm saying is that the character of Betty is a lot more complex than most of the reviewers on here have been willing to acknowledge.

Opera is one of Argento's best...and not just for the visuals alone (although they are truly magnificent) and not just for the inventive murders (although they are). There is a depth here...and attention needs to be paid. Although many have mixed feelings about this latter day giallo thriller from Argento, it still stands as another lavish testament to the cinematic brilliance that is Argento.

A young opera singer has her first break out performance and suddenly finds herself the subject of obsession for a crazed maniac.

In a way, Opera is like a modern-day giallo take on Phantom of the Opera blended with all the glorious style and color that one would expect Dario Argento to deliver. Argento makes terrific use of inventive camera techniques, reoccurring symbols (like those ravens!), Gothic atmosphere, and truly gruesome murder sequences. One scene especially (which involves a peep hole and a gun) will knock viewers right out of their seats! Story-wise the film also manages to be gripping with some strong suspense and given great atmosphere by Claudio Simonetti's gorgeous music score.

The cast does some satisfying performances. Cristina Marsillach is good as our leading lady. The late Ian Charleson does a nice turn as the director, as does Urbano Barberini as an investigator, Daria Nicolodi as Marsillach's agent, and William McNamara as Marsillach's ill-fated lover.

Opera is terrific latter day Argento, and perhaps the last of his great works. It's sure to please his fans and even create some new ones.

**** out of **** Betty is an understudy for the lead in a production of Verdi's Macbeth. When a car mysteriously hits the lead, Betty is thrust into the spotlight. Opening night is a smashing success and Betty decides to leave the after-party to celebrate in private with her boyfriend. But when the boyfriend leaves the room, Betty is grabbed from behind by an unknown black-gloved, masked figure. The unknown assailant ties Betty to a column, gags her, and places needles under her eyes that will cause incredible damage and pain should Betty close them. The boyfriend returns to the room and is stunned to see Betty in such a predicament. He's even more shocked when the killer grabs him and shoves a knife through his lower jaw with such force, the tip of the knife can clearly be seen in his mouth. And Betty has been forced to watch all of this. So begins Betty's terrifying ordeal with a killer not just intent on hurting her, but also on forcing her to watch as he mutilates her friends.

Opera gets classified as a Giallo, but to me, it differs in quite a few ways from the model. Less emphasis is placed on the mystery elements of the story than in something like Argento's Tenebre or The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. The black-gloved, masked killer may be omnipresent, but the clues and red herrings normally associated with a good Giallo are absent. Instead, Opera is all about the tension of an unknown killer and making the audience uncomfortable. The focus is on the grisly death scenes, Betty's fear, and the killer's obsession with Betty.

Opera features what I think are some of Argento most artistic death scenes. When the killer grabs Betty after her boyfriend leaves the room, you're sure that Betty's had it. But the sadistic killer only wants to force Betty to watch as he brutally stabs her lover in the neck – the knife emerging in his mouth. It's a well shot and designed scene. And those needles in the eyes – brilliant. Or, take the death of the seamstress. At first her death seems like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill murder. But when the seamstress accidentally swallows the killer's locket, what started out as just another death scene turns it up a notch as the killer uses a pair of scissors to cut the girl's throat open to get his chain. Finally, there's the most famous death scene in Opera that I'm amazed with each time I see it – Mira is shot in the eye while peering through a keyhole. That scene displays a lot of what I like about Argento. It's got style to burn. As implausible as it may be, it's creative, memorable, and a blast to watch.

Argento certainly wasn't the first Italian director to concentrate on eye mutilation, but in Opera, he's taken eye trauma to a new level. Needles holding eyes open, a bullet in the eye, and ravens pecking out an eye are all part of Argento's vision (pun intended). And these scenes do have the effect that I believe Argento was going for. The first time I saw the killer putting those needles in Betty's eyes, I couldn't stop blinking. It actually had a physical effect on me. What is it about the eyes that make them such a target for abuse in Italian films?

To be fair (and not sound like such a fanboy), there are problems I have with Opera that keep me from rating it as Argento's best. One of my problems is with the air duct system running through Betty's apartment building. While I don't doubt there are air duct systems in older apartment buildings that connect the apartments, the ducts in Opera are HUGE. I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt any building like the one in this movie would have had such mammoth air ducts. It doesn't seem practical at all. And don't you think someone would have done something about them long ago to keep criminals and nosey neighbors out of the other apartments? It's convenient for the plot, but it's not very realistic.

But I suppose my major problem with the film comes with the finale. What's up with that ending? It feels totally out of place, tacked on, and like a bad afterthought. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's horrible. "Opera" is one of the greatest achievements in horror genre. This masterful picture has everything what should be in the pure horror movie:good, captivating story, a lot of symbols, wonderful visuals and plenty of gore. The killings are very shocking and bloody. An unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear. A must-see for a true Argento fan, so if you get a chance watch it. If you're OK with the outlandish work of Italy's premier horror director—able to accept his outrageous story lines and flamboyant style—then you should have a great time with Opera. If you don't, then you won't.

Cristina Marsillach plays Betty, a beautiful young opera understudy who is given a shot at fame (in an avant-garde production of Macbeth) when the star of the show is hit by a car. As any thesp who has 'trod the boards' will know, Macbeth is a production that carries a curse—and Betty soon discovers that the show in which she is now the star is no exception: a killer is systematically offing the staff at the theatre—and poor Betty is forced to watch by the sadistic murderer (who tapes needles under her eyes to prevent her from closing them!).

With the help of a little girl who crawls through her air-conditioning ducts, her director and agent, and a few ravens who have seen the murderer's face (!!!), Betty discovers the killer's identity, and the truth about her mysterious past.

Let's face it... Opera is one crazy film, with its preposterous plot-turns, convoluted death scenes, and an ending that beggars belief. And whilst director Dario Argento has never been one for, shall we say, conventional story lines, this particular giallo is so daft, and features so many of his trademark stylish touches (all ramped up to the max), that it's almost as if, with each successive film, he is seeing what he can get away with (at times almost parodying his earlier work).

This is exactly why I find the film such fun!!!

Argento's camera movements are absolutely incredible: gliding, creeping and, in one amazing scene, even swooping around the opera house above the audience; the power of Verdi's music is combined perfectly with the synth majesty of Claudio Simonetti's score, providing a suitably grandiose accompaniment to the sumptuous visuals; and several outstanding set-pieces (featuring Sergio Stivaletti's nauseating gore FX) go to prove that no-one does death better than Argento (check out one character's stunning demise, in which a bullet passes through a spy-hole in a door in slow motion, and straight into their eye!).

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb. I finally managed to get myself a copy of Dario Argento's Opera, and I tell you ... that was about time !! It was the last Argento movie I had yet to see and I'm a fan of most of his work. I reckon that most of his work is extremely important for the genre of horror but some of his movies tend to disappoint ( like Phenomena ). But the plot idea of Opera always appealed to me and it turns out I was right !! I enjoyed every shot in Opera and I was fascinated by this movie for the first minute till the last. Out of all the Argento movies, Opera went straight to the number one spot and I hope I can encourage as many people as possible to see this one as well.

The script and plot-idea of Opera is rather simple. Especially compared to Argento's previous movie Phenomena that had too many ideas in it, and ended up being a mess. The plot of Opera is creepy and chilling but at the same time it's an excellent satiric comment - almost a spoof - towards the opponents of explicit violence. ***SPOILERS*** A young opera singer ( the gorgeous Cristina Marsillach ) is being stalked by a horribly sadistic murderer. During every massacre he commits, he forces Betty to watch his actions with her eyes wide open. There are needles attached to her eyelids and when she closes them, they're getting torn apart. ***END SPOILERS***. To this simple - yet effective - idea, Argento adds a lot of horrific elements like ravens, the classic piece ( and curse ) of MacBeth and the whole atmospheric location of the opera building and the music. Especially the presence of the creepy ravens are and extra value. Ancient masters like Edgar Allen Poe already knew these black birds have a lot of mystery hanging around them, and Dario Argento knows it as well.

The violence and gore is very well presented in Opera and that's what makes this a true Argento picture. His best in my opinion with Profondo Rosso as a close second. I surely hope to recommend this movie to a lot of people among you. Especially for fans of the ( Italian ) horror business, this is an absolute must ! Favorite "Rewind"-scene : Argento shows his visual talent the best in the scene where Betty's friend is getting shot in the eye while she's trying to see who's in front of the door. A young theater actress reluctantly accepts her first major part in a staged play as Lady Macbeth thanks to the mishap of the production's diva falling in front of a moving car. A success winning her accolades, Betty(Christina Marsillach)finds instead horror as the one responsible for getting her to this point terrorizes her in cruel ways.

First her stage manager boyfriend, Stefano(William McNamara)is viciously stabbed with a knife while she has to watch, rope-tied to a pillar in his uncle's vast mansion, keeping her eyes from closing thanks to needles scotch-taped under her eyes, with pricking a result if she blinks. Allowing her to escape, Betty again finds herself in this unfortunate position, when a specific gold chain is found on her Lady Macbeth wardrobe that had been torn to shreds by the madman after killing a series of crows which escaped from their cage in the equipment room, by the clothing designer who is first knocked to the floor by an iron and subsequently stabbed heinously by a pair of scissors(..to cap off this nasty scene, the chain falls into her throat with the killer having to cut open her throat to find it; while not specifically elaborating this act, Dario uses the ripping sound of the scissors for optimum effect with the camera often retreating back to the victim's dead face). Having nowhere to turn, Inspector Alan Santini(Urbano Barberini, playing him cold and bland at Dario's request)promises to catch the psycho as Betty relies on her few remaining friends for comfort, the theater director Marco(Ian Charleson, of GHANDI & CHARIOTS OF FIRE who would later die of AIDS;A sad footnote, Dario revealed in an interview that Charleson informed him at the end of the shoot that he was HIV positive)attempting the stage after a successful horror movie career despite being rejected by critics, and pal Mira(Daria Nicolodi, Dario's former squeeze), her agent and confident. But, the serial killer is quite driven and a showdown between them will, of course, occur in the theater as Marco has added an interesting change to the production using the crows at his disposal.

I think this is Dario at his most savage & nihilistic. Although he has certainly made later gruesome films(..such as his Masters of Horror entries and SLEEPLESS would suggest), this film really ups the ante in pure violence towards the victims of the psychopath. His method of forcing Betty to watch was admittedly a gag by Dario regarding the type of audience who like to look away from the more horrific parts of horror movies. I found myself rubbing my eyes every time she just has to blink(..brilliantly, Dario shoots the pricking from point-of-view achieving a tormenting effect from our perspective as if we were the ones with the scotch taped needles holding our eyes open). I like how Dario will show the widened eyes of Betty, horrified at what she's being forced into watching, as little blood tears down the needles when she has no choice but blink. The photographic work of Ronnie Taylor is impeccable, such as the crow's point-of-view shot in the theater at the end as it searches for the killer. Or, when the camera "travels" through rooms in the theater following the killer who wishes to see his muse from a box seat. Or, the dream sequence where we are taken into Betty's memory of an event regarding her mother's death by a certain killer, donning the same mask and gloves as the one causing her trauma at present. The highlight, in my opinion, is the peephole bullet-fire sequence, masterly staged by all involved as the camera follows a bullet which shoots through the eye of a victim, exploding from the back of her head, going through a telephone Betty planned to use to call for help. We even get a crow pecking the eyeball from the killer(..to add to this vicious scene, the crow is shown with the eyeball rolling around in it's beak). Only aspect I didn't care for, often pointed out by naysayers of the film, is the "final" ending which I personally felt was a bit unnecessary, but I guess Dario wanted to point out that Betty was indeed not like her mother, a woman with sadomasochistic tendencies which, in a twist, relate to why the killer torments our heroine. The rock music used during the violent scenes didn't bother me, because I felt that those moments of wicked graphic attacks needed a jarring thud which heavy metal can often provide. Opera (the U.S. title is terror at the opera) is somewhat of a letdown after some of Dario's other movies like Phenomena, Tenebre, and Suspiria. (i still can't find Inferno anywhere.) it's one of those movies that has a great first half but midway through it's like someone started slowly letting the air out of the screenplay and logic.

the basic plot involves a beautiful opera singer who is being stalked by a deranged obsessed fan. this killer begins killing people close to her in a most unique fashion. he binds and gags her and tape tiny sharp pins under her eyelids so if she tries to close her eyes she'll gouge out her eyes. this forces her to watch while the killer murders her acquaintances in typically brutal and gory Argento fashion.

unfortunately, about midway through the film becomes sluggish and illogical. (this is especially directed towards the killer's motivations. i still haven't completely figured out why he's such a nut.) the ending especially come out of left field in the worst possible sense.

but, for about the first hour or so this is some of Dario's best filmmaking and the camera work is breathtaking. too bad it couldn't maintain it through to the end.

rating:7 "Opera" is a great film with some wonderful,imaginative imagery.An opera singer(Cristina Marsillach)is being stalked by a killer who forces her to watch him murder everyone she knows by tying her up and taping needles under her eyes.This idea of the needles comes from the fact that Argento doesn't like it when people cover their eyes while watching his movies."For years I've been annoyed by people covering their eyes during the gorier moments in my films.I film these images because I want people to see them and not avoid the positive confrontation of their fears by looking away.So I thought to myself 'How would it be possible to achieve this and force someone to watch most gruesome murder and make sure they can't avert their eyes?'The answer I came up with is the core of what "Opera" is about."-says Argento.Plenty of suspense,wonderful cinematography and brutal,gory murders.One guy is stabbed in the throat with a knife causing a gushing wound,Daria Nicolodi gets shot in the eye while looking through the peephole,etc.For anyone who hasn't caught this one yet,give it a try.Highly recommended. Even if it's not labeled as a Slasher flick, it has all the elements. The fact that slashers are well known for it's low budget, lame plot, cheesy effects, and everything you may add, it doesn't means that there can't be good slasher movies. "Opera" fills the description. Even though it's part of Italian giallo; which is far from being a slasher sub-genre.

Dario Argento proves that he deserves the label of one of the best directors in Horror. "Opera" is one of the most stylish Horror movies from the past 30 years. Though the movie takes place in a beautiful, shinning place; the situations and gore turns it to be one of the scariest places ever used in a Horror movie.

I think of "Opera" as a stylish Slasher although there's in depth plot and character development. The cheese factor often used in most Slasher flicks is not present here but in exchange we got a suspenseful, visually stunning gore tale. The movie's plot is simple (as in every Slasher). There's a psycho in the opera that is somewhat obsessed with the lead actress/singer and forces her to watch gruesome deaths. The death scenes are extremely gruesome and are the best thing about the movie. The infamous "peep-hole" death scene is the highlight of the movie in my opinion. It's a terrific death scene that none other than Argento could release. The knife through the neck (and mouth) is another gruesome scene but less violent than the scissors death. The gore in "Opera" will please the wicked and lovers of violence.

What I didn't like about the movie is the lack of coherence or logic. I mean, after watching the first death, the lead female, calmed as if nothing happened gets a ride home and doesn't makes much of a big deal about what she saw. Also, she's left alone in home and doesn't take security measures. Still, the suspense in the movie makes you forget the lack of logic. Argento knows how to create tension and how to scare the subconscious. For example, when Betty's friend tells her that someone was watching her from outside she freaks out and sets suspense in case that something happens.

The direction of the movie is great. For an Italian giallo it's excellent. Argento's creative POV shots are impressive. The ravens also added a creepy feeling to the movie. Argento add his unique spice.

"Opera" is one of the most underrated but popular through the Horror community for these reasons, in my opinion: -the peep-hole death scene (brilliant) -the ravens attack in the end -the opera setting -the knife through the neck and mouth -the heavy metal score combined with Opera music (this music never freaked me out before) -the killer's ferocity

The only thing I don't like about "Opera" is the heavy metal songs used in death scenes. It's OK to disturb the audience but I think that the Opera music could've added a creepier feeling. Still, the "shocking" use of heavy metal is a singular disturbing aspect in the movie.

Watch "Opera" even if you don't like gore. There's a lot of suspense and tension that could scare the most skeptical person. This is no "Suspiria" but it deserves to be among Argento's finest. After the lead actress of the opera is killed in a car accident, her young understudy, Betty, is brought to the forefront. That's very lucky for her, with one problem: she has an admirer that has decided he will kill all her friends and make her watch. What is his connection to the opera, and what is his fascination with Betty?

I love Dario Argento with every part of my body. And I'm not an orthodox fan, I think. Many people, particularly critics, praise his earlier work ("Suspiria" and "Deep Red") but really frown on later films, such as "Sleepless", which I liked. My favorite, "Phenomena", is usually vastly underrated. "Opera" tends to fall somewhere in between. Some consider it one of his last great films, others see it as part of his so-called decline. I loved it.

The picture is crisp, the music is great (unlike other critics, I love the metal soundtrack), the female lead is someone I can feel for (not unlike Jennifer Connelly from "Phenomena"). And the imagery... wonderful. Great cinematography, and some amazing kill scenes. The concept of taping needles to a person's eyes so they cannot blink... brilliant. My assistant Tina thinks this looked fake, but even if it does, the idea is more than enough to pay off. And some great effects, like a knife blade coming up inside a man's mouth? Awesome.

Jim Harper calls the film "stunning" and calls attention to the "innovative cinematography, well-constructed shots and exceptionally violent murders." I agree with this completely -- one shot follows the camera through winding tunnels, and there is a very interesting visual use of crows throughout the story. Mike Mayo likewise calls it "visually fascinating eye-candy" and lauds the "crisp editing and flowing camera-work". It's really a wonder that this is not one of Argento's more highly-praised works.

Argento returned to the opera with "Phantom of the Opera", which was a bit of a failure despite the casting of his daughter Asia and Julian Sands. Even more interesting, this same year offered the release of Michele Soavi's "Stagefright", which (like "Opera") has a killer loose inside a theater killing off the people involved with the presentation. Both are great films, with Soavi's more on the slasher side. (Soavi actually served as second unit director on "Opera"... you can make your own conclusions.)

My only complaint with this film is the length and pacing. While it is very beautifully shot and the kill scenes are glorious, they are not as frequent as they should be. The first one takes over a half hour, and then we get down times between them. The lead actress should be in constant terror, but she is given time between kills to calm down as if everything is normal again. Not cool, Dario. We need to keep the suspense low and the intensity high. An opera diva has an accident, which leaves the door open for her understudy to take over the role. Betty (Marsillach) is now the star of Mac Beth, but someone hiding in the trenches has an opera of his own planned out. He gets his kicks out of tying Betty up, putting needles under her eyes (so she cant close them) and murdering members of the opera company before her very eyes.

"Opera" is certainly one of Argento's more ambitious films, like mixing it up with Shakesphere's Macbeth there is of course the fact that the opera performed in the film is Giuseppe Verdi's version of Macbeth but also Argento, just like Shakespeare uses ravens as an omen of death and misfortune. And like the ravens circling the castle Dunsinane, foreboding the demise of the scheming Macbeth, the ravens in OPERA play a key part in the downfall of the killer. Furthermore just like in the old play the murderer acts on the exhortation of his lover. But I don't want to go as far as saying OPERA is intended to be a remake of the either The Phantom of the Opera or Macbeth, the similarities are far too subtle. It's just a typical Argento masterstroke, and with it he gives this otherwise quite basic thriller a vivid hue of Gothic mystique.

Although this movie does have it downsides like the heavl metal soundtrack just doesn't fit in with this movie and the final scenes in this movie are a bit strange.

All in all "Opera" is something of a flawed masterpiece but still good. Being both a Dario Argento fan and a Phantom of the Opera fan, I was dying to see his first take on the story, before the so-bad-it's-good "Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera". The film is just terrific, even the plot, which here is one of Argento's best at a coherent story. The way he turns a classic romance story into a creepy slasher is just terrific. The film has a very nightmarish feel, which helps on keeping you on the edge of your seat. The colors have never been better in an Argento film since the jaw-dropping "Suspiria". The murders are clever and gory, all done in Argento's trademark style. The thing with the eyes in this film is just unsettling, and done some much better than in Fulci's splatter. The acting is so-so, but once you seen the movie more times you understand the characters' motivations better, and you get used to it. My two biggest complains about it is the use of rock music. I think it was a clever idea to mix beautiful opera fragments with heavy-metal, but it's not executed very well here. The ending is VERY disappointing, which is the worst thing about the movie, seeming to echo Argento's previous "Phenomena", but done terribly, it just didn't need to end that way. The same thing happened in the director's cut of "The Exorcist". I wished they kept the original ending. But still it's a fantastic motion picture and really a must-see, if only for Daria Nicolodi's memorable murder sequence. Beware the Scottish Play! In his riveting and harrowing Opera, Dario Argento returns to classic form, regaining the composure he lost while filming convoluted and delirious psycho- shockers like Tenebre and Phenomena. Indeed, predicated on a simple narrative that is offset by opulent set pieces, imaginatively brutal murder sequences, and refined photography, the film feels like the Argento we once knew. Opera's only real infraction is its lack of a score by Goblin, who provided unusual, iconic, and timeless music for many of Argento's greatest films (the opera selections used here are wonderful, however).

The production is filled out by several competent actors. While she's no Jessica Harper, Annabella Sciorra lookalike Cristina Marsillach manages enough pluck and compassion to grasp the role of the tortured heroine. Ian Charleson is interesting as horror-film-helmer- turned-opera-director Marco. And Daria Nicolodi is fantastic as always, even in her relatively brief role (watch the making of featurette on the DVD for a hilarious interview with Nicolodi about her role -- clearly brash and resentful over the end of her relationship with Argento!) Fans of Stage Fright (another excellent 1987 giallo, directed by Michele Soavi, who served as the second unit director for Opera) will barely recognize the final girl from that film, Barbara Cupisti, as a stage manager here (I think it's the glasses that do it).

With me, it's often the little things that matter, and Argento's fascination/obsession with solitary nightmarish images makes him my ideal filmmaker. Opera is full of minor details that left me smirking. For instance, I love that we never see "The Great" Mara Czekova's face. I also love the scene where the killer is scraping the tip of his/her deadly sharp dagger across a television screen showing Betty's performance as Lady Macbeth. Finally, I defy even the most grizzled slasher veterans not to cringe as the "pin grates" are placed over Betty's eyes.

In short, Opera is a clean, tense, and taut thriller. With its solid performances, lucid focus, and literate cinematography, it begs to be in the same league as Deep Red and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage. Might Opera be the last great giallo? Horror-genius Dario Argento is one of my personal favorite directors, and his films "Suspiria", "Phenomena" and "Profondo Rosso" range high on my personal all-time favorite list. "Opera" of 1987 is yet another tantalizing and brilliant film that no Horror lover can afford to miss, and that will keep you on the edge of your chair from the beginning to the end. This stunning and ultra-violent Giallo could well be described as the master's nastiest film, which is quite something considering that Argento's films are not exactly known for the tameness of their violence. The violence is extreme and very stylized in a brilliant way that makes Opera a film censor's nightmare.

- Warning! SPOILERS ahead! -

Just when Betty (Christina Marsillach), a young opera singer, is becoming successful, a murderous and incredibly sadistic psychopath starts stalking her... The murders are truly brutal, and of particularly sadistic nature. The killer attaches needles to the tied up Betty's eyelids, so she has to keep them open and watch while he brutally murders people close to her in abhorrent ways. When done with the butchering, the killer releases Betty and leaves, just to come back for other friends of hers...

As usual for Argento's films, the violence is extremely graphic and very stylized. "Opera" truly is a brutal film, and what a stylish and atmospheric film it is. This film is absolutely tantalizing and pure suspense from the beginning to the end. The performances are entirely very good, especially Christina Marsillach is brilliant in the lead. A stunning beauty and great actress alike, Marsillach fits perfectly in her role of the talented singer, whose fear and horrid experiences are slowly making her crazy. Other great performances include those of Ian Charleston as a Horror film director who is directing an Opera, and director Argento's real-life girlfriend Daria Nicolodi, who has a role in many of his movies. The camera work is excellent as in all Argento films and The huge Opera House is an excellent setting that contributes a lot both to the film's beauty and its permanently creepy atmosphere. The score, which is partly classical music and partly heavy metal is great too, even though I slightly missed Goblin's brilliant Progressive Rock Soundtracks that are such a distinguishing element of most other Argento movies. "Opera" truly is a terrifying and absolutely breathtaking Giallo experience. This is an absolute must-see for any Horror lover, and I highly recommend it to any other film-fan who is not too sensitive when it comes to extreme violence. Excellent and absolutely tantalizing! Often considered Argento's last "great" film, this entry into the giallo canon is unquestionably better than any Argento film that has followed it (though I have yet to see "Mother of Tears"), but to call it his last "great" film might be stretching it a bit.

The directorial and stylistic flourishes - the hallmark of all Argento films - is indeed present, with some of his sequences of suspense ranking up with his best (the "peephole" sequence is especially memorable), and the cinematography by Ronnie Taylor is outstanding (the fluorescent lighting is beautiful).

However, the narrative - which is hit and miss in all of Argento's films - is missing here. There is indeed a potent sense of mystery and intrigue, but the plot resorts to what is essentially a string of murder sequences, with one following the another, leaving no real time to fully construct a right, focused mystery to be solved. All of this results in a climax that is... well... anti-climatic, as the film did not invest enough interest to make us truly care.

Regardless, this is recommended simply due to the masterful direction and beautiful imagery that Argento evokes. I wouldn't' recommend this as a starting point for Argento's films, however (for that, I would recommend either "Deep Red" or "Suspiria"), but if you enjoyed those, or even any giallo, then this is a very good addition to your viewing repertoire. Betty is as an understudy in a production of Verdi's Macbeth who is asked to go on when the diva is hurt in a car accident. However, in the grand tradition of "The Scottish Play", the production seems cursed with problems, not least of which is some madman slicing up the crew. Unfortunately for Betty, the killer seems to have special plans for her ...

This is one of several must-see Argento mad-slasher flicks, in this instance primarily for the extraordinary photography by the great British cameraman Ronnie Taylor. I haven't measured it, but I reckon around two-thirds of the shots in this film involve either pans, dollies, tracking or cranes - the sheer amount of camera movement is just astonishing and makes the movie ten times more exciting than a standard thriller. The imagery is wild and dizzying - closeups of the heroine's eyes forced open with nails, a swooping glide around an opera house from a raven's point of view, shots of the killer's brain squirming, a bullet fired through a peephole, a swallowed chain dug out of a victim's trachea. Conceptually it's just amazing and could only be realised by this director. The movie isn't without some shortcomings though; the cast are variable at best - Marsillach and Barberini are both a bit shaky (and his dubbing in the English version is appalling, even by Italian standards), although Argento regular Nicolodi is fun and Charleson gives a thoughtful performance in a role that is more than a little autobiographical (a horror director much maligned for his remoteness and reliance on technique). The material is a nice three-way mix of The Phantom Of The Opera, Shakespeare and slasher flick, scripted by Argento and his usual collaborator, Franco Ferrini, with shifty suspects galore and the usual disdain for boring expository scenes to explain what's actually going on. Full of all sorts of different music - Brian Eno, Claudio Simonetti, Bill Wyman, Puccini, and of course, Verdi. The scenes in the beautiful opera-house were shot at the Teatro Regio in Parma. For some bizarre reason the UK print of this movie has the alternative title Terror At The Opera. No matter how much it hurts me to say this,the movie is not as good as it could have been.Maybe I was misled by the countless exaggerated reviews here on IMDb,but I expected so much more...

Sure,the idea is a good one,the violent scenes and the camera-work are outstanding,the imagination of genius Dario is breathtaking, but the movie is "soiled" by a couple of mistakes that I find unforgivable. First of all, am I one of the few people who feel that the Heavy Metal music played in the most intense scenes simply rips the atmosphere apart??? With a different kind of music (Goblin????) during the "needle" scenes,it would have been SOOOO intense!... Instead,the soundtrack destroys any chance for tension... Secondly, the final killing scene and the last few moments of the movie are simply silly and uninspired. I don't want to say "amateurish", cause I love Argento's movies.The ending left me feeling empty.Talk about a final impression! This is hardly what happens in most of Dario's films! Though,admittedly,Suspiria also suffers from a rushed finale (even if most of it is brilliant)....

In short,watch this movie,try to make the most of its good points,but be prepared for some bad ones as well. This is NOT a perfect movie by ANY means. One of his lesser known films, many horror fans have yet to catch this Dario Argento offering, which is unfortunate. It is underappreciated mostly because of the fact that really not enough people have seen it. The film boasts grade-A Argento gore, with his customary close-ups set to savage rock scores. While it true that this script is not very complex, it is not nearly as bad as other entries in its genre, or his own personal resume for that matter.

This movie symbolizes more of the 'dread' that he likes to portray in his films by his own admission. Worth a good look on any night. I consider myself a casual fan of Dario Argento. For every really good flick by him (such as "Deep Red" and "Tenebre"), there seems to be one that's equally uninspired (his output since "Opera" has tended to disappoint). Still, there's no denying that when he's at his best, there are few horror directors who can top him. I consider "Opera" to be Argento's finest work.

This is definitely the film where all of his trademarks are present. There's no well-developed characters and the plot makes very little sense once you begin to scrutinize it. Still, think of Argento as an European equivalent of Brian DePalma - the style is all that matters here, so much it becomes the substance. Typical to Argento, there's some beautifully filmed murder sequences. Those unfamiliar with the man's work may perceive that as a sadistic remark (and it may be, considering the often time misogyny of them), but its really true. Argento stages murder with an intricacy to eye-popping visual detail. He truly makes graphic violence an art form. Plus, his direction and the look of his films is impeccable.

Fortunately, "Opera" is one of his most frightening products. Argento is the only director whom I feel booming rock music works well for horror sequences (when others attempt to pull it off, it comes across as cheesy). The acting varies, with Cristina Marsillach playing a beautiful and reasonably sympathetic but never particularly animate young opera performer. The rest of the actors are workmanlike and get the job done, but again, with Argento, the acting is never the point. Its the beautiful colors, the terrifying violence, and the overall fever dream / nightmare atmosphere. (9/10) Dario Argento is a filmmaker I'm slowly getting into, following the iconoclastic efforts of Deep Red and Suspiria; he's not a filmmaker to always care directly about silly things like "plot". That might be his one minor (but, for me, apparent) liability: he won't let a little thing like common sense screw up his plan for his elaborate killing sequences, as his killer(s) can go through any kind of elaborate set-up of being invisible, until revealing past the point of the POV tracking shots of said psychopathic killer. But it's thrilling to see a filmmaker take chances like this anyway, of a pure Italian aesthetic making its way into the soul of a Hitchcockian warp (in fact, as a note of interest, if one has recently seen the Scorsese short film where he took three pages of an un-filmed Hitchcock film, which also took place in an Opera, Argento had it beat by almost twenty years, probably with no knowledge of the text). It's also unabashedly 80s (CD players and heavy metal and the hair, oh my!) and with an absurdity that makes it all the more palatable to swallow.

The story is simple: an opera of Macbeth is being produced, with high-stylized pyrotechnics and trained ravens. There's even a talented up-and-coming star replaced at the last minute, Betty, played by Marsillach. But a murder occurs during the premiere- interrupted not by that but by a falling light- and now the killer is after Betty! She can't go to the police (how can she let out that the opera is really cursed?), but will that matter in the face of a killer who won't let up? One has probably seen premises like this played out in other Argento films- girl being chased by a killer- but it's how Argento, like De Palma, constructs and executes his sequences, and adds a distinctive flavor of his own to add touches of bizarre humor (the breakout of the ravens to attack the killer, and the subsequent version of pointing out in the lineup), a kind of over-stylization ala Leone (the bullet through the peephole through the door probably inspired a similar shot in Kill Bill 1), and even sado-masochistic inspiration with the pins taped to Betty's eyes, more than once!

Argento puts his actress through the wringer, and she's all game for it, even when things seem to just go into 'what-the-hell' territory (I was throwing up my hands almost saying I give up when she is led down the secret passage by the little girl, as if suddenly we're in Aliens now). And through such dark genre material Argento keeps the violence thick and fresh, the suspense about as much as that with opera music coming right out of a speaker of a stereo system, and a cinematographer who may have had a few drinks (and rightfully so!) during some scenes the way they're shot and vibrate to a heart-beat. It should be considered trash, but it's elevated past any limitations of the genre by the ballsy attitude of the director, this in spite of a silly ending- sillier than anything that preceded what came before it (thanks little lizard)- and an attempt to break the Macbeth curse, which, unfortunately, didn't seem to happen in real life on the set of Opera. 8.5/10 'Opera' (1987)

Director: Dario Argento (Deep Red, Suspiria) Screenplay: Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini (The Church, Sleepless, Demons) Photography: Ronnie Taylor (A Chorus Line, Sleepless) Music: Claudio Simonetti (Phenomena, 'Goblin')

Story: Betty (Cristina Marsillach) is the Lady Macbeth understudy of a very stylized staging of Verdi's Macbeth opera. Betty's time to shine comes when the diva star breaks her leg before opening night when she is hit by a car running away in a tantrum. The famous curse of Macbeth takes a more sinister and calculating turn when right away the body count begins to rise. It seems Betty gets her first fan via a stalker who ties her up and tapes needles to her eyes to force her to witness the grisly murders of the people around her. Story: 3 of 5

Acting: Acting in a lot of these Italian films can sometimes be hard to judge. English, Italian, French, German, Spanish can sometimes all be in the same flick as they usually speak their native languages making dubbing rule of thumb and hard to judge. I usually cut them some slack in the area as a result. Acting: 4 of 5

Direction: Giallo maestro Argento enters again the genre helped pioneer. 'Opera' shows him at the top of his game with an exquisite blend of gore, tension and beauty. Direction: 4 of 5

Visual: This has to be one of Argento's best looking films. Gorgeously filmed by Taylor, 'Opera' features some stunning and inventive camera-work that keeps the film running fast and hard and keeps the eye-candy coming. The camera always seems to be in notion whether it is a wonderful shot of the camera going up a spiral staircase or a sequence towards the end of a bird's eye view of said bird circling the crowd at the opera house. Visual: 5 of 5

Audio: Frequent Argento collaborator Simonetti (through his various bands Goblin, Demonian and solo effort) compliments the screen action with zeal as his score touches from the classical (Verdi) to metal musings (with a little help from Brian and Roger Eno and Bill Wyman) and lends music muscle to the screen's bloody gristle. The sound design give you all that you need from stabbings to gunshots, fire to screams and masterfully remastered on the Anchor Bay disc in glorious 6.1 for every crunch and caw. Audio: 5 of 5

Technical: The editing keeps the film flowing and moving wonderfully. Combined with the camera-work, the editing help keeps the surreal dreamy imagery flowing. The exquisite opera house is one hell of a location and perfect for staging the horror version of Macbeth. One can't end a review of an Argento film without having to comment on the kills. Argento dispatches characters with glee this time around with a brilliant stabbing sequence, crow eye-gouging and the film highlight of a gun blast through a keyhole into the eye and out the back of the head shot that once again sends Argento's ex-wife Daria Nicolodi to the movie morgue. Priceless! Technical: 5 of 5

Wrap-up: A nearly flawless giallo that suffers from a slightly unnecessary epilogue in Switzerland that delivers all the visual thrills that Argento fans crave.

Overall: 4 of 5 This is standard fare from a director who as long been amongst my favourites.

Even though its very flat in comparison to a lot of his other work but its Argento and this may be biased but I'm gonna be giving it a good review anyway.

It does contain a lot of good ideas. The subtle voyeuristic element. The needles under the eyes. The gory and disturbing deaths. And the Argento cliché flashback.

Downsides include the heavy metal soundtrack, acting and the ending.

All the film is made worth it for the birds in the theatre sequence near the end.

A fairly good film from Argento but he as done better. A lot better! Opera was filmed in synchronization with a variety of other mass media productions (start point for Opera is the initial appearance of the raven eye):

The Wizard of Oz (synch start points are third MGM lion roar, Dorothy's third knock on Tin Man's chest in the orchard, and Dorothy's third heel click; synchs with Gone With The Wind)

Prince of Darkness (synch start point is the music score start point)

Electric Ladyland (original release version songs and sequence only)

Rocka Rolla (original release version songs only)

Sad Wings of Destiny (original release ...)

Sin After Sin (original release ...)

Stained Class (original release ...)

Hell Bent For Leather (original release ...)

Point of Entry (original release ...)

Screaming For Vengeance (original release ...)

Defenders of the Faith (original release ...)

Turbo (original release ...) Opera opens with a very close-up shot of a bird's ever-watching eye and thus begins one of Argento's most bizarre, and enjoyable, features (my second favorite in fact, behind Deep Red). Granted, at times, the movie is pretty absurd (the lack of real concern after murders, the bird attack, the burnt dummy, that ending…) but this is Argento's fantastical world and once you come to terms with that, you'll find that it works. I do not mean to completely dismiss these faults though, rather that the artistry of the film more than makes up for them. For example, the aforementioned bird attack is completely over-the-top in theory, yet look at the wonderful execution of it; crows flying in chaos, adding their enraged squawking to the driving rock beat, the crowd in panic as seen through the circling, bird's-eye view camera-work, and then the focused attack; aria of terror indeed. Argento's amazing, flowing cinematography is on full display in Opera, and clearly one of the film's highlights. I also enjoyed the soundtrack of operatic themes and rock music, a nice contrast of music with each used effectively (the rock kicks in with the murders in perfect timing and gives the scenes a very frenzied feel). The sound effects deserve a nod too, stabs, scissors, beaks, and all.

Inspector Alan Santini: "I've seen a lot of your movies. Yes, you're really an expert in this field. I'd be very interested to know your opinion."

Marco: "I think it's unwise to use movies as a guide for reality, don't you inspector?"

Inspector Alan Santini: "Depends what you mean by reality."

Being that this is a giallo, stylish murders are a must and Dario does not disappoint (the "bullet through the door" scene is quite possibly one of the greatest deaths ever shot, if you'll forgive the pun). The black-gloved, deep-voiced, pulsating brained (cool shots!) killer is cold and brutal, and having him tape pins under our heroine's eyes so that she was forced to watch the murders was a nice touch. That all said, as a giallo, Opera doesn't quite have as good of a mystery as it should. The killer is kept secret from the audience well enough but there's little effort in the film devoted to actually solving the murders. This, and the strange ending, could've used more work. Despite these problems though, Opera still manages to be a worthwhile and satisfying horror film.

One final note: it was nice to see a movie, for once, show the correct view through binoculars (just a circle, not two circles together)! Nice eye for detail, Dario! Title: Opera (1987) Director: Dario Argento Cast: Cristina Masillach, Ian Charleson, Urbano Barberini, Daria Nicolodi Review: The only other Argento movie I had seen was Suspiria and that one blew me away with its style, colors and spooky story line. I next decided to go with Opera as I had been told it was one of his best. Man, I think I'm discovering what will ultimately be one of my favorite horror directors.

Opera is about a young opera singer who gets her big break when the main star of a creepy modern opera take on Mc Beth gets hit by a car. Betty is the understudy so she gets to do the part herself. Too bad for her there's a psycho after her who makes her watch the brutal murders of her friends and co-workers.

Wow, Id heard good things about this here flick, but I wasn't prepared for the level of greatness to which this film would take me. Yeah the movie has its shortcomings to which Ill get to later. But for the most part the movie blew me away.

First off, this movie is not as filled with lots of colors as Suspiria. I was expecting it to be a bit like suspiria in that department, but no, to my surprise it had its own look and feel. The film is somehow devoid of color. It does have lots in colors in certain scenes (like the masterful kitchen/living room sequence) where Argento fills the screen with lush greens and blues, but for the most part the film has a grayish, black tone to it all through out and I liked that it had its own distinctive look.

The real stars of this show are the incredibly well orchestrated death sequences. Wow. Every death scene was like a work of art. Beauty in destruction. These are not just your typical hack and slash death sequences, these deaths were carefully constructed to shock and get the most out of its situations. Loved every second of them, there's plenty of blood and mayhem here, but with style. Not gonna spoil em though.

Then there's the direction. Man, there's some really original and beautiful shots on this one. I loved the inventive use of the camera on this one. You thought that Tarantinos shot in Kill Bill vol. 1 where we see the bullet coming out of the chamber of the gun was original? Well this is the movie he lifted it from! I honestly believe that Tarantino was heavily influenced by this specific movie with certain scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Heck in the making of feature he mentions that the whole scene with Beatrix in the hospital and Elle Driver coming to kill her was influenced by Italian Giallos, and here my friends is the proof of that. Anyhows, Tarantino references aside, this movie has some amazing camera shots, like those scenes of the crows flying through the crowd in the opera house...great stuff. And a main reason why Argentos becoming one of my favorites.

The acting from most of the cast was alright, but the best by far was Cristina Marsillach as the tortured young opera singer Betty. The looks in her eyes as the murders were being committed were great. The rest of the cast was a little wooden and stiff, but nothing that would deter your enjoyment of the film.

There were very few things I didn't like about this movie. First off logic was thrown out the window in certain scenes. Specially those involving Bettys reactions after shes seen the murders. It seem to me that for the longest time, she just went on about her business, not telling anyone about the whole thing. Not even the police. I mean if you see someone brutally murder a loved one in front of your eyes...you don't just walk away from the murder scene and continue with your life. Someone would have connected her to the murders. She might have even become a suspect herself...but no. Also the ending is a bit anti climactic. You'll have to see this to understand, but it seemed a bit unnecessary the way the film ended, it felt like it could have ended earlier. It would not have felt so redundant. But thats about it, not real big problems for me really since I was enjoying the rest of this beautiful film.

I've still got a lot of Argento territory to cover...but I'm devouring every step of the way like if I was eating a plate of the most expensive caviar. This guys really good. I think of his films as works of art, and I've only seen two of em! Cant wait to discover the rest of his films. Argento, you the man!

Rating: 41/2 out of 5 If you don't like Italian horror, you won't like this film. On that note...

"Overall... it was a terrible experience... Many things happened. Vanessa Redgrave was scheduled to be in the film, and she pulled out. One of the actors was crushed by a car. I was engaged to be married, but by the end of the picture that was finished. My father died during the shooting... all kinds of things." -Dario Argento on the making of "Opera"

I was truly impressed with Argento and the film he made here-- especially against such harrowing circumstances. The whole mystique of "Macbeth" and its curse on those who attempt to stage the play adds untold volumes to "Opera."

Throughout the film, Argento imploys some of his most clever (and audience directed) tricks. A young opera singer, Christina, is stalked by a violent psychopath who forces her to watch a series of brutal murders. By taping several sharp blades to Christina's eyelids the killer makes it impossible for her to close her eyes, "Take a good look. If you try to close your eyes, you'll tear them apart. So you'll just have to watch everything!"

It is clear that Argento put great care into constructing the faux "Macbeth" opera on-screen, and his hard work pays off. Add to this several unforgettably brutal murders, an incredibly tense chase sequence, and the genius use of POV to portray a certain character (the role Vanessa Redgrave pulled out on, thank god) and you've got one of the best Italian horror films ever created.

That said-- it's still Italian horror. Why Christina never seems to tell anyone about this brutal murders is beyond anyone's comprehension. Some scenes might be difficult for certain viewers to stomach, but personally I felt more tension towards Christina and her eyes than any of the brutal slayings in the film. The finale to "Tenebrae" had my stomach churning more than anything in "Opera," but that's probably just me.

And the last five minutes... Argento wanted it, he filmed it, and he's fought to keep it in the film. Absolutely no one likes it, myself included, but it's not enough to ruin the rest of the film for me. It remains one of Argento's best films to date.

9/10 The murders in Opera are not actual murders as much as they are symbols of past events and parts of Betty's own fractured personality. In fact, Betty is the same person (a male) that Suzy Bannion is in Suspiria, only a decade later in life (Suzy was a boy of ten who befriended another boy of ten with a more mild version of his own background).

It helps to think of Betty's luxury apartment as a military barracks bay; she spends most of her time in her bedroom in bed next to her stereo it seems, and other parts of her apartment seem foreign to her somehow, as though other people live in those other rooms.

Dario Argento's movies sync with a wide array of Rock music, as well as Funk (Dario starts the syncs right at the beginning of his films, the flash of the eye in Opera, and the start of a drum roll in Suspiria). There are also standard movies that Opera (and Suspiria) sync with. For example, Opera syncs with with a record album by Judas Priest called Priest ... Live (as does Suspiria), and Suspiria syncs very well with a Kiss record album entitled Kiss Alive II. Movies like Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Image, and The Vampire Happening are sync movies Argento uses which deal with the same subject matter as Argento's films. These syncs, along with many others reveal Betty to be a male who suffered sexual torture at the hands of his father since birth (even in the womb according to a certain Anne Rice novel entitled Lasher).

Anyway, large budget films are occult works which relay spy information collected by occult means, all in synchronized symbolic/alchemical fashion. Usually, the sync point in a film is the beginning of the sound score, or it is the first image of the film beyond any film company lead-in. Sometimes it is more creative. The heavy metal music used in Opera and Phenomena are simply music syncs that were deciphered out of other films that Argento's movies sync with, an intellectual game of sorts among the elite within the industry.

So, Betty doesn't respond normally to the murders she witnesses because she didn't ever witness a murder of any real person. "She herself" simply suffers soul murder; she witnesses her own "murder;" this individual's father almost dropped him down an abandoned mine shaft in Arizon at age 4, in 1970; he was on the verge of falling off a wood plank his father balance him on before dad changed his mind and grabbed him and yanked him back off it; the kid felt nothing consciously. Memories of sexual torture are lost to this individual via extreme sexual repression, and the vague memories which remain are of the big, square, deep hole in the desert and no significance is placed on this memory because of the lack of conscious trauma (the "loss of trauma," also a "buried trait," is portrayed in the 1975 film entitled The Image). Those sausages up in the attic in Suspiria are each individual memories of the first three or so years of a life (Toys In The Attic).

The reason Betty (or Suzy) is a female character is because the individual Christina Marsillach's character mirrors is a male who has been trained into a female role of sorts since birth (all of the DVD's of the Simpsons cartoon sync with Suspiria), with his very nature having been molded along "queen" lines (The X-Files episodes sync with Opera). This has even altered his body to be "beautiful" in the way a woman's is. Behavior alters genetics. A more recent movie entitled Death Proof deals with the same ideas and the same individual.

Virtually the entire life of this person is mirrored on large budget films, record albums, and books made since 1966, and father prior to 1966 and after. The Scorpions album entitled Virgin Killer is a Suspiria sync album, the original album cover acting as a symbolic mirror image of the fall through the skylight. I rank OPERA as one of the better Argento films. Plot holes and inconsistencies? Sure, but I don't think they impair this film as much as many other reviewers seem to. A lot of elements that are in many of Argento's films are kinda "off-the-wall", but that's part of the draw of his films...

Short story: psycho stalks the opera's new leading lady. The typical Argento twists and turns ensue, leading up to a decent payoff of a climax. Not Argento's best, but I still pull this one out from time to time. Definitely worth a look if you like his other stuff - just don't get this one mixed up with the abysmal PHANTOM OF THE OPERA remake that Argento did, that one is truly awful... 8/10 "The Devil in the Dark" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here. I sympathized with the plight of the first man, Schmitter, we see killed in this episode. He reminded me of the trepidation associated with being a lone security guard at night somewhere - the type of work I did briefly about 20 years ago. Of course, I was never in danger of being burned to a crisp, as the colony chief (Lynch) is fond of describing. The monster in the dark here, murdering members of a deep mining colony, creates a scary impression in the first act. We don't really see it in the early scenes and, as many of us realize, the best monsters are sometimes left to the imagination. 'Big and shaggy' is one voiced description, but it actually turns out to resemble a big, lumpy pepperoni pizza, skittering along the ground like a silicon centipede - a limitation of the show's budget, unfortunately. This also shows in the latest matte painting, famous to Trek fans, the only way to convey a long shot of the mining operations.

But, the whole theme of this episode is about what's on the inside, rather than outward appearances, anyway. Sure, this Horta, a newly-discovered silicon-based life-form, looks like a mindless monster at first glance. Thanks to Spock's telepathic ability (probably the best use of a Vulcan mind meld for plot purposes), we learn it's a highly intelligent, even sophisticated creature. Besides Spock's instrumental use of his talent, McCoy gets to supersede his usual medical routine - healing a creature resembling rocks or asbestos. He also gets to utter one of his most famous lines, "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" I found it very true-to-life in his scene where he exults in his success, though he's unable to get Kirk to share in his enthusiasm - Kirk's too busy organizing results. The episode throws unexpected turns in character & motivation at the audience as the story progresses; Spock champions the need to possibly preserve this discovered life as Kirk takes his usual stand on preventing the deaths of any red-shirts (no half measures, as in "The Man Trap"). But later, it's Kirk who, for some reason, holds back on firing a killing blast, as if the heat of the hunt had worn off and he'd had time to reflect on Spock's point (I believe it was during this episode's filming that Shatner learned his father had died). Uncharacteristic for most of the first season, this has a happy ending. The conflict stems from the needs of basic capitalism, such as meeting standard quotas, versus protecting the natural environment and its inhabitants - a space age version of protecting owls from the tractors of modern advancement. Somehow, despite many killings and a sense that everything could go to hell at any moment with one raised phaser, Kirk and Spock manage to broker an agreement which satisfies everyone. I guess people and silicates are more reasonable in the 23rd century. Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how?

It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well.

Why is this still a favorite of mine?

Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series.

Enjoy! Of all the episodes of all series, this one holds the closest to Roddenberry's original tenet. According to the book THE MAKING OF STAR TREK, in Roddenberry's writer's guide to his story writers, he states that any alien creature, no matter how hideously ugly, impossible to believe, benign or malicious, MUST hold some semblance of humanity that the TV viewing public can empathize with and/or relate to. Devil In The Dark's HORTA, which resembles nothing more or less than a large blob of cow dung, is a mother protecting her babies, those ball-shaped silicon nodules the miners keep finding throughout the mine passages and destroying, because they have no idea what they are! This is one of my absolute favorite episodes if only for that! This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.

Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature ("Horta") in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.

The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.

Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10/10. Hey, it's only TV. Sure, it's STAR TREK, the most beloved bla bla, and this is a great one, but it's all relative. What it boils down to is a guy in elf ears grooving with a swatch of pizza-colored shag rug.

There's a kind of THIRD MAN noirishness to the tunnel hunt, and it's creepier than many episodes of what is after all one of the better TV shows. The suspense is actually suspenseful. The peril really feels perilous. As a little kid I think I cried when Spock told me that this hideous creature was as sad, scared and horrified as the people it was eating. This was one of my early lessons in empathy, a lesson reinforced by the EMPATH episode which was, if less thrilling, even more melancholy.

What bothered me when I was five was that this thing, which looks like meat and tomato barf, somehow actually consists more or less of rock. Now that kind of choice might seem visionary, a hippie designer's idea of through-the-looking-glass one-universism, but it might also just smack of the drug era. I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie. For one it didn't have the corny special effects that the big budget movies have. The acting was decent in this one, only you can tell right off the bat that it's dubbed, but once you get over that fact, and that you can't switch languages on the DVD version it's cool. The plot line was very unique, you take a situation like a heat wave very common around the world, especially in Frankfurt which I've been to many times, and you take a garbage strike which happens often enough in this country and you have a recipe for disaster. i loved how the hordes of rats just went everywhere and how the idea that if you picked up the garbage, that's the last thing you wanna do, you pick it up, the rats don't get what the want, they are in essence following the garbage pick up, so you ask well if garbage men are on strike , who picks up the garbage, private contractors, anyway military wants to quarantine off the city oops wrong thing to do, then you would have all the rats take over the city, then throw in a mayor who wants to keep a lid on the budget, and line her pockets, you have a realistic movie, and the female lead is also a pleasure to watch on the screen, a very decent movie i thought, wish more were made like this, another small nitpick is the depiction of Frankfurt could have been done a little better, but for the average viewer who's never been to Frankfurt... i was born in Germany and been to Frankfurt many times.. it won't matter, but all in all a great big thumbs up. This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.

Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word "coffers" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying "the coffers were empty". "Coffers" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.

There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for "doing good". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.

I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too. Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not. This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.

Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.

Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.

I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie. It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted. At the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival, it was no secret which film ranked at the top of everyone's viewing list. Checking Out (2004)brought crowds of film lovers to Scottsdale's Harkins Cine-capri. Festival attendees who waited in line for hours, were turned away at the door, despite the two-theater screening capacity.

Checking Out (2004) is a beautifully-made moving picture; an inspiring comedy for a wide-range of audiences to enjoy. The director, Jeff Hare, blends traditional film technique with a new twist of creativity, capturing Peter Falk at his greatest and most sentimental moments (usually shown in intimate close-up shots) on the silver screen.

With its uplifting mix of witty humor and narrative plot development, Checking Out (2004) is a landmark independent film, well-deserving of your attention. I was fortunate enough to catch this film at the Phoenix Film Festival and I must say that I very much enjoyed it. When I asked the Director if he had attended Film School I was very much impressed that he had not. Films like these don't come from people without talent. To get a start in commercials and then produce a heart felt family comedy like this shows real range. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on what he does next. As a good indie movie should, the film is very character driven. As apposed to your average Hollywood movie, which are mostly plot driven. The Film centers on a Jewish family in New York, the Applebaum's, who have all been invited back for their fathers "suicide" party. The film is stock full of witty, quick, jabbing, dialogue. The fact the small Jewish family is obsessed with being Jewish and anyone who is Jewish grounds the unrealistic situation of a "suicide" party in reality. Director Jeff Hare does a wonderful job at pulling the characters out of the actors and bringing them to life on screen. The production design brings the sets to life with lots of attention paid to small details making the setting feel like a home that's been lived in for 40 years. The editing keeps up with the dialogue in such a way that it makes you sit on your seat wondering who's going to stab who with the next witty phrase or punch line. And when appropriate the film slows down to let the audience dive a little deeper into the meanings and motivations hidden inside these lovable characters. If you're a fan of Woody Allen or films like "As Good as it Gets" go see this film. "Checking Out" is a very witty and honest portrayal of a bizarre family that happens to be Jewish. Judaism plays virtually no role in the film, but American Jewish culture & behavior gets thoroughly sent up... it a loving way. I wish the movie dealt with the religious perspective on the topics it explores, because I think that would have been interesting.

I've never been a Columbo fan so I wasn't familiar with Peter Falk - he's a lot of fun to watch. It's great to see Judge Reinhold, Laura San Giacomo & David Paymer again - why don't they work more? They're all hilarious. The script is terrific with a lot of memorable one-liners I'll be sure to use with my own family. Watch for Gavin McLeod (Captain Stubing!) as the doorman. 'Checking Out' is an extraordinary film that towers above most film production. Its refreshing, witty humor is never an excuse to remain superficial. To the contrary, the film explores multifarious facets of the human spirit and human relations. Its warm approach promotes tolerance and acceptance of diversity and recognition of that which unites all people. The characters are charming and amusing, reflecting those idiosyncrasies that we can all laugh about in ourselves. The quick dialog and witty banter will keep you on your toes, and you may find yourself trying to contain your own laughter, as you won't want to miss a single phrase! You'll probably want to see it in the cinema and then again (over several more times) on video, and each time you will discover something new. After each viewing, you are sure to feel warm and uplifted. Morris and Reva Applebaum had been the toast of Broadway in its heyday. At ninety, Morris is a widower. He summons his sons--the psychotherapist and the BMW car dealer--and his daughter, the television writer/producer--to attend a party in his honor, after which he will euthanize himself. Literal-minded creatures that they are, they take what he says at face value. He leads them, his grandchildren, and some others including an African-American-Jewish psychiatrist reminiscent of Godfrey Cambridge, on a merry chase through Manhattan as they try to stop him or dissuade him.

The comedy totally works. The performances are excellent. Peter Falk is in top form. This film does more than deserve an audience: it deserves popular success. The timing of this film being released could not be better, particularly in light of all the turmoil in this world today. The film is a heartwarming, endearing and witty a piece. If you have siblings and still have parents alive, this will hit home well for the viewer. If you've lost your parents, then it will touch you deeply. The laughs come frequently, the ensemble cast works very well together and are believable. This film is intelligently written and the lines that come from each of the actors make the viewer laugh out loud frequently. There are moments that will bring tears to your eyes as well. I would recommend this film to anyone who respects the importantce of family and can follow an intelligent film. I just saw "Checking Out" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.

Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.

I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.

Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done! I too was fortunate enough to see "Checking Out" with Peter Falk at The Phoenix Film Festival. This is an extremely sweet character driven film that leaves the audience enthralled in the Applebaum's plight in life. More than funny, each character in the family contributes priceless comic relief that not only spurs laughter but inspires a few joyful tears as well. Peter Falk was born to play this role. He plays a 90ish "young" father of three who brings his adult children together in what could possibly be one of the most important times in his and their lives. The 2 day journey that the Applebaum family takes though the delightful backdrop of New York (with carefully selected characters), not only leaves the audience wanting more, but nourishes ones own sense of family. "Checking Out" is a must see film, not only for all those who cherish family, but also all those who don't!!! My thanks to the director who took the chance to bring this GIFT to its audience. Robin Sly, Scottsdale, Arizona I just saw this film at the phoenix film festival today and loved it. The synopsis was listed in our program as "an old Shakespearean actor invites his three children to his suicide party". I wasn't sure if I was going to see it because when I read about it I liked the idea of a "suicide party" it sounded very interesting to me, but "old Shakespearean actor" had me worried that the film would be kind of dry and boring. But I decided to give it a try. I am glad that I did. It was not dry and boring in the least, that dialogue was great, funny in a clever way, but not pretentious and difficult to understand. Peter Falk was terrific in this role, he stole the show. I also was pleasantly surprised by Laura San Giacomo's performance, usually she bugs me, but I enjoyed watching her in this film very much. I think Judge Reinhold's part could have been done better by another actor, at times he seemed kind of cheesy and it looked like acting, not like you were just watching this character. But the movie was so good I was able to forgive one actor's awkwardness. I would recommend this film to anyone and have already told a few people to see it as soon as it is available to the general public. Who knew suicide could be so hilarious? A wonderful story that should be seen by all families. The story, acting, and production values are all first rate. I highly recommend "Checking Out!"

Peter Falk is marvelous as an aging actor who wants to decide when he will die, so he can continue to know how things will end and not be "a member of the audience." His three children rush to New York to confront him and try to change his mind. There are, of course unresolved family issues to be addressed, and the script and actors handle them well and with great humor.

The story is about a Jewish family, but it could easily be about any other family. Well, maybe not a WASP family. The siblings have issues with each other and also with their father. I loved the writing and directing, as well as the acting. All in all, a humorous and touching film. Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to "check out" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual "Checking Out" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over "Big Fat Greek Wedding"....the "Big Fat Jewish Suicide" has arrived. Peter is top notch, he is acting, and looking great. feels like watching a live play, great camera works, and i was sad it was over. Can not wait until it is on the big screen. Super cast, this could be a big hit. I like the way the kids interact as sister and two brothers, really made me think of my own brothers going through a situation like what Peter, the happy father who thinks he will end his life after a big party... The colors and sets were delightful to the eyes, helps so much to draw you into the film/play... I was so happy to see Peter not be Colombo, this guy could always act, and now this is a movie that gives him that range. I recommend you take your family to this movie. Perhaps the teenagers will not get much from this, no guns, fast cars, dumb lines, stupid fart jokes... but your adult kids will love it. Good show for a night with them.

Jason When I first heard that the subject matter for Checking Out was a self orchestrated suicide party, my first thought was how morbid, tasteless and then a comedy on top of that. I was skeptical. But I was dead wrong. I totally loved it. The cast, the funny one liners and especially the surprise ending. Suicide is a delicate issue, but it was handled very well. Comical yes, but tender where it needed to be. Checking Out also deals with other common issues that I believe a lot of families can relate with and it does with tact and humor. I highly recommend Checking Out. A MUST SEE. I look forward to its release to the public. I understand "Checking Out" will likely be released in Theatres in the USA in June 2006, and on DVD in November 2006. My recommendation is to not miss "Checking Out"!! This Comedy Film will entertain everyone, who will all relate to the characters, family relationships and multiple social issues that are portrayed. "Checking Out" will make you laugh throughout with quick fire clever humor built into almost every line, and may make you poignantly cry in a touching positive way as well.

The subject of suicide is dealt with in a comical way, that at the same time may help people considering it understand the impacts this act may have on those their life has touched and on those who love them. Lets hope that "Checking Out" can have a positive impact and help prevent those considering suicide from acting it out, especially in the 16-25 age group that has the highest rate of suicide in the USA.

The script is wonderfully written, perfectly casted, and loaded with synchronicity and meaningful flashbacks in time, whose significance become more apparent throughout the film and especially at the ending. I believe the script is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination for "Best Screenplay, Play to a Movie" ( The Phoenix Film Festival honored "Checking Out" with a "Best Screenplay Award" ).

The cast is loaded with great actors that out do themselves, and have a long track record of great performances, acting award nominations and wins. I feel Peter Falk's performance in "Checking Out" is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination, and is the most challenging and wide ranging of his career. Laura San Giacomo's performance and chemistry with Peter Falk as her father is masterful, and was recognized at the Palm Beach International Film Festival with a "Best Actress Award."

Even the teenage characters in the movie shine and are played by young acting phenoms Dan Byrd ( Movies: A Cinderalla Story with Hilary Duff; 3 Young Artist Award nominations, Won 1 ) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead ( TV: Monster Island, Wolf Lake, Passions, Touched by an Angel; 2 Young Star Nominations ).

Director Jeff Hare and Producer Mark Lane wonderfully develop the characters, their interrelationships, and the story line of this entertaining, enjoyable yet complex script.

The film editing keeps the pace of the film moving quickly, only appropriately slowing in the poignant scenes, so that the audience will never loose interest from the beginning to the end.

Don't miss this film that you can take the whole family to see and all will enjoy it. Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family. This movie is hilarious, bright and insightful. Though perhaps the story would work well involving almost any ethnic group, the inherent Jewishness of the characters gives extra meaning to the bounty of wonderful dialog. There were so many social issues covered in the plot that for that reason alone it would have been worth seeing; -but the real treasure was in the warm laughter that spread throughout the appreciative audience. The medley of complex characters with their various strengths and weaknesses play out their roles with all the pathos and humor one would expect from the Shakespearean drama their lives seem to parody. This is a film about family; - about the often fragile, sometimes invisible binding together of diverse personalities and lifestyles, first among siblings and parents, and inevitably among the larger family of friends and even strangers. The technical aspects of the film have given the movie a pace and development that keep the viewer intrigued until the final scene. Peter Falk is amazing, as always, in his role as family patriarch Morris Applebaum. Strong performances by a fine cast include a surprise guest. Don't miss this movie! I saw this movie last night at the Phila. Film festival. It was an interesting and funny movie that had some endearing and moving scenes. Peter Falk was excellent as was the rest of cast. They were believable and played their roles well. The movie may have gone a bit long and the conclusion was okay. The audience laughed at the right places. The family dynamics were terrific and though this was a Jewish family, they could have been Italian, Irish or any other including Greek. I recommend this film if you are interested in laughing at a subject that isn't often handled that way. IOT makes you think about the consequence's of your actions and how they affect others in your life and those who are not clearly in your life. Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like "Checking Out." The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's "The Stand" to her television performances. However, "Checking Out" allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.

Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." I saw the premier of this movie during the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival and was very impressed with the skill Director, Jeff Hare, exhibited in bringing this timely topic to the screen. The cast of characters meshed perfectly and allowed us to examine the issue of a senior wishing to die on "his own terms" in a very warm and humorous way. Peter Falk was brilliant as Morris and the supporting group of family members and friends were perfectly cast in their roles. The interaction of the family, friends and outsiders with Morris created a realistic view of how families address the issue of their parents aging and their wishes to die with dignity.

Although this movie is ostensibly a movie about a Jewish Actor and his family, it is truly a movie about all families. The jokes the family and Morris crack during this romp through the life of a "Force of Nature" are fresh and realistic. Childhood rivalries, adult successes and failures, and hope for the children are integral to this screenplay. While many will question how you can make the topic of suicide "humorous", I thought the treatment logical and timely. If you are not afraid to shed a few tears or laugh at the quips of a family struggling with this issue, then you MUST SEE THIS MOVIE.

The movie was awarded "Best Picture" at the Phoenix Film Festival. In "Checking Out", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a "heartwarming" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.

So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife). Take someone you love or want to love and go see this film.

It touches you in all the right places.

All the other reviewers here have said it all.

Perhaps the cynical will not be impressed.

They only seem to like the stuff that leaves you depressed for days.

This film is Ga-run-teed to stay with you for life.

I am so gratified that the Director is not USC trained.

This validates my premise that there is too much mediocrity and conformity in film these days.

It is because of the USC lockstep mentality and inbreeding.

Hooray for Jeff Hare and Richard Marcus, cast and crew. Well Done! This Film exhibits dear irony, shaggy-dog roundabout story lines woven with subtle cultural references, Classic parallels, masterful use of rich saturated color, and fabulous rendition of chase scenes a'la Keystone Cops.

The ensemble work of the cast and entire crew is Charming. Literally. How else could I go on so?

This film speaks to everyone. The deft and poignant use of so many universal archetypes: That's what makes this Film so deep down satisfying.

As a mature student of film, I find Checking Out contains all the vital elements. Sure and Bergorra, it's not the GODFATHER, but would serve perfectly as follow up; Tragedy's mandatory Satyr play that sweetly binds our collective cathartic wounds.

Get thee to a theatre and see this film, you will be treated to a unique masterpiece. This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie!

This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.

Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.

Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!

Walter J. Langbein A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good. I LOVED this movie when I was younger, and I have actually been looking for it again!! I would love to watch it again!! The information is all correct, but the cover doesn't look like it would match - I can't say for sure though. From what I remember, the movie was about these kids (Alyssa Milano, Tina Yothers, etc.) in a driving class, and it also shows the mischief they get into outside the class. Edie McClurg was Alyssa Milano's mother in the movie. I remember I really liked it so if anyone knows where I can get a copy (preferably DVD) of the movie listed above (with those stars in it) I would love to know. Thank-you :) To understand "Crash Course" in the right context, you must understand the 80's in TV. Most TV shows didn't have any point. The sitcom outpopulated the drama at least 3 to 1. They were still figuring out where the lines were so that they could cross them. (TV Shows like "Hail to the Chief" was quite the bold step!) This made-for-TV movie "Crash Course" featured an All-Star cast, bringing together members from all the 80's classics: "227", "Family Ties", "Who's the Boss?", et al. Directors must've had a certain penchant for those all-star movies then. Still, this movie offered very light fare and a simplistic view of heroism and maturity. And that's not bad sometimes. Viva Soleil Moon Frye. This video has heartfelt memories. It has a great cast and all the actors did a great job. I have been searching to buy this video. If anybody knows of where I can purchase, please e-mail me. I really want to add this to my collection. Halloween 666 (1995) The producer's cut review!

Halloween 666 starts of with a recap of the horrific ending to Part five. If you thought the last chapter was dark, this one will really blow your mind. A mysterious "Man in Black" has raided the Haddonfield Police Department freeing Micheal Myers. In the process poor Jamie Lloyd was abducted by strange cultists. What they want with her? Who knows, but let's just say her long suffering will end soon. Doctor Loomis is back spending the rest of his twilight years trying to stop Michael Myers from killing any more innocents (good luck). A friend of Loomis, Doctor Wynn comes back after a four sequel hiatus to help the good doctor. Another old face from part one guest stars as well.

This dark and dreary sequel was dismantled during the post production editing. For some reason the distributors felt that the final product wasn't worth the average horror film watcher's time. So they decide to dumb it down. Then after having the film sit on the shelf for several months it laid an egg at the box office. No matter what they did to the film, they made it worse. They should have left well enough alone. Hey, the film company knows better than the filmmakers now....don't they?

Producer's Cut :Highly recommended

Released version: Not recommended This was a really interesting Halloween film. I wasnt to thrilled with the whole Thorn theory but it still makes for a good film. I liked getting to see Tommy Doyle back but sadly Donald Pleasance died right after shooting. The film had a really REALLY bad director who didnt give a flip about the series, from what I heard treated Donald bad, and wouldnt let Danielle Harris come back as Jamie. Its like he was just trying to bring down the film, but I still liked it. There were alot of cuts and music changes and if you're lucky you can get the Producers Cut which features over 40 min. of never before scenes. With those scenes it turns into a whole new movie. Check it out if you have the chance. Wow, "The Curse of Michael Myers" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules!

I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.

10 out of 10. For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.

This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more.

I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.

Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10. This movie is pretty good as it is, but the unreleased Producer's Cut is my favorite movie in the series after the original. Jamie's story is handled differently, the death scenes are done 10 times better, there's more footage of ritual type stuff giving more story about Micheal, Jamie and her baby. There is also an alternate ending which is also better. Why they didn't release this version instead I have no damned clue. If you can find this version, see it. This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best. i bought this in the budget department last week. i had halloween and halloween II already, and since i aim to collect every horror film ever, i chose this. after all, the 1st two were good.

this film is pretty intelligent to tell the truth. it seems to create the correct atmosphere, and has a nice "history of michael myers". it uses the old locations from the original, and the main character is the kid whom laurie strode babysat that fateful halloween in 1978...

the climax also is fairly satisfying. anyways, it is A LOT better than H20, which frankly, is absolute crap. ...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.

Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....

Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10. Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is probably the best sequel out of all of the Halloween flicks. Jamie, serial killer Michael Myers' niece, bears a baby who is then taken by the Man In Black from the conclusion of Halloween 5. A kind nurse helps Jamie escapes but Myers quickly tracks her down and kills her. Jamie's baby is found and rescued by Tommy Doyle, one of the kids Jamie Lee babysat in the original film, and Myers arrives in Haddonfield and begins to kill off the Strode clan living in his old house. The film concludes with scenes revealing clues to Michael's evil, the identity of the Man In Black, and a close to the whole Dr. Loomis/Michael Myers storyline. I highly recommend this brilliant horror masterpiece.

Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is Rated R for strong graphic violence, extreme gore, brief sexuality, language, and brief nudity. I personally LOVE this film amidst the Halloween series. I've found, after watching it with many friends, that you enjoy it completely, or find it absolutely unbearable. Personally, i've watched it dozens of times, and it never gets old. There is a great back story within the movie itself, and a lot of different things are finally explained. It's a rather short movie, at just shy of 90-minutes, but it's definitely a thrill ride.

The shape seems to be pretty brutal in this film, but the acting is still there with the way he walks, stalks and kills. There are a lot of neat little screen shots with Micheal appearing in the background, which adds more of a spooky element to the movie. This review is based on the Producer's Cut:

'Halloween 5' was a major disappointment at the box office way back in '89. Personally, I've always loved it and am proud to have it in my collection. But because of it's failure and also because of rights issues, it would be 6 years before we would see another installment. The film had the makings of being one of the best, if not the best in the series. A hardcore fan writing the script, the return of not only Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis and George Wilbur as Michael Myers, but also the return of the character of Tommy Doyle from the first film, a major studio backing the project, and a Fall release all made the film sound like a hit in the making. So what went wrong? I'll give you two good reasons: Re-shoots and poor editing. Due to a bad test screening and also the unfortunate passing of Donald Pleasence, the film was changed, and not for the better. The film, like parts III and 5, tanked at the box office and earned negative reviews from both critics and most series fans. But then, thanks to the magic of bootlegging, the original cut leaked out and many fans, including my self, were very happy. I will end this portion of my review by saying this: This film is, so far at least, my favorite 'Halloween' film and I'm not afraid to admit that.

Pros: The score is simply spellbinding. Has some of the best writing and dialogue of the series. 'Halloween 4' emulated the original in that it was more about suspense and mood instead of blood and guts, and 6 is the same way. Great performances, especially from the late and very missed Donald Pleasence. Moves at a breathtaking pace. An interesting explanation for Michael's evil and why he won't die. Some brutal kills. Some pretty chilling moments, my favorite being the one involving Kim Darby's character. A lot of really cool nods to the previous films. Some good surprises. Like the previous two sequels, this one has an awesome cliffhanger ending.

Cons: Though the explanation for Michael's evil is fascinating, it does make him a little less scary. Since when can Michael move around from place to place so fast?

Final thoughts: This was the first 'Halloween' that I saw in the theatre. I was so excited because I really had thought 5 would be the last and then I heard this was happening. I enjoyed it at the time, but over time I saw it for what it really was: A great movie trapped in an OK one with a terrible ending. Why did the filmmakers have to listen to the people at the test screenings? If they had released this superior version it may have done much better and the series might not be stuck in the mess it's in right now.

My rating: 5/5 Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.

Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.

Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)

It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.

The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway. Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7/10.

The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.

Its a good rental!

7/10 I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8/10 After reading some of the earlier nasty remarks, I had to put in my two cents. This show was NOT, despite what that goon in Essex thinks, the worst thing that ever aired on TV. I think most of today's TV is much worse (when is this stupid "reality" fad ever going to end??) and there isn't a current show I can stand to watch. Gimme the stuff I grew up with. I'm a 1965 baby and not ashamed to admit it.

This show has been my all-time favorite for almost 30 years. I was in high school when it originally aired and I think it helped me to hang on throughout those miserable days. I was such a misfit back then, and "Fantasy Island" appealed to my imagination. As I was a budding writer in those days, it provided incredible opportunities for me to practice the craft. What a wonderful premise! I won't say it didn't have its faults. Sometimes the scripts were pretty bad, and some of the problems seemed trivial; but it could be good too, and it was a blast to watch and still is. As for the cheesiness factor, well, I think it's unfair to label every single 70s product as cheesy. There was a lot of great stuff back then and this was among the ranks. (BTW, most of the seasons aired in the 80s!!) My favorite episodes came from seasons 2, 3 and 4 mostly.

To those who disparage Hervé Villechaize for his heavy French accent and his short stature: GROW UP and LEARN SOMETHING! It's so easy to make fun when you're "normal" and "perfect". That man made the best of what he was dealt in life, and if you don't like it, that's just tough. Have a little compassion. He's been dead 15 years, and how easy it is to cut down someone who can't defend himself. There's just no shame anymore.

I love this show. So it looks dated. Hate to tell you this, but we didn't have splashy special effects and Blu-Ray discs. We were lucky to have VCRs. Live with it. Accept it for what it is, and that's just plain fun. "Escapist TV" describes it perfectly, and that's what it was for me -- an escape from my rotten real life. And it's still a lot of fun to watch. OK, if you would judge the movie to now a days it wouldn't fit in to well.If you watched FI now the stage and everything was pretty cheese ( I agree)But weren't all the movies in the 80's like that(Gilligan,Wonderwoman,aso).But too the people born in the early to mid 70's or earlier it has a cult status. Evertime the plane was on approach Tattoo would run up the tower ring the bell and with his accent would yell "Da Plane BOSS Da Plane" and you would wonder what everybody's wish would be.People who are born in the mid 80's or later wouldn't understand the hippe because if you watched it now.It don't have a Harry Potter,Jurassic Park Computer animation FX.It was just a stage where you probably could even almost see the wire attached to a guy who's wish was too be able to fly.But to us during that time it was a FANTASY ISLAND. The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his "Paris Nous Appartient", I decided this was not to be missed.

Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" and "Prometheus". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.

The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.

There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.

More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than "Paris Nous Appartient", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art. I think that Pierre Léaud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup... This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette. One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished. I loved this movie! So worth the long running time. I need help with the ending though....

*SPOILER*

The final shot of Marie at the end - Is this to suggest that she is still searching for Renaud? or possibly that she was the one who wanted to reinvigorate the 13? (she seemed to be the one who delivered the initial letter to Colin in the first place) I don't quite understand it, but I know I really liked it. So if anyone has seen this and remembers it or has just seen it, please elaborate on the ending.

Thanks The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.

It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.

It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.

If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge "pleasure" from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated."A Tale of Two Sisters" is along with "Ringu" and "Kairo" one of the most original Asian horror films I have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10. The Beauty. The Terror. The Poetry. The Horror. The Innocence. The Guilt.

Maybe that's just about all I should write in this comment for A TALE OF TWO SISTERS. The best thing is to just watch this movie without knowing anything about it. I myself didn't even know one single thing about the history of the two girls when I went into this movie. I just took a look at the nice cover-art, didn't even read the synopsis on the back and popped it into DVD-player. I only knew that it won several prices on festivals around the world and that it came highly recommended.

The DVD-cover read "The Most Frightening Film since THE RING, THE GRUDGE and DARK WATER". Though the frightening-part might be right, you can forget about the rest, because the only thing A TALE OF TWO SISTERS has in common with those movie is... a ghostly apparition with long black hair. It's even a bit unfair to compare it with those famous Japanese movies, because this Korean movie has a lot more to offer and is in fact a bit more complicated and intelligent than those others.

This movie simply is a small masterpiece, and here are some reasons (without telling anything about the plot): The movie itself caught me off guard at least two times with clever surprise-twists. And just when you think you've had the conclusion (whether you get it or not, that's irrelevant for the moment) and you think the movie will end... this movie goes on a bit longer. The cinematography is amazing, using bright colors during the day and dark shades at night. The camera-work is excellent with the director sometimes choosing impressive, if not, innovating angles. Some shots are pure poetry (e.g. the top-shot with the two sisters at the lake). It all looks very stylish. There are only four main characters, but the intrigue surrounding them is intense. The story itself starts a bit slow, but there's a lot of variety in tone and emotions to keep it interesting. There was even one scene (when the girls took off towards the lake) that suddenly had me remembering Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. But when the horror kicks in, it's quite effective. There are also a few successful surprise-scares in it. Damn, I jumped right up from my sofa. The musical score is great, and at times when it's not supposed to be scary, I couldn't help but noticing that it had sort of an Italian feeling to it. A bit strange for a Korean movie. But nevertheless, a great score. So much care went into every detail of this film, including a perfectly balanced surround sound.

I also think that calling A TALE OF TWO SISTERS just a horror movie is giving it not enough credit. It's more a mysterious horror-drama that works both on a psychological and supernatural level. No matter how you look at it, this is Asian horror that ranks way up there amongst the finest. It might not be gory, but it gets pretty scary at times and the subject matter is pretty disturbed. So if you haven't seen it yet, then find a copy, pop it into your DVD-player, go with the flow and make sure you give this movie your full attention for it's 110 minutes running time.

There, I hope I did a good job praising it without spoiling anything. Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" – which are praised all over the world – simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%. I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story –though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale… is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film. This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them – a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces."

The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown – a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. – but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more – a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.

The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed – for example – the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.

Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind – he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that – when completed – bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.

Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.

I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said! I just saw "A Tale of Two Sisters" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's "there's something under the bed" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like "The Machinist" in the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns and delusions.

Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror, which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the mirror.

I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also, it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink.

The real stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death, while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role.

I wonder if the "mother" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback, is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in the closet. That's left ambiguous.

Other things that are suggested, but not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she meant just physically.

Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, "Don't touch me" each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the "filthy things that you've done" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-On/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some characters may be ghosts is taken from "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others".

Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I liked both "The Ring" and "The Grudge", so I'm not one of those snooty types who insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is "Dark Water" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list. I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more intriguing.

The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next decade.

Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and scare... Two sisters, Su-mi (IM Soo-jung) and Su-yeon (MOON Geun-young) return home with their father (Kim Gap-soo). Eun-joo (YEOM Jeong-ah) welcomes them but Su-mi's manner is bitter to her. Su-mi hates Eun-joo because the father let her act like the house wife after the sisters' mother died. Seeing her attitude, Eun-joo is getting to treat the sisters coldly and there grows a tense atmosphere among them.

As if called in by the atmosphere, series of mysterious things occur in the house. When Su-mi is hanging her dress in her wardrobe, there have been already hung a lot of dresses of the same design. When she put her diary into a drawer, she finds another diary of the same kind there. When she is sleeping in her bed with scared Su-yeon, a nightmare awakes her and she finds a woman standing on her -- and a hand dangles out of the woman's skirt!

Mysterious things occur to the other people, too. On the evening of next weekend, Eun-joo's brother and his wife visit the family and they have a dinner together. Eun-joo cheerfully talks about a crazy man she met when she was a child, but nobody is interested in her talk. She says the crazy man annoyed the brother, but he says he doesn't know anything about the man.

Listening to their talk, the brother's wife has a panic.

After the dinner, the conflict between Eun-joo and the sisters becomes at its worst. Eun-joo pulls Su-yeon into a wardrobe and locks her in it. Su-mi saves the crying-out sister and complains to their father what Eun-joo has done to his daughter. But his response is unexpected. "Give me a break." says he angrily, "Su-mi, please. Don't make me tired any more."

And the following words out of the father's mouth are more shocking than what they have seen in the house.

To tell the truth, I hate horror movies. Although I seated myself at a theater because my intuition told me the movie was something different, I was regretting what my curiosity had made me act when it started showing. The regret, however, had changed into joy for expectation ten minutes later.

This film is a tragic mystery more than a horror -- painful more than horrible; beautiful more than sensational. That may have a hard core horror fan disappointed, but for a mystery fan like me, this film is a must see. (9 out of 10) I watch many movies, but presently my genre number one is Asian horror. I have just bought this DVD and I initially found "Janghwa, Hongryeon" an intriguing but confused film, since I had not understood many parts of the story. But I saw in IMDb Board a message titled "Explanation of a Masterpiece (all your questions answered) Faster load", written by opiemar, and I was really impressed with the high quality of the explanations this user provided to viewers like me that missed points of the story. I would like to congratulate opiemar for his excellent work and suggest him to write a correct summary of this movie in IMDb to help and guide other viewers.

In the end, I agree that "Janghwa, Hongryeon" is a great Korean film, but I do not give ten in my vote because very few people can afford to see the same movie more than once, like this film demands, and without the great support of opiemar, I would not be able to understand the story as a whole. I intend to see this movie again in a near future. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Medo" ("Fear") This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you.

In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the "rubber reality" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club (lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive (character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos), Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al. Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and rewarding experience.

Many people have commented on the "confusing" nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third, the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film).

That aside, the cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days.

It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as "yet another Asian horror film", oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking story, then I see no reason not to recommend it. Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.

Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out. Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be.

The plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will know how amazing a movie can be.

A word of advice for slasher flick fans stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big b**bs and lots of blood.

If you want to heighten the psychological horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch the light off.

My points on different aspects:-

Direction = 9/10 Acting = 8/10 Atmosphere = 10/10 Sound Effect = 9/10

Total = 9/10 This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for obvious reasons. The horror of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not with sudden shocks or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own mind about what really took place.

Do not be put off by the seemingly slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of the joys of watching a film such as this.

The true fear of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be a mistake to align "A Tale Of Two Sisters" with films like "Ringu" and "The Grudge". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly.

Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on Asian cinema or horror in general. Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors. Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong Kong horror 'The Eye'.

Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off.

Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako/Samara did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special. But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a puzzle like that is wonderful.

All in all - a masterfully crafted horror that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get. Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something that is unlikely to be matched for some time. If there is such a thing as beautiful horror, this film is one of the best in this genre. It is a horror movie, which despite not being void of gore scenes relies more on psychology and masterful building of the tension in order to create thrills. And it is one of those movies so beautifully filmed, where each scene is a full world of symbols and details, all serving the scope and genre that it can be called but beautiful.

It is not an easy story, with two sisters returning to their father and step-mother mansion after having spent some time in a psychiatric institution. They cope hardly with the death of their mother and they try to protect a world of theirs, defending them against the adult world. So the film seems to be at its most external layer. Actually the film slowly evolves to something very different, at slow pace, but no frame is lost to convey the sense of thrilling beauty, so I will not say much more. Watch it, it is one of the best in the genre of Far East horror films that conquered recently the world cinema and it really shows that they succeeded to do it for good reasons. Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad, frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same time.

It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title "A tale of two sisters" which sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided "You don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it". Said, done. I bought this film and was hooked from the very first minute.

The plot kept me interested from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream. I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad.

Well, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film, doesn't it? To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi, however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong), who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality.

While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says "Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost." There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is happening on screen is objective or subjective.

In the film's opening, Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe what happened "that day", the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may be nightmares or supernatural occurrences.

Soo-mi sees a figure at the foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions, a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's second half.

Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, "Blame is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others. Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing." If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100% pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking and mind twisting.

Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as "calm moment before the storm". With thorough introduction of characters, imho viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and Japanese movies strongest point.

Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself. That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge/Ju-On over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it! The idea is not original... If you have seen such kind of story before, you would know what the ending would come out after watching for the first twenty minutes... the script, the positioning of the actors and the screening is too obvious... If you haven't seen such story before, it is definitely a good experience, you will enjoy the twist at the end...don't forget to watch it again after you know the "truth", you will even more enjoy the plots... Even though I have a right guess at the very beginning, I still couldn't help stick on my seat till the end...

Conclusion: A must see!! This one from Korea is better than any recent movies of the genre from Japan...forget Hollywood!

Don't miss it!! I must say I'm an avid horror movie fan, and currently I can't get enough of foreign horror. Since US horror really depends too much on gore.

This movie is fantastic. This movie reminded me a lot of M. Night's SIXTH SENSE. The way the film was directed was great. The director took his time to set everything up. It took about a good 40 mins just to set the movie up into a horror movie. I thought the movie was just a drama. This movie just builds up and the pay off isn't too much.

I've never done this before, but this is the main reason I liked the movie.... I actually screamed out loud because one scene just startled the hell out of me... which is kinda pathetic.... but for a film to do that, it's great. typically, a movie can have factors like "arousing", "good feel", "sense of purpose", "plot", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies, its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my collection. 'Tale of two sisters", as they call it when it was released in my country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are "The Others", "The Haunting", "The haunting of Hell House". this movie will be a another great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara, Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse. the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film, in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD. Disgused as an Asian Horror, "A Tale Of Two Sisters" is actually a complex character driven psychological drama, that engulfs the viewer into the problems of a seemingly normal family. I was really surprised at the depth of this movie. Director Ji-woon Kim's decision to focus more on telling a story rather than providing cheap scares, has proved a correct one. Creating one of the most ingenious new horror movies.

"A Tale Of Two Sisters" tels the story, as it's name suggest of two sisters Su-mi and the younger Su-yeon, who after spending time in a mental institution return home to their father and apparently abusive stepmother. From then on we witness how the sisters deal with their stepmother's gradually rising aggression and erratic behavior. To say what would happen next would be to be spoil the entire experience. So I'll just leave it at that.

The plot is very tightly written. With the characters nicely fleshed out. Ji-woon Kim's focus on a small cast offers a much more detailed view on them and their relations to one another. Furthermore each of the four main cast has a vastly different role and type of character. From the protective Su-mi, the weaker Su-yeon, the visibly uninterested father to the stepmother's frantic and later deadly behavior. There is great sense of mystery, with a lot of the plot not revealed up into the end and even after that the movie still leaves a great room for interpretation. Even after watching it once, the viewer will be compelled to see it at least once more so that he can gain a better understanding to it.

The actors superbly fit their roles. It is especially hard to create strong, emotional scenes in psychological movies but it is a great joy when one succeeds in creating them and this is a prime example of such a feat. Ji-woon Kim's direction is slow paced and gripping, building up tension for the film's horroresque scenes. While few in number those moments are strong and quite frankly terrifying. The cinematography and score are top notch further helping to establish an atmosphere fitting that of a psychological film.

"A Tale Of Two Sisters" is a demonstration how the horror genre is in fact so much more than a simple thrill ride. With it's strong focus on character and mystery this is one complex movie that could easily seduce you in watching it again and again just so that you can understand it better. What can I say about this film that won't give you any preconceived notions when you see it? Very little. The plot has to do with the return from hospital of a teenage girl after she broke down. What follows after that is the movie. It is one of the creepiest most mind blowing films of the past several years. Everything about the film is just slightly off center and leaves you feeling ill at ease well after the film has ended. It is not a perfect film. The film has problems in its final half hour which make an already confusing story, even more confused.(If you've read any number of other comments here on IMDb and elsewhere you'll know that a great deal of time has been spent trying to unlock what actually is going on) I'm not sure what I actually think of this film beyond the fact that it scared me and disturbed me in ways that most well known horror films ever have. If you like horror, and don't mind not having everything clearly summed up I suggest you try this since it will more than likely make your skin crawl. Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!

The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother - especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells her father. Then it hits you, "your sister has been dead for years now" It turns out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there.

Finally - my favourite scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10 "Tale of Two Sisters" has to be one of the creepiest films I've seen recently. In the end there is no actual supernatural element, despite what one is led to expect throughout the film. The story seems to be about two sisters, who, upon returning to their father's home after some sort of absence (later revealed to have been a stay in a mental institution) are forced to deal with not only a seemingly schizophrenic and possibly bi-polar stepmother who lashes out at the younger of the girls when the mood strikes her and cheerfully tells them she's prepared a special dinner at another time., but some presence as yet unexplained. It is later revealed that the younger sister is dead, and exists only in the troubled minds of her older sister, who was unable to save her, and her step-mother, who was callous enough to let her die. Much about the specifics of the strange family is not revealed in the film, but it definitely leaves a viewer with a creepy feeling and a nagging hint of confusion. Definitely not light viewing; watch this one when you really want to think about what you've seen. It's a hell of a puzzler. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen...

It's so full of details and every time you see it you'll find new things... Like then the father is in the shower but still only hears one voice, and when the girls flute, they can't do it at the same time cause then there would be two girls, and there aren't.

I have some problem finding out, about in the middle of the movie their "Uncle" visit them, but why does his wife freak out?!? Else a fantastic movie.!!! The best Asian movie ever.

I hope people will enjoy it. There have been so many movie, where the main character is skit-so (The machinist, Secret Window and so on), but this movie is way better than them!!! We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions, ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere.

The story is about two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an 'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost that is far from helping the girls' recovery...

This film is amazing. It has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of movie fan! An easy 10/10. This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.

Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother.

While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond! I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series). Is this a bad movie?

Of course, what were you expecting from a movie called "BEACH BABES FROM BEYOND"?

It is a "BABES in BIKINI" movie and has no pretensions of being otherwise. Given, this is not "A ROOM WITH A VIEW" or "SCHINDLER'S LIST." If you wanted a film like "A Room With a View" then you would not be looking at Beach Babes from Beyond. But if you are looking for a good Babes in Bikini movie with almost no plot, this is the one for you. This flick delivers on what it promises and then some. It is pure 100% adolescent fun.

There were lots of BABES in and out of bikinis. The movie was quite funny and great to watch. These were some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on home video.

Every high school kid should watch at least one bad movie like this. This is actually one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. So unashamedly, I say again...If you are going to watch only one "Babes in Bikini" movie, this is it. This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to "The Godfather" as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable) storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video, you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun! Finding this piece sandwiched between a stale prequel and a rehashed 80s machomovie on a UPN affiliate's midday Saturday program would be misleading. It deserves better and definitely uses its talented leads' best attributes to its maximum advantage. Bracco and Walken team to provide a movie that while perhaps predictable to those familiar with their genre, do the streetwise, 'troubled minds' routine that they are so good at portraying. For a chance to ride a psychological roller coaster a la Fuqua's "Training Day," dive back into the world of early '90s TV movies to find "Scam"! It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss! A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on. I LOVED this movie. You can't buy it, rent it, or find it... but it's a keeper.

Wonderful chemistry between Braccho and Walken... and Ferrar....

Terrific non stop action and reactions.... loved it.

I've watched my pirated copy maybe 6 times in the last decade... each time showing it to someone who never heard of it.

Find this movie and watch it.

So many films are on TV over and over again - without any of the wit and style of this little film.

I didn't know it was made for TV... my copy is an 8 track I pirated years ago... I hope it lasts. Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine – it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie. I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium.

"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.

The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact.

Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything.

Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.

PS The concert was lousy. So, Madonna isn't Meryl Streep. Still, this is one of her first films and a comedy at that. Give her a break! Sure, the movie is mediocre at best and pales in comparison to its earlier counterpart w/ Katherine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby. For what it is, though(a piece of fluff), it's quite a bit of fun to watch. I've yet to hear anyone that slams Madonna's acting skills back it up w/ evidence or even adjectives other than "awful", "bad", or other such vague descriptive words. If you wanna see bad acting or justify the argument that singers should stick to singing, how about Whitney Houston?? She's had the most undeserved commercial success of any actress in history and couldn't act her way out of a hatbox. The American public obviously cannot discern the difference between a credible performance in a movie and star power. I think Madonna has always been at least credible in her movies. Get real people. Madonna-bashing is so 90's. If you like Madonna or not, this movie is hilarious!! I am a Madonna fan and did see this in the theater at the time of its release. However, over time it has not lost its silliness and pure fun. Sure there are some bad lines & cheesy acting but the whole film is just a screwball comedy with Madonna actually carrying the whole film with great bombast. She is cute,funny, and is the only comedic role of her movie career. Madonna usually just plays 'herself' in roles but watching her as Nikki Finn in this film, she really seems like somebody else for once. Of course the film is directed by James Foley (who filmed the dramatic and haunting 'At Close Range' with Sean Penn & Christopher Walken) and co-stars Griffin dunn ('After Hours') who is also brilliantly cast and has fun with the material. The story is nothing genius and don't expect some climatic ending but if you are ever in the mood to watch a fun, clean, 80's romp or if you are a Madonna fan than this is a MUST SEE. The Soundtrack is also very notable and contains 4 Madonna songs: the #1 hit "Who's That Girl", the #2 hit "Causing A Commotion" and the beautiful and one of her best ever ballads "The Look of Love''(Top 10 Hit in the UK) and "Can't Stop" a left over pop ditty from the 'True BLue' sessions the year before. It is only on VHS but will soon be available on DVD. I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than "Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof.

This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.

Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game".

Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it!

Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band. Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it. It's actually a great movie for kids, too. I love this movie!! Sure I love it because of Madonna but who cares - it's damn funny!!! *ALANiS Rocks*. When I first saw this film in the theatres back in 1987, I thought it was all out hilarious! Madonna is so funny and I love her dubbed accent and wacky/funky look. The all-time funniest part is when Madonna(Nikki) screams at a man who is about to get into a taxi. And also when Griffin Dunne(Louden)trips and falls at the apartment interview scene. **ALANiS Rocks**. Madonna's character Nikki steals/shop lifts and fools people throughout the whole movie - her hilarious antics are enough to keep you on the floor the whole time. "Didn't rob nothin', when you rob a store you stick up the cashier. We busted a few tapes, there's a bit of a difference" I love that!!! It's classic. ***ALANiS Rocks***. I don't know why this movie got slammed the way it did. I see nothing wrong with it - course maybe if you're a huge Madonna fan then whatever she does is just awesome. Anyone out there who wants to see some funny, classic entertainment then watch "Who's That Girl?" And another very important fact that of which should be known to all man kind or at least to all that exist, ALANiS will always "rock ya" completely to the end! So does Madonna in this film, and just entirely! Her acting is superb! "What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."

That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.

I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.

Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.

Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.

This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.

Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more. I am really sad that that this film has got so much negative criticism. I think it is a nice little comedy and really funny. The humour in this film is kind of warm and innocent and I like it. I also like Madonna's character and I do not agree that she played herself. She has created a character and a sympathetic one.

My favourite scenes were the fighting scene on top of the sinking car and where Madonna climbs over the fence in a fancy dress to claim her love. The humour in the film has a slightly syrrealistic touch and perhaps it is not everybody's cup of tea. But it's their problem, not of the film.

I found this film wholesome and sunny. In fact, the day I first saw it I was incredibly sad for some reason and this film lit up my day. And Madonna can act. Just take off your glasses of negative thinking. Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a success. Madonna states that "Some people don't want that she's successful both as a pop star and a movie-star". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny to watch it. If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is. I had seen this movie before, but I could not remember it was this fantastic: it has a fun plot, Madonna fumbles around the city with pumas etc. causing a commotion. And the music is just perfect! And the happy ending! Who´s that girl is a great choice for a romanticist like me. In my opinion this could be even the best Madonna movie I have ever seen! 10/10 Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic. For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny throwaway one-liners ("That was grand theft!" - "Thanks!") and Madonna gives a fine performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl One of the funniest, most romantic, and most musical movies ever; definitely worth renting/buying especially if you have a taste for older style of cinematography.

The animals and the songs alone will make you smile while watching the movie. A definite must for Madonna fans. :o) This movie is so good! I first seen it when i was six, then i bought it recently and i still love it, im 15 now. Plus, the acting was great, and Madonna is my idol and she did a phat job! Alot of people didnt like this movie, and i still to this day dont understand why. Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!! When I see a movie, I usually seek entertainment. But of course if I know what genre the move is, then I will seek what it is meant to do. For example, if it is a deep film, I expect the film to rile thoughts up in my cranium and make me ponder what it is saying. But Who's That Girl? is not a deep film. But it is entertaining, nonetheless. It's a campy sort of film that's a joy to watch. There's barely a boring moment in the film and there are plenty of humorous parts. I've watched it when I was younger. The cast is always entertaining as usual. I had a small crush on Griffin Dunne even though he wasn't the typical male heartthrob at the time. Haviland Morris also stars. And late Austrian actress Bibi Besch is here too! Overall, a delight! Nikki Finn is the kind of girl I would marry. Never boring, always thinking positively, good with animals. Okay, as one reviewer wrote, a bit too much peroxide, lipstick, and eyebrows (Only Madonna could get away with that). But that's why I love Nikki Finn, she's not your ordinary girl. She makes things happen, always exciting to be around, and always honest. Sure, she steals, but she doesn't rob or murder (unless you're out to do her in). She knows which rules can be broken and which ones should be obeyed. She knows what to take and what can't be stolen. If you need a favor from her, she's in 100%. Bottom line: She knows how to enjoy life. Nikki is always loving (which is why she has a way with wild animals), and completely dedicated to those she loves, and who love her.

Who's That Girl? She's the girl for me. I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.

This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.

First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.

Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.

As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.

I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.

Peace.

Gary i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then, if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no "Last Emperor", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like "Who's That Girl?" then i'd also recommend "Party Girl" and "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion". Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto. I had seen this movie as a kid and loved it. I loved how spunky and full of energy Nikki is, and how she mostly ruins Louden's perfect yuppie life and corrupts him and turns him on to her crazy ways. As a kid in the 80's I saw New York exactly the way it was portrayed in this movie, the domain of Madonna's character, with wild animals running rampant and hideous bald men chasing people around and causing havoc. Now as an adult I find I love the movie for the same reasons, and even more so for the love story woven into the crazy antics of Ms. Nikki Finn. Although I would still love to go anywhere and find an indoor atrium like in this movie. Pure beauty and genius. Dashing Errol Flynn brings his usual flair for drama in this historically flawed but entertaining film of the life of George Armstrong Custer. The dashing, jovial Flynn essays Custer from his days at West Point as a reckless, headstrong cadet, through the Civil War years in an extraordinarily generous and partisan interpretation of history, and finally as the nonpareil Indian fighter whose blunder at the Little Big Horn is excused as a sacrifice by Custer of his command as a way of exposing the corruption of government officials and post traders as well as a protest of the unfair treatment of the Plains Indians. Olivia de Havilland, Flynn's co-star in several other films, scores as the devoted, adoring Libby Bacon, and Anthony Quinn looks the part as the fierce Sioux chief Crazy Horse. The film's battle scenes are excellent. The Civil War battles are brief and are shown as several vignettes in which Custer, seemingly supported by just a handful of troopers, hammers the Confederate army into submission. Custer's last fight against the Indians is a grand spectacle, a savage clash between red men and white, with no quarter given in a wild mix of military might between determined fighting men. Great direction, cinematography, casting and wonderful music by Max Steiner make this film a Hollywood classic. All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.

Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)

Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).

Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.

8 of 10 The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here, with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the famed 'Boy General" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all, this is great fun! This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.

What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War).

Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.

So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern "Point" man they could find.

Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).

Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.

That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.

Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be. Although this film changes reality to make it more heroic and entertaining, sometimes fantasy is more enjoyable than real life, and also nothing could be more real than Errol Flynn playing Custer. This remains the best film made about Custer. The music of Max Steiner is magnificent and also all through the film the Irish song "Gerry Owen", which was a favourite of Custer is played. The film should have more villains, because they try to concentrate all the bad guys in Arthur Kennedy. The relationship between Flynn and De Havilland flows like in no other off their films together, and director Raoul Walsh with his experience in outside scenes with a lot of actors is at his best. I saw this film over Christmas, and what a great film it was! It tells the story of Custer (played by Errol Flynn) during and after his graduation from Westpoint. Although I've heard that the film isn't very historically accurate (Hollywood never is) I still enjoyed it as I knew little of the real events anyway.

I thought Errol Flynn was brilliant as Custer and has since become my favourite actor! His acting alongside Olivia De Havilland was brilliant and the ending was fantastic! It brought me close to tears as he and Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) rode to their deaths on little big horn.

I had always known that Errol Flynn was a brilliant actor as he was my dads favourite actor, and I grew up watching his films as a child. But it wasn't until I watched this film that I realised how great he actually was.

I'll give this film 10 out of 10!! great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch. View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject. My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it had been in color ... wow ! Whether one views him as a gallant cavalier of the plains or a glory hunting egomaniac, debates about the life and military career of George Armstrong Custer continue down to the present day. They Died With Their Boots On presents certain facts of the Custer story and has taken liberty with others.

He did in fact graduate at the bottom of his class at West Point and got this overnight promotion on the battlefield to Brigadier General. His record leading the Michigan Regiment under his command was one of brilliance.

It was also true that his marriage to Libby Bacon was one of the great love matches of the 19th century. Libby and George were married for 12 years until The Little Big Horn. What's not known to today's audience is that Libby survived until 1933. During that time she was the custodian of the Custer legend. By dint of her own iron will and force of personality her late husband became a hero because she would not allow him to be remembered in any other way.

I think Raoul Walsh and Warner Brothers missed a good opportunity to have the Custer career told in flashback. Olivia DeHavilland should have been made up the way Jeanette MacDonald was in Maytime, and be telling the story of her husband and her marriage from the point of view of nostalgia and remembrance. Even then the cracks in the Custer legend were appearing, but if done from Libby's point of view, they could be understood and forgiven.

Sydney Greenstreet gave a fine performance as General Winfield Scott. The only problem was that Scott had nothing whatsoever to do with Custer, he was retired and replaced by George B. McClellan in late 1861 while Custer was still at West Point. I'm not sure they ever met. But Greenstreet does a good characterization of the ponderous and powerful Winfield Scott. A nice Mexican War story should have been what they gave Greenstreet instead for his very accurate portrayal of old Fuss and Feathers.

The film though is carried by one of the great romantic teams of cinema, Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland. This was the last of eight films they did together. The last scene they ever did for the cameras was Libby's farewell to George as he leaves to join his regiment for what will prove to be his last campaign. Both their performances, Olivia's especially, was a high point in their careers at Warner Brothers. We know through history that Custer is riding to his doom, that and the fact that this was their last screen teaming give this scene such a special poignancy. If your eyes don't moisten you are made of marble.

As history They Died With Their Boots On leaves a lot to be desired. As western adventure that successfully mixes romance with the action, you can't beat this film at all. George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.

Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.

Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.

The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.

this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60 years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife (de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest! The saving grace of this film is its humour. Playing up to the strengths of their star, Warner Brothers cast their version of General Custer as a cocky, dashing, irreverent prankster with a romantic streak and an unexpected strain of idealism; it was Robin Hood all over again, and Flynn blossomed in the role. All his best action pictures made use of his talent for mischief and comic timing, and this one was no exception.

It also benefits from the return of former co-star Olivia de Havilland, despite an earlier agreement to break the partnership; the part of strong-minded Libby Custer is a better role than the sweet love-interest types she had grown tired of playing for the studio in Flynn's later films, and after seeing the script he had specifically requested de Havilland be cast so that she could do justice to the part. In this final collaboration, she piles all her considerable acting skill into what is, at heart, basically a romping adventure movie, and the screen chemistry is rekindled -- for once, she and Flynn get the chance to develop their characters beyond the initial romance into an old married couple, to equally winning effect.

The Flynn/de Havilland pairing and the streak of comedy are what have provided this film's durability, when most of Flynn's other Westerns -- held in such affection by the contemporary American public, although allegedly not by their star -- have long since been forgotten. The action scenes are fairly cursory (despite, ironically, the death of an extra in a fall during one of the filmed charges) and the villains of the piece turn out, schoolboy-fashion, to be the same people who were horrid to Our Hero on his very first day at West Point, and thus continue to frustrate him throughout his career. It cuts down on the cast list, but it's a trifle too morally convenient.

However, these are quibbles largely irrelevant to a film that never set out to be more than a rousing piece of entertainment. Ably aided and abetted by a sterling group of supporting players (memorably including Anthony Quinn in an all-but-wordless role as the Sioux leader), Errol Flynn gallops his way through the plot courtesy of his usual arsenal: charmingly sheepish looks, unexpected sweetness, mischievous twinkles, flash-point indignation, cheerful fellowship and sheer high-octane charisma. He's a reckless braggart, but you can't help but like him. And it's hard to go away without the tune of "Garryowen" threading its jaunty way through your ears for many days thereafter.

This is one of Flynn's lasting hits; it also contains a surprising amount of good acting amongst the fun, and is a film worthy of being remembered. Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape, confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked. Although "They Died with their Boots On" is not entirely historically accurate it is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the characters he played and play them well! As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear! Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).

Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.

For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer:

1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.

2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.

3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.

4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.

5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.

And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.

And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.

All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk. This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable. If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself `Oh I want to learn more about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie to watch.

The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with Libby (Olivia De Havilland).

Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh.

The heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him.

I give it a thumbs up for this 1942 western film. Now this is more like it!One of the best movies I have ever seen!Despite it made very well on all aspects,this movie was put down solely for not being too historically accurate.Loosen up!There are tons of historical movies out there that were forgiven for not being too historically accurate and many of them do not even come close to how grand,how entertaining and how captivating this movie was!Now this is what a movie ticket is all about!You will get exacty what you want from this movie's genre and all naysayers are those with the anti-Flynn syndrome.This conservative rooted syndrome is very closely related to the anti-Elvis,anti-Ali,anti-Clinton,anti-Kennedy syndromes,usually caused by fear of charming individuals who have unconventional beliefs.If the viewer of this movie is open minded and has the ability to separate politics from art,you will find this movie not only one of the best classics,but also one of the best movies of all time.I rate it the second best western ever, right behind Wayne's The Cowboys........ The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.

I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.

The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor. It's true that "They Died With Their Boots On" gives a highly fictionalized account of George Armstrong Custer's (Errol Flynn) life and career, but a remarkable one, especially with regard to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Because it is not a given that a 1941 movie tries to portray both the US-American cavalryman and Native American leader Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) in a favorable light. I'm almost tempted to say that "Little Big Man" in its unqualified anti-Custer stance seems unbalanced by comparison. Further, one should not be mislead by the title of the picture – this isn't just a movie about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, it's a movie about that shows the unreliable West Point cadet, the famed Civil War hero, the Indian fighter, and, last but not least, the husband.

The movie begins with Custer's time at the West Point military academy, where his recalcitrance and insubordinate behavior lead to frequent demerits. During a punitive military exercise, he meets his future wife, Elizabeth Bacon (Olivia de Havilland), who, like Custer himself, is a native of Monroe, Michigan. Custer intends to court her, but the outbreak of the Civil War calls him away. Custer's legendary bravery is shown in a sequence of battle scenes, the greatest of which is devoted to his engagement with legendary Southern cavalry general Jeb Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg. While on leave, he travels to Monroe and courts Elizabeth, who promises him her hand in matrimony. Immediately after the war, Custer and Elizabeth Bacon are married.

With the Civil War over, Custer is demoted, doesn't get a real command, and has to go through the painstakingly slow process of promotion in the small, professional American army. As he starts to drink, his wife intervenes in his behalf with former general-in-chief Winfield Scott. Custer is given the command of the US 7th Cavalry, which he trains to be an elite unit. Neither Custer nor Crazy Horse are desirous of battle, but greedy businessmen and corrupt politicians decide to build a railroad through Indian lands in clear violation to earlier treaties. Custer explicitly acknowledges the justice of Crazy Horse's cause, but rides into battle to do his duty as a soldier, exposing the conspiracy of the moneyed interests in a letter he writes on the eve of battle.

"They Died With Their Boots On," though short on historical accuracy, is as good as war movies and Westerns in the 1940s got: Both Custer and Crazy Horse are played by major actors, neither the Indians nor the Southern Confederacy are denigrated, and the courtship scenes with beautiful Livvy de Havilland are just charming. The only minus, and that's why I can't give this picture a full 10, is the undercurrent of racism in the portrayal of African American servants; Elizabeth's servant Callie is the stereotypical, overweight, good-natured, superstitious black mammy.

It is also interesting that the movie does not find fault with either Custer or Crazy Horse, but with the greed of the railroad companies pressuring Washington politicians with semi-criminal methods into breaking assurances they had given to the Native Americans. Just a couple of years later, the insinuation that American entrepreneurs could even think of doing anything remotely questionable would probably have been taken as a hint that the film makers were communist sympathizers.

Needless to say that "They Died With Their Boots On" omits the fact that Custer's overly aggressive tactics often bordered on the foolhardy, greatly overstates the importance of his engagement with Stuart, and doesn't mention the lack of reconnaissance prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Nevertheless, Custer was seen as a war hero by his contemporaries and had some spectacular exploits to point to in the Battles of Brandy Station, Gettysburg, Trevilian Station and others, though his feats of arms were not as decisive for the Civil War as "They Died With Their Boots On" suggests.

In any event, "They Died With Their Boots On" is a well-made war movie with Western elements, three outstanding performers (Flynn, Quinn, and de Havilland), and offers a positive view of Native Americans as well as a negative one on big money, which wouldn't be seen in major Hollywood productions for decades to come. It would deserve a 10 if it weren't for the racist minstrelization of African Americans. The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds. Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the final "Last Stand" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age. When one stops to recollect upon the frequent on screen teaming of Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland, "They Died With Their Boots On" (1941) is most likely the film remembered best. It is the sweeping saga of General Custer (Flynn) - told from the time he enters West Point military academy and falls for the luscious Elizabeth Bacon (DeHavilland), through his tenure during the American Civil War, and finally with his death at Little Big Horn. Director, Raoul Walsh mounts his historical epic on the laurels of highly questionable recanting of historical texts, rewritten by screen writers Wally Kline and Aeneas MacKenzie, until truth and fiction are warped all out of proportion. Hence, the battle against Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) is portrayed as a crooked deal between politicians - California Joe (Charley Grapewin) and a spuriously absent corporation which wants to reclaim the land Custer gave to the Indians through the systematic genocide of the Nation's first peoples.

Flynn, who cleverly plays Custer as though he is one part Arnold Schwartzenegger to two parts Albert Schweitzer, has never been more ignoble. He literally oozes charm and sex appeal from every pore that easily melts the heart of his loyal heroine. Resident Warner stock players, Arthur Kennedy and Sidney Greenstreet deliver marvelous cameos that appear to have far more depth and character than is actually written into the material for them.

Overall, then, despite its loose rendering of history in favor of a good romantic yarn, "They Died With Their Boots On" is ample film fodder for a Saturday matinée or Sunday night cooing with one's sweetheart. Warner's DVD is pretty nice looking. Although film grain is often obvious, the gray scale has been very nicely rendered with deep, solid blacks and very clean whites. Some fading is obvious during scene transitions. The audio has been very nicely cleaned up and is presented at an adequate listening level. BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the bar very high.

ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was "Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.

ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a large number of reliable character actors from the "Warner's Repertory Company" are employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland), Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), "Californy" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges), General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel).

THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford, William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper, Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker, Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal, Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more.

THE film moves very quickly, particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually).

AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor, SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!). However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of "Artistic and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just didn't happen that way, yet the "gag" both helped the film to move along; while it underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the film.

DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident, being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25, 1876, "Custer's Last Stand" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans' National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on September 11, 2002.

JUST as so many films of that period of WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release period.

POODLE SCHNITZ!! I blame "Birth of a Nation" myself - for commencing the long-running tradition of Hollywood travesties of history, of which there can be few greater examples than this. Apart from getting the names of Custer and his 7th Cavalry, Crazy Horse and the Sioux and President Grant spelt right, the geography correct and the fact that Custer and his men were indeed wiped out to a man, the rest just takes hyperbole and invention to ludicrous limits. Throw in some downright hackneyed scenes of the purest exposition, (try Custer and his wife's learning of the phony "Gold Rush" to excuse the invasion of the Sioux territory, Custer's testimony in front of Congress pleading the rights of the Red Indians and to top it all, Custer's storming into the president's office to beg to return to his post), honestly there's plenty more of the same, some of these scenes almost comical in their corniness... ...And yet, and yet, it's still a great actioner with Flynn as dashing as ever, DeHavilland as beguiling as ever, the young Anthony Quinn getting a start as Crazy Horse and director Walsh as barnstorming as ever in his depiction of crowd scenes and of course the tumultuous action sequences. Ford taught us in "Liberty Valance" to believe the legend before the truth. Here I think we're closer to the legend of the legend but hey, it's only a movie and a rollicking, wonderfully enjoyable classic Hollywood movie at that! I first viewed "They Died With There Boots On",about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident"His squadron would follow him to hell,"Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,"young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise."Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the "Little Big Horn" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it. After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great "Queen's Own Buttler" with his song "Garryowen", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?

An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso. If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.

There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.

Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.

As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.

The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You take glory with you when it's your time to go". Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in "Big Trail" director Raoul Walsh's first-rate western "They Died with Their Boots On," a somewhat inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn teamed in quite often afterward, and "They Died with Their Boots On" reunited Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes, and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point. In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film "Santa Fe Trail" showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film.

"They Died with Their Boots On" opens with Custer riding into West Point Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy of "City for Conquest") to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges of "Task Force") who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of "The Sons of Katie Elder") is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming. As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia de Havilland of "Santa Fe Trail"), and they pledge themselves to each other, despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of "Carousel") who detests the sight of Custer. It seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends and our hero reprimanded Bacon.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney Greenstreet of "The Maltese Falcon") and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861, Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first, Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn of "The Guns of Navarone") and takes him into custody. Of course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight.

Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills. Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins. "Stagecoach" lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their quarters for the Little Big Horn. "They Died with Their Boots On" benefits from a top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune "Gary Owen." Errol Flynn's roguish charm really shines through in this entertaining and exciting, but historically bankrupt biopic of the famous (and some would say infamous) General Custer, that follows his career from his first day at West Point, through the Civil War and out west to the battle at The Little Big Horn, all the while butting heads with rival Arthur Kennedy and romancing pretty Olivia de Havilland.

Some might say that Flynn, who delivers a great, flamboyant performance as the general, is basically playing himself playing Custer!

A lavish production (that should have been in Technicolor) well directed by Raoul Walsh, They Died With Their Boots On features some truly well-staged battle sequences. Also, it's a real treat to see Anthony Quinn playing Crazy Horse.

The previous year, Flynn played Jeb Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's George Custer in Santa Fe Trail (also with de Havilland), another action-packed Warner Brothers production designed to make you fail history class! While I can't say whether or not Larry Hama ever saw any of the old cartoons, I would think that writing said cartoons, file cards, and some of the comics would count for something.

For fans of the old cartoon, this is pretty much a continuation of the same, except with a few new characters - and a more insane Cobra Commander.

We still have all the old favorites too, but on a personal note, one thing that always irritated me was this "Duke in charge" stuff, when there are tons of other *officers* around instead.

The battle sequences are similar to the old series as well; the main trick here seems to be the CGI. It's overall pretty good, if not a little over-the-top. Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: "A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham sandwich!!!" The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll "have to sacrifice my art and go into the movies." He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to "go ye forth" and find money to finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, "How does he expect me to get the money?"

In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe business owner putting up a "bankrupt" sale on his store. Felix comes up with a plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works.

Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there.

We then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in length.

At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant mosquitoes! Crazy stuff. This short is one of the best of all time and is proof (just like most of Charlie Chaplin's work) that sound and color are not requirements for quality work. In fact, this cartoon uses (and may have started) some of the gags and devices that became standard in animation in later years, like caricatures of celebrities (including the afore-mentioned Chaplin. While the characters are silent, they do "speak", by use of word balloons, just like in the comics. Given that Felix started out in newspapers as a comic strip, this device is a natural. The atmosphere and style of the short is completely harmonious with that of the comic strip while adding another dimension (literally and figuratively) and makes this short a delight to watch. Well worth taking the time and effort to get. Most highly recommended. A gem of a cartoon from the silent era---it was re-discovered by CARTOON NETWORK, and was broadcast for likely the first time in decades, if ever.

What makes this so enjoyable are the varied cameos...Douglas Fairbanks is attacked by giant mosquitos; Will Hays pays a visit as 'boss' of Static Studios; as well as appearances by Chaplin, Keaton, and William S. Hart. The image of chewing gum decimating the shoes of the populace (a money-making idea for Felix's near-bankrupt shoe-=salesman boss) cannot be described--it must be viewed. A terrific cultural gem. Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored, which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any silent film or animation enthusiast. Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.

Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.

Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray! I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad, but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers, wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory' things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason. Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his "typical" formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10. I went into "Night of the Hunted" not knowing what to expect at all. I was really impressed.

It is essentially a mystery/thriller where this girl who can't remember anything gets 'rescued' by a guy who happens to be driving past. The two become fast friends and lovers and together, they try to figure out what is going on with her. Through some vague flashbacks and grim memories, they eventually get to the bottom of it and the ending is pretty cool.

I really liked the setting of this one: a desolate, post-modern Paris is the backdrop with lots of gray skies and tall buildings. Very metropolitan. Groovy soundtrack and lots of nudity.

Surprising it was made in 1980; seems somewhat ahead of it's time.

8 out of 10, kids. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this. Sure it is a bit slow moving in parts, but what else would one expect from Rollin? Also there is plenty of nudity, nothing wrong with that, particularly as it includes lots of the gorgeous, Brigitte Lahaie. There are also some spectacularly eroticised female dead, bit more dodgey, perhaps, but most effective. There is also a sci-fi like storyline with a brief explanation at the end, but I wouldn't bother too much with that. No, here we have a most interesting exploration of memory and the effect of memory loss and to just what extent one is still 'alive' without memory. My DVD sleeve mentions David Cronenberg and whilst this is perhaps not quite as good as his best films, there is some similarity here, particularly with the great use of seemingly menacing architecture and the effective and creepy use of inside space. As I have tried to indicate this is by no means a rip roaring thriller, it is a captivating, nightmare like movie that makes the very most of its locations, including a stunning railway setting at the end. Even if you're a fan of Jean Rollin's idiosyncratic body of work, you will be caught off guard by this exceptional foray into science fiction territory. For once, there's not a single diaphanously gowned vampire girl in sight ! True to tradition, the budget proved way too tight to realize the director's vision entirely. Yet this is largely compensated by his obvious love of genre cinema, dedication to his craft and sheer ingenuity. Jean-Claude Couty's atmospheric cinematography makes the most of the foreboding locations and Philippe Bréjean (a/k/a "Gary Sandeur") contributes a startling soundtrack that fortunately doesn't resemble any of the sappy stuff he composed for hardcore.

Shot in and around a Paris office block before and after working hours, the film was largely cast with porn regulars Rollin was already quite familiar with from his "Michel Gentil" cash-gathering XXX efforts, most notably French f*ck film royalty Brigitte Lahaie in the demanding lead. Playing Elisabeth (rather well, I might add), she's picked up wandering a nearby highway one night by Robert (Vincent Gardère), driving home at the end of a long work day. Barely able to piece together the string of events that got her there, Elisabeth seems to lose her memories mere moments after events occur, even forgetting Robert's name and heroic savior role before their night flight comes to an end at his apartment. Prior to making love, she rightfully describes herself as a virgin (further credit to Brigitte's thespian skills that she can handle the line so convincingly, being after all one of the more active adult actresses of the '70s) because she cannot recall a single touch preceding his. Because of this nifty bit of context, the relatively long sex scene that follows totally eschews the gratuity of other "commercial" interludes Rollin has had to include in other works to assure funding.

When Robert leaves for work, he's inevitably erased from Elisabeth's feeble mind. A mysterious doctor (comedian Bernard Papineau effectively cast against type) and his menacing assistant Solange (striking porn starlet Rachel Mhas) move in on her during her protector's absence and take her back to the place she turns out to have escaped from. Here we get one of the movie's strongest scenes as she's re-introduced to her roommate Catherine (the late Cathérine Greiner a/k/a hardcore performer "Cathy Stewart" in a quietly devastating turn), both girls desperately supplying fictitious shared "memories" for one another in a bid to outrun their inevitable fate. That deterioration is not solely limited to the mind becomes painfully clear when they are served lunch and Catherine's unable to control her movements in trying to eat a spoonful of soup. It's also Catherine who gets to voice the filmmaker's compromise with the demands of commerce as she urges Elisabeth to get naked and hold her because sex is all they have left now that both mind and physical faculties have deserted them.

Several rather explicit - if not quite hardcore - sex scenes make up the movie's mid-section and French porn aficionados should recognize the likes of Alain Plumey (a/k/a "Cyril Val"), Jacques Gateau and Elodie Delage, along with a blink and miss bit from future porno princess Marilyn Jess whose rape at the hands, mouth and member of Plumey was only present in the film's rarely screened XXX version FILLES TRAQUEES. The pivotal part of Véronique, a girl Elisabeth almost seems to remember and whom she seeks to escape anew with, is beautifully handled by the exquisite Dominique Journet - in her unforgettable debut - who would go on to play a sizable supporting role in Franco Zeffirelli's LA TRAVIATA. The six feet under ending reveals the deteriorating condition to be the result of a nuclear spill, the quarantined "patients" ultimately leaving a barely breathing empty shell, unceremoniously disposed off in a fiery furnace. The final shot offers a particularly heartbreaking variation on that of Chaplin's MODERN TIMES as Elisabeth, approaching complete meltdown by now, and a wounded Robert stumble along the railroad bridge, clumsily clasping each other's outstretched hands. "Night of the Hunted" stars French porn star Brigitte Lahaie.In fact,many of the cast members in this slow-moving production were porn actors at the time of its frantic filming.This film is certainly different than Rollin's usual lesbian vampire flicks,but it's not as memorable as for example "Lips of Blood" or "Fascination".Lahaie plays an amnesiac hitchhiker who can't remember who she is or where she came from.Most of the film takes place in a modern apartment complex,where Lahaie is being held by some kind of medical group that's treating a number of people with a similar condition.Anyway,she escapes from the monolithic office tower where the affected people are held.On a highway outside of town,she meets a young man,who stops and picks her up."Night of the Hunted" offers plenty of nudity,unfortunately the pace is extremely slow.The atmosphere is horribly sad and the relationship between Brigitte Lahaie and another asylum inmate Dominique Journet is well-developed.Still "Night of the Hunted" is too dull to be completely enjoyable.Give it a look only if you are a fan of Jean Rollin's works.7 out of 10 and that's being kind. I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all the more interesting.

The story, of an actor trying to come to grips with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their relationship towards Jia are very effective.

Jia Hongsheng is the actor of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive, except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso.

I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those around him.

The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him. Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well.

The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong recommendation. My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him.

***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.

A must see for someone in the mental health profession! I must say, every time I see this movie, I am deeply touched, not only by the most painful four years of Hongsheng's life, but also by how his family deals with his drug addiction. It is also true that getting addicted to anything, such as drugs, alcohol, or pornography, cannot only hurt you, but also hurt your most important people in the world: your family. Since family is the #1 priority in the Asian culture, it takes guts for the circle to gather together and show one person how much the family loves him/her. this is actually the first Chinese movie that I actually enjoy, not for the fun of it, but the elements surrounding it (superb acting, touching story, great direction) make this movie worth watching. What stands out the most is that Hongsheng and his family act out the story themselves instead of having some B-movie actor trying to imitate the real person. It shows the genuineness of the movie. I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels.

The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start. I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up!

This Movie Blew ME AWAY! "Quitting" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim.

But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clichés, no stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes, no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts and whims.

Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor, impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the "cool" actor, idolized by youth. "He was hot in the early nineties." "He always had to be the most fashionable." He needs extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success, opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- "I didn't know how to act" "I felt like a phony"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says "I had to get high to do what director wanted." So, his shallow identity as an actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity.

Hongshen's disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and realistic identity. "I started to open up" he says of this period in retrospect. And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all night.

Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his "John Lennon Forever" poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and adopts his "Mother Mary" as an intercessor in his "hour of darkness" and "time of trouble." (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid ordeals) "Music is so much more real than acting" he says. And speaks of Lennon's influence as "showing me a new way." In the mental institute, the life-saving apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room.

If Lennon's influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself: he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board, sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his father: "all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit." And to Hongshen's emphatic "you are NOT my father," he softly replies, "why can't a peasant be your father?"

Under these two teachers and with much additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. "You are just a human being" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his once "rare and true friendships" begin again as is so evident in the back to poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this movie: "it's a good chance to think about my life." And I might add, become a New Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss of identity. This movie is amazing because the fact that the real people portray themselves and their real life experience and do such a good job it's like they're almost living the past over again. Jia Hongsheng plays himself an actor who quit everything except music and drugs struggling with depression and searching for the meaning of life while being angry at everyone especially the people who care for him most. There's moments in the movie that will make you wanna cry because the family especially the father did such a good job. However, this movie is not for everyone. Many people who suffer from depression will understand Hongsheng's problem and why he does the things he does for example keep himself shut in a dark room or go for walks or bike rides by himself. Others might see the movie as boring because it's just so real that its almost like a documentary. Overall this movie is great and Hongsheng deserved an Oscar for this movie so did his Dad. I felt this film did have many good qualities. The cinematography was certainly different exposing the stage aspect of the set and story. The original characters as actors was certainly an achievement and I felt most played quite convincingly, of course they are playing themselves, but definitely unique. The cultural aspects may leave many disappointed as a familiarity with the Chinese and Oriental culture will answer a lot of questions regarding parent/child relationships and the stigma that goes with any drug use. I found the Jia Hongsheng story interesting. On a down note, the story is in Beijing and some of the fashion and music reek of early 90s even though this was made in 2001, so it's really cheesy sometimes (the Beatles crap, etc). Whatever, not a top ten or twenty but if it's on the television, check it out. Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I wonder how much of a hand Hongsheng had in developing the film. I mean, when a story is told casting the main character as himself, I would think he would be a heavy hand in writing, documenting, etc. and that would make it a little biased.

But...his family and friends also may have had a hand in getting the actual details about Hongsheng's life. I think the best view would have been told from Hongsheng's family and friends' perspectives. They saw his transformation and weren't so messed up on drugs that they remember everything.

As for Hongsheng being full of himself, the consistencies of the Jesus Christ pose make him appear as a martyr who sacrificed his life (metaphorically, of course, he's obviously still alive as he was cast as himself) for his family's happiness. Huh?

The viewer sees him at his lowest points while still maintaining a superiority complex. He lies on the grass coming down from (during?) a high by himself and with his father, he contemplates life and has visions of dragons at his window, he celebrates his freedom on a bicycle all while outstretching his arms, his head cocked to the side.

It's fabulous that he's off of drugs now, but he's no hero. He went from a high point in his career in acting to his most vulnerable point while on drugs to come back somewhere in the middle.

This same device is used in Ted Demme's "Blow" where the audience empathizes with the main character who is shown as a flawed hero.

However, "Quitting" ("Zuotian") is a film that is recommended, mostly for its haunting soundtrack, superb acting, and landscapes. But, the best part is the feeling that one gets when what we presume to be the house of Jia Hongsheng is actually a stage setting for a play. It makes the viewer feel as if Hongsheng's life was merely a play told in many difficult parts. I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "...explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.

This is a story of golf in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich "gentlemen", and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry Vardon.

And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf of "Holes") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage, spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event.

And, we learn a lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play not being canceled even in torrential rain.

This film has stunning cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the story is somehow more believable.

This adds to the inventory of great sports movies in the vein of "Miracle" and "Remember the Titans."

FYI - There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners going back 70 years. Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.

The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in "Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.

A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie. I saw this film in a sneak preview, and it is delightful. The cinematography is unusually creative, the acting is good, and the story is fabulous. If this movie does not do well, it won't be because it doesn't deserve to. Before this film, I didn't realize how charming Shia Lebouf could be. He does a marvelous, self-contained, job as the lead. There's something incredibly sweet about him, and it makes the movie even better. The other actors do a good job as well, and the film contains moments of really high suspense, more than one might expect from a movie about golf. Sports movies are a dime a dozen, but this one stands out.

This is one I'd recommend to anyone. As a recreational golfer with some knowledge of the sport's history, I was pleased with Disney's sensitivity to the issues of class in golf in the early twentieth century. The movie depicted well the psychological battles that Harry Vardon fought within himself, from his childhood trauma of being evicted to his own inability to break that glass ceiling that prevents him from being accepted as an equal in English golf society. Likewise, the young Ouimet goes through his own class struggles, being a mere caddie in the eyes of the upper crust Americans who scoff at his attempts to rise above his standing.

What I loved best, however, is how this theme of class is manifested in the characters of Ouimet's parents. His father is a working-class drone who sees the value of hard work but is intimidated by the upper class; his mother, however, recognizes her son's talent and desire and encourages him to pursue his dream of competing against those who think he is inferior.

Finally, the golf scenes are well photographed. Although the course used in the movie was not the actual site of the historical tournament, the little liberties taken by Disney do not detract from the beauty of the film. There's one little Disney moment at the pool table; otherwise, the viewer does not really think Disney. The ending, as in "Miracle," is not some Disney creation, but one that only human history could have written. Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror "Frailty", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish idol in what was dubbed as "The Greatest Game Ever Played." I'm no fan of golf, and these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to grand effect with "Miracle" and "Cinderella Man"), but some how this film was enthralling all the same.

The film starts with some creative opening credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's "Carnivale" and "Rome"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century.

You know how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience. Although I'm not a golf fan, I attended a sneak preview of this movie and absolutely loved it. The historical settings, the blatant class distinctions, and seeing the good and the bad on both sides of the dividing line held my attention throughout. The actors and their characterizations were all mesmerizing. And I was on the edge of my seat during the golf segments, which were not only dramatic and exciting but easy to follow. Toward the end of this movie, "Seabiscuit" came strongly to mind, although "The Greatest Game Ever Played" is far less complex a story than that film. In both cases, the fact that the events really happened deepened my interest. I was extraordinarily impressed by this film. It's one of the best sports films I've every seen. The visuals in this film are outstanding. I love the sequences in which the camera tracks the ball as it flies through the air or into the cup. The film moves well, offering both excitement and drama. The cinematography was fantastic.

The acting performances are great. I was surprised by young Shia LaBeouf.He does well in this role. Stephen Dillane is also good as the brooding Harry Vardon. Peter Firth, Justin Ashforth, and Elias Koteas offer able support. The film is gripping and entertaining and for the first time in my life actually made me want to watch a golf tournament. Wow, here is another great golf movie. That's at least three in the past few years that I've really enjoyed, that were well-done, beautifully-filmed and inspirational. The other two were "Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius" and "The Legend Of Bagger Vance."

This is a true underdog story, if there ever was one. To have an amateur defeat all the professionals and win the United States Open Golf Tournament is an unheard-of feat. I believe this is the only time in the 100 years it has ever been accomplished. How much of this film is fiction embellished for dramatic effect, I don't know. I do know that I plan on reading the book, and I know that in real-life, Francis Ouimet had a three-stroke lead in playoff with just two holes to go, unlike what we saw in the film.

Whatever. Francis Ouimet's victory over golf legends Harry Vardon and Ted Ray is fact. It is an amazing story and the filmmakers did a super job in presenting it here. It isn't something just for golf fans; this is a fun movie. Kudso to actor-turned-director Bill Paxton for an outstanding job.

Yes, a lot of this is just plain golf but there are subplots such as Ouimet's relationship with his father and with a pretty young woman who is obviously interested in him. It's also a touching story of someone giving a little kid a chance. The movie also deals with Vardon's demons of coming from the wrong side of the tracks and trying to make it in an elitist's sport, which it was at the time for both Europeans and Americans.

Shia LaBeouf is winsome as Ouimet as is Steven Dillane as Vardon. For those who don't know, Vardon was like the Tiger Woods of his day, maybe even more unbeatable. In the film, Vardon is pictured as a warm, nice guy; a genuine human being. the other major competitor, Ray (Stephen Marcus) is shown as somewhat of a brutish nasty guy.

The fourth main character of this golf story might be the coolest person in the film: a fifth-grade boy who winds up being Ouimet's caddie in the Open. He (Josh Flitter) brings a lot of humor and charm to the movie.

If all of this - a playoff with the huge underdog against two mighty pros and having come down to the last hole - were not true, you would think, "Oh, man, this is so hokey. Who could believe this?" That's what makes this true-life story fun to see finally captured on film. As with another sports film of 2005 - "Cinderella Man" - here is another excellent movie that got unjustly ignored when it came to awards. I guess nice films don't win awards.....just the hearts of their viewers. This movie gives golf a high mark, it was well acted and well directed. Giving you a view of history that some non-sports fans will enjoy. The historic factor alone gives it a high rating, the Brookline golf course was really done well. I am in the northeast and have seen Brookline as a fan, and as someone who loves the game. The movie was well done on all levels. A MUST SEE 5 stars. The acting was superb, Disney has another winner in its bag of Great movies. If for no other reason watch the film to give hope and encouragement to young people whom may not see the hope in their life. I would tell you that the setting, while in the late 1800's and early 1900's is very realistic. The costumes and dialect were right on the mark as well. Above and beyond the call of duty for a golf film. A Must see for fans and non-fans alike. As you know "The Greatest Game Ever Played" is about golf. I used to snicker at the over-dramatic title, but through great visual display credited to director Bill Paxton (better known for his acting in Twister and hilarious supporting roles in Aliens and True Lies) we find out that this has much more meaning than a game.

Though the movie is about golf, it seems as though the sport is just the framework for what is really going on. What is really going on is a story of individuals being told they can't fulfill their dreams, be it age or social status. A conflict between a son's wishes and a father's demands. An English golf legend looking to bring the title home with the country breathing down his neck.

Shia LaBeouf (Even Stevens) plays Francis Ouimet, a caddy with a God-given talent who was never permitted to play golf in the first place. Despite the resentment of the upper class "gentlemen," it was undeniable that Francis had a gift. What posed a greater threat was the discouragement of his father played by Elias Koteas (Sugartime, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) who felt that playing a mere game will never improve their poor living conditions. With the continued support of his mother, Francis eventually comes face to face with his idol, the golf legend Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane).

More impressive than the game itself, was the movie's cinematic achievement. This proved that storytelling is successful through pure cinema. The entire movie could've been told without dialog. There are scenes in the movie that build strong suspense and powerful emotion with only pictures. In one particular scene, Francis Ouimet swings and the entire crowd turn their heads to watch the ball fly into the distance, all but the face of Harry Vardon looking intensely at Ouimet without a flinch. The ways in which the golfers visualize the course offer more aesthetic enjoyment.

A pleasant supporting cast completes the whole. Peyton List plays the love interest and looks worth playing for, and Josh Flitter plays a lovable caddy that keeps Ouimet focused as the pressure bogs him down. Golf fan or not, you'll appreciate the film for its beauty and its reminder that cinema can be a great medium to tell any story. I'm not a sports fan - but I love sports flics! So, why ... what is a great sports flic ... this one. And the storytelling style, is very fine.

If you are looking for a reliably fantastic 2 hours of entertainment, "Greatest Game" qualifies mightily. Here is a movie that moves. Bill Paxton has gone to the same Director school as Ron Howard - a.k.a. Richie Cunningham, "Happy Days". That is not bad. Look at the immense body of fine work that Ron did after moving behind the camera.

Bill like Ron was a great actor, but will be a superstar director if "Greatest Game Ever" is the indication of things to follow.

Wonderful cinematography - fantastic direction - fine acting, especially by Elias Koteas, Shia LeBeouf, Marnie McPhail, Josh Flitter, Stephen Marcus, Justin Ashforth.

This is a must see film not just as "feel-good", nor "sports film", this is very good cinema. if you watch this at home on DVD or Bluray! be sure you have great sound system. the musical score through this is what moves you through the movie. I have watched the movie several times and thought it was great but after just up-grading my home theater sound system, what a difference. I will be watching this movie many, many more times.

if you do not have a great sound system. find a friend who does and watch it there.

also watch the extra stories and behind the scenes extras that come with it (the BR or DVD.) the interview of Quimet in the 1960's talks about his scholarship fund...but for those times just boys got it. today I hope some of it goes to girls....... I will divide my review into following 5 categories each accounting a maximum of 100%(if perfect) ________________________________________________________________

Visual Pleasure:[100%] This is extremely pleasing movie visually. I had a great time watching it. Golfing scenes are very well shot and the dramatic effects on the green were quite amazing. I also loved seeing the old wooden golf clubs and the bag.

Director's Work:[70%] Bill Paxton is more associated to acting but this film shows he's got talent. Did a decent job.

Acting:[90%] Shia LeBeouf was very good in his role of Francis Ouimet(this guy can ACT well). The rest of the cast was also good.

Entertainment Value:[100%] I enjoyed every minute of it. It was overwhelmingly entertaining.

Script:[91%] Based on a true story and therefore it makes the film that much more special. It was intriguing right from the start and loved every scene till the very end.

__________________________________________________________________

My Advice: Definitely a MUST watch for all the Sports lovers especially Golf(You all will love it). Anyone who is looking for a nice entertaining movie and doesn't hate Sports can watch it.

_____

10/10 At 20 years old, Francis Ouimet (Shia Lebouf) as his whole life ahead of him - in a way. The son of an immigrant family living in the late-19th to early-20th Century-era United States, class was a very limiting fact of life. If one is born poor, one stays poor; if one is born into the bourgeoisie, one has a tiny bit of opportunity; if one is born into the wealthy class, they essentially have it made in the shade. British gold champion Harry Vardon and Francis' golf idol (played by the criminally underrated Stephen Dillane) is the exception that proves the rule. Born and raised in a poor British family, his accomplished skill at golf allowed him to rise from the dirty mess of the poorest slums to the lush greens of the English country clubs. He has not forgotten this life lesson. Francis wishes to follow in Vardon's footsteps and similarly uses his great skill at golf to get into the 1913 US Open at age 20. But a tough course and formidable opponents (including Francis' idol Harry Vardon) are not all that Francis must deal with as a less-than-understanding father and cruel societal framework stand in his way of living his own dream.

I know what you are thinking - I thought it too - a Walt Disney produced film about the 1913 US Open starring the irritable Shia LaBeouf holds the possibility of being entertaining but it cannot possibly be a great film. Well, I am here to encourage you to think again. Despite what it may look to some on paper, The Greatest Game Ever Played is one of the best sport films in creation.

As with every great sport film, The Greatest Game Ever Played includes many exciting sport scenes but it is not a film *about* golf - it is a character centered film about using one's talents, following one's dreams, and breaking out of class barriers. Where The Greatest Game Ever Played works excellently as a themed sport film it also works just as well as a period film - the film's featured costumes and sets being the next best thing to actual time travel. The film also simply *looks* great and virtually unknown music composer Brian Tyler set the film to a wonderful piece of music. The cast is great as well with a subtle but powerful Stephen Dillane as British golfing champion Harry Vardon, a hilarious Stephen Marcus as man's man golfer Ted Ray, a hammy Josh Flitter as Francis' pre-teenaged caddy Eddie, and a surprisingly good Shia LaBeouf in the lead role as Francis. Actor Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, Titanic) turns director here for the second time (directing a full-length feature) in The Greatest Game Ever Played. He produces a fine product - incorporating plenty of heart, ingenuity, and an attention to detail in the making of the film. Oh my god what a story! This movie is very good and it had to be God who had this happen! You did a awesome job.The acting was really good you picked the right actors for sure. This movie is so good I am really glad you made this because if you had not then I would have never ever known about this story because I am not a big golf fan and I think it is kinda boring so thank you. I really enjoyed it and that is why I gave the movie a 10\10.I liked Shia Labouf too he was perfect for the roll of Fransis Quimet. I hope most of that stuff you put in there was true also. Oh and some parts were funny and others I was just really happy. I thought that this movie was incredible. I absolutely loved it, even though my brothers didn't that much. The special effects were outstanding, and this movie is about my favorite sport; golf. The only thing that was disappointing about this amazing movie is that it is hard to watch two times or more in a row. This movie just absolutely tops everything else I have ever seen. It was everything I would expect out of a movie. I just loved it. Also, it was pretty kid-friendly. This movie helped me realize that when you put your mind to it, anything is possible. I would give it a pure 10/10! It was better than The Legend of Baggar Vants, and the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies combined. Absolutely amazing. Loved it. The focus of the key relationship in a young man's life, that of his relationship with his father, was excellently portrayed in this movie, "The Greatest Game Ever Played." The movie captured the essence of how important it is for a father to validate his son and let him know that he has what it takes to follow his dream.

It didn't matter that economic and social class mores presented obstacles to be overcome by both father and son. It also didn't matter that others were acclaiming the son in exuberant celebration. What mattered the most was that he saw his father's hand and then his face of approval. The real life challenge for both father and son had been met.

Considering that in real life the hero of the story kept his amateur status and became a businessman pretty much verifies that all that went before the match was the training ground for a valid father and son relationship. THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED (TGGEP, 2005) is an amazingly uplifting, infectious underdog film that never (really) devolves into sappiness or heavyhandedness. Yes, it takes several liberties, as most Hollywood films do, but those liberties are forgiven as they actually add to the film's enjoyment, not detract from it. In fact, there are a lot of truthful moments in it. You can really tell that it's a "Rocky" type film from the film's outset, but who cares? Directed by none other than Bill Paxton (I know, right?!), it's expertly done and immensely watchable!

TGGEP tells the story of Francis Ouimet (played with confidence, cockiness, and class by superstar-to-be Shia LaBeouf), an amateur golfer from a working class Irish-French immigrant family living in Brookline, MA, in the early 1900s. Ouimet qualifies to play in the 1913 U.S. Open. Included amongst his competition is the legendary Harry Vardon (played with immense class, dignity, and ferocity by Stephen Dillane). Ironically, Vardon is the 2nd underdog in this flick! The film starts in 1870s Scotland where land developers tell the youngster that they are building a golf course on his home and that golf is a game not for the likes of someone like him. Francis undergoes some of the same prejudice as a boy in early 1900s Brookline. The stories converge at the 1913 Open.

What's ironic is that even as an adult and multiple major champion, Vardon is still an outcast in British society due to his upbringing. Francis learned much about golf from reading Vardon's books on the subject and Vardon is his idol all growing up. Unbeknownst to Vardon, they actually met back in 1900 in Boston after Vardon, who won that year's Open, was touring when Francis was only 7.

In addition to Francis and Vardon, entrants in the 1913 Open include Vardon's friend and champion Brit Ted Ray (boisterous Stephen Marcus) and classless, chest-thumping two-time defending champion John McDermott (Michael Weaver). The film really does a good job of showing the different personalities of these men.

Redheaded Marnie McPhail is ingratiatingly serene and stunning as Francis' supportive Irish mum and veteran Elias Koteas gives a stern, reserved, taciturn performance as his French dad. Addtionally, plucky young Josh Flitter (as Francis' pint-sized 10-year old caddy Eddie) almost single handedly steals the proceedings.

Paxton throws in a lot of modern details, such as special effects zooming-in shots to show the scoreboard positioning of the players and CGI for a lot of the golf shots to keep the film exciting and at a brisk pace so as not to make the film too much of a period piece. But the film still convinces us of a specific time and place.

What's interesting is that, while Rocky-like, this is all based on a true story! So the ending is satisfactory on so many levels. An entertaining film about golf set in the early 1900s...Wow! I am not a golf fan by any means. On May 26 about 10:30 PM the movie started with a scene in the late 1800's. Old movies I like but not golf however, within the first scene a young boy (Harry Vardon) is awaken by the voices of men. He goes outside to inquire what they are doing and is told they are going to build a golf something... So , then I turned the television off but something stirred me and it was back on. The movie is excellent. We then see this young boy now a man; professional golf player who is haunted with visions from his childhood. Then we meet the true focus of the movie Francis and the decisions he makes for golf. You meet his mother and father who want to protect him from the class thing that is so obvious during the period. Then there is little Eddie Lowery his caddy with encouraging words and little pushes that are instrumental in Francis winning. Don't want to give away too much . I was up until 2 A.M. This is super please see the movie. This is first of all a good, exciting story, with well developed characters. But all the other details are well crafted on top of that, leading to a wonderful film. Don't let the Disney label lead you to think this is dumbed-down or only for kids -- it has a lot to offer to all ages, whether you like golf or not. One of the more impressive things is that the film manages to make a golf game look really exciting. And speaking as one of many who can't abide golf on TV, this is no small feat.

The first half of the film does a good job of laying out the basic characters with their motivations and backgrounds, enough that you end up liking all the important competitors once the pivotal match begins halfway through. Sure, you root for Ouimet's character all along, but his primary opponents are likable and interesting in their own right. The background layer is important once the golf match becomes a match using minds as well as golf clubs, since you get a good understanding for what each person's strengths and weaknesses are as the play progresses.

The computer effects are flashy, but they do help the story more often than not. The directing has all sorts of clever golf shots, and the period costumes and sets are really top notch.

There are a few small quibbles -- many of the minor characters seem a little too stereotypically cast from the class warfare mold, but this is forgivable with the major characters so well drawn.

Shia LaBoeuf playing Francis Ouimet is, as usual, callow and sympathetic. But the real standout is Steven Dillane, playing Harry Vardon. He rarely moves his face, but his intense, often sad, eyes and minor changes of expression say so much.

Ouimet's caddy Eddie Lowery, played by Josh Flitter, steals the scenes he is in. After you see the film, Google to find the actual photograph of Ouimet and Lowery at the tournament, to get an even better appreciation of how incredible this match truly was. I was blown away by this film. I'm one of those people who just takes a risk with movies that don't especially appeal to me sometimes, and I've got to say this one paid off. I mean, Wow! Even my young boys enjoyed the film (5 and 6 at the time), though I'm quite certain this was not geared to their age groups.

This movie was clean, too, which is a great plus. It is so great to sit down to a movie you thoroughly enjoy without profanity, violence (except one very brief scene) or anything else one is likely to find morally objectionable.

This movie brought you along on a journey you are so ready to believe because of the great acting. You feel the vast range of emotions portrayed along with the characters.

I never thought a golf movie would have me at the edge of my seat, but I couldn't help being intensely interested in how this one would turn out. I have nothing to compare it to since I have neither watched golf in reality or on film before, but everyone did a great job in keeping the pace and emotions captivating here. The score also did wonders; excellent, excellent score.

Even if you don't think this would be your kind of film, watch it. You may be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was. I was peeved that the best make-up academy award went to Dick Tracy, a horrible film with horrible make-up. The Nightbreed (based on the better titled "Cabal" novella) look terrific, the acting is excellent and David Chroneburg makes for a truly creepy and terrific antagonist.

The plot focus's on Aaron Boone, who has recurring nightmares about a society of monsters living under a cemetery. Is he making it up or are they real and calling to him? His Pyschologist (Chroneburg) convinces him he's a murderer, a slayer of families.

Troubled and suicidal, Boone seeks refuge in Midian but the monsters don't want him at first. He is also tracked by his girlfriend, Lori who refuses to give up on him even after he dies and comes back cold and monstrous.

But Decker isn't about to let Boone continue on. He raises the locals on an all out assault on Midian, like a holy war in gods name led by the devil.

Barkers themes of misunderstood monsters may come from his experiences as a homosexual male, but they are always strong and honest. Nightbreed turns the genre on it's head. The monsters are just trying to survive and want to be left alone, but man is hunting them.

A 20+ minute longer cut was originally submitted by Barker, but the studio chopped it into this fractured masterpiece. Barker is hard at work trying to locate the missing footage for a directors cut release. Until then, this version will have to do. What's fun about Barker's Nightbreed is that it's the story of a human on a rampage, a deadly threat to monsters everywhere. In this one, the monsters (the night breed of the title) are the "good" guys. It shares its sense of celebrating the different, the twisted, and the dark with the first Addams Family movie, and much of Tim Burton's work. It also has the goriness that one expects from a piece by Barker.

Especially fun is the performance by Cronenberg as the truly evil human doctor who is bent on destroying the Nightbreed. As happens in most classic monster movies, the villagers surround the monsters' castle with torches and pitchforks. Only this time, the modern setting replaces the castle with an old mausoleum and the rustic "weapons" with guns and bombs. And this time the sympathy you felt when you saw Frankenstein's monster burned in the windmill is the very center of the movie.

This isn't a masterpiece, and even Barker has done more interesting, and certainly more chilling, work. But it's pure fun, it looks great, and remains light without mocking itself. Worth a look! Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend. Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe because I enjoyed the novel "Cabal", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker. I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another cheap slasher showing mainly the "Button face/Mask" Decker character. This is a movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters are. Nightbreed is definitely my most favorite movie, I've worn more than one tape as it is. The make-up is awesome, the story is lovely. It takes a few different twists and isn't quite as deep as the story it's based on (Cabal, by Clive Barker) but for a movie adaption it stays very true to source material. The only problem with this movie were the producer's vain attempts to turn it into a teen slasher movie, hence the changed ending to allow for sequels *eye rolls*. Apparently someday we're going to be getting a Director's cut that will (I hope) clear up this bit of nonsense. Until then, I'd suggest it to anyone who like dark fantasy type horror as opposed to Freddy/Jason/Micheal type slashers. I really don't know what would be comparable... Adapting his own novel "Cabal" for the screen, author / screenwriter / director Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outré horror and fantasy. Craig Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer. The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg).

"Nightbreed" displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having worked on such films as the initial three "Star Wars" entries, helps Barker to create excellent visuals for "Nightbreed", starting right away with the opening credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy consequences that can result from a person's actions.

Great supporting performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug "Pinhead" Bradley once again gets buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus, she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the "Butterball Cenobite" in the first two "Hellraiser" pictures, turns up here as well. There's even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar.

Danny Elfman supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown.

"Nightbreed" is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I give it a hearty recommendation.

9/10 If you're looking for an original horror flick, this might be the one for you. It's strange and at times lingers on stupidity, but it's just such a good looking, nice sounding and original movie, it never fails, except maybe during the over long climax. "Nightbreed" is a must see for horror fans, or for fans of monster movie make-up.

Boone (Craig Sheffer) has been having dreams of a town called Midian full of mutant creatures. In therapy, his psychiatrist Dr. Decker (horror director David Cronenberg) has come to the conclusion that Boone is a murderer, and gives him hallucinogenic pills, and tells him to turn himself in. After almost getting killed, Boone ends up at the hospital, where he runs into a mental patient who also knows about Midian, and tells Boone where to go. Midian, located in a graveyard, is inhabited by vile mutant creatures that don't let Boone in. After escaping with only a nasty bite, Boone is shot dead by the police, who were lead to his location by Dr. Decker. But Boone isn't dead. The bite causes him to live, and he goes off to Midian. Meanwhile, Boone's girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) tries to find Boone and get to the bottom of this. When Dr. Decker also finds out about this place, chaos ensues.

The plot seems long and complicated, but it really isn't hard to understand. The plot, among other things, makes this movie really interesting. The make-up effects are astounding. The creatures look unique and amazing, and make this a very appealing film. To add to more senses appeal, we have a musical score by Danny Elfman, that is both lush and bouncy, and fits the film like a glove. The shots in the movie are also set up beautifully. The cinematography is lovely, and the movie sets up an atmosphere that is never broken. Even the acting is good, with the biggest surprise being director David Cronenberg giving a great, menacing performance as the man, who for one reason or another, wants to see Boone dead. It's odd for a horror film to be this well done.

The problems with the movie...well there are a few, but the positives outweigh the negatives. The script features the occasional lame jokes to try and add some humor, but almost every one falls flat. The mutant creatures look great and for the most part are well acted, but sometimes it feels like they are just posing their awesome makeup for the camera. The worst part of the film would have to be the climax. It takes so long, and is just constant chaos. It's the portion of the film that moves from individual characters and nice tight knit shots, to fiery explosions from each direction and violence happening to characters we don't know or care about.

Overall, this movie is amazing to look at. It's a well done horror film, but even with that said, it has the occasional failure in character's lines, and a messy climax. Nonetheless, this is one to check out.

My rating: *** out of ****. 101 mins. R for strong violence and language. Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.

I read "Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.

But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.

Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.

Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned I just watched Nightbreed for the first time since seeing it in the theater almost 20 years ago, and while I remember liking it at the time, I don't remember being blown away by it like I was today. I really can't complain about anything in this movie. Craig Scheffer is excellent as the lead character of Boone. I never understood why he hasn't had a more successful career, because most of his early work is outstanding. As good as Scheffer is, Cronenberg is even better. His portrayal of the psycho Dr. Decker is unforgettable, and steals the show. The rest of the cast, which includes Doug Bradley is very good, save for the ridiculously over the top redneck sheriff. The visuals are good, and in some shots great. The Danny Elfman composed score is as good as it gets, and is among his best work. The ending was epic, with nonstop action for close to twenty minutes. Overall, Nightbreed is a tremendous accomplishment for Clive Barker, and ranks as my favorite of his movies, just slightly ahead of Hellraiser. 9/10 I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film, is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings of course).

I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants/creatures/monsters looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap. It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the "monsters" are the one with humanity. As an avid reader of Clive Barker, I truly anticipated this film prior to it's release... I was not let down. "Nightbreed" is a horse of a different color. Rich in the underlying decay of western civilization and dripping with alternative existence in a way we have never seen before. Barker is at his best when he allows us to peek into his world of unprecedented horror, yet showing us the other side of the coin. Here the "Monsters" are the hideously beautiful beings, while the humans are the deceptively ugly creatures of self indulgence. We soon learn that we were wrong all along. By far my favorite performance by the often under-used Craig Sheffer, and the added bonus of David Cronenberg as "Decker" is a cast best seen then believed. The "Monsters" are portrayed flawlessly by a bevy of English creature masters, whom many also brought the "Cenobites" to life in "Hellraiser", including "Pinhead" himself Doug Bradley. "Nightbreed" is an absolute must see for any fan of the horror genre, and anyone who needs just a little (Something) more out of their horror story. This IS Clive Barker at his finest. I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series, sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended. I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists anywhere about the relationship and/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if in fact there are plans even now for a sequel? It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.

Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.

By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes.... I absolutely love this movie. I just managed to get a copy and saved it to watch on my birthday. This movie brings up several questions. One is. Who are the monsters of this world? To be different is just that. Different. The real monsters hide behind masks of ordinariness. They are those that everyone considers "a nice quiet bloke" who "didn't bother anybody". Or they are worse they are the characters such as played by Croneberg. Men who draw pleasure and power from carving up people and creating their own Books of Blood. I love the shapeshifters, people with gifts and those that may be abhorent for people to look upon. This movie touches on and explores what IS normal. Who are 'other' and what fear does to some. Even though I gave this movie 10 I am still sick of women who either scream or are so set in their ways that they cant see what is happening and being a vehicle for the things that destroyed Median. My other complaint was why didn't they ever make a second film. I for one would have loved to see a continuation of this most intriguing story that keep me captivated from beginning to end This movie is a perfect example of Barkers cinematic gifts to the horror/ monster genre. I thought this movie did a great job of keeping the feel and look of the novella and comic books (or actually, the comics may have come second, I forget). This movie was made for Barker fans. It helps to have read the book beforehand, but isn't that important if you can follow a film. I saw to anyone who is on the fence about this film, read the book, then re-watch the film. You might find a new respect for the movie. I came to this movie a big fan of Barker already, and having read the book prior, loved the film instantly. There are great cameos, makeup, writing, directing, etc in this film. This movie does something that most monster/ horror movies fail miserably at, show the monsters. They are there in full color, not hidden in shadows, and taking most of the screen time. Unlike other films that use quick cuts or trick lighting to hide the creature, this movie celebrates the grotesque, and casts them into the forefront as the good guy. Two thumbs up Clive. We're waiting for the Thief of Always :) I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.

That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't.

Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.

I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live.

Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.

Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear. This is Clive Barker's masterpiece in my opinion. The movie has a great storyline and some amazing make-up and effects. The one thing I would love to see happen is a sequel. The movie was set up for a sequel and with improved technology the second movie could be incredible. David Cronenberg must appear in a sequel as well as Craig Sheffer. But this particular movie was a great original, creative and entertaining idea and I could watch it over and over again. Cronenberg was perfect in this movie and Sheffer added an interesting spice to the film. For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars! I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was pleasantly surprised with the results.

Clive Barker is said to have revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood.

Barker has created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before. As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite evocative.

I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote some time to it - the better. The film 'Nightbreed' is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Overall, I'm not a big fan of horror films, but there is something about this film that is more atmospheric and different from any other horror film I have ever seen. Many horror films i've seen i've enjoyed watching, however, as they are based on horror, I know that the stories are unreal, as they are fictional, therefore I can't take them all seriously. Nightbeed, on the other hand, is a unique horror Genre as it has a feel of realism that i've seen in very few other horror films.

This films story on how a man gets murdered and ends up living with the undead in an underground cemetery shelter with undead monsters is the kind of story a person would get from a dreaming Nightmare as its a very unique and original storyline. Most horror films i've seen are all quite fake, but because Nightbreed was so incredibly sophisticated and geniously directed with superb acting, especially by Craig sheffer (Aaron Boone) amazing special effects, great lighting and fantastic dialogue, I found this film to have a sense of depth and maturity with no silly fake horror parody, whatsoever, that many other horror films have. Nightbreed, as well as being horror has elements of thriller, romance and action all rapped in one. If you haven't seen this film, I recommend you watch it, as I rate it a 10/10. This movie is masterly directed by Clive barker, he really knows how to establish a rapport between the audience and the characters. I think there is a sequel missing for this one, Barker should have dedicated to the sequel for this movie instead of doing the boring Lord of illusions, that is one I think was a real garbage. But I also think that because of this and because of the lack of the sequel NBreed has become a dark cult classic of horror films. Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that is funny and exciting.

The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work.

It wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial killer.

I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne Bobby's third film, and she was good also.

The ending was spectacular and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha! Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.

Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.

Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground.

Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind.

Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.

Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.

Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.

Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures. Delivers great acting and greater Special Effects. Stars David Cronenberg, one of my personal favorites, as Decker. It's special effects on the monsters were so good, you thought they might be really deformed. Clive Barker, however demented, scored a perfect 10 on my list. Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people. Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.

Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.

Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.

None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie/superhero genre.

A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting.

Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus. I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it really exists.

Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for "monsters" or "Nightbreed," substitute "Jews," and for the Canadians/humans, substitute, "Nazis," and you're supposed to get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe.

One major objection I had was that while the underground city was interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of decor.

The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters. But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view. "Western Union" is something of a forgotten classic western! Perhaps the reason for this lies in the fact of its unavailability on DVD in the United States. However, all is not lost as it has now appeared on Region 2 in England. This - being a blessing in some ways - is not only incongruous but totally ironic when one considers that a movie depicting the founding and establishment of such a uniquely American organization as The Western Union Telegraph Company is without a Region 1 release. It beggars belief! It simply doesn't make sense!

Produced by Fox in 1941 "Western Union" was directed by Fritz Lang. This was only the second occasion the great German director undertook to direct a western! He had done an excellent job the year before with Fox's "The Return Of Frank James" and would have only one more western outing in 1952 with the splendid "Rancho Notorious". Lang was no Ford or Hawks but with "Western Union" he turned in a fine solid western that holds up very well. Beautifully photographed in early three strip Technicolor by Edward Cronjager it boasted a good cast headed by Robert Young, Randolph Scott and Dean Jagger. The female lead is taken by Virginia Gilmore who really has little to do in the picture. An actress who never made anything of her career. Her presence here is merely cosmetic.

It is curious that Robert Young has top billing over Scott! It is clearly Scott's picture from the very beginning when we first see him in the film's terrific opening scene being chased by a posse across the plains. Young doesn't have much to do throughout the movie and seems out of place in a western. He just looks plain silly going up against Barton McLane in a gunfight! An actor who never really distinguished himself - except perhaps with "Crossfire" (1947)- Young appeared in a string of forgettable romantic comedies in the forties and fifties culminating with his greatest success when for seven years he was TV's "Marcus Welby MD" in the seventies. He died in 1998 at the age of 91.

"Western Union" recounts the connection by telegraph wire of Omaha and Salt Lake City. Scott plays a reformed outlaw hired by Western Union boss Dean Jagger to protect the line from marauding Sioux and to also take on McLane and his gang who are trying to destroy the line for their own devious ends. Robert Young is the young engineer from back east who joins the company and vies with Scott for the affections of Miss Gilmore. Some comic relief is provided by - and irritatingly so some would say - by Slim Summerville and John Carradine turns up in a meager role as the company doctor.

Altogether though a spanking good western, albeit on Region 2, but in sparkling good quality that fans will be delighted with. My only crib is that there are no extras, not even a trailer and that terrible cover with those dull graphics. UGH!

Footnote: Interestingly the associate producer on "Western Union" was Harry Joe Brown who later with Randolph Scott would create a partnership that would produce some of Scott's finest westerns in the fifties. I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most interesting (and disliked) of the great "Robber Barons": Jay Gould. Gould picked up the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892. Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have agreed to that assessment too.

The film deals with how the laying of the telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother. Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to confront Slade.

Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him.

It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching. While escaping from a heist of a bank, the outlaw Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) helps Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), the chief-engineer of the Western Union that is surveying the Wild West and had had an accident with a horse. In 1861, Vance regenerates and is hired to work for the Western Union with the team that is installing the poles and cable from Omaha to Salt Lake City. Vance and the engineer from Harvard Richard Blake (Robert Young) flirt with the gorgeous Edward's sister Sue Creighton (Virginia Gilmore) and she chooses Vance. However, his past haunts him when the outlaw Jack Slade (Barton MacLane) steals the Western Union cattle disguised of Indians.

"Western Union" is a good but predictable western directed by Fritz Lang. The story shows the difficulties of the brave and idealistic men responsible for installing the telegraph through the West, facing thieves and Indians. The entertaining story has action, drama, romance and funny situations, but with the exception of the identity of Jack Slade, there is no surprise in the story. Randolph Scott gives another magnificent performance with a great cast. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Os Conquistadores" ("The Conquerors") Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns. Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: "Western Union" and "The Return of Frank James". The Frank James movie equals "Jesse James". "Western Union" is one of Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about loyalty.

The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr. Scott again. They were in two other great movies: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" and "Jesse James". I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest departures from a book I have seen.

I can't add much to the other reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released on DVD. "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me." If Western Union isn't exactly the real story of the construction of the Transcontinental Telegraph, it certainly does capture the spirit and dedication of the people involved with the project.

Dean Jagger is the man in charge and one fine day he's thrown from a horse and sustains some fractured ribs. An outlaw on the run, Randolph Scott, finds Jagger and is ready to steal his horse, but changes his mind and brings Jagger to help. Later on he's hired by Western Union and works for Jagger.

Jagger also hires a young easterner played by Robert Young who's an engineer. Young is doing one of his few loan out films away from MGM for 20th Century Fox. Both Young and Scott become friends, but rivals for Jagger's sister Virginia Gilmore.

Western Union has plenty of action, enough to satisfy any western fans. The telegraph crew has to deal with outlaws, Indians, and your garden variety labor troubles.

Slim Summerville as the timid cook and Victor Killian as the frontier character assigned to guard him have some of the funniest scenes. They both provide some good comic relief.

Fritz Lang got good performances from his cast and kept the film moving briskly along. Western Union is solid western entertainment. One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made. Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted Lang for the finale.

This is one of those films that shows its greatness almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on his way to civilization, then disappears.

Cut to a few weeks or months later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who - again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks' "Red River" or "Only Angels Have Wings" than most Lang - but they are so well played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film. Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade (Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws.

Beautifully shot in early Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations, this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films, conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back.

Genius. Here's another of the 1940's westerns that I watch whenever it comes on TCM or FMC, because although it may be flawed historically, it is extremely entertaining and well acted, plus it's got Randolph Scott, my favorite actor second only to Gary Cooper-Well, OK, fourth behind COOP, Charlton Heston, and Gregory Peck. But the film itself, to me anyway, is reasonably historically accurate and as I said before, well acted and "flows" very well-I bet I've seen it 50 or 60 times, and enjoy each viewing more than the one before. I have it on tape from TCM but would buy it in a minute if it ever came out on DVD. See it if you haven't- I guarantee you'll like it! This is a sort of hidden gem. It has little to no promotion, no fanfare, no classic status, and it deserves all of the above! One of the great directors of cinema, Fritz Lang, has created a real gem in this excellent western. A fine cast led by Randolph Scott (in probably one of his greatest performances), the always sturdy Dean Jagger, Robert Young as a surprisingly accomplished dude plus many veteran character actors: Chill Wills, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Barton MacLane and others in an exciting Zane Grey story of the laying of the Western Union cable across country. It has tense drama, sprinklings of humor and great effects. It's reminiscent of DeMille in ways and yet Fritz Lang leaves his own stamp on it. At very least this is a damned good western! WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward. This Western was set in 1861 and had to do with the creation of the first transcontinental wireless lines that were laid by Western Union. While nice guy Dean Jagger (sporting lots of hair) did his best to get this done, there was a bad guy just waiting to undo this for his own selfish reasons. So, it's up to either Randolph Scott or Robert Young to save the day.

This is certainly one of the better 1940s Westerns I have seen and it nearly garnered an 8--it was that good. However, for the life of me, I have no idea why Fritz Lang was assigned to direct this film--after all, he knew nothing about Westerns. His forte was drama--and I guess this movie is a drama of sorts--just set in the old West. Strange, yes, but it seemed to work out okay, though I wonder how this great German director felt about being given this job.

As for the rest of the film, it's exceptional--with vivid color, great location shooting and very good acting. As usual, Randolph Scott put in another relaxed and realistic performance. I was surprised, though, with Robert Young being also cast in the film, but it was a good casting decision--he was supposed to be a Harvard-educated Easterner. When I saw Barton MacLane was also in the film, I pretty much assumed he'd be the "baddie" and my thoughts were well founded, since he made a career out of playing jerks! As for the script, it seemed pretty ordinary for the most part, but the final showdown between Scott and Barton MacLane was a lot better than I'd hoped--making this movie ending on a very high note. ASCENDING to power in 1933, Hitler and his "National Socialist German Workers Party", which of course we all know as the Nazis, tightened their grip on the country more and more as the time went by. Early in their rough-shod trampling of the German People, they called any and all artists, newspaper men and film makers into their Nazi HQ in order that the may be informed of just what the newly declared "Third Reich" (aka 'Empire') expected of them.

WHEN the Master Director from the German Cinema's Silent Impressionist and Expressionist era, Mr. Fritz Lang, was called in to meet with Herr Goebels; he listened attentively and said nothing. Immediately after leaving the Minister of Propaganda's office, Herr Lang went directly to the train station and took a passenger directly to Paris. Not even going back to his residence, Fritz Lang did not return to Germany (at least not until many years later. He remained in France; eventually immigrating to the United States of America.*

MR. LANG went right to work in America; creating a variety of most enjoyable, solid and substantially literate upper echelon movies for many a year. Included in this smörgåsbord of titles is today's lucky subject, WESTERN UNION (20th Century-Fox, 1941).

TYPICALLY a film about the Old West and Pioneer Days needed both quality as well as quantity of cast. WESTERN UNION qualified on both requisites. We are treated to a fine array of starring talent as well as a supporting cast which makes just about every minute and each scene a delight to our senses.

HEADING up the playbill are Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore. Others prominently displayed are folks like John Carradine (playing not a vampire or other scary guy, but a Physician), George "Slim" Summerville (veteran character actor, Silent Film veteran and graduate of Mack Sennett's Keystone Comedies), Chill Wills (always dependable supporting player and former singer in "The Avalon Boys") and burly bad guy Barton MacLane. Added to this mix, we have names like Russell Hicks, Victor Killian, Minor Watson, George Chandler, Addison Richards, Irving Bacon, James Flavin, Francis Ford, Frank McGrath and Kermit Maynard (Ken Maynard's bro).

PROMINENT in those American Indians featured are: Chief Big Tree, Chief Thundercloud and Mr. Jay Silverheels. Also featured is that one great representative of the Aboriginal Peoples of North America is that great, singularly impressive and memorable example of the Red Man, the Louisiana Native, Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera DeCorti of Sicilian immigrant parents).

THE filming of the fine outdoor scenes was done on location in Arizona and Utah and rendered in the highest grade of Technigolour available. (There is no Monument Valley; but then, that's the Province of Mr. John Ford.) IN some respects this film is a far more amazing accomplishment than we might think; for it took a sort of pulp magazine story, adapted it to the tastes and idioms of the pre-war America of the late thirties and early forties. All of this being done by a German born Director who was only had been in Hollywood and America for the shortest length of time.

IN its final analysis, WESTERN UNION, while it may not be the most historically accurate example of the Western Genre; we just don't care. It scores in all of the necessary categories needed for a great night at the movies! SO, who really cares about little details such as "accuracy"?

WE give Mr. Lang and 20th Century-Fox a rating of ****!

NOTE: * We just saw a special on PBS station WTTW, here in Chicago that was all about all of the Film Actors, Directors and other Artisans whom the Nazi rise to power caused to take refuge in America and Hollywood. (It seems that Movie Folks and Scientists were the biggest Export for Germany at this particular time; being that the Scientists who built the Atomic Bomb, as well as the future NASA people, came from Europe at this time.)

POODLE SCHNITZ!! Scientist Carl Lehman (well played by David McIlwraith) gets blown up something terrible in a deliberate chemical explosion. He has his brain transplanted in the body of a nearly indestructible metal cyborg suit by his evil colleagues who are led by wicked obsessive fellow scientist Alex Whyte (a perfectly hateful portrayal by Richard Cox). Lehman embarks on an all-out killing spree. It's up to nasty mercenary Hunter (a wonderfully loathsome turn by the divine Pam Grier) to put a stop to him. Director Jean-Claude Lord, who previously helmed the under-appreciated slasher psycho thriller "Visiting Hours," stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable verve and maintains a zippy pace throughout, thus ensuring that this flick sizes up as an enjoyably trashy sci-fi/horror action outing. Paunchy character thesp Maury Chaykin easily cops top acting honors as disgusting fat creep Burt, who in the movie's single most tasteless sequence has a brutal fistfight with Lehman's pregnant wife Lauren (a winning performance by the lovely Teri Austin). Stan Winston's nifty make-up f/x and Paul Zaza's thrilling score further add to the overall sleazy fun. as a fan of robocop, i always loved this movie. i seen it when it first came out, and finally i bought it on DVD from Brazil, it was never released in the us on DVD. i like the film, but like everything else in this world, everyone has their opinion, love it or hate it. no matter what a movie does, someone will always say "why didn't they do it another way?" in other words you cant please everyone. if you love robocop, you will love this film. to me, its so unique thats its not cheesy, or silly like a lot of lower budget movies. this film always kept me interested. i can see a few scenes that robocop borrowed from here, but tell me what movies don't do that? a lot of films use other ideas from other movies, and sometimes change them around. fun film! Looks as if the Robocop writer has been wholesale looting The Vindicator. This is a very solid horror/action movie about a man set up in an accident to be used in cruel experiment. Anyone who have seen Robocop knows the story. Watch out for Pam Grier as a bitchy and darn good looking assassin. This highly effective, violent and bloody horror movie may not be to everyones liking, but this Canadian outing is well worth seeking out for anyone who is fan of the genre. 8/10 The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire. Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force. This movie is an evolutionary piece - from Terminator to Robocop .

Stan Winston did the SPFX !

In this film, a scientist working in a sinister robotics company with a really creepy boss(they always are) gets is killed by them in a horrible lab explosion and has his brain placed inside an indestructible robot body .

The rest of this movie goes on with a romance angle as this Cyborg/Man regains consciousness and wreaks havoc while trying to communicate with his wife, played by the gorgeous(back then in 1986) Terri Austin . (He tries to reconnect with his old life, like in that scene in RoboCop)

The rest of this movie is about breaking things, while trying to defeat the evil his evil boss from recapturing him for some ill-defined 'turn humans into cyborgs' project .

This film pays homage to previous movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - - as the cyborg breaks free like the giant robot Gort does .

Except for the 'Frankenstein Suite' designed by Stan Winston, this movie's production values are typically Canadian: SLEAZY ! !

Pam Grier stars in this film as an hired killer-commando, a cheap role of the likes she was doing so much of during the 80's .

As for a Sci-Fi Horror B movie, out of 4 Stars, this film ranks about a <3 The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as "the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance."

Tan: "Just a knickknack." THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent. This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening. This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.

Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.

All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.

When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream? I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble! I'm not a Disney fan at all, but I happen to be in Orlando for a friend's wedding. So my traveling partner and I went to Disney for a few days. I haven't seen a good 3-D effect in, well..ever. So I usually try to stay away from these presentations. The 3-D effect in this was so good. I'm a grown man of 38, and even I wanted to try and reach out and touch. It's THAT good! Word of advice. At the end, look to the back of the theater on the wall. Put it like this...the first time I saw it, the effect wasn't working. So I told my friend..."It would have been nice if...." My friend said, "That's exactly what happens. It's not working for some reason." It's an awesome show. You will NOT be disappointed!!! It's not a movie, but an experience!

Not the usual eye candy I thought it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome! Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you!

This attraction alone already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;) This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision" The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human condition lies at its center.

Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors themselves, but to the director as well.

The most impressive element, however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been to recreate within the context of filming.

This is no fanciful Pirates of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its nuances. I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the 19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to the "zone", but this one did. Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.

Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.

Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.

Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.

Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.

Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this – for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover. I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.

Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television. While all of the Fleischer/Famous Studios "Superman" cartoons are excellent, "Billion Dollar Limited," the third in the series, is probably the best of the lot in terms of overall animation, plot, and pacing. Why it wasn't even nominated for an Oscar as Best Animated Short for 1942 (Incredibly enough, only the first one was) in inexplicable.

Here, Lois Lane is assigned to cover the transfer of one billion dollars in gold to the U.S. Mint. Masked gangsters in their super-powered (for 1942) car take off after the train, determined to get that gold. Without giving too much away, what ensues is a thrill ride for both the characters and the audience, with truth, justice, and Superman triumphant at the end.

As they did in all the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons, Clayton "Bud" Collyer and Joan Alexander, who played Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane on radio, have the voice work honors here, and Fleischer perennial Jack Mercer gets a little to do as one of the bad guys, as well. When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays, mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you.

This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car, shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece.

But it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally downloaded from archive.org. Millions in gold is traveling by train to the US treasury. Traveling along is Lois Lane to report on it. Along the way the train is attacked by masked thieves. They detach the car with the armed guards in it and attack the remaining ones. This leads to a vicious fight between the remaining guards and the thieves. The thieves overpower them but then Lois Lane jumps in. She beats the thieves off the train (at one point using a gun) but the train starts to careen out of control. Lois can't stop it and the thieves will stop at nothing to get the gold. Good thing Superman is on the way!

Fast, exciting, non-stop action. Probably one of the best of all the cartoons. Just great. A SUPERMAN Cartoon

A huge shipment of gold is being sent across country by train. Using ultra-modern techniques, a sophisticated gang of hooded thieves try to waylay the gold. With intrepid reporter Lois Lane as the only passenger on board, it's Superman to the rescue. But now that it's become a runaway train, can even he stop the BILLION DOLLAR LIMITED?

This was another in the series of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts. This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!! I thought this was a really cute movie - inspiring (makes me want to try acting)- I LOVE Kelly Ripa and it's nice that I can watch this in addition to All My Children - I've already watched it 3 times! Of course I also loved seeing Joe Barbara - especially since Another World went off the air! Fun story of a regular guy with big dreams, this low budget film really hits home showing what it is like trying to become an acting success. Great performances by Lou Myers and Brian's neighbor, Alex. I giggled alot and even cried a little.

Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie. Anyone who has ever gone on an audition can certainly relate to this one. Great story of an aspiring actor and the pressures he must deal with both personally and professionally in order to make it to the big time. Lou Myers, as Half-Step Wilson, provides many hilarious moments. The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The original film was shot inside a studio.

For whatever reason he chose this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her only Hitchcock film.

I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again. At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes.

Doris does some of her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she registers about four different emotions at once.

Day and Stewart are on vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence.

For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film. Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her life and still is should she ever want to come back.

In fact the song is worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the climax.

Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that moment.

This was remake well worth doing. Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.

The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.

The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).

As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well. Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...

Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...

The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard...

The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back...

Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...

To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnapping—how to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...

The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it...

Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly human—a person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film...

By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...

The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil... Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.

James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.

Although this is a "light Hitchcock", one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans. Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes, dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.

There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder).

Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound", also).

All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films ("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces. A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.

This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.

After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.

The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.

Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.

The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.

The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.

Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.

Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1955) is Alfred Hitchcock's own remake of his 1934 thriller about a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) on vacation in Morocco where they got caught up in a nightmare that include murder, espionage, assassinations and the worst of all, kidnapping of their 10-years-old son. The movie which Hitchcock himself considered superior to the original is a great fun. Stewart and Day have a good chemistry together. The film is filled with the wonderful comical scenes and dialogues as well as the scenes of chilling suspense.

The inclusion of "Que Sera, Sera" proved to be a stroke of genius because rarely the song fits the content and plays such an important role in the movie like "Que Sera, Sera" did in "The Man Who Knew Too Much".

Hitchcock also treats us to the live music playing from Arthur Benjamin "Storm Cloud Cantata" for almost ten minutes while scene in London's Royal Albert Hall where the assassination of a very important politician was attempted takes place and both, the scene and the cantata are simply marvelous. The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows: James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of "Que sara, sara." This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give this movie an "A-" only because it is a little bit predictable. I put this second version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to my Top 10 Hitchcock movies. Together with "Frenzy", it's probably the most argued film among the fans of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, "Rebecca", which has gained unreasonably much appreciation.

The film contains many ingenious scenes (most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are full of intriguing suspense.

If you can ignore the clumsy rear projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as irritating as most kids in old movies. Hitchcock's remake of his 1934 film concerns about the known story of McKenna marriage(James Stewart, Doris Day, in the first version Leslie Banks, Edna Best) along with their 11-years-old son travelling through Morocco during vacations. In a bus they know a sympathetic French person(Daniel Gelin, in the old version Pierre Fresnay). While they are in Marrakech they also know a couple(Bernard Miles and Brenda De Banzie) and happen suddenly on the scene of a killing, the dying whispers a political message.Then the child is abducted to ensure their silence and McKenna gets help to Morocco's Inspector Buchanan(Ralph Truman).

This is a superb movie about a family who stumbles on to an obscure international conspiracy and then they're forced into action is excellently played by James Stewart and Doris Day. This exciting film displays suspense, intrigue, tension, and interesting drama well written by John Michael Hayes and Charles Bennett . Packs an ordinary theme of the suspense magician: innocent people become caught up in a cobweb intrigue and uncanny, intelligent villains. Colorful and glimmer cinematography shot in Morocco and London studios by cameraman Robert Burks, though with excessive transparency for Marrakech scenes. Lavish sets by Henry Bunstead, Hitchcock's usual, and working until his recent death. Of course,the highlights are the happenings of the famous Royal Albert Hall of London assassination where a sneering killer, Reggie Nalder, tries to execute while composer Bernard Herrmann is conducting orchestra. Besides at the climax Doris Day singing ¨Que sera, Que sera¨, meantime her son suffering risks, the song won Oscar for Ray Evans, Jay Livingstone . The story was ferociously reviewed for its double characters but today is considered a classic movie and fairly entertaining. Rating : better than average, Hitchcock's enthusiastic no doubt will enjoy it. Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless.

James Stewart and Doris Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert, where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist.

So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn comedy "Foul Play" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy.

Grade: B+ Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.

The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.

Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.

There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.

The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.

The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.

This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith. I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) – the man who knows too much - and his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank (Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank.

I found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example: Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off "Que Sera Sera", which she did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry, which helped make the couple believable.

In comparison to the great director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly entertaining family thriller/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted. A fine film. I have been getting into the Hitchcock series very much lately. I find myself always renting one of his movies when I'm at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Like I said before, Hollywood is loosing it's touch incredibly, I needed a reminder that there are terrific films out there. Not to mention, I want to be a film appreciator, not a movie buff. Is there any better way to do that than with Alfred Hitchcock's movies?

The Man who knew too Much is another great and exciting thriller starring Alfred's favorite leading man James Stuart and the woman who steals the show Dorris Day. They play husband and wife who go on vacation with their son, but when a spy tells James some information that could arrest another spy, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom. James seems to just doubt Dorris and her ability for ideas on how to get their son back, but she makes a great comeback and just about ends up being the hero of the flick.

The acting again, I would say that Dorris was the one who outshined the whole cast. James did a great job keeping up, together these two made you sit down and never budge throughout the film. I loved the little bit of comedy at the end that Alfred added. You'll see what I mean. I would always highly recommend this film, despite not being the best Hitchcock film, it's still a treasure.

9/10 James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something.

Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man.

The song, "Que, Sera, Sera" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be," is one of the best songs ever sung in any movie.

Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even nominated.

My Score: 8/10. If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.

Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.

Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.

If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.

My Score: 8/10. This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin (who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him). Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out "Que Sera" like a fullback. Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me hate this song. Sorry.

The other complaint, though minor, I had about the movie was that it was a little "too polished" and "Hollywood-esque". The original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--and this added to the scary ambiance. Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window."

Like "North By Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.

While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain.

Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over. Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better. This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End.

Any thing said about "The Man who knew too much" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song "Que Sera Sera" at the end shall remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films, this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie.

This film is absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo. One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934. Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence.

James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of "the ugly American abroad" about his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and background play extremely well into the story.

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence, involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed, although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out "Que Sera, Sera" (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail party.

Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in "sex and crime".

What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.

And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be "good businessmen", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!!

What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat "oriental" flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.

Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...

All in all: A classic!! 1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:

1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.

2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.

3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening.

4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything.

I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch! Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable. Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point, have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of "Rear Window"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is, of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter staircase sequence at the end of the picture.

Not many slip-ups by Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather surprising serious role. This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the climax.

The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots. I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes.

The reviews for this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie. Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end.

I rated this movie 8 out of 10.

Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing "Que Sera, Sera" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10. The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10. Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out of 10. Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.

There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times.

The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of "pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem "Tommy Atkins":

"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide." This movie reminded me of the live dramas of the 1950s- not like the recent "Failsafe", which seemed more of a stunt than anything else, but a TRUE moral drama that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Anne Heche is more than credible as the army officer having an affair with her superior, played by Sam Shepard, and Eric Stoltz is wonderful as her lawyer defending her against the military establishment. I found myself waiting for THEIR affair to begin, if only because they look so good together. This movie is apparently based on a true story, and it's a relief to be asked to think about real issues for a change.

Directed by Christopher Menaul, who also did The Passion of Ayn Rand (with Stolz) and the Prime Suspect series, this is a movie with panache and style and is absolutely worth seeing. Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear. Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide. First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue - shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised knife and cried "One kill" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a message with his last cry. "After first kill everything will change inside your mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can". She left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain. The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos. Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour.

Miroslav The fact that the movie is based on a true story contributes to a better and, of course, more realistic experience and keeps the viewer focused on the basic theme of the movie. The story is filled with unexpected twists which keeps the viewer at all times from figuring the ending out. In one moment you think that something happens to Coach Jones or Radio. Well it does, but certainly not what you'd expect.

The film becomes at no point boring or too sentimental and the acting performances by Ed Harris & Cuba Gooding Jr. are some of their best in my opinion. The ending puts a long lasting smile on your face and makes you wonder if what you are doing is right. Well I guess that was what Michael Tollin & Mike Rich were trying to do. First-class movie.

Esbjørn Nordby Birch. Denmark. EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the "real" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked "Simon Birch" and "The Mighty", you'll love "Radio" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal! This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less! Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go.

To tell you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller scene.

---Spoilers---

One day, I went off to the theatres with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD.

Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie.

Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story, Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones, the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio.

Throughout the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys, the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never.

As Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie:

"We're not teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us."

My Rating: 8/10

Eliason A. Not much to it but a validation of small town values and the embracing of a mentally challenged young man into its heart.

I read some of the reviews and was surprised at some of the hostility it engendered. I felt Cuba Gooding handled the part with dignity and respect unlike Sean Penn's drooling fool portrayal in "I am Sam."

The fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more heartwarming. Sports are taken seriously in small town high school America (and elsewhere, I suspect) and I felt the portrayal of these competitive students opening their hearts to one less fortunate rang true, at least for me.

The coach was never forced to choose between his daughter and Radio but rather came gently to the decision himself under Radio's loving and open ways. Very well done to all. 7 out of 10.

Debra Winger, we need more of you in pictures! This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-real-life story, I was thinking, "nobody is this nice, this tolerant." Mainly, I was referring to Ed Harris' role as "Coach Jones." I think they went a little overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters.

Anyway, I never complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well- meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to "James Kennedy," better known as "Radio," a mentally slow high school kid played by Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-challenged man in "I Am Sam," an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear.

Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out that, in real life, in took years for "Radio" to make his transformation, not months as shown in the film. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.

Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard.

There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio. Can a mentally challenged black youth be a catalyst to unite people in a South Carolina town? The answer appears to be that in spite of his handicap, James Kennedy, understood much more than what he was given credit for and went to become a fixture in the sports scene. Also, the film is saying how many of us overlook people with problems that can be helped if only we have the patience Coach Jones showed to the young man because of his own guilt in his heart.

"Radio", directed by Michael Tolllin, is a formula film inspired on a true story. Yet, the movie is not a complete failure because of the inspired performances the director was able to get from his wonderful cast.

Coach Jones is instrumental in getting the young man, who is called Radio because his passion for collecting them, involved in sports, a passion he discovers in this retarded man who has had only hard knocks in his young life. Coming from a poor background, Radio, lives with his mother who is protective of him and questions the coach's intentions. Radio is seen by the school kids as a mascot, at first, then, his sunny disposition wins him the acceptance of everyone because he is a good person without an ounce of malice in his body.

The film owes a lot to Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. who make a great pair as the coach and Radio. Mr. Harris, one of the best actors of our times is never boring in anything he graces with his presence. He gets the essence of the principled coach who sees the possibility to make amends for something that bothers him from his past. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also at his best portraying the mentally challenged young man.

The supporting cast is excellent. S. Ephata Merkerson, one of the best actresses of her generation, does interesting work as the mother of Radio. Alfre Woodard, another good actress plays the high school principle with style. Debra Winger, only has a few scenes in the film.

"Radio", while being sentimental, will warm anyone's heart because it shows how we tend to see some people are in our society that we know nothing about and how quick we are to judge them. Michael Tollin puts a lot of ideas in the proper perspective for us. 'Radio' is a beautiful movie based on a real story of the mentally challenged James Robert Kennedy, nicknamed 'Radio', and the football coach from the T.L. Hanna High School, Harold Jones.

Cuba Gooding, Jr. is excellent as Radio! I would never imagine to see him in a serious performance, specially because most of the movies I watch with him are comedies. Ed Harris is great as Harold Jones, but this actor IS great, so this is not anything new.

The mentally challenged young man called James Robert Kennedy, always walk around the T.L. Hanna High School, without bothering anyone and almost not noticed. One day, when the football's ball is throw near him, he decides to stay with the ball, for the impatience of Johnny Cash, one of the best players from the football team and also one of the most unpleasant guys you would ever met. One day, Cash decides to punish James, mocking him with other football players and even go so far as to tie him up.

When coach Jones discovers that horrible act, he stays angry and punish all the team, deciding for this day on to help James, who gets the nickname 'Radio' because of his passion for radios in general.

The movie shows how Radio becomes an adept assistant, helping the team train despite hardships from the players, and even getting respect from basically all the people who lives in the small city.

I would recommend this movie for everybody who wants to watch a real and beautiful story. It has a life lesson,specially showing us how a person can make a difference, even not being what we call ''normal''. Radio has a big heart and is incapable to hate anyone, and that's a thing that we all should apply to our daily lives. Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done. The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration. I'm normally not a Drama/Feel good movie kind of guy, but once I saw the trailer for "Radio", I couldn't resist. Not only is this a great film, but it also has grreat acting. Cuba Gooding Jr. did an excellent job portraying James Robert Kennedy, a.k.a. "RAdio." Ed Harris also did a fantastic job as Coach Jones. I was pleasantly surprised to see some comedy in it as well. So for a great story, great acting, and a little comedy, I give "Radio" a 10 out of 10! Radio was a very good movie, and honestly, i never cry in movies. But it had me pretty close to tears. It really got to me when Radio's mom died and he just wouldn't get out of his room. I felt really sad about how, if you were mentally retarded, you wouldn't really be able to understand death. I really liked the movie, and It's a must see. This is a movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. If you are looking for suspense, great special effects, action, sophistication, cynicism, etc. you won't find it in this movie. It is a feel good movie, sentimental, positive, uplifting. The heroes of the movie are Coach Jones (played by Ed Harris), a man of strength and integrity, and Radio (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) a mentally retarded man who finds a way to contribute to his world. I guess I didn't find this movie to be "sentimental hogwash" as so many did, because it felt very real to me. I know people like these. I've seen jocks who think it's fun to pick on the vulnerable. I've seen men of integrity stand up for the vulnerable. I've seen people who think high school football is serious business. I've seen people who know what really is important in life. Any of these people could have been people I knew. I did laugh; I did cry. I left the movie feeling good, remembering that there are people like Coach Jones and Radio in my world. If there aren't people like them in yours, you might not like the movie. If you don't like a movie that shows the better side of human nature, you'll hate it. Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.

The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.

Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003.

Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team, then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority before both his family and Radio.

The movie deals with all sorts of real life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad.

In conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4 stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is a 9/10. Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.

It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.

Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.

The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece. As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre. This is a very moving movie about life itself. The challenges a handicapped person must face in a land that expects perfection is brought to the forefront for all to see and hopefully understand. It should teach the bigots of society that we are all humans, and while some of us are gifted with a mind, heart and sound body, there are decent human beings that exist in the world that are not as lucky, or maybe, we're the unlucky ones. We don't always see the beauty in the world because we're wrapped up in our 'blind' ambitions, and see it only in one light "what can this world do for me!!!". Maybe we all wish we were like Radio, a loving happy individual...who loves everyone. I just got home from seeing "Radio." I've not seen such an inspiring story in a long time. My kids are ages 8 and 5 and I would like to take them so that they may "feel" the message as I did - you should seek to find the best in people and love them for who they are, not judge them for their differences. Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ed Harris both deserve Academy Awards for this movie. I don't know why we can't have more movies like this, rather than the junk that is served up at theatres on a daily basis. Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having read the unemployed critic's, review, I went to a screening of "Radio" not knowing what to expect. Thankfully, the unemployed critic now appears, to me anyway, a frustrated film director/movie critic. His review is callous and totally uncalled for!

This is a movie that will make you laugh, it will make you cry and in the end it will give you a moment of pause!

To paraphrase a line delivered by Actor Ed Harris in the final Barbershop scene "...and all this time that we thought we were teaching Radio, truth is...He was teaching us. He treats us all the time, like we wish we treated each other, some of the time!"

Yes the movie tugs at the heartstrings. Yes it is emotionally manipulative and yes Cuba Gooding Jr. (In an Oscar worthy performance) is a little over the top at times (See the Christmas day dance scene) but you know what? SO WHAT! Every once in awhile the community of America needs to be reminded what tolerance can do for our great country. We need to be reminded how great we CAN be.

This is a solid cast. I was particularly pleased to see S. Epatha Merkerson, portraying Radio's mother, do something outside of Law and Order. I always wondered, is Ms. Merkerson a great actor or is it the quality of writing delivered buy a strong cast on Law and Order. After watching this movie, it is easy to see that she is indeed a very fine actor.

Also joining the cast in small but important and powerful roles is Alfre Woodard as the Principal, Debra Winger in a career-resurrecting role of Coach Jones's wife and Chris Mulkey as Protagonist, Frank Clay.

We cannot over look Ed Harris's performance as Coach Harold Jones. After reflecting on this movie and having grown up in the Deep South my self, It is hard to truly appreciate Mr. Harris and his contribution to this film. As Coach Jones, Ed delivers a quiet, rock solid performance, that of a man on a mission. Coach Harris will not let the town or circumstances divert him from what he knows in his heart, is the right thing to do.

If you see this movie, make sure you hang around for the end credits. You will be in for a treat as the real James Robert 'Radio' Kennedy, now in his mid 50's, is shown, still leading the T.L. Hanna Football team on to the field every Friday night.

One final note. If you were a teen in the mid to late 70's, this movie is worth the price of admission, for the sound track alone! I thought this was a really well written film. I've heard of Radio the person before this movie was even created and I can't begin to describe how good Cuba Gooding Jr was in it. It will make the women cry, everyone laugh, and most everyone will leave smiling. Excellent performances and a solid, but not overplayed story, helped this movie exceed my expectations. This movie was far better than I was expecting after some of the reviews I had read - but frankly those reviewers just got it wrong. Very inspiring and uplifting. Highly recommended! Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film. Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography and less of a constant "movie of the week" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable, Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to one human being who broke out of his "comfort zone" to reach out to another human being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8/10 This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man! 'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is extraordinary.

For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not be disappointed.

From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious choice.

As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films. Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother. Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken father.

I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of anyone's collection.

(10/10) Richard Abernethie, a very wealthy man, has died and his relatives have assembled for his funeral. Included in the funeral party is Abernathie's youngest sister Cora Galaccio. While none of the family has seen Cora in at least 20 years, they all agree that Cora was always a bit different. So when Cora says something about Abemethie having been murdered, most laugh it off as one of Cora's eccentricities. But someone is obviously taking Cora seriously. The next day, Cora is found dead in her bed having been beaten violently. Is there a connection between the two deaths? It's up to Hercule Poirot to find a killer.

After the Funeral is one of the most well put together episodes of the entire Poirot series. I've always been a fan of this particular Agatha Christie book and, from what I remember, the movie is as faithful to Christie's source material as any of the Poirot installments. The mystery is top notch with plenty of clues, suspects, and red herrings. And as I've written before, I always enjoy an Christie story where Hercule Poirot gathers everyone together in a drawing room for the final reveal. It might be old fashioned, but that's the way I like it. Getting beyond the plot, technically and artistically After the Funeral is a winner. Sets, editing, direction, and cinematography are as good as you'll find in one of these movies. The acting is equally impressive. I've come to expect an enjoyable performance from David Suchet as Poirot and he doesn't disappoint here. The rest of the cast is just as strong with Monica Dolan giving an especially noteworthy performance. Other than a minor quibble with the rapid fire way the characters are introduced, I've got no real complaints. It's a good show all the way around. Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous "Oh, I say there!" I'll take the gas-pipe.

As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription. This production was quite good. The usual fabulous scenery, interesting, quirky characters. It was just so strange not to have Captain Hastings, Miss Lemon, and Poirot's office/residence, so prominently featured in the original PBS/BBC mysteries.

In the original series, so much took place at the office. Hastings reading the paper, while Poirot "exercises his little gray cells." Miss Lemon pitching in whenever needed.

Poirot without Capt. Hastings would be like Holmes without Watson ... he can most certainly solve the crime, but it is not as interesting.

And what would a Poirot mystery be without Hastings, with his impeccable manners, falling for some beautiful, unattainable woman. In my work with the only nationwide non-profit organization, Security On Campus, Inc. dedicated exclusively to the issue of college campus crime prevention and student awareness I see all too often the type of campus violence and `cover-up' through secret campus courts portrayed in the movie `Silencing Mary.' In fact we receive numerous calls and requests for information every month from campus reporters such as `Mary' who are facing similar situations.

Its depiction of a campus rape and the subsequent crusade by `Mary,' the victim's roommate and a student journalist played exceedingly well by Melissa Joan Hart, for justice was very well done and accurately researched.

This was the first television movie that I have ever seen that I felt truly reflected and encompassed all of the various complex issues associated with how rape and other violent crimes are dealt with on our nation's college and university campuses. Although it would not be possible to address all of these issues in depth in 2 hours, this movie comes closer than any others I've seen. I actually flipped to Lifetime channel by mistake, just as this movie was beginning, and ended-up watching it.

It certainly deals with a serious issue, probably more prevalent than we realize, in terms of this type of attack of a young woman by an ego-maniacal fellow-student, who feels he's above the system, and, unfortunately, often is.

The cast here was believable, and the performances credible. A lot of these Canadian/Lifetime flicks are decidedly "over-the-top." However, this is one I might label as "under-the-top."

While appreciating the fact that it wasn't presented in an overblown fashion, this film somehow seemed like a record being played at a slower speed than proper, the 96 minutes seemed like many more, and it had the effect of looking like a shorter film, looped over-and-over, seemingly going on and on and on and ON - before reaching its inevitable and predictable conclusion.

Yet the engaging characters and performances made it better than the average film of this type, despite these criticisms.

And while these pictures often "milk" the climax, this one could have given it a bit more detail and length. I liked this movie. Many people refer to it as "Sabrina the Teenage Feminist". They do that with a lot of movies that Melissa Joan Hart is in. Still, she really surprised me in this movie because she was great in the part of Mary, who fights for justice when her roommate is raped. You could tell that Hart was extremely determined in this movie and it showed. I also liked Lisa Dean Ryan as Mary's roommate. She was very effective in making me feel sorry for her character after she was raped. Josh Hopkins was good as the cocky and egotistical rapist. Lochlyn Munro convincingly played his character. The acting in this movie is better than in most TV movies, in my opinion.

The movie was pretty predictable though. Also, I expected more from the ending, it was too abrupt. The delivery could have been better. But the performances and overall plot make up for these problems. This movie definitely shows something and sheds light on what happens in most institutions today, and shows how one gurl just with the help of her newspaper manages to get things done, her editor has complete faith in her and doesn't publish something important, because it would harm her friend... and when it was the right time she took the necessary action.

The movie overall got a rating of 9 from me , because its got everything, i mean it keeps you entertained, and moreover, they have acted really well, for a TV movie, its really high quality acting that deserves alot of credit. I first saw it at 5am January 1, 2009, and after a day i watched it again and i want to watch it again. Love everything (well, almost, so 9 stars) about it. No color, beautiful naive stories, funny gangsters, Anna, camera work, music. Well, sometimes you just want to listen little bit longer and the music just stops. But this is not a musical after all. I like Anna's acting, this naive wannabe gangster girl, how she speaks, holds the gun, everything makes me smile. No, it's not that funny, though i have laughed a bit at some moments, it's just so subtle. Excellent work by Samuel Benchetrit. Though 3d nouvelle seems weaker, but they are also gangsters, maybe even worse, cause they are stealing ideas. And the last scene is my favorite. Makes me feel so warm and.. romantic. Yes, i would recommend this movie for the romantic souls with a taste for such art-housish movies. And i don't agree with those comparing it to Pulp Fiction. It's not about action and twisted story, though all vignettes intersect. It's calm, and maybe too slow movie for most of the people. It's about characters, their feelings, very subtle. Anyway, probably this review won't be of much help to anyone (my first), just wanted to express my appreciation.

SPOILER: This movie doesn't have a Goofs section. Wonder, didn't anybody notice that hand in the 2 part when the kidnappers decided to go home? Looks like a part of crew, hehe. I know i should better post this in forums, but i don't agree with some policies here. This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a look. I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival. Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck (Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into … the diner. An 'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an epilogue, more a conclusion).

The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.

This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work. Brain of Blood starts as Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley) the leader of a country called Kahlid is close to death because of cancer, however if he dies Kahlid will tear itself apart without anyone to lead them so doctor Robert Nigserian (Grant Williams) & one of Amir's devotees Mohammed (Zandor Vorkov) have devised a plan to take Amir's dead body to America where mad scientist Dr. Lloyd Trenton (Kent Taylor) will transplant his brain into a fresh body & with a bit of plastic surgery no-one will ever know he was even dead. Things don't go according to plan though as when the time comes to transplant Amir's brain Trenton's freak assistant Gor (John Bloom) brings a dead body of someone that fell from a balcony, Trenton needed a strong fit living body & since there's no more time he decides to use Gor's body as a temporary stop-gap until another more suitable one can be found. Unfortunately when Amir wakes up in his new body he's not very happy at what he sees, I mean would you be if you found out your brain was inside a badly burned freak?

Also known as Brain Damage, The Brain, The Creature's Revenege & The Undying Brain this cheapo exploitation flick was produced & directed by the one & only Al Adamason & quite frankly I'm offended at the pathetic 1.5 rating Brain of Blood has on the IMDb, personally I think it's terrific fun in a so bad it's good sort of way. The highly entertaining script by Kane W. Lynn & Joe Van Rodgers is as loopy & silly as they come from sloppy blood soaked brain transplants to crazed mad scientists, from 7 foot tall acid scarred freaks who play with toy cars to 4 foot tall midget medical assistant's, from basement dungeons to rooftop chases, from car crashes to assassination's, kidnaps to screaming scantily clad women, from Regina Carrol's hair-do which should get it's own mention during the opening credits to teenage girls imprisoned in the basement for blood to a laugh-out-loud hilarious ending which includes some deep meaningful speech! It's all here & Brain of Blood has quality cheese stamped all over it, if your a fan of bad low budget exploitation flicks with a sense of fun then this film should be right at the top of your list of 'must see' films. Despite it's lowly 1.5 rating I am proud to admit that I liked Brain of Blood a lot, I thought it was an absolute hoot to watch, it slows down a bit at the end with a few too many shots of people wandering around doing nothing in particular but until that point it had moved along like a rocket, at only 85 minutes it's relatively short, it's difficult to second guess the barmy plot & I just think it's loads of campy fun.

This is director Adamson's masterpiece as far as I'm concerned along with Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971) which he made a year before this. Those who have seen an Adamson film before will know about the none existent production values, cheap special effects & cardboard sets & that all adds to the fun, this film manages that fine between incompetence & seriousness to create a memorable viewing experience. I love the opening shot of Kahlid which is obviously just a photo of the Taj Mahal in India complete with statuesque people in the foreground! Regina Carrol's hair seems to be a separate entity on it's own, it seems to change styles between shots & is frankly horrendous, don't get me started about her make-up job either that she must apply with a a paint sprayer! There is another hilarious moment when we see Amir's body has been transported to America wrapped in what looks like ordinary tin foil, why is the question I asked myself, why!? The effects are variable, there's a terrible looking fake spider, Gor's burned make-up job is pretty bad although there is a surprisingly gory brain removal which is actually quite impressive.

The budget for Brain of Blood must have been practically none existent, I must admit I thought Trenton's lab was quite good with various computers & medical instruments although the rest of the film looks cheap & nasty. The production values are low, the music was taken from another film Beast of Blood (1971) & the acting is awful but in a campy fun sort of way.

Brain of Blood may have the best title for an exploitation film ever & as far as I'm concerned it's a highly entertaining piece of nonsense that I had a great time watching & laughing at. They just don't/can't/won't make them like this anymore, impossible to recommend to anyone looking for a good film but bad movie lovers should enjoy it. I liked it, but then again I'm just weird. American-made final entry in the "Blood Island" series of Filipino horror films concerns Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley), ruler of a fictional country. He dies of cancer, yet it's figured out how to bring him back: put his brain into a donor body. The mad doctor in charge (Kent Taylor) puts it in a highly unlikely body: the facially scarred giant manservant named Gor (John Bloom). A doctor friend of the ruler tries to remedy matters and put an end to the mad doctors' plans.

Film-making partners Samuel M. Sherman (producer) and Al Adamson (director) corral several actors they've worked with before, including Taylor, Adamsons' sexy wife Regina Carrol, Angelo Rossitto, Zandor Vorkov, and Vicki Volante. They tried to go for the feel of the previous "Blood Island" entries but one can tell this was made stateside. While not necessarily a "good" film, it's got a bunch of amusing elements to add up to an entertainingly trashy whole. A malevolent dwarf (Rossitto), gory operations, a rather unconvincing makeup job on Bloom, the political intrigue subplot, caverns full of cobwebs, etc. The narrative is actually pretty coherent, with plot twists thrown in here and there. I think it could have been trimmed a bit; some scenes drag. But it's got its fun moments and an ending people might not expect.

For this kind of thing, the acting isn't too bad. Both Taylor and Rossitto are fun; the latter seems to be having quite a good time in his role. Volante is appealing enough, and Williams is O.K. in the heroic role. In any event, it's nice to see all of these familiar faces in one of these films.

Absolutely nothing special, but as a trashy B "horror" (I use the word loosely, none of this is exactly scary) film, it certainly amuses.

7/10 This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on. So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a "willing" participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs "girlfriend" Regina Carrol and tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an

------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret. Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new country blah blah.

I still don't get the ending but overall this was a very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like Brains. I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and uneven.

There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- "Mine! Gimmee!" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- "Before Amir, Kali was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant feudalism!" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- "No, Gor! No!" "You want these keys, don't you, my pretties?" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness. Totally disgusting and cheap bawdy humor. I loved it!!! It is the most disgusting and totally horribly acted film, except for Nicolas Read, who plays an un-dead Court Jester, to comic brilliance. But being that as it may, I laughed so many times and I have to hand it to the film makers, it wasn't pretentious or ordinary in any way. Raping, fighting, zombies vomitting on their rape victims. What other movie has this? Not for the quesy, but with a pizza, a bong, and a six pack of beer, you got it made, if you have a cast iron stomach and a juvenille sense of humor like myself. When I saw this on TV I was nervous...whats if they messed it up? Millions of families like mine that live with a brain damaged man, in my case my Dad, would be let down. I watched it with my Mum and we both ended up crying, it was so accurate and captured how the family feels as well as the person having suffered the brain injury. The actors were all wonderful and I had no complaints, my Mums told me she hasn't been able to stop thinking about it. I hope this program made many people aware of what it's like living with brain damage and what it's like for the families. More programs like this should be made, I was surprised at how good it was and it's really shook me up emotionally. I was blubbing like an idiot during the last ten minutes of this exceptional piece of television. I have to say that the idea of sitting down to view 90 minutes of what was bound to be pretty depressing material on a Sunday, was not a welcome one. The thought of yet another, over worthy, BAFTA winning possibility did not enthuse me......However the end result knocked me for 6. This is some of the best television I have seen in ages. For years I was under the impression that all originality had left the BBC's drama department. Our Friends in the North was the last production that truly blew me away and that was 10 years ago. However faith is restored and honour is satisfied. David Tenant was incredible! So many actors I can think of would have really gone to town on a part like this, but never once did I see Mr Tenant as an actor or as the Doctor, all I saw was Alan Hamilton. I haven't had my heart wrenched this much since Daniel Craigs performance as Geordie Peacock all those years ago. Sarah Parish was also incredible and I really hope this role brings her better roles in the future. All of the cast were great but special mention must go to the director who really placed us inside Alans head. The toaster scene, in particular, made me feel quite queasy. I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....

I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.

great little intense drama! Recovery is a well-judged and balanced drama of a sensitive subject that doesn't sentimentalise the main characters. David Tennant and Sarah Parish bring to the fore the complex and conflicting emotions of a couple deeply in love struggling to come to terms with the personality changes they both endure and also must make to survive a tragic accident.

Tennant, as Alan, brings humour as well as a dangerous lecherousness, as an engineer recovering from a memory loss brought on by a road accident. Alan is not portrayed simply as a victim but as human being with feelings doing the best he can to make sense of his new life. Sarah Parish's Tricia is not a clichéd stand-by-her-man housewife who will do anything to support her husband. She struggles with falling out of love with Alan, as the man she once new and loved is now a completely different person - a stranger to her.

Contrary to some opinion, this - in my view - makes perfect Sunday night viewing. Too often, we are shown soft family dramas or detective series, like Heartbeat, which rot and putrefy the brain. Programme commissioners seem to think that the traditional day of rest is also a day when our minds go to sleep. More challenging and thought-provoking drama like Recovery would seriously change the situation. David Tennant and Sarah Parish's brilliant acting had me in tears as many of the scenes were so familiar to me. My husband suffered a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in 1977 and required a major operation which involved lifting his brain and plugging the leak. Like Tricia I was naive enough to expect that he would return to being his former self. After over 25 years of loving and caring for him he abandoned me without warning to go and live with a woman he hardly knew. He then petitioned for and I am now going through a divorce. I do hope the programme helped people to understand what it is like to cope with brain injury. Recovery is an incredibly moving piece of work, handling the devastating effects of brain injury on not only the individual, but the entire family. Without resorting to preaching or Hollywood sappy endings, Tony Marchant's drama presents a family in crisis in a realistic way.

Highest praise goes David Tennant and Sarah Parish for their incredible performances. I had presumed before watching the drama that I would see some of their previous on screen relationship in Blackpool bleed through-- but it never does. Neither actor is recognizable from any previous work, and I didn't see either of them as an actor playing a part during the entire 90 minutes. In addition, Harry Treadaway's performance as the son just on the cusp of starting his own life in university was fantastic - throughout the piece, he shows the torn nature of a teenage boy thrown into the unwilling role as man of the house,

At times, nearly every character in the drama is unsympathetic. As the viewer, I wanted to give each of them a good smack to wake up to reality, stop moping, and start adjusting to the rotten but very present change in their lives. But under the same circumstances, I see myself acting like any of them - switching between trying to show the stiff upper lip to desperation to escape to anything, including behavior that is completely unlike myself. It's the show's greatest strength - truth, without sugar coating, to force us all to think what we'd be able to do under the same circumstances.

This is a difficult, but must-watch show. I hope that it somehow manages to be shown in the U.S. A touching movie about a talented woman who struggles with a society and a love that structurally underestimate her. The issues are subtly addressed and timeless, as many of the depicted difficulties between man and woman still exist in Dutch society today. This movie is a tribute to all modern women without dwelling on feminism. Not only the story is well told, the acting and the scenery are great as well. Nynke is a classy filmed movie in the same style as the Oscar winning film Character (1997). But this comparison immediately urges me to add that the latter was quite more exciting...

Sure, Nynke is a beautiful historic & costume drama (with fantastic acting by Monic Hendrickx!) in which you witness the personal growth of 'Nynke van Hichtum' in her marriage to Pieter Jelles Troelstra. The subtitle of this movie is 'a lovestory'. So it starts, and ends with their marriage.

But THAT is where the director makes a crucial mistake! Nynke's exciting, independent life started when the marriage ended. She wrote several children's books and travelled around the world. What a great life she has lived. But Pieter Verhoeff puts Nynke back in the trammels of convention that depressed her and that she struggled out of: the thought that her life extended just her marriage to Troelstra, being no one else but the mother of their kids.

Let's all hope for Nynke II! This wonderful film is a love story, and shows that not all relationships are destined to last. Even so they can be great & worth the pain & suffering of breakup.

Director Pieter Verhoeff gives us an insight of the period around 1900, the way society (mis)treats women, and how a very strong woman (Nynke) deals with. With great costumes, landscapes, lovely music and good actors and acting this photoplay draws you in for the length of the movie.

At first the ending is a bit sudden, a page describing the rest of her life scrolls. On reflection this is a great (the best) way to have your own fantasy create the rest of her life.

This was the second movie for me that had people sit while the end titles scrolled by (The first being Schindler's List). Apparently the movie had this effect on everybody. Great movie. Good acting ,a wonderful script. It's exciting to find out what the people are thinking and how they react on the situation they are in. A pity about the ending; a 'page' of text of how Nynke's life went on, instead of moving images was a poor choice. I hope this movie attracts a lot of people; it's worth it! Flipping through the channels I was lucky enough to stumble upon the beginning of this movie. I must admit that it grabbed my attention almost immediately. I love older films and this is or should be considered a classic! One of the most wonderful rarities of this movie is that the main character was not only female but she was also a bad girl. I highly recommend this movie! This movie is still alive and kicking today thanks to the presence of Alan Ladd. This is good in one way because the movie has some interesting things to say, but bad in another because everyone who watches it expecting that tough-guy Ladd is going to hoop through his usual paces, is going to be mighty disappointed. Without fanfare or introduction, Ladd is suddenly introduced in the third reel. True, his role is a key one but it's small and likely to get lost in the shuffle. There are many key roles in former newspaperman Martin Mooney's ambivalent screenplay which hits out at all political alliances and quite ruthlessly denigrates Reform candidates. It's the lovely and extremely talented Joan Woodbury who ties the various strands of the wide-ranging story together. Unlike the usual Hollywood production, the plot actually proceeds in a series of jumps, much like the films later turned out by the French "New Wave", though easier to follow here, especially if you are aware that the film's original title was Paper Bullets. Nonetheless, some of the film's narrative and character switches are a little disconcerting, particularly in the role played by Jack LaRue who has wisely elected to act the part in a strangely non-committal way. One of Jack's best acting jobs ever, but no-one is likely to notice, alas! The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.

If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.

But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.

She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.

I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available. This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the "wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8! I caught this one on cable and I was very surprised. Steady direction and some good performances accent a twisty and very engaging story. This one will keep you up all night thinking about what was real and what wasn't. Check out Jason Scott Lee in the Lou Diamond Phillips role! When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by it and excited when a TV version came out a year later.

Kristy McNichol was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series "Family". It was clear that she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit "stiff" at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie well.

Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in "Twin Peaks")as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of the title

The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine. It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations.

The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or DVD.

A touching story told with tenderness: awkward young Jewish girl in WWII America befriends an escaped German POW who is hiding out in her clubhouse. They discuss their lives and beliefs (he's anti-Hitler), she sneaks him food, he becomes her only friend and ally. All this reminded me of the much-better theatrical film "Whistle Down The Wind", where Hayley Mills befriends convict Alan Bates, but you certainly can't fault the direction here, which is smooth, or the performances, which are sterling. Mature in her pre-teen years, Kristy McNichol carries most of the picture and never hits a false note. Suddenly, when the prisoner is discovered (and Kristy is found out as well), the movie gets very tough. Her father, shocked and ashamed that his child would consort with "that Nazi", lays into her with a quiet fury I have seldom seen before (he tells her "You are dead to me," which must be devastating for a little girl to hear). The final scenes don't cop out; there are no big reunions, no hand-holding climaxes. The girl has to face the world, and in doing so learns a bitter lesson about neighbors, friends, and family. A startling film. "Summer of My German Soldier" was one of the many TV movies that became a staple of the small screen in the 1970s (others were "Brian's Song", "Sybil" and "Someone's Watching Me!"). It portrays a Jewish girl (Kristy McNichol) befriending a German POW (Bruce Davison) in WWII-era Georgia. One of the things that the movie shows is that many of the German soldiers weren't really Nazis, but were just drafted. Watching the movie, I got a real sense of how things must have been in the South back then; I mean, can you imagine being a Jewish person accused of supporting the enemy?

So, I certainly recommend this movie. I believe that it's always important to show the things portrayed here. Occasional overacting keeps the movie from being a full-scale masterpiece, but they usually do quite well. I hope that the movie eventually comes out on DVD. Also starring Esther Rolle and Michael Constantine (the "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" patriarch). I haven't seen this movie in 30 years so I don't know if I would like it as much as I did when I was 12. At the time, however, I loved this movie. This is a great "starter chick-flick" for young pre-teen girls. Be careful of the ending, though. There are tears and harsh emotions.

Looking back at it from a 2008 perspective (with so much more knowledge of child psychology, politics and political correctness), I think it would be interesting to watch again. Patty's uncaring, abusive father, indifferent mother and favored sister all contributed toward making her vulnerable and starving for companionship. Patty was sad when Anton left. She was heartbroken when he was killed. The rage that was directed toward her afterward was shocking. After all, she was only 12 years old.

The thing that I most strongly retained is how this movie taught me even "enemy" soldiers are people too. Not all German soldiers were hateful Nazis. When I was older, I saw TV shows like Hogan's Heroes and The Rat Patrol which also made the point that the "regular" German soldiers were not the same as the Gestapo.

"Regular" soldiers were drafted. The Gestapo were handpicked among volunteers for their special attitudes of hate. I believe that one of the privileges of being a Nazi was that they had special assignments and, therefore, didn't go into battle. Their specialties were interrogation and torture.

Later, during the cold war, I would think about Russian soldiers and remember SOMGS. We were taught that the Soviet Union was "evil". But the reality was that Russian soldiers weren't out to destroy America. They had a job. Their government probably told them that our government was out to destroy their way of life. Which, in a way, was true, since the US fought to end Communism.

The lesson is still applicable today. German soldiers were not the same as Nazis just as Muslims are not the same as Al Qaeda. This movie was one of the best I have ever seen. Just the other day I was reminded of this movie by something on TV. It came back to me like a dam flooding over. I have never been more touched by a movie than by this one. After the movie was over I actually could not quit crying for about 2 hours. No movie has ever moved me that way before. I was 15 at the time of the movie and have not seen it since but am hoping I can find a copy to buy so that I can watch it whenever I want to. If someone suggests you see this movie with them, GO....you will not be disappointed.

Peggy Fries This film is a study piece for my english class, but it's depth and meaning has amazed me. Since we're looking closely into all the facts and characters in this film, its and interesting tale of love, hate, war, and prejudice. Well Recommended!

Story: A girl named well-off jewish Patty Bergen meets an escaped prisoner of war, she then hides him in her playhouse in her huge gardens, and as they get to know each other, they begin to see the others qualities, and they earn each others love. Patty's father despises her and treats her like dirt. Anton (the prisoner of war) almost blows his cover to protect her, but patty manages to stop him before he is seen by anyone. This movie should have easily qualified as a film

that best promotes human understanding among people.

It may be rather annoying to even try to comprehend that a young Jewish southern girl could would give shelter to an escaped German prisoner of war.

Kristy McNichol depicts an amazing portrait of the unhappy, young girl thirsting for acceptance and love. Michael Constantine gave a remarkable performance as her difficult father and Esther Rolle, as the maid, Ruth, gave a superb Emmy-winning performance as an understanding maid caught up with these events.

Bruce Davison portrays the German who is supposedly not guilty of Nazi atrocities. This is how his role appears. He has escaped, but he joined the German army and he might have been a member of the Hitler youth movement.

The action takes place in 1944 Georgia, in a rural area. The townspeople are filled with prejudice. Even the FBI inspector acts as if he would like to get something on the Jews. Notice the opposite interpretation that as McNichol is in bed, Davison is hunted down and ultimately shot. It is interesting to see that society views McNichol as a traitor for harboring an escaped prisoner of war. The film also deals with an extremely complex relationship that exists between father and daughter. Constantine's outburst at his daughter at the end is some acting. As the mother, Barbara Barrie, is given little to do. It was annoying that she is stereotyped as the typical Jewish mother with that loud shade of lipstick on her lips.

Memorably done and well worth viewing. I absolutely loved this show. Never understood why it was called Bug Juice though. I must have been about 13 when it came out. I remember they ran it over the summer holidays on channel 4, between re-runs of Pugwalls summer and Saved by the bell or something like that. I remember sitting there and wishing i was at summer camp too - ha ha. All the kids in it looked to be having so much fun, it was all about "discovering who you are" and "growing up." First kisses and all that stuff. I remember there was this really cute guy in it, i think he was the main reason i got up in the mornings that particular summer. They should have more teen docu-soaps like this, i thought it was great! Bug Juice changed my life. I Know it sounds strange, odd , weird. But it did. I am from England, Bug Juice never aired there but five years ago i went on vacation with my family and saw it on the Disney channel. Once i saw this TV series I was hooked I wanted to go.It took a lot of convincing to my parents to allow my brother and I to go to Waziyatah. I have been going since i was 12 and it was my forth year this summer. If you are a teenager reading this come to this camp it changes your life. you make life long friends at wazi. It doesn't matter who you are or if someone at home doesn't like you everyone likes you at camp. You have so much fun. If you want to have a look go on to www.wazi.com and check it out for yourself. It is so much fun I Love it there It is my Home Away from Home For those of you who have no idea what Bug Juice is or was, it was a children's reality show about real kids living at summer camp. Bug Juice is the show that inspired me to go to camp. It was full of romance, friendships, fights, overcoming your fears, and dealing with the struggles of living away from home for 2 months. It was an amazing show that is no longer shown on t.v. regularly, but is amazing non-the-less. The show was never dull and always attracted my attention. It's really nice for kids who have never been to a summer camp to really see what it's like before going. Plus Disney did a really good job of picking camps to showcase because who wants to see a show that's at a camp for like only a week. The length of the camps where perfect for this show, and the environment they where in was fantastic. They where camps all over the U.S., that each provided unique activities for the campers. It was a truly amazing, unscripted show. This film got roasted by the boys at MST3K, but it's actually a neat and nasty piece of low-budget film noir. The plot is tight, the characters are believable (within the good-boy-gets-obsessed-with-bad-girl genre), the pacing is solid, the climax is well-handled, and the cast is bolstered by several fine character actors. True, most of the time you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but he's actually quite effectively creepy when he plays the mastermind. The scenes between him and his dad are quite powerful, in a minimalist kind of way. Sure it's depressing, but that's the point. Good movie. The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his immortal "Hold hands, you lovebirds." But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the "Voices of Spring." Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment. OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's silent classic "7 Chances". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before, if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget, short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what the credits say on their films, real "stooge-philes" know that they had a lot of input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always "pooh pooh" The Stooges or Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy! Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances," recently tepidly remade as "The Bachelor." In the original, Buster has 24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version, musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines (Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy's "Berth Marks" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in "Night At The Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of their very best since the early 30s shorts. "Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums." Laughs throughout the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall. The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. "Brideless Groom" in my opinion was probably the best Shemp flick.

Shemp has the opportunity to inherit $500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock. Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on the "I want my man back" attack!

What a great stooge flick! This is up there with thewinners of all stooge flicks!

9/10 This is the very first Three Stooges short with Shemp that I saw, and it is one of my favorites!

That is what I really liked about Shemp when he returned after Curly's stroke, he did not try to be like Curly, he was his own character, and that is what I admire! Shemp is my favorite third stooge, I like him more than Curly, but I like Curly as much as I do Shemp. Shemp is great, he's funny, he's silly, he's SHEMP!

I really loved the scene where he dropped the nickel and Moe got into the booth with him to find it and they ended up getting tangled in the wires and really badly hurt!

But what I really thought was scary was when Shemp had his face smashed against the glass of the phonebooth, he looked like a deformed Professor Snape!

Poor Shemp, he had a lot of bad things happen to him in this short, but that is just typical Three Stooges, they always have a lot of bad things happening to them!

This short is another must see for Three Stooges fans!

10/10 Almost certainly the best Three Stooges short with Shemp, 'Brideless Groom' is as good as any of the trio's best shorts featuring Curly. Memorable Stooge moments abound. The opening with 'Professor' Shemp giving voice lessons to homely, untalented and lascivious Miss Dinkelmeyer (Dee Green), wincing at her horrendous singing notes and fighting off her advances, is an excellent example of Shemp Howard at his best. Many considered him the most naturally funny of the Stooges.

Later, when Moe and Larry try to help him get spiffed up to find a wife (and claim $500,000), Shemp thinks he has cut off his head when his mirror gets flipped backward. Fixing the mirror, he cries with relief, "THERE I am…and pretty as a picture!" "Yea," Moe quickly replies, trying to hem his slacks, "of an APE!"

The best scene (and maybe Shemp's best with the trio) comes when he pays a call on attractive young Miss Hopkins (Christine McIntyre). Mistaking him for long-lost "Cousin Basil," she smothers him with hugs and kisses (also leading to a hilarious bit between Moe and Larry in the hall), not giving him a chance to explain his true identity. Suddenly the REAL Cousin Basil calls and she goes berserk, slapping him repeatedly and accusing him of taking advantage of "a poor …. helpless…defenseless … woman!" That final line is delivered as she socks him in the jaw (with a real punch, according to Shemp and crew members), knocking him through the door and into the hall in a perfectly executed gag. "What happened, kid?" Moe asks. "Can I help it if I ain't Cousin Basil?" Shemp asks before passing out.

Other classic bits include Moe and Shemp getting tangled in a phone booth, trying to find a lost coin, Larry getting slapped because of Shemp's bad looks (his face pressed against the phone booth glass), and the great girl fight in the Justice of the Peace's apartment. The great Emil Sitka delivers his classic line (inscribed on his tombstone), "Hold hands, you love birds" over and over as his apartment is trashed.

I prescribe 'Brideless Groom' as medicine for anyone who thinks the Stooges' glory years ended when Curly left. True, Shemp didn't have as MANY great shorts with the group as Curly, but that was due to an increasing lack of support from Columbia and his (and the others') advancing ages. When Shemp was healthy and the trio was given decent material to work with, they were still on the top of their game. For the record, I am a Curly fan through and through. But I do have to say that in reality, Shemp wasn't really that bad. Yeah, he might have lacked the same kind of slapstick that Curly had, but in his own way he was hilarious. At least he wasn't as bad as Joe Besser.

In BRIDELESS GROOM, Shemp plays a music professor (Stooge? A professor? Yeah right), who recently inherited a half million dollars from a dead uncle, and Moe & Larry have to prepare him to marry a woman by six o'clock that night, or no money.

This was one of the Stooges' first skit with Shemp, before they started recycling their material. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Shemp was part of the Stooges before Curly came into the picture, so he seemed natural at this. The slapstick gags are hilarious, especially this one scene with Moe and Shemp in a phone booth. Essential Stooge short to be honest. A Three Stooges short, this one featuring Shemp. Of all those involving Shemp I've seen, this is my favorite performance by him in a Stooges short. The basic plot is that Shemp must get married by 6 o'clock that very evening if he's to inherit the half a million dollars a rich uncle left him in his will. So Shemp sets out to get himself a bride but finds it a tougher road than expected, that is until they learn of his inheritance money. Best bits here involve Shemp shaving, Shemp and Moe in a telephone booth and Larry on piano as accompaniment to Shemp's voice-training session. Also the sequence where Shemp is mistaken as Cousin Basil and its outcome proves hilarious. Not wishing to repeat what everyone else has noted, I will only say this:

Nearly everybody says they loved Curly best... but I will put BRIDELESS GROOM up against ANY of other the Stooges shorts.

I think it's the most hilarious from start to finish, as well as being the most re-watchable.

The off-key singing student... Christine McIntire's "Cousin Basil" routine, and of course Emil Sitka's J.P. are highlights, but only around the Stooges' impeccable timing and the great writing too!

Nuff said. There are one or two other Shemp-era shorts I like more (i.e. SCRAMBLED BRAINS), but I think one can say--without much argument--that in this particular episode, Shemp gives his greatest comedic performance as a stooge after rejoining the team in 1946.

Scene for scene, this episode hardly lets up: from Professor Shemp Howard's voice lessons with the glass-shattering Dee Green, to his futile attempts to win a dame's hand in marriage (this is your little snookums... will you marry me *click*) to the uproarious finish, it never fails to keep me in stitches.

I would be remiss not mention that immortal scene with Miss Hopkins (the always lovely Christine McIntyre). Btw, isn't she rather under-dressed and over amorous in greeting the man she thinks is her 'Cousin' Basil? Who knows, maybe the actual Basil was a "very" distant cousin, which makes it legal in some states (as far as I know). >:-] The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

One of My favorite Stooges shorts with Shemp is none other than Brideless Groom! All appearing in this short are Dee Green, the beautiful Christine McIntyre, Doris Houck, Alyn Lockwood, Johnny Kascier, Nancy Saunders, and Emil Sitka. Green and McIntyre provide great performances here! There are so many funny parts here. This is a very hilarious short. There is another similar Three Stooges short like this one called Husbands Beware and I recommend both! It may interest people to know that this film was made without any recourse to Phoolan Devi herself and, when she did finally see parts of it, was so enraged that she announced that the film was not to be shown in India or she would cover herself in petrol and set fire to herself. I do not know whether it was shown at all or not, but given her standing at the time as a rising politician, I doubt it. Since then, I saw a report that she has been ousted from office and charged with further crimes from her Dacoit days, and has gone into hiding as a result.

Her own concerns aside, this is an excellent film, made all the more so by its refreshingly brutal approach; none of the rose-tinted melodrama one might expect from a typical indian film. It should be stressed that concerns about how feminist the film's messages really are and the like are essentially irrelevant: it's a true story. Her misgivings are, it seems, not with what is depicted but with the way in which the film depicts her. I saw this movie over 5 years ago and the subject still infuriates me, as it should. Her anger and initiative were inspiring. Not that I would takeover an army and kill people, but the scene at the well and at the rebel strong hold will never leave my mind. This is a great film but be prepared for the strong subject matter. The true story of Phoolan Devi who became a national hero in India because she fought for her rights as a woman but in a violent manner. I was surprised to see a powerful film with strong images come out of India instead of the Bollywood art trash classics they churn out. This is an excellent movie. Phoolan had no role model's to base her actions on, yet was able to bring about very necessary change to a land that was living in darkness when it comes to female treatment. I like the fact that it was a real story rather than made up, it added to the horror of the story, & the triumph. I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her. I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast, and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort.

The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.

The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.

There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.

But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India. Irrespective of the accuracy of facts, Bandit Queen is a true story, its true because the themes it deals with hold as much truth today as they did way back in 1994. This movie is violent, powerful and thought provoking.The protagonist is a woman of flesh and blood, whose adversity brought out the best(or worst) out of her. Keeping the subjectivity aside, there is no doubt that Phoolan's character from a young girl of 8, who is married off by her father to clear a debt(pun intended), to a gang leader who goes on to become a leader of the lower caste, has evolved into a champion in her own right. Her portrayal is so powerful that the viewer is even willing to forgive her for a massacre.

I can understand if the western audience is not able to appreciate this masterpiece, Bandit Queen needs to be 'studied' in the Indian context, and not just checked out in stereotypes. I may not be able to sell it on its universal appeal but its certainly a must watch for the Indian audience, its a shame that the movie had a delayed, overtly censored release in India.

Bandit Queen is the story of a woman who fought against two odds in India, being a woman and that too a lower caste, her rebellious nature and inability to just give in caused her the most horrible experiences in life, which only went on to strengthen her into a self proclaimed goddess. She responded to violence with violence and dint become the submissive woman society wanted her to be. Call it divine justice or judiciary failure, had she killed a single person she would have been hanged, she killed 24 and got revered, respected and glorified.

P.S # Whoever found her character "psychotic", needs to be sodomized at 8, gangraped by 10 men at a go and paraded naked. Then they should be asked- How normal do they feel? The film's subject is poignant and very real. It happened. One can debate some artistic liberties taken by director and scriptwriter. The subject is what makes the film tick--nothing else. I saw the film for the first time after the real Phoolan, was gunned down in New Delhi and had served several years as an elected Member of Parliament in India. By the way, she was not the first untouchable elected to Parliament, as some reviewers stated. The so-called "untouchables" have been elected to the Indian Parliament for decades in reserved constituencies.

While Shekhar Kapur as a director is a hero to many India, because he made commercially accepted international films---"Bandit Queen" and "Elizabeth" (and a tolerable kiddie movie called "Mister India", which was accepted by the average Indian audiences)---and even got Oscar nominations for Elizabeth, I do not place him as a top notch film director from India. He fails in every department as a director except perhaps that he succeeds in getting some above-average performances from his actors. Subtlety, finesse, charm are not easy to find in his films--melodrama brims in them.

His idea of using Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's vocal rendering of the song in the early parts of the film, was perhaps his single major achievement on the undistinguished sound track of "Bandit Queen". And then perhaps the creaking doors during the gang rape sequence. Otherwise the film looked like a spaghetti western with sex and violence minus the great music one associates with them.

If you are looking for a good living Indian film director who makes realistic cinema of international quality--it is not Shekhar Kapur's movies you should see; it is the later works of three Indian film-makers Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Mrinal Sen, and Girish Karnad and of course Muzaffar Ali's "Umrao Jaan". It is unfortunate that none of those directors had the financial support that Kapur had to give them and their films an international viewership. For instance, Sen's "Oka oorie katha" made in Telugu, or Satyajit Ray's "Sadgati" based on Munshi Prem Chand's "Kafan" are more complete as films to an intelligent viewer dealing on the state of the untouchables in India. Sen did not have to resort to graphic sex and violence but merely suggested them. Of course, Sen's nugget did not make headlines, while Kapur's effort hogged them.

To Kapur's credit, he is articulate and used his limited talent and modest resources in the Mumbai film industry to take his products beyond home audiences. For that effort, I salute Kapur. But "Bandit Queen" will remain a great subject awaiting an accomplished director to deal with it. I agree with Andy, this is a good movie. Kevin McKidd's character is believable throughout the film. We're forced to hate him and latterly sympathise with him. Paula Sage who plays Roberta puts in a good performance too. It's thought-provoking and emotive without any slush over-production. Credit to director Alison Peebles and writer Andrea Gibb for that. A very worthwhile viewing. The pace of the film is just right, raising just enough interest in the subject matter to reel you in, rather than bombard you with facts in a documentary style. Nice little soundtrack to go with the film too, again used sparingly, not to distract you from storyline. Recommended. A very moving and thought provoking film that raises issues of mental health, terminal illness and euthanasia. Sound a bit too heavy? It is a little, but this is all treated in a realistically straight forward way within a story of the changes that take place to the family who have to deal with these things. This is a positive story of facing up to life and responsibility that isn't overwhelm by the subject matter.

Afterlife is beautifully shot and crafted film set in modern times and dealing with modern issues. It is a character driven, enthralling film with a strong cast and some very good performances.

Unfortunate it is not the sort of film that always performs well at the box office, so catch it while you can. Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've seen something special.(7/10) This is a great example of very none Hollywood film making which is very thought provoking, moving and not without a sense of humor, Kevin McKidd and Paula Sage are superb.

I actually watched it on late night TV and I can see why I missed it in the cinema, its not the sort of film that the multi-screen "mega" cinemas show nowadays, mores the pity.

I am going to look for the DVD. Not for those who prefer, the current trend towards special effects and no story. If you liked the best selling book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time", you'll enjoy this film.

This film ranks beside the best of Scottish films, such as "Small Faces" and "trainspotting". All films which Kevin McKidd also star in.

Highly Recommended. This movie is based on a play, and is the second adaptation of this work. Paul Sorvino plays the basketball coach of a team of players that against all odds took home the championship 20 years ago. They have all met for a reunion. Terry Kinney plays James, a Junior High principal, and will quickly get on your nerves with all his whining and feel sorry for me role. Vincent D'Onofrio, as Phil, plays an obnoxious businessman with just the right amount of "money" cockiness. Tony Shalhoub is George, the current Mayor of the town, and appears to be on the verge of some sort of breakdown. Gary Sinise plays Tom, a writer, turned alcoholic, and in my opinion, is excellent in the role. While they are all suppose to be celebrating their championship, conflicts, jealousy, and fighting abound. As the men come to terms with what was, and is now, they are forced to look at their lives in a non-pleasant way. It's unusual to have a group of men talking and crying about what could have been, and I found it interesting watching them relate to each other. It's not the best movie I've seen, but it's certainly good enough for a viewing. This movie is based mainly on the emotions and interactions of people. There are only three locations (the school, the store, and the coach's house) that are really used. It's primarily at the coach's house, however. A movie doesn't need special effects or amazing views to be amazing in itself.

Four friends who had bonded during their basketball days meet up. One is rich, important, and has no real love outside of money. One wants to be mayor again, but his competition is turning him sour. One wants to be superintendent of the school and take care of his family. One is a traveling alcoholic.

First off, I love the actors in this film. They've all been household names to me. They proved their worth here.

One of the most pivotal moments is when Tom, played by Gary Sinise, blows up on the coach. He yells and rants about how the coach cheated in the winning game. His blows the coach's whistle and yells back his catchphrases - "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned!" It's amazing to watch, with energy that just chills you.

Highly recommended to anyone who understands human emotion and doesn't need shiny effects to interest them. On the outside, this film is better because of Vincent D'Onofrio (Law & Order: Criminal Intent), but this film is equally as good as the 1982 version. In some ways, the 1999 version is better because it's more up to date (a decade as compared to the 27 years. The actors in this film were great, like Terry Kinney (McManus of HBO's "Oz") as James Daly and Tony Shalhoub (USA's Monk) and Gary Sinise (CSI:NY). Obvilubuly, dialogue was changed for contemporary audiences, nut much of the writing remained the same. There were stuff that wasn't in the 1982 version that gave this one a boost in drama and comedy, but in the end, this film was just as great at the 1982 one. Character-wise: Vincent D'onofrio playing Phil Romano was excellent, better that Paul Sorvino. It's a match up between Stacy Keach and Terry Kinney in terms of James. As for George, I would praise Shalhoub. And between Martin Sheen & Sinsise as Tom, I would say Sinise wins. This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight.

The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently: shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk.

One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb, sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly, so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this. "L'appartement" has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with "Hatred", also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard Dépardieu/Pierre Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from "Brotherhood Of The Wolves" and "Dobermann" I have not yet seen a bad movie with this couple. "L'appartement" sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't worked this well since "Pulp Fiction". Let's just hope there won't be a godawful American remake of this unique romance/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A godawful American remake has been made!)! This is a fabulous film.

The plot is a good yarn, and is imaginatively told in a series of flashbacks and alternative points of view. What was deliberate, and what was coincidence? Who is in love with who?

You get the chance to put yourselves in the shoes of each of the characters in turn (sometimes literally), and this helps define each character to a satisfying depth.

With a bit of effort following the twists and turns, you can understand each of the characters; and key events in the film are reshot from the point of view of different people.

Take the opportunity if it comes again to your arthouse cinema; it looks good on the big screen.

More than keeping you guessing, the plot twists to such an extent that you just sit and watch what unfolds - I defy anyone to predict!

But more likely you will need more than one viewing - I saw this at the pictures on its original release three times, and it got better each time.

The acting was very good, with a standout performance by Romane Bohringer as Alice torn in three directions by the three other characters in the ensemble.

A classic. The second-best film of the 1990s. Forget the recent dire American remake which sadly tarnished the reputation of the French original by virtue of the director's involvement in both. This is a deftly- drawn romantic 90s noir with many twists and turns. It works best as a Gallic ode to Hitchcock's Rear Window, because the notion of voyeurism is the constant theme that fires the intricate screenplay. The story is stunningly realized, like a Picasso painting, offering multi-perspectives on the same event and demanding the viewer's participation throughout. The settings, music and haunting score are wonderful as well as the excellent contributions from the cast. Watch it more than once. I watched this film for the second time tonight after about three years and it was as wonderful as before...

There are more than a dozen modern stunning French films from en couer de hiver to the three colours trilogy and all of them are special. This film is one of them. A true delight with so many great things going for it from the homage to Hitchcock to two beautiful ladies in Romane and Monica. While Monica is very beautiful, Romane is a very sexy lady and steals many of the scenes she inhabits.

I am not sure why people think this film is convoluted as the scenes are such a perfect blend of past and present acting as a counterpoint to the characters' own remarkable journey that the film simply flows and you barely realise that 116 minutes of beauty and mystery have left the viewed enchanted and bewitched.

Like most French and European films this story would never translate across the Atlantic as no studio could capture the magic without throttling the life out of it with the Hollywood bleaching common to most movies that become lost in translation. Americans make brilliant films, but not of this type... perhaps if they let someone like a young Polanski work on it then maybe they would not totally butcher an English version...

For those who do not watch subtitled films you will spend a lifetime in ignorant bliss. For those who can read then you would be spiting yourself to miss films like this...

I would describe this as Neo-Franco-Noir, but only to cheese off the reviewer who called this film elitist. I think I saw him doing an add for four-and-twenty-pies. He thinks Romane Bohringer is a type of French Mayonnaise...It is arty in the way that Pulp Fiction is arty...but with more Gallic savoire faire...

10 out of 10 with every viewing...and has anyone got Romane's phone number...she is the perfect French Salad Dressing... A wonderful story about the consequences of obsessive love with the beautiful romantic back streets of Paris as its location. We're transported through time and see the plot develop from the perspectives of the three main characters as the mystery unwinds. When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: "How complicated!" And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.

The first 3/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.

After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.

Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.

Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.

The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty. This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result!

And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever made!

It has everything:

Cast: first steps of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie!

Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious with long close-up "à la David Lynch".

Cinematography: the light is beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love!

A never-seen before Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same time!

Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames. And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer!

Ah, … the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which is derivative from the Latin "pain". You can suffer a lot when you are in love! Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the indecision.

And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?), devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late, and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love?

Personally, I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and you know it's her "special friend" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just started!

I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no one else! Apartmente'L is one of the most interesting movies that I have ever seen. I experienced extreme frustration while watching this movie as I was gunning for the two leads to reunite. That never happened in the end which disappointed me to no end. But the ending lends an even more cynical touch to a generally cynical movie. It is not a movie which people are likely to rewatch but one watch itself will have a deep impact on people. As of now I haven't rewatched the movie and I don't think I will.

The story follows the experiences of a man, Max, who is engaged to be married to Muriel. He remembers his old girlfriend Lisa(he considers this the love of his life) as he listens, by accident, to Lisa talking on the telephone. Thus he tries to find Lisa. Here starts his extremely frustrating search for Lisa. There are many layers to this movie. There are undercurrents of jealousy, vouyeurism and so on. There is also another character called Alice who is involved in the whole confusion. The movie then moves through a whole range of twists and finally leads to an ending which could be interpreted in many ways. It is fascinating how this movie has only four main characters but the clever writing makes it interesting and unique. What I love about the fact is that a movie about obsession, jealousy is done in such a light hearted manner. It has a very fast pace which is probably the reason why it can appeal to a large audience. The main character, Max, has shades of grey and I felt the ending was perfect. I don't think he is supposed to be a clean character considering the fact he is searching for his long lost love while he is engaged and he also has a fling with Alice.

The character of Alice is even worse. Her manipulation and her compulsive lying can really irritate viewers(that is the point, I guess). The scene where she breaks down in front of Lucien really shows another facet of her character. It shows a side of her that wants to be accepted and that she is tired of all the lying and the games and she wants to lead a normal life. In the end, she understands that she needs to get away from it all. The ending lends a cynical touch. Because it seems as if Max's love for Alice is temporary and fake. It is as if to say that love in general is a temporary emotion and it is better to choose the safe option(i.e Muriel) than to pursue something that is so fleeting(i.e Lisa or Alice). In many ways this is not really a romantic movie but a satire about romance(in a way).

The performances deserve high praise. Vincent Cassel as Max gives a great performance. He perfectly portrays the confusion of a man who is not really sure about his engagement. His geeky looks are an added advantage as it fits the character perfectly. But the real star of the movie is Romane Bohringer as Alice. Her nuanced portrayal of a woman who is jealous of Alice and is in love with Max. The scene where she screams "I am a nutcase too" really shows her desperation and her yearning to live a normal life with a man who loves her.

Btw I also thought lesbianism is another interpretation that can be drawn from this movie. Alice's actions can be explained in many ways. And her unreasonable obsession with Lisa may also be explained as a manifestation of a lesbian desire. It may be far-fetched considering she encourages Lisa to forgive her current boyfriend. But I got the feeling that she was a lesbian for a long time. She also avoids questions from Lisa regarding a boyfriend. She spends a whole lot of time with Lisa and she is happy during that time. That may lead many to question her sexual orientation.

Overall I would give it a 9/10. I think it deserves it but I subtracted one because of the rewatchability factor. I think it is a perfect movie otherwise. I just saw this film again, I believe for the sixth time. I will doubtless see it many more times. This is one of the most brilliant French films ever made. Although the film is mysterious, even more mysterious is what happened to the writer and director, Gilles Mimouni. For ten years he has not made another film, and this was his only one. The story and execution of this ingenious film are perfect, and it is clearly paying homage continually to both Hitchcock and Buster Keaton. The split-second timing of the movements is just as carefully controlled as the scene where the side of a house falls on Keaton in 'Steamboat Bill Junior', and he is only not killed by inches. In this film, people stoop and turn and pass one another unawares, and if they had been one second off, they would have collided. The storyline thus walks a tightrope of chance events to such an intense degree that you cannot take your eyes off the screen for even a millisecond, or you will miss something crucial. The haunting, albeit intentionally repetitive, music by Peter Chase is reminiscent of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and the whole film has the same eerie quality, but whereas Hitchcock had one woman be two women, Mimouni has two women be one woman, thereby inverting the plot structure. There are passing references to other Hitchcock films, but it is 'Vertigo' which is central to the inspiration of this film. The theme may seem superficially to be obsessive love, but the film is really about the magic of everyday chance events, the invisible threads behind the tapestry, the ineffable. Everything is hyper-charged with passionate love and desire, but the desire transcends its object and struggles towards something behind and beyond the object. That is why it is so easily transferable from Lisa to Alice, when it is realised that it is Alice who is more mysterious than Lisa, and it is Alice who truly embodies the Eternal Mystery. The film is ultimately 'made' by Romane Bohringer. She is so fascinating that she outshines Monica Bellucci, which is really something to pull off, considering that Bellucci is a knockout beauty, whereas Bohringer is what the English call 'plain'. However, Romane Bohringer had even at this early date more than mastered the art of 'personality dominance', whereby beautiful girls fall by the wayside and don't get noticed because Romane is being so fascinating you can't take your eyes off her long enough even to look at the beautiful girls, and you end up only thinking of her. Most of us remember, I'm sure, her father Richard Bohringer lying in a bathtub listening to opera in the film 'Diva' many years ago. I would rather watch Romane than Richard lying in a bathtub, but there seems to be some genetic secret to being fascinating, because Richard Bohringer is spellbinding too, and he isn't even a woman. Romane looks as if she may turn into Anna Magnani when she is much older, and that means she will get an Oscar, if someone can only write another 'Rose Tattoo' for her. The girl has so much passion inside her, she could set the Seine on fire. Wouldn't it be wonderful if she and Julie Delpy teamed up? This film made wonderful use of Paris locations. But where is this 'square in the Luxembourg'? It looked like Place Furstenburg to me. Maybe I missed something. I must watch the film another six times, just to study the precision of the timing and who brushes past whom, and make sure I've got it right. The whole thing is like ten gigantic simultaneous chess games played blindfolded by a grandmaster. How thrilling it all is! Romane, you can look through my window anytime! Mimouni, come on over, let's discuss impossibilities, unlikelihoods, coincidence, synchronicity, everything that is going on that is invisible and how it effects the visible. And once again, we have here the spirit of Breton's novel 'Nadja' embodied in a great French work of art. More! More! More! This is a clever story about relationships and a display of three main categories of players in the game of relationships: playboys (Max), manipulative women (Alice) and the fools who may be indeed in love (Lisa, Muriel and Lucien).

Max and Alice are very unlikeable and perhaps despicable characters but who are always in control in the game leaving their partners around in the dark. But as the profusely discussed ending tells us, as veteran players as Max and Alice were, they would be happy to part ways anytime they see fit as if the game was just announced to be over and each one of them could not care less to get on with his or her own life and play another game with some other anonymous people when another opportunity presented itself. Lisa, Muriel and Lucien might be the ones who felt like investing something real in a relationship, only not being able to realise that they were the baits in the game and the ultimate losers (as far as what we were shown is concerned....who knows if they are also advance players of some sort in their worlds not shown to us on screen).

This is a very fast-paced, delicately crafted and seductively witty story with an enticing execution by the cast. It also deserves some deeper thinking: how much is real in a game of relationship? All credit to writer/director Gilles Mimouni who fashioned this winding, twisting tale of deceit and betrayal. While keeping the utmost control, he maintains the audience at arm's length, never allowing them to become completely aware of the goings on. Even his clever denouement has you guessing.

The three central performances are also top class, with Vincent Cassel, Romane Bohringer and Monica Bellucci doing their utmost to add to the mystery. Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey supplements strength in his supporting role. To give away plot details or character specifics would not be fair.

Thierry Arbogast uses the camera effectively to sweep us through this enigma, and Cardine Biggerstaff's editing keeps the story a step ahead of us. The theme from Peter Chase is sublime in its marriage to the ideal of the script.

Many may say Gilles Mimouni is trying to confront several deeper issues on the them of love. For me this is simply a haunting, elusive riddle that weaves a fascinating web. Only the French are capable of such tantalisation. Hollywood would have ruined this with a happy ending.

Monday, March 2, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

No-one does thriller quite like the French. When they get it right, they really get it right.

Vincent Cassell is intriguing as the deceptive Max, Romane Bohringer obsessive as the new Lisa, and Monica Bellucci is mysterious as the first Lisa. The plot from Gilles Mimouni is a whirlwind of deliberate deception and fatally crossed wires.

All credit must go to his manipulation of the clever plot, and the performances from the three leads. As Lucien, Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey is strong and emotional.

Friday, January 15, 1999 - Video since the plot like Vertigo or Brian DePalma's Obsession, till to the score by Peter Chase that reminds the sounds of Bernard Herrmann, this little pearl seems to be sight from fews. Remarkable playing by Romane Boeringer and Vincent Cassel in a bohemian Paris portrayed from the famous Thierry Arbogast. A little cult! It is a pity that the only version available on DVD are the french one and the English. Directed by a controversial artist as Gilles Mimouni, it could be considered a little homage to the Cinema masterworks. It is a french movie, and as all of them, not for all, we could say a d'essai cinema. Even if not so publicized, it could be remembered for several reason. A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors.

It has to be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not supposed to happen.

It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart. In this tense and character-driven romantic tragi-comedy, we are given an insight into the intertwining lives of four thirtysomething Parisians. At the centre is Vinz Cassell's portrayal of Max. A starry-eyed Romeo, he falls head over heels for beautiful stranger Lisa (Bellucci). Encouraged by his put-upon best friend Lucien (Écoffey, in an understated but effective performance), he wins her heart and they live happily ever after... that is, until the scheming, neurotic and obsessive Alice (the versatile Romane Bohringer) becomes very involved in the lives and loves of the other three.

The rich plot is thickened by a curious chronological jumble, and the movie emerges as an intricate jigsaw, the eye-candy of picture-postcard Paris at the heart of it all. The use of colour does not go unnoticed, particularly in Lisa's spectacular apartment (presumably accounting for the film's title), where the reds and yellows provoke the fires of passion and lust.

The audience can relate to Max: he truly wears his heart on his sleeve and is constantly punished by irony and circumstance for it. In one memorable scene, our fated lovers (agonisingly separated by a 'choreographed' misunderstanding) narrowly miss out on the chance meeting that would surely reunite them. Independent of one another, they travel to the same destination: her on the Metro, him in a taxi, practically tête-à-tête. Yet fate seems to have it in for them, and the audience is captivatingly teased.

The performances in this film are really what make L'Appartement stand out. I still cannot understand why Vincent Cassell is not a big star outside France. He has presence and diversity in abundance. Monica Bellucci (Cassell's real-life spouse at the time of writing) has recently found fame in the Anglophone film industry, but perhaps for the wrong reasons - true, she is divinely beautiful, but behind that is a talented actress who can dominate a scene in classic 'leading-lady' style, which many British and American actresses dismiss in favour of the all-too-easy 'subtle' approach.

All in all, watch this film! I doubt you'll be disappointed. It is gripping, satisfying, amusing, sad, lavish, and a lesson in artistic film-making. An obsessive love story, where the characters have been extremely convincing. I think this film highlights the talent of professional actors. Specially for Vincent Cassel who wouldn't (at the time it was filmed) be the first character you think of for such a role. And yes he did succeed to seduce the beautiful Monica Belluci, beyond the film, during this creation. I can only say, that this film should have been released at it is in the USA, instead of thinking of doing a remake. It is simply so french, almost perverted....and yet so true...this film should stay untouched...

A director that should definitely get more projects as this kind of subject requires the right amount of ingredients to not make it a flop.. L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years. Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings) and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very much love.

The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very good)! Not all movies should have that predictable ending that we are all so use to, and it's great to see movies with really unusual twists. However with that said, I was really disappointed in l'apartment's ending. In my opinion the ending didn't really fit in with the rest of the movie and it basically destroyed the story that was being told.

You spend the whole movie discovering everyone and their feelings but the events in the final 2 minutes of the movie would have impacted majorly on everyones character but the movie ends and leaves it all too wide open.

Overall though this movie was very well made, and unlike similar movies such as Serendipity all the scenes were believable and didn't go over the top. several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.

at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.

9 out of 10 A very enjoyable french film. This film has many twists and turns in the plot and is superb. I have found that when I lend this DVD out to a friend it seems to do the rounds before getting back to me!! It is really all about a man making sure he finds the right girl to settle down with. This is a wonderful thriller I watched many times and never can get enough of.It's all about the obsessive love 5 people have for eachother in Paris, (un)lucky coincidences, false identities.The music makes it really gripping.There are hardly any flaws in the characters,just the end is not very credible,but a definite "must-see" still. I loved this. It starts out as a fairly normal, slightly ponderous French art movie and then all of a sudden, halfway through it's turned on it's head. This part is brilliant as you realise you have been watching 2 plots not one. Sadly, the ending doesn't make much sense, which is a great shame. Oh yes, and it's brilliantly filmed. Gilles Mamouni is playing with the audience with the story of Max (Vincent Cassel) in search of his biggest lost love (Monica Bellucci) just before to get engaged to another woman. Mamouni uses many flashbacks sequences without warning so the best way to know where we are in the story is to watch for the actor's haircut. Oherwise it can get very confusing... Still a strong film debut for Mamouni, beautifully photographed by Thierry Arbogast (the 5th element, the Messenger), and Monica Bellucci is a darling to watch ... I felt a little disappointed near the end so I gave it 9 out of 10. So here's a bit of background on how I came to see this movie. As you probably know, this is the original French film, that was then remade (quelle surprise) by Hollywood as Wicker Park. Well I avoided that movie like the plague when it was first released, simply because, a) I knew it had absolutely nothing to do with Wicker Park, and living in Chicago, I didn't see why they called it that - it was filmed in fricking Canada for a start! - b) I have a very hard time bothering with pointless remakes, done purely because Hollywood thinks we're too bone idle to read a few subtitles (I am dreading the remake of Infernal Affairs by the way) and c) I can't stand Josh Hartnett, 'nuff said there.

However, I came across WP on TV the other day, probably about half an hour in, and I have to say initially, it made no sense at all, until about half an hour from the end, when it started coming together. By the end, I was really surprised to find myself really into it, and then the ending just seemed so good - a perfect combination of story, passion and ending with possibly one of the greatest musical choices I've ever seen (heard??).

Since then I've heard a lot about the L'Appartement vs. Wicker Park argument and looking at WP, I still say it has bugger all to do with Chicago, but there seemed something about it that I liked, so when it was on again, I watched it again - unfortunately, still missing the first chunk (I've still yet to see it!), and I still thought it was pretty good. Heck, even Josh Hartnett seemed good! But I was curious about L'Appartement and wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I waited and waited to catch l'Appartement somewhere somehow. Netflix let me down, so I ended up getting a copy from some website in Ireland. And I've just watched it.

It's really kind of weird, but a good weird. A classic French film. Great acting, Romane Bohringer is an absolute gem - sorry, but she acts Monica Bellucci off the screen in every scene. Vincent Cassel was a weird choice for the lead but by the end he works. And I've seen Jean-Philippe Ecoffey in a lot of movies and I just love him - the scene where Alice dumps him in the restaurant and he just looks like someone's told him his puppy's been run over was excruciating! But, I can honestly say, having seen WP and pretty much expecting that to have been a scene for scene copy (as about 75% of the rest of the movie had been - maybe in a different order, but come on, the scene with the coffee in the glasses?? Word for word!!), you can imagine my surprise when I watched the ending of L'Appartement!! I can literally say I was blown away - hmm, a bit like poor old Lucien was through the cafe window really! So, be prepared, if you've seen Wicker Park and you fancy taking a look at the original like I did, do not make the mistake of expecting an identical movie, because you'll either be disappointed, or exhilarated at a piece of French movie history - a prime example of how you can watch a movie, think you're going to watch a pithy happy ending, and get whiplash from the total spin in the opposite direction right at the end. Definitely catch this movie. Oh and while you're at, maybe not too near the same time, but down the road, take a look at Wicker Park, it'll surprise you too. This is easily my favourite film. A tragic romance intertwined with a complex mystery whose threads are all but invisible until they all unravel at the end in one fantastic rush. Sheer brilliance.

I'd love to see some more of Gilles Mimouni's work, but at least according to imdb, he hasn't made any other features. Has the high quality of this work made producing another too daunting a task? Has he moved (back) into some other sphere of creative endeavour? I certainly hope this won't be his final feature but I can't really blame him if he decides to stop with this gem as his only contribution to the world of feature films. A movie visually graceful but interesting is mainly the plot. The film depicts a zigzag progress of exploring the main actor's innermost feeling. Max, who has lived in New York for two years and intend to marry a girl he met there, comes back to Paris and unexpectedly meets his ex-girlfriend whom he still fancies very much but finally finds out the one he loves the most in fact is her best friend. Non-linear narration thus many flashbacks and every part are articulated quite well. The three women Max has met symbolize something we must pursue although possibly having no clear picture about the underlying motivations. His fiancee is the one he needs rather than the one he loves and thus completely no loyalty we can see. She gives him also no love but only stability. True love also cannot be found in his relation with the ex-girlfriend. Merely a fantasy for him to escape - many things very romantic he has done for her but almost nothing seems amenable. The one who really animates Max's life in fact is her best friend. The equilibrium achieved at the end is not identical to the initial equilibrium because Max has understand much more about his innermost feeling. The nonlinear structure makes the progress of searching look more complicated. Not equally ingenious as "Pulp Fiction" but things seem much more natural in "The Apartment". Max is not the only character who undergoes a transformation and in fact interesting is also the description to Romane Bohringer. The good cinematography also makes her and Monica Bellucci look very beautiful. A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing.

A slick production which holds the interest from the very first scene where Max is choosing a ring in a jeweller's shop. Much of what follows reminds us of Shakespeare's "A Mid-summer Night's Dream" in which Demetrius and Lysander fall in love with each other's girl-friends. Here Max and Lucien both prone to love at first sight get mixed up with Lisa and Alice, and Alice complicates things when she calls herself Lisa. On top of the merry mix-up, Max is inclined to get involved in incidents which bring back memories of two years ago. And because Max has a lot of these dreamy episodes we are subjected to one flashback after another,too many in my opinion because at first viewing of the film , I wasn't quite sure if I was in the present or the past.There is much running down corridors, stairways, through doorways, into elevators etc. I accept all that in a fast-paced film but do we have to have so many people colliding with each other? After four collisions it ceases to have any impact, if you'll excuse the pun. High marks for art design! The apartment itself is really beautiful with its tasteful decor, but I do ask myself how a couple of young women can afford such luxury in Paris. Saving a person intent on suicide from jumping out of a window is always exciting and it is in this film too when Max almost exits at the same time. However a kiss or two soon makes him feel better. If you can manage to find your way through all the flashbacks, you'll finally find yourself at the airport where Max's devoted sister gives him a most affectionate kiss. It can be said it is she who resolves the complications of love, like Puck in a "Mid-summer Night's Dream". This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other. Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of back in the 1970's. One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).

The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).

The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).

The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.

This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.

Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned! From today's point of view it is quite ridiculous to rate this film 18 (or X in the US). The film has a sexual, yet sublime erotic story to tell, but the pictures are rather innocent. Throughout the movie you feel and see the spirit of the late 60s and early 70s in the fashion, the dialogues and the typical experimental cinematography and lighting. And this is exactly the part that makes it worth seeing. As with FOOTPRINTS (1975), I became aware of this one purely by accident: it was mentioned in a review of THE LIBERTINE (1969), which I researched when that film turned up on late-night Italian TV, as being in a similar vein; incidentally, I missed out on that screening of THE LIBERTINE (though I acquired it via the same channel later on) but did manage to watch the film by way of a rental of the English-dubbed R1 DVD during my sojourn in Hollywood in late 2005/early 2006. Actually, in view of the enthusiastic reviews for it, I was let down by THE LIBERTINE – being too light-hearted in nature for what was essentially a serious theme (the sado-masochistic relationship between a young couple)!; to be honest, for much of the time, I was afraid that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN would go the exact same route…but was subsequently amply redeemed by a wicked (if not exactly unpredictable) final twist.

The film concerns the freethinking social attitudes and dazzling creative arts prevalent in this era: an eminent philanthropist (Philippe Leroy) invites a female journalist (Dagmar Lassander) at his fashionable home for the week-end; however, it transpires that he’s a misogynist who distrusts all members of the opposite sex and would rather dominate (or even kill) them! Therefore, for the first half of the narrative, we see the heroine enduring pain and humiliation at Leroy’s hands (including being forced to make love to a dummy in his own image!)…until the tables are subtly, but unsurprisingly, turned: she not only emancipates herself from his control, but teaches him that Man and Woman can co-exist harmoniously – except that Lassander’s following her own personal agenda as well!!

The leads are perfectly cast, and the film itself often darkly comic for those in the mood; furthermore, it’s greatly abetted by a typically effervescent “Euro-Cult” score (from the ever-reliable Stelvio Cipriani) and the imaginative – even outré – look (the giant structure depicting the lower section of the female form, with a steel-trap where its sexual organ should be, seems to emanate from Freud: incidentally, this prop figured prominently in stills I’d seen previously from THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN…but it barely registers in the film proper!). Other bizarre touches include the preposterous radio program “Sexual Aberrations And The Stars”, and an idyll at a castle belonging to Leroy’s family complete with secret passage through the wardrobe and a dwarfish manservant. One of the highlights, then, is easily Lassander’s erotic dance virtually in the nude – an episode which actually spearheads the ‘humanization’ of Leroy; eventually, the two characters have a ‘showdown’ in the latter’s pool – amusingly set to a Spaghetti Western-type theme!

In the long run, for all its stylishness, the film emerges as inferior to the similar but much more extreme contemporaneous Japanese masterpiece by Yasuzo Masumura BLIND BEAST (1969). Finally, it’s worth noting that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN was distributed in the U.S. by film-maker Radley Metzger’s company Audubon Films; he would even employ its production designer (Enrico Sabbatini) for his own CAMILLE 2000 (1969)! To get to the edition I watched: apart from the usual shortcomings in the English-dubbing department, the presentation here was further marred by a rather washed-out appearance and brief instances of distracting extraneous noise on the soundtrack! By the way, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the film’s running-time: its length given on various sources ranges anywhere from 84 to 108 minutes – all I can say, however, is that the copy I own ran for 87 minutes! I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs. It could not have come from a different country nor from a different time. This movie simply oozes psychedelia influenced late 60s Italian cinema. So, pseudo serious and sexually free. Sumptuous settings and dreamy music make this a visual and aural delight. Plus we get the lovely Dagmar Lassander, surely at her very best looking. The kinky goings on make for a wild ride and if the romps amidst the Mimosa towards the end seem overlong it is but another rather charming trait of the time. You were probably expected to split those few minutes between the screen and your girlfriend and it does of course herald a twist in the proceedings. It might have been better if Philippe Leroy didn't look quite so odd with his fraying red hair and twisted facial expression. He does well though and has many silent moments where Dagmar is cavorting and he has to show a mixture of love and hate. Not an ordinary narrative film by any means but for those who like that something different, this is certainly that. If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!! Dr. Sayer(Philippe Leroy), a wealthy physician with psychological issues regarding the opposite sex, kidnaps an employee, Maria(Dagmar Lassander), a free-thinking liberal woman who believes men must be the ones "fixed" instead of females. Sayer retreats to his palatial estate, running Maria through a humiliating series of mind games, threatening to molest and kill her. Sayer's desire, it seems, is to dominate her body, mind and soul, making her his sexual slave, obeying his commands, adhering to his every wish and whim. After resistance, at first, Maria slowly teeters towards his objective, but has plans of her own..she says she wishes to help Sayer relinquish his sadistic behavior towards women, so that he could love and not feel such yearning desires to harm. It seems that Sayer has her under his grip, agreeing to certain rather embarrassing scenarios(..such as lotioning his toes, "making love" to a blow-up doll which is a recreation of himself, often spending time topless, and even getting hosed down when she slaps him hard across the face bringing blood from his nose)which almost break her, but something happens as the troubled doctor slowly falls in love with Maria..and through what appears to be a desperate attempt to end the madness, Maria gains an upper hand, toying with Sayer's lust for her body.

More of a battle of wills, a kind of sexual warfare where it seems one is in charge when in fact the other truly has the upper hand. Through a great deal of the film, Sayer mistreats Maria, forcing her(..it seems)to submit to his series of psychological games of a sexual nature. Her attempts to escape fail because his home is such a well designed fortress..it's a typical European art deco kind of palace, fashioned and orchestrated by a man who has kept to this weekend retreat of his for quite a spell(..it features walls and doors opening at his command, with an area quarantined off for his "victims"). But, once Maria seemingly downs a bottle of pills as a result of her anguish at his hands, the tables are turned and she has him where she wants him. He finds that he actually craves her and Maria uses this to her advantage, playing hard to get when Sayer wishes to embrace and ravage her(..and, I could understand his frustration because she has this allure that can drive a man crazy)

I felt the film works, ultimately, as a war cry for women, their empowerment and uprising against men who have the notion that they should always have control, sexually and mentally. The "twist" finalizes this ideal. I couldn't swallow Sayer's fate because of his rigorous cardiovascular activity and exercise regimen..we see how he develops his toned athletic figure, and how this regimen is part of the normal routine every weekend before the true mind games with his victim begin. If he is so well fit, and spends such time developing himself for the extracurricular activities which follow his regimen, how could he suffer the fate which follows his finalizing the deal with Maria at the end when she stops resisting his advances?

Maria, he would later admit, is the first he's actually kidnapped; others from the past, call-girls, were paid for their services so that Sayer could feel the power of dominating a woman, even if it's all a fictitious charade brought about by a deeply troubled individual with an inability to connect with the opposite sex. The spontaneous decision to do so, to take a leap from the norm, costs him more than he could ever know.

All this psycho-sexual sub-text is rather fascinating to see unravel, but Dagmar Lassander, such a yummy sex kitten, was my reason for enjoying it so..without her, I couldn't have liked it as much because she's vital as a victim worth striving to obtain. Perhaps the film's highlight, the delicious dance as Lassander, clothed in gauze(!), unravels the wardrobe exposing her breasts to a jazzy score..it's the kind of sexually seductive moment that makes your mouth water and forehead sweat. Dagmar Lassander must've been a joy for fashion designers because she wears those clothes so well..she has this kind of cool, a sophistication and screen presence along with her beauty and seductive powers, Dagmar transcends the part to create an iconic character which would define her career..even if the film isn't well known(..I found about through word of mouth). The provocative nature of the script and risqué subject matter might not appeal to certain crowds as it deals with sex(..and pain) in many different forms, the dialogue quite illustrative and elaborative. At times, I couldn't help but chuckle at Sayer's comments towards an imprisoned Maria, regarding how he enjoys making women suffer, and the thrill he gets at forcing them into a type of slavery(..in an attempt to make the words poetic, it all feels rather hokey). But, Dagmar is the real reason to see it, and the film, to me, works at it's best as a fetish film, a possible male fantasy with this seemingly prim and proper idealist, captured and held against her will, forced into a precarious situation, her fate possibly at the mercy of a complex and possibly dangerous masochist. Her submission, and how she reacts towards his aggressive behavior with her(..there are times where she unfolds to a wavering desire to embrace him, unveiling a possible attraction towards him which, in itself, might startle some who watch it)are among the most fascinating highlights of this exploitation feature. My other favorite scene, besides the dance, is the piano concerto with Sayer fondling Maria as she plays a soothing melody. Shameless Screen Entertainment is a relatively new and British (I think) DVD-label, specializing in smutty and excessively violent cult movies – mostly Italian ones - from the glorious eras when everything was possible, namely from the late 60's up until the mid-80's. The label's selection feels like a crossover between the oeuvres of "Mondo Macabro" and "No Shame" (they probably even borrowed the name of the latter) and they already released some really rare sick Italian puppies like "Ratman", "My Dear Killer", "Killer Nun", "Phantom of Death" and "Torso". "The Frightened Woman" was completely unknown to me, but since fellow reviewers from around here, whose opinions I hugely value, described it as one of the greatest and most mesmerizing psychedelic euro-sexploitation movies of its era, I didn't hesitate to pick it up. This is a very weird film and probably not suitable for about 99% of the average cinema-loving audiences. If you're part of that remaining 1%, however, you're in for a really unique treat. The style, atmosphere and content are similar to Jess Franco's "Succubus" and Massimo Dallamano's "Venus in Furs", yet they're both widely considered as classics whereas "The Frightened Woman" is virtually unknown. It's all a matter of profiling and good marketing, I guess. The story revolves on a literally filthy rich doctor (he lives in a gigantic secluded mansion, owns multiple old-timer cars and has a very impressive collection of artsy relics including a life-size mannequin doll replica of himself) with a bizarre and slightly offbeat attitude towards women. He considers them a threat for the survival of the male race and thus spends his days kidnapping, humiliating and sexually abusing random he picks up from the street. Dr. Sayer then abducts the ambitious journalist Maria with the intention to completely crush her female spirit, but he slowly falls for her. Just he starts to believe in actual love, she strikes back with a vengeance. This really isn't for everyone, but if you can appreciate moody & sinisterly sexy ambiances, bizarre scenery toys and psychedelic touches that seem utterly implausible and surreal, you can consider this one a top recommendation. It's slow, stylishly sleazy and totally bonkers… Shameless Entertainment, all right! Now, I am not prone to much emotion, but I cried seeing this movie. It certainly has more appeal among blacks than other ethnic groups, but there is something here for everyone. The classic song "It's so Hard to Say Goodbye" really makes this one worth watching at least once. This film set the standard for African-American film excellence when it was made. I heard on various stories on the film through time, that there was a push for an Academy Award nomination when it was released. This film plays on various emotions, and you definitely feel for all of the characters. Sure, some of the acting is a little wooden, but fortunately, those parts aren't pivotal. The music is sensational, and if you don't think the ending is a tear-jerker, you have no heart in your chest. If you watch "Cooley High", you will see that many, many films have copied various elements from it in order to strengthen their own films. The biggest example of this is "Boyz N The Hood". Read This:

BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF THIS MOVIE.

Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.)

It makes me mad that people don't know this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named their hit record after this film. This was the very first movie I ever saw in my life back in 1974 or 1975. I was 4 years old at the time and saw it at a drive-in theatre. I did not grasp that this would be a classic at the time (I went to sleep about twenty minutes into the movie). After seeing it on the television-along with two of my other favourite movies Car Wash (my favourite movie) and The Wiz which seemed to come on every year about the same time all together-about 40, 50, 75 times I knew that here was a movie that I would have as one of my favourites. Those three movies were the only live action shows that I could watch as a child.

I would not consider this to be a blaxploitation movie but rather an urban interest movie.Cochise and Preach reminded me of some of my uncles especially the Wild Irish Rose that they drank. My mother also told me about some of the quarter parties that she attended and that some of the things that occurred in the movie were similar in nature to what occurred in real life. If you are one of the two or three black people over thirty who hasn't seen this movie yet then I recommend that you buy the DVD right now. I'm glad that I was around to witness some of the goings on of the era. "Cooley High" is one of my favorite movies EVER!!! I think I saw this movie years ago on late night TV with my mother when I was little and I thought it was so funny. This movie was also referred to as a "black American Graffiti". Glynn Turman is wonderful as Preach and Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs is great as Preach's friend Cochise. There are some other great characters in it as well, and this movie has a lot of humor packed into it. From the beginning of the movie where Cochise goes to Preach's home to get ready for school to the sad ending of Cochise's funeral, this movie is one that will get you laughing all the way. There are a lot of scenes in this film that I like a lot. The scene where Pooter (another one of Preach and Cochise's friends) go to the zoo with them and gets the gorilla's feces thrown on his shirt (very gross, but funny as well), the first scene in the street corner cafeteria, the quarter party at this girl's house which became a disaster due to a fight, and some others are wonderful to watch. This movie even has a wonderful companion soundtrack album, which is packed with a lot of wonderful Motown hits and artists from the early 60s (only 6 songs on the soundtrack were done in '75, while the rest were from the '60s). The movie is mainly about two friends who dream about getting away from their impoverished and rough neighborhood after high school, but their futures seem almost out of reach, due to their innocent joy ride in a stolen car that two other hoods were responsible for, and Preach's relationship with his girlfriend, Brenda (played by Cynthia Davis) almost gets put in jeopardy. Go out and rent or buy this movie, and be ready for a load of comical entertainment!!! Get the soundtrack, too. It is a lot of fun as well!!! Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.

Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.

It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional. Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted. I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of this movie was great. My opinion is of " Cooley High " is turn back the hands of time, those were the fun years. ...instead, watch it as a great coming of age tale about African American males in the mid 1960's in the ghettos of Chicago. For all of you out there under the age of 50, "What's Happening" was a light-hearted rather quirky sitcom with very few serious moments that lasted four years (1975-1979) concerning a group of young African American high school kids living in a working class neighborhood. I liked it a great deal - it just has no real connection to this film. "Cooley High" started out as being the basis for "What's Happening", but its serious nature did not register well with test audiences, so it was redone as a comedy, even though the credits on "What's Happening" still read that it was based on this movie.

This film starts out light, but touches many aspects of life unique to the turbulent 1960's and also some other aspects of growing up that are timeless. The guys deal with sex, betrayal, joblessness, hopelessness, and even early death. The ending is quite powerful and serious, and the film has a great Motown soundtrack. Highly recommended. Unfortunately, this film is not new enough to be played on premium cable channels and not considered old enough to be considered a classic movie and played in the few venues for those films either. This this coming of age dramedy set in Chicago in the early 60's, we follow a group of highschool friends as they navigate through the ups and downs of their lives. The two central characters are Leroy "Preach" Jackson (Turman) and his best friend Richard "Cochise" Morris (Hilton-Jacobs.) Both of these boys have promising futures. Preach is a great writer but a lazy student, and Cochise has just received a college scholarship for basketball. When they're not hanging out at the local diner shooting craps with their friends, or hanging out at a friends house or chasing girls, they're skipping school, riding the trains through Chicago or going to quarter parties on the weekends.

Things go wrong when Preach and Cochise make the mistake of getting involved with two hoods and go joyriding in a stolen car. The police pursue them and they are arrested. But thanks to the efforts of a concerned teacher (SNL's Garrett Morris) they are released. But the two hoods are not, and vow to get revenge on Preach and Cochise, thinking they blamed the whole thing on them.

This movie is very episodic, but it still works because thats what life is, a series of episodes. Some funny, some sad, some romantic, some bizarre. The film never gets boring because all the characters are so well played and realistic, and the situations are all believable and relatable. Like Preach romantically pursuing a beautiful girl, or a party turning violent when some asshole decides to start a fight, or dealing with a bratty younger sibling. But even when a situation isn't personally relatable, like the guys pretending to be undercover cops to con a hooker out of some money so they could get all their friends into a movie, the sequence is still hilarious.

'Cooley High' was the basis for the classic 70's sitcom 'What's Happenin!' which aired on ABC from 1976-1979. Even though the show is most famous for the character Rerun, he is not in this film, nor is there any character remotely like him. The humor of that show was very broad, but still funny. The humor of 'Cooley High' is truer to life, and thus more entertaining.

Additionally, the soundtrack is wonderful. Classic songs from that period by Diana Ross & The Supremes, The Temptations, Martha & the Vandellas, and Smokey Robinson play throughout the film, adding to the fun, youthful, exuberant tone of the film. Cooley High was actually a drama with moments of comedy. It was a reflection of high school life back in the day. I attended Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. from 1976 to 1979 and much of what was in Cooley High was an every day thing at Coolidge. As a matter of fact after the movie came out everybody started calling Coolidge "Cooley High." Getting high, shooting dice, chasing girls, basement parties, and fights, that sums up high school life for many in D.C. back in the day. I can't forget Motown because Motown music began and ended many a day back in the 70s. The hits just kept coming. However, Cooley High adds a layer of humanity over the craziness because when all was said and done just like in Cooley High my classmates and I had a lot of love for each other. And like the characters in Cooley High there was life after high school, but there was nothing like waking up every morning and experiencing each day to the fullest from homeroom to seventh period. Thirty years later we are getting ready to celebrate those good times. Cooley High is definitely a period piece that just gets better with time because like it or not the only thing left from those days are memories, some good, and some bad. The movie was very good when it came out, I attended Cooley High and Cooley upper grade center ,around 1968 i was also home coming queen and grew up and lived in the area of Cabrini Greens, i knew a lots of people in the movie, it was nice to see friends in the movie that lived in the area also, and they had a chance to be a star that may have been a once in a life time experience for them, i had good times growing up on the north side and tough times i can relate to the movie Cooley High is no longer standing but a person like myself and others still remember the fun we had growing up attending Cooley High, there is a lot of history around this north side area to be told . This film held my interest from the beginning to the very end with plenty of laughs and real down to earth acting by the entire cast. Glynn Turman, (Preach Jackson) is the star of the picture playing the role of a smart guy who likes poetry and had a very sexy girl friend. Lawrence Hilton Jacobs, (Cochise Morris) was an outstanding athlete at the Cooley H.S. and even won a scholarship to a famous college. There are scenes in this picture with the Chicago Police Department chasing all these dudes in a Cadillac and a visit to the Lincoln Park Zoo with monkey dung being thrown around. The music is outstanding and there is great photography around the City of Chicago. Great Film, enjoy. At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clichés - at times COOLEY HIGH almost feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine film.

The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to just how little cared-for this excellent film is. You want a movie that'll take you places? Well this is a good pick. If you were an adolescent in the era portrayed in this film--the hayday of Motown--or if you want to reach back and see what your parents made so much noise about, I suggest you pick up this flick and give it a watch. At the risk of sounding cliche, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll reminisce and remember. You'll go back to a time when school violence was a fist fight. You'll recall with fondness your best friends from school. It's a feel good movie with an edge of angst and pain and realism--misconceptions, losing friends, deciding what to do with your life. I think everyone regardless of race, age, socioeconomic standing can pull something from this movie and really enjoy it. So take a couple hours out of a lazy day and check out this film; there are much worse ways you could spend your time. Some people may call "Cooley High" the same sort of thing as "American Graffiti", but I wouldn't. For starters, in "AG", everyone was white, whereas in "CH" they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.

One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word. A gem from Japan, where so many of the world's best films are being made today. Stylistically, this isn't anything all that special. It's just a simple drama (with some comic overtones) about recognizable people going about their lives. Yuko Tanaka, best known for voicing the character Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke, plays a 50 year old spinster. She's takes pride in her health, spending each morning in a vigorous workout as she delivers milk up and down the steep hills of Nagasaki. After she is done with this part time job, she works her regular job as a clerk at a grocery store (called S-Mart, which made this Army of Darkness fan giggle). Along her milk route lives a 50 year old man, whose wife is dying. It turns out the milk woman and the man, a child services worker, dated in high school, and each apparently still have something of a crush on the other. The film actually has some major narrative problems. When the screenwriter actually wants the two unrequited lovers to unite, he uses a pretty unbelievable deus ex machina technique. The climactic sequence is also really forced. But most of the film is beautifully small and observant of the two main characters, as well as many side characters. The film also has several subplots that seem like they will eventually weigh the film down, but never end up doing so. I think the best thing in the film is Tanaka's heartbreaking performance as the lonely milk woman, who has resigned herself to being alone for the rest of her life. Whatever the problems were, the film mostly transcends them. Lead actor Yuko Tanaka fulfills so much in the exceptionally meditative "The Milkwoman," a tranquil canvass on missed chances in the life of a 50-something woman, charting her routine with sincerely poignant motives. Played out in the picturesque, tranquil town of Nagasaki, Akira Ogata's unconventional romantic film, so to speak, is less a straight-out melodrama than a deliberate introspection of its characters' surrender to their current lives as a result of a tragic past that forced them to a choice they did not call for.

Perfectly embodying the requisite world-weariness subjected to a spiritless routine, Tanaka plays Minako Oba, a middle-aged woman who, before her work shift at a supermarket, takes it upon herself to deliver bottles of milk among the residents of the hilly Nagasaki. One of the houses she constantly passes by to make such a delivery is that of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a local government employee caring for her terminally ill wife (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita were high school sweethearts who, courtesy of an ignominious event concerning their parents, separated ways since then.

Opening his film with the foreboding narration of a young Minako vowing never to leave Nagasaki, Ogata does as such with the narrative, patiently sticking with Minako as he, deftly aided by Tanako's understated yet highly effective performance, follows her -- whether she's having chitchat with her aunt (Misako Watanabe) on being single, or when she jogs up and down the countless footsteps of their hilly town to distribute milk -- as she and Kaita gradually overcome the hindrances that kept them apart for years. Such unhurried development may not suit viewers weaned on fast-paced narratives but for the rest, it's a heartfelt introspection that affects powerfully and emphatically. I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.

And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.

While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.

Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.

The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.

It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.

Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets. The storyline of The Milkwoman is a simple one of unrequited love that despite the passing of decades still remains strong. Now 50 years old, Minako Obha (Yuko Tanaka) lives alone and works two jobs – one as a checkout clerk in a supermarket, the other as a milklady, doing her daily round on the hills of Nagasaki. One of her stops is at the house of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a government official who tends to his terminally ill wife Yoko (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita used to see each other as school children, but after the death of Minako's mother and Kaita's father, who it seems were having an affair together, their own relationship was destroyed. Lying in her sick bed, Yoko knows however that her husband's feelings for the milklady aren't completely gone and, for the sake of Kaita after she has died, she attempts to engineer a means of bringing them back together.

While the story might be simple, the emotions it deals with and the means by which it expresses them is really where the heart and beauty of the film lie. The film takes its time to show the simple daily routines of each of the characters, their actions being recorded by an old lady who is writing their story for a book while looking after her own husband who is showing signs of dementia. In the process it depicts the social circumstances of people from different ways of life, how they interact with each other on a daily basis, how relationships form, and how past and present can collide. The director handles this marvellously with a strong structure and visual style. It's only later in the film that the story starts to follow a more conventional and inevitably melodramatic path, as if it is indeed being constructed to fit the narrative structure of the book that is being written. It's all validated by the emotional depths the film touches, represented most effectively in the exceptional performance of Yuko Tanaka. This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer. He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight nor talk each other, but they never forget each other.

The original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books". But of course when the man said "Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do", it was to hug her and make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that "If God gives us time to talk, we need at least a whole day". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident. Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect. This movie was really well written and was very entertaining.There was great acting in it too. Luke Perry did a very convincing job. (like he always does)If you are looking for a eventful movie to watch this should be at the top of your list. There is a mixture of comedy, drama, and action. You can literally feel what the actors are feeling at points. I was very impressed by this movie. The special effects were very well done. The whole movie was very convincing. This movie is one of my favorites. What happens is North America could be torn apart and Jack and his team have to try and to stop an eruption by destroying North America. It was a very cool and creative idea. I loved this movie and i know you will too. It is interesting to see what people think of this movie, since it is, in fact, quite unique (though it bears some of the trademarks of Clive Barker's writing). Even though it might seem a bit cynical to say so, the movie is just intricate enough to deflect those that need standard Hollywood plot hooks, and layered, so that if you expect to be fed, you will see a normal monster flick with lots of monsters and a disjointed plot.

Those who need a linear, specific and untangled plot line will hate this movie, because the story lies, like in the novella, partially between the lines, or in this case, partially off screen, in comments and the imagination.

Another possible hang-up is the ending, of which I can say, without spoiling it, that it is not entirely good and not entirely bad. It is, in fact, not very defined at all, which I know sends some people into raging tantrums about that they didn't get to know what happened, but to me, and to many others, I'm sure, just adds another dimension to the story - the dimension of speculation, and, in addition, the point that great disruption has a tendency to cause ripples that extend quite far.

There is definitely moral here, but of a rather different kind than the standard Hollywood in-your-face-at-the-end-of-the-movie sort of display. Summing that moral up is simple, even though it is not quite that simply displayed; prejudice and the human tendency to hate the different.

I love this movie, even though, as many of the reviewers have noted, the expressions of the actors (with the exception of David Cronenberg, who does a wonderful appearance) are rather tacky. I'm not sure they are entirely to blame for their rickety appearance and lack of depth, though, seeing that these are common problems in converting literature to screenplay.

All in all, this is a great movie, provided that you do not expect it to be a standard horror movie. This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really is. He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle to him.

I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories). There's a great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in the early 80's time period, and probably now also.

The final scene had me on the edge of my seat. This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect it.

irenerose I must admit, when I first began watching this film I had no clue what was going on. So the beginning was a bit confusing for me. However, that did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie. The characters reveal themselves to be more complex than they may first appear, and that is what makes this a memorable film. At first I heard this was a real "Hollywood" movie. Although it obviously lacks the stereotypical "guns and fists" element, the convincing performances of talented actors such as Martin Sheen and Sam Neill more than make up for it. I'd rather see a film with more substance than shooting any day. I first saw this film on hbo around 1983 and I loved it! I scoured all of the auction web sites to buy the vhs copy. This is a very good suspense movie with a few twists that make it more interesting. I don't want to say too much else because if you ever get a chance to see it, you'll be glad I didn't say too much! Out of the 600 or so Spaghetti Westerns made this has got to be in the top twenty somewhere. Can not believe this hasn't received any reviews! Gemma is excellent in this. Van Johnson is good too though his dubbed voice is a little off killter but that's the charm of the Italian style. Beautiful photography and some excellently staged action. All the supporting characters are well played. The severity of the racist streak in the bad guys is pretty tough even by todays standards which creates an emotional depth to Gemmas character in some of the situations that take place. Absolutely FANTASTIC score by Luis Bacalov. See this is in the wonderful Wide screen DVD from Japan. A spaghetti must have. In post civil war America the President, (Van Johnson), travels to Dallas and is assassinated by corrupt officials and businessman interested in installing the vice President whom they can blackmail due to incriminating documents. A gunman (Guiliano Gemma) convinced that his black friend is wrongly accused of the assassination aims to uncover the truth. Tonino Valeri directed this fascinating, if flawed film which obviously is an allegory for the Kennedy assassination. The film may wrongly present blacks as slaves working on plantations in Texas but the film is nonetheless enjoyable and presents an interesting interpretation - that Kennedy's death was the result of a coup de tat- which many Americans could not accept at the time. Oswald's murder is replayed here as the black accused of the assassination is murdered by the men responsible, on route to Fort Worth prison. This moment in the film is more melodramatic than Oswald's death with his various escorts shot down before his over the top death scene. Nonetheless this is definitely one of the more interesting and worthwhile spaghetti westerns. Worth a look! This is a gripping story that borrows elements from the Kennedy assassination, and uses them successfully to create an excellent western tale.

The movie has a good music score, though it relies on repeating the title theme a little too much. Giuliano Gemma and the rest of the cast are superb. This is a more cerebral than usual spaghetti western that relies more on story than action, and it succeeds because the story is excellent. This is not to say that there is no action in the movie. There is plenty, and it is very well crafted. This movie pulls you in right away, and keeps you absorbed til the end. You'll always be wondering what's in those documents everyone's after. It also has some biting commentary on American politics.

This movie shows why Valerii, in my opinion, is in a three way tie with Sollima and Corbucci for second place in the rankings of spaghetti western directors. Tonino Valerii's "Il Prezzo Del Potere" aka. "The Price Of Power" is an excellent and enthralling Spaghetti Western that mirrors the Kennedy assassination. A great leading performance by Giuliano Gemma and an excellent score by Luis Bacalof are just two of the many reasons to watch this movie.

In 1881 Texas is divided into those who appreciate the abolition of slavery and just want to live in peace, and those who, after 16 years, still want to reinstall the confederacy. In spite of warnings, President James Garfield, who wants to establish a new policy of equality, decides to visit Dallas, where corrupt law enforcement officials are planning his assassination. Bill Willer (Giuliano Gemma) and two of his friends, a black man named Jack Donovan (Ray Shaunders), and a crippled guy named Nick (Manuel Zarzo) are determined to prevent the President's murder.

Since James Garfield was not assassinated by racists, who wanted to reinstall the confederacy in Texas, but in Washington DC by mentally unstable Charles Guiteau, the storyline of "Price Of Power" is, of course, historical nonsense. Since the movie, however, doesn't claim historical accuracy, but tries to allude to the 1963 Kennedy assassination in Dallas, the fact that the story is fictitious is legitimate.

Giuliano Gemma delivers an excellent performance as the main character Bill Willer, Benito Stefanelli is great as the villainous and corrupt Sheriff Jefferson. Some other good performances are those of Ray Shaunders as Bill's black friend Jack, Warren Vanders as Arthur McDonald, the president's adviser, and Fernando Rey as Pinkerton, a villainous rich businessman. The Score by Luis Enríquez Bacalov is great, the cinematography and locations are great and (such as in Valerii's earlier "Day Of Anger") remind a lot of Sergio Leone, for whom Valerii used to work as an assistant director for "A Fistful Of Dollars" And "For A Few Dollars More".

All said, "Il Prezzo Del Potere" is, after "Day Of Anger", another excellent Spaghetti Western that shows both the great talent of Giuliano Gemma as an actor and Tonino Valerii as a director. "The Price Of Power" is a must-see for Spaghetti Western fans, and I also highly recommend it to everybody else. 8/10 I was unfamiliar with this film, until I saw it included in a list of the Top 20 Spaghetti Westerns I recently came across (following the marathon I made these last few weeks of films from the subgenre); it was auspicious, then, that the film had to turn up almost immediately on late-night Italian TV (for the first time, I'm pretty sure, in a good number of years)!

Unfortunately, the cable reception of the channel on which it was broadcast hasn't been great lately: I recorded the film on VHS but I decided not to keep it due to this factor; as it happened, the very next day I watched the film, I found out that it was available on a Region 2 DVD from Italy (featuring an interview with uncredited scriptwriter Ernesto Gastaldi) - and, having been sufficiently impressed, I decided to order it there and then, even if I knew that I wouldn't be getting to the DVD for quite a while as I like to allow some time between one viewing of a film and the next! A brief parenthesis here: when I recently purchased a spate of Spaghetti Westerns on Italian DVD, I opted not to order Sergio Sollima's FACE TO FACE (1967), since I was under the impression that it was a bare-bones affair; however, I've just learned that the disc actually contains an interview with the director (as had been the case with THE BIG GUNDOWN [1966], which I bought). It did seem baffling to me that Sollima wouldn't offer similar contribution to that film's DVD edition when he actually considered FACE TO FACE as his favorite work (as per the director's talent bio included on the Blue Underground Region 1 disc of yet another Sollima Spaghetti Western - RUN, MAN, RUN [1968]); the trouble is that I loved THE BIG GUNDOWN so much that I followed it with a viewing of FACE TO FACE via the recording I owned made off Italian TV! I did order the DVD of that film now - especially since it's still discounted - but as I said with respect to a second look at THE PRICE OF POWER (although I may still check out Sollima's interview when the disc arrives)...

O.K., rant over: the film under review is quite an unusual Spaghetti Western and a very interesting, indeed ambitious one at that, being a transposition of the JFK assassination case to an Old West setting! Actually, it's reminiscent of Anthony Mann's terse black-and-white thriller THE TALL TARGET (1951) - which dealt with an assassination attempt on the life of then-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. It features one of the most popular Italian stars from this subgenre, Giuliano Gemma, in what is perhaps his most impressive Western role (many of his other films tended to have a light-hearted bent). The supporting cast includes at least two other notables: Van Johnson (in one of his few and mainly unremarkable Italian films) as the American President killed in post-Civil War Dallas and Fernando Rey as the head of a conspiracy of Southerners - who not only plots his assassination but also conveniently maneuvers the new acting U.S. leader, Johnson's Vice-President, by means of blackmail!

Benito Stefanelli also makes a good impression as a corrupt sheriff who pursues Gemma all through the picture, and with whom he's engaged a couple of times in a 'duel in the dark' - with the guns resting on the floor rather than in their respective holsters and the only light in the room provided by the end of the cowboys' cigars! Also involved is Ray Saunders as Gemma's black sidekick whom the narrative eventually turns into the doomed "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure. Stelvio Massi - who later cut his teeth, as director, on a number of poliziotteschi - is behind the film's luminous cinematography; similarly, Luis Enrique Bacalov supplies yet another great "Euro-Cult" score - which is different enough from the style of Ennio Morricone as to be equally distinguishable. Valerii's direction here may mot be as imposing as that in other Spaghetti Westerns but he handles the proceedings efficiently enough (the final gunfight is especially nicely done); the film is certainly one of the more underrated entries in the subgenre and, for those so inclined, the novelty of the plot line alone should make it one to look out for... PRICE OF HONOR aka PRICE OF POWER is an ambitious Western melodrama, light on the action, which seeks to tell an Old West version of the JFK assassination. In 1881, the president travels to Dallas and is shot from a window while parading thru town in his carriage. Corrupt officials have carried out the murder and have a humble slave take the rap. Our hero, the earnest but bland Giuliano Gemma, aims to unravel the conspiracy. An engaging story, audacious for its subject matter, but entertaining despite the paucity of shoot-em-up action. The film is a 7 out of 10, despite the poor presentation of the DVD, which is overly dark with poor sound. Look for a good copy. Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the "spirit," not the life of the "flesh." Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry, dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves, they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True art and true grace!! Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a person I do not care to know.

The story is quite simple. In the 1800s, two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a Frenchwoman, Babette (Stéphane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her.

One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul, and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers who have been so kind to her.

The film is extraordinary in every way, meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both body and soul. Highly, highly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and

Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the audience was "oohing and aahing" as some of the courses took their final

glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette, and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film. Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The film's

meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something to

cherish. Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film. The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of "Out of Africa" just about buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother bought me "Babette's Feast," and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy, gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming escutcheons.

I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious conviction.

What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is its sly humor. "Babette's Feast," that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled. This movie came aside as a shock in the eighties.Far from trends,that is to say in the heart of sincere creativity,Babettes gaestebud stands as one of the finest movies of its time.Stephane Audran,the wonderful actress of her ex-husband Claude Chabrol's greatest achievements (le boucher,la rupture,les noces rouges,all unqualified musts for movie buffs)gave a lifetime performance.To see her prepare with love and affection her meal is a feast for the eyes.All the people who saw this masterpiece actually tasted,ate Babette's culinary triumph. But the most moving part of the story is its conclusion:Babette was a great French chef,she was famous,now she found a new homeland but her heyday is behind her and she won't never be allowed to come back to her dear France.So the two old sisters do comfort her:In heaven,there will be huge kitchens where she cooks for eternity.While sharing her fortune with her new friends,Babette changed their life,she gave them pleasure and a magic evening they would remember forever.In this simple but extraordinary screenplay,human warmth is everywhere,and I wish everybody a Babette's feast,would it be only for one starry night... If you find the first 30 minutes of this film to be so slow that you wonder why you're watching it, don't give up. Also, hearing the Danish language is a bit new to most North Americans, who don't see and hear a lot of Danish films. Anyway, as the film progressed it got better and better and the viewer is rewarded for his/her patience.

Being a fan of the movie, "Out Of Africa," this film piqued my interest because it's based on a short novel by Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen), the major character in that film.

The meal - Babette's feast - was amazing. I'm no chef, but I was impressed! How one interprets the story, too, varies, I suppose depending on how much you read into this, and where you stand religion-wise. If the latter, how you look at the definition of "legalism" can affect how you interpret this story.

In any case, it's a fine film, but don't watch this if you're dieting. "Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two lines that come before and after it:

"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best."

I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871).

To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist.

That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it.

To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.

One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever. If not the best movie ever made, "Babette's Feast" is certainly among the most loving. This is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of artistry, generosity, loyalty, and grace. Humor is mixed with tender longing; characters are treated with searching honesty but also deep respect. There are meditations here on memory, fate, old age and faithfulness. Marvellous camera work by cinematographer Henning Kristiansen: seldom have wrinkled faces looked so luminous in the candle-light. The meal is accompanied by delicious period music, Brahms, Mozart and simple folk hymns. Enjoy this feast for the eyes and the spirit, for as the General says: "Mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another." This movie is almost unknown, but it is very good. In a lonely Danish town, two old sisters live remembering a far youths, when, due to a strict puritan education, they had to reject happiness. Lonely, then, the live in a dignified austerity, until Babette, who flies from Paris, frightened by the horror of the war, arrives. In few time, she will be able to turn the goodness and love she received when she arrived. A good lottery prize lets her organize a great banquet, following the best rules of French gastronomy. All neighbourhoods are invited (all fanatically puritans). They accept, but they pact to not show any trace of pleasure or enjoyment, as it would be a sin. However, the seductive force of the delicious meal they eat, that they become seduced by the sensuality of French gastronomy. The banquet end in a very felt, though quietly, happiness. The love between humans has awaken. The miracle of rise the human kindness due to the pleasure of the sense has begun. The movie is surprisingly good, but it is not for all tastes. During most of the movie, nothing happens, all is so quiet and so peaceful, that during many minutes, you can only see the life of the inhabitants of the town. But, as the movie develops, it becomes more precious, when Babette wins the lottery prize (after 30min movie), the show begins. The author is able, with a perfect directing, to show us how Babette prepares the banquet, how she mixes all the ingredients with the most wonderful one (Love), all told in a quiet delicious way, with a perfect knowledge of photography and acting. Then, as the banquet goes by, the quality in showing us how the mood of all eaters changes due to the meal, only with first shots, with impressively filmed scenes one after another is simply astonishing. In addition, the tact with the colours and the photography is also superb, almost every scene of the movie is like a picture, so work is involved there. If you are able to admire good cinema and are able to realize that sometimes the way on telling you something rather than what is told is more important, this is your movie. If you happen to like good meals and just love the good gastronomy, probably, you'll feel amused, as most feelings of the movie will be familiar to you. An Oscar totally deserved. The only problem is its slowness at setting up the story, but, I can forgive it (I hope everyone too) This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals.

The story, set in a turn-of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent. Their quiet new help - whom they "teach" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that.

When Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life.

This is a must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's. Some have commented on the subtitles not being a problem in this film - I beg to differ - the nuisances in the facial expressions and subtle interactions between the characters is such that you can not afford to take your eyes away for even a fraction of a second. I tried to watch, on the DVD, in English to overcome this problem (don't make this mistake the result is a travesty). The only way to get the full benefit is to watch it two or three times in quick succession so you know it and then ignore the subtitles. An acting master class - not in the dialogue but body language.

It is the little things - the postmaster/shop keeper puffs out his chest and goes in to get his cap before delivering a letter from !France!. The General's bemused expression as his delight in a bunch of perfect grapes elicits a biblical reference with a profundity worthy of 'Being There'.

The cinematography is awesome and the bleak minimalist village with its washed out colour just accentuates the sumptuousness of the feast when it comes. I have a friend who claims to be descended from the Borgias and who's family motto is 'If it is worth doing, it is worth doing to excess' - Amen.

I laugh out loud and cry each time I watch this film A gentle story, hinting at fury, with a redemptive message and glorious celebration. The photography is wondrously well executed. Cinematographers look at this kind of film to hone their craft not just for what the eye can do to enhance a story, but what the right camera vocabulary can do to heighten an emotion. Feeding the soul is by definition what this movie addresses, but with an elegance and grace of delivery that simply doesn't not happen much anymore, at least with this degree of taste, restraint and finesse. If you care about story and character development, this is a also a great movie to see as an example of what simple lines and the right delivery can do to completely fill out a character's impression. Match all this with a film score that is almost minimalist in character and also perfectly conceived, and you'll "get" this movie. I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life. CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for those who hear its message. Yes, you can look at Babette's Feast as some sort of slap at Puritanical Christianity, but it is much more than that. The surface story of how a gifted Parisian cook flees Paris after one of its revolutions by the middle classes and finds herself cast ashore in Jutland in the north of Denmark is simply the grease that allows the deeper tale to develop.

Babette is an artist, one of the small army of people who are driven from pillar to post over the centuries by fatuous politicians, vane, greedy and arrogant, who kill beauty for profit, something that politics always does, pace National Endowment for the Arts, which simply institutionalizes creativity for propaganda purposes.

Babette is on her last legs as she arrives in the tiny village where two virginal sisters reside seeing over their diminishing flock of devotees to their late pastor father. They live on salt cod and black bread gruel.

Babette shows these simple pious people that God is in pleasure and sensuality as well as behavioral and mental purity. She also shows them how that mental purity can lead to control freakishness, something we all know about in these days of the neo-authoritarians in government who would limit our personal freedoms because they are somehow a crime against the state, or as they would tell us, humanity.

Babette cooks up a bang-up French dinner to celebrate the 100th birthday of the late reverend. The daughters and their flock think it is the devil come amongst them and vow not to notice the food or drink.

It is at this point, in the preparing of the meal, payed for by Babette's winnings in a French lottery, that I begin to tear-up. It is a poignance brought about in comparison to the daily vulgarity and mendacity that floods our consciousness from morning to night via the media and power-mongers manoeuvring to gain advantage over all of us out here in the dark.

The simple sophistication of Babette's art spits in the face of all the pretentiousness on display in our modern society, and it hurts to watch it played out so exquisitely in this splendid film.

It is, along with Fanny och Alexander (Bergman), my favorite film ever, yet I can only watch it once in awhile because, like a rare bottle of wine served with Blinis and fresh oysters, it is something that must not be over-done.

A great, great film that should be in every movie-lover's library. The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.

Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.

This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life. In all this dogma fuzz, please note that this is the Danish masterpiece of the 20th century. The humour, the fate, the sorrow is so clean - so simple - so touching.

This movie is a masterpiece. Go see it. There's nothing more to say. Food always makes a good topic in movies, as "Chocolat" showed. "Babette's Feast" is the same type of thing. Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) is a French cook who flees her native land after the repression of 1871. She moves to a very religious Danish village. The people in this village simply have no use for joy. That is, until Babette cooks them one of her exquisite meals.

It's not just that this movie deals with bringing fun to a place that has never known it. Like other Scandinavian movies (and non-Hollywood movies in general), it shows that a movie can hold your interest without the use of explosions, car chases, etc. This is one movie that you can't afford to miss.

One more thing. Do you think that the Danish word for "feast" sounds a little bit like "tastebud"? I don't know whether this film hits my heart the way it does because of the feelings of friendship, love, closeness to others or the warmth of that transformation Babette's cooking creates, but when the feast starts and for the rest of the movie, I choke up often.

Yes, this is a feel-good movie, but without a speck of mawkishness or facile sentimentality. Please note that elements of the plot are discussed. Babette's Feast tells its story with restraint and care, and it lets us discover for ourselves the values of grace and love. All we need to know is that Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) was a French refugee who was given shelter by two aging sisters in a tiny community on the coast of Jutland. The sisters lead what remains of their father's flock. He was a pastor of conviction who taught that salvation comes through self-denial. The sisters made their sacrifices to duty and faith. Those who still remain honor the now long dead pastor's teachings and his spiritual guidance. Still, as they have grown older the tiny community has become querulous and argumentative. The sisters do what they can. For the pastor's 100th birthday, Babette wishes to cook the dinner for the small group the sisters will invite. The sisters reluctantly agree, but when they see the supplies Babette has ordered, they and their guests become uneasy. They are used to the community's usual fare of dried cod, boiled, and a soup made of bread, water and a little ale. Even though Babette over time has made improvements, what they are seeing now seems close to godlessness. At the dinner also will be a visitor, General Lorens Lowenhielm, who years earlier had chosen ambition over his love for one of the sisters.

What do we experience? There is the austerity of the aging community's faith and the stone, wind-swept cottages they live in. There is the warmth by candlelight of the sisters' small, crowded dining room. And then there is the transforming power of Babette's artistry as we watch her cook, watch Erik, a young boy helping her, serve and pour, and watch the old parishioners, with the help of fine wine and exquisite cooking, gradually rediscover their community and love and friendship. The General serves as our unexpected guide because he is the only one who knows what extraordinary dishes they are eating. The General tells a story to his uncomprehending dinner companions, a story about a famed woman who was the exemplary chef at the famed Café Anglais in Paris. "...this woman, this head chef, had the ability to transform a dinner into a kind of love affair...a love affair that made no distinction between bodily appetite and spiritual appetite." He, too, is being transformed into a man who will accept what he has become and yet will always know the value and the love of what long ago he chose not to accept. An old couple kiss. Two old men remember past friendships. And Babette, who spent all that she had won in a lottery on this dinner, has had an opportunity to be the artist she once was in France, an opportunity she accepted with love and friendship.

Babette, now as poor as she was when she arrived penniless years earlier, will continue with the sisters. The general in a carriage with his aunt returns to her estate. And the elderly guests leave the sisters' home to return to their own cottages. They pause and look at the clear night sky and the stars overhead. They spontaneously hold hands in a circle and dance and sing this hymn...

"The clock strikes and time goes by Eternity is nigh. Let us use this time to try To serve the Lord with heart and mind. So that our true home we shall find. So that our true home we shall find."

They smile at each other. All has been reconciled.

Babette's Feast is a wonderful movie, full of restrained emotion, unspoken understandings, wisdom...and, of course, a meal that will leave you with a growling stomach as you exit the theater. If you win a lottery so you could afford what Babette created and have her skill and artistry, here's what she served:

Potage a la Tortue (a rich turtle soup), served with amontillado sherry Blinis Demidoff au Caviar (small buckwheat pancakes with sour cream and caviar), served with Veuve Clicquot champagne Cailles en Sarcophage with Sauce Perigourdine (boned quail stuffed with foie gras and truffle in puff pastry with truffle sauce enriched with Madeira), served with Clos de Vougeot, a fine burgundy Salade Cheese and fresh fruit Baba au Rhum with glacee fruit and fresh figs Coffee and a fine brandy I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast. It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...

The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.

Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century. This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies "about food" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic, it also addresses the "good" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!! This movie embodies the soul of modern "elite" foodculture, even though the movie is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself. The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused with "Eros" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch it.....again! Sometimes it is difficult to watch films with subtitles (in this case Danish) but the watching is worth it. As the story progresses, the reasoning for the choice of two sisters, to take care of their father, is questionable but their society is different. Their choice leaves them alone until a French woman comes. There may be a question on why the French woman came to their place to stay and this is never fully developed. The feast which happens later as a result of unexpected funds from France is a source of unusual pleasure to all who attend and something they have not experienced before. It provides a fitting thank you for the kindnesses given to the guest. Filmed with a dark aura and the display of poverty, it is a beautiful experience for the viewer. this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for me as a"foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone with enough brain and taste to understand it This film offers many delights and surprises. When Achille and Philippa beautifully sing a duet from "Don Giovanni" that perfectly describes their situation in the movie, you appreciate the subtle layers of this excellent film. The story unfolds in 18th century Jutland and the use of period music played on period instruments is just one more fine touch. You share General Loewenhielm's exquisite joy in his partaking of the Cailles en Sarcophage even though you are just watching a movie - but you do wish for just a small sample to savor.

Babette is an artist whose medium is food. Perhaps no other art form allows the artist to share her creations so directly.

The main theme of this movie, the potential that the sharing of food has to transform how people see each other and how they see the world, is much the same as the theme of "Chololat," but "Babette's Feast" does not hit you over the head with its message. The townspeople are conservative puritans, but not exaggeratedly oppressive. You come to understand and respect them and ultimately to appreciate their humanity.

Many issues are raised for you to reflect on: the nature of art, the contemplation of paths taken and paths not taken, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, the effect of environment on behavior, the taking of life to give life, among others.

The only disappointment for me was General Loewenhielm's speech delivered at the climax of the meal. I expected deep heartfelt observations, but I got some vague mystical ramblings. The speech had such a minimal impact that I hardly remember it.

But this understated film leaves a lasting impression. The warmth it generates is in contrast to its austere backdrop. You will leave the theater wanting to go out and dance under the stars. There is no need for me to repeat the synopsis rendered by Glenn. The black and white rendition is even more powerful in portraying the bleakness of country village life at that time. The deep measure of friendship shown by Babette toward the two elderly sisters touches the heart strings. The supporting cast is excellent and their performances superb, it would not be fair to single out any one character since the entire story depends on the cast as a whole. I cannot put my finger exactly on why I rate this movie so highly since I am not a professional critic; individual viewers may or may not agree with my rating since enjoyment of this type of movie is always in the eye of the beholder. Simply one of the greatest films ever made. Worthy of sitting alongside such European masterworks as THE RULES OF THE GAME, GRAND ILLUSION, NOSTALGHIA, ANDREI ROUBLEV, 8 1/2, WINGS OF DESIRE, VIRIDIANA, THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS, LA STRADA, ORDET,THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS and MADAME DE... Both a blessing...and an almost perfect work of art. The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a "romance" (yawn) that seems to ramble off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the experience.

Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time - no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have seen. Not to be missed.

Jim Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing.

The story is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)).

The film delights in its own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in movies - not so in my case.

It's a very humanistic film.

The landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very poetic in their own right.

Well done.

A good classic for any good film collection. I saw this in a theatre back in 1982. I expected a stupid T&A movie. That's not what I got.

It's basically about three teenage boys trying to have sex. We get the expected sex jokes and scenes--but, for once, they're actually pretty funny!

Yeah, they're stupid but I enjoyed them anyways. Also, there was a surprising amount of male nudity.

Then the movie, about halfway through, takes a sudden dramatic turn as one of the boys (winningly played by Lawrence Monoson) falls in love with a girl. Then the jokes stop and things get very dark. I'm not going to give away what happens but I was very surprised at the sudden turn in events. The movie brings up some very important subjects and treats them realistically and with intelligence. And it has a real heart-breaking ending.

I'm giving this a 10 because this is probably one of the best teen sex comedy/dramas ever made. It mixes fantasy and realism together and works! What more can you ask for? Also it has a GREAT soundtrack. Perhaps this movie was meant to be nothing but funny. Maybe it was meant to get teenage boys excited at all the nudity in it. But what I got out of it was actually something that many people believe in. And that is, " Nice guys finish last ".

There is a line in Angel Heart from Lisa Bonet's character that says " It takes a bad ass to make a girls heart beat faster. " True. Most likely. Women always say that they want the flowers and the candy and politeness and whatever. But ( at least at an early age ) they end up going for the good looking, slimy, disrespectful, untamed guy. The one they know they can't conform to their beliefs. And that is part of the attraction. After all, what is exciting about a guy that is already the way you want him to be? I believe this may have happened to Boaz Davidson. And what he has to say in this film that is disguised with sex and nudity and parties and everything else that teens can relate to, is that you will get your heart broken. It happens to everyone and it will happen to you. And that is a strong final statement in the film. But having said all that, the movie is fun. It is funny and it shows the antics of highschoolers quite well.

This is a rare film that is sleezy enough to please the teenage crowd it caters to but also intelligent and poignant enough to show what it;s like to get your heart broken. No highschool film has ever done this better. Like I said, I think the writers must have experienced a situation like this first hand. Maybe we all have.

This is an old film, but if you ever come across it gathering dust on a shelf in your local video store one night, pick it up, you may be surprised. It is a hell of a lot better than Never Been Kissed. When I was in 10th grade me and my buddy were up late at his house and were flipping around cable and started watching this movie. We watched it because it looked kind of funny and because it had boobs. But then the ending came and we just sat there completely speechless. I think after a minute of watching the credits roll he just sort of whimpered "Oh dude....." It goes from dumb 80's teen sex comedy to nihilistic realism so quickly that it catches you off guard. I have been trying to rent this movie for years and have not been able to find it - and nobody has ever seen it except for me and my friend - so it seems. But now it is available! I highly suggest renting it and brace yourself. Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour. This is one of the best and most under rated teen movies ever made.

I saw this growing up and it was, and is one of my favorites, maybe not as popular as "Fast times" but just as great.

There is a serious side to this movie, as mentioned by other reviewers it starts as a comedy and morphs into a drama about halfway through. That's the beauty of it though and what sets it apart. You get it all. Humor(not unlike that of "Fast times" ), Drama, and a GREAT GREAT soundtrack.

I personally think every kid about to enter high school should see this, it would give an idea about the journey their about to embark on. Cmon-what kid watching this, wouldn't be able to relate to SOMEONE in the movie? The fact that it becomes so serious halfway though is also cool and just superbly well done.You don't even see it coming. Definitely a lot of surprises.

SPOILERS:DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Great, knee slappping humor.(who could forget the scene between Gary and Camilla?). I can still hear it:"Oh my big strong burrito!!" Priceless!!

Some of the scenes between Gary and Karin are hard to watch(particularly the final scene of coarse). There are SO SO MANY women like Karen out there who would have made the exact same choice she did. Think about it-how many women reject men with hearts of gold(like Gary) for jerks? I know I've done it-and so have many females I know. This movie will inspire discussion and, despite the countless times I've seen it, still leaves me filled with admiration for the film makers and performers. Everyone will find someone to relate to in this movie or what's more likely more then one person.

Lastly, the music used is just great(a lot of Cars, u2,lots of obscure(now) songs from the 80's.-an 80's purist's dream.)

But make no mistake, it is not the music that makes this movie unique, it is the story itself, plain and simple. One of the best of it's kind and a teen movie classic. Yes it's a Fast Times wannabe, but it's still decent entertainment.

Some of the comedy parts are really funny. The scene when the three guys visit the Spanish lady is hilarious, with a little flamenco music in the background. The reaction when her sailor husband comes home is a riot. The guys' exploits in dealing with crabs are funny as well when they try to "drown them" and when they visit the pharmacist.

The abortion scene is a Fast Times ripoff too, but it does do a good job of capturing the terror of the situation. You really feel for what Karen is going through, and for Gary in his mad scramble for cash to pay for the abortion and accommodating her recovery.

The ending is painful to watch, but refreshingly realistic. First-time viewers will not be prepared for it and it will be a shock.

There is a decent eye-candy for guys with young girls and the milf Spanish lady, but heterosexual guys will probably want to skip the penis-measuring competition.

Underrated soundtrack too. Check out early, early U2(!), The Cars in their prime and an appropriate tearjerker song by James Ingram for the surprise ending.

Some people will hate it and it is somewhat dated, but those who like teen flicks or grew up in the early 80s should like it. I have always liked this film and I'm glad it's available finally on DVD so more viewers can see what I have been telling them all these years. Story is about a high school virgin named Gary (Lawrence Monoson) who works at a pizza place as a delivery boy and he hangs out with his friends David (Joe Rubbo) and Rick (Steve Antin). Gary notices Karen (Diane Franklin) who is the new girl in school and one morning he gives her a ride and by this time he is totally in love. That night at a party he see's Rick with Karen and now he is jealous of his best friend but doesn't tell anyone of his true feelings.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Rick asks Gary if he can borrow his Grandmothers vacant home but Gary makes up an excuse so that Rick can't get Karen alone. But one night Rick brags to Gary that he nailed her at the football field and Gary becomes enraged. A few days later in the school library Gary see's Rick and Karen arguing and he asks Karen what is wrong. She tells him that she's pregnant and that Rick has dumped her. Gary helps her by taking her to his Grandmothers home and paying for her abortion. Finally, Gary tells Karen how he really feels about her and she seems receptive to his feelings but later at her birthday party he walks in on Karen and Rick together again. Gary drives off without the girl! This film ends with a much more realistic version of how life really is. No matter how nice you are you don't necessarily get the girl.

This film was directed by Boaz Davidson who would go on to be a pretty competent action film director and he did two things right with this movie. First, he made sure that there was plenty of gratuitous nudity so that this was marketable to the young males that usually go to these films. Secondly, he had the film end with young Gary without Karen and I think the males in the audience can relate to being screwed over no matter how hard you try and win a girls heart. Yes, this film is silly and exploitive but it is funny and sexy. Actress Louisa Moritz almost steals the film as the sexy Carmela. Moritz was always a popular "B" level actress and you might remember her in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". Like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" this has a very good soundtrack and the songs being played reflect what is going on in the story. But at the heart of this film is two very good performances by Monoson and Franklin. There is nudity required by Franklin but she still conveys the sorrow of a young girl who gets dumped at a crucial time. She's always been a good actress and her natural charm is very evident in this film. But this is still Monoson's story and you can't help but feel for this guy. When the film ends it's his performance that stays with you. It's a solid job of acting that makes this more than just a teen sex comedy. Even with the silly scenarios of teens trying to have sex this film still manages to achieve what it wants. Underrated comedy hits the bullseye. What looks like a ho-hum Porky's rip-off turns out to be quite a touching film about being young and in love.

The story concerns three friends, Gary, Ricky and David, who spend their after school hours looking for sex. When a new girl arrives in town Gary falls head over heels in love with her.

The film goes from being a sleazy sex film to an examination of teenage insecurities. It is funny and sad at the same time. It never completely gives into that love story formula that seems prominent in every movie made. You know the guy meets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl back in the final frame formula. That formula is tossed aside after guy meets girl. Maybe that is why I liked the film so much.

The soundtrack is especially good and the ending is a definite tear jerker. It also might be one of the most realistic endings I've ever seen in a love story.

Ahhh...the '80's. 1982 makes me think back to the really crazy time we were facing in America. Fresh off the "Do What Feels Good" '70's, "The Last American Virgin" comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing as yet another 'teenage sex comedy' from the glory days. Oh sure, there's sex, but, I can't think of another movie--OK, this and "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"--that really wasn't killing time between topless teenage scenes--there was some pretty good stuff here amongst the cleavage.

The movie follows three hormonal friends. Gary (wanting to lose his virginity), Rick (stud incarnate), and David (overweight, but, not inexperienced) as they try desperately hard to make sure Gary joins the world of manhood. But, a funny thing happens on the way to the kegger--Gary falls for Karen (pretty brunette who loves the bad boys), and can't seem to follow through with any sexual conquest that David and Rick can facilitate. Only trouble is, Rick and Karen get hot and heavy and Karen skips a period. It's Gary who is by her side as she goes to get her abortion, and it's Gary who truly cares. But, who is Karen dancing with by film end...Rick. Subtract the "R" and add a "D" where necessary.

What separates this film from others from the '80's we think about is that, by god, they attempt some real drama here, and not of the "my parents just pulled in the driveway variety." And, you know what? I bought it.

It wasn't sloppy. It wasn't far-fetched. And, when Gary sees Rick dancing with Karen at the house party at the end of the film, I actually felt sorry for the guy. Our teenage Romeo actually believed in unrequited love--and when his heart was broken at the end, it all sort of touched me.

So, all the T&A aside, there's an actually pretty believable and engaging story here. Oscar worthy? Not by a mile, but, I don't know that I'd lump it into the "let's get laid" category, either. Like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," they actually were trying to do a true film here, letting the hi-jinx in between fall where it may. Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across. I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries, gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it 7/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so many men of countless generations have been before. "The Last American Virgin", along with "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" is one the last great teen films ever made. It is tender tale of envy and unrequited love set in the early eighties. Much-maligned by critics that it was a sophomoric, banal attempt to recreate the magic of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", these same critics fail to recognize that the two films were actually filmed concurrently during late 1981, and released at only slight intervals from one another. Either way, the studios would never allow such a bold and uncompromising portrayal of the issues many male teenagers are confronted with as they reach their sexual maturity. Especially considering the heart-wrenching discovery the protagonist, Gary is confronted with in the end. American Pie this is not. The story revolves around a trio of male teenagers, and their mostly unsuccessful sexual pursuits. Gary is the least successful of the group, hence the tagline LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN. Secretly, Gary lusts after Karen, who is involved with Rick, his best friend. Rick and Karen begin having sex, and Karen gets pregnant, only to be dumped by Rick, who is not interested in the obvious responsibility which lies before him. Gary glides into help Karen, which leads to the aforementioned, unexpected conclusion. Overall as a film, I find it was very successful as a comedy, as a commentary on the sexual dilemmas of young men, and a remarkable coming of age tale dealing with issues such as envy, unrequited love and abortion, which are just as pertinent today as they were over twenty years ago. Also, it has one of the rockingest soundtracks ever made!!! It plays like your usual teenage-audience T&A movie, but the sentiment is incredibly bleak. If it was made today, it'd be considered an art house movie. It goes through the usual routine of a guy trying to get laid, but the results of his efforts are harsh and cruel and unsatisfying.

The whole teen flick formula is adhered to, but nothing turns out the way you'd expect. Imagine a director's cut of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where, at the end, James Stewart wasn't allowed to return to the real world. An incredible film that subverts all of the expectations of the genre. It makes you feel dirty afterwards: there is no redemption for the characters. I'm amazed it ever got made. The eighties version of Detective Story. as i said in the other comment this is one of the best teen movies of all time,and one of my personal favorites. to me this movie is the second best teen movie of all time. second only to the breakfast club. the last american virgin is also maybe the most honest teen movie of all time. it's underrated,and pretty much an unknown movie to a lot of people. it comes on TBS maybe once a year,but sometimes longer. the first half of this movie is a sex comedy with a few honest scenes. then the second half is pure honest,and most of the time serious. with only a few comic scenes. in my opinion this is the best soundtrack of all time. i've never heard this many great songs in one movie before. there are 4 love songs in this movie that i think are some of the best love songs in history. the movie is about a pizza boy named gary who is a virgin. hes in high school who has a couple of best friends. his two friends are sex-sarved teens. the first half of the movie is pretty much sexual misadventures. that are very funny. gary is major in love with the new girl in school. he later finds out that his best friend is going out with her. he also cheats on the side. you can feel the love gary has for this girl very much. you can feel it even more in the second half. gary's friend turns out to be a creep. but his other friend is pretty cool. the movie shows how mean people can be. you can relate to a lot of this movie. the plot sounds like your typcial teen sex comedy. but it's so much more than that. it's a very honest movie. it's also very 80ish which i love. if you love the 80's or grew-up in the 80's,rent this movie. but there may be some people that don't like the 80's,but still may like this movie. i first saw this movie back in 1987 i think. it's very entertaining,and very funny. it combines very touching moments with very funny moments. it's an underrated gem! i have the movie. i love it! i give the last american virgin ***1/2 out of **** This movie was release when I was 15 and I could easily relate to the themes the film portrayed.

That was over 24 years ago and I haven't seen the movie since. This time around I cringed at some of the acting but still appreciate the film for what it is.

Life is not always fair and the good guys don't always win in fact I think the movie did well to reflect that especially as a teenager the pricks always did better with a lot of girls. Also it doesn't matter how nice you are you cannot make someone like you. Girls/boys like who they want to like no matter how hard you try otherwise. Sometimes you just gotta let go and say next.

Gary does a good job showing the intensity of his feelings for Karen. This is so true of teenagers when they get fixated on someone.

I remember sitting around with mates laughing our arses off at some of the antics. The acting is not quite there compared with Fast Times at Ridgemount High but it kicks ass over this movie simply because FTARH has a lame viewer friendly ending where as this movie has a realistic ending. Nice guys finish last!! Gary comes across as pretty lame cringe worthy material but we all know guys like this who are far to sensitive. We all know a David, fun guy who makes you laugh.

Some people on here bag the ending but hello the ending is exactly what can happen in real life. Some chicks just go back for more no matter how bad the dude treats them, especially at that age. I have experienced that first hand.

Great sound track too!! U2 "I will follow" - Jesus is it that old?? When I watched this movie in my adolescence, I attempted for the soundtrack. Some bands of the soundtrack I still didn't know. However, during the film, I already noticed her quality. U2, Blondie, Police. , Quincy Jones , Commodores .Sensational soundtrack.

In Brazil, there is a long time this film didn't pass in TV. Today, he passed in cable TV and I remembered to access the site to do the comment.

The End of the film surprised me a lot, but it is what happens in the real life. Not always, what thought about being the ideal, it is what happens.

The life brings us a lot of surprises. I really like this movie. I like it not just because it's a great early 80s movie with a GREAT soundtrack but I found that it has some thought-provoking moments. They are just moments; not the entire film. It's definitely not like "Less than Zero".

The scenes deal with typical peer pressure and also with more difficult problems, like the betrayal of trust. These problems are not easily resolved or forgotten by the characters. Certain scenes will stand out and invite reflection on one's own teenage experiences and how those experiences may have affected one's character and outlook as an adult.

You can watch this movie and think about the problems young adults must face, and about your own experiences. Or you can just pay attention to the boys' quest to de-virginize themselves! :) Either way it's a good movie. Reality before reality TV? Copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? A precursor to "Say Anything" that's grittier? I can't decide, but the soundtrack *is* the 80's--Blondie, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Devo, Lionel Richie, AND U2--I can't believe this, they would never throw all those genres together in a teen movie of today.

I remembered this like a teenager--mainly the sex parts and not a hint of the altruism. Why? I was a horny teenager in the 80's. Watching it again, I just can't describe how much I love that Rose, play by Kimberly Richardson, turns out to be the voice of "Pepper Ann" in the 90's, and she was almost 30 when she was in Last American Virgin, playing alongside 16 year-olds--fantastic! Complete cheese, reality, fantasy, and comedy--with a sincere cherry on top. I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. "The Last American Virgin" came in a time were such teenage coming of age/high school sex romps were the rave. Films such as "Prepies" (1984), "Hot Times" (1974) and the popular "Porky's " (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the "Last American Virgin" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating, but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s Americana and worth having in your movie collection. i totally loved this movie, tried to buy it and can't find it. a must see, a movie you can watch again and again, funny but also a tear jerker in one. really good album for the movie. it's a really good 80's movie, i wish i could find a copy to buy this movie, cause i would,the actors in it acted really good.there's a lot of people out there that probably could relate to this movie.that's what makes this movie so good. so go out and try to rent this one, you won't regret it. it's an older movie but it's worth watching, i would not be surprised if they made a remake of this movie soon, but i'm sure it would not be the same. anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent it. I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies, but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band, and many more. I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like Valley Girl another all time classic you will too! i see there are great reviews of this film already, i've got a few points to comment on, reasons i thought there was something special about this film...

first and foremost, the film is realistic. it may not seem realistic to an adult who has forgotten what it was like being a teenager, but that's really the kind of superdrama that goes on amongst teens all the time. second, the good guy, the guy who treats women with respect, doesn't get the girls. that's the way it is, in real life just the same! he's too nice for his own good. people are just selfish. third, it was nice to see a fat guy who had some self-confidence. i mean, that role already takes confidence from the actor, i'm not just talking about the character. overall i thought the film was a positive surprise that secretly hides amongst wacky, partyin' teen sex comedies at the rental shelf. don't get me wrong, it's not all sad, it's a good laugh as well. The Last American Virgin (1982) was one of the few teenage comedies that I really enjoyed. The subject matter and the acting was well above the usual tripe that Hollywood was (and still is) cranking out these days. But for awhile, the smaller studios were producing movies about teenagers that wasn't toned downed or soften for the kiddies. The men pulling the strings behind this production were from your friends from Cannon.

Three teenage buddies are trying to lose their virginity whilst still in high school. They'll do anyone or anything to achieve their dream goal. The sensitive one of the group (Andrew Monsoon) what's to find the right girl while his two best friends will take whatever they can get. One day, the kid finds his perfect girl (Diane Franklin). But fate would play one of their foul tricks. His best friend moves on in and sweeps her off of her feet. After knocking her up, the sensitive kid helps the girl get back on her feet and pays for her abortion. He still has feelings for her and tries to win her heart. Meanwhile his best friend has a very violent falling out over getting her dream girl preggers. Still, he tries his best to get her to love him. The night comes when he pops the question to her. But his heart is shattered when he sees her dancing with his former best friend. In tears, the kid leaves the party.

What I enjoyed about this movie was that it pulled no punches. Instead of being filled with phony situations, it was very realistic, honest and brutal. The movie's filled with it's share of funny moments and hysteria. I have to recommend this film for fans of teenage comedies.

Highly recommended. Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre. This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age. Eric Bogosian's ability to roll from character to character in this 'one man show' exhibits his true range as a character actor. Each persona has their own message to convey about truth, society, class, drugs, etc. This is an absolute Must Have for anyone who is a serious fan of acting! His performance contains some of the most Hilarious and Real moments I have ever experienced as a viewing audience. A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly. I don't understand why more people have not commented on this, other than the fact that perhaps not very many have seen it. It's an amazing cast of characters, one after another after another, all done by the guy who wrote the play. If you don't like filmed plays, you may not like this (after all, plays usually don't look good on TV), but it's a one-man show that will have you paying attention throughout. Highly recommended. I am a big fan of this film and found the TV mini series "Children of The Dust", the version fans should look for. At least 20 minutes or more are cut on the DVD version of this film.

I would also suggest viewers who enjoyed this film to check out the book there is a more rounded storyline with Corby/Whitewolf and Rachel, more on Black History and Buffalo Solders. There were two many storylines for the series or this film.

Sidney Poitier only shows he gets better with age, the talent just keeps growing the chemistry between his character of Gypsy Smith and Regina Taylor were wonderful viewing. I also enjoyed the Billy Wirth/Joanna Going storyline, they seems to play off each other well.

Billy Wirth is of course the "Model of Indian Vision". The look, the attitude, the dream of every woman who was wanted to be carried off in one of those romance novels by a native hero. Worked for me also.

Much more could have been done with this storyline but it did give the viewer a brief glimpse of racial problems back in the 1880's, white take over of native schooling, lack of Black pioneers to setup towns in the west. Michael Moriarty (Maxwell) as always a great actor comes across as a very caring and confused teacher, not sure if the "whites" should be interfering with native culture.

For anyone who enjoys characters and watching them change this film is for you. I thought the chemistry between Poitier's character and that of the orphan Whitewolf very moving and thought Wirth and Poitier worked very well together. Billy Wirth did some of his best scenes when working with Poitier.

Going got on my nerves sometimes when you want to just stop and shake her or give her a " wake-up and grown-up" call. But on the whole it was a great evening of entertainment.

Look for the two tape version of this mini series if you are a fan you will really see the difference. This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring. i LOVED THIS MOVIEE well i loved the romance part with COlby and the girl...Rachel (?) 4got her name....i honestly was only interested in those too. i loved them in the movie i want to see more movies like that. but please no more sad endings where they cant be 2gether! =( it made me cry! but the romance between them. the plot the trauma everything was great. =) i just was more into Colby and Rachel. ha ha =) everything about this movie was thrilling the kind to keep you glued to your seat. because i sure was. Honestly my only personal want would be more focused between the couple (Colby and Rachel) and at least a decent ending. I hated the ending, a better one could have been more thought out, not the fact of forcing COlby to his death and Rachel having a son. The ending would have killed the movie. Don't know what film or version Jeff saw, but this entire film was awesome, not just Poitier and Going. The story was riveting, suspenseful and engaging. And for the guy complaining about historical accuracy, get real. Yes there were some Black deputy marshals in the Indian territory, but they had no authority to arrest Whites outside of Indian territory. As a rule, they did not "patrol" but exercised warrants on criminals only. I did find it odd that Corby didn't seem to have "any' Indian friends. I know their numbers were diminished but it still strikes me as strange. Even as Corby returned to his people, his Indian cohorts remain faceless and nameless. This was a very nice soft-core movie for both men and women. Plenty of nudity/sex, but without the overall raunch you'll usually find. They could not have done a better job in casting as the entire ensemble was stunning. Trust me guys, if you want to get your woman in the mood, get something with Bobby Johnston in it! And I'm sure lovely Monique Parent, Samantha McConnell and the rest of the ladies would do it for any heterosexual male. Unfortunately, Bobby and Monique do not share a scene together and if you are aware of a movie where they do, please PM me! I'd love to know. The photography was much better than usual. So was the story. Predictable, but nice, sweet natured and romantic. At the very least it was not one of those annoying predictable murder mysteries full of bottle blonde women with huge fake breasts. I give this 7/10! One of Keli McCarthy's best. This movie is filled with sex, and nudity. It has gorgeous, sexy women and some sexy settings.

Believe me, there are many spicy and steamy sex scenes but not as hot as the women. We have outside settings, a hot tub, beds of course, and some other nice places to have sex.

Monique Parent is great in the opening sex sequence where she behaves like a naughty girl. Keli is amazing, she's extremely sexy and performs in at least 4 hot sex scenes. My favorite is when she has sex during a picnic or something like that. She has this short dress removed and the rest you can go figure it out! Renee Rea also has a sexy sex scene where again, she demonstrates that beautiful cute faces can also perform great in soft core sex movies.

The most memorable scene in my opinion comes near the ending. It's a double sex feature that has to do with hottub sex, intense sex! and Kelli McCarthy receiving it REAL hard so loud that the couple in the hottub feel interrupted. The scene is long, steamy, VERY explicit, and fun. My favorite from 2001.

The other good scenes include Keli getting it on the woods (really kinky); then dressed as a bride.

Renne Rea, always super gorgeous, dressed like a skater girl has a steamy sex scene. Nice!

Please, watch this movie if you enjoy b-soft core sex. It's among the best from the new millennium. I had a blast with it. Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.

"Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others. "Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.

The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.

Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.

James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel.

In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.

Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.

Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)

Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)

Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)

Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.) I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip (Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene (Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by, and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, "How far will James go to sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?"

Watch for Devinn Lane here and in "Beauty Betrayed." She seems to be making a transition from the hard core business to the "R" world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role of "Bait," clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies! The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat. I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic, starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days. Writer/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended! This film did a wonderful job of capturing NYC stereotypes at there best. If you want a simple, cute story however, you won't find it here. The related tales are woven together in a manner that does an excellent job of capturing the close-knit yet contrastingly anonymous lifestyle that is Manhattan. A perfect watch for those who enjoy and can laugh at New York life in its most natural state. Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with tragedy, pathos with drama.

The secret of Niami's success appears to be a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here !

An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack. I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai touching. See it. This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods. This show has to be my favorite out of all the 80's horror TV shows. Like Tales from the Darkside, also from the same creators, this show is a rare gem. If you agree with me, PLEASE sign this petition I started, to get the word out for Monsters and get it out on DVD. Here is the petition address: www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html Some of my favorite episodes would have to be Glim glim, and Rain Dance. I also loved the opening intro with the monster family. That used to creep me out! One of the things I would have to ask the DVD creators to include would be the organ sound heard right before where the commercial break would be. I don't know if any of you remember that part but that's one of the main things that brings back memories to me. I mean, come on! War of the Worlds the TV series already has been released on DVD, so I say Monsters, and also Tales from the Darkside, and Friday the 13th the series should be released too! We the fans need to speak our minds! We need this awesome show on DVD so PLEASE spread the word!!! This was one of the best half-hour horror/suspense/fantasy shows of the eighties, without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and 70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode was called "Bug House", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first premiered. Other shows like "Tales From The Darkside", "The Outer Limits" and (of course) "The Twilight Zone" were definitely better production values-wise, but in my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult classic phenomenon that was, "Tales From The Crypt". I think that it's great how Chiller picked up this series and showing it for this generation. Film making has come such a long way especially with the special effects and for one to be able to watch archived shows that they never knew existed, they will certainly be able to see the progress compared to now. MONSTERS is neither lame nor spectacular but it is entertaining. It takes creativity for the types of story lines they came up with and each generation seems to have it's own horror series. This particular series was not as horrifying as the Friday The 13th, The Series, nor as adult oriented as the Freddy's Nightmares..it was something that an entire family could watch and still get a laugh and a fright at the same time. I am happy the Chiller Channel shows it in their line-up, I am just about caught up on the episodes I missed when I was growing up. One reasons why they call the 80's, "The Awesome 80's" is quality television. Shows like the Wonder Years, War of the Worlds (the series), V, Amazing Stories, and many more have always left an impression to each "fortunate" one of us that in time will always find a way to reawaken itself. To top that, here comes Monsters! A series quite unique of its own, and a theme fully dedicate to - monsters. May it be the good, the bad, and the morbid.

If you're a fan of classic shows or if you have the fascination of horror films then this one is absolutely for you. Provided you can find this rare gem.

Even the newer generations will be in awe with some of the episode with its grittiness, it's indiscriminating use of gore effects or its story telling power and simplicity. I guarantee, because I'm 23 :).

Be sure NOT to miss this!

Although, it's a show seemingly forgotten by the modern world, it will always be with those who can always remember... www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html An excellent TV series that should be captured on DVD. This was a show I rarely missed. I found a petition to bring it back on DVD. I recall one show where this obese lady wore a pair of glasses that let her food talk to her. Needless to say she could not eat her friends so she starved to death. Another episode had an accountant visiting an underground sewer & subway security branch. The accountant wanted to shut down the funding for the project. As it turns out the security branch was underfunded to fight the cannibalistic creatures that lived in the dark. www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html Anyone familiar with horror films knows that most of them are not scary at all. Some people enjoy gorefests with subpar story lines and character development. I personally enjoy horror films that focus on atmosphere and interesting concepts (e.g., A Tale of Two Sisters, Kairo, etc.). Whatever the type of horror film one personally likes, there are only a select few that really scare you. Noroi is one of them.

This is a documentary-style movie, which means that the entire film is a compilation of video clips that are linked by the legend of a demonic entity named Kagutaba. The premise is that a journalist filmed his own footage by interviewing people associated with the demonic rituals associated with Kagutaba, then compiled footage from other sources that link with his research. What results is a relentlessly chilling experience that feels very real and very disturbing, despite the fact that the story itself is fake.

Some have compared Noroi with The Blair Witch Project, but the only similarity is the documentary style. One obvious difference between the films is that Noroi scares the viewer by linking events to one another using different sources. For example, the journalist records the exterior of a house that he is researching and sees something strange on the porch. Later in the film, a clip from another character's home video introduces that very same strange occurrence. The viewer's memory links the two incidents and chills start running down their spine. Another example involves a television show with a child psychic who answers every single question correctly except for one. In fact, her answer is so wrong that the viewer may wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. Later on, however, that wrong answer turns out to be linked to an extremely disturbing event. This is intelligent film-making indeed.

Another difference between Noroi and Blair Witch is that Noroi provides not one, but two very long finales, the second of which is placed a minute after the credits start to roll and is the single greatest scare scene in the history of horror cinema. I do not say such things lightly. It totally wrecked me in a wonderous way.

Other aspects of film-making are well done. The legend and ritualistic background of Kagutaba are very interesting and most of the actors did a good job. The only over-the-top performance comes from a guy who's supposed to be crazy anyway, so that's expected. The cinematography is intentionally gritty because all of the footage is supposed to represent videos shot on camcorders. Japanese films are not known for their special effects, but the effects used here were awesome. In some cases they create an other-worldly feel (e.g., the static interference or the first finale) but in other cases they are alarmingly realistic (e.g., the second finale).

When all is said and done, Noroi goes down as the scariest film I've ever seen. I would go so far as to say that there is no film in existence that provides such sheer terror from beginning to end like Noroi does. See it now. Never posted anything here before, but after watching Noroi I just felt that I had to write down my thoughts about it.

Firstly do not compare this to Blair Witch, this movie deserves far better than that! Simply put, Noroi is (probably) one of the best horror movies I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot!).

I really liked how the movie presents itself not as a standard horror flick, but as a documentary filmed by a reporter (i think?) named Kobayashi and his cameraman. Without spoiling to much about the plot, I can say it that it starts with Kobayashi doing research on a series of seemingly unrelated events, that turns out to be connected to something far more darker and sinister.

While the story might not be that original in itself, what really hooked me with Noroi was the incredibly eerie atmosphere. If you're looking for cheap scares and seat-jumping scenes this movie might not be for you. This movie is all about the mood it presents, with haunting images and a general feeling of foreboding suspense. The documentary style filming just makes it farm more believable.

This is also helped a lot by the acting which is superb, although not perfect for the general part of the movie! Far better than in most other movies in this type of genre.

Well enough ranting from me, I highly recommend Noroi to everyone, it is suspenseful, creepy, well acted and the first movie that has scared me in ages. This review contains some small, yet significant, spoilers.

---

I just finished watching my copy of Noroi...

...and it was GREAT! This might sound cheesy, but several times during the film I forgot it wasn't real XD The acting is convincing, although the acting from Masafumi Kobayashi (playing himself, I think...) seems a bit hokey at times. Marika Matsumoto (Yuka in Takashi Shimizu's Rinne) seemed to change levels of believability throughout the movie: sometimes she's REALLY good, then the next moment she's really cheesy (especially at the end's exorcism and subsequent re-possession.

A character that was ridiculous at first was Mr. Hori, a man covered in tinfoil believing "ectoplasmic worms" are coming to eat everyone. He provides unintentional comic relief at the beginning (acting like the stereotypical alien abduction-type victim) but near the end has some really creepy scenes.

The plot was very interesting and really kept me wondering how everything tied together. There are some things that aren't really explained (like a mass suicide in a Tokyo park and where the reincarnated Kagutaba-boy came from) but everything else turned out fine. The ending has GOT to be one of the most unnerving, if not the scariest, sequences I've ever had the pleasure to witness.

All in all, Noroi is a very fun way to spend 2 hours and the new Hong Kong R3 DVD provides great picture and sound (most importantly the English SUBTITLES- Engrish free!) for a great J-Horror experience. I highly recommend picking it up. NOROI follows a documentary filmmaker, Masafumi Kobayashi, as he slowly uncovers something mysterious and evil that's leaving a trail of dead bodies in its wake. After interviewing a woman who claims to hear loud baby's cries coming from the house next door (where there is no baby), Kobayashi heads over to talk to the neighbor. He's greeted with hostility by the unhinged, disheveled woman (Maria Takagi) who answers the door (and promptly slams it in his face) and gets a peek at her 6-year-old son through a window. Strangely, both the woman and her son disappear just days after his visit (leaving behind a pile of dead pigeons on their back porch), and the woman who first complained about the noises, as well as her daughter, are both killed in a mysterious accident not long after that. This piques Kobayashi's interest and he sets out on a quest to find out what's going on. He soon uncovers that those with psychic abilities and extra-sensory perception seem to be tuning into something sinister, unexplainable and possibly even apocalyptic. Well-known 10-year-old clairvoyant, and TV celebrity, Kana (Rio Kanno) seems to think we may all be doomed, but she mysteriously disappears before she can be of much help. Another female psychic/actress (Marika Matsumoto) becomes involved, as does Mr. Nori, a mentally unstable kook/psychic who wears a hat and jacket made of aluminum foil and thinks people are being eaten by what he refers to "ectoplasmic worms." Clues eventually lead back to the site of a small village that's now covered by a lake, and the legend of an ancient demon known as Kagutaba...

Unlike many other hand-held horror flicks, this one depends just as much on the plot as it does reactionary first-person scares. Thankfully there's something of a storyline here, a very interesting and intricate one at that, so it doesn't rely on glimpses of horrific things through spastic camera-work every once in awhile to keep your interest. The way Masafumi travels around following leads in search of the truth - with well placed jolts along the way - reminded me somewhat of THE OMEN in its pacing. The film also doesn't entirely consist of footage shot by the documentarian, but weaves in news reports and television variety shows as if what we're watching is an already completed documentary. That helps to break up some of the monotony usually associated with films shot in this particular style. The performances are good enough not to harm any of the realism of the 'actual' footage either. Overall, it's a well-made horror film, with lots of plot shifts, some suspense and quite a few genuinely creepy moments, that's well worth checking out. My only real gripe is that it could have used a little trimming here and there and seems to go on a bit too long. Otherwise, pretty good stuff. I can't praise this film enough. It had a lot of that hand-held, first-person shaking camera which I love (and some hate, because it makes them sick), like REC, Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project.

It is a long movie for its kind, but I didn't even notice because the film was so interesting. By just showing the footage from a paranormal reporter's work the movie keeps up the pace, making it a real-time experience for the viewer.

While I would never call this film the "scariest horror ever made", I'd have to say it's certainly one of the best I've seen. The fear factor here is constructed by details in the images, camera glitches, events linked to one another which lend a very mysterious and haunting tone to the movie. The horror is more in what is not shown, but left to our imaginations. The ending is perfect, and be warned that you might have nightmares afterwards. A second viewing is highly recommended, though.

Watch this one alone in the dark, don't expect anything and you'll have fun. Being a great fan of horror, especially Asian horror, I have seen tons of movies, but this one is outstanding. Why? It does have a plot (which is unfortunately quite rare among horror movies). The actors did a good job. It feels like a real documentary film (even if it's not). It does not get boring for a moment. The director cleverly combines the plot with the acts of a certain Japanese magic cult (perhaps this cult never existed, but still, it's believable). It reminded me of the similarly great movie "Forbidden Siren".

To me the one and only annoying thing about the movie was the character Hori, the psychic, but this is subjective.

I recommend this movie to all fans of quality horror.

9 out of 10. I, for one, absolutely loved this movie.

It is not a "typical Asian horror" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film, but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius. This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or "surprise scares" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this movie has an underlying "creepy" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved. Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's society.

Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off (why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one, the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're watching something you're not supposed to be seeing.

Noroi is definitely one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list. A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected by the legend of an ancient demon called the "kagutaba."

From the looks of it, the film looks like one of those camcorder movies that have been popular these last few months, even one that's going to be released next week (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY)! However, unlike movies like CLOVERFIELD, REC, and BLAIR WITCH, where most of those movies are in complete chaos and mayhem with all of the shakiness, this one is basically shown in a traditional documentary style. It has TV excerpts and interviews and the scares are very subtle, well, excluding the last 20 minutes where we go into the chaos effect and where the fear factor is raised up tremendously.

And it works. The film is very engrossing and it makes you think. Yes, you heard me right: It makes you think. You have to pay attention to those unrelated details given throughout the film and the payoff is great when, in course of the film, these things start to intertwine one another. The film is also very slow moving, which, in this case, is a good thing. We, as the audience, get to absorb the details shown on screen, however subtle or blatant they are.

Above all, it's a frightening little film. I'm a person who is scared of ghosts and the paranormal more than killers who slashes away teenage victims so yes, the film gave me some nightmares. There are some images in here that are really disturbing to watch, including one closer in the end where it makes you go "What am I looking at?!" Well, it's better left unanswered. There are around ten reoccurring characters in here, all of which gave authentic performances in their roles.

The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending because most questions are left unanswered. The question "That's it?" went though my mind. It left a bad taste in my mouth. However, the rest of the film is just engrossing and really frightening. Don't see this alone in the dark because you'll regret that choice. Also, I can see in a couple of years that Hollywood would remake this film. That will be interesting. Another hand-held horror means another divisive movie that fans should still seek out and make up their own minds about.

Imagine a cross between The Blair Witch Project and The Grudge and you're close to the overall content of this movie. It's another videotaped horror but this time most of it is edited together in readiness for a video doc that was never completed by a supernatural investigator who disappeared.

I certainly had a feeling of dread while watching this movie (does anyone do dreadful better than our Asian friends?) but the creepy moments, the genuinely creepy moments, were sadly a bit fewer and farther between than I had hoped. I also felt that I was two or three steps ahead of the investigator when apparent "revelations" appeared throughout so I certainly can't recommend this as highly as [*Rec].

Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to highly recommend any film that goes on at length about ectoplasmic worms, contains at least two subtly spooky ghost moments and made sure that I had to put the lights back on for a while when the sun went down.

Check it out if you have been enjoying some of the other hand-held genre releases of late. And the finale is a hair-raising doozy.

See this if you like: The Last Broadcast, Pulse, Angel Heart. Like a lot of horror fans out there that went looking for the next great scare flick, we plundered the Asian horror market for whatever we could get our hands on, leaving no dark haired ghost lady unturned. We had good reason to do so, the Asian market had spawned such terrifying wonders as Ringu, Dark Waters, Juon - the Grudge, and a Tale of Two Sisters. By the time Takashi Miike started ripping the mick out of the genre with One Missed Call in 2003, the market seemed to be drying up, leaving it open for mockery and derision, despite the continued Hollywood Remake Machine working full steam ahead. Now, don't get me wrong, there were still plenty of good Asian horrors being made, the likes of Marebito and Shutter, to mention but two, will stand as minor genre classics some day. But the lank haired ghost lady had definitely had her feed at the party, and was time to take that success-drunk tramp home to bed! Then along comes a film like Noroi - The Curse. A film that is smart enough to pay subtle homage to it's roots, yet throws the rulebook out the window whilst doing it. What I'm about to describe in terms of plot will probably make you think there is nothing new here at all. The film is a documentary about one of Japan's top paranormal investigators as he receives stories and tip offs on ghostly goings on. He starts investigating the claims by a woman that she regularly hears a baby crying in the house next door, yet there is no baby there, apart from a middle aged woman and her son. These two disappear sharpish when the reporter pokes his nose around, but strange other coincidences start popping up. A psychic young girl, a mentally ill clairvoyant, a pretty young actress who had a strange vision, a lot of dead pigeons, and a very sinister demon by the name of Kagutaba, leading to a truly terrifying showdown in a small historical town...

To say any more on the plot might ruin the fun a bit. The film is shot in 'faux documentary' fashion, and incorporates footage from TV shows and news reports, and the labels via subtitles lets you know where you are in terms of the time line. The film has drawn more than a few comparisons to the Blair Witch Project, but apart from the shooting format and the creepy trip through the woods late at night, the comparison ends there really.

What is refreshing about Noroi is how it doesn't pander to modern horror audiences. If you are expecting croaky ghost ladies to pop out of the attic, look elsewhere. The film's strength lies in it's slow, gradual build up of terror, a terror so profound that it will stick with you for days after watching it. The climax is pretty damned freaky, but just when you think the film is over, you get treated to the 'real' ending when the credits start to roll, and sweet holy f*ck, is it a killer. In terms of acting, it is mostly convincing. You get some 'comedy' relief from the crazy, tin foil covered clairvoyant, but that soon dries up half way through the film. The film also has a slightly 'nastier' feel than a lot of Asian ghost horror, as there is a violent streak to some of the events too.

Overall, Noroi is one to watch on your own, late at night. Not since my first viewing of Ringu ten years ago have I been so delightfully creeped out watching a horror film. It is one that will itch away at you until it is too late, then it is under your skin. Just let yourself go to this one completely. And not a lank haired ghost lady in sight?? No wonder it has barely been released outside of Japan, let alone had an American remake lined up yet. Check this one out if you can, essential viewing in my books! Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple entertainment",this not for you.

I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film. Here's another Antonioni that will be rediscovered again and again as soon as it comes out on tape or DVD. I saw it a few months ago when it ran for the first time (even in metropolitan movie capital L.A.!)for a couple of weeks and then disappeared (art house audiences seem to have opted for their own special territory, where older favorites like Antonioni and Resnais are only welcome as occasional curiosities).

At first I was disappointed, thought the pace to be unbearably boring, and that the man had lost a chance (for years Antonioni had found it difficult to find financing)at an advanced age to add another masterpiece to his canon; but knowing Antonioni for what he was and how I had at first reacted to Blow-Up and the Passenger, I refused to pass judgment until I had seen the film again. I went back the next day and I should not have been surprised that the film kept pulling me in, making me aware of things I had thought about and lost track of throughout my life, driving home, in a contemporary setting, points exposed for the first time some forty years ago in 'L'Aventurra,' forming an environment of subtle moods so characteristcally and fascinatingly alienated in tone (and quite comedic actually) that I couldn't get enough. The scene with Malkovich sitting on the fancy colored swings on the windswept beach, with the weather so beautifully silver skied, and the Eno/U2 track in the background flowing through at just its rhythm, had been my favorite; it still was, but now the whole film was just as great! What a strange phenomenon, the complex simplicity or the invisible complex which Antonioni's eye alone seems to be able to pick up and communicate. The odd thing is, though it does look at first glance like a softcore porno of some kind and it does feature plenty of sex and the maddeningly gorgeous Sophie Marceau and plently of other international stars to distract you, this film is unmistakably Antonioni's to its core, but you will not sense to what a profound extent, until you have seen it a few times and got used to its rhythm. For example, it is quite a funny film with a deep sense of humor, something I did not notice at first, but was turned on to by another critic, and noticed to much delight on further viewings (4 before they pulled it and would've gone back for more). If this film had been promoted right and people guided to a certain extent as to how to approach it, I have no doubt it would have succeeded on the art house circuit like most of Antonioni's '60s films. But the '60s are no more and the film will have to find its audience on the small screen where half its beauty will be lost even in a letterboxed DVD version (if and when it's released). I urge all film nuts general or esoteric to see 'Beyond the Clouds' and add a piece of magic to the tragic. I first saw the movie a couple of years ago and was totally and utterly impressed but its sensuality. It is one of the most touching films I have ever seen, though it might appear a little bit pretentious and artificial - too much beautiful, if you will. Anyway, one thing is for sure - the camera man has done a great job - each picture deserves to be cut off the film and displayed as a separate peace of art, comparable to the Chirico's or Bernard Buffet's paintings.

The music forms a perfect background for the story, especially U2's one played between the first and the second novels at the beach scene. As for the casting - I cannot be objective since I like Sophie Marceau and Jean Renaue very much and cannot add more to the praising comments of others.

However, the very fact that many people (critics and those sophisticated in cinema) criticized the movie made me watch it with a more critical eye for the second time. No doubt, the setting is splendid and the casting is gorgeous. But this is somehow not enough to make a comprehensive and cohesive film. The second novel (when Sophie Marceau tells her story to Malcovic is somehow superficial and does not tell much about the motivations of the people involved - was it only about shooting a beautiful and sensual love scene with the naked Marceau or what?). Apparently, it does not add anything to the idea of the movie and even the husky voice of Malcovic is being unable to link it to the main plot.

Other stories are more justified and are really beautifully shot, which indulges many of the logic fallacies within them. The scene when Jean Reneau is overlooking the city through the huge window of his apartment on the top of the high building is absolutely incredible. The feeling of moist air and fine haze, which is being spread by the first "Ferrera" scene can literally be sensed through the screen. No doubt, Antonioni is a great master of shades and semi-shades. My favorite novel is the last one - the most romantic, deep and meaningful - I guess that it the most Antonioni-like one in the whole movie - almost a parable.Probably, the overall positive impression from the movie is mainly due to the last one shot somewhere in a small Ghotic Italian town, with its winding narrow streets and crooked pavements, fountains with the l'eau potable and monumental cathedrals... It was laconic but really touching.

I hope that my impressions and comments on the movie, however chaotic they are would motivate somebody to spend an evening watching it (it works better with the home theater, having somebody caring by your side, than in the movie theater). Enjoy.

I beg your pardon for the imperfect English and any possible misspellings This is a special film if you know the context. Antonioni, in his eighties, had been crippled by a stroke. Mute and half paralyzed, his friends -- who incidentally are the best the film world has -- arranged for him to 'direct' a last significant film. The idea is that he can conjure a story into being by just looking at it. So we have a film: about a director who conjures stories by simple observation. And the matter of the (four) stories is about how the visual imagination defines love.

The film emerges by giving us the tools to bring it into being through our own imagination. The result is pure movie-world: every person (except the director) is lovely in aspect or movement. Some of these women are ultralovely, and they exist in a dreamy misty world of sensual encounter. There is no nuance, no hint that anything exists but what we see; no desire is at work other than what we create.

I know of no other film that so successfully manipulates our own visual yearning to have us create the world we see. He understands something about not touching. No one understands Van Morrison visually like he does. Morrison's Celtic space music is predicated on precisely the same notion: the sensual touch that implies but doesn't physically touch.

Antonioni's redhead wife appears, appropriately as the shopkeeper and she also directs a lackluster 'making of' film that is on the DVD.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching. I was stunned by this film. Afterwards, I didn't even want to see any films for a long time- any other film would be so unsatisfying by comparison.

For many, it may be the worst of Antonioni- very slow, without an engaging conventional story line, microscopic examinations of human emotions and interactions- and the worst of Wenders- verbose, confused transcendentalism. It is composed of short distinct episodes linked by Wenders' typical meandering hero's stream of consciousness, so it doesn't produce the temporary oblivion of escapist cinema.

But for fans, the worst is the best and the disjointed story line is sketching a single poetic image that stretches across the film. Wenders and Antonioni create a discourse between their segments that seeks out the heart of things.

I'm not really sure what to make of this movie, especially after seeing a great film like La Notte. Unfortunately I saw this in German during an Antonioni film festival at the Frankfurt Film Museum, so I didn't get to hear Malkovich's great voice. He is supposed to tie together four stories about couples in Italy. However, as good an actor as he is, Malkovich cannot rescue the most ridiculous of the four stories portrayed here: a woman who comes up to him at a waterside cafe near a shop she owns and blurts out about how she killed her father nearby. Then the two of them go home, have sex, and he leaves. It seems as if Antonioni lost the subtlety had in earlier films (like The Passenger) when dealing with sex and replaced it with blatant nudity.

However nonsensical the storyline is, the film features two things that make it watchable: eye and ear candy. The actors and actresses are all beautiful people, and the cinematography is marvelous - scenes in old Italian cities contrasting with a bit in a tall apartment building overlooking a city (reminiscent of La Notte).

The ear candy, however, is what really makes the film worth watching. U2 and Brian Eno collaborated on "Your Blue Room" and "Beach Sequence," both of which set the mood perfectly in the film. The songs are available on "Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1." Beyond the Clouds is in many ways the weirdest film I have ever seen. Not for its Cult appeal, gore, or even for its ideas, but because of the elements that combine to make this a masterpiece of cinema. Beyond the Clouds was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, one of Italy's most famous directors. However, if you gave this film only a quick watch-over, passively I mean, it would seem one of those melodramatic and often pointless romances. This movie deserves great attention, to the point of embracing all its cheese. By cheese I don't mean a slice, but a whole brick of cheddar! The music seems like it's from some Italian porno, the story and dialogue like they are from a corny Japanese soap, and the metaphors are so obvious you want to smack yourself on the head.

But once you get passed all this, you are engaged in an existential work of art. The cheese feeds into the subtle filming and draws our attention, perfectly, to what needs to be known. The basic plot is of four chapters, unrelated, and all about love. What we learn is that no matter what happens or what is said, people cannot communicate to each other. Instead they can only communicate through each other. I suppose that's why the dialogue and plot is so cheesy, because the conversations are overly irrational with lack of causality and people's reaction overly melodramatic.

I left that film thinking to myself; maybe all life is one big melodrama. We judge our feelings towards others as real and purposeful. I hate, because I have reason. But what does the hated think? Maybe they think that my hate is stupid and arbitrary. In other words, melodramatic.

So melodrama is actually an existential function. A corny romance is simply human interaction put under a magnifying glass, allowing us to see the futility of who we are and what we do.

This is a great film, I recommend it to all! I was stunned by this film. I have been renting Antonioni's films/rediscovering them, and this film showed me the climax and fruits of his 50 years of directing. What an eye for setting, color, and detail! I have never seen such visual beauty and poetry filmed before. I had to stop after the first story and hold back the tears. Yes, beauty moves me, like it moved Keats to write Ode on a Grecian Urn. This movie is made for the mature, emotionally and intellectually, audience. Those hoping to see physical action and soap opera will be disappointed. I will have to see this film several times before I can truly appreciate it and judge it. This film should be required viewing for all cinematographers and directors.

Possibly a truly great film, on the order of Kurosawa's Dreams. I saw this film for the first time last night. I have been thinking about it all night and this morning. I cannot say that it was my favorite film, at least not yet. I need to see it again.

The cinematography is stunning. Each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has Wim Wenders's name attached to it.

It is always tempting to see de Chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom, but in this case the analogy fits. In many ways the figure of Malkovich walking through the fog and wind of Ferarra echoes the shadow of the off-canvas statue that haunts Milan in the major works of the Italo-Greek painter. He is slightly menacing, a presence who watches and, in his capacity as a film director, exerts influence on the entire story.

The dedicated Wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of Damiel and Cassiel wandering through the streets of Berlin, watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. And, following the Himmel Uber Berlin metaphor, the angel (or in this case Malkovich the Director) gets to interact with one of the stories.

At this point I have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. I need to see the movie again. I am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring Malkovich's monologue together.

Perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious, empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. Maybe that is the whole point of it. No one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework.

We must be careful when throwing around the word "pretentious." It is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension, but that leads to a terrifying mental state, one in which the only conversation seen as genuine, earthy or authentic is the most banal. When we shun all discussions of philosophy, God, existence, meaning and all that brain candy, we are setting our culture up to die a slow, stupid and ugly death. Perhaps this is the warning that Wenders and Antonioni are giving us. It certainly is not the only theme of the film, but I think that it cannot be ignored.

The other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. There is a lot here on that, and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review.

My advice is to see the film. But I offer a caveat: it is not an autonomous film (at least I don't think so yet). Some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the Zeitgeist before approaching the film. Par-dela les nuages is one of those films. Even though the story is light, the movie flows so beautifully and its visual so tranquil and poetic that it could almost carry the whole movie.

The film consists of four interconnected stories, all about different aspect of attraction between man and/or woman and how it frequently is ethereal. Their true desire seems to be always something that they cannot hold onto, it will flow out like a handful of sand.

I thought the most intriguing story was the last one where the more unattainable the woman was, the more the man desires her. It parallels her deep love for god, who is infinitely out of reach, but never closer to her heart.

A very good movie. 7/10 This the the final feature film that Michelangelo Antonioni directed, with the help of Wim Wenders, and adapts from his short story collection "That Bowling Alley on the Tiber". Beyond the Clouds contain 4 short stories with familiar themes that we've come to be accustomed to from his earlier works, and sums up those themes in vignettes which are weaved together via Wenders' directed scenes involving John Malkovich's The Director character. However, most of the stories seemed to offer little or no depth that we're used to from an Antonioni movie, while Malkovich's narration of supposed depth rattled on with unclear diction that sounded a tad pretentious and out of place.

Nonetheless, all four stories seem to touch on chance encounters, and extremely quick romances that played out more like lust at first sight, perhaps due to the lack of time (since they're short stories anyway) to allow for a more layered approach to carefully define and craft the characters as we know from a typical Antonioni movie. And the obsessive approach here is for the characters to disrobe to showcase a lack of deeper connection sacrificed for the immediate satisfaction of the flesh. Maybe this is the point to want to bring across with an observation of the more modern relationship?

The first story, Story of a Love Affair That Never Existed, tells the romance between Silvano (Kim Rossi Stuart) and Carmen (Ines Sastre), who meet when one asks the other for directions to a hotel, and later meet at a cafe. It's as if Fate is playing games on them when they meet, but part and meet again much later, but like the games people play, it's almost like a L'Avventura or a La Notte with the lack of communication, and of the expectations from the man.

John Malkovich's director character takes central role in the next short, who exhibited some really lecherous looks toward a girl working at a shop, played by Sophie Marceau. She is deeply disturbed and made to feel uncomfortable, but somehow plucked up the courage to approach him, and in what I thought was to scare him off, tells him her background that she murdered her father by stabbing him 12 times. But in a flash these two are off toward bedroom gymnastics.

The next short, Don't Look for Me, is the longest of the lot, with Peter Weller playing a cheating husband who has to choose between his mistress (Chiara Caselli) or his wife, played by Fanny Ardant. Perhaps the more star studded of the lot, with Jean Reno also stepping in for a coda at the end of it, which sort of expands the little universe in which this short exists. But unfortunately Reno's involvement also got relegated to some stifle of laughter as it goes into the implausible domain with laser quick romantic tanglements. There was a key element adapted from L'Eclisse with a kiss between a couple through a glass panel too, while the introductory tale about the story of souls was quite interesting. If there's a negative theme here this short wants to play upon, it'll be the duplicity of man.

In between this short and the next was a small scene which reunited our couple from La Notte, Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau, where the former was painting a landscape which was reminiscent of that in Red Desert. Finally, we have the final shot This Body of Dirt, with Vincent Perez as a young man going after a girl (Irene Jacob) whom he just met, and falling in love with her, only to realize that it is a love that is too late. It's a relatively talkie piece, just like the first story, with the characters engaging in conversation while walking the streets of the city they're in, which sort of brings to mind Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise.

While on the whole the movie may have succeeded as individual pieces, they never quite measure up as a combined effort given the "excuse" to link them up was a film director's exploration of possible stories and a look for inspiration for his next film. If you speak French or can put up with sub-titles, you will really enjoy this movie. If on the other hand you just want to see God's most beautiful creatures, this is a must see. Not an ounce of silicon in sight. Zalman King eat your heart out. Sophie Marceau's body is the epitome of perfection and everything I had ever fantasized about. Her part is even in English. Even the fact that she was nude with John Malkovich did not detract for her beauty. Sophie is a ten if ever there was one. Chiara Caselli and Inés Sastre are 9.5s. Oh yeah, it is a pretty good story. Several little vignettes are woven together in a sort of Six Degrees of Separation style. amazing movie. Some of the script writing could have been better (some cliched language). Joyce's "The Dead" is alluded to throughout the movie. Beautiful scenery and great acting. Very poetic. Highly recommend. First, the positives: an excellent job at depicting urban landscapes to suit the mood of the film. Some of the shots could be paintings by De Chirico. Sophie Marceau, beautiful.

The negatives: the stories are hard to believe. Unreal, uni-dimensional characters preen and posture 100% of the time, as if they were in some kind of catwalk. This is neither the Antonioni of his earlier, much better movies nor the Wenders we've all come to know and appreciate. Malkovich is excess baggage in this movie. looks like the bet movie I've ever seen. not too much for intelligent perception but so rich for perception sensitive. Antonioni is comparably wise to his movie. Malkovich's so organic, roles are so true, situations are so real. I've change my world outlook after this cinema. I'm a beginner literati in Russia -- country of Tolstoy and Dostoevskiy -- and I'm quite sure watching Antonioni is good and fun for russkies, because I and we do understand his point of view. so I don't understand his lesser raiting on IMDb. I'm sure, speaking from Russia and our people, we like Antonioni because of his romantic soul and positive sensation of surrounding reality "Beyond the Clouds" is an over-the-top artsy group of four vignettes each a offering a glimpse into a man-woman relationship from the tenuous to the turbulent. Although the film offers superb cinematography, some exquisite visual beauty, and a cast of fine performers, there's little meat on the bones of this fragmented work. A taste of a relationship cannot impart the fullness of it and synergism suggests that much more can be accomplished with one story in 2 hours than with four. Nonetheless, "Beyond the Clouds" will be fodder for dilettantes and a visual feast for the all albeit superficial, stilted, and lacking in substance. A wonderful cast thrown into modern mystical romances for the intellectual grown ups. Yes, they too need a love story to stir those hidden urges without the Hollywood fluff. This all under the masterful direction of Antonioni and Wenders who both love to pin his characters in exotic locations and have them dwarfed by the surroundings with long wide shots. It is great to see that there is lust in the mid-life crises sector. Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals. Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish. Don't miss the genius contained in this one. It's just stories, some we wish happen to us, some we wish never happen to us, all about unfulfilled desire. The locations and nude bodies are beautiful, but after the second story all I could think was 'it takes more than just beauty to create a real film'. Then of course the film unfolds. The stories are moving except Sophie Marceau fails to communicate her story in this film. Malkovich plays the story for both of them though. The voiceover fails to link the stories but helps Malkovich to provoke some thought.

I'd say it is worth seeing and the best of Antonioni I have seen. Given his age - remarkable! NVA combines eastalgia-humor, military comedy and teen movie. Although it is somehow typically German-movie-like sentimental, I think it's a great and very funny movie. You will not only laugh in NVA but also get a bit of an insight in the Eastern Germany armed forces of the late 1980ies and how the young recruits as well as the professional soldiers experienced the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the German Democratic Republic.

You will enjoy NVA if you liked Sonnenallee (another movie directed by Leander Haußmann), but not necessarily if you enjoyed Good Bye Lenin which is much more serious and less obviously funny.

The acting is acceptable. But watch for former boy band singer Kim Frank who has only two facial expressions: natural and shocked saucer-eyed! Don't quite know why some people complain about this film not being a comedy and at the same time being too unrealistic. If it had been realistic, there certainly wouldn't have been much comedy. I also don't think that a comedy needs to make you laugh aloud twenty times. There was much subtle humor, sweet feelings, and Kim Frank just portrayed a dreamy character. In real life, there are many people whose facial expression doesn't change much so Kim Frank keeping his was quite all right. The ending was quite unrealistic, I'd say, but happy. It's a light-hearted movie with a feel-good ending. I liked it. Loved it, actually. A serious part was Krueger going to Schwedt, and I'm glad they didn't show what happened to him there. Showing how he was when he came back hinted at it quite clearly. Do not expect a classic military comedy, which claims to make fun of the military while only enhancing a militaristic outlook. Instead it deconstructs the elements that make the military such a murderous machine. Kind of East German version of "Buffalo Soldiers".

"NVA" works on a meta-level that it sympathizes with its heroes' attempts to escape from army drill any which way they can. It's not about loud laughs but about long lasting smiles. Utopian, of course (in one scene you will be shown the harsh reality), but very thoughtful.

Just to fill the required 10 lines: Do not go into that movie if you have been an army officer and liked your job. This movie was to me a fairly enjoyable watch, I mean it wasn't great but it was one of the better horror movies of late. It seems to have been low, almost state benefit budget size but it has it's charms like the lovely ladies in it. The atmosphere was good also (which is what is missing froma hell of a lot of horror movies these days). The acting was your typical 80's low budget affair, that being in case you don't know is that it is "dud" acting. But that is what Lucio Fulci's movies were full of, they like this movie had atmosphere what they were lacking in storyline and money etc. They more than made up for in the horror & gore & atmosphere for the movie it's self.

It is just a typical low budget horror movie that is watchable, I watched it all the way and I love horror movies. I've seen movies where I just turn off within 10 to 20 minutes or sit and fast forward it if it's on video, or skip scene's on the DVD. This movie didn't make me want to do that, I sat and watched it all the way to the end, without wanting to skip parts.

I would have liked it however if the zombie type folk in this were a little more scarier as they were about as scary as having Freddy Kreuger as your babysitter, not. But seriously though if they were a little better it would have been low budget perfection, maybe.

The music in this movie was top notch stuff, ideal horror music so it was. I've seen horror movies where the music is good or average but it could have been better, thank goodness though this movie didn't have nay of the Metal music in it.

I've been a die-hard Metal fan since 1990 but in horror movies metal music spoils it, the movie looses atmosphere a lot when any type of music other than a score is playing. So i'm glad there was no music in this movie other than just your typical score which was rather creepy, well done.

It could have use "Profane Grace - Epitaph Of Shattered Dreams" on it though. As it is keyboard music no guitars no nothing except "really" creepy keyboard tracks. Like track one "Forever Sleep" you hear the wind blowing all the way through it and some goose bump inducing keyboard music that follows it. Ever track on that cd is the same, ideal horror music at it's best, it would have suited this movie perfectly.

The only unattractive chick in the movie to me was the one who got chibbed/killed (or so we are led to believe) and hung up as a scarecrow, only to get free and try to escape later. Every other woman in the movie was lovely indeed, a big 9 out of 10 for them all except the one I mentioned above.

I wish that Hollywood (mainstream side of things) would give money to Romero and the guy who made this movie. As giving it to them for movies is way better a decision made than giving it to a goon muppet called Paul Anderson of the "resident evil" mince.

Well done guys, it is not bad, not bad at all, I loved the part at the end credits when they kept showing you clips of them making the movie (behind the scene's) Not many movies do this kind of thing, which I thought added a little to the movie, as it also showed you some outtakes of sorts and that's always a good thing if you ask me.

Rating for this movie 8/10, rating for the lovely ladies in the movie 9/10, rating for the atmosphere in the movie 9/10, rating for the score for the film 9.5/10. I was surprised that I liked this movie. But it reminded me of a 2004 version of the first Friday the 13th. There were a number of cheesy elements, yet at the same time there were many cool ones. The story line was good--predictable if you have seen more than one or two horror movies, but full of one-liners to make it worthwhile. There are some memorable scenes worth watching. A few issues I had with the plot had to do with the continuity of the characters. For instance in the opening scene the scarecrows (which were humans on stakes, whose blood was drained to grow the crops), looked very real, but later in the film they looked more like fake scarecrows wearing blue colored masks. There were more than several gaps in the plot, and the acting was mediocre, but at least it sounded like how real people talk, unlike Hollywood movies where the dialogue is really fake sounding when you think about it. The culmination of the last scene, when the main character says "I'm not a Baker, I'm a Connell!" and lops the head off of the scarecrow is satisfying, as his friends have for the most part been killed off by these creatures at that point. David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in "After the Funeral," produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have that much to do with what Christie wrote.

In this episode, Poirot is asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death - a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery, lots of secrets, another will and murder.

The story is excellent with rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist. Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's effective nonetheless.

I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on Broadway in "Amadeus." Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all I see IS Poirot. Aunt Cora had always been tactless, and her well-bred family ignored the remark she made after her brother Richard's funeral: "He WAS murdered, wasn't he?". They remembered it the next day, when Cora was found brutally murdered with a hatchet...

For some reason, the POIROT movies this year have been far from faithful to the original book. I was disappointed about the changes made in CARDS ON THE TABLE-- my favourite Poirot book. AFTER THE FUNERAL is my 2nd favourite Poirot book, and I was scared the story would be destroyed. It wasn't! The movie was nearly page-for-page faithful throughout, right down to the killer's motive! All the actors were wonderful, but my favourite has got to be Monica Dolan, who gives a great performance as Miss Gilchrist, the companion to the late Aunt Cora. Without a doubt the best Poirot movie ever! For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest "After the Funeral" for the following reasons.

I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in "the journey of life." And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.

Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.

Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore! After The Funeral was absolutely superb, and by far the best episode of the season. I was disappointed with Cards On the Table, that started off so well but let down considerably by the last half hour, and I didn't know what to think of Taken After the Flood, though I do remember being confused at the end. After the Funeral as I've said is one of my all time favourite Poirot episodes, up there with Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress and The ABC Murders. I was afraid that they would ruin the story, but instead it is very faithful to the book. Now I will say I don't mind changes to books, and try not to compare movies and TV adaptations to their sources, except when the book is a masterpiece and the adaptation doesn't do it justice. That's why I disliked some of the Marples like Nemesis and Sleeping Murder, and so far out of the Poirots The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Taken At the Flood and Cards on the Table are the only ones that really did disappoint. Everything else ranges from good to outstanding, even the recent Appointment with Death, despite the many deviations from the book, which I admit isn't a favourite, was surprisingly good, thanks to the marvellous production values, stellar ensemble performances and outstanding music score. Back to After the Funeral, the production values are fantastic. It has a really cinematic feel to it, and the stunning photography and splendid scenery and costumes made it a visual feast for the eyes. The music was very stirring and even haunting, and the entire cast give wonderful performances. David Suchet is impeccable as always as Poirot, and Geraldine James and Anna Calder Marshall are just as terrific. But for me, the standout was Monica Dolan as Mrs Gilchrist, she is up there with Donald Sumpter and Polly Walker as the best supporting actor/actress in a Poirot episode, that's how good her performance was. All in all, a must see, one of the best Poirot episodes by far, and one of the more faithful ones too. 10/10 Bethany Cox I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender, and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played Cora/companion. Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the "big fun" drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.

The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together. As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout!

One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far. Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point, I didn't remember anything about it except the name "Abernethie". Which is a good thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing, etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those virtues are present in "After the Funeral". A word of advice: be alert right from the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***) Reading through the comments, there seems to be a lot of nonsense about the emotional banality of La Pianiste. I find this hard to comprehend given the outstanding performance by Isabelle Huppert. Huppert is gripping - she manages to convey perfectly the woman on the edge, full of self-hate and delusion.

The film is wonderfully paced and judged. It would be so easy to portray the lead as a ridiculous figure - consider the scene in the porn store for instance. Somehow, Huppert is able to carry it off, partly because of her brilliant performance but also because the director makes her surreal life real and identifiable.

Don't ignore this film. It is one of the most startling and engaging films (and performances) I have seen.

Trust Boris! This movies made me suffer and I LOVED IT! LOVED IT! It haunted me for days. I think Erika is the kind of character you simultaneously loathe and lament. The most terrifying sex scene ever caught on film. This is the best of Haneke's work so far. He is the only living director to redefine pace since Kubrick. The violence in this film is gorgeous. In a word, the film is about self-hatred. In a sentence, the film is about trying to find love in order to stop hating yourself and finding that that is a hopeless hope. Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states "We gave up everything so she could study piano" and Huppert immediately snaps "You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you."

So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?

For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant. I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual expression is not part of your "visage". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen. It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it.

Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's "La pianiste"...The psychological sickness of the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism, incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes, the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at it. The "mise en scène" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french actress ever. This film is utterly amazing. From the performances of Huppert, Girardot, and Magimel, to Haneke's screenplay and direction there is not a single misstep. The film may put some people off with it's hard sexual subject matter and with it's slower pace, but it really is a masterful piece of cinema... so do not let it's challenging ways keep you away!

Powerful, and deserving every award it won in Cannes! "The Piano Teacher" is all about Huppert's character; a middle-aged classical piano instructor with a stoic facade behind which lurks a powerfully compelling aberrant personality. Unsatisfying as a story but intriguing as a character study, the film follows the Huppert character through the term of her anguished relationship with a pupil delivering superb performances in the process. Not for everyone, "The Piano Teacher" will play best with those into foreign films and character-driven dramas dealing with dark issues. (A-) Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.

Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.

The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.

The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.

The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's easy to see why the script for this film won an Oscar. At least during the first half. My head was spinning from all of the snappy lines whizzing by. Noel Coward plays a New York publisher (`Why don't you publish books that you like?' - `What? And corrupt the public?') who charms and manipulates his many hangers-on. Then he dies in a plane crash and the story turns into a bizarre Flying Dutchman take-off in which Coward must find someone who truly mourns him before his soul can rest in peace. Very enjoyable until it gets bizarre. Viewed at Cinefest in Syracuse in March 2003. i saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember how much i loved it. it really touched me, and i thoroughly enjoyed noel coward's work in it. highly recommended: atmospheric and touching.

i think of this film from time to time, and am disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original story for ben hecht and charles macarthur.

basically it involves a nasty character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity. It's a unique film, as it gives us our only chance to see the young Noel Coward in all his ironic glory. Because he seems so reserved & detached he's perfect for the role of an unloved cad who matter-of-factly uses all those around him. However in the deadly serious (no pun intended) last act, when Coward must make like the Flying Dutchman, he's much less comfortable.

But his way with an epigram is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really -- he was the wit of the pair).

The film is superbly lighted by the great Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse scene).

The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the reception room of publisher Coward.

Curious that Woolcott would agree to do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member.

The Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward, Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember... Marigold is by far the best "outsider's" take on Bollywood I have ever seen. (I didn't grow up with Bollywood, but I've seen a few hundred of them now.) I'd say it leaves Gurinder Chadha, Mira Nair, and even Merchant and Ivory (of Bombay Talkie) almost in the dust. Willard Carroll, the director, really loves Bollywood, and he has the self-confidence to allow us to know it - there's humor, but no arch, ironic distancing, no "of course I don't really mean this" stuff. As Jerry Lee Lewis would say, he "gets it," and so he can let us have it too - the joy of a Bollywood movie experience, along with touches that are supplied by a westerner's stepping into the story-teller's role.

It's a story about a caustic, bitchy, beautiful American B movie actress (she's only been in movies with numbers in their titles, like Fatal Attraction 3) who finds herself in a different Bollywood movie from the one she went to India to be in (Kama Sutra 3 has folded its tents while she was en route, apparently because its producers are now in jail). Salman Khan, in real life a Bollywood mega-mega star, is the dancing master of the delightful written-on-the-fly movie she has now been pulled into ("is this before or after I go blind?"), and through the sweetness of his mildly psychically gifted character, she learns more than how to find her inner ecstatic dancing ability.

The strong beginning gives you both Bollywood - a super-energetic troupe of dancers in front of the Taj Mahal (both funny an familiar to the western viewer, as well as providing the high-velocity musical thrill we love in a Hindi movie), and Salman on screen from the outset - no Bollywood 20 minute wait for the hero. He has on an Indian costume embellished with Kit Carson-style Western movie fringe (all in white).

Ali Larter's actress character is pleasing to the western viewer - she's blonde, which is "traditional" for a "white" person in a Bollywood movie, and visually understandable casting - but she's a robust girl, not the ethereal kind of blondie we're usually presented with, and she's a more or less three-dimensional total bitch, carrying on profane and abusive cell-phone conversations with a boyfriend and agent in the US.

We also have scenes of women who are having problems with each other going out to a bar to deal with them - the capacity for people not getting along to relate and have emotional conversations is traditional in Hindi movies, but we seldom see much of any such thing going on between women (other than the discussion between mother and daughter about the daughter's choice of groom), let alone "strangers" - unrelated people - let alone bar-going. So the spirit is the same, the details are fresh, and I was completely delighted by this.

I only saw it once, at a preview showing, attended by the director, a fine speaker and question-answerer - he and Salman got to be "brother-like" good friends over the making of it, he loves India, he has plans to make a Wizard of Oz movie in India. I can't get too detailed about songs when I've seen them just once, except to say I liked them all. They range from a happy parody of the Bollywood number in the movie-within-the-movie - the ladies' costumes, with Leghorn hats and seashell-cased bodices (it's a beach scene) on flowy dresses - are worth the cost of a ticket alone -- to a lovely reflective many-scened romantic song in a sadder and more serious part of the movie.

Mix of Hindi and English in the music, and it works.

Salman Khan gets a lot of credit from me for openness to unusual projects - this and Jaan-e-Mann - and good judgment about which ones to be in. Carroll said he was full of suggestions and ideas all along the way, and totally fine (i.e. not narcissistic at all) whether Carroll accepted or rejected them - clearly just a pro who loves being involved and collaborating. I saw Marigold at a preview showing a few days ago, and found it to be a thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable film. The film is about a not-so-successful American actress who goes to India to act in a low budget film, only to find herself stranded there when she finds on arrival that the film's financing has vanished, along with the producers and investors. A chance encounter with an Indian film shooting nearby leads her to be hired for a small dancer role in that. Since Indian films incorporate a significant amount of singing and dancing, this is a problem for Marigold, who has two left feet, not to mention a personality so tightly wound-up and thorny that she can hardly hear the music, let alone feel it, as Prem, the choreographer of the film, advices her to do.

But "prem" -- the word, not the person -- means "love", and Prem -- the person, not the word -- seems to embody that emotion in the way he deals with all around him, whether it be his production assistant friends who introduced Marigold to the shoot, the narcissistic and arrogant leads of the film, or the bitchy and uptight Marigold herself. Soon, under his expert tutelage and endearing treatment, Marigold finds her feet -- literally and figuratively.

I must say a word for those not familiar with the use of song and dance in Indian films. Unlike American musicals, the story progresses through these dance numbers, as plot developments unfold, and character transformations occur in parallel with the dancing. It should also be pointed out that Indian dance is about a lot more than mere movement. An essential part of it is the enactment of the dancer's feelings and emotions while telling the story of the dance. This is the main purpose of the dance and the dancer.

That Marigold reaches this stage of accomplishment is demonstrated in a stunning dance number about midway through, when Marigold, while performing the dance she is required to do for the film-within-the-film, also expresses her love for Prem. It is an amazing performance by Ali Larter, especially when one considers that she is not used to dancing in her films, or emoting her character's feelings via dance. It shows her skill as an actress, as well as how much hard work she has put into the role.

Of course no romantic film can work without a credible Prince Charming. Salman Khan, who plays the role of Prem, fits the role to a T. Even when it turns out that he is a Prince not so charming, he does not lose the audience's sympathy. Salman has been ruling Hindi cinema (sometimes called Bollywood) for many years now, and it is worth remembering that his first leading role was also as Prem. He is completely charming, sweet, adorable, sexy, and vulnerable. For those who have never encountered him on screen before, be prepared to be hit with mega doses of sheer magnetism! He and Ali Larter make a lovely pair, and are as well matched in their acting as in their appearance.

Will they manage to work out their problems? It doesn't seem possible as we hear the last song of the film, a lovely blending of fact and fantasy, reality and metaphor. The ending certainly took some of the audience I saw it with by surprise, but they were left satisfied. The songs are used very cleverly. They are in Hindi, unsubtitled, for the film-within-the-film sequences, and in English for other occasions. But their meaning is always clear from the context and choreography.

Marigold is a very satisfying romantic comedy -- yes, there is quite a bit of humor as well in it. The Indian locations and costumes give it a fairy tale quality, befitting a story which can be likened to a modern fairy tale.

If you are or have been curious about Indian cinema, but were hesitant to try it, this is an excellent introduction. It captures the color and vibrancy of Indian films, not only in the costumes and jewelry (which are quite impressive), but also in the lively dances and world sound music.

If you are a fan of Ali Larter, you should watch it for her excellent acting in portraying a selfish, demanding, "high-maintanance" woman who nevertheless has an inner attraction that inspires the love of two men. If you are a girl, you will enjoy admiring Ali's lovely costumes and ogling her hunk of a leading man. If you are a guy, you can not only admire Ali in her sexy costumes, but learn from Salman Khan what it takes to bring out the loving heart even from someone as edgy as Marigold. Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.

It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well – the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.

You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there – a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre – the female star singing and dancing among a line of women – but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.

Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film – in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.

As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart – one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.

Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed – or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.

With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore. I had no expectations (never saw previews for "Marigold") and enjoyed the characters, contemporary music, and sharp dancing in this light-hearted movie. Even though 98% of the dialog is English (great thing for me), I wish the DVD had subtitles to help with some of the quick moments when the character's accent can be difficult to understand. I wouldn't judge this movie against Bollywood films, but just on it's own merits as fun entertainment (a musical people movie).

I'm hooked on Ali Larter as an actress (and her interviews in the Bonus Material indicate she is a nice person). I have since watched this movie several times (gets better each time). I just finished watching Marigold today and I'll begin by saying that I found this DVD on the shelves of Blockbuster. While strolling around looking for something new and good to watch, the picture of Ali Larter caught my attention.

After drooling over Ali Larter, I picked up the cover and continued to glance around the cover. From the looks of it, I thought the costumes were a bit over the top. And then I saw the other Indians on the cover and figured this was some kind of spoof film or something like that.

When I flipped over the the synopsis part and saw Salman Khan, I did a double take. Salman Khan in an American film with Ali Larter in a DVD at Blockbuster? Because Salman Khan is to Bollywood films like Mel Gibson is to Hollywood films, I had very high expectations for this film: it HAD to be good! I am very pleased to say that Marigold is a phenomenal film! It far exceeded any and all of my personal expectations!

I suppose a film like this is what happens when you have a decent script, a talented, experienced, knowledgeable and goal oriented director, two incredible actors playing the lead roles and just a very hard working supporting cast and crew! Khan and Larter appear to have really great chemistry together and both shine on the big screen: they look really good together. The musical numbers weren't bad at all, which was surprising, considering how cheesy and long Indian films' musicals are these days. And you'll be happy to know that the Indian costumes are very far from being cheesy as you'll get.

The beginning of the film was kind of slow, the middle was really good, the scenes leading to the climax were pretty dramatic, but the ending was just awesome! I have a few gripes and complaints about the DVD, however. While I loved the widescreen aspect ratio of the DVD, I didn't like the fact that several other things were left out of the DVD. For starters, there are no subtitles. Now English being my first language, it's not a problem. However, when some of the Indian actors and actresses spoke, it was (at times) difficult to understand what they were saying; captioning would have helped.

Another thing that I would have appreciated on the DVD would be a blooper reel or some kind of collection of outtakes. And lastly, how about a menu feature that would allow us to skip right to the musical numbers? Man, some of those songs were really good! On the flip side, I throughly enjoyed watching the making of Marigold.

I have tons more to say regarding the awesomeness of this film and how much I liked it, but I don't have the time nor do I want to keep on writing why I enjoyed it so much. I hope that Salman Khan does more English films in addition to his Hindi films and I certainly hope this Hindi film will not be Ali Larter's last Bollywood film. And I encourage the director to continue making Bollywood film hybrids featuring Salman Khan, Ali Larter and other big name actors - just make sure the scripts are original and good.

10/10 - this is just a great love story film that your entire family can enjoy! If you have ever seen a Bollywood movie, you know they are longer than most movies due to the multiple song and dance routines (each one is over five minutes long). Fortunately, this one has fewer song and dance routines and fits into the "standard" movie length. Don't get me wrong, I like Bollywood movies, but tend to fast forward through the song and dance portions. I bought this DVD because I am an Ian Bohen fan. Although his role wasn't as large as I hoped, he still had a good amount of screen time. And his character was much different than his other roles.

Overall, this was a good movie. Like most Bollywood movies, there is at least one element of controversy/conflict of the traditional Indian culture. But true love triumphs over adversity and a happy ending is had by all. If you are looking for a movie that doesn't take itself seriously... than Haggard is for you. I must say before i write anything more, that if you have not seen any of the CKY (Camp Kill Yourself) videos than the movie most likely won't be AS funny. My advice is to watch a few clips of those videos that Bam and his friends made. Haggard does not take itself seriously AT all, and that was never the purpose. Throughout the movie you will have random moments that have nothing to do with the plot, which may get annoying but its nothing that is out of control. Even through all that the plot does stay focused and the story of Ryan Dunn's character does unfold quite nicely. This plot i have been told is based off a true story (for the most part)of Ryan Dunn's ex-girlfriend. Brandon Dicamillo is by far the best character in the movie. He has a lot of talent and knows how to make people laugh. He stole the movie if you ask me. Overall I love this movie for its simplicity and straight up weirdness. Its a Bam movie people, its not going to be normal. Haggard is filled with hilarious quotes that my friends and I constantly used since the first time we saw it. I've seen the movie 6-7 times and still find new things every time. The soundtrack is just as good. Everything from Gnar Kill to New Order and some techno. Just don't go into the movie with high expectations, let it all unfold and then judge it for what it is. The movie Haggard is one of the funniest movies of all time. It features the cast from CKY (the movies) and also has a GREAT soundtrack. If you have seen any CKY or Viva La Bam you will notice that everybody (from those two) are in it. Including Bam's parents and many other people.

The story is about Ryan Dunn's girlfriend Glauren (Jennifer Rivall) cheating on him, and him trying to get back at her. He does this by having Valo (Bam) and Falcone (Dicamillo) vandalize her house. There are many different characters with many different stories.

There is great music on the soundtrack. Bands such as Him & Her, CKY, Gnar Kill, Daniel Lioneye. Iggy and the Stooges Pop, and New Order.

If you do not like Viva La Bam or CKY (the movies) I doubt you will like this. If you DO like that stuff...this movie is great. I first saw this movie at a video store and, being the Bam Margera fan I am, had to rent it to see what it was all about. Since I have a huge and stupid (note the word stupid) sense of humor, I found this movie absolutely hilarious. Some of the parts are pointless and random, but that's what makes them so amusing. You'll need to think things like getting slapped in the face and bashed on the head with a watermelon are funny in order to appreciate this movie. I was really impressed.

I was also surprised at the acting. These people actually did a good job. Nothing Oscar worthy, but well enough to get past the amateur level. Teens and young adults would probably find this more entertaining because of the modern slang and situations used. I wouldn't suggest watching this with your parents and vice versa.

All in all, the acting was great, the script was hilarious, and the story is really something you can relate to. I didn't know what to expect from this. I always considered Bam Margera and the CKY crew a team of knuckle heads devoted to to doing stupid things for entertainment. I didn't know that they could act. But everyone who acted in this movie pulled off good performances. The hilarity of the 'aaaaagh!' scene mixes in with Ryan Dunn's depression and his revenge against his ex-girlfriend perfectly. At times the movie some scenes seem pointless but at the same time they're funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes a good laugh but this film may not appeal to those that prefer detailed story lines and a series of twists and turns. When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time.

But even just five minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong.

I thought that the comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is probably why I was not a fan of Borat).

The movie is not suitable at all for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your buddies on a movie night. I loved this movie and I watch it everyday. I think that although the acting isn't all that great, it's really just a bunch of guys having fun with a script. I had been looking all over for this movie, for almost a year, and when I found it for thirty dollars, I just had to get it. It is now, by far my favorite movie of all time. It deals with relationship failure, and at the same time making a joke of it. I loved all the parts with Don Vito, especially the one where Valo asks him for a grape when they're sitting on the porch, and He tells him to eat the one rolling down the porch. IT really portrays him as he really is. The part in the "Making Of" really touched me, when they adressed Brandon Novak's addiction to heroin, and how much his friends and family were trying to help him. A new movie that's in the making, called "Dreamseller," is in production, which is about the story of Novak's dreams, shattered by his addiction. One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:] I saw this movie with hopes of a good laugh but when I watched it I didn't stop laughing for weeks, they are such bad actors and it made this movie so much funnier to watch. ( BTW Ryan Dunn didn't eat the toy car, he shoved it up his ass) The random appearances from the skaters and Vitos parts were great. Gimme some grapes Vito.! No Valo, your grapes are at the store. I wouldn't recommend any one under 13 to watch it, frankly they wouldn't understand half of the jokes in or what they are talking about. I love VLB and after watching this movie I couldn't help but go buy it or the Viva La Bam series. What is the deal with this stupid comment thing? It has to be 10 lines what kind of Bull-sh1t is that? I should be able to write one as long or in this case as short as I want. I'm just going to keep typing until it tells me I can actually send it. Its just a waste of time, I expected to just say what I wanted, it wasn't too much but then I'm told I have to keep putting more in and then it corrects my spelling, so what if I didn't spell something right, you get what I mean still. This is ridiculously long.

~Those who live by the Sword get shot by those who don't~ "Haggard: The Movie" is well written, well directed, and well acted. There are many laugh out loud moments and some terrific skateboarding scenes featuring Margera. The scenes of West Chester, PA are filmed beautifully and the script is just downright funny. What I like about the movie is that instead of being another sappy love story or another version of "Jackass", it takes a darkly funny look at break-ups from a different perspective. Most break-up films feature a naive woman jilted by a cheating man. She then goes on to find Mr. Right and gets to tell her cheating ex to get lost. This movie takes a look at the emotional roller-coaster of a jilted man... without taking itself too seriously. Ryan Dunn does an excellent job as the jilted man and with Bam Margera and Brandon Dicamillo as your best friends trying to help you through this rough time, how can you take anything too seriously? It is obvious that Margera and Co. are incredibly talented both behind and in front of the camera. I look forward to their future films and endeavors. haggard doesn't even need to be graded, since it was never designed to be graded like Oscar-winning movies are and it was never intended to have won an Oscar (obviously). if you just look at some of the stuff that Bam and Bran tried, like the fast-motion shots, it comes across as a film thats something more than just cky or jackass (even though those are cool too). For pure enjoyability i definitely give this film a 10; almost every scene made me laugh until my sides hurt, like falcone's trail movie. If you haven't seen this, see it and then buy it. Personally my favorite character is brandon (falcone), he's just so smooth and natural and random that its hilarious, he freestyles great (with the action figures) and makes up the funniest stuff- lol a diamond mountain bike? haggard is definitely a movie that in overall humor is only rivaled by anchorman and napoleon dynamite. This film had everything i need in a film: - Women, skateboarding, violence, music by H.I.M and Tony Hawk!!! the artwork and camera effects in this film is amazing. The music in this film is the best I've heard in any other film. Each track goes so well with its scene. I thought the acting was really good considering none of Bams crew have been in scripted films before. Although the whole concept of the film is the story of Ryan Dunn and his girlfriend (Glauren) who is sleeping with Hellboy behind his back is a predictable and age old story. They way its acted out is very unpredictable, for example: Falcone and the gas tank, Raab Himself, Dunn breaking bottles behind the wawa and all the Don Vito scenes. This films is a must see! totally genius film from the CKY crew......(not the jackass boys.....johnny knoxville, chris pontius, steve-o etc are not in this

film). OK so maybe they'r not the best actors but its not what you call a serious film......but hey there havin fun and its totally funny to watch. who doesn't want to see don vito dressed as a roman emperor!

a total must if you like viva la bam or CKY............ an amazing soundtrack provided by the almighty HIM, CKY and others...... check out the extra features on the DVD especially Bran's freestyle

Chinese rap number two......seriously hilarious........... check this film out........you wont regret it......... 10/10 I have never before seen a movie quite like this, nor as funny. I laughed my goddamned ass off and have watched it repetitively. Infact I am watching it now. Chad from CKY is hot too. Anyway if you never liked it, blow it out your ass, you have no taste. The movie involves Ry (Ryan Dunn) having just broke up with his girlfriend turning to Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon DiCamillo) for help in finding out exactly what she done with "Hellboy" (Rake Yohn), and with the help of Raab (Chris Raab/Raab Himself) they do just that.

The fender bender scene and the scene with Cactus at Record Bin were hilarious. I don't know what it is about the crew from CKY, but everything they produce seems to be genius in its simplicity and stupidity. Haggard is so incredibly dumb and funny that it's almost comedic excellence. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense, but who cares?

It made me laugh my ass off. A must-have for the CKY/Jackass aficionado! I personally found the film to be great. I had it on pre-order for a month and watched it twice the day I got it in the mail, and several time since.. Yes, the time lapses may be a bit much, but the rest of the movie clearly compensates for it. All amature cast, yet the acting was right on for each part. The plot itself is just... haggard! There's no other way to describe it. Who makes a movie about someone getting f**gered!??? BAM, thats who. Genius. Simply genius. Two thumbs up. I would be honored to work with him any day, any time, on any thing. This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard. Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen. If your expecting Jackass look somewhere else this an actual movie and for the budget well done the acting isnt top noth neither is the writing but the directing was there and so was the story definetly worth the rent and possibly the buy if you really enjoy it like i did. But for the person who just likes jackass rent it first. This movie kicks ass, bar none. Bam and his crue have out done themselves with this film. Since I got the DVD (4 days ago) I have watched it three times and it gets better every time I watch it. I can't wait for Grind to come out in theaters. If its anything like Haggard it will be worth the wait.

Thanks, JTcellphone The movie was fantastic. If your a fan of Bams' cky videos, jackass, or his show Viva la Bam, you cant help but like it. I have a few friends who aren't fans that enjoyed it, and others who thought it wasn't that great. Those who didn't like it were mostly female friends, they really didn't appreciate some of the crude humor, that personally i think made the movie so funny. I'm pretty sure the entire movie was filmed in Bams home town, which includes a lot of his regularly visited locations. The cast of is made up of all his friends and cky buddies, and also includes some big name pro skateboarders too. The soundtrack is phenomenal, with music by HIM. In my opinion, Haggard has it all. A great plot, characters you'll never see anywhere else. Plenty of humor great music and a cast that was dedicated to the project. I had been waiting to see this movie for so long and finally got to yesterday. In summary I'm glad I finally did. The humor is off the wall hilarious. The plot is so unbelievably believable that it has to have at least some truth for it . If anything stood out in this movie it is most definitely the coffee shop scene. I have been there every guy has . You get dumped. You find out that your ex has fooled around with some guy who you are sure is an asshole. Now every time you see anything for the next few days you just get horrible thoughts of this placed in all the wrong areas . She is screwing everyone and everyone knows it. I could probably watch that man lick and finger his wallet all day long and look back at myself and laugh for having been there too . Set in Bam Margera's hometown of Westchester PA, 'Haggard' is a semi-true story about the life of Ryan Dunn and his buddies Falcone and Vallo.

Dunn has been dumped by his girlfriend of 2 years, Glauren, who is now seeing a beer swilling, long haired metal head named 'Hellboy' and this is driving Dunn insane with jealousy.

In a desperate attempt to find out the truth about what is going on between Glauren and Hellboy, Dunn pays his friends Vallo and Falcone to break into her house and produce evidence of the affair, with somewhat disastrous results for all concerned! I found this movie very funny, maybe partly because I am a total Jackass and CKY fan, and it has to be said that a lot of the humour will probably be lost on those that do not have prior knowledge of Margera insane brand of 'comedy'.

The movie contains much that will be of interest to skaters, not least the cameo appearance of skateboarding legend, Tony Hawk as a police officer. There are also cameo's from Bucky Lasek, Brandon Novak, Jason Ellis, and Bam's long suffering parents, April and Phil.

The DVD extra's include music video's from CKY (featuring Bam's Brother Jess on drums), and Bam's favourite band, HIM (Bam's character in the movie takes his name from HIM frontman Ville Vallo) There is also a documentary and a "too hot for jackass" skit.

In summary, as I said before, this movie will mainly be of interest to skaters and Jackass/CKY fans, but I do feel that Margera and co have made a great effort with 'Haggard' and I for one, thoroughly enjoyed it. While some of the things in Haggard are dumb and unnecessary, the overall package is good.

Haggard follows Ryan Dunn and his friends Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) trying to win back Glauren (Jenn Rivell), Ryan's ex.

The story is followed and developed surprisingly well, it doesn't wonder off and become an episode of Jackass or Viva La Bam, although it does have a side story which doesn't hurt the main story.

And, for all the Bam fan boys (And girls) there are multiple sequences of Bam skateboarding, perhaps the weakest aspect of the film. Phil makes 2 surprisingly small appearances, even Don Vito got a bigger (but pointless) roll.

If you are hoping to see a comedy and escape Bam's craziness, then stay away from this movie, otherwise, enjoy the time you spend with it, if you can find it. There are some truly funny scenes in this film. I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just saying to myself, "Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we get back to Ryan Dunn?" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my perspective.

I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever seen. It's sort of in it's own category. I just bought this movie yesterday night, and I LOVE it. Everyone did great acting in it, especially Ryan Dunn and Bam Margera. The whole plot was great, and as Dunn said in the extras on the DVD, they made it seem like he was reliving the whole thing all over again. This movie has made my number one spot in my favorite movies! I can't stop replaying scenes over and over again, just to see it again. I've never done that with any other movie. I would definitely recommend this to other people to watch, because it is such a great movie, and if you like Bam Margera, it's a perfect movie for you!! The little montages that they show in between every scene are just great. I think that those have to be my favorite parts of the movie. They are very sad, with mostly music from the band 'HIM,' which of course is my favorite band. Alright, let me break it down for ya... Haggard is probably one of the funniest pointless movies you'll ever see. It's got a mixture of a unique storyline about a guy having girl troubles and everything going backwards for him mixed in with countless humorous scenes that will keep you laughing throughout the whole movie, basically, if you've seen jackass or the CKY series, you'd know what to expect for humor, considering it has most of the people from those movies. Overall... i just had to give it a 10/10 because its one of my favorite movies of all time.

~F0rs4k3n

(P.S.) Haggard rules! Haggard: The Movie is the real life story of Ryan Dunn, and his girlfriend who cheated on him, also with the help from his two friend, 1. A skate boarder who lives for nothing, and, 2. A trying-to-be funny scientist (which doesn't really work) played by Bam Margera and Brandom Dicamillo.

The film Haggard The Movie also has a lot of the characters from Jackass, etc, but to say it was written by Bam Margera and Co. this is a very weak attempt, seems to me like it was written when he was bored, or as a project with they did not pay a lot of attention to.

The films also stars Bam's girlfriend Jennifer Rivell, who plays Glauren, Ryan's girlfriend who basically cheated on him, again very bad acting by Jennifer, another actor that some people may be interested in is Steve a.k.a Hellboy, played by RakeYohn, which his character does not seem to be with the story, again bad acting, also this character does not really have a lot of lines in this film which basically makes it very boring. but worst of all, is Raab's character, the voice sound like a smoker who basically has throat cancer, also i think he could have been improved! Overall i think the characters in this film aren't with the story, like in one scene, it would be on one certain character, a minute later, a different scene, different character.

To say that this is supposed to be a film, sort of a documentary, its not played by the characters as a documentary, the acting makes you think that its a cheap attempt at making a film with your spare time.

Towards the middle of the film we start to lose focus on the main character Ryan Dunn, although a lot of the attention is on Bam and Brandon.

In conclusion this film is OK, if you laugh at things that aren't very funny, stupid stunts, terrible acting and the occasional nude scene!, Also i think there there are too many scenes of just no talking and just music! 7/10 Having read all of Sarah Waters books i was eagerly looking forward to a BBC adaptation of Fingersmith. Especially since Tipping the Velvet had been done so well by old familiar Andrew Davies.

I was not disappointed with the results, in fact i think this might be on a par with TTV; both romantic and entertaining. And not as so many ignorant people would have you believe, a pointless lesbian romp. Having been a fan of Elaine Cassidy's since seeing her guileless turn in Felicia's Journey i thought she embodied both hard deception and a growing fragility as Maud. Her transformation was believable and impressive to watch. I recognised Sally Hawkins as Zena Blake from Tipping the Velvet, a small role primarily so i didn't have as many expectations but she was astounding in the role of Sue Trinder. Her eyes were mesmerising conveying everything from rage to absolute despair. The two of them acting together, combining these talents made this drama unmissable. Of course Imelda Staunton was amazing as usual, she is unmistakably a national treasure and the supporting cast were all of a high standard. Even the direction from the fairly unknown Aisling Walsh used contrasting yet beautiful shades of blue for Briar and brown for London.

However as much praise must be given to Ransley the script writer. To turn a 600 page book where every line is of the highest quality into a three hour extravaganza is a huge feat. He illuminated the main revelations at a steady pace whilst giving us plenty of back-story and character development at the same time. He has my full admiration.

In conclusion, a brilliant adaptation where all involved gave 100% and making this one of the best BBC dramas i've seen. I love Sarah Waters's Fingersmith, and was worried about the TV adaptation as I'd been disappointed by the BBC's version of Tipping the Velvet (which although beautiful to look at was let down by Keeley Hawes not being able to sing, and Rachael Stirling not being able to act). Fingersmith is a very tightly plotted novel with breath taking twists and turns and I wondered if this could be done justice to in just 3 hours.

I needn't have worried. The adaptation was excellent, very little cut out, and went along at a cracking pace (although I did wonder whether if you hadn't read the book, would you miss things?). It had the look and feel of a BBC classic costume drama and i kept having to remind myself that this is a contemporary book.

The acting was stellar. Sally Hawkins acting her heart out as Sue Trinder, and Elaine Cassidy, a slow burner, who by the end of the story was incandescent as Maud Lilley. The love, the passion, the realisation of the acts of betrayal both would have to perform, were written on their faces. It was a joy to watch.

I hope Rachael Stirling was watching: that's how you play a Sarah Waters character! Having read the book prior to watching this adaptation you would think that it would have lost some of its thrill. However, the story is so clever I could never tire of it.

Sally and Elaine really put their hearts into their roles and brought out so much of the characters. I fell in love with the story and the women all over again.

Beautiful to watch thanks to direction, settings and costumery. Despite the plot speed of television, I don't feel that anything important was lost in transit. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout with lots of wonderful stomach-trembling moments. Enjoyed it thoroughly. This is the kind of television I have been waiting for. I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through "The L word" websites. The storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking "Lesbian in Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and movies that go no where"

However, during Christmas my local DVD store gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more colourful

This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take them home, keep them close.

Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her "Family" of pick-pockets. Little did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house.

Enter Mr Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud.

And things would be simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, "Oh my god do i like girls" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm.

Weeks have passed since i watched "Fingersmith", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and Sue's words still warm my heart "You pearl, you pearl, you pearl", she said. And such pearl it is. I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w/ each other to turn men on, etc.

Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.

I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character/conflict development and the quality of the acting.

FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND. This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her previous novels/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal...

A MUST SEE! It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to each other, because they still love each other.

For each of her books the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British 19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense. This movie was incredible!!!! I did not know the back story on it so I needed to let it unfold before me on DVD. It had many twists and turns but still kept the story fresh and exciting. The acting by Elaine Cassidy was in a word Brilliant as well as Sally Hawkins. The storyline is rich with plausible occurrences as well as fresh ideas from the present.

There is truly something about Ms. Cassidy's eyes that leaves "a mark." This movie is a refreshing look on the way in which we look at the 'victorian times' and how we view that society. A very worthwhile watch. I watched this movie recently and fell in love with it. I loved the storyline and the actors. It has a little of everything. I was completely taken by the unfolding of the story. It has so many surprises along the way. I highly recommend it. In fact, I loved it so much that I ran out and bought the book. I felt I had to read it in order to appreciate the art in the writing behind the movie. I also wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything that was in the book but kept out of the movie. I recommend people who love the movie to read the book because there is enough difference in the book, especially in the second episode, to want to read it. It has become my favorite movie. I am now a Sarah Waters and Elaine Cassidy fan!! I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful, vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses. With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the screenwriter, the director and the cast. This TV adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel was so lovingly done I can hardly find the words to appreciate it. Not since "Tipping the Velvet" (also highly recommended) have I seen such a performance by the lead actresses, this time by Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy. They acted with their souls, and this is what gets across to the audience! The supporting actors were well chosen, too, they made a great ensemble.

For those who think the story is just about a lesbian relationship - no, this is only one part. The other main theme is the betrayal of the person you love. And the plot has some further surprising twists. So the movie should be interesting for straight people or guys like me as well. Historical drama is one of the areas where the British just can't be beat. So while i'm not a huge fan of the genre, i can usually be persuaded to watch something lite this if it's British and with decent actors.

I have never read anything by Sarah Waters, which is of course something i should do. Hence i didn't really know what to expect from this. I had heard that there would be a lesbian love story, but not much more. While watching it i found it to be a lot more interesting than i had anticipated. Without saying too much the twists and turns of the plot are unexpected as well as well-crafted. Although there were almost a twist too many somewhere, it took me a minute to get everything straight.

Production values are good, the actors are very solid and the pace is decent, although i found it to be a bit slow in the last half-hour. That might just be me though, i usually have a problem with movies dragging on after the plot is more or less finished. All in all though, this is a fairly enjoyable three hours. I recommend it to anyone interested in historical dramas. The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end. Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and excellent story made this film superb. This movie is definitely one of the finest of its kind,. A Victrion age story of love, and, grit. The depth of its story line is one that will stir the inner most emotions of love, and hate, with some very interesting twists, this is a must have movie for not only the lesbian audiences, but, for all viewers. I can't say much more or I will spoil the experience for a new, young audience who might just be coming out. Another fine work for Sarah Waters. It also is a great way for Sally Hawkins to win over audiences who only get a brief glimpse of her talent in another Sarah Waters work, in "Tipping the Velvet".. It is also a must see.. BBC's 3 hour adaptation of the novel by Sarah Waters..."Fingersmith". Life is tough without money, especially in Dickensian London. Dark deeds lead to despicable dilemmas.Is love really just a luxury for the rich and free ?? Elaine Cassidy as "Maud Lilly" and Sally Hawkins as "Sue Trinder" both give fantastic performances as the leading ladies asking this question ... OF EACH OTHER ...whilst Rupert Evans shines as the delightfully bad "Gentleman".. with great support from Imelda Staunton's "Mrs Sucksby", David Troughton's "Mr Ibbs" and Charles Dance's "Uncle". The plot twists and turns and I wasn't sure I could be led to care about characters able to hurt and use each other in this way... but somehow.. i do care... and thats because of the quality of the performances... love feels like love .. hate feels like hate... betrayal .. confusion.. well hopefully you get the idea and hopefully you will get the DVD and enjoy.( Elaine Cassidy is just great in this.. gorgeous in fact.... i have to declare i am in her fan club... Hi Elaine : ) Wow! Where to start?

This adaptation of Sarah Waters' third novel is one of my all-time favorite movies!!!!!

I'm not to big on fiction novels (seriously I NEVER read fiction), but the book is just as FABULOUS as the film! Or should I say the film is just as FABULOUS as the book?! I JUST LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!

Anyway, I put off watching this three hour long film (2 part series on DVD, 3 part series on TV/book) for about a year and half. It simply did not look that interesting...BOY WAS I SO WRONG!

I became immediately immersed into the rich and suspenseful plot...utterly enthralled! Just like the book, you cannot stop watching/reading. It grasps your attention for the entire 3 hours...and when it does end...you wish it hadn't.

The story just flows so beautifully and you'll be wondering where the time went.

The lesbian subplot was just icing on the cake! The parts I love most are the subtle facial expressions and glances/eye contact between the two characters. You really feel their desire for one another and yet they cannot act upon it.....until they must.

May I point out that the "lesbian theme" is an important part of the film, obviously, at the heart of the film is a genuine unexpected love story, but it is most certainly not what the whole movie is about. For me that's what makes this story so unique and intriguing. I've never read or heard of anything like it. Sarah Waters is pure genius!

The twists and turns it takes leaves you hanging on the edge of your seat. Seriously! My hands were clasped on to my couch with every surprising plot twist and I even yelled out several times ("OH MY GOD! NO WAY! THAT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN! DID IT?")...I NEVER do that!

The only negative thing I have to say about this film is that I wish they'd added more from the book. But obviously having the adaptation be restricted by time they couldn't add everything that I would've liked. How awful it is though...I think I'm just being brutally selfish now...forgive me.

The last 20 minutes does seem a little rushed. However, they put all the important bits in where even if you only watch the film and choose not to read the book you will be most satisfied with the outcome.

The actors are just SUPERB! BRILLIANT even! Sally Hawkins (Sue) and Elaine Cassidy (Maud) have such great on screen chemistry they steam up your television set. Simply electric! The emotions...the desperation...the struggle each of them feel is expressed seemingly effortless by these wonderfully talented actresses. Rupert Evans plays such a good bad guy as Gentleman. I found myself seething every time he came on screen, but loving it because he's just so damn cute and somehow still charming even though you want to wring his neck. Imelda Staunton gives yet another fantastic performance as Mrs. Sucksby. She's such a warmhearted actress you cannot help but love her...even when the character she's playing isn't as delightful. Everyone else in the cast were perfect! They really represented the characters well and were just as I imagined them to be after reading the book.

This is a must see for any film buff! Actually, ANYONE and EVERYONE should see this movie AND read the book! Chances are you won't be disappointed!

10/10 stars from me! There are only four other films I have given that same rating too. Its very rare for me to actually enjoy a film so much that I give it 10/10. This is one of those films. Fingersmith is truly a masterpiece! I'm not exactly sure why I ordered "Fingersmith" from Netflix -- probably, because I enjoy BBC dramas, it was on a list of recommendations. I had no idea what I was about to see. The plot, which I will only describe in general so as not to spoil it for anyone who will see it after reading my review, has more twists and turns than a mountain road in the Rockies, of the sort that customarily appear in "caper" movies. They are very unusual in a period drama. Not having read the novel (and I do not intend to do so), I was totally unprepared for the surprise that ends the first segment on the DVD and equally surprised by the subsequent twists and turns. Nonetheless, it is extremely well acted by the two young principals (by Sally Hawkins,in particular, as Sue and by Elaine Cassidy as Maud) and, in key supporting roles, by Imelda Staunton as the mother figure in a house of thieves and by Charles Dance as the rich uncle who collects pornographic materials and who rescues young Maud from the mad house where her mother lived to be his secretary. The lesbian affair between Maud and Sue is the "big news" in the movie, but really not its centerpiece. The centerpiece is a plot to steal the fortune that Maud is due on her 21st birthday. The turns and twists in the plot add tension, though not much credibility, to the movie. However, no viewer is likely to doubt that Maud and Sue will somehow end up together -- improbably -- as the credits roll. Although one has been raised as a ady, and serves a collector of pornography, and the other is a pickpocket posing as a lady's maid, the author obviously means for them to live together in the end. It's a bit difficult to swallow, since each has conspired to cheat the other. Despite these reservations, I liked movie well enough. It does not quite deserve the praise that others have lavished on it. The most fearsome and interesting scenes take place inside the madhouse where one of the two young women has been confined until she is able to escape and return to London to bring the story to its unexpected conclusion. Sally Hawkins (Sue) is a very impressive young actress, able to convey her character's cascading and changing emotions with her facial expressions and her eyes. No doubt we'll see more of her. I certainly hope so. The story was well plotted and interesting by itself. However, it is difficult for me to write the review of this film without spoiling you. To avoid that, I am not going to talking the story here.

I regard this film as a good adaption of Sarah Water's book, as compared with the previous one "Tipping the velvet". I read the book first and then watched the DVD later. The film did retain most of spirits of the main characters in the book. Of course, due to the time limitation, the film in the last 30 min seemed to be in a rush to cover the part III of the book. Therefore, it couldn't illustrate well the scene when they all met in the the kitchen of Mr. Ibbs's place and those after that (even the book seemed to me to be a rush on that kitchen scene). Despite that, the film actually did a good job in representing the story. It really worth watching. It's still unclear when BBC-America can broadcast this film. That's pity.

PS: noticed that the ages of Maud and Sue were set to be 20-21 instead of 17-18 in the book; the latter is more reasonable while the former is more close to the ages of actresses. London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby (Imelda Staunton).

One evening, Richard "The Gentleman" Rivers (Rupert Evans) pays them a visit.

Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy).

Susan agrees to help for a cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid.

Upon arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life.

As the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship with the lady of the house.

Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters. After watching Tipping the Velvet by Sarah waters i decided to watch Fingersmith, the characters were just as good in both performances, though missing Rachael Stirling in the adaptation of Fingersmith.

The story line overall was of a good choice, the twisting and the unravelling of the characters were amazing! Excellent watch only missing Rachael Stirling!

If you do enjoy the romance of two girls this isn't one of the best films to watch.

It takes on a different spin from Tipping The Velvet but just as good.

Would recommend it to everyone! I have never read Sarah Water's book. Although I have not read the book, the 3 hour movie is very interesting. It begins with an interesting storyline with a twisted ending. I have to say these 2 actresses are amazing. Sally Hawkins is stunning successfully portrayed the character in love with her mistress and betrayed by her love. Their romance slowly blossoms as they spend more and more time together. The love making scene is very tender and emotional, well acted. The end is quite intriguing and these 2 ended up together after all they have been thru, which is a bless. Overall, it is a great movie to see, a very interesting plot with excellent performances. I watched this series after Tipping the Velvet, for which I gave 10/10 grade. I had read user comments on this and I expected an equally good series, or if possible, even better. At this point I must emphasize that this series is good, and it definitely captured me throughout it and thus worth watching. However, I didn't enjoy it as much as Tipping the Velvet, for the following reasons:

1. Less passion, love, and related sexual content. There were surprisingly little emphasis in these elements, which I held integral for a love story. Fingersmith felt like a watered down version of Tipping the Velvet.

2. Similarly, as in Tipping the Velvet, the story had three parts: the beginning, a shocking second part, and the ending. The second part should have been the climax of the story (as in Tipping the Velvet), but instead it was almost totally skipped, perhaps due to inability to make shocking but believable asylum content. The series should have been in three parts, featuring two cliffhangers, with a lot more focus on the second part.

3. Almost no weight was given to what Fingersmiths were and how it affected their personalities. I found it rather annoying that the series did not properly address such central topic.

4. The ending was much more hasty than in Tipping the Velvet. Fingersmith left several interesting plot lines open.

Despite these shortcomings, Fingersmith is a good series, and well worth 7/10. However, it is not a classic like Tipping the Velvet. This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags. My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10 What a great movie this is. I found it full of the delightfully unexpected pain of being a single father of a teenage girl. And it is set in a tropical island 'paradise'as well.

Gerard Depardeiux brings his special European flair to this story about a divorced father of a teenage girl. They are on holiday together and she begins to add to the excitement on the island in many unexpected ways. But you will need to see the film for yourself to see all the hilarious situations they find for themselves.

There are a few cult classics which all teens should see. This movie should be added to the list. In addition to Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Rocky Horror Picture Show and Animal House, My Father the Hero should be required film study. Watch it as if you had a teenage daughter and you'll be rolling with laughter. Watch it with your teenage daughter and prepare to be laughed at for months. I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.

In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover. MY Father the hero is sweet, funny and cute. Gerard Depardiu is awesome as Andre, a divorced father who takes his fourteen year old daughter Nicole(Kathrine Heigl) to the Caribbean for vacation.While there, his daughter meets a guy named Ben(Dalton James. To impress him, she tells him that Andre is her lover and that her father is in jail for armed robbery and her mother is a prostitute and that she ran off with her pimp. Everyone on the island is soon under the impression that Andre's a child molester. Andre is between two relationships. One with Isabelle(Emma Thompson, who makes a cameo in the end of the film) and Diana(Faith Prince from Spin City). My father the Hero has many funny moments. Like when he's at a talent show and everyone tells him to play something french. So he plays "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" from Gigi. Everyone gets disgusted and leaves. My Father the Hero doesn't deserve a 5.1. I think it deserves a 9.0. I have a problem with the movie snobs who consider Americans to be uncouth semi - literates unable to appreciate the subtlety of the more sophisticated Europeans,les Francais,les Italiens...just about anybody from le continong to whom English is a foreign language.If the humour in "My Father the Hero" is different from that in "Mon Pere ce heros" it is because the French sense of humour is different from that of the American.Not better,not "more clever",just different. If you think it is crass for Hollywood to "borrow" from the French cinema just consider how much the French cinema has borrowed from Hollywood in the first place.Where would Belmondo and Delon have been without Bogart?Truffaut without Hitchcock?Jerry Lewis - not known for his subtle and cerebral style is idolised in France.Go figure........ Monsieur Depardieu is exceptionally good as the hapless divorced father of a precocious 14 year old daughter on holiday in the Bahamas together. Unbeknowst to him,she presents him to the other people at the hotel as her lover so as to make herself more interesting to a boy she has her eye on .Not surprisingly,complications ensue. There are "hommages" to "Green Card" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" amusingly inserted and M.Depardieu goes along with it all very good - naturedly. He does a good Maurice Chevaler impression with "Thank Heaven for little girls" which is in fact funny and rather poignant as his audience,all of whom believe him to be the lover of a 14 year old girl,get up and leave two - by - two as he warbles away,blissfully unaware of what is happening.When he turns round at the end of the song to acknowledge the expected applause the expression on his face is priceless. Without him the movie would be very average indeed.With his huge shambling figure dominating the screen it is a lot of fun.No pecs,no six pack - just a real proper human - type being.Formidable! This is another case of Hollywood Arrogance presuming to eclipse French Style. The original, Mon Pere ce heros, was one of the most charming films of 1991 so naturally the accountants in Hollywood thought they could hire Depardieu and phone the rest in. They did, however, take the precaution of hiring Francis Veber to write an English version albeit one utilising virtually every word of the original. Depardieu brings his Gallic charm and Katherine Heigl shows all the promise that is now paying off. The thing is that when the French make a sort of Lolita-lite they get away with it because the 'dirty French postcard' thinking works in their favour; here the Hollywood idea of lightweight subtlety is to have Depardieu (totally unaware that his daughter has let it be known he is actually her lover), prevailed upon to play and song 'something French', launch into a spirited version of Thank Heaven For Little Girls. See the original. This is one of my favourite movies EVER... I have seen it about a million times and would never turn down the opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I love it so much that I REALLY wanted to check out the resort where it was filmed on my upcoming vacation... does anyone know the name of it? If so, please email me!!! I watched this movie for the first time when it was first released and I was about Nikki's age and for the longest time I bugged my dad to take me to away somewhere because of course I expected the same thing to happen to me! It's just such an amazing setting and such a cute puppy-love story. This is a definite DVD collector's must! This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber troll that was better looking than him, come on! This is one of the best romantic movies I have ever seen. Especially girls who can identify with Nicole will love it(not only because of the handsome Dalton James) I also liked the music very much. A highlight was land of the sea and sun from baha-man. So watch the movie and enjoy it this is one of my all time favourite films. its one of those films where i know every line but can still watch it repeatedly without losing interest. i always throw on this film if I'm going on holiday, or if i don't want to go to the gym, just seeing Nikki's gorgeous body will give me the motivation i need. Its an easy to watch film which always keeps me smiling but i know it wont be everyones cup of tea, but if like me you love films that are shot beautifully and have comedy, romance and an interesting plot you will love it. It is filled with great characters and Ben and Nikki are both gorgeous so anyone can stare at something appealing. BOTTOM LINE......YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT A TRY! I watched it on TV one day by fluke and loved it that i had to go out and track it down which took some time and i could watch it everyday. MY FATHER THE HERO I LOVE YOU!!! I love this film, it is excellent and so funny, Ben is FIT and i wouldn't mind meeting him on holiday!! I rate this film a 10 because its gr8 and i hope they never re make it because it would never be the same. Funny bit is wen Andre is looking at the moon,and he shouts at Nicole to 'come outside and look at the moon' that bit always makes me laugh and never gets old. Another thing is Nicole looks a lot older then 14... but shes a gr8 actress. But i need help with something Does n e 1 no the name of the song played at the end wen Nicole and Andre are dancing??? Its really bugging me because i want 2 no what it is because its a nice song!! It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is supper funny and really sweet. I can honestly tell you that this movie is the most awesome movie ever!!! If you are in the mood for a comedy, I totally recommend this movie! So, here's the summary. There is this girl(Nikki) who is fourteen and a half and she goes on a vacation with her father(Andre) whom she hasn't seen for about two years. She expects the vacation to be totally boring, until she meets this boy(Ben), who is much older than she is. So, to try to impress him she says that she isn't on vacation with her father, but her lover. This is a hysterical movie from beginning to end, and I highly suggest it. So rent it and enjoy!!! At first it seems the topical romance movie where a girl meets a boy and fall in love, but the point is that this movie has a feeling others don't have.The first time i saw it i couldn't see it complete because i had to leave.But while i was walking along i thought i must see it again but i didn't have any opportunity by then.One year went by until i saw this movie in a not-free channel and i saw it and i recorded it too.I saw it once,twice...until 200 times and not kidding.I did know all the dialogues by hart and i don't know why but i saw it everyday and never got bored.And i have to say that I'm not used to see a movie more than twice.The act is very good.Gerard Depardieu is a talented actor and katherine heigl too.I would like her to be in a good movie because i think she can do it.On balance,it's a movie i can't take out of my mind. Perhaps the best movie ever made by director Kevin Tenney (well, his Witchboard is not on the top of my all-time horror list), this one is a strange, fascinating mixture between Pin and Child's Play, both better than this one, but not so better. Sure, the plot is contrived and perhaps too predictable, but the actors are good, Rosalind Allen is very pleasant to the eye (and so is Candance McKenzie - God bless her for the shower scene!), the child actress is very good in interpreting the disturbed daughter and the Pinocchio puppet is scary enough to give you a few thrills down the spine. For a B-movie not bad at all. this movie is the best horror movie i have ever seen. the acting is terrible and the plot leaves a lot to be desired but the puppet gave me nightmares for weeks. seriously, if you have little kids don't let them see this. of course i am a little biased because of an irrational fear of puppets and midgets. also a body double cameo by the guy who does mini me verne troyer. and some gratuitous nudity, a must in any low budget horror movie. all other horror movies will forever be judged against this in my book. I know what you're saying, "Oh man, Pinochio is not scary!" but this movie goes beyond alot more than a maniacal pinochio. Behind it tells the story of a mother and her daughter who is oddly attached to her doll Pinnochio who seems to talk to her. The only weird thing is that noone else can hear the doll except her. In the end is shocking revelation that, as did I, will shock you. Watch it. Give it a try. (This review contains a huge spoiler, but I don't know how to explain how cool it is without giving it away) I saw "pinoccio's Revenge" a while ago.

Now, you might think it's just a rip-off of Child's play. Indeed there are similarities.

However, Chucky was a possessed doll who works independently of the kid. It is POSSIBLE that Pinoccio is possessed with a demon or cursed or something. however, the puppet itself is actually completely inanimate. The KID is insane, and THE KID is the one killing people! Everyone, including the audience, the survivors and the Kid herself thinks it's the doll. But it's the KID.

The nudity is almost a pity, because otherwise I could tell everyone to see it, because it really is an interesting horror movie. What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.

The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8/10!!! The comments of the previous user are harsh indeed. One wonders if they have even seen this beautiful sweet film. As for being so nasty about it in front of the writer/director..well thats just plain rude! For those who grew up in the eighties, it is an artful piece of nostalgia and a sweet story well acted and produced. Irish film-making sure has a lot of bitter angry people involved with it and the spleen venting comment made about this is evidence of it.. As people we have a choice; give out and moan about the people who actually go out there and make stuff or make something yourself.. I know which one is easier... Do yourself a favour and watch this film and see how a short film is made... you won't be disappointed I saw this at The Tribeca Film Festival, in the family section. I'm not sure either of my kids really got the movie, but I have to say that it was a wonderful short film.

'Nostradamus and Me' is an interesting short film about the hopes and fears that we all felt growing up in the 1980's, which in turn, extends to how my kids feel today. Then, we had Regan, today, we got Bush. Instead of Nuclear War, we have Terrorism.

I really identified with the main character, and I myself dated a 'Curehead' in high school. We all felt like 'nothing mattered' when we were 16, but it's great to see a film where they discover that everything matters!!!

Again, I probably wouldn't have put this in the family section...there were a few too many curse words for younger children, but it was a wonderful and enjoyable film to watch. I saw this film at the Galway Film Fleadh the year it won best short film. I have to say that i thought the direction was fantastic and the performances from the key cast members were very memorable. Both of the main cast are definitely names to watch out for.

The final shot over the cliff was mesmerizing and i for one would like to find myself there if i was waiting for the end of the world to happen. The kiss was definitely a great payoff, done with great enthusiasm's!!

I can only assume that the film was shot on film, and i have heard that the DOP won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival for his work on this film and i must say.... well deserved.

I would recommend this film to anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. It brought back some great memories and some scary ones. This is absolutely the best 80s cartoon ever, maybe the best cartoon of all time. It had everything action, adventure, thrill, and much more...

I can't imagine how hard it was for Ruby-Spears company to make this great cartoon, there has been spent a lot of money for this masterpiece of work and it was worth it, for example just the beaming down scenes were hard because I wouldn't call the 1980s for a great technology year with computers like now in the world we live in so the beaming down scenes were excellent!

The cartoons will never be the same as they were before, that is why I hope that they all will be released on DVD specially The Centurions as it's my favorite. I have the whole complete set of 65 episodes on DVD-r but it's not the same because if they were released on DVD the people in the world would be able to buy it and see the DVD's in almost every store which means a lot to the fans. My good friend Ted made this petition to either get the show back on TV or better on DVD, that is if we get many requests to get them back on DVD.

So please help us by signing the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition online that is at the website address Http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html that originally was trying to get this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations. Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling "Power Extreme!" I had such high hopes for Teletoon Retro to air this but instead of having shows such as this, ones that don't get the treatment that they deserve, they air things that I may have seen dozens of times before.

The Centurions was the highlight of my pre-teen years. I know that may seem a little bit clichéd but it's true. After Duke from G.I. Joe, Jake Rockewell is another one of those cartoon characters that I really had a crush on.

It's too bad that Teletoon Retro doesn't see it the same way people of my generation do. Otherwise Teletoon Retro would be a lot better than it is. "Children of wax" also shown as "Killing grounds" is an interesting mixture of genres. Some might think the purity of the genre can be only for good but to me the eclectic symbioses is very entertaining. It is also in it's story the mixture of thriller and the popular action as well as the combination of the historic masterpiece and the ethnic plea for tolerance. This film is built with the starry presence of my favorite actor the perfect Armand Assante but it is also marked by the acting of a shooting star – Hal Ozan .We have recently seen him in the TV series on HBO called "Sex" . "Children of wax" is entertainment for the audience but the same time it has an everlasting moral for the ethnic tolerance. This is a wise way to seminate welfare. Discussion on the contemporary troubles of our days can be made with attractive means in this is very positive side of the film "Children of wax". This film is a very descent remake of the famous Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M- Murder".It is well made and with a entertaining key to speak about pretty serious events and contemporary problems in Eurobe but not only the whole world.The ethnic intolerance is such a huge evil and very contagions nowadays. So "Children of Wax" or as it is known in US distribution reveals the question of German and Turk hatred in an amusing way.No doubt it is well appreciated to be taken for distribution by the great Weinsten brothers.And there is another fact I liked most is the participation in this movie of the favorite actor of Lars von Trier the great Udo Kier who shows to play with such a pleasure for the Bulgarian film director Ivan Nichev. Brilliant work. Marvelous actors dissolve as brave and courageous characters .All unforgettable parts in a more than intriguing and capturing action –thriller. The casting is perfect. Both from the side of the stars like :Armand Asante, Bernhardt, Kier ,Denier. But as well for new faces .I was very impressed by the young actor who plays the boy gang member- Mustafa. You trust each one from the Turkish gang. Very convincing is Michael Barral and all white power followers. I admire the music beat of the main theme of "Children of Wax".This sound track is a charming mixture of Turkish, hard rock and Udo Kier's humming… And in the same time Children of Wax "a tale focusing on racial conflicts .The intolerance and brutality between the skinheads and the Turks. This BBC version of an Agatha Christie book shows the pitfalls of following a book too closely. Christie's books tend to move at a gentle, sometimes even sedate pace, and "Evans" is one that certainly does. It also has a solid school of red herrings to confuse the plot. This version is extremely faithful to the book, which results in a very slow, involved story. As a Christie fan, I gave it 7 stars, but it takes 3 hours to make its way through a relatively action-free story. I appreciate some of the tightening of plots that the BBC did for its later Christie productions much more.

In the end, this movie is a leisurely pleasure, highlighted by the breathy waif Francesca Annis who brings considerable charisma to her role and plays off James Warwick very well. I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" stores, and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories. Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those stories onto Channel 13.

The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero (John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts looking into silencing the two amateur detectives.

It's not a bad film, although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair surprise later on.

But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together, and what the villain's motivations were.

Except for that and the lengthy time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a sudden renaissance in films based on her novels. Great adaptation of the Christie novel. Surprising attention to authentic period details for the time (Many films of the mid-1970s-early 80s that try to do 1920s-early 30s look far too mid-70s-early 80s for my liking, so expected the worst here, and was gladly proved wrong)The costumes and sets are very well done. I liked this production very much – largely due to the adorable Francesca Annis' portrayal of a carefree bright young Lady "Frankie" and James Warwick's charming Bobbie. The pair would go on to portray Christie's Tommy & Tuppence, which is funny as some contemporary book critics compared Frankie and Bobby to her earlier characters of Tommy & Tuppence. The supporting characters were equally well done – the over the top Mrs. Rivington (acted by Miss Marple-to-be Joan H.) and "Badger" is played perfectly as the post WWI, "Bertie Wooster type." Unfortunately this original mix of action and laughs is kept from cinema fans as it sits rotting in the Columbia vaults for all eternity. A shame since this may be Jack Starrett's strongest film and features a witty script by a young Terrence Malick and fully realized performances by its two leads Stacey Keach and Frederic Forrest who turn to a life of crime so they can get the money to open a seafood restaurant. Many standout scenes include interrogation by bathtub and electric razor, and an intense shootout in an abandoned building as it's being torn down by a wrecking ball! This interesting lost film (written by Terence Malick) stars Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest as two wacky, Southern brothers on a quest to open a seafood restaurant. Margot Kidder was never prettier and Forrest should have been nominated. Originally titled The Dion Brothers, this light-hearted flick with a violent ending is a pure joy!

Where is this film? I've been searching for it for 30 years. Keach was still great back then and I'm surprised it doesn't have more of a cult following (maybe it does). These guys are a crack-up with more ambition than brains, but totally lovable dudes!. A 7 out of 10. If you can dig it up somewhere, you'll have fun. Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular theme of films this night was "Neglected 70's Crime Films" and boy was her right. "The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)" was an absolute gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope they have it. I happened to catch about the last 45 minutes of the movie,late night about 8 years ago. What a wild and funny 45 minutes.I was absolutely knocked out by chase-shoot-out at the end that takes place at night ,inside an old hotel that's being torn down with a wrecking ball....Incredible. I vaguely remember Stacy Keach ,stealing a cop car, faking being a cop and strong arming some winos....Wino to Keach"Hey,why Ya hasslin us?...Keach"It's my job".You're correct. They don't make them like that anymore.Great movie. The golden70's...Hopefully it will see the light of day as a DVD along with other lost treasures...Hickey and Boggs being one such. I managed to record THE DION BROTHERS, off broadcast TV, (with the commercials), back in the early 80s. I've loaned it to many friends, all of whom agree it's one of the best B "bandit" movies ever made. One day, while walking to my NYC apartment, I saw Stacy Keach shooting a scene for his TV series, Mickey Spilane. We had a moment to chat, and I told him how much I enjoyed THE DION BROS, and considered it a pure classic. He thanked me, and said it was one of the best, and most memorable film experiences of his career. He was very friendly, and sincere, and I was grateful for the few moments he took to chat with a fan. This is one classic that needs to be on DVD. Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive, that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think "dying lines" are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it and see it. You won't be sorry. These immortal lines begin The Jack Starret directed masterpiece,'The Dion Brothers'. The plot centers around two blue collar West Virginian brothers (Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest) who commit robberies in hopes of using the money to open a seafood restaurant!!? What follows is quite an adventure, and many comedic events ensue. The action scenes are all top notch and consist of some nicely realized shootouts. The latter of which is absolutely amazing and occurs in an abandoned building being demolished by a wrecking ball! The film was written by now famous director Terrence Malick and features an early appearance by Margot Kidder. All in all, an excellent hidden gem of the 70s and easily one of the finest action/comedy hybrids every made. Hopefully it gets a decent widescreen DVD release soon. I've tried to remember the name of this movie for years and years. Finally, read something today, 03/09/2005, that mentioned Stacy Keach's name, and it reminded me that I had seen a movie that he was in in 1974 at the Atlanta Film Festival, so, I did a Google search for Keach's movies and found The Gravy Train. We were supposed to see Duddy Kravitz at the film festival, but for some reason they were unable to show it, and instead substituted The Gravy Train. We were terribly disappointed that we weren't going to be able to see the much hyped Duddy Kravitz, and had heard nothing of The Gravy Train, and have heard nothing of it since.

However, I recall we were pleasantly surprised at how good the movie was, and as I recall, it was quite humorous. Would love to find it on tape. Nothing great here but a nicely acted story about an abused deaf wife (Fonda) of a small time crook (Bochner)who gets involved with one of her husband's plans and his mistress. Sutherland and Weber are cops drawn into what turns out to be a unmysterious murder investigation and the story just flows along. excellent drama. very dark. i have never seen california photographed in such a way. bridget fonda as the deaf wife beaten by her husband is superb. the film gripped me from start to finish. very understated performance by sutherland. the direction was very european. amazing to get such a performance from fonda. Bridget Fonda has disappointed me several times over the years, but she had my attention in BREAK UP. It's true the story is missing critical details in several places, but I just kept scrutinizing Fonda for clues about what was meaningful in the story and she didn't let me down. The look in her eyes in the last scene, as she musters up courage to, literally, put one foot in front of the other toward her uncertain future is one of the most dramatic and significant examples of face acting ever. I believed her completely, possibly because I've known and admired several "tough broads" who survived similar abusive situations. And they did this without becoming man-haters, but that's my own hopeful projection of Fonda's character at the BREAK UP. I adore the Ln Chaney version of "Phantom" and I appreciate Webber's version if only for the growing interest in the book, wish I find more of a mystery slash horror with the romantic aspects downplayed. I don't approve of the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber made the relationship between Raoul and Christine less restrained.

Luckily since this is a comedic short with only Erik and Christine this version doesn't even have to bother with any other characters.

I thought I would still be waiting for another version to match up Lon's performance. I was dead wrong. Leslie Nielson is fabulous as Erik though, of course this is a spoof. It's still brilliant.

I especially appreciated the fact that Erik looked more like a living corpse than an accident victim. I still have as of yet to see a Phantom like that, other than Lon's.

However, I do not recommend this short if you don't like spoofs. Because this is in no way supposed to be taken seriously. I was never all that impressed by Night Gallery, but this one episode stands out.

A TV network executive auditions an odd act - a young, nerdy boy who proceeds to make prognostications. The exec dismisses the whole thing as a flaky waste of time until both predictions come true the next morning.

What first seemed a parlor act becomes a hit show as the kid's predictions prove consistently accurate.

Then, one day, he refuses to do the show. Facing imminent showtime, everyone's at wit's end, even threatening him with legal action if he doesn't fulfill his contract and make his daily predictions.

The young boy relents, and foretells a seemingly utopian tomorrow.

After the show, the befuddled executive asks for an explanation, only to learn why the complete truth is too terrifying to reveal. When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise) ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight (at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad. But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years. This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT! This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and how hard people work to overcome their limitations. Now, I've seen many many B-grade films in my 15 years of living, and I must say that this was one of the better ones. I personally enjoyed the real estate and the storyline, but it did suffer from amateur acting (although Adrienne Barbeau did give a decent performance as Lisa Grant). Joseph Bottoms couldn't hold his part well enough to be considered good. The other performance which really fit the film was that of Barry Hope (Barney Resnick). It begins with an eager real estate agent taking an Asian couple through a house, only to find there's a dead girl in the shower of the showhome. It progresses with detective speculating, and introduces the key characters with reasonable grace. I think that for any person who's in for a giggle at the over-the-top drama the victim realtors provide during the over-the-top gory scenes, this truly is a gem... XD Who am I kidding? It's not that great, but worth a watch if you're insanely bored. I don't see why everyone is bombing this so much. I thought it was a great fun time that sadly wasn't popular enough to be that famous. Believe me I have seen much much worse than this. If you want a bad movie see blood shack or the alien dead or something. So what this is normal slasher fare but better than most. And it is watchable. This movie also has one of the best soundtracks I've heard. Some of the music is very suspenseful. And the death scenes are cool too. We see a very bloody body in a bathtub with the words SOLD written in blood on the mirror, and we also get a cool double beating by a toilet plunger! with razors attached to it! This was a good fun 80s slasher that's definitely worth your time despite what others say about it. It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract.

But all in all it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line "How do think animals feel when we experiment on them".

The concept of "lost time" was also thought provoking. I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very end.

Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien. This movie will undoubtably not go over well with some, because most of the horror is mental. But it does have a little something for almost everyone, including a couple of really cool abduction scenes with aliens. The film makes extensive use of alien abduction mythology, while also showing a bit more intelligence about some facets of abduction myths than you would expect out of a movie. Jillian McWhirter is excellent in what had to have been a grueling performance. An odd beam of light penetrates the bedroom of Dr. Craig Burton(Arnold Vosloo)and his wife Sherry(Jillian McWhirter)as they are making love. About two hours are unaccounted for as they embrace seemingly unharmed. Under hypnosis during a session with psychiatrist Dr. Susan Lamarche(Lindsay Crouse), Craig discovers that his wife was impregnated by aliens. Sherry resists this notion as absurd and is quite happy to relay news to her husband that she is indeed pregnant. Ecstatic after their trying for ages to get pregnant, Sherry is frightened at Craig's persistence of the fetus not being his..this stems from a check on his low sperm count with odds especially high that he could in no way have impregnated his wife. Awkward, troubling experiences with the fetus inside her leads Sherry to some scary discoveries..her doctor, David Wetherly(Wilford Brimley)finds that the ultra-sound gives some unusual results of the developing infant's appearance, but it's Craig who notices that it resembles an alien! Sparks ignite cutting out the electrical equipment, even shutting off Wetherly's pacemaker! Through hypnosis, Sherry reveals the experience of her abduction, but Lamarche believes her problem is psychological not physiological. With no one believing his wife's alien impregnation theory, Craig turns to sociologist Dr. Bert Clavell(Brad Dourif), whose work is in the studies of alien life and abduction. But, Bert is reluctant to help Craig who will go to the ends of the earth to save his wife's life from possible harm. Tragic results occur as Lamarche and others try to keep Craig from his goals of "cutting the thing out" believing he is mad. Craig will still pursue his task trying to drag Bert down this path with him.

Grim, absorbing horror tale about one man's struggle to save his wife from the harm of beings no one else believes exist. Thankfully, Dourif's character isn't some quack nutjob but an intelligent doctor who wishes to learn more, but his pursuit of the truth of aliens isn't hostile..he does hope to learn from Sherry, but isn't incredibly demanding in this goal. The story is told realistically..it's easy to understand why others might deem Craig off-his-rocker. Vosloo doesn't take the character too far, but expresses the distress of his current situation. How can he save his wife from this hostiles and prove to others that he's not nuts? McWhirter deserves credit for the demands of the difficult abduction scenes where her unfortunate character is naked on this table being probed and molested by these things. Crouse is fine in her limited, but important role as the voice of reason in a situation where her clients seem out of control psychologically. The monster effects are icky and effective. I think the film works quite well and director Yuzna deserves credit for restraining himself for this film at least. The final twenty minutes as Craig tries to perform his "removal surgery" with a scared Bert watching the crazy situation escalate is nail-biting.

You know, fans of "Fire in the Sky" might dig this flick. <-----Minor Spoilers!----->

A woman gets pregnant, but not by her husband. She develops 'something' inside her, or at least thats what her husband thinks. They go through a lot of hard times, while she is on the brink of a nervous breakdown. The husband contacts an UFO professor, and with his help they try to find out what is wrong with her.

<-----Minor Spoilers!---->

The story could have been a bit better, or at least be made less predictable, but the movie is catchy and it got me and my sister hooked through the entire movie without a problem. The acting is very good, and the filming is much better than normal, if you compare this to your normal b-alien movie. The effects are good, and something is happening every second of the movie. The characters are really likable, and apart from a stupid nurse in oné scene, they are all very convincing in their roles.

I thought it was a good movie, and can recommend it, if you like alien/monster-abduction movies!

7/10 - The story could have been a bit less predictable. First, let me review the movie. This movie creeps me out, and I don't even believe in aliens! However, the movie has its flaws.

There are three acts to this movie. Act One is perfect. It sets up the movie, and really builds up the creep factor. I must say the score is great! Everything is set up and it's set up perfectly.

Act Two begins when Jillian, playing Sherry Burton, goes to the shrink. They hypnotize her, and she recalls the abduction. Act Two ruins the film when the aliens show up. "Screaming Mad George" did the effects for the aliens. I must say they did a good job, except with their depiction of the "Gray" aliens. No offense, but the Grays looked like inflatable door prizes.

On a side note, I liked how they treated hypnosis in Acts One and Two. If you paid attention, you would notice that the husband and wife had two different memories. In the husband's version of events, the blue light zaps them and his wife says, "Somebody's here," or something like it. It makes sense. The husband is concerned for his wife. "Someone" may hurt her. That's his issue. However in her version of events, she says, "Help me!" She does not say "Somebody's here." This also makes sense. The aliens are after her. Wanting her husband to help and save her is her issue. Now back to the film.

Act Three turns the film into a gore fest. It begins with a "strange" ultrasound procedure. It's a typical gore fest, but it does have a surprise ending. I won't ruin it because it's actually an interesting development.

The DVD and commentaries takes itself too seriously, but if you think Wilford Brimley saying "Horsesh**" is funny, you might want to check it out in the cast interviews section. Now on to my praise of Jillian McWhirter.

I could only hope Jillian will read this. I had never seen her before, but wow, what a performance! Let me tell the rest of you this. First of all, this is supposed to be a serious film. The details I will now describe may sound campy and fun, like "Humanoids From The Deep" (1980), but it really isn't. Got that? Okay.

Jillian is hot, naturally good-looking. She is naked for a lot of the film, a good thing. Unfortunately, she is usually being assaulted, terrorized, and raped, a very bad thing. However, she must act in a lot of this film naked. She gets points for overcoming that. She has to act happy, sad, horny, afraid, and physically hurt all in the span of a few moments. The turnaround of emotion is astounding! She has to cheer for joy when she learns she's pregnant. She has to scream in terror when the aliens take out her guts. She has to act very angry when her husband suggests that the baby isn't his. She has to act like she's in denial, saying nothing is wrong with her baby, when her husband says otherwise. A denial, I should note, that is really forced upon her by the aliens controlling her. I am talking Oscar-caliber performance here!

Then there is the rape scene. It's disturbing, but since it's just some rubber alien, it's not too bad. In this scene, the alien is not a "Gray" alien, so I will describe it. The alien has tentacles, and it's kind of like a table. Jillian is on the table-like part, restrained by the tentacles. By her head is the alien's head. The alien's head is long, and it flips down so that its head is now above Jillian's legs. Then, the alien's hey-nanu-nanu comes out of his forehead. It's forehead! Sounds pretty campy, right? Well, Jillian plays it straight, and she pulls it off! She has to act like an alien with its hey-nanu-nanu coming from its forehead is raping her, and she pulls it off! It's a very intense scene, but that's not what makes it. You see, this scene is done in a flashback. What makes the scene is Jillian's performance recalling these events. She is just lying in a hospital bed under hypnosis recalling the alien abduction, but her acting here is more intense than the actual rape scene! How many actors can pull off a performance in a scene that describes a rape that is more intense than the scene with the rape? Not many! However, Jillian does it.

I could go on and on. Jillian, if you ever read this, I want you to know that I, (name withheld) alias of MegamanX-1, believe you are the best actress ever. You are the best actress ever! I could only hope you read this and take it with you always.

As for everyone else, "Progeny" (1999) is an Okay to Good film. I would recommend it. Progeny is about a husband and wife who experience time loss while making love. Completely unaware of what this bizarre experience means they try to go on with their lives. The hubby begins questioning the bizarre event and gets help through a very annoying psychiatrist. He comes to believe that aliens are responsible for this lapse in time and that the unborn baby he once thought was his and his wife's actually belongs to the aliens.

If ya ask me, this is a great scifi/horror story. Taking a highly questionable real-life scenario involving alien abduction and hybrid breeding is definite thumbs up from this guy. I love all things related to aliens and this story definitely delivered some good ideas. So if you also share an interest in things extraterrestrial, you should be pretty happy with Progeny. At least story-wise anyways.

Unfortunately the movie overall is pretty average. With average acting by all actors. Yep, even by the consistently awesome Mr. Dourif, who still does deliver the best performance. Though the black head doctor, delivers his lines really well. There are a few points in the flick where some of the delivery is cringe or laugh worthy, which is fine in my book. I like them cheesy and this had a little bit of some nice stinky cheese, and I mean that in a good way.

Anyways, with a less than stellar script you can't really blame all the actors. I especially didn't care for the Mother Hysteria the film went for. She wanted a baby so badly that she'd neglect and dismiss everything her loving husband (who's a doctor!!) said to her. It almost reached a point where you actually didn't care what happened to her.

The Progeny is another flick by Brian Yuzna from the icky-sticky film, Society. Again he delivers some slimy effects, and again he delivers a pretty unique tale of horror. If you're into scifi/horror or are a fan of Dourif and or Yuzna films, there's no real reason not to check out this flick if you get the chance. A generous 7 outta 10. I've taken another look at this film and still consider it pretty good. Chloe is one of the few hardcore stars who really can act. She appears occasionally in soft core such as "Body of Love" and "Lady Chatterly's Stories" on Showtime. I thought Nicole Hilbig did OK too with her nice body and charming accent. Too bad she's not in more films. Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).

The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched "Pleasures of Sin" because of the high amounts of sex.

The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.

So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.

Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else. There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in order to catch a criminal, with the help of the "lady of the house", played by hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie.

I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's got a great looking body.

There were a couple of "from behind" sex scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much.

*END SPOILER*

I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline.

Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall: B- I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again.

I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies, Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed.

This is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and I feel she looks better as a blonde.

I agree this is a good introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere. I thought this to be a pretty good example of a better soft core erotica film. It has a reasonable plot about the madame of a bordello caught up in a police scheme to nab a wealthy crook.

Hardcore porn star Chloe Nichole again shows her genuine acting ability. She will occasionally appear in soft core such as "Body of Love" and "Lady Chatterly's Stories. Nicole Hilbig, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired in her role as the female cop. Enigma is a computer part which scrambles Russian messages, so that America can't understand them. They can only be read by the intended recipient. The Americans know that the Russians are going to transmit a message revealing the plans of five political assassinations they want to carry out.

So they send in former defector Holbeck (Martin Sheen) to grab the scrambler and substitute a false part, so they'll be able to decode the message, and block the assassination attempts.

However, as we listen in on the Americans heads of the spy organisation, we find that they already have the scrambler, and they want Holbeck to try to steal Enigma, only to convince the Russians that they don't already have it. They don't expect Holbeck to succeed. That way the Russians, who had stopped transmitting with Enigma, just in case, will begin transmitting again.

Enigma is in the computer in the office of Dimitri Vasilikov. Somehow Holbeck must gain access, and in order to do that, he must find out when Vasilikov will be out. He sends in his former girlfriend Karen (Brigitte Fossey) to seduce Vasilikov, so that she can look through his papers and find out his scheduled movements. Karen is glad to do it, as they tortured her father, a university professor, to death.

Because we know that it's better for the Americans if Holbeck fails, the movie becomes even more intense as a spy thriller. We find ourselves hoping he can survive against the odds, especially as he uses ingenious methods to beat the Russians at every turn.

But what's this? Are Karen and Vasilikov falling in love? Will Holbeck win Karen back, or will she actually end up with Vasilikov? The romantic twist lifts this spy thriller, already worthy of a ten, even higher, for its originality. The writing, the direction, and the acting all combine to make this new and fascinating twist a compellingly realistic one.

You find yourself at the edge of your seat, gripping your armchair, not only for the excitement of the spy story but for the intensely beautiful romantic love story as well. The two themes are interwoven perfectly, right up to the end. You really want both sides to win. So who does win, in the end? You'll have to see the movie and find out, won't you! I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day - Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias. This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off & shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States. Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in China.

The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is running for political office but is being used by the established political machine to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them.

This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks.

There is still the heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more like it during the 1930's.

At least we have this one. I think the person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie. This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video/DVD yet. Watch your PBS listings! i honestly dont know why so many people hate this movie, i have always thought that it was one of my absolute faves. the fight with tiger and his men rocked, the fight with the pirates with the axes rocked, the whole skit with everyone trying to avoid one another in the house is pure genious...ok so it didnt have the requisite kick ass final confrontation but the manchus were pretty good. i give it a 8/10. Project A II is a classic Jackie Chan movie with all the kung fu, crazy stunts and slapstick humor you expect. Not as good as the prequel but still it is a great movie if you just want something fun to watch. The story is simple, jackie chan versus the evil men. So if you want a movie that you don't have to be a braniac to understand, i would suggest this one. Dragon Ma (Jackie Chan)is back, having rid the seas of the dreaded Pirate Lo. Back on land, he is assigned to the police force, where he is to clean up corruption and crime in a local suburb. Along the way, he is caught up in the fate of several Chinese patriots attempting to secure sympathy and support for their revolutionary cause. The Chinese Manchu government is after these revolutionaries, and anyone that stands in their way is in trouble, even if they are in the police force. I had big expectations for this movie after i saw Project A. But sadly I was a little disappointed. There is just too little action compared to the first film. There is just one good fight scene until the big ending. That fight scene is in the "gangsters place" and its good, a lot of people flying all over the place and hard kicks and punches are throw. Jackie Chan and his stunt team don't disappoint here at all. The ending is very entertaining, Jackie Chan shows us why HE is the best stuntman in the world. Really exciting stuff! The only bad thing with the ending, is that the fights are too short and forgettable. Conclusion: Many funny moments, good acting and crazy stunts. But not enough fighting for a top rating. Sequels are a capricious lot with most nowhere near the stature of the original. Sometimes you find a sequel that is considered better than the original, some critics (such as John Charles) have stated that Project A2 is better than the original, I disagree somewhat but this movie is still a worthwhile follow-up and fits well in the output of brilliant Hong Kong action cinema in the 1980s as well as Jackie's own oeuvre. I do wonder how with such an awesome release of great films that his later films were not as good. He only has directed two films in the 1990s and none past that, but he has had much clout in many of the films where he is not officially the director.

Earlier in 1987 Jackie had brain surgery following a disastrous fall in the filming of Armour of God. This encouraged him to work on his next film close to home. This did not encourage him to stop risking his life and his stunt team for our amusement. What resulted is a smash hit at home that eclipsed the original in box office tallies (31 million HK dollars compared to 19 million for the original).

Jackie Chan is once again police officer extraordinaire Dragon Ma and he is ordered to work with "Three Wan" Superintendent Chun (Lam Wai, Royal Warriors) who is the only Chinese police officer allowed to have a gun yet is thought to be staging arrests to make himself look better and ignoring the crimes of a triad lord named Tiger Au (Michael Chan Wai-Man, Dragon Lord). Apparently Chun has too much power to be taken down directly, but he is relieved of the Sai Wan district (now he is "Two Wan") which Dragon Ma takes over. This inefficient and corrupt office will soon get a makeover and there is a great scene where three officers, who do not know who they are dealing with, attempt to assault Ma to teach him a lesson about complaining about police officers. He soon has that district ship-shape and Tiger Au taken care of. The fight choreography and stunts with Tiger and his men are quite awesome. My favorite stunt was a beautifully brutal fall from the second floor into a large vase and that vase did not appear to be soft.

Meanwhile a couple of subplots are happening. There are pirates who have survived from the first film who are looking for revenge and food. Then there are revolutionaries including Maggie (Maggie Cheung, In The Mood For Love) and (Rosamund Kwan, Casino Raiders) who are trying to raise funds for Dr. Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing Government as well as government operatives who are trying to find these rebels. Throw in a mixture of corrupt Hong Kong and British Cops as well as legitimate ones and you have a stew that is getting a bit too many ingredients, but yet still seems to coalesce. This works well when there is a Marx Brothers influenced scene (the Marx Brothers have done this type of scene a few times with The Cocoanuts (1929) being the first) at Maggie's place where everyone is looking for someone while hiding from someone else. Many weeks were spent on this scene alone and the effort certainly shows.

There are several faults with the film. There is a certain didactic nature that creeps in the film that seems a bit out-of-place – especially one small speech towards the end that Jackie gives when dealing with the Mainland revolutionaries and the extremely easy conversion of the pirates that survived from the first film. Female characters are once again underused and under-appreciated, especially Maggie Cheung. I was not as satisfied with the continuance of the plot as much as the first film either. The individual scenes dominate my feelings for the film instead of thinking of this movie as a cohesive whole. I do not fault the film for not being able to have Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao like the first though (I have heard the main reason behind this was that those two were filming Eastern Condors, but I do wonder if Jackie could have waited a small while to get them to perform in this – they would work together for the last time the following year in Dragons Forever), but they are missed.

I found this to be quite an enjoyable and well-made film and it is rightfully regarded as one of the better comedic action films of the 1980s. This film is also quite good in a few unexpected places. The art direction is superb (Eddie Ma Poon-chiu), the costumes are exquisite, the cinematography is good and the movie looks quite authentic. But the stunts, comedy and the action is what I remember this film for. There is a chase involving a handcuffed Dragon and Chun that is superb (part of the axe throwing scene would be used in Shanghai Noon). The last twenty minutes is full of awe-inspiring hits, falls, chili-peppers as a mouth-mace (Jackie writes in his autobiography about how he used real peppers in this scene; you can see him in a lot of mouth pain during the outtakes at the end) and is a worthy conclusion to this movie. The most famous stunt from this sequence is his homage to Buster Keaton from Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) with the exception that there is no hole and only a weak section where his head pops through.

Fans of Jackie and/or Hong Kong action cinema should consider this a must own and watch. I certainly do. Hi! Being able to speak Cantonese, I found this very funny and was able to all the jokes that one might not get due to language barriers. The fight scenes are spectacular and it's a good movie. However, I have my criticisms. First of all, I find that it is not as good as the first one Project A -GO AND SEE THAT NOW! :-) Reason is, SPOILERS AHEAD-DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!!!!!) because in Project A, Jackie ends by fighting his enemy; the man he is sent to kill, Sanpao. That is what he has been striving to do all the film and the showdown is spectacular. But in A II, hough he fights Chan, the showdown scene between Jackie and his nemesis is not long enough and the bulk of the action is against the Empress's men. They are not nearly as "bad" enough and have only played a minor part in the film in relation to Jackie so though their fight sequence is spectacular, they are not the ones Jackie is hunting throughout the whole of the film, so thus leaving the viewer slightly unfulfilled. However, this is just my humble opinion so don't take it word for word-go and see it yourself! It is a great film in it's own right! Take care and hope your admiration for Jackie grows! Yours Sincerely, Ian PS. You know the police chief in A II? He's the same guy in First Strike-nice to know he's still going strong! I hate to say it, but I really do think this one's overrated, and I love Jackie's films. It's got more plot behind it than usual, but unfortunately, though it has some great stuff, I find it to be a bit slow. All in all, I say it's entertaining, but not great. "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in "Rainman", which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in "Kramer vs. Kramer" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable.

**** (out of four) This outstanding film has about the best acting that you'll ever see, and that alone makes this a must-see. The entire cast is excellent, but then again, it had to be in order to keep up with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. It didn't take me long to get hooked on this film, and aside from a courtroom scene that is merely good, this is top-notch entertainment. This is a rare film that actually deserved all the Oscar recognition that it received. See it for yourself and you will definitely not be disappointed. Although credit should have been given to Dr. Seuess for stealing the story-line of "Horton Hatches The Egg", this was a fine film. It touched both the emotions and the intellect. Due especially to the incredible performance of seven year old Justin Henry and a script that was sympathetic to each character (and each one's predicament), the thought provoking elements linger long after the tear jerking ones are over. Overall, superior acting from a solid cast, excellent directing, and a very powerful script. The right touches of humor throughout help keep a "heavy" subject from becoming tedious or difficult to sit through. Lastly, this film stands the test of time and seems in no way dated, decades after it was released. Kramer vs. Kramer is one film to hold on too and not forget. It isn't one of the most popular films ever made and is certainly one of the weakest best picture films, but it does not mean it still isn't important. I thought the movie was well done and made you just want to watch more and more of it. The performances were the best positive for the film and Dustin Hoffman played one of his best roles he's ever done as the lonely workaholic who has to take care of his son, as his wife separates from him. Billy, who is Hoffman's son, played another great performance along with Meryl Streep, playing the depressed mother of Billy. Kramer vs. Kramer is not one of the greatest films and is not a perfect 10, but it succeeds in making the film worth watching and worth caring about it. Certainly, one of Hoffman's best films he's ever done. I highly recommend it.

Hedeen's Outlook: 9/10 ***+ A- After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had kids of their own was making itself felt.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" is one of the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now, because it's known as the film that beat "Apocalypse Now" for the 1979 Best Picture Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them both? Director/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply bad at being married.

The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs.

Grade: A I consider myself lucky that I got to view a wonderful movie with two marvelous actors. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was great to me because I think I could relate to it.

Unfortunately, my parents are divorced. Even though I was older than Billy in this movie, I felt his pain and confusion. Having two parents who you thought were happy and end up hating each other is the worst. Through this movie, actually, I think it made me realize that my parents are people too, and they had as just much pain as my sister and I had.

Back to the movie, this was a good one. Yes, it's dated and Meryl and Dustin are very young. But I would recommend this for a lot of people, because I think most can relate in some way. There are funny, sad, happy, and relieving moments that are carried away terrificly by these great actors. It's a good movie and deserves more credit than a 7.5.

9/10 I think not! I mean yeah if you compare this film to The Godfather, or maybe a little older film like Casablanca, or maybe even a little newer film like The English Patient. It doesn't have the camera work or the cinematography like these other films, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad movie, or does it? I think the reason why this film is underrated is because a lot of people always compare it to other great Oscar winning films (you should never do that) which makes it hard to understand the beauty and the realism in this movie. In the categories Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, this film really deserved all of them. The magnificent Dustin Hoffman gives us, once again, one of his best performances. A couple of times in this movie I forgot that it wasn't his son because it was just so real! I have never seen a film about relationships in different families where it was so easy for the actors to play that specific role but still so beautiful. So Dustin Hoffman passes the test with flying colors, in my opinion. There are a few actresses in the world who deserve to be called the best: Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda and Ingrid Bergman (I can't help it, I think she's great). Meryl Streep, even though she's in a supporting role, is amazing and real and you just can't help but being drawn ed to her talent and the way she makes it hers and real. Wow, that's all I can say. Justin Henry was great considering his age, his tears and his relationship with his mom and dad was beautiful, so I say good job to cute little Justin Henry.

While I was watching this film for like the third time, alone, I couldn't stop crying. I tried but I couldn't. Thank god I was alone! This is probably the purest film I have ever seen. Other films that were nominated for Best Picture was Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, Breaking Away and All That Jazz. I'm ashamed, cause I haven't seen any of them, but from what I've heard, Apocalypse Now is great but when I heard about Norma Rae I only thought of Sally Field. I think that considering the other nominees, this film deserved it's five Oscars, and that it'll continue to touch and make other people cry for a long time in the future, just like it has for the past 28 years. Good job all the actors and actresses in this film for giving us great performances and memories from watching this film that we won't ever forget.

Thanks for your time. No, this has nothing to do with the sitcom "Seinfeld" or its eccentric and hilarious character Cosmo Kramer. In reality, "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a fine drama movie, without a doubt one of the finest of its kind and one of the greatest movies ever. I'm glad that it won more Oscars than "Apocalypse Now" because it really deserved such glory.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" is an excellent film, so well made and so perfectly balanced that I wouldn't change anything about it in any way. There is nothing wrong with the film. It's film-making of the highest quality. And it stands the test of time, too. Not only it doesn't look any dated, but also its cultural impact is long-lasting and its realistic story remains just as significant as it was when it came out in 1979. A timeless classic. They don't make movies like this today.

This movie is dramatic, realistic, simple but brilliant, intense, powerful, sweet and even tragic and depressing sometimes. Yet, it has fine humor as well. It has no special effects, but who cares? This is not the movie or place to discuss such thing. For a movie like this, such thing would be pointless and absolutely unnecessary.

The story is very interesting. The actors's chemistry is just perfect. All of the actors are great, but the 3 main ones are the very best. Dustin Hoffman, a brilliant actor, has his greatest performance ever here as the lovable but distant workaholic Ted Kramer. Meryl Streep is great as Ted's wife, Joanna. And cute little Justin Henry is terrific as the loving but sometimes stubborn Billy, son of Ted and Joanna.

The soundtrack is all instrumental and wonderful. The opening song (by the guitarist Frederic Hand) is brilliant. The rest of the soundtrack is mostly Antonio Vivaldi's classical music and is simply dazzling.

This motion picture has also an incredible development of the characters. See the character Ted Kramer: a workaholic who becomes an amazing father after being left with no choice but to take care of his son, trying to adjust these new responsibilities with his job after being left by his wife Joanna. With this, Ted learns about the most beautiful things in life, but also realizes how though life is, with the problems in his job and the return of Joanna, who wants the custody of their son. But even Joanna changes for better and the ending is an unexpected surprise when one sees this for the first time.

This movie has also some though things, such as courtroom scenes where both Ted and Joanna face brutal character assassinations unleashed by the lawyers. Another though thing to see is when poor Billy falls off a jungle gym with his toy (a plane) and gets seriously injured on his face. But then again, the scene is very well made and what comes next is very intense: his father runs quickly and crosses numerous blocks, ignoring the traffic to take his son to the hospital.

Overall, this is a movie which is a good lesson of life.

This should definitely be on Top 250. The marriage of an upscale New York City couple with child falls apart when the wife wants out ("It took a lot of courage for her to walk out that door!" a neighbor tells us); the busy, distracted husband takes on the "motherly" responsibilities and grows closer to his son, but soon the wife returns. Highly manipulative picture doesn't give us a very realistic familial unit (with young Justin Henry certainly not resembling the product of a marriage between Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep!), but the dynamics are intriguing and involving, and director Robert Benton keeps the pace popping with lots of cleverness, marvelous classical music, canny editing and surefire bits of humor. Streep's character is designed to be a cold, self-centered witch, but I was ready to feel a lot more for her than Benton probably wanted. It all has to be painted in terms of black and white, good and bad, with Hoffman learning how hard his wife had it and getting a second chance at being a good parent. The film never falters from its preconceived path, and very fine acting nearly saves it, but I'm not sure where Benton was steering the film in the final act, and the closing scene is awfully abrupt. *** from **** Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same. They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in this case is played by Justin Henry.

What I really did like about Kramer vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game. He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also wants out of being a mother, at least for a while.

Hoffman and Henry make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody.

Both parents make compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the tie is always broken in favor of the mother.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen.

Dustin Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid. I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy in his performance.

Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast. I've seen many Dustin Hoffman's movies like Straw Dogs or Rain Man and I liked them, but his characters are much to often calm or even shy persons. I expected him to be in this movie the same as he was in Straw Dogs, but I saw a totally different person. He was much more energetic in this film and kinda reminded me of Al Pacino in Serpico. The movie was very interesting from beginning to the end. I liked the way Dustin Hoffman's character was ready to do just about everything to stay with his son. This movie is also revealing. Personally, I think it shows that people should learn to find a compromise them self without involving other people into issue. Kramer Vs. Kramer is a near-heartening drama about shocking, drastic augmentations of the two subjects of a failed married couple. Meryl Streep, in the throes of her trademark maternal sensitivity, plays an unhappy stay-at-home mother who feels confined to such a role and within the first five minutes of the film leaves her inattentive husband, in a fantastic performance by Dustin Hoffman, to find another role for herself. Hoffman is dumbstruck, having absolutely no idea what to do with himself, having taken so much for granted that he doesn't know the first thing about getting his son to school in the morning.

Hoffman seamlessly characterizes this husband as such a juicy load of setbacks. He is restless, relentless and impatient, but even though the positive side to those three adjectives should include just the opposite, he is unremittingly fixated on whatever he turns his head to. He's been focused on his career in advertising, and when he is left to raise his son Billy all by himself, chaos ushers in immediately. He's the one throwing temper tantrums and quitting angrily halfway through an activity. After awhile, as he befriends his neighbor and Joanna's former friend, played by sexy Jane Alexander, Hoffman cools his jets enough to understand why his wife left. In the meantime, his boundless energy redirects towards raising Billy and he loses his job.

The custody battle of the title is a brilliantly grey circumstance. Even if the ending is a little unmotivated, subjectified for the audience, the last line and the last shot still have that witty screen writing touch that seemed to diminish after the magical 1970s. Certainly when I saw this movie at HBO, I was bit erratic in following the plot, but it catches my attention when seeing Dustin Hoffman in it. Honestly I'm not enthralled watching old movies, but then in the long run it changes my point of view. Seeing this stirring film made me experience once again couching at my seat not noticing my tears suddenly roll down my cheek, and then after, let loose a heavy sigh in realizing the impact of what I've just witness. Kramer vs Kramer was indeed one of the best classical drama movies I've witnessed for a long time that even I, myself couldn't imagine how it touched me. The story was strongly emotional, but is not saturated with such. The characters weren't unrealistic for their roles; they possess qualities that make viewers like them whatever position they have in the film, like the role of Meryl Streep, she was a mother who honestly concede her mistakes at the past but then she's confident to stand up her emotional motives to get what she desires in a fair and square battle. Dustin Hoffman was way too outstanding, I can't even fathom how this guy could play seriously difficult roles and suddenly jump into another role which is completely different, then performed it well. Even though I have already seen the movies a lot of times, when I seat back and lounge at my home scanning worth movies to peer and buy a time for it, catching a glimpse for Kramer vs Kramer will make my experience another worthwhile moment. Normally, movies stay out of the realm of "domestic drama," and for good reason: who wants to intentionally seek entertainment from a story about what they or those close to them have to deal with in real life? Divorce hurts an incredible percentage of American families of all classes and custody battles are ugly and necessary parts of it. That's not escapism -- the number one reason the average person turns to movies -- that's sad reality.

Normally, divorce or custody is simply part of a greater story and affects the way we understand it or relate to its characters. "Kramer vs. Kramer" focuses on it and asks us to understand why we do it and why that makes it so troubling. That's a challenge for both this film and its audience: turn something so real into something that can capture our attention and then make us not feel spiteful as the mirror is held up to our face. Writer/director Robert Benton definitely achieves both and in impressive fashion in adapting this novel by Avery Corman.

The story, as one would expect, is quite simple: Big business advertising man Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) comes home to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) is leaving him and their 7-year-old son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted then must quickly learn to be an active father in the boys' life and as soon as he does, Joanna brings a custody suit upon him.

To make an Oscar-winning drama about something so generic and particularly dialogue- heavy first takes tremendous acting talent. You don't get much better than Hoffman and Streep. Hoffman is in his prime in this role: his first Oscar win after three other notable nominations. He creates a thorough character, one whose self-centered and quick-tempered ways clearly change as he learns to be a better father and the sole care-giver. Streep wins her first Oscar in only the second major role of her career as a woman who doesn't get much screen time but must communicate both inner torment at her decision to leave as well as renewed sense of identity when she returns to take custody. Streep does so effortlessly. The young boy, Justin Henry, who at his age was the youngest competitive category nominee in Academy Awards history, plays the embodiment of all 7-year-old children exceptionally well.

Benton's writing and direction takes these performances to the level where we see deeper into this family's troubles than we do our own and thus reconsider our thoughts about love and raising a family. Benton's previous notable credits ("Bonnie & Clyde" and "Superman") wouldn't indicate a strong command of family drama, but the man can flat out write. Numerous scenes give us strong visuals that show us much more than the typical family scenarios they depict. The first morning that Joanna is gone and Ted make's Billy french toast is a classic that perfectly demonstrates all the talent going into this movie in a scene that happens in Americans' kitchens every morning.

You'll rarely see a story as straightforward as "Kramer vs. Kramer" done better. There aren't any surprises at the end or twists and turns that will keep us desperately glued to the screen. The film then has to rely on its talents and they are all sure-fire, delivering a new understanding of a subject that's so familiar. I thought this film was quite good and quite entertaining for a film heavy on emotion. I agree with what another user wrote about the script being sympathetic to the three main characters. I think that this is what what made the film good. It didn't villainies either Mr. or Mrs. Kramer and it was refreshing, I think, to see two people essentially work the issue out on their own and eventually do the best thing for Billy. And, although it was a little strange, I actually liked the music in this film as well. For some reason the music seemed appropriate for the journey that the three main characters embarked upon. This movie flowed quite well and didn't doodle, like some emotionally heavy films tend to do. It dealt with a serious situation but didn't take itself too seriously. It simply told the story in a straight forward way and it worked quite well. If you asked me to pick the best acted movies ever made, this movie would be on a short list along with 1951's Streetcar Named Desire. I imagine i'll discover some others that qualify, but Kramer vs Kramer is an outstanding exercise in naturalism. So its a very satisfying experience on that level: just watching the marvelous, probing performances of Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the child Justin Henry in particular. One of the best child performances ever.

But I also find it very satisfying to watch, because its such a thoroughly involving story - it always makes me forget my own problems. It has such excellent narrative drive. Once you stick Kramer vs Kramer on, and Alice Kramer leaves Ted to juggle work and their young son, telling him nothing more than she has to discover herself - you keep watching to know that everything turns out okay for them. And even once you know how things do turn out, each moment of the ride just rings so brilliantly true that its a joy to watch it happen again and again.

Make no mistake - Kramer vs Kramer is not light entertainment: its a very realistic portrayal of the effects of divorce on everyone involved.

10/10.

For one of the best scripts (born out of conversations between Benton and Hoffman, who was going through a divorce at the time) ever written, executed and performed beautifully and faultlessly. Not to mention what a great, involving story it is. Put simply, a perfect film. I remember going to drive inn with my parent and sister. I was in grade 5, and still a kid, and the drive closed down 4 years later, but the film still lingers in my memory. An adult movie, which a kid finds entertaining. That is a mark of excellence. Hoffman is one of hollywoods better actors, and this film proves it. I like the Billy put down the ice cream scene, and I remember the SCTV version in there film I factory myself. Remember Joe Flairty crying. Please email me if you like the SCTV skit. Not a bad film at all, it is a story about a father, and his son. Touching and intertaining, I love the part where Hoffman talks about Killroy, and how the streets change. Worth a second watch. 7/10 The child actor certainly deserves a lot of credit. It was a pretty weak field for Best Picture that year. I think "Apocalypse Now" should have taken it, but the Academy probably felt it was too violent and strange, plus Vietnam was still too recent. Meryl Streep was tremendous, as always, playing a very unlikeable character. I don't usually compliment directors, but I really liked that bit with the elevator doors. Grade: B Good drama movie about a child custody case with great performances by all the actors.A good example of what an excellent script can do to propel a simple story to a much higher quality.The screenplay was just average though and this is what kept the movie from the list of the all time best dramas.Still,the great acting makes this movie a good one to see if you are a fan of court dramas or a big fan of the lead actors.The movie really should have been a tad longer though for more excellence but that would really be nitpicking...... Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him.

Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win.

Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!

This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!

- Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's Decision' and I lapped her up in `Out of Africa'. That these two actors came together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea: the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very relevant in today's society.

On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad time, though the kids seem to suffer most………..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids' performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there was no going over the top, so frequent these days.

This film came up again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to everything. Around 7½ out of 10. Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy.

One of "Kramer v. Kramer's" great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself again with "Places in the Heart", where he showed, as in "Kramer v. Kramer", that he has a natural ability for working with children.

The picture's other strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar nomination came his way.

Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros' cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry Purcell's classical piece is used to effect.

Truly this is a touching story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go.

Certainly if nothing else, "Kramer v. Kramer" demonstrates that nobody wins when it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child himself.

Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V.

Strong drama from Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner.

Hoffman is brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of extras.

This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Streep).

Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V. This is probably the best cinematic depiction of life in a Manhattan ad agency: the pressure to perform; client and agency demands; the parties; the creativity; the money; the cool surface with powerful corporate undercurrents.

Toss in parenthood for Dustin Hoffman.

The movie is textured and deep. It follows his internal relationship as he tries to understand and live with what's going on; his relationship with Meryl Streep (and her friend, who becomes his friend), and his the relationship with his son.

While Meryl Streep was great, did she set the record for least screen time to win an Oscar? She sure can deliver when she is on, though. I have seen this film on 3 different occasions.On the first occasion,I was bowled over by this film.It appeared as a very kind film to me.I hated this film as a sentimental garbage on my second viewing.However my third viewing reasserted my belief that it is a good film.There is a lot of emotional power in this film especially scenes of emotional confrontation between Mr Kramer and Madam Kramer.There are some scenes in which Meryl Streep appears a cruel person despite the fact that she is a beauty in real life.Dustin Hoffman appears as a lost hero unable to grapple with the recent task of his child's custody.There was even a controversy on the sets of this film.According to the master cameraman Nestor Almendros there was a shot in which he just escaped getting hurt as the character of Mr.Kramer,in order to show the intensity of his anger,decides to break a glass hard.Luckily nothing happened to Nestor.Kramer versus Kramer shows the destruction of a family structure.It also tells how family must be maintained if there are kids involved. This is a phenomenal movie. Truly one of the best movies I have ever watched. I am a serious critic and it takes much to stir me, but this movie had all the right combinations for "stirring". The passion of the actors,without the overacting, the aching for all the characters involved, the serious and subtle truths about marriage and divorce, all make this a must see movie, despite the fact that it is 1970s. This is definitely not an "old movie", but a classic/vintage movie. I hope you engage with it as I did when you consider how volatile relationships of all kinds can be, when you also consider how deep pain associated with love can be and how the hardest decisions to make will always be the most painful, but once they are made the pain will subside, but only gradually. This movie certainly demonstrates that the most volatile relationships are not necessarily weak relationships and that leaving certainly is not synonymous with lost/lack of love. The 'crafting' of this movie certainly emanates from a place deep within someone's heart and mind. KRAMER VS KRAMER won five Oscars, including Best Picture of 1979. This intense and deeply moving family drama follows an advertising executive whose life is turned upside down when his wife of eight years, walks out on him, leaving him to care for his son and build a relationship with him he never had. Robert Benton's incisive screenplay presents us flawed, but real human beings with hearts, souls, and brains. For instance, in the scene where Joanna announces to Ted she's leaving him, she doesn't just storm out the door...she gives him the keys, her credit cards, the dry cleaning ticket, tells him which bills have been paid, and informs him she has withdrawn from their bank account the same amount of money she had when they were married, no more. This decision to leave was not a whim...it was thought about and Joanna felt, with no other option than to leave, if she was leaving she was going to do it properly...and with no specific plan in mind, she did not think it right to take Billy. Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for his Ted Kramer, a man so obsessed with bringing home the bacon, he had no clue that his life at home was crumbling into pieces. Meryl Streep also won an Oscar playing Joanna, the unhappy wife who we feel sympathy for in the beginning of the film but that all changes when she returns for her son. Hoffman is at the top of his form here. I always tear up during the scene where he tries to explain to Billy (Justin Henry, Oscar nominee) why his mom left and he does it all in a stage whisper or when he meets Joanna upon her return and slams her drink into a wall (a Hoffman moment not in the script that Streep was not told about in order to get a natural reaction). Justin Henry hits all the right notes as Billy, the confused little boy who doesn't know why his mom is gone and doesn't know how to communicate with his father. Jane Alexander also got an Oscar nod as Ted and Joanna's neighbor, Margaret, who has switched allegiances by the film's conclusion. This is an intense family drama but there are laughs to be had here too...Billy and the chocolate chip ice cream...Billy pouting because Ted is late picking him for a party...Billy catching his dad's one night stand (JoBeth Williams) on her way to the bathroom stark naked, but it's the moments of human drama you remember...Ted running through Manhattan with Billy in his arms to get to the emergency room after BIlly falls off the jungle gym...Ted getting fired right before beginning his custody battle and instead of making a scene, he tells the guy in a whisper..."Shame on you." And of course, the finale where Joanna tells Ted she's not taking Billy, which I found a little hard to swallow. Why would she go to all that trouble of suing for custody and then just change her mind? But this is a small quibble regarding a wonderful movie, masterfully directed by Robert Benton and flawlessly performed by a top-notch cast. A must-see. The Academy Award winning 'Kramer vs. Kramer' follows a snazzy businessman Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) and his divorce with his bored wife (Meryl Streep). One day Ted's wife leaves him and their child in search for a better life, forcing Ted to become closer to his son (Justin Henry). The two bond and become very close (but only after some friction), and just as everything is going perfect Ted's wife comes back to town and wants sole custody of their son. Ted then goes on a mission not to let his son get taken away from him, and fights his wife in court. Dustin Hoffman gives a tremendous performance along with Meryl Streep, and young Justin Henry is impressive. It's a sad emotional roller-coaster of a movie, but it's a very well-made and inspiring film. The film took the Oscar for Best Picture at the 1979 Academy Awards, along with Best Actor for Hoffman and Best Supporting Actress for Streep. If you don't mind a tearjerker, 'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a great film to watch. Grade: B+ Inexplicably, I watched this movie for the very first time just a couple of days ago, and understood from the very beginning what all the fuss is about. This movie held my attention from beginning to end, and ran me through the whole range of emotions (and might have helped me discover a few I never knew about.)

Dustin Hoffman absolutely shines as Ted Kramer. He is absolutely convincing as a man having to juggle at least three different challenges in life: jilted husband, workaholic ad executive and loving father. Meryl Streep as Joanna Kramer was less central to the movie simply because Joanna was absent for a good part of it, but when she was on screen she gave Hoffman a run for his money. The true standout, though, (in my opinion) had to be young Justin Henry as Billy Kramer. Children are always the innocent victim in a marital breakdown, and Justin seemed absolutely natural and completely believable in this role as he deals with the conflicting emotions around his mother and his adjustment to life with Dad, only then to have the confusion around why he should have to leave his Dad when it was his Mom who walked out on him. Young Justin didn't seem to miss a beat in this very difficult role.

All in all, this is an excellent, Oscar-worthy movie whose only weak point was what I thought to be a truly disappointing decision to go for the sappy and happy ending, which was totally unrealistic considering the destructive custody battle Ted and Joanna had gone through. But there's not much else to complain about here.

9/10 What can I say about Kramer vs. Kramer? On the surface it's rather simple but underneath it deals with emotions greater than life itself. It delivers many fantastic moments, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry. You sympathize with the characters and you care about them. Many films fail at this, Kramer vs. Kramer is a success.

I think everyone would agree the acting is superb. Once you watch Kramer vs. Kramer, for some time the acting in most other films starts to feel plastic and unemotional. The actors seem to get along well with their roles and the characters really live on the screen. There's some beautiful chemistry between them. I think the best performance in the film comes from the young Justin Henry. He's different from any other child actor I've ever seen. He's amazingly natural.

Also, there's some kind of neurotic beauty in Meryl Streep. And Dustin Hoffman delivers one of the best performances of his career! The story is very well written. It's simple but complicated at the same time. The concept is the simple part, the feelings associated is the complicated part of it.

If you haven't seen this film yet, you're definitely missing out! See it now! Just as Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is about to get a break in his professional life his frustrated wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) finally gets up the courage to leave him, leaving Ted to care for their five year old son (Justin Henry). Being a single parent proves to be quite the chore for Ted, and he suffers professionally but also learns there's much more to life than a career as he continues to bond with, and really get to know, his own son. But then Joanna returns and intends to get her son back, which leads to a cruel custody trial.

Kramer vs. Kramer is a superbly well written and magnificently acted human drama that will only leave the most cold-hearted a viewer untouched. Hoffman's growing relationship with his son is so well portrayed and the film never takes an easy way out. It always feels very real and thanks to the film's low-key approach it makes even more of an impact and can easily work upon multiple viewings, the film's dramatic impact does not lessen.

Easily recommended; 10 out of 10. Although this was a low budget film and clearly last minute, it holds a certain charm that is difficult to pinpoint. I tend to believe it is the scriptwriter- Grant Morris (see Dead Dog), who, despite the warped plot line injected a fantastic slice of humour, sorely missing in many of today's box office hits. Definitely a must see for a Sunday afternoon laughfest. Speaking as a true single girl, and very sceptical this film did not inspire me particularly, but did ignite a small flame of hope for a lovelife. Not my lovelife, so much as my slightly crazy neighbour's lovelife who lets her hamster sleep in her bed with her. She may find someone. I just love this movie and I have my TV programed to record it when it comes on again on Nov. 2nd. It is a really nice love story with a twist. The song that is played at the end of the movie is one you would not think would be a big hit but it is a song that stays in your head and I am now trying to find that song so I can hear it and play it. I really have no style of the shows I see or the songs I like to hear and there for makes me pretty open to seeing things new with an open mind. I would like to say there is some parts in this movie that is not meant for the whole family to watch. This movie does show skin. It is kinda like a lifetime movie for women, about women. I say watch the movie and you may just like it as much as I did. I actually found out about Favela Rising via the IMDb website. I have a particular interest in Afro-Brazilian culture and films. Favela Rising is one of those gems that gives a new meaning to human transformation. Beautifully documented and filmed by Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary its the story Anderson Sa, a former Rio De Janeiro drug trafficker who after the deaths of family members and friends becomes a Christ-like, Malcolm X, and Ghandi all rolled into one. Sa formed AfroReggae, a grassroots cultural movement that uses Afro-Brazilian hiphop, capoeira(Afro-Brazilian Martial Arts)drumming, and other artforms to transform the hopeless and most times angry youth into vibrant, viable, caring community loving individuals.

A few years ago I remember going to a screening of City Of God (Cidade De Deus) and walked out of the theatre completely numb. The images were grim yet stunning and you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. I remember how hopeless some situations were in the Favelas and how decadent the society was due to the governments neglect. How drug trafficking was a way of life, how indifferent the citizens of the slums were because death was an every day occurrence. Like City Of God Anderson Sa talks about how the people of the favelas were also desensitized. He talks about the police corruption, and how the communities were so immobilized by drugs and gangs that you couldn't visit family members in other Favelas you had to meet in a neutral location. Unlike City of God Anderson Sa's grassroots movement AfroReggae provides solutions to the anger, the hopelessness.

There was one part in the documentary where Anderson, in the spirit of a preacher approached some youth and asked them to join AfroReggae. These jaded youth were so scarred by everyday survival and violence. Their role models were drug dealers and this is what they aspired to be. Anderson told then that drug dealers don't live very long. There was reluctance of course but five months later he was able to get some of the youth to join AfroReggae.

The visuals in Favela Rising are beyond amazing. Its clear to me that Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary are not only great story tellers but visual artist as well. This is a must see documentary! There are some really magical and transforming moments in this documentary. I don't want to spoil them for you. I want you see it for yourself. Please tell your friends, academics, youth counselors, family members about this wonderful film. It will make you care about the world and our children.

I would give it eleven stars! Favela Rising is a documentary about the slums of Rio, the favelas, specifically the most violent one, Vigário Geral. According to this film, a lot more kids have died violently in Rio's favelas over the last decade or so than in Israel/Palestine during the same period -- a fact astonishing if true, which shows how under-recognized this social problem is in the rest of the world. This is an important topic, especially for those who see hope in grassroots efforts to marshal the neediest and most at risk through a vibrant cultural program. This is a compelling documentary, if occasionally marred by a somewhat too personality-based version of events and by grainy digital video and film that sometimes may make you think you need to have your eyes examined.

Drug lords rule in the favelas and gun-toting teenage boys are the main drug dealers, like in parts of Colombia. Fernando Meirelles' movie City of God/Cidade de Deus has been accused of celebrating violence (Cidade de Deus is another of Rio's many favelas). But the early section of Favela Rising shows that in fact favela boys do celebrate violence and want to deal drugs where the money and the action are. It's cool to carry a gun there, cool to work as a drug trafficker: it's fifty times more profitable than the earnings available by other means.

Mochary first discovered the AfroReggae movement and its leaders Anderson Sá and José Junior while visiting Rio for a conference and quickly persuaded his friend and mentor Zimbalist to quit his job and come down to help make a film with his own promise to fund it. Sá's eloquence and charisma and a startling twist in his life make him the center of the film and its chief narrator, but like the favelas themselves the film teems with other people. No doubt about the fact that Sá is a remarkable leader, organizer, and artist.

Vigário Geral is compared to Bosnia: shooting there was very dangerous. Anderson Sá's friendship and protection and caution and diplomacy in the shooting enabled the filmmakers to gain access and shoot detailed footage of their subject matters while (mostly: there were close calls) avoiding any serious confrontations with drug lords or drug-dealing cops. They also trained boys to use cameras and left them there on trips home. That resulted in 10% of the footage, including rare shots of violent incidents including police beatings. It's hard for an outsider to keep track of police massacres in Rio. There was one in the early 1990's that looms over the story and inspired Sá, who ended his own early involvement in drug trafficking to lead his cultural movement. The cops are all over the drug trade and if anybody doesn't like that the ill trained police paramilitaries come in (often wearing black ski masks) and shoot up a neighborhood, killing a lot of innocents.

This is pretty much the picture we get in Meirelles' City of God, except that this time Sá, Junior, and the other guys come in, starting in Vigário Geral but spreading out eventually to a number of other favelas to give percussion classes that attract dozens of youth -- girls as well as boys. Their AfroReggae (Grupo Cultural AfroReggae or GCAR) program, formed in 1993, is a new alternative way of life for young black men in the Rio ghettos. It leads them to leave behind smoking, alcohol, and drugs (that's the rule) to explode into rap, song, percussion, and gymnastics in expressive, galvanic performances. Eventually the best of the performers led by Sá wind up appearing before big local audiences with local producers, and their Banda AfroReggae has an international recording contract.

Other centers and groups have been created by or through the GCAR over the years in Vigário Geral and other favelas to seek the betterment of youth by providing training and staging performances of music, capoeira, theater, hiphop and dance at GCAR centers.

The performance arts aren't everything, just the focal point. GCAR is also a movement for broader social change Gathering public awareness through such performances, the centers also provide training in information (newspaper, radio, Internet, e-mail links), hygiene and sex education, to seek to bridge gaps between rich and poor, black and white, and to offer workshops in audio-visual work, including production of documentaries. The program is currently active in four other favelas.

There are many scenes of favela street and home life in Favela Rising and they look very much like the images in City of God with the important difference that the focus and outcome are very, very much more positive. Not that it isn't an uphill battle. And the corruption of the police, the inequities of the social system, and the indifference of the general population of Brazil are not directly addressed by any of this. But there's a scene where Sá talks to some young kids in another favela, cynical boys not enthusiastic about AfroReggae and determined to work in the drug trade as Sá himself did as a boy. Sá doesn't seem to be convincing any of them despite pointing out that traffickers don't make it to the age of fifty. But we learn that the most negative boy in this group, Richard Morales, joined the movement five months later. There's also the account of a freak accident that disabled Sá, but with a positive outcome.

It would be great if the images were sharper and clearer and if the story were edited down a little, but this is vibrant, inspiring material and represents committed, risk-taking documentary film-making and it's nice that Favela Rising has been included in seven film festivals and won a number of awards, including Best New Documentary Filmmaker at the Tribeca Film Festival. It's currently being shown at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. However, a wide art house audience in the US seems somewhat unlikely.

Included in the SFIFF 2006. I'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves. Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that. It's not "enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences" about the Brazilian favelas' issue? Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way.

The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life. This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go unfulfilled.

As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their intentions.

Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like "a chosen one" as much as they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source of inspiration.

In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is much more, an inspirational story.

Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will, but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night.

If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this great. For once a story of hope highlighted over the tragic reality our youth face. Favela Rising draws one into a scary, unsafe and unfair world and shows through beautiful color and moving music how one man and his dedicated friends choose not to accept that world and change it through action and art. An entertaining, interesting, emotional, aesthetically beautiful film. I showed this film to numerous high school students as well who all live in neighborhoods with poverty and and gun violence and they were enamored with Anderson, the protagonist. I recommend this film to all ages over 13 (due to subtitles and some images of death) from all backgrounds. Scintillating documentary about how a small group of idealistic young men have used music, art and dance to unify and heal the community of Vigario Geral, one of the most violent slum neighborhoods in Rio ("favela" means neighborhood in Portuguese), offering to its young people a positive alternative to the lethal gangster world of drug traffickers.

In their feature film-making debut, Zimbalist and Mochary have crafted a movie that is breathtaking because it works on so many different levels. As social document, it gives the facts we need to know to have a context for understanding the significance of the particular story told here. The story itself is well developed, with a strong narrative arc, and, for added measure, it is shot through with keen suspense. There's an arresting, charismatic central protagonist, Anderson Sa: he's a savvy natural leader, articulate, courageous, spiritually evolved, a talented performer, a visionary who walks his talk.

There's also plenty of music and dancing to entertain. There are talking heads – mainly Sa and his closest associate, Jose Junior - but they are presented with imaginative cinematic brilliance. The editing nicely mixes footage of differing themes, punctuated only occasionally by a few fact-filled still texts. The pace is as lively as the music. A lot gets accomplished in 78 minutes.

Grupo Afro Reggae, the neighborhood social club that Anderson, Junior and a few others formed in 1993, deploy music and dance as the weapons to go up against the drug lords and the duplicitous police. They teach percussion skills to any kid who wants to join a class, along with dance, martial arts, a community newspaper. The only requirement for kids to belong is no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. There is a subtle, soft sell spiritual fabric running through the movement, loosely based on the Hindu God Shiva, the destroyer of old habits.

Jeff Zimbalist, who also was the lead cinematographer and the editor, is a Modern Culture and Media student at Brown University. He burnished his chops editing feature documentaries for PBS and others, and he teaches film at the New York Film Academy and elsewhere. Matt Mochary, like Andrew Jarecki ("Capturing the Friedmans") did a few years ago, recently came to film from the business world.

Zimbalist and Mochary together won the award for best new filmmakers at the 2005 TribBeCa Film Festival, and "Favela Rising" was tied for the best film of the year in awards made for 2005 by the International Documentary Association. I could go on for pages about Afro Reggae, Sa, and this movie. A way better idea is simply for you to go see it! My grade: A 10/10 The producer, Matt Mochary, stumbled upon the film's subject, Anderson Sa (leader of the AfroReggae music movement), when on a Hewlett Foundation trip to Rio de Janeiro. Mochary was so moved by Sa's story that he called his friend, NYC filmmaker Jim Zimbalist, who quit his job and joined Mochary in Brazil to work on a documentary on Sa, Rio's favelas, and the culture of violence.

The first part of the film shows you the culture of violence in Rio's favelas (shantytowns where the poor live) via footage of police raids and assaults on the residents. The footage is graphic and shocking.

Rising from the negativity of the favelas is the charismatic Anderson Sa, who overcame a possible career in drug dealing to start the AfroReggae movement, which combines elements of Afro-Brazilian culture, Reggae, ska, and other elements into a fast-paced, percussion heavy style of music which has since spread to other parts of the world. You can't help but be carried away by the music, especially when you see the local children get involved in Sa's school, which he founded to keep kids out of drug gangs. The rest of the film follows Sa's meteoric rise and his positivity changes many of the children's lives to seek a life beyond drug running. SPOILER: Just when the filmmakers thought they had wrapped filming, an unbelievable life changing event occurs of which the resolution has to be seen to be believed. The film then continues and you are gripped in your seat until the end.

This film is a response to "City of God," and a worthy one at that. The bleak situation portrayed in that movie is countered by a real example of how favela dwellers can overcome the dire situation they are in and use their resources to constructive ends. You can't help not liking and rooting for Anderson Sa to succeed.

This film is terrifically shot, fast-paced, and is quite absorbing. Judging by the overwhelming response of the audience at last night's SilverDocs screening, the film should get domestic distribution in the US and the thumping soundtrack should be released as well. Keep an eye for this superlative documentary--it is excellent! Unlike the previous poster, I liked the celluloid treatment. It looked good, and made the movie that much more enjoyable to watch. To me, it didn't detract at all from the power of the documentary's content. In fact, I felt the slickness of the look allowed me to just lose myself that much more in the content. The previous poster was fair to liken the style to a Nike commercial; it definitely has that look. But for my tastes, it worked really well (and I am far from a fan of Nike commercials).

In my opinion, this is how documentary film-making should be done. I can't wait to see the next installments from these promising filmmakers. For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a little lesson in American film-making.

Documentaries rely heavily on casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and entertainment value of your film.

After you have shot a ton of footage, you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes, etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration.

The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie (favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood. Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon animation so the audience isn't "duped"? Um, no.

As for the hopeful ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards. But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of life.

Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the future. There just may be one. Canadian film-maker Ron Switzer delivers a solid, non-stop thrill ride of relentless horror with the superb 1991 sci-fi film "Science Crazed". A hideous monster takes revenge on his mother, a police officer and tenants of an apartment building. Brilliant practical make-up and special effects designs create a truly terrifying monster, especially when lurking through the atmospheric shadows and smoke of the gloomy apartment settings. The characters are developed beautifully with outstanding and surprisingly touching performances from an ensemble cast. Produced by Donna Switzer, newcomer Ron Switzer also penned the film's face-paced script, weaving together an engaging roller-coaster ride of twists, turns, and terror that keeps you guessing until the last frame. Science Crazed will no doubt leave you haunted long after the shocking conclusion. Highly recommended! Sam Firstenberg's "Ninja 3:The Domination" mixes martial arts with "The Exorcist" like horror.The horror elements thrown on screen are simply laughable,but the film works as a mindless action/martial arts flick.The fight scenes are well-choreographed and exciting,and the film is never boring.So forget stupid dialogue,lame acting and annoying soundtrack-grab some beer and check this one out!Highly recommended! This might be my favorite so bad it's awesome film of all time. like many pre-teen children of the 80's repeat viewing of revenge of ninja spawned a ninja phase of my childhood. Man i thought Sho k. was badass back then. Jet Li could wup him with both legs in a cast! This movie has insane crossovers that include flashdance,the exorcist and the Lee Van cleef ninja TV show. ugh. but as a friend of mine says anyone can get a good movie made it takes true genius to make a film that starts with a ninja surviving 17 shotgun blasts long enough to take over the body of arobics instructor to get revenge. wow. While previous commentors have metioned the sword flying out of the closet on the string no one has yet metioned the powerful love scene. Where the sexy leading man cop takes off his shirt to reveal a mane of backhair. The fun never ends. Rent this!!!!!! This is a pretty silly film, including what may well be the least erotic come-on ever to make it to the big screen (the heroine pours V-8 all over herself and invites the hero to lick it off -- yuck!). And yet it also features the resplendent Lucinda Dickey in what is far and away her most erotic performance. In those long ago days, women -- even action heroines -- with real muscles were a rarity, and I can still remember the way my jaw dropped when Dickey took off her shirt, revealing the most powerfully built female back and biceps I'd ever seen. Dickey's beauty and vitality carry the film: she could have been a female Schwarzenegger if anybody had had the vision to promote her. I've always been fascinated by ninjistsu, who would know that it will go further than beyond. In "Ninja III", it's fun creepy and intriguing. A ninja gets shot up by the police, and uses his spirit for revenge. The victim, a lovely young woman named Christie(Lucinda Dickey). She falls for the cop who was involved in the shooting. The love scene where she pours the V8 on her body knocked me out! The ninja's death gets the attention of another in Japan named Yamada(Sho Kosugi) he comes to America not only to save Christie, but to put the ninja back to the grave. Simply because he put out Yamada's left eye with a shuriken(throwing star). The fight scenes were excellent. I liked the part when the plywood falls on Yamada, and he splits it with his foot. And when he was caught, he tells the officer Christie was involved with that everything will be fine. Rule of thumb: Never under estimate a ninja. He took out the other cops without killing them. And he did his thing without worry. Of course, Chirstie did her best trying to put the ninja in his place for using her a tool for revenge. It was a good movie, great for martial arts buffs. 3 out of 5 stars! This film is the greatest ninja film ever made in my opinion and if you haven't seen it then its worth watching. I would rate this film a 10/10 if you want to see more then check out http://uk.geocities.com/ninja3thedomination The opening sequence where the evil ninja is killing everyone in his way is excellent his character is the best. He then has to possesses ayoung woman who finds him dying. She then has to take revenge on the cops that killed him which means there's more killing and action. But only a ninja can destroy a ninja so she and her boyfriend who is also one of her targets enlist the help of Yamad(Sho Kosugi) to release the evil ninjas spirit and destroy him. After seeing this movie, I have no choice but to write a review in the hopes that there are others like me out there who were blown away by the rocket fueled ninja action and white hot sexual titillation that is Ninja III: The Domination.

We all know that Sho Kosugi rocks. That is a given, but how about Jordan Bennett's ultra macho interpretation of his character police officer "Billy Secord"? Bravo Mr. Bennett, bravo. You prove early on, while trying to seduce the buxom Christie (played to perfection by one Miss Lucinda Dickey of Breakin' fame)that you are not afraid to take chances on your craft. I particularly enjoyed how you do not feel the need to step in and attempt to help her as 4 thugs try to rape her outside her gym. Oh you could have helped sure, but by standing there and watching you let her know who was boss. Secord will wear the pants in this relationship. I also enjoyed how Mr. Bennett was not afraid to repeatedly take off his shirt or wear the wife-beater tank top despite his gorilla like shoulders and back. Back and shoulder hair are hot and Secord knows it. And How about Lucinda Dickey? All I can say is "KABOOM" - I see a sex bomb getting ready to explode. She's got all the right moves as both a temptress and a martial arts whiz. The chemistry behind Dickey and Bennett is what makes this movie tick. You'd think she would hate him because he's kind of a cheesy jerk, but no my friends. The animal magnetism is too strong to resist, and they bond like crazy glue. Sho Kasugi is not as prominent as you might think, though still a main character, which is fine by me because all I wanted was more Bennett and Dickey. He does seem to wear a lot of eye makeup which was nice to see. The special effects? Wow. That is all I can say. I will not give away the ending but let's just say it will not disappoint. I love Ninja III: The domination, and can only hope that there is a Ninja 4. I give it a 5 out of 5 throwing stars. disappoint. Excellent plot line makes this movie one of the classic, cult ninja flicks of all time. The plot being that this woman's soul is possessed by an evil ninja spirit. I mean to be honest if i could obtain ninja ability through possession I would. Furthermore, for being in the 80's and such the fact that the ninja aspect was far greater in this particular decade is evident and despite all that, Ninja 3 The Domination manages to keep it original from the American Ninja cookie cutter molds that plagued the 80's for so long. This chick is definitely Michael Dudikoff on steroids.... I mean the first American ninja was great but let's get real folks it has nothing on Ninja 3 This is an action packed film that makes me feel very peaceful and relaxed every time I see it. The film (short of its conclusion) demonstrates that in the face of extreme odds, it is still possible to prevail.

This film is very refreshing, and likely to be banned at any moment. Get a copy of it before the thought police burn every copy they can find. They don't want you to have hope for the future, or to think you have a chance.

On the other hand, should Political Correctness fail to supress it, this would be an excellent movie to release on DVD. Such a release could contain interviews with the writer and director, and related goodies. I'm sure it would sell some copies, and I would be one of the first to buy it.

- Mincka There are few movies that have the massive amount of non stop ninja action as Ninja III: the Domination. This is a story of love, redemption and revenge, however, this is mainly a story about flipping out and killing people for no reason at all. If you've been searching for a movie where a ninja goes absolutely nuts and takes all kinds of people to their graves just because he's a ninja and he can do it, this is the movie for you. I can't think of any movies to compare this to, because no movie is this awesome. Wait, oh, have you ever seen the thing with two heads? There is a part in that where the titular thing is riding around on a motorcycle and about a million cop cars are chasing it/them around, but they keep crashing and what not BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CATCH THE THING WITH TWO HEADS!!! Well, that is kind of what Ninja III is like. I highly recommend this film especially if you like the following things: Ninjas, swords, Lucinda Dickie from Breakin' and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, video games about being a bouncer in a bar, ambiguous and underdeveloped love stories or "good" ninjas. Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun. Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from trusty. for many and many years, gaijin have visited japan for learning martial arts, instead of acquiring any knowledge on it, gainjin have been told only nihonjin could achieve the excelent performance required to show some techniques in a "public" performance such as a movie...

this one special movie, made by sho kosugi, not only shows all of those techniques and skills, but also teaches many and many lessons on how to achieve them, and one can verify that by seeing a LUCINDA DICKEY performing fantastic and unforgettable acting skills in NINJUTSU...

I strongly recommend watching this movie more than thrice, because three times is not enough to seek out hints and tips given so easily by sho kosugi to those who really seek knowledge itself, the gnosis... This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously 80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun. This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies. So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one. I had never seen this movie before it aired on a local cable sci-fi network. It reminded me of the Irwin Allen TV series of the late 60's (Time Tunnel etc). Excellent effects (they beat Star Trek 5 done 20 years later, but then that wasn't very hard to accomplish).

I found the script very intriguing and mature for this type of production. They would have needed a few touch ups to tie some loose ends on the characters' level, but for a kid movie its surprisingly interesting (especially the the glimpse at futuristic euro- politics, surprisingly similar to today's European Union!)

The plot is indeed reminiscent of Twilight Zone in general (as other users have pointed), but in this case it's a compliment.

Great sets, by the way!

7/10 This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and "Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem. In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.

The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show "UFO," which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.

Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.

Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library. All right, I'll grant you that some of the science in "Doppelganger" (or "Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun") is kind of dopey.The idea of an entire planet existing undetected (because we can't see it on the other side of our sun) doesn't hold up at all - any Astronomy 101 student knows that another planet the size of Earth would cause gravitational perturbances in the motions of other planets. That's how astronomers deduced the existence of Pluto, after all, and that's how they find comets and asteroids and moons on a regular basis.

And the idea that a mirror image Earth somehow evolved in almost perfect parallel to our Earth, down to English speaking scientists and human counterparts for each human born on our Earth...that takes things out of 'hard science' fiction and into "Twilight Zone" territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a major suspension of critical thinking to accept and enjoy.

But man, this movie knocked my socks off as an adolescent. I was still used to fairly cheerful, upbeat science fiction films when the hero won through in the end - even "2001" could be interpreted as having an 'upbeat' ending.

But in this case: Thinnes attempted to dock with his orbiting mothership so he could return to his own Earth, only to be bounced back out of his docking berth (Something about 'the polarities not being reversed because his 'doppelganger' wasn't doing the same thing. Apparently Thinnes' 'doppelganger' had decided he was happy in his new home.) Thinnes' ship started the descent back to the CounterEarth launch site, and I was certain that he would somehow get the damaged craft to land safely and try again, armed with the new info that would let him and his backers succeed. He was The Hero after all, and the Hero always wins through in the end.

Instead, Thinnes couldn't maintain control of the crippled craft, and the ship's subsequent crash into the launch site was so horrible and devastating that it killed everyone (except for the chief project leader) and destroyed all records of the project and Thinnes' existence. Thinnes never got to go home, and he perished uselessly, his secrets never revealed.

Except for the Planet Of the Apes series, I had never seen such a sad and downbeat ending, and it always stuck in my mind - especially the ferocious devastation of the crash scene near the beginning of the move (you knew that spaceship was NEVER going to fly again!) and the one at the very end.

I'd love to see this movie again, and see how well it held up over the years. Interesting premise; interestingly worked out; the strongest feature of this film is the emotional tension of the astronaut who knows a truth, but is unable to convey it to others. Overlook the weaknesses and just enjoy the movie, but be prepared for a certain level of suspense. Fans of Gerry Anderson's productions will recognise several actors and vehicles from UFO (which was made after Doppelgänger) - as well as sound effects from various Anderson series. Barry Gray's excellent music (mostly unique to this film) adds to the feeling of familiarity. For these reasons alone, I think any Gerry Anderson fan would find Doppelgänger worth getting.

Judged simply as a film, it has to be said that Doppelgänger is flawed. It is known that there were major problems during production, and I suspect this is why there is a time-consuming plot thread that ends abruptly and appears to have no relevance to the rest of the story. Presumably time/budget constraints prevented the relevance from emerging!

Distractingly, the special effects range from outstandingly good - better than any 1960s film that I know of - to disappointingly bad.

Nevertheless, even with these flaws, Doppelgänger's main story is well told and keeps the viewer (or, at least, this viewer) engaged throughout. The ending is perhaps not what one might expect from Anderson, yet at the same time it is typical of Anderson, and it is certainly appropriate. To find out what I mean you'll have to watch it for yourself. :) Gerry Anderson's first live-action foray in the way of a major motion picture that benefits from incredible model FX work and,a great Barry Gray music score. The reel-to-reel analog computers, in the far-off year "2069" (I guess Anderson really wanted a safe date of a 100 years later!) are a hoot to see as are the guru-jacket fashions, but one could easily accuse 2001 of the same violations, but no one could have foreseen some things as they turn out. This film was the springboard for the series UFO the following year, and in fact not only had the same FX people, and producers but many of the cast were regulars in that show.

It always comes off like an "alternate history" future more than anything else-the "Apollo-like" rocket used in the lift-off, it always seems like this is really another planet than earth. Given the "alternate earth" plot, one would assume that was the feeling they wanted. We end up with an ending that posits more questions than answers. That because the "other earth" exists every movement, event and thing said is duplicated as it's happening on both worlds. Because of that given, and the sun in between, the two versions of the same person (in this case Glenn Ross, astronaut) can never meet. A complete accident discovered the planet in the first place when it would have most likely stayed a secret forever.

Filmed mostly in Portugal with FX work in England, it's a must-own for any Gerry Anderson fan. I have the Image bare bones DVD from a few years ago now out of print, but one hopes Universal will re-release it with, perhaps extras and even a Gerry Anderson commentary. Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is about the discovery of a planet on the other side of the sun which shares the same orbit as earth and therefore has been undiscovered until a space probe on the far side of the sun photographs it. Of course two astronauts (Roy Thinnes & Ian Hendry) are sent to explore it but due to a malfunction they crash & find themselves back on earth only 3 weeks into their six week journey. Of course they're berated (at least Thinnes is, Hendry is gravely injured) and grilled and asked why they turned back on their mission but it's claimed that they didn't. Until Thinnes seems to notice a few very odd things about being back "home". This is excellent if somewhat talky at times, and the sets and feel aren't a far cry from "Thunderbirds" territory but will live actors for once. It's no big "Star Wars" type production but more quiet science fiction that one has to think about a bit. Well worth seeing and it's criminal that the DVD is out of print. 8 out of 10. When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors/actresses are from his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse? I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad you did. This lesser known film starring Roy Thinnes (From TV's Invaders) is actually what I consider a lost gem. It was made at a time where the story was more important that the special effects (though the effect are fairly good for its time). A scientist theorizes that there is another world in Earth's Orbit directly behind the sun. Since the sun always blocks it from us we can never see it from Earth. Roy Thinnes is selected to go on a mission to get to this world. I don't want to tell the rest of the plot because it will give the rest of the movie away. Let's just say there are some real surprises.

The movie is British and has that good British flavor of acting that was in such TV series like The Avengers. One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing it when it was on Foxtel last year.

Despite the age of the film it doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was.

Overall I give it a 7/10 I saw this movie in the early 70's when I was about 10 yrs. old on TV. It was on after school, and as I watched, I was so drawn into the whole idea of the two astronauts going on a mission to another undiscovered planet, that I asked my mom if I could get the cassette recorder out. She let me. So I wrapped the cord of the mic around the Channel knob, so the mic was hanging in front of the speaker. This movie is the first one I ever paid enough attention to - and cared enough about to record. (Just the audio - there were no VCRs at the time.) The plot will have you hanging onto every word.. every minute of this film.. The ending will blow your mind. After watching the Journey to the Far Side of the Sun.. You will Have flash-backs in your mind about it for a long time. I did replay the audio recording for many years... and "saw" it over and over in my mind. Then - maybe 15 years later.. when VCR's were common, and they sold tapes in stores.. I always looked for it.. but never found it. But when the Internet came along one day I searched for it and purchased it in a second. So.. after about 30 years after seeing it for the first time - I got to see it again. WOW!~~ It was spectacular! Just for reference.. I must have watched it 50 times since. This is an excellent Anderson production worth comparing with the best episodes of UFO or SPACE 1999 (first series). Of course it isn't some SFX extravaganza or Star Wars pseudo-mystic tripe fest, but a subtle movie that has a slow pace, yet it conveys the creepy, eerie and uncanny atmosphere of the best Anderson productions: for lovers of 'cerebral' sci-fi. Lynn Loring's voice is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. SFX are good for this kind of product and acting is good as well. Two astronauts visit a planet on the opposite side of the sun but crash land home instead...or do they? Ah, videophones! Every now and then peddled as the next 'everyone's gadget next decade' but still to happen 40 years later. The device of Earth's twin planet on the opposite side of the sun also returns in Gamera tai daiakuju Giron (1969), so who copied whom? 'Doppleganger', ( or 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun' as it is more commonly known ) was written ( with input by the late Donald James ) and produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, best known for their 'Supermarionation' television shows such as 'Thunderbirds'.

The international space agency Eurosec discovers the existence of a mysterious planet on the other side of the sun, and proposes a manned flight be sent there. The committee balk at the exhorbitant cost, and shelve the project. But when a security leak at the agency is discovered, fearing that the Russians might get there first, the project gets the green light.

American astronaut Glenn Ross ( Roy Thinnes ) is teamed with British scientist John Kane ( Ian Hendry ). After weeks of gruelling training, the Phoenix blasts off, heading for the unknown.

Three weeks later, their ship crashes in what appears to be a bleak, mountainous landscape. Ross survives, but Kane is badly injured. A light is seen moving towards them...

I will leave the synopsis here. Until this point, the film has been gripping, with excellent special effects ( by Derek Meddings ) and music by Anderson's resident composer Barry Gray ( why it has not been issued on C.D. is a mystery ). But when Ross and Kane crash land, and we discover the secret of the alien world - it is a duplicate of our own, everyone on it is the same, the only major difference is that things are reversed - it becomes less interesting, and ends with a shattering anti-climax. I think the cinema was the wrong place to do this idea, in fact Gerry & Sylvia later did something similar on their 'Space: 1999' show. Ross risks ( and ultimately loses ) his life in an effort to return to Earth - his Earth. But why? The new Earth is so similar he might as well not have bothered.

Roy Thinnes had recently done 'The Invaders' television series, and gives a competent performance ( pity there weren't more scenes like the one where he rows with his wife ). Ian Hendry is good as 'Kane', but vanishes from the story too soon. Several actors went on to appear in the Andersons' 'U.F.O.' such as Ed Bishop and George Sewell. Blink and you will miss Nicholas Courtney ( 'The Brigadier' from 'Dr.Who' in a tiny role ). But the acting honours go to the late Patrick Wymark as 'Jason Webb', head of Eurosec. The character is not far removed from 'Sir John Wilder', the one he played in A.T.V.'s 'The Power Game'. Webb is such a devious character he is marvellous to watch. Herbert Lom's contribution ( as a spy with a camera hidden in a false eye ) amounts to little more than a cameo.

Like I said, the special effects are marvellous, as are the sets. So the film is worth watching, but do not expect very much to happen once the action moves to the mirror planet. With a stronger script, this could have been another 'Planet Of The Apes' or - dare I say it - '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

In Anderson's productions, he made the future seem like a great place, an adventure playground where science was cool, everyone had swank cars whose doors opened vertically, sexy women, and absolutely no suggestion that anything is seriously wrong with the world. We are in the future now and people are still watching 'Coronation Street' every other night. How disappointing. If a mirror Earth really exists somewhere, one hopes that is a better place than this one. If all the women there look like Lynn Loring or Loni von Friedl, I will be on the next flight! "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (aka "Doppelganger") is an entertaining, Twilight Zone-style sci-fi offering from Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (the team behind Space: 1999, UFO, Thunderbirds, Fireball XL-5 and others). In the film, Roy Thinnes (of the "Invaders" TV show) and Ian Hendry star as astronauts sent on a flight to a planet which shares an exact orbit of the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun; hence previously hidden from view. A pushy European space flight director (over-acted by the late Patrick Wymark) gets the flight fast-tracked and after rigorous training , the astronauts are good to go. Thus begins the best sequences in the film, the launch, flight and landing on the 'other' earth. Dazzling rocket miniature work (by Derek Meddings) and a dream-like, elegant spaceflight (somewhat reminiscent of the best moments of "2001: A Space Odyssey") are easy highlights of the movie. The landing on the "doppelganger" earth is both exciting and eerie. After this, the Twilight Zone aspect of the film kicks in; with a plot lifted almost whole from the classic TZ episode, "The Parallel." That aside, the film is still solid sci-fi, with some intriguing 'mirror-world' stuff to chew on (backwards writing and left-handed handshakes, for example). Less successful are the scenes depicting a mid-21st century earth; where all the men wear turtlenecks and Nehru jackets and all the women wear mini-skirts. Some of the relationships with women in the film are very 'non-PC' by today's standards as well. And (in the most consistent failing of most 20th century sci-fi) the computers, telephones and other hardware are all big, colorful and clunky (right out of Patrick McGoohan's "The Prisoner"). No one foresaw the digital microprocessor age! If one can accept these failings in foresight, the movie is very interesting, with a solid lead performance by Thinnes as the troubled astronaut. And with a nice, 1960s/early '70s style nihilistic ending! For fans of retro sci-fi (like myself) this is a "Journey" worth taking! I have fond memories of watching this visually dazzling film as a child in the late 70s/early 80s on wor-tv (now upn-9) in NY. Though a product of the swinging 60s, this film has hardly aged. The effects are just as wonderous as 2001, and in some ways superior (the model work is flawless). With an attractive cast, great color photography and set design, and an evocative score, JTTFSOTS is a winner! I first saw this in the 70s on syndicated TV and admired its production values, which were high tech for the time. The remastered video is rich and colorful, far more intense then the pale 35 mm TV prints. This movie deserves more attention: it paved the way for UFO, Space: 1999 and even Star Wars with its detailed miniatures and cleverly conceived gadgets. Sure, the story of an alternative anti-matter planet Earth has been recycled a hundred times since Star Trek, but the beauty of this film is its self-conscious European flair for design: from the Rolls Royce space engines to the "Euro Sec" letterhead business paper, JFSS or Dopplegangers as it was called in Europe is enjoyable for the imaginary vision of Europe in space in the shadow of the Superpowers. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's ambitious epic gets a little tedious when the American astronaut finally realizes that he is on the doppleganger Earth, and everything is literally downhill after the poetically graceful shuttle boarding sequence. A mediocre story is helped along by a grand and lyrical classical score by the late great Barry Gray, the John Williams of Britain. I'm a huge space buff, and at nearly 44, I've just discovered this flick for the first time. I came at it in a roundabout way from Space 1999, then UFO. I went hunting for other Anderson creations and found this was their first live-action work. What a home run! I actually heard about this movie many years ago, but never knew what it was called, so I'm happy to have found it by accident.

These Andersons were nothing short of amazing in their writing, the execution of the completely believable and realistic-looking models, the quality of acting, etc.

I don't think it looks dated at all. Let me tell you... I'll take good old models over the fake-looking CGI crap of today ANY TIME! Seriously, most of the rocket scenes looked pretty real. They had it down to a science! If you choose to think of what you are looking at as real, it isn't hard to actually believe it.

Also, the amount of detail in set designs, the beautiful photography, the whole look... man, I wish I could go back to that time! They knew how to make great movies in the 60's. Personally, I've lost all interest in Hollywood movies today. Anybody with a budget can do CGI. I hate it! Bring back the models! Think of all the people that style employed! Anyway, I am ranting. :-) If you like good sci-fi that's very well-done, you will do yourself a service by watching this. This movie has been a favorite of mine and is entwined with the Christmas Holidays for me for two reasons: (1) growing up in the 1960s, everything was space-related from advertising to television programs and even Santa Claus found himself in spaceships during that era; and (2) I saw this movie during a Christmas shopping trip when I was ten years old and it brought back fond memories of my favorite TV shows when I was even younger ("Supercar", Fireball XL5", and "Stingray",). Therefore, I am a tad biased when it comes to this movie for personal reasons.

That said, as a long-time student of film, this is mainly a movie for fans of Gerry Anderson (and Barry Gray; oh, that gorgeous score!) whereas the casual movie-watcher will be put off by the future-vision-from-the-past (dig those wild cars, commercial aircraft, clothes, etc.) and the so-called "plot twist" which will cause some to groan. However, if you can look past the post-"2001: A Space Odyssey" desire to make a science fiction film with a "far out" story line, and if you enjoy imaginative special effects, then you will enjoy this gem from an era when man had just walked on the Moon and people were still looking up at the stars in wonder and hope for the future rather than looking down at the banal trappings of the actual 21st Century. This movie is a gem...an undiscovered Gerry Anderson classic.

The origins of both "UFO" and "Space 1999" are obvious from this movie, including the cast list which includes the late Ed Bishop and George Sewell who both went onto "UFO".

It is unfortunate that Anderson, despite his many TV successes, did not get a chance to develop his talent on the big screen. Just think what he could have done with the movie version of "Thunderbirds" (which he quite rightly disowned himself from!).

I'm sure if you give "JTTFSOTS"/"Doppleganger" a fair chance you'll appreciate it's good qualities. Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom. If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9 times out of 10 will show the "Odessa Stairs" sequence of this film. It's hard to say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the (at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage (The Untouchables' climax comes to mind).

Montage, which was not just Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story. Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the 20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion.

Of course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over, not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself, Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and style, and that is what wins over in the end.

Some may want to check it outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of the must sees of a lifetime. Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.

If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest. Battleship Potemkin is a celluloid masterpiece. The direction of

Eisenstein is truly a sight. The film chronicles a ship of disgruntled

sailors who are tired of being mistreated by their superior officers.

Eventually, the sailors finally have enough of the abuse and send the

officers packing. During this time period, there was a shortage of film

stock in the Soviet Union. The goverment wanted to get their message

out to the people so they started a National Film Company and one of

the members was Sergei Eisenstein. The films were shot on miniscule

budgets and the shortage of film stock forced Eisentein to be careful

and selective with the footage that he shot. In the end, Eisenstein had

to reuse footage in order to make a feature length picture.

The most famous of the action set pieces in this film is the much

talked about massacre on the steps. This scene was spoofed in Bananas

and most recently in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables. If you want to

learn film-making, I strongly advise you to watch Battleship Potemkin.

It's one of the essentials.

A+ A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has been.

'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the '20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism, certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated, but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie.

The most memorable moments in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again. Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron.

Eisenstein was a revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers.

Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W. Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein.

The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice.

Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of a plate bearing the words "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread" signifies the beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging. It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era.

The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer forever.

The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting impression of the horror of the czarist regime.

The death of a young mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event.

Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago. Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind.

Okay, so "The Battleship Potemkin" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know how accurate it is). A 10/10.

Oh, and we should have learned by now that "Potemkin" should be transliterated as "Potyomkin". Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen. The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin.

In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history).

Identified by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead," Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.

The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.

Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.

Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power. The Battleship Potemkin was said to have been a favourite of Charlie Chaplin. It presents a dramatised version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist regime.

The film is a textbook cinema classic, and a masterpiece of creative editing, especially in the famous Odessa Steps sequence in which innocent civilians are mown down in the bloodshed; the happenings of a minute are drawn into five by frenzied cross-cutting. The film contains 1,300 separate shots, and in 1948 and 1958 was judged the best film ever made by a panel of international critics. The Battleship Potemkin is in the public domain, in some parts of the world. On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin / The Battleship Potemkin.'

The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading "KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;" close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably "borrowed" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.

However, the film itself is best analysed – not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes – but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.

The film is often referred to as "propaganda," and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.

The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of "montage." Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.

One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement. The Battleship Potemkin is now the oldest film I've seen and it is also the first silent film I've seen. I heard a lot of good things about this movie so I got the tape out at home and I watched it. When it ended I just thought that this was a classic masterpiece. The story is based on the real-life Russian Battleship Potemkin. You wouldn't think it but some of it was sad and disgusting. Sad being that the mother dies and the pram rolls down the stairway and disgusting being they have to eat rotten meat with maggots in it.

Today it is still considered to be one of the best silent and Russian films ever made. I think that everyone should see it (if they can find it.) You will be presently surprised at how good it is. It's a must see classic. 5/5. There are only a handful of movies that were made on such a grand scale and made such a difference in the art of movie making.

"Bronenosets Potyomkin" is one of these movies, and it should be on anyone's list looking to learn more about the history of cinema.

Grigori Aleksandrov & Sergei M. Eisenstein directed this groundbreaking film that documents the horrors taking place on a Russian battleship. When the sailors finally retaliate against their superiors, the locals embrace the them, and support them. Things get ugly when a group of soldiers are sent to the small town to take care of business. What follows is one of the most imitated scenes in the history of cinema. Anyone who has seen "The Untouchables", and "Bronenosets Potyomkin" knows exactly what I mean.

Overall I think this movie raised the bar for film making just as "Intolerance" did a few years earlier. If you do not mind silent films, do yourself a favor, and see "Bronenosets Potyomkin".

If you don't like silent films..... watch "Bronenosets Potyomkin" anyway.

I did something a little daring tonight when I watched this movie. I attempted to wean myself from silent movie scores. Sure, when this film originally was distributed, a piano score was probably played with it. Oftentimes, the director would choose the score himself (Charlie Chaplin often composed the scores of his later silent films). But most of the music you hear on VHS tapes over silent films is in no way the same music that was supposed to be played when the film was first released. And, then again, there were plenty of silent films that were played without a score. I do not know the history of Potemkin's score, so I decided to watch it for the medium this piece of art was produced within - film.

Soon after I turned the music off, unaided (or should I say unimpeded) by the musical interpretation of the emotions on screen, I became utterly attached to the film. Visually, it is easily one of the most stunning of all films. Eisenstein was a master of composition. The editing, possibly the cinematic technique Eisenstein is most famous for (montage), is extraordinary. The mood of this film is anger, and it stirred my passions violently.

It takes a lot of effort to enjoy a silent film, especially a drama, but films like Battleship Potemkin prove that this effort is entirely worth it. Come on! You owe it to yourself to watch this film! Your education is incomplete without it. It was surprising that a silent film could be so easy to watch. The economy with which it has been edited and the films structure itself are the main elements that contribute to this.

The film really captures the spirit of the revolution that it is dealing with - you really sympathise with the sailors and citizens. Of course, this film has it's own agenda, but as it is a practically redundant cause, it can be viewed as a piece of entertainment in a much clearer sense.

The tension created on the screen is excellent - starting with the battleship itself, and then moving onto the mainland. Things escalate believably and for a film of it's era, it really is quite unflinching in revealing the sacrifices made by the characters in the film.

This really is worth sitting through, (that is if you can adjust your modern viewing habits for 90mins). the movie touches the soul of the audience very much,some scene in the movie is ultimate and tears comes out automatically,i'm surprised by seeing this movie that any director can direct this type of movie in the year 1925.as a student of cinema i can say this movie helps a lot to understand use of montage.first time when our teacher told us about this movie means genre of this movie we thought nothing could be there in this movie to understand but finally when sir explained it then we came to know how great this movie is.lastly i can say it helps a lot understanding films.and being a cinema student i can the viewers that they can see this movie. The photography and editing of the movie is exceptional for the time period. Eisenstein builds upon each scene of the movie leading to the the sailor's revolt and the massacre at the town. As much as the movie is a high point in the cinema, it is also an example of SZocialist Realism. by 1925 the Soviet government actively used the arts, including film, as a means to spread the message of the revolution. Eisensteins portrayal of the revolt on the Battleship Potempkin offers the viewer insight into the message of the Soviet elite. Marxist theory and perspectives of class struggle are demonstrated as the sailors who represent the oppressed workers and the officers who represent the elite of society. Much of the film demonstrates the communist party message and how film was used as a tool of propaganda. SPOILERS Every major regime uses the country's media to it's own ends. Whether the Nazi banning of certain leaflets, or the televised Chinese alternative of Tianamen Square, Governments have tried to influence the people through different mediums since the beginning of time. In 1925 though, celebrating the failed mutiny of 1905, the Russian Communist Government supported the creation of this film, Battleship Potempkin. A major piece of cinematic history, it remains powerful and beautiful to this very day.

Set aboard the Battleship Potempkin, the crew are unhappy. In miserable living conditions and with maggot infested food, they are angry at their upper class suppressors. Now though, after the rotten food, enough is enough. Led by Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), the crew turn upon their masters and fight for their freedom.

As far as propaganda goes, "Battleship Potempkin" is perfect. Presenting a positive light on the first, unsuccessful, communist mutiny, the film was a useful Soviet tool. Eighty years after the films release though, and the USSR has disappeared completely off the map. The amazing thing about this film though is that whilst the country it's message was intended for has disappeared, the film remains a powerful and worthy piece of cinema.

Written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, the film is surprisingly a joy to watch. It is true, that it is far from what we would nowadays consider 'entertainment', but the film is a beautiful piece of art.

Whether it be the scenes aboard the boat or the often talked about scene on the steps of Odessa, everything about this film is perfectly made. The music is powerful and dramatic, the lighting is flawless, even the acting, whilst slightly overdone, is perfect for the piece. Basically, there is no way to fault this film's end product.

It's impossible to know how the Russian people received this film upon it's release. Praising a country which has not existed for fifteen years, it's difficult for us to know the full spirits that the film inspires. As a piece of art though, it is magnificent. Beautiful from start to finish, it is far from an easy watch, but it is well worth the effort. This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes. Eisenstien's "Potempkin", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago. DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film! This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike (Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students! Based on actual events of 1905, silent film THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN concerns an Imperial Russian ship on which abominable conditions lead to a mutiny. Shocked by conditions on the ship, citizens of the port city Odessa rally to the mutineers' support--and in consequence find themselves at the mercy of Imperial forces, who attack the civilian supporters with savage force.

POTEMKIN is a film in which individual characters are much less important than the groups and crowds of which they are members, and it achieves its incredible power by showing the clash of the groups and crowds in a series of extraordinarily visualized and edited sequences. Amazingly, each of these sequences manage to top the previous one, and the film actually builds in power as it moves from the mutiny to the citizen's rally to the massacre on the Odessa steps--the latter of which is among the most famous sequences in all of film history. Filming largely where the real events actually occurred, director Eisenstein's vision is extraordinary as he builds--not only from sequence to sequence but from moment to moment within each sequence--some of the most memorable images ever committed to film.

To describe POTEMKIN as a great film is something of an understatement. It is an absolute essential, an absolute necessity to any one seriously interested in cinema as an art form, purely visual cinema at its most brilliant, often imitated, seldom equaled, never bested.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer /*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */

Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.

BTW, the previous poster noted: "Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene."

I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.

Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as "great" or "classic", to be "slow" or "boring", this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.

For me though, it is a full 10/10. The famous closeup of their breakfast meat, crawling with maggots still is recorded by fire in my neurons or the wind filling the right places of the sails, the fog better than Carpenter's THE FOG cos is the real terror bursting out from human history instead of pirates ghosts. But , I tell ya' something: Not even the magnificent scene in homenage performed by Brian Di Palma with the excellent music of Ennio Morricone in The Untochables (filmed in slow motion)can equal the effect of the original masterpiece of the crowd climbing down the ladders. We see not merely the baby stroller but I remember the hand of a baby stepped by militar boot, someone with no feet escaping at the last minute, someone wearing glasses (then a cut edition) and then the same glasses broken by a bullet that passed through....mini stories in a single scene. Have wanted to see this for a while: I never thought I'd be watching it in a damp Trafalgar Square, London with 15,000 other people and all to a new score by the Pet Shop Boys.

Quickly, that experience specifically. A new departure from PSB, it seemed to suffer from the same problem the miniaturist Hugo Wolf had when he wrote his opera Der Corregidor: the long structure was a chain of short ones, i.e. songs. PSB produced a more fluid, integrated score although it was quite static on its own terms. Neither could they resist song: a setting of the subtitled text worked in this respect a free standing meditation on the action of the Odessa steps massacre during the action of that sequence itself was, I'd go so far to say, counterproductive. Overall it was very exciting though, which is surely what Eisenstein was trying to achieve.

It is a very exciting film with choppier editing taking the place of acceleration of tension or action. In fact the film, though beautifully shot and passionately acted (it has a silent film melodrama, but not in the excess of the Hollywood comic style) breathes through its careful editing pacing specific shots with a sense of the rate at which the audience will take them in. And there's a huge range of perspective too; either he had a lot of cameras or the sequences on the harbor and steps took a great deal of time.

Super film, which can be assessed irrespective of sound, as that's how the finished product would have been conceived. 8/10 After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try.

I watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its reputation).

These are the things that impressed me the most.

1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than once I stopped to think "if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would have been computer-generated".

2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend "Killed for a bowl of soup", this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which, thankfully, hadn't been invented yet).

3) The slow descent into madness of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears, you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed, though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission.

4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again, when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with "propaganda"; only a different kind.

Overall: a film marred by a bit of a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive. I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it! This is one of the best films I've seen from the silent era (sad to say, I've yet to see too many with the exception of Chaplin/Keaton stuff). Very visually brilliant, with insanely influential style in editing and composition. Really unique (especially for its time) camera angles and extremely hectic editing. Definitely a must see for the film nerd.

The downside is that it is a bit too in your face about its politics (I have no problem with politics in film, as long as they are subtle or at least somewhat ignorable as a backseat to the story). Also, it's not an "entertainment" film, which is fine, but it's not something I'm going to watch a billion times. This is art, plain and simple, like it or not.

Worth an A+ for influence alone, but based on personal enjoyment, I give it an A-. I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well. Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps in the "Odessa staircase" sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army troops.

The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers.

To experts on Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

But there are a couple of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, "Kill the Jews!" This is on screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there.

How cruelly typical of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately, unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble!

Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone?

Also, why can't speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as "Potyomkin" instead of as "Potemkin"? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible pronunciations of "e": as either "ye" or as "yo." Sometimes two dots are used to distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be memorized. If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film "LA PIANISTE" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement, perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede Jellinek's novel "LA PIANISTE" (on which the film was based) is twice as "repulsive", "disgusting", "deranged" and even more fascinating -- though there can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with the best piano playing/dubbing an actor could deliver?

In the novel as in the film, there are two big antagonists to the "heroine" Kohut: her own mother (wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages racist/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional repression, and, let's say, übermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today without the danger of a mental breakdown.

"La Pianiste" also deals with a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?) the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways.

It must be mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film, forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film: unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, "horrendous" feelings painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism, masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human.

I thought "La Pianiste" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10 I saw this film at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival. La Pianiste reinforces the "Austrians=grim" thesis I'm formulating. Isabelle Huppert won a well-deserved Best Actress award at Cannes for her portrayal of a woman who, in her efforts to attain the artistic ideal, loses her humanity. Trapped by her talent, she suppresses her emotions and her sexuality until they can only be expressed in twisted and terrifying ways. When a younger student falls in love with her, our hopes rise, but are soon dashed by the realization that she cannot experience love the way others can. It is too late for her, and the film's final 30 harrowing minutes are, tellingly, devoid of the beautiful music that carried the first 90 minutes. The message seems to be that the music itself is not enough without the life and beauty it's describing. Isabelle Huppert must be one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. "La Pianiste" truly confirms it. As if that wasn't enough, Annie Girardot plays her mother and Annie Girardot is one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. So, as you may well imagine, those pieces of casting are worth the horror we're put through. Isabelle and Annie play characters we've never seen before on the screen. A mother and daughter yes but with such virulent fearlessness that sometimes I was unable even to blink or to breath. Personally, I don't believe in the director's intentions, I don't believe they (the intentions that is) go beyond the shocking anecdote and the ending made me scream with frustration but I was riveted by the story written in the face of the sensational Huppert and the fierceness of Girardot's strength. I highly recommend it to cinema lovers anywhere and to the collectors of great performances like me, you can't afford to miss "La Pianiste" Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like "Funny Games". This time he adopted Elfriede Jelineks "Die Klavierspielerin", which is probably her best work so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society.

Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of them.

Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced.

People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love, affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal) than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to ease her inner pain.

Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear.

Benoit Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs to Huppert. In the first twenty minutes we are swept away by several powerfully portrayed emotions: a suffocating and overbearing mother has a violent argument with her live-in 40yr old daughter; a piano teacher (and professor of music)'s love for her pupils expressed in unswerving critical appraisal; the joy that music can inspire both in the listener and the performer. Within this short space of time our senses have been assaulted convincingly with very real characters. We are also swept away by powerfully performed music and shown the difference between great and mediocre performance with a lot of attention to nuance. Such material alone would have been the basis for an outstanding film of widespread appeal. But the trend in French cinema being what it is, it goes deeper, exploring the repressed sexuality of the teacher, the expression of sexual freedom and subsequent breakdown within a context of passionate attraction, and the inevitable cycle of real abuse. We are drawn to her suffering and, at least initially, wonder how much suffering may be related to the accomplishment of genius, particularly in the composers she admires. The Piano Teacher contains graphic dialogue and depictions of sex and brutality in scenes that some people might rather not watch. The scenes are essential to the dilemmas which the film seeks to raise and so can hardly be called gratuitous. A great film it may be, but mainstream viewing it is not. Erika Kohut is a woman with deep sexual problems. At the start of the film, we see her arriving home late. When her older mother protests, Erika goes into a frenzy, attacking the older woman without pity. Erika, as it turns out, is a musical teacher of a certain renown in the conservatory where she teaches. When we next see her, she is the model of composure, but she shows a cruel side in the way she attacks a young male student because she feels he is wasting his time, and hers. The same goes for the insecure Anna, a talented girl who Erika hates, maybe because she sees in the young woman a promise that she is not willing to promote.

At the end of the day, we watch Erika as she goes into an amusement area and proceeds to one of the cabins where pornographic material is shown. Erika is transfixed as she watches the things that are being performed on the screen. On another occasion, Erika comes to a drive-in where a movie is in progress. Her attention goes toward a parked car in which, two lovers are performing a sex act. The camera lingers on Erika as she is lost in reverie watching what the two lovers are doing, until she is surprised by the young man inside the car. Erika flees horrified she's been discovered.

When a wealthy couple invites Erika to perform in a recital in their opulent home, she meets an eager young man, Walter, who is related to the hosts. Walter is immediately taken with Erika's playing; the young man is a talented pianist himself. His eagerness to compliment Erika is met with skepticism on her part. Walter decides to audition for Erika's master class, and is accepted.

Thus begins Walter pursuit of Erika, who is taken aback when she realizes what the young man's motives really are. In turn, Erika, begins to fantasize about Walter in ways that only her mind could, imagining what she would like him do when, and if, they get together. Walter gets turned off by the letter Erika has written to him, detailing sexual acts that are repugnant to the young man.

The film's ending, reminded us of the last sequence of Mr. Haneke's current "Cache". We are taken to a concert hall where Erika is going to perform. She is seen stalking the lobby looking for the arrival of Walter, who goes on into the hall without noticing her. Erika's expression to the camera reveals a lot more of her state of mind in that last minutes of the film. As she flees the lobby area after inflicting a wound on herself, the camera abandons her and concentrates on the building's facade that seems to stay on the screen for a long time.

"La Pianiste" is a personal triumph for Isabelle Huppert. This magnificent actress does one of her best appearances on the screen, guided by the sure hand of Michael Haneke, one of the most interesting directors working today. Ms. Huppert's works with economic gestures, yet, she projects so much of her soul as she burns the screen with her Erika.

The supporting cast does wonders under the director's guidance. Annie Girardot, always excellent, is perfect as Erika's mother. She seems to be the key of whatever went wrong with her daughter. There is a hint of incest that is played with subtleness in the context of the film. Benoit Magimel is perfectly cast as Walter. This young actor does a wonderful job in the film as the young man, so in love with a woman that is possessed by demons, that he'll never be able to chase away or get her to love him in a normal manner.

Michael Haneke films are always disturbing to watch, yet they offer so many rewards because he dares to go where other men don't. The magnificent music heard in the film are mainly by Schubert and Schumann, two composers that are Erika's own favorites. The movie is helped tremendously by Christian Berger's cinematography. After I saw "La Pianiste" several years ago, I said to myself that I would never see it again, so powerful and disturbing it was. Time went on but I could not get the movie and its main character, Erika Kahut out of my mind. The story of a respected Piano teacher in Vienna Conservatory, cool and collected on the surface, an expert in classical music, with the inner world so dark and disturbing with the demons of fear, self-loathing and self destruction strong enough to ruin her demanded more than one viewing. I read the book "The Piano Teacher" by Elfriede Jelinek, the controversial Nobel Prize winner in literature that the film is based on and after reading it I saw the film again. Second time, all pieces of puzzle came to the right places. Not very often an outstanding harrowing book is transferred to the screen with such brilliancy as "Le Pianiste". Three actors gave outstanding performances. Franz Schubert's Piano music, "soaked in the morbid humanity", is another bright star of the movie.

I only have one problem with Haneke's vision. There is a scene in the film where Haneke made some changes to Erika's character comparing to the novel. In the book, the furthest she went to reveal herself to Walter, the young student in the conservatory who became attracted to her, was in a letter. As soon as he realized what he was dealing with and showed to her how much he was repulsed by that, she had stopped communicating with him. Erika of the book would never chase Walter to throw herself to him. She kept everything inside - she did not like to act, she was not a chaser - she loved to watch. The big scene during the hockey game was not necessary. It tried to make Erika sympathetic (and of course, Huppert was heartbreaking) but it took the mystery that surrounded her - Jelinek did not write that scene, it sounded and looked false in otherwise excellent film. As with all Haneke films, make your own decision--don't be swayed by what you read and if you are interested in someone using the medium of film for their own unique ends, see it yourself. Isabelle Huppert is stunning in this film--combined with Haneke, these two never pull their punches. Haneke reels us in with the lure of golden boy, Benoit Magimel, but this is an anti-romance as much as Funny Games was an anti-thriller. You'll have to force yourself to watch much of it and the catharsis is much more in the range of sustained anxiety than any kind of emotional release but it's incredibly nervy and thought provoking; Haneke continues to hold up a mirror to how desensitised Western civilization is or has become. People may turn their noses up at this but it's only taking what Solondz did in Happiness a few steps further. While grounded in reality, much of what Erika (Huppert) does can be viewed as emotional metaphor. I'm not recommending it but I wouldn't dissuade you either...it definitely divides people but given it's largely about repression--that's no surprise. First of all, those who are faint at heart should definitely avoid this film. Even those, like me, who are desensitized to most graphically violent and sexual acts in movies should beware. I'm not telling you to steer away from the film, but be aware that what you're about to see is some disturbing material. Definitely not a pleasing film to watch, but nothing is put on screen strictly for shock value. But I must admit, when I watched the film for a second time, I had to skip to the next chapter when the "razor blade scene" came up.

The main character is one of the most unsympathetic sympathetic characters I can think of, but we start to better realize the humanity of her character later in the film's second act. In one scene, she stuffs broken glass in one of her student's jacket pocket after being dissatisfied with her apparently unsatisfactory performance and getting nervous when in front of a live audience. The student goes into her pocket and cries out with pain as she stares at her blood-stained hand. Next to the razor blade scene, that disturbed me most. The student's mother is not much more sympathetic than she. When she gets word that her daughter won't be able to play, she talks about it like she also got also her hand injured, being one of those spoiled mothers who tries to torture her daughter into becoming an overachiever.

Though the film intrigued me and caught my interest for the most part, I felt more needed to be explained about Isabelle Huppert's character. When a woman is fascinated by sadomasochistic porno movies and engaging in that behavior herself, you want to understand the root of the problem. The movie establishes that she wants desperately to be loved. Then why the hateful attitude towards everyone? Why does she receive sexual pleasure from pain?

The acting is terrific and I liked the glossy, stylized lighting. Altogether, it's not a film I'd recommend if you're in the mood to be entertained, but as I said it's very intriguing. And I'm sure if I watched it a few more times, I'd be able to spot certain subtleties that'll shed more light on aspects of the film I didn't realize initially.

My score: 7 (out of 10) At the end of my review of Cache, I wrote that I was intrigued with Haneke as a film maker. This is what led me to get the DVD for La Pianiste, which I just finished watching about a half hour ago.

It's all been expressed, here at IMDb and in many of the external reviews - the gruesomely twisted pathology that would 'create' an individual like Huppert's Erika, who is still trying, after years and years, to please her mother, at the expense of everyone and everything else in her life, beginning with her self. She's repressed everything that would free her from her self-imposed bondage, including, of course, her sexuality, which has literally imploded, to the point of madness, to where she can no longer even begin to comprehend what a genuine loving impulse would feel like.

This is a graphic portrait of a severe emotional cripple, one who never found the strength to get out of her childhood situation and become a functioning adult. I think this subject relates to all of us - we're all striving for autonomy, but there are needs, so many conflicting needs, most of which are not even on the conscious level. It also deals brilliantly with the contrast between what one fantasizes about, sexually, and the reality of those fantasies, as well as the consequences of choosing to share one's sexual fantasies with another human being. Huppert's character gets what she asks for in the course of the film, and it is hardly the emancipating experience she had imagined it to be.

Regarding the much-discussed scene in the bathroom: I really appreciated how this sequence had all the possible erotic charge (for the viewer, I mean) sucked out of it because of the prior scene, where she put the glass in the girl's pocket. By the time she's acting out her let's-see-if-this-guy-is-worthy scenario in the bathroom, we've already found out that she's dangerously disturbed and so it's not a turn on, her little domination session with our poor unsuspecting dupe.

I think another incredible achievement of this movie is how, about halfway through it, I completely forgot that it was not in English and that I was reading sub-titles. That has never happened before, in any foreign movie, and I've seen quite a few.

In this film, like Cache, the ending is not all wrapped up in a nice little tidy bow, but unlike Cache, we do at least get some sense of finality, despite the fact that we do not even know for sure whether Huppert's character is alive or dead. After experiencing La Pianiste, when it comes to Michael Haneke, I am, needless to say, more than a trifle intrigued. Isabelle Huppert portrays a talented female piano teacher who is staid, unfriendly and distant in public, and bitter towards her students. Privately, she seethes with violence and frustration, and her sexual life is solitary and perverse. She lives with her overbearing mother, who obsessively drives her to become noticed (and so advance in life) as a talented pianist. The key to the characters of both mother and daughter is 'obsession.' These characters cannot change their impulses anymore than a rabbit caught in headlights can avoid death.

The piano teacher meets a young, attractive, talented pianist who from the beginning is attracted to her. They start a relationship in the most unconventional way, but from the outset she makes perverse and violent terms that he must perform on her, which sickens him enough to want to terminate the relationship before it has really begun.

The film ties itself to the female lead. Isabelle Huppert amazes with a brutal, completely convincing performance as the piano teacher. She cleverly shows a woman who is drawn to beauty and perversion, but her violence is fed by her perverted impulses. As a film that is so character driven, you know it would not work half as well, had she acted poorly.

This is powerful, intelligently acted, and intelligently and sensitively adapted from the novel. The camera work also suits the film. There are what I can only think to call, framing shots where the director holds a scene and forces the eye to dart about. This is done extremely effectively against a blank bathroom wall, and is a further testament to the director's mastery.

Expect to be disturbed and sickened by this film. But, be brave - have the guts to go and see it. This is a very private look into essentially one person's life, but do not expect to be entertained in the Hollywood sense....there are no car chases in this film! I totally disagree with the comments of one of the critics before me who bashed the film. Having read the book, being impressed by it although this is a kind of literature that you cannot really LIKE (similar to Hubert Selby's writing) I expected being shocked but the effect was more subtle than this. Isabelle Hubert is a brilliant actress who manages to convey a multi-layered character. There are many scenes that totally focus on her and her subtle changes and I can imagine few actresses who would do so well, with so much disregard for their own reputation or image. There is this coldness, distance, cruelty and at the same time there's this helplessness, hurt and pain. There's a person who's in control and controlled at the same time. Maybe this is not realistic - although when you read the newspaper you'll read about much worse than this - but there's a truth to it that is very difficult to bear. I think it's an excellent film but I did not enjoy watching it.It's not boring but there are times when I wished it would end. BTW, her male counterpart is very well acted as well (and I think well chosen, too). First of all, I must say that I love this film.

It was the first film that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the direction was good !

Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore.

The roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance.

There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw.

I just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5/10

Oh yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience. A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for example.

Vince Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.

Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.

Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.

If it is true that sadomasochism is a two-sided coin which contains the whole in the diverse expression of its opposites, then the cinematic portrait of Erika Kohut has its reality. Professor Kohut treats her piano students with a kind of fascist sadism while longing for the same for herself. Her outward expression projects her desire. That is why she can hurt without guilt or remorse.

Along comes talented, charming, handsome young Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel) who is attracted to her because of her passion and her intensity. He wants to become her student so as to be close to her. She rejects him out of hand, but because of his talent the Vienna conservatory votes him in. He falls in love with her. Again she pushes him away, but he will not take no for an answer, and thereby begins his own descent into depravity and loss of self-respect.

The question the viewer might ask at this point is, who is in control? The sadist or the masochist? Indeed who is the sadist and who the masochist? It is hard to tell. Is it the person who has just been greatly abused both psychologically and physically, who is actually lying wounded on the floor in grotesque triumphant and fulfillment, or is it the person who is rushing out the door, sated, giving the order that no one is to know what happened.

But Erika is not just a sadomasochistic freak. She is a sex extreme freak. She wants to experience the extremes of human sexuality while maintaining the facade of respectability. Actually that isn't even true. She says she doesn't care what others think. She doesn't care if they walk in and find her bleeding on the floor because she is in love. Love, she calls it. For her sex and love are one and the same.

At one point Walter tells her that love isn't everything. How ironic such a superfluity is to her. How gratuitous the comment.

The movie is beautifully cut and masterfully directed by Michael Haneke who spins the tale with expert camera work and carefully constructed sets in which the essence of the action is not just clear but exemplified (as in the bathroom when Walter propels himself high above the top of the stall to find Erika within). He also employs a fine positioning of the players so that they are always where they should be with well timed cuts from one angle to another. This is particularly important in the scene in which Erika, like a blood-drained corpse caught in stark white and black light, lies under her lover, rigid as stone. Here for the most part we only see her face and the stark outline of her neck with its pulsating artery. We don't need to see any more.

The part of Erika Kohut is perfect for Isabelle Huppert who is not afraid of extremes; indeed she excels in them. I have seen her in a number of movies and what she does better than almost anyone is become the character body and soul. Like the woman she plays in this movie she is unafraid of what others may think and cares little about her appearance in a decorative sense. What matters to her is the performance and the challenge. No part is too demanding. No character too depraved. It's as if Huppert wants to experience all of humanity, and wants us to watch her as she does. She is always fascinating and nearly flawless. She is not merely a leading light of the French cinema; she is one of the great actresses of our time who has put together an amazingly diverse body of work.

I think it is highly instructive and affords us a wonderful and striking contrast to compare her performance here with her performance in The Lacemaker (La Dentellière) from 1977 when she was 22 years old. There she was apple sweet in her red hair and freckles and her pretty face and her cute little figure playing Pomme, a Parisian apprentice hairdresser. Her character was shy about sex and modest--just an ordinary French girl who hoped one day to be a beautician. Here she is a self-destructive witch, bitter with hateful knowledge of herself, shameless and entirely depraved.

Huppert is fortunate in being an actress in France where there are parts like this for women past the age of starlets. (Hollywood could never make a movie like this.) In the American cinema, only a handful of the very best and hardest working actresses can hope to have a career after the age of about thirty. Huppert greatly increases her exposure because of her ability and range, but also because she is willing to play unsympathetic roles, here and also in La Cérémonie (1995) in which she plays a vile, spiteful murderess.

Do see this for Isabelle Huppert. You won't forget her or the character she brings to life. This is a superb game for the N64 with superb graphics and a great one-player story-line and even better multi-player game best played with 4 people.

The many levels and options for weapons mean that this is one of the best games around for years. Two years after its initial release, Goldeneye still sits atop the field of first-person shooters for the Nintendo 64. Even the Quake and Turok series have not had the combination of graphic detail, sound quality, enemy intelligence, challenge and overall fun that bring me back to this game over and over again. The missions each have specific objectives that force you to think as Bond, not just to shoot up every baddie that pops up on your screen, but also to avoid cameras, disable security systems, rescue hostages, protect the Bond girl, and so on. Q gadgets abound in this game, including the famous watch. The game is loosely based on the movie storyline, including all the major characters and the best scenes of the movie, from the dam bungee-jump to the prop-plane escape to the tank chase through St. Petersburg. Even the layout is preserved where possible, so you'll recognize various situations if you've seen the film. Other levels are added to challenge the player and string together the scenes a little more. With each difficulty level the mission objectives are more difficult, the enemies smarter and the bullets more lethal. I still have not gotten through the 00-Agent levels. Cheats can be opened, not by entering codes or pushing buttons, but by completing certain levels within a certain time frame, and additional characters can be opened up for the multiplayer. The multiplayer is still the best among the first-person shooters. It's not as crisp as Turok but it doesn't slow down nearly as much... tons of options give your friends reason to blow each other up over and over again, and one more time just for kicks. There are better games for the N64, such as Zelda and all things Star Wars, but Rare has continued their streak of outstanding games with a first-person shooter that has not and will not be surpassed until they top themselves in 2000 with Perfect Dark. The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!! I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7/10 STARS Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.

I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that this movie belongs to the 'Aussie trash' pile, but it's fair to say that there are no Academy Award nominees here. What must be considered is that most of the actors in this film weren't actually actors as such, just kids with nothing better to do at the time. There were many others that were offered roles in the film but turned them down to go surfing up the coast; all things taken into account, it really wasn't a bad movie for its time. In some respects it's really not unlike today's times, where peer pressure is still alive and kicking, just without the mobile phones, computers and other similar gadgets that kids lived without, unlike this generation. Anyway, I have to rate this flick as an old fave that I watch once in a blue moon and never take too seriously... Debbie Vickers (Nell Schofield) and Sue Knight (Jad Capelja) want to become one of the cool girls in their high school. Uncool and ugly girls had two options, be a mole or a prude! Debbie and Sue imitate them by using their cheating practices in an exam. Two of the cool boys, Garry (Goeff Rhoe) and Danny (Tony Hughes) ask them for their answers and they all get busted. After a bawling out from the headmaster (Bud Tingwell) the cool girls meet them outside in the playground and confronted them about whether they "dobbed" on them all. As Debbie and Sue hadn't the cool girls invited them to the "dunnies" for a smoke. They then start to hang with them on weekends at the beach, watching all the boys surf. Sue ends up going out with Danny and Debbie with Garry. A lot of usual teenage action takes place including sex, drugs and rock and roll. Garry has an eventual overdose of heroin which makes Debbie face the inequalities of life and she decides to learn to surf instead of just watching the boys. They are not happy but watch her, calling names, and eventually Debbie masters the board. A cool early 80s Aussie film. Would you like to know why French and Italians love/hate each others? Would you like to have a glimpse of history that drives our lifetime? So, go to watch Virzi's film (in original language, of course) and you can look at a wonderful Monica Bellucci who finally speaks her native language from Città di Castello (Umbria, just at the border with Tuscany). And the rest of the characters speaking Livornese (lovely Sabrina Impacciatore and all the others). Daniel Auteuil definitely in his shoes with Napoleon. A lot of fun, a real fresco of the Elba Island landscape, and a picture about the political reasons to kill or leave alive a tyrant (good for all times). Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks, something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century. Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life.

With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and condemned to be shot by a firing squad.

Martino finds his consolation with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind.

Paolo Virzi, the director of "Caterina va in citta", shows why his early promise is still there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an excellent job with the images he was able to get.

Elio Germano, a young Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli. Screened this morning for the press at Roma film festival, "N - io e Napoleone" is easy to love. First of all it can count on great production values, as very few Italian films nowadays can, with wonderful settings and costumes. The cast is great too. Director Virzì constantly speaks of the young lead Elio Germano as "a young De Niro". Now, of course he is going a way too far, but sure the boy can act. I loved his performance, and he did a great job with the (tuscan) accent. Daniel Auteuil is a great actor and did very well as Bonaparte. It's really great to see him acting in Italian, I hope to see him working in Italy again very soon. The supporting cast worked well too - people like Valerio Mastrandrea or Sabrina Impacciatore may seem unlikely choices, but they all gave fine performances. Even Massimo Ceccherini, best known for appearing in his own moronic films and in trashy TV reality shows, fitted in well and was actually funny. The low point of the cast was the "Diva" Monica Bellucci. Sure, she was slightly better than usual, but she managed to look (and sound) utterly unnatural even in the part of baronessa Emilia, in which, with a good dose of self irony, she used her own umbro accent. The script, by veteran Furio Scarpelli and Virzì himself is clever, with lots of laugh out loud lines, and a few very emotional moments too. Sure, the ending left me puzzled. The message is kind of ambiguous: the whole film says that political ideals can bring you to blind hate, but if you get closer you will learn that the object of your hate is after all a little human being like everyone else, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, sometimes pathetic, so that suddenly it's difficult to hate him; then, in the last few minutes it says that after all it would have been better to shoot him in the head at the beginning. Personally, I dislike very much this notion. "Io e Napoleone" is still a pleasant film, the best presented at the Festival so far (the other being Fur and the Hoax). My rating is 8/10 I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini. Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the most hyped performances were also the worst.

Costumes and production design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and Auteuil). I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart, but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a lot of stuff "brought from home" to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami does. This movie gives Daniel Wu his chance to do a great action movie, but I really find Emil Chow's character really great, gutsy but determined to righting wrongs. Plus the main terrorist, it gets me wondering his revolution, makes me wonder if he is doing this for good or bad.

A movie that tells us about Todd, an amnesiac terrorist being tricked as an undercover until he learns who he really is. The consequences that he makes from his terrorist family, gives him a the choice of redemption.

Purple Storm was one of the best ones that I have seen this year. The movie really stands out when it is filled with tremendous action scenes set-up by Stephen Tung Wai, which won the best action sequences in the Hong Kong Awards. (9/10) Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts, worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other (mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately. I started watching this expecting the worst, i was happy to find that the film turned out to be enjoyable, slightly confusing in parts, like when they all justs started singing. It gave me a chance to see Daniel Wu in action for the first time, he is a better actor than i thought, at times he seemed a bit out of place. I thought purple storm deserves its Hong kong legends release, as it is different to most other HK films, it is about a mans emotional struggles when confronted with memory loss, it may sound corny but when he eventually pieces out what and who he actually is it really makes the film a lot more interesting. Once you get into the film you will find it keeps you gripped to it, as if you miss one bit then a lot of the film wil make sense, for example i missed a bit at the start and i recommend to anyone that watches this that they do not miss any of it. So i can say that this film was worth watching and a grateful surprise for me, that i enjoyed it. Labeling this film a "lesbian love story" is about as accurate as calling Pride & Prejudice a "straight love story." There's just so much more to it than that.

Yes, the main character is a lesbian, but her story is classic bildungsroman, a journey from childhood to adulthood, from sexual innocence into maturity, from personal blindness to self- discovery. There is a stylistic element of camp to the film's direction, but it is not a hindrance; rather it serves to underscore the staged and dramatic parts of the main character's life.

Those who know Anna Chancellor from the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice will certainly be amazed with her here. Rachael Stirling is stellar as the main character Nan, and Keeley Hawes is all wide-eyed goodness as her lover Kitty Butler. Chancellor might have the stand out role, that is aside from Sally Hawkins who plays Zena Butler. This film is not for the faint of heart, but it's not a piece of pro-gay advertising either. It's a real story, with real comedy and drama, an engaging story with compelling characters, and well worth watching. Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script.

You find me incensed. This is heresy.

I would really like to dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack.

I saw one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless) relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a "lesbian love story". If they are, and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a) turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by "that" subject matter or b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some "serious girl-on-girl action". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No siree.

The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise, it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although many will not class it as a real "film", it will remain among my favourites for some time to come. This wonderful 3 part BBC production is one of the sweetest love stories that I have seen in a while. The actresses display a very high level of talent, especially Rachael Stirling as Nan Astley. She is funny, seductive and cute. The love making scenes and the close up kisses are very erotic regardless of one's sexual preference.

The characters are well defined and very believable. I guess this is a by-product of a good adaptation from a well written novel.

A truly remarkable well paced drama that picks up speed quickly after a couple of boring (but necessary) scenes in the beginning.

My vote: 9/10 I'm glad I read the Sarah Waters novel first, since I had my own pictures of the characters in my head at the time. The ones cast for this production, however, were not at all disappointing - in fact, after I got used to Rachael Stirling as Nan, I think Nina Gold did a damn fine job in the casting department. (Can Keeley Hawes be more delicious?!)

The BBC has done it again: this is a wonderful production of a very good book, and they have done it up in style. If you can get your hands on this (VHS, DVD) be sure to get the 181-minute version (the uncensored one.) It is a marvelous journey, albeit a bit rocky at times, that you won't regret taking. I have nothing but praise for this mini series. It's only about a year and a half old but I have seen it twice already; with greater enjoyment the second time than the first. I'm seriously thinking of watching it again soon since I find it spiritually uplifting.

It is a very tender romantic drama with such beautiful performances, sets, costumes, music and scenes that it has a resonance which places it almost in a league of its own among mini series.

Some others have commented on the difficulties of living as a lesbian in Britain in the 1890s. Nothing especially difficult about that; it was only male homosexuality that was against the law as poor Oscar Wilde experienced to his great cost and as a great loss to the literary world. Anyway, I digress.

In my view, this is essential television. It is perhaps one of the greatest tragic romantic dramas since Romeo and Juliet, although not in the conventional sense.

10 out of 10 from me.

JMV It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.

The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!

The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts. I think Andrew Davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a Victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. I'm glad I read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. I know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. But, still, it's often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts.

I realize that Davies is a very good adapter, but I wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. Davies, as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on DVD, wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. I certainly enjoyed those, on film as in the book. But Davies missed a half-dozen moments that are so excruciatingly, painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine.

I also would take issue with his use of the book's primary symbol, the rose.

As the screenplay was plotted by Davies, the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. But I really think that author Waters' final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. And I preferred way the novel let Nan "come of age" than the way Davies chose.

One quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. They are all wonderfully talented -- well, except for the singing and dancing, perhaps -- and, moreover, their physical presences are so much what the mind's eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. I thought they were all terrific.

I recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction, add BOTH the book and the DVD of TIPPING THE VELVET to their bookshelves. For every fan of coming of age tales, this 3 hour adaptation of the

Sarah Waters novel is pure fun. Cinematic nods to Baz Luhrman's

kinetic style, as well as to all those prim and proper period pieces

ever present on the BBC (where you're likely to have seen almost

every prominent member of this cast). It's rather bawdy and over

the top in spots, but that's just what the novel called for. The cast

is appealing and, in the cases of Anna Chancellor and Hugh

Bonneville, perfect. In the case of Rachel Sterling, as our heroine

Nan, you simply must overlook the fact that she's far too pretty to

ever be mistaken for a boy and run with it. It's a fantasy, after all.

Some fans of the novel may be put out by the various changes in

character (particularly that of Jodhi May's character, Florence), but

the changes all work toward the greater good of this teleplay and

provide an overall high quality entertainment value. Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre. It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life. It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity.

No matter what kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well. "Tipping The Velvet" is one of the modern day television productions that prove that some television can be just as good or even better(as this is) than what you see at your local theater.

If you want to read the plot, read this and if you want other details skip down to the next paragraph. This is the unforgettable portrait of an unconventional young girl named Nan who works as a naive oyster girl,until she discovers her repressed homosexuality when she falls in love with a successful woman named Kitty who dresses as a male for her stage profession. The young girl soon joins the act as another male impersonator and they are a major hit. Soon the both of them embark on a tender affair. Kitty eventually becomes enveloped in a marriage of convenience and ravages young Nan's heart. From then on, Nan works as male impersonated prostitute to men looking to have sex with boys, then she becomes the private sex slave to the evil and sadomasochistic Diana where Nan experiences severe emotional abuse. When that ends badly, Nan is on the streets again where she recalls a young woman named Florence; a good-hearted socialist who had the true potential of being a wonderful partner. That's where Nan will discover the power of socialism and learn how to get back to fame.

The region 1 transfer is of exceptional picture quality, there is a very good scene selection, an eloquent photo gallery and a fun interview between novelist Sara Waters and the film's writer Andrew Davies.

The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are gorgeous. The acting, writing and directing are extremely strong and filled with realism, class and originality. I loved the film and the novel. Section III in the film is much different in the film than in the novel, because section III in the novel is great written down, but isn't screen material. I will be brave and say that I love the films interpretation of it much more.

This breathtaking historical ingeniously combines Drama, Comedy, Erotica and Romance to vibrant perfection in a way that is both deeply moving and spiritually uplifting. For every mature and open-minded adult who has ever felt the pleasures, pains and power of falling in love and living life to it's fullest. A revolutionary production; an absolute must-see! As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to find happiness?

If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who "wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy" (one of the local lads who has his eye set on her). She falls – and falls hard – for Kitty Butler, a male impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her dresser…

Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story, and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump in your throat at the end.

If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did! Tipping the Velvet (2002) (TV) was directed by Geoffrey Sax for BBC television. The basic plot is a coming-of-age story for the protagonist, Nan Astley, played well by Rachael Stirling. As a teenager, Nan works in her family-run oyster house. Everyone expects her to stay at home, then marry an appropriate husband, and settle down to family life. Nan expects this too.

Everything changes when Nan meets Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) a beautiful and talented performer who dresses in men's clothes and captures the hearts of her audience. The audience includes Nan, who is sexually attracted to Kitty in a way in which she's not attracted to her boyfriend.

The remainder of the film follows Nan to London and through her ups (sort of) and her downs (horrible) as a lesbian and sometimes male impersonator.

As is typical for the BBC, every role, no matter how small, is performed by an excellent actor. The BBC has a depth and breadth of performing artists that is truly marvelous. None of the supporting actors stands out in my mind--they were uniformly good. Both Stirling and Hawes are wonderful, and their acting carries the film along.

It's always sad to be reminded of how difficult life can be for someone who doesn't fit society's mold for what is normal. I know it isn't easy for lesbians even in the U.S., even today. Imagine the obstacles to love and happiness for lesbians in Victorian England. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to travel. I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline.

I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some for the worst. A young woman leaves her provincial life for a new one in the city and there she meets another woman with whom she falls in love with. Their relationship turns physical quickly and they both believe that they are soul-mates, until one day, the provincial girl comes home to find a man in their bed. Her lover then reveals to her that their relationship was just an experiment and she really likes men. Um, kinda like the Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres thing. So, anyway, the provincial girl, broken, torn and shattered by this discovery moves out and begins to discover what the real world is all about as she falls into the hands of all sort of vindictive and salacious people in 19th century England. I love this movie. I watched it over and over when i rented it from Netflix.It had a lot of substance and meaning for me. I think many people will enjoy it.I have read and seen quite a few lesbian stories over the years and am happy to say they are getting better and better in how they are presented.They tend to have a more positive feel for the life style and feeling's of gay women.Its nice to see two women find themselves and be as happy as others in this society.I think it is apparent that more and more movies with this theme will grace our theaters and TV screens.Many producers and directors are realizing that Lesbians live very full and wholesome lives and that we have wonderful stories that should and can be seen by individuals as well as families without hesitation. When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection. This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.

Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.

You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beast—part comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.

Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it. Both the book and the film are excellent in their own right. They do differ slightly but that enhances and not detracts from what is an excellent script and acting. The historical atmosphere, the young girl looking for love, the amazing background of music hall and the voyage into the lesbian world of London early twentieth century make this an exceptional movie. Andrew Davies as the scriptwriter excels himself as he writes this lesbian love story with such sensitivity. Rachael Sterling and Keeley Hawes are both excellent actresses and give these parts their best. The rest of the cast are very good. If there was higher than 10 out of 10 I would give it! The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel! Over the weekend i watched the movie Tipping the Velvet and if I was to have to score this movie out of 100 I would have to give it 100 no question asked. I am a true believer in true love and this movie moved me in alot of different ways and the actors fit the parts without a doult. But I have to say that the ending was not so great for I did not see that spark in Nancys eyes when ever she looked into Flo's eyes, as her eyes sparked each time she looked at Kitty, Kitty only had to be in the room or in Nancy's thought and Nancy would just glow fron that spark. Kitty told Nancy that she could not find her and that she looked for her, but could not find her. Kitty was ready to give it all up to get Nancy back. In Kitty's eyes you could see Kitty's pain. I believe that Nancy should have let Kitty see that thier love is true and strong and that she would not let her go that easy. You need to make a part two and have the two make it together, but you must not let anyone else play the roles it has to be the real Kitty & Nancy or it'll never work. My mother once told me that true love is just not real. I am no fool I know that we all have a true love out someplace just waiting for each of us and I believe with my life that Nancy's true love really is only Kitty and Kitty's true love is only Nancy. Come on lets play the game the right way, the only way. Let Nancy's eyes shine again.... Kitty lost her everything, by losing Nancy. And Kitty is not to be the only one to blame. I am gay myself and being gay is not easy!! WAKE UP!!! in 1889 I'd not want to be gay, Kitty was lost deep inside herself and in 1889 maybe the right thing to do was to be married to a man. Even though you love a woman. Kitty needed Nancy to stand up to her needed Nancy to fight for her. Myself I remember how deeply I loved this girl and I let her get away because I thought I was doing something wrong and I went back to my ex-boyfriend. I thought I was doing the right thing, but I know I was wrong to let go of her and I will pay for the rest of my days,for like Kitty I could not find her anyplace. I heard that she is married to a man in the U.S.A someplace. I even heard that he beats her. I guess in the end we both lose. Give the two girls one more chance life can be very lonely if you are not true to you and your loved one.

Thank You, Kristen Ann This was one of the most emotional movies I have seen. Passion, Pleasure, Pain, Despair, Sorrow, Healing, Cleansing and Love.

The entire movie was spellbinding. Everything was done so well; the adaptation from the book, the actors, the sets, the camera shots.

This movie touched me deeply in so many ways. It reminded me of the despair that loosing your love can have, and the time it takes to heal that wound. You may love again, but will always be risking the pain that comes with separation.

Is this not one of the most important age-old questions?

"Is it better to have love and lost?

Than to never have loved before?"

-Ascension The BBC surpassed themselves with the boundaries they crossed with Tipping the Velvet. In the past they've been 'daring' with Dennis Potter's works but this mini-series (as it was screened in the UK) is superb. Andrew Davies work is top notch - I've not read the Sarah Water's novel but I can imagine he's done it real justice. I comment on the bawdiness - most men have watched it for that - proved to be a main talking and selling point when originally advertised. The fact is, it portays the lesbian side of society in the 1800s - a time when most thought it was old men and rent boys - well it was - lesbianism took place mainly behind closed and often respectable doors.

You can also look at Tipping The Velvet as a 'love story' - it actually is - as well as 'self discovery' that many gay/bi and straight people go through and comments on this occur and repeat all the time.

If you've not seen it yet - either repeated on TV or on DVD - get it - you'll be in for a treat - and even the production and filming of it is perfect. Just try to hide your blushes in parts - like I said - 'bawdy' is the order of the day - and beware a 'phallus' or two!

Enjoy! This is one of the best lesbian films i have ever seen! This series brought joy and sadness of true love. Being set in the 1800's was an amazing look at lesbian lives and desires of lesbian women. The cast was beyond expectation! Rachael Stirling is an amazing actress, i have never seen her other works but her portrayal of Nan made me connect with her feeling her heartache and pains and love. The one thing i feel most important is connecting with the characters in anything i watch. If anyone has doubts on seeing this film...Think twice! This is a must see series. Well done again to BBC! We need more lesbian films that portrays real love and hurts, like this one. Living in Canada i had this DVD imported and i am so thrilled to have purchased it. The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel! So far only the first episode has been shown, and a great fuss has been made about the lesbian sex scenes. But for those who bother to look past that they will find an incredibly beautiful love story and one that has in this episode ended in an upsetting climax/cliffhanger. I have found the story so powerful that I have been inspired to read the novel on which this fantastic series has been based. This is a superb TV series, it's sympathetic and for once realistic! portrayal of lesbian women is delicately handled and well done. On top of that the directing is wonderful and the settings sumptuous and rich, a real treat. If you missed the first one I advise you watch next weeks, 9PM, BBC 2 This drama apparently caused a bit of a stir six years ago when it debuted on television - not taking in much TV news myself, it passed under the radar; but after having seen it, I'm not surprised that it did cause a stir. Not particularly because of the content (although it is a bit more 'offbeat' than the usual TV fodder) - it has more to do with the reactionary media in this country. Anyway, this three part series is based on a book by Sarah Waters and puts its main focus on lesbians - although the plot also has room to explore some other 'dark' sides of sexuality. Our main character is an oyster girl named Nan (short for Nancy) from Winchester. She is bewitched by female to male drag performer Kitty Butler after seeing her at a theatre show and soon begins attending all of her shows - eventually catching the eye of the performer and becoming her dresser. It's not long before Kitty is offered a chance to play on bigger stages in London and having become good friends with Nan, she invites her along for the ride. The act gets bigger when Nan takes to the stage also and the pair becomes a stage duo...but Kitty breaks Nan's heart, leading her into an odyssey within London's seedy underbelly.

I must admit that my DVD collection contains no shortage of sleazy and sordid films so there wasn't anything in this one that was enough to shock me. Despite being rather jaded to it, I have to say that I'm still surprised at anyone who says this film went too far; naturally there is some lesbian sex and other stuff, but it's never exploitative or overused and the film really couldn't have been made without it. The main focus is always on the story; and the story is really well done. The film is almost three hours long in total, but if anything that isn't long enough to get everything across. Sarah Waters is obviously an inventive writer, and the film remains interesting for the duration. The acting is solid as you would expect, but I must admit that I found lead actress Rachael Stirling awkward and hard to get on with at first; although she grows into her role well as the film progresses. The execution is a little bit of a problem and director Geoffrey Sax is a bit too gimmicky for my liking. The story does get a little bit sappy towards the end also, which is a shame because this film is at it's strongest during the dark moments (episode 2 being the high point of three for me). There's not really a defined point to the film - or at least not one that I could see. That's not important as far as I'm concerned; however, as Tipping the Velvet tells a good story and more than surpassed my expectations. Worth checking out, for people that like this sort of stuff. I have to say it is a sign that this film appeals to all ages if somebody by right should be shielding themselves away from anything remotely homosexual absolutely loves this thing.

I thought every last bit of this film was amazing and the casting was superb, but I have to say Anna Chancellor...where have YOU been all my life.

Having previously seen Anna in several other things I was completely blown away by how magnificent she was.

Diana Letherby may not be the most lovable of the characters but she could certainly take me home if she fancied... This was recommended to me by a friend that said it was cute and cuddly for a "lesbian sexuality Flick". Boy was he wrong. I guess he just didn't get it. Growing up not understanding and then discovering yourself thru trial and tribulation is more like it.

The characters are full and vibrant and the story has enough fun thrown in thru the theater performances to keep anyone interested.

Rachael Stirling as "Nan" goes thru so many tries at finding the love she desires only to find it was the one person she was scared to reveal all too, and ran out on. Johdi May as "Flo" was remarkable. spent a couple hours trying to recall where I've seen her before, only to discover she was The quiet sister "Alice" in "Last of The Mohicans" Luckily,I was raised in a liberal family and had no issues with trying a movie like this. So many people are missing out on flicks like this. I'm glad I took my friend's advise and tried it. But, I'm sure I enjoyed it more the he. I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon and a few other sites but no luck... I have noticed that people have asked if anyone has this show. I have all 26 episodes that aired in the U.S. and will be willing to share these with anyone interested. All I require is that you supply the VHS tapes or Blank DVD's I have them on both formats and pay for shipping. My email is creator67@pipinternet.net, just send me an email and your request and I will notify you and we can make the arrangements. The quality is very good and they are very enjoyable to watch especially if you have not been able to see them since they aired in the 60's. It was one of my favorite shows as a child and hold a very special place in my heart because it brings back a lot of memories of my childhood as well as other shows like Ultraman and Astroboy.

Peter Giant Robot was the most popular Japanese TV serial ever seen on Indian TV. It was targeted to children and we saw a robot for the first time in our life.

Many Indian children must have even seen a machine for the first time outside the school textbooks.

The serial also showed a child in an adults organization fighting evil. No doubt, many of us who have seen Giant Robot in our childhood long for our own robots and as a stopgap arrangement look upon our computers in the same way.

This show also portrayed ideal adults, (referring at Jerry, Johnny's buddy friend and Unicorn chief Azuma). We grew to respect Japanese progress and still view Japan as the ideal Asian nation.

BTW, at that time, there were no satellite TV channels in India and the govt owned broadcaster did not show much of Disney cartoons. I guess that was how child serials like giant Robot got appreciated. Nowadays there is Pokemon etc but they are no so fascinating or alluring as Giant robot. This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.

As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.

Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan. It's wartime drama - WWII, with French and Jews and Germans, but this one is somehow fun, earnestly so. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau co-wrote the script to his well-received film "Bon Voyage" (2003). Unlike director Bertrand Tavernier's "Safe Conduct" aka "Laissez-passer" (2002), w-d Rolf Schubel's "Gloomy Sunday" (1999), or w-d Claude Berri's "Lucie Aubrac" (1997), "Bon Voyage" is as chipper as its title sounds - c'est la vie (whatever) - and we have the beautiful talented Isabelle Adjani to thank for. It is her delightful performance throughout as the center of attraction (and attention), the cause and effect of it all, that made the film so enjoyable as it is. Hell, what's another derailment of her plan and expectations - will worry about that another time. The backbone of the story does revolve around a pair of young enthusiasts: Grégori Derangère as Frédéric and Virginie Ledoyen (from Francois Ozon's "8 Women") as Camille. The incomparable Gérard Depardieu, the witty Yvan Attal (of "My Wife is An Actress") and versatile Peter Coyote (juggling French, English and German here) are some of the stellar cast involved.

There are many characters coming and going in this plot of a movie, and how it's all juggled is a skilful knack that requires no analysis - Rappeneau is simply a genius. The story just builds upon itself, one episode after another, or even with overlapping events, but never confusing - that's the delight of it all, somehow every detail turns out right on the screen and we just lap it all up like a tastily presented French dessert, literally so. There's thrills, trills, tender hesitant moments and taut ominous escapes, all playing out in front of our eyes.

From reading the Director's Note on the Sony Pictures Classics' Bon Voyage official site, Rappeneau indicated this is his most personal and successful work ever. Depicting Bordeaux 1940 from memories of his childhood years is very much close to his heart and he "had worked and reworked the script for almost 3 years." This film is a labor of love all round, the cast and crew complementing the director's passion and a formidable script by collaborative writers along with the director and his son Julien - adaptation efforts by Gilles Marchand, Patrick Modiano, and Jérôme Tonnerre.

Music by Gabriel Yared (varied in tone from his previous film scores like "The English Patient" or "Talented Mr. Ripley"), who provided a befitting theme that kept the pace and rhythm of the plot going - almost like a train going non-stop, reflecting Adjani's Viviane's vivacious energy (even when she's tired), keeping her going as she meets whatever comes, walking on with head held high and stylish attire always, no looking back, let alone time for regrets.

Ah, mustn't forget the wonderfully translated, skilful subtitles by Ian Burley, who also did subtitles for films in Italian: "Bread and Tulips" (2000) aka Pane e tulipani, "The Last Kiss" (2001) aka L'ultimo bacio, and Tom Tykwer's "Heaven" (2002).

If you find this much too light a wartime relationship drama, try w-d Mäx Fäberböck's "Aimée and Jaguar" (1999, in German, based on a true story) with brilliant performances from Juliane Köhler as Aimée and Maria Schrader as Jaguar. In Paris, a few months before the Nazi invasion, the manipulative actress Viviane Denvers (Isabelle Adjani) uses her former sweetheart Frédéric Auger (Grégori Deràngere) to hide the body of a man killed by her. Frédéric hits the car, the dead man is found and he is sent to prison. When the Germans invade France, Frédéric escapes with another prisoner, Raoul (Yvan Attal), and they become friends. In the runaway to Bordeaux, they meet in the train Camille (Virginie Ledoyen), the young assistant of the physicist Professeur Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehlé), who is trying to leave France with his research of heavy water. Once in Bordeaux, the group meets Viviane with her new lover, the minister of state Jean-Étienne Beaufort (Gérard Depardieu), and is chased by a German spy, the journalist Alex Winckler (Peter Coyote), while Paris is falling and the population is confused.

What a delightful and magnificent romantic adventure "Bon Voyage" is! The excellent and complex screenplay has action, romance, war, comedy, espionage, drama and lots of characters, played by a fantastic cast, indeed a constellation of stars; the direction is stunning; the music score is wonderful. I really loved this marvelous film, and I have to finish my review due to my limitation of adjectives to describe such a gem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Viagem do Coração" ("Travel of the Heart") Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940 as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time, he says, when "all the adults were a little bit insane." He and the production staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani, Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue. Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage' richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama, no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends. Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy. "Bon Voyage" has the fast pace that in some ways reminds me of the Indiana Jones/Star Wars films -- it's as if you're on a fast train or roller coaster.

It's billed as a romance, mystery, thriller, and farce; it's all of that and more including candid observations on the reactions of French society during the Nazi invasion at the start of WWII. And it's also an exhibition of juggling that involves 7 main characters. The scenes all seemed historically accurate (to my eyes) and gave an excellent feeling for the period.

All of the actors were well cast and gave great performances but IMO the most superb was that by Isabelle Adjani who played the role of an opportunistic, self-centered French movie star; not only did she quite convincingly play the role of a young actress perhaps half her age but she also played her amorous wiles convincingly yet in such a way that the audience sees she's only half serious and more complex as a person than just a gold digger. Her character and energy propel the film through from beginning to end. It wasn't until I read Roger Ebert's review that I discovered she was 48 years old at the time of the film. What beauty!!

I appreciated the ending -- it's satisfying but lets you write your own conclusion as to what happens to the main characters.

As another User Commenter observed -- do NOT arrive late; you need to be there from the opening scene. Good advice.

I gave it 9 of 10. On its surface, this is one of the most classically entertaining action/comedy/romance films I've seen in a long time, reminding me of pleasurable old "Saturday-afternoon" movies that had just the right balance of unexpected twists, well-timed humor and integrated action. Beyond this, though, there is our knowledge of this film's context. It has the same elements of "Casablanca," but is set just before many of the characters would truly understand the seriousness of what was happening to their country (and the world) and the consequences of some of their own behavior. This adds a strong note of irony to the humor (we sense that one of the female characters has a radical change of hairstyle in her future). This is a film that you will not regret watching. When I went to see Bon Voyage, I expected a good, skillful multidrama on the order of Grand Hotel (1932) and Les Enfants de Paradis (1944). It was better than that. With few exceptions, none of the characters were totally good or totally evil--just as in real life. The acting was wonderful, especially those who played Frédéric, Raoul, and Camille. The photography was amazing, as it recreated the period perfectly and managed to be shot in/around Bordeaux during a time of new public works but managed the "look" of June 1940. Costumes and make-up were accurate. There is so much in this movie that it's worth a second viewing. It's exciting, funny, and, ultimately, touching. N.B.--Be sure to see it in a theatre with good quality projection. It's in wide-screen, and in the theater where I saw it (the Clairmont in Montclair) the first 30 minutes had the subtitles at the bottom in focus but the actors' faces slightly fuzzy! This was ultimately corrected but detracted from the pleasure of the film. An interesting pairing of stories, this little flick manages to bring together seemingly different characters and story lines all in the backdrop of WWII and succeeds in tying them together without losing the audience. I was impressed by the depth portrayed by the different characters and also by how much I really felt I understood them and their motivations, even though the time spent on the development of each character was very limited. The outstanding acting abilities of the individuals involved with this picture are easily noted. A fun, stylized movie with a slew of comic moments and a bunch more head shaking events.

7/10 More and more french cinema demonstrates that's the only one able to confront Hollywood's, and to spend high amounts on money in their movies. If Bon Voyage had been made in the USA no one would be surprised. Perfectly set in France, in the 40's, when the Nazi invasion, technically irreproachable, and with some of the most international french actors (Depardieu, Adjani, Ledoyen...). Bon Voyage centerers on two parallel stories: an scientific and his disciple (Ledoyen) who tries to hide one of his discoveries (a kind of water that may work as an atomic bomb) from the Nazis; and a poor guy in love with a well known actress (Adjani), which ends up in prison accused of a crime he's not committed in order to protect her.

Bon Voyage seems to have been made in the old style, without unnecessary camera movements and effects. Without big turns in the plot. As I said before, regarding to the production itself they've made a great job. But the main problem with this movie is about the script. Is it a spy-movie? A romantic comedy? A spy comedy? A comedy of intrigue? It's not clear. That makes Bon Voyage a little unbalanced. When you think you're watching a comedy, suddenly changes to another story-line, a more dramatic one, more slow... I think they should've focused in one of the lines of argument (the one about the spy plot) and left the romantic parts in the background.

My rate: 6.5/10 One comment said it wasn't a comedy...Mistake! It was a delightful comedy of a period of history that doesn't lend itself easily to that genre. Very busy...and active film from beginning to end. Often the shots out the window of the train, or car, were just beautiful. An enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours in a theater. All the French historical figures, like Charles de Gaulle and Petain and the some of the people involved in the French Resistance were included in the script, which might send those who are unfamiliar with the collapse of France under the German invasion might want to research. The characters were engaging and the actors portraying them were excellent. Recommend it, 9 out of 10. Even if it won't give one more than previous posts here (like Ruby Liang's very good one) i wanted to share my own point of view. Hope my English is understandable.

Bon voyage is a rhythmic, light but deep presentation of the French unorganized come-down, but also courage and charm. All along in a brilliantly reconstituted 1940 France with many details (from Bordeaux luxurious hotel occupied by Government HQ and attacked by useless high class French, to Parisian coffees near Le Pantheon / rue Mouffetard and 1930s cars) Gérard Depardieu and Yvan Attal give their second roles a brilliant taste;) Isabelle Adjani and Virgnie Ledoyen are very credible in their drastically different roles, and Grégori Derangère makes an bewitching performance:)

Much lighter than average (e.g. American) war times movies, and focused on the civilians, Bon voyage shows a lot of things about french issues (even to a French guy like me), some of them quite deep. Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves. Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable. Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze. He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning. I think that the costumes were excellent, and the hairdressers also performed well. It has the very authentic feeling for that period of time.

I don't know if it was the computer magic or if it was real. Some of the big scenes have hundreds of extras in the background. I was especially impressed with the scene of that bridge.

the main character the actress also performed well, she showed us a nervous, witty woman who knows how to use herself to seduce men to get what she wants.

some of the scenes were hilarious. Even though it was about 2 hours long, but it was never boring. a very good entertaining movie. First, a word of caution. The DVD box describes this film as a comedy. I don't think that was the intention of anyone connected with the film other than some marketing morons. While light and a little bit funny in places, it is NOT a comedy and if you expect that you will be disappointed.

I had never even heard of this film and had absolutely no expectations one way or the other. Considering that the other two DVDs I picked up were big disappointments, I was so happy when I saw this film. The acting, writing and direction were excellent. The story itself definitely interested me, as you don't usually see films about the final month of France before the Nazi takeover in 1940. It gave some insight into the parasites that gave up so quickly and agreed to partitioning their beloved country. Along the way, there are plots involving a selfish and weak actress played very well by Isabelle Adjani--who looks marvelous after all these years. She kills an ex-lover and then finds a poor sap to take the fall. This sap escapes from prison and finds her--with another lover--a high government official and weasel played by Gerard Depardieu. In addition, a subplot about a Jewish physicist trying to smuggle deuterium out of the country is introduced and eventually this becomes the main plot. The story has a lot of nice twists and turns, a light sense of humor (without trying to be a comedy) and some genuine suspenseful moments. Together, they create a nice package this is sure to please. I saw Bon voyage 2 days ago and I found it an excellent production. The film is supposed to entertain, and it does! It emulates the style of the American screwball comedies of the 30s, but Von voyage is more refined. Adjani and Depardieu are simply excellent in their roles. The plot is simple. The film starts with people involved in many situations that, apparently, should have nothing to do between them. It is very funny how those situations become linked during the film. It is good to see a French film with this kind of sense of humor. I find it, principally, a film in which love is the main theme. Peter Coyote as the German spy in France shows once more to be an excellent actor, too. I found this DVD in the library and based on the jacket notes, it looked like it might possibly be interesting: a black comedy set in 1940 France, just as the Germans are marching in. ("Boy, that should have them rolling in the aisles…") But it does! This is a clever, original, suspenseful and funny film. I don't recall seeing anything like it before – foreign or U.S. That the writer/director can find humor when we know part of the outcome (the Germans will occupy France for four years) is remarkable. That he does it with such charm is part of the delight. What starts off as black comedy and fluff even ends up having a couple of serious moments – including a race to spirit out a cache of "heavy water" (which was part of the preliminary research for the A-bomb) and a quick History 101 intro to the beginnings of the collaborationist Vichy Government that would govern Southern France for much of the German occupation.* But don't let any of that that scare you off: the movie itself is funny, charming and romantic and races ahead at steady clip.

One of the best things about it is the combination of actors we've seen many times (Adjani and Depardieu) and others we've never heard of before. Along the way, there are two star-making turns: Virginie Leydoyen and Grégori Derangère. Both are impressive, but Mr. Derangère is especially so. According to IMDb, he was in ten films before this one – but he also won the Cesar as "Most Promising Actor" for this role, so apparently he was not all that well known even in France. He is a combination of romantic lead and comic actor – and he makes it all seem so effortless. You may be reminded of Cary Grant in "Bringing Up Baby" and "Arsenic and Old Lace" – it's hard to do comedy on film because the risks are enormous that the actor can come off looking inept. But Grant pulled it off charmingly, and this guy does also. I should think we're going to hear more about him in the future.

To be sure, this film won't please everyone – there's a little bit of violence, although nothing you don't see on TV every day. But if you're up for something original, you may feel after you've seen this that you've unearthed a cinematic gem.

* The so-called "spoiler" in this comment. Bon Voyage is fun for the audience because it combines the requisite silliness of a comedy with just enough sobriety to keep viewers actively engaged and invested in the outcome. Most importantly though, the film is also historically instructive; it captures the tension of the so-called "phony war" and, later, the French aristocracy's flight from Paris ahead of the German onslaught. Yet Bon Voyage is not a "war movie." It is a comedy about the lives of a handful of people set against the backdrop of extraordinary times. Bon Voyage conveys the chaos, confusion, and emotional bewilderment of a nation of the brink of collapse and the wide spectrum of French reactions to the new political order. This film is a comedy which entertains the audience, a romance which skillfully utilizes many clichés, and a story of a handful of people whose nation is collapsing around them. A terrific, fast-paced screwball-like comic strip/drama/farce set against France's 1939 implosion. Played with wide-eyed, straight-faced intensity by a talented cast and chockablock with action, satire, social commentary and authentic period details, from slick brillantined hairdos and marcelled hairdos to a fleet of Citroen "Tractions," a rollicking soundtrack and brief but credible impersonations of Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Petain.

It's simply some of the best entertainment recently shown on screen, devoid of presumption and "message." If movies were trains (and there is a creative recreation of a trip on a steam-driven train that works despite there being no steam locomotive --an expensive prop, no doubt) this would be a TGV. [Minor spoilers follow]

Steve Allen opined that topical humor about serious events might be found by many to be acceptable based on the formula: Tragedy+Time=Comedy. 1939 before the German assault on Poland was hardly a fun period and subsequent events, including the Blitzkrieg (following the Sitzkrieg) which took Germany to the Channel, resulted in the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk and gave the world the sickening spectacle of a supine France prostrating its honor before the Nazi conqueror.

The stuff of romance, comedy and a big dollop of serious drama? Yep. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau, with a well-matched and outstanding cast, creates in "Bon voyage" a pastiche of events and scenes from history and from imagination that is hugely entertaining.

Viviane Denvers (the sloe-eyed and beautiful Isabelle Adjani) is France's top actress as war clouds gather over Europe (what an overused cliche, sorry). A veteran self-venerating bedhopper with many affairs to her credit, her inner motivation seems to be "Whatever is good for Viviane is good for...Viviane). Following a premiere of her latest film after which a minister in the incompetent Reynaud administration, Jean-Etienne Beaufort (Gerard Depardieu in an unusual role for him), signals his interest in her, she goes home only to tiredly encounter an ex-lover who doesn't understand the word "no." She decisively resolves that issue but then frantically and histrionically enlists another former beau, the still besotted Frederic (Gregory Derangere), to help deal with the mess in her flat. Frederic is a novelist-in-expectation.

A comic accident that once again highlights, almost as a public service message, the importance of working windshield wipers puts Frederic in jail on most serious charges. Fortunately the breakout of the Germans from their static positions forces a wholesale transfer of prisoners to the south of France but our boy escapes, making his way there privately rather than as a ward of the state.

The panic and fear in France as the Germans swept to victory is well portrayed and a new twist enters the story. Who should Frederic encounter but the truly gorgeous young research assistant, Camille (Virginie Ledoyen) who is accompanying the obligatory Jewish refugee scientist, Professor Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehle). Kopolski has some bottles of "heavy water" he needs to get to England. Of course the Germans musn't latch on to this vital ingredient for you know what (this part is pure fiction-there was never any heavy water in France in 1940-just Perrier). And Camille is so winsome as well as dedicated.

What next? Peter Coyote as a supposed French journalist, Alex Winckler. Be tipped off as to his name. He's really an officer in the Abwehr (German military intelligence: a spy). And he used to bed Viviane too (and wants a reprise of their affair). Apparently the kind Kopolski is the only major male character who doesn't want to have it off with the actress.

What follows is a series of adventures and mishaps that are seamlessly integrated to produce a very fast-paced and enjoyable film. Partly a tribute to and a bit of a spoof on "Casablanca," this is is a remarkably funny movie (except for the heavy Nazi bits).

Isabelle Adjani deserves kudos for the best portrayal I've seen in years of an adorably cute total narcissist with few if any redeeming features. And Depardieu, disloyal to Reynauld and ready to jump ship and join the traitor, Petain, is convincing as a man whose ardor for Viviane exceeds his diluted sense of duty to the Republic. As a human being in power at a critical moment in French history, Beaufort is mundanely vile.

Not shown in too many theaters, "Bon voyage" should be available for purchase or rental soon. See it!

9/10 The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the war.

The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the rest.

It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large smile! Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris. French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work, as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film. Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".

The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit. This is one of the best movies on the French Revolution ever produced. Being a person well versed in the the period I was amazed at the level of detail. The costumes are spot on. Even the detailed little day to day items such as ink wells, serving plates etc are all perfect. As an American living in France who has access to the sites in the movie through his membership in various historical associations such as the Napoleonic Alliance I can not over state how impressed I was with the visual accuracy of the film.

The dialogue where known is virtual quotations and the where not recorded is in character. I was extremely pleased with this movie and am disappointed that it is not out on DVD yet. This is how historical drama should be done. Must see.... If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!

For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.

Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre. The film tells upon the title role,Danton(Gerard Depardieu),confronting against Robespierre(Wojciech Pszoniak) during the French revolution.The film is based on real deeds,they are the following: Danton(1759-1794) as lawyer participated in the overthrowing of the king Louis XVI and the proclamation of the Republic,being Minister of Justice in the Convention(1792)and founder of Cordeliers club.He proposed creation revolutionaries committees as the committee of public salvation which he presided but was substituted by Robespierre,starting a period of revolutionary dictatorship known ¨the Terror¨(1793). Besides in the film appear other historic personages as Camille Desmoulins(Patrice Chereau,now a famed filmmaker)Louis David,Saint Just(Jacobino),Tallien..

The picture especially narrates the happenings surrounding the facing off of the principal figures,one-time partner revolution ,and posterior execution,although gives results a contemporary parable about the modern Poland,thus Danton is Lech Walesa and Robespierre is Wojciech Jaruzelski who was the Prime Minister imposed the martial law in Poland and with similar name than actor played Robespierre . Gerard Depardieu is excellent in the title character and magnificently portrayed, also in secondaries roles are awesome actors as the recently deceased Jacques Villeret(Dinner game,Crimen in paradise)and Angela Winkler(The tin drum). The motion picture is well directed by Andrzej Wajda ,considered the best Polish director.The flick will like to historical cinema buffs. This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what.

Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work.

Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch.

It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well.

Gérard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points.

A great movie that could had been brilliant.

8/10 I was very curious to see this Wajda-Depardieu outing, plus the time period is definitely fascinating. Being a Wajda fan, I was disappointed, and that may be an understatement. The film never really took cinematic flight -- there's no foundation for the animosity between Danton and Robespierre, etc.

Basically, the script was weak (adapted from "The Danton Affair"). And yet, the direction was masterful...it's Wajda, afterall! Also, there were some amazing actors BUT they never really grab the audience's attention like they should. Depardieu comes off as a quasi-goofy, nonchalant Danton...not exactly the image we have in mind. Woijech Pzsoniak is incredible, as usual, but again the script puts up limits even actors of great talent can't break down. Andrzej Seweryn and Bogoslaw Linda pop up ... as Bourdon and Saint-Just...and if you're familiar with Wajda, then you'd know them.

Overall, I was disappointed with this much-lauded film. Great cast, great director, but no quality foundation. Bad, undynamic script. We need to get in Danton (Walesa) and Robespierre's (General J) mindsets... what are their motivations? Eh...who knows? One likes women, the other powders himself? Riiight. Ok, so if you're looking for a great French Revolution movie I HIGHLY recommend "La Revolution Francaise"...it's in two parts and oh-so-great! Excellent performances, in-depth script, juicy tid bits...definitely a satisfying experience!! Klaus-Maria Brandauer is a much better Danton than Depardieu...the wonderful Andrzej Seweryn apparently took some notes from "Danton" and is BRILLIANT as Robespierre. SEE IT! NOW! As for Wajda fans -- you're better off with "Man of Iron/Marble", "Promised Land", and the like. Cheers!! Unlike http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098238/ this movie provides no background information. We are shown a snapshot of the fall of Danton, his mock process and execution but, unless one studied the revolution quite extensively, it is difficult to understand where characters come from ( Fouquier-Tinville, Philippeau, Desmoulins, Robespierre... ) and thus to appreciate them for what they are: Danton and Joe Blobb could be the same person to the viewer. For example Robespierre & Desmoulins were close friends since their youth, and this explains how Robespierre acts. Those who know the facts, though, will easily orient themselves and appreciate this good movie with actors delivering solid acting, no useless subplots and good reconstruction of the times. Desmoulins and Danton are the best characters, but all do a good job, even the 'demented' Saint-Just portrayed as sort of psychopath. 'Terreur' was a period of massacres whose importance hasn't been fully documented and that -for the most part- were driven by ambition, greed and the settling of personal disputes, fed to ignorant sans-culottes as the next epochal step against tyranny. This film is more than the story of Danton. It was a joint Polish French production filmed at the time of the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. It probably helped spur the Solidarity movement's union activity. It is more about Poland in the 20th century than the French Revolution. Solidarity began the end of the system. This film itself is historical by it's very existence....the rest is History.

Robspiere, aka. totalitarian leaders. Danton, aka. Walensa. When one watches this film, one must remember the snowball which began in Poland.

Actually, it could be useful for seeing the superpower struggle within the only superpower left. Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated. Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen, although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel. Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in "Casablanca" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed? Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10 year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles. From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!"

The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!

The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!

The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!!

This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America" When you think 'Oliver Stone' the movies that come to mind would be his biggest and most controversial ones like Platoon, JFK, Born On The Fourth Of July, or Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio usually doesn't. It's a pretty small movie, actually. More than half the movie takes place with Barry Champlain at his radio station talking into his mike. But believe me, this is one of Oliver Stone's greatest movies and should NOT be missed.

Above all things it's a character study. Barry Champlain is a rude, self-destructive, risk-taking talk radio show host who says one too many things and starts to get in trouble with his boss, his lover(s), his fans, and even some Nazis. He doesn't like his audience and callers and a lot of them don't like him (eithor that or do like him, but have no idea why). But, at the end he says on his show: "I guess we're stuck with each other."

See Talk Radio, even if you don't like Oliver Stone movies. You might be surprised. I sure was.

My Rating: 10/10 In one of the more under-seen films of the late 1980's, at a time when Oliver Stone was riding high with Platoon and Wall Street (and before his opus Born on the Fourth of July), he co-scripted and directed this look at the world of radio, specifically one radio host in the middle of Texas. This man is Barry Champlain, in a once-in-a-career turn from Eric Bogosian, who wrote the original play and also co-wrote the script. Barry is like a mix of Howard Stern and one of those pundits you hear on the radio stations many of us might turn off. He's got ideas on his mind, opinions, and he's not only un-afraid to speak them, but also to stand up against the phone callers. The callers, indeed, are the driving force in the film, as Barry has to combat against the mindless, the obscene, the racist, and the purely absent-minded. As this goes on, he also has to contend with his boss (Alec Baldwin) and a hit or miss deal to go nationwide, outside the confines of the Southern way station he's in.

While after seeing the film I felt curious as to see how it would've been done on stage (I'd imagine it was a one-man show, as Bogosian has had several on the side), the direction of the film is phenomenal. Stone has been known, almost typecast, as a director who loves quick cuts, the limitless effects of montage, and effects with the styles of camera-work and other little tricks, that give his films in the 90's a distinctive, almost auteur look. But in the 80's he had this energy and feverish quality to the look of the film, and wasn't as frenzied as the other films. In order to add the proper intensity that is within the studio and head-space of Barry Champlain, he and DP Robert Richardson make the space seem claustrophobic at times, gritty, un-sure, and definitely on edge. The scenes in the middle of the film, when Barry isn't in the studio, are fairly standard, but the style along with the substance in the radio scenes is among the best I've seen from the Stone/Richardson combination.

And one cannot miscalculate the performance of Bogosian, who can be obnoxious, offensive, angered, passive, and everything that we love and hate in radio show hosts. There is also a funny, near distracting supporting role for Michael Wincott as Kent/Michael/Joe, who prank calls him one night, and the next gets invited to the studio. These scenes are a little uncomfortable for a viewer, but it does get very much into the subculture head-space of the 80's that Barry is as intrigued as he is critical of. The stoner may not 'get it', but as he says to him "it's your show". Indeed, it's hard to cover everything that goes on within the talk, and there is a lot of it. But it's never boring, and like Champlain himself, it's not easy to ignore. And when Bogosian goes into his climactic tirade on air, with the background panning around in a continuous 360 spin, it becomes intoxicating, and a reason why freedom of speech is so powerful.

Stone has been synonymous as a filmmaker of hot-button issues, who takes on subjects that were or still are controversial, and gives them a life-force that isn't always great, but is all his own. Here his skills and ambitions don't get in the way of Bogosian's- it's boosted, if anything, making an extremely skilled vision of what is essentially a near one-man show, which in and of itself is already well-written. ***SPOILERS*** For some strange reason Oliver Stone's "Talk Radio" based on the Stephen Singular book "Talked to Death" and the films star Eric Bogosian's play, about the 1984 murder of Denver talk show host Alan Berg, has never gotten the recognition that it so rightfully deserved. The 1988 movie was prophetic enough to recognize the underground movement that was developing in the farm and hinterland of America. A movement that spawned, some seven years later, the likes of an angry and disgruntled Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh who's hatred for the US governments actions in Wacco Texas lead to his and friend,Terry Nichols, detonation of the US Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 that took the lives of 168 people, the worst act of terrorism on US soil up to that time.

The movie is, as far as I know, the first time that any major branch of the entertainment media mentioned and elaborated on the rural militia novel "The Turner Diaries" by the late William L. Pierce, that has since become a chilling underground classic. "The Turner Diaries" forecast a domestic and utterly disastrous terrorist attack, like the Oklahoma City bombing, on a US Government Federal facility which was the FBI Building in Washington D.C.

Dallas radio station KGAB talk show host Barry Champlain, Eric Bogosian, is the top rated show in the Dallas listening area and is now about to go national. Barry get's his high rating by his razor sharp wit and abusive behavior when he's on the air. Taking on all comers and ducking no issues, no matter how unpopular or taboo they are, has gotten Barry to be the most listened to as well as hated man on radio. Barry being a showman at heart and not thinking that his talk can lead to violence keeps up his abrasiveness to his call-in listeners as his rating go up to the celling. But there are those in the listening audience, mostly ultra right wing types, that don't take too kindly to his in your face attitude. One of them decides to take matters into his on hand at Barry's expense.

Powerhouse performance by Eric Bogosian as the tragic Barry Champlain who crossed the line from entertainment to hard reality in his actions on the radio. Thinking that he's not that important to be sought out and murdered for his on the air opinions which is enemies dislike he found out only too late that there are those out there who are crazy enough to do to him on the outside. Also in the movie "Talk Radio" is a very young Alic Baldwin as Barry's boss Dan who tries to have him soften his tone but in the end goes along with his talk show style since he's killing the competition not realizing that in the end it's him that he'll end up getting killed.

Both Ellen Green and Leslie Hope are the two women in Barry's life his ex-wife Ellen and now lover and talk show producer Laura whom Barry uses to his advantage and almost ends up losing both of them at the same time. The 1988 film "Talk Radio" is so far ahead of it's time that even if you watch it now in 2005 you still think that it's too disturbing to be shown to an over sensitive and delicate American public. I have seen it a few times and get completely glued to it every time. It is very suspenseful and intense. To describe it sounds boring but it is amazing. It is the kind of movie where you need can't miss a thing, but if you soak it in it sticks with you long after it ends. Now thinking about it I don't even know what Stone was trying to make us see. Just the story of Alan Green? I don't think so. It was a look at ignorance, stupidity, self-absorption, and a guy just loosing his grip. Maybe he had more grip than the listeners though. I didn't like Barry but still seemed worried about him for some reason. I was perplexed at why I couldn't get him out of my mind when the movie ended. I wish I could see inside Olive Stone's mind for this one. "Talk Radio" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones including "Salvador", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Platoon". But I like the intimacy of "Talk Radio", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering screener/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland score is brilliant, too. I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless. I have never been a great fan of Oliver Stone, often because I have found his films to be forced, preachy and generally flawed. The two Stone films I truly like are JFK and Talk Radio, yet Talk Radio takes the cake for being Stone's finest achievement. Stone is a director whereby you are either a fan or you are not, it is safe to say that before watching Talk Radio I was not fond of the guy and considered one of the most overrated directors in the film industry, though after watching Talk Radio some of my perceptions have changed. Talk Radio is an unsettling and amusing attack on what is now known as "reality TV".

Talk Radio follows a self-indulgent, dysfunctional, determined, hysterical, outrageous and perplexing radio host, named Barry Champlain who hosts a controversial late-night radio show in Dallas. Quickly becoming well known for his bold and quirky air-presence he becomes a late night sensation, whereby depraved junkies, delinquents, racists, sociopaths, sickos, perverts and morons call in to be ridiculed on air. The film shows the rise and fall of the man's career, carefully making an accurate portrayal on freedom of speech. Originally adapted from a stage-play, the film attaches itself to the theatre theme that it was originally built around, wonderfully conveying the film's fierce nature.

With the ferocious energy and non-stereotypical air, Talk Radio brings all the hilarity behind "crass media". It remains even more poignant today than it was in the late '80s. The film goes into depth studying the likes of arrogance, self-obsession, offensive behaviour, controversy, hypocrisy and ignorance. The film shows through a controlled manner how it is good to have a personal opinion and freedom of speech, yet it is something that should be used wisely rather than shamefully blunt. Stone tries to show how freedom of speech is a crucial importance in life, but is something that we should be wary and cautious about. The film asks the question of "is our main protagonist just the same as the sad people who call up the show?"

Stone fabulously creates the film's key set-piece (the radio station) with an ambition and cold atmosphere. He then succeeds in capturing the isolation, fear, ambiguity and the dangerous emotions that are built up at the radio station. Eric Bogosian is perfectly cast as the isolated, self-absorbed and complex genius, Barry Champlain. He fits the role perfectly letting off his lines with such enthusiasm, urgency, perplexity, brusqueness and ultimately the bold hilarity of his offensive nature. The performance brims with spark, which was evidently robbed of an Oscar nomination. His voice suits the character, being that a primary element of a radio host and his power of acting along with tragedy and comedy works brilliantly.

There is a strong use of editing in Stone's films and Talk Radio boasts some of his cleanest, most rhythmic editing. He uses beautifully controlled camera techniques, which differ from being calm to suddenly becoming turbulent. There is a vibrant energy behind the film, with its raw and wonderfully delightful script working as a centre-piece for the greatness of the film. The striking and virtuous cinematography stands out in the moments inside and outside the studio, most impressively capturing the city at night. Not forgetting the hauntingly heartbreaking and yet darkly funny climatic "spiral to decline" is ultimately remarkable cinema.

Talk Radio is an essential modern masterpiece, I am certain you will be surprised by just how great it really is. I highly recommend Talk Radio for anyone interested in media or film. Talk Radio is a fine example of top-notch, intellectual and insightful entertainment, which still packs a well-earned wakeup call. Finally, if it was not for Eric Bogosian the film would not be the fun, delightful and enduring masterpiece it is today. Oliver Stone is not one to shy away from a movie or theme for that matter. He is eager to confront people with their fears or show them their ugly faces in the mirror. Look on his CV for proof! This movie is not an exception, quite on the contrary, it is another gem, that unfortunately not many have seen.

As controversial movies go, this is one that you should be thankful for. A movie that should encourage you to think about you, the people next to you. The prejudices that do exist and that everyone of us has in one form or another. Either we like to admit it or not, but it is easier to categorize people and be like "Ah he's 'xyz', yeah he must be like ...". Now I might be reading too much into it, but I don't believe that. I believe that Oliver Stone is a very intelligent filmmaker and that he was aiming for those things. And if that's something you want to explore (as a movie or within yourself), than watch this film and be excited! Never having seen an Oliver Stone film before, nor any films starring Eric Bogosian, I didn't know what to expect from this film. Having toyed with the idea of buying it for a while, I finally got it for free as a supplement with a Sunday newspaper and I was hugely impressed.

It tells the story of Barry Champlain, a talk radio host who can be incredibly rude towards his callers, often putting them in their place before they realise what's going on. Though this is what has made him a popular radio show host, it has also earned him numerous enemies.

The acting in this film was hugely impressive with not one dud actor in it. Eric Bogosian is brilliant as Barry Champlain, the troubled talk radio host with Alec Baldwin turning in a strong performance as Barry's boss, Dan. It also features the voice of, and cameo appearance by, Michael Wincott (my reason for wanting to see this).

The story was really well written as, despite his arrogance, you feel for Barry as more about his troubled life is revealed and you see how vulnerable he really is.

I'd recommend this film to anyone as it is captivating and, more importantly real on numerous levels, two of which being that is was inspired by the life of an actual talk radio host and the fact that you do actually get radio show hosts, and callers, like the ones featured in the film in reality.

High recommendation and 10/10.

Aye yours, Cat Squire Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure as Salvador in that its actually one of his best.

Written by and starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you sit down to watch it and you'll be fine.

There isn't much to the acting really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed something.

Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very good film. Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would kill to get a shot @ a film like this.

The claustrophobia of the studio is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for today. The "legalise all drugs" speech is powerful and you might find yourself agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit contrived and clichéd.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work.

It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus, extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should be studied by generations of film students.

10 out of 10 for inventive use of "Bad To The Bone" before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy! Alright, the first time I seen "Talk Radio" was in a video store for only $2.00 on VHS believe it or not, and I looked at it and I thought it might be about Howard Stern, because I just looked at it for about thirty seconds, then just didn't see it again. Then I went to another store about a month later and I found "Talk Radio" on DVD for only $5.00. So I see it was directed by Oliver Stone, and I picked it up. So after the film was over I was speechless. I have never seen such a film like this. Here's the main plot, then i'll tell ya what I thought of it.

It is about a Dallas talk radio host Barry Champlain, a Jewish radio host who talks about whatever other people bring up and he interupts, and is taking everything seriously. Now, a network wants to put his show live everywhere in the U.S. So Barry's show gets a lot of interesting phone callers like Chet (a neo-natzi), Kent (a rock n roll drugged kid), John (rapist), and others. Now some of the callers sound like the same actor/actresses. But still I think it fits okay.

Now what I love a lot about this film is the dark corners and the paranoid atmosphere of the radio station. The dark music in the background fits very nicely too. It has a flashback scene in the film also how he started with radio, which I think they did good on.

But the great thing about the film is ending. I was surprised by it, and it kind of makes you feel paranoid a little about the phone callers off the air and everything about it is wonderful. It also tells you how to say the right things to people over a big city like Dallas. One of Oliver Stone's underrated/weakest films mentioned, but I think it's his best in my opinion.

But definitely get this film if you like films with paranoia-feel like films with a dark atmosphere with sinister music in the background. I still watch this film a lot of the times now when i'm bored, as matter fact I watched it tonight. Yeah, if ya wanna really get the sinister feel to the film, watch it at nightime with the lights off. I may sound crazy, but it makes the film better!

Another thing I forgot to mention is that the reason I don't think the film did so well was maybe in my point of view because of the title. 'Talk Radio.' It doesn't sound very tricky or anything, it's kind of plain. A better title like the book "Talked To Death" or maybe "The Abusive Radio Host" or something catchy and not plain "Talk Radio". Or maybe because of Universal Pictures? Oliver Stone usually didn't do Universal I don't think. Paramount might have been a good company. I don't know, something about this film didn't do so well, but I love it.

"Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can cause permanent damage." Barry Champlain is a radio phone-in talk-show host in Dallas, whose no-holds-barred ideas on a plethora of social issues disturb and offend many of his callers and listeners. Is Barry a media messiah in search of truth, or a social misfit out to assault his audience ?

This is an intense, provocative character piece about a man with almost no redeeming features who at the same time seems to be onto some really profound philosophy. Though co-written and directed by Stone, this is really Bogosian's piece all the way and he gives an astonishingly hard-edged and penetrating performance from which there is no escape. Barry is at times one of the most loathsome characters imaginable, spewing bilious misanthropy at everyone around him, particularly those who care about him. But at the same time he is also strangely empathetic, hypnotic, sage, even lovable. Bogosian's hawkish features burn into the frame, with his green eyes constantly darting around as if permanently seeking an answer to some riddle. The movie is essentially an angry, self-righteous rant against all the bigotry, injustice and banality in the world, culminating in a wild three-and-a-half-minute rotating single shot of Barry delivering the ultimate I-hate-everything speech, but boy does it pack a punch. The support cast are great, particularly Greene as the ex-wife and Baldwin as the boss. Robert Richardson's keen photography manages to keep the single radio studio set looking interesting and there's a tense score by Stewart Copeland, with a moving coda featuring that endearing phone-music piece, Telephone And Rubber Band by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra. If you're unfamiliar with Bogosian, check out his amazing talent in this flick - like his contemporaries, Bill Hicks and Denis Leary, he's someone who rarely appears in the mainstream media, purely because his writing is so out there. I find Stone's movies variable; I don't much care for his big successes, but when he is more ordered and objective, as with this (or Salvador and Nixon), he is much more incisive and arresting. A great primal scream of a picture, based on a play by Bogosian, inspired by the true story of Alan Berg, a Denver radio talk show host who was murdered by neo-Nazis in 1984. Absolutely nothing. The movies that are great in this world are not recognized unless they are filled with gunshots, explosions, and death. This movie is filled with a man talking about showing you a more complex character than has been seen in many movies.

When a movie is incredibly fast paced but stays mostly in one location it has to be the work of a genius. Surprisingly enough, it is, this movie is directed by Oliver Stone and therefore is one of the best directed films of our time.

This movie's screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone and Eric Bogosian (Barry Champlain, main character.). With Oliver Stone's help, the screenplay was created as a seamless, rolling script which keeps you interested the entire time if you have any amount of intelligence. If you have an open mind about any subjects, and the wit to comprehend others, then this movie is something which you should find some way to watch, immediately. WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed.

I had no idea what this movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this film... I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie. Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.

Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help. Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by "Spacehog" Band

Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (..."Necks will be broke and whips will Crack"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than any Horror Movie.

10 out of 10

Em Talk Radio sees a man somewhat accidentally stumble through life, indeed the American Dream, from whatever bog-standard and everyday job he has in a store; to presenter of a local radio show before going right the way through to the same job only later syndicated nationwide. It's a role he adopts out of his own aggression and natural mannerisms, a frothing mad approach to freedom of speech as he attacks just about everyone and everything, even those that often call up to agree with him or compliment him. His role as a man that rants on all things good, evil, right, wrong, political, religious, moral and immoral is something that people seem to take to in one form; that of 'it's entertaining and worth tuning in for', but additionally on a plane of rejection and antagonism – two things born out of the very things seemingly encouraged in professional working life in the Western World. This, towards a man as he gets to the very top of his game by way of the American Dream and dealing in freedom of speech as people take to a man but do anything but take to what it is he says.

Talk Radio begins with a montage of tall, towering buildings in a business based area of Dallas, Texas. The skyscrapers are shot from a ,ow angle and tower over the viewer plus everything else in the general vicinity as this voice of one man tears through the images, belting out statements and information on items as these monolithic buildings dominate out screen. They are the very physical representation of capitalism, while the voice of what we learn to be a radio DJ is the oral representation of the free west; personal speech and opinions on anything and everything. Stone will finish his film in the exact same manner in which he started it, although the film is anything but a circular journey of any sort as the characters undergo monumental changes in both what they witness and their general livelihood. Rather, the shots of the buildings act as an anchor around which the study is observed. The ideologies and ideas of a way of life exist; people subscribe to them, but it does them more harm than good; before the re-establishment that this proud way of life still exists and will continue to exist in churning out the sorts of people on display in the film until someone or something drastically changes things.

The DJ is Barry Champlain, a man with a radio show on a local Texan station dealing with just about anything. Champlain's somewhat carefree attitude to some pretty explosive content is established when he flies from one call with a bigoted man whom recently visited a Holocaust museum to a young drug addict whose girlfriend has supposedly overdosed and onto both the berating and mocking of a pizza shop. To us, the content comes across as quite shocking; to these people, everything seems to be business as usual which plants some serious seeds of both doubt and horror within the minds of us, the newcomers to all of this.

What Barry's show is about, nobody ever seems to really establish: everything and nothing. Indeed, time is taken in the form of either jingles or dialogue that the shows immediately pre and post Champlain's show are on specific subjects; gardening, for instance, and are hosted by calm speaking and methodical people whom, I'm sure, do not flit from one random or extreme to another all the time raising the stakes. One wonders what Barry's jingle is, the kind that plays around about lunch time during someone else's' show: "Coming up later, the Barry Champlain show! Featuring the village idiot and psychotic drug abusers!" Indeed, his show's introductory piece carries a matter-of-fact tone, a shouting at the audience, as a loud rock track accompanies it.

Barry's success arrives in the national syndication proposal. It's born out of confrontation and a relationship built on the contempt he has for his listeners and that they have for him. The furthering of the material and the upping of the stakes ought to call into question just how far they think they can take this, and whether this progressing down a track for sake of entertainment is really worth it. It is when the show reaches this level of broadcast that Barry seems to come unstuck for the first time in his broadcasting life, when a supposed serial rapist calls in and leaves mostly everyone slightly stunned. It's at this point the camera pauses on Barry, and by way of depth of focus, encompasses those same looming, towering buildings the film began with which stand outside of the window, directly behind Barry. They remain tall and proud. Specifically, of the ideologies they've been built on and this furtherance of freedom of speech in broadening Barry's show nationwide as one man climbs his profession's ladder suddenly clashes with the sort of content that's being offered. Everything reaches a point too far, and that with freedom, ought to at least come a sense of clarity rather than a mere revelling.

Oliver Stone made Talk Radio right in the middle of both a fascinating and explosive period of film-making he had in the late 1980s. In this time, he produced a series of really well received films in a pretty short space of time; beginning with one of my favourite war films in Platoon before continuing with the quite brilliant Wall Street and eventually finishing with 1991's JFK. One might even say that this run continued on into the mid-nineties with Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio is like its lead character in the sense it's loud, booming, stark and confrontational. It isn't anti-capitalism, as much as it is focused on drawing a line between what is perceived as entertainment and what is just going too far for sake of popularity and riches. Talk Radio is certainly a film that sticks in the memory. Eric Bogosian gives as great a performance as you'll ever see in an Oliver Stone film. His Barry character is an assault rifle disguised as a man and he blows away anyone, on or off the air, that offends him. Adapted from Bogosian's stage play, "Talk Radio" is a vicious and frightening ride that doesn't let you off until it's too late. By then, you've become familiar with the fringe of racists, rapists, paranoids, wannabe assassins and mere prank callers who listen, speak and lurk in the dark of Dallas nights.

Stone behaves himself, if that's even possible, letting Bogosian dominate every scene, from Barry's humble beginnings to the make or break point when his radio show can reach national syndication. The rest of the cast are uniformly excellent as the lovers and/or co-workers that all have being used and tossed aside by Barry in common.

The only thing I'd change is the recurring theme music, "Bad To The Bone". I'd have used Bachman-Turner Overdrive's "Not Fragile". A better song, one I haven't heard in a film so far and a driving, relentless tune whose ominous riff is like the true soundtrack to Barry's life.

Listen if you dare! With boundless, raw energy and an uncompromising vision, Talk Radio brilliantly explores the public's fondness for reducing strangers' private problems into entertainment via the radio.

Eric Bogosian is sensational as Barry Champlaine, a rude, in-your-face talk radio host. He's a natural for this kind of role, and fine tunes one of the most impressive, interesting radio personalities I've ever seen on screen. The timing and delivery of his insults to his various callers are strokes of genius.

Alec Baldwin also shines as Barry's boss. He demonstrates the same explosive cynicism that he would later display 1992's Glengarry Glen Ross. But the supporting role that truly stands out is the stoned, seemingly brain-dead teen played by Michael Wincott. You have to see it to believe it.

Oliver Stone and Robert Richardson do a great job with the photography, which is almost entirely confined to a single broadcasting room. The claustrophobic feel of the movie perfectly mirrors its tone. After all, one of the major points of the film is exploiting people's private moments to draw an audience. Stone demonstrates that these moments are often too private for the whole world to experience.

Talk Radio is a film with strong emotional and cerebral impact - the likes of which are seldom seen today. Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity, and it's distorted interpretations of fame.

An ultimate indictment of our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big thrill.

A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature. This is a film about passion. The passion it depicts is largely misdirected, even for the leading man. But therein lies the incredible power of this film: it shows us that what we believe can be contaminated by nonsense, and can even lead us to do things that are destructive -- to ourselves or others. Moreover, those who try to escape from acquiring passion (watch the druggie who visits the studio) also risk self-destruction.

The world needs to hear the message of this movie more often. In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending. This film is totally mindblowing. It manages to be thought provoking, funny, tragic, and cinematic yet claustrophobic.

Although the flashbacks are unnecessary, the film maintains a pacy, punchy grip and the performances are all excellent, in particular Alec Baldwin, and the mesmerising Eric Bogosian as the film's anti-hero, Barry Champlain. This is a very cool movie. The ending of the movie is a bit more defined than the play's ending, but either way it is still a good movie. When it comes to movies, I don't easily discriminate between crap, pure crap and masterpieces. I believe this movie is an absolute masterpiece and it's hard to keep me entertained for more than 90 minutes. This movie ran SLOWER than Mystic River and Harry Potter 3 combined and I still managed to stay riveted to my seat. For me, it was the passion that Eric Bogosian put into his performance. It's extremely difficult to pull off such a stunt and manage to garner any positive effect from it. Bogosian probably nailed one of the toughest single-man performances in modern cinema. I didn't have any respect for Bogosian until the end of the film. The entire monologue minutes before the inexorable climax was the turning point, it was the key that turned me around. This man hit a point so low that he knew he could never recover from it. The corporate boys congratulated him on the performance. His blistering prose made even the slimiest one in the cavalcade shake his head in awe. It made me realize that personal integrity and hypocrisy don't matter in the world of talk radio, even in the corporate world for that matter. Stone may have been pushing some uber-liberal agenda but it was the actual movie and production that got my attention. Oliver Stone is a minor master of the moody. The final third of the film had probably the best lighting and cinematography I have seen in any film. Stone artfully makes the DJ booth feel like five-by-seven cell in a nineteenth century prison. Visually speaking, it appears that Bogosian's only friend is the black foam that absorbs his routine vitriol. He speaks and it doesn't speak back. It's a sad metaphor considering the way he treats the people who handed him his success. Stone and Bogosian carved out a stunning film of a man who is trapped in both a prison of walls and a prison of self. This man is confined to his own volition and he can never escape it. The scene that made me realize his conundrum was when he was unwilling to his ex-wife back. He preferred his own prison instead of the world on the outside. Every story has a conflict and it came down to the simplest of all conflicts: man versus himself. 'Talk Radio' presents this conflict in an intelligent, gripping, and artful fashion. There are no hidden messages in this film and the progression of events should be expected by any astute viewer. I just leaned back and let my mind be grasped by this film and I loved it. It's unheralded, unseen, and it will never receive its due recognition. Let's hope it stays that way because gems deserve to be found and then hidden again. It's a gem because I found it in the discount DVD bin at my local Wal-Mart store. For $5.50, it was worth the half-hour I spent digging trying to find it. I did and I got more than my money's worth. This is one of the best movies ever made and that is worth ten reasons alone. Ten reasons give a score of ten.

Here ends my rant! Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama (1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare hands…and won (interesting guy…look him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years! Mas Oyama was the most successful karate master of the late 20th century. He rejected the "training" of the karate clubs of the time focusing on an intense no holds form of training. He eventually built his system into a huge business empire with hundreds of schools across the world, without compromising his teachings. The testing in the Kyokushin schools are still some of the most physically challenging tests any martial art school requires. One non- physical hardship Oyama faced was prejudice due to his Korean ancestry and he spent time proving that loyalties were to Japan and Japanese Karate. This movie series was part of that effort although anyone who had the chance to meet Oyama (I did) would never question his allegiance to Japan. In this series, Oyama's most famous student, Sonny Chiba, is called upon to portray his master.

Oyama arrives from the countryside where he has been training alone. He challenges and makes short work of the established Karate schools he encounters. Disgusted by the state of karate, Oyama returns to his lone training. He eventually picks up a student, falls in love and gets in the way of gangsters who are allied with the established karate schools. In the middle of this is the legendary bullfight with a mad bull. How much of the film is true is questionable.

That Oyama could kill a bull with his bare hands is true. He was called on to repeat this feat numerous times. There are filmed instances of Oyama actually doing this, although sometimes the bulls seemed to be tethered as Oyama was getting on in years. Sonny Chiba portrays his master with conviction and the karate is quite good. Chiba may not have been the best karate practitioner but, at this point in time, he was certainly above average.

As a whole the movie is good, much better then most martial art films in the drama department. I always wondered why it's not more well known. Possibly it the very realistic depictions of martial arts. People are shown getting tired and hurt unlike 99% of action film where the hero is a limitless fountain of energy and each blow instantly dispatches an opponent to death. Chiba seems so exhausted at one point that it hurts to watch. Perhaps viewers rather not have their entertainment reflect reality so closely.

Recommended especially for martial artists. Oddly enough, the Independent Film Channel showed this film a week AFTER it showed KARATE BEAR FIGHTER--even though the bear film was the second in the trilogy and this film was the first!!! What were they thinking?! While all three of these films are supposedly based on the life of this great Kyokushin Karate master, you can't help but think that they MUST have embellished the story quite a bit--especially in this first film. Sure, the guy evidently DID fight and kill a bull and later a bear (in fact, he fought and killed MANY bulls during his career), but in this film set in the early 50s, at the end of the film, the hero actually fights about 60 guys and kills many of them brutally. I just can't imagine that this really occurred. So I did some checking and found that while many of the details are correct, some of this film is pure bunk! Yes, he DID kill a man in self-defense and YES he did follow the widow and her son and spent a year working for them--trying to get them to forgive him. But the end of the film is great to watch but hogwash. Seeing one of his opponents get a staff thrust through his head and all the other gory details couldn't have happened or else the Japanese government would have locked Oyama up to protect society! The film is entertaining and the fighting is excellent. There are no complaints about the action or acting. The only minor complaint is the camera work--which is a tad sloppy during some of the fight scenes. Despite this minor complaint, this is a most enjoyable film. In many ways, the wandering Karate master theme is pretty reminiscent of the Zatoichi films--which are also lots of fun to watch but many of the exploits are truly impossible.

FYI--There is an Englished dubbed version of this film entitled "Champion of Death" and I just saw it as well. It's not a bad dubbing and it was letter boxed (a big plus), but still I prefer the subtitled version. In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films I attended a screening of "Fierce People" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I hesitate to label it a "premiere" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of 2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was announced. Perhaps one can call it a "re-premiere?" It certainly felt as if I was witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was.

I suppose one could characterize "Fierce People" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in. In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label. So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been "lost." It defies categorization.

Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the Yanomani, the tribe of "Fierce People" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All their activities are built around those two "tasks," and Finn is captivated by it. Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little solitary world with his reels of film.

One summer, Mom decides to drag Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his palatial estate. Osborne's "tribe" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids, servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider, concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this magnificent story.

With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family.

This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder.

This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is breathtaking. But more than anything, "Fierce People" is Anton Yelchin's film. He has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the little-known "House of D" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's "Huff." In January, he will be seen in "Alpha Dog" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the "heart and soul"). His performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and is nothing short of spectacular.

This complex, quirky film has remained out of sight long enough. "Fierce People" is a treasure filled with light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder. I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie. And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too! I was lucky enough to see this at this years Tribeca film festival. I was stunned by how well made and how entertaining this wonderful little film was. Director Griffin Dunne has done a great job assembling this film that has several characters and several story lines that blend so smoothly and seamlessly. The main story involves the family and it is very thought-provoking and entertaining story that involved the viewer in every scene. The film as a whole has credibility and integrity, yet still has that commercial edge - an "indie" movie for the masses if you like. The performances by the cast are all excellent but it is Diane Lane who shines the brightest. Diane Lane is simply sensational in this wonderful film and should be Oscar nominated. Early days I know, but Lane acts her socks off here. I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular work. Wake up, studio execs!

The story is based upon the experiences of the author/screenwriter, growing up as the "poor kid" in an extremely affluent community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of life, from clothing to justice.

During the film's Q&A, the author was asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat!

In many ways, this film is extremely timely. I really enjoyed Fierce People. I discovered the film by accident, searching through my On-Demand movie lists trying to find something interesting to watch. The film is mostly about class in America, and it quickly grabs your attention. The characters are smart and articulate and the story doesn't stick to the usual Hollywood rules.

The main protagonist is Finn, a precocious, but underprivileged 15 year old who spends his summer with the Osbourne family. Donald Sutherland plays the patriarch, Ogden C. Osborne, the seventh richest man in America. Diane Lane plays Finn's mother, a friend of Ogden who is also a habitual cocaine user and a slut. The Osbournes own a large estate and seems to live by their own rules. At first they seem charming and sophisticated but the super-rich are different. They are used to getting their own way. The film is enjoyable mainly because it has crisp intelligent dialog, superb acting and a story which takes unexpected turns. It is also an R rated movie, so it's not entirely wholesome.

The cast is excellent. Anton Yelchin is believable and sympathetic in the demanding role of Finn. Sutherland and Diane Lane have never been better. Chris Evans is impressive as Osbourne's devious grandson. Kristen Stewart is good as the pretty grand daughter. High quality movie. A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning, the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each person.

Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation, but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent. To the eight people who found the previous FIERCE PEOPLE comments by "Psycolicious Me" and "Topdany" "helpful," as well as to any future site visitors who see them before their authors delete them: these negative critique's are not only shorter than the site guidelines mandate, but they are entirely bogus, nonfactual, incorrect, and misinformative. For instance, Blythe's dad is in a coma, NOT dead--Maya and Finn even visit him in the hospital. Furthermore, it was estate deer poacher Dwayne--NOT Blythe--who knocked up Jilly the maid, etc., etc. So if you have ADD which makes you incapable of focusing on the simplest details, please keep your condition to yourself by not pretending to be Siskel or Ebert. Otherwise, include a disclaimer with your comments! From the opening scenes of FIERCE PEOPLE (an interplay of tribal customs as photographed by the anthropologist father of the young narrator Finn Earl, demonstrating why this South American tribe of Ishkanani is so fierce) the direction of the film is nebulous: are we watching a dark comedy about comparing life in the New York streets to uncivilized peoples, or is this a message film of a more serious intent? But as the story develops this fine line between entertainment and philosophical impact becomes increasingly clear. Griffin Dunne's direction of Dirk Wittenborn's adaptation of his novel may be a bit careless at times as it strays from rational plot development, but in the end there is a strong enough final impact to patch up the holes he created.

Our narrator Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin) lives with his coke-addicted masseuse/sexually obsessed mother Liz (Diane Lane) in New York, waiting for the summer when he is to join his anthropologist father on a field trip to South America (a father he knows only from letters and videos), when a drug bust abruptly changes their lives: one of Liz's wealthy clients Ogden Osborne (Donald Sutherland) rescues the down and out family and moves them to his ten acre estate, the epitome of wealth and power. In exchange for being Osborne's private masseuse, Liz and Finn can live in the mansion with the 'filthy rich' Osbornes - daughter Mrs. Langley (Elizabeth Perkins) and grandchildren Bryce (Chris Evans) and Maya (Kristen Stewart). Osborne and his physician lead Liz on the drying out path and Finn bonds with Osborne and his grandchildren, and despite the disparity in poor versus wealthy, the living situation works - for a while. Incidents occur to alter feelings and Finn is attacked and raped by a masked assailant, a turning point for the film and Finn's view of the Osborne family. Osborne reveals his past to Finn and together they manage to discover the truth about Finn's troubling incident - and also about the fierce disease of the wealthy class.

The film uses many clips of tribal activity during the film, drawing some disturbing parallels for some of the more challenging scenes. For this viewer that works well, but when the director elects to place tribal individuals in full regalia within the context of the Osborne estate, the concept feel contrived, as though the audience has to be forced to 'get it'. The various subplots between maid Jilly (Paz de la Huerta) and Finn and the introduction of an obese retarded chalk artist Whitney (Branden Williams) push the credibility edge of emphasizing the line between the wealthy and the 'lower class', but the performances by Sutherland, Lane, and Yelchin are strong enough to make us forgive the film's lapses. Not a great film but one with a lot of worthy ideas splashed around on the screen of a project that often feels lost in its struggle for direction. Grady Harp this is an adaptation of a Dirk Wittenborn book, which I did not read. young Finn Earl lives with his Mom Liz (Diane Lane) in a cramped lower East Side New York Apartment. he dreams of joining his Anthropologist father studying a fierce tribe in South America. Liz has boyfriends and does coke. when he is caught scoring coke for her, one of her customers (Liz is a legitimate masseuse) a rich Mr. Osborne bails her out in return for being his full time personal masseuse in his huge estate in New Jersey. They are driven there in a limo with her strung out lying in the back seat with her dress hitched way up and panties showing. (this and a few low-cut dress scenes is the only exploitation of Ms. Lane. some may be disappointed but I'm sorry she had to do all that stuff in "Unfaithful" to make the A-List. That lady has more talent in her little finger than Streep, Roberts, and Sally Field do in their entire BODIES and its time she was given her due.) when they arrive Finn makes friends with Osbornes grandson Bryce, and has a coming of age with his new girlfriend, granddaughter Maya. Liz meanwhile joins AA and dates an AA doctor. She miraculously cleans up instantly. Finn however does a lot of drugs along with sex with his new friends. Bryce seems like an OK guy but gets jealous when Osborne takes Finn on a hot air balloon race instead of him, and this leads to tragedy.

the genius of the story, (and movie) is that they cut from the violent acts of the Fierce filthy rich Blysdale tribe to the Yanomano warriors. It's a little implausible though that when Liz finds out what happens to her son she merely demands action from Osborne and does not either contact the authorities or settle it Thelma and Louise style. there are elements of a Gothic Romance with a revelation by the village idiot. Also they do almost no plot or character development prior to the move to Blysdale. Liz, for instance, like Lane's Pearl Kantrowitz in "Walk on the Moon" had an unwanted pregnancy with Finn at 18 and felt trapped. This is in the book but not the movie. Still, these are minor shortcomings. The movie will be in full release 12/31/05 over a year after the original release date, and I just couldn't wait.

There were lots of Red Carpet moments in the theater I saw the movie at, with almost the whole cast...except Diane Lane!! $#%#Q$ Director Dunne said she was off filming a movie. I know she didn't promise to be there, but I came from way out of town and it would have been such a thrill to see her in person. The movie is a definite Best Picture contender, as for acting?? Sutherland was quite good, and so was the boy who played Finn. Lane was magnificent as always, but I only recall one or two emotional scenes, when she catches Finn with drugs "lets get f****d up together mother and son" and with Osborne "your twisted grandson...". She would fare better with a supporting actress nod but it wont work that way. unless they give it to her for a "body of work." Went to the premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and I absolutely loved the film!!! I am Diane's #1 biggest fan and of course, as always, she gave a magnificent performance!! I have seen every single one of her movies and I must say that this is one of my new favorites. Diane was funny and moving and just took my breath away. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly humorous but also a good amount of serious. Anton Yelchin is just a wonderful young actor and gave an amazing performance. All in all, I recommend this film to anyone who can appreciate an excellent movie. 10 thumbs up!!! I would definitely go see it again and again and again. This is the best film of the year so far!!! Returning from 20 years in China, a young missionary refuses to become THE CAT'S-PAW for a gang of hometown hoodlums.

This movie was a bit of a departure from Harold Lloyd's previous movies. Comedy derived more from dialogue, often rather serious, predominates here, rather than the elaborate sight gags which powered Harold's classics of the past. There are some splendid moments, however, which are pure visual fun, as when Harold attempts to follow a convertible down a crowded street, or when he desperately tries to keep a nightclub stripper from losing her clothes. There is also the climactic scene, set in a Chinatown basement, in which Harold gleefully jumps unabashedly into the darkest comedy. But most of the humor derives from Harold's refusal to be the patsy of the criminals who've run his hometown for years.

And it's quite a collection of crooked politicians & thugs Harold finds himself up against, played by a bevy of fine character actors: George Barbier, Nat Pendleton, Grant Mitchell, Edwin Maxwell, Alan Dinehart, Warren Hymer & stuttering Fuzzy Knight. Pert Una Merkel is on hand as the tobacco stand girl who catches Harold's eye and keeps him intrigued by her no-nonsense outlook on life.

Movie mavens will recognize Samuel S. Hinds as Harold's missionary father; Charles Sellon as an elderly Stockport clergyman; and Herman Bing as a German gangster--all uncredited. Also, showing up for only a few seconds as an attempted kidnapper, is Noah Young, a familiar face from Harold's silent films, here making his final appearance in a Lloyd picture.

Fox gave the film fine production values, especially in the opening scenes set in China. It has to be admitted that the best work of Harold Lloyd ended with his last great silent comedy "Speedy" in 1928. After that he enters sound films (like Chaplin and Keaton and Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields) and does do better than Keaton, but not as well as the other three. Chaplin was rich enough to make his own films as producer (but he paced his films so there were five years between productions). Laurel & Hardy were under the protection of Hal Roach, so production standards for their shorts and sound films were pretty good. Fields first worked with Mack Sennett, than with Paramount, and then free-lanced. Lloyd tried the route that Chaplin took, but with less success.

He produced his own films, but unlike Chaplin he did not own his own studio. Also his first two choices were not good (especially "Feet First"). But he did begin to choose more wisely and "Movie Crazy", "The Cat's-Paw", and "The Milky Way" were all good choices. These three (and possibly "The Sin of Harold Diddlebock") were his best sound ventures. They are all entertaining, but none are up to "Safety Last", "The Freshman", "The Kid Brother", or "Speedy".

Of the top four sound films "The Cat's Paw" is the most controversial. Ezekiel Cobb's solution to ridding the city that elects him mayor is very extreme for the tastes of 2005. Or is it? When a movie is made dictates what it's politics are: "The Cat's Paw" is from 1934. That second year of the Roosevelt New Deal (itself rather controversial for heavier government involvement) movie audiences saw films like "Gabriel Over the White House" and "The Phantom President", where our leaders did extra-Constitutional actions to rid the nation of internal enemies (and to force disarmament around the globe). Even Cecil B. De Mille got into this act with "This Day and Age", where a bunch of teenagers use rats to force a gangster to confess his crimes.

To us, the use of violence to force anyone (even a bunch of goons and boodlers like Alan Dinehart's gang) to confess is repellent. After all, the Supreme Court has protected us from confession under duress. What we forget is that the reforms we are thinking of did not occur until the Warren Court and the Burger Court made them. For example, although Mr. Justice Sutherland's opinion in the Powell ("Scottsboro Boys") Case of 1932 guaranteed every criminal defendant had a right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright did not extend this to ordering court paid counsel to defendants until 1962. The Miranda Case, with it's now well-known anti-self-incrimination warning is from 1963. Nothing like this were considered necessary in 1934.

If you study other movies of the period up to 1954 (and even to 1960) tricks are used to get confessions - Kirk Douglas confesses his crimes in front of witnesses in "I Walk Alone" while Burt Lancaster holds a gun to him. When Lancaster leaves, Douglas sneers about confessing under duress, only to see the gun is unloaded. Suddenly he realizes that (legally - in 1948) he has confessed without duress. Hate to say it, to any civil libertarians reading this note, but what Cobb/Lloyd does to Dinehart and his pals in the conclusion of "The Cat's Paw" was not only legal, but would have led to their jail sentences in 1934. We may call it heavy handed, fascistic, or horrid, but it would have worked legally when it was thought up. What is often neglected about Harold Lloyd is that he was an actor. Unlike Chaplin and Keaton, Lloyd didn't have the Vaudeville/Music Hall background and he wasn't a natural comedian. He came to Hollywood to act; and he discovered he had a knack for acting funny -- first in shorts, then in features. He made a name for himself as "Lonesome Luke", a Chaplin knock-off; with the "glasses character" that made him the all-American boy rather than a grotesque, Lloyd found his stride and his movies became some of the best produced during the silent era.

He developed a reputation as a "daredevil" in some shorts, and retained this in some of his best movies ("Safety Last", "For Heaven's Sake", "Girl Shy"). He was more popular than either Chaplin or Keaton during the twenties and he became very rich before the advent of sound.

The first sound movies were often disasters. To get the most out of their "sound", too much dialog was used in many movies.

Lloyd's acting skills were, after two decades, geared for silents. He didn't have a bad voice; its high pitch suited his "glasses" character. And his sound films weren't the unqualified disasters of legend. Yet silent movies had been raised to a high art (especially Lloyd's, which did not stint on budget and were extremely well-crafted); with the introduction of talkies movies had to learn to walk again and they made some missteps.

Though he tried to move with the times and embraced sound, Lloyd's best bits from his early (overly talky) talkies were still visual -- such as the scene in "Movie Crazy" where he appears to be riding in a swank car, but actually "hitched a ride" on his bicycle.

Trying to recapture the daredevil antics that made him famous, as he did in "Feet First", was misstep. (In "Safety Last", his best movie and the one that, deservedly or not, shoved Lloyd in the box as a "daredevil comic", he played a determined young man, climbing to the top. "Safety Last" had a natural structure that ascended to his character's scaling the side of the building. He was obviously afraid, but his fear added to the humor. In "Feet First", he arrived in a precarious building-scaling position by accident; his frantic cries for help detracted from the humor. His character was pathetic and cringing, aspiration to save his neck -- possibly an accurate statement of the 1930s, but not amusing).

Harold Lloyd was not mired in the past, like some wacky Norma Desmond. He embraced sound and tried to take his movies in different directions, growing and changing with the industry. When "Feet First" failed he left the daredevil business and made a satire on the talking movie industry, "Movie Crazy". Just as he had to flounder through many movies as "Lonesome Luke" before carving his place in movie history with the glasses character, he had tried several directions in sound movies before hitting his stride in sound, which he did with "The Catspaw".

In "The Catspaw" he plays a missionary's son reared in China who unwittingly gets elected mayor as a front for corrupt political interests. When he finds out the truth, he sets himself the task of cleaning up the town. Only in his early forties, Lloyd could still act the brash young man.

Yet "The Catspaw" was another box-office failure, and Lloyd made only three more movies, including "The Milky Way". Of his chief competitors, Chaplin still had silent movies in him and Keaton was hopelessly mismanaged. "The Catspaw" and "The Milky Way" suggest Lloyd might have mastered sound comedy if he had been a little younger, or if audiences had given him the benefit of the doubt after his early sound fiascoes.

Though the movie has been unfairly maligned about the way Lloyd's character cleaned up the town, it suits him. From his days in "shorts" Lloyd wanted to scare his audience, and the climax of "The Catspaw" achieved it yet again, in a surprising way; until the trick is revealed it appears gruesome, and then come the laughs.

Viewed as a product of its time, "The Catspaw" is charming and funny. A very well-written sound comedy, well-acted by Lloyd. Directed by Sam Taylor, its curious blend of drama and sly humor make it look almost like a Frank Capra or Preston Sturges comedy.

As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).

This film is a "hoot" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).

One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" - kissing, etc).

This is a Must-See film! This movie caught me by surprise. For years I have avoided many of Harold Lloyd's sound pictures (as well as those of Keaton) because they have a generally well-deserved reputation for being lousy compared to the silent films because the basic formula has been lost. However, when I saw this film I was pleasantly surprised to find I actually liked it,...once I accepted it really was not a "Harold Lloyd" film (despite him starring in it). This is because although it is nothing like the style of his earlier films, it IS highly original and Lloyd isn't bad playing a totally different type of character.

As I mentioned above, the formula of the old films is almost completely missing here. Lloyd does not do the old familiar stunt work, the romance is quite unlike his early screen romances, and the plot is just plain weird! Instead of the usual roles, he is the son of a Chinese missionary who returns to America for the first time since he was a small boy. Because of this, though he looks like an American (except for his white suit and explorer's helmet), he thinks and acts a lot like someone who is Chinese. In many ways, he's very naive about America and is like an innocent among wolves. Early on, he meets a man who turns out to be a local party boss. This boss ALWAYS produces a losing candidate for the mayoral race--because he is bought and paid for by the corrupt mayor to produce a "token" candidate who has NO CHANCE of winning. Well, the old geezer who they traditionally run for office just died and he decides to run the naive Lloyd--he hasn't a prayer of winning! Well, the unthinkable happens and Lloyd wins!!! This, and Lloyd's decision to clean up the town greatly upsets the old political machine and they stop at nothing to destroy honest Lloyd. Just when it appears Lloyd is headed to jail on a trumped up corruption charge, he creates a scheme that is 100% impossible and very illegal to get signed confessions from the crooks. However, despite this, it is incredibly funny and a great ending. So, my advice is at the end, just suspend disbelief and enjoy.

An important note: This movie is definitely NOT politically correct. The word "Chink" is used repeatedly. I found it offensive but considering the times, I ignored it as you should too. If, however, you are someone who CAN'T and like being angry, I suggest you never watch movies anyway--as you are bound to become offended again and again. For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in sound.

For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as Sellers was.

But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po turns out to be one wise dude.

Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform' movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor dies.

Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died.

Of course as it goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith.

The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have a streak of honesty in him. _Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.

A documentary about a nomadic tribe in Tibet going out to a dry lake to get salt does not sound very appealing. But this is not a popcorn movie but a visual cultural feast whereby you partake of a rapidly vanishing morsel of humanity. The superstitions, the epic songs and poetry, the faith of a people who truly believe in following their own unique patterns of life are something the West had in the times of Homer but that is now, unfortunately, completely foreign to most of us in the "developed" world. We have lost the spiritual serenity that comes from following well established patterns of life, often with dire mental consequences in our increasingly soulless society. The film makers have woven us intimately into the fabric of these materially poor but spiritually rich and scrappy saltmen. And made us see that there was more to life than the shopping mall and pop culture. So disconnect your land lines, turn off your cells, turn off the driveway lights and sit back and ease yourself into a timeless adventure. I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help. This is a beautifully filmed movie that questions the future of all indigenous peoples, especially nomadic tribesmen. Focusing on the Saltmen of Tibet, the film moves at pace that may make some western viewers uncomfortable. For some peoples, life still proceeds at the same pace which it has for thousands of years. This film follows a group of tribesmen on their annual two month quest to get salt. Their tribe lives its life in a traditional manner (slowly by modern standards) and always accounting to their many gods. This is a remarkable film, one which will preserve a piece of what may, unfortunately, become history. Well worth the time. Don't be in a rush when you see it. An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such unbridled power.

What really makes this a great episode is the memorable performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien. His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched. The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right - we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next Generation series. In "The Squire of Gothos", Kirk and his crew encounter a powerful super-being, who keeps the Captain, "Bones" and a few crewmembers captive for no apparent reason. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Star Trek episode I ever saw and the program that made me hungry for more. It is not one of the best episodes, but the rock-solid premise of an alien being who putting the Enterprise's crew in a corner, is the kind of situation that makes the show so much fun to watch. In a way, the super-humanoid anticipates one of Star Trek's most famous characters, Next Generation's enigmatic "Q". This episode is also memorable for creating a unique situation: it is the first time Uhura is part of the action and the story allows the viewer to see what an endearing character Uhuara can be when the story allows her. Too bad the show never fully explored this iconic figure. I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one. General Trelayne is a super-being who wants to play a little game with the crew of the Enterprise. A lot of extremely unlikely and nonsensical stuff seems to be happening, and Trelayne seems obsessed with the human practices of warfare and murder. He seems to need to experience what he imagines to be a thrill and has created a human environment (though a few hundred years out of date) in which to play out his fantasies. The environment is subtly inauthentic, and the crew immediately begins to spot the inconsistencies. Pretty soon it becomes clear that Trelayne is not just an immature god, but a very fallible one. Regardless of how you feel about this one, stick around for the Twilight Zone-like ending. It is well worth it.

As many have pointed out, Trelayne's character inspired the more developed and amusing on-going character Q - and you can see in John DeLancie's construction of that personality more than just shades of Campbell's Trelayne. It is fun to compare how the four captains we have seen coping with Q all deal with him so radically differently. The Squire of Gothos is one of the "sillier" episodes of Star Trek, and therefore one of the most entertaining ones. The entertainment factor is, generally speaking, fueled by the stand-off between William Shatner and the episode's hilarious guest star, William Campbell.

During an unspecified routine mission, Sulu suddenly vanishes into thin air, and Kirk follows soon after-wards. Spock immediately begins looking for his missing colleagues (and, though he'd hate to admit it, friends), while the two stranded crewmen must deal with the mysterious, all-powerful, flamboyant Trelane (Campbell), the self-proclaimed Squire of Gothos, a being capable of creating or destroying anything he wants through the sheer power of his mind.

At first sight, the plot may seem recycled from previous episodes (honestly, are there any sci-fi shows that didn't feature at least one God-like character), but that feeling vanishes pretty quickly thanks to the script's winning use of exaggerated humor, all conveyed through Campbell's deliberately camp performance: his Trelane is essentially the Trek version of a spoiled child in the body of an adult, while his ignorance-fueled curiosity for the human race (his knowledge is quite limited) probably served as inspiration for Gene Roddenberry when he came up with the character of Q for the Next Generation pilot, some two decades after this episode aired.

In short, the key to appreciating The Squire of Gothos is this: "silly" doesn't necessarily equal "bad". When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is. This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper. The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous violence, sex and the "f" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10! I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it! I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic We went to see Manna from Heaven, my husband, two friends, and I and we all enjoyed the film. The characters are funny, the story is amusing and so much like real life. I think that is what I liked most, just seeing something believable, no murders, no sci-fi, just good, clean fun. It is something you could take your children or elderly parents to and not worry. How many of those are around anymore!! In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!!

In what could best be described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.

Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.

From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.

Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time!

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long! `Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.

Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.

Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstanding

The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.

Conrad F. Toepfer As a native of the city where the story takes place, Buffalo, NY, it's fun to see the local sites but the story line is so local and fun, too!

The small scale promoting of this film requires strong word of mouth to accomplish the wide viewing it deserves. Please make this film the success the Big, Fat Greek Wedding was. Being from the Buffalo area I was well aware of the movie having read many articles in local publications. I was most impressed with the movie, especially its clever plot, the acting and the local scenes. Nice to see so many older, quality stars in the various roles. I feel that especially those of us over 50 will find the movie excellent and you can leave the theater feeling that your time was well spent. I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America does like positive, upbeat films. What a great cast for this movie. The timing was excellent and there were so many clever lines-several times I was still laughing minutes after they were delivered. I found Manna From Heaven to have some surprising moments and while there were things I was thinking would happen, the way they came together was anything but predictable. This movie is about hope and righting wrongs. I left the theater feeling inspired to do the right thing. Bravo to the Five Sisters. Manna from Heaven is heavenly. This is a movie for the family -- teens and grandparents can enjoy it together. But it isn't syrupy sweet or silly. The characters really are "characters". The plot is somewhat complex and you have to pay attention, but it's like putting a puzzle together as it all falls into place bit by bit. The period beginning is like watching an old photo album, or remembering back when. It's extremely well done with very accurate hairstyles and costumes. The story moves along quickly with twists, turns and lots of fun.

A special treat is to watch the large cast of familiar faces, many of whom we haven't seen in much too long a time. Part of the fun is to recognize and name them mentally as they appear, though this can be distracting. Cloris Leachman by the end of the film looks as if she's had a make-over on "Oprah". I had never seen Faye Grant in a movie -- only knew her as Grace's mother in the TV series "Saving Grace". She was great, even minus the southern accent. And I didn't even recognize Shelly Duvall. The five sisters who created this very lovely film are a very talented quintet and Sister Theresa is a heavenly treasure. Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are left walking out of the theater asking, "Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, "they expect you to take the silverware," when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President, Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast. My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative endeavor! I didn't know much about this movie going in- my roommate kind of dragged me into it. I was so pleasantly surprised! The plot really grabbed my attention and held it, and the characters are well-drawn and realistic. The screenplay is very clever and funny, and the cast does great things with it. And the best part is that it managed to be entertaining without any explicit sex or violence! If this movie comes anywhere into your area you really should go see it- stand up for this little film, it is worth it! If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an intelligent wit, not "yo' mama" cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies. People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you have to support them. At a time when Hollywood thinks that louder, faster, and bloodier are better, Manna From Heaven is comedic and touching look at something we've all thought about: What would I do if a load of money fell from the sky.

Interestingly, it took the characters many years to realize that the money hadn't made a single difference in their lives. They all become what they were destined to be. Unfortunately, in most cases, what they became was unhappy, in spite of their good fortune all those years ago.

While Manna offers the familiar Hollywood storyline of Good vs. Evil, or in the case, Generosity vs Greed, what sets this film apart is that Good wins out by converting Evil, not by crushing it.

I think the important message of this film is that you can change the world... even if you do it one person at a time. Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships, living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man (and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun, lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser — it's part "Best of Show," "Grumpy Old Men," "Millions," and some other comedy and life flicks rolled into one.

This gem of a film most likely had limited release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with "Manna from Heaven." This film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather days or rough times. Inspired casting, charming and witty throughout. Much like the currency in the opening moments of the film, the story floats along magically until you are emotionally "invested" in its outcome. The city of Buffalo has never looked better! Kudos to the Burton Sisters and the entire cast for a job well done. Saw the movie last night w/o knowing anything about it (nothing else out seemed interesting and I had a Buffalo connection to this movie - UB grad). It was a very enjoyable movie. Liked the pace (it picks up after a slow beginning) and story. Well written plot and good character development and relationships. Highly recommend it to anyone who likes to see movies that have interesting stories. Found myself talking about this movie afterwards over a few beers - most discussions don't last more than a few minutes. I thoroughly enjoyed Manna from Heaven. The hopes and dreams and perspectives of each of the characters is endearing and we, the audience, get to know each and every one of them, warts and all. And the ending was a great, wonderful and uplifting surprise! Thanks for the experience; I'll be looking forward to more. Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is great.

If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the tunes. Manna From Heaven is a light comedy that uses exaggeration of human foibles to entertain the audience. Throughout the film there is the expectation that goodness will surface in each situation. The result is that the movie goer finds himself/herself sitting with this silly grin on his/her face, peace in his/her heart, and high expectations for human kind. Watching this movie was a most pleasant experience. (I would venture to say uplifting experience, but some would say that sounds corny!!) This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!! No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable. Met some of the producers/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company. Really enjoyed Manna From Heaven. If you liked My Big Fat Greek Wedding you will like this too! Once the story line is set it begins to keep you guessing the outcome. I think we'll be hearing more from Five Sisters Productions. I know I'll be watching for their next movie. MANNA FROM HEAVEN is a terrific film that is both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. You know that the characters after finding out that the so-called "Gift From God" was actually a loan, will pay back the money and that everyone will be happy at the end, but how they get there is not as obvious. The scenes are often funny and occasionally touching as the characters evaluate their lives and where they are going. The cast of veteran actors are more than just a nostalgia trip. Frank Gorshin, Shirley Jones, and Cloris Leachman prove that they are capable of more than playing the Riddler, Mother Partridge, or Mary's friend Phyllis while Jill Eikenberry and Wendie Malick play characters different than we have seen on their TV series. Ursula Burton's portrayal of the nun is both touching and funny at the same time with out making fun of nuns or the church. If you are looking for a movie with a terrific cast, some good music(including a Shirley Jones rendition of "The Way You Look Tonight"), and an uplifting ending, give this one a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part - absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written, which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written; he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick, Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into her role, with reasonably good results.

I wish there had been more of a sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the "tough guy" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good.

The plot is probably a bit overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be nice to see more independent movies like this one made.

7 of 10 1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.

At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.

It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way. The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema… Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience…

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the City."

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut… The result, "Shadows," taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema… About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances… Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything… I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really.

The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10 John Cassavette's decided as his first film, obviously as one shot on a shoestring in New York, to not even have a script with dialog, and delivers a 1959 feature equivalent of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words, it's one of the most realistic looks at the beat generation, jazzed sweetly in it's score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City (which not many films did in 1959/1960) and his style of storytelling is like that of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a glance for film buffs; Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest influences. It ends with the declaration that "the film you have just seen was an improvisation"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course, Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed, so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white, and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely recommended. 1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film. In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.

One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.

In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs…. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.

The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives. In the end credits of "Shadows", after we read 'directed by John Cassavetes', some white letters on the screen can be seen: "The film you have just seen is improvised", they say. I am always pursuing the fact that words are so important in movies since filmmakers started using them because, basically, there's no film without a screenplay and many other reasons.

Cassavetes pursued the same goal, and he believed in the freedom of words; "Shadows" is the perfect example. It's a film with no real main characters, with no real main plot lines; it's mostly people in different situations, talking. Yes, some of the situations are connected but Cassavetes, apparently always in a rush to get to the talking, uses a fast forward technique when the characters are going somewhere or escaping from someone and are not speaking.

Appearances are everything in this movie. For example, there's a brilliant score, full of jazz influences and a lot of fantastic solos, and there's one character that says he's a jazz musician and plays the trumpet (Ben, all the characters' names are the same names the actors'). However, we never see him play the trumpet or jam with a band; he doesn't even talk about music and just wanders with his friends around the city. They do talk, a lot, and about anything that's in their minds; going from how intelligent each of them are to the hilarious analysis of a sculpture.

"Shadows" is funny in its intellectual references in parts like the one above, because these friends are not cultured. The only important female character in the film (Lelia), though, wants to be an intellectual. But again, she has one very interesting conversation with an older man at a party, about a book she's trying to write, and about how to confront reality; but nothing to do with being intellectual. At that same party, a woman is actually making an intellectual statement, full of complexity, and asks a guy beside her: "Do you agree?". "Yes", he says, but you can tell he doesn't know what she's talking about.

Another character, a singer (Hugh), talks about his glory days in occasions, and we see him perform only once; but no references to the musical industry there. The focus of Cassavetes is the singer's relationship with his manager (Rupert), which most of the time involves chats about trivial stuff and not real 'musical' talks. So the trumpet player's important deal in "Shadows" is the time he spends with his friends; the intellectual wannabe girl's is her way of handling romantic relationships (one of the movie's strong points) and the singer's is the bond with his manager…Appearances.

The reason why performances are not important in this movie is simple. Cassavetes needed people who could master improvisation, without mattering if they were actually good. I believe some of them aren't, but they surely know how to improvise in a scene, and you can notice how well they do it. "Shadows" is not about performers; it's about a way of making cinema, based on the magic of conversation; and there you could say that performances mean something.

That's why in every conversation the camera is like a stalker, constantly on the eyes of every character, constantly looking for the expressions that come with natural speech. There's a scene where the trumpet player and his friends are trying to pick up some girls. They are three, so each of them sits beside one girl (the girls are three two) in three different tables. They all talk at the same time and the camera shoots through the table, and sometimes the friends look at each other, while they say whatever they are saying…It's natural. What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.

They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.

Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.

Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important. Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.

The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: "Do I ever stumble over MY words?" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.

The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.

The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the "hippest" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.

Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made. "Shadows" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until "The Graduate".

Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, "Shadows" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.

On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. "Shadows" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9/10) Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.

Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.

Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US.

This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.

Perhaps Shadows is one of the less "beautiful" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets. Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Faces—i.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdose—just as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived. It should be noted that this movie was not "improvised" (as you're probably thinking of it), despite what the title at the end suggests. The movie was heavily scripted and rehearsed - Cassavetes didn't have enough money to support the inevitably high production costs of an "improvisational" sort of movie, even if he had wanted to produce such a thing. The "improvisation" of the movie is contained in the actors' performances, and the emotions that they draw out of the lines.

That said, allow me to say that this is a stunning work that I'm sure I'll come back to again and again. The depths of emotion that Cassavetes is able to draw out of the smallest gestures and interactions is incredible. I have no idea how he was able to direct such amazing performances out of the actors, especially under the conditions he worked. This is truly a magnificent landmark of film that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring beyond the Hollywood mold. Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent; "you don't know nothing!"; "forget about it". Just like the French New Wave, it's about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of Belmondo. A film you won't forget.

A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-) Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and therefore aren't sure are any good.

And, quite honestly, often its not very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or fit the surroundings.

It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy - but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so badly.

Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable 100% for taking the power over the green light into the street.

There are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example:

I'm a dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic.

And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene where the boys go looking at statues.

2/5. I wouldn't say they're worth 2 hours of your time, though. 12/17/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given the "changes," don't know the "score," and am not schooled in the genre. I always had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was pretty well limited to doing the basic "keep the tune in mind" and ad lib around that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors' playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was "trying to pass" as much as she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first: later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding "reality" by setting up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, "artier"?--moreso than crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art/craft or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break. slow moving but smart. passes you by as if you lived it. filled with thought provoking Ideas art Race and being cool. that one thing hit me hard was the ideas about the rock n' roll lifestyles.

all the performances were improvised i will say it again ALL THE PERFORMANCES WERE IMPROVISED sounds like a gimmick but its not it makes these characters real and like some one you would hang with. this also an amazing thing when you think about how strong the character are in this film. right from the beginning in the title sequence it immediately establish Ben as an outcast by the way he moves though the crowd

Okay it breaks down like this if your a person who lives the jazz/rocker lifestyle of cool you will like it if your smart and understand great cinema from total crap you will love it and if your both then it might be you fav

but if your none of these then you will probably think its boring and say it doesn't follow "one line" and write a crap review like Ben_Cheshire Twins Effect, starring some of HK's most popular stars provides one of the most enjoyable film experiences to come out of HK in sometime. It has something for everyone, action, comedy, horror, romance, and some drama. This film can't be taken too seriously, otherwise you'd go in dissapointed, but if you leave your brain at the door, and just watch the film for some fun, you're bound to enjoy it.

Great special effects, excellent action, cute Twins, cool HK actors, FUN film!

I'd recommend it to anyone! A vampire prince falls for a human girl, unaware that her brother is a famous vampire hunter. That's the underlying theme of this martial arts romp which borrows ideas from "Underworld" and "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" but manages to maintain a style of its own. I was bemused by the UK and Hong Kong title "The Twins Effect" as there are no twins involved in the story. It turns out that the two main female characters are played by Hong Kong pop stars who perform as "The Twins". Don't let this put you off. These girls can act (at least well enough for this type of film) and add a lot of charm to the proceedings. Jackie Chan turns up for a couple of cameo appearances adding a dash of his own brand of slapstick mayhem to the proceedings. All in all this is great fun for those who like their vampires served up with a helping of tongue-in-cheek humour. Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The special effect are acceptable/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good cheesy movies! I'm not sure what version of the film I saw, but it was very entertaining.

I did not know who the "Twins" were (Gillian Chung and Charlene Choi) before seeing this movie and I think the English translation of the title is somewhat misleading.

The martial arts are very nicely done. I especially liked them, because there was a lot of judo/grappling that was filmed very nicely. Donnie Yen (see him in Hero, great performance) as a director is great as he knows how to shoot these scenes.

Everything seemed to flow for me, except there is one scene where the girls are on the rooftop fighting with bamboo poles. It has really nothing to do with the plot, but it's still entertaining.

Overall, this is one of the better (modern) HK action flicks I've seen in a while. Although cheesy in some respects, it still pulls it off.

Definitely a 9/10 Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style. If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad dub. If you go into the Twins Effect looking for a pure Hong Kong movie experience you will be disappointed. This is not to say it is bad, but it is NOT a traditional Hong Kong action movie, running in a similar vein to Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle. It's resolutely silly and juvenile, so if you want a good bit of serious Hong Kong action, look to a John Woo or Yuen Woo Ping movie. This movie's got a lot of flak for it's silliness and I thought the first thing I should do would be to explain what you're getting into, as it's disappointed a lot of purists.

For the non-purists and those with more forgiving tastes though, Twins Effect is a delightfully silly kung-fu comedy. I liked it a lot for a variety of reasons, not least it's wonderful female leads who spark off each other in a thoroughly entertaining comedy double act. I believe this is the first movie of it's type they've been in, but they hop, kick and fly about like seasoned pros.

The patently ridiculous plot is handled with a great deal of care and attention, and the movie is quite knowingly written, making a lot of the movie laugh out loud. The comedy really is the most prominent thing here, and it's a subtle, gentle comedy as reliant on words as inanimate objects going flying a la Stephen Chow. It has to be said the slapstick is immense fun too. The sequence with the disco-dancing vampires is a total classic.

The action is a blend of two genres really. It falls between the 'period drama' wire-and-sword fighting (which comes in more toward the end) and the comedy fighting style of Jackie Chan, coming out with a blend that though a little derivative at times is always exciting to watch and occasionally throws up some genuinely innovative encounters.

All this is great, and the movie is tremendous fun all the way through. Despite this, it does have a few sticking points. For instance, Twins Effect is in many ways much more westernised than kung-fu fans are perhaps used to, the inevitable comparison to the Blade series is definitely sound as an example, though Twins Effect is honestly much better than Blade ever managed, especially for fighting action. Personally, it was also a bit of a shame to see the excellent Anthony Wong (the hissable villain from John Woo's classic Hard Boiled) so underused, but the younger audience this is aimed at are unlikely to notice this or indeed know about Hard Boiled or his other movies, so this is only really a personal gripe.

If you watch this with an open mind, you'll probably enjoy it greatly like I did, but you must be firmly aware it is a COMEDY, not a balls to the wall kung-fu movie. Keep that in mind and you'll be fine. This movie, as my Chinese girlfriend informed me, features two well-known Hong Kong pop stars. While this may make the movie a mere marketing stunt, I found the acting acceptable, and they're both cute.

The story is pretty poor overall. The vampiric traits and weaknesses are, however, used in humorous ways, and created some uniquely entertaining bits. The quarreling between the two girls made me chuckle, and this gave a fine balance together with the well-executed action scenes to create an entertaining movie. With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny moment. And Jackie Chan.

Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is instantly forgettable.

But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better. Well don't expect anything deep an meaningful. Most of the fight scenes are pretty decent. The two leading ladies are quite endearing but their lack of HK action background shows at times. The ending maybe lacks something but I quite enjoyed it none the less. The cheesy humour isn't probably going to appeal to anyone who hasn't watched a bunch of HK films but if your down with that sort of thing and have a couple of hours to fill with something meaningless you could do a lot worse than this. (OK so you could do better but.......)

Certainly on a par with most of the Hollywood blockbuster action drivel.

7/10 I think that there was too much action in the end? Don't you think that too? There was romance, adventure that just like told me to put 9 to this movie but action place was too long. I liked Reeve a bit. I didn't understand why did he have to die. I thought that one of the girls gonna die too but my lucky! No one else who I liked didn't die! How about you? What did you liked? I saw the movie twice actually. And after that I bought that too. It was worth it! Who did you liked best (person)?. The book was really, really, really cool. And the actresses and actors too. Everything was perfect....... What was the song name in the end? Will someone answer my questions too... PLEASE, please please? Fun mix of vampires and martial arts is a bit of a mess plot-wise and the acting of those who dubbed the voices is almost universally bad, but the premise is engaging, the fight scenes are fast and flashy and the movie is often quite amusing. It's a shame the story is such a wreck. There are a couple of places where I had no idea what just happened, it was almost as though five minutes had just been cut out and you were suddenly at the next scene without knowing how you'd got there. The movie is poor at explaining things and some things don't make a lot of sense, but the movie moves along breezily so its flaws barely register. Not a great movie by any means, but definitely a fun one. The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)

This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.

And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists – a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices.

In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights – one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close.

I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.

This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck – and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire).

All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this – ENTERTAINMENT – that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.

In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.

Rating = 5/5 stars

P.S. – The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version. The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon/Knights and the other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more special than that.

It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their fame.

The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish films Hollywood generally churns out.

The premise for the film is that vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of watching the film.

The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer (Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite lovely to watch too.

The direction is crisp and the script is sharp. There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight.

Their are many other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns it into a must see movie. I watch a lot of Vampire movies. I KNOW vampire movies. Hammer Films have always been my favorites. Christopher Lee will always be the best Dracula.

Vampire Effect is a fun movie from the beginning to the end. The dubbing is not great, but I also like Godzilla movies, so I am used to badly dubbed movies. Anyway, I liked this movie very much. The SFX are great. Even though Jackie Chans part in the movie has nothing to do with the plot and seems to be added to sell the movie, he is enjoyable in it. The Fang work is excellent. The acting is not great, but this could have something to do with the bad dubbing. Maybe the actual language would sound better with the movie if I could understand it. I am sure the movie Gone With The Wind sounds worse in another language.

I own this on DVD and would not part with. I have it sitting on my bookshelf next to my Hammer Films DVDs. I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else. Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all. Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot worse than this. This splicing of THE SEARCHERS is one of the weirdest films I've ever seen, filmed by a Briton in a strange, unfamiliar Mexico. It's often said that the best films about America are made by foreigners, who can approach the familiar with an outsider's eye. But this crackpot film is something else. Though set ostensibly in post-Civil War America, this isn't an America recognisable from myth, cinema, TV etc. The film has an air of timeless fable about it, while dealing specifically with Western mythology.

Director Harvey uses the title horse as a focus for interconnecting stories, all dealing with the traditional Western clash of the primitive and civilisation. The former seems to have the upper hand. The vast scrub and desert of the film's landscape is unbroken, ripe for allegories of the mind. The only brief sites of civilisation are a stagecoach of missionaries and landowners, and their hacienda, from both of which derive behaviour that is anything but civilised.

The basic story intercuts three stories. In one, an aimless deserter, Pike, having lost his trading partner, steals a miraculous horse, Eagle's Wing, so-called because of its grace and speed. In the second, an Indian, White Bull, owner of this horse, waylays a stagecoach, and kidnaps one of its female occupants. In the third, the Spanish men sent to find her ignore this quest in favour of a murderous, plundering spree.

Although a revisionist Western, the treatment of the Indian is problematic. Unlike Pike, his character is never explained, forever inscrutable, denied a voice, except for an excruciating snatch of song. When he's not a strange Other, he's a symbol, whose role isn't entirely worked out - at one point a savage brute, at another he epitomises nature and freedom.

But Pike notes at the beginning that the film will attend to the period of primitivism before civilisation. In many ways the film resembles 2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY, especially its opening sequence. Part of the film's power lies in the connections made between the three disparate characters, forcing us to view the mythic struggles and quests in a different light. Indian culture and Catholicism is linked by superstition, ritual, greed and murder. Both Pike and White Bull are musical and alcoholic. White Bull is demonised by both Pike and the abductee as a 'bastard', unwittingly revealing the tactic of illegitimacy used by colonising whites who infantilised the natives, becoming themselves 'necessary' fathers.

Unlike a traditional Western, concerned with making history, civilisation, and progress, this film is a double detective story, interrogating the past, tracks, remains.

What gives this film its remarkable uniqueness, I think, is, despite Maltin's racism, its Britishness. The climactic stand-off is more like an Arthurian joust. The film itself bravely eschews dialogue for the most part, creating the kind of visual and aural tapestry Malick missed in THE THIN RED LINE, and something few Hollywood directors would have dared. The existential doubling and quest motifs are more European myth than American (resembling another British Harvey Keitel movie, THE DUELLISTS).

Most astonishing is the use of nature. Most Westerns use landscape as an awe-inspiring backdrop: there is little sense of actually living in the West. In many ways, EAGLE'S WING is like a Powell and Pressberger film, with nature a powerful, pantheistic character in its own right - alive, dangerous, hostile, beautiful. There is a sublime scene reminiscent of A CANTERBURY TALE, when jewellery left as a trap by White Bull in the trees is suddenly blown in the wind: there is a haunting, tingling, magical, thrilling effect more reminiscent of the Arabian Nights than a horse opera. Heartstopping. There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.

The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson. An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds – with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles – an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.

Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive. On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether this is an extraordinary film. 8 points for take on probably what really kinda maybe more what it was like back then. American Indians probably stole more than killed. Who really knows? Nice slower odd pursuit means it has a pace and... interesting and unique. Thankfully not another mindless shoot em up. I thought this would suck at first, I wound up getting wrapped up... nice treasure... good job! I have hopes nobody dissects this film. When the entire movie unfolds you have many unique twists, impossible to determine what will be next. The characters are human and have either honor or not... passion or not... forgiveness or not. Wound up loving the White Horse, the Indian, Sheen even the damned desert. All good. "Eagle's Wing" is a pleasant surprise of a movie, & keeps the viewer interested. I didn't know anything about it being made by the British until I read the other viewer comments. I can understand why it won an award for cinematography, for it was brilliantly presented & must have looked magnificent on a vast theatre screen.

It seemed to be a lot more realistic than most westerns, in portraying how the West was more truly won. As well as the complexities of the characters it presents. The Indian-Sam Waterson character is particularly intriguing. He seems to be brutal in the savage environment he is conditioned to, but displays remarkable respect for the frailties he witnesses in the white men & women he encounters. He is not friendly or sensitive to these intruders in his lands, but he has a limit to his sense of vengeance, even a compassion when he is in a position of power & observing the wilting white man bent on revenge, as well as the girl he kidnaps after capturing a stagecoach. As such, his character seems complex but congruous to the harsh lands he lived in & which were threatened by these intruders he is not heartless in his dealings with.

The magnificent horse he rides is a critical link & it is interesting to note how this Indian handles it, compared with the Martin Sheen-character who has it in his possession & power for a time. "Eagle's Wing" is an unusual Western, a genre I am not drawn to, but I really appreciated this excellent offering, which I would rate second only to "A Man Called Horse". I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical Irishman. Lovely to read.

However, a concise analysis of this film is that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of justice.

Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine.

I could demonstrate three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much more fun to note them for oneself.

This is an excellent film.

Don't miss it. The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston! I just saw "Eagle´s wing". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less convincing. I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written. After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed. I just watched this short at the PlanetOut Movies.

Starcrossed was a very sweet, sad, little movie about two brothers that are in love. There is some great, subtle acting from both the male leads. Often times movies with this subject matter seem to get too caught up in the controversy and shock value of the plot that they forget that there is an actual story. Luckily writer director James Burkhammer does not do this, and instead lets the story play out with honesty. The sequences of the two boys first falling in love are very sweet. I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed (throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have to run), too "artsy", or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers, but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is brotherly incest.

As with any short film, the story is fairly simple, straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers.

From the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-rending.

Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough. I've just seen this movie, and it made me cry. It's a beautiful drama about two brothers falling in love, and i think it's a good idea, especially for the closed-minded, to watch this one. I have come to love the short-film genre after just having seen a couple, because they have to make an impression on you so fast, and i have to say that this one definitely sat it's mark. It described some things, that i haven't ever really thought about that way, incest for one.

I have to admit that i did not care too much for the ending. Just once i would like to watch a gay-themed movie without wanting to kill myself after wards. They seem to pretty much always end in tragedy. It was 'cute' though, how that they had to be together, even if it was in death.

I gave it eight stars, and i recommend it too everyone, cause i think it gives an 'inside-look' in the world, that this movie make you enter.

Thanks for listening, enjoy. First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in.... i guess if they are not brother this film will became very common. how long were they can keep this ? if we were part,what should they do?so natural feelings,so plain and barren words.But I almost cried last night blood relationship brotherhood love knot film.in another word,the elder brother is very cute.if they are not brothers,they won't have so many forbidden factors，from the family、society、friends、even hearts of their own at the very beginning.The elder brother is doubtful of whether he is coming out or not at the beginning .maybe the little brother being so long time with his brother and even can't got any praise from his father，this made him very upset and even sad,maybe this is a key blasting fuse let him feel there were no one in the world loving him except his beloved brother. and i want to say ,this is a so human-natural feeling ,there is nothing to be shamed,you may fell in love your mother、brother、sister.Just a frail heart looking for backbone to rely on Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly succeeds in this department.

Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.

Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.

Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage." Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to convince everyone that he is straight.

I love this movie! Kevin Kline is wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out! In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of being funny and entertaining.

The comedy in this film ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected "square jawed" leading man type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing. The cast makes this film successful.

Not all films with homosexual themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda, in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing at the right moments. A solid "B." In & Out was a funny comedy with good performances by Joan Cusack, Tom Selleck, Matt Dillon, and Kevin Kline. The thought of Kevin Kline being gay was very funny. If I was him, I would hate to say I'm gay at his own wedding with his family, friends, and his going to be wife there. Very seldom would that ever happen. I also loved when he was dancing around when the voice on the radio was talking to him. I'd say that In & Out was a silly comedy with a lot of laughs and giggles. This is a recommended comedy and Kevin Kline had a great performance as a gay guy. Trust me you'll like this movie.

7/10 I saw this because my cousin is an extra in one of the wedding scenes. I read somewhere that Oz and Rudnick wanted to poke fun at liberal message movies, but the climax ends up being right out of one of those movies. Also, some of the humor is a bit on the cloying side, Joan Cusack was too over-the-top for me, and someone has a strange timeline re the Oscars. Still, there were more than enough funny moments, like the kiss scene, the wedding that isn't, and the scene with the principal, to enjoy this. Kline as always is good, but for me, the real surprise was Selleck, whom I'm not a big fan of, but pokes fun at himself nicely here. I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.

For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.

Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect. ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I loved the set-up and consistently laughed throughout the entire movie. The acting was great, with my favorite part being Howard's (Kevin Kline) attempts to be a "manly man". The fiance and parents did a great job as a supporting cast. Spoiler Warning: The acting of his conservative family's acceptance and attempts to be polite were heartwarming and believable. My only problem with the end was the fact that Howard was actually gay. The movie is set-up as a "be who you want to be", but the movie actually does the opposite. Howard's logic behind his "discovery" is the fact that he loves Barbra Streisand's movies and enjoys dancing to music. His mannerisms and tastes appear to be gay, and it isn't until it is pointed out to him that he realizes it. Rather than setting Howard free, it pigeon holes him. Oh, he likes to dance to music, than he must be gay. His confession at the marriage felt like a bending down to society's wishes. In the end, the movie becomes a gay rights movie, which was not the original course. It almost becomes bland with the rest. I believe the movie would had been ultimately better had Howard been straight. It would have been truer to the message. I have seen this movie many times and i never get sick of it. it is about a man coming out of the closet, that he doesn't know he is in. Kevin Kline's character is a teacher and when one of his former students announces Kline's character is gay the people in his town start to speculate whether he is straight or gay. Kline's character starts to wonder if he is straight or gay too. The acting is absolutely fabulous and hilarious by all the cast. I found the movie very funny and heart-warming. i love this movie, it makes you laugh and makes you feel good while watching it. i recommend this movie to everyone, you will have a great time watching it. Hollywood movies since the 1930s have treated gays as lepers. In condemning homosexuality, the film industry has reflected only what the repressive society of its day espoused as an ideology. For example, in the 1962 Otto Preminger melodrama "Advise and Consent," straight actor Don Murray was cast as a queer congressman who commits suicide rather than confess his alternative lifestyle. Gay movie characters have covered a lot of ground since "Advise and Consent." In the 1997 movie "In & Out," (**1/2 out of ****), heterosexual actor Kevin Kline is cast as a homosexual teacher who comes out of the closet on his wedding day. While the conservative Hollywood of yesteryear stipulated that the congressional queer in "Advise and Consent" had to commit suicide, the liberal Hollywood of today dictates that the gay English teacher should be embraced rather than maced.

Basically, "In & Out" preaches good citizenship in the garb of a politically correct comedy. Director Frank Oz and scenarist Scott Rudnick endorse honesty as the best policy because honesty always ensures happiness. High school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline of "The Big Chill") will be happy only after he comes out of the closet, just as his once-fat-but-now-thin fiancée Emily (Joan Cusack) will only feel happy when she can ditch her diet. Ultimately, the movie contends that straight society will accept gays when homosexuals can act with greater honesty and candor about themselves. The happily outed gay tabloid reporter played by straight actor Tom Selleck here effectively dramatizes this open-minded commentary.

Rudnick's lightweight script embellishes the true life incident that occurred at the Oscars when Tom Hanks paid tribute to a high school teacher. In "In & Out," Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon), a blond, Brad Pitt style bimbo type actor, wins the Oscar for impersonating a fruity foot soldier. Drake honors his mentor Howard Brackett during his acceptance speech. Not contend to stop there, the candid Cameron reveals to a live, television audience that Howard is gay! Suspicion, paranoia, and horror set in as the media descend upon the sleepy town of Green Leaf, Indiana. (When would a no-name high school English teacher's sexual deviance spark such massive media concern?) Among those reporters lurks Peter Malloy (Tom Selleck of "High Road to China"), and he wants to do a week-long exclusive one on Howard. Howard, however, wants nothing to do with the witch-hunting media, especially the pesky Peter Malloy. Howard denies Drake's gay charges to everybody, including his fiancée and his mom. Malloy lingers because he smells a scoop. The revelation has turned Green Leaf upside down. High school principal Tom Halliwell (Bob Newhart) squirms nervously with all the media coverage. Halliwell warns Howard that were his marriage not imminent, he'd have to give him a pink slip. Meanwhile, Peter bets Howard that his marriage to Emily will fall through at the last moment and he'll be there to record the result on camera.

Howard resorts to audio tapes about macho men. He struggles to reform himself. But Howard's efforts are futile. Guilt swells up inside him. And then there is Peter Malloy, who rags him to come clean about his homosexuality. Finally, at the altar in the sight of God, Howard bursts. Of course, bride-to-be Emily Montgomery is floored by Howard's gay confession. Predictably, the school fires Howard, but he shows up for graduation. Drake shows up, too, and rushes to Brackett's defense. Not only has the school stripped Howard of his job, but they've also given his teacher-of-the-year award to somebody else. Drake appeals to the principal and wins Howard the unanimous support of the community.

The biggest defect in Rudnick's contrived script is Howard himself. Rudnick has created a character too chaste to be true, either by gray or straight standards. Howard Brackett looms as more of a saint than a sinner. He helps one student gain admission to college, and he coaches the track team. How often do you hear of an English teacher doubling as a coach, too? Everybody at his high school adores Howard. He doesn't have a mean bone in his body. Further, Rudnick and Oz ask us to believe that nobody else in Green Leaf is gay. Where are Howard's gay friends? Are they too scared to come to his defense? No, "In & Out" is not targeted strictly at homosexual audiences. Oz, whose screen credits include cute comedies like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" and "House Sitter," as well as Rudnick teeter on a politically correct tightrope. "In & Out" is not a gay recruiting movie. The filmmakers show no interest in what prompted either Howard or Peter Malloy to prefer the gay lifestyle. Instead, Oz and Rudnick are only interested in shoring up a thin premise: Is he or isn't he gay? They flesh it out to involve the community response to the answer. Finally, when Howard admits that he is gay, the filmmakers devote the rest of the movies to showing how a conservative, Norman Rockwell-like town can accept him despite his difference.

The most shocking scenes in "In & Out" is probably when tabloid reporter Malloy does a lip lock on Howard. Straight guys kissing each other in a movie about a gay identity crisis are as hilarious as they are phony. Kline and Selleck grind their faces together in what appears as more of a head-on collision than a closed-mouth kiss. Nothing at all like the controversial 1994 British movie "Priest," "In & Out" emerges as an engaging but labored piece of social propaganda with its okay-to-be-act message. If "Ellen" weren't the TV equivalent, "In & Out" would probably be heading toward TV as a new sitcom. Watching "In & Out" is not so much about dealing with the issue of gay or straight, but how to be a decent person in the last days of the 20th century. What makes "In & Out" a tolerable comedy about sexual intolerance is its equal opportunity cheers and jeers about queers and steers. The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing "Macho Man" by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy. A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film. While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film "In and Out," about a closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student, has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable straight viewers that patronized "The Bird Cage." Although audiences likely patted themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like "Queer Eye," the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so "In and Out" is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt.

Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching "Funny Lady." Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her, although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor, and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical. However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between Michael and Fredo Corleone in "Godfather II."

Although well intentioned, "In and Out" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good performances and funny situations, "In and Out" perpetuates stereotypes and, whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the dustbin of social history. Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never "come out"; in fact, he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or, is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fiancé and Dillon, Bob Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very, very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time, this is definitely the best film out there. I remember seeing this a long while ago, and I knew most of the concept, but no detail, so I'm glad I watched it again, from director Frank Oz (The Muppets Take Manhattan, Bowfinger). Basically new star Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) has just won the Academy Award for his latest, where he plays a gay soldier, and he does the usual "thank yous", he even mentions his past school English teacher Howard Brackett (Golden Globe nominated Kevin Kline), and he outs him as gay! Howard is determined to clear his name, and get out of the media spotlight as a denying gay man, especially as his marriage to Emily Montgomery (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Joan Cusack) is on the way. So it comes to the wedding day, and when it comes to Howard saying yes or no, that is when he outs himself, and admits to himself and everyone, that he is gay. This of course gets him fired as a teacher, but everyone stands at the graduation day to out themselves (in support), and Cameron even shows up to clear things up, so that everyone, especially school head Tom Halliwell (Elf's Bob Newhart) knows it's okay to be gay. Also starring Tom Selleck as Peter Malloy, Debbie Reynolds as Berniece Brackett, Wilford Brimley as Frank Brackett, Gregory Jbara as Walter Brackett, Glenn Close, Whoopi Goldberg and Jay Leno. The highlight of the film has to be when Kline can't help dancing to Diana Ross's version of "I Will Survive", that must have been what convinced him of his sexuality. Kline is always good, Cusack is a surprise Oscar nominee, and all supporting cast members do their bit too in this very funny comedy. Very good! The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary "De-Lovely" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for "Philadelphia" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more "Forrest Gump" than "Philadelphia". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.

The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.

Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final "wedding scene" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.

The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.

On the whole, a hoot! This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the "I am gay" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle. Joan Cusack steals the show! The premise is good, the plot line interesting and the screenplay was OK. A tad too simplistic in that a coming-out story of a gay man was so positive when it is usually not quite-so-positive. Then again, it IS fiction. :) All in all an entertaining romp.

One thing I noticed was the "inside-joke" aspect. Since the target-audience probably was straight, they may not get the gay "stuff" in context with the story.

Kevin Kline showed a facet of his acting prowess that screenwriters sometimes don't take in consideration when suggesting Kline for a part.

This one hit the mark. this movie is extremely funny and enjoyable,with suitable, funny and experienced casts. I find this movie enjoyable not only by the elements of humor but also the music in various scenes. Kevin Kline, a good comedian has done a good job at being funny in many parts of the film along with Tom Selleck who is amazingly different from many of his other films. The humor within this film are goofy which makes various exaggerations within many scenes, especially the beginning bits. Joan Cusack is also remarkably funny and exaggerated; and the same goes for all the other casts. This film has many elements of goofy humor and is enjoyable if you want to laugh. Kevin Kline offers a brilliant comic turn in the 1997 comedy IN & OUT. Kline plays Howard Brackett, a small town history teacher who excitedly sits down to watch the Academy Awards this year because one of his former students (Matt Dillon) is a nominee. He is nominated for his performance in a film where he plays a gay soldier and when he wins, he thanks Howard in his speech for inspiring him because Howard is gay. Now this floors Howard because he as no clue why thus guy would say this on international television. Howard is even engaged to be married (to Joan Cusack, in an Oscar-nominated performance)so he has no idea where Dillon;s Cameron Drake got the idea that he is gay and finds he has to defend himself to everyone at school but is shocked that no one seemed terribly shocked by what Cameron said on the Oscars. Howard has a birthday party where he is given birthday presents like the soundtrack to YENTL and ends up explaining to his guests why Barbra Streisand had to make FUNNY LADY. His parents (Wilford Brimley, Debbie Reynolds) are shocked but promise to support their son, even if he is gay. He also gets a visit from an out of town reporter (Tom Selleck) who wants to do an article about him because he's gay too. The moment when Selleck plants a big kiss right on Kline's lips is a classic. But all of these little things have Howard actually questioning his sexuality and wondering if he really is gay...much to the aggravation and frustration of his fiancée, Cusack, who is beyond confused. The scene where she leaves a bar in her wedding gown and stands in the middle of street screaming about the lack of single straight men in the world is a classic. But what I like about this movie is the way Kline fully invests in the role and was not afraid to look foolish or look gay. There is a fabulous scene, probably the most famous from the film, where he buys a record, on how to be macho, and the guy on the record is talking about how real men don't dance and a disco tune comes on (I WILL SURVIVE if memory serves)and the narrator on the record says no matter what you do, don't dance, but Howard can't help himself and he ends up shaking his groove thing all over the room. It's hysterically funny and Kline plays it with sincerity and gusto. The film is not pro or anti gay...it's just a deft and amusing character study about a man trying to figure out exactly who he is. Wonderful film. IN & OUT, in my opinion, is a very hilarious movie. I thought that Cameron (Matt Dillon) was wrong to say that Howard (Kevin Kline) was gay. The part I liked most was Howard's bachelor party. This was because they were cracking jokes about a lot of things, including Barbra Streisand films. I also thought that Emily (Joan Cusack) looked very beautiful in her wedding dress and that Howard looked good in his tuxedo. My favorite quote of IN & OUT is, "Is everybody gay? Is this 'THE TWILIGHT ZONE'?" That was absolutely hilarious! The one character I couldn't stand was Sonya (Shalom Harlow). This was because she was VERY conceited and snobby. In conclusion, I recommend this movie to all you Kevin Kline fans who have not seen it. Be prepared to laugh HARD and have a good time when you see it. After reading the comment made about this movie, and currently watching it, I can understand how the person felt about it. The decisions made were after listening to common sense. When the movie came out, I had heard the information as to how it came about. The storyline was made from an actual event. During an award show, an actor, thanking the li'l people, attributed the award to a former school teacher, unexpectedly outing the person.

Of course, many people come 'out' of the closet most every day. Each outing is different for each person. In real life, the outcome of any individual is gonna be different as well. And a willingness to accept who they are is the most important thing in life to reach personal happiness. For those around them, the joy and honest acceptance can make life much more fuller. For the movie, the outcome of how Howard is out'ed is a lot more comical than real life. And the acceptance of the community showed the others that Howard was himself and nothing else.

Overall, the performances were crazy. The memorable quotes and use of music add to the stereo-types out there in the world, but taken with tongue and cheek humour. It's a movie. Sit down, watch with an open mind, and laugh your head off. Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale.

If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep' or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air.

Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart.

The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime. This is halfway to being a top movie. The opening section, which spoofs Hollywood "social message" films is absolutely brilliant. It is a riot from start to finish.

The second section, which introduces us to the main characters of the story is really great too. We get a lot of great comic setups, top notch performances, and the dialog is really dynamic.

(Spoiler warning!)

The one think that really annoyed me about this film though is the ending, which I think contradicts everything that went before. My interpretation was that this film was taking the mickey out all the silly prejudices and innuendo of small town gossip and national tabloid sensationalism. I loved that the film was championing the cause that a person's sexuality is NOT determined by their hobbies, idiosyncrasies, fashion sense or whatever. And then the ending goes and re-enforces all the gossip and stereotypes that the movie successfully lampooned in the first place. It turns out everyone was 100% right!!! (godamit!) This was very disappointing to what was actually a great story. "Lonely among us" definitely is one of the best first season episodes. The storyline, although somewhat confusing, creates a lot of suspense, supported by the creepy synthesizer-driven soundtrack. This is a typically "alien body invasion" scenario but finally turning out to no evil purpose (the death of assistant chief engineer Singh to me was an accident). The two delegate species deliver an entertaining frame (best make-up so far) finally adding a little black humor to the series (the final scene). Patrick Stewart obviously enjoys stepping out a bit of his Picard character and exploring some new terrain as does Data by posing as Sherlock Holmes (another all time classic). The special effects are also convincing and director Cliff Bole did his job well. He is the first one trying to compensate Trois lack in acting ability by improving her looks. She does look beautiful in some scenes and the neck of her dress improves her appearance a lot. Picard's "lightning-scene" on the bridge gives him a slight air of the emperor of Star Wars "Return of the Jedi" (which is a personal impression but made me smile).

There's also some playing with the lighting of the corridors (simulating night aboard) and the first moving camera, pulling back from Picard when he's entering the transporter room to beam into the cloud... Nice work. The clever cutting, creating continuing dialog through different scenes (Troi's hypnosis report) rounds up the impression of a really well crafted TNG episode. The first one, where even Wesley Crusher seemed almost tolerable...

The ending however is a bit confusing, just as if the producers were running out of time. "P for Picard" is a little far fetched and his return far too easy but that can be left aside regarding the many strong moments this episode has to offer... This episode introduces us to the formal dress uniforms worn here by Captain Picard, Commander Riker, and Lieutenant Tasha Yar. The plot of this episode deals with 2 groups of separate alien delegates, The Anticans and the Selae who try to capture and eat each other at every turn. The 2 sides really hate each other, and it is up to Riker and Tasha to contain them and keep them out of trouble.

Meanwhile a mysterious spacial anomaly goes around the ship injuring and killing a few of the crew members. But at the end of the episode this same spacial anomaly possesses a valuable member of the crowd. Will they be able to rescue him so that they maybe able to continue on with their on going mission of space exploration?

Note: This episode marks Irish actor Colm Meaney's second appearance on TNG after "Encounter at Farpoint." He portrays one of Tasha's "yellow-shirted" security guards. GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting, even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you buy it. Ever since I've been allowed to play Goldeneye once again, it's been impossible to get my mind off it. I'm surprised I could have gone without it. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest games of all time. I have never played any other shooting games, but I know that this one rules above all. Most people blame it for too much violence, but I find that ridiculous. There may be a few graphic antics, but there's far worse out there.

Most importantly, it's fun. With an awesome arsenal of weapons such as the RC-P90 and the classic Golden Gun, you'll go through several challenging levels from the movie, completing crucial objectives and fending off swarms of guards. There are tons of awesome cheats to get and even two secret levels that you will only earn if you have the true skill. Goldeneye is also one of the greatest multiplayer games ever as well. You can choose several characters from the movie, classic villains from old 007 movies (Baron Samedi, Oddjob, May Day, and Jaws), and guards in the game. Chances are you and your partner(s) will be laughing so hard as you blow each other away that you'll look like Bart and Lisa Simpson watching an episode of the Itchy and Scratchy show.

So if you don't have the game, don't rent it: Just buy it. It's too good to be true. For cool Goldeneye stuff, check out Detstar.com's Goldeneye website. Every James Bond lover will dig this game big time. Quite simply, Goldeneye is the single greatest N64 game to date. The learning curve is just about perfect, and you'll still be playing it with your friends months on, as the multiplayer mode is nothing short of exceptional.

The system for acquiring cheats for once requires some degree of skill, rather than simply knowing which buttons to press, and the challenge of Aztec on 00 agent level is astonishing.

All in all - it's the best game I've ever played on the N64 007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever.

Better than this game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love Goldeneye.

This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie itself.

The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the gameplay.

It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: "For England James?". I answered: "No, for ME!" It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the movie. I love accomplishing every objective.

The multiplayer gaming is even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill.

The music and sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of the movie.

After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games are produced.

Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo! This is one of my favorite James bond in games because: The missions are fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be hard that makes them fun to do the weapons you use are good. The way James bond look in this James bond games is pretty you can see pierce brosnan in him which is cool and all the other characters in this game look like the actors that played them in the movie. There is no way that you can't have a good time playing this game i loved it.Also the game follows the movie pretty much maybe a few added thing but it pretty much follows the movie. Also the this James bond game has pretty good graphics for Nintendo 64 and to bad there was no voice over actors in this game but who care as long as the game is fun to play.

Overall score ******** out of ********** There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful action-packed levels as "GoldenEye". When it came out, it was the greatest game of all-time, and even today, it stays strong.

I will admit that this game did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for the first time again.

There are 20 action-packed levels, which is probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what James Bond fans are always dying to use.

Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies, Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie, but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had the technology. They just didn't use it.

Probably the most annoying feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How?

Oh well. Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget.

8 out of 10 GoldenEye 007 is not only the best movie tie-in game of all time, but it is perhaps the most influential first-person shooter ever to hit the gaming-console market. If you aren't aware of the plot of this game that's not a problem, because essential it is the same as the popular James Bond movie, GoldenEye, which was released in 1995- two years prior to this game's release.

This is a game that is filled with techniques and styles that would be mimicked in many future games to come, and it gives the player a wide variety of objectives, and difficult challenges. The A.I. is smart (especially on higher difficulty settings) and the environments are complex enough to provide entertainment, as well as difficulty to any gamer.

The introduction of logical hit-points on your enemies is a great feature. Even bosses in this game can be taken down with a well-aimed shot to the head. It is this type of realism that really makes you feel like your James Bond and that you can sneak in, sneak out, covertly taking out henchmen as you go, or springing alarms and having to go through massive shootouts. Because of this there are many ways to beat the game, and limitless possibilities for how you accomplish your tasks. AKA: You can take easy ways or hard ways of beating levels...and if you don't have a strategy guide you'll have to find out those paths by yourself (which, I might add, is incredibly fun if you want to waste a day away).

This is one of those games that the more you play it the more you're able to value its contributions to the gaming industry. Each time I play it I notice aspects that have been replicated in many following FPS games. So if you have a Nintendo 64 go ahead and dust that sucker and order a used copy of GoldenEye 007, because trust me, as a Bond fan, and a casual gamer I can say that this game is highly recommended for all those who want to step into the shoes of James Bond, or just have an awesome, intense gaming experience.

(Also make sure to look out for its sister game, Perfect Dark, which is also on the N64, following the same controls, and very similar weapon uses.) We've all played Halo and Socom and GTA and Resi etc. but none of them can stand up to GE007. The game itself is great. I have literally burned out my N64 playing this great game, along with Zelda OOT. This game along alone built the mold that is essential for all modern shooters. on top of that the multi-player is great. The Story mode itself is worth playing a hundred times over and more. Its a great game for when your board and you want to just shoot up some people and there are endless unlock ables. (cheats, Aztec, Egyptian, god knows how many Multiplayer charries, and the three difficulties as well as the famous '007' difficulty Our modern games are great but when you sit down and play this game you get a certain feeling that few other games can give you. And with the Online capabilities of newer shooting games we rarely see this old two on two death match style. and when we do its no where near as good as this games. And when you get bored of the story, there are endless mysteries, glitches and easter eggs to be found and taken advantage of.

This is definitely one of the greatest shooting games of all time. I first played this around 98' or 99' when I was with my friends.I thought the game was really great,and loved it.

The game is simple.On one player mode,you go around as James Bond and complete missions in different places like an Arctic wasteland or a city.My favorite was one with a tank.On two player mode,you and a friend choose from any character you wish and go all out with a fight.Through out the area you are in,you will find ammo and weapons to help.From hand guns to rifles to lasers and even your fists work.

Again with player two mode,there are lots of places to go,and some to unlock.I find this game really fun,but also very suspenseful.Because,you never really know where your opponent is,and it's surprising to see them behind a door where you are going.

This game gets ****(1/2) stars or of ***** Very good!Go play it sometime! You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.

This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.

Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.

The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James. In my personal opinion i think this is the greatest video game ever created! I first played this game at my friends house years ago, the very next day I went out and got my own. Since that day close to seven years ago I have not stopped playing it. I can't help it I just can't get bored of it. I've been addicted to other games on other, much newer systems but I keep coming back for more Goldeneye. Every mission is amazingly fun and challenging, the multi-player mode was like none other. I hope you can be as fortunate as I was to have played four player multi-player mode because I had brothers and friends who would get together and play this game all the time. This game has cartoon graphics, not much violence and really short levels - then why do people say it is so brilliant?!? Because it always holds your attention, it captivates you and refuses to let go! You will try for hours to try and find that damn flight recorder, try to work out how to get into the room without alerting the guards, etc! The levels are short only when you know what to do - until that, you will spend hours trying to figure out where to find correspondences, where to find helicopters and so on! And you'll have fun all the while you are doing it! Well worth a rent! Ever since I first played it in 1998, GoldenEye has been one of my favourite video games. In fact, I recently bought an N64 purely so that I could own it and play it more often! The game is pretty much near-perfect: the single-player mode does a fantastic job of immersing yourself in Bond's shoes, with varied mission objectives, convincing weapons, and great level design. Even though the enemies' artificial intelligence is pretty basic by today's standards, that only adds to GoldenEye's appeal. The method of obtaining cheats (completing levels within a strict time limit) was also innovative when the title was released, and even now I still haven't cracked some of them!

The game comes with a wonderful multiplayer mode for up to four players, and while this isn't as advanced as the Combat Simulator in the game's sequel "Perfect Dark", it is still incredibly satisfying to blast your opponents to smithereens with a barrage of RC-P90 fire! ;-) What can be said about one of the greatest N64 games ever? That the action is fast enough to keep even a seasoned FPS veteran sweating bullets quite literally? That the graphics are great, down to the explosions that everyone loves to see? That nothing is quite as fun as playing multiplayer mode, and shooting your friends and siblings in the back with submachine guns?

Very little beats Goldeneye 007. About the only thing missing was voice acting, and a bit more intelligence in the enemy soldiers. If you have an N64, and you like shooting people and things crossed with espionage, get a copy of this. This game requires stealth, smart, and a steady hand. The gameplay is simply the best; on top of that though are the interesting extras - bullet holes stay in the walls, enemies react to specific points where they have been hit by bullets, there are tons of motion captured animations that make the enemies seem very real (for instance when looking through a window at a guard he will stand there swatting flies away, sneezing, or scratching himself), the list goes on. This is the best licensed/movie conversion ever and it puts you in the shoes of the suavest super spy. This game is the best reason for owning an N64. This game is not exactly the best N64 game ever. Sure, it's good, but only when there's 4 players. Without 4 players, the only fun thing to do is take remote mines and see how many people you can kill. But half of this game are levels where you have to save Natalya, so you'll have to limit your use of remote mines in those levels, and that gets quite boring. The graphics don't exactly reach the level of Super Mario 64 or even Mario Kart 64. And if you're talking a great multiplayer in a 1st-person shooter, you'll have to go with Perfect Dark. At least you can play "multiplayer" by yourself. definitely the best game for N64 ever. I most say i was farely disappointed with tomorrow never dies, but the world is not enough promises to be better then goldeneye (according to the website).I love goldeneye so much i find something to do every time I play it. I have even made up my own missions for the levels. Multi player is the best of any game out there, and the graphics are astounding even now. The first day I got this I remember wishing that they would go back, and make all of the bond movies into games. Can you imagine driving that speed boat in live and let die and making those incredible jumps, or fighting off ninjas or fighting jaws in the spy who loved me and moonraker. (i think fighting him in those games would be more fun then in the aztec) what about chasing Sanchez in the gas trucks or scalling St. Cerils in for your eyes only. oh well let me get back to the game at hand. All of the levels are unique and make for very fun killing environments. there are many places to hide so you can sneek up on people (especially statue park) well this game is not worthy of renting you really need to buy it today. This is my favorite game for the Nintendo 64 platform. I've played many different first-person shooters, and I've never really liked any of them much, but this game has a certain something that I can't put my finger on that makes it an amazing amount of fun. Maybe it's the extraordinary detail put into the game. Maybe it's the fluid movement of the characters. Maybe it's the gadgets and weapons. Maybe it's the suave character of James Bond. Whatever it is, this game never seems to get old no matter how many times I've played it. In 2023, in a world ruled by the economical interests of the great corporations (and not by the people will or politicians), Kam (Bobbie Phillips) is a human hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent. She is denominated a `sub'(from sub-human), and her genetic composition is 80% human and 20% animal. She has a combination of genes of cougar, that gives her strength and flexibility; falcon, that giver her a increased capacity of seeing and hearing; and chameleon, that gives her the power of camouflage. In the first film, she was a very seductive and amoral woman, using sex to achieve information. I do not have watched the second yet, but in this third one, the story is full of action. A group of scientists has been developing a new and dangerous form of power generation for fifteen years. The research has not been concluded yet, when one of them betrayal the other and steals the research. The problem is that, due to its molecular instability, a black hole will be created and will suck the whole planet. Kam saves Dr. Tess Adkins (Teal Redmann), the survival of the team of scientist, and tries to retrieve the dangerous invent from the hands of the `bad guys'. There is a very strong `sub' in this gang that causes many difficulties for Kam. This action and sci-fi television movie is better than the first one, recalling `The Terminator' in some parts of the plot. Bobbie Phillips is a very beautiful actress, and her outfit is very cool. I am becoming a fan of this good entertainment. Fans of sci-fi movies will not be disappointed. Now I am trying to buy `Chameleon 2'. My vote is seven. Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The action and stunts were the best in the series. 'Fame' (1980) is brilliant. It's got all these qualities that made the late 70's movies so great. It is proud of its directness and not ashamed of being over the top.

What really matters here, is the journey, not the destination. Ignorant idiots with soap opera mentality, will never realize that 'Fame' is about the struggles, anxieties and triumphs of these young people, not about their careers.

Ironically enough, none of the very talented actors of 'Fame' made it in Hollywood. 'Fame' marked the end of an era. The end of artistic freedom and experimentation and the beginning of commercialization and political correctness. It's the last statement of a generation that had a voice of its own.

10/10 A recent survey of children in the UK re-enforced the notion put forth by this film 27 years ago. That being more than anything else, young people want to grow up to be somebody famous. It used to be doctors and firemen that kids wanted to be. Now, everyone wants to be famous. Fame is a story of a group of kids accepted into the High School for Performing Arts in New York City. We seen them first audition, then take classes and learn about life for the next four years. The film has a lot of fine qualities, but ultimately leaves you feeling a little unsatisfied.

Alan Parker's bold directorial style fits the story pretty well. The film has been classified as a musical, but more than anything it is a drama. Musical numbers and dance routines break out here and there, and Parker keeps them as close to realistic as they really could have been filmed. The acting is for the most part top-drawer with a few exceptions. The pacing is a little off, particularly toward the end of the film, but by that point, the story has already taken a few wrong turns anyway.

First off, the auditions at the beginning of the film should have weeded a couple of the principle characters out. It seems unlikely that anyone would show up and audition for one department, then stumble their way through admissions to another. Some of these people just don't look that talented or interested to begin with. Once the first year of classes gets going, the film settles into a nice groove. The interaction between students and teachers is very well handled, and it leaves you wanting more. The film begins to lose itself later on as we see more and more of the students' lives out of school. Some of these people just aren't worth caring about.

The film's biggest mistake is making the Ralph Garcy character so prominent. This guy is a boorish; self-centered jerk. A "professional a-hole" as he proudly declares on stage during his comedy routines. The audience is supposed to somehow feel for this guy and his tragic personal situation, but I was just hoping they'd throw his butt out of school. Irene Cara, Maureen Teefy, Paul McCrane and the late Gene Anthony Ray are the people you'll care about by the time this film is over. Try as I might, I still can't develop abs like Gene Anthony Ray had in this film.

Overall this film is good. It is memorable, interesting, and full of daring scenes and performances. It runs maybe a little too long, and perhaps some of the wrong characters get fully developed while others kind of hover in the background. The musical numbers are great, and there is even a surprise or two waiting to be discovered by the time the film is over. Though not perfect, Fame will be a film that lives on in one way or another for many years to come.

7 of 10 stars.

The Hound. I truly hate musicals because music numbers just start out of the sudden and usually spoil scenes, but this one is completely different - it's simply brilliant. Plot perhaps isn't any challenge for the viewers, but the simplicity of people life stories makes this movie great.

I've seen it at least dozen times and still I'm not tired with the plot, characters or music (I just love the soundtrack - it's the only soundtrack that I've really wanted to have and most probably will remain the only one that I owe).

For me it's a must-seen kind of movie, great characters compiled with entertaining songs and a lot of things to think about after the movie end. High school. Years and decades later, some look back on it with fondness, others with embarrassment. But few find it easy to forget. It's one of the most critical phases of our lives, when changes come fast and furious whether we're ready or not. No longer children, not yet adults, irresistible forces buffet us, pushing and pulling us in every direction.

"Fame" did its best to capture this turbulent, chaotic period for its cast of young characters. For the most part, it succeeded. It meandered, but did feel like a slice of life. This movie holds a special place in the hearts of the Class of '80. We had just bid farewell to a decade, and soon to the end of three or four stimulating and sometimes difficult school years. We were headed out into the cold, cruel world, leaving home for college then parts unknown. As we approached our watershed event, this newly released movie was like a two-hour yearbook for us. We couldn't escape the titular song on the radio. That was us up there on the screen. Those were our friends, rivals and classmates as we had faced our own dreams, frustrations, successes and failures.

It's especially poignant for those who attended any of New York City's other elite, top-tier high schools, especially Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science or Brooklyn Tech. Like the kids here, we were considered the best of the best. We had no auditions, but instead rigorous entrance exams. Perhaps even more than the Performing Arts kids, we were expected to change the world, although not necessarily become famous. Like them, not all of us made it. But the pressure cooker environment fostered extraordinary camaraderie and esprit de corps, not unlike the toe-tapping "Hot Lunch Jam" in the cafeteria. On our own graduation day, our spirits soared almost like the jubilant crescendo in the rousing finale. The film leaves us fittingly on a single, triumphant note at the end of "I Sing the Body Electric," pointing to the blindingly bright, boundless future and all the promise it held.

"Fame" couldn't have been set anywhere else. This story never would have worked in a small or suburban school. Los Angeles has a stronger identification with movies and television, but NYC is a mecca for all of the arts. Home not only to what was then called PA, but also world-renowned Juilliard, NYC is a cultural center unmatched by any other city in the world. It's also a time capsule of the rest of the city of the time, showing the seediness, grit and dirt that was endemic of a New York still struggling back from the fiscal crisis that had nearly bankrupted it. But most of all, it showed the vitality, since muted by the inroads of Giuliani, Disney and tourism.

What I wouldn't give to be young again. But with "Fame," at least I can remember what it was like. Of course this came out right at the beginning of the 1980s. Of course it did. Those drama students dancing in the street to Irene Cara's famous theme song, it's an indelible eighties leg-warmer style image. But there's more to the film than that. There's deprivation, and one man's struggle to learn to read, and a struggle with sexuality, and an attack on a child, and one girl tricked into taking topless photographs, and contemplation of suicide. In the end, though, it is also about that song. In New York, a group of freshmen join the High School for the Performing Arts after being well succeeded in their audition. For four years, their dreams, deceptions, success, love and personal dramas are disclosed though the insecure Doris Finsecker (Maureen Teefy), the homosexual Montgomery (Payl McCrane), the aggressive Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray), the hopeful Coco (Irene Cara), the ambitious Ralph Garci (Barry Miller) and their friends until their graduation day.

Twenty-eight years ago, "Fame" was a great success, with the story of teenagers seeking a spot in the show business, and I loved this movie and the soundtrack on CD. I have just watched "Fame" on DVD, and presently I would say that it is a good movie with a great potential only, but with too many flawed subplots. The story follows too many characters and leaves many situations without answer. I do not know whether Alan Parker had edition problems to reduce the running time of this movie, but what happened, for example, with the ballerina that goes to a clinic for abortion? What happened with Leroy and his teacher, did he fail due to his grammar problem? What happened with Coco after undressing her blouse in the apartment of that crook? The musician that plays synthesizer and his proud father are left behind in the subplot. Anyway, "Fame" is still a delightful entertainment and a cult-movie for me. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Fama" ("Fame") If your looking for a movie with fantastic music, nice cast and a storyline that is not to difficult to understand; FAME is for you.

I have several scenes that i love in this movie; some make you laugh, others make you contemplative. The editing i think is wonderful, really fast and often funny. Shure, maybe there would have been some more potential in the whole thing, all the story's stay somehow on the surface; maybe a bit too many characters are involved.But I don't care, because the real stars are...

...the musical scenes! One of my favorites: the hot-lunch-jam sequence. That piece is just so raw, funky and filmed in a special way (handcamera-style in "music-hell-breaking-loose"), its just electrifying! I miss this raw energy in todays music-clips; the only similar energy I found perhaps in Bette Midlers "the rose", all of the concert footage.Its about capturing something "wild" that is "realy" happening, and not doing it just perfect; take by take.

So, FAME is a wonderful nostalgia-trip to when synthesizers where heavy and walk-mans not available.I recommend it once a year; sure not for everyone. "Fame" is a very well done portrait of the students who inhabit New York City's High School of the Arts. The film focuses on a group of students who dream of making it big while they perfect their craft at the now famous school. Director Alan Parker allows each of the highlighted students to mature on screen, allowing you to feel a connection with each one. The music here is infectious and fun. The dancing is exciting and fresh. The film eventually became the basis for an Emmy-winning television series starring Debbie Allen and some of the other actors from the film. One of the more enjoyable "dance" films of the 1980's. Received Oscars for music. 8/10 This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts drag on the majority goes by really quickly.

Final Grouping:

Movies: Probably would've skipped this one.

DVD Purchase: Not something I'd need to see again and again.

Rental: Worth renting at least once in your life! Do not miss this picture that defies ages. With no hesitation, a masterpiece. Not only the script and the music but also choregraphy, casting,

cut : everything contributes to the perfect achievement. Now nearly 25 years ago and still amazing of maturity, art and

sensitivity. Available now in DVD, do not miss either. The transfert is perfect

and the sound re-boosted. One mystery remains about this superb work : why the actors did

not succeed better after this flashing start ? We enjoy a film like "Fame" because we imagine we are there ourselves - music, dance and drama students, enjoying our self expression. This film had humour, entertainment and must be an inspiration to young people to have a go at the performing arts. Bravo "Fame". Certainly worth 8 out of 10!

Chris Fame is one of the best movies I've seen about The Performing Arts. The music and the acting are excellent. The screenplay and Set Design are also excellent. My favorite part is when all the students start Dancing and making music in the Canteen. I can see this movie any number of times, and never get bored. I give it 8 1/2 on 10. I saw Fame when it first came out. It deals with the high school class of 1980, which was coincidentally my year of graduation. I saw the movie in the summer between high school and college and, being a performer myself, it holds a special place in my heart.

The biggest criticisms of Fame usually have to do with continuity, and there are definitely some story lines that either are not completed or don't make sense. However, those problems are more than made up for by the passion and emotion of the characters and the incredible music.

I saw it again recently and was surprised that I still loved it as much as I did the first time. Fame is often compared to Flashdance, which I don't think is fair. Although Flashdance has some great music and Jennifer Beals is gorgeous, I think Fame is vastly superior in the development of its characters and the complexity of its stories. For anyone who truly loves the arts, this is a must-see movie. Film follows a bunch of students in the NYC High School of the Performing Arts. There's Coco (Irene Cara) a black singer who WILL make it to the top despite everything. She's helped by Bruno (Lee Curren) a white musician. Then there's Doris (Maureen Teefy) who wants to be an actress--but she's shy and scared. She becomes friends with Motgomery (Paul McCrane)--purportedly the only gay student in the school and is romanced by Raul (Barry Miller). Then there's Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray--who sadly died in 2003) who's homeless and a great dancer--but can't read. Then there's various teachers (Albert Hague, Anne Meara stand out) trying to teach the kids.

The songs are GREAT (the title tune and "Out Here On My Own" were nominated for Best Song--"Fame" won), the dances are energetic and the young cast shows plenty of ambition and talent. BUT this film misses the boat in the drama department. Many plot lines are brought up and completely left open-ended by the end of the movie. Why did Coco do a porno? Did Doris and Raul remain together afterwords? Did either make it? How about Montgomery--what happened to him? And did Leroy ever graduate--and how? There are too many long speeches (Raul has two) and moments that just lead to nothing. I'm assuming there were cuts in the script--I can't believe the movie just left all this open.

Still, it's worth seeing for the acting and, again, the music. There's basically not one bad song and the dances go full force (and at one point stop traffic--literally!). My favorites are "Fame", "Out Here..." and "I Sing the Body Electric" which is a great closing song. So I recommend it but can only give it a 7--the script really needed to tie up loose ends--and it didn't.

Trivia: They wanted to shot this film at the actual School for Performing Arts but couldn't get permission. The dean of the school read the script and said there was way too much swearing in the film. That is true--there is a LOT of foul language but that's how high school kids talk. Avoid the TV version which abysmally overdubs it. Fame was released in the U.S. a year before I was born; I was too young to ever remember the original version of Fame- and yet I heard and read numerous things about it. Such as the fact that it spawned a TV series and that its soundtrack was led by the Irene Cara, Giogio Moroder hit, 'Fame'.

Fame was arguably the first of its kind to portray and showcase the world of performing arts in the form of a feature length film. The lives, the struggles, the hurdles the students and some of the teachers undergo themselves were under the eye of the viewers.

The performances were great, yet one which caught my eye in particular was Gene Anthony Ray, who played the troublesome yet promising Leroy. Angry, frustrated and at first rude, his character later became less angry and frustrated and more committed to his studies- not just with the practical in the performing but in the theoretical too. Irene Cara was good as Coco- the scene with her taking her blouse off while some pervy director was filming her was rather discomforting to watch-, as well as Paul McCrane for his amazing portrayal of a vulnerable but closeted homosexual trying to cope with life and enrolling on a performing arts school in New York, after he had been kicked out of the military when he told them he was gay. Ralph played by Barry Miller was interesting but at times, his character did grate on my nerves.

The choreography was excellent, there were some good dance numbers involved and the 'hot lunch' scene in the cafeteria was worth watching. Another scene that was great was when the 'Fame' song was played and all the kids started rushing out into the streets of New York and danced wildly and without a care in the world. It was a street jam like no other.

The only star to ever truly benefit from this in the long run was and is Debbie Allen- she later became a producer, director and star- though she mostly worked behind the scenes on shows such as Everybody Hates Chris and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Paul McCrane later went on to star alongside Peter Weller in the movie, 'Robocop', where he played a villain and E.R. as the judgemental, obnoxious Doctor Romano.

British director Alan Parker shot this really well- he allowed the performers to dance, act, sing to their hearts content without wanting to interfere with and affect their styles.

Throughout the duration of the movie, we see the various stages the students encounter during their 4 years- from their auditions to freshman year, all the way up to graduation in New York's High School For The Arts.

Fame is one of those movies which caters for or is aimed at a particular audience that isn't necessarily the general mainstream movie loving community- it is definitely NOT for everyone.

I for one enjoyed it because I have an interest in the arts- not technically in terms of being a performer because I am not one but as someone who appreciates that creativity and artistic expression can be channelled through hard work, commitment and passion towards what one does with their talents. Therefore, if you are an aspiring dancer, actor- or just someone who is creative, you might be interested in a movie such as this- though whether the events in Fame are anything like what it is in a performing arts college/school in real life, then that is a completely different matter altogether.

The 2009 remake of this movie was released recently and frankly, it virtually pales by comparison.

As for the original Fame, almost 30 years on though yes it is a bit dated but it is still a great movie, nonetheless.

It's not an outright classic but as a 80s cult classic, in line with other 80s dance hit movies, such as Footloose and Flashdance, Fame hits the spot. Isn't it a coincidence that all those dance movies begin with the letter 'F'?

Gritty, moving and intriguing, this one is worth a watch. This movie tells the story of nine ambitious teens trying to follow their dream at the infamous New York High School For Performing Arts: Coco, the singer, Bruno, the modern Mozart, Lisa, Leroy, and Hilary, the struggling dancers, Ralph, the comedian, and Doris and Montgomery, the actors. While they all think they have what it takes to really reach their goals, they are going to need a lot more than just their talent. They will have to deal with rejection, heartbreak, education, pain, and love in order to achieve their fame.

"Fame" is one of the most entertaining, classic, and inspirational movies of all time. It has everything a teen drama/musical should have: extremely catchy, entertaining, Oscar-winning songs performed by the amazing Irene Cara, stunning dance numbers, a very attractive cast that makes you believe in the characters, and a great story, including the heartbreaking scene when Coco meets the video camera.

Like I said, the cast is awesome. Irene Cara can really act, and it's not only her singing that makes her shine here as Coco. Lee Curreri is very good as Bruno. Barry Miller brings a lot of humor to Ralph. Maureen Teefy is great as the outcast Doris, and look closely, and you'll see Paul McCrane of "ER" as Montgomery.

This is truly an amazing film. "Fame" really touched me and inspired me to keep following my dreams as an actor and singer. Any movie that moves me this much is a winner in my book. A must-see! The film really touched me and inspired me to follow my dreams as an actor and singer. This movie and its subsequent TV series followup has become the iconic stand-in for what is great about America.

Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standouts including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The latter who plays a walk-on dancer with no academic or other than "street" credentials is an amazing personality and is worth watching for what is essentially a portrayal of himself. A wonderment to behold, as one king was apt to say.

The plot follows an interesting format - chronological at times, genre at other times, personalities in some cases ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.

Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant and sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score that matches the performers step for step.

The climax of the film is a climax for all times. And this climatic complete cast of many many talented musicians and dancers and music is thankfully repeated throughout the credits. These are one set of credits that are well worth sitting through ... an achievement for the ages. The music by Christopher Gore is a gift to behold. This movie has become an iconic stand-in for what is great about America.

Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standout actors, singers, and dancers, including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray.

The plot is not the movie. It follows an interesting format ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.

Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant, sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score & performances.

The film's climax is a song-dance fest of musicians,dancers, & score by Christopher Gore. A wonderment to behold.

* An interesting note about the magnificent and superbly talented Anne Meara ... sometimes talent must reside in the genes ... Ms. Meara is married to one Jerry Stiller and is the mother of Ben Stiller ... I expected FAME to be an uplifting film but it ended up the opposite. The overall plot which follows the lives of several determined students attending a performing arts school has strong potential. However, FAME builds its characters up beautifully and then leaves us with so many questions when its over. I was very surprised when the graduation scene pops up -- we thought the DVD had skipped or something. All of the characters have internal and external conflicts of some sort and virtually none of them are resolved when the movie ends! You might think there are too many characters, but its probably too many scenes. Its evident the film was cut up and shortened because its sometimes lacks transition. I think Laura Dean as Lisa Monroe is my favorite character. I really connected with her character's ambition and following her heart. Boyd Gaines as Michael, the stereotypical poor student who can't read but is a divine dancer, is also very good. I didn't especially like Irene Cara's character of Coco, but this is not Cara's fault since her script is weak and her character is not fleshed out. Her voice is beautiful and hearing her songs warrants watching the whole film. In summary, the film could use many improvements, but the quality actors and great music earn its place in film history. Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating) "Fame" had been one of my favorite movies for years! It is not just an 80's musical movie of "that" high school in NYC, it is LEGENDARY- people no longer refer to the High School of Performing Arts but "the Fame school"!!

The characters are real, they are not "Hollywood" and their stories are real. The film follows them through the four years of school, starting with a powerful monologue by one student at Auditions and finishing with a spectacular graduation show.

Apparently some find the broadway show better, however it is my opinion that you should definitely see this movie anyway, and then have your own view. For anyone who enjoys movie watching and would like to have the "classics" down, this is surely one of them. It is an example of one of those movies that was really great, with actors that we loved for those 2 hours, and then never saw them again... they are classic "Fame students".

make FAME live forever. Well,I am a dancer so automatically I liked this film. The only thing I didn't like was they didn't have much dancing as I thought there would be. But I have to say the it was a good dance film. I think there should be more songs too. But it was a good film as i said before! My rating 9/10! Great cast, great acting, great music. Each character in this movie had their own stories and personalities and it's vivid. A great movie not to be missed. Fame, I think, was the best movie that I have ever seen. In ways it was funny and dramatic, but that is what makes a movie. True, it has a few loose ends, actually a lot, but I still think that it is a terrific movie. Some of the funny things happen in the audition at the beginning of the movie. I think it is hilarious when the girl tries to act out O.J. Simpson in "The Towering Inferno" and Raul/Ralph goes around to every art department saying that his father was great at every one. He says that his dad danced with the Rockets and left Ralph his tap shoes. The Rockets, as far as I know, are made up of women. And the tap shoes were just regular shoes with bottle caps on the bottom. Also the guy who read the lines of Juliet in the Romeo and Juliet play was funny. One thing about the movie that just turns me on is the music. I have never heard anything like it!!! My favorite song is "I Sing the Body Electric" and my second is the theme song itself "Fame". Irene Cara has a great voice and is a great actress. I like the way the movie focused on many ethnic groups. It showed all of the kinds of people there actually are in what is now called "La Guardia School of the Performing Arts". This movie showed the triumphs and trials of many young performers, including Angelo, Doris, Bruno, Coco, Montgomery, Ralph, Leroy, Hilary, and Liza. They all had a hard time, but made it their own way. This movie could have added on about another 30-45 minutes (before the graduation), but it is still my favorite movie no matter what!!!! I had always wanted to see this film and the first three-fourths proved I hadn't waited in vain. But what the hell happened in the end? I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked the film. It definitely made me nostalgic of the realistic, unique NYC of the 80s that we have lost thanks to Giuliani. But it's missing another half hour! I truly fell in love with the characters. They were very down to earth but each and every one of them had a hidden dark side. Sort of a mystery. David Graysmark, himself, was an enigma. The secret fears and just secrets in general that he had. There was a whole side of him that the other characters knew nothing about and it left the audience either wondering or assuming. There was always a part of this man that he would keep hidden away, yet he'd share a little of himself too. He was the strong male lead character and I admire that type of character. Billy Moses himself is an incredible actor who could do just about any type of part! He's an amazing talent and a good man. His fans love, respect, and support him endlessly.

Since this show he's gone onto many other projects and has stretched his acting ability quite a bit more and quite well. Kudos to him and all the other actors from this show for doing such an excellent job! I wish them all well. I wish the series would've continued on! It's such a shame it didn't! When it comes to those eerie and uncanny little crime films, the sorts that revolve around characters that are bordering on scum and inhabit equally scummy surroundings, and additionally carry that wavering and bleak feel thanks to some pretty grotty cinematography and some very black comedy; Dead Bodies is the sort of film Paul McGuigan wishes he could make. Alas, the maddening and sporadic Gangster No. 1 as well as the equally all over the shop, but interesting exercise in surrealism mixed with realism, effort entitled The Acid House are the only ones of his we've got to go on so far. Dead Bodies is Robert Quinn's piece based on a Derek Landy script, a film that straddles the line between psychological horror and neo-noir; intermingling elements of crime and terror with themes linked to morality and unnatural, obsessive disorders.

McGuigan's British based crime efforts carry that wavy and distorted feel, like witnessing somebody's nightmare and having front row seats in the process. His films are able to disgust is some areas and amuse in others what with their outlandish and all-over-the-place approach. They carry a very dream-like sensibility despite being grounded in a very realistic, down-trodden, grimy looking world – the real world with as much-an emphasis on the horror and the terror of the situations his characters spawn than anything else. Dead Bodies is a film that tackles both some pretty harrowing character driven situations as well as a brief inclusion of a study of a delicate psychological mindset, only here, the film balances both the eccentricity of its characters; the terror of the scenarios they find themselves in and the questions of morality that arise much better.

Dead Bodies is effective and rather simplistic without ever feeling like manipulative. Its suggestive and knowing tendency to want to hammer home exactly what people are thinking and feeling does not detract from the experience. Early on, we meet Tommy McGann (Scott), a young lad whose girlfriend Jean (Davis) dominates him, his life and the screen whenever she's on for the brief time that she is. The point as to the fact his situation of living in a less-than desirable house; with a job stacking shelves and a partner he doesn't get on with at all well is put across in a distinct manner. As is the manner in which the audience are given distinct permission to dislike Jean what with the bratty, spoilt and expectant attitudes she so clearly possesses. Later on the film will linger, rather obviously, on a police officer's face as suspicions and tensions rise in what is clearly a cheap and easy way to tell the watching audience that our hero is not quite out of trouble just yet.

But compare this to Gangster No. 1, in which such is the episodic and misguided approach McGuigan applies to the material; that a vital, vital plot point arises when a character is spotted leaving a building by someone else out on a 'random drive' in a scene set several months after the previous one. The feeling isn't as grounded nor fulfilling. Dead Bodies' set up is dominated by Kay Davis' Jean; a would-be femme fatale just itching to pick a fight of some sort but just not really being able to find one. She has lead Tommy jumping through rings; going there, doing this and that without Tommy ever really reacting in the manner he could, principally because he is controlled by her promises of sex. The beginning builds a certain amount of tension because of Tommy's underplayed reaction to what's going on and it culminates in a distinct release when the initial incident happens, and Jean dies.

If the set up is simple enough then that's one thing, but the pinch of the project is the manner in which Tommy decides to rid Jean of his hands by burying her without informing anyone of her death bar a best friend. Things tighten when it transpires there was a second dead body in the exact same place Tommy buried Jean, with suspicions, denials and general trouble the all round ingredients of the day. It is at this point the film blurs the lines between noir and horror; indeed Tommy inhabits rather-a large, ominous, spooky and even Gothic house which he shares with an elder relative whom inhabits the upper areas of said house. This evokes memories of Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho and Bates' set up that he has with his mother, and where she's positioned. It is additionally no coincidence this would-be place of horror is the setting for Jean's unfortunate demise.

The placing of a dead body right in the hands of the hapless, male lead in order for it to act as the initial incident is a classic set up for any noir; from Ulmer's 1945 film Detour right up to a more recent, and more contemporary compared to Dead Bodies, 2006 film entitled Big Nothing. What this film unfolds into, is a twisted; rather unpredictable and quite frightening tale of genre hybridity and mind games told under a palette of distinctly drained visuals. The voice-overs and the treading on the fine line that the lead does for most of the film between right and wrong aid in pushing it into a realm of the neo-noir; if we consider the fact that the lead is, essentially, innocent and his murder charges are unfair then that's one thing, but his attitudes towards Jean initially saw him act without thought and his covering up of her death is the anti-thesis for dropping the murder charges. Dead Bodies is taught; entertaining to watch without ever feeling exploitative and provides a consistent tone for the rather nasty physical and psychological content being explored. Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly, who is stunning to look at.

This is billed as a black comedy, which is one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness. I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was suitably surprised.

As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their policing methods! For the 1980s, this is a very dark movie. At this point, filmmakers were beginning to operate under the assumption that all films require smarmy comic relief (which, of course, is taken to the extreme today), flashy action scenes (even more overdone today), or steamy sex scenes.

Hutton and Penn are stupendous in their roles as childhood friends turned Soviet spies. Penn in particular is brilliant as hapless drug dealer Daulton Lee.

What you have here is a true thriller/drama. There is no eye candy to speak of, but the story is so compelling and the acting so superb that (hopefully) most people wouldn't miss it. There are a couple amusing scenes, in particular the one where Penn tries to get his Soviet benefactors involved in a major drugrunning deal.

Well worth watching. Excellent drama about 2 alienated, spoiled punks who go afoul of the federal government, each for his own reasons. One, a druggie, just wants to score some bucks for his next fix, but the other has a far more sinister agenda fueled in part by a resentment of his father. Good performances and a hot script makes this a winner. There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction. The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department. Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything. Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites. This movie does an excellent job of taking us all the way through the dark tunnel of espionage, from the inception through the ultimate reckoning. The movie's impact is made even deeper with the realization that it is based on a true story. Timothy Hutton provides us with a quality, understated performance and Sean Penn demonstrates why he is one of America's finest living actors. As with "Midnight Express," this movie should make us all think twice about doing something we shouldn't be doing in a foreign country. John Schelesinger's career as a film director was extraordinary. We had watched this film when it first came out, but wanted to see it again when it showed on cable recently. The film has a faded look, as one watches it today, but still, it is interesting because of the intense performances of the two principals.

If you haven't seen it, please don't read any further.

Chris and Daulton were two childhood friends that came from upper middle class backgrounds. Chris went to enter a seminary to be a priest, but gives up. Daulton became a small time drug user and trafficker. The two lives seem to run parallel as the pair become involved in an illegal activity that will prove their short sightedness. In fact, it shows how both young men miscalculate in their attempt to fool the CIA and the Soviet Union. These two, in a way, were so naive in thinking they could pull something that bigger, and better equipped people couldn't even imagine could be done.

Chris' motivation is legitimate, as he feels outraged in discovering the underhanded role of the agency for which he works in dealing with other nations, in this case Australia, something he finds by sheer coincidence. When he involves Daulton, we know the whole thing is doomed because no one into drugs, as he is, will ever amount to anything. In fact, Chris and Daulton had no conception of the scope of what they are trying to do, or its consequences.

Timothy Hutton was at this period of his career, an actor that was going places. He had proved he had talent with his work in other films, so it was a natural choice for Mr. Schlesinger to select him, a choice that pays off well. Sean Penn, also was a young actor who showed an intensity, like one hadn't seen before. In fact, at times, Mr. Penn, reminded us of a young Robert Mitchum in the making. Both actors' contribution to the film is incredible. One can't think who could have played this duo but them.

"The Falcon and the Snowman", while not up to the par with other great John Schlesinger's movies, is an interesting look to our not too distant past. Set in the 1970s Los Angeles, Christopher Boyce has just dropped out of seminary school and returned back home were his father gets him a job where he monitors intelligence documents. His old friend Daulton Lee is a ratty cock drug-dealer, and gets caught in a set-up and must choose between becoming a narc or facing a long stint in prison. When up on bail, he jumps and heads to Mexico City. Chris offers Lee in a partnership to be his messenger to sell secret papers to the Soviet Union embassy in Mexico City, because of the disgrace he feels about the US Government's control over weaker countries to their own gain. But over time the two begin to clash with their motivations and find themselves in something bigger then they had originally intended.

Director John Schlesinger has spun out such films like the respectable "Midnight Cowboy", "Marathon Man", "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Day of The Locust". While "The Falcon and the Snowman" might not be held up that high, there's no question that this sombre espionage drama (inspired by a true incident) is an unjustly overlooked character portrait. Everything about it, is quite a subdued affair with no real grandeur qualities hitting a massive mark. The driving factor of the film has got to be the admirably versatile lead performances of Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as the two ambitious young lads Chris and Daulton. Penn is especially good with his uneasy intensity, which works well off Hutton's superbly cool-and-collected turn. What starts off as easy, we watch the situation gradually crumble, as the two amateurs find themselves really out of their league. The strongly detailed and symbolic (predatory behaviour) plot mainly centres on the pair's relationship and that of their reasoning's for their actions, which eventually shows us the knotty developments that led to their downfall. The plan opens up like a wound to never properly heal, due to Daulton's drug addiction, which really makes him go off the rails and leaves Chris to pick up all the slack. The searing political aspect is there, but it focus on the themes of idealism (Boyce) and greed (Lee) to get its point across. Both don't mix and results show. Suspense is justified through its stimulating pot-boiling script and character interactions then that of any visual gimmicks. Action is very little, but still there's a pressure induced style to Schlesinger's assured and realistically dark 'n' gritty direction. Pacing is mostly well handled, although some sequences do seem to wallow on for too long, but however it grips you as it plays on its authentically paranoid tone to slowly build up to an exploding tight latter end. Adeptly fleshed into the technical production is an airily harrowing music score and professionally poignant cinematography. The supporting cast are exceptionally fine with Pat Hingle, Lori Singer, David Suchet, Boris Leskin, Jerry Hardin and Joyce Van Patten. Also look out for Michael Ironside in a tiny part as a FBI agent.

A mostly outstanding spy-film that benefits largely from talented lead performances and by not playing the usual stakes. It's more an emotional ride, then a complex one of twists. Recommended. A great film in its genre, the direction, acting, most especially the casting of the film makes it even more powerful. A must see. The Falcon and the Snowman is the true story of two college-age rich kids from L.A. who become spies for the Soviet Union. One, played by Penn, is already a drug smuggler up to his eyeballs in trouble. The other, played by Hutton, lands a position at an aerospace firm where his job is to man a top-secret cable facility. There he learns of some of the dirty tricks employed by the CIA on foreigners that America doesn't like. Don't forget that the movie is set the early 70s, the time of Vietnam and Watergate. Appalled at what he's learned, the Hutton character decides to betray his country and convinces his buddy to join him. Neither of them is long on brains, it is not long before they're way in over their heads with no way out.

This is not a thriller, and is rather slowly paced. If this is not a problem for you, then it is well worth the rental. If you're interested in learning about the 'real' side of spying, this movie is for you. Unlike 007 movies, this shows how things really go down in the world of espionage. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn both give outstanding performances in this not-so-well-known film. Certainly worth watching. THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a superb example of an anti-80s film. While many other films of the decade in general lacked substance, this film is pure substance. There's nothing stylish or fake or superfluous about it. It boasts two superb performances: Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as lifelong friends Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee, respectively. Hutton, Penn, and Tom Cruise were a triumvirate of early 80s actors who all looked headed to much bigger and better things (all 3 starred in TAPS). While Penn and Cruise's popularity soared, Hutton has been largely forgotten about, and that's a shame. Actually, Hutton is the first of the 3 to win an Oscar for supporting role in ORDINARY PEOPLE in 1980, but I think his performance in this movie is even more outstanding.

Hutton really captures the post-Vietnam war rebelliousness in his character Chris Boyce. A failed seminary school student, Chris has a love-hate relationship with his father, well played by the great character actor Pat Hingle. The scene where Chris quotes the poem his father thought he'd long forgotten is a particularly powerful one.

Chris gets job at Dept. of Defense and uses his hatred of U.S. gov't and its foreign policy to sell seemingly useless plans of old projects to the Soviets. He gets his buddy Daulton, a hyper drug-dealing self-server, in on it to be the courier of the project plans on microfilm. While Chris is doing it based on his beliefs, Daulton is doing it strictly for the money. The Soviet liaison is excellently played by David Suchet. Penn and Suchet have a real quirky chemistry and it's a kind of funny set of exchanges between them. But, make no mistake, this film is anything but that. It is a serious character study about pessimism, malaise, paranoia and mistrust.

Again, the leads make this film. Hutton delivers a brilliantly understated performance as Chris, a rather smart young man who had so much potential. Penn, as usual, does a tremendous characterization as Daulton, a pathetic loser who acts before he thinks, and most of the time doesn't think at all. The ending of this fact-based film is very saddening on several levels. A truly powerful character study. This movie is based on the true story of Christopher Boyce and his friend Daunton Lee. This fascinating story takes place around the time of the Whitlam Dismissal, in which during his time as a clerk for TRW, Christopher was privy to classified correspondence which admitted the CIA's involvement in Australian political and union circles. The movie shows several scenes involving Gough Whitlam (transmitted over US TV), where events take place which confirm the classified documents that Christopher had read previously. The removal of Gough Whitlam was an organized CIA coup. Elsewhere in the film, it was mentioned that most people have no idea about the level of deception that goes on, ultimately to ensure that the US is used as a vehicle to promote certain policies at the behest of everyone else. In the current age, nothing has changed.

Christopher's life was profoundly affected, read shocked, by his knowledge of what and how the CIA shapes foreign democracies, including the democracies of allied nations to the United States. Christopher reacted, probably not in the best way at the time, by selling top secret information to the Soviet Union with Daunton Lee acting as his exchange. Eventually Christopher and Daunton were captured and convicted of treason.

On 23rd May 1982, whilst serving time in US prison, Christopher Boyce agreed to a one and only interview with Ray Martin of 60 Minutes Australia because it was the Australian connection that profoundly affected him. It caused a furore in the Australian media for about a week, then it went hushed.

I liked the movie's symbolism of the falcon, and in it Chris was called the Falcon, and Daunton the Snowman (drug connection), but in reality the title "Falcon" was not something that was used by Chris.

Christopher Boyce: Criminal or Man of Conscience? You decide.

Resources: http://www.playitforwardoz.com/boyce.html In the movie, "The Falcon and the Snowman", when they were showing Christopher Boyce around the complex, the satellite in the background was the actual Ryholite satellite that is now in space. TRW allowed interior shots. TRW also allowed both interior and exterior shots for one of the original Star Trek TV series. (The episode is the one where Spock goes blind when a string of satellite lights are activated to kill the aliens). Christopher escaped jail (Lompock) and was featured on America's Most Wanted. He was drinking in a bar when the show aired. He said, "Hey, that's me". Needless to say, he was captured and transfered to a maximum security jail. "The Falcon & the Snowman" offers some of the best acting from its two leads. Hutton, in a brilliantly understated role, calmly portrays the confusion and angst of a man who seemingly turns traitor for no other reason than as rebellion against his father. Penn, as the co-conspirator basically just along for the ride and drug-money, explosively turns in one of the strongest performances of his multi-talented career. Based on the true story about Christopher Boyce (Hutton) and Daulton Lee (Penn), and their involvement in selling American secret Government documents to the Soviets during the 1970s. Boyce works for the Government, and his job is to guard these particular documents, which ultimately disillusions him about his Country's affairs and practices. He then enlists his drug-dealer friend, Daulton Lee, who has become a wanted man, to be the courier for these sensitive documents. Lee infiltrates the Russian Embassy in Mexico, and makes contact with Alex (Suchet), and they both begin to play the espionage game.

Lee's interest is purely about money whilst Boyce is acting out of anger towards the system he is involved in. Alex believes Lee to be the inside man in the American government. Things start to become array when Lee's drug addiction and reckless behaviour in handling the courier position offsets both Alex and Boyce. Lee becomes more paranoid, and the initial espionage game becomes more deadly and consequential for everyone involved.

This is a true spy thriller without the cheesy action. The character motives and analysis of real-life subjects is sympathetic but very well written, and the film cleverly interweaves the real-life events with underlying political themes about human predatory behaviour. Where a bigger nation uses their political power to control the smaller nations. Well directed, and intense in parts, especially where the protagonists become immensely in over their heads in the spy game. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn give amazingly riveting performances in a film that questions authority and yet there is no simple answer to the political message or the complexity of that system. The plight of the protagonists becomes the underlying message within 'The Falcon and the Snowman', and makes it a clever political thriller with a poignant element about society, human relationships, and the American system. Great film!

****1/2 out of *****! This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like. It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Great movie! "The belief in the Big Other as an invisible power structure which exists in the Real is the most succinct definition of paranoia." – Slavoj Zizek

This is a review of "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman", two films by director John Schlesinger.

Though Hitchcock and Lang brought the "conspiracy thriller" to Hollywood, the genre only blossomed in the late 60s and 70s, with films like "The Parallax View", "Z", "Marathon Man", "Capricorn One", "The Manchurian Candidate", "Three Days of the Condor" and "All The President's Men". This was the age of Vietnam and Watergate, the public deeply suspicious of all political leaders.

The genre remained quiet in the 80s and early 90s, until the "X Files" TV series sprung to life. With taglines such as "The Truth Is Out There" and "Trust No One", the series posited a world of vast conspiracies and government plots, the common man at the mercy of all manners of ridiculously elaborate schemes. The only way out of the maze? "Fight the future!" as the tagline of the series' final season proclaimed. It was apparently our duty to trawl through the labyrinth of information, discovering some elusive "truth" that ensured our own freedom.

This trend ended with the boom of the internet, conspiracy thrillers now giving way to "conspiracy documentaries". The internet generation lapped up such independent documentaries as "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist", whilst in the mainstream Michael Moore titillated his audience with stuff like "Fahrenheit 9/11". All these documentaries believed in a "secret order", a cabal of wealthy politicians and businessmen who conspire to reduce human rights and enslave the world. They struggle to create a mono-myth, linking various conspiracies and hidden agendas into a single, all encompassing narrative that explains the purpose and point and future of everything.

This need to "streamline narratives", to make them more "efficient", is reflected in the scientific community, who battle to create a "Grand Unification Theory" and ultimately a "Theory of Everything", merging everything from Quantum Mechanics to Special Relativity into one giant all encompassing formula.

So ultimately, the "conspiracy thriller" is rooted in man's desire to have control. The modern subject is one who displays outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies (an unseen Other pulling the strings). This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly related to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other (conspiracy) in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss causes. Conversely, there is no need to take the Big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the Other. We're therefore allowed to display cynicism and belief in equal measures.

Man thus seeks to assert control over a wayward universe, to create a kind of paternal babysitter (be it God, a mathematical formula, a conspiracy theory, an explanation for violence/conspiracies/murder/war etc) who provides meaning and symbolic order. The Big Other provides reassurances to the believer. It's a "lifestyle choice", akin to religion, in which his place in the world is dependent on sheer irrationality.

The problem with most "conspiracy thrillers", from the innocent days of Hitchcock's "Topaz" all the way up to modern fare like "The Da Vinci Code", are two fold. Firstly, they are not incorrect in suggesting that something is "wrong" amongst the "elite" or "best people", but they are incorrect in individualizing and personalizing processes that are social, collective and systemic, an approach which implies that it is just a question of personal morality rather than social structures. Secondly, and most importantly, these "conspiracies" ignore the fact that the Big Other simply doesn't exist. There is no symbolic order pulling the strings.

Some modern "conspiracy thrillers" ("Eyes Wide Shut", "Existenz" etc) acknowledge this, with their untangleable webs of lies, accidents, truths and half truths, nothing ever adding up, nothing ever making sense, the real and the hyperreal, the truth and the desire, all blurred, without any identifiable ground zero, but these are mostly films by intellectual directors.

Compared to these modern "conspiracy thrillers", "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" are positively archaic. "Marathon Man" is a about a grad student (Dustin Hoffman) who gets embroiled in his big brother's business (Roy Scheider), which unfortunately has to do with spies, guns, double agents, diamonds and evil Nazi dentists. Scheider is suave, Hoffman is excellent and Schlesinger hits us with some neat visuals (the reveal of the Eiffel tower is stunning), but what's most interesting about the film is the way that its various plot lines don't intersect until the 1 hour mark. Even then, it takes a further half hour for things to start making sense. Unfortunately, the film ends with a clichéd showdown between the villain and the good guy, everything neatly resolved and explained.

"The Falcon and the Snowman" is a bit more ambitious. Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton play two friends who sell government secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutton works at a civil defence contractor and smuggles information out of his office and into the hands of Penn, a small time drug dealer who has no qualms selling to the KGB. Penn does this strictly for the money, whilst Hutton is disillusioned with the American government (particularly its attempt to depose the leader of Australia) and so sells the secrets strictly because he hates how his country conducts crimes and games of espionage. In other words, the film is about a conspiracy undertaken as a response to conspiracies.

"Marathon Man" – 7.9/10

"The Falcon and the Snowman" – 8/10

Aside from an oddly slapstick car crash and its clichéd ending, "Marathon Man" is an effective thriller, with several neat scenes. "The Falcon and the Snowman" is even better, Penn turning in a memorable performance. Director John Schlesinger's tense and frantic film tells the true story of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee, two young men who sold United States government secrets to the Soviet Union in the early 1970's.

Timothy Hutton plays Christopher Boyce very competently. He is a young man very disillusioned by the CIA's underhanded activities in allied Australia. Sean Penn, as the doped-up, drug running Andrew Daulton Lee, is outstanding.

The competent and professional direction of Schlesinger, along with some very good acting, make "The Falcon and the Snowman" an espionage thriller not to be missed.

Tuesday, February 4, 1992 - Video "The Falcon and the Snowman" is the story of two young men, a CIA employee and a drug dealer, who become disenchanted with United States foreign policy and sell state secrets to the Soviet Union. The events of the film are based on a true story.

Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn are convincing in the lead parts and develop interesting characterizations. The supporting cast also performs well, notably with a performance from David Suchet of Hercule Poirot fame as a seasoned Soviet agent.

The film is generally effective at setting out its premise and developing it and giving a sense of two boys caught in something they did not properly understand going in. However, it does seem overlong and cumbersome at points in the middle. The ending, however, is tense, stunning and effective. There are some catchy rock songs included in the soundtrack, but also unfortunately a repeated mellow synthesizer track that doesn't fit with a spy story. There are other spy films more worth seeking out than "The Falcon and the Snowman", but it is a decent film none the less. this moving was intriguing and absorbing; however, the story was a little choppy and hard to follow at times. Although the two principal actors did a great job, just seeing Senn Penn acting with every fiber of his being and stealing every frame made this a very memorable movie. Later movies have revealed him to be a not just one-role actor: he also showed comedic flair in Sweet and Lowdown. Surprisingly talented and not the light-weight I used to think he was./ Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.

Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****). My father has worked with top secret information in the DIA before and he is the one who mentioned this movie to me. When I was a kid I would always ask him what would happen if he gave away secrets and he recommended this movie.

In the movie it really puts 2, almost completely different FRIENDS! in a tangle they never really knew what the outcome would really be. The snowman, Daulton really cracked me up because the movie portrayed him as just some drug pusher that did not know what he was arguing about, and in the movie it seemed like he got the worst of everything. The falcon, Chris is just a guy that wanted to express his feelings on U.S government in a very radical view.

For movie lovers this is a must see!!! I am not a fan of Sean Penn, but in contrast to my German colleague whose review appears here, I think he was perfectly cast as the neurotic, druggy character in this film. He has every nuance perfected and reminded me of several acquaintances who had similar tastes in "recreational chemistry." I saw this film but once, 10-15 years ago and this is the only part of the film that was etched indelibly on my mind. I don't say it very often, but in this case I will: Bravo, Sean Penn! As for the story line, well, it's based on fact, and as such, it is a tragedy that people would sell their country's secrets to the then enemy. Again, Penn has shown what you can do if you disagree with the administration. Use the freedoms you have, paid for in blood; don't break the law. This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic. True stories make the best stories don't they? There's always something enjoyable about a story, be it novel or movie or whatever, simply by the fact that it's real makes the story all the more fascinating. This movie is based on a true story of two young American men, one a government employee and falcon enthusiast—Chris Boyce (Timothy Hutton)—and the other—Andrew Daulton Lee (Sean Penn)—is a drug dealer. These two begin selling government, mostly CIA, secrets in 1975 to the Soviet Union.

The film focuses on the human aspect of the two men, as well as their growing personal problems (especially Penn's character with ever-worsening drug addictions), rather than glorifying their status as traitors to America, which would, no doubt, hurt the film's credibility in the US. Boyce gradually becomes more cautious and eventually frustrated and paranoid as their dealings drag on and they dig ever deeper into treacherous territory. Daulton becomes more dependent and addicted to cocaine and heroin as he becomes more frightened, and more desperate to maintain control over a situation he has no control over—on top of which, he already has problems with the law. The torment of Boyce and Daulton's families because of the way they lead their lives is also well portrayed and adds well to the idea that espionage against one's country, even if thought to be done justly, leads only to major problems and the ruination of lives—including the degradation of the friendship and trust between the two main characters.

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Hutton and Penn each did extensive research on the characters to capture their individual look and feel, so they're portrayed with extensive depth and realism.

--The acting is excellent.

--The atmosphere of paranoia builds quite well.

--The story is fascinating, and of course, as one based on actual events, it has some added kick.

--Nice sets.

--The Soviets working with the Boyce and Daulton are portrayed very well, and not stereotyped or given evil consciences just for the sake of making them look bad.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--The music is alright, nothing perfect though.

--Sound effects are occasionally a little iffy—such was the case with a lot of films from the seventies through the eighties.

The Bad:

--Chris Boyce (Timothy Hutton) has a relationship with a woman that we hardly know. Because of Boyce's trouble brewing with the US and Soviet Governments, her life can be put in jeopardy—but this isn't as expanded upon as it feels it should've been. Minor problem, though.

The Ugly:

--The apparent simplicity required to sell government secrets is a little unnerving. Nothing like a constant state of unreadiness to keep the masses feeling as unsafe as possible.

Memorable Scene:

--Seeing the first CIA report accidentally sent to the wrong place with the reason being, "rough night."

This was another film that suffered massive delays due to the controversial content of the story. Studios and producers didn't see how a movie about two American traitors could ever be accepted by American audiences. Luckily, it's filmed and portrayed with a high degree of class and quality. Of course, it helps that the traitorous anti-heroes aren't portrayed heroically—more like a couple young men who've made gross errors in judgment in their lives. As such, it becomes a very human drama, and one portrayed very well and very believably.

Acting: 9/10 Story: 10/10 Atmosphere: 8/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Character Development: 9/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 8/10 (little quantity, high quality) Nudity/Sexuality: 2/10 (one scene in a strip club) Violence/Gore: 7/10 (no gore, just some violence) Music: 7/10 Direction: 9/10

Cheesiness: 0/10 Crappiness: 0/10

Overall: 8/10

If you like films about espionage and spies, then you can't go wrong here. If you like dramatic films with a strong focus on the humanity of the characters, then this may also work for you. Highly recommended.

www.ResidentHazard.com ... sings David Bovie in this movie. BUT IT IS!!! It's ALL about America, so don't be ashamed to watch it. Just think, if you can, to prevent more damage... You know, you're just the same regular guy next door, so, be careful! One of the best critics of "common" mind and friendship. Still don't care? Go for it for the music - it's worth a try, just close your eyes and Pat Metheny and David Bowie will touch you so deep you'll start to scream! And while watching, if you'll dare to open your eyes, please don't do the popcorn&stuff, you're gonna miss quite a lot. You may think that it's not worth, but, think twice - and don't look at your neighbours lawn - you never know what to find there... Is It worth? Try it! Just don't die or gloat over it... The Falcon and the Snowman is based on a true story. Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee, (the titular traitors,) played by Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn, received their code- names from the KGB. Why? Boyce was an avid falconer and Lee was a coke head. The movie is based on a true story. It's based on the book of the same name. Another reviewer asked what was their motivation? Disillusionment it ain't. Ideology it ain't. (Pardon my bad grammar,) but I'm making a point here. What was it if it wasn't disillusionment or ideology? In a word, greed. By the time of the Boyce-Lee case, money became the great motivator and not ideology. Don't believe me? Then look at the Walker Family Spy Ring which was broken in the late '80s. Three spies did the worst damage to our national security in the '70s and '80s. John Walker, who began his career as a spy in the '60s, Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee. All three sold out this country for thirty pieces of silver. If you aren't familiar with that phrase, I suggest you read the Bible. Take a young liberal idealist Christopher Boyce (Timothy Hutton) put in a top secret classification in a government front company because of his father's position team him up with a no'count drug dealer Daulton Lee (Sean Penn) who is wanted by the police and needs a new source of income and you have a recipe for espionage. Sean Penn played the part of the punk drug dealer with a certain sang froid probably out of particular verisimilitude with such raunchy types. The gall Penn carries with him in every situation is unique; he even suggests the Soviets run drugs for him.

I've seen the movie over and over again and each time I see something new. It seems to me that a major problem with US spy organizations is its inbreeding which leads to the hiring of an obviously unsuitable candidate by reason of temperament and inclination for a government front company.

I do recall when the Falconeer escaped from prison and led the authorities on a wild goose chase. I see that despite the escape he is now released. A pity the Soviets are no longer around to accept the wretch! A Cheery Cherio! This anime recounts the tale of the Battle for Mamodo King. Every 1,000 years, 100 Mamado children are sent to Earth to fight to determine who will be their next king (in the original Japanese, the creatures are Mamono, which literally means magic/evil object). Each Mamado is paired with a Human partner, and given a magic spellbook. The Human can use this book to unleash incredible powers in the Mamodo, and when a Mamodo is defeated, their spellbook is engulfed in flames (alternately, a Mamdodo's book can be captured and burned directly). After that the Mamodo returns to the Mamodo world.

The titular character is Zatch (Gash in Japan), a 6-year old mamodo with electric powers. He is paired with Kiyomaru Takamini, and 14-year old genius. Zatch is initially reluctant to fight, but learning that some Mamodo are evil and deciding the battle for king is wrong, he decided to fight to become a 'kind king'.

Zatch Bell has drawn comparison to Pokemon, but a better comparison is to Digimon. Like Digimon, the Mamodo and Human have a one to one, symbiotic relationship. Also unlike Pokemon, both shows have an actual plot.

Zatch Bell features character growth and evolving relationships, and some fairly adult story lines (like love vs racism; slavery; mind control; etc.). It even has some decent plot twists and mysteries. I am NOT one to like those Anime Cartoons (eg.Pokemon,Dragonball Z,Naruto), But Zatch Bell is Different in my opinion.Zatch Bell is more Exciting, has better characters, and doesn't focus so much on a sort of weapon or Mamodo as much as the episodes i've seen,Such as it The Episodes "Big Brother Kanchome", "Zatch vs. Kiyo".Zatch Bell Really focuses on the Life of The Strange Zatch,The Smart Kiyo,The Clueless Suzy,and the WeIrD Ponygon.Zatch Bell is probably my Fav Cartoon for now,but I encourage others to watch 1 Episode of it, you'll most likely will like it!

-Robbie H. (aka Vectorman) I just wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the the movie "New Jersey Drive" was my personal favorite off alltime. I admire the work Nick Gomez and Spike Lee put into this masterpiece of a movie. This movie made quite an impression on me because of its realness and its appreciation of detail of life in urban New Jersey. It struck a chord with me, personally, because I grew up with friends like those depicted in the movie. It further made an impression with me because I used to spend time in Teaneck several years ago, so some of the characters were kept "real". At times, this movie seemed like a documentary because you didn't know whether or not these were real events taking place. Although movies like "Boys in the Hood" and "Menace II Society" grab more attention, I personally feel these movies were somewhat "enhanced" to appeal to a broader audience. "New Jersey Drive" was an uncompromising piece of "in your face" reality. Lee and Gomez covered every detail in this urban drama from the music, clothing, slang, and location.Unlike some of the movies I mentioned earlier, the actors performed as if they weren't "actors". Nothing was compromised in order to make good "theater". The only misfortune to come from this movie was the fact that many people "slept" on it. I look forward to more works of art from Nick and Spike in the hopefully near future. Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still" exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle. If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM! This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it. This movie brings to mind "Boys 'n the Hood," "Menace to Society," "South Central" and others of its ilk and even shares actors with some of them. The film's "us vs. the law" mentality is underscored by the all-black neighborhood vs. the nearly all-white police force. Here the cops are so bad they seem like caricatures and in one scene they even ambush the boys as they drive by in a car they've just "liberated" from its owner. It's like a bushwhacking from an old Western, but the contemporary setting makes it look all too real.

The story centers on young Jason Petty and his buddies, to whom school is just an inconvenience that takes time away from their "real occupation" of boosting cars. This happens to be Newark, N.J., a rust-belt city low on jobs but notoriously high on crime. In fact the problem is so severe that the cops all have "Car Theft" written on their backs, to show that an entire unit must be devoted to this particular crime.

The boys use a "slim Jim" to gleefully break into cars and go joy-riding, as if it's no big deal. They only run into real trouble when the police ambush them. The vicious, Nazi-like Lt. has a vendetta against the boys, seeing them not as human beings who might be worthy of redemption, but as human targets. In fact, he's a little reminiscent of that sadistic Nazi officer of the Warsaw ghetto, who shot down Jews for pleasure in the film "Schindler's List." When the boys steal a police car in retribution for the ambush, things predictably go downhill fast. They are severely beaten by the cops and Jason finally ends up in prison. Clearly these are "bad boys," who'd steal your car in a minute, but the film wants us to see them as anti-heroes, showing Jason protecting his sister and his friend taking care of his own grandmother. The film left us wondering whose side to take and who to feel sadder for: the boys whose lives are going down the drain, the honest citizens whose cars are being stolen left and right and who could be caught in the crossfire of a shootout at any moment or the city of Newark itself, the spirit of whose law is being betrayed by brutal, soul-dead cops.

In spite of the over-the-top portrayal of the latter, the film offers a realistic-looking rendering of the ghetto, of the protagonists and their families and of the culture of car theft in a city where there appears to be only 2 career paths - law enforcement and crime. Strangely, the entire subject of drugs is never mentioned.

The filmmakers (including producer Spike Lee) are obviously biased against the Newark police, who, we hope, are not as bad they are portrayed here. Nevertheless, they've given us yet another a strong, affecting story about the inner city and black youth gone awry and Sharron Corley is fine as Jason. I lived in that area (Hoboken and Jersey City)for about ten years. This film certainly captures the feel of that time and place. The dialogue is very good, the music is right and scenarios realistic. As another poster said, it looks almost like a documentary.

I like the way it humanizes these kids, who probably would have rather have been born in Westchester, but fall into what kids fall into. It just so happens that area is pretty rough.

They over-demonize the cops quite a bit, but that's to be expected. I'd say the acting is good all-around, too.

It gives the viewer some sense of how this idiocy is caused and gets blown out-of-proportion. Hopefully, the new mayor of Newark is making progress. WOW I Love this movie. This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies.

Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in broad daylight they obviously don't giva f***

New Jersey Drive is the best hood movie ever. It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second, and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid.

The soundtrack for New Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard through out the movie.

Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a player

If your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack. The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie! I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining. This is just as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence. I liked this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it. Go watch this movie if you get a shot. If they don't have a DVD, they should release one. Well done Nick Gomez. IMDb Rating: 5.9. My Rating: 9/10 This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have. Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as "Cleent" so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme plays it is a dream for all us romantics.

The costumes are lovely; the set decoration makes you wish the "Quarter" was just that way. And that Saratoga still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies gossiping.

From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that industry.

In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals every scene.

But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says "may I say - you are very-beautiful". And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says "yes, isn't it lucky." You want to shout "YES"!!!

One of my all time favorite romantic films. A fantastic movie, and very overlooked. Gary has never been more handsome, and Ingrid is more beautiful than in ANY other film. If you don't believe, just watch the movie. Every cast member is wonderful; the love scenes between Gary and Ingrid will make your pulse race! The story is great, the script is Oscar caliber. Don't miss this film!! "Saratoga Trunk" is a 1945 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. It's based on a 1941 book by the great Edna Ferber. Subconsciously she may have had Gone with the Wind on the brain; parts of the story reminded me of GWTW.

Set in the 1890s, Clio Dulaine is an illegitimate child who returns from New Orleans from France with a mulatto servant (Flora Robson) and a dwarf servant, Cupidon (Jerry Austin). She has given herself a Countess title and claims to be a widow. Her mother killed her father by accident, and his family shunned her. Clio takes over the old homestead with the idea of embarrassing her half-sister and the wife of her father, which she does by calling great attention to herself. Her plan is to marry someone very wealthy who can give her the security and respectability she craves. Then she spots Clint Maroon (Cooper), a Texas gambler, and falls for him. The two have a volatile relationship - and he doesn't have any money, so she can't marry him - so he leaves for Saratoga Springs. Eventually the Dulaine family has enough, and their attorney gives her $10,000 to get out of town. She does. She goes to Saratoga Springs and goes after the owner of the railroad, Bart von Steed. But Clint is always around.

Bergman is beautiful in dark hair and wearing the period costumes, and Cooper is drop-dead gorgeous with that incredible 300-watt smile of his. How she could resist him is beyond me. And the love scenes - whoa, what chemistry! The supporting cast is excellent, Robson and Cupidon creating interesting characters, and Florence Bates giving an excellent performance as a socially prominent woman who takes Clio under her wing, knowing she's a big fake.

The film runs a little long, and some of the acting may seem old-fashioned today, but it's an absorbing story filled with atmosphere and vivid performances. The ending won't come as any surprise. It's a fun journey, though. I gave this movie a 10 simply out of my sick obsession with Ingrid Bergman:) lol. I really think she was the best actress to ever grace this earth with her talent and all of her movies are absolutely wonderful (even when they are awful) because SHE is in them. If it hadn't been her and Vivien Leigh (as it had originally been desired I hear) I would have given it a 9.0 Simply because I love Viv but probably not as much as I love Ingrid. And any other actress would have made it maybe a 6. It's a good story, two wild people falling in love in a society where it bad to be bad. Reminds me a little of GWTW except laced with a more highbrow attitude. Gary Cooper is very handsome as usual and of course his voice never changes the entire film, but hey Ingrid makes him seem so amazing and dashing and 20 times hotter than he probably should be. I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her most radiant in this movie as a brunette.

She plays a beautiful woman who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well.

Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost anything she asks to get her to leave town.

Gary Cooper is good in this film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan Bachelor/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in the film & does it well.

When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the "sulfur" water which everyone considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a face and comments how good it is & that she must have more.

The real history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel, New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan. The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is even some dialog describing Carnagie as a "Scot" though the reference is vague & unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle.

The railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the tunnel is right, it is still "mighty pretty country". I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago.

I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!! I would rate this film high on my list of Ingrid Bergman films. Ingrid's beauty aside, her talent is evident in scene after scene. She was sad, mean, witty,

snobbish, flirtatious, delightfully funny, loving, tender, sorrowful, distressed, happy, etc. You name it, she was all those things and more. -And so

convincing. Ingrid plays a notorious woman (Clio) who comes back to New

Orleans and falls for a Texas gambler, Gary Cooper (Clint). I especially loved the scene where they are sitting at the dining table saying nothing, just staring at each other. She, in an elegant white gown and he in a handsome white cowboy

outfit, sitting there looking at her adoringly. What chemistry! What love! I first saw this movie when I was in elementary school, back in the 1960s. I was fascinated with the character played by Ingrid Bergman and it was my introduction to the French Quarter of New Orleans. The first part of the movie is the best as she comes back to exact some revenge on her father's wife and daughter (her mother had been driven out in disgrace). During this time she meets the wonderful Clint Maroon, played by Gary Cooper. The chemistry between the two is great. The second half of the movie takes place in Saratoga, NY (the Saratoga of the title) and I never enjoy it as much as the New Orleans setting but it's still very good. I give this movie a ten - partly out of nostalgia but mostly because it's just a darn good movie and the characters besides those of Bergman and Cooper are equally wonderful (Flora Robson comes close to stealing the scenes from Bergman). It used to be shown on TV periodically but it's shown rarely if ever - it would be a good one for one of the classic movie stations to pick up and put into their programming cycles. Perhaps this movie is a little too long, but it still has some charm 45 years later. The main roles seem more appropriate for Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. I could care less about Gary Cooper, but Ingrid Bergman is fine, particularly in dark hair. The movie is worth seeing for the supporting cast: Flora Robson is terrific as a mulatto servant. She is a white woman in blackface, and can have an expression of evil or of a voodoo mistress. Jerry Austin as a servant dwarf has a delightful role, that keeps you chuckling despite some overlong scenes. Speaking of scenes, Florence Bates steals most of the ones she is in as a dowager social lady. I didn't understand the outcome of the railroad fight at the end of the movie, and the last scene was pure Hollywood dreck. It's an odd feeling when you realize the film title refers to a railroad rather than a piece of luggage! This short film certainly pulls no punches. The story is of a butcher who wrongfully kills an innocent man who he believes has sexually molested his retarded daughter. The film goes onto depict how the butcher serves his time, and returns to life with his daughter in care, and having to come to terms with a life with no future.

The graphic opening scenes of a horse being slaughtered, and the full frontal birth of the butchers daughter puts you a brutal frame of mind that stays with you throughout the film.

The snappy flow of the film is very direct and adds to its brutality. Consequently alot of ground is covered in the 40 minutes. You are taken in fully with the butchers non-life - particularly after he loses his daughter to social services and his business. His story continues in the excellent film Seul Contre Tous This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society. The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you find in your average cinema. This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.

This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can. The short film which got Gaspar Noe on the movie map, introducing us to his horrific, but thoroughly interesting character The Butcher, played brilliantly by Phillipe Nahon. Noe's direction here has all the hallmarks of his later films, showing he was carving his own voice and style from the beginning. His sudden cutting along with harsh, loud noise, skipping flashbacks and many other techniques all are used to disconcert the viewer. And it certainly works. Also, he is not afraid of showing violence, as viewers of Irreversible will know. Here the violence is equally powerful, and in the sequel Seul Contre Tous, it is almost unbearable.

The film opens with a horse being killed. It is shot in the head, and we watch it writhe on the floor, its pool of blood flowing out. We then see a human birth in all its bloody glory, the daughter of The Butcher. He was orphaned in WWII, and has grown up hating the world, and everyone and everything in it. He serves his customers, but his interior monologue constantly reminds us of his thoughts- he wants them all dead. His daughter Blandine Lenoir, who would also reprise her role six years later, is the only thing he cares about, and we watch them grow older together. She is however mute, and the subject of bullying and toying. The Butcher's relationship with her is almost incestuous, bathing her when she is old enough to do it herself etc,but this is explored more in the next film. When she is attacked by a man, the Butcher explodes with rage, stabbing an innocent man in the mouth. He goes to prison, taken from the only things he wants- his shop and daughter. In the short 40 minutes we see all this and more, his time in prison and release back to his world. Because of his daughter's state, autistic as well i think, she is bland, does little except stare, and is under the full control of her father. The film continues in the exceptionally bleak Seul Contre Tous. If you can, watch these two films, this one first. It has some truly excellent acting, but is very difficult to watch because of the relentless tone.

7 out of 10 I would say that this film is disturbing. The brutality is depicted in a very sick way, it's like a psychosis in 40 minutes. In the same time, it is a cruel introspection in human behavior. The scenes are ferocious, starting with the butchery of the horse and ending with the brutal sex scene in the kitchen. Every emotion is exploited to extreme, the frustration of the butcher, the love for his daughter almost incestuous, the rage when he finds out she has been abused, every feeling is so natural and so wrong. This film delivers the truth about human nature in a very honest and brutal way. The message of the film is that one's life can change in a second as a consequence of one's behavior and that the most primitive emotions are the most powerful and can determine one's acting. I'd loved the unique manner of filming, the simplicity and the brutality accompanied with the silence in which only inner thoughts pierce through. This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard. Garbo's first spoken words in this 1930 film electrified audiences and became part of Hollywood legend. Garbo had become a star in her first American film, The Torrent, in 1926. And audiences waited til this film to see if Garbo could make the transition to talkies. She did. And while Pola Negri, Vilma Banky, and Renee Adoree fell by the wayside because of their accents, Garbo sailed on for another decade. Despite the staginess of this film, Garbo is really excellent, especially in the opening scene with the equally great Marie Dressler as Marthy. The two great stars trade dirty looks and sharp words as they size each other up while they have a few drinks and set the tone for the remainder of the film. Garbo was 25; Dressler was 60. Charles Bickford is OK as Matt, and George F. Marion is good as Old Chris. Marion originated this role on Broadway in 1922 and also played it in the 1923 silent version with Blanche Sweet. This Eugene O'Neill play is a true classic yet, oddly, was never filmed again. Anna Christie ranks as one of Garbo's greatest performances. And despite the staginess of the film and the grimness of the story, she is truly a marvel. See this one for Garbo and Dressler! 78 years ago...the premiere of "Anna Christie" advertised by the slogan "Garbo Talks!" The film runs for 16 minutes and the viewers reach the climax of curiosity: Greta enters the bar and gets through a long awaited transfer from silence into sound: a few seconds closing her silent era and, at last, Greta Garbo says a historic line: "Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side and don't be stingy, baby!"

"Anna Christie" (1930) is the movie by Clarence Brown that introduced a great silent star Greta Garbo to talkies. Nowadays, we can only imagine what serious transfer it was for actors and actresses. The careers of many were bound to end - something we hardly or not at all see at present. And it was no coincidence that it was Clarence Brown who directed the first talkie with the Swedish beauty. Garbo trusted the director after two of his great silent productions, FLESH AND THE DEVIL (1926) and A WOMAN OF AFFAIRS (1928): movies that achieved a smashing success at the box office, both with Garbo in the lead.

But we are in 2008 and that fact about the movie, now purely historical, appears to be of minor importance. The question for today's viewer is not what Garbo's voice sounds like but if the movie is still watchable after these 78 years. In other words, we all strive to answer the question if the movie has stood a test of time. Has it?

When I recently watched it, I came into conclusion that, except for some minor technical aspects, including static camera, "Anna Christie" is still very entertaining. It's, on the one hand, a wonderful story of a life, of a reality that the young woman faces (being based on Eugene O"Neill's play), and, on the other hand, an artistic manifestation of true magnificence in the field of direction and acting. Let me analyze these two aspects in separate paragraphs.

CONTENT: Chris Christopherson (George F Marion), a heavy drinker, lives a life of a sailor, on a barge. Although his days are filled with sorrows, he is consoled by a letter from his daughter Anna (Garbo) whom he hasn't seen for 15 years. She says that she will come back to him. He starts to change everything for better; however forgets that his daughter is no longer a child lacking experience but a 23 year-old woman who has got through various sorts of things on a farm in Minnessota where she lived and worked. Moreover, he forgets that she has a right to accept another kind of male love in her life... This brief presentation of the content not from the perspective of the main character but the one which is introduced to us sooner than Anna (her father Chris) makes you realize how universal it is. Simply no letter from the whole text that life appears to be has been erased after all these years. Cases discussed here in 1930 are still meaningful and valid...

PERFORMANCES. There are not many characters in the movie, but there are two that really shine in the roles. It is of course Greta Garbo herself who did something extraordinary in her 15 year-long phenomenon, the presence that strongly marked the history of early cinema (something I have already discussed in many of my earlier comments on her films). But here, Garbo is slightly different. I admit that there are moments in this movie when she does not feel very comfortable with her role. That seems to be caused by her new experience with sound in English; however, her performance is, as always, genuine and unique. But that is what everyone has expected from Garbo. The true surprise of the movie for the 1930 viewers and also for us is Marie Dressler as Marthy. She is excellent in her facial expressions, in her accent, in the entire portrayal of a drinking woman who looks at life from the perspective of "hitting the bottle." Her best moments include the conversation with Anna Christie in the bar preceded by her hilarious talk with Chris. The rest of the supporting cast are fine yet not great whatsoever (here the German version makes up for it). Particularly Dressler, except for Garbo herself, constitutes an absolutely flawless choice.

If you asked me what I like about "Anna Christie" nowadays, that's what I would tell you: it's a classic movie. However, there is one more thing that I must mention at the end. It is humor, wonderful wit that is noticeable throughout. Although the content is quite serious and "Anna Christie" in no way carries a comedian spirit (the only Garbo's comedy was NINOTCHKA), there are such moments when you will split your sides. Don't skip, for instance, Anna and Matt's visit in the fun park, particularly at the restaurant where he orders milk for her thinking how virtuous and innocent she is, beer for himself and where suddenly Marthy joins them by chance...

"Anna Christie" is a perfect movie for classic buffs and a must see for all at least a bit interested in the true magnificence of performance. If you are fed up with many of those modern starlets, seek such movies out and you shall be satisfied. Very worth your search!

Skaal Greta Garbo! Skaal Marie Dressler! Let us drink a toast to the great jobs you did in the movie! Skaal after all these years when wine tastes much better and your spirits are with us in a different sense... For Greta Garbo's first talking picture, MGM wisely chose Eugene O'Neill's Pultizer Prize winning 1921 play ANNA Christie.

Also wisely, the producers backed Garbo up with not one but two members of the Original Broadway Cast (George Marion as Anna's father, Chris, and James T. Mack as Johnny the Priest - transmuted to "Johnny the Harp" for films so as not to offend).

This little change is interesting. Like too many films accused (by those who want MOVIES to be MOVIES and ignore their origins) of being "little more than filmed stage plays," the problem is not the play but the movie makers who wouldn't be more faithful to the property. By diluting a great cinematic stage work so it wouldn't offend anyone, or opening it up because they COULD, too many lose the very qualities which made the piece worth filming in the first place.

Fortunately, the respect the studio had for both O'Neill and Garbo allowed ANNA Christie to survive the normally destructive process admirably in Frances Marion's generally sensitive screen adaptation. Wonder of wonders, Marion even allows the POINT of the scene where Garbo's Anna reveals her past on "the farm" to the man she badly wants to marry and the father who sent her there in tact! What the League of Decency must have thought of that!

The source play's greatest problem has always been that Chris's friend Marthy tends to walk away with the first act and then disappears from the last two so that Anna can take stage - the two sides of the genuinely good woman men don't always recognize.

The perfectly cast Marie Dressler (who had cut her teeth on the Broadway stage as well before going to Hollywood) is the perfect balance for Garbo's Anna in this area as well and the fast moving film at only 90 minutes, doesn't allow us too much time to miss her - one of the few benefits from atmosphere being shown rather than eloquently described in the original - AND screenwriter Marion is wise enough to stray from O'Neill to bring Dressler back for a touching scene two thirds of the way through the film that will remind many of Julie Laverne's second act appearance in SHOW BOAT.

Anna and Marthy's early scene together on screen (16 minutes into the film) taking each other's measure and setting up all the tension of the rest of the story is among the most affecting scenes in the entire piece. Not to be missed.

ANNA Christie is great tragic play and a good film drama. It's hard to imagine that a latter day remake, which would almost certainly lose the grit and atmosphere of this 1930 remake (it was first filmed without sound in 1923 - also with George Marion's original Broadway Chris) could improve on this excellent filming.

The internal scenes hew closest to the play, but the exteriors shouldn't be missed by anyone with an eye to atmosphere. While the background screen work is not to modern technical standards, the backgrounds give a better glimpse than most films of the era of the actual world in which the screen play is set (especially in the New York harbor).

Nearly all Garbo's naturalistic performances of the sound era have held up superbly (only the too often parodied death scene from CAMILLE, 7 years later, will occasionally draw snickers because of the heavy handed direction and the parodies), but this ANNA Christie, together with the variety of her 1932 films, MATA HARI and GRAND HOTEL, and the sublime Lubitsch touch on her 1939 comedy, NINOTCHKA ("Garbo laughs!"), surely stand as her best.

O'Neill fans who are taken with this play at the edge of his lauded "sea plays," should track down the fine World War II shaped film released in the year before the U.S. entered the conflict, THE LONG VOYAGE HOME (1940). It is almost as skillfully drawn from those sea plays as this one is from ANNA Christie, and features a youngish John Wayne in one of his rare non-Westerns supporting a fine cast of veteran actors showing him the way. I'd read all the negative reviews for "Anna Christie". You know, the gripes about the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless.

I believe "Anna Christie" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her. Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from Garbo.

The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all.

Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior) leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful "Dinner At Eight". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as Garbo's father.

This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still wonderful. And with those words one of the great movie publicity campaigns came to a conclusion. 'Garbo Talks' and she spoke those words in her first sound film, an adaption of the Eugene O'Neil play Anna Christie.

Unlike with some other players and some other studios, MGM took great care in finding the proper vehicle for Greta Garbo. Many players who were fine in the universal medium of silent film would lose their careers because of talkies. Their heavy native accents would get in the way, some didn't know any English.

It was no accident that Anna Christie was chosen for Garbo. First of all it being authored by one of America's leading playwrights, it was the kind of literary property that would have appealed to her. Secondly since the title role was someone who was Swedish, the accent could be explained. Finally a lot of the kinks from early talkies had been worked out, even though Anna Christie still made use of title cards.

Like most of O'Neil's work it's short on action, but long and deep on characterization. The story takes place on the New York waterfront where Garbo as Anna has come to live with her father George Marion. Marion ran away to sea years ago when Anna was a baby and Marion abandoned his wife. Anna has had to do what she could to survive in the adult world and that includes prostitution.

Marion of course is glad to see her, he even kicks out Marie Dressler, the old waterfront crone he's been living with for years to make room for his flesh and blood. Of course both Marion and Garbo have their problems adjusting to each other, not made easy when they give shelter to a sailor played by Charles Bickford who takes a fancy to Garbo.

Marion is repeating his role from the original Broadway production. The role of Anna on stage was done by Pauline Lord. Anna Christie ran for 177 performances in the 1921-22 season on Broadway. It's one of O'Neil's best known works and one that's revived frequently.

Of course Garbo's performance with perfect diction even with a Swedish accent was acclaimed and her future in sound films was assured. Greta Garbo received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and the film also got nominations for Clarence Brown as Best Director and William Daniels for Cinematography. Daniels should especially get a lot of kudos for the way he photographed the waterfront scenes. And Brown created the mood around the waterfront where the film is set.

Eugene O'Neil's work is timeless so Anna Christie even with a lot of the trappings of early sound films does not date the way many films of that era do. Garbo also shows she mastered the subtlety needed to work in the sound medium. Anna Christie is a classic, all the way around. This film is worthwhile despite what you may hear. The performance of Marie Dressler (I hope I am spelling it right) as a drunken old sot is reason enough to see this film. It is an amazing performance. She is in a drunken stupor in three scenes for a good long while and she never does the same thing twice. You can actually smell the alcohol when she is done. Amazing. And Greta of course speaks her first lines on film and shes great. The Eugene O'Neill story is solid and like most O'Neill stories, very deep and intense. This is not light entertainment but if you appreciate those great character actors from the 30's and 40's you will like it. Some of the film is technically fuzzy but all in all worthwhile. Anna Christie (1930)

Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama. Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches.

Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era).

Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting, just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her enough that she made a German language version the following year. Greta Garbo stars in 'Anna Christie', a very early 1930 MGM 'talkie', the first time 'Garbo Talks'. 'Anna Christie' is a powerful movie but not for everyone. The movie is filmed like a stage play, short on sets and cinematography, long on dialogue and dramatic characterizations. Eugene O'Neil who wrote the play 'Anna Christie' is known for his dark work and Garbo's character Anna Christie is a bleak figure with a tortured past.

The sound quality on the DVD was mediocre. Not helping matters is that George F. Marion who plays Anna's estranged dad, Chris Christofferson, is verbally hard to understand. Marion gives a good performance as the old drunken seamen who’s teetering on insanity with his fixation of the evil 'devil sea'. But his dialogue is written with a very heavy Swedish accent, this is true to O'Neils original play. Marie Dressler's dialogue as Marthy Owens is equally hard to understand. Dressler believably portrays a broken down old drunken women, a 'wharf rat'. Her dialogue also is true to O'Neils original play as is Charles Bickford as the Irish seamen, Matt Burke who pursues Anna in a troubled relationship. Garbo is actually the easiest to understand.

The films strong point is Greta Garbo. She delivers a gut wrenching performance as the victim of neglect and abuse, leading to a life of prostitution. Garbo was a huge star at the time and considered one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Here her look isn't glamorous, it's tortured. Her body posture nearly doubles over in agony. She scrunches her face to become a pathetic creature on the screen. Garbo conveys these angst-ridden feelings to the viewer to convince us of her misery.

This is dark subject matter and Garbo brings it to life. It’s not light fare, not fun, not for everyone. ‘Anna Christie’ is strong emotions dredged up from the depths for examination, this is one helluva ride. Viewing both of these films concurrently is not a bad idea to get a sense of early film production and acting for the camera styles. I give the nod to Garbo(but not by much)in regard to her naturalness. Robeson is majestic. But his performance is aimed for a large proscenium theater. Something else that struck me was the movies themes of empowerment for women and minorities. There hadn't been any films coming out of Hollywood yet that allowed the voices of marginal characters like Anna and Brutus to take the foreground. These were very progressive films for their time. It's quite probable that O'Neill saw the writing on the wall way before everyone else did about the future of America. 'Anne Christie' was Garbo's 14th film and the first in which her husky Swedish voice was heard. She plays the lead character, Anna, who has struggled with being abandoned by her father Chris (a drunken barge owner played by George F Marion), and with the misfortune of the life she has has to lead to keep her head above water.

Meeting Irish Matt (Charles Bickford) may mark the turning point for her ... or does it? Garbo looks and sounds great in this drama which, although looking rather clunky and moving at a slow pace, still manages to interest and engage an audience nearly 80 years later. Marie Dressler makes an impact in the role which gave her a second flush of movie success in films such as Min and Bill, Dinner at Eight, and Emma; while Marion and Bickford are more than adequate.

An interesting slice of movie history. Garbo would do better talkies in the years following, but 'Anna Christie' will always be remembered for the first time she talked on screen. The magnificent Greta Garbo is in top form in this, her first talkie. She gets fine support from the rest of the cast which includes Charles Bickford the rugged sailor who captures her heart. Ms. Garbo gives a great performance as she usually does as the estranged daughter of a sea captain who returns after fifteen years. Also in the cast is that great actress Marie Dressler. A great movie! 039: Anna Christie (1930) - released 2/21/1930; viewed 3/10/06

On October 24, 1929: Black Thursday, the stock market crashes. Now the country and indeed the world will look to Hollywood for escape from the worldwide Great Depression.

BIRTHS: Anne Frank, June Carter, Yasser Arafat, Bob Newhart, Barbara Walters, Doris Roberts, Ed Asner, Dick Clark, Roy E. Disney, Gene Hackman.

DOUG: At long last, our Odyssey resumes in earnest with Greta Garbo's first sound film, a simple character study called Anna Christie. An excellent performance from Ms. Garbo, who showed right off the bat that her talents could carry over from the silent era (I wanted to see some of her silent work, but Netflix doesn't seem to be stocking them. How odd). One thing I noticed over and over was the way the Swedish accent sounds, like replacing the letter J with a Y sound. Anna ends up being the only character I liked; I didn't really care for her estranged father or her would-be suitor. It looks like the sound-recording systems are getting better (nobody leaning in to talk into the mystery-can), but the camera still isn't moving. We'll be sure to watch for that to change as our odyssey continues.

KEVIN: Our first film of the 1930's is the first sound film of silent starlet Greta Garbo, Anna Christie. This is a very simple movie, with only about five different locations where we spend long stretches of the film's 89 minute running time, often with a static camera. It was great to see Marie Dressler in sound as well, and quite hilarious as what we hear is an endless chain of heartfelt yet inebriated slurs. I very much enjoyed Garbo's performance, as she sustains the film through even the most meandering moments. I didn't really like George Marion or Charles Bickford, maybe because I wasn't sympathetic to either of them, so I was relieved and excited when Anna finally stands up for herself and shows them that she doesn't "belong" to either her estranged father or her muscle-bound Irish boyfriend. It's also great to see that renowned silent screenwriter Frances Marion hasn't missed a step going from silent to sound.

Last film viewed: Speedy (1928). Last film chronologically: The Love Parade (1929). Next film: The Blue Angel (1930). Viewed this GREAT Classic film of Greta Garbo and thought her performance was excellent. However, the German film version which had English captions was her greatest performance. Greta Garbo even mentioned to the press that the German film was her favorite where she had to make the change from Silent films to sound. Greta had a high pitched voice and had to take lessons in order to lower her voice for her future roles in films. This story was very sad because Greta Garbo(Anna Christie),"Ninotchka",'39, was abused on a farm by young boys and her father left her years ago as a sailor and then as a coal barge captain. There were many scenes of Old NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge, Coney Island and the sky line of Manhattan. Charles Bickford(Matt Burke),"Days of Wine & Roses",'62 a Classic veteran actor gave a great supporting role. i loved the great lighting and was warmed by this story of American working class society and seaport life in the first half of the 20th century. i was drawn in by the timeless watchability of this realistic performance. see and feel the star power. melancholic "greek" comedy. Anybody in the mood for a shot with a beer back?...or a little ginger? Hey, waterboy !! This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an' Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching. Recommended. This World War II Popeye cartoon had some very good sight gags in it, and its decidedly above-average for its genre. It was nicely drawn, too, with some great angles, good detail and....well, lots of interesting sights.

What it amounts to is Popeye out at sea in his little boat and accidentally running into a small Japanese boat, with two guys on it. (Incidentally, why were the "Japs" always pictured with big, round glasses and bucked teeth?).

Anyway, these harmless-looking Japanese sailors want Popeye to sign a peace treaty. Oh, boy, thinks the gullible Popeye, "wait until the Admiral sees this!" In one of those great artwork scenes I was alluding to above, we slowly see how that little Japanese ship is really a big destroyer.....and Popeye is in deep....um, water! "Why, you double-crossing Ja-pansies!," yells our Sailor Man.

How he gets out of the situation is fun to watch. If you are very sensitive when it comes to extreme racial stereotypes, this cartoon is not for you. But if you are strongly interested in seeing a rare piece of wartime animation, come on in!

In this cartoon, Popeye is patrolling the seas and discovers what looks like a Japanese fishing boat. The two Japanese fishermen trick Popeye into thinking that they want a peace treaty signed. But looks can be deceiving; the fishing boat turns out to be a Japanese navy ship! What follows is considered today to be morale-boosting propaganda.

Be forewarned, the representations of the Japanese in the film are done in a mean-spirited fashion. Keep in mind, though, that there was a war going on at the time. But I strongly recommend this cartoon to those who are interested in the WWII era. THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league.

THESE are the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's "acceptable" language, mores and general "standards" of "proper" behavior.

SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films.

COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy, feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these "Thought Police" have foisted down upon us.

WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer & Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like. Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney, Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer.

YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP (Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what we're talking about.

BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941 business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of "Famous" Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula short movie.

WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and invariably blurts out, "Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?" At this point we hear "Help! Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky.

OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any "Great Metropolitan Newspaper". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations, have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability.

OUR liberal stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners.

PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past happenings that is both Historical and Humorous.

POODLE SCHNITZ!! If it were possible to award a 10+ .... this would be the one film I would choose.

I remember catching this film on TV many, many years ago - and fortunately being prepared enough to video it. Now my video copy is getting old, video technology is outdated and I'm starting to worry that I may not be able to enjoy the delights of this movie for much longer.

As a wildlife film it is superb. As a film about the relationship between man and nature it surpasses anything screened before or since. How can the film industry allow such a classic to go unnoticed and forgotten? If such a thing as a lobby/pressure group exists to push for the re-release of this film, count me in and send me the details pronto.

My guess is there's a mint to be made by anyone able to re-release this in today's market. I saw this movie alone when i was an early teen in my hometown in India, at a time when the only thing that fascinated me aside from girls were Tigers. I came home after watching it, with a glazed look in my eye, wanting to be that bloke in the movie that befriended the Tigers. What a movie and what a moment that was! The theatre I saw it in does not exist any and has given way to a shopping mall. I don't know how i'd feel about it now after so many years and do not want to spoil a childhood memory by finding this movie available on DVD or something similar and not finding it interesting anymore. I have learned from previous experience that a childhood memory is often tarnished when one travels life's jaded highways occasionally trying to rediscover their unadulterated past by way of movies, only to find its gushing innocence completely soppy and not welcome anymore. And I do not want to throw away the experiences of a memory of this movie into the wind. I do not have kids, so i probably am being selfish in leaving this movie in a sepia toned area of my brain, not wanting it on DVD. But if you are at a precocious age and want to recollect in later years memories of an endearing childhood, try to watch this film(if you can ever). It'll be really worth it. This film is one of the best memories I have from childhood. Having always loved Tigers my Mum took me to see it.

It is absolutely amazing. Its is one of those films that leaves a lasting impression on you. The image of Tigers running through the snow with it all spraying around is still in my head some 25 yrs on, not many films have managed that, As other comments have said photography is stunning. A must see. I have also been looking for the film for some time with no luck at all. :-(. Checking Amazon every now and then reveals nothing, not even listed. If anyone does know of a source, please contact me or post here. Tim I remember this film,it was the first film i had watched at the cinema the picture was dark in places i was very nervous it was back in 74/75 my Dad took me my brother & sister to Newbury cinema in Newbury Berkshire England. I recall the tigers and the lots of snow in the film also the appearance of Grizzly Adams actor Dan Haggery i think one of the tigers gets shot and dies. If anyone knows where to find this on DVD etc please let me know.The cinema now has been turned in a fitness club which is a very big shame as the nearest cinema now is 20 miles away, would love to hear from others who have seen this film or any other like it. I collect films on Super-8, and managed to snag a full length print of this one last week on E-bay. It looks like at least for the moment, this is the only way to see this film in a country having NTSC video. I have seen it available on Region 2 DVD many times, but never Region 1.

I just finished watching it a few minutes ago and I am amazed by it. It's a powerful testament to freedom and finding your own place in the world. The photography and music were wonderful, and I really felt empathy for some of the characters.

I kind of like the idea that I was probably the only one in the USA watching "When the North Wind Blows" tonight!

Long Live Avakum!! I managed to obtain an original BBC broadcast of this film on video and loved it so much I had to try and locate the original video in its original box; thanks go to Ebay.

Deleted on any format since 1990, this exceptional wildlife film is finely constructed and well acted. Directed by Stewart Raffil (MAC & Me), the scenes of leaping Tigers running through the Alaskan wilderness is nothing short of stunning and its timeless tale of a trapper trying to survive on his own in the frozen wastes with two young tiger cubs is moving on each viewing.

Why no major company has picked up this movie to distribute on DVD is a big wonder; but makes it that extra special to know its also hard to locate.

If you find this film by chance or eventually track it down to add to your collection, make sure never to let it vanish out of your grasp. Films of this calibre, as shown, don't come often.

A true masterpiece in every sense of the word, and highly worthy of its praised comments, "WHEN THE NORTH WIND BLOWS" will sink deep into your heart as soon as you see it. This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious.

Back in the village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however, and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering "lynch mob" and goes out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story begins.

A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well as a couple of folk music type tunes.

Unfortunately, this film is not available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own, recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8/10 Another "must have" film. Henry Brandon is a favorite! I was so surprised when I learned years ago that he was from Germany because he sounds & looks so typically American! And wasn't he great in "The Searchers" as Chief Scar??!! Another of my favorites, I have it & watch it over & again. Now if I could add this one to my collection, it would make my day! This is a great wildlife story & film for all ages. The scenery is so absolutely beautiful & the plight of the endangered snow leopards is told with such great emotion it will spark the interest in endangered species in anyone, especially children. If I could I would give a copy to all of my grands & great grands! I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie.

By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)

If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?

Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.

Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo/Brazil There are many things to admire about this film, but the thing that got me above all others was the part of an eccentric recluse, the sort of role that Hollywood loves & romanticizes but which here is absolutely convincing & unlike any character I've encounterd in film or in life. Also a very convincing & disturbing depiction of Tourete's syndrome Henry Thomas, and Robin Tunny, are a couple of the most underrated performers in the business. It's beyond me as to why they haven't received more recognition than they have. This movie is a perfect example of how boundless their abilities are.

Acting out the lives of folks who could be referred to as a bit odd seems to be their speciality, and if these characters ain't odd, I'm at a loss to find anyone who is.

The story is funny, romantic, dramatic, complicated, and tragic. I hated the ending, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have loved the story as a whole. So there ya go. Niagara, Niagara is a stunning and heartbreaking story about the two outsiders Seth and Marcy. Robin Tunney gives a fantastic performance as Marcy suffering from Tourette's Sydrome, getting sicker and sicker as the movie progresses. This movie is not very optimistic and it's very hard emotional, but at the same time very romantic. It's hard to explain, but see it and find out for yourself. It's definitely worth it. Wow! I caught this on IFC recently after I watched But Im A Cheerleader. Id never heard of this movie but the description sounded remotely interesting. I went in with low expectations and now I must say this is one of the best love stories ever in film. Robin Tunney does an excellent job portraying a person with tourettes. The relationship between the two and just the slightest details in the film are so acurate and believable. I usually hate "romance" and love films but this movie truly touched me. I so recommend this movie to anyone with the ability of vision. Not only is this a very interesting exploration of Tourette's and how we react to people in our lives, it has some of the most well-filmed views of a bleak northern winter landscape. There's nothing pretty about this film, but it stays with the viewer. This movie is truly worth seeing - Robin Tunney excels and Henry Thomas proves that he's one of those rarities, the child 'actor' who grows up to become a real actor. The characters are perfectly drawn, and in the wrong hands because of their depth, they could have been unconvincing - but all the actors are simply astounding. The cast of this movie has to rank up there with that of "Girl, Interrupted" (both movies coincidentally star the brilliant Clea Duvall). The score and music selections fit perfectly, and there is plenty of action to prevent the movie becoming just a character study. If you want the story, you won't find it in this review, but I will say that the climax will haunt you for a long time. I like movies about quirky people. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is maybe my all time favorite, so one can imagine I had a blast with this one. It's definitely not one to watch if you want to walk off smiling. This movie is unpredictable and intense. Some scenes are downright frightening, even after multiple viewings (because this kind of stuff really can happen). It will most definitely keep you on the edge of your seat for the whole ride. And after you see the ending, if you're not deeply disturbed, you really should check yourself for a pulse.

The acting was phenomenal. Marcy, with her rather extreme case of tourette's, shifts from quirky-cute to utterly terrifying, sometimes appearing so out-of-control that she looks like the undead. Seth was great, too. The focus of the movie definitely does not fall nearly as much on him as it does on Marcy, though he happens to be the one that gains the most momentum as a blossoming character.

It's a classic love story with some unconventional twists, and it's also my favorite love story next to "True Romance." There are two bad reviews for it up here, but one of the people who gave such a review didn't have his facts straight and admitted to not seeing the whole film, while the other was just looking for some Hollywood thrills without the deep characters (and perhaps was a little thrown off by the apparent shallowness of the plot, seeing as the end goal revolves around stealing a black bobbi head from a toy store). The point is that this movie is not for those who want to see something "normal" or "lighthearted". This one is messed up and indie as can be, and won't let you go until the heavy climax. I have watched this movie time and time and time again - each time it makes me laugh, it makes me think, and it makes me cry. Robin Tuney does an incredible job of portraying Marcy (and I'm kind of glad that Kate Winslet and that other lady turned down her part) its just one of those rolls that you know that no one else could have even compared.

Its a beautiful love story of these 2 very different people in crappy situations that team up together. They stand beside each other no matter what, even if it is in an odd situation and crazy ways.

I'll tell you now its not for everyone - out of everyone I've shown it to I'd say the results are 50/50 - but if you like it, you'll love it and want to share it with others! 10 stars all the way! I tuned in to this movie because there was nothing else to watch. I was immediately sucked in by the characters.

Robin Tunney is nothing less than spectacular in this film. Her portrayal of a mentally ill woman is both moving and 100% believable. Really, this sort of thing is not easy to do. She pulls it off fantastically.

We know early on this film is going to end tragically, but you cannot take your eyes off of it. The characters do stupid things, but unlike most Hollywood movies where people do stupid things because the plot demands it, these people do stupid things because the are not right in the head - and the things they do are completely consistent with their characters.

This is just a great example of film making IMHO. Great writing, great acting, great directing. A film for people who think film can be more than mindless entertainment. Niagra Niagra was certainly not the best movie I have seen. However., I cannot describe the way the movie made me feel while watching it and how I felt as it ended and also how I feel about it now. Very few movies have such an effect on me. I like them or I do not. I look at Niagra Niagra as a work of art. We all see something in it and it may remind us of something or it may instill fear or fun etc... This movie had me in not the best mood. In fact it left me feeling empty somehow. I guess because the lives these two persons led were so empty in so many ways. They had no direction. Their only direction was to have no direction. They had many problems to deal with and I guess needed to get away from what could not have been a happy life. But on the way things really only got worse. A steady decline from where it started. It was sad as it was so well acted and I guess we have all most likely seen someone in some situation that may in some way resemble the situation these folks were in. They might have had a good life if they had any idea how. But it Wes clear they did not know what to do. So they kind of Rambled to someplace they had heard about. No real goal. They had no idea how to have a goal. They had no idea how to overcome the life that was set before them. I felt bad but could not stop watching the movie. Only good actors can make me feel so much about a movie that I would not like if just anyone played the parts. These two did a great job to the point you just did not see the acting. I am very impressed and want to buy the movie when it is available on DVD. You know. It left me feeling a little like Leaving Los Vegas did. But again it is in a class of its own. Not a great movie but well worth an hour or two on the right day. If you are a person who has problems I would not suggest you watch it. It could depress you. It depressed me and I have not the conditions these folks had. JimmyJoeJetter Because it's late and i'm running short on vocabulary, i will describe this film as "beautiful and heartbreaking," begging the forgiveness of those who cringe at such cliches. Robin Tunney does an amazing job portraying a young woman in the clutches of tourette's syndrome - her character was absolutely sincere and convincing, and i will follow her career wherever it goes because of this film. I really liked this picture, because it realistically dealt with two people in love, and one of them having a disorder. Though the ending saddened me, I know that that was the best way for it to finish off. I would recommed this to everyone. One of the best movies I ever saw - a classic "Matrix" movie. For many years, I have been trying to get it on VHS or DVD - to no avail. The German movie/TV industry still prefers to let valuable cultural contributions (and this is Fassbinder, after all!) rot away and collect dust in some archive rather than distribute it commercially (and make a lot of money with it if that is what stimulates them instead of the promotion of creative thinking). Though, the WDR once told me if I paid DM 200.00 to check the copyright (non-reimbursable), and then DM 8 per minute of copying, plus the cost for the materials, then they will consider preparing a (single!) copy for me. Some way to sell something! The same problem we have with many other TV movies or series like "So weit die Füße tragen", "Sonntagseltern", "Kellerkinder", and others. Excellent TV series - never to be heard of again. Germany, wake up!

UPDATE from March 2007: Last year, I finally could get a DVD copy from the "Mittschnittservice" of the WDR for about 50+ Euro. Great! In these days of ultra-fast processors and the Internet, coming up with a movie like "The Matrix" may seem merely the next step from coining the term 'cyberspace', but do you remember what computers were like in 1974? Right. To come up with the notion of virtual reality back then is truly an amazing feat of the imagination. Fassbinder's movie, of course, has none of the massive gunslinging and pyrotechnics, and a lot of 'artsy' elements instead, but the atmosphere it creates is intense and poses the question how we can know what is real in a dark and gripping manner, making this a chiller and a thriller for the mind. It also takes it up a notch on more recent VR stories: if you get out of one cyberspace, can you be sure you didn't just emerge into another level of virtual reality? When I saw this film the first time I was very impressed concerning the kind of atmosphere the director creates. It is also very interesting to see how they imagine the near future in the year 1974. If you see the film you will see a lot of sets and customs which are called freaky and modern again today.

The topic of the film deals with the old question "What is real and what is illusion?". If you see "The Matrix" you will find a lot of similarities. But the two films are not comparable at all because "Welt am Draht" is art and "The Matrix" is entertainment. If prefer the first one.

Unfortunately I lost my video copy of it.

During my teens or should I say prime time I was "eating up" all kinds of SF novels every day of the week. It was in the Sixties and Seventies when TV was not such a important leisure time killer like today, one night in the mid seventies I watched the movie on TV I think it was ARD and I was stunned. I was impressed in a way that I can almost remember each scene even today.

Nowadays I observe my kids playing the SIMS or something like that and I think we are close to what that Fassbender Movie expressed. I also would highly appreciate if I could buy this movie on a DVD. But in vain I tried almost everything to get a hint where. The movie MATRIX cannot touch by far the quality and the state of art of this movie. And by the way by now we do not have a glue if we were a superior reality or just one of a couple simulation models. Probably after our death we definitely will know... The SF premise isn't unique (although it pretty much was back then), but the focus is a completely different one than in other artificial reality films. Especially during the first part it is an elaborate crime picture, that uses the SF premise to tell an unusual crime story in which the forced detective tries to solve a mystery with the obstacle of vanishing characters and unhelpful witnesses who don't have to lie to be unhelpful. Instead of an unreliable narrator we have an unreliable world.

In part two we follow the main character's struggle for sanity and it turns more into a psychological examination of a character in an extreme situation. He knows his very existence is nothing more than electrical impulses, how does he deal with this knowledge? He knows that there is a world that is more real than his, but he is trapped in an artificial world, a world where nobody can understand him. The problem of thinking of knowing something essential about the world that nobody else knows or wants to believe is a very real one that many of us can identify with. For me the film transports this hopelessness very well, with its dreary, artificial atmosphere which also supports the factual artificiality of the film's world.

Other than 'The Matrix' or 'The Thirteenth Floor' it's little concerned with evoking a sense of awe for its artificial reality plot, instead it very much focuses on the psychological aspects. Philosophy is only in so far interesting in that certain philosophical concepts are essential in how they shape and alter the character's perception of the world.

Arguably it is longer than it has to be (which isn't a problem if you are as captivated by it as I was) and part 2 runs pretty low on steam. It is an interesting fact that metaphysics by Platon and Aristoteles, formal logic and abstract ontology form about those sciences that most people are not interested in. But then, around one thousand years after Aristoteles, the computer began to usurp the human thinking, and the humans who were refusing to reflect questions of being other than biological, physical and chemical ones, suddenly felt paralyzed because they could not cope with the consequences that this computers would bring "over night". R.W. Fassbinder's "Welt Am Draht", together with Tarkovsky's "Solaris" and Godard's "Alphaville", is probably the first movie who took the philosophical questions of emerging computer science as a basis of a story to be told in a movie. The confusing questions about identities and realities are cleverly built into different interwoven criminal stories which the audience really tries to follow because it is interested to solve the cases. Fassbinder was a master to sell highly abstracts contents to his public by embedding theoretical knowledge into practical, appetizing forms. The basis problem to understand is that an identity defines a reality, but on the other side, a reality also requires identity in order to be perceived. The idea of a person with multiple identities is known to us solely from the standpoint of psychiatry. However, logically spoken, the only reason why we have just one identity, is the fact that our logic has only two values (right and false). Now take a logic with just one more value, i.e. with three: Then, as you can easily see, you have already three identities. What happens now, when, let us say, Dr. Stiller gets killed? Then, it is quite possible that only one of three identities is abolished and the other two remain and are able to rescue the individual from death. Another question is, if a person with multiple identities actually feels these identities at once. The idea, however, to display such sets of identities in a up-down or down-up way as shown in the scene with the elevator in the hotel, is misleading, since identities and hence realities are not structured in Hierarchical, but in a Heterarchical way. Strictly speaking, there is no "artificial identity" either, since each identity is defined over two objects who share all of their features with one another. Therefore, the idea of assuming that every individual has just one single identity is nothing but a consequence of ancient two-valued logic either (a second identity would imply that a person, at the same time, exists and not-exists). But now look around and see that one and the same object (which is by definition self-identical) is perceived by every subject in its own way. If therefore every subject sees an object differently, why should it no be possible for the single individual to open the borders of his two-valued individuality-corset, with the effect that different persons can exchange their different Individualities? Fassbinder would five years later pick up this topic in his masterpiece "Despair. A trip into the light". Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful "Albatross" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!! The acrobatics mixed with haunting music, make one spectacular show. The costumes are vibrant and the performances will just boggle your mind! Simply amazing! being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective. This movie is about three teens who have been best friends for the longest time, and go on the most messed up ride of their life. When Heroine becomes the choice drug in their town, these three teens find themselves wrapped up in it all. This movie portrays heroine addiction very well, and is something you can't stop watching. MTV has never been the best at doing made for tv movies, but this one has to much good content to not watch it. I enjoyed this film, at the beginning I thought it would be the worst movie I've seen, but then as it went on it got better, and I couldn't turn away. What can I say? I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on MTV. I started watching it with every intention of changing the channel if it started to get lame as so many anti-drug movies do but I got sucked into this movie and I couldn't stop watching. Nick Stahl did an amazing job with his character, and in my opinion he really made the movie something worth watching. I was interested in purchasing the soundtrack to the movie (or even the movie itself) and MTV.com was no help at all, but believe it or not Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for the August 5th release of the movie on DVD. I know I had a hard time tracking it down, and I'm sure other people might have had the same problem. I'm buying my own copy so I can drool over Nick Stahl while bawling my eyes out at the same time thanks to the emotional storyline! I saw this movie yesterday night and it was one of the best made for TV films I've seen. It was very well directed and the acting was superb, very convincing. The music was good and the cinematography was beautifully shot. Take out the hopelessness out of Requiem for a Dream and you get wasted. An excellent depiction of the world of drug addiction and its consequences given in a very open way in wich anyone can relate to. cudos to mtv for giving us a good flick for a change from !*$*% like Crossroads. I wasn't planning on watching wasted when I saw the MTV preview but since I had nothing better to do or watch on a Sunday night I watched it.

Wasted was no Requiem for a Dream but it was a very good movie considering it was made by MTV. One thing that drew me to watching it was Summer Pheonix the sister of the late and wonderful River Pheonix stared. I suppose talent runs in the Pheonix family because she was good and so is Jaquien though niether are River. Nick Stahl also gives a great preformance as a junky jock. There isn't much else to say about wasted. It was a dark depressing and insightful look into the lives of three small town junkies. I recomend it to those who like the subject. 8/10 I just saw this movie tonight(5th Nov. 2005)for the first time. I wanted to watch it cause I saw the basketball diaries(Leonardo Di Caprio) and loved that but this was far more heavy going. I think it had a good depiction of drugs to an extent. I empathize mostly with Nick Stahls character, probably because if I someone I was crazy about was on that stuff I'd want to help them get off it. A promising student and athlete who spends all his time training and studying-well it's understandable that he'd want to try teenage life(the crazy side of it) and in his efforts as what begins is helping his friend he ends up addicted because he wanted to see what it is all about and because of his horrendous family situation which results in his most tragic death. A truly sad film but one flaw i noticed is that you don't get a good enough insight into the damage it does to families but apart from that, excellent performances on a truly heartbreaking movie. This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed acting, and a great storyline. A much watch!

Spoiler begin The movie focuses on three friends, Samantha (Summer Phoenix), Chris (Nick Stahl), and Owen (Aaron Paul). The movie starts out with Sam and Owen as the drug addicts, and Chris, the track star, as the one who takes care of them. As things get increasingly worse at home for Chris, he asks Sam what the drug is like. Sam is out of rehab and sober by this point and tells him it makes everything better. Chris then catches up with Owen and they start using. It takes chris two times till he is a " full time member". After some trouble with a dealer and a confession to Sam, she gets in again. So begins the downward spiral for them. Chris od's when he breaks a promise to Sam (I want some of the movie to be a surprise). He dies, Sam gets in to college to be an Architect, and Owen gets arrested. so ends the story

Spoiler ends. minor spoilers throughout

Nick stahl is amazing. He will have an Oscar one day. His portrayal of Chris was Heartbreaking. He was the only one that felt real in the movie as far as drug use goes. Aaron Paul who played Owen acted as if he were on speed not heroin. Summer Phoenix was fine, she is talented but what can i say Nick Stahl stole the movie. His drugged eyes, his slow movements, everything was perfect.

The writers needed to show withdrawls in the movie. That is a main reason why people don't want to quit. Other then that there are hilarious scenes (the mall scene, and the Backstreet boy scene,man Stahl nailed the reactions right on the head.), Touching, sad scenes (Like the scene between Sam and Chris in her bedroom after he gets beat up, i bawled, and the park scene.). It was realistic too. Like S am using again when Chris wanted to flush the drug down the toilet, and Chris using again after he goes to Own's, even though he had been clean for two weeks, the pull was too strong. it is all realistic.

Watch the movie for a great cast, great music, and a semi- truthful account of drug addiction. I watched this movie the night it premiered on MTV. Usually to me MTV Movies are kind of stupid but this one was so good. Summer Phoenix is an amazing actress and I thought that Nick Stahl was good too. If MTV started showing more movies like this I would probably enjoy the channel a lot more. I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i can get a copy then let me know. thanx black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so I might be a bit biased in saying that "Wasted" is a film that you just can't get out of your head.

Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you! I thought this movie was awesome and the two guys nick and aaron are hotties!!!!! I wish i could watch it over and over. I loved the plot and whole concept of the movie. It is great and I wish i had taped it last night.Nick I love You!!!!!! keys to the VIP is BS.

rob cavaliere vs Justin in season two.

I went to school with rob cavaliere and Adriana Doria. you may remember her as the last girl he was "picking up". this was when the "angry girlfriend" came by, they made out and "left the club together". They were good friends at father bressani chs in woodbridge.

whether or not rob planned it or they asked him to do it, men should know that what they are seeing is not real and the guys on here are douche bags. especially that episode.

one more line to fill space. Keys to the VIP is one of the most entertaining, informative and hilarious shows that is on television right now. The idea is original, and well executed, as it manages to preserve the reality aspect, but still remain entertaining. All of the judges have a razor wit. They're not the nicest at all times, but if you're looking for comfort, go watch a chick flick. Say what you like about validity of the show, but it is absolutely real. I know people who have competed on the show, and they have confirmed this.

If you want to laugh, watch this show. It is on of the best comedy shows ever made. I'm sure all of the Canadians on IMDb are all too familiar with Canadian content, and how much of it is... well, shall we say, lackluster. There are a select few Canadian shows that are actually worth watching, however, this is definitely one of them.

Simple premise. Two guys picking up girls in a bar with certain guidelines and rules, add in some witty and clever commentary from a group of surprisingly likable self-proclaimed "Alpha Males" and you have yourself some very entertaining programming. Each episode is solid. If the "players" are sub-par, there are some awkward moments to be had, and there is some gentle fun poked at them. If the "players" are good, it leads to moments that you just have to stand up and applaud, and some comical praise lavished at them.

The premise is kind of trashy, I know, and as a guy who usually takes pride in the fact that I'm elevated himself above typical, terrible reality television, it takes a lot for me to admit that this show is actually funny and enjoyable.

One thing that must be pointed out is how The Comedy Network did a terrible job marketing this show. For the longest time, I didn't even know the premise, and all I knew was that there was somehow a shirtless guy who "loves cougars" involved. However, after actually watching the show, I was surprised by how surprisingly slick it looks for Canadian content (despite a pretty lame opening credits sequence). So give it a chance. I have yet to find someone in the target demographic (18-30 year old males) who have actually watched the show (and not just the annoying commercials) who hasn't liked it.

Bring it back for a third season, Comedy Network. It actually has a good premise, as opposed to some other Canadian shows you've had (cough*girls will be girls*cough). I usually reserve 10/10 ratings for "works of art," but I just have so much fun watching this show and I think that it has been unfairly judged my many, that I just had to. The fact that reviewers feel very intensely negative towards the show is an interesting fact all its own. If you dislike it so much, don't watch it.

Certain reviewers assert that you have to be dumb, dim-witted, or plain old primitive to enjoy this show. Au contraire, my friends. I am not claiming that all the contestants are smart. There are smart ones, and there are dumb ones. But I WOULD argue that they probably have a higher average IQ than the average reviewer on this website. Thats right, I said it. There is a lot to be said for the science of seducing girls. I'm sorry, but please withdraw all sticks out of your asses, and realize the reason you hate these guys is that they threaten you.

Those oblivious to social sciences, and more specifically, the science behind mating are clearly going to miss the boat completely.

One thing is clear: The clubs aren't the only places to meet girls. I personally think that the worthwhile women don't even go to clubs, so that they won't fall prey to men like the ones we see on the show. But what are men like these???? Apart from the ones whose games stink, they are the epitome of men. They are men who meet women in the most difficult situations. These are men who take ownership of their own sexuality. These men don't beg for their girlfriends to not break up with them, and these men don't say "OK" to the phrase "let's just be friends".

Sound familiar???? In fact, these are the very guys you're afraid of when you take your special long term girlfriend to the club. We all are. These guys know what women like. (again, only the ones who have "game")

And even the ones who are bad...they are worth a laugh!

If you have gone out to a club, and actually interacted with the people around you, you should find this show entertaining.

Look, I am at a loss for why there is so much hate for this show. My best guess is that it aggravates the insecurity in men who have had bad experiences in clubs, or threatens men who believe women are beautiful self-less creatures who just want a nice guy to buy their attention.

I personally love this show. It is pure entertainment, and best of all, its REAL. It is a very perceptive take on the most recent state of sexual psychology. Sex roles have never been so different from before, and this show provides a very real view of that,

I think it actually takes some intelligence to take away something positive from this show.

This show appeals to a certain target market, and if you're outside of that, then I guess you shouldn't tune in to the show. We could say this about any other shows though, couldn't we?

Grow Up,

ApolloHelios The show itself basically reflects the typical nature of the average youth; partying and picking up chicks is the common weekend goal at the clubs. People frown upon the show due to its "perverted" idea of picking up girls using technique and strategic characterization, but truth be told, practically every young guy is out doing it at the club. Overall, the show really appeals to the younger population, as we like to see the outcome of a "player's" performance at the club, as the show offers a comical approach made possible by the judging panel.

10/10; a cool, fun and thrilling series that allows the audience to really interact. Good Job Boys. This is a great show despite many negative user reviews. The aim of this show is to entertain you by making you laugh. Two guys compete against each other to get a girl's phone number. Simple. The fun in this show is watching the two males try to accomplish their goal.

Some appear to hate the show for various reasons, but I think, they misunderstood this as an "educational" show on how to pick up chicks. Well it is not, it is a comedy show, and the whole point of it is to make you laugh, not teach you anything. If you didn't like the show, because it doesn't teach you anything, don't watch it. If you don't like the whole clubbing thing, don't watch it. If you don't like socializing don't watch it. This show is a comical show. If you down by watching others pick up girls, well its not making you laugh, so don't watch it. If you are so disappointed in yourself after watching this show and realizing that you don't have the ability to "pick-up" girls, there is no reason to hate the show, simply don't watch it! Sure, it seems like there is only about 17 minutes of actual content in each episode, but it is certainly fun to watch. You might find yourself cringing in your chair as buddy sticks his foot in his mouth and gets shot down, or chuckling and shaking your head when some ridiculous line actually works. The panel of hosts have more of a good-natured, friendly (dare I say Canadian) style of commentary compared with cutthroat US reality programming. I think the people who complain about this show don't get the joke. They are taking the show more seriously than the show takes itself. Keys to the VIP is a great caricature of reality shows, sports TV culture, and the club scene. I hope they do another season, and I'd be interested to see if a US version appears. It's certainly a fun, original premise. I can't say this show is perfect. Perhaps all the previous commenters remember the old Tuesday 10:30 slot taken up by the childish humour of butch Elvira Curt ("There's a space shuttle humping a 747!"). Oh the glory of scrambling to hit any button on the remote to make it change.

Face it, comedy can't pull a Showcase and create the comedic genius of the truly Canadian Trailer Park Boys. But hey, they try.

This show is by far one of the better original shows. However, none of the following will find themselves laughing at the apparent "players" who showcase their stupidity in picking up girls:

a) "Dumb" Girls - Obviously, they can't realise that they are just like the girls on the show. Oblivious. Jump on the man meat, you can call yourself a whore tomorrow and get his name. He looks good, he must be popular and nice. HAHAHAHA!!! Oh but you'd never do that! Nobody would... if they knew it was happening

b) Unsocial guys who think women like nice guys - Obviously seeing these guys succeed at what you fail at or don't even get to experience is going to make your primal rages boil. Watch more closely, they get shot down most of the time. They say stupid crap.

c) Girls with respect for one another - Obviously seeing your separate distinctly female species get caught up in real world situations is wrong wrong wrong. Nobody gets played. Women are not objects, they can't be played, because they are all very faithful angels who are going to clubs to converse politely with one another without fear of guys trying to pick them up.

Oh wait... hmmmmmmmm

As much as EVERYBODY will say that this show is not funny, and that it doesn't teach you anything, I have to take the opposite side. The show is very good at detailing the way relationships work for both men AND women. The way they think, and the way they think each other think, and social hierarchy. Its funny to see and hear the guys make absolutely idiotic comments to things the women say ("My grandfather died recently" "Oh... well are we having fun tonight?").

Besides, its a club. The place people go to have fun, and get laid. No matter who you are, you're going to a club to get or give attention to someone. Guys go there to test their game and pick up girls. Girls go there to flirt with guys and find the one that sweeps her off her feet the best. Lighten up!

If you're a guy, learn a thing or two about different approaches and the different effects they have. If you're a girl, learn what these "studly" man whores really think like, and learn to tell them apart from genuine guys. Next time you get broken up with by one of those douchewads, realise its not because of him, its because you're dumb and thought he was the greatest guy ever when he was quite clearly a dick to you the whole time this has to be one of the best and most useful shows on TV. keys to the v.i.p. demonstrates some of the best seduction techniques and the humor that goes along with the techniques that are not up to par. to the person who wrote the negative comment, i only have one thing to say. stop hating on us because we are better looking and have more game then you. have you ever seen the inside of a club or do you just watch it on TV. and your so called female friend. she is not attracted to us because if guys like me saw her in the club, we would just walk right by and talk to the hot girls, like the ones on the show.

STOP HATING watch keys to the V.I.P. and improve your game There are too many people on this board who have obviously missed the subtle wit of this series.

This show is great because it's a hilarious parody of itself. Guys who are self-proclaimed studs are given a fair chance to convince us of their seduction abilities until they "hit the field" just to expose their complete lack of "game" on national TV – it's absolutely hilarious and the guys who are actually skilled are extremely compelling to watch as they effortlessly seduce the pretentious women that frequent these trendy nightclubs!

It celebrates unique charisma when deserved and mocks delusional douchebags when deserved. Either way, it's always entertaining because, unlike other dating shows, it perfectly captures the authentic awkwardness and excitement of a "pickup". I highly recommend this show to anyone with a sense of humor. I think it is a brilliant show with cool talking heads and very cool action. 2 guys who pretend to be masters in women seduction demonstrate their skills at different night clubs and 4 experts (pickup artists themselves) comment on them, choosing the winner. Their jokes are amusing, and some participators are really fun to watch. More so, this show really teaches men how to get in touch with women, lots of expert's comments are useful while you may see how it works in the field. Actually I think this is one of the best TV shows and I totally recommend this to all men, who like women.

ps/ pardon for my broken engrish. For all losers who gave it negative review,its because you probably have sex once in 2 years,or you are in LTR with one girl for years. And guess what ? She is going to cheat on you when player like those on that show approach her somewhere.Off course any male who is not as good as these guys are going to hate them and hate the show. And that one chick who thinks this show is meant to mock these guys.. its more actually how to show clueless man how to pick up woman.What these guys are doing it way better then what most man are doing-not approaching at all.For anybody who has open mind I recommend to read the book "the game" by neil strauss.It deals with similar theme as this show I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt. Keys to the VIP, an original series by the Canadian Comedy Network (comedynetwork.ca) scored big with this entertaining, yet inspirational gameshow. This show is hosted by four funny, good-looking guys who judge others on their 'game' (ability to pick up women). Each episode features two guys who go head-to-head in various pick-up games. There are three different sections and the winner scores a night as a VIP in an exclusive Toronto night-club.

Being a guy, I naturally find this show hilarious. We all know that it's hard to confront women and watching these guys do it naturally sparks the curiosity of men. The guys who compete on this show might even give you a few pointers -- if you pay attention. Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious. It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women are not as gullible as men think they are.

The contest aspect of the how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all used to now a days.

Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer.

Way to go Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants so far are pretty good. It's pretty evident that many of your nights were spent alone. If you watched 5 minutes of the actual show instead of watching the commercial you would have seen one of the greatest television shows in Canadian history being made. Too bad you would have been watching it alone. Probably the reason you hate it... no game. Keys to the VIP is hilarious, light and funny. Guys are going to eat this show up. My game is tight and I can hardly wait to get on this show. The chicks were HOOOOOT and the clubs kicked ass. I'll be watching every week. It makes me wonder why more great shows like this one aren't being made. Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television. The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with "Wings of Desire," "Northfork" tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since "Repo Man." The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said, `there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert, but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork.

Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however, just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time of sickness.

Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird, wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible.

Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just `enthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very entertaining, something many dramas now can't do.

Northfork may not be the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it, you'll be extremely surprised, as I was.

My rating: 8/10

Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality. A dreamy, stunningly atmospheric film takes place in a small town of Northfork, Montana in 1955. The government officials arrive to evacuate the town about to be inundated by a new hydroelctrical dam. There are the other visitors in the town, the angels from another time but they only seen by a dying boy Irvin. A local priest (Nick Nolte in a quiet heartbreaking performance) takes care of the boy. Irvin pleads with the angels to leave the place with them...

There is some unearthly quality in the film, some dignified mourning and sublime sadness when you suddenly realize the inevitable finality of everything - humans and their relationships, cities, countries, civilizations, the whole world as we know it. Death and birth have something in common - we go through them in the ultimate loneliness.

I cannot recall the film that affected me in the same way and as deeply as "Northfork" did, the film so beautiful and so tender, so quiet and so powerful, so heartbreaking and so moving. Even now, after several weeks since I saw it, tears come to my eyes when I only think of it.

After I saw it, I had to talk to somebody about it. I sent a PM to one of my friends and I asked, "Please tell me what I just saw?" And my friend replied with the words, "You just saw one of the greatest films of modern times. One of these days others will see the light." "It all depends on how you look at it –we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past —in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.

The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goer—the most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the film—if you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.

What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.

At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.

At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spirit—and therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.

At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.

The final layer is the social commentary—"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.

To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).

The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences. It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.

It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire."

The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.

My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.

But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.

"Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.

An easy nine stars. The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of traditional dramatic structure, "Stick with it, Jack!". The plot is difficult to summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city, God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and experience. A great, great, great movie!!! Michael Polish's hypnotic "Northfork" is a film that will stay in one's memory for quite a long time. This exquisitely crafted movie that Michael and Mark Polish wrote, is visually one of the best things that came out last year from the world of independent films. The movie is splendidly photographed by M. David Mullen, with a haunting score by Stuart Matthewman.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

The idea to set the film in Montana was a great coup for the Polish brothers. Never has the majestic views of the country and mountains been so vividly captured as in "Northfork". We don't need any color! The beauty is in the dark tones of the film that enhances the story of the desolation in this remote outpost.

At the center of the story is Irwin, the sick child under the care of the mysterious Father Harlan. This boy is seen in his bed where the kind priest is administering the medicine for his body. But is he really there at all? We watch him interacting with the odd group that we first encounter around the cemetery. There are two freshly open graves. Will one of them be for Irwin?

At the same time, another plot line plays parallel to this first theme. We see the six men in black that have come to the area in order to remove from the area as many people as they can. This will be the bed for the man made lake that will be created. Their reward is one acre and a half of lake front property if they move a certain amount of people.

The third story line centers on the mystical group composed by Flower Hercules, Cup of Tea, Cod and Happy. They are following a possibility of a link to an angel that has been injured in this area. When Irwin meets them at the cemetery, he offers to help, only if they take him away at least a thousand miles from here. We watch as the quartet examine the feathers the boy has placed among the pages of his bible. Could Irwin be that angel?

The closing sequence show us all parties leaving Northfork in different directions. The men in black riding their automobiles, perhaps going home to enjoy the newly acquired properties given to them as a reward. The mystical group is seen boarding a plane and taking off for a higher place. We also realize that the child in Father Harlan, in spite of the medicines and the care he received from the saintly figure, has died.

Michael Polish got one of the best ensemble acting from all the principals. Nick Nolte, as Father Harlan turns a low key performance in his portrayal of this kind man. James Woods, as Walter, one of the men working for the developer, does a fine job. The biggest surprise is Duel Farmer, who makes an excellent impression as Irwin. This child actor, with the right guidance, shows great promise.

The mystical group is brilliantly acted by Daryl Hannah, Robin Sachs, Ben Foster and Anthony Edwards, the man with the funny spectacles. Peter Coyote, Mark Polish, Ben Foster, and the rest of the cast are flawless under Mr. Polish direction.

The beauty of the film relies in its simplicity. Mr. Polish's vision will haunt one's memory. The images of Montana, as perhaps an unreal landscape is one of the best things in American films in quite a while. The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian fable/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and fascinating "Twin Falls Idaho"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the future. It is a rare and fine spectacle, an allegory of death and transfiguration that is neither preachy nor mawkish. A work of mature and courageous insight, Northfork avoids arthouse distinction by refusing to belong to a kind. Unlike the most memorable and accomplished film to impose an obvious comparison, Wim Wenders' 1987 Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin), it sustains an ambivalence in a narrative spectrum spanning from the mundane to the supernatural. This story of earthly and celestial eminent domains in the American West withholds the fairytale literalness that marked its German predecessor in the ad hoc genre of angels shedding their wings with obsequious sentimentalism. Its celestial transcendence, be it inspired by doleful faith or impelled by a fever dream, never parts ways with crud and rot. This firm grounding redounds to great credit for writers and directors Mark and Michael Polish. Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.

Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.

This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.

I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available. At first glance a film like Northfork, a town set to be flooded in 1955 and a group of 6 characters who are sent out to evacuate the remaining townspeople, could be just an ordinary film. As we soon meet a remaining priest taking care of a sick child, a greedy land owner, we could be set up for a simple story we could all easily digest. However, when one is first introduced to this film, you notice the amazing wide open cinematography and a scene involving a church hall missing a wall that opens up to the pastures and scenic view of the mountains with cattle grazing. It soon becomes clear that after this scene and a few of the towns peoples introduction, that this is no ordinary film and no ordinary story, it is something very special and unique.

At first glance things are not as clear, but the cinematography and landscape that the viewer is witness to is stunning, and the characters that inhabit this small soon to be extinct area are just in word amazing. It's what can either draw you in closer to this qwerky film, or either have you bored sitting there waiting for something to happen.

The films deep spiritual and dream like qualities, give it a slow and methodical approach which I am sure will bore some viewers, but if you are patient with it and see the bigger picture, the film is great to witness.

Rating 8 out of 10 I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers. After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before, it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven...

"Being so sick of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can take it all in!

The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do exist.

My thanks to all involved in the making of this film." I loved the movie "Northfork". I knew nothing about the movie before watching it. Therefore, I had no outside influence or information to guide me in what I was seeing unfold on the screen. In retrospect I would advise anyone interested in the movie to watch it if for no other reason than the quality actors who appear in it. Do not read anything about the plot, story line, or evaluation of the movie. In fact STOP reading anything further in my comments although I believe they are general and would not spoil the movie for you, I don't want to diminish the value of the movie to you. Find your own path of meaning in this film or it is diminished in its potential.

In general, I found the 3 benign strangers in Northfolk puzzling. As the movie unfolds, they could qualify as three entertaining escapees from a mental hospital or, the dreams and hallucinations of a sick and feverish young boy, or three angels "sent" to find the "lost angel".

The sick and perhaps dying boy works to convince the three "strangers" to abandon the search for the lost angel, become his guardians (mother & father), and take him safely far away from Northfork (no less than 1000 miles). He even declares that he is the lost angel to try to manipulate them all to be his guardian. Only one of the three responds to the boy on a positive basis. The other two have no real enthusiasm or passion for this involvement.

The priest who is nursing the sick boy demonstrates a depth of caring for people and a deep conviction toward his faith. He transcends the desolation and emptiness of Northfork and its people; he is the light of goodness and hope to both Northfork and to the movie viewer.

Near the climax of the movie, the boy and new guardian journey over land to a field where a plane waits. They board to find the other two strangers also on the plane; in fact one is the pilot. The engines start and the plane takes off.

Who are the 3 strangers? If only one stranger was interested in helping the boy why were all three on the plane? Where is the plane going? Did the other two find the "Lost Angel"? Is there a lost angel and if so who is it? Who are the six men dressed like undertakers? If all of this is just the sick boy's feverish dreams, how did one of the 3 strangers end up reaching out to help one of the men dressed like an undertaker when he jumped and hit his head(neither the boy or strangers had contact with these men)?

One or two sentences written under the title telling people what this movie is about is a tragic mistake (this is not a spoiler, it's statement about advertising only). So if you haven't seen the movie, Northfork, the questions above show only a few of the interesting and fun forks in the road of thought when you view the film Northfork. If you read the advertising summary of the plot of the movie before you watched it previously, maybe you ought to look at some of the questions above and watch it again... I know I will.

Terry NORTHFORK is above all a masterpiece of widescreen cinematography. For this alone the film is well worth one's time. The stark, wide open plains and badlands of eastern Montana are captured in the spare, muted earth tones of autumn or early spring. The gigantic grey cement Fort Peck Dam is the film's protagonist. The film comments both subtly and not so subtly on about a dozen issues of Western Landscape. The dialogue can be trying at times, yet the images and concepts are powerful enough to lift the film. The 1950's period works so well here and is executed so well. I think that the passing years will be kind to this film. An Eko-centric episode the "?" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery.

An excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns. The second "Mr. Eko" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the first ("The 23rd Psalm"), but in just about every other department it is one of the best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology/background as well as the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes Locke's transformation from a believer ("Orientation" - after the end of the film: "We're gonna have to watch this again") to a doubter ("S.O.S" - "Did you push that button, Henry? I need to know") to a non-believer ("?" - after the end of the film: "Do you want to watch this again? - "No, I've seen enough"). Terry O'Quinn's performance is powerful as usual ("every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of "?" are a startling, unique dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot possibly know its true meaning. ***1/2 out of 4. In this episode, Locke and Eko go searching for the "?" symbol that we saw during the lock-down on a previous episode. Michael, having shot Ana Lucia and Libby, struggles with his actions as Libby inches closer to death.

The most interesting thing about this episode (I think). Is during the commercial break. Locke and Eko find a hatch under the plane that killed Boone in season one, and a new training video ends with "Copyright, The Hanso Foundation, 1989" In a following commercial break, a rather bizarre and nondescript commercial advertises "The Hanso Foundation" (a planted commercial), and the website advertised (www.sublymonal.com) leads the visitor through a world of information about life on the outside of LOST's storyline. A must see for all fans! While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.

In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available Uzak (2002), a Turkish film shown in the U.S. as "Distant,"

was directed, produced, written, and filmed by Nuri Bilge

Ceylan.

This movie is a gritty and somber version of the clash between a "city mouse," Mahmut, played by Muzaffer Özdemir, and a "country mouse," Yusuf, played by Emin Toprak.

Both men are superb actors, and the plot allows them to demonstrate their acting skill. (Tragically, Emin Toprak died in an automobile accident shortly after the movie was completed.)

In most country cousin/city cousin tales, the contrast between rural and urban life styles is portrayed in a humorous fashion. In this film, there's little humor or even warmth. Both men

have lost touch with human society. Mahmut 's work as a

commercial photographer for a tile company gives him no satisfaction. He has divorced a woman he clearly

still loves, and has no satisfying human relationships.

Mahmut has lost his job because of a factory closing in his small town, and doesn't have the skills or the energy to find work in the city. His human interactions are primarily confined to silent observations of the other people who cross his path. He's clearly a warm and caring person, but can't express these qualities in an urban environment.

The cousins don't relate well to the world, and they don't relate well to each other. Neither makes an effort to act in a way that would provide an opportunity for bonding or closeness.

In a sense, this film portrays an opportunity wasted.

Conceivably, each cousin could have provided at least part of what was lacking in the other's life. Instead, they steer parallel unhappy courses. The two men are distant throughout, which is a situation suggested by the film's title.

One of my friends mentioned the masterful way in which Ceylan builds detail upon detail. These details ultimately tell us more about the characters than we might have learned by simple exposition.

Uzak was shown as part of the Rochester Labor Film series. It's not a "labor film" in the traditional sense of that genre. It is a labor film because it demonstrates the harmful effects of unsatisfying work (Mahmut) and unemployment (Yusuf).

This is a quiet, absorbing, dark film. Although it doesn't make for happy viewing, I walked out of the

theater realizing that I had seen a truly creative and

important movie. This film is worth finding and seeing! People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.

Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.

I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself. It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about.

Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life.

Through all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2 particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know how long.

In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true heartbreak.

What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single breathtaking second.

Rating 10 out of 10. I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN. and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word. UZAK/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu (downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes into see "Vanilla Sky." As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty, yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun (Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film "Yol." Many of Guney's films, including "Yol," "Suru- the Herd" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and "Baba-The Father" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made. Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last film, the 1983 prison drama "Duvar-The Wall"), "Distance" captures the essence of Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films! Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent! It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village Yusuf.

It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much emotional tension as in the paciest thriller.

Just to be clear, there's no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than anaesthetised.

Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan) are not opposed.

Much of it is true the world over: country cousin Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf.

Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman.

Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message that "The world is like that", but instead I got "This is how we sometimes treat each other." Hysterically painful; perhaps the kind of movie Chekhov would have made had he made movies. What's really funny is that the two cousins have so very much in common (many descriptions of their relationship on this site are dead wrong).

What's really funny and uncomfortable about these characters is that they just can't bring themselves to talk to each other - or anyone else! It's horrible. If you've ever been too shy, worried, self-involved, or just plain scared to talk to someone (and who hasn't?) you'll definitely see yourself in this film. And it won't be pretty.

It holds a mirror up to the audience and says, "If you don't like what you see... change it". For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus. When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.

The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart. This is a film about loneliness and how the distance – physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.

The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel – nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...

Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.

There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.

Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.

Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew… Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.

But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.

All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes – but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very limited conversation.

I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him… And, I guess I was, in a sense.

I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone – just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...

Highly recommended for serious movie buffs. The first time I saw the poster, I was stunned by its tranquility and beauty. Then the city of Istanbul has been haunting in my mind ever since.

Not much dialogue, not much music, the whole film was shot as elaborately and aesthetically like a sculpture. It itself is a landscape.

Actually there are a lot of things going on in the film, but the director deliberately omitted most dramatic parts and leave them to our imagination, thus creating a really flat life. **(mild spoiler)One can see Mahmut's ladylove crying in the toilet and then going out without a word but not their fight; one can see Mahmut accompanying his mother in the hospital but not her struggle from illness. The most dramatic scene in the film to me is Yusuf laughing out loud for the toy soldier he bought for his niece,** and that's when it almost broke my heart to see this boring, lonely life bursting out in such a way.

With all the trivialities in life weeded, the story presents us with pure inner world of all the characters, their sadness, anxiety, loneliness, regrets...And as the story unfolded, I sort of finally grasped their desperate situation where their emotions were really no way out if no outer things intervened, which is exactly every loner tries to keep at all cost, especially for an irresponsible artist like Mahmut.

I've just finished my second watching. Last night, I crouched into my quilt, had some Vodka beside my bed and went through the whole film in a trance. I felt two real lives going on, one outside the screen, one inside the screen. I felt free from all those loneliness and anxiety 'cause the people inside were experiencing it. I just had myself removed from all those things.

We cannot deny the universal problem of communication, and loneliness even puts us far towards it, and it becomes a vicious spiral. I bet Mahmut still didn't figure out a way of living in the end. That's why he stepped out of his room to try to find the answers from the outer world, the coldness and landscape. Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.

Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously observing young women he never approaches.

The film's title is translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.

Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.

Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task. Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.

Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!

Ivan Yanachkov This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best 'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of sincerity you'll find in Uzak. This is the last film of a trilogy by the brilliant Turkish director, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, whose last film Mayis Sikintisi -which was very Cehovian- was shown in prestigious film festivals. Differing from his previous films, the story of 'Uzak' is set on Istanbul which is one of the most crowded cities of the world. However, in Ceylan's film, we do see only minor traces of that huge crowd. Rather he choose to focus on two characters, one photographer and one of his relatives who comes from his small village to find a job on transatlantic ships. The photographer, who -we understand that- has also immigrated to the city, seems to be inhabited the customs of the city life, not only in material sense. In his relation to his relative, we see him first as caring and tolerant, however, when he could not find a job, our suburbian character starts to be disturbed for sharing his private 'space' with someone whose leaving date becomes ambiguous. I will not reveal the tactics he develops in order to pull his relative out of his life to prevent any harm on your viewing pleasure, but it is enough to say that Ceylan shows us the tactics that we acquire within the routine of suburbian life; 'tactics' to keep our own private space, 'tactics' in order not to communicate with other people, 'tactics' to prevent our relationships from gaining a complex nature (since our own experience, we believe that, is complex enough).

Ceylan's film presents a clear picture of what a human being becomes within the borders of modern (or postmodern ?) city by depicting the two characters in different manners. But, he doesn't condemn any of the two characters for doing this, rather he uses the power of cinematic language to underline this difference. For example, in search of new opportunities, we always see the character coming from the village in open spaces. Even within the house, he prefers balcony as his favourite space. On the other hand, we see the photographer always within the closed spaces, and generally at his home. Although there are more than 10 million people out there, and lots of adventures, lots of interesting things to discover (or are there any?) he prefers sitting at home, watching TV, etc. His home is like his temple, a kind of sacred place.

Everyone living in a big city, and conscious of the experience he is living through, will find something belonging to himself in Uzak. If you like this film, I am sure that you will like Ceylan's other two films, Mayis Sikintisi (The Clouds of May) and Kasaba (The Town). Go and find them!. Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that "distant" is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the art-house films I have seen, "distant" is the one that really stands out as a glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly lacking in "distant" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about "distant" is that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our commercialized world. Fortunately "distant" doesn't have that much to spare the audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings. The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul. A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and/or emotional states: isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too.

The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money (and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of life here - this is loneliness, warts and all.

The film succeeds in offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition. Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.' ý thýnk uzak ýs the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise yo you will love this movie please watch it Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was 1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways- plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul (the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and keeping them apropos to his own film's needs…. Distant is a film whose title suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving. Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant does, albeit it at just the right length. My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly. These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book. City life need not be like this.

I can see why some people found it boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't connect with people generally. "Distant" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. "Distant" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-) so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of silence to bring out the feeling of isolation. First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands by a fluke; some videostore/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how hard we laughed.

I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to this one.

Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends... We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-rateable one.

It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc.

For any cult-movie buff this is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems.

Raiting: As for craft it can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays and weddings.

As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10/10 should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our. "Death Promise" is a lost 70's exploitation gem and deserves to be seen. Technically somewhat of a mess and boasting a stock of amateur New Yawk types, this film never bores. I highly recommend tracking this down. It's a hoot and a half. This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome. If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail. One of the classic low budget 70's movies, this film was found in a bargain video shop in London for only 50p. (interestingly, the package lists the star of the film as 'Charles Bone', who sounds like a porn star, but once the credits role it's obvious that the picture is aligned to far the right of the TV screen, so that all the cast members have the last letter missing from their names)

From the moment the narrator lamely introduces us to the situation that the desperate tenants of a grimy New York City apartment block, you know you're in for a rollercoaster ride of fromage. The direction is from the 'Ed Wood one-take' school - if one or two extras were looking at the camera crew, then what the hell?

The films finishes with a plot twist that puts The Usual Suspects to shame. Buy it now. A group of evil businessmen need to knock down a building to build a huge complex, but they can't remove the tenants. The tenants and businessmen with their hired thugs clash until the film ends with one of the funniest fights ever! The guy with the ginger hair who goes 'eeeeehhhh' every time he throws a punch and the other guy who poses with a knife in his mouth instead of fighting, only to be beaten off camera, make this essential viewing if you like to laugh at films rather than with them. "Curse of Monkey Island" is a treasure; in my opinion the series as a whole was the holy grail of adventure gaming, not to mention LucasArts.

But to return to "Curse," whats beautiful about CMI is that its not afraid to be itself. It does deviate from the first two but still remains faithful to the Ron Gilbert productions (if only the same could be said about the 4th installment of the series!). The voice work is impeccable, with Dominic Armato playing our favorite protagonist Guybrush Threepwood. The animation, while quite different than the classic pixelated characters, is done beautifully. It really is just absolutely gorgeous. And the music is fantastic! Its never annoying and you never have the urge to turn it off.

Although I'm not too big a fan of romance, the romantic scenes and themes are not at all overpowering. They also have the rare ability to come off as sweet instead of cheesy. That says a lot from a girl who routinely falls asleep during chick flicks.

Then, of course, is the classic MI element of humor. CMI is quite adept at delivering deadpan lines, altogether absurdist humor, and simply good fun. Gary Coleman makes a cameo as a budding young entrepreneur, and world events are discreetly jabbed at without stepping out of the bounds of the game.

Its not entirely fair to compare CMI to MI and MI2 because it truly is in a realm of its own. Personally I can never find a favorite between the 3 as they all are quite different from each other. However, if you want a swashbuckling good time with the flair of the classic series, I insist you give this game a shot. You will NOT be disappointed.

10/10 stars, hands down.

- Emily N The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were to make a movie/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all. I had only written one review on IMDb prior to this, as I consider most games as unworthy of the time and effort...Curse of Monkey Island is different.

Having played and been impressed by Monkey 1 and 2, I had great expectations for the third release...and was not disappointed. The first thing that hit me was the substantially improved graphics. Don't get me wrong, for games made in 1990 and 1991 respectively, Monkey 1 and 2 were ground-breaking and provided the goods well, but CMI steps up and delivers a superb cartoon-style game-play which is both fun and satisfying. All scenes and settings have been carefully crafted and well thought out, and suit this type of game perfectly. The animation/CGI is a mixture of realism and exaggeration; a fantastic combination in this case.

For me the script has been crucial in the success of the previous two games. The CMI script is clever, appropriate and, above all, absolutely hilarious. Added to this, the script is now audio unlike the previous two where speech is displayed in text format at the bottom of the screen. Dominic Armato's voice is perfect for Guybrush: witty, clear and slightly naive. All other voice talents fit their characters perfectly, especially Earl Boen who is the voice behind LeChuck. I loved every single character throughout the game: not just their personalities and wit, but the way each character is animated superbly and distinctively. Whilst on the subject of audio effects, the soundtrack is worth a mention. The soundtracks for Monkey 1 and 2 were both monotone, and despite this were very effective at giving atmosphere and representing a change in mood. CMI's soundtrack is, once again, a step up. Each scene is complemented by a catchy, subtle, playful and piratey (if that's a word) tune. With a change in setting or mood, the music also adapts, adding to the entertainment and amusement that the game offers.

The whole idea behind Monkey Island is to solve puzzles and problems in order to progress. This might sound easy, but is actually devilishly tricky in many places. Some may be put off by the level of logic and amount of thinking that goes into Monkey Island, but in reality this makes the game even more entertaining and fun, and also adds to the replay value. The option of "The Curse of Monkey Island" or "The Curse of Monkey Island: Mega-Monkey" (which involves trickier and more abundant puzzles) suits players of all abilities and also gives good cause to play the game at least twice. Whatever difficulty level you choose, you are guaranteed a different game each time you replay, with numerous speech options and other puzzles to solve that don't affect the outcome of the game, but are just there for fun. The most entertaining section of the game is Ship Combat, and the sword "fights" that follow. These were particularly well thought out and make the game completely worthwhile. Add to this a stupendous story that is non-violent and suitable for all ages which will keep you hooked and wanting more until the very end.

Finally in conclusion, a uniquely special mention must go to the designers of this game. The way each complex puzzle and problem is thought out is simply astonishing. Whilst gathering up items and objects during game-play, you can't see how each one is going to help you progress, but with a little thought and perseverance solutions present themselves, and for that the designers of CMI must be highly commended.

10/10 for the best game I have ever played (not an exaggeration) The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a memorable and humouristic adventure.

Graphics wise the game is definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode.

The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk) and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup.

Michael Land's tropical and wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the game which I found very satisfying. Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4. On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push, pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse, etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful, mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. "Cartoony" is an appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including, but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care for the brand of play and/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime. Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs, as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8/10 The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the vote, keep up the good work lucasarts! This was my second experience of the Monkey Island series, the full seven years after I had been shown the first game. What was my response? "Oh, great, we're playing a cartoon." I'm glad my brother shut me up then and played on, because the jokes caught my attention once again, as well as Armato's wonderful voice-acting of Guybrush - not to mention everyone else done well (I still think CMI's Elaine sounds better than EMI's). The cutscenes do well to illustrate something happening, and the art of both the game and cutscenes are excellent. When we found the CD with the originals, Secret and LeChuck's Revenge, we were both ecstatic and spent hours working through Revenge - one such moment was where we just sat down and blew half a day on it. However, CMI has to be the Monkey Island game I've played the most, especially for the return of swordfighting and combat on the high seas. That moment when you encounter Kenny and he tells you he's gone straight and then, "I'm running guns!" had both my brother and I in tears from laughter. And that's not the best part of the game, not by far. Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it. Being a huge die-hard Monkey Island fan, I fugured this one would be terrible since Ron Gilbert didn't make it. Boy was I surprised! Although it's still not as good as the first two, it has the comedy that I wanted. I was a little nervous about the new graphics, new SCUMM engine, and just the fact that it was on a CD. But it all came together, and it was interesting to finally hear the voices of your favorite characters. I especially enjoyed that SWORD FIGHTING had returned. And the whole story about finding the big uncursed ring was just incredible. Go ahead and try out this two-CD adventure. And now we can rejoice, because Monkey Island 4:Escape from Monkey Island is coming out REALLY REALLY soon! This fall! What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid, but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The "You don't need to see my identification" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad! First I played the second monkey island game, and I liked it despite the low quality graphics and sound. Then a few months later, I found out a new game was made. I tried it out and liked it a lot. First thing you notice is the great graphics. The areas are huge, colorful, and detailed, with lots to explore. The game requires you to use your brain, a lot, as always. The game is challenging, with all point and click games, frustrating. The jokes haven't gotten old a third time around. The animated cut scenes are a great addition to the game also. This is the best MI game out there, perhaps the best P&C game too! If you like cartoony games that play like a movie, get this game! Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin.

Play the game and see how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality. You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.) By now, the game's stale, right?

The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.

Wrong.

The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.

The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game by itself. Michael Kehoe has accomplished quite a feat, especially considering it is only his second start as writer, producer AND director. Generally "first timers" lack vision and direction when helming a major production but "Dominion" proves Mr. Kehoe is going places in Hollywood! Set with beautiful scenery, Dominion boasts experienced cast members (especially Thomerson & James) who communicate Kehoe's vast vision with exceptional clarity. Few films can mix the slasher/horror genre with a genuine action/adventure feel, but Dominion accomplished this completely. This film certainly qualifies as one of the top-notch films in both of these categories. If you are looking for fast-paced action with more than a modicum of suspense, look no further. I look forward to Kehoe's future projects with great enthusiasm. Well done!!! This is a very well written movie full of suspense right up to the end! The setting is beautiful in contrast to the frightening action taking place there! It is not your typical suspense movie, but a movie well packed with interesting twists and surprises which leave you wanting and hoping for a sequel. I recommend this film to all suspense lovers! This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see! "Dominion" is a good movie,but not original.It blends some elements of slasher movie and adventure flick.The setting is wonderful,the acting is acceptable and the film is fast-paced and exciting.Highly recommended for any thriller/adventure buff. I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much, but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc. Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran, but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see. ABC's version of the life of the late Pope: They put it just slightly ahead of CBS's version and it may have suffered from that but the program itself was excellent. It moved fast since it only had two hours (with commercials also taking up time) to cover this great man's long life, but Thomas Kretschmann admirably was up to the challenge.He did a remarkable job in conveying the emotions and strife that John-Paul endured.He-unlike the CBS biopic- played the role from youth to old age and managed to seem "realistic" at both ends of the scale.His credibility never wavered.He has an amazing range and depth. It is a shame that the program could not have been longer and more detailed but working within the time frame they did have,I think they did an excellent job bringing it to the small screen. Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the movies? And he only came to universal attention after "the pianist"? Of course he looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face. But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe me, go watch "Stalingrad". I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent. When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining. I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours. The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh, felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if there's a possibility. You'll love it! Currently playing at the 2007 German Film Festival in Australia http://www.goethe.de/ins/au/lp/prj/ff07/enindex.htm thanks to Peanutqueen and especially AriesGemini for her rundown on the actors in this ensemble cast.

In Australia these movies were sub-titled in English and while French movies here often get a mainstream release, German movies are still to gather that sort of commercial audience. But like BMWs and Mercedes when Germans get it right I really like their films. Like PQ the time here went so quickly, lots of laughs from the audience as each of the 9 men and 9 women moved down the speed dating line 5 minutes at a time.

While many films are overlong this one I could have watched much more of. It had the sort of characters and character development for a series. Given time I will re-read AriesGemini100 review and reference the actors I liked and their other work with a view to keeping an eye out from them. I agree....most of these actors will go onto bigger and better things. Some very good character actors in this fine film. I did see it in the program listed as a mockumentary. Mock or otherwise it felt very real. And quite romantic in it's way.

Viva la Deutcsh! Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each person is subtly characterized, without falling into the cliché trap, something that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as "Workaholic" or "Stadtgespräch".

But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of "Shoppen" is good, too: Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do. Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them interacting together in "real life". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have been better, but all this is only marginal.

The most important thing about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11 will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done!

For those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!)

Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his "Flower garden" monologue, you can win any woman's heart with this one.

Anna Böger: A hell of a woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good. Listen how she pronounces "asshole" and calls the pink shirt guy a "Bürscherl"!

Felix Hellmann: The "Bürscherl" from above is fun to watch. The inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of "Sportfreunde Stiller".

Katharina Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her "do you want children" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no doubt.

David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as authentic as Paul Giamatti in "Sideways". I hope this is NOT method acting.

Julia Koschitz: The "good looking" woman in the circle. Julia used to play theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to come.

Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy?

Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in "Tatort" last year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her.

Matthias Bundschuh: I know these "write down everything"-guys back from school. I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding.

Mediha Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances here.

Thomas Limpinsel: The "nice and desperate guy" in the circle. Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called "comedians" on TV.

Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's "flower garden" metaphor. Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at the same time, wow!

Oliver Bürgin: The "good looking" man in the circle. No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he will appear in many TV series to come.

Julia Heinze: The "cute, conventional" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from naive to hurt to furious are great!

Stephan Zinner: The "nature boy" from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating – and good sex. Watch the body language between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician Söder on stage!

Anja Klawun: The "bargain girl" has some good moments, but, beg your pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen.

Christian Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich.

Tanja Schleiff: Plays the girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her. I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious. In complete contrast to the previous correspondent here, I thought Shoppen Munich (as it was billed when shown with English subtitles here in London at the German Film Festival in November 2007) was very funny, very well acted, and excellently scripted.

It's quite audacious to design a 100-minute film that consists exclusively, and relentlessly, of talking heads. But I think Ralf Westhoff succeeded with wit and élan. No standard filmic devices of, say, following a character's soul-baring pronouncement with some meditative minor-seventh-chord music and long-shot nature cutaways. But when someone said something that revealed their souls - well, we were hustled on by the man with the timer for yet another superficial introduction. Which is, of course, the point: the hurtling tickbox superficiality of thirtysomething urbanites, where everything is down to a quick question and answer.

Maybe most films are so clichéd and stupid that we English are ready to laugh at any vaguely intelligent and uncontrived cinema, but I can promise you that at the screening tonight (Curzon Cinema, Sun 25 Nov 2007) the full audience bellowed with laughter most of the way through. So I wasn't the only one guffawing!

My girlfriend (who speaks German and has lived in Munich) thought it was hilarious. I (who don't speak German and have not been to Munich, I think) thought it was hilarious. I'd recommend Shoppen (Munich) to anyone (especially couples...) looking for a smart, witty, original, wise film about the superficiality of modern relationships and the bewilderment of the generation who feel they've missed out on the happy-ever-after stuff first time round.

NB In the English subtitled showing in London, the subtitles (which were very good) were shown completely underneath the slightly reduced picture, not inside it. I thought this was a Good Thing. It's not hard to imagine what the main problem for a screenwriter is who wants to have 18 equally well written characters with about the same amount of screen time in a movie that last around 90 minutes. It's almost impossible not to fall back on stereotypes and that is also what writer-director Ralf Westhoff does here. Very few of the characters can be recognized as people that you and me know in real life, many of them are just characterized with two or three attributes and stay vague. I am aware of that but still think that "Shoppen" is successful, namely that it accomplishes just what it wants to. It is a film with very well written dialogue, extremely good acting and a film that made me laugh out loud really often. I don't think that this film wants to make a deep going analysis of loneliness in our modern society, or that it wants to be moral commentary on speed-dating. It's a movie about something that exists and people and their motivation to use it. Funny and entertaining. This film is full of interesting ideas. Some scenes are truly hilarious. The dialogs are witty and colloquial. The tension in the film comes not so much from the 'murder mystery' plot as from the relationship between the characters. The film tells two stories in parallel.

The first story involves the characters played by Trintignant and Kassovitz. Trintignant is an ageing drifter, with a somewhat ridiculous macho toughness, who is followed by a naive young man played by Kassovitz with plenty of good-natured smiles. Many good moments in the film come from the contrast between the two characters, for example when Trintignant tries to teach Kassovitz how to be intimidating.

The second story tells how a salesman,played by Jean Yanne, gives up his job and his wife to find the murderer of a young friend. Yanne plays the part with a kind of aggressive irony. I wish I could describe this better.

After a while the viewer understands how both stories are connected and they meet indeed in the end, in a surprising but also logical ending.

The film is a successful mixture of the witty but superficial gangster films the director's father (the celebrated Michel Audiard) used to write, and the "typical french film" with lots of psychological depth and lots of care in the display of emotions. Jacques Audiard's directorial debut See How They Fall aka Regarde les Hommes Tomber is our old friend, the film with two different stories that gradually converge and turn out to be the same story after all, simply told from different sides. It's a shaggy dog story, with Matthieu Kassovitz's simpleton following unlucky-in-cards drifter Jean Louis Trintignant with mutt-like devotion that even stretches to killing for him when he's asked to repay his gambling debts in kind. Meanwhile, in a slightly different timeframe, Jean Yanne's over-the-hill travelling salesman becomes increasingly obsessed with finding the hit-man who put his cop friend into a brain-dead coma, his life, income and relationships gradually stripped away as he gets closer to his prey. Yet while it may offer the perfect setup for a modern-day neo noir, the film is often more surprisingly playful, more interested in quirks of character and a slightly skewed sense of humor (aptly served by the occasional ironic captions and Alexandre Desplat's half-jaunty, half-discordant score) than the traditional thriller set pieces and plot mechanics.

Unfortunately the film is ill-served by one of the worst Region 1 DVDs released in recent years: the picture quality on Synkronized's disc is so poor at times you keep on expecting to see the audience's heads in front of the picture like a pirate disc. Okay, I know that's cliché. Taken on its surface, this is a bad film- perhaps in a league with "Plan 9 From Outer Space". The dialog is suspect (but the Singlish is quite enjoyable...), the plot is not quite believable, Gavin's character overacts excessively. While watching the movie, somethings happen that truly make you wonder... Handsome and Kim making out on a tank, Gwen eating a banana in a bath, just about everything Gavin says and does ("psssssssssssssssycho!!"). These things taken separately are perhaps flaws. Taken together, however, they are merely quirks. Watching this movie with an open-mind (especially if you're not familiar with Singaporean culture), and with an open-minded group of friends is guaranteed to deliver a lot of laughs and a memorable time. You can't go into this movie expecting a masterpiece, or even expecting to take anything serious at all. If you can take this film for what it is - an underdog film about underdogs, filled to the brim with its own quirks - then you should have a good time watching this one! I've already seen it three times and I wouldn't hesitate to watch it three more times!! The quintessential housewife and perfect mother, Donna Reed (as Donna Stone) could do it all. Settle spats between the children or neighbors, take care of her hard-working pipe-smoking pediatrician husband, Alex, and still have a stack of pancakes, three types of breakfast meat, and a tall glass of milk and OJ ready for the kids every morning before breakfast.

Over the course of the past fifty years, we've lost sight of the idealistic stay-at-home mom, family meals together at the kitchen table, and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband when he comes home from work.

I wish the show were available on DVD- I'd discontinue my cable altogether! While I agree this was a 1950s sitcom, I don't feel it was "typical". Firstly, Donna Reed was a STRONG woman, unlike the regular 50s sitcom moms. She made a stand for women's worth and equality (remember the episode where the TV announcer says "just a housewife") and Donna stands up for all women do and represent, especially those that don't work outside the home? And when the women rebelled against something in the series, it was not something trivial...it was always something to show that women have the right to be treated with the same respect as men. Remember, Donna Reed was married to the show's producer, so she had much more input into making hers a more powerful character.

The children were intelligent, but not precocious. They were normal kids. And they could ACT.

Something else that made Donna Reed Show stand out was not only did the children LOOK like their parents, but you could feel the chemistry between all the actors in the real life situation, which then came out in the characters. Shelly Fabares and Paul Peterson have often written and remarked that they were treated like the children of Donna Reed and Carl Betz, and that the adults were fiercely protective of the child actors, and treated them accordingly. Donna and Alex also had somewhat of a sexual chemistry that wasn't seen on the other family shows. And the characters could be flawed, and in major ways, and yet, accepted for the flaws and mistakes. These were not super parents that did no wrong and had no emotional highs and lows. They were normal people acting as normal people.

Women's rights, drug abuse, child abuse, single fathers, poverty, children who need good health care but can't afford it...it was all shown on this show. Pretty groundbreaking for the era.

Donna Reed show didn't last for eight years without a reason. And it could have possibly endured, had it not been for Tony Owens and Donna Reed divorcing.

This show is highly underrated and should be shown so that other generations can appreciate quality.

In summary, I agree with the original poster, who obviously cares for the show, but I think that the Donna Reed show has SO much more to offer than casual entertainment. Like a lot of stars of the big screen as their careers wound down, so many turned to television where probably they secured their reputations for posterity. Donna Reed is a case in point.

I don't think Donna Reed ever thought that Donna Stone was anything challenging, not to a woman who had won an Oscar for playing a very different type in From Here to Eternity. She was certainly better prepared to play wife, mother, and homemaker Donna Stone after having played Mary Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life.

Donna was always beautiful and wise and ever helpful with the problems of her kids and her husband. Carl Betz was not an idiot, he was a pediatrician who had his office attached to the house. Talk about the man being ever ready in a crisis.

Though this was the Donna Reed Show because Donna's husband at the time, Tony Owen produced it. Yet it lasted as long as did because of the popularity of the two children, Shelley Fabares and Paul Petersen. Fabares had that best selling teen record Johnny Angel which she introduced on the show. She successfully made the transition to adult star, most known for her role in Coach as Craig T. Nelson's wife.

But Petersen was a bubblegum teen idol back in the day. The Donna Reed Show dare I say got most of its viewers because of him. It's forgotten now, but Petersen also had a best selling record, My Dad. Didn't do half as well as Johnny Angel.

Now Paul Petersen runs a support group for former child stars like himself. So many of them end so tragically, it's good work that he's doing.

The Stone family was the quintessence of Middle America. They lived in a suburb near Chicago, they led wholesome lives. Mom and Dad were always there for the kids. Of course the problems they had usually were nothing more than breaking curfew.

It's this series I believe was the model for the TV town of Pleasantville where Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are sucked into.

I have pleasant memories of The Donna Reed Show. Easy to take, but not too seriously. I was five when the show made its debut in 1958 and at a later point, was a regular viewer. I remember that I really enjoyed the show, along with "Leave It To Beaver", "My Three Sons", "Ozzie and Harriet", "Dick Van Dyke", reruns of "I Love Lucy", "The Real McCoys", etc. I am now enjoying the first season of "Donna Reed" on DVD and have watched the first two episodes. Donna Stone is shown to be an intelligent, well-mannered, problem-solving, serene, stay-at-home mom, similar to June Cleaver and in contrast to Lucy Ricardo. In episode 2, I especially like how Ms. Reed becomes a surrogate dad, trading in her dress for sweats and boxing gloves, while teaching her son how to defend himself physically against a much larger bully. While none of the mothers in the neighborhood I grew up in, including my own, exactly met the idealistic standards portrayed by Ms. Reed, it is refreshing to see good manners and intelligent decision-making prevail at the end of the day, in contrast to today's accepted standards of vulgarity, selfishness and indifference among one's neighbors. I cannot imagine Jeff and Mary Stone being told by their parents that trespassing in their neighbors' yards is okay, leaving a dog outside to bark all day is acceptable, or telling their mother to "shut up" in a supermarket in front of everyone. This has become one of my favorite movies and certainly one of the best westerns I have ever seen. Having a soft spot for the genre (westerns are – or were, since they are no longer made very often – morality plays that too often have been denigrated by critics with intellectual pretensions), I purchased the DVD, sight unseen, because I had read enough about William S. Hart's work (much of which he wrote and directed) to pique my interest and thought I should have at least one of his films in my video collection.

I must admit that I approached the actual viewing with some trepidation. My previous experiences with silent cinema "classics" had left me feeling let down. Chaney's The Phantom of the Opera, Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Fairbanks' The Mark of Zorro were fine, but not nearly as good as their reputations would lead one to expect. They were either too long, or too theatrical, or both.

The Toll Gate, however, emerged as a pleasant surprise.

It is a story told in a simple and straightforward manner. Black Deering (played by Hart), leader of a notoriously successful outlaw gang, thinks the time has come for group to disband, before its luck runs out. He is, however, opposed by his chief lieutenant, Jordan, who goads them all into one last holdup by promising great wealth but leads them into a trap in which he is complicit. Everyone is killed except Deering, who is taken prisoner. When his captors recognize him as the man who once saved a number of soldiers and settlers by warning an outpost of an impending Indian attack, they allow him to escape. Free, he tries to find honest work but is snubbed and ridiculed and ultimately must rob again to survive. Soon, he is pursued not only by the sheriff's posse but also by Jordan (now prospering from the reward money he has collected) and his henchmen. His flight leads him to a remote cabin inhabited by a single mother and her little son. After some initial misgivings, they take him into their hearts. Deering sees a chance for a new life but, with the posse and Jordan closing in, realizes that this may not be possible.

Hart was the first great western star and the first to inject realism into the genre. As one of the pioneers of movie-making, he created many of the characters and situations that have become cliché in westerns for more than ninety years. What keeps his movies interesting, however, was his ability to go beyond the cliché (perhaps his imitators did not go far enough) so that the material appears fresh and innovative, even now. Three such instances in The Toll Gate illustrate this:

1) In one scene, his character shoots into a crowd in an attempt to kill Jordan, and kills a bystander instead. A subsequent close-up shows that he is clearly frustrated. The frustration, however, comes not from the fact that he has gunned down a man who had hitherto caused him no harm but that he missed his intended target.

2) In another, as he flees from the posse, his "borrowed" horse steps into a gopher hole and breaks a leg. Hart pulls out his gun to put the animal out of its misery but, before pulling the trigger, gives his head a sad, loving pat, as if to say farewell to an old friend.

3) And finally, after he has strangled Jordan and thrown his body over a cliff, he returns to retrieve his guns and spots his adversary's pistol lying on the ground nearby. He steps forward and gives it a swift kick before mounting his horse. It is a simple gesture but it underscores the deep loathing he feels for the man who betrayed him and his comrades.

And I love the title, The Toll Gate. It is allegorical in its implication that a man cannot begin a new life until he has paid for the sins of his old one. Deering's payment comes in the form of sacrifice. Today's more sophisticated audiences may not buy into that sentiment entirely but it can still work on you if you let it.

Viewers who like their videos in pristine condition will undoubtedly object to the DVD's picture quality, especially the badly deteriorated final reel. I don't mind at all. That a copy of this 1920 movie even exists at all is a miracle since prints of so many other silent movies have been lost. If you bear that in mind and look upon the film as a piece of history, its visual flaws are not that difficult to accept.

William S. Hart was born in 1870 in New York but grew up in the Minnesota and Wisconsin where he learned to speak Sioux and Indian sign language. He counted Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson among his friends and collected Remington paintings, so his knowledge of the West was first-hand. If his vision seems overly romanticized by today's standards, it is nevertheless rooted far closer to reality than the spaghetti westerns of the '60s and '70s and the revisionist works that followed. Both the star and his films are overdue for re-evaluation. From a bare description of THE TOLL GATE's major plot elements, one might think it's a revisionist Western of the 60s or 70s.

* Our hero is a robber, killer, and arsonist;

* the love interest is a single mother whose shiftless husband abandoned her and their child;

* twice our criminal hero is "unofficially" released by authorities in return for some good deed, and this is presented as a praiseworthy act;

* the only acts which are presented as truly evil are the betrayal of one's family and the betrayal of a criminal associate;

* the hero tries to go straight, but turns back to a life of crime after he can't get a job;

* the hero is on the run from both a sheriff's posse and a criminal gang;

* the hero's final redemption is accomplished by strangling a man with his bare hands and tossing his body over a cliff;

* and the "good bad man" ends the film by sending the young mother and her child back to civilization and riding off alone into the Mexican desert, never (presumably) to pay for his life of crime.

Just goes to show you that there is nothing new under the sun.

Of course, THE TOLL GATE doesn't display quite the cynicism or moral nihilism of its successors: the hero's redemption is set up when he surrenders to the posse after reading a passage from the Bible. Can't quite imagine Clint Eastwood doing that.

THE TOLL GATE an excellent movie by any standard, and Hart was a very fine actor, not given to the broad histrionics often used to convey emotion in the days before sound.

9/10. I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the "über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.

The film in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.

Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched. Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was somewhat reluctant to watch "Golden Earrings." The idea of a 40-something Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies, it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic.

The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen Dietrich play a "good" woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human character.

Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable, optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying. The film opens in a stuffy British men's club full of gents in leather chairs smoking cigars. This is Denistoun's world. A messenger delivers a small box to him which he opens to find a pair of gold earrings. The site of the earrings sets off a reminiscence about the time he spent in the company of gypsies. The rest of the film is flashback.

Golden Earrings has been a long time favorite of mine and is probably the most romantic movie I know. Dietrich plays against her usual type. Here she's dark-haired, earthy and not in the least bit mysterious. Instead of a femme fatale, she'a tower of strength and energetically sets out to use all her resources to help Denistoun survive and reach his goal. To make sure that he's a really convincing gypsy, she pierces his ears and has him wear her dead lover's golden earrings. With his clothes and some grease, she transforms him from an effete British gentleman into a wild and sexy looking man.

When I was growing up I used to hear the song "Golden Earrings" which is sung in the film. I think the tune is hummed a little by Dietrich. /There's a story the gypsies know is true /That when your love wears golden earrings /She belongs to you. This film is exceptional in that Marlene & Raymond present outstanding performances. The acting in this film is the greatest strength of the production, but the script, direction, and editing deserve applause. There is an extraordinary chemistry that exsists between the two stars. If you like Marlene, and you like Raymond, you'll love this film..... (It's a classic that compares with Casablanca.)

Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.

In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.

Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style. The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others. An especially delightful film to those of us who saw this when young because after all it was meant for the young to watch - when viewing it again as an adult it's better if rose-tinted spectacles can kick in. It was the first of the 16 Jungle Jim films and later TV series chunky Johnny Weismuller went on to do for Columbia (in the last 3 films he had to use his own name though as they'd lost the rights) after getting the sack from playing Tarzan for Sol Lesser. Johnny Sheffield also gave up playing Boy to become Bomba the Jungle Boy in a series of 12 films.

Jim and party go on perilous safari to hunt down the hidden temple of Zimbalu manned by an obscure tribe of devil doctors who seem to have the secret of a poison that might also be a cure for polio. Edgar Rice Burroughs probably approved. After 16 years talking monosyllabically Weismuller seemed awkward stringing sentences together, not that it mattered. On the swift march we meet many of the interesting but generally playful denizens of the jungle, barring the sinister crocodile going to eat the leading lady with her leg caught under a twig and the surreal elephant stampede (stock footage squeezed into a corner of the frame). Skipper the dog and Caw-Caw the crow had many adventures, none of which turned out essential to the plot in case you were concentrating! The biggest problem with the film is the farcical climax, which can be exciting but also unfortunately remind you of the end of a serial part – and the original excellent serial had been made 12 years prior. Although personally I wouldn't have minded this going on another couple of hours as well!

The only thing heavy about this was Weismuller; in so many ways an enjoyable kids film from the old days - not recommended for serious adults so I love it. It is one of the best of Stephen Chow. I give it a nine out of ten.

I was surprised to see that Shaolin Soccer was rated on top of all singsing's movies. Unbelievable. I felt sorry enough that this film is not popular at all even in Hong Kong. However, for all die hard Chow's fan, this will be a masterpiece that shud not b left out. This is "Mo Lei Tou" (a comedy style that based on unrealistic and ridiculous plot pioneered by Chow) at its peak. The plot is totally absolutely ultimately 1000 times more ridiculous than any film that u can imagine. The dialog is awesome. No single part of the film cool down for u to stop laughing.

The plot look simple but crazy enuf for u to start laughing. It begin with Chow starring a junior magistrate (a corrupted one of course)caught into jail when helping an innocent married woman he love at first sight to clear her from a murder charge that plot by evil minister whose son was actually the real convict. Chow escape from jail and run away as a refugee. He intend to go to the capital to see the Emperor and report the conviction. On his way, he manage to pick up 2 lovely women, one from circus, another one a prostitute while in the mean time mastering supreme skill to quarrel and bad mouth from the thin Mama-san (who happen to be his future in law). Finally, he able to force the Emperor to re-open the case by black mail the Emperor whom he meet him in the brothel. The Emperor made him a highest level judge to judge the case tgt with the evil minister. He manage to setup some brilliant but hilarious plots to force the convict to commit the crime, execute him while thrown the evil minister to jail.

The plots are really hilarious and ridiculously brilliant. Also not to forget the tremendous dialog that include some brilliant bad mouth quarrel between Chow and the Mama-san, quarrel between the fat Mama-san and thin Mama-san to inspire Chow to learn the quarrel skill later and also quarrel between Chow and the evil eunuch Lee near the ending. Beside that, some of the scenes are brilliant too.

One thing that need to mention is that to really understand the film and catch up 100 % of all the elements correctly, this will be a must to master Cantonese really well. Which may be the reason why early age Chow movie receive moderate response only from Asian world. However, when Chow film began to spread his influence around the globe, hardcore fans like me found that his film is no more that funny like the old time. I LOVED this movie because Bobbie Phillips can REALLY FIGHT! I always hate when actors are not believable in action parts. It was great to see, no offense, but a WOMAN who can skillfully perform martial arts and fighting. If you compare this with most action movies with females you will DEFINITELY see what I mean. They don't have to cut up the shots with someone that can fight and it flows better. I was VERY impressed. I hope there's more! I am awed by actress Bobbie Phillips and her superb skill as an action star! This movie is propelled by her wonderful acting and terrific action prowess. I am a fan of sci-fi but I must say that this film exceeds most science fiction films in it's cinematography and mostly it's utilization of an actress whose presence supersedes the plot which is fine but is nothing new. Even though it looks as though this film was made for television, in my opinion it is better than most theatrically released films of its kind. Great job! Was very exciting and had great stunts. A show that really rocked. Was a great job by all who worked on this one; and especially the acting on Bobbie Phillips' part. This would have been great on the big screen. Would like to see more of these movies of the week or perhaps a weekly series. This was great entertainment and am glad I watched! By far the best of the three. Keep up the good work UPN and Bobbie Phillips. I'll be looking for the next one. I was surprised to catch this on TV Friday, and I enjoyed it. Between the presence of Bobbie Phillips and the numerous references to everything that could be considered "cyberpunk", this was a fun movie to watch. I enjoyed the story, which reminded me of a book I've read ("Earth", David Brin), and was fun to see on TV. Bobbie looks great, but I also enjoyed her performance as Kam because she did seem different from everyone else. But the greatest thing about this movie was the atmosphere that has been described in books by Gibson, Sterling, and others. It was just fun to see it on TV. This show was incredible!!! I've seen all three and this is the best. This movie has suspense,a bit of romance,stunts that will blow your mind (GO BOBBIE), great characters and amazing locations. Where was this filmed? Will there be more? I really liked the story line with her brother. Looking forward to Chameleon 4 and to see how the world is saved yet again. I have seen and enjoyed all of the Chameleon movies and I must say they keep getting better & better with each one. Bobbie Phillips is Fantastic and my granddaughter wants to be just like her. I'm glad they brought in a "Brother" character for Bobbie (Kam) so we can expect to see more exciting shows. Bobbie is beautiful, sexy, and sweet, and independent at the same time, and everything any female could desire to be! Boogie Nights was without a doubt the best film of 1997. I could watch this movie over and over and over and still love it. I'm in no rush to watch that overblown romance/disaster epic Titanic again. The fact that Boogie Nights did not even receive a Best Picture nomination just goes to prove how predictable and narrow-minded the Academy is. Only Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter and Robert Zemeckis's Contact came close to being as great as Boogie Nights. No other filmmaker in recent years has come even remotely close to making a film as good as Tarantino's Pulp Fiction -- until now. Paul Thomas Anderson rose to the challenge and succeeded. Just as Tarantino gave John Travolta's career a kick, P.T. Anderson has given Burt Reynolds the kick that his career needs. Boogie Nights will also undoubtedly make stars of Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, and John Reilly. Overall, a wonderful film. The best since Pulp Fiction. Maybe even better. A small town kid working in a big city becomes a huge star and then spirals out of control. It shows you the rise to fame and then fall from fame and back to a little rise. Great cast of actors, and a great director = a great, great movie called Boogie Nights.

P.T Anderson. An amazing director who made Boogie Nights amazing. From the moment the movie starts to the moment it ends you can feel how beautiful this movie is. Some scenes are breathtaking, literally. A great story, a great movie. Mark Whalberg was fantastic, Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderful as he is in everything. Thomas Jane also was magnificent and although he only had a small part he played it to perfection. There is one scene in this movie I can't get over, "The Drug Deal Gone Bad Scene" it was amazing, music acting and cinematography combined to make it amazing. I hadn't seen Boogie Nights and thank god I did, its so well rounded and I am now a HUGE fan of PTA (Paul Thomas Anderson).

Do whatever you have to do and watch this movie. Altman and Scorsese have twisted sex together in one of the greatest American films of the past 20 years. Boogie Nights didn't make a huge initial splash, and I still don't think it's received the credit it deserves. The immediate clamor surrounding the film ("Some porn movie with Marky Mark") was wholly without merit. What Paul Thomas Anderson has created is no less than a stunning representation of the pursuit and subsequent loss of the American Dream (if such a thing still exists).

For those of you who have been living in a box (or a confessional) for the past 8 years, Boogie Nights tells the literal rise-and-fall tale of young Eddie Adams (Wahlberg). Eddie is just a dopey kid from Torrance, California who wants something more out of life. His room is soaked in muscle-bound, naive Americana. His dreams are far bigger than his potential, but not quite as large as his...special gift. His bald-headed southern gent quickly raises the attention and eyebrows of the booming, omni-present adult film industry. Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds as the film's twinkle-eyed Papa Bear) gets wind of Eddie's hidden talent and decides to put him in a movie.

Before you can say "deep-throat," Eddie has changed his name to Dirk Diggler and exposed his massive member to a wide-eyed public. Fame and fortune make Dirk's acquaintance, as do a bevy of local porn celebs. His friends and co-workers become his makeshift family, but it soon proves to be a Sunday picnic like no other. As the feel-good 70s give way to the coke-addled, video-friendly 80s, Dirk & Co. begin a dangerous backslide.

Anderson put everything he had into this glorious, moving epic. It sizzles and never fizzles. Nary a frame of this monumental picture is wasted, and the characters and their dialogue live with us long after ELO fades from the soundtrack. See this one immediately. And then watch it again.

And again. This picture's following will only grow as time goes by. Better than any of the best picture nominees in 97 and it rewards repeated viewings. I've seen it three times now so I know. Anderson was compared to some of the great American directors (Altman, Scorcese, Tarantino) and he may have those influences but chances are, after a few more films, he'll be considered part of that short list himself.

One last note: Julianne Moore's "Amber Waves" will resonate in the memory long after other 90's movie characters have faded. THE best performance of the year -in any of the four categories. Sometime ago I watched a video of Paul Thomas Anderson in which he express the big interest that he has in porn films and how this industry could've produce better films and in consequence a complete genre and not just sex in video tape. Paul Thomas Anderson put his own believes of porn industry in the character played in a terrific way by Burt Reynolds. His name is Jack Horner, a director whose biggest dream is to make a "real" film that can keep the viewer in suspense because of the great dramatic story and, at the same time, exciting with the beauty… and with the "big cocks and tits". Soon as he meets Eddie Adams (Mark Walhberg), he believes that he has found the new star for his films. And that's how the story of the young Eddie in the porn industry begins.

The film begins with a sequence inside a night club where we can see all the persons that will be part of Eddie's life and later we can see them outside the porn industry, living their daily routine. But soon we can see them inside the porn industry and after only one party, the story of the new Eddie begins, the story of Dirk Diggler. All of them will taste the real success with Dirk as the main star, winning lots of prizes and helping Jack to make real his biggest dream with a series of films about Brock Landers, the new character of Dirk. This sort of exploitation films are an amazing success and for Jack are his firsts "real" films. But here is the beginning of the end and the beginning of the "horrible 80's" when there is going to be $ex, DRUGS and Rock & Roll for Dirk and pals. But we all know that the excesses can destroy any person and the erectile dysfunction can destroy any porn star and here the film focuses in their lives after the total success and how everybody is having a real bad time with many problems due to society's bad look to porn industry and to a period with many excesses. In Dirk's decadence, after trying and failing in the music industry, there's a brilliant sequence that can resume in a perfect way how the things are going for Dirk and his friends. That sequence is the one of his first drug deal, with the appearance of Alfred Molina, which ends in a total mess. Is funny for us and a terrible experience for Dirk and pals but there's always a solution if you get back in what you know and when Dirk is back, Brock is back.

Well I haven't mention most of the characters in my sort of a summary but I must say that all are amazingly well developed. The cast is just superb with the best performance that I have seen of Mark Walhberg. Julianne Moore has a powerful performance in a really moving character; Reilly, Macy, Hoffman, Heather Graham, Guzman, etc are just memorable, all of their characters with funny and sad moments.

Finally, I really love the amazing cinematic style of Anderson here with a unique view to the porn industry of the late 70's and early 80's. I used to say that "Magnolia" was my favourite of Anderson but right now, after watching all except "Sidney", I can't say that I have a favourite because I love them all!

PS: somewhere I read that this film is the "Scorsese film" of Anderson so I'm more than sure that if you love "Goodfellas" and "Casino" you will love this one too. I f*cking love "Boogie Nights"! Some time ago I saw this when HBO was showing it and from what I saw of it, it seemed like a good movie. so I'm in Blockbuster today and I see it there with the DVD'S and I decide what the hell. So I rent it. After I finished watching it I was in shock of how good it was.

This movie just touched my heart. Everything in it was so amazing. The stories, the actors, the dark humor, the MUSIC!!! Oh don't get me started on the music in this film. PT Andderson is one of the greats. Definitely the best thing to come out since Quentin Tarantino(a god.)

After I finished the first viewing I watched it again with Anderson's commentary (I was suprised on how such a cool guy he is.)

Anybody who is interested in movies at all should watch this movie, if they haven't already. Anderson is obviously a film lover. In the movie he rips off so many other directors tecniques. Such as the pool scene with the camera following the girl through the water. Obviously ripped off from "I Am Cuba." But I have no beef what so ever with that. The film is very respectable with it's ripoff's.

I recomend this film to anybody who can deal with some of the content of the film(porn.)

10/10 This is a classic that will be able to hold up with drama's to come simply because of the fact that it is shot with a 70's style and it's a story about the 70's. It is funny, action-filled, entertaining and sad at the same time. It has the effect to pull you into the lives of these poor folks and the consequences for their actions. 4 STARS! The three names that mean the most to this film are Burt Reynolds, Mark Wahlberg, and Julianne Moore. These three deliver the strongest performances, but the entire cast does a wonderful job. The film although about the porn industry does not let itself get out of hand with it's own sexual premise. On the other hand there were many scenes that involved drug use and although important to understanding the characters lifestyle, I think there was some overkill in this department. Paul Thomas Anderson has not done a great deal of directing, but he may have been picked for this film based on his 1988 work "The Dirk Diggler Story." One thing that was brilliantly portrayed is the family like atmosphere between the characters as they work, live, and party together. Although not a typical family they certainly seem to care for each other. The wonderful soundtrack really helps give you a feel for the period during a time when disco was the rage. There are many disco favorites on it and some other wonderful songs as well.

The story is about a gifted young man named Eddie Adams (Wahlberg) that gets invited into the porn industry. He changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes and adult film star almost overnight. Jack Horner (Reynolds) is the director that takes his films very seriously as he believes his work is more than just pornography, but that they are true art. However Dirk becomes overly dependent on drugs and soon heads down a dangerous road where he stands to loose everything. Although a greater focus is placed on the character Dirk there are subplots for the other characters and their trials in life. You will find yourself wishing for and hoping their situations improve. All-in-all a well done film. Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with "American Beauty"). This is exactly what happened with "Boogie Nights", which was the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to "Titanic", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated "Good Will Hunting" and the irritating "Full Monty". The other pictures which were nominated in the main category were "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as it Gets", great movies, but "Boogie Nights" is still better and should have been remembered in more categories.

This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes.

What could have been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes "Boogie Nights" such a great film is its execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each character is very well developed, and each of them has his/her importance in the context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a masterpiece of the modern American cinema.

"Boogie Nights" is a strong, impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece.

10/10 What a movie! It has undeniably entertaining subject matter (unless you're a prude) and a mature, funny, and complex script from Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, Hard Eight). PT Anderson will undoubtably be around for some time. The evidence is here in this epic and ambitious masterpiece. Every character is expertly played and touching and fully-shaped. From Burt Reynolds as Jack Horner (the director) to Julianne Moore (his movie-star) and Mark Whalberg (as Dirk Diggler) they all are fabulous. And the story? WOW! Honest look at business and failure and consequences and family. One of the best movies of all time! i give it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A+ "Boogie Nights" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over. This is a absolutely masterful stroke of genius by Paul Thomas Anderson the writer/director of this movie. It really examines the pluses and minuses of the world of porn and consequences for your actions living in a world literally fueled by sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Only of the finest casts assembled with Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds, Heather Graham, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Philip Baker Hall, and others. As long as you can get past your puritanical instincts and realize that pornographers are people too, you'll realize the depth p.t. anderson gives to his characters. Also, an incredible soundtrack. The songs are so tightly tied to their scenes, you won't be able to hear them without thinking about the movie again.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission alone. An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as pornstar/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives. This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film. This was the best film of 1998 and one of the best of the 90's. Yes, it is a rip off of Goodfellas. But as the saying goes, good poets borrow, great poets steal. And PTA has stolen brilliantly from some of the best, plus added some genius touches of his own. I gave this a ten (which is very rare for me).

The main reason I am commenting on this though (cause i could just rave all night) is all those people who have seen it on VHS standard issue...what are you thinking? This deserves the FULL SCREEN experience. Look at the ratio it was shot in! I saw it 5 times at the cinema and haven't bothered to watch it on video.

Nuff said! This film is a masterpiece. It was exhilarating from beginning to end. Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson's story about a porn star is told with style, grace, humor, even poignancy. The actors and the characters they play are all first-rate, including Mark Wahlberg in the lead, who proves himself a solid actor and can carry a film. Burt Reynolds gives perhaps his best performance ever as a porno director who discovers Wahlberg. The film recreates the late 70s and early 80s with dead-on accuracy, from the disco scene that begins the film to Wahlberg's Don Johnson "Miami Vice" outfit that he wears in the final scene. Most regular moviegoers who see this film will no doubt compare it to PULP FICTION, but it really has much more in common with the films of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. The film is a triumph in style. The opening tracking shot that begins the film is just as impressive as the ones in THE PLAYER and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. The editing by Dylan Tichenor is simply phenomenal. I couldn't believe the editing didn't receive an Oscar nomination (GOOD WILL HUNTING was a better edited film?!). The best scene in the film has to be the one with the firecrackers. I had butterflies in my stomach because the scene is incredibly intense. When I saw the film a second time, I had the exact same reaction to the scene. Unfortunately, it may not have the same impact on TV as it did in a theater with good stereo sound. It's a shame that many people didn't see this movie during its theatrical run, because it is the best way to watch it. Anderson's use of widescreen will suffer on TV (so get the DVD or a letterbox tape). It is amazing how easy Anderson makes it all look, because this is only his second film. The music, sets, costumes, photography, offbeat characters, sex, violence, happiness and heartbreak are captured by a guy who is clearly in love with filmmaking. Boogie Nights follows a theme that is extremely familiar to gangster films (although it doesn't fit into that genre itself) - the rise and the fall. We see the rise of several individuals, some of them from complete obscurity, to achieving great heights ... and then falling from grace due to their excesses.

I believe that this is the first feature by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson, and it's a great start! I saw elements of other directors' influences, such as Robert Altman, but the film holds its own in originality and plot development.

Character development is the movie's finest feature. I really identified with all of the characters and felt their pain and their success with them. All of the performances were brilliant. (It was especially good to see a small part performed by real-life porn veteran, Nina Hartley).

Basically this film combines comedy and tragedy with the result being one of the best films of 1997, which was snubbed at the Oscars (probably due to the "racy" - as they would say - subject matter, and the general conservatism of the Academy. Possibly the finest moment of TV, at least in my memory, as millions could watch Shakespeare's gripping Kings cycle (Richard II - Richard III) play out on prime time TV (I believe it was on Friday nights). No word was left out, and the plays awoke in me (who was then in elementary school) a thirst for history and a hunger for Shakespeare and drama.

Let's see these reissued on DVD. What a set this would be! I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her 20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now.

There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history, this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage.

What a fine re-issue this would be! All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2" tape - which means the BBC wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful actors full of youth and bravado.

I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you reading this, BBC? Find your original 2" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are dead, some of them are missing in action.

Where else will I be able to see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'? I saw this mini-series when I was in high school. I remember it as being absolutely brilliant and compelling. At the time, I knew none of the British actors in the series, but have since learned that some of today's stars performed in it, including Sean Connery (the original James Bond among many other roles), Judi Dench (Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" among many other roles) and Eilene Atkins (probably best known for creating "Upstairs/Downstairs" but also superb in many acting roles). Like the other commentator, I would like to see it again. I'm certain the production remains timeless, and I would hope that it has been or will be released on VHS or DVD. If you get a chance to see it, do not miss it. This series has recently been unearthed and excerpts can be seen, at least within Britain, via http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/527213/index.html Presumably there is some hope that the series may eventually become available more widely. The problem is that this series was followed by the series THE WARS OF THE ROSES that had a similarly stellar cast and which has been available to cable TV, or at least crowding the market.

The two series are quite different in dramaturgy; THE WARS consolidates the plays through extensive rewriting and shifting of scenes; AN AGE OF KINGS follows Shakespeare more closely. Both series benefit from integral casting. Watched this on KQED, with Frank Baxter commenting, as I recall. Have never seen it since, but would like to find out where it is available.

It is amazing how good something can be, but be in black and white, and have zero special effects. In fact, amazing how much BETTER something like that is! It was so very long ago (1960), but I have never forgotten this series and often wished it would reappear. So taken with it, I corresponded with Mr. Rathbun, then president of Standard Oil, which sponsored the presentation on PBS. He sent me a photo of the tapestry (actually a charcoal rendering) used behind the credits.

To the opening theme music of Bayco's "Elizabethan Masque," my family and I gathered around our black & white TV to drink in Shakespeare's words as spoken by a group of excellent but relatively unknown players (at least to American audiences at the time).

We were introduced to such actors as Sean Connery, Dame Judi Dench, Tom Fleming, Patrick Garland, Julian Glover and Robert Hardy. I have continued to enjoy their accomplishments ever since. One of the most interesting things was the way in which the actors continued to age in their respective roles as Shakespeare's "King" plays were presented, perhaps for the first time, in chronological order.

I wish I could tell those actors just how much that series meant to me.

If "Age of Kings" could be revived on VHS and/or DVD, it would so please those of us who long to see it again and those who missed it the first time around.

GOOD NEWS! PBS HAS JUST ISSUED A DVD OF "AN AGE OF KINGS"! SEE THEIR JULY 2009 CATALOG, PAGE 19, OR CALL THEM TOLL FREE. I JUST ORDERED MINE! I followed this entire series when I was a child in grade school, by choice, not because it was required for school. I used to read the plays at the pace of the series. The experience gave me a life-long love for Shakespeare and history. It even gave me a bit of an acting bug, although at an amateur level only. Whenever I read any of Shakespeare's history plays, the images that come to mind first are from this black and white production, seen on a big "furniture" TV set with a rabbit ear antenna, with all the "ghosts" and wobbles that go with that.

Although the sets were minimal, if I remember correctly, that was totally irrelevant because the acting was so good. At the time I had no idea who any of the actors were. Now I see that many of them have become well known over the years. I particularly enjoyed Hotspur and Hal, whom I now see were played by Sean Connery and Robert Hardy. I would dearly love to see this available in video, especially since many of the plays are seldom performed and even fewer are available on video. It would be valuable also as a document of mid-20th century televised play production. A great production, that should be revived/rebroadcast. I doubt that it would be out of date! I'd love to hear from anyone who knows whether videos exist of this series, or any other information about where it could be found or viewed. In 1961, this series was shown on local TV here in southern California. I and many others have been petering BBC for tape or DVD ever since. Now all of a sudden, here it is on Amazon. I pre-ordered in January and now here on March 30 it arrived. It was a long wait (48 years). Was it worth it? So far I have just watched Richard II (I've only had the DVD since 2 o'clock) and I can truly say YEA!!! totally worth the wait. The acting, direction, and production are superb and even better than I remember. The production is in B & W but somehow it fits. The video is clear and very good, the sound is flawless. Further proof of how timeless Shakespeare truly is.

I gave this 10 stars even though I have only seen 1 of the 8 plays. I am sure that when I have seen them all I will change my rating to at least a 12.

It's currently in stock at Amazon (US region 1) at a reasonable price.

I'd better stop now so I can get back to watching. Next up is Henry the IV, part 1 of which is my all time favorite Shakespeare play. My introduction to a lifelong love of Shakespeare. My brother was 5 and I was not quite 7 when WTTW Chicago broadcast An Age of Kings. It became a family ritual to watch, including the reruns. As an autumn series, my father used to buy us a rare treat for the Midwest--pomegranates; and my mother would pop corn on the stove. Wonderful acting from actors whose names meant nothing to me then (although I will never forget the achingly young Sean Connery as Hotspur), but do now! And they published the scripts in paperback so we could follow along and figure out the language. I managed to memorize most of Richard III over that. So glad to see it coming out on DVD! Highly recommended for all ages and any level of familiarity with Shakespeare or English history. Anyone who enjoyed this series when first broadcast (I rushed home from school to see it) now is of a certain age so I can only add my comments to those asking for a DVD release to enable those of us to relive the memories of first transmission before it simply becomes a piece of unremembered TV archive history. If so many old TV series from the sixties and seventies can be released, why not this? Surely the rights clearances can't be that difficult. Most of the Shakespeare lines I can quote comes from this iconic series and I remember swapping them with my school chums as we tried to outdo each other's memories of the text. Peter Dews rightly deserved the credit for having the foresight to bring it to the screen. This surely was public broadcasting at its finest. Robert Hardy and Sean Connery fighting to the death - it's riveting stuff and from the beginning of the BBC Television's golden age. Come on BBC. Clear it and license it please. March 2009 So finally the DVD is here and congratulations to those who have made it happen. The picture quality is remarkably good and the performances every bit as good as the memory thought. Now all those who clamoured for it must buy it and relive those magic moments.

UK viewers. Given the series was made in the UK by the BBC using British actors it's strange that the DVD release is not available there on Region 2 (Europe) DVD and can only be imported from the US and played on modified players. It seems hardly likely that there are major rights issues, perhaps the market was felt to be too small so why on earth wasn't it released 'region free?' so everyone could enjoy it? I have been trying to track The Age of Kings down for many, many years.My theater life was filled with the actors in this series. At the time, in 1960 I was not able to follow all of it, as I was myself working in the theater, lots of night work. Now in retirement I LONG to have this and keep it to myself. Please, please can it not be issued on DVD, I would not mind what it cost. I see that there are others out there who feel the same. What can we do to get this done? Something as great as this should not be sent into oblivion. I have to write two more lines. OK I can do that by saying that I want this series more than anything in the world. Just to be able to watch some of the finest actor of our age playing out the finest words of our wonderful Shakespeare. Isn't that enough! A Uzmen I smiled through the whole film. The music is great. The story-telling is great. It's a wonderful film. This picture is made with respect and a true love of the sixties. MY DINNER WITH JIMI is a glimpse at Howard Kaylan's giddy and vertiginous ride to fame with his 60's Folk-Rock band, The Turtles. The Turtles were kind of a 'second tier' act during the sixties, but the film clearly demonstrates that they could eat, drink, and party with the Titans of Hippie Culture. And, not only that, they had the musical chops to back it up. Many of the stellar acts of the era are seen as they interact with the band at work and at play. This provides my only complaint about the film. Almost from the beginning of the movie, one sees that it is nearly impossible to find actors who can convincingly impersonate such recognizable stars. Too often during the film, I felt that I was watching an engaging exhibition of phony wigs and mustaches. But, if you are a fan of the music of The Turtles, or The Swinging 60's, in general-this might be the film for you. And, don't forget to view The Extras. There is a very funny (and informative) bit by band members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, about their disastrous experiences with managers and agents. Superb and charming. Justin Henry is beautiful as a blissed out and mischievous Howard Kaylan, lead singer for the top ten hit making band, The Turtles. The real magic is the titular sequence with an academy award worthy turn by Royale Watkins. A performance that completely captures the mystical and yet down to earth Jimi Hendrix. Not many films, unbelievably so, can find the essence of a special moment in a life and times. I'd like to see this available at any home video retail outlet without any hassle. Uh..what's the deal?

Thanks Eddie. A worthy addition to the history of the psychedelic sixties. A definite twinkle in the mind's eye. I'm from Ireland and I thought this film had the odd minute or two where accents where a little off but no worse than any Brad Pitt or other American doing the accent. Furthermore, I have rarely seen any British actor handle an American or Canadian accent except for Colin Farrel in Minority Report. This film is a little film and it was entertaining. No it wasn't a Blockbuster Hollywood production but frankly I'm sick of that shite. I laughed more than a few times and had a good time. It was definitely worth the rental. The main character is a spoof on other hard British gangsters. At least that's the way I saw it. If you go in expecting a $100 million dollar production you'll be disappointed. Enjoy it for what it is- a small entertaining film. I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is "dizzy with a romantic spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever." How true those words are! Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound. So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance between two neighbors ("Mr. Chow," played by Tony Leung and "Mrs. Chan," played by Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try "not to be like them." But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their spouses are away "on business"/"taking care of a sick mother"), they fall madly in love, and must resist the temptation of going too far.

Several factors are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among "romantic melodramas," in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film (i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail. The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous, meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her elegant dresses, Chan and Chow "glancing" at each other as they pass one another on the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on screen.

The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to create a film that feels timeless, "dizzyingly romantic," and, in a word, magical. In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it is that I love "going to the movies." And I guess that is about the highest compliment that I can pay to a film.

It's easy to see why many people consider In the Mood for Love to be Wong Kar-Wai's best film. The toned down appeal of the film, centering on the studied view of a relationship put through an emotional ringer, is a retread into Happy Together territory but without the hyper-kinetic patchwork of jarring film stocks and hyper-saturated sequences that have become a trademark of Kar-Wai's films since Chungking Express. Like Soderbergh's The Limey, this is a different kind of curio for Kar-Wai; where dialogue and plot are forsaken by mood and composition in order to create a tale of two delicate lives in a seemingly confining emotional stasis.

It's a testament to the genius of Kar-Wai that he is capable to making such a simple tale so resonating. Chow Mo-Wan (Tony Leung) and Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) move in next-door to each other within the same apartment building. He's a journalist who dreams of publishing martial-arts novels and she is a secretary at a shipping company. Their eventual coupling is obvious from the beginning but the pleasure here is the way that Kar-Wai ambiguously paints such a journey with his grand masterstrokes.

The key to the success of the film is Kar-Wai's use of the interior space, playing with foreground and background planes in ways that are similar to the works of Polanski. During the wooingly sensuous first half of the film, Kar-Wai isolates Leung and Cheung within shots in such a way that the second person in a conversation is never visible. Kar-Wai is concerned with environment and space here, creating a cramped emotional dynamic between his characters. It's also telling that Kar-Wai never chooses to focus on the physicality of Mo-Wan and Li-zhen's spouses. Their faceless partners are noticeably absent from the film, as they are tending to their own love affairs with each other.

This is not to suggest that In the Mood for Love is a confining experience because Kar-Wai manages to inundate his film with broad splashes of hypnotic camera movement and sound. There is one shot where Cheung's slow, sensual rise up a metaphorical stairway turns into Leung's descent down the very same stairwell; their movements perfectly compliment each other, bookending the shot and creating a sense of erotic duality between the two figures. Their souls have connected but they have yet to physically unite. The erotic displacement of these scenes is both fascinating and frustrating, as two star-crossed lovers reject physical consummation due to their humble fidelity.

Other scenes in the film are punctuated with brief slow-motion shots of Cheung erotically moving through her interior surroundings, set to Mike Galasso's hauntingly beautiful score. Cheung's dresses beautifully compliment her exterior space as she moves slowly through her surroundings. Her movements slowly build up to what seems to be an inevitable fusion between Li-szhen and her dream lover even though the seduction process seems to be entirely sub-conscious.

If I make it seem that these two characters are more like two birds unleashing pheromones on each other, it probably isn't that far-fetched of a statement. The tight bond these two characters have with their internal spaces is almost as intense as their relationship to the exteriors. The film rarely moves into an exterior space and when the camera does it is usually to peak through oval windows and symbolic bars that always remind us that these characters are like confined animals. Kar-Wai continues to tease us even when the lovers get close enough to touch, shattering the couple's proximity to each other by shooting them through mirrors or through gaps within articles of clothing located inside of a closet. Mother Nature even seems to respond to their love lust, often unleashing a soft crest of rain over the characters after their bodies have glided near each other.

Kar-Wai's hauntingly atmospheric shots of a waterfall allowed Leung's Lai Yu-Fai to experience a cathartic release in Happy Together, even if Leslie Cheung's Ho Po-wing was not there to enjoy it with him. By that film's end, love was so inextricably bound to the act of war that a third man's muted declarations of love signaled Yu-Fai's realization that his dreams of seeing a waterfall would bring him inner peace, even if it would not bring him back his lover. Mo-Wan's journey terminates within the confines of a crumbling temple. His own emotional depletion is paralleled nicely with the political climate of his country, and the absence of Li-szhen is only made tolerable by the fact that Kar-Wai allows Mo-Wan to experience a release of sorts. Mo-Wan caters to an ancient myth and his secretive release into a crack in the temple leaves him capable of living his days with the hope that all his loss and heartache somehow served a higher purpose. In 60s Hong Kong, a man and woman move in the same day into adjacent apartments with their respective spouses. Soon they suspect their ever absent spouses of having an affair with one-another. A strange bond emerges between the man and woman as they cope with their sadness by taking turns playing each other's spouse, before a more complex bond emerges...

No summary can do it justice, for Hong Kong auteur Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love" is nothing short of a miracle. A story about sadness that manages to be touching and at times funny. A romance that never feels forced or fake. No doubt the director's method has a lot to do with that.

Directed from an inexistent screenplay (though the concept largely flows from a Japanese short story) to favor improvisation, the film is immediately set apart by the freshness of it's performances. All the film revolves around that and the rest is pure enhancement. At the core of the film are two characters that will ease into your heart and stay there long after the end credits roll: Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are simply amazing and no language barrier undermines a single fragment of immediacy and truth they display. The additional material is also top-notch: the films is magnificent to behold (in part lensed by "Hero"'s Christopher Doyle) and the music is heartbreaking.

This is something everybody must see, if only because it is by far the most heartfelt, mature and authentic "love story" out there. Unmissable. I was recommended this film as one of the best love stories ever told. And as I am huge fan of love, I bought the tickets and sat myself in the theatre. After 90 minutes I left the theatre with nothing but disappointment and the theme song as the only positive thing of the film. I was appalled at the story itself, that two people can love each other but be so afraid as to never act it. I just couldn't go passed the language barrier and the cultural barrier. The second time I ran into it... I was in a different mood, no longer had any expectation ... and had more patience, more relaxed mind to "see" the film... and as soon as I opened my eyes, I discovered the love... the beauty of the film. I went beyond the language and the love story and saw the acting (not even for a moment did I ever felt like they were acting!) and the cinematography. The first time I heard a definition of what a film is, I was told that it should be a chain of perfectly balanced photographs (shots) and this is the film to match the description. Almost every shot has an idea behind it, and combined with the music... and the light effects... the result is just a masterpiece! And a masterpiece is just something that you must have in your collection of films. When I fist watched the movie, I said to myself, "so a film can be made like this." Wong Kar Wai's gorgeous poetic love story captured me throughout and even after the film. I must admit this is one of the best love movies, maybe the best of all, I have ever watched. The content and the form overlaps perfectly. As watching the secret love we see the characters in bounded frames that limits their movements as well as their feelings. Beautiful camera angles and the lighting makes the feelings and the blues even touchable. I want to congratulate Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee for their fantastic cinematography which creates the mood for love. Also the music defines the sadness of the love which plays along the beautiful slow motion frames and shows the characters in despairing moods. And of course the performances of the actors which makes the love so real. Eventually, all the elements in the film combined in a perfect way under the direction of WKW and give the audience the feeling called love. I won't bore you with story and plot lines, as they have been presented many times already on this page, so… It's been along time coming since I have seen such a film. Beautiful, elegant and restrained, with a narrative pace to match. A film with sensitivity and understated qualities that is rare in these times of clichéd plots. The beautifully subdued photography, saturated in rich luxurious colors, and for lack of better words, each frame is filled with an air of tension. The settings and locations are used repeatedly but the film manages to breath new life into them each time they featured, there always seems to be a key prop, light fixture, or set piece to slightly clue the audience as to where we are in the characters world.

The acting reminds me of the "The Bicycle Thief", not the style, but the fact that you forget that you are watching two actors engaged in their craft. There is meaning behind every gesture and almost every movement has assigned significance to explain the inside world of the characters, the relationship, the feelings, and situation of the two lovers. The dialogue is sparse but like the rest of the movie, is imbued with meaning. Speaking of meaning, the soundtrack is infectious. Used here it becomes a story telling device. And although the film is of Chinese origins, even a song sung in Spanish by Nat King Cole imparts the film with subtle meaning. The orchestrated soundtrack is repetitive, but the repetition is what makes it comfortable. It is used in conjunction with the story, and not just a means to put music to action, or to cue the audience to feel a certain way at a certain plot point.

I would not recommend this film to anybody, I fear most people would be jaded by the calm flow of the story, but I would recommend it to someone who is looking for an alternative to the romantic schlock that fills the multiplexes on our side of the world. I must say that I was completely taken by this film, and continued to watch it night after night. The story takes time to present itself and bears repeated viewings as very few films in this genre are open to such a broad interpretation. A very beautiful movie. Two people living in the same flat complex find their partners are having an affair with each other. As they try and piece together how it happened, they also embark on an emotional journey that aches for a resolution…

Building on his previous success with Happy Together and Chungking Express, Wong Kar Wai gives us this rather old fashioned and marvellous story of reawakened passions, yearning and unrequited love.

Possibly, In the Mood for Love is not to everyone's taste. It wanders in rather lazily at 98mins: not particularly long for a film, but it appears longer because not a lot really happens. But this lazy feel conceals a quite tightly constructed film. Most of the story is cunningly woven around a series of set piece role plays, where the characters act out presumed scenarios between their respective spouses, trying to work out how the affair started. I say cunning because, of course, this makes it difficult for the audience (and the characters) to tell what is "in-role" and what is genuine.

If all this sounds rather arty and self-conscience, that's because it is. Unashamedly so. And it is played to perfection by two of Hong Kong's finest, Maggie Cheung and Leung Chui Wai, with some excellent support from Ping Lam Siu and Rebecca Pan.

It is also a virtuoso performance by Wong Kar Wai, who treats the audience to a sensory, and sensual, overload. Bringing together Christopher Doyle (who later deployed his lush, over-ripe style on Hero) and Pin Bing Lee (whose beautifully understated style can be seen on Springtime in a Small Town) was cinematographic genius. It has all the bold beauty of Doyle, without, frankly, the Athena-poster cheesiness of his work on Hero. The music, as always with Wong, is prominent. From Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, to the haunting strings of the main theme, it perfectly matches the eclectic beauty of the images.

All in all a top film, whether judged on plot, acting, cinematography or soundtrack. Similar to, but more accessible than, Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire, this is a beautiful, old fashioned story about love lost and regained.

And watch out for Tony Leung's hotel room 2046, which presaged Wong's recent film of the same name. The most attractive factor that lies in this masterpiece of a film is not the beautiful lead actors. It isn't their outstanding acting and sizzling chemistry either.

To me, it is the mis-en-scene of the entire movie. The settings, the lighting, the props... all add to the mood for love between the main characters. A whiff of smoke from Chow's cigarette tells us his state of mind, the ever-changing tight-fitting cheongsams of Lizhen reflects the constraints of decision-making, the ruins of Angkor Wat ties in with the deteriorating relationship of the two leads.

The excellent use of mis-en-scene gives the film just the right amount of feel needed to flesh out the complicated nature of the characters' relationship. The film leaves the audience fruitlessly yearning for more. Set in 1962 Hong Kong (in turbulent times, as we are informed), this extremely intimate story of a failed romance between a two married people tied to their traditions manages to recall the essence of old Hollywood in scene after scene of lush colors, evocative yet restrained sensuality (as opposed of the requisite sexuality and occasional nude scenes which has become part of the norm of a romance in film), and the use of facial expressions to suggest subtle changes in mood or communication. It's not hard to see the influence of Marguerite Duras here, since she is known for minimalism in storytelling as well as describing powerful drama using the art of verbal and non-verbal conversation between two characters with a strong bond as well as the use of re-enacting scenes that could eventually take place in both the characters' lives. From Hiroshima MON AMOUR to MODERATO CANTABILE, her pen is strongly visible here from the moment we enter the cramped rooms of Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) to the last scenes which explain the intensity of regret that he feels as he recalls the opportunity which was lost in reaffirming this relationship.

The plot even resembles something that Duras could have written: Mr. Chow and Mrs. Su Li-zhen, neighbors in a tenement apartment while both being fairly successful professionals, begin to discover in the most banal of ways that their spouses are cheating on them, and they discover quite naturally, it's with each other. The question is, should they act upon what they also feel towards each other or not be like their partners? Every scene plays with the notion that at any moment they will give in to each other, and at one point, it is suggested that eventually they do though as intrusive as the camera is in detailing to us their encounters (which seem to occur on a daily basis as seen by the frequent changes of Cheung's dresses), we never see it. And just as not seeing either of their spouses heightens their own love story, not seeing them carry through with their attraction makes the eventual separation even the more bitter because at every moment we want for something to happen -- some catalyst -- and the only one which comes is when Leung reveals to her that he loves her, followed by his quietly brutal revelation that she will never leave her husband, which implies that neither will he. It also gives us a glimpse of what culture and timing can do: from a Western point of view, a consummation of their romance into a more solid, lasting affair would have been possible especially in the 60s, but as it's Hong Kong, cultural values are markedly different.

Performances here are of the high order: it's very easy to play a torrid love affair, but to continually play a repressed, platonic relationship that is brimming with desire only barely suggested is hard and makes all the sensuality more cerebral than palpable or visual. Cheung and Leung smolder and their blighted chemistry lingers long after the credits have rolled. WARNING: SPOILER,SPOILER,SPOILER!!!!

This is written for filmgoers who may have walked away from "Mood for Love" perplexed and confused about paths the main characters choose in life. From reading other comments and reviews it seems that many viewers and critics missed some very important details which may have prevented them from enjoying this delightful tease of a movie.

We are so use to seeing blatant SEX in narrations that we forget that there was a time when filmakers would suggest the "dirty deed" by simply showing the slack-mouthed couples ride off in a sleigh or haywagon only to return into the next scene with a bulging gut or a fat toddler stuck to the hip..."Meet your child".

The director chose the same nostalgic approach in telling the story of Mr Chow and Mrs Chan. Last warning...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Mr Chow fools Mrs Chan into showing her real emotions when they rehearse his departure forever. Next scene: Mrs Chan leans her head on Mr Chow in the taxi and says "I do not want to go home tonight". Translation: "Let's Do It"

Why then did the couple just not do the modern thing of dumping their cheating spouses,get a divorce,raise their love child and live happily ever after? The answer is that this whole story takes place in Hong Kong during the Sixties. A bastard would live in a bleak life of shame if he were the child of an adulteress;whereas,a "legitimate" child could live a tragic but noble/honest life if his mother chose to raise him away from his cheating "father"-the invisible Mr Chan. In short,Mr Chow and Mrs Chan sacrifices their relationship for the future of their child.

That is why Mr Chow,upon learning that Mrs Chan lives alone with a little boy gives a knowing smile and ends his dreams of making Mrs Chan his Mrs Chow. He then,also realizes why Mrs Chan went to all the way to Singapore to be with him,only to reconsiders at the last momment and leave..,choosing to never see him again.(But not before taking some unnamed keepsake) Mr Chow lives with this wonderful secret with no one to tell. No one,except for a crumbling temple wall and of course we the viewer,...but only if we listen carefuly. Beautiful film set in 1962 Hong Kong about a man (Mr. Chow) and woman (Mrs. Chan) who become close friends when they suspect their spouses are having an affair. Stylistically, the film is also beautiful. Wong Kar-Wai uses a lot of slow motion and close-ups on parts of the body (feet, hands, waist). The film itself has a reticence and properness that suggests its time period. It's sexy without showing everything. Wong Kar-Wai also doesn't allow the audience to see what the spouses look like, suggesting that Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan should be together. Smoking is even made to look elegant with close-ups of the curls of smoke. A really lovely film. Just prepare yourself for the ending.

In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting. Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor À Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin') SPOILER ALERT!!!

You can listen to Wong Kar-wai's movies like a radio play: Invisible vibrations between the characters, the rooms where they stay in, the rhythm that presses them ahead, attraction and dislike - the whole spectrum of the atmosphere is played back by the sound track. The dialogue is mostly completely unimportant.

The narration is similar to a childish amorous look at a beautiful woman and a sad man whose sorrows are noticeable, but helpless. "In The Mood For Love" is told from a child perspective, but the child never appears as a narrator. The aesthetic of the film is developed by an extreme light and color dramaturgy, harsh cuts, an unattached, almost documentary camera and a complex, unobtrusive sound.

The genius use of Nat King Cole's "Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps", whose mysterious power grows the more often it is repeated and the melancholic waltz helps in the graceful choreography of the two protagonists. Maggie Cheung in her beautiful dresses is brilliant, the perfect vis-à-vis to the handsome, stylish Tony Leung. The audience assumes a romance between them, but Wong just sees sad resignation. The two potential lovers are revolving around each other like satellites, knowing that they never will share the same orbit. You wish that they will find each other. They won't and the emotional power of their non-love-sex-relationship makes the movie immensely fascinating.

It is about broken luck and unspoken love. In all of Wong's films these are the leitmotives. Love, whether it comes too early or it comes too late to take the one and not the other person. The yearning of the characters that is never satisfied, their loneliness, the mourning, and the luck that they experience when it is too late. this film is wonderful film for students of film. in mainstream American film it is common to see stylistic techniques used to draw the audience into the movie. in this film, the director uses stylistic techniques to push the story forward.

this is a love story that offers no sex. to be honest, i can't even recall the characters kissing. rather, the plot focuses on the emotional ties between the two characters.

i would not recommend this film for everybody. it is not very accessible. it is very slow moving and the subtle. it is a difficult film and mostly not entertaining.

i would reccoment this film to people who want to see something different. it is a piece of art. the soundtrack is most beautiful and visually, every frame is a photograph. and most beautiful of all, it's not visually stimulating for the sake of being visually stimulating. every frame illustrates a little bit more of the story... Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each other.

The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today. Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood pairing shown on the screen today. Combined.

There's nothing much else to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original, melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable.

The costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful. Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used. Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie.

Overall, this movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography; editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall, a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't. Beautiful, emotional, and subtle. I watch this movie at an art center with a smaller screen in a film room with 95% of senior citizens. I wish bigger cinema like Lowes around here would show it. Great cinematography by Wong and Christopher Doyle. Since I understand cantonese, it's a lot easier for me to understand the movie. As simple as the story goes, many English speaking viewers didn't get the whole story. Three old ladies next to me keep yapping and have no clues about the movie.

Spoiler; They were surprise when I mention that Mr. Chow did sleep with Mrs Chen and they have a son. She went to Singapore trying to tell him but didn't.

Spoiler

The mandarin translation of the movie title actually means flowery like moment or memory. The phrase usually used to describe beautiful and wonderful memory that was inpermanance and short. The whole movie pretty much fit the title. Not to mention the flowery "Cheung Sam".

My favorite scene was definately the street corner in the alley. It looks so beautiful, the sun shining on the old and faded wall, at night in the dark, in the rain, truely a poetic moment. I felt a strong sense of intimacy of their relationship seeing them standing against the wall and talk quietly. I felt a terrible heartache when Mr Chow was rehearsing his departing moment, and Mrs Chen cried on his shoulder.... Bravo Wong Kar-Wai!

As much as I like this one, Chungking Express still top my favorite. However, I'll give this one a 10 as well. As a point of reference, CTHD only got 7.

If you love art, you will love this movie. Don't miss it. For a long time I did not know weather I liked this film or not. This is surprising, because I usually do know, but because the film did not go anywhere, I was a bit confused.

Two people move into a somewhat communal household setting. Finding their spouses constantly working or away on business trips, their attention, out of sheer loneliness, wanders to each other. After a platonic love affair, the male lead played by Tony Leung Chiu discloses that he has a mistress on the side. Su Li-Zehn, played by Maggie Cheung is hurt, even though their love affair has not been physically consummated. Chiu leaves the country, only to come back years later, when everything has changed.

For the cynic's part, the film is correct. By never actively or actually touching the part of love, but only approaching it, the film, admittedly says more than so many others have on the subject. It is also true, I think, that nothing good could have come if they did go on to have the affair. At least that's the feeling I get.

If we are to believe it, however, when Garica Marquez writes that "...love is a state of grace; not the means to anything but the alpha and the omega, an end in itself," then this film falls miserably short of this, as do all others. Or, if you are inclined to entirely incomplete minimalism, hits it right on the mark. What films in history have achieved, approached, or sustained this phrase, if for only a short while? My honest feeling in memory is that about two. When Harry Met Sally suggests effectively this romantic perfection; and the getting is all in just getting there. It is interesting that in When Harry Met Sally, this is done in the course of wooing, rather than in its attainment. Can't anyone say anything good about love after it has been achieved by two individuals? Nicholas Spark's recent film The Notebook comes closer to this perhaps than any other film; are we to believe that once love is achieved it flies of the radar only to exist in perfection in some other dimension, or, more true perhaps, becomes latent vehicle for other ends?

In the Mood for Love is an honest film,with gorgeous and generous cinematography worthy in all respects of the best that Almodovar has to offer, yet all it manages to say in the end is that "Life is sometimes like this." Now this is by no means a diffident thing to say, especially if said well, but the problem really comes at the end of the last act when Kar Wai Wong tries to round out the film by relating, only for the second time, a broader historical theme that plays in the background of the relationship which has just taken place. This is a worthy effort, and the variation on the musical motif played throughout the film is rather brilliant, but the theme's relatively spare indictment plays too little to have much more than a superficial effect on the holistically inclined audience, leaving the viewer to split the difference, a mistake in any film. A director should know where he is going, and how to get there. But in all honesty, it is only one wrong turn. However, as anyone knows, all it takes is one notable imperfection to spoil the perfect barrel of honey.

The effort, though, is definitely worth while; trying to let a historical theme broaden and round out the film and raise it beyond the micro-meaning of the couple, but without any real foreshadowing, it is the crucial mistake. In a word, and unfortunately, it is too little too late. It is also, I think, too much of a challenge for the non-Asian viewer not familiar enough with China's history to appreciate completely this sweeping stroke. WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind, and respect. What a superb film. as with many of Wong's films, a lot of people find them to be boring and confusing. Well i like them and i like this film too. I went out and rented it on dvd and i watched it 3 times. It is a very subtle movie that provides an intoxicating experience. for those who did not enjoy it...... you just wasted 2 hours of your life.... too bad...muhahahahaha. "In the Mood for Love" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen.

Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment, and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike "Random Hearts," is about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love.

What's terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal, played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling. Having seen many of Wong Kar-Wai's other movies (Happy Together, Fallen Angels, Ashes of Time), I knew what to expect coming in to the theatre; the cinematography would be lush, the use of space and perspective would be varied, the acting would be superb, and at least one of the characters would be consumed by an ineffable loneliness. These are, after all, precisely the techniques that make Wong Kar-Wai's art what it is. What I was not expecting was the degree to which I was drawn into a film that some reviewers dismissed as "unfinished" and compelled by characters who "seemed consumed by ennui."

I find it interesting how people can be so utterly unmoved by a film that so vividly displays emotions and settings many of us take for granted or work ardently to forget: the overwhelming sense of grief stemming from being betrayed; the guilt aroused by the thought of becoming no better than the betrayer; the mundane yet profoundly intimate moments of relationships, where the need to express oneself verbally is utterly superfluous. This is what Wong Kar-Wai attempts to portray in the film and what he achieves so well.

Too many Americans are consumed by the need to have every moment of a film filled with stock dialogue; witty banter, disaffected sarcasm and overwrought confessions seem to be the pinnacle of the "best" American film has to offer. Wong Kar-Wai sees things very differently. Instead of the character needing to keep the audience apprised of her every feeling, perception or belief, Wong's characters make their feelings and understandings known clearly by facial gestures, body positioning, and, yes, silence.

If viewers merely contemplate this film from the standpoint of character development and action, then they may be disappointed by what it has to offer. If they are willing to let themselves try and intuit what the characters are feeling, then they may feel quite differently about what Wong has to offer them. One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film. Sensitive, extremely quiet paced love story between a married journalist and his young and atractive neighbor, she too also married. They lived their love for a time but the obstacles and the fear of hurting their families and children invites to a separation. A reflexive look on delicate question like love, friendship, honor and loneliness, always present in human lives, whether you are an American or a Chinese. I give this a 7 (seven) How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting, and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to rave about. Love it! The Chinese film title of "In the Mood for Love" is "fa yeung nien wah." It can be interpreted as "those blossoming years (that once were)."

The whole film is a well-composed piece. A complex love story told in simple visual approach. Writer-director Wong Kar-Wai has choreographed a dancing of the hearts - it's she, it's he, it's love. I can hear Galasso's theme: dum dum-dum, dum dum-dum, and the strings - almost like heartbeats. A piece with prelude, stanzas, and epilogue.

Director optimized the use of music (Michael Galasso's score, Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, and Chinese songs/tunes). The rhythm and lyrics prompt viewers to what she and he is feeling/thinking rather than verbal dialogs. I can hear Nat King Cole giving us the clues: "Aquello…ojos verde" (that thing, fling, eyes green) plays when the two meet, and "Quizas, quizas, quizas" (perhaps…) when she's undecided.

Nostalgia pervades throughout the film. Design details plentiful: handbags and ties; Japanese rice-cooker novelty; the ridged pattern green glass cups & saucers and plates (I remember Dad treasured those at home); mahjong session; kitchen area; bedroom furnishings; the thermos for the take-out noodles that she swings when she walks. Maggie Cheung, slender and shapely, looks exquisite in those fashionable patterns & colors of the traditional Chinese woman clothing - 'cheung sam'. Every change of her dress denotes another day, another time in the story. Wong Kar-Wai is resourceful that way.

The scenes may be of the same place, but it's of a different mood, advanced to the next stanza. Up and down the stairs to the won-ton noodle stand. Standing by the wall around the corner to the apartments as the rain pours. Along the corridor, back and forth, to his writing corner.

Trivia: So she helps him with his writing of his martial arts novel. Maggie would be able to help as she's been in kung fu/martial arts movies. "Eastern Three Heroes" 1992 is a fun action movie with Maggie Cheung (Thief Catcher Chat), Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui as three super heroes fighting evils.

If you appreciate Tony Leung's performance, don't miss "Chungking Express" 1994 (in the second segment - romance rhythm with a difference), and "Happy Together" 1997 (an intense, emotionally colorful painting of friendships, faith, and fate), both written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai.

Being able to understand the Cantonese and Shanghainese dialects, and having visited the official site, I realized the epilogue was not quite completely translated. Here's sharing my version of the Chinese captions:

It was kind of an unbearable encounter All along she has kept her head lowered Giving him a chance to get closer He didn't have the courage to be closer She turned around, walked away.

That time and place had come to past. All that belonged, no longer exist. _______

Those vanished years, seemingly separated by a glass gathering dust, can see, yet cannot grasp.

All along he has longed for all that's past If he can break through that dust-gathered glass He will walk back into the times long vanished. ________

Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love" brings to mind the simple poetry and wisdom of Rumi, the Sufi philosopher - the 'inner and outer,' the 'spirit and body' of life, love and living.

[Resend. Revised. ruby_fff 2/22/01]

The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, "not be like them".

As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition. Simply being in love is far from enough.

I had the misfortune of sitting beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this, as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience. Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema. For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder (at great length) whether to have an affair themselves).

This is Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money, it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue. The plot of "In the Mood for Love" is simple enough: A married man and a married woman (though not to eachother) slowly develop a romantic attachment to one another. The film's pace is numbingly slow and precious little actually happens between the two. Yet the backdrop of Hong Kong in the early 1960s and director Wong Kar-Wai's keen sense for capturing the beauty of the setting as well as the principal characters make this film a joy to watch. Actors Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both excellent and Wong Kar-Wai has done an extraordinary job in capturing the feel and nostalgia of the past (something so many films and directors try to do but usually fail miserably). There are so many little details that add charm to the film (a trademark of the director) and the colors and cinematography are what send this otherwise simple story over the top as a marvelous cinematic achievement. 9/10. i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink. I Feel the Niiiiiight Heat! I feel your HEEAAAAAAAAAART-beat! Something ain't right!" Theme song written by B.J. Cook from Skylark- David Foster's old band and wife. She also wrote the memorable theme from CBC's "Airwaves." OH Night Heat! What a program! Well-written, well-acted and totally classic. Crime solvers and a good team and a dash of humour at the end. I'd like to think this is really what detectives do/did. Giambone was a real favourite! On a Canadian tip, I learned EVERY Canadian actor's name and style from guest spots done on Night Heat. Everyone passed through the Night Heat set and like Law & Order, it was story-driven so you could just watch and enjoy without a lot of character melodrama. This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.

Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.

Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.

The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.

I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that? i just wanted to say that when i was young my favorite t.v show back in the day was night heat. I loved the characters and the plot of the show. I thought that it was an excellent show and still do to this day. I enjoy watching the reruns and I am a big fan.I love the way the characters played off one another.I would always stay up late to watch my favorite show with my mother who also was a big fan. Now I can enjoy watching my show again and listening to the theme song.Which I thought was a cool song for the show.My favorite characters were Scott Hylands and Jeff Wincott.I enjoyed watching these handsome guys take down the bad boys. The BBC and HBO teamed up to create "Dirty War", a 90 minute TV movie about a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack in London. The film gets down to business quickly as it packs both the terrorist and the government anti-terrorist efforts into the film leaving little room for human interest subplots. On the terrorist side we follow the bomb from the smuggling of radioactive materials to assembly to deployment to detonation. On the government side we see PR and training exercises, intelligence gathering and analysis, interdiction, post-detonation response, and follow up. The film also imparts a sense of how Al-Qa'ida type terrorist cells are organized, the radical Islamic terrorist mentality, and terrorist strategies. A sort of anatomy of a "dirty bomb" incident, "Dirty War" will answer many questions lurking in the minds of a public becoming ever more aware of this insidious threat. (B) Well this movie certainly was in keeping with the current times. No happy endings, super-heroes, or miracles here. Just down-to-earth fiction to stimulate our minds along the lines of terrorism, and what-ifs. Kudos to Percival and Mickery for an excellent screenplay and superb direction by Percival. Films like this are needed to keep us aware of what is out there. If every peace-loving man and woman on earth reported obviously suspicious activities I believe terrorism could not thrive. This movie showed just how hard it really is to subvert these terrorists, even with good intelligence. Even though the film is a bit propagandist against Islam (the use of a Muslim police officer as a main character) I believe it was entirely realistic. There was meant to be shock-value in the bombing incident. As a very clever tool to relay the humility and indignity of people caught up in an attack such as this, they showed full nudity of women being decontaminated post-attack. It didn't take me long to realize that this was meant to even further instill into the viewer that thought, i.e., we are not in control of everything in a situation like this. Although this took place in London, with the usual high-level British acting, it makes a statement for any part of the world. Great movies don't have to be blockbuster epic productions, and this movie is very very worthy of viewing. Daniel Percival's "Dirty War", a BBC production made for television was shown recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world, London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The film impresses for the pace the director and the production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated area.

The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it could possible happen anywhere. This is a pretty good made for TV flick of the 'what if' variety. As in, what if terrorists exploded a 'dirty bomb' in a big city, in this case, London. Lots of poking at folks that say 'we're all set in the event of an emergency' that then reveal that they're not exactly telling the full story. And is anyone prepared for something like this? You can bet not. This shows the material for the bombs being smuggled into the country, the making of the bombs, the secrecy and double lives that the people behind it lead, etc. It also shows public servants (i.e., firemen) giving their all to save people when they aren't getting any help, when the government doesn't want to send anyone else into the affected area. Also shows how woefully inadequate 'preparations' are for any such occurrence, as the government talks everything up but then stands there with their mouths hanging open as the tragedy unfolds. And could this happen right here in the good old USA? Well, unless you've been living in caves for the past 20 years something already has, to an extent, and don't bet that anyone would be prepared for something of this nature. This is fairly realistic and yes, even scary. Well worth seeing but just hope nothing like this ever really happens. 8 out of 10. I lived in London most of my adult life before I moved stateside so missed this film when it came out and only saw this now on HBO. I disagree with anyone who thinks this should have been a Hollywood production, the UK team gave it a chilling and foreboding atmosphere from day one and I was on the edge of my seat for the last 30 minutes wondering what was going to happen to my home city. And of course,nine months after the film comes out 7/7 happens. Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction. Having lived in both countries, it is also clear the likelihood of this happening in the UK is much greater than in the US, muslims live in ghettos and isolate themselves in the UK, in the US they assimilate much more readily. This movie was really interesting... it also is quite shocking as the similar events of the movie occurred only 10 months after the movie premiered.

it was interesting seeing the problems that could be encountered and realistic enough to show that no matter how prepared you think you are - you aren't. if this was made for an American audience - it would be different because they would have used this as a full propaganda film and not as a wake call which the BBC did! it still is propaganda, in some extend - no film today with these themes can not be - but it dealt with the issue successfully.

a film that should be shown in all terrorism/counter-terrorism courses but will not because it shows faults which is not allowed to be acknowledged! A great film in which the BBC took a few risks and unfortunately, London does not need a fictional tale any more, due to the reality of July 7 2005. The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions. Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.

The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.

Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.

Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.

This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.

The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.

Dirty War is a must see!!! Seeing this film brought back to me memories of 9/11. The first thing I remember of that morning was seeing TV pictures of an airplane flying into a large building, and my immediate thoughts "Must be a preview for a new Tom Clancy film".

This was not a Tom Clancy film. This was certainly not a British version of "The Sum Of All Fears". The typical Tom Clancy film or novel has a relatively small cast, a linear plot, and usually some sort of resolution. This film had neither. Sure, what I saw directly on screen was a small cast, a plot, and a vague resolution, but, like 9/11, the point was that reality was so much larger and more complex.

I work in systems planning, and the reality of the disaster preparation exercise, and the disaster itself, is painfully obvious. It's impossible to prepare for a disaster like this, nor will it be any more possible to deal with this when it happens.

From the argument between the police (Not enough is being done to prepare) and the politicians (Giving everybody on the tube a gasmask would cause panic), to the constant loudspeaker announcements (You are in no danger to your health, but don't go home before we decontaminate you), and (Don't eat, drink, or smoke before we decontaminate you), I was on edge during the entire film. Not the slightest urge to channel surf.

This film was 90 minutes in length. It could have been twice that, and still not shown all the possible details. Instead, it left enough unsaid to allow each of us to imagine the details, each of us in our own way. That made it so much more real to me, than any Tom Clancy film.

I lived in London once, and just off the Edgeware Road. And I took the train from Waterloo station many times. As I watched Dirty War, I kept telling myself that this is only fiction. Right now.

Allah and Jehovah willing, this film will remain fiction, and sometime in 20 or 30 years, my nephews may watch this film and remember the early 21st Century, and the panic we felt too much. Hopefully to the same degree as I feel currently, when viewing memorabilia of the Cold War with the Evil Communist Regime of the mid-20th Century, and remember "Drop and cover" exercises in school. Before seeing this picture I was quite skeptic, I don't like movies with an agenda nor do I appreciate being scared into thinking like the writer. I was also afraid this would be like the 2-part mini-series "10.4" which had a far-fetched concept, little relation to the real world and very poor execution. At the beginning is says: "This film is fiction, but the events portrayed and the information about UK emergency planning are based on extensive research"; and the general feeling is that you're not being sold on an idea, but that you're being taught a lesson in civil awareness. The message that is being conveyed is obvious from the start: It is coming and we're not prepared. The use of real places and a scenario which not only could happen - There are plans for when it does - all add to the disturbing effect the movie will have, on even the most cynical of viewers. The movie's perspective is that of the society and it stays away from heart-breaking personal moments, which won't convey the message, so none of the Romeo-Juliet drama we're used to. I really liked this movie. I watched it last night on the Public Broadcasting System. The part I liked about it was the fact that they dealt with issues of today not in the future or the past. They basically had some terrorists take a van or two and rent them out to be car bombs. I think what the movie could have showed was people in different countries at the same time. It did show the fact that England, or any other country, isn't prepared for an attack on the magnitude that they showed. I have never heard of any of the actors or actresses in the movie so I can't really say if they are normally their parts. After the movie, they had this panel of experts talking about if something like that could happen here in the U.S. It was a thought-provoking discussion! This movie was a riot, it pokes fun of "Madonna - Truth Or Dare" in all the right places. I love Madonna & I love Julie Brown. How could I ask for more..Julie's spoof of "Vogue", entitled "Vague" was hysterical.. "Kelly LeBrock thinks she's great, she's just cold boogers on a paper plate". "Brooke Shields, Dawber, Pam personality of Spam"!! I could've died! And just wait till you see what she can do with a watermelon!! Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.

Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.

It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.

My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian." "Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody. This is one of Julie's greatest tributes to music, alongside her "Trapped in the Body of a White Girl" album. To quote the great Medusa "Dare to go bare, just wear your underwear, you'll get a ride home everytime" - Wow!!! Now that is some good advice. "You can dance, at my party! Yeah, justify your dance shoes!.....You're invited to the party in my pants. Yeah come on boy let's dance, at the party in my pants" Julie Brown is hilarious!!! It is almost sad that this video is only 51 minutes long, but every minute is awesome!!! This parody is cleverly done: from the songs (Express Yourself becomes Expose Yourself, Like a Prayer is now Party in my Pants and Vogue is now Vague) to the fake interviews of the cast of the show, this movie is hilarious. Remember Madonna saying she didn't know about the rain season in Asia? In this one, she doesn't know about the volcano season. It is a precious jewel. They got a lot of money on that spoof, and it pays off. Highly recommended!!! After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened to have documentary "Truth or Dare." Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others. Normally I try to avoid Barbie films, but this one was unmistakably awesome. Kudos to the graphics and character voice overs. It all flowed well. This enchanting tale is a great spin off of others, but is well worth buying! I don't have kids, but the kids I babysit, (including boys) find it intriguing and love the extra features on the DVD. I honestly don't know why this is rated so low, but for kids, especially your Barbie lovin' 8 year old will love this. Its not straight forward and predictive like most movies are. This "childrens" film has excellent morals and shows teamwork. It has no swearing, bits of romance (if your old enough to figure it out) and beautifully written storyline. Thats why I am giving it a ten out of ten! My 5 year old daughter is very into the Barbie series of movies. I've had mixed feelings about that - not wanting her to buy into the whole Barbie-doll image of things, and recognizing that the movies are a marketing ploy to convince young girls to buy more dolls and make more money for Mattel. This morning though she asked me to watch this movie with her, and - it being a lazy Saturday morning and with not much else to do - I agreed. I don't know if the movies have been made to help market the dolls, which seem to be losing their appeal a bit from what I've heard or if the dolls are there to market the movies (or, more likely, a bit of both) but whichever is the case, I have to admit - somewhat to my surprise, this wasn't half bad.

It's a fun and imaginative story full of magical places and people and memorable characters (both good and evil.) Essentially, Annika ("played" by Barbie) has to find a way to build a "wand of light" to reverse the evil spells of the wizard Wenlock, who among other things has turned her sister into a flying horse and her parents into stone. The animation here was pretty good - not Disney-calibre (if one thinks of Disney as the standard to aspire to) but generally pretty good, and while the movie is obviously tailored to young girls rather than middle-aged men, I still found there were enough twists and turns to make me wonder how it was all going to turn out. It's true that there were some holes in the story, or at least some logical inconsistencies, but again one must remember the target audience, who wouldn't really think of such things. This is an all around decent family movie. 7/10 I would have to say that in general Barbie Movies have impressed me. I have a 5 year old Barbie fanatic niece and she watches them all the time so needless to say I have seen quite a lot of Barbie these holidays, but I am not sick of them.

This film, visually, has a lot to offer, especially the backgrounds, and the animation of the characters has improved with each new movie. One thing I noticed in particular was a vast improvement in the animation of Barbie's hair in this film. It has a lovely range of excerpts from classical music and I think that this is great, as it exposes a new generation to the classics. This film is well worth ago, especially if you have young relievers. They will be entertained for hours! For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting. For a kid's movie, this is great. As an adult and mother, I enjoyed watching the movie with my daughter. There is a lot going on in this movie. The following *might* be considered a *spoiler*... Barbie learns courage and learns not to judge others so quickly in this movie. She also learns not to give up hope and to master her anger. I loved the sense of teamwork you get from watching Barbie and her sister and friends solve the puzzle. There's nothing in the movie I found offensive or inappropriate for young viewers. In fact, I felt that the moral messages of the movie were superb and well done.

The animation was pretty good. I really enjoy the ice-skating scenes and think that they were very well done. There's a lot of action in this film, so I suspect that most kids would enjoy it... not just the ones that are really into Barbie. My daughter actually picked it out because of the Pegasus. She loves horses. But she enjoyed the movie very much. My daughter is autistic, and was able to sit through the whole movie and enjoy it. She really liked the action scenes and any parts with horses involved.

One thing that I was thinking about was that many people object to Barbie (and Ken) because they are so beautiful. Yet, I think that kids, just like adults like to look at beautiful people and things. It's natural. As adults, we enjoy watching beautiful movie stars too. It's wonderful though, that the Barbie character and her "boyfriend" have a lot of personality. While it's fun to watch pretty people, it grows old if there is no substance behind the pretty face.

Overall, I'd say this is a great movie for kids and parents will enjoy it, too. :) I just want to comment to the woman above, that the movie DOES credit Beethoven in the begging. In the beginning credits they show it. Thank you. I think this is an amazing movie. They picked just the right music for the mood of the movie, the animation is wonderful, and they picked the voices for the characters very well. It teaches children to never give up, and to always have hope. Princess Annika doesn't give up , and it shows children that they can do the same. The movie also has humor in in for all ages, parents and children, to laugh at. The colors in this movie are great, and kids can really feel good while they are watching it. I watched this movie for the first time, now I am a huge fan, and I'm sure your child will be too. Walmart sells tons of Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus stuff, so your child can continue to enjoy the movie even when they aren't watching it. Thank You! Heard about this film a long while ago and finally found it on ebay for five bucks. I wasn't expecting much but wow, was I ever surprised. It's a story of a boy and girl in love trying to escape an evil king who wants the girl for himself and takes place in a huge castle, reminds me of ICO for PS2 because some shots gave you a sense of vertigo.Sounds pretty standard but this movie is insane! It's hard to believe such an original animated feature was made in 1952. Also, the king was probably one of the creepiest character's I've seen in a long time, with a feminine walk, weird eyes (usually crossed), and a soft but scary voice. The only problem I had with the film was that the boy and girl had no personality and hardly even any lines except for calling for mr. wonderbird (A large talking green bird)to save them. The animation was fantastic in most areas but some cells were missing from some scenes which sucked. It's incredibly original with flying police and giant mechs and even laugh out loud funny at times, it's a real shame this is such an obscure title because it's really a good film. Check it out sometime. (Review is of the original 1950's version not the restored 1980's one) In a land where the king likes no one and no one likes the king a shepherdess and a chimney sweep from two nearby paintings come to life and run off. A portrait of the king, who loves the shepherdess, kills the real king and takes his place. A huge bird, the wonderbird of the title, acts as a hero of sorts and helps out our two lovers.

This is a strange strange movie... no surreal, very very very surreal.

The style of the background is very European while the characters are Fliescher meet Warner but early arty Warner of the non major characters. They move in both realistic and cartoon like manners.

This is an odd movie and it takes a bit to get into it but Peter Ustinov as the bird is a riot, his kids and the puppy are wonderful. There are cops in rubber ducks and a bear design that makes you smile.

And there is deep philosophy in the film, about the existence of a world out there...out beyond a Metropolis subterranean city.

This is a really neat movie. There is something just so odd and unique about it that rewards you if you stay with it for the whole ride. Its not perfect but what the hell.

This is a movie to search out. If your local bargain DVD bin has the capcom version (paired with Alice in Paris) buy it. It should run you under ten bucks, probably around five and the price is absolutely worth it especially when you realize it comes with two full length cartoons, two short cartoons and several neat commercials and other fun things. WONDERBIRD, certainly an unbelievably refined cartoon, drawn in a deliciously old—fashioned way, and sensationally old—fashioned in almost any respect, takes place in a kingdom ruled by a mean and heinous monarch; accordingly, the kingdom, or at least what we see—the surroundings of the king's palace, seems devoid, uninhabited.

A few inhabitants there are—away from the Sun—in the withered underground city.

An advice—call it an allegory, call it a parable, only do not call it a fable.

Because IMDb encourages prolixity, and maybe for other reasons as well, I will add that this cartoon is the work of the great Paul Grimault. One of the great tragedies of life is that Disney is so very successful at everything that they do. If they were not, we might have more unique little gems of animation such as "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." The story is that an evil king has usurped the throne of a place called Up-And-Down-Land (I could have the name wrong). He is hated by everyone. His favorite hobby is shooting birds, and at some point in the past, he presumably killed the wife of Mr. Wonderbird (a bird, played with typical flair by Peter Ustinov) leaving him with four young chicks to raise. Meanwhile, we see that another of the evil king's hobbies is painting. He has done three paintings in particular: a self portrait, a painting of a shepherdess (which he has fallen in love with), and a painting of chimney sweep (of whom he is jealous). One night, the shepherdess and the chimney sweep climb down out of their paintings and run away together. The self portrait of the king climbs down out of his frame as well, and does away with the real king (You think I'm making this up? Its the real plot) and sends the royal police force after the young lovers. Mr. Wonderbird then assists the lovers in attempting to escape the King's forces.

The plot is wonderfully surreal, and the setting Up-and-Down-Land is an incredibly imagined place, full of towering buildings accessible only by elevators. Its an equal mixture of the worlds of "Metropolis" and "1984" and the drawings of Dr. Seuss.

Watch it for a very unique viewing experience that doesn't fit the standard formula for most animated features. I just picked this up in a decent if not outstanding DVD version for one dollar at Wal Mart.

Run out and buy it.

I'm fairly sure that this version is the short, incomplete version released against the animator's wishes in the late Fifties, but even so, at a buck it's an *incredible* bargain.

This film was syndicated in small chunks as a serial to local TV stations in the early 60s for the kid's shows that almost every station ran on weekday afternoons in those days - "Mr Bill and Bozo", "Monty's Gang" (Channel 4, Greenville SC) and "Captain Grady" (channel 13, Asheville NC - which is where i saw it). It made such an impression on twelve-or-so-old me that i immediately recognised it when i spotted it in Wal Mart tonight and grabbed it.

Wonderful. You should get it. I was surfing through IMDb one day, when I stumbled across "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." Noticing how obscure it was, I decided to set off looking for it. Thanks to Digiview, it didn't take me long, so I bought it for a dollar, and when I got home, I watched it, although I must say, I was quite impressed.

Three of the paintings in a king's apartment, a shepherdess, a chimney sweep, and a self-portrait of the king (who is just as selfish and sadistic as the actual king himself) come to life one night while the king is sleeping. The shepherdess and the chimney sweep escape, while the painting of the king calls the police in order to capture the couple. Fortunately for the couple, Mr. Wonderbird comes in to help them, often mocking the police and the king.

The back of the DVD case describes this film as "a surreal visual delight and an underrated entry in the history of classic animation." I couldn't agree more with it, considering that much of the backgrounds look rather bizarre, and many of the characters are weird, which include the depressed citizens of an underground city and hungry lions that are calmed by the music of a blind man (who kind of looks like Andy Warhol), not to mention Mr. Wonderbird himself is somewhat eccentric. The film is very creative and mostly fun to watch, and its only flaw is that it can be slow moving. But overall, this film was very good, and it comes recommended by yours truly.

Grade: B+ (Awesome) I saw 'Begotten' last night, and I'm of two minds on the film.

On one hand, I appreciate it for being the total invert of a Michael Bay film. No dialogue, extremely stylized grainy B&W photography, some of the most genuinely horrific imagery ever set to film, and a very compelling use of sound (which nobody else seems to have really picked up on yet). It's a reflection on a theme, and it dares go where most filmmakers do not not only in terms of images, but of production and concept. It's a movie that most people don't understand, and if you read through these comments you'll find a lot of people whose lack of ability to figure this film out results in them shrieking about 'pretentiousness' with the fervor of a gibbon rattling the bars of its cage at feeding time. It genuinely shocked and disturbed me, and the last time a film managed to do that was a while ago.

On the other, this is a thirty-minute short that sprawls out to over an hour and a half. I understand that there might be artistic merit in using repetition and monolithic pacing as a bludgeon, but in this case it just doesn't help everything hang together. Imagine being approached by a ragged man on the street who grabys you by the shoulders and says something that completely confounds the core of your being... but then, instead of leaving your shattered and gibbering in his wake, he just keeps talking and talking and talking. By the end of the movie, I found myself glancing at my watch now and again.

This is not entertainment, people. This is disentertainment. This is how you deprogram people who just watched "Glitter." If you watch movies to be entertained, this will frustrate, confound, and possibly anger you. You don't approach 'Begotten' like a chocolate cake you want to eat because it tastes good. You approach it like something on the menu you have never heard of before, something you see furtive glances of through the kitchen door, something that's dark and glistens and twitches on its platter; something you order not because it will taste good, but because you just have to know what it's like. Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating.

Having said that, Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground (to paraphrase the title sequence/introduction), this will more than likely contain the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film.

There is no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy background sounds work to drive home the maker's message.

The movie begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on the earth.

The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the cycle of life begins anew.

I actually rented this from Blockbuster one night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This is intense imagery based on a dark subject.

I give this movie some high marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often, if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than I expected. The visual effectiveness of this film is unmatched by anything I've seen. And the work required to make achieve it must have been incredibly long and tedious (you don't just stick "Kodak Grainy Film" in your camera to get this look). Don't watch this film to be entertained, watch it to be visually stimulated, watch it to be challenged and provoked in your thoughts on film and any other topic that comes to mind, religion will likely be one thought.

I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.

This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.

If you're looking to be "entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.

People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one will get through Begotten without being marked." Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans, scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what you're seeing for much of the time.

Still, a good film for the original style, images, atmosphere and content. E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in "A Clockwork Orange." But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is a success.

If you are reading this and have not already seen the film, then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78.

However, seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century. Even then, you might puke.

4/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a piece of art, even if it is unwatchable) I want to preface this review by saying that I have no idea what "Begotten" is truly about. All I really know is that in the beginning God kills himself, in turn birthing Mother Earth, who proceeds to impregnate herself with God's semen. She then births a son. The rest is pretty subjective, and you have to interpret it in your own way.

How I chose to interpret the film was this; God killing himself signified the start of the scientific revolution, when people started questioning the doctrines imposed by the church, like the geocentric view of the universe and etc. Mother Earth symbolized people starting to think for themselves and reject the church's "it happens like this because God says so" views. The Tribal people were the church lashing back at them, trying to force Christianity down their throats. I'm not exactly sure how Son Of Earth fits into all of this. Mother Earth and the Tribal people seemed to be fighting over him, so maybe he represents the freedom of people or something to that effect.

I have no idea what the final parts of this movie are supposed to mean. Bludgeoning, raping, then dismembering Mother Earth and Son Of Earth and grinding them into the ground like a mortar and pestle could mean anything, but that is where the fun of this film lies; You can interpret it any way you want. There doesn't have to be a definitive meaning to it, you can let your mind wander. Sometimes you don't even know what you are supposed to be looking at because it is shot in a weird angle or it is too fuzzy.

The only thing that disappointed me was that I was expecting a truly terrifying film. I was going into it thinking I was going to get a phone call immediately afterward with a foreboding "seven days" warning. What I got was pleasantly different. It was not scary at all, but it stirred my imagination. Trying to decipher the movie's cryptic message was a creative challenge. There were many scenes that were in fact beautiful. Mother Earth just after she was born and the final shot of the forest path come to mind.

So overall I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is certainly the most abstract movie I've ever seen, but that's not a bad thing. E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian "deities" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.

The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.

That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.

Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah. Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that. The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film.

As for what Begotten is about, the "rape of the environment and rebirth" theory feels pretty accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to you.

Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare. What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house/experimental fan and you haven't yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know that I won't. Begotten.The magic.The Terror.The slight boredom.

That "Begotten" is for acquired tastes goes without saying,you don't just happen to watch it unless your friends are real art-house movie buffs.You must dig the weird,the macabre,the bizarre.You must dig cool flicks.And you must dig to find diamonds.

"Begotten" is one of the most visually dazzling and mystifying films ever known to man.The visual part is something to behold,something no one can prepare you for.But since the film is devoid of any type of dialogue,the visual part is pretty much the only part...."Begotten" is a visual film.The soundscapes created for the film are magical and groundbreaking but still....the sight of it....

God commits suicide in a particularly gory scene then from his corpse rises Mother Earth who impregnates herself with God's semen and gives birth to Flesh on Bone,a retarded child.She then abandons him,and he gets tortured by heathen-like creatures.Mother comes back (to save him?) but she and her son get murdered by the horrible creatures.

The film is about the meaninglessness of life,and about the fact that we come to this planet to suffer and to die,and that when something dies something else is born etc.Nihilism.

The film's no.1 quality is of course the visuals,the setting,those haunting images,this other-worldly quality....After you're done watching,you feel like an alien.It's THAT mesmerizing.

When people say it should last 30' instead of 70' they're right.No they're not,it could last 40'.It's just that everything happens to such a slow pace.In fact,the plot summary I provided is all that happens in the film,like no kidding.Still,it's....I don't know....Glorious...

...Like a flame burning away the darkness... A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film. However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose you'll have to make do with what you can.

Anyway, this most excellent artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal. Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic.

And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the imagery incredibly well.

Fans of this film would do well to check out the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers.

--PolarisDiB There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30 years to create film that has an "otherworldly" appearance. Supposing that this is a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss over the low-budget and shabby look, "Begotten" is on the top echelon of this pile.

Apart from the peerless "Eraserhead", anyway.

Merhige's painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen, they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not "Last House On The Left" disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun disturbance.

Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish. Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait. This is not a story. It's a bunch of psychic needles reaching for your subconscious. If you wait for a story you'll be bored. But if you give yourself over to it you'll be inside it's dreamworld within 10 minutes. The vague but disturbing images of pain and torture in a desolate landscape leave room for your own fantasies. The strange soundtrack that gives you the feeling of isolation, the visual echoes of the crucifixion of Christ, the pulsating light and deep dark shadows, they all reach to your subconscious to fill in this mind-space. I found myself trembling and unable to escape in front of my television. It was like dreaming with eyes wide open. A strange nightmare, a bad trip, a religious experience... it touched me deep inside and marked me for live. It freed my mind and gave me one of that rare experiences of loss of personality, and merging with the world of archetypes. A little freedom for the soul. A violent freedom however.... Not a nice movie, but a very strong and unforgettable one. Literally my text has no spoilers. For me the great surprise of this film was the unbelievable intensity of it, and describing this can be understood as a spoiler. The less you know about this film as you watch it, the better. God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth, which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth.

This is a one and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming (i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is certainly not for the impatient person...

I often felt it was similar to David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the end of 2001: a space odyssey. Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the chiaroscuro.

Richard Corliss says, "It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture and death on Golgotha." That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences.

There's an environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole, but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies.

And yeah, if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with Murnau's FAUST.

~ Ray What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining

What this movie is: Visually Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional

I feel that this movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of events in what "feels" like real time.

Consistently, it goes on much longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not "enjoy") what they accomplished here. 10 out of 10. This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these "products": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and consolation amongst fellow human beings.

This film uses very well the "classic" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in themselfes. Those "tricks" have already been made many enough times. Some other movies that I imagine have influenced/inspired this director, are "Eraserhead" and "Nosferatu". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless: There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago.

It is interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story also reminds me of the Borges' short story "El informe de Brodie". Also the critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the great "El Topo".

Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple, thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget.

But I have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a "contemporary" viewer like myself, because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes this kind of movie. I absolutely like this film a lot. It is not very entertaining, but it's a feast of bizarre and stunning images! There's no dialog ,only some background sounds and noises. If you are into something completely different and original, and enjoy the obscure and bizarre...then you might like this work of art. Ik looks like a film made with the very first camera ever made ,in a time where strange human-like beings live and perform their bizarre habits. God has killed himself with a razor and gave birth to Mother earth. Mother earth impregnated herself with God's semen after an act of fellatio, and gives birth to a son "Flesh on Bone". What follows are inhuman acts of ritualistic torture, rape and murder for purposes we do not know....or do we? not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies. First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10 Anyone who correctly identifies the opening images as God killing himself without reading the end credits certainly deserves a free ticket to a rest home in Transylvania. I would imagine this as being a favorite movie at "Twin Peaks" dark lodge on movie night if time existed there. I would think that a better title might have been, "How much fun can you have with someone who's almost dead in the forest with only neolithic technology?" The answer, it would seem, is quite a bit. So, despite the silly "God Killing Himself," the uber-pretentiousness (an apt phrase taken from a previous letter), the more clearly "Alistair Crowley - Hi, I'm the Beast, deal with it!" than Christian cosmology (I can't believe another viewer had the thick-headedness to see the Judeo-Christian Bible in this)... despite all of that... this is a daring, important work that most people should not see. I am both impressed and creeped out that it was made at all. I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you wouldn't be able to stand it. Begotten is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. It is more, to me, a study of sound, light and dark, and movement than a real story. The type of thing you see as a video instillation at the museum of modern art than a film enjoyed at the local theater. I'm not going to try to interpret the images of the mother nature, the beasts in cloaks, the twisted and tortured body of her "child". Some things just defy interpretation. Begotten is black and white distorted images. It looks like it could have come from the nineteenth century. However, the sound is crystal clear, minus the sync and the addition of calm nature sounds.

This movie was very critical of the struggles of life. It shows a single mother and child in a violent world that thrives on the innocent. The mother is very oblivious to her surroundings. This leads to lots of torture, pain, and death. You may watch it many times and see different symbolisms, plot devices, and basically "what does it mean?".

If you appreciate art in movies then you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother. Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens.... if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!

many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...

i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on This has to be one of the most beautifully morbid films I have ever seen. Merhige has created a living painting that unfolds with horrific violence, sex, and a minimalist retelling of the life of Jesus Christ. The high contrast and thick layer of grain make you question yourself as to what you are really seeing at times, but the use of texture, combined with the extreme contrast, create an incredible viewing experience. This film is not for everyone. I think you have to keep an open mind and not be so quick to condemn this film for its content, which if extremely rough, but does make a fairly important statement about creation, god and humanity. Whether this film is a work of art, or shock value trash is open to discussion. I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience. I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back. This performance leaves you with no wishes. We saw it in Offenbach, Germany, and it is breathtaking. We only got the cheap tickets at the far back but still had a view over everything that happened. If you ever get the chance to see this live then GO! It is worth the trip and if I were you I would wait a good half an hour after the show to 'cool down'. The performances are breathtaking and all around the tent there are colourfully dressed performers that are there to distract, help, smile and generally make the whole tent come alive. The music - live music!! - is as good as the CD-version: perfect! I bought a DVD later but the show that was filmed had less colourful costumes. It's the atmosphere in the tent that sweeps you from your feet. A great trip for old and young, and a great film, too Wow, don't watch this thinking it's going to be a relaxing circus evening! It will keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Circus has never been more colourful, more exciting and more breathtaking! The whole concept is truely amazing. You're taken into the world of Cirque Du Soleil and are left with a thousand thoughts when you leave. There's only one thing left to do: get the CD and/or DVD and live through it again and again and again. Get addicted! It's well worth it! Must be next to the most beautiful thing on earth and one of Cirque Du Soleil's best programmes. Fascinating and amusingly bad, Lights of New York is the first all talkie feature and one that almost never saw the light of day.

Two naive barbers (Eddie and Gene) from out of town get involved with bootleggers and end up fronting a speak. When a cop is shot by one of the bootleggers the police start to close in, and the Hawk (who shot the officer) decides to pin the murder on Eddie instructing his henchman to "take him for a ride". But it's the Hawk himself who takes the bullet in a twist that will surprise few.

Shot in one week at a cost of $23,000, "Lights" was originally meant as a two reeler but Foy took advantage of Jack Warner's absence to extend it to six. When Warner discovered this he ordered Foy to cut it back to the original short. Only when an independent exhibitor offered $25k for the film, did Warners actually look at the film, which went on to make a staggering $1.3 million.

Seen now this is an extremely hokey piece, with acting that ranges from the passable (Eugene Pallette) to trance like (Eddie's Granny in a particularly risible scene) and much of the playing is at the level of vaudeville. Since it's an early talkie (4 part-talkies preceded it) that's about all the characters do, and very slowly at that. The script feels improvised, visual style is non existent (apart from the shooting scene done in silhouette) and scenes grind on interminably. Title cards are intercut which redundantly announce characters and locales.

Despite all this "Lights" is a compelling experience, as we watch actors and crew struggling with the alien technology, and changing cinema for ever.

Catch it if you can LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).

The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).

Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.

The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.

The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.

Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug. Lights of New York was the first all-talking feature film. There had been, of course, The Jazz Singer, released in Oct. 1927 as the first feature film incorporating synchronized dialog. However, this film released in July 1928 is virtually unremembered for its place in film history. It had started out as a short, but gradually more was tacked on until - clocking in at 58 minutes - it accidentally became the first all-talking feature film. It opened to a grind house run and to Warner Bros. surprise, made over a million dollars. That was good money back in 1928.

The plot is quite simple. Two country barbers naively buy into a barber shop on Broadway that fronts as a speak-easy for "The Hawk", a gangster. When they learn the truth they can't afford to get out, because the younger barber, Eddie, has all of his mother's money tied up in the place. Kitty is the younger barber's girlfriend, and gangster Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) has an eye for turning in his older girlfriend (Gladys Brockwell) for a newer model - chorus girl Kitty(Helene Costello). A cop is killed while trying to stop the Hawk's men from unloading a shipment of bootleg liquor, and the Hawk sees it as an opportunity to frame Eddie, thus getting Kitty for himself.

This early talkie is loads of fun for the enthusiast of these pioneering works. Sure, the plot is elementary and the dialog stilted, but there is something you don't see much of in early talkies - background musical scoring. Vitaphone had originally been used for this very purpose, and here they are still using it for musical accompaniment along with the dialog. And there are singing and dancing numbers! The scenes in Hawk's nightclub are used as an opportunity to show off what films could never do before - musical numbers. There is even a wild-eyed emcee with some heavy makeup left over from the silent era that is a hoot to watch.

Vitaphone could not go outdoors at this point due to the static camera booths, so the scene in the park between the two lovers Eddie and Kitty is simulated - and cheaply. The greenery looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie or perhaps a high school production of "Our Town".

Gladys Brockwell, as the Hawk's castoff girlfriend, delivers her lines with punch. She's a real trooper considering what lines she has to deliver. To the Hawk - "So you think you can have any chicken you want and throw me back in the deck!". Huh? mixed metaphors anyone? And then there are her final lines "I've lived, and I've loved, and I've lost!" Did someone get paid to write this dialog? Brockwell was making a good success of her talkie career after scoring some triumphs in silent films (the evil sister in "Seventh Heaven"), when a fatal car accident cut her career short.

Then there is Eugene Palette - the older of the two barbers in our story. His frog voice, natural delivery of lines, and cuddly appearance gave him a long career as a character actor usually appearing as a put-upon family man/businessman with a gruff exterior and heart of gold. In fact, Mr. Palette is the only member of this cast who still has a notable career in films just three years after this movie is released.

Finally there is the question of "where is that microphone hidden?" Microphones were still stationary at this point, and it's fun to figure out where they've hidden it. There is one famous scene, though, where everybody can pretty much figure it out. Hawk is in his office talking to his two henchman - who seem to comprehend as slowly as they talk - about "taking Eddie for a ride". If you watch this scene you'd swear the phone on the desk is a character in this film. It's front and center during the whole conversation. The microphone is likely planted in the phone.

There is something heroic about these pioneers flying blind in the face of the new technology of sound. You have silent actors who are accustomed to using pantomime for expression, vaudevillians who know how to play to a live audience but don't know how to make the same impression on a Vitaphone camera booth, and you have dialog writers either trying to write conversation as compactly as they did title cards or filling up films with endless chatter.

Check this one out. It is not boring, moves fast, and is loads of fun if you know what to look for. And no, I don't expect this one to ever be out on Blu-Ray, but I hope that the folks at Warner Brothers add it to the Warner Archive soon so everyone can see it. "Lights of New York" originally started out as an experimental two reel Vitaphone short that eventually snowballed into the first all talkie feature film. Helene Costelle was supposedly one of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood and sister to (in my opinion the real beauty) Dolores Costello, who seemed to get all the breaks. Poor Helene is best known for appearing in this pretty dreary film that bought a revolution to Hollywood!!

Two bootleggers on the lam in "Main Street" convince a couple of small town barbers to try their luck on Broadway. The barbers Eddie (Cullen Landis) and Gene (Eugene Palette) don't realise that their barber shop is soon a cover for illegal bootlegging activities. They soon do realise it and regret the day they left their small town. The only thing keeping them going is the loan that Eddie's mother gave them and that they desperately want to pay back. Eddie becomes re-acquainted with Kitty Lewis (Helene Costello) a girl from his home town who has made good on Broadway. Kitty is worried about "Hawk" Miller (Wheeler Oakman) who is always hanging around her but Eddie, innocently, thinks she is exaggerating as "Hawk" already has a girlfriend Molly (Gladys Brockwell) but to reassure her he gives her a little handgun to frighten unwanted admirers away. "Hawk", who has killed a police officer and has the "Feds" closing in, decides to frame Eddie. Meanwhile Molly is getting pretty fed up with "Hawks" treatment of her and after a showdown where he tells her he is after a chicken and not an old hen the stage is set for - Murder!!!

The fact is it isn't completely awful, apart from gangsters and showgirls alike speaking in their best elocution voices and that was still happening in films in 1930. Gladys Brockwell (if a trifle melodramatic) and Eugene Palette (quite natural) were okay and were the most seasoned actors in the cast. There was no John or Ethel Barrymore to be seen - Cullen Landis and Helene Costello soon returned to the obscurity from which they had come. I also didn't notice much of the "hidden mike" - where people had to be grouped around different objects ie a telephone or sitting on a couch before they could engage in conversation. People who saw it at the cinema probably started to think that all policeman talked in that flat monotone as that trend continued in many early talkies ie "Little Caesar" (1930). In any case they were probably intrigued by the novelty of a completely all talkie - with some singing and dancing - film in 1928.

Recommended. This is an important historical film since it was the the first all-talking feature film.

The film was made for a mere 23,000 dollars.

It grossed over a million dollars upon its release.

This film all so helped define the gangster melodramas that were to become the bread and butter of the Warner's studio in the 1930's.

The popularity of this film ended the silent era more so than its more famous part-talkie predecessor, the Jazz Singer. The film deserves its place in history and not as a mere footnote.

The only actor who might be remember today that is in it was Eugene Palette. As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...

Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.

If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.

It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!

Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.

I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film "American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But "Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.

Good luck!

Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.

The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.

Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.

I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia. First at all: If you like watching movies I recommend you NOT to watch this one. Why? Afterwards you won't appreciate any other movie so easily anymore...

Actually I don't wanna give rise to any excessive expectations but it is almost frightening how perfect, intense and beautiful this work of Einar Gudmundsson is. When in most movies there is at least one aspect spoiling the whole thing, like good actors but horrible dialogs or a nice scenery but low budget cinematography – in „Angels of the Universe" there is nothing of this ambivalence. Really everything is just great, even (and not least) the soundtrack with the magnificent Sigur Rós.

In this story about Pall, a student that goes schizophrenic after being dumped by his girlfriend, especially the dialogs (and monologues) deserve some attention: together with (and sometimes in sharp contrast to) the plot they range from depressing and fatalistic to the whole opposite of comical and totally absurd. What is more, they are often (with quotes from Hegel and Shakespeare) of such a poetic beauty that the movie almost drifts into a surreal sphere and is only saved to the real world by its incredibly authentic actors.

One of the other comments was already referring to another point: This movie is no trivial entertainment for relaxing in the evening. Despite of several comical reliefs in between it is largely disturbing, partly cynical and bitter, and most of all sad. It is a modern poetry about a life of insanity with all its emptiness, rage and solitude.

Finally: When you've seen the movie – watch it again. There are some great visual metaphors and allusions in it that you realize only when you look twice and connect them with the „moral of the story". And of course: read the book, it contains a lot more of the small funny stories in between and also makes you understand some things in the movie a bit better. This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was written by Einar Már Guðmundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in Reykjavík and the main character, Páll is young and having a good life with his girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental Hospital called "Kleppur" and there you get to see some great characters like Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and Óli who thinks that he writes all the " The Beatles" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigurðusson who has the role of the main character Páll does is so work so well that it leaves you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURRÓS and just for the music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen. The movie is about Paul(Páll) a young man who sinks into the harsh world of insanity and his stay at the mental hospital "Kleppur" and his friends. Victor(Viktor) who during his education in England started to think he was Adolf Hitler. Peter(Pétur) who took to much LSD and tried to fly of a roof top the fall left no broken bones or physical damage only insanity, he is obbsesed with China. Oli Beatle (Óli Bítill) Oli has spent most time at the hospital although Viktor is slightly older then him, he claims he wrote every single Beatles song and send it to them by telepathy

The novel is better then the movie and covers all of Pauls life from birth to his death, there is a long time since I saw the movie but if I remember it right the movie doesn't cover Pauls childhood.

"Englar Alheimsins" is funny,sad and powerful if you haven't seen it watch it NOW! and read the novel first it makes the movie better Having a close experience with one such patient is probably the best reason why I had my heart rushing throughout the entire film. Intense, sensible, moral and revealing, and don't forget to check out the marvellous sound track. Really good. This film by Friðrik Þór, director of Children of Nature, is powerful. It has great music by Sigurrós and good acting. It shows how sad insanity as a disease can be. There are many good jokes but the humor is dark. If that is not a problem then you should see this film. Note though this is not a comedy but a drama. This film very succeed in the Film festival in Karlovy Vary, Czech rep. Logically. It' s based on a very good book, excellent actors, good camera, the best director and ICELANDIC. It was probably the most black comedy I've seen.

I really DO recommend it to you. The movie Angels of the Universe is a pure masterpiece and it proves once again that you can make a brilliant movie on a low budget, e.g American Beauty and Blair Witch Project. The Director Fridrik Thór Fridriksson gives the novel Englar alheimsins a new life on the white screen. The movie is a breakthrough in Icelandic film making because it's the biggest and the greatest movie that has been done in Iceland.

The music in the film, played by Sigurrós, is very symbolic for the film, it is absolutely brilliant. I recommend everybody who are able to think to go and see this film as soon as possible, you won't be disappointed. I would bet on this film to win the best foreign film award next year – all over the globe! If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in. This movie is stunningly free from storytelling. It's a pure experience where the music overshadow the visual impression. - Words cannot of course enough express what should be expressed, but it is the requirement of the chattering classes that chatter is put forward, entered into production lines of mediocrity and therefore a necessity in order to express any sensible thought or opinion about something which should not need to be degraded by chatter. Therefore these elaborate opinions are put forward to satisfy those empty minds which need to be filled by noise that you will not find however hard you try in this movie. This movie is great. Best acting i have ever seen in my life. Ingvar E Sigurðsson is the best Icelandic actor, and of course Hilmir Snær and Bjorn jörundur. Great music and sound. Cold hard reality about a struggle of a man that has a lot of problems and the people in his life. Black humor mixed with great acting and this European art movies style, it works, it comes together in a the best Icelandic movie ever made. I say to you." See this film, you will not regret it". I gave it 9 stars. If you see one Icelandic film in your life...See this one This film is based on a true story. The author of the novel bearing the same title, Einar Már Guðmundsson, had a brother, who turned mentally ill. I found this film very moving, following the main character's path down into illness, to see how he tries to cope with life after diagnosis, and how he makes friends at the mental institution, it all is very convincing. There are quite a few splendidly funny incidents also in the manuscript. The title of it gives nothing away concerning the story. You must watch it to understand ... and listen to the music, which is twisting and turning your heart and soul upside down and back as the film moves on. A must-see for everyone. Englar Alheimsins are very good movie. She happen on a mental home in Iceland. Ingvar E. Sigurdsson is in a leading role and is good. Other good actors in this movie are Baltasar Kormákur and Bjorn Jorundur. I like this movie she is very good. I voice with this movie. Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make things-- life-- work? Writer/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one `gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy, too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story.

Admittedly, Joline has always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597 days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out. When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso, Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance, giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil' over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself.

There's a touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and upbeat look at that thing we call life.

Heather Graham takes hold of this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person, and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around, beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so vibrantly to life.

As Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life.

Overall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo, who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable character.

The supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker (Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8/10. Joline (Heather Graham) sets out after her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) who disappeared to clear his head about himself and their marriage. Joline, who is committed to their marriage starts her journey to find Carl, yet on the way discovers a lot about herself. On her trip she encounters a bountiful of interesting characters who unknowingly help her find her way.

In my eyes this is a classical road movie, which moves just at the right pace (some viewers may find it too slow). Throughout the movie it keeps its humorous note while Joline responds to the craziness of the world around her with a warm, knowing, sometimes sad smile. All actresses and actors give wonderful performances and the musical score is immaculate. 9/10 Jolene (Heather Graham) operates a night club in NYC and lives with her husband, Carl (Luke Wilson), a photographer. After about 500 days of marriage, Jolene comes home to find a note from Carl that he needs "some space" ....and a bouquet of daisies, her favorite flower. Jo promptly puts the daisies in the blender and presses the button. Soon after, she embarks on a journey to find Carl somewhere out west because, after all, she is "committed" to Carl. However, when she finally tracks him down in Texas, Jo camps out near his home, at first,, hoping to find clues to his decision to leave. She meets a gorgeous sculptor-neighbor (Goran, can't spell his name!) but Jo discourages his attraction to her. When she learns Carl may have a new girlfriend, she decides to consult a Mexican-American mystic (Alfonso Arau) for advice. Jo is committed but does that mean anything to Carl? This is a very imaginative, quite humorous look at the marriage vow. It's quirky script and offbeat style is downright infectious. Graham is just great as the jilted woman who is having a hard time letting go. Wilson does not give his best performance but is adequate as the mixed-up husband. The rest of the cast is quite nice, however, with Goran the gorgeous one wonderful as the sexy neighbor. The scenery, both in New York and in Texas, is very lovely and the costumes are fresh and fun. If you like romantic comedies AND independent films, this one is made to order for you. It walks to a different beat that is most attractive but still delivers in the ultimate happy ending category. This movie could be likened to "comfort food" for the soul. Anyone who has ever tried and tried to save a relationship could relate to this movie. So many parts of it are so hilarious and so many parts are so heartbreakingly true. It's not perfect in its production or even its dialog, but the story is unique which is saying a lot for modern "romantic" comedies. Luke Wilson is bland at best, but Heather Graham does an exceptional job in my opinion. Give it a try - despite the trite looking DVD cover.The character of Joline brings a lot of issues up in our culture of self-service. She asks us if commitment is really for the other person or ourselves. Truly, it is ourselves. Following through on promises (anywhere from marriage to an errand for a friend) is a great feeling. Anymore, our word is nothing but a shapeshifting puff of smoke. Joline is like a wake-up call. We must be conscious of our words and commitments, they mean more than we think. At the same time, we must not commit to someone who is incapable of doing the same. I get the feeling that Lisa Krueger is easy to overlook. I personally found her first film, 1996's Manny and Lo, to be a wonderfully detailed character study and the performances were uniformly wonderful(with special credit to Mary Kay Place). The film played for a week or two in major urban centers and vanished. One or two critics really liked it, but many viewed it as slight. Krueger's second film, Committed, was released this year (2000) (after nearly two years of delays) and it similarly vanished. And once again critics dismissed the film as slight and pushed the film aside, at most praising Heather Graham's screen presence, but rarely her acting ability. And once again, for me, Committed is a solid success. I feel as if Krueger has a genuine voice and a personal visual style and these are traits that shouldn't be so easily ignored, simply because she works on a very restrained canvass.

The title has several meanings, but mostly it refers to Joline (Graham)'s refusal to let her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) flake out and leave her. She follows him from New York to El Paso and becomes one of the most appealing stalkers in recent cinematic history. Her respect for her marriage vows leads her to Mexican mysticism and self-discovery. And yep, the plot is just that simple and thus, just that easy to ignore.

Joline, of course, is the crying voice of a generation whose parents divorced at a rate nearing fifty percent. And for me, her personal revolution against broken promises and a legacy of deceit is fairly intelligent and powerful. Confident in the belief that people just don't have enough faith in each other, Joline inevitably has to discover that her beliefs aren't in synche with those of society at large. Several comments her have referred to her character as one-dimensional and I'm afraid that that's a simplistic reading of the film. Or perhaps even a misreading. If Joline were just an innocent, she wouldn't be interesting at all. It's the fact that she understands the world and refuses to play by the rules of the "normals" that makes her so interesting. Sociologically, she's a complete deviant.

Krueger sometimes falls into moments of cutesy dialogue and her direction of this film has a rather odd over-reliance on shots of clouds moving across the El Paso skyline. However, her mistakes are fairly rare and in this film, as in Manny and Lo, it's the performances that carry the day. Graham has never been better because she's never had a character as perfectly tailored to her as Joline. For the first time in her career, Graham seems comfortable playing an adult, even one in slightly arrested development. She carries the film perfectly. Luke Wilson and Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother) both have a number of fine moments, as do Alfonso Arau, as a Mexican Mystic and Mark Ruffalo and T-Bo, the slightly psychotic truck driver. As in Manny and Lo, the characters are part of their environments, well detailed totally organic creations. These characters may sometimes seem pointlessly quirky, but they make sense in their context. Even Goran Visnjic, as an artist turned on by Joline's devotion, fits in in some strange way, even though his character's foreigness is never discussed.

For me, this is a movie that gains depth looking back. Another commenter here spoke of the stereotypical Mexican portrayals. And again I'm tempted to call that a misreading. Joline is looking for self-justification. She knows that her commitment is out of control, but she's looking for any spiritual avenue that can help her make sense of herself. Arau's character understands that most people don't believe in him and he plays up his own faith when he sees a woman who respects him.

I guess I can understand how this movie could be viewed as underwhelming, I'd simply disagree. It's consistently funny, frequently hilarious, and all of the characters exude a warmth which is quite wonderful.

I'm giving this one a 7.5/10 and when I log in the vote here, that'll go up to an 8. I loved this film! It has a great heart and great bones. I stumbled onto it by chance and I had no recollection, not even an inkling, of this movie from promos or reviews or word of mouth.   I remember reading, many years ago, a journalist who commented on the value of watching movies without having them contaminated by the pre-judgement of reviews or the false shill of the promos.  And this seems to be the single most common source of the critics' negative reaction to the film:  it failed to meet expectations of it being a comedy, or a slice of life, or character driven.  I had no expectation about the film, and so it was comedic - but I only laughed once or twice - without being a comedy; it was about a person, but so eccentric that it wasn't slice of life; it was about a character, but the character was so intelligently optimistic and trusting of her instinct to life, that it wasn't the angst-driven sentimental melodrama so typical of American 'serious' film - as I wrote that I realized that writer/director Lisa Krueger managed to poke fun at this schlock American sentimentality in the husband!  And very cleverly too! And Kreuger was able to keep the cloyingly sentimental ending from the screen, when the wayward, not prodigal, husband returned with his tail shrunk between his legs. Bravo, Ms. Krueger, bravo!  (Now I will be watching this film again, as it is getting better and better as I reflect on it.)   

Graham's performance as Joline is brilliant. I loved how subtly but completely she was able to portray and convey intelligent awareness of her committable commitment to honouring her words and actions - she knew that in keeping her word with a band, or friends, or husband that she was setting herself up to ridicule and/or disappointment in a world that was unable to honour commitment as she was able to do. But even with that strength, she was fully connected to humanity, and embraced with a fully committed heart their frailty and failures. The character of Joline was amazingly well acted, and I left the film surprised that I had no recollection of awards nominations for it. Okay, not that surprised, as American awards tend to go to women in 'serious' roles, filled with angst and the proper amount of nudity, which this film did not have. What it has was far better, which was heart in this woman's discovery of herself with the assistance of new friends and a self-deprecating shaman.

I admit to being a bit of a soft touch for eccentric characters who manage their peculiarities while remaining honest and true to themselves as they move through the minefield of what comprises 'proper' societal behaviour and 'acceptable' interpersonal discourse. So, if people must conform to normality in your world, then this film will not be to your liking.  And that was, it seems, one of the common threads in the critiques.

And I am always a sucker for a good play on words when it raises questions of human behaviour and ethical/philosophical values. Until this movie I hadn't made the emotional connection between being committed (to a cause or honesty or something) and being committed (to an insane asylum). At what point does one's commitment to a personal sense of truth and action in life become a one way ticket to insanity? This sounds like a simple question, or one that is easily dismissed as being rhetorical. But is it? And yet few of the critics - I think maybe two, commented on this aspect of the film either directly or indirectly.

A lovely film. 8/10.

  Joline (Heather Graham) married Carl (Luke Wilson) and about five hundred and some days later, Carl is very depressed and leaves her, expecting to `clean the fog' in their lives. Joline faces her marriage as an important commitment to the end of her life, and decides to look for Carl in Texas. She is very supported by her brother Jay (Casey Affleck), who meets her in the border of Mexico. There, Joline meets the confused Carl and realizes that she can not change his decision, while Jay knows Carmen (Patricia Velasquez) and starts dating her, and in the end `life goes on'. This movie is very unpredictable, having a very different story. I believe it is an independent production. In some parts, it is a little slow and boring, but there are certain dialogs that makes this movie worthwhile. I liked it, and my vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Rebeldes Até o Fim' (`Rebels Until the End')

In an industry dominated by men and in lack of products with a female mark on it ; is it always nice to see a film shown from the woman's point of view. I would welcome more films from female writers and directors , and I think lots of other women with me. This is a truly great and beautiful movie. The underlying theme of this movie is the innocent child (Heather Graham as Joline) struggling to make her naive wishes for how the world should be make sense while being incessantly beaten down by the real world. It's not an unhappy movie, though - exactly the opposite. It's a funny movie with a sad side, but just thinking about the movie makes me feel so happy. Near the beginning of the movie, beautiful, vulnerable Joline confronts a drug addict attempting to break into her friend's car. She reasons with him, convinces him to seek help, and gives him $30 as a start. At the end of the movie, he reappears to pay her back, explains that he is off drugs, doing well, and he thanks her. I can hear the cynics groaning. Of *course* that would never really happen. This movie doesn't take place in the real world. It takes place in the world we wished we lived in. The sad part is realizing we don't live there. The happy part is knowing there are people wishing we did. It is depressing that many people don't understand this movie. To get caught up in the peripheral elements is to miss the true meaning of this film. This film speaks to the minority of people who actually believe in love and truth. It points out that in todays society too often people say what sounds good at the moment with no intention of backing things up when things get rough. as someone else stated that is evident in the number of divorces. Some people actually believe marriage is forever. Forget about stereotypes or anything else, but rather focus on what is important following your heart and fighting for who you believe in. I liked the ending because it would have been easy to go with a sappy one but came instead with the reality that committent is great, and you should fight with everything you have, but sometimes that still isn't enough. Too often people just give up and forget about the magic of love. late.

Heather Graham is not just a pretty face,she is also an extremely talented actress. She adds a unique flavour to the movie. Overall,it's an intelligent and yet compassionate look at love,marriage and relationships.I thoroughly enjoyed it! "Committed" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what "Committed" lacks in story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie "Manny & Lo" (1996). (B) It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job, especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive! Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better, and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first half of 2000. Once the slow beginning gets underway, the film kicks off and really becomes quite a lot of fun in many unexpected ways. The ensemble cast is really good, with Heather Graham perhaps being the weakest of them. Casey Affleck as her brother is really good and extremely likeable , if you catch my drift.

I highly recommend the film if you just want to have to good hours. Teenagers should really enjoy this film - it says a lot about relationships. Don't hate Heather Graham because she's beautiful, hate her because she's fun to watch in this movie. Like the hip clothing and funky surroundings, the actors in this flick work well together. Casey Affleck is hysterical and Heather Graham literally lights up the screen. The minor characters - Goran Visnjic {sigh} and Patricia Velazquez are as TALENTED as they are gorgeous. Congratulations Miramax & Director Lisa Krueger! I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda, unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up, man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching. Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene. Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved. And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end. I viewed Linda, and it is a Top-Rate Movie! The lives of Paul and his wife, Linda, who he adored as a young man and finally married. They meet another married couple, Jeff and Stella, and the foursome become very good friends. But, their friendship takes a Twisted Turn after vacationing together at Varona Beach....A Twist that never returns the married couples to their former status as friends.

Linda is A Must-See!!!! The acting by Virginia Madsen is acceptable; however, Richard Thomas steals the movie with his incredible acting...and the emotions that he displays.

A Wonderful Movie! "Lotta Honey" It is important and only fair to remember that, at the time this short was produced, a state of war existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan. Add to that the enormous ill-will that the beginning of the war created, as well as the Bataan Death March and other incidents and the only thing surprising about this short and others is that there weren't more of them. One other thing: my only problem with this short is that it seems to try to be funny, but it isn't. I'm not sure that anyone connected with it really tried to make the jokes work, or even cared. It would have been far better if they had done what Disney did with Education For Death and been totally serious. But this short gets a bad rap and shouldn't be judged out of context. The times were different then and that is an important consideration. Anyone expending energy trying to save the world from a sixty-year old cartoon needs to take a step back. As do I, expending energy defending that same cartoon. This should be available to interested parties, even if not in wide circulation. Not a nice cartoon, but sometimes life isn't nice. Recommended There was a video out in America called 'Cartoon Scandals' that featured about an hours worth of banned cartoons.

Most of them were WWII era. That's where I first saw (and heard of) this one.

The rooster during the opening news broadcast turns into a vulture with an Asian face saying 'cock-a-doodle-doo please.' After that it's eight minutes of propaganda played out like a newsreel.

Viscously racist, but when you look at it as the piece of history it is, it can (and should) be forgiven.

Slicing ration cards to make sandwiches.

Showing the ruins of Rome while calling Moussolini 'Ruin #1.'

A minesweeper using a broom.

A manned bomb with the pilot saying 'RET ME OUT OF HERE.'

And of course the stereotyping. Every Japanese was drawn with big teeth, constantly bowing, and saying 'please' at the end of every broken sentence.

The funniest bit? The air raid siren that was two bowing men stabbing each other in the tush with pins. "oooo-OOOOOO"

Hey AOL. Let this one out. It deserves notice. My wife laughed at this. And she's 100% Japanese. I consider this film to be a complete masterpiece - actually I consider it to be Fernando Fragata's best work and undoubtedly the best of all Portuguese movies. I don't think you can come across such a "zero budget" kind of film as impressive and astonishing as this one.

The direction is done with perfection at an incredible fast pace and the music also composed by Fragata is mostly excellent. The story is creepy and humorous at the same time, and it is certainly an advanced study of the old saying "Misery loves company" kind of situations intertwined with a mind boggling mystery. A more than perfect recipe to glue the viewers' eyes to the screen from frame one to the last.

It's been called Neo-Hitchcock, and I'll agree. Much like the best Hitchcocks, it kept me guessing during the entire film and most of my suppositions were far for what ends up being smartly revealed. Yesterday I finally satisfied my curiosity and saw this movie. My knowledge of the plot was limited to about 60 seconds of the trailer, but I had heard some good critics which caused my expectations to increase.

As I saw the movie, those untied pieces had been combined in a story that was becoming quite intriguing, with some apparently inexplicable details. But in the end, everything is disclosed as a simple succession of events of bad luck, "sorte nula" in Portuguese. Above everything, I felt that the story made sense, and everything fits in it's place, properties of a good script.

I must also mention the soundtrack, which helps the creation of an amazing environment.

And if you think of the resources Fernando Fragata used to make this film, I believe it will make many Hollywood producers envious... Despite its ultra low budget, "Sorte Nula" is the most successful Portuguese film of 2004. And I must say, a well deserved success. What I love about "Sorte Nula" the most is the intricate detail that Fernando Fragata went to keep you interested as to what is going on and just what will happen next. It's very detailed and superbly advanced for a seemingly simple love-story-gone-bad thriller. What's even more enjoyable and ironic about this is the fact that the characters are in the same situation, not one of them knows the entire story and are left to their own assumptions making "Sorte Nula" a cut above the rest. This is definitely not a film you want to walk out on for a bathroom break as you will undoubtedly miss something important. I feel one of the film's major attributes would have to be the environment that it establishes. It's creepy but hilarious at the same time. I read somewhere someone quoting this film by saying, "...it's was like watching Hitchcock..." and I couldn't agree more!! I love movies like that, where you have to pay attention to EVERYTHING in order to fully understand what is going on. 9/10 This is probably one of the best Portuguese movies I ever saw... I absolutely enjoyed the plot, because by the way the story was developing, you would get more involved on how their world was really upside-down... There is just only one part that doesn't really seem to fit in the movie, which is the girls' strip... It does not add anything important to the story, it looks like it's just there for a men entertaining purpose. The ending is a bit unexpected, though, at the same time, somewhat expected. If you don't understand, then follow me: after so many strange occurrences, the viewer is so used to oddities, that ending the movie with totally unexpected relationships (Like Mimoso and Susana) sounds totally natural after seeing the rest of the movie. But, most of all, Sorte Nula is a movie that makes you think hard trying to solve the mysterious occourings, laugh your head off with their unlucky lives and mess with your perception of what can happen in just a few minutes, when you turn your back away from something... for all that, I rate it 8/10 "Sorte Nula" is the #1 Box Office Portuguese movie of 2004. This extreme low budget production (estimated USD$150,000) opened during Christmas opposite American Blockbusters like National Treasure, Polar Express, The Incredibles and Alexander but rapidly caught the adulation of the Portuguese moviegoers. Despite the harsh competition, the small film did surprisingly well, topping all other Portuguese films of the past two years in its first weeks. The film is a mystery/murder with a humorous tone cleverly written and directed by Fernando Fragata who has become a solid reference in the European independent film arena. Did I like the film? Oh, yes! Since frame number 1 you know the good guy in the suit and necktie is doomed… He has no luck ("Sorte Nula"), or so he believes with that music on the car radio, and the dubious talk by his best friend and company associate who is taking him to parts unknown through a desert road. Alberto wished simply to be left alone, to take a flight abroad next day, with… well, someone we're left guessing.

The film goes a long way – that'll find short – to a closing scene with the man hearing the same music on a cab to the airport. In between, a number of lucky people have found different ways out of the story, some dying, some being born, others falling into harrowing distress. This time he's really doomed… Or is he? The film is a sort of one-man show by director Fernando Fragata who only left the sound recording and the special effects to other, competent people. Those who typically reject Portuguese films due to sound problems and unclear speech recording, must go searching for other topics to criticize this time. The car crash (this isn't spoilers, the film is too clever for THAT) makes for a great scene, and apparently was done with cheap equipment. (US Studios take notice: you may spare a dollar or two by hiding competent Portuguese directors!)

The rest was done by Fragata, from the script to the dialogue, from camera work to editing. If part of the dialogue were ad-libbed, then he again must be congratulated for the acting direction, and the casting with mostly inexperienced actors. A large number of non-speaking parts are credited, but most of those people were used for the music video clip and the making of, used extensively in the film's promotional trailer. The cast has a dozen actors and actresses, of whom ten relevant persons, and a huge number of relationships – that are revealed step-by-step, in a thrilling, suspenseful way, reminiscent of the best genre authors. 'Alfred Hitchcock' (qv) and 'Claude Chabrol' (qv) do come to mind, by the cat-and-mouse play between the director and his public, and the nature of his characters.

I recommend this thriller and comedy to Portuguese language speakers and, if the film gets to have a decent translation of its colloquial dialogue, to anyone abroad who enjoys those genres. It is fantastic! A sick and twisted tale of coincidence and deceit.

The story is meticulously and ingeniously constructed. It is really a perfect mixture: it has all from suspense to humor and the story is told with lots of originality... The film is built up like a puzzle which is assembled piece by piece, and resolves the story... For the viewer there are plenty of surprises till the end!! I also had a little impression that the director has been inspired by some Hitchcock work. I've also seen films before where you see the same event happening from different points of view but this film goes beyond that. In this movie everything is built upon what happens to a body that appears and disappears and appears again in a different location. Every actor in the story has his own secret and we come to realize it in a way that contributes to assembling the puzzle.... I loved especially the dark humor scenes...which made laugh the whole theater.... This movie is a must see for everyone! It is a surprising movie that gets you in your chair waiting for the last minute of the film, leaving on your leaps a sweet taste of: ... I want more! There are very good actors, Portuguese actors that have a lot of experience in the world of theater and films. It is not a million Euros budget film, but still we can see the destruction of a car in an excellent perspective that gets you in the movie. If you have the opportunity of getting your hands on this excellent film, don't wait for another minute: just see the film! I think that Portuguese film are increasing the quality. Watch out Spanish producers... The Portuguese are getting a high quality standards. I saw the film and I'm waiting for more... You can't watch this film for a history lesson. This was the first I had heard of the Ma Barker saga, but I could tell almost immediately that the facts were way off. And with a little internet research I realized I was of course right. Ma Barker sure as hell isn't the sexy, calculating woman the movie portrays her as, and apparently did not orchestrate all the bank robbing schemes, kiddnappings, and murders that her criminal boys carried out.

But don't expect a brilliant crime drama. The script and the acting are adequate, the gunfights are excessive and mostly unrealistic, and there is a very laughable slow motion death scene. So why did I give it a 7 out of 10?

Because it was damn entertaining. The gunfights are fun to watch but there are some deeper themes that emerge between them. The movie has a strong sense of ego intimidation among it's cast of alpha males, each of whom has his own agenda. And I appreciate the minimal use of swears for the period. The set pieces are great, reproducing a convincing 1930s era.

So watch this film like you would a cult film, and take the excessive bloodiness and ruthlessness in stride with the cheesy ultra serious comments from the FBI man who wants to take the Barkers down at any cost. Inotherwords, don't take it too seriously, just have fun with it. And if you like this, you'll love Serial Mom. I was given a DVD of Public Enemies and was expecting it to be the 2009 version but it wasn't - it was this! Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie I have ever seen - not by ANY means - but, heck folks, it was worth more that 2.8 out of 10! When I saw that abysmal rating on IMDb, I wondered what I was going to get but, since the disc was in the player, I settled down to watch it. As other commentators have pointed out, Public Enemies is NOT a historical movie per-se - and I noted that, unlike the 2009 version (which I haven't seen yet) IMDb doesn't categorise it as such.

Come on people! It's a STORY based on some real people - that's all! If I wanted a history lesson, I'd sit at this computer and read Wikipedia or something. Ma Barker (actual name Arizona - or Arrie - Barker) was NEVER even charged with any crime and, as other commentators have already pointed out, she probably never even took part in her sons' activities. They sent her to the movies when they were "working"! (I hope she wasn't as critical as some of those who watched this movie!)

Theresa Russell had the never-too-easy task of portraying a woman from the age of 17 right through to her death at the age of 52 - from a young girl running from home to the hardened mother of four hoodlum sons. I think she did it pretty well. The cheeky little smile she used in more than one scene was classical! OK, I will agree with some of the critics that the direction of this film was below par and I sympathise with the actors over that. Theresa should have told the director to forget the topless shots - they didn't contribute to the story. Maybe some bigger-name stars would have managed to inject some of their own expertise into overriding the poor direction whereas the second-graders weren't quite that brave. Who knows?

But, whilst this was certainly no block-buster, it WAS worth more than 2.8!! I have all my DVDs on a personal database where I score them BEFORE looking at the IMDb score (although that sometimes influences slight changes later). I take what I get on it's own merits rather than holding one movie up against others of the same genre and this one I felt was entertaining enough to get 6.8. (Yep, I'll accept that such a practice does tend to depend on my mood at the time, but then isn't that also true of those who vote on IMDb?) However, you may imagine my surprise when I looked at IMDb and saw the pitiful score it got here.

Given the surprise, I decided to read a few of the other comments in the hopes of understanding the low rating and I noticed that they are quite polarised. I agreed with those who said the movie was worth watching and came to the conclusion that some people are just hard to please. Well, since some were absolutely scathing, why don't THEY get out there and make some better movies? I will look forward to the gems they must be able to turn out! On the other hand, if they can't do that, then why don't they just shut up? I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes, except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this movie. This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma' Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in "85's Commando was still very interesting.

Eric Roberts, plays a short-lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak...

I was perplexed, intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, & were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!! I found this flick enjoyable and involving to watch, and I'm surprised it's rated so lowly. Actually I can see why it is; I imagine it's the fans of Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano that have been giving most of the 1s and 2s, because if you put the tape into the machine expecting to enjoy watching something starring either or both of these two then you could be rather disappointed. Eric appears for about half an hour towards the end of the movie, and Alyssa for about 5 scenes in the second half, and in those she says little and wears less (although never nude if that's what you're looking for, stick with embrace of the vampire). Although they're always a pleasure, it's a pity she, or Eric, don't get much screen-time yet I still give this an 8.

PUBLIC ENEMIES is a kind of throw-back to those early 1960's gangster biographies like PORTRAIT OF A MOBSTER, MAD DOG COLL and KING OF THE ROARING TWENTIES. Although made on the cheap, the film has a great deal of energy and the acting over-all, particularly by Eric Roberts and Frank Stallone is quite good. Theresa Russell might seem too glamorous as Ma, but she has some very good moments. There are two action scenes worth noting: a shoot-out in a hotel, and a machine gun fight in the middle of the street between the Barkers and the FBI. Both sequences are nicely done, and compared to other low-bidget gangster junk like DILLINGER AND CAPONE, this film shines. The 80s were overrun by all those HALLOWEEN/Friday THE 13TH slasher-style horror movies, so this is something of a relief.

Ten unbelievably annoying teenagers (would you want to hang out with these jerks?!) decide to throw a Halloween party at a local former funeral parlor called "Hull House". During a "past life séance" a demon is accidentally released, and each person becomes possessed and kills off the others.

This all sounds very EVIL DEAD/DEMONS-ish, but Tenney lends some directorial style to the proceedings, there are some good one-liners, the music is excellent, the Steve Johnson prosthetic make-up FX are scary and Linnea Quigley is quite fun as a boy-crazy bimbo who pokes out eyeballs with her fingers and does an amazing new thing with a tube of lipstick!

Great fun on a no-brainer level! After checking out the breakdown of the voting and the other posted reviews, I don't understand how this only received 4 out of 10 (?!)

I give it, 8 out of 10. This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in "Return of the Living Dead" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to "Dallas," and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to "The Evil Dead," but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one ! Night of the Demons is a great movie and an excellent example of how good low-budget can be. Sure, much of it is fairly predictable, but somehow it's still much more enjoyable than the crap we see these days being passed off as "Horror". I give the gore a solid 9, and the Demons' one-liners are actually funny. I'm still creeped out by "Stop looking at me!" The soundtrack is well done, I was surprised to hear "Stigmata Martyr" from Bauhaus! There is also some very nice T&A on display, as well as some hella good make-up effects. The second film in the series is pretty good too, but avoid the inferior third one. Night of the Demons may be dated, dark, and low-rent, but it still has a lot of potential. It's definitely worth a rental at least. Give it a chance tonight, just stay away from any old makeup! (you'll understand when you see it!) I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.

I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look! any movie that has a line of dialogue that goes something like this...."Judy's getting ready for her date, Butthole!" has to be good! I found this on DVD unrated, unedited and was pleasantly surprised, a lot of hard work was put into making this movie. I actually enjoyed this more that a lot of 80s movies I have seen. Great addition to my movie collection.

The buildup was great, sets up the scares for the rest of the movie. Loved the GORE and the T&A. I never thought eyeballs being gouged out would look like popping boils, the color of the eye splatter was gross! I keep thinking that "Rog" looked like Tiger Woods but more black, anyone agree? I absolutely love this movie! Evil Dead has NOTHING on this film! Night of the Demons 2 and 3 are a total bore fest, but this one is a classic. It's super cheesy and the acting is alright at best, but what more could you want from an 80's horror movie? Stooge has some of the best one-liners to ever hit the screen in this one. (he's my favorite character) A lot of people talk about the lipstick scene in this movie, but my personal favorite is the ending, sadly enough has nothing to do with the main characters, when the old man eats his left over Halloween apples in a pie, and his throat is mangled from the inside out. The sound track is awesome. The scene with Angela dancing is totally creepy, especially after the strobe light comes on, and you can see her jump from one part of the floor to the next with every sound of a camera shutter click on the song that's playing. The make-up effects in this movie are pretty sweet; Angela gave me nightmares as a kid. If you're the type of person who demands perfection out of your filming experience, you might want to give this one a pass. But, if you're like me, and you really dig the whole Halloween, haunted house with the demons cliché, than this one is definitely a must own. I remember seeing this film in the theater and liking it. I happened to stumble upon it on fear net last month and watched it again and found it better with age. First of all for those of you who describe this as 80s cheese if you objectively compare it with the horror flicks of the past 2 decades it compares quite well if stacked up against films in its unique horror sub genre which I would term action/horror as opposed to psychological horror such as "The Shining" or "the exorcist".

Furthermore for its budget this film really delivers the goods (or in this instance bad). The film actually has some character development and gives enough of a history of the infamous hull house to get the atmosphere right before the characters set foot in the front door. The film also has several hilarious one liners and gives the appropriate mood that a creepy horror flick should have. If you compare NOD to contemporary big budget horror films such as "I am legend" (The Vincent Price version was much better) this film really stands out. Modern horror flicks have become almost completely dominated by CGI. Most have no plot or character devel at all and are completely predictable. The special effects dominate these movies from start to finish and the characters are 24k plastic. If this is 80s horror cheese I'll take it over 95% of current entries in the genre.

On a closing note seeing NOD again made me remember the beautiful Jill Terashita and wonder why I have not seen her in more films horror or otherwise. Jill on the odd chance that you read this- I think you are gorgeous and should have been in more films. Lastly, if you like action horror flicks you will probably like this one a lot. I must say. This is easily one of my FAVORITE movies to watch on Halloween. The halloween party, the horrid acting, the guy dressed like and extra from Miami Vice. GREAT GREAT GREAT!!!

*********************SPOILERS***************************

I have a huge place in my heart for random 80's horror flicks and this one reached out and tugged at my heart strings. I always passes this flick at Blockbuster and always laughed at the cover of the box. Now every weekend I would grab a random movie I had never seen before...one weekend it was Angelas turn. She seemed to have been taunting me for months. So I took it home put it in and spent most of the movie underneath the blanket.

For me, it was terrifying and gross. And not just the acting! Some of the things they came up with for this movie was AMAZING. I can honestly say the best part for me was watching Suzanne (played by a fellow iowan) stick a tube of lipstick through her nipple. It was random and I loved it. Watching creepy Angela FLOAT through the hallways and hearing her creepy demon voice was enough to have me awake ALL NIGHT LONG!

It isn't one of the most clever or best acted horror movies. But its 80's cheese and its got all the elements you need. Creepy Goth Kid, Virgin, Slut, Naked Girls, Scary House, Bad Acting, oh and did I mention Naked Girls? All the elements were there and were put together in such a way that made for one of my fave movies. Kudos to the filmmakers. This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled. I remember watching this film as a kid and I was in complete awe of it, I couldn't take my eyes of the television. This movie has it all for horror fans! This movie had no funny moments expect a couple of one liners by stooge(who was my favorite character in the film) kevin tenney directed this jewel and did a wonderful job with a low budget, I thought the end was awesome the only thing that could stop them was by surviving the night they were unstoppable killing machines! the effects done by steve johnson we're excellent I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a love for low budget horror movies because as the old saying goes they don't make them like this anymore. The sequels were pretty good too, but not as good as good as the original. This is a must have in any horror collection, buy it if you can find it you won't be disappointed I love this young people trapped in a house of horrors movie. Not just because I'm a huge Linnea Quigley-Jill Terashita fan, but because it is a lot of fun and actually scary at times.

The special effects are awesome, especially Linnea's scene with the lipstick and towards the end when almost everyone is dead and possessed.

Plenty of nudity provided by Linnea and Jill, plenty of humor, cool soundtrack, high body count, etc...By the way, if you have never seen this one, try and buy/watch the Unrated version which has more gore and some scenes the rated version is missing. This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like "Night of the Living Dead" or "Hills Have Eyes." But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of "House on the Haunted Hill." The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking? The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun. Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all ("Evil Dead II", "Night of the Creeps" and "Return of the Living Dead" for example) and then there were those movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a night with beer and friends. Movies like "Pieces" and "Blood Diner" stacked rental shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie "Night of the Demons" is a part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body, but dammit if you don't have a good time.

The plot is so simplistic it just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and co. decide to throw a séance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's "Arrested Development" character Gob would call it, a "Huge Mistake," because a demonic force soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well.

Take "The Evil Dead", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and your average dumb dead teen flick, throw them in a blender, and "Night of the Demons" is what you get. The movie is anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why?

Well for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously, yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact. It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more.

It might not be a classic, but "Night of the Demons" is a good example of horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser. A group of obnoxious teens go to a former funeral parlor for a Halloween party. They get trapped inside, and become possessed by demons that they have accidentally awakened. The possessed teens start killing the others off and seem to be led by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) who floats and talks in a really deep voice. The remaining teens that haven't been possessed yet are forced to fight off the demons and try to escape the house.

This is a pretty decent horror film with great special effects which include Linnea Quigley (who has a couple nude scenes as usual) gouging out a guy's eyeballs and pushing a tube of lipstick into her nipple. There's also a scene where a couple has sex in a coffin and a guy getting his tongue bitten out. This is a great film to watch with a bunch of friends late at night while eating some pizza. The terrible acting and atrocious dialog almost ruins it though. Overall, I would give it a 7 out of 10. This isn't the video nasty Night of the Demon as there are more than one. Actually, there is only one, but it multiplies.

After it inhabits Suzanne (Scream Queen Linnea Quigley), she passes it on to goth girl Angela (Amelia Kinkade) through a nice long kiss.

Next, we see Linnea showing us her quigleys in the bathroom. She shows a lot more as Jay (Lance Fenton) thinks he is in for some fun.

Soon, everything literally goes to hell as bodies drop one by one and are possessed. Judy (Cathy Podewell) and Max (Philip Tanzini) are the last two trying to escape. Max isn't much help, leaving it to Judy to figure a way out.

The makeup was absolutely fantastic, and the only thing that kept this from being even better was the extremely long build up to the action.

The old man (Harold Ayer) who appears in the beginning will be back and get his just desserts.

Linnea Quigley may be the Scream Queen, but Cathy Podewell definitely showed the greatest lungs in this film. It's the old, old story : kids have a party in an old house, demons are unleashed, death and gratuitous nudity ensues. You all know it, it's still a lot of fun.

Many people (okay, many horror fans, to be specific) have fond memories of this movie and it's always with slight trepidation that you revisit an old movie to see if it's still as good as you used to think it was. Luckily, this is.

It has something for everyone (well, everyone who happens to be male, I suppose). From a fun title sequence to a shoplifting scam involving cunning use of Linnea Quigley's ass to the "mirror" scene to the full on demonic fun, this is a blast from start to finish.

The girls are cute, the guys are . . . . male, the death scenes are well done with some good gore effects and, unlike some horrors from the era, this actually keeps a good sense of atmosphere and even tension throughout. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun first and foremost but it offers some nice, freaky moments that should please most genre fans. I neglected this film when I used to go to the movie store but then the curiosity got to me and I decided to check it out. I loved it!!! The movie starts off with Judy and Jay heading for a Halloween party at the abandoned funeral parlor Hull House. Then we meet a few more characters, Angela and Suzzanne ( the hosts), Frannie, Max, Rodger, Sal and Helen. Then of course they start to party and when they''re really in the mood they decide to have a séance which awakens a demon. The demon possesses Angela and she starts her gruesome slaughtering. Will they survive the Night of the Demons.

The movie was overall great. The gore was fine but the nudity provided by Linnea Quigley (Trash from ROTLD) once again screws it. I never was a fan of hers and never will be. A bunch of mostly obnoxious and grossly unappealing teens go to a creepy, remote, rundown old mortuary located nearby a cemetery to attend an anything-goes all-out Halloween party being hosted by freaky occult-obsessed oddball Mimi Kinkade and her vacuous, boy-hungry bimbette friend Linnea Quigley. The loutish, profane, beer-guzzling, sex-happy dipstick dimwits hold a séance as a joke (very bad idea, 'cause the desolate old dive is naturally said to be haunted by demonic spirits). Of course, that ill-advised séance awakens those decidedly grumpy and hostile evil spirits, who gruesomely kill and possess a majority of the kids, turning them into ugly, fanged, clawed, boil-faced murderous ghouls who wreak the usual grisly havoc throughout the duration of an especially long, dark and harrowing night of pure terror.

Yep, this is essentially your umpteenth vigorously graphic and unrelenting wall-to-wall cheap shock-ridden "Evil Dead" rehash, replete with closed-off, there's no easy way out claustrophobic single self-confined setting, outrageously excessive splatter set pieces, an incessantly pounding hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, a total sense of gloom'n'doom-laden grim nightmarishness, and vibrantly in-your-face manic careening cinematography (the expected headlong rush-inducing hyperactive hand-held camera-work, smooth, sinuous tracking shots, crazily tittled camera angles, even the camera on a dolly doing a gracefully gliding 180 degree figure eight). Fortunately, Kevin S. Tenney's slick, assured, stylish direction keeps the extremely threadbare and derivative proceedings thundering along at a speedy clip; moreover, Tenny gives the film an attractive polished look and effectively creates a certain crudely energetic and enthusiastically grotesque spooky ooga-booga carnival funhouse atmosphere.

However, Steve Johnson's marvelously gory and imaginative make-up effects are the true star of the show. Bloodthirsty highlights include disgusting fat slob Hal Havins (who played a similarly irritating obese a**hole role in the immortal "Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-A-Rama" around the same time) having his tongue bitten off, Quigley shoving a whole tube of lipstick in one of her breasts (yow!) and gouging a guy's eyes out while she's making love to him (double yow!), a libidinous teen couple getting offed while doing exactly what you think in a coffin (the chick has her neck snapped while the dude has his arm chopped off), Kinkade setting her hands on fire, and, in the film's single most nasty scene, a mean old man has his throat slit from the inside out after eating an apple piece laced with razor blades. The trashy'n'thrashy rock score likewise smokes. And then there's Kinkade's incredibly wild, sexy and uninhibited demon dance, a sizzling number accompanied by a flickering strobe light and startling jump cuts that Kinkade choreographed herself. Okay, so this overall doesn't amount to anything more than a completely mindless and pointless, albeit quite nicely mounted and enjoyably vulgar hunk of blithely sleazy fright flick junk, but if you're in the mood for entertainingly brain-dead lowbrow horror scuzziness this cheerfully crass and juvenile dross does the trick just fine. The eighties produced a lot of gory little horror flicks, most of them within the slasher sub genre - thus putting this film ahead of most of the rest of its ilk. Night of the Demons is something of a cross between the ultimate gore film, The Evil Dead; and haunted house-cum-slash flick Hell Night. Films like this usually feature a deranged/deformed madman as the lead bad guy; but here we have bloodthirsty demons, which is always more interesting than a lunatic if you ask me. There's also a lot of comedy in this film, and the first third of the movie could easily be the set up for a straight comedy film. But once the characters enter the central location; a sinister funeral home known as 'Hull House' - the film morphs into the horror film that you would expect given the title. The plot line is as simple as you'd expect it to be, and we follow a bunch of kids that decide to put on a Halloween party inside said funeral home. This turns out to be a bad idea, however, once it transpires that the house is possessed; and the demons start to inhabit the kids' bodies! Their only salvation lies on the other side of the underground stream...but finding the gate to the grounds isn't as easy as it sounds.

The film's centrepiece is the Gothic mansion where the action takes place. This creaky old house makes for a great horror film location; the fact that it used to be a funeral home only adds to this. Director Kevin Tenney shoots the house well, and a particularly good job is done of establishing the fact that the house is in the middle of nowhere and escape is difficult. The comedy towards the start of the film is generally very funny, and I was hoping it would keep up the laughs once the horror starts. The film does have its comedy moments when the kids enter Hull House, but it's never overly funny and it's obvious that horror is the film's main aim. Not that this is a problem; but the Night of the Demons could have been a lot better had it fused these elements properly. The characters are pretty much what you'd expect from this sort of film; but the acting suits the movie well, and it's clear that the young cast had a good time making this movie and it translates well to the screen. The effects are good in that they suit the film well, and as most of the death sequences are well executed; it's a good bet that most people won't get bored watching this. This isn't a classic or must see film; but I can highly recommend it as it offers a good time and will appeal to fans of silly horror fodder. Night of the Demons (1988) was another in a long line of "teen" horror films that were released on video and pay-t.v. during that mecca of film making the eighties. But unlike most of the crap that was being peddled around, this one was actually a decent watch. A group of bored "teenagers" decide to party Halloween night away with a pair of bizarre sisters (Mimi Kinkade and Linnea Quigley) at the infamous Hull House. Your usual cast of stereotypical teenagers are invited to the party. But an average teenage bash turns into a night of terror as they try to survive Halloween night when they undead residents of Hull House decide to crash the party. Who'll survive this night of bloodshed and horror?

A nice horror film that is best seen in the unrated version. If you watch the R-Rated cut then you'll miss all of the splatter effects and nudity. Stay tune for the amusing epilogue! A gory film that was followed by an equally entertaining sequel. For horror fans only!

Highly recommended. Much more than ANY other film from that period, Night of the Demons represents the brainless and hugely enjoyable horror pastiche. It's undemanding fun with loads of nasty make-up effects, gorgeous looking (and horny) teenagers and adorable cliché-elements. A group of party animals, led by the alternative Angela, goes to celebrate Halloween in an abandoned funeral home that carries an eerie urban legend. It all starts out typical and "innocent" with dancing, drinking and the occasional flirt between youngsters that can't keep their hormones under control, but pretty soon a bloodthirsty demon possesses the hostess. In the most ingenious ways you've ever seen, the rest of the cast gets slaughtered viciously only to return as hideous creatures prowling for blood. The thing that makes this film better than most cheesy 80's horror films is finds a good balance between light-headed camp and atmospheric horror. Some sequences really are creepy and the funeral house setting supplies Night of the Demons with an excellent tone. Director Tenney makes great use of the set pieces (coffins, a crematorium, endless dark hallways…) and his young, enthusiast cast obviously love what they're involved in. The terrific make-up effects by a whole team of artists and designers are of course the obvious aspects to love and horror fanatics will absolutely love the large amount of severed limbs, poked out eyes and crushed skulls! The ultimate highlight however is Linnea Quigley's trick with the disappearing lipstick! This nymphomaniac bimbo shoves an entire tube of lipstick in her nipple and continues her sexual murder spree! Terrific! Night of the Demons received two sequels during the 90's and, although they're still definitely worth checking out, they focus more on comedy than chills. Kevin Tenney's "Night of the Demons" is an enjoyable horror film that reminds me a little bit "The Evil Dead".On Hallowen night,a group of teens throws a party in Hull House,an abandoned funeral home on the outskirts of town.Lead by Angela,they perform a seance-like ceremony and accidentally awaken the evil spirits that inhabit the place.One by one,the uninvited evil force possesses the teens,turning them into bloodthirsty demons."Night of the Demons" is a perfect horror film.It is scary,gory and pretty atmospheric.The characters are well-developed and the gore by Steve Johnson is pretty good.There is a gruesome impaling,a tongue being bitten off,fingers shoved into eye-sockets,etc.The scene,where Suzanne(Linnea Quigley)shoves a tube of lipstick through her nipple is a hoot.Give this one a look.Followed by two sequels. I saw "Night of the Demons 2" first before I saw "Night of the Demons". Unfortunately, my old Blockbuster thought it was a good idea to have the sequel, but no first one. Looney, huh? Now, I think all horror fans need this movie. It's like McDonald's, you know it's bad for you and you'd rather have The Cheesecake Facotory(or whatever pricier restaurant you prefer), but you can't help but just wanting the cheap stuff.

Night of the Demons has it all: your innocent, sexy, goes by the rules chicka-dee, your token black guy, that surprisingly doesn't get killed. You're slutty girl, you're slutty guy, you're dark girl or guy, the goof ball, the cheesy settings of a haunted house, bad acting, and lots of unnecessary nudity. Isn't this stuff great? I mean, I know deep down in my heart of movies that this was pretty bad, but it was a good bad for horror movies. Horror fans should enjoy and dig in!

8/10 Night Of The Demons is definitely one the definitive cheesy 80's demons horror flick in the same vein as the brilliant Evil Dead and Demons movies. This movie combines boozy sexually active teens and demons into one hell of a fun movie. A definite welcome addition after the 80's were overrun by slasher flicks, it was nice to see something a little different.

The plot follows a group of teens who all meet up for a Halloween party at hull house which used to be funeral parlour, hosted by Angela. About 40-minutes of boozing and sexing eventually leads to a demon or demons finding their way out of the furnace and possessing each and every one of the teens. Add some snazzy make-up effects, lots of gore, and cool-looking demons and you've got yourself a sweet 80's cheese-fest that would be ranked as one of the best demon-related films in many horror fans' lists.

Firstly I loved the setting for this movie, "Hull House" is really creepy and scary and the perfect setting for a horror movie and plus when the Demons emerge, that's when the action really kicks in and it becomes a night of terror and fear. This movie spawned 2 sequels, the first one in 1994 which was okay but nothing come pared to this and the third one titled Demon House was absolutely horrendous. This is one of those horrors that has definitely stood the test of time and remains a true gem of mine for many years to come.

All in all a fun cheesy flick with Demons that's definitely worth checking out. This film gave me probably the most pleasant surprise of any I've ever seen. It was not a big-budget production and its premise, middle-age amateur jazz musicians get an unexpected professional engagement at a Catskills-like resort, seems rather modest. What's not modest is the film's success. This is a little slice-of-life movie that is most entertaining throughout. Director Frank D. Gilroy also wrote the script and it's full of interesting subplots and unexpected twists.

The actors are journeymen who do a solid job. The biggest revelation to me was Cleavon Little. He plays a professional musician who is hired to fill in for an ailing band member. His attitude immediately clashes with the others. While they see it as an opportunity for big fun and a once in a lifetime thing, he sees it as his job and not a particularly interesting one. This leads to conflict but when the group gets in trouble, he steers them through. Little, who died too young, really showed me he was a fine actor with this film.

This movie is a true sleeper, the kind that a film fan always hopes to discover. I recommend it wholeheartedly. This little film brings back a lot of memories, both fond and foul, of what can and does happen when one is a working musician. The not so pleasant accommodations for the band, the management of the venue jumping up and down telling you what to play, the sheer ecstasy of the applause.............. Far from being farcical it is, in fact, very accurate in the way it depicts musicians, professional and otherwise, who have travelled a great distance to perform a season of gigs at a venue. There are those times when everything goes perfectly, there are those other times when you immediately start to miss your partner and wonder what the hell you are doing this far from home. In the end you have to make the best of it because there is no other way out. My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.

We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.

Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it! "The Gig" is a tight, funny and poignant little movie about a group of friends that have gathered together on a regular basis to play Dixieland for fun. The group unexpectedly lands a real paying job, in musician's parlance; a "gig".

They travel to upstate NY for a two week gig at a summer resort minus one member, who bows out due to contracting cancer. At the last minute, they hire a professional to take his place. Things get sticky as an over-the-hill Frankie Valli type attempts a comeback at the resort and tries to utilize the group as his band.

The attitude the professional bass player gave the guys rang true. By signing up to play the two-week gig, they were taking bread out of the mouths of someone who needed the job to feed his or her family. While Pop, Rock, Rap, Country and Western, and R&B stars make money off of albums. Jazz musicians have to travel abroad to make a living. Almost nobody gets rich. The guys living their dream also cost others a needed income.

I believe that almost everyone who can play a musical instrument with some proficiency dreams about playing a paying "gig" one time or another, Woody Allen and Kevin Bacon are two popular examples of this amateur-to-professional crossover. I especially recommend this movie to anyone who has ever played music professionally. My mom, who was a musician, LOVED it. This movie is almost never seen today - the only reason I can enjoy it again and again is from a slightly worn out VHS copy I made when the film was shown on TV in 1991 here in England.

An ensemble cast are obviously enjoying themselves and this is reflected to the viewer. A razor sharp script helps things along, and once you've seen this you will want to watch it over and over again.

Wayne Rogers is the 'star' but everyone contributes to a great film, with a great jazz soundtrack to boot. There are emotional moments during the film, but never to the point of sickly sweet sentimentalism - these are guys on the trip of a lifetime, and they convey that excitement wonderfully.

Highly recommended if you can actually get to see it. This is an enjoyable movie. Its very realistic to the "wonderful world of music" I've been there and done that. It shows a human element in each character and the realism that nobody is perfect. These amateur musicians weren't all that bad players. Cleavon Little's character, Marshall Tucker, was played very well. Marshall was no saint himself. Here he was getting paid to do a job and he's giving these guys a hard time about everything in the van on the way up there. You don't bite the hands that feed you. I do find it hard to believe that a player with the jazz experience he has, claims he does not know any of the dixieland tunes. He has a tremendous sense of predicting chord changes to tunes he does not know. Not common, but not unheard of either. He delivers a true and harsh message at the end of the movie when he tells the clarinet player, "its not a religion, devotion is not enough." On that level, he is correct, although I think the clarinet player could have handled the job. He was practicing his butt off and vocal accompaniment music is not that hard to read. Very enjoyable movie. This is a wonderful new movie currently still showing in cinemas in my country. Its director, the Calabrian Gianni Amelio, is in my humble view perhaps the only contemporary Italian director, along with Nanni Moretti, to deserve being called great (that is, apart from the old masters who're still around and occasionally still churning out movies). It's one of my greatest regrets that contemporary Italian cinema has been ailing since the mid-70s, mostly due to a dire lack of funding and nurturing of new talent, something which can be transferred to most fields and which makes Italy one of the most static industrialised countries of our time production-wise (both in an industrial and cultural sense)... unlike, say, China. And this, among other things, is precisely the subject of Amelio's latest movie. Few directors can speak to me about the true, present state of my country and the world as Amelio can, yet his pictures also have a precious timelessness and universality. And for those already worrying that they may be slow, ponderous and worthy - rest assured: of the ones I've seen they most certainly aren't, at least not if you're used to quality European cinema.

The basic plot outline: Vincenzo Buonavolontà is a technician at an obsolete steel plant factory somewhere in Italy, probably the North. He is played by Sergio Castellitto, one of contemporary Italy's most versatile and talented actors. When a major Chinese steel company purchases some of the Italian steel plant's industrial machinery, Vincenzo, who struggles to make himself understood with the non-Italian speaking Chinese director, tries to tell him that the machine is defective and its converter needs substituting, an element he's working on custom-building himself. He warns them that not doing this might have very dangerous consequences. Meanwhile a young Chinese woman called Liu Hua acts as interpreter between the two men, but seems to struggle to find adequate translations for some of Vincenzo's technical jargon. The Italian eventually loses his patience with her, virtually pushing her aside and asking her to hand him the Chinese-Italian dictionary so that he can do the translating himself.

Despite Vincenzo's warnings, the following morning he finds that the Chinese factory director and his employees have returned to their own country while not heeding his advice about the adequate use of the industrial machine at all. Thus Vincenzo, equipped with his great integrity, sets off for China. And here begins an endlessly fascinating road movie through China, a very topical 21st century Odyssey through the Asian Giant. A latter-day Marco Polo's quest for the secrets of the mysterious nation? Not quite. As in all of Amelio's movies, the journey itself becomes far more important than whether its ultimate "mission" is carried out or not. In fact, the way in which the point is literally brought home, not without a touch of humour, is a lovely, poignant paradox and irony, which made my eyes well up while I was simultaneously smiling. The spectator is let in on the secret that Vincenzo's trip was ultimately completely useless, but he himself doesn't know it, and goes home a satisfied man, a deluded innocent. At least, you figure, he's happy. Sort of.

The journeys that Amelio's characters embark on totally uproots and strips them down to their bare, human essentials. They are momentarily without name, status or someone to put in a word for them. These Theo Angelopoulos-like themes are also explored in Lamerica, actually my favourite Amelio movie, closely followed by La stella che non c'è in order of personal preference. In the 1994 movie Lamerica, two Italian racketeers travel to Albania to "do business". Just like Vincenzo, they intend to go there, do what they have to do and then go back home. Instead, one of these two Italians accidentally ends up on an almost Homeric journey through this devastated land just after the fall of Communism.

But let us go back to La stella che non c'è: once Vincenzo is in China, he predictably discovers that the seemingly "simple" task of handing the converter to its new owner is anything but straight-forward. The piece of machinery's new location is seemingly almost impossible to determine, unless he embarks on an arduous journey through China. When he comes across Liu Hua, the young interpreter he'd mistreated now working as a librarian, he tries to speak to her but she reacts in a hostile manner, informing him that because of him, she'd lost her job as interpreter back in Italy. Played by the relative newcomer Ling Tai, Liu Hua soon becomes a Virgil to Vincenzo's Dante when she grudgingly figures that she could do worse than to act as guide and interpreter for the Italian on his trip (obviously for a consistent sum of cash). This young Chinese actress may not have the beauty of Ziyi Zhang, nor the movie star glamour of Gong Li, but her charming, expressive and pretty face oozes a combination of defiant strength, intelligence, dignity and wry humour that'll make her features difficult to forget once you've seen the movie. Furthermore, she and Castellitto have wonderful emotional chemistry as co-stars.

Amelio weaves dramas that are serious, poetic, mythical, post-neo-realist and humorous all at once, while maintaining a heart-warming ability to explore the fleeting essence of humanity in everyday, commonplace circumstances. A documentary-like naturalness conceals what is actually a meticulously conceived tapestry of faces and places, a vista which also manages to incorporate a cinematography of breath-taking beauty. The photography here is functional yet gorgeous, as befits a movie on the displaced in an industrial and emotional wasteland.

Amelio's observant eye is a grown-up, disillusioned one, yet also never a cynical or misanthropic one. The masterful camera angles also often gives a sense of Vincenzo's alienness in the eyes of the Chinese, bringing home a sense of objectivity and cultural impartiality that's very rare in movies about a "familiar" Westerner exploring an "unfamiliar" non-Western country. I cannot recommend this movie enough. When I went to the cinema, I expected not much. I knew nothing about this movie but it was the only movie I could see, 'cause I was in a small town then. So I saw this movie and I was fascinated! "La stelle che non c'è" is a trip through the new industrial China and it shows it honestly! You see most of the time the ugly places of China, and you see what really happens with this new industrializing. The main characters are sad but hopefully people. He's the naive Italian guy who can't believe what he see's. She's a translator from china who's missing her son. Sometimes sad, sometimes funny but every time poetic! A wonderful movie with wonderful actors! So only one star is missing! As a modern Marco Polo, from Venice to China, here we come Amelio, again, taking on the task to render us the grey area in the middle of two worlds in solid colors. Eroded by globalization's collateral damages, the pessimistic vision of Europe is mutual with Chinas.

The view of that charming but puzzling country is dealt from below, devoid of any claim to learn or impose opinions. Reality, nonetheless, is harsh. Abandoned and exploited children, beehive-homes, backward areas is the OTHER china we ignore. Vincenzo (Castellitto), a technician of a steel factory, is one of us. His voyage to China is a pretext to understand, to learn from the inside a country where progress and third-world problems live together in an infamous balance. It's not exactly clear if Vincenzo knew by the first time that the mechanical component was already been fixed, I think so; anyway is a minor aspect. Liu, the Chinese girl, is the key of the whole film. She carries on her back a lot of difficulties, she's got the strength to overcome, but how could she fight with little money and little help ?

The realistic and unbiased view of the facts by the girl, refusing Vincenzo's money, touched me a lot. A pack of bank-notes can't get back her husband, her baby (forced to treat like a stranger for the Law), protect her by scorns. Liu knew his intentions were benign and kind, far from a cold charity act. Their friendship is beautifully narrated, the way it grows step by step, dignified and formative, unique. A priceless legacy to keep.

Some scenes are stunning, either for the acting (Vincenzo crying on the ferry) or by the dialogues (at the restaurant, on the railroads). Besides a careless editing and a pretty lazy start, "La Stella che non c'è" is brilliant and sharp just because chronicles the untold verities.

In competition at 63rd Venice Film Festival, plenty bet on Tai Ling for the Mastroianni Prize, dedicated to emerging stars. She definitely deserved that award.

[8/10] "The missing star", who competed for the Golden Lion at 2006 Venice Film Festival, is a film that, when you think about, the first adjective that comes to your mind is: intense. Intense looks, intense sequences, this movie's intensity captures the viewer since the very first scenes at the steelworks, in Italy (I couldn't recognize the city, maybe Genoa or even Naples), although the pace is quite slow.

Vincenzo Buonavolontà, the male lead, and with him, all the audience, sees a completely different China than a normal Westerner imagines: horrible high-rise building with about 8 hundred flat owners inside, skyscrapers, desolation, fog, scrapers and cranes everywhere, but also the beauty of the Yangtze Kiang river, that will soon become a big lake because of the controversial dike that will wipe a lot of towns out. China is a country under construction, but, under all these colossal public works, there are still poverty, backwardness and unfair laws.

We can relate more easily to this story because Gianni Amelio, the expert director, chose two phenomenal leads: Sergio Castellitto, a well-known actor in Italy, and the Chinese surprise Tai Ling, a total unknown girl that gives an as intense interpretation as Castellitto's.

The film is not perfect, there are some flaws here and there, but that doesn't mean it's a mediocre film. Try to see it. Vincenzo Buonavolunta, a man that has spent years working at a steel mill, as a maintenance man, that the Italian owners are selling to the Chinese, comes at the end of the meeting where the purchase is being arranged because he wants to tell the new buyers of a flaw he has discovered and he thinks he has the solution. He doesn't exactly endear himself to the Italian old management, or to the new Chinese owners. He even fights with the translator about the exact term he wants to use in expressing his concern.

The next thing we see is Vincenzo arriving in China trying to contact the new owners. To his amazement, there is someone new in charge, as Mr. Chong, the man he tried to warn in Italy, has been fired. His next quest is getting to the woman that was the translator, Liu Hua. He finds her working in a library, but she tells him, in no uncertain terms, she blames him for being fired from her position. Liu, who sees the desperation of Vincenzo, agrees to accompany him to find his steel mill plant.

Thus Vincenzo and Liu begin a voyage through some of the bleak countryside that involves traveling by train, steamship, bus and truck, to remote parts of the giant country. Finding the correct factory proves to be elusive, at best, but Vincenzo discovers a life that is completely alien to him, as well as finding a kind soul who doesn't hesitate to help the Italian man, in spite of her initial distaste for him.

Gianni Amelio's film is a sort of travelogue. He takes the viewer into unknown territory. Some comments compare Vincenzo to Marco Polo, the great Italian traveler, although the similarities are not quite tangible. The film keeps our attention in the early stages of the trip, but it starts getting somewhat less enjoyable as Vincenzo gets stranded after separating from Liu. Mr. Amelio is an interesting director, as he clearly demonstrates with this film for which he worked on the adaptation of Ermano Rea's novel, which we haven't read.

Sergio Castellitto is the sole reason for watching the film. This versatile actor brings a lot to the movie, which, in a way, is a tour de force for him, as he is seen in almost every frame of the picture. The combination of Amelio and Castellitto proves to be a winning combination. Ling Tai, who is making her debut as Liu Hua, has some lovely moments and shows good chemistry with her co-star.

Luca Bigazzi photographed the Chinese landscape in all its bleakness. We see a China that is not picture post card pretty. Mr. Bigazzi captures all the greyness, so typical of the areas where the film is set. Franco Piersanti's musical score serves the film well. Based on the best-selling novel "The Dismissal", The Missing Star, the latest film by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident.

The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a familiar cliché and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for themselves.

The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach. Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however, grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone.

As they slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been "hidden" since the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays out.

Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment. Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he takes time off to craft a component that would set things right.

But that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city, which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals, food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?)

Besides the major industrial plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name names here) some other movie / cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon.

If there's a message to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important, may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else, and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss. This is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy. The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny, without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan. If you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies, this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year, this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of. Mud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming that made him popular around the world. Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that) Stan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in "Mud and Sand" (a parody of Rudolph Valntino's "Blood and Sand"), but I think a film like this really works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to do without it. I watched this the day after watching "Blood and Sand" itself; it certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where.

The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires.

This is the best Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have had a chance to see the source material. Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.

One can only draw the conclusion that his character "Rhubarb Vaselino" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.

Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.

I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection. This Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word "bull" was used repeatedly in very funny ways.

Stanly plays "Vaselino" a bullfighter who seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men is obviously just a domesticated bull.

Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless film. This movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling- is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if you want to laugh, come on, see it! Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.

Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;) With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary. Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER! I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway

Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed

hope this helps some people Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.

I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.

Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.

Overall a decent film. While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.

Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.

In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something). I don't watch very many 'horror' movies, but one night I sat down and watched this with my cousins. Now, we're teenagers, so we tend to make fun of a lot of things, but honestly, the acting here really wasn't very good, especially at the beginning. One line that stood out was when Scarlett says to Jill and Tiffany, "This is so... high school!" while the next scene shows Jill walking past a sign with their High School name on it... Many parts at the beginning reminded me of a corny, badly-written, badly-acted Lizzie McGuire episode. However, as the story progressed, and the cast moved on to just about only Jill most of the time, I was able to appreciate the movie more. Camilla Belle did really well in this movie, and I think that the other actors and actresses ruined the movie for her. And I must admit, this was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Well, no, there weren't big monsters and white faces appearing in dark corners and possessed dolls, but the thing that made this movie scarier than ones containing those things is that it really could happen. And this movie really reminded me of what really IS scary... We all know we're not likely to stumble upon the living dead any time in our lives, but the idea of having a murderer inside the house you're babysitting at could really happen. The only flaw with this movie is that it's one of the most cliché movies I've ever seen. It has everything in it that any horror movie has ever had- turning the keys and the car starts, shadows in the corner, turning the corners of the stairs with suspense, turning around and seeing a dead body, ending a fatal scene quickly with waking up from a dream, etc. At the suspenseful scenes, it was very predictable, but overall, I would give it a 7/10. It's definitely worth seeing.

By the way, This is my first review, so I don't know if any of those things were spoilers.. But just to be safe... Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.

it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome. When A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all, don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made recently... The movie is about a girl who's not going to a bonfire only because she's baby-sitting that night. Nothing weird about that, right? Until ... The phone rings. Until ... The phone rings again. And again ... And again. Those are not some stupid prank calls. This is for real. If you wanna see how the girl reacts, just watch the movie.

Great atmosphere filled with scary sounds. Very well performed by young Camilla Belle who got the lead role. I see in her some great potential to become a good actress. This is more than only a decent thriller, I have no idea why it's so underrated. Anyway, on my opinion this movie deserves more than only 4/10. 24% of all voters rated the movie with 1. Get serious, people. You couldn't get a better thriller for a title like this. Simon Wests pg-13 thriller about a babysitter who gets disturbing prank calls while sitting at a mansion is neither original nor exciting enough to be called a good film. Although there are some elements of suspense, good eye candy and decent characters, the film is just another I know what you did last summer, as it falls short of being taken seriously. The performances were alright, but nothing special with this flick, i say skip it, unless you are looking for a mediocre movie, you can find better films than this on lifetime sometimes, okay maybe not lifetime but at least USA or somethin, haha....

7/10 I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.

All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly "HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1! A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she "check the children," Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.

If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.

Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.

This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a "chick flick". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.

Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7/10. If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear. People say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3 actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few months! Good film! All you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor. Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on the other end of the phone.

Belle is great as the innocent, smart and strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric original music. I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.

It is definitely a film i would recommend. I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10! Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation and study half-heartedly.

Where to begin, I suppose one could look at the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and *ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the 1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C. Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line "Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People say I look like Han Solo." Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director of Photography and Director/Writer/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour, and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's party sequence.

The music, like in any great film, is a character of its own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the performances.

Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn director who feels the burden of what the future of "film" means to his genre. The awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with. Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and see what a difference a good script can make!

Julianne Moore plays the would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part.

The film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director whose bold visions bring back art in film. Paul Thomas Anderson's stylish and compelling take on the 70s porn industry follows Eddie Adams, aka Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), through six years of sex, drugs and disco. His chance meeting with pornography director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) starts his career as one of the greatest adult actors of the time. Dirk's character is based on real-life porn actor John Holmes, who, like Dirk, was renowned for being extremely "well-endowed". This is where Dirk finds initial success.

The main themes in Boogie Nights are the obvious ones relating to a film of this genre; pornography, drugs, sex, betrayal, violence and music. Boogie Nights deals with the pornography theme with some control. It is not overplayed and the sex scenes are surprisingly minimal, but mentally explicit when they take place on screen.

Throughout the film cocaine is abused enormously, and the film's setting, Los Angeles 1977-1983, reflects the popularity of the drug at that time, which the film captures perfectly. However, Boogie Nights does not promote cocaine, as there are some scenes involving addiction and overdoses. For example at Jack's party, they find a girl who has recently, and graphically, overdosed; blood pours from her nose and she begins an unconscious fit. The film, before this scenes, has been fairly upbeat and comic, but from this point it foreshadows the darkness that it will occur.

The music scenes are executed brilliantly, from superbly-staged disco scenes to a down-and-out Dirk singing terribly in his new music career. The soundtrack too is excellent, featuring tunes from The Emotions, ELO, The Beach Boys and the unforgettable Sound Experience. The standout scene in the whole film comes down to the music; Dirk, Redd Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) visit drug dealer Rahad Jackson's (Alfred Molina) house in order to make some quick cash from selling phoney drugs, but Night Ranger's Sister Christian, which is playing in the background, increases the intensity of the scene incredibly, proving that music can bring so much more depth to a scene. Boogie Nights is filled with those kind of scenes, which makes the film even more fantastic.

The standout performance in Boogie Nights is Burt Reynolds as the enigmatic, yet moody, film director. In the scene where he attacks a young guy for slating his movies, it is a complete shock for the audience, because before this point he has been pretty mellow and content. Other notable performances are Julianne Moore, Heather Graham as the beautiful Rollergirl, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, who delivers the performance of his career.

Boogie Nights is also a surprisingly original film, using common themes but filmed in its own sharp and realistic way. Anderson's approach has been fully captures these characters in a time when nothing seemed to be going wrong, or at least until the 80s arrive. From then on, things turn very dark indeed, and all signs of the recognisable characters and situations from the first part of the film have gone. This does not, however, reduce the high level of engaging entertainment that this film offers.

Boogie Nights was not a box-office success, earning only £2 million at cinemas in the UK. But this is not the film's, or the director's concern. Anderson recognises quality, not popularity, which is evident in his three other films, Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a simple parable filled with excellent and variable situations, because at the end of this film you will realize that Boogie Nights is a simple morality tale, but one which will stay in the mind days after you watch it. Boogie Nights is at once shocking, hilarious, devastating and both visually and audibly outstanding. This is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown. One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.

I think many people pass up "Boogie Nights" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that. Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.

The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each "B grade" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.

A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.

The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...

Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more. Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's topnotch film making.

The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-and I've seen a lot of films.

The film isn't about one particular personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....

I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday.

Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.

Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of 10. The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development. I rented Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through. The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the best!

Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+ What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this "Industry" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.

Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!! Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.

In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.

So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of "Dirk Diggler." He becomes a "big" porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.

BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.

A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic! 'Boogie Nights' uses its protagonist, Dirk Diggler, as a metaphor for accumulated celebrities from a decade in America's shameful past, which was comprised of an unexpected rise in pornography, therefore resulting in an abundance of corrupted youth. Its lead character borrows traits from a various assortment of genuine actors, involving himself in many illegal affairs that have been dabbled in by celebrities in Hollywood, and all-too-often exploited by the press. It seems like the sort of tall tale that might appear on an E! True Hollywood Story special. Drugs, sex and violence -- the American Dream. But what goes up must come down, and the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

Dirk Diggler's dreams are huge, as is another valuable asset on his body. Dirk's real name is Eddie Adams, a Californian who dreams of becoming a star. He believes that God gives one great talent to every individual on the planet, and his gift is a rather unusual one. After falling out with his mother, Eddie leaves home and meets the sleazy Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), an adult film director who offers him work. Eddie eventually becomes a major porn star, representing the leading "actor" in most of Horner's films. With newfound success, Eddie is told that he needs to invent a new alias for himself, and so Dirk Diggler is born.

Eddie/Dirk himself is primarily based on infamous porn star John Holmes, whose life story was adapted in 2003 with 'Wonderland', which starred Val Kilmer. 'Boogie Nights' is unarguably the better of the two, proving that movies about pornography can be made without disgusting its target audience: regular cinema-goers.

The film takes place in 1977, an era of artistic pornography -- filmmakers truly believed that they could compensate for the low points of X-rated features by adding deep stories and mesmerizing atmosphere. In a way, the film's director -- Paul Thomas Anderson -- implements a very artistic approach to the project, resulting in a gratuitous and artistic movie about a period in American history when smut was indeed both gratuitous and artistic. Anderson's style is so deep, and so distinct, that we soon feel as if we are reliving the era first-hand. Not a moment goes by where we are unconvinced of the time range dealt with in the film.

All was not happy on the set of 'Boogie Nights'. Prior to filming, Anderson approached Reynolds repeatedly, asking him many separate times to play the role of Horner. Eventually, Reynolds agreed, but claimed that the film was horrible and the worst role of his career, publicly disowning it, before being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award and suddenly shutting up. A year before, Anderson had suffered title disputes over Sydney/Hard Eight. He preferred the latter title for his film, and New Line Cinema thought the former was more marketable. He essentially lost the battle, and Anderson wisely avoided title disputes this time around by inserting the words "boogie nights" into his movie through the mouth of a character.

The casting of the film is one of its finest aspects. The Paul Thomas Anderson regulars are here, as well as a whole top-notch cast of first-timers. To name some of the more well-known stars: John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Heather Graham and Julianne Moore. But the entire movie essentially borders down to Mark Wahlberg, as Eddie, who is surprisingly convincing in his role. Wahlberg, previously known for his singing career and disappointing Hollywood pursuits, has all the necessary traits to portray such a character. This is his best role to date.

Anderson knows how to captivate his audience and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie, Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the characters are first introduced. It reminds me of the discussions regarding tracking shots in Robert Altman's 'The Player' -- it works so brilliantly in Boogie Nights, and is the first indication that Anderson knows what he is doing behind the camera. His style is fast-paced in the vein of Martin Scorsese, where shots zip around quite quickly but never seem rushed. Incidentally, Anderson references two classic Scorsese shots -- the closing De Niro mirror speech from 'Raging Bull' and the tracking nightclub scene from 'GoodFellas'. Anderson is a young, growing director who is remarkably mature in story and direction, despite his age. Whereas his first feature film, 'Hard Eight', was noticeably wise and poignant, 'Boogie Nights' is even more so.

'Boogie Nights' began as an effort of love on Paul Thomas Anderson's account. Having filmed the extraordinary Hard Eight in 1996, Anderson's film is pragmatic to such an extreme that it almost seems genuine. Boogie Nights invigorates us with its gratuitous content, occasionally bordering on the verge of pornography, only it is far more sophisticated than such trash. It is a blazing, wonderful modern-day masterpiece that is as mind-numbingly explicit as it is wild and stylish. Arguably Anderson's best film and among the greatest -- and most important -- projects of the last decade. Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!! Just to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two teenagers.

I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as well.

Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-effectively aiding both parties.

Everyone posting here seems to have strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23/7 (with one hour of exercise)for the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required (like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it fittingly ironic that they would not get that "freedom" they craved and would now have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned.

Prejean's point comes through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual guidance.

Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that as well. Before seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the murderer.

"Dead Man Walking" finds realism in simplicity of the story: there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides "justice". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.

Great performances by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film show the true depth of Penn's ability. I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.

When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.

The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book. This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way. I have just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film, but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the religious/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun). Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering watching this to go and see that. One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.

No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.

Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.

*My rate: 9/10 1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received. While it may not be his most laugh-packed film, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE stands as one of Charley Chase's most satisfying farce comedies, twenty minutes of clever sight gags, nicely choreographed physical comedy, and amusing quips (rendered via title card, of course) all based on a wacky and wildly implausible premise. We're told up top that this is "a story of homely people-- a wife with a face that would stop a clock --and her husband with a face that would start it again." Soon we meet buck-toothed Charley Moose and his wife Vivien, who has an enormous nose. But there's no point in discussing plausibility when our plot hinges on such a patently unbelievable series of interconnected coincidences: i.e., first, that Charley would have his overbite corrected the very day his wife would have her nose fixed, second, that each spouse would keep their respective cosmetic surgeries secret from the other, and third, that when bumping into each other in public afterward, Charley and Vivien wouldn't recognize each other. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? Multiple stretches is more like it. Clearly, we're in the world of farce here and just have to roll with the silly plot twists, so as long as you can relax and forget about plausibility you're likely to enjoy this short.

MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE gets off to a leisurely start as the various complications of the story are established, but things pick up once Charley and Vivien have "met" and made a date to attend a party together at the home of Charley's dentist. They each rush home excitedly, enter separately and are at first unaware of each other's presence. (Mr. & Mrs. Moose appear to be quite wealthy, incidentally, as they live in a mansion the size of a luxury hotel.) There follows a beautifully timed sequence somewhat reminiscent of Buster Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR in which husband and wife dash about the house without ever quite meeting up face-to-face. And once they arrive at the party the comedy really kicks into high gear as Charley is forced to dance with gawky wallflower Gale Henry. Henry, an estimable player in her own right who starred in many short comedies dating back to 1914, is hilarious as the dance partner who brings great vigor but little grace to her dancing. There's also an elegant cinematic touch during this sequence, when the camera pans down to show us only the shoes of Charley, Gale, Vivien and Vivien's dance partner, yet we're able to follow precisely what's happening between the principles by watching their feet.

Unfortunately for Charley and Vivien the party they're attending is raided, and from there on the complications multiply when they manage to escape the police dragnet and return home. When Charley realizes that his newly-prettified wife was attempting to step out with another man he resolves to each her a lesson . . . while conveniently forgetting, of course, that he was attempting to do the very same thing. The last few minutes of this film offer some of Chase's funniest physical comedy, capped with a good sight gag for the punchline. MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE leaves the viewer with a warm glow, and surely ranks with the most amusing comedies produced by the prolific, sadly underrated Charley Chase. From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius, Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and 40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era and its giant star. (***Minor spoilers***)

If there's something in the world of silent clowns that puzzles me, it is that Charley Chase never got his well deserved "break through" in the movies. Oh well, maybe it isn't that strange, really, inasmuch as he never starred in any full-length features. But when I think of it, such an explanation makes it all only more mysterious -- because why the heck didn't Chase get any offers to play the leading lead in features? One explanation is that his character, no matter how amusing, was simply too realistic to suit a longer story; without the burlesque elements that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon and other comedians possessed, it can be assumed that the comedy he made and which worked so well for twenty minutes would get repetitive after a few more reels. I don't quite buy this, though, as Chase's gag construction is magnificent and could, I believe, at its best maintain the interest of viewers alone for a longer period; at least I am tempted to think so when MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE runs the show.

Mr. Moose isn't extraordinary handsome, and Mrs. Moose is hardly a "classic beauty;" he possesses the truly biggest front teeth of any human being on the planet, and she has a remarkably large nose. Both of them takes plastic surgery without the other's knowledge, and when they meet by accident just a little later, he doesn't recognize his wife and she doesn't recognize her husband. A number of hilarious misunderstandings begin, with many clever gags all the way through. I don't think I'll reveal anything further, to make the viewing more enjoyable for you. Because if you're a fan of silent comedies, or even if you aren't, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE offers so many memorable moments within such a short time that I would look upon it as a downright shame not to see it; silly indeed, but no less extremely funny. Okay. To enjoy this silent comedy short you MUST suspend disbelief concerning the major starting point for the film. If you can't then you'll probably be more likely to score this film a lot lower. Charlie Chase has a HUGE overbite and his wife has a nose large enough to have its own area code. Unknown to each other, they have both been saving to have surgery to correct these defects. Apparently, plastic and dental surgery was better back in the 1920s because neither seemed to have any need to recuperate from these major surgeries and they looked just dandy right away!! Okay, remember I said to ignore this, right?! Okay, well you also have to then ignore the difficult to believe idea that both could then meet and have no idea the other is their spouse. Okay,...now that you allowed yourself to accept these two silly premises, the film gets really, really good.

Charlie makes a pass at her and she makes a pass at him. Both are shocked and thrilled because no one has ever really considered them attractive. So, because of this new vanity they agree to go on a date. But, they both sneak back home--not wanting their spouses to know! Anyway, they meet later and are quite attracted to each other. But what about the poor spouses supposedly at home? Well, they both learn that the other is married and both anticipate their marriages will result in divorce because they really want to be with each other! Late in the film, Charlie figures out that the woman really is his wife and he goes through a very funny sequence where he plays both the boyfriend and the old husband--by changing his clothes and putting in false teeth when he plays the hubby! It really is a laugh riot to see him bouncing in and out of the room as he appears to be fighting with another person! You really have to see it to believe it. However, the wife sees an ad with Charlie's before and after photos and knows what's happening. In the end, they both feel pretty foolish! Mighty Like A Moose is one of many short films Director Leo McCarey did starring Charley Chase. What a dandy it is! Charlie and his wife both undergo plastic surgery to improve their hideous appearances unbeknown-est to each other. They then meet at a party and become smitten with each other. Now they can't allow each other to find out they're cheating. That's the preposterous premise of this frantic farce. Vivien Oakland, one of the few comic short leads to have a flourishing career long after the silents, is perfect as Charley's long of nose wife. Charley has an awful case of buck teeth, which are quickly dispatched at the dentist's. After a party is raided by police for no other reason then to practice raids, Charley and his wife frantically try avoiding each other at home for fear the alterations in appearances become known. Both have been photographed with their new features at the party. The hilarity back home culminates in Charley trying to teach the no-good-nick cheating with his wife a lesson. The no-good-nick of course is the new Charley, which his wife comes to realize long before Charley teaches a lesson in faithfulness. This is one of Charley Chase's better efforts. *** of 4 stars. yes barney is nonsense now but when i was a kid it made perfect sense.

i haven't gotten any smarter but i enjoyed it. as a child i was mocked because no one could say my name so i changed it. ever since i was 4 I've gone by the name Tina from barney because i could relate to her being from a different culture. i'm 17 now and barney is a huge part of my life . ...my name came from it.... i cant dis the show i grew up with no matter how stupid it seems now.

i don't care if i get blocked i have nothing more to say. they shouldn't make the minimum 10 lines because some people just don't have much to say. OK done I don't understand why everyone is hating on Barney. If you hate the show so much, then Don't WATCH IT! Its stupid how everyone is changing the "I love you" son to "I hate you." If you don't like it, fine. Whatever, thats your opinion. But there is no point to degrading the show, when it isn't even that bad. OK, so its corny, and yes, it has its flaws, but its a kids show. Kids don't want to be sad and miserable, they want to be happy. And Barney helps that. And even in the show, there are moments of sadness and anger and etc. And yes, Barney uses magic. But the kids see Barney as a figment of imagination. Kids need a place to escape to express themselves. The world is a miserable and hard place. We all need a place to express ourselves, and be happier. Barney does this to us. This show is great. I watched Barney when I was younger. Yes, some people find it stupid. But I watched it, and I'm top of my class. It might not necessarily make you smarter, but that's not the point. I believe that the point of Barney is to provide a place where kids can be kids and the spirit of childhood can be expressed. Where imagination lives on. So many teenagers now are unimaginative and are scared to express themselves. Barney helps encourage that. Barney helped me to not be afraid and to just show myself for who I am. I'm a sophomore at high school now, an AP student with a 4.0, a drama student with a love for theater and art, and with a new baby cousin who loves Barney. I watch it with him and enjoy it and sing along with it. Yes, its corny and silly, and whatever, but its great for kids. Who wants to be an adult who doesn't have time to have fun? Im a kid at heart and I love Barney. Its great for kids and those who are a kid at heart.

Its a great show for babies and toddlers. So stop hating. Say that you don't like it, but stop it with the "Dumbest show ever" or "Barneys a load of bull" or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Take a chill pill or whatever. Here's something: I never liked Sesame Street. But you don't see me going: "Grover is a load of bull" or "Cookie Monster should die" or whatever. I hate all of the BULLSS**T that people say about books or movies, like Barney or Twilight. If you hate it, OK, whatever. No one cares. Don't go saying hate things about it, cuz you might just offend someone. Barney is about "IMAGINATION" what you guys do not have if my preschooler never wanted to play pretend like they do in that show then i would be worried. What 2 or 3 year old actually gets all that anyways its all about the colors and the singing. For those of you saying that all they do on Barney is eat junk food and recommend Sesame Street better well what about "cookie monster" thats all he eats but i haven't seen anyone comment that one. I do agree that sesame is a better educational show but barney is just like a show for fun don't be too serious if you didn't like your child watching TV and worried about them understanding things you don't believe then you shouldn't be propping them down in front of the TV in the first place because all of that is fake everything is fake actors are fake so why don't you take your fake brains and put it to use and think if you have a problem with a fake television show for kids then turn it off and play with them yourselves and teach them what you want them to learn not BIG BIRD or Bert & Ernie or barney someone who used to watch all those shows and turned out fine. I was a bit surprised to see all of the hate comments on here. Sure it's not the best kid's show, but don't people stop despising Barney this much after the fifth grade?

Okay, everyone hates Barney. Okay, I think his voice and songs are annoying. Okay, he's kinda creepy and strange. I'm fourteen years old, so I know well enough. But here's the thing. Kids? They LOVE this show.

When I was a little kiddie of two or three, my parents spent more time chasing me around the house than they did anything else. Nothing could hold my attention for more than ten minutes. Face it, that's how toddlers are. Even the most patient ones can't sit still long enough to give their parents a break. There's too much to do and see and explore, too much trouble to get into.

And then came Barney. I don't know exactly what it is about the purple dinosaur that's so amusing to children, but they sure do love it. I know I did. I was hooked on the show, and wanted to watch it over and over. Yes, the songs kind of drove my parents nuts, but to be able to watch their kids learning, and being excited over something that can really hold their attention span, it's worth it. I learned my ABCs and 123's, the magic words and brushing your teeth. I'd grown out of it by five or six, of course, but by that point at least I was a little more patient, and gave my parents a break.

My nieces and nephew all went through the Barney stage growing up, much to their mother's delight. I know what keeps Barney on the air. He entertains. Of course there's Big Bird, Ernie, and Oscar, and they're great, too. But at the toddler stage, it seems that more kids prefer the big singing dinosaur. And that's enough for me. OK. Is Barney the best children's show of all time? Of course not. But in some of the comments left by other members of IMDb you would think it was a multi million dollar production with high class actors and a ridiculous budget for special effects. Well guess what? It's Barney for God's sake. He shows children good behavior, good manors and that it's OK to be who you are. For those of you who find him annoying that is because you are not five years old and the show was not meant for you. To the IMDb member who wrote the review on the first page I think you may have gone a little too far. Did you actually describe a Sesame Street character as "down to Earth"? Grow up everyone, this is a great show for preschoolers and actually does help children learn in a fun and creative way. I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism, being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about him and possibly life itself. I have seen this show when I was younger. It is a really good show to watch. It is very educational for children 1 to 8 years old. Barney is definitely super DE duper. B.J. is pretty funny. Babie Bop is very cute. The kids are very cool too. This show is about learning about numbers kinda like sesame street but different type of show and characters like Barney the purple dinosaur, B.J. the yellow dinosaur with a baseball hat on his head, and Baby Bop the cute green dinosaur with a pink bow. The first one that started was very old Barney and Friends show. But then the second one was different to be new episodes. Also the last one in the 2000 was new scene of Barney's park. They also have a show of Barney at Universal Studios in Florida where you see Barney, B.J., and Baby Bop and then when the show is done you get to go play, shop and meet Barney. It's a very good show watch this show when you learn about many things you will like it the movie, and the live show at Universal Studios Florida. I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids, but they know (my 1 and a half years old son "selects" what to see) what's nice or disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life, but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead, impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most); maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't underestimate your kids; they know what they want. Sigrid Thornton (SeaChange) was seemingly born to fill the role of Cato's Philadelphia Gordon, in this story that is often compared with Margaret Mitchell's American Civil War classic Gone With the Wind. Waters (Heaven Tonight) is in arguably his best role also as her larrakin love interest, and the two leads head a wonderful Australian cast in this, arguably the most well-known and best-loved of Australian miniseries. It's

an outstanding production all round, though don't try watching all of it in one hit, and it deserves to be remembered as a magnificent portrayal of life in pre-Federation Australia. Rating: 8/10 As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it officially, but for you readers/users I will let you know it's a solid 10! I first saw All the Rivers Run on TV when I was a kid and loved it. It was great seeing a mini-series that was set and filmed in a place so close to home. Living fairly close to Echuca, I loved going to the historic port to see the paddle steamers. The first one I ever had a ride on was the Pevensy(Philadelphia in the movie). I love how it takes its time to let the events unfold. Nothing feels rushed as most movies are today. The acting was fantastic. All the Rivers Run was perfectly cast and I just love the crew of the Philadelphia. Mac is always amusing to watch with his trademark raw onion sandwich after a big night out. Easily deserves a 10 out of 10 and is one of my favorites mini-series of all time along with the Dirtwater Dynasty. Recently finally available in DVD (11/11/08), Severo Pérez' film...and the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tomás Rivera's ...y no se lo tragó la tierra/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano literary landscape.

Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal. Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too "ethnic," too alien from a basic American mainstream, too much a "foreign" art indie, too limited in economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value.

Briefly, ….and the Earth did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering, and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences, subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of fact—yet, also symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to him—strength of character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct. In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others.

This stark battle makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a Project; and redemption—all under the auspices of free will in spite of the deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances.

Perez has a long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards: first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards.

In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film that has been made. I was very moved by the young life experiences of a man who rose so high in the academic world. A hard life surrounded by the love of a close family and extended family of companion workers created a person able to succeed in the world. For the most part the Hispanic culture is shown as I have always observed and admired - hardworking, optimistic, and truly family oriented. The points of religious superstition were quite authentic to the Catholic church. Without a doubt,the actress who played the mother deserves an Academy Award. Her prayers for her missing son moved me to tears. I will recommend this stunningly thoughtful film to my friends and family. The movie ". . . And The Earth Did not Swallow Him," based on the book by Tomas Rivera, is an eye-opening movie for most people. It talks about the exploitation that migrant farmworkers go through in order to survive.

Sergio Perez uses impressionistic techniques to depict Rivera's story. He uses sienna and gray-scale effects to depict some of the scenes, and he uses specific photographic techniques to make the scenes look like they took place in the 1950s.

Perez also gives life to the film by using time-appropriate music, including balladeering and guitar playing.

I feel that it is a good film to view because it shows in detail how migrant farmworkers live, what they do for entertainment, and their beliefs. "Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out. First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...

First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs. restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each "chapter":

OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick.

The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.

REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...

And RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole feature...

OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive", "violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5/10 Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD), Buttgereit, and even a little of "Begotten". What this guy does to his pregnant sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching "Subconscious Cruelty" is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have.

Warning... Be careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release. "Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. "Salo" and "Cannibal Holocaust" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange psychological element to "Subconscious Cruelty". This film invades your subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4 directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might be able to guess what you're in for.

The film is divided into 4 parts. The first part "the Ovarian Eye" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part "Human Larvae" is kind of like the film "Eraserhead" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute favorite. It reminds me of "Begotten" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film "Dreamwood". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken. Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature.

The last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's "the Holy Mountain", "Sweet Movie" and "Cannibal Holocaust". I've never been more disturbed in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch. Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's. Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced "Ascension" (2002) which is a much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror masterpiece "the Abandoned". "Subconscious Cruelty" is a fascinating and unsettling journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds. Well, sort of. Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.

Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics! Going into this movie I knew two things about it. I knew that it was a real extreme flick, and I knew that it was somewhat artsy. Both appeal to me in their own right, but when placed together it can be something truly unique. And this was damn right, without a doubt, unique. Like I said above, it is an artsy film. The way they used some intense sound, it reminded me a lot of an Aronofsky film. Visually I haven't seen anything like it. The cinematography and lighting were done very well. The movie seriously uses visuals and sounds better than anything I've seen in a while. Especially when you consider the experience these young filmmakers had (couple 20 year olds), you really have to take your hat off to them.

The movie isn't easy to describe or even discuss. There isn't an actual story….you could say it revolves around the right and left side of the brain and how they control your life…I think. It's four segments, or four ideas brought alive through visual and auditory extremes. There is some talking hear and there, but it's mostly a non-speaking film.

The first segment is the shortest and it revolves a naked body and an eyeball. Try and guess what happens….wrong. The second segment is my favorite. It involves a brother and a sister (who looks a little like Sarah Silverman, but with bigger boobs). The brother is crazy and the sister is somewhat of a whore. I would say this is the most extreme of all the segments, and the most well made. The gore effects in this one were great. The third segment revolves around a bunch of naked people sexing it up with mother earth. It's probably considered the weakest of the bunch, but still is smart and well made. The fourth segment is probably the strongest of the film and I'd also say the deepest. For myself I'll have to view this a couple times to understand what's truly being said. I know that it tackles Christianity in a way that would most likely make your mother feint or throw up….give it a try.

Subconscious Cruelty was recommended to me and I'm proud to say this is now in my movie collection. It's extreme, violent, gory, very sexual and surprisingly pretty damn thought provoking. The next line I'm about to say has been used in almost every review I've read for this film. "This movie is not for everyone." Now ain't that the truth. If you're into extreme films and/or you're just a lover of film that wants to see something different….check this out. 8 1/2 outta 10 Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.

The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.

HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those "must be seen to be believed" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).

REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.

RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think "P iss Christ" or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.

Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9/10. I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these tonal/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short film production. When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us growing up on a diet of Argento/Fulci/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........

So what can i tell you about "subconscious cruelty"?Well without spoiling it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience.......

keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things.....

I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version. The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is, destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is a current crowd pleaser on the horror\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score. i´ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and when i went out of the cinema i felt like being "drugged down"! i´ve seen a lot of films but there are just a few that i´d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a movie for "normal" people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in his/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen s.c. and also thinks it´s great: just contact me-so far i haven´t met anyone who shares my opinion-it´d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i´m really sorry for my bad english-i´m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch gut so *g*) I´ve been able to see this great movie at the Fantasyfilmfest in Berlin and when I went out of the cinema I felt like being drugged down *g*! I´ve really seen lots of movies and there are just a few I´d call perfect like Fight Club or Koyaanisqatsi! Subconscious Cruelty is now one of them! Half of the people watching it in Berlin went out of the room and I can understand this absolutely because it can be a real shock for someone living in his/her perfect world day by day dreaming his/her dreams not thinking bout the horror on our planet-in our life! I don´t think I have to describe the story of the film for you because of the people having already written on this page! It´s a movie that shows everything and more!!! Gets 10 points + from 10!!! It´d be cool if you people who have also seen it loving it would write me an e-mail!So far I haven´t met anyone as impressed and pleased by it as I am!!! Finally sorry for my bad english-I´m not a studied person (und das ist auch gut so!!! :-)))))) Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.

As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.

I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.

*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.

The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).

The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.

The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.

Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction. Chokher Bali – A passion play.

Based on Rabindranath Tagore's novel of the same name, this is a classic tale of deception, adultery and relationship exploitation. Set in 1900 Bengal, director Rituparno Ghosh transformed the Nobel Laureates' acclaimed literature into a delightful visual treat.

Tagore's story elaborately deals with the Bengali society, through his central character, the rebellious widow, who wants to live a life of her own. We are taken into the picturesque part of Bengal, where we meet our heroine, the beautiful, young widow Binodini (Aishwarya Rai).

Despite her gorgeous looks, two handsome men, the rich Mahindra (Prosenjit Chatterji) and his friend Behari (Toto Roychowdhury), denied marrying her.

Mahindra chooses a naive Ashalata (Raima Sen) over Binodini and marries her. Leaving behind the country life, the free-spirited Binodini accompanies Mahindra's mother to Calcutta as a caretaker. Soon, her friendship with Ashalata flourishes. It looks like, the two, addressing each other as 'Chokher Bali' (sand in the eyes), share an enduring bond. The English-speaking Binodini captures a special place in the house. But, soon, she unmasks her real face. Manipulating good-natured Ashlata, Binodini gets closer with Mahindra and fulfills her sexual desires.

When, she is thrown out by the enraged mother of Mahindra, Binodini seeks solace from a reluctant Behari. The remaining part of the story shows how the lives of these four characters crisscross and culminate in an unimaginable climax… Aishwarya walks through the role—a manipulative, rebellious lady, still gaining the viewer's sympathy—with a ballet dancer's elegance. The other lead artistes—Prosenjit Chatterjee, Raima Sen and Toto Roychowdhury—are equally brilliant, in enacting their characters.

While Tagore penned this 'mould-breaking' story at the turn of the 20th century, the very idea of widow marriage was a taboo, even among the upper class! Narrating the nations' freedom movement in parallel, the author asserts the importance of individual freedom from the caged life. Kudos to the art director, who gave life to the early 20th century Bengal, and applause to the cinematographer for capturing those sets with verve.

This 'passion play,' by Tagore, has been fervently converted to the screen by the ablest filmmaker without loosing its originality. I saw 2 hour version of Choker Bali. I cannot say that is long. The movie has a certain natural pace to it and does not seem to lag at any time. The costume and the set are reminiscent of what we would see in old movies.

Aishwarya Rai has done a good job of acting. It is indeed a mature role with enough scope for acting within the story. The script also supports the story very well. Aishwarys acts as the unfortunate widow whose husband dies in the first year of marriage. The movie is about the passions and desires of such a character and the conflict she faces with the downtrodden condition of widows in those times.

Her best friend in this movie is played by Raima Sen has also been well-handled. Her innocence and her admiration of Aishwarya's capability to speak English and act educated has been done very well. These are indeed some of the prevailing mindsets of those times. We can see how far we have come from such an era!

The movie speaks of womens liberation as subtle line of the story. I found the development of the story very similar to Ghare Bahire also written by Tagore. It does rope in some action from the independence struggle and puts in contrast the struggle for Indian Independence against the silent struggle for womens rights.

A well made movie definitely worth watching. Aishwarya's acting: par excellence. Rituparna has handled the story with great care. Yet another classic from Rabindranath Tagore. I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed. I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it! What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars. The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's, the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy between women and colonization remains somewhat buried. Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized. It seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial work. I saw this movie at the Locarno Film Festival in Italian-speaking part of Switzerland.

Aishwarya Rai is good-looking.

I rate this movie 7/10 because of its nice moments.

* spoilers ahead *

It has some really nice cinematic moments in it, specially at the end.

Though my general feeling is this is too long (over 2 hours and 40 minutes) and containing too much dialogs. And nearly no dancing at all.

Clearly a Bollywood movie like Lagaan or Devdas is quite a different kind of movie compared with Chokher Bali. When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed If you go to the cinema to be entertained, amused, so as to fill up your time, do not go out of your way to watch this film.

If you go to the cinema to appreciate the depths of human-kind, the feelings of real people, to explore the characteriology of personalities, if you go to the cinema to absorb magnificent photography, be sure to put this film very high on your list, preferably in first place. The experience is profoundly rewarding, causing the intelligent viewer to make diverse reflexions over the meaning of life itself. With 'Mar Adentro' Alejandro Amenábar has surpassed the best he has done to date, and even redeemed certain deviations in his earlier films which smacked a little of being aimed at Hollywood. This is not the case with this visual poem put to music: Hollywood could never get anywhere near the effect of this tinglingly inspired human - and humane - story.

In no way should one interpret 'Mar Adentro' as an apologia for euthanasia; this story, based on the real life of the Galician fisherman Ramón Sampedro, is a cry from the bottom of the heart for life and love, a reaching out for human compassion, for understanding emotions. Sampedro was an articulate and intelligent man who after a diving accident off the rocks of the Galician coast as a young man was condemned to live the next 27 years in bed. 'Condenado a vivir' (2001) (TV) was the first version of this man's life on which I have already commented. However, Amenábar has succeeded remarkably at portraying this man, with his permanent enigmatic smile and witty sense of humour, in an equally articulate and intelligent way.

And Javier Bardem rose to the occasion, met the challenge head-on, complete with a Galician accent, producing an electrifying, compelling, enthralling performance, such that the actor and the fisherman become fused into being the same person on screen. Here, indeed, is an occasion to doff your cap, and softly mutter 'chapeau'. Bardem is driven on in his task by a magnificent cast, especially Belén Rueda, Lola Dueñas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo (Los Lunes al Sol) (qv) and Clara Segura, Galician and Catalan accents taking prominent part.

Amenábar produces wonderful dialogues as these six rotate among themselves one-on-one, or in groups, with excellent chemistry, thus demonstrating that this young Chilean-born Spanish director is an artist who knows what he is at and how to get his results; his global concept of the film includes his own music, interspersed with pieces by Beethoven and Puccini on Sampedro's record-player.

Whilst viewing 'Mar Adentro', I found myself a couple of times comparing him and this film with Stephen Daldry and his masterpiece 'The Hours' (qv). I refer to the way in which the dialogues work with tenseness and passion and that careful sense of timing in each scene.

Javier Aguirresarobe's photography is superb as usual. As I have mentioned elsewhere on IMDb, he does not simply film the events and scenes - he captures even the feelings and the atmosphere of the moment, deftly catches that look in the eyes, light and shadows, such that his work behind the camera is at once another player in the story. A superb artist.

'Mar Adentro' is another landmark in the history of Spanish cinematography, among the best five or six works of art produced here in the last 25 years. This film places itself alongside such cinematographic art as 'El Sur' (qv), 'Los Santos Inocentes' (qv), 'El Abuelo' (qv), 'La Lengua de las Mariposas' (qv), 'Las Ratas' (qv), 'A Los Que Aman' (qv), and I think I must add 'Te Doy Mis Ojos' (qv).

Superbly orchestrated story of a real man, and those who loved him around his bedside: not to be missed. Many more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting, casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question (euthanasia).

This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and, but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is not worth living - and that is him.

To watch this film and say that the only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his decision.

I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as much as this. Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen. Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside") is gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater.

With the award-winning Canadian movie, "The Barbarian Invasions," folks got to see a family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast. Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle could it be made through solicited intervention.

Ramon Sampedro (brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved relation.

Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice performance by Duenas.

The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with "dignity" creates a moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different ethical and religious perspectives.

Ramon is the poster quad of a group dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. "Death with Dignity" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client.

What follows is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into absolute helplessness.

The moral and legal issues are played out through excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries, including the U.S.

Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul.

Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together. And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate.

The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like "Dead Man Walking," this movie can support any view about its deadly subject.

No one can stop a person from committing suicide if he/she is determined but the universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals.

The cinematography is well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his special bed.

9/10 This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five. This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 / 10 I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident.

Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as "Into the Sea" and not as some suggest "Out to sea", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.

However, before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.

I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting "Mar adentro", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.

Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die "legally", which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around. Alejandro Amenabar, the young and talented Spanish director, clearly shows us he is a serious film maker. Anyone doubting it, should have a look at his latest film "The Sea Inside". This is a movie that has been rewarded with numerous accolades, not only in Spain, but throughout the world, wherever this wonderful movie has been shown.

If you have not seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.

Ramon Sampedro is a man confined to bed. Being quadriplegic, he depends on the kindness of strangers for everything. Since his accident, Ramon only thinks in one thing alone: how to end his life! This is the moral issue at the center of the story, based on the real Ramon Sampedro's life.

Mr. Amenabar tells the story from Ramon's point of view. There is nothing here that is false or manipulative on his part. After all, he relies on facts that were well known in his country as this case became a "cause celebre" in favor of euthanasia, a theme that no one in that country wanted to deal with in Spain.

With its background of being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, Spain has evolved into one of the most democratic societies in Europe, a distinction that is more notable because of its long years dominated by a dictator. Yet, in spite of the advances in that society, the idea of taking one's own life, is something not clearly understood by the majority of its citizens, who still considered this subject as something that could not be done in their country.

Ramon Sampedro was a man that loved life. He lived an intense life as a young man when he enlisted as a sailor to discover the world. Having no money, this was the only way for him to see other lands, experience other cultures. Ramon's love affair with the sea, is something that people in Galicia learn to love from their childhood. Imagine how that same friendly sea is the one that takes away Ramon's life, as he knew it! In a second, Ramon goes from a vibrant young man into a vegetable!

Ramon's family is shattered by the experience. Suddenly they must leave everything aside to take care of him at home. His brother and sister-in-law, are stoic people that deal with the situation as a matter of fact. Their lives become something of an afterthought, because Ramon's life comes first. They tend to the sick man without protesting, or blaming Ramon for the sacrifices they must make to keep him alive.

That is why, in their minds, the Sampedros can't comprehend Ramon's wishes to end it all. Haven't they given up having a normal life to take care of him? This moral issue weighs heavily on these uncomplicated and simple people because in their minds, they are doing what came naturally.

The second subject of the movie is the legal issue of the euthanasia and the well meaning people that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their desire to help him put an end to his suffering. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare malady. There is Rosa, the fish cannery worker who becomes infatuated with Ramon.

Javier Bardem, makes a brilliant Ramon Sampedro. His transformation is total. We don't doubt from one moment he is no one else but the paralyzed man on that bed. Mr. Bardem can only use his face in order to convey all the emotions trapped inside Ramon. Mr. Bardem makes this man real. This is perhaps Javier Bardem's best role of his career. He surpasses his own award winning performance as Reynaldo Arenas, the late Cuban poet he portrayed in "Before Night Falls".

In the supporting roles, Belen Rueda, makes an impressive appearance as Julia, the woman fighting her own physical problems. Lola Duenas is also effective as Rosa, the kindred soul that loves Ramon deeply. Celso Bugallo, as Ramon's brother shows a man at a crossroads of his own life. Mabel Rivera makes a compassionate Manuela, the sister-in-law that never asks anything of life, but tends to Ramon without questioning why she has to do it, at all.

Mr. Amenabar also has composed the haunting music score for the film. He is a man that never cease to surprise. One wonders what his next project will be, but one wishes him success in whatever he might decide to do in the future. In Spain, the former sailor Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been quadriplegic for twenty-eight years and is fighting in court for his right of practicing euthanasia through an association that defends the freedom of choice and leaded by his friend Géne (Clara Segura). Ramón is introduced to the lawyer that is defending his cause, Julia (Belén Rueda), who has a degenerative fatal disease; and meets Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a lonely worker that has been abused by men. Their relationship changes the behavior and viewpoint of life of Rosa and Julia.

The Chilean Alejandro Amenábar is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary directors. His filmography released in Brazil is composed by excellent and original movies: "Abre Los Ojos", "Tesis", "The Others" and "Mar Adentro". Javier Bardem is probably the best actor in Spain in the present days. Their association produced this sensitive drama about a very polemic theme, the right of committing euthanasia. This drama is never corny or depressive, since the screenplay uses humor as a relieve valve in the most dramatic situations. The performances of the cast are perfect, with characters having and defending different positions regarding this unpleasant theme. The dialogs and lines are very solid and intelligent. I noted in IMDb plot outline that this movie is based on the real-life story of Ramón Sampedro. Unfortunately, neither the movie nor the DVD gives this important information. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Mar Adentro" ("Sea Inside") THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.

Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die… but when you strip a man of his dreams… The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off… what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****. The true story of a Spanish paraplegic, Ramón Sampedro, who fought for decades for the right to be euthenized. This film, along with the Best Picture winner of the same year, Million Dollar Baby, caused a stir that year with their depictions of disabled persons desiring death. Both advocates for the disabled and (unfortunately for the disability advocates) conservative pro-life groups protested both films, and their Oscar nominations. The nominations also came during the entire Terry Schiavo debacle, just to put it all in some historical perspective. The protests, especially from the disability groups, against Million Dollar Baby make some sense – the film clearly depicted, without wavering, the life of a paraplegic as worthless. The film's central character, Maggie Fitzgerald, becomes a paraplegic, doesn't seem to get any counseling whatsoever, no help whatsoever, and immediately wants to die. The film is, honestly, pretty dumb and uncomplex. The Sea Inside, based on the true story, is certainly a lot more thoughtful on the subject. It most likely got railroaded into the same category as Million Dollar Baby without its protesters having even seen it, an incredibly common phenomenon. The film does give time to many different sides of the argument. And it immediately declares that the wish to die is that of the protagonist and the protagonist alone. It is guilty of a couple of crimes, though, and I'd still understand why disability groups could have a problem with it. First and foremost, there's the protagonist's meeting with a paraplegic bishop. I don't look kindly on the way he's depicted. His orally operated wheelchair is depicted as absurd, and there's almost a comic sequence where his effeminate, boy-toy servants are dragging him, in his chair, up the stairs. He can't even reach the room in which Ramón is located, and one of the boy-toys is forced to carry the conversation between them. I had to think, gee, maybe if Ramón lived in a slightly more wheelchair-accessible household, he wouldn't spend his entire life in bed, and might find life more fulfilling (who knows how closely the film depicts the reality). Director Amenábar (The Others) also includes some laughable scenes that try to make this film about suicide more life-affirming, like a cross-cut sequence where Ramón looks thoughtful and his lawyer's baby is born. But besides a few ugly moments, the film is very good. It hurts that someone may want to die when they have the ability to bring so much joy and insight into the lives of others. However, in the end, our lives do belong to us. Shouldn't we have the right to choose? The film's strongest asset is its supporting characters, and the actors who play them. It depicts how Ramón's fight and decisions affect those around him with a beautiful precision. The family members in particular are great, and Ramón's final departure from them is absolutely heartbreaking, and had me in tears. My favorite performance in the film comes from Lola Dueñas, whom I also felt gave the best, or at least certainly most undervalued, performance in Almodóvar's Volver last year. This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.

Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.

Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far. -Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.

-Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.

-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.

-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).

-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.

-Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie.

*My rate: 7/10 As I expected would happen, too many reviews of this film (from professionals and amateurs alike) have focused as much if not more on the film's ideology. That's because The Sea Inside (aka Mar adentro) is a film about euthanasia. Specifically, it's a true story about an infamous Galician named Ramón Sampedro, who fought for many years for the right to assisted suicide, who was denied that right by the Spanish constitutional court, and who--well, I don't want to ruin the ending of the film for you.

The real life Sampedro catalyzed a national debate on euthanasia in Spain. Now with producer/director/writer/composer/editor Alejandro Amenábar's (Abre Los Ojos, 1997, and The Others, 2001) "biopic", The Sea Inside, another rhetorical aid has been provided in the international debate on this hot button issue.

But as I keep saying (to deaf ears?), your opinion, pro or con, on the film's ideology shouldn't affect your rating of the film. You're not supposed to be rating the philosophical or political messages that Amenábar wants to make. You're supposed to be rating the film, as a film. Maybe that's a bit too idealistic, as none of us can likely completely divorce our evaluations from our ideological biases, but idealistic or not, that's the goal.

So forget about the philosophical and political issues for a moment. As a film, Amenábar has turned in one of his most elegant and mature works to date. He does not focus on societal debates. He does not focus on Sampedro's legal/political struggles. He focuses on Sampedro as a man, living out his days confined to a bed in his brother's home.

Sampedro, played here in an amazing performance by Javier Bardem, was a quadriplegic. As the film begins, he has been a quadriplegic for 26 years. That condition was brought about, as Amenábar shows us through marvelously shot flashbacks, by a diving accident--Sampedro was distracted by a beautiful woman, miscalculated the water, dove in, snapped his neck, and almost drowned. As a quadriplegic he eventually began writing poetry, some of which was published in a book entitled Cartas Desde El Infierno ("Letters from Hell"); in real life Sampedro's book became a best seller in Spain. Perhaps taking Sampedro's artistic work as a cue, Amenábar has created an elegantly poetic film.

Most of The Sea Inside is set inside Sampedro's bedroom. The focus in these scenes is Bardem's complex and sublime performance. As a quadriplegic, Bardem is limited to moving his head and talking. He has mastered subtle changes of expression and inflection to convey a deep character with a multifaceted, intellectual approach to life. Bardem and Amenábar have Sampedro often waxing philosophical in understated speech, but there's always a combination of a wicked sense of humor, passion for the aesthetic--including music and women, and a sadness and even occasionally bitterness not far below the surface. Different underlying emotions occasionally break through like waves on the skin of the ocean.

The people Sampedro interacts with most frequently facilitate this in complex ways. These others include his sister-in-law, Manuela (Mabel Rivera), who has been his chief caretaker since Sampedro's accident; his brother, José (Celso Bugallo), who is one of the vocal objectors to Sampedro's wish to die, and with whom there is an underlying unresolved issue (it seems like maybe José was the one to save Sampedro from drowning?); his nephew, Javier (Tamar Novas), who is perhaps the most understanding towards him; a right-to-die advocate, Gené (Clara Segura); a pro bono lawyer, Julia (Belén Rueda), whom he wanted because she had a degenerative disease, CADASIL (Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy), and would thus by more empathic, and who he falls in love with; and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a local woman who works at a cannery and moonlights as a DJ, who heard about him from the media, who wants to convince him to desire to live, and who falls in love with him.

The bulk of the film consists of these characters interacting with Sampedro in his room. There are also a few other ancillary characters, including Sampedro's father, who remains oddly distant, and a notorious and media-conscious priest, Padre Francisco (José María Pou), who does his best to change Sampedro's mind via philosophy/theology (in a scene often mistakenly characterized as "comic"--it has an attendant comic element, but the scene is primarily very serious).

That most of the film takes place in Sampedro's room ingeniously gives the couple significant changes in setting greater impact. Sampedro's room has a nice, big window, which he says he is satisfied with as an observation point on the world. Maybe even more importantly, he regularly imagines the window as a launching pad through which he flies across the hillsides to the ocean, which he always loved, and which has been the most influential force in his life--it provided his living when he was younger and took his mobility away. Amenábar gives us a fantastical sequence of Sampedro imagining one of his flights to the sea. It is beautifully shot, with low angles (presumably from a helicopter) of the hills rushing by, until we follow a stream to the wide-open ocean, which in this film represents freedom, the infinite, and natural forces.

The other significant change of setting arrives with Sampedro finally taking to a wheelchair (he otherwise refused them, saying they "mocked his immobility") to make an appearance in court to help plead his case. Amenábar gives us a poignant, melancholy travelogue, shot subjectively, of Sampedro viewing life and the world in action from the car window.

Whether you agree with legalizing euthanasia or not, it's difficult to deny that this is a well-acted, well-scripted and well-constructed film. You may not believe that it's a ten (and that's even more unlikely if you disagree with legalizing euthanasia), but it's still worth watching as a fine example of artistic, sophisticated film-making. THE SEA INSIDE (2004) **** Javier Bardem, Belen Rueda, Lola Duenas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Joan Dalmau, Alberto Jimenez, Tamar Novas, Francesc Garrido, Jose Maria Pou, Alberto Amarilla, Nicolas Fernandez Luna.(Dir: Alejandro Amenabar)

An inspiring tale of a living death; Bardem is superb

The true life account of Spanish quadriplegic Ramon Sampedro and his petition to fulfill his desire for euthanasia by the right to die may not be considered a likely source of inspiration but this film is just that.

Sampedro (played superbly by Bardem) was a virile, energetic young man when he lost the function to his limbs after a tragic diving accident (recounted horrifically in flashback with a visceral jolt to the senses) and for nearly thirty years lay paralyzed in bed while his loving family cared to his every need. Although his abilities to move were nil his mind was very much active and proved skillful as an inventor, poet, author and artist that kept his mind busy until he could no longer bear the thought of living longer in his stunted condition.

Enter beautiful yet also afflicted with a crippling disease attorney Julia (the ethereal Rueda who matches Bardem beautifully as if they were indeed soul mates) is hired to see through Sampedro's final wish to end his life and in turn becomes an aide de camp when he begins to open up to her like to no one ever before. Not too long has time passed and Julia begins to investigate her charge's past discovering many letters hidden away by his family. When Julia confronts Ramon with this he at first is reluctant to discuss any thing with her but eventually he agrees with her that this may help his case and the project becomes a book in the making – a memoir/biography by way of free-style poetry and prose.

The film is a heartbreaking tale of the human spirit and how love eventually triumphs over heart ache in many forms including for Ramon the unlikely love he shares with a complete stranger named Rosa (Duenas) a single mother who sees him on TV one day inspiring her to bicycle to his remote farmhouse in Spain to get to know him and possibly change his mind about ending his life.

Filmmaker Amenabar, who co-wrote with Mateo Gil the fascinating screenplay, allows some fantasy into the mix when Ramon envisions himself magically leaving his bed and flying across the bucolic landscapes to the eventual sea where he suffered so many years ago the cruel twist of fate that has imprisoned him for three decades. The film is not a complete downer with a sly wit and occasionally humorous tone throughout that doesn't dilute the impact of the story's final act. Kudos also to the remarkable make-up job by James and Jo Allen do a tremendous job in aging the vibrant Bardem to an aging man to full effect that should get them an Acadamy Award nod.

Bardem and Rueda deserve Oscar nominations as two people with so much in common and despite Rueda's Julia being married to a loving, doting husband, that a pair of people so made for one another it is down right impossible they were never together to begin with. That's just one of the cruelties that rings true but it is not by definition of the film as its whole; it is a must-see and one of the year's best. I just saw Mar Ardentro and felt that I had to comment on this film. Euthanasia is a difficult topic in any field and unfortunately is can sometimes distort the true value of a movie. Many people have raved about the excellent cast and it's beautiful imagery/camera-work. Certainly Javier Bardem is an actor that brings something extra to each film he makes. To say that he encompasses the real Sampredo is a little silly since I don't think that any of the reviewers have known Sampredo personally. To lie still and use a certain charm is a acting skill that although well performed doesn't constitute a 'perfect' performance. Bardem just does what he does well...and that's it. The camera-work is beautiful and evokes feelings and perspectives that the movie itself lacks to deliver. Sampredo here is shown as a man that is bend on dying so much that he leaves his loving family behind and marries a woman that he only seeks out when the other will not help him in his quest for a dignified death. Now I'm not here to say anything about the right for or against euthanasia. The problem is that when commenting movies like this you can hardly escape it. The movie's subject is so strong that you're almost compelled to discuss the movie in that strong subject matter. I find it a weakness for the movie -unintentionally- portrays Sampredo as a unsymphatetic character. Someone who is much smarter then his family as portrayed in the simple cousin that doesn't "get" the double layered poem directed towards him. Someone who will leave a loving and caring family because HE thinks his life is undignified. A scene that is juxtaposed to the female lawyer who according to the movie makes the "wrong" choice ending up in a far state of dementia thus indicating that Sampredo's choice was the right one. The woman that constantly seeks him out is almost disregarded for the beautiful lawyer but suddenly is married by Sampredo when she agrees to help him die. These choices make Sampredo into a calculated figure no matter how charming Bardem portrays him. Argumentive I would say it doesn't convince fully and I kinda think that Amenabar didn't intend on adding this unbalanced element in his film. For a young director it's still an impressive film and it certainly has it's strong moments (the discussion between the priest and Sampredo for instance). The camera-work IS impressive and the film is well acted. But 10 out of 10...no the movie doesn't reach that excellence. I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.

So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.

Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.

The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.

The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level. It's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded. A friend of mine asked: "Doesn't one have to be pro-euthanasia in order to like this movie? Is it a mistake of the movie to infer most quadriplegics want to end their lives?" Interesting questions.

As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one quadriplegic who wanted to end his life in The Sea Inside. Think Ramón Sampedro addressed this in the movie as well. It is he who wants to die. It is he who is fighting for his right to decide his death. He is speaking for himself and not other quadriplegics. Though his pioneering work, depending on one's perspective, may prove beneficial or damaging to quadriplegics down the road, his primary objective is a personal one. But one thing this movie does (my opinion anyway), is that it forces us the viewers to ask ourselves the inferring questions my friend so succinctly put forth.

After my first viewing of The Sea Inside, I walked home in a conflicted blur. I struggled to reconcile with this exasperating notion; why would Ramón want to die? Given the love, care and sacrifices so unconditionally showered on Ramón by the people surrounding him, why would he doggedly cling on to his hurtful decision? Then, on my second viewing, a shared thought between Ramón and the lawyer lady entered my consciousness. It threw up a telling observation: "...total dependency comes at the expense of intimacy." Most human beings crave for such an intimacy. Of course, how much we value such "needs", depends largely on the individual.

As a person with a familial-biased sensibility, I empathised strongly with the caregivers in this movie. Why can't Javier consider the sacrifice and the love from his family and friends? Is he blind to it all? I would think not. The miracle of The Sea Inside therefore, is its insightful depiction of a very humanistic tug of war. When we are faced with the guardianship of a sane but incapacitated loved one, whom has expressed a calm, conscious and rational intent to die, what then is the right thing to do? Is caring for and keeping this loved one alive, against his or her will, a pious gesture? Does it show up the worth of our love? Or does it merely soothe our "selfish" fears of irreplaceable loss? With so much understanding accorded to caregivers, wouldn't their invalid charges, by submitting themselves to the total dependency of others for survival, also be an overlooked act of sacrifice? Rhetorical or not, how much is "dignity" worth to an individual? Is living (or dying) with dignity a privilege or a right? If we really care and love a person, should we also respect their eventual decisions in life (as in death)? A torrent of questions the movie might have asked, answers to which, I'm in no position to provide.

In our eagerness to intellectually demarcate the merits of pro-life or pro-choice, we run the risk of ignoring a sea of grey that's engulfing the people most intimately affected, the caregivers and the ones they care for. The Sea Inside hence attempted to present the delicate yet complex relationship dynamics between them. Intuitively, this film understands one thing; that the nature of "sacrifice" is never one-sided. In this tug of war, we should endeavour not to win arguments, but to intently observe and hopefully determine, who is the "stronger" party to make that sacrifice.

The Sea Inside is a sobering film. It opened my eyes to things I don't wanna see. And for that, I am grateful. I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).

There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos Núñez.

In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards. Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.

However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film.

Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.

There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.

Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father ("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.

This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM. Once again Almenábar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing genres.

The excellent character development of the movie, through dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely, making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to the beach), and I think Almenábar's films really benefit from the fact that he also composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly.

More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue, this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life (albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the melancholy you will certainly feel.

Although clearly in favor of euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said, despondent, "There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants to die."

Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music - 10/10. " I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be." Marlow in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can be chosen rather than legislated. "Chosen" is the operative word for Alejandro Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry, and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life, then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those moments in the least dull or uninteresting.

Javier Bardem as Ramon has expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia, who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing disability—This guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what women want: love that speaks, not just makes.

I will refrain from mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same.

"A life in this condition has no dignity," Ramon says. The irony is he conducts himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end his life. "The Sea Inside" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for best foreign language film. When I first saw "Before Night Falls", Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an Academy Award. I thought "he's got it!". He didn't. I watched "Mar Adentro" last night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching, emotional, brilliant. See also "Los Lunes al Sol" and you will understand what I am talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real. Congratulations to Alejandro Amenábar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I am concerned, it already has... This is probably the best movie filmed in at least the last five years. I've always believed that making people cry is far more difficult than making them laugh. If you want to see 400 adults crying out loud in the same room, go see this movie. It's breathtaking. Javier Bardem performs the role of his life. You will cry, you will laugh, you will smile... The most deserving fact is that in Spain everybody knows about Ramon Sampedro. Personally I knew the full story and even the end of it. So, the excellence of the movie is in the way that the story is told. And in this field, Amenabar is a THE master.

This movie is a MUST. "Tesis", "Open your eyes" and "The Others" were proof of Amenabar's talent and skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many, favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them.

The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed, scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Dueñas give the film an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing.

The film taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's no stopping Amenabar...

Buen trabajo, Alejandro! It's now 2005 and 15+ years since this cartoon first aired. I haven't actually watched it seriously or closely in about 10 years. Now that I'm an adult in my 30s I can look back with a serious eye as I watch the episodes again.

In concept, the cartoon is partly an homage to the classic Looney Tunes but also its own original show. There are a few episodes that are structured like the old cartoons. For example, there is a singer that attacks Buster and so he exacts revenge on this singer's concert -exactly like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. The ensuing cartoon is similar to Looney Tunes, just in a different era. If you look at the old Looney Tunes, they did an awful lot of stuff exactly like Tiny Toons did. The old Looney Tunes made a lot of social commentary and parody. There were celebrity impersonations. There were a lot of corny period jokes, slang, and dialog. The comedy was surreal and wacky. You can say this exactly for Tiny Toons as well. The comedy styling is 'spiritually' the same. Most definitely a throwback to the classics which hadn't been done well (if at all) in cartoons in the decades prior to this show. We recognize the cultural references in Tiny Toons and we can roll our eyes when something we don't like comes up. But the reason we don't think Looney Tunes are corny is because we weren't alive back in the 40s. Also, Looney Tunes was original back in those days but today cartoons are rehashed over and over. So it's easy to perceive Tiny Toons in an unfair light due to our exposure to current events and our overexposure to cartoons in general.

There certainly are differences in many respects - the timing, the delivery, and obviously the duration of the shows. They are two different styles from two different periods, being done under two very different circumstances - Looney Tunes being made for adults in theaters and Tiny Toons being made for kids watching TV. Even so, they did a good job making an original show with original gags AND still paying homage to and patterning after the comedy stylings of the old Looney Tunes.

Since Tiny Toons had a lot more time to play with, they had some genuine moments of great animated inspiration. You only have to look at episodes like 1 minute to 3, the baby Plucky toilet episode.. there are so many more. For example, one of the best comedy dialog exchanges ever animated is in ThirteenSomething when Babs and Buster are on the phone in a split screen, hoping each misses the other. The miscommunication is spectacular. Notably, the character development in this episode and in several others (usually the ones penned by Deanna Oliver or Sherri Stoner) is rather good. The female characters were taken seriously as personalities and developed, unusual considering the opposite is usually true for cartoons of that period.

This was the first modern cartoon that had lots of both pop culture-referential and self-referential humor. This was way ahead of its time. Tiny Toons really opened up a door for writers to take comic liberties that are so common in the cartoons today, instead of doing the boring old crap we endured as 80s kids. Yes, I loved Transformers and Thundercats, but Tiny Toons totally jumped away from all that. It was a breath of fresh air. Bakshi's New Adventures of Mighty Mouse may have been a precursor, but Tiny Toons made this surreal style of comedy cartoon writing a real success.

As a kid I totally overlooked some jokes. For example, one episode is an homage to the Marx Brothers that I completely ignored as a teen. Now I have a newfound respect for it. There are so many inspired gags that I never noticed that are genuinely brilliant. It's that kind of comedy that makes me think of Looney Tunes and Family Guy. I NEVER noticed that kind of comedy as a kid. I've been thinking this for most episodes I watched recently.

You'd notice these kinds of things if you actually WATCHED the show. Unlike some other reviewers here who I know are unfairly judging it, I've seen all the episodes and have thought about them thoroughly, exposed both as a kid and as an adult.

You can tell there was an awful lot of care taken with the voice acting too. I'm not talking about just the main characters, but the side characters were done really well and creatively too. But back to the main characters, some of the main characters were brilliant. Tress MacNeille had, in my opinion, her best performances in this cartoon. She hasn't been the same since. Rob Paulsen also did some incredible stuff here, too.

This is all not to say the show didn't have some bad episodes. It had plenty. It had a lot of mediocre ones, too. But by far it certainly had a lot of genuinely funny episodes. Especially back when it first aired it was actually funny to watch.

Out of 10 I give the show an 8.5 - and kudos for pushing the envelope and breaking down the doors leading to a new era of cartoons. They just don't make cartoons like they used to. This one had wit, great characters, and the greatest ensemble of voice over artists ever assembled for a daytime cartoon show. This still remains as one of the highest rated daytime cartoon shows, and one of the most honored, winning several Emmy Awards. OK, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing.

I really want the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those!

Specifically the "Potty years" episode aired on 11/22/91; the "Going up" episode aired on 9/17/92 and the "Minister golf" episode in 11/92.

They are the funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference these bits!

(I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!) After the success of "Muppet Babies" Warner Brothers chalked up "Tiny Toons". But instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira, Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The "Tiny Toons" lived in Acme Acres and attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy.

During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR. administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs.

Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above, were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts, yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who had no clearly designated species except that he was from "Wacky Land" or something like that.

Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones, Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others.

Not only funny, but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor "Animaniacs" never quite attained. Also followed by "Taz-Mania". Being a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons.

I don't know why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But "Tiny Toons" kept the 90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons ever created.

The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for teenagers).

The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to be called a lead. I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. This is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that the self-indulgent director also had many "funny gags" that totally fell flat and hurt the movie. His "camera tricks" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid. IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on him. Dakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness. Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with "maybe we can communicate with them, after all they're humans, too" type of dialogue. His part stands side-by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word "Incident" contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western artifact from the mid-fifties. A widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same material as it was used in "Johnny Guitar", I guess "Trucolor" or something, which makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece, but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western encyclopedias. I haven't seen this film since it came out in the mid 70s, but I do recall it as being a very realistic portrayal of the music business ( right up there with Paul Simons "One Trick Pony " ..another vastly underrated film IMO )

Harvey Keitel does an excellent job as a producer caught between the music he believes in , and the commercial "tripe" the record company "suits" want him to work with.

Since I spent my entire career in the music business as a composer /arranger /producer, I can really vouch for the verisimilitude this film possesses.

If it should ever come out on DVD uncut, I'd buy it! Okay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this film addressed some of the "background" many never knew. Now we've got "American Idol" - "Pop Idol" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the "record execs" and how they think they should market something that sells and not market talent.

When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire release of "That's the Way of the World" which contained some of their biggest hits: "Shining Star", "Reasons", "Yeanin', Learnin'" and the title. Little did I know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the wonderful "Z" Channel.

The "Z" Channel showed this film as part of a "Harvey Keitel" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies -- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film. More than a "vanity piece" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job as a torn record executive trying "to fight the system". There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from this, and a lot of "insider" trade that was exposed.

If you can find this uncut...it's worth a look. Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning "golden ear" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.

Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing "Superfly") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to "make chicken salad out of chicken s**t." Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary "fifth Beatle" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's "Friday Night Videos" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely "Just One Look") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's. I would like to know if anyone know how I can get a copy of the movie, "That's the way of the World". It's been about 30 years since I've seen this movie, and I would like to see it again. Earth Wind & Fire transcend the nation globally with their inspirational music and themes. It was unfortunate that this group didn't take off like their counterparts in the early 70's, but as previously stated, racial tension existed in the United States which prohibited equalized exposure for the African American musical groups. It is good to see that Earth Wind & Fire continuing their success. I would like to add this movie to my collection. Someone please help me if possible. Thank you for your attention. Milton Shaw When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film. At times I really wonder… when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting – Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia. No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement. This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie.

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7. Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year. I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.

Examples :

Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ?

Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.

Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...

Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ?

And Isabelle, who is she really ??

Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville. I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts – the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography – the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience. Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it. Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it. I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller. Oh my GOD ! I can truly say that Maya Angelou is one of the world's most intriguing and important people, especially of my culture. She is incredibly inspiring and her story is the story of a great woman ! When I first picked this movie up I thought to myself the cast was wonderfully put together now lets see them in action ! Maya Angelou is already my favorite PoetEss and now one of my favorite actresses and speakers. I believe she is the greatest of all time. This movie had me on the edge of my seat and reaching for Kleenex while at the same time reminding me that no matter where you come from if you decide that you are going to be great then you will be great ! And Ester Rolle played a wonderful supporting role...... 100% AWESOME...and now even "I know Why the Caged Bird Sings." This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of "To Kill a Mockingbird." In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, "...Caged Bird..." can be used as an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM. When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.

Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.

The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.

I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.

I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn. Albert Pyun delivers a very good action/drama about a junkie who tries to rip-off a big crime-lord. A lot of style and many very cool actors. Burt Reynold is excellent. The numbers don't lie, 109 people have voted for this film. That says a great deal about the standing of one of the most intuitively insightful comedians of the late 20th century. And for those of you who know the work of Bill Hicks, if he were alive today, imagine what he would have to say about the boy president from his home state? That his short career remains unrecognized is a sad situation and this film, or rather these two films explain why. First, you see how his talent was obvious from the start, again and again, those who knew Bill Hicks always say he was not only funny, he was also unique. The film also shows how the quality of his material was too challenging for many in the entertainment industry. His drinking also contributed to his career problems, but that is less evident in this film. And then the second film is a complete performance. If you have never seen or heard Bill Hicks, this is a wonderful introduction to the person and his dark but intelligent humor. Especially due to the fact that the topics are now almost 14 years old, yet remain ironically up to date is underlined by the fact that many of the events took place under the first President Bush.

Watching them together - first the biography and then the performance - makes you aware of how greatly talented this young man was, how quickly his life passed and how the American media can sometimes act as the great big homogenizer. Let's make sure nothing is too provocative, nothing will be too interesting And the result? Well, as the man himself said, go to sleep America, your government is in control........... In his lifetime, at least in Great Britian this artist was recognized for his talent and was successful there. 11 years after his death, 109 people at IMDb can say something about the film. After you've seen them both, I hope you understand why more people should be listening to Bill Hicks. A genius. My genius. I remember the exact second in 1994. I was sat in a pub in Shropshire, England. I recall the exact seat. "Bill Hicks dies of cancer" said the headline in the NME. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Buy this DVD. If you don't find something in it one way or the other I'll be astonished.

RIP Bill, I wish so much you were still here. This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' "Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.

I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.

I rated it a ten. I'll put this as plainly as possible for those of you unaware of Bill Hicks' legacy. He was quite simply the greatest stand-up comedian in the world, almost certainly in my opinion the greatest that ever lived (his stand-up idol being the great Richard Pryor, whose battles with addiction he paralleled). His death in 1994 went barely noticed in the popular media, coming just weeks after Kurt Cobain had committed suicide. His tragic death at such a young age eclipses any sense of the injustice that he was criminally ignored during his life, of course. But the harsh truth is clear as day: nobody has stepped up to claim his mantle. There is not a stand-up comedian alive with nearly the skill and invention.

The observation is made in the affectionate tribute `It's just a ride' that stand-up comedians often view the job as a stepping stone to richer pursuits - lame movies and morally-driven sitcoms, made to occupy - but never enrich - the lives of an unimaginative audience. It's everything that Bill Hicks spoke against. His sermon was always a rallying cry for people think for themselves, to scrutinise authority, to come together as one race.

His appeal continues to grow with every passing year since his death. His star will continue to shine long after so many lesser lights have blew out. Once you've been exposed to his brilliant, intelligent, but ultimately compassionate output, you will be enriched and rewarded.

The man himself was fond to quote Dylan: `To live outside the law you must be honest', he said. Bill Hicks was honest, beyond that he was the funniest of them all.

Well-known comedians meekly admit they wish they could do real satire like Bill Hicks. Inbetween these pitiful testimonies, we are treated to what an exceptionally talented comedian can achieve when he could otherwise be chasing fame and fortune. He didn't get his own talk show, but at least he was no one's puppet. This video is a fantastic testament and insight into the work of Bill Hicks. Thought provoking barely begins to describe it.It's funny and moving and educational and a whole host of other things that are good for you. Make sure you see it. I've never really been sure whether I liked this documentary or not. It was shown on Channel 4 before a cut down version of Revelations, and is on the Revelations video tape before the uncut show. The documentary is basically friends of Bill saying how great he was for an hour with video clips of the show mixed in, a bit like a trailer for the film you're about to watch. It also features David Letterman grovelling like a worm for dumping Bill off the his show before he died, the reason? Bill made a joke about how Pro-Life people should picket funerals, and Letterman had Pro-life advertising. Anyway look out for the video as Revelations is Bill at his ranting best :) This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable. Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe.

This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them Faith has died under tragic circumstances.

Phoebe can't forget Faith. That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal, where Faith encountered her untimely death.

In Paris, Phoebe hooks up with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend. Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced in Europe and what happened in her final days.

The best thing in "The Invisible Circus" are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the girls.

The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance. Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing wonders for him. I cannot for the life of me understand why the rating here for this movie is so low. This was one of the most beautiful films I have seen this year. It really struck a chord with me. I had been anticipating this film for several months and I thought to myself, there's no way it can possibly live up to the expectations I had for it...seeing as how I built it up in my head as much as I did. Well needless to say, not only did it meet my expectations but it far surpassed them. Jordana Brewster and Cameron Diaz were excellent in every way. Their acting superb by far. They were both in their element and completely natural for the roles. The locales were absolutely gorgeous. Every shot filmed was perfectly captured and fit the mood and atmosphere beautifully. I found this film very touching and took it very close to heart. I would even contemplate saying this could be one of my all time favorites. At the very least, certainly I could see it again and again.

I swear I couldn't find one fault in this film. It's hard to say that about any film. I would highly recommend this one. It's touching, it's meaningful, and it says a lot about human nature and family.

10 out of 10. Well done by all. So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar

(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An

imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well

spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,

something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she

commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US

moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it

probably would have reached its audience in a much greater

extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a

shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted

impression. The plot of this film is not complicated. A very attractive young girl goes to Europe in search of the reasons for her older sister's suicide ten years earlier. There she meets up with her sister's former boyfriend and together they travel to all the places her sister went, and gradually the reasons become clear.

But what makes this film so special, and soar above the limited plot, are the beautiful portrayals of the characters. Although the older sister's boyfriend is a drop-out hippie, he has noble ideals, moral standards and incredible strengths. And although the older sister, who we see in flashbacks, shares these ideals, she doesn't have a sense of limitation or balance, of how much is too much. And although the younger girl is fiercely loyal to her sister's memory, she gradually finds the strength to face the fact that her sister was only a normal girl, after all.

The most special moment in the film is when the young girl and the sister's boyfriend finally stop fighting their attraction to each other. I can't recall ever seeing more beautiful, touching, romantic tenderness in lovemaking in a film!

In all these ways this is a truly beautiful film, a film to be treasured, and to be seen again and again. 9 out of 10. I've seen this film three times and each time I appreciate it more. I think Jordana Brewster should have received an Emmy nomination for her real and natural performance. Many of us who were Phoebe's age at this time the story takes place will understand how real it is. Life for most of us is neither softly glowing romantic or harshly cynical pessimism. It is a blurred balance, and this film captures this balance. It is well constructed, too, with so many fine details in its composition. Like the film or not, judging from the extraordinarily high ratings it gets from the demographic of females under 18, we can know that this movie reveals some important truth about how young women see themselves in the world. I caught this on late, late Mexican cable and I have to rant about it. The title was translated as "Secretos" (Secrets). Well there's a secret that has an important part in the movie but come on, ! We are not stupid. We know there's a novel behind this.

Anyways, the movie is pretty interesting and it's carried by it's solid ramatic performances. The always beautiful and stunning Jordana Brewster and Christopher Eccleston deliver great performances and have such great chemistry between them. Cameron Dìaz is also good although she has minimal on-screen time. Blythe Danner is perfect and his last appearance in the movie is touching, sad. Great performances.

Jordana's character and her sister's ex-boyfriend travel to Europe in order for her to deal with his demons and understand why her sister died. Through flashbacks, we learn the sad truth and we can't help but feel sorry for the whole family. The ending is truly moving.

So there's nudity but it's minimal. In fact, the sex scenes are artsy and do not intend to be steamy or sexy.

To be honest, I kept watching it for Joranda Brewster's on screen charming and beauty. And I ended up liking the story and the dramatic presentations.

Give this movie a try if you like solid dramatic features. Great movie. The last, last scene was very sad.. The two little sisters through flashbacks. It is 1969. Phoebe(Camilla Belle) is an 11 year old girl growing up with an idealized vision of her 19 year old sister Faith(Cameron Diaz). Faith is the doer, the truth-seeker, the fixer of all the wrongs in the world. Then one day, Phoebe and her mother Gail(Blythe Danner) receive word that Faith is dead. Faith has killed herself. Both Phoebe and Gail are overwhelmed by this news and, although saddened, Gail mourns. Phoebe can't let it go. Phoebe decides to go to Europe and find out what happened.

It is now 1977. Phoebe(Jordana Brewster) is 18 and decides to go to Europe over the objections of her mother to discover the truth. When alive, Faith was inseparable from a man she called "Wolf"(Christopher Eccleston). Though Wolf claimed not to know anything about Faith's last days, Phoebe convinces him to tell her everything. Within days, Wolf realizes that he hadn't let go of the past either and he joins Phoebe on her pilgrimage to Portugal.

In the end, Wolf is able to tell of Faith's decent into drug abuse and his own guilt at not preventing the suicide. Although angry, Phoebe realizes in the end how human and fragile Faith really was.

I liked this movie. I'm old enough to remember the bank robberies of the Red Army and I was 10 in 1969. This story was familiar ground for me. I can still remember young men trying to decide if they should go to Canada or not to avoid the draft.

The story is simple, but probably occurred several times in real life during that period. Camilla Belle was enjoyable and fun to watch as she portrayed the young adoring sister excited by what was happening around her. Jordana Brewster slid easily into the role of the older Phoebe. Blythe Danner was the ever supportive mother, a role she is all too familiar with on American TV, unfortunately. I would have liked to see her with stronger material to work with. Cameron Diaz played the immature anarchist perfectly. Though at times, her performance of a 1960s activist seemed to come off a news reel. Of all the characters, it was Christopher Eccleston's Wolf, that made the most growth. When we are introduced to the character at the beginning of the movie, we can see he is a worldly man. He is a patient and kind man filled with anger at the world's injustices. In the end, he realizes the direction he and Faith are headed is wrong and begins to "grow up" deciding he should fight against injustice in his own way. Faith refuses to join him in this and it eventually leads to her death. Eccleston's Wolf is the most real of all the characters.

I recommend this movie. It was enjoyable and thought provoking. "The Invisible Circus" is rated TV-MA, but there is very little cursing, sex or violence in it. The subject of the movie is the reason for the rating. If I look hard enough, flaws can be found in this film, primarily with the script. I found the character of Wolf not totally convincing. However, those were my only "complaints." Because when this movie started on Cable, I was just going to record it and watch it later. However, from the beginning, with the eerie music and Cameron Diaz doing her spaced out 60's dance, I was riveted. I never got up until the movie was over. It seemed like I never even blinked.

The acting of Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster was excellent. The scenes were beautiful, the girls were beautiful, and the music was haunting and very touching. The story was quite unique and at times had a surreal quality. The viewer would tend to like the picture more if they had a good understanding of the state of mind of young people in the 60's and 70's, especially in America. Many of the scenes basically succeeded in showing something of that era that is hard to pin down. It was a bit more complicated than the simplistic statement that they wanted to change the world and ended up disillusioned, although that may be the most obvious aspect. Phoebe learns more and more about this as the movie progresses.

One aspect that didn't seem to be covered by the other reviewers that might bear mentioning, is the way the two daughters seem to drift through life after the death of their father. They both had adored him, and his presence had been a stabilizing factor in their lives and obviously he had loved them dearly. We read so much today about boys who lose their fathers too soon, only to lose their way themselves. This film covers the ripple effect of the loss of the father on the daughters left behind, first on the older sister Faith, then on to her younger sister. Their mother feels inadequate to try to be both parents. This type of dynamic is not covered in hardly any other movies, especially in so many different layers of plot and subplot. Phoebe's inner struggles of reality versus perceptions are gradually peeled away like layers of an onion.

Speaking of plot, this movie should rate higher than it has here. I kept waiting for some great conspiracy to be found out concerning the death of Faith. How it did resolve itself surprised me, even if others may have guessed much sooner.

Maybe not for everybody, but I could watch this movie many, many times. One way or the other, you can't get away from the basic message. The strong survive. Those who are psychically or emotionally sensitive, leave. They leave a hole behind in the lives of those who love them. A hole that is seen in it's finality as selfish. That's what Phoebe realizes in the end. Just prior to helping Wolf heal from his self-blame. She can accept closure to the missing ...of her sister. Beautiful European scenery. A lot of truth in it about idealism and addiction to the next big moment. For a moment, I thought of the Baader-Meinhoff gang who was around in the early 70s. I liked this movie as it reflected a time when I came of age myself. I must admit this is one of Cameron Diaz's unheard of films and i was also surprised that she had an important role but she was not the lead. I was very touched by it as i really can identify the pain of the loss of a loved one as i have experienced it from close quarters.

Both Camilla Belle and Jordana Brewster were really good in their portrayal of the protagonist Phoebe and i must also hand it to the casting people for finding two actresses who look so alike that i really thought they were sisters(in real life). This is one of those movies Cameron did for the sake of acting and not for star billing.She looked the part of the gorgeous ,rebellious hippie who wants to change the world though sometimes she comes off as a rebel without a cause.

Coming from a dysfunctional family where her only source of strength being her big sister Faith, little girl Phoebe is understandably very upset when faith leaves for Europe. As she grows up she goes off in search of her sister and gradually gets disillusioned by the truth about her sister and falls for her sister's boyfriend.

Great story and equally great location shooting around European.I will watch it again. I loved it. I had just sat through half of "The Glass House" (turned it off...god what a morass of predictable plot and bad acting) and then I saw this movie. I thought it was terrific. Loved both Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster in it. I liked the escapism of the whole setting, the traveling around Europe in the 60's thing - yet they made it more realistic by showing the dark side and all of the bad things that could happen. It held my attention completely, even if I did think that parts were unbelievable. As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.)

I agree with some of the comments about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for any parent.

I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone would find something sweet in this. Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of "The Intruder". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, "The Fourth Man"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with. An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still, mostly good. GRADE: B Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.

i must say that this movie had a great cast, locations, music and camera work. Cameron Diaz was great, she had a very exciting roll, very uproarish, while Jordana Brewster had a serious roll yet still capturing one. for me Jordana's very nostalgic, she reminds of a female classmate of mine! what realy got me in this movie were the very skillfully planned camera work and the choosing of the locations. the story is very talently written. it is a must see one. the one's who are into mystery movies should watch this one, i guarantee you all that it'll keep you in your seats till the end. Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful! Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on "Return of the Jedi" (Don't believe me, check his entry in IMDb!)

This has to be the first, and in my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection.

Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll be real happy you did. Hardware Wars is a hilarious, 12 minute short film parody of the original Star Wars movie which was released just a few months after Star Wars in 1977. This film uses household appliances as space ships and Star Wars look-a-like actors to send you rolling around on the floor in uncontrollable fits of laughter. This film has won many awards at film festivals and was the film which inspired Mel Brooks to write his Star Wars parody movie called "Spaceballs".

This is my favorite parody film and I recommend it to anyone who is familiar with Star Wars and has a good sense of humor.

This ranks as my favorite movie of all time. It's the best spoof of a science fiction movie ever; the fact that it was a sendup of Star Wars just made it all the better.

I love slapstick. Think of this as the Marx brothers or the Three Stooges meet Star Wars. The writing is hilarious. The effects are a hoot. The free association that goes on guarantees all sorts of things coming out of left field. (I almost wet my pants when the Wookie Monster accosted the Princess.)

Space Balls was a much longer movie, but only had about 15 minutes of good material in it, and I felt sort of ripped off afterwards, like buying a burger that turned out to be mostly filler. Hardware Wars, despite being only about 15 minutes long, would be worth paying a feature price, IMO. This is the kind of film that might give you a nightmare, besides that it's a lot of fun.

Hardware Wars is the only good spoof on Star Wars, other films like Spaceballs have failed. This is the only good spoof film I have ever seen, it doesn't rip-off Star Wars, it makes fun of it, and that's what spoofs are supposed to be. The first half hour of "Homegrown" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm (John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest, while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive. While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be worthwhile. 7/10 stars. This is an awesome movie, and if you haven't seen it, you should go to the video store right now and rent it. First off, the cast is superb. Not only does it have current stars, like Ryan Philippe and Billy Bob Thornton, but it also has your stars of yesteryear like Judge Reinhold. It also has numerous cameos by actors like Jon Bon Jovi, Ted Danson, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Second off, the story was quite good also. It was interesting how they took a plot for a stoner movie, and almost made it dramatic. It takes the drug situation in the United States, and instead of giving it a comedic face like in "Half Baked" it has a true, life lesson image like "Traffic". So watch this movie, if you're a stoner it will give you insight into something you love, if you don't do drugs it will give you a more realistic view of drugs than either side wants you to see. what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone involved in this film should get a big thumbs up.

As i say' the final scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria (carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self wishing they would.

I'm not going to say this film is good for everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10/10. - My advice have a joint ready; kick back and enjoy! A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)

Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)

The plot keeps you wondering throughout.

The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)

Definitely worth watching. A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)

Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)

The plot keeps you wondering throughout.

The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)

Definitely worth watching. Not your ordinary movie, but a good one. Billy Bob is very funny in this movie, the way he talks, what he says etc. I was kind of surprised when i saw it, cause i just thought it was a normal comedy, but it was more than that. It had a very good story, great characters and a good balance.

Favorite part: Probably when Billy Bob is running around in his robe shooting at the rippers Anyone who gives this movie less than 8 needs to step outside & puff a couple. Great story.

Reality is for people who can't handle drugs. After seeing the trailer it was an easy decision not to see this film. I mean, I don't care for stupid "stoner comedies." I'm sure it was also an easy choice for a lot of people to get together, smoke a bowl and go check out this flick with the guy from The Simpsons and some guy named "Billy Bob." Should have been a good time, but the film's just not that funny--too bad somebody had to go and bum their high.

Unfortunately, I found out that the trailer was misleading after it had already left the theaters, so I had to wait for the video. I really enjoyed it. Nice locations, quality production and excellent performances from the entire cast. Looking back at it, the plot twists weren't totally unexpected, but I didn't find it cumbersome because the premise was so engaging.

So why was this absorbing drama marketed as a comedy? Did something happen to the producer, leaving the associate producers to do the marketing by themselves? If it wasn't meant to be a comedy, the filmmakers sure goofed. If they intended for it to be a comedy, they hit the mark. Our critic says Homegrown is a wonderful film filled with family values and community spirit, recommends it for all audiences, and says that he really liked Jamie Lee Curtis's performance. It deserves a theatrical re-release. You looking for a comic drama with suspense and an ensemble cast? Well locate this little sleeper. John Lithgow and Billy Bob Thorton are great in this little plot twister. Don't forget the cameo by Jamie Lee Curtis. A touch of the 60's, a touch of "the Prince and the Pauper", and dash of that homegrown gold makes for a greast little story. This movie was good. I can't say it was one of the best, but it still was good. The only reason that I watched it was because of Ryan Phillippe. He is soo hot! (Don't get mad Reese). But I think that it was sort of funny- not a laugh your head out kinda thing, but still O.K. B.B. Thornton proves to be a great actor in this little seen movie. Thornton really gets into his characters--literally. I caught this on cable one night and enjoyed it. Too bad it was released nationwide in theaters the same year as "Fear and Loathing" and "Half-Baked." Homegrown is one of those movies which sort of fell through the cracks, but deserves better. When I first saw it, I had a luke-warm reaction. But, over time, it's really grown on me--no pun intended ;-). The more I see it, the more I appreciate it. The writing is top-notch, as is the acting. Throw in a few surprising cameos and good direction, and you end up with a great little film.

It's also good to finally see Hank Azaria get a chance to shine in a starring role. And Thornton delivers his usual quality performance. Even relative newcomer Ryan Phillippe delivers, playing a friendly innocent with wit and subtlety.

On a side note, Homegrown is simply a "must see" if you're a Billy Bob Thornton fan. It appears Stephen Gyllenhaal was influenced by earlier Thornton projects like One False Move and Sling Blade (though Homegrown is certainly a lot more tongue-in-cheek than either). And Thornton's role as a character who is both sophisticated and down-to-earth is a perfect match for the actor. This delightful movie tells the story of buds. And it's incredible. You'll laugh, and you'll smile, and you'll laugh. It's really all about the laughs. When Jon Bon Jovi is funny in a movie, it's a heck of a movie! 'nuff said. Now go watch it! We all want to fall in love... The experience makes us feel completely alive, where every sense is heightened, every emotion is magnified... It may only last a moment, an hour, an afternoon, but that doesn't reduce its value, because we are left with memories that we treasure for the rest of our lives...

I love watching people fall in love... It must have something to do with the excellent chemistry between the main characters...

Mark Elliott, a charming sensitive American war correspondent, arrives in Hong Kong at the dawn of the Korean war... He finds in Han Suyin an awesome beauty of true grace...

Han Suyin, a lovely Eurasian doctor is captivated by Mark's tenderness and insight...

It was instant attraction when they first met... The two commence a passionate affair, leading them to fall deeply in love...

Their love is so strong, so wonderfully expressed that highlights Elliot's married status, and the difficulties of the troubled time of the Korean War, communism and race relations...

Holden is an inspired choice for the role... Not only does he have an imposing screen presence, but he brings the perfect mix of enlightenment, compassion and emotion to the part...

Opposite him Oscar Winner Jennifer Jones, perfect in her oriental look, radiantly beautiful in that traditional and modern Asian-inspired Cheongsam... Jones floods her role with personal emotion giving her character a charismatic life of its own... She delivers a heartfelt performance turning her character into a woman who undergoes a spiritual and emotional awakening...

Her scene in that verdant hill where she takes refuge is exquisitely touching specially when we heard Mark's voice whispering: "We have not missed you and I... that many-splendored thing."

Henry King - who has established himself as a masterful director of romances - spreads the theme tune (by Alfred Newman) in the air above the cosmopolitan harbor... His film is colorful, elegant, with excellent cinematography and set design...

Nominated for eight Academy Awards, this beautiful and sensitive motion picture won three: Best Costume Design; Best Music and Best Score... Those prophetic words were spoken by William Holden (as a war reporter) to the beauteous Jennifer Jones (as a Eurasian doctor), explaining his failing marriage on the beach. They start an affair, despite huge odds of adultery and racial issues. In Hollywood of the 1950s, interracial romance was allowed but only with dire consequences at the end. Beautiful Hong Kong scenery (although some beach scenes look studio-bound), a famous title tune, poetic script, lovely background music (by Alfred Newman), great costumes, outstanding performances, especially Jones (directed here by Henry King, who also did "The Song of Bernadette - 1943, an Oscar for Jones) still make this a world-class romance weeper. This movie will likely be too sentimental for many viewers, especially contemporary audiences. Nevertheless I enjoyed this film thanks mostly to the down-to-earth charm of William Holden, one of my favorite stars, and the dazzling beauty of Jennifer Jones. There are some truly heartwarming scenes between the pair and the talent of these two actors rescues what in lesser hands could've been trite lines. The cinematography of Hong Kong from the period of filming is another highlight of this movie. All in all, a better than average romantic drama, 7/10. Two great stars and a legendary Director created a magnificent throbbing love story that is memorable and moving on so many levels.

Henry King directed Jennifer Jones in her first hit Song of Bernadette and he again directs Jennifer Jones in this film and Miss Jones is perfect in this role and gives a edgy, beautiful performance that captures the conflict in the character and Bill Holden who hit home run after home run in the l950's with a series of smash hit films beginning with Sunset Blvd, Stalag 17, Born Yesterday,Country Girl, Picnic, and of course River Kwai is superb in this role.Hard to imagine anyone but Holden in this movie I loved the ending and cry every time I see it. For anyone who has ever loved and lost, you will understand. For those who haven't, you won't. Holden and Jones SIZZLE in this movie, but not in the way we think of sizzling today -- it's very subtle and under the surface -- yet palpable. Jennifer Jones, in particular, is SO SEXUALLY HOT in this film (much more than a caricature like Monroe EVER was) because she creates a real woman -- with ALL facets of womanhood: She's intelligent, intuitive, graceful. She's desiring AND desirable.

There's a scene on that famous hill, where she's lying down in the grass, looking up at Holden, and the expression in her eyes is X-rated, yet in the context of the scene and character, in makes complete sense. You don't need to have it all said in the dialogue -- spelled-out like the crude obviousness in most modern films. It's all there in her eyes -- sexy yet elegant. What a stunning, under-rated actress she was. (I saw her MADAME BOVARY for the first time recently and was equally blown away.) I'll take her over Bergman, Davis, or the two Hepburns any day. I first saw this film in the mid 60's when I was a teenager, and it moved me so much, in fact the end scene where Han Suyin hears of Mark's death, and then rushes to the hill in disbelief, where you then hear Mark's voice saying "Give Me Your Hand", and then the image of him disappears, the butterfly with it's superstitious meaning, the music, the shattered emotions of Love of Han Suyin, just left me sobbing my heart out. I was outwardly crying bitterly, my mother and sister looked up and were shocked at my reaction. I just left the room to be on my own. Fortunately I do not react like that any more BUT I always cry at the end. I love everything about the film, the music mostly, the costumes of Han Suyin, and location. The beauty of Jennifer Jones and the handsome William Holden, they were both at their best. I have the VHS and DVD of this wonderful movie. I also have two versions of the Music & Lyrics by Arthur Newman and Sammy Fain. I also have the book A Many Splendored Thing by Han Suyin. I recommend this film 100% Directed by a veteran Hollywood director Henry King who began his career still in 1915, Love is a Many Splendored Thing was one of his last great films. It was based on a bestseller by Han Suyin called simply A Many Splendored Thing the phrase that was borrowed by the author from the poem The Kingdom of God by Francis Thompson where that many splendored word `love' was used in quite a different and rather transcendental context meaning the love of God. Made in the ‘50s, the film marked along with works by such directors as Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli a sort of renascence of melodrama, its florescence and reaching yet again a peak of popularity.

The story begins when a handsome American reporter Mark Elliott played by William Holden yet once again typecast in one of his irresistible `playboy' roles comes to the Hong Kong and meets there a young and pretty Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) of half-Chinese half-English origin who is working as a doctor at a hospital and whose husband was recently killed by the Chinese communists. Instantly Mark feels a rather strong attraction towards her but at the beginning his deep feelings are not quite reciprocated by Han's heart left cold after the death of her husband (`I believe in human heart now only as a doctor'). But very soon she yields to the persistent courting of tempting as hell Mark and both of them enter a passionate relationship apparently stoppable by nothing, even by the fact that Mark is unhappily married and his wife doesn't want to give him a divorce or social differences and prejudices caused by Han's Chinese origin. But still it's the fate that has a final word to say in determining the fairness of the eternalness of such a blissful loving relationship for no matter how enduring the two assume it to be the merciless time is waiting in a rather alarming form of death, prepared at any given moment to prove its impermanence.

Undoubtedly one of the most romantic films ever made, Love is a Many Splendored Thing features fine performances from William Holden and Jennifer Jones, wonderful Academy Award winning musical score by Alfred Newman and extremely romantic, touching, heart-warming but ultimately heart-breaking story. Don't miss that many splendored film. 8/10

I have just sat through this film again and can only wonder if we will see the likes of films like this anymore? The timeless music, the tender voices of William Holden and Jennifer Jones leave this grown man weeping through joyous, romantic scenes and I'm not one who cries very often in life. Where have our William Holden's gone and will they make these moving, wonderful, movies any more? It's sad to have to realize that they probably won't but don't think about it, just try to block that out of your mind. Even so, they won't have Holden in it and he won't appear on that hill just once more either. You can only enjoy this film and watch it again. "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing" is set in Hong Kong in 1949-50, and tells the story of the relationship between Mark Elliott, a white American journalist, and Han Suyin, a half-Chinese half-European doctor. This story of a mixed-race love affair was quite a daring theme for the fifties, and, as it often did, Hollywood tried to soften the blow by casting a white actress as the supposedly non-Caucasian woman who falls in love with a white man, something that would be regarded as politically incorrect today but was quite acceptable then.. (Think, for example, of the casting of Ava Gardner in "Show Boat" or Natalie Wood in "West Side Story") The setting of the story in a British colony was also perhaps a way of exploring racial issues in a way that would cause less controversy in America. Suyin loses her job in a Hong Kong hospital because her British superiors take exception to the fact that she is dating a white man, whom she is unable to marry because his estranged wife will not grant him a divorce. As was sometimes the case, European colonialism was made the whipping-boy for some of America's own failings. Imagine the furore that would have been unleashed had a similar film been made about a black or mixed-race woman doctor in a hospital in Alabama.

Besides racial issues, the film also raises questions of international politics, referring to both the Communist seizure of power in China and the outbreak of the Korean War. Han Suyin was a real person and a well-known author of the period; in reality she tended to support Mao's Communist regime, but here she is shown as firmly anti-Communist. This is not, however, primarily an "issue" movie about either racialism or politics, but rather a romance, a good example of what would have been known at the time as a "woman's picture". Such films, although mostly made by male directors, were mostly aimed at female audiences. They dealt with love and romance- often unhappy romance- from the woman's point of view, and had a strong female character in the leading role. The genre often provided roles for actresses older than the heroines of standard romances. Earlier examples were normally in monochrome, but by the fifties they generally, as here, used lush, sumptuous colour.

Although a Chinese or Eurasian actress would have been more convincing in the role, Jennifer Jones, does a very good job as Suyin. I found William Holden, as Mark, rather uncharismatic, but this does not matter much as Suyin is very much the dominant figure. She is screen much more than Mark, and the film examines her family and professional life much more than it does his. Although Jennifer was still strikingly beautiful, she was in her mid-thirties, rather older than most romantic heroines of films of this period. Holden was about the same age, unusually for the fifties when "boy-meets-girl" often meant "older man meets girl".

The film is not particularly profound, but is well-made with some attractive photography, particularly of Hong Kong itself, reflecting the growing trend in the fifties for shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Seldom can Hong Kong have looked so beautiful; the view from a hill overlooking the city takes on a special meaning, as this is where Suyin and Mark go for their romantic assignments. The overall mood is one of poignant, doomed romance, a mood heightened by the atmospheric photography and the musical score, including one of the most memorable movie themes ever written. 7/10 Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background. I regard this loving, and sensitively written story, to be one of the screen's true masterpieces. After having seen this film, originally on the silver screen with my mother, in Los Angeles, California when it first came out, many years passed before I would have the opportunity to experience it again. The beauty, quiet simplistic elegance and tranquility of the film to me, set it aside from many, many others of its kind. Yes, tears still come to my eyes when I see it, and hear the refrain of that once in a lifetime song. perhaps still, today my number one all-time most beloved film. I would hope, this classic love story will be enjoyed, and appreciated, by our future generations. This film immediately catches the eye, with the atmospheric aerial views of a very pretty Hong Hong. Filmed in those rich colours of 1950 films which modern blockbusters never seem to capture. Probably a sign of those times, because this is not a high powered, seen it all before film, full of havoc and violence. The havoc and violence are there though, in the backdrop, with thousands of refugees trying to get out of China This is a very moving and compelling story, full of hope and love in a tragic time, in recent history. The story of two people from different cultures falling in love. And the build up to them trying to overcome this is the heart of this very fine and moving film. This movie is based on the book, "A Many Splendored Thing" by Han Suyin and tackles issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring atmosphere for its time.

Other than that, the story is a stereotypical romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined.

The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances passé, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining example. Based on the 1952 autobiography "A Many-Splendoured Thing," "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing" (1955) tells the story of Han Suyin, focusing on the romance that Han, a widowed Eurasian doctor in 1949 Hong Kong, had with a married American correspondent named Mark Elliott. "I don't want to feel anything again, ever," Han tells Mark soon after they meet, but the two soon develop the mutual irresistibles for each other, and who can blame them? Mark is played by William Holden at the near peak of his hunky-dude period (the following year's "Picnic" would be the peak) in this, the first of three films over the next seven years that would find Holden in China (1960's "The World of Suzie Wong" and 1962's "Satan Never Sleeps" being the others). And Dr. Han is here played by Jennifer Jones, who, although not a Eurasian (unlike yummy Nancy Kwan and pretty France Nuyen of those other exotic Holden films), does a credible job of passing as one. Whether dressed in cheongsam, European frock, surgical gown or (hubba-hubba!) bathing suit, Jones looks ridiculously gorgeous here. No wonder East meets West in this film so dramatically! With its two appealing lead stars, breathtaking Hong Kong scenery, beautiful CinemaScope and color, Oscar-winning costumes and that classic, Oscar-winning title song that wafts through the film like a lovely incense, "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing" turns out to be quite the winning and romantic concoction. Han herself supposedly did not care for the picture, so I can only imagine that great liberties were taken with her source material. Still, I enjoyed it. And if the film's ending causes a tear to come to the eye, just remember Mark's words of wisdom: "Life's greatest tragedy is not to be loved." This film always hits me hard emotionally at the end. Though the issues of the film - interracial romance and adultery - were controversial at the time, this film goes way beyond those narrow parameters of ground breaking novelty and trail blazing uniqueness. Here we have a true love story, as written by the woman involved in this love affair, told in a brilliant aggressive style that extols the virtues and glory of mad passionate love. I "love" this endorsement of the only emotion that makes life truly worth living. Jennifer Jones is full of grace and William Holden is simply magnificent in his role as a reporter. A wonderful film that only people who have been in this kind of love can really appreciate and understand. And for those who haven't yet been in love, even just the hope that one day lightning can strike for you makes life worth living - because love is worth having even if but for a short time - even if you lose - because love is the "stuff" - the essence - of life. This film works for me. A warmly felt experience! The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song Oscar in 1955.

Love is a many splendored thing.

It's the April rose that only grows in the early spring.

Love is nature's way of giving a reason to be living.

That golden crown that makes a man a king.

Once on a high and windy hill

In the morning mist two lovers kissed and the world stood still.

Then your fingers touched my silent heart and taught it how to sing.

Yes, true love a many-splendored thing.

How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this film and the greatly under-rated film "Good Morning, Miss Dove." Jones was nominated for "Splendored Thing" but she could have been easily nominated for Miss Dove as well.

William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch.

While the ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the screen. It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.

I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies. After many, many years I saw again this beautiful love story, thinking about how would I, half a century after, react to a film which made so many girls cry and sigh at that time, when I was just an male adolescent trying to understand women's behaviors, in a small city in Brazil.

This time, however, what caught my attention in the film was something very different, namely the insistence with which the physician Dr. Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) makes clear to the journalist Mark Elliott (William Holden) her special ethically condition as an Eurasian. In fact, she is constantly putting emphasis on this point in their relationship, repeating she is willing to assume her love for him and carry it on in a "occidental way", provided that, by doing so, she is not betraying her Chinese side. Its seems to the spectator that Suyin is eagerly making efforts to establish a very subtle conciliation between those two unstable and opposite aspects of her culture, for they will immediately engage in overt conflict in her mind at a minimum failure in her attempts to control them.

Therefore, Suyin's attitudes always leave poor Elliott – a determined, brave and extremely practical man – anxious and perplexed, without knowing how much importance to give to her words. For him, whose love for her is plain and simple, the situation is totally clear: if we love each other, let us make a couple and begin immediately a life together. "Not so fast", is what she seems, verbally and non-verbally, to answer him all the time.

In fact, Suyin's Chinese portion would never allow her such a level of pragmatism. And, as she goes on and on reinforcing this much aimed equilibrium between those two worlds inside herself, she also frequently signals to him that also a very peculiar trait of Chinese culture is deeply rooted in her mind, namely the constant "raids" on the real world by invisible beings from an spiritual or non-physical world. For Suyin is always alerting Elliott about how dangerous is life, not because of any objective and concrete threat (as would be the perpetuation of the English colonialism or the eminence of a Japanese invasion), but due to the threats of plenty of cruel and harmful gods and other mystical and mythical beings over the poor, fearful and vulnerable human beings.

In fact, it looks like a whole bunch of Chinese deities are permanently on the watch to make people's life totally miserable. Because of that, mothers must dress their precious male babies in girls clothes, so that they are not taken away by jealous gods; everyone should always be ready to make loud noises to send the clouds away, in order to avoid their covering the sight of the moon; peasants are advised that they should shout loudly "The rice is bad! The rice is bad!" to protect their crops from being stolen by deities; and, in a funeral, it is recommended that the dead's family be isolated from the other people by curtains, so that the gods don't take advantage of their sorrow and fragility.

In other words, Suyin introduces us to a culture in which the supernatural has a real existence, as if a rather disturbing pantheon of malign and sadistic gods are always on the verge of negatively interfering with the most banal acts in anyone's daily life.

As the story takes place in Hong Kong in 1949, it should be clear that China really was, at that time, almost a semi-feudal society, while the country from which Elliott had come from was not yet dominated by the fierce capitalism that, launched by the USA after the first oil shock in 1973, took charge of the whole world. Therefore, at least in one aspect, both sides of Suyin's Eurasian personality were still much more innocent than they would be today.

A lot of History came into being since those old days. As to China, the main fact is that, after several phases of a communist regime, the country finally reached, in the last two decades, the condition of a very aggressive economy much more properly described as State capitalism. And, what happened to that old spirituality that so much enthralled Suyin in Hong Kong, in 1949, and with which she used to impress so much an impassioned Elliott, under that tree on the hill behind the hospital? It is gone, completely gone! In brief, if that story took place today, Elliott would not find it necessary to go to China to propose to Suyin in the presence of the Third Uncle and her entire family. In fact, both men would now be incomparably closer to one another, in their huge pragmatism, talking business as usual! On a second viewing, this is still a wonderful romance that is, in my opinion, much better than the film it came paired with on my 2-DVD set, the Leo McCarey weepie classic "An Affair To Remember". Yet it seems to have fallen out of favour slightly (Only a 6.6 rating here on IMDb, and dismissed by many critics as "gooey slush"). How sad, because this is an intelligent romantic drama with very good work by the two leads, Jennifer Jones and William Holden. If anything the film should be well-remembered for the gorgeous colour cinematography and the unforgettable musical score. I don't much like Valentine's Day but it gave me an excuse to watch this movie again, and I'm glad of it. While I still think Holden's character death is too heavily foreshadowed, taking suspense out of the final scenes, this film is very moving and I really enjoy it. This movie is the best one forever upon the warm feelings of this real love story during the Korean war by the story of Hy sun the Eurasian doctor and Mark Elliot an American corespondent at the shadow of different habits between east and west upon his quotation in the love scene between two lovers when he invited her to dance (The relationship between east and west must be close) in spite of Chinese habits and customs that destiny made their great role by appointing between them to replace the pains for both (Elliot suffered from failure marriage ) and (Hy sun suffered from the harmful shoot of her husband by Chinese communists at the time of Mao Ze dung in 1949).

She could not stop the decision of destiny in spite of her practical profile because love has a magnetic spirit for everyone seek for happiness , soul and brilliant memory as the final quotation by the voice of Elliot after his death and the sadness receive for Hy Sun for this hard situations when she went to the hill the source of this love under the tree to say goodbye for his body and live with his soul among their souvenirs. Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors..... I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick (Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch Andy. One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports car back in the days when European automobiles were known as "Foreign Jobs" in the U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming moment. The above profile was written by me when I used the nick of OldWereWolf56 which is still my email address. I still believe Andy Devine's character of Frisky is the best Twilight Zone's episodes ever and I watch this episode at least once a year as I consider Frisby to be a fortunate man as he has many friends who love him dearly.

In case many of you are too young to remember, I'm 61, Andy Devine hosted a children's entertainment show in the 50's I believe called Andy's Gang. On it he had three assistants: a cat named Midnight who played the violin, a mouse named Squeaky who played an a hand organ and a devilish toad named Froggy who's could appear and disappear at will embarrassing many of Andy's funny guest stars like Billy Gilbert. The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie.

In fact the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know the worst part? You're from outta state!)

Highlights: The Technics 1500B reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles!

Charles Durning coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of) phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.)

Brian Keith plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!)

Bernie Casie's preoccupation with Zen.

Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?)

Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded "Route 66".) The soundtrack lends class to the whole affair.

Need I say more? It might be Reynold's best film ever.

(Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it works!)

Enjoy! I haven't seen every single movie that Burt Reynolds has ever made, but this one (which I've just finished watching, for the third time) may very well be his best! It suffers only from some slow stretches; Burt perhaps tried to make it more "arty" than it should have been. On the other hand, he managed to avoid many of the usual cliches in the presentation of the "tough cop" role he plays (notice, for example, the scene in which he attempts to kiss Rachel Ward for the first time, or the fear he expresses just before the final showdown with the indestructible Henry Silva). In fact, Silva and those two ninja assassins are three of the most memorable villains of cop thrillers of the 80s. The film also has some offbeat touches, a surprising amount of humor, a brutal and gripping fistfight and many well-directed shots. (***) Sharky's Machine finds Burt Reynolds as a narcotics cop who after a failed buy and bust that wasn't his fault, but that got a few people killed in it, he finds himself demoted to the vice squad in Atlanta.

The prestige is hardly as good as the narcotics beat, but it does have its fringe benefits. One night after a roundup of working girls where one of their books falls into their hands, the guys ask for surveillance on Rachel Ward's place. She's an expensive item, servicing both notorious mobster Vittorio Gassman and law and order gubernatorial candidate Earl Holliman.

Their surveillance however records a murder and the rest of the film is Sharky and his new colleagues from vice trying to solve this prestige case.

Though it's a Burt Reynolds film and those usually have some humor to them, the comedy is kept in check as the film turns as deadly serious as Dirty Harry. It was reported in fact that Clint Eastwood was offered this film.

Look for some good performances by fellow vice cops Bernie Casey and Brian Keith and by Henry Silva the coked up brother of Gassman who does the dirty work of the organization and loves his job.

It's not a bad film, a mixture of Dirty Harry and Laura. Why Laura? You'll have to see Sharky's Machine for that answer. That's how Burt Reynolds describes this film, which happens to be his best ever. He plays Tom Sharky, a vice detective who's on the trail of an international mobster (Vittorio Gassman) and the man he's financing to be the next governor of Georgia (Earl Holliman). In the novel by William Diehl, the story is more complex because the guy's running for president. This is a very long movie that feels more like three hours instead of two. The filming in downtown Atlanta and the Peachtree Plaza hotel sets the mood just right for the story. Reynolds doesn't do much laughing in this one compared to his comedy films. He's very serious here, especially in the beginning of the movie because he gets demoted for a dope bust that goes wrong. At times though, the movie plays more like a voyeuristic drama than a crime film with Burt trying to get close to the mobster's woman. Only towards the end of the film does the violence get cranked up that leads to the bang bang climax. Just like the great jazz score in DIRTY HARRY by Lalo Schifrin, Sharky's Machine features an excellent urban jazz soundtrack with many guest stars including Chet Baker, Julie London, Flora Purim & Buddy De Franco, The Manhattan Transfer, Doc Severinson, Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams. Al Capps handles the score with magic. This movie has become one of the best crime dramas ever. Check it out.

Score, 8 out of 10 Stars Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice,

The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,

The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.

Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,

The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,

Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake, ***SPOIERS*** Atlanta crime auctioneer with Burt Reynolds,Sgt. Sharky, and his tough and well oiled "Sharky's Machine" Let. Frisco, Charles Durning, and officers Papa & Arch, Brian Keith & Berney Casey, breaking up the Atlanta crime Syndicate who's on the verge of putting "Their Man" in the Geroria Governor's State House.

Busted after messing up a major drug police sting operation, with the drug dealer and a number of innocent pedestrians shot and killed, Sgt. Sharky was transfered into vice. Busting hookers johns and perverts Sgt. Sharky finds a list of call girls in the wallet of a top Atlanta pimp and after bugging one of the call girls apartment it turns out that she's having Don Hotchkins, Earl Holliman, a candidate for governor as a regular costumer.

As Sharky starts to investigate this strange arraignment he finds out that the good family man, married with five children, Hotchkins is also on the payroll of Vittorio "Victor" Gassman the mob "Godfather" of Atlanta.The high-price call-girl Dominoe, Rachel Ward,who's involved with Hotchkins is tired of being a hooker and want's to leave Victor's stable of call-girls and live with Hotchkins as his live-in mistress after he gets elected governor of Georgia, which is already a forgone conclusion, but their's only one slight hitch; will Victor let go of her.

Tangling with the Gassman Syndicate the corrupt Atlanta police and city officials, as well as the local Chinese mob, Sgt. Sharky ends up losing most of his men, including two of his fingers, as he brings down the Gassman Mafia in a final shoot-out with the his Mobsters at the famous Atlanta Peachtree Plaza Hotel's.

Statueques and beautiful Rachel Ward as Dominoe is thought to have been murdered by Gassman's drugged-out hit-man Billy Score,Henry Silva,who blew her face off with a shot gun but in reality it turned out that he really killed Dominoe's call-girl room-mate Tiffany, Aarika Wells, with Dominoe away in the country.

Sharky, who was in love with Dominoe from afar, found out the truth about her being alive and to the surprise and shock of mob kingpin Victor Gassman is going to use her, by getting Dominoe to testify against him, to put Gassman and his mob away for good but the cunning and vicious Victor wasn't going to go willingly and let Sharky know it sooner then he thought.

Blood spattering shootout at the Peachtree Plaza Hotel in the films final sequence with Shark'y Machine having it out with the almost indestructible junkie hit-man Billy Score. Shooting it out on the hotel stairway both Billy Score and Sharky's machine member Arch come face to face with Billy's drug induced invincibility clashing with Arch's Zen reality alerting philosophy in what can best be said to be a battle of two cultures: West and East. This was one of those films I would always come across (be it on TV or cheap DVD), but never struck me to give it a shot as I thought I wasn't missing out on much. It was on one night and I thought oh well… why not. A good decision too, as I would kick myself for taking so long to get around to it. For me it left me impressed, as it's up there with Burt Reynold's best features ('Deliverance', 'White Lightning' and 'Boogie Nights') and streams back to those 70s/80s gritty, hardboiled urban crime thrillers that weren't afraid to be forebodingly obscure and go out of their way to set-up characters, pack-it with realistically brutal force and effectively incorporate the local locations (Atlanta being the case here) to the fold with grounded photography. In certain shades it kind of reminded me of 'Dirty Harry', but that's loosely. However it's saucily honed blues score with its simmering kicks, funky shifts and unhinged sounds, very much had me thinking of Lalo Schifrin's pulsating score he orchestrated for 'Dirty Harry'. The music soundtrack on the other hand is hit or miss.

Sgt. Tom Sharky was an Atlantic narcotic agent before a slip-out during a bust saw him demoted to vice work. Along with his new squad they come across a prostitution ring, which catches their interest due to fact it's owned by one hard-to-track and to convict crime lord. What they dig up involves a prominent government figure and a call-girl which can give them some important names, but they must get to her before she's made a target.

Burt Reynold's acts, but also directs in an unyieldingly firm and muscular fashion which would suit his laconically hard-nosed performance and Gerald Di Pego's thematically hard-bitten and taut screenplay (that was adapted from William Diehl's novel). Well he does show some sort of heart/insightful thoughts amongst that armor within the scenes involving the fetchingly able British actress Rachel Ward, be it the stake-out scenes when he's watching her from another building (and slowly becoming infatuated by her) to when they finally come together, but these latter interactions mid-way through do slow up the momentum but give it noir like strokes. The performances are fairly spot on with Reynold's formulating a great rapport with exceptional actors Charles Durning, Earl Holliman, Brian Keith, Richard Libertini and Bernie Casey. The scathing profanity and witty dialogues between these guys were a blast. As for the corrupt villains, Vittorio Gassman builds imposing strength and power, but it's Henry Silva (who seems born for these roles) icily cunning and unstoppable turn that makes the show. Where his appearance seems to outline things to come and help them fall into place. Plus his adrenaline-filled and violent cat and mouse climax with Sharky and his team is brilliantly done.

The exciting action passages might be quick and dry, but remain lethally violent like an immensely teeth-grinding interrogation sequence. Some handy, old fashion filming techniques add to the suspense. The intriguing material keeps it quite tactical being character derived, but when we think its smooth sailing it offers up a blunt surprise or two along with some intensely brunt confrontations. Dirty Harry goes to Atlanta is what Burt called this fantastic, first-rate detective thriller that borrows some of its plot from the venerable Dana Andrews movie "Laura." Not only does Burt Reynolds star in this superb saga but he also helmed it and he doesn't make a single mistake either staging the action or with his casting of characters. Not a bad performance in the movie and Reynolds does an outstanding job of directing it. Henry Silva is truly icy as a hit-man.

Detective Tom Sharky (Burt Reynolds) is on a narcotics case in underground Atlanta when everything goes wrong. He winds up chasing a suspect and shooting it out with the gunman on a bus. During the melee, an innocent bystander dies. John Woo's "The Killer" replicates this scene. Anyway, the Atlanta Police Department busts Burt down to Vice and he takes orders from a new boss, Frisco (Charles Durning of "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?") in the basement. Sharky winds up in a real cesspool of crime. Sharky and his fellow detectives Arch (Bernie Casey) and Papa (Brian Keith) set up surveillance on a high-priced call girl Dominoe (Rachel Ward of "After Dark, My Sweet")who has a luxurious apartment that she shares with another girl.

Dominoe is seeing a local politician Hotchkins (Earl Holliman of "Police Woman") on the side who is campaigning for governor but the chief villain, Victor (Vittorio Gassman of "The Dirty Game") wants him to end the affair. Hotchkins is reluctant to accommodate Victor, so Victor has cocaine snorting Billy Score (Henry Silva of "Wipeout")terminate Dominoe. Billy blasts a hole the size of a twelve inch pizza in the door of Dominoe's apartment and kills her.

Sharky has done the unthinkable. During the surveillance, he has grown fond of Dominoe to the point that he becomes hopelessly infatuated with her. Sharky's mission in life now is to bust Victor, but he learns that Victor has an informant inside the Atlanta Police Department. The plot really heats up when Sharky discovers later that Billy shot the wrong girl and that Dominoe is still alive! Sharky takes her into protective custody and things grow even more complicated. He assembles his "Machine" of the title to deal with Victor and his hoods.

William Fraker's widescreen lensing of the action is immaculate. Unfortunately, this vastly underrated classic is available only as a full-frame film. Fraker definitely contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, especially during the mutilation scene on the boat when the villain's cut off one of Sharky's fingers. This is a rather gruesome scene.

Burt never made a movie that surpassed "Sharky's Machine." I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!

Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir. Burt Reynolds' riposte to Clint Eastwood encroaching on his redneck comedy turf with his orangutan comedies was to make his own Dirty Harry in Chicago-style thriller, Sharky's Machine. Originally intended for John Boorman but in the end directed by the star himself, it's an out-and-out commercial package with Reynolds a narc who gets busted down to the Vice Squad (literally - they're in the basement) who sets out to nail a mysterious crime lord who is backing Earl Holliman as the next governor. You can guess the rest, but while Reynolds tends to lose sight of the story at times he has a good eye for individual scenes and almost gets a performance out of Rachel ward as the high-class hooker he falls for. The romantic subplot is unusually well developed, there are a couple of good action scenes and some nice touches, such as having Vittorio Gassman's lookalike villain a mirror image of the hero or Reynolds and a killer both staking out a witness from adjacent apartments in the same building. One of the star's better films from his glory days, it's no classic but it makes for a more than efficient Saturday night special. While he was great in Boogie Nights, I think that this was Burt Reynolds' best performance. He's also a great director and has made a tough, violent movie that doesn't hold back (a hooker's death by 12 gauge) and is an excellent detective story with some great actors (Brian Keith, Bernie Casey, etc.) and an outstanding jazz soundtrack. 10 out of 10 This is Burt Reynolds'"Citizen Kane".Tragically nothing else he was ever involved in came close to approaching "Sharkey's Machine".It seemed to me that he put everything he had into it.It is a movie that is in love with movies.The opening sequence where Detective Sharkey single-handedly rescues a bus-load of hostages is an immensely exciting piece of cinema. Everything moves so quickly once it has started to go wrong that it appears to take on a life of its own,a brilliantly achieved effect. It looks cold,tense and dangerous on Mr Reynolds' streets. The precinct house looks dirty and tired,full of desperate people on both sides of the law,shouting,cursing out,trying to do deals or just stay alive.Into this underworld descends the recently demoted Sharkey - a reward for a bungled drugs bust(caused by a corrupt cop) - he and his team are part of the vice squad.Information they pick up concerning a crooked politician leads them into the world of high-class call girls and ruthless drug barons. Watching the apartment of one such call-girl(Rachel Ward)Sharkey falls in love with her portrait on the wall(I know,I know)and when a woman's body is found with its face shot off in one of the rooms,he thinks its her.(Well,I did say it was a movie that loved movies). The scene where she walks in on him works beautifully,even if you have seen the original. The film is full of good touches,I particularly like Charles Durning's war story,subtly acted and shot in sharp contrast to Sharkey's abduction and torture which is suitably harsh and brutal. I must mention Vittorio Gassman and Henry Silva as two disparate but equally evil brothers with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. They are "full on" every time they're on screen and are no loss to society when their time comes,Mr Silva's end being extra special indeed. As has been mention,this is a Clint Eastwood movie that Clint never made.The biggest compliment I can pay "Sharkey's Machine" is to point out that in my opinion Clint Eastwood couldn't have made a better job of it. The soundtrack is of an equally high standard,featuring Sarah Vaughan,Joe Williams,Julie London,Chet Baker and other top class artists. Randy Crawford's "Street Life" plays behind the title sequence,and I can never hear it without ,in my mind's eye,seeing Sharkey striding along the sidewalk. Like other correspondents I have never understood why this film was a bit of a flop.I hope it is due for a critical revision,particularly at a time when so many cop movies and shows without a quarter of its energy , freshness and sheer joie de vivre are lauded from the rooftops. If you're ever tempted to think of Burt Reynolds as a burnt - out one - trick pony,put "Sharkey's Machine" in your video machine.I promise you won't be disappointed. Great just great! The West Coast got "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in "Sharky's Machine" and I enjoyed every minute of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants. Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid, I was curious what that movie meant "Sharky's Machine". Well I knew who played Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug. And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's "Street Life" really put the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me, ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars. This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . . An intense, dark action drama with unusually rich support from Casey, Keith, et. al, many of whom get the best roles of their careers and run with it. The film is oddly shaped -- often the action slows down just to let the characters get caught up in odd but well-done seemingly improved dialogues -- during the stakeouts, almost all of the "Machine" get caught up in perfectly delivered humorous monologues -- and Reynolds the director deserves mucho credit for having Reynolds the star step back and give them room. And unlike most action films, you really get to like the characters, which makes the 2nd half, when their various destinies good and bad unfold, unusually affecting. The combination of character development, brutal violence, a jazzy soundtrack (Tarantino must be a fan -- watch this & then "Jackie Brown" and you'll see what I'm talking about)make this occasionally flawed film (The bad guys are a bit melodramatic) one of the better modern cop films, and in my mind superior to many of the overrated modern noirs such as "Body Heat" & such. I think this is one of Burts top five movies, along with Deliverance, Smokey and the Bandit, Boogie Nights and City Heat. He also directed this one so he had a talent for that too like his buddy Clint Eastwood. I wish he made more films like this or even a sequel to Sharkys Machine than the likes of Stroker Ace or Cannonball Run II. This is a tough, gritty cop thriller with Reynolds at the top of his game. Having the beautiful Rachel Ward in it of Thorn Birds fame helped too. Henry Silva is the bad guy and he always does a good job at that. The film also a great soundtrack too. I highly recommend this, wish it was on DVD in the UK, an audio commentary from Reynolds would be great as well. ***7/10*** Without a doubt, the best Burt Reynolds film ever! Even better than Smokey and the Bandit. This was probably the first real bloody cop thriller of the 1980s and delivered the perfect blend of humor, action, mystery and style that is missing in today's films.

This one has it all: A psychotic Henry Silva jacked up on PCP, $1,000 a night call girls, ninja assassins and Burt Reynolds getting his fingers sliced off, one by one, with a butterfly knife. The film is based on the novel by William Diehl who also wrote PRIMAL FEAR, another one of my all-time favorites. This movie is worth watching just to see Henry Silva get shot six times, crash through a window, and fall thirty stories from the top of an Atlanta high-rise. This is probably the coolest stunt in Hollywood history, performed by legendary stuntman Dar Robinson.

Robinson also played "Moke" in the Elmore Leonard movie STICK, also starring Burt Reynolds. Stick features another great Dar Robinson stunt. Robinson falls from a Miami apartment building and unloads all six shots from a .44 magnum on his way down. Very cool stuff.

SHARKY'S MACHINE is my favorite police drama. I never understood why this film flopped the way it did. If Burt did more films like this, he would've built a better reputation for himself. He proves to be a talented director with Sharky, as well as a gifted actor. Burt is supported by Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini, Rachel Ward, and everyone's favorite bad guy Henry Silva. PLEASE remake this classic film! Get Affleck and Samuel L. and some other hot actors and you've got a great movie just waiting to be filmed.

I give it a 9 out of 10 Meester Sharky, you look so ... normal. You would never get a table in this fancy cocktail restaurant/bistro. I, on the other 'and eat grapes and pate 'ere every day. You like my fur coat with all the fine trimming? My enormous golden rings of gold? Or maybe you like these blonde, 'ow you say?, bombshells, who are all qualified in aerobics and naked petanques, who decorate my long, maroon velvety sofa like so many soft boiled larks on a plate of pan fried foie gras and figs. You like? You can't have! Zey are all mine.

You will never possess 'er as I possessed 'er. Domino was the best, apart from Maman. You do not understand the art of lovemaking. Just look at your inferior moustache. It is almost funny to me, non, to think of that ludicrous protuberance on your silly face, as you snuffle around Domino's love hillock like the piggy seeking the truffle in the forest, the forest heaving and swaying in the hot winds of desire! You lose again Sharky.

When I make love to the women zey know, Sharky, zey know. Zey learn, zey learn until zey become the teacher. Not nano-maths, the arts of love. Domino was the seedling which I watered. I watered her so very often. Everywhere Sharky. Her scented petals, her proud stalk, everywhere. She will wither under your ridiculous hose, like the soufflé removed from the oven five minute too soon.

I must go now Sharky, you bore me so with your disgraceful behaviour. It is you who will be flushed down le pissoir like the smelly thing.

Bon chance! Burt Reynolds stars as an undercover cop who is after a crime boss.. Rachel Ward as the high price call girl he falls for..Burt does well in this role and I think he would've done well in more roles like this..

Rachel Ward is beautiful and sexy in her part..good pacing and story but something is missing in the equation.. on a scale of one to ten..7 "Sharky's Machine" is clearly a Burt Reynolds vehicle designed to allow the star room to strut his talents and he spray-paints the machine, the film plot, with colors from other films and other styles, offering a variety of moods within a nourish story.

Made in 1981 at 119 minutes (lengthy for the time period), the film did well, with box office grosses at $37,800,000. It had a lot going for it: Burt Reynolds actor and director, a solid one-two punch; a William Diel novel adaptation, and the south land of Atlanta Georgia, at this time, a land of opportunity for film production out of Hollywood.

Reynolds' Tom Sharky falling in love with Rachel Ward's Dominoe the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold is here echoed as it was in "Hustle" when he played opposite Catherine Deneuve, and that film also had a corrupt politician at its core, but with downbeat ending not the Hollywood happiness in "Sharky's Machine".

The story is pure Detective procedure/actioner. Sharky a narcotics detective mismanages up a bust of a drug dealer, causing the killing of some innocent bystanders, and gets demoted, literally transferred downstairs to vice, to deal with perverts, and other m misdemeanors that 'upstanding' cops consider latrine duty. His new digs offers him the chance to meet many equally upstanding officers who are doing the dirty jobs no one else wants. When some attention is pointed toward a certain pimp Sharky looks over some evidence and discovers that one particular prostitute Dominoe (Rachel Ward) - Dominoe is being shielded by police forces and political forces and Sharky sets himself up a 24-hour surveillance force to watch her. During the time he watches he learns that the current Governor-elect Hotchkins (Earl Holliman) is visiting Dominoe, as is a slick Italian gangster Victor (Vittorio Gassman). Before the police can build a case with the evidence, Billy, Victor's brother, a coke-snorting gunman (Henry Silva) shoots through the door of Dominoe's apartment seemingly killing the beautiful Dominoe, but when Sharky discovers that the murdered victim was actually a roommate Tiffany (Aarika Wells) Sharky confronts Victor and tells him that he is going to have him arrested. Sharky is captured by some Ninja killers lead by Smiley (Darryl Hickman) and is tortured for information to lead to Dominoe, but Sharky overpowers them and arrests the Governor and in a heated chase kills Billy after he has killed Victor.

Reynolds wants to exhibit the inner workings of a hardened policemen falling in love, but the police-story plot, flavored with noir element, and Reynolds ability at cinematic development tends to slick over the dynamics of the relationships.

We come to learn something about some of the men and this leads us to reason why they are working towards their pensions in vice, instead of fighting real crime- this element of the film seems sketchy under Reynolds' off-handed direction and performance.

There is always uniqueness to a Reynolds film. He likes to hire stars, either character actors or others and then allow them to improvise, sometimes with varying results.

With his crew in "Sharky's Machine" he gets some fine moments, and sometimes some overblown grandstanding but always a sense of ensemble and good-natured-ness. With Reynolds as auteur it works.

Reynolds, the actor/auteur always seems to be smirking at himself and the viewer as if to say it's all fake, but good fun.

Great line: In the scene with Victor when Sharky throws down the gauntlet "You're walkin' all over people like you own 'em ,and you wanna know the worst part? You're from out of state." This seems to be the greatest insult the officer can throw at a criminal.

Reynolds made the film in Atlanta at his career point have shot himself reading the phone book and would have surely targeted and demographic.

The film did mark the appearance of Rachel Ward who was nominated as New Star of the Year in 1981 by the Golden Globe.

Reynolds has always had presence and star power and has chosen to make films close to home, Georgia.

I got my DVD from half.com for $7.99 and unfortunately it doesn't contain any commentary or making-of features, which is a shame. Maybe the next generation will have them.

The movie is still a lot of fun and both Reynolds and Ward are great-looking actors in their prime. In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home but it's also nice to see a cop/action/drama that takes place somewhere other than NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the 2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God REAL ACTION!)

If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt Reynolds movie with "Every Which Way But Loose" & "Any Which Way You Can" then Burt responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great! Burt Reynolds directed this action movie and (surprise!) he is actually a pretty good director. This movie starts off well as Burt's attempted bust of a drug dealer is botched, and he is demoted down to the vice squad. The ensemble cast has some pretty funny scenes as Brian Kieth is always eating something, Bernie Casey has more class than all of his co-workers combined, and Charles Durning loses control of his squad.

The vice cops stumble on a high-priced call-girl ring that may have something to do with a series of murders. Sharkey spends days staking out Dominoe's (Rachel Ward) apartment, and starts to really adore her from afar.

Just when they are getting close to the crime leader, Dominoe is murdered. I won't give away any of the surprises in the plot, but the first hour of this film is great.

Unfortunately, the screenplay gets very clichéd and unbelievable after that.

Why would Burt Reynolds confront the crime boss with his big secret? Sure it makes the guy sweat, but it causes many more cops to be killed. And it is not believable that Dominoe and Sharkey would make love after they have know each other for one day, much less while their lives are in danger. And at the end, what happened to all the police that run into the building with our heroes? Isn't there a SWAT team? Also, the film never actually tells you how all of the bad guys are connected, and why they have to kill so many people.

There is a very effective torture scene on a boat near the end of the film, which is probably the only really nail-biting scene of the film. It is a shame that the climax is a typical shoot-em-up. Still, this film is certainly entertaining if you like crime and action movies. Don't think about the plot holes, and you will have a good time. In the tradition of "neo" film noir flicks like "Chinatown", this film focuses on a crime mystery in a bleak realm with a bit of character insight blended in. The typical noir characters thoughout, including the cop out to prove himself, a damsel in distress and a bad, bad guy. Sharky's Machine gets a 9 out of 10 for its cinematography first, plus its direction, story, strong character acting and superb jazz score. Available on DVD, though the soundtrack itself is out of print (but available "used" on some auction sites). Filmed on location in beautiful downtown Atlanta (novelist Diehl's hometown) and the uncluttered, circa 1979 look of the city would make an old-time Atlanta citizen or visitor long for the old days before 12-lane interstates crisscrossed the city, a cinematographer's dream at that time. This was Rachel Ward's first USA feature film. Sharky's Machine is a crime drama set in early 80's Atlanta. It stars Burt Reynolds as a renegade cop who is hellbent on stopping crime and corruption in his city. The story is about a dirty politician who is at the top of a crime ring that has been brining the city to it's knees. Sharky's link to bringing down this syndicate is a high-priced hooker that he falls for during the course of the movie. The action sequences are well done for the early 80's and the soundtrack / score are pretty good. The acting is B-level but this is a pretty decent film to have in your DVD collection.

Overall 7/10

Peace

Buggieblade Sharky's Machine is easily one of Burt Reynolds best efforts. It also stands as one of the best contemporary crime dramas. Erotic and violent, the movie distinguishes itself by setting the story in Atlanta, and delivering a chaotic detective case, to you(the viewer), on a silver platter. Dedicated and determined, Sharky must stop the murder of Dominoe, a lovely lady of the night, who's clientel is anything but ordinary. Before long, Sharky's crimefighting Machine uncovers a conspiracy of the highest order, which threatens to corrupt the inner body of Atlanta. As a resident of Metro Atlanta, I recall the excitement in town during the movie's production. Sharky's Machine goes to great lengths to give an accurate portrayal of Atlanta. Twenty years removed and 2,000,000-more people later, the film stands the test of time. Trust me, Atlanta has not changed. One of the highlights of the picture is Dar Robinson's daring stunt(a classic, symbolic ending). It was even featured on That's Incredible, ABC's reality show of the period. It's just too bad that Hollywood does not make enough films like this one. Kick back, each your popcorn, and watch sterling silver cinema action. I was very impressed with the latest production from Mick Molloy. As a fan of his, I was used to a different kind of humour than displayed here. He wisely opted with a more subtle, broad style of comedy in Crackerjack, rather than his usual low brow, in-your-face ramblings. It is, at times, inconsistent and un-even, but a decent script works past that, and makes for some entertaining viewing. Directed by Paul Moloney (who has directed almost every Australian TV series imaginable), Crackerjack tells the story of Jack Simpson, a bloke that belongs to his local bowls club for the sole reason of parking. When the club hits financial trouble, he is forced to bowl competitively in an attempt to raise the funds to save the club from becoming a poker machine haven. A familiar, and successful formula, that is handled well. There is no denying that the film owes it's success to the great casting of Molloy. He seemed to have a great rapport with Samuel Johnson, and excellent chemistry with Judith Lucy, and while the character is probably not a far stretch from his own personality, you can't help but wonder why he hadn't tried his arm at film earlier. To smooth out the in-experienced cast, the delightful Frank Wilson and Bill Hunter support, and often steal their scenes. They are two fine actors and the pair cruise through their roles with ease. Had it not been for the huge success of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', Crackerjack would have made it to number 1 at the Australian box office, but when you consider what he film is about and who is involved, even making it to number 2 was an outstanding effort. All in all, a witty, feel-good movie. Great cast, great crew, and a great soundtrack, combine to make one of the better Australian films of 2002. 7/10. WORTH IT FOR: If not for Mick Molloy's work, then for Judith Lucy. She brings her usual classy style of unbridled foul-mouthery to the role, and steals the show in parts.

IMHO: I'm not much of an autograph hunter, but I have collected 3. The first is Samuel L. Jackson's, the other 2 are in this movie: Tony Martin and Mick Molloy. Altho Martin only makes a cameo appearance, Molloy not only stars but co-wrote and co-produced this flick. I've been a fan of their for years now (apparently I was the only one laughing during the on-set urination in the first episode of the short lived The Mick Molloy Show), so I went in to this with high expectations. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. With Mick doing a lot of the work on this thing there's plenty of his usual trademarks. Phrases like "blow it out your arse" and "these bowls are s***house" are all over the place, aswell as plenty of Winnie Blues being sucked down. It's also the sort of stupid, original story you'd expect from someone like him. This is like one of those cliqued, American, sporting comedies where they make a baseball team out of prisoners or something. But rather than trying to make a dull American sport like baseball or gridiron interesting, this movie focuses on a sport usually left to grey army: Lawn Bowls. But the main difference between this and other sporting type comedies is that this is actually very, very funny. What's even better is that even tho the subject of this movie is a young lout joining an old folks game, it's never insulting to the elderly, and it never gets sickeningly soppy or anything. It's just good laughs at genuine 1972 prices. Mick is great in the first real acting role I've ever seen him in, as is Judith Lucy and the rest of the cast, but then most of them have had a lot of practice... This is the best Australian comedy I've seen in a long time. Go see it and learn the joys of Lawn Bowls!

IT'S A BIT LIKE: Major League?

SCORE: 8 / 10 Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides.

The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and all laughed at the comedy.

As would be expected of a movie with Mick Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it!

Mick Malloy did a good job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his membership.

Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist/love-interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others.

John Clarke's dour role as the bad guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance.

The not so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light comedy.

I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would also enjoy this movie. This is the first feature film from Australian comedian Mick Molloy. Mick wrote the film with his brother Richard with help from John Clarke, another comedian and actor. Mick & John also have starring roles along with several other iconic Australian actors - Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson et al. The basic premise of the movie is that slimy Jack Simpson (Mick Molloy) has become a member of a Lawn Bowls Club for the sole purpose of getting a free car park near his work. The Club is in dire financial straits and calls on Jack to help. John Clarke plays the clubs arch nemesis - he is trying to take the club over and turn it into a "Poker Machine Slum" Jack and the other club members band together to try and save the club with many funny twists and turns and Jacks eventual redemption. This is quite a clever little movie. It is well above Mick Molloys usual gutter humor. It is pretty well written and well acted. The older Aussie actors are brilliant (Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson Monica Maughan and ors) The film meanders along rather then going at break neck pace, but that adds to the charm of the movie. There is low level coarse language.

Crackerjack, starring Mick Malloy & Judith Lucy - both part of the cast in the early 90's Saturday night comedy show "The Late Show", Bill Hunter, an Australian movie icon and John Clarke, who we still see regularly on Australian TV along side Brian Dawe.

Crackerjack, losely is about a guy in his early 30's (Jack Simpson, played by Mick Malloy) who pays his yearly memebership at the local bowls club in order to get a few car park spaces for which he uses himself and rents out to others as cheap inner city parking.

The club falls on hard times, and pulls all the resources and memebers together it can, Jack gets a phone call telling him to turn up to next Saturday's bowls match or lose his membership (and conseqently his car park space)

I wont spoil the rest, but the film is funny, light hearted and contains everything a good aussie film should.

If your not Australian, then some of the jokes and humour will no doubt baffle you, if you are an Aussie - do yourself a favor and sit yourself down to Crackerjack.. Its now available on DVD, I already have my copy!

10/10.. Awesome flick!

I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger.

Sensibly Mick has restrained his natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all putting in believable performances.

Interesting to see John Clarke playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food chain can one get!!

Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before it.

Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene.



A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen "The Castle" or "The Dish". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff. A very comical but down to earth look into the behind the scene workings of an Australian bowling club. The way they deal with various problems such as takeovers, memberships and general running of the club, not to mention the car parking dilemma was well scripted. While not for everyone, Crackerjack is a delight to watch, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The likeable character of Jack Simpson, played by Mick Molloy, is scamming the local "bowlo" for free parking and making a couple of dollars on the side, selling the parking space to work colleagues. When the Bowling Club members need to raise some money to save their club, they call upon Jack to join their bowling team and play competition bowls.

Filled with Aussie Charm, the laconic wit of Mick Molloy is showing through (he also co-wrote the script) reminding this viewer of his earlier work in Radio. Perfect Aussie casting with Bill Hunter as Jack's bowling mentor Stan Coombes, John Clarke (of The Games fame) as the ruthless businessman and rival bowls club owner Bernie Fowler, with Samuel Johnson as Jack's flatmate Dave, and Judith Lucy as the jaded Journalist, Nancy.

Initially, I figured only fans of Molloy would like this flick but judging by the number of the blue rinse set exiting the cinema chuckling, this is a film for everyone. Considering the appalling track record of Mick Molloy since going out on his own, I had rather low expectations of Crackerjack. Even the promotional posters for the movie had me nervous. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd received free tickets to the preview, I would have resisted the pressure from the missus (who thinks Mick's a hunk - there's a worry) to pay money for it.

The first few minutes of the movie had me worried - it starts with one of Micks tired "get angry at insignificant things" routines, but that was given a neat touch, which at least made it a little refreshing. The rest of the script was pretty good, and very light hearted - even the typical Mick Molloy (and Judith Lucy) humour was delivered well and whilst I never had to pick myself up from the aisles, it generated a lot more chuckles that I was expecting (and it was consistant).

There's nothing new in the plot - pretty predictable, but it moved along quickly between one-liners and other jokes - I never felt it harboured on any element too long or too short; Mick must have worked hard on polishing his script. There were a one or two "Late Show" in-jokes, and one or two jokes that only Melbournians would get - but certainly there's plenty of generic stuff in there for a wider audience.

Something that I found disappointing was the relative unfunnyness of John Clarke - he just didn't seem to work as the bad guy, but that doesn't detract from the movie too much.

Over all, I enjoyed this Australain comedy, and was pleasantly entertained for the duration of the movie. I left the cinema with a decent sized grin - a pretty hard thing for an Australian comedy to do in my books. 7.5/10

Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop. Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see. Crackerjack is a funny movie, everyone at the bowlo has seen it and all say the same. The wheel of cheese was a great part of the movie, also the loud speaker "dear Mr so and so you have left you right indicator on". Or when Jack goes home and lays down on the couch and cracks a beer, "bowls is hard work" cracked me up. And when his roommate shows interest by joining the club and calling bingo number. Jack buying all the raffle tickets to win the meat tray. Bloody great movie if you are into lawn bowls as you can relate to it, if your not a lawn bowler forget it i think. The Evans Head Bowlo would rate as the best club in Aus, friendly people, great company.Hi to Evans Head Bowlo Steve Crackerjack is a hit and miss film set in the Australian suburban lawn bowls club of Cityside. Mick Molloy plays a scammer who has been scoring free parking spaces at Cityside. When the club is put under pressure to install poker machines in it's premises they need to raise $8000 to keep this from happening. The club needs new members to help and this is where Mick molloys character comes in and has to bowl to save the club. With many up and coming and aging Australian actors Crackerjack is a hidden gem. Be warned though most of the jokes are for those with a knowledge of lawn bowls but there are many amusing sight gags that provide comical relief. Sam Johnson and Judith Lucy co-star. Overall the movie should be recommended for people who play lawn bowls or have played but there is enough other material in there for an amusing play if you have a slight understanding. If you enjoy Australian humour I suggest you get you're bowling whites on and head on out to the theatre because this is the premiere lawn bowls comedy of the year(also the only one). I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. The film's title and in fact much of the outline of the film is from the Robert Graves poem Beauty in Trouble. Jan Hrebejk directs a screenplay by Petr Jrchovský from a story by Hrebejk and Jrchovský. the story begins in 2002 when Prague is hit by one of those devastating 100 year floods that destroys the household of Marcela (Ana Ceislerová) and Jarda (Roman Luknár) and their two children Kuba (Adam Misik) and Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova). Because of the moldy conditions where they now live Kuba's asthma is life threatening. Marcela works and Jarda runs a chop shop out of the garage they live next to. Jarda's shady occupation runs him afoul of the law and one of his theft victims becomes infatuated with Marcela. Evzen Benes (Josef Abrhám) is a wealthy businessman who divides his time between Italy and the Czech Republic and offers to care Marcela and her two kids. Jana Brejchová is Marcella's mother who lives with her common-law husband called Uncle Richie played by Jirí Schmitzer in probably the film's best role. Rounding out this excellent cast is Emília Vasaryova as Jarda's mentally fragile mother who gives any money she gets to the local religious charlatan. There is a lot going on here for a small film and it's good story with a great script and a lot of comic relief. Ales Brezina provides the music score with additional music from Czech singer Raduza and Irish singer Glen Hansard. There is a lot to like about this film and I would give it an 8.0 out of 10 and recommend it. This was an excellent movie! I saw this at the Karlovy Vary IFF in the Czech Republic, and it won an award there. This is the first film I've ever seen from Jan (the director), and I was impressed. It's a great story about love and family. The movie has a great balance of comedy, romance, drama, and suspense all in one. I will not give away any of the plot, but this is a well-made film, and I would watch it again if I had the chance! The cinematography/editing is great, the film simply flows, and the characters are warm, and they are the kind that one can relate to. I hope you can enjoy this film as I did. If anyone knows where I can find this in the United States, or if they plan on releasing it on DVD anytime soon, please let me know!! Beauty in Trouble (Kráska v nesnázích) is not a great title. All the descriptions of this film fail to capture what it really is – an adult fairy tale. A poor girl is wooed by a prince. The "girl", Marcela, played by the stunning Anna Geislerová, has an Isabelle Huppert beauty, with a red hair, face and figure that are beguiling, sexual, and endlessly fascinating. She has a louse of a husband, but they have great sex. The kids listen to the lovemaking through walls. It's rough and passionate, as the sex of the working class seems to often be portrayed in film. But it's also for us to recognize that this is the thing that binds them together in an otherwise incompatible marriage. The husband, a professional car thief, is eventually caught and thrown in jail. How she got into this marriage we don't know, but she is not exactly a high-class herself. But she's beautiful, intelligent (we assume) and loves her gorgeous and resilient kids. She deserves more. And she may get the life she deserves - eventually. (no spoiler!) She is forced to move back with mom after her husband is sent to jail. Mom has a hideous second husband (read ugly stepfather). He is a real horror show. He borders on being a child abuser to the kids. He's obsessive about cleanliness, but ungraciously farts at the table, all the while demanding manners and decorum from the kids. He's real low class socially handicapped wretch. Mom puts up with him, like Marcella's husband, at least he's lusty - hideous but horny. The ambivalent, confusing, layered characterizations are what make the film so powerful and interesting. These characters have flaws, some seemed driven by class, some by innate character. These flaws and details of character are charming one minute and contemptible the next. The audience really has to negotiate conflicting feeling of class, sexuality, ambition, commitment, and the role of a woman as mother and wife through the quickly changing terrain of the story. At the bottom line, as with many films like the wonderful Icelandic movie "Thicker Than Water (Blóðbönd), the children can be the victims. What's right in the end may be what's best for the children – who are our salvation and our future. It's a theme played out these days in films ranging from Pan's Labyrinth to Children of Men. Foreign. Cinema is recognizing in intricate morality tales that life is confusing, brutal, unfair and, as adults, we must get our act together in order to pass something worthwhile to the next generation. If we give in to our baser instincts, we may lose ourselves and the world in the process. The extraordinary and complex and colorful characters in Kráska v nesnázích speak to the qualities of what makes a man, what drives a women, what embodies hope, what is class - is it economic status of the fabric of one's character? The film is richly human as embodied by the very last 2 shots, which moved me incredibly and unexpectedly. The director's choices are so subtle and intelligent that to compare this to an American film seems unfair. Americans sometimes seem to lack the desire to consider that paradoxes in human nature don't offer set resolutions. But here, perilously couched in ostensible fairy tale for adults, are interesting moral questions. Don't be fooled by the simple story; this is a great movie. This film by the well-known Czech director and writer collaborator Petr Jarchovský is remarkable for its particularity but annoying and distracting in its details. Taking its theme and title from a Robert Graves poem, it deals with a woman with several men and some obnoxious relatives in her life who's trying to survive and protect her two children, 15-year-old Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova) and little blond asthmatic Kuba (Adam Misik).The poem is much in evidence, but the theme--it gets a little lost.

Marcela (Anna Geislerová), the Beauty, and Jarda (Roman Luknár) have lost everything in the Prague floods of 2002 and have nothing left, it seems, but good sex, which they go at with such a vengeance in their tiny apartment that Lucina and Kuba, in front of the telly, must hold their ears against the noise. Hrebejek relishes such explicitness and skates on the edge of embarrassment or shock. There's no good explanation precisely why, but financial desperation has led Jarda to processing stolen cars in the big garage that adjoins his flatlet. His car-thief cohort drives off a posh Volvo the easygoing Benes (Josef Abrham) has left with the keys in the ignition while visiting a large property he owns. Benes is a super-nice guy, but no fool. His Volvo is wired for tracking by satellite in cases like this and that leads the cops straight to Jarda's garage and he and his cohort are off to jail.

"Beauty in trouble flees to the good angel,/On whom she can rely," begins the Graves poem. But actually this fracas leads Benes to Marcela, when he meets her at the police station. He introduces her to sushi and how to drink wine and plies her with a picture book about Tuscany, where he, though Prague-born, owns a lovely villa and has lived most of his life. He's here to reclaim the house in Prague now occupied by a couple with an ancient and infirm mother, whom he allows to remain. Benes' every gesture is benevolent, even though he doesn't prevent Jarda from going off to jail.

In the circumstances Marcela must retreat with Lucina and Kuba to depend on the charity of her mother, Zdena (Jana Brejchova) and the far less tender mercies of Zdena's present husband, the scrawny diabetic Richard Hrstka (Jiri Schmitzer)--who, for the kids, starting when they commit the cardinal sin of consuming his dietetic cookies, proves to be the uncle from hell. Jiri Schmitzer hijacks the film at this point, and never quite lets it go. Even in the final scene he is a figure of leering menace. It is surprising that the obnoxious Richard doesn't sexually abuse one or both of the children. He is insistent that Marcela needs to get out on her own, and when Benes offers to take her under his wing he and Richard become improbable allies. Improbable--perhaps implausible. Why should Benes like him? But then, what is Benes's whole story? About some things the film gives too much information and about others, not enough.

Clearly the "good angel," Benes is infallibly kind--and a polished, good-looking older man whose manners befit his Italian upbringing. It's only at the end, when he's pushed to the limits over his Prague property by the devious occupants, he proves that he is not one to won't lie down and be walked over.

Also to be dealt with is Jarda's religious fanatic mother Sdena (Jana Brejchova), and her interactions with Zdena and Richard are something to watch. But she is just another wild card that does not augment the deck.

The poem has been set to music in a Czech translation and is sung on screen by the accordionist-vocalist Raduza, first in a tiny scene, then in a more extended one staged at a prison performance witnessed by Jarda and the car thief pal. If you revere Hrebejk as an auteur you may relish this sequence; otherwise it tends to feel gratuitous. Also included are a number of songs by Glen Hansard/Marketa Irglova of the Oscar-award-winning Irish musical film 'Once,' including the latter's theme song, "Falling." They feel more out of place than they would otherwise because of their familiarity from 'Once'--though this film came first.

Hrebejk's people are arresting; even little Koba has his Shakespearean-child moments and a wealth of charm; but the director and his writer seem unable to resist the temptation to digress and to over-expand. The property hassle Benes endures may be useful for showing he has a tough side. But such an elaborate demonstration wasn't necessary. The acting is fine, and there is a wonderful with quirkiness and specificity, but the basic themes of love, sex, and money get lost in the shuffle and Marcela's conflicts and how she resolves them never become clear. It's fine that there is no resolution and true to the theme and to Graves's poem that Marcela still has hot sex with Jarda during a revisit to Prague after moving to Tuscany with Benes and her kids. But there are too many questions remaining about what to make of the obnoxious Richard or of Jarda's annoyingly pious mother (Emília Vásáryová). How come all of a sudden we learn Koba is getting letters from "India" purported to be from his dad, who's in prison? When did that come about? Interesting details, hastily pasted in. This seems a world in which you can't see the forest for the trees. First I have to admit that I have had some doubts about the director. He has done some movies (with Jarkovsky) about the recent "czech=east" history or more precisely about families (individuals) how did they survive some historical moments. But it was always like the chines food sour-sweet. This movie was totally different. It was pure, it shows the bones of life, it shows the variations of human natures. This film is an excellent piece of art (story, acting, picture, music) but it shows you the life around you in much brighter light that we don't want to see. By the way I have saw it on a DVD (with English subtitles) but I am afraid that in the USA I wont be able to get it. Wow. At first I thought who writes these things! How hard is that choice between a man who offers you and your children wealth, respectability and security as opposed to a husband who offers you only oppression, abuse, degradation and poverty. However our choices are not always as clear cut cut as one would think. Indeed the wealthy gentleman was all a woman could aspire to and yet... the pull of her husband, her sexual desire for him was almost overwhelming. What to do, what to do?? As a viewer you became as confused and misdirected as she was. Anyway what I really came on this site to gush about was my admiration of the voice of the Engish, I thought, although it is actually the voice of an Irish singer in the film. Looking him up I find he is Glen Hansard, whom I had never heard of before that day. What a find. I am so grateful. Wow, what a voice! What a day! Thank you BIFF! If you liked this movie, be sure to check out others directed by Hrebejk - you are in for a treat. This is unfortunately not his best, but still million times better than an average movie from the mainstream cinema. It explores relationships, especially the abusive ones, has some powerful as well as sweet moments and great acting. Some plot inconsistencies, clichés and hollow moments spoil the overall effect. To the previous reviewer and his comments on the Czech psyche: an interesting approach, but I do not see this movie becoming a Czech blockbuster. Those folks are rather spoiled by their movie makers {check out also stuff by Sverak, Gedeon} and this one lags a bit behind. One of the major successes to The Decline of Western Civilization, filmmaker Penelope Spheeris' indie breakthrough, is that it can perhaps appeal to non-punk fans as to the hardcore ones. More importantly, it captures a moment in history before the movement became completely "market-worthy", when bands would play (or, at the least, try to play in some cases) in dank, dirty clubs to an audience that had as much self-respect as they had respect for the bands. For the fan, such as myself, there are precious interviews with some of the quasi-legends of LA's punk-scum, some dead, some still living and still hard-working in the scene.

Performances and interviews include the likes of The Circle Jerks, X, Black Flag (in the pre-Henry Rollins days), Catholic Discipline, Fear, the Alice Bag Band, and most memorable (in my opinion) being the Germs. While I knew of a few of the bands and performers in the film (The Jerks and Black Flag mostly), I had only heard rumors about lead singer (the late) Darby Crash, and from the footage in the film he seems to be one of the, if not the, epitomes of the punk movement. He doesn't take himself too seriously, he loves to drink, sometimes when he speaks it's complete gibberish, and the attitude he brings on stage is both funny and in a free-form way exhilarating. A performer like that would probably scare Steve Miller and Jackson Browne out of their skins.

Decline of Western Civilization may not turn on every non-punk fan that seeks this film out (it's hard to find on video), but it shouldn't necessarily turn them off either. Like a kind of anthropologist that's sneaked into the party, Spheeris gets the behavior of these people down pat, their motives, their likes and hatreds, and the power that was their on and off-screen personas. A few of them almost come off as normal, some don't, but they're only offensive to those who aren't too open to things. On top of that, the film is a must-see to the kinds of kids that think they're punk fans just because they listen to Good Charlotte and Blink-182: if you want to get the real scoop on the movement and genre of rock you profess to love, give the pioneers a chance. A Kind of a guilty indulgence nowadays, this used to be required watching when i was in high school. It really is a great illumination of the burgeoning punk scene in LA in 1980. As the bands play, Spheeris prints the lyrics in subtitles, which is of course necessary if one really wants to know what the guy is screaming into the microphone. But also it turns the camera's POV into that of tourist, passing through this alien world. The band interviews reveal an honest approach to the music that really doesn't exist anymore. Then again, it's not as easy to come by $16/month former-church closets like Chavez of Black Flag does. How many unheard of bands do you know that aren't trying like the dickens to get a record deal? These guys just didn't care. And who can't love the commentary of the little French dude who used to be the "singer" for Catholic Discipline (of which Phranc was a member). His gritty voice delivers one of the best soliloquies ever captured on film: "I have excellent news for the world ... there's no such thing as New Wave." Whew! What a relief! The rise of punk music was scarcely documented on film and most people tend to focus on the happenings of other cities such as London or New York. Penelope Spheeris managed to preserve a snapshot of Los Angeles circa '79-'81 which proves a vibrant and diverse art/music community had spawned which rivalled any other. To some, the bands read like a who's who of now legendary American punk; Black Flag, X, Circle Jerks, Germs, Fear. Purists argue that vital bands were missed (Weirdos, Zeros, Flesheaters) and that the movie was the cause of an onslaught of suburban poseurs and macho violence. However, the issues touched upon in the film remain relevant, the intensity of the music remains unmatched and the influence continues to be seen and heard in the cliques/fashions of today. Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too If I assume that you know what this film is about, I am also forced to assume that you've come to this review knowing that you will probably watch it regardless of what I say. If all this rings true - read on - you are likely to find some consonance with at least part of this review. If you're undecided, or not really entirely certain what happened in the late '70s and early '80s in the urban and suburban youth music culture, you should probably read one of the reviews which pretends to be objective instead.

Although I didn't grow up in California, the American punk scene was the first music scene I ever truly lived in. At the height of the hardcore I was immersed in from about 1979-1981 everybody had a band and the only common denominators between bands and indeed members of their audiences were:

* the rejection of conformity

* tolerance and enjoyment of difference

* a desire to have fun - hard and fast

Hairstyles, politics, dislike of authority figures, and violent slam-dancing were not integral to what I experienced, though there were certainly cliques or factions who tended to be intolerant of those who did not dress, speak or act "punk" enough. And there was often a certain amount of unearned credit extended from some of these cliques to those who tried really hard to live down to the fascistic paradigm of anarchic, self mutilating, angry young cop-haters.

Although the interviews with audience punks in Penelope Spheeris' excellent Cal-Punk documentary "Decline of Western Civilization" present a very narrow view of the subculture some of us enjoyed, the interviews with the bands, club owners, promoters and even the security people are much more representative of at least my own perspective and memories of 'the scene'. nevertheless, it is possible for those who approach this with prejudices about what punk is to experience this film without having their preconceptions challenged. Unfortunate as this is, the blame for it rests solely with those who promote, believe in or feel comfortable with stereotypes - Not the film-makers. Don't blame the messenger.

The music presented here is not going to be for everybody - nor even most. It's not the most crude stuff out there, but it's loud, obnoxious, fast, and less concerned with technique than with raw energy.

For me, seeing early Black Flag with Ron Reyes singing, X, Fear and the Circle Jerks was worth far more than the cost of this hard to obtain film. As much as I like The Germs, seeing Darby Crash for the mess - and the nice guy - that he was left me a bit cold. Nevertheless, the scenes of Darby playing with his pet tarantula while "Shut Down" droned on and on in the background were precious. The X interview is also great.

Spheeris' straightforward documentary style is supplemented by wild pans and zooms during the musical segments. During the interviews, framing is used very nicely to provide context for whatever is being said. Considering her experience and the budget, Spheeris did as well as anybody could have with this film.

Recommended for those who appreciate what this film is actually about, and for those who have forgotten those few years of fun, honest, direction-less rebellion before Amaerican punk was co-opted into yet another flow within the musical mainstream and the stereotypes became more important than the basic philosophy. Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles, but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended. The decline series is amazing and director PS can't get enough credit for making these movies. I'm slightly surprised to see that not very many people have seen this one, or the other two, but their worth unearthing if you want the picture of punk in the trans-formative years between the late seventies and early eighties. The film starts out with a blistering collection of clips played over music from the band X. Many interviews with bands and punker's that offer an enlightening perspective as to what surviving was like on the low rung of the mainstream rock ladder. No internet, crappy jobs, and all out hostility collide in this genre. For new kids who haven't heard of these bands or are just starting one themselves this movie is a true lesson in how to rock. All the band performances (and there are many) are awesome, especially FEAR who never cease to amaze me. This and the second installment are amazing time capsules offering those who care a rare glimpse into the lives of these crazy people. It's true punk, like in the interview with Darby Crash's girlfriend when their recalling a painter who mysteriously/suddenly died outside their house and it took a week or so for them to figure it out, they take pictures next to the guy and everyone including the EMT's had a chuckle on this one, and in true form the interviewer asks the girlfriend if she was sad or upset that this guy had died while painting their house, the response "no i hate painters". How about Black Flag renting their apartment/rehearsal space for 16 dollars a month! My jaw almost fell off at that moment seeing as i'm renting a ten by ten closet to practice in for 400. Between watching this and Deadwood i feel like i was born in the wrong time period, just missing those cowboy days and nights of the old way. The people and bands associated with the movie paved the way for what harder music today is, and they did it in their own unique way. Brilliant film, ten stars, see part 2 as well its equally awesome, part 3 though, i don't know what to say about. Absolutely one of the 10 best music films Ever! A totally essential educational experience for any music fanatic--Especially young rock/punk fans today...understanding the beginnings of any particular "artistic" movement absolutely requires understanding the roots of the music,as well as the mindset and musical environment of the times....not to mention the political and social factors involved at the time. And,besides all that,this documentary is flat-out rock-n-roll F U N !! Do Not Miss It!!! that said,can anyone tell me when,if ever, "the decline of western civilization"...part 1,( Not part 2,the metal version) will be made available again..hopefully on DVD? I LOVE this film. It was made JUST before the LA punk scene changed for the worse. It perfectly preserves the mood and attitude of that time and place. I feel really lucky to have been present at the filming of four of the bands at the Fleetwood that night. The only part that doesn't fit in too well is the sections with Catholic Disipline and their socio-political commentary. I didn't see too many people who were into that at all. The rest of the film shows attitudes that I witnessed a lot; people dealing with hard lives, or taking a swing at the music industry and/or lousy hippies. I don't think I've seen a documentary that captures so authentically and personally the subject matter being covered. THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks! I saw this movie in the theater when I was 14 and it changed my life. I immediately cut off my hair and began buying all of the records of the bands in the movie. These were some of the seminal bands of L.A. punk rock caught on film at the peak of their powers. Bands like Black Flag (pre-Rollins), Circle Jerks, Fear, X, and the Germs have few equals in the history of punk music. I can't believe this film has never been put out on video or DVD. Great movie for fans of punk rock.

First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.

I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.

So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all?



First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.

I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.

So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all?

Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too Penelope Spheeris (of "Wayne's World" fame) made her mark with the documentary "The Decline of Western Civilization", about the LA punk scene in the late '70s and early '80s. Most of the documentary features interviews with the punks and footage of concerts (which often turn violent). Overall, we get to see how the punk movement was a reaction to the hippies: whereas the hippies were into being natural, the punks wanted to have themselves as altered as possible, what with spiked hair and all. But also, we see how they're really disaffected and sometimes becoming skinheads.

Anyway, this is a really great time capsule. We're not really sure whether we want to long for that era or feel repulsed by it. But this is definitely not a documentary that will leave you neutral. Truly worth seeing. This is one of the best films made about the 80 punk scene. I saw this a few years back on a "bootleg" copy and was amazed. Very few of todays kids know the true roots of punk and this movie shows some of the 80s punk legends such as The Germs and shows how it was back then. Nowadays so much punk has gone mainstream with MTV and radio and its nice to see the true underground rebellious movement of the original scene. Darby Crash (of The Germs) is one of my heros and this film shows why. A must see for all "punks" and anyone curious about the 80s punk scene The One and the Only!

The only really good description of the punk movement in the LA in the early 80's. Also, the definitive documentary about legendary bands like the Black Flag and the X. Mainstream Americans' repugnant views about this film are absolutely hilarious! How can music be SO diversive in a country of supposed liberty...even 20 years after...find out!

First off, let it be known that I came into this movie not for the music; actually I find it repugnant. Really, I was interested in the psychology of the punk subculture. On this point, the documentary did fairly well. One disagreeable aspect was the numerous scenes in which songs are played and the hyped-up band and belligerent crowd are shown running amok. If you've seen the first such scene, you've seen them all. This superfluity is party made up for by printing lyrics for some of the songs. With these, the audience is able to somewhat connect mentally with the band. The lyrics are of far more interest than the jumble of sounds projecting from the speakers. I don't know why all the lyrics were not printed. Scenes without lyrics slow (ironic eh?, given the many references to the speed of the music) the flow of the movie. Also insightful were the interviews with fans and bands, though there is a letdown when the latter band's interviews prove to be not nearly as enthralling or humorous as the first two. Overall, a good movie that I'm glad I saw. I'll check out the follow-ups if I ever get a chance.

Favorite quote: He tried to hide the fact that he couldn't play by rubbing peanut butter over himself and breaking glass.

Broad punk generalization: Though their disgracefulness, lack of vocabulary and hygiene, and drug-induced obliviousness is often hilarious, in the end it is understood that punks are just pathetic juveniles who rebel just for the sake of rebellion as seen through sophomoric lyrics and naive attempts to philosophize and politicize (disregarding Black Flag, who are slightly less misguided than their peers). I'm astonished how a filmmaker notorious for his political left-wing fervor could make such a subtle, non-sanctimonious picture. If you're for capital punishment, you'll still be for it after seeing this. If you're against capital punishment, you'll still be against it. But whatever your stance is, this movie will, at the very least, make you reflect on why you feel the way you do. There's not one false note in the film. Tim Robbins did a masterful job directing this film. I say this because he avoided convention and cliché. He also oversaw superb performances from Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar for her role) and Sean Penn. Even more amazing, Robbins doesn't patronize. He just tells the story and lets the events play on the viewer's mind. This is so effective because it allows the viewer to form his own opinions on the death penalty, one of the most controversial subjects of our time, without being unfairly manipulated in either direction. I can't recommend this film enough, 9/10. 'It's easy to kill a monster, but it's hard to kill a human being.'

Set in St. Thomas Housing Project and Angola Prison in New Orleans, "Dead Man Walking" is the true story of Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon), a Louisiana nun Sister who befriended Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn), a murderer and a rapist bound for a lethal injection machine for killing a teenage couple… Sister Helen agrees to help the convict and to remain with him till the end—an act never before attempted by a woman…

At their first meeting, Poncelet swears to the nun that his accomplice was the one who shot both of the kids and pleads her help for a new trial in order to convince the pardon board hearing to spare his life…

The film challenges the audience to actually give some thought to the human consequences of the death penalty, but gives voice to angry bereaved parents whose kids were shot, stabbed, raped, and left in the woods to die alone…

As Poncelet's execution looms closer and closer, his character is seen deceptively complex, harboring doubts about the rightness of what they were doing to him… In one moment, we hear him sensitive asking for a lie detector test to let his mother know that he is innocent, in another we see him furious playing the victim, blaming the government, drugs, blacks, the kids for being there… Poncelet never understood that he has robbed the Percys and the Delacroixs so much, giving them nothing but sorrow… They are never going to see their children again, never going to hold them, to love them, to laugh with them…

In the scenes leading up to his execution, the death-row inmate drops his terrible facade and reveals his identity… Luckily both Sarandon and Penn are here exceptional—carrying out successfully an exquisite, tangible harmony of souls… When Sarandon was looking at Penn, she was projecting compassionate eyes brimming with tears… She asks him to visualize her as he dies— ''I want the last thing you see in this world to be the face of love''—in that moment, we truly believed that she'll be the face of love for him… In a world in which debatable and misunderstood subjects can be listed endlessly, this powerful 1995 film takes on one at the top of that list; moreover, it does it objectively and realistically, and with a sensibility and sensitivity that makes it a truly great film by anyone's measuring stick. And to add some irony to it all, even the subject matter of this film has been widely misunderstood, as it is wrongly perceived that this is a film about the pros and cons of the death penalty; it is not. At the heart of `Dead Man Walking,' directed by Tim Robbins, is a subject that in reality is possibly the most misunderstood of all, and with good reason, because it just may be the hardest thing there is for a human being to really-- and truly-- understand. And it is what this film is actually all about: Forgiveness. Real forgiveness; not excusing a heinous crime or the perpetrator thereof-- not saying that what's happened is okay-- but finding the strength to go on, and to do so by choosing life.

Director/screenwriter Tim Robbins has crafted and delivered a faithful adaptation of the novel by Sister Helen Prejean, in which she discusses her involvement with the death-row inmates to whom over the years she has ministered her faith in God. As chronicled in the film, what for her was to become a lifelong pursuit of not only justice, but human dignity, began with a simple letter from a death-row inmate at the Louisiana State Prison at Angola. Sentenced to death for rape and murder, Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) was reaching out to anyone who would listen, when his letter ended up in the hands of Sister Prejean (Susan Sarandon), who soon found herself venturing into a territory of which she had absolutely no knowledge or experience. And Robbins has successfully captured Sister Prejean's emotional and turbulent journey succinctly, while managing to keep it devoid of any maudlin sentimentality, which makes it not only real, credible and believable, but makes it a poignant and thoroughly emotionally involving experience for the audience. Through the medium of the cinema, what was once a personal, significant emotional experience for Sister Prejean, becomes one for everyone who sees this film, as well.

For her soul-stirring, impassioned portrayal of Sister Prejean, Susan Sarandon deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actress. Sensitive and fraught with emotional depth, her performance is incredibly touching and real, especially in the way in which she conveys Sister Prejean's underlying natural fragility and vulnerability, which she adamantly tempered with the toughness she needed to carry on with her endeavors on behalf of Poncelet (and in reality, a total of five since she began). Whatever your point of view regarding the matters examined in this film, Sister Prejean is without question an individual of heroic proportions, which Sarandon exquisitely personifies here; and she does it without resorting to any superfluous melodramatics, but rather by keeping it real, by subtly and humbly exploring the humanity of the person in a very believable expression of characterization. It's an extraordinary performance, arguably the best of Sarandon's brilliant career.

Turning in a career-best performance, as well, is Sean Penn, who was nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Poncelet (he lost out to Nicolas Cage, who won for his performance in `Leaving Las Vegas). Perfect for the part in every way, Penn has quite simply never been better, before or since. He effectively presents Poncelet as a real person, rather than as an overblown caricature of a monster capable of perpetrating the crimes depicted here. Not that it makes Poncelet any less despicable; just the opposite, in fact. It makes it genuinely disconcerting to be faced with the fact that someone who looks like a guy who could live next door to you could be capable of such things. And that's the strength of Penn's performance-- it's so disturbingly real, presented with depth and nuance; you have but to look into his eyes to find the imperfections of a troubled soul. A terrific performance, and -- as good as Cage was in `Vegas'-- Penn should have received the Oscar for it.

In another stand-out performance, Raymond J. Barry is memorable in a supporting role as Earl Delacroix, father of one of Poncelet's victims. With limited screen time, he nevertheless develops his character in such a way that enables you to empathize with him, as well as with Sister Prejean, as it is through him that we are given some insight into just how complex and seemingly tenuous her position is, at least on the surface. Barry presents Delacroix in such a way that gives the necessary balance and perspective to the story, which is ultimately extremely effective and helps to underscore the message of the film.

The supporting cast includes R. Lee Emery (Clyde Percy), Celia Weston (Mary Beth Percy), Lois Smith (Helen's Mother), Scott Wilson (Chaplin Farley), Roberta Maxwell (Lucille Poncelet), Margo Martindale (Sister Colleen) and Jack Black (Craig Poncelet). It is doubtful that this film will change anyone's mind one way or another about the death penalty, but that was never the intention; what was intended, was to make a thought-provoking, emotionally involving film, which is exactly what Robbins has accomplished with `Dead Man Walking.' Regardless of your personal point of view, this film will have an impact, and hopefully will open some minds to the true nature of forgiveness. For, as we see through the character of Earl Delacroix, true forgiveness is not something one merely decides to do, but is a task that can become a lifetime's work. And it's possibly one of the hardest things in life to effectively accomplish; and you come away from this film with an appreciation for individuals like Sister Prejean, who has selflessly dedicated her life to helping those in need, and to filmmakers like Robbins and Sarandon for bringing her to life for millions of people who otherwise would never have known her. I rate this one 10/10.

"Dead Man Walking" is a piece of incredible filmmaking. All the acting is top-notch and realistic, and the script examines the issue of the death penalty from both sides, paying equal homage to both. Above all, this is a deeply moving story of redemption, of death with dignity and loss of ego. Any film that deals this courageously and maturely with such incredibly difficult subject matter deserves a rating of 10/10. Thank you, Tim Robbins! "Dead Man Walking" is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. I find it hard to believe that anyone, after having seen the movie, could feel indifferent about the film or its message. Tim Robbins does not try to impose his ideas and beliefs on the viewers, but manages to make a film that are in most ways sympathetic to both views on the death penalty -- whether it is right to murder a murderer or not. I have always known where I stand in this question, even as a child, and this movie -- despite the fact that it does not really take any sides -- made me even surer in my conviction that it can never be right to murder *anyone*.

Sean Penn is absolutely brilliant in his portrayal of Matthew Poncelet, his nomination for an Academy Award was very well-deserved. Even if Nicolas Cage does a great job in "Leaving Las Vegas", I would have been happier if Penn had won the award. Susan Sarandon is also brilliant and she deserved the Academy Award she won. And Tim Robbins certainly deserves the vote I have given this film: 9/10! it was very sensitive very deep. It's my favorite all the time you can't see movie more deeper than this incredible movie. susan sarandon made her role as matured mind actress, and she realized her role. She deserved the award. She convinced me with for being a nun. The music was very impressive and sensitive. Really i liked this deep masterpiece. How do you know if a movie is good or not? It is the impact it has on you that makes the difference. "Dead Man Walking" upset me a great deal. I watched it twice. I don't know if I will be strong enough to watch it again. No, I did not feel good at all after watching it, but the film was as successful as it can be.

Robbins did a great job in incorporating all aspects of this controversial topic. He avoided making an argument that could easily be seen as biased or subjective. I hope that many people get to see "Dead Man Walking". I believe that anyone who supports or opposes the death penalty so enthusiastically should see the movie.

I don't know what else it could take to finally convince everyone that this relic from ancient times does not have a place in modern society anymore.

The movie itself does not make an argument for or against death penalty. It describes reality. The reality is the best argument against the death penalty.

A 10/10 for great performances, good filmmaking, and for the most important film made in years

Thank you, Tim Robbins!

I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.

But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.

I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.

Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any "TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking. One of the best ever. Direction, fotography, a thrilling and dramatic history, wonderful soundtrack and, most of all, the incredible credibility of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, the best and most underestimated "under-40 generation" actor. After seeing this movie i guess if there's anyone who couldn't have any doubt about giving death to another man, in spite of the ugly things he could have done? I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see. I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end. The greatest effort plus the finest cast ever assembled in a movie by The Director Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon And Sean Penn on the front row. Someone said that this movie is good because directed and written by Tim Robbins but i convince you that Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon had give me a truly superb performance that i cried my heart out. Their acting is so real! No doubt about it that this movie is rated 4 and 3/4 out of 5! This movie is a story of a Catholic nun as an advisor of convicted killer on death row. The movie describes what she does as a nun, who does not have any productive role. She might have had doubt in her actual role. But eventually she does the role only a nun could do, who has nothing but faith in Christ. In America, there are so many movies that describe condemned criminals or jails. Those scenes, especially execution, are too much different from Japan. Susan Sarandon is, for lack of a better word, incredible. In my opinion (and yes I do understand that not everyone will agree with me here), she is one of the greatest actresses EVER and should have at least 2 oscars to her credit. I mean, that was an AMAZING performance in Lorenzo's Oil (but then I think every performance of hers is amazing) and they gave it to Emma Thompson...what was that about??? And by the time she got this oscar, she'd been in the industry for some 25 years. I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more, especially for a performance as brilliant as her portrayal of Sister Helen Prejean. But then again, she is over and above all the artificiality of Hollywood and doesn't need an oscar - people know she's good anyway.

This film carries some very deep, thought-provocing messages, so needless to say it is not to be taken lightly. Tim Robbins, of course, can't escape credit here. You would think that, because of his person feelings against the death penalty, the portrayals made in this movie wouldn't be accurate. However, both sides of the death-penalty debate are given even weight. On one side, you see the interesting side of Matthew, the human side which makes witnessing his death rather heart-wrenching. At the same time, you see the way he savaged his victims and the constant torment of the understandably grief-stricken parents. One word for Tim - BRAVO.

A brilliant movie and, like I said, a well-deserved and long awaited oscar for Susan. "Dead Man Walking" is a film not about the death penalty, but about the people involved in a death penalty case -- the killer, the families whose kids were killed, the nun who becomes his spiritual advisor, and what happens. It tells the story with little fanfare but a lot of compassion and sensitivity. I have it on DVD, and every time I watch it (not often, it's never an easy film to watch) I'm more impressed by what Tim Robbins and the entire cast did here. So revealing that it could be a documentary, so compelling you can't take your eyes away, so subtle and yet so powerful... "Dead Man Walking" is nothing short of a masterpiece. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against the death penalty (or even have no opinion), this movie will have you thinking about the issues for sure. It takes a courageous screenwriter and director to look this material in the face without flinching even once, and everyone involved in the film pulls it off -- there isn't a single scene that rings false. A masterful film, but don't expect light viewing... to some, the final scenes could be more graphic than anything imaginable, even though no blood or violence is shown. You get drawn into this film and become a participant, and there's a character for just about everyone to identify with. 10/10. This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.

Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.

You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.

At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity. Tim Robbins makes a wonderful film. His wife (susan sarandon) gives a wonderful performance as the sister Helen Perjean who wants to help Mattew Poncelet (Sean Penn) who is accussed of murder and who also will die of an injection... 120 minutes of splended acting and touching scenes is what you get. Great acting and it is a film that gives something to think about!

Susan Sarandon deserves the oscar of 1995 best actress. It is probably one of her greatest films ever.

I didn't see 'The Craddle will Rock" but I sure have to see more films of Robbins.

Rating: 9 / 10 or ***1/2 out of 4. Go and see..... This movie is about a very delicate argument and if you are searching for something that makes you think here you are right. Tim Robbins has made a wonderful job and the result is a kind of docu-drama that should be shown in schools (for the strong themes treated). What about the actors? Well, they are simply great; Susan Sarandon is truly 'the face of love' and Sean Penn is unbelievable as almost always. An absolutely must-see! This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way) compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it. If you think about it, it's nearly unbelievable that a film could be made about the death penalty (one of the world's most controversial topics) that offends neither those for nor against. It's a testament to Tim Robbins' extraordinary intelligence and sensitivity, traits that can be seen in his acting roles as well (Shawshank Redemption, Jacob's Ladder).

This film in fact hints at a subtle compromise between the "for" and "against" camps... so subtle that it can't be put into words, subtle to the point of vanishing, yet one gets the sense after watching the picture that a compromise is possible, that somehow it can be worked out if only we look deeply enough... Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well.

What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other.

And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this is a very rare thing in American films.

I have shown this movie to many people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK.

This is one of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no lesson here you need to find one yourself.

Everyone praises the acting, directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not repeat it all again.

So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you dare to be challenged! Finally a gangster Movie worth watching!

Jennifer Tily should get nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal!

This Movie flies like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem!

Jennifer Tily is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie.

I was shocked to find Faye Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles.

A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul of this film.

The story is original deep and poetic.

This Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests.

The gang of Spanish Fire just set everything on screen alight.

Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and a Movie Star.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. I was lucky enough to see a test screening of 'El Padrino' a couple months ago in Santa Monica. I was blown away. You don't see films like this anymore. In the vein of Scosese, Chapa deftly tells the tragic story of Kilo as he maneuvers the tough streets of LA to rise above the ranks to become a drug lord of Escobarian proportions. The characters are complex and conflicted. The emotions are real. The action is fast and furious. The stunts are expansive. And Tilly is HOT. She hasn't looked this good since her 'Bound' days. I'd recommend this to anyone. It's a fantastic homage to the epic action films of the late 80s and early 90s. And to all the naysayers out there… watch it again; you obviously had your eyes closed the first time. Congrats to all involved in the film. I'm counting the days until the sequel is released. Anyone have a date on that? This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure entertainment. This Film was one that I have waited to see for some time. I was glad to find it has been everything anticipated. The writing of this film has been so finely crafted and researched far beyond what is seen by the audience. I found it amusing that so many people watching will not read between some very important lines but indeed if not the movie will make sense in a different way and is very brilliant. The film has many stories and characters woven together around this one Character Kilo , a Man whom has rose from the streets amidst many woes and become a very powerful criminal. After spending some time in Prison Kilo finds a loophole in the justice system and through a disturbing turn of events is released only to find everything is not at all what it seems. Kilo Finds himself going up against the higher realm of society and Political royalty in order to make clear how important a Man's Word is and stands for. A war begins as the street is in arms against Lords of wealth and corrupt Power.

A build up to explosive and powerful non stop twists and turns. This film will leave you riveted. I found the cast of this movie to be outstanding and is not a Movie to be ignored. Excellent. Go Rent It Today!! i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his acting the Best.

Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit.

However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also.

I am one of those people who love to see artists make it.

B.S. I just want To say that this movie was excellent .

I loved it from the beginning until the end.

The acting was great .The director did an amazing job and I would like to see it again.

Jennifer Tilly did a very good performance , The guy that interpreted his father (Manny) was another great actor BUT I CAN NOT RECALL HIS NAME .

I can't wait for El Padrino II.

Damian Chapa looks so good and I think he is one of the most talented actors out there. There is pleanty of Latin actors that do a great job like it is shown in this film!

Rent It!!! Rent it !!! Rent it !!! This movie was a modern day scarface.It had me on my toes.This movie is one of those rare epic films that makes you want a sequel.I especially liked Damian Chapa his performance deserved an academy award,which he deserved for his performance in blood in blood out.The only thing I didn't like was the behind the scenes because it didn't show the intensity that the movie had,and i would have like to have seen less narrated scenes.But the movie was great and it is in my top ten movies of all time.Plus the acting was great there wasn't a bad scene in the movie,I loved it ,Jennifer Tilly was perfect as well as all of the cast.I can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie it was a great.Definitely a must see. I love Movies that take you into them. A movie that actually leaves you feeling weak when its over and this kind of movie is rare.

Damian is so talented and versatile in so many ways of writing and portraying different Characters on screen. This movie has a cutting edge to it. A main stream cast for such a low budget. Why is it that a Man with this much talent and Charisma , ( not to Mention sex appeal in ways beyond most other actors ) can do this with so little money to work with????? These Actors really believe in his script and Raw talent as a Director, writer and Actor. I am so pleased to know such a modern day genius is out there , letting is passion for Art drive him and taking us as an audience with him. Damian I have heard of you through so many different circles and do not let the Jealous people of this world get to you. Martin gets this , Fellini got it and you will always get it. The fire and passion in you is what we love to watch on Screen. Thankyou for being different and having the guts to write like you do. You are a one of a kind Director, do not listen to the empty vessels. This movie is a picture perfect action/drama/and thriller, every scene has you sucked in.I watched this movie and was amazed by how many talented actors were in the movie.Damian Chapa especially was great,he played his role perfectly.The story was made for these actors.The characters make the movie so realistic. This movie very simply gets an A plus from me.Definitely watch this film,it compares with scarface ,but has a more in depth story.This movie not only gives you a good picture of the gangster life,but it also gives you the characters emotions,and at the end you really feel for the main character.Watch this film!!!!!! I saw the film and am very pleased to see a film so different in character and story to the stupid,mainstream American major productions. Its a film with a background interesting for young as much as all age- groups. Contrary to certain reviews the audience seems to split my evaluation as the film is very successful wherever yet exploited worldwide. For example in Netherlands is was ranked number 3 . Negative statements must be respected but one should expect such to be guided on a fact basis. If you have the chance view the film and enjoy it. I absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be entertained.The directing,acting,and the story is brilliant.Definitely up there with films like scarface and the godfather.This movie makes your heart race.Damian Chapa as well as all of the cast was amazing.I would definitely rent this movie.Damian Chapa deserves an academy award for his acting,and for the way he portrayed the life of a gangster.This movie is a soon to be classic,and an all around brilliant piece of film-making.I loved it and I give it 10 stars.In a sentence the only way to describe it is a film without any flaws.Watch this movie and you'll see what i mean. 2 thumbs up!!!!!!! We just finished screening El Padrino in Australia. A phenomenal piece of film work. We look forward to seeing many more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. With his lead role Kilo Vasquez being a perfect combination between Milo Velka from "Blood in Blood Out" and Al Pacino from "Scarface" the film will do wonders for us here in Australia. I just finished screening El Padrino in Germany. A great film. We look forward to seeing more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. The ending with little ambiguity leaves the story open for a sequel. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. Something that few film makers can afford. I have seen this film more then once. Actually El Padrino was one of the best feature films that I have seen in a great deal of time.

There was a big cast Jennifer Tilly, Faye Duanway, Brad Dourif, and Damian Chapa who really shined like a real star in this part of Kilo.

I heard this film was shot for under two million dollars. I have seen films shot for 33 million that cant compare to the quality and production value.

Damian Chapa why are you not getting offers and more film work!!! EXCELLENT JOB!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait to see the sequel, and I hope it has the same action.

Jennifer Tilly has made a cult classic character with Sabeva.

Damian Chapa moves coolly in every scene much like the movie stars of the 40's and 50's So sick of seeing these non charismatic actors like Ben Stiller getting all of these films when there is talent like this that have something to show. a great film.

GO GO GO KICK SOME BUT IN SALES EL PADRINO!!! El Padrino has just been released in Europe and is really kicking ass. This film with its great cast - Damian Chapa ( Blood in Blood Out ), Robert Wager, Jennifer Tilly, Robert Wagner and many more ) - is the best gangster movie since SCARFACE. A Film that everyone MUST SEE. 2 hours full of action with fantastic unbelievable stunt !!!!

GRACIAS JENNIFER !!!! We are eagerly waiting for part 2 !!!! Does anyone know if there will be one ? Keep up the good work !!! I loved it !! Some martial-arts purists think that comedy was the worst thing that could have happened to the old-school kung-fu flick; and it is true that the introduction of comedy into the genre signaled the end of the "chop-socky" period in Hong Kong film. But the fact is, one can only carry-on a primarily physical exhibition of prowess for just so long, then everyone gets bored with it. And that's really why the chop-socky died and how the Hong Kong "New Wave" action film was born: the producers, the actors, the directors all just got bored with hitting people for ninety-minutes straight.

Given that, and given the fact that Liu Chia Liang is a professional director with a considerable list of films in his resume, this film has to be seen as something other than just another kung-fu comedy. Rather, it is a comic film within the martial-arts genre, and in fact one of the best ever made.

What Liu has done with this film is really a pleasant surprise: he has taken a martial-arts plot and re-constructed it along the lines of a Hollywood-style musical! Complete with episodes of singing and dancing! It was around the time of the making of this film that some film-makers and film fans began to recognize that the cinematic performance of martial-arts (really derived from the acrobatics of the Chinese opera) has more in common with dance than with fighting. (I will continue to point out this connection until most Americans realize what they are actually supposed to look for when watching a martial arts film - well-choreographed body movements, using the plot of an action film as an excuse for their performance.) At any rate, quite clearly Liu Chia Liang made this connection and decided he would explore it close to its limits.

The result is an incredibly charming entertainment, filled with marvelously human characters attempting miraculous kung-fu (and tripping over their own shoelaces as often as not when they do so). and the film being set at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, allows Liu the opportunity to explore the nature of the Westernization and Modernization of China that contributed so greatly to the making of the China we know today. So the film has considerable historical import as well.

Also, fans of Stephen Chow's recent Kung Fu Hustle should really watch this movie carefully, as Chow clearly learned from it before the making of his own film.

A very amusing, well-made film. Oh, yes, and the kung fu in it is really, really good.

Purists won't admit it, but this is probably director Liu's best film. This is one of the great modern kung fu films. A lot of the reviews seem to miss the point that the comedy is based on a quite subtle at times (at other times right in your face) contrast between old and new China. Kara Hui for instance is called a country bumpkin and gets into trouble whenever she tries to adapt to the new but in the end to save her families honour dresses as an old fashioned heroine in contrast to the modern military style of Hsiao Ho. Gordon Liu seems to have played his part for laughs playing off his serious, monk persona with silly wigs and a guitar. The end fight is simply fantastic and ends in a defeat for Johnny Wang rather than death. Kwan Yung Moon should be mentioned for his great playing of a thug with 'invincible armour' - simply terrific. And Kara Hui does some magnificent acting and fighting. A great film. If you're looking for a kung-fu action movie, look elsewhere. While there are fighting scenes, the film revolves around its provincial protagonist, who struggles to find her way in Americanized Canton. Unlike most "kung-fu comedies," the action scenes are used to reinforce the comedy, instead of the other way around.

Cheung Booi is a statement about the farcical nature of kung-fu movies, where the stars always seem to find some reason to fight. Instead of some grand drama about honor and respect, minor misunderstandings cause the characters to yell at each other and start beating each other up.

My Young Auntie, as it's known in the West, is the story of Cheng Tai-nun, played by Kara Hui, who is a young woman who marries an elderly landowner to keep his holdings from falling into the hands of his greedy and corrupt brother. After he dies, she moves to Canton to live with her nephew, played by director Lau Kar Leung, and his son Ah Tao, played by Hsiao Ho.

The basis of the irony is that although Cheng is the same age as Ah Tao, her manner is more akin to her status as his step-great-aunt. While Ah Tao speaks English (extremely poorly), plays the guitar and goes to costume parties, Cheng utterly fails when she tries to adapt to her lifestyle in Canton, complete with makeup, revealing gowns, high heels and dance scenes.

What makes this movie great is its realization. Lau Kar Leung is perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest director of his generation in Hong Kong, and Kara Hui won "Best Actress" at the first Hong Kong Film Awards in 1982. Also, this is arguably Hsiao Ho's finest performance. His chemistry with Hui is remarkable, and although he went on to have a storied career in kung-fu comedies, often working alongside Sammo Hung, he has the perfect combination of athleticism and comedy. As the romantic tension and intrigue build in the second half of the movie, his entire countenance changes. No longer does he easily jaunt through life without a care in the world. He becomes the straight man and his cohorts the Kramer, Elaine and George.

My one complaint is how suddenly the comedic aspects of the film die off during the conclusion. The film transitions from outright farce to dramatic intrigue with little but a change in incidental music. But there is a certain symmetry in it. The film begins focused on the intrigue, focused more on Lau Kar Leung's character, and it ends that way, too. But the final scene returns to the movie's comedic roots, giving conclusion to both aspects of the film. My Young Auntie is unique in a lot of ways. First this is Hui Ya-Hung's (Kara Hui) first action film. Second She was actually doing the fight scenes after having a surgery done to her a few days before filming. Third this movie is off the chain.

The movie starts out with Wang Lung Wei trying to take the inheritance from his brother. His brother then has Kara to marry him so Wang can't take the treasure. The story is pretty good leading everything to it's rightful place.

In comes the action, what can I say that hasn't already been said for movies like this, or Disciples of the 36th Chambers, The Victim, or even the Magnificent Butcher. The fight scenes are what sales movie, and this one won't have any problem doing so. Liu Chia Liang and Wang Lung Wei engaged in a fight that you have to see to believe. Why have these two men not fought each other more is beyond me.

I don't want to spoil anything really, but you have to see My Young Auntie to get the full blast of excitement. My only gripe is that Yuen Tak was not used as broad as he was used in 3 Evil Masters, or even Invincible Pole Fighter (8 Diagram Pole Fighter) to excellent must see movies. 9.2/10 This film is a fine example of why the Shaw Brothers are among the finest directors (probably the best in the Kung Fu category). The movie is well paced, the story is excellent and intriguing, and while the humor may not be in your face, it is nested within the character interactions. Once the story builds up, and the characters begin to assess the situation does the whole tower come crashing down in one of the best fight scenes (tiger, crane and crab Hung Gar are very present). There is even a scene that mocks 18th century Western social events, and ends with clever and entertaining fighting. The movie ends with a sudden, cheesy moment, but if you are a fan of the Shaw Brothers, you'll understand that the cheese is just a topping, and not the main course of the movie. Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks. This movie would had worked much better if this was the first Critters movie, this is a low-budget movie with only two (2) Critters shown on-screen. Why this looks like a fail is because this is the last Critters movie and it's so low-budget that it seems the director made the whole movie with his own pocket money. However, I did like this movie, I compare it mostly with the third movie (which were bad). Critters 4 have a more serious tone in it, the first half of the movie (even without seeing one Critter yet) you have a scary feeling watching it, too bad they didn't "milk" out the Critters, I mean even if they only had two (2) puppets they could still have used them on-screen a lot more. The Critters also have different deaths in this movie which made this a little special, especially at the end with the frozen Critter. Ug has a promotion in this part and is different in this movie which took me by surprise. Lastly I liked this one because it also has some kind of conclusion to the series, so at least we won't see a Critters 5 anymore. Oh, one last thing, I missed one scene in this movie, we never see a Critter shoot a spike from its back, maybe these puppets didn't have that feature, but I was very disappointed not seeing that (in Critters 3 we see a lot of spike shooting, which was the only good thing I liked about that movie). Critters 4: This movie was continued after the 3rd critters movies. This one was released in the same years as critters 3 was released in 1991. Critters 4 takes you in space as they hunt for the humans in a space ship. I doubt if there will be a Critters 5 because the ending for the 4th was quite a good ending, which brought the end to the critters as there was no more left. I give this movie 10 out of 10. Critters 4 is a good movie. A bit of a twist to the series, as it takes place in space, not in an earthly community. Good Effects and Acting make this movie a must see. I would recommend this to Horror/Science Fiction fans everywhere.

10 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, Slumber Party Massacre, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section. I just do not see what is so bad about this movie. I loved this movie! I thought this movie was the best film in the series. Though part 3 is the best in the series,I still gave this film 10 out of 10 because it is great. I don't see what everyone hates this movie. Who would not want to see just a little bit of critter action. I wished that Brad Brown would of appeared in this one because it might of made it a little better. Those who like a little bit of drama because...wait I won't tell you,you will just have to watch it. This film also contains a few popular actors who are...(I won't tell you because I hate it when people give spoilers so I do not want to be one of those people). Well I guess that is all I have to say about this movie. What's there not to like?

I caught this again tonight and marvelled as to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to tics and caricature.

There are many layers to the depiction of the complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother, his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman.

His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot, and continued to see him!)

Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his mum is an added bonus.

9 out of 10. I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull. Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself. Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable. Brought Philip Larkin to life in a way that is worthy of the greatest performances of all time, and not just the ones that are measured by popularity. It shows a stark portrayal of Larkins life as the greatest unrecognized poet of his era - which is exactly how he would have wanted it, such was his disdain for cankers and medallions. It dramatically exposes the raw beauty in the intense sadness of Philips observations of our relationship with our own mortality, and lays it our in a way that seems to have missed even the great philosophers. for anyone interested in profound observations of our relationship with life, love and death this is a must. ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

According to Harald Zwart, the director of "One Night at McCool's," this film is "a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows."

"One Night at McCool's" marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in "One Night at McCool's," from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing.

"One Night At McCool's" features three men who share their separate experiences about a particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version of "American Beauty," but in others, it is a world apart.

"It all started one night at McCool's" explains each of the three men to their various listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin, a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At first, Randy is reluctant: "The sex and the violence, all in one night – it's a little much." But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away.

Jewel changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive ways.

It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story. Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always delightful Liv Tyler ("Armageddon"). She is not really interested in the men, but what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can get what she wants out of life through her beauty.

The film has a lot of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its violently hilarious showdown, "One Night at McCool's" takes advantage of most of its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in "American Beauty."

"One Night at McCool's" is the first film to come from Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine, and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as either too black or too lackadaisical. "One Night at McCool's" is one of the few that actually work.

One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.

The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc.

Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No.

It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.

8/10 I must admit, I liked this movie, and didnt find it all misogynist. It could be subtitled, three ways of looking at LiV Tyler. Three different men become obsessed with the same woman,and tell their stories to very different characters;One man(John Goodman) tells his story to a priest(the very funny Richard Jenkins).For Goodmans charcter, the Liv Tyler character is an idealized saint, the second coming of his sainted wife,Theresa.For Paul Riesers character(who tellls story to a shrink(a fine, understated performance by the great Reba Mcintire),the Liv Tyler character is simplyan object of (kinky)sexual fantasy.Finally Matt Dillons rather dimwitted charcter tells HIS side of the story to a sleazy hit man, played by Micheal Douglas.All three of these narratives of obsession are told simultaneously,and all are amusing. Finaly the film ends in a bizarrely funny climax, that I wont give away. This is a very good black comedy, with a great view on how different people have a different perception of the same situations. The three main characters each met a girl named Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who is a different male fantasy for each of the three men. Each of the three men go through the same situations, but when they tell of them to other people, their perception of the situation is very different from what the other two say. That is a very good concept, probably not entirely original but it works very well in the movie. The plot is very good, very bizarre and extreme, which makes it a good black comedy. The acting is equally good, not one of the actors seemed out of place or out of their league. The comedy is very black, pitch black in some scenes, and a lot of people will definitely be offended by it, but fans of black comedy will probably enjoy it. Overall, this movie is not for everyone's taste, but most people who like black comedy will probably love it, as it is definitely one of the better black comedies. 7/10 This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if you're compiling a list of "fun films", this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to "Tom Jones" -- in other words; just good, bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as Liv's Jewel? Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Yeah it's hard to keep your mind off this fetching beauty (giving an radiantly picture-perfect performance), as she simply has tongues wagging. 'One Night at McCool's' is a dementedly quirky and raunchy black comedy with old-fashion shades tied in to its familiar, but smartly crafted and chaotic narrative which has three men lusting after the one women and she's milking it to her advantage. When you see Tyler, no wonder why they are infatuated and would do anything… that's anything to see 'her' happy and living 'her' dreams. Just like Tyler, there's something rather intoxicating about this feature in that we see the likes of Matt Dillon, John Goodman, Paul Reiser (who's great) and especially Michael Douglas (who plays the hired assassin with cool-ease, but a questionable hairdo) really having a good time with their roles. The consuming plot opens up with the main three characters (Dillon, Goodman and Reiser) telling their story of how they came to encounter this divine presence and the eventual affects that she's having on them to lead to an insane climax. There's an unpredictable chain of events (ranging from fruity to sensual), where everything would virtually tie in together with a certain ironic (snowball) twist of fate for the characters (that see them leaving their reserved comfort zone to fulfill this girl). Howard Zwart's direction is colorfully zippy balancing the script's quick-fire gags and frenetically fun, if complicated situations. One of the best under-the-radar comedies in the last decade, which will have you under Tyler's thumb. this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated. One night, barkeeper Randy (Matt Dillon) rescues Jewel (Liv Tyler) from her jealous boyfriend Utah (Andrew Dice Clay). He takes Jewel to his home. But Utah comes back and wants Randy to open the safe at Mc Cool´s. Suddenly a shot - Utah´s dead. Then... ...I´ll better stop here to tell the plot. That´s like to explain the story of "Wild things". What I found so interesting, was the fact that the plot (written by Stan Seidel, his first and his last work - he died in July last year...) was told from 3 perspectives - the 3 men that fall for Jewel. Everybody of them sees her from different eyes - like John Goodman as the detective, who tenderly falls in love with her because of being remembered of his dead wife...

No wonder that the guys fall for her! Liv Tyler - she´s a real jewel. She made the big screen shining! She played her role as if she was in a 40´s noir- thriller. Sweet - but in the same time she was the cool vamp who walks over dead body´s and uses the men for her needs. And, of course, Michael Douglas. How could I forget him? Mr. Burmeister, the Bingo-playing killer - he was quite cool!

But in the last 10 minutes there was a little bit too much slapstick for my taste - it weakened the atmosphere. That part began when Paul Reiser (as Randys cousin Carl) putted on his leather dress for Jewel. The "YMCA"-song didn´t fit so much here... ... but altogether, "One night at Mc Cool´s" is a pretty COOL film-noir parody!

Liv Tayler in her sexiest movie!

She incorporates the "Femme Fatale" role in an astonishing way, while in the same time she manages to appear a super sexy woman while keeping the "sweet girl" stand and not being over-wicked like other similar movies (e.g. "Femme Fatale" with Rebecca Romijn)

Until this movie, Lord of the Rings was the only movie i ever saw her (Im hooked on with LotR)

Point: By LoTR I had shaped an opinion that the role of the pure-sweet woman was the only role that Liv Tayler could interpret, but when i saw "One night at Mc Cool" I absolutely changed my mind. She is the sexiest woman ever!

Therefore as a film is a mediocre common comedy with a "confusing" plot A very funny movie. Michael Douglas' "do" is worth watching this flick for if for no other reason. I'd like to see him do more of these low life roles. He was terrific, as were all the performers.

The film struck me right off as an American Roshomon, only funnier and easier to watch because it was in American and didn't need no stinkin subtitles!

In a funny movie with a laugh every minute or so, two of the best were with John Goodman (not someone I am crazy about) - 1. He is telling the priest about Jewel doing something he liked and says "I had to wipe the smile off my face." The visual shows he is not smiling and clearly is a guy who never smiles, but probably doesn't know it. 2. The scene at the end between Goodman, all suited up for Jewel in his cop uniform, and grappling with the be-leathered Reiser hunched over a table... and the two of them then protesting that they are not gay to another character who happens on the scene - this alone deserved a special Comedy Academy Award. If you don't have anything better to do, then go ahead and rent this movie, it's intelligent, funny it will sure have your attention busy for a while.

I discover it by surfing channels in a boring Sunday, it was on cable, and for the faces I saw, I thought it may worth the try, it made me laugh and for a movie in a Sunday with nothing else on TV, it was OK.

Liv Tyler looks amazing in the movie, even though her acting is not what I expected, it's kind of poor acting and for the rest of the crew, I liked Reba in her role as a Dr. also I found interesting seeing the guy from the sitcom "What I like about you" playing an almost gay lawyer.

As for J. Goodman I found it, as always a very good performance, Michael Douglas plays a small role but His characterization was hard for me to identify him..

It's also a good movie to watch with company. Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV.

The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and "Wonder Boys," you're actually reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts. Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused category. If you're renting this expecting to see another "Pulp Fiction," forget it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice. Each guy Liv Tyler meets loses their head over her, not, of course, without some small encouragement from Liv. Liv is at her beautiful best, with Matt Dillon tops among the paramours. Interesting initial premise, to tell story from perspective of each dupe, degenerates into sitcom-style finale (not unlike Blame It On Rio, with which it has more than a few similarities). Worth watching nonetheless. One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just). Okay, maybe this movie not a revolution. But it a very good piece of entertainment, and it's Liv Tyler's variation of Alicia Silverstone's "Clueless" or Cameron Diaz' "There's something about Mary".

Liv plays a femme fatale, which just wants to have an own house and all kinds of material comfort in it. And well she does everything to get just that... even crimes. Many crimes. And she drops every boyfriend which doesn't cooperate to get these things. Additionally, she actually doesn't mind to have some additional lovers beside her current boyfriend.

This movie is even funnier to watch if one knows that Liv is actually of zodiac sign cancer - and cancer are reported to be very domestic. So the character Liv played here is actually a parody of a cancer !

I was alone in cinema when I watched this one. That was quite comfortable because I could laugh as loud as I wished all the time - but it also felt strange, as if nobody was actually interested in this movie ?

I myself liked it very much. The acting was between very good to excellent, especially the main actors where brilliant. There where enough jokes, many of the black kind, and good dialogues.

This is a trash movie, and it is full of black humor. If you like this kind of movies, try this one ! I first saw this movie at a premiere-party in Mr. Zwarts hometown Fredrikstad. There, between directors, musicians and other Norwegian celebrities I laughed and laughed... I just couldn't stop. If you like a comedy with black humor, sharp lines and excellent acting - this is one flick you HAVE to see! It's like mixing "True Romance" with "The Wedding Singer" and add a dash of "Mad about you" Hilarios!

10 Points! I rented this movie without having heard (or read) anything about it. What a shame! This movie is intelligent, witty, hilarious, fast-paced, and realistically ridiculous. The characters manage to get developed without relying too heavily on clichéd, tired stereotypes. It was refreshing to watch. I couldn't help thinking that marketing would have helped lob this not-so-mainstream movie into the starved-for-intelligent-comedy mainstream. The quality of the dialogue and the ease with which the actors execute a huge range of awkwardness, heartbreak and comedy is so rare these days--I felt that the actors must have really enjoyed participating in something this rich. How is it that National Treasure was number one at the box office for three weeks in a row--it is so weak in too many ways to mention. I guess I'm just happy that movies like "Seeing.." are still being made somewhere out there. I channel surfed past this many times, mainly because the synopsis sounded so cheesy, so "Love American Style". However, it turned out to be quite good, very well done. The two stand-out features are the dialog and acting. Great cast. The premise is actually well executed and there aren't too many weak moments. I guess what I was most amazed by was how often you thought the wheels are going to come off the cart, and instead, the cart just banks the turns, so to speak, and the movie keeps flying. There are some nice little sub-plots, particularly the relationship that develops between the character played by former Conan sidekick Andy Richter. Also, want to mention that the music accompanying it was good. Why this film was only released in 4 states is beyond me. I thought this film was a divine story. The name says it all: Seeing Other People. This movie has more logic than laughs, which I suppose is why it works so well. Common sense also makes an appearance in what would seem to be another puerile sex comedy. Alice is getting her feet frozen in the cold, when she feels irrationally about the way she might perform for her fiancé, not just sexually, but as a partner, and friend etc. This starts what seems to be an almost archetypal journey for the both of them. One fling after another leads to trouble, as if it wasn't a bad idea from the start. Witty dialogue and comic set-ups make this one funny as hell! Nicholson and Mohr set the tone of the film early on, and keep the promise they anticipate. Other highlights are Lauren Graham, Andy Richter, and Helen Slater(in her first theatrical film in 10 years!). Climax begins to take an insane turn, but a simple ending makes this one far more enjoyable than most movies today. Mohr fans will see something different in his Ed character, and fans of Helen Slater will enjoy her shiny moments of a quick, but excellent come-back. Any Richter takes home the award for most moralistic character. Romantic and funny, or just plain fun. Seeing Other People is a gem, which needs to be noticed. Sophisticated sex comedies are always difficult to pull off. Look at the films of Blake Edwards, who is arguably the master of the genre, and you will find just as many misses as hits. For, if a film of this nature ever fails to work, it can never fall back on the tried and true toilet humor of a teen sex comedy [i.e. "American Pie"], or warm the audience with the sentimentality of a romantic comedy [i.e. Julia Roberts' entire career]. It can only maintain a push to the end, and hope that the audience can appreciate the almost required irony of it's resolution.

Written by husband/wife team Wally Wolodarsky and Maya Forbes, "Seeing Other People" opens with engaged couple Ed & Alice [Jay Mohr & Julianne Nicholson] only seconds away from rear-ending the car in front of them. As the frame freezes, we unexpectedly hear the thoughts and fears of both characters. From here on out, we welcome that the story about to unfold will enjoy a point of view from both sexes.

Two months shy of their vows, Ed & Alice already look and act like an old married couple. In an early bathroom scene, their actions alone show us just how comfortable they are with each other and how long they have been together. So when the line to propel the plot forward is uttered - expectedly from the least likely of the two - it is as if the very relationship itself is calling for a change, even if it means it's own destruction.

Once all the ground rules are set [Ed can not sleep with her mother or, for that matter, Salma Hayek], the two head off in their separate directions in the hope of finding some meaningless sex to strengthen their relationship. At first, everything seems to go as planned as their daily trysts only help to fire up the passion between them. But predictably, as the deeper emotions of regret and jealousy begin to emerge, they soon find themselves growing apart and on the verge of breaking up. All of these actions leading to a resolution you may or may not like - depending on your own degree of cynicism.

For a comedy like this, you need a solid cast with supporting characters just as strong as the leads. And director Wolodarsky does not disappoint. Here he has cast two of my favorite actresses as sisters - Julianne Nicholson & Lauren Graham - and allows them to play to their strengths. For Nicholson, who has always reminded me of a young Shirley MacLaine, she brings an air of naivete and vulnerability to Alice even when her actions seems less than so. And as for Graham, an actress who has proven she could outperform an entire Howard Hawks ensemble, she steals every scene she is in with an edgy "no BS" persona.

As for the guys, Jay Mohr is serviceable here as is Josh Charles. "Malcolm in the Middle"'s Byron Cranston has to be applauded for taking on a British accent and letting it all hang out. But the real treat here is Andy Richter and his sub-plot involving single mother, Helen Slater. While his scenes almost seem to belong in another movie, they are by far the funniest and his dead panned delivery steals the show.

For an independent production, "Seeing Other People" has a more personal and introspective feeling - something that would be noticeable absent from a big Hollywood film of this kind. Not to mention that this film also has some genuinely funny moments - unlike, say, most Hollywood comedies in general.

Rating [on a 5 star system] : 3 1/2 stars Intense, funny, witty, and more than anything, social comedy on the ways of adult dating and it's results-be it good or bad. Mohr and Nicholson are engaged couple two months away from a wedding date, when a bizarre event at their engagement party forces Nicholson to re-think the relationship and start to date other people so she won't feel so pristine when it comes to sexual experience. This leads to a disaster of events following Mohr, Nicholson, and their cohorts. Very intelligent and needed in this time of clumsy, condescending comedy, while containing your usual variety of comedic, sexual, and frustrated characters(especially Charles as a sexually frustrated sex fiend...very annoying) who even they seem to get the right feel to this heart felt commentary.

The film goes the way films should go these days, showing that guys are sensitive at heart and have morals. Most of the male characters are the moralistic, straight forward eyes, while the woman are the fresh faced street prowlers who will stop at nothing to get pleasure. Guys will be appreciative of the message made for guys with self respect, however it is easy to assume that most males who DO see this film will use it's message of male sensitivity cover up any flaw or trait that a female might find offending. Still, the writing formula uses this as a tool to pave the way for it's male leads, particularly those of Mohr, Richter, and finding the director in a cameo as a sales man!

The females are by far the most promiscuous as they speak of nothing but pleasure and what it would be like to... with someone else. They have amicable traits though, even though they are covered by the image of sex driven kittens. Very funny stuff.

On another level, the film follows some of it's ensemble into different relationship work. Richter meets up with a stressed divorcée(a VERY remarkable and noteworthy performance by the always reliable Helen Slater) named Penelope who is divorced with a son who hates her for splitting with his father. As the two go deeper into a relationship, human interest is revealed and both the comedy and tragedy of divorce and starting anew are studied.

By the end of the film, Mohr and Nicholson have become way to deep over the heads to see what's coming next, and it is up to what they have learned about each other and themselves to decide what will come next. It becomes appropriate and dramatic at just the right time.

Wallodorski's direction is emulated very well when the characters learn to face each other after all that has happened...with the right ending.

All in all, this film should have been released nationwide, and I should hope that it is up for some Academy Awards...maybe Helen Slater can finally get the recognition she deserves. Anywho, this film is a no hits miss, give it all you got romantic sex farce, displayed very maturely and aesthetically.

Great film! This indie film is worth a look because of the enormous talent of its creators, Wallace Wolodarsky and Marsha Forbes. Mr. Wolodarsky has directed the young cast, and he is to be praised for this effort.

The premise of the film is a cautionary tale of the danger for wanting something one can't have. Which is the story of Alice and Ed. After living together for a while, Alice suddenly gets restless because she imagines she's lacking experience in the sex area. Alice and Ed's relationship, while not an example of ideal happiness, is a comfortable way to share their lives with one another. That is, until the moment Alice and Claire, her sister, happened to bump into a sexual encounter by another couple that has no clue of being observed.

This incident makes Alice reevaluate her own sexual life with Ed; she finds it lacks substance. When she proposes 'seeing other people', Ed is shocked, to put it mildly, but not wanting to contradict Alice, he decides to go along. What happens next is that both Alice and Ed enter into a world that's been unknown to them. The people they meet, in the end, are not worth the trouble. They sadly realize at the end, they were made for each other.

The film is worth watching in order to see the amazing Julianne Nicholson, who we happen to have liked in another indie film, "Tully". Ms. Nicholson reminds us of a young Shirley McLaine; she projects such a luminous quality about her, that is hard to take one's eyes from her whenever she is in a scene. This young actress proves she is an accomplished performer who gets better with each new appearance. Basically, she carries the movie. Her Alice is a study in contrasts. Alice is a decent woman who thinks she is inadequate in pleasing Ed because of her inexperience.

Jay Mohr, is an excellent match for Ms. Nicholson. Both do wonders together. His Ed is perfectly credible. We have known people like him. Deep down inside, he is a good person, who suddenly gets himself in a situation he didn't call for, yet, he goes along only to discover he is too decent and not cut out for a life of gratuitous sex with the willing women that have no problem with a tumble in the hay, just for fun.

The rest of the cast is wonderful. Lauren Graham does some amazing work as Claire, Alice's yuppie sister. Andy Ritcher is also wonderful as the grounded Carl, the nerdy friend who finally finds out fulfillment when he meets Penelope, a single mother. As Penelope, Helen Slater, makes a felicitous, albeit of a short, appearance in the film.

The director is enormously gifted, who will no doubt go places because he shows he is well suited for the job. The best romantic comedy I've seen in years. Not the kind of slick over the top Hollywood stuff by Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler and a lot less syrupy than a Hugh Grant epic. Julianne Nicholson and Jay Mohr are perfectly cast and both deliver smoothly professional performances as the engaged couple who decide to spend a little time sowing their sexual oats before marriage. Instead of playing it strictly for laughs the writers and director concocted a nice blend of human feelings and comedic action. Nicholson is just great as the awkward seductress and Mohr does a great job as the man who reluctantly enters into the game but soon finds himself enjoying his flings a little too much. We see just enough of the supporting characters to nicely round out the plot without distracting from the main story. Andy Richter (earnest friend) and Helen Slater (distraught single-mom) are particularly good. There is enough meaning and emotional complexity to make this a lot more than a standard boy-girl farce. Indeed, with just a little better pacing and a tiny bit more cutting this film would be a top ten comedy. [WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Written by husband and wife Wally Wolodarsky (who also directed) and Maya Forbes, this indie film is one of the better romantic comedies in recent memory.

Jay Mohr takes a break from playing smarmy weasels to be the nice guy faced with the fact his fiancée wants to bed other people and he's allowed to do so, too. Julianne Nicholson, who was so good in "Tully," plays spunky and vulnerable with great gusto. Too bad she doesn't get the recognition she deserves.

Good supporting performances help immensely, too. Lauren Graham, who made last year's "Bad Santa" memorable, plays the jaded, cynical sister to perfection, Bryan Cranston (the dad on TV's "Malcolm in the Middle") gets a few funny, raunchy moments, and Andy Richter plays a genial guy who falls for a single mother - Helen Slater in a credible, albeit familiar, role as a mousy woman.

What surprised me most about "Seeing Other People" was how funny it is. There are some genuine laughs here. Ed's first attempt at meaningless sex gets some great lines, and there's a ménage a trois that elicits one of the most truthful reactions from a man as the male fantasy gets tweaked.

The film's premise isn't unusual, but I liked that it was Alice (Nicholson) who thought of it, much to the chagrin of Ed (Mohr). Given the genre, you know that no matter how good her intentions are, Alice's plan is doomed. We see how the couple works through this strange situation. Initially, Alice and Ed are turned on by the idea, but then the human element sets it.

I appreciated Forbes and Wolodarsky not turning this into a cheap sex romp. Yes, there's sex and nudity, but there also are real emotions at work here. The "other people" Alice and Ed befriend don't want to be the objects of casual sex; they have feelings, too. In one case, too many feelings.

Granted, some scenes run one joke too many, the Richter-Slater subplot isn't necessary and Alice does something truly uncharacteristic. But that's forgivable because Mohr and Nicholson generate such tremendous intimacy and honesty - check out the scenes where Ed rummages through Alice's underwear drawer or his reaction to her announcement about ending the experiment - that no matter how much we might enjoy their little game, we root for this couple to succeed.

Unfortunately, this film got little, if any, publicity and a limited release. Hollywood studios, whose romantic comedies often veer on the unfunny, turgid and unsurprising, would do well to learn from this intelligent and funny film. Well, the movie did turn out a lot better than i expected. It's not boring and it's not unoriginal. It's really not a silly romantic comedy. The situations the characters put themselves in are very unusual, of course, we're still talking about a movie, but the main characters are indeed plausible. Donald is, of course, an exaggeration, but he's just a pawn in the movie, a means to prove something. The ending isn't one of those ridiculously happy, always the same, moral containing pieces of crap you can usually see in movies of the genre. I genuinely liked it and i'm hard to please when it comes to this particular genre of movies. It's worth a watch. Besides, it's better directed than other movies, the story line always stands up, the characters themselves stand up. And they do not experience this miraculous change and love is not revealed to them like a holly god given artifact, yada, yada. At the end of it all you actually see yourself going through it all, the movie makes you feel something, you may even learn a thing or two. It's not the usual hope-producing, tissue moistening idiocy. It's a good movie, not a consolation prize for teary women around the world. Plot: Ed and Alice are engaged. They live together and are living the dull life. He has slept around before meeting Alice. She has a lot less experience. She decides she needs to sleep around before marrying. He very reluctantly agrees they should both see other people for a while.

At first he is not really into it. His wild days are behind him and he is simply content. Until one day Alice comes back and tells him she made out with some random guy; who of course starts to fall for her.

Of course this is a BAD idea which causes extreme strain on the relationship.

Good movie. You can see the train wreck coming but still good.

Worth a rental. I happened into the den this morning during the scene where Ed was engaged in the 3-Way and thought my wife was catching up on some early morning porn! Much to my surprise it grabbed my attention and I rewound it and we started watching it at 4:30 in the morning! What a very entertaining, rich, funny and well developed plot line and script. We both thoroughly enjoyed it, my wife so much that she shared the experience with her girlfriends at work! Going on to recommend it and say what a "kick" she got out of it. I am in my late 40's and she in her early 50's. I think this movie would have appeal to both young and old. An unexpected, very enjoyable surprise. Nice work! Thanks! Two thumbs up! I paid attention and enjoyed the very rich expressions capability of the main actress, Julianne Nicholson. I don't have words to describe how much have I been enchanted. All the actors and actresses played well. Especially I noticed the solid good character who has been consistent in foreseeing the future - Andy Richter who played Carl. I think that the idea to show a variety of friends and relatives with different opinions, and the several consulting meetings, is like the real world. Jay Mohr who played Ed, the future husband, also played very real behavior. But, I want to emphasize again the point of very rich expressions repertoire which Julianne Nicholson is capable of and does so naturally, was overwhelming for me. Indeed, the subject which this movie handles seems to me as very important and touches strongly meaningful thoughts of many people. I've seen this movie several times and have not been bored. It raises again and again in my thoughts. I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate to every scene.

The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos.

The acting is great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked him.

Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed throughout the film. I loved this movie. It's a lot of laughs. The acting is good and the writing is really sharp. I'd rather see a hundred movies like this than THREE LORD OF THE RINGS repeating and repeating themselves.

It's a low budget affair and seems to be shot on DV but looks good and Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson are great together. Why do you have a ten line minimum? I'm not a critic, just a patron.

I doubt very much that Quentin Tarantino could write a picture this funny without filling it with masturbatory gratuitous violence. This movie should be seen on more screens than just one. I laughed from beginning to end. > "Seeing Other People" is a daring romantic comedy about a couple named Ed and Alice (Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson) who are engaged and plan to be wed soon. They live together but are both having doubts about their relationship. Alice realizes she's had so few sexual relationships in the past, she might just be marrying Ed because she's never felt anything else. So they agree to begin fooling around with other people for a while to test their own relationship.

The movie balances a prescient question - by focusing too much on the "What if?" aspects of life, can it in fact do the opposite and only make you feel more constrained? When Ed begins having sex with a college girl he begins to become addicted and almost forget about Alice - when he realizes this, it scares him.

I hadn't heard anything about this film in advance but I enjoyed it. It's not extremely well-made and definitely has that purposefully low-budget indie feel to it - but it's a lot better than most romantic comedies out there in the mainstream today.

Check it out if you get a chance. I caught this movie the other night on one of the movie channels and I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was so funny I went out and bought the very next day. I love this type of comedy. It just seemed so real in the way the actors react to the different situations here. I was Rollin. I had never even heard of it and just started watching because of the title "Seeing Other People". The title caused me to give it a shot and I'm glad I did. I laughed so hard that it hurt. Now it's part of my collection. I definitely recommend it to all those that enjoy smart-ass type of comedy. I will be watching this one over and over. Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as well as physical) and utter terror of "murder most fowl" in the Navaho Southwest. Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the personal asides leave us wanting "more" .. . with some interesting alternative choices as to "who done it?" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him) provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where "Skinwalkers" and "Coyote Waits" start to drag .. . "Thief" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner, never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim Chee to "slow down" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot, just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always), appealing characters and more to explore! I hope Robert Redford continues to make more films like this. Hillerman's books are wonderful, and as a young child raised in the Southwest his stories hit home! Adam Beach is a highly under rated and under used actor. Wake up Hollywood, not everyone thinks that your Mel Gibson's are cool! Many movie goer's today want to see films that make you think. I have seen all of the Redford/Hillerman series. They are thoughtful, scenic and have great plots. I'm hoping that if enough people write to Robert Redford he may decide to make a few more! Thank you Adam Beach and Tony Hillerman for great entertainment! If anyone get's a chance to read Tony Hillerman's latest book do so! It's great. I also recommend traveling through Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Stop at every view site and feel the setting of Hillerman's books. Amazing experience. This film for me and my wife is more entertaining than all the bloc-buster violent thriller/mystery/murder movies that abound. It is about real people making the best of their lives. They just happen to be Indian and the main characters are in law enforcement. The realistic acting and the great scenery more than make up for the slightly implausible plot. The sound track is by BC Smith, who also did the soundtrack for Coyote Waits, and is great. Adam Beach plays a tribal policeman who is a little bit accident prone and Wes Studi is the stoic consummately professional detective. There are many other fine either supporting or cameo roles by Graham Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, etc. We have also seen Coyote Waits, another adaptation of a Hillerman novel, and we greatly enjoyed it too. i think this show is awesome!!! i love it, and i love Fabian (not in a romantic kind of way) but if i was there i would totally support Fabian like Haley did, and the other girls, yeah!! i mean if they're rood why don't you want to fight them back!! Fabian is the only who have guts to confront people and say what he thinks, not just stay and suck it!!! FABIAN 100%!!!!! i love Haley too, because shes like a normal girl who doesn't want to be with cows and bugs and grass everywhere, and sleep in a warm bed with servants, i mean, if you have the chance and the money why wouldn't you do that!!! and Fabian too, Fabian brought pizza and just like 2 or 3 people said thanks, i mean he spend money!! A grumpy old baronet, happily unmarried, decides to send for his three grown-up illegitimate children and provide them a home at his manor. To his surprise, he finds himself bonding with his uninhibited American daughter. Can he find satisfaction in his new role as THE BACHELOR FATHER?

This 1931 film, in which he gives a robust performance, marked the arrival at MGM of elderly Sir C. Aubrey Smith, very soon to be one of Hollywood's most valuable character actors. With his great hooked nose & beetling brows, Sir Aubrey looked every inch the part of the duke or general or statesman he would play so often. The acknowledged leader of the British community in Hollywood, Sir Aubrey would also champion the game of criquet in Southern California. He would remain very much in demand in studios all over town, right up to his death in 1948.

The film's top-billed star is Marion Davies. Best remembered today as the mistress of media mogul William Randolph Hearst & the chatelaine of Hearst Castle, the most fabulous residence on the West Coast, she was actually a very talented & pretty comedienne. For a few years, Hearst attempted to make her the queen of MGM (with her own production company & a huge bungalow-dressing room) but the studio already had several other queens - Dressler, Garbo, Shearer, Crawford - and he eventually moved her to Warner Bros. Here Miss Davies gets a chance to joke & clown and her scenes with Sir Aubrey are entertaining.

Her love interest is played by Ralph Forbes, a handsome young British actor who was just starting to find good films (THE TRAIL OF ‘98) as the silent days ended. He had all the qualities for major stardom, but sadly it was not to be. Celebrity would come to Ray Milland, here making one of his first screen appearances. Halliwell Hobbes & Doris Lloyd also appear to advantage. This 1931 comedy gets better with every viewing because of the comedic talents of Marion Davies and a terrific performance by C. Aubrey Smith. Smith plays a gruff old man who gathers his grown children (from his younger days as a rake) in his declining years. One is American (Davies), one English (Ray Milland who looks about 18), and one Italian (Nina Quartero). There are some surprises as the plot moves along with Ralph Forbes(was has no appeal at all) falling for Davies.

Davies and Smith are just wonderful together and very touching. Davies also gets to do a few dances and make a few "big" entrances. And of course Davies is just gorgeous.

Halliwell Hobbes, Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, Guinn Williams, Edgar Norton, and David Torrence co-star. Had they given out supporting Oscar awards in 1931, Smith might well have been nominated. He's just excellent in this this gem. toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl in New York when she gets the news that "daddy" wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays her long-lost "brother." Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are all fun, too. This is one of the better Marion Davies talkies - and one of the few to allow her to exhibit her skill as a physical comedian which was so endearing in her silent films. OK, so she does a clunky tap number, but even Ruby Keeler's dancing from the era does not hold up for younger generations. The problem here is the script. The story falls into unbelievable melodrama in the last reel. It's quite stagey, and is obviously adapted from a play... but not well enough. Still, there is some snappy dialogue and slapstick throughout. Worth a look. This delightful, well written film is based on a New York stage play bearing the same title where Sir Aubrey (knighted Sir Charles Aubrey Smith in 1944) originated the role he plays in the film. Here, in 1931, we see him in the early part of his acting renaissance in the very early era of "talkies" and in the character role that he would make his own until his death in 1948 after finishing his last performance in Little Women which released in 1949.

This engaging play is about an elderly British aristocrat who locates his illegitimate children and introduces himself to them, having brought them to his manor in England.

Marion Davies plays his daughter-by-error and it's a tour de force for her. She is all at once endearing, impatient, shallow, enchanting, wise and compassionate while creating an indelible and beguiling character that remains well ensconced in the memory.

The 26 year old Ray Milland appears here in a small but prominent role having already appeared in seven other pictures then only in films for a bit more than two years.

The film should be enjoyed as a representative of 1931 Hollywood factory production of course and as such is not flawless. However, it's a charming pleasure from first scene to the last. "In Love and War" is a simple feel-good TV-film, and should be viewed as such.

(Possible spoiler)

It is the story of a WWII British soldier, Newby, captured with his commando by the Italians and imprisoned in a former orphanage. As the Italians surrender to the Allies, the commando is freed, and attempts to flee. However, the Germans arrive and the commando is captured again. Only Newby, injured, remains at large. The rest of the film recounts how he is hidden and protected by the Partisans, and his survival.

(End of spoiler)

Based on a true story, "In Love and War" is a refreshingly straightforward film. Half comedy, half romance, the story is simple and unambiguous. The 'atmosfera' is warm and sunny, and the various stereotypes (the desperately unorganized or romantic Italians, the serious stern-looking Germans and the phlegmatic and pragmatic British), although unoriginal, are still humorous. Nicola Piovani's musical score also adds to the Mediterranean flavour.

Although it is far from being a "Tea With Mussolini" or a "La Vita E Bella", "In Love and War" is a sweet simple film that will put a smile, and maybe even a little tan, on your face. I have just watched this movie for the first time today, and just loved it...

Yes it is simple in it's storyline, the sweetest love story,and how any female could not fall in love with Callum Blue beats me...

The scenery in Italy was as you would expect, Beautiful, the baddies lost in the end,and for the two lovebirds to be reunited at the end, was wonderful, but that scene where a certain Italian was sweeping away the confetti after Eric and Wanda's Wedding, perfection!.

Have a cup of tea and watch a fantastic movie, yes, better have a tissue ready and be enthralled, I know I was and hope to get it on DVD real soon. All the actors played their parts perfectly, this was a WW2 film you could believe in as it was so realistic, and without going over the top as in other films... I loved this movie - the actors were wonderful and suited their roles. The story itself was great (and true, the setting was perfect and the message about human response to the war, danger and risk was exceptional. The person who wrote the music score also did the music for Life is Beautiful (another favourite of mine)- his comment was apparently that "...this was not a like an English movie, it was like an Italian movie." I think he's right! Callum Blue is perfect for the part of Eric Newby. I recommend this movie to everyone who wants to watch a story that is true and morally uplifting as well as a beautiful love story. This early Warner Brothers talkie "Son of the Gods" (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.

Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of "Only Angels Have Wings"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of "Gone With The Wind"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.

During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of "Arrowsmith"), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of "Two-Faced Woman"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.

Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of "Iron Man") sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.

This socially conscientious Warner Brothers/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.

The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, "Son of the Gods" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, "Son of the Gods" is a son of a good movie! A wealthy young man, raised as a SON OF THE GODS, must confront his Chinese heritage while living in a White world.

Although the premise upon which this film is based is almost certainly a biological impossibility and the secret of the plot when revealed at the movie's conclusion makes all which has preceded it faintly ludicrous, the story still serves up some decent entertainment and good acting.

Richard Barthelmess has the title role as the sweet-natured Oriental whose life is terribly complicated because he looks Caucasian. Barthelmess keeps the tone of his performance serious throughout, gazing intently into the middle distance (a mannerism he developed during Silent Days) whenever his character is indecently misused. He makes no attempt to replicate his classic performance in D. W. Griffith's BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919) and this is to his credit. Beautiful Constance Bennett is the millionaire's daughter who makes Barthelmess miserable. She is gorgeous as always, but her behavior does not endear her to the viewer and her terrible illness in the final reel is kept mercifully off screen.

Multi-talented Frank Albertson has a small role as Barthelmess' improvident buddy. Serene E. Alyn Warren and blustery Anders Randolf play the leading stars' very different fathers, while Claude King distinguishes his brief appearance as the English author who befriends Barthelmess.

Movie mavens will recognize little Dickie Moore, uncredited, playing Barthelmess as a tiny child.

The original Technicolor of the flashback sequence has faded with time to a ruddy tint. The shot purporting to be the South of France instead looks suspiciously like Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, off the coast of Southern California. Interesting story and sympathetic treatment of racial discrimination, Son of the Gods is rather too long and contains some hammy acting, but on the whole remains a fascinating film.

Story about a Chinese passing as White (Rchard Barthelmess) starts as Barthelmess leaves college after being insulted by a trio of brainless co-eds. He embarks on a world tour to discover himself and ends up as secretary to a British playwright (Claude King). In Monte Carlo he meets beautiful Alanna Wagner (Constance Bennett) and they fall in love. But when she discovers he is Chinese she goes berserk in a memorable scene.

Plagued by guilt and love, Alanna goes into a mental spiral and makes a few attempts to contact Barthelmess. After his father dies he takes over the business (banking?) and dons Chinese garb as a symbol of his hatred of the White race that has spurned him. After a San Francisco detective tells him the truth about his birth, Barthelmess makes the decision to honor his Chinese father and mother.

And I agree that one reviewer here never saw this film. Alanna declares her love for Sam BEFORE he tells her of his recent discovery. And that makes all the difference in this film.

Barthelmess and Bennett each have a few scenes where they chew the scenery, but on the whole this is a solid and interesting drama. Frank Albertson is good as the nice college pal, Claude King is solid as the playwright Bathurst, Bess Flowers has one scene as an Oklahoma Indian, and E. Alyn Warren is the Chinese father, Dorothy Mathews is nasty Alice. Not so good are Anders Randolf as Bennett's father and Mildred Van Dorn as Eileen. Also note the gorgeous blonde to the right of Barthelmess at the roulette table. What a stunner whoever she was! I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show "Batman" at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like "Bat-Mite" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised. This one of the best and funniest comedy series i have ever seen! All characters are brilliant.

Mr. Slatt (David Bamber) is a very very irritated man, irritated by everything and anyone.

He wants to do things and handle situations as best as he possibly can, but he never gets it right and only gets himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Not supported by his wife Janet, who only tries to get him deeper and deeper into the trouble he is getting himself into (and really does not need the help at all!).

All characters are played/portrayed brilliantly. Just imagine sending your kid(s) to a school like this.

It is unbelievable that people do not like it (maybe some don not get the many many plays on words, that are featured many times per episode).

It is also unbelievable that there is still no DVD release of it. There are only 2 series!

So please, release it, let it go! So the fans can and will enjoy it!

Try it, you might just like it!!!

Just some names & words from the series: Pumpman, Man Helmet, Hot Bitch, Mount Suzy, Travis Fellatio, Cockfoster, Arshead (and many many more). And I do not understand why the show gets so much beating. In my opinion this show really is excellent. Well the first two episodes were not that great but it picks up a load of momentum at the third episode. Which seems to be typical for a Steve Moffat sitcom. I would rate it among the best sitcoms Britain has ever produced.

The show itself is a farce at its best, it is not along the lines of Fawlty Towers, but you definitely can rank it as high as a Black Adder, Coupling, or The Young Ones! I am watching the first season, and all I can say is that I am happy I bought the DVD!

The problem probably with this show is and why it got smacked so hard, according to the internet, that the original press release compared it to Fawlty Towers, and everyone was disappointed it was not! Well even Green Wing is closer to Fawlty Towers than this show, all I can say is clear your mind from every prejudice, give the show at least a run until (including episode 3) and then decide for yourself!

All I can say is thanks Steve Moffat for writing it and thanks for the entire staff pulling it off! The Cure is an outstanding real-life drama that deals with a very sensitive subject. It is the story of the profound and dear friendship between two boys, Eric and Dexter. The latter has acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion. Thus he and his mom (Annabella Sciorra) have become outcasts, shunned by the public and labeled as dangerous company, basically due to a common lack of public knowledge of the disease.

When Eric (Brad Renfro, known from 'The Client' and 'Apt Pupil') and his mom move into the house next to them, he has to deal with public insults and the fear of catching AIDS himself. However, Eric overcomes his fear and risks everything. At first he starts talking to Dexter, but eventually he climbs over the fence and joins the witty boy (played by Jurassic Park's Joseph Mazzello) and his games. Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is delicately built and frail due to his condition.

The central theme of the movie – the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same time – is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure. At first they experiment with all kinds of plants and leaves – which is very naive, but also genuine at the same time, as it shows how young kids deal with such heinous diseases and how strongly they still believe in the magic of the world. When they hear about an alleged cure which has been developed in the South, they do not hesitate and take off for an adventure that will bring them even closer together and symbolizes the ultimate quest for hope.

So they board a raft and head southwards on the Mississippi River. What starts as a real adventure becomes a dangerous undertaking, which is emotionally intriguing and instructive at the same time. The scene when Dexter reveals his fears and talks about the end of the universe, where everything is dark and cold, Eric hands him his sneaker, a symbol that wherever the boy may have to go, Eric is and will always be with him; he will never have to be alone. This sequence, which is one of the most compelling ones of the movie, features a very convincing interaction between the two actors, who manage to avoid awkward and corny dialogs and deliver a very genuine performance that is eventually smashing in its tenderness and honesty.

I will not go any further in outlining the plot, as I do not intend to give away too much information. The ending however is emotionally tough and makes the audience so much a part of the tragedy that everyone who watches the movie will feel personally affected. This aspect makes this movie so strong, so outstanding and so convincing. The emotional burden on every character is so real and so thrashing that even the tougher members of the audience might need some hankies.

A 10 is doing justice to this movie and is not too high a rating. There is hardly any other movie I have seen in my life so far that handles such an emotional issue with so much wit and sensibility. It is the story of how two boys make each other's life richer and how they teach each other lessons of life. Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of life.

This movie is tragic – but its message is sheer inspiration. For unknown reasons this beautiful masterpiece didn't get well-deserved recognition and has been vastly under-appreciated by many American movie critics. So it's easy to understand that I've met lots of troubles trying to find this movie. Finally I watched it and it was so beautiful, sincere and poignant that for the first time in my life I watched one movie five times in one week after getting the tape. The story is focused on the friendship between two young boys Erik and Dexter, eleven and twelve years old, who are very different from each other but they are becoming the best (and only) friends. The beauty and sincerity of their friendship have been shown in the Cure so sincere and naturally as it has never been before. There are so many beautiful, heartfelt and poignant scenes (particularly on the river), which strike the heart and can't leave any human indifferent to them. The movie also is full of incredibly powerful and emotional symbolism, (particularly strong with Erik's shoe) which also greatly increases visual impression from such beautiful work. The story, written by Robert Kuhn, is well written and on the contrary to overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood's products practically every scene, every phrase and every sentence in the movie is meaningful and bring something important about characters and relations between them. Peter Horton, who as I know had no major experience in movie directing before, showed his great abilities and talents in this sphere. The cinematography is also superb with perfectly selected locations for the movie, but the most important is perfect acting, which with all above mentioned makes The Cure one of the best movies ever. Both Brad Renfro as Erik and Joseph Mazello as Dexter created wonderful atmosphere of sincere friendship and magnificent chemistry between two main characters. Only one this movie (I haven't seen most of their other works) is enough to name them as one of the best actors of their generation. Annabelle Sciorra also give a terrific performance as Dexter's mother. It's terribly sad that such talented actors didn't get wide recognition, while numerous overrated stars enjoy enormous publicity and huge salaries. Finally it would be unfair not to mention amazing soundtrack written by David Grusin, and terrific Mark Cohn's song (one of the best songs that I've ever heard in the movies) My Great Escape. So all that I can say about The Cure is one simple word – great. At any point of view this movie is a beautiful, heartfelt and inspiring work of all people involved in making of this masterpiece. I have to credit all those people who put their hearts and souls into the movie and Universal Pictures, which among numerous formulaic commercial projects has found a way to make such a beautiful movie. But such movie so rarely come to movie theaters that very often studios themselves don't realize what gem they have made that they're unable to provide respective marketing campaign. The only one minor drawback about The Cure for me is its short length (only 97 minutes).

I don't want to write more about the movie because it's simply impossible to put its beauty and sincerity into words, so if you have any opportunity for watching The Cure, rent it or buy it and you wouldn't be disappointed.

10 out of 10. Sorry for my bad English. This is one of the most touching films I had ever watched. No movie has effected me the way this one did. This is a great film and you have to see for yourself. I'm normally impregnable with these sob story movies but this one did it for me. I was in tears at the end. You'll yearn for the friendship that is portrayed in this movie. If I can give this movie a billion stars I could. Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a "big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity. I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.

This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.

Right, you say. Another one of "those". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way "hollywoody". It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his "tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.

The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.

I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the "official" after-school specials put together.

Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.

All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see. Very nice movie! I was browsing the channels on my TV and I usually ignore the channels that air drama movies but then I saw this channel that airs old school movies and it is where I saw this movie. At first, when I saw the title "The Cure" I thought it's gonna be boring but then I got hooked when I saw Brad Renfro was in this movie (because of one of my favorite movie of all time is "The Client" where Brad also stars). Then the scenes was getting better and better. The story is so beautiful and very touching! I cried hard in this movie which I don't usually do. Great casting! and there are so many beautiful lines/quotes in this movie which is very striking and made me cry hard! Now, I bought my own copy on DVD and I always recommend it to everyone! Way back in 1996, One of the airliner pilots where I used to work gave me a copy of this film. He told me that It'll make me cry. I never believed him and we even made bets. After seeing the film....I cried a bucket! Even after the seeing the film, I found myself in the bathroom crying. It was actually the most touching film I have ever seen. I like the part where Dexter's mom confronted Eric's mother the line went something like... "your sons' best friend just died today..and it's not gonna be easy...if you ever lay your hands on him again...I will kill you!" The last part where Dexter took Eric's shoe was a scene that never left my mind until today. Honestly, just thinking about it makes my eyes teary. A story of what true friendship is all about. My girlfriend loved it too... She hated me for letting her see the film. I cried a bucket, she cried a river. The subject of children being terminally ill is difficult and saddening but 'The Cure' successfully portrays the idea that it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and, if anything, children need to have hope and delight in their lives if they are to find peace before the end. It is also a film of remarkable bonds of friendship and the innocence of childhood.

The film sees Erik, a dysfunctional adolescent boy with a distant mother, moving into a new area where their next-door neighbour is eleven-year-old Dexter, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion. After his initial fears and ignorance over AIDS are allayed, Erik befriends Dexter and their almost fraternal friendship sees them embark on a journey down the Mississippi to where they have heard about a New Orleans doctor who claims to have found a cure for the disease.

The talent from the two young leads of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter respectively, is exceptional. Brad was able to portray Erik's harder edge without comprising the subtle childish innocence inherent to the character while Joseph depicts the sense of vulnerability to Dexter's character but injects the right amount of boyish enthusiasm and zeal to highlight that his illness doesn't mean he still isn't a child who wants to run and play like any other eleven-year-old boy. The pair's interactions create a feel in the audience that these are two boys who are genuinely close and they carry the film well. Annabella Sciorra also delivers a touching performance as Dexter's mother Linda, who adores her son and delights in seeing him thrive with this new friendship to Erik and eventually becomes a surrogate mother-figure to the other boy.

Set against an excellent soundtrack, 'The Cure' is a very bittersweet film that manages to flawlessly weave the story of boyhood friendship that survives unflinchingly in the midst of prejudice and terminal illness without resorting to sappiness or unnecessary saccharine sweet scenes. A very interesting reflection in the film is that is it the adults who have the problem with Dexter's AIDS status whereas the children, even the 'bullies', come to accept him as they would any other. What is also very touching is how, despite Erik's streetwise nature, he is the more naive one in his determination to cure Dexter while the younger boy has this haunting sense that he knows his fate but is swept away by his best friend's enthusiasm for a cure.

I highly recommend 'The Cure' for it is rare to find a film that is simultaneously sad and uplifting. The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a " normal " person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is strong language used. I have seen it 25 times. Even though this film is 11 years old, I just rented it yesterday, and I found it to be a really touching film. The story of true friendship in the face of a very real monster is an inspiration and quite touching.

While I did not care much for the amount of language used by some of the young actors--especially from Renfro--I understand that art is imitating life. Renfro once again does a magnificent job of the rough-and-tough, very (and I mean VERY) disturbed wannabe bully (his role in The Client comes to mind), and Mazzello does a wonderful job of the witty, somewhat quirky, Dexter--a child who realizes that his life must end too soon.

While there are so many touching and funny moments in the movie, I have to say that my favorite was when the boys were cornered by Pony in the abandoned church, and Dexter (Mazzello) cut himself, saying his blood was poison. While very resourceful, and somewhat amusing seeing a grown man running away from two little kids, it's one of the hardest scenes in the film.

Definitely check this one out, but prepared with your Kleenex--you'll need it! I remember when this film came out, and watched it a few times on VHS. I was so glad when it was FINALLY released on DVD. I was hoping for widescreen, but at the point would take what was available. I love how they used color in the film, the outdoor scenes are so alive with color. The trees are the greenest I've ever seen. Most of the film was shot in Stillwater, Minnesota, a beautiful town located on the St. Croix River. They must have really scouted locations for filming, because they did a great job. The story is well written, and directed. I would rate this as one of Peter Horton's best. I'm also surprised that Andrew Dintenfass (the director of photography) hasn't done more. He did an incredible job. The acting also rates up there. It's amazing to see two actors of such a young age pull off this type of film. Annabella Sciorra did a great job as Dexter's mother. Who wouldn't want her as a mother. When the movie "The Cure" starts, we find out about a young man named Erik (Brad Renfro). Erik is a teenage boy living with his paranoid mother, and living next door to him is a young boy named Dexter (Joseph Mazello). One day, Erik and Dexter connect and head up to the supermarket, where Dexter gets his first taste of Butterfinger. When Erik learns out that Dexter has AIDS, he tries leaves-and-water tea to make it better. But when the front cover of The National Enquirer says a New Orleans doctor has found the cure for AIDS, the two boys will stop at nothing to get to New Orleans for the cure.

In my opinion, "The Cure" is easily one of the best friendship movies ever made. It shows unconditional love between a boy, his (new) best friend, and his best friend's mom. Everything is so well done, nothing needs to be changed. Not only do I give this a 10/10 for being a fantastic friendship movie, but it also is a sad, but humorous, and fun AIDS movie. And the tragic finale with Dexter's contraction of AIDS is enough to make me shed a tear. Very well done. The Cure is a fantastic film about a boy with AIDS. I've cried about 4 times watching this film and it's just so sad. I can't promise everyone will cry watching this but it will make you want to. Very emotional and very sad, The Cure is a must-see movie. It shows you the meaning of friendship and love and is an extremely great movie.

At first I didn't think it would be as great and wondered why my mum always cried watching it. But now I know it's a stunning film that is so original and is so close to real life situations, unlike most of the other films that doesn't make sense. Words cannot describe the greatness of The Cure, you just have to see it. I really liked the movie, thought it was very entertaining as well as dramatic. But I just had a question about the music is the movie. I haven't been able to find any kind of soundtrack(if there even is one). And specifically ,I was wondering if anyone could tell me the name of the song that is playing while the boys are going down the river on their way to New Orleans? I thought it was something along the lines of "My great escape", but I've searched on the internet, books, pretty much everything I could think of to try to, and I just can't find it anywhere. If someone could help out it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. This was such a beautiful film. Such an amazing performance from Joseph and Brad. Very innocently written and performed. A must see !! I cried my eyes out almost through the entire movie. This is a movie that every family should sit down with their children to watch, it does teach us all a very important lesson in life and how we should be approaching the harsh subject of AIDS, how we should be teaching our children to cope with it and people around them. Not only with AIDS, but with any terminal illness. I hadn't even heard of this movie until I scrolled through t.v. one day and happen to run across it. I recommend everyone to watch this, just don't forget your box of tissues. More movies should be made like this one. Extremely heartwarming. For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.

When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.

During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie.

But the part that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate. You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down the river.

Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure, emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD, if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional rollercaoster. *** Contains spoilers ***

A lovely film this, starring Brad Renfro and the ever wonderful Joseph Mazzello. I like Joseph Mazzello, out of all his films I've seen to date I've loved every single one of them for many different reasons and The Cure is no different. Brad Renfro does very well in this movie as well. The Cure is a drama/coming of age movie from the viewpoint of an ill child and his friend.

The basic idea is: Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) has AIDS. He ends up befriending the kid next door (Brad Renfro) but Erik's mum is very narrow-minded, ill-informed and somewhat "thick" when it comes to Dexter's illness. She thinks AIDS is contagious like the Common Cold so doesn't want her son going anywhere near Dexter.

After many attempts at making their own cure with no success, the boys go on their way to New Orleans to find the cure after reading a pamphlet about it. After getting their kicks from Playboy magazine, Dexter's health goes south shortly afterwards and as his health detoriates, there's still enough life in the boy alongside Erik for two pranks of pretending to stop breathing. Unfortunately, poor Dexter does indeed die from his illness, leaving poor Erik behind to wonder why he couldn't find the cure. Throughout the movie he ends up bonding more with Dexter's mother than his own.

It is a very heartwarming movie to watch and is not absolutely perfect (movies rarely are) but you won't care less about that as you get involved in the film more. A must for Joseph Mazzello fans, one of his best performances ever. Very well recommended must-see movie - if you can find a copy :) Junior high and high school teachers will find "The Cure" an excellent teaching tool, both as a companion to "Huckleberry Finn" or as a stand-alone lesson. Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for teenagers. Writing prompts centered around the symbolism of the tennis shoe are particularly effective. I also suggest directed class discussion about how Eric evolves from manipulative user to loving friend. There was nothing else on tv yesterday afternoon, so I thought "okay, let's watch this." I didn't know the plot and I had no expectation whatsoever, I was thinking in a few minutes or so I will channel surf again. But then story started to unfold, and the characters played beautifully by the two boys. The story did have unrealistic parts and scenes, but overall it was a real good movie. Very well worth watching. Although flawed in it's view of homosexuals, this movie will shed light for the viewer about the myths and inaccuracies concerning AIDS. Despite the depressing subject matter, this film depicts a warm friendship between two boys, and will make you laugh as well as cry. Very well-acted by all, especially Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro. The language is a little strong, though appropriate, and it's an entertaining and intelligent film for the whole family. But remember to have the Kleenex ready! A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is sad, if a bit too soapy, pull at your emotions "message" movie with it's heart in the right place. For that fact alone, it's a recommended view. The highlight might be just watching them finding friendship and hanging out with each other when no one else accepts them.

However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS - things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure. Both of them, obviously a tad naive, make it a plan to set out for New Orleans in whichever means possible. Which kinda pulled me two ways. It's a mite heart warming and I hate to nit-pick, but I found the plot wanders in a melodramatic, predictable sense and the proceedings have a coat of gloss over them like only movies can do. I couldn't escape the tugging notion I was watching a road trip movie about self discovery, sickness and growing up. For instance, I know they're young, but I found it a real task to belief in the things these boys do. Like boiling tree leaves and drinking the hot 'tea' or eating an experimental diet of chocolate bars because they believe it will combat the ravaging disease. To say nothing of them making a cross-country voyage as they do with no legal or downright scary repercussions. Still misgivings aside, those movie conventions you come to expect, it's a story worth seeing particularly with family. This was truly a heart warming movie. It is filled with so many messages. Loyalty, friendship, sickness, death, and the paranoia society has concerning anything they don't understand. I have shed a few tears during certain movies, but this movie kept the tears flowing. "The Cure" is a very touching and poignant drama. The film focuses on two neighborhood boys who become good friends. One of the boys has AIDS. The boys become good friends despite Erik's apprehensiveness at first. The film shows the boys journey to discover "the cure", which is in Ohio according to "The National Examiner", and how it affects their relationship. The acting is wonderful (I have never seen Annabella Sciorra do better), and the movie is just plain touching. I couldn't stop crying with the shoe scene. This is a good tearjerker. Keep the kleenex nearby. 8/10 The Cure is one of the few movies I rated 10 out of 10. I mean, everything is flawless for me in this motion picture. I saw it almost a year ago, and yet I remember many of the scenes, especially the final touching scene that comes with the credits.

The two boy actors clearly gave everything they could and this greatly contributes the excellent storyline, making the film perfect.

The message is clear - friendship, and it's displayed throughout the whole thing.

I have nothing more to say here. Simplicity is one of the things I love so much about this film. And of course, it's fun and moving at the same time, suiting people of any age.

10/10, nicely done! Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion.

Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel.

The laughs are there, and several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are not shown as all mighty know it all's of "The Word", but instead people just trying to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this film... not by a long shot.

The acting is top notch, the writing spot on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something about yourself.

And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a free movie. Such an awesome movie -- I was transfixed the entire time and so emotionally overcome in the end! The two young male actors in the movie were more than compelling in their performance as their friendship and support of one another was quite believable and I thought the comparison/contrast between their respective home lives vs. health situations were made so very real between them. The success in bringing this movie to life was obviously a team effort so to actors, EP's, producers, writers, directors, and all of production I say, "WELL PLAYED!" Having missed the credits at the beginning of the movie (it was being shown on HBO), I was so very surprised that I had to actually research (albeit briefly) the internet in order to find the title of this movie -- something so great should have been known by me -- a clear indication that this movie must be re-released! So glad I have HBO right now. I didn't plan on watching a movie today, but when I got home and saw that the next movie on HBO was this one I decided (based on the description) to at least give it a shot. I'm so glad I decided to watch this movie! Maybe this movie just caught me at a vulnerable moment (I'm a little stressed out, got a huge test to be studying for), but it definitely gave me quite the perspective on friendship not to mention taught me a valuable lesson on empathy. I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me!

Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing movie and not to be missed. There is definitely something for everyone in this movie! I had never heard about this movie when it was given to me to translate, so I didn't know what to expect. I checked it out on IMDb and got curious. It didn't take long to realize that this was a gem. Outstanding performances, great story, and it's both well directed and well written. It's hard to compare it to other movies, but "Stand by me" comes to mind, although it has as many differences from "The cure" as similarities. The tale of an extraordinary friendship between young boys, plus the dramatic and humorous elements are the most obvious similarities between this movie and "Stand by me". Other than that, "The cure" is a fine movie in its own right, well worth a wider recognition. It's dramatic, but also adventurous, sad, but also humorous. I can't think of a single thing that bothers me about it. Having said that, I don't want to give the impression that it is a "perfect movie", whatever that means, but rather that I enjoyed it immensely, was very moved by it and wouldn't change a thing in it. I won't go into a detailed description of the story/plot, partly because it would be either too general or too revealing, and partly because you can find that information elsewhere on the site. In closing, I can only say: Wonderful movie, see it if you get the chance. On more than one level, I can relate to what happens in this movie in a very personal way. And all I can say about it is, that it's true, what Dexter's mom tells Eric at the end of the story: he actually did 'cure' her son, by taking away his sad feelings and his loneliness.

This movie emphasis a philosophy I can very well agree with. We are all going to die one day sooner or later. In the end, it is not the amount of time we live, but the fun/good times/happiness we have during that time. It is not the quantity, but the quality that counts.

I guess all other words used here would only keep you any longer from getting to see this movie, if you haven't already. I really would like to see it released on DVD. Definitely it would be added to my 'all time classics' right away! I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated about aids. Working the night shift in a seedy police station, stumbling through life in an alcoholic haze, Detective Mickey Hayden can hardly be said to have a firm grasp on reality to begin with, but when a bump on the head unleashes terrifying psychic visions, things get truly weird. Soon he's on the trail of a serial killer and unraveling the mystery of his beautiful first victim, the elusive Alice.

The role of an embittered burn-out seems tailor-made for Keifer Sutherland and he makes the most of it. The plot's typical serial killer stuff, but it has enough quirks, twists, and genuine surprises to raise it above the usual genre fare and even make up for a painfully low budget. (One wonders what this film could have been if there'd been money for a few more rewrites and a few more takes.)

All in all, 'After Alice' is a pleasant diversion for anyone, but for fans of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books, it's a real treat. From the topsy-turvy reality in which things are rarely what they've seem, to more obvious references -- a killer called 'The Jabberwocky', who leaves playing cards on his victims' bodies -- there's an 'Alice' reference at every turn. Below is a list of the ones I uncovered. Since finding them yourself is half the fun, I've marked them as spoilers.

SPOILERS

Cast of Characters

Mickey - In a sense he's Alice himself wandering through strange landscapes, encountering odd characters, but Harvey, recognizing his true nature, identifies him as the hapless, bumbling White Knight.

John Hatter (Mickey's boss) - Is he really 'mad'? You be the judge

Claudette - An African-American transvestite. Obviously, the Black Queen

Margaret Ellison - Mickey calls her the Red Queen, but her brutal nature suggests, more specifically, the Queen of Hearts.

Gideon Wood - Suspected of being the Jabberwocky killer, his ambiguous role is more suggestive of a snark (or a boojum perhaps).

Harvey - His role as unofficial guide to 'wonderland' and his name, evocative of another famous cinematic rabbit, makes me think he must be the White Rabbit

Dr. Vera Swann - Her last name and relationship with Mickey suggest the White Queen.

Other Connections

Mickey's adventures begin when he chases a man in white and falls down a (rabbit) hole.

Mickey drunkenly tells his cat to stop grinning at him (Cheshire Cat)

The killer is revealed 'through the looking glass'.

The climatic showdown ends in a swirl of playing cards, just as Alice's adventure did in the book.

The statues in the garden look like giant chess pieces. People watch movies for a variety of different reasons. This movie didn't have the big budget, there's no special effects, no car chases and there's no explosions. Actually reality doesn't have much of these either. At least not in my life.

This is a very real movie about very real people, none of them perfect in any way but together they are put into a situation where they learn to explore and accept what is different and that in turn makes order out of chaos. I am not prepared to limit the possibility of parapsychology, since I'm neither an expert nor use the full extent of my own brain.

So watch this movie for the characters. It is brim-full of a whole cast of wonderful quirky folk.

Within the first three minutes Kiefer Sutherland enacts Detective Michael Hayden's life superbly and he keeps developing the character throughout the movie. Excellent acting, very believable.

Henry Czerny could not have been cast better and the rapport between his 'Harvey' and Kiefer's 'Mickey' enhances the oppositeness of their characters.

I thoroughly enjoyed the cranky landlady, 'Mrs Ramsay', I'm sure she and my mother-in-law are good friends!!!

There's a host more of these wonderful characters but space is limited here so watch the movie and enjoy them. ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an "event". Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a very fast paced and interesting movie. Another brilliant portrayal by Kiefer Sutherland who plays Mickey Hayden, a cop dealing with psychic visions of murdered victims. I absolutely love movies dealing with the psychic realm, and I wasn't disappointed with "Eye of the Killer" (AKA After Alice). I only wish the movie had been released theatrical first. I really liked this movie. If other people want to give it an average around 5.0/10 that's their choice. I would give it 10/10. Sutherland's performance as a private eye is totally awesome. The story is amazing, human, exciting, intelligent. The dialogue is good. The story might not be perfect but anyway - the mood of the movie is good enough to compensate for that. Moreover, the ending is incredibly cool and their the jig-saw puzzle really comes back to together. So anyway I liked it. I also thought the female lead actress performed very well. I'm not a big fan of detective movies but this one was really good, also because it doesn't give a damn about conventions of the supernatural. I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at the cinemas for a wider audience. ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good, and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure.

9/10. Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty. after my daughter was born in 1983, i needed to lose weight. i tried the 20 minute workout and i was hooked. i lost about 50 lbs. it was the most weight i ever lost in my life. i can't believe this show is forgotten. it would be a blessing if you started a cable channel strictly for exercise and included the 20 minute workout. i think this was the best workout video ever made. i wish i could purchase it somehow and somewhere. the routine was easy to learn and you did work up quite a sweat. the workouts they have today are too complicated and too hard to learn. please do your best to get this video back in circulation. i pray it will be a blessing to all who see and use it. I just want to say that I was thrilled to find these comments about the show. I have tried online searches for info about the show in the past with no luck. I LOVED the show. I have a hard time getting motivated to exercise but this show made it fun. As another comment mentioned that it wasn't so complicated as the routines nowadays. It was an ideal workout that got the job done! I would give anything to be able to buy a copy of just one workout. I remember many of the moves but not nearly all of it. Somebody please try to get it back on the air and also make it available on DVD. It is so great to know I wasn't the only one that loved that show! Thanks for making my day! So funny is the perfect way to describe this 12 minutes spoof of the original Star Wars. Hardware Wars is incredibly funny. It is presented as the trailer of the space epic Hardware Wars. The joke is this: imagine Star Wars played by bad actors and incredibly bad special effects. The characters include the "intergalactic boy-wonder" Fluke Starbucker, the "ace mercenary and intergalactic wise guy" Ham Salad, Darph Nader, "villain" and a host of other fantastic characters. It is impossible not to laugh as you watch this 12 minutes treasure. It's stupid but it's fun. You will laugh from the start to the end, and you will feel the need to watch it again, and again, and again, and again... And you will laugh every time you see it!!!

10 out of 10. The funniest 12 minutes ever made. You will believe it lasted a minute! Nothing is sacred. Just ask Ernie Fosselius. These days, everybody has a video camera, and a movie is hardly out before the spoofs start flying, quickly written and shot, and often posted directly to the internet. Spoofs are hot these days, and we go out of our way to make sure filmmakers don't get off on their own self-importance. 25 years ago, when the first Star Wars was made, it was a different world. Filmmaking was the playground of a select few and spoofs were very rare. Then God gave us Hardware Wars. It was shot to look cheap (or was it just cheap?) and the audio was obviously recorded after the fact. Does that take away from the experience? HECK NO! That's what makes it so great! It was raw and unpolished, and hit relentlessly on some of the more pretentious moments of the original movie. From Fluke Starbucker waving around a flashlight instead of a lightsaber (I did that when I was young!) to Chewchilla the Wookie Monster, to Auggie Ben Doggie's "nah, just a little headache" remark, this film short is as much a part of the phenomenon as any of the actual Star Wars films. Rent it. Buy it. Borrow it from a friend. And may the Farce be with you. Always. I haven't seen "Hardware Wars" in years, but I remember it as one of the most hilarious events of human experience, and it was over far too soon. Every aspect of this movie was hilarious, and it was even better than "Star Wars." I laughed. I cried. After watching it, I asked a family member for a moment with three dollars just so I could kiss it goodbye (I'm kidding about the last one). I love it when Ham Salad's sidekick/co-pilot tries to eat Princess Anne Droid's cinnamon hair buns, and the Darph Nader character is just hilarious! This film would be great to watch back-to-back with "Thumb Wars," and I sincerely wish there could have been a "Hardware Wars, Episode II: The Umpire Strikes Out." (Was there?) Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships, but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to kill. Great short!!

My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated. The hysterical Hardware Wars is finally out on DVD. HW has earned its niche among parody classics and is not only a riotous little 20 minute short but a staple in low budget film production classes, which is where a lot of the film's cult status is derived from and resides. With the DVD, not only do we get a chance to revisit the original parody (4Q2, Cinnamon-Bun Head, Ballistic Toast, et al) that Ernie F. did in 1978, but there is a lot of additional material showcasing the Fosselius wit. Antique Sideshow is a dead-on parody that is very funny but makes a statement about the confluence of ignorance and greed at the same time. The Director's Commentary is also hysterical, as is the Creature Feature which parodies taking a film out on the talk-show circuit and actually IS based on taking HW out on the talk show circuit, albeit the public access circuit. I'd love to see Ernie, Michael Wiese and crew take on some other, contemporary overblown and overbudgeted targets to parody -- like just about any film that Hollywood churns out at $100 million a pop these days -- not so much the crafty films like Spider Man or Men In Black (actually parodies themselves!) but any number of overblown, overhyped, overwrought and overpriced features.

Done on a spare change budget of twenty bucks tops, this cheapie thirteen minute short cheerfully parodies George Lucas' legendary '77 sci-fi blockbuster "Star Wars" in the most infectiously dumb way imaginable. Writer/director Ernie Fosselius delivers a winning and often gut-busting blend of ludicrous sound effects, ineptly staged action scenes, cruddy (far from) special effects (you just gotta love the cheesy scratched-on-film lasers, tinfoil asteroids, and household appliances ... eer, I mean spaceships being swung around on obvious wires), badly dubbed in dialogue, shamelessly hammy acting, and Richard Wagner's rousing piece of classical music "Ride of the Valkyries." The characters are presented in suitably broad strokes; my favorites are whiny wimp Fluke Starbucker, venerable Jedi knight Auggie "Ben" Doggie, and hateful arch villain Darph Nader (who spouts nothing but incomprehensible gibberish). Moreover, 4-Q-3 is clearly based on the Tin Man from "The Wizard of Oz" while Artie Deco is definitely a cheap vacuum cleaner. This film's true masterstroke is casting legendary voice actor supreme Paul Frees as the narrator; Frees' deliciously rich and plummy histrionic tones add immensely to the considerable silly, yet sidesplitting tongue-in-cheek merriment (choice lines: "You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll kiss three bucks goodbye!"). A total hoot. I caught this little gem totally by accident back in 1980 or '81. I was at a revival theatre to see two old silly sci-fi movies. The theatre was packed full and (with no warning) they showed a bunch of sci-fi short spoofs (to get us in the mood). Most were somewhat amusing but THIS came on and, within seconds, the audience was in hysterics! The biggest laugh came when they showed "Princess Laia" having huge cinnamon buns instead of hair on her head. She looks at the camera, gives a grim smile and nods. That made it even funnier! You gotta see "Chewabacca" played by what looks like a Muppet! It was extremely silly and stupid...but I couldn't stop laughing. Most of the dialogue was drowned out because of all the laughter. Also if you know "Star Wars" pretty well it's even funnier--they deliberately poke fun at some of the dialogue. This REALLY works with an audience! A definite 10! Undoubtedly the funniest movie I have ever seen. It's definitely worth the fourteen minutes it takes to watch. I will never look at my kitchen appliances the same way again. Bob Knickerbocker deserves an Oscar. "Relax, kid. It's only a movie" I just got the DVD for Hardware Wars, in a shiny new package, looking irresistable. Stuck it in my DVD player to find a slew of extra fun stuff. The extra content on the DVD is even longer than the movie. For those of you that have (shame!) never seen Hardware Wars, it one fantastically silly Star Wars spoof (of Episode IV, of course). Household appliances (such as irons, toasters, vacuums, and a waffle maker) stand in for Ty-fighters, X-wings, R2D2, and the death star. Instead of Princess Leia, we have Princess Ann-Droid, complete with Cinnabon hairdo. You get the point, I'm sure. Mad silliness, and a fun ride for any Star Wars geek (like me!)

Now, the DVD - wow! A director's commentary where he basically goes off on the movie, making fun of himself and the project throughout. An interview with Fosselius on Creature Features (remember that?!) and hilarious "director's cut" and "foreign version" of the movie (all jokes of course). Anyway, this is great. I loved Hardware Wars in the theater, and am so glad for having the DVD in my collection - wedged in between MST3K: the movie and Thumb Wars!

Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof. I was a schoolboy when I watched this film for the first time. The next day I knew that all pupils of our form watched it and all were fascinated by the film as I was. I think the same situation was in all forms of our school and in the whole Soviet Union. Later I watched it every time it was shown on TV and want to watch more. I think that comparison with "Back to the Future" or other Sci-Fi films is not appropriate. "Gost'ya iz budushchego" is unique in many ways, once you have watched it, you never forget it.

This film is full of belief in peaceful science achievements, full of belief in the beautiful future of our world. It's not only the film, but also a forecast of many scientific inventions and achievements. The time shown in the film is the year 1984 (the year of its creation) and the year 2084 (where a schoolboy Kolya Gerasimov has traveled for some time and where his friend Alisa Seleznyova was from). The year now is 2005, many inventions and achievements predicted in the film are not realized yet. Such as "Mielophone" (a device, which can read thoughts of any animal and human), expeditions to Venus and Mars (as easy as going for a picnic in the weekend), creating and launching of the satellites as a homework for pupils, easy to drive flying machines (which completely replaced automobiles), biorobots, "historical identification" of any kind of material or creature performed in a couple of minutes, and many others. Meanwhile, some of them nowadays became much more realistic than they seemed in 1984! Just wait for 2084 :-)

The film also depicts typical Russian schoolboys and schoolgirls (and does it so naturally!). With their inventiveness, curiosity, humour, dreaminess. Look for example at Fima Korolyov, you could find such character in nearly all forms of every school of the Soviet Union, similar character was in my form too! Alisa Seleznyova... I myself, as well as many my classmates fell in love at first sight with her! By the way, later an actress who played Alisa became a scientist - I think she was as much influenced by the film as people who watched it on TV.

Beautiful idea, beautiful realization, beautiful actors, beautiful music, beautiful song "Prekrasnoye Daleko" ("The Wonderful Far-Away")... Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...

The last thing I want to say is that different remakes and "new versions" of the song from the film and even the film itself were made later and spread on TV and in the Internet. All they are not even comparable with the original. I should not even comment them, my comment is only about the original. So, request the original and enjoy it! Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects. Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya "Nick" Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels 100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time, followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one... I think that Gost'ya Iz Buduschego is one of the best Russians minis for teens. I think i were near 6-8 parts of the movie. "One boy form 6th grade found a time machine in the old house where nobody lived. And he goes to the 21st century, just 100 years in future. In future he meat pirates, they tried to steal a "milafon" - machine to read minds and a story started..." Soundtrack for that movie was very popular in Soviet Union. Everybody loved that movie which was on TV every year. Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his "Dan Band" perform their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it. I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like "ultra famous"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I just read on the internet that he was once a member of "Stomp" I guess there isn't anything he can't do. I saw "Stomp" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience, everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show! This was really one of the most enjoyable specials that I have seen on TV. He is just an incredible performer. His personality shines through in each one of the songs that he does. I really wish this was available as an uncut DVD so I could watch it over and over without the -beeps- for explicit language. I have not had the chance to see him live, but that is something that I really want to do now. I can't forget his backup singers. They really added a lot of substance and humor to the show. With their campy style, and flamboyant dance moves, they really complement the true talent of Dan. I wish there were some more of the songs that are on his live CD, which is also incredible. It is refreshing to see someone like him perform. Just so incredibly personable and real, I really can't say enough good things about Dan and this show. Once again, I just wish this was available as an uncut DVD. This Bravo special is one of the most purely entertaining things I've ever seen on TV. Unlike Me First & The Gimme Gimmes (the worlds foremost Punk-Supergroup/Cover-Band), The Dan Band really must be seen to be appreciated.

On paper, The Dan Band is just a one-joke act- guy sings girly songs and inserts gratuitous profanity into the lyrics. If you listen to their "Dan Band Live" CD, that's all you'll get, and it'll get old quick. (I only bought it because it had some songs that weren't on the TV special.) But what's made Dan Finnerty a Hollywood cult hero is his amazing stage presence. This guy OWNS his audience for every second he's onstage. And the backup singers are a large part of the visual punchline as well. As for the actual band- they stay out of sight for the most part, but are certainly much more energetic and enthusiastic than your typical lounge-act backing band. Hopefully, a DVD version will be released soon- there were almost certainly some songs cut and although the heavy censoring adds a bit of unintentional humor, it also removes the INTENTIONAL humor.

If there is any sense in the world, the Vegas casino owners will soon be fighting over who can build Dan his own showroom faster.

"Re-------member my name...FAME!" Dan Finnerty and the Dan Band are so-o-o-o-o-o good, they must be seen to believe. Does anyone out there have a copy of the Bravo concert for sale?? Please, if there is an upcoming release, let us all know. I checked the Bravo site, but there is no future date scheduled for a repeat performance by the most appealing guys ever choreographed, the Dan Band. What great energy they exude, flinging themselves about with cute American-boy attitude, based on butch sensitivity being wrapped up in sequins and tears, making men and women alike fall in love with them. I hope enough people can influence the powers that be at Bravo to bring the show back into our lives, as a semi-annual special. Note: I've tried not to give away any important plot twists (or the ending) but if you're concerned about that, please think about viewing the film before reading further--Thanks!

This was obviously a fairly high budget production, released by Paramount. The story follows the (supposedly true)exploits of hiway-man Jack Shepard in 1700's London. He was a locksmith who got blackmailed into a life of crime by the nefarious "Thief-Taker" to save his brother's life. After being double crossed by the Thief-Taker, we turns into a sort of Robin Hood type figure and gains the support of the common folk. He proceeds to make escapes from several prisons (including the infamous Newgate) as well as having time to "entertain" numerous noble ladies.

I really enjoyed the film, even though the plot was a bit predictable. The film was shot in Glencree and Wicklow Ireland and the sets were very well done and seemed realistic. I think Clavell captured the bustling atmosphere of London in the 1700's quite well and I enjoyed his creative use of camera angles. And, unlike many films depicting this period, Clavell pulls no punches in showing us the deplorable conditions in which the poor lived (in one scene several folks fight over a meat pie that has rolled through the filth in the street).

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I will admit that it lacks the wonderful scenery and underlying political commentary that Clavell's next film The Last Valley has (a parable to the Vietnam War), but it still merits a viewing or two. It is regrettable that it has not ever (to my knowledge) been released on video or DVD. When commenting on this film, one must realise that it is based on a true story, and must therefore be reviewed for the quality and accuracy of it's portrayal of the events, as well as its entertainment value. It may well be implausible that Jack Shepherd should surrender twice to Jack Wild because Wild had captured Edgeworth Bess. None the less, it happened. It must also be noted that the director was young and inexperienced, which explains why he relied upon tried and tested techniques. There were occasions when Clavell did not have the confidence to follow the script as written. The film would be better if he had. And yes, I used to have a copy of the script (Stanley Baker's copy - one of five), which I returned recently to my father, Rafe Newhouse, the writer. Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.

Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.

Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.

Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family. I think that just sums up this film. Watch it and you'll find out why. The acting of the lead character John Keem is really, really bad and he has no on screen charisma whatsoever. It's very funny because of this thought, as is the ending where Keem beheads the bad guy despite the fact he is unarmed and has surrendered. Brilliant! Richard Norton really lights the screen up in this Portland, Oregon based martial arts masterpiece. Norton, an Aussie heartthrob, plays the evil Mr. Milverstead who runs a successful import/export business both smuggling arms and participating in the female flesh trade. Usually the women are plucked from his favorite dance club with the help of a squad of goons the most well known of who is Bolo Yeung, playing the role of Ice. Trouble comes for Milverstead when a new cop in town John Kim (Britton Lee) is out to avenge his dead partners murder at the hand of Milverstead's organization. If you have time to see only one martial arts movie this year, don't miss this classic. This is one of those films that, for whatever reason, just clicked with me. Everything about it is right. Eric Roberts laconic, nice investigator, his voiceover narration, the twisting plot, Dan Hedaya and Denis Lipscomb given good roles, the settings, the paintings in the artist studio scenes, the end credit sequence and the wonderfully haunting theme music that perfectly encapsulates the mood of the whole film. If I have any reservations it is about Beverly D'Angelo as the femme fatale, but she plays her final scenes beautifully. I think that director Matthew Chapman was trying for a sort of 'Chinatown' feel to the whole thing. It didnt work. But as a murder-mystery its a gem. This movie is a coveted member of my movie library. While not a mainstream film, it is, in my view, a highly effective film noir in which Eric Roberts is totally underrated as an actor. (I would qualify him as a much better actor than his sister, Julia, who is overrated, but that's another review...) Roberts plays the down-on-his-luck ex-reporter with the perfect mix of narrative precision and jaded idealism: two ingredients that are part and parcel of any effective film noir. The first-person narration by Roberts enhances the quality of the movie, and keeps us guessing on the real motive behind the crime.

Set in Palm Springs, everything about the setting in the movie progresses slowly as a metaphor for the theme of oppression: Asch (Roberts) is oppressed by his past; the police are oppressed by the rich residents of Palm Springs who treat them as servants; the rich, meanwhile, are oppressed by boredom (watch Johnny Depp's classic performance as the insightful rich kid who only wants to be loved...); the isolation of each character is omnipresent and is further augmented by the heat and isolation of the desert.

There is an audience for this film if they're looking for a more contemporary version of film noir. While there are elements of the film that might have been tighter, I recommend getting a copy of this film and putting it right between The Big Sleep and Chinatown in your movie library. (The film is based on the Arthur Lyons book, CASTLES BURNING, and if you like Roberts's acting in this one, you may want to get a copy of The Ambulance, in which he showcases his funnier, lighter side.) BEST LINE IN THE FILM: "Careful? Careful of what? I should've asked. Only fools ignore the strange warnings of trailer park ladies." Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.

Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT. 'Night Crossing' is about an enormous barrier designed not to keep enemies out but to keep its own people in…

'Night Crossing' is about a very long border fencer equipped with silent alarms and automatic firing systems…

'Night Crossing' is about the denial of the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

'Night Crossing' is about the fear and pain that afflict so many families…

'Night Crossing' is about one attempt to risk a crossing through the border zone…

'Night Crossing' is about a loving father whose only desire is to give his boys what should never have been taken away from them…

'Night Crossing' is about a disturbed mother who wants her babies and her husband alive…

'Night Crossing' is about a caring husband who wants his family to be together but in a better place…

'Night Crossing' is about children who want to be free to reach at anytime the sky…

'Night Crossing' is about a hot-air balloon handcrafted and built by two families…

'Night Crossing' is about a balloon which could go just high enough to crash or catch fire and explode…

'Night Crossing' is about two determined men who want their family to climb into a hot air balloon and float away to 'liberty'…

'Night Crossing' is about the fear of getting caught by an evil regime…

'Night Crossing' is about a sensible man who can't let bad dreams stop him…

'Night Crossing' is about an icy policeman who wants every lookout tower on full alert…

With exquisite music by Jerry Goldsmith, Delbert Mann's 'Night Crossing' makes us realize the true value of freedom…

Final thoughts:

There are a few moments in everyone's life, certainly in public lives, that can define a person...

For those of us old enough to remember the Reagan presidency, seeing the clips again in the wake of his death makes it seem like those events happened just yesterday, or last week. The voice, the expressions, are all so familiar. But for a large percentage of people, these events might as well have happened fifty years ago, if not more. They are part of the distant past. President Reagan is a name, and not much more. President Gorbachev is another name, and not much more. So how can we remember these two men who had such a huge impact on their country?

Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to tear down the Berlin Wall and to steer their superpower nations away from nuclear confrontation… The movie Night Crossing captures the feelings experienced by the vast majority of East Germans during the period 1961-89. I lived in West Berlin during most of 1967 and travelled through The Wall into East Berlin on a weekly basis. Why? Excitement, crossing a border into a Soviet governed country, experiencing the smells and the feel of East Germany, which is why Night Crossing is excellent, it captures that very feeling, and it is exciting. I was arrested by the Vopos in Checkpoint Charlie and accosted by a man in his leather coat and dark glasses I am led to believe was Stasi. When I watch the movie I can smell cheap diesel and cooking oil, I can see the outdated vehicles, the drab clothing the public wore and the lacklustre produce in shop windows. It brings back memories of realising just how lucky I was to live in a free country. In 1988, I toured the DDR from East to West, North to South. East Germany had changed little since 1967. The Trabants, constantly breaking down, were still the main mode of private motorised transport, the shops still featured nothing much to tempt me, uniforms were still commonplace, but the people, the ordinary people were open and nice once you had gained their trust. Watch Night Crossing, it's as close to the truth as any movie you will see on divided Germany, even closer than two other favourites The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and Funeral In Berlin. A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from "Disney". Some violence, lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of "Night Crossing" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited violence, then I highly recommend "Night Crossing". It is pure entertainment. - MERK This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German. Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply existed.

The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided they weren't going to take it anymore.

Despite the extreme danger involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks. John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border.

There are tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight. They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch).

The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith. I think that this film has become an important record of the most horrifying aspect of the East German regime - the imprisonment of its people by what the regime called its anti-fascist protective wall. It is a document of desperation and courage not to be missed. I would however like to comment on the actual location of this escape. It did not happen in or around Berlin as supposed by some respondents and was nothing to do directly with the Berlin Wall. The escape balloon was flown over the Iron Curtain which not only divided Germany but it divided the whole of Europe at that time. The balloon took off from Pössneck, 170 miles south-west of Berlin in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and flew 14 miles to Naila in Bavaria and freedom in West Germany. The opening of the Iron Curtain in Hungary in 1989 preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall later that year. Whilst the balloon flight created entertaining suspense cinema, it should remain as a monument to those who lost their lives whilst attempting to escape from East Berlin, other parts of the GDR or other Soviet-controlled states. I was surprised as I watched this movie, how much it had 'encaptured' me. No the actors didn't act like typical 'Hollywood' actors, but that's not always bad either, as this film proves. Quite different from the Disney standard, it is a refreshing turn none-the-less! They also give you a taste of what it was probably like without being 'educational'. A movie everyone should both see and enjoy. Many people love arguing over 'accuracies' in any movie of this type, but just getting the basic idea has plenty to offer. Mild gripe; East and West Germany, viewed on any map, would have West Germany on the left side, East to the right. The movie at times, sets you back slightly, because about half of the scenes have West Germany on the right side of the screen, and other times on the left side. Even during the same events, they shift back and forth. Perhaps, just a little more consistency would have avoided this mild distraction. Go See It! I grew up outside of Naila Germany(where they landed),every detail of the film was 100% authentic,the power lines that they flew over,the nosy neighbors,the grandmother telling the kids that they cant watch west German TV,etc..This movie brings back lots of good memories to those that are European,a great production from Disney...The same movie in German has Klaus Lowitsch and Gunter Meisner using their own voices for translating the English version into German...for the German version they also use Cookoo birds ,a bird that is native to Germany as background noise to let you know that you are in Germany..I showed this move to many of my German relative and they really liked this movie.(these people made made a prototype balloon which they had to give up because the materials that they used was too porous and the other 2 balloons that they used for the escape.The burner problem was solved when they turned the propane cylinders upside down.) What can I say about this film other than the narrative is one of the most exciting in film history...and based on a true story! Being old enough to remember the Berlin Wall when it was still used to contain a country, this film gives you a dark insight into the grim incarceration of East Berliners, and their desperate attempts to escape, no matter what the cost. The film follows the lives of two families , who decide to escape using a hot-air balloon manufactured by themselves. Forever fearing arrest by the authorities, under scrutiny by neighbours, they have to calculate a plan to reach the other side of the wall. A tense & thrilling story of courage and determination which truly pays homage to all those who succeeded and failed the treacherous journey to West Berlin and freedom. Fun movie! The script is awful but the quality of actors saves the day. John Hurt is perfect, as is Jane Alexander. Beau Bridges is fair and the actress who plays his wife is very weak. The story is the true star. Based on a true story, the pace moves well and the whole concept of escaping East Germany sucks you in and holds you. Joyous ending provides enough elation to compensate for script. Don't expect Academy Award quality but it's a great ride for the whole family. Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA! And I do. Peter Falk has created a role that will live on forever in TV land! And I'm grateful for that. This isn't one of his finest hours, though. Columbo goes to college and basically teaches how he solves a crime, and yet there are bad guys who go ahead and think they're smarter than he is. What all us fans know is that Columbo needs a worthy opponent. Without a great enemy, how can he be the hero in the wrinkled coat? Still, it's better than NO Columbo, and I'll wait and watch the next one as well. I felt that way when I saw the episode in its original run and still agree when I watch it on reruns. You had the culprits totally mocking Columbo throughout the episode and treating him like he has down syndrome. And in the end you see their shock when Columbo gets them dead to rights and arrest them. You also get a realistic reaction from the arrogant preppy killers. They stillcouldn't give Columbo his props and say he just got lucky. I like the formula where there is an elaborate crime, the killer(s) totally underestimate Columbo, and then you get their realization that Columbo was totally playing the criminals. I recall in the first few episodes of the post 1989 episodes they weren't following that formula and this was the first episode that I was pleased with. Columbo is guest lecturer for a criminology class. The students invite him along for their after-class get-together. Transiting the nearby parking garage, they discover their regular teacher, next to his car, dead from a gunshot wound. (No, Columbo was not after the man's job.) As a class project, Columbo involves the students in his sleuthing.

Two students, tentatively identified by the viewer as culprits, were in the lecture hall for the entire class. Furthermore, surveillance camera tapes of the parking garage show that no one other than the professor entered or left after he was last seen unexpectedly departing the lecture hall.

Reversing the normal routine, Columbo is the one that is pestered by the evil (?) duo, eager for progress reports and an ear for their theories. Forensic evidence is almost nonexistent. Solution of the case hinges on some eventual and interesting good luck.

On first viewing, it seemed that Columbo had swallowed whole the culprits' misdirection; however, on repeat viewing, small details revealed that not to have been the case at all.

This reviewer has yet to tire of "Columbo Goes to College." After all these years of solving crimes, you would've expected criminals to know that they can't afford making mistakes with him, especially not with regards to talking much. This time

Columbo goes to college, and actually explains his entire technique, but for some reason the murderer still doesn't pay enough attention. However, this still creates wonderful scenes and delightful dialogues. or any stories reminiscent of the Leopold and Loeb case, you may find this movie entertaining. The cast includes Robert Culp,with Stephen Caffrey and Garrison Hershberger as the college students.

Peter Falk is his usual self, pretending to be tricked by the precocious students. Caffrey ("Longtime Companion", "Buried Alive") is excellent, and should do more of these menacing roles. Basically the two frat buddies become tired of their demanding parents, who expect nothing less than academic perfection, attendance at the best schools will only be financed if they conform. There is an excellent scene wherein Culp rakes Caffrey over the coals after he gets a low grade, threatens to cut off his trust funds and Caffrey later says to his friend: "I hate him, I want him dead"...

All is not well in Beverly Hills. This is always an excellent theme. I believe this film came out in 1990 right after the Menendez killings. If you watch "Menedez, a Killing in Beverly Hills" and then compare it to this film, you may find some interesting parallels. Sorry to repeat myself over and over, but here's another great Columbo episode. I guess that's why I'm such a fan - most episodes really are great! The best episodes always have a standout feature of some sort, and in this case the murderer and his accomplice are possibly the youngest ever Columbo villains.

After watching a lot of episodes where Columbo and his adversary act like close friends, it's good to see an episode where tempers fray and bad feelings rise to the surface. It just gives an episode a bit more drama and bite. Columbo is rapidly onto the fact that the two students who claim to be helping him are not very secretly laughing at him and feeding him false clues. He happily plays along, deliberately turning up the bumbling in front of them to make them underestimate him! But of course he knows instantly when they are talking baloney.

The murder itself is another complicated one, along the lines of The Bye Bye Sky High IQ episode, with a sophisticated chain reaction of events that manages to kill the intended target while providing the assassins with a seemingly watertight alibi. In the intervening years between 1978 and 1990, the technology has moved on from record players and firecrackers to remote control car locking systems and hidden cameras.

Stephen Caffrey puts in a great performance as Justin Rowe, the obnoxious, spoilt student. Gary Hershberger is low-key but good as his "yes-man" friend Cooper Redman. And it's nice to see Robert Culp as Mr Rowe, Justin's dad.

A very satisfying episode in all ways. At the end, it is clear that the murderers planted the murder weapon in Mrs. Columbo's car and it was at the police ballistics lab.

But where did the gun under the hood, used in the demonstration, come from? Wouldn't the murderers have cleared out the stuff under the hood? They had a whole week? Or did Columbo's cops replicate the camera/gun under the hood used in the demonstration? How did they do that without breaking and entering the car? Perhaps this is why the murders seemed surprised at the end. But how could Columbo have replicated their camera/gun device and gotten it calibrated to their key fob? Columbo must have gotten the gun back from ballistics and had it re-planted under the hood of the car, and been very lucky that the rest of the device with camera was still there and transmitting.

This was a 10/10 show until this glaring plot error at the end. This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the direction is fabulous.

Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo episodes, acts particularly well in this episode.

Also, great performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp.

The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes it.

This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss. The casting of Robert Culp is probably the only decent move the production team made with this film. Falk and Culp were marvellous, but as culp was not Falks nemesis this time, chemistry was lacking. Columbo is only as strong as his opposite number, and this time he didn't have one. Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.

I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.

Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.

Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.

While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.

Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.

All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself. Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.

However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.

Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.

The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The only critic who counts is yourself. I think this is a great movie. Much better than the original.

In "Caddyshack", Rodney Dangerfield is funny, but obnoxious. He was asked to do the sequel, but things got in the way. Jackie Mason shows the saying that "less is more". He is funny, but a man with real family issues, a more rounded person. It's no drama, but a movie that makes you feel. Actually in some points, you feel sorry for Jackie Mason, especially when his daughter walks out on him.

It has a good soundtrack, and overall, a good sorry. A good end to the series.

In the TV show "Alf", Alf says that he cried in "Terms of Endearment". The wife , Kate Tanner, played by Anne Schedeen, also says he cried at "Caddyshack 2". One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.

There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart. Like Richard Pryor, Mason never got the material he deserved. Whatever you know of him is probably wrong. Get past the accent and go see his stand-up. You'll be very surprised -- he's one of the best stand-ups I've ever seen and I have seen a lot of stand-up comedy (from Lenny Bruce to Eddie Murphy to Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock -- Jackie Mason is definitely up there). He's known for being a comic's comic. Even Howard Stern said he is one of the top 3 funniest comedians ever.

The accussation that Mason is no Dangerfield is ridiculous. Dangerfield is known for having been a huge Mason fan. Dangerfield's career was going nowhere for a long time until he started following Mason's shows. That is when Mason provided Dangerfield with inspiration for his, "get no respect" routine. While I think Dangerfield is great, see them both do stand-up and you'll see Mason is the better comedian. I have no idea why everyone hates this movie to call it garbage a travesty an unexceptable sequel is just unfair i mean what else could they have made for a sequel then. Cause seriously I think it should have had a sequel (Rodney Dangerfield) says: hey everyone were all going to get laid and then a little dancing goffer and thats it thats the end of Caddyshack even though the film rating on first one was (R) and the second one was (PG) it was still lots of fun .

(7/10) i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!

stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.

murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.

i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will Amazing, one of my favorite movies way down at the bottom. Guess I can take some pride in not liking what "the general populace" tends to go for. Jackie Mason is hilarious in this movie, and so's Randy Quaid. I can never get enough of his "strong-arm" tactics, just like in Moving. He was also notable in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Love that guy. The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'

Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003) I liked this movie.

No one I know likes it, but I do.

I didn't like it as much as the first one but it was still good. The script and plot may not have changed at all, but the story was better than Caddyshack 1.

The only reason I didn't like Caddyshack 2 is...

NO RODNEY DANGERFIELD!

I think the movie would be better if Rodney Dangerfield had Jackie Mason's part. Although I did like Jackie Mason in the movie, it would be alot better if they kept Rodney Dangerfield.

Another flaw in the movie, that I didn't hate as much, was Dan Akroyd. The movie was done 8 years after the first one. Bill Murray, "Carl", could've quit his job as an assistant greenskeeper and joined the military, you know? If Warner Bros. had thought of that, it could've made the movie better, also.

This was my comment for Caddyshack II.

I give it 8.2 out of 10

It could've been better, but good nonetheless.

If you've seen Caddyshack 1 and are debating on whether or not to see Caddyshack 2, I say give it a try. One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7. This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.

Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.

You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.

Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.

Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.

Tom Willett This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.

Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten. I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!

The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.

Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.

The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.

There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.

Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).

Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).



There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!

Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)

The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.

Just watched this movie over the weekend, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. The 2 Italo American actors are excellent as usual (Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia). It is obvious that the director was influenced by 2 great films of the past directed by Italians. Primarily he was influenced by Dino Risi and his film IL SORPASSO. It is the story of 2 young men who meet by chance and become friends. One is extroverted and the other is introverted. They enjoy the whole day together and by the end of the day, the shy one learns that there is more to life than his usual routine monotony. The same thing happens to Albert De Santi. Unfortunately, IL SORPASSO has a very similar ending and this apparently influenced the director of ON THE RUN because he uses the same technique but with a twist. I had expected something but was surprised to see that it turned out to be the opposite. If you watch both movies you will understand. The other film that influenced the director is AFTER HOURS directed by the great Italian American Scorsese. I highly recommend all 3 movies !! Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one excellent film.

I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that people rating might not normally see.

I equate it to playing modern rock for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for it.

If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre talent, give this one a try next time you see it on...

I caught "On the Run" at the Screening Room in New York and was immediately seduced by its true independent spirit. Starring Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia from The Sopranos cast, "On the Run" sets us up in a 24-hour wild ride in the city that never sleeps, as we follow the meanderings of an introspective sales agent who is suddenly dragged by his long-gone school companion, just out of jail. In fact he has escaped from it and is "on the run" looking for some action and a glimpse of life amidst the great metropolis. Powered by great performances, this movie gives us back the old feeling of 70's pics, with both characters rediscovering themselves as they blaze across town bumping into wild events and locals. An elegy to a certain side of New York that seems to be disappearing, "On the Run" displays great sensitivity and humour. I predict it to be a cult classic that urges to be discovered: future viewers should definitely surrender to this nocturnal trip. This movie deserves the 10 I'm giving it.

But it's not the 10 that you'd give to movies like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' or 'Psycho'. This is the kind of 10 you give to a movie which just makes you laugh,over and over again! It's the most horribly written and directed movie, yet it doesn't fail to entertain. It has the most amateur effects, yet you enjoy every moment! I saw this movie today on TV, and I didn't want to move away! Read the following dialogue to know why!

(Whole college is standing around Manisha,who has just undergone a rape attempt and the guys who attempted the rape are asking for forgiveness)

Bad Guy 1: Please forgive us!

Bad guy 2: Yes,we won't do it again.

(No response from Manisha)

Akshay: Come on,forgive them!

Manisha: I don't know...

Akshay: You are a beautiful woman, and even dead men can get aroused by you! And these are living young males! Don't blame them!

Pancholi: Yeah Manisha..

Manisha(To Suniel): What if they tried to rape your girlfriend???

Suniel: I'd break their hands,legs and kill them.But anyways,just forgive them..

Akshay: Yeah if you don't forgive them then it will be as though you are too arrogant about your beauty!

Now that is a true masterpiece of a dialogue! This movie never fails to entertain, mainly because there are so many goofs and unrealistic situations! The bad guy (Munish) can do basically anything..He can blow a sandstorm from his mouth, or he can get a motorcycle from his backside and just as easily make it disappear again.

Every actor takes turns to speak..One line from Akshay,then from Suniel, then from Arshad, then Aftab, then Nigam. It's the main rule followed by the director, so that equal screen time is given to each guy. And then there's the all powerful pendant, which can cause even a speeding car to go right through you without you being harmed! All these things make it an enjoyable movie, and I can watch it over and over again. I think this movie can go into the comedy hall of fame if there is one..

The only problem is that it wasn't trying to be funny. All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! . Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add). Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly? Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith. I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer. Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate!

Only flaw in this movie: In your dreams, baby! This was flawless.

Only minor complain: The director failed to star Mithun Da as well.

I won't ruin it for you any further. Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha, Indra the tiger and Sivaji. This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!! If you want to have a great time then this is THE movie to watch.

Take the premise - There is this college which admits people with minimum qualifications of BA, B.Com, M.Com, MA, MBA, MCA, B.E., M.Tech and BCA. So you have to take into account the time consumed and thus it is obvious that all students are 40+ Also the school admits students of a 'heavier' dispensation and has a course of P.Hd in weight loss and the only student who failed this course is Manisha Koirala. Only she was a snake in the past life. Still not convinced? OK read on.

Here's a scene. Akshay Kumar, a college student, is chased by Arman and he takes out a bazooka and shoots him! Then throws grenades. Then one of the grenades hits Akshay. But doesn't die and continues to fight, Arman, the snake, plunges a half foot dagger into Akshay and stomps on it but Akshay is still there. Then Akshay gets on a jet ski and follows Arman. They fight and Arman chokes Akshay underwater and finally Akshay is dead. So we think, as soon as Arman is out of the picture Akshay swims away to Raj Babbar, Principal of this college + Boxing Refree + Parapsychology ka professor + mumbling priest.

But no one, I repeat no one takes the cake but a certain Mr. Nigam. You gotto watch to learn more. :-) When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with unusual intelligence. The other is an "Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal", or "OXCOM". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track them down.

Many comments are made about Watchers being very different than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book. Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is (that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork. It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your preconceptions/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read Koontz' novel.

So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not excellent. Good enough to earn a "B", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile. Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey.

Veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist.

The biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the "attack" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and/or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature costume/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9.

Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect, if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception. I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.

The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why – the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror. Watchers is a fun movie if it's not taken too seriously, the novel written by Dean R. Koontz is obviously a lot better but the movie itself is entertaining in it's own way. The film has a lot of changes for the novel Watchers, the one difference is the main character Travis. In the book he was an adult and an retired Delta Force soldier while in the film he's a teenager. Watchers has it's good points, the film does have some gory scenes in parts. I'm a fan of Micheal Ironside and it was cool to see him in this film, he always does a great performance in all his films. The OXCOM costume looks kind of cheesy but the camera never really shows the creature fully until near the end of the film. The dog Einstien was impressive since it was well trained.

The film sees two genetic experiments escaping from a lab, a dog and a monster. Both experiments are linked telepathically since the two animals are part of a military project were the dog would infiltrate an enemy base then the Creature would attack and eliminate them. The Dog finds a teenager named Travis who takes him home and discovers that he's intelligent and so he names the dog Einstein, meanwhile the OXCOM is roaming around killing people and gouging out their eyes, two Government agents are sent to find the two experiments before this incident gets out of hand. Soon Travis learns that his not safe as the OXCOM is drawn to the dog and will stop at nothing to kill him and anyone in it's way, so Travis and his mom go to rescue his girlfriend who's being held at the hospital by the two agents. They then hideout in the woods while the Government agents and the OXCOM are not far behind.

Watchers is not a great adaptation of Dean R. Koontz novel but it is a entraining 80's horror flick, some fans of the book may not want to watch this since it's not faithful to the book but fans of cheesy 80's horror movies may want to check this out. I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a 7/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special. Bears about as much resemblance to Dean Koontz's novel as Jessica Simpson does to a rocket scientist. If you've read the book, I suggest you put it as far out of your mind as possible before watching the movie.

Watchers is your typical "Boy meets dog, dog turns out to be super-intelligent government lab experiment, dog and boy are pursued by super-intelligent and emotionally disturbed monster created by same lab, and, oh yeah, did I mention the shady government agents pursuing the monster pursuing the dog?" movie.

Corey Haim is the boy, Barbara Williams is his mother, Michael Ironside is one of the evil government guys, and Sandy the dog is, well, the dog (named Furface here; Einstein in the book).

The monster effects are ridiculously cheesy, much of the dialogue is laughable, the script rarely makes sense or is believable - a good example is Haim's character's unquestioning acceptance of the dog's intelligence, as if every Fido off the street can type messages on a computer keyboard or bark once for yes and twice for no! Hmm, it's gotta be the puppy chow, right? Haim's performance is enthusiastic but shaky, as he carries off the stupid dialogue with the least amount of skill. Ironside has been the highlight of many a bad movie, and this is no exception. He easily gives the best performance of the movie, although I'm compelled to add that the dog (who's a pretty darn good actor himself!) comes in a close second.

All in all, an atrociously dumb movie, and yet . . . And yet I watched it three times within a week. And yet I can't help liking it. Hey, what can I say, I have a taste for junk - and Michael Ironside (not that I've ever actually tasted Michael Ironside- I'm sure there are laws against that). But any movie that can make me laugh that hard (yes, even unintentionally) can't be all bad. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure, a "yes I know it's insultingly stupid but I like it anyway" movie.

It's tough for me to rate this. On a normal scale I'm forced to give it a D-, but on my own personal cheese scale, it gets bumped up to an A-.

Yeah, I know. I'm weird like that. i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!

come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...

by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!

10/10* Scary in places though the effects did leave something to be desired unless you have bad eyesight or are afraid of the dark. However most of the acting was convincing and most of the effects were well done. I thought the creature looked a bit too much like a man in a gorilla suit for my liking. It reminded me of the original pink panther film. When I went to see this documentary on Communist bloc musicals, I was expecting something totally demented, along the lines of a Communist "Cop Rock." Some scenes did deliver, including a rousing clip from a Soviet film called "Tractor Drivers."

You'd think that moviemakers given the task of making ideologically correct musicals that sing, dance and espouse the Party line face insurmountable odds. And yet, one of the surprises of "East Side Story" is that some of the films presented actually looked promising. One was a mid-1950s East German effort called "My Wife Wants to Sing," in which, as the title implies, an unhappy hausfrau seeks to launch a singing career over the objections of her traditionally-minded husband.

Another genuinely interesting-looking movie, also from East Germany, was called "Midnight Revue." In this film-within-a-film, the producers spoof their own creative plight with the story of a group of filmmakers under Party orders to make a musical. (The on-screen filmmakers themselves get to do a musical number about avoiding "too hot" subjects very reminiscent in tone of the 1957 movie "Silk Stockings.")

The documentary is marred by somewhat insipid narration, but it's still a lot of fun to watch. (Look for the closing dedication to the person who made it all possible.) "East Side Story" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties actually look pretty good. "My Wife Wants to Sing," "The White Mouse," and "Midnight Revue" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films.

I notice that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats.

I also notice that "West Side Story" seems to have had a strong influence on "Hot Summer." The later films may not measure up to "Singin' in the Rain," but they certainly look like they beat the hell out of "Bye Bye Birdy" I wonder if I could take sitting through a whole musical comedy from Russia or East Germany or other countries that for decades put out almost always propagandistic film, anti-fascist films, anti-war films (as this documentary points out) that just reflected the dark, grueling times under Stalin and life behind the Iron curtain. It's fascinating then to see the other side of the coin, the sorts of clowns and rebels with music at their side to try and please the masses more often than not stuck in the Socialist walk of life. One film actually seemed rather impressive, called Jolly Fellows by the pioneer of the very small group of musical filmmakers, Grigori Aleksandrov. From the clip(s) I saw of that film, I'd wager that it was one of the only works to actually step out of itself and go into just wild, manic, make-you-laugh kind of mode. But as this film shows, if you were a filmmaker looking to entertain, it better be with a 'message'.

Through interviews, some occasional quasi-dramatizations (of Russia/Germany/etc's sort of motion picture association) at the censorship table, and clips, one gets the full picture of what it was like- both behind the scenes and on the screen- to just make sheer entertainment for the masses. Some of the films (well, most of them, as apparently only 14 screened over 40 years in the countries mentioned) made a good chunk of change, but for what purpose really? One also gets drawn into the culture of it all, how it differs greatly from the American way of 'if it works, make em while they're hot' attitude. But at the same time, perhaps out of this repression, some interesting, funny, and (from what I saw) up-beat films were made. They might've been fairly typical of what was asked to be shown to the masses, under Stalin's fond but demanding terms, like life with tractors. It gets to be even juicier a story though as we get shown what it was like in the 60's, the last wave of musical comedies, as rock and roll and pop tunes finally hit their airwaves.

In short, some good stuff...but only if interested, really. I was shown the film in a class on documentary films, and half the class fell asleep. So be warned on the one hand, though on the other if looking for it, it can make for a really rewarding trip into European film history. East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history. What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are unaccessible.

You get to see and her music from musicals made in East Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth. When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.

As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10) In the eighties, Savage Steve Holland put out three movies, two of which are classics of what seems to be a very small genre, absurdist teen comedies. The third "How I Got Into College" does not measure up to "Better Off Dead" and this one, mainly because of it's lack of John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong (Except for a tiny cameo).

One Crazy Summer is an underrated movie, with lots of great characterizations and gags. As I recall, Savage Steve's movies were vilified as being brain dead at the time and after three movies he drifted into children's TV. We could use more movies from the likes of him. Thus starts "One Crazy Summer", the evil twin of "Better off dead..". How can any movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth?

This movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis "Ak Ak" is the son of a deranged military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack.

The story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet. The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. "The Boat" is hysterical (complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though not as good as "Better off dead..." Affable aspiring cartoonist Hoops McCann (a wonderfully engaging performance by John Cusack) and his best buddy George (the deliciously deadpan Joel Murray) go to Nantucket for the summer following graduation from high school. Hoops, George, and several newfound pals come to the aid of Cassandra (Demi Moore at her most charming), a singer who's family house is being threatened with demolition by the greedy Beckersted clan. Writer/director Savage Steve Holland offers an often hilariously wacky and zesty nonstop barrage of admittedly broad and dumb, but still very funny jokes. The constant madcap lunacy has a real giddy, good-natured and infectiously inane vitality to it that's impossible to either dislike or resist. Moreover, the lively and enthusiastic acting from a fine game cast adds immensely to the zany merriment: Bobcat Goldthwait as the spastic Egg Stork, Tom Villard as his goofy brother Clay, Curtis Armstrong as the sweet Ack Ack Raymond, Mark Metcalf as evil rich jerk Aquilla Beckersted, Matt Mulhern as the mean Teddy, Kimberly Foster as the fetching Cookie, Joe Flaherty as the gung-ho General Raymond, William Hickey as cranky Old Man Beckersted, Jeremy Piven as smug preppy bully Ty, and John Matuszak as hulking biker Stan. Isidore Mankofsky's slick cinematography, the hip thrashy soundtrack, Cory Lerios' cool rockin' score, and the funky animation are all uniformly excellent. Single funniest scene: Egg in a Godzilla suit terrorizing a posh dinner party. An absolute hoot. It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film.

Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race.

Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College. What can I say about this movie except that it is great fun!

John Cusack plays Hoops McCann a recent High School graduate who has two choices, learn to take up the family business of street sweeping or spend the summer at Nantucket with his pal George Calamari (played hilariously by Joel Murray) and his zany friends.

When I say zany, believe me, it can't get much zanier than the Stork brothers, Egg (Bobcat Goldthwait) and Clay (Tom Villard) and Ack Ack Raymond (Curtis Armstrong). Throw in a little girl named Squid and her weirdo mutt and a great performance by Demi Moore and you have the makings of a split your sides laughing, movie.

The laughs flow freely in this movie and the story line, though the typical good versus bad and good conquers, is great with the twist of a regatta as the showdown.

I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes loads of laughs and a feel good time. If you like to thoroughly *enjoy* your movies, then you can't miss One Crazy Summer! Ok, so there's always people out there that seem to make it a point not to like movies because they're good, but instead choose to like movies based on how depressing or boring they can be, or whether they're from a foreign country. All that aside, One Crazy Summer is the perfect example of what a great American teen comedy should be. The jokes are a good mix of slapstick (a la Bobcat Goldthwait), surreal (Bobcat under the inspired direction of Steve Holland), and dry (John Cusack, one of the most morosely dry and funny actors in American cinema), and there is no character in this movie who does not deliver at least one funny line (ok, except Demi Moore).

Yes, it's immature, yes, it's screw-ball, yes, Bobcat dresses up like Godzilla and trashes a scale-model of a seafood restaurant. It's also funny as hell. Watch it. John Cusack stars as Hoops in this silly little movie that has to be one of the best of the eighties teen comedies.Believe it or not Demi Moore is his co star...If you love the eighties,grew up around that time,or are an angst ridden teenage artist get ready to laugh.Wait until you see the cartoons..what a riot.... If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one. I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister), etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic. One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann. what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate summer movie! 80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!! I really love anything done by Savage Steve Holland, the writer/director of this great movie. Also see "Better Off Dead" and "How I Got Into College." Wonderful! Anyway this movie is really humorous and delivers some unexpected things. Where else but in this movie can you see Demi Moore as a talented singer and Bobcat Golthwait as a twin? I recommend this to anybody looking for some old fashioned slapstick comedy (George with the turtle raft), not to mention some really well written sarcasm (the Christmas tree on the roof of the car). This movie constantly throws you unexpected things even after you've seen it 100 times like I have! Enjoy! This is from much of the same creative team behind "Better Off Dead", but is not quite as good as that amazing teen comedy. Its a lot of fun, but its all over the place and just not quite as funny. Curtis Armstrong is used to less effect (he was incredibly funny in "Better off Dead", Bobcat Goldthwaite is hilarious, Cusack is good, Demi Moore is Demi Moore (only with better hair here.) Overall its fun, and as a person from Cape Cod, it catches the feeling of an 80s Cape Cod summer very effectively. For some reason, this film feels more "mainstream" than "Better off Dead". There isn't quite as much left field absurdity going on here. Again, if you are a fan of John Cusack and Savage Steve Holland its definitely recommended. I seem to notice that a lot of people have never seen this movie, and those that have usually dismiss it as garbage... that's pretty bad really.

The first time I saw this movie, I admittedly was almost one of those people... thank God I'm patient, otherwise I would have never found such a classic.

As goofy as this movie is, it's also a must have for anyone who is either a fan of 80's movies, or just happens to have a sense of humor.

I know that there are a lot of people out there that will tell you that this movie is sort of derivative of Better Off Dead... so what if it is? They were both excellent movies!

I can honestly say that Savage Steve Holland is a genius! 10/10 This is the follow-up creation to Better Off Dead. In a competition, Better Off Dead would win hands-down. But for star power, One Crazy Summer outshines Savage Steve's better script. Problems with One Crazy Summer (OCS): casting. Better Off Dead (BOD) was cast so much better. Friendship: OCS shows Cusack giving hateful looks to Bill Murray's little bro. Trouble on the set?? More outrageous friends in OCS, but more genuine friends in BOD. Plot was good. You'll predict some of it, but even the predictable parts go further than you think they could. So, even though this is Better Off Dead's ugly stepsister, it's worth a look. See Demi Moore before the plastic surgery if for no other reason. John Cusack fans, you gotta see it, just to say you have. If you don't like Bobcat Golthwaite, I'm sorry. I don't like him either, but you can't escape him in this one. At least he does a great job in the film doing a tribute to another movie monster. Editing needed help on the beach, but for most part, not much to complain about. Overall, it's good and funny. But try not to compare it to BOD or you'll find it lacking. *sigh* This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in one afternoon. I saw this movie for the first time in 1988 when it was on HBO and I loved it!! It was so hilarious I have seen it too many times to count. I love the Stork brothers and the pitiful, ugly dog, Bosco! My favorite quote form the movie is, "It's so ugly, it should be put to sleep." I also loved it when the little sister slaps the girls on the back and their faces stick that way. I love John Cusack and Demi Moore in this movie too. They were great. This movie brings back memories of my college days when I first saw it. I rented the movie countless times and watched it over and over. My college roommate and I just couldn't get enough of it.Who couldn't love this crazy movie?! I want to buy a copy on DVD, does anyone know where I can get it? "One Crazy Summer" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I have ever seen.

Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The songs are the right ones for the scenes.

It is also a clean movie. Little that is dirty in it.

Of course, it has the story of the guys you wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to parents and children. In "One Crazy Summer", the parents are wrong. This is not always the case. i adore this film as much as any one adores viewing whatever it was they saw when they were young. it was one of those films that Home Box Office showed every other day throughout my youth. this film is forever lodged in my brain. For someone who didn't grow up around this film, you may have become spoiled by the ADD cycle we've been in since the mid-90's and may find it more difficult to appreciate this gem. cool this is, as my sis was doped up on "better off dead" before i saw this (of which i raped & loved)-and no one, NO ONE can deny the embrace of awkward teenage humor in American cinema in the 80's - this gave birth to everything we have found tiresome in teen comedies..because with all the overuse of slow-mo, the current soundtrack, the new tech. I wonder if cinema will go back to these roots... THIS IS the teen comedy...YES! This movie is sort of similar to "Better Off Dead" as it has some of the same stars. This one though isn't quite as good. Granted it is rather funny and enjoyable, there is something about "Better...that I like, well better. This one has these guys going to Nantucket to spend there summer vacation. While there they meet this girl who's trying to save here house from this guy who wants to turn it into a lobster restaurant. This guy really doesn't seem to like lobsters, cause in one scene he sticks it into boiling water and puts in a stethoscope so he can hear it scream. The main character is torn between this girl and the girl of the son of the guy who wants to make the restaurant. Somehow or another this leads to a big boat race showdown, kind of like in "Summer Rental" though it works a bit better here and fits into the plot a little better. Though what is the deal with boat races at this time? Was there some weird fascination with them? For the most part this movie delivers laughs at a good clip, but "Better Off Dead" was still better cause it was the first and the jokes worked better. I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most. This is a nice little lifetime movie about a guy (Peter Coyote) who's living the perfect suburban middle class life when late one night the police suddenly bust into his home and arrest him for the murder of some guy 27 years ago.

In his prison cell Coyote recounts to his wife the fateful events of 27 years ago and how he came into contact with Wayne Kennedy the man who he supposedly killed.

From here the story is told in flashback fashion and the more you learn about Wayne and Coyote and how they came to meet and what happened when they did the more interested you get.

The acting isn't anything to crow about, although the guy who plays Wayne Kennedy is pretty creepy enough. The real strong point of the movie is that mystery of what actually happened on the mountain. The wife spends the movie running around digging up clues to the mystery and each time something new comes up we are treated with another flashback revealing more of the mystery. It's actually pretty well.

So as far as Lifetime TV movie's go this little flick comes highly recommended.

Enjoy! I gave this 8 stars out of a possible 10. It had an excellent plot, and Peter Coyote and Michele Lee, as well as the rest of the cast, did their parts well.

Both Peter and Michele were too long in the tooth for the ages their characters were supposed to be, and their children in the film, obviously would have been better suited being their grandchildren.

I missed the first ten minutes of this film, so I don't know just how that body turned up after 25 years and got traced back to Denny Traynor (Peter Coyote's character), but I had no difficulty picking up on the storyline.

Barbara Traynor (Michele Lee) is stunned when her long-time husband, Denny is arrested for a murder in Oregon some 25 years previous, a state Denny claims he was never in.

However, as evidence piles up against Denny, his story changes. Then his story changes again and yet again, until Barbara doesn't know what to believe.

Barbara makes up her mind, however, to get to the bottom of the mystery whirling around the fateful time Denny and a young girl named Sherry accepted a ride from a stranger named Wayne Kennedy, that ended in murder.

I found the film entertaining, well paced, and it kept me guessing as to what had really happened between those three people.

From what I saw during the closing credits, this seemed to be based on a true story. Peter Coyote was the only name that I recognised from the cast list, so I wasn't too keen on watching this film. The only comment on IMDb was positive, so I watched it on late night T.V. I would recommend this movie as a good late night viewing. It's better than a lot of this genre. The plot is excellent, the acting isn't brilliant, but it's not bad. I don't usually like flashbacks but in this film they work. As I've stated, I didn't recognise any of the cast by name, but I recognised Michele Lee, who gave a decent, hard working performance, as the woman wanting to stand by her man, who is lying to her. (Was it Knots Landing?) Anyhow, she's wearing really well. Note: You may enjoy it more, if you miss the first few seconds of the credits. I did and it helped me. When you see the end credits, you'll get what I mean The Wayne Kennedy character, who is really weird, takes this to a 7 rather than a 6. A stolen shipment of Vigoroso, the mexican Viagra; a beautiful girl who is trying to rebuild her life and to leave her husband, a boss of the italian Mafia; a young sheriff who falls in love with his old sweetheart. This is the plot of "The Shipment", a country comedy located in small town of Paradise, Arizona. Despite its simply and classic story, the movie (directed by Alex Wright) has its fun moments: when Elizabeth Berkley (as Candy Porter), looking at a Vigoroso green pill, says: "What"s this? A mint candy?". Or when the girl enters the sheriff"s house and finds him completely naked. Or when the Vigoroso shipment ends up in THAT lake, at the final sequence... The cast offers some nice performances: by Matthew Modine as the sheriff of Paradise Valley, who still loves his old girlfriend; and by Elizabeth Berkley, who"s character still loves her old boyfriend... The supporting cast, including Nicholas Turturro, Paul Rodriguez (as the mexican Josè) and G Michael Gray (what kind of teeth...), makes a pleasant work, too. Not an Oscar material, but not so bad. A fun comedy without pretence. - The Best Bit : When the dull mobster (Nicholas Turturro) calls out to the runaway (Matthew Modine) "Shane !.. Come Back Shane !" and when the older wise guy asks him "What Are You Doing ?!" he replays simply "Enjoying My Time !" Actually like me at the moment !

- The Most Creepy Part : I've been wondering all the time of watching : where did I see that girl before ? where ? where ? Till I found out while the closing credits.. OHH MY GOD ! She's (Elizabeth Berkley) .. From the showgirls' fiasco ! But I just couldn't recognize her with her clothes on ! To tell you the truth I felt a brief tremor. She's really cute and nice but maybe Hollywood had no mercy at all !

- The Most Sexy Bit : When (Berkley) says "Do You Mean The Stuff Which Gives You A Boner ?!".

- The Most Dull Thing : The retarded assistant after a day and a night in the back of the car is still alive and healthy at the end !!??, moreover the Mexican smuggler took 3 bullets (at the same car !) and he's not dead either !!??

- The Most Ugly Thing : All of those murdered people, as well as the numerous (F) ward to a boring extent !

- The Most Beautiful Thing : The crazy clever script with all the funny characters and the tumultuous situations, the acting looked sweet also especially from (Paul Rodriguez) who stole the show for (as he had the best dialogue Also !).

- The Most Disappointing Thing : Although the direction didn't mess about the story's wittiness at all but in the same time it didn't give it a unique touch, a matchless signature, some kind of insane hilarity like the one in the story itself. However maybe the low production wronged it well ! And of course the easy tasteless music which could be like that because of cheap production too !

- The Most Confusing Part : (Matthew Modine) is a talented guy but what did he do exactly to be out of Hollywood's "A" list of stars ?! What could possibly be the thing he made (or didn't make !) to end up in light independent jest like (The Shipment) ?!!

- The Most Absent Scene : Where did (Jose) the Mexican smuggler go at last ?! I thought that we'll see him again at the end, smuggling once more as the surviving little criminal who, in a brief gimmick like this, could materialize the continuous disorder of such a world.

- The Most Question I had After The End : When we'll see (The Shipment - 2) ? As I'm so eager to see that fine small comic hurly-burly atmosphere again !

These were my own answers. If you interested in giving answers of your own for this questionnaire, please E-Mail me. This is one of those movies that are very underrated. Again i am voting for an underrated movie. This movie has a good story line, maybe a bit farfetched but it could happen. Sean Astin(one of my favorite actors) again shows us a good performance. The guy does a great job in acting but never gets recognized for his roles. He has done well since the goonies. Not only him but Louis Gosset JR. does a swell job. I thought maybe this movie would have made more money in theaters but who cares about money anyways. All around this is a good movie that will have you at the edge of your seat at times and the plot will keep the movie moving itself. I enjoyed this movie and hopefully the rest of you will as well. I think that Toy Soldiers is an excellent movie. It's one of the only movies that, aside from some well known actors, has an unknown cast that can actually act. In my opinion, the plot is captivating. It keeps your attention without having an outrageous story that couldn't possibly happen in real life. I think that everyone would enjoy this movie. Sean Astin always seems to pick the perfect movies to be in that showcase his talent. He's very underrated and doesn't get the recognition that he deserves. Other movies that he has been in other actors have been in the spotlight but this movie and Rudy really showcase him because he is the main character in both. I hope that he someday gets the accolades he deserves for his acting. If you want to see a great movie you need to check this one out and if you are a Sean Astin fan you will definitely like this movie. Colombian terrorists hold hostage a military school in the U.S. until their demands are met. The students decide to fight back. Will they be able to do it?

Silly premise but the film actually works. The group of kids who fight were all up and coming when this film came out in 1991: Sean Astin (looking very cute); Wil Wheaton (looking miserable); Keith Coogan; George Perez (the token Latino who is very handsome, very muscular and is mostly shown in nothing but tight underwear); T.E. Russell (the token black guy) and Shawn Phelan. None of them are very good actors (except Astin), but who cares? This is a mindless action film. The only other good performances are from Denholm Elliott (having a ball as the headmaster) and Louis Gossett Jr. as the dean.

Other than that--there's lots of action, suspense, explosions and little brains. In other words---FUN!

Only complaint (and this is minor)--it's a bit too long (there are THREE endings) and there is LOTS of casual, bloody violence (the R rating was well-earned). Still, I enjoyed it a lot. This is one of the best "Bloke" movies from the early 90's and whilst slightly dated, its one of those movies that would never get made today, which makes it very special! In fact, a very similar movie was made in the 90's called "Masterminds" and it was a PG variation on the same theme, but it was nowhere near as fun or realistic for that matter.

So what's so special about this film? It's the comradre between the main characters and the against all odds theme of the film. Sean Astin is very likable and has starred in some of the most memorable films of the 80/90's, particularly "The Goonies". He also went onto greater things with "Rudy" and "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy, but "Encino Man" is a good trip down memory lane. Will Wheaton from "Stand by Me" lends nice support to the film and Andrew Divoff is a terrific villain. Louis Gossett Jr sleepwalks in his role, but he does add some brevity to the film, particularly his relationship with Astin's rebellious nature.

So how's the action? By today's standards, it's rather tedious and cheap looking, almost like a TV movie, but the production values are good and the violence is actually quite nasty for a film involving school students. However, the director makes up for the limited budget with some nicely suspenseful moments and well placed humor.

So park your brain at the door and enjoy this fondly remembered action flick, but don't expect Oscar material! I first seen this movie like a year and a half ago and I loved it, I decided to get the DVD last year for my birthday.. It has the right amount of suspense, action and drama.. This movie is about prep school called The Regis School and its packed with rebellious kids, in which one kid William Tepper (Sean Astin) has a hard time adjusting due to prior rejections from other schools cause they couldn't control his rebellious act and now at The Regis School committing more acts of a rebellion there school gets taken over by terrorists on a random day and which the real reason is because the leader Luis Cali's (Andrew Divoff) father has been sent to prison,and the leader will do anything including killing the students, setting bombs and so forth in order to get his father back.

Along side William Tepper, is his rebellious friends at the Regis School, one in particular is Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) in which this guy holds a troubled past of living in a Mafia family and being sent to The Regis School because of hating his father for who he is and which now he must deal with these terrorists taking over the school, so William, Joey and there friends must band together to stop these terrorists from violent acts and hazardous tactics.

This movie was really awesome and I believe people should notice it more because when people think of a good hostage movie they would say "Die Hard" and even though I would have to agree with them, they need to recognize that Toy Soldiers was a good thriller, it sure had my heart beating because the students are my age and I would be scared to confront terrorists like these if they took over our school ... But overall this movie is really worth a good 112 minutes of your time and If I had a decision to rent or buy it... I WOULD BUY IT! I recommend it with a lot of hype! 8/10 This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film. Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action, terrorism and gangster/mafia. Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in "Toy Soldiers". He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan "Snuffy" Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands. didn't sound like it was from a fantasy film. The film is dark, with dark overtones. The soundtrack way too uplifting to the point it intruded on the visuals. I'm sure they were aiming for something militant, but it just didn't work. The scene when Astin is attempting to escape is a perfect example. Why does it sound like the Goonies? There is no comedy, there is no brightness to this!!

The idea of the movie is great, and the acting is very good as well. I enjoyed everyone's performances. It's available on Netflix's online viewing.

Definitely worth a viewing, but write your own soundtrack!! Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a cult status These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch. i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the "wishmaster")father to be released from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action, great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again after all these years! This came as a huge surprise for me. I had never heard of this movie when I first saw it, and the title really pointed towards something else than a great terrorist/hostage situation at a high school. Toy Soldiers has the best from it's time period of the early 90's, where action movies were light-hearted and very enjoyable. The action is good, the plot is interesting and way over the top, the bad guy is a one-dimensional hateful douchebag (which is great), Louis Gossett Jr. is in it, it's simply a feel-good movie which I thoroughly enjoyed.

You can't go wrong with this one if you like action. I give it a solid rating of 8/10. I'm seldom partial to movies about smart-assed teenagers who have problems with authority, but "Toy Soldiers" has grown on me with repeated viewings. This is as much a movie about Billy Tepper growing up and becoming an adult as anything else, and I give credit to Sean Astin and writer/director Daniel Petrie Jr. that they don't make a big deal of that, but let it just unfold and sneak up on you. The camaraderie of Tepper's friends, their grief over Joey's death, and their joy at their survival, all are genuinely moving. And, I have to admit, I take a certain patriotic (and perhaps slightly reptilian) glee when the U.S. Army guys finally move in and righteously kick some narco-terrorist butt. Ooh-rah, General Kramer! And the heroic Robert Folk score is the cherry on top. I'm sure I could find a hundred reasons not to like "Toy Soldiers," but as long as we don't take it TOO seriously, I don't see the need. This is one of the most entertaining "bad" movies in my pantheon. Quick summary of the book: Boy, Billy Tepper, about 12 years old is school's main trouble maker, and if he gets kicked out of one more school he'll be sent off to boarding school. His upscale boy's school in Switzerland (or somewhere like it) gets taken over by Arab terrorists, why I'm not really sure. Billy has no friends, and likes to use his laptop to hack into his school's database. He, with the help of two teachers thwarts the terrorists' plans, and save the entire school. The book wasn't bad, but was sooooooo cliché.

Now about the movie; they switched Arab terrorists to Cuban terrorists, and make Billy about 17 and the leader of his group of friends. They like to get into trouble, but normal teenage stuff. This movie was believable. Maybe not realistic, but the characters are real. You can watch Billy, Joey, and the rest of the guys and see real kids acting out the way they did (or at least wanting to).

Great action scenes. Not everything goes as planned for either side. Overthrowing the terrorists was messy, and good guys did get hurt. I won't say who, but it is heart wrenching (I know, I use that word a lot). Sean Astin is excellent. As a teenager he usually played the dopey best friend. This movie proved once again that he could play the leading man, kid, whatever. The only performance that may have upstaged his was Wil Wheaton's, who played the only son of a New Jersey mafia man. He hated his father, and everything he stood for. (A far cry from Wesley Crusher) Usually this genre of film is one I watch for the soul purpose of making fun; but not Toy Soldiers. The story line flows, the dialogue is usually believable. I can't think of a single moment where I found myself shouting at the TV "Oh that would so not happen" Great movie that should be in everyone's collection. I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was available on DVD! It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every time, at least a dozen times.

Most of these actors were unknown at the time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't have current name recognition probably don't want it.

This was a fun ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious. This is one worth watching, although it is sometimes cheesy, it is great to see a young Sean Astin, and this ends up being quite an entertaining and humorous action movie. I watched it many times when I was young, and now still enjoy it when I pop the old vhs into the machine (I happen to own a copy). So sit back with this movie, let reality go for a little while, and you will be able to have a few good laughs and an enjoyable hour and a half. Yes, it's not a great cinematic achievement, but Toy Soldiers is a fun and entertaining movie. The young cast does a great job with both dramatic and comedic aspects of the story, and I particularly liked Shawn Phelan as Derek/"Yogurt". I've seen this one plenty of times over the years, and will probably see it several more. Just don't think too much and you'll love it - enjoy! This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9. Not only does this movie have a great title but quite simply is the greatest drama I have ever watched. The viewer is irrestiblely drawn into the movie involving 5 young men working together to try and overcome insumaintable odds, Sean Astin as Billy Tepper is brilliant along with great supporting roles from T.E.Russell, Wil Wheaton and Shawn Phelan, the guidance and leadership of Gosset's and Astins characters makes the movie so much better. As time goes on the movie keeps gathering momentum and its a dissapointment that none of the young actors made a name for themselves in the film industry after this wonderful movie. This movie is my all time favorite movie! It has great acting, cute guys, and a great plot. Sean Astin is great in this movie! It has funny moments, sad moments, and happy moments. Who could ask for anything more? This movie is GREAT! oh boy !!! my god !!!! what a movie this one !!! this is probably the best movie by Sean Austin and Louis gosset Jr !!! i have seen all the comment for this movie...and most of them loves this movie very much!! but i don't really understand why it only got 6.1 in IMDb list??? this one should above 7.5 !!! the plot and the script are completely perfect !! the acting are superbly well acted!!! Sean Austin...will wheaton...Louis gosset Jr....have given an incredible and awesome performance in their career!!! this movie contain a lot of action!!!

just one thing i gotta say....WATCH IT !!!!!!!!!

10 OUT OF 10 STARS !! This film is a perfect example of great escapism! I loved this film and was sucked in from the very beginning. Sure it's just an action flick, but isn't having fun what watching movies is all about?

The cast of this film are very strong with likable characters. The friendship between the boys is so realistic and appealing, it's heart warming and hilarious to see a group of teenage boys interact - especially this group of boys!! Sean Astin makes a great rebel, successfully avoiding being a precocious teenager.

If you want fun, watch this film! I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I was watching it on a very dirty and old VHS that was terrible quality (Go DVD's!) I recently rented this movie as part of a nostalgic phase I'm going through. I was born in 1980, and so film from mid-80s to mid-90s has quite an important place in my growing up.

This particular movie was one of my favourites, and so I was thrilled when it became available in the UK. It hasn't become worse with time, it is still a great fun film, with plenty of excitement in its own way. Sure, it pales in the shadow of bigger, larger budget films, but don't let that stop you enjoying this.

Worth a rent, or even a purchase at the discount prices you'll find it for. Toy Soldiers is an okay action movie but what really stands out is the amount of effort that the scriptwriters and director put into portraying American counter-terrorist forces accurately. Just check out the end credits--there are more than a dozen US military officers and officials listed. The movie accurately portrays the FBI as having control of the hostage situation but turning it over the US Army's Delta Force (who are unnamed in the movie as the Pentagon was still denying their existence at this time) once the President waived the Posse Commitatus Act of US Code. The US Army forces at the end are accurately dressed and armed for the time. And even the use of an AH-64 Apache for air support--which might seem a bit over the top, is not terribly unrealistic. Far more expensive and frankly better movies have portrayed American counter-terrorist forces with far less accuracy. 'Toy Soldiers' is the story of five misfits boys (most noteably being Sean Astin, Wil Wheaton, and Kieth Coogan) attempt to save their school from a terrorist invasion after the American government imprisons the leader's father. Lou Gosset Jr. plays the headmaster of the school, a headstrong guy who tries to instill in his students a sense of discipline.

'Toy Soldiers' is a funny and pretty cool action, and certainly the better of hostage-crisis-at-school movies. I think most of the appeal comes from the teen cast, but also, the terrorists don't come off as completely useless whereas in some movies, they never seem to be quite the intimidating group that they should. Trapped inside the boarding school, and threatened to be killed if the military or police interferes, this is a very formidable challenge for these group of guys who plan to save the school. They're actually pretty clever about it, too.

I was surprised that it was a pretty good movie. It keeps a steady pace and doesn't get ridiculously sentimental or anything like that. Astin and Gosset Jr. give good performances.

I, too, agree that this is an underrated action movie. I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch, and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw "Diggstown" in theaters. He is a fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out.

My score: 7 (out of 10) Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.

Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.

In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!

Personal rating: 8/10 I don't understand how people could not like this movie. You have Gossit Jr., the kid who played the main character in Stand By Me, Sean Astin, and many other great actors. Lots of action and fun that you don't see in today's movies anymore. It's really a shame.

This is an underrated movie that is among other great movies like Let's Get Harry. The 80's and early 90's created such great movies that will never again be topped by today's standards.

They tried to somehow recreate this movie in Masterminds, but came up short with some really bad acting. The only thing that movie had going was Patrick Stewart, but obviously that wasn't enough. I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies (I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same. This film is just really Great. I don't know why. I alway have a weakness for Damian Chapa. It's not Scarface, but still I really enjoyed my self. This is a film I can see more than ten times. He really try's to make a good movie, but he just can't do it. I feel pity for him, so maybe it's a bit of a sympathy vote. I can't help it, but I just can't give it less than 9 stars. Everyone should have seen this once in his life. To see how to make a cheap film work. I live in Holland and bought this film for only one euro! That's 1,50 dollar. I would have also bought it for ten euro. Great Great Great. On a little dutch film site this film gets a 101 votes. Here only a 260. That's not so much more. So people all over the world. Buy this movie! I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2. The movie was better than what i expected. I was working on the movie set for a short period of time when Damien was making this film.The gun fire, stunt and acting came out pretty good on the editing tip.All thou the the music wasn't all that great. Better music would have top this film.Some of the music sound like the hippie days. Damien remember you have gang violence gangster's some oldies or hip hop would have did it. It was more realistic than blood in blood out.The casting was picked real well.Suspectentertaint did a good job in this film.The movie brought back a fill of a life style i use to live. But than at the end you do not always win. And in my history thats how it was.I adapted to the movie the first time i watched it.Damien Congratulatoins on this film. I love this movie and I recommend it to anybody.Damian Chapa and Jennifer Tilly played their roles perfectly.Just the characters alone pull you in to the movie.The directing was also magnificent.The most creative shots I've ever seen.I was stuck to the screen throughout the whole movie,not one scene was slow.The movie also has a lot of action packed scenes,cars blowing up,etc.The movie is just an all around masterpiece. If you like real entertaining movies then watch this because you'll be on the edge of your seat the whole time.I put this movie on my top ten all time list,because there is never a dull moment in the movie,and that is my type of movie.2 thumbs up,all the way up!!!!!!!!! This movie is the Latino Godfather. An unlikely mobster bridges the gap to some unlikely alliances and forms an empire. I enjoyed the action and gunfights along with the brash acting and colorful characters. This movie is no Oscar winner, but definitely entertaining. Hey, who needs an Oscar anyway?

Chapa has got some balls to direct& act ( I think he produced it too?) this movie. Reminds me of another filmmaker who likes to do it all, Robert Rodrigez. Keep it up, is there a sequel in the works? There are a bunch of strings that need to be tied. Son comes back and avenges dads death? There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last. Has there ever been an Angel of Death like MIMSY FARMER in Barbet Schroeder's 1960s heroin opus? Sort of Jean Seberg with a hypodermic. Pink Floyd score. Despite some ultimately insignificant weaknesses, a classic, shamelessly ripped off by Erich Segal/Noel Black for their inept JENNIFER ON MY MIND (1971), although Tippy Walker, playing a similar character, is herself very junkie-appealing in the latter mess. MORE, though, is terrific, a great 60s drug movie and, simply, an important document of its time. Very much a cult film so join the cult.

No American movie then, as far as I can remember, charts the same territory. MIMSY's an astonishing archetype, elevating this into mythic realms. Not for the faint-hearted. Great sex scenes too. Like most people, I was interested in "More" solely because of the Pink Floyd soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie.

Visually it is quite beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief "A Spanish Piece" was the only one I didn't hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially "Cymbaline," "Main Theme," and "Quicksilver." That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals to accompany it in my mind.

The plot of "More" is a little hard to take at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded pursuit of pure pleasure.

I strongly recommend this film to any Pink Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated "More" soundtrack. I also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does. "More", maybe, is mostly remembered for the excellent soundtrack composed by Pink Floyd -in 1969 they weren't superstars yet. Actually they made an album with the film music, no fan can miss it!

But this is also the first film of German-French director Barbet Schroeder: it's a cult movie. When it was released, censorship everywhere cut several scenes of sex and drugs. It is also one of the first films to treat explicitly the theme of drug slavery.

A German boy travels to Paris and meets an American girl: they fall in love. Together they search for sun and exoticism. But it's a too high price love: she initiates him into drugs.

In the Sixties anti-drug campaigns were not like today, there wasn't much information. On the contrary, in many milieus taking drugs was a sort of spiritual experience... So it's quite surprising to see a film of that period which describes a nightmarish heroin experience.

The film is simple, not vulgar at all and shot in a "cinema-verité" style. Actors Mimsy Farmer and Klaus Grünberg are very convincing. "More" is a document of the end of the Sixties -and a document of the end of the hippies illusions as well. A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use. I would be interested to hear from the director, Barbet Schroeder, as to why he decided to make More his first film, and more specifically what his interest in hippies- or rather this form of the Euro-hippie paradise- and about their demise. The film is, at least, true enough to keep one interested, but in its own kind of truth it's strange, biased. It's a given heroin (aka, "Horse") is awful stuff, rotten, the conclusion for many a dumb-headed drug user that sees that as the be-all-end-all, because it basically is: after that everything else stops, that becomes the life, and it's either a continuous run for more of the same or death. More starts off as something concerning a romance between a New York girl and a German man, but it becomes something else, for better or worse (sometimes both in the same scene).

It's basically about two "young" people, Estelle and Stefan, who meet in a city where Stefan has come as a sort of wanderer away from his home country. She's wandering too, sort of, and is maybe too friendly with a big-time pusher named Wolf. They end up on a remote island somewhere nearby and, after a somewhat daring grab for some "horse" by Estelle, they also find a pad in the form of a seemingly remoter house along the seashore. Schroeder's comment on youth and sex and drugs isn't too simplistic, which makes the film actually lucid and intelligent so many years later. It's both direct and subtle, more about the characters and then about the fact that what he's depicting could in other hands just be a propagandistic hippie-exploitation picture. Perhaps most pleasantly, and this is just a guess, Schroeder uses as inspiration the sort of long sequence from Bergman's Summer with Monika: two kids in an inexorable connection, some good some definitely not so good, set against (too?) perfectly shot landscapes.

On the one hand, I should mention that there are problems, some big ones in fact. The performances aren't very convincing throughout; a few scenes strike some power or have the actors in a good connection with one another, but Klaus Grumberg overplays himself even if he is an ornery German by nature (in that case I would've preferred Klaus Kinski in the part to make it crazier but deep enough for the subject matter) as does Farmer to her own degree. And there's gaps of naiveté in the screenplay that keep it from being as deep as it really thinks it is. On the other hand, there are two big things going for it: Nestor Almendros, the great cinematographer (i.e. Days of Heaven) is DP and is a big boost for a first time director like Schroeder. Nearly every image is seen with an awesome purpose or artistry, be it a shot of the cliffs by the sea or sun or something as simple as the seemingly natural light of a room.

The other thing is Pink Floyd, probably the main reason I and many others have heard of the film in the first place (years before I knew really who Schroeder was I saw the "More" soundtrack whenever I looked up Pink Floyd albums). It's very good music throughout, occasionally the mind-blowing variety that gives them the reputation they deserve. Some of it, too, is a little tedious, even as it is a movie that concerns free love and lots of drugs and sometimes both at the same time. I wouldn't rank it anywhere near as high as a Meddle or Animals, certainly not Dark Side, but it too helps to elevate the subject matter another notch, particularly when one least expects it or in low tones or floating in and out of buildings as Stefan or other walks on the streets. It's almost better atmosphere than the movie itself deserves, but overall More is still worth watching as a period piece- dated, but potent, like a less ambitious but more substantial Zabriskie Point. 17/02/09 "More" (1969) Dir: Barbet Schroeder

For a film that most viewers have agreed is pretty average, I'm impressed by quite how many differing interpretations have been offered of it. I've only scoured the web quite briefly and I've already been informed that "More" is: a 19th Century-style romance, an allusion to the story of Icarus, a plain film full of dull people, and of interest only to Pink Floyd completists. It's fair to say, then, that critical reception is mixed. I would argue that these wildly disparate readings of Barbet Schroeder's 1969 directorial debut are proof enough that "More" is anything but a pretty average film.

Neither is it a masterpiece, of course. I approached "More" as I did "Easy Rider" and Antonioni's "Blowup" - as a 'time-capsule' film, a snapshot of an era - despite the differences in pace, style and content between these movies. They all have similar flaws - either vague or downright unlikeable characters, acting that seems slightly adrift from reality, relaxed editing, and abrupt endings that have left viewers indignant. These movies never try to be persuasive or meet the audience half way - they are what they are, man. This in itself is not a problem as long as we are left with a souvenir of the experience. Thankfully, "More" offers several truly memorable images, sounds and suggestions to the viewer, and this is what saves it.

Stefan is a young man who arrives in Paris fresh from his studies in Germany. The first part of the film follows him as he falls in with a group of French hipsters, accompanies them to devastatingly cool and self-conscious parties and bars before meeting Estelle. The two characters become sexually and romantically involved and he promises to follow her to Ibiza, against the advice of his friend Charlie. This is where the Icarus thing comes into play - she is the Sun, he is pursuing her. You may now be able to guess how this all ends.

Ibiza is an idyll so far away from the bustling urgency of the over-populated Paris that the naive Stefan knows he must be on to a good thing. Estelle remains elusive and erratic, and the island has a less desirable underbelly. Up until now I had cared little for either of these characters and their unfocused pursuit of somewhere to be really free, but once the action is pared down to just these two the film becomes poignant quite suddenly. During just one single wistful exchange of dialogue in the remote villa they inhabit, the place where their volatile love crystallises, I went from watching with a fading optimism to being utterly enraptured. I can't think of many other films that have done this.

The relationship between Stefan and Estelle is real and human in that we can see it go from life-defining intimacy to disillusionment and cruel coldness. They take a lot of drugs and cavort naked on the terraces, the rocks and beaches. Their lives revolve around nothing but each other and the beautiful Mediterranean surroundings. For a while, their situation is the very essence of freedom, emotional openness and experience for its own sake. But Stefan is not in control, and this is the downfall of more than just his future on Ibiza.

Pink Floyd's score is a perfect fit for the exoticism, the intimacy, and the foreboding of "More". It is one of the most memorable inclusions, along with the mosquito netting around Estelle's bed, and their hallucinogenic exuberance around the windmill (which appears on the soundtrack album's front cover). A scene in which they take acid to escape from heroin withdrawal is illustrative of the fundamental flaws of the couple - they cannot 'land' without a crash. Maybe they've come too close to what they wanted.

Stefan never makes contact with any family or friends from before his arrival in Paris. We are left to presume they have no idea where he is. While other 1960s Counterculture movies dwell on debauchery, excess, the media and voyeurism, Schroeder has instead presented us with a story focused upon one man, who backs himself into a little corner somewhere in the world and quietly disappears. I have become a big fan of the work of Barbet Schroeder, so maybe I am already a little biased by now, but I think this movie is great, although there may be a few lengths. It is a romantic unromantic view of the Great Liberation in the later sixties, stylistically amazingly polished (great set design!) and in my opinion still very watchable.

Basically this is an ironic re-telling of the story of Adam and Eve who are driven from paradise after having tasted the „forbidden fruit" which has turned from an apple into a hypodermic filled with heroine. The woman seduces a man into using it thus accelerating his doom. I say accelerating as the guy seems to be doomed and bound for an intensive life and an early grave right from the great title sequence onwards. There is no place for any hope.

Although the story is rather sad, I was captured by the beauty both of the beautiful location Ibiza and Mimsy Farmer. I found her character was at once shallow, enigmatic, endearing, annoying, interesting and boring. Somehow she represents what men see in women in a basic, unoffensive way. Architecture and built artifacts in general are put to very good use – which seems to be a Schroeder trademark of sorts.

There is even some humor, mainly delivered by Stefan, the German main character and his accent. His main nemesis is not a snake but an older German of dubious reputation – and provider of the heroine - called Wolf. Although it is a German name and Stefan is German, he pronounces it verrry English and in fits of jealousy spits the name out at his girlfriend in regular intervals – becoming a boy who cries ... At times Stefan has to work in order to earn a „cellery". At one time the guy goes snorkeling and afterward awkwardly clambers up a rock with his rubber flippers – never has male frontal nudity been funnier in movie history. if you get the slight enjoyment out of pink Floyd's music you will love this movie. the score is completely pink Floyd and of course the drug element plays a major part in this movie giving you the doubts about life within the weakest moments. this movie also touches the heart with the story about love and the people around you ... there is also a huge connection with the world around you with the environment of a personal island.this thing tell me i need ten lines to sum up a movie but i am done that is all you get that is why this movie is a 6.1 which is a major upset to any movie with a score like this. take a look at requiem for a dream and the fountain .... equally good scores for our generation but overestimated This movie is simply one of the best movies I have the privilage of owning. It took me years to come up with this movie and it was well worth it. The movie is meant to be anti-drug propaganda but turns itself into the opposite while not even halfway through the movie. The relished look on the faces of the players as they receive their bounty of drugs is pleasing to all those who observe. Untill the final phase pf their drug induced lives, heroin comes for its say. YIKES! This is the anti-drug message that was so fabulously sought. The soundtrack for this movie kicks butt! By far it is one of Pink Floyds best albums ever! If ever the chance, take a look, listen, and moment to witness a spectacularly made movie. Odd one should be able to stumble into "Classe Tous Risques" only by chance; it should be on any "best of film-noir" list, including IMDb's.

Lino Ventura is as good as ever; knowing of his dire, delicate family situation gives extra weight to his almost expressionless face and brief dialogues. Belmondo's restrained performance under Sautet's firm direction only shows what a wonderful actor he could - and should -have been.

"Classe Tous Risques" is utterly mininal, dry and cold, without Melville's artistic scenery, pretty faces and fancy cars. It is almost film-noir meet neo-realism. Davos' few, hard words to his children describing their life of secrecy from there on get a hold on your throat to the end of the film.

The final sentence of the film - a voice-over telling of Davos' end in no more than ten dry, sombre words - leaves you with a hard punch in the stomach.

A true jewel in the great crown of French film-noir. The film Classe tous risques directed by Claude Sautet was not a film, to be honest, I had ever really heard of until the Film Forum in NYC said that they would have a 2-week screening of the film, with new English subtitles. When I also read that it was in the vein of the classic French crime films ala Jean Pierre Melville, I jumped at the chance to check it out (at best it would rank up with his great works, and at worst I would get some good popcorn in a great theater). It was well worth the admission, as Classe tous risques is one of those kinds of French films that is just waiting to be re-discovered (or discovered for the first time). With terrific, tense diligence, Sautet keeps the suspense at a tight pitch for the first forty minutes of the film, keeping a good (if not great) middle section, and then ending it up with what is always expected with these films, but with fascinating motivations by way of the characters. With a film in the vein of this sort, you know how it will end, but it's the cool, observant journey that counts.

The film features a performance with some real truth and honesty, amid the "old-school" criminal's code, by Lino Ventura as Aldo, who at the start of the film (one of the best beginnings to a film in this genre and country) steals a hefty amount of money with his partner in crime). When there is a sudden, ugly twist of fate on a beach late one night, Aldo is again on the run with two little kids. He gets the aid of Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo, a role in tune with Le Doulos only with a smidgen more humanity and charisma), who is also a thief and drives him into Paris. But there are some problems with some of Aldo's old business partner's, and one old score may be just the right ticket. A couple of times the plot may seem to be leisurely, but it isn't. Like Melville, Sautet doesn't allow any fat to his story, and it's a very tightly structured film, with some good doses of humor here and there (I was sometimes grinning at the audacity of the criminals in the beginning chase sequence, and also with a particular woman who had a finicky thing with her cat and a fish).

Along with a fine score by the great George Delerue, exceptional cinematography, and a mood that is seldom met let alone matched now adays, Classe tous risques is a reminder of that bridge between the real old-school film-noir, and the latter day crime films. Gangsters in these new sort of "thug-life" movies have a 1000th of the class and honor of the thieves in this film, and is a second banana to the works of Melville and Jules Dassin (a compliment I assure you). That it has a good realistic, moral edge helps as well. I saw this film at Telluride Film Festival in 1997, where one of the screenwriters, José Giovanni, was being honored. It ranks highly as a great noir-crime-drama, incredible performances by Belmondo and Lino Ventura. The attention given to every character, and complex psychological portrayals, detailing loyalty, treachery, love, and hope, are tremendous. It is an excellent drama, an excellent thriller, and an excellent film. Up there with the best of Melville. (The title in English 'Class all risk,' in French 'Classe tous risques' is word-play on 'Classe Touriste,' meaning 'Tourist Class'. "Classes tous risques" is one of the best "gangsters" films noirs France has ever produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made "a bout de souffle",Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting cast ;brilliant script by José Giovanni -who also wrote "le trou" Becker's masterpièce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained emotion.

Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker ("touchez pas au grisbi" ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in Godard's "opus"-.

Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling.

There's a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes.

Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the "classes tous risques" rules quite well with his follow-up "l'arme à gauche" (1965) which featured Ventura again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only "Max et les ferrailleurs " (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first half of the sixties.He had become ,from "les choses de la vie" onwards,the cinema de qualité director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as "Cesar et Rosalie" (1972),"Vincent François ,Paul et les autres" (1974) or "Mado" (1976) Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible. Since I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim on french neo-noir.

Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo. Ventura plays Abel, a gangster exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because the police are closing in on him. After a roaring and fast paced opening with a big surprise, Abel eventually gets hooked up with Eric Stark (Belmondo) who wants to get into the criminal underworld. Stark becomes Abel's chauffeur and eventual only friend in an underworld that turns it's back on Abel after everything he's done and been through. The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man despite the world they are a part of. It never ends pretty for them, or their loved ones. Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him.

Much like Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it goes along. As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed the first time. Classe Tous Risques is a definite keeper. Career criminal and crime boss, Abel Davos (Lino Ventura) has been on the run for more than 10 years, hiding out in Milan, Italy. In his absence, he has been sentenced to death in his home country of France for his crimes. Disillusioned with his life in Italy and with the police there closing in on him, he decides to return to his old stomping ground in Paris. Sending his wife Therese and two young sons ahead to Nice, Abel and his next in command Raymond Naldi do one final heist, to fund their new lives back in France. The heist proffers a meagre half million francs, way less than their sources had suggested, despite this and with the police in chase they both make it to Nice, where they hideout briefly. After stealing a pleasure boat from a local, they aim to make it to San Remo a tourist spot where they will blend in more readily, but they are stopped by armed customs officers on a deserted beach, a shoot out ensues and Therese and Naldi are both killed. A now wounded Davos with two kids in tow is going to be easily spotted by police, so he calls on his old friends in Paris to send help, but they have moved on since their old friend went into hiding and are not too inclined to take a risk themselves, so they send small time thief, Eric Stark (Jean Paul Belmondo) to rescue him. Davos is disgusted that such a lowly thief is sent to his aid, despite the fact he hits it off immediately with the charming Stark, he sets out to find out why he has been snubbed, but their betrayal doesn't stop there.

Classe Tous Risques (aka the Big Risk) was written for the screen by former death row inmate and crime writer Jose Giovanni (Le Trou, Le Clan des Siciliens), with Ventura already on board for the project, Giovanniwanted someone unique to direct the project, Ventura suggested an assistant director that had caught his attention on a previous project,one Claude Sautet, best known at the time for assisting Georges Franju on Les Yeux sans Visage. Sautet immediately agreed and the rest as they say is history. Sautet crafted a fine gangster film, that plays heavily on characters and relationships. Davos constantly in hiding has plenty of time to reflect on his life, past, present and future, his friendships that no longer seem to be what he believed they were, his now deceased wife and what will become of his two young sons. Ventura as a character actor has always amazed me, being both comfortable and convincing in both the police and criminal fraternity, here his world weary performance is sublime and powerful as his world crumbles all around him, as the loneliness and solitude of a man on the run kicks in. Ventura's former profession as a pro wrestler gets plenty of use as he throws parisien hoodlums around with a consummate ease. Belmondo as Stark enlivens the other storyline within the film, that of his budding relationship with a girl he meets on the road trip. With his forthright charm, his coming clean to this woman in danger that he is but a "Voleur" and that "the only good thing about me is my left" as he knocks out her aggressor, is also a joy to behold, as she falls for him anyway. Belmondo's performance was overlooked at the time, as Godard's A bout de Soufflé was released only three weeks previous, Godard attaining the credit for discovering the new kid on the block, his versatility within these two films, being there for all to see and admire. Sautet's film is a classy affair, using plenty of attractive locations, the film also has very sparse dialogue, Sautet preferring to let the actors do the work with the merest of looks or glances sufficing to further the story, needles to say this Noir fan will be checking out more of Sautet's work in the future. "Classe tous risques" feels like the granddaddy of "The Sopranos" in mixing the criminal and the domestic, and of the buddy film to feel as contemporary as "Reservoir Dogs."

Even as these gangsters are affectionately entangled with wives, children, lovers and parents, they are coldly ruthless, and we are constantly reminded they are, no matter what warm situation we also see them in. They can tousle a kid's hair - and then shoot a threat in cold blood. The key is loyalty, and the male camaraderie is beautifully conveyed, without ethnic or class stereotypes, even as their web of past obligations and pay backs narrows into suspicion and paranoia, as the old gang is in various stages of parole, retirement, out on bail or into new, less profitable ventures. An intense accusation is of sending a stranger to perform an old escape scenario. It is a high point of emotion when a wife is told off that she's not the one the gangster is friends with, while virtually the only time we hear music on the soundtrack is when he recalls his wife.

Streetscapes in Italy and France are marvelously used, in blinding daylight to dark water and highways, from the opening set up of a pair of brazen robbers -- who are traveling with one's wife and two kids. Rugged, craggy Lino Ventura captures the screen immediately as the criminal dad. And the second thug is clearly a casually avuncular presence in their lives, as they smoothly coordinate the theft and escape, in cars, buses, on boats and motorcycles, in easy tandem. This is not the cliché crusty old guy softened with the big-eyed orphan; these are their jobs and their families and they intersect in horrific ways.

The film pulls no punches in unexpectedly killing off characters, directly and as collateral damage, and challenging our sympathy for them, right through to the unsentimental end, which is probably why there was never an American remake.

It seems so fresh that it's not until Jean-Paul Belmondo enters almost a third of the way into the film, looking so insouciant as a young punk, that one realizes that this is from 1960. Sultry Sandra Milo has smart and terrific chemistry with him, from an ambulance to an elevator to a hospital bed.

While the Film Forum was showing a new 35 mm print with newly translated subtitles, it was not pristine. The program notes explained that the title refers to a kind of insurance policy and is pun on "tourist class." I've only seen about a half dozen films starring Lino Ventura, but this one seems very much like the others. He plays a laconic criminal--one who is short on words and subdued yet occasionally explosive. Given his quiet persona in such films as ARMY OF SHADOWS and SECOND BREATH, I've noticed that his minimalist style of acting is extremely effective. In other words, because he is so quiet and mannered, when he does bad things you tend to notice. And, like these other films, he also has a very strong, though twisted, moral code.

Abel Davos (Ventura) and his partner, Lilane, are both living in Italy and are career criminals. Both grew up in France and eventually had to flea due to their criminal activities. Now in Italy as the film begins, they continue to live the life of thugs and the heat is on to catch them. Oddly, instead of running to yet a third country, they decide to go back to France--even though Davos has been tried and convicted in absentia--and if he's caught it could mean a life in prison or the death penalty. Much of the first third of the film concerns their covert return.

Unfortunately for Davos, the return doesn't go perfectly and now it seems as if every cop in France is looking for him. Additionally, the reaction of his old compatriots in crime is not at all what he'd expect. In fact, their tepid response to his return ends up unleashing a series of terrible events towards the end of the film.

Along the way, Davos meets and is taken in my a stranger, Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo). Despite Davos seemingly having no friends, Stark and his lady friend try their best to make his return successful. What throws another monkey wrench into this, though, is Davos' two very young sons--what is Davos to do with them--keep them with him in his hiding place?

Overall, this is a very good crime film--sort of like French Film Noir. Unlike American Noir, the many French versions I have seen have a more realistic as well as bleak outlook to them. Fatalism reigns supreme, that's for sure! The acting is first-rate (especially from Ventura and Belmondo), the direction very sure and the writing very nice, though I am sure many won't like the ending. It just seems to be tacked on--like an afterthought. I understood why they did it this way, but can also see how it might leave many unsatisfied. As for me, it did leave me a tad flat. Otherwise, an exceptional film. Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and one 4.

"This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia," we're told. "On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten."

Davos was a top gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark.

This somewhat cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and who reacts with violence and resignation.

Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens. Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was 27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose, under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal. The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear Davos say, "Abel's gone. There's nothing left." It would be well worth watching Classe tous Risques to learn what he means.

There are many fine French gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of Shadows. This is a Black and White film from France,

Simple plot, gangster on the run seeking & getting help etc. We have seen this type film many times over the years. What makes this film different are mainly its acting & style. All the actors perform quietly,No one yells & hardly anyone loses his temper. There are quite a few deaths, some surprising. There are beautiful women as well, but no sex scenes. No car chases either.

JUST talking/ It is so refreshing to listen to people talk, & here we must read subtitles as well.

The acting is near perfect by all. especially the lead played by

Lino Ventura & in a smaller BUT vital role Jean Paul Belmondo. These 2 actors were among the best.

I said above the film is flawed, There are a few script deficiencies in few spots, They are minor,The acting is the thing in this movie. Production is first rate as well.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 88 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10) I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the "elements" that make up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't/can't/shouldn't be also great dramas, but this one isn't.

One other note the music in the film is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently than the wife elements.

Great set up to this film by the way with an abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down depends.

Spoilers follow as to some specifics.

The big turn in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big moment. But the children are never shown to react one way or the other. Neither cries, neither asks their father what happened, the kids are good actors and the reactions of the father are I suppose what matters but this is a big misstep. This is the heart of the story and the kids are kept mostly blank in their reaction. They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing happened.

In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo and Ventura's characters. Belmondo says he knew the partner who was killed--but this is never explained and has no impact dramatically on Belmondo or anyone else. The Belmondo romantic subplot also strains credibility though it's convincingly acted. Ventura's character just lets Belmondo involve a total stranger in their escape plan for no reason. He doesn't even comment or seem to notice. Another gap.

The ending to the movie, and I won't spoil it, the ending happens off screen with a perfunctory voice over to tell you what happened. I guess this tries to make it feel more true to life, but again like these other missteps leaves drama off screen.

What's the point of not dealing with these issues? I don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then move on to ignore them.

Too bad there is much to recommend this film, Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER. This film had potential. Would make for a good remake though if done in the U.S. more problems would probably sink the film, but in the hands of the right director this would be a good remake,though it's doubtful Ventura's performance could be topped.

So worth seeing but frustrating as a whole Pulling in 2.6 million viewers, one has to wonder what everyone's opinions on the storyline/plot is.

Reading the run down over at lifetime, I was led to believe that this would be an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a single mother being stalked and finally confronting the stalker. Sadly I was mistaken. While the main plot is interesting enough - Single mother run off road one night, then is stalked by same guy, the reasoning behind the stalking left nothing but a really bad taste in my mouth.

Laura Leighton plays the victim, and she does it well. Whether it was all those years on Melrose Place or not, she does well in this movie, playing a mother who would do anything to protect her son from harm, and she's looking pretty good too these days.

Leighton is really the only good thing about this movie. I think many people will identify with the main character, after discovering why the stalker is stalking, it will be a view-only-once type of movie. Not a bad MOW. I was expecting another film based on womens issues but was pleasantly surprised at the element of suspense. Sure, parts of the plot were pretty hokey but for the most part the movie kept me guessing. Was the nut bar connected with the ex husband, somebody in the tavern or was it the guy (person) that she cut off? Daniel Magder was excellent. I've seen him in Mom's on Strike and in Guilt by Association, both MOW's and he is very creditable, especially the way he challenges his mother the way a preteen would typically act.

Laura Leighton also played the typical mother (ex-wife) that both men and women can relate to. She was frustrated enough to seem real.

See it if you missed it. It's worthwhile.

Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a "maverick" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.

Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this "B" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.

Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars.

However, the acting is good.

Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a good job!

Moral of the story: Don't get your "Don" upset with you.

If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store.

So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made! Here's one that nobody every heard of. It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey. For us mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and wise guys acting like "gafones". While violence dominated the movie, I found myself laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas. Look for a 1977 version of the "Badabing Girls" in the beginning of the movie.

All our favorite mobster stereotypes were featured here. And, as for realism, "fugettaboutit"! Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy character like we seen him do so many times over the years. This was probably his first shot, and it was a gem. Pesci fans should run to the video store to check out this flick. You have to look carefully for it since it goes by different names. My copy called it "The Family Enforcer". Here it is known as "The Death Collector". But whatever name it goes under, it's should be called - A Winner. Has anyone ever read or heard comments by Scorsese or David Chase ( Soprano's Exec. Producer) about "Death Collector/Family Enforcer"? I bought the DVD after not having seen it for a while on cable (like 20 years), but having seen "Goodfellas" and the entire "Sopranos" run to date. In retrospect, both guys must have seen Death Collector/Family Enforcer and absorbed the flavor ,perhaps inspiring the tone for their masterworks, both of which the polar opposite of the romanticized Godfather trilogy. Being a Jersey guy, it is interesting to see how the Jersey meadowlands have evolved since the mid-70's. It is not the swampy dumping ground it used to be although once in a while a body will turn up in a local waterway. Also, it's a little bittersweet to seen a newly constructed World Trade Center in the across the river in the opening and closing scene. Who could have imagined? I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters. Pesci once again though, steels the show! Surprisingly good "Mean Streets"-type crime drama. Foreshadows elements of "Goodfellas" and "Casino". Joe Pesci's first big role. Clever dialog. I think the Maltin guide gives this a bomb rating. I can only guess no one actually bothered to watch it.

Saw this at Tarantino's film fest and he said Scorsese used a number of these actors in Raging Bull. I agree with Vince, this movie paved the way for Goodfellas. The scene where Pesci was throwing peanuts at the piano player reminded me of his "How am I funny?" routine in Goodfellas. This is a highly underrated film and deserves some attention. As with many other mob films, the theme of The Death Collector rings true: Always respect the Don. It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching. The acting was decent but it may be out of date for some people. I was glad to see cast members of such highly acclaimed movies as "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" in this movie A great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing. "Let me ask you one more question" Ha ! what a great soon .. this movie was brilliant fantastic acting, great script. The only reason no-one noticed it was because of the low budget everyone will agree with me that its a cult just like "Donnie Brasco" it shows a young Joe Pesci once again as a mobster, this film is up their with the cults. its got some sopranos and some goodfellas chase got his idea for the sopranos when he watched this and Scorsese found Joe Pesci while watching it, that proves it must be a great am i right or am i wrong 'eh ?. I've got to admit they showed one brilliant scene where they were throwing peanuts at a camp piano player "Stop with the friggen peanuts". A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.

A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.

This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent. Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story. THE DEATH COLLECTOR is truly a wonderful film. Labeled as a MEAN STREETS ripoff, it has some really great stuff in it. A lot of the stuff in this movie would later be used by Scorsese himself, including the actors - Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, etc. a very surprisingly underrated movie. very realistic. and authentic .with great Dialogue. being Italian, i can definitely relate to the situations and phrases used. I thought Joe Cortese was great. as a crazy mob cowboy type, and pesci and Vincent were great also. I liked the actor Criscuolo who played the boss. He was very authentic. i think the director Ralph devito was on his way to great things , but was cut down too early , maybe because he knew too much. i thought it was great. it deserved more airplay and recognition. it was a sleeper movie. great. very good. it really had good authenticity. it was well done. Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many reasons. The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent. The story is one of the best ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic. The characters are people that lots of other people can relate to. This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good. It also has very realistic fights and action scenes. This movie also launched the careers of Pesci and Vincent. If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were.

Story 10/10 Acting 9/10 Realism 10/10

OVERALL 10/10

My fave Mafia movies are

1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer (The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie) First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone. I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies. Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work pretty well. Just got this in the mail and I was positively surprised. As a big fan of 70's cinema it doesn't take much to satisfy me when it comes to these kind of flicks. Despite the obvious low budget on this movie, the acting is overall good and you can already see why Pesci was to become on of the greatest actors ever. I'm not sure how authentic this movie is, but it sure is a good contribution to the mob genre..... Great film about an American G.I. who quits the army to marry a German girl who saved his life in the last days of the war. She accepts, but does she do it because she really likes him, or because he can support her with easier access to food and such? Meanwhile, her brother and an old friend form an anti-American terrorist group called the Werewolves, their purpose to drive away the occupants (you might remember the same group playing a major part in Lars von Trier's film Europa (Zentropa)). James Best, best known for his role as Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1980s television show The Dukes of Hazzard, is shockingly excellent as the American. He should have become a big movie star – at this age he reminds me very much of Warren Beatty. The other main actors are good, as well. Fuller's direction is quite good, using a lot of long takes again (although they are not nearly as complex as they were in Park Row; the long takes more often than not consist of long scenes with a lot of dialogue). The only problems lie in the script, as seems to be the case with all of the Fuller films that I've seen. It's not too badly flawed, but it ought to have been expanded, fleshing out major characters and parts of the script. Helga, the wife, goes through a major change, but completely off screen. Therefore, the emotional center rests squarely on Best's shoulders. Fuller also should have killed off the sick mother early in the film. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh! She just doesn't really do anything throughout the film except lie in bed. She has so few lines. But Fuller keeps bringing her up as the film goes on. I would have had her death solidify David and Helga's relationship myself. And the film ends too abruptly, and it lacks payoff. These aren't really the biggest flaws in the world (the way I described them makes them sound bigger than they are). 9/10. One of Fuller's (a combat veteran himself) early works of average quality, but accurately hits on the many conflicting aspects of life in postwar Germany. The main character starts the movie in Apr'45 as a Sgt with C Co, 157th Inf, 45th Div, which really did end the war in Munich as in the movie. (Same unit in the previous month had fought heavily in Aschaffenburg and then liberated part of the Dachau facility). To the uninformed the movie may seem confusing by flip flopping between showing the good & bad of the german people. But anyone who has been there or at least well read on it would know that most of what is portrayed in the movie are things that really did happen in 45-47 Germany. The only inaccuracy I noticed was minor: while on a boat cruise of the Rhine passing the remains of the Remagen bridge he comments he crossed there. But his unit really crossed well south of there - north of Worms Germany. Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get. Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then it transitions to him being treated for his wounds.

It might lead one to believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b) there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group- by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as Brent describes, a "blood transfusion." With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they cancel out reason to meet their ends.

And finally there's the layer of style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest' films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this, especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever.

Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally damning and thought provoking. I enjoyed this for a couple of reasons. The emotional tangle was at times confusing and imperfectly resolved, but the blend of newsreel footage with the film's narrative was often compelling. The other element that I appreciated was the depiction of the Werewolves, the fanatical Nazis who continued the fight after the formal surrender. I don't know of another film that deals with them. They assassinated Burgomaster Oppenhoff of Aachen on Palm Sunday, 1945, for example, and did create problems for the occupation. The film, then, challenges the sanitized version of victory and occupation with some gritty realities. The "human issues" are presented not so much through the characters here, but through the historical reality that was gripping those who had survived Hitler -- both conquered and victors. This is an excellent anime movie. It is well animated, has a good intricate plot and very good music. I understand that some may think of it as a little long, but I think that it is a good length and the animation is good traditional anime.

THREE CHARACTERS:

The way they use Tenkai is masterly. For example the body double showing up at all these locations adds to the ominous tone of the movie. The design of Tenkai is good too, the way he looks as a monk and in the end scene the armour he is wearing.

The old man Andou is down to earth and a very likable character. When Jiro meets him it's a turning point in the movie.

Sanpei, the Satsuma Shinobi who infiltrated Tenkais clan saves Jiros life twice. He stays in the background most of the movie though, but he is really one of the heroes of the movie.

THE PLOT: The plot is good. It is traditional without being unoriginal. The historical time it is acted out in is interesting, The meiji restoration. The treasure is sought after by Tenkai to restore the shogunate while when Jiro finds it he uses it to help the anti-shogunate forces overthrow the shogunate.

The way Tenkai tricks Jiro is interesting and has sort of a "Hamlet" feel to it. There is also a sweet irony to the fact that if Tenkai had not gotten Jiro to become a shinobi I don't think that he had been able to kill him in the end(Maybe by firearm, but not hand to hand combat weapons).

The plot with all the death makes it mostly very dark, but there's some light moments when we see some of Jiros childhood memories. All in all it's a good, dark, intricate plot.

THE MUSIC: The opening theme for example is very good with the electric guitar and drums. They occasionally in that piece use what I believe to be taiko drums, but i'm not sure.

There is a lot of good music. Like the one played while they are traveling to the Iga shinobi. I believe the piece is called "Numatou" and has an incredible flute in it. The flute might be a pan flute, but more probably a shakuhachi.

The end theme "Kamui no komoriuta" is calm and delicate. The vocals are beautiful and so is the song in general.

THE ANIMATION:

The animation, while good, is not perfect and the blood that runs down the characters do sometimes appear to be orange. The transitions are interesting and I think some transitions are very nice. One example of a nice transition is when Jiro and the Iga shinobi are running, there is the sunset in the background and the music is playing. The transition is simple, but effective and has a nice feeling too it.

MY FINAL WORDS: I think that the plot, the animation, the music and the characters make this into one of the best anime movies I have ever seen. This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long.

Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy Express 999 and Metropolis.

The anime has some good animation for an old anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film.

All in all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action, and Samurai/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from being a great film to watch.

Don't miss this film. When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped the video apart! Yes, I know, Roscoe Arbuckle didn't like to be called 'Fatty', but I couldn't resist the joke.

This is a fine Lloyd Hamilton short from his peak period, directed by Roscoe. The two work together with lots of good gags and Roscoe's usual attention to the details of shooting the picture in an interesting manner. Most comedians preferred flat lighting and a still camera to make them more interesting. Roscoe uses a couple of long tracking shots and some nice camera trickery to tell his story and to show Ham as a fine actor, as well as a talented comedian.

This story plays with some interesting themes, like Lloyd's classic MOVE ALONG: here it's about perceptions of reality and the confusion that movies make of them. Or you might choose to ignore such issues and laugh your head off. Lloyd Hamilton was one of the most imaginative (and among the funniest) of all the silent-film comedians. Why is he utterly forgotten? Unfortunately, the original negatives for a large percentage of his films were lost when the Fox warehouse burnt in the early 1930s. Hamilton was not handsome or graceful like Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd; nor was he dapper, like Raymond Griffith. And unlike Harry Langdon and (again) Chaplin, Hamilton did not try for audience sympathy.

However, his films were hugely popular at the time of their original release, and they remain hilarious today. Oscar Levant once claimed that he asked Chaplin if there was any other comedian whom he'd ever envied, and Chaplin instantly named Lloyd Hamilton. The character most frequently portrayed by Hamilton on screen -- a flat-capped naff, with fastidious hand gestures and a duck-like walk -- was later adapted by vaudeville comedian Eddie Garr (Teri Garr's father), and further adapted by Jackie Gleason as his 1950s TV character 'The Poor Soul'.

'The Movies', directed pseudonymously by Roscoe Arbuckle, is one of Hamilton's most innovative shorts, and it's hilarious. We first see him as a country boy, bidding farewell to his family outside their homespun cottage, on his way to the big city. Then he steps away from the cottage, and we see that it's IN the big city, with traffic booming all round him!

Eventually, our hero ends up at a restaurant (uncredited, but it's the Montmartre Cafe in downtown L.A.) where all the movie actors eat between takes. There's an amusing gag when Hamilton's bumpkin character meets three actors in costume and makeup as Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt: this gag would have been funnier if the impostors looked more like the originals. Finally, our lad seats himself at a table, hoping to meet a celebrity. Sure enough, entering the restaurant and sitting at the very next table is a big movie star ... none other than Lloyd Hamilton! There's a very well-made double-exposure shot -- the join is nearly invisible -- when Lloyd Hamilton as himself greets Lloyd Hamilton as the country boy.

Sadly, Hamilton's peak period of creativity was very brief. He began his film career in crude slapstick films as one half of a double act (Ham and Bud, opposite Bud Duncan), and had a brief and blazing period of stardom in shorts during the late silent period. Sound movies were not kind to Hamilton, and he was quickly shoved down the cast list in some crude early talkies. Then he died young. Fortunately, 'The Movies' is quite funny, and a splendid introduction to this unique comedians' style. I'll rate it 7 out of 10. "Buffalo Bill, Hero of the Far West" director Mario Costa's unsavory Spaghetti western "The Beast" with Klaus Kinski could only have been produced in Europe. Hollywood would never dared to have made a western about a sexual predator on the prowl as the protagonist of a movie. Never mind that Kinski is ideally suited to the role of 'Crazy' Johnny. He plays an individual entirely without sympathy who is ironically dressed from head to toe in a white suit, pants, and hat. This low-budget oater has nothing appetizing about it. The typically breathtaking Spanish scenery around Almeria is nowhere in evidence. Instead, Costa and his director of photography Luciano Trasatti, who shot another Kinski western "And God Said to Cain," lensed this horse opera in rather mundane setting around Tor Caldara, Lazio, Italy and Monte Gelato Falls, Treja River, Lazio, Italy. Nevertheless, "The Beast" qualifies as a Continental western because it deals with wholly unscrupulous characters and the action could be classified as film noir because the hero and heroine are trapped by intolerable circumstances that compel them to resort to criminal activities. Predictably, their well-laid plans backfire owing largely to the Kinski character. Indeed, the licentious Kinski character resembles a Wily E. Coyote type character. Consistently, he struggles to have sex with several beautiful women but either lawmen or outlaws frustrate each of his efforts. Ultimately, "The Beast" amounts to a tragic character study brimming with irony. The Stelvio Cipriani orchestral score sounds as if it were lifted by the Tony Anthony western "The Stranger Returns." The Mario Costa screenplay takes place on the western frontier between San Diego and Mexico that is being terrorized by a notorious Mexican bandit called Machete (Giovanni Pallavicino of "We Still Kill the Old Way") and his gang. They prey on the stagecoach and nobody is safe from their depredations. The first time that we see 'Crazy' Johnny Laster he pauses to refresh himself at a stream and spots a gorgeous looking woman washing clothes. He creeps up behind her and attacks her, but a bigger man armed with a rifle intervenes and he has to flee. He shows up in a nearby town and a snuff-snorting gunslinger recruits him to help ambush a wealthy man, Mr. Powers, on the trail and rob him. They wind up killing him and getting no money. Mr. Snuff-sniffer accidentally leaves his snuff box at the scene of the crime and the sheriff arrests on suspicion of murder. 'Crazy' shoots his accomplice from his hotel room so that he doesn't have to worry about being implicated in the crime.

Meanwhile, a young couple in love are having trouble making their way in the world. Riccardo (Steven Tedd of "Requiem for a Bounty Killer") lives a Mexican couple on their ranch and helps them raise their real son Juan. In the village, Riccardo's lovely girlfriend Juanita (Gabriella Giorgelli of "Stranger in Sacramento") sings and dances in the cantina. Riccardo and Juanita plan to marry, but the last place that Juanita wants to settle down is on a dusty ranch. She dreams of living in the city, but life in the city requires more money than either Riccardo or she has. They team up with a blond outlaw name Glen (Paolo Casella of "Shoot the Living and Pray for the Dead") and they plan to kidnap Mr. Power's daughter Nancy when she comes to get her inheritance. Glen makes the fatal mistake of enlisting 'Crazy' Johnny to help them because Glen knows that Johnny needs the money to get women.

They abduct Powers' daughter and keep her at a remote cabin with Johnny standing guard over her. Meantime, Juanita masquerades as Powers' daughter and shows up in town to get the money from Powers' attorney Gary Pinkerton (Giuliano Raffaelli of "Blood and Black Lace"), but he grows suspicious because Juanita doesn't look anything like he remembered Nancy. Riccardo brandishes his six-gun and warns Pinkerton that they have kidnapped Nancy. Unfortunately for Riccardo and Juanita, Pinkerton can only lay his hands on $50-thousand because Machete has struck such fear into the hearts of everybody that the Powers' total inheritance cannot be shipped through the territory by stagecoach. Meanwhile, back at the cabin, horny Johnny tries to rape Nancy, but she outsmarts him, knows him out with a chair on the pretense of needing to be alone while she undresses. After she knocks him unconscious, she steals a buggy and drives it back to town. Johnny recovers, pursues her and murders her about the same time that Glen, Riccardo, Juanita, and Pinkerton meet him on the trail. They inform Johnny about the complications created by Machete's reign of terror and give him $12-thousand as his cut of the money. Pinkerton is aghast at the sight of Nancy's bloodstained corpse and threatens Johnny. Naturally, Johnny guns him down in cold blood on the spot.

Things really begin to deteriorate as the law in San Diego sets out to capture Machete. Glen, Riccardo, and Juanita return to Mexico while Johnny attacks two women at a ranch and narrowly escapes getting caught. He rides to Mexico, finds a cantina whore and is going down on her when a bounty shoves a revolver in his face. Johnny confesses that he knows where they can find more money if they will release him. Machete's men follow up on Johnny's tip and capture Juanita. The villagers join Riccardo to attack Machete and Johnny rescues Juanita but she dies later on after a big shoot-out. Riccardo is left standing alone now. Machete and his men retaliated against his step parents, not only killing them but also little Juan. Everything that Riccardo and Juanita dreamed up having goes up in clouds of gun smoke for an unhappy ending. 'Crazy' Johnny dies and never gets to assuage his lust. If you think about Costa's uncompromising sagebrusher, "The Beast" emerges as an interesting character study and an exercise in film noir in a western setting where everybody is punished. Klaus Kinski popped up in a sizable number of spaghetti Westerns throughout the 60's and early 70's; he was usually cast in secondary parts as nasty villains. Kooky Klaus lands himself a juicy lead role as Crazy Johnny Laster, a foul, twitchy, and deranged sex maniac who comes up with a plan to abduct a lovely heiress in order to obtain her considerable inheritance. Johnny and his gang become wanted fugitives after the plan goes disastrously awry. Writer/director Mario Costa ably crafts a sordidly compelling portrait of a severely sick and twisted piece of sniveling low-life work: the plot unfolds at a steady pace, the tone is appropriately gritty and serious, and the exciting action scenes are staged with real skill and brio (the shoot-outs in rock quarries are especially gripping and thrilling). Ironically dressed in white, oozing oily charisma from every rotten pore, and jumping on beautiful women every chance he gets, Kinski's Johnny makes for a fascinatingly creepy and monstrous brute. Kinski is simply spectacular as this gloriously repellent character; he receives fine support from the luscious Gabriella Giorgelli as sweet, fiery saloon girl Juanita, Steven Tedd as the cheery Riccardo, Giovanni Pallavicino as ruthless band gang leader Machete, Giuliano Raffaella as smart lawyer Gary Pinkerton, and Paolo Casella as Johnny's sensible parter Glen. Kudos are also in order for Stelvio Cipriani's moody and spirited score. Well worth seeing for Kinski fans. A rare lengthy Kinski feature role as Crazy Johnny sex crazed outlaw who is wanted in San Francisco. Kinski's character is obsessed with raping women a sexual predator in the old west who has nothing more but stealing, raping, and killing on his mind. This movie maybe a major disappointment for many Spaghetti Western fans but not for many Klaus Kisnki fans. Overall it had two things going for it a great performance from Klaus Kinski and a great music score by Stelvio Cipriani.

Another story line which needed much more work done to it to be impactive but still fun to watch!

It would be nice to see this movie redone in the future. Since most old movies are being re-made nowadays. This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul. Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch.

"Crossing the Bridge" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g. Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or music of the Armenians and Greeks.

This movie is strongly recommended for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop. Crossing the Bridge: the Sound of Istanbul received one of the most rapturous applause from the audience when it ended and very deservingly so. I did not expect too much from a musical documentary but the movie proved to be much more than that. It was also a visual documentary of Istanbul with stark contrasts of old and new, western and eastern, poor and rich, modern and traditional. Black and white photographs of old Istanbul by world famous Armenian photographer Ara Guler were exceptional. But of course main theme was music, and by God, what a variety of it! It was in a way similar to Bueno Vistas Social Club; the love and the respect of the interviewer -Alexander Hacke here replacing Ray Cooder- for the musicians exuded from the screen and engulfed us all. The music was mostly very interesting. The jazz session by a group of Romany gypsies in a small Western Turkish town was mind blowing. I will not be surprised if the travel agents start getting group booking requests for Kesan after the movie is released. But I most loved Muzeyyen Senar who looked amazingly elegant in a sort of burlesque way and whilst tipping her "Raki" declared courageously: "My voice and I are 86 years old!" Well done Faith Akin. I bet there are many more Turkish musicians who are feeling left out: Go for Volume II please. This film offers you a fascinating trip through one of the most exiting cities of today - Istanbul - and its musicians. Do not expect a compilation of Turkish folklore or anything like that. Alexander Hacke, a German musician and member of the cult band "Einstürzende Neubauten" travels to Istanbul to get to know the music scene. His sparse voice overs of what he experiences are a guiding line through the film. But mainly German-Turkish director Faith Akin lets various artists from Istanbul do the talking - and of course their music.

You meet a variety of personalities, big stars and street musicians, young and old, people playing many different musical styles. But this movie does not only introduce you to the sound of Istanbul. It also draws a compelling picture of Istanbul today and how Turkey has forged ahead in the last decade. The film characterises its protagonists with subtle humour, but never without respect. All of them share a passion for music and the belief in its power.

Akin again shows his talent to portray diversity lightheartedly when he brings you close to completely different musical scenes. After his award winning feature film "Gegen die Wand" (Head on) Faith Akin proves with "Crossing the Bridge" that he is equally able to touch, entertain and guide his audience in a documentary. If you have never been in Istanbul, you will want to go there after having seen the film. This is such an exciting documentary, it was by far one of the most fun films I've ever seen. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's such a fun look at different musical styles, exciting people at the crossroads between modern and traditional that is Istanbul, and great cinematography that captures beautiful scenes in Istanbul and Thrace. Watching the film made me want to book a flight for Istanbul right away.

Great footage of Ceza, a Turkish rapper.

Also his sister, Ayben rapping - she is awesome.

Priceless performances by amazing Turkish musicians Orhan Gencebay, Sezen Aksu, Muzeyyen Senar.

The gorgeous voice of Aynur, singing in Kurdish.

And amazing clarinet and signing of a romany gypsy group from Thrace.

Last but not least, Istanbul bands mixing Turkish music and rock, as well as trance music -- Baba Zula, Orient Expressions, Duman, and others... It is a very great film (documentary) about Istanbul and their people and it's music of every kind. Editing and the success of the director is very impressive. I've been interested with Faith Akin since I saw the "Gegen die Wand" ("Head-On") ("Duvara Karsı") and I admired his work very much but this one has been the most touching one for me so I'm here writing this. It is not just about Turks or something like that, it is a very good biography of a city and how music stay alive in it we can say. There are views of many people and so very variant ideas about even life and love. I liked it very much and I thing anyone and everyone should see it, NOT ONLY but especially the ones anyhow related with Turkey... Akin's prize-winning 2004 movie Head-On/Gegen die Wand depicted the appealingly chaotic world of a self-destructive but dynamic Turkish-German rocker named Cahit (Birol Ünel). This documentary is an offshoot of Head-On and explores the range of music one might find in Istanbul today if one were as energetic and curious as German avant-rock musician Alexander Hacke of the group Einstuerzende Neubauten (who arranged the sound track and performed some of the music for Head-On) and had the assistance of a film crew and Turkish speakers provided by director Akin. You get everything from rap to the most traditional Turkish classical song, with rock, Kurdish music, and Turkish pop in between. It's as chaotic and open-ended a world as Cahit's, one where East is East and West is West but the twain—somehow—do meet.

Like Istanbul itself, which sits on the edge between Europe and Asia and brings the two worlds together while remaining sui generis, this is a mélange that includes Turkish pop, Turkish traditional songs, Kurdish laments, Roma jazz musicians and group of street buskers (Siyasiyabend), lively and offbeat shots of Istanbul street life, and some talk on camera about synthesis and some personal and musical history by singers and musicians. Working out of the Grand Hotel de Londres in Istanbul's Beyoglu quarter where Cahit stayed at the end of Head-On while looking for his beloved, Hacke roams around the city with crew and equipment interviewing people and recording their music.

He begins with some loud rock by the "neo-psychedelic" band Baba Zula – these are musicians he bonded with while putting together Head-On's score and he stands in here for the absent bassist -- and by Turkish (including brave female) rappers – thus causing some oldsters to walk out of the theater early on and miss the predominantly tuneful and easy-to-listen-to sounds that makes up the bulk of the film. (Head-On's narrative excesses were tempered periodically by musical interludes performed by a traditional Turkish orchestra sitting outdoors on the other side of the Bosphorus.) Hacke gives us the opportunity to meet and hear performances by some of the best known living Turkish singers, including Müzeyyen Senar, a lady in her late eighties whose aging, elegant musicians remind one of the way the great Egyptian songstress Umm Kulsoum used to perform. Hacke gets songwriter-movie star Orhan Gencebay to do a striking solo on the long-necked oud he's written all his songs on, and persuades the now elusive great Sezen Aksu.to do a special performance of one of her most famous songs, "Memory of Istanbul." This is a coup, and so is the lament by a beautiful Kurdish songstress Aynar recorded in a bath whose acoustics are spectacular, if only they could have turned down the heat – singer and musician's faces stream with sweat. There is also a young Canadian woman, Brenna MacCrimmon, fluent in Turkish, who sings Turkish traditional folksongs with expression and fervor. The sound mix is of high quality throughout. One would like to see a sequel; many great exemplars of Turkish popular and classical music have necessarily been left out.

Film released summer 2005 and shown at festivals in 2005 and 2006. Opened at the Angelika Film Center in New York City in June 9, 2006. Like many other commentators here, I went in expecting a taste of music that would satisfy my curiosity - and got more than I asked for. I heard and saw a powerful, exquisite, sometimes haunting, sometimes touching, lyrical, sentimental (in the truest way) and absolutely stunning blend of music and musicians. Reminded me a lot of some forms of Indian music (East Indian) but at the same time was very very different.

Starting from the the first track by Baba Zula to the Kurdish singer Aynur (what a voice) to Siyasiyabend to the jam session (or 'Jugalbandhi ' as we call it in India) in the small Turkish bar ft. Selim Seslar (Big fan now :) ), I enjoyed every minute and wished it wouldn't end.

One of the best music commentaries I have seen and heard in a long time.

I am craving for a CD of the sound-track and hope I can find it online somewhere soon and also for old and latest albums from Baba Zula.

A day later, the music is still etched in my brain and I don't want it to go away. Turkey and specifically Istanbul now seem such beautiful and exciting places - and I am going to start saving today to go take it in.

Faith Akin - this is a gem. If you're a fan of Turkish and Middle Eastern music, you're in great luck. This film is a documentary of current music in Istanbul, spanning the traditional to the modern. It's very good. You could not do better if you went to Istanbul yourself. We get interviews with Orhan Gencebay, concert clips of modern musical icons, a road show with a Romani (Gypsy) audience, Turkish Hip Hop (surprisingly very very good), and much much more. Some of the best female vocalists I've ever heard. A Kurdish woman singing in a hamam (steam bath) who will rip your heart out. Lots of social and political background. If this is your thing, you'll have a grand time. I could barely sit still in the theatre.

CD soundtrack now available on amazon. Pricey. Faith Akin has made me realize once more the deepness of my passion for this city called Istanbul. Being addressed as a city of cultural mosaics, Faith Akin has contributed to that addressing through the mosaics of music performed in the film. What's more, the climax of the film,in my opinion, is the scene where Muzeyyen Senar (a Turkish music diva) sings at age 86 as well as she had done in her younger years and rolls the raki glass in the air without pouring out one drop, which is a traditional act in raki culture. She is just marvellous. Sezen Aksu (a Turkish pop singer) with her mystical and meaningful looks at the end of her song which gives the film its Turkish title makes the scene no less than a climax. Last but not least, the wonderful scenery of Istanbul can make you feel nostalgic if you are away. Beware! By watching this film you will not only explore the "Turkish music" but will also explore the city of Istanbul with wonderful pictures and scenes from all over the important regions of the city.There are lots of delightful conversations with all sorts of musicians and their thoughts about music,culture.There is also discussions about the mixture of east and west like Istanbul has,how they make their music, how do they see themselves comparing to other country's musicians.It consists the music of Ceza,Duman,Baba Zula,Aynur,Müzeyyan Senar,Orhan Gencebay..The Turkish Queen of Music Sezen Aksu...An important work of art! German-born Turkish director Faith Akin captures in his film the endless variety of the different styles in music and songs in Istanbul, a city that is a bridge between East and West, a city that is uniquely located on both sides of the Bosporus, in Europe and in Asia. Kurdish dirges represented by Aynur, who performs her own brand of Kurdish gospel music, passionate and melodic. We are introduced to Romany instrumentals, to Orhan Gencebay, who has been called the Elvis of Arabesque music - sounds of music are heard everywhere in the city as Faith Akin takes us into underground clubs, to the street performers, and to recording sessions. German bassist Alexander Hacke who comes to Istanbul to play and to learn about Turkish music quotes Confucius, "To understand the place, you have to listen to the music it plays". Akin's fine documentary does just that - gives us 90 minutes of music that helps to cross the bridges. For me, watching the movie was especially interesting because I recently visited Istanbul as a part of my vacation and spent four days there. The city fascinated me by its images, colors, crowds, vibrancy and visual beauty. Now, I can add the sounds of music to the ever-changing portrait of Istanbul. Ich will danke Herr Hacke für den Filme. Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Enschuldigen Sie.

First of all, i didn't know how diverse the sound of Istanbul, inspite i live in Turkey.Faith Akin and Alexander Hacke have made a different approach for Turkish music.Narrating, performing, seeing Istanbul and Istanbul Music from a foreigner aspect had given the real meaning of the music itself.

In this movie I had found out how different our(Turkish) culture is, how interesting our performers are, and how much respect they deserve. Unfortunately no one have been able to serve this kind of documentary before. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed: At first there is a gentle breeze And the leaves on the trees Softly sway; Out there, far away, The bells of water-carriers unceasingly ring; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Then suddenly birds fly by, Flocks of birds, high up, with a hue and cry, While the nets are drawn in the fishing grounds And a woman's feet begin to dabble in the water. I am Iistening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. The Grand Bazaar's serene and cool, An uproar at the hub of the Market, Mosque yards are full of pigeons. While hammers bang and clang at the docks Spring winds bear the smell of sweat; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Still giddy from the revelries of the past, A seaside mansion with dingy boathouses is fast asleep. Amid the din and drone of southern winds, reposed, I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A pretty girl walks by on the sidewalk: Four-letter words, whistles and songs, rude remarks; Something falls out of her hand It is a rose, I guess. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A bird flutters round your skirt; On your brow, is there sweat? Or not? I know. Are your lips wet? Or not? I know. A silver moon rises beyond the pine trees: I can sense it all in your heart's throbbing. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

FOR YOU

For you, my fellow humans, Everything is for you, Nights are for you, days are for you; Daylight is for you, moonlight is for you; Leaves in the moonlight; Wonder and wisdom in the leaves, Myriad greens in daylight, Yellow is for you, and pink. The feel of the skin on the palm, Its warmth, Its softness, The comfort of lying down; For you are all the greetings And the masts winnowing in the harbor; Names of the days, Names of the months, Fresh paint on rowboats is for you Mailman's feet, Potter's hands Sweat on foreheads, Bullets fired on battlefronts; Graves are for you and tombstones, Jails and handcuffs and death sentences Are for you Everything is for you.

SEA NOSTALGIA

Vessels sail along my dreams, Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out, I gaze and weep. I recall my first sight of the world Through a mussel shell I pried open: The greenest water and the bluest sky And the rippliest of lump-fish... My blood still flows salty Where the oysters slit my skin. What a mad speed plunge was ours Into the high seas on the whitest foam! Foam bears no malice, Like lips Whose adultery with men Is no disgrace.

Vessels sail along our dreams Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out.

-- Orhan Veli

I could not have said anything better than what Orhal Veli Kanik said about Istanbul. About this movie, all I have is praise. A very nice and balanced introduction to a city and its music that connected Asia, Europe and Africa at one point of time. This movie is one of the most memorable films I have seen. I went reluctantly with a Turkish friend who recommended it. I am not a very enthusiastic proponent of music documentaries, but when Aynur Dogan, a Kurdish woman banned for years from singing in Turkey, sings her piece, the theater was in awe. I would give my all to hear a CD recording of this haunting, gorgeous song. And she is just one of many artist interviewed and recorded, speaking of their experiences of performing in Istanbul. Even now, a month later, I remember the footage of Aynur singing in an acoustic auditorium, and I try to remember the music as it echoed in the cinema. Well done to Faith Akin, the director of this film, and his great idea to capture the many splendid sounds of such a cosmopolitan city. It would certainly encourage me to visit Istanbul. Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.

You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city.

Impressive ! Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this movie. Turkish-German director Faith Akın ("Head-On" & "The Edge of Heaven") follows German musician and "Head-On" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einstürzende Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas.

The director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed and unfocused.

"Music can reveal to you everything about a place." This is a great documentary and above comments make a brief summary of how great it was so I won't repeat the same compliments. But, Faith akin, being an Turkish oriented guy who probably knows about that country more than an ordinary European, falls into the trap of orientalism that other western artists usually fall. But come on man you are Turkish blooded and your movie could be deeper and could describe what's beyond "beyoglu-old town" It's a missed opportunity for Akinfor that reason. Performances by Muzeyyen Senar and Orhan Gencebay are peek of the movie and Ceza (a very talented and bad ass Turkish rapper) makes some trash talk about American gangsta rappers which I totally agree. I will recommend this movie to my American friends. 'Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul' is one of the best music documentaries that I have seen lately and is more than a film about music. It is also a musical love declaration about a fabulous city, one of the greatest city in Europe and the world, one of the most important cities for Europe history and for Islam, the city that may bridge in the future Europe and the Middle East or may signify once again, as is already happened in history the precipice between two worlds.

Then there is the music. The interesting approach that the film takes with regard to music is that it starts from modern music, and we hear a lot of (good) rock and rap in the first third of the film. An then, like a backwards move in time the soundtrack takes us to the roots, to Turkish traditional music, to commercial romances, and to the exotic instruments that are basic elements in the landscape of Turkish music. In such a complex and conflict ridden country as Turkey is the film does not avoid some of the political aspects, like censorship introduced by the military rule in the 80s or the relevance of the songs of the minorities especially the Kurdish one. One of the best musical moments is actually provided by a Kurdish singer with a fantastic voice singing in a cathedral-shaped hamam (Turkish bath).

One gets to love the city and its music by the end of the viewing and hearing of this film. I have never been to Istanbul but after having seen this film I am sure that I want to visit this place soon. A European musician and composer sets out to capture the musical diversity of Istanbul. A lover of experimenting with sound, Alexander Hacke (of the German avantgarde band Einstürzende Neubauten) roams the streets of Istanbul with his mobile recording studio and "magic mike" to assemble an inspired portrait of Turkish music. His voyage leads to the discovery of a broad spectrum ranging from modern electronic, rock and hip-hop to classical "Arabesque". As he wanders through this seductive world, Alex collects impressions and tracks by artists such as neo-psychedelic band Baba Zula, fusion DJs Orient Expressions, rock groups Duman and Replikas, maverick rocker Erkin Koray, Ceza (Turkey's answer to Public Enemy), breakdance performers Istanbul Style Breakers, digital dervish Mercan Dede, renowned clarinetist Selim Sesler, Canadian folk singer Brenna MacCrimmon, street performers Siyasiyabend, Kurdish singer Aynur, the "Elvis of Arabesque" Orhan Gencebay, and legendary divas Müzeyyen Senar and Sezen Aksu. I have been away from Istanbul for the last 10 years. During that time I constantly lived in London. When I have seen the movie I realised how much I am Istanbuler. I am not just from Turkey I am a part of Turkey. One of my part is Istanbul, the sound of the Istanbul, the people of the Istanbul.

Probably Faith Akin thought that he has done great musical documentary but I must say it is more than that. It is about putting nice blend of vastly different musics, cultures, approaches, politics, ethnics into a delicious pot...

As we all know Turkey to be precise Istanbul is always comes and goes between being eastern or western city. As one of the band member said Istanbul is a bi-cultural city. But much more a eastern city because we always tried to be a western city. It shows we've never been one.

This movie will catch from very first second. Music is excellent, people are fascinating. Especially Aynur and Sezen Aksu. Singers, band members! It is nice to see you all at a small cinema in Wood Green. First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary. Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the fact that it plays to the orientalist "East meets West" cliché that bothers many Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what it defines as "east" from the eyes of the "west". I mean, like one jazz musician says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie created by the ruling leaders of "western" countries in order to keep fear and hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and "keep the cash flowing"?

Why don't you think about that? I may be a good old boy from Virginia in the Confederate States of America, but this man does it for me. That mustache gets me riled up. I remember when I first saw a video of his. That girl he beat was amazing. The depth of his acting when they cut to his weathered facade was a new level of masculinity. It reminds me of the granite sculptures of our Mt. Rushmore. If I could ask him one question, it would be,"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?" Will Orhan be doing a reunion tour? Take note from the greats like Gordon Lightfoot, true music from the heart never fades away. Vive La John Denver. Gracias my friend, O.F.F.L. (Orhan Fan For Life) Forget all those sappy romantic movies involving notebooks and lip-locked couples who somehow manage to go to the great beyond together after a screen lifetime of over-simplified unrealistic romance. Forget all those shameless "dog gives its life to save its family" flicks (although I have to admit that I have a soft spot for them myself). Forget Ricky Schroeder already displaying his propensity to overact at a tender age (now that one WAS shameless!).

This TV-movie, which unfortunately never seems to get aired anymore, is the all-time champion of tear-jerkers, hands down. And a well-written and well-acted story to boot. Ann-Margret took a big chance in taking this role. Nothing flamboyant or sexy about her here, and that's a monumental achievement in itself. Based on a true story, she plays Lucile Fray, a terminally ill mother who chooses to struggle till her dying breath to find good homes for her ten children, instead of leaving them in the hands of unpredictable government agencies. Frederic Forrest does a great job as her husband, the good-hearted but unreliable breadwinner whose crippling arthritis and personal demons make him unable to care for the kids.

The film takes us through Lucile's heart-wrenching process of interviewing prospective parents and then watching her kids leave home. It also gives us the perspective of the children themselves, and of the father - grieving over the tragedy taking place now and the one sure to follow, and frustrated over his inability to do more. The scene in which the youngest of the children (Steven)is taken to his new home is the most heart-breaking I've ever watched. Now, I grew up as a "hopeless romantic", and have spent the many years since then growing myself a harder, more cynical shell. I usually find more to mock than to empathize with in the sentimental cinematic tripe foisted upon us these days. But this gem from the early 1980's still slays me.

I really wish that someone with a lick of marketing sense would release a DVD version of this drama. Among the special features one needs to include the Emmy Awards telecast the following year. A-M was nominated for this role, but the award for best dramatic actress went to Barbara Stanwyck for "Thorn Birds." In what has to be one of the greatest moments in what is now a truly drab awards show, Stanwyck broke into tears during her acceptance speech and gushed out, "Ann-Margret, I love you!", which brought Ann-M to tears.

One final note. The IMDb rating for "Who Will Love My Children" is 6.4 as of this writing. However, over 75% of the ratings are in the 8-10 range (mostly 10's). Whatever kind of handicapping system this site uses to modify the overall ratings of the movies listed by IMDb, it completely misses the mark on this one. This one is the "weeper" of all time, and a darn good TV-movie to boot. I saw this movie so long ago, but it remains in my memory as the saddest movie ever. I cried non stop. My mother will not ever watch this movie again because its almost painful to watch. Anyway, apart from that the story isn't exactly complex...Ann Margaret is dying and has to give away her 10(?) children. As if that isn't bad enough, it is during the depression and she has to break up the close siblings one by one. I guess this was very sad to me because I too am from a very large close knit family and could identify with each child's pain of leaving their mother and siblings.

Maybe I am a masochist but I would like to see this movie again because it was well done and the end, surprisingly, is slightly happy (so at least we could smile and sob simultaneously). It should come on TV sometime so I can see it again. I was just looking up " who will love my children" to buy, when I came across this web site and an entry made by a fellow Briton!! I am a great fan of this movie and would, and have, recommended it to all. What I found comforting is to find someone else who also finds comfort in the good will of others. I also have a son with Aspergers (amongst other things) and it is also a fear of mine to think if anything ever happened to me and my husband, that someone would not only want to take on just my beautiful 'normal' daughter, but my special and gifted son also. Missing home and being able to relate to people raised with the same values as myself has more meaning than you know. Living here in the US I have yet to meet anyone who has seen this movie. So to all of you reading this, if you have not seen it, make an effort to do so. It is a very moving experience, especially for anyone who is a parent, or even if you just have a sympathetic bone in your body, you will cry, and beg. After that you will count your blessings, And to anyone who has ever been through an experience like , or close to this one, my heart goes out to you. It makes me realize no matter how hard or stressful thing get, just remind yourself that there is always someone worse off than you. An amazing movie and what makes it more powerful is the fact that it is based on a true story. Do not be put off by how sad it is, at the same time this movie is heart warming, and makes you feel encouraged about the strength and goodness of mankind. Most definitely the saddest movie I have ever seen. A must see, just so you can walk away and realise just how precious your life and loves are. The acting is superb, the story line potentially 'real'.

Remains a firm favourite of mine even after all this time. Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through, the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie, 10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207805) I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part. I watched this film many years ago on TV and taped it from there I could never really understand why my own mother was upset watching it! It was because I was so young at the time. I have just sat and watched this film again I now have 2 children of my own and I had to try and fight the tears back but that didn't happen I was crying through most of the film It just go's to show how different you feel when you have children of your own! Such an amazing family such a heart wrenching film truly wonderful! Someone has said about 8 still living any more news are you all still in touch I would love to know! Touched by the film all over! "Who Will Love My Children" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10/10. Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must, sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this movie. Not to be missed. This has to be the ultimate chick flick ever. We taped it off the T.V. years ago and I've watched it about 30 times over the years. I hadn't seen it for about 12 years and just recently watched this movie. I'm not lying, I cried from the opening credits to the ending credits. This movie truly tears your heart out, even if you don't have children. I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good cry, this is the one for you! I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.

Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.

The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!! This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother died in the late 50's, were reunited on "That's Incredible," prior to the film's airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single Ann-Margret out for her moving performance. Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you. I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the "children" at Warren's wedding in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt.

The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20 year high school reunion.

There was a show in the 1980's called "That's Incredible." They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the show.

For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not been able to find a DVD here, yet. I blubbered like a little girl during the ending of this movie and I dare anyone else to hold it together without a sob. Absolutely heart-wrenching stuff, yet uplifting at it's core.

A great effort on the part of Ann Margaret who plays a terminally ill mother of ten who, knowing her arthritic steel-working husband won't be able to support the family when she is gone, arranges the adoptions of her children before she shuffles off. The role really deserved an Oscar.

You truly feel for this poor family as the dying mother gives her all to ensure that her kids don't end up in a poorly administered state orphanage system.

If you haven't seen it - get it if you can. Starring: Ann-Margret, Frederic Forrest, Cathryn Damon, Donald Moffat, Lonny Chapman, Patricia Smith Directed by: John Erman "12 Months to Live... So Little time to Plan a Future She Would Not Share. For the Sake of her 10 Children She Must Succeed!"

Lucile Fray (Ann-Margret), is the caring mother of 10 young children. She is the loving wife of Ivan (Frederic Forrest), a man almost crippled by arthritis. She is also dying. Stricken by a terminal illness, she has only a few months left to live. Her husband, tormented by the painful truth, turns to the bottle and, with a broken heart, Lucile is forced to accept that he will never be able to cope as a father alone.

And so, for the sake of the children she loves so much, the young mother must make an agonising decision.

Inspired by real-life events, 'Who Will Love My Children' is a tribute to one woman's courage and strength - a story of sacrifice and of a dying mother's undying love.

One of the best films that I have ever seen Cried from start to finish. This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with cliché upon cliché. Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all. Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!! The War At Home is so good it's become my new favourite show.Me and my neighboors Carly and April watch this together every Sunday and laugh at how true to life it is.I love how everyone is so sarcastic and so worried and they dwell on every little issue.Once someone does something stupid they never live it down and that is soooo how family is.The father always harps on all three kids about every little thing.I love how the parents have no idea how to deal with the kids.It's so true to real family life and the fact that the parents are so overwhelmed and have no clue how to solve their teenagers problems just puts the show over the top.The War At Home is so brutally honest,and so true to the world we live in that it has become a milestone for sitcoms to come.This isn't Happy Days or The Brady Bunch this is real life. This show is actually pretty good. Like all shows on TV, it has its good episodes and its bad ones.

I have read where people compare this show to Married with Children, and I suppose it is a similar show for the new generation. However, because of what was expected and allowed on TV in the days of Married with Children, that show was taken to great extremes to show that it was in fact, a television show, and not meant to be take seriously.

The War at Home has the luxury of being a bit more realistic. The parents talk to each other like real life parents often do, telling their children one thing, when they will turn around and do the opposite.

Sure, some of the content can be considered controversial. But I find this show really tries to maintain a sense of honesty. Like it or not, there are a lot of families out there just like this one.

Every episode does teach a 'valuable lesson'. Its just that sometimes the lesson is that you will not find a perfect solution for every problem that a family may encounter, and sometimes the solution is to pick the lesser of two evils. We all know that in some cases, as a parent, the only goal you can have is to keep your kids out of really big trouble, and hope that they learn right from wrong.

I respect the writers for attempting to keep the show true to life, instead of having some magical ending like the Cleaver family always had. Like many situation comedies, "The War at Home" is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Arrested Development," "War" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now "War" is an even better choice.

Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being "mean" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.

One detraction from the show is the narration during/in between scenes. The "Arrested Development/Family Guy" style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.

So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out "The War at Home," especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time. This show is verging on brilliant. It's a modern day Married...with Children. The scripts are witty, as they are sprinkled with clever sarcasm. They are also realistic, dealing with issues that face many parents of teenagers today. As well as the on going burden that you might not be the worlds greatest parent, and how is the best way to deal with this? However, at the same time, it manages to remain light hearted and fun. Which, with all the drama and action on television these days, is a very pleasant and welcome change. It is something you can sit down in front of for 30 minutes and relax, laugh and relate to. It isn't the world's most hilarious comedy. yet will make you laugh at least a handful of times an episode. Michael Rapaport is brilliant in the lead as Dave. He fills the big shoes that the heavily sarcastic script requires and then some. He and Anita Barone (Vikki) have fantastic chemistry and bounce off one another very well. This show has a strong future if it is marketed at the correct target audience, and put in the right time slot. Also, if Fox release it on DVD, the following will be stronger and larger. (As is a classic example with Scrubs.) Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't canceled. I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant. The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!! This was one of the few shows that my wife and I agreed on watching. I was upset to hear that it was canceled, especially because I didn't realize the ratings were so poor. As far as I knew it was doing very well with a lot of viewers. Almost all my friends and most of the people I spoke to watched the show. Now we are stuck watching either crappy shows or DVD's. How bad was the show doing? does anyone know the real results of the shows viewings? I know that when it went to Thursdays, it was more difficult for me to catch. Thank G*d for DVR's!

Anyways, this was a real surprise to know that there will be no more "The War At Home". If any other networks see this, PLEASE PICK UP THE SHOW!!!! PLEASE! i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.

every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.

i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.

The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.

Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either. I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch. Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious.

Some of the characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny.

Is this an All in the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the moment).

Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character is a little hottie. So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of "Sleeping with the Enemy" is an extremely stylish and well-made films.

Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his.

Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh chanting his trademark "I love you, K...k...k...kiran!" or the feel-good mushy scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like leaving your eat in boredom.

Each and every song on the soundtrack is ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances! Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good.

Overall, Darr is g...g...g...great! ;) I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.

This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws:

1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier

2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production

But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal

A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate) The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.

But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.

And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is one of the best Indian films ever made. Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone. Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, "I love you K..k..k..Kiran!"

It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly "together" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!

Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!

As for the music... it was excellent! Especially "Jaadu Teri Nazar," one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought "Tu Mere Samne" was quite nice also.

A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10! I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).

It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated! The movie is a very good movie.one of the best from Yash raj films.The direction is incredible.The screenplay is brilliant.The story is excellent.It tells about Rahul who is obssed of Kiran his college friend.He is a full blown psycho doing things like talking to his mother on a phone(anyway she died 15 years back) etc.Kiran is engaged to Sunil.Rahul does everything so he can get her.He even trys to kill Sunil but he survives it.He even goes to the place where they are going to their honeymoon.The movie is every nes delight.Shahrukh is superb,Juhi is fairly good,Sunny is average,Anupham is okay and so is Tanvi,Dalip did good.The movie belongs to Srk.The dialogues are brilliant(Shahrukh ones and a lot if not the overacting and comedy)."Jaadu Teri Nazar" and "Tu Mere Samne" are absolutely melodious tracks. Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran.

Sunil is very close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts. Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.

Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.

Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well.

The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it. I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before, but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see! This was Bollywood's answer to Fatal attraction and this is a classic film in its own right. Juhi Chawla was good and so was Sunny Deol but it was Shah Rukh Khan who shot to fame as the stalker. Since then he has become a favourite of the Chopra's (Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge, Mohhabatein, Dil to pagal hai, Veer Zaara and Chak De India). Shah Rukh at first appears to be a villain but then towards the end you start to sympathize with him. The scripting was superb and the songs were chartbusters. My favourites are Too mere samne and Jaadu teri nazar.

After the dismal failure of the underrated Lamhe Yash Chopra fought back with Darr. The dialogues were memorable, the k..k..Kiran dialogue is often repeated. Since Darr Yash Chopra has slipped bit. Dil to pagal hai was bad but he redeemed himself slightly with Veer Zaara, which was far far better. This was Yash Chopra's last masterpiece. this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad villain who is totally obsessed with

the girl the story is fantastic the acting by all

characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say "I love you,K-k-Kiran..." It's both heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever. This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie. Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness, and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the "good guy" role seem like the "bad guy" one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years old, it surpasses any recent one. The song "Tu Mere Samne" was full of passion and meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-starring in a similar film. Darr is an brilliant movie..It is 1 of my favourite films..SRK has done a mind blowing job in the movie....

this role couldn't have been played by anyone else because this type of role only suits SRK...

SRK plays a mental villain in the film..

SRK's performance in this movie is the best performance ever in boll wood...

SRK deserves an honour and an encouraging appeal for his fantastic performance...

Juhi also delivers an excellent performance..

Sunny Deol looked strong and physically fit in the film.. Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best. Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion. This isn't far away from the trash that Bollywood normally makes but there's just something really good about it.

The title song is one of Bollywoods best and is haunting throughout. This is one of the films (along with Baazigar - a must see Bollywood film) that made Shah Rukh Khan and it's for this you have to check it out.

Other reviews give away the story - it is a fairly basic idea - ShaRukh definitely stands out and one of his final expressions right at the end made me give this film an extra star.

Its fairly cheesy but definitely worth watching if you are new to Bollywood or not! 8/10 This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film. The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.

PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.

PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.

Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).

There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.

The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.

One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador. Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.

In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.

First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.

Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.

How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable. Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and " Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies. This movie have 4 parts and every is around 170 minutes long. Its based on true story of life of Joe Bonanno and it is telling all how he did see. So in some events we can notice that we heard different about it. Movie make you tied up for chair till the end, i think it is possible to watch all 4 in a row, and not notice i watched 2 in a row and 2 next day in a row. Acting in movie is OK in some scenes awesome but in general could be bather, but this movie is not about acting or special effects and glamor, this one show real thing and story is key to this movie. So the one who look for same spectacular Rambo/matrix/titanic movie you can skip this one. Good thing in movie is that follow the main story so you will not have long and boring love scenes or any different interrupt with something not important to crime business of Bonanno. I found parts of this movie rather slow, especially the first part; the second part seemed to go a lot faster, but it's not totally clear to me as to why one part was faster than the other. I somehow managed to find it enjoyable. The acting was good, the writing was good (yet vulgar). There was also another good side to it: it was easier to understand than say, the Godfather movies. You knew who was on whose side, etc. All in all, the movie wasn't half-bad. Hollywood has turned the Mafia in to a production line of output ranging from the banal to the excellent and despite some good acting and a reasonable script (much of which is - for a change - true!) this "home entertainment" effort has to fall slap bang in the middle.

The script is not only obvious (all of the checklist boxes end up being ticked), but spends a lot of time trying to create a pastiche of the best of other people's work. The Godfather being the most obvious, but there are other references too. I won't bother naming them. Nevertheless it is a good taste borrower! The producer seems to set a quota for gunshots and murder (one at least every twenty minutes?) and the ending is weak and "so what?" I am told there are various versions of this production so that maybe that is just the version I have seen.

Gangsters don't make money they take money. Usually by fear. Some seem more in to the murder and mayhem side of the business than making money. They were the ones that were the first to go (in real life and here). "You can't make money with a gun in your hand" says Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano at one stage. One of the smarter gangsters, although all things are relative. He was a skilled white slave trader and a drug dealer before being bundled home to Italy.

The old school "moustached Pete's" were picked off by the new bloods who wanted the power and the money for themselves and to break free of the straight jacket of Italian/Sicilian power (rarely doing business outside themselves). The young Turk knew they needed to be allied with other groups (most notably "the Jews" who knew how to launder money) and this is at least referenced and acknowledged. What isn't made so clear is that most immigrant groups had their own Mafia's - but most of them made their money and went legit. And why not? Who wants to die in jail?

Joseph Bonanno was a ruthless man prepared to kill if needs be , but not an unfair or stupid one. His story was tragic in that he could have made money in the over ground world and he showed a special skill in avoiding getting killed. With a little bit of luck attached, naturally.

Despite the range of respectable names and three actors in the title role (Bruce Ramsay, Martin Landau and Tony Nardi) there isn't the charisma or the talent to bring us in and feel anything. We are - merely - passive observers in a life we are glad not to have lead. The people shown here were born in to a cruel world but their only mark was to make it crueler.

If you can't get enough of the gangster genre that will be better than watching Godfather 1 & 2 for the tenth time and it is even better -- as basic entertainment -- than the horrible misfire that was Godfather 3. I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it in agreement in at least a few of the scenes.

The acting is not only believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover, it's funny, without trying too hard at it.

And, yes, I truly believe a sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why.

Highly recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message. 'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships. We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone. It is clear this film's value far supersedes the cost with which the format (mini-dv) implies. In fact, the filmmaker embraces the format and incorporates it so craftily into the storyline that I forgot the fact that I was not seeing the typical 35 millimeter film. It has the core appeal of indie movies like Clerks & the work of Robert Rodriguez combined with a fantastic "new take" on the romantic comedy genre. "This Is Not A Film" is an honest film with honest portrayals and, it is a superbly paced narrative. There is not one point in this film where I felt a scene could have (or should have) been omitted. On the contrary, the director pulls amazing performances out of truly gifted actors and does so in extremely confining circumstances. From page to screen, this film is a worthy and relevant story that hits on so many levels (creative, technical or otherwise). I highly recommend it for all who enjoy cinema or those looking for a little charm in an otherwise devoid of charm medium. Most movies from Hollywood seem to follow one of a few pre-formulated and very predictable plots. This film does not and is a perfect example of what I watch IFC for.

There's a guy, Michael, and his girlfriend left him with out a word. He wants to know what happened. Is she OK ? Can he say goodbye ? Perhaps get some closure. He hasn't been able to contact Grace and in an effort to find her he has made a film asking for your help.

Michael figures we might need a reason to help him, so he tells us his story by reliving his relationship with the help of a friend ( Nadia ) to play the role of Grace ( the girlfriend who left)

Hind sight is 20/20 and it is no different for Michael. By telling his story, and getting feedback from his friends, he realizes his mistakes and just how much he values what he has lost. This is unfortunately a lesson we all have had to learn ( or need to learn ) and is easy to identify with. That is what makes you want to hear more of Michael's story and wanting to know if he finds Grace. This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.

I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.

I hope that he finds her.

Take a look and be entertained.

KirbyEF loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that, so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets "left on", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10/10 because of two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film The whole town of Blackstone is afraid, because they lynched Bret Dixon's brother - and he is coming back for revenge! At least that's what they think.

A great Johnny Hallyday and a very interesting, early Mario Adorf star in this Italo-Western, obviously filmed in the Alps.

Bret Dixon is coming back to Blackstone to investigate why his brother was lynched. He is a loner and gunslinger par excellance, everybody is afraid of him - the Mexican bandits (fighting the Gringos that took their land!) as well as the "decent" citizens that lynched Bret's brother. They lynched him, because they thought he stole their money instead of bringing it to Dallas to the safety of the bank there. But this is is only half the truth, as we find out in the course of this psychologically interesting western.

But beware, it's kind of a depressing movie as everybody turns out to be guilty somehow and definitely everybody is bad to the bone...

Still, I enjoyed it very much and gave it an 8/10. Strange, that only less than 5 people voted for this movie as of January 12th 2002.... The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I think that says a lot about how well-made this film is.

This is a top notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy. This film has "Euro" written all over it.

I hope there is a pristine negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it! In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties, and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed. Cult film-maker Corbucci's rarest of his thirteen Spaghetti Westerns (of which I'm only left with WHAT AM I DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVOLUTION [1972] to catch) is one I only became aware of fairly recently via Marco Giusti's "Stracult" guide; it's an atypically bleak genre gem in the style of the director's own masterpiece, THE GREAT SILENCE (1968), complete with desolate snowy landscapes.

Johnny Hallyday, the French Elvis Presley, whom I first saw in Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE (1985) is a curious but highly effective choice to play the loner anti-hero Hud (who, like Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's celebrated "Dollars Trilogy", is fitted with a steel-plate armor for protection); incidentally, I had 'met' Hallyday's stunning daughter Laura Smet at the 2004 Venice Film Festival but was distracted by the presence of her esteemed director, Claude Chabrol! Gastone Moschin is another curious addition to the fold (serving pretty much the same function that Frank Wolff did in THE GREAT SILENCE) but acquits himself well and is amusingly clumsy in the presence of a bathing Francoise Fabian; the latter, then, plays a greedy nymphomaniac of a banker's widow who seduces all and sundry in the pursuit of her goals. Sylvie Fennec has the other major female role as a farm girl looked after by Hallyday and who, at one point, is entreated into Free Love by 'hippie' Apache Gabriella Tavernese (with this is mind, it's worth noting that the movie features surprising but welcome bouts of nudity from both Fabian and Tavernese)! Incidentally, the anachronistic addition of a bunch of long-haired youths (who also engage in dope-smoking and revolutionary talk) is a somewhat half-baked attempt at contemporary relevance – but it all eventually adds to the fun (besides, even the black barmaid sports an Afro hairdo!).

Mario Adorf, too, enjoys himself tremendously with the smallish role of a larger-than-life Mexican bandit nicknamed "El Diablo" – who keeps a youthful biographer constantly by his side (an element which may have influenced Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN [1992]) and, at one point, challenges the captive Moschin to a head-butting duel! Having mentioned this, the film also contains one very unusual 'weapon of death' – as Hallyday disposes of an adversary by kicking the cash-register of the saloon into his face! As always, the enjoyably fake fistfights are accompanied by over-emphatic sound effects; equally typically for the genre, however, the wistful score by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino emerges a most significant asset. Actually, the ambiguous ending is entirely in keeping with the film's generally somber tone – after Fabian's comeuppance at the hands of the locals, the hippies (who had previously idolized Hud) suddenly turn against him when wounded and terrorize the town (forcing everyone on the street and unclothed)…but the unflappable gunman manages to lift himself up to meet their challenge (they, however, scurry away at the prospect of facing him!) and then rides out of town, leaving Fennec behind.

In conclusion, I acquired this via a good-quality Widescreen print in Italian albeit with French credits and the occasional lapse – about one minute of screen-time in all – into the French language (where, apparently, the original soundtrack wasn't available). You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because 'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes.

GLI SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always plays his characters.

Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration. Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can be. When Jean seduces the young gardener for the sole purpose of annoying her husband little does she realise the explosive drama that is to follow.

The short scenario does not waste a word or a frame in this brief interlude in the day of a dysfunctional family. The lives of the father, mother and son are all linked in some way with the gardener. It's this fact that makes the script so intriguing.

For such a short film the production is every bit as professional as any major work and the casting is ideal.

A wonderful little film that can guarantee a few laughs from beginning to end. Screening as part of a series of funny shorts at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras film festival, this film was definitely a highlight. The script is great and the direction and acting was terrific. As another posting said, the actors' comedic timing really made this film. Lots of fun. "Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend. This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.

A good film by a great director! 7,5/10 Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching "Welcome Home", I said to myself, "this director really knows what he's doing," not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are. For me this wonderful rollercoaster of a film bears repeated pleasurable viewings. Its about the tangled lives of three very different people. Holly Hunter is the obsessive workaholic producer. Albert Brookes plays the unprepossessing but brilliant journalist. William Hurt is the affable but dumb new kid on the block, news anchor.

The classical love triangle emerges with the stunningly witty and self deprecating Brookes in love with Hunter but she of course is attracted to Hurt.

This film works on many levels. At the very least it is a brilliant comedy with the one liners flying so thick and fast that each viewing bears a new harvest of ones that you may have missed last time. Its also a film about attraction and unfulfilled romance.

But perhaps most importantly the film examines the modern obsession with physical appearance and its ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute. This is personified by the meteoric career success of the Hurt character in contrast to Brookes relative decline.

Despite being fifteen years old the film has some startingly relevant messages about modern news values and the continuing decline in journalistic standards.

This film is a classic in every sense and it is difficult to understand why it has been so neglected This movie is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what goes on behind the scenes in the television news business.

There are so many funny lines...a couple of my favorites:

Ernie Merriman: (sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's awful!!

Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that? Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room!

The performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a favorite. I highly recommend this film. Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment. Essential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course instructors impressed on us that TV news was a "branch of show-biz". That depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on camera.

The interactions between the three main characters form the centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before. I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, "Something like BROADCAST NEWS." That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.

James L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at life. He isn't only the producer for "The Simpsons," he has some classic comedies under his belt -- "Broadcast News" is one of them.

Although it doesn't match his later effort "As Good As It Gets," "Broadcast News" is still a very clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV.

This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings.

A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't always like so much) and apt direction. I say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie.

It's a great film, I think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that.

William Hurt has never been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's slowly being compromised in our nation.

Watch this with NETWORK for a truly fun and frightening evening. "Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.

Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.

You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.

7.0 out of 10 From producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.

At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: "I don't think there will be any Q&A." Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.

WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.

Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.

You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.

Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.

The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion. Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.

Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.

William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?

This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's "Network", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.

It's a cute ending, but compared to "Network" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.

Perhaps this is why "Broadcast News", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.

But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.

So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.

8/10 – This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.

Worth one viewing. Broadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987}

****/****

Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic masterpiece. Good drama/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 out of 10. ...there was "Broadcast News," and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.

There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too "Sleepless in Seattle." Fortunately, they're few and far between.

One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including "Raising Arizona," her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)

A legitimate classic. If you have not seen this late 80s film about the the Washington Bureau of a Network News station than I highly recommend it. It is a sad commentary on the direction of news reporting in this country but tells the story with wit. The characters are well developed and Albert Brooks performance is fabulous. He delivers all his lines with entertaining understated comedy. I am not an Albert Brooks fan at all so this was a welcome surprise. I have a friend who works as a producer for a local news station and he advised that this is close to reality so kudos to the films writer and director for doing their research.

Fun movie with a lot of insight into the World of Network News. It is not nearly as dark as another movie I also recommend in the same genre 'Network'. I don't really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem by the time that "Broadcast News" came out, and the movie does a really good job looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches. Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: "I don't really understand any of what I'm reporting." And in the era of FOX News and such things, a movie like this becomes even more important.

All in all, definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman. TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.

Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.

This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.

This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.

The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.

Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.

Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.

Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.

Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.

James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star. i thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing. This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.

Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.

Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.

Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.

The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.

Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive! Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.

Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it. I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.

Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.

Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later. I didn't like "As Good as it Gets" very much, but I am a big fan of William Hurt and Holly Hunter's work, so I decided to watch this movie. And the most surprising thing for me was the superb work of Albert Brooks. Here, in Spain, he's little-known, and only as a 2nd division version of Woody Allen in the West Coast. He played a great part, but Hunter and Hurt were good too, specially Hurt, in an relatively unusual role for him. Hunter played the role that reminds me a bit of her part in "Once Around" (Lasse Hallstrom, 1991).

Finally, the rest of the cast is great, too. Robert Prosky, one of these familiar faces of the american cinema, the ex-bond girl Lois Chiles, pretty good placed on that role, I think, the always perfect Joan Cusack in her early years; and specially the brief appereance of Jack Nicholson. Maybe he doesn't have any good scene, but it's Jack Nicholson, anyway... The Best movie by James L.Brooks, great story (well resolved), and superb cast for one of the, surely, best movies of the 80's Typically, I'm a comedy guy. I rented this at the video store under comedy, and thought "Albert Brooks! Awesome!" and rented it. It seemed like the romantic comedy, and I remembered I hated those, and had the full mindset of hating this movie.

Boy, was I wrong.

While this is a romantic comedy, it's acted by an amazing lead & supporting cast (Brooks, Hunter, Cusack, and Nicholson), and everything works well within itself. The script sounds real and not forced, like this could be happening in the news station you're watching at night. It takes your emotions and makes you enjoy Hunter and Brooks and loathe Hurt, which makes the ending a bit unenjoyable and fruitless, but it shows how you don't need a happy ending to end a movie, you just need a truthful ending, which is what everyone got. Not everybody's life ends well, and it shows in Broadcast News. Maybe people don't like the ending because it's not your typical happy ending associated with romantic comedies... but it works, it's real, and it's genius. Broadcast News is a classic in it's time, and a fine romance movie up there with "Casablanca". Well, maybe not that high, but it's the only other romance I can think of that I like.

Broadcast News: 9/10. Movie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable

scenes to be considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have

three, it has twice that. This movie is extremely well written by

James Brooks. Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks have never been

better. I love this movie for many reasons. It is great because it

makes you laugh and it makes you cry. Albert Brooks has several

great lines and many unforgettable scenes: # 1(laughed) "I can

sing and read, I am singing while I read," with Midnight Train to

Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed) Telling the

William Hurt character that "You really blew the lid off of nookie,"

after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When Aaron

(A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and she

can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents

everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can forget the scene where Aaron

anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in

movies, great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson

cameo! A truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story because it's a classic: you're in love with "Mr. Right" but he has no interest in you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant, and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks), and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting 7 years later.

8/10 This movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed. Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly Hunter's directions to cab drivers! Spoiler Alert

I have never seen comments on a movie, that I disagree with more then the comments people made on this. One could learn from critical viewings of this movie. As an educational film, I rate it highly because it teaches "how to succeed"! We do not watch movies to learn; we generally watch for entertainment. As entertainment, I rate it low: the ending is downbeat and cerebral/intellectual. This conflict results in my eight star rating. The movie follows Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), a television news producer. The network executive introduces Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), to study for the on air news anchor position. Tom immediately charms people with humbleness. Another potential news anchor has been waiting for years for his on air opportunity, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks). Altman knows all news stories, inside and out.

The Network executive wants Grunnick on the air and Jane argues, saying Grunnick is not ready, he doesn't know the news. They do not listen to her. Forced to place Grunnick on the air, Jane contacts Altman to get information on the news story and relays Altman's comments through an earpiece to Grunnick while Grunnick speaks. We watch the sharp contrast between Altman's/Jane Craig's words and Grunnick's, as Grunnick skillfully rewords everything Altman and Jane Craig say in his ear, in order to make it understandable, likable and entertaining the audience. Altman gets a chance on air and the network execs require him to seek coaching from Grunnick, the new guy. This new (news ingnorant) guy coaching him? This is something Altman does not see justified, but agrees reluctantly.

Grunnick coaches Altman and gets excited noting hundreds of Altman's shortcomings in appearance, audio and vocabulary. Altman never considered these things before, when he became an expert on the news itself. The complexity of understanding what Grunnick taught him, causes Altman to have a panicked sweating attack ("Flop Sweat") when he is on the air. Grunnick eventually becomes the top network anchor and Altman resigns prior to being fired. But Grunnick fails in his attempt for a romance with Jane Craig, because she finds out from Altman, that Grunnick sometimes fakes circumstances in order to make people like him. This turns her off of him. This sends the message that in relationships, we want people who are genuine and not trying to make us like them.

This movie sends the message that getting people to like you is the most important skill in a job, but it is especially true in Broadcast News. There are many people commenting on how this is the dumbing down of TV News and how Grunnick represents a good looking, but dumb guy or all style, but no substance. The opposite is true, Grunnick possessed skills and very complex intellect, to get people to like him, including the presence of mind to know exactly how he appears and sounds, when he is on camera (He coaches Altman to Punch a word in every sentence). Grunnick's flaw that costs him the relationship with Jane Craig, is that he is too driven to be likable and will fake a situation. Many people are calling Altman very intelligent or brilliant. Altman played by Brookes is not as intelligent as Grunnick and the "Flop Sweat" scene shows that his mind could not handle the complexity that Grunnick handles when on the air. Altman is angered by this fact that he knew the news and Grunnick suceeded more by getting people to like him. There are also people commenting that these things are exclusive to the TV News industry. The concept that winning friends is the most important skill in a job, is obviously, not popular, but my experience indicates it is true in most jobs. As an education on how to succeed, this movie is fantastic, albeit unpopular. Educational, yes, but it does not have an uplifting ending. Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.

One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.

Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?

Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America."

And this is what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.

"Network" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network "news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not. I was completely drawn into the story, but I wonder if perhaps I shouldn't have been so sympathetic to the Hurt character's plight for respect. Because when it boils down, I really think that glam reporters such as Barbara Walters is the devil. ...or maybe the filmmakers were telling us that we're all unknowing supporters of fluff news stories. Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.

While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar "The Boogens"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.

It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.

An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.

7/10 Basically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's subterranean creature feature favorite "The Boogens," this entertainingly schlocky cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand, charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark, uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly, multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie. I think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like "the otherworld" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality, contrary to what some other people think In the changing world of CG and what-not of cartoon animations etc. etc., Faeries was a warm welcome at least by me. I think it's important to show these sort of films once in a while, to preserve them and help remind us of where the originality and fun of cartoons actually came from. People were talking about how it is boring because of the graphics and stuff but hey! think about the films that will be considered boring if every film looked like the new state of the art ones everybody and their mother is making these days. Call me old-fashioned but I liked it. It's a wonderful story about supernatural beings and human beings and all it really needs from its audience is their imagination. I cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of "Showboat", than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the Music of VH. There is an abundance of this.

For me, the thrill of the movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings "Land of Romance". It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local 'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by Miss Foster was a far F above high C.'

She may not have had four octaves a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range! Now I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years

Jones and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played.

As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride.

The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO.

Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better. Challen Cates does a wonderful job depicting a conflicted bride, torn between the challenges that await her professionally, the memories of the freedom she thought she would have when in college (inspired by a famous author) and the safety of her pending marriage to a man she really doesn't love. This movie is definitely worth seeing--- as predictable as it may be, the acting is inspiring and real chemistry exists between Challen Cates and Malcolm Jamaal Warner. This movie was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is "a must see" one...

Most Christmas movies have a "redemption" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it.

BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip? "A Fare to Remember" is a totally derivative, almost ridiculous movie, but has a warmth about it that makes it a very effective and upbeat holiday movie. It stars a pretty newcomer, Challen Kates, as a high-powered ad executive who, right before her wedding, has to rush from L.A. to Seattle to keep a client who has rejected every other presentation. She has transportation difficulties from the beginning and seemingly no money. This is the first dumb thing - were there no ATMs anywhere? She must make a fortune. At any rate, she meets a cab driver (Warner) who looks like a homeless man, and he drives her to her presentation and when she emerges with a huge box of beef jerky (the client's product), he's there to take her to the airport. All flights are canceled, so in order to get to L.A. for her wedding, she hires him to take her there.

Along the way, they bond and learn from each other. It's a very sweet movie though there is absolutely nothing new in it - it combines "Six Days and Seven Nights" and a few other films. But the chemistry between the stars is good, they're likable, and the acting is good. Look for Jerry Springer as the head of the beef jerky company and a cameo by Karl Malden.

This is a nice film to take in over the holiday season. It's on Lifetime. A tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing it. I came across this movie while channel surfing one day; and decided to give it a chance. To my surprise I enjoyed this darkhorse movie. I felt some genuine chemistry between Challen Cates and Malcolm-Jamal Warner. It was such a lighthearted and warm movie that when it was over I felt upbeat. Sure, this movie was predictable from the very beginning, but I give it high marks for the way that it made me feel when it was over. I must admit that I have never seen Challen Cates before, but I feel that she can definitely act. When you combine her good acting with her cute face and attractive figure. She has the makings of at least becoming a well-known star. There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does "Surface" succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.

The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying "Aha!" is what makes or breaks a show like this one.

"Surface" had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).

HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt. This is one of the better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with filler episodes and low budgets.

The problem with the show, which in short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters, fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then, the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and promising.

Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also, the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit. I love this show. It's truly unique. I was under the impression it was going to have more seasons. In anticipation of series 2, recently I purchased series 1 to re-watch it in order to be refreshed when part 2 started. Now after watching it I was excited and craving more, so I came to the site to see the schedule for the continuation. I am really disappointed to see there no longer are plans for a second series as I was eagerly looking forward to watching more of this story. I think they really dropped the ball on this one. There was plenty of story line left to build on and lots of unanswered questions. I'm now a very unhappy view and I hope that they would reconsider their decision and pick up the story where it left off. I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.

Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!! I like the show, but come-on writers, get some action in it! Quit dragging it on and on. You have a great concept and it could be a whole lot more. Miles (Jenkins) is great and performs as a kid that age should act in the situation he finds himself in. Hey, get creative with the creatures, they may have telepathic capabilities or other out-worldly powers. The kid actors in the series are very good and convincing. The parents of Miles do appear to be a little too out-of-sense as to what is going on, but develop this, come on! you have a great seed here and there can be a whole new twist to next season with a lot of new characters and creatures and all kinds of neat sci-fi stuff. If they could make a series on a witch, then you should be able to make one on these creatures and kids. This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of "Surface", a television show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects.

Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a disappointment. "Surface" was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging.

It is basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a television blend of "Jurassic Park" and "ET". The story begins as a puzzle as a crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be seen again).

Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it hatches into an "ET" type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent, extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect their origin it all gets very tired and predictable.

Jay R. Ferguson (a staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the Richard Dreyfuss character from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", so you know that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode. Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff "Jason Bourne" gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-day actuarial conference.

Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent "Gossip Girl" fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance of this to their "teenage boy" target audience and the one positive thing they did with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a "first love" interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is gradually phased in.

In retrospect they needed a third storyline to keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating.

I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature truly exists.

Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book.

Love the show very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem with TV today is that people have been spoiled by "lite" TV viewing. This type of television show is the equivalent of elevator music or "easy listening" jazz. The typical viewers idea of "continuity" is remembering who got voted off the island last week and wondering who will be the next to go. Show them a program like surface, Firefly, Dr. Who, or anything with a plot arc of more than three episodes and...well, they'll just flip back to Survivor.

95% of the sheep watching TV don't want to rack their brains. They want excuses to not think. They want to make sure the "boob tube" lives up to its name...and they don't want shows that try and go any other route. Because of this, Surface and many other high-quality shows that should have lasted far longer have gotten the axe.

TV viewers don't want stories, or morals, or philosophy, or anything over a third grade vocabulary level. They want people eating earthworms, or over-dramatized "real life" series (no such thing! You cannot observe something without changing the very nature of what you observe) or hormonal shows involving groups of people having trysts and then bragging about it to their friends.

Today's television is nothing but a wasteland, and the few diamonds you can pick out of the dust are just tossed out because no one even knows what a diamond is anymore. Surface was one of those diamonds. What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow. Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that delivers it all. ***SPOILERS*** Whatever else can (or can't) be said about it, SURFACE is superbly crafted. The cinematography is simply stunning (to say the least) and the fx are nothing if not state-of-the-art. Conceptually, the show offers a little bit of everything- and for just about everybody (parents, kids, fantasy and/or fx fans). CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND by way of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a bit of JAWS and GODZILLA thrown in for good measure, say. And there wasn't a single sour note struck acting-wise, either; some surprisingly solid casting, here. This series SURFACEd, seemingly, from out of nowhere and, by sheer dint of its straightforward storytelling, carried the viewer along for the better part of an entire season. All things considered, a job very well done. I only hope it reSURFACEs next season... It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely favorable reviews. Such a shame.

Since then, I've acquired the remaining episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the crowds back into the theater for the next episode.

Well, it seems for some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode 6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clichéd, and I've got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated tremendously, feeling very "true", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One can hope, at least. :) Surface is one of the best shows that I have ever seen. NBC is so stupid for canceling a great show like this and worse of all only leaving it half complete. NBC or someone else should give Surface at least one more season just so it can be completed. It's as if NBC gave you a book to read and half way through it they decide to take it away from you and then you can never find out the ending. I just want to see what happens to everyone and most importantly see what happens to Nim. I think I can say this safely about most Surface fans is that we want to save Nim! Nim has taken all of our hearts away and then NBC just cuts them in two. Come on NBC, just give Surface one more season! Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because "reality" makes money. the show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a "reality" show, this will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the church like that! i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high

10/10 I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion.

Thanks.

Paulette Blackwell When i started watching "Surface"for the first time i was hooked.It had everything i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way. I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero. I am new at this, so bear with me please. I am a big fan of Surface. I thought the script and the computer graphics were exceptional, as good as any Sci Fi flick I've seen at the theater. In February the TV guide said Season Finale, the announcer for the show said something to the effect of, "...and now for the season finale of Surface." Season Finale, not series finale! I couldn't wait for fall to get here, to see was going to happen next. So fall gets here and it's nowhere to be found! If NBC isn't going to pick it up, what about Sci Fi or USA? It seems to me that Bay Watch didn't last long on ABC & then USA picked it up, and it went gang busters! (I bet ABC was chocking) Ha! If not a series, then at least a mini series, to give all us loyal fans closure. What happened to our guy's trapped in the church steeple? Was the creature in the chaple Nim? Did he have a grouth spert? Does the cloned guy come over to our side? There are so many unanswered questions. Thank's for listening to me babble! This show has an amazing plot with good and recognizable actors (like the girl from Boston Legal and Boris the Butcher from Snatch). Even the extras and the kid, whom i thought from the commercial might be a weak link, surprised me with his skill. It's just the little things that the director needs to tweak. Like the guy who does the recap of the last episode at the beginning of each new episode needs to be fired. Having a narrator tell you what happened kind of ruins the story. The only other small problem I had was that sometimes they take too long to do things, but no where near as long as some shows like Prison Break. Anyone know when they will resume the season?? All I can say after watching the DVDs of the first season is that I can not believe NBC "green-lighted" this show. It's so different than what's currently in vogue save for Lost. Those who miss the X-Files just may have a worthy successor. Not as mysterious or intense as Lost, I find it to be overall more entertaining.

This kind of extended story is hard to make. I mean it could degenerate into childish dribble if most of the elements do not cohere together. But cohere they do and I think the cast is excellent, the writing sharp, the location and props first rate, and the special effects very good for a television budget. Sure it pushes what is plausible, but as it does it never gets so silly as to insult your intelligence.

Bottomline is that this is great Sci-Fi drama for the entire family. I doubt it will be a classic with a long run like X-Files, but in the meantime I recommend getting the DVD if you missed it like I did the first time around. This fall my must see shows has just increased by one more series!

PS: I just heard it got axed from NBC...Here's hoping Sci-Fi picks it up. Surface, from the day its teaser first showed in the summer of 2005, was a tossup. On one hand, it seemed so high-concept and plot driven that to the passerby it felt like it would work out better as a motion picture (or several). Plus, it felt like it was NBC's attempt at a "Lost-killer". On the other hand, one may have realized that the story was too expansive to tell in a movie or two, and fans of Lost seemed intrigued.

So, after one (and possibly only) season on NBC, the show is on an indefinite hiatus that could either put it in the vault, on Sci-fi, or filling a gap in NBC's lineup in the summer or fall of 2007 or beyond. Its ratings were some of the better on the network (which isn't saying much), but the show has been taken off the air with no real official announcement of its future.

So, is it worthwhile? Yes.

Surface follows a continuing story format, driven by plot with next to no filler episodes. Almost everything that happens on the show is important to the plot, much like a motion picture. No filler episodes, which put a pain in your side when you missed an episode. Yet, the show's double-edge helped made up for that; Big things seem to happen every episode, but since it feels like a movie you end every episode feeling like little happened and you're left wanting more! That trait of the show, though shows how great it is. The cast is solid; the three main leads, including the beautiful Lake Bell as Laura Daughtery, put in a solid performance every episode, each driven by their own reasons for finding/studying the creatures. The supporting cast, including Ian Anthony Dale and the brief performance by Rade Serbedzija fill out the cast well. The story is slow to start (my one regret; it doesn't really pick up until a 3-4 episodes in to the short 15-episode season), but the latter half of the season makes up for it. The visual effects are stunning (one's jaw will drop when you see an overhead view of one of the creatures 'attack' a ship), as well.

Many of the show's problems can be remedied by purchasing the complete first season and not having to wait a week (or three) to watch the next episode.

In short, if you've missed the first season and you're curious, go back and watch it. It's no Twin Peaks in terms of quirkiness, but the high-concept nature of it puts in in league with that, Lost, and other similar shows, with a flair for action and adventure. Enjoy it. Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines). I am sorry to see that SURFACE has not been picked up for the NBC 2006-2007 season. I guess market demand for inane game and reality shows on broadcast television, a reflection on our sense of culture, has conquered a good story. I hope and pray that some network picks it up so it will continue on as does STARGATE and it's spin-offs.

I also hope the producers find a venue where they can produce the level of Post Production they wished for in a TV Guide interview. Right now the reruns on Sci-Fi, marathons, will have to do. I for one would love to see where the story goes after the tsunami that ended Episode 15. I would like to find out the mastermind of the efficient effort to obfuscate the real identity of the creatures.

FYC Morningbear This is the first sci fi series that I have seriously become hooked on since Star Trek, (and I haven't watched Trek in years). It takes the invasion theme in somewhat different directions, but has done it in a very exciting way. It also borrows from soap opera format, where it continues the arc throughout the entire year run of the series. The CGI definitely doesn't overcome the plot or the characters, except for Nim, the fledgling creature who is a pet with definite attitude. (Anything that would show what he really thought about the neighbor's yippy dog is A-1 in my book.) He was a stroke of genius.

I am left at the end of the finale asking questions (intelligent ones, I hope) and crossing my fingers and toes that NBC or someone else (Sci Fi, maybe) will continue to run the series and answer those questions.

A really great, classy show. A new and innovative show with a great cast that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Lake Bell is wonderful..it is to bad that her other show "Miss Match" was canceled. I am just glad she came back on "Surface". I can't wait for the return of "Surface". This show is really something unique to watch. With an eerie underwater world that is akin to Jurassic Park, this show keeps you wondering what is next. Nim is adorable even if he is going to turn into something larger and much more ominous. There are so many generic shows out there that just seem to rehash the same old subjects. When something like "Surface" comes along you just have to say "THANK YOU!". I thought this was a very good TV series and I would like to see it continue. It really got interesting there at the end and I really want to see where it is going from there. Some times we are to quick to kill a series without giving it a chance. I think this one needs a chance to go on, and I will definitely be waiting for it. The ocean is one of the places that man knows so little about and I think that is a mystery in itself. What is waiting for us beneath the waters of the world. It is even said that man maybe crawled out or slivered out of the waters many millennium ago. Is this a new evolution coming about? Are we going to move down the food chain or fight for our position? i have now seen the whole of season one and can say i have not enjoyed a show of this standard in a long time it great to see a show like this in the pipeline and hope that there are many on the way the season final was the best bar none cant wait for season 2 as far as i am conserned things can only get better like how will milles continu to change will rick get his family back and how will they get off the church roof with acting of this level it is easy to see why the show is such a big hit with people as long as people as making shows like this i will keep watching i think its hard now to come up with an original idea as so many shows have coverd a large range of subjects so to see one as original as this is refreshing Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action, suspense, science fiction, etc.

Story was of a boy who found an egg that hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very friendly.

Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up. Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger – and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series – particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but … many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are "Surface", and "Odyssey 5". If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue – it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed "Surface" immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable – and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware. Surface is one of the greatest t.v. series I have seen. The acting is great and the storyline enthralling. Each episode left me barely able to wait to watch the next. I especially thought Carter Jenkins who played Miles Bennett did a superb job...he is a very talented actor and I look forward to seeing more of his work.

I can't believe Surface only made one season...once again the public has let me down. It is hard to fathom that a great shows like this one would get canceled, while crap reality shows continue on year after year. Whoever made the decision to cancel this show really dropped the ball on this one. If vampire tales are your cup of blood, then this Goth-fest based on the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles should prove to be a satisfying experience. A veritable consortium of the undead in a contemporary setting, `Queen of the Damned,' directed by Michael Rymer, is a story of shadows and darkness, and of the unfortunate souls who dwell therein for eternity.

The vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend), bored with a world that no longer excites him, has been `asleep' for many years; but suddenly, the sounds of that world he hears from his extended slumber change, and liking what he hears, he ventures forth to investigate. What he finds is a world filled with new sounds, a new kind of music-- driving and penetrating-- sounds that assault the senses and make him feel alive and welcome. And he knows that at long last his time has come, that it is time for him and those like him to come out into the open and face the world on their terms. Toward that end he becomes the front man for a band-- a singer and performer unlike any the world has ever known. He presents himself as a vampire, and very quickly amasses a following that extends far beyond London (where it all begins), and will ultimately take him to Death Valley, California, where he plans to give a concert that promises to be beyond anything anyone has ever seen or experienced.

Lestat is powerful, without question, but there are those of his kind who do not take favorably to the fact that he has revealed them, one of whom is Marius (Vincent Perez), a vampire powerful in his own right-- the vampire, in fact, who `made' Lestat so many years before-- and they are gathering, coming together and making their plans to meet Lestat at the concert. And they are not going for the music. But there is something else, as well: At one point Lestat has inadvertently awakened the `Mother' of them all, the most powerful of all the vampires, Akasha (Aaliyah), who is about to make her presence known to all, and especially to the one she has chosen to rule by her side as her King: Lestat. And at the concert, rest assured, Akasha will be in attendance, without fail.

Make no mistake, this is Lestat's story, and Rymer presents it amid a setting rich with atmosphere and with some exquisite moments, though his film has less bite to it than say, `Interview With the Vampire,' or `Bram Stoker's Dracula.' He sets a good pace, and there are some scenes that provide some real thrills, but overall the film isn't as soaked in menace as it could be, or as much as one might expect. In the final tally, in fact, the amount of flesh that is incinerated wins out over actual blood-letting, though there is more than a taste of gore, and more than a fair share of lips and mouths dripping with the red stuff. There's some good F/X on hand, too, especially in the sequences that accentuate the speed of the vampires, as they move and hurtle through the air faster than the naked eye can discern. It's a decent job by Rymer, but he could have put more teeth into it had he played up the alienation hinted at by Lestat; as it is, you get a sense of his detachment, but not enough to get you totally involved.

In `Interview With the Vampire,' Tom Cruise brought some charismatic star power to the role of Lestat, but Townsend is even more effective, with a look and an attitude that captures Lestat perfectly. He plays him with a sense of acceptance, and under closer scrutiny you may even find a hint of remorse and longing. It's a good performance, and one that sells his character convincingly.

As Marius, Vincent Perez does a nice job, too-- he is, in fact, one of the strengths of the film-- though his character is a bit ambiguous; that, however, has more to do with the way he was written than with Perez's performance, which is quite good.

Turning in noteworthy performances, as well, are Marguerite Moreau, as Jesse, a young woman too curious for her own good; and the gorgeous Lena Olin as Maharet, Jesse's Aunt, who ultimately plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the drama involving Lestat and Akasha.

And as Akasha, Aaliyah is an absolutely riveting presence. What more can one say about her other than she is a gifted performer, with tremendous talent and beauty. And, tragically, she has left us much too soon.

The supporting cast includes Paul McGann (David), Christian Manon (Mael), Claudia Black (Pandora), Bruce Spence (Khayman), Matthew Newton (Armand), Tiriel Mora (Roger) and Megan Dorman (Maudy). With a much stronger story than the usual offerings of this particular genre, Anne Rice fans, especially, will be pleased with `Queen of the Damned,' a film nicely crafted and delivered by director Rymer and his engaging cast. By focusing attention on the drama of the story-- and the way it's presented-- rather than concentrating on merely providing some cheap thrills, Rymer has succeeded in turning out a true horror film that is definitely a cut above, and one that just may whet your appetite for more of the same. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7/10.





Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven.

However, there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying.

The acting in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and more.

This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given, and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not read the book).

Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music; though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently.

Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion on the adaption. Although this movie doesn't have the darkness of the books, it is in my opinion a great movie. It's great campy fun with the beautiful Stuart Townsend as Lestat. He may not have the blond hair and blue eyes that are so vividly described in the book, but to be fair, he would not look good with blond hair, and Lestat is most definitely about looking good. He moves like the predator I always imagined Lestat would have.

The visual effects are pretty good, and the soundtrack is absolutely amazing. It's not Interview with the Vampire, so don't try to compare the two. Interview is Louis' story. This is a cut and paste version of Lestat's. In any case, I highly recommend. I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as that. It has very little to do with the books: half of the characters have been eliminated, the plot has been greatly altered, people's parents are changed for different characters . . .

However, if you watch it as an independent piece (try and forget you ever read the books) the movie is very well put together, everyone is very good looking, and there is even a sweet ending... Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot, Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more (albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players (and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but I thought it was a nice supplement.

I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision. The movie, although not faithful to the original novels, succeeds in creating modern gothic vampire vision. Somebody tried to insult QotD calling it a 1,5h music video clip. Actually it is a complement. The everpresent gothic music combined with the music-video-like shots made the movie so moody - and "Queen of the Damned" is a mood-driven story.

I do not understand the die hard fans who complain on the modifications of the story. The plot has been modified to be less confusing for viewers who do not know the novels. The number of characters had been lessened and I have no problems with changing Lestat's maker or skipping Mekare's character. The biggest change - the romance of Lestat and Jesse - seemed a very nice addition to me.

Actually, I think that a faithful adaptation would be a complete failure. The slow and gloomy mood, that was perfect to XIXth century New Orlean and Louis's angst, wouldn't fit Lestat's rebellion and his music. And while the book can be slow, descriptive and combining multiple elements yet conveying them well, the movie simply cannot do it without turning chaotic. "Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" can be split into at least three movies - the creators had to choose something.

Some of the special effects, like the flying or walking out of the flames were the only thing I actually didn't like in this movie. But Akasha's death was very nice. The cast was good, Stuard Townsend was convincing as Lestat, especially on the concert, but I preferred Banderas as Armand. I loved Jesse, Maharet and Marius though. And of course Aaliyah was perfect with her quasi-ancient-Egyptian accent.

So if you are into gothic music and vampiric dillemas of loneliness and eternity (and you don't consider books to be movie scenarios) "Queen of the Damned" is one of the few movies which show vampires as something more than blood sucking monsters. But please do not compare it to the "Interview" movie. It has a completely different style, precisely as much different as different were Louis and Lestat. Personally I find it thrilling first to watch a vampire's existence from Louis' "bottled hunger" point of view, and then switching to one devoid of all morals but surprisingly outgoing for a vampire, Lestat.

I'd give "Queen" 8 of 10 as it had some technical flaws, but I decided to give it 9 as it's vastly underrated by people who hate it simply because it didn't match their vision of the books, which can be clearly seen by looking at the votes breakdown. I thought that this was actually the best vampire movie that I've ever seen. I've seen a lot too. The effects were great, and the casting was brilliant. It was an all around good movie. The makeup and costumes were great too. I would recommend it, but not for kids. It's not a children's movie. After going to sleep out of sheer loneliness, Lestat wakes from a 100-year sleep to the sounds of a new music he wants to be a part of and the band "The Vampire Lestat" is born. His longing to end his loneliness and his "living in the light" attitude along with his music, anger his fellow vampires and awaken an evil that has been slumbering for thousands of years.

This film is not for those looking for a true book-to-film adaptation. Those who have read the books and expect to see it on the screen are in for a huge disappointment. This film will appeal to those who really enjoyed the "Interview With the Vampire" film.

There are a few plot holes and incongruencies, but as a whole, this film was satisfying. Stuart Townsend portrays Lestat with a sensuality and sexiness lacking in the previous film. The relationships portrayed in the film were very sexy and sizzling.

As a film, the story compels you and draws you in. Casting is wonderful. Loved this story and film. If you like simmering sensuality and sexual tension you'll love this film! "Queen of the Damned" is one of the best vampire movies I had ever seen! The movie had suspense, action, and gore. The combination of the fierce demanding attitude of the Queen and the rock mood of our star, very well acted by Stuart Townsend, makes a wonderfully done movie that only this combination can create. I'm always the one to give advice to my friends and family members on which movies are worthy of renting and when they ask me if "Queen of the Damned" is worthy, I tell them it's worthy of buying. This movie is most for sure a must-have in all horror movie lovers' homes! This has been one of the best vampire movies that I have seen in a long time. It was very seductive and alluring, I liked that it did not have the usual gore and carnage that comes along with most vampire movies. The music was excellent. It would be great if there was a sequel. I remember disliking this movie the 1st time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I love the costumes and poses the actors make, the humor, the cinematography, the soundtrack. The scenes are very rich, and it moves very quickly. Every time I watch it, there is something new that catches my eye. Aaliyah as Akasha is probably the only thing that ruins it, but not enough.

Also, the Lestat in this movie IS different, it is not the same character. You can see that the character Armand has been given Lestat-like qualities because I'm assuming Anne wanted it in. But there is no reason to trash this movie just because it's not like books, it's a fascinating by itself. okay... first to Anne rice BOOK fans....

sure lestat's eyes are not blue...sure he isn't blond in this movie... but even though Marius is not lestat's maker...even though they COMPLETELY altered the story.....

how can u say its not a good movie..

this movie...is the BEST vampire movie i ever saw...and lestat is pictured perfectly in it....maybe not his features...but i don't think one can find a better lestat....the way he speaks...and the way he looks at mere mortals...his arrogance..and sheer love for fame is pictured flawlessly.

if u for once...consider it just a movie..and not try and relate every scene to the book...u will love the movie as much as i do.

now...to the non readers..

be prepared to fall absolutely in love with this movie....it has every thing....and the goth music...is like an added treat... the dialogues...are beautiful...and catching...and even though its a vampire movie..u will find yourself smiling...at the wit of the characters...and u will find yourself sympathizing with the vampires..

overall...one of my fav movies...!!10/10 I have to say this movie is absolutely amazing. I don't understand why it got such a low rating. It has romance, music, darkness and vampires. Also Stuart Townsend did a great job of being Lestat, the acting was great. Also, normally I am not into that music, well sometimes. But I have to say in this movie the music fit it perfectly. If you like dark movies about vampires this is definitely for you or even if you don't there is a love story to this.But,all I can say is one word: Amazing! My Rating is defiantly: 10 out of 10. Anyway, I seriously suggest you watch it. I remember not seeing this for years, I watched it again about a year ago and im addicted to it again. lol. Great movie!!! ***May Contain Spoilers*** OK, it wasn't exactly as good as expected in fact it was a lot different than I had thought it would be but it still turned out to be a pretty good movie.

I usually don't care too much for that type of music but in this movie it worked perfectly (I mean duh he's a rock star) but anyway I loved Stuart Townsend in this, and Aaliyah, although she had a small part in the movie was amazing.

And even though Tom Cruise played Lestat in the Interview with a Vampire, I have to admit that I am glad he turned down the role even though I normally hate when they use different people to play the same characters in like sequels and stuff.

Overall, the movie was great and I enjoyed watching it, even if there were parts that could have been better. Great vampire movie. Personally, I LOVED TRIS MOVIE! My best friend told me about it so i rented it out a watched it. It's amazing! The music, the acting, the story lines the emotion, everything...... well except for one minor fact. Absolutely no loyalty to the books at all. I saw this movie before Interview with the Vampire and before i even knew the books existed, so i was shocked to find how many people actually hated the movie. I picked up quickly that the book fans weren't at all happy with the unfaithfulness, not wanting to be hypocritical (I hate the Harry Potter movies due to lack of book loyalty)i stayed silent. Eventually i picked up "The Vampire Lestat" and understood immediately why everyone hated it. It is completely different (The movie Queen of the damned is a combination of "The Vampire Lestat" and "The Queen of the Damned"). But i still loved the movie from when i saw it before reading any of the books. So if you haven't seen this movie or read the book watch the movie first or you'll hate it. If you have read the book then you have every right to hate this movie. I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in. Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha (Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path. With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join Her Or Die?

I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes, great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the sets.

I gave this film 10/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge you to see it! In Queen of The Damned,Akasha(Aaliyah) was more sexy and had a bigger,demanding presence, she just caught your eye and attention. now the movie did have faults, like the lack of explaining Akasha's past. What i also Did not like was the that the movie didn't really explain or show more of what the relationship between Lestat and Akasha was/ or was like.Akasha's (Aaliyah's) role was sort of limited in the movie and she didn't appear until the 2nd half of the movie and then to top it off, her(Akasha's) death came 2 quickly.But i liked how Akasha fought back when the ancients tried to kill her, because in the book the last fight between Akasha and The ancients was rather boring (they killed Akasha in like 2 secs).Akasha's head got knocked off in 1 sec and Lestat turned into the biggest punk in the world.

Aaliyah played Akasha very well and Stuart was perfect as Lestat, they could not have picked a better Akasha or Lestat. "REST IN PEACE AALIYAH" quite good, don't expect anything high culture.......the acting is bad, the storyline fails, but it is still a fairly nice movie to watch. why? because it's dark, a little bit stupid, like unpredictable and just entertaining and fun to watch. do not expect anything, like i said, just see it for yourself and you know what i mean.

it is a movie, without a plot or memorable acting, but there are enough scenes that will make you laugh, cry or at least make you feel compelled to watch it to the end...

this is all i wanted to say....

7 / 10 I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.

Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.

However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.

The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.

There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.

JY

Jimboduck-dot-com Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official love interest Marguerite Moreau.

I would have loved to see this movie play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold.

Lena Olin is cast in the ungrateful role of "the older woman", which is hugely unjustified. She looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning.

The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before, etc.

The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming.

All in all, a remarkable vampire movie. I was looking in the TV Guide for movies that come from Germany and I found one called The Bunnyguards, so I watched it and I laughed myself silly! I wanted the DVD but its not available here (I could order it from Germany but it doesn't have subtitles) It was played again so I taped it and watch it from time to time.

Anyway, I looked for info on it and found out its real name is Erkan & Stefan, but I know it by its Australian title: The Bunnyguards.

Some people who I know from Germany do not like Erkan & Stefan because of their accents, but not being German myself, I didn't notice anything. The jokes are good, but some Germans might find their accents off-putting.

I think this movie is funny and if the DVD had English subtitles on all the extras (having a 2 disk edition with only the feature having subtitles would be bad) I would buy it up in a snap!

I recommend it to anyone looking for a laugh and a pretty good story. I enjoyed Erkan & Stefan – a cool and fast story which didn't get bogged down in detail. Those two guys are great to see and are able to come up with new ideas all the time. The high quality of picture and cut support the movie a lot.

Erkan & Stefan show that the German film industry is capable of transferring successful Hollywood concepts with local `satire' into our cinemas. Those two main characters Erkan and Stefan are a munich comedy act. I was wondering if this is one of these typical slapstick movies where the story is either not important or simply not existing. But when I saw this movie I was very happy that there is a cool story and the main characters really fit in it.

All in all very amusing and not a common german movie. Great movie. I was laughing all time through. Why? Well, I am from Austria, I can get along with the German (Bavarian) kind of humor. So I guess this movie makes only sense watching when you are German native speaker. Stefan and Erkan both are talking in a new kind of turkish-german accent, which became really popular in our Countries (GER & AUT). But of course they are very stupid. As in every comedy your personal humor will decide, whether thumb up or down. First of all, i am from munich, where this movie takes place, and believe it or not, there are guys like Erkan and Stefan, including the silly dialect! I know their comedy show from the beginning and my main fear was, that the movie is just an assembling of their already known jokes, but it is not! The jokes are evolved through the story, and make, in their own special way, sense. But if you absolutely dislike Erkan und Stefan, hands of this movie. Everyone else - it's worth viewing! I gave 9 of 10 points. I was sitting in tears nearly the whole movie, because I had to laugh!

The story of course wasn't excellent, but it also wasn't boring. Erkan & Stefan are assigned to become bodyguards for the beautiful Nina. While doing this job they come between the "front-lines" of BND and CIA. Of course the two are neither born bodyguards nor gentlemen, so they run from one disaster into another; and they do this in such a funny way, that when you watch some scenes you won't be able to stop the tears! As actors those two "dumbly grinning" characters do quite well, better than some so called professional.

You think, the speech of the two heroes is curios or "pseudo-foreign"? Well, if you hear quite a lot Turkish-German people in Munich speaking exactly like them, you will remember Erkan & Stefan. And maybe, in 10 years it might have become the common speech of the youth. (God forbid!)

So, if you like to laugh, watch this movie! These three directors are off to Good Beginnings. The three stories are remarkably well-done for independent productions and capture those traumatic feelings of "coming out" when you aren't really sure it's a good idea. I laughed at those veiled glances around the dressing room in "Pool Days"; I smiled at the notion that fans of Bette Midler, Judy Garland, and Barbra Streisand are assumed to be gay in "A Friend of Dorothy"(ie. browsing through the CD music racks); and I cringed over the "jock" in "The Disco Years" whose memory of sweet sex was now "blurred" by liquor. It all seemed so real. I look forward to more offerings from this trio of directors. The trio are a pleasant, nostalgic journey to that first hint of desire--when it was still about simple exploration of the unknown--before we "grew up" and added those complexities of HIV status, emotional baggage and gotta-run-my-pager-just-went-off into the emotional mix.

The angst portrayed is pure adolescent angst, but it rings true in all three stories. Their sweetness and positivity make you feel good that you are gay. And those kinds of films are few and far between.

Good news! Both Boys Life and Boys Life 2 are now readily available on DVD as of September 1999. It's quite an accomplishment that three stories filmed by three very different filmmakers could be simultaneously so insightful about gay & bi-sexual relationships, and their struggles!

"Pool Days" is about the awkwardness of adolescence, and the mutual attraction between an older man and a younger one. A story about experience and vulnerability!

"A Friend Of Dorothy" portrays a common dilemma many gay and bi-sexual people experience at some point in their life: the intense attraction towards someone whom is heterosexual. Sensitively examined, this story truly left me feeling moved!

"The Disco Years" shows another version of a no-win situation: getting involved with someone who is not only confused about their sexual orientation, but is also terrified of being exposed as anything other than straight! A very empowering story for those of us who have experienced betrayal at the hands of a sexually confused and frightened person!

While these three stories will appeal to anyone who has an iota of empathy towards others, they will psychologically empower those who consider themselves gay, bi-sexual or searching. Each story is uplifting in its own unique way! This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable. However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or even the libraries had it in stock. This little short absolutely fascinates me.

The only thing I've seen thus far like it is some of the work by Sam Brakhage, the creator of Dog Star Man. However, where Brakhage is trying to unnerve by "making us learn how to see again" and provide us with an affront of head-ache inducing bright colors and flashes (which I still totally dig and embrace as high art...), this film I would characterize as very relaxing and hypnotizing. Man Ray's general use of spinning objects/camera does not create so much of a dizzy feeling but a warm flow of senses, intermingling and going along with the gravity of the moving world around us.

An interesting conceit of this very short work is that as it goes along, objects become more and more recognizable until we end on a nude torso (of which I feel is the least feminine well-rounded breasts I've ever seen). The circles and spirals of shadow and light over the torso make it an object of surrealistic beauty, something that you could hang on your wall and delve over forever. It's because of this and other images in this film that I had to watch it again and again (eventually a total seven times) just because it utterly fascinates me.

--PolarisDiB After 10 viewings in 20 years I too think this was the Crazy Gang's best effort on film, with more cohesion in the plot than their next best, "Alf's Button Afloat". They were indeed a crazy trio of double acts thrown together mainly on stage, sometimes in front of royalty, until Chesney Allen retired in the '40's through "ill-health". He outlived them all by years. Apparently they were just as mad outside "work", regularly playing practical jokes on one another.

The Six Wonder Boys troupe head for I'll-Get-Her-To-Tell-Me (Alaska) to dig for the gold that was being found there. It seemed a better idea than going to Mansfield ... because they'd been there. When they get to Red Gulch they find their information was a mere 40 years out of date - they thought that the chips that were in the guilty newspaper they'd read tasted funny. But by then it doesn't matter as they've all fallen in love with Snow White and want to help her grandad find his long lost stash of gold. Baddie Bill "M" McGrew wants it himself however.

The number of verbal and visual puns is astonishing, but most of them will probably only make sense(?) to Brits and ex-pats interested in seeing '30's British b&w comedies. Imho nearly all of the gags and routines work, including the Gold If patter between Bud & Chesney and the "Whistle While You Work" pastiche - even the "Always Getting Our Man" Mountie inserts. A marvellous little film, in a rather tired looking condition but utterly recommended. I had never read much about (or even seen stills of) the six-man British comedy group The Crazy Gang, but my positive experiences with their contemporaries Will Hay and Arthur Askey – and especially Graham Greene’s high praise of THE FROZEN LIMITS itself (“The funniest English picture yet produced…it can bear comparison with SAFETY LAST and THE GENERAL”) – made me take the plunge with the bare-bones R2 DVDs from Network of this and their subsequent film GASBAGS (1941; see below), both of which were released earlier this year with virtually no fanfare.

A British-made Western is a rarity, but a British Western spoof is rarer still (CARRY ON COWBOY [1965] was still some 25 years away). Incidentally, going back to the Silent classics mentioned by Greene, the film seems to me to be more obviously indebted to THE GOLD RUSH (1925) and WAY OUT WEST (1937). Besides, it also plays like a variation on the “Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs” fairy-tale (which had just been immortalized on the screen via Walt Disney’s animated masterwork) and where the seventh member is played by ancient comic and frequent Will Hay foil Moore Marriott; the Gang actually call pretty heroine Eileen Bell by that name throughout, and there’s even an amusing sequence with the six of them preparing to go to bed and whistling the dwarfs’ song from the Disney film!

Six comedians (three sets of comedy duos: Flanagan & Allen, Nervo & Knox and Naughton & Gold) may be the largest such grouping on film – though not all of their personalities emerge here: my favorites were big Bud Flanagan (looking a bit like Jim Backus), straight man Chesney Allen and moustached, squeaky-voiced Teddy Knox; however, bald Charlie Naughton often took the limelight – since he’s the one on which the others always seemed to pick on. Still, it’s Marriott who steals the film from his very first scene – where he contrives to impersonate every official in the dilapidated theater of a ghost town!; a very young Bernard Lee is also notable as the villain of the piece.

The Ore routine between Flanagan and Allen actually anticipates Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s On First?” (the film, in fact, hinges on a lot of wordplay for its humor – which doesn’t necessarily travel, especially at this juncture). Nevertheless, there are several hilarious sequences throughout – a few of which even brought tears to my eyes: the opening scene where the Gang are defrocked by a band of angry creditors; their dressing up as Indians once they hit the Yukon; the Gang’s ruse to make everybody rich with the same piece of gold; they all impersonate the sleepwalking Marriott to confuse the villains (a gag which may owe its origin to the Marx Bros.’ hilarious mirror sequence in DUCK SOUP [1933]); the spot-on theater sketch which pokes fun at hoary melodramas; the surreal moment when, pursued by the villains, one of the Gang climbs a staircase that is part of the painted scenery in the theater; and especially towards the end, when a group of singing Mounted Police gallop ever so slowly to the Gang’s rescue (despite being egged on by the increasingly impatient Ranger hero).

The thinny soundtrack and the frantic nature of the gags themselves made it hard for me to get all the jokes sometimes – subtitles would certainly have been welcome in this case. The Crazy Gang only made five films – with the first two also being well-regarded, OKAY FOR SOUND (1937) and ALF’S BUTTON AFLOAT (1938), and a much later reunion (though Allen had, by this time, bowed out due to ill-health and been replaced by Eddie Gray) called LIFE IS A CIRCUS (1960; directed by Val Guest who, incidentally, co-wrote both Gang films I purchased as well as some of the afore-mentioned Hay and Askey vehicles!). After getting thrown out of their last job and finding employment scarce in the United Kingdom, the six members of the Wonder Boys, better known as The Crazy Gang see an advertisement for employment in the gold strike town of Red Gulch in the Yukon Territory. It's from a newspaper clipping and on the back there's a story about Chamberlain saying the country better be prepared for war. Off they go to the Yukon and The Frozen Limits.

By the way, it's case of misplaced Chamberlains. The clipping is forty years old and it refers to Joe Chamberlain and the Boer War rather than Neville in the current crisis. But that's typical of how things go for this crew. I can see Stan Laurel making the same mistake.

Of course when they get there it's a ghost town inhabited only by young Jean Kent and her grandfather Moore Marriott. He's getting on in years and is a bit touched in the head. Marriott's got a gold mine that he's misplaced somewhere that he goes to in his sleep, that is when he's sleepwalking. The Gang better help him find that mine or otherwise pretty Ms. Kent won't marry stalwart trapper Anthony Hulme, but rather saloon owner Bernard Lee, a fate worse than death.

This was my first exposure to the Crazy Gang and I can see both why they were so acclaimed in the UK and why they never made any impact across the pond. The jokes come fast and furious and then were a number of things that the Code in the USA just wouldn't allow. The jokes are also strictly topical British and a lot just wouldn't be gotten over here.

The sight gags are universal, the final chase scene is worthy of anything that the Marx Brothers did in America. My suggestion is that if you watch The Frozen Limits, tape it if you have a working familiarity with British history and run it two or three times just to make sure you pick up everything. It will be worth it. The Frozen Limits is a big screen vehicle for the artists known as The Crazy Gang. They were a group of British entertainers who formed in the early 1930s. In the main the group's six men were Bud Flanagan, Chesney Allen, Jimmy Nervo, Teddy Knox, Charlie Naughton and Jimmy Gold. Hugely popular in the variety halls the group were also darlings of the then Royal Family. The plot here sees them as the Wonder Boys troupe who set off to seek their fortunes in Alaska after reading about a gold rush in the newspaper. Only problem is is that when they finally get to Red Gulch it turns out they are 40 years too late!

I often cringe when I see the statement "it's very British" because it implies that those not of the British Isles may struggle to get it. The reason it bothers me is because in this www/internet age I have garnered a ream of non British film loving friends who have been known to split their sides at the best of Ealing, Will Hay and the imperious Terry-Thomas. So, then, is it true that something such as The Frozen Limits is unlikely to be appreciated by a non British audience? Well yes it's true, so much here is topically British, but really it has to be said that the classic movie fan is pretty well versed in history, and when all is said and done the visual mirth here is universal. With the anarchic "not" so wild west make over an absolute winner. A winner that has every chance of being more appreciated by an American audience now than it will be by a British audience. Not all the comedy works, and in truth the "big 6" are trumped big time by a film stealing Moore Marriott. But there are skits and parodies here that deserve respect and a nod of approval from more illustrious comedy acts. You are unlikely to nearly fall off your chair like I did because of an Ovaltine gag, but if you be a classic comedy film fan? I feel sure that you will at the worst acknowledge there's some very talented people at work here.

Now then, dose the Mounties always get their man? 8/10 Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, but by then, almost all of Europe had fallen under the advance of the Nazi war machine. Entering the war, Britain virtually started from scratch, with scarce supplies and with an air force that was outnumbered by Germany ten to one. But the will of the Brits was firm, emboldened by their new Prime Minister Winston Churchill who declared - "We shall never go under".

On August 8, 1940, the Battle for Britain was on. However for the first time since Hitler's declared stance to conquer the world, he hit a wall. Though massively outnumbered, the British Royal Air Force went on the offensive, and in the span of twenty eight days in September and October of 1940, German Luftwaffe casualties climbed to two thousand three hundred seventy five lost planes and crew. Hitler's rage was seething, but he had to call a momentary time out. Responding later in the year, Hitler launched a massive fire bombing of London on Christmas Day of 1940. When I say that there has never been a disaster movie to rival the real live footage of London in flames during this assault would be an understatement. Perhaps the most surreal effect of this chapter in the "Why We Fight" series would be seeing British citizens emerge from their underground shelters following the bombing raids to resume what was left of their life above ground. Even as you watch, there is no way to comprehend the living horror these people must have gone through, as the city of London was left in virtual ruin.

Yet the Nazis were stunned and stymied as well. Everything Hitler wanted to believe about freedom and democracy was now turned on it's head. Instead of being weak willed and complacent like the French, the British were not going to give up without a fight. And fight they did, taking the air battle to Germany and responding in kind with attacks on the German homeland. It was a turning point, forcing Hitler to rethink his strategy. With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle.

Using more staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans.

There have been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its "Finest Hour". Two college buddies - one an uptight nerd, the other a rude slob - embark on a road trip through the country. On the way, they encounter a vicious vehicle that looks like an army tank combined with a monster truck, that tries to run their car over. They escape it, but only enrage the mysterious and dangerous driver more when one of them takes a leak in the top hatch while at a rest stop. Later on, they pick up a sexy hitchhiker who ends up getting involved in their life threatening situation. MONSTER MAN is an extremely entertaining horror-comedy that has some good suspenseful moments as well as some good gory ones. The two lead characters and their constant bickering is fun to watch all on its own and the end takes a TCM-like turn which was very well-done. Absolutely worth checking out. This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM... I know that Chill Wills usually played lovable old sorts in Westerns. But his role in this segment is something I've remembered for a long time. Wills could be a first rate villain. Yes, Burgess Meredith's Fall was correct! That look in Hepplewhite's eye! It expressed porcine greed, ignorance, and the threat of violence all at once. Quite a performance, I think.

The segment itself was a good one, too. Question: couldn't the little black bag cure alcoholism? I guess it did, sort of, with Fall. But the doctor would have been wise to apply the cure, if he had it, as quickly as possible to Hepplewhite.

There is one moment that was annoying but also necessary. And it is something that appears to recur in these Night Gallery segments. It's Serling's constant need to sermonize. For that's what we got, one more time, with Dr. Fall. I don't know what was more frustrating, losing the black bag and all its miracles or not being to stop Fall from preaching about the bag's benefit for humanity, all while rubbing Hepplewhite's greedy face in the mud, and, therefore, all but begging for Hepplewhite to strike out at him. But as I say, it was necessary. At least it was for me. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to see Wills' performance discussed above. All done without moving a muscle or speaking a word. I can understand why others reacted rather unpleasantly towards the climax yielding a twist that really is hard to take seriously. I think, though, that the build-up to it works rather well. The music, quite menacing and spine-tingling, really provides a spooky aura matching the unforgiving sound of a constant ringing telephone that is driving struggling English actress, Joan Matlin(Jean Marsh)bonkers. She's borrowing a pal's nice apartment while attempting to jump-start her career in New York City(..the city buildings outside the window look about as realistic as David Letterman's)and is unceremoniously welcome by a noisy telephone which rings quite a bit, followed by loud slams against the wall. Searching for answers regarding the one responsible for such disregard towards her sanity, Joan discovers that no one rents that room, and that a former tenant had in fact strangled herself. Without help from the manager, Joan will decide to find out for herself who is causing her such anguish. Joan discovers the room empty and the phone with a particular female voice which will haunt her.

The episode, I think, is a tour-de-force for Jean Marsh who is a one woman show. She's the only actress visible and we follow her through the crisis which slowly erodes her, the phone and the banging from that other room causing her much distress which grows into fear. Instead of leaving, Joan remains, so shaken by the noise and to the breaking point where she just wishes for the phone(..or whoever is ringing)to stop. The episode provides a possible answer as to who is plaguing Joan and why. A character named Beth comes into the story rather late as Joan struggles to find out whose female voice it was across the other line who knew her name on that dreaded phone she discovers in the room across from hers. The fate of Beth might just tell the viewer why Joan is being traumatized. I think this episode is an exercise in spooks instead of credibility;some didn't particularly like it, but I certainly did. I will admit that the phone, as a physical menace "crawling" towards Joan is hard to take seriously, not to mention it's attack on her, but I thought the intense opening twenty minutes before this were suitably chilling enough to make up for it. This "TFTD" episode from season one titled ironically "Answer Me" is a pretty well done and memorable episode, and it takes a shocking twist at the end. You have Jean Marsh as an over the hill and washed up actress from L.A. who's moved to New York City for an audition and she's living in an apartment provided by an old friend. Oddly every night she's kept awake by a ringing phone from the next door apartment, yet oddly enough the dwelling where the ringing phone continues to ring is unoccupied as the guests have been dead for many years. Finally she has to give in only she should have followed along and not answered the phone with no one home, as it's bad to get wrapped up in a phone with a life of it's own! Overall good episode a strange one though about a supernatural phone still it's suspenseful and it twists well at the end. My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that "Married Man" HBO show. The ensemble cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give this film a "Standing O." This picture doesn't have any big explosions or expensive chase sequences. However, it does have really wonderful performances and an exceptional script that puts this at the top of my "indie-must-see list." Taylor Nichols and James Remar are terrific together. The young cast surprised me with really consistent acting. Usually, indie pictures have some weak link, but there are no weak links here. Impressive. Go get this one. This movie about a group of small town teens that decide to rob the local bank is excellent. Brian (Justin Walker) wants to get out of his small town, much like Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life." However, unlike George Bailey, Brian is going to rob a bank to finance his dream of attending art school, even if his father is not supportive. The offer to Brian is to act like a customer and distract the guard. It's a tempting offer that if offered to many, I question what they would do. Anyways, Brian does it. When the Sheriff (James Remar) and his force surround the bank, things go from bad to worse. It's a standoff with even the Feds moving in to kill the kids if they have a clean shot. The Sheriff must prevent this and try to end the standoff in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, tensions rise, and the teens inside turn on each other. Some are out of control. The paper cutter scene is gruesome and hard to watch. Very intense! I love this film. Tense with great characters. The kid from "Sandlot" is excellent as is Corey Feldman. When the kids storm the bank, it is pure adrenaline. Inside of the bank, it becomes a bit like a "Lord of the Flies" situation where they turn on each other. Justin Walker from "Clueless" is wonderful. I saw this on "Showtime" while channel surfing. It was a pleasant surprise. James Remar is also quite good here as the small town Sheriff. Taylor Nichols who I love from "Barcelona" does a nice job too as a Federal Agent. I recommend this film for any fan of bank robbery movies with a lot of good characters. I was shocked to discover that Roger Corman was a producer on this, since the film is not a B movie. The efficacy of this picture was best proven on the intended target audience, namely teens. My 14-year-old son became so engrossed in this film that I rate it considerably higher than its imitator "Mad City." It sparked debate in our household on issues such as peer pressure and loyalty vs. doing the right thing. For that alone, I rate this film a 10! Parents should watch it with their teens and discuss it afterwards.

I very much liked the smart dialogue and consistent acting. I thought that James Remar was adequate in his role, but the teenage cast really carried this picture. Other IMDB users have praised Corey Feldman's performance, which truly is inspired. All in all, I give this picture my highest recommendation. Go get this one! This film was so well-paced that I don't think I actually blinked while watching. One intense situation after another kept me glued to the set. However, I would have liked to have seen Corey Feldman a lot more in this picture. He just steals every scene that he is in. This could be my favorite grown up Corey performance. The ending was clever and unlike other films which back away from severing body parts of likeable supporting characters, this film goes for it! I liked that it was not graphic blood and gore but left more to the viewer's imagination. Bravo. I literally had to wipe sweat from my forehead during this particular torture scene with a paper cutter. Ultimately, the film works because of its likeable lead character and the awesome presence of my all-time favorite bad guy, James Remar(48 Hours, remember?) I strongly recommend this film for anyone looking to break a sweat.

I recently rented this video after seeing "Final Ascent" by the same writer. I wasn't prepared for how intense this film would get. I found it engaging from start to finish, and was rooting for the teenagers to get away with their attempted crime. The ending was definitely disturbing with some of its implied violence, but well-done. I highly recommend this picture. This film is like "The Breakfast Club" meets "Mad City." It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that "go all the way" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended. I just watched the DVD version of BORN BAD and found it to be tense, gritty and, near the end, too graphic for the faint of heart. Justin Walker (Clueless) and Corey Feldman turn in superior performances. For a low budget film, this picture delivers. The depth of character and clever dialogue are two things not usually seen in a Roger Corman picture. Check it out on DVD! this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages Born Bad is a well put together crime drama about a group of teenage kids. Teens as well as young adults would find this movie well acted and entertaining. The movie is similar to The Black Circle Boys in the sense that a bunch of teenage boys go around their town making up their own rules and not caring about the consequences. As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place. Love that. I just saw this movie on Showtime in the wee hours of the night. I was viewing the beginning with one eye open, but instead of drifting off to sleep, I became invested in this crafty, nail-bitter of a movie. It was very believable and engaging. I could have done without so much profanity(as with every David Mamet movie I see), but thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I know teenagers swear, but I don't need to listen to it. Anyways, the story had some interesting surprises which I won't reveal but if you have a chance to catch this movie on Showtime, I think you will enjoy it as much as I have. As an adult, I am grateful to have caught this movie by chance when I was a teen. During the time, I was experiencing familial problems. This particular movie managed to capture what I was seeing from a closeted world. How much peer pressure is too much? I actually had to purchase this movie because it reached me on a level unlike most films try to reach an audience. How far might an individual go for social acceptance? Who is the "bad" crowd? Teenagers do struggle trying to find out the answers to these questions, but ultimately...who is the "pack leader" if there must be one? Is it the strong? The beautiful? Perhaps the person we just all seem to like? Could it be the moral character? As far as the movie goes, the cast worked together as if it were predestined. I only hope that more directors and producers try to create a piece of work that reaches all of us like this particular movie reached me. I wish I could vote higher than ten because this particular title deserves much more. This late 50s French study of disaffected youth (in their early 20's, actually--"grown up", but not yet settled down into the adult world) probably missed the mark by a mile in terms of being an accurate depiction of 1958 French youth (don't virtually ALL youth films made by adults do this? The ones that don't--River's Edge comes to mind-- are rare indeed), but director-writer Marcel Carne, of Les Enfants du Paradis fame, is too accurate an observer of humanity to NOT provide an insightful view of the essence of these characters. In a sense, the details are not important--you could change the details and set this film today and it would work just as well--but the loneliness and insecurity and superficial passion and self-righteous anger of the characters is captured well. The young Pierre Brice and Jean-Paul Belmondo are in supporting roles, but leads Jacques Charrier, Laurent Terzieff, Pascale Petit, and Andrea Parisy play the roles with subtlety and depth. There is also a fine jazz score, which you can get on the CD JAZZ IN PARIS--JAZZ & CINEMA VOL. 2. Unlike some who have commented on the film, I don't really see director-writer Carne as sitting in judgment on these characters--he seems as though he is an objective observer to me. Of course, these middle-class characters may seem like people who are spoiled and have nothing to whine about to some working-class viewers of the film, and I think Carne is certainly aware of this. For this American viewer (I watched a dubbed, fairly literally I'd say, version of this titled THE CHEATERS), the film provides an interesting window into the France of the 1950s. It also is self-consciously poetic (the scene on the ledge, saving the cat, is but one example of this) and has intellectual aspirations in that charming way that only French films can get away with--I can imagine the heavy-handed, melodramatic, shallow way this kind of material would have been handled by an American studio production, and the sensationalistic, moralistic, suggestive way this kind of material would have been handled by American drive-in/exploitation filmmakers. I feel that Marcel Carne has captured the essence of that period between, say, high school graduation and when, by one's early 30s, people have largely settled into a routine, whatever that routine may be. Those willing to watch the film with an open mind and not fire away at the many easy targets it offers should find a serious and valuable study of people in their early twenties. And even if you don't want to do that, you can go in the other room while the film is playing and simply enjoy the fine soundtrack, with great 50s jazz and instrumental pop, including the wonderful original score by an American "Jazz at the Philharmonic" group including Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Stan Getz (spelled "goetz" in the credits), Roy Eldridge, and Ray Brown. First, I rated this movie 10/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is, too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it !

Second, there is no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French) for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis are the most famous.

Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm) sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film !

Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25 years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I say it was a great movie ? I blow hot and cold over Carné. He really can be a puzzle for me. I think perhaps his inspiration left him a little earlier than it did for other directors of his generation. Certainly a man who came to maturity in the Thirties with the Popular Front seems ill at ease in the France of the Fifties, with its rampant commercialism and heavy American influence. He is almost thirty years older than his young stars, and it shows. The party scenes go on much longer than they should, as if he were trying to buy time for the anemic scenario to work. Roland Lesaffre's character--he plays Pascale Petit's older brother--seems to exist only to reassure the director that his old-style ideas are still sound.

At two hours, this picture is far too long. Still, let me praise Pascale Petit for her game performance; she was a natural who should have challenged Brigitte Bardot for sexpot supremacy, but somehow lost her way. Andrea Parisy is excellent too as the girl who gets pregnant and wants Charrier to marry her and make her baby legitimate (yes, they still thought that way in the Fifties). Laurent Terzieff is the only French actor who could play an anarchist convincingly: he is great here as he rescues a cat from death, then remarks he can't stand cats. Jacques Charrier only reminds me how mediocre he was as an actor, with that constant little grin and those blank eyes. It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carné's 1936-1946 movies are masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently watchable:"Thérèse Raquin" ,his best post-war work,and "les tricheurs" (the cheats).

There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to "les tricheurs":in "les enfants du paradis" "quai des brumes" or "le jour se lève",true love is thwarted by the villains. In "les tricheurs" true love does not exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very few grown-ups appear anyway.

During two hours,the characters do not stop playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care for each others ,it will be too late.

The cast is rather good ,Laurent Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andréa Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married Brigitte Bardot the same year as "les tricheurs")do not possess the ambiguity their parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable.

Oddly,"les tricheurs" was labeled "nouvelle vague"!When you know what the priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carné ,it's really a good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really disturbing. François Truffaut, Young Jerk of the "Cahiers du cinema", main bastion of the coming so-called New Wave, made a big show of hating this film and even accused it of dragging French cinema into mediocrity. Translation: Truffaut, who was terminally repressed sexually, was already jealous of the way Carné could make a huge success of a story that pushed all the right buttons of its audience and actually involved it into something important with all the trappings and seduction of sensuality. In other words, where the general public and many critics saw a perceptive sociological analysis wrapped in a beautiful film, Truffaut saw "Girls on the Loose".

Carné, after all, had everything that would be severely lacking from the New Wave: intelligence, refinement, humour, a great talent as a storyteller, a great ear for dialogue, dazzling technical brilliance, the capacity to make his actors do what he wanted them to do, and a good dose of good taste. By comparison, Truffaut is a provincial bore with nothing to say.

A 50's tragic remake of "Pride and Prejudice", the French answer to "Rebel Without A Cause", an updated version of "Children of Paradise", "Les Tricheurs" tells a story of disaffected Parisian youth who have lost their way in an atmosphere of existentialism, sexual liberation and disrespect for traditional and religious values. Some (young) critics perceived Carné's take on the subject as the moralizing slant of an "older person", whereas I think what happened, quite to the contrary, is that Carné being gay and knowing a thing or two about repression, felt an untold sympathy for the young iconoclasts in his story. Furthermore, this being a French film, there is no mistaking that the rebellion in question is essentially sexual, something that still had to be decoded in American films like "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One".

Carné's young people are all supremely beautiful, graceful, elegant, spontaneous and intelligent. They are Gods and Goddesses. They drive the latest Vespas and the right cars. The cut of their suits, dresses and duffle-coats was a high point of the fashions of the last century. Their haircuts are still plastered on the wall of your local hairdresser. Their body shape, which they attained and maintained without effort, is still the modern Western ideal. They listen to the best jazz musicians. They know how to move, how to be sexy and how to make love – even though the pill hasn't yet been invented. They know how to negotiate different social classes and cultures. Unfortunately, they are defined by and live by the code of the gang and their own heartless rituals that exclude sentimentality and make a sin of romantic love. The only thing wrong with them is that their elders don't talk to them and vice-versa. The incidents depicted in this film got a lot of tongues wagging for a long time in France about the amorality and nihilism of youth while still making it a huge public and critical success.

This film is so stylish and gorgeous, I suspect the older viewers who watched it wished they could be like the people depicted in the film and quite a few young filmmakers or aspiring filmmakers like Truffaut developed a bad case of jaundice reflecting how they could never conceivably make a film as sexy or popular as this one, although they would be very good at eventually aiming for the nihilistic bits. On the other hand, given a certain clichéd aspect of the script (amorous misunderstanding leading to a medical emergency), one can only wonder at the horribly pious and puritanical mishmash Americans would have extracted from the same basic script if they had dared to tackle the subject.

Interestingly, the movie was filmed in the same basic locations as the American musical "Funny Face" a year earlier. Where Hollywood saw the picturesque aspects of the Rive Gauche and existentialism, Carné restituted its tragic and ironic dimension. Watch this trailer on YouTube: 19ZkKeoNjPo Emilio is a successful business man, a perfect father and a good husband. Or that is what everybody think. The perfect storyline he has carefully built all along these years will start closing around him all of a sudden. Will he be able to keep up with his own lies?

This is a very well laid out drama, with great acting and steady direction. Even though the plot is pushed up to the limit to increase the tension, the movie explores some of our worst fears... Do we really know the people we deal with? Can we be so sure?

The story develops at an increasingly faster pace as it reaches the point where Emilio is not in control of his lies anymore. A good deal of Spanish movies have interesting stories but are far from technical proficiency. The perfect rhythm and well shot scenes make the actors so credible, we get inside Emilio, and hate him, and suffer for him, as his situation gets more and more desperate. There is no need for any Spanish folklore, nor is this an attempt to create a Hollywood style flick. This is real Spain, 2002, and regardless the obvious unlikeliness of Emilio's life existing in reality, there are good chances somebody we know is not quite like the person he claims to be. Not just a great commercial product, it will let you wondering where lies can get us to. Can we keep up?

Well done. Of course, how could he. He obviously co-opted several aspects from that excellent movie, which was also based on the sensational French case of the self-described "doctor in the World Health Organization" who murdered his family and himself when finally unmasked as a fraud. Emilio refers to his son as "monster," he sings to the radio in his car, he hangs out on park benches, and he specializes in investment schemes to defraud his family and friends -- all of this and more directly lifted from "Time Out," which came out the year before "Nobody's Life." It's too bad because this movie is pretty good on its own, with good acting and writing. Whereas Vincent from "Time Out" is a much more subtle character who seems to have a sense of ethics even though at times it gets twisted into knots, the protagonist here seems devoid of any character at all save for his winning looks and charm. Seriously, the part where he used X-rays that show his mother-in-law's cancer to bilk more money from his father, then utilizes a subtle twist on the same scam to avoid eviction from his fancy home for failing to pay the lease on time -- it's almost too much. The guy has no shame whatsoever, In fact, he's more like the lead in "Stepfather" than some poor schmuck who gets fired and is so humiliated that he can't face the disappointment of his family and friends and feels forced to invent a shiny new life for himself, as Vincent did in "Time Out." Thus, one could feel the tension mounting in "Nobody's Life" and the violent conclusion coming. One thing "Nobody's Life" has that "Time Out" definitely lacked was a love interest apart from the protagonist's trusting wife. It's not hard to understand how the sexy babysitter was able to fascinate and ensnare Emile to the degree that he ignored the danger of her natural curiosity and allowed it to lay bare his less than carefully constructed con. Given the reservations mentioned, this is a pretty good movie that we found entertaining. If you long for something touching on similar elements that goes a might deeper and is more intellectually and spiritually satisfying, I strongly suggest "Time Out." It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.

José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.

The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.

Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.

It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not "distinctively Spanish", as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching. I just watched this movie at the Santo Domingo International Film Festival. While watching the movie I had the feeling that I have seen a movie with a similar story before...a movie with Ray Liotta but I can't remember much of it. Of course, this one is a lot more dramatic, especially at the end.

This is the story: Emilio's life becomes a lie that he can not longer sustain. After 20 years lying about his entire life to his wife, son and all the people he knows, the truth is chasing him and there is nowhere to go.

Watching Emilio make up lies is exiting and funny but after a while you get tired of the same thing...the affair with a young girl was supposed to ad something but it doesn't. Despite that the movie is still funny, exiting and involving. Either it makes you want to help Emilio with his lies or help everybody else catch him. I liked the analogies, photography and the good performances.

7.5 out of 10. I suppose this movie is not your typical Spanish thriller as it is based in a real story that took place abroad. The movie is based in the real story of French man Jean-Claude Romand, and the real case is much more gory and scary than the film. In the real story of Mr. Romand the family didn't escape, after years of lies he decided to end it all by killing his wife, two children, parents and dog, and although he tried to kill himself, it seems he didn't try very hard as he survived. I watched the movie with people next to me talking about how it could never happen in real life that all these lies went undetected, I was laughing as I had read the book about Mr. Romand, and knew it did happen. I like José Coronado in this movie, he offered us a good performance, as the rest of the crew. Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2. Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness.

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice "That was fun!".

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it. This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along.

People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings, lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs, arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders.

The snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says 'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt.

This is just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the snowball replies, 'that's not nice'

It was worth then ten bucks spent to buy this.

10 out of 10 stars. Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS. This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person. The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.

It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.

The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.

What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.

Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).

The lack of "memorable quotes" disturbs me.

As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE. *SPOILERS*

I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.

Or so they thought.

This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.

This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.

Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.

This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.

*** out **** Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10. Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes:

**SPOILERS**

The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.

The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself.

And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.

**END SPOILERS**

infinity stars Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one. One of the best silent dramas I've seen. As dark and shadowy as anything the German Expressionists produced, but featuring performances that were quite understated and naturalistic for the day. No camera mugging and no unintentional laughs due to wild-eyed arm-waving histrionics. Sjostrom gave a convincing performance as the drunken, mean-spirited and frightening David Holm.

Set mostly at night in a dingy Swedish slum, the film had a very claustrophobic set-bound feel to it, aided by the low key lighting and extensive use of irising.

There was a deep, and typically Scandinavian, sense of despair and hopelessness to the narrative: the film begins in a rather grim present, and then we're told David Holm's story in a series of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks--a pretty complex story structure for 1921), where his character is offered numerous chances at redemption, but he doesn't take them, and we know he won't take them, because we've seen him die drunk and wretched and mean as ever in the present. The penultimate scene is as dark as any I have seen in all of cinema.

The writing and directing is tight and intelligent, even by today's standards. In several instances, Sjostrom skillfully sets the audience up to suspect one thing, and then pulls out a surprise. The ending might not be such a surprise to some viewers, but I didn't see it coming.

This movie deserves a full restoration and DVD release. Or even a crappy budget release. It just needs to be out there so people can see and appreciate it.

9.5/10, which rounds up to 10/10 This film is a masterpiece to put it simply. Especially the double exposure made by the cameraman Julius Jaenzon. It is skillfully made even with the standards we are used to today seventy eight years later. Viktor Sjöström, the director, also plays the main character, David Holm. On the night of new years eve he is killed in a fight, and the legend says that the first one who dies on the new year, will have to work as a soul-collector in the form of a transparent ghost. There is a new soul-collector to be appointed every year.

The scene in which the alcoholic, David Holm, rises up from his dead body (like the soul is leaving his earthly body) in the churchyard (where the fight took place) is a real award for a filmloving eye. Also when the present soul-collector arrives with his horse and carriage is a beautiful but also a scary scene. David Holm recognizes this soul-collector as a drinkingfriend from earlier life. It is now his turn to take over. Just like Scrooge in Dickens story "A christmas tale", David is shown what his life and doings has led to for the people around him.

The film is about the danger of abusing drugs, in this case alcohol. It is based upon a book by Nobel prize winner Selma Lagerlöf. Viktor Sjöström filmed a few more of her books, but this is the one with the best outcome, maybe because this book is the most filmic of them.

Much said without words.

This is an excellent movie. It was made in color-not color as in today's films, but a special mono-color use (with shadings) that portrayed meaning, mood, sense and time. It should be seen in color, as it becomes an entirely different film. The story, by Nobel prize-winner Selma Lagerlöf, is effectively presented. One never has a clear sense of real, memory or phantom. Changes going on in Swedish society at the time are subtly layered. Most highly recommend. Try to rent it or find it on-line. I saw it in a Swedish film class and I want to add it to my film library. Victor Sjöström's "Körkarlen" plunges the viewer into life's lower depths for much of its running time, with grim scenes of alcoholic degradation, family violence and suicidal despair, but the most memorable passages involve the mythic image of Death itself. Here Death is embodied as a ghostly horse-drawn carriage, driven by a wretched sinner who was the last person to die on the previous New Year's Eve. For one year the wretch must collect the souls of the newly departed, and after twelve months of this horrible servitude the driver's own soul is finally released when the last person to die on December 31st becomes the new driver.

The scenes involving this carriage (the film was known as "The Phantom Carriage" or "The Phantom Chariot" in English-speaking countries) are eerie and mesmerizing, utilizing double-exposure cinematography that was quite sophisticated for its time and still effective when seen today. Most strikingly, the carriage travels to the floor of the ocean to collect the soul of a person who drowned. As fascinating as these scenes are, however, the bulk of the film is concerned with the downward spiral of David Holm, played by the director himself in an understated portrayal of a man who has given up on the possibility of living a decent life. In flashbacks we see Holm enjoying a pleasant day at the beach with his wife, children and brother, and he appears to be a perfectly ordinary guy. Abruptly, without segue or explanation, we then see Holm as an alcoholic wreck, in trouble with the law and alienated from his family. Ordinarily this leap from Before to After might feel like a story-telling deficiency, but in this case the filmmakers trust us to fill in the familiar, sordid details on our own. It's suggested that Holm has been led astray by his convivial friend Georges, the drinking companion who first relates the tale of the Phantom Carriage, but whatever the cause of his downfall Holm appears to be a lost cause, a mean-spirited drunk who takes perverse pleasure in inflicting pain on his family and in refusing to reform.

While David Holm is our central figure the story's true catalyst is a young Salvation Army nurse who takes a sympathetic interest in his case and doggedly believes in him despite his hateful behavior. When the nurse herself is dying-- indirectly due to her ministrations on Holm's behalf --she demands to see him, and thus inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that will result in his recovery.

At times this film resembles Dickens' tale of Scrooge in its use of ghostly visitors who inspire a deeply flawed man to take stock of his life, suffer over his misbehavior, and reform. I was also reminded of Sjöström's 1917 drama "Terje Vigen," in which a man returns from jail to find his house empty and his family gone (a sequence echoed here). The director also reiterates a standard theme of Scandinavian folklore, found earlier in his "Berg-Ejvind och hans hustru" (a.k.a. "The Outlaw and His Wife," 1918) that no man can outrun his fate. This time, however, it could be argued that David Holm actually succeeds in evading his seemingly inevitable fate, for he's given an unexpected second chance to make amends.

Viewers expecting a plunge into the supernatural will appreciate the sequences featuring the Phantom Carriage of the title, but may not be prepared for this film's painful examination of a troubled man's alcoholic downfall. But those with a taste for intense and powerful silent drama will appreciate "Körkarlen" in its entirety. It stands with the best serious cinema of its era and is certainly one of Sjöström's most accomplished works. Victor Sjostrom's silent film masterpiece The Phantom Carriage has recently been released on DVD with a new soundtrack recorded by KTL. The duo, comprising American guitarist Stephen O'Malley and Austrian laptop artist Peter Rehberg, has conjured an extraordinary collection of sounds to accompany and accentuate the original film footage from 1921. An ominous banging sound introduces each Act and a medley of drones, guitar chords and feedback ebbs and flows as the grim drama unfolds.

As impressive as the new soundtrack is, the film remains the real star with its timeless rendering of a dark and dystopian fairy tale. According to this tale the last person to die before the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve is condemned to spend a year behind the reins of the eponymous phantom carriage, collecting the souls of the dead. This is the fate of the anti-hero of the film, David Holm, who is moved to painful scrutiny of his life following his untimely death and subsequent encounter with the driver of the carriage.

This film is often referred to as a horror film and although this is a fitting label, the real horror here resides not in the supernatural elements but rather in the depiction of human suffering at the hands of others. Sjostrom gives a remarkable performance as the drunken, spiteful and menacing Holm in life, and the wretched, frightened Holm looking back from the land of the dead and shrinking from his past deeds.

Striking imagery abounds throughout The Phantom Carriage and more than compensates for the inevitably limited dialogue. The ill-omened onset of midnight is powerfully illustrated through the image of a clock-face hovering alone in the darkening night sky like a second moon. Equally impressively, the dead are depicted through pioneering semi-transparent imagery and the scenes of the phantom carriage riding over land and sea remain chilling to watch.

Sjostrom's film deserves its place as one of the most esteemed silent films of all time and the new soundtrack by KTL is a superb accentuation of its themes. This is a must-see. This, unfortunately, is a little-known film.....i say "unfortunately", because it ranks up there with the "classics" of the American silent screen!

It's about a legend of a "phantom chariot" that travells all over the world, picking up the souls of those who have died. The legend says tha the last person to die on New Year's Eve is condemned to drive the chariot for the next whole year.

It brings to mind the sequence of the "Ghost of Future Yet To Come" in Dicken's famous "Christmas Carol".

The double-exposure effects of the ghosts (esp. when they interact with the "live" people) are EXCELLENT!

If you love silent films, you MUST see THIS; it will "blow you away"!

Norm Vogel

Norm's Old Movie Heaven http://www.nvogel.com/film/film.html Sjöströms masterpiece and a movie that captures the swedish soul . It also served as a great inspiration for Bergman; the similarites between Körkarlen and Smultronstället (with Sjöström in the leading role as Isak Borg) from 1957 is not a coincidence. Don't miss it for the world! In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.

"Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "A Carroça Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach") On a dark, gloomy New Year's Eve night, an ill nurse, her life slowly ebbing away, demands that David Holm be presented to her at once. We don't yet know who David Holm is, or why this nurse wishes to see him, but her only dying wish is to speak with him just one more time. On the other side of the town, nestled comfortably amongst the gravestones of the local cemetery, Holm (Victor Sjöström, who also directed) and two of his drunken associates merrily await the coming of the New Year. "Here we can tell just when to drink the New Year in," exclaims Holm, casting a finger towards the large clock tower that looms through the darkness. Little does he know, however, that he will not be alive to greet it.

To pass the time, Holm cheerfully recites a ghost story. He'd once had a friend name George, "a merry fellow" who was "smarter than the rest of us." On one New Year's Eve several years ago, George has broken up a potentially disastrous brawl, fearing that the final man to draw his last breath before midnight would be condemned to drive the phantom chariot for the next year, doing Death's bidding and collecting the souls of the deceased. "And, gentlemen, George died last New Year's Eve!" concludes Holm happily, not bothering to contain his mocking skepticism of the man's beliefs.

As fate has it, of course, an unexpected violent encounter results in Holm's death, just on the stroke of midnight. As the man's transparent spirit rises gingerly from his earthly body, he witnesses, to his horror, the distant approach of a phantom carriage. The driver, a frail cloaked figure - a sickle clasped tightly in his hand - steps down from the carriage and approaches. We are astonished to discover that the driver is none other than a decrepit George, preparing to pass on his ghastly duty to this year's successor.

Considering the era in which 'Körkarlen' is made, the special effects in this film are absolutely superb. Cinematographer Julius Jaenzon used double-exposure photography to create the eerie, ghostly silhouette of the carriage and its damned driver. Even today, the end result is highly effective. A particularly impressive scene involves the phantom chariot travelling to the ocean floor to retrieve the soul of a drowned man. Another scene, eerily reminiscent of Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) in Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining,' involves Holm breaking down the kitchen door with an axe in order to reach his fleeing wife and children.

Genuinely ominous and unsettling in its execution, Victor Sjöström's 'Körkarlen' is a fine work of cinema, successfully portraying Holm's steady alcoholic decline, his inevitable day of judgment, and a final hopeful possibility of redemption. Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and revolutionary.

This is a movie that is made great by its story. The story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor Sjöström.

The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma Lagerlöf. The story is adapted by Victor Sjöström himself, who perhaps should had taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one.

The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one. The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and 'future'.

Sjöström did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts.

A really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden.

9/10 Körkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies, directed by Victor Sjöstrøm, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf. The film tells the story of brutal drinker David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells the story of the Phantom Chariot (Körkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong. Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not available on international DVD. Victor Sjöström was quite the master in this film, having starred in it, directed it and even wrote the screenplay! That's pretty amazing. While today few have any idea who Sjöström was, he might be familiar to Ingmar Bergman fans as the star one of Bergman's most acclaimed films, WILD STRAWBERRIES.

As far as this film goes, it's a very mixed bag. On one hand, you have to respect it because for 1921, it's a very good film. The idea of the Grim Reaper sitting down with a dead man to discuss his wasted life is pretty imaginative. Plus, the special effect of the Phantom Carriage is pretty convincing and technically speaking this is a well-crafted film. On the other hand, it's an amazingly dated and preachy film--more like something you'd expect to be shown in Sunday School instead of in an honest to goodness theater. Plus, some of the story elements just don't make sense. Instead of coming off as dedicated or good, the dying Salvation Army worker seems like a sap--a very sad and confusing sap. Why is she "in love" with this man? Am I missing something?

So, my recommendation is that if you are insanely in love with silents (like me), then by all means watch it. But, if you aren't a silent fan, this film might do nothing to convince you that this style film is brilliant because the story is so overly melodramatic and dated. I have just finished watching this film for the first time, and I must say that I am very impressed.

How bleak. How full of despair. How nightmarish. Incredible.

Visually stunning, several scenes are embedded in my mind...the first appearance of the phantom carriage...the soul of David Holm as it rises from his corpse...his spirit on his knees, pleading.

This film takes a simple story-that of the ghostly driver of the phantom carriage, doomed to collect the souls of the dead for a year-brings it into the present setting of the film and then uses flashbacks as a means to explain how David Holm ends up in his predicament.

I would love to see this released on DVD so that more might see it. Everyone should. This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed effectively for release in different countries.

Some viewers look at this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days.

This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this. The last person who dies before New Years, is cursed to drive the Phantom Carriage for a whole year, picking up the souls of the dead.

I saw a scene from this old silent Swedish horror film on Youtube, and decided to track down the whole movie. It was well worth the work finding it, because it's an absolutely amazing movie for the time it was made. It has a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. The old time horror film makers really knew how to create the perfect atmosphere. Sadly, many of today's film makers don't seem to understand how important setting and atmosphere are, and go for the cheap jump scares. The visual effects are excellent, considering its date of production. If you can find a copy of this, I highly recommend giving it a watch. 9/10 Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark, existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt, redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the phantom carriage: death.

Unlike many silent films during the period, the film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film. Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for youngsters for sure.

Watching the film, it's easy to see the later influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars. Once upon a time, in Sweden, there was a poor Salvation Army sister. At death's door, she requests, "Send for David Holm!" But, Victor Sjöström (as David Holm) cannot be located, because he is spending New Year's Eve in a graveyard, with his drinking buddies. Dying Sister Astrid Holm (as Edit) wants to see if praying for Mr. Sjöström's soul, over the past year, has produced any results; arguably, it has not. In the graveyard, Sjöström tells the story of "The Phantom Carriage", which he heard from his dead friend Tore Svennberg (as Georges). According to legend, the last person to die in each year must pick up the souls of all the dead people, until being relieved next New Year's Eve...

Director Sjöström, whose lead performance is very strong, combines with photographer Julius Jaenzon to create a visually appealing film. The great "double exposure" effect is used frequently, but never seems overdone; and, it doesn't make the film's other dramatic highlights any less memorable (for example, Sjöström's tearing of his sewn coat and axing of the door). A Selma Lagerlöf story probably wasn't one you could, or would want to, tamper with in the 1920s - which may, or may not be, why the ending of this film is a letdown. And, unlike similar spiritual stories, it's difficult to suspend your disbelief, if you think too carefully about what is really happening in "Körkarlen".

******* Körkarlen (1/1/21) Victor Sjöström ~ Victor Sjöström, Hilda Borgström, Tore Svennberg It's a mistake to refer to any film of this era as a horror film. Most early German films with supernatural themes are not so much horror films as they are dark fantasies borrowed from the works of early German Romantics like E. T. A. Hoffman and others. In Fritz Lang's "Der Mude Tod" (also from 1921) Death personified takes a young man away from his sweetheart, but in Lang's film the characters' destiny cannot be mitigated by behavior. Neither of the young lovers deserves to die, but they are destined by circumstances to be reunited only in death.

In Victor Seastrom's "Korkarlen," however, repentance is always an option. Destiny can be altered - and death deferred - through the characters' choices. Although scenes of the Phantom Carriage collecting souls are genuinely eerie, these horrific images of Death as the great leveler are compromised by Death's offer of redemption to the real monster of this tale, David Holm, a brutal drunk who, because of a perverse hatred of humanity, spreads tuberculosis and emotional misery to everyone he comes in contact with.

One New Year's Eve Holm is struck down in a fight with a drinking companion. As the first person to die on the stroke of midnight Holm must become the driver of the Phantom Carriage and collect souls during the new year. The Phantom Carriage, driven by an old acquaintance who had started Holm on his road to ruin, comes for his soul and takes him on a journey of self discovery. Along the way Holm sees the horror he has inflicted on his family and the people who tried to help him.

Perhaps my disappointment with the film's ending is a criticism of the Selma Lagerlöf novel on which the film is based. But I would have preferred to see David Holm unable to escape his destiny, and to see his repentance come too late to prevent his wife from poisoning his two children and herself, and to see Holm suffer for the consequences of his sins by being made to collect their souls. It would have been a fitting punishment and a horror more immense than witnessing the abuse he inflicted on others. In the film, however, the unalterable nature of destiny isn't the message; redemption is. The driver of the carriage allows Holm's spirit to return to his body, and he rescues his family in the nick of time. His repentance smacks of Scrooge's repentance in "A Christmas Carol."

If the trite and sentimental ending does not offend you, there is still much to admire in the film's images. The special effects are astonishing when measured by the standards of the day, and still hold up, which is more miraculous when you consider that these double exposures were created inside a hand-cranked camera. Also, the restored film on Tartan's new DVD looks fabulous. I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies".

Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronstället.

This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.

Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around. Yeah, I guess this movie is kinda dull compared to some of Pam Grier's other films. The plot is overly familiar, the dialog stilted, and some of the acting isn't too good. But it's worth seeing for the lengthy stretch near the end of the film, where we see Ms Grier in a sexy blue wetsuit, with the zipper half unzipped. Yeah, it seems like a frivolous point when discussing an actress of Pam Grier's talent, but she also happens to be an extremely gorgeous woman, and back in the day, she had a body that wouldn't quit. It's nice to see it being showcased in a tight wetsuit. Rent the DVD, and then tell me I'm wrong. Can't, can you? That's because you know I'm right! :-) And yes, I really did give a 10 just for the wetsuit scenes! ;-) Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.

Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.

The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan. Sheba Baby is always underrated most likely because it has a pg rating instead of the usual r rating that a Grier movie gets. all that the pg means is that Pam doesn't take her top off, she takes her top off in every other movie she's been in though so. it is more exciting than Coffy, more action. it takes off slow but by the time she's on screen the thrills have started. like Dolemite d'urville martin is the heavy trying to get Sheba's father, but she ain't having that. she wages a one woman war against martin and his gang of cronies. the best scene is with a stupid pimp in his car which i'm still laughing about. i thought it would be stupid because of the pg rating but i was wrong it replaces sex with violence and in a blaxplotation film that can only be good! If anything, William Girdler was an opportunist who wanted a piece of the action in regards to whatever was popular during the time. I mean, a blaxploitation flick in Louisville, Kentucky..who would of thunk it?!?! I can just imagine the enthusiasm he must've had getting Pam Grier, quite a hot item, to star in his picture. If you are pretty familiar with the genre, Girdler's Sheba, Baby doesn't necessarily stray too far from formula. Despite a change of venue, the film still deals with a ruthless businessman nicknamed Shark who muscles in on loan companies, using stooges to threaten them in order to get their signatures.

Grier is Sheba Shayne, a former Louisville cop working in Chicago who returns home at the request of her father's partner, Brick(Austin Stoker, Assault on Precinct 13). Sheba's father, despite Shark's bullying tactics(..his man in town is Pilot, a wannabe gangster, equipped with stooges who aren't that menacing, rather buffoonish in nature, so thin-skinned they hire hit men outside of town to shoot up the Shayne Loan building), won't give up his company, and this eventually costs him his life when a warning through the use of brute force, leads to his being killed. Sheba will get her revenge on all those responsible for his father's death. In other words, Shark's ass is grass..can you dig it?

Seeing Grier with a magnum is enough to sell this particular film, the novelty of the setting being in Louisville is part of the package. You even get to see a speedboat chase, Grier in shootouts with gangsters(..not necessarily the most polished kind one might be accustomed to seeing in a Chicago or New York during this period in blaxploitation), lots of blood spurting from bullet-riddled bodies torn apart by gun-fire, and colorful characters(..such as a wimpy loan shark in pimp-dress named Walker and Pilot who is one of the least scary mobsters you are likely to see)who show up during the film, most having the misfortune of coming in contact with a very angry Sheba. The plot itself is nothing special, but Grier is always worth watching, and Girdler orchestrates plenty of action sequences to keep his target audience entertained. A modest success for Girdler, and one of his more accomplished films. Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in "Asylum of Satan" director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer "Sheba Baby," co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. "Sheba Baby" is one of several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," and "Friday Foster." The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help her take care of business. Unfortunately, "Sheba Baby" isn't nearly as good as the blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill. Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," "The Big Bird Cage," and "The Big Doll House." Anybody that analyzes images of African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief problem with "Sheba Baby" is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks. Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: "Anything worth having is worth stealing." Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason warbling it, is "Good Man Is Gone." "Sheba Baby" casts Grier as stylist Chicago gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of "Detroit 9000"), is having trouble with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of "Hammer") who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die.

Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of "Horror High"), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot. Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his problems without her interference. "Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job, but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman," Sheba tells him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin.

Later, Pilot sends a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office. These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson (Charles Kissinger of "Abby") and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of "Cleopatra Jones"), and pries information out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of "The Hellcats"), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes him as "the guy with all the right answers." "Sheba Baby" isn't top-notch Pam Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick. Multiply named and strangely casted, "One Dark Night" aka "Mausoleum", is one of the better early horror video-rentals. Original and quite raw, we meet Adam West briefly in this film about telekinesis and teen-age headgames. Meg Tilly is dared into spending the night in a crypt by "The Sisters" a high-school gang of hair-hoppers in blue satin jackets. The initiation is interrupted by the recently interred body of a mass-murdering psychic wizard called "Raymar". Surprisingly awesome make-up and scare effects paints this chiller film with style and deliver a heart-pounding climax. One Dark Night has a typical teen horror film set-up with a quite a unique twist. The ultra-brooding musical score and Gothic/claustrophobic atmosphere adds greatly to this small film that delivers. Meg Tilly is excellent as "Julie," and leads us through the maze of the mausoleum, giving a sense of foreboding and loneliness. The other teens are equally effective in their roles as is Melissa Newman, the ultimate heroine of the film. The special effects are excellent, though dated. This film is highly overlooked, but that may be good so that it was never ruined by endless sequels. There is a great, dark magic flowing through this film; once tapped into, you really get it and you're in for some fun. The double-disc DVD is available, though the original negative could not be found to restore the film. Maybe someday it will be located. I guess in some ways the carbon speckles in parts do help the film by giving it an old school respectability and making it more unexpected at the end when suddenly there are plenty of effects.

The second disc has a rough cut/alternate version with a temp score version of the film that gives more explanation of the demise of two of the girls, very Poe-ish("The Cask of Amontillado" comes to mind in a new way!) Also, great ending tension going in on the dark crypt opening. Not sure it had the punch for main stream audiences, but certainly worked for me and extremely creepy.. . also, there is a making of documentary that is interesting because it gives info on what was going on at the time with the actors, crew, director and writer; candid material, then current logos, discussions of shots and scenes, rehearsals. Very unique that this stuff exists for a small film back then. I actually first watched One Dark Night in the theater & wrote a review of the film for my high school newspaper. I loved it then & I still love it. The storyline revolves around two people. First of all one woman learns that her father has telekenisis after his death. She then has feelings herself about the strange powers of her father even in his death. The mauseleum he's buried in plays host to the other main person, a high school girl doing anything to get in with a group of girls that just want to torment her & dare her to stay in the mauseleum all night to join their group. They go back in the night to scare her & find scares for themselves. The cast is led by Meg Tilly with supporting roles by Adam West and one of my personal favorites Elizabeth Daily aka E.G. Daily. Check this one out if you love 80's movies & cheesy horror movies, you won't be disatisfied. by the way it looks at the other comments made, it seems that a lot of people did not get the point to the flick. It is not centered around zombies, as a matter of fact they are not zombies at all, they are a device regenerated by the wizard to scare the girls to death, his main focus is on Meg Tilly, who he wants to help him finish the job that he died while doing in the first place, and what you get is a great flick with an awesome ending, it is hard to find on video, but every once in a while it shows up on HBO or Cinamax, check it out, I gave it a 10 and highly recommend it. Well groomed, well behaved teen Meg Tilly must spend the night in a creepy mausoleum as an initiation into a high school club. Problem is a powerful psychic named Raymar was just buried there that day, but he isn't quite dead and he needs the life force of humans for his powers.

Obscure horror film offers plenty of thrills and chills, an appealing and likeable cast, and most superior special effects.

My rating: 7 out of 10.

One Dark Night is rated R for Violence and Adult Themes. Famous and mysterious recluse Raymar, who's some kind of lethal telekinetic psychic vampire, abruptly dies under bizarre circumstances. Nice girl high school student Julie Wells (a warm and sympathetic performance by the lovely Meg Tilly) wants desperately to be accepted by the snobby clique the Sisters (played to sublimely bitchy perfection by Leslie Speights, Robin Evans and the ever-cuddly Elizabeth Daily), so she agrees to spend a night in a creepy mausoleum where Raymar's body has been interred as part of an initiation rite. Naturally, Raymar still has his extraordinary powers, so it's going to be a very long and harrowing night of pure nerve-wracking terror for poor Julie.

Director/co-screenwriter Tom McLoughlin (who later gave us the enjoyably tongue-in-cheek "Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives") eschews graphic gore in favor of creating a brooding and eerie atmosphere, but fails to pull this particular feat off because the first hour is way too slow, talky and uneventful to be remotely scary or suspenseful. However, I nonetheless still found this flawed fright flick to be oddly appealing and entertaining. The big poofy hairdos, a goofy music montage sequence, badly timed false scares (including the ubiquitous hand on the shoulder gag!), a scene at a glittery video game arcade, kids gleefully smoking pot, and the hilariously dumb teen slang ("nerdle brain"!?) give this picture a certain endearingly quaint 80's period charm. Hal Trussell's handsome, polished cinematography (I especially dug the smoothly gliding Steadicam tracking shots), Bob Summers' spooky, yet funky hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, and Tom Burman's splendidly ghoulish make-up f/x are all up to snuff. The ever-stolid Adam West of TV's "Batman" fame merely takes up space in a nothing secondary part. The mausoleum makes for an impressively vast and unsettling main location. The grand finale with a bunch of ghastly rotting corpses popping out of their coffins and floating about qualifies as a marvelously macabre shock set piece. Sure, this baby definitely ain't some unjustly unsung gem, but it still delivers plenty of pleasingly silly and diverting cheesy fun all the same. This is my favorite horror film, a close 2nd to 'Poltergeist'. I saw 'One Dark Night' when it first came out in theaters in 1983 at the theater where I worked.

I was born in 1963, so I have a certain love for '80's horror films, despite them being a little dated and the dialog not well written. What I thought was so original about it was that the phenomenon of 'psychic vampirism' has not been addressed (at least, to my knowledge at that time) and is a very real phenomenon.

I didn't care if Adam West was in it (nothing against him, but his supporting role was not memorable), but thought Meg Tilly was good casting. The little-known Donald Hutton (from 'Brainstorm' and 'Invaders From Mars') as an ambiguous scientist who oversaw studies on Ramar's abilities was sadly overlooked. As a gay guy, I was paying more attention to David Mason Daniels, Meg Tilly's unfortunate but gorgeous boyfriend. He's selling real estate in Texas now.

I felt the film 'realistic' in two ways: Raymar, who was discovered to have murdered 6 girls in his surreal apartment, had a funeral that was sparse in attendance, reflecting the fact that not only was he mysterious, a hermit, but a killer. As you know, these types are buried without fanfare. Second, if corpses were going to be telekinetically mobile, they would hover, dragging their feet. The filmmakers could have gone for the schlock walking, groaning, arms out-stretched zombies, but opted for what would be believable. Kudos! The buzzing electrical discharge from Ramar's eyes at his 'throne coffin' (like he's overseeing his kingdom of dead), cast an eerie magenta light in the mausoleum that will stay with you for years! If you've ever gone to a mausoleum, even on a sunny day, you will notice that they have their own rosetta lighting caused by stained glass windows. Don't get me started on the cavernous silence. Even Ramar himself looked like someone who could pass as an eccentric, perverted old man. The score was one-of-a-kind and memorable, and I keep kicking myself for not getting it on cassette when it first came out. The track shooting was done where it was supposed to be. I especially liked the carefully-planned characteristics of each corpse: the bride, the badly decomposed child still holding its teddy bear, the grandmother, the tall thin black guy, and the half-faced World War II vet, and the green-slimed eyed elderly gent who was the first to greet the 'Sisters' clique initiators. Even corpses can be good actors, I suppose. The only thing I had to groan about was the arm that came out of one of the vaults and choke Julie's boyfriend couldn't possibly be done unless a corpse was put in laying on it's stomach and feet first, but why? It looked a little to fresh too.

The film begins eerie, with us never seeing Ramar's face (until the last quarter of the film, which is like unwrapping a birthday present) as he is picking up teen girl runaways in his daughter's psychic flash. We then see coroners hauling his body away in his one bedroom apartment where we see he's experimented his telekinetic craft by phasing dishes into his wall. The rest does drag as the Heathers-like 'Sisters' group baits Julie into a final initiation by spending the night inside the mausoleum, but it is a well-placed build up to the unleashing horror later. The movie isn't bloody in any sense of the word. The goriest part is when Ramar's daughter uses a compact mirror to feed his power back to him, and he bubbles then melts. I've always felt that a power like Ramar's could never die and a sequel could be worth looking into. I can see it now: One Dark Night II: Turning In The Grave. But let's face it-The film stands alone. I heard the film had other titles, but the original fits.

A remake would be pointless. But if there were to be one, I would write better dialog, and lengthen some scenes such as show the studies on Ramar's abilities done in the lab instead of hearing about it on a tape recorder. In this information age, something like that would be well documented on DVD. And more corpses! Why just raise the ones in the mausoleum when Ramar's power could spread to the graveyard too? Let's just say I'd hate to be one of the persons who had to clean up the mess at the end of the climax; something that too can be shown. I think having one of the initiating Sisters recognize one of the corpses as a relative would have added some good if disturbing character. With CG effects, some awesome scenes with Ramar animating cremated remains would be off the wall!

Say what you will about,'One Dark Night' but it has it all. So see at least once in your life...or death! I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought back to life. The "zombies" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical "flesh-eating zombie" movie. Julie (Meg Tilly) is a "goody two shoes" type high school girl who, determined to prove something to herself, allows herself to be subjected to the rituals of "The Sisters", a small-scale clique presided over by snooty, homecoming queen type Carol (Robin Evans). The Sisters propose that for Julie's final test she will spend the night in a mausoleum, preparing to drive Julie up the wall, but not knowing that recently deceased, ill-intentioned psychic Raymar is interred there and has plans to cause havoc from beyond the grave.

While this debut picture for Tom McLoughlin ("Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" and "Sometimes They Come Back") is limited by its obviously low budget, it's what McLoughlin and his crew are able to do with it that counts. It's genuinely creepy, unsettling fare; it might have very well scared the stuffing out of me if I were under 10 years of age, and even at my current age, it still got to me to a degree.

Some of the effects look cheesy, but the decent looking corpses and gore are created by Tom Burman, an experienced makeup effects artist, who, while tending to be overshadowed by more famous names like Winston, Baker, and Bottin, has a good resume with other films like "Cat People" (1982) and "The Beast Within" to his credit.

What I liked most about it was a real sense of foreboding and atmosphere, an aspect missing from some of the current trendy horror movies being shown in our multiplexes.

Tilly is cute and appealing in her role, having recently completed her debut film work in "Tex" before joining this production. "One Dark Night" was completed some time before its release to theaters in 1983, where it actually did decent business during its first few weeks. The other actors do what they have to do well enough; familiar faces in the supporting cast include the equally appealing veteran singer / actress / voice-over artist Elizabeth (a.k.a. E.G.) Daily, Kevin Peter Hall, for once *not* playing some sort of creature character, but who unfortunately ends up with very little screen time, and none other than Adam "Batman" West. The director's wife Nancy, who would play Lizbeth in "Jason Lives", appears here as the spacey girl in front of the arcade.

It's decent B-level horror entertainment, maybe too cheap for its ambitions, and maybe not that slick (hey, McLoughlin *was* just starting out), but definitely good for some chills.

7/10 This is an OK early 80's horror flick in which a young girl (Meg Tilly) is wanting to shed her "goody two shoes" image and becomes part of a girl gang called The Sisters. Their initiation for her consists of spending the night in a mausoleum. Too bad the mausoleum is the "final" resting place of some psycho Russian psychic and he's not quite dead yet. Seems this guy was found in his apartment with lots of things stuck into the walls from his telekinetic target practice, plus there is a pile of young dead girls found in the closet. All proof that hitch hiking can be dangerous, so listen up girls. The daughter of this man (Reymar) is rather distraught about her father's death and is confronted by a man that said he knew Reymar and given a tape to listen too. Her hubby (Adam West, of Batman fame) is there to laugh and scoff, and not much else. But it seems that perhaps Reymar's daughter may also have some abilities that she doesn't realize. Anyway, having deposited their unfortunate pledge at the mausoleum, the rest of The Sisters take off to go get stuff (like masks, sheets, etc) to come back and scare the crap out of her, but little do they suspect what's going on and they get more than the crap scared out of them. For even in death Reymar is kind of a busy guy and he's reanimating lots of corpses for entertainment. And it would also seem that he has a thing for jail bait. Overall this is acceptable horror, nothing too intense but not terrible either. The DVD from Media Blasters also contains another version of the movie that's a rough cut, I guess, I only watched a little of it so I don't know how different it is from the theatrical release but from what I saw I guess it's a "warts and all" presentation. 7 out of 10. Thorn-BMI is out of business, before they stopped making films they made a chiller of a movie. Using E.S.P. and telekinesis as the basis of the daughter whose father mastered a terrible power. Only in the death of her father did Olivia find that her father dubbed 'Raymar' from Raymarkovitch had really murdered 6 girls and was planning two more by using the technique of Psyhic Vampirism.

Our picture starts with 6 coroner wagons pulling in and music to match the grusome discovery of the 6 girls. Dead all with their eyes wide open in a closet. In the walls were all kinds of objects, the coroners men were pulling up an old man, when blue lightning hit the ceiling which caused a circular hole to form only made the film more bizarre!

If you like extremely chilling scenes this for you. Unless you can see dead bodies from years ago in each level of decay, don't view it without a friendly companion. Like "The Changeling" it has some heart stopping horror in it. I gave this a rating of 7 it's in color, actress Meg Tilly debuted in this film if you can find it see it. ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.

Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy. A bunch of sorority girls make a new pledge spend the night in a creepy mausoleum. Of course the recently deceased don't stay deceased for long and all hell breaks loose."One Dark Night" is an enjoyable 80's horror with some ghastly dead bodies floating around that are being controlled by the spirit of a dead psychic Raymar.There is no gore and nudity,but the atmosphere of a mausoleum is very eerie.The acting is solid,but the script takes too much time to develop the characters until the final 20 minutes that Raymar finally breaks out of his grave.The cinematography is impressive and the the mausoleum is a great location for the climactic events.The film takes so long to get going and this is its major flaw.7 out of 10. Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.

This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.

The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.

Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?

I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.

This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore. I saw this film when it was released to theaters. It's definitely one to remember, I had forgotten the title until recently. A friend found it via online search.

One Dark Night is rather unusual for the suspense/horror genre of the time in that it contains no blood. It is of the teen fright variety yet the teens are respectable in their own ways. It's a nice, old-school film with props and scenes that reflect the times. Our hero rides a motorcycle with no brain bucket, for example.

As has been mentioned by previous reviewers, One Dark Night is currently available on DVD. The original negative was not available for the DVD transition. Some reel changes are a bit rough but this doesn't take away from the story. That being said, the colors are vibrant and the lighting is very good.

Adam West plays a rather smallish part in this film as RayMar's son-in-law. His role as an overbearing and indifferent husband is thankfully short.

The story builds over the course of the film. Unlike many horror films of the era, One Dark Night is a great suspense story that gives the viewer time to absorb what is happening.

The final 20 minutes or so of One Dark Night are what make it so memorable. RayMar's telekinetic abilities are used to open old graves in the mausoleum, pull the coffins out, open them and move the corpses around. Attention was afforded to great detail in the final scenes. The rotting, worm-riddled corpses look quite real. I didn't know anything about this movie before I watched it. It seems to be a lesser-known teen horror from the 80's. What struck me were the ways it differed from so many other movies from that era.

The first thing I noticed was how slowly this movie builds. It doesn't do the typical setup of showing characters being murdered one by one. It takes its time building the back story, leaving a little bit of mystery about what might happen. I was almost starting to think no one would even really get hurt in this movie. But everything leads to the climatic sequence during the last 15 minutes, and then it gets fairly graphic (this was a bad time to take a snack break--I almost couldn't finish my pizza once it started).

The characters also seem slightly more three-dimensional than a lot of the cheap teen scare flicks. There conversations were refreshingly level-headed for the most part, as opposed to the over-the-top stereotypes you'd expect. For example, the girl who is the popular, snobby, queen-bee of the clique isn't constantly spouting insults at everyone, but is capable of having doubts and showing some consideration for others.

So, to summarize, I felt this movie was somewhat original compared to what I expected, and a little better made as well. It drew me in, kept me interested, and then let me have it. As I said, it's pretty gory during the finale, but almost family friendly much of the rest of the time. I don't need to own it, but I'm glad I discovered it. I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I have never seen it again anywhere.

I don't know whether if I did see it now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up very well.

I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good. "One Dark Night" is a staple in the 1980's low budget horror genre. Filled with retro puns, clothing and scenery, "ODN" transports the viewer to a simpler time, when horror films were just that... Horror!

Nothing so intense that you can't understand whats going on, the film tells a dark fable of what happens when you mess with the dead. Well acted by it's stable of scream-queens, and a fine directorial job by Tom McLoughlin, whom revels in the time and makes you believe what he's presenting. There is no "Who done it?" and certainly no big twist at the end. It is straight-forward and in your face horror from beginning to end, with a lot of 80's humor thrown in for added spice. I give it "8" simply because some of the special effects fall short towards the end of the film, but at least there is no CGI... Perfect film for new fans to the 1980's horror genre, or anyone looking to re-live a fun night of classic horror bliss. As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed the real terror starts.

This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great. Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable.

My Grade: B

Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for "the Being", "Frankestien's Bloody Terror", "Just Before Dawn", & "Devil Dog" Disc 2) Alternate director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes featurette I was kinda surprised by the PG rating on the back of the DVD case. I certainly wouldn't want my kids watching this one. I think this would scare the crap out of a 10 year old.

Plot: A girl trying to fit in to the clique is hazed and tormented by the 'in crowd.' They talk her into spending the night in this creepy mausoleum (that reminded me of Phantasm...) and they proceed to torment her in the night. Little do they know, a recently deceased clairvoyant is coming back to life and raising the dead around them! It sounds awfully cheesy, but given the age and the budget, which was no doubt pretty small, this film is fun on many levels.

Watch for an early EG Daily as one of the in crowd brats. I enjoyed it and it scared my girlfriend.

7 out of 10, kids. You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something). I can't describe the feeling when I got this crappy VHS rental cassette in my hands about 20 years ago. Somehow I got my father to rent it for me and I watched it twice with my little brother. Yes, we got nightmares. This film was originally rated as PG in the US, in many other countries, including Finland, it was restricted under 18 or 16. The film was aimed to teenagers, but this must be the goriest PG-rated film ever. There's no bad language or nudity in it what so ever. Originally made in 1981, stayed on the shelves for a couple of years before release.

This is an A-class B-movie, a true, well made 80's horror flick. A bunch of college girls decide to spent a night in a mausoleum, not knowing that a supernatural evil awaits...

You can almost smell the rotting flesh and feel the atmosphere of this movie. It's campy, utterly stupid, but they just can't make these movies anymore. There is definitely a certain feel to this 80's horror genre. This one is still effectively spooky and entertaining after all these years.

The effects are just oozing quality by Ellis Burman Jr and Thomas R. Burman. The make-up effects play a big part in this flick, otherwise it would've been just a boring teen slasher.

It's now available on DVD at last and it's a Special Edition DVD including some extras too. Commentary track is interesting.

(In fact, this version isn't so special after all. Below average transfer on DVD, some glitches and scratches here and there) At first it was going to be released by the Blue Underground but unfortunately it was canceled, so Shriek Show released it without restoring the print. Too bad!)

Great date-movie!

Recommended!!!

Note! I only gave 8 out of 10 because of the "nostalgic values", otherwise 6 out of 10 I have great memories of this movie...

I was only 12 when it was released and it scared the bejesus out of me. I really miss my bejesus...

Zombies, graveyards, mausoleums, how can you go wrong? It's like Phantasm's retarded cousin.

This movie was released 1 year before the PG-13 rating was instituted.

I submit that One Dark Night is the GORIEST PG movie (not scariest, mind you) that has ever been released.

Can anyone come up with a gorier pick?

(FYI: I don't consider Poltergeist to be gorier...scarier, yes. But not gorier...) Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.

Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranks—or that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.

Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere. This is my favourite movie of all time. And I always think of it as John Huston's requiem.

I must have seen it at least 20 times and never tire of it. The mood, the script, the singing, the dinner, it is like being invited into someone's home and observing the events and not able to participate even though you want to... It is a rare treasure, this movie and I cannot write enough praise for it.

It is cast incredibly well, with quite a few Abbey Theatre faces and also the wonderful tenor voice of Frank Patterson. Lady Gregory's poem recited in the movie is one of the most moving ever written. Anjelica's scene walking down the stairs as she listens to the song is one of the best performances every seen on film. I cry every time I see it..for all the right reasons.

We have all had love lost at an early age and weep for our young hopeful selves.

Donal McCann acted in far too few movies for my liking, he just loved stage work and stuck to it, and it is our loss that we do not have more of his performances on film as he does so much with this delicate role by expression and the portrayal of a deep love for his wife that will never be reciprocated and he conveys such inner sadness at knowing this.

If you want your movies action and plot packed avoid this, there really is no beginning, middle or end just a lens onto the characters at a dinner party in Dublin 80 years ago and all the little nuances and shadings of the personalities portrayed so beautifully.

Bravo to all who were involved in this production. 10 out of 10. John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson. I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most "perfect" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection, making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract! The entire movie, an artful adaptation of one of Joyce's "Dubliners" stories, takes place on the night of January 6 (Epiphany), 1906. Most of the film takes place at an annual party given by three spinsters (two sisters and their niece), where a group of upper-class Dubliners gather for an evening of music, recitations and dinner. While there is very little plot per se, the interaction and conversation among the group reveals much about Dublin in the early 20th century when the stirrings for independence were just beginning. The cast, all talented Irish stage actors with the exception of Anjelica Huston, are universally wonderful, and one actually feels he is a guest at the gathering himself. The poignant final scene, between Ms. Huston and the amazing Donal McCann, reveals much about the marriage of the characters. There is poignancy mixed with humor and insight, and for those who like quiet, thoughtful movies, "The Dead" is highly recommended. My wife is from Dublin, we make a ritual of watching this wonderful movie every January 6th. After many viewings it never fails to move me, and each time I glean something that I've missed before. So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.

To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.

Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom. An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film. No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film makers. It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is absolutely marvellous. The last film of John Huston, the great American director of the Irish descent is an adaptation of the last short story in the early collection "Dubliners", of the greatest writer ever came from Ireland. The film is a family affair. The dying director made it based on the script adapted by his son Tony Huston from one of the most poignant, beautiful and profound short story ever written in this language and considered by many THE BEST English language short story. John directed his daughter Anjelica in what could be her finest screen performance. The film is short, only 83 minutes. It's got no action sequences, no plot, it is almost non-eventful, and it may seem slow. The guests, friends and relatives come to the party that takes place in Dublin during the Epiphany week in January 1904, at the house of two elderly sisters who give annual dinner with music and dance. What viewers see for the first hour, is the ensemble conversation piece. The guests talk, listen to the music, discuss the latest opera premiere, and make jokes, sometimes awkward. Gradually, the conversation turns to the long dead friends or relatives the memory of whom never faded away.

This is the film you have to stay with, let it pull you in, listen to what and how the guests at the party say, how they communicate. Pay attention to the body languages, to the looks at their faces when they drift away from the light, laugh, and music of the present to the long gone but never in fact left most precious memories where the Dead of the title are not dead but forever young and so alive. If you do, you will be awarded with the final scene of such emotional power and impact that it will always stay with you. It will break your heart to pieces, pull them together and put it back transfixed. The film as well as Joyce's story centers on Gabriel Conroy (Donal McCann as James Joyce's alter ego gave a very moving understated performance) as one of the party guests who arrives with his wife Gretta (Anjelica Huston). Gabriel is still in love, feels close connection to and fascinated with her. It is after the party, he discovers that even after many years of closeness, he does not know all about her past, her pains, her regrets, and the unforgettable emotions and loss she had lived through as a young girl, and he is no part of. For the first time, he looks at her and thinks of her not as the indelible part of his existence but as another human being with her own inner world, her own loneliness and sadness, and for the first time, "a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul." It is he who narrates the final most powerful and profound lines of the story: "Snow is general all over Ireland. . . falling faintly through the universe, and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

If you have not seen the film or read the Joyce's story, please do. They are truly the works of Art that leave the everlasting impression and would change something in you to the best. Easily one of my three or four favorite films. Definitely one for the desert island. There is nothing `brilliant' about this film. Rather, it glows warm and welcoming. The audience is invited to a party and, like any good party, the joy comes in the interaction of the guests, and what you learn as you progress from one to the next. With apologies to Joyce, the film's title conjures up a number of ideas that keep audiences away. The film is not horrifying. It is not depressing. It is a beautiful look into a time that has past, within which people are growing up, and others are winding down. Some are frustrated, and others are serene. And all around, ever present throughout the evening, are the people, and the parts of people, that have been laid to rest. The words these exquisite actors are given to speak are perfection and, set to the music of the Irish brogue, are an auditory feast, particularly to us flat-toned Americans. About the lack of brilliance I referred to above, I take it back. There is no other word to describe the final scene between Anjelica Huston and Donal McCann. It speaks quiet volumes about … well, everything. Some lovely snowy evening, rent this film and just let it happen before you. No gunfights, no car chases, no dinosaurs – just film at its most sublime. John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's beautiful short story, "The Dead", and made not only one of the most faithful literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema.

When I watched this movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen, marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction, costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story.

A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences.

Donal McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the most moving performances I've ever seen.

All in all, The Dead is a fine cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent. There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit "The Dead" - Best Screen Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally, perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film, adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing, dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine anywhere else you would rather be than in this company.

Finally, of course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by Huston and McCann.

But then all the performances are extraordinary. This is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable, genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in "The Quiet Man"), brings to his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience. For his last film, John Huston directed his daughter, Anjelica, in this adaptation of the story from James Joyce's "Dubliners", and he gave us one of his finest achievements to remember him by.

Joyce is about as impossible to film as anyone, but "The Dead" at least presents a traditional narrative to work with. Much (indeed, almost all) of the important information in the story lies in the spaces between the lines, in characters' thoughts and expressions -- there are big moments, but they're cerebral -- they're not the stuff of which movies are made. But somehow, Huston gets it right, and he manages a nearly flawless adaptation.

Anjelica is magnificent, and the movie is haunting and powerful.

Grade: A In print this is one of the greatest short stories ever written, brought brilliantly and poetically to the screen by this father-son team, working together, sadly, for the first and last time.It is fitting that John Huston should end his career on a high note by bringing the work of one of his favorite author's to the screen, in what is easily the best Joyce screen adaptation. Huston made a career of adapting great works of literature to film, usually quite successfully. It is sad, and somewhat puzzling, that Tony Huston pretty much began and ended his career in film by adapting what would be his father's final project and picking up a well-deserved Oscar nomination in the process.

I once had the privilege of sitting in the company of the great screenwriter/playwright Horton Foote, who cited this film as one of his favorites in recent years (at the time it was still a fairly recent release). As a rather prolific screenwriter himself (and a brilliant screen adapter of his own works, as well as great authors such as Faulkner, Steinbeck and Harper Lee) he was obviously impressed with Tony Huston's first time effort, and possibly equally puzzled by his lack of output since then. If anyone has insights to share on the topic I'd be interested to hear more. Not often it happens that a great director´s last movie becomes such a moving, brillantly performed and filmed masterpiece. The cast is excellent as well as the camerawork. What starts up as a merry coming-together of a group of well-educated citizens of an early-20th-century- Dublin turns into a dark, philosophic narration about all our fear from death and the sometimes dark shadows of the past. Thank You, Mister Huston, for this last piece of great cinema! I believe John Houston's "The Dead" is a true classic. Not only was it Houston's final film, he is quoted as saying "all I know about film making is in this film." The story, closely adapted from "Dubliners" by James Joyce, is a great ensemble piece featuring sterling performances by Angelica Houston, John's daughter, and a cast of English and Irish actors who bring the story to life. This is a film that should be part of any serious collection, not only because it is visually elegant, but because the story is timeless and very appealing. The film is not hurried, nor is it charged with action. Rather, the story unfolds from within the characters, who bring light and meaning to the dialog. The end of the film is stunning, poetic, and haunting. I recommend "The Dead" without reservation as one of the finest films ever made. This is really the only chance to see the magic of James Joyce's writing brought to life. His novels are all unfilmable (in any real sense) and this is the only long story he wrote. It was John Huston's last film and did not reach the screen until after he had died, and it is easy to see his touch of greatness. The Dead is poetical in its approach on the screen, telling us more about Ireland than any modern movie on the IRA and "the troubles" could ever hope to tell us. Hopefully more people will watch this film and get to experience the finest of both John Huston and James Joyce, and perhaps visit this story in your local bookstore (and discover that it is probably the greatest short story ever put on paper). Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty. I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem. James Joyce, arguably, could write some of the best sentences in the English language, and his short story, "The Dead," which ends his collection The Dubliners, contains—in its finale—perhaps the most perfect paragraph in the English language. It's fitting that John Huston, who held back in attempting to film this story, ended his career with it. As with The Red Badge of Courage and The Man Who Would Be King, Huston revered the literary source but made the adaptation cinematic. And with "The Dead" (which was completed after Huston's death by his son, Tony Huston) we get something nearly perfect in the marriage of literature and cinema.

Valuing all that cinema can do, as one of the commentators points out "this isn't The African Queen" (nor does it need to be), this is the kind of movie that is uncompromising for an audience. All of us slogged through Portrait of an Artist in school, and one needs to bring the maturity of appreciating how words and images in and of themselves can touch us. As with silent films, Huston seeks something pure here, and he works with the confidence of his many years and leaves the world a masterpiece that equals Joyce's original.

Many veterans of the Irish theater world are recruited to bring the story of a man filled with self-importance (and mock self-doubt) that's reinforced by the hosts of an annual party on the eve of the Feast of the Epiphany. What's in store for Gabriel Conroy is an evening of celebration, song, dance, poetry where he's asked to give the annual toast to the two sisters and their niece who host the party. He's distracted by the task wanting to rise to the occasion, and this distraction leaves him vulnerable for an earth-shattering experience, handed to him by his wife. While his ego is shaken when he hears a story from his wife's past, it's also a gift where all that seems to have mattered throughout the evening is swept away by the realization of impending mortality for all who are living.

And rather than trying to make the last famous paragraph of the story "cinematic," Huston brings in a voice over and we hear those incredible words recited as we watch "the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling." It's the perfect solution to a filmmaker's adaptation.

The cast is all we would hope. Since this is basically a testament to the power of the written word and how it brings us together through common experience each performer seems elevated by their role. Anjelica Huston as Gretta Conroy has a wide range to play, and her account of a young boy who once loved her sears not only Gabriel Conroy, but the audience as well.

When I think of Anjelica Huston, it's the transformation she makes in this film; and when I think of her father, it's this film I remember first. The Argentinian music poet, Atahualpa Yupanqui, once said that some folk music repeats similarly at any country of the world. They look the same but everybody consider them as their own folk music...

This film, as I feel it, is about the same music that repeats all over the world at some time of each country's history. First, a few listen it playing and try to make the others hear it. Then some, believe that they hear it, but they don't. Then, nobody says anything and some people appear to listen to it. And others recognize that they have heard it, but didn't think that others might be hearing it. Finally, everybody listen to the same music, and suddenly it doesn't sound any more...

Love and poetry, as a real nationalism and the legacy of a father to his children...

Why would he call the film, The Dead when nobody dies? The Spanish translation of the title refused to follow the same rule and we call it Dubliners, following James Joyce's title...

A nice 1900 Irish filmed postcard! Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a short section at the very end, no scenery.

The result of lack of all of these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience, provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a large number will agree with my view.

9 out of 10. John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however, that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella "The Dead."

Once long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, "Doesn't "The Dead" seem remarkably more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?" I tend to think that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave.

Huston's handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on. Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's grasp in Huston's portrayal.

To claim that Huston has softened his writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While "The Dead" may be painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man.

But "The Dead" belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central point of our lives. "The Dead" truly is a work of art. Clearly, John Huston meant to show that he was still "in the full glory of some passion" by making it, even as his body was failing him. This movie is powerfully affecting and lingers in the mind long after it is done. Reading the Joyce short story certainly adds more depth to the characters, especially Gabriel's inner turmoil, but the essence is all there in this film. As a statement by an artist of his love of life and his craft, "The Dead" stands alone. Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress. Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about everything.

It is not possible to watch this final scene without simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of fellow beings. John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as "The Misfits" and "African Queen," directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, "The Dead" tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although "shine" is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). "The Dead" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend. This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a perfect work of art.

And it was fun watching confused horror fans getting up and walking out! I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it. It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away in some film vault forever.

Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The Dead' are all but forgotten? A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love, death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside. It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue. Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life. When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film. At times I really wonder… when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting – Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia. No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement. This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie.

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7. Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year. I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.

Examples :

Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ?

Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.

Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...

Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ?

And Isabelle, who is she really ??

Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville. I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts – the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography – the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience. Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it. Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it. I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller. This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original. Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is proved when he says "Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something only has meaning if we make it have meaning."

The commentary saves this movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs.

Overall I'd give this movie a 7/10. I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV.

They would speak gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there. Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's vision.

If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES, get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat.

By the way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass. I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time.

By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion.

You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times. Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the pertinent truths it expresses.

I write and play music for a living and this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way.

I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere. I love this show. My girlfriend was gonna get an abortion until we both watched Wonder Showzen one night. Luckily, she killed herself before the baby was born. Though technically I think it was considered a murder-suicide.

My first thoughts upon seeing Wonder Showzen? Now I know what God watches when He jerks off all the time.

Wonder Showzen is to television what a toaster in the bathtub is to my self-esteem.

You know how George W. Bush makes speaking gaffes all the time? Tyler wouldn't. Tyler's good. Tyler cuts his nails. He's Tyler. He's good. Tyyyllerrr... Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!

------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

"User Comment Guidelines

Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title.

What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments" And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host. Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street, tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very funny show that I hope lasts for years to come.

My rating: *** 1/4 out of ****. 30 mins. TV MA. Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene…

The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison.

If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)

The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant. "Quai des Orfevres", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, "Longtime Defence", shows his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude Chabrol.

The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes place in the world of the music halls and night clubs.

Louis Jouvet, who is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly, and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a good house wine.

Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

The other great character in the film is Dora, the photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher.

The film is one of the best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live forever because the way he brought all the elements together. This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French "Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.

This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period. First of all,there is a detective story:"légitime défense" by Belgian Stanislas André Steeman whose "l'assassin habite au 21" Clouzot had already transferred to the screen in 1942,with Pierre Fresnay and the same actress Suzy Delair.Steeman complained about Clouzot's adaptation for both movies.The movie from 1942 was excellent,but the "detective story" side had been kept,so why complaining?As for "Quai des orfèvres",Clouzot was now in a new phase of his brilliant career.After having directed "le corbeau" and been blacklisted,he had a lot more to say than a simple whodunit.Steeman complained essentially about the poor detective ending,which I will not reveal of course,but Clouzot focused on the social vignettes,on his characters's psychology,and he did not give a damn about the puzzle à la Agatha Christie.By doing so,he becomes the genuine predecessor of CLaude Chabrol who has always been closer to him than to Alfred Hitchcock whom he admires much though. Suzy Delair has great screen presence,and you will love the song she really sings(she was a singer too)"avec son tralala".Bernard Blier gives ,as ever,a sparing of gestures and words performance,and he really pulls it off .Two characters are particularly interesting and disturbing:the first one,Dora,the photographer:she takes pictures of female models ,and Clouzot,by subtle touches,reveals us she's a lesbian.Of course,the word is never uttered(How could it be in 1947?) The police chief (fabulous Louis Jouvet) tells her:"You and me,WE are not lucky with women."The portrait of this cop is very detailed:we learn a lot of things about him,not necessary connected with the Delair/Blier plot:he's a widower ,with a son he adores and who runs into school difficulties,particularly in geometry.So we get to know all the characters in depth.One of the most important manifesto of post-war French cinema. The Director loves the actress and it shows. The actress inhabits the character, whom we love at first sight and sound. The character loves her jealous unprepossessing husband and he loves her. His childhood friend secretly loves his wife and the fact that his friend is a beautiful woman makes the love tragic and ironic. His wife is jealous of his childhood friend and thinks her attentions are out of secret love for her husband.

Then there is a murder and the investigating police lieutenant, who loves only his bi-racial son, and resents being taken from his company by the above characters, who have had some unpleasant contact with the deceased and are all lying to one degree or another, unravels the mystery with some of the most precise and authentic procedural detail ever captured on film.

And then there are the atmospherics of a post-war Paris, where coal is in short supply, music is filled with erotic longing and wistful memory, and innocence has long ago been washed away by the rain.

All of this in a milieu of magicians whose tricks don't always work, dogs who walk on their hind feet and express music criticism, hungry news reporters and exhausted cops.

And then there are many of the finest actors of their generation who have been through some very bad years directed by, to come full circle, a man who is in love with his lead actress and who, with full justification, was a respected friend of Picasso.

I've seen this film often and I love all of them and it. A nice, humorous mix of music hall (in the first third mostly) and police procedural mystery as the various suspects' stories start to collapse. The final exposure of the murder may come as a surprise if you don't watch closely. A gritty look at Paris of the time. You can ignore the final scene (the Hollywood ending). Louis Jouvet is best as the police inspector who seems to be just passing through, but is really on top of things. The extraordinarily adorable Suzy Delair plays a statuesque performer obsessed with succeeding in the theater. Her husband and accompanist, played by Bernard Blier, is a composed but jealous man. When he finds out in a less than preferable way that his flashy wife has planned a rendezvous with a lecherous old businessman with the intention of advancing her career, he loses all control and threatens the businessman with murder. Now, at that point, I must stop describing the film to you because it skates on such thin ice with its twists, revelations, ambiguities and suspense that to imply any of it would endanger it. I am not sure how good or bad that is for this French police procedural emanating from the song- and-dance community, though it is certainly interesting that what we do know throughout is who did not do it. We just don't know who did.

The story depends upon the procedure of following clues, where ideal alibis fail and where cautiously created fabrications and deceptions disintegrate. Interestingly, this is a suspense film in which suspense is generated in spite of the knowledge one would traditionally think too much too soon.

Quay of the Goldsmiths is the least dark of Henri-Georges Clouzot's films. It's nowhere near as sinister as the shocking Les Diaboliques, as tragic as the riveting Wages of Fear or as eery as Le Corbeau. Maybe it is due to the vibrance of the dance halls and theater settings of 1940s France, which all work as the milieu of this crime thriller.

Clouzot both understands and approves of his characters, even the more rotten ones, where he has more of a vindictive streak with his other films. Where he may have had understanding for the scheming women in Les Diabolique or the truck drivers who sink to the level of risking horrible death in order to oust themselves from miserable life in The Wages of Fear, there isn't necessarily support or agreement on the part of the filmmaker, for these are characters who plainly made the direct decisions that determine their fate. All the characters in this more settling film have scenes and moments that endear us to them, even the harsh, cold detective played by Louis Jouvet, who worries about his young adoptive son amid all the trouble and despair that happens in his life at any time with the drop of a hat.

There is humor and unabashed sexiness, the latter mostly on the part of Delair, that neutralize the pressure to a degree. Clouzot was quietly practicing his craft, patient till he made his unrelenting later films, in which he would permit his audiences no pardon from the tension. H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made "Le Corbeau" in 1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him to direct a thriller "Quai des Orfevres" where he played an ambiguous police inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time performance. "His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking made him unforgettable." "Quai des Orfevres", witty and atmospheric observation of human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, "French Hitchcock". Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. "In a murder mystery," he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you might as well film a documentary.'" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's no documentary.

Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier). Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich and dirty old man, who often has Dora take "art" photographs of his young female proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing. Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, "You're jealous of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!" "You're dad was a laborer," Maurice shouts back. "So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!"

And after Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull, there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore feet. He has seen it all. He served in "the colonies" with the Foreign Legion and returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it? Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement.

Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room. And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in this milieu. With Jenny singing about "Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la," we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not much else.

Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy, watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, "I've taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier." "Me?" she asks. "Yes. Because you and I are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance." Jouvet brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement. Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs. This film is so lovingly made you want to be part of it forever. The flics are straight but not without malice, the goods are transparent and evildoers are hardly there. Even the "cabaret" are so naive they'll make you daydream with nostalgia in comparison to anything available on TV. Blier is fine, if a bit one sided. Louis Jouvet is perfect, you just can't have a better copper. He has the best line: "My dad cleaned other people's dirt, and I do the same". Susy Delair is unbearable, but I guess in part it's the songs, wardrobe and hairdo. Simone Renant, on the contrary, makes a great femme fatale, if a bit silent. I didn't realize she may be a lesbian as IMDb user dbdumonteil and others rightly suggest. First, the obvious—as a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY … is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY … is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful.

It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY ….Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberance—not only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception.

Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traits—his clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air ….Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real life—mixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observation—it's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.

QUAY … is multifaceted—it is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine.

The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery.

As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY … is very true to Clouzot's nature—a sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was first—class when he filmed something—he knew what to shoot, what to choose—see the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious.

Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition.

Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomy—much like a menacing bird of prey—somewhat like Van Cleef—yet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY …'s sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet movie—which is an astounding quality in itself).

Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.

To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much. One of the best film I ever saw.

The performance of Louis Jouvet is fantastic. He really 'fill' his part, and this is wonderful. He's such a good actor that you can't think of anyone else to take his part.

And both Suzy Delair and Bernard Blier are good as standard french people, trying to defend themselves in the struggle born with a murder...

The story is breathtaking and well built. You can feel the ambiance of Paris for that period (which is about 1930-40), between two wars... The clubs, the old little buildings, the neighbors.

All those things contribute to make a great movie. Henri-Georges Clouzot's film is quiet an example of the french transition cinema. A film between the realism of the postwar cinema and the full-of-magic and symbolism nouvelle vague. With some spots of the American classic films (but not imitating it) the director tales us a story about love, crime and the importance of points of view. We can find great actors too (Suzy Delair is impeccable).

Is interesting too, how we can find aspects of this film nowadays. Quai des Orfèvres inheritance is palpable in Woody Allen tradition. Plunging a crime situation in a picturesque environment. The naive ending is also typical in Steven Spielberg's good-ending films. And finally I would like to point out, the deja voo sensation during the photography session between Jenny Lamour (Suzy Delair) and Dora Monier (Simone Renant) in which the first one confess that she thinks her husband is being unfaithful and exactly with the woman who is photographing her. That scene is exactly the one between Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts in Closer (Mike Nichols, 2004). Great artists, always suffered while they were young. I could mention Mozart and Beethoven, but that is not the point.

This movie was made by H-G Clouzot whose family wanted him to succeed in the Law professions.

Its main star is Louis Jouvet who studied and practiced as as pharmacist before becoming "The Greatest Actor" and also director of France's Theater before and after WWII.

They both had health problems. Clouzot had TB while young, Jouvet had cardiac problems and died on a theater..

Such events shape the character of men (and women, of course). One might even say that today's Artists are so poor, because they had never suffered and fought for their lives.

To me, this is the greatest of Clouzot's movies. "Wages of Fear" is greater in "suspense", "Diabolique" also has more "suspense" and a better plot and is more about "female evil".

Quai des Orfèvres is more human. Clouzot was falsely accused by De Gaulle's entourage (mostly communists and Jews) of collaboration with the Nazis and banned from making films until until De Gaulle left France's Government in early 1946. De Gaulle came back in 1958, as President.

The main characters are all good souls: Jenny L'Amour may perform as a "putain" on stage, but she is not a "whore" (dictionaires make synonyms of those words, but they are not the same), loves her husband, and refuses the slight "advances from her (presumably Lesbian) friend Dora, the photographer.

Maurice the husband is jealous and timid, but runs away from the scene of the crime. He is a coward because he fell in love with a woman and traded an eventually more upscale career for love..

Antoine, the detective (interpreted by the great Louis Jouvet, basically a stage actor, performs in this French "Gray" not Noir, as well as E.G. Robinson in "Double Indemnity") shows flair for pseudo criminals, tenderness for a Negro son(?), and compassion for the true author of the crime, because he remembers that is father cleaned the latrines at some nobleman's château!!

Clouzot was capable of slapping an actor's face in order to put him in the right frame of mind, but deep inside he was very human.

I have his horoscope in front of me. He had Venus in Sagittarius which means open-heartedness, devotion, charity and altruism. For those who do not believe in Astrology, my most sincere apologies... What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film "Quai des Orfevres" delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in the way towards the truth of 'who done it?'

Inch by inch, technique by technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of dirty police interrogation tricks.

Martineau is the centerpiece of this film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the visual experience.

Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son?

Some things can never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits. Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.

After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.

The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it.

As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \

Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.

From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair.

They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed.

Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast. Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist). Ruthless mercenary Bruno Rivera (Paul Naschy in peak nasty form) betrays his pregnant partner/girlfriend Meiko (well played by Eiko Nagashima) in order to have exclusive dibs on a fortune in stolen diamonds. But Meiko manages to seriously wound Bruno before he gets away. Bruno winds up in the swanky chalet of kindly rich doctor Don Simon (a fine performance by Lautaro Murua). He also attracts the attention of Simon's two hottie daughters: the fiery Monica (luscious Silvia Aguiler) and the sweet Alicia (nicely essayed by the lovely Azucena Hernandez). However, Bruno soon realizes that something is very amiss about the isolated place and plans to escape as soon as he can. Meanwhile, the bitter Meiko tries to find Bruno so she can exact her revenge on him. Naschy, who wrote and directed as well as stars, concocts one of his strangest, most twisted and perverse horror vehicles ever with this little seen oddity. The offbeat plot and mysterious atmosphere become more weird and unnerving as the story unfolds, eventually leading to a genuinely startling surprise downbeat ending. This film further benefits from occasional moments of graphic gore (watch out for the memorable sequence with one poor guy being devoured alive by vicious flesh-eating pigs!), Alejandro Ulloa's slick cinematography, and a decent sprinkling of nudity and soft-core sex. Good supporting turns by Roxana Dupre as sassy maid Raquel, Pepe Ruiz as amorous playboy Don Serafin, and Julia Saly as the deranged Teresa. A pleasingly grim and worthwhile shocker. After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.

The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film.

Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period

In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes. SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)? Greystoke is without doubt the best tarzan movie I have ever seen. Christopher Lambert portrays a very believable man trying to return to the world of mankind alongside the fantastic Ian Holm. The struggle of John to leave the jungle and the apes who raised him is quite stirring. Some very memorable scenes including where Lambert makes the jungle noises to the romantic interest, and the scene where he witnesses his ape father's death. Tarzans feelings for both worlds is well developed and really makes you feel for him.

An excellent and underrated movie. If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert. This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood – in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events – with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom – as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) – with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) – and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day. I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first. Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the classic book Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs and is a more faithful adaptation to the classic book, the film has some great scenery like the Jungles of South Africa to the Greystoke mansion, the acting is also great. Chirstopher Lambert did a great performance as Tarzan, it was also his first English speaking role. The film has some funny moments, sad moments and touching moments that makes this a real classic.

The film sees a boat crashing in the Jungles of South Africa and some time later they have a son named John, the Apes go into the hut and one of them kills the Father. The Apes then take him to where they live and adopt him as one of their own, as the years go by John grows up and learns to be more like the Apes. In his teens his Foster Mom gets attacked by Native Hunters and soon killed by them, years later a group of people are going to Africa on a expedition. After setting up camp they're soon attacked by the Natives, most escape but Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot is left behind injured by some of the arrows. After hiding he meets John now an adult who takes him to his home and takes care of his wounds, after a while Phillippe starts to teach John how to speak English and teach him that he's not one of the Apes but a person. When Phillippe goes to leave John goes with him, after sometime they arrive at Greystoke manor where the Sixth Earl of Greystoke is shown his long lost Grandson, John is shown his bedroom and picture of his true Mom and Dad. John also meets Jane Porter and slowly as they get to know each other he begins to have feelings for her, when it's Christmas the Sixth Earl of Greystoke slides down the stairs killing himself. John then starts to miss the Jungle and wants to return but Phillipe tells him to stay since everything they had done would be for nothing. John is then torn between his life as a Greystoke and the Lord of the Apes.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a great classic that should be seen. 10/10 Beautifully filmed, acclaimed director Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire) creates a story that brings the entire legend of John Clayton, Lord Greystoke and Tarzan of the apes to life with reverence and dignity, and with a scope not heretofore seen in Tarzan films. Christopher Lambert makes his starring debut as the young Lord, raised in the wild by a female gorilla after his parents die in Africa. Later returned to what is to him an alien world, that of class and privilege, he feels totally out of place. Once he learns what has happened to the apes that raised him and their world he realizes that he must go back. A sad but triumphant story told against a background of fantastic vistas. This is one of those films that is a must for every Cinemaphile's collection. I don't understand why it is so underrated on IMDb.. This movie is just the perfection.. The better adaptation of all times of the myth of Tarzan! As a french, I can say that this is the better role of Christophe Lambert, ridiculous in a lots of movies, but here absolutely wonderful, charismatic, incredible! The plot is great, well told, the story magnificent, the direction, the atmosphere, the music, every things are perfect! How believe these sequences with the Elgar music, just simply perfect..

Greystoke is truly an unbelievable movie, underrated here, I don't really know why, but really appreciated ..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.

This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.

The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.

I highly recommend this film This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all.

It's the famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck. After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust to civilized society.

The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors. By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle Tarzan left.

Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke.

The film focuses more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie. There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters.

Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created. Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most anguished lines in all of cinema "He was my Father!" is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson. Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see "Greystoke" to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke, his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre. I must confess that I don't remember this film very well. But, certainly I liked it. I think it was the best adaptation from Burroughs novel, really. And of course it's one of the best movie from Christopher Lambert.

A good movie about Tarzan, as cult as the ones with Weissmuller. The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see this one and forget the rest of them. Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks for flops such as "Captain America" and 1985's "Creature" and panning such film classics as Alistar Sim's "A Christmas Carol" and "Shakespeare in Love." With that in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise:

The simple fact is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him, however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be, not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's. Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite.

I can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting, it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in scripts.

With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, "Tarzan," is one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a "white ape." He is torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on society, and a wonderful character study.

If nothing else, it launched Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films like "Highlander" and "he Sicilian." Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a while....His latest career moves such as "Gideon" and "Resurrection" have proven that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better.

For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film:

*** out of **** I thought this was a very daring representation of the old hokey 'Tarzan' concept made so popular by Hollywood, Weismuller, et al.

Yes; there is a lot of silly stuff. But then, the idea is silly. It is almost unbelievable that a human baby could be sired to adulthood by chimpanzees. I am tempted to say completely unbelievable, but that the concept has never been tried. And there is certainly a bit too much anthropomorphism for comfort. Though under the circumstances I can see how that would be very difficult to avoid. We also now have a much greater insight into the issues of acculturation, and know that a human raised from infancy without human behavioural prompts would ultimately never learn them in adulthood.

Still, if you can get your head around that lot, there's a great deal to admire that is both imaginative and daring. Lambert does the beast thing with tremendous aplomb. I am tempted to say that it is the most convincing and sympathetic role I have seen him play. There are plenty of other excellent performances too. Not least of which are Sir Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm.

What is particularly disturbing - and rightly so - is the simian perception of humans. We get to see ourselves almost from the point of view of the poor, dumb, helpless brutes over whom we so routinely lord it. And it demonstrates well how the phony 'civilisation' and 'morality' with which we cloak and justify our conduct, is no more than an expression of own selfishness and arrogance. It may seem a little overstated at times, especially in the hideous museum dissection rooms, but what we see isn't just a truth about the Victorians; its a truth about the way we are today. It's one that needs to be stated, and cannot be stated often enough. Holm's character's obsession with the 'ray-zor' as a symptom of civilisation - as if to possess facial hair were a primitive condition to be scorned - is an excellent case in point. Primitive bearded readers take note.

The story is depressing. Ultimately it's a tragedy. Because even though he returns to the jungle and the freedom from moral tyranny that is truly human 'civilisation'; we know he's doomed. Before the third millennium is 50 years old, wild simians will be hunted into extinction as bush meat, and their environment developed for agriculture and mineral exploitation to gratify insatiable human excess.

In the end, it's a tale about ourselves. The path to extinction that other simians tread, must eventually be followed by humans.

Highly recommended for its ethical take, despite the hokey moments. While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie. Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall. I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie. I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie. Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured by experts.

Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be criticized no end by purists.

But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his mother gave birth.

His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't welcome the new heir back in society.

One who doesn't is Andie McDowell playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan and Jane need no lessons.

Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House and Blenheim Palace.

For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal. How his charter evolved as both man and ape was outstanding. Not to mention the scenery of the film. Christopher lambert was astonishing as lord of Greystoke. Christopher is the soul to this masterpiece. I became so enthrawled with his performance i could feel my heart pounding. The entireity of the movie still moves me to this day. His portrayal of John was Oscar worthy; as he should have been nominated for it. I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid.

Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.

As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.

So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it. This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in which Tim Matheson played a role "Animal House" (Which is probably why it was overlooked).

One of the most memorable parts of this film would definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose song "We are the future", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I remember purchasing the group's album "Steppin' Out" as a kid mainly because of the look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents.

The closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in cyberspace.

If you liked films such as "Over the edge" and "Rich Kids", I think this is one that you will enjoy as well. Slipknot is a hardcore rock band from Des Moines, Iowa. Nine band members who all wear customized boilersuits, and personalized, homemade masks (eg. #6's clown mask, #0's various gasmasks, #8's tattered + torn crashtest dummie mask with dreadlocks). The music itself seems to walk the finelines between sane and otherwise, yet is performed so brilliantly and psychotic.

"Welcome To Our Neighborhood" sounds rather a generic title, but the footage itself is something else. Interviews with the band, soundbites from their latest, selftitled album, 2 live performances, and one banned-by-MTV music video (a brilliant homage to the classic Kubrick film "The Shining"), the movie clocks in at not even half-an-hour, but is certainly worth it. It is perfect for introducing any metal/hardcore fan to Slipknot. This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the "Spit it Out" music video, which was apparently banned from MTV.

Slipknot, for those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal.

A short, though well made show of the Knot.

Seven out of ten. I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general Slipknot is a heavy metal band from the great city of Des Moines, Iowa in which the rockers wear their own distinguished mask (I know someone already said this, but I need to fill up space for this review). The band members are Joey, Mick, 133, Sid, Clown, James, Corey, Chris, and Paul. This band is one of the best new heavy metal bands in my opinion and should be heard by everyone that loves hardcore rock. Another good movie is called "DISASTERPIECES" which shows the band's performance at the London Arena. The "My Plague" video was shot there and is included on the DVD. The most kick ass song they made is also on there (Sic). So if you love the band you need to see this and if you love heavy metal music then you have to hear this band. I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a devout follower. From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film. One of the flat-out drollest movies of all-time. Sim and Rutherford are at their best matching wits over the predicament of an all-boys and all-girls school sharing the same quarters. Slapstick has never been this sophisticated. This film, without doubt, is the clearest example of the British humour the Germans can't understand. One-liners run rampant in a film spawning one of the greatest series of films in British cinema history (St.Trinians). The story of bureaucratic incompetence amid post-war trials enables Frank Launder to direct maximum talent from all the cast. It's probably the only film in which Margaret Rutherford meets her match, in Alastair Sim, for forceful characterisation (she still wins though). Joyce Grenfell (bless her) and Richard Wattis both deserve mentions in Dighton's masterpiece of English etiquette and stiff upper lip under pressure.

No Rutherford/Sim/Grenfell fan would be without this in their collection. Absolutely brilliant. Why 9/10? Only 83mins long. The Happiest Days of Your Life showcases some of Britain's greatest comedy talents of its time in a traditionally farcical and upper-class-twit like fashion. Generally it is a whistle-stop tour of stuffy English behaviour with the girls-only school providing a great setting for the dotty goings-on. Margaret Rutherford, Alastair Sim and - most especially! - Joyce Grenfell are all fantastic, giving us a lot of laughs as they express their utter horror at what they are having to deal with. As the film moves on, things get sillier and sillier with the tour around the school for the parents being a suitably crackers high point.

At this point I will give special mention, again, to Joyce Grenfell and her wonderful character Miss Gossage. She is so extraordinarily innocent, silly, apologetic and ineffectual that she seems to steal the whole film. She provides the greatest laugh of the film when she flirts with a male teacher ("Call me sausage!").

Whilst some of the film is slow or dated, and not always very involving, it still maintains most of its sparkle and barely pauses for romance. Good for a silly, harmless giggle.

7/10 The play is cleverly constructed - begin with the porter, Rainbow - & let the audience see the background unfold through his eyes. The film follows the play with great faithfulness, working, no doubt, on the simple premise that it couldn't be bettered. Now throw in a host of superb character actors - & the result is a resounding triumph.A definite must-see. After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made in 1950.

All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school mistresses.

Although the film's script contains only two original lines from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes. A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.

The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8/10. This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts.

Where to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward, innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-war middle-class England to a tee.

The humour is sometimes obvious, but it is of that special "Ealing" variety and is never offensive.

I have watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school, the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are priceless.

It's an old cliché I know, but they really do not make them like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you won't be disappointed. This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own right and something that should be preserved for all time! "Gaming? Nicotine? Fisticuffs? We're moving in a descending spiral of iniquity!" So says the head of St. Swithen's upon inspecting the master's common at Nutbourne. The faculty and students of St. Swithen's have been ordered to share facilities at Nutbourne to avoid German bombs during World War II. Then there's the masters' library. "The Diary of Samuel Pepys? Abridged...well, that's something to be thankful for. What's up here? The Memoirs of Casanova? Wasn't that the book we caught Jessica James reading in the closet? Decameron Nights! Well, really! What ever else this place may or may not be, it's no place to bring carefully nurtured girls!"

Yes, a terrible mistake has been made by the Ministry of Education. Nutbourne is a school for boys. St. Swithen's is a school for girls. And what makes this one of the best post-WWII British comedies, Nutbourne's head master is Wetherby Pond...played by Alastair Sim, while St. Swithen's head mistress is Muriel Whitchurch...played by Margaret Rutherford.

"St. Swithen's?" says Pond. "You don't mean to say that yours is a school for boys and girls?" he asks one of the early girls. "Only girls" she says cheerfully. "Does this mean, sir," asks one of Nutbourne's teachers, "that we are to expect 100 young girls?" "It means that not only have the ministry made a mistake in sending a school here at all, but that it is guilty of an appalling sexual aberration!"

Margaret Rutherford's Miss Whitchurch, as positive and immovable as a battleship, intends to make the best of it, by briskly taking over Nutbourne if possible. Alastair Sim's Pond is exasperated up to his big bald head and is determined to salvage his school. In the meantime, there are 100 young girls and 170 young boys to be fed and places found for them to sleep (along with all their teachers). The cooks and caretakers, totally put upon, walk out. Miss Whitchurch and her girls, however, are up to the cooking tasks. "Come now, Angela," she says to one girl who is trying to stir something in a big pot, "haven't you made porridge before?" "Yes, but no one ever had to eat it." "That's a defeatist attitude, my dear. Stir it well and don't shilly shally."

Things are hardly going well when Pond discovers four governors from a school he hopes to lead are arriving at any moment to see for themselves how well led Nutbourne is. And Miss Whitchurch learns that four wealthy and influential parents have just arrived to see how their daughters are doing in the new -- boy free, they were told -- facilities. The only solution? Miss Whitchurch and Pond, their teachers and their students, concoct a split-second shifting of classes to give the allusion that Nutbourne has no girls and that St. Swithen's has no boys. After the parents inspect a dorm and leave for a class, the girls in the beds duck under and the boys who'd been hidden under leap up into the beds, just as the governors walk in. The boys are observed at rugby and, as soon as the governors turn their backs, the goal posts are taken down, nets for lacrosse are put up, and just then the parents walk over to observes the girls. One parent spots her daughter in a science class, then moments later sees her in a choir practice, then moments later.... "There's Angela again," she says to Miss Whitchurch. "Why so it is," she replies, hustling the parents out to avoid the governors who are approaching just around the corner. "The child's quite ubiquitous."

When we leave Nutbourne, everything has been discovered. The students are milling about. The teachers are dazed (except for two who are kissing.) The Education Ministry has just sent several more busloads of students. The parents are speechless but the governors are not. "We're waiting for an explanation," one says sharply. Pond holds his head and shudders. "Can't you see I'm trying to think of one."

The film moves from one complicated and ridiculous situation after another, braced by a very funny script and two hugely comedic performances by Rutherford and Sim. Sim's droll exasperation and Rutherford's implacable determination are so well matched that's it's a shame this is the only movie they ever made together. Joyce Grenfell, as Gossage, St. Swithen's tall, awkward, loping sports teacher gives them some competition. If you keep your eyes open, you'll also find some amusing references director Frank Launder works in, including a gong at Nutbourne that looks just like a midget version of J. Arthur Rank's, a faint echo of the zither theme from The Third Man and a shot stolen from David Lean's Oliver Twist, except this time the little boy walks up holding his porridge bowl and says, "Please, sir. I don't want anymore."

Frank Launder and his partner, Sidney Gilliat, were responsible for some of the best films produced in Britain during the Thirties, Forties and Fifties. They wrote, produced and directed, sometimes doing one, sometimes the other. In one way or another they were responsible for such first-rate films as Green for Danger (with a masterly droll performance by Sim), I See a Dark Stranger, The Lady Vanishes, Night Train to Munich, Wee Geordie, The Belles of St. Trinian's, The Rake's Progress and many others. With The Happiest Days of Your Life, Launder wrote and directed while both produced. It's one of their best. Before watching this movie from beginning to end, I happened to just catch the last half hour. Ordinarily I don't watch a movie if I haven't seen it from the beginning, but a friend had it on and once I started watching it I couldn't stop.

I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a wide theatrical release. This is quite a funny movie (often gallows humor) , and the monster and monster truck in it are quite menacing. The monster makes Leatherface look pretty, and the monster truck is a like a cross between a World War I German artillery vehicle and a giant coffin.

A timid twenty-five year-old virgin guy is on a long drive to stop the woman he loves from getting married. His ex-best friend tags along and rags on him constantly. They're menaced on the road by a vintage black hearse and the aforementioned monster truck. They also pick up a hitchhiker, played by the very sexy Aimee Brooks.

I also watched the animated trailer with the director's commentary, and the electronic press kit and I found those both to be interesting. I would bet that the feature commentary with the director and the two male stars is pretty enjoyable too, but I have so many other movies to watch I've never seen before.... Well, it has to be said that Monster Man is a huge mess of a film, but somehow multiple different genres and a clichéd plot come together to make one of the most enjoyable modern horror films I've seen in ages! The two biggest styles that the film mixes are a 'Road Trip' style teenage comedy and a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' style redneck horror vibe, and while one gets in the way of the other quite often; director Michael Davis manages to keep things moving thanks to the fact that the constant shift in tone means that we're never quite sure where the film is going to be taken next. Things start out worryingly as we're introduced to two characters, both irritating in different ways. Adam is a wussy virgin, while Harley is a fat big-mouthed "A-hole". They're both driving across the desert to attend the wedding of some chick they both liked in high school. After a couple of strange events, they pick up a hitch-hiker, and then find themselves being chased by some maniac in a monster truck for reasons unknown...

The idea of someone being chased by someone else in a bigger vehicle is hardly original, but the way the monster truck is used here is one of the film's biggest assets. The truck itself looks spooky because it's so haggard and rusty, and the fact that it bounces around the screen makes the unfolding action exciting and suspenseful. After a while, you begin to get used to the characters and once Aimee Brooks enters the fray, things start to look up. The teen comedy side of the movie actually works pretty well, as Justin Ulrich is always on hand to deliver some entertaining lines of dialogue and the scenes between the dorky virgin and the hot female hitch-hiker are interesting enough. Just when you think the film couldn't possibly get any messier, things take a turn for the weird in the final third. Without spoiling things, it has to be said that Monster Man features the sort of ending that couldn't possibly be seen coming, and along with the twist, is a big surprise. Some people may feel ripped off by the sudden turn at the end - but I actually thought it worked quite well as it fits the film in that nothing here really fits... Overall, this isn't a 'great' film by any means - but if you're looking for some silly entertainment, Monster Man should hit the spot! A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained. This was on Showtime the other night, and I figured it was going to be another made-for-video crap fest, like "Earth vs. the Spider" or any of those other HBO horror shorts. Instead, I found a comedy/gore classic. It was legitimately funny, and surprisingly, the acting was quite good. Even my wife, an overall horror-hater, agreed and was laughing at parts. In addition, the FX were high-quality.

Overall, the film felt like a parody of Joy Ride/Jeepers Creepers, and the 2 main characters reminded me of the pair from Shaun of the Dead. Definitely worth watching, but don't take it seriously.

The End. If you took a really good jack black movie, added a little jeepers creepers, and then a dash of joyride with a hint of texas chainsaw massacre and house of a 1000 corpses...you would have MONSTER MAN! i went into this movie, not really expecting much at all, but i wound up really enjoying the movie. the whole premise is really cheesy, a monster man in a monster truck chases down people, but it is so funny that the writer/director doesn't expect you to take it seriously. justin urich is a comic gem and should have a very promising career. he is identical to jack black. the only problem with the film is the unbelievable hero role played by eric jungmann. but overall, if you are looking for a really really fun movie that will crack you up until you are rolling in the aisles, and at the same time, scare the crap out of you...check out this film. While driving in a highway to the wedding of his beloved Betty-Ann, Adam (Eric Jungmann) is surprised by his former schoolmate Harley (Justin Urich) on the backseat of his car. Adam has broken off with the inconvenient and moron Harley because of Betty-Ann. Along their road trip, Harley makes fun of some rednecks in a bar and later their car is chased by a giant monster truck on the road. After some incidents, they give a lift to the hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks) and sooner the trio is terrorized by a scary monster driving the monster truck.

In spite of having one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a horror movie, the irritating Harley, "Monster Man" is a surprisingly good trash horror-comedy. The story is a collection of clichés, beginning like "Joy Ride" or "Duel"; then it turns to one of the countless rip-offs of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; there is a surprising twist, ending with a hook for a sequel. There are hilarious scenes, Aimee Brooks is extremely sexy and this film really entertains. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Monster Man" I saw this on Zone horror and fully expected it to be compete crap like most of the films they play , however I was pleasantly surprised. The film revolves around 2 friends and a maniac in a monster truck who is chasing them (i know it sounds crap but its actually quite good) , the film is creepy when it intends to be and is laugh out loud funny in parts (and not in an unintentional way either, it is well paced and is a lot of fun as well as being very gory , there's some very funny black humour thrown in as well. Its not the most original movie but so what. If your after Shakespeare then this is not it , if your after a fun movie then this should be fine Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?

Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.

BUT I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7. I first saw this on Demand. Or on TV. I'm not really sure. But this has got to be my all time favorite movie ever! I mean, this movie has blood, gore, laughs and chills through out the movie. I recently ordered "Monster Man" from Amazon and i've been watching "Monster Man" ever since i got it. Trust me, you will love this movie.

P.S. The commentary on the DVD is way funny. They also said something about "Monster Man 2" during the commentary. Let's hope they make "Monster Man 2"! If you have the chance, rent the movie or buy it. You will absolutely LOVE it! This is the best movie that has come out in 2003.

10/10 In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.

Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.

The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.

As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers. Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of ***** Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big mistake!"Monster Man" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly well.The film borrows heavily from "Duel","The Blair Witch Project","Jeepers Creepers" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".The story is pretty silly,but there is enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy? This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom, and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good! job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace.

There is a lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew, guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one very gory scene at the very end and more!.

The Acting is very good for a low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend, however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth, former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that right now... so just watch the damn movie.

Second thing I love was the humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the "corpse burrito" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair..

The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing, but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a lot of replay.

The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the 80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions Gate. I got this as part of a competition prize. I watched it, not really expecting much from an obviously low budget production. I laughed myself sick!There are obvious references to other films in the horror genre - Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday 13th etc. All the standard clichés were there - long drive through partially arid and somehow menacing countryside, inbred red-necks, mysterious vehicles tracking you - throw in some really good humorous scenes (siphoning petrol from the camper-van) and dialogue ("f*****g virgin? That's got to be an oxymoron.." and you have one of the best spoof horror films for years. I particularly liked the way our reluctant hero used his stress-related nose-bleed to great advantage.. I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine. Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear itself to fans of the same. Five minutes in, i started to feel how naff this was looking, you've got a completely unheroic hero and his overweight fool of a friend. Seen it all before, yeah right. I was getting ready to be bored out of my mind for a good few hours. This is something i have become quite used to... haven't we all. Then after a few minutes of testosterone fuelled insults and such, the truck appeared. Okay the filming techniques used to make it look fast were clumsy, but who cares! That truck is amazing! Soon however that is taken away again and we're back to the geek and his overweight friend. But now i'm satisfied that at least it won't be too terrible. I then proceed to be amazed again and again by the cleverness of the film. There are so many jokes at their expense, it's like everyone in the world is in on this except the two of them. The mind behind the makeup and effects was a genius i swear it. Believe me, if you are a man you miss so many of the jokes in this film, there is so much here that only a girl can understand.

Brother Bob is by far the best hillbilly killer that can be found anywhere, the fact that he's sewn together just adds to the effect. There are of course some really dud science facts in here, but isn't that always the case. When our 'hero' is having a nose bleed and using the blood to lead brother Bob to his death, now that is rubbish. There is no way a nose bleed can be that bad and not mean a severed artery or something. I'm all with the use of too much blood, but that is taking it a little too far. The incest jokes are a little predictable but funny nonetheless. And the way brother bob meets his end is more than classic. Overall, this movie rules, it really breaks out of the overacted melodramatic strain of horror that we got so much of in 2003-2005. The end of this move simply could not have been better.

This is a definite must watch for anyone who likes their horror with several side orders of gore and attitude. I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be pretty decent as far as B-list horror/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank/truck hybrid decides to play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase/suspense scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the horror/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.